Main reason Jordan is the GOAT

[Snakebites]

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.

[MavsDirk41]

Don't try and use logic. They'll just ignore you or move the goalposts.

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.

[MavsDirk41]

Don't try and use logic. They'll just ignore you or move the goalposts.

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.

[NyKnicks1714]

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.

I don't know how people argue this, yet they do. Four teams were added from 1988 to 1989, with another two coming in 1995. That is a significant dilution of talent in a very short time frame: 4 teams in 2 years, 6 teams in 7 years. Meanwhile, the current NBA hasn't seen expansion in 20 years (and that was just one team), while also seeing a massive influx of international talent and even more talent with the G league. There's no comparison.

[balrog27]

lol what. The only must win games in a playoff series is the elimination game.

[Knightfall]

It's pretty silly to claim it's backtracking when I've explained it in dozens of threads, including ones you have participated in. I guess this just proves you don't read my posts, which means there's no point replying to you.

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.

Love the fact that realgm has a button to hit so I can block these people who say their little hot takes. It's like goodbye. Poof and never get to see that crap again.

That's 2 people, self proclaimed geniuses I'm sure, added to my list today for their posts being completely..... well I'm sure many negative things can be said.

[Knightfall]

How does that put him above Bill Russell?

BECAUSE ITS 6-0 and Russell couldn't even hit a 3!!!!

Nah I'm kidding. Even as a Jordan fan I hate when people say that stupid line in trying to argue all time lists etc... I always praise Russell for his title and his accomplishments and 11 straight is dominant no way anyone can or should be down playing that.

[Snakebites]

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.

I don't know how people argue this, yet they do. Four teams were added from 1988 to 1989, with another two coming in 1995. That is a significant dilution of talent in a very short time frame: 4 teams in 2 years, 6 teams in 7 years. Meanwhile, the current NBA hasn't seen expansion in 20 years (and that was just one team), while also seeing a massive influx of international talent and even more talent with the G league. There's no comparison.

You're only looking at one side of the equation, and IMO even that you're doing in a slightly misleading way.

It's a little disingenuous to make the cutoff 1988 right? Most of Jordan's prime existed with 27 or 29 teams.

Plus my primary argument is that the number of quality players has increased. And yes, it has increased at a higher rate than the dilution of talent brought on by the expansion of the league. The league has dramatically expanded in popularity, especially internationally, and this has changed that aspect dramatically. There are guys in the league now who never would have been 20 years ago because the opportunity simply didn't exist.

And the dilution of talent ALSO doesn't affect the top level teams as much as it affects the average, and when we're talking about winning MVPs, Championships, and the other stuff people care about in these discussions, that's what matters. It has a larger impact on the middle and lower class level teams.

[The4thHorseman]

Jordan was the best player in every playoff series
every time
that can't be said about any other player in history

even when the Bulls were getting swept in the 80s, this was acknowledged

So it depends on which player is being talked about if he gets excused or not for losing a series even though he played great?

[NyKnicks1714]

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.

I don't know how people argue this, yet they do. Four teams were added from 1988 to 1989, with another two coming in 1995. That is a significant dilution of talent in a very short time frame: 4 teams in 2 years, 6 teams in 7 years. Meanwhile, the current NBA hasn't seen expansion in 20 years (and that was just one team), while also seeing a massive influx of international talent and even more talent with the G league. There's no comparison.

You're only looking at one side of the equation, and IMO even that you're doing in a slightly misleading way.

It's a little disingenuous to make the cutoff 1988 right? Most of Jordan's prime existed with 27 or 29 teams.

Plus my primary argument is that the number of quality players has increased. And yes, it has increased at a higher rate than the dilution of talent brought on by the expansion of the league. The league has dramatically expanded in popularity, especially internationally, and this has changed that aspect dramatically.

