Is there a reasonable argument that MJ was actually better at basketball than LeBron?

[Lalouie]

you lebronettes are so sneaky

there's a better argument that lebron isn't in the convo

[Pb]

The only thing Lebron has over Jordan is his crappy fanbase, Bron been irrelevant for a few years already, forget about that loser for your own mental health.

[Swindle]

The difference between Jordan and James is the difference between player A and B. Y’all can like whoever you want honestly, but to say there is no reasonable argument is wild

A.
MVP - 1x
Finals MVP - 2x
DPOY - 1x
1st Team Def - 4x
Scoring Leader - 9x
Steals Leader - 3x

B.
1st Team All-NBA - 3x
2nd Team All-NBA - 6x
2nd Team Def - 1x
Assists Leader - 1x

[ScrantonBulls]

The difference between Jordan and James is the difference between player A and B. Y’all can like whoever you want honestly, but to say there is no reasonable argument is wild

A.
MVP - 1x
Finals MVP - 2x
DPOY - 1x
1st Team Def - 4x
Scoring Leader - 9x
Steals Leader - 3x

B.
1st Team All-NBA - 3x
2nd Team All-NBA - 6x
2nd Team Def - 1x
Assists Leader - 1x

People who say there is no argument are generally morons - especially when you consider that you are comparing as cross generations and in vastly different leagues/talent pools. There are GOAT cases for MJ, LeBron and Kareem. I wouldn't hate if people include Russell in that argument. Saying one is clearly way above the others is usually an indicator to not take somebody seriously.

[Chessboxer]

Jerry West said MJ is the most fundamentally sound player he's ever seen, and the most athletically gifted. I personally don't think Lebron is a better player offensively or defensively, in fact I don't think Lebron is a better player than prime Bird. John Salley just last week said he would take prime Bird over Lebron and didn't even hesitate.

[IG2]

A better 3rd-best-player that fits better with the team can make a big difference.

Bro, we saw 8.5 seasons of Malone/Stockton pre-Hornacek. In at least half of those seasons they were clearly better as a duo than their late 90's self, to go along with a cast that was no more or less noteworthy than whatever they had in the late 90's. If a better version of Malone/Stockton were capable of winning 60+ games, they absolutely would have between 86-93. Heck, they acquired Hornacek post-AS break in '94 and had a worse record with him in the lineup than they did without him. So I'm not buying the bogus reasoning of it-was-all-about-Hornacek-and-fit.

The league was just noticeably worse in the late 90's, which is what allowed Utah to finally breakthrough with some dominant seasons. And let's get back to the original reason why I was talking about Utah. The poster I was replying to was gushing about MJ taking an old ass Bulls team to the championship. While impressive, old ass teams doing well was kind of the norm back then due to a lack of fresh talent at the top. It's not avoiding giving credit to MJ, it's adding some context to a somewhat ignorant statement. I have no interest in denigrating MJ. I'm probably the biggest MJ dork here and consider him the GOAT. I just get tired of his insecure fans.

What about Mike Brown?

Bro . Cleveland could've acquired a coach who was the mixture of Pat Riley, Phil Jackson and Popovich and that team still wouldn't have sniffed 30 wins. Mike Brown is a decent coach, nothing more. We saw him coach a noticeably better Cleveland roster featuring Kyrie in 2014 and he only won 33 games (and got fired again). A miracle worker he's not. Cleveland also replaced him with an equivalent guy in Byron Scott, not exactly some no-name or a tank-commanding assistant coach. Byron Scott was a big name with multiple Finals under his belt. They clearly wanted to win.

And was the team ever doing anything but tanking?

What 60+ win team goes into a season tanking after only losing 1 player of significance? They absolutely came into that season with every intention to win. They wouldn't have hired a name-coach in Byron Scott otherwise. Dan Gilbert also would've loved nothing more than Cleveland proving it wasn't just a 1 man show. They clearly tried to win early on. They just sucked though and had no choice but to eventually go into tank mode.

People absolutely did see it as LeBron leaving a situation as a title contender in Cleveland to go to an easier situation.

Post 2010 playoff exit NOBODY saw that Cleveland roster as one LeBron could win a championship with. Nobody. You keep pretending otherwise because it bothers you the 2009/2010 seasons are now seen as a massive boon to LeBron's legacy and nobody really cares that he didn't win the championship.

LeBron's criticism post-Decision was always all about who he chose to play with and how he went about announcing it.

