Is there a reasonable argument that MJ was actually better at basketball than LeBron?

[durden_tyler]

Jordan never had a superteam or needed it to win 6 titles (should have been 8 too). He was that good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[knicksNOTslick]

When your career is full of excuses and hypotheticals for why you didn't accomplish as much as another great player just to prop your career up, then you just aren't better than that guy.

All I see is excuses made for Lebron for his failures. He had a great career, just not a better one than Jordan. You can keep making excuses about XYZ and what ifs but it doesn't erase the memory of 2011 when he wilted under pressure in his prime. Lebron has had a dominant career since then. There's nothing wrong with Lebron being 2nd best.

Even Tim Duncan accomplished more rings than him and with less help. Arguably has a better overall career than Lebron but nobody wants to talk about that.

[durden_tyler]

The 2 year layoff is what is most impressive. To step away for that long and to come back and THREE peat is insane. Lebron never faced an all nba player on the way to all those finals when he was in the east which was a significantly worse conference than the west. Jordan never had a big man as good as AD either.

Jordan didn't comeback and have a 3 peat. He comeback and the Bulls got bounced in the 2nd round. MJ thought by switching back to his #23 jersey mid-series he'd play better.

LeBron never had an All-NBA teammate on both sides of the court like MJ did in 5 out of the 6 titles Chicago won.

I love how you talk about Jordan having Pippen for his 6 rings like peopls dont know that James had Wade, Bosh, Irving, Love, and Davis for his 4. Those are some pretty good players no? Lol you James fans are hilarious.

Not sure which are more annoying the Kobe fans or the LeBron fans, but it’s very close.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Luke Skyowner]

Since OP didn´t give many reasonable arguments himself i don´t really see point of this thread but i guess it's almost offseason lol. To add to all the anecdotes that is fitting here; MJ had killer instinct not matched by LBJ, better leader, no eye rolling or complaining shenanigans. Straight to the point; might sound offensive to some but gets it done. Aesthetically his game was one of the most fluid and better looking imo. Kyrie comes pretty close. Mj had much bigger hands, palming the ball and fooling defenders like they are amateurs. Shooting, dunking, better set of counter attacks around the rim. More creative in that sense.

That said, i´m good with not comparing them and just be happy we have both of them in this game. I prefer to put players in the relatively same era against each other.

[Deivork]

Ahh, what a healthy debate

[IG2]

I think the 1997 and 1998 Jazz were extremely good teams. Any objective data on them would say that too. They put up 8 SRS and 6 SRS and 64 wins and 62 wins in those seasons.

Those mid to late 90's records are clearly inflated because of expansion and talent dilution. From 86-94 in the Stockton/Malone era Utah never won more than 55 games. Suddenly from 95-98 they post 3 60+ win seasons while their core is approaching their mid 30's and the rest of the roster hasn't improved in any noticeable way? Come on. This is clearly a case of the competition getting weaker. Heck, Bulls themselves winning 72 and 69 with an ancient roster is testament to the era's weakness.

They were led by an all-time great player that was right in the middle of a span where he won two MVP awards.

Uhh Malone winning MVPs at 33 and 35 is the perfect illustration of the league's lack of Tier 1 talent at that time. MJ's the only guy in NBA history to win MVPs at such an old age and Malone's no MJ. And while he's certainly a Top 30 great, I see him the same way I see Anthony Davis. If he's your best offensive player, you are screwed in the playoffs. As a Chicagoan who watched those Finals' live, have rewatched them numerous times in recent years and not once do you ever feel like Bulls wouldn't win (and not because of MJ). From Malone's limited arsenal that made him such an opportunistic scorer to Stockton's 12 ppg ass, Utah just didn't strike much fear. And honestly, the fact that those series' managed to be so competitive is testament to Bulls' own mediocrity. The level of play in those Finals is not high at all. Utah just looks so meh in them. They clearly broke through in '97 and '98 because Hakeem/Clyde/Barkley just got old and the only young superstar talent in the West (Shaq) had no Robin yet.

Yes, that’s true. But how much we care about that feather in his cap should certainly be affected by how good of form we think the Warriors actually were in when that happened.

I just randomly threw the 73-win Warriors as a response to things-LeBron's-done-that-MJ-hasn't. It's not supposed to be some be all end all of LeBron's accomplishments that eclipse's MJ's, although it's mighty impressive. There are other things LeBron's done that MJ hasn't that I would consider more impressive.

