RGM GOAT Debate Thread (Part 2)

[michaelm]

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.

Except the argument was propounded because someone posted that LeBron mainly lost to dynasty teams. As has also been said being the best player on a dynasty team is better for a GOAT case than being beaten by dynasty teams, or is that a circular argument as well ?.

[Iwasawitness]

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.

Durant didn’t prove that at all.

He’s joined three different super teams. He only won with one, that one being a 73 win team before he joined them. If anything, he proved that winning with super teams is more difficult. Unless you do it under very specific circumstances, it’s very hard to do. We’ve seen more instances of it failing than succeeding.

[Ainosterhaspie]

He’s joined three different super teams. He only won with one, that one being a 73 win team before he joined them. If anything, he proved that winning with super teams is more difficult. Unless you do it under very specific circumstances, it’s very hard to do. We’ve seen more instances of it failing than succeeding.

Superteam is a term that's usually misapplied. A superteam isn't about having star players, it's about having good fit, depth and coaching. Teams that have those things are super teams far more than misnamed teams with no depth or coaching but multiple stars with redundant skill sets.

[lessthanjake]

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.

Durant didn’t prove that at all.

He’s joined three different super teams. He only won with one, that one being a 73 win team before he joined them. If anything, he proved that winning with super teams is more difficult. Unless you do it under very specific circumstances, it’s very hard to do. We’ve seen more instances of it failing than succeeding.

I’m not sure that’s really the conclusion to take from Durant’s career. He had a “super team” with the Warriors and won until injury derailed them in 2019. Following that, the Nets were only a “super team” one year, and in that year they were ahead in a playoff series against the eventual-title-winner before injuries rendered the Nets basically the opposite of a super team (and they still almost won the series). I wouldn’t say that that tells us anything about how hard it is to win with super teams. Obviously, any team that gets hit with playoff injuries to two of their three best players is extremely likely to not win the title, regardless of whether they are a “super team,” and there’s nothing about a “super team” that makes players getting injured more likely. That was just garden-variety bad injury luck. And the only other arguable “super team” Durant went to was the Durant/Booker/Beal Suns. But that team only got created when Durant was 35 years old, and Beal wasn’t actually even an all-star level player by the time he went to Phoenix (and IMO he wasn’t even close to all-star level). It’s not really the team being less than the sum of its parts. Rather, the sum of its parts just isn’t that good.

None of this is to say that “super teams” are unambiguously better than less top-heavy rosters. There’s been some incredible teams in NBA history that weren’t “super teams,” so obviously there’s other potentially great models. But usually when a “super team” doesn’t work, there’s obvious reason for it. And those reasons are usually that the stars are old/washed or the team gets derailed by injury. And the thing with LeBron is that he always aimed to make sure he wasn’t on super teams with washed players, by leaving teams when they were on the downswing. For instance, the “super team” model resulted in two titles with the Heat, but it probably wouldn’t have resulted in any more titles if he had stayed, because their window as a genuinely hyper-talented super team was ending. A lot of failed “super teams” actually get formed when they’re old/washed enough that they never actually are a genuinely hyper-talented super team (see for instance: the Barkley Rockets, Durant Suns, Garnett Nets, etc.). I don’t think those sorts of teams tell us much of anything about LeBron, because he left teams when they were going that direction, specifically because he could tell they weren’t going to be good enough anymore.

[Iwasawitness]

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.

Durant didn’t prove that at all.

He’s joined three different super teams. He only won with one, that one being a 73 win team before he joined them. If anything, he proved that winning with super teams is more difficult. Unless you do it under very specific circumstances, it’s very hard to do. We’ve seen more instances of it failing than succeeding.

I’m not sure that’s really the conclusion to take from Durant’s career. He had a “super team” with the Warriors and won until injury derailed them in 2019. Following that, the Nets were only a “super team” one year, and in that year they were ahead in a playoff series against the eventual-title-winner before injuries rendered the Nets basically the opposite of a super team (and they still almost won the series). I wouldn’t say that that tells us anything about how hard it is to win with super teams. Obviously, any team that gets hit with playoff injuries to two of their three best players is extremely likely to not win the title, regardless of whether they are a “super team,” and there’s nothing about a “super team” that makes players getting injured more likely. That was just garden-variety bad injury luck. And the only other arguable “super team” Durant went to was the Durant/Booker/Beal Suns. But that team only got created when Durant was 35 years old, and Beal wasn’t actually even an all-star level player by the time he went to Phoenix (and IMO he wasn’t even close to all-star level). It’s not really the team being less than the sum of its parts. Rather, the sum of its parts just isn’t that good.

