TheDavinciCHODE wrote:Ballings7 wrote:Ahhhh,
All these people who never really watched Mike.
As someone who grew up watching 90s 'Ball, stopped after Jordan's second retirement, and got back into following the NBA in 2002 (didn't miss much) any one of Jordan's Bulls teams would of beat the Warriors, Heat, and Cavs. Especially the 1996 and 1993 teams. Not so sure about Duncan/Pop Spur's due to the defense and Duncan. 2003 Spurs, yeah, they would of beat them.
Jordan's competition is greater than LeBron's, as well. Just higher quality and tougher defenses. A more balanced league without soft foul calls to parade guys to the line every other game.
~ MJGOAT ~
Pretty populist sounding post without much basis in fact. What's the basis that backs up these claims? I think MJ's teams could have win as well, not sure who would be the fave to be honest. But saying things like "higher-quality" and "tougher defense" are pretty nebulous and without any real substance. Defense might not be as physical now as back then, but it is no doubt more taxing. Defenses are so much more sophisticated now and have to cover far more of the court.
LOL "all those people who never watched Mike". Did you watch 90's basketball? Don't you remember the point guards backing down from half court with the defender forearm in their back and then dumping it into the post as just standing and watching the big go for a backdown hook?
Don't you remember Scottie bringing the ball up and dishing to Mike in an iso at the elbow as the rest of the team watched?
Don't you remember teams playing 3 non-shooting forwards or centers, crowding everyone in the middle around the basket as a guard took a pull up long two off of the dribble?
That was 90's ball my man. you know it as well as I do. More physical? Yes, of course? Tougher? Well, define that. Did it mean you had to hit and push more? Yes. Did you have to move as much and cover the whole floor? No, and it's not even close. Everyone from the point guard to the big now is expected to guard out to the perimeter, switch everything, get under the basket, get to the corners, etc.
There are tons of dudes who would just be played out of the league with ease in this day and age from back then. So many guys who were bruisers, enforcers, tough guys, and generally unskilled specialists that would really struggle.
Defenses might not be as tough physically but they are without a doubt more sophisticated, and, without a doubt, playing defense in the NBA these days is much harder than it ever was back then. Maybe not in terms of the bumps and bruises you took, but definitely in terms of trying to stop the other team from scoring, moving your feet, switching, rotating, covering the floor, closing out, rebounding, etc. The game is MUCH more sophisticated, and there's no argument.
And as for the parade to the free throw line...are you aware how much MJ's contemporaries hated him for preferential treatment?
BTW, that "parade to the free throw line" seems to be without basis in fact......free throw attempted per field goal attempted are lower these days than when MJ played. A product of the free flowing, switching nature of the game. Obviously the game is called tighter in terms of arm contact and hand checking than it used to, but in terms of relative free throws taken within the flow of the game, there are fewer now than ever before in recent memory.
Jordan went to the line equally or maybe even more in his prime than Lebron did, despite Lebron playing in your "parade to the free throw line" era.
The nature of free throws taken certainly has changed in that the nature of why a player goes to the line is different than it used to be, but in reality, players actually go to the line less frequently per possession than players from other eras.
EXCELLENT.
Permit me to take it back a couple or more generations.
I started watching the NBA for the 1959 season because I attended a number of Harlem Globetrotter games (saw Wilt play some nasty-good point guard too).
I can swear at true that EVERY SINGLE GENERATION of NBA fans (and players for that matter) ALWAYS CLAIMS that THEIR era was the greatest (by far). At first, not knowing any better - I thought I'd never again see the likes of Wilt, West-Baylor, Big "O" and Russell. Then KAJ and Dr J surprised me; but before I started believing they were never going to be surpassed or ever close to equaled, along came, Bird-Magic,MJ; then .....
My belief for the last 50 years has been and remains: the TOP 5 players in any decade (not counting pre-Wilt: 1950s and earlier) could pay great in any other decade. The only thing I'd add is that, IMO, with each passing decade the NUMBER of GREAT players increases - so for the 60's there were 6, the 70s there were 7, 80s=8,, etc. (and for the pre-Wilt years: 1939-1959, 5 Players too.
Right now that works out to about 52 Great Players -pretty convenient for building a GOAT Top 50 list!
I'm sure that for each argument FOR one decade over the others, there are vbasically equally convincing arguments for every other decade.
I love MJ; but don't believe about him like perhaps most fans do: "He's THE GOAT and always will be" - not only strikes me as a religious-type belief; but I don't even rank him #1 NOW (that, imo is KAJ, then Magic (greatest pre-LBJ TEAM-mate) then MJ, then LBJ (who just this season passed TD in 5th). One player per position (Center, PF, SF, SG, PG) per each set of 5 GOAT spots.
Lastly, for me, THE basic UNIT of measurement is Number of GREAT SEASONS (as defined by All-NBA-ABA-NBL 1st & 2nd Team selections.
I've never seen anybody else propose any of this thinking - and I've looked for 50 years.
Still, it seems to me the ONLY system that avoids all biases like: homerism, my-generation-ism, this decade over that, this League over that (the NBL was way better than the BAA the first couple of years; the ABA's top players were about equal to the NBA's top players AFTER the ABA's first 2-3 years - as witnessed by ex-ABA-ers dominating subsequent merged All-NBA teams and All-Star games).
Suns had no legit 7footer either 
