Draymond Green has entered the GOAT debate once again, and this time, he explained why he believes LeBron James deserves the crown over Michael Jordan. In a recent appearance on Kai Cenat’s stream, the Warriors forward argued that LeBron’s ability to win with role players like Matthew Dellavedova sets him apart from Michael Jordan, who he claims never carried teammates of that caliber to championships.
“People threw the towel in on JR and LeBron’s like ‘Nah, this man can shoot and he can defend. I can do sprinting with that.’ I don’t think MJ had as many guys who went through that,” said Green. “[Matthew Dellavedova] stinks. He’ll win with guys like that. To win with guys like that? MJ wasn’t winning with Matthew Dellavedova.”
Matthew Dellavedova was a fine role-player, but he was mediocre, at best, with career averages of 5.2 points, 1.7 rebounds, and 3.5 assists per game over nine years in the league. With LeBron, however, he looked like a borderline starter, and it goes to show how much easier James made things for his teammates.
To further prove his point, Green compared LeBron carrying Delly to Jordan’s teammate, Steve Kerr. Draymond says Kerr was arguably Michael’s worst teammate, and he’s leagues above someone like Dellavedova, who played a big role on the Cavaliers during his three-year tenure there.
“Steve Kerr’s probably one of Jordan’s worst teammates, and Steve Kerr was a damn good NBA player who played for 14 years,” added Green. “For someone who contributed to the Bulls, his past was worse than anyone. Steve’s path was dogsh*t, he just had to figure it out. Jordan ain’t have those types of teammates.”
It’s true that Michael played with elite teammates. During the heights of his Bulls days, when he won six titles in eight years, the Bulls roster was stacked with guys like Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, Horace Grant, Ron Harper, Steve Kerr, John Paxson, Toni Kukoc, Bill Cartwright, and Luc Longley (among others).
With career averages of 30.1 points, 6.2 rebounds, and 5.3 assists per game, Michael Jordan’s greatness is undeniable, but he had plenty of help throughout his Bulls career, and it’s a huge reason why he was able to achieve so much success.
LeBron’s teams often lacked depth, but they were very top-heavy (with co-stars like Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Kyrie Irving, Kevin Love, and Anthony Davis). While the Cavs had players like J.R. Smith, Dellavedova, and Timofey Mozgov, James still played with more top lottery picks than Michael did, and that alone proves it proves LeBron had more than enough help.
So while there’s an undeniable hint of truth to Draymond’s argument, it’s not enough to settle the GOAT debate in LeBron’s favor. Guys like Jud Buechler, Luc Longley, and Bill Wellington may have been more dependable than Dellavedova, but they were far from elite, and Michael brought them all to glory. His dominance opened up the floor for everyone, and he made the most out of his situation with six championships, five MVPs, and 10 scoring titles. What’s better is that he didn’t have to leave the Bulls to get it done.
The same cannot be said for James, who couldn’t win his first title until after switching teams and setting up a dynasty with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh. He stacked the deck in his favor, while Michael stuck it out and worked with what he had. It wasn’t until later that he got to play with a stacked roster, but even then, you could say that his presence is what made them play so well.
While Draymond makes a passionate case for LeBron, his argument overlooks the reality that Jordan also elevated role players into champions. Steve Kerr, Luc Longley, and Bill Wennington weren’t household names until they won rings alongside Jordan. Meanwhile, while Dellavedova’s Finals stints were gritty, his Cavs teams went 1-1 in the final round under LeBron’s leadership. Jordan, on the other hand, never failed once he reached the Finals.
Ultimately, the GOAT debate isn’t settled by who had weaker teammates, but by who maximized every opportunity, and Jordan’s 6-for-6 Finals record still speaks louder than words.
