RGM GOAT Debate Thread

[Iwasawitness]

We never saw Lebron leave any of his title teams for a full season so we don't know. Just based on talent alone, I think those 2012 and 2013 Heat teams with Wade/Bosh and good role players are probably 2nd round teams to be honest. As are the 2016 Cavs considering that Kyrie was arguably the best player in the East after Lebron.

This right here lies your problem and why I can't take a lot of these arguments seriously.

Talent alone isn't everything. We've had lots of teams that were stacked to the brink with talent, but in the end it never amounted to much. Talent isn't everything. Work ethic, fit, attitude, these are critical components and a key reason as to why the Chicago Bulls supporting cast was so effective in the first place.

Case and point, the 2016 Cavaliers were laughably bad without LeBron playing. And in fact, even when he was off the floor, the entire dynamic changed. Now, granted, you can boil this down to them being built so much around LeBron that they relied on him just to function normally as a team, and this would be a true statement. But it takes us back to the original point: that LeBron's teams weren't really all that good to begin with and that without him, they were nothing special.

Jordan's team without him was a 50+ win team with an MVP candidate and another all star on top of it. That says it all.

The pitiful records after departure in 2010 and 2018 are because the Cavs tanked both times.

This is simply not true.

The 2010 Cavaliers made no attempts to tank at first. In fact, they did the opposite. They were hell bent on proving they could win without LeBron and then reality hit them in the face. It wasn't until the halfway point of the season, AFTER having a historic losing streak, that they realized they were ****, traded away Mo Williams and did what they could to get the first pick (which, ironically, came from the actual trade that they did, not their own pick).

Same thing in 2018. Instead of blowing the team up, they re-signed Kevin Love to a new deal and drafted Sexton seventh overall with the hope that he and Love, along with most of the roster staying, would make them a consistent playoff contender. Instead, Love had immediate injury issues, JR Smith didn't want to play anymore, and Sexton didn't turn out the way they had hoped. Hell, they fired Lue because of the team starting the season 0-6. Why would a tanking team fire their coach of four years if they were trying to tank?

Lastly, I never said Jordan's supporting casts weren't good. They were good. I said they weren't historically great. Showtime Lakers without Magic were better. Celtics without Bird were better. Warriors without Curry/Durant were better.

First off, yeah you did. But second and more importantly, yes, they were definitely a historically great supporting cast.

An all time great second option, an incredibly high impact third best player who was elite in some aspect (Grant was great on both ends, Rodman was an all time great defender and rebounder), and plenty of high caliber role players who would be getting playing time almost anywhere. And to top it all off? You had one of the greatest coaches of all time in Phil Jackson at the helm. To say they weren't historically great just isn't consistent with reality. Again, they literally proved they were... they won 55 games without Jordan. You can keep trying to deny it all you want but the simple fact of the matter is, I have something to showcase that they were in fact that and those two examples you just gave me don't. Not to mention... I can't even say I agree with the examples you gave me. I mean, I guess showtime Lakers you may have a point, but the problem is... they aren't exactly doing much without Magic controlling everything. Jordan's Bulls proved they could be good without him, I'm not so sure the Lakers would be all that great if they don't have Magic controlling the offense. You would have me in agreement with you on the Warriors IF you kept Durant in the equation. But without him AND Curry? No, they aren't a better supporting cast than Jordan's Bulls.

And even if that were the case, the fact that those are the only two examples you could think of says it all. I would say third best supporting cast of all time is historically great.

Btw, an important aspect of discussing supporting casts that a lot of people, including you, miss are how important they are to bringing out the best in the star they, you know, support. Even if the quality of players doesn't necessarily stack up to another, that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't better (even though you're horribly underrating the Bulls in that regard). So going back to the Miami Heat supporting cast for a minute... Wade is an all time great player and the third best SG ever, but next to LeBron? The fit was never really there. Sure, Wade was great defensively and that was helpful, and his playmaking abilities were also huge, but his lack of consistent floor spacing made him a less than ideal SG pairing for LeBron. This was actually a serious problem in the 2013 playoffs. Wade was dealing with injury issues and because of this, he didn't have his athleticism. When he was out there with LeBron (this is according to data), Miami actually played worse. The floor spacing was a big reason for that. And with Chris Bosh, who was supposed to be the third best player on the team, he didn't provide much floor spacing either at first. Once he became a legitimate three point threat, that all changed. Now, granted, all the other guys? Chalmers, Battier, Allen, Birdman, etc. They made for a really great role player cast, but Wade and Bosh were less than ideal secondary stars.

