Are Larry Bird & LeBron James better team players than Michael Jordan?

[guy]

Fair point that the Bulls were more stacked than the Heat but only once in NBA history has a team lost a GOAT-caliber player and remained a contender and that was the 1994 Bulls. To the OP's point, why was MJ's team the one exception? Boston without Russell, Boston without Bird, L.A. without Magic, L.A. without Wilt, Milwaukee without Oscar, Orlando without Shaq, L.A. without Shaq Cleveland without LeBron, Miami without LeBron, and so on all, without exception, collapsed without their GOAT-caliber player--and did so despite having NBA-caliber players replacing said GOAT-caliber player. These teams were at best 0.500 and first round fodder--and in some cases were out of the playoffs altogether. The Bulls replaced Jordan with a D-Leaguer, not a Deng or Rony Seiklay or Reggie Lewis.

This guy at it again

How about we ask a few other questions. Are each of those situations the same? When has something like when Jordan left the Bulls in 94 actually happened? I'm talking about a GOAT-caliber player leaving the defending champions with the rest of the championship core basically in their prime i.e. relatively young, experienced, and healthy, with the same coach and a ton of motivation. Cause none of those other situations are the same as that. Bird didn't get injured in 1985. Magic didn't retire in 1988. But if you have a good example, I'd love to hear it.

The fact is the Bulls actually declined worse (55 win team to a 45 win team which meant a decline from #3 to #6 in the East versus a decline from #2 to #3) after they lost Horace Grant than after losing MJ. They could not replace at all Grant's rebounding and interior defense while they managed to offset some, although not all, of MJ's lost scoring among several players.

Terrible logic. The decline probably had more to do with the Bulls probably not taking that season as seriously since no one was expecting Pippen to even be around. They weren't really playing for much.

Either way, let me change the scenario for better illustration. Jordan leaves before the 94 season and there win total only goes down by 2. Now lets say instead of Grant leaving before the 95 season for nothing, its Pippen instead that leaves for nothing and Jordan never comes back. That Bulls team with Grant and Kukoc as the best players probably doesn't win more than 30 games. And then you would probably say "OMG Jordan only had a 2 game impact and Pippen had a 25 game impact WTF!!!! IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT ." Except that's incredibly stupid logic. Lets say instead of Pippen leaving for nothing, Jordan was back on the team for the whole season and the core is Jordan/Grant/Kukoc/BJ etc. That team probably wins high 50s/low 60 games. But according to you, the Bulls would win like 32 games

The reason for this is because the Bulls still felt like they were playing for something when Jordan left, because Pippen was still around. If they had lost Jordan and then Pippen, that team flounders and is much less motivated. But that motivation wouldn't have gone anywhere if you had replaced Pippen with Jordan.

[hateraid]

This year's Heat have Wade missing 1 out of every 3 games. Even when he plays Wade has a clear decline in productivity. That's a major difference from a Bull's team that still has 50 greatest Scottie Pippen in his prime. The major flaw with this way of analyzing impact is that it completely fails to take into account who is left behind.

During Jordan's second retirement Pippen left the Bulls. So did Rodman, Kerr, and Phil Jackson. So it really isn't a clear indicator of Jordan's impact. the first retirement essentially replaced Jordan with Pete Myers and the Bulls were able to sustain a winning record, be a playoff threat, and Pippen was in the running for MVP. That is a much clearer indication

[guy]

If you insist on analyzing players in this extremely flawed way that ignores the rest of the roster why don't you include the Bulls' record after MJ's second retirement? 13-37, a 46% drop in win percentage to go from Champions to the lottery.

Not just that, but so many other things such as coaching, motivations, etc.

Seriously we just had a team this year that had a huddle going "1, 2, 3, 6 weeks!" There's probably at least 10 superstars in the league today you could insert into that team next year and they would win 20 more games. But season-to-season comparison and what they do with and without superstar X measures impact.

In the end these "how does the team perform with and without the superstar" comparisons to measure the strength of the supporting cast and how much impact the superstar has is almost irrelevant because how they play without the superstar has very little to do with how they play with the superstar. The dynamics and complementary aspects are just completely different.

[Young X]

Dwight Howard led a team with Nelson, Turkoglu, and Lewis to the finals and ECF. Orlando went from 37-29 with Dwight to 20-62 without him.

I guess he's a better team player than Jordan too? Or maybe there are other factors involved that you're leaving out?

Jordan led his TEAM to 6 rings and the 2 best records in NBA history.

[guy]

Jordan led his TEAM to 6 rings and the 2 best records in NBA history.

