Would Kareem had won all those chips in place of MJ?

[Roundball_Rock]

You've talked a lot about it, so you should be able to summarize without being lengthy why lebron > MJ

So why is he? .. what are your actual arguments for lebron > mj

Yet another falsehood, all from fans of the same retired player.

Here is what I said in another thread:

Well, it certainly is the only argument we hear for MJ over anyone. We had a 23 page thread on KJ and MJ. The entire "case" for MJ was team success with amusingly rigged parameters (we have to count the part of KAJ's careers where his teams were the worst but for MJ we have to look at the part of his career where his teams were the best).

To me MJ>LeBron because MJ was more dominant, had no weakness in his game (his one weakness was that he needed to be taught to play team ball over many years, while most legends understand that from day 1), MJ was the better two-way player, and MJ was a better bet to win rings because of his ability to raise an already good's teams ceiling to that of being an all-time great team.

LeBron is the better all-around offensive player, has more longevity, and shows a much better ability to raise his teams' floors if they are bad or average but he can't get to a high ceiling relative to his rosters' talent and what comparable legends did. LeBron was with Wade/Bosh or Irving/Love from 2011-2017 and the team won 60+ only once. They were below 55 wins in 14', 15', 17'. It is notable LeBron has never played on what would be considered an all-time great team and some of that has to do with him and his issues integrating with other stars, not just bad luck.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...as-over-LeBron

[3ball]

Yet another falsehood, all from fans of the same retired player.

Here is what I said in another thread:



http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...as-over-LeBron

Lebron had several 30-40 win teams and low seeds just like Jordan's 80's teams.. but he never carried his low seeds anywhere - he only made the playoffs with high seeds and decorated, experienced vets...

And the 89' Cavs were much better than the 07' Pistons by every metric.. Yet MJ beat them with a 6 seed of rookies, while lebron had a 2 seed of decorated vets and a top defense (Hughes was 1st team defense and 22/5/5... Zydrunas was a 2-time all-star.. Brown was future COY)...

Finally, MJ averaged 40/6/8 against the Cavs, while lebron beat the Pistons with 25/9/7.. so MJ had the bigger carry-job and every metric shows this (undecorated cast, lower seeding, better opponent, better stats needed to win, etc)

So MJ carries weak casts better, since lebron never carried a low seed like MJ did in 89'... And even lebron's low seeds from 05' had all-stars (Zydrunas), so he never had a cast as bad as jordan's 80's casts.

And Phil didn't teach MJ team ball - he taught MJ the triangle - MJ was already a team player that averaged equal assists to Lebron prior to his first retirement - let that sink in... He simply had a lottery cast and weak help so he had to score goat amounts - he didn't have all-stars or all-defenders like Zydrunas or Hughes.. and no COY or top team defenses.

Finally, employing a playground style where you hold/dribble the ball forever and make most of the plays isn't an "all-round" way to play - it allows the best chance to get high points and assists, which you're conflating with "all-round" play.. this is a shallow understanding of the game (and inaccurate).. lebron's inability to play off ball, shoot or post well is a bigger factor that hinders his success..he can't play in a system either.. that isn't all-round.. otoh, MJ was a 30/9/11 point guard, while also getting 6 rings playing mostly off-ball.. so he's a better all-round player

[Roundball_Rock]

Lebron had several 30-40 win teams and low seeds just like Jordan's 80's teams

So you are penalizing LeBron for being able to get his bad teams to decent playoff seeds? (Not sure what low seeds you are referring to, I think #4 is his all-time low.)

You are really comparing a first round series win to winning the ECF?

The Price/Daughtery era Cavs were paper tigers. We saw that "cast" without Mark Price and they went into the lottery.

[3ball]

So you are penalizing LeBron for being able to get his bad teams to decent playoff seeds? (Not sure what low seeds you are referring to, I think #4 is his all-time low.)

You are really comparing a first round series win to winning the ECF?

The Price/Daughtery era Cavs were paper tigers. We saw that "cast" without Mark Price and they went into the lottery.

The 05' Cavs had the East all-star center, but they needed to add a 22/5/5 all-defender, the future COY, and a top defense to make the playoffs in 06'...

So again, Lebron had several 30-40 win teams and low seeds just like Jordan's 80's teams, but he never carried his low seeds anywhere like 05' or 19' - he only made the playoffs with much improved high seeds that had added decorated, experienced vets (06', 20')

And the 89' Cavs were much better than the 07' Pistons by every metric.. Yet MJ beat them with a 6 seed of rookies, while lebron had a 2 seed of decorated vets and a top defense (Hughes was 1st team defense and 22/5/5... Zydrunas was a 2-time all-star.. Brown was future COY)...

