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

[70sFan]

After reading quotes like these:

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.

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

...I just think I waste my time here.

Jerry West has a slow pull-up? Are you literally blind?

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.

Joe Caldwell was nothing special during that time. The other clip was from another player - Gus Johnson. Plenty of athletic freaks played in the league back then. You just admited that you were wrong, perhaps you should admit that you could be wrong in a lot of other things about 1960s basketball.

Two different levels

That's not an evdicence.

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.

Wilt less sophisticated than Ewing or Moses? The two players who couldn't pass the ball? Seriously?

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.

I literally gave you the numbers. I can also show you footage if you wish. Unlike you, I watch 1960s games, so I don't look insane when you talk about this era:

Watch on YouTube

He was blocking 7'1 Wilt's fadeaways like it was nothing. I'm sure Ewing would dominate him though, because... he played in the 1990s right?

[Stalwart]

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.

1988 doesn't count? The Bulls win 50 fames and a playoff series with Pippen coming off the bench for 20mins and scoring 8ppg. The next season they won 47 games with Pippen coming off the bench for a quarter of the season and scoring 15ppg. I really don't think its fair to characterize 87-89 Scottie Pippen as the All Star he would later become. I agree with tsherkin. This is just a flat out weird take.

[Texas Chuck]

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.

Does it? It doesn't to me at all in today's game where we are seeing high scoring series from all kinds of players far from an all-time great. I would say I think its likely we see that surpassed within the next decade.

[tsherkin]

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.

Does it? It doesn't to me at all in today's game where we are seeing high scoring series from all kinds of players far from an all-time great. I would say I think its likely we see that surpassed within the next decade.

Agreed. Luka averaged 35.7 over 7 games in 2021. I don't think it's outside of his potential to light it up for a single series against the right matchup, and he's not alone in that regard.

WILL that happen? Who knows, but the idea that a given scoring average is "unreachable" across a series seems a little off to me, especially as Tex notes, as we are seeing a huge surge in scoring.

[falcolombardi]

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.

Does it? It doesn't to me at all in today's game where we are seeing high scoring series from all kinds of players far from an all-time great. I would say I think its likely we see that surpassed within the next decade.

Even if we grantes that a 41 ppg finals is impossible to do for anyone else...why does it matter?

Being the best volume scorer is not the same as being the best player.

James harden had a scoring season arguably better than any of jordan in 2019 and nobody here thinks he was the better player

[Texas Chuck]

41ppg in a finals seems pretty unreachable.

Does it? It doesn't to me at all in today's game where we are seeing high scoring series from all kinds of players far from an all-time great. I would say I think its likely we see that surpassed within the next decade.

Even if we grantes that a 41 ppg finals is impossible to do for anyone else...why does it matter?

Being the best volume scorer is not the same as being the best player.

James harden had a scoring season arguably better than any of jordan in 2019 and nobody here thinks he was the better player

Oh I agree a bunch of points doesn't necessarily matter. But I'm leery of expressing that truth in a Jordan thread so was just touching on the fact I think that mark isn't nearly as hard to exceed as prolific does.

[capfan33]

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.

You could use pretty similar logic for Kareem's numbers against Wilt, yes great scorers generally score a lot regardless of who's guarding them, doesn't mean their defender isn't slowing them down. A 5-point 5% difference in efficiency is very significant, especially over the sample size that Wilt and Russell played against each other.

To add to this, in 62 Wilt averaged 50.9PPG on 53.6TS% against the league, but against Russell averaged 37.2PPG on 50.1TS%. That's an enormous difference, in fact, it's basically the difference between a GOAT-level offense and an average offense in terms of points per possession. Like are you seriously trying to question whether Russell was an ATG post-defender? I think the concerns about perimeter players being able to dribble and such is a much more understandable argument to make if you're going to make this argument.

[kcktiny]

I think there is every bit of statistical evidence showing Jerry West as the 2nd greatest SG in league history next to only Michael Jordan.

Offense, defense, rebounding, West was the complete package.

[OhayoKD]

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.

He meant data rooted in holistic impact on winning probably, not arbitrary box-score milestones. Though even on that front, Lebron leading both teams in each stat in 2016, nearly leading every player in the playoffs in every major stat in 2020, and being #1 in nearly every total playoff statistic strikes me as more impressive as crushing ppg.

[OhayoKD]

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.

It's hyperbolic rhetoric paired with a dash of oversimplification(pippen does not equal jordan's supporting cast and pippen's goodness was not a static constant). The steelman version goes something along the lines of "jordan's team success prior to the bulls becoming a really strong supporting cast doesn't compare well with GOAT Candidate or ATG XY, and Z, thus jordan's success with the strong supporting cast being a result of jordan being better than anyone else ever is dubious".

Most people don't use steelmen in sports convos, but that's what "shackling to pippen" can be destilled into

[OhayoKD]

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.

Pippen wasn't always a great player, and your time-frame only gives jordan a couple pre-prime years. It's not really that relevant to assessing the quality of his peak.

