How many Jordan years over Peak Duncan?

[Top10alltime]

[quote:"One_and_Done"] We disagree. I also don't find those stats persuasive. Who cites TOV/g as a winning argument? [/quote]

You disagree because you are wrong. This is always your coping mechanism for losing, stop it and admit you're wrong. It's unhealthy for you. I cited TOV/g, to disprove you, and it clearly worked

[Jaivl]

Probably the 89-92 period. But it's hard to find a greater year than 2003.

[One_and_Done]

1981 Dantley had 30.7ppg on 559 FG% with only 3.5 TO per game. Does it follow that Dantley was similarly good to 1989 Michael Jordan who had 32.5ppg on 538 FG% with 3.6 TO per game?

Context matters. Jordan wasn't running an offense like Shai for example. Jordan was an iso player in the iso ball era, once he got the ball he was generally shooting, against a defence playing mostly iso coverages. I'm not sure his TO% tells us that much.

It's certainly a weird stat to cite in a comp with Duncan.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Jordan clears Duncan in offense in everyway. Duncan isn't good off-ball, and his rim protection + roaming is the only thing he has going for him.

88-92 Jordan > any Duncan year

A bit absurd to say that defence is 'all' that the greatest defensive player of all-time has going for him.

Duncan was just a more impactful.player. Jordan could never have carried bad teams like Duncan did in 02 or 03 (or even 01).

You haven't provided any evidence. And you are misunderstanding what I am telling you, because you have no capacity of analyzing or comprehending film.

Duncan isn't even a top 3 defender in NBA history. Bill Russell (GOAT rim protector, very versatile relative to era (KG and Draymond level)), Hakeem Olajuwon (better than Duncan at his best aspects defensively, more mobile, and able to switch better, and higher motor), and Kevin Garnett (the most versatile defender of all-time, Duncan has only rim protection on him definitely, because roaming is debatable. KG is elite at every aspect of defense, being unexploitable defensively, his problems were on offense, which holds him back). Duncan > MJ at defense, but MJ is still an elite guard defender, or sub-ATG.

This is while MJ's all time (GOAT level actually) offensive game was amazing. He would for sure translate to today's eras, and the proof is Shai (who is just worse than MJ everyway, except foul drawing). You WILL bring up Shai leading a low turnover offense, but...

2025 Thunder: 17 TOV/G
1988 Bulls: 15.4 TOV/g
1989 Bulls (more on-ball than Shai ever was): 16.2 TOV/g
1990 Bulls: 15.2 TOV/g
1991 Bulls: 14.4 TOV/g
1992 Bulls: 13.3 TOV/g
1993 Bulls: 13.5 TOV/g

Every single one of MJ's 6 best years was better than peak Shai. What about their own ball-security?
Shai 2025: 3.0 TOV/g
1991 Jordan: 2.5 TOV/g
1992 Jordan: 2.5 TOV/g
1993 Jordan: 2.7 TOV/g

Also, unlike Shai, Jordan doesn't have mediocre playoff offenses, and carried by the GOAT defensive situation (there are 5 better defenders on 2025 Thunder than Shai).

2025 Thunder: +1.3 opponent adjusted rORtg
1989 Bulls: +7.7 opponent adjusted rORtg
1990 Bulls: +7.2 opponent adjusted rORtg
1991 Bulls: +13.3 opponent adjusted rORtg
1992 Bulls: +5.2 opponent adjusted rORtg
1993 Bulls: +13.0 opponent adjusted rORtg

Except 1988, Jordan has never had a playoffs offense as bad as Shai Pilgeous. Jordan is much better than Shai, who is arguably the best this season, and that shows how well he'd translate to this era. Jordan led bad teams like the 1988, and 1989 Bulls, but faced better teams than Duncan did. Stop going off of assumptions, and ignoring the facts. Jordan is the GOAT, and is clear of Duncan.

"Pilgeous"

I've only heard that name from one place. That's Red/Russianxroulette on X lol.

