RGM GOAT Debate Thread (Part 2)

[ReggiesKnicks]

RAPTOR and RAPM painted Rodman as a clear positive offensively, DARKO as a negative offensively.

I think Rodman was clearly impactful offensively during his time on the Bulls. Illegal defensive rules allowed him to be a menace on the offensive glass without killing spacing.

[Iwasawitness]

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.

I legit did not read anything beyond that. I’m not going to waste my time reading a long post that starts out with “Dennis Rodman wasn’t that good”.

[bledredwine]

It's interesting seeing people who obviously have no clue about the 90s Bulls try to talk about the 90s Bulls like they understand it.

[Iwasawitness]

It's interesting seeing people who obviously have no clue about the 90s Bulls try to talk about the 90s Bulls like they understand it.

Compared to you who couldn’t even get their opponents correct?

[ScrantonBulls]

It's interesting seeing people who obviously have no clue about the 90s Bulls try to talk about the 90s Bulls like they understand it.

Come again, son?

There were 3 times Jordan won and was considered the underdog

1989 Eastern Conference Finals against the Detroit Pistons, the 1991 NBA Finals against the Magic Johnson-led Los Angeles Lakers, and the 1995 Eastern Conference Finals against the NY Knicks

Better add "bledredwine thought Rodman was acquired through free agency" to the list of times he showed that he definitely didn't watch the 90s Bulls. Even if you didn't watch them, it's wild that you are wrong about them so frequently. You haven't even attempted to do basic research on the teams

[lessthanjake]

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.

I legit did not read anything beyond that. I’m not going to waste my time reading a long post that starts out with “Dennis Rodman wasn’t that good”.

Lol, what a weak response. If you’re not willing to actually engage in evidence-based discussion and just want to engage in a tantrum of feigned outrage and refusal to read people’s posts, then you probably just shouldn’t be discussing the topic at all. I know you’re capable of better than that. Anyways, regarding the actual subject matter itself, I’m quite confident that anyone who actually read our posts will have no problem concluding that you are wrong and I am right, because I’ve presented a boatload of evidence and you have provided nothing but performative outrage.

[SlimShady83]

It's interesting seeing people who obviously have no clue about the 90s Bulls try to talk about the 90s Bulls like they understand it.

Come again, son?

There were 3 times Jordan won and was considered the underdog

1989 Eastern Conference Finals against the Detroit Pistons, the 1991 NBA Finals against the Magic Johnson-led Los Angeles Lakers, and the 1995 Eastern Conference Finals against the NY Knicks

Better add "bledredwine thought Rodman was acquired through free agency" to the list of times he showed that he definitely didn't watch the 90s Bulls. Even if you didn't watch them, it's wild that you are wrong about them so frequently. You haven't even attempted to do basic research on the teams

Yeh sorry Bledredwine, have to agree with ScrantonBulls on this one and believe me that doesn't happen often. Also remember you saying that was a typo, that's no typo my man.

Also someone above saying Rodman wasn't all that good, wowsers no doubt they didn't watch the Bulls back then.

[lessthanjake]

It's interesting seeing people who obviously have no clue about the 90s Bulls try to talk about the 90s Bulls like they understand it.

Come again, son?

There were 3 times Jordan won and was considered the underdog

1989 Eastern Conference Finals against the Detroit Pistons, the 1991 NBA Finals against the Magic Johnson-led Los Angeles Lakers, and the 1995 Eastern Conference Finals against the NY Knicks

Better add "bledredwine thought Rodman was acquired through free agency" to the list of times he showed that he definitely didn't watch the 90s Bulls. Even if you didn't watch them, it's wild that you are wrong about them so frequently. You haven't even attempted to do basic research on the teams

Yeh sorry Bledredwine, have to agree with ScrantonBulls on this one and believe me that doesn't happen often. Also remember you saying that was a typo, that's no typo my man.

Also someone above saying Rodman wasn't all that good, wowsers no doubt they didn't watch the Bulls back then.

