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

[LukaTheGOAT]

Correct, I do not think he has a respectable argument over Jordan

At the end, these are all only opinions but don't you think that you sells James short here?

I still consider him a top 10 player.

Statistically throughout their career they have a lot of similarities. Jordan won more against tougher competition, and he did it while being #1 guy in the league on the #1 team.

Jordan dominated advanced metrics in 5 of his 6 Championships
LeBron dominated advanced metrics in 2 of his 4 Championships

Jordan had the #1 rated team in 5 of his 6 Championships
LeBron had the #1 rated team in 0 of his 4 Championships

Jordan is 14-7 (66.66%) against teams with an SRS of 5.0+
LeBron is 4-9 (30.77%) against teams with an SR of 5.0+

Jordans Championship teams rank #2, #5, #9, #20, #63, & #127 All-Time in SRS
LeBrons Championship teams rank #74, #119, #153, & #174 All-Time in SRS

LeBron's career is crazy impressive, it's just very clear that Jordan and his teams were better and more dominant. Jordan tops him in both volume and quality.

I don't value LeBron putting up big numbers on mediocre teams in the NBA over Jordan winning a national championship in college. I don't really value LeBron putting up big numbers on mediocre teams after 35, either. Sure, it's impressive, but playing more games and staying in the league doesn't make him better, because he's not better. He's worse, and he's hanging around longer. If he was putting up extra years where he was actually dominant and winning I could value it, but he isn't.

LeBron has been missing a bunch of games, losing, and he's at the bottom of the league in movement/speed on both the offensive and defensive end. That's not really longevity, it's more just stat padding.

Their statistical similarities make them easy to compare, and Jordan comes out on top.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by dominate advanced metrics?

[kcktiny]

Jordan had obvious impact on defense. He's one of two players to have 200 steals and 100 blocks in a season. How is that not impact? That's 2 to 3 extra possessions a game. Thats 2-4pts prevented a game. Thats a potential 10-12pt swing every game by Jordan singlehandedly. That's on top of good to great team defense. That's on top of having the ability to lockdown the best players on the opposing team when need be. Again, how is this not impactful?

This is absolutely dead-on correct.

What the second guessers of today fail to understand - as the people who voted for the all-defensive teams and DPOY when Jordan actually played understood, is this:

What stats could really exist that could change our opinions of Jordan that much? They'd at best show that he dominated his competition which we already know.

The nine seasons Jordan was voted to the all-defensive team he had 3525 defensive rebounds, 1807 steals, and 600 blocked shots. That was:

- over 1000 more defensive rebounds than the next best SG (Drexler with 2520)
- almost 400 more steals than the next best SG (Alvin Robertson with 1424)
- and 170+ more blocks than the next best SG (Drexler with 426)

That's just one player far better than all other players at his position in not one but three different defensive categories. He played 81-82 games a year over 9 years and an average of 3150 minutes a season.

I watched him most of his career and he was to my eyes as much a lockdown defender as any SG.

I have watched enough of Jordan games to know that he was amazing defender, but not on top tier level.

For an SG he was clearly top tier level.

You are actually proving his point. There is no evidence here outside of "cause people said so" history shows it's pretty clear how wrong the media and coaches can get picks.

The 9 seasons Jordan was named all-defensive 1st team Chicago was the 4th best team defensively at just 103.5 pts/100poss allowed. The only teams better defensively over that time in the regular season were New York, Portland, and Utah. And Jordan played by far the most minutes for the Bulls over that time - over 4000 more than Pippen, over 12000 more than Horace Grant, over 17000 more than John Paxson, and more minutes than these players played combined - Cartwright, Rodman, Stacey King, and Luc Longley.

Jordan was the key reason that Bulls team was so good defensively for so long.

[KobesScarf]

I have Wilt as the GOAT so no "advanced metrics" are going to change that

[ronnymac2]

Original Post's questions read as if this thread is research to see what new "data" could be created to strengthen Jordan's GOAT case. Like, why ask those questions prior to the data actually being tabulated?

