RGM GOAT Debate Thread (Part 2)

[MavsDirk41]

Hope MJ fans enjoyed that game winner yesterday.

Like them Wizards years, it never happened!

Jordan hit a game winner in 02 against Cleveland…..how long you been watching the nba?

[MavsDirk41]

Jordan isn't the reason there weren't other dynasties in the 90s. No other team was good enough to become one and if Jordan never existed, the 90s would have looked more like the 70s with several different one year winners. Houston still gets 2 max. Utah gets two max. Maybe New York gets a couple. Outside of that, you get a few more teams who win one. There just wasn't another team stacked with enough talent, health and good coaching in that decade.

The discussion is too focused on the word though instead of the broader picture. It doesn't really.matter if a team was or could have been a dynasty. It matters how good the team was the year a player faced them. The 83 Sixers weren't a dynasty, but beating them that year would have been as impressive an achievement as beating any dynasty. It doesn't matter how good a team was the year before or the next year, it matters how good they are the year you face them.

I love the excuses of James fans for dismissing the Bulls opponents in the finals. Just glad the dynasty Mavs embarrassed James in 2011

[lessthanjake]

The discussion is too focused on the word though instead of the broader picture. It doesn't really.matter if a team was or could have been a dynasty. It matters how good the team was the year a player faced them. The 83 Sixers weren't a dynasty, but beating them that year would have been as impressive an achievement as beating any dynasty. It doesn't matter how good a team was the year before or the next year, it matters how good they are the year you face them.

I think this is right, and a good point to make. But Jordan’s Finals opponents were clearly really good when we look at how good they were that year.

They all won between 57 and 64 regular season games (and mostly towards the top of that range). They all had between 5.73 and 7.97 SRS (and all but one was above 6 SRS). On their way to the Finals, each one of them beat at least one team that would make the Finals or win a title in that era (and most of them beat a team that did that in an immediately surrounding year). Most of them had an all-time great in their prime that won an MVP award either that year or in an immediately surrounding year. One of the two that didn’t have that had a guy who was #2 in MVP voting that year behind Jordan, and the other one had a guy who finished as high as 3rd in MVP voting in that era and had two guys who were repeatedly top 10 in MVP voting (including both being top 8 that season). Four out of the six Finals opponents had the best pre-playoffs title odds aside from the Bulls (and one of them actually had better odds than the Bulls). The other two Finals opponents had the 2nd best pre-playoff titles odds aside from the Bulls, and one of them beat the one other team with better odds than them while the Bulls vanquished the team with the 2nd best title odds in the conference finals in the other year. So we are talking about Finals opponents that all (1) had great regular seasons; (2) defeated great teams in the playoffs; (3) had the types of major superstars you usually need in order to have big playoff success; and (4) were amongst the very top title favorites. These were great teams!

It’s also the case that, in those 6 title years, the Bulls had to beat a total of seven 5-7 SRS teams prior to the Finals (for reference: In his 10 Finals runs, LeBron only had to beat a total of two 5+ SRS teams prior to the Finals). Most of those 5+ SRS Eastern Conference opponents were led by easy hall of famers in their prime. The only year the Bulls didn’t have to beat a 5+ SRS team in order to make the Finals was in 1991, when they beat the two-time defending champions. Relatedly, in those title runs, they had to beat every other team from the East that made the Finals from 1988 to 2000. There is also only one year where the Bulls did not have to beat the Eastern Conference team with the next best pre-playoff title odds (that was 1991, where the Celtics actually had better odds than the Pistons). So the teams Jordan’s Bulls had to beat on the way to the Finals were really good too.

[Stannis]

Hope MJ fans enjoyed that game winner yesterday.

Like them Wizards years, it never happened!

I can't take The Last Dance documentary since there wasn't an Epilogue for the Wizard years.

One lighthearted episode would have sufficed.

[Gregoire]

Hope MJ fans enjoyed that game winner yesterday.

Hope LeBron fans enjoyed Giddey gamewinner over Bron today

[Special_Puppy]

The discussion is too focused on the word though instead of the broader picture. It doesn't really.matter if a team was or could have been a dynasty. It matters how good the team was the year a player faced them. The 83 Sixers weren't a dynasty, but beating them that year would have been as impressive an achievement as beating any dynasty. It doesn't matter how good a team was the year before or the next year, it matters how good they are the year you face them.

I think this is right, and a good point to make. But Jordan’s Finals opponents were clearly really good when we look at how good they were that year.