[Top10alltime]

1981 Dantley had 30.7ppg on 559 FG% with only 3.5 TO per game. Does it follow that Dantley was similarly good to 1989 Michael Jordan who had 32.5ppg on 538 FG% with 3.6 TO per game?

Context matters. Jordan wasn't running an offense like Shai for example. Jordan was an iso player in the iso ball era, once he got the ball he was generally shooting, against a defence playing mostly iso coverages. I'm not sure his TO% tells us that much.

It's certainly a weird stat to cite in a comp with Duncan.

No, because Dantley was hurting his team, was the biggest shot clock waster ever, and a ball hog. Jordan didn't hurt, but helped his teams. Jordan was also a far far far better playmaker and defender than Cantley

Context does matter! Jordan was actually running the offense. I'd like you to watch any 1989 Jordan film, as he clearly was running the offense. He was doubled way more than Shai, and converted them into more creations than Shai has (he clears as a playmaker).

His turnovers tell me that he was less turnover prone, and it's because you've made points that Shai runs low turnover offense that I've debunked.

Fact of the matter is Duncan isn't better than Jordan, isn't even a top 3 defender with only roaming and rim protection, and weaknesses (he would've been so much better in earlier eras, which makes it inconsistent you even have Duncan close to KG).

Hope you have a good day, and try to stay out of arguments you know minimal in too. Genuinely asking, and hoping you have a good day.

[VanWest82]

MJ is still technically able to pull off #1 in RAPM every year from 88-97 sans 94-95. Magic still leads in 90, I believe, partly because sampled games are biased toward first half of regular reason for Bulls. MJ might not pull it off.

Duncan was never #1 consistently in single or multi-year RAPM samples. Food for thought.

[One_and_Done]

1981 Dantley had 30.7ppg on 559 FG% with only 3.5 TO per game. Does it follow that Dantley was similarly good to 1989 Michael Jordan who had 32.5ppg on 538 FG% with 3.6 TO per game?

Context matters. Jordan wasn't running an offense like Shai for example. Jordan was an iso player in the iso ball era, once he got the ball he was generally shooting, against a defence playing mostly iso coverages. I'm not sure his TO% tells us that much.

It's certainly a weird stat to cite in a comp with Duncan.

No, because Dantley was hurting his team, was the biggest shot clock waster ever, and a ball hog. Jordan didn't hurt, but helped his teams. Jordan was also a far far far better playmaker and defender than Cantley

Context does matter! Jordan was actually running the offense. I'd like you to watch any 1989 Jordan film, as he clearly was running the offense. He was doubled way more than Shai, and converted them into more creations than Shai has (he clears as a playmaker).

His turnovers tell me that he was less turnover prone, and it's because you've made points that Shai runs low turnover offense that I've debunked.

Fact of the matter is Duncan isn't better than Jordan, isn't even a top 3 defender with only roaming and rim protection, and weaknesses (he would've been so much better in earlier eras, which makes it inconsistent you even have Duncan close to KG).

Hope you have a good day, and try to stay out of arguments you know minimal in too. Genuinely asking, and hoping you have a good day.

This is mostly wrong, and/or shows a lack of understanding of how the game has changed. Collins tried to play MJ as a point guard and it was a failure. The team became successful when they stopped doing that.

In today's game it would be harder for Jordan on both ends of the court, for reasons that have been discussed many times. Jordan would still be one of the top players today, because of just how good he was, but it's unlikely he'd be the best player in today's game.

MJ certainly helped his teams... but not to the degree peak Duncan did.

[Hook_Em]

Yeh, Duncan who beat prime Shaq & Kobe with a meh support cast is on another planet to Ewing. I don't see much of an argument for Jordan over 02 or 03 Duncan, Jordan just benefitted from having a better support cast and playing in a weaker era.

Jordan clears Duncan in offense in everyway. Duncan isn't good off-ball, and his rim protection + roaming is the only thing he has going for him.

88-92 Jordan > any Duncan year

A bit absurd to say that defence is 'all' that the greatest defensive player of all-time has going for him.

Duncan was just a more impactful.player. Jordan could never have carried bad teams like Duncan did in 02 or 03 (or even 01).

