What's the strongest data-driven argument for Michael Jordan as GOAT?

[thinktank]

I guess I’m surprised this thread is still going.

I suppose there’s an age divide, but there really shouldn’t be.

6 rings and two 3-peats. Defensive player awards. Jordan could’ve had more titles if he wanted.

I watched them both play. Jordan wins.

[DOT]

Jordan could’ve had more titles if he wanted.

Guess he just didn't have that killer instinct, then

Shame, this invalidates him from being the GOAT.

[WillyJakkz]

"Cuz I said so!" Is usually the only and best argument people make.

[thinktank]

Jordan could’ve had more titles if he wanted.

Guess he just didn't have that killer instinct, then

Shame, this invalidates him from being the GOAT.

You’d look better in green.

[thinktank]

Rodman would’ve given Lebron fits. Can you imagine?

[DOT]

You’d look better in green.

How do you know I'm not wearing green?

[thinktank]

You’d look better in green.

How do you know I'm not wearing green?

I’m an alien and I have alien superpowers, or at least that’s what you humans call them.

PS. Not winning 7 championships with the Heat after holding the Decision is an automatic disqualifier for greatest ever.

[DOT]

I’m an alien and I have alien superpowers, or at least that’s what you humans call them.

Sounds fun.

[The4thHorseman]

They got suspended at the begining of the season.
They didnt get chemistry because Lebron wanted to trade them for AD. here ingram talks about the rumours effect on the young guys.
Lebron stated that he had activated Playoff mode.

But hey im not the one who shows up in every Jordan thread repeating:
Bulls won 55 in 94.
Jordan didnt do anything without Pippen and phil.

But then the same is used logic is used, you pull all of the excuses out.
Lebron got injured.
They had no chemistry.

Where's the quote in your link that specifies LeBron was the one who wanted to trade for Davis? You're basically insinuating that LA had to be talked into pursuing a trade for AD.

Im sure Pelinka thought of it all by himself.
Pelinka convinced a klutch player to signal to other teams that he wouldnt resign if traded to other team then the Lakers.
Do you really think Lebron didnt have a say?

Of course he probably had a say. You're the one implying that Pelinka had nothing to do with it by posting a link that you falsely claimed it was LeBron that made the trade.

[70sFan]

I guess I’m surprised this thread is still going.

I suppose there’s an age divide, but there really shouldn’t be.

6 rings and two 3-peats. Defensive player awards. Jordan could’ve had more titles if he wanted.

I watched them both play. Jordan wins.

Bill Russell has 11 rings and 8-peat. He'd have probably 10+ defensive player awards. Why not go for him then?

[Hitachi77]

Jordan won on the road twice in the NBA Finals...

https://www.actionnetwork.com/nba/betting-odds-history-1990s-chicago-bulls-dynasty-michael-jordan

The Bulls were favorites in both those series.

I made a mistake, Jordan has lost as a favorite, against Orlando in the 1995 ECF. Using the logic here, had he won that series, and lost in the finals against the Rockets, his legacy would be worse because he would be 6/7 in the finals.

You are really jumping around to try to skew things.

The Bulls were a lower seed than the Magic, he never lost with home court, he did win multiple times without home court, but now you are going Vegas betting odds?

The Miami Heat were the favorites to win in 2011, they lost to a team that was +2000! Even as they entered the Finals, the Heat were -180. LeBron losing in series he was favored in happened multiple times though. For instance he lost as a -625 favorite against the Magic, since you seem to want to bring the Magic up... but sure, we are going to focus on that -185 instead. The Bulls team that lost to the Magic was a 47 win team, the LeBron team that lost to the Magic was a 66 win team.

Part of what you are trying to skirt is the fact that betting odds would still lean to Jordan even under adverse circumstances purely because he was Michael Jordan. So they expected Jordan to win in a way they never really expected LeBron to. And they of course were right. So to hold that against Jordan is like saying Jordan only won because he was so great. Well, yeah...

I am not skewing anything. You are the one skewing things by trying to straw man me. I never said anything about home court. The better team doesn’t always have home court for a variety of reasons.

And I already said Lebron has lost as a favorite and won as an underdog. Did you ever read my posts?

Vegas odds are, for the most part, pretty close in terms of true odds. Otherwise there would be a lot more professional bettors than there are now. So when you win as an underdog, it means something. When you lose as a favorite, it also means something.

[thinktank]

I guess I’m surprised this thread is still going.

I suppose there’s an age divide, but there really shouldn’t be.

