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

[70sFan]

For all this talk about the "more sophisticated" basketball from the 1990s, the truth is that the game became significantly more advanced in the last 30 years than between 1965 and 1995. Sorry to hurt your feelings, but when you actually bother to make a comparison, it's visible that strategic and skillset improvement are drastically bigger now.

A lot of teams in the early 1990s run similar halfcourt offense to the late 1960s teams, but basically no team plays similar style to the 1990s teams now.

[prolific passer]

I mean Drummond averaged 15rpg in todays nba. I think Russell can put up least that.

[ceoofkobefans]

In order for me to think MJ > LeBron I would have to be convinced that MJ peaked SIGNIFICANTLY higher than LeBron did which would require MJ having Stats that seem impossible to reach in all of the data we don’t have of him

[prolific passer]

In order for me to think MJ > LeBron I would have to be convinced that MJ peaked SIGNIFICANTLY higher than LeBron did which would require MJ having Stats that seem impossible to reach in all of the data we don’t have of him

41ppg in a finals seems pretty unreachable.

[MyUniBroDavis]

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 think the scrubs in the mid 60s are worse than the scrubs in the early 90s but guys like west and esp the elite bigs like russell would still be fine in the 90s I think.

I don’t see him having the same level of defensive impact though, but I don’t think that’s a knock on him, since that’s not really possible imo.

What about 1990s vs 2020s?

Probably something similar, but I do think the guys that are meh are better now than the meh guys of the 90s by more

As a whole I’d say perimeter play has changed far more than bigs, aside from them being asked to stretch the floor more if they can though, and it’s not as if there are concerns over Russell being switchy lol.

I don’t think it’s neccessarily as simple as player X was this good this time so he should be this good this time though some guys project back and forward better or worse than others

[JordansBulls]

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.

Hakeem lost with HCA to a team that wasn't even .500

[JordansBulls]

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)

Hakeem, Duncan, KG all lost series with HCA even with stars on there squad. Duncan joined a team with a league mvp and also had several guys who won finals mvp's on his squad. Also with Jordan someone became a star playing with Jordan while the others where gifted a proven star before those guys came into the league.

[JordansBulls]

In order for me to think MJ > LeBron I would have to be convinced that MJ peaked SIGNIFICANTLY higher than LeBron did which would require MJ having Stats that seem impossible to reach in all of the data we don’t have of him

Jordan turned a franchise that never won into a dynasty. Lebron switched teams 4 times stacking the deck and still didn't create a dynasty and a guy in his own era who has won league and finals mvp that came after him to a franchise not known for winning has as many titles as him and beat him head to head 3 times.

[70sFan]

I think the scrubs in the mid 60s are worse than the scrubs in the early 90s but guys like west and esp the elite bigs like russell would still be fine in the 90s I think.

I don’t see him having the same level of defensive impact though, but I don’t think that’s a knock on him, since that’s not really possible imo.

What about 1990s vs 2020s?

Probably something similar, but I do think the guys that are meh are better now than the meh guys of the 90s by more

As a whole I’d say perimeter play has changed far more than bigs, aside from them being asked to stretch the floor more if they can though, and it’s not as if there are concerns over Russell being switchy lol.

I don’t think it’s neccessarily as simple as player X was this good this time so he should be this good this time though some guys project back and forward better or worse than others

I agree and I think it's much easier to project 1960s players into the 1990s environment than 1990s players into 2020s. Despite what I hear, players now are asked to do things they wouldn't have been in the 1990s, while 1960s players mostly did similar things on offense and defense as they would have in the 1990s.

Of course there are stylistic differences and rules changes were significant, but from strategic perspective 2020s games so much different than anything before. I still think most players would be able to adjust across the eras, but my point is that 1960s -> 1990s adjustment would be much easier than 1990s -> 2020s one, for most players at very least.

[Stalwart]

What about 1990s vs 2020s?

Probably something similar, but I do think the guys that are meh are better now than the meh guys of the 90s by more

As a whole I’d say perimeter play has changed far more than bigs, aside from them being asked to stretch the floor more if they can though, and it’s not as if there are concerns over Russell being switchy lol.

