Nate Silver does the math: SGA is playing like MJ

[trojanfan12]

Getting to the Finals = finishing in second-place, and that's not the goal. Also, if you look at their respective Conference competition, the East was by far the tougher Conference during Jordan's time, so it was much tougher for him to get "to" the Finals than it was for Lebron.

You have to get to the finals to have a chance to win and advancing to the finals is better than losing in earlier rounds. And no, it wasn't "easier" for Lebron.

How many 73 win teams did MJ face? Lebron not only faced one, he won and overcame a 3-1 deficit to do it.

The rest of your post is opinion that you're trying to pass off as fact. Try again...with actual facts.

 

[dtgold88]

Jordan's Bulls went 6-0 in the Finals (vs. 4-6 for LeBron); Jordan's Bulls defeated more 50 and 60 win opponents in the Playoffs/Finals than LeBron (even though James has played a lot longer); the Bulls went almost literally the entire decade of the 90's without ever losing 3 games in a row when Jordan was on the roster (regular season and playoffs/Finals included); Jordan's Bulls never lost to a lower seed (LeBron has 4 times); Jordan's 96 Bulls are widely regarded as the GOAT team; Jordan's Bulls were never taken to a Game 7 in the Finals (and only twice during their entire run did they even need a Game 7); Jordan's Bulls won 25 of 26 Playoff series' during the 90's, and I could go on and on.... and Jordan did all this with just one (1) All Star teammate by his side.

Yes these are "team" accomplishments, and Jordan was always the undisputed best and most valuable player on his team (you can't say the same about LeBron)... so with respect to Winning and Team Success Jordan has a huge edge over LeBron (and Jabbar).

Once again, Jordan quits the first time and they win 55 and make EC semis.

It appears you are among the many who think not even getting to Finals better than losing in Finals? The 4-6 vs. 6-0 pretty easy to understand if no agenda (so you might not get it). Yes, Lebron was in a weaker East and why he made Finals more. MJ played weaker teams IN Finals and why he won at a better rate.

 

[MAGA2024]

You have to get to the finals to have a chance to win and advancing to the finals is better than losing in earlier rounds. And no, it wasn't "easier" for Lebron.

How many 73 win teams did MJ face? Lebron not only faced one, he won and overcame a 3-1 deficit to do it.

The rest of your post is opinion that you're trying to pass off as fact. Try again...with actual facts.

As noted, in 5 of Jordan's first 6 seasons (pre Championship days) he lost to the team that either made the Finals or won the Championship. That's a fact, not an opinion. You want to penalize him because he faced those teams BEFORE the Finals when they played in the same Conference?

Makes zero sense.

If getting TO the Finals earns you brownie points then Jerry West and Elgin Baylor should be Top 5-10 all-time on everyone's GOAT list.

The goal is to win a Championship, not finish runner-up... and yes, LeBron's road to the Finals was withOut question easier than Jordan's. That too is a fact, not an opinion. If you disagree feel free to state your reasons.

...and you're right, Jordan never beat a 73-win team. But again, that's because Jordan's Bulls WERE the 70+ win team. So you're trying to penalize Jordan for being the undisputed best/most valuable player on a juggernaut Dynasty.

It doesn't work that way, sorry.

 

[MAGA2024]

Once again, Jordan quits the first time and they win 55 and make EC semis.

It appears you are among the many who think not even getting to Finals better than losing in Finals? The 4-6 vs. 6-0 pretty easy to understand if no agenda (so you might not get it). Yes, Lebron was in a weaker East and why he made Finals more. MJ played weaker teams IN Finals and why he won at a better rate.

55 wins and the Semi's? So what? Are we giving out brownie points for getting bounced in the second-round now?

Come on.

...and again, if getting TO the Finals was considered anywhere near as impressive as actually winning the Championship then Jerry West and Elgin Baylor would be widely regarded as Top 5-10 on the GOAT list.

