RGM GOAT Debate Thread (Part 2)

[Iwasawitness]

There is clear and conclusive evidence that LeBron priorizes accumulating empty calorie individual stats over team success because he sacrifices defense. The devestating impact on his teams success is apparent. All straw men created by his bubble wont convince anyone any more at this point. We've heard it all, but we also see what he does every game and has been doing since 2018. That means that his last six years were a negative on his GOAT case, because you cant have it both ways - brag about longevity but whenever he is held accountable try to use his age as excuse.

Nice try guys but find smoething more creative. This has story line is exhausted. Look at the Poll results for a reality check. Even with all your double and triple accounts, MJ beats him by a mile.

[Gregoire]

There is clear and conclusive evidence that LeBron priorizes accumulating empty calorie individual stats over team success because he sacrifices defense. The devestating impact on his teams success is apparent. All straw men created by his bubble wont convince anyone any more at this point. We've heard it all, but we also see what he does every game and has been doing since 2018. That means that his last six years were a negative on his GOAT case, because you cant have it both ways - brag about longevity but whenever he is held accountable try to use his age as excuse.

Nice try guys but find smoething more creative. This has story line is exhausted. Look at the Poll results for a reality check. Even with all your double and triple accounts, MJ beats him by a mile.

240-100.. its a KO, I supppose But LeBron could play another 10 seasons as 12th player of lottery team

[bledredwine]

There is clear and conclusive evidence that LeBron priorizes accumulating empty calorie individual stats over team success because he sacrifices defense. The devestating impact on his teams success is apparent. All straw men created by his bubble wont convince anyone any more at this point. We've heard it all, but we also see what he does every game and has been doing since 2018. That means that his last six years were a negative on his GOAT case, because you cant have it both ways - brag about longevity but whenever he is held accountable try to use his age as excuse.

Nice try guys but find smoething more creative. This has story line is exhausted. Look at the Poll results for a reality check. Even with all your double and triple accounts, MJ beats him by a mile.

He's right. You guys say the same thing over and over. Longevity, excuses, longevity, excuses, random triple double stat from one series, longevity.

[MrPainfulTruth]

There is clear and conclusive evidence that LeBron priorizes accumulating empty calorie individual stats over team success because he sacrifices defense. The devestating impact on his teams success is apparent. All straw men created by his bubble wont convince anyone any more at this point. We've heard it all, but we also see what he does every game and has been doing since 2018. That means that his last six years were a negative on his GOAT case, because you cant have it both ways - brag about longevity but whenever he is held accountable try to use his age as excuse.

Nice try guys but find smoething more creative. This has story line is exhausted. Look at the Poll results for a reality check. Even with all your double and triple accounts, MJ beats him by a mile.

I wouldn’t go so far, he goes help them win, they finished 3rd in the regular season.

He isn’t doing GOAT level stuff imo though, and I don’t see how playing at a non GOAT level past the age of 35 strengthens his GOAT case. If people want to look at what players have done after the age of 35 Kareem who at least contributed to titles has it over LeBron or Jordan.

If he isnt playing on a high level for five years, the entire longevity thing should be disregarded.

Look at some of the examples in this "best of":

Watch on YouTube

[Iwasawitness]

There is clear and conclusive evidence that LeBron priorizes accumulating empty calorie individual stats over team success because he sacrifices defense. The devestating impact on his teams success is apparent. All straw men created by his bubble wont convince anyone any more at this point. We've heard it all, but we also see what he does every game and has been doing since 2018. That means that his last six years were a negative on his GOAT case, because you cant have it both ways - brag about longevity but whenever he is held accountable try to use his age as excuse.

Nice try guys but find smoething more creative. This has story line is exhausted. Look at the Poll results for a reality check. Even with all your double and triple accounts, MJ beats him by a mile.

He's right. You guys say the same thing over and over. Longevity, excuses, longevity, excuses, random triple double stat from one series, longevity.

So do you… and even then at least we get the series we’re referencing correct. Remind me again who the Bulls beat in the 95 playoffs?

