Macri’s Missives: GOAT talk

Macri’s Missives is a weekly column published on The Strickland where Jonathan Macri has a candid email exchange with a guest. Think of it like a written podcast. This week, Macri is joined by our very own Shwinnypooh to dive into the GOAT debate following LeBron James’ fourth NBA title this week.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 10:12 AM Jonathan Macri wrote:

I don't really know how to start this, for a few reasons...

1) I don't think there's a sensible way to have a Jordan vs. LeBron argument/discussion at this point. Forget moving the goalposts... what playing field is this? What are the rules of engagement? Did we ever have rules? I'm at a loss...

2) I'm a Jordan guy. Always have been a Jordan guy, always will be a Jordan guy. So when I'm arguing that these two men are essentially equals — which is where I think I'm at — it's disingenuous to my heart, but doing otherwise would be ignoring my head.

Of course, I have no soul and am quite dumb. So I don't know where this leaves us. 

Help.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 10:34 AM Shwinnypooh wrote:

As somebody who has forever been staunchly in the "Jordan is better" camp, I can say I do get the argument for LeBron now. It's something I can wrap my head around and understand at this point in his career given all he's achieved. He's the clear cut No. 2 without question for me, which this chip solidified, and he's moved into range of Jordan. That's not something I really ever expected to say after 2011.

With that said, the moving goalposts with people who argue for LeBron in this discussion never makes sense to me. For the last half decade, when this topic has been discussed, those arguing for LeBron have maintained that championships are a team achievement, not an individual one. These same people are now using LeBron winning a fourth title as a reason to elevate him even further. That doesn't track to me, a "chips do matter, but you need to maintain context" guy.

Even more annoying is every time LeBron has not won a chip, there's some widely accepted reasoning for it. It can never just be that he came up short — it's always that he didn't have enough help, and there's endless arguments about how the teams he faced were historically great, he couldn't do any more than he did, player X was injured, etc., but that same level of nuance is never extended to others. Then when he has won (four times!) it's always painted as some single-man carry job.

I can't stand it at all.

And fucking spare me with the "I'm happy for LeBron" shit. Any man who chooses to settle a personal score with Phil Jackson, who wasn't even the team president of the Knicks anymore at the time, by crapping on 19-year-old rookie Frank Ntilikina can suck my ass forever and always. Fuck LeBron (the basketball player, not the man who seems dandy by every account).

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 12:27 PM Jonathan Macri wrote:

So let me go backwards here...

I respect LeBron immensely as an influencer who has used his powers largely for good (if you choose to pick nits over the China stuff, I won't argue, but personally, his actions opening schools, talking back against racist idiot Fox News people, and generally being a positive role model for kids is enough to keep him far on the good side of my ledger). That said, he represents SO much of what I abhor about millennials — the passive aggressiveness, the strawman "I deserve respect" stuff, etc. — I have no use for any of it. Also, as a Knicks fan, I HATE LeBron, whereas I adored Jordan. I can't explain exactly why, but I do.

As far as the excuse-making for the times he didn't win, I think that's fair to an extent, especially when you consider that there are things that could have been thrown into the Jordan side of the argument that aren't because they didn't come into fruition. For example, Pippen's back was shot by the end. If the Bulls didn't win in '98, would that have been used as an excuse? We don't know, because they won. 

I argued that the Golden State/Superteam part of it has to come into play because it was literally a once in a lifetime occurrence, but even I have to admit that LeBron laid the roadmap for the very thing that Durant did, the only difference being that KD didn't have to take less money to make it happen. So I don't know.

As for people who used to argue that rings didn't matter, they were and are idiots. The interesting thing you stumbled on is the "single-man carry job" thing, because I think there's actually a really interesting discussion about who had the better supporting casts. I think in the aggregate, here are my rankings, as far as how good teammates of LeBron and Jordan were in the moment:

1. ‘19-20 Anthony Davis

2. ‘92-97 Scottie Pippen

3. ‘11 Dwyane Wade

4. ‘91 Pippen

5 (tie). ’12-13 Wade and ‘14-17 Kyrie Irving

6 (tie). ‘14 Wade and ‘98 Pippen

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 1:13 PM Shwinnypooh wrote:

I would put ‘11 Wade above ‘92-97 Pippen, I think, or at least on par. The rest I agree with, and I'll even go as far as to say LeBron is the reason why AD's greatness this season, or Kyrie's in 2016 mattered at a title-winning level. Without him those guys aren't and weren't doing shit.

