Main reason Jordan is the GOAT

[fansse]

Jordan didn't win ONE playoff series before Pippen lol

[VanWest82]

Absolutely. Jordan's popularity was a massive part of what lead to the growth of the game. This is undeniable and is a credit to Jordan and the players of his era.

That's not really relevant to the GOAT debate, at least IMO.

I think it is relevant. Jordan was such a superduperstar that he was almost single-handedly responsible for the globalization of basketball. That kind of popularity is almost always very highly correlated to the ability of the performer in question, and is something which we can see not just in basketball but other sports, music, etc.

Put another way, Jordan's global popularity and reach outpacing his competitors by such a significant margin is actually a measure of his GOATness. It's not a definitive measure or anything, but it's definitely a notch in his GOAT belt over the other candidates as it strongly suggests there was something about his talent and ability that stood out to the public way beyond the talent and ability of his peers.

Then we're talking about two completely different things and I don't think there's a basis for further discussion. Have a good one.

How is it completely different things? I’m suggesting the massive popularity gap is qualitative evidence pointing to Jordan as GOAT, again not definitively.

Tiger Woods is by far the most popular golfer of all time. He helped globalize the sport of golf. Tiger is also considered by many/most to be the GOAT golfer.

Muhammad Ali is by far the most popular boxer of all time. He helped globalize the sport of boxing. He’s also considered by many/most to be the GOAT boxer.

I’m not suggesting you have globalize something to be considered GOAT but when you’re so great that you’re directly responsible for inspiring so many new entrants into your sport, it does stand as a testament to your greatness.

Conversely, when you’re not even the most popular guy from your era or just one of several guys, that’s probably a knock against any argument for you as GOAT. People are front runners, and even though not everyone can articulate the different between your average professional athlete, most people know true greatness when they see it.

So again, while MJ’s popularity gap shouldn’t be seen as the definitive one thing that makes him GOAT, it does strongly suggest he has a very good case for it.

[Snakebites]

I think it is relevant. Jordan was such a superduperstar that he was almost single-handedly responsible for the globalization of basketball. That kind of popularity is almost always very highly correlated to the ability of the performer in question, and is something which we can see not just in basketball but other sports, music, etc.

Put another way, Jordan's global popularity and reach outpacing his competitors by such a significant margin is actually a measure of his GOATness. It's not a definitive measure or anything, but it's definitely a notch in his GOAT belt over the other candidates as it strongly suggests there was something about his talent and ability that stood out to the public way beyond the talent and ability of his peers.

Then we're talking about two completely different things and I don't think there's a basis for further discussion. Have a good one.

How is it completely different things? I’m suggesting the massive popularity gap is qualitative evidence pointing to Jordan as GOAT, again not definitively.

Tiger Woods is by far the most popular golfer of all time. He helped globalize the sport of golf. Tiger is also considered by many/most to be the GOAT golfer.

Muhammad Ali is by far the most popular boxer of all time. He helped globalize the sport of boxing. He’s also considered by many/most to be the GOAT boxer.

I’m not suggesting you have globalize something to be considered GOAT but when you’re so great that you’re directly responsible for inspiring so many new entrants into your sport, it does stand as a testament to your greatness.

Conversely, when you’re not even the most popular guy from your era or just one of several guys, that’s probably a knock against any argument for you as GOAT. People are front runners, and even though not everyone can articulate the different between your average professional athlete, most people know true greatness when they see it.

So again, while MJ’s popularity gap shouldn’t be seen as the definitive one thing that makes him GOAT, it does strongly suggest he has a very good case for it.

It's different because I just want to look at the player and what they accomplished as a player.

I'm not interested in narrative based arguments that reach beyond that like the "influence" that a player had. That isn't part of what he accomplished on the court.

If you're interested in that fine- there's plenty of other people you can have a discussion with. As I said, have a good one.

[Mr B]

Do off the court issues effect anyone decision here?

[SilentA]

There’s one thing about Jordan and the Bulls championship run that nobody ever talks about or even remembers; they won every game they HAD to win. Every MUST WIN game was won.

