Did MJ really go against tougher competition?

[HollowEarth]

MJ was definitely against weaker competition. The draft's from 1988 to 1991 was the worst drought of talent the NBA has seen, on top of that, they had two expansion drafts then as well.

Top 20 all-time players MJ went against in the playoffs: Malone, Shaq and Magic. Out of them only Malone was in his prime.

Yes, but if Jordan hadn't been around then Malone would have likely won back to back Championships, MVPs, and FMVPs. I think that would elevate the perception of Karl Malone up onto Tim Duncan's level. I think that guys like Jordan and Bill Russel become so dominant that it makes their competition look weaker. How would the perception of Barkley, Malone, Ewing, Stockton, Reggie, and so on changed if they won a title?

[Mystical Apples]

Several reasons for lesser competition when MJ played.

Relatively few International players
Drop in State sponsored International athletic training in the 80's and 90's.
Less dedicated strength and conditioning of his peers
Expansion as he entered the league
Weaker team basketball on both ends
Relatively short primes of great players (3-4 years of college, typically done early 30's).

[ils411]

I wonder why there's a need to try and discredit the past era vs the current one and vice versa. They're not comparable. Teams back then were built taking into consideration the players, style of play and the general environment during that time. In the same vain, current teams are constructed for the present.

Sure, there are talent that will transcend eras, but lets not kid ourselves, these talent are very rare and far in between. Grab any average guard in the past and slap them in todays league and they get blown away. In the same manner, grab any average guard in the present and put them in the past, they'd get pummeled.

Different rules, different play style, a whole different monster. I'm of the opinion that each team in each era are facing the same level of tough competition with respect to their own era.

Now MJ, well, he was the one everyone else had to overcome, but no one did. Now, lets see if the Warriors will be the one everyone needs to overcome but never will.

Although I understand your opinion, there really is no basis for this opinion. You can look back at any Sport and quite easily see that the 'level of competition' across ears can be very different.

Now, you can only play what is ahead of you but you can't just assume the competition is the same. What you could argue is, everyone in the 90s is brought up under the same conditions (90s conditions) and therefore their skill set comparative to the league is equalized. I just don't see how a team such as the GSW, with the advanced metrics, conditioning, coaching etc etc wouldn't over run the 90s. Nor do I see an average NBA player today getting pummeled in the the 90s.

There are also Eras that produce stronger teams and stronger players. Most people can look back at the 90s, with the expansion teams, the older dynasties falling off late 80s early 90s (Lakers and Boston), Jordan facing 5 different teams in his 6 championship runs (compare that to the Spurs and Warriors since 2012), I just don't see how Jordan faced tougher competition.

Jordan reigned supreme after the Lakes + Boston dynasty and before the Spurs + lakers dynasties of the 2000s.

You could argue Jordan was a reason other 'dynasties' didn't pop up, but I honestly think he hit his peak at a perfect time comparative to the league.

We also need to remember that his TEAM was extremely strong. Without him they were still a 50 win team who were a few shots from an ECF.

People think all this is to knock Jordan, it's not, it's just a healthy discussion but people need to be real about it.

At bolded and underlines. that's actually what I was saying. It all evens out. All the teams in the 90s had the same level of technology, conditioning, etc. which would basically make that the teams then will have the same amount of tough competition when compared to now with all the teams having access to advance metrics, training, technology etc.

Also, yes, any average player now would get pummeled in the 90s. Its just the rules. I'm talking about grabbing the player and instantly putting him in a 90s game. The centers then, with a license to smack you, will smack that modern player and thus, get pummeled. I'm not saying that the modern average player will get pummeled because he's weaker, I'm saying he gets pummeled because of the rules back then.

In the same vein, you grab an average player in the past and have him guard a modern player, I'm of the opinion that the past player will get smoked and left in the dust because better conditioning and so on and so forth.

As for MJ and his tough competition, I thought I made it clear. he didn't face tougher competition because him and the bulls were the bad ass toughest completion back then and it was a given that Mj and the bulls would just steamroll to another ring.

I put Jordan way up there on an unreachable pedestal not because he had to face tough competition to win all his rings, but because he along with his bulls, made everyone else his byatch.

[zimpy27]

MJ was definitely against weaker competition. The draft's from 1988 to 1991 was the worst drought of talent the NBA has seen, on top of that, they had two expansion drafts then as well.

Top 20 all-time players MJ went against in the playoffs: Malone, Shaq and Magic. Out of them only Malone was in his prime.

Yes, but if Jordan hadn't been around then Malone would have likely won back to back Championships, MVPs, and FMVPs. I think that would elevate the perception of Karl Malone up onto Tim Duncan's level. I think that guys like Jordan and Bill Russel become so dominant that it makes their competition look weaker. How would the perception of Barkley, Malone, Ewing, Stockton, Reggie, and so on changed if they won a title?

Sounds like the same argument people make about the East and LeBron.

I understand what you are saying but if you're talking a zero-sum equation of talent then the better one player is the worse others look and the worse other players are then the better one player looks. It goes both ways.