Compare that to what Jordan had to work with... Pippen was probably the best possible secondary star fit Jordan could have ever asked for. He literally did everything Jordan didn't need to do in order to help the Bulls thrive as a team. The fit was perfect. Horace Grant was a great third best player for the team. He was a versatile big who was great on both ends of the floor and provided Chicago with a lot of size. Being the third option was exactly where he needed to be, compared to Bosh who struggled in that role. And when Rodman became the next third man, it was even better. Rodman didn't even have to worry about scoring. His big ticket was his all time great rebounding and defense. The thing is, Jordan didn't need a big time scorer, he just needed someone to do all the little things... because he wasn't someone who could.

I could go on but the point is proven here. This is where comparing players gets tricky because no matter where you stand on who is better, you can't deny that Jordan and LeBron are different players. And in LeBron's case, what he needs in a supporting cast is different than what Jordan needed. In Jordan's case, in both instances (the three peats), he was blessed with having exactly what he needed. I don't think I can say the same about LeBron's Miami and Cleveland teams...

[SlimShady83]

Based on the poll it has LeBron closer to Jordan (LeBron has ~30% of the votes Jordan has) than Russell is to LeBron (Russell has ~20% of the votes LeBron has) .

I wish I put Bird, Shaq and maybe even Wilt on the Poll but Is what It is and can't change It now LOL. Bird/Shaq are In my top 10 and think they would of given Lebron a run for his money on this poll, sorry but Wilt not In my 10, his 11 followed by Hakeem at 12.

Edit: yes I did have Wilt there, but changed It, because of Curry, still feels bad.
Edit: wish there was unlimited poll

[SlimShady83]

So quite a while ago I msged someone on why I don't have Wilt In my top 10 and I gave them this response - no names will be mentioned here - due to respect.

Me: I have him number 11... People talk about his dominance all the time and for good reason, but back In his time, being how big he was/is he made It look like he was playing against point guards all his time

And given the fact how dominent he was he only won 2 chips, despite scoring averages of 50 ppg and 20+ reb per game and the big 100 point game.

I love Wilt as much as the next guy, but I'm not putting him In my top 10...

We all have our likes and dislikes.

Response: fair enough. I still haven't settled on where to put him. awhile back I used to have him as my top guy, but I recalibrated my way of thinking. appreciate your response. have a good one

[Jabroni Lames]

[Djoker]

We never saw Lebron leave any of his title teams for a full season so we don't know. Just based on talent alone, I think those 2012 and 2013 Heat teams with Wade/Bosh and good role players are probably 2nd round teams to be honest. As are the 2016 Cavs considering that Kyrie was arguably the best player in the East after Lebron.

This right here lies your problem and why I can't take a lot of these arguments seriously.

Talent alone isn't everything. We've had lots of teams that were stacked to the brink with talent, but in the end it never amounted to much. Talent isn't everything. Work ethic, fit, attitude, these are critical components and a key reason as to why the Chicago Bulls supporting cast was so effective in the first place.

Case and point, the 2016 Cavaliers were laughably bad without LeBron playing. And in fact, even when he was off the floor, the entire dynamic changed. Now, granted, you can boil this down to them being built so much around LeBron that they relied on him just to function normally as a team, and this would be a true statement. But it takes us back to the original point: that LeBron's teams weren't really all that good to begin with and that without him, they were nothing special.

Jordan's team without him was a 50+ win team with an MVP candidate and another all star on top of it. That says it all.

The pitiful records after departure in 2010 and 2018 are because the Cavs tanked both times.

This is simply not true.

The 2010 Cavaliers made no attempts to tank at first. In fact, they did the opposite. They were hell bent on proving they could win without LeBron and then reality hit them in the face. It wasn't until the halfway point of the season, AFTER having a historic losing streak, that they realized they were ****, traded away Mo Williams and did what they could to get the first pick (which, ironically, came from the actual trade that they did, not their own pick).

Same thing in 2018. Instead of blowing the team up, they re-signed Kevin Love to a new deal and drafted Sexton seventh overall with the hope that he and Love, along with most of the roster staying, would make them a consistent playoff contender. Instead, Love had immediate injury issues, JR Smith didn't want to play anymore, and Sexton didn't turn out the way they had hoped. Hell, they fired Lue because of the team starting the season 0-6. Why would a tanking team fire their coach of four years if they were trying to tank?