I don’t think it’s neccessarily as simple as player X was this good this time so he should be this good this time though some guys project back and forward better or worse than others

I agree and I think it's much easier to project 1960s players into the 1990s environment than 1990s players into 2020s. Despite what I hear, players now are asked to do things they wouldn't have been in the 1990s, while 1960s players mostly did similar things on offense and defense as they would have in the 1990s.

Of course there are stylistic differences and rules changes were significant, but from strategic perspective 2020s games so much different than anything before. I still think most players would be able to adjust across the eras, but my point is that 1960s -> 1990s adjustment would be much easier than 1990s -> 2020s one, for most players at very least.

You are correct in that there has been a big change stylistically from 90s > 20s due to moving away from the post and stretching the floor. So for tradirional bigs from the 90s like Ewing and Shaq the transition would cause them problems.

Although there is still a stylistic and sophistication gap from 60s > 90s the biggest difference and challenge for the 60s players is going to be in regards to their individual skillsets and abilities. The best players from the 60s are going to have to significantley upgrade their ball handling, shooting, passing, defensive ability, and their overall athleticism and physical attributes to be competitive in the 90s. You and I looked at the 1962 finals a few weeks and we noted how no one outside of Bob Cousy and Jerry West were comfortable dribbling with their left hand, for example. We saw these guys with poor shooting form. Poor balance. Very poor shot selection. No post game to be found. Very little sophistication in the ays they were running. Poor defensive fundementals. Ect. These guys would have to dramatically improve in all of these areas to compete in the 90s.

So although the 90s players would have to significantly adjust the way they play the game and upgrade the way they think about the game their actual skillsets, abilities, and physical attributes are still more than enough to compete and be impactful in todays game. In fact the way the game is played today it would actually open up the game for many of the 90s players. Less physical, less rim protection, more space, more shooters to kick out to. A guy like Jordan might even be more dominant in todays game. The premiere PGs from the 90s almost certainly would excel in todays game.

[70sFan]

You are correct in that there has been a big change stylistically from 90s > 20s due to moving away from the post and stretching the floor. So for tradirional bigs from the 90s like Ewing and Shaq the transition would cause them problems.

This doesn't only touch "traditional bigs". Majority of the 1990s perimeter players couldn't shoot threes. They didn't know how to defend in or play against zones. Most of them didn't have modern handles or footwork. They also rely on defensive tricks that are not allowed anymore.

Although there is still a stylistic and sophistication gap from 60s > 90s the biggest difference and challenge for the 60s players is going to be in regards to their individual skillsets and abilities. The best players from the 60s are going to have to significantley upgrade their ball handling, shooting, passing, defensive ability, and their overall athleticism and physical attributes to be competitive in the 90s.

All of this is true for 1990s -> 2020s transition as well. Players with 1990s ball handling, shooting, passing and defensive ability wouldn't compete today.

Physical attributes are roughly the same since the early 1960s, so I won't touch that here.

You and I looked at the 1962 finals a few weeks and we noted how no one outside of Bob Cousy and Jerry West were comfortable dribbling with their left hand, for example.

No, that was your observation. I showed you examples when players dribbled with their weaker hands comfortably, but you ignored them.

We saw these guys with poor shooting form. Poor balance. Very poor shot selection. No post game to be found. Very little sophistication in the ays they were running. Poor defensive fundementals. Ect. These guys would have to dramatically improve in all of these areas to compete in the 90s.

These were all your observations and you ignored evidences when they were put right next to your eyes. Players jumpshooting forms in that game were mostly fine, nothing that would look out of place in the 1990s. Throwing entry pass to a post player every single time isn't "sophistication in the plays", this 1962 game looked actually better in terms of the number and variety of plays. Your "balance" talk is just general thing that has no substance behind it. Same with defensive fundamentals, you didn't give me any specific examples.

So although the 90s players would have to significantly adjust the way they play the game and upgrade the way they think about the game their actual skillsets, abilities, and physical attributes are still more than enough to compete and be impactful in todays game. In fact the way the game is played today it would actually open up the game for many of the 90s players. Less physical, less rim protection, more space, more shooters to kick out to. A guy like Jordan might even be more dominant in todays game. The premiere PGs from the 90s almost certainly would excel in todays game.

