RGM GOAT Debate Thread (Part 2)

[michaelm]

Dude I wasn't denying that there is more international talent in the NBA today. There obviously is. That's a fact.

I was simply saying that instead of the reason being that international players have improved, it could also be that US players have declined which makes international players look better in comparison. Or it could be that those international leagues (mainly European) got worse in terms of both status and pay which makes more players come over to the NBA. Which of those is true is hard to tell. Could be a bit of all of them too.

I genuinely don’t know how to respond to this sort of argumentation tactic.

Yes, I put a pot of water on the stove and turned the knob on, and it magically started boiling.

Could it be that the stove provided the heat? It is hard to tell. It could be that there is some external heating source above the water. It could also possibly be that the rest of my house got so cold that the water started boiling magically. I guess we’ll never know.

If you think what I said is anything like your "water boiling in a pot" example, then I don't know what to tell you.

I could extend his metaphor. I don’t believe having more pots on the stove changes the boiling point of water.

The thing is whether having a wider talent pool regardless of whether the pool is as deep changes anything about extreme statistical outliers such as Jordan and LeBron. I saw somewhere that Babe Ruth still has hit one of the longest home runs ever and there are a lot of reasons why modern baseball players should be stronger. The best ever cricket test batsman who had nearly twice the average of the next best player started playing in the 1930s. Statistically a player like him should only come around every 10000 years. Was Wilt Chamberlain less of a physical freak because he arrived in the 1960s when the sport was much smaller ?.

Jordan and LeBron both could only beat the players who turned up to face them. Perhaps the circumstances which produced Jordan are no longer extant in the USA, and people can and have argued that the defense allowed by the rules of his day was tougher. I have a chuckle when the Jordan didn’t have to face the KD GSW team argument is brought up, since a team of that strength was LeBron’s constant aim after 2010, and he pretty much created his own opposition which wouldn’t have arisen imo and that of others without his own superteam endeavours including his first super team beating KD’s baby OKC team, the second superteam with the Cavs, and the gamesmanship to get Green suspended etc.

[ScrantonBulls]

1. Using that logic, Embiid is also not an international player. Silly... If you're not born in the US/Canada, your talent comes from abroad.

2. There is more international presence now but a) The extent of it is overblown. Like I said, multiple stars in the 90's were international players but weren't treated as such on a technicality that they went to US colleges. b) The rise in the number of international players could simply mean that there is a decline in American talent. The root cause of the rise of international presence in the NBA is debatable.

Only debatable if you’re an idiot, I would say. you’d have to be incredibly obtuse, intentionally so, to act like there really is no difference in international talent.

No one could possibly have observed the Olympics in 92/96 and observed them in 20/24 and thought that the only difference was the USA weakening. Clearly the world has taken a giant leap forward.

Chill on the high schooler insults. It's basketball.
Arvidas Sabonis, Hakeem, Ewing, Dikembe, Drazen were all international players. We also had strong role players like Schrempf Vlade Kukoc and so on, so check yourself.
It's certainly debatable, though I am on the side that international players are improving.

If anything, the US players now are weak as hell from playing in a 2-dimensional league that simply emphasizes face to basket play, perimeter passing and not much else and the international players are way the hell better than them... well, obviously since the best players are all international.

For those of you keeping it classy and reading, keep this in mind. The more someone resorts to insults, the more they've thrown in the flag and are frustrated with how this debate is going. You've already won. That's why I get to ignore Scranton's posts and don't read a single word 95% of the time, for example

Every time you engage with me results in a massive L for you. I don't blame you for not responding anymore, son.

[bledredwine]

Only debatable if you’re an idiot, I would say. you’d have to be incredibly obtuse, intentionally so, to act like there really is no difference in international talent.

No one could possibly have observed the Olympics in 92/96 and observed them in 20/24 and thought that the only difference was the USA weakening. Clearly the world has taken a giant leap forward.

Chill on the high schooler insults. It's basketball.
Arvidas Sabonis, Hakeem, Ewing, Dikembe, Drazen were all international players. We also had strong role players like Schrempf Vlade Kukoc and so on, so check yourself.
It's certainly debatable, though I am on the side that international players are improving.