6 rings and two 3-peats. Defensive player awards. Jordan could’ve had more titles if he wanted.

I watched them both play. Jordan wins.

Bill Russell has 11 rings and 8-peat. He'd have probably 10+ defensive player awards. Why not go for him then?

Sure. Not Lebron, however.

[lessthanjake]

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.

Uh, no. The argument is that

-> The numbers(those which track the improvement of teams) favor Lebron(peak/prime/average, ect) and suggest your assessment of help is wildly off when we track what his teams do without him

-> lebron beat multiple better playoff opponents for titles than jordan has beat at any round

-> Jordan being more "accomplished" is a matter of cherrypicking what counts as an "accomplishment" or not'

-> Lebron is a bigger, more versatile, and smarter player which historically correlates to having a bigger influence on winning

-> Lebron is a better defender and attacker in ways not captured by box-data which is why he the numbers go from "similar" to "better" if you use "impact" as opposed to the box-score(which only really tracks the end of a possession)

I listed out all "winning" data a few pages back, but these may be more in line with what you're looking for:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=104977078#p104977078
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=104925727#p104925727
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2275063&start=260

covers skill-set, resume, competition/achievement, clutch, leadership, ect ect. Last link also has an inkling of "impact", but the winning data can be found in the middle of post #704(page 36)

I think it's without question that LeBron is the better all around player and the better floor raiser. I think the real argument for Jordan begins when you get to player optimization when team building. I think it's easier to find a Robin to Jordan's Batman. Jordan's peak skills are better than LeBron's and Jordan didn't really have any offensive or defensive flaws that you could advantage of. LeBron's skills sometimes border on diminishing returns because you don't need a player to be good at every aspect of the game in the way that LeBron is.

I think this is an important point actually. Having one person do everything isn’t generally going to be the best way to ceiling raise.

To use a stylized example, let’s say there are two categories of play: Category A and Category B. Now let’s say that Player 1 is a 10/10 in Category A and a 7/10 in Category B. Meanwhile, Player 2 is a 9/10 in Category A and a 9/10 in Category B. So, overall, Player 2 looks like the better overall player (i.e. Player 1 has a total score of 17, compared to 18 for Player 2). However, let’s say both players can have a great teammate that is a 9/10 at one category and a 7/10 at the other category. Player 1’s team will be able to have a 10/10 player at Category A and a 9/10 player at Category B. Meanwhile, Player 2’s team will have a 9/10 player at Category A and a 9/10 player at Category B. Player 1’s team will be better even if Player 1 is not necessarily the superior overall player. I’d say Player 1 is the better ceiling raiser. Of course, if the teammates were just 6/10 at both categories, then Player 2’s team would be better; Player 2 would be the better floor raiser.

The lesson from this stylized example is that, on a good team, a player can provide more value with extreme proficiency at a specialized thing—with scoring (MJ) or defense (Russell) being two examples that have led to the league’s most successful dynasties. A good team doesn’t need a player to be responsible for everything. They need someone who is transcendently good at something hugely important, while potentially leaving some other things to their very good teammates.

[KrAzY3]

Vegas odds are, for the most part, pretty close in terms of true odds. Otherwise there would be a lot more professional bettors than there are now. So when you win as an underdog, it means something. When you lose as a favorite, it also means something.

What are you glossing over, and what I alluded to was Jordan teams would get inflated odds that were out of wack with everything else purely because he was Michael Jordan! They bet on him to win because they had the utmost confidence in Michael Jordan!

So, when you twist that around and say well he only won when he was favored, you are dismissing the fact that he was favored because of his greatness. He beat great teams with home court advantage as easily as he won with home court. It isn't like LeBron always had a tougher road, it's that they just had more faith in Jordan to finish the task. As I said, they were right.

To give an example though, if Jordan is on that 2011 Heat team instead of LeBron not only would they have been more heavily favored, but they would absolutely, without question win. No way Jordan loses to Dirk and a bunch of role players (name one time where prime Jordan lost to a team like that in a series), when he has Bosh and Wade. Jordan was more of a sure thing, so they bet on him. That's to his credit but you seem to be trying to use that fact to undermine his reputation, when the only reason that fact exists is because of his reputation.

As a basketball fan in that era, Jordan did make it seem like a sure thing. With the exception of baseball Jordan, you kind of took it for granted that Jordan was going to win. It seemed a bit hopeless. With LeBron you're never, ever actually sure no matter how good his team he. He might win, he might not, who knows. Vegas gets that to...

