LeBron James' 4-6 Record is Equally As Impressive as Jordan's 6-0

[DQuinn1575]

Okay.

If you believe that in '96 the Sonics were more "talented" than the Bulls and in '92 the Blazers were more "talented" than the Bulls then I have some deep questions about what the heck "talented" means and why it matters at all. I mean . . . Michael Jordan was pretty "talented" . . . right?

Jordan was not a team. Lebron is"talented" and yet some here have said the Heat and Cavs weren't the most talented.

92 Blazers, as I said; Peter much better than Paxson, more than Jordan was better than Drexler, Kersey want much less than Pippen, I think Buck was better than Horace and Duckworth was better than Cartwright. Blazers bench was also better, pretty easy to see. They just didn't step up, though they had game 6.

96 it takes deep insight. Payton was underrated and it was seen in the playoffs how good he was. Harper was just a defender at that point, Hersey Hawkins provided much more thigh he was only a third or fourth option. Schrempf wasn't as good as Pippen but his shooting in particular was very good. Kemp was better than Rodman and rose in the finals in such a way that he lifted his level on the biggest stage against a very good, yet dirty, defender in Rodman. Perkins was better than Longley. McMillan and couple of others on the bench were more talented as well.

Those Bulls were well coached, disciplined, focused and more committed than every other team. It wasn't talent that they won by as much as organisation, role and desire.

Okay so, to be clear, everybody Jordan played with just wasn't that great, and everybody Jordan played against was a team of unstoppable monsters. And Jordan's teams only won because of Jordan and the teamwork of some plucky underdogs?

Is it possible that you are simply repeating the plot of Space Jam?

To be fair, the 92 Trail Blazers had 6 of their Top 7 were one-time all-stars, and Kersey, the 7th was still better than at least 2 of the Bulls starters. So I think saying that 92 Portland had more talent than the Bulls is a reasonable position.

Every team Jordan faced in the Finals was at least a 57-win team, he faced 1 or 2 Top player in each of them. So you can probably argue almost any of them as being more or less talented than the Bulls roster

[sansterre]

Jordan was not a team. Lebron is"talented" and yet some here have said the Heat and Cavs weren't the most talented.

92 Blazers, as I said; Peter much better than Paxson, more than Jordan was better than Drexler, Kersey want much less than Pippen, I think Buck was better than Horace and Duckworth was better than Cartwright. Blazers bench was also better, pretty easy to see. They just didn't step up, though they had game 6.

96 it takes deep insight. Payton was underrated and it was seen in the playoffs how good he was. Harper was just a defender at that point, Hersey Hawkins provided much more thigh he was only a third or fourth option. Schrempf wasn't as good as Pippen but his shooting in particular was very good. Kemp was better than Rodman and rose in the finals in such a way that he lifted his level on the biggest stage against a very good, yet dirty, defender in Rodman. Perkins was better than Longley. McMillan and couple of others on the bench were more talented as well.

Those Bulls were well coached, disciplined, focused and more committed than every other team. It wasn't talent that they won by as much as organisation, role and desire.

Okay so, to be clear, everybody Jordan played with just wasn't that great, and everybody Jordan played against was a team of unstoppable monsters. And Jordan's teams only won because of Jordan and the teamwork of some plucky underdogs?

Is it possible that you are simply repeating the plot of Space Jam?

To be fair, the 92 Trail Blazers had 6 of their Top 7 were one-time all-stars, and Kersey, the 7th was still better than at least 2 of the Bulls starters. So I think saying that 92 Portland had more talent than the Bulls is a reasonable position.

Every team Jordan faced in the Finals was at least a 57-win team, he faced 1 or 2 Top player in each of them. So you can probably argue almost any of them as being more or less talented than the Bulls roster

... when you guys say "Talented" do you just mean "Deep"?

I mean, the Bulls won 10 more games that year, had an SRS three points higher and the repeat MVP. It's pretty obvious that the Bulls were the better team. By a lot.