Doesn't mean anything. We didn't really know if Jordan was an impactful player until 2002 when 38 year old Jordan improved the Wizards by almost 20 games.

[riseagainst]

This guy at it again

How about we ask a few other questions. Are each of those situations the same? When has something like when Jordan left the Bulls in 94 actually happened? I'm talking about a GOAT-caliber player leaving the defending champions with the rest of the championship core basically in their prime i.e. relatively young, experienced, and healthy, with the same coach and a ton of motivation. Cause none of those other situations are the same as that. Bird didn't get injured in 1985. Magic didn't retire in 1988. But if you have a good example, I'd love to hear it.



Terrible logic. The decline probably had more to do with the Bulls probably not taking that season as seriously since no one was expecting Pippen to even be around. They weren't really playing for much.

Either way, let me change the scenario for better illustration. Jordan leaves before the 94 season and there win total only goes down by 2. Now lets say instead of Grant leaving before the 95 season for nothing, its Pippen instead that leaves for nothing and Jordan never comes back. That Bulls team with Grant and Kukoc as the best players probably doesn't win more than 30 games. And then you would probably say "OMG Jordan only had a 2 game impact and Pippen had a 25 game impact WTF!!!! IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT ." Except that's incredibly stupid logic. Lets say instead of Pippen leaving for nothing, Jordan was back on the team for the whole season and the core is Jordan/Grant/Kukoc/BJ etc. That team probably wins high 50s/low 60 games. But according to you, the Bulls would win like 32 games

The reason for this is because the Bulls still felt like they were playing for something when Jordan left, because Pippen was still around. If they had lost Jordan and then Pippen, that team flounders and is much less motivated. But that motivation wouldn't have gone anywhere if you had replaced Pippen with Jordan.

[Round Mound]

Yes. Cause they where also multipositional skilled players like that of Barkley and Magic too. They had skills that trascended their SF positions. Thats not a knock on Jordan though (the most dominant perimeter player ever).

[knicksman]

They were a mid-pack team before he joined and instantly became a dynasty--winning in his first year. After he retired they went from a dynasty that was the reigning champion to missing the playoffs. Fortunately for Boston, they sucked so much they were able to draft Dave Cowens and become a top team again quickly in the 70's (they still had Hondo).





Miami also was nowhere to be seen after Shaq ceased to be an all-star player. Even from 2005-2007 whenever he was hurt Miami was a 0.500 or so team--just like LA went 24-29 without Shaq from 2000-2004 (Shaq without Kobe or Wade managed to keep LA an MIA afloat, though). Shaq is the most underrated top 10 all-time player.

KAJ should be mentioned as well. He took a 27 win expansion team to 56 wins and the conference finals as a rookie. The record is mixed regarding his trade but that is because LA had to give up an all-star, a 16/11 center and the #2 and #5 picks so it was not a straight up trade. MIL gained a lot of value, which is what KAJ wanted (versus leaving as a free agent) and LA had to largely gut its roster. Good examples though are KAJ having the 75' Bucks at 35-30--but they were only 3-14 without him. That is the difference between a 45 win team and a 14 win team. A similar story happened in 78'. LA went 7-13 without KAJ but was 38-24 with him. That is the difference between 50 wins and 29 wins.

Magic too. When he retired the Lakers went from 58 wins and the Finals to 43 wins and the first round.

What is interesting is Russell, Wilt, KAJ, Bird, Shaq, Magic, LeBron, Hakeem, Duncan (special case, though, since SA got Robinson back) all immediately had huge impacts on their teams and took them to the next level. They did not need many years of team building around them by a great GM to incrementally get there.

All that said, to be fair MJ later in his career had that kind of impact too after Phil, Scottie and Tex taught him how to play team ball. The 95' Bulls were 34-31 without him but 13-4 with MJ. He had a similar impact on the Wizards. Still, the record shows things are more complex than "GOAT gonna GOAT" or "6>X, Y, Z". If MJ was not taught how to play winning basketball by Phil, Tex and Scottie and if he did not have a great GM who gradually built--and then constantly retooled--a championship team around him he would not have had the team success he had. The stars aligned for him and yet all we hear is simplistic numerology whenever he is compared to other players who were not in as favorable a situation.

The question is why? It is fascinating to look at the "with and without" records for Jordan, Kobe and Wade. That suggests something specific to the SG position.

But still

bosh>>rodman
yet jordan/rodman improved the team from 45 to 72 compared to bosh/bran from 47 to 58. But nevermind, 2/5 just speaks for itself.

[OldSchoolBBall]

These fvcking Jordan haters cling to the 55 win 1994 shit like it's gospel.