Lastly, I never said Jordan's supporting casts weren't good. They were good. I said they weren't historically great. Showtime Lakers without Magic were better. Celtics without Bird were better. Warriors without Curry/Durant were better.

First off, yeah you did. But second and more importantly, yes, they were definitely a historically great supporting cast.

An all time great second option, an incredibly high impact third best player who was elite in some aspect (Grant was great on both ends, Rodman was an all time great defender and rebounder), and plenty of high caliber role players who would be getting playing time almost anywhere. And to top it all off? You had one of the greatest coaches of all time in Phil Jackson at the helm. To say they weren't historically great just isn't consistent with reality. Again, they literally proved they were... they won 55 games without Jordan. You can keep trying to deny it all you want but the simple fact of the matter is, I have something to showcase that they were in fact that and those two examples you just gave me don't. Not to mention... I can't even say I agree with the examples you gave me. I mean, I guess showtime Lakers you may have a point, but the problem is... they aren't exactly doing much without Magic controlling everything. Jordan's Bulls proved they could be good without him, I'm not so sure the Lakers would be all that great if they don't have Magic controlling the offense. You would have me in agreement with you on the Warriors IF you kept Durant in the equation. But without him AND Curry? No, they aren't a better supporting cast than Jordan's Bulls.

And even if that were the case, the fact that those are the only two examples you could think of says it all. I would say third best supporting cast of all time is historically great.

Btw, an important aspect of discussing supporting casts that a lot of people, including you, miss are how important they are to bringing out the best in the star they, you know, support. Even if the quality of players doesn't necessarily stack up to another, that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't better (even though you're horribly underrating the Bulls in that regard). So going back to the Miami Heat supporting cast for a minute... Wade is an all time great player and the third best SG ever, but next to LeBron? The fit was never really there. Sure, Wade was great defensively and that was helpful, and his playmaking abilities were also huge, but his lack of consistent floor spacing made him a less than ideal SG pairing for LeBron. This was actually a serious problem in the 2013 playoffs. Wade was dealing with injury issues and because of this, he didn't have his athleticism. When he was out there with LeBron (this is according to data), Miami actually played worse. The floor spacing was a big reason for that. And with Chris Bosh, who was supposed to be the third best player on the team, he didn't provide much floor spacing either at first. Once he became a legitimate three point threat, that all changed. Now, granted, all the other guys? Chalmers, Battier, Allen, Birdman, etc. They made for a really great role player cast, but Wade and Bosh were less than ideal secondary stars.

Compare that to what Jordan had to work with... Pippen was probably the best possible secondary star fit Jordan could have ever asked for. He literally did everything Jordan didn't need to do in order to help the Bulls thrive as a team. The fit was perfect. Horace Grant was a great third best player for the team. He was a versatile big who was great on both ends of the floor and provided Chicago with a lot of size. Being the third option was exactly where he needed to be, compared to Bosh who struggled in that role. And when Rodman became the next third man, it was even better. Rodman didn't even have to worry about scoring. His big ticket was his all time great rebounding and defense. The thing is, Jordan didn't need a big time scorer, he just needed someone to do all the little things... because he wasn't someone who could.

I could go on but the point is proven here. This is where comparing players gets tricky because no matter where you stand on who is better, you can't deny that Jordan and LeBron are different players. And in LeBron's case, what he needs in a supporting cast is different than what Jordan needed. In Jordan's case, in both instances (the three peats), he was blessed with having exactly what he needed. I don't think I can say the same about LeBron's Miami and Cleveland teams...

Thank you for a detailed post but it's evident we have major disagreements here.

My stance on Lebron's supporting casts is just based on common sense.

Wade being able to lead a team of older Shaq plus role players to a title in 2006 and then lead teams of role players to the playoffs in 2009 and 2010 reasonably makes me believe that Wade with another star in Bosh plus role players could make the 2nd round. And guess what, an old Wade in 2016 which is 3 years after 2013 still led the Heat to a 2nd round loss as the lead player. Again my stance is rooted in common sense based on what we've seen Wade do.

Likewise in Cleveland. Kyrie in 2014 before Lebron's arrival and with no Kevin Love led a team of role players to 33 wins despite a lot of injuries hitting the roster. Likewise, Love in 2014 before joining the Cavs led Minnesota to 40 wins in a tough Western Conference. Again, the idea that Kyrie + Love with good role players like TT, JR, Shump, Mozgov, Delly could make the 2nd round without Lebron isn't farfetched at all. Kyrie actually improved from 2014 to 2016 as well and was arguably the best player in the Eastern Conference after Lebron himself.