So I still don't understand where this whole "Talent" thing is coming from, when it obviously doesn't track to actual team quality very well. Trying to spin the '92 Finals like the Bulls were the secret underdog is just deeply weird to me.

[DQuinn1575]

Okay so, to be clear, everybody Jordan played with just wasn't that great, and everybody Jordan played against was a team of unstoppable monsters. And Jordan's teams only won because of Jordan and the teamwork of some plucky underdogs?

Is it possible that you are simply repeating the plot of Space Jam?

To be fair, the 92 Trail Blazers had 6 of their Top 7 were one-time all-stars, and Kersey, the 7th was still better than at least 2 of the Bulls starters. So I think saying that 92 Portland had more talent than the Bulls is a reasonable position.

Every team Jordan faced in the Finals was at least a 57-win team, he faced 1 or 2 Top player in each of them. So you can probably argue almost any of them as being more or less talented than the Bulls roster

... when you guys say "Talented" do you just mean "Deep"?

I mean, the Bulls won 10 more games that year, had an SRS three points higher and the repeat MVP. It's pretty obvious that the Bulls were the better team. By a lot.

So I still don't understand where this whole "Talent" thing is coming from, when it obviously doesn't track to actual team quality very well. Trying to spin the '92 Finals like the Bulls were the secret underdog is just deeply weird to me.

No, the Bulls were clearly favored in the 92 Finals; there is no argument for that. Hopefully no one is doing that.
And obviously Talent tracks at least somewhat to Quality; there is a correlation between Talent and Quality, it's not 1.00 but it's also not zero. In general the more talented teams win more than a less talented one.
It's a lot of the conversation around the greatest players - for most it started with Russell and Wilt - did Russell win because he had more talented teammates? Or did Russell's play optimize the talent of his teammates that Wilt didn't.
And insert Magic, LeBron, Kareem into the argument - did they have a talented team that failed (Kareem in late 70s) or did they do a marvelous job leading their team - LeBron 2009, Magic ?

And how do I measure talent? Gosh, after many many years I still don't really know. I have some real rough ideas, but nothing good enough to argue.

The Bulls were real top heavy with talent - Jordan, Pippen were very talented, and fit well together. But sometimes it seems like people assume the Bulls were just loaded. But the Bulls started guys like Cartwright, Paxson, an old Ron Harper, Luc Longley, etc., so even the 4th and 5th starters were probably below average.

[magicman1978]

Team A has 4 top 10 picks in their prime and 2 other guys in the top 20 picks.

Team B has 1 top 10 pick (out of his prime), a 14th pick, a 24th pick, and the rest were second rounders.

So if we're talking purely talent (which is generally what players are draft based on) - Is there any way you can say Team B is more talented?

Now if you want to talk about who the better players were, we can use some general advanced metrics:

Team A has players with BPM of 9.7, 6.1, 5.3, -0.1, -0.6, -0.6, -0.9

Team B has players with BPM of 8.7, 3.7, 1.9, 1.7, 1.2, -0.2, -0.8

So it looks like Team B has players on the lower end that performed better, but as we all know, what's more important in the playoffs is how your best players perform. There's not enough difference between Team B supporting players and Team A supporting players to make up for the different in the top 3 players.

[Colbinii]

Okay so, to be clear, everybody Jordan played with just wasn't that great, and everybody Jordan played against was a team of unstoppable monsters. And Jordan's teams only won because of Jordan and the teamwork of some plucky underdogs?

Is it possible that you are simply repeating the plot of Space Jam?

To be fair, the 92 Trail Blazers had 6 of their Top 7 were one-time all-stars, and Kersey, the 7th was still better than at least 2 of the Bulls starters. So I think saying that 92 Portland had more talent than the Bulls is a reasonable position.

Every team Jordan faced in the Finals was at least a 57-win team, he faced 1 or 2 Top player in each of them. So you can probably argue almost any of them as being more or less talented than the Bulls roster

... when you guys say "Talented" do you just mean "Deep"?

I mean, the Bulls won 10 more games that year, had an SRS three points higher and the repeat MVP. It's pretty obvious that the Bulls were the better team. By a lot.