They all won between 57 and 64 regular season games (and mostly towards the top of that range). They all had between 5.73 and 7.97 SRS (and all but one was above 6 SRS). On their way to the Finals, each one of them beat at least one team that would make the Finals or win a title in that era (and most of them beat a team that did that in an immediately surrounding year). Most of them had an all-time great in their prime that won an MVP award either that year or in an immediately surrounding year. One of the two that didn’t have that had a guy who was #2 in MVP voting that year behind Jordan, and the other one had a guy who finished as high as 3rd in MVP voting in that era and had two guys who were repeatedly top 10 in MVP voting (including both being top 8 that season). Four out of the six Finals opponents had the best pre-playoffs title odds aside from the Bulls (and one of them actually had better odds than the Bulls). The other two Finals opponents had the 2nd best pre-playoff titles odds aside from the Bulls, and one of them beat the one other team with better odds than them while the Bulls vanquished the team with the 2nd best title odds in the conference finals in the other year. So we are talking about Finals opponents that all (1) had great regular seasons; (2) defeated great teams in the playoffs; (3) had the types of major superstars you usually need in order to have big playoff success; and (4) were amongst the very top title favorites. These were great teams!

It’s also the case that, in those 6 title years, the Bulls had to beat a total of seven 5-7 SRS teams prior to the Finals (for reference: In his 10 Finals runs, LeBron only had to beat a total of two 5+ SRS teams prior to the Finals). Most of those 5+ SRS Eastern Conference opponents were led by easy hall of famers in their prime. The only year the Bulls didn’t have to beat a 5+ SRS team in order to make the Finals was in 1991, when they beat the two-time defending champions. Relatedly, in those title runs, they had to beat every other team from the East that made the Finals from 1988 to 2000. There is also only one year where the Bulls did not have to beat the Eastern Conference team with the next best pre-playoff title odds (that was 1991, where the Celtics actually had better odds than the Pistons). So the teams Jordan’s Bulls had to beat on the way to the Finals were really good too.

Yeah 538 looked at this and found that Jordan faced tougher opponents in the playoffs. Basically a function of the East being much stronger in Jordan's day (it was actually better than the West from 1989 to 1998) https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/michael-jordan-faced-better-competition-than-lebron-james/

[Stannis]

Jordan isn't the reason there weren't other dynasties in the 90s. No other team was good enough to become one and if Jordan never existed, the 90s would have looked more like the 70s with several different one year winners. Houston still gets 2 max. Utah gets two max. Maybe New York gets a couple. Outside of that, you get a few more teams who win one. There just wasn't another team stacked with enough talent, health and good coaching in that decade.

The discussion is too focused on the word though instead of the broader picture. It doesn't really.matter if a team was or could have been a dynasty. It matters how good the team was the year a player faced them. The 83 Sixers weren't a dynasty, but beating them that year would have been as impressive an achievement as beating any dynasty. It doesn't matter how good a team was the year before or the next year, it matters how good they are the year you face them.

I love the excuses of James fans for dismissing the Bulls opponents in the finals. Just glad the dynasty Mavs embarrassed James in 2011

Yeah. There's just too many key players/ HoFers who probably get 1-2 rings if it wasn't for MJ.

Karl Malone + John Stockton
Patrick Ewing
Maybe Charles Barkley and/or Reggie Miller

[Ainosterhaspie]

Jordan isn't the reason there weren't other dynasties in the 90s. No other team was good enough to become one and if Jordan never existed, the 90s would have looked more like the 70s with several different one year winners. Houston still gets 2 max. Utah gets two max. Maybe New York gets a couple. Outside of that, you get a few more teams who win one. There just wasn't another team stacked with enough talent, health and good coaching in that decade.

The discussion is too focused on the word though instead of the broader picture. It doesn't really.matter if a team was or could have been a dynasty. It matters how good the team was the year a player faced them. The 83 Sixers weren't a dynasty, but beating them that year would have been as impressive an achievement as beating any dynasty. It doesn't matter how good a team was the year before or the next year, it matters how good they are the year you face them.

I love the excuses of James fans for dismissing the Bulls opponents in the finals. Just glad the dynasty Mavs embarrassed James in 2011

You've failed to rebut anything I said, but chosen instead to deflect.

Nothing I said there necessarily argues for or against Jordan or LeBron or any other particular player and I certainly made no claim about the quality of the Mavs or excusing James in that series. That's a straw man.