The 01-03’ Spurs were comprised of role players but they weren’t scrubs. Robinson was 3rd team all-nba in 01’ and top-5 in WS/48 in 02’. 03’ Parker was better in year two and Ginobili, Bowen and Jackson got there. Duncan was the best player in 02-03’ but the Spurs role players outclassed the Lakers role players in the playoffs that season.

[One_and_Done]

Jordan clears Duncan in offense in everyway. Duncan isn't good off-ball, and his rim protection + roaming is the only thing he has going for him.

88-92 Jordan > any Duncan year

A bit absurd to say that defence is 'all' that the greatest defensive player of all-time has going for him.

Duncan was just a more impactful.player. Jordan could never have carried bad teams like Duncan did in 02 or 03 (or even 01).

The 01-03’ Spurs were comprised of role players but they weren’t scrubs. Robinson was 3rd team all-nba in 01’ and top-5 in WS/48 in 02’. 03’ Parker was better in year two and Ginobili, Bowen and Jackson got there. Duncan was the best player in 02-03’ but the Spurs role players outclassed the Lakers role players in the playoffs that season.

By the playoffs the wheels had come off D.Rob, who fell into role player territory (and was only 3rd all-nba because the center position was so weak at the time). Parker in 03 was still so raw he was losing minutes in the finals to a rando guard named Speedy Claxton. Manu was still very raw in 03, and Jackson was seen as so inconsistent that that offseason he had to settle for a minimum contract. Nobody wanted to pay him. He had to work on his game alot to become the good player he turned into.

Take a look at the Spurs role players in the 01 WCFs. Their stats are video game levels of bad. In 02 D.Rob fell off even more, and was hurt to boot barely playing vs the Lakers, and in 03 he was a shell of even 02 D.Rob.

The Spurs were 15-3 in games D.Rob missed in 03, and 10-3 in games Manu missed. Those guys were just names at that point, they were not the reason the Spurs were winning.

Bowen was a good defensive wing, but without Duncan's ability to create open corner 3s he would have been almost unplayable, which is why no teams ever tried to pay the guy to leave the Spurs. He had serious limitations without Duncan. He also played only 59 games in 02.

The year after D.Rob retired the Spurs replaced D.Rob with several meh to poor defensive players, and they actually got better on D. I feel pretty confident saying D.Rob was holding them back in his last few years, and certainly wasn't a good player.

[Hook_Em]

A bit absurd to say that defence is 'all' that the greatest defensive player of all-time has going for him.

Duncan was just a more impactful.player. Jordan could never have carried bad teams like Duncan did in 02 or 03 (or even 01).

The 01-03’ Spurs were comprised of role players but they weren’t scrubs. Robinson was 3rd team all-nba in 01’ and top-5 in WS/48 in 02’. 03’ Parker was better in year two and Ginobili, Bowen and Jackson got there. Duncan was the best player in 02-03’ but the Spurs role players outclassed the Lakers role players in the playoffs that season.

By the playoffs the wheels had come off D.Rob, who fell into role player territory (and was only 3rd all-nba because the center position was so weak at the time). Parker in 03 was still so raw he was losing minutes in the finals to a rando guard named Speedy Claxton. Manu was still very raw in 03, and Jackson was seen as so inconsistent that that offseason he had to settle for a minimum contract. Nobody wanted to pay him. He had to work on his game alot to become the good player he turned into.

Take a look at the Spurs role players in the 01 WCFs. Their stats are video game levels of bad. In 02 D.Rob fell off even more, and was hurt to boot barely playing vs the Lakers, and in 03 he was a shell of even 02 D.Rob.

The Spurs were 15-3 in games D.Rob missed in 03, and 10-3 in games Manu missed. Those guys were just names at that point, they were not the reason the Spurs were winning.

Bowen was a good defensive wing, but without Duncan's ability to create open corner 3s he would have been almost unplayable, which is why no teams ever tried to pay the guy to leave the Spurs. He had serious limitations without Duncan. He also played only 59 games in 02.

