LeBron > Jordan GOAT Super AIDS Containment, solved #22999 post by Matt R. (addendum #23174)

Hey fallguy I did some research and it turns out if you take out all the shots that MJ missed his FG% becomes 100%. Just thought you might want to work that one into your case. Those were actually shots where he was trying to help his teammates feel better and maybe get a chance for an offensive rebound. He also wanted them to have better cardio it was just part of his blueprint.

Shocking that MJ shot more 3s in the games he was making them.

Shocking.

For the seasons that MJ only had 1 attempt per game, these were entire seasons where the 3-point shot was not a part of his game at all - he only took forced, "bailout" threes at the end of shot-clock, hence the lower efficiency.. And hence the term "bailout volume", where efficiency is lower.

But for great shooters with great mechanics, their efficiency will increase with volume, and that's what we see from Jordan.. Anytime that he had 3+ attempts, he shot at today's standards or even above.. And he didn't have any seasons between 1.5 and 3 attempts - all his seasons were either bailout volume (1.5 or less), or 3+ attempts, where he clearly shot much better.

Btw, stop projecting your own discouragement after a lone miss onto me, let alone the goat gunslingers like MJ, Kobe or any NBA player.. It's absurd to think that any decent player would stop shooting if they miss once.. That's why so many good players or a lot of guys say "I always think the next one is going in".. This is entirely true because that's what I think and tons of guys that I played with.. A player can't even be decent if they don't have this mentality at least on some level (a player cannot be scared to shoot).. There's a correlation of "the next shot is going in" mentality with guys that are used to seeing the ball go in, but I've also seen complete bums with a unique brand of basketball narcissism have this trait also despite never seeing the ball actually go in.

Here's proof that the 91' Bulls destroying the Lakers was SHOCKING to the media, even more shocking than the 24' Celtics over Mavs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4T25pHu7Nc&t=69s

YouTube

The TRUTH About Michael Jordan FINALLY REVEALED

Marv Albert:

"The Chicago Bulls' domination of this series has to be considered a major surprise.. There's no reason to believe the Lakers would fall apart so dramatically"


Mike Fratello responding:

"I think everyone felt like the balance of power was in the West this year - everyone felt that Portland was the best team and once the Lakers got past them, everyone figured they would just put the Bulls away."

The 91' Lakers getting past Portland was similar to 24' Dallas getting past a red-hot Minnesota team that had just beaten the Nuggets, so the media thought Lakers and Dallas would win the Finals, but they both got surprisingly destroyed.. It proved to be another example of ball-movement > ball-domination.

How many things in history are misreported from what actually happened - future generations change history to suit what they want to believe about current people, circumstances and situations

You realise a large majority of the media predicted the Celtics would win this year's finals right? Celtics beating the Mavs wasn't a shock result in any sense because Boston's 3-8 was universally (and correctly) considered to be stronger than Dallas's by an absurd amount.

You really don't help your reputation when you make such basic factual mistakes in making your arguments.

Boston were -225 before the series
Bulls were -200 before the series.

Stop making **** up.

Vegas odds frequently don't reflect the general consensus by fans, players, coaches and media

The general consensus was that the Lakers' experience and depth would beat the newbie Bulls and their 1-man team - the commentary between Marv and Fratello as the Bulls are celebrating on the court shows this... And also I remember that series - everyone thought the Lakers would win and it was a surprise when the Lakers lost so convincingly - anyone that watched the series would tell you this.

Ultimately, only trends matter, such as a trend of consistent of underdog status on the championship level despite 2 all-star teammates and confirmed favored talent (preseason favorites).. Or when a player loses as the favorite for three straight years, this means more than a one-off and probably means something - it could be interpreted many ways, such as a team's brand of ball failing to match it's on-paper talent.

Maybe that's true but from my experience it seemed like every Piston fan knew the Lakers were ****ed before the 91 finals began just as it felt like every Piston fan knew the Bulls we're the 2nd best team in the league only to Detroit in 89 and 90. So yeah, I don't think "the general consensus" applies to Detroit fans. We knew what the Bulls were all about. We saw them coming before anyone else.

It was split down the middle because 9 of 17 ESPN analysts picked Mavs:

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/4027...



AND:

Again, it was clearly split down the middle, yet it ended up being a lopsided Finals because history shows that the "heliocentric" skillset has a lottery record against long-standing organic ball movement and chemistry - this includes these Mavs losing to the Celtics, but also Lebron's teams losing to Spurs, Warriors, Nuggets, Mavs and Magic - they were all long-standing organic ball movement and chemistry teams, so Lebron's simpleton heliocentric skillset had no chance (down-hill skillset isn't 5-man basketball, so it has little chance against 5-man basketball

The GOAT won 6 of 6 Finals with massive deficits at the 3 thru 7 roster spots:

