Lebron won a final he was expected to lose in 2016, which is something Jordan never did. Of course he also lost a final he was expected to win in 2011, which is also something Jordan never did.

Jordan was never expected to lose a Final. I'd say that is a little better than any of those things.

That says more about his surrounding talent and level of competition than Jordan himself though.

There it is! Jordan would have a better resume if his teams were less dominant.

Maybe, he could even have lost to a team in the Finals to prove they were a good team and then beaten that team the next year to prove they beat a good team and then lost to that team again the next year but that's ok because that team would be a great team because they beat his team twice and proved how great they were.

Jordan: Not the GOAT because he was the favorite in every Finals he played in.

That's fine. At least be the best player in the series if you are the GOAT.

Rick, this is the one and only time where I'll at least partially agree with you that we can factor results heavily. That is because basketball is a sport where the greatest ever conversation does have to revolve around team success and Jordan set the bar so high that it's hard not to.

That said, you still have to acknowledge that there are other factors beyond a player's control. It's not always apples-to-apples. If you're going to knock Lebron for manufacturing a team (I think it was a bitch move too but it still doesn't impact his on-court performance), you must also acknowledge that the team he lost to last year was also a manufactured team that was almost certainly better than any team Jordan ever faced. I mean, that has to matter, right?

We are getting into some semantics here, which is fine, but I have a feeling that even if Lebron won two or three more championships, fans of Jordan would be saying "Yeah, but he didn't go undefeated in the Finals!" I mean, it has to matter that he got there a gajillion times, doesn't it?

If you are going to factor in teams that Jordan faced in the finals then you have to factor in teams that James has faced in order to get to the Finals. During his 7 consecutive trips James never has had to defeat a team as good as any that Jordan faced in order to get to the Finals.

James also lost to a Dallas team in which the discrepancy in the talent level was immense. That would have never occurred with Jordan. Those Portland teams and Phoenix teams could have played with G.S. also

It pains me to say, and I’m currently shedding a tear by posting this, but it’s time for the denial to stop. LeBron will wind up surpassing MJ. The sooner we accept it, the easier it will be. His game last night shows how much he has left. He’s shooting 61% with 29, 8, and 9 at age 33. Jordan was 33 for the second to last championship. He was still a champion, but he wasn’t racking shit like that. And he had played a lot fewer games than LeBron at that age.

Now before I get crucified, know that I probably watched at least 78 of Jordan’s games that year and the next year... and he was slowing down. At that point, it was more of a Jordan-Pippen dominated team than a Jordan team. Jordan could still finish games and series, but he was having a lot of 7-26 type “warrior” games in the playoffs. We just happen to remember the flu game and his closing moments.

If LeBron retired today, I’d still say Jordan, but Lebron still has a number of superstar level years left. And when it counts, he’s still the best in the game.

Jordan might still be the best scorer or the most focused finisher, but if I’m starting a franchise today with either player, knowing that I’ll have them the next 20 years, it’s probably LeBron.

It's a difficult thing to quantify, and I change my position on it every 5 minutes. I could argue in favor of all subjective opinions regarding the team and competition and turn around and argue that it's all too subjective to add any value and that none of it should be discussed. I don't know. Given their careers, I'd say they both had a number of arguments in favor of or against regarding their situations and the cards they were dealt.

I also don't agree completely that those Portland or Phoenix teams could have played with GS. If we're playing with '90s rules, maybe. If we're playing with today's rules, no way. They'd shoot them out of the gym because they can't be moved with a hand check. That adds even another layer of difficulty in assessing those things.

The thing about defensive rule changes is that some people pretend the only thing that's changed are rules regarding flagrant fouls and handchecking. I'm sure James would be happy to have hand checking back if it meant zones were illegal.

It's closer than a lot of Chicagoans would like to admit.

That's fine. At least be the best player in the series if you are the GOAT.

That says more about his surrounding talent and level of competition than Jordan himself though.

I'd say he still probably was. Durant's scoring numbers look nice, but Lebron nearly matched them, averaged a triple double for the finals, and had greater responsibility on the defensive end of the floor. This doesn't even get into the fact that the Warriors' team stats only slightly went down whenever Durant was off the court whereas the Cavs' plummeted whenever James sat.

There it is! Jordan would have a better resume if his teams were less dominant.

Maybe, he could even have lost to a team in the Finals to prove they were a good team and then beaten that team the next year to prove they beat a good team and then lost to that team again the next year but that's ok because that team would be a great team because they beat his team twice and proved how great they were.

Jordan: Not the GOAT because he was the favorite in every Finals he played in.

LeBron didn't have greater responsibility on the defensive end. In fact, MANY agree his porous defense was a main factor in golden state's domination. Durant was definitely the best player in that series.