What's the strongest data-driven argument for Michael Jordan as GOAT?

[Gregoire]

Jordan is as statistically dominant as Lebron BEING as accomplished as Russell. Its why he is GOAT. Empty stats doesnt matters. And winning without dominance matters less.

But Jordan doesn't have as much accomplishements as Russell. What do you mean by "statistically dominant" - that he scored more points? That's not what makes player more dominant on the basketball court.

He doesnt quite as much, but he has best combination. Like Gretzky in hockey. And without "forcing" stats and "chasing" winning like Lebron for example. In which stats Lebron is more dominant? Scoring points is most important thing on the basketball court if you didnt know.

[ShaqAttac]

Don't change the topic. I wouldn't call Klay a great player.
What makes Heinsohn a great player?

he prob just looked at his wikipedia page. just like 25 mpg sam jones

Second leading scorer by volume and most efficient in the 1969 finals. Given that he is one of three players on the 75th Anniversary Team on those Celtics it is fair to extend him the courtesy of being called one of the three best players on that team.

2nd leading scorer on a team that was good on d, not o. u know players get worse over time? i think u should extend urself a courtesy and stop saying things to say things. the 2nd best player was better in 70. didnt make playoffs. bulls were still good when it was just pip and no grant.

stop with the excuses already. 11>6 n jordan had more help. 11>5 n curry had more help. pee pee gee didnt mean nothin

[70sFan]

Might as well ask what makes Klay Thompson a great player. Heinsohn averaged more points in the playoffs in his career than Thompson.

Don't change the topic. I wouldn't call Klay a great player.
What makes Heinsohn a great player?

Well I didn't call Heinsohn a great player either but being the highest scorer multiple times on championship teams with three/four other players who are on the 75th Anniversary Team is nothing to sneeze at.

As a Curry fan, I am sure you appreciate efficiency. How many times Heinsohn scored all these points above league average efficiency?

[WarriorGM]

he prob just looked at his wikipedia page. just like 25 mpg sam jones

Second leading scorer by volume and most efficient in the 1969 finals. Given that he is one of three players on the 75th Anniversary Team on those Celtics it is fair to extend him the courtesy of being called one of the three best players on that team.

2nd leading scorer on a team that was good on d, not o. u know players get worse over time? i think u should extend urself a courtesy and stop saying things to say things. the 2nd best player was better in 70. didnt make playoffs. bulls were still good when it was just pip and no grant.

stop with the excuses already. 11>6 n jordan had more help. 11>5 n curry had more help. pee pee gee didnt mean nothin

It really is something to behold such a claim. On the contrary among the top 10 it is probably easier to argue that Jordan and Curry are among the players who had the least help especially at the start of their careers. They had to turn around losing franchises. LeBron too but he took longer to win with the team that drafted him than either Jordan or Curry. Russell in his first year had that year's MVP as a teammate and another guy who was All-NBA and both those teammates are on the 75th Anniversary Team. Can you imagine if in 2010 Curry started his career with LeBron and Kobe as his teammates?

[ShaqAttac]

Second leading scorer by volume and most efficient in the 1969 finals. Given that he is one of three players on the 75th Anniversary Team on those Celtics it is fair to extend him the courtesy of being called one of the three best players on that team.

2nd leading scorer on a team that was good on d, not o. u know players get worse over time? i think u should extend urself a courtesy and stop saying things to say things. the 2nd best player was better in 70. didnt make playoffs. bulls were still good when it was just pip and no grant.

stop with the excuses already. 11>6 n jordan had more help. 11>5 n curry had more help. pee pee gee didnt mean nothin

It really is something to behold such a claim. On the contrary among the top 10 it is probably easier to argue that Jordan and Curry are among the players who had the least help especially at the start of their careers. They had to turn around losing franchises. LeBron too but he took longer to win with the team that drafted him than either Jordan or Curry. Russell in his first year had that year's MVP as a teammate and another guy who was All-NBA and both those teammates are on the 75th Anniversary Team.

its easy if you pretend that pee-pee-gee n wiki pages matter more than winnin. we saw the celtics without russ n a 6th man. we saw the bulls without the best n 3rd best player. the bulls were better. yet mj wisn 5 less rings. pure excuses.