None of this is to say that “super teams” are unambiguously better than less top-heavy rosters. There’s been some incredible teams in NBA history that weren’t “super teams,” so obviously there’s other potentially great models. But usually when a “super team” doesn’t work, there’s obvious reason for it. And those reasons are usually that the stars are old/washed or the team gets derailed by injury. And the thing with LeBron is that he always aimed to make sure he wasn’t on super teams with washed players, by leaving teams when they were on the downswing. For instance, the “super team” model resulted in two titles with the Heat, but it probably wouldn’t have resulted in any more titles if he had stayed, because their window as a genuinely hyper-talented super team was ending. A lot of failed “super teams” actually get formed when they’re old/washed enough that they never actually are a genuinely hyper-talented super team (see for instance: the Barkley Rockets, Durant Suns, Garnett Nets, etc.). I don’t think those sorts of teams tell us much of anything about LeBron, because he left teams when they were going that direction, specifically because he could tell they weren’t going to be good enough anymore.

My post wasn't meant to be 100% serious. although there is some truth to it. It's more so using his logic against him: baseless without having any actual thought be put into it.

Obviously, super teams offer certain advantages. But there's also cons to it. It's a lot harder to make the fit work if it isn't there already and you're working with almost no depth. And if an injury occurs to a key player, you're pretty much screwed.

Ergo: forming super teams and bandwagoning (the latter of which isn't even what LeBron did) isn't a much easier path to success at all. And if not for LeBron being LeBron, those super teams wouldn't have even worked out. Fact is, they needed him to be an all time great just work in the first place. Does that sound like a much easier path to success to you?

And again, I just want to reiterate how hilarious it is that he used Durant of all people as an example. Durant did it three times and failed in two of them. And he didn't just fail in those instances... he straight up failed to even make the finals. I think Durant's instances prove more than anything that unless you really have something well put together, you probably aren't going to achieve the intended result.

[Iwasawitness]

He’s joined three different super teams. He only won with one, that one being a 73 win team before he joined them. If anything, he proved that winning with super teams is more difficult. Unless you do it under very specific circumstances, it’s very hard to do. We’ve seen more instances of it failing than succeeding.

Superteam is a term that's usually misapplied. A superteam isn't about having star players, it's about having good fit, depth and coaching. Teams that have those things are super teams far more than misnamed teams with no depth or coaching but multiple stars with redundant skill sets.

Well no, that's usually what superteams are: teams with multiple high end all stars/superstars. The problem is that this can apply to just about any team that fits this description. This years Phoenix Suns are a team that fit this description, and they have no real chance at postseason success because the fit is horrible. And we have loads of teams in NBA history that fit this description.

[michaelm]

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.

Durant didn’t prove that at all.

He’s joined three different super teams. He only won with one, that one being a 73 win team before he joined them. If anything, he proved that winning with super teams is more difficult. Unless you do it under very specific circumstances, it’s very hard to do. We’ve seen more instances of it failing than succeeding.

Yes 2 threepeats is much easier. Just count all the people who have done it.

[michaelm]

He’s joined three different super teams. He only won with one, that one being a 73 win team before he joined them. If anything, he proved that winning with super teams is more difficult. Unless you do it under very specific circumstances, it’s very hard to do. We’ve seen more instances of it failing than succeeding.

Superteam is a term that's usually misapplied. A superteam isn't about having star players, it's about having good fit, depth and coaching. Teams that have those things are super teams far more than misnamed teams with no depth or coaching but multiple stars with redundant skill sets.

Yes, any argument that makes LeBron look better.

[Ainosterhaspie]

He’s joined three different super teams. He only won with one, that one being a 73 win team before he joined them. If anything, he proved that winning with super teams is more difficult. Unless you do it under very specific circumstances, it’s very hard to do. We’ve seen more instances of it failing than succeeding.

Superteam is a term that's usually misapplied. A superteam isn't about having star players, it's about having good fit, depth and coaching. Teams that have those things are super teams far more than misnamed teams with no depth or coaching but multiple stars with redundant skill sets.

Well no, that's usually what superteams are: teams with multiple high end all stars/superstars. The problem is that this can apply to just about any team that fits this description. This years Phoenix Suns are a team that fit this description, and they have no real chance at postseason success because the fit is horrible. And we have loads of teams in NBA history that fit this description.

