People who don't have Jordan as GOAT: What metric(s) would make you change your mind?

[No-more-rings]

Depends on the rival against which they dont have their teammates and how good the rest of the roster is to cover up for the missing players

But why would that apply to Jordan more than anyone else?

I didnt say it does apply to jordan

Just that there are scenarios where is possible to win without your best co-stars and others where is more or less impossible depending on the rival strenght

I didn’t say you said that. My question is why does he bring that up like it’s something to knock Jordan specially for? We don’t know if Jordan could’ve won otherwise, just like we don’t know that about a lot of other guys.

[Stalwart]

Him succeeding without Pippen

Krause had a chance to put a monster squad around Jordan in the 89 draft with 3 first round picks. But he didn't draft well after 87 really and when you look at Jordan's supporting casts overall. They were a lot of role players who had to enhance their games just enough to help the team win.

Serious question. How often were the bulls without jordan a better talent collection than their rivals minus their own best player? How often was pippen the third or arguably even secomd best player on the court against the bulls rivals (92 finals)

I am not diminishing mike. But he often had the best supporting cast than the rival star. And at worst a comparable one whenever he won

Being the best player in the world + having a supporting cast that usually was better than the othet star casts is a hard to beat combo

Jordan deserves a lot of praise for it still, as if he was not 100% of his play bulls wouldnt have won over and over like they did (and jordan 100% was somethingh only hakeem could approximate which gave the bulls a big edge)

I don't think Pippen was particularly better than John Stockton, Shawn Kemp, Penny Hardaway, Kevin Johnson, Joe Dumars, Tim Hardaway. The Bulls didn't have a definitively better supporting cast than the Pistons, Lakers, Blazers, Suns, Cavs, Pacers, Heat, Sonics, ect.

[prolific passer]

Krause had a chance to put a monster squad around Jordan in the 89 draft with 3 first round picks. But he didn't draft well after 87 really and when you look at Jordan's supporting casts overall. They were a lot of role players who had to enhance their games just enough to help the team win.

Serious question. How often were the bulls without jordan a better talent collection than their rivals minus their own best player? How often was pippen the third or arguably even secomd best player on the court against the bulls rivals (92 finals)

I am not diminishing mike. But he often had the best supporting cast than the rival star. And at worst a comparable one whenever he won

Being the best player in the world + having a supporting cast that usually was better than the othet star casts is a hard to beat combo

Jordan deserves a lot of praise for it still, as if he was not 100% of his play bulls wouldnt have won over and over like they did (and jordan 100% was somethingh only hakeem could approximate which gave the bulls a big edge)

I don't think Pippen was particularly better than John Stockton, Shawn Kemp, Penny Hardaway, Kevin Johnson, Joe Dumars, Tim Hardaway. The Bulls didn't have a definitively better supporting cast than the Pistons, Lakers, Blazers, Suns, Cavs, Pacers, Heat, Sonics, ect.

The Bulls had solid role players who knew their jobs but when you take a look at the depth of what teams like the 92 Blazers, 93 Suns, and 96 Sonics had as well as the Blazers 89, 92, and 93. Cant hell but think how dominant Jordan would have been with some of their players.

[OhayoKD]

But why would that apply to Jordan more than anyone else?

I didnt say it does apply to jordan

Just that there are scenarios where is possible to win without your best co-stars and others where is more or less impossible depending on the rival strenght

I didn’t say you said that. My question is why does he bring that up like it’s something to knock Jordan specially for? We don’t know if Jordan could’ve won otherwise, just like we don’t know that about a lot of other guys.

I mean, if you want to define success as a binary matter(ring or no ring) as aopposed to a gradient scale, i suppose it's not a knock relative to anyone besides russell(though any goat claim will have to address that).

If we treat success as a gradient scale then jordan's team performance in lieu of a co-star is definitely a knock relative to lebron and kareem(2015, 2009, 70) and maybe even wilt(how much does taking russel to 7 mean?)

And depending on what data you use, it also could be a knock relative to hakeem, duncan, and with a regular season slant, KG.