The year after D.Rob retired the Spurs replaced D.Rob with several meh to poor defensive players, and they actually got better on D. I feel pretty confident saying D.Rob was holding them back in his last few years, and certainly wasn't a good player.

I remember some funkiness with Tony that year which led to the JKidd trade rumors. The Mavs couldn’t guard him in the conference finals and then he got benched late in the series. Not sure if it was defense but he had plenty of high scoring games in the playoffs. Ginobili and Jackson had some moments and Kerr had a bizarre heater.


The role players performed because of the Duncan effect but they were capable of hitting big shots. In 03’ great teams had borderline unplayable role players like Devean George, Jannero Pargo and Brian Shaw getting legitimate playoff minutes. Same with the Mavs and Nets. The Spurs were competent 1-8 and were well coached. A couple years later with Finley, Barry and Horry they were a borderline super team with the big-3 in their prime.

[One_and_Done]

The 01-03’ Spurs were comprised of role players but they weren’t scrubs. Robinson was 3rd team all-nba in 01’ and top-5 in WS/48 in 02’. 03’ Parker was better in year two and Ginobili, Bowen and Jackson got there. Duncan was the best player in 02-03’ but the Spurs role players outclassed the Lakers role players in the playoffs that season.

By the playoffs the wheels had come off D.Rob, who fell into role player territory (and was only 3rd all-nba because the center position was so weak at the time). Parker in 03 was still so raw he was losing minutes in the finals to a rando guard named Speedy Claxton. Manu was still very raw in 03, and Jackson was seen as so inconsistent that that offseason he had to settle for a minimum contract. Nobody wanted to pay him. He had to work on his game alot to become the good player he turned into.

Take a look at the Spurs role players in the 01 WCFs. Their stats are video game levels of bad. In 02 D.Rob fell off even more, and was hurt to boot barely playing vs the Lakers, and in 03 he was a shell of even 02 D.Rob.

The Spurs were 15-3 in games D.Rob missed in 03, and 10-3 in games Manu missed. Those guys were just names at that point, they were not the reason the Spurs were winning.

Bowen was a good defensive wing, but without Duncan's ability to create open corner 3s he would have been almost unplayable, which is why no teams ever tried to pay the guy to leave the Spurs. He had serious limitations without Duncan. He also played only 59 games in 02.

The year after D.Rob retired the Spurs replaced D.Rob with several meh to poor defensive players, and they actually got better on D. I feel pretty confident saying D.Rob was holding them back in his last few years, and certainly wasn't a good player.

I remember some funkiness with Tony that year which led to the JKidd trade rumors. The Mavs couldn’t guard him in the conference finals and then he got benched late in the series. Not sure if it was defense but he had plenty of high scoring games in the playoffs. Ginobili and Jackson had some moments and Kerr had a bizarre heater.


The role players performed because of the Duncan effect but they were capable of hitting big shots. In 03’ great teams had borderline unplayable role players like Devean George, Jannero Pargo and Brian Shaw getting legitimate playoff minutes. Same with the Mavs and Nets. The Spurs were competent 1-8 and were well coached. A couple years later with Finley, Barry and Horry they were a borderline super team with the big-3 in their prime.

Deavan George was a decent role player, as was Brian Shaw (off the bench). The Spurs played guys much worse than that, like Malik Rose and washed up Steve Smith (in some of the 3 seasons I mentioned far worse players got minutes too). 'Decent guys 3-9' doesn't win titles, just ask the Kings and Mavs who were losing to the Shaq & Kobe Lakers.

[Top10alltime]

1981 Dantley had 30.7ppg on 559 FG% with only 3.5 TO per game. Does it follow that Dantley was similarly good to 1989 Michael Jordan who had 32.5ppg on 538 FG% with 3.6 TO per game?

Context matters. Jordan wasn't running an offense like Shai for example. Jordan was an iso player in the iso ball era, once he got the ball he was generally shooting, against a defence playing mostly iso coverages. I'm not sure his TO% tells us that much.

It's certainly a weird stat to cite in a comp with Duncan.