So I still don't understand where this whole "Talent" thing is coming from, when it obviously doesn't track to actual team quality very well. Trying to spin the '92 Finals like the Bulls were the secret underdog is just deeply weird to me.

Let's use the weird logic being used in this thread Santese to make a point.

The 1992 pre-season odds had Bulls at +250 and Blazers at +400.

The 1996 pre-season odds had Bulls at +350 and Sonics at +800.

Betting favorites in the finals. Interesting that they were betting favorites more frequently in the preseason (6 times coming into this year). Almost like they under performed.

At least we can count on this guy who is Pro-Jordan and Anti-LeBron to have our side of this argument--assuming he is being objective.

For the record, having multiple guys who are between 30-60 best players in the league does not make a team more talented than a team led by Jordan/Pippen/Grant.

[migya]

To be fair, the 92 Trail Blazers had 6 of their Top 7 were one-time all-stars, and Kersey, the 7th was still better than at least 2 of the Bulls starters. So I think saying that 92 Portland had more talent than the Bulls is a reasonable position.

Every team Jordan faced in the Finals was at least a 57-win team, he faced 1 or 2 Top player in each of them. So you can probably argue almost any of them as being more or less talented than the Bulls roster

... when you guys say "Talented" do you just mean "Deep"?

I mean, the Bulls won 10 more games that year, had an SRS three points higher and the repeat MVP. It's pretty obvious that the Bulls were the better team. By a lot.

So I still don't understand where this whole "Talent" thing is coming from, when it obviously doesn't track to actual team quality very well. Trying to spin the '92 Finals like the Bulls were the secret underdog is just deeply weird to me.

Let's use the weird logic being used in this thread Santese to make a point.

The 1992 pre-season odds had Bulls at +250 and Blazers at +400.

The 1996 pre-season odds had Bulls at +350 and Sonics at +800.

Betting favorites in the finals. Interesting that they were betting favorites more frequently in the preseason (6 times coming into this year). Almost like they under performed.

At least we can count on this guy who is Pro-Jordan and Anti-LeBron to have our side of this argument--assuming he is being objective.

For the record, having multiple guys who are between 30-60 best players in the league does not make a team more talented than a team led by Jordan/Pippen/Grant.

So the 2014 Spurs were not more talented than the Lebron/Wade/Bosh Heat.

The objective reasoning is imaginative to some so called objective types.

[Colbinii]

... when you guys say "Talented" do you just mean "Deep"?

I mean, the Bulls won 10 more games that year, had an SRS three points higher and the repeat MVP. It's pretty obvious that the Bulls were the better team. By a lot.

So I still don't understand where this whole "Talent" thing is coming from, when it obviously doesn't track to actual team quality very well. Trying to spin the '92 Finals like the Bulls were the secret underdog is just deeply weird to me.

Let's use the weird logic being used in this thread Santese to make a point.

The 1992 pre-season odds had Bulls at +250 and Blazers at +400.

The 1996 pre-season odds had Bulls at +350 and Sonics at +800.

Betting favorites in the finals. Interesting that they were betting favorites more frequently in the preseason (6 times coming into this year). Almost like they under performed.

At least we can count on this guy who is Pro-Jordan and Anti-LeBron to have our side of this argument--assuming he is being objective.

For the record, having multiple guys who are between 30-60 best players in the league does not make a team more talented than a team led by Jordan/Pippen/Grant.

So the 2014 Spurs were not more talented than the Lebron/Wade/Bosh Heat.

The objective reasoning is imaginative to some so called objective types.

I'm only talking about the 1992 Blazers and 1996 Sonics in relation to the Bulls right now.

I never said the 2014 Spurs were more talented--but the point remains, what exactly does "more talented" mean? Is talented a word that should be synonymous with winning, impact or championship odds?

People seem to throw around these "Buzz Words" with little--actually no analysis of the sort. I think everyone in this thread can do a better job of engaging in a way that includes FACTS [statistics] rather than using the completely subjective term "talented" when attempting to analyze a complex model of player analysis.