Finally, MJ averaged 40/6/8 against the Cavs, while lebron beat the Pistons with 25/9/7.. so MJ had the bigger carry-job and every metric shows this (undecorated cast, lower seeding, better opponent, better stats needed to win, etc)

So MJ carries weak casts better, since lebron never carried a low seed like MJ did in 89'... And even lebron's low seeds from 05' had all-stars (Zydrunas), so he never had a cast as bad as jordan's 80's casts.

[ELITEpower23]

To me, MJ was the "cheat code" during these 90s playoff runs. It was sort of like adding KD to the Warriors, in a sense. If you took MJ off the Chicago Bulls and replaced him with another all-star caliber SG they would still win chips (probably not 6, but would still win a lot). MJ kept the scales unbalanced because the Bulls were already great without him.

91-93: Pippen + Grant + [insert all-star SG, not MJ] they still win
96-98: Pippen + Rodman + [insert all-star SG, not MJ] they still win

It's not that MJ is replaceable, because in many ways he is not. It's just that his relative competition wasn't strong enough to defeat him and his team was still strong without him. These factors need to be assessed in order to make sense of the scenarios.

Are Bulls still good without MJ? Yes, as evident by the 1994 run
Are the Bulls opponents superior in anyway? No, not really.

The 1996 Sonics gave MJ trouble because he ran his energy into the ground winning 72-games, so that was the tradeoff. And yet, he still accomplished another FMVP while avoiding a game 7. Again, in the end it comes to a few factors. It's not that MJ is replaceable, it's that his team was already strong without him + his competition was not particularly strong.

I have yet to see a single response to challenge this: It's not that MJ is replaceable, it's that his team already was strong without him + his competition was not particularly strong.

[Axe]

The 05' Cavs had the East all-star center, but they needed to add a 22/5/5 all-defender, the future COY, and a top defense to make the playoffs in 06'...

So again, Lebron had several 30-40 win teams and low seeds just like Jordan's 80's teams, but he never carried his low seeds anywhere like 05' or 19' - he only made the playoffs with much improved high seeds that had added decorated, experienced vets (06', 20')

And the 89' Cavs were much better than the 07' Pistons by every metric.. Yet MJ beat them with a 6 seed of rookies, while lebron had a 2 seed of decorated vets and a top defense (Hughes was 1st team defense and 22/5/5... Zydrunas was a 2-time all-star.. Brown was future COY)...

Finally, MJ averaged 40/6/8 against the Cavs, while lebron beat the Pistons with 25/9/7.. so MJ had the bigger carry-job and every metric shows this (undecorated cast, lower seeding, better opponent, better stats needed to win, etc)

So MJ carries weak casts better, since lebron never carried a low seed like MJ did in 89'... And even lebron's low seeds from 05' had all-stars (Zydrunas), so he never had a cast as bad as jordan's 80's casts.

Remember the cavs having 66 wins entering the '09 postseason?

Well, that was the franchise's best regular season record in team history.

[Roundball_Rock]

To me, MJ was the "cheat code" during these 90s playoff runs. It was sort of like adding KD to the Warriors, in a sense. If you took MJ off the Chicago Bulls and replaced him with another all-star caliber SG they would still win chips (probably not 6, but would still win a lot). MJ kept the scales unbalanced because the Bulls were already great without him.

91-93: Pippen + Grant + [insert all-star SG, not MJ] they still win
96-98: Pippen + Rodman + [insert all-star SG, not MJ] they still win

It's not that MJ is replaceable, because in many ways he is not. It's just that his relative competition wasn't strong enough to defeat him and his team was still strong without him. These factors need to be assessed in order to make sense of the scenarios.

Are Bulls still good without MJ? Yes, as evident by the 1994 run
Are the Bulls opponents superior in anyway? No, not really.

The 1996 Sonics gave MJ trouble because he ran his energy into the ground winning 72-games, so that was the tradeoff. And yet, he still accomplished another FMVP while avoiding a game 7. Again, in the end it comes to a few factors. It's not that MJ is replaceable, it's that his team was already strong without him + his competition was not particularly strong.

I have yet to see a single response to challenge this: It's not that MJ is replaceable, it's that his team already was strong without him + his competition was not particularly strong.