[Greed]

That "73-win team" talking point is overrated

You'd expect a team so dominant to continue said dominance throughout the playoffs, yet they didn't. Obviously, their win total was inflated, which is interesting considering the "argument" is that the Bulls' 72-win total was inflated, yet they dominated the playoffs, unlike Golden State (The "Playoff" dominating is important, because weak expansion teams don't make the playoffs)

That 16 Warriors team was nearly beat 4-1 against OKC, which was a 55-win team. They were then actually defeated by the Cavaliers, which was a 57-win team. No matter how you want to interpret that, the fact it occurred devalues the dominance of the team, and you have to reconcile their regular season dominance with their playoff struggles. Maybe THEY were taking the regular season too serious in a league where players just coast through it (and are arguably the least competitive as they've ever been) and thus their win total was inflated. Maybe their style of play just wasn't as well suited for the playoffs as the regular season, as we saw that teams with length were basically their worst nightmare. Or maybe their players were just tired/injured during the playoffs and Cleveland would've lost 4-1 if Draymond wasn't suspended and if Curry wasn't dealing with his injury

It doesn't matter what the reason is, all of these things lead to the same conclusion. The "73-win" Warriors team isn't better than other teams who didn't win 73 simply because they won 73 games, this was proven in the playoffs itself. Nor can it be said that LeBron beating them is some untouchable feat because no one's ever beaten a 70-win team in the playoffs before, because if you can make those excuses to explain why they suddenly were VERY beatable in the playoffs, then it disqualifies them as being an unstoppable juggernaut of a team that their record would indicate they were supposed to be

The 17 Warriors team, however, was legit, despite not winning as many games. Which is precisely the point

[Baseline Runner]

MJ was definitely against weaker competition. The draft's from 1988 to 1991 was the worst drought of talent the NBA has seen, on top of that, they had two expansion drafts then as well.

Top 20 all-time players MJ went against in the playoffs: Malone, Shaq and Magic. Out of them only Malone was in his prime.

Oh really? 1983-1987 were all excellent drafts.

1988 draft: Mitch Richmond, Hersery Hawkins, Danny Manning, Rik Smits, Dan Majerle, Rod Strickland -- below average but a lot of guys that had long solid careers. Even Manning played 15 seasons and was a long conributor. Lots of good role players in this draft like Willie Anderson and Steve Kerr that I didn't mention.
1989 draft: Shawn Kemp, Tim Hardaway, Vlade Divac, Glen Rice, Sean Elliot, Mookie Blaylock, Nick Anderson, Cliff Robinson. That is not a bad draft.
1990 draft: Gary Payton, Derrick Coleman, Dennis Scott, Antonio Davis, Elden Campbell, Tyrone Hill -- OK this was a bad one but still a star in Payton and those other guys all had long careers.
1991 draft: Larry Johnson, Dikembo Mutombo, Steve Smith, Kenny Anderson, Terrell Brandon, Dale Davis -- Below average but not that bad.
1992 draft: Shaq, Alonzo Mourning, Laettner, Jim Jackson, Robert Horry, Tom Gugliotta, Latrell Sprewell, Doug Christie, PJ Brown. Very strong draft of both star power and depth.
1993 draft: strong
1994 draft: strong
1995 draft: strong

So in 12 years from 1983 to 1995 the NBA good drafts every year except for three 1988/1990/1991 that were below average. The league was awash in big men drafted:

Shaq, Olajuwon, Malone, Ewing, Barkley, David Robinson, Mourning, Webber, Mutombo, Kemp, Daugherty, Divac, Smits, Dale and Antonio Davis, Horace Grant, PJ Brown, Rodman, Oakley, Derrick Coleman, Kevin Willis.

This was also an era of great point guards, Kevin Johnson, Tim Hardaway, Stockton, Mark Price, Gary Payton, Isiah Thomas, Blaylock (underrated player). Lots of great players who had excellent careers but largely forgotten like Cliff Robinson, Mookie Blaylock, Dan Majerle, Dominique Wilkens, Jeff Hornaceck, Jeff Malone, list is endless.

If there was one position during this era that was weak it was the SF position and the Bulls had the best one in Pippen. SG was average with guys like Drexler, Reggie, Harper, Richmond, Joe Dumars, Hornaceck, Petrovic etc. C was all time great and PF and PG were very good too. It was a very strong era.

By comparison this is what a bad draft looks like 2000:
1. Kenyon Martin
2. Stromile Swift
3. Darius Miles
4. Marcus Fizer
5. Mike Miller
6. Demarr Johnson
7. Chris Mihm
8. Jamaal Crawford
9. Joel Pryzibilla
10. Keyon Dooling
11. Jerome Moiso
12. Etan Thomas
13. Courtney Alexander
14. Mateen Cleeves
15. Jason Collier

Absolutely horrendous.

[Pennebaker]

How insane is this logic. So all teams post MJ era never faced Bird Celtics and Magic/Kareem Lakers hence they are also weak.

Is this the type of hocus pocus logic we have gotten into to discredit MJ?

You're missing the point. It has nothing to do with actually facing Bird/McHale/Parrish and Magic/Kareem/Worthy, but with facing teams at least as talented as that. Michael Jordan never had to face stacked teams of that caliber in the 90s. Today, obviously, stars are facing loaded teams left and right, so that isn't an issue. But Michael Jordan dominated in the dead era of the 90's where the only loaded team around was the Chicago Bulls.

Drexler's Blazers only had one hall of famer on it. Clyde.
Barkley's Suns only had one hall of famer on it. Charles.
Payton's Sonics only had one hall of famer on it. Gary.

You get the idea. Top teams just were not as talented in the 1990's. And even Stockton and Malone's Jazz were just no match for the hall of fame trio of Jordan, Pippen and Rodman.

Just because your too young to remember/or know a lot of players (outside of top 30 of all time) doesnt mean there wasnt any good players. You have so much recency bias its ridiculous.

