Stockton says LeBrons titles don’t have value

[Masigond]

Why do people act like Jordan had to drag those Bulls teams to titles? Do they forget that Jordan had an all time great flanking him almost his entire Bulls tenure and that Jordan didn't start winning titles until that player came of age, not to mention that the Bulls were still contenders even when Jordan retired because that player he played alongside was pretty damn good? And also that the Bulls formed the 90s version of a SuperTeam by bringing in Rodman at Jordan's request btw.

I'm not here to say that Lebron is better or that his title runs were worth more by any means but there's some revisionist history when it comes to Jordan's title runs as if he was carrying teams.

When Jordan retired the first time, the Bulls compensated quite well, still winning 55 games for the 93-94 season. They only added Kukoc (who was playing the sixth man role, averaging 24 mpg), Steve Kerr (also coming from the bench) and Pete Myers (starter, but averaged only 8 ppg). This despite Pippen only playing a slightly bigger scoring or playmaking role than before (2 shots more per 100 possessions, and actually fewer assists per 100).

How did they do it? By improving on the defensive end. So while Jordan was the x-factor who made this very good team seemingly a championship guarantee (as you said: Also with the addition of Rodman), he by no means dragged a bad team to titles.
It's hard to say how the Bulls would have done if MJ had stayed in retirement. For sure they would have tried to get a better player at SG than Myers, maybe letting Ron Harper play a bigger role from 1994 on or more likely trying to trade for another player. It's not a given that this team would have won titles without Jordan, but they would have been good and contenders in some seasons nevertheless.

I don't really like the take of a single player dragging bad teams to success, anyway. One player alone can only do so much. Wilt averaged 50 ppg but his teammates still had to provide the other 75 ppg, and even more important: One player alone cannot stop an opponent team by himself. The Bulls' relative success in 93-94 shows how much the defense contributes, even though the team really became much worse on offense. But the defensive end isn't glorified as much, and thus we have those awful narratives like Iverson making a bad team a finalist in 2001. No, when he really were able to do that by himself, why couldn't he replicate that in any other season? He had other very comparable individual seasons, right? No, the 2001 Sixers weren't bad. They were awfully mediocre on the offensive end, but made a living as a top 5 defensive team. That was the real difference to any other season the Sixers had when Iverson was with them.

Same with LeBron: People concentrate too much on the alleged mediocrity of many of his teammates while ignoring that these often were quite functional teams (and true: with some rather weak opponents in the East). LeBron contributed a lot to it as star players often make it easier for the teammates. But he did not do it by himself. That is not possible in sports when teams consist of 5 players on the court (and more important: also 5 opponents) at the same time.

[MavsDirk41]

Why do people act like Jordan had to drag those Bulls teams to titles? Do they forget that Jordan had an all time great flanking him almost his entire Bulls tenure and that Jordan didn't start winning titles until that player came of age, not to mention that the Bulls were still contenders even when Jordan retired because that player he played alongside was pretty damn good? And also that the Bulls formed the 90s version of a SuperTeam by bringing in Rodman at Jordan's request btw.

I'm not here to say that Lebron is better or that his title runs were worth more by any means but there's some revisionist history when it comes to Jordan's title runs as if he was carrying teams.

Acquiring Rodman was Jerry Krause’s idea. Krause approached Jordan and Pippen and they signed off on it but it wasnt Jordans idea nor did he request the Bulls trade for Rodman. Was a great move by Krause.

[Yank3525]

No, the 2001 Sixers weren't bad. They were awfully mediocre on the offensive end, but made a living as a top 5 defensive team. That was the real difference to any other season the Sixers had when Iverson was with them.

Off topic, but this isn't accurate.

Philly was 5th in defensive rating in 99, 4th in 2000, and 4th in 2002. The big difference between the 2001 team and those other teams was their offense improved dramtically. They were 13th in offensive rating in 2001 compared to 25th the year before.

[The4thHorseman]

Why do people act like Jordan had to drag those Bulls teams to titles? Do they forget that Jordan had an all time great flanking him almost his entire Bulls tenure and that Jordan didn't start winning titles until that player came of age, not to mention that the Bulls were still contenders even when Jordan retired because that player he played alongside was pretty damn good? And also that the Bulls formed the 90s version of a SuperTeam by bringing in Rodman at Jordan's request btw.

