Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor)

[Doctor MJ]

But no one like this has grown as long as LeBron has grown. He's got a mastery over the game, including an awareness of the things he cannot do, that I'd say is unprecedented.

I could see an argument for a few of the extreme longevity bigs (KAJ/Duncan/KG namely, Duncan probably foremost among those) to be in the same conversation.

Good point. The distinction is that LeBron right now is probably the most effective offensive player in the history of basketball, and those other guys didn't become like that.

You might say that while those other guys aged like wine, LeBron's the only one who distilled his game into cognac.

[therealbig3]

Yeah, it's great that Ben showed how good Magic's handles were. He might be the best ball-handler ever at his height and I don't think many guards were safer choice than him to dribble the ball.

I think Magic might be the most fluid and nimble player for his size too. It always amazes he how much stiffer LeBron is compared to Magic, I figured Bron would have him beat in every athletic category. Magic and Ben Simmons have an uncommon grace to the way they move.

What about T-Mac or Penny?

[freethedevil]

Fluidity often gets underrated and doesn't show up in "classical" athleticism benchmarks like straight line speed and jumping do.

Fludity's a lot easier to counter defensively in the postseason tho.

Is it?

I mean when we look at 'power' players ath their best, duncan' scoring stayed the same(marginally better effiency actually), his assist% doubled(wihthout an increasine in turnover rate), his block rate doubled, and his playoff aupm hints at him becoming more valuable in the postseason from 02-04.

Hakeem led the most playoff resilient team ever and is one of history's greatest playoff elevators.

Dirk, Kareem, and Lebron are incredibly resilient against great defenses with Lebron morphing into uncharted territory both as a game 5-7 player(which speaks well to the ineffectiveness of defensive adjustments against hum) and from 12 onwards has bascally been unaffected by opposing defensive quality.

Magic is one of the better playoff elevators in history.

Per 70's, I believe despte an icredibly long career kareem's effiency is the best against -4 defenses or greater, with dirk being one of the top liners alongside lebron.

On the other side, 'fluid players' like bird and curry see their team offenses and effiency drop in the playoffs, KG's scoring goes down along with his induvdiual impact numbers, robinson plummets as a playoff performer, giannis's offense has dipped and/or plummeted so far, Jordan gets vastly worse in agmes 4-7 once defenses have adjusted for him, and had his effiency and team offense plummet against the pistons and the knicks employing the same exact strategy of daring him to pass it out.


Seems to me that power and brute force is a lot harder to take away than fludity.

[freethedevil]

Fluidity often gets underrated and doesn't show up in "classical" athleticism benchmarks like straight line speed and jumping do.

Fludity's a lot easier to counter defensively in the postseason tho.

I'm guessing what you mean is that Magic's fluidity edge doesn't loom as large as LeBron's other edges against playoff defense rather than saying that Magic's superior fluidity is actually a hindrance.

What I'd tend to say is that Magic & LeBron are both in that rare group of superstars who truly seem to be able "figure the game out" with time. We tend to call this "old man game" and it's a known thing, but the thing that isn't brought up is that most guys never develop "old man game", they just fadeaway. Those who can continue to learn savvy on the other hand, can get remarkably good at the parts of the game that don't get crippled with a loss of physical explosion.

In the debate between Bird & Magic, I see Bird as a guy with more intuitive brilliance that he just scattered over whatever was happening on the floor, whereas Magic was a guy who essentially said "I'm going to play like this, and if someone stops me, I'll adapt until they can't."

I really do think Magic could have been great for many years if not for the HIV, and that he'd have kept figuring new things out as he went. He would have, in other words, perhaps kept growing like LeBron's been growing.

But no one like this has grown as long as LeBron has grown. He's got a mastery over the game, including an awareness of the things he cannot do, that I'd say is unprecedented.

I dont really consider magic a fluidity player, he's heliocentric, and mch of his passing comes from the combination of speed and ther veolicity he cna throw those passes at due to his size/strength. Alot of his creativea nd scoring game also comes from his driving and how he's a much more 'powerful' point guard than basically any non-defnesive pg in history(save for maybe lebron).