[tsherkin]

It's hyperbolic rhetoric paired with a dash of oversimplification(pippen does not equal jordan's supporting cast and pippen's goodness was not a static constant). The steelman version goes something along the lines of "jordan's team success prior to the bulls becoming a really strong supporting cast doesn't compare well with GOAT Candidate or ATG XY, and Z, thus jordan's success with the strong supporting cast being a result of jordan being better than anyone else ever is dubious".

Right, but objectively, it's a porous, ridiculous argument. There's a 2-year sample of Jordan without Pippen, and then he eases into things with Pippen being wholly unremarkable and largely irrelevant for a time as Chicago continued to improve. Moreover, it's completely ludicrous to use Pippen in any fashion to undercut MJ when discussing him against other top-tier candidates in the GOAT discussion because of the help they enjoyed to achieve what they did in terms of team success, so it seems like a non-starter for intelligent conversation.

[OhayoKD]

It's hyperbolic rhetoric paired with a dash of oversimplification(pippen does not equal jordan's supporting cast and pippen's goodness was not a static constant). The steelman version goes something along the lines of "jordan's team success prior to the bulls becoming a really strong supporting cast doesn't compare well with GOAT Candidate or ATG XY, and Z, thus jordan's success with the strong supporting cast being a result of jordan being better than anyone else ever is dubious".

Right, but objectively, it's a porous, ridiculous argument. There's a 2-year sample of Jordan without Pippen, and then he eases into things with Pippen being wholly unremarkable and largely irrelevant for a time as Chicago continued to improve. Moreover, it's completely ludicrous to use Pippen in any fashion to undercut MJ when discussing him against other top-tier candidates in the GOAT discussion because of the help they enjoyed to achieve what they did in terms of team success, so it seems like a non-starter for intelligent conversation.

not sure if you're critique is constrained to pippen or also applies to the "steelman" i offered. For the former, sure. Pippen does not equate to the bulls supporting cast and he wasn't always great. For the latter, "they did more with less or did more in comparable/worst context" is pretty easy to argue with various players so I don't think it's a "ludicrous point".

[tsherkin]

not sure if you're critique is constrained to pippen or also applies to the "steelman" i offered. For the former, sure. Pippen does not equate to the bulls supporting cast and he wasn't always great. For the latter, "they did more with less or did more in comparable/worst context" is pretty easy to argue with various players so I don't think it's a "ludicrous point".

I'm sticking with the notion that it's a daft argument and intellectually dishonest.

Keep in mind that, as stated, "the historical record confirms Jordan was shackled to Pippen" is the statement we're discussing. Right from the start, it's a fumbling bag of foolishness. Jordan had two seasons before Pippen was drafted, not counting the season where he was injured... and all three of those first seasons were on a coke-addled, bag-of-hammers squad. There isn't a player in the league who could have done a lot better with that. So the idea that three postseasons with a garbage supporting cast mean anything on Jordan's record is non-sensical garbage. Layer on top that the truth that repeat titles or other dynasties come from teams with lots of talent and the comment means even less. It just lacks substantive value. He isn't starting an argument that matters. He's just noting that historically speaking, Jordan didn't win a series without Pippen... even though that ignores how unremarkable Pippen was in 88 or how little time Jordan had without Pippen, or the talent requirements for winning in the NBA (in particular in a challenging EC), etc. It's just clownish stuff.

[OhayoKD]

not sure if you're critique is constrained to pippen or also applies to the "steelman" i offered. For the former, sure. Pippen does not equate to the bulls supporting cast and he wasn't always great. For the latter, "they did more with less or did more in comparable/worst context" is pretty easy to argue with various players so I don't think it's a "ludicrous point".

I'm sticking with the notion that it's a daft argument and intellectually dishonest.

Keep in mind that, as stated, "the historical record confirms Jordan was shackled to Pippen" is the statement we're discussing. Right from the start, it's a fumbling bag of foolishness. Jordan had two seasons before Pippen was drafted, not counting the season where he was injured... and all three of those first seasons were on a coke-addled, bag-of-hammers squad. There isn't a player in the league who could have done a lot better with that. So the idea that three postseasons with a garbage supporting cast mean anything on Jordan's record is non-sensical garbage. Layer on top that the truth that repeat titles or other dynasties come from teams with lots of talent and the comment means even less. It just lacks substantive value. He isn't starting an argument that matters. He's just noting that historically speaking, Jordan didn't win a series without Pippen... even though that ignores how unremarkable Pippen was in 88 or how little time Jordan had without Pippen, or the talent requirements for winning in the NBA (in particular in a challenging EC), etc. It's just clownish stuff.

The original argument is bad, I agree. I do think you're overplaying your hand with how "garbage" the cast was.

The garbage supporting cast won nearly 30 games before Jordan was drafted. Players have won more with less. Jordan's own contemporary, Hakeem, could be argued to have won more with less in 88, 92 and 93. (And the Rockets were actually ravaged due to drugs and unprovoked gm squabbles)

Unless you're arguing the team got worse upon drafting his airness(doesn't really track with what happened during his injury or their roster acquistions), using his pre-title years against him in a goat discussion is completely fair.

