Jordan v Lebron - A civilised conversation

[Stalwart]

Another reason why Jordan had it harder and also why his ability to have played at such a high level in this context is amazing, is the much more physical style of play in his era compared to Lebron's.

This video shows a number of examples.

Watch on YouTube

If you watch actual 1980s and 1990s basketball games you'd realise that the league wasn't particularly physical. The highlights make it seem a lot more physical than it actually was. That perception doesn't hold up for very long when watching full games.

Also any era that was more physical would be more beneficial to LeBron - one of the most physically strongest players we have seen - than it would be to his peers. Do you think Durant or Curry or LeBron would be impacted the most from greater physicality? I'd wager that the gap between LeBron and his most successful peers would actual grow with greater physicality.

Perhaps the physicality of 80s and 90s basketball gets overblown a bit and it wasn't rock em sock em every single game. However it was like that at times and with certain teams. Detroit was extremely physical as were the Knicks. Those games and playoff series were rock em sock em every night out.

Also, given the lack of shooting the game was a lot more naturally physical due to the lack of spacing. You simply had more bodies in your way when you drive to the hoop or even play in the midrange.

There really isn't an 'era' based argument that is in favour of Jordan. Basketball in the 1980s and 1990s was of a lower standard than the basketball in the 2010s. That's primarily a product of the international expansion.

I disagree. Lebron's era is actually easier for great wing players to play in than Jordan's era due to the spacing. Wing players can get to the rim so much easier in todays game because their teammates can all shoot the ball. It makes it much easier to pick up assists. Also, you can be successful in todays game with no midrange game, just 3s and lay ups. Couldn't do that in the 90s.

[falcolombardi]

Another reason why Jordan had it harder and also why his ability to have played at such a high level in this context is amazing, is the much more physical style of play in his era compared to Lebron's.

This video shows a number of examples.

Watch on YouTube

If you watch actual 1980s and 1990s basketball games you'd realise that the league wasn't particularly physical. The highlights make it seem a lot more physical than it actually was. That perception doesn't hold up for very long when watching full games.

Also any era that was more physical would be more beneficial to LeBron - one of the most physically strongest players we have seen - than it would be to his peers. Do you think Durant or Curry or LeBron would be impacted the most from greater physicality? I'd wager that the gap between LeBron and his most successful peers would actual grow with greater physicality.

Perhaps the physicality of 80s and 90s basketball gets overblown a bit and it wasn't rock em sock em every single game. However it was like that at times and with certain teams. Detroit was extremely physical as were the Knicks. Those games and playoff series were rock em sock em every night out.

Also, given the lack of shooting the game was a lot more naturally physical due to the lack of spacing. You simply had more bodies in your way when you drive to the hoop or even play in the midrange.

There really isn't an 'era' based argument that is in favour of Jordan. Basketball in the 1980s and 1990s was of a lower standard than the basketball in the 2010s. That's primarily a product of the international expansion.

I disagree. Lebron's era is actually easier for great wing players to play in than Jordan's era due to the spacing. Wing players can get to the rim so much easier in todays game because their teammates can all shoot the ball. It makes it much easier to pick up assists. Also, you can be successful in todays game with no midrange game, just 3s and lay ups. Couldn't do that in the 90s.

when you say lebron era do you mean 00's and the fiest half of the 10's?, cause the 3 point and small ball revolución didnt really take off until around 2017, before thar season the efficiency and scoring of the league was on part if not lower thsn jordan era

[Djoker]

I've posted about this many times and I strongly feel that Jordan is the better basketball player.

- he won two more championships
- he has clearly better basic stats
- he has slightly better advanced stats
- he was a more consistent defender
- he was better in in the clutch
- he played on historically greater teams
- he doesn't have a single black mark or underachievement on his resume
- he doesn't have any weaknesses in his game

And thing is none of these points can really be refuted. You can fight for Lebron by pointing at his longevity but what good is longevity when Lebron still won less and at this stage he's unlikely to win three more titles as the best player in the league. Jordan had six full seasons playing alongside another all-star and won six titles. He did more in thirteen full seasons then Lebron in nineteen and counting.

[migya]

I've posted about this many times and I strongly feel that Jordan is the better basketball player.

- he won two more championships
- he has clearly better basic stats
- he has slightly better advanced stats
- he was a more consistent defender
- he was better in in the clutch
- he played on historically greater teams
- he doesn't have a single black mark or underachievement on his resume
- he doesn't have any weaknesses in his game

And thing is none of these points can really be refuted. You can fight for Lebron by pointing at his longevity but what good is longevity when Lebron still won less and at this stage he's unlikely to win three more titles as the best player in the league. Jordan had six full seasons playing alongside another all-star and won six titles. He did more in thirteen full seasons then Lebron in nineteen and counting.

And Lebron's contending teams, besides 2007 and 2020, always had two other allstars. Miami had Wade and Bosh, Cavs had Kyrie and Love.

This following season he has Westbrook and a loaded team again. He really is trying to get those 6 championships in some sort of pathetic signification for being the GOAT.

[HeartBreakKid]

I've posted about this many times and I strongly feel that Jordan is the better basketball player.

- he won two more championships
- he has clearly better basic stats
- he has slightly better advanced stats
- he was a more consistent defender
- he was better in in the clutch
- he played on historically greater teams
- he doesn't have a single black mark or underachievement on his resume
- he doesn't have any weaknesses in his game

And thing is none of these points can really be refuted. You can fight for Lebron by pointing at his longevity but what good is longevity when Lebron still won less and at this stage he's unlikely to win three more titles as the best player in the league. Jordan had six full seasons playing alongside another all-star and won six titles. He did more in thirteen full seasons then Lebron in nineteen and counting.

I don't know what basic stats are, if you mean better boxscore stats then no, MJ does not. He has more points, that's not the same thing.

Jordan wasn't better in the clutch, and it has been refuted...with tangible evidence many times. It's also not relevant.