Magic is someone whose offenses get better in the playoffs irrc.

Magic to me demonstrates what lebron demonstrates, i see bird as 'fluid', his passing is a lot more off-ball, he drives less, jumpshots more,ect, ect. Bird goes down inthe postseason, magic elevates. That to me is the difference.


I actually see magic-bird as simialr to hakeem-jordan as simialr to lebron-curry as similar to duncan-kg, with the first player reperesenting 'power' with the second player represent 'fludity'. Interestingly, I'd also say the first player represents 'heliocentrism' while the second player represents 'scalability'.

[Doctor MJ]

Fludity's a lot easier to counter defensively in the postseason tho.

I'm guessing what you mean is that Magic's fluidity edge doesn't loom as large as LeBron's other edges against playoff defense rather than saying that Magic's superior fluidity is actually a hindrance.

What I'd tend to say is that Magic & LeBron are both in that rare group of superstars who truly seem to be able "figure the game out" with time. We tend to call this "old man game" and it's a known thing, but the thing that isn't brought up is that most guys never develop "old man game", they just fadeaway. Those who can continue to learn savvy on the other hand, can get remarkably good at the parts of the game that don't get crippled with a loss of physical explosion.

In the debate between Bird & Magic, I see Bird as a guy with more intuitive brilliance that he just scattered over whatever was happening on the floor, whereas Magic was a guy who essentially said "I'm going to play like this, and if someone stops me, I'll adapt until they can't."

I really do think Magic could have been great for many years if not for the HIV, and that he'd have kept figuring new things out as he went. He would have, in other words, perhaps kept growing like LeBron's been growing.

But no one like this has grown as long as LeBron has grown. He's got a mastery over the game, including an awareness of the things he cannot do, that I'd say is unprecedented.

I dont really consider magic a fluidity player, he's heliocentric, and mch of his passing comes from the combination of speed and ther veolicity he cna throw those passes at due to his size/strength. Alot of his creativea nd scoring game also comes from his driving and how he's a much more 'powerful' point guard than basically any non-defnesive pg in history(save for maybe lebron).

Magic is someone whose offenses get better in the playoffs irrc.

Magic to me demonstrates what lebron demonstrates, i see bird as 'fluid', his passing is a lot more off-ball, he drives less, jumpshots more,ect, ect. Bird goes down inthe postseason, magic elevates. That to me is the difference.


I actually see magic-bird as simialr to hakeem-jordan as simialr to lebron-curry as similar to duncan-kg, with the first player reperesenting 'power' with the second player represent 'fludity'. Interestingly, I'd also say the first player represents 'heliocentrism' while the second player represents 'scalability'.

People here are using "fluidity" to describe how he tends to move. It isn't an antonym to heliocentric. Magic was one of the original helios, it also just looked like less of a robot out there than LeBron does.

[DQuinn1575]

Fludity's a lot easier t
Magic is one of the better playoff elevators in history.

Is that the same Magic who:

1. shot 2-14 when his team got eliminated in 1981?
2. shot 25-62 in the finals in 1983 - ?
3. was called "Tragic Johnson" ...due to the two crucial errors he committed in Game 4 (the Parish steal, followed by two botched free throws in OT)? (from Wikipedia)
4. shot 25-58 in the 1991 finals against Pippen and Jordan?

WS/48 - PO .208 vs RS of .225 - not a big decrease, but I dont consider him one who rose to the top always in the playoffs.

[freethedevil]

I'm guessing what you mean is that Magic's fluidity edge doesn't loom as large as LeBron's other edges against playoff defense rather than saying that Magic's superior fluidity is actually a hindrance.

What I'd tend to say is that Magic & LeBron are both in that rare group of superstars who truly seem to be able "figure the game out" with time. We tend to call this "old man game" and it's a known thing, but the thing that isn't brought up is that most guys never develop "old man game", they just fadeaway. Those who can continue to learn savvy on the other hand, can get remarkably good at the parts of the game that don't get crippled with a loss of physical explosion.