I think going by the binary scale leads to throwing away plenty of usable evidence, but regardless, if the standard is goathood, jordan has unfavorable comparisons in the "missing a co-star" camp

[FuShengTHEGreat]

If he was so "goat" he shouldve been able to beat one of the triumvirate of mid late 80s (Lakers, Celtics & Pistons) champs at least once as the underdog just like the guy drafted 2 slots ahead of him did in only his 2nd season vs the 62-20 defending champion Lakers.

Just waited til the odds were in he and Chicagos favor after getting ran out of the playoffs repeatedly by the Pistons and they fell to a 50-32 record

The only team his squad upset in that era was a soft finesse Cavs team that were never in the conversation of LA/BOS/DET as the team the rest of the league were trying to usurp.

Jordan is the GOAT.....of shooting guards.

[tsherkin]

Most of the greats of the game that have won had a good #2 guy to take some pressure off of them.

Precisely.

[Stalwart]

I didnt say it does apply to jordan

Just that there are scenarios where is possible to win without your best co-stars and others where is more or less impossible depending on the rival strenght

I didn’t say you said that. My question is why does he bring that up like it’s something to knock Jordan specially for? We don’t know if Jordan could’ve won otherwise, just like we don’t know that about a lot of other guys.

I mean, if you want to define success as a binary matter(ring or no ring) as aopposed to a gradient scale, i suppose it's not a knock relative to anyone besides russell(though any goat claim will have to address that).

If we treat success as a gradient scale then jordan's team performance in lieu of a co-star is definitely a knock relative to lebron and kareem(2015, 2009, 70) and maybe even wilt(how much does taking russel to 7 mean?)

And depending on what data you use, it also could be a knock relative to hakeem, duncan, and with a regular season slant, KG.

I think going by the binary scale leads to throwing away plenty of usable evidence, but regardless, if the standard is goathood, jordan has unfavorable comparisons in the "missing a co-star" camp

If you are going to be honor Lebron, Kareem, and Wilt for their dominant playoff runs where they went home early then how does 1988 and 89 not qualify? Jordan took the Pistns to game 7 of the WCF averaging 35/7/7. Meanwhile young Pippen put up a whopping 13ppg. Hardley a co-star.

Lets be consistent here.

[Stalwart]

If he was so "goat" he shouldve been able to beat one of the triumvirate of mid late 80s (Lakers, Celtics & Pistons) champs at least once as the underdog just like the guy drafted 2 slots ahead of him did in only his 2nd season vs the 62-20 defending champion Lakers.

Just waited til the odds were in he and Chicagos favor after getting ran out of the playoffs repeatedly by the Pistons and they fell to a 50-32 record

The only team his squad upset in that era was a soft finesse Cavs team that were never in the conversation of LA/BOS/DET as the team the rest of the league were trying to usurp.

Jordan is the GOAT.....of shooting guards.

Jordan almost beat the Bad Boy Pistons by himself in 1989. Give him Ralph Sampson and its a wrap. But lets flip it. What happened to Hakeem between 87 and 93? Nothing but 1st and 2nd round exits. How come the guy drafted 2 slots ahead of him could barley win a playoff series for 7 years after losing Ralph Sampson? How come Lebron couldn't upset the Big 3 Celtics at least once without forming a superteam?

Lets all be consistent here...

[MyUniBroDavis]

I have peak Lebron a good deal above any other peak, and I think in terms of career value or CORP or whatever he’s been my GOAT since like the end of 2017, but at this point (for me) I think lebron and Jordan kind of represent two sides of the GOAT argument.

I have them pretty close, lebron a bit ahead just because I think the gap in career value for me is just a lot at his point, but it’s pretty easy to argue Jordan’s career was “greater”

[OhayoKD]

I didn’t say you said that. My question is why does he bring that up like it’s something to knock Jordan specially for? We don’t know if Jordan could’ve won otherwise, just like we don’t know that about a lot of other guys.

I mean, if you want to define success as a binary matter(ring or no ring) as aopposed to a gradient scale, i suppose it's not a knock relative to anyone besides russell(though any goat claim will have to address that).

If we treat success as a gradient scale then jordan's team performance in lieu of a co-star is definitely a knock relative to lebron and kareem(2015, 2009, 70) and maybe even wilt(how much does taking russel to 7 mean?)