And the dilution of talent ALSO doesn't affect the top level teams as much as it affects the average, and when we're talking about winning MVPs, Championships, and the other stuff people care about in these discussions, that's what matters.

Did you not realize I was agreeing with you? Edit: I see now, the "argue this" should have been "argue otherwise"

[Snakebites]

I don't know how people argue this, yet they do. Four teams were added from 1988 to 1989, with another two coming in 1995. That is a significant dilution of talent in a very short time frame: 4 teams in 2 years, 6 teams in 7 years. Meanwhile, the current NBA hasn't seen expansion in 20 years (and that was just one team), while also seeing a massive influx of international talent and even more talent with the G league. There's no comparison.

You're only looking at one side of the equation, and IMO even that you're doing in a slightly misleading way.

It's a little disingenuous to make the cutoff 1988 right? Most of Jordan's prime existed with 27 or 29 teams.

Plus my primary argument is that the number of quality players has increased. And yes, it has increased at a higher rate than the dilution of talent brought on by the expansion of the league. The league has dramatically expanded in popularity, especially internationally, and this has changed that aspect dramatically.

And the dilution of talent ALSO doesn't affect the top level teams as much as it affects the average, and when we're talking about winning MVPs, Championships, and the other stuff people care about in these discussions, that's what matters.

Did you not realize I was agreeing with you?

Whoops, I guess I didn't. When you said "I don't know why people argue this" I thought you were saying "I don't know why people make the argument you're making".

I thought you were making the argument (I've seen a lot of people make) that the fewer number of teams actually means older players faced a higher density of talent.

My mistake. Misread your post.

[NyKnicks1714]

You're only looking at one side of the equation, and IMO even that you're doing in a slightly misleading way.

It's a little disingenuous to make the cutoff 1988 right? Most of Jordan's prime existed with 27 or 29 teams.

Plus my primary argument is that the number of quality players has increased. And yes, it has increased at a higher rate than the dilution of talent brought on by the expansion of the league. The league has dramatically expanded in popularity, especially internationally, and this has changed that aspect dramatically.

And the dilution of talent ALSO doesn't affect the top level teams as much as it affects the average, and when we're talking about winning MVPs, Championships, and the other stuff people care about in these discussions, that's what matters.

Did you not realize I was agreeing with you?

Whoops, I guess I didn't.

I thought you were making the argument (I've seen a lot of people make) that the fewer number of teams actually means older players faced a higher density of talent.

My mistake. Misread your post.

Yeah was saying that there was a significant dilution of talent going into the 90s with 4 brand new teams, another 2 teams added in 95, and very little international talent. The league had much much less talent than it does now.

[Snakebites]

Did you not realize I was agreeing with you?

Whoops, I guess I didn't.

I thought you were making the argument (I've seen a lot of people make) that the fewer number of teams actually means older players faced a higher density of talent.

My mistake. Misread your post.

Yeah was saying that there was a significant dilution of talent going into the 90s with 4 brand new teams, another 2 teams added in 95, and very little international talent. The league had much much less talent than it does now.

100%.

Just look at how many international players find themselves in the top 20 among active players at the moment.

That's a pool of potential talent that was left (almost) entirely untouched in Jordan's era. Sure, you had your Vlade Divac's your Detlef Schrempfs, your Drazen Petrovics, etc. But NOTHING like today.

I'm a 90s kid. I grew up on this stuff and have a lot of respect for it. I'm definitely not in the "we done with the 90's" crowd. But there are certain facts that really can't be disputed.

[VanWest82]

Whoops, I guess I didn't.

I thought you were making the argument (I've seen a lot of people make) that the fewer number of teams actually means older players faced a higher density of talent.

My mistake. Misread your post.

Yeah was saying that there was a significant dilution of talent going into the 90s with 4 brand new teams, another 2 teams added in 95, and very little international talent. The league had much much less talent than it does now.

100%.

Just look at how many international players find themselves in the top 20 among active players at the moment.