[OhayoKD]

Uh, no. The argument is that

-> The numbers(those which track the improvement of teams) favor Lebron(peak/prime/average, ect) and suggest your assessment of help is wildly off when we track what his teams do without him

-> lebron beat multiple better playoff opponents for titles than jordan has beat at any round

-> Jordan being more "accomplished" is a matter of cherrypicking what counts as an "accomplishment" or not'

-> Lebron is a bigger, more versatile, and smarter player which historically correlates to having a bigger influence on winning

-> Lebron is a better defender and attacker in ways not captured by box-data which is why he the numbers go from "similar" to "better" if you use "impact" as opposed to the box-score(which only really tracks the end of a possession)

I listed out all "winning" data a few pages back, but these may be more in line with what you're looking for:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=104977078#p104977078
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=104925727#p104925727
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2275063&start=260

covers skill-set, resume, competition/achievement, clutch, leadership, ect ect. Last link also has an inkling of "impact", but the winning data can be found in the middle of post #704(page 36)

I think it's without question that LeBron is the better all around player and the better floor raiser. I think the real argument for Jordan begins when you get to player optimization when team building. I think it's easier to find a Robin to Jordan's Batman. Jordan's peak skills are better than LeBron's and Jordan didn't really have any offensive or defensive flaws that you could advantage of. LeBron's skills sometimes border on diminishing returns because you don't need a player to be good at every aspect of the game in the way that LeBron is.

I think this is an important point actually. Having one person do everything isn’t generally going to be the best way to ceiling raise.

To use a stylized example, let’s say there are two categories of play: Category A and Category B. Now let’s say that Player 1 is a 10/10 in Category A and a 7/10 in Category B. Meanwhile, Player 2 is a 9/10 in Category A and a 9/10 in Category B. So, overall, Player 2 looks like the better overall player (i.e. Player 1 has a total score of 17, compared to 18 for Player 2). However, let’s say both players can have a great teammate that is a 9/10 at one category and a 7/10 at the other category. Player 1’s team will be able to have a 10/10 player at Category A and a 9/10 player at Category B. Meanwhile, Player 2’s team will have a 9/10 player at Category A and a 9/10 player at Category B. Player 1’s team will be better even if Player 1 is not necessarily the superior overall player. I’d say Player 1 is the better ceiling raiser. Of course, if the teammates were just 6/10 at both categories, then Player 2’s team would be better; Player 2 would be the better floor raiser.

The lesson from this stylized example is that, on a good team, a player can provide more value with extreme proficiency at a specialized thing—with scoring (MJ) or defense (Russell) being two examples that have led to the league’s most successful dynasties. A good team doesn’t need a player to be responsible for everything. They need someone who is transcendently good at something hugely important, while potentially leaving some other things to their very good teammates.

The Russell analogy is odd. Bill Russell, like Lebron, came close as close to monopolizing the side of the court he was gifted at and, like Lebron, functioned as an on-court coach directing his teammates where to go and making adjustments for himself and even the team based on the opposition. Bill Russell, also like Lebron, looks like an incredible floor-raiser and, like Lebron has won a championship against a better opponent than anyone Jordan's beat in any round with a team that was bad without him.

Bill Russell, like Lebron, does not take as many shots as Jordan does and could conceivably fit better next to high-volume scorers(Pippen was not that, Kyrie and Love were).

Bill Russell, like Lebron, was a capable defensive centerpiece who was able to anchor elite defenses with a variety of support, even alongside defensive negatives(smush and mosgov were that before they were traded to Cleveland, Kyrie and Love were that throughout).

Bill Russell, like Lebron, is as or more capable as a passer/ball-handler than he was as a scorer.

And Bill Russell, like Lebron, has actually proven their ability to fit-in and win with a variety of co-stars, in a variety of situations.

Micheal Jordan does not share any of these traits or achievements. Moreover many of the assumptions you've made to arrive at the conclusion that Jordan is a better cieling-raiser do not actually line-up with what has actually happened. The argument may "start there", but for it("port") to actually work you have to establish the following:

-> Lebron, with various advantages that we know are integral to high-level teams(including Chicago)(communication, rim-protection, passing, ect) is a worse fit on a majority of potential/likely championship winners that would somehow add up to more championships than the amount of teams Jordan is a worse fit on

-> Lebron, a generally more valuable player becomes less valuable as a result of this questionable fit. I imagine this is a bit difficult considering that Lebron empirically looked as or more valuable(similar rs, but his teams scale up more in the postseason) for multiple championships in what should have been a bad-fit in Miami

Without establishing those two-points, "floor-raiser" is just a buzz-word. And for those who actually look into the apparent impact Lebron has had in situations this theory predicts he should be disadvantaged relative to Jordan(poor-spacing, next to other helios, ect, ect), I think it becomes rather apparent, it doesn't really hold up.