If anything, the US players now are weak as hell from playing in a 2-dimensional league that simply emphasizes face to basket play, perimeter passing and not much else and the international players are way the hell better than them... well, obviously since the best players are all international.

For those of you keeping it classy and reading, keep this in mind. The more someone resorts to insults, the more they've thrown in the flag and are frustrated with how this debate is going. You've already won. That's why I get to ignore Scranton's posts and don't read a single word 95% of the time, for example

Every time you engage with me results in a massive L for you. I don't blame you for not responding anymore, son.

Stepsis, you had me at hello! Let’s get engaged!

[michaelm]

Only debatable if you’re an idiot, I would say. you’d have to be incredibly obtuse, intentionally so, to act like there really is no difference in international talent.

No one could possibly have observed the Olympics in 92/96 and observed them in 20/24 and thought that the only difference was the USA weakening. Clearly the world has taken a giant leap forward.

Chill on the high schooler insults. It's basketball.
Arvidas Sabonis, Hakeem, Ewing, Dikembe, Drazen were all international players. We also had strong role players like Schrempf Vlade Kukoc and so on, so check yourself.
It's certainly debatable, though I am on the side that international players are improving.

If anything, the US players now are weak as hell from playing in a 2-dimensional league that simply emphasizes face to basket play, perimeter passing and not much else and the international players are way the hell better than them... well, obviously since the best players are all international.

For those of you keeping it classy and reading, keep this in mind. The more someone resorts to insults, the more they've thrown in the flag and are frustrated with how this debate is going. You've already won. That's why I get to ignore Scranton's posts and don't read a single word 95% of the time, for example

Every time you engage with me results in a massive L for you. I don't blame you for not responding anymore, son.

Fairly hard to have a large L against you given your every post exemplifies what you criticise in others.

[Laimbeer]

Flatly better. Not "well you could say so and so was pretty close..."

[EmpireFalls]

Definitely none of the 96-98 series. Non starter.

Probably none of the 91-93 series either. You could make a half assed argument for a couple (maybe Phoenix and maybe Knicks) but Pippen was clearly the best #2 in every series.

1989 series vs Cavs is the only one imo.

Assuming Price was the guy (although that was more of a 1A/1B) you had an All-NBA big in Daugherty, another All-Star and awesome defender in Nance, a budding star in Harper, excellent depth pieces like Hot Rod Williams and Ehlo.

So yeah, probably 89 Cavs.

[Iwasawitness]

Flatly better. Not "well you could say so and so was pretty close..."

I don't really see an argument for any of the finals series. After that you're going into 80s territory. Someone mentioned the 89 Cavs and... yeah, that's honestly the only one I can really think of too.

[bledredwine]

There were 3 times Jordan won and was considered the underdog.

1989 Eastern Conference Finals against the Detroit Pistons, the 1991 NBA Finals against the Magic Johnson-led Los Angeles Lakers, and the 1995 Eastern Conference Finals against the New York Knicks


People trying to dismiss the 91-93 teams as if having grandpa Cartwright at center wasn't a sever disadvantage are kidding themselves. He has to be one of the worst rebounding centers of all time and that was a time when having a strong center was paramount.

The 93 Phoenix team were also known to have significantly more fire power. But his 41 PPG and crazy clutch plays overcame that quite handily.

The Jordan perception and reality was completely different than what those here pretend it was. Jordan carried
the offense so many times.

Watch on YouTube

[ScrantonBulls]

There were 3 times Jordan won and was considered the underdog.

1989 Eastern Conference Finals against the Detroit Pistons, the 1991 NBA Finals against the Magic Johnson-led Los Angeles Lakers, and the 1995 Eastern Conference Finals against the New York Knicks


People trying to dismiss the 91-93 teams as if having grandpa Cartwright at center wasn't a sever disadvantage are kidding themselves. He has to be one of the worst rebounding centers of all time and that was a time when having a strong center was paramount.

The 93 Phoenix team were also known to have significantly more fire power. But his 41 PPG and crazy clutch plays overcame that quite handily.

The Jordan perception and reality was completely different than what those here pretend it was. Jordan carried
the offense so many times.