Put it this way: In 2018 the Rockets failed to reach the Finals "because" they faced the Warriors in the WCF; however the Rockets took those Warriors to 7 games. LeBron's Cavs, on the other hand, didn't face the Warriors "until" the Finals and they got swept.

Why should LeBron get credit for getting swept IN the Finals, yet the Rockets (who played the Warriors MUCH tougher) are forgetten?

Again, the logic makes no sense.

 

[dtgold88]

As noted, in 5 of Jordan's first 6 seasons (pre Championship days) he lost to the team that either made the Finals or won the Championship. That's a fact, not an opinion. You want to penalize him because he faced those teams BEFORE the Finals when they played in the same Conference?

Makes zero sense.

If getting TO the Finals earns you brownie points then Jerry West and Elgin Baylor should be Top 5-10 all-time on everyone's GOAT list.

The goal is to win a Championship, not finish runner-up... and yes, LeBron's road to the Finals was withOut question easier than Jordan's. That too is a fact, not an opinion. If you disagree feel free to state your reasons.

...and you're right, Jordan never beat a 73-win team. But again, that's because Jordan's Bulls WERE the 70+ win team. So you're trying to penalize Jordan for being the undisputed best/most valuable player on a juggernaut Dynasty.

It doesn't work that way, sorry.

so losing to the team who made the Finals or won title can be used as an excuse, but not Lebron getting to Finals and losing to a really good team that obviously won the title? Holy Double standard Batman

does getting TO Finals earn brownie points? Not really....but isn't it better than not getting there?

Is the goal to have 9 seasons where he couldn't even get to the Finals....and never even win more than 42 without Pippen holding his hand? FYI, it's opinion Lebron's road easier to Finals. Sure, one you can make a good case. Can also make a good case Lebron's road IN the Finals much tougher than MJ's.

You are a walking double standard.

 

[dtgold88]

55 wins and the Semi's? So what? Are we giving out brownie points for getting bounced in the second-round now?

Come on.

...and again, if getting TO the Finals was considered anywhere near as impressive as actually winning the Championship then Jerry West and Elgin Baylor would be widely regarded as Top 5-10 on the GOAT list.

Put it this way: In 2018 the Rockets failed to reach the Finals "because" they faced the Warriors in the WCF; however the Rockets took those Warriors to 7 games. LeBron's Cavs, on the other hand, didn't face the Warriors "until" the Finals and they got swept.

Why should LeBron get credit for getting swept IN the Finals, yet the Rockets (who played the Warriors MUCH tougher) are forgetten?

Again, the logic makes no sense.

no, no brownie points. But isn't 55 wins and semis better than 42 and never even winning a round?

i'm not giving Lebron credit for losing in the Finals.....but I can acknowledge losing IN the Finals means you took your team further than not getting there or often not even getting close.

Can you really not ackonowledge that, yes, Lebron had easier road TO the Finals, MJ was easier road IN the Finals?

 

[dtgold88]

55 wins and the Semi's? So what? Are we giving out brownie points for getting bounced in the second-round now?

Come on.

...and again, if getting TO the Finals was considered anywhere near as impressive as actually winning the Championship then Jerry West and Elgin Baylor would be widely regarded as Top 5-10 on the GOAT list.

Put it this way: In 2018 the Rockets failed to reach the Finals "because" they faced the Warriors in the WCF; however the Rockets took those Warriors to 7 games. LeBron's Cavs, on the other hand, didn't face the Warriors "until" the Finals and they got swept.

Why should LeBron get credit for getting swept IN the Finals, yet the Rockets (who played the Warriors MUCH tougher) are forgetten?

Again, the logic makes no sense.

no, no brownie points. But isn't 55 wins and semis better than 42 and never even winning a round?

i'm not giving Lebron credit for losing in the Finals.....but I can acknowledge losing IN the Finals means you took your team further than not getting there or often not even getting close.

