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

[OhayoKD]

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.

Wonder if some of it might be a bias towards players that put up offensive numbers.

Hakeem joins a team comparable to the pre-jordan bulls and wins 48 games in his rookie year and then knocks off an atg lakers side before losing in 6 to the celtics, yet Jordan gets more hype for going .500 in 87 and winning 55 in 90.

[tsherkin]

Hakeem joins a team comparable to the pre-jordan bulls and wins 48 games in his rookie year and then knocks off an atg lakers side before losing in 6 to the celtics, yet Jordan gets more hype for going .500 in 87 and winning 55 in 90.

You're peddling this in the other thread, but Jordan didn't have a Sampson-level player on his squad.

[Dooley]

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.

It's sort of inevitable bc apportioning individual responsibility for team results is just fundamentally a huge part of figuring out how good players are

But also gives huge opportunities for putting your thumb on the scale and exercising intellectual bias

[falcolombardi]

Hakeem joins a team comparable to the pre-jordan bulls and wins 48 games in his rookie year and then knocks off an atg lakers side before losing in 6 to the celtics, yet Jordan gets more hype for going .500 in 87 and winning 55 in 90.

You're peddling this in the other thread, but Jordan didn't have a Sampson-level player on his squad.

But the rockets with sampson were not better than the bulls without jordan

Maybe sampson wss better than 88 or 89 pippen, but it doesnt mean the rockets (minus hakeem) as a whole were better than the bulls (minus jordan) as a whole

Supporting cast go beyond a team top 2-3 players even if historically we overfocus on them when comparing supporting casts

[AEnigma]

Hakeem joins a team comparable to the pre-jordan bulls and wins 48 games in his rookie year and then knocks off an atg lakers side before losing in 6 to the celtics, yet Jordan gets more hype for going .500 in 87 and winning 55 in 90.

You're peddling this in the other thread, but Jordan didn't have a Sampson-level player on his squad.

Why are we championing Ralph Sampson again? Great NCAA player. Never a top… forty NBA player, and that might be generous as is, by pretty much any metric you care to use. He was the lead player on that 29-win Rockets team and not sure if he ever really got any better. I would take Orlando Woolridge over him without a second thought in 1985. 82 games of Charles Oakley in 1987 and 1988, even less thought.

The only one being disingenuous here is the one pointing to the “coke-addled Bulls” when Hakeem literally saw two of his teammates banned for drug abuse partway through 1987, and his lead point guard waived from the team for drug issues of his own, all while the definitely amazing Ralph Sampson missed half the season… and the Rockets still won as much as Jordan’s Bulls! We can acknowledge the leap Jordan took in 1988 without pretending he was better than that earlier.

[AEnigma]

Hakeem joins a team comparable to the pre-jordan bulls and wins 48 games in his rookie year and then knocks off an atg lakers side before losing in 6 to the celtics, yet Jordan gets more hype for going .500 in 87 and winning 55 in 90.

You're peddling this in the other thread, but Jordan didn't have a Sampson-level player on his squad.

But the rockets with sampson were not better than the bulls without jordan

Maybe sampson wss better than 88 or 89 pippen, but it doesnt mean the rockets (minus hakeem) as a whole were better than the bulls (minus jordan) as a whole

Supporting cast go beyond a team top 2-3 players even if historically we overfocus on them when comparing supporting casts

He was better than 1988 rookie Pippen, but certainly not 1988 Oakley. Then in 1989 both Pippen and Grant were consistent starters, and they took even more of a step up in 1990, so frankly I would need to be sold a lot on Sampson to automatically give him the advantage over either once they were able to regularly start games.

[tsherkin]

Why are we championing Ralph Sampson again? Great NCAA player. Never a top… forty NBA player, and that might be generous as is,

Because he was a lot better than Dave Corzine and anyone else on Chicago's early roster, no more. Like I already said, we're not talking about good squads. Not Hakeem's and not Jordan's. Neither of those were good squads for them to land on, that's why they landed on them in the first place. The thrust of my point was that the pre-Hakeem Rockets and his draft day teammates weren't worse than Jordan's, and that Sampson playing alongside Hakeem was a better 2nd guy than Orlando Woolridge.

while the definitely amazing Ralph Sampson missed half the season…

Try again, though, because I mentioned Sampson's injury, which didn't happen until Hakeem's 3rd season, and was specifically why I mentioned it.