Drexler by himself? Heard of Terry Porter? Cliff Robinson?

Charles by himself? Heard of Kevin Johnson? Dan Marjele?

Payton by himself? Heard of Shawn Kemp? Detlef Shrempf?


All these teams also had great role players that u would have no idea about.

List of those players would had higher recognition if the Bulls just didnt dominate the 90s as much as they did.....but hey the Bulls won 6 championships in 8 years....2 3 peats...must be because of weak competition logic is just such a weak excuse to discredit MJ

LBJ fans logic: competition was good in 80s up to 91...then it went weak...then went good again in 1999.

MJ must be the luckiest player that ever stepped on the court. Better thread title should be "Why is MJ so favoured by the gods and LBJ so hated?".

I'm 40, mysticOscar. I'm not that young. Terry Porter and Cliff Robinson weren't good enough on a historical level. Neither were Kevin Johnson, Dan Marjele, Shawn Kemp and Detlef Shrempf (who I've seen at my local grocery store, btw).

Drexler, Charles and Payton became recognized regardless of anything the Bulls were doing. THAT is the kind of greatness I'm talking about. Their teammates were not on that level. I think that is obvious.

Today, though, we have recognized future hall of famers all clustered onto a handful of teams, not unlike the 1960s. The 1990s simply were not anything like this. Expansion in the 90's also didn't help because it diluted talent even further.

LBJ fans logic: competition was good in 80s up to 91...then it went weak...then went good again in 1999.

Close, but no cigar. The first part is correct - competition was good up until 1991 (the Bulls were very fortunate in 1991 because Isiah Thomas was injured in the ECF that year, and fortune smiled down upon them again because James Worthy was injured in the Finals). But it didn't get good again until at least 2006 or so. The Shaq-era Lakers didn't have any competition in the NBA Finals at all.

Why is MJ so favoured by the gods and LBJ so hated?

But he's not. Why are we even having this conversation if MJ was so favored? Why would hall of famers come out to say that they think LBJ is the better player if MJ was so favored? There is no religion is basketball. If there was Bill Russell would be our Godhead (like he was with Red Auerbach), but he's not. A modern player will eventually recognized through persistence, in the same way MJ became recognized. But history has proven out that no player can hold the title of GOAT for long in the NBA because of constantly changing factors. It's kind of the same in the NFL. We have to constantly factor in the changing landscape of expansion and rule changes, etc. In the end we err on the side of the current - of what we intimately know - and so then the MJs usurp the Russells and Kareems and the LeBrons usurp the MJs and Magics.

I'm in the unique position of having been able to watch all of Jordan's career as a young Bull's fan in the 80's and 90's (we were all Bulls fans in those days) and also all of LeBron's career when I was older and a bit wiser, and I deem LeBron the superior player and I'm not nearly alone in that.

[Greed]

I'm 40, mysticOscar. I'm not that young. Terry Porter and Cliff Robinson weren't good enough on a historical level. Neither were Kevin Johnson, Dan Marjele, Shawn Kemp and Detlef Shrempf (who I've seen at my local grocery store, btw).

Kevin Johnson definitely is good enough on a historical level. If anything, he's criminally underrated. He compares pretty well to most PG's in the history of the game outside the GOATS of that position

Not as famous or popular, but as far as on-court production and impact, he was easily up there. Same with Shawn Kemp. Kemp may have fallen on hard times due to drug abuse/being out of shape later in his career but what does that have to do with the trajectory of his career at the point where he was going up against the Bulls? It's kind of like discounting Derrick Rose as a decent challenger to LeBron or a historical talent because his career trajectory took a nosedive literally the year after they made the ECF

I'm in the unique position of having been able to watch all of Jordan's career as a young Bull's fan in the 80's and 90's (we were all Bulls fans in those days) and also all of LeBron's career when I was older and a bit wiser, and I deem LeBron the superior player and I'm not nearly alone in that.

Same here, but the pendelum swings quite far in the other direction for myself and I don't think it needs to even be said that a vast majority of others feel the same

Also, to add, the HOF'ers being "clustered" together isn't really because of some immense level of talent throughout the league. It's because the players are looking to stack the deck in their favor to make winning easier/to play with their friends. The Eastern Conference is nearly a barren wasteland of talent outside of Boston and Cleveland, how many "all-time great" players are on the teams like Indiana/Chicago/Atlanta/Milwaukee etc? You have the Sixers who have a player or 2 who can be an all-time great but how'd they get there? They were openly and admittedly tanking for years, aka purposefully sucking as much as they could

[OdomFan]

You're missing the point. It has nothing to do with actually facing Bird/McHale/Parrish and Magic/Kareem/Worthy, but with facing teams at least as talented as that. Michael Jordan never had to face stacked teams of that caliber in the 90s. Today, obviously, stars are facing loaded teams left and right, so that isn't an issue. But Michael Jordan dominated in the dead era of the 90's where the only loaded team around was the Chicago Bulls.

Drexler's Blazers only had one hall of famer on it. Clyde.
Barkley's Suns only had one hall of famer on it. Charles.
Payton's Sonics only had one hall of famer on it. Gary.

You get the idea. Top teams just were not as talented in the 1990's. And even Stockton and Malone's Jazz were just no match for the hall of fame trio of Jordan, Pippen and Rodman.

Just because your too young to remember/or know a lot of players (outside of top 30 of all time) doesnt mean there wasnt any good players. You have so much recency bias its ridiculous.