Can you really not ackonowledge that, yes, Lebron had easier road TO the Finals, MJ was easier road IN the Finals?

 

[MAGA2024]

so losing to the team who made the Finals or won title can be used as an excuse, but not Lebron getting to Finals and losing to a really good team that obviously won the title? Holy Double standard Batman

does getting TO Finals earn brownie points? Not really....but isn't it better than not getting there?

Is the goal to have 9 seasons where he couldn't even get to the Finals....and never even win more than 42 without Pippen holding his hand? FYI, it's opinion Lebron's road easier to Finals. Sure, one you can make a good case. Can also make a good case Lebron's road IN the Finals much tougher than MJ's.

You are a walking double standard.

Again... getting TO the Finals is nowhere even remotely close to actually winning the Championship. Period... and as we've seen from LeBron the the last 7 years (only 1 Finals appeareance), had he played in the tougher Conference his entire career he likely wouldn't have made the Finals anywhere close to 9 straight times.

But regardless, he did... and he LOST 60% of the time. Jordan, on the other hand, played in the tougher Conference his entire career, and when he got TO the Finals he won 100% of the time.

Spin it however you want, but 4-6 in the Finals doesn't measure up to 6-0... and it never will.

 

[MAGA2024]

no, no brownie points. But isn't 55 wins and semis better than 42 and never even winning a round?

i'm not giving Lebron credit for losing in the Finals.....but I can acknowledge losing IN the Finals means you took your team further than not getting there or often not even getting close.

Can you really not ackonowledge that, yes, Lebron had easier road TO the Finals, MJ was easier road IN the Finals?

55 wins and the Semi's is a credit to Pippen, and the 94 Bulls' determination to prove the critics wrong. What happened in 95 though? The Bulls were 34-31 wehen Jordan returned, and barely hanging on for a playoff spot. Once Jordan joined the team they went 13-4 to finish the season.

...and I already stated that I would give LeBron's Finals opponents the edge in terms of quaLity; however even then LeBron "lost" to a lower seed (in the 2011 Finals) largely because of his own sub par performance.

Jordan never lost in the Finals and was always the best player on the court.

 

[dtgold88]

Again... getting TO the Finals is nowhere even remotely close to actually winning the Championship. Period... and as we've seen from LeBron the the last 7 years (only 1 Finals appeareance), had he played in the tougher Conference his entire career he likely wouldn't have made the Finals anywhere close to 9 straight times.

But regardless, he did... and he LOST 60% of the time. Jordan, on the other hand, played in the tougher Conference his entire career, and when he got TO the Finals he won 100% of the time.

Spin it however you want, but 4-6 in the Finals doesn't measure up to 6-0... and it never will.

For me to continue here gonna need you to answer my question that you keep avoiding. I do ask knowing irrational people like yourself are afraid of direct questions but don't be afraid, little fella.

Here is is again.......Can you really not acknowledge that, yes, MJ had a tougher road TO the Finals but Lebron had a tougher road IN the Finals? I'll even make it multiple choice to help.

A) Yes, I can agree with that
B) No, I disagree.....those games with Seattle, Phoenix, and Portland every bit as tough as all those GS contests and multiple SA series

Start your next comment with A or B or don't bother as I wont be reading it.

 

[MAGA2024]

For me to continue here gonna need you to answer my question that you keep avoiding. I do ask knowing irrational people like yourself are afraid of direct questions but don't be afraid, little fella.

Here is is again.......Can you really not acknowledge that, yes, MJ had a tougher road TO the Finals but Lebron had a tougher road IN the Finals? I'll even make it multiple choice to help.

A) Yes, I can agree with that
B) No, I disagree.....those games with Seattle, Phoenix, and Portland every bit as tough as all those GS contests and multiple SA series

Start your next comment with A or B or don't bother as I wont be reading it.

This is when/how you know you've backed a LeBron fan in the corner... they start with personal insults.

