First of all winning matters, but it's not all that matters. The Bill Russell/Robert Horry arguments are hugely dumb, we are talking about modern complete basketball players, GOAT candidates. Not some old bastard trudging through weak competition when there was no actual free agency, or role players hitting a handful of shots in key moments. We're talking about leaders here, in a modern, athletic, more challenging league. Russell and Wilt, and Horry, they aren't close in these terms.
If LeBron had a career like Jordan, aka if he didn't leave the team who drafted him through his prime... he literally might not have a SINGLE ring. Not because he's not an all-timer, but because he's ALWAYS needed to leave in order to join somewhere/someone else in order to enable him to win something. You can bring up the Pippen contract, which is a nice advantage no doubt... but the bottom line is, MJ was in that situation and DID IT. And I'm sorry... actually DOING IT matters. People arguing for players that HAVEN'T DONE IT always want that to matter less. It doesn't though.
Jordan didn't leave. He stuck with an asshole owner who he hated in a specific system because it was important for him to win there. And he did. 6 in 8 years. LeBron... I mean, quote all the stats you want, and once again I'll remind you I think he's incredible and his stats are outrageous, but he simply did not do in totality what Jordan did.
Would he have? I don't know, it's POSSIBLE. But what would the Heat have looked like if Jordan went there? This what if game goes both ways. What if LeBron had Pippen... well, what if Jordan had modern weak defenses and Wade and Bosh and Riley and their supporting cast? What if Jordan joined up with Anthony Davis instead of retiring or whatever? How many Finals would Jordan take the Cavs to in a weak-ass East apart from basically 1 uninjured Celtics? Would Jordan be able to squeak by Dwight Howard's mighty Magic with the unstoppable superstar combo of Turkoglu & Rashard Lewis?? Or maybe at least do the unthinkable and force it to 6 games.
If this debate were Kobe v. LeBron, at least then these arguments would make logical sense. But when the ultimate measure is winning (which it is) combined with performance/numbers, I don't find much of this very compelling as someone that closely watched both players through their primes.
Lastly... 5 Jordans vs 5 LeBrons, whatever you think would happen here is not really relevant since we're talking about things much more based in reality. 5 ADs could beat 5 Shaqs or 5 Kareems or 5 Hakeems too. So what?
5 Jordans could easily find a way against 5 LeBrons by 80s/90s rules anyways. By today's rules, sure, 5 LeBrons are an insane challenge when the league has gone so much away from what Jordan does/did so well and favors the all-rounder more athletic nature of what LeBron does.
And I totally respect your right to be wrong
Likewise, good sir.
