MJ VS LEBRON VS WHOEVER THREAD

[OdomFan]

Lebron will never be on Tim Duncans level let alone Michael Jordan.

[freethedevil]

Sure, but would you have Jordan as top 20 defender ever?

Hell no, but I seriously doubt I'd have hayes or cowens their either. Off the top of my head, from jordan's era alone, I'm pretty sure I'd prefer hakeem, robinson, eaton, ewing, and oakley as bigs. On the perimiter I'd probably only clearly prefer pippen over jordan with the rest kind of a wash.

Would you take him over Elvin Hayes who gave you full decade of strong rim protection, defensive rebounding and good mobility?

Okay, but Jordan wasn't a non-factor at the rim. He protected the rim a little bit less than oakley in his dpoy season and was probably the better perimiter player. Also, defensive rebounding isn't really that value from an induvidual standpoint. Remember, replacement level players usually win defensive rebounds. Offensive rebounding is far more valuable.

Or Dave Cowens who could guard anyone on perimter, was outstanding on P&R and one of the best post defenders in the league?

Post defense is prolly the least valuable aspect of defense outside of defensive rebounding. pnr/point of attack defense is nice/play switching is nice, but i think Jordan's pass lane jumping and man d paired with some rim protection doesn't make him being a better defender unthinkable. It's probably worth at least looking at the overall impact data.

There's also some value to be said for scarcity here.A +1 defender at the perimiter was prolly is harder to find than a +1 defender at center, and generally you can't use centers in all the same ways you can use a periiter player

Who would you have in top 20 then?

Sure, Jordan wasn't non-factor at the rim but he wasn't close to Hayes in that aspect. Big E gives you over 2 blocks per game in over decade and sure, blocks are not everything but he also anchored some really good defenses in Rockets (with terrible supporting cast) and he co-anchored ATG defensive teams in Bullets along with Unseld. What makes you doubt in Hayes? He's definitely better defender than Oakley for example.

Again, what makes you doubt in Cowens defensive ability? He's perfect modern defensive big thrown into 1970s. He could stay in front of guards and defend P&Rs as well as any bigman. It's much more important than passing lanes defense. Cowens also was very good at creating turnovers, he averaged over 1 spg for his prime (probably more but we don't have stats from first seasons). Post defense is only a nice bonus, that's not his main strength. Not to mention that after dark times for Boston (post-Russell retirement) he anchored some really strong defensive teams in mid-70s.

Again - what Jordan actually did to put him next to Cowens and Hayes? And who would you have over Cowens and Hayes on your all-time defensive list?

[/quote]

1. top 20.

Off the top of my head, in no paticular order I have :
Russell, wilt, thurmond, KG, Duncan, Wallace, Dwight, Gobert, Draymond, Giannis, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Mutombo, Embid, AD, Bol, Mourning, and Walton as better defenders. Note I've narrowed the list to only bigs here. I really don't see how the top 20 defender ver point is relevant when those two dont even crack a top 20 big man list.

2. Doubt? There has to be something for me to doubt here first. So far you've just highglighted a bunch of observations without any sort of basis to what the overall end product of those observations is. I can do that with jordan pretty easily, great man defense, decent rebounding, decent rim protection and great pass lane jumping. Listing out a smattering of things doesn't really make for a compelling case here.

Barring clearly obvious cases, which i dont think this comes close to qualifying as, I don't see how we can make a defnintive conclusion that either of those two defenders was better than MJ.

3. I also take the opposite approach to you here.

I FIRST look at the quantitiave/overall data, THEN, I look at granular data, film observation, team contexts as a tie breaker where it's relatively close.

My process has always been

1. Quantitative data
2. granular data/film analysis(I defer to expert film analysis where necceasary)
3. results in various contexts/coaching/everything else

Off-court value i reserve as a tie-breaker.

[trueballer7]

Are we talking about the best player ever or the best scorer? Or player with most rings as the best player?


I can name plenty of aspects of game that Jordan never approached the best level.

