Because Jordan stan needs Luka Doncic to lose, because Jordan was never a playmaker. So he wants playmakers so fail, and iso scorers to succeed.


He knows Jordan was not an elite playmaker, and LeBron was superior to Jordan at playmaking by a wide margin.


Luka Doncic is also vastly superior to Jordan at playmaking.

Nature is healing. When a bunch of nostalgic olds die off in the next 20 years, Bron will go from 30-40% GOAT to about 60-70% GOAT.

your post is a nice narrative that appeals to new fans that don't know Jordan was the best point guard in the league after 3 games at the position - he could've been the greatest point guard ever if he stayed at that position and averaged 30/10/10 for the next 5-10 years.. But the problem is that he would've lost his ass just like Lebron did playing that way, and just like Luka did playing that way, and just like Oscar did playing that way, and just like Magic did playing that way in 90' and 91' without Kareem (catastrophic upset to KJ and then blowout to MJ).

So the reason MJ is superior to all these losing ball-dominators is that his skillset didn't rely on losing ball-domination, while they all relied almost exclusively on ball-domination.. Jordan was the goat shooting guard that could've been the goat point guard if he subordinated his game to strictly ball-domination.. Fortunately, he had expert jumpshooting skill and great instinct to play off teammates, be an assist target and ultimately facilitate ball movement and superior strategic capacity.

See, what many people don't understand is that let's say there was a player named "Bob" for lack of a better name that was capable of averaging 50/20/20 - he would lose in a similar fashion to Luka and Lebron because the "down-hill" or ball-dominant skillset freezes out teammates... So the story would be that Bob's teammates stunk and didn't provide enough help just like with Luka and Lebron's cast always perform like crap - so even though this guy is getting 50/20/20, teammates still have to get 50-90 points to win the game, and they simply can't against the best teams with that brand of ball - this is based on the historical record.

Since ball-dominators cannot win with chemistry, they need more talent (more help) - "more help" is the only reason ever given when a ball-dominator loses - the idea of developing greater chemistry the way expert jumpshooters or fundamental bigs do isn't a consideration.. It's just "get Ant more help!!"... "Get Lebron more help"!!.... Meanwhile, expert jumpshooters or fundamental bigs like Tatum, MJ, Curry, Jokic or Duncan develop great chemistry over many years, so they eventually win with far less help and "normal" casts of 1 franchise player.

He gets credit for having great fits with everyone, due to his scoring diversity (off-ball and on-ball) - this allows great chemistry development as needed for a great-performing cast, aka great team.

Otoh, Luka and Lebron's "down-hill" and ball-dominant skillset imposes spot-up roles and isn't 5-man basketball, so it cannot develop the great chemistry needed for great-performing casts, aka great teams.... Since they can't rely on chemistry, they need more talent (more help) and all losses are blamed on "more help" needed.

So again, Tatum doesn't get much credit for young player development like say, MJ did for example, but he still gets credit for having the scoring diversity to allow great fits, chemistry and strategic capacity/coaching (which led to the juggernaut we see today).





Curry, MJ, Giannis, Jokic and even 2010 Lebron developed organic juggernauts and league favorites after 6-7 years in the league, and Tatum followed this same path.

The difference is that Lebron gave up on learning the chemistry needed to win with "normal" casts of 1 franchise player and opted for talent-based winning via 3 franchise players (super-team) - the "decision" put the top 3 players in the East on 1 team, yet somehow Lebron got credit and props for winning the conference after that.. Fans and media proved quite gullible in this moment.




No one is saying that Tatum is as good as MJ, Kobe, or Curry... But Tatum's development of outstanding chemistry and effective basketball over many years is because he has great scoring diversity with off-ball and on-ball play, which is similar to MJ or Curry.

Tatum's scoring diversity enabled great ball movement and chemistry development, and this chemistry allows the team to seamlessly add players like Porzingas and develop the juggernaut we see today.. Meanwhile, Luka's ball-dominance and weaker chemistry needs more talent such as MULTIPLE franchise player teammates just like Lebron-ball did, and he'll still mostly lose on the championship level..

This forecast for Luka is based on solid empirical evidence of the last 21 years against the exact same opponents Luka currently faces, so it's a pretty damn good comp.. Of course Luka and Lebron have similar time of possession, assisted rates and even crappy efficiency on jumpers overall, so their styles are eerily similar.