That's their MO. They will either ignore or throw out smoke and mirrors to avoid stuff like this.

[G0ATbe]

Pippen+Kareem In the 90s? You’ve gotta be joking to think they win anything less than 7 rings in that watered down decade.

[HoopsNY]

*Rookie Kukoc is the primary reason the Bulls' largely offset the loss of peak MJ (so 11/4/3 largely replaces 33/7/6, supposedly)--but rookie Pippen and Grant had nothing to do with the Bulls going from 40 wins to 50.

When did I claim that Kukoc was the primary reason for the Bulls' success in 1993-94? If you remember, there were a number of reasons I mentioned that Chicago was successful that season.

1) Scottie Pippen entering his prime
2) Bj Armstrong entering his prime
3) Horace Grant entering his prime
4) The addition of Steve Kerr who was an improvement over Paxson
5) The addition of Longley and Wennington who were improvements over Williams and Cartwright
6) The addition of Toni Kukoc

Here's something interesting about Kukoc's numbers Per 100 Possessions compared to Dwyane Wade's in his rookie season.

Toni Kukoc: 23.5 PPG-8.3 Rebs-7.3 Assists-2.3 Stls-1.0 Blks
Dwyane Wade: 25.4 PPG-6.3 Rebs-7.1 Assists-2.2 Stls-0.9 Blks

This isn't to say that Kukoc was AS impactful as Wade. But Kukoc's contributions shouldn't be ignored. You are just like Mj fans who downplay the supporting cast of the Bulls, only you do it to promote Scottie Pippen.

[BigShotBob]

In 95' the Bulls were 34-31 without MJ.

Next.

[LeCroix]

Pippen+Kareem In the 90s? You’ve gotta be joking to think they win anything less than 7 rings in that watered down decade.

Thanks
Exactly

'cAn a tOp 3 GoaT (Kareem) + a tOp 30 piPpEn beAt a tOp 40 dRexLeR or MaLoNe?

[3ball]

Remember the cavs having 66 wins entering the '09 postseason?

Well, that was the franchise's best regular season record in team history.

How many wins in 08'?

What was the difference in 09?

Waiting

[GimmeThat]

the guy that is a better offensive player than Wilt Chamberlain?

TS .592 vs .547
career OWS 178.9 vs 153.3
career DWS 94.5 vs 93.9
career WS/48 .228(73-74 ~ 88-89 VORM 85.7) vs .248

Michael Jordan
TS .569
OWS 149.9
DWS 64.1
WS/48 .250 VORM 116.1


hmm what's the argument about 2nd option averaging 14 PPG

[LeCroix]

How many wins in 08'?

What was the difference in 09?

Waiting

1-9 pippen was the difference

[guy]

Obfuscation. There is an obvious difference between great teams and flashes in the pan. No point in 5 paragraphs on this.

Based on what? You’re argument that teams without staying power aren’t great is pretty dumb and its easy to point the flaw in that logic – in a league/conference with more parity, if every team but one was worse, that one team would be extremely dominant, but they aren’t actually a better team. If in the 90s, the Jazz were what they were, but the Lakers, Blazers, Suns, Rockets, Sonics and Spurs were all significantly worse then they were, the Jazz may have made 10 straight finals losing all 6 to the Bulls and maybe winning a few while Jordan is retired. They would be considered an all-time great team. So your argument is too simple without any real critical thinking.

The relevance of Pippen/Grant is 1) secondary 2) it goes to hypocrisy. The same people always saying they had 0 role in going from 40 to 50 wins are the same people who will say rookie Kukoc largely offset losing peak MJ (who these people say is GOAT).

Well, I would say Toni Kukoc as a rookie was better then those guys as rookies but I don’t think anyone says he was the sole reason they were able to win as much as they did despite losing Jordan.

His prime largely overlapped with Pippen's and Grant's. Not the same as getting your best teammate when he is 32 or you are 32.

I thought we were solely focused on all-nba? You’re changing the argument when it fits you. My point is if you’re going to point to Pippen and Grant at a time when they weren’t even all-NBA players to say Jordan had enough, its contradictory to say Kareem only had help when he had all-nba players at his side, especially when we are talking about an era you probably didn’t watch.

Which nearly every championship team gets from its second best player.

Kareem got that from Oscar/Magic basically his whole time playing with them. Jordan didn’t get that from Pippen the whole time. Bringing up rookie Pippen and comparing him to rookie Magic just is not an appropriate comparison.