Jordan is mediocre playmaker compared to Magic or James.
Jordan is not close to top 20 defensive player ever, his defense is not even close to Russell's.
Jordan has weak longevity compared to other GOAT candidates.
Jordan won only in one system with Jackson and Pippen, he never proved that he was multidimensional like James, Wilt or Kareem.
Jordan was prick as a teammate, unlike Russell or Duncan.
Jordan retired three times during his career, which makes him less impactful overall.
Jordan is below average rebounder compared to other GOAT candidates.
Jordan is not close to Russell in terms of rings and rings as the best player.
Jordan is not close to the leading NBA scorer - Kareem.

I can name more of these silly arguments, but the reality is that Jordan is not untouchable and all these weaknesses others have you mentioned are not important. Who cares that Russell didn't score a lot, he definitely scored enough when he won 11 rings.

Russell is perfect test for MJ fans because he has similar longevity, won more, was overall more impactful, was better teammate and had better intangibles - that's supposed to be MJ arguments. MJ fans decide then talking about "ppg" or "weak era".

MJs main arguments lie in the abundance of film footage available. And thats why his place as the undisputed goat is forever safe. His achievements and resume follow naturally. Of course the best player ever, would be as succesful. Pretending that what Jordan did on the court, could be matched by anyone else, is just that. Pretending.

So MJ main arguments are that we don't have enough footage of prime Russell, Wilt and Kareem?

Enough footage of what? What exactly would more footage of Kareem or Wilt would tell us? Did they have any more moves that we didnt get to see on the footage that exists? Were there any important games, that we havent see, where they exhibited a level of play that would change the perception that we have of them?
Funny thing is, I dont recall Kareem being considered as higher in all time ranking than either Bird or Magic back in the day. And Kareem, was by far the best of the big men trio.

[In SVG We Trust]

Lebron will never be on Tim Duncans level let alone Michael Jordan.

How you do it man?

It's like you're the antibasketball. No matter what the topic is, you're ALWAYS wrong. I mean, if I'd need to know if I'm correct about something, I'd look for your opinion and then say the opposite, because it's like 100% correct.

Have you thought to be a fan of a different sports? It seems like you can't understand basketball.

[freethedevil]

Yes really. The adjustment wasn't easy but he eventually came around to Phils triangle system

You mean like how lebron came around to spo using him off-the ball?

Literally identical record's here. One season of beef, and then for the rest of their days, good little soilders under atg level coaches. You're really stretching here. Also, Lebron was a good liittle soilder trhoughout the vast majority of his early cleveland days under signifcantly less than atg coaching.

The only time jordan had lebron's post heat-level coaching was his wizard days. And he was back to being a petulant ball-hog, just like 2015 Lebron. Unlike jordan, Lebron embraced an off-ball role again under offensive maestro luke walton, and really isn't beefing at all with vogel. Jordan really isn't demonstrably better at listening to coaches than lebron.

If Lebron played a good little solider at all as you put it for whatever reason, that would be due to Spo's system gearing towards most of the offense being centered around Lebron anyway. The Triangle was far better and more team orientated.

It's almost like you utilize different systems for different skill-sets? Jordan wasn't the most skilled passer on the bulls, so **** it was more team orientated. Lebron was, by far the best passer on the heat, so no **** it was less team orientated. Jordan's creation primarly came from scoring gravity so they kept him off the ball, Lebron's creation is a more balanced mix of passing and scoring so they kept him on the ball. Jordan's a worse passer so the system reflected that. Lebron is a worse shooter(relative to era) so the system reflected that.

If you really want to talk about coaching, the real discrepancy came with defense for jordan had the luxury of operating in a scheme which perfectly optimized his strengths and covered his weaknesses and Lebron has basically never had that outside of a single series vs the warriors and his 09 season with the cavs.

Guess what happened in 09, Lebron posted defensive impact metrics that BLEW any jordan season out of the water. You know what happened in the 16 finals? He, well past his defensive peak, played like pippen on sterioids vs an atg offense surrounded by defensive behomeths kevin love and tristan thompson.

Lebron literally took luke walton and magic to heart and led a team to 50 win basketball with mvp esque stats without shooting before their second, third, fourth and 5th player all got injured for significant to half a season's worth of time.

The lakers are NOT a compelling example of lebron being uncoachable.

[OdomFan]

You mean like how lebron came around to spo using him off-the ball?