I understand that's how people use the term. My point is that since so many so called super teams end up being mediocre or fall far short of expectations because they arent actually super, that term as generally used is meaningless. People don't understand what actually makes a team super. It isn't the number of alleged super stars.

[cgf]

Bridges & Anunoby cracked 55pts again, while Robinson and Shamet lead the team in +-

Once Brunson and McBride get back we could really be cooking with gas

[michaelm]

Superteam is a term that's usually misapplied. A superteam isn't about having star players, it's about having good fit, depth and coaching. Teams that have those things are super teams far more than misnamed teams with no depth or coaching but multiple stars with redundant skill sets.

Well no, that's usually what superteams are: teams with multiple high end all stars/superstars. The problem is that this can apply to just about any team that fits this description. This years Phoenix Suns are a team that fit this description, and they have no real chance at postseason success because the fit is horrible. And we have loads of teams in NBA history that fit this description.

I understand that's how people use the term. My point is that since so many so called super teams end up being mediocre or fall far short of expectations because they arent actually super, that term as generally used is meaningless. People don't understand what actually makes a team super. It isn't the number of alleged super stars.

Yet the GSW titles won by the Curry/KD GSW team apparently don’t count because they were too good. That they were so good was the whole point.

[The4thHorseman]

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.

Durant didn’t prove that at all.

He’s joined three different super teams. He only won with one, that one being a 73 win team before he joined them. If anything, he proved that winning with super teams is more difficult. Unless you do it under very specific circumstances, it’s very hard to do. We’ve seen more instances of it failing than succeeding.

Yes 2 threepeats is much easier. Just count all the people who have done it.

The 2nd three-peat does come with an * asterisk due to MJ taking time off to rest. The first three-peat was impressive though.

[MavsDirk41]

Durant didn’t prove that at all.

He’s joined three different super teams. He only won with one, that one being a 73 win team before he joined them. If anything, he proved that winning with super teams is more difficult. Unless you do it under very specific circumstances, it’s very hard to do. We’ve seen more instances of it failing than succeeding.

Yes 2 threepeats is much easier. Just count all the people who have done it.

The 2nd three-peat does come with an * asterisk due to MJ taking time off to rest. The first three-peat was impressive though.

Does James 4th title come with an asterisk because covid shut down the season in early March for 4 months? Didnt play 82 regular season games….no travel….no fans….4 months to rest before the playoffs

Cant have it just one way……

[The4thHorseman]

Yes 2 threepeats is much easier. Just count all the people who have done it.

The 2nd three-peat does come with an * asterisk due to MJ taking time off to rest. The first three-peat was impressive though.

Does James 4th title come with an asterisk because covid shut down the season in early March for 4 months? Didnt play 82 regular season games….no travel….no fans….4 months to rest before the playoffs

Cant have it just one way……

James played 67 of the 72gms in the 2020 season, compared to Jordan choosing to play zero in the 1994 season. Then only played 17gms by choice in 1995 and I guarantee that if Chicago won the title in 95, you and many other fans would say that was a legit title for him.

btw... you ever decide yet if Jamal Murray's Finals numbers would be considered 'All-Star like' numbers?

[MavsDirk41]

:nonono:

The 2nd three-peat does come with an * asterisk due to MJ taking time off to rest. The first three-peat was impressive though.

Does James 4th title come with an asterisk because covid shut down the season in early March for 4 months? Didnt play 82 regular season games….no travel….no fans….4 months to rest before the playoffs

Cant have it just one way……

James played 67 of the 72gms in the 2020 season, compared to Jordan choosing to play zero in the 1994 season. Then only played 17gms by choice in 1995 and I guarantee that if Chicago won the title in 95, you and many other fans would say that was a legit title for him.

btw... you ever decide yet if Jamal Murray's Finals numbers would be considered 'All-Star like' numbers?

So answer me this….why is Jordans second 3 peat come with an asterisk but James bubble title doesnt? You will do anything to discount Jordans 3 titles 96-98 but you will ignore the factors i mentioned in the spirit you have of protecting James legacy. If his bubble title is legtit so are the 96-98 Bulls titles with 82 regular season games and straight into the playoffs. You want it one way as always on here. Yea, Jordan played 17 games in 95 and lost to Orlando in the playoffs. If the Bulls won the title in 95 im sure he would have had something to do with it. But they didnt.