I suspect a bait post but I'll bite.

1990 Detroit vs Chicago. Game 7. Not a must win?
1995 Orlando vs Chicago. Game 6. Not a must win?

Not even gonna touch Washington. A number of those regular season losses can be considered "must win" to retain playoff contention.

I wish people would just make better arguments. The "JORDAN ALWAYS DELIVERED WHEN IT MATTERS" "6-0 IN THE FINALS" (ignoring the times he got knocked out beforehand) type memery is dishonest. That somehow implies that losing in the finals is worse than getting beaten in the Eastern Conference Finals. It's cherrypicking.

Jordan is a legitimate GOAT candidate but the mythology is silly.

[maverick_41]

Also Jordan has never had a problem with the Mavs!

[Snakebites]

Also Jordan has never had a problem with the Mavs!

Nobody really had a problem with the Mavs during Jordan's title runs.

The strength it currently takes to be a Piston fan must be comparable to what it took to root for Dallas back then.

[OriginalRed]

Jordan didn't win ONE playoff series before Pippen lol

Lebron didn't win ONE playoff series before Larry Hughes.

See how dumb both those statements sound without context?

[MavsDirk41]

Michael Jordan is an all time great. I personally have him as number two all time- I'm definitely not one of those guys who says he'd be DeRozen if he played today.

But the talent level in the league is higher today. Look up and down a typical roster in today's NBA vs the 1990s- I really don't think there's any argument that this isn't the case. The game got more popular (in part due to Michael Jordan) both in the US and abroad. More people domestically and abroad became basketball players. The talent pool got deeper.

Jordan defeated the following teams in the finals:


Post-Kareem Lakers
Barkley/KJ Suns
Drexler Blazers
GP/Kemp Sonics
Stock/Malone Jazz

Those are some great teams in their own time, but all of them also had guys who'd never crack a playoff rotation today getting key minutes, even starter minutes. All of them had limited three point shooting which would make it harder to outpace the output a Jordan-based offense could put out.

Lets compare the talent level to what Lebron has faced, chronologically speaking:

Duncan/Gino/Parker Spurs
Dirk/Kidd Mavericks
KD/Westbrook/Harden Thunder
Later Spurs
Butler Heat

Oh, and the Warriors FOUR TIMES IN A ROW.

I'd personally argue that both versions of the Spurs were better than anything Jordan faced. Heck, from a pure talent standpoint you can probably put the Thunder there too.

And NONE of those teams hold a candle to the Warriors, a team prime Lebron had the fortune of running into FOUR TIMES.

You can say Jordan would have still gotten six titles than Lebron when faced with those opponents, but there isn't a solid body of proof of that when looking at the opponents he actually had to face.

What are you going off of to say the teams James faced were stronger competition? Stats like SRS and Overall Net Rating will say otherwise. Kidd was 38 and Caron Butler was injured in 2011. That Miami Heat team was missing their 3rd best player (Dragic) the entire series and their second best player (Bam) missed two games in the finals. That Miami team is the worst out of all the funals teams either player faced. Miami was playing Olynk and Meyers Leonard at center with Bam out.

The 2012 OKC team were young and the underdog by far. Golden St and San Antonio were legit but James played with two of the best players in the nba in Miami and the same in Cleveland. James played with more talent than Jordan. Pick whoever you want between the two but look at the other side of the spectrum.

[VanWest82]

I'm not interested in narrative based arguments

It isn't narrative. There's an obvious link between popularity and high performance, especially at the top. In fact, the link is so strong that we see examples where players who performed at a high level for a long time continue to be popular even after their performance dips (see all star game voting) such that there's clearly a cumulative effect going on.

A little OT, but this is an interesting study looking at using google trends as a way to use popularity of soccer players to predict transfer fees. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10431623/

Not only is there an obvious link between popularity and performance, but including popularity testing actually improves predictability of market value.