[KembaWalker]

Using LeBrons superteam hopping attempts to try and push the narrative that he's "proven to win with a variety of casts unlike MJ" is some high level PR master tier spin. I'm actually impressed at the attempt

[gmoney411]

I think it's without question that LeBron is the better all around player and the better floor raiser. I think the real argument for Jordan begins when you get to player optimization when team building. I think it's easier to find a Robin to Jordan's Batman. Jordan's peak skills are better than LeBron's and Jordan didn't really have any offensive or defensive flaws that you could advantage of. LeBron's skills sometimes border on diminishing returns because you don't need a player to be good at every aspect of the game in the way that LeBron is.

I think this is an important point actually. Having one person do everything isn’t generally going to be the best way to ceiling raise.

To use a stylized example, let’s say there are two categories of play: Category A and Category B. Now let’s say that Player 1 is a 10/10 in Category A and a 7/10 in Category B. Meanwhile, Player 2 is a 9/10 in Category A and a 9/10 in Category B. So, overall, Player 2 looks like the better overall player (i.e. Player 1 has a total score of 17, compared to 18 for Player 2). However, let’s say both players can have a great teammate that is a 9/10 at one category and a 7/10 at the other category. Player 1’s team will be able to have a 10/10 player at Category A and a 9/10 player at Category B. Meanwhile, Player 2’s team will have a 9/10 player at Category A and a 9/10 player at Category B. Player 1’s team will be better even if Player 1 is not necessarily the superior overall player. I’d say Player 1 is the better ceiling raiser. Of course, if the teammates were just 6/10 at both categories, then Player 2’s team would be better; Player 2 would be the better floor raiser.

The lesson from this stylized example is that, on a good team, a player can provide more value with extreme proficiency at a specialized thing—with scoring (MJ) or defense (Russell) being two examples that have led to the league’s most successful dynasties. A good team doesn’t need a player to be responsible for everything. They need someone who is transcendently good at something hugely important, while potentially leaving some other things to their very good teammates.

The Russell analogy is odd. Bill Russell, like Lebron, came close as close to monopolizing the side of the court he was gifted at and, like Lebron, functioned as an on-court coach directing his teammates where to go and making adjustments for himself and even the team based on the opposition. Bill Russell, also like Lebron, looks like an incredible floor-raiser and, like Lebron has won a championship against a better opponent than anyone Jordan's beat in any round with a team that was bad without him.

Bill Russell, like Lebron, does not take as many shots as Jordan does and could conceivably fit better next to high-volume scorers(Pippen was not that, Kyrie and Love were).

Bill Russell, like Lebron, was a capable defensive centerpiece who was able to anchor elite defenses with a variety of support, even alongside defensive negatives(smush and mosgov were that before they were traded to Cleveland, Kyrie and Love were that throughout).

Bill Russell, like Lebron, is as or more capable as a passer/ball-handler than he was as a scorer.

And Bill Russell, like Lebron, has actually proven their ability to fit-in and win with a variety of co-stars, in a variety of situations.

Micheal Jordan does not share any of these traits or achievements. Moreover many of the assumptions you've made to arrive at the conclusion that Jordan is a better cieling-raiser do not actually line-up with what has actually happened. The argument may "start there", but for it("port") to actually work you have to establish the following:

-> Lebron, with various advantages that we know are integral to high-level teams(including Chicago)(communication, rim-protection, passing, ect) is a worse fit on a majority of potential/likely championship winners that would somehow add up to more championships than the amount of teams Jordan is a worse fit on

-> Lebron, a generally more valuable player becomes less valuable as a result of this questionable fit. I imagine this is a bit difficult considering that Lebron empirically looked as or more valuable(similar rs, but his teams scale up more in the postseason) for multiple championships in what should have been a bad-fit in Miami

Without establishing those two-points, "floor-raiser" is just a buzz-word. And for those who actually look into the apparent impact Lebron has had in situations this theory predicts he should be disadvantaged relative to Jordan(poor-spacing, next to other helios, ect, ect), I think it becomes rather apparent, it doesn't really hold up.