Yea Murray has played well in the playoffs/finals several times. He is inconsistent and had some injury problems along the way. Knocked out the Lakers a couple times with some clutch jumpers which i absolutely loved.

[lessthanjake]

Durant didn’t prove that at all.

He’s joined three different super teams. He only won with one, that one being a 73 win team before he joined them. If anything, he proved that winning with super teams is more difficult. Unless you do it under very specific circumstances, it’s very hard to do. We’ve seen more instances of it failing than succeeding.

I’m not sure that’s really the conclusion to take from Durant’s career. He had a “super team” with the Warriors and won until injury derailed them in 2019. Following that, the Nets were only a “super team” one year, and in that year they were ahead in a playoff series against the eventual-title-winner before injuries rendered the Nets basically the opposite of a super team (and they still almost won the series). I wouldn’t say that that tells us anything about how hard it is to win with super teams. Obviously, any team that gets hit with playoff injuries to two of their three best players is extremely likely to not win the title, regardless of whether they are a “super team,” and there’s nothing about a “super team” that makes players getting injured more likely. That was just garden-variety bad injury luck. And the only other arguable “super team” Durant went to was the Durant/Booker/Beal Suns. But that team only got created when Durant was 35 years old, and Beal wasn’t actually even an all-star level player by the time he went to Phoenix (and IMO he wasn’t even close to all-star level). It’s not really the team being less than the sum of its parts. Rather, the sum of its parts just isn’t that good.

None of this is to say that “super teams” are unambiguously better than less top-heavy rosters. There’s been some incredible teams in NBA history that weren’t “super teams,” so obviously there’s other potentially great models. But usually when a “super team” doesn’t work, there’s obvious reason for it. And those reasons are usually that the stars are old/washed or the team gets derailed by injury. And the thing with LeBron is that he always aimed to make sure he wasn’t on super teams with washed players, by leaving teams when they were on the downswing. For instance, the “super team” model resulted in two titles with the Heat, but it probably wouldn’t have resulted in any more titles if he had stayed, because their window as a genuinely hyper-talented super team was ending. A lot of failed “super teams” actually get formed when they’re old/washed enough that they never actually are a genuinely hyper-talented super team (see for instance: the Barkley Rockets, Durant Suns, Garnett Nets, etc.). I don’t think those sorts of teams tell us much of anything about LeBron, because he left teams when they were going that direction, specifically because he could tell they weren’t going to be good enough anymore.

My post wasn't meant to be 100% serious. although there is some truth to it. It's more so using his logic against him: baseless without having any actual thought be put into it.

Obviously, super teams offer certain advantages. But there's also cons to it. It's a lot harder to make the fit work if it isn't there already and you're working with almost no depth. And if an injury occurs to a key player, you're pretty much screwed.

Ergo: forming super teams and bandwagoning (the latter of which isn't even what LeBron did) isn't a much easier path to success at all. And if not for LeBron being LeBron, those super teams wouldn't have even worked out. Fact is, they needed him to be an all time great just work in the first place. Does that sound like a much easier path to success to you?

And again, I just want to reiterate how hilarious it is that he used Durant of all people as an example. Durant did it three times and failed in two of them. And he didn't just fail in those instances... he straight up failed to even make the finals. I think Durant's instances prove more than anything that unless you really have something well put together, you probably aren't going to achieve the intended result.

I think it’s true that LeBron made his “super teams” work. Part of that, though, isn’t an on-court effect. The biggest weakness of the “super team” model is that paying three stars doesn’t leave a lot of money to fill out the rest of the roster. In order to have a decent supporting cast, super teams basically have to rely in significant part on having veterans willing to go there for a relatively low salary. And they’re only really going to do that if they think there’s a good chance they’ll win a title. LeBron being LeBron obviously made his teams attractive in that regard (as did the quality of the other stars he was teaming up with). This isn’t exclusive to LeBron of course—NBA history has many examples of good veterans going to play with their era’s best players. But it really helps with the “super team” thing. It may be that the “super team” model becomes rapidly worse the further someone is from being the league’s best player, because the team-building weakness is pretty dramatically improved by having a very top guy. It also will become rapidly worse the more the other two stars on the team seem to be washed—for instance, the Heat were going to have a harder time attracting good role players if LeBron had stayed, because Wade was clearly becoming washed (and this is more reason why LeBron decided to leave). There’s a bit of a snowball effect here, where the better the stars on the “super team” are, the better the role players will end up being. And LeBron really did try to optimize for this.