[Hair Jordan]

The most reasonable argument there is. Jordan is a much better basketball player than LeBron. Much much better scorer, way better mid range and post game, way more clutch, better defensive player. For his position a comparable rebounder. LeBron’s only edge is passing.

Jordan also is far superior to LeBron when it matters going a perfect 6-0 in the Finals and never choking once which LeBron has multiple times. He also required far less help than LeBron to win far more and in way less time.

Jordan’s peak is far superior to LeBron’s by the awards/accolades, stats and eye test.

When it comes to purely playing basketball im not even sold LeBron is a better basketball player than Larry Bird. Great player but highly overrated on here.

LeBron’s competition in the East was moribund his entire career. For all the talk about the supposedly difficult era he played in, he played in easily one of the worst conferences in recent memory in the 2010’s East. A free path to the Finals every year.

That’s the best analysis I’ve read in a long time. The totality of Lebron’s statistics will crush Bird’s stats but Bird was a better player in my opinion peak for peak. He was a better shooter from anywhere on the court, a better rebounder and a better passer. Lebron was probably a better scorer. Lebron is a great passer but overrated compared to guys like Magic, Bird and Jokic who are passing savants. Also, the East was trash like you said. Put Lebron out west and his career would be entirely different. He’d have to face Duncan’s Spurs, Curry’s Warriors, Kobe’s Lakers etc just to make it to the Finals. He’d be lucky to have 1 or 2 titles vs the 4 he has now.

[therealbig3]

Not really. LeBron is the more dominant overall force on both sides of the ball. MJ was a slightly better scorer, specifically as a shooter off the dribble and from the FT line. Otherwise, LeBron basically did everything better, and impact metrics prove it.

Add on the fact that he sustained that level of play a lot longer and there’s no debate here other than from 90s heads engaging in nostalgia.

[TheNG]

Somehow this is what the majority of people think.
So either:
1. Most people are unreasonable. In that case there is no point in this thread, as you won't convince unreasonable people with reasons.
2. Most people are reasonable. In that case there have to be some good reasons, as it convinced the majority. So in that case the answer to the question "is there a reasonable argument..." is yes, by defintion.

So either way, there is no point in this thread. Either the answer is "yes" or the answer is "it doesn't matter"

[therealbig3]

No.

MJ without Pippen:
5 seasons
5 losing seasons
1-9 playoff record


MJ never faced an athletic perimeter defender his size in his prime. He was dominating smaller players like Starks, Hornacek, Byron Scott, Hersey Hawkins, Dan Majerle. LeBron was facing the greatest perimeter defensive team in the finals on a yearly basis. Draymond, KD, Iggy, and Klay is a stacked defensive lineup. MJ never faced a defender as tough as one of those, with the exception of Payton who shut him down, let alone 4 on the same team. Not to mention beasts like Kawhi, Bruce Bowen, Shawn Marion too.

Bull. Jordan faced Ron Harper pre injuries that was super athletic, and Drexler. And Joe Dumars was an exellent defender.

Hell even Byron Russell was tall and athletic.

He faced a couple good defenders like Harper and Moncrief early in his career, but during his championship runs the defenses and defenders in particular he faced were weak, with the exception of Payton (who still gave up size). Byron Russell was not a good defender either. Neither was Drexler. lol anything to prop up Jordan.

Kawhi and Iggy are legitimately GOAT level perimeter defenders, and LeBron faced them multiple times in the playoffs. Went up against defenses literally designed to stop him, unlike the primitive crap that Jordan faced.

[tsherkin]

Jordan never had a superteam or needed it to win 6 titles (should have been 8 too). He was that good.

This sort of ignores the specific competition he faced relative to other eras, and also how good the Bulls were, tbh.

[Tottery]

Jordan never had a superteam or needed it to win 6 titles (should have been 8 too). He was that good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jordan had great teams. Especially for the 2nd repeat. Everyone knows how great Pippen was, but there is a case that adding Rodman made them a super team, in a way.

The Bulls added a player that was All Defensive, All NBA, and the best rebounder in the league on top of the 2 great players they had. Rodman was like their Bosh, but rebound/defensive oriented.

[lessthanjake]

I think the 1997 and 1998 Jazz were extremely good teams. Any objective data on them would say that too. They put up 8 SRS and 6 SRS and 64 wins and 62 wins in those seasons.