LeBron is more valuable on teams than Jordan because he is the better all around player. But that's different than building a team around a player or pairing him with another superstar. Who is the dream sidekick to LeBron?

[The High Cyde]

I’ve said it here before, but I can’t have a person quit on the sport of basketball and walk away just to be dog**** at another and still be called the GOAT. If MJ really did have whatever the **** killer instinct is then he would’ve tried to break Russell’s record of 11. Burned out though. Y’all bought into the hype machine.

[MavsDirk41]

I think it's without question that LeBron is the better all around player and the better floor raiser. I think the real argument for Jordan begins when you get to player optimization when team building. I think it's easier to find a Robin to Jordan's Batman. Jordan's peak skills are better than LeBron's and Jordan didn't really have any offensive or defensive flaws that you could advantage of. LeBron's skills sometimes border on diminishing returns because you don't need a player to be good at every aspect of the game in the way that LeBron is.

I think this is an important point actually. Having one person do everything isn’t generally going to be the best way to ceiling raise.

To use a stylized example, let’s say there are two categories of play: Category A and Category B. Now let’s say that Player 1 is a 10/10 in Category A and a 7/10 in Category B. Meanwhile, Player 2 is a 9/10 in Category A and a 9/10 in Category B. So, overall, Player 2 looks like the better overall player (i.e. Player 1 has a total score of 17, compared to 18 for Player 2). However, let’s say both players can have a great teammate that is a 9/10 at one category and a 7/10 at the other category. Player 1’s team will be able to have a 10/10 player at Category A and a 9/10 player at Category B. Meanwhile, Player 2’s team will have a 9/10 player at Category A and a 9/10 player at Category B. Player 1’s team will be better even if Player 1 is not necessarily the superior overall player. I’d say Player 1 is the better ceiling raiser. Of course, if the teammates were just 6/10 at both categories, then Player 2’s team would be better; Player 2 would be the better floor raiser.

The lesson from this stylized example is that, on a good team, a player can provide more value with extreme proficiency at a specialized thing—with scoring (MJ) or defense (Russell) being two examples that have led to the league’s most successful dynasties. A good team doesn’t need a player to be responsible for everything. They need someone who is transcendently good at something hugely important, while potentially leaving some other things to their very good teammates.

The Russell analogy is odd. Bill Russell, like Lebron, came close as close to monopolizing the side of the court he was gifted at and, like Lebron, functioned as an on-court coach directing his teammates where to go and making adjustments for himself and even the team based on the opposition. Bill Russell, also like Lebron, looks like an incredible floor-raiser and, like Lebron has won a championship against a better opponent than anyone Jordan's beat in any round with a team that was bad without him.

Bill Russell, like Lebron, does not take as many shots as Jordan does and could conceivably fit better next to high-volume scorers(Pippen was not that, Kyrie and Love were).

Bill Russell, like Lebron, was a capable defensive centerpiece who was able to anchor elite defenses with a variety of support, even alongside defensive negatives(smush and mosgov were that before they were traded to Cleveland, Kyrie and Love were that throughout).

Bill Russell, like Lebron, is as or more capable as a passer/ball-handler than he was as a scorer.

And Bill Russell, like Lebron, has actually proven their ability to fit-in and win with a variety of co-stars, in a variety of situations.

Micheal Jordan does not share any of these traits or achievements. Moreover many of the assumptions you've made to arrive at the conclusion that Jordan is a better cieling-raiser do not actually line-up with what has actually happened. The argument may "start there", but for it("port") to actually work you have to establish the following:

-> Lebron, with various advantages that we know are integral to high-level teams(including Chicago)(communication, rim-protection, passing, ect) is a worse fit on a majority of potential/likely championship winners that would somehow add up to more championships than the amount of teams Jordan is a worse fit on

-> Lebron, a generally more valuable player becomes less valuable as a result of this questionable fit. I imagine this is a bit difficult considering that Lebron empirically looked as or more valuable(similar rs, but his teams scale up more in the postseason) for multiple championships in what should have been a bad-fit in Miami

Without establishing those two-points, "floor-raiser" is just a buzz-word. And for those who actually look into the apparent impact Lebron has had in situations this theory predicts he should be disadvantaged relative to Jordan(poor-spacing, next to other helios, ect, ect), I think it becomes rather apparent, it doesn't really hold up.