Literally identical record's here. One season of beef, and then for the rest of their days, good little soilders under atg level coaches. You're really stretching here. Also, Lebron was a good liittle soilder trhoughout the vast majority of his early cleveland days under signifcantly less than atg coaching.

The only time jordan had lebron's post heat-level coaching was his wizard days. And he was back to being a petulant ball-hog, just like 2015 Lebron. Unlike jordan, Lebron embraced an off-ball role again under offensive maestro luke walton, and really isn't beefing at all with vogel. Jordan really isn't demonstrably better at listening to coaches than lebron.

If Lebron played a good little solider at all as you put it for whatever reason, that would be due to Spo's system gearing towards most of the offense being centered around Lebron anyway. The Triangle was far better and more team orientated.

It's almost like you utilize different systems for different skill-sets? Jordan wasn't the most skilled passer on the bulls,

Pretty sure MJ proved that he could be a very elite passer when he switched to point guard in 1989. He demonstrated even in the Phil era throughout the years that he was a damn good passer. Especially when the NBA Finals were on the line when he kicked it out to Kerr. You can call Lebron a better passer all you want, and that is true because Lebron made it more of a part of his game as a point forward throughout his career, but it really doesn't change the fact that MJ's overall impact was just better. Done talking to you now.

[freethedevil]

If Lebron played a good little solider at all as you put it for whatever reason, that would be due to Spo's system gearing towards most of the offense being centered around Lebron anyway. The Triangle was far better and more team orientated.

It's almost like you utilize different systems for different skill-sets? Jordan wasn't the most skilled passer on the bulls,

Pretty sure MJ proved that he could be a very elite passer when he switched to point guard in 1989.

That's cool. Pippen was a better passer.

I'm happy to know you know think Lebron is a comparable scorer to jordan since his 09 playoff scoring blows anything jordan's ever done out of the water.

[70sFan]

Hell no, but I seriously doubt I'd have hayes or cowens their either. Off the top of my head, from jordan's era alone, I'm pretty sure I'd prefer hakeem, robinson, eaton, ewing, and oakley as bigs. On the perimiter I'd probably only clearly prefer pippen over jordan with the rest kind of a wash.


Okay, but Jordan wasn't a non-factor at the rim. He protected the rim a little bit less than oakley in his dpoy season and was probably the better perimiter player. Also, defensive rebounding isn't really that value from an induvidual standpoint. Remember, replacement level players usually win defensive rebounds. Offensive rebounding is far more valuable.


Post defense is prolly the least valuable aspect of defense outside of defensive rebounding. pnr/point of attack defense is nice/play switching is nice, but i think Jordan's pass lane jumping and man d paired with some rim protection doesn't make him being a better defender unthinkable. It's probably worth at least looking at the overall impact data.

There's also some value to be said for scarcity here.A +1 defender at the perimiter was prolly is harder to find than a +1 defender at center, and generally you can't use centers in all the same ways you can use a periiter player

Who would you have in top 20 then?

Sure, Jordan wasn't non-factor at the rim but he wasn't close to Hayes in that aspect. Big E gives you over 2 blocks per game in over decade and sure, blocks are not everything but he also anchored some really good defenses in Rockets (with terrible supporting cast) and he co-anchored ATG defensive teams in Bullets along with Unseld. What makes you doubt in Hayes? He's definitely better defender than Oakley for example.

Again, what makes you doubt in Cowens defensive ability? He's perfect modern defensive big thrown into 1970s. He could stay in front of guards and defend P&Rs as well as any bigman. It's much more important than passing lanes defense. Cowens also was very good at creating turnovers, he averaged over 1 spg for his prime (probably more but we don't have stats from first seasons). Post defense is only a nice bonus, that's not his main strength. Not to mention that after dark times for Boston (post-Russell retirement) he anchored some really strong defensive teams in mid-70s.

Again - what Jordan actually did to put him next to Cowens and Hayes? And who would you have over Cowens and Hayes on your all-time defensive list?

1. top 20.