I also understand that not all of us come from a background founded on mathematics or statistics and thus can not comprehend arguments built on these grounds nor could formulate ones own opinions birthed from statistical analysis.

[magicman1978]

... when you guys say "Talented" do you just mean "Deep"?

I mean, the Bulls won 10 more games that year, had an SRS three points higher and the repeat MVP. It's pretty obvious that the Bulls were the better team. By a lot.

So I still don't understand where this whole "Talent" thing is coming from, when it obviously doesn't track to actual team quality very well. Trying to spin the '92 Finals like the Bulls were the secret underdog is just deeply weird to me.

Let's use the weird logic being used in this thread Santese to make a point.

The 1992 pre-season odds had Bulls at +250 and Blazers at +400.

The 1996 pre-season odds had Bulls at +350 and Sonics at +800.

Betting favorites in the finals. Interesting that they were betting favorites more frequently in the preseason (6 times coming into this year). Almost like they under performed.

At least we can count on this guy who is Pro-Jordan and Anti-LeBron to have our side of this argument--assuming he is being objective.

For the record, having multiple guys who are between 30-60 best players in the league does not make a team more talented than a team led by Jordan/Pippen/Grant.

So the 2014 Spurs were not more talented than the Lebron/Wade/Bosh Heat.

The objective reasoning is imaginative to some so called objective types.

They were not more talented, but they were a healthier and deeper team. Look at the BPM for the players that year:

Spurs - 5.1, 4.0, 4.0, 3.3, 3.2, 1.3, 1.3, 1.0, 0.9
Heat - 8.8, 2.9, 1.2, 0.8, 0.2, 0.0, -0.3, -0.4
-
And the Heat's second best player was just a shell of himself in the playoffs. So you're asking for the Heat's top player to make up for a huge difference at every other position.

The Bulls had 10 more wins than the Blazers over the course of the regular season. The Spurs had 8 more than the Heat. Talent wise, not only did the Bulls have the more talented top players (3 best players were top ten pick in their prime vs 14th, 24th, and 2nd round picks), they also performed better. So even if you want to argue that the 2014 Heat were more talented than the Spurs, they simply were not a better team that year (and a big factor there was because of injury - if the Bulls second best player were that hobbled, they would have also struggled a lot and potentially not have even made the finals).

[ty 4191]

Okay so, to be clear, everybody Jordan played with just wasn't that great, and everybody Jordan played against was a team of unstoppable monsters. And Jordan's teams only won because of Jordan and the teamwork of some plucky underdogs?

Everyone here is focusing, it seems, on minutiae in this debate.

Really simple question. And the only one that matters here:

Sansterre- You'd know this, if anyone would.

Who faced better teams in the NBA Finals, in the aggregate? Jordan, or Lebron?

Thank you. This should help cut through all the palaver here for 10 pages and get right to the heart of the issue at hand....

[sansterre]

Okay so, to be clear, everybody Jordan played with just wasn't that great, and everybody Jordan played against was a team of unstoppable monsters. And Jordan's teams only won because of Jordan and the teamwork of some plucky underdogs?

Everyone here is focusing, it seems, on minutiae in this debate.

Really simple question. And the only one that matters here:

Sansterre- You'd know this, if anyone would.

Who faced better teams in the NBA Finals, in the aggregate? Jordan, or Lebron?

Thank you. This should help cut through all the palaver here for 10 pages and get right to the heart of the issue at hand....

LeBron. Not close.

The counterpoint is that the *average* playoff team that Jordan faced was tougher than the *average* playoff team that LeBron faced (owing to LeBron's generally weaker conference).

So LeBron was much more likely to play an unusually weak playoff opponent than Jordan. But he was also far more likely to run into an ATG juggernaut than Jordan.

In a situation where both Jordan and LeBron had consistently strong teams, I believe that playing ATG-level opponents sometimes was a bigger disadvantage than playing lots of weaker teams was an advantage, but that is hardly official.

[migya]

Let's use the weird logic being used in this thread Santese to make a point.

