ShaqAttac wrote:twysted say he was gonna poke holes in all the pc args. yet here u are shootin right through his. im startin to think these hombres r all just talk.
What powerhouse team was in the east when James played in Cleveland?
We've covered this but Lebron has beaten three teams that can be argued(at least empirically) as better playoff opponents than anyone Jordan's faced including an empirical match/better of the 90 Pistons(the 2013 Spurs). I'm not really sure why we're fixing on intra-conference opposition this much.
NbaAllDay wrote:Counting games won in a season does hold some weight.
But we should also consider that the expansions during the time likely helped inflate some of the year on year wins.
AEnigma wrote:He closed his career by serving as a player-coach and was consequently one of the few players to be the best player on title teams with distinct rosters and head coaches. In that role, he:
- came back 3-1 on the road against an 8-SRS defending champion 76ers team; - won the title over a Lakers team that had generated an even higher MoV when West played than the MoV of those 76ers; - and then repeated as champions by winning three road series (only matched by the 1995 Rockets), including series against the Wilt/West/Baylor super-team and against a Knicks team that with DeBusschere had been even better than those 1968 76ers and Lakers teams.
By my personal count he was the best player in his league at least six times; no remaining candidate hits six even with a generous assessment. I voted him at #2 and think he has the easiest #1 case. While I understand voting him lower based on questions over his inability to recreate his impossible defensive outlier status in later eras, that to me is only one element of “greatness”, and with Russell’s level of separation in every other element, those concerns are not enough for me to move him outside of this enshrined top four.
The 1967 Sixers, the only team to beat Bill Russell's Celtics when he played for at least half the series, had what was by far the second best player in the league on a team that was good without him(notable in a league where often no no one besides russell saw significant rs seperation). In 68 the Celtics beat those sixers(injuries helped tbf) and then beat a Lakers team that by MOV was even better with what was the best or 2nd best offensive player of the era was on the court. The best player from team a left to join team b forming an opponent substantially better(at least relative to era) than anyone jordan(or even Lebron) has ever topped.
Bill Russell beat that team with weaker support than Jordan has ever won with as both a player and a coach. Lebron(at least emperically) can be argued to have won with weaker support in 2016 but regardless of their 73-wins, those warriors were not as "stacked" as the 69 Lakers and Lebron hasn't really replicated that achievement(the 2013 Spurs were a great opponent, but unfair outlier they were not).
We can ask how such an achievement was possible, but it's pretty silly do try to undercut what Russell achieved because a player, for the course of their career(no doubt bolstered by Bill) they were recognized as great. Sam Jones was not a great player in 1969(70's breaks it down pretty well), and the Celtics offense improved anyway largely because Hondo started getting closer to the volume and efficiency that would see them join Jones on similar ranking lists.
Even in 71, now in a league with similarly inflated srs-counts like the 90's, the Celtics drafted a strong replacement for Russell, and still their srs was not as strong as the Bulls with Pippen and Grant. In fact, it was actually weaker than what the 95 Bulls posted having lost their best and 3rd best player. Mind you, the second-best player(Pippen) had just filed a trade request and had spent parts of 94 at shooting guard because Pete Myers was a terrible replacement.
It is one thing to appeal to uncertainty(we do not have an abundance of data for the 60's), it is another thing entirely to make positive claims like "Russell had way more help" when such claims are completely contradicted by what is available.
If you want to dismiss the 60's as weak(as I suppose basketball abruptly peaked 30 years ago), fine. But "Russell always played on great teams" is not a defensible position, nor is "Jordan's didn't actually have great help in Chicago". The 5-ring difference is likely because individual defense could be far more valuable in the 60's allowing Russell, the best man and help defender of his era(as well as one of the smartest players in nba history), to input greater influence on the game than anyone since. I voted Lebron and Kareem ahead on longetvity, but I have been pretty unequivocal that as far as making teams win championships go(in a comparison with temporal contemporaries), Russell's prime is basically unassailable(as in you cannot really construct a positive case against it).
He won way more than everyone else, and he kept winning when his support was weak and the competition was steeper. Simply put, individually. Russell was the most dominant player ever.
And James played against the two worst finals opponents between the two. Lol it goes both way. Gotta do your homework.
For whatever reasons, it is very popular today to compare our modern day athletes to those before them. And I think this must be directly related to the large amount of data we have accumulated in recent years and we feel vindicated to work backwards, almost like buying a rock n' roll record and following that bands timeline backwards to find its origins. Data is a valuable tool is sports. Comparing data is small sample sizes in a relative small time frame can produce an accurate analysis. When you compare data from distant timelines in sports the accuracy is no longer relevant. The strongest factor is the eye test which we tend to understand if we were there in real time. The memory tends to fade and history becomes forgotten, which is one reason why NBA players from the 50's and 60's don't get as much recognition. Since we are alive in the present, the players today will all have an advantage in any comparison of a player from the past. There are many arguments we can make in regards to this theory and comparing players from different generations of our history. It's not just the eye test. You can take the subject of employee power and compensation in the NBA company. Players had part time jobs and smoke cigarettes and played basketball as a hobby and passion in certain eras. I believe competition has always been there for players, perhaps with different motivating forces. Data was not always there. Players did not seek out triple doubles, step back to three point line in the open court, try to dunk on three dudes when you could have pulled up for a short open jumper, and players actually could make short to mid-range jumpers on a consistent basis for most of the NBA's history. Today everyone shoots threes and so says the analytics, but in previous generations it was a low percentage shot and certain players lost playing time if they attempted a shot from beyond and in other generations it did not even exist. In regards to this title, "What's the strongest data-driven argument for Michael Jordan as GOAT?", of course this is just another fun exercise in comparing Jordan and LeBron and making sure we are on top of it and we don't miss the day LeBron passes Michael. As if there is a day we know when the data has increased enough to separate the two. Data was not driving Michael Jordan that is for sure. And I doubt it drives LeBron. Data does not measure Jordan's most influential tool that led to his success. The category in which he completely dominated the NBA and sports in his generation was his competitive drive. It did not equate to a sure win formula, although it gave him an edge and it was contagious to his teammates. He was a basketball wizard and had amazing skills and natural athleticism, but it was his competitive drive that separated him from his peers and that is why he broke so many hearts as well.