In the debate between Bird & Magic, I see Bird as a guy with more intuitive brilliance that he just scattered over whatever was happening on the floor, whereas Magic was a guy who essentially said "I'm going to play like this, and if someone stops me, I'll adapt until they can't."

I really do think Magic could have been great for many years if not for the HIV, and that he'd have kept figuring new things out as he went. He would have, in other words, perhaps kept growing like LeBron's been growing.

But no one like this has grown as long as LeBron has grown. He's got a mastery over the game, including an awareness of the things he cannot do, that I'd say is unprecedented.

I dont really consider magic a fluidity player, he's heliocentric, and mch of his passing comes from the combination of speed and ther veolicity he cna throw those passes at due to his size/strength. Alot of his creativea nd scoring game also comes from his driving and how he's a much more 'powerful' point guard than basically any non-defnesive pg in history(save for maybe lebron).

Magic is someone whose offenses get better in the playoffs irrc.

Magic to me demonstrates what lebron demonstrates, i see bird as 'fluid', his passing is a lot more off-ball, he drives less, jumpshots more,ect, ect. Bird goes down inthe postseason, magic elevates. That to me is the difference.


I actually see magic-bird as simialr to hakeem-jordan as simialr to lebron-curry as similar to duncan-kg, with the first player reperesenting 'power' with the second player represent 'fludity'. Interestingly, I'd also say the first player represents 'heliocentrism' while the second player represents 'scalability'.

People here are using "fluidity" to describe how he tends to move. It isn't an antonym to heliocentric. Magic was one of the original helios, it also just looked like less of a robot out there than LeBron does.

Even then, as a point guard magic definitely slants t the power side of the equation. Curry, Nash, Isiah Kyrie, Cp3 all strike me as more fluid.

He looks like less of a robot than lebron, but his game was probably more 'robotic' than birds.

[Doctor MJ]

I dont really consider magic a fluidity player, he's heliocentric, and mch of his passing comes from the combination of speed and ther veolicity he cna throw those passes at due to his size/strength. Alot of his creativea nd scoring game also comes from his driving and how he's a much more 'powerful' point guard than basically any non-defnesive pg in history(save for maybe lebron).

Magic is someone whose offenses get better in the playoffs irrc.

Magic to me demonstrates what lebron demonstrates, i see bird as 'fluid', his passing is a lot more off-ball, he drives less, jumpshots more,ect, ect. Bird goes down inthe postseason, magic elevates. That to me is the difference.


I actually see magic-bird as simialr to hakeem-jordan as simialr to lebron-curry as similar to duncan-kg, with the first player reperesenting 'power' with the second player represent 'fludity'. Interestingly, I'd also say the first player represents 'heliocentrism' while the second player represents 'scalability'.

People here are using "fluidity" to describe how he tends to move. It isn't an antonym to heliocentric. Magic was one of the original helios, it also just looked like less of a robot out there than LeBron does.

Even then, as a point guard magic definitely slants t the power side of the equation. Curry, Nash, Kyrie, Cp3 all strike me as ore fluid.

Okay, but the original statement was about Magic's fluidity for his size.

I think Magic might be the most fluid and nimble player for his size too. It always amazes he how much stiffer LeBron is compared to Magic, I figured Bron would have him beat in every athletic category.

There's no doubt that guard-sized guards are going to be the most fluid in general, as are the skinnier tall guys. But I know exactly what Heej means. It's easy to imagine LeBron as just a better Magic but he's not. I consider LeBron to be better to be sure, but Magic has some advantages, and one of them is this more free form of movement that tends to be a bit curvier where LeBron tends to be more straight lines.

[70sFan]

Fludity's a lot easier t
Magic is one of the better playoff elevators in history.

Is that the same Magic who:

1. shot 2-14 when his team got eliminated in 1981?
2. shot 25-62 in the finals in 1983 - ?
3. was called "Tragic Johnson" ...due to the two crucial errors he committed in Game 4 (the Parish steal, followed by two botched free throws in OT)? (from Wikipedia)
4. shot 25-58 in the 1991 finals against Pippen and Jordan?