I heard it constantly at the time (and was defending LeBron at the time!).

Defending? Well, this changes everything . Here I was thinking you were just another MJ creep so obviously threatened by LeBron's career that you are literally in every LeBron thread writing novels downplaying him. But hey, at least you used to defend him. I totally believe you! You're clearly an objective voice when it comes to LeBron lol

[lessthanjake]

A better 3rd-best-player that fits better with the team can make a big difference.

Bro, we saw 8.5 seasons of Malone/Stockton pre-Hornacek, half of those seasons where they were at their absolute zenith and a cast that is no more or less noteworthy than whatever they had in the late 90's. If a better version of Malone/Stockton were capable of winning 60+ games from 86-93, they absolutely would have. Heck, they acquired Hornacek post-AS break in '94 and had a worse record with him in the lineup than they did without him.

The league is just noticeably worse in the late 90's, which is what allowed Utah to finally breakthrough with some dominant seasons. And let's get back to the original reason why I was talking about Utah. The poster I was replying to was gushing about MJ taking an old ass Bulls team to the championship. While impressive, old ass teams doing well was kind of the norm back then due to a lack of fresh talent at the top. It's not avoiding giving credit to MJ, it's adding some context to a somewhat ignorant statement. I have no interest in denigrating MJ. I'm probably the biggest MJ dork here and consider him the GOAT. I just get tired of his insecure fans.

There’s a lot of handwaving here with “a cast that is no more or less noteworthy than whatever they had in the late 90’s.” It was a *very* different supporting cast and the team gelled together with that different supporting cast noticeably better. They also had a better 3rd guy. And it’s really just wrong to think that these are even remotely interchangeable or meaningless differences. Just as one big example, for essentially all of the timeframe you refer to, the Jazz were an extremely defense-focused basketball team because they had Mark Eaton—who was simultaneously a great defensive player and perhaps the worst offensive player to grace the NBA in the last 50 years. You think that moving away from that to being a much more offensively-focused team wasn’t a huge and “noteworthy” difference? Eaton wasn’t a bad player overall, but moving away from him changed the team pretty radically, and the result fit better. And that’s just one notable example—really the whole supporting cast was different so there was a lot of “noteworthy” stuff. Anyways, I’m mostly repeating myself here, but yeah you’re right that if Malone/Stockton were capable of winning 60+ games from 1986-1993 they would have. But that was with a different team and really doesn’t mean them winning 60+ games with a different supporting cast must be indicative of the team somehow being “frauds.”

Anyways, to be clear, I’m not saying that league expansion didn’t have any effect on top teams’ SRS and wins. We’d generally expect that it would. And the league would’ve been even stronger at the time if there hadn’t been a few drafts in the prior years without true top-level beyond Shaq and perhaps Payton. But even if we want to say the SRS and win totals are a little inflated in that 1996-1998 time period, we’re still left with the Jazz looking like a great team. And even if we think the league could’ve had a better influx of younger top-level stars at the time, the Jazz still very clearly defeated a host of all-time great guys in the playoffs. The “lack of fresh talent at the top” really didn’t stop the Jazz from having to face really talented teams in the playoffs, including several teams with exactly the kind of “fresh talent at that top” that you are referring to—most prominently, twice facing and easily beating Shaq, who would’ve been a very premier “fresh talent” in any era in history. I’m not sure what else you’d want the Jazz to have done to prove they were a great team.

What about Mike Brown?

Bro . Cleveland could've acquired a coach who was the mixture of Pat Riley, Phil Jackson and Popovich and that team still wouldn't have sniffed 30 wins. Mike Brown is a decent coach, nothing more. We saw him coach a noticeably better Cleveland roster featuring Kyrie in 2014 and he only won 33 games (and got fired again). A miracle worker he's not. Cleveland also replaced him with an equivalent guy in Byron Scott, not exactly some no-name or a tank-commanding assistant coach. Byron Scott was a big name. They clearly wanted to win.