ShaqAttac wrote:twysted say he was gonna poke holes in all the pc args. yet here u are shootin right through his. im startin to think these hombres r all just talk.
What powerhouse team was in the east when James played in Cleveland?
We've covered this but Lebron has beaten three teams that can be argued(at least empirically) as better playoff opponents than anyone Jordan's faced including an empirical match/better of the 90 Pistons(the 2013 Spurs). I'm not really sure why we're fixing on intra-conference opposition this much.
NbaAllDay wrote:Counting games won in a season does hold some weight.
But we should also consider that the expansions during the time likely helped inflate some of the year on year wins.
AEnigma wrote:He closed his career by serving as a player-coach and was consequently one of the few players to be the best player on title teams with distinct rosters and head coaches. In that role, he:
- came back 3-1 on the road against an 8-SRS defending champion 76ers team; - won the title over a Lakers team that had generated an even higher MoV when West played than the MoV of those 76ers; - and then repeated as champions by winning three road series (only matched by the 1995 Rockets), including series against the Wilt/West/Baylor super-team and against a Knicks team that with DeBusschere had been even better than those 1968 76ers and Lakers teams.
By my personal count he was the best player in his league at least six times; no remaining candidate hits six even with a generous assessment. I voted him at #2 and think he has the easiest #1 case. While I understand voting him lower based on questions over his inability to recreate his impossible defensive outlier status in later eras, that to me is only one element of “greatness”, and with Russell’s level of separation in every other element, those concerns are not enough for me to move him outside of this enshrined top four.
The 1967 Sixers, the only team to beat Bill Russell's Celtics when he played for at least half the series, had what was by far the second best player in the league on a team that was good without him(notable in a league where often no no one besides russell saw significant rs seperation). In 68 the Celtics beat those sixers(injuries helped tbf) and then beat a Lakers team that by MOV was even better with what was the best or 2nd best offensive player of the era was on the court. The best player from team a left to join team b forming an opponent substantially better(at least relative to era) than anyone jordan(or even Lebron) has ever topped.
Bill Russell beat that team with weaker support than Jordan has ever won with as both a player and a coach. Lebron(at least emperically) can be argued to have won with weaker support in 2016 but regardless of their 73-wins, those warriors were not as "stacked" as the 69 Lakers and Lebron hasn't really replicated that achievement(the 2013 Spurs were a great opponent, but unfair outlier they were not).
We can ask how such an achievement was possible, but it's pretty silly do try to undercut what Russell achieved because a player, for the course of their career(no doubt bolstered by Bill) they were recognized as great. Sam Jones was not a great player in 1969(70's breaks it down pretty well), and the Celtics offense improved anyway largely because Hondo started getting closer to the volume and efficiency that would see them join Jones on similar ranking lists.
Even in 71, now in a league with similarly inflated srs-counts like the 90's, the Celtics drafted a strong replacement for Russell, and still their srs(and record) was not as strong as what the 94 Bulls posted with Pippen and Grant. In fact, it was actually weaker than what the 95 Bulls posted having lost their best and 3rd best player. Mind you, the second-best player(Pippen) had just filed a trade request and had spent parts of 94 at shooting guard because Pete Myers was a terrible replacement.
It is one thing to appeal to uncertainty(we do not have an abundance of data for the 60's), it is another thing entirely to make positive claims like "Russell had way more help" when such claims are completely contradicted by what is available.
If you want to dismiss the 60's as weak(as I suppose basketball abruptly peaked 30 years ago), fine. But "Russell always played on great teams" is not a defensible position, nor is "Jordan's didn't actually have great help in Chicago". The 5-ring difference is likely because individual defense could be far more valuable in the 60's allowing Russell, the best man and help defender of his era(as well as one of the smartest players in nba history), to input greater influence on the game than anyone since. I voted Lebron and Kareem ahead on longetvity, but I have been pretty unequivocal that as far as making teams win championships go(in a comparison with temporal contemporaries), Russell's prime is basically unassailable(as in you cannot really construct a positive case against it).
He won way more than everyone else, and he kept winning when his support was weak and the competition was steeper. Simply put, individually. Russell was the most dominant player ever.
Playoff opponents for James and Jordan career
Jordans team: Average wins for playoff opponents 53 wins James team: Average wins for playoff opponents 51 wins
Jordans team: avg net rating for opponents team 4.6 James team: avg net rating for opponents team 3.9
The two worst finals opponents between Jordan/James were the 2020 Heat and sad to say my 2011 Mavs
Yes, James faced tougher competition, but played against, and lost against inferior competition.
What powerhouse team was in the east when James played in Cleveland?
We've covered this but Lebron has beaten three teams that can be argued(at least empirically) as better playoff opponents than anyone Jordan's faced including an empirical match/better of the 90 Pistons(the 2013 Spurs). I'm not really sure why we're fixing on intra-conference opposition this much.
NbaAllDay wrote:Counting games won in a season does hold some weight.
But we should also consider that the expansions during the time likely helped inflate some of the year on year wins.
AEnigma wrote:He closed his career by serving as a player-coach and was consequently one of the few players to be the best player on title teams with distinct rosters and head coaches. In that role, he:
- came back 3-1 on the road against an 8-SRS defending champion 76ers team; - won the title over a Lakers team that had generated an even higher MoV when West played than the MoV of those 76ers; - and then repeated as champions by winning three road series (only matched by the 1995 Rockets), including series against the Wilt/West/Baylor super-team and against a Knicks team that with DeBusschere had been even better than those 1968 76ers and Lakers teams.