I'm not here to say that Lebron is better or that his title runs were worth more by any means but there's some revisionist history when it comes to Jordan's title runs as if he was carrying teams.

Acquiring Rodman was Jerry Krause’s idea. Krause approached Jordan and Pippen and they signed off on it but it wasnt Jordans idea nor did he request the Bulls trade for Rodman. Was a great move by Krause.

Jackson and Jordan met with Rodman multiple times and grilled him on how things would be run. It was definitely more to it than 'just running it by Jordan and Pippen."

"Jackson, as the Bulls' head coach, played a key role in evaluating Rodman's fit with the team and managing his unique personality. He reportedly had a conversation with Rodman about his concerns and expectations. Bulls general manager Jerry Krause and head coach Phil Jackson talked a lot with Rodman before trading for him. According to Jackson, Krause left the decision to acquire Rodman up to him. Jordan and Pippen approved the move.

"Jordan, the team's superstar, also weighed in on the potential acquisition. While he initially had some reservations due to past on-court incidents with Rodman, he ultimately approved the move, recognizing Rodman's talent and potential contribution to the team.

"As the general manager, Krause spearheaded the effort to acquire Rodman and engaged in extensive discussions with Rodman, Jackson, and Jordan"

"Rodman recalls a meeting at Krause's house where he, Jordan, Pippen, Jackson, and others were present to discuss the potential trade.

https://www.si.com/nba/bulls/old-school/how-the-dennis-rodman-trade-helped-the-chicago-bulls

[ball_takes23]

I personally view the fact that Jordan was able to excel alongside players that no other team wanted as a good thing. Nobody in their right mind was calling that Chicago team a superteam before the season started. They only got that label 20 years after the fact, because of the fact that they were able to make it work. If they had fallen flat on their face like the 2022 Lakers did, nobody would be calling them a failed superteam, they would just be calling them a bunch of over the hill has-beens.

[Masigond]

No, the 2001 Sixers weren't bad. They were awfully mediocre on the offensive end, but made a living as a top 5 defensive team. That was the real difference to any other season the Sixers had when Iverson was with them.

Off topic, but this isn't accurate.

Philly was 5th in defensive rating in 99, 4th in 2000, and 4th in 2002. The big difference between the 2001 team and those other teams was their offense improved dramtically. They were 13th in offensive rating in 2001 compared to 25th the year before.

Then this is even more the counterproof that I was talking about. They didn't add better scorers that made this difference, so AI's teammates must have been a bit better on the offensive end than claimed by so many fans.

Anyway, I wouldn't call a ORTG of 103.6 instead of 101.5 a dramatical improvement. They were better and that was enough to improve by 7 wins for the regular season (by the way: The Sixers were 6-5 in the games AI missed). Still the games were won way more due to the defense.

[ball_takes23]

No, the 2001 Sixers weren't bad. They were awfully mediocre on the offensive end, but made a living as a top 5 defensive team. That was the real difference to any other season the Sixers had when Iverson was with them.

Off topic, but this isn't accurate.

Philly was 5th in defensive rating in 99, 4th in 2000, and 4th in 2002. The big difference between the 2001 team and those other teams was their offense improved dramtically. They were 13th in offensive rating in 2001 compared to 25th the year before.

Then this is even more the counterproof that I was talking about. They didn't add better scorers that made this difference, so AI's teammates must have been a bit better on the offensive end than claimed by so many fans.

Anyway, I wouldn't call a ORTG of 103.6 instead of 101.5 a dramatical improvement. They were better and that was enough to improve by 7 wins for the regular season (by the way: The Sixers were 6-5 in the games AI missed). Still the games were won way more due to the defense.

Like many of the eastern finals runs of that time, it had much more to do with the lack of competition than anything good about the team making the finals run.