I want to start this by asking you for evidence that lebron james is smarter than michael jordan. You claimed this yesterday. I asked you for evidence and you went silent like clockwork. James is so smart that he though him and Russell would fit as teammates when everybody else was saying it was a terrible fit? Show me proof he is smarter…

So Jordan didnt act as a coach on the court directing his teammates, making adjustments? If you are saying he didnt where is your proof?

Lebron James couldnt even beat the Mavs in 2011 when he had two allstar teammates in their prime lol!!! Why? Cause he choked. When did Jordan choke during a finals series? He wasnt great in 96 but he wasnt anywhere near James bad…

Bosh, Love, and Westbrook were all worse playing with James.

Did you say James provides rim protection?? Him and Jordan have the same career averages for blocked shots per game lol…


Everything you post on here is not factual at all. James also played with WAY more talent than Jordan and never created a dynasty anywhere he played. Facts are facts man.

[MavsDirk41]

I think this is an important point actually. Having one person do everything isn’t generally going to be the best way to ceiling raise.

To use a stylized example, let’s say there are two categories of play: Category A and Category B. Now let’s say that Player 1 is a 10/10 in Category A and a 7/10 in Category B. Meanwhile, Player 2 is a 9/10 in Category A and a 9/10 in Category B. So, overall, Player 2 looks like the better overall player (i.e. Player 1 has a total score of 17, compared to 18 for Player 2). However, let’s say both players can have a great teammate that is a 9/10 at one category and a 7/10 at the other category. Player 1’s team will be able to have a 10/10 player at Category A and a 9/10 player at Category B. Meanwhile, Player 2’s team will have a 9/10 player at Category A and a 9/10 player at Category B. Player 1’s team will be better even if Player 1 is not necessarily the superior overall player. I’d say Player 1 is the better ceiling raiser. Of course, if the teammates were just 6/10 at both categories, then Player 2’s team would be better; Player 2 would be the better floor raiser.

The lesson from this stylized example is that, on a good team, a player can provide more value with extreme proficiency at a specialized thing—with scoring (MJ) or defense (Russell) being two examples that have led to the league’s most successful dynasties. A good team doesn’t need a player to be responsible for everything. They need someone who is transcendently good at something hugely important, while potentially leaving some other things to their very good teammates.

The Russell analogy is odd. Bill Russell, like Lebron, came close as close to monopolizing the side of the court he was gifted at and, like Lebron, functioned as an on-court coach directing his teammates where to go and making adjustments for himself and even the team based on the opposition. Bill Russell, also like Lebron, looks like an incredible floor-raiser and, like Lebron has won a championship against a better opponent than anyone Jordan's beat in any round with a team that was bad without him.

Bill Russell, like Lebron, does not take as many shots as Jordan does and could conceivably fit better next to high-volume scorers(Pippen was not that, Kyrie and Love were).

Bill Russell, like Lebron, was a capable defensive centerpiece who was able to anchor elite defenses with a variety of support, even alongside defensive negatives(smush and mosgov were that before they were traded to Cleveland, Kyrie and Love were that throughout).

Bill Russell, like Lebron, is as or more capable as a passer/ball-handler than he was as a scorer.

And Bill Russell, like Lebron, has actually proven their ability to fit-in and win with a variety of co-stars, in a variety of situations.

Micheal Jordan does not share any of these traits or achievements. Moreover many of the assumptions you've made to arrive at the conclusion that Jordan is a better cieling-raiser do not actually line-up with what has actually happened. The argument may "start there", but for it("port") to actually work you have to establish the following:

-> Lebron, with various advantages that we know are integral to high-level teams(including Chicago)(communication, rim-protection, passing, ect) is a worse fit on a majority of potential/likely championship winners that would somehow add up to more championships than the amount of teams Jordan is a worse fit on

-> Lebron, a generally more valuable player becomes less valuable as a result of this questionable fit. I imagine this is a bit difficult considering that Lebron empirically looked as or more valuable(similar rs, but his teams scale up more in the postseason) for multiple championships in what should have been a bad-fit in Miami

Without establishing those two-points, "floor-raiser" is just a buzz-word. And for those who actually look into the apparent impact Lebron has had in situations this theory predicts he should be disadvantaged relative to Jordan(poor-spacing, next to other helios, ect, ect), I think it becomes rather apparent, it doesn't really hold up.

LeBron is more valuable on teams than Jordan because he is the better all around player. But that's different than building a team around a player or pairing him with another superstar. Who is the dream sidekick to LeBron?

James has never been the better all around player lol