But the rockets with sampson were not better than the bulls without jordan

At no point was that my argument. My argument was that they were not worse than Jordan's supporting cast and that the loss of Sampson to injury put Hakeem right back to where Jordan was pre-Pippen. \

[OhayoKD]

]

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

Semantics aside, it does mean Hakeem joined a comparable team which proceeded to do much better than jordan's immediately upon Hakeem's arrival.

41, you mean, and now you're talking about a half-decade later.

I was always talking about 92. The specific years I cited were 88, 92, and 93. Though the argument can be made for 85 and 86 as well.

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.

All those players you're mentioning were 2-10 without Hakeem in 92.

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.

51 win with Hakeem. .500 without.

You're peddling this in the other thread, but Jordan didn't have a Sampson-level player on his squad.

Don't recall what the "other thread is" but Ralph Sampson was on the Rockets team that only won 29 games in 84, and his averages across the board were about the same(marginally higer volume) in 85 on marginally worse effiency. Is your assertion here that the extra 5 mpg of Ralph Sampson is the reason the Rockets nearly won 50 while the bulls were sub .500?

[tsherkin]

Semantics aside, it does mean Hakeem joined a comparable team which proceeded to do much better than jordan's immediately upon Hakeem's arrival.

But Sampson's synergy with Hakeem was greater than anyone on Chicago's with Jordan. Sampson couldn't lead a team, but he was a quality second option to Olajuwon and that did make a large difference, which is also why they fell off when he was injured. Woolridge was the best not-Jordan player on Chicago and while a better scorer than Sampson, he was worse on the glass and a net negative on D, so he didn't line up well ALONGSIDE MJ.

I was always talking about 92. The specific years I cited were 88, 92, and 93. Though the argument can be made for 85 and 86 as well.

Yeah but you responded by quoting me, so it looks like you were responding to what I was saying, which you were not.

All those players you're mentioning were 2-10 without Hakeem in 92.

And?

51 win with Hakeem. .500 without.

Irrelevant sample size. BUt also a weird concept to begin with. Of course they are going to struggle without Olajuwon.

[AEnigma]

Why are we championing Ralph Sampson again? Great NCAA player. Never a top… forty NBA player, and that might be generous as is,

Because he was a lot better than Dave Corzine and anyone else on Chicago's early roster, no more. Like I already said, we're not talking about good squads. Not Hakeem's and not Jordan's. Neither of those were good squads for them to land on, that's why they landed on them in the first place. The thrust of my point was that the pre-Hakeem Rockets and his draft day teammates weren't worse than Jordan's, and that Sampson playing alongside Hakeem was a better 2nd guy than Orlando Woolridge.

The 1984 Rockets were worse than the 1984 Bulls and drafted a less “portable” player who played at what had been their only position of strength. What, Woolridge and Jordan were both scorers, ergo bad fit? Come on.

And yes, Orlando Woolridge was a better player than Ralph Sampson. Sampson was more interesting, but he was nowhere close on offence and was nothing akin to a defensive stalwart.

[tsherkin]

The 1984 Rockets were worse than the 1984 Bulls and drafted a less “portable” player who played at what had been their only position of strength. What, Woolridge and Jordan were both scorers, ergo bad fit? Come on.

NO, Woolridge wasn't good at anything else but. He was a negative defender, not a particularly good rebounder, not a playmaker. He didn't line up as well as Sampson and Olajuwon did.

Meantime, the Rockets actually won 2 more games than did the Bulls in 1984, 29 vs. 27. Chicago was second-last in ORTG and Houston was +0.7 over that, though defensively flip that. Houston was net -2.9 and Chicago was dead last at -5.1.

Try again

[Cavsfansince84]

Why are we championing Ralph Sampson again? Great NCAA player. Never a top… forty NBA player, and that might be generous as is,

Because he was a lot better than Dave Corzine and anyone else on Chicago's early roster, no more. Like I already said, we're not talking about good squads. Not Hakeem's and not Jordan's. Neither of those were good squads for them to land on, that's why they landed on them in the first place. The thrust of my point was that the pre-Hakeem Rockets and his draft day teammates weren't worse than Jordan's, and that Sampson playing alongside Hakeem was a better 2nd guy than Orlando Woolridge.

The 1984 Rockets were worse than the 1984 Bulls and drafted a less “portable” player who played at what had been their only position of strength. What, Woolridge and Jordan were both scorers, ergo bad fit? Come on.