WS/48 - PO .208 vs RS of .225 - not a big decrease, but I dont consider him one who rose to the top always in the playoffs.

Magic had two poor series in his career and after 1984 he became one of the most consistent playoff performers ever. Everybody has weaker series in his career and in Magic's case they happened at the beginning of his career when he was much less refined offensive player.

[freethedevil]

People here are using "fluidity" to describe how he tends to move. It isn't an antonym to heliocentric. Magic was one of the original helios, it also just looked like less of a robot out there than LeBron does.

Even then, as a point guard magic definitely slants t the power side of the equation. Curry, Nash, Kyrie, Cp3 all strike me as ore fluid.

Okay, but the original statement was about Magic's fluidity for his size.

I think Magic might be the most fluid and nimble player for his size too. It always amazes he how much stiffer LeBron is compared to Magic, I figured Bron would have him beat in every athletic category.

There's no doubt that guard-sized guards are going to be the most fluid in general, as are the skinnier tall guys. But I know exactly what Heej means. It's easy to imagine LeBron as just a better Magic but he's not. I consider LeBron to be better to be sure, but Magic has some advantages, and one of them is this more free form of movement that tends to be a bit curvier where LeBron tends to be more straight lines.

Ahhh, okay, yeah that makes sense

[MyUniBroDavis]

People here are using "fluidity" to describe how he tends to move. It isn't an antonym to heliocentric. Magic was one of the original helios, it also just looked like less of a robot out there than LeBron does.

Even then, as a point guard magic definitely slants t the power side of the equation. Curry, Nash, Kyrie, Cp3 all strike me as ore fluid.

Okay, but the original statement was about Magic's fluidity for his size.

I think Magic might be the most fluid and nimble player for his size too. It always amazes he how much stiffer LeBron is compared to Magic, I figured Bron would have him beat in every athletic category.

There's no doubt that guard-sized guards are going to be the most fluid in general, as are the skinnier tall guys. But I know exactly what Heej means. It's easy to imagine LeBron as just a better Magic but he's not. I consider LeBron to be better to be sure, but Magic has some advantages, and one of them is this more free form of movement that tends to be a bit curvier where LeBron tends to be more straight lines.

Id say magic is more fluid in transition (and hes the most fluid in transition ever by alot), in the halfcourt id say its a bit different

Lebrons a bit shiftier with his dribbling in the halfcourt mostly, because how modern ball handljng has progressed, but magic was def better relative to time and in terms of overall shiftiness outside of just dribbling the ball (like ball fakes and stuff and passing added) hes GOATED at his size

Brons handles look pretty stiff but the way they work is very stop starty, which works really well with his frame.

I think magic had a more fluid playstyle in part because his GOATED "reaction time" iq, partially because how he approached the game, while brons a more fluid athlete, in terms of being fluid in the air and his quickness, if that makes sense

Partially because brons so explosive hes gonna naturally look a bit shiftier, and players can go more from 0-100% because looser palming rules have alot of "form changes" that made people have faster first steps (pjf pef did a thing in it, i think it was shin angles changed hugely vs earlier eras but you still see it in all eras a bit for sure).

Like for example i guess, nash looks more fluid than westbrook but i wouldnt say hes a more fluid athlete, although we get the same thing where nash because of his GOATED reaction offensive playmaking iq and the way he operates his game

Altho if we are just saying magic is more fluid i dont disagree, i just dont see that neccessarily as a positive given the way they both operate (altho its obv not a negative) because alot of players that have a reliance on a really strong first step will naturally not look as fluid

Idk how to say this without looking like im chatting crap because magic is the most fluid guy at his size ever, honestly even regardless size hes up there def in transition at least.