Watch on YouTube

Lol at being underdogs against the 91 Lakers. Let me know what it's like living in fantasy land, son.

[One Last Shot]

There were 3 times Jordan won and was considered the underdog.

1989 Eastern Conference Finals against the Detroit Pistons, the 1991 NBA Finals against the Magic Johnson-led Los Angeles Lakers, and the 1995 Eastern Conference Finals against the New York Knicks


People trying to dismiss the 91-93 teams as if having grandpa Cartwright at center wasn't a sever disadvantage are kidding themselves. He has to be one of the worst rebounding centers of all time and that was a time when having a strong center was paramount.

The 93 Phoenix team were also known to have significantly more fire power. But his 41 PPG and crazy clutch plays overcame that quite handily.

The Jordan perception and reality was completely different than what those here pretend it was. Jordan carried
the offense so many times.

Watch on YouTube

Thomas and the bad boys Pistons destroyed Jordan's Bulls in the playoffs for 3 straight years(1988,1989,1990). The only time MJ beat them was when Isiah had a career-threatening wrist injury in 1991 that basically ended that Pistons era.

Bulls wasn't an underdog in 1991 NBA Finals, they are favored to win because Worthy and Scott, the Lakers' 2nd and 3rd best player was injured.

https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nba-main/?y=1990-1991&sa=nba&a=finals&o=r

I'm not even sure what you are referring to in 1995 playoffs, Magic eliminated them in Semifinals as underdog -165.

Jordan was never an underdog in any playoffs series starting 1991. I think the only time he won a playoffs series as underdog was against the Cavs in 1989 when their best player Mark Price miss Game 1 due to hamstring injury and and against Ewing Knicks the next round.

[bledredwine]

There were 3 times Jordan won and was considered the underdog.

1989 Eastern Conference Finals against the Detroit Pistons, the 1991 NBA Finals against the Magic Johnson-led Los Angeles Lakers, and the 1995 Eastern Conference Finals against the New York Knicks


People trying to dismiss the 91-93 teams as if having grandpa Cartwright at center wasn't a sever disadvantage are kidding themselves. He has to be one of the worst rebounding centers of all time and that was a time when having a strong center was paramount.

The 93 Phoenix team were also known to have significantly more fire power. But his 41 PPG and crazy clutch plays overcame that quite handily.

The Jordan perception and reality was completely different than what those here pretend it was. Jordan carried
the offense so many times.

Watch on YouTube

Thomas and the bad boys Pistons destroyed Jordan's Bulls in the playoffs for 3 straight years(1988,1989,1990). The only time MJ beat them was when Isiah had a career-threatening wrist injury in 1991 that basically ended that Pistons era.

Bulls wasn't an underdog in 1991 NBA Finals, they are favored to win because Worthy and Scott, the Lakers' 2nd and 3rd best player was injured.

https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nba-main/?y=1990-1991&sa=nba&a=finals&o=r

I'm not even sure what you are referring to in 1995 playoffs, Magic eliminated them in Semifinals as underdog -165.

Jordan was never an underdog in any playoffs series starting 1991. I think the only time he won a playoffs series as underdog was against the Cavs in 1989 when their best player Mark Price miss Game 1 due to hamstring injury and and against Ewing Knicks the next round.

Bulls were underdogs in 91. Look it up.

You know what else is funny? Lebron fans treat Jordan retiring early as some sort of disadvantage.

The dude retired in his prime after averaging 41 ppg in the finals on high efficiency, something Lebron hasn't come even close to doing.... meaning you guys should be thankful every day that he didn't continue dominating and skipped two years instead to play baseball after his father's death.

[Iwasawitness]

There were 3 times Jordan won and was considered the underdog.

1989 Eastern Conference Finals against the Detroit Pistons, the 1991 NBA Finals against the Magic Johnson-led Los Angeles Lakers, and the 1995 Eastern Conference Finals against the New York Knicks

This is so hilariously false that if it wasn't too long, I'd sig it.

The Bulls didn't beat the Pistons in 89.

The Bulls were 2 to 1 favorites against the Lakers in 91.

