How many contending seasons did Lebron James and Michael Jordan each have?

[AEnigma]

Greatest is when Vegas gives you best odds and you win.

Analysis!

[Owly]

Not 1 because Jordan was rusted not ready.

Well how is that's not Jordan's problem?

Where did you get that? Of course it was Jordan’s problem.

I assume because they don't understand what you were intending to achieve by responding to the prior comment.

I would interpret it thusly
You: Heavily pro-Jordan comment, proclamation of him as GOAT based on "converting ... opportunities".
Jaivl: But this isn't about casts. The players are integrated into it. For instance a player other than Jordan would have played a full season at age 31 and that team would be regarded a strong contender, playing from a higher seed. This would appear to be a better chance with other players, thereby punishing them for their RS effectiveness (even if they win the title) if we measure by a player by rewarding "efficient" team conversion of team level opportunities. You look better for making the team look less of a contender in the RS.
You: But Jordan wasn't ready ...

It's hard to tell what this was intended to add. That MJ joined late-season. I would hope all discussing that year already know that. It doesn't really engage with the core point made, so far as I can tell. In the context, I can see why it would be assumed that this was an attempt to excuse Jordan this more pedestrian performance. Still very good in absolute terms. And the Bulls are thinner at PF than the 3-peat teams. Harper maybe hasn't mentally transitioned to a low usage stopper role. One doesn't have to see '95 Bulls cast as a lock to be 1.0 with a more typical superstar at 31. But I can absolutely understand how the assumption/estimated reading, given the prior context, would be intended as some defense of Jordan (a "'95 doesn't count" type thing).

[Owly]

Betting odds at the beginning of the postseason are good tells as far as how the teams were perceived.

Lebron James
Year Betting Odds Implied Odds Outcome
2006 1800 (7th) 5.3% Lost in 2nd Round
2007 1200 (6th) 7.7% Lost in Finals
2008 2500 (9th) 3.8% Lost in 2nd Round
2009 160 (T-1st) 38.5% Lost in CF
2010 160 (1st) 38.5% Lost in 2nd Round
2011 300 (2nd) 25.0% Lost in Finals
2012 200 (1st) 33.3% Championship
2013 -125 (1st) 55.6% Championship
2014 200 (1st) 33.3% Lost in Finals
2015 225 (2nd) 30.8% Lost in Finals
2016 475 (3rd) 17.4% Championship
2017 405 (2nd) 19.8% Lost in Finals
2018 800 (3rd) 11.1% Lost in Finals
2020 280 (2nd) 26.3% Championship
2021 400 (2nd) 20.0% Lost in 1st Round

Expected Titles: 3.664

Michael Jordan
Year Betting Odds Implied Odds Outcome
1985 4000 (T-12th) 2.4% Lost in 1st Round
1986 50000 (16th) 0.2% Lost in 1st Round
1987 3.0% Lost in 1st Round estimate
1988 1200 (7th) 7.7% Lost in 2nd Round
1989 2000 (10th) 4.8% Lost in CF
1990 800 (4th) 11.1% Lost in CF
1991 250 (T-1st) 28.6% Championship
1992 -200 (1st) 66.7% Championship
1993 300 (2nd) 25.0% Championship
1995 500 (2nd) 16.7% Lost in 2nd Round
1996 -400 (1st) 80.0% Championship
1997 -200 (1st) 66.7% Championship
1998 140 (1st) 41.7% Championship

Expected Titles: 3.546

Lebron's teams were contenders every year from 2009-2021 (except 2019) so that's 12 years.
Jordan's teams were contenders every year from 1990-1993 and 1995-1998 so that's 8 years.

However we can exclude Lebron in 2015 and 2021 due to teammate injury. And Pippen did have that migraine in Game 7 in 1990 and was totally useless in that pivotal game. So that's 10 contending years for Lebron and 7 for Jordan in my book.

These types of things are super woolly so unless someones claiming certainty in these things, or making strong claims off them I don't really care.

But 1 teammate having 1 bad playoff game (or 1 one bad - playing hurt/unwell - playoff game) precluding a year from being a potential contending year seems a bit off. If one player having one bad game precluded you from being champions then I don't think there'd be any champions.

To be clear, this is not about the caliber of Michael Jordan's play. The reasoning offered here, though, seems problematic.

[Djoker]

Betting odds at the beginning of the postseason are good tells as far as how the teams were perceived.