The rules state that one team out of the east has to make the finals every year, and that year it just happened to be the 6ers turn

[K9J]

Lmao i love comments like this, have you watched the last 50 years to make your determination about how weak the west was or is this your opinion? Also, aside from OKC last year lets look at the west:

Denver made a playoff run cause Jokic is that great. Thats the only reason.
Minnesota - im waiting for Edwards to take over the league still, i think he is a little overrated. Randle is ok. Gobert is ok. Conley is old.
Memphis- did nothing
Houston - now with Durant they may do something but a team with Jalen Green and Jabari Smith as your core scares nobody.
Lakers - yawn
Clippers - yawn
GS - Curry got hurt and Butler is looking older

What did i miss? Was this a strong west last year?

My comment is quite clear and its the absolute reality of the history of the NBA that any objective person can assess. You have raised a parallel point to create your own narrative regarding a year to make a point that mean nothing of my comment.

Stockton for +10 years lost with barkley, olajuwon, mullin, magic, drexler,ceballos..whatever contemporary great player he face of his generation or the previous, then he won the western conference with 35 & 36 years old, because him and malone were better at this stage than the same players who beat them with 25-32 years, and still being the best players in the league, because in almost 10 years only 2 players of top 50 all time come to the league to face them being stars with -30 years old (shaq-payton), you can add players like robinson-miller-pippen but they had 31-34 years on those years (96-98)btw, so almost same generation anyway this is the best you can find in almost 10 years...five players

So yes, its not the same if lebron with 30-36 years have to face always a team with kobe 39 - howard 34 and cp3 34 for example every year older and worse than him, or a team with deron 35, carmelo 35, and bosh 35 instead of the three/four next and different generations with top 50 all time players those he faced and were younger.
In fact in 1995-1998 almost the top 10 players each season were the same than were the top 10 the previously 10 years changing retired players(kareem-magic-bird-thomas). While if you compare it with the generation before LeBron, his own or the next one, when LeBron was 32-37, only one player was still in the elite top 10/20 in the league (CP3), with mostly not even with level to start in a normal team in the league because the new generations of high average level player were great/better, or fit better with the game

your post dont have any sense,just with the stars the league have by far more level the last 12 years than 1995-1998, If you also compare the secondary role players/bench players, the difference in average level is huge better now. Except center position, any team can have 2-4 players who are much more athletics(+tall-physical-strong), complete better defenders. doing more helps/covering more spaces, being able to swap and hold diff players and shooting +35% in 3 that is the primary skillset in the game now. and this adding than mostly teams have at least 2-3 good players as base

Your comment is your opinion and you want to downplay 90s era nba to fit your agenda which is common for guys in their 20s on this board. The game was played differently back then. In 97 the Lakers were built around Shaq with a supporting cast of Eddie Jones, Van Exel, Ceballos, Horry….they were a well built team for their time. Seattle had 2 stars in Payton and Kemp with a solid supporting cast of Detlef, Hawkins, Perkins, and McMillian. Houston had some aging stars but they were still built around Hakeem who was still a star, Drexler, Mario Ellie, and some other quality role players. Utah won 50 plus games 11 out of 13 seasons so they were a tough team to beat with two star players and one of the goat coaches. You think the best teams back then didnt have depth or star players? The game was just played differently. The offense wasn’t built around draw and kick 3s with spacing the floor. Offense was built around a dominant big, pick and roll, iso, or executing in the mid range. But the west had their strong teams and their weak teams. Same as today. I only brought up last year because its the most recent season and to show you that the west had one great team, a few decent teams, and some bad teams. Same as always. You are getting upset about nothing lol.

???? You quoted me first to go off on a tangent and write a speech that has nothing to do with anything and at no point proves that I'm wrong, because objectively i only wrote the truth. The way to play the game doesnt matter in that debate.

Stockton & Malone were easily top 10/15 players of the Nba in 1986-1988 and 10 years later with 34-36yo they still being in those ranks easily, same with Jordan, ewing, olajuwon, drexler, barkley,wilkins etc.
They shared that status of all-time players and being some of the best players in the league every year for everyone here( so its not my opinion(guys in their 20s, 30s 40s or 50s on this board)) with magic,bird,thomas,moses.etc(players of the previous generation) until they all retired or just get washed, and they shared this status for 10 years with themselves plus pippen, miller or robinson(just for military; but all them more close to be the same generation 3-4 years diff) and the next gen with just payton & shaq.

