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

[prolific passer]

For the most part, but lebron played for a lot longer and is much better defensively

That's true. Magic could have been a monster offensively if he sacrificed some of his assists.

.

Scorint 30 a game is usually sexier than 23 and 10 assists but would it have made him a better player?

He led arguably the goat offensive dinasty with his combo of ultra efficient mid volume scoring + elite passing

What if Magic became a more aggressive scorer in 90 and 91 after Kareem left?

[tsherkin]

What if Magic became a more aggressive scorer in 90 and 91 after Kareem left?

As opposed to? 1990 was the third-highest scoring average of his career, and only 0.2 less than his scoring average in 89, Kareem's last season. He DID get more aggressive as Kareem faded and then left, 91 aside. 80-86, he averaged 18.3 ppg on 12.5 FGA/g, managing 20+ ppg once. 87-90, he averaged 22.1 ppg on 14.9 FGA/g.

Food for thought.

[Colbinii]

That's true. Magic could have been a monster offensively if he sacrificed some of his assists.

.

Scorint 30 a game is usually sexier than 23 and 10 assists but would it have made him a better player?

He led arguably the goat offensive dinasty with his combo of ultra efficient mid volume scoring + elite passing

What if Magic became a more aggressive scorer in 90 and 91 after Kareem left?

He already did become that scorer.

1980-1984: RS 22.5 Points/100; PS 20.7 Points/100
1985-1986: RS 24.0 Points/100; PS 23.8 Points/100
1987-1991: RS 28.5 Points/100; PS 26.8 Points/100

Realistically he tops out at ~28-29 Points/100 on terrific efficiency [I believe +7-8 TS%].

Compared to LeBron though, who is at [From 2008-2020] 37.8 Points/100 on 59.1 TS% [No idea what the + efficiency is but I assume somewhere between +5 and +8]

[tsherkin]

He already did become that scorer.

Beat ya to it, heh

But nice, PTS100 and playoff scoring as well, excellent additions.

Compared to LeBron though, who is at [From 2008-2020] 37.8 Points/100 on 59.1 TS% [No idea what the + efficiency is but I assume somewhere between +5 and +8]

Lebron's at +5.5 from 2008-2022, +5.7 if you just look 08-20. 09-18, +6.7. And of course in 13 and 14, he was at +10.5 and +10.8.

[countryboy667]

If he had put up stats significantly better than Wilt Chamberlain's. Not talking exotic "analytics"--I'm talking REAL numbers. Not only didn't he put up numbers like that, he was not overall in Wilt's class purely as an athlete. Wilt was good at everything he ever tried. Jordan wasn't--for example, he couldn't hit the curve ball.
IMO, Jordan won with a stacked team in one of the weaker eras of the NBA's history and doesn't deserve to be GOAT. There are also others I'd put over him, for example, Magic and Kareem. You can also make a strong case for Lebron, and I'm no big Lebron fan by a long shot.

[tsherkin]

IMO, Jordan won with a stacked team in one of the weaker eras of the NBA's history and doesn't deserve to be GOAT.

Right here, you invalidate your own point.

First of all, Wilt had a pair of All-Stars on his 67 title team. He obviously played fantastic basketball that season, the best of his career arguably. But he had a very high-end level of talent on his team. That Jordan had a "stacked" team is pretty much horsecrap. He had less depth that the title Lakers or Celtics from the 80s, and less than the 83 Sixers as well. Scottie was fantastic, and he had good roleplayers, and typically a quality PF. Not too different from the 67 Sixers. And that's just that Chet Walker and Hal Greer were All-Stars. Billy Cunningham would go on to be a 5-time All-Star, and was a 18.5 ppg and 7.3 rpg guy for them as well, and a quality defender. Luke Jackson had been an All-Star two years prior as a rookie, and was quite effective for them. The Sixers were very deep and had a lot of talent, especially relative to most of the rest of the league, Boston notwithstanding.

So any argument that begins with "this dude had a stacked team" as an argument in Wilt's favor is immediately made in bad faith.

It isn't unreasonable to make a case for Wilt as the GOAT. Some of us might not agree, but he was a fantastic player, with loads of achievements. But c'mon, at least make arguments which aren't disingenuous.

[70sFan]

If he had put up stats significantly better than Wilt Chamberlain's. Not talking exotic "analytics"--I'm talking REAL numbers.

What makes numbers "real"?

[Mazter]

IMO, Jordan won with a stacked team in one of the weaker eras of the NBA's history and doesn't deserve to be GOAT.

Right here, you invalidate your own point.