Those mid to late 90's records are clearly inflated because of expansion and talent dilution. From 86-94 in the Stockton/Malone era Utah never won more than 55 games. Suddenly from 95-98 they post 3 60+ win seasons while their core is approaching their mid 30's and the rest of the roster hasn't improved in any noticeable way? Come on. This is clearly a case of the competition getting weaker. Heck, Bulls themselves winning 72 and 69 with an ancient roster is testament to the era's weakness.

This seems obviously very overly simplistic. The supporting cast changed quite a lot over the years, such that the team around Malone and Stockton in those years really wasn’t the same at all as it was in that 1986-1994 timeframe you refer to. Just a completely different team. And, of course, just to provide one difference, it may not be a coincidence that they started winning 60+ games essentially immediately after they got Hornacek and stopped winning quite that much when Hornacek was gone. This isn’t the natural experiment you are suggesting—the Jazz got better as a team.

Nor does the Jazz winning 60+ games line up with league expansion, given that they first won 60 games (and had their 2nd best SRS in the Malone/Stockton era) the season *before* the 1995 expansion.

It’s also worth noting that it’s not like their regular season success was *really* unprecedented for them, even with the very different rosters they had earlier. They did not win 60 games before, but they had put up 5.7 SRS (same as they did in 1998) in the 1992 season.

They were led by an all-time great player that was right in the middle of a span where he won two MVP awards.

Uhh Malone winning MVPs at 33 and 35 is the perfect illustration of the league's lack of Tier 1 talent at that time. MJ's the only guy in NBA history to win MVPs at such an old age and Malone's no MJ. And while he's certainly a Top 30 great, I see him the same way I see Anthony Davis. If he's your best offensive player, you are screwed in the playoffs. As a Chicagoan who watched those Finals' live, have rewatched them numerous times in recent years and not once do you ever feel like Bulls wouldn't win (and not because of MJ). From Malone's limited arsenal that made him such an opportunistic scorer to Stockton's 12 ppg ass, Utah just didn't strike much fear. And honestly, the fact that those series' managed to be so competitive is testament to Bulls' own mediocrity. The level of play in those Finals is not high at all. Utah just looks so meh in them. They clearly broke through in '97 and '98 because Hakeem/Clyde/Barkley just got old and the only young superstar talent in the West (Shaq) had no Robin yet.

Malone was very clearly abnormal (especially relative to his era) in how well he took care of his body, such that it is obviously no coincidence that he was great at a late age, and it does not require us to think the league got way worse in order to recognize that. If this were just a product of the late 1990s being weak, we’d expect Karl Malone to have quickly taken a nose dive in the early 2000s, as Malone got even older and the the league got further from expansion and new talent was coming of age. But that’s not what happened at all. Karl Malone stayed really good until he was like 40 years old.

Is some of why Karl Malone was at the top of the league in his early-mid 30’s because the generation after him was thin in terms of top-level talent (aside from Shaq, which is a really significant caveat, especially when the Jazz had to beat Shaq multiple times in 1997 and 1998)? Yeah probably. But some of it also had to do with the general playstyle in the league becoming more conducive to Karl Malone. As I’m sure you know, the late 1990s (as well as early 2000s) were a very slow era of basketball. It was a bit of a unique timeframe in that the pace had gone down and spacing was still not very high. The result of a different style of play is that different physical attributes become more or less important in relative terms. With a slow pace, grind-it-out game without much spacing, you have an era that makes strength a relatively more important physical attribute than other eras. This played right into the wheelhouse of Karl Malone, who was an abnormally strong guy—such that the play style of that era was simply better for Malone’s unique player profile. And it also just played into the wheelhouse of older players in general, since strength is an attribute that isn’t lost as quickly as other physical attributes like quickness. In this league context, I don’t think it’s surprising to see the NBA’s superstar that focused the most on building body strength have a peak in that era despite being pretty old. And I think it’d be way overly simplistic to ignore all of this and just say Karl Malone peaking at a later age means the league was awful—especially when we also don’t see other guys of his era doing the same (Jordan, Hakeem, Barkley, Ewing, etc. all were clearly declined by that time).

EDIT: Also, as someone who was also a Chicago resident at the time, I definitely thought the Bulls were going to lose the series late in Game 6 in 1998, when the Jazz were ahead by 3 with less than a minute left and Game 7 would’ve been in Utah with Pippen clearly non-functional. Of course, Jordan basically single-handledly made sure that didn’t happen.

