Jordan v Lebron - A civilised conversation

[DCasey91]

I think Wade 2011, AD 2020 and Irving 16 was more valuable

But all the other years it’s Pippen without a shadow of a doubt.

Continuity is something that trumps putting together any sort of talent.

I dunno there’s really no consensus on the Heat 11-14 or the Cavs 1st/2nd stint.

Both weren’t as “Super” as it’s made out to be. Not for all the years no way that’s being disingenuous

If anything the Bulls were more “Super” than posters trying to downplay how good the roster looked especially early on 91-93.

Don’t know no one has replied but:

Is 20 something PG and 20 something Horford similar to 20 something Pippen/Grant?

I think it is for sure.

I have Jordan ahead fwiw but James’s quality of quantity is getting too hard to ignore.

He’s going to trounce everybody not named Kareem.

It’s interesting how invested people are on “rings” as the defining thing without ever looking at it holistically.

Plugging it and running it back again doesn’t quite serve the be end and end all either because it throws up even more subjectivism and bias.

But for me personally MJ gets a loooooooooot of leeway and falsehoods/romanticism/myths galore. It’s eerily similar to an occult.

Then for LBJ there’s apologists that have no reason to be because of how the narrative dynamics can be.

What do you reckon the ratio is for MJ’s hog shot vs LBJ’s free throw woes in the media?

MJ passes it to Kerr, Legend
LBJ passes it to... doesn’t matter crucified

You see the double standard at play here?

[Djoker]

Thought experiment:

Let us imagine that Jordan jumped into the NBA two years earlier. In these two years he played at a low All-Star level before taking a step up in '85. In one of these two years he carries his team into a lopsided matchup and he has a bad series against a great defense. Let us also imagine that he stayed on after '98 and had another three seasons, two in the Top 5 range and one as an All-Star before he retires. He had several playoff series in those three years, some great, some good and some disappointing (because he's getting on in years at this point).

Compare Jordan's real career to the one in my hypothetical.

Which has a better case for GOAT?

Are his extra seasons providing extra value for his career, or are they sullying an otherwise unblemished prime?

There isn't a right or wrong answer, it's like a GOATshach inkblot.

Ok... If Jordan actually had these blemishes than you bet people would discuss them. However you are speculating that he would have these struggles. Considering that rookie Jordan had basically no trouble against a very strong defense Bucks, I don't see why it's a given that one year or two years younger MJ would struggle against strong defenses. He might have struggled but this hypothetical is just that; a hypothetical... And likewise after 1998. The notion that MJ would fall from best in the world to suddenly top 5 level is hypothetical. He might or he might remain as the best player for 2-3 more seasons. We don't know what would have happened...

And besides Lebron had these blemishes in the middle of his prime too... 2010, 2011, 2019... It would be like Jordan laying an egg in 1992 or something. It simply never happened.

The bottom line is that Lebron's longevity edge doesn't seem that big when you consider that about half of his seasons are worse than Jordan's worst Bulls' seasons and that Jordan's six year peak from 1988-1993 is better than any version of Lebron.

[sansterre]

Thought experiment:

Let us imagine that Jordan jumped into the NBA two years earlier. In these two years he played at a low All-Star level before taking a step up in '85. In one of these two years he carries his team into a lopsided matchup and he has a bad series against a great defense. Let us also imagine that he stayed on after '98 and had another three seasons, two in the Top 5 range and one as an All-Star before he retires. He had several playoff series in those three years, some great, some good and some disappointing (because he's getting on in years at this point).

Compare Jordan's real career to the one in my hypothetical.

Which has a better case for GOAT?

Are his extra seasons providing extra value for his career, or are they sullying an otherwise unblemished prime?

There isn't a right or wrong answer, it's like a GOATshach inkblot.

Ok... If Jordan actually had these blemishes than you bet people would discuss them. However you are speculating that he would have these struggles. Considering that rookie Jordan had basically no trouble against a very strong defense Bucks, I don't see why it's a given that one year or two years younger MJ would struggle against strong defenses. He might have struggled but this hypothetical is just that; a hypothetical... And likewise after 1998. The notion that MJ would fall from best in the world to suddenly top 5 level is hypothetical. He might or he might remain as the best player for 2-3 more seasons. We don't know what would have happened...

And besides Lebron had these blemishes in the middle of his prime too... 2010, 2011, 2019... It would be like Jordan laying an egg in 1992 or something. It simply never happened.