The 1992 pre-season odds had Bulls at +250 and Blazers at +400.

The 1996 pre-season odds had Bulls at +350 and Sonics at +800.



At least we can count on this guy who is Pro-Jordan and Anti-LeBron to have our side of this argument--assuming he is being objective.

For the record, having multiple guys who are between 30-60 best players in the league does not make a team more talented than a team led by Jordan/Pippen/Grant.

So the 2014 Spurs were not more talented than the Lebron/Wade/Bosh Heat.

The objective reasoning is imaginative to some so called objective types.

They were not more talented, but they were a healthier and deeper team. Look at the BPM for the players that year:

Spurs - 5.1, 4.0, 4.0, 3.3, 3.2, 1.3, 1.3, 1.0, 0.9
Heat - 8.8, 2.9, 1.2, 0.8, 0.2, 0.0, -0.3, -0.4
-
And the Heat's second best player was just a shell of himself in the playoffs. So you're asking for the Heat's top player to make up for a huge difference at every other position.

The Bulls had 10 more wins than the Blazers over the course of the regular season. The Spurs had 8 more than the Heat. Talent wise, not only did the Bulls have the more talented top players (3 best players were top ten pick in their prime vs 14th, 24th, and 2nd round picks), they also performed better. So even if you want to argue that the 2014 Heat were more talented than the Spurs, they simply were not a better team that year (and a big factor there was because of injury - if the Bulls second best player were that hobbled, they would have also struggled a lot and potentially not have even made the finals).

The Heat's second best player was in his prime and at a top 5 player level in 2011. The third best player was obviously not getting the ball as much as he was on his previous team as a superstar but the numbers were comparatively still on a superstar level. That team did had by far the best top talent of all teams yet did not win the most. Were they only one win better, talent wise, than the very young OKC, the lead by duo Lakers and one star only Dallas? Were they less talented than the one star only and a young star at that Chicago, aging and no star (at least their star didn't have anywhere near the numbers like his previous years) Spurs?

[sansterre]

So the 2014 Spurs were not more talented than the Lebron/Wade/Bosh Heat.

The objective reasoning is imaginative to some so called objective types.

They were not more talented, but they were a healthier and deeper team. Look at the BPM for the players that year:

Spurs - 5.1, 4.0, 4.0, 3.3, 3.2, 1.3, 1.3, 1.0, 0.9
Heat - 8.8, 2.9, 1.2, 0.8, 0.2, 0.0, -0.3, -0.4
-
And the Heat's second best player was just a shell of himself in the playoffs. So you're asking for the Heat's top player to make up for a huge difference at every other position.

The Bulls had 10 more wins than the Blazers over the course of the regular season. The Spurs had 8 more than the Heat. Talent wise, not only did the Bulls have the more talented top players (3 best players were top ten pick in their prime vs 14th, 24th, and 2nd round picks), they also performed better. So even if you want to argue that the 2014 Heat were more talented than the Spurs, they simply were not a better team that year (and a big factor there was because of injury - if the Bulls second best player were that hobbled, they would have also struggled a lot and potentially not have even made the finals).

The Heat's second best player was in his prime and at a top 5 player level in 2011. The third best player was obviously not getting the ball as much as he was on his previous team as a superstar but the numbers were comparatively still on a superstar level. That team did had by far the best top talent of all teams yet did not win the most. Were they only one win better, talent wise, than the very young OKC, the lead by duo Lakers and one star only Dallas? Were they less talented than the one star only and a young star at that Chicago, aging and no star (at least their star didn't have anywhere near the numbers like his previous years) Spurs?

Okay so, to be clear, if LeBron has the best #1-3 of the series his team is more talented (your position with the Heat v Spurs).

And if Jordan has the best #1-3 of the series (as you admitted in the Bulls v Blazers comparison) . . . his opponent has the more talented roster.

Can you help me understand this?

