1980 Kareem vs 1996 MJ

[1993Playoffs]

Who is better? Both win MVP both were around 32-33 years old

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[70sFan]

Kareem to me. His postseason run was on another stratosphere to 1996 Jordan and I don't think he was any worse in RS either.

[Statlanta]

Kareem. MJ still was noticeably rusty after retirement. The 1996 team was an all-time accomplishment in terms of roster construction that I don't think we'll see ever again.

[1993Playoffs]

Kareem to me. His postseason run was on another stratosphere to 1996 Jordan and I don't think he was any worse in RS either.

Do you penalize Kareem for being injured in the Finals?

[Cavsfansince84]

Ya I think MJ sort of ran out of gas towards the end there while Kareem had one of his best playoff runs. 96 MJ may have been his last true prime season but its still half a step behind his 90-93 versions.

[70sFan]

Kareem to me. His postseason run was on another stratosphere to 1996 Jordan and I don't think he was any worse in RS either.

Do you penalize Kareem for being injured in the Finals?

Maybe I should have, but he literally missed one game and he was probable for the game 7. One missed game isn't enough to overcome the gap in actual on-court production.

[Matt15]

Kareem, 1993 MJ would be closer.

[1993Playoffs]

Surprised I actually expected most people to pick MJ. Due to Still being close to prime level and being a perimeter creator

[VanWest82]

I don’t see how this is all that close. With the usual caveats that NBA advanced stats are mostly crap, MJ’s BPM/VORP of 10 along with 20 WS in 96 is clearly ahead of Kareem’s BPM/VORP of 7 and 14 WS.

Presumably this is yet again about using games 4 & 6 of 96 Finals after Bulls had already gone up 3-0 and the series was effectively over as a way to discredit what he accomplished. But hey, at least he still won FMVP

[falcolombardi]

I don’t see how this is all that close. With the usual caveats that NBA advanced stats are mostly crap, MJ’s BPM/VORP of 10 along with 20 WS in 96 is clearly ahead of Kareem’s BPM/VORP of 7 and 14 WS.

Presumably this is yet again about using games 4 & 6 of 96 Finals after Bulls had already gone up 3-0 and the series was effectively over as a way to discredit what he accomplished. But hey, at least he still won FMVP

i am confused what exactly you mean?

that they were Up 3-0 doesnt excuse jordan bad play in the second half of that series

like i can maybe justify game 4 to a degree, is common to relax in a series thag looks so over (still not a good thingh)

by game 5 and game 6 what was the excuse?

[VanWest82]

I don’t see how this is all that close. With the usual caveats that NBA advanced stats are mostly crap, MJ’s BPM/VORP of 10 along with 20 WS in 96 is clearly ahead of Kareem’s BPM/VORP of 7 and 14 WS.

Presumably this is yet again about using games 4 & 6 of 96 Finals after Bulls had already gone up 3-0 and the series was effectively over as a way to discredit what he accomplished. But hey, at least he still won FMVP

i am confused what exactly you mean?

that they were Up 3-0 doesnt excuse jordan bad play in the second half of that series

like i can maybe justify game 4 to a degree, is common to relax in a series thag looks so over (still not a good thingh)

by game 5 and game 6 what was the excuse?

MJ was good in game 5. Scottie, Kukoc, and Kerr went a combined 12 for 41. That's why they lost.

Phil also got badly outcoached in games 4-6. Imagine if Lue had Lebron chasing Curry around screen after screen all game, no switching, in those Cavs vs. Warriors series. Mike made life miserable for GP in those first three games and that was a big reason they went up 3-0. But then Nate McMillan came back and moved GP off ball. Bulls should have had Harper or Pippen chasing GP around and put MJ on Nate. At least introduce some switching. That's why his legs seemed gone near the end.