[NbaAllDay]

Michael Jordan is an all time great. I personally have him as number two all time- I'm definitely not one of those guys who says he'd be DeRozen if he played today.

But the talent level in the league is higher today. Look up and down a typical roster in today's NBA vs the 1990s- I really don't think there's any argument that this isn't the case. The game got more popular (in part due to Michael Jordan) both in the US and abroad. More people domestically and abroad became basketball players. The talent pool got deeper.

Jordan defeated the following teams in the finals:


Post-Kareem Lakers
Barkley/KJ Suns
Drexler Blazers
GP/Kemp Sonics
Stock/Malone Jazz

Those are some great teams in their own time, but all of them also had guys who'd never crack a playoff rotation today getting key minutes, even starter minutes. All of them had limited three point shooting which would make it harder to outpace the output a Jordan-based offense could put out.

Lets compare the talent level to what Lebron has faced, chronologically speaking:

Duncan/Gino/Parker Spurs
Dirk/Kidd Mavericks
KD/Westbrook/Harden Thunder
Later Spurs
Butler Heat

Oh, and the Warriors FOUR TIMES IN A ROW.

I'd personally argue that both versions of the Spurs were better than anything Jordan faced. Heck, from a pure talent standpoint you can probably put the Thunder there too.

And NONE of those teams hold a candle to the Warriors, a team prime Lebron had the fortune of running into FOUR TIMES.

You can say Jordan would have still gotten six titles than Lebron when faced with those opponents, but there isn't a solid body of proof of that when looking at the opponents he actually had to face.

What are you going off of to say the teams James faced were stronger competition? Stats like SRS and Overall Net Rating will say otherwise. Kidd was 38 and Caron Butler was injured in 2011. That Miami Heat team was missing their 3rd best player (Dragic) the entire series and their second best player (Bam) missed two games in the finals. That Miami team is the worst out of all the funals teams either player faced. Miami was playing Olynk and Meyers Leonard at center with Bam out.

The 2012 OKC team were young and the underdog by far. Golden St and San Antonio were legit but James played with two of the best players in the nba in Miami and the same in Cleveland. James played with more talent than Jordan. Pick whoever you want between the two but look at the other side of the spectrum.

This is where we probably dig a little deeper. The original comment just looking at Finals is also a fairly narrow scope.

No one should argue Miami were a strong team. It's not like it was a breeze for LA to make the Finals although it looked easier because LeBron played like the best player in the League alongside AD.

2011 a clear downside for Lebron that is obvious, but throwing out a few old ages is a bit dishonest to that Mavs team. They swept the defending champs and 4-1 the up and coming OKC. You can argue they are lower across MJs opponents if you wish but it is in bad faith the way it's described.

2012 I'd agree they were favourites. OkC again underrated by your explanation of them but sure.

2013 Wade and Bosh were not even close to 'best players in the league' anymore. Lebron needed a lot of monster games to drag them through. Ray Allen was also 37, 1 year Removed from Kidd for reference.

Similar above to 2014.

15 is unique with all the injuries I won't go there with time in mind.

16 to 18 GSW were better than any Team Jordan faced.

Now yes Lebron had 'more' help collectively because he played with more elite players. It doesn't mean he always had a 'better' team. Plenty of context goes into aging Wade, Love. Diminished role of a 3rd player on every single roster. Top heavy = less depth teams.

You could go back and forth about it but tldr

I could agree that LeBron had a better team at times, while also be confident that he played better teams at times too.

Which is why the team v team arguement is silly imo. Let's analyse what they did on the court and how they helped their teams rather than 'he had more help' narratives. Not saying that's what you are doing but it doesn't actually add value to how good a particular player is unless you extrapolate their individual impact specifically.