Drexler by himself? Heard of Terry Porter? Cliff Robinson?

Charles by himself? Heard of Kevin Johnson? Dan Marjele?

Payton by himself? Heard of Shawn Kemp? Detlef Shrempf?


All these teams also had great role players that u would have no idea about.

List of those players would had higher recognition if the Bulls just didnt dominate the 90s as much as they did.....but hey the Bulls won 6 championships in 8 years....2 3 peats...must be because of weak competition logic is just such a weak excuse to discredit MJ

LBJ fans logic: competition was good in 80s up to 91...then it went weak...then went good again in 1999.

MJ must be the luckiest player that ever stepped on the court. Better thread title should be "Why is MJ so favoured by the gods and LBJ so hated?".

I'm 40, mysticOscar. I'm not that young. Terry Porter and Cliff Robinson weren't good enough on a historical level. Neither were Kevin Johnson, Dan Marjele, Shawn Kemp and Detlef Shrempf (who I've seen at my local grocery store, btw).

Drexler, Charles and Payton became recognized regardless of anything the Bulls were doing. THAT is the kind of greatness I'm talking about. Their teammates were not on that level. I think that is obvious.

Today, though, we have recognized future hall of famers all clustered onto a handful of teams, not unlike the 1960s. The 1990s simply were not anything like this. Expansion in the 90's also didn't help because it diluted talent even further.

LBJ fans logic: competition was good in 80s up to 91...then it went weak...then went good again in 1999.

Close, but no cigar. The first part is correct - competition was good up until 1991 (the Bulls were very fortunate in 1991 because Isiah Thomas was injured in the ECF that year, and fortune smiled down upon them again because James Worthy was injured in the Finals). But it didn't get good again until at least 2006 or so. The Shaq-era Lakers didn't have any competition in the NBA Finals at all.

Why is MJ so favoured by the gods and LBJ so hated?

But he's not. Why are we even having this conversation if MJ was so favored? Why would hall of famers come out to say that they think LBJ is the better player if MJ was so favored? There is no religion is basketball. If there was Bill Russell would be our Godhead (like he was with Red Auerbach), but he's not. A modern player will eventually recognized through persistence, in the same way MJ became recognized. But history has proven out that no player can hold the title of GOAT for long in the NBA because of constantly changing factors. It's kind of the same in the NFL. We have to constantly factor in the changing landscape of expansion and rule changes, etc. In the end we err on the side of the current - of what we intimately know - and so then the MJs usurp the Russells and Kareems and the LeBrons usurp the MJs and Magics.

I'm in the unique position of having been able to watch all of Jordan's career as a young Bull's fan in the 80's and 90's (we were all Bulls fans in those days) and also all of LeBron's career when I was older and a bit wiser, and I deem LeBron the superior player and I'm not nearly alone in that.

Stopped reading at Shawn Kemp wasn't that good. You may be 40 years old but you're far from an NBA expert. Kemp while his best days only lasted a few years was just as big of a part of those Sonics teams as Payton, and Detlef Schrempf was a very important part of that core as well.

It's pretty clear that you're a big fan of the 80s hay day super teams so obviously you'd dislike what the league became when all those super squads got replaced by more balanced rosters spread out across the entire league in the 90s. However this does not change the fact that it worked just fine, and imo was far more interesting and entertaining basketball. Blaming expansion doesn't make your argument against the 90s anymore legit either because while new teams did come in it didn't affect any of the actual great teams who consistently put up great winning records throughout the decade, but only added more to it like what the Miami Heat and Orlando MAGIC would become as time went on.

[Pennebaker]

I'm 40, mysticOscar. I'm not that young. Terry Porter and Cliff Robinson weren't good enough on a historical level. Neither were Kevin Johnson, Dan Marjele, Shawn Kemp and Detlef Shrempf (who I've seen at my local grocery store, btw).

Kevin Johnson definitely is good enough on a historical level. If anything, he's criminally underrated. He compares pretty well to most PG's in the history of the game outside the GOATS of that position

Not as famous or popular, but as far as on-court production and impact, he was easily up there. Same with Shawn Kemp

I'm in the unique position of having been able to watch all of Jordan's career as a young Bull's fan in the 80's and 90's (we were all Bulls fans in those days) and also all of LeBron's career when I was older and a bit wiser, and I deem LeBron the superior player and I'm not nearly alone in that.

Same here, but the pendelum swings quite far in the other direction for myself and I don't think it needs to even be said that a vast majority of others feel the same

Not as famous or popular, but as far as on-court production and impact, he was easily up there. Same with Shawn Kemp

Their problem was what I eluded to - persistence. Or consistency. I am definitely aware of the time in the early 90's when KJ appeared to be one of those guys. Kevin Johnson was my brother's favorite player at the time. But his excellence just didn't last long enough. He couldn't sustain it.

Kemp, of course, was wildly popular. He made 6 consecutive all-star teams (twice the number of KJ, btw). This was due mostly to the exciting nature of his athleticism. But he was also missing something. Kemp, for as popular as he was in Seattle, never averaged 20 ppg until he was in Cleveland. He also had his best year while he was in Cleveland, but nobody cared.

but the pendelum swings quite far in the other direction for myself and I don't think it needs to even be said that a vast majority of others feel the same

That's because you're a Bulls fan who is in denial. The "vast majority" has been ever shrinking since at least 2008. And I know you're feeling that in your everyday life with increasing interactions like what we're having right now.