Longevity still matters - "yeah but he won less anyway" - thats...not what longevity means, and they were on different teams in different eras. Not sure why you think winning more rings must mean that that player is better - so what are you saying exactly, MJ is exactly "two rings better" than Lebron James? It really doesn't make sense. If James had 7 rings he would be better than Jordan?

Jordan does have blackmarks, the media just brushed it off as there is more money to be made for him being successful than not. The 95 Bulls was not a good look. The 96 Bulls won in impressive fashion and it simply wiped that way, and is simply brushed off as "well, he came back from baseball so it doesn't count". He also has character issues that would be sensationalized as a negative if he played in today's media spectrum.

Jordan doesn't have a weakness to his game...? I don't know what you mean by weakness, but Lebron James is more well rounded than Jordan, so James doesn't have a weakness to his game either.

Michael Jordan played with more than one all-star, and the all-star that you're talking about is Scottie Pippen. Again, you're ring counting but somehow ignoring that they played in different eras and on different teams. Scottie Pippen as your 2nd option in the 90s is different than Irving as your 2nd guy in 2017. Kemp as a 2nd option is different than Curry, Magic, Dr.J, Chamberlain, Bryant, Robinson, Frazier, as 2nd options.

Much less the quality of 3rd guys in the 90s was even lower relative to other eras, totally different environment in terms of team building - the Bulls were not short on talent.

[Owly]

I've posted about this many times and I strongly feel that Jordan is the better basketball player.

- he won two more championships
- he has clearly better basic stats
- he has slightly better advanced stats
- he was a more consistent defender
- he was better in in the clutch
- he played on historically greater teams
- he doesn't have a single black mark or underachievement on his resume
- he doesn't have any weaknesses in his game

And thing is none of these points can really be refuted. You can fight for Lebron by pointing at his longevity but what good is longevity when Lebron still won less and at this stage he's unlikely to win three more titles as the best player in the league. Jordan had six full seasons playing alongside another all-star and won six titles. He did more in thirteen full seasons then Lebron in nineteen and counting.

On the points ... I'd argue many can't be proved, are unclear (in balance) or are vague (in scope). (So whilst "refuting" would be an unfeasibly high bar ...)

1) Yes. (But irrelevant in player evaluation unless you are a Ringz tm guy).
2) Unclear. Not sure what this means for a start.
3) Again depends on what is meant. But for example 05-18 LeBron compares neutral (WS/48) or for the most part favorable (PER, BPM) to career MJ on a larger sample then multiple years of high level gravy (unless punishing LeBron for longevity and using raw average).
4) Unclear. Largely unquantied. Claim boundaries somewhat unclear too (over career, peak, prime? any cost to absences or trade off in value of this).
5) Unclear. Unquantified. Claim boundaries uncertain (is this last shot stuff, close games, playoffs, is defense included [how is it measured] ...). Much MJ data missing in all cases.
6) True ... but team level, reliant on health, MJ drafted to what was becoming a much better run team.
7) Slightly unclear. Questionable criteria. I'll grant 2011 finals is very poor series (with the implied, "by player X's standards") but what's the threshold for a black mark ('95 versus Orlando was turnover strewn, '88 versus Detroit was ... fine, the production was mostly there but usage was down, TS% down, turnover economy worse, assist % down, his Reference Ortg at 106 and the team offense stinks - granted vs Detroit ... and I haven't tried to adjust for that here). But in principle differences in sample sizes and lack of clarity in the virtue of isolating a single worst series and (related to the first point) the perverse incentive to get eliminated sooner (is LeBron worse for having been very important in helping Cleveland to '07 finals and being ineffective there).
8) Unclear. Virtue of a balanced net contribution versus an equal net but unbalanced one (a la Russell's defensive dominance) unclear. Remit/scope of question and nature of aspects of game are unclear. Threshold for "weakness" unclear.

Value of several claims uncertain.

Say, one might give Jordan some columns (say defensive consistency ... saying no cost to time out, or assuming "clutch") and it's unclear that it necessarily aggregates to a case for Jordan (I guess if you were certain on all of them the relevance of all of them one might be able to assume it, but) I'd be more interested in the coherent process for player ranking than the list of things one guy has over the other.

[Owly]

I've posted about this many times and I strongly feel that Jordan is the better basketball player.

- he won two more championships
- he has clearly better basic stats
- he has slightly better advanced stats
- he was a more consistent defender
- he was better in in the clutch
- he played on historically greater teams
- he doesn't have a single black mark or underachievement on his resume
- he doesn't have any weaknesses in his game

And thing is none of these points can really be refuted. You can fight for Lebron by pointing at his longevity but what good is longevity when Lebron still won less and at this stage he's unlikely to win three more titles as the best player in the league. Jordan had six full seasons playing alongside another all-star and won six titles. He did more in thirteen full seasons then Lebron in nineteen and counting.

And Lebron's contending teams, besides 2007 and 2020, always had two other allstars. Miami had Wade and Bosh, Cavs had Kyrie and Love.

This following season he has Westbrook and a loaded team again. He really is trying to get those 6 championships in some sort of pathetic signification for being the GOAT.

I fear I'm missing something. The attempt to win titles is pathetic? The achievement* if it were done would necessarily be pathetic? The measure itself, being so flawed in some way, is pathetic and hideously, irredeemably flawed as a measure of individual players (though you did use in post 98 so probably not)?


* = (accumulation of team level achievements in which the player was involved)

[Sark]

3) Again depends on what is meant. But for example 05-18 LeBron compares neutral (WS/48) or for the most part favorable (PER, BPM) to career MJ on a larger sample then multiple years of high level gravy (unless punishing LeBron for longevity and using raw average).

Curious as to why you cherry pick these years for Lebron, and compare them to Jordans entire career, including his Washington years.