1992 Finals

3. Kersey 14.8
4. Robinson 10.3
5. Ainge 10.0
6. Duckworth 9.3
7. Williams 7.8
________________
52.2 of 96.7 (53.9%)


3. Paxson 10.3
4. Grant 9.2
5. Cartwright 6.3
6. Armstrong 5.8
7. Williams 5.5
________________
37.1 of 104.0 (35.6%)


GAP: 18.3 percentage points



2024 FINALS

3. Holiday 14.4
4. White 13.8
5. Porzingas 12.3
6. Hauser 8.2
7. Horford 7.0
________________
55.7 of 101.6 (54.8%)


3. Washington 10.8
4. Gafford 8.0
5. Jones Jr. 6.6
6. Lively 5.6
7. Green 5.4
________________
36.4 points of 99.2 (36.7%)


GAP: 17.9 percentage points

I'm sure this confirms for you that MJ is goat, since you said that such a roster deficit couldn't be overcome

good point.. the pistons knew what was coming... you guys were barely beating us in 89' and 90' with pippen missing the closeout games both years..

that's why everyone thought the Bulls were 1-man team - it's because the roster was exactly the same in 91' compared to 89' when it was considered among the worst in the league... The only difference between the 89' and 91' rosters from a statistical standpoint is that Pippen and BJ improved by 4 ppg each, but it was still a low-scoring cast of role players - Pippen wasn't even capable of having a 30-point playoff game (6 in 208 playoff games)

ultimately, the pistons had 3x all-stars at every starting spot (Rodman was 2x) and GO-TO players off the bench like Vinnie and James Edwards (goat turnaround jumper).. Even in 1991, the Pistons had the talent advantage.. This is similar to the Lakers, Blazers and Suns during the 1st three-peat.. The Lakers had 4 guys average 17+ in the Finals and then studs like Elden Campbell off the bench, or AC Green (all-star in 90' and all-defense in 89').. If Worthy and Scott were 100% healthy, it's a different story but I think the Bulls pull out a squeaker.

.
30-yr myth busted - MJ guarded Magic for 70% of possessions in Games 2 thru 5 (all of Gm 1) in the 91' Finals

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4T25pHu7Nc&t=09m19s

YouTube

The TRUTH About Michael Jordan FINALLY REVEALED

Love this Fraudguy logic. I guess most of the players coaches and media can’t bet but if the “fan consensus” frequently didnt align with Vegas odds then millions of fans could quit their jobs and be rich off of beating the lines.

Vegas odds are dictated by people who actually put their money where their mouth is. Instead of wasting time making dozens of posts about how Jayson Tatum was an elite jump shooter you should have been getting every last dollar you could scrounge on Boston series lines - after all, it was free money! Vegas doesn’t know anything, but the fans and espn media personalities do.

if people are still responding to twog about lebron by lebrons 40th birthday then he deserves some type of TZ lifetime achievement award

It's not Ant

Ant is probably a step down from Larry Legend.

Fans that wager on games are a small fraction of fans - I said ALL fans, media, players and coaches - the consensus was that the Lakers would win, as the commentary by Marv and Fratello showed pretty clearly.

Regarding the Mavs-Celtics - that was an easy prediction based on bball101- everyone should've been able to make it.. Long-standing organic ball movement teams produce the best chemistry and nearly always beat ball-dominant teams led by high-scoring ball-dominator like Luka, Lebron, Harden or Westbrook (who impose spot-up roles and weaker chemistry).. Of course these ball movement teams must be led by an expert jumpshooter like Curry/MJ/Tatum or a fundamental big like Jokic/Kareem/Duncan.. Otoh, a high-scoring ball-dominator like Luka or Lebron cannot develop great ball movement and the best chemistry..

People don't realize that Lebron was the first high-scoring ball-dominator in 3-pointer history... But 21 years confirmed that he needed 2 stars to win as 1st option, and he still mostly lost with 2 stars... So Luka will be the same way - he'll mostly lose even if he gets another star... Westbrook and Harden never got 2 star teammates in their prime and so they lost for their entire careers.. Based on this massive track record of ball-dominators needing a certain amount of help (a ton), we can predict SGA and answer important questions about him... i.e. Can he win with a secondary producer at sidekick like Jalen Williams?.. Of course not - Lebron needed franchise players and elite-producers that could match him for entire playoff runs like AD, Wade or Kyrie, so Williams won't be enough for SGA.. And contrary to what people think, Holmgren is already near his ceiling - he will never be a big scorer - he's a defender and tertiary player - reminds me of Pippen.

Bulls had a better record, home court, been 11-1 in the playoffs so far against better teams, just swept the champions, had the MVP and the best player in the series and had better odds, yet somehow weren't favourites.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4T25pHu7Nc&t=69s

YouTube

The TRUTH About Michael Jordan FINALLY REVEALED

Most of the stuff you mentioned doesn't matter because the excuse that was cited for why everyone wrongly predicted a Lakers' victory (link above) was that "the balance of power was in the West" and the Bulls' were perceived to have an easy path in the playoffs and paper tiger record in the regular season - this is exactly like the 24' Celtics', who had the easiest path and were perceived to have a paper-tiger record..

