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

[70sFan]

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I said rings isn't a legit argument, I did not say Russell has no argument over Jordan at all.

Well, you said that with Jordan not retiring during his career would cause no GOAT debate. How should I interpret that? It's a legitimate question, maybe I didn't understand your point.

I meant it as I already have Jordan as my GOAT as things stand now, if he'd add the 4.5 seasons he didn't play during his career due to retirements the main argument Kareem and LeBron have over him (longevity) would be minimized to a degree where I personally couldn't entertain a case for them over MJ. To be fair to your initial comment, this does imply Jordan is the best player to ever play in the NBA in my opinion and I do stand by that. Comparing MJ to Russell is a complete apples to oranges story because they both did certain things better than the other but in terms of overall impact I'm taking Jordan over anyone. I'd be fine with other people still going with other choices but to me there would be a runaway #1.

Thanks for the explaination. This means that you have Jordan as the clear best basketball player ever, but due to different reasons (longevity, breaks in career), you entertain other players cases for the GOAT title. I don't agree with you, but I can't blame you for that opinion - most people view Jordan as the best and it's possible that I am the one who is wrong.

I wouldn't put Kareem or James over Jordan if I thought that they were clearly inferior in their best seasons, but I don't think that way. I prefer what Kareem brings to the game over Jordan for their peaks, longevity is only another advantage for Jabbar.

[Stalwart]

I don't have a problem putting Russell over Jordan in terms of leadership as Russell was an actual player/coach. I think Jordan's on court intangibles are significantly higher than Russells in terms of producing in big moments or games. At least offensively. Jordan is extremely clutch.

That's not true, it's simply caused by the lack of footage from Russell's prime. Bill had a lot of huge moments and games in his career, just most of them weren't available to watch and you don't know about them.

"At least offensively..."

[70sFan]

I don't have a problem putting Russell over Jordan in terms of leadership as Russell was an actual player/coach. I think Jordan's on court intangibles are significantly higher than Russells in terms of producing in big moments or games. At least offensively. Jordan is extremely clutch.

That's not true, it's simply caused by the lack of footage from Russell's prime. Bill had a lot of huge moments and games in his career, just most of them weren't available to watch and you don't know about them.

"At least offensively..."

What does it even mean? That at the end of the day all these talks of "intangibles" are equaled to scoring ability? Seriously?

[Dutchball97]

Well, you said that with Jordan not retiring during his career would cause no GOAT debate. How should I interpret that? It's a legitimate question, maybe I didn't understand your point.

I meant it as I already have Jordan as my GOAT as things stand now, if he'd add the 4.5 seasons he didn't play during his career due to retirements the main argument Kareem and LeBron have over him (longevity) would be minimized to a degree where I personally couldn't entertain a case for them over MJ. To be fair to your initial comment, this does imply Jordan is the best player to ever play in the NBA in my opinion and I do stand by that. Comparing MJ to Russell is a complete apples to oranges story because they both did certain things better than the other but in terms of overall impact I'm taking Jordan over anyone. I'd be fine with other people still going with other choices but to me there would be a runaway #1.

Thanks for the explaination. This means that you have Jordan as the clear best basketball player ever, but due to different reasons (longevity, breaks in career), you entertain other players cases for the GOAT title. I don't agree with you, but I can't blame you for that opinion - most people view Jordan as the best and it's possible that I am the one who is wrong.

I wouldn't put Kareem or James over Jordan if I thought that they were clearly inferior in their best seasons, but I don't think that way. I prefer what Kareem brings to the game over Jordan for their peaks, longevity is only another advantage for Jabbar.

I also think it's important to remember there is no objective #1. Even though I said there would be no GOAT debate if Jordan had more longevity, that's just the case for me and not for everyone. If two different people look at two players and take into account their raw stats, impact metrics, team success, accolades, their teammates, opponents, coaching, leadership etc and come to different conclusions, I don't believe one of them necessarily has to be wrong.

[Stalwart]

That's not true, it's simply caused by the lack of footage from Russell's prime. Bill had a lot of huge moments and games in his career, just most of them weren't available to watch and you don't know about them.

"At least offensively..."

What does it even mean? That at the end of the day all these talks of "intangibles" are equaled to scoring ability? Seriously?

No. It means that Jordan's ability to produce offensively was at a higher rate and more consequential than Russell's ability to up his defense and rebounding. That's not to belittle or dismiss Russell's intangibles and big game ability I just think Jordan's were more dominant. I mean Russell was playing alongside 4 and 5 Hall of Famers at a time.

[70sFan]

"At least offensively..."