The bottom line is that Lebron's longevity edge doesn't seem that big when you consider that about half of his seasons are worse than Jordan's worst Bulls' seasons and that Jordan's six year peak from 1988-1993 is better than any version of Lebron.

Forgive me for being unclear. There are only two choices:

1) these extra years would help his GOAT case, or
2) these extra years would hurt his GOAT case

Options did not include:

3) Jordan is magic* and therefor incapable of seasons worse than his '85-98 career, or
4) Let's talk about LeBron. The comparison here isn't to LeBron, it's to reality-Jordan.

I'm just asking a straightforward binary question here, one I think that merits an answer.

*Your points are obviously fair that we don't know what would have happened. I 100% don't care whether or not the scenario above would or wouldn't have happened. My point was *given* the fact pattern, what would your response be?

[falcolombardi]

Thought experiment:

Let us imagine that Jordan jumped into the NBA two years earlier. In these two years he played at a low All-Star level before taking a step up in '85. In one of these two years he carries his team into a lopsided matchup and he has a bad series against a great defense. Let us also imagine that he stayed on after '98 and had another three seasons, two in the Top 5 range and one as an All-Star before he retires. He had several playoff series in those three years, some great, some good and some disappointing (because he's getting on in years at this point).

Compare Jordan's real career to the one in my hypothetical.

Which has a better case for GOAT?

Are his extra seasons providing extra value for his career, or are they sullying an otherwise unblemished prime?

There isn't a right or wrong answer, it's like a GOATshach inkblot.

Ok... If Jordan actually had these blemishes than you bet people would discuss them. However you are speculating that he would have these struggles. Considering that rookie Jordan had basically no trouble against a very strong defense Bucks, I don't see why it's a given that one year or two years younger MJ would struggle against strong defenses. He might have struggled but this hypothetical is just that; a hypothetical... And likewise after 1998. The notion that MJ would fall from best in the world to suddenly top 5 level is hypothetical. He might or he might remain as the best player for 2-3 more seasons. We don't know what would have happened...

And besides Lebron had these blemishes in the middle of his prime too... 2010, 2011, 2019... It would be like Jordan laying an egg in 1992 or something. It simply never happened.

The bottom line is that Lebron's longevity edge doesn't seem that big when you consider that about half of his seasons are worse than Jordan's worst Bulls' seasons and that Jordan's six year peak from 1988-1993 is better than any version of Lebron.

wait you think half of lebron seasons are worse than rookie jordan ?

also, even a subpar lebron season is still incredibly valuable to a team, 2015 lebron is one of his worst years and yet were it not for injuries ti may have been enough to beat a 68 win team and get a ring

there is a lot of value in non goat level seasons, you should be aware, jordan didnt win in half of his prime years (88,89,90) and got half of his rings past his peak (96,97,98)

there is a lot of cumnulative value in sub peak level seasons, like for example 2020 lebron or jordan second threepeat

[falcolombardi]

Thought experiment:

Let us imagine that Jordan jumped into the NBA two years earlier. In these two years he played at a low All-Star level before taking a step up in '85. In one of these two years he carries his team into a lopsided matchup and he has a bad series against a great defense. Let us also imagine that he stayed on after '98 and had another three seasons, two in the Top 5 range and one as an All-Star before he retires. He had several playoff series in those three years, some great, some good and some disappointing (because he's getting on in years at this point).

Compare Jordan's real career to the one in my hypothetical.

Which has a better case for GOAT?

Are his extra seasons providing extra value for his career, or are they sullying an otherwise unblemished prime?

There isn't a right or wrong answer, it's like a GOATshach inkblot.

Ok... If Jordan actually had these blemishes than you bet people would discuss them. However you are speculating that he would have these struggles. Considering that rookie Jordan had basically no trouble against a very strong defense Bucks, I don't see why it's a given that one year or two years younger MJ would struggle against strong defenses. He might have struggled but this hypothetical is just that; a hypothetical... And likewise after 1998. The notion that MJ would fall from best in the world to suddenly top 5 level is hypothetical. He might or he might remain as the best player for 2-3 more seasons. We don't know what would have happened...

And besides Lebron had these blemishes in the middle of his prime too... 2010, 2011, 2019... It would be like Jordan laying an egg in 1992 or something. It simply never happened.