[JM00n69]

MJ was the better leader, best we've ever had. The ultimate take it on himself and make it happen no matter what. He led from the front and with the absolute attitude that no one can stop him. He set the tone with his mentality and once his prime years started he really was unstoppable. He demanded the ball and dominated, never shied away when the moment called and that alone had a massive effect on his team mates and every team he faced. Once he proved himself in the playoffs that was it.

You can say he didn't elevate the role players much but his work ethic definitely played a role of getting Pippen and Rodman to buy in and put in the work off court to become as good as they did and play their hearts out.

Jordan was also a better perimiter defender and sustained that for a longer period. His footwork and post game on a level above LBJ.

LBJ was a better raw athelete in his prime and a better playmaker. Unstoppable for a long time and obv has the longevity.

This is only my opinion, but just based on that MJ>LBJ. Rings and awards shouldn't come into it really, different eras and much depends on the other teammates.

[bledredwine]

He's right. You guys say the same thing over and over. Longevity, excuses, longevity, excuses, random triple double stat from one series, longevity.

So do you… and even then at least we get the series we’re referencing correct. Remind me again who the Bulls beat in the 95 playoffs?

Remind me again how many games fresh MJ was back in the scene, and who they lost to? Remind me what they did to that team they lost to the following year after setting an all time win record, crushing Boston's 69 at the time?

GOAT.

[Rapcity_11]

MJ was the better leader, best we've ever had. The ultimate take it on himself and make it happen no matter what. He led from the front and with the absolute attitude that no one can stop him. He set the tone with his mentality and once his prime years started he really was unstoppable. He demanded the ball and dominated, never shied away when the moment called and that alone had a massive effect on his team mates and every team he faced. Once he proved himself in the playoffs that was it.

You can say he didn't elevate the role players much but his work ethic definitely played a role of getting Pippen and Rodman to buy in and put in the work off court to become as good as they did and play their hearts out.

Jordan was also a better perimiter defender and sustained that for a longer period. His footwork and post game on a level above LBJ.

LBJ was a better raw athelete in his prime and a better playmaker. Unstoppable for a long time and obv has the longevity.

This is only my opinion, but just based on that MJ>LBJ. Rings and awards shouldn't come into it really, different eras and much depends on the other teammates.

Man, the Jordan as a leader stuff is the GOAT propaganda.

The guy who punched a teammate, gambled all night constantly, was golfing all the time, and retired to play baseball is somehow the GOAT leader? Nah.

[SlimShady83]

MJ was the better leader, best we've ever had. The ultimate take it on himself and make it happen no matter what. He led from the front and with the absolute attitude that no one can stop him. He set the tone with his mentality and once his prime years started he really was unstoppable. He demanded the ball and dominated, never shied away when the moment called and that alone had a massive effect on his team mates and every team he faced. Once he proved himself in the playoffs that was it.

You can say he didn't elevate the role players much but his work ethic definitely played a role of getting Pippen and Rodman to buy in and put in the work off court to become as good as they did and play their hearts out.

Jordan was also a better perimiter defender and sustained that for a longer period. His footwork and post game on a level above LBJ.

LBJ was a better raw athelete in his prime and a better playmaker. Unstoppable for a long time and obv has the longevity.

This is only my opinion, but just based on that MJ>LBJ. Rings and awards shouldn't come into it really, different eras and much depends on the other teammates.

Man, the Jordan as a leader stuff is the GOAT propaganda.

The guy who punched a teammate, gambled all night constantly, was golfing all the time, and retired to play baseball is somehow the GOAT leader? Nah.

Yep did all that and still got, not 1, but 2, 3peats

[Iwasawitness]

He's right. You guys say the same thing over and over. Longevity, excuses, longevity, excuses, random triple double stat from one series, longevity.

So do you… and even then at least we get the series we’re referencing correct. Remind me again who the Bulls beat in the 95 playoffs?

Remind me again how many games fresh MJ was back in the scene, and who they lost to? Remind me what they did to that team they lost to the following year after setting an all time win record, crushing Boston's 69 at the time?

GOAT.

You seemed to miss the point behind the 95 mention. I was referencing your infamous blunder where you claimed they beat the Heat that year. Remember, how you claimed they were underdogs in that series? But it was a typo right?