But regardless, the idea that we'd flip flop over two games even though Bulls still won and MJ won FMVP (and Kareem didn't) despite MJ having a pretty massive statistical advantage up to that point is hard to justify. Or maybe you think 2013 Lebron is way overrated because he had Finals games where he only scored 15, 17, and 18 points (1-2 record)?

[falcolombardi]

I don’t see how this is all that close. With the usual caveats that NBA advanced stats are mostly crap, MJ’s BPM/VORP of 10 along with 20 WS in 96 is clearly ahead of Kareem’s BPM/VORP of 7 and 14 WS.

Presumably this is yet again about using games 4 & 6 of 96 Finals after Bulls had already gone up 3-0 and the series was effectively over as a way to discredit what he accomplished. But hey, at least he still won FMVP

i am confused what exactly you mean?

that they were Up 3-0 doesnt excuse jordan bad play in the second half of that series

like i can maybe justify game 4 to a degree, is common to relax in a series thag looks so over (still not a good thingh)

by game 5 and game 6 what was the excuse?

MJ was good in game 5. Scottie, Kukoc, and Kerr went a combined 12 for 41. That's why they lost.

Phil also got badly outcoached in games 4-6. Imagine if Lue had Lebron chasing Curry around screen after screen all game, no switching, in those Cavs vs. Warriors series. Mike made life miserable for GP in those first three games and that was a big reason they went up 3-0. But then Nate McMillan came back and moved GP off ball. Bulls should have had Harper or Pippen chasing GP around and put MJ on Nate. At least introduce some switching. That's why his legs seemed gone near the end.

But regardless, the idea that we'd flip flop over two games even though Bulls still won and MJ won FMVP (and Kareem didn't) despite MJ having a pretty massive statistical advantage up to that point is hard to justify. Or maybe you think 2013 Lebron is way overrated because he had Finals games where he only scored 15, 17, and 18 points (1-2 record)?

i never said jordan sucked in 96 or said he was better or worse than 80 kareem, i asked why his bad games seemingly "dont count" which is what your argument is sounding like

Jordan won in 96 hence his bad games cannot be comsidered or weighted? kareem won too in 80' so i am unsure what relevance would it have in this comparision regardless, by that logic kareem missing one gane shouldnt matter because lakers still won

just pointing out how weird that is, is as if i said those lebron bad games in 2013 finals cannot be criticized or brought up cause heat won
the criticism of a player shouldnt be forbidden because the player in question won that series

[VanWest82]

i am confused what exactly you mean?

that they were Up 3-0 doesnt excuse jordan bad play in the second half of that series

like i can maybe justify game 4 to a degree, is common to relax in a series thag looks so over (still not a good thingh)

by game 5 and game 6 what was the excuse?

MJ was good in game 5. Scottie, Kukoc, and Kerr went a combined 12 for 41. That's why they lost.

Phil also got badly outcoached in games 4-6. Imagine if Lue had Lebron chasing Curry around screen after screen all game, no switching, in those Cavs vs. Warriors series. Mike made life miserable for GP in those first three games and that was a big reason they went up 3-0. But then Nate McMillan came back and moved GP off ball. Bulls should have had Harper or Pippen chasing GP around and put MJ on Nate. At least introduce some switching. That's why his legs seemed gone near the end.

But regardless, the idea that we'd flip flop over two games even though Bulls still won and MJ won FMVP (and Kareem didn't) despite MJ having a pretty massive statistical advantage up to that point is hard to justify. Or maybe you think 2013 Lebron is way overrated because he had Finals games where he only scored 15, 17, and 18 points (1-2 record)?

i never said jordan sucked in 96 or said he was better or worse than 80 kareem, i asked why his bad games seemingly "dont count" which is what your argument is sounding like

Jordan won in 96 hence his bad games cannot be comsidered or weighted? kareem won too in 80' so i am unsure what relevance would it have in this comparision regardless

just pointing out how weird that is, is as if i said lebron bad games in 2013 finals cannot be criticized cause heat won, the criticism of a player shouldnt be forbidden because the player in question won that series

It's not that those two games don't count, just that they should be weighed appropriately. They came after a 72 win season where MJ completely dominated in every way, including the first three rounds and three games to go uo 3-0 in the Finals. If we just stop there he's so far ahead of 80 Kareem that this isn't even a discussion.