It's funny how you fail to see that this reasoning works 100% in the other situation as well. The league was more spaced out in the 1990s than in the 1960s. There was less rim protection due to illegal defense. There were more shooters in the 1990s. A guy like Jerry West or Oscar Robertson might have been even more dominant in the 1990s.

[Stalwart]

I'm not going to take the stance that these guys definitely wouldn't make the league. West is a good enough shooter with good enough instincts that he could conceivably secure a spot as a role player and spot up shooter. A Steve Kerr type of role. However, West is not a good enough athlete nor does he have the requisite ball handling to be a dominant scorer in the 1990s. Too many athletes. Too much defense. Too much physicality. Too much sophistication.

What am I reading right now...?

Did you just equal Jerry West to Steve Kerr in terms of skillset and athleticism? Did you just say that West wouldn't be athletic enough to be a dominant scorer in an era when midgets like Michael Adams averaged 27 ppg, unathletic tiny PGs like Tim Hardaway scored 23 ppg and poor ball-handlers like Reggie Miller or Clyde Drexler dominated in postseason? We're talking about the era when unathletic guys like Jeff Hornacek and Joe Dumars reached 20+ppg and were key part of championship teams.

Are you even aware that West was very athletic? He destroys players like Dumars or Hornacek in basically everything. Clyde Drexler was significantly worse ball-handler than West.

Alright, alright. Comparing him to Steve Kerr is probably a stretch. Considering West's shooting ability, his decent athleticism & size, and instincts for the game I could see him being a Jeff Hornacek level player who could put up 18-20ppg in the right system and the right role. But I have an extremely hard time seeing him be the elite shot creator, 30ppg level player in the 90s. He just doesn't have the offensive repitoire or physical attributes to put up those points in the 90s.

Michael Adams is actually an extremely athletic and skilled player. He's extremely fast and can jump very high. His fast twitch muscles are significantley greater than someone like Jerry West. Its not simply about height. Its also about strength, speed, agility, body mechanics, body control, footwork, hand/eye coordination. Adams had all of this in spades.

Also, Adams ball handling is on a different level. Same with Tim Hardaway. Clyde Drexler has rather rudimentary ball handling skills but he makes up for that by being a dominant athlete that can just blow by you and then jump over you. West doesn't have that option. He would have to use skill and technique to create his own shots. And that patented slow turn around from the 60s ain't gonna cut it.

So again, Russell would be a role player in an era when guys like Mutombo or Kemp were penneral all-stars? Is that's what you're trying to sell here?

I think Mutombo would be a better defensive player than Russell in the 90s at least from the C position. Perhaps significantly so. Better post defense. Better rim protection. Bigger body. However, due to Russells superior athleticism and body mechanics he might be better than Mutombo in certains positions, roles, and areas on defense. He might defend the pick n roll better. He might defend stretch 4s better. Might be a better help defender. But I don't see him defending the paint or the post very well in the 90s.

And Kemp was an historically great athlete with a decent offensive skillset. He would dominate the 60s, actually.

Thankfully, Russell didn't have to protect the paint against his own teammate... Instead, he had to defend it against Jerry West and Elgin Baylor duet and I'd argue it wasn't any easier than against Clyde.

Given that the closest defender ever to Russell from physical standpoint played in the 1990s and dominated, I'd argue that his defensive domination would translate just fine.

I don't think West or Baylor compares to Drexler as an athlete. I think Russell would get the shock of his life seeing Clyde Drexler turn the corner and fly through the paint.

There is nothing sophisticated about defenses during the peak of illegal defense rules.

By the 1990s every young kid playing organized basketball were learning and practicing defensive fundementals by age 7 or 8. As kids we were focusing defensive slides. How to position your hands and feet. How to bend your knees. How to play help defense. How to communicate. How to cut off your man and take charges. How to trap. How to defend the post. How to use your body and be physical without fouling. Your average dedender in the 90s had been practicing these things since a child or at least a teenager. Jerry West wasn't facing defenders with this type of defensive IQ and fundementals.