As for Jordan's supporting casts this was my exact quote because you're implying I said something I didn't say.

Pippen plus good role players isn't historically great support by any stretch.

When many of the best players in history had better supporting casts, then MJ's supporting casts are not historically great. Magic, Bird, and Curry are not really debatable. Their supporting casts were better.

Again that team without Jordan was good... very solid. But they were still ~6 points per game worse without Jordan from 1991-1998. And we have a big sample of 153 games so the reliability of that data is pretty high. I posted the WOWY image in a previous post above. Lifting a +3.7 MOV team to +9.7 MOV is GOAT-worthy lift. There's a handful of teams in NBA history that had a +9.7 MOV in a season and Jordan's Bulls did that for 6 seasons. Food for thought.

I don't disagree with you about fit and what you wrote about that but I fail to see how that's a pro-Lebron argument. What kind of star type does Lebron really fit with other than a 3pt sniper like Curry? Lebron is the one who needs the ball to exert his impact and is marginalized in any off-ball role. Jordan fits with far more players because he excels off-ball to a much greater degree. He still exerts impact while others handle the ball.

Referring to Grant as an all-star is also weird. He made 1 all-star game. He was a very good defender who put up like 12/10 averages. That's a good role player not a star.

[Iwasawitness]

Thank you for a detailed post but it's evident we have major disagreements here.

My stance on Lebron's supporting casts is just based on common sense.

Wade being able to lead a team of older Shaq plus role players to a title in 2006 and then lead teams of role players to the playoffs in 2009 and 2010 reasonably makes me believe that Wade with another star in Bosh plus role players could make the 2nd round. And guess what, an old Wade in 2016 which is 3 years after 2013 still led the Heat to a 2nd round loss as the lead player. Again my stance is rooted in common sense based on what we've seen Wade do.

First off, the 2016 Heat are a terrible example. The 2016 Heat are a different animal from the 2013 team that LeBron led. They were an incredibly well balanced team with great depth. Luol Deng and Joe Johnson were key additions to the team, Hassan Whiteside broke out as a double double threat with great interior defense. Dragic proved to be a great backcourt partner for Wade. They were an incredibly well balanced team. And even then, they still only won 48 games.

Likewise in Cleveland. Kyrie in 2014 before Lebron's arrival and with no Kevin Love led a team of role players to 33 wins despite a lot of injuries hitting the roster. Likewise, Love in 2014 before joining the Cavs led Minnesota to 40 wins in a tough Western Conference. Again, the idea that Kyrie + Love with good role players like TT, JR, Shump, Mozgov, Delly could make the 2nd round without Lebron isn't farfetched at all. Kyrie actually improved from 2014 to 2016 as well and was arguably the best player in the Eastern Conference after Lebron himself.

Good christ. There are a LOT of things wrong with this. Where do I even begin?

I guess I'll start with the obvious part... being that Irving was most certainly not the second best player in the East from 2014 to 2016, not by any stretch of the imagination. He wasn't even the best PG.

But up next... no, Irving and Love with that cast aren't making it very far. They are maybe a 45 win team, MAYBE. They have no defense, no one to really run the offense, they're a pretty easy team to exploit. Their record without LeBron says it all.

But the most baffling part is you trying to use the Cavaliers 2014 campaign to defend Irving. That season was considered a MAJOR disappointment, even before injuries started to take affect. The Cavaliers were expected to be a top five team in the East. And right from the start, it was clear that wasn't the case. Irving, Waiters, Bynum, Varejao, Thompson, Jack, they had a talented roster. But in the end, there were a lot of problems.

For one thing, Bynum had no passion for the game and simply didn't care anymore. He had only a few legitimately good games, including against the Bulls, the only and only actual impressive win the Cavaliers had that season. Irving and Waiters were a terrible fit, and both players refused to make legitimate adjustments to their games to accommodate each other. Jack was a major disappointment. And the signing of Mike Brown, who the Cavaliers were hoping would turn Cleveland into an elite defensive team, didn't move the needle like they were hoping. Instead, they quickly realized that a lot of what his success stemmed from was, you guessed it, having LeBron James on his roster the first time around. And the thing is, a lot of the Cavs actual wins came after they traded away Bynum and brought in Deng.

