The stat that kills me is that after MJ retired the first time in 1993, the next year the Bulls team only won 2 less games without him in the regular season (and made it to game 7 of the second round in the playoffs): contrast that with the when LeBron left the Cavs in 2010, the next season the Cavs only won 19 games total (where they had won 61 games with him in the 09-10 regular season).

Without MJ in his mid-prime: minus-2 wins

Without LeBron in his early-prime: minus-42 wins

I actually believe the debate would still be between MJ and LeBron for GOAT, even if MJ or LeBron had won only 1 ring (and I would still have LeBron slightly ahead of MJ if LeBron had gone 1-9 in the Finals instead of 4-6). Bball nerd Ben Taylor (and Nate Duncan, love or hate him) studies the film and all the stats on the GOATs and he has KG tied with Duncan for the 7-8 spots in the Top 10, ahead of Wilt, Bird, Magic, Curry, Kobe, etc. KG only won 1 ring, but context matters: he was drafted and spent his first 12 years playing in NBA hell in Minny. I can’t hate on KG for being drafted by a terribly mismanaged organization, just like I can understand the context of Duncan’s position on the best managed/coached team of all-time with multiple HOF-ers and great role players galore. Basketball is a team sport, so team context matters for all of these players’ careers

    • panchettaz@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      When you have Larry Bird and Magic Johnson saying they’ve never seen a guy like MJ, even when he hadn’t yet won a championship (in Bird’s case), then he’s automatically contending as the elite of all elites. The rings just seal the deal.

    • SolarPoweredDevil@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It begs the question of where Curry would rank all time if he leaves the Warriors to join a contender and three-peats. Surely that would hypothetically rank him above hypothetical 2 ring Jordan and hypothetical 1 ring LeBron.

    • MorryD@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because it makes you uncomfortable realizing that a lot of a player’s legacy is outside of their control?

      • Final-Luck-4222@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because it’s such a massive hypothetical and so many scenarios can play out and you can surely come to your preferred conclusion by applying some far fetched assumption. I highly doubt it wi go that way but someone can make a reach for it.

        No clue how things play out in a situation like this.

      • TheOkComputerGuy@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No because making up “what if this person had these accolades or didn’t” is a dumb waste of time since we have a hard enough time agreeing on what they DID do.

        You take a non-scientific subjective process and add MORE subjectivity to it. How is this fun for you guys? The answer is whatever you want it to be based on what you’re changing their stats too. Want them to be seen more favorably? Make up accolades, less favorably, what if they didn’t do the things we watched them do?

        Maybe get a hobby instead….

        • MorryD@alien.topB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Making hypotheticals about team-based accolades can make it easier to recognize individual impact.

          The fact you’re trying to say it’s a pointless thought exercise just proves how much of your ranking of players is based off the singular results we have to go off of.

          • TheOkComputerGuy@alien.topB
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ok name the 100% agreed upon top ten so we can pull away accolades and keep this entire thing in order.

            Oh there isn’t one?

            Thanks for coming to my TedTalk.

      • UnsuspectingS1ut@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because I find the obsession with ranking players annoying in general and now we’re doing it for a players hypothetical career in made up scenarios. That’s dumb

    • LoveIslandFansRawk@alien.topOPB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ben Taylor has Hakeem at #5, Wilt about #9 and Curry and Dr J in the late-teens, I believe-ish. Ben has KG (1-1 in the Finals) tied with Duncan for #7-8. I think he has Shaq at #6. MJ going something 1-1 in the Finals would put him in that #5 Hakeem territory… although I would love to live in a world where the debate would still be MJ vs LeBron for the GOAT spot even if one or both only had 1 ring

  • No_Stay4471@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Question: where would I rank all time if I were 7 feet, won 20 rings, but murdered two homeless people for the thrill of it?

  • TremendoSlap@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Where did Pippen go instead? Who replaces him on the Bulls? Please give us the reimagined rosters for the entire league so we can try to give an answer, thank you

    • LoveIslandFansRawk@alien.topOPB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pippen went to Cleveland. Instead the Bulls got Kenny “the Jet” Smith. Otherwise, the rosters can be imagined as basically the same. MJ does a whole lot of losing in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd rounds of the playoffs, no longer the GOAT God