The bottom line is that Lebron's longevity edge doesn't seem that big when you consider that about half of his seasons are worse than Jordan's worst Bulls' seasons and that Jordan's six year peak from 1988-1993 is better than any version of Lebron.

my problem with this "quit while you are ahead" logic is that it is ironically anti competitive, it says "better to not play, than play and risk losing"

look at 2021 lebron, he could have retired at 35 after a ring like jordan did, would that somehow make his career better by retiring early ? is it better to Miss a season that play it and not win it?

[sansterre]

Thought experiment:

Let us imagine that Jordan jumped into the NBA two years earlier. In these two years he played at a low All-Star level before taking a step up in '85. In one of these two years he carries his team into a lopsided matchup and he has a bad series against a great defense. Let us also imagine that he stayed on after '98 and had another three seasons, two in the Top 5 range and one as an All-Star before he retires. He had several playoff series in those three years, some great, some good and some disappointing (because he's getting on in years at this point).

Compare Jordan's real career to the one in my hypothetical.

Which has a better case for GOAT?

Are his extra seasons providing extra value for his career, or are they sullying an otherwise unblemished prime?

There isn't a right or wrong answer, it's like a GOATshach inkblot.

Ok... If Jordan actually had these blemishes than you bet people would discuss them. However you are speculating that he would have these struggles. Considering that rookie Jordan had basically no trouble against a very strong defense Bucks, I don't see why it's a given that one year or two years younger MJ would struggle against strong defenses. He might have struggled but this hypothetical is just that; a hypothetical... And likewise after 1998. The notion that MJ would fall from best in the world to suddenly top 5 level is hypothetical. He might or he might remain as the best player for 2-3 more seasons. We don't know what would have happened...

And besides Lebron had these blemishes in the middle of his prime too... 2010, 2011, 2019... It would be like Jordan laying an egg in 1992 or something. It simply never happened.

The bottom line is that Lebron's longevity edge doesn't seem that big when you consider that about half of his seasons are worse than Jordan's worst Bulls' seasons and that Jordan's six year peak from 1988-1993 is better than any version of Lebron.

wait you think half of lebron seasons are worse than rookie jordan ?

also, even a subpar lebron season is still incredibly valuable to a team, 2015 lebron is one of his worst years and yet were it not for injuries ti may have been enough to beat a 68 win team and get a ring

there is a lot of value in non goat level seasons, you should be aware, jordan didnt win in half of his prime years (88,89,90) and got half of his rings past his peak (96,97,98)

there is a lot of cumnulative value in sub peak level seasons, like for example 2020 lebron or jordan second threepeat

I agree, but let's have some respect for rookie Jordan. Not a lot of guys can come into the league and be a Top 5 player their first year.

[falcolombardi]

Ok... If Jordan actually had these blemishes than you bet people would discuss them. However you are speculating that he would have these struggles. Considering that rookie Jordan had basically no trouble against a very strong defense Bucks, I don't see why it's a given that one year or two years younger MJ would struggle against strong defenses. He might have struggled but this hypothetical is just that; a hypothetical... And likewise after 1998. The notion that MJ would fall from best in the world to suddenly top 5 level is hypothetical. He might or he might remain as the best player for 2-3 more seasons. We don't know what would have happened...

And besides Lebron had these blemishes in the middle of his prime too... 2010, 2011, 2019... It would be like Jordan laying an egg in 1992 or something. It simply never happened.

The bottom line is that Lebron's longevity edge doesn't seem that big when you consider that about half of his seasons are worse than Jordan's worst Bulls' seasons and that Jordan's six year peak from 1988-1993 is better than any version of Lebron.

wait you think half of lebron seasons are worse than rookie jordan ?

also, even a subpar lebron season is still incredibly valuable to a team, 2015 lebron is one of his worst years and yet were it not for injuries ti may have been enough to beat a 68 win team and get a ring

there is a lot of value in non goat level seasons, you should be aware, jordan didnt win in half of his prime years (88,89,90) and got half of his rings past his peak (96,97,98)

there is a lot of cumnulative value in sub peak level seasons, like for example 2020 lebron or jordan second threepeat

I agree, but let's have some respect for rookie Jordan. Not a lot of guys can come into the league and be a Top 5 player their first year.

for sure, rookie jordan was fantastic but only versions of lebron i wouldnt pick over it are those younger than rookie jordan (04,05, 06)

[sansterre]

wait you think half of lebron seasons are worse than rookie jordan ?