Mike Brown was an incredible defensive coach in that era, and was a huge part of the team’s defensive success—indeed, he’d made the Cavs be an absolutely elite defensive team before LeBron had become a really elite defender (see, for instance, the 2006-2008 Cavs having one of the best three-year playoff rDRTGs in league history). I don’t think anyone should really deny that, nor should it be surprising to hear someone say it (it was talked about quite a lot at the time). And that was a big part of the picture for those teams. The formula for success was to have LeBron play heliocentric offense with guys who could shoot around him, and to have some strong defensive players (with LeBron of course being one of those) who played really cohesive defense with great schemes, as a result of great defensive coaching. It was a formula that was really good and led to them being major title favorites! But if you take away the heliocentric superstar guy and take away the great defensive coach, and then also take away some other significant rotation pieces and don’t really replace them, the formula is suddenly completely non-existent, and you’re just left with a team of some shooters that can’t create much and that no longer play cohesive defense (and then that snowballs further because the team ends up tanking because they see the writing on the wall).

And was the team ever doing anything but tanking?

What 60+ win team goes into a season tanking after only losing 1 player of significance? They absolutely came into that season with every intention to win. They wouldn't have hired a name-coach in Byron Scott otherwise. Dan Gilbert also would've loved nothing more than Cleveland proving it wasn't just a 1 man show. They clearly tried to win early on. They just sucked though and had no choice but to eventually go into tank mode.

Umm, I think we’d be hard-pressed to find a team that lost a major superstar and fired their coach and then didn’t pick up any other significant player at all (and instead basically just sheds salary) that *doesn’t* tank. It’s a league where you should either be contending for a title or tanking, and if you lose a major superstar and haven’t retooled your roster virtually at all to make up for that and have instead let your team’s salaries go down by like 35%, you’re really not going to be contending for a title (even if you were really good before all that), so you can and should tank. It wasn’t particularly subtle. This wasn’t a team trying to contend.

People absolutely did see it as LeBron leaving a situation as a title contender in Cleveland to go to an easier situation.

Post 2010 playoff exit NOBODY saw that Cleveland roster as one LeBron could win a championship with. Nobody. You keep pretending otherwise because it bothers you the 2009/2010 seasons are now seen as a massive boon to LeBron's legacy and nobody really cares that he didn't win the championship.

LeBron's criticism post-Decision was always all about who he chose to play with and how he went about announcing it.

You’re just wrong. I’m not sure if you just were too young to remember the criticism at the time or just lived in a bit of a bubble regarding this, but I know I am right because I actually talked to many people about it at the time. I’ve always defended LeBron regarding The Decision (including on these forums). I think a player has every right to maximize their chances of winning, and that the culture around the NBA where people think there’s something wrong with doing that is very weird. It’s not something you see in other sports. Indeed, you often see the opposite. For instance, in soccer, for a player to want to stay at a less stacked club where they’re the best guy instead of going to one of the very top teams is actually widely seen as that player having a lack of ambition to win. Virtually no one is saying Harry Kane should’ve stayed at Tottenham instead of going to Bayern Munich. Virtually no one is saying Mbappe should’ve stayed at PSG and won the Champions League there instead of going to a Real Madrid team that just won it without him. I think basketball fans and basketball media having that attitude about NBA players is odd and wrong. So, to me, LeBron maximizing his chances of winning by joining up with Wade and Bosh was totally fair game (and I think the same about Durant going to the Warriors). The Heat was actually an even better situation than what LeBron had in Cleveland, and so I think he was right to take that option. But that doesn’t mean the Cleveland team wasn’t a major title contender. They were.

I heard it constantly at the time (and was defending LeBron at the time!).

Defending? Well, this changes everything . Here I was thinking you were just another MJ creep so obviously threatened by LeBron's career that you are literally in every LeBron thread writing novels downplaying him. But hey, at least you used to defend him. I totally believe you! You're clearly an objective voice when it comes to LeBron lol

I don’t appreciate the sarcasm and personal attacks (“just another MJ creep”) here. It’s rude and also completely misplaced. I’ve actually rooted for LeBron in every single playoff series he has ever played in, except for ones against Steph and Jokic. And the only NBA playoff games I’ve ever been to in person were games I specifically went to to see LeBron. In fact, I actually went to one of their playoff games in one of the years we are talking about (2010), and didn’t get a very healthy reception from Boston fans while cheering for LeBron and the Cavs in the TD Garden! It happened to be LeBron’s best game of the series, so I left happier than the Boston fans did. I’ve been much more of a LeBron fan over the years than anything else. Thinking that Jordan was even better and discussing that on the Internet and not agreeing with some things people say about LeBron that simply do not jive with my own perception of what reality actually was doesn’t make me a bad-faith poster when it comes to LeBron—who I have solidly as my #2 player of all time.

[MavsDirk41]

Yes, you're definitively saying one is better than the other on defense... Which part of that confused you? Read it slowly this time.