[shrink]

“is there a reasonable argument that MJ was actually better at basketball than LeBron?“

Of course, but there is never a reasonable argument that unreasonable people will accept.

Regardless of whether you think LeBron or MJ are better, both sides can make reasonable arguments. If a person can’t accept them, that’s a problem with themselves, not the argument.

[lessthanjake]

One thing I think people really memory-hole (or in some cases simply aren’t old enough to realize) is that in LeBron’s last two years in his first stint with the Cavs, the Cavs were actually the title favorites going into the playoffs. Once they hadn’t won anything and people wanted to justify LeBron leaving, there was a narrative that LeBron had had a bad team that was impossible to win with. But that *really* was not the view people had of the team at the time.

Some facts about this:

1. The 2009 Cavs and 2010 Cavs had +160 pre-playoff title odds (i.e. indicative of 38.5% title chances). We have pre-playoff title odds for every year since 1976. So we have this for the last 48 years. In those 48 years, only 24 other teams have had pre-playoff title odds as good as the 2009 Cavs and 2010 Cavs had. Out of those 24 teams, 16 of them won the title that year. And every single one of the remaining 8 that did not win the title that year did win a title only a year or two removed from the year(s) they had those pre-playoff odds. So it is actually completely unprecedented for a team to have the type of pre-playoff title odds that the 2009 Cavs and 2010 Cavs had and not get a title at some point. And usually they get the title that very year. (I’ll note that it *may* end up losing its unprecedented status, since the Celtics had the same pre-playoff title odds this year as the 2009 Cavs and 2010 Cavs, so they’d be similar if they don’t get the title this year or in the next couple years).

2. Going into the conference finals, the 2009 Cavs had -200 title odds (i.e. indicative of 66.7% title chances). We have pre-conference-finals title odds from each year from 1996 to present, with the exceptions of 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2007. We also have such odds for 1994 and 1990. So, all told, we have such odds for 27 of the last 35 years. In those 27 years, the only teams to have better pre-conference-finals title odds than the 2009 Cavs were the 1996 Bulls, 1997 Bulls, 2013 Heat, 2017 Warriors, and 2020 Lakers—all of whom won the title. Meanwhile, the 1990 Pistons, 2002 Lakers, and 2015 Warriors all had the same pre-conference-finals title odds as the 2009 Cavs. And, of course, they all won the title too. Going into the conference finals, the 2009 Cavs were massive title favorites, to the point where it’s genuinely unprecedented that they didn’t win the title.

3. Going into the conference semifinals, the 2010 Cavs had +130 title odds (i.e. indicative of 43.5% title chances). We have pre-conference-semifinals title odds from the 2010 playoffs onwards. In those 15 years, only 8 teams have had better pre-conference-semifinals title odds than the 2010 Cavs. Those are the 2012 Heat, 2013 Heat, 2015 Warriors, 2016 Warriors, 2017 Warriors, 2018 Warriors, 2019 Warriors, and now the 2024 Celtics. Leaving the 2024 Celtics aside since the Finals are ongoing, the only teams of those that didn’t win the title were the 2016 Warriors and 2019 Warriors. The 2019 Warriors obviously subsequently had major injuries that accounted for that. And the 2016 Warriors are seen as a massive favorite losing, and I would note that their pre-conference-semifinals title odds were basically the same as the 2010 Cavs (Warriors were at +120, while the 2010 Cavs were at +130). Meanwhile, the 2014 Heat had the same pre-conference-semifinal title odds as the 2010 Cavs. They, of course, didn’t win the title either. Even these teams that didn’t win the title did make the Finals though. So basically, going into the series they lost, the 2010 Cavs were significant title favorites, to a level that often doesn’t even exist, and when it does that team typically wins the title, and always at least makes the Finals (except for the 2010 Cavs, of course).

4. The 2009 and 2010 Cavs were massive favorites in every single playoff series they played in. Their odds to win each playoff series they played in were, in chronological order: -5000, -2450, -700, -3000, and -480. For reference, in their *least favored* series in those years, the Cavs were still bigger favorites than the Nuggets were in the Finals last year against the Heat. For another reference point, in their *least favored* series, the Cavs were still bigger favorites than the 2007 Spurs were in the Finals against the 2007 Cavs! The 2009 and 2010 Cavs were just massive favorites.