By my personal count he was the best player in his league at least six times; no remaining candidate hits six even with a generous assessment. I voted him at #2 and think he has the easiest #1 case. While I understand voting him lower based on questions over his inability to recreate his impossible defensive outlier status in later eras, that to me is only one element of “greatness”, and with Russell’s level of separation in every other element, those concerns are not enough for me to move him outside of this enshrined top four.
The 1967 Sixers, the only team to beat Bill Russell's Celtics when he played for at least half the series, had what was by far the second best player in the league on a team that was good without him(notable in a league where often no no one besides russell saw significant rs seperation). In 68 the Celtics beat those sixers(injuries helped tbf) and then beat a Lakers team that by MOV was even better with what was the best or 2nd best offensive player of the era was on the court. The best player from team a left to join team b forming an opponent substantially better(at least relative to era) than anyone jordan(or even Lebron) has ever topped.
Bill Russell beat that team with weaker support than Jordan has ever won with as both a player and a coach. Lebron(at least emperically) can be argued to have won with weaker support in 2016 but regardless of their 73-wins, those warriors were not as "stacked" as the 69 Lakers and Lebron hasn't really replicated that achievement(the 2013 Spurs were a great opponent, but unfair outlier they were not).
We can ask how such an achievement was possible, but it's pretty silly do try to undercut what Russell achieved because a player, for the course of their career(no doubt bolstered by Bill) they were recognized as great. Sam Jones was not a great player in 1969(70's breaks it down pretty well), and the Celtics offense improved anyway largely because Hondo started getting closer to the volume and efficiency that would see them join Jones on similar ranking lists.
Even in 71, now in a league with similarly inflated srs-counts like the 90's, the Celtics drafted a strong replacement for Russell, and still their srs was not as strong as the Bulls with Pippen and Grant. In fact, it was actually weaker than what the 95 Bulls posted having lost their best and 3rd best player. Mind you, the second-best player(Pippen) had just filed a trade request and had spent parts of 94 at shooting guard because Pete Myers was a terrible replacement.
It is one thing to appeal to uncertainty(we do not have an abundance of data for the 60's), it is another thing entirely to make positive claims like "Russell had way more help" when such claims are completely contradicted by what is available.
If you want to dismiss the 60's as weak(as I suppose basketball abruptly peaked 30 years ago), fine. But "Russell always played on great teams" is not a defensible position, nor is "Jordan's didn't actually have great help in Chicago". The 5-ring difference is likely because individual defense could be far more valuable in the 60's allowing Russell, the best man and help defender of his era(as well as one of the smartest players in nba history), to input greater influence on the game than anyone since. I voted Lebron and Kareem ahead on longetvity, but I have been pretty unequivocal that as far as making teams win championships go(in a comparison with temporal contemporaries), Russell's prime is basically unassailable(as in you cannot really construct a positive case against it).
He won way more than everyone else, and he kept winning when his support was weak and the competition was steeper. Simply put, individually. Russell was the most dominant player ever.
And James played against the two worst finals opponents between the two. Lol it goes both way. Gotta do your homework.
Amazing that you hate LeBron so much that you denigrate your team's only championship year. Even funnier is that you're completely wrong about it. Those Mavs absolutely beat down the defending Lakers, the KD-Russ-Harden Thunder, and the Heat obviously. What a weak team!!11
But making LeBron look bad is so important that you'll call your championship team a weak team Imagine thinking that way. It's sad in a way.
Jordans best teammates Pippen 7x allstar 7x allnba 10x alldefense
Rodman 2x allstar 2x allnba 8x alldefense team 2x dpoy
Grant 1x allstar 4 x alldefense team
Lets dissect this.
James played with way way more talent than Jordan. Its right in front of you just look.
James had 2 allstar teammates from 2010-2018
The only allstar teammate Jordan had was Pippen
James had the most embarrassing nba finals showing by a top 5 player ever
James never created a dynasty with a team
Those are the facts whether you like it or not. Cant wait to hear from an expert like you tho.
Using all-star appearances to judge the quality of a team, while completely ignoring all and any context? We've got the next John Hollinger on our hands!
What powerhouse team was in the east when James played in Cleveland?
We've covered this but Lebron has beaten three teams that can be argued(at least empirically) as better playoff opponents than anyone Jordan's faced including an empirical match/better of the 90 Pistons(the 2013 Spurs). I'm not really sure why we're fixing on intra-conference opposition this much.
NbaAllDay wrote:Counting games won in a season does hold some weight.
But we should also consider that the expansions during the time likely helped inflate some of the year on year wins.
AEnigma wrote:He closed his career by serving as a player-coach and was consequently one of the few players to be the best player on title teams with distinct rosters and head coaches. In that role, he:
- came back 3-1 on the road against an 8-SRS defending champion 76ers team; - won the title over a Lakers team that had generated an even higher MoV when West played than the MoV of those 76ers; - and then repeated as champions by winning three road series (only matched by the 1995 Rockets), including series against the Wilt/West/Baylor super-team and against a Knicks team that with DeBusschere had been even better than those 1968 76ers and Lakers teams.
By my personal count he was the best player in his league at least six times; no remaining candidate hits six even with a generous assessment. I voted him at #2 and think he has the easiest #1 case. While I understand voting him lower based on questions over his inability to recreate his impossible defensive outlier status in later eras, that to me is only one element of “greatness”, and with Russell’s level of separation in every other element, those concerns are not enough for me to move him outside of this enshrined top four.
The 1967 Sixers, the only team to beat Bill Russell's Celtics when he played for at least half the series, had what was by far the second best player in the league on a team that was good without him(notable in a league where often no no one besides russell saw significant rs seperation). In 68 the Celtics beat those sixers(injuries helped tbf) and then beat a Lakers team that by MOV was even better with what was the best or 2nd best offensive player of the era was on the court. The best player from team a left to join team b forming an opponent substantially better(at least relative to era) than anyone jordan(or even Lebron) has ever topped.