[ShaqAttac]

Don't change the topic. I wouldn't call Klay a great player.
What makes Heinsohn a great player?

Well I didn't call Heinsohn a great player either but being the highest scorer multiple times on championship teams with three/four other players who are on the 75th Anniversary Team is nothing to sneeze at.

As a Curry fan, I am sure you appreciate efficiency. How many times Heinsohn scored all these points above league average efficiency?

he appreicate whatever allows him to say 5>11

[70sFan]

Jordan is as statistically dominant as Lebron BEING as accomplished as Russell. Its why he is GOAT. Empty stats doesnt matters. And winning without dominance matters less.

But Jordan doesn't have as much accomplishements as Russell. What do you mean by "statistically dominant" - that he scored more points? That's not what makes player more dominant on the basketball court.

He doesnt quite as much, but he has best combination. Like Gretzky in hockey. And without "forcing" stats and "chasing" winning like Lebron for example. In which stats Lebron is more dominant? Scoring points is most important thing on the basketball court if you didnt know.

Team advantage over the opponent is more important than individual scoring, you know?

[ShaqAttac]

But Jordan doesn't have as much accomplishements as Russell. What do you mean by "statistically dominant" - that he scored more points? That's not what makes player more dominant on the basketball court.

He doesnt quite as much, but he has best combination. Like Gretzky in hockey. And without "forcing" stats and "chasing" winning like Lebron for example. In which stats Lebron is more dominant? Scoring points is most important thing on the basketball court if you didnt know.

Team advantage over the opponent is more important than individual scoring, you know?

and mj makes less of that than both while winning way less than one but pee-pee-gee the stat that matters

[lessthanjake]

Honestly speaking, your argument wasn’t very convincing. I was hoping for more.

Really all you said is longevity and then some reaching arguments and false equivalence.

I don’t really want to go through the whole Pc board thread. Can someone present the best lebron argument here so we can review? What’s been posted so far is pretty weak.

nah reachin is tryna use all-stars to say a team that was very good without mj wasnt actually very good. imagine thinkin all-stars matters more than winning. cavs were bad without lebron and then beat a 73 win team with him. lebron was winning 60 n 66 b2b with less help than mj needed just to win 50. bron a way better defender n better attacker so idk what the confusion is.

there was a good take down in the top 10 overrated thread. idk where that is

Funny seeing people making a big deal about beating a 73-win team that was down a starter for the last 3 games of their series and who had its best player returning from injuries earlier in the playoffs is made into a big deal but actually leading a team to 70+ wins isn't.

This is something that has long confused me. LeBron beating the 2016 Warriors is held up by many as his greatest accomplishment—the thing that made him the GOAT. And I do think it was impressive. But what does that say about Steph Curry that beating Steph’s team was the greatest accomplishment of the apparent GOAT? This wasn’t the KD Warriors. It was Steph Curry (who had been injured in the playoffs), Draymond Green (who missed a game), Klay Thompson, and some good depth (which wasn’t even exactly the case once Bogut was injured in the finals). While Draymond was definitely having his best season ever, this wasn’t a supporting cast that on paper would compete with the most talented teams of all time. For reference, throughout that era, even with KD, they were basically a .500 team by wins and SRS without Curry. And yet, they won 73 games, and beating them was such an accomplishment that it was the crowning achievement of the greatest player of all time. Surely, the conclusion from that would be that Steph Curry deserves *immense* credit for causing his team to be so good that beating them was the greatest accomplishment in basketball history? But, oddly, I find that people who most extol LeBron’s achievement of beating that team are often somehow also people who don’t think super highly of Curry. It doesn’t make much sense to me.