What does it even mean? That at the end of the day all these talks of "intangibles" are equaled to scoring ability? Seriously?

No. It means that Jordan's ability to produce offensively was at a higher rate and more consequential than Russell's ability to up his defense and rebounding. That's not to belittle or dismiss Russell's intangibles and big game ability I just think Jordan's were more dominant. I mean Russell was playing alongside 4 and 5 Hall of Famers at a time.

Do you have anything to back it up? Jordan lost far more elimination games than Russell did. Jordan lost more games 7. How can you come up with such conclusion?

Russell played alongside 4 Hall of Famers in times when all contending teams had ~4 Hall of Famers. What does it have to do with Russell intangibles and big game abilities?

[HeartBreakKid]

"At least offensively..."

What does it even mean? That at the end of the day all these talks of "intangibles" are equaled to scoring ability? Seriously?

No. It means that Jordan's ability to produce offensively was at a higher rate and more consequential than Russell's ability to up his defense and rebounding. That's not to belittle or dismiss Russell's intangibles and big game ability I just think Jordan's were more dominant. I mean Russell was playing alongside 4 and 5 Hall of Famers at a time.

Against other teams with multiple hall of famers.

Can't talk down Jordan's teammates and somehow not acknowledge he played in an expansion era. What was stacked in the 90s wasn't stacked in the 80s etc.

Do you think Scottie Pippen is a better player than Rik Smiths or John Starks? Are they close? Did they play in the same era?

[capfan33]

But don't his teammates praise him? Don't they call him a great teammate and a great leader? Don't they claim he drove them to be the best versions of themselves? And didn't they win...every single year? How is that not being a great leader?

As far as having the worst intangibles in terms of leadership and locker room culture that honor belongs to Lebron.

I don't know if I would go so far as saying Jordan had the worst intagibles of anyone in the top-20, but he's definitely not 1st. Russell, Duncan and Bird are all easy picks above him, and I would hazard that KG, Dirk, West and Magic are all better. Of course, this is pretty subjective which is why I only feel comfortable with the 3 I mentioned for sure above Jordan. Also Lebron's not last lol.

Didn't bird basically lose the celtics a title by getting into a barfight?

What puts bird above jordan in terms of intagibles? Both seem kind of similar in mentality. I suppose jordan's issues manifested more frequently, but listing bird alongside russell or duncan seems wierd. Feel like Curry/Giannis are more appropiate "leadership" picks.

Magic also seems questionable. Iirc he basically tried a lockeroom mutiny on kareem who at the time was the consensus goat and clear best player on the team because he wanted to helio more.

Honestly forgot about the Bird thing, you're right. I do think he was a great leader and helped make his teams greater than the sum of their parts but his working-class lunch pail attitude hurt him more than it helped in his career probably.

And the reason I didn't put Magic above was because of the Westhead thing as well as the Kareem thing, even though I'm not entirely sure what exactly Magic was trying to do there. If he just wanted more control over the offense and to get rid of Norm, that's bad but somewhat understandable. If he was actually trying to get Kareem traded, that's really bad lol but I haven't read enough about it to know one way or the other.

[capfan33]

I meant it as I already have Jordan as my GOAT as things stand now, if he'd add the 4.5 seasons he didn't play during his career due to retirements the main argument Kareem and LeBron have over him (longevity) would be minimized to a degree where I personally couldn't entertain a case for them over MJ. To be fair to your initial comment, this does imply Jordan is the best player to ever play in the NBA in my opinion and I do stand by that. Comparing MJ to Russell is a complete apples to oranges story because they both did certain things better than the other but in terms of overall impact I'm taking Jordan over anyone. I'd be fine with other people still going with other choices but to me there would be a runaway #1.

Thanks for the explaination. This means that you have Jordan as the clear best basketball player ever, but due to different reasons (longevity, breaks in career), you entertain other players cases for the GOAT title. I don't agree with you, but I can't blame you for that opinion - most people view Jordan as the best and it's possible that I am the one who is wrong.

I wouldn't put Kareem or James over Jordan if I thought that they were clearly inferior in their best seasons, but I don't think that way. I prefer what Kareem brings to the game over Jordan for their peaks, longevity is only another advantage for Jabbar.

I also think it's important to remember there is no objective #1. Even though I said there would be no GOAT debate if Jordan had more longevity, that's just the case for me and not for everyone. If two different people look at two players and take into account their raw stats, impact metrics, team success, accolades, their teammates, opponents, coaching, leadership etc and come to different conclusions, I don't believe one of them necessarily has to be wrong.