[michaelm]

:nonono:

The 2nd three-peat does come with an * asterisk due to MJ taking time off to rest. The first three-peat was impressive though.

Does James 4th title come with an asterisk because covid shut down the season in early March for 4 months? Didnt play 82 regular season games….no travel….no fans….4 months to rest before the playoffs

Cant have it just one way……

James played 67 of the 72gms in the 2020 season, compared to Jordan choosing to play zero in the 1994 season. Then only played 17gms by choice in 1995 and I guarantee that if Chicago won the title in 95, you and many other fans would say that was a legit title for him.

btw... you ever decide yet if Jamal Murray's Finals numbers would be considered 'All-Star like' numbers?

So you are dismissing the second threepeat which actually occurred in this reality while criticising another poster in regard to what you have decided his or her attitude would be to something that never happened ?.

Longevity and hypotheticals are all you have.

[Ainosterhaspie]

:nonono:

Does James 4th title come with an asterisk because covid shut down the season in early March for 4 months? Didnt play 82 regular season games….no travel….no fans….4 months to rest before the playoffs

Cant have it just one way……

James played 67 of the 72gms in the 2020 season, compared to Jordan choosing to play zero in the 1994 season. Then only played 17gms by choice in 1995 and I guarantee that if Chicago won the title in 95, you and many other fans would say that was a legit title for him.

btw... you ever decide yet if Jamal Murray's Finals numbers would be considered 'All-Star like' numbers?

So you are dismissing the second threepeat which actually occurred in this reality while criticising another poster in regard to what you have decided his or her attitude would be to something that never happened ?.

Longevity and hypotheticals are all you have.

LeBron's case is much more than longevity, but yes, that is a big part of his case. Dismissing it is necessary to make the best case for Jordan, but doing so is obviously an agenda driven move, not a good faith examination of their respective careers.

LeBron has 13 1st team all NBA awards compared to Jordan's 10, but I guess we're supposed to ignore that as meaningless longevity.

LeBron was winning playoff series at age 22, while Jordan didn't win any until age 25, but I supposes we should just ignore that as meaningless longevity.

LeBron was still winning playoff series at age 39 while Jordan's last win come at age 35, but we're apparently supposed to ignore that as meaningless longevity.

LeBron was the best player on an NBA team at age 19, Jordan didn't manage that until age 21. LeBron was top two in MVP voting at age 21 and age 35. Jordan was slower to get to that level (age 23) and skipped seasons during that window. More meaningless longevity for LeBron.

So let's just pretend a bunch of Lebron's career, multiple seasons of all NBA play, seasons where he's winning playoff games, leading his team in scoring and assists never happened. What's the case for LeBron when we throw all that out?

He's bigger than Jordan and near his match for speed. Just looking at raw physical tools he has an edge over Jordan where mass, length and height are an advantage on both ends of the floor.

He is a significantly better defender compared to Jordan. He won three titles as his team's clear best defender. Jordan can't make that claim even once. For at least half his finals wins, Jordan was his team's third best defender.

LeBron is a better rebounder and playmaker.

LeBron during his title window (2012 to 2020) was the more efficient scorer both in the regular season (.607 vs. .569 TS%) and playoffs (.596, vs .558 TS%). He is better at the most efficient shots in the game, at the rim and from three. He is a more dominant transition force.

Jordan has the edge in raw scoring mostly due to differences in playstyle. LeBron is more focused on getting the best scoring opportunities for the team, while Jordan looks for the most scoring opportunities for himself. This makes LeBron a lower volume scorer but higher efficiency scorer, who has and uses the ability to score in high volume and efficency even against elite playoff defenses and defenders.

As an aside, individual scoring is one of the most overrated metrics in basketball. It has a low correlation with winning finals. It is rare for the NBA scoring leader to win titles. More teams since 1970 have won with their leading scorer being outside the NBA top 10 than with the NBA leading scorer.

Jordan didn't win titles in his three highest individual scoring seasons and didn't even win a playoff game in his highest individual scoring season. Four of his top five PPG seasons did not lead to finals wins. The same holds true in the playoffs where he didn't win the finals in his top 4 playoff PPG averages and didn't win a single game in two of his top four playoff scoring averages.

Wilt's career tells a similar story in more stark terms. He was an even more dominant scorer than Jordan at his peak, yet was consistently beaten by a better defensive star who wasn't an impressive scorer and only won titles when he lowered his scoring output.