[migya]

They were not more talented, but they were a healthier and deeper team. Look at the BPM for the players that year:

Spurs - 5.1, 4.0, 4.0, 3.3, 3.2, 1.3, 1.3, 1.0, 0.9
Heat - 8.8, 2.9, 1.2, 0.8, 0.2, 0.0, -0.3, -0.4
-
And the Heat's second best player was just a shell of himself in the playoffs. So you're asking for the Heat's top player to make up for a huge difference at every other position.

The Bulls had 10 more wins than the Blazers over the course of the regular season. The Spurs had 8 more than the Heat. Talent wise, not only did the Bulls have the more talented top players (3 best players were top ten pick in their prime vs 14th, 24th, and 2nd round picks), they also performed better. So even if you want to argue that the 2014 Heat were more talented than the Spurs, they simply were not a better team that year (and a big factor there was because of injury - if the Bulls second best player were that hobbled, they would have also struggled a lot and potentially not have even made the finals).

The Heat's second best player was in his prime and at a top 5 player level in 2011. The third best player was obviously not getting the ball as much as he was on his previous team as a superstar but the numbers were comparatively still on a superstar level. That team did had by far the best top talent of all teams yet did not win the most. Were they only one win better, talent wise, than the very young OKC, the lead by duo Lakers and one star only Dallas? Were they less talented than the one star only and a young star at that Chicago, aging and no star (at least their star didn't have anywhere near the numbers like his previous years) Spurs?

Okay so, to be clear, if LeBron has the best #1-3 of the series his team is more talented (your position with the Heat v Spurs).

And if Jordan has the best #1-3 of the series (as you admitted in the Bulls v Blazers comparison) . . . his opponent has the more talented roster.

Can you help me understand this?

I was responding to the quoted poster's stance

[falcolombardi]

Okay so, to be clear, everybody Jordan played with just wasn't that great, and everybody Jordan played against was a team of unstoppable monsters. And Jordan's teams only won because of Jordan and the teamwork of some plucky underdogs?

Everyone here is focusing, it seems, on minutiae in this debate.

Really simple question. And the only one that matters here:

Sansterre- You'd know this, if anyone would.

Who faced better teams in the NBA Finals, in the aggregate? Jordan, or Lebron?

Thank you. This should help cut through all the palaver here for 10 pages and get right to the heart of the issue at hand....

LeBron. Not close.

The counterpoint is that the *average* playoff team that Jordan faced was tougher than the *average* playoff team that LeBron faced (owing to LeBron's generally weaker conference).

So LeBron was much more likely to play an unusually weak playoff opponent than Jordan. But he was also far more likely to run into an ATG juggernaut than Jordan.

In a situation where both Jordan and LeBron had consistently strong teams, I believe that playing ATG-level opponents sometimes was a bigger disadvantage than playing lots of weaker teams was an advantage, but that is hardly official.

for the purposes of contendig teams is better to face a tougher average than a juggernaut top imo

for great teams is mostly the 60+~ win juggernaut that stop them from winning titles rather than the 55~ win borderline contenders (using win totals as aproximation, i know nobody considers 2015 hawks a juggernaut )

[falcolombardi]

So the 2014 Spurs were not more talented than the Lebron/Wade/Bosh Heat.

The objective reasoning is imaginative to some so called objective types.

They were not more talented, but they were a healthier and deeper team. Look at the BPM for the players that year:

Spurs - 5.1, 4.0, 4.0, 3.3, 3.2, 1.3, 1.3, 1.0, 0.9
Heat - 8.8, 2.9, 1.2, 0.8, 0.2, 0.0, -0.3, -0.4
-
And the Heat's second best player was just a shell of himself in the playoffs. So you're asking for the Heat's top player to make up for a huge difference at every other position.

The Bulls had 10 more wins than the Blazers over the course of the regular season. The Spurs had 8 more than the Heat. Talent wise, not only did the Bulls have the more talented top players (3 best players were top ten pick in their prime vs 14th, 24th, and 2nd round picks), they also performed better. So even if you want to argue that the 2014 Heat were more talented than the Spurs, they simply were not a better team that year (and a big factor there was because of injury - if the Bulls second best player were that hobbled, they would have also struggled a lot and potentially not have even made the finals).

