I was thinking more like 2 of 18 for 12 points, like James did against Boston - only to follow that up with 6 for 24 for 21 pts, 5 for 16 for 21 pts, and 7 for 20 for 21 point performances. Jordan was never able to sustain that level of suck for that long. Or single-handedly cost his team a series like that.
Or maybe something like what James did against Dallas - 6 for 14 for 17 pts, 3 for 11 for 8 pts, 8 of 19 for 17 pts... just laying goose eggs in the middle of a final series. Again, a level of suck that Jordan could never come close to maintaining.
Didn't James' team win some of those games? Are you saying he should have shot more, even if the shots he had available were worse than the shots his teammates had and cost his team a win, so that he could match Jordan's scoring output in playoff losses? That seems like a pretty terrible strategy.
The point is that the comparison is really stupid. Yes, Jordan did lots of things in his career, good and bad, that LeBron has not. And LeBron has done lots of things in his career, good and bad, that Jordan did not. That's why a statement like "Lebron has fallen short in the playoffs numerous times in ways that Jordan didn't during the course of his career, and there's nothing James can do from now until the end of his career that can change that" is silly. Because you can switch the names and say the exact same thing. It's a terrible argument.