Id say magic is the best at spotting openings ever, him and bird both in that regard, but i wouldnt day thats where brons playmaking strength lies

Id say a few guy today, like jokic, might be as good or better than bron in that regard (although its worth mentioning that most of brons offenses are built of stagnation and spacing, using off ball movement and off ball screening to open up driving lanes or occupy the help defense rather than cutting and playmaking oppertunities like the nuggets offense is, i think with marc theyre gonna adjust it a bit but you kind of see the difference in playmaking with marc in other years and preseason vs now, although im sure thatll change after vogel adjusts).

Id be curious to see how bron functions in that type of role

I would say brons strength comes from his ability to understand the game from a tactical standpoint, we kind of see evidence that brons gotten better as series have gone on since 2016 where alot of people think he unlocked something, hes said he has too iirc since at least 2013. (So saying hes had it since then but he said he didnt have "it" in 2013).


We kind of see a trend where lebron teams generally fair better as series go on, easiest example i remember be the nuggets were doing alot of prerotating and paint packing, and one more thing in ball screens, and outaide of the typical adjustments like going 5 out at times (although that couldnt cuz jokic rip), they did more nuanced ones, one of the ines off the top of my head is the angle of ball screens, normally the screener is parallel to the sideline but they set screens alot more parallel ro the baseline (not exactlybparallel but the angle is clearly different) to open up more driving lanes

Now it not fair to say this is all bron, lue was legitimately a really good offensive coach, vogel wasnt in indiana and was more defensice minded and still is, but even though his sets and llays are about average He seems strong tactically, defensively hes second by a good amount (nurse is on a different level than anyone else imo).

But weve seen bron do this constantly now at least since toronto in 2016 (and those first two series were sweep that werent really in doubt). And 16 series were both easy sweeps

More than that, both of the other top tier stars, curry and
Harden,

Hardens is alot more clear, we just saw his teams offense fail vs a 2-3 zone from midway through g3 to g5

Its hard because he didnt neccessarily play bad, he was great, but whenever he kicked it out they had to reset and it would end in a contested three, is the fact he was moderetly effecient, in a way the defense was going for (there were alot of times where the rockets had to reset their offense with 5-8 seconds left because he didnt get anything and kicked ut out vs going for a shot) indictive of him performing well?

With curry, we've seen him struglge vs switchier or smarter defenses at times, which makes sense, his off ball impact comes from creating breakdowns in communication, and the unstoppable pick and roll actions sre gonna be at least a bit less effective since teams will do more creative things to try to make them think. Its worth noting post kerr pre durant curry raw offensive net is basically a neutral from 2015 and 2016, and 2019 im not sure but its worth noting even though the warriors offense was solid, its worth noting klay absolutely went off (and idt curry created much for him, at least in g6 he didnt didnt check the other games), and the only game he didnt durant went off in the quarter he played, and the offense wasnt good at all after he left the game. Its actually lower than durants overall in their playoffs agregated i think but im not sure.

This isnt to say either of them suck or anything, but i think its worth noting that i have trouble seeing a basic zone defense cancelling the lakers entirely, and hes done it long enough that i would say its consistent

Its worth noting hes faced a few strong tactical minds in this span, d antoni (idk if they changed their staff) seems to be a good tactical coach defensively (or maybe theyre just a bad matchup the warriors idk), its act really funny cuz offensively he couldnt figure out a zone lmao, kerr and stevens are decent tactically if a bit overhyped, but ron adams is def good and id assume stevens is better defensively (not sure), spoelstra is a top 3 tactical defensive coach in the league prolly behind nurse and vogel, even malone is a decent coach.

I dont think brons a garuntee theyll figure it out, sometimes they were a bit late, its not all on him, and i do think a guy like nurse would be really good tactically in that battle

Otoh, theres a difference between "alright they did this vs team X so lets do this" vs "we tried this, it didnt work, lets try this"

Its hard because we dont know how involved llayers are tactically, but we know alot of stuff happens we dint know (example would be 2010 kobe, he struggled offensicely but we know from rondo something kobe figured out basically locked down the celtics defense), we know bron has arguably had some sort of a "feel out game 1" in 7/8 of his last series, the only one he didnt have one against the warriors (who he played last year, where he messed up his hand)