Meanwhile, the Mavs had the "best player" and they just destroyed the team that beat the champion Nuggets - these were both factors that you cited in your post.. So despite the Celtics regular season metrics, the Mavs were perceived to be the "real" team with the "real" path and best player just like the 91' Lakers... Don't forget that Jordan wasn't a winner yet and wasn't perceived as the best player in 90/91 like we now know him to be - Magic was still the top dog back then until MJ became a champion, and in this case officially knocked him off.

Regarding the Mavs - it was unfortunate that Luka couldn't overcome massive deficits at the 3 thru 7 spots like MJ did to win 6 of 6 Finals, which includes a title in 92' with bigger deficits at the 3 thru 7 spots than Luka had against the Celtics (stats posted recently itt).

Domination of a series and being an upset that they won are two different things. You understand that right? I think that most people may have thought the Lakers would make it interesting (but not actually win).

You realise Luka isn't Jordan, right? MJ had two MVPs at that point.

You realise Detroit, who had won two straight Championships (after making the Finals the year before) are better than the Nuggets. The Bulls swept the Pistons.

You realise match ups matter. Most people think that the Mavs lose to the nuggets.

The Bulls were the 1st team to ever make a Finals where the entire team consisted of 1st-timers in the Finals - the 15' Warriors were the next team to do it.. The massive historical trend at the time was for new teams to pay their dues, so everyone thought that 1st-timers had no chance against a 5x champion on a hot streak.

And you're just too young to believe that anyone ever had Magic over Jordan, but they did for a long time, especially in 90/91.. Magic was MVP over MJ in 90' and runner-up in 91', so the majority of people still had Magic over MJ based on Magic having 5 chip advantage.. This shouldn't be controversial, especially because MJ was trying to win as scoring champ (deemed impossible).

Accordingly, most people thought the Lakers would win for the same reasons that half the fans and media thought Dallas would win - they had the "best player" and tougher path, aka the "real" team... These are the roles that the Lakers and Dallas played in the 91' and 24' Finals, so they were favored in many people's minds..

And the Pistons were perceived as much weaker in 91' - people anticipated the Bulls finally winning that series, so their path wasn't perceived as nearly as tough as the Lakers... Portland was the best team, so the Lakers were viewed as unbeatable after beating them just like Dallas looked unbeatable after beating the TWolves.. But again, it's unfortunate that Magic couldn't win with massive advantages at the 3 thru 7 spots, while Luka couldn't overcome it.. Only MJ consistently won Finals with material roster deficits.

This is pretty disingenuous since the majority of those titles have repeat dudes on completely different teams. The 80s/90s had a ton of continuity and you could say that teams had to stick together and “pay dues” before winning, but that ceased to be the case when players started moving around more.

It’s also only even remotely accurate if you count bench dudes/role guys as past finals participants.

99 Spurs - Duncan/Robinson both 1st finals. Kerr and Mario Elie really made the difference with that finals experience tho.

Lakers - Shaq, who made it 5 years before with an entirely different team.

03 Pistons - Don’t see anyone who made finals before.

06 Heat - Shaq, again on a completely different team and washed up Gary Payton.

08 Celtics - Bunch of guys famous for NOT making the finals and Sam Cassell who played 50 minutes in 6 games.

11 Mavs - Dirk, again made it 5 years before with a completely different supporting cast. Jason Kidd who made his finals 10 years prior.

Then warriors dynasty and everyone since then has been a one timer.

Everything about the post is disingenuous.

You're looking at the 91' Bulls as if they had 6 titles - the 91' Bulls had done nothing more than someone like Embiid having a great regular season, or 2020 Giannis, or 2010 Lebron - before they won - teams that reached 60 wins but otherwise had done nothing.

Jordan's destruction of Magic would be like 2010 Lebron destroying Kobe.

And by the 91' Finals, Pippen still had zero series that mattered - the massive blowout over the 91' Bad Boys shows that the Bulls could've won with someone else in Pippen's place and certainly would have won from 88-90' with someone decent to replace the bed-wetting and rookie Pippen.. There was no prior record of performance for people to think in 1991 that Pippen would be HOF or anything like that.. People would've laughed at you in 91' if you said that Pippen would make HOF.. He was just a low-producing bed-wetter to that point and didn't have the titles to cover it up like he would later in his career.

The actual broadcast of the game stated that the Chicago win was a shock and this was stated by Marv and Fratello as the Bulls were celebrating on the court.. That's seems like pretty good context to me - they weren't homering for Jordan in anticipation of a fake goat debate 30 years later - they were stating the obvious facts.. And it was similar to the Mavs-Celtics series in that everyone thought the Mavs were unbeatable after they beat the juggernaut TWolves, which is similar to everyone's sentiments about Magic and Worthy after they beat the defending conference champs (Blazers).

I'm not looking at the Bulls as a 6 time champ. I'm looking at the Bulls as the team with the better record, the best player in the series, the 11-1 playoff run, the sweeping of the Pistons and the team that was -250 at the start of the series.

You seem to be quite happy to ignore all that.

No one is saying that some people didn't think the Lakers would win, but the Bulls were favourite.

Now the Mavs were "unbeatable". jfc.

Pippen was 25 yo and already an All-Star and been All-NBA Defensive.

Not sure why people would laugh at the possibility of him being a HoFer.