Off the top of my head, in no paticular order I have :
Russell, wilt, thurmond, KG, Duncan, Wallace, Dwight, Gobert, Draymond, Giannis, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Mutombo, Embid, AD, Bol, Mourning, and Walton as better defenders. Note I've narrowed the list to only bigs here. I really don't see how the top 20 defender ver point is relevant when those two dont even crack a top 20 big man list.

2. Doubt? There has to be something for me to doubt here first. So far you've just highglighted a bunch of observations without any sort of basis to what the overall end product of those observations is. I can do that with jordan pretty easily, great man defense, decent rebounding, decent rim protection and great pass lane jumping. Listing out a smattering of things doesn't really make for a compelling case here.

Barring clearly obvious cases, which i dont think this comes close to qualifying as, I don't see how we can make a defnintive conclusion that either of those two defenders was better than MJ.

3. I also take the opposite approach to you here.

I FIRST look at the quantitiave/overall data, THEN, I look at granular data, film observation, team contexts as a tie breaker where it's relatively close.

My process has always been

1. Quantitative data
2. granular data/film analysis(I defer to expert film analysis where necceasary)
3. results in various contexts/coaching/everything else

Off-court value i reserve as a tie-breaker.[/quote]
Your list looks like peak list though. Sure, Walton is one of the best defenders ever... for three incomplete seasons. Hayes didn't peak nearly as high but he had long-term excellence. Our lists are completely different - Bol was great but he had short career. Embiid - even shorter and so far I'm not convinced that he's better defender than Hayes or Cowens even peak-wise.

Could you please explain me what makes Davis better defensive player than Hayes? Big E also played in terrible franchise like AD, but his defensive impact was clear even in terrible teams. I don't know if you have any impact stats for Hayes, but based on eye-test they look very similar - two long and athletic players who never reached that highest level, probably due to BBIQ. The difference is that Hayes was an ironman who wanted to fight against bigger guys, while Davis is injury prone and doesn't like playing center.

That's fine, I think that both approaches are good and complementary view is the best. I'd be thankfull if you could show me some impact metrics for Cowens or Hayes that could change my perception of their defensive impact, as I don't have time now to search for them. I'm always open to learn something new

[70sFan]

MJs main arguments lie in the abundance of film footage available. And thats why his place as the undisputed goat is forever safe. His achievements and resume follow naturally. Of course the best player ever, would be as succesful. Pretending that what Jordan did on the court, could be matched by anyone else, is just that. Pretending.

So MJ main arguments are that we don't have enough footage of prime Russell, Wilt and Kareem?

Enough footage of what? What exactly would more footage of Kareem or Wilt would tell us? Did they have any more moves that we didnt get to see on the footage that exists? Were there any important games, that we havent see, where they exhibited a level of play that would change the perception that we have of them?
Funny thing is, I dont recall Kareem being considered as higher in all time ranking than either Bird or Magic back in the day. And Kareem, was by far the best of the big men trio.

Of course! I've been searching for footage from that era for a few years, everytime I get somethinf new I see different move from Wilt. We have more Kareem footage, but still not enough.

We don't have almost any of Wilt's important games. Right now the only notable Wilt games we have on tape are game 6 of 1967 finals, game 6 of 1972 WCF and game 5 of 1972 finals. That's it, two of them past his prime. The rest are completely random games that don't show Wilt in any extraoridinary game. We don't have a single Wilt's 40 points game and you are asking me if we don't have enough? What are you talking about? We know very little about prime Wilt Chamberlain (or Bill Russell for that matter).

I recently got game 6 against Bucks from 1972 and Wilt never impressed me more before. He was hustling, running, playing inspiring defense and scoring on Kareem. It can completely change the perception of how people view Wilt.

That's because Magic and Bird were more popular than Kareem but no, they weren't close to Jabbar.

[trueballer7]

So MJ main arguments are that we don't have enough footage of prime Russell, Wilt and Kareem?

Enough footage of what? What exactly would more footage of Kareem or Wilt would tell us? Did they have any more moves that we didnt get to see on the footage that exists? Were there any important games, that we havent see, where they exhibited a level of play that would change the perception that we have of them?
Funny thing is, I dont recall Kareem being considered as higher in all time ranking than either Bird or Magic back in the day. And Kareem, was by far the best of the big men trio.