I said James isnt a better defender than Jordan…where did i say one is better….come on my little bff taj ftw….tell me where i said one is better….read it slowly kid

In fairness, in the post before the quoted post, you said Jordan was a better offensive and defensive player. This thread is so long though, that I'm too lazy to go quote it.

I might have but honestly dont remember. They were both elite defensively during their prime years. Jordan has more all defensive team awards, a defensive player of the year, and i think he gave more effort/brought more intensity as an old Jordan in comparison to an old James.

[Iwasawitness]

Another rubbish post by you as you
Know nothing about Dumars. Tony Allen was pretty short too by your logic he wasn’t as good as Paul pierce defensively

https://youtu.be/jI5rtKQD9GE?si=A98fbuYzbvQfFuZx

Tony Allen was 6'5, not that small.

But yes, I think a 6'6 forward who had quick enough feet to stay in front of you and was strong as an ox, and was as savvy as they come, is a tougher defensive matchup than a 6'3 guard who, to his credit, is also strong, quick, and smart as hell. But size matters.

Where are you getting these numbers from?

Tony Allen is 6’4”.
Gary Payton is 6’4”.
Joe Dumars is 6’3”.
Marcus Smart is 6’3”.

Paul Pierce is 3 inches shorter than LeBron, just like how Joe Dumars is 3 inches shorter than Jordan. Dennis Rodman is 3 inches taller than Jordan.

Paul Pierce never made an all-defensive team, but somehow Paul Pierce in the twilight of his career was this great defensive player.

Paul Pierce was definitely very good defensively. I don’t see how you can downplay his defense just because he didn’t make the all defensive team. Rasheed never did and Tim Duncan said he was the best defender he ever played against.

[NZB2323]

Tony Allen was 6'5, not that small.

But yes, I think a 6'6 forward who had quick enough feet to stay in front of you and was strong as an ox, and was as savvy as they come, is a tougher defensive matchup than a 6'3 guard who, to his credit, is also strong, quick, and smart as hell. But size matters.

Where are you getting these numbers from?

Tony Allen is 6’4”.
Gary Payton is 6’4”.
Joe Dumars is 6’3”.
Marcus Smart is 6’3”.

Paul Pierce is 3 inches shorter than LeBron, just like how Joe Dumars is 3 inches shorter than Jordan. Dennis Rodman is 3 inches taller than Jordan.

Paul Pierce never made an all-defensive team, but somehow Paul Pierce in the twilight of his career was this great defensive player.

Paul Pierce was definitely very good defensively. I don’t see how you can downplay his defense just because he didn’t make the all defensive team. Rasheed never did and Tim Duncan said he was the best defender he ever played against.

I’m not saying he’s bad defensively, but @therealbig3 was saying that Paul Pierce is better defensive player than Joe Dumars, who made the all-defensive 1st team 4 times because Paul Pierce was bigger.

Do you have a link for that Tim Duncan quote about Rasheed? I’m not finding it.

[Lalouie]

The only thing Lebron has over Jordan is his crappy fanbase, Bron been irrelevant for a few years already, forget about that loser for your own mental health.

,,,who keep peppering this forum with lebron threads (i'd estimate 37 per week) with overt and leading topics like this here thread

it's a conspiracy i tellz 'ya

[NoStatsGuy]

pretty sure lebron beats mj in 1v1 to 21. thats what we are talking about right?

[Gregoire]

pretty sure lebron beats mj in 1v1 to 21. thats what we are talking about right?

No way - Jordan annihilates him.

[audiosway]

I always find it strange that people are so fiercely invested in another man's place in history, especially in comparison to other men. Why can't it be as simple as both of them are amongst the absolute greatest, in the same echelon of greatness?

Thank you. That is such a tiresome debate. There is no one GOAT. There are great players from different eras.

[IG2]

They also had a better 3rd guy.

Jeff Malone averaged 19 ppg on 55% TS from from 91-94 to Hornacek's 15 ppg on 60% TS from 94-98. Obviously, Hornacek's 3pt shooting made him the more effective offensive player, but I don't know how significant that difference is. The same applies to the rest of the roster too. Look at the names! Literally nobody stands out on the 86-93 Jazz (besides Eaton) or the 94-98 Jazz. They were all bit time players never heard from again. Hardly the kind of guys who'd explain why Utah went from a 50-55 win team with peak Malone/Stockton to a 60-64 win team with mid-30's Malone/Stockton/Hornacek. This is clearly a case of the league weakening from mid-90's onward and why I'm often wondering why Utah's in the Finals watching them in '97 and '98.

