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

Also, your whole 'get a scorer and surround them with cheap defenders' is a great plan... in 1995.

Name one title winning team post-MJ that had that philosophy. Iverson's sole Finals appearance had that dynamic. And was lucky to get one win in OT before their gentleman's sweep.

Basketball is a collective sport. MJ winning during an expansion era where the talent was diluted has warped your outlook. LeBron would've won with Cavs 1.0 during that time too.

If you tweak it a bit to be switchable defenders who can hit a three, well that's what you decry LeBron for turning his teammates into. And that type of player also isn't cheap, they're what everyone covets.

Otoh, glad to see you admit that LeBron is a basketball savant and that you admire how he was ahead of things. (Mimicking his philosophy and claiming it as your own, some serious flattery to the King.)

Everything I said is a statistical fact or historical fact... High-scoring primary ballhandlers (ball-dominators) can't produce great teams as 1st option (dynasties or dominant champions), and they can't win with "normal" rosters of 1 franchise players either.

When we look into the reasons why ball-dominators can't produce great teams or win organically, we see that it's a ball movement issue - the stats show that their ball-dominance kills ball movement and chemistry development that every great team has... Specifically, they increase everyone's assisted rate and spot-up role, which lowers their assists and produces low assist teams.. The spot-up roles prevent elite roster construction and player development, while the low assist teams caused assist deficits for every series loss of Lebron's playoff career... Accordingly, inferior ball movement is the Achilles heel of ball-dominators that prevents young player development (spot-up roles), elite roster construction, great teams, or winning with normal rosters of 1 franchise player.

With all these facts and historical record on my side, why would I come off these facts and go with your delusions and falling for the media fraud and lies instead??.. You're the crazy one that believes things that aren't true and have been fed lies by the media... I'm simply sounding the alarm, so the guy sounding the alarm and INFORMING everyone of the truth will always get hated on for busting up people's misperceptions.

So you're saying I should agree that 2+2=5 because some dumbske's told me so?

I hope you don't have kids bro because you would be a horrific Dad... lol... Hilarious ****... Please never have kids.

lol... It's been demonstrated that you guys are quite dumb by not understanding simple things like usage, assisted rate or imposing spot-up roles (chemistry), so I could care less that some dumbske's are hating on me.

I expect that from people who can't understand what is being said.. I would imagine that they acted up in school a lot when the teacher was talking.. It's because they don't understand what is being said, so they act out... aka dumbske's

In 1990, MJ didn't receive an all-time coach... He received a 1st-time nobody coach with an offense that no one ever heard of, and that no one ever liked.

Phil didn't know anything and thought the triangle would reduce MJ's burden, but it didn't..... Jordan's burden increased in the triangle, while the triangle never won before MJ and Kobe, or since.

So history is on my side and you're the one ignoring history by believing media soundbites instead of the historical record... Phil was a 1st time nobody coach and MJ carried the triangle more than anyone ever carried any offense.. These are statistical realities that you're ignoring in favor or lies that you heard on TV about MJ having teammates that dominated and carried him.. He never did - he carried the Bulls to 6 titles and the stats back this up quite clearly...

Again, you're just ignoring this obvious truth, so you can believe the lies that you hear on TV... Again, carrying the star category of scoring allows less stars, so the GM can sign better role players and defenders - it's a top 10 criteria for guys that played in the 3-pointer basketball era (since 1980) where offensive dominance is required to be MVP.

Again, if Pippen is the only guy in basketball history that Jordan could win with, then Jordan isn't a top 100,000 player and you or I are better than him... You or I could play 10 minutes per game and win with Russell, Wilt, Curry and Kobe, while MJ can only win with Pippen...

So the idea that MJ needed Pippen to win has always been "special ed" level of dumbness.... MJ didn't have good teammates because the stats show they were low producers and completely carried by MJ in every series.

The reason MJ is goat is because the stats show he completely carried his team to 6 titles, while the stats show that every other all-timer was carried to their titles by comparison, with almost no exceptions (i.e. 94' Hakeem, 00' Shaq, 03' Duncan, 06' Wade, 09/10 Kobe, 11' Dirk, 15/22 Curry, and Jordan's 6 titles).

Why would I appreciate 1 for 6 with AD???... What is there to appreciate about that?... How does that put him in Jordan's class (6 for 6 with poor man's AD)???

Why would failing with Wade, Love or AD make me appreciate him?... Why would never producing good chemistry and therefore needing to team up with these guys make me appreciate him?... How in the hell do YOU appreciate this trash?... Look in the mirror buddy and realize that you don't know how to think for yourself - every syllable that you wrote itt, you heard on TV.