My brother, for example, who was a huge Jordan and Kobe fan, and who was always skeptical of LeBron (many arguments between us), just told me during the last NBA Final that he thinks LeBron is a better player than Jordan based on x,y and z.

This is because of LeBron's persistence. And this sort of conversion is happening all over the country every time LeBron does something of note.

What do you think is going to happen if LeBron makes it to 8 straight Finals? More converts.
What do you think is going to happen if LeBron wins his 5th MVP this year? More converts.
What do you think is going to happen if LeBron wins his 4th Finals MVP this year? More converts.
What do you think is going to happen if LeBron sets a career high in any major statistical category? More converts.
What do you think is going to happen if LeBron generates another Finals highlight? More converts.

And all of these things are considered plausible by the public and Vegas.

So to me - if we're looking at a graph - the trend is clear.

[OdomFan]

What do you think is going to happen if Lebron continues to lose in all of those Finals trips? More things for his fans to push under the rug when they try to argue him against Jordan and the other greats, yet you say people are going to start coming around? No. That will not happen, at least on a global stand like you're trying to make it out to be. Why? because no matter how you try to spin it those Finals losses with him at the lead will always be there and will always mean a lot towards his legacy. Why? because he had that talent around him and they simply couldn't get it done.

[KingJames4EVER]

What do you think is going to happen if Lebron continues to lose in all of those Finals trips? More things for his fans to push under the rug when they try to argue him against Jordan and the other greats, yet you say people are going to start coming around? No. That will not happen, at least on a global stand like you're trying to make it out to be. Why? because no matter how you try to spin it those Finals losses with him at the lead will always be there and will always mean a lot towards his legacy. Why? because he had that talent around him and they simply couldn't get it done.

Bron was favoured to win 2 finals...he won 3.
Jordan had a cakewalk in every final compared to LeBron

[mysticOscar]

Spoiler:

You're missing the point. It has nothing to do with actually facing Bird/McHale/Parrish and Magic/Kareem/Worthy, but with facing teams at least as talented as that. Michael Jordan never had to face stacked teams of that caliber in the 90s. Today, obviously, stars are facing loaded teams left and right, so that isn't an issue. But Michael Jordan dominated in the dead era of the 90's where the only loaded team around was the Chicago Bulls.

Drexler's Blazers only had one hall of famer on it. Clyde.
Barkley's Suns only had one hall of famer on it. Charles.
Payton's Sonics only had one hall of famer on it. Gary.

You get the idea. Top teams just were not as talented in the 1990's. And even Stockton and Malone's Jazz were just no match for the hall of fame trio of Jordan, Pippen and Rodman.

Just because your too young to remember/or know a lot of players (outside of top 30 of all time) doesnt mean there wasnt any good players. You have so much recency bias its ridiculous.

Drexler by himself? Heard of Terry Porter? Cliff Robinson?

Charles by himself? Heard of Kevin Johnson? Dan Marjele?

Payton by himself? Heard of Shawn Kemp? Detlef Shrempf?


All these teams also had great role players that u would have no idea about.

List of those players would had higher recognition if the Bulls just didnt dominate the 90s as much as they did.....but hey the Bulls won 6 championships in 8 years....2 3 peats...must be because of weak competition logic is just such a weak excuse to discredit MJ

LBJ fans logic: competition was good in 80s up to 91...then it went weak...then went good again in 1999.

MJ must be the luckiest player that ever stepped on the court. Better thread title should be "Why is MJ so favoured by the gods and LBJ so hated?".

I'm 40, mysticOscar. I'm not that young. Terry Porter and Cliff Robinson weren't good enough on a historical level. Neither were Kevin Johnson, Dan Marjele, Shawn Kemp and Detlef Shrempf (who I've seen at my local grocery store, btw).

Drexler, Charles and Payton became recognized regardless of anything the Bulls were doing. THAT is the kind of greatness I'm talking about. Their teammates were not on that level. I think that is obvious.

Today, though, we have recognized future hall of famers all clustered onto a handful of teams, not unlike the 1960s. The 1990s simply were not anything like this. Expansion in the 90's also didn't help because it diluted talent even further.

LBJ fans logic: competition was good in 80s up to 91...then it went weak...then went good again in 1999.

Close, but no cigar. The first part is correct - competition was good up until 1991 (the Bulls were very fortunate in 1991 because Isiah Thomas was injured in the ECF that year, and fortune smiled down upon them again because James Worthy was injured in the Finals). But it didn't get good again until at least 2006 or so. The Shaq-era Lakers didn't have any competition in the NBA Finals at all.

Why is MJ so favoured by the gods and LBJ so hated?

But he's not. Why are we even having this conversation if MJ was so favored? Why would hall of famers come out to say that they think LBJ is the better player if MJ was so favored? There is no religion is basketball. If there was Bill Russell would be our Godhead (like he was with Red Auerbach), but he's not. A modern player will eventually recognized through persistence, in the same way MJ became recognized. But history has proven out that no player can hold the title of GOAT for long in the NBA because of constantly changing factors. It's kind of the same in the NFL. We have to constantly factor in the changing landscape of expansion and rule changes, etc. In the end we err on the side of the current - of what we intimately know - and so then the MJs usurp the Russells and Kareems and the LeBrons usurp the MJs and Magics.

I'm in the unique position of having been able to watch all of Jordan's career as a young Bull's fan in the 80's and 90's (we were all Bulls fans in those days) and also all of LeBron's career when I was older and a bit wiser, and I deem LeBron the superior player and I'm not nearly alone in that.

