"Amount of time" is not a fair comparison given that Lebron played two years as a teenager... You have to go age-for-age. If Jordan came into the league at 18, he most certainly would have had a couple years with worst stats. Their best years are very comparable. Also, one clear advantage you're forgetting about Lebron is that he has more range. Jordan never developed a 3-pt shot. So basically, Lebron is a better shooter, rebounder, passer, more efficient scorer in the paint, taller, faster, stronger... Five Lebrons beats five Jordans every day. But he has fewer rings. OK, now to be real, I'm partially just playing devil's advocate here. I think Jordan makes up for many of those on-paper advantages with more real skill and more "killer instinct". But the comparison is far closer than you seem to be willing to admit. I don't know if Lebron is better career-for-career (yet), but he's definitely in the conversation, and another title against THIS Warriors team? C'mon, bronut, that's huge.
You want to do from 21 to 32 years old only as the fair comparison? Everything is still in Jordans favor other than 1 more ring instead of 3, and still in 136 less games than LeBron from 21 to 32 years old. All the other advanced stats are still in favor of MJ. Totals will always favor modern players who play much longer careers. LeBron passed up Magic and Bird in games played in what? 2 years ago IIRC? Things will always be skewed in one way or another so there's no perfect comparison. In the end, i've said before in this thread that you can't go wrong with any one in the top 15-20. You can win with any of them.
The major point is that LeBron is the closest to Michael in all stats and advanced stats. Just a step behind. That's amazing. For me, i never needed the stats. The eye test was good enough for me. LeBron is just not aesthetically pleasing to watch play basketball. It's almost like he's the Shaq of SF's just bullying everyone. Completely different game from watching the amazing skill and footwork and fundamentals combined with athleticism MJ or Kobe used to beat their opponents. That's all subjective i suppose though.
Maybe you've decided that some stats are more important in your pre-decision that Jordan is the GOAT, but otherwise I have no idea what you're seeing. As I look at the advanced stats for ages 21-32, there are an awful lot in favor of Lebron... TS%, RB%, AST%, VORP, BPM, win shares. Michael has advantages in PER, WS/48, STL%, and TOV%. And per game/per minute stats are important, but not everything. You do absolutely have to hold it against Jordan that he retired for two years. That is a stain on his career, no matter what people believe would or would not have happened if he played. Fact is he didn't. All that said, I don't think those stats necessarily prove Lebron is better, but they absolutely don't prove Jordan is better, either. The way you're talking about it, you'd think Jordan had swept the board or something. Every story we could tell in this debate is imperfect. Whether we use box score stats, advanced stats, team success stories (taking into account teammates, coaching, and organization), there are flaws, and you can make a case either way. I'm not asking you to say that Lebron is better right now. As I've said, even I don't believe that he is yet (though I do believe he's on that trajectory). Is it possible for you to admit that it's within reason that Lebron could be better career-for-career by the time he's all done? Or to at least admit that he's in the discussion? (I mean we're having this discussion, so the latter is objectively true, but I'm curious if you're consciously aware of it.) EDIT: Just saw your last post. Maybe we're not as far apart as I thought. I would agree with most of that post. Watching Lebron on the court, you can tell he's incredible... but for some reason he just doesn't *look* as smooth or as skilled as some of the greats he's compared to. Hell, even Kobe "looked" better, even though he was objectively nowhere near as good. And I think some of those intangible skills are also what give Jordan the advantage in some measurable categories. But it is still an incredibly close comparison right now.
from ages 21-32, i made mention that LBJ played 136 more games than MJ so of course WS and VORP will be skewed in comparison. The other advanced metrics you mentioned, i had already mentioned initially that LBJ had the slight edge in and nothing changed from career to 21-32...either way it's all silly. We have to create some criteria where it conveniently makes lebron look good in an argument and MJ's 2nd year 18 game season and 17 game 95 return season both hurt his averages in raw and advanced stats. The fact that they're close enough though is where i respect the argument. LBJ has made his case and keeps pushing for many people(not me personally, i think #2 is the best he can do now). It's a completely different and legit argument to have as opposed to Kobe fans or Curry fans. As far as the aesthetics, i guess everyone is different. Some people preferred watching Shaq bully his opponent and go straight through them, others prefer watching the mastered footwork and technique of Hakeem, and others prefer the fundamental but plain vanilla/no nonsense ways of Tim Duncan. I think MJ combined the best of everything. Fundamentals. Footwork. Raw athleticism. Grace. Artistry.. etc.
I'm a fan of both players. Main advantage Jordan has is clutch-ability. His teams may have lost in the postseason, but he was never out-played by any other player on the court... not for an entire series at least. LeBron hasn't been out-played much, but MJ set a high standard. LeBron's FTs are suspect too... especially compared to Jordan.
You think I'm conveniently making Lebron look good, I think you're conveniently making Jordan look good... we're going to amplify the stats for whoever we consider the better player. We have the luxury of doing so because of how close the comparison is.