That's a pool of potential talent that was left (almost) entirely untouched in Jordan's era. Sure, you had your Vlade Divac's your Detlef Schrempfs, your Drazen Petrovics, etc. But NOTHING like today.

I'm a 90s kid. I grew up on this stuff and have a lot of respect for it. I'm definitely not in the "we done with the 90's" crowd. But there are certain facts that really can't be disputed.

The reason it was left untouched in Jordan's era is because for the most part it didn't exist. The reason it exists today is because of Jordan (and the rest of the dream team, but mainly Jordan). This is yet another reason why Jordan is the GOAT.

[Snakebites]

Yeah was saying that there was a significant dilution of talent going into the 90s with 4 brand new teams, another 2 teams added in 95, and very little international talent. The league had much much less talent than it does now.

100%.

Just look at how many international players find themselves in the top 20 among active players at the moment.

That's a pool of potential talent that was left (almost) entirely untouched in Jordan's era. Sure, you had your Vlade Divac's your Detlef Schrempfs, your Drazen Petrovics, etc. But NOTHING like today.

I'm a 90s kid. I grew up on this stuff and have a lot of respect for it. I'm definitely not in the "we done with the 90's" crowd. But there are certain facts that really can't be disputed.

The reason it was left untouched in Jordan's era is because for the most part it didn't exist. The reason it exists today is because of Jordan (and the rest of the dream team, but mainly Jordan).

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.

[VanWest82]

100%.

Just look at how many international players find themselves in the top 20 among active players at the moment.

That's a pool of potential talent that was left (almost) entirely untouched in Jordan's era. Sure, you had your Vlade Divac's your Detlef Schrempfs, your Drazen Petrovics, etc. But NOTHING like today.

I'm a 90s kid. I grew up on this stuff and have a lot of respect for it. I'm definitely not in the "we done with the 90's" crowd. But there are certain facts that really can't be disputed.

The reason it was left untouched in Jordan's era is because for the most part it didn't exist. The reason it exists today is because of Jordan (and the rest of the dream team, but mainly Jordan).

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.

[maverick_41]

Main reason Jordan is the GOAT is 9-paged threads about him every day in internet 21 years after he retired for good

[Snakebites]

The reason it was left untouched in Jordan's era is because for the most part it didn't exist. The reason it exists today is because of Jordan (and the rest of the dream team, but mainly Jordan).

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.

[ChipotleWest]

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.

And how'd Lebron do in those Finals? Overall not well. If he had a winning record you'd have a slam dunk argument "this is why Lebron is better, look at his finals opponents and how he did" But he lost more than he won, so I don't know how he gets credit for that over Jordan winning all of his.

Also he was the favorite against the Mavs no excuses for that, no excuses to lose to the Spurs by a record margin. Their highest scorer that season averaged only 16.7 ppg. To me at some point you have to look at these series and say no, if you're the GREATEST BASKETBALL PLAYER OF ALL TIME you don't let this happen to you.

[Snakebites]

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.

And how'd Lebron do in those Finals? Overall not well. If he had a winning record you'd have a slam dunk argument "this is why Lebron is better, look at his finals opponents and how he did" But he lost more than he won, so I don't know how he gets credit for that over Jordan winning all of his.

Also he was the favorite against the Mavs no excuses for that, no excuses to lose to the Spurs by a record margin. Their highest scorer that season averaged only 16.7 ppg. To me at some point you have to look at these series and say no, if you're the GREATEST BASKETBALL PLAYER OF ALL TIME you don't let this happen to you.

The argument really wasn't that Lebron's accomplishments in the rings department are better than Jordan. I don't think I need to prove that, as I don't believe it is necessary.

Really more adding very valid caveats to Jordan's ring argument- by far the largest non-narrative based argument used to argue Jordan is the GOAT.

It also broadly supports the notion that Lebron simply played in a more talented league than Jordan and faced stiffer competition in general.