Bill Russell beat that team with weaker support than Jordan has ever won with as both a player and a coach. Lebron(at least emperically) can be argued to have won with weaker support in 2016 but regardless of their 73-wins, those warriors were not as "stacked" as the 69 Lakers and Lebron hasn't really replicated that achievement(the 2013 Spurs were a great opponent, but unfair outlier they were not).
We can ask how such an achievement was possible, but it's pretty silly do try to undercut what Russell achieved because a player, for the course of their career(no doubt bolstered by Bill) they were recognized as great. Sam Jones was not a great player in 1969(70's breaks it down pretty well), and the Celtics offense improved anyway largely because Hondo started getting closer to the volume and efficiency that would see them join Jones on similar ranking lists.
Even in 71, now in a league with similarly inflated srs-counts like the 90's, the Celtics drafted a strong replacement for Russell, and still their srs(and record) was not as strong as what the 94 Bulls posted with Pippen and Grant. In fact, it was actually weaker than what the 95 Bulls posted having lost their best and 3rd best player. Mind you, the second-best player(Pippen) had just filed a trade request and had spent parts of 94 at shooting guard because Pete Myers was a terrible replacement.
It is one thing to appeal to uncertainty(we do not have an abundance of data for the 60's), it is another thing entirely to make positive claims like "Russell had way more help" when such claims are completely contradicted by what is available.
If you want to dismiss the 60's as weak(as I suppose basketball abruptly peaked 30 years ago), fine. But "Russell always played on great teams" is not a defensible position, nor is "Jordan's didn't actually have great help in Chicago". The 5-ring difference is likely because individual defense could be far more valuable in the 60's allowing Russell, the best man and help defender of his era(as well as one of the smartest players in nba history), to input greater influence on the game than anyone since. I voted Lebron and Kareem ahead on longetvity, but I have been pretty unequivocal that as far as making teams win championships go(in a comparison with temporal contemporaries), Russell's prime is basically unassailable(as in you cannot really construct a positive case against it).
He won way more than everyone else, and he kept winning when his support was weak and the competition was steeper. Simply put, individually. Russell was the most dominant player ever.
Playoff opponents for James and Jordan career
Jordans team: Average wins for playoff opponents 53 wins James team: Average wins for playoff opponents 51 wins
Jordans team: avg net rating for opponents team 4.6 James team: avg net rating for opponents team 3.9
The two worst finals opponents between Jordan/James were the 2020 Heat and sad to say my 2011 Mavs
Yes, James faced tougher competition, but played against, and lost against inferior competition.
Lol at using regular season wins and net rating as your rational, especially when one of the players played in the expansion era. Really tough to beat on all those expansion teams during the regular season, right?
WarriorGM wrote:70sFan is the basketball equivalent of that art film student who goes on about how Andrei Tarkovsky is a genius and how Solaris and Andrei Rublev are masterpieces of cinema. Maybe you are impressed by that kind of thing; I'm not.
Wow, I didn't expect that. What does it suppose to mean exactly?
What powerhouse team was in the east when James played in Cleveland?
We've covered this but Lebron has beaten three teams that can be argued(at least empirically) as better playoff opponents than anyone Jordan's faced including an empirical match/better of the 90 Pistons(the 2013 Spurs). I'm not really sure why we're fixing on intra-conference opposition this much.
NbaAllDay wrote:Counting games won in a season does hold some weight.
But we should also consider that the expansions during the time likely helped inflate some of the year on year wins.
AEnigma wrote:He closed his career by serving as a player-coach and was consequently one of the few players to be the best player on title teams with distinct rosters and head coaches. In that role, he:
- came back 3-1 on the road against an 8-SRS defending champion 76ers team; - won the title over a Lakers team that had generated an even higher MoV when West played than the MoV of those 76ers; - and then repeated as champions by winning three road series (only matched by the 1995 Rockets), including series against the Wilt/West/Baylor super-team and against a Knicks team that with DeBusschere had been even better than those 1968 76ers and Lakers teams.
By my personal count he was the best player in his league at least six times; no remaining candidate hits six even with a generous assessment. I voted him at #2 and think he has the easiest #1 case. While I understand voting him lower based on questions over his inability to recreate his impossible defensive outlier status in later eras, that to me is only one element of “greatness”, and with Russell’s level of separation in every other element, those concerns are not enough for me to move him outside of this enshrined top four.
The 1967 Sixers, the only team to beat Bill Russell's Celtics when he played for at least half the series, had what was by far the second best player in the league on a team that was good without him(notable in a league where often no no one besides russell saw significant rs seperation). In 68 the Celtics beat those sixers(injuries helped tbf) and then beat a Lakers team that by MOV was even better with what was the best or 2nd best offensive player of the era was on the court. The best player from team a left to join team b forming an opponent substantially better(at least relative to era) than anyone jordan(or even Lebron) has ever topped.
Bill Russell beat that team with weaker support than Jordan has ever won with as both a player and a coach. Lebron(at least emperically) can be argued to have won with weaker support in 2016 but regardless of their 73-wins, those warriors were not as "stacked" as the 69 Lakers and Lebron hasn't really replicated that achievement(the 2013 Spurs were a great opponent, but unfair outlier they were not).
We can ask how such an achievement was possible, but it's pretty silly do try to undercut what Russell achieved because a player, for the course of their career(no doubt bolstered by Bill) they were recognized as great. Sam Jones was not a great player in 1969(70's breaks it down pretty well), and the Celtics offense improved anyway largely because Hondo started getting closer to the volume and efficiency that would see them join Jones on similar ranking lists.
Even in 71, now in a league with similarly inflated srs-counts like the 90's, the Celtics drafted a strong replacement for Russell, and still their srs(and record) was not as strong as what the 94 Bulls posted with Pippen and Grant. In fact, it was actually weaker than what the 95 Bulls posted having lost their best and 3rd best player. Mind you, the second-best player(Pippen) had just filed a trade request and had spent parts of 94 at shooting guard because Pete Myers was a terrible replacement.