Lebron James
Year Betting Odds Implied Odds Outcome
2006 1800 (7th) 5.3% Lost in 2nd Round
2007 1200 (6th) 7.7% Lost in Finals
2008 2500 (9th) 3.8% Lost in 2nd Round
2009 160 (T-1st) 38.5% Lost in CF
2010 160 (1st) 38.5% Lost in 2nd Round
2011 300 (2nd) 25.0% Lost in Finals
2012 200 (1st) 33.3% Championship
2013 -125 (1st) 55.6% Championship
2014 200 (1st) 33.3% Lost in Finals
2015 225 (2nd) 30.8% Lost in Finals
2016 475 (3rd) 17.4% Championship
2017 405 (2nd) 19.8% Lost in Finals
2018 800 (3rd) 11.1% Lost in Finals
2020 280 (2nd) 26.3% Championship
2021 400 (2nd) 20.0% Lost in 1st Round

Expected Titles: 3.664

Michael Jordan
Year Betting Odds Implied Odds Outcome
1985 4000 (T-12th) 2.4% Lost in 1st Round
1986 50000 (16th) 0.2% Lost in 1st Round
1987 3.0% Lost in 1st Round estimate
1988 1200 (7th) 7.7% Lost in 2nd Round
1989 2000 (10th) 4.8% Lost in CF
1990 800 (4th) 11.1% Lost in CF
1991 250 (T-1st) 28.6% Championship
1992 -200 (1st) 66.7% Championship
1993 300 (2nd) 25.0% Championship
1995 500 (2nd) 16.7% Lost in 2nd Round
1996 -400 (1st) 80.0% Championship
1997 -200 (1st) 66.7% Championship
1998 140 (1st) 41.7% Championship

Expected Titles: 3.546

Lebron's teams were contenders every year from 2009-2021 (except 2019) so that's 12 years.
Jordan's teams were contenders every year from 1990-1993 and 1995-1998 so that's 8 years.

However we can exclude Lebron in 2015 and 2021 due to teammate injury. And Pippen did have that migraine in Game 7 in 1990 and was totally useless in that pivotal game. So that's 10 contending years for Lebron and 7 for Jordan in my book.

These types of things are super woolly so unless someones claiming certainty in these things, or making strong claims off them I don't really care.

But 1 teammate having 1 bad playoff game (or 1 one bad - playing hurt/unwell - playoff game) precluding a year from being a potential contending year seems a bit off. If one player having one bad game precluded you from being champions then I don't think there'd be any champions.

To be clear, this is not about the caliber of Michael Jordan's play. The reasoning offered here, though, seems problematic.

The 1990 Bulls had +800 title odds which was 4th in the league to begin with though. Pistons, Lakers and Blazers were all more favored to win it all even without the Pippen migraine. Weak contender would be a better way to put it.

[Owly]

Betting odds at the beginning of the postseason are good tells as far as how the teams were perceived.

Lebron James
Year Betting Odds Implied Odds Outcome
2006 1800 (7th) 5.3% Lost in 2nd Round
2007 1200 (6th) 7.7% Lost in Finals
2008 2500 (9th) 3.8% Lost in 2nd Round
2009 160 (T-1st) 38.5% Lost in CF
2010 160 (1st) 38.5% Lost in 2nd Round
2011 300 (2nd) 25.0% Lost in Finals
2012 200 (1st) 33.3% Championship
2013 -125 (1st) 55.6% Championship
2014 200 (1st) 33.3% Lost in Finals
2015 225 (2nd) 30.8% Lost in Finals
2016 475 (3rd) 17.4% Championship
2017 405 (2nd) 19.8% Lost in Finals
2018 800 (3rd) 11.1% Lost in Finals
2020 280 (2nd) 26.3% Championship
2021 400 (2nd) 20.0% Lost in 1st Round

Expected Titles: 3.664

Michael Jordan
Year Betting Odds Implied Odds Outcome
1985 4000 (T-12th) 2.4% Lost in 1st Round
1986 50000 (16th) 0.2% Lost in 1st Round
1987 3.0% Lost in 1st Round estimate
1988 1200 (7th) 7.7% Lost in 2nd Round
1989 2000 (10th) 4.8% Lost in CF
1990 800 (4th) 11.1% Lost in CF
1991 250 (T-1st) 28.6% Championship
1992 -200 (1st) 66.7% Championship
1993 300 (2nd) 25.0% Championship
1995 500 (2nd) 16.7% Lost in 2nd Round
1996 -400 (1st) 80.0% Championship
1997 -200 (1st) 66.7% Championship
1998 140 (1st) 41.7% Championship

Expected Titles: 3.546

Lebron's teams were contenders every year from 2009-2021 (except 2019) so that's 12 years.
Jordan's teams were contenders every year from 1990-1993 and 1995-1998 so that's 8 years.

However we can exclude Lebron in 2015 and 2021 due to teammate injury. And Pippen did have that migraine in Game 7 in 1990 and was totally useless in that pivotal game. So that's 10 contending years for Lebron and 7 for Jordan in my book.