Actually, I lived in the Chicago area throughout the 1990s and watched virtually every game they played. I doubt there’s anyone posting on this thread that has watched the 1990s Bulls more than I did. I quite like Rodman—found him to be an amusing figure, so he was my second-favorite player on those Bulls teams. But there’s just a lot of data suggesting that Rodman was not a hugely impactful player overall for the second-three-peat Bulls. He was still a somewhat positive-impact player, but the idea that he is the reason they were an all-time-great team is pretty demonstrably wrong, particularly when: (1) they played quite a lot of games without him in those years and won those games at a 66-win pace; (2) Rodman’s two-year RAPM in 1997 & 1998 was barely positive; (3) while we have no full RAPM in 1996, the Bulls had a +12 net rating in Rodman’s minutes off the floor in 1996; (4) the Bulls won the title in 1998 when Rodman was very much washed in the playoffs, being pulled as a starter and not playing essentially any meaningful NBA basketball after that year; and (5) they won the title with Rodman having a genuinely very rough playoffs in 1997. Of course, none of this should be all that surprising, since Rodman was a one-dimensional player who was quite old by the time he was on the Bulls (he finished the year aged 35-37 in his years with the Bulls). Rodman was not in his prime when he was on the Bulls, and it is pretty safe to conclude that he was significantly more impactful in his earlier years on other teams. But a mid-late 30’s Rodman was not really more than a somewhat positive player on the Bulls, and the idea that he is the reason they were an all-time great team is basically nonsense.

[Iwasawitness]

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.

I legit did not read anything beyond that. I’m not going to waste my time reading a long post that starts out with “Dennis Rodman wasn’t that good”.

Lol, what a weak response. If you’re not willing to actually engage in evidence-based discussion and just want to engage in a tantrum of feigned outrage and refusal to read people’s posts, then you probably just shouldn’t be discussing the topic at all. I know you’re capable of better than that. Anyways, regarding the actual subject matter itself, I’m quite confident that anyone who actually read our posts will have no problem concluding that you are wrong and I am right, because I’ve presented a boatload of evidence and you have provided nothing but performative outrage.

If you’re starting out a post by saying a half of fame player who was still elite at the time of his acquisition wasn’t a good player, what possible reason could I have to respect any “evidence” you may have? I’m 99% certain whatever “evidence” you’ve given is one single metric that ignores context and doesn’t favor a player like Rodman. In other words, cherry picked nonsense.

EDIT: I decided to humor you and read your post. RAPM. That’s your metric? For a defensive specialist who was an elite rebounder.

Thanks for the laugh. Off to the ignore list you go.

[lessthanjake]

I legit did not read anything beyond that. I’m not going to waste my time reading a long post that starts out with “Dennis Rodman wasn’t that good”.

Lol, what a weak response. If you’re not willing to actually engage in evidence-based discussion and just want to engage in a tantrum of feigned outrage and refusal to read people’s posts, then you probably just shouldn’t be discussing the topic at all. I know you’re capable of better than that. Anyways, regarding the actual subject matter itself, I’m quite confident that anyone who actually read our posts will have no problem concluding that you are wrong and I am right, because I’ve presented a boatload of evidence and you have provided nothing but performative outrage.

If you’re starting out a post by saying a half of fame player who was still elite at the time of his acquisition wasn’t a good player, what possible reason could I have to respect any “evidence” you may have? I’m 99% certain whatever “evidence” you’ve given is one single metric that ignores context and doesn’t favor a player like Rodman. In other words, cherry picked nonsense.

Saying “not all that good” is actually different than saying “wasn’t a good player,” especially when the context was responding to you saying he was the reason they were an all-time great team. My post specifically said he was still a positive-impact player. The question is how positive—and there’s a vast gulf between the somewhat positive value a mid-late 30’s Rodman was giving to the Bulls and what you were ascribing to him. And no, my post did not just give “one single metric” demonstrating this. I gave quite a lot of different types of evidence. And, honestly, I think you know that, because I still think you did read my post and just have no response. You’re not actually the type of low-effort poster that has a tantrum and refuses to read peoples’ posts.