If you look at Jordan's 13 years in Chicago, his advanced stats are better than any 13 year stretch that Lebron had. Jordan in those 13 years had a PER of 29.1, a WS/48 of .274, and a BPM of 10.2. Lebron's best 10 year stretch from 06-14 is the only real run that is as good as Jordan's.

[Stalwart]

I've posted about this many times and I strongly feel that Jordan is the better basketball player.

- he won two more championships
- he has clearly better basic stats
- he has slightly better advanced stats
- he was a more consistent defender
- he was better in in the clutch
- he played on historically greater teams
- he doesn't have a single black mark or underachievement on his resume
- he doesn't have any weaknesses in his game

And thing is none of these points can really be refuted. You can fight for Lebron by pointing at his longevity but what good is longevity when Lebron still won less and at this stage he's unlikely to win three more titles as the best player in the league. Jordan had six full seasons playing alongside another all-star and won six titles. He did more in thirteen full seasons then Lebron in nineteen and counting.

On the points ... I'd argue many can't be proved, are unclear (in balance) or are vague (in scope). (So whilst "refuting" would be an unfeasibly high bar ...)

1) Yes. (But irrelevant in player evaluation unless you are a Ringz tm guy).
2) Unclear. Not sure what this means for a start.
3) Again depends on what is meant. But for example 05-18 LeBron compares neutral (WS/48) or for the most part favorable (PER, BPM) to career MJ on a larger sample then multiple years of high level gravy (unless punishing LeBron for longevity and using raw average).
4) Unclear. Largely unquantied. Claim boundaries somewhat unclear too (over career, peak, prime? any cost to absences or trade off in value of this).
5) Unclear. Unquantified. Claim boundaries uncertain (is this last shot stuff, close games, playoffs, is defense included [how is it measured] ...). Much MJ data missing in all cases.
6) True ... but team level, reliant on health, MJ drafted to what was becoming a much better run team.
7) Slightly unclear. Questionable criteria. I'll grant 2011 finals is very poor series (with the implied, "by player X's standards") but what's the threshold for a black mark ('95 versus Orlando was turnover strewn, '88 versus Detroit was ... fine, the production was mostly there but usage was down, TS% down, turnover economy worse, assist % down, his Reference Ortg at 106 and the team offense stinks - granted vs Detroit ... and I haven't tried to adjust for that here). But in principle differences in sample sizes and lack of clarity in the virtue of isolating a single worst series and (related to the first point) the perverse incentive to get eliminated sooner (is LeBron worse for having been very important in helping Cleveland to '07 finals and being ineffective there).
8) Unclear. Virtue of a balanced net contribution versus an equal net but unbalanced one (a la Russell's defensive dominance) unclear. Remit/scope of question and nature of aspects of game are unclear. Threshold for "weakness" unclear.

Value of several claims uncertain.

Say, one might give Jordan some columns (say defensive consistency ... saying no cost to time out, or assuming "clutch") and it's unclear that it necessarily aggregates to a case for Jordan (I guess if you were certain on all of them the relevance of all of them one might be able to assume it, but) I'd be more interested in the coherent process for player ranking than the list of things one guy has over the other.

1. Of course rings matter. You can't eliminate that from the criteria lol. Rings have always mattered.

2. It means that when you look at their traditional stats such as pts, rebs, asts, stls, and blks Jordan has better stat lines.

3. If you look at Jordan from 84-98 he has higher PER, BPM, and WS/48 than Lebron's 05-18 yrs.

4. Unclear? He was the DPOY and made 9 All Def 1st teams. Lebron wasn't nearly as recognized for his defense as Jordan was. Even at 35 Jordan was a consistent, elite defender. This is not unclear.

5. You need "data" to tell you that Jordan is better in the clutch and more reliable in big games and big moments? Are you that reliant upon metrics when watching and discerning what's happening? Jordan has never melted down in the NBA finals. Lebron did it twice.

6. Lebron has played with much more top talent than Michael Jordan. Much more. Wade, Bosh, Kyrie, Love, AD, and Westbrook. The fact Lebron went franchise hopping and Superteam building cancels out this argument.

7. I'd say Lebron's black marks are 2011 Finals when he repeatedly froze up, 2018 Finals when he had a meltdown going into overtime, and 2010 when he quit on his team. One could also point to 2 finals sweeps, 2 finals gentlemen sweeps, and the greatest margin of defeat in finals history as black marks if one wanted. Also, bringing home 2 bronze medals.

8. Name a weakness of Jordan's game. Betcha can't do it.

You haven't refuted any of these points. All you've done is try and poke holes in these very obvious facts like some lawyer in a courtroom. Are you an objective basketball observer or are you an attorney for Lebron James?

All you've demonstrated here is that in order to make a case for Lebron James you have to ignore championships, ignore accolades, ignore basic stats, ignore advanced stats, ignore his "black marks", ignore the eye test, and act confused about anything you don't have "data" for. Then, and only then, can you make a case for Lebron as the goat.

[sansterre]

3) Again depends on what is meant. But for example 05-18 LeBron compares neutral (WS/48) or for the most part favorable (PER, BPM) to career MJ on a larger sample then multiple years of high level gravy (unless punishing LeBron for longevity and using raw average).

Curious as to why you cherry pick these years for Lebron, and compare them to Jordans entire career, including his Washington years.

If you look at Jordan's 13 years in Chicago, his advanced stats are better than any 13 year stretch that Lebron had. Jordan in those 13 years had a PER of 29.1, a WS/48 of .274, and a BPM of 10.2. Lebron's best 10 year stretch from 06-14 is the only real run that is as good as Jordan's.

They're pretty close 1:1 minutes stretches. If you're choosing between players with equivalent minutes, Jordan's whole career (including Washington) has the same regular season minutes as LeBron's 05-18. LeBron also has an '04, '19, '20 and '21 to add, but these are equivalent in size.