[Smoke117]

These fvcking Jordan haters cling to the 55 win 1994 shit like it's gospel.

[97 bulls]

This guy at it again

How about we ask a few other questions. Are each of those situations the same? When has something like when Jordan left the Bulls in 94 actually happened? I'm talking about a GOAT-caliber player leaving the defending champions with the rest of the championship core basically in their prime i.e. relatively young, experienced, and healthy, with the same coach and a ton of motivation. Cause none of those other situations are the same as that. Bird didn't get injured in 1985. Magic didn't retire in 1988. But if you have a good example, I'd love to hear it.



Terrible logic. The decline probably had more to do with the Bulls probably not taking that season as seriously since no one was expecting Pippen to even be around. They weren't really playing for much.

Either way, let me change the scenario for better illustration. Jordan leaves before the 94 season and there win total only goes down by 2. Now lets say instead of Grant leaving before the 95 season for nothing, its Pippen instead that leaves for nothing and Jordan never comes back. That Bulls team with Grant and Kukoc as the best players probably doesn't win more than 30 games. And then you would probably say "OMG Jordan only had a 2 game impact and Pippen had a 25 game impact WTF!!!! IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT ." Except that's incredibly stupid logic. Lets say instead of Pippen leaving for nothing, Jordan was back on the team for the whole season and the core is Jordan/Grant/Kukoc/BJ etc. That team probably wins high 50s/low 60 games. But according to you, the Bulls would win like 32 games

The reason for this is because the Bulls still felt like they were playing for something when Jordan left, because Pippen was still around. If they had lost Jordan and then Pippen, that team flounders and is much less motivated. But that motivation wouldn't have gone anywhere if you had replaced Pippen with Jordan.

Heres the problem with your reasoning as I see it. What the Bulls did in 94 has less to do with Jordans impact and more to do with how good they were. Jordan fans keep trying to push the theme that the Bulls sucked outside of Jordan. This will always be the rebutal.

And for goodness sake stop saying they were the same team. They weren't. On paper it was close, but Paxson and Cartwight played sparingly. Williams was hurt, King was traded in the middle of the season, Tucker left, Longley, Kukoc, Kerr, Myers, and Wennigton were not there during the threepeat. (The first one). The 94 Bulls are closer related to the second threepeat team than the first.

[97 bulls]

The reason for this is because the Bulls still felt like they were playing for something when Jordan left, because Pippen was still around. If they had lost Jordan and then Pippen, that team flounders and is much less motivated. But that motivation wouldn't have gone anywhere if you had replaced Pippen with Jordan.

This is a cop out. So what your saying is that all the other teams tgat were in similar situations, Celtics, Lakers, Magic, Heat, Thunder, basically quit or wont motivated when they lost their best player? Why cant you just give the Bulls credit?

[guy]

Heres the problem with your reasoning as I see it. What the Bulls did in 94 has less to do with Jordans impact and more to do with how good they were. Jordan fans keep trying to push the theme that the Bulls sucked outside of Jordan. This will always be the rebutal.

And for goodness sake stop saying they were the same team. They weren't. On paper it was close, but Paxson and Cartwight played sparingly. Williams was hurt, King was traded in the middle of the season, Tucker left, Longley, Kukoc, Kerr, Myers, and Wennigton were not there during the threepeat. (The first one). The 94 Bulls are closer related to the second threepeat team than the first.

Well, that was kind of my point. It's not a meaningful way to measure a superstar's impact AT ALL.

Well I didn't say same team, I said same core, referring to Pippen, Grant, and BJ.

[97 bulls]

This year's Heat have Wade missing 1 out of every 3 games. Even when he plays Wade has a clear decline in productivity. That's a major difference from a Bull's team that still has 50 greatest Scottie Pippen in his prime. The major flaw with this way of analyzing impact is that it completely fails to take into account who is left behind.

But you dont read what we read. The Bulls dynasty that won 6 championships along with setting the wins record, the second best single season record in win, along with a 67 win season, won because of Jordan only.

[guy]

This is a cop out. So what your saying is that all the other teams tgat were in similar situations, Celtics, Lakers, Magic, Heat, Thunder, basically quit or wont motivated when they lost their best player? Why cant you just give the Bulls credit?

Quitting and losing motivation is not the same thing. Did you not hear about what the Denver Nuggets did recently? That type of stuff probably happens all the time in the NBA in varying degrees. You're incredibly delusional if you think teams keep the same level of motivation regardless of the situation.

How am I discrediting them? I didn't even say anything bad about them.