[One_and_Done]

And its already been proven to you that when Jordan shot more 3s his 3 point percentage increased or he was more efficient. He only averaged 1.7 3 point attempts per game for his career, but the seasons in which he had the most 3 point field goal attempts were his highest 3 point percentage:

89/90
3 attempts per game
.38%

92/93
3 attempts per game
.35%

95/96
3.2 attempts per game
.43%

96/97
3 attempts per game
.37%

People have told you this before but you continue to ignore facts. It took me 5 minutes to gather this information, maybe in the future, you do the same;

- research
- facts

1) Scrub the seasonds with the shorter line.
2) I called Jordan a 'meh' 3pt shooter, not a nonexistent 3pt shooter. If Jordan had no 3 at all I wouldn't be calling him a top 5 player today
3) back then teams took the 3 lightly. When Jordan was shooting it he was basically open. Today the defense is entirely focused on stopping 3s; SGA is not taking wide open 3s. It's the difference between a Herb Joned type and an actual 3pt shooter. Herb has a good % this year, but it's because he only takes it when he's wide open
4) Jordan's overall percentages in non-shortened seasons do not suggest he'd be a good 3pt shooter today.

Astonishly I was already aware if these facts, they've been discussed in many threads I've posted in, including this one.

The nba shortened the 3 point line during the 94/95 season:

Jordan 3 point shooting prior to this occurring:

89/90 season
3 attempts per game at 38%

92/93 season
3 attempts per game at 35%

91 eastern conference finals
3/5 for 60%
91 nba finals
2/4 for 50%

92 eastern conference finals
3/6 for 50%
92 nba finals
12/28 for 43%

93 eastern conference finals
10/25 for 40%
93 nba finals
10/25 for 40%


Jordan was not a 3 point shooter like most star players werent back then, but statistics show that his efficiency increased when his volume of 3 point attempts increased. If he played today he would probably average 3-4 attempts per game at around 35% to 36%. Again, you are wrong and you are changing nobody’s opinion on here pal-o.

They call them averages for a reason. If I cherry pick random games I can make alot of meh shooters look solid. The stats do not show his efficiency increases with volume, because the biggest volume is his career or a full year sample. Rather than looking at those you are cherry picking playoff series in individual years. Beyond not serious.

[One_and_Done]

I just presented facts to you. How about you do some research if you want people to take you seriously. Your trolling is horrible.

You've already tried to change the top RE: Shai, now that you finally wrapped your head around the point. Feel free to respond whenever.

You first called SGA a 3 point shooter and then when i told you that he is only averaging 3 attempts per game, you said that he is a 3 point threat…..i dont think you fully understand that in the 80s/90s players were not shooting 3s at the clip they are now. If players from the past like a Jordan were playing in the modern nba they would adjust to this current style of play. Facts presented to you clearly show that Jordan with increased volume on his 3 point attempts before the 3 point line was shortened was an adequate 3 point shooter. Take the L.

Jordan's 3pt shot was meh, and he was shooting when wide open. It's not like Shai who can nail a 3 fluidly at the drop of a hat if you give him any space. That's the threat he uses to help throw the D into disarray. If Jordan played today they could give him more cushion and hedge more, because he's only a meh 3pt shooter and needs to be wide open to hit.

I judge guys off the skillset they actually had. Otherwise why not just invent fan fic about how all the players would grow up differently in different eras with different skills. In my imagination Len Bias and Sabonis are the GOATS, and Shaq learned to hit FTs.

[VanWest82]

1) Scrub the seasonds with the shorter line.
2) I called Jordan a 'meh' 3pt shooter, not a nonexistent 3pt shooter. If Jordan had no 3 at all I wouldn't be calling him a top 5 player today
3) back then teams took the 3 lightly. When Jordan was shooting it he was basically open. Today the defense is entirely focused on stopping 3s; SGA is not taking wide open 3s. It's the difference between a Herb Joned type and an actual 3pt shooter. Herb has a good % this year, but it's because he only takes it when he's wide open
4) Jordan's overall percentages in non-shortened seasons do not suggest he'd be a good 3pt shooter today.

Astonishly I was already aware if these facts, they've been discussed in many threads I've posted in, including this one.