No, because Dantley was hurting his team, was the biggest shot clock waster ever, and a ball hog. Jordan didn't hurt, but helped his teams. Jordan was also a far far far better playmaker and defender than Cantley

Context does matter! Jordan was actually running the offense. I'd like you to watch any 1989 Jordan film, as he clearly was running the offense. He was doubled way more than Shai, and converted them into more creations than Shai has (he clears as a playmaker).

His turnovers tell me that he was less turnover prone, and it's because you've made points that Shai runs low turnover offense that I've debunked.

Fact of the matter is Duncan isn't better than Jordan, isn't even a top 3 defender with only roaming and rim protection, and weaknesses (he would've been so much better in earlier eras, which makes it inconsistent you even have Duncan close to KG).

Hope you have a good day, and try to stay out of arguments you know minimal in too. Genuinely asking, and hoping you have a good day.

This is mostly wrong, and/or shows a lack of understanding of how the game has changed. Collins tried to play MJ as a point guard and it was a failure. The team became successful when they stopped doing that.

In today's game it would be harder for Jordan on both ends of the court, for reasons that have been discussed many times. Jordan would still be one of the top players today, because of just how good he was, but it's unlikely he'd be the best player in today's game.

MJ certainly helped his teams... but not to the degree peak Duncan did.

Firstly, that is some ironic statement you made, if you're one of the guys who think Duncan is over KG in today's game, and that Kareem is top 3 in today's game.

Collins made that PG version of MJ a success. Look at Jordan when he had 10 triple doubles in 11 games

1989 triple double MJ (converted into IA/75): 26.9 pts/8.6 rbs/9.1 asts/0.8 blks/2.3 stls/2.7 tovs on +6.5 rTS
+4.1 rORtg, and -3.8 rDRtg

In today's game, Jordan would be a much better Shai, who is thriving in today's game. He's the best today, clearly. The GOAT. Duncan would barely be top 5 today (Luka, Tatum, Shai, Wemby, Jokic all is better)

MJ cleared impact-wise over Duncan. You have exposed yourself. This is what happens when you're in arguments you know nothing about. Stay out of these. Thank you

[One_and_Done]

No, because Dantley was hurting his team, was the biggest shot clock waster ever, and a ball hog. Jordan didn't hurt, but helped his teams. Jordan was also a far far far better playmaker and defender than Cantley

Context does matter! Jordan was actually running the offense. I'd like you to watch any 1989 Jordan film, as he clearly was running the offense. He was doubled way more than Shai, and converted them into more creations than Shai has (he clears as a playmaker).

His turnovers tell me that he was less turnover prone, and it's because you've made points that Shai runs low turnover offense that I've debunked.

Fact of the matter is Duncan isn't better than Jordan, isn't even a top 3 defender with only roaming and rim protection, and weaknesses (he would've been so much better in earlier eras, which makes it inconsistent you even have Duncan close to KG).

Hope you have a good day, and try to stay out of arguments you know minimal in too. Genuinely asking, and hoping you have a good day.

This is mostly wrong, and/or shows a lack of understanding of how the game has changed. Collins tried to play MJ as a point guard and it was a failure. The team became successful when they stopped doing that.

In today's game it would be harder for Jordan on both ends of the court, for reasons that have been discussed many times. Jordan would still be one of the top players today, because of just how good he was, but it's unlikely he'd be the best player in today's game.

MJ certainly helped his teams... but not to the degree peak Duncan did.

Firstly, that is some ironic statement you made, if you're one of the guys who think Duncan is over KG in today's game, and that Kareem is top 3 in today's game.