Im just going to ignore your subjective and biased opinions on those players listed....because idc how little u think of them, doesnt change the fact they were great players.

So lets get this straight, ur holistic view in the 90s is that that the talent is spread while todays has a great imbalance super teams (in which LBJ has been a part of most of his career now and had made it fashionable).

Then u went on about LBJ making many finals?

Do you see how much ur shooting urself on the foot?

Your case makes perfect case....because of this imbalance....LBJ has made it to 7 straight finals by cake walking through the east with his super team and beating subpar teams all the way through to the finals. Didnt know u think so lowly of lebron like that. But the way u have constructed it...im now a believer

[OdomFan]

What do you think is going to happen if Lebron continues to lose in all of those Finals trips? More things for his fans to push under the rug when they try to argue him against Jordan and the other greats, yet you say people are going to start coming around? No. That will not happen, at least on a global stand like you're trying to make it out to be. Why? because no matter how you try to spin it those Finals losses with him at the lead will always be there and will always mean a lot towards his legacy. Why? because he had that talent around him and they simply couldn't get it done.

Bron was favoured to win 2 finals...he won 3.
Jordan had a cakewalk in every final compared to LeBron

Yet 2 of those 6 titles against the Suns and Jazz came down to a final basket in the final seconds of game 6. If that honestly sounds like a cakewalk to you than you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

[Pennebaker]

Spoiler:

Just because your too young to remember/or know a lot of players (outside of top 30 of all time) doesnt mean there wasnt any good players. You have so much recency bias its ridiculous.

Drexler by himself? Heard of Terry Porter? Cliff Robinson?

Charles by himself? Heard of Kevin Johnson? Dan Marjele?

Payton by himself? Heard of Shawn Kemp? Detlef Shrempf?


All these teams also had great role players that u would have no idea about.

List of those players would had higher recognition if the Bulls just didnt dominate the 90s as much as they did.....but hey the Bulls won 6 championships in 8 years....2 3 peats...must be because of weak competition logic is just such a weak excuse to discredit MJ

LBJ fans logic: competition was good in 80s up to 91...then it went weak...then went good again in 1999.

MJ must be the luckiest player that ever stepped on the court. Better thread title should be "Why is MJ so favoured by the gods and LBJ so hated?".

I'm 40, mysticOscar. I'm not that young. Terry Porter and Cliff Robinson weren't good enough on a historical level. Neither were Kevin Johnson, Dan Marjele, Shawn Kemp and Detlef Shrempf (who I've seen at my local grocery store, btw).

Drexler, Charles and Payton became recognized regardless of anything the Bulls were doing. THAT is the kind of greatness I'm talking about. Their teammates were not on that level. I think that is obvious.

Today, though, we have recognized future hall of famers all clustered onto a handful of teams, not unlike the 1960s. The 1990s simply were not anything like this. Expansion in the 90's also didn't help because it diluted talent even further.

LBJ fans logic: competition was good in 80s up to 91...then it went weak...then went good again in 1999.

Close, but no cigar. The first part is correct - competition was good up until 1991 (the Bulls were very fortunate in 1991 because Isiah Thomas was injured in the ECF that year, and fortune smiled down upon them again because James Worthy was injured in the Finals). But it didn't get good again until at least 2006 or so. The Shaq-era Lakers didn't have any competition in the NBA Finals at all.

Why is MJ so favoured by the gods and LBJ so hated?

But he's not. Why are we even having this conversation if MJ was so favored? Why would hall of famers come out to say that they think LBJ is the better player if MJ was so favored? There is no religion is basketball. If there was Bill Russell would be our Godhead (like he was with Red Auerbach), but he's not. A modern player will eventually recognized through persistence, in the same way MJ became recognized. But history has proven out that no player can hold the title of GOAT for long in the NBA because of constantly changing factors. It's kind of the same in the NFL. We have to constantly factor in the changing landscape of expansion and rule changes, etc. In the end we err on the side of the current - of what we intimately know - and so then the MJs usurp the Russells and Kareems and the LeBrons usurp the MJs and Magics.

I'm in the unique position of having been able to watch all of Jordan's career as a young Bull's fan in the 80's and 90's (we were all Bulls fans in those days) and also all of LeBron's career when I was older and a bit wiser, and I deem LeBron the superior player and I'm not nearly alone in that.

Im just going to ignore your subjective and biased opinions on those players listed....because idc how little u think of them, doesnt change the fact they were great players.

So lets get this straight, ur holistic view in the 90s is that that the talent is spread while todays has a great imbalance super teams (in which LBJ has been a part of most of his career now and had made it fashionable).

Then u went on about LBJ making many finals?

Do you see how much ur shooting urself on the foot?

Your case makes perfect case....because of this imbalance....LBJ has made it to 7 straight finals by cake walking through the east with his super team and beating subpar teams all the way through to the finals. Didnt know u think so lowly of lebron like that. But the way u have constructed it...im now a believer

because idc how little u think of them, doesnt change the fact they were great players.

How little I think of them is, in fact, how little the majority of hall of fame voters think of them.

Then u went on about LBJ making many finals?

Do you see how much ur shooting urself on the foot?

Your case makes perfect case....because of this imbalance....LBJ has made it to 7 straight finals by cake walking through the east with his super team

LeBron had to beat the original modern super-team to earn his first title. There was nothing cake walky about beating the championship Garnett, Pierce, Allen, Rivers Boston Celtics - the team that revolutionized defense in the NBA. And we all remember the series where this happened:



After that series LeBron went to the Finals and sacked the stacked Durant, Westbrook, Harden OKC Thunder team. KD, Russell and Harden are all going to be in the hall of fame.