You could argue "Why are you cherry-picking LeBron's best stretch for this post" which is a fair question. Of course, the counter-argument is that ignoring Jordan's Washington years is also "cherry-picking".

If you want to limit the argument to the best six or so seasons, I think Jordan has a good argument. But for many people on this board the totality of their career value is a consideration, so Owly's apples-to-apples in minutes isn't terribly unreasonable.

And yes, these are only individual stats. By team success the GOAT is definitely "90s Bulls" . . . unless it's "10s Warriors" or "60s Celtics" . . .

[sansterre]

2. It means that when you look at their traditional stats such as pts, rebs, asts, stls, and blks Jordan has better stat lines.

Not in rebounds, assists and blocks . . .

5. You need "data" to tell you that Jordan is better in the clutch and more reliable in big games and big moments? Are you that reliant upon metrics when watching and discerning what's happening? Jordan has never melted down in the NBA finals. Lebron did it twice.

Dude, counting the number of times somebody took a clutch shot and then counting the number of times somebody made it isn't "metrics". It's arithmetic.

6. Lebron has played with much more top talent than Michael Jordan. Much more. Wade, Bosh, Kyrie, Love, AD, and Westbrook. The fact Lebron went franchise hopping and Superteam building cancels out this argument.

That Jordan had superteams built for him (instead of trying to build them himself) doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

You haven't refuted any of these points. All you've done is try and poke holes in these very obvious facts like some lawyer in a courtroom. Are you an objective basketball observer or are you an attorney for Lebron James?

They're only "obvious" to you. That some people disagree with you is hardly evidence that they are not being objective.

[Owly]

I've posted about this many times and I strongly feel that Jordan is the better basketball player.

- he won two more championships
- he has clearly better basic stats
- he has slightly better advanced stats
- he was a more consistent defender
- he was better in in the clutch
- he played on historically greater teams
- he doesn't have a single black mark or underachievement on his resume
- he doesn't have any weaknesses in his game

And thing is none of these points can really be refuted. You can fight for Lebron by pointing at his longevity but what good is longevity when Lebron still won less and at this stage he's unlikely to win three more titles as the best player in the league. Jordan had six full seasons playing alongside another all-star and won six titles. He did more in thirteen full seasons then Lebron in nineteen and counting.

On the points ... I'd argue many can't be proved, are unclear (in balance) or are vague (in scope). (So whilst "refuting" would be an unfeasibly high bar ...)

1) Yes. (But irrelevant in player evaluation unless you are a Ringz tm guy).
2) Unclear. Not sure what this means for a start.
3) Again depends on what is meant. But for example 05-18 LeBron compares neutral (WS/48) or for the most part favorable (PER, BPM) to career MJ on a larger sample then multiple years of high level gravy (unless punishing LeBron for longevity and using raw average).
4) Unclear. Largely unquantied. Claim boundaries somewhat unclear too (over career, peak, prime? any cost to absences or trade off in value of this).
5) Unclear. Unquantified. Claim boundaries uncertain (is this last shot stuff, close games, playoffs, is defense included [how is it measured] ...). Much MJ data missing in all cases.
6) True ... but team level, reliant on health, MJ drafted to what was becoming a much better run team.
7) Slightly unclear. Questionable criteria. I'll grant 2011 finals is very poor series (with the implied, "by player X's standards") but what's the threshold for a black mark ('95 versus Orlando was turnover strewn, '88 versus Detroit was ... fine, the production was mostly there but usage was down, TS% down, turnover economy worse, assist % down, his Reference Ortg at 106 and the team offense stinks - granted vs Detroit ... and I haven't tried to adjust for that here). But in principle differences in sample sizes and lack of clarity in the virtue of isolating a single worst series and (related to the first point) the perverse incentive to get eliminated sooner (is LeBron worse for having been very important in helping Cleveland to '07 finals and being ineffective there).
8) Unclear. Virtue of a balanced net contribution versus an equal net but unbalanced one (a la Russell's defensive dominance) unclear. Remit/scope of question and nature of aspects of game are unclear. Threshold for "weakness" unclear.

Value of several claims uncertain.

Say, one might give Jordan some columns (say defensive consistency ... saying no cost to time out, or assuming "clutch") and it's unclear that it necessarily aggregates to a case for Jordan (I guess if you were certain on all of them the relevance of all of them one might be able to assume it, but) I'd be more interested in the coherent process for player ranking than the list of things one guy has over the other.

1. Of course rings matter. You can't eliminate that from the criteria lol. Rings have always mattered.

2. It means that when you look at their traditional stats such as pts, rebs, asts, stls, and blks Jordan has better stat lines.

3. If you look at Jordan from 84-98 he has higher PER, BPM, and WS/48 than Lebron's 05-18 yrs.

4. Unclear? He was the DPOY and made 9 All Def 1st teams. Lebron wasn't nearly as recognized for his defense as Jordan was. Even at 35 Jordan was a consistent, elite defender. This is not unclear.

5. You need "data" to tell you that Jordan is better in the clutch and more reliable in big games and big moments? Are you that reliant upon metrics when watching and discerning what's happening? Jordan has never melted down in the NBA finals. Lebron did it twice.

6. Lebron has played with much more top talent than Michael Jordan. Much more. Wade, Bosh, Kyrie, Love, AD, and Westbrook. The fact Lebron went franchise hopping and Superteam building cancels out this argument.

7. I'd say Lebron's black marks are 2011 Finals when he repeatedly froze up, 2018 Finals when he had a meltdown going into overtime, and 2010 when he quit on his team. One could also point to 2 finals sweeps, 2 finals gentlemen sweeps, and the greatest margin of defeat in finals history as black marks if one wanted. Also, bringing home 2 bronze medals.

8. Name a weakness of Jordan's game. Betcha can't do it.

You haven't refuted any of these points. All you've done is try and poke holes in these very obvious facts like some lawyer in a courtroom. Are you an objective basketball observer or are you an attorney for Lebron James?