The bottom line is that the 2009 and 2010 Cavs were actually huge title favorites prior to the playoffs starting. They were favorites to a level that doesn’t even exist in about half of years, and it is unprecedented for a team that was as big of pre-playoff favorites as them to come out of that era without a title. It really is revisionist history and losers’ bias for people to act like those teams were bad and had no shot. LeBron did not have another major star around him (and his lack of that in Cleveland probably explains why he has demanded to have that everywhere else he has ever gone), but he had a very well-constructed roster that played incredible defense. They were huge title favorites and massive favorites against every team they faced, and they simply didn’t get it done. One of those years it was in spite of LeBron playing well (he played well against Orlando, but Orlando ended up being a tough matchup for them defensively), and one of those years it was primarily caused by LeBron playing abysmally in the last three games of the series in completely inexplicable fashion (so inexplicable that people constructed conspiracy theories regarding his mother’s sex life to try to explain it). But regardless of the reason, they were massive favorites and failed, rather than being some hopeless team that one couldn’t win with.

______

This is the context surrounding people criticizing LeBron for going to Miami. LeBron wasn’t leaving a team that was hopeless to go team up with Wade and Bosh. He was leaving a team that had been title favorites the last two years, in order to go to a situation that would be *even easier* than that. I personally don’t begrudge him for it, because he has every right to try to maximize his chances of winning. But I do think people have really memory-holed what happened. Of course, after doing that, LeBron then had probably the worst Finals we’ve ever seen from a top-tier superstar, and lost a Finals that his team was favored in.

It was a genuinely bad sequence of years, where peak LeBron was on a title favorite three years in a row and failed every time—often because he played badly. In subsequent years, he then proceeded to stop failing at every turn, but those years of repeatedly failing as the favorite are part of his story as a player. And it’s a part of his story that there’s no equivalent to with Jordan. Sure, Jordan didn’t win the title until 1991, but his teams were never even close to favorites in those first several years, and the moment they were favorites the titles started. In those pre-title years, the Bulls overachieved expectations in the playoffs, winning every playoff series they were favored in (only three) and winning a couple series on top of that that they were massively disfavored in (the Bulls making the conference finals in 1989 required two huge upsets). Overall, in his career, the only series Jordan lost that the Bulls were favored in was 1995 against the Magic, when he was only just back from retirement. There’s just not an era of surprising failure from Jordan like there was with LeBron. And I think for many people that makes all the difference in determining who is the GOAT.

[NZB2323]

No.

MJ without Pippen:
5 seasons
5 losing seasons
1-9 playoff record


MJ never faced an athletic perimeter defender his size in his prime. He was dominating smaller players like Starks, Hornacek, Byron Scott, Hersey Hawkins, Dan Majerle. LeBron was facing the greatest perimeter defensive team in the finals on a yearly basis. Draymond, KD, Iggy, and Klay is a stacked defensive lineup. MJ never faced a defender as tough as one of those, with the exception of Payton who shut him down, let alone 4 on the same team. Not to mention beasts like Kawhi, Bruce Bowen, Shawn Marion too.

Bull. Jordan faced Ron Harper pre injuries that was super athletic, and Drexler. And Joe Dumars was an exellent defender.

Hell even Byron Russell was tall and athletic.

He faced a couple good defenders like Harper and Moncrief early in his career, but during his championship runs the defenses and defenders in particular he faced were weak, with the exception of Payton (who still gave up size). Byron Russell was not a good defender either. Neither was Drexler. lol anything to prop up Jordan.

Kawhi and Iggy are legitimately GOAT level perimeter defenders, and LeBron faced them multiple times in the playoffs. Went up against defenses literally designed to stop him, unlike the primitive crap that Jordan faced.

Iggy is not a GOAT level perimeter defender. He made 1 all-defensive 1st team.

Here are some players Jordan went up against in the playoffs:

Rodman - 2x DPOTY, 7x all-defensive 1st team

Joe Dumars - 4x all-defensive 1st team

Sidney Moncrief - 2x DPOTY, 4x all-defensive 1st team

Gary Payton - 1x DPOTY, 9x all-defensive 1st team

And then when Jordan got to the rim he often dunked over Ewing, Mutumbo, or Alonzo Mourning. And yes, some of these defenders are shorter than Jordan. Jrue Holiday and Derrick white are shorter than most guards and the Celtics defense is doing pretty well. Marcus Smart is 6’3” and won DPOTY.