Through 2017, LeBron had faced and beaten better teams in the playoffs compared to Jordan, most notably the 2016 Warriors. LeBron had faced seven teams with an SRS of 8 or higher. Jordan faced just one such team in his career. LeBron beat one of those teams and has an 11-23 overall record. Jordan's record is 0-3. LeBron has faced three SRS 10+ teams while Jordan's highest SRS opponent was 9.06.

There is no argument that Jordan faced or beat opponents as good as the best teams LeBron faced and in one case beat. LeBron managed to pull off three wins against the 9.3 SRS Celtics with a supporting cast no better than the one Jordan had when he was swept by the SRS 9.06 87 Celtics.

LeBron has a better five year peak than Jordan. There is no five year span for Jordan as good as LeBron from 2012 to 2016 where he won three titles and went to five consecutive finals. LeBron made eight straight finals while Jordan maxed out at less than half that and lacked the stamina and drive to attempt more than three straight.

LeBron has more playoff buzzer beating game winners than Jordan and Kobe combined. LeBron is significantly better in elimination games than Jordan.

LeBron in 2013 was as good as any version of Jordan or near enough so as to be indistinguishable. He was a 40% three point shooter, much better finisher at the rim, could defend all five positions at an elite level, and was his team's defensive anchor, leading scorer and best playmaker. His best teammate was struggling through injury the whole post season, yet he led his team to a title. When that team was healthy and finally had a real center following the Chris Anderson acquisition, it ran off the second longest single season winning streak in league history and had just three losses in the second half of the season.

At best, Jordan has a narrow edge in peak and prime while there is a gaping chasm between the two players when it comes to total years playing at an elite level at or near the top of the NBA. LeBron has a strong case for better, longer peak, better, longer prime and clearly was the better player in extended prime and non-prime years.

No, LeBron doesn't only have longevity and hypotheticals on his side in the GOAT debate.

--

One other note, the key difference between 20 and 94/95 is that in 20, the whole league faced the same challenge/benefit, depending on how you look at those missed games, while in 94/95, Jordan alone reaped the benefits/challenges from a year plus of mental and physical rejuvenation.

[Djoker]

LeBron's case is much more than longevity, but yes, that is a big part of his case. Dismissing it is necessary to make the best case for Jordan, but doing so is obviously an agenda driven move, not a good faith examination of their respective careers.

There is plenty of pushback that can be applied to your post here. Also a lot of inaccuracies.

LeBron has 13 1st team all NBA awards compared to Jordan's 10, but I guess we're supposed to ignore that as meaningless longevity.

LeBron was winning playoff series at age 22, while Jordan didn't win any until age 25, but I supposes we should just ignore that as meaningless longevity.

LeBron was still winning playoff series at age 39 while Jordan's last win come at age 35, but we're apparently supposed to ignore that as meaningless longevity.

LeBron was the best player on an NBA team at age 19, Jordan didn't manage that until age 21. LeBron was top two in MVP voting at age 21 and age 35. Jordan was slower to get to that level (age 23) and skipped seasons during that window. More meaningless longevity for LeBron.

So let's just pretend a bunch of Lebron's career, multiple seasons of all NBA play, seasons where he's winning playoff games, leading his team in scoring and assists never happened. What's the case for LeBron when we throw all that out?

Jordan won his first MVP at age 24/25 and his last at age 34/35. 5 MVP's overall. 10 years apart.
Lebron won his first MVP at age 24 and his last at age 28. 4 MVP's overall. 4 years apart.

Jordan got his first All-Defense selection at age 24/25 and his last at age 34/35. 9 total selections. 10 years apart.
Lebron got his first All-Defense selection at age 24 and his last at age 29. 6 total selections. 5 years apart.

Is that meaningless longevity?

He's bigger than Jordan and near his match for speed. Just looking at raw physical tools he has an edge over Jordan where mass, length and height are an advantage on both ends of the floor.

Lebron may be almost as fast running at full speed but he's nowhere near Jordan in terms of short bursts. MJ is way more agile with a clearly superior acceleration/first step and better at changing directions. He also has a higher vertical jump, a superior motor and bigger hands. In fact, overall, despite the size difference in Lebron's favour, I'd say Jordan was clearly the superior athlete.

He is a significantly better defender compared to Jordan. He won three titles as his team's clear best defender. Jordan can't make that claim even once. For at least half his finals wins, Jordan was his team's third best defender.

It's very arguable who the better defender is.

LeBron is a better rebounder and playmaker.