It is one thing to appeal to uncertainty(we do not have an abundance of data for the 60's), it is another thing entirely to make positive claims like "Russell had way more help" when such claims are completely contradicted by what is available.
If you want to dismiss the 60's as weak(as I suppose basketball abruptly peaked 30 years ago), fine. But "Russell always played on great teams" is not a defensible position, nor is "Jordan's didn't actually have great help in Chicago". The 5-ring difference is likely because individual defense could be far more valuable in the 60's allowing Russell, the best man and help defender of his era(as well as one of the smartest players in nba history), to input greater influence on the game than anyone since. I voted Lebron and Kareem ahead on longetvity, but I have been pretty unequivocal that as far as making teams win championships go(in a comparison with temporal contemporaries), Russell's prime is basically unassailable(as in you cannot really construct a positive case against it).
He won way more than everyone else, and he kept winning when his support was weak and the competition was steeper. Simply put, individually. Russell was the most dominant player ever.
Playoff opponents for James and Jordan career
Jordans team: Average wins for playoff opponents 53 wins James team: Average wins for playoff opponents 51 wins
Jordans team: avg net rating for opponents team 4.6 James team: avg net rating for opponents team 3.9
The two worst finals opponents between Jordan/James were the 2020 Heat and sad to say my 2011 Mavs
Yes, James faced tougher competition, but played against, and lost against inferior competition.
Notice how I said playoff opposition? Teams do not take the rs as seriously now and expansion inflates rs-ratings as noted in ty's chart(not so relevant for the playoffs where you only play half-decent teams). The Mavs by psrs were also a better opponent than anyone Jordan beat having obliterated a set of 55-win opponents before edging Miami in the finals. 2020 Miami are the one and only weak finals opponent here and the lakers capitalized winning comfortably in a year which corresponds to Jordan's unfortunate Washington stint.
Jordan faced strong competition in the 80's but wasn't really able to make a dent. Then the lakers and pistons broke down with injuries, magic retired, bird broke down, and when Hakeem finally got some help(now in his 30's) jordan played baseball one-year and lost the other. The rs-ratings going up is not a reflection of the teams materially improving.
OhayoKD wrote:We've covered this but Lebron has beaten three teams that can be argued(at least empirically) as better playoff opponents than anyone Jordan's faced including an empirical match/better of the 90 Pistons(the 2013 Spurs). I'm not really sure why we're fixing on intra-conference opposition this much.
The 1967 Sixers, the only team to beat Bill Russell's Celtics when he played for at least half the series, had what was by far the second best player in the league on a team that was good without him(notable in a league where often no no one besides russell saw significant rs seperation). In 68 the Celtics beat those sixers(injuries helped tbf) and then beat a Lakers team that by MOV was even better with what was the best or 2nd best offensive player of the era was on the court. The best player from team a left to join team b forming an opponent substantially better(at least relative to era) than anyone jordan(or even Lebron) has ever topped.
Bill Russell beat that team with weaker support than Jordan has ever won with as both a player and a coach. Lebron(at least emperically) can be argued to have won with weaker support in 2016 but regardless of their 73-wins, those warriors were not as "stacked" as the 69 Lakers and Lebron hasn't really replicated that achievement(the 2013 Spurs were a great opponent, but unfair outlier they were not).
We can ask how such an achievement was possible, but it's pretty silly do try to undercut what Russell achieved because a player, for the course of their career(no doubt bolstered by Bill) they were recognized as great. Sam Jones was not a great player in 1969(70's breaks it down pretty well), and the Celtics offense improved anyway largely because Hondo started getting closer to the volume and efficiency that would see them join Jones on similar ranking lists.
Even in 71, now in a league with similarly inflated srs-counts like the 90's, the Celtics drafted a strong replacement for Russell, and still their srs was not as strong as the Bulls with Pippen and Grant. In fact, it was actually weaker than what the 95 Bulls posted having lost their best and 3rd best player. Mind you, the second-best player(Pippen) had just filed a trade request and had spent parts of 94 at shooting guard because Pete Myers was a terrible replacement.
It is one thing to appeal to uncertainty(we do not have an abundance of data for the 60's), it is another thing entirely to make positive claims like "Russell had way more help" when such claims are completely contradicted by what is available.
If you want to dismiss the 60's as weak(as I suppose basketball abruptly peaked 30 years ago), fine. But "Russell always played on great teams" is not a defensible position, nor is "Jordan's didn't actually have great help in Chicago". The 5-ring difference is likely because individual defense could be far more valuable in the 60's allowing Russell, the best man and help defender of his era(as well as one of the smartest players in nba history), to input greater influence on the game than anyone since. I voted Lebron and Kareem ahead on longetvity, but I have been pretty unequivocal that as far as making teams win championships go(in a comparison with temporal contemporaries), Russell's prime is basically unassailable(as in you cannot really construct a positive case against it).
He won way more than everyone else, and he kept winning when his support was weak and the competition was steeper. Simply put, individually. Russell was the most dominant player ever.
And James played against the two worst finals opponents between the two. Lol it goes both way. Gotta do your homework.
Amazing that you hate LeBron so much that you denigrate your team's only championship year. Even funnier is that you're completely wrong about it. Those Mavs absolutely beat down the defending Lakers, the KD-Russ-Harden Thunder, and the Heat obviously. What a weak team!!11
But making LeBron look bad is so important that you'll call your championship team a weak team Imagine thinking that way. It's sad in a way.
No whats sad is getting on here and saying “I love you lebron James xoxoxo” i mean are you kidding me? You cried for this guy? I cried when my parents died. I cried when my son was in the hospital for 6 weeks. You cried over an nba player breaking a scoring record. Ive never even heard of that before.
OhayoKD wrote:We've covered this but Lebron has beaten three teams that can be argued(at least empirically) as better playoff opponents than anyone Jordan's faced including an empirical match/better of the 90 Pistons(the 2013 Spurs). I'm not really sure why we're fixing on intra-conference opposition this much.