Of course the NBA in 90s got good & great players, it would be a shame if the best league in the world didn't have 20-30 players capable of scoring 15-30 points in a game or 3 in a row or 20 in a season(with post game, pick&roll, mid range, or driving, it doesnt matter) or having 2-3 great seasons as top10-15 but everyone here know that do this, is different to be part of the Tier S of the league as only Shaq & Payton did most of the decade.

For any player you can mention as 2 or third player in the 90s i can say 2 or 3 in the last 20 years and maybe being 4th or 5th in his team, and this dont mean who are a better player, or who is a better player because he fit better in the game plan (90s, the current or 15 years ago).
For any all time player in their prime or nearly who plays in the nba in mid 90s from a different generation than jordan, stockton, malone everyone here could write 5-7 names in their prime or close to it who have faced an older Lebron, and for any bench or role player everyone can write +5 who fit better and is more productive in comparison with the Tier S than the role players and bench player who play in the 90s. Its the result of a higher average level, talent, qualities and physical equality in the league.

Obviously, under normal conditions, without injuries and similar competitives team, if jordan was better than stockton & malone with 20yo, with 28yo, he was going to be better at 34 too, same vs ewing or miller. + better team
While stockton & malone who were in the same status than others stars in the western conference; maybe they lost 10 years because the team was a bit worse,or just issue fit in the team/game plan/details or just because with 30 olajuwon was better than malone, but they could reach the finals more easy with 34-36yo because they face those same old players, now worse than malone-stockton couple + shaq in a worse team but its ok, you need to beat him anyway and this is why stockton & malone are all time players.

What do u think is tougher to stockton & malone with 36yo, face a team with olajuwon & drexler with 37yo, or face payton + shaq with 28yo in their prime ... What is more tougher to lebron with 32-37 yo, face a team where the best player is kobe with 39yo or carmelo 1 year older, or face a team where the best player is durant with 30yo, or a team with leonard george butler harden 28, or a team with anteto 25yo or tatum with 22yo...all with elite skillset and elite phisically natural evolution of human more closer to lebron than miller was to jordan

its more tougher win a conference or a title when all great teams has 1 or 2 all time players youngers in their prime
Because its not the same when two teams face each other in a weak era with less average level, with 5 starters + maybe 1 good bench player + 4 bunch of lumps with -10min per game in playoff just for hit, fight or defense with no productive skills with the ball, than if two teams face each other with 1-3 all time players, +2-3 elite/good roleplayers but one team has nothing else and the other has another 2-3 good players with the nba skillset necessary to be productive in his era and with almost same phisically conditions than the tier S or elite roleplayers.
In the end, there is no big difference if one team got a bigger, or strong lump to hit better 5 minutes, as the difference between your lump/7-10 player in rotation who is not able to make a wide shot or generate advantages for teammates with dribbling while the other team lump made 5 threes or score 20points, with both having more or less similar physical conditions and both defending more or less similarly.

[HomoSapien]

I haven't read all 24 pages of this thread, but worth nothing the title is misrepresentative of the quote in the article:

“I like where guys tighten their belt up and say…let’s go to work. We just got to get better. We got to play harder. We gotta play smarter, instead of just huh, where’s the grass greener? I’m gonna go there and win a championship. I think it devalues that. You’re not climbing the mountain, you’re taking a helicopter to the top.”

He's not saying his titles don't have value. He's saying that they were devalued by the way they were achieved. Those are different things.

[Snakebites]

I haven't read all 24 pages of this thread, but worth nothing the title is misrepresentative of the quote in the article:

“I like where guys tighten their belt up and say…let’s go to work. We just got to get better. We got to play harder. We gotta play smarter, instead of just huh, where’s the grass greener? I’m gonna go there and win a championship. I think it devalues that. You’re not climbing the mountain, you’re taking a helicopter to the top.”

He's not saying his title don't have value. He's saying that the way they were devalued by the way they were achieved. Those are different things.

Fair enough.

I don't personally agree with that take, and it comes off as defensive/insecure coming from a guy who played for one team, never won a ring, and had a history of coming up short in the playoffs.