Lebron is the better defensive rebounder. The generally more impactful offensive rebounding is a wash.

Playmaking is edge Lebron but not by nearly a margin that some people pretend it is. Being a superior passer which Lebron is isn't the same as being the superior playmaker. Stats like Box Creation from Thinking Basketball have prime Jordan as equal to prime Lebron in the playoffs.

LeBron during his title window (2012 to 2020) was the more efficient scorer both in the regular season (.607 vs. .569 TS%) and playoffs (.596, vs .558 TS%). He is better at the most efficient shots in the game, at the rim and from three. He is a more dominant transition force.

It makes no sense to compare absolute efficiency. Otherwise Jokic is the offensive GOAT and it isn't close.

In terms of relative efficiency, Lebron has a very small career edge (1% edge in rTS in the playoffs) while scoring at a much lower volume (5 pts/75 behind in the playoffs).

Jordan has the edge in raw scoring mostly due to differences in playstyle. LeBron is more focused on getting the best scoring opportunities for the team, while Jordan looks for the most scoring opportunities for himself. This makes LeBron a lower volume scorer but higher efficiency scorer, who has and uses the ability to score in high volume and efficency even against elite playoff defenses and defenders.

This is just coping. Lebron is nowhere close to Jordan as a scorer.

As an aside, individual scoring is one of the most overrated metrics in basketball. It has a low correlation with winning finals. It is rare for the NBA scoring leader to win titles. More teams since 1970 have won with their leading scorer being outside the NBA top 10 than with the NBA leading scorer.

Jordan didn't win titles in his three highest individual scoring seasons and didn't even win a playoff game in his highest individual scoring season. Four of his top five PPG seasons did not lead to finals wins. The same holds true in the playoffs where he didn't win the finals in his top 4 playoff PPG averages and didn't win a single game in two of his top four playoff scoring averages.

Wilt's career tells a similar story in more stark terms. He was an even more dominant scorer than Jordan at his peak, yet was consistently beaten by a better defensive star who wasn't an impressive scorer and only won titles when he lowered his scoring output.

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

There is definite negative correlation between the team's top scorer shot attempts and winning. That's because good teams generally have enough balance not to rely on one man scoring the ball that much. Not because somehow one man scoring is bad for the team.

Heck, Jordan's ability to carry that much of an offensive load (the highest ever!) and win championships can be a feather in his cap, not an argument against him. It is difficult to do what he did. He scored the highest proportion of his teams' points in title runs than anyone else in history.

Through 2017, LeBron had faced and beaten better teams in the playoffs compared to Jordan, most notably the 2016 Warriors. LeBron had faced seven teams with an SRS of 8 or higher. Jordan faced just one such team in his career. LeBron beat one of those teams and has an 11-23 overall record. Jordan's record is 0-3. LeBron has faced three SRS 10+ teams while Jordan's highest SRS opponent was 9.06.

There is no argument that Jordan faced or beat opponents as good as the best teams LeBron faced and in one case beat. LeBron managed to pull off three wins against the 9.3 SRS Celtics with a supporting cast no better than the one Jordan had when he was swept by the SRS 9.06 87 Celtics

Lebron faced more elite teams but he only ever beat one which is the 2016 Warriors. And of course, that team was playing nowhere near a 73-win team in the playoffs. Their rNet in the playoffs is +8.7 which is 23rd out of the last 30 teams to make the Finals (2010-2024). And they only got worse putting up just +6.2 rNet from the 2nd round onwards. Mediocre. This was no juggernaut.

If we loosen the criteria a bit and look at 5+ SRS teams (which is usually the cutoff for strong contenders roughly 55-win pace), then Lebron played 15 such teams in 54 playoff series (27.8%) and went 5-10 against them. Jordan played 21 such teams in 37 playoff series (56.8%) and went 14-7 against them.

All in all, Lebron faced a few more elite teams but also a lot more mediocre teams and against good teams which is a bigger sample size Jordan faced a lot more and beat a lot more.

LeBron has a better five year peak than Jordan. There is no five year span for Jordan as good as LeBron from 2012 to 2016 where he won three titles and went to five consecutive finals. LeBron made eight straight finals while Jordan maxed out at less than half that and lacked the stamina and drive to attempt more than three straight.

Jordan from 1989-1993 beats any Lebron stretch. Lebron's best performances can match Jordan's but Lebron had way more low end performances. For example, in that 2012-2016 span, the 2013 Finals and much of the 2015 playoffs were much worse than any Jordan series.