I don't think you understand how big of a disappointment the 2014 season was. Fans were outright begging LeBron to return at that point because they were convinced they were never going to get anywhere with Irving leading the team. There were even actual petitions to have Irving be traded away from the team (which I disagreed with at the time but that's Cleveland for you). Mentioning that and to say "they still managed to win 33 games" is just... insane. They should have won far more than that. But alas... as it turns out, talent isn't everything, which is something you're still clearly not understanding.

In fact no, I'm not doing this. I'm not reading the rest of your post. If this is something you're actually trying to use to argue your case, I can't imagine what else you're going to do. Again, there's a reason why I stopped doing these in the first place. The lengths you guys go is just too much for me. I can only facepalm so many times.

[WaltFrazier]

Wilt should be on the list of candidates

[Djoker]

Thank you for a detailed post but it's evident we have major disagreements here.

My stance on Lebron's supporting casts is just based on common sense.

Wade being able to lead a team of older Shaq plus role players to a title in 2006 and then lead teams of role players to the playoffs in 2009 and 2010 reasonably makes me believe that Wade with another star in Bosh plus role players could make the 2nd round. And guess what, an old Wade in 2016 which is 3 years after 2013 still led the Heat to a 2nd round loss as the lead player. Again my stance is rooted in common sense based on what we've seen Wade do.

First off, the 2016 Heat are a terrible example. The 2016 Heat are a different animal from the 2013 team that LeBron led. They were an incredibly well balanced team with great depth. Luol Deng and Joe Johnson were key additions to the team, Hassan Whiteside broke out as a double double threat with great interior defense. Dragic proved to be a great backcourt partner for Wade. They were an incredibly well balanced team. And even then, they still only won 48 games.

Likewise in Cleveland. Kyrie in 2014 before Lebron's arrival and with no Kevin Love led a team of role players to 33 wins despite a lot of injuries hitting the roster. Likewise, Love in 2014 before joining the Cavs led Minnesota to 40 wins in a tough Western Conference. Again, the idea that Kyrie + Love with good role players like TT, JR, Shump, Mozgov, Delly could make the 2nd round without Lebron isn't farfetched at all. Kyrie actually improved from 2014 to 2016 as well and was arguably the best player in the Eastern Conference after Lebron himself.

Good christ. There are a LOT of things wrong with this. Where do I even begin?

I guess I'll start with the obvious part... being that Irving was most certainly not the second best player in the East from 2014 to 2016, not by any stretch of the imagination. He wasn't even the best PG.

But up next... no, Irving and Love with that cast aren't making it very far. They are maybe a 45 win team, MAYBE. They have no defense, no one to really run the offense, they're a pretty easy team to exploit. Their record without LeBron says it all.

But the most baffling part is you trying to use the Cavaliers 2014 campaign to defend Irving. That season was considered a MAJOR disappointment, even before injuries started to take affect. The Cavaliers were expected to be a top five team in the East. And right from the start, it was clear that wasn't the case. Irving, Waiters, Bynum, Varejao, Thompson, Jack, they had a talented roster. But in the end, there were a lot of problems.

For one thing, Bynum had no passion for the game and simply didn't care anymore. He had only a few legitimately good games, including against the Bulls, the only and only actual impressive win the Cavaliers had that season. Irving and Waiters were a terrible fit, and both players refused to make legitimate adjustments to their games to accommodate each other. Jack was a major disappointment. And the signing of Mike Brown, who the Cavaliers were hoping would turn Cleveland into an elite defensive team, didn't move the needle like they were hoping. Instead, they quickly realized that a lot of what his success stemmed from was, you guessed it, having LeBron James on his roster the first time around. And the thing is, a lot of the Cavs actual wins came after they traded away Bynum and brought in Deng.

I don't think you understand how big of a disappointment the 2014 season was. Fans were outright begging LeBron to return at that point because they were convinced they were never going to get anywhere with Irving leading the team. There were even actual petitions to have Irving be traded away from the team (which I disagreed with at the time but that's Cleveland for you). Mentioning that and to say "they still managed to win 33 games" is just... insane. They should have won far more than that. But alas... as it turns out, talent isn't everything, which is something you're still clearly not understanding.

In fact no, I'm not doing this. I'm not reading the rest of your post. If this is something you're actually trying to use to argue your case, I can't imagine what else you're going to do. Again, there's a reason why I stopped doing these in the first place. The lengths you guys go is just too much for me. I can only facepalm so many times.

