how impressive was mj as a point guard?

[3ball]

This is proven false, as It is NOT a result of the supporting cast, as the record of Jordan as PG is worse than the rest of the season, while Lebron's is better. In this, the supporting cast was more or less the same. As such, this PROVES that the difference in results was simply because of the difference in impacts of Lebron and Jordan

Average wins of opponents during MJ's 24 game stretch and Lebron's 12 game stretch


Seattle: 47
Indiana: 28
Cleveland: 57
New York: 52
Indiana: 28
Lakers: 57
Phoenix: 55
Portland: 39
Seattle: 47
Warriors: 43
Bucks: 49
Cleveland: 57
New Jersey: 26
Charlotte: 20
Detroit: 63
Detroit: 63
Atlanta: 52
Indiana: 28
New Jersey: 26
Cleveland: 57
New York: 52
Washington: 40
Washington: 40
Cleveland: 57
______________
[COLOR="Blue"]45 win average[/COLOR]




Lakers: 57
OKC: 50
Miami: 47
MIN: 15
IND: 32
LAC: 29
MEM: 40
MIA: 47
NYK: 29
New Jersey: 12
Orlando: 59
____________
[COLOR="Red"]34 win average[/COLOR]


The 45 win average of MJ's opponents during his PG stretch was higher than the average wins of his opponents the rest of the year (40), which explains why the Bulls record was slightly worse during MJ's PG stretch than the rest of the year.

Of course, MJ's opponents had a big advantage over Lebron's - 45 win average to 34 - but even without this advantage, we already knew the 1989 eastern conference was far tougher than in 2009 and 2010.. MJ's tougher competition enhances the viability of his playoff stats - Lebron's 35/9/7/51/1.6 stl playoff averages in 2009 are invalidated compared to MJ's nearly identical 35/7/7/51/2.5 stl playoff averages in 1989, due to facing inferior competition.

But MJ's tougher road wasn't only due to superior competition - it's already been established that his 33/8/8 only resulted in a 47 wins in 1989, while Lebron's 28/8/7 resulted in 66 wins in 2009 - these 19 more wins weren't only due to the inferior competition outlined previously.. Lebron's supporting cast was better too, in addition to the aforementioned weaker comp.. Lebron's supporting cast included an all-star and a slew of veterans with better stats, which is a stark contrast from MJ's young cast.. MJ's 1989 Bulls and the "Jordan Rules" that MJ faced were simply more of a 1-man team.. Therefore, the gap in RS records was due to a combination of BOTH competition level and supporting cast.

Btw, MJ's stretch of 10 triple-doubles in 11 games destroys Lebron's little run of 12 games anyway - this shouldn't even be debatable.. And MJ's stretch was twice as long, against 45-win competition, not 34-win like Lebron.
.

[Kvnzhangyay]

Average wins of opponents during MJ's 24 game stretch and Lebron's 12 game stretch


Seattle: 47
Indiana: 28
Cleveland: 57
New York: 52
Indiana: 28
Lakers: 57
Phoenix: 55
Portland: 39
Seattle: 47
Warriors: 43
Bucks: 49
Cleveland: 57
New Jersey: 26
Charlotte: 20
Detroit: 63
Detroit: 63
Atlanta: 52
Indiana: 28
New Jersey: 26
Cleveland: 57
New York: 52
Washington: 40
Washington: 40
Cleveland: 57
______________
[COLOR="Blue"]45 win average[/COLOR]




Lakers: 57
OKC: 50
Miami: 47
MIN: 15
IND: 32
LAC: 29
MEM: 40
MIA: 47
NYK: 29
New Jersey: 12
Orlando: 59
____________
[COLOR="Red"]34 win average[/COLOR]


It's common knowledge that the 1989 Eastern Conference was much tougher than the 2009 or 2010, but here's the data anyway (above) proving that MJ faced the tougher stretch of competition

So considering MJ's competition was much tougher, then consider how much better that makes MJ's playoff stats look, since they came against far better competition... Lebron's 35/9/7/51/1.6 stl playoff averages in 2009 are invalidated compared to MJ's nearly identical 35/7/7/51/2.5 stl playoff averages in 1989, due to facing vastly inferior competition.