[ShaqAttac]

nah reachin is tryna use all-stars to say a team that was very good without mj wasnt actually very good. imagine thinkin all-stars matters more than winning. cavs were bad without lebron and then beat a 73 win team with him. lebron was winning 60 n 66 b2b with less help than mj needed just to win 50. bron a way better defender n better attacker so idk what the confusion is.

there was a good take down in the top 10 overrated thread. idk where that is

Funny seeing people making a big deal about beating a 73-win team that was down a starter for the last 3 games of their series and who had its best player returning from injuries earlier in the playoffs is made into a big deal but actually leading a team to 70+ wins isn't.

This is something that has long confused me. LeBron beating the 2016 Warriors is held up by many as his greatest accomplishment—the thing that made him the GOAT. And I do think it was impressive. But what does that say about Steph Curry that beating Steph’s team was the greatest accomplishment of the apparent GOAT? This wasn’t the KD Warriors. It was Steph Curry (who had been injured in the playoffs), Draymond Green (who missed a game), Klay Thompson, and some good depth (which wasn’t even exactly the case once Bogut was injured in the finals). While Draymond was definitely having his best season ever, this wasn’t a supporting cast that on paper would compete with the most talented teams of all time. And yet, they won 73 games, and beating them was such an accomplishment that it was the crowning achievement of the greatest player of all time. Surely, the conclusion from that would be that Steph Curry deserve *immense* credit for causing his team to be so good that beating them was the greatest accomplishment in basketball history? But, oddly, I find that people who most extol LeBron’s achievement of beating that team are often somehow also people who don’t think super highly of Curry. It doesn’t make much sense to me.

maybe coz stephs team coulda made the cf without him? or do teammates only matter when u want 6 to be > 11.

[lessthanjake]

Funny seeing people making a big deal about beating a 73-win team that was down a starter for the last 3 games of their series and who had its best player returning from injuries earlier in the playoffs is made into a big deal but actually leading a team to 70+ wins isn't.

This is something that has long confused me. LeBron beating the 2016 Warriors is held up by many as his greatest accomplishment—the thing that made him the GOAT. And I do think it was impressive. But what does that say about Steph Curry that beating Steph’s team was the greatest accomplishment of the apparent GOAT? This wasn’t the KD Warriors. It was Steph Curry (who had been injured in the playoffs), Draymond Green (who missed a game), Klay Thompson, and some good depth (which wasn’t even exactly the case once Bogut was injured in the finals). While Draymond was definitely having his best season ever, this wasn’t a supporting cast that on paper would compete with the most talented teams of all time. And yet, they won 73 games, and beating them was such an accomplishment that it was the crowning achievement of the greatest player of all time. Surely, the conclusion from that would be that Steph Curry deserve *immense* credit for causing his team to be so good that beating them was the greatest accomplishment in basketball history? But, oddly, I find that people who most extol LeBron’s achievement of beating that team are often somehow also people who don’t think super highly of Curry. It doesn’t make much sense to me.

maybe coz stephs team coulda made the cf without him? or do teammates only matter when u want 6 to be > 11.

During that era (including even once they got KD), Steph’s team was roughly a .500 team by wins and SRS when Curry didn’t play. There’s not a WOWY argument against Curry’s impact on that team.

[ShaqAttac]

This is something that has long confused me. LeBron beating the 2016 Warriors is held up by many as his greatest accomplishment—the thing that made him the GOAT. And I do think it was impressive. But what does that say about Steph Curry that beating Steph’s team was the greatest accomplishment of the apparent GOAT? This wasn’t the KD Warriors. It was Steph Curry (who had been injured in the playoffs), Draymond Green (who missed a game), Klay Thompson, and some good depth (which wasn’t even exactly the case once Bogut was injured in the finals). While Draymond was definitely having his best season ever, this wasn’t a supporting cast that on paper would compete with the most talented teams of all time. And yet, they won 73 games, and beating them was such an accomplishment that it was the crowning achievement of the greatest player of all time. Surely, the conclusion from that would be that Steph Curry deserve *immense* credit for causing his team to be so good that beating them was the greatest accomplishment in basketball history? But, oddly, I find that people who most extol LeBron’s achievement of beating that team are often somehow also people who don’t think super highly of Curry. It doesn’t make much sense to me.

maybe coz stephs team coulda made the cf without him? or do teammates only matter when u want 6 to be > 11.