These types of things are super woolly so unless someones claiming certainty in these things, or making strong claims off them I don't really care.

But 1 teammate having 1 bad playoff game (or 1 one bad - playing hurt/unwell - playoff game) precluding a year from being a potential contending year seems a bit off. If one player having one bad game precluded you from being champions then I don't think there'd be any champions.

To be clear, this is not about the caliber of Michael Jordan's play. The reasoning offered here, though, seems problematic.

The 1990 Bulls had +800 title odds which was 4th in the league to begin with though. Pistons, Lakers and Blazers were all more favored to win it all even without the Pippen migraine. Weak contender would be a better way to put it.

You say "though" as though my post was about the Bulls odds. Per the above I don't really care (nor object to anything here other than the use of "though"). My concern was with the particular line of argumentation offered (and secondarily, I suppose, the process that comes up with such a line). It's not questioning whether or not better reasoning might exist.

[dygaction]

Well how is that's not Jordan's problem?

Where did you get that? Of course it was Jordan’s problem.

I assume because they don't understand what you were intending to achieve by responding to the prior comment.

I would interpret it thusly
You: Heavily pro-Jordan comment, proclamation of him as GOAT based on "converting ... opportunities".
Jaivl: But this isn't about casts. The players are integrated into it. For instance a player other than Jordan would have played a full season at age 31 and that team would be regarded a strong contender, playing from a higher seed. This would appear to be a better chance with other players, thereby punishing them for their RS effectiveness (even if they win the title) if we measure by a player by rewarding "efficient" team conversion of team level opportunities. You look better for making the team look less of a contender in the RS.
You: But Jordan wasn't ready ...

It's hard to tell what this was intended to add. That MJ joined late-season. I would hope all discussing that year already know that. It doesn't really engage with the core point made, so far as I can tell. In the context, I can see why it would be assumed that this was an attempt to excuse Jordan this more pedestrian performance. Still very good in absolute terms. And the Bulls are thinner at PF than the 3-peat teams. Harper maybe hasn't mentally transitioned to a low usage stopper role. One doesn't have to see '95 Bulls cast as a lock to be 1.0 with a more typical superstar at 31. But I can absolutely understand how the assumption/estimated reading, given the prior context, would be intended as some defense of Jordan (a "'95 doesn't count" type thing).

My argument was when Jordan was in his peak ready to compete his team usually got the job done. When he was not ready, a half of him and everyone else were not enough.

[Djoker]

These types of things are super woolly so unless someones claiming certainty in these things, or making strong claims off them I don't really care.

But 1 teammate having 1 bad playoff game (or 1 one bad - playing hurt/unwell - playoff game) precluding a year from being a potential contending year seems a bit off. If one player having one bad game precluded you from being champions then I don't think there'd be any champions.

To be clear, this is not about the caliber of Michael Jordan's play. The reasoning offered here, though, seems problematic.

The 1990 Bulls had +800 title odds which was 4th in the league to begin with though. Pistons, Lakers and Blazers were all more favored to win it all even without the Pippen migraine. Weak contender would be a better way to put it.

You say "though" as though my post was about the Bulls odds. Per the above I don't really care (nor object to anything here other than the use of "though"). My concern was with the particular line of argumentation offered (and secondarily, I suppose, the process that comes up with such a line). It's not questioning whether or not better reasoning might exist.

Fair enough. Although a teammate injury/condition in a pivotal Game 7 can affect a team's chances significantly.

[Owly]

The 1990 Bulls had +800 title odds which was 4th in the league to begin with though. Pistons, Lakers and Blazers were all more favored to win it all even without the Pippen migraine. Weak contender would be a better way to put it.

You say "though" as though my post was about the Bulls odds. Per the above I don't really care (nor object to anything here other than the use of "though"). My concern was with the particular line of argumentation offered (and secondarily, I suppose, the process that comes up with such a line). It's not questioning whether or not better reasoning might exist.

Fair enough. Although a teammate injury/condition in a pivotal Game 7 can affect a team's chances significantly.

It changes their odds for that game quite significantly (depending on how badly affected and the resultant change outcomes, though would be interested to here if it typically changes from say, 0.4 chance to 0.25 or 0.2 or whatever).

But in reality it's one game in one series. And it's a game 7 which was framed twice as "pivotal" but could - I think more pertinently - be called unlikely. In most outcomes a series doesn't go 7 and that Pippen wasn't right doesn't end up mattering as there is no game to be played and circumstances are different. In a rerun series, even with migraine locked in, the majority of times a g7 short term (not "physical damage" in the manner of tears, strains, breaks etc) ailment won't alter the series because it just doesn't get there. It's probably decided one way or the other earlier. It did happen to matter IRL and this is just another way in which the model doesn't work as a player rater. But per above even with the condition (and some significant degree of likelihood of negative impact on performance if playing) guaranteed, occurring when it did makes it less, not more, likely to be influential.