The 1967 Sixers, the only team to beat Bill Russell's Celtics when he played for at least half the series, had what was by far the second best player in the league on a team that was good without him(notable in a league where often no no one besides russell saw significant rs seperation). In 68 the Celtics beat those sixers(injuries helped tbf) and then beat a Lakers team that by MOV was even better with what was the best or 2nd best offensive player of the era was on the court. The best player from team a left to join team b forming an opponent substantially better(at least relative to era) than anyone jordan(or even Lebron) has ever topped.
Bill Russell beat that team with weaker support than Jordan has ever won with as both a player and a coach. Lebron(at least emperically) can be argued to have won with weaker support in 2016 but regardless of their 73-wins, those warriors were not as "stacked" as the 69 Lakers and Lebron hasn't really replicated that achievement(the 2013 Spurs were a great opponent, but unfair outlier they were not).
We can ask how such an achievement was possible, but it's pretty silly do try to undercut what Russell achieved because a player, for the course of their career(no doubt bolstered by Bill) they were recognized as great. Sam Jones was not a great player in 1969(70's breaks it down pretty well), and the Celtics offense improved anyway largely because Hondo started getting closer to the volume and efficiency that would see them join Jones on similar ranking lists.
Even in 71, now in a league with similarly inflated srs-counts like the 90's, the Celtics drafted a strong replacement for Russell, and still their srs(and record) was not as strong as what the 94 Bulls posted with Pippen and Grant. In fact, it was actually weaker than what the 95 Bulls posted having lost their best and 3rd best player. Mind you, the second-best player(Pippen) had just filed a trade request and had spent parts of 94 at shooting guard because Pete Myers was a terrible replacement.
It is one thing to appeal to uncertainty(we do not have an abundance of data for the 60's), it is another thing entirely to make positive claims like "Russell had way more help" when such claims are completely contradicted by what is available.
If you want to dismiss the 60's as weak(as I suppose basketball abruptly peaked 30 years ago), fine. But "Russell always played on great teams" is not a defensible position, nor is "Jordan's didn't actually have great help in Chicago". The 5-ring difference is likely because individual defense could be far more valuable in the 60's allowing Russell, the best man and help defender of his era(as well as one of the smartest players in nba history), to input greater influence on the game than anyone since. I voted Lebron and Kareem ahead on longetvity, but I have been pretty unequivocal that as far as making teams win championships go(in a comparison with temporal contemporaries), Russell's prime is basically unassailable(as in you cannot really construct a positive case against it).
He won way more than everyone else, and he kept winning when his support was weak and the competition was steeper. Simply put, individually. Russell was the most dominant player ever.
Playoff opponents for James and Jordan career
Jordans team: Average wins for playoff opponents 53 wins James team: Average wins for playoff opponents 51 wins
Jordans team: avg net rating for opponents team 4.6 James team: avg net rating for opponents team 3.9
The two worst finals opponents between Jordan/James were the 2020 Heat and sad to say my 2011 Mavs
Yes, James faced tougher competition, but played against, and lost against inferior competition.
Lol at using regular season wins and net rating as your rational, especially when one of the players played in the expansion era. Really tough to beat on all those expansion teams during the regular season, right?
Do you understand how the expansion era worked? Do you understand that teams could protect 8 players on their roster? Lets look at the defending champs.
Dener would have kept
Jokic Murray Gordon MJP KCP Brown Braun Green
Expansion team could get their next best player.
Mavs
Luka Irving Kleber Powell Hardaway Green Hardy Bullock
Expansion team gets their next best player
See how that works? You act like teams were depleted of talent. And what, there were two bad teams added during the 90s. This expansion talk is hilarious. You act like the 90s were weak cause expansion but you dont how it worked.
So now lebrons argument seems to be boiling down to - numbers are similar, and he played a lot longer. And even though he admittedly has achieved far less accolades it’s because the league is harder. Despite him playing with more talent than any other goat candidate and losing to some sub par teams along the way.
Pretty weak guys.
Ps and while aggregate talent is better, I think the evolution of the game would help Jordan not detract.
Pps - lebron avoided most of the top talent his career cruising in the east. Again this is a case of data without context. The east was a walk in the part for a decade, west a bloodbath. That’s why he got stomped in the finals so often.
Jordans team: Average wins for playoff opponents 53 wins James team: Average wins for playoff opponents 51 wins
Jordans team: avg net rating for opponents team 4.6 James team: avg net rating for opponents team 3.9
The two worst finals opponents between Jordan/James were the 2020 Heat and sad to say my 2011 Mavs
Yes, James faced tougher competition, but played against, and lost against inferior competition.
Lol at using regular season wins and net rating as your rational, especially when one of the players played in the expansion era. Really tough to beat on all those expansion teams during the regular season, right?
Do you understand how the expansion era worked? Do you understand that teams could protect 8 players on their roster? Lets look at the defending champs.
Dener would have kept
Jokic Murray Gordon MJP KCP Brown Braun Green
Expansion team could get their next best player.
Mavs
Luka Irving Kleber Powell Hardaway Green Hardy Bullock
Expansion team gets their next best player
See how that works? You act like teams were depleted of talent. And what, there were two bad teams added during the 90s. This expansion talk is hilarious. You act like the 90s were weak cause expansion but you dont how it worked.
You completely missed the point, while simultaneously making my point. Expansion teams are easy to beat on. They don't get superstar talent. When there are crappy expansion teams in the league, it's easier to pad your regular season record. Thanks for making my point.
And James played against the two worst finals opponents between the two. Lol it goes both way. Gotta do your homework.
Amazing that you hate LeBron so much that you denigrate your team's only championship year. Even funnier is that you're completely wrong about it. Those Mavs absolutely beat down the defending Lakers, the KD-Russ-Harden Thunder, and the Heat obviously. What a weak team!!11
But making LeBron look bad is so important that you'll call your championship team a weak team Imagine thinking that way. It's sad in a way.