Sorry for the misunderstanding with Kyrie. He was arguably the 2nd best player after Lebron in the Eastern Conference in 2016. Obviously not in 2014. He improved a lot in that span. 2014 Kyrie wasn't 2016 Kyrie. Obviously the 2014 season was disappointing for Cleveland but a lot of guys missed a lot of games and they were only 5 more wins from making the playoffs even with a young Kyrie.

And Kyrie + Love Cavs being a 45 win team by your own admission isn't exactly too bad. With Lebron from 2015-17, the Cavs only won 53, 57 and 51 games for an average of 53.7 wins. And +4.08 SRS, +5.45 SRS and +2.87 SRS for an average of +4.1 SRS. This wasn't some historic juggernaut team even with Lebron. The supposed lift by Lebron actually isn't impressive at all.

Length of what? I've simply posted numbers and debated logically based on evidence we have for how these players performed.

[The Explorer]

Jnr Bridgeman made $600 mill and set an eg for players. I hope you're factoring that in too.

As expected, you are unable to keep up with the conversation on career value. Please work on learning what's being discussed before you respond to posts. Thanks.

I'm keeping up fine. One of us is rating careers on their ability to play basketball, the other is factoring in stuff that is unrelated to it. If you're going to factor in how people 'reacted' to Jordan, might as well factor in how people reacted to Kobe's looks or Jnr Bridgeman's entrepreneurialiam. After all, if Kobe or Jordan was deformed I'm sure it would have led to less interest from fans.

You're conflating irrelevant things like Bridgeman’s entrepreneurialism and "Kobe's looks" with on-court basketball impact, which shows a complete misunderstanding of the concept of career value. You're clearly struggling to grasp it.

Jordan's career value isn’t about his looks or outside business ventures—it’s directly tied to his on-court performance as he helped transform the game and influenced future generations of players. Career value in basketball encompasses everything that contributes to a player's legacy, not just stats or individual accolades. If a player has an immense impact on the game’s global popularity and the way it's played, that is undeniably a part of their basketball career.

Bridgeman made his millions off the court—no one is considering that part of his basketball career. Jordan, on the other hand, was directly responsible for elevating the NBA through his play, his winning, and his dominance. It’s not even remotely the same thing.

Your comparison to Kobe’s looks is laughable. Jordan's dominance on the court influenced the league and inspired players like LeBron, Durant, and Kobe because of his basketball performance, not anything superficial. We’re talking about career value as a basketball player, not cosmetic features.

And you keep ignoring how LeBron’s on-court play has not always led to success when it mattered most (i.e., Finals losses, walking off the court, flopping). Jordan never folded under pressure in the Finals. His ability to perform in high-pressure moments, deliver championships, and maintain excellence throughout his career is the definition of career value. Learn the multiple ways to have value before jumping into these discussions.

[One_and_Done]

As expected, you are unable to keep up with the conversation on career value. Please work on learning what's being discussed before you respond to posts. Thanks.

I'm keeping up fine. One of us is rating careers on their ability to play basketball, the other is factoring in stuff that is unrelated to it. If you're going to factor in how people 'reacted' to Jordan, might as well factor in how people reacted to Kobe's looks or Jnr Bridgeman's entrepreneurialiam. After all, if Kobe or Jordan was deformed I'm sure it would have led to less interest from fans.

You're conflating irrelevant things like Bridgeman’s entrepreneurialism and "Kobe's looks" with on-court basketball impact, which shows a complete misunderstanding of the concept of career value. You're clearly struggling to grasp it.

Jordan's career value isn’t about his looks or outside business ventures—it’s directly tied to his on-court performance as he helped transform the game and influenced future generations of players. Career value in basketball encompasses everything that contributes to a player's legacy, not just stats or individual accolades. If a player has an immense impact on the game’s global popularity and the way it's played, that is undeniably a part of their basketball career.

Bridgeman made his millions off the court—no one is considering that part of his basketball career. Jordan, on the other hand, was directly responsible for elevating the NBA through his play, his winning, and his dominance. It’s not even remotely the same thing.

Your comparison to Kobe’s looks is laughable. Jordan's dominance on the court influenced the league and inspired players like LeBron, Durant, and Kobe because of his basketball performance, not anything superficial. We’re talking about career value as a basketball player, not cosmetic features.