Of course! I've been searching for footage from that era for a few years, everytime I get somethinf new I see different move from Wilt. We have more Kareem footage, but still not enough.

We don't have almost any of Wilt's important games. Right now the only notable Wilt games we have on tape are game 6 of 1967 finals, game 6 of 1972 WCF and game 5 of 1972 finals. That's it, two of them past his prime. The rest are completely random games that don't show Wilt in any extraoridinary game. We don't have a single Wilt's 40 points game and you are asking me if we don't have enough? What are you talking about? We know very little about prime Wilt Chamberlain (or Bill Russell for that matter).

I recently got game 6 against Bucks from 1972 and Wilt never impressed me more before. He was hustling, running, playing inspiring defense and scoring on Kareem. It can completely change the perception of how people view Wilt.

That's because Magic and Bird were more popular than Kareem but no, they weren't close to Jabbar.

Wilt didnt win any, when he had those 40pt games. So there's that. Him being more substantial and efficient, and a better basketball player, when he somewhat abandonned the obsession with worthless stats, is also true and that has been well established from his playing days. So when he impressed you, you already knew he didnt make the best out of his career.
As for Bill Russell, we know very well he was never considered the best individually. As a leader sure. But not as an individual talent.
Magic and Bird werent more popular than Kareem for any other reason, than both being considered as better than him, which they both were and which is why they had more success, individually and teamwise, in proportion to the healthy years they played.
Big men in general, are the absolute floor raisers in basketball but almost never the ceiling raisers, with the exception of Hakeem perhaps. They are too limited in the space they move.

[70sFan]

Enough footage of what? What exactly would more footage of Kareem or Wilt would tell us? Did they have any more moves that we didnt get to see on the footage that exists? Were there any important games, that we havent see, where they exhibited a level of play that would change the perception that we have of them?
Funny thing is, I dont recall Kareem being considered as higher in all time ranking than either Bird or Magic back in the day. And Kareem, was by far the best of the big men trio.

Of course! I've been searching for footage from that era for a few years, everytime I get somethinf new I see different move from Wilt. We have more Kareem footage, but still not enough.

We don't have almost any of Wilt's important games. Right now the only notable Wilt games we have on tape are game 6 of 1967 finals, game 6 of 1972 WCF and game 5 of 1972 finals. That's it, two of them past his prime. The rest are completely random games that don't show Wilt in any extraoridinary game. We don't have a single Wilt's 40 points game and you are asking me if we don't have enough? What are you talking about? We know very little about prime Wilt Chamberlain (or Bill Russell for that matter).

I recently got game 6 against Bucks from 1972 and Wilt never impressed me more before. He was hustling, running, playing inspiring defense and scoring on Kareem. It can completely change the perception of how people view Wilt.

That's because Magic and Bird were more popular than Kareem but no, they weren't close to Jabbar.

Wilt didnt win any, when he had those 40pt games. So there's that. Him being more substantial and efficient, and a better basketball player, when he somewhat abandonned the obsession with worthless stats, is also true and that has been well established from his playing days. So when he impressed you, you already knew he didnt make the best out of his career.
As for Bill Russell, we know very well he was never considered the best individually. As a leader sure. But not as an individual talent.
Magic and Bird werent more popular than Kareem for any other reason, than both being considered as better than him, which they both were and which is why they had more success, individually and teamwise, in proportion to the healthy years they played.
Big men in general, are the absolute floor raisers in basketball but almost never the ceiling raisers, with the exception of Hakeem perhaps. They are too limited in the space they move.

We don't have any relevant games from Wilt after he won, we simply don't have anything from him basically. Any footage would help his case tremendously. We could see his defense, post game, rebounding, unreal athleticism... if you think that wouldn't help him you're insane.

Russell wasn't best individually because he wasn't great scorer? Do you know there is more in basketball than scoring, right?

Sure, Magic and Bird were better than 35+years old Kareem. They never approached dominance of 1970s Jabbar though. They won a lot because they had great teams, Magic wasn't even better than Jabbar in some 1980s seasons.

Then why Kareem, Shaq, Russell and Wilt raised celling to GOAT-level in various occasions? Hakeem is there too and he's not different than them.