SMH

FTR I answered your question two (2) times already, "Mr. rational big fella"... lol. Go back and re-read.

Bottom line:

LeBron made the Finals 9 times (in the EC) by virtue of playing alongside 2-3 other HOF teammates in an Eastern Conference that was (arguably) at its all-time weakest... and when he reached the Finals (and actually played against legit Championship caliber opponents) he LOST 6 out of the 9 times (including 2 sweeps and 3 gentlemen sweeps - ie; 5 games).

Jordan made the Finals 6 times playing in a much tougher Eastern Conference, and when he reached the Finals he won every time in 5 or 6 games, in dominating, record-breaking fashion (with 2 of those teams being the higher seed).

I'll let you explain why you think LeBron's record of Team Success and Winning is more impressive. Needless to say I suspect I'll be waiting a long time.




What's your point?

 

[tlance]

As noted, in 5 of Jordan's first 6 seasons (pre Championship days) he lost to the team that either made the Finals or won the Championship. That's a fact, not an opinion. You want to penalize him because he faced those teams BEFORE the Finals when they played in the same Conference?

Makes zero sense.

If getting TO the Finals earns you brownie points then Jerry West and Elgin Baylor should be Top 5-10 all-time on everyone's GOAT list.

The goal is to win a Championship, not finish runner-up... and yes, LeBron's road to the Finals was withOut question easier than Jordan's. That too is a fact, not an opinion. If you disagree feel free to state your reasons.

...and you're right, Jordan never beat a 73-win team. But again, that's because Jordan's Bulls WERE the 70+ win team. So you're trying to penalize Jordan for being the undisputed best/most valuable player on a juggernaut Dynasty.

It doesn't work that way, sorry.

No.

But you want to penalize LeBron because he lost to those teams in the Finals.

Making a deep run and losing to the eventual champion is not a legacy stain whether it is in the Finals or the 2nd round.

The 6-0 Finals record for MJ is really not meaningful. Only 1 time (1998) did the Bulls face a team in the Finals that was anywhere close to their level.

 

[MAGA2024]

No.

But you want to penalize LeBron because he lost to those teams in the Finals.

Making a deep run and losing to the eventual champion is not a legacy stain whether it is in the Finals or the 2nd round.

The 6-0 Finals record for MJ is really not meaningful. Only 1 time (1998) did the Bulls face a team in the Finals that was anywhere close to their level.

I'm not "penalizing" LeBron (for losing to those teams in the Finals) as much as I'm suggesting he wouldn't have even made it TO the Finals (to face those teams) if he went up against the same level of EC competition as Jordan faced throughout his career.

Also, the idea that Jordan's 6-0 record in the Finals is "not meaningful" because his opponents (allegedly) weren't close to the Bulls' level is laughably absurd UNLESS you explain how you justify that statement.

 

[tlance]

I'm not "penalizing" LeBron (for losing to those teams in the Finals) as much as I'm suggesting he wouldn't have even made it TO the Finals (to face those teams) if he went up against the same level of EC competition as Jordan faced throughout his career.

Also, the idea that Jordan's 6-0 record in the Finals is "not meaningful" because his opponents (allegedly) weren't close to the Bulls' level is laughably absurd UNLESS you explain how you justify that statement.

The competition Jordan faced in the East during the early part of his career was insane. But the Bulls weren’t good enough to win then anyway.

During the 90s?

It was physical as hell. But the competition wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. Not a team in the league came anywhere close to matching the Bulls’ talent.

Bulls had 50 win talent AFTER Jordan retired the first time. People forget about that. They were good enough to beat ANYBODY in the East without Jordan.

Took the Knicks to 7 games and were a bad foul call in game 5 away from winning that series in ‘94.

There were a lot of good teams in the 90s. 0 great teams besides the Bulls in that era.

LeBron had to contend with historically great teams. Spurs and Warriors.