And depending on what data you use, it also could be a knock relative to hakeem, duncan, and with a regular season slant, KG.

I think going by the binary scale leads to throwing away plenty of usable evidence, but regardless, if the standard is goathood, jordan has unfavorable comparisons in the "missing a co-star" camp

If you are going to be honor Lebron, Kareem, and Wilt for their dominant playoff runs where they went home early then how does 1988 and 89 not qualify? Jordan took the Pistns to game 7 of the WCF averaging 35/7/7. Meanwhile young Pippen put up a whopping 13ppg. Hardley a co-star.

Lets be consistent here.

How does the chicago bulls doing as well as the kyrie and love-less cavs in the playoffs in a year that is supposed to be a nadir for lebron(on a team lacking the spacing lebron supposedly relies on) make for a favorable comparison?

How does joining a team that won 30 games before they drafted you and added pieces and then winning 48 and 50 games make for a favorable comparison to winning 58 as a rookie(with a team that also won 30 before drafting you), or winning 66 and 61 games with a team that played 20 win ball without you in the lineup and 17 win ball upon your departure?

How does 88 or 89 come within range of Russell who, on his last legs, went and won a title with a demonstrably bad team in 69?

Even if we were to pretend the bulls cast was as weak in 88 or 89 as they were before they drafted mj(or when they played 30 win ball without him when he was hurt in his second year), neither year offers a flattering comparison to the players I listed.

What makes it better than Duncan's 03 where he wins 60 games and then a title with a collection of role players?

And if you put stock into the "taking the celtics to 7" stuff, wilt is taking the greatest team ever to 7 with weak or average casts

But lets flip it. What happened to Hakeem between 87 and 93? Nothing but 1st and 2nd round exits

Hakeem's Rockets were .500 without him when they knocked off the 62 win defending(and subsequent) champion lakers. The version of the Rockers that got knocked off in the first and second round were 2-10 without Hakeem yet were able to stay within range of Jordan's Bulls in the regular seasonwith Olajuwon

Now if you wanted to go by plus-minus data as opposed to raw imapct signals(risk mis-distribution for stability) you can form favorable mj comparisons, but the other method is as valid and opens a pandora box of players who can scale to mj in the rs, the postseason or both prior to the bulls getting loaded. (doesn't make a difference vs lebron, russell, wilt, duncan, or kareem tho)

[OhayoKD]

I have peak Lebron a good deal above any other peak, and I think in terms of career value or CORP or whatever he’s been my GOAT since like the end of 2017, but at this point (for me) I think lebron and Jordan kind of represent two sides of the GOAT argument.

I have them pretty close, lebron a bit ahead just because I think the gap in career value for me is just a lot at his point, but it’s pretty easy to argue Jordan’s career was “greater”

Doesn't Russell have a much better version of"jordan's side" of the goat discussion here?

[MyUniBroDavis]

I have peak Lebron a good deal above any other peak, and I think in terms of career value or CORP or whatever he’s been my GOAT since like the end of 2017, but at this point (for me) I think lebron and Jordan kind of represent two sides of the GOAT argument.

I have them pretty close, lebron a bit ahead just because I think the gap in career value for me is just a lot at his point, but it’s pretty easy to argue Jordan’s career was “greater”

Doesn't Russell have a much better version of"jordan's side" of the goat discussion here?

I think russell has an argument too for sure, esp if we’re solely looking at team success and in era impact, I think a lot of people don’t rate the early nba that highly though

When I say the two sides I meant more so, lebrons much more on the “total career value” side while Jordan’s hinges more on his overall prime because he went out on top, +yeah at the end of the day it’s pretty badass that once he won the title he won every single year he played a full year lol

[70sFan]

I have peak Lebron a good deal above any other peak, and I think in terms of career value or CORP or whatever he’s been my GOAT since like the end of 2017, but at this point (for me) I think lebron and Jordan kind of represent two sides of the GOAT argument.

I have them pretty close, lebron a bit ahead just because I think the gap in career value for me is just a lot at his point, but it’s pretty easy to argue Jordan’s career was “greater”

Doesn't Russell have a much better version of"jordan's side" of the goat discussion here?