The nba shortened the 3 point line during the 94/95 season:

Jordan 3 point shooting prior to this occurring:

89/90 season
3 attempts per game at 38%

92/93 season
3 attempts per game at 35%

91 eastern conference finals
3/5 for 60%
91 nba finals
2/4 for 50%

92 eastern conference finals
3/6 for 50%
92 nba finals
12/28 for 43%

93 eastern conference finals
10/25 for 40%
93 nba finals
10/25 for 40%


Jordan was not a 3 point shooter like most star players werent back then, but statistics show that his efficiency increased when his volume of 3 point attempts increased. If he played today he would probably average 3-4 attempts per game at around 35% to 36%. Again, you are wrong and you are changing nobody’s opinion on here pal-o.

They call them averages for a reason. If I cherry pick random games I can make alot of meh shooters look solid. The stats do not show his efficiency increases with volume, because the biggest volume is his career or a full year sample. Rather than looking at those you are cherry picking playoff series in individual years. Beyond not serious.

The problem with what you're doing here is pretending like the majority of MJ's career three point attempts were good shots within the flow of the offense as appose to heavily contested, end-of-shot-clock attempts or end-of-quarter heaves.

The reason Jordan's averages increased in the years his volume increased is because he was making a point to shoot more threes in the flow of the offense. He was also still taking contested, end-of-shot-clock attempts and end-of-quarter heaves, but those were now in the minority.

I know it's easier just looking at the averages and calling it a day, but you lose a lot of context when you do that.

[One_and_Done]

Jordan's 3 ball form was not good. He wouldn't even be getting that shot off against alot of defenders. He definitely needed space to take and make it.

https://youtu.be/03GT8q3BCZY?si=FcQ7yIUaNodlfsw5

Here's his famous 6 three game. All wide open, not even guarded really, with slow mechanics.

[fansse]

Jordan didn't win ONE playoff series before Pippen lol

Lebron didn't win ONE playoff series before Larry Hughes.

See how dumb both those statements sound without context?

Larry Hughes joined the Cavs in LeBron’s third season. Pippen joined in Jordan’s 8.

[ChipotleWest]

Jordan didn't win ONE playoff series before Pippen lol

Lebron didn't win ONE playoff series before Larry Hughes.

See how dumb both those statements sound without context?

Larry Hughes joined the Cavs in LeBron’s third season. Pippen joined in Jordan’s 8.

It was the 4th actually, and Jordan was playing with drug addicts up until that point. He had Pippen for both losses against the Pistons but he was averaging 7.9 ppg and then 14 ppg. No Bull averaged 15 ppg in either of those seasons except Jordan who was averaging 35 ppg and won DPOY one of those years and All NBA Defense the other. People get it twisted that Jordan wasn't ready to win, no his teammates weren't. Lebron lovers want to criticize him for not winning every single year of his career while it's totally cool that Lebron has as many Finals losses as Jordan does wins.

Having no Scottie Pippen was not the only reason for Jordan's struggles in the first 3 seasons of his career. Jordan was drafted to a team of multiple cocaine addicts, including Orlando Woolridge and Quintin Dailey — both of whom eventually left the team due to their addictions.

[Iwasawitness]

Lebron didn't win ONE playoff series before Larry Hughes.

See how dumb both those statements sound without context?

Larry Hughes joined the Cavs in LeBron’s third season. Pippen joined in Jordan’s 8.

It was the 4th actually, and Jordan was playing with drug addicts up until that point. He had Pippen for both losses against the Pistons but he was averaging 7.9 ppg and then 14 ppg. No Bull averaged 15 ppg in either of those seasons except Jordan who was averaging 35 ppg and won DPOY one of those years and All NBA Defense the other. People get it twisted that Jordan wasn't ready to win, no his teammates weren't. Lebron lovers want to criticize him for not winning every single year of his career while it's totally cool that Lebron has as many Finals losses as Jordan does wins.

Having no Scottie Pippen was not the only reason for Jordan's struggles in the first 3 seasons of his career. Jordan was drafted to a team of multiple cocaine addicts, including Orlando Woolridge and Quintin Dailey — both of whom eventually left the team due to their addictions.