[Mazter]

I haven't read all 24 pages of this thread, but worth nothing the title is misrepresentative of the quote in the article:

“I like where guys tighten their belt up and say…let’s go to work. We just got to get better. We got to play harder. We gotta play smarter, instead of just huh, where’s the grass greener? I’m gonna go there and win a championship. I think it devalues that. You’re not climbing the mountain, you’re taking a helicopter to the top.”

He's not saying his title don't have value. He's saying that the way they were devalued by the way they were achieved. Those are different things.

Yea sure...

How about Wilt's 2 championships in Philly and LA?
Kareem's 5 in LA?
Moses in Philly?
Shaq's 4 in LA and Miami?

Does he have an opinion about those, did he mention them?
Did he have the opinion since he entered the NBA or only after he himself retired for the same franchise?
Or does he just want to say something about LeBron?
Would he have the same opinion if Karl would have won in LA in 2004?

So many questions, so little answers.
He could have gone many ways with the take on a broader perspective but it's pretty clear who he wants to criticize.

[HomoSapien]

I haven't read all 24 pages of this thread, but worth nothing the title is misrepresentative of the quote in the article:

“I like where guys tighten their belt up and say…let’s go to work. We just got to get better. We got to play harder. We gotta play smarter, instead of just huh, where’s the grass greener? I’m gonna go there and win a championship. I think it devalues that. You’re not climbing the mountain, you’re taking a helicopter to the top.”

He's not saying his title don't have value. He's saying that the way they were devalued by the way they were achieved. Those are different things.

Yea sure...

How about Wilt's 2 championships in Philly and LA?
Kareem's 5 in LA?
Moses in Philly?
Shaq's 4 in LA and Miami?

Does he have an opinion about those, did he mention them?
Did he have the opinion since he entered the NBA or only after he himself retired for the same franchise?
Or does he just want to say something about LeBron?
Would he have the same opinion if Karl would have won in LA in 2004?

So many questions, so little answers.
He could have gone many ways with the take on a broader perspective but it's pretty clear who he wants to criticize.

First apologies for all the typos in my post. Tired dad here.

I'm not Stockton, so I can't speak to that. I'd imagine he does feel like there's a certain amount of cheapness for some of those players (although probably not KAJ as the Lakers weren't great when he joined). My post was just pointing out the inaccuracy of the title. It was a misquote, and I don't think Stockton's take if you read the full quote is that controversial.

[Nate505]

I haven't read all 24 pages of this thread, but worth nothing the title is misrepresentative of the quote in the article:

“I like where guys tighten their belt up and say…let’s go to work. We just got to get better. We got to play harder. We gotta play smarter, instead of just huh, where’s the grass greener? I’m gonna go there and win a championship. I think it devalues that. You’re not climbing the mountain, you’re taking a helicopter to the top.”

He's not saying his title don't have value. He's saying that the way they were devalued by the way they were achieved. Those are different things.

Yea sure...

How about Wilt's 2 championships in Philly and LA?
Kareem's 5 in LA?
Moses in Philly?
Shaq's 4 in LA and Miami?

Does he have an opinion about those, did he mention them?
Did he have the opinion since he entered the NBA or only after he himself retired for the same franchise?
Or does he just want to say something about LeBron?
Would he have the same opinion if Karl would have won in LA in 2004?

So many questions, so little answers.
He could have gone many ways with the take on a broader perspective but it's pretty clear who he wants to criticize.

So you're attacking him over...questions that weren't asked of him?

Ok, that's one tactic.

[Iwasawitness]

Curry > LeBron, simple as that. Anyone who led his own team to multiple titles is higher than LeBron.

[hugepatsfan]

Saying they feel mercenary like is fair. Saying they don’t have value is being a hater

[MavsDirk41]

My comment is quite clear and its the absolute reality of the history of the NBA that any objective person can assess. You have raised a parallel point to create your own narrative regarding a year to make a point that mean nothing of my comment.