And MJ lost to Orlando… because they had the better team. That changed when they got Rodman. Funny how you always ignore that.

[Brandon_Roy7]

So do you… and even then at least we get the series we’re referencing correct. Remind me again who the Bulls beat in the 95 playoffs?

Remind me again how many games fresh MJ was back in the scene, and who they lost to? Remind me what they did to that team they lost to the following year after setting an all time win record, crushing Boston's 69 at the time?

GOAT.

You seemed to miss the point behind the 95 mention. I was referencing your infamous blunder where you claimed they beat the Heat that year. Remember, how you claimed they were underdogs in that series? But it was a typo right?

And MJ lost to Orlando… because they had the better team. That changed when they got Rodman. Funny how you always ignore that.

So you think Rodman was the reason they swept them the following year? . If a role player who's job is only to rebound and play defense makes you go from losing a series to sweeping the following year....Then we should start looking at him as the goat no? .

[Iwasawitness]

Remind me again how many games fresh MJ was back in the scene, and who they lost to? Remind me what they did to that team they lost to the following year after setting an all time win record, crushing Boston's 69 at the time?

GOAT.

You seemed to miss the point behind the 95 mention. I was referencing your infamous blunder where you claimed they beat the Heat that year. Remember, how you claimed they were underdogs in that series? But it was a typo right?

And MJ lost to Orlando… because they had the better team. That changed when they got Rodman. Funny how you always ignore that.

So you think Rodman was the reason they swept them the following year? . If a role player who's job is only to rebound and play defense makes you go from losing a series to sweeping the following year....Then we should start looking at him as the goat no? .

I said Rodman was the reason they had the better team the following season. Where the hell did you get the idea that I think he was the sole reason they swept them?

And way to severely downplay Rodman’s contributions to the team. Role player whose only job is to rebound and play defense… he made first team all defense that season, led the league in rebounding and even got FMVP votes in that years finals. You could at least not insult my intelligence and not try to downplay his impact on the team.

[bledredwine]

You seemed to miss the point behind the 95 mention. I was referencing your infamous blunder where you claimed they beat the Heat that year. Remember, how you claimed they were underdogs in that series? But it was a typo right?

And MJ lost to Orlando… because they had the better team. That changed when they got Rodman. Funny how you always ignore that.

So you think Rodman was the reason they swept them the following year? . If a role player who's job is only to rebound and play defense makes you go from losing a series to sweeping the following year....Then we should start looking at him as the goat no? .

I said Rodman was the reason they had the better team the following season. Where the hell did you get the idea that I think he was the sole reason they swept them?

And way to severely downplay Rodman’s contributions to the team. Role player whose only job is to rebound and play defense… he made first team all defense that season, led the league in rebounding and even got FMVP votes in that years finals. You could at least not insult my intelligence and not try to downplay his impact on the team.

This has gotten desperate.

Rodman averaged 10.4 rebounds, 2.2 assists and 1.7 steals in all of his finals with the Bulls. He also averaged 4.4 points per game in those finals.

As great as he was on defense, Rodman was a black hole on offense, no one was trying hard to land him in free agency, and even on the PC forum, he was ranked barely top 100.

Don’t make fake narratives just to try and make lebron’s superteams look more normal. They are not and trying to pretend that Rodman was the reason is plain arrogant. Did he fill a rebounding need? Absolutely. But he was a role player that severely lacked in other regards and without Jordan carrying the offense consistently, the team wouldn’t have come remotely close.

Jordan is Jordan. He was automatic, something no one now is.

[Iwasawitness]

So you think Rodman was the reason they swept them the following year? . If a role player who's job is only to rebound and play defense makes you go from losing a series to sweeping the following year....Then we should start looking at him as the goat no? .

I said Rodman was the reason they had the better team the following season. Where the hell did you get the idea that I think he was the sole reason they swept them?

And way to severely downplay Rodman’s contributions to the team. Role player whose only job is to rebound and play defense… he made first team all defense that season, led the league in rebounding and even got FMVP votes in that years finals. You could at least not insult my intelligence and not try to downplay his impact on the team.