also, even a subpar lebron season is still incredibly valuable to a team, 2015 lebron is one of his worst years and yet were it not for injuries ti may have been enough to beat a 68 win team and get a ring

there is a lot of value in non goat level seasons, you should be aware, jordan didnt win in half of his prime years (88,89,90) and got half of his rings past his peak (96,97,98)

there is a lot of cumnulative value in sub peak level seasons, like for example 2020 lebron or jordan second threepeat

I agree, but let's have some respect for rookie Jordan. Not a lot of guys can come into the league and be a Top 5 player their first year.

for sure, rookie jordan was fantastic but only versions of lebron i wouldnt pick over it are those younger than rookie jordan (04,05, 06)

2006 is kind of a toss-up for me; LeBron was probably better in the regular season, but worse in the playoffs. I'd throw 2019 in as a worse season (because of the injury). Besides that . . . I'm not sure of any others.

[migya]

Thought experiment:

Let us imagine that Jordan jumped into the NBA two years earlier. In these two years he played at a low All-Star level before taking a step up in '85. In one of these two years he carries his team into a lopsided matchup and he has a bad series against a great defense. Let us also imagine that he stayed on after '98 and had another three seasons, two in the Top 5 range and one as an All-Star before he retires. He had several playoff series in those three years, some great, some good and some disappointing (because he's getting on in years at this point).

Compare Jordan's real career to the one in my hypothetical.

Which has a better case for GOAT?

Are his extra seasons providing extra value for his career, or are they sullying an otherwise unblemished prime?

There isn't a right or wrong answer, it's like a GOATshach inkblot.

Ok... If Jordan actually had these blemishes than you bet people would discuss them. However you are speculating that he would have these struggles. Considering that rookie Jordan had basically no trouble against a very strong defense Bucks, I don't see why it's a given that one year or two years younger MJ would struggle against strong defenses. He might have struggled but this hypothetical is just that; a hypothetical... And likewise after 1998. The notion that MJ would fall from best in the world to suddenly top 5 level is hypothetical. He might or he might remain as the best player for 2-3 more seasons. We don't know what would have happened...

And besides Lebron had these blemishes in the middle of his prime too... 2010, 2011, 2019... It would be like Jordan laying an egg in 1992 or something. It simply never happened.

The bottom line is that Lebron's longevity edge doesn't seem that big when you consider that about half of his seasons are worse than Jordan's worst Bulls' seasons and that Jordan's six year peak from 1988-1993 is better than any version of Lebron.

Forgive me for being unclear. There are only two choices:

1) these extra years would help his GOAT case, or
2) these extra years would hurt his GOAT case

Options did not include:

3) Jordan is magic* and therefor incapable of seasons worse than his '85-98 career, or
4) Let's talk about LeBron. The comparison here isn't to LeBron, it's to reality-Jordan.

I'm just asking a straightforward binary question here, one I think that merits an answer.

*Your points are obviously fair that we don't know what would have happened. I 100% don't care whether or not the scenario above would or wouldn't have happened. My point was *given* the fact pattern, what would your response be?

Your hypothetical is a stretch to say the least. Jordan being low allstar level for two years and then jumping to superstar in 85 is not realistic, but anyway, we'll follow that storyline.

Nothing is lost and he would actually gain a bit but depending on his playoffs and team performance his legacy could be no better if he performs at just below top 10 player those seasons.

Point is - Lebron was not the best player in the nba every season from let's say 2007 - 2020. Jordan was the best player from let's say 1988- 1998. He was the best from the playoffs 1986 to 1998 but likely most here won't agree.

[homecourtloss]

I agree, but let's have some respect for rookie Jordan. Not a lot of guys can come into the league and be a Top 5 player their first year.

for sure, rookie jordan was fantastic but only versions of lebron i wouldnt pick over it are those younger than rookie jordan (04,05, 06)

2006 is kind of a toss-up for me; LeBron was probably better in the regular season, but worse in the playoffs. I'd throw 2019 in as a worse season (because of the injury). Besides that . . . I'm not sure of any others.

As much maligned as it was as a season, 2019 LeBron was 11th in 2019 in Englemann’s dataset, 15th in luck-adjusted RAPM via NBA shot charts, #5 ON-OFF RAPTOR, and #2 in RPM. 27/8/8, +8.0 BPM. It’s pretty wild the seasons this guy has had when 2019 is probably a bottom 5 season for him

[falcolombardi]

Ok... If Jordan actually had these blemishes than you bet people would discuss them. However you are speculating that he would have these struggles. Considering that rookie Jordan had basically no trouble against a very strong defense Bucks, I don't see why it's a given that one year or two years younger MJ would struggle against strong defenses. He might have struggled but this hypothetical is just that; a hypothetical... And likewise after 1998. The notion that MJ would fall from best in the world to suddenly top 5 level is hypothetical. He might or he might remain as the best player for 2-3 more seasons. We don't know what would have happened...