Magic was one of the greatest playoff performers ever too but brons ability to figure it out from a tactical standpoint, is what really puts him over others for me. Before he demonstrated that i honestly didnt have him bery high at all, i think early cleveland bron and miami bron are pretty overrated to be honest

Def would say magic could figure out what the D does before they do it on that level too, like bird could. I wouldnt agree with the adding to his game idea because i think even tho hes added some its more those tactical adjustments that changed tthings, i dont know much abt magic tho so obv i cant say much but defensive scheme in general wasnt as complex back then, because of certain rules

Loltangent

[frica]

Fluidity often gets underrated and doesn't show up in "classical" athleticism benchmarks like straight line speed and jumping do.

Fludity's a lot easier to counter defensively in the postseason tho.

I really do think Magic could have been great for many years if not for the HIV, and that he'd have kept figuring new things out as he went. He would have, in other words, perhaps kept growing like LeBron's been growing.

I think Magic's 95 comeback already supports this notion.
Hadn't played for years, bloated from medication, still massively improved the Laker's offense despite very few games to tuneup.

Without HIV I think he would have been right alongside KAJ, MJ and LBJ as one of the top GOAT candidates.

[Heej]

Yeah, it's great that Ben showed how good Magic's handles were. He might be the best ball-handler ever at his height and I don't think many guards were safer choice than him to dribble the ball.

I think Magic might be the most fluid and nimble player for his size too. It always amazes he how much stiffer LeBron is compared to Magic, I figured Bron would have him beat in every athletic category. Magic and Ben Simmons have an uncommon grace to the way they move.

What about T-Mac or Penny?

Good call on those 2. I'd have to watch more tape and compare the 2, but are you sure those 2 don't just look more agile because of their superior explosiveness? At least with Penny I remember him being a bit more lead-footed than Magic, TMac was definitely a freak in that regard esp with his flexibility and ability to drop effortlessly on his moves. Magic kinda just seems to skim off the floor the way AD does imo

[LukaTheGOAT]

Welp, what are your thoughts? Did Michael Jordan have the greatest peak ever?

Watch on YouTube

[limbo]

The gambling part of Jordan's defense make sense to me, especially early on in his career before he really started to bulk up in mass/strength.

Jordan doesn't really offer much in the way of straight up rim protection or post defense because he was a skinny 6'6'' dude... Most players could just move him out of the way and then finish strong over him. I think it was better for him to try and contest/swipe at shots when the offensive players were gathering themselves for the shot than trying to vertically challenge them or play straight up defense with his hands up... He simply didn't have the size to do that effectively against most players despite his great jumping ability and it was easy to just pump fake him and move him out of the way anyway...

I think Jordan played to his strengths defensively. He was great at defending guards because he had the quickness/size combo against them... he was great at playing the passing lines because he had cat-like quickness and amazing anticipation (even though he missed a few gambles, that's just the nature of the game... Even the greatest shot-blockers missed blocks when they're trying for it) and i think he had a solid grasp of team defense. He generally knew when to blindside offensive players for a steal/block or double team and i think he did well at playing the gap between the 3pt line and the entry pass to post player (which was a far more regular feature in the 90's where perimeter players weren't really shooting that much from outside, so the guard could sag off a bit more and deny entry passes)...

It's hard to give a contemporary example of Jordan's defensive style because defense is played so much different now than it was in the 80s/90s, but idk, to me it's not really hard to imagine him having somewhere between D-Wade and Kawhi levels of defensive impact, which is really good for a guard.

[Owly]

Another little error, refers to Phil Jackson arriving in '91 (just over 7 minutes in), even if that's the season (90-91) it's late, he was first head coach for the 89-90 season.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

So, jordon was a hardcore gambler?
mmm

Anyway, next is Robinson, interesting. He's going to do more players than what I thought.
Barkley? Malone? Dirk?


Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app

[ShotCreator]

Amazing work from Ben Taylor.

Jordan’s defense screams decent at best to me. No way in hell he was elite.

I’ve seen enough NBA to know, guys who constantly abandon schemes and fundamentals are usually outright negatives.