And not every series did LeBron go up against a great defensive player. He’s also been guarded by Paul Pierce, Hedo Turkoglu, DeMarre Carroll, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Richard Jefferson, and Antwan Jamison.

Rodman is arguably the greatest defensive player of all time. He successfully defended and beat Magic, Jordan, Bird, Rodman, and Shaq in playoff series. And we have footage of Rodman defending Jordan in 88, 89, 90, and 91.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[fansse]

Yes, for me Jordan was unquestionably better at basketball than LeBron. Among other things, he didn't have any huge weaknesses to his game either offensively or defensively, while that could not be said for LeBron (free throwing throughout the career, long-range shooting for a big part of his career). And there's so much more one could say about "MJ > LBJ", but it's all been said before.

And for me, LeBron isn't even #2, players such as KAJ, Magic, Duncan, Bird and Russell are ahead of him in the GOAT rankings, while besides Wilt LeBron has the GOAT athleticism in NBA history and perhaps the GOAT longevity, but to me that doesn't make him GOAT-er than Jordan or the aformentioned players.

Duncan ahead of LeBron.. lmfaooo

[therealbig3]

Bull. Jordan faced Ron Harper pre injuries that was super athletic, and Drexler. And Joe Dumars was an exellent defender.

Hell even Byron Russell was tall and athletic.

He faced a couple good defenders like Harper and Moncrief early in his career, but during his championship runs the defenses and defenders in particular he faced were weak, with the exception of Payton (who still gave up size). Byron Russell was not a good defender either. Neither was Drexler. lol anything to prop up Jordan.

Kawhi and Iggy are legitimately GOAT level perimeter defenders, and LeBron faced them multiple times in the playoffs. Went up against defenses literally designed to stop him, unlike the primitive crap that Jordan faced.

Iggy is not a GOAT level perimeter defender. He made 1 all-defensive 1st team.

Here are some players Jordan went up against in the playoffs:

Rodman - 2x DPOTY, 7x all-defensive 1st team

Joe Dumars - 4x all-defensive 1st team

Sidney Moncrief - 2x DPOTY, 4x all-defensive 1st team

Gary Payton - 1x DPOTY, 9x all-defensive 1st team

And then when Jordan got to the rim he often dunked over Ewing, Mutumbo, or Alonzo Mourning. And yes, some of these defenders are shorter than Jordan. Jrue Holiday and Derrick white are shorter than most guards and the Celtics defense is doing pretty well. Marcus Smart is 6’3” and won DPOTY.

And not every series did LeBron go up against a great defensive player. He’s also been guarded by Paul Pierce, Hedo Turkoglu, DeMarre Carroll, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Richard Jefferson, and Antwan Jamison.

Rodman is arguably the greatest defensive player of all time. He successfully defended and beat Magic, Jordan, Bird, Rodman, and Shaq in playoff series. And we have footage of Rodman defending Jordan in 88, 89, 90, and 91.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Difference being, Jordan facing a great defender on the perimeter was more the exception than the rule, while LeBron facing one was the opposite.

[therealbig3]

The 09 and 10 Cavs were title favorites because of LeBron. And he did not play poorly in 09, idk how anyone could come up with that narrative.

Those were extremely flawed teams with limited talent outside of LeBron that got exposed come playoff time. We see teams like that go down all the time, regardless of their RS record. Don’t need to revise history by acting like those were secretly great teams that LeBron just screwed up with.

2011 is really the only time LeBron just straight up failed and clearly underachieved. Want to say that never happened with Jordan, fine, but we have many, many other years when LeBron delivered and met expectations or overachieved, often times in a spectacular way. He also wasn’t the same guy in 2011 that he was in 2009 or 2010. He was physically different and not in a good way. There also seems to be this narrative of him only figuring out how to be clutch in 2012, when he was the clutchest player in the league in Cleveland.

[web123888]

Mechanically LeBron is simply a flawed offensive player. He’s had multiple overall terrible Finals performances and iconically bad Finals games. 2007 and 2011 were horrid. I encourage anyone who doesn’t remember to closely go back and watch the final 2 minutes of Game 6 of the 2013 Finals as well - LeBron had one brick / turnover after another and essentially choked away the title but was fortunately bailed out by Ray Allen’s legendary three. I can’t point to any time Jordan wilted the way LeBron has multiple times. The media has forced the GOAT narrative for ratings purposes but LeBron simply ain’t it.