And yes, Orlando Woolridge was absolutely a better player than Ralph Sampson. Sampson was more interesting, but he was nowhere close on offence and was nothing akin to a defensive stalwart. You do ko

Ya, I think there's a point where maybe we simply accept that Hakeem may have been an or equal or better floor raiser than MJ. It just seems like blasphemy to say to some since MJ is regarded as being a tier higher player than Hakeem was. Hakeem leading the Rockets to the finals in 86(along with the playoffs he had) imo is underappreciated simply because of what happened in Houston after that as though it was Hakeem's fault.

[tsherkin]

Ya, I think there's a point where maybe we simply accept that Hakeem may have been an or equal or better floor raiser than MJ. It just seems like blasphemy to say to some since MJ is regarded as being a tier higher player than Hakeem was. Hakeem leading the Rockets to the finals in 86(along with the playoffs he had) imo is underappreciated simply because of what happened in Houston after that as though it was Hakeem's fault.

It's possible that rookie Hakeem was better than rookie Jordan, sure. That's an option that is on the table. That would seem to be the logical conclusion based on the conversation we have had so far about the relative team qualities, right? That would be the main point of difference, though also the West was a crappier conference and that matters a little as well.

The 86 Finals appearance WAS impressive. I don't think that was ever in contention, right? That they did so soon after a 29-win season was quite impressive. Olajuwon was an amazing player who suffered a lot from weak supporting casts. For a couple seasons, he had Sampson and a weak conference, and he did quite well. And then things went to crap and we were reminded that a single player can do only so much, while Jordan's cast improved and he started to do what you're supposed to do with such.

[prolific passer]

Why are we championing Ralph Sampson again? Great NCAA player. Never a top… forty NBA player, and that might be generous as is,

Because he was a lot better than Dave Corzine and anyone else on Chicago's early roster, no more. Like I already said, we're not talking about good squads. Not Hakeem's and not Jordan's. Neither of those were good squads for them to land on, that's why they landed on them in the first place. The thrust of my point was that the pre-Hakeem Rockets and his draft day teammates weren't worse than Jordan's, and that Sampson playing alongside Hakeem was a better 2nd guy than Orlando Woolridge.

The 1984 Rockets were worse than the 1984 Bulls and drafted a less “portable” player who played at what had been their only position of strength. What, Woolridge and Jordan were both scorers, ergo bad fit? Come on.

And yes, Orlando Woolridge was a better player than Ralph Sampson. Sampson was more interesting, but he was nowhere close on offence and was nothing akin to a defensive stalwart.

If I had to choose between Woolridge or Sampson with both being healthy.

I'm taking Ralph all day.

[Stalwart]

Because he was a lot better than Dave Corzine and anyone else on Chicago's early roster, no more. Like I already said, we're not talking about good squads. Not Hakeem's and not Jordan's. Neither of those were good squads for them to land on, that's why they landed on them in the first place. The thrust of my point was that the pre-Hakeem Rockets and his draft day teammates weren't worse than Jordan's, and that Sampson playing alongside Hakeem was a better 2nd guy than Orlando Woolridge.

The 1984 Rockets were worse than the 1984 Bulls and drafted a less “portable” player who played at what had been their only position of strength. What, Woolridge and Jordan were both scorers, ergo bad fit? Come on.

And yes, Orlando Woolridge was a better player than Ralph Sampson. Sampson was more interesting, but he was nowhere close on offence and was nothing akin to a defensive stalwart.

If I had to choose between Woolridge or Sampson with both being healthy.

I'm taking Ralph all day.

Cmon guys. Sampson and Wooldridge are two completely different caliber of player. Sampson was an all star and all nba 2nd team. He also hit the iconic game winner over LA in 86. They weren't called the Twin Towers because Sampson was a role player.

[AEnigma]

The 1984 Rockets were worse than the 1984 Bulls and drafted a less “portable” player who played at what had been their only position of strength. What, Woolridge and Jordan were both scorers, ergo bad fit? Come on.

NO, Woolridge wasn't good at anything else but. He was a negative defender, not a particularly good rebounder, not a playmaker. He didn't line up as well as Sampson and Olajuwon did.

Sampson did not fit well with Olajuwon aside from the fact that playing him with Olajuwon meant they no longer had to play him at centre. Woolridge was not a playmaker or defender, true, but he was a great athlete who knew how to play off of lead guards well — did it with Theus and did it with Jordan. Would you rather have Tyreke Evans or a more rim focused Antawn Jamison?

Meantime, the Rockets actually won 2 more games than did the Bulls in 1984, 29 vs. 27. Chicago was second-last in ORTG and Houston was +0.7 over that, though defensively flip that. Houston was net -2.9 and Chicago was dead last at -5.1.