[The High Cyde]

Totally not a cult lmao

[lessthanjake]

I legit did not read anything beyond that. I’m not going to waste my time reading a long post that starts out with “Dennis Rodman wasn’t that good”.

Lol, what a weak response. If you’re not willing to actually engage in evidence-based discussion and just want to engage in a tantrum of feigned outrage and refusal to read people’s posts, then you probably just shouldn’t be discussing the topic at all. I know you’re capable of better than that. Anyways, regarding the actual subject matter itself, I’m quite confident that anyone who actually read our posts will have no problem concluding that you are wrong and I am right, because I’ve presented a boatload of evidence and you have provided nothing but performative outrage.

If you’re starting out a post by saying a half of fame player who was still elite at the time of his acquisition wasn’t a good player, what possible reason could I have to respect any “evidence” you may have? I’m 99% certain whatever “evidence” you’ve given is one single metric that ignores context and doesn’t favor a player like Rodman. In other words, cherry picked nonsense.

EDIT: I decided to humor you and read your post. RAPM. That’s your metric? For a defensive specialist who was an elite rebounder.

Thanks for the laugh. Off to the ignore list you go.

Umm…RAPM is actually very clearly the best measure we have to assess the impact of defense and rebounding. This is just a completely bizarre response.

And, in any event, as you now know, I provided more than just RAPM. Of course, you ignore the fact that WOWY pretty much conclusively demonstrates that you are wrong. You also don’t engage with the 1996 net-rating data I provided. Nor do you engage with the general point that the Bulls won two titles with Rodman being either clearly washed or playing way below his normal level in the 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.

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.

The guy you're responding to is either a troll or a casual. Kerr took a body punch in practice for something he instigated. He's own words. And Jordan wasn't gambling or playing golf unless it was the off season. From start of pre season until the end he was the first guy in the gym and last to leave. That how he became the GOAT. And that's why he called out the bums that never put any work in once they got to the league. Not many people have that work ethic, Pippen did and so did Rodman the rest were just happy to be there.

He took off two years in his prime after what happened to his dad to make peace with it in his head. Returned and three peated again. Dominating the league once more. His footprint on the NBA and the game of basketball worldwide is unmatched and probably never will be.

[michaelm]

Lol, what a weak response. If you’re not willing to actually engage in evidence-based discussion and just want to engage in a tantrum of feigned outrage and refusal to read people’s posts, then you probably just shouldn’t be discussing the topic at all. I know you’re capable of better than that. Anyways, regarding the actual subject matter itself, I’m quite confident that anyone who actually read our posts will have no problem concluding that you are wrong and I am right, because I’ve presented a boatload of evidence and you have provided nothing but performative outrage.

If you’re starting out a post by saying a half of fame player who was still elite at the time of his acquisition wasn’t a good player, what possible reason could I have to respect any “evidence” you may have? I’m 99% certain whatever “evidence” you’ve given is one single metric that ignores context and doesn’t favor a player like Rodman. In other words, cherry picked nonsense.

EDIT: I decided to humor you and read your post. RAPM. That’s your metric? For a defensive specialist who was an elite rebounder.

Thanks for the laugh. Off to the ignore list you go.

Umm…RAPM is actually very clearly the best measure we have to assess the impact of defense and rebounding. This is just a completely bizarre response.

And, in any event, as you now know, I provided more than just RAPM. Of course, you ignore the fact that WOWY pretty much conclusively demonstrates that you are wrong. You also don’t engage with the 1996 net-rating data I provided. Nor do you engage with the general point that the Bulls won two titles with Rodman being either clearly washed or playing way below his normal level in the playoffs.

He fairly obviously never saw Jordan back in the day, pre-determined that no one ever could possibly have matched LeBron, and attempts to cherry pick evidence retrospectively for his fan based allegiance, much of which doesn’t exist because many of the so called advanced metrics he relies upon were post Jordan phenomena. It is also the height of irony for him of all people to complain about voluminous posts containing statistics, obviously only statistics posted by him are valid. It is also a familiar tactic on forums such as this to try and find one line to dispute in regard to an argument which is difficult to refute and concentrate on that as though it disproves the whole argument

I didn’t follow the NBA as avidly back then but was mostly in the USA when the finals were on during the threepeats and watched many of the games in various sports bars. I also took an interest in the 2nd threepeat because an Australian player in Luc Longley was involved. My memory is that Rodman was considered valuable to the team but not on the level of Pippen or particularly Jordan. I recall Rodman saying himself that it was Batman, Robin and Rodman. The Batman and Robin analogy is still used to this day, cf Jimmy Butler and GSW recently.