Lebron colluded with opponents - why would I appreciate that?.... Then he still produced perennial losers and mostly lost... Why would I appreciate that?

He employed media shills to say he never failed expectation, even though he was HISTORICALLY locked up (07', 08'), or historically-upset (09', 10', 11') - these failures with "normal" rosters of 1 franchise player required forming "super-teams" of 3 franchise players - why would I respect that???.... Then he mostly lost again, so what is there to appreciate??!!... He's a team-hopping fool that still mostly loses... A little boy that is afraid to stand on his own 2 feet... I will never appreciate weakness, choking, flopping, colluding, excuse-making, or the blame game.. I will also never appreciate a 1-dimensional "down-hill" skillset (not 5 man basketball) that never evolved out of AAU style and turns everyone into spot-up shooter, thereby producing perennial losers regardless of cast.
.

I wonder how fg would take it if the reverse were true and LeBron played for a bit, retired, played a bit, retired, played a bit, finally retired permanently and MJ had been the one playing his career straight through like 99.9% of athletes.

I wonder if he would take that as a personality flaw/defect and then lionize MJ for not doing so.

Nah, he'd probably be totally consistent and not ad hoc with all his views.

You said it yourself - Jalen Rose led Miller in scoring, yet Jalen isn't a "star"

So those 2 things can happen at the same time - i.e. not having star help but still having a teammate "carry" you by matching your scoring (this is "carried" compared to Jordan's standard).

Hope that helps

Most people understand that Jordan would have 8 straight titles if he never retired, or 7 in 8 years or something (I think they lose in 95' to the Rockets and then resume winning after that).. He would also have 50k points.

Jordan retired because there were no more challenges (he had already achieved the goat basketball feat of a modern 3-peat + goat individual dominance) and his Dad died...

The media is really dumb so they never asked Jordan what he would've done if he lost to Barkley... I guarantee that Jordan would've trudged forward and kept playing after the failed 3-peat just like Kobe or Wade did in 11' or 14'... However, achieving the 3-peat and goat achievement allowed him to retire and mourn his Dad.

.
For Lebron to make his first playoffs in 2006, he needed the East all-star center and a player that was better than 1990 Pippen on both sides of the ball:

05' HUGHES.................. 21.6 PER... 0.157 WS/48... 3.7 VORP... 4.3 BPM... 22/6/5.... 1st Team All-D
90' PIPPEN.................... 16.3 PER... 0.087 WS/48... 3.0 VORP... 1.8 BPM... 16/6/5.... No All-D

So Lebron received 4 players that were superior to 1990 Pippen, but his "bron-ball" skillset imposed spot-up roles, so he couldn't develop them or win anything with them like MJ did with Pippen:

09' MO WILLIAMS........ 17.2 PER... 0.165 WS/48... 3.1 VORP... 2.3 BPM... 17/3/4
90' PIPPEN.................... 16.3 PER... 0.087 WS/48... 3.0 VORP... 1.8 BPM... 16/7/5

09' JAMISON................. 20.6 PER... 0.126 WS/48... 2.8 VORP... 1.6 BPM... 22/9/2
90' PIPPEN.................... 16.3 PER... 0.087 WS/48... 3.0 VORP... 1.8 BPM... 16/7/5

06' ZYDRUNAS'.............. 21.9 PER... 0.184 WS/48... 2.1 VORP... 1.6 BPM... 16/8/1 (2 bpg)
90' PIPPEN..................... 16.3 PER... 0.087 WS/48... 3.0 VORP... 1.8 BPM... 16/7/5

^^^ That's a concept that players fulfill to varying degrees.

Specifically, ball-dominators are too ball-dominant at high scoring levels, so they don't carry the scoring load as well as highly-assisted players like Curry, Kobe and Duncan, and therefore need more star help (which prevents the GM from getting good role players/defenders.

And that's what we see from Lebron's teams because his need for star help makes it really hard for GM's to fill out the roster with good role players/defenders.. We saw this in Miami after the Heat signed the "big 3", or after Lebron teamed up with Kyrie and Love - this star help takes up cap space and stops the GM from filling out the roster.. The inability to carry the scoring load and subsequent need for star help is exacerbated by Lebron's style of turning everyone into spot-up shooter, which further hinders elite roster construction... So Lebron is a literal nightmare for GM's.

Do you realize that the only conference in history that let a bunch of 1-star teams win the conference was the 00's East???? (Iverson, Dwight, Lebron and Kidd twice)

So you're claiming that Lebron's Cavs would win the 90's East, except he couldn't win the weakest conference ever in 09' or 10', which caused the "decision" to start stacking the deck.