Stockton for +10 years lost with barkley, olajuwon, mullin, magic, drexler,ceballos..whatever contemporary great player he face of his generation or the previous, then he won the western conference with 35 & 36 years old, because him and malone were better at this stage than the same players who beat them with 25-32 years, and still being the best players in the league, because in almost 10 years only 2 players of top 50 all time come to the league to face them being stars with -30 years old (shaq-payton), you can add players like robinson-miller-pippen but they had 31-34 years on those years (96-98)btw, so almost same generation anyway this is the best you can find in almost 10 years...five players

So yes, its not the same if lebron with 30-36 years have to face always a team with kobe 39 - howard 34 and cp3 34 for example every year older and worse than him, or a team with deron 35, carmelo 35, and bosh 35 instead of the three/four next and different generations with top 50 all time players those he faced and were younger.
In fact in 1995-1998 almost the top 10 players each season were the same than were the top 10 the previously 10 years changing retired players(kareem-magic-bird-thomas). While if you compare it with the generation before LeBron, his own or the next one, when LeBron was 32-37, only one player was still in the elite top 10/20 in the league (CP3), with mostly not even with level to start in a normal team in the league because the new generations of high average level player were great/better, or fit better with the game

your post dont have any sense,just with the stars the league have by far more level the last 12 years than 1995-1998, If you also compare the secondary role players/bench players, the difference in average level is huge better now. Except center position, any team can have 2-4 players who are much more athletics(+tall-physical-strong), complete better defenders. doing more helps/covering more spaces, being able to swap and hold diff players and shooting +35% in 3 that is the primary skillset in the game now. and this adding than mostly teams have at least 2-3 good players as base

Your comment is your opinion and you want to downplay 90s era nba to fit your agenda which is common for guys in their 20s on this board. The game was played differently back then. In 97 the Lakers were built around Shaq with a supporting cast of Eddie Jones, Van Exel, Ceballos, Horry….they were a well built team for their time. Seattle had 2 stars in Payton and Kemp with a solid supporting cast of Detlef, Hawkins, Perkins, and McMillian. Houston had some aging stars but they were still built around Hakeem who was still a star, Drexler, Mario Ellie, and some other quality role players. Utah won 50 plus games 11 out of 13 seasons so they were a tough team to beat with two star players and one of the goat coaches. You think the best teams back then didnt have depth or star players? The game was just played differently. The offense wasn’t built around draw and kick 3s with spacing the floor. Offense was built around a dominant big, pick and roll, iso, or executing in the mid range. But the west had their strong teams and their weak teams. Same as today. I only brought up last year because its the most recent season and to show you that the west had one great team, a few decent teams, and some bad teams. Same as always. You are getting upset about nothing lol.

???? You quoted me first to go off on a tangent and write a speech that has nothing to do with anything and at no point proves that I'm wrong, because objectively i only wrote the truth. The way to play the game doesnt matter in that debate.

Stockton & Malone were easily top 10/15 players of the Nba in 1986-1988 and 10 years later with 34-36yo they still being in those ranks easily, same with Jordan, ewing, olajuwon, drexler, barkley,wilkins etc.
They shared that status of all-time players and being some of the best players in the league every year for everyone here( so its not my opinion(guys in their 20s, 30s 40s or 50s on this board)) with magic,bird,thomas,moses.etc(players of the previous generation) until they all retired or just get washed, and they shared this status for 10 years with themselves plus pippen, miller or robinson(just for military; but all them more close to be the same generation 3-4 years diff) and the next gen with just payton & shaq.

Of course the NBA in 90s got good & great players, it would be a shame if the best league in the world didn't have 20-30 players capable of scoring 15-30 points in a game or 3 in a row or 20 in a season(with post game, pick&roll, mid range, or driving, it doesnt matter) or having 2-3 great seasons as top10-15 but everyone here know that do this, is different to be part of the Tier S of the league as only Shaq & Payton did most of the decade.

For any player you can mention as 2 or third player in the 90s i can say 2 or 3 in the last 20 years and maybe being 4th or 5th in his team, and this dont mean who are a better player, or who is a better player because he fit better in the game plan (90s, the current or 15 years ago).
For any all time player in their prime or nearly who plays in the nba in mid 90s from a different generation than jordan, stockton, malone everyone here could write 5-7 names in their prime or close to it who have faced an older Lebron, and for any bench or role player everyone can write +5 who fit better and is more productive in comparison with the Tier S than the role players and bench player who play in the 90s. Its the result of a higher average level, talent, qualities and physical equality in the league.