The Heat's second best player was in his prime and at a top 5 player level in 2011. The third best player was obviously not getting the ball as much as he was on his previous team as a superstar but the numbers were comparatively still on a superstar level. That team did had by far the best top talent of all teams yet did not win the most. Were they only one win better, talent wise, than the very young OKC, the lead by duo Lakers and one star only Dallas? Were they less talented than the one star only and a young star at that Chicago, aging and no star (at least their star didn't have anywhere near the numbers like his previous years) Spurs?

you are talking about 2011 when the comment you are responding to is about 2014

i guarantee you 2014 wade was nothingh like 2011

[magicman1978]

So the 2014 Spurs were not more talented than the Lebron/Wade/Bosh Heat.

The objective reasoning is imaginative to some so called objective types.

They were not more talented, but they were a healthier and deeper team. Look at the BPM for the players that year:

Spurs - 5.1, 4.0, 4.0, 3.3, 3.2, 1.3, 1.3, 1.0, 0.9
Heat - 8.8, 2.9, 1.2, 0.8, 0.2, 0.0, -0.3, -0.4
-
And the Heat's second best player was just a shell of himself in the playoffs. So you're asking for the Heat's top player to make up for a huge difference at every other position.

The Bulls had 10 more wins than the Blazers over the course of the regular season. The Spurs had 8 more than the Heat. Talent wise, not only did the Bulls have the more talented top players (3 best players were top ten pick in their prime vs 14th, 24th, and 2nd round picks), they also performed better. So even if you want to argue that the 2014 Heat were more talented than the Spurs, they simply were not a better team that year (and a big factor there was because of injury - if the Bulls second best player were that hobbled, they would have also struggled a lot and potentially not have even made the finals).

The Heat's second best player was in his prime and at a top 5 player level in 2011. The third best player was obviously not getting the ball as much as he was on his previous team as a superstar but the numbers were comparatively still on a superstar level. That team did had by far the best top talent of all teams yet did not win the most. Were they only one win better, talent wise, than the very young OKC, the lead by duo Lakers and one star only Dallas? Were they less talented than the one star only and a young star at that Chicago, aging and no star (at least their star didn't have anywhere near the numbers like his previous years) Spurs?

Are we talking about 2014 Spurs vs Heat or something else completely now? You've just thrown in at least 4-5 other teams, some of which they beat, one they loss to (which they shouldn't have), non-finals series', a team they didn't play against.... In regards to the 14 Spurs, I already said the Spurs were not more talented (they were a healthier and deeper team). I have no idea what the discussion is anymore or what point you're trying to make.

[Texas Chuck]

To be fair, the 92 Trail Blazers had 6 of their Top 7 were one-time all-stars,

How many of them were playing at that level in real time?

Because Lebron gets killed for 2011 but if we assign accolades from other years he lost to a team featuring an MVP, 4 all-NBA players, a DPOY, multiple additional all-stars, a 6 MOY, the only rookie to ever put up 50/40/80, a guy on the bench who has a 50 pt game, etc...

Previous accolades are irrelevant except to make a team look better than they are to justify a position. We would never suggest Kidd, Marion, or Peja were anything still resembling all-NBA players if we were honestly evaluating their play. But if our goal was to make Lebron look better by saying he lost to a Superteam we might.

Calling Danny Ainge, Uncle Cliffy, and Buck Williams all-stars based on something they did years before or years after.... And while Duckworth had recently been an all-star, nobody thought of him as an all-star center in 92.

I hate that attempt to paint a narrative. Mike does not need these narratives.

[Colbinii]

Okay so, to be clear, everybody Jordan played with just wasn't that great, and everybody Jordan played against was a team of unstoppable monsters. And Jordan's teams only won because of Jordan and the teamwork of some plucky underdogs?

Everyone here is focusing, it seems, on minutiae in this debate.

Really simple question. And the only one that matters here:

Sansterre- You'd know this, if anyone would.

Who faced better teams in the NBA Finals, in the aggregate? Jordan, or Lebron?