And besides Lebron had these blemishes in the middle of his prime too... 2010, 2011, 2019... It would be like Jordan laying an egg in 1992 or something. It simply never happened.

The bottom line is that Lebron's longevity edge doesn't seem that big when you consider that about half of his seasons are worse than Jordan's worst Bulls' seasons and that Jordan's six year peak from 1988-1993 is better than any version of Lebron.

Forgive me for being unclear. There are only two choices:

1) these extra years would help his GOAT case, or
2) these extra years would hurt his GOAT case

Options did not include:

3) Jordan is magic* and therefor incapable of seasons worse than his '85-98 career, or
4) Let's talk about LeBron. The comparison here isn't to LeBron, it's to reality-Jordan.

I'm just asking a straightforward binary question here, one I think that merits an answer.

*Your points are obviously fair that we don't know what would have happened. I 100% don't care whether or not the scenario above would or wouldn't have happened. My point was *given* the fact pattern, what would your response be?

Your hypothetical is a stretch to say the least. Jordan being low allstar level for two years and then jumping to superstar in 85 is not realistic, but anyway, we'll follow that storyline.

Nothing is lost and he would actually gain a bit but depending on his playoffs and team performance his legacy could be no better if he performs at just below top 10 player those seasons.

Point is - Lebron was not the best player in the nba every season from let's say 2007 - 2020. Jordan was the best player from let's say 1988- 1998. He was the best from the playoffs 1986 to 1998 but likely most here won't agree.

jordan was not the best player in the league in 94 or 95 in any way, i am not sure why you include two pre prime lebron seasons (07,08)

lebron was the best player, whether all year round or for the playoffs for the most part of 09-20 with the exception of injured years like 2019 and maybe 2015 (still outplayed curry in the finals fwiw)

jordan in a 11 year period had 9 seasons as league best player

lebron in a 12 year period has at least 9 seasons as league best player (arguably 15 too)

is fairly comparable to me

[Cavsfansince84]

Your hypothetical is a stretch to say the least. Jordan being low allstar level for two years and then jumping to superstar in 85 is not realistic, but anyway, we'll follow that storyline.

Nothing is lost and he would actually gain a bit but depending on his playoffs and team performance his legacy could be no better if he performs at just below top 10 player those seasons.

Point is - Lebron was not the best player in the nba every season from let's say 2007 - 2020. Jordan was the best player from let's say 1988- 1998. He was the best from the playoffs 1986 to 1998 but likely most here won't agree.

That's something which is fine to hold as an opinion but I wouldn't say it's necessarily true. I think Magic probably gives you a better chance at winning a ring in 88 and maybe 89 as well. Hakeem has a definite argument in 93. 94&95 is not MJ since he didn't play. So out of those years you mentioned(88-98 or 11 years) you can solidly say he was the best in 6 or 7 of them and even then 2 of them are definitely post prime years where he clearly couldn't perform at his old level in the regular season or playoffs. LeBron otoh has strong arguments to be made from 08-2020 minus 2019.

[falcolombardi]

saying that jordan was the best player in the league from 88-98 is like saying lebron was the best player from 09-20

is only completely true if you ignore the years where that was not the case (94-95, 19,11)

[migya]

I think Wade 2011, AD 2020 and Irving 16 was more valuable

But all the other years it’s Pippen without a shadow of a doubt.

Continuity is something that trumps putting together any sort of talent.

I dunno there’s really no consensus on the Heat 11-14 or the Cavs 1st/2nd stint.

Both weren’t as “Super” as it’s made out to be. Not for all the years no way that’s being disingenuous

If anything the Bulls were more “Super” than posters trying to downplay how good the roster looked especially early on 91-93.

Don’t know no one has replied but:

Is 20 something PG and 20 something Horford similar to 20 something Pippen/Grant?

I think it is for sure.

Horford was able to perform a top 5-10 level at his position without very good players next to him and also with good players next to him, like early in his career and after Joe Johnson left and then Josh Smith. Horace was only good with very good players on his team and he was that role player that was very good at a few things that were needs. Horace feel of in his early thirties when there were no very good players on his team.