[Owly]

Where did you get that? Of course it was Jordan’s problem.

I assume because they don't understand what you were intending to achieve by responding to the prior comment.

I would interpret it thusly
You: Heavily pro-Jordan comment, proclamation of him as GOAT based on "converting ... opportunities".
Jaivl: But this isn't about casts. The players are integrated into it. For instance a player other than Jordan would have played a full season at age 31 and that team would be regarded a strong contender, playing from a higher seed. This would appear to be a better chance with other players, thereby punishing them for their RS effectiveness (even if they win the title) if we measure by a player by rewarding "efficient" team conversion of team level opportunities. You look better for making the team look less of a contender in the RS.
You: But Jordan wasn't ready ...

It's hard to tell what this was intended to add. That MJ joined late-season. I would hope all discussing that year already know that. It doesn't really engage with the core point made, so far as I can tell. In the context, I can see why it would be assumed that this was an attempt to excuse Jordan this more pedestrian performance. Still very good in absolute terms. And the Bulls are thinner at PF than the 3-peat teams. Harper maybe hasn't mentally transitioned to a low usage stopper role. One doesn't have to see '95 Bulls cast as a lock to be 1.0 with a more typical superstar at 31. But I can absolutely understand how the assumption/estimated reading, given the prior context, would be intended as some defense of Jordan (a "'95 doesn't count" type thing).

My argument was when Jordan was in his peak ready to compete his team usually got the job done. When he was not ready, a half of him and everyone else were not enough.

See, now I'm unclear if the intent was to defend Jordan.

If you're not arguing that it's not on Jordan, what does it matter? If a player gives up one likely prime year and for a second plays only a smallish fraction of a second and does so not "ready to compete" and at 50% of notional capacity and that is entirely on them ... that's a huge chunk of potential value unrealized.

[AEnigma]

It is also an odd comment because Jordan’s absolute best individual years only saw him win one title. The overall quality of the team mattered more.

[dygaction]

It is also an odd comment because Jordan’s absolute best individual years only saw him win one title. The overall quality of the team mattered more.

Or Jordan was so dominate that his off peak seasons were still quite better than his peers..

[dygaction]

Greatest is when Vegas gives you best odds and you win.

Analysis!

Lazy analysis! Great is when Vegas gives you best odds and you win.
Greatest is you win even if Vegas and the public don’t you much odds.

[AEnigma]

Not once have I ever cited Vegas odds to show Lebron’s postseason runs were impressive lol.

And yeah, the best players are often still the best even outside their peak. That tends to be what it means to have multi-year dominance; no single peak lasts a decade. But whether they win is more dependent on the team around them.

[dygaction]

Not once have I ever cited Vegas odds to show Lebron’s postseason runs were impressive lol.

And yeah, the best players are often still the best even outside their peak. That tends to be what it means to have multi-year dominance; no single peak lasts a decade. But whether they win is more dependent on the team around them.

The odds are a perfect indicator that based on complicated models. Casinos don’t want to lose money and they do a much better job than everyday joes.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Jordan: 0 first three years and 1995, 0.25 in 1988, 0.5 in 1989 (maybe fifth best team in my eyes), 0.75 in 1990, and 1 in every title year.

Lebron:
2006 — … 0.25 at best, but tough to care about not a top five team.
2007 — … 0.25; I really only see three legitimate contending teams that year (plus the mythic healthy Rockets), and the Pistons themselves were only like a 0.5.
2008 — 0.5; I think Ben Wallace situated them as a good playoff team
2009 — uhhh tough because that team had no business being a 1 but every base level indication said they were.
2010 — 0.75; got worse while Magic and Celtics and Suns all improved.
2011 — 1 sadly
2012 — again tough, because the Spurs and Thunder looked better, and people were unsure about the Heat after 2011, so I can see arguments for 1 (common sense) or 0.75 (fourth in SRS, just disappointed during the previous postseason).
2013 — 1
2014 — 0.75; Spurs were clear 1, and Heat were a step down with the Thunder and Clippers
2015 — 0.75 considering health; on par with Clippers when healthy and below Warriors, but more playoff experience than either
2016 — 0.75; Warriors and Spurs more dominant, and Thunder good when healthy
2017 — 0.75; Warriors and Spurs still too good
2018 — 0.5 (honestly could be 0.25 relative to the Warriors)
2019 — 0 (injury)
2020 — 1
2021 — 0.5 with injuries
2022 — 0
2023 — probably capping out at 0.5

Durantwarriors mean that entire era was 0 lol