I don't get why you think coming up with these bizarre bull **** takes is going to help you prove a point, but you're pretty much just coming across as another anti-LeBron troll with arguments like these. Between this and the all NBA comment (which I've called you out for and you conveniently didn't respond), I'm getting the impression that you don't have any intentions of having an honest and faithful debate.

[IG2]

Intangibles are where things always get skewed.

Intangibles don't need to by this mysterious thing. If you've simply watched someone play, then you'll notice aspects to their game that may not show up in the boxscore. With MJ, 2 non-athletic/skill related attributes to his game that instantly stand out are how hard he played and how he was generally at his most aggressive when stakes in the game were at their highest. In other words, he was just very, very competitive (and mentally tough). And those go a long way in determining W's and L's.

He was so off the charts athletically that some folks started adding things he wasnt, like a good leader.

All of his teammates have universally talked about how much he set the tone in practice itself. And how that carried over to their on-court play. Phil in his last book (11 Rings) had nothing but praise for MJ's leadership. MJ may have been a colossal dick, but he knew how to maximize what was around him.

IQ is debatable but nothing he did supports it outside of just playing at a high level.

Nothing he did? What exactly do you want him to do - wax philosophy on the court?? MJ's efficiency and low turnover rate despite his insane usage is testament to his high IQ. He had amazing court awareness and ability to find high % shots despite all the focus being on him. I don't see how anyone can watch him play, especially come 90's, and not come out thinking he was very smart.

To sum it up, Im just not a fan of using intangibles as justification.

It's definitely very annoying when that's ALL anyone talks about when talking about MJ. His incredible ability was far and away the biggest reason why he was GOAT, but he most certainly was a high intangibles guy too. You don't basically win 6 straight championships with just 'ability'.

[NbaAllDay]

Intangibles are where things always get skewed.

Intangibles don't need to by this mysterious thing. If you've simply watched someone play, then you'll notice attributes about them that may not show up in the boxscore. With MJ, 2 non-athletic/skill related aspects to his game that instantly stand out is how hard he played and how he was generally at his most aggressive when stakes in the game were at their highest. In other words, he was just very, very competitive (and mentally tough). And those go a long way in determining W's and L's.

He was so off the charts athletically that some folks started adding things he wasnt, like a good leader.

All of his teammates have universally talked about how he much he set the tone in practice itself. And how that carried over to their on-court play. Phil in his last book (11 Rings) had nothing but praise for MJ's leadership. MJ may have been a colossal dick, but he knew how to maximize what was around him.

IQ is debatable but nothing he did supports it outside of just playing at a high level.

Nothing he did? What exactly do you want him to do - wax philosophy on the court?? MJ's efficiency and low turnover rate despite his insane usage rate is testament to his high IQ. He had amazing court awareness and ability to find high % shots despite all the focus being on him. I don't see how anyone can watch him play, especially come 90's, and not come out thinking he wasn't very smart.

To sum it up, Im just not a fan of using intangibles as justification.

It's definitely very annoying when that's ALL anyone talks about when talking about MJ. His incredible ability was far and away the biggest reason why he was GOAT, but he most certainly was a high intangibles guy too. You don't basically win 6 straight championships with just 'ability'.

It's more simply the application of those abilities. 'Intangibles' either help increase or decrease said abilities and therefore the impact the player has.

You can say they had x and y intangibles but it means nothing unless it provides impact, and if it provides impact it can be shown with most forms of data.

Therefore the arguments for intangibles adding to one's GOATness is a pointless endeavour because you can go one step further and see the impact a player has to extrapolate their ability/GOATness. Basically it's such a 'basic' concept that it adds little to no value. Much like 'box' scores. Looking behind those box scores is what actually matters.

High IQ = great facilitator/ Shot selection, defensive impact etc etc. All measurable components in order to do the above. So when analysing a player I would never say 'high IQ' I would actually describe what they do and impact they have.

Hopefully that makes sense.