Mike Brown was an incredible defensive coach in that era

Funny how you couldn't bring yourself to say this even once when obsessing over 2007 Cleveland's defensive success . For the record, I do agree Mike Brown certainly proved his defensive chops as a Cavalier, but the guy was no miracle worker. His teams post-LeBron have ranked 13th, 19th, 25th and 14th defensively. And every single one of those teams had better defensive personnel than the 2011 Cavaliers. Even if Cleveland hadn't replaced him with an equivalent coach in Byron Scott, they still didn't have a prayer of winning more than 25 games. Mike Brown's absence was always irrelevant to why 2011 Cavaliers were a disaster.

Umm, I think we’d be hard-pressed to find a team that lost a major superstar

There's no shortage of great teams who lost their superstar, didn't replace him with anything notable and still managed to be respectable teams the following season. '89 Celtics lost Bird after 6 games, had a different coach from the prior season and still made the playoffs. '92 Lakers without Magic made the playoffs. '94 Bulls were a championship contender without MJ. '97 Magic made the playoffs without Shaq. 2017 Thunder made the playoffs without KD. 2018 Spurs made the playoffs without Kawhi.

There's literally zero precedent in NBA history of a contender losing 1 big name and becoming dog **** the following season. Zero. And there's a simple reason why. Teams as unremarkable in talent as those '09 and '10 Cavalier teams never achieve contender status to begin with. Their top ceiling is generally high 40's to low 50-ish wins and a quick playoff exit. But peak LeBron was a such an incredible floor raiser, comfortably the GOAT in that category, that he had those teams overachieving out of their ass. This is why 2009 and 2010 are seen as a great boon to his legacy as opposed to a failure simply because he didn't win it all with 'Mo Williams as his 2nd banana.

And again, Cleveland never entered 2011 with the intention to tank. Dan Gilbert would've loved nothing more than proving LeBron wrong. Nor would he have hired a name-coach in Byron Scott. Most importantly, what 60+ win team tanks after only losing 1 player of significance? Go look at the boxscores of their games the first few months. Right from get-go they were playing their returning core high mins and barely playing their young guys. But from late November itself they started a 1-37 stretch while fully healthy, so their ineptitude was apparent very early on. Whether they eventually began tanking is irrelevant. They always sucked.

You’re just wrong. I’m not sure if you just were too young to remember the criticism at the time or just lived in a bit of a bubble regarding this

Since I haven't missed a LeBron game since 2007 and THE reason why (along with a poster named SSB) the LeBron thread on the PC board came into existence in 2011, I think it's safe to say I'm fairly well versed in his career and the narratives that have followed him. And I know for damn sure one narrative that has never existed is him supposedly leaving a great situation in Cleveland (2011 sure proved that huh ). You keep harping on this because it's very important for you to brand 2009 and 2010 as a failure. Yeah, nice try.

I don’t appreciate the sarcasm and personal attacks (“just another MJ creep”) here. It’s rude and also completely misplaced.

You can't be in literally every LeBron thread writing novels against him with mostly bad-faith arguments and outright BS and then pretend to be his supporter. Not buying it. I'm a Chicagoan and I know how important it is for the MJ cult to protect his legacy at all cost. This is why I love the fact that I live in the absolute peace of genuinely being a massive fan of both guys. I have 0 insecurity, thus no need to make **** up. I get to enjoy them simply for who they were.

[koogiking]

Michael Jordan was better at everything except court vision and rebounding

[web123888]

Personally don’t know why LeBron is regarded as a surefire top 2 all time player. I mean, sure it’s arguable but it’s also not that clear cut imo.

[MavsDirk41]

They also had a better 3rd guy.

Jeff Malone averaged 19 ppg on 55% TS from from 91-94 to Hornacek's 15 ppg on 60% TS from 94-98. Obviously, due to Hornacek's 3pt shooting, you could say he was the better fit offensively, but Malone was certainly the far better defender. As 3rd options I'd say their impact was negligible. Doesn't seem like some notable difference. The same applies to the rest of the roster too. Look at the names! Literally nobody stands out on the 86-93 Jazz (besides Eaton) or the 94-98 Jazz. They were all bit time players never heard from again. Hardly the kind of guys who'd explain why Utah went from a 50-55 win team with peak Malone/Stockton to a 60-64 win team with mid-30's Malone/Stockton/Hornacek. This is clearly a case of the league weakening from mid-90's onward and why I'm often wondering why Utah's in the Finals watching them in '97 and '98.