Try again

Yeah that was my bad, but rest of the points hold true. Both teams needed their respective skillsets, but Jordan fit the Bulls, who without a replacement for Theus had desperate need of a playmaker to maximise Woolridge and who had a decent defensive base, better than Hakeem fit the Rockets, who had a logjam at frontcourt to the point that they ended up trading what had been their ostensible third most important player for Chicago’s sixth man. And the subsequent result was still well in Hakeem’s advantage, and would be until 1988.

If I had to choose between Woolridge or Sampson with both being healthy.

I'm taking Ralph all day.

Maybe if we are choosing which can better dominate university talent. Sampson certainly had higher potential. If you could guarantee me a good game, I would prefer him. Unfortunately, most of the time he would only offer some tantalising flashes of ability. He is lucky Hakeem came in when he did and at least hid a lot of his defensive failings; now he gets to be a sad what-if rather than an egregious bust.

[falcolombardi]

Orlando wooldridge in 1985
23/5.5/2 on 61%ts. 11% tov and 3.0 steals/blocks

Ralph sampson in 1985
22/10/3 on 53%ts. 16% tov and 3.0 steals/blocks

Wooldridge looks like a legitemely impressive scorer while sampson looks like a very mediocre one

Sampson of course looks like a more impressive defender purely going off box score and the far better rebounder. But with a big turnover weakness

[AEnigma]

The 1984 Rockets were worse than the 1984 Bulls and drafted a less “portable” player who played at what had been their only position of strength. What, Woolridge and Jordan were both scorers, ergo bad fit? Come on.

And yes, Orlando Woolridge was a better player than Ralph Sampson. Sampson was more interesting, but he was nowhere close on offence and was nothing akin to a defensive stalwart.

If I had to choose between Woolridge or Sampson with both being healthy.

I'm taking Ralph all day.

Cmon guys. Sampson and Wooldridge are two completely different caliber of player. Sampson was an all star and all nba 2nd team. He also hit the iconic game winner over LA in 86. They weren't called the Twin Towers because Sampson was a role player.

He made the all-NBA team because Moses and Kareem occupied the two positions at centre and someone needed to be credited for the Rockets suddenly finishing as a top three seed. As a selection, it was an absolute joke.

Oh, he hit a postseason game-winner? I guess off that we can establish he was at least as good as Steve Kerr.

They were called the Twin Towers because they were the two top collegiate big men since Walton. Only one of them lived up to that, but that did not stop his NCAA fans from gassing up the other.

Of course, if Hakeem had a teammate scoring 23 points a game on 61% efficiency, I suppose Jordan stans would never shut up about that either.

[falcolombardi]

If I had to choose between Woolridge or Sampson with both being healthy.

I'm taking Ralph all day.

Cmon guys. Sampson and Wooldridge are two completely different caliber of player. Sampson was an all star and all nba 2nd team. He also hit the iconic game winner over LA in 86. They weren't called the Twin Towers because Sampson was a role player.

He made the all-NBA team because Moses and Kareem occupied the two positions at centre and someone needed to be credited for the Rockets suddenly finishing as a top three seed. As a selection, it was an absolute joke.

Oh, he hit a postseason game-winner? I guess off that we can establish he was at least as good as Steve Kerr.

They were called the Twin Towers because they were the two top collegiate big men since Walton. Only one of them lived up to that, but that did not stop his NCAA fans from gassing up the other.

Of course, if Hakeem had a teammate scoring 23 points a game on 61% efficiency, I suppose Jordan stans would never shut up about that either.

How good were they as defenders?

From the boxscore i can get wooldridge as the much better scorer (same volume but 8% advantagr in efficiency is huge. Sampson efficiency was mediocre while wooldridge was elite)

and lost the ball much less (sampson 16% is really bad vs wooldridge solid 11%)

But sampsons has a 3 vs 1.3 steals/block advantage and much more rebounds. Was he a much better defendet than wooldridge?

[VanWest82]

Orlando wooldridge in 1985
23/5.5/2 on 61%ts. 11% tov and 3.0 steals/blocks

Ralph sampson in 1985
22/10/3 on 53%ts. 16% tov and 3.0 steals/blocks

Wooldridge looks like a legitemely impressive scorer while sampson looks like a very mediocre one

Sampson of course looks like a more impressive defender purely going off box score and the far better rebounder. But with a big turnover weakness

This post is in bad faith. It must be. Edit: lots of bad faith posts itt on this subject. Wow. Also, Woolridge's steals+blocks # in 85 was 1.3 not 3.0.