How did he fail to slow down Wilt, when Wilt's numbers were drasticly worse against him and Wilt's teams regularly underperformed offensively against the Celtics?

His numbers look like typically dominant Wilt numbers to me.

[70sFan]

Alright, alright. Comparing him to Steve Kerr is probably a stretch. Considering West's shooting ability, his decent athleticism & size, and instincts for the game I could see him being a Jeff Hornacek level player who could put up 18-20ppg in the right system and the right role. But I have an extremely hard time seeing him be the elite shot creator, 30ppg level player in the 90s. He just doesn't have the offensive repitoire or physical attributes to put up those points in the 90s.

At this point, I think you're just talking sh*t about West because he was white and it's not coincidence that you compare him only to white players.

If you've ever shown me Jeff Hornacek making such plays, I'd be shocked:

Read on Twitter

For West, chasedown blocks was a routine.

Michael Adams is actually an extremely athletic and skilled player. He's extremely fast and can jump very high. His fast twitch muscles are significantley greater than someone like Jerry West. Its not simply about height. Its also about strength, speed, agility, body mechanics, body control, footwork, hand/eye coordination. Adams had all of this in spades.

Michael Adams was 5'10 midget who took a lot of threes and he wasn't good at it. He was very quick, but has no other advantage over West physically. West was 6'4 without the shoes and had 6'9 wingspan, could dunk the ball with ease and was one of the fastest players in the league. His hand/eye coordination can be easily seen, when you look at him tracking down and stealing passes on defense. You're delusional if you think that Adams was better athlete than West.

Also, Adams ball handling is on a different level. Same with Tim Hardaway.

No, they were allowed to carry the ball. There is a big difference between lack of ability and lack of possibility to show this ability. West couldn't dribble the ball like Tim, because he'd be called for carrying the ball.

Clyde Drexler has rather rudimentary ball handling skills but he makes up for that by being a dominant athlete that can just blow by you and then jump over you. West doesn't have that option. He would have to use skill and technique to create his own shots.

It's true that Drexler was more athletic than West, but I'm just pointing out that players like Drexler or Miller were significantly worse ball-handlers, while still thriving in the 1990s. In Miller's case, he wasn't more athletic than West either.

And that patented slow turn around from the 60s ain't gonna cut it.

West might have the quickest release ever until Curry came along. It's actually on the tape, you can't fool us.

I think Mutombo would be a better defensive player than Russell in the 90s at least from the C position. Perhaps significantly so. Better post defense. Better rim protection. Bigger body. However, due to Russells superior athleticism and body mechanics he might be better than Mutombo in certains positions, roles, and areas on defense. He might defend the pick n roll better. He might defend stretch 4s better. Might be a better help defender. But I don't see him defending the paint or the post very well in the 90s.

Russell was like Hakeem on defense, except if you give him springier legs and better hips movement. All the footage we have show us absolutely transcendent athlete with insane combination of motor, athleticism and timing.

You just said that Russell wouldn't be able to defend the paint well in the 1990s, because of what exactly? Lack of size? It might be the worst take I've ever seen from you.

And Kemp was an historically great athlete with a decent offensive skillset. He would dominate the 60s, actually.

Kemp couldn't pass or dribble, he was a finisher who played on excellent teams. He wouldn't do anything special in the 1960s.

I don't think West or Baylor compares to Drexler as an athlete. I think Russell would get the shock of his life seeing Clyde Drexler turn the corner and fly through the paint.

Are you aware that players could dunk back in the 1960s? Joe Caldwell wasn't even a superstar back then and he did things Clyde did before Drexler started playing basketball:

Watch on YouTube

Russell likely didn't get any shock after watching this play, so I doubt he would in your scenario:

Yeah, it's slowed down. I hope you can realize that.

By the 1990s every young kid playing organized basketball were learning and practicing defensive fundementals by age 7 or 8. As kids we were focusing defensive slides. How to position your hands and feet. How to bend your knees. How to play help defense. How to communicate. How to cut off your man and take charges. How to trap. How to defend the post. How to use your body and be physical without fouling. Your average dedender in the 90s had been practicing these things since a child or at least a teenager. Jerry West wasn't facing defenders with this type of defensive IQ and fundementals.