Rodman was fairly definitely regarded as being on the scrapheap before being recruited by the Bulls though. Him being a useful player for the second Bulls threepeat could be viewed as the opposite of what Iwasn’tawitness is arguing, that once Jordan was persuaded to play a more team game you could have specialists like Rodman on the team while Jordan concentrated on the many things he could do to make his team win like defend the best scorer in positions other than center. If Jordan’s leadership is to be disparaged how was it that despite Rodman being Jordan’s bitter enemy on the BadBoy Pistons, Pop wanting to get rid of him from the Spurs because he saw him as a disruptive influence, and him being regarded by pretty much everyone as stone crazy, Rodman integrated fairly smoothly with the Jordan Bulls ?. Rodman himself says they hardly exchanged a word. They just got on with winning which is what winning players do.

[bledredwine]

It's interesting seeing people who obviously have no clue about the 90s Bulls try to talk about the 90s Bulls like they understand it.

Come again, son?

There were 3 times Jordan won and was considered the underdog

1989 Eastern Conference Finals against the Detroit Pistons, the 1991 NBA Finals against the Magic Johnson-led Los Angeles Lakers, and the 1995 Eastern Conference Finals against the NY Knicks

Better add "bledredwine thought Rodman was acquired through free agency" to the list of times he showed that he definitely didn't watch the 90s Bulls. Even if you didn't watch them, it's wild that you are wrong about them so frequently. You haven't even attempted to do basic research on the teams

Yeh sorry Bledredwine, have to agree with ScrantonBulls on this one and believe me that doesn't happen often. Also remember you saying that was a typo, that's no typo my man.

Also someone above saying Rodman wasn't all that good, wowsers no doubt they didn't watch the Bulls back then.

lol, you're both full of it. When I was young, I didn't pay attention to details. Even now, I don't pay attention
to the finances of free agency and my friends who do know I don't care about those details.

I know he was traded for Purdue and I literally attended 6 games in the 96 season, including a loss to Miami.
My favorite player was not Jordan. It was the three point specialists, starting with Paxson/BJ and then later Kerr.
But I don't have to explain any of that to you guys because I obviously know far more about the Bulls than either of you.

And frankly, when I look at notifications, there's roughly 6 posters that I don't even pay attention to or care to read.
After reading posts like these, I see why. (for the record, slim, you're not one of them)

If you can't wrap your ahead around the fact that someone who types as fast as they speak can sometimes mix up names or something from literally 2-3 decades ago, then I don't know what to tell you.

But Slim, you're taking the side of someone trying to attribute the Bulls success to Rodman, or any other avenue than Jordan
He was a top 100 player. Even the PC forum ranked him around there.

[One Last Shot]

Come again, son?


Better add "bledredwine thought Rodman was acquired through free agency" to the list of times he showed that he definitely didn't watch the 90s Bulls. Even if you didn't watch them, it's wild that you are wrong about them so frequently. You haven't even attempted to do basic research on the teams

Yeh sorry Bledredwine, have to agree with ScrantonBulls on this one and believe me that doesn't happen often. Also remember you saying that was a typo, that's no typo my man.

Also someone above saying Rodman wasn't all that good, wowsers no doubt they didn't watch the Bulls back then.

lol, you're both full of it. When I was young, I didn't pay attention to details. Even now, I don't pay attention
to the finances of free agency and my friends who do know I don't care about those details.

I know he was traded for Purdue and I literally attended 6 games in the 96 season, including a loss to Miami.
My favorite player was not Jordan. It was the three point specialists, starting with Paxson/BJ and then later Kerr.
But I don't have to explain any of that to you guys because I obviously know far more about the Bulls than either of you.