Rodman was a black hole on offense, no one was trying hard to land him in free agency, and even on the PC forum, he was ranked barely top 100.

Don’t make fake narratives just to try and make lebron’s superteams look more normal. They are not.

Only one creating a fake narrative here is you. Hell, that’s pretty much all you do with your anti-LeBron arguments.

Chicago didn’t land him in free agency, they traded for him. They did it specifically because they needed to replace Horace Grant who they lost in 94.

Rodman was the difference between Chicago becoming a better team than Orlando, that’s 100% true. Being a black hole on offense didn’t stop him from positively impacting the Bulls and turning them into an all time great team. Without him, they don’t go to the finals that year, let alone win 72 games. This is just a fact.

[Iwasawitness]

This has gotten desperate.

Me stating facts is desperation? No wonder you spend the entirety of your time on here posting nonsense, you think presenting facts are the wrong way to argue... for whatever reason.

Rodman averaged 10.4 rebounds, 2.2 assists and 1.7 steals in all of his finals with the Bulls. He also averaged 4.4 points per game in those finals.

We aren't talking about the finals as a whole. We are talking about the 96 Finals, where he got FMVP votes. There are even people out there who think he should have won FMVP over Jordan. Now granted, I don't agree that should have won the award, but his impact on that series was insane and without him, Bulls don't win. Please, do tell me when LeBron's teammates ever got FMVP votes in a series where his team won. I'll gladly wait.

But by all means, if we're going to talk about the other ones, then we can mention that he was the primary defender of Karl Malone in both of those series, where he struggled when defended by him. Just like 96, the Bulls don't win either of those Finals series without Rodman.

As great as he was on defense, Rodman was a black hole on offense, no one was trying hard to land him in free agency, and even on the PC forum, he was ranked barely top 100.

Again, as mentioned before, the Bulls didn't get him via free agency. They traded for him. If you were around watching at the time (which you clearly weren't), you would know this.

Also, I find it hilarious that you're putting any stock whatsoever into the PC forum top 100 project, because last I checked, you were also the one calling it a joke since LeBron was named GOAT and Jordan placed third. You can't have it both ways. Either it's a legitimate list or it isn't. So which is it?

Don’t make fake narratives just to try and make lebron’s superteams look more normal.

The **** are you even talking about? Who the hell at any point mentioned LeBron's superteams? I sure as hell didn't. I do think super teams are extremely overrated but that isn't what this is about. This is about the fact that you continue to downplay Rodman's importance to the team and the fact that you try to give any and all credit to MJ returning for the Bulls historic 96 season.

They are not and trying to pretend that Rodman was the reason is plain arrogant. Did he fill a rebounding need? Absolutely. But he was a role player that severely lacked in other regards and without Jordan carrying the offense consistently, the team wouldn’t have come remotely close.

...he WAS the reason. Jordan's offense simply wasn't going to be enough in 96. That showed in 95. He himself said they needed a Horace Grant on that team. They got something better in Rodman. You can call him a roleplayer all you want, that doesn't take away from the impact he made on that Bulls team and the difference he made. Without him, they aren't a historic 72 win squad. They are a team that likely doesn't make the finals.

Jordan is Jordan. He was automatic, something no one now is.

Jordan was automatic in 96 where he shot 41% from the field? You do realize that was a serious issue, right?

[lessthanjake]

I said Rodman was the reason they had the better team the following season. Where the hell did you get the idea that I think he was the sole reason they swept them?

And way to severely downplay Rodman’s contributions to the team. Role player whose only job is to rebound and play defense… he made first team all defense that season, led the league in rebounding and even got FMVP votes in that years finals. You could at least not insult my intelligence and not try to downplay his impact on the team.

Rodman was a black hole on offense, no one was trying hard to land him in free agency, and even on the PC forum, he was ranked barely top 100.

Don’t make fake narratives just to try and make lebron’s superteams look more normal. They are not.

Only one creating a fake narrative here is you. Hell, that’s pretty much all you do with your anti-LeBron arguments.

Chicago didn’t land him in free agency, they traded for him. They did it specifically because they needed to replace Horace Grant who they lost in 94.