Collins made that PG version of MJ a success. Look at Jordan when he had 10 triple doubles in 11 games

1989 triple double MJ (converted into IA/75): 26.9 pts/8.6 rbs/9.1 asts/0.8 blks/2.3 stls/2.7 tovs on +6.5 rTS
+4.1 rORtg, and -3.8 rDRtg

In today's game, Jordan would be a much better Shai, who is thriving in today's game. He's the best today, clearly. The GOAT. Duncan would barely be top 5 today (Luka, Tatum, Shai, Wemby, Jokic all is better)

MJ cleared impact-wise over Duncan. You have exposed yourself. This is what happens when you're in arguments you know nothing about. Stay out of these. Thank you

You don't have to thank me for the lessons, I do it purely for my own benediction. Another free lesson is this; the skillset players need to succeed varies depending on their role. For Kareem or Duncan, it's not a big deal that they can't shoot 3s, because they play the role of a traditional 5 man. It would be an added bonus if they could shoot 3s, but it's not essential.

Jordan on the other hand plays a position where not being a good 3pt shooter really hurts him a fair bit, as does not being able to run an offense.

[Djoker]

This is mostly wrong, and/or shows a lack of understanding of how the game has changed. Collins tried to play MJ as a point guard and it was a failure. The team became successful when they stopped doing that.

In today's game it would be harder for Jordan on both ends of the court, for reasons that have been discussed many times. Jordan would still be one of the top players today, because of just how good he was, but it's unlikely he'd be the best player in today's game.

MJ certainly helped his teams... but not to the degree peak Duncan did.

Huh? The Bulls were very successful with running the offense through Jordan... From 1985-1990, the Bulls had a +6.3 rORtg when Jordan was ON the court in the playoffs. The team became more successful in 1991 because he finally had decent offensive help and because the team improved defensively around him. Not because the offense run around MJ was bad. If anything, the offense was incredible given the barebone level of offensive talent around him. When he was OFF the court from 1985-1990, the Bulls had an abysmal -27.2 rORtg. Specifically in 1989 PS when Collins ran MJ at point, the Bulls had a +7.7 rORtg ON and -27.9 rORtg OFF. So your point is out of touch.

Duncan is a great two-way big so arguing for his case will get you further than trying to diminish MJ for not carrying a barren roster to a title.

[falcolombardi]

Peak 2003 duncan is very damn good so zero is a valid answer

Safely i would go for 88-91 as jordan peak

[Top10alltime]

This is mostly wrong, and/or shows a lack of understanding of how the game has changed. Collins tried to play MJ as a point guard and it was a failure. The team became successful when they stopped doing that.

In today's game it would be harder for Jordan on both ends of the court, for reasons that have been discussed many times. Jordan would still be one of the top players today, because of just how good he was, but it's unlikely he'd be the best player in today's game.

MJ certainly helped his teams... but not to the degree peak Duncan did.

Firstly, that is some ironic statement you made, if you're one of the guys who think Duncan is over KG in today's game, and that Kareem is top 3 in today's game.

Collins made that PG version of MJ a success. Look at Jordan when he had 10 triple doubles in 11 games

1989 triple double MJ (converted into IA/75): 26.9 pts/8.6 rbs/9.1 asts/0.8 blks/2.3 stls/2.7 tovs on +6.5 rTS
+4.1 rORtg, and -3.8 rDRtg

In today's game, Jordan would be a much better Shai, who is thriving in today's game. He's the best today, clearly. The GOAT. Duncan would barely be top 5 today (Luka, Tatum, Shai, Wemby, Jokic all is better)

MJ cleared impact-wise over Duncan. You have exposed yourself. This is what happens when you're in arguments you know nothing about. Stay out of these. Thank you

You don't have to thank me for the lessons, I do it purely for my own benediction. Another free lesson is this; the skillset players need to succeed varies depending on their role. For Kareem or Duncan, it's not a big deal that they can't shoot 3s, because they play the role of a traditional 5 man. It would be an added bonus if they could shoot 3s, but it's not essential.

Jordan on the other hand plays a position where not being a good 3pt shooter really hurts him a fair bit, as does not being able to run an offense.

Lessons, what, . You are the one who is lacking in knowledge not me . Why is KAT not over Kareem, because he is better in a vacuum. Why is Jokic not over Duncan, he was better in a vacuum.

Centers do stuff outside rim protection and rim scoring now. It's 2025. These guys would be better in previous eras, not today, where the game has changed significantly. OFC, you lack understanding of how basketball works today, so I'm not surprised.