I think russell has an argument too for sure, esp if we’re solely looking at team success and in era impact, I think a lot of people don’t rate the early nba that highly though

When I say the two sides I meant more so, lebrons much more on the “total career value” side while Jordan’s hinges more on his overall prime because he went out on top, +yeah at the end of the day it’s pretty badass that once he won the title he won every single year he played a full year lol

Do you think it's reasonable to say that the difference between the mid 1960s and the early 1990s is smaller than between the early 1990s and 2020s?

[FuShengTHEGreat]

If he was so "goat" he shouldve been able to beat one of the triumvirate of mid late 80s (Lakers, Celtics & Pistons) champs at least once as the underdog just like the guy drafted 2 slots ahead of him did in only his 2nd season vs the 62-20 defending champion Lakers.

Just waited til the odds were in he and Chicagos favor after getting ran out of the playoffs repeatedly by the Pistons and they fell to a 50-32 record

The only team his squad upset in that era was a soft finesse Cavs team that were never in the conversation of LA/BOS/DET as the team the rest of the league were trying to usurp.

Jordan is the GOAT.....of shooting guards.

Jordan almost beat the Bad Boy Pistons by himself in 1989. Give him Ralph Sampson and its a wrap. But lets flip it. What happened to Hakeem between 87 and 93? Nothing but 1st and 2nd round exits. How come the guy drafted 2 slots ahead of him could barley win a playoff series for 7 years after losing Ralph Sampson? How come Lebron couldn't upset the Big 3 Celtics at least once without forming a superteam?

Lets all be consistent here...

Losing in 6 games is hardly "almost" beating anyone.

Pippen was a All Star in 1990 just like Ralph was in 86 and the Bulls still came nowhere close to the walloping Houston laid on the Lakers in 86 in only 5 games so imho I disagree with your sentiment here. They lost again when the odds weren't in their favor.

A "migraine" suffered by Pippen held them back, whereas the Rockets were plagued by a drug suspension to a 15ppg/5apg starter for the entire playoffs.

How many of those "could barely win a playoff series" teams finished 38-44 and 40-42 like Jordan's Bulls did?

Doesnt look like Jordan was any more or less a winner when he was tasked with carrying the load Hakeem had to from 87-93. If we're being consistent here, Jordan's Bulls teams twice had worse records than any of the years you brought up.

[Stalwart]

Doesn't Russell have a much better version of"jordan's side" of the goat discussion here?

I think russell has an argument too for sure, esp if we’re solely looking at team success and in era impact, I think a lot of people don’t rate the early nba that highly though

When I say the two sides I meant more so, lebrons much more on the “total career value” side while Jordan’s hinges more on his overall prime because he went out on top, +yeah at the end of the day it’s pretty badass that once he won the title he won every single year he played a full year lol

Do you think it's reasonable to say that the difference between the mid 1960s and the early 1990s is smaller than between the early 1990s and 2020s?

I don't think that's reasonable at all. Look at it this way. Its pretty easy seeing guys like Jordan, Hakeem, Karl Malone, Barkley, Stockton, ect being successful in todays league. However, its quite hard to see Jerry West, Bob Cousy, and Bill Russell being successful in the 90s.

[Stalwart]

If he was so "goat" he shouldve been able to beat one of the triumvirate of mid late 80s (Lakers, Celtics & Pistons) champs at least once as the underdog just like the guy drafted 2 slots ahead of him did in only his 2nd season vs the 62-20 defending champion Lakers.

Just waited til the odds were in he and Chicagos favor after getting ran out of the playoffs repeatedly by the Pistons and they fell to a 50-32 record

The only team his squad upset in that era was a soft finesse Cavs team that were never in the conversation of LA/BOS/DET as the team the rest of the league were trying to usurp.

Jordan is the GOAT.....of shooting guards.

Jordan almost beat the Bad Boy Pistons by himself in 1989. Give him Ralph Sampson and its a wrap. But lets flip it. What happened to Hakeem between 87 and 93? Nothing but 1st and 2nd round exits. How come the guy drafted 2 slots ahead of him could barley win a playoff series for 7 years after losing Ralph Sampson? How come Lebron couldn't upset the Big 3 Celtics at least once without forming a superteam?