Mike Brown was an incredible defensive coach in that era

Funny how you couldn't bring yourself to say this even once when obsessing over 2007 Cleveland's defensive success . For the record, I do agree Mike Brown certainly proved his defensive chops as a Cavalier, but the guy was no miracle worker. His teams post-LeBron have ranked 13th, 19th, 25th and 14th defensively. And every single one of those teams had better defensive personnel than the 2011 Cavaliers. Even if Cleveland hadn't replaced him with an equivalent coach in Byron Scott, they still didn't have a prayer of winning more than 25 games. Mike Brown's absence was always irrelevant to why 2011 Cavaliers were a disaster.

Umm, I think we’d be hard-pressed to find a team that lost a major superstar

There's no shortage of great teams who lost their superstar, didn't replace him with anything notable and still managed to be respectable teams the following season. '89 Celtics lost Bird after 6 games, had a different coach from the prior season and still made the playoffs. '92 Lakers without Magic made the playoffs. '94 Bulls were a championship contender without MJ. '97 Magic made the playoffs without Shaq. 2017 Thunder made the playoffs without KD. 2018 Spurs made the playoffs without Kawhi.

There's literally zero precedent in NBA history of a contender losing 1 big name and becoming dog **** the following season. Zero. And there's a simple reason why. Teams as unremarkable in talent as those '09 and '10 Cavalier teams never achieve contender status to begin with. Their top ceiling is generally high 40's to low 50-ish wins and a quick playoff exit. But peak LeBron was a such an incredible floor raiser, comfortably the GOAT in that category, that he had those teams overachieving out of their ass. This is why 2009 and 2010 are seen as a great boon to his legacy as opposed to a failure simply because he didn't win it all with 'Mo Williams as his 2nd banana.

And again, Cleveland never entered 2011 with the intention to tank. Dan Gilbert would've loved nothing more than proving LeBron wrong. Nor would he have hired a name-coach in Byron Scott. Most importantly, what 60+ win team tanks after only losing 1 player of significance? Go look at the boxscores of their games the first few months. Right from get-go they were playing their returning core high mins and barely playing their young guys. But from late November itself they started a 1-37 stretch while fully healthy, so their ineptitude was apparent very early on. Whether they eventually began tanking is irrelevant. They always sucked.

You’re just wrong. I’m not sure if you just were too young to remember the criticism at the time or just lived in a bit of a bubble regarding this

Since I haven't missed a LeBron game since 2007 and THE reason why (along with a poster named SSB) the LeBron thread on the PC board came into existence in 2011, I think it's safe to say I'm fairly well versed in his career and the narratives that have followed him. And I know for damn sure one narrative that has never existed is him supposedly leaving a great situation in Cleveland (2011 sure proved that huh ). You keep harping on this because it's very important for you to brand 2009 and 2010 as a failure. Yeah, nice try.

I don’t appreciate the sarcasm and personal attacks (“just another MJ creep”) here. It’s rude and also completely misplaced.

You can't be in literally every LeBron thread writing novels against him with mostly bad-faith arguments and outright BS and then pretend to be his supporter. Not buying it. I'm a Chicagoan and I know how important it is for the MJ cult to protect his legacy at all cost. This is why I love the fact that I live in the absolute peace of genuinely being a massive fan of both guys. I have 0 insecurity, thus no need to make **** up. I get to enjoy them simply for who they were.

Didnt Cleveland deal with some serious injury issues in 2010/2011? Jamison and Williams were dealing with some injuries early on in the season and then they lost Anderson for the entire season. Seems like their season was doomed from the start.

[Johnny Bball]

Romanticized sociopathy

Scored a lot of points (on worse efficiency even adjusted for era) on impossibly stacked teams against Kurt Rambis and John Stockton with the greatest coach ever while sticking his tongue out and being "feared"

I have no doubt whatsoever that Kawhi could have three-peated twice in MJ's situation.

These are just stupid. In more ways than one.

[WentzerWuver]

Very interesting thread to re-read, mainly the pages 2-5 part.

2 thumbs up, would recommend.

Agreed. Fantastic read and highly recommended for real sports fans!

https://youtube.com/shorts/31ydwJrIdLk?si=je8rXqSj0MHIv9dQ