And the 1995 Eastern Conference Finals? Jesus, where do I even start with this? For one thing, the Bulls didn't face the Knicks in the playoffs that year. Second, they didn't even make it to the ECF. They lost in the semis to Orlando. Third, New York didn't even make it there either. The ECF matchup that season was Indiana vs Orlando. Did you just pull this one out of your ass and expect no one to fact check you? And don't even tell me you meant 94 or 96 either. They lost in 94 and in no way, shape or form were they underdogs in 96.

People trying to dismiss the 91-93 teams as if having grandpa Cartwright at center wasn't a sever disadvantage are kidding themselves. He has to be one of the worst rebounding centers of all time and that was a time when having a strong center was paramount.

You underrating Cartwright doesn't change the fact that the Bulls were still favorites in every single playoff series from 1991 to 1993.

The 93 Phoenix team were also known to have significantly more fire power. But his 41 PPG and crazy clutch plays overcame that quite handily.

The Jordan perception and reality was completely different than what those here pretend it was. Jordan carried
the offense so many times.

At this point, I'm calling bull on both of these things. I have no reason to believe at this point that you watched the NBA. You just gave three flat out false statements and tried to present them as facts. There is no way you were watching at the time. An actual bulls fan would have gotten these facts right.

[Iwasawitness]

Bulls were underdogs in 91. Look it up.

We did.

https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nba-main/?y=1990-1991&sa=nba&a=finals&o=r

Word of advice: look up the information yourself first before telling someone to do the same.

You know what else is funny? Lebron fans treat Jordan retiring early as some sort of disadvantage.

The dude retired in his prime after averaging 41 ppg in the finals on high efficiency, something Lebron hasn't come even close to doing.... meaning you guys should be thankful every day that he didn't continue dominating and skipped two years instead to play baseball after his father's death.

You know what we're thankful for? That we don't have to make **** up like you do just to make our case for LeBron. It's really sad the lengths you go to try to justify your position.

[michaelm]

Bulls were underdogs in 91. Look it up.

We did.

https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nba-main/?y=1990-1991&sa=nba&a=finals&o=r

Word of advice: look up the information yourself first before telling someone to do the same.

You know what else is funny? Lebron fans treat Jordan retiring early as some sort of disadvantage.

The dude retired in his prime after averaging 41 ppg in the finals on high efficiency, something Lebron hasn't come even close to doing.... meaning you guys should be thankful every day that he didn't continue dominating and skipped two years instead to play baseball after his father's death.

You know what we're thankful for? That we don't have to make **** up like you do just to make our case for LeBron. It's really sad the lengths you go to try to justify your position.

What case for LeBron ?. Having previously focused on individual stats influenced by longevity it is now the old standby, Jordan had stronger teams. Apart from the strength of the teams not being independent of Jordan, we absolutely know those Jordan teams had good fit and worked. We don’t know and can never know how they would have functioned playing an entirely different heliocentric playing scheme based on LeBron, particularly given that it was when Phil Jackson instituted the triangle offense which took the ball out of Jordan’s hands to an extent that Jordan and the Bulls became successful. You have actually posted that the triangle offense was to cover Jordan’s deficiencies which shows you are not a particularly honest dealer yourself. Have you ever considered the possibility that a team approach might actually be the better method ?.

I am happy with the real answer, that they were both great players who dominated different eras and that they can’t really be compared across 25 years. However it is you guys who insist on doing so, then particularly in Scranton Bulls’ case complain about bias from the responders to his very biased posts.

[Iwasawitness]

Bulls were underdogs in 91. Look it up.

We did.

https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nba-main/?y=1990-1991&sa=nba&a=finals&o=r

Word of advice: look up the information yourself first before telling someone to do the same.

You know what else is funny? Lebron fans treat Jordan retiring early as some sort of disadvantage.

The dude retired in his prime after averaging 41 ppg in the finals on high efficiency, something Lebron hasn't come even close to doing.... meaning you guys should be thankful every day that he didn't continue dominating and skipped two years instead to play baseball after his father's death.

You know what we're thankful for? That we don't have to make **** up like you do just to make our case for LeBron. It's really sad the lengths you go to try to justify your position.