It’s so hard to overcome that. Jordan had the defensive talent to make enough positive plays to outweigh it but not even close to the level of elite defense IMO.

Guys like Tony Allen and Prime Chris Paul were amazing because they didn’t sacrifice proper positioning to get a **** load of steals and deflections.

Jordan was just a mess on that end in this film.

Lol, it really bothers me because I hate when players do it on teams I root for.

[Doctor MJ]

I really think he does a great job here in highlighting that Jordan was absolute aggression, and that this wasn't something to look at as purely a good thing. As a coach, if you've got a guy like this, you have to really think through what the rest of the team needs to be doing in order to have a good defense because if it's just 5 guys going out there and acting like Jordan, you're going to get torched.

That doesn't make Jordan a bad defender or even a "definitely not a DPOY" defender, but it highlights the importance of building properly around a talent like Jordan even if fans tend to see his aggression along with his primacy and think he's the one doing all the work.

[limbo]

Amazing work from Ben Taylor.

Jordan’s defense screams decent at best to me. No way in hell he was elite.

I’ve seen enough NBA to know, guys who constantly abandon schemes and fundamentals are usually outright negatives.

It’s so hard to overcome that. Jordan had the defensive talent to make enough positive plays to outweigh it but not even close to the level of elite defense IMO.

Guys like Tony Allen and Prime Chris Paul were amazing because they didn’t sacrifice proper positioning to get a **** load of steals and deflections.

Jordan was just a mess on that end in this film.

Lol, it really bothers me because I hate when players do it on teams I root for.

Define elite? Was Wade an elite defender in his prime? What about Kawhi?

Also, schemes in the 80's/90's were not really what they are now, not even close in fact. Not to mention that you had stuff like 'illegal defense' in the rulebook which prevented teams from doing much experimenting on defense by playing different sets and overloading sides... It was basically guard your own player, and you are allowed to help on drives or double someone on-ball, that was about it, mostly...

Reminds me of how the Celtics managed to be one of the best defensive teams in the league in the mid 80's with Bird flying all over the place... Bird is the epitome of a player that abandoned schemes and fundamentals in favor of free-roaming defense and improvisation with his help defense (which is also something ElGee mentions in his Bird videos), yet, it didn't seem to hurt the Celtics as much defensively because you could get away with that a lot more in the 80's... Teams really didn't have the offensive schemes, multi-faceted talent and shooting to punish a guy like Bird leaving someone open on the perimeter to go roam all the way to the other side of the floor...

That's why i said it's hard to compare Jordan with someone like Tony Allen defensively 30 years apart... Jordan didn't really have to close out hard on the 3pt line so he could afford to misposition a bit and gamble as it wasn't getting punished nearly as much as it would now. I think MJ was aware of this... If he would be getting 3 pointers rained on him because of this he would probably learn to stop gambling as much and adjust. Also, the fact the the paint was so much more packed back in the day also meant that Jordan had plenty of help to cover for his gambling and leaving potential open lanes behind him... Nowadays, if you gamble and miss, there's no one in the paint to stop the driving threat because everyone is standing around on the perimeter. But Jordan could recover back and make a challenge from behind in time a lot easier back then because it was harder for the offensive player to get inside for a quality shot.

Maybe another overlooked aspect of Jordan's value defensively is that he was very good at not turning the ball over stupidly relative to other high-usage players, which i guess would translate into giving less easy transition opportunities to the opponents.

The Bulls were actually the 3rd best defense in the league in 1988, and i don't think that cast is anything special defensively... Oakley i guess is decent due to his rebounding and tenacity, but he wasn't much of a rim protector due to his size. Corzine was on his last legs, wasn't anything impressive for a Big. Sellers wasn't good. Paxson/Vincent were midgets. Pippen was solid, but young and only played 21 mpg, and Grant was decent, but again kind of young and not yet fully developed into what he'd later become. Jordan played 500 more minutes than the next person (Oakley) during that regular season, and another 1000 more than the next two (Corzine and Sellers)... So i'd imagine he had something to do with the overall result.