I think focusing on beating a dynasty or preventing one is misplaced and, at least in the context of the 90s, an ahistorical narrative. There were no teams other than the Bulls who could have been dynasties in that era.

That does not necessarily mean that beating the 96 Sonics for example wasn't more impressive than beating the Rockets in 96 would have been and preventing them from being a dynasty. The Rockets were fading by that time. Beating the Sonics was more impressive, and that's the point I'm trying to make. It's the quality of the team that year and that series that matters not whether they are a real or potential dynasty.

[Special_Puppy]

Jordan isn't the reason there weren't other dynasties in the 90s. No other team was good enough to become one and if Jordan never existed, the 90s would have looked more like the 70s with several different one year winners. Houston still gets 2 max. Utah gets two max. Maybe New York gets a couple. Outside of that, you get a few more teams who win one. There just wasn't another team stacked with enough talent, health and good coaching in that decade.

The discussion is too focused on the word though instead of the broader picture. It doesn't really.matter if a team was or could have been a dynasty. It matters how good the team was the year a player faced them. The 83 Sixers weren't a dynasty, but beating them that year would have been as impressive an achievement as beating any dynasty. It doesn't matter how good a team was the year before or the next year, it matters how good they are the year you face them.

I love the excuses of James fans for dismissing the Bulls opponents in the finals. Just glad the dynasty Mavs embarrassed James in 2011

You've failed to rebut anything I said, but chosen instead to deflect.

Nothing I said there necessarily argues for or against Jordan or LeBron or any other particular player and I certainly made no claim about the quality of the Mavs or excusing James in that series. That's a straw man.

I think focusing on beating a dynasty or preventing one is misplaced and, at least in the context of the 90s, an ahistorical narrative. There were no teams other than the Bulls who could have been dynasties in that era.

That does not necessarily mean that beating the 96 Sonics for example wasn't more impressive than beating the Rockets in 96 would have been and preventing them from being a dynasty. The Rockets were fading by that time. Beating the Sonics was more impressive, and that's the point I'm trying to make. It's the quality of the team that year and that series that matters not whether they are a real or potential dynasty.

The Jazz probably would have gone B2B if they faced a typical finals opponent (say the 1997 Heat or the 1998 Pacers) instead of an unusually strong one. Maybe not a dynasty, but they would probably be held in similar regard to the Heatles or Bad Boys Pistons

[Ainosterhaspie]

The Jazz probably would have gone B2B if they faced a typical finals opponent (say the 1997 Heat or the 1998 Pacers) instead of an unusually strong one. Maybe not a dynasty, but they would probably be held in similar regard to the Heatles or Bad Boys Pistons

Maybe. Pacers took Bulls to 7 in 98 though. Decent chance Pacers take the title that year. I did acknowledge them as potential two peat team if Jordan never existed.

[Djoker]

Coming into the 1997 Finals, the Jazz went 52-9 in the previous 61 games and had a +10.2 SRS in that (very long) stretch. They were playing at 68-win pace by SRS and 70-win pace by W-L record. They are clearly on the short list of best teams ever to not win the title. Heck, if they made their free throws in the clutch, they could have upset the Bulls.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

All this talk about the 90s teams is a reaction to the argument that LeBron's competition was stronger, and while some good arguments have been made about how good those Jazz teams were(really tired of the disrespect they are shown by some on here), I think the argument I'd go with is that era strength shouldn't matter at all. Over the last few years I've become a more and more staunch era-relativist - meaning you evaluate players based on what they did, when the played, with the teammates they had, against the competition in front of them, under the rules in place at the time. You don't do time machine hypotheticals about what Jerry West might look like in 2025 and you don't penalize players from that past for things they had no control over(like the quality of their competition or the fact that three-point shooting wasn't as important in the past or the fact that zone defense was illegal).

These types of time machine arguments are almost always used to diminish past players, and these types of stronger/weaker era arguments often lead to hyperbole-fueled disrespect for large swaths of the league's history, whether that means downplaying the 50s and 60s as a joke league with 8-9 teams, the 80s/90s as an era of isolation-heavy offenses and archaic defenses in a watered down league, or the current league as a soft, flop-riddled, defensively deficient three-point chuckfest. There may be kernels of truth in all of those descriptions but on the whole they're unfair. I'd rather avoid all of that and take an approach that doesn't pit one era against another. I won't post a whole list, but my top 4 using this logic is this:

1. Russell
2. Jordan
3. LeBron
4. Mikan

I don't think any other players in league history dominated their eras the way these four have. You can scoff at Mikan if you want, but in an era-relative context, he belongs there. After that we're looking at Kareem, Magic, Wilt, Shaq, and Duncan in some order.