All you've demonstrated here is that in order to make a case for Lebron James you have to ignore championships, ignore accolades, ignore basic stats, ignore advanced stats, ignore his "black marks", ignore the eye test, and act confused about anything you don't have "data" for. Then, and only then, can you make a case for Lebron as the goat.

I'd rather hear from the poster making the points.

But at a glance.
Rings matter to teams and to players. That wasn't denied. They are worse and indirect proxies for individual level of play than stuff we have. Traditional stats aren't pace adjusted (assuming you mean per game here) and seemingly clearly place Wilt as the greatest (though it's unclear how you are aggregating them). They are an awful tool. Accolades aren't a direct measure of play. On "you need "data" to tell you that Jordan is better in the clutch ..." of course. That you sneer at objectively measuring things rather than believing in an apparently unbiased and infallible memory (and are confident your own happens to be best at this) tells me this particular conversation is fruitless and should go no further. That you think this was an attempt to "refute" anything suggests you didn't read the post in the first place.

[Owly]

3) Again depends on what is meant. But for example 05-18 LeBron compares neutral (WS/48) or for the most part favorable (PER, BPM) to career MJ on a larger sample then multiple years of high level gravy (unless punishing LeBron for longevity and using raw average).

Curious as to why you cherry pick these years for Lebron, and compare them to Jordans entire career, including his Washington years.

If you look at Jordan's 13 years in Chicago, his advanced stats are better than any 13 year stretch that Lebron had. Jordan in those 13 years had a PER of 29.1, a WS/48 of .274, and a BPM of 10.2. Lebron's best 10 year stretch from 06-14 is the only real run that is as good as Jordan's.

If you cared to read the post it isn't curious at all.

It provides a "larger sample" than Jordan's entire career. So "unless punishing LeBron for longevity" then it's sufficient and the rest is "multiple years of high level gravy".

I am fine with wiping the Wizards years, if that is preferred.

Those aren't 13 consecutive years fwiw ('94), nor fwiw, is the value of consecutiveness clear. It also values '86 and '95 (two non-peak adjacent seasons) as full regular seasons (which they are not remotely close to, they aren't close to being a single full RS cumulatively).

Bulls MJ is 35887 RS minutes.
06, 08-18 (pro-rating '12 lockout to equivalent full season minutes) is 35161.87879. Behind Bull's Jordan but the closest match. For that span LeBron is marginally behind MJ.
approximates based on multiplying Reference yearly numbers by minutes then summing and dividing by total minutes ... rounding will cause some error
29.03465383 PER, 0.259066785 WS/48, 9.784499311 BPM.

So a very narrow disadvantage like-for-like (some might argue for functionally a tie, but he is behind in each category) but then after LeBron makes up his 700 minutes he's got 16000+ minutes and counting of additional value (including a year of arguably best player on a champ for those into that sort of thing) versus that Wizards career you wanted to ignore. To me, it is plausible that those additional minutes of high level play more than make up those deficits.

[Stalwart]

On the points ... I'd argue many can't be proved, are unclear (in balance) or are vague (in scope). (So whilst "refuting" would be an unfeasibly high bar ...)

1) Yes. (But irrelevant in player evaluation unless you are a Ringz tm guy).
2) Unclear. Not sure what this means for a start.
3) Again depends on what is meant. But for example 05-18 LeBron compares neutral (WS/48) or for the most part favorable (PER, BPM) to career MJ on a larger sample then multiple years of high level gravy (unless punishing LeBron for longevity and using raw average).
4) Unclear. Largely unquantied. Claim boundaries somewhat unclear too (over career, peak, prime? any cost to absences or trade off in value of this).
5) Unclear. Unquantified. Claim boundaries uncertain (is this last shot stuff, close games, playoffs, is defense included [how is it measured] ...). Much MJ data missing in all cases.
6) True ... but team level, reliant on health, MJ drafted to what was becoming a much better run team.
7) Slightly unclear. Questionable criteria. I'll grant 2011 finals is very poor series (with the implied, "by player X's standards") but what's the threshold for a black mark ('95 versus Orlando was turnover strewn, '88 versus Detroit was ... fine, the production was mostly there but usage was down, TS% down, turnover economy worse, assist % down, his Reference Ortg at 106 and the team offense stinks - granted vs Detroit ... and I haven't tried to adjust for that here). But in principle differences in sample sizes and lack of clarity in the virtue of isolating a single worst series and (related to the first point) the perverse incentive to get eliminated sooner (is LeBron worse for having been very important in helping Cleveland to '07 finals and being ineffective there).
8) Unclear. Virtue of a balanced net contribution versus an equal net but unbalanced one (a la Russell's defensive dominance) unclear. Remit/scope of question and nature of aspects of game are unclear. Threshold for "weakness" unclear.

Value of several claims uncertain.

Say, one might give Jordan some columns (say defensive consistency ... saying no cost to time out, or assuming "clutch") and it's unclear that it necessarily aggregates to a case for Jordan (I guess if you were certain on all of them the relevance of all of them one might be able to assume it, but) I'd be more interested in the coherent process for player ranking than the list of things one guy has over the other.

1. Of course rings matter. You can't eliminate that from the criteria lol. Rings have always mattered.

2. It means that when you look at their traditional stats such as pts, rebs, asts, stls, and blks Jordan has better stat lines.

3. If you look at Jordan from 84-98 he has higher PER, BPM, and WS/48 than Lebron's 05-18 yrs.

4. Unclear? He was the DPOY and made 9 All Def 1st teams. Lebron wasn't nearly as recognized for his defense as Jordan was. Even at 35 Jordan was a consistent, elite defender. This is not unclear.

5. You need "data" to tell you that Jordan is better in the clutch and more reliable in big games and big moments? Are you that reliant upon metrics when watching and discerning what's happening? Jordan has never melted down in the NBA finals. Lebron did it twice.