Obviously, under normal conditions, without injuries and similar competitives team, if jordan was better than stockton & malone with 20yo, with 28yo, he was going to be better at 34 too, same vs ewing or miller. + better team
While stockton & malone who were in the same status than others stars in the western conference; maybe they lost 10 years because the team was a bit worse,or just issue fit in the team/game plan/details or just because with 30 olajuwon was better than malone, but they could reach the finals more easy with 34-36yo because they face those same old players, now worse than malone-stockton couple + shaq in a worse team but its ok, you need to beat him anyway and this is why stockton & malone are all time players.

What do u think is tougher to stockton & malone with 36yo, face a team with olajuwon & drexler with 37yo, or face payton + shaq with 28yo in their prime ... What is more tougher to lebron with 32-37 yo, face a team where the best player is kobe with 39yo or carmelo 1 year older, or face a team where the best player is durant with 30yo, or a team with leonard george butler harden 28, or a team with anteto 25yo or tatum with 22yo...all with elite skillset and elite phisically natural evolution of human more closer to lebron than miller was to jordan

its more tougher win a conference or a title when all great teams has 1 or 2 all time players youngers in their prime
Because its not the same when two teams face each other in a weak era with less average level, with 5 starters + maybe 1 good bench player + 4 bunch of lumps with -10min per game in playoff just for hit, fight or defense with no productive skills with the ball, than if two teams face each other with 1-3 all time players, +2-3 elite/good roleplayers but one team has nothing else and the other has another 2-3 good players with the nba skillset necessary to be productive in his era and with almost same phisically conditions than the tier S or elite roleplayers.
In the end, there is no big difference if one team got a bigger, or strong lump to hit better 5 minutes, as the difference between your lump/7-10 player in rotation who is not able to make a wide shot or generate advantages for teammates with dribbling while the other team lump made 5 threes or score 20points, with both having more or less similar physical conditions and both defending more or less similarly.

Basically your saying the league is more talented/deep compared to the 90s…..i agree with this because of the influx of international talent over the last 10-15 years or so. You are trying to diminish the dominance of Stockton and Malone because of this and im sorry but im not buying it. They played who they played and they were also very durable. Stockton played 82 games 16 years of his career. Malone was almost as durable. How many star players today play a full 82 game season? I dont care how you slice it, winning 50 plus games over the span of 13 years is impressive. And no, im not going to diminish their success and its very annoying when people get on here and do the “weakest era in 50 years” nonsense like you did.

And as far as James, if he played in the 90s he would not benefit from the deeper league just like he has had the benefit of playing in a deeper league throughout his career or most of his career. Stockton can have his opinion just as you having your very low opinion about 90s western conference. You saying he shouldn’t have an opinion?

[MavsDirk41]

Why do people act like Jordan had to drag those Bulls teams to titles? Do they forget that Jordan had an all time great flanking him almost his entire Bulls tenure and that Jordan didn't start winning titles until that player came of age, not to mention that the Bulls were still contenders even when Jordan retired because that player he played alongside was pretty damn good? And also that the Bulls formed the 90s version of a SuperTeam by bringing in Rodman at Jordan's request btw.

I'm not here to say that Lebron is better or that his title runs were worth more by any means but there's some revisionist history when it comes to Jordan's title runs as if he was carrying teams.

Acquiring Rodman was Jerry Krause’s idea. Krause approached Jordan and Pippen and they signed off on it but it wasnt Jordans idea nor did he request the Bulls trade for Rodman. Was a great move by Krause.

Jackson and Jordan met with Rodman multiple times and grilled him on how things would be run. It was definitely more to it than 'just running it by Jordan and Pippen."

"Jackson, as the Bulls' head coach, played a key role in evaluating Rodman's fit with the team and managing his unique personality. He reportedly had a conversation with Rodman about his concerns and expectations. Bulls general manager Jerry Krause and head coach Phil Jackson talked a lot with Rodman before trading for him. According to Jackson, Krause left the decision to acquire Rodman up to him. Jordan and Pippen approved the move.

"Jordan, the team's superstar, also weighed in on the potential acquisition. While he initially had some reservations due to past on-court incidents with Rodman, he ultimately approved the move, recognizing Rodman's talent and potential contribution to the team.