Jordan would improve three point shooting today, as the mid range shots he took were the most improved from today. It's why Dirk, KG, and Kobe would be good 3 point shooters today. Jordan can clearly run an offense, you are just talking to talk here. Please, stay away from things you are uneducated in, it will make you look much better.

[One_and_Done]

Firstly, that is some ironic statement you made, if you're one of the guys who think Duncan is over KG in today's game, and that Kareem is top 3 in today's game.

Collins made that PG version of MJ a success. Look at Jordan when he had 10 triple doubles in 11 games

1989 triple double MJ (converted into IA/75): 26.9 pts/8.6 rbs/9.1 asts/0.8 blks/2.3 stls/2.7 tovs on +6.5 rTS
+4.1 rORtg, and -3.8 rDRtg

In today's game, Jordan would be a much better Shai, who is thriving in today's game. He's the best today, clearly. The GOAT. Duncan would barely be top 5 today (Luka, Tatum, Shai, Wemby, Jokic all is better)

MJ cleared impact-wise over Duncan. You have exposed yourself. This is what happens when you're in arguments you know nothing about. Stay out of these. Thank you

You don't have to thank me for the lessons, I do it purely for my own benediction. Another free lesson is this; the skillset players need to succeed varies depending on their role. For Kareem or Duncan, it's not a big deal that they can't shoot 3s, because they play the role of a traditional 5 man. It would be an added bonus if they could shoot 3s, but it's not essential.

Jordan on the other hand plays a position where not being a good 3pt shooter really hurts him a fair bit, as does not being able to run an offense.

Lessons, what, . You are the one who is lacking in knowledge not me . Why is KAT not over Kareem, because he is better in a vacuum. Why is Jokic not over Duncan, he was better in a vacuum.

Centers do stuff outside rim protection and rim scoring now. It's 2025. These guys would be better in previous eras, not today, where the game has changed significantly. OFC, you lack understanding of how basketball works today, so I'm not surprised.

Jordan would improve three point shooting today, as the mid range shots he took were the most improved from today. It's why Dirk, KG, and Kobe would be good 3 point shooters today. Jordan can clearly run an offense, you are just talking to talk here. Please, stay away from things you are uneducated in, it will make you look much better.

I mean, not only did ai just explain this, but we have a peaks thread you can go read where this exact discussion happened. For the 'improvenent' part, I literally just explained that in the West vs KD thread.

[Top10alltime]

You don't have to thank me for the lessons, I do it purely for my own benediction. Another free lesson is this; the skillset players need to succeed varies depending on their role. For Kareem or Duncan, it's not a big deal that they can't shoot 3s, because they play the role of a traditional 5 man. It would be an added bonus if they could shoot 3s, but it's not essential.

Jordan on the other hand plays a position where not being a good 3pt shooter really hurts him a fair bit, as does not being able to run an offense.

Lessons, what, . You are the one who is lacking in knowledge not me . Why is KAT not over Kareem, because he is better in a vacuum. Why is Jokic not over Duncan, he was better in a vacuum.

Centers do stuff outside rim protection and rim scoring now. It's 2025. These guys would be better in previous eras, not today, where the game has changed significantly. OFC, you lack understanding of how basketball works today, so I'm not surprised.

Jordan would improve three point shooting today, as the mid range shots he took were the most improved from today. It's why Dirk, KG, and Kobe would be good 3 point shooters today. Jordan can clearly run an offense, you are just talking to talk here. Please, stay away from things you are uneducated in, it will make you look much better.

I mean, not only did ai just explain this, but we have a peaks thread you can go read where this exact discussion happened. For the 'improvenent' part, I literally just explained that in the West vs KD thread.

They were better in a vacuum, whether you like it or not.

Unless you link me to one of these posts (because you're too lazy to make an argument, because you've lost), then we all will take that as me winning

[One_and_Done]

You can start reading here. Enjoy.

viewtopic.php?t=2472692

[Warspite]

Might even take MJs last year at UNC. If you believe Coach Knight, the 84 Olympics should be counted as well.