I would personally weigh those two games as less than the 2/100 share they objectively deserve. but I understand if that's how you'd prefer to weigh them. It's nowhere near enough to close the gap.

[JordansBulls]

Only thing that really separates them is that MJ won finals mvp. They both basically led in stats, although MJ led in more stats than Kareem did that year. MJ's year was basically the perfect year though, led in the aggregate stats in the season, playoffs, as well set the most wins all time, won league, allstar, finals mvp and also led in scoring in both the season and playoffs along with 1st team all defense and 1st team all nba.

[falcolombardi]

MJ was good in game 5. Scottie, Kukoc, and Kerr went a combined 12 for 41. That's why they lost.

Phil also got badly outcoached in games 4-6. Imagine if Lue had Lebron chasing Curry around screen after screen all game, no switching, in those Cavs vs. Warriors series. Mike made life miserable for GP in those first three games and that was a big reason they went up 3-0. But then Nate McMillan came back and moved GP off ball. Bulls should have had Harper or Pippen chasing GP around and put MJ on Nate. At least introduce some switching. That's why his legs seemed gone near the end.

But regardless, the idea that we'd flip flop over two games even though Bulls still won and MJ won FMVP (and Kareem didn't) despite MJ having a pretty massive statistical advantage up to that point is hard to justify. Or maybe you think 2013 Lebron is way overrated because he had Finals games where he only scored 15, 17, and 18 points (1-2 record)?

i never said jordan sucked in 96 or said he was better or worse than 80 kareem, i asked why his bad games seemingly "dont count" which is what your argument is sounding like

Jordan won in 96 hence his bad games cannot be comsidered or weighted? kareem won too in 80' so i am unsure what relevance would it have in this comparision regardless

just pointing out how weird that is, is as if i said lebron bad games in 2013 finals cannot be criticized cause heat won, the criticism of a player shouldnt be forbidden because the player in question won that series

It's not that those two games don't count, just that they should be weighed appropriately. They came after a 72 win season where MJ completely dominated in every way, including the first three rounds and three games to go uo 3-0 in the Finals. If we just stop there he's so far ahead of 80 Kareem that this isn't even a discussion.

I would personally weigh those two games as less than the 2/100 share they objectively deserve. but I understand if that's how you'd prefer to weigh them. It's nowhere near enough to close the gap.

we are not comparing 96 bulls to 80 lakers, but 96 jordan to 80 kareem

if you think those bulls were better than those lakers because jordan was better than kareem then you should argue why, if the reasoning is that bulls were better than lakers therefore their best player was better then is pretty backwards

by that logic 96 jordan would be a lot better than 90 jordan which seems pretty unlikely

[VanWest82]

i never said jordan sucked in 96 or said he was better or worse than 80 kareem, i asked why his bad games seemingly "dont count" which is what your argument is sounding like

Jordan won in 96 hence his bad games cannot be comsidered or weighted? kareem won too in 80' so i am unsure what relevance would it have in this comparision regardless

just pointing out how weird that is, is as if i said lebron bad games in 2013 finals cannot be criticized cause heat won, the criticism of a player shouldnt be forbidden because the player in question won that series

It's not that those two games don't count, just that they should be weighed appropriately. They came after a 72 win season where MJ completely dominated in every way, including the first three rounds and three games to go uo 3-0 in the Finals. If we just stop there he's so far ahead of 80 Kareem that this isn't even a discussion.