No whats sad is getting on here and saying “I love you lebron James xoxoxo” i mean are you kidding me? You cried for this guy? I cried when my parents died. I cried when my son was in the hospital for 6 weeks. You cried over an nba player breaking a scoring record. Ive never even heard of that before.
I cried maybe 5 times the night he broke the record. It was simply glorious!
The only reason you brought that up is because you know what I said was true. You hate LeBron more than you like your team. It's more important to you to say your only championship team was weak (despite whooping very strong teams) so you can denigrate LeBron. What kind of fandom is that?
OhayoKD wrote:We've covered this but Lebron has beaten three teams that can be argued(at least empirically) as better playoff opponents than anyone Jordan's faced including an empirical match/better of the 90 Pistons(the 2013 Spurs). I'm not really sure why we're fixing on intra-conference opposition this much.
The 1967 Sixers, the only team to beat Bill Russell's Celtics when he played for at least half the series, had what was by far the second best player in the league on a team that was good without him(notable in a league where often no no one besides russell saw significant rs seperation). In 68 the Celtics beat those sixers(injuries helped tbf) and then beat a Lakers team that by MOV was even better with what was the best or 2nd best offensive player of the era was on the court. The best player from team a left to join team b forming an opponent substantially better(at least relative to era) than anyone jordan(or even Lebron) has ever topped.
Bill Russell beat that team with weaker support than Jordan has ever won with as both a player and a coach. Lebron(at least emperically) can be argued to have won with weaker support in 2016 but regardless of their 73-wins, those warriors were not as "stacked" as the 69 Lakers and Lebron hasn't really replicated that achievement(the 2013 Spurs were a great opponent, but unfair outlier they were not).
We can ask how such an achievement was possible, but it's pretty silly do try to undercut what Russell achieved because a player, for the course of their career(no doubt bolstered by Bill) they were recognized as great. Sam Jones was not a great player in 1969(70's breaks it down pretty well), and the Celtics offense improved anyway largely because Hondo started getting closer to the volume and efficiency that would see them join Jones on similar ranking lists.
Even in 71, now in a league with similarly inflated srs-counts like the 90's, the Celtics drafted a strong replacement for Russell, and still their srs(and record) was not as strong as what the 94 Bulls posted with Pippen and Grant. In fact, it was actually weaker than what the 95 Bulls posted having lost their best and 3rd best player. Mind you, the second-best player(Pippen) had just filed a trade request and had spent parts of 94 at shooting guard because Pete Myers was a terrible replacement.
It is one thing to appeal to uncertainty(we do not have an abundance of data for the 60's), it is another thing entirely to make positive claims like "Russell had way more help" when such claims are completely contradicted by what is available.
If you want to dismiss the 60's as weak(as I suppose basketball abruptly peaked 30 years ago), fine. But "Russell always played on great teams" is not a defensible position, nor is "Jordan's didn't actually have great help in Chicago". The 5-ring difference is likely because individual defense could be far more valuable in the 60's allowing Russell, the best man and help defender of his era(as well as one of the smartest players in nba history), to input greater influence on the game than anyone since. I voted Lebron and Kareem ahead on longetvity, but I have been pretty unequivocal that as far as making teams win championships go(in a comparison with temporal contemporaries), Russell's prime is basically unassailable(as in you cannot really construct a positive case against it).
He won way more than everyone else, and he kept winning when his support was weak and the competition was steeper. Simply put, individually. Russell was the most dominant player ever.
Playoff opponents for James and Jordan career
Jordans team: Average wins for playoff opponents 53 wins James team: Average wins for playoff opponents 51 wins
Jordans team: avg net rating for opponents team 4.6 James team: avg net rating for opponents team 3.9
The two worst finals opponents between Jordan/James were the 2020 Heat and sad to say my 2011 Mavs
Yes, James faced tougher competition, but played against, and lost against inferior competition.
Notice how I said playoff opposition? Teams do not take the rs as seriously now and expansion inflates rs-ratings as noted in ty's chart(not so relevant for the playoffs where you only play half-decent teams). The Mavs by psrs were also a better opponent than anyone Jordan beat having obliterated a set of 55-win opponents before edging Miami in the finals. 2020 Miami are the one and only weak finals opponent here and the lakers capitalized winning comfortably in a year which corresponds to Jordan's unfortunate Washington stint.
Jordan faced strong competition in the 80's, and then magic, isiah
Teams dont take RS seriously now? Sounds like another excuse. If the league is so stacked now they should have enough talent to overcome players load managing and players taking their foot off the gas. Doesnt compute.
You have no idea what you are talking about with expansion. A team can keep 8 players so they lose their 9th best player. Most teams are 8 or 9 deep at best. Teams could let their 9th best player leave without severaly affecting their team. And adding two bad teams during the 90s isnt that much of an impact.
Psrs lol? The Mavs were my team but they were not better then any team Jordans Bulls faced. They were all extremely talented. Teams don’t consistently win 50-60 games every year for half a decade if they arent good. That is just impossible to do and embarrassing to think. You trying to weaken the Bulls finals opponents is your desparation at trying to make Jordan look bad. It isnt working kid.
Taj FTW wrote:Lol at using regular season wins and net rating as your rational, especially when one of the players played in the expansion era. Really tough to beat on all those expansion teams during the regular season, right?
Do you understand how the expansion era worked? Do you understand that teams could protect 8 players on their roster? Lets look at the defending champs.
Dener would have kept
Jokic Murray Gordon MJP KCP Brown Braun Green
Expansion team could get their next best player.
Mavs
Luka Irving Kleber Powell Hardaway Green Hardy Bullock
Expansion team gets their next best player
See how that works? You act like teams were depleted of talent. And what, there were two bad teams added during the 90s. This expansion talk is hilarious. You act like the 90s were weak cause expansion but you dont how it worked.
You completely missed the point, while simultaneously making my point. Expansion teams are easy to beat on. They don't get superstar talent. When there are crappy expansion teams in the league, it's easier to pad your regular season record. Thanks for making my point.