6. Lebron has played with much more top talent than Michael Jordan. Much more. Wade, Bosh, Kyrie, Love, AD, and Westbrook. The fact Lebron went franchise hopping and Superteam building cancels out this argument.

7. I'd say Lebron's black marks are 2011 Finals when he repeatedly froze up, 2018 Finals when he had a meltdown going into overtime, and 2010 when he quit on his team. One could also point to 2 finals sweeps, 2 finals gentlemen sweeps, and the greatest margin of defeat in finals history as black marks if one wanted. Also, bringing home 2 bronze medals.

8. Name a weakness of Jordan's game. Betcha can't do it.

You haven't refuted any of these points. All you've done is try and poke holes in these very obvious facts like some lawyer in a courtroom. Are you an objective basketball observer or are you an attorney for Lebron James?

All you've demonstrated here is that in order to make a case for Lebron James you have to ignore championships, ignore accolades, ignore basic stats, ignore advanced stats, ignore his "black marks", ignore the eye test, and act confused about anything you don't have "data" for. Then, and only then, can you make a case for Lebron as the goat.

I'd rather hear from the poster making the points.

But at a glance.
Rings matter to teams and to players. That wasn't denied. They are worse and indirect proxies for individual level of play than stuff we have. Traditional stats aren't pace adjusted (assuming you mean per game here) and seemingly clearly place Wilt as the greatest (though it's unclear how you are aggregating them). They are an awful tool. Accolades aren't a direct measure of play. On "you need "data" to tell you that Jordan is better in the clutch ..." of course. That you sneer at objectively measuring things rather than believing in an apparently unbiased and infallible memory (and are confident your own happens to be best at this) tells me this particular conversation is fruitless and should go no further. That you think this was an attempt to "refute" anything suggests you didn't read the post in the first place.

I clearly refuted every point you made with sound arguments. Instead of dealing with those arguments you would rather posture from your imaginary high horse and pretend that you're too good or too sophisticated to respond. Not impressed.

All time rankings have never been based on one overriding criteria but rather a balanced view of several criteria. So no Wilt Chamberlain doesn't have a strong case for GOAT despite his statistical dominance.

[pipfan]

Top 2 of all time for me, KAJ is the other in the GOAT tier
I think both have a clear argument for the top, but I have watched both of them closely in their careers and I just think MJ was "better". I know we don't trust the "eye test" but I would trust MJ over LBJ in a big game, for a big shot, to win a title.

Of course, this is not to "hate" on LBJ-the guy is an incredible player in every way-I would just prefer MJ, if I had a choice.

[Djoker]

2) Jordan has better basic stats. His massive 5 ppg edge and fewer turnovers beat Lebron's slight edge in assists and a bigger edge in defensive rebounds. 33/6/6 > 28/9/7.

3) Jordan has better advanced stats for their careers including PER, WS/48 and BPM. Not by a lot but still better.

4) DPOY + more top 5 finishes + 9 All-D 1st Teams vs no DPOY + fewer top 5 finishes + 5 All-D 1st Teams. We also know Lebron had several terrible defensive series including the 2014, 2017 and 2018 Finals off the top of my head.

5) How about we use the official definition of crunch time? It gives a large sample size too than just game-winning shots. I can agree it's ludicrous to judge players on 15-20 shots they made over their entire career to decide anything.

Crunch time is defined by NBA.com as the last 5 minutes of a close game where the score difference is within 5 points.

Here are the playoff numbers. I posted both the official Jordan stats (from NBA.com and only 97 and 98 playoffs) as well as the unofficial stats (compiled by PHILA for his entire playoff career). Needless to say even 97 and 98 Jordan was markedly superior in the clutch to Lebron.

Totals:
Lebron: 467 points, 118 rebounds, 87 assists, 20 steals, 20 blocks on 138/339 FG 36/102 3P 155/205 FT with 51 turnovers in 527 minutes
Jordan: 130 points, 16 rebounds, 12 assists, 6 steals, 4 blocks on 42/89 FG 2/10 3P 45/57 FT with 11 turnovers in 108 minutes (97 and 98 only)
Jordan: 519 points, 66 rebounds, 41 assists, 33 steals, 12 blocks on 166/319 FG 6/24 3P 181/218 FT with 28 turnovers in 408 minutes

Per 48:
Lebron: 42.5 pts, 10.7 reb, 7.9 ass, 1.8 stl, 1.8 blk on 40.7 %FG/35.3 %3P/76.0 %FT with 4.6 tov; 54.5 %TS
Jordan: 57.8 pts, 7.1 reb, 5.3 ass, 2.7 stl, 1.8 blk on 47.2 %FG/20.0 %3P/78.9 %FT with 4.9 tov; 57.0 %TS (97 and 98 only)
Jordan: 61.1 pts, 7.8 reb, 4.8 ass, 3.9 stl, 1.4 blk on 52.0 %FG/25.0 %3P/83.0 %FT with 3.3 tov; 62.5 %TS

We don't have Jordan's Per 48 numbers just in the Finals but we have Lebron's and they are pretty bad.

Lebron: 36.4 pts, 11.6 reb, 5.6 ass, 1.7 stl, 1.3 blk on 30.7 %FG/25.9 %3P/88.9 %FT with 3.9 tov; 46.8 %TS

7) Lebron's 2006 ECSF, 2007 Finals, 2008 ECSF, 2010 ECSF, 2011 Finals and 2021 R1 would be the worst series of Jordan's career. Lebron's 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2015 and 2021 postseasons would be the worst postseasons of Jordan's career. Lebron lost three series as the favorite and Jordan never did. Lebron lost numerous times with very talented teams and Jordan never lost when he had one (healthy) all-star alongside him. Yes there are circumstances. Yes Lebron lost two finals to superteams in 2017 and 2018 that he gets a pass for and 2015 due to injury but he also lost three other finals. Either his final appearances mean much less because he played in weak conferences or he should have won more than four titles. You can't go two ways about it.