First of all, Wilt had a pair of All-Stars on his 67 title team. He obviously played fantastic basketball that season, the best of his career arguably. But he had a very high-end level of talent on his team. That Jordan had a "stacked" team is pretty much horsecrap. He had less depth that the title Lakers or Celtics from the 80s, and less than the 83 Sixers as well. Scottie was fantastic, and he had good roleplayers, and typically a quality PF. Not too different from the 67 Sixers. And that's just that Chet Walker and Hal Greer were All-Stars. Billy Cunningham would go on to be a 5-time All-Star, and was a 18.5 ppg and 7.3 rpg guy for them as well, and a quality defender. Luke Jackson had been an All-Star two years prior as a rookie, and was quite effective for them. The Sixers were very deep and had a lot of talent, especially relative to most of the rest of the league, Boston notwithstanding.

So any argument that begins with "this dude had a stacked team" as an argument in Wilt's favor is immediately made in bad faith.

It isn't unreasonable to make a case for Wilt as the GOAT. Some of us might not agree, but he was a fantastic player, with loads of achievements. But c'mon, at least make arguments which aren't disingenuous.

But if he is talking about "he won with a stacked team", I supose we are talking 90's, why are you comparing to teams of the 80's?

How many teams in the 90's had a player who was both All NBA and All Defense? Now how many had 2 like the Bulls? How many had a 4x All Defensive as 3rd player? For 90's standards those Bulls were really stacked, I would like to hear which 90's team compared to them.

[tsherkin]

But if he is talking about "he won with a stacked team", I supose we are talking 90's, why are you comparing to teams of the 80's?

Because he mentioned Magic and Kareem.

How many teams in the 90's had a player who was both All NBA and All Defense? Now how many had 2 like the Bulls? How many had a 4x All Defensive as 3rd player? For 90's standards those Bulls were really stacked, I would like to hear which 90's team compared to them.

Phoenix looked pretty good. The Blazers were quite deep. The Jazz had very good defenders and then high-end top-two on offense. Seattle was nasty. The teams they faced in the Finals were strong. The Knicks and Pacers were quite talented as well, and even the Hawks had talent. The EC had some very good teams, too, a lot better than what Magic faced in the 80s West.

And Wilt won his title with 3 series victories, and a best-of-5 first round, so there's that angle to examine as well (a lot like Russ winning titles by only playing two series, thanks to first-round byes).

It's just a weird argument to make if there's to be an equal light shed on the one title Wilt won while he was actually the focal player. And of course if you include the Lakers title, that doesn't help the case either.

[Mazter]

Because he mentioned Magic and Kareem.

Phoenix looked pretty good. The Blazers were quite deep. The Jazz had very good defenders and then high-end top-two on offense. Seattle was nasty. The teams they faced in the Finals were strong. The Knicks and Pacers were quite talented as well, and even the Hawks had talent. The EC had some very good teams, too, a lot better than what Magic faced in the 80s West.

And Wilt won his title with 3 series victories, and a best-of-5 first round, so there's that angle to examine as well (a lot like Russ winning titles by only playing two series, thanks to first-round byes).

It's just a weird argument to make if there's to be an equal light shed on the one title Wilt won while he was actually the focal player. And of course if you include the Lakers title, that doesn't help the case either.

Not that I agree with anything Countryboy said, but pretty good, quite deep, nasty and talented do not weigh in on stacked. You have those teams in any decade.

If we talk about stacked in the 60's it is Celtics/Sixers with Wilt/Lakers and then the rest. In the 80's its the Celtics/Lakers and then the others. In the 90's it's only the Bulls and then the rest.

I mean, if you can mention any supporting duo in the 90's better or even close to Scottie/Horace during the first 3-peat or Scottie/Dennis in the second be my guest.

[falcolombardi]

Because he mentioned Magic and Kareem.

Phoenix looked pretty good. The Blazers were quite deep. The Jazz had very good defenders and then high-end top-two on offense. Seattle was nasty. The teams they faced in the Finals were strong. The Knicks and Pacers were quite talented as well, and even the Hawks had talent. The EC had some very good teams, too, a lot better than what Magic faced in the 80s West.

And Wilt won his title with 3 series victories, and a best-of-5 first round, so there's that angle to examine as well (a lot like Russ winning titles by only playing two series, thanks to first-round byes).

It's just a weird argument to make if there's to be an equal light shed on the one title Wilt won while he was actually the focal player. And of course if you include the Lakers title, that doesn't help the case either.

Not that I agree with anything Countryboy said, but pretty good, quite deep, nasty and talented do not weigh in on stacked. You have those teams in any decade.

If we talk about stacked in the 60's it is Celtics/Sixers with Wilt/Lakers and then the rest. In the 80's its the Celtics/Lakers and then the others. In the 90's it's only the Bulls and then the rest.

I mean, if you can mention any supporting duo in the 90's better or even close to Scottie/Horace during the first 3-peat or Scottie/Dennis in the second be my guest.