Give me any evidences that young players didn't practise defensive fundamentals in the 1960s, I'm waiting for it.

His numbers look like typically dominant Wilt numbers to me.

1960-69 Wilt vs the league: 35.1/23.8/4.6 on 53.5 FG% and 54.5 TS%
1960-69 Wilt vs Russell: 29.9/28.1/3.8 on 48.8 FG% and 50.0 TS%

There is significant difference, both in terms of production and efficiency.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

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.

Hakeem lost with HCA to a team that wasn't even .500

In a related newsflash the same year that happened.....Jordan led Chicago to a record that wasnt even .500.

[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?

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

Well you said you had lebron's peak alot higher, so i thought the sides were "basketball" and "narrative/legacy"

[OhayoKD]

The historical record confirms Jordan was shackled to Pippen. Maybe you're OK with that but I'm not.

That's, again, one of the weirder takes I've seen. How many titles did Kareem have without Oscar or Magic? Or Magic without Kareem?

How many titles did Russell have without Havlicek and his other All-Star friends?

One dude doesn't get it done more than once. THAT'S the historical record. Failing to recognize that is just going out of your way to undermine a player for agenda-driven purposes.

Again, if you want to make success a binary matter("ring or it doesn't count"), as opposed to a gradient scale, then, with the exception of russell whose won multiple times without a worthy co-star, yeah, Jordan isn't losing out to anyone here besides maybe hakeem, duncan and dirk depending on what your bar for "co-star" is.

If not, then Jordan's success without Pippen offers several favorable comparisons for other atg's

[Stalwart]

At this point, I think you're just talking sh*t about West because he was white and it's not coincidence that you compare him only to white players.

Wow. Im just going to let that sit there and pretend I didn't read that.

If you've ever shown me Jeff Hornacek making such plays, I'd be shocked:

Read on Twitter

For West, chasedown blocks was a routine.

This actually prompted me to pull up some Jeff Hornacek highlights. I didn't see any chase down blocks but I did see an in-game, reverse, two hand dunk in traffic. And that was indeed more impressive than this block. Furthermore I think were both selling Hornacek short as a player and athlete. Hornacek was actually very fast and quick. He had great body mechanics, balance, and dexterity. He had good explosion and quick reflexes. He was also strong and solid enough to take hits and bumps without losing his balances, losing the ball, or losing position. Great footwork. He was also very skilled as a ball handler, shooter, and shot creator. The plays he could pull off were more impressive than I initially remembered.

If someone from the 60s can just waltz into the 1990s NBA and approximate an all star like Jeff Hornacek Id say that's a great compliment. And it speaks to the respect I actually have for Jerry West.

Michael Adams was 5'10 midget who took a lot of threes and he wasn't good at it. He was very quick, but has no other advantage over West physically. West was 6'4 without the shoes and had 6'9 wingspan, could dunk the ball with ease and was one of the fastest players in the league. His hand/eye coordination can be easily seen, when you look at him tracking down and stealing passes on defense. You're delusional if you think that Adams was better athlete than West.

Again, Michael Adams was faster, quicker, more explosive, better body mechanics, and more agile. Very strong as well. Its great that Jerry West could dunk with ease at 6'4 but so could Michael Adams at 5'10. Trying to argue that West is a better athlete because he's taller and longer is like saying Jokic is a better athlete than Russell Westbrook because he's bigger. That's not how it works.

No, they were allowed to carry the ball. There is a big difference between lack of ability and lack of possibility to show this ability. West couldn't dribble the ball like Tim, because he'd be called for carrying the ball.

Exactly. If we try to transport Jerry West into the 1990s, as is, he's going to be a much less effective ball handler than Michael Adams and Tim Hardaway because he West dribbles on top of the ball. And if you suddenly gave Jerry West the ability to carry the ball that's not going to automatically translate into elite ball handling skills like a Tim Hardaway. He simply wouldn't be able to move around the court as easily as others. His one on one skills would be limited as well. That just speaks to how different the 90s were from the 60s.

