Lowest reasonable ranking for Michael Jordan?

[MacGill]

Jordan did play on some really good teams, but as I've stated already he's getting undercredited for what he did on them. Anyone claiming Horace was a top 100 player all time (a bunch of posters here) is a big red flag imo. Anyone claiming Scottie as a top 30 guy is similarly outing themselves. Or claiming that it was the triangle that was responsible for Jordan's success. No.

The question really should be - Would you rather take MJ's Wizard years or Pippen's post Bulls years?

[MrLurker]

I'm getting accused of starting from a conclusion and working backwards. That's probably fair to an extent. I watched a lot of Bulls games and followed the team in real time with family from Chicago who lived and died with that team. I'd be lying if I said I didn't have some pre-conceived notions. I might, however, characterize those notions as well formed hypotheses. Fans know.

I'd similarly accuse others arguing for as low as 8th or 9th with zero shot at #1 as starting from much less well founded pre-conceived notions.

It so often comes back to the on/offs. If you start from a place of older MJ's on/offs in 97 & 98 weren't anything special, and 94 Bulls (i.e. the remnants of first three-peat) were similarly effective without MJ and therefore it's likely he just played on superior teams the whole time, then anything less than full career samples is unlikely to change your opinion. And so you ignore or disregard as anecdotal a whole host of evidence that contradicts your presupposition.

a) you don't consider or ignore the context of how different Scottie, Horace, and BJ's level of play was between early 90s and 94. You don't consider the impact someone like Kukoc had as a late game threat new addition;
b) you don't consider things like how playing huge mins with Shaq and Penny, Shaq and Kobe, and TMac might've helped boost Horace's plus/minus data on other teams; all that matters is he showed well in seasons minus Jordan;
c) you put zero emphasis on how much trouble Bulls had scoring when Mike wasn't in the game during 80s and early 90s, and how often Scottie and Horace shrank in big moments during that period;
d) you ignore all the 85, 88, 91, and 93 plus/minus data, claiming it to be too sss. 94,95,97,98 is the real data because we have full seasons, and nevermind that 96 looked a lot more like the 92 team in terms of Jordan's effectiveness. Also, nevermind that Jordan was clearly not 100% in 95, and that he didn't even physically look like the same guy as 96. So instead of 95 being about Jordan being substantially compromised, it's about how integral Horace was to those teams.
e) you think the triangle was what elevated Jordan instead of what elevated Jordan's teammates.

These takes just don't pass the smell test.

Why do we think that the plus minus data from 89, 90, and 92 is going to look any different from what we have in 88 and 91 and 93? Why is 87 going to look any different from what we have in 85? That entire period is going to show net on-offs in the +15-25 range when it's all said and done. To compare, given Bill's mins played, it wouldn't be reasonable to assume he's anywhere near that in his best seasons (at least from the perspective of match MJ's best on numbers).

Jordan did play on some really good teams, but as I've stated already he's getting undercredited for what he did on them. Anyone claiming Horace was a top 100 player all time (a bunch of posters here) is a big red flag imo. Anyone claiming Scottie as a top 30 guy is similarly outing themselves. Or claiming that it was the triangle that was responsible for Jordan's success. No.

I appreciate the effort you put into this - lots to dig into here.

These are lower limits. Poster Rishkar said Jordan's reasonable low at 16 - but actually ranks him 3rd. That number is too low for me - and you - but it is possible that is just them being more open-minded than we are.

I have not seen a comment here communicating that they think the Bulls didn't get substantially worse without Jordan in 94 - Jordan was a great player. But one can be 8 or 9 and great too.

Differences in play - yes - but was this path so storybook? The 1991 title-run through the 1992 regular season felt like an extended hot-streak for everyone. Jordan's numbers were very good and he played very well - but he had also played very well before on a team that had not done so well.

Struggling to score - yes - but Jordan is first and foremost a scorer. I don't quite get your point. Were you expecting them not to?

I have not seen Grant's plus-minus here but yes - that might be important. But perhaps this is why small snips without Jordan are discounted - or given less weight.

Coming up small - at points - but they also came up big at points. That is true for many greats.

94 and 95 are there. But there's also 84 and 86. To make a long-story shot - those numbers - are not the highest - or even that close. The plus-minis looks better but - even taken at face-value - it only really marks Jordan as a peer for the best players of a specific peiod.

And yes - the use of net-ratings and numbers to - as different posters have pointed out, exalt Jordan over Russell is especially poor-founded to me.

And- there I think we disconnect. The grounds for 8 or 9 does not seem less well founded to me than pushing Jordan 1 or 2

Honestly, being as detached as I can, large stretches presenting Jordan as quite a