Rodman was the difference between Chicago becoming a better team than Orlando, that’s 100% true. Being a black hole on offense didn’t stop him from positively impacting the Bulls and turning them into an all time great team. Without him, they don’t go to the finals that year, let alone win 72 games. This is just a fact.

There’s way too much confidence on that assessment, to the point of ridiculousness. Rodman was not actually all that good by the time he was on the Bulls. Sure, he was better than Will Perdue (who they traded to get Rodman), so he was definitely a notable upgrade to the team. But he was not actually a particularly great player. He wasn’t even really the third best player on the second-three-peat Bulls (that was Kukoc).

Notably, Rodman missed a lot of games in 1996 and 1997, and the Bulls defense was still elite in the games he missed, so we know the defense was amazing without him. In fact, the Bulls in the games Rodman missed in the 1996 season actually had a slightly *better* rDRTG than they had in the games he played. And they went 15-3 without him in 1995-96, followed by going 21-6 without him in 1996-97. And they were 2-0 without him in 1997-98. Of course, overall, that indicates he did move the needle some, but it also strongly indicates that those second-three-peat Bulls were a historically great team even without Rodman. Indeed, they won at a 66-win pace in quite a lot of games without Rodman! Furthermore, the Bulls still won the title in 1998, despite the fact that by those playoffs Rodman was very clearly washed, and was pulled from the starting lineup and wouldn’t play meaningful time in the NBA ever again. Similarly, the Bulls won the title in 1997, despite Rodman being an abysmal, clear negative player in the playoffs. Seems pretty obvious that the second-three-peat Bulls were quite a lot better than the Jordan-just-back-from-retirement 1995 Bulls, regardless of Rodman. The main difference-maker was having a non-rusty Jordan.

And, of course, that’s all backed by the fact that we have RAPM data for Rodman, for most of the second-three peat. Two-year RAPM from the NBArapm website has Rodman at +0.3 in 1997 and 1998. Obviously that’s not bad, but it’s certainly not indicative of a player that is making even close to the kind of difference you’re suggesting. We also have Squared’s partial RAPM from 1996, and it has Rodman as the 81st ranked player in 1996 (and behind Bulls players like Jud Buechler). That’s just a partial RAPM, but if we look at Pollack’s on-off numbers, we find that Rodman only had a +2.7 on-off in the 1996 season. The Bulls had a +12.0 net rating with Rodman off the court in 1996! All this is consistent again with Rodman being a marginal positive but the Bulls still being an all-time-great team without him.

So yeah, I think it’s pretty obvious that your arguments here are very off-base. We have a large amount of evidence that the second-three-peat Bulls were an all-time-great team without Rodman.

[michaelm]

I said Rodman was the reason they had the better team the following season. Where the hell did you get the idea that I think he was the sole reason they swept them?

And way to severely downplay Rodman’s contributions to the team. Role player whose only job is to rebound and play defense… he made first team all defense that season, led the league in rebounding and even got FMVP votes in that years finals. You could at least not insult my intelligence and not try to downplay his impact on the team.

Rodman was a black hole on offense, no one was trying hard to land him in free agency, and even on the PC forum, he was ranked barely top 100.

Don’t make fake narratives just to try and make lebron’s superteams look more normal. They are not.

Only one creating a fake narrative here is you. Hell, that’s pretty much all you do with your anti-LeBron arguments.

Chicago didn’t land him in free agency, they traded for him. They did it specifically because they needed to replace Horace Grant who they lost in 94.

Rodman was the difference between Chicago becoming a better team than Orlando, that’s 100% true. Being a black hole on offense didn’t stop him from positively impacting the Bulls and turning them into an all time great team. Without him, they don’t go to the finals that year, let alone win 72 games. This is just a fact.

So they revamped the side after he had been away for one season and most of the next, and he and the Bulls had another threepeat including the best season ever when he was 34. Your point is ? . I mean other than it was his team-mates who mainly won the titles won by Jordan’s teams and LeBron who is mainly responsible for the titles won by his teams I mean.

I have been led to believe by several on your side of the debate that winning titles with different teams was the more virtuous path anyway.