It's true that Drexler was more athletic than West, but I'm just pointing out that players like Drexler or Miller were significantly worse ball-handlers, while still thriving in the 1990s. In Miller's case, he wasn't more athletic than West either.

In Drexlers case he was a much better athlete and probably ball handler as well. He rarely used the left hand but he could if he needed to. He didn't have to completely slow down and concentrate to use his off hand like many of the 60s players. And Miller was comparable if not better ball handler. He could do hesi's and step backs. He's got all the jab steps and fakes you could ask for. If he is under duress and needs to change directions he can go behind the back, between the legs, or pull off a crossover. Most players from the 60s typically had to do a full body turn to change directions when under duress. Plus Miller got alot of his points playing off the ball something we don't see much of from Jerry West.

West might have the quickest release ever until Curry came along. It's actually on the tape, you can't fool us.

Quickest release? Perhaps. But everything before the release is rather slow compared to the 90s. The turn around and pull up is pretty slow.

Are you aware that players could dunk back in the 1960s? Joe Caldwell wasn't even a superstar back then and he did things Clyde did before Drexler started playing basketball:

Watch on YouTube

Russell likely didn't get any shock after watching this play, so I doubt he would in your scenario:

Yeah, it's slowed down. I hope you can realize that.

Ok, good call. There were some Drexler like athletes during Russells day so it wouldn't necessarily be a shock. But in the 90s he's going to be encountering a lot more Joe Caldwells than he was accustomed to.

Give me any evidences that young players didn't practise defensive fundamentals in the 1960s, I'm waiting for it.

Two different levels

1960-69 Wilt vs the league: 35.1/23.8/4.6 on 53.5 FG% and 54.5 TS%
1960-69 Wilt vs Russell: 29.9/28.1/3.8 on 48.8 FG% and 50.0 TS%

There is significant difference, both in terms of production and efficiency.

Wilt was absolutely dominant agaimst Russell. I don't see any reason to believe Russell could slow down Hakeem, Shaq, Ewing, Robinson, Moses, Kareem, and others when he couldn't slow down the dominant, less skilled, and less sophisticated bigs of his day.

Go back and look at the individual games. Wilt routinely scored 40 and 50 pts on Russell. He had some bad games that perhaps you can attribute to Russells defense but the vast majority were dominating performances with absurd statlines from Wilt. So those bad games he did have against Russell was probably more to do with Wilt just not playing well rather than being shutdown by Russells defense.

[tsherkin]

Again, if you want to make success a binary matter("ring or it doesn't count"), as opposed to a gradient scale, then, with the exception of russell whose won multiple times without a worthy co-star, yeah, Jordan isn't losing out to anyone here besides maybe hakeem, duncan and dirk depending on what your bar for "co-star" is.

If not, then Jordan's success without Pippen offers several favorable comparisons for other atg's

Sure, but that doesn't really address the ludicrous idea that Jordan is "shackled" to Pippen, or that his success is somehow undercut by having talent prerequisite to the achievement of the team success Chicago enjoyed during Jordan's career.

[Ein Sof]

Again, if you want to make success a binary matter("ring or it doesn't count"), as opposed to a gradient scale, then, with the exception of russell whose won multiple times without a worthy co-star, yeah, Jordan isn't losing out to anyone here besides maybe hakeem, duncan and dirk depending on what your bar for "co-star" is.

If not, then Jordan's success without Pippen offers several favorable comparisons for other atg's

Sure, but that doesn't really address the ludicrous idea that Jordan is "shackled" to Pippen, or that his success is somehow undercut by having talent prerequisite to the achievement of the team success Chicago enjoyed during Jordan's career.

Look man, I'm trying to give MJ a fair shake. Show me one playoff series win, or one .500 regular season without Pippen, and I'll concede.

[tsherkin]

Look man, I'm trying to give MJ a fair shake. Show me one playoff series win, or one .500 regular season without Pippen, and I'll concede.

My standards are rock bottom.

Arbitrary, though. In their first series victory, Pippen posted 10.6 ppg, 5.2 rpg and 2.4 apg in 26.8 mpg. How much of a difference-maker do you really think he was? This is like "how many titles does Kobe have without an All-Star big man?"