[michaelm]

All this talk about the 90s teams is a reaction to the argument that LeBron's competition was stronger, and while some good arguments have been made about how good those Jazz teams were(really tired of the disrespect they are shown by some on here), I think the argument I'd go with is that era strength shouldn't matter at all. Over the last few years I've become a more and more staunch era-relativist - meaning you evaluate players based on what they did, when the played, with the teammates they had, against the competition in front of them, under the rules in place at the time. You don't do time machine hypotheticals about what Jerry West might look like in 2025 and you don't penalize players from that past for things they had no control over(like the quality of their competition or the fact that three-point shooting wasn't as important in the past or the fact that zone defense was illegal).

These types of time machine arguments are almost always used to diminish past players, and these types of stronger/weaker era arguments often lead to hyperbole-fueled disrespect for large swaths of the league's history, whether that means downplaying the 50s and 60s as a joke league with 8-9 teams, the 80s/90s as an era of isolation-heavy offenses and archaic defenses in a watered down league, or the current league as a soft, flop-riddled, defensively deficient three-point chuckfest. There may be kernels of truth in all of those descriptions but on the whole they're unfair. I'd rather avoid all of that and take an approach that doesn't pit one era against another. I won't post a whole list, but my top 4 using this logic is this:

1. Russell
2. Jordan
3. LeBron
4. Mikan

I don't think any other players in league history dominated their eras the way these four have. You can scoff at Mikan if you want, but in an era-relative context, he belongs there. After that we're looking at Kareem, Magic, Wilt, Shaq, and Duncan in some order.

That’s the thing, particularly in regard to Russell imo, what more could he have done ?, except not be injured the 2 years out of 13 the Celtics didn’t win during his career. They lost the year before he started, lost the year after he retired, and he was coach as well for the last 2 titles I am led to believe.

Similarly Jordan, 6 titles as FMVP for a franchise that had never won a title before him and hasn’t after him is an unequalled dynasty except for the Bill Russell Celtics in a different era. If he needed to accept coaching from Phil Jackson and to play a more team game to win titles that is a point in his favour for me, as is a Jordan Bulls team being in the conversation for the best ever.

[Jta444]

Bron can’t even beat Giddey how much more Jordan? Cmon now..

[DOT]

I find the "MJ prevented so many HoFers from winning rings" arguments to be strange, because if you actually look into it, would they have won for sure if he wasn't there?

Like, the Jazz are the best example for that case, they made the Finals twice and lost twice. But to say they for sure would have beaten whoever came out of the East if not for MJ is a complete hypothetical, one which is actively undermined by the other argument of "look how strong the East was when MJ played"

If the East was that strong, then you can't say be default the 6 teams MJ beat in the Finals would have won if not for him

And then vice versa, just because a team in the East lost to MJ does not mean they would have won had he not been around. The Knicks made the Finals when MJ retired and still lost, same for the Magic with Shaq, after they beat MJ in the playoffs (which for some reason doesn't count)

The math just doesn't work, to say there are 5-8 guys MJ prevented from winning multiple rings, like in a hypothetical world where MJ doesn't exist, most of those guys still don't get rings either. And then logically speaking, most of those guys only had the one chance anyways, like when we talk about Barkley, the Bucks beat him in the playoffs 3 times in Philly to MJ's twice. Should we not say it was Sidney Moncrief who prevented him from winning rings, not MJ? Or why do we credit MJ for beating the Suns once when Hakeem did it twice? Should not the credit go to Hakeem for preventing Barkley from winning rings instead?

It's just yet another circular logic argument from based on pure conjecture and hypotheticals.

[MavsDirk41]

Jordan isn't the reason there weren't other dynasties in the 90s. No other team was good enough to become one and if Jordan never existed, the 90s would have looked more like the 70s with several different one year winners. Houston still gets 2 max. Utah gets two max. Maybe New York gets a couple. Outside of that, you get a few more teams who win one. There just wasn't another team stacked with enough talent, health and good coaching in that decade.