And frankly, when I look at notifications, there's roughly 6 posters that I don't even pay attention to or care to read.
After reading posts like these, I see why. (for the record, slim, you're not one of them)

If you can't wrap your ahead around the fact that someone who types as fast as they speak can sometimes mix up names or something from literally 2-3 decades ago, then I don't know what to tell you.

But Slim, you're taking the side of someone trying to attribute the Bulls success to Rodman, or any other avenue than Jordan
He was a top 100 player. Even the PC forum ranked him around there.

There's no way you know more about the Bulls when you are just 6 years old when they won their 1st NBA title and barely a teenager when they won their last championship. That's why most of the time you dont have any clue what you are talking about and it's kinda confusing why you keep acting like you know more than those people who actually watched the Bulls dynasty.

1991 finals... I was 6 years old and waiting in the hospital for my aunt. I remember "the move" and though I didn't really get it, I knew something special was happening. I also remember being in the reckroom for MJs 6 3's on the blazers, watching home alone on another tv while seeing Pax hit the winner against Phoenix. I was drawn to the Bulls as a youngster, enough that I have permanent snapshot memories. My favorite players then were BJ Armstrong and Pax. I lived the 3 ball - later was a huge Steve Kerr fan.

For the last time stop acting like a Jordan expert from a memory of a child when you barely got any clue what's happening from adult perspective, you're just a kid that time and your opinion doesn't mean much. We have a lot of adults here posting for years and still there's a lot of dumb arguments from them what more if it's from a memory of a kid?

[bledredwine]

Yeh sorry Bledredwine, have to agree with ScrantonBulls on this one and believe me that doesn't happen often. Also remember you saying that was a typo, that's no typo my man.

Also someone above saying Rodman wasn't all that good, wowsers no doubt they didn't watch the Bulls back then.

lol, you're both full of it. When I was young, I didn't pay attention to details. Even now, I don't pay attention
to the finances of free agency and my friends who do know I don't care about those details.

I know he was traded for Purdue and I literally attended 6 games in the 96 season, including a loss to Miami.
My favorite player was not Jordan. It was the three point specialists, starting with Paxson/BJ and then later Kerr.
But I don't have to explain any of that to you guys because I obviously know far more about the Bulls than either of you.

And frankly, when I look at notifications, there's roughly 6 posters that I don't even pay attention to or care to read.
After reading posts like these, I see why. (for the record, slim, you're not one of them)

If you can't wrap your ahead around the fact that someone who types as fast as they speak can sometimes mix up names or something from literally 2-3 decades ago, then I don't know what to tell you.

But Slim, you're taking the side of someone trying to attribute the Bulls success to Rodman, or any other avenue than Jordan
He was a top 100 player. Even the PC forum ranked him around there.

There's no way you know more about the Bulls when you are just 6 years old when they won their 1st NBA title and barely a teenager when they won their last championship. That's why most of the time you dont have any clue what you are talking about and it's kinda confusing why you keep acting like you know more than those people who actually watched the Bulls dynasty.

1991 finals... I was 6 years old and waiting in the hospital for my aunt. I remember "the move" and though I didn't really get it, I knew something special was happening. I also remember being in the reckroom for MJs 6 3's on the blazers, watching home alone on another tv while seeing Pax hit the winner against Phoenix. I was drawn to the Bulls as a youngster, enough that I have permanent snapshot memories. My favorite players then were BJ Armstrong and Pax. I lived the 3 ball - later was a huge Steve Kerr fan.

For the last time stop acting like a Jordan expert from a memory of a child when you barely got any clue what's happening from adult perspective, you're just a kid that time and your opinion doesn't mean much. We have a lot of adults here posting for years and still there's a lot of dumb arguments from them what more if it's from a memory of a kid?

Wrong. I watched nearly every game- the Bulls were prime time.
No need to project just because you didn't at all.

You're right that I don't remember 91-93 well. But 96? Get out of here with that crap.
The come back was insane. We were all addicted.