[JordansBulls]

MJ = 6 Titles, 6 finals MVP's, 5 League MVP's = 17 Points total
Russell = 11 Titles, 0 finals MVP's, 5 League MVP's = 16 Points Total
Kareem = 6 Titles, 2 finals MVP's, 6 League MVP's = 14 Points Total
Lebron = 4 Titles, 4 finals MVP's, 4 League MVP's = 12 Points Total
Magic = 5 Titles, 3 finals MVP's, 3 League MVP's = 11 Points Total
Duncan = 4 Titles, 3 finals MVP's, 2 League MVP's = 9 Points Total
Kobe = 5 Titles, 2 finals MVP's, 1 League MVP's = 8 Points Total
Shaq = 4 Titles, 3 finals MVP's, 1 League MVP's = 8 Points Total
Bird = 3 Titles, 2 finals MVP's, 3 League MVP's = 8 Points Total
Wilt = 2 Titles, 1 finals MVP's, 4 League MVP's = 7 Points Total
Hakeem = 2 Titles, 2 finals MVP's, 1 League MVP's = 5 Points Total
Moses Malone = 1 Titles, 1 finals MVP's, 3 League MVP's = 5 Points Total

Also turned a franchise that never won that drafted him into a dynasty and never played with anyone for a season that won league nor finals mvp.
Top in Box Plus/Minus, PER, WS/PER 48 minutes for career in season and playoffs. Also never lost a series with HCA.

[sp6r=underrated]

To be clear, I'm not discussing potential alternate histories, but data on Jordan's career we're missing that we have for modern players.

Would it require RAPM significantly higher than LeBron's?
Would you need to see something like a career 50% jumper from midrange?
Would you require a teammate TS% boost larger than Curry's?
Would you have to have data showing he held players in isolation to a .85 PPP?
Something else?
Or is there nothing in the data that could conceivably change your mind?

His issue for me is longevity. The evidence is overwhelming that Lebron had at least a similar level peak to Jordan and crushes him for longevity. The evidence is very strong for the same with Kareem.

To convince me he was the GOAT I need some type of data that shows his peak and prime years were overwhelmingly better than those guys.

[Texas Chuck]

I think this statement:

... is quite different than this one:


I disagree that Jordan didn't deserve his all-D selections. There were probably some questionable ones, but Jordan was legit great defender. He just wasn't impactful enough to compete against top tier bigs, but for his position he was great.

I disagree. I think there were clearly superior guard defenders those years. The reality is the best perimeter defenders rarely have the offensive load Mike did. He wasn't defending better than Mookie and Harp and Coop and Squid etc...

Sent from my SM-A125U using RealGM mobile app

Squid and Coop were relevant only at the beginning of Jordan's career though. I don't know, I think Jordan certainly deserved some of his selections. Probably not all, as he had seasons when his motor wasn't up there, but he was legit great in some years.

Sounds like we mostly agree then. I agree he deserves some of them, but definitely not all. But this is true of a lot of offensive stars, Kobe obviously the best example, but anytime you get an offense perimeter star who even looks like a decent defender they tend to get too much love at the expense of guys who are tasked with defending a premier scorer on every single possession. Just a huge difference between what guys like Battier and Tucker and Allen and Matthews and Smart and Cooper are asked to do, than guys like Durant or Paul George or Jimmy Butler. Sure PG and Butler are good defenders, but they are doing it for far fewer possessions because of their offensive load.

It's not knock on Mike's ability. If peak Steph or Bird or Jokic was added to those Bulls teams, then Mike could carry a much more reasonable offensive load and he could join Pippen as an absolute pit bull. But I hate giving guys credit for playing defense they only have to do in spurts.

[penbeast0]

MJ = 6 Titles, 6 finals MVP's, 5 League MVP's = 17 Points total
Russell = 11 Titles, 0 finals MVP's, 5 League MVP's = 16 Points Total
Kareem = 6 Titles, 2 finals MVP's, 6 League MVP's = 14 Points Total
Lebron = 4 Titles, 4 finals MVP's, 4 League MVP's = 12 Points Total
Magic = 5 Titles, 3 finals MVP's, 3 League MVP's = 11 Points Total
Duncan = 4 Titles, 3 finals MVP's, 2 League MVP's = 9 Points Total
Kobe = 5 Titles, 2 finals MVP's, 1 League MVP's = 8 Points Total
Shaq = 4 Titles, 3 finals MVP's, 1 League MVP's = 8 Points Total
Bird = 3 Titles, 2 finals MVP's, 3 League MVP's = 8 Points Total
Wilt = 2 Titles, 1 finals MVP's, 4 League MVP's = 7 Points Total
Hakeem = 2 Titles, 2 finals MVP's, 1 League MVP's = 5 Points Total
Moses Malone = 1 Titles, 1 finals MVP's, 3 League MVP's = 5 Points Total

Also turned a franchise that never won that drafted him into a dynasty and never played with anyone for a season that won league nor finals mvp.
Top in Box Plus/Minus, PER, WS/PER 48 minutes for career in season and playoffs. Also never lost a series with HCA.