I would personally weigh those two games as less than the 2/100 share they objectively deserve. but I understand if that's how you'd prefer to weigh them. It's nowhere near enough to close the gap.

we are not comparing 96 bulls to 80 lakers, but 96 jordan to 80 kareem

if you think those bulls were better than those lakers because jordan was better than kareem then you should argue why, if the reasoning is that bulls were better than lakers therefore their best player was better then is pretty backwards

by that logic 96 jordan would be a lot better than 90 jordan which seems pretty unlikely

I already presented a base argument using BPM, VORP, WS, and FMVP. You chose to completely ignore that and focus on two bad Finals games.

But also, if you think Bulls winning 72 that year isn't a major check mark for Jordan then you're not looking at this objectively. It's so hard to win that many even after expansion. I'm not saying don't give Scottie et al. their share of it, but it was MJ's team and his drive coming back to prove he was still the best that made that happen. Kareem had a really nice season at the tail end of his prime and won 60 games. Even if you thought their actual on court impact was approx equal (it wasn't), MJ should still get extra credit for captaining that significantly better winning percentage. If you go back and find Kareem's on court in 80 was better than +17 then I guess we can talk...even still...

[falcolombardi]

It's not that those two games don't count, just that they should be weighed appropriately. They came after a 72 win season where MJ completely dominated in every way, including the first three rounds and three games to go uo 3-0 in the Finals. If we just stop there he's so far ahead of 80 Kareem that this isn't even a discussion.

I would personally weigh those two games as less than the 2/100 share they objectively deserve. but I understand if that's how you'd prefer to weigh them. It's nowhere near enough to close the gap.

we are not comparing 96 bulls to 80 lakers, but 96 jordan to 80 kareem

if you think those bulls were better than those lakers because jordan was better than kareem then you should argue why, if the reasoning is that bulls were better than lakers therefore their best player was better then is pretty backwards

by that logic 96 jordan would be a lot better than 90 jordan which seems pretty unlikely

I already presented a base argument using BPM, VORP, WS, and FMVP. You chose to completely ignore that and focus on two bad Finals games.

But also, if you think Bulls winning 72 that year isn't a major check mark for Jordan then you're not looking at this objectively. It's so hard to win that many even after expansion. I'm not saying don't give Scottie et al. their share of it, but it was MJ's team and his drive coming back to prove he was still the best that made that happen. Kareem had a really nice season at the tail end of his prime and won 60 games. Even if you thought their actual on court impact was approx equal (it wasn't), MJ should still get extra credit for captaining that significantly better winning percentage. If you go back and find Kareem's on court in 80 was better than +17 then I guess we can talk...even still...

i didnt ignore it, it was not the point i was adressing

if you look at my comment i am not arguing for or against jordan/kareem

i comented that to me the logic that jordan bad second half of the finals doesnt matter because they still won was wrong, and the logic that jordan was better cause bulls were better was wrong too

[VanWest82]

i comented that to me the logic that jordan bad second half of the finals doesnt matter because they still won was wrong,

Again, it's not that it didn't matter; it mattered less because it happened after Bulls had already gone up 3-0. You can pretend like that detail isn't important, but it is (see 2017 Cavs/Warriors).

and the logic that jordan was better cause bulls were better was wrong too

[/quote]
96 Bulls being much better than 80 Lakers isn't a convincing argument in isolation but it was never presented that way. I do think it's noteworthy though. It definitely points in MJ's direction if you didn't feel like the discrepancy in individual stats was enough.

[70sFan]

Only thing that really separates them is that MJ won finals mvp. They both basically led in stats, although MJ led in more stats than Kareem did that year. MJ's year was basically the perfect year though, led in the aggregate stats in the season, playoffs, as well set the most wins all time, won league, allstar, finals mvp and also led in scoring in both the season and playoffs along with 1st team all defense and 1st team all nba.

Kareem had much better finals performance than Jordan though...

[70sFan]

I don’t see how this is all that close. With the usual caveats that NBA advanced stats are mostly crap, MJ’s BPM/VORP of 10 along with 20 WS in 96 is clearly ahead of Kareem’s BPM/VORP of 7 and 14 WS.

If they are crap, why do you use it?