LeBron then went on to defeat Duncan's Spurs, which then featured multi-champion hall of famers in Duncan, Parker & Ginobili - and also Kawhi Leonard.

LeBron then went on to beat a team in the Finals that had just broke the Jordan/Bulls league record for wins in a season - the 73-9 Golden State Warriors. Yes, LeBron beat a team in the NBA Finals that had a record of 73-9 during the regular season. That happened.

These are the kinds of obstacles that Jordan never faced in his championship career.

[Greed]

Their problem was what I eluded to - persistence. Or consistency. I am definitely aware of the time in the early 90's when KJ appeared to be one of those guys. Kevin Johnson was my brother's favorite player at the time. But his excellence just didn't last long enough. He couldn't sustain it.

KJ's career holds up well to most PG's historically, only derailed by injury. Also, isn't this discussion about how good these players were when they were the supporting cast to the others mentioned? KJ was pretty good in the 93 playoff run, if not great during the WCSF and WCF

Kemp, of course, was wildly popular. He made 6 consecutive all-star teams (twice the number of KJ, btw). This was due mostly to the exciting nature of his athleticism. But he was also missing something. Kemp, for as popular as he was in Seattle, never averaged 20 ppg until he was in Cleveland. He also had his best year while he was in Cleveland, but nobody cared.

Shawn Kemp finished within the Top 10 for MVP voting 3 times from 93-98, and was just outside of it (11th) in 99 (Cleveland). Was also 6th in DPOY voting once (Seattle '97). There's 0 argument to be had that he wasn't a legit stud during his time with Payton when MJ played them. This is the same dude who had a legit case for Finals MVP over Jordan despite his team losing. Not just because he was "exciting"

That's because you're a Bulls fan who is in denial.

Similarly, I can say you're a LeBron fan who's biased to prop him up. I won't say that though, so I expect you to keep things like this out of the discussion, as it's an ad-hominem fallacy, so I won't respond to it further
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_bias

The "vast majority" has been ever shrinking since at least 2008. And I know you're feeling that in your everyday life with increasing interactions like what we're having right now.

Actually I'm not, so I don't know where you intend to go from there with this.

My brother, for example, who was a huge Jordan and Kobe fan, and who was always skeptical of LeBron (many arguments between us), just told me during the last NBA Final that he thinks LeBron is a better player than Jordan based on x,y and z.

This is because of LeBron's persistence. And this sort of conversion is happening all over the country every time LeBron does something of note.

What do you think is going to happen if LeBron makes it to 8 straight Finals? More converts.
What do you think is going to happen if LeBron wins his 5th MVP this year? More converts.
What do you think is going to happen if LeBron wins his 4th Finals MVP this year? More converts.

All of these things are considered a very real possibility by the public and Vegas.

So to me - if we're looking at a graph - the trend is clear.

You mentioned your brother as an example, similarly, my nephew was a huge LeBron fan until just recently, he routinely argued that LeBron was better than MJ. We had a few arguments about it, but then I simply told him to go watch Jordan play and also look at his total impact and stats on his own. A few weeks later he said he was wrong and that Jordan was better for x, y and z

Given how the basketball public perceive the Eastern Conference, I think you'd be surprised how many people would write off making another Finals in a conference where he has no actual competition, only to lose in the Finals. I won't even use hardcore bball fan sites like this to support this, just go to Twitter and type in NBA East.

More and more fans are being awakened to the NBA hype machine manufacturing LeBrons legacy than anything, especially when you have dude's like Nick Wright out there citing misinformation and being publicly called out for wanting to have LeBrons children basically

Better question. What do YOU think will happen if LeBron leaves Cleveland if they lose to the Warriors again. His legacy already took a big hit leaving Cleveland to form a superteam, then bailing when that superteam stopped looking super to form another superteam.

There's another factor not being accounted for, which is recency bias. Even if we accepted your premise that people are starting to believe otherwise, this isn't uncommon for stars of the moment. Kobe was similarly being hyped up all over the place as surpassing or already surpassed Jordan. Then that hype died down once his career wound down, now you'd get laughed out of a discussion for making a claim like that. Once the recency bias fades you may be in a similar boat

[Greed]

LeBron had to beat the original modern super-team to earn his first title. There was nothing cake walky about beating the championship Garnett, Pierce, Allen, Rivers Boston Celtics - the team that revolutionized defense in the NBA. And we all remember the series where this happened:

You mean an old, past-their-prime Celtics team who hadn't won a championship in years? (Basically the same as what Jordan did with the Pistons, except the Pistons core was younger when Jordan was going up against them)

LeBron also beat a team in the Finals superior to that Celtics team - Duncan's Spurs, which then featured multi-champion hall of famers in Duncan, Parker & Ginobili - and also Kawhi Leonard.

See above. You mean those geriatric Spurs with Tim and Manu being 36 and 35 respectively? How exactly do you reconcile this with the criticisms against Jordan against the Pistons?

LeBron also then beat a team in the Finals that had just broke the Jordan/Bulls league record for wins in a season - the 73-9 Golden State Warriors. Yes, LeBron beat a team in the NBA Finals that had a record of 73-9 during the regular season. That happened.

But he lost against a team that only won 67 games the very next season, 4-1. Why's that? Were the 2017 Warriors better than the 2016 Warriors despite losing more games in the regular season? If so, why's it so unbelievable to beat a 73 win team if a 67-win team can be better?