You seem to care only about scoring/offense while completely forgetting how important defense and rebounding are. Russell anchored many better defense than any of Jordan's offenses. Is this not a celling raiser?

[trueballer7]

Of course! I've been searching for footage from that era for a few years, everytime I get somethinf new I see different move from Wilt. We have more Kareem footage, but still not enough.

We don't have almost any of Wilt's important games. Right now the only notable Wilt games we have on tape are game 6 of 1967 finals, game 6 of 1972 WCF and game 5 of 1972 finals. That's it, two of them past his prime. The rest are completely random games that don't show Wilt in any extraoridinary game. We don't have a single Wilt's 40 points game and you are asking me if we don't have enough? What are you talking about? We know very little about prime Wilt Chamberlain (or Bill Russell for that matter).

I recently got game 6 against Bucks from 1972 and Wilt never impressed me more before. He was hustling, running, playing inspiring defense and scoring on Kareem. It can completely change the perception of how people view Wilt.

That's because Magic and Bird were more popular than Kareem but no, they weren't close to Jabbar.

Wilt didnt win any, when he had those 40pt games. So there's that. Him being more substantial and efficient, and a better basketball player, when he somewhat abandonned the obsession with worthless stats, is also true and that has been well established from his playing days. So when he impressed you, you already knew he didnt make the best out of his career.
As for Bill Russell, we know very well he was never considered the best individually. As a leader sure. But not as an individual talent.
Magic and Bird werent more popular than Kareem for any other reason, than both being considered as better than him, which they both were and which is why they had more success, individually and teamwise, in proportion to the healthy years they played.
Big men in general, are the absolute floor raisers in basketball but almost never the ceiling raisers, with the exception of Hakeem perhaps. They are too limited in the space they move.

We don't have any relevant games from Wilt after he won, we simply don't have anything from him basically. Any footage would help his case tremendously. We could see his defense, post game, rebounding, unreal athleticism... if you think that wouldn't help him you're insane.

Russell wasn't best individually because he wasn't great scorer? Do you know there is more in basketball than scoring, right?

Sure, Magic and Bird were better than 35+years old Kareem. They never approached dominance of 1970s Jabbar though. They won a lot because they had great teams, Magic wasn't even better than Jabbar in some 1980s seasons.

Then why Kareem, Shaq, Russell and Wilt raised celling to GOAT-level in various occasions? Hakeem is there too and he's not different than them.

You seem to care only about scoring/offense while completely forgetting how important defense and rebounding are. Russell anchored many better defense than any of Jordan's offenses. Is this not a celling raiser?

Xcuse me, way I remember it, Bulls were primarily a defensive team and Jordan was a big, big, part of that, although a guard. But you see the sophism in this? Why do you make it binary? I talked about a team ceiling raiser, not an offense or a defense.
Everything matters, and Jordan excelled at everything anyway, being the most profound example of a player getting the best out his team whilst dominating individually, which none other player can boast, at least to that level. And if you are to cut it in even smaller pieces, considering whether a 6'6' two guard was supposed to lead championship teams, whether scoring champions were supposed to lead championship teams etc etc etc, all the little details, one by one, especially as where seen at the time when he was doing his thing. Not only did he do, what was not supposed to happen at all but he did it with a consistency, that far exceeds those who had the advantage over him physically
Jordan, and Bird, Magic and Hakeem to an extent, are handbooks of how to maximize your potential as a basketball player, part of a basketball team, regardless of your size or athletic attributes. That doesnt mean, that if you dont have Hakeem's size or Birds's size etc, you're gonna be as good, but watching them both inspires the correct way to compete, to improve, to lead and extends your knowledge of whats possible and of how to play the game.
I'd throw Russell in there, but he lacked the offensive arsenal which made him too depended on his teamates on that part.
Every other player thats considered great, you can marvel at this or that, but take away their natural attributes and they are no more than good players. Which is why, they had weaknesses that could be consistently targetted and exploited in big games and called for very specific supporting casts around them.