What case for LeBron ?. Having previously focused on individual stats influenced by longevity it is now the old standby, Jordan had stronger teams. Apart from the strength of the teams not being independent of Jordan, we absolutely know those Jordan teams had good fit and worked. We don’t know and can never know how they would have functioned playing an entirely different heliocentric playing scheme based on LeBron, particularly given that it was when Phil Jackson instituted the triangle offense which took the ball out of Jordan’s hands to an extent that Jordan and the Bulls became successful. You have actually posted that the triangle offense was to cover Jordan’s deficiencies which shows you are not a particularly honest dealer yourself. Have you ever considered the possibility that a team approach might actually be the better method ?.

I am happy with the real answer, that they were both great players who dominated different eras and that they can’t really be compared across 25 years. However it is you guys who insist on doing so, then particularly in Scranton Bulls’ case complain about bias from the responders to his very biased posts.

This is the second time now you have accused me of saying something that I never said. Why is this is your go to method?

[ScrantonBulls]

There were 3 times Jordan won and was considered the underdog.

1989 Eastern Conference Finals against the Detroit Pistons, the 1991 NBA Finals against the Magic Johnson-led Los Angeles Lakers, and the 1995 Eastern Conference Finals against the New York Knicks


People trying to dismiss the 91-93 teams as if having grandpa Cartwright at center wasn't a sever disadvantage are kidding themselves. He has to be one of the worst rebounding centers of all time and that was a time when having a strong center was paramount.

The 93 Phoenix team were also known to have significantly more fire power. But his 41 PPG and crazy clutch plays overcame that quite handily.

The Jordan perception and reality was completely different than what those here pretend it was. Jordan carried
the offense so many times.

Watch on YouTube

Jesus Christ... Imagine being a self proclaimed Jordan fanatic and not knowing that the Pistons beat him and the Bulls in the 1989 playoffs... Jordan losing to the bad boys in 1989 and 1990 is known by anybody with a shred of MJ knowledge... Not knowing that is really astonishing. The Bulls also didn't play the Knicks in the 95 playoffs, as iwaswitness said when he laid the proverbial smackdown on you.

This is why people struggle to take you seriously. Just constant false information and lies from you. I still can't believe you thought the Bulls beat the Pistons in 1989.

[Iwasawitness]

There were 3 times Jordan won and was considered the underdog.

1989 Eastern Conference Finals against the Detroit Pistons, the 1991 NBA Finals against the Magic Johnson-led Los Angeles Lakers, and the 1995 Eastern Conference Finals against the New York Knicks


People trying to dismiss the 91-93 teams as if having grandpa Cartwright at center wasn't a sever disadvantage are kidding themselves. He has to be one of the worst rebounding centers of all time and that was a time when having a strong center was paramount.

The 93 Phoenix team were also known to have significantly more fire power. But his 41 PPG and crazy clutch plays overcame that quite handily.

The Jordan perception and reality was completely different than what those here pretend it was. Jordan carried
the offense so many times.

Watch on YouTube

Jesus Christ... Imagine being a self proclaimed Jordan fanatic and not knowing that the Pistons beat him and the Bulls in the 1989 playoffs... Jordan losing to the bad boys in 1989 and 1990 is known by anybody with a shred of MJ knowledge... Not knowing that is really astonishing. The Bulls also didn't play the Knicks in the 95 playoffs, as iwaswitness said when he laid the proverbial smackdown on you.

This is why people struggle to take you seriously. Just constant false information and lies from you. I still can't believe you thought the Bulls beat the Pistons in 1989.

Good job on slightly modifying what he said to make it a sig. It's safe to say that his credibility at this point is shot and that nothing he says can be taken seriously.

[bledredwine]

Watch on YouTube

[ScrantonBulls]

Watch on YouTube

There were 3 times Jordan won and was considered the underdog.

1989 Eastern Conference Finals against the Detroit Pistons, the 1991 NBA Finals against the Magic Johnson-led Los Angeles Lakers, and the 1995 Eastern Conference Finals against the New York Knicks

[Iwasawitness]

Watch on YouTube

You do know we can just as easily just post the videos of the 90s defense where everyone is just standing around right?