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