Rodman was regarded as fairly close to boarding a slow boat to China at the time the Bulls recruited him, so perhaps joining the Jordan Bulls rejuvenated his career as well as him improving the Bulls. Also perhaps an example of a good GM constructing a team well, and of Jordan being willing to overlook old grievances in the interests of winning.

[Iwasawitness]

Rodman was a black hole on offense, no one was trying hard to land him in free agency, and even on the PC forum, he was ranked barely top 100.

Don’t make fake narratives just to try and make lebron’s superteams look more normal. They are not.

Only one creating a fake narrative here is you. Hell, that’s pretty much all you do with your anti-LeBron arguments.

Chicago didn’t land him in free agency, they traded for him. They did it specifically because they needed to replace Horace Grant who they lost in 94.

Rodman was the difference between Chicago becoming a better team than Orlando, that’s 100% true. Being a black hole on offense didn’t stop him from positively impacting the Bulls and turning them into an all time great team. Without him, they don’t go to the finals that year, let alone win 72 games. This is just a fact.

There’s way too much confidence on that assessment, to the point of ridiculousness. Rodman was not actually all that good by the time he was on the Bulls. Sure, he was better than Will Perdue (who they traded to get Rodman), so he was definitely a notable upgrade to the team. But he was not actually a particularly great player. He wasn’t even really the third best player on the second-three-peat Bulls (that was Kukoc).

Notably, Rodman missed a lot of games in 1996 and 1997, and the Bulls defense was still elite in the games he missed, so we know the defense was amazing without him. In fact, the Bulls in the games Rodman missed in the 1996 season actually had a slightly *better* rDRTG than they had in the games he played. And they went 15-3 without him in 1995-96, followed by going 21-6 without him in 1996-97. And they were 2-0 without him in 1997-98. Of course, overall, that indicates he did move the needle some, but it also strongly indicates that those second-three-peat Bulls were a historically great team even without Rodman. Indeed, they won at a 66-win pace in quite a lot of games without Rodman! Furthermore, the Bulls still won the title in 1998, despite the fact that by those playoffs Rodman was very clearly washed, and was pulled from the starting lineup and wouldn’t play meaningful time in the NBA ever again. Similarly, the Bulls won the title in 1997, despite Rodman being an abysmal, clear negative player in the playoffs. Seems pretty obvious that the second-three-peat Bulls were quite a lot better than the Jordan-just-back-from-retirement 1995 Bulls, regardless of Rodman. The main difference-maker was having a non-rusty Jordan.

And, of course, that’s all backed by the fact that we have RAPM data for Rodman, for most of the second-three peat. Two-year RAPM from the NBArapm website has Rodman at +0.3 in 1997 and 1998. Obviously that’s not bad, but it’s certainly not indicative of a player that is making even close to the kind of difference you’re suggesting. We also have Squared’s partial RAPM from 1996, and it has Rodman as the 81st ranked player in 1996 (and behind Bulls players like Jud Buechler). That’s just a partial RAPM, but if we look at Pollack’s on-off numbers, we find that Rodman only had a +2.7 on-off in the 1996 season. The Bulls had a +12.0 net rating with Rodman off the court in 1996! All this is consistent again with Rodman being a marginal positive but the Bulls still being an all-time-great team without him.

So yeah, I think it’s pretty obvious that your arguments here are very off-base. We have a large amount of evidence that the second-three-peat Bulls were an all-time-great team without Rodman.

I stopped reading the moment you said he “wasn’t all that good by the time he got on the Bulls”. I’m not sure what faulty data you’re going to use to try to make this claim but either way I’m outright dismissing it. A guy who makes first team all defense, leads the league in rebounding and gets FMVP votes is pretty damn good. This is just silly.

[lessthanjake]

Only one creating a fake narrative here is you. Hell, that’s pretty much all you do with your anti-LeBron arguments.

Chicago didn’t land him in free agency, they traded for him. They did it specifically because they needed to replace Horace Grant who they lost in 94.

Rodman was the difference between Chicago becoming a better team than Orlando, that’s 100% true. Being a black hole on offense didn’t stop him from positively impacting the Bulls and turning them into an all time great team. Without him, they don’t go to the finals that year, let alone win 72 games. This is just a fact.