The discussion is too focused on the word though instead of the broader picture. It doesn't really.matter if a team was or could have been a dynasty. It matters how good the team was the year a player faced them. The 83 Sixers weren't a dynasty, but beating them that year would have been as impressive an achievement as beating any dynasty. It doesn't matter how good a team was the year before or the next year, it matters how good they are the year you face them.

I love the excuses of James fans for dismissing the Bulls opponents in the finals. Just glad the dynasty Mavs embarrassed James in 2011

You've failed to rebut anything I said, but chosen instead to deflect.

Nothing I said there necessarily argues for or against Jordan or LeBron or any other particular player and I certainly made no claim about the quality of the Mavs or excusing James in that series. That's a straw man.

I think focusing on beating a dynasty or preventing one is misplaced and, at least in the context of the 90s, an ahistorical narrative. There were no teams other than the Bulls who could have been dynasties in that era.

That does not necessarily mean that beating the 96 Sonics for example wasn't more impressive than beating the Rockets in 96 would have been and preventing them from being a dynasty. The Rockets were fading by that time. Beating the Sonics was more impressive, and that's the point I'm trying to make. It's the quality of the team that year and that series that matters not whether they are a real or potential dynasty.

For me the most impressive thing a player can do is create a dynasty with the franchise that drafted them and dominate the league. Duncan in San Antonio, Jordan in Chicago, Russell in Boston, Magic in LA. That’s exactly what they did.

[The4thHorseman]

I love the excuses of James fans for dismissing the Bulls opponents in the finals. Just glad the dynasty Mavs embarrassed James in 2011

You've failed to rebut anything I said, but chosen instead to deflect.

Nothing I said there necessarily argues for or against Jordan or LeBron or any other particular player and I certainly made no claim about the quality of the Mavs or excusing James in that series. That's a straw man.

I think focusing on beating a dynasty or preventing one is misplaced and, at least in the context of the 90s, an ahistorical narrative. There were no teams other than the Bulls who could have been dynasties in that era.

That does not necessarily mean that beating the 96 Sonics for example wasn't more impressive than beating the Rockets in 96 would have been and preventing them from being a dynasty. The Rockets were fading by that time. Beating the Sonics was more impressive, and that's the point I'm trying to make. It's the quality of the team that year and that series that matters not whether they are a real or potential dynasty.

For me the most impressive thing a player can do is create a dynasty with the franchise that drafted them and dominate the league. Duncan in San Antonio, Jordan in Chicago, Russell in Boston, Magic in LA. That’s exactly what they did.

3 titles, 3 FMVP's, with 2 different organizations in 5yrs aka self-dynasty is more impressive.

[lessthanjake]

I find the "MJ prevented so many HoFers from winning rings" arguments to be strange, because if you actually look into it, would they have won for sure if he wasn't there?

Like, the Jazz are the best example for that case, they made the Finals twice and lost twice. But to say they for sure would have beaten whoever came out of the East if not for MJ is a complete hypothetical, one which is actively undermined by the other argument of "look how strong the East was when MJ played"

If the East was that strong, then you can't say be default the 6 teams MJ beat in the Finals would have won if not for him

And then vice versa, just because a team in the East lost to MJ does not mean they would have won had he not been around. The Knicks made the Finals when MJ retired and still lost, same for the Magic with Shaq, after they beat MJ in the playoffs (which for some reason doesn't count)

The math just doesn't work, to say there are 5-8 guys MJ prevented from winning multiple rings, like in a hypothetical world where MJ doesn't exist, most of those guys still don't get rings either. And then logically speaking, most of those guys only had the one chance anyways, like when we talk about Barkley, the Bucks beat him in the playoffs 3 times in Philly to MJ's twice. Should we not say it was Sidney Moncrief who prevented him from winning rings, not MJ? Or why do we credit MJ for beating the Suns once when Hakeem did it twice? Should not the credit go to Hakeem for preventing Barkley from winning rings instead?

It's just yet another circular logic argument from based on pure conjecture and hypotheticals.

This is silly. If Jordan hadn’t existed *someone* would’ve won every year. Yes, obviously only one team could’ve won the title each year. And the team that won probably wouldn’t have *always* been the team Jordan played in the Finals, since the Eastern Conference had some great teams that were potentially capable of beating the great teams Jordan beat in the Finals. So yeah, logically Jordan cannot possibly have prevented “5-8 guys . . . from winning multiple rings.” Jordan won 6 titles, so preventing 5-8 guys from winning multiple rings is logically impossible (unless those 5-8 guys include role players from one team—for example, you could list 5-8 guys on the 1997 & 1998 Jazz, but that’s not really what you’re talking about). No one is saying that that’s the case.

