Originally Posted by Da KO King
No because that as I interpreted it "Michael Jordan < LeBron James"
the point of the opening post. I interpreted the overall point to be if you replace the best perimeter player on any of Michael Jordan's Finals opponents with LeBron James that Jordan would not have six titles.
I don't see how that is such an absurd conclusion to come to. LeBron would play as well or better than everyone he'd be replacing.
even that isn't true. you lose stockton, magic, or payton and those are completely different teams. you lose drexler and yes you get better in terms of overall talent, but danny ainge is now your best shooting guard, and he has no backup to speak of. take out kj, and again, no decent pgs on the team. if chicago had played someone with a versatile small forward as its best player than yeah, bron would be better than that guy and help out, but those teams that they actually faced just don't fit james's game that well. except maybe portland, which is debatable (he also pushes everybody's main man jerome kersey to the bench - they lose clyde and kersey since bron's not going to chase jordan all game and neither is jerome. man who does cover mike? ainge? smells like 63 points.)
i made the suggestion that you could sub him for doc in the 1980 team and maybe get a title over la. that seems like a much better fit for a big sf with his slashing / finishing skills.