Kid how often did the Bulls play the Vancouver Grizzles a year? Are you kidding me lol? So the Bulls are overrated cause this? Just stop man this is embarrassing
Jordans team: Average wins for playoff opponents 53 wins James team: Average wins for playoff opponents 51 wins
Jordans team: avg net rating for opponents team 4.6 James team: avg net rating for opponents team 3.9
The two worst finals opponents between Jordan/James were the 2020 Heat and sad to say my 2011 Mavs
Yes, James faced tougher competition, but played against, and lost against inferior competition.
Notice how I said playoff opposition? Teams do not take the rs as seriously now and expansion inflates rs-ratings as noted in ty's chart(not so relevant for the playoffs where you only play half-decent teams). The Mavs by psrs were also a better opponent than anyone Jordan beat having obliterated a set of 55-win opponents before edging Miami in the finals. 2020 Miami are the one and only weak finals opponent here and the lakers capitalized winning comfortably in a year which corresponds to Jordan's unfortunate Washington stint.
Jordan faced strong competition in the 80's, and then magic, isiah
Teams dont take RS seriously now? S
Psrs lol? The Mavs were my team but they were not better then any team Jordans Bulls faced. working kid.
And yet the Mavs performed much better in the playoffs than any of these "more talented" Bulls opponents.
You also seem to be confused about why expansion inflated srs in the 90's(much as it did during the 70's)
New teams tend to be comparatively weak(check the chart i linked last page) which leads to blow-outs. Those blowouts then boost the ratings of the teams blowing those expansion sides out which then scales up and boosts the ratings of everyone. Three of the four most recent expansions occurred before or during MJ's title-runs. Thus when we minimize the effect of those expansion sides with say PSRS, we see a more accurate reflection of talent. The 89/90 pistons rightfully score higher than any of Jordan's conquests, as do the 2013 spurs, the 2011 mavs, the 2016 warriors and the 2012 thunder. The Warriors are the only non-expansion era side to post a +10 rs psrs(and that was probably assisted by with unusually aggressive tanking).
There's no real reason to ignore that unless you're trying to force a desired conclusion...
Taj FTW wrote:Amazing that you hate LeBron so much that you denigrate your team's only championship year. Even funnier is that you're completely wrong about it. Those Mavs absolutely beat down the defending Lakers, the KD-Russ-Harden Thunder, and the Heat obviously. What a weak team!!11
But making LeBron look bad is so important that you'll call your championship team a weak team Imagine thinking that way. It's sad in a way.
No whats sad is getting on here and saying “I love you lebron James xoxoxo” i mean are you kidding me? You cried for this guy? I cried when my parents died. I cried when my son was in the hospital for 6 weeks. You cried over an nba player breaking a scoring record. Ive never even heard of that before.
I cried maybe 5 times the night he broke the record. It was simply glorious!
The only reason you brought that up is because you know what I said was true. You hate LeBron more than you like your team. It's more important to you to say your only championship team was weak (despite whooping very strong teams) so you can denigrate LeBron. What kind of fandom is that?
First off the Mavs winning the finals was one of the most glorious sports days in my life, right there with the Cowboys winning 3 super bowls in the 90s. I have been watching the Mavs since the late 80s when Ro Blackman, James Donaldson, and Derek Harper were their best players. I am a huge Mavs fan, but to say they were better then any team the Bulls played in the 90s is just inaccurate. And yea, you crying for james is hilarious lol. I never could imagine shedding a tear cause an athlete broke a record. Thats just cringe kid.
As a huge Bulls' fan and an all time LBJ (sports) hater-both guys have very strong arguments. I have MJ as better, but LBJ certainly has a case. Of course, it also depends on what values for their GOAT.
I think the NBA GOAT case for KAJ is gone now-I think it has to be LBJ or MJ
But, I do have KAJ as the GOAT bball player, as the best HS player of all time and the best college player of all time
OhayoKD wrote:Notice how I said playoff opposition? Teams do not take the rs as seriously now and expansion inflates rs-ratings as noted in ty's chart(not so relevant for the playoffs where you only play half-decent teams). The Mavs by psrs were also a better opponent than anyone Jordan beat having obliterated a set of 55-win opponents before edging Miami in the finals. 2020 Miami are the one and only weak finals opponent here and the lakers capitalized winning comfortably in a year which corresponds to Jordan's unfortunate Washington stint.
Jordan faced strong competition in the 80's, and then magic, isiah
Teams dont take RS seriously now? S
Psrs lol? The Mavs were my team but they were not better then any team Jordans Bulls faced. working kid.
And yet the Mavs performed much better in the playoffs than any of these "more talented" Bulls opponents.
You also seem to be confused about why expansion inflated srs in the 90's(much as it did during the 70's)
New teams tend to be comparatively weak(check the chart i linked last page) which leads to blow-outs. Those blowouts then boost the ratings of the teams blowing those expansion sides out which then scales up and boosts the ratings of everyone. Three of the four most recent expansions occurred before or during MJ's title-runs. Thus when we minimize the effect of those expansion sides with say PSRS, we see a more accurate reflection of talent. The 89/90 pistons rightfully score higher than any of Jordan's conquests, as do the 2013 spurs, the 2011 mavs, the 2016 warriors and the 2012 thunder. The Warriors are the only non-expansion era side to post a +10 rs psrs(and that was probably assisted by with unusually aggressive tanking).
There's no real reason to ignore that unless you're trying to force a desired conclusion...
Yea you nailed it man!! Congrats!! Bulls are over rated cause a couple expansion teams in the 90s lol what a joke. Bulls played these teams like what? Twice a year? You can talk in circles all you want man, it isnt fooling anybody….do you actually read what you post on here? You keep saying psrs lol cause im sure that makes Jordan look bad. But all other metrics that favor Jordan arent good for some strange reason. Keep up the fight kid but you arent fooling anybody. Enjoy your Saturday!
Imagine thinking that way. It's sad in a way.