Of course, the other alternative is that Lebron's supporting cast WAS better, in addition to the aforementioned weaker comp.. This of course, must be true.. Lebron's supporting cast included an all-star and a slew of veterans with better stats, which is a stark contrast from MJ's young cast.. MJ's 1989 Bulls and the "Jordan Rules" that MJ faced were simply more of a 1-man team.. Therefore, the gap in RS records was due to a combination of BOTH competition level and supporting cast.

Btw, MJ's stretch of 10 triple-doubles in 11 games destroys Lebron's little run of 12 games anyway - this shouldn't even be debatable.. And MJ's stretch was twice as long, against 45-win competition, not 34-win like Lebron.

So what you're telling me is that MJ playing PG is a very ineffective, and can only win versus weak teams. Such a style can win vs bad teams, but is easily exposed by good teams, as shown by the 45 win average.

[ImKobe]

Jordan averaged 31 ppg 11 apg IN THE FINALS to win his first title going up against Magic...

could have easily had tons of seasons averaging 30+ ppg 8+ apg if he never had Pippen and ran a different system, but averaging 11 apg in the finals playing the damn triangle is the most impressive thing I've seen out of a SG in terms of playmaking. Yes, even more impressive than Kobe.

[Asukal]

MJ never faced Zone Defenses in the so-called "strong era"

April 1st, 2001:

"The subject was defense in the NBA, and Michael Jordan was speaking, although more about offense, especially his. We know few defenses could do anything about that.

But there was one that might be bothersome, the zone defense. It was the topic du jour at last month's All-Star Game, and Jordan was making an impassioned plea before the competition committee that had gathered to consider rules changes to enliven the NBA game. Jordan spoke passionately. If teams were able to play zone defenses, he said, he never would have had the career he did.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...mendations-nba

Neither did lebron. They can't play a real zone defense in the NBA, the 3 seconds defensive rule makes it impossible to do so. Besides, already pointed out so many times zone defense is easily beat by spreading the floor, good ball movement and shooting. You really think Jordan would struggle hitting shots from mid range or making passes inside to the open guy? If zone defense is your argument against the GOAT, it clearly shows your lack of knowledge of the game.

EDIT: They don't even really use it in the NBA, show me a team who utilizes zone D most of the time.

[Poochymama]

He was good, but not as good as he was a sg. He just looks better after the fact cause he stat padded as a point guard.

[ralph_i_el]

Average wins of opponents during MJ's 24 game stretch and Lebron's 12 game stretch


Seattle: 47
Indiana: 28
Cleveland: 57
New York: 52
Indiana: 28
Lakers: 57
Phoenix: 55
Portland: 39
Seattle: 47
Warriors: 43
Bucks: 49
Cleveland: 57
New Jersey: 26
Charlotte: 20
Detroit: 63
Detroit: 63
Atlanta: 52
Indiana: 28
New Jersey: 26
Cleveland: 57
New York: 52
Washington: 40
Washington: 40
Cleveland: 57
______________
[COLOR="Blue"]45 win average[/COLOR]




Lakers: 57
OKC: 50
Miami: 47
MIN: 15
IND: 32
LAC: 29
MEM: 40
MIA: 47
NYK: 29
New Jersey: 12
Orlando: 59
____________
[COLOR="Red"]34 win average[/COLOR]


The 45 win average of MJ's opponents during his PG stretch was higher than the average wins of his opponents the rest of the year (40), which explains why the Bulls record was slightly worse during MJ's PG stretch than the rest of the year.