There’s way too much confidence on that assessment, to the point of ridiculousness. Rodman was not actually all that good by the time he was on the Bulls. Sure, he was better than Will Perdue (who they traded to get Rodman), so he was definitely a notable upgrade to the team. But he was not actually a particularly great player. He wasn’t even really the third best player on the second-three-peat Bulls (that was Kukoc).

Notably, Rodman missed a lot of games in 1996 and 1997, and the Bulls defense was still elite in the games he missed, so we know the defense was amazing without him. In fact, the Bulls in the games Rodman missed in the 1996 season actually had a slightly *better* rDRTG than they had in the games he played. And they went 15-3 without him in 1995-96, followed by going 21-6 without him in 1996-97. And they were 2-0 without him in 1997-98. Of course, overall, that indicates he did move the needle some, but it also strongly indicates that those second-three-peat Bulls were a historically great team even without Rodman. Indeed, they won at a 66-win pace in quite a lot of games without Rodman! Furthermore, the Bulls still won the title in 1998, despite the fact that by those playoffs Rodman was very clearly washed, and was pulled from the starting lineup and wouldn’t play meaningful time in the NBA ever again. Similarly, the Bulls won the title in 1997, despite Rodman being an abysmal, clear negative player in the playoffs. Seems pretty obvious that the second-three-peat Bulls were quite a lot better than the Jordan-just-back-from-retirement 1995 Bulls, regardless of Rodman. The main difference-maker was having a non-rusty Jordan.

And, of course, that’s all backed by the fact that we have RAPM data for Rodman, for most of the second-three peat. Two-year RAPM from the NBArapm website has Rodman at +0.3 in 1997 and 1998. Obviously that’s not bad, but it’s certainly not indicative of a player that is making even close to the kind of difference you’re suggesting. We also have Squared’s partial RAPM from 1996, and it has Rodman as the 81st ranked player in 1996 (and behind Bulls players like Jud Buechler). That’s just a partial RAPM, but if we look at Pollack’s on-off numbers, we find that Rodman only had a +2.7 on-off in the 1996 season. The Bulls had a +12.0 net rating with Rodman off the court in 1996! All this is consistent again with Rodman being a marginal positive but the Bulls still being an all-time-great team without him.

So yeah, I think it’s pretty obvious that your arguments here are very off-base. We have a large amount of evidence that the second-three-peat Bulls were an all-time-great team without Rodman.

I stopped reading the moment you said he “wasn’t all that good by the time he got on the Bulls”. I’m not sure what faulty data you’re going to use to try to make this claim but either way I’m outright dismissing it. A guy who makes first team all defense, leads the league in rebounding and gets FMVP votes is pretty damn good. This is just silly.

I think you read my post and don’t have much of a response to the large amount of data I presented, so you chose to instead just act outraged by an introductory sentence.

[Rust_Cohle]

MJ was the better leader, best we've ever had. The ultimate take it on himself and make it happen no matter what. He led from the front and with the absolute attitude that no one can stop him. He set the tone with his mentality and once his prime years started he really was unstoppable. He demanded the ball and dominated, never shied away when the moment called and that alone had a massive effect on his team mates and every team he faced. Once he proved himself in the playoffs that was it.

You can say he didn't elevate the role players much but his work ethic definitely played a role of getting Pippen and Rodman to buy in and put in the work off court to become as good as they did and play their hearts out.

Jordan was also a better perimiter defender and sustained that for a longer period. His footwork and post game on a level above LBJ.

LBJ was a better raw athelete in his prime and a better playmaker. Unstoppable for a long time and obv has the longevity.

This is only my opinion, but just based on that MJ>LBJ. Rings and awards shouldn't come into it really, different eras and much depends on the other teammates.

Man, the Jordan as a leader stuff is the GOAT propaganda.

The guy who punched a teammate, gambled all night constantly, was golfing all the time, and retired to play baseball is somehow the GOAT leader? Nah.

And yet none of those players quit on him, and many said they wouldn't trade the experience for anything else.