The thing is, the same applies to Pippen ‘92-97. He wasn't winning shit as the top option on a team.

Yes, the Bulls had a really nice season in ‘93-94 when MJ was out. This is often used as some "gotcha" argument against Jordan, but it makes very little sense, since they went from three-peat champs and title favorites to plucky second round exit in MJ's absence. They also were a thoroughly mediocre 34-31 the following season until Jordan's return, finishing 13-4 in his 17 games to close out the campaign.

And guess what? They lost to the Magic. No excuses. The GOAT lost a series. Was he 100% back to his best? Probably not, but I don't care! Once you're on the court, the excuses do no matter at all.

So at his peak, the GOAT lost to a super talented, but young as hell Magic team. If we want to call that a blemish on his record so be it. That's fine with me.

How did he respond? 72 wins and a chip. 69 wins and a chip (shoutout to the 1997 Knicks for beating them on the last day of the season and preventing them from back-to-back 70 win seasons). 62 wins and a chip (Pippen only played 44 games that season). Another three-peat, which hadn't been done by a team since the Bill Russell Celtics, until MJ's Bulls did it twice — and it’s only been done once since!

If we're parsing through greatness, getting it done needs to matter. Getting it done on a scale that's literally unprecedented over the last 50 years of basketball should matter the most!

LeBron, realistically, had one great opportunity to three-peat. Guess what? He didn't do it, and his unprecedented choke job in 2011 is why. I'm sorry, but Mike is never losing that series.

This isn't some mythology of Jordan bullshit either. Mike is just not going to lose a series where his primary defenders are DeShawn Stevenson, Old Man Marion, and Old Man Kidd. There are literally sequences of that series where he has Jason Terry on him and he doesn't even look interested in taking advantage.

Mike wasn't perfect, but I know for damn sure peak MJ is averaging 40-plus against that cast of characters.

There's also been this weird thing where people act like Pippen was an equal partner to the Bulls' chips, or close to MJ. He wasn't.

From the ‘91 playoffs through to "The Last Dance," their playoff averages say it all:

Pippen: 19.2 PPG, 7.9 RPG, 5.5 APG, 2.1 SPG, 0.9 BPG, 44.3 FG%, 28.8 3P%, 72.5 FT%, 40.5 MPG

Jordan: 32.5 PPG, 6.2 RPG, 5.2 APG, 1.8 SPG, 0.8 BPG, 47.9 FG%, 34.0 3P%, 82.6 FT%, 41.4 MPG

This includes the 10-game playoff run Pippen had in ‘94 without Jordan. The point is, as good as Pippen was — and he was great — Jordan was the single biggest reason they won at the level they did, just like LeBron is the single biggest reason his teams have won chips.

The help argument is, has, and will always be, bullshit to me.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 2:56 PM Jonathan Macri wrote:

I think I'm the only person who exists in the Venn Diagram I'm about to describe, but I think that Scottie Pippen is both one of the most underrated players of all time AND clearly best suited for second banana status, to the point that I'm not sure in a universe where he was the best player on his team for his entire career, that team ever makes a Finals.

But he was SOOOOOO perfect to not only be a No. 2, but specifically Jordan's No. 2, because as we saw in the Last Dance, he was the yin to MJ's yang. He was the good cop, the arm around the shoulder guy... oh, and he never let his ego get in the way despite the fact that he probably knew that for a solid 5-year stretch, he was better than anyone in the league not named Barkley or Hakeem.

I think AD is very much cut from the same cloth. If that dude was put on the Knicks tomorrow, even if they make competent roster moves to surround him, are you betting your life he ever makes a Finals? I'm sure not. And yet he might be the third or fourth "best" player in the game right now.

I don't know where that little diatribe leaves us in regards to the LeBron/MJ thing, but your point about MJ positively putting his stamp on the league in ‘96 and ‘97 is an underrated point that doesn't get made enough. LeBron had that for a third of a season with the Heat team that won 27 in a row, and then needed a Hail Mary offensive rebound and a Ray Allen shot to win it in the same year. Neither 2012 nor this year felt dominant in the least. Who knows what happens in 2016 without a certain punch to the nuts (although no punch maybe equals no KD, which almost certainly means another chip in 2017).