And you keep ignoring how LeBron’s on-court play has not always led to success when it mattered most (i.e., Finals losses, walking off the court, flopping). Jordan never folded under pressure in the Finals. His ability to perform in high-pressure moments, deliver championships, and maintain excellence throughout his career is the definition of career value. Learn the multiple ways to have value before jumping into these discussions.

You sat this is only about "on court" things, then you mention a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with on the court impact (like how people reacted to what you did in the future). I'm not sure you understand what 'off court impact' means tbh.

[MavsDirk41]

I'm keeping up fine. One of us is rating careers on their ability to play basketball, the other is factoring in stuff that is unrelated to it. If you're going to factor in how people 'reacted' to Jordan, might as well factor in how people reacted to Kobe's looks or Jnr Bridgeman's entrepreneurialiam. After all, if Kobe or Jordan was deformed I'm sure it would have led to less interest from fans.

You're conflating irrelevant things like Bridgeman’s entrepreneurialism and "Kobe's looks" with on-court basketball impact, which shows a complete misunderstanding of the concept of career value. You're clearly struggling to grasp it.

Jordan's career value isn’t about his looks or outside business ventures—it’s directly tied to his on-court performance as he helped transform the game and influenced future generations of players. Career value in basketball encompasses everything that contributes to a player's legacy, not just stats or individual accolades. If a player has an immense impact on the game’s global popularity and the way it's played, that is undeniably a part of their basketball career.

Bridgeman made his millions off the court—no one is considering that part of his basketball career. Jordan, on the other hand, was directly responsible for elevating the NBA through his play, his winning, and his dominance. It’s not even remotely the same thing.

Your comparison to Kobe’s looks is laughable. Jordan's dominance on the court influenced the league and inspired players like LeBron, Durant, and Kobe because of his basketball performance, not anything superficial. We’re talking about career value as a basketball player, not cosmetic features.

And you keep ignoring how LeBron’s on-court play has not always led to success when it mattered most (i.e., Finals losses, walking off the court, flopping). Jordan never folded under pressure in the Finals. His ability to perform in high-pressure moments, deliver championships, and maintain excellence throughout his career is the definition of career value. Learn the multiple ways to have value before jumping into these discussions.

You sat this is only about "on court" things, then you mention a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with on the court impact (like how people reacted to what you did in the future). I'm not sure you understand what 'off court impact' means tbh.

Well then why dont you explain what “off court impact” means…..ill wait

[One_and_Done]

Obviously on court impact is your ability to impact winning on the court. Off court stuff is everything else. If you were a douche in the locker room, that might affect your ability to win on the court, and is relevant (eg Elvin Hayes), but 'how much you influenced future generations' or 'how much money you made the league' is not. Your off court issues may also have no apparent impact on winning (eg Mailman).

[The Explorer]

I'm keeping up fine. One of us is rating careers on their ability to play basketball, the other is factoring in stuff that is unrelated to it. If you're going to factor in how people 'reacted' to Jordan, might as well factor in how people reacted to Kobe's looks or Jnr Bridgeman's entrepreneurialiam. After all, if Kobe or Jordan was deformed I'm sure it would have led to less interest from fans.

You're conflating irrelevant things like Bridgeman’s entrepreneurialism and "Kobe's looks" with on-court basketball impact, which shows a complete misunderstanding of the concept of career value. You're clearly struggling to grasp it.

Jordan's career value isn’t about his looks or outside business ventures—it’s directly tied to his on-court performance as he helped transform the game and influenced future generations of players. Career value in basketball encompasses everything that contributes to a player's legacy, not just stats or individual accolades. If a player has an immense impact on the game’s global popularity and the way it's played, that is undeniably a part of their basketball career.

Bridgeman made his millions off the court—no one is considering that part of his basketball career. Jordan, on the other hand, was directly responsible for elevating the NBA through his play, his winning, and his dominance. It’s not even remotely the same thing.

Your comparison to Kobe’s looks is laughable. Jordan's dominance on the court influenced the league and inspired players like LeBron, Durant, and Kobe because of his basketball performance, not anything superficial. We’re talking about career value as a basketball player, not cosmetic features.

And you keep ignoring how LeBron’s on-court play has not always led to success when it mattered most (i.e., Finals losses, walking off the court, flopping). Jordan never folded under pressure in the Finals. His ability to perform in high-pressure moments, deliver championships, and maintain excellence throughout his career is the definition of career value. Learn the multiple ways to have value before jumping into these discussions.

