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.