During that era, Steph’s team was roughly a .500 team by wins and SRS when Curry didn’t play. There’s not a WOWY argument against Curry’s impact on that team.

doesnt wowy say the celtics were worse than .500 during his 11 chips?

[WarriorGM]

nah reachin is tryna use all-stars to say a team that was very good without mj wasnt actually very good. imagine thinkin all-stars matters more than winning. cavs were bad without lebron and then beat a 73 win team with him. lebron was winning 60 n 66 b2b with less help than mj needed just to win 50. bron a way better defender n better attacker so idk what the confusion is.

there was a good take down in the top 10 overrated thread. idk where that is

Funny seeing people making a big deal about beating a 73-win team that was down a starter for the last 3 games of their series and who had its best player returning from injuries earlier in the playoffs is made into a big deal but actually leading a team to 70+ wins isn't.

This is something that has long confused me. LeBron beating the 2016 Warriors is held up by many as his greatest accomplishment—the thing that made him the GOAT. And I do think it was impressive. But what does that say about Steph Curry that beating Steph’s team was the greatest accomplishment of the apparent GOAT? This wasn’t the KD Warriors. It was Steph Curry (who had been injured in the playoffs), Draymond Green (who missed a game), Klay Thompson, and some good depth (which wasn’t even exactly the case once Bogut was injured in the finals). While Draymond was definitely having his best season ever, this wasn’t a supporting cast that on paper would compete with the most talented teams of all time. For reference, throughout that era, even with KD, they were basically a .500 team by wins and SRS without Curry. And yet, they won 73 games, and beating them was such an accomplishment that it was the crowning achievement of the greatest player of all time. Surely, the conclusion from that would be that Steph Curry deserves *immense* credit for causing his team to be so good that beating them was the greatest accomplishment in basketball history? But, oddly, I find that people who most extol LeBron’s achievement of beating that team are often somehow also people who don’t think super highly of Curry. It doesn’t make much sense to me.

You expect logical consistency from someone making the case for LeBron as the greatest? Ha! Dream on. LOL!

[ty 4191]

Who is the greatest international player?

Of the last 5 years? Doncic, Jokic, or Giannis.

Gobert is 3rd in total Win Shares the last 5 years, also.

[twyzted]

1989-1998 there were:

-16 of 29 teams (55%) during Jordan's prime below .500
-There were 10 of 29 teams (34%) under .400
-2 under .300 (!) winning percentage

The last 10 years, that % is:
-12 of 30 teams under .500
-3 out of 30 teams (10%) under .400
-0 out of 30 teams under .300 (the worst team, Magic, are at .361)

That's a garbage league he played in.

The game is much more evolved than it was in 1998. That's what you don't seem to understand. At all.

And, you've proposed literally nothing to disabuse people of their belief that LeBron has been greater, and, for longer.

So the nba was good until 89 and it sucked to the year 1999 when it took an unprecidented leap?

Im pretty sure 13-14 teams miss the playoffs every year up until play in started.

So there were still 4 rounds in the playoffs to win the title.

The NBA was relatively strong until 88-89 and then took awhile to recover. It took another hit in 1995-1996 when more awful expansion teams were added.

Read this:

https://howtheyplay.com/team-sports/Why-Michael-Jordan-is-Overrated

Specifically "Jordan Played In A Weak League".

Im sure this guys isnt biased or anything.

I'm an English teacher by day and a sports writer by night. The Cleveland Browns are my first love, but my wife is my greatest. LeBron James is the GOAT! If you have a sports argument, let me know! I love researching new topics!

[WarriorGM]

Who is the greatest international player?

Of the last 5 years? Doncic, Jokic, or Giannis.