Of course as there was no "finals MVP" until 1969, that does give MJ a significant advantage over Russell who would probably have around 8-10 of them in this simplistic analysis in which case he would blow MJ away by this metric.

[Dutchball97]

If MJ didn't retire twice mid-career I don't think there would even be a GOAT debate.

[70sFan]

If MJ didn't retire twice mid-career I don't think there would even be a GOAT debate.

He still wouldn't touch Russell's level of success.

[HeartBreakKid]

If MJ didn't retire twice mid-career I don't think there would even be a GOAT debate.

If his team doesn't win in 94 and 95 he doesn't have much of an excuse. That certainly would put a blemish.

[Dutchball97]

If MJ didn't retire twice mid-career I don't think there would even be a GOAT debate.

He still wouldn't touch Russell's level of success.

Eh that's team success though. I'm very high on Russell and believe he was the main engine for the Celtics from the moment he made his debut till he retired but counting rings as a legitimate argument for the GOAT debate is a bit questionable.

[Dutchball97]

If MJ didn't retire twice mid-career I don't think there would even be a GOAT debate.

If his team doesn't win in 94 and 95 he doesn't have much of an excuse. That certainly would put a blemish.

You'd have to assume the Bulls would be favorites in 94 and 95. After winning MVP and FMVP in 98, it'd be surprising to see MJ completely drop off in 99 either. With how much of a crapshoot that season was it wouldn't be impossible for the Bulls to get another win there too.

I do agree that just these extra seasons wouldn't be enough though without results. Just playing a couple more seasons would move him closer to Kareem and LeBron on longevity but if he mentally collapsed in 94 for example that would eliminate his greatest advantage over LeBron of never coming up short when it matters and would also place major doubts on MJ's ability to keep up a continued period of dominance Russell was able to do. My statement assumes MJ keeps his advantage of relative dominance and elite consistency, while removing or at least minimizing his longevity disadvantage.

[Stalwart]

If MJ didn't retire twice mid-career I don't think there would even be a GOAT debate.

He still wouldn't touch Russell's level of success.

He wouldn't touch Russell's team success in terms of championships. But if you consider regular season records and playoff series won then things get a little closer. It doesn't close the gap completely of course. But then when you consider individual success things pretty much balance out.

If you stop here then you can definitely say Russell > Jordan no problem. However, if at this point you also factor in context like era, league size, teammates, eye test, statistics, intangibles, impact on the sport...then it becomes a clear win for Jordan.

If were looking at resume with no context then it probably goes Russell > Kareem > Jordan > Wilt/Lebron > Magic/Tim > Kobe/Shaq/Bird.

[Stalwart]

If MJ didn't retire twice mid-career I don't think there would even be a GOAT debate.

He still wouldn't touch Russell's level of success.

Eh that's team success though. I'm very high on Russell and believe he was the main engine for the Celtics from the moment he made his debut till he retired but counting rings as a legitimate argument for the GOAT debate is a bit questionable.

I think Russell's GOAT argument would be his overwhelming team success at no only the pro level but also the amateur and international level. But in addition to that he was a 5x league MVP. He is statistically the second greatest rebounder in NBA history. He is also a top 3-5 defender relative to era. He still produced dominant statlines even with his lower ppg totals.

So were not only talking about the greatest winner by a country mile but also a 5x MVP who was dominant statistically and arguably the best Rebounder and Defender in NBA history. Russell brings quite a bit to the table.

[Jaivl]

If MJ didn't retire twice mid-career I don't think there would even be a GOAT debate.

I think he'd probably rate lower in the eyes of casual fans, funnily enough.

[HeartBreakKid]

If MJ didn't retire twice mid-career I don't think there would even be a GOAT debate.