These are the kinds of obstacles that Jordan never faced in his championship career.

Actually, as shown above, Jordan had very similar situations in his championship career. See Pistons/Celtics. He obviously never had to " beat" a 73 win team because he led his own team to 72 wins and a championship. He did beat 4 teams that won at least 62 games, though

[HollowEarth]

MJ was definitely against weaker competition. The draft's from 1988 to 1991 was the worst drought of talent the NBA has seen, on top of that, they had two expansion drafts then as well.

Top 20 all-time players MJ went against in the playoffs: Malone, Shaq and Magic. Out of them only Malone was in his prime.

Yes, but if Jordan hadn't been around then Malone would have likely won back to back Championships, MVPs, and FMVPs. I think that would elevate the perception of Karl Malone up onto Tim Duncan's level. I think that guys like Jordan and Bill Russel become so dominant that it makes their competition look weaker. How would the perception of Barkley, Malone, Ewing, Stockton, Reggie, and so on changed if they won a title?

Sounds like the same argument people make about the East and LeBron.

I understand what you are saying but if you're talking a zero-sum equation of talent then the better one player is the worse others look and the worse other players are then the better one player looks. It goes both ways.

The difference for me is, Lebron has avoided playing the Spurs and Warriors until reaching the finals. Lebron getting to the finals so many years in a row is impressive, and I don't want to sound like I'm trying to take that away from him, but for a while now there have been three or four teams on par with Lebron's teams in the West and only every now and then is there an elite team in the East. These guys are all playing in the same league and in the same era.

Jordan beat the eastern conference teams and then he beat the best teams in the West. The only really strong teams he avoided were the Hakeem+3andDguys Rockets. I don't think it makes sense to compare guys to players from other time periods. It feels like science fiction. Jordan dominated his era and Lebron has been the best player in his era, but not as dominant. It feels bizarre to say that Jordan got off easy by not having to play against guys like Kobe and Wade who grew up watching Jordan.

[zimpy27]

MJ was definitely against weaker competition. The draft's from 1988 to 1991 was the worst drought of talent the NBA has seen, on top of that, they had two expansion drafts then as well.

Top 20 all-time players MJ went against in the playoffs: Malone, Shaq and Magic. Out of them only Malone was in his prime.

Oh really? 1983-1987 were all excellent drafts.

1988 draft: Mitch Richmond, Hersery Hawkins, Danny Manning, Rik Smits, Dan Majerle, Rod Strickland -- below average but a lot of guys that had long solid careers. Even Manning played 15 seasons and was a long conributor. Lots of good role players in this draft like Willie Anderson and Steve Kerr that I didn't mention.
1989 draft: Shawn Kemp, Tim Hardaway, Vlade Divac, Glen Rice, Sean Elliot, Mookie Blaylock, Nick Anderson, Cliff Robinson. That is not a bad draft.
1990 draft: Gary Payton, Derrick Coleman, Dennis Scott, Antonio Davis, Elden Campbell, Tyrone Hill -- OK this was a bad one but still a star in Payton and those other guys all had long careers.
1991 draft: Larry Johnson, Dikembo Mutombo, Steve Smith, Kenny Anderson, Terrell Brandon, Dale Davis -- Below average but not that bad.
1992 draft: Shaq, Alonzo Mourning, Laettner, Jim Jackson, Robert Horry, Tom Gugliotta, Latrell Sprewell, Doug Christie, PJ Brown. Very strong draft of both star power and depth.
1993 draft: strong
1994 draft: strong
1995 draft: strong

So in 12 years from 1983 to 1995 the NBA good drafts every year except for three 1988/1990/1991 that were below average. The league was awash in big men drafted:

Shaq, Olajuwon, Malone, Ewing, Barkley, David Robinson, Mourning, Webber, Mutombo, Kemp, Daugherty, Divac, Smits, Dale and Antonio Davis, Horace Grant, PJ Brown, Rodman, Oakley, Derrick Coleman, Kevin Willis.

This was also an era of great point guards, Kevin Johnson, Tim Hardaway, Stockton, Mark Price, Gary Payton, Isiah Thomas, Blaylock (underrated player). Lots of great players who had excellent careers but largely forgotten like Cliff Robinson, Mookie Blaylock, Dan Majerle, Dominique Wilkens, Jeff Hornaceck, Jeff Malone, list is endless.

If there was one position during this era that was weak it was the SF position and the Bulls had the best one in Pippen. SG was average with guys like Drexler, Reggie, Harper, Richmond, Joe Dumars, Hornaceck, Petrovic etc. C was all time great and PF and PG were very good too. It was a very strong era.

By comparison this is what a bad draft looks like 2000:
1. Kenyon Martin
2. Stromile Swift
3. Darius Miles
4. Marcus Fizer
5. Mike Miller
6. Demarr Johnson
7. Chris Mihm
8. Jamaal Crawford
9. Joel Pryzibilla
10. Keyon Dooling
11. Jerome Moiso
12. Etan Thomas
13. Courtney Alexander
14. Mateen Cleeves
15. Jason Collier

Absolutely horrendous.

A single bad draft doesn't matter, it's a 4 year stretch that matters. Essentially the 90s were dominated by those around the '84 class and the 00s by those around the '96 class. Shaq had a small push in the middle but the weakness of those draftsman really opened the window for longer successful careers from '84 and '96.

[fansinceforever]

The talent is better now than it's ever been.