[tsherkin]

The garbage supporting cast won nearly 30 games before Jordan was drafted.

You understand that this is a terrible argument, yes? That team was garbage. Yes, Jordan is not alone in having to contend with such a garbage squad, for sure, but those were horrid supporting casts. Not 03 Orlando horrible, I'll cede you that point, but they bad; very bad.

Players have won more with less. Jordan's own contemporary, Hakeem, could be argued to have won more with less in 88, 92 and 93. (And the Rockets were actually ravaged due to drugs and unprovoked gm squabbles)

Hakeem opened his career with 82 games of Ralph Sampson, invalidating that remark for his rookie year. The year after, Sampson played more games (78) than Hakeem (69), again dropping that one off. And John Lucas didn't suck, nor did Rodney McCray. When Sampson's injuries began and Hakeem started to have a team like Jordan did pre-Pippen, they were a 42-win squad.

[Texas Chuck]

Ugh. Hate how players we like we find all kinds of ways to describe their rosters that benefit them and players we don't we go out of our way to do the opposite. That's what is intellectually dishonest.

With Mike his strongest case for being GOAT is give him a championship level supporting cast and coach and he delivered titles every single time. Yes he had great teammates(beyond just Pippen btw) and a GOAT-level coach but he also did what you should do with that--he won title after title.

But its also fair to point out that a guy like Duncan won a title with very little supporting cast. Oh it had all the big names on it of course, for those who like to denigrate Russell based on hall of famers --- eye roll -- but it had less talent than some teams Jordan did very little with.

It's okay to point out both truths. And we should. People then can weigh how important each is.

Not sure why with certain players we can't talk about what actually happened.

[OhayoKD]

Yes, Jordan is not alone in having to contend with such a garbage squad, for sure, but those were horrid supporting casts. Not 03 Orlando horrible, I'll cede you that point, but they bad; very bad.

A 30 win team is a pretty typical place for an ATG to start. The Rockets before Hakeem only won 29 games, and unlike the bulls they would get worse shortly after.

Players have won more with less. Jordan's own contemporary, Hakeem, could be argued to have won more with less in 88, 92 and 93. (And the Rockets were actually ravaged due to drugs and unprovoked gm squabbles)

Hakeem opened his career with 82 games of Ralph Sampson, invalidating that remark for his rookie year. The year after, Sampson played more games (78) than Hakeem (69), again dropping that one off. And John Lucas didn't suck, nor did Rodney McCray. When Sampson's injuries began and Hakeem started to have a team like Jordan did pre-Pippen, they were a 42-win squad.[/quote]
A 42 win team one year, a 53 win team that nearly made the ecf the next.

And i'm not really sold the team that went 2-10 was "equally garbage" to the one that won nearly 30 games before improving. The team Hakeem smoked the lakers with(the most help hakeem received pre-title) was .500. The rockets before drafting Hakeem(and winning nearly 50 games in his rookie year) were as "garbage" as the bulls before they drafted MJ.

The names don't really matter if the results don't follow.

[tsherkin]

A 30 win team is a pretty typical place for an ATG to start. The Rockets before Hakeem only won 29 games, and unlike the bulls they would get worse shortly after.

I don't disagree. That doesn't make them "not garbage," though.

A 42 win team one year, a 53 win team that nearly made the ecf the next.

41, you mean, and now you're talking about a half-decade later. They were a 42-win team in 87. They were a 41-win team in 92. In 93, when they won 55 games and lost in the semis in 7 to Seattle, they were a very different team. Otis Thorpe, who had his All-Star season in 92, rookie Robert Horry was there, they'd had a couple years of Vernon Maxwell and Kenny Smith by that point. Carl Herrera played a full season (81 games) in his 2nd year. Really a very different context to the team we were discussing, the one to which Olajuwon was drafted. By no means to be confused with some high-end squad, to be sure, but very much not the same as his draft context.

The team Hakeem smoked the lakers with(the most help hakeem received pre-title) was .500.

No they weren't. That was the 86 squad, which was a 51-win team.

[falcolombardi]

Ugh. Hate how players we like we find all kinds of ways to describe their rosters that benefit them and players we don't we go out of our way to do the opposite. That's what is intellectually dishonest.

With Mike his strongest case for being GOAT is give him a championship level supporting cast and coach and he delivered titles every single time. Yes he had great teammates(beyond just Pippen btw) and a GOAT-level coach but he also did what you should do with that--he won title after title.

But its also fair to point out that a guy like Duncan won a title with very little supporting cast. Oh it had all the big names on it of course, for those who like to denigrate Russell based on hall of famers --- eye roll -- but it had less talent than some teams Jordan did very little with.

It's okay to point out both truths. And we should. People then can weigh how important each is.

Not sure why with certain players we can't talk about what actually happened.

A lot of basketball discourse even here often is comparimg arbitrarily defined criterias and narratives vs each other and handpicking the ones that benefit "your guy" the most

I know i probably have been guilty of this a ton of times