Well, for one, you can't just make up what-ifs and assume they are real. I think (key word, think) you're trying to argue Jordan's peak was better than Lebron's peak. Ok. True. I'm not even sure that's arguable. You can't then extrapolate that goodness over periods where MJ wasn't as good, or even playing at all, due to whatever reasons. Injuries are part of the picture. Personal retirement in the middle of a prime are part of the picture. For two, the constant retreat to the 6-0 Finals records and multiple three peats by MJ lovers is a little sad. If rings is the argument, Bill Russell is the greatest and there's not even a question or debate to be had. Like none. All time great player far and away ahead of every other all time great in the rings department. Personally... my view on the rings is simple. It's a team sport. Not even a GREAT MJ in 89-90 could win a ring. Started the first three-peat in 90-91. Was MJ better? Maybe a little. You know who was meaningfully better? Scottie Pippen. Going from his age 24 season into his age 25 season, going from his 3rd year to his 4th year, putting it all together, understanding how to best be Batman. He actually had a lower Ortg than Drtg in 89-90. Plus they were going into year 2 of Phil. Plus the East got a bit worse... it was kind of the start of the last part of IT's career in Detroit where he put in a couple more ok years, but not what he was, etc. But again, let's not diminish how good the Bulls as a whole had become. Good enough that they lost MJ, the best player in the league, and proceeded to go 55-27 and lose in a hard fought 2nd round game 7 against a Knicks team that ultimately came very close to winning it all themselves. Or the year MJ came back in the 2nd half. MJ himself was VERY good. 100% as good as the year he first retired? Maybe not. But who knows... because it was a DIFFERENT team. And one that as a whole team wasn't as good, especially as compared to the next year when most notably they added Rodman I mean it seems likely KD is going to go down as one of the all time bests... but he's a guy that joined a team that was winning rings without him anyway. In other words... its VERY hard to figure out how to value rings. How am I supposed to value Kobe's 5 rings in 7 trips? A "winner" or a guy that won when surrounded with great talent and lost in the first round while throwing a bit of a tantrum without any talent around him? And if I'm valuing rings... am I valuing them just on their own, with each one equal to the other? Or are some more valuable than others? I mean Lebron was also surrounded with talent in 2016, but it's not even an argument to say that MJ never took out a team in the playoffs on the level of those GSW. So among MJ's 6 and Lebron's 3, should Lebron get bumped up a bit because he has the "most difficult" one. Ring are a part of the equation, but not the only part by far. To me, Lebron will be #1 overall when it's all said and done. Accumulation stats count, and he will be ahead on the leaderboard on so many of those, regular season and playoffs. Peak seasons count, and his best seasons will be right up there with the best seasons of anyone. Rings count, and he'll have at least three. Winning otherwise counts, and he'll have done a bunch of that. I'll know from watching that Lebron is perhaps the most versatile positionally player of any all time great ever (Magic probably has him beat here). Not retiring counts, lol. Being durable counts. Regular stats count. Advanced stats count. Etc. And when its all said and done Lebron will be at or near the lead in many of these areas (though, indeed... no way he gets up to 6 rings!). There's certainly areas where MJ would win. Clearly the better scorer. Clearly the more clutch player overall. I'd say probably a better defender based on defending a smaller area of the court (whereas I'd be more comfortable with Lebron switching on bigs, if you want to guard wings, MJ has that on lockdown). And where MJ will always win, in my eyes and those of anyone around that watched him play live and in person... is effectively in the "eye" test. And that's fine and dandy, and useful... but the eye test has a lot more bias imo than just a solid, non-biased look back. In the eye test, I remember MJ as just... well, "the best". Nobody soared like him, glided like him, scored like him, dunked like him, hit game winning daggers like him, was a bigger brand than him, etc. I'll remember MJ as "the best" probably always...