Anyway, what's clear, and what I've never argued and will never try to argue, is that there is an ethereal quality to Jordan's winning — both in how he did it and how often he did it — that LeBron has never really come close to matching (and I still think he's maybe come closer than anyone in NBA history besides Mike). It's everything else that has them neck and neck for me — the longevity at this level, the way he dominates every aspect of the game, and yes, the fact that he's been doing it without the break that Michael had. I don't know how that last part doesn't factor in.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 7:48 AM Shwinnypooh wrote:

Yeah, so I try hard not to find reasons to discount the titles LeBron has won. Sure, Ray Allen hit the biggest shot in that series, but without LeBron that shot doesn't even have a chance of mattering. Draymond Green's nut shot and subsequent suspension is part of the game. A stupid self-inflicted wound, but Cleveland still needed to win a Game 6 against a fully healthy Warriors team to take it the distance, and a Game 7 on the road. 

As far as longevity is concerned, that's the crux of any pro-LeBron argument in my opinion. What he's doing, for as long as he's done it, and continues to do so is legendary and virtually unparalleled. That he had one of his most efficient playoff runs this season, at age 35, is spectacular. And yes, unlike Mike, he didn't take a year-and-a-half sabbatical in the middle of his prime. You can factor that in if you want, but if you do, then you need to factor in the fact that LeBron has had better medical and nutritional support than Mike, that he basically took a gap year last season, that there was a four-month break smack in the middle of this season (which probably helps a 35-year old more than others even if they exhibit freakishly superhuman qualities), that there were no spectators or crowds during this entire playoff run, that his first title came in a strike-shortened season many players were unprepared and out-of-shape for, etc.

My point being, we could start parsing through their resumes and finding things that are unique or beneficial to their ultimate achievements in an unknowable way. Mike was lucky to be coached by Phil Jackson, and have his team draft Scottie Pippen, but isn't some of that fortune down to him, and him sticking it out in Chicago where Scottie Pippen and Phil Jackson's names didn't carry the gravitas they do now during their first few seasons on the scene there? LeBron has moved around to find optimal basketball situations to maximize his ability to win during his career, but he's the single biggest reason the teams he's been on have won, so doesn't that still mean he's doing the most heavy lifting?

Fact is, both guys have earned every title, accolade, and achievement they've got. We should allow their resumes to speak for themselves. If you prefer longevity, then LeBron's your guy. Longevity certainly matters, and it's the most impressive part of LeBron's legacy, but to me the extended peak of Mike, the two three-peats, the consistent and maniacal two-way performance year over year — in the final six full seasons of his peak he played, he won every single time, even when the Pacers had them absolutely dead to rights in the 1998 Eastern Conference Finals — puts him at the top.

Can LeBron pass him? Yeah, I think it's possible, since apparently he's never going to get old. What it boils down to is, I don't think we'll ever see a peak quite like Mike's again, and I don't think LeBron's been too close in that regard. The length and breadth of LeBron's career may see him surpass Mike though, but — and this is a must for me — the rings need to be on par, at minimum, for that to be the case. LeBron could get there, but he's not there yet.

So, again, I have LeBron firmly at No. 2 for the time being, in a tier of his own. I get why others might have it flip-flopped. Ultimately, if we're debating between two guys at the top, so long as we avoid Nick Wright-level derogatory arguments in favor of one or the other, we're being totally respectful and appreciative of what both have done in their careers. I may not particularly care for LeBron, but his greatness is unquestionable.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 10:09 AM Jonathan Macri wrote:

I think you summed it up perfectly, specifically by pointing to Mike's extended peak. That peak, for me, is the reason why I will never be able to put LeBron ahead of MJ even if I can now sit here and say we can no longer definitively rank Jordan ahead of LeBron. So I guess I'm at 1) MJ, 1A) LeBron, and everyone else somewhere below.

But we'll save our discussion about the rest of the top 10 for a few seasons from now, after Frank is in serious contention for one of those spots.