You sat this is only about "on court" things, then you mention a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with on the court impact (like how people reacted to what you did in the future). I'm not sure you understand what 'off court impact' means tbh.

I'm not sure you understand the words impact or value tbh. You’re keep conflating irrelevant things like Bridgeman’s business ventures and Kobe Bryant's looks with the undeniable ripple effect Jordan’s basketball performance had on the court and on the game. Maybe take some time to understand the distinction before shifting the goalposts.

[One_and_Done]

They both had nothing to do with their ability to win games on the court, and so are irrelevant to how much the player helps you win.

[MavsDirk41]

Obviously on court impact is your ability to impact winning on the court. Off court stuff is everything else. If you were a douche in the locker room, that might affect your ability to win on the court, and is relevant (eg Elvin Hayes), but 'how much you influenced future generations' or 'how much money you made the league' is not. Your off court issues may also have no apparent impact on winning (eg Mailman).

Im curious what does is say about a player having 10 different head coaches in 21 seasons?

[One_and_Done]

Obviously on court impact is your ability to impact winning on the court. Off court stuff is everything else. If you were a douche in the locker room, that might affect your ability to win on the court, and is relevant (eg Elvin Hayes), but 'how much you influenced future generations' or 'how much money you made the league' is not. Your off court issues may also have no apparent impact on winning (eg Mailman).

Im curious what does is say about a player having 10 different head coaches in 21 seasons?

Maybe something, maybe nothing. It depends on the context. Magic got his coach fired in his 2nd year, but nobody holds it against him. Why? Because it didn't negatively impact winning. Moreover, Magic was right; the team was playing the wrong way, as the coach had abandoned the show time running scheme from their title year to do his own thing.

Lebron played for alot of bad organisations, coaching changes were often justified. I don't see any evidence it hurt the on court product.

In contrast, Kobe got his HoF coach fired; not because he was hurting the team, but for self interested reasons. That's an example of off court stuff hurting the on court product. Running down your team mates in practise is another.

[Homer38]

Obviously on court impact is your ability to impact winning on the court. Off court stuff is everything else. If you were a douche in the locker room, that might affect your ability to win on the court, and is relevant (eg Elvin Hayes), but 'how much you influenced future generations' or 'how much money you made the league' is not. Your off court issues may also have no apparent impact on winning (eg Mailman).

Im curious what does is say about a player having 10 different head coaches in 21 seasons?

LBJ had only 3 different head coach after 11 years.And outside of Blatt,it was never the decision of LBJ to fire the head coach

Jordan had several different head coach before Phil too

[One_and_Done]

Obviously on court impact is your ability to impact winning on the court. Off court stuff is everything else. If you were a douche in the locker room, that might affect your ability to win on the court, and is relevant (eg Elvin Hayes), but 'how much you influenced future generations' or 'how much money you made the league' is not. Your off court issues may also have no apparent impact on winning (eg Mailman).

Im curious what does is say about a player having 10 different head coaches in 21 seasons?

LBJ had only 3 different head coach after 11 years.And outside of Blatt,it was never the decision of LBJ to fire the head coach

Jordan had several different head coach before Phil too

Larry Bird had 4 coaches in12 years. Maybe Bird was a coach killer.

[MavsDirk41]

Obviously on court impact is your ability to impact winning on the court. Off court stuff is everything else. If you were a douche in the locker room, that might affect your ability to win on the court, and is relevant (eg Elvin Hayes), but 'how much you influenced future generations' or 'how much money you made the league' is not. Your off court issues may also have no apparent impact on winning (eg Mailman).

Im curious what does is say about a player having 10 different head coaches in 21 seasons?

LBJ had only 3 different head coach after 11 years.And outside of Blatt,it was never the decision of LBJ to fire the head coach

Jordan had several different head coach before Phil too

Tried to get Spo fired but Riley wouldnt bite and didnt even make it through a full year in LA before colluding with Davis to get him to demand a trade to LA. My hero.

[ScrantonBulls]

Obviously on court impact is your ability to impact winning on the court. Off court stuff is everything else. If you were a douche in the locker room, that might affect your ability to win on the court, and is relevant (eg Elvin Hayes), but 'how much you influenced future generations' or 'how much money you made the league' is not. Your off court issues may also have no apparent impact on winning (eg Mailman).

Im curious what does is say about a player having 10 different head coaches in 21 seasons?

^ This is an example of when a player lives completely rent free in the head of somebody that despises him.