If his team doesn't win in 94 and 95 he doesn't have much of an excuse. That certainly would put a blemish.

You'd have to assume the Bulls would be favorites in 94 and 95. After winning MVP and FMVP in 98, it'd be surprising to see MJ completely drop off in 99 either. With how much of a crapshoot that season was it wouldn't be impossible for the Bulls to get another win there too.

I do agree that just these extra seasons wouldn't be enough though without results. Just playing a couple more seasons would move him closer to Kareem and LeBron on longevity but if he mentally collapsed in 94 for example that would eliminate his greatest advantage over LeBron of never coming up short when it matters and would also place major doubts on MJ's ability to keep up a continued period of dominance Russell was able to do. My statement assumes MJ keeps his advantage of relative dominance and elite consistency, while removing or at least minimizing his longevity disadvantage.

It doesn't really sound like you mean "if Jordan didn't retire twice mid-career..." it sounds more like "If Jordan's narratively perfect career was narratively perfect for 3 more seasons that ended in rings".

1999 was not a "crap shoot". The Knicks made the finals as the 8th seed. The West was wasn't anything bizarre, and ultimately it was won by the Spurs who were the #1 seed, and they beat the Knicks easily.

A large part of Jordan's legacy was that he never lost, which of course he did, but 6-0 is a thing that everyone in this forum recognizes. He would likely not be 6-0 if he had not retired when he did. His legacy would be very different if he had not retired, and it is not guaranteed it would be for the better.


Jordan winning 3 rings, coming back 2 years later and then winning another 3 years then retiring on top gives him an aura of invincibility.

[Dutchball97]

If MJ didn't retire twice mid-career I don't think there would even be a GOAT debate.

I think he'd probably rate lower in the eyes of casual fans, funnily enough.

It's not impossible tbh. At a certain point you've proven you can consistently be the leader on a championship team and the best player in the league. The potential benefit of a 7th title and an extra MVP + FMVP is probably less than the potential detraction of your favored team losing because of your own lackluster performance (like 2011 LeBron). Shorter careers do have the benefit of having less chances to mess up your legacy one way or another.

[Dutchball97]

If his team doesn't win in 94 and 95 he doesn't have much of an excuse. That certainly would put a blemish.

You'd have to assume the Bulls would be favorites in 94 and 95. After winning MVP and FMVP in 98, it'd be surprising to see MJ completely drop off in 99 either. With how much of a crapshoot that season was it wouldn't be impossible for the Bulls to get another win there too.

I do agree that just these extra seasons wouldn't be enough though without results. Just playing a couple more seasons would move him closer to Kareem and LeBron on longevity but if he mentally collapsed in 94 for example that would eliminate his greatest advantage over LeBron of never coming up short when it matters and would also place major doubts on MJ's ability to keep up a continued period of dominance Russell was able to do. My statement assumes MJ keeps his advantage of relative dominance and elite consistency, while removing or at least minimizing his longevity disadvantage.

It doesn't really sound like you mean "if Jordan didn't retire twice mid-career..." it sounds more like "If Jordan's narratively perfect career was narratively perfect for 3 more seasons that ended in rings".

1999 was not a "crap shoot". The Knicks made the finals as the 8th seed. The West was wasn't anything bizarre, and ultimately it was won by the Spurs who were the #1 seed, and they beat the Knicks easily.

A large part of Jordan's legacy was that he never lost, which of course he did, but 6-0 is a thing that everyone in this forum recognizes. He would likely not be 6-0 if he had not retired when he did. His legacy would be very different if he had not retired, and it is not guaranteed it would be for the better.


Jordan winning 3 rings, coming back 2 years later and then winning another 3 years then retiring on top gives him an aura of invincibility.

Just like in my statement I assumed Jordan would lead the Bulls to more titles, you seem pretty adamant there would be no way the Bulls win a title in any of 94, 95 and 99.

[70sFan]

If MJ didn't retire twice mid-career I don't think there would even be a GOAT debate.

He still wouldn't touch Russell's level of success.

Eh that's team success though. I'm very high on Russell and believe he was the main engine for the Celtics from the moment he made his debut till he retired but counting rings as a legitimate argument for the GOAT debate is a bit questionable.

So you think Russell was simply a worse player than Jordan, correct? Why do you think so?