Of course, MJ's opponents had a big advantage over Lebron's - 45 win average to 34 - but even without this advantage, we already knew the 1989 eastern conference was far tougher than in 2009 and 2010.. MJ's tougher competition enhances the viability of his playoff stats - Lebron's 35/9/7/51/1.6 stl playoff averages in 2009 are invalidated compared to MJ's nearly identical 35/7/7/51/2.5 stl playoff averages in 1989, due to facing inferior competition.

Otoh, the other alternative is that Lebron's supporting cast WAS better, in addition to the aforementioned weaker comp.. This of course, must be true.. Lebron's supporting cast included an all-star and a slew of veterans with better stats, which is a stark contrast from MJ's young cast.. MJ's 1989 Bulls and the "Jordan Rules" that MJ faced were simply more of a 1-man team.. Therefore, the gap in RS records was due to a combination of BOTH competition level and supporting cast.

Btw, MJ's stretch of 10 triple-doubles in 11 games destroys Lebron's little run of 12 games anyway - this shouldn't even be debatable.. And MJ's stretch was twice as long, against 45-win competition, not 34-win like Lebron.
.

Part of that gap can be explained by the 11 loses MJ had...

[3ball]

MJ's worse record is NOT a result of the supporting cast, as the record of Jordan as PG is worse than the rest of the season, while Lebron's is better.

This is because the Bulls' opponents during MJ's stretch at point guard averaged 45 wins, which is more than the remaining Bulls opponents the rest of the season (40 wins, and the league average for wins was 41) - this explains why the Bulls had a slightly worse record during the games MJ played PG, than they did the rest of the year.

The 45-win average of the Bulls' opponents was also much higher than the 34-win average of Lebron's opponents during his stretch at point guard.

But even without the 45 to 34-win advantage of MJ's opponents, we already knew the 1989 eastern conference was far tougher than in 2009 and 2010.. The tougher competition enhances the viability of his playoff stats - Lebron's 35/9/7/51/1.6 stl playoff averages in 2009 are invalidated compared to MJ's nearly identical 35/7/7/51/2.5 stl playoff averages in 1989, due to facing inferior competition.

But MJ's tougher road wasn't only due to superior competition - it's already been established that his 33/8/8 only resulted in a 47 wins in 1989, while Lebron's 28/8/7 resulted in 66 wins in 2009 - these 19 more wins weren't only due to the inferior competition outlined previously.. Lebron's supporting cast was better too, in addition to the aforementioned weaker comp.. Lebron's supporting cast included an all-star and a slew of veterans with better stats, which is a stark contrast from MJ's young cast.. MJ's 1989 Bulls and the "Jordan Rules" that MJ faced were simply more of a 1-man team.. Therefore, the gap in RS records was due to a combination of BOTH competition level and supporting cast.

Btw, MJ's stretch of 10 triple-doubles in 11 games destroys Lebron's little run of 12 games anyway - this shouldn't even be debatable.. And MJ's stretch was twice as long, against 45-win competition, not 34-win like Lebron.

[Kvnzhangyay]

This is because the Bulls' opponents during MJ's stretch at point guard averaged 45 wins, which is more than the remaining Bulls opponents the rest of the season (40 wins, and the league average for wins was 41) - this explains why the Bulls had a slightly worse record during the games MJ played PG, than they did the rest of the year.

The 45-win average of the Bulls' opponents was also much higher than the 34-win average of Lebron's opponents during his stretch at point guard.

But even without the 45 to 34-win advantage of MJ's opponents, we already knew the 1989 eastern conference was far tougher than in 2009 and 2010.. The tougher competition enhances the viability of his playoff stats - Lebron's 35/9/7/51/1.6 stl playoff averages in 2009 are invalidated compared to MJ's nearly identical 35/7/7/51/2.5 stl playoff averages in 1989, due to facing inferior competition.