PG13 was able to lead his teams to multiple years of good level of winning and good playoff performances, something Pippen only did in 94.

Think Wade and Bosh 2011 were better than PG and Horford in their twenties.

[DCasey91]

I think Wade 2011, AD 2020 and Irving 16 was more valuable

But all the other years it’s Pippen without a shadow of a doubt.

Continuity is something that trumps putting together any sort of talent.

I dunno there’s really no consensus on the Heat 11-14 or the Cavs 1st/2nd stint.

Both weren’t as “Super” as it’s made out to be. Not for all the years no way that’s being disingenuous

If anything the Bulls were more “Super” than posters trying to downplay how good the roster looked especially early on 91-93.

Don’t know no one has replied but:

Is 20 something PG and 20 something Horford similar to 20 something Pippen/Grant?

I think it is for sure.

Horford was able to perform a top 5-10 level at his position without very good players next to him and also with good players next to him, like early in his career and after Joe Johnson left and then Josh Smith. Horace was only good with very good players on his team and he was that role player that was very good at a few things that were needs. Horace feel of in his early thirties when there were no very good players on his team.

PG13 was able to lead his teams to multiple years of good level of winning and good playoff performances, something Pippen only did in 94.

Think Wade and Bosh 2011 were better than PG and Horford in their twenties.

See that’s the thing we actually have a multitude of metrics, on/offs to go by rather than subjective analysis. Grant W/S’s is very similar to Horford W/S’s Bulls/Hawks tenure. He also had a 14 W/S season and that was the Bulls 3rd best player.

Thanks but subjective. no really looking for an objective view here.

Is 20 something Pippen/Grant similar to 20 something Horford/PG. It’s around the ballpark

Specifically 91-93 Age for Age between the four. I think for me there’s a lot of context missing here.

Haven’t checked all the metrics/impacts but I would hazard to guess it’d be similar.

Now to the subjective view especially on narrative.

Pippen + Grant? MJ made them (that’s hogwash btw)
Horford + PG? Lebron has a stacked team

Pointing out one year of Wade and disregarding 13/14.

See all the BS there?

[migya]

I think Wade 2011, AD 2020 and Irving 16 was more valuable

But all the other years it’s Pippen without a shadow of a doubt.

Continuity is something that trumps putting together any sort of talent.

I dunno there’s really no consensus on the Heat 11-14 or the Cavs 1st/2nd stint.

Both weren’t as “Super” as it’s made out to be. Not for all the years no way that’s being disingenuous

If anything the Bulls were more “Super” than posters trying to downplay how good the roster looked especially early on 91-93.

Don’t know no one has replied but:

Is 20 something PG and 20 something Horford similar to 20 something Pippen/Grant?

I think it is for sure.

Horford was able to perform a top 5-10 level at his position without very good players next to him and also with good players next to him, like early in his career and after Joe Johnson left and then Josh Smith. Horace was only good with very good players on his team and he was that role player that was very good at a few things that were needs. Horace feel of in his early thirties when there were no very good players on his team.

PG13 was able to lead his teams to multiple years of good level of winning and good playoff performances, something Pippen only did in 94.

Think Wade and Bosh 2011 were better than PG and Horford in their twenties.

See that’s the thing we actually have a multitude of metrics, on/offs to go by rather than subjective analysis. Grant W/S’s is very similar to Horford W/S’s Bulls/Hawks tenure. He also had a 14 W/S season and that was the Bulls 3rd best player.

Thanks but subjective. no really looking for an objective view here.

Is 20 something Pippen/Grant similar to 20 something Horford/PG. It’s around the ballpark

Specifically 91-93 Age for Age between the four. I think for me there’s a lot of context missing here.

Haven’t checked all the metrics/impacts but I would hazard to guess it’d be similar.

Now to the subjective view especially on narrative.

Pippen + Grant? MJ made them (that’s hogwash btw)
Horford + PG? Lebron has a stacked team

Pointing out one year of Wade and disregarding 13/14.

See all the BS there?

Wade had to play second to Lebron and within two years he regressed a fair bit, PG would do worse, particularly playing the same position as Lebron. PG was at his best as the number one scoring option on a team, even with Westbrook he had better success that way. Horford could fit like Horace did but he wouldn't score anymore than Horace did with two other big score like that, though in Atlanta early in his care he got his with good but lesser scorers because he was a better option in some situations than all of them, which Horace never was and Horford wouldn't be with Lebron and PG. Bosh was a far better scorer and even rebounder, quite good defender himself, so Horford is not as good.