Penny and horace, short lived as it was (shaq, penny and grant had 1 single fully healthy playoffs run together)

Stockton-hornacek 96/97 is close-ish

[tsherkin]

Not that I agree with anything Countryboy said, but pretty good, quite deep, nasty and talented do not weigh in on stacked. You have those teams in any decade.

If we talk about stacked in the 60's it is Celtics/Sixers with Wilt/Lakers and then the rest. In the 80's its the Celtics/Lakers and then the others.

And the early Sixers, again. Don't forget them.

n the 90's it's only the Bulls and then the rest.

I mean, if you can mention any supporting duo in the 90's better or even close to Scottie/Horace during the first 3-peat or Scottie/Dennis in the second be my guest.

falco handled this already, and rather nicely. And honestly, the Knicks crop up as well in the early 90s. They didn't have as much offensive talent, but they took the Bulls to the limit in 92 and were a tough out in 93.

And like I said, Indiana was very deep. They spread it around a little more than concentrating it in two primary players, but they were quite talented. 94 and 95 were one thing, and they took the 98 Bulls to 7.

[AEnigma]

If the argument is that other teams in full had as much or only more roster quality than the Bulls did without Jordan, then that just speaks to the original point.

Taking the best player off every roster in that period, the only ones I would say stack up moderately well to the typical Bulls season are the 1993-96 Sonics and the 1995/96 Magic. Jordan had that for most of a decade.

Which is of course not unusual when you look at the general history of which teams win or otherwise compete for titles, but that is why we should go beyond “6-0!!!!”

[tsherkin]

If the argument is that other teams in full had as much or only more roster quality than the Bulls did without Jordan, then that just speaks to the original point.

Taking the best player off every roster in that period, the only ones I would say stack up moderately well to the typical Bulls season are the 1993-96 Sonics and the 1995/96 Magic. Jordan had that for most of a decade.

Which is of course not unusual when you look at the general history of which teams win or otherwise compete for titles, but that is why we should go beyond “6-0!!!!”

Jordan definitely had high-end teams, and yes, that's what is required for a dynasty. My umbrage is taken over the idea that this somehow diminishes the achievements he and the Bulls had. It speaks to a certain level of bias and disingenuity of discourse, you know? It's unquestionable that the Bulls were a high-end squad, but they weren't so to a degree that the dynasties of the 80s, or the dominant 60s Celtics, were not. And like, three-peat Lakers? The Golden State Warriors? You don't perennially challenge for a title without talent. That's how it works.

[Texas Chuck]

If the argument is that other teams in full had as much or only more roster quality than the Bulls did without Jordan, then that just speaks to the original point.

Taking the best player off every roster in that period, the only ones I would say stack up moderately well to the typical Bulls season are the 1993-96 Sonics and the 1995/96 Magic. Jordan had that for most of a decade.

Which is of course not unusual when you look at the general history of which teams win or otherwise compete for titles, but that is why we should go beyond “6-0!!!!”

Jordan definitely had high-end teams, and yes, that's what is required for a dynasty. My umbrage is taken over the idea that this somehow diminishes the achievements he and the Bulls had. It speaks to a certain level of bias and disingenuity of discourse, you know? It's unquestionable that the Bulls were a high-end squad, but they weren't so to a degree that the dynasties of the 80s, or the dominant 60s Celtics, were not. And like, three-peat Lakers? The Golden State Warriors? You don't perennially challenge for a title without talent. That's how it works.

To me this is at the heart of Mike's case. Not 6-0 specifically, but what you want from your superstar is if you give them a championship level team they deliver championships. And he did. Repeatedly. He doesn't have to apologize to anyone for having stacked teams with a great coach, because he delivered. Same when people want to dismiss Russell or Duncan for their teammates. Nah, see all they did was win and win and win.

None of these players, not even LeGM in the player empowerment era are in control of their rosters. I hate penalizing players for having great rosters(or conversely for having poor ones). Did they get the most out of what they had? Then they get full marks from me.

[tsherkin]

To me this is at the heart of Mike's case. Not 6-0 specifically, but what you want from your superstar is if you give them a championship level team they deliver championships. And he did. Repeatedly. He doesn't have to apologize to anyone for having stacked teams with a great coach, because he delivered. Same when people want to dismiss Russell or Duncan for their teammates. Nah, see all they did was win and win and win.

Yeah, I wouldn't want anyone to be apologizing for winning the way they should. Jordan was still legitimately one of the best offensive players the league had seen at the time, and fundamentally altered how the league saw guard scorers to some extent. He has a whole pile of achievements which transcend team success, as well as the team success. His career arc has nearly the perfect narrative, which is one of the reasons people flock to him so rabidly.

[OhayoKD]

IMO, Jordan won with a stacked team in one of the weaker eras of the NBA's history and doesn't deserve to be GOAT.

Right here, you invalidate your own point.

First of all, Wilt had a pair of All-Stars on his 67 title team..