But MJ's tougher road wasn't only due to superior competition - it's already been established that his 33/8/8 only resulted in a 47 wins in 1989, while Lebron's 28/8/7 resulted in 66 wins in 2009 - these 19 more wins weren't only due to the inferior competition outlined previously.. Lebron's supporting cast was better too, in addition to the aforementioned weaker comp.. Lebron's supporting cast included an all-star and a slew of veterans with better stats, which is a stark contrast from MJ's young cast.. MJ's 1989 Bulls and the "Jordan Rules" that MJ faced were simply more of a 1-man team.. Therefore, the gap in RS records was due to a combination of BOTH competition level and supporting cast.

Btw, MJ's stretch of 10 triple-doubles in 11 games destroys Lebron's little run of 12 games anyway - this shouldn't even be debatable.. And MJ's stretch was twice as long, against 45-win competition, not 34-win like Lebron.

So that means that MJ as point guard was an ineffective style of play, as he was unable to beat teams that were even semi-decent. His style was only able to beat bad teams; he could not beat good teams. And it's not even like 45 wins is competitive

That's like fringe playoff spot

Meanwhile, you cannot criticize Lebron for the competition, as he faced what he had, and performed to expectations by beating all of them, as he should.

[3ball]

Meanwhile, you cannot criticize Lebron for the competition, as he faced what he had, and performed to expectations by beating all of them, as he should.

This is the exact opposite of the truth - the Cavs were the #1 seed in 2009 and 2010 and the favorite to make the Finals, but they were upset both years in 2nd Round and conf finals.

So you're wrong - Lebron did NOT "perform to expectations by beating all of them".... Your statement is factually incorrect.. He lost both years as the favorite.
.

[Kvnzhangyay]

This is the exact opposite of the truth - the Cavs were the #1 seed in 2009 and 2010 and the favorite to make the Finals, but they were upset both years in 2nd Round and conf finals.

So you're wrong - Lebron did NOT "perform to expectations by beating all of them".... Your statement is factually incorrect.

But he did AS POINT GUARD during the stretch. What happened in the playoffs is moot because we are talking about point guard stretches. Your playoffs argument is not topical

Meanwhile, Jordan performed below expectations

[3ball]

So that means he was unable to beat teams that were even semi-decent. His style was only able to beat bad teams; he could not beat good teams.

He went 13-11 against better teams than he faced the rest of the year (45-win teams, as opposed to 40-win teams).

You lost this argument bud.

But he did AS POINT GUARD during the stretch. What happened in the playoffs is moot because we are talking about point guard stretches. Your playoffs argument is not topical

Lebron faced 34-win teams during his stretch at point guard - lottery teams - this is far below what he faced the rest of the year.

Lebron went 11-0 against lottery teams, then underperformed in the playoffs two years in a row against worse competition with a better supporting cast.

[Kvnzhangyay]

He went 13-11 against better teams than he faced the rest of the year (45-win teams, as opposed to 40-win teams).

You lost this argument bud.



Lebron faced 34-win teams during his stretch at point guard - lottery teams - this is far below what he faced the rest of the year.

Lebron went 11-0 against lottery teams, then underperformed in the playoffs two years in a row against worse competition with a better supporting cast.

How did I lose when I won? 13-11 is FAR below expectations, and clearly shows that Jordan's style of play was ineffective. If you argue 13-11 IS matching expectations, or exceeding it, then you simply are destroying yourself by indicating that expectations of Jordan were low because he was unable to win.

No matter which way you see it, Jordan CLEARLY showed that his style of play was ineffective against GOOD teams, which is why he barely went above .500 versus teams that were decent, as in fringe playoff teams, as the PG.

[3ball]

13-11 is FAR below expectations

MJ's winning percentage as a point guard was 0.540 (13-11), compared to 0.570 for the 1989 season as a whole (47-35).

So he didn't underperform - his winning percentage was essentially the same, which means he over-performed considering the opponents he played during the PG stretch were BETTER (45 win average) than the teams he played the rest of the year (40 win average).

So again, you're wrong when you say he was "far below expectations".. I ethered you on this... Just accept it and move on.