"As the general manager, Krause spearheaded the effort to acquire Rodman and engaged in extensive discussions with Rodman, Jackson, and Jordan"

"Rodman recalls a meeting at Krause's house where he, Jordan, Pippen, Jackson, and others were present to discuss the potential trade.

https://www.si.com/nba/bulls/old-school/how-the-dennis-rodman-trade-helped-the-chicago-bulls

Kind of like i said it was Krause’s idea lol? And Jordan requested the Bulls trade for Rodman?? Pretty much he signed off on it after being confronted on it by Krause. Sounds like your trying to give Jordan credit for a brilliant trade idea when it wasnt his idea lol…when are we gonna discuss the 89 Pistons? You dodging this?

[HMFFL]

Lebron brought a knife to a fist fight while KD took out a gun...there's a difference.

Lebron started the superteam stuff but he never joined an established championship caliber team like KD did.....and we've seen the success KD has had starting his own superteams with the Nets and Suns...didn't work out too great.

You considered the Suns a super team? That's odd.

The Nets had a 12-3 record when KD, Kyrie, and Harden played together in Brooklyn. It's odd that you would mention that it didn't work out due to the cermistances. Covid was a thing but you act as if the three of them played a full season together...15 games!

KD to Golden is a problem for you as well. KD lead them to two championships and won the FMVP both times. If you fail to realize he was the guy on Golden State you might be part of the peohlem. The chances are low that Golden State wins those two titles without KD.

Oh, wait, according to what you said about the Suns, Nets, and KD in Golden State, it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

Warriors won championships before and after KD, so his 2 "hard road" championships aren't impressing anyone.

We should put Jokic on the current OKC roster and then you can convince me how impressive those championships would be

Steph fans mention constantly that he has won 4 chips. Then downplay the 2 chips KD helped GS win.

Hey, it's a good thing Step finally captured his FMVP, because he had the critics on his back, and it was very questionable if he would ever win one.

It's a good thing KD was on God Mode for GS and won two FMVP while wearing a GS jersey.

To actually believe Steph wins both of those chips without KD is amusing.

[NO-KG-AI]

I haven't read all 24 pages of this thread, but worth nothing the title is misrepresentative of the quote in the article:

“I like where guys tighten their belt up and say…let’s go to work. We just got to get better. We got to play harder. We gotta play smarter, instead of just huh, where’s the grass greener? I’m gonna go there and win a championship. I think it devalues that. You’re not climbing the mountain, you’re taking a helicopter to the top.”

He's not saying his title don't have value. He's saying that the way they were devalued by the way they were achieved. Those are different things.

Fair enough.

I don't personally agree with that take, and it comes off as defensive/insecure coming from a guy who played for one team, never won a ring, and had a history of coming up short in the playoffs.

I won’t say it takes specific rings down a notch or whatever, but when things start being brought up like how many rings, how many times a guy missed the playoffs, etc, I think it’s insane to pretend it’s apples to apples with guys that were on a team that won titles in multiple different iterations with 13/15 players on the roster turnover, or for some guys having to go through down years while the team rebuilds…. Vs guys that pack it up and move teams when it starts to look down, or force the team to mortgage the entire future so they can get the credit of another title before dipping out.(this isn’t really a jordan centric point.)

Wasn’t a big hangup that the Bulls wouldn’t pay all the old guys and go all in? In hindsight, would Jordan have come back in 1999 if everyone was brought back abd the Bulls traded like 4-5 of their future picks to bolster the team? Given what they did in the post Jordan years, tbey probably should have lol. I don’t think Jordan would be shy about using leverage to get what he wants, but he really didn’t.

I’m not saying guys like LeBron or KD shouldn’t have used every ounce of leverage they had to get the teammates or get to the teams they want… but that does make things very different when comparing winning and losing games/seasons.

[Darthlukey]

Lebron was in a no-win situation. He stays in Cleveland, in his first stint, he never wins a championship. He goes to Miami he is a ring chaser and his rings are devalued.

He did do it multiple times. Not just to miami, but back to cleveland, then to lakers and facilitates the AD trade. It seems like a career pattern. He seems to be allergic to overcoming adversity (2016 might be the exception there, but that was 2 years after he tucked tail and ran away from miami)