Lebron wouldn't have won as much with PG and Horford instead of Wade and Bosh.

[Djoker]

Thought experiment:

Let us imagine that Jordan jumped into the NBA two years earlier. In these two years he played at a low All-Star level before taking a step up in '85. In one of these two years he carries his team into a lopsided matchup and he has a bad series against a great defense. Let us also imagine that he stayed on after '98 and had another three seasons, two in the Top 5 range and one as an All-Star before he retires. He had several playoff series in those three years, some great, some good and some disappointing (because he's getting on in years at this point).

Compare Jordan's real career to the one in my hypothetical.

Which has a better case for GOAT?

Are his extra seasons providing extra value for his career, or are they sullying an otherwise unblemished prime?

There isn't a right or wrong answer, it's like a GOATshach inkblot.

Ok... If Jordan actually had these blemishes than you bet people would discuss them. However you are speculating that he would have these struggles. Considering that rookie Jordan had basically no trouble against a very strong defense Bucks, I don't see why it's a given that one year or two years younger MJ would struggle against strong defenses. He might have struggled but this hypothetical is just that; a hypothetical... And likewise after 1998. The notion that MJ would fall from best in the world to suddenly top 5 level is hypothetical. He might or he might remain as the best player for 2-3 more seasons. We don't know what would have happened...

And besides Lebron had these blemishes in the middle of his prime too... 2010, 2011, 2019... It would be like Jordan laying an egg in 1992 or something. It simply never happened.

The bottom line is that Lebron's longevity edge doesn't seem that big when you consider that about half of his seasons are worse than Jordan's worst Bulls' seasons and that Jordan's six year peak from 1988-1993 is better than any version of Lebron.

Forgive me for being unclear. There are only two choices:

1) these extra years would help his GOAT case, or
2) these extra years would hurt his GOAT case

Options did not include:

3) Jordan is magic* and therefor incapable of seasons worse than his '85-98 career, or
4) Let's talk about LeBron. The comparison here isn't to LeBron, it's to reality-Jordan.

I'm just asking a straightforward binary question here, one I think that merits an answer.

*Your points are obviously fair that we don't know what would have happened. I 100% don't care whether or not the scenario above would or wouldn't have happened. My point was *given* the fact pattern, what would your response be?

Of course if you add more years, Jordan's career would get better. However with your example of two more top 5 seasons and three more all-star level seasons he gains VERY VERY LITTLE. Like his career legacy might improve like 2% honestly. Just like MJ's Wizards years did basically nothing to improve his legacy for me. Top 5 players let alone all-star players are dime a dozen in NBA history.

[DCasey91]

Horford was able to perform a top 5-10 level at his position without very good players next to him and also with good players next to him, like early in his career and after Joe Johnson left and then Josh Smith. Horace was only good with very good players on his team and he was that role player that was very good at a few things that were needs. Horace feel of in his early thirties when there were no very good players on his team.

PG13 was able to lead his teams to multiple years of good level of winning and good playoff performances, something Pippen only did in 94.

Think Wade and Bosh 2011 were better than PG and Horford in their twenties.

See that’s the thing we actually have a multitude of metrics, on/offs to go by rather than subjective analysis. Grant W/S’s is very similar to Horford W/S’s Bulls/Hawks tenure. He also had a 14 W/S season and that was the Bulls 3rd best player.

Thanks but subjective. no really looking for an objective view here.

Is 20 something Pippen/Grant similar to 20 something Horford/PG. It’s around the ballpark

Specifically 91-93 Age for Age between the four. I think for me there’s a lot of context missing here.

Haven’t checked all the metrics/impacts but I would hazard to guess it’d be similar.

Now to the subjective view especially on narrative.

Pippen + Grant? MJ made them (that’s hogwash btw)
Horford + PG? Lebron has a stacked team

Pointing out one year of Wade and disregarding 13/14.

See all the BS there?

Wade had to play second to Lebron and within two years he regressed a fair bit, PG would do worse, particularly playing the same position as Lebron. PG was at his best as the number one scoring option on a team, even with Westbrook he had better success that way. Horford could fit like Horace did but he wouldn't score anymore than Horace did with two other big score like that, though in Atlanta early in his care he got his with good but lesser scorers because he was a better option in some situations than all of them, which Horace never was and Horford wouldn't be with Lebron and PG. Bosh was a far better scorer and even rebounder, quite good defender himself, so Horford is not as good.