This doesn't neccestiate that wilt's team was more stacked in 67 than jordan's title teams. All star/all-nba's aren't neccesarily accurate proxies of team quality. Ex: The Cavaliers had 2 all stars but then when those two-all stars were left to their own deivices they could only win at a sub 30 win pace.

The 55 wins the bulls managed without Jordan and the 50 win srs they managed in b2b seasons is rarified air for casts built around atg's.

The argument offered for wilt isn't really compelling but "he had 2 all stars and therefore you can't argue jordan had a more stacked team" doesn't work either.

The major issue for either is Russell who won more and won with minimal help at least once in 69. Idk why people aren't addressing that, but someone probably should. Maybe you can get around this by arguing that wilt taking russell to 7 on the warriors(or the sixers without co-stars) was a super impressive carry job

My umbrage is taken over the idea that this somehow diminishes the achievements he and the Bulls had.

The diminishing comes when you're pushing for someone as the greatest player ever which means they need to hold up against every player ever. You don't seem to like pdople having standards, but standards are indeed going to be at play in this sort of conversation.

[OhayoKD]

If the argument is that other teams in full had as much or only more roster quality than the Bulls did without Jordan, then that just speaks to the original point.

Taking the best player off every roster in that period, the only ones I would say stack up moderately well to the typical Bulls season are the 1993-96 Sonics and the 1995/96 Magic. Jordan had that for most of a decade.

Which is of course not unusual when you look at the general history of which teams win or otherwise compete for titles, but that is why we should go beyond “6-0!!!!”

Jordan definitely had high-end teams, and yes, that's what is required for a dynasty. My umbrage is taken over the idea that this somehow diminishes the achievements he and the Bulls had. It speaks to a certain level of bias and disingenuity of discourse, you know? It's unquestionable that the Bulls were a high-end squad, but they weren't so to a degree that the dynasties of the 80s, or the dominant 60s Celtics, were not. And like, three-peat Lakers? The Golden State Warriors? You don't perennially challenge for a title without talent. That's how it works.

To me this is at the heart of Mike's case. Not 6-0 specifically, but what you want from your superstar is if you give them a championship level team they deliver championships. And he did. Repeatedly. He doesn't have to apologize to anyone for having stacked teams with a great coach, because he delivered. Same when people want to dismiss Russell or Duncan for their teammates. Nah, see all they did was win and win and win.

None of these players, not even LeGM in the player empowerment era are in control of their rosters. I hate penalizing players for having great rosters(or conversely for having poor ones). Did they get the most out of what they had? Then they get full marks from me.

That's still just a poor man's version of Bill's case though

[Cavsfansince84]

This doesn't neccestiate that wilt's team was more stacked in 67 than jordan's title teams. All star/all-nba's aren't neccesarily accurate proxies of team quality. Ex: The Cavaliers had 2 all stars but then when those two-all stars were left to their own deivices they could only win at a sub 30 win pace.

The 55 wins the bulls managed without Jordan and the 50 win srs they managed in b2b seasons is rarified air for casts built around atg's.

The argument offered for wilt isn't really compelling but "he had 2 all stars and therefore you can't argue jordan had a more stacked team" doesn't work either.

The major issue for either is Russell who won more and won with minimal help at least once in 69. Idk why people aren't addressing that, but someone probably should. Maybe you can get around this by arguing that wilt taking russell to 7 on the warriors(or the sixers without co-stars) was a super impressive carry job

I don't see 69 as a carry job for Russell. He had on top of his usual suspects(Hondo and a declining Jones) a very good Howell but then in the playoffs Hondo basically plays like a top 5 player in the league. Definitely far above his 63-66 performances.

[PistolPeteJR]

I would rather not devolve this thread into those kind of comparisions

I get the point of the comment tho, every player deals with personal issues so trying to account for all of them when comparing players is a pointless errant

I'm being sarcastic but pointing out the flaw in the argument. I'll never spend time on a forum discussing whose personal life affected their basketball career more.

Some will though

I've pointed this out a few times and it seems relevant now. We don't compare Jordan the player with Lebron the player. We compare Jordan the myth with Lebron the player. And for those who have bought into Jordan the myth, his dad's murder, the flu game, 6-0, etc are all canon that is hugely important to them.

And its impossible to compete with a myth. Which sucks, because Jordan the player was incredible and maybe the best we've ever seen(I don't personally think so, but I also don't think its outrageous to suggest). He shouldn't need the myth. Just like Kobe doesn't need the Duncan attacks in order to be a great player.

But some are obsessed with their hero's place in the pantheon as opposed to anything else. Which is fine. I don't want to tell someone not to be a great fan of a team or a player. But I do wish they were more honest with themselves about what they were after. For all of RD's issues, to his credit, he never once pretended to be about anything other than elevating Kobe and denigrating KG. It's the pretending otherwise that gets hard to respond to politely.

This is gold.