LeBron has more playoff buzzer beating game winners than Jordan and Kobe combined. LeBron is significantly better in elimination games than Jordan.

More buzzer beaters ok. Jordan is clearly superior in playoff crunch time numbers. See here.

LeBron in 2013 was as good as any version of Jordan or near enough so as to be indistinguishable. He was a 40% three point shooter, much better finisher at the rim, could defend all five positions at an elite level, and was his team's defensive anchor, leading scorer and best playmaker. His best teammate was struggling through injury the whole post season, yet he led his team to a title. When that team was healthy and finally had a real center following the Chris Anderson acquisition, it ran off the second longest single season winning streak in league history and had just three losses in the second half of the season.

He played much worse in the 2013 playoffs than any pre-1993 Jordan.

At best, Jordan has a narrow edge in peak and prime while there is a gaping chasm between the two players when it comes to total years playing at an elite level at or near the top of the NBA. LeBron has a strong case for better, longer peak, better, longer prime and clearly was the better player in extended prime and non-prime years.

No, LeBron doesn't only have longevity and hypotheticals on his side in the GOAT debate.

To make a peak argument for Lebron, you have to pretend that all of his best attributes came together in one season. 2009 motor, 2013 post game, 2016 defense, 2018 poise, 2024 3pt shooting. Put all those together and Lebron is better than Jordan. But that version of Lebron doesn't exist. Every single version of Lebron had major weaknesses.

Jordan around 1991 really did put it all together as a basketball player. The stats bear that out but so does the eye test. Finishing inside, shooting, passing, poise, defense, leadership, experience, IQ and still very athletic... it all came together.

And to make a prime argument for Lebron, you have to ignore his low points being much worse than Jordan's low points and just say they are the same because high points are similar. Any consecutive 5-year stretch for Lebron must include either 2011 or 2015. Any 10-year stretch must include both. Any 12-year stretch must include both of those plus 2019.

When it comes down to it, Lebron's peak/prime are worse than Jordan he's accomplished less than Jordan. In an all-time draft hypothetical with a caveat "Who would you pick in an all-time draft assuming they can never leave your team?" Lebron is taken ahead of Jordan. No arguments there. But in a straight up all-time draft situation where you wouldn't get guarantees that Lebron stays on your team, I doubt the majority draft Lebron over Jordan despite his longevity edge.

One other note, the key difference between 20 and 94/95 is that in 20, the whole league faced the same challenge/benefit, depending on how you look at those missed games, while in 94/95, Jordan alone reaped the benefits/challenges from a year plus of mental and physical rejuvenation.

Jordan wasn't smoking cigars and banging hookers for 18 months. He was training like a maniac to play another professional sport. Claiming he was reaping benefits of mental and physical rejuvenation is just a comically bad take.

[The4thHorseman]

:nonono:

Does James 4th title come with an asterisk because covid shut down the season in early March for 4 months? Didnt play 82 regular season games….no travel….no fans….4 months to rest before the playoffs

Cant have it just one way……

James played 67 of the 72gms in the 2020 season, compared to Jordan choosing to play zero in the 1994 season. Then only played 17gms by choice in 1995 and I guarantee that if Chicago won the title in 95, you and many other fans would say that was a legit title for him.

btw... you ever decide yet if Jamal Murray's Finals numbers would be considered 'All-Star like' numbers?

So answer me this….why is Jordans second 3 peat come with an asterisk but James bubble title doesnt? You will do anything to discount Jordans 3 titles 96-98 but you will ignore the factors i mentioned in the spirit you have of protecting James legacy. If his bubble title is legtit so are the 96-98 Bulls titles with 82 regular season games and straight into the playoffs. You want it one way as always on here. Yea, Jordan played 17 games in 95 and lost to Orlando in the playoffs. If the Bulls won the title in 95 im sure he would have had something to do with it. But they didnt.

Yea Murray has played well in the playoffs/finals several times. He is inconsistent and had some injury problems along the way. Knocked out the Lakers a couple times with some clutch jumpers which i absolutely loved.

I'm not discounting 96-98, just putting context to it. All 2020 postseason teams followed the same protocol and nothing was different for any team.

See, told ya you'd count 95'. That'd be like a runner, jumping out of the bushes and getting into the marathon 3 miles from the finish for the win.

Funny how you can't admit Jamal Murray put up "All-Star numbers" in the 2023 Finals after claiming Joker didn't have All-Star help.