8) Lebron has way more glaring weaknesses in his game, the most notable being his lack of outside shooting. For his career, Lebron is below league average in midrange shooting, below average free throw shooting and yes even below average in three point shooting even though he's improved it. Lebron also has a relatively weak off-ball game.

[migya]

2. It means that when you look at their traditional stats such as pts, rebs, asts, stls, and blks Jordan has better stat lines.

Not in rebounds, assists and blocks . . .

5. You need "data" to tell you that Jordan is better in the clutch and more reliable in big games and big moments? Are you that reliant upon metrics when watching and discerning what's happening? Jordan has never melted down in the NBA finals. Lebron did it twice.

Dude, counting the number of times somebody took a clutch shot and then counting the number of times somebody made it isn't "metrics". It's arithmetic.

6. Lebron has played with much more top talent than Michael Jordan. Much more. Wade, Bosh, Kyrie, Love, AD, and Westbrook. The fact Lebron went franchise hopping and Superteam building cancels out this argument.

That Jordan had superteams built for him (instead of trying to build them himself) doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

You haven't refuted any of these points. All you've done is try and poke holes in these very obvious facts like some lawyer in a courtroom. Are you an objective basketball observer or are you an attorney for Lebron James?

They're only "obvious" to you. That some people disagree with you is hardly evidence that they are not being objective.

2. As it shows in one of the videos I posted in the OP, Lebron averages more rebounds but he should because his position at SF corresponds to "should be getting more rebounds". It's like Malone should and did get more rebounds than Pippen. Lebron gets more assists, as he is the primary playmaker on all his teams, while it was mostly Pippen for the 90s Bulls, and the difference is only 2 assists. Lebron is 3 inches taller and about 50 pounds heavier than Jordan so getting 1.2 more rebounds isn't more when factoring position. Blocks are Jordan by 0.1, so the same, and factoring height and position, it goes to Jordan. Steals is Jordan by a mile, as is overall defense in truth. Points is Jordan by a fair distance as well. FG% is the same when not counting Jordan's Wizards seasons at age 39 and 40 after three years off and as stated in one of the OP videos, Lebron scored many of his points near the basket and was rather inefficient from most other areas. 3pt% is Lebron by 10%, which is very minimal, but factor in that there point shooting is a big part of the game now and compared to league average in both era, they are both about the same, both being very slightly above the average. FT% is Jordan by a mile.

Basic stats is Jordan.

6. Jordan never played on superteams, Lebron did. A superteams is one with multiple superstars or at least one or two superstars and one or two other allstars. Miami had three superstars, Cleveland had three or two and Love an allstar. 2015 and 2016 Warriors had developing superstar Curry without the current large numbers in 2015 and allstar Klay and 2016 allstar Draymond, not a superteam.

Rodman was a great rebounder and post defender in 96-98, but he was in his mid thirties and at the end of his career. The 94 Spurs didn't win more that season than they had in previous seasons, factoring injuries, which accounts for slight differences. Horace was only allstar once and that was 94 when Jordan wasn't there and he wasn't allstar material really.

The"decision " by Lebron to go to Miami was pathetic and was rightfully viewed that way and it was similar when he returned to Cleveland after they had gotten three 1st picks in a few years and loaded up.

[twyzted]

I've posted about this many times and I strongly feel that Jordan is the better basketball player.

- he won two more championships
- he has clearly better basic stats
- he has slightly better advanced stats
- he was a more consistent defender
- he was better in in the clutch
- he played on historically greater teams
- he doesn't have a single black mark or underachievement on his resume
- he doesn't have any weaknesses in his game

And thing is none of these points can really be refuted. You can fight for Lebron by pointing at his longevity but what good is longevity when Lebron still won less and at this stage he's unlikely to win three more titles as the best player in the league. Jordan had six full seasons playing alongside another all-star and won six titles. He did more in thirteen full seasons then Lebron in nineteen and counting.

I don't know what basic stats are, if you mean better boxscore stats then no, MJ does not. He has more points, that's not the same thing.

Jordan wasn't better in the clutch, and it has been refuted...with tangible evidence many times. It's also not relevant.

Longevity still matters - "yeah but he won less anyway" - thats...not what longevity means, and they were on different teams in different eras. Not sure why you think winning more rings must mean that that player is better - so what are you saying exactly, MJ is exactly "two rings better" than Lebron James? It really doesn't make sense. If James had 7 rings he would be better than Jordan?

Jordan does have blackmarks, the media just brushed it off as there is more money to be made for him being successful than not. The 95 Bulls was not a good look. The 96 Bulls won in impressive fashion and it simply wiped that way, and is simply brushed off as "well, he came back from baseball so it doesn't count". He also has character issues that would be sensationalized as a negative if he played in today's media spectrum.

Jordan doesn't have a weakness to his game...? I don't know what you mean by weakness, but Lebron James is more well rounded than Jordan, so James doesn't have a weakness to his game either.

Michael Jordan played with more than one all-star, and the all-star that you're talking about is Scottie Pippen. Again, you're ring counting but somehow ignoring that they played in different eras and on different teams. Scottie Pippen as your 2nd option in the 90s is different than Irving as your 2nd guy in 2017. Kemp as a 2nd option is different than Curry, Magic, Dr.J, Chamberlain, Bryant, Robinson, Frazier, as 2nd options.

Much less the quality of 3rd guys in the 90s was even lower relative to other eras, totally different environment in terms of team building - the Bulls were not short on talent.

Lebrons clutch stats
2mins left - 3pt diffrence
35/98 36%
8/29 27%
44/62 71%

Jordan wasn't better in the clutch, and it has been refuted...with tangible evidence many times. It's also not relevant.

Give me this tangible evidence?

Pippen was the only teammate who was an all star while playing with Jordan...

Yes 21ppg 11rpg, 2spg and 2bpg is a horrible 2nd star.