Lets all be consistent here...

Losing in 6 games is hardly "almost" beating anyone.

Pippen was a All Star in 1990 just like Ralph was in 86 and the Bulls still came nowhere close to the walloping Houston laid on the Lakers in 86 in only 5 games so imho I disagree with your sentiment here. They lost again when the odds weren't in their favor.

A "migraine" suffered by Pippen held them back, whereas the Rockets were plagued by a drug suspension to a 15ppg/5apg starter for the entire playoffs.

How many of those "could barely win a playoff series" teams finished 38-44 and 40-42 like Jordan's Bulls did?

Doesnt look like Jordan was any more or less a winner when he was tasked with carrying the load Hakeem had to from 87-93. If we're being consistent here, Jordan's Bulls teams twice had worse records than any of the years you brought up.

I was just pointing out that Michael Jordan never beat one of the triumvirate in the 80s as an underdog because he never had a teammate as good as Ralph Sampson. And when he did have a teammate as good as Ralph Sampson he did beat one of those teams. Also, he didn't just beat a great team, get the finals, and lose. He actual won the title. Then he won it every full season after that.

"He never beat an all time great team by himself as an underdog" seems like a pretty arbitrary standard not very many people, if any, are going to meet. Including Hakeem.

[70sFan]

I think russell has an argument too for sure, esp if we’re solely looking at team success and in era impact, I think a lot of people don’t rate the early nba that highly though

When I say the two sides I meant more so, lebrons much more on the “total career value” side while Jordan’s hinges more on his overall prime because he went out on top, +yeah at the end of the day it’s pretty badass that once he won the title he won every single year he played a full year lol

Do you think it's reasonable to say that the difference between the mid 1960s and the early 1990s is smaller than between the early 1990s and 2020s?

I don't think that's reasonable at all. Look at it this way. Its pretty easy seeing guys like Jordan, Hakeem, Karl Malone, Barkley, Stockton, ect being successful in todays league. However, its quite hard to see Jerry West, Bob Cousy, and Bill Russell being successful in the 90s.

I don't see any reason why West or Russell wouldn't be successful in the 1990s. Significantly less skilled and athletic players were.

[Stalwart]

Do you think it's reasonable to say that the difference between the mid 1960s and the early 1990s is smaller than between the early 1990s and 2020s?

I don't think that's reasonable at all. Look at it this way. Its pretty easy seeing guys like Jordan, Hakeem, Karl Malone, Barkley, Stockton, ect being successful in todays league. However, its quite hard to see Jerry West, Bob Cousy, and Bill Russell being successful in the 90s.

I don't see any reason why West or Russell wouldn't be successful in the 1990s. Significantly less skilled and athletic players were.

Well I suppose it depends on your definition of successful. They certainly wouldn't be the premier players they were in the 60s and that's if they even make the league.

[AEnigma]

When Jordan fans are so desperate they feel the need to start gassing legendary NBA player Ralph Sampson

The way a lot of you talk basketball — what does basketball reference say? — you should be arguing Sampson peaked as a rookie. Yet when it is pointed out that Jordan needed a full-fledged Pippen and Grant and needed all the 1980s contenders to hit their aging curves, ah, but did you consider 1986 Ralph Sampson?????

Jordan was not competitive with one of those three teams until Pippen came into his own in 1990. Then Pippen took another leap in 1991, the Pistons started breaking down, and Magic made the Finals with a hobbled team before being essentially forced into retirement by bigotry.

[Ron Swanson]

I really try and stay out of the Jordan and Lebron pissing matches, but I think people are lying to themselves if they say "nothing" would really change their minds. Like, a huge part of Lebron's "GOAT" case is the plethora of lineup data we have for his entire career showing he basically had Top-5 all-time "impact". Hell, KG's entire case as a Top-15 guy is based on RAPM and overall impact data. You're telling me that if we had reliable lineup data for Jordan's peak years ('87-'93) that confirmed the eye test and showed he basically had something like peak KG/Curry level impact (+20 on/off), that it wouldn't have you revaluate (assuming he's not already your clear GOAT)? I'd argue at that point you're just letting your bias cloud any sort of objective analysis.