Lebron couldn't beat an injured 1-star team as a -700 favorite (Dwight's Magic), so he would get destroyed by Ewing's Knicks, who had a better cast than the injured Magic, or Shaq/Penny obviously... Or HOF's like Alonzo/Tim Hardaway - they held Jordan to his worst-shooting series ever in the 97' ECF, so imagine what they would do to LeBrick... LeBrick would have to shoot over packed paints just like everyone else back then, and that's his weakness (midrange), so he would struggle mightily in the 90's without the spacing that his stiff arm game needs.

Again, you're forgetting that for Lebron to make his first playoffs in 2006, he needed the East all-star center and an acquisition that was better than 1990 Pippen on both sides of the ball... MJ would've 3-peated with that from 06-08' or 09-11', especially in the weakest conference ever....

I'm starting my youtube channel soon, and the first video shows the Hughes/Pippen stats shown in the previous post above.. The first video highlights his failures of expectation with normal rosters of 1 franchise player from 04-11' - it was a catastrophe every year... Even in 2006, he only averaged 26/6/7 in a 7 game loss, so that's not great either (but not a catastrophe like every other year).. His inept failure with normal rosters caused him to form super-teams.
.

Crickets on this one....

because it proves how the media ignored all of Lebron's failures of expectations, so they could say he met every expectation - the biggest lie in sports

A midget shooter and a lumbering big being better than a 6'8 dynamic athlete like Pippen is exactly what I mean by a preoccupation with one side of the ball.

And when Pau and Klay make All NBA it's bc the winning spotlight extends to sidekicks.

But when teammates of LeBron are selected All-Stars it's proof of something other than riding his coattails.

So when you compare players directly, dominant title runs do not matter at all. But when you rank your top 10 players, it is critical.

Which means dominant title runs are both important and not important to your criteria for comparing and ranking players.

Is fallguy intelligent enough to see the problem with this? (We know the answer is “no”, but his response will indeed be hilarious).

To have a good team offense, the best players on the team must be good scorers, but a good team defense doesn't require the best players to be a good defenders because there are many ways to skin a cat and have a good team defense.

So you're forgetting that Lebron didn't make all-defense until 2009, so the #3 ranking in 2007 was due to great defensive personnel, such as a backcourt with all-defensive resumes (Snow, Hughes), or all-defensive resumes in the frontcourt (Varejao, Ben Wallace), and also Zydrunas' rim protection (2 blocks).

Accordingly, history shows that the 2007-2010 Cavs had better defensive ranking and personnel than the 1st three-peat Bulls, while also having more offensive help, such as 3rd options that are better scorers than Pippen (Jamison), or acquisitions that are better than 1990 Pippen, aka Hughes (and then adding an all-star as well with Mo, while already having 2x all-star Zydrunas)... This is more help than MJ had.

You're comparing All-NBA to all-star, so you're starting on the wrong foot.

And Mo didn't join a good team in 2008... He joined a 45-win loser, but his all-star spacing opened up Lebron's game and the team to 66 wins (21 win improvement).. And Mo's scoring remained the same alongside Lebron, but his assists cratered (aka he was already considered really good before joining Lebron).

Btw, Lebron entered the league with the East All-star center on his team because Zydrunas was all-star in 03' and 05', so Zydrunas was already an all-star and therefore helped grow Lebron into an all-star in 05'.. Of course Ingram and Kuzma immediately blossomed after escaping "bron-ball" and it would've been a travesty to see their careers disappear into 12 ppg players like Kuzma almost did (before escaping to restore his career as a viable player).

Ultimately, Lebron needs an all-star spacer like Mo or Ray Allen to win MVP and 60 games, while MJ won MVP with nothing in 88' and no spacing in 92' (nearly the worst 3-point shooting in the league).

Great teams are critical to top 10, but not everyone that has a great team is top 10

I don't know why this is confusing.

Wow the 2007-2010 Cavs had a better surrounding cast for LeBron than Jordan had with the Bulls.

I think we're done here.

For what it’s worth, in 2008 LeBron and the Cavs lost in 7 games to the Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Rajon Rondo Boston superteam. LeBron James was 23 years old and their second best player was probably Zydrunas Ilgauskas. Maybe a past his prime Ben Wallace.

At 23 Michael Jordan was hogging the ball, taking a lot of shots, and getting fully swept in the first round of the playoffs. Not a single win.

You forgot to leave those facts out of the comparison there, didn’t you? If you didn’t get all your basketball knowledge from 1990’s Gatorade and Nike commercials you’d probably have a little bit deeper understanding of the game.

Every player is exhausted at the end of the season, so are you saying that Jordan wasn't physically capable of playing in 1994???... A guy that 41 ppg but then can't play the next season??... wtf are you talking about lol.. that makes no sense.