When Jordan faced teams anywhere close to as good as them, he lost too. Just didn’t happen in the 90s because those teams didn’t exist.

 

[broncosmitty]

The Bulls dominanted their time.

It’s meaningful. Then and now. Most e’rybody else shared. Before and since.

And as good as Houston was, they did not share. They just held their chance at the moment. For a brief couple seasons.


Then the masters took back control.

 

[MAGA2024]

The competition Jordan faced in the East during the early part of his career was insane. But the Bulls weren’t good enough to win then anyway.

During the 90s?

It was physical as hell. But the competition wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. Not a team in the league came anywhere close to matching the Bulls’ talent.

Bulls had 50 win talent AFTER Jordan retired the first time. People forget about that. They were good enough to beat ANYBODY in the East without Jordan.

Took the Knicks to 7 games and were a bad foul call in game 5 away from winning that series in ‘94.

There were a lot of good teams in the 90s. 0 great teams besides the Bulls in that era.

LeBron had to contend with historically great teams. Spurs and Warriors.

When Jordan faced teams anywhere close to as good as them, he lost too. Just didn’t happen in the 90s because those teams didn’t exist.

The idea that no team in the league could match the talent on the Bulls is just simply inaccurate. The 96 Magic, 96 Sonics, early 90's Cavs, Suns and Blazers, et al were loaded with talent. The 97 Heat, 98 Pacers, 97/98 Jazz and early 90's Knicks were very experienced and very formible teams who played together for years, and made up for any void in talent (relative to the Bulls) with heart, effort and extremely physical play... plus let's not forget the Bulls were the lower seed in the 93 ECF, 93 Finals and 98 Finals

The difference between the Bulls and the rest of the league was not "superior talent". The difference was Michael Jordan... and that's why the illusion exists that there were no great teams in the 90's other than the Bulls.

You/others keep talking aboit the 94 Bulls. They had the exact same Championship core (save for MJ), and in addition they added the best player on the planet (outside of the NBA) in Toni Kukoc. THAT is a pretty formidable roster... and yet they lost in the second-round. That alone tells you how deep/talented the NBA was at the time AND more to my point, illustrates that the difference-maker was Jordan (not some perceived lack of talent from the rest of the league).

And again, we can't ignore the fact that the EC was (arguably) the weakest it's ever been during LeBron's run, while (at the same time) LeBron was playing alongside multiple HOFERS/All Stars. Yes he faced strong competition (in the Finals), specifically the Spurs and Warriors; however as noted, LeBron also had stacked rosters himself. Outside of the Durant/Curry Warriors (and the Spurs during LeBron's first Finals appearance), LeBron's teams were just as talented (or more so) as their Finals opponents.

So remove those 3 seasons and the best-case for LeBron is a 4-3 record in the Finals... much better than 4-6 of course; however still not close to Jordan's 6-0 (with Jordan being being the "undisputed" best / most valuable player for all 6 of them).

That is an unprecedented level of greatness that NO player in NBA history has come close to matching... and TBH it's intelellectually dishonest to simply shrug it off to "the 90's were weak". No... what it was was, Michael Jordan MADE the league look weak because of how dominating he truly was. Even at his absolute best you cannot say the same about LeBron.

 

[tlance]

The idea that no team in the league could match the talent on the Bulls is just simply inaccurate. The 96 Magic, 96 Sonics, early 90's Cavs, Suns and Blazers, et al were loaded with talent. The 97 Heat, 98 Pacers, 97/98 Jazz and early 90's Knicks were very experienced and very formible teams who played together for years, and made up for any void in talent (relative to the Bulls) with heart, effort and extremely physical play... plus let's not forget the Bulls were the lower seed in the 93 ECF, 93 Finals and 98 Finals

The difference between the Bulls and the rest of the league was not "superior talent". The difference was Michael Jordan... and that's why the illusion exists that there were no great teams in the 90's other than the Bulls.