It's hilarious that the three of you are so desperate that this is your talking point though
Seriously, I'm not even offended- I'm actually getting a kick out of it because it's so funny.
I get it... I've really hit home with many, many stats. The only thing to do is grab at straws here and try to prop up Rodman as a 1st or 2nd team player.

By the way, how many times did Rodman make the all star team between 96 and 98?

Do either of you know? Apparently not

[michaelm]

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.

Agree with all of this, great post.

The real answer I have always said as well is your last line.

I prefer Jordan no doubt partly because I was around as a sportsfan at the time and experiences when you are younger are likely more formative, but agree with everything you have said about both players, particularly that Jordan’s defense may have been more impactful than LeBron’s because of how great a perimeter defender he was even though LeBron was arguably more versatile being able to defend Centers if needed, and with LeBron being a better playmaker.

It does annoy me when people imply it is only other people who are biased, making no claim to be unbiased myself of course, as does the tendency of some LeBron partisans to attribute the success of LeBron’s teams to him while attributing the success of Jordan’s teams to his team-mates. I remain a Rodman fan, I found even his (rather extreme) quirkiness appealing, but to argue he was the major agent of change responsible for transmuting the second Bulls threepeat team to greatness is rather stretching things, imo as well as that of others.

[michaelm]

Totally not a cult lmao

Sure. And neither is LeBron fandom.

[bledredwine]

Yeh sorry Bledredwine, have to agree with ScrantonBulls on this one and believe me that doesn't happen often. Also remember you saying that was a typo, that's no typo my man.

Also someone above saying Rodman wasn't all that good, wowsers no doubt they didn't watch the Bulls back then.

lol, you're both full of it. When I was young, I didn't pay attention to details. Even now, I don't pay attention
to the finances of free agency and my friends who do know I don't care about those details.

I know he was traded for Purdue and I literally attended 6 games in the 96 season, including a loss to Miami.
My favorite player was not Jordan. It was the three point specialists, starting with Paxson/BJ and then later Kerr.
But I don't have to explain any of that to you guys because I obviously know far more about the Bulls than either of you.

And frankly, when I look at notifications, there's roughly 6 posters that I don't even pay attention to or care to read.
After reading posts like these, I see why. (for the record, slim, you're not one of them)

If you can't wrap your ahead around the fact that someone who types as fast as they speak can sometimes mix up names or something from literally 2-3 decades ago, then I don't know what to tell you.

But Slim, you're taking the side of someone trying to attribute the Bulls success to Rodman, or any other avenue than Jordan
He was a top 100 player. Even the PC forum ranked him around there.

There's no way you know more about the Bulls when you are just 6 years old when they won their 1st NBA title and barely a teenager when they won their last championship. That's why most of the time you dont have any clue what you are talking about and it's kinda confusing why you keep acting like you know more than those people who actually watched the Bulls dynasty.

1991 finals... I was 6 years old and waiting in the hospital for my aunt. I remember "the move" and though I didn't really get it, I knew something special was happening. I also remember being in the reckroom for MJs 6 3's on the blazers, watching home alone on another tv while seeing Pax hit the winner against Phoenix. I was drawn to the Bulls as a youngster, enough that I have permanent snapshot memories. My favorite players then were BJ Armstrong and Pax. I lived the 3 ball - later was a huge Steve Kerr fan.

For the last time stop acting like a Jordan expert from a memory of a child when you barely got any clue what's happening from adult perspective, you're just a kid that time and your opinion doesn't mean much. We have a lot of adults here posting for years and still there's a lot of dumb arguments from them what more if it's from a memory of a kid?

Oh, and for the record, I also constantly rewatched Bulls games from 84-98 from late high school to about five years ago and other league games because I love the game. It was an obsession that often took two hours a day. So once again, imagine how foolish you look from my perspective with what you’re saying. It actually invalidates anything that you say and shows me not to take any of it seriously, which, once again, is how I see most of your posts anyway- about the posters or coming up with pointless arguments like propping up Rodman, not actual basketball.

Make sure to save that in your pointless notepad file of my quotes so you have perspective. Just because you haven’t experienced the Bulls doesn’t mean you need to project it on a Bulls fan from Chicago.