Hersey Hawkins was a superior player than Jason Terry:


Regular Season

Hersey Hawkins........... 14.7.... 3.6.... 2.9... 1.7... 0.3... 59 TS... 16.3 PER... 2.0 BPM... 0.144 WS.48
Jason Terry.................... 13.4.... 2.3.... 3.8... 1.1... 0.2... 55 TS... 16.2 PER... 1.5 BPM... 0.116 WS.48.


Playoffs

Hersey Hawkins........... 14.1.... 3.6.... 2.9... 1.6... 0.3... 61 TS... 16.6 PER... 3.8 BPM... 0.144 WS.48
Jason Terry.................... 14.1.... 2.5.... 3.0... 0.9... 0.2... 56 TS... 14.9 PER... 1.7 BPM... 0.096 WS.48


Even without knowing the stats above, everyone knows that Hawkins was 4th option on the Sonics but easily better than Jason Terry, which confirms that the 96' Sonics were far superior to the 11' Mavs.

However, you wouldn't know the 96' Sonics destroy the 11' Mavs based on an often-cited net efficiency chart from the postseason (shown above), which shows the Mavs had a 6.7 net efficiency compared to 2.7 for the Sonics.. Since the gap isn't due to the Mavs superiority, it's clearly due to the cupcakes and weaker comp they faced - postseason net efficiency reflects opponent strength on that run just as much as the team's strength.. It's probably the worst stat to compare teams, ESPECIALLY across eras - in this way, it's a fraudulent stat, likely originating from Klutch Sports.

The 1996 Sonics faced the 20th, 12th, and 3rd rated SRS teams en route to the Finals.

The 2011 Mavs faced the 12th, 3rd, and 9th en route to the Finals. The weak cupcake competition included the two time defending champion Lakers and the Thunder team that made the NBA Finals the following season.

Fraudguy - “total cupcakes!”

Lebron is excused for wetting the bed in the 07' Finals because he was 22 years old, so it's contradictory to praise 22-year old-led teams and pretend they were good comp like the 11' Thunder... The fact that the Mavs faced Westbrick and he was a baby confirms their weak comp.. Then of course the Mavs beat a team pursuing a 3-peat, and those teams are always trash and get swept like the 89' Lakers, 91' Pistons, 96' Rockets and 11' Lakers (14' Heat were beaten by record amount).

So again, the Mavs faced the weakest comp possible, hence them having nearly 3 times the net efficiency as the Sonics in the playoffs, despite the Sonics having a 4th option that destroys the Mavs' hero on both sides of the ball.. The Sonics have a clear-cut advantage in talent, yet their superior comp of long-standing organic juggernauts (Rockets, Jazz, Bulls) destroys the Mavs' comp of fossils or baby Westbricks.

People forget that Magic's 63-win Lakers were upset by the loaded Suns in 1990, who were then destroyed by the loaded Blazers, who were then destroyed by the loaded Pistons.. Then the 93' Sonics destroyed the favored Hakeem before a historic 7-game series against Barkley.. The point is that the 90's West had goat parity, so long-standing organic juggernauts took turns making the Finals - the team that represented the West went through a blood bath and was having their banner year with everything going for them.. So MJ faced freight trains in the Finals and organic juggernauts that Lebron typically loses to, aka Spurs, Nuggets, Warriors, Mavs, Magic.

The reason that MJ could go 6-0 against battle-tested, long-standing, organic juggernauts is because he had an organic juggernaut himself, aka fight fire with fire... This wasn't random - Jordan's expert jumpshooting and off-ball skillset allowed great fits, ball movement and chemistry, which allowed the development of a great-performing cast, aka great team... But if he was a spot-up-role-imposing ball-dominator that couldn't develop chemistry and therefore needed more talent (more help), he would get destroyed in the Finals just like Luka and Lebron.

Fallguy spittin’ facts.

If the NBA does not, in fact, improve exp0nentially over short time scales (if it does, that immediately implies Nikola Jokic is the greatest basketball player ever), then it seems like fallguy is providing iron clad arguments that Jordan is indeed the GOAT.

How could we have been so blind to facts and logic. All this time, and LeBron was never even in contention. How could anyone have guessed, after he won 2 whole titles with his Miami superteam? Ah well, perhaps we can all learn from this in some way.

Congrats fallguy and thanks for teaching us all. Thread MVP.

fallguy, how many championships did MJ or Kobe win without Phil?

Just answer the question.