MJ was physically-capable of playing, but simply had the luxury of taking a break because he had opened the Overton window to goatness - t was understood that he would be considered better than Magic and Bird by 3-peating, and therefore the consensus goat... It was perfect timing because his Dad was murdered, so it was the perfect time to take a break with everyone already saying you're GOAT... Jim Brown did it too.

Since fossil Rodman averaged 3/8 for the entire 97' Playoffs, Kukoc was the starter for the 98' Playoffs over Rodman, so let's compare the PF's:

BOSH........ 11x all-star
LOVE........... 5x all-star
JAMISON.... 2x all-star
BOOZER..... 2x all-star
GRANT........ 1x all-star
KUKOC........ 0x all-star

And 36-year Rodman < 33-year Ben Wallace or 2010 Shaq

Conclusion: MJ needed role players at PF, while Lebron needed star players and elite scorers at PF

It’s not confusing, you’re just a dumbass.

Presumably, if you were somewhat intelligent, your top 10 criteria is based on actual player comparisons (e.g. player A is better than player B because of x y z). If there is critical criteria for top 10 then you are using that criteria to rank them.

So when you say that criteria matters for top 10 but does not matter when ranking players, that means you aren’t ranking players with consistent criteria.

Which we knew already because your criteria for LeBron is completely made up and different than everyone else, but I thought you’d be smart enough to not explicitly admit it right here.

(Ok, I lied — I knew you weren’t smart enough to realize it, but it’s still hilarious to trap you with every single post.)

By nearly beating a super-team despite worst-ever play from the 1st option, it proved that those Cavs teams were really good.

The Cavs easily win the series if Lebron shoots 45% instead of 35%, or 3 TO's per game instead of 5... They probably win in 5 or 6 if he does both.

No one in history averaged 35% and 5 TO's in a series, so those Cavs nearly won despite Lebron playing worse than anyone ever has.. This proves they were good, in addition to having a 2x all-star center and an acquisition that was better than 1990 Pippen, while also having a "Rodman" with Ben Wallace...

Jordan easily 3-peats with all that help.

Lebron averaged 5 TO's per game and 35%, so he was hogging and chucking worse than anyone ever has, yet still nearly won because he had a great veteran team.

Otoh, Jordan's first playoff teams didn't have all-star teammates like Lebron's did, or acquisitions that were better than 1990 Pippen, so Jordan had to average 44/6/6 on 50%... Otoh, Lebron's stacked veteran team was in Year 5, so he almost won despite playing worse than anyone ever has.
.
.

That's exactly what my top 10 criteria is.

Specifically, since highly-assisted skillsets are required to run the ball movement systems that every great team has, my top 10 consists of the best highly-assisted skillsets ever, aka the top 10 off-ball players ever.. This is the simplest and most intuitive top 10 criteria that exists.

Great off-ball players produce great brand of ball or chemistry, and having sufficient chemistry at high scoring levels allows them to carry the scoring load against top teams... These 2 things - chemistry and carrying the scoring load - allows winning with normal rosters of 1 franchise player.

But again, carrying the scoring load is only a requirement of the 3-point era players (since 1980) because the 2-pointer eras didn't require offensive dominance to be considered great (MVP's could be defenders and didn't have to be dominant offensively like players in the 3-point era).

This thread should be closed. It's one mentally ill guy wasting his life yelling at clouds and a group of people laughing at him.

You know it's bad when you've convinced literally no one and turned all the pro-Jordan posters against you.

Takes real mental illness to do that.

And since LeBron James has the most points scored in the history of the NBA, at a higher effeciency than Michael Jordan (.590 TS% vs. .569 TS%), along with his other accomplishments, that must make him a top 2’ish all-time player based on your own criteria alone. Probably #1 since he was able to involve teammates properly by creating assists, and win without the GOAT coach and a scheme specifically implemented to include his teammates. Jordan was 0 for 8 without the GOAT coach and a custom built offense to allow ball hog shooting guards to be successful.

Furthermore, we have proven assisted fg% is negatively correlated with wins throughout entire NBA seasons sometimes, therefore we can definitively rule that variable out of the analysis, since it wouldn’t make sense to include a variable that is sometimes negatively correlated with wins to explain dynasties or “dominant champions”. This is fundamental to statistics.

This is what a proper logical, data driven analysis would look like where you don’t get all of your basketball knowledge from 1990’s Gatorade and Nike commercials. Since your 30+ year old media driven factoids cannot contribute anything of substance, you shouldn’t really have the right to participate in this debate any longer, unless the goal is to embarrass yourself.