Gobert is 3rd in total Win Shares the last 5 years, also.

No. The greatest international player ever in the NBA.

[lessthanjake]

maybe coz stephs team coulda made the cf without him? or do teammates only matter when u want 6 to be > 11.

During that era, Steph’s team was roughly a .500 team by wins and SRS when Curry didn’t play. There’s not a WOWY argument against Curry’s impact on that team.

doesnt wowy say the celtics were worse than .500 during his 11 chips?

We aren’t talking about Bill Russell—who, by the way, is only 24th all time in prime WOWY. And YOU are the one who brought up the concept of WOWY, when you basically claimed that the rationale for LeBron beating the 2016 Warriors being the greatest accomplishment ever while Steph isn’t that great is that the rest of the team was great.

[twyzted]

i mean

theres also all the stuff kd listed when he capped ya.

mj is literally just bootleg russell

and by da "Impaact" bro gets smoked by bron, cap, n russ

Are you kidding me lol? All of that is longevity based man lol! All time leader in mvp shares? Longevity…tied for most allstar appearances lol? Longevity based…best player on his team for 19 years? Thats longevity based….all nba and allstar selections? Thats longevity based….3 different franchises??? Who cares? That means he jumped around and he joined other allstar players in the process. Jordan created a dynasty in Chicago winning 6 titles and 2 3 peats. James joined Wade and Bosh in Miami. 3 allstar players on the same team lol? He joined Love and Kyrie in Cleveland. 3 allstar players on the same team. He failed in LA so he had to beg Davis to come join him in LA. When did Jordan play with 2 other allstar players? Only Pippen made the allstar team with Jordan.

Grant made the allatar team once with Orlando. Rodman twice with Detroit. Kukoc made the nba allstar team the same amount of times as me. All those postseason stats are cause longevity man. Jordan has a higher postseason winning pct which means what? He won more often when playing. Anything James has over Jordan is longevity based.

pippen n grant were a 55 win team without mj. just pippen was still 50+. who cares about "all-stars"

bron beat a 73-win team with less help. russell cooked wilt n west with less help. mj's never won **** without a team that didn't need him to cook

No 34-31 isnt a 50 win team, its not mathematically possible.

[ShaqAttac]

Are you kidding me lol? All of that is longevity based man lol! All time leader in mvp shares? Longevity…tied for most allstar appearances lol? Longevity based…best player on his team for 19 years? Thats longevity based….all nba and allstar selections? Thats longevity based….3 different franchises??? Who cares? That means he jumped around and he joined other allstar players in the process. Jordan created a dynasty in Chicago winning 6 titles and 2 3 peats. James joined Wade and Bosh in Miami. 3 allstar players on the same team lol? He joined Love and Kyrie in Cleveland. 3 allstar players on the same team. He failed in LA so he had to beg Davis to come join him in LA. When did Jordan play with 2 other allstar players? Only Pippen made the allstar team with Jordan.

Grant made the allatar team once with Orlando. Rodman twice with Detroit. Kukoc made the nba allstar team the same amount of times as me. All those postseason stats are cause longevity man. Jordan has a higher postseason winning pct which means what? He won more often when playing. Anything James has over Jordan is longevity based.

pippen n grant were a 55 win team without mj. just pippen was still 50+. who cares about "all-stars"

bron beat a 73-win team with less help. russell cooked wilt n west with less help. mj's never won **** without a team that didn't need him to cook

No 34-31 isnt a 50 win team, its not mathematically possible.

which is still better than the 70 cetlics its srs anyway

[ShaqAttac]

During that era, Steph’s team was roughly a .500 team by wins and SRS when Curry didn’t play. There’s not a WOWY argument against Curry’s impact on that team.

doesnt wowy say the celtics were worse than .500 during his 11 chips?

We aren’t talking about Bill Russell—who, by the way, is only 24th all time in prime WOWY.

boi u ain't slick. gold already tried that. the on in wowy is srs not chips. 11-chips with <.500 help is >>>>>>>> anyone else