Thank you. This should help cut through all the palaver here for 10 pages and get right to the heart of the issue at hand....

It was LeBron and it isn't remotely close.

[migya]

Let's use the weird logic being used in this thread Santese to make a point.

The 1992 pre-season odds had Bulls at +250 and Blazers at +400.

The 1996 pre-season odds had Bulls at +350 and Sonics at +800.



At least we can count on this guy who is Pro-Jordan and Anti-LeBron to have our side of this argument--assuming he is being objective.

For the record, having multiple guys who are between 30-60 best players in the league does not make a team more talented than a team led by Jordan/Pippen/Grant.

So the 2014 Spurs were not more talented than the Lebron/Wade/Bosh Heat.

The objective reasoning is imaginative to some so called objective types.

I'm only talking about the 1992 Blazers and 1996 Sonics in relation to the Bulls right now.

I never said the 2014 Spurs were more talented--but the point remains, what exactly does "more talented" mean? Is talented a word that should be synonymous with winning, impact or championship odds?

People seem to throw around these "Buzz Words" with little--actually no analysis of the sort. I think everyone in this thread can do a better job of engaging in a way that includes FACTS [statistics] rather than using the completely subjective term "talented" when attempting to analyze a complex model of player analysis.

One way of making a bit more clear, using "statistics", is using examples of players who played with superstars and statistically performed better but also played for teams without a superstar and statistically performed worse;

Toni Kukoc -
1996 - 118ORat, 105DRat, 10.1WS, .231WS/48
1997 - 125ORat, 104DRat, 6.9WS, .204WS/48

1999 - 99ORat, 103DRat, 2.8WS, .082WS/48
2000 - 100ORat, 102DRat, 3.4WS, .091WS/48


Playing with Jordan and Pippen made Kukoc look great, playing without them made him look not so good.



Donyell Marshall -
1996-2000 - 101PRat, 104DRat, 13.6WS, .083WS/48
2001-2002 - 110ORat, 101DRat, 13.5WS, .159WS/48


Playing with Stockton and Malone made Marshall look good, playing with no stars on the Warriors made him look not so good.

[migya]

They were not more talented, but they were a healthier and deeper team. Look at the BPM for the players that year:

Spurs - 5.1, 4.0, 4.0, 3.3, 3.2, 1.3, 1.3, 1.0, 0.9
Heat - 8.8, 2.9, 1.2, 0.8, 0.2, 0.0, -0.3, -0.4
-
And the Heat's second best player was just a shell of himself in the playoffs. So you're asking for the Heat's top player to make up for a huge difference at every other position.

The Bulls had 10 more wins than the Blazers over the course of the regular season. The Spurs had 8 more than the Heat. Talent wise, not only did the Bulls have the more talented top players (3 best players were top ten pick in their prime vs 14th, 24th, and 2nd round picks), they also performed better. So even if you want to argue that the 2014 Heat were more talented than the Spurs, they simply were not a better team that year (and a big factor there was because of injury - if the Bulls second best player were that hobbled, they would have also struggled a lot and potentially not have even made the finals).

The Heat's second best player was in his prime and at a top 5 player level in 2011. The third best player was obviously not getting the ball as much as he was on his previous team as a superstar but the numbers were comparatively still on a superstar level. That team did had by far the best top talent of all teams yet did not win the most. Were they only one win better, talent wise, than the very young OKC, the lead by duo Lakers and one star only Dallas? Were they less talented than the one star only and a young star at that Chicago, aging and no star (at least their star didn't have anywhere near the numbers like his previous years) Spurs?

Are we talking about 2014 Spurs vs Heat or something else completely now? You've just thrown in at least 4-5 other teams, some of which they beat, one they loss to (which they shouldn't have), non-finals series', a team they didn't play against.... In regards to the 14 Spurs, I already said the Spurs were not more talented (they were a healthier and deeper team). I have no idea what the discussion is anymore or what point you're trying to make.

Think it's pretty clear. Comparing the Lebron Heat with Wade still at his high level, to other teams that season.