[70sFan]

Wilt didnt win any, when he had those 40pt games. So there's that. Him being more substantial and efficient, and a better basketball player, when he somewhat abandonned the obsession with worthless stats, is also true and that has been well established from his playing days. So when he impressed you, you already knew he didnt make the best out of his career.
As for Bill Russell, we know very well he was never considered the best individually. As a leader sure. But not as an individual talent.
Magic and Bird werent more popular than Kareem for any other reason, than both being considered as better than him, which they both were and which is why they had more success, individually and teamwise, in proportion to the healthy years they played.
Big men in general, are the absolute floor raisers in basketball but almost never the ceiling raisers, with the exception of Hakeem perhaps. They are too limited in the space they move.

We don't have any relevant games from Wilt after he won, we simply don't have anything from him basically. Any footage would help his case tremendously. We could see his defense, post game, rebounding, unreal athleticism... if you think that wouldn't help him you're insane.

Russell wasn't best individually because he wasn't great scorer? Do you know there is more in basketball than scoring, right?

Sure, Magic and Bird were better than 35+years old Kareem. They never approached dominance of 1970s Jabbar though. They won a lot because they had great teams, Magic wasn't even better than Jabbar in some 1980s seasons.

Then why Kareem, Shaq, Russell and Wilt raised celling to GOAT-level in various occasions? Hakeem is there too and he's not different than them.

You seem to care only about scoring/offense while completely forgetting how important defense and rebounding are. Russell anchored many better defense than any of Jordan's offenses. Is this not a celling raiser?

Xcuse me, way I remember it, Bulls were primarily a defensive team and Jordan was a big, big, part of that, although a guard. But you see the sophism in this? Why do you make it binary? I talked about a team ceiling raiser, not an offense or a defense.
Everything matters, and Jordan excelled at everything anyway, being the most profound example of a player getting the best out his team whilst dominating individually, which none other player can boast, at least to that level. And if you are to cut it in even smaller pieces, considering whether a 6'6' two guard was supposed to lead championship teams, whether scoring champions were supposed to lead championship teams etc etc etc, all the little details, one by one, especially as where seen at the time when he was doing his thing. Not only did he do, what was not supposed to happen at all but he did it with a consistency, that far exceeds those who had the advantage over him physically
Jordan, and Bird, Magic and Hakeem to an extent, are handbooks of how to maximize your potential as a basketball player, part of a basketball team, regardless of your size or athletic attributes. That doesnt mean, that if you dont have Hakeem's size or Birds's size etc, you're gonna be as good, but watching them both inspires the correct way to compete, to improve, to lead and extends your knowledge of whats possible and of how to play the game.
I'd throw Russell in there, but he lacked the offensive arsenal which made him too depended on his teamates on that part.
Every other player thats considered great, you can marvel at this or that, but take away their natural attributes and they are no more than good players. Which is why, they had weaknesses that could be consistently targetted and exploited in big games and called for very specific supporting casts around them.

Wait, do you really think that Magic's or Bird's relative weakness on defensive side of the ball doesn't make them too depended on their teammates?

What exactly makes Hakeem better in what you said that Kareem? He's not more skilled in the post, he's far worse passer and he's just as athletic as Jabbar. You can make a case for someone like Duncan doing that but Hakeem? This guy used athleticism to his advantage as much as any other center.

If you want to call GOAT player, who is not dependable on his natural abilities, then pick Chris Paul or Steve Nash. Because Jordan without his athleticism wouldn't be close to GOAT.

[AussieRules]

Kobe better.

Mamba for ever!!!

[Triples333]

It's almost like you utilize different systems for different skill-sets? Jordan wasn't the most skilled passer on the bulls,

Pretty sure MJ proved that he could be a very elite passer when he switched to point guard in 1989.

That's cool. Pippen was a better passer.

I'm happy to know you know think Lebron is a comparable scorer to jordan since his 09 playoff scoring blows anything jordan's ever done out of the water.

LOL wait what? 'Bron put up an efficient 35 PPG for 14 games before being knocked out in 6 games to a Magic team that got beat down in the Finals. It was an impressive little run for him. MJ put up an efficient 35 PPG average for 4 straights SEASONS at one point (36 PPG in the playoffs during that span).