But what obviously happened is that Jordan monopolized 6 titles that would’ve otherwise been won in some combination by the other superstars of his era. Of course, we don’t know exactly what would’ve happened in those years if Jordan hadn’t existed, so we can’t say for sure who would’ve won what. But 6 titles being distributed in some way amongst the other superstars of that era would’ve had a profound effect on the legacy of those players. The type of scenario we’re looking at might look something like: Magic Johnson now having 6 titles, Ewing having 1 title, Barkley having 1 title, Payton having 1 title, and Malone/Stockton having 2 titles. Or it might look like: the Bad Boys Pistons three-peating, Drexler having 1 title, Ewing having 1 title, Shaq winning a title in Orlando, Alonzo Mourning and Tim Hardaway winning a title, and Reggie Miller leading the Pacers to 1 title. Or some combination of different possible outcomes amongst these sorts of things (with some outcomes obviously being more likely than others). And, since there’s a butterfly effect, maybe it actually looks radically different than this, where one team would end up with more of an edge than we might think. For instance, maybe if Jordan didn’t exist, the Knicks win in 1992 and then that boosts their confidence and we are talking about Ewing having a 1992-1994 three-peat. Whatever the exact outcome that would’ve occurred, the legacies for multiple other superstars of that era would be significantly different.

[MavsDirk41]

You've failed to rebut anything I said, but chosen instead to deflect.

Nothing I said there necessarily argues for or against Jordan or LeBron or any other particular player and I certainly made no claim about the quality of the Mavs or excusing James in that series. That's a straw man.

I think focusing on beating a dynasty or preventing one is misplaced and, at least in the context of the 90s, an ahistorical narrative. There were no teams other than the Bulls who could have been dynasties in that era.

That does not necessarily mean that beating the 96 Sonics for example wasn't more impressive than beating the Rockets in 96 would have been and preventing them from being a dynasty. The Rockets were fading by that time. Beating the Sonics was more impressive, and that's the point I'm trying to make. It's the quality of the team that year and that series that matters not whether they are a real or potential dynasty.

For me the most impressive thing a player can do is create a dynasty with the franchise that drafted them and dominate the league. Duncan in San Antonio, Jordan in Chicago, Russell in Boston, Magic in LA. That’s exactly what they did.

3 titles, 3 FMVP's, with 2 different organizations in 5yrs aka self-dynasty is more impressive.

He teamed up with Wade, Bosh, Irving, and Love to get that. Not as impressive to me at all. Not even close. Nothing more impressive than a 3 peat and Jordan has two of them.

[bledredwine]

You've failed to rebut anything I said, but chosen instead to deflect.

Nothing I said there necessarily argues for or against Jordan or LeBron or any other particular player and I certainly made no claim about the quality of the Mavs or excusing James in that series. That's a straw man.

I think focusing on beating a dynasty or preventing one is misplaced and, at least in the context of the 90s, an ahistorical narrative. There were no teams other than the Bulls who could have been dynasties in that era.

That does not necessarily mean that beating the 96 Sonics for example wasn't more impressive than beating the Rockets in 96 would have been and preventing them from being a dynasty. The Rockets were fading by that time. Beating the Sonics was more impressive, and that's the point I'm trying to make. It's the quality of the team that year and that series that matters not whether they are a real or potential dynasty.

For me the most impressive thing a player can do is create a dynasty with the franchise that drafted them and dominate the league. Duncan in San Antonio, Jordan in Chicago, Russell in Boston, Magic in LA. That’s exactly what they did.

3 titles, 3 FMVP's, with 2 different organizations in 5yrs aka self-dynasty is more impressive.

Durant proved that theory incorrect.

Forming superteams and bandwagoning is much easier. If Lebron stayed with Cleveland? Little chance and I think you know it.

The championships with three franchises is a coverup (excuse) tactic.If Jordan teamed up with EC rivals Miller/Ewing, won 2 out of 4, including a choke of his own, getting slaughtered once in the process, then got one with Chicago, teaming up with their allstar first draft pick and another allstar, then teamed up with Olajuwon to win one in Houston, it wouldn’t be nearly as much to brag about as six for six as by far the best player in each series.

There’s a reason Lebron said not 6, not 7, not8,

and it’s not because he thought it would be difficult after teaming up.