You can’t argue against it because we have years of evidence.

So instead, you create a hypothetical, saying MJ would have been because he’s so competitive and whatever. It might be a good argument if other factual evidence (like his FT shooting) showed otherwise. If he was an 80% FT shooter coming into the league, but over the course of his career he got it up to 90%, I would buy your argument. Maybe MJ would have worked hard and gotten his three point shooting percentage higher. But that didn’t happen in other areas of his game, so why would it happen in your hypothetical world?

I’m not being salty at all. I just think it’s funny that rather than pushing back on my argument, you bring LeBron into it. Thats because you know you can’t defend MJ’s three point shooting.