You/others keep talking aboit the 94 Bulls. They had the exact same Championship core (save for MJ), and in addition they added the best player on the planet (outside of the NBA) in Toni Kukoc. THAT is a pretty formidable roster... and yet they lost in the second-round. That alone tells you how deep/talented the NBA was at the time AND more to my point, illustrates that the difference-maker was Jordan (not some perceived lack of talent from the rest of the league).

And again, we can't ignore the fact that the EC was (arguably) the weakest it's ever been during LeBron's run, while (at the same time) LeBron was playing alongside multiple HOFERS/All Stars. Yes he faced strong competition (in the Finals), specifically the Spurs and Warriors; however as noted, LeBron also had stacked rosters himself. Outside of the Durant/Curry Warriors (and the Spurs during LeBron's first Finals appearance), LeBron's teams were just as talented (or more so) as their Finals opponents.

So remove those 3 seasons and the best-case for LeBron is a 4-3 record in the Finals... much better than 4-6 of course; however still not close to Jordan's 6-0 (with Jordan being being the "undisputed" best / most valuable player for all 6 of them).

That is an unprecedented level of greatness that NO player in NBA history has come close to matching... and TBH it's intelellectually dishonest to simply shrug it off to "the 90's were weak". No... what it was was, Michael Jordan MADE the league look weak because of how dominating he truly was. Even at his absolute best you cannot say the same about LeBron.

It is very accurate actually.

Bulls had the best player and he partnered with Pippen who was another top 10 player.

This was in an era when the stars were more spread out than other.

Claiming the Bulls weren’t by far the most talented team in the era is laughable.

And it wasn’t just because of Jordan.

 

[MAGA2024]

It is very accurate actually.

Bulls had the best player and he partnered with Pippen who was another top 10 player.

This was in an era when the stars were more spread out than other.

Claiming the Bulls weren’t by far the most talented team in the era is laughable.

And it wasn’t just because of Jordan.

Pippen wasn't a Top 10 player in 1991... he developed into that player but he wasn't "that guy" from the outset. Other than that you offer nothing but an empty opinion about the Bulls being "by far the most talented team" in the era, certainly not during the first 3-Peat:

91 Lakers had 3 HOFERS, 2 All Stars and 2 All NBA players
91 Pistons had 3 HOFERS, 2 All Stars and 2 All NBA Defenders (including the DPOY)
92 Cavs had 2 All Stars, 2 Top 11 MVP players, 2 All NBA and 1 All Defense
93 Cavs had 3 All Stars and 2 Top 10 MVP players
93 Knicks had 3 Top 5 DPOY players, a Top 4 MVP, the runner-up for 6th MOY and Home Court against the Bulls
93 Suns had the MVP, 2 All Stars, 2 players finish Top 5 in 6th MOY, and HCA against the Bulls

That's during the first 3-Peat when Jordan had Pippen (2 All Star appearances and 2 All NBA's) and an elite, suffocating Defense around him; however playing elite Defense is much more about hustle and effort than talent/skill.

Clearly your "most talent by far" claim doesn't stack up... again, at least not during the first 3-Peat. Now I will concede that the second 3-Peat Bulls were more stacked, however let's not pretend their competition was weak or sub par:

96 Magic won 60 games and had two (2) Top 9 MVP players, 2 All Stars, 2 All NBA players and 1 All Defense
96 Sonics won 64 games and had two (2) Top 8 MVP players, 2 All Stars, and the DPOY
97 Heat won 61 games, had two (2) Top 12 MVP players, the Most Improved Player, and another All Defense player
97 Jazz won 64 games and had 2 all-time great HOFERS (both All Stars, All NBA and All Defense)
98 Pacers had 2 HOFERS and a Top 5 Offense and Defense
98 Jazz won 62 games, had the #1 Offense, 2 all-time great HOFERS, and HCA against the Bulls

Yes, the second 3-Peat Bulls were the class of the league... but so were the 2010 Warriors, the early 2000's Lakers, the 80's Lakers and Celtics, and the 50's/60's Celtics... but guess what? They ALL lost in the Finals at least once (and all but Russell;s Celtics lost multiple times).