90/91
Magic 21 ppg 8 rpg 13 apg 43% 29% 95%
Worthy 21 ppg 4 rpg 4 apg 48% 17% 67%
Perkins 18 ppg 8 rpg 41% 39% 76
Scott 13
Divac 13 ppg 7 rpg
Vs
Pippen 21 ppg 9 rpg 7 apg 2 spg 1 bpg
Grant 15 ppg 8 rpg 2 apg 2 spg 1bpg
Paxson 13 ppg 2 rpg 3 apg 1 spg 0 bpg

91/92
Drexler 26 ppg 7 rpg 7 apg
Porter 21 ppg 5 rpg 7 apg
Kersey 16 ppg 8 rpg 4 apg
Duckworth 12 ppg 6 rpg
Ainge, cliff robinson, buck williams 10 ppg
Vs
Pippen 20 ppg 8 apg 8 rpg 2 spg 1 bpg
Grant 9 ppg 8 rpg 4 apg 1 spg 2 bpg
Paxson 10 ppg 1 rpg 3 apg 1 spg

92/93
Barkley 27 ppg 14 rpg 4 apg 2 spg 1 bpg
Kevin johnson 18 ppg 3 rpg 8 apg
Majerle 15 ppg 6 rpg 4 apg 1 spg 1 bpg
Richard dumas 11 ppg

Vs
Pippen 21 ppg 9 rpg 8 apg 2 spg 1 bpg
Bj 14 ppg 2 rpg 5 apg 1 spg
Grant 11 ppg 10 rpg 2 apg 2 spg 2 bpg
Last 2 games grant scored 2 point combined with 7 rpg

95/96
Kemp 21 ppg 10 rpg 2 apg 1 spg 2 bpg
Payton 21 ppg 5 rpg 7 apg 2 spg
Schrempf 16 ppg 5 rpg 3 apg
Perkins 12 ppg 4 rpg 2 apg
Hawkins 12 ppg 3 rpg 3 apg
Vs
Pippen 16 ppg 7 rpg 5 apg 2 spg 1 bpg
Kukoc 13 ppg 5 rpg 4 apg 1 spg
Longley 12 ppg 4 rpg 2 apg 2 bpg
Rodman 8 ppg 15 rpg 3 apg

96/97
Malone 26 ppg 11 rpg 3 apg 1 spg&bpg
Stockton 16 ppg 4 rpg 10 apg 2 spg
Hornacek 14 ppg 4 rpg 4 apg
Russell 12 ppg 5 rpg
Vs
Pippen 20 ppg 8 rpg 4 apg 2 spg 2 bpg
Kukoc 8 ppg 3 rpg 3 apg
Bison dele 7 ppg
Rodman 2 ppg 8 rpg

97/98
Malone 26 ppg 11 rpg
Stockton 11 ppg 8 apg
Hornacek and russel 11 ppg
Vs
Pippen 16 ppg 7 rpg 5 apg 2 spg 1 bpg
Kukoc 15 ppg 5 rpg 3 apg
Rodman 3 ppg 8 rpg
Harper 5 ppg
Kerr 4 ppg

Bulls stacked vs those scrub teams

[twyzted]

Jordans clutch stats for 90-92


Lebron between 09-13


Jordan Shot chart 135 game sample spaning 90-92
1989-90: 35 games
1990-91: 44 games
1991-92: 47 games

At Rim: 629/847 FG (74.3%)
In Paint (Overall): 786/1333 FG (59.0%)
Midrange: 793/1552 FG (51.1%)
3 Point: 93/243 FG (38.3%)


Synergy Offense

Spoiler:

PPP stands for Points Per Play. I did not record the number of possessions, but rather the number of offensive plays that Jordan was involved in, meaning he either attempted a FG and/or FT, or turned the ball over (on drives to the hoop). I did not record any FTA he had as a result of intentional fouls or penalty fouls where he was not aggressively attacking or attempting to make an offensive play. No technical FT's are on the chart either. Every play category aside from Transition is in a half court set, and transition also includes jump shots, though this was very rare. The Other category primarily consists of desperate attempts to beat the clock, including the full court buzzer beaters.

There are several sub-categories out of Isolation. Jordan tended to be quick and decisive, very seldom holding onto the ball longer than 3-4 seconds like the wing players do in this era. Another category is Drive To Basket, which measures his effectiveness driving to the hoop strictly in the half court. Every other category is basically a jumper, though if there is a pick in the two man game that enables him to get an advantage over the defense, then it is recorded as under the P&R Ball Handler category. This includes jump shots as well as drives to the hoop.



Overall Chart



Isolation Plays Only




Shot Attempts Blocked (Offense): 67

*This means 2.1% of his shots (3128 FGA) were blocked in this footage

all credit goes to dipper13

[sansterre]

2) Jordan has better basic stats. His massive 5 ppg edge and fewer turnovers beat Lebron's slight edge in assists and a bigger edge in defensive rebounds. 33/6/6 > 28/9/7.

So Jordan scored 17% more points per game (on lower efficiency), while LeBron averaged 41% more rebounds and 26% more assists? That doesn't sound crazy-lopsided. If all you really mean to say is that PPG > all then I'd definitely agree that Jordan was the better volume scorer.

8) Lebron has way more glaring weaknesses in his game, the most notable being his lack of outside shooting. For his career, Lebron is below league average in midrange shooting, below average free throw shooting and yes even below average in three point shooting even though he's improved it. Lebron also has a relatively weak off-ball game.

Counterpoint:

LeBron: 4.4 3PA/G, 34.5% made
Jordan: 1.7 3PA/G, 32.7% made

And Jordan played some of his career with a shorter three point line.

I'll happily concede that Jordan was a better midrange shooter (since he was one of the best volume midrange shooters ever, if not the best), but it's pretty obvious that LeBron was the better three point shooter and therefor (by some definitions) a better "outside shooter".