Lebron wouldn't have won as much with PG and Horford instead of Wade and Bosh.

My point is this. Lebron for sure would have won with the equivalent of Grant/Pippen. All in their mid 20’s. Peak ages

These are all peak timelines exactly what MJ had we are not even accounting for continuity coaching/management etc

Hence my overall statement about the being three of them in their 20’s.

7 years can account for a players half career or much more than that but in MJ terms it was more. Fact is MJ had more and better help earlier on that’s all.

It’s a short straw saying James would lower their stats when MJ did the exact same thing :/.

[Djoker]

Thought experiment:

Let us imagine that Jordan jumped into the NBA two years earlier. In these two years he played at a low All-Star level before taking a step up in '85. In one of these two years he carries his team into a lopsided matchup and he has a bad series against a great defense. Let us also imagine that he stayed on after '98 and had another three seasons, two in the Top 5 range and one as an All-Star before he retires. He had several playoff series in those three years, some great, some good and some disappointing (because he's getting on in years at this point).

Compare Jordan's real career to the one in my hypothetical.

Which has a better case for GOAT?

Are his extra seasons providing extra value for his career, or are they sullying an otherwise unblemished prime?

There isn't a right or wrong answer, it's like a GOATshach inkblot.

Ok... If Jordan actually had these blemishes than you bet people would discuss them. However you are speculating that he would have these struggles. Considering that rookie Jordan had basically no trouble against a very strong defense Bucks, I don't see why it's a given that one year or two years younger MJ would struggle against strong defenses. He might have struggled but this hypothetical is just that; a hypothetical... And likewise after 1998. The notion that MJ would fall from best in the world to suddenly top 5 level is hypothetical. He might or he might remain as the best player for 2-3 more seasons. We don't know what would have happened...

And besides Lebron had these blemishes in the middle of his prime too... 2010, 2011, 2019... It would be like Jordan laying an egg in 1992 or something. It simply never happened.

The bottom line is that Lebron's longevity edge doesn't seem that big when you consider that about half of his seasons are worse than Jordan's worst Bulls' seasons and that Jordan's six year peak from 1988-1993 is better than any version of Lebron.

wait you think half of lebron seasons are worse than rookie jordan ?

also, even a subpar lebron season is still incredibly valuable to a team, 2015 lebron is one of his worst years and yet were it not for injuries ti may have been enough to beat a 68 win team and get a ring

there is a lot of value in non goat level seasons, you should be aware, jordan didnt win in half of his prime years (88,89,90) and got half of his rings past his peak (96,97,98)

there is a lot of cumnulative value in sub peak level seasons, like for example 2020 lebron or jordan second threepeat

I do think a lot of Lebron years are worse than rookie Jordan.

RS: 28.2/6.5/5.9 on +4.9 rTS with 3.5 topg
PS: 29.3/5.8/8.5 on +2.2 rTS with 3.8 topg (against the #2 defense Bucks)

I feel confident taking rookie MJ over any pre-2009 Lebron and you can add 2011, 2019 and 2021 in there as well. 2010 was bad for what Lebron did in the second round of the playoffs but that entire season is still pretty good.

Jordan's 2nd threepeat and 2020 Lebron are still good prime level seasons. In fact I've seen some people (though not many...) even argue that those seasons were their respective peaks. I'm talking about seasons where the players in question aren't even the best players in the league and not even strong MVP candidates or they have terrible postseasons. Half of Lebron's career namely 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2019 and 2021. For Jordan we can say 2002 and 2003.

[DCasey91]

The particular reason why I allude to this certain timeframe it’s something that can’t be doctored or brought down no matter what MJ fans believe. Fact is having 2x 10 W/S in exact timelines as your superstar is superiority.

No MJ didn’t make them better they themselves got better because..... umm I believe in Sports those are your peak ages so to speak or when you mature. Is that wrong? I don’t think so.

91-93

The ratio of discarding that important information and replacing it with well Lebron had.... yes 13/14 how good was Bosh/Wade really？

So my conclusion has always been if you gave Lebron peak Pippen/peak Grant he would be winning a lot too.

Difference between 90-91 MJ? Jack there isn’t.... but there is a huge difference to the team that’s for certain.