A quick point on your comment about Jordan not retiring. If this was the case I highly doubt he has a perfect finals record or even makes the finals every year until 98. His body was already breaking down by 98 and given his playstyle/approach to the game I could very easily see him having a major injury between 93-98. Not to mention that he was also mentally worn down by the end of the 1st 3-peat.

[Ein Sof]

Him succeeding without Pippen

[prolific passer]

Thanks for the explaination. This means that you have Jordan as the clear best basketball player ever, but due to different reasons (longevity, breaks in career), you entertain other players cases for the GOAT title. I don't agree with you, but I can't blame you for that opinion - most people view Jordan as the best and it's possible that I am the one who is wrong.

I wouldn't put Kareem or James over Jordan if I thought that they were clearly inferior in their best seasons, but I don't think that way. I prefer what Kareem brings to the game over Jordan for their peaks, longevity is only another advantage for Jabbar.

I also think it's important to remember there is no objective #1. Even though I said there would be no GOAT debate if Jordan had more longevity, that's just the case for me and not for everyone. If two different people look at two players and take into account their raw stats, impact metrics, team success, accolades, their teammates, opponents, coaching, leadership etc and come to different conclusions, I don't believe one of them necessarily has to be wrong.

A quick point on your comment about Jordan not retiring. If this was the case I highly doubt he has a perfect finals record or even makes the finals every year until 98. His body was already breaking down by 98 and given his playstyle/approach to the game I could very easily see him having a major injury between 93-98. Not to mention that he was also mentally worn down by the end of the 1st 3-peat.

Didn't Jordan play in all 82 games every year during the 2nd 3 peat? I mean he had a major injury in his sophomore season and learned from that on how to take care of himself better.

[prolific passer]

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.

[tsherkin]

Him succeeding without Pippen

This is a weird one to me, because you require talent around you in order to win, particularly in order to win a LOT. There isn't a player in league history who has authored a 3-peat with crap talent around them, or even mundane talent. It's not the same as a one-off playoff run where your supporting cast happens to come through at the right times and have a decent baseline level, ala the 94 Rockets or the 2011 Mavs.

[prolific passer]

Him succeeding without Pippen

This is a weird one to me, because you require talent around you in order to win, particularly in order to win a LOT. There isn't a player in league history who has authored a 3-peat with crap talent around them, or even mundane talent. It's not the same as a one-off playoff run where your supporting cast happens to come through at the right times and have a decent baseline level, ala the 94 Rockets or the 2011 Mavs.

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

[Mazter]

With Jordan I have pretty much them idea that it all had to come together perfectly for him to succeed. Krause, Pippen, Grant, Phil, the triangle, Kukoc, Harper, Rodman. And (t)he(y) pretty much did the same trick 6x over again. Sure, he might have played the bigger role, especially on offense, but without any of the other pieces I am not so sure they would have won much or anything at all.

When analyzing the 96-97 and 97-98 seasons on on/of and +/- it seemed more that the Bulls had the strongest roster rather than that they were being led or dragged by one superstar. Having these stats for the entire Bulls roster in his first 10 seasons would give a better idea of how important and/or impactful to team success he really was. Also the full shooting data for those seasons would be good to see how much of an impact on team efficiency he really had.

[falcolombardi]

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)

[No-more-rings]

With Jordan I have pretty much them idea that it all had to come together perfectly for him to succeed. Krause, Pippen, Grant, Phil, the triangle, Kukoc, Harper, Rodman. And (t)he(y) pretty much did the same trick 6x over again. Sure, he might have played the bigger role, especially on offense, but without any of the other pieces I am not so sure they would have won much or anything at all.

How many guys would win titles if one of their 2-3 best players go down?

[falcolombardi]

With Jordan I have pretty much them idea that it all had to come together perfectly for him to succeed. Krause, Pippen, Grant, Phil, the triangle, Kukoc, Harper, Rodman. And (t)he(y) pretty much did the same trick 6x over again. Sure, he might have played the bigger role, especially on offense, but without any of the other pieces I am not so sure they would have won much or anything at all.

How many guys would win titles if one of their 2-3 best players go down?

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

[No-more-rings]

With Jordan I have pretty much them idea that it all had to come together perfectly for him to succeed. Krause, Pippen, Grant, Phil, the triangle, Kukoc, Harper, Rodman. And (t)he(y) pretty much did the same trick 6x over again. Sure, he might have played the bigger role, especially on offense, but without any of the other pieces I am not so sure they would have won much or anything at all.

How many guys would win titles if one of their 2-3 best players go down?

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?

[falcolombardi]

How many guys would win titles if one of their 2-3 best players go down?

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