Jordan and the Bulls never lost.

 

[tlance]

Pippen wasn't a Top 10 player in 1991... he developed into that player but he wasn't "that guy" from the outset. Other than that you offer nothing but an empty opinion about the Bulls being "by far the most talented team" in the era, certainly not during the first 3-Peat:

91 Lakers had 3 HOFERS, 2 All Stars and 2 All NBA players
91 Pistons had 3 HOFERS, 2 All Stars and 2 All NBA Defenders (including the DPOY)
92 Cavs had 2 All Stars, 2 Top 11 MVP players, 2 All NBA and 1 All Defense
93 Cavs had 3 All Stars and 2 Top 10 MVP players
93 Knicks had 3 Top 5 DPOY players, a Top 4 MVP, the runner-up for 6th MOY and Home Court against the Bulls
93 Suns had the MVP, 2 All Stars, 2 players finish Top 5 in 6th MOY, and HCA against the Bulls

That's during the first 3-Peat when Jordan had Pippen (2 All Star appearances and 2 All NBA's) and an elite, suffocating Defense around him; however playing elite Defense is much more about hustle and effort than talent/skill.

Clearly your "most talent by far" claim doesn't stack up... again, at least not during the first 3-Peat. Now I will concede that the second 3-Peat Bulls were more stacked, however let's not pretend their competition was weak or sub par:

96 Magic won 60 games and had two (2) Top 9 MVP players, 2 All Stars, 2 All NBA players and 1 All Defense
96 Sonics won 64 games and had two (2) Top 8 MVP players, 2 All Stars, and the DPOY
97 Heat won 61 games, had two (2) Top 12 MVP players, the Most Improved Player, and another All Defense player
97 Jazz won 64 games and had 2 all-time great HOFERS (both All Stars, All NBA and All Defense)
98 Pacers had 2 HOFERS and a Top 5 Offense and Defense
98 Jazz won 62 games, had the #1 Offense, 2 all-time great HOFERS, and HCA against the Bulls

Yes, the second 3-Peat Bulls were the class of the league... but so were the 2010 Warriors, the early 2000's Lakers, the 80's Lakers and Celtics, and the 50's/60's Celtics... but guess what? They ALL lost in the Finals at least once (and all but Russell;s Celtics lost multiple times).

Jordan and the Bulls never lost.

Dude, you are cherry picking stats so hard to make your point.

Anybody can manipulate numbers.

Pippen was an all NBA player from 92-98 and had 3 All NBA first teams.

And most importantly, Pippen and Jordan were in their primes together.

There were teams that might have had 2 all NBA guys for a season.

But only the Jazz had 2 guys who played at that level for more than a year or two.

 

[MAGA2024]

Dude, you are cherry picking stats so hard to make your point.

Anybody can manipulate numbers.

Pippen was an all NBA player from 92-98 and had 3 All NBA first teams.

And most importantly, Pippen and Jordan were in their primes together.

There were teams that might have had 2 all NBA guys for a season.

But only the Jazz had 2 guys who played at that level for more than a year or two.

???? I didn't even mention stats... I highlighted the "talent" of Jordan's opponents based on MVP voting, All NBA/Defense selections, DPOY, 6th MOY, All Star appearances, etc. during the seasons in which they faced the 90's Bulls in the Playoffs... and it's clear the Bulls faced legit competition.

Jordan had Pippen and a supporting cast of excellent role players... hardly "by far the most talent", again, during the first 3-Peat... ad even still, since when does having the most talent automatically mean winning the Championship?

It doesn't. That's why they play the games. The Bulls were the best/most dominating team "because of" Jordan.