MJ had 11 full seasons for Chicago and led the NBA in scoring in 10 of them, including leading all scorers in the playoffs 10 times. His lowest playoff PPG was 29.3 in his first trip to the post-season, which is still higher than 'Bron's playoff career average.

[timO]

Well, Lebron is more penalized for his Finals losses than a player who loses in earlier rounds of the playoffs.

He also win his 3 rings with super teams big three, if KD warriors 2 titles are cheap, Lebron`s too.

Lebron also chocked dramatically in 2011.

[iggymcfrack]

One major strike against MJ that isn't brought up with the constant "Lebron played with superteam" argument is Jordan's team won 55 games without him. Lebron's supposed super team missed the playoffs without him in 2015. It is a myth those Heat teams were a better supporting cast than what MJ had.

Yeah yeah its a myth alright, Steve Kerr "So the second year, we sign Harper and he didnt fit in at all. He was struggling. We still had BJ and Pete Myers. We won fifty five-fifty seven games, or whatever it was. We played the triangle extremely well. Kukoc was great. We sort of all fit into our roles. I think there was a lot of leftover magic from Michaels' presence. Even though he wasnt playing for us, there was still an aura about the team. And Scottie had an amazing year. But the second year, that wore off. And the lack of talent started to come through".
Enter a 33 year old MJ. Three peat

The second year they lost Horace Grant. That was the major difference. Jordan came back that year but with no 3rd star, they lost to the Magic in 6.

Enter a 34 year old Rodman. Three peat.

[iggymcfrack]

Pretty sure MJ proved that he could be a very elite passer when he switched to point guard in 1989.

That's cool. Pippen was a better passer.

I'm happy to know you know think Lebron is a comparable scorer to jordan since his 09 playoff scoring blows anything jordan's ever done out of the water.

LOL wait what? 'Bron put up an efficient 35 PPG for 14 games before being knocked out in 6 games to a Magic team that got beat down in the Finals. It was an impressive little run for him. MJ put up an efficient 35 PPG average for 4 straights SEASONS at one point (36 PPG in the playoffs during that span).

MJ had 11 full seasons for Chicago and led the NBA in scoring in 10 of them, including leading all scorers in the playoffs 10 times. His lowest playoff PPG was 29.3 in his first trip to the post-season, which is still higher than 'Bron's playoff career average.

Scoring inflation. Jordan’s early years were played at an even higher pace than the games today. You can’t compare how many points someone scores in 125-120 games to what they score in 100-98 games. Also, LeBron dominated in every other facet of the game that playoffs in 2009.

[freethedevil]

Pretty sure MJ proved that he could be a very elite passer when he switched to point guard in 1989.

That's cool. Pippen was a better passer.

I'm happy to know you know think Lebron is a comparable scorer to jordan since his 09 playoff scoring blows anything jordan's ever done out of the water.

LOL wait what? 'Bron put up an efficient 35 PPG for 14 games before being knocked out in 6 games to a Magic team that got beat down in the Finals.

He was hyper-effecient against the best defense in the league on volume(when adjusted for pace) jordan's never touched in his playoff career. Remember the comment I responded to was hyping up a 20 game regular season stretch, if that's applicable, so is this.

It was an impressive little run for him. MJ put up an efficient 35 PPG average for 4 straights SEASONS at one point (36 PPG in the playoffs during that span). .

Now adjust for pace. And look at the comment i repsonded to. If jordan is a comprable passer to lebron, than consistent logic dictates lebron is a better scorer than jordan.

[Triples333]

Now adjust for pace. And look at the comment i repsonded to. If jordan is a comprable passer to lebron, than consistent logic dictates lebron is a better scorer than jordan.

It was an impressive 47.5 per 100 possession average from LBJ in that little run (just shy of what Jordan averaged in the playoffs against the 86 Celtics, one of the GOAT Defenses/Teams, speaking of small playoff samples). That was by far the highest of Lebron's career btw; the only other time he had a per 100 possession average over 40 in the playoffs was in 17/18 at 42.5. Jordan's career playoff average was 43.3 points per 100 possessions. And again, relative to his peers it's only more impressive, as he lead the league in scoring in every one of his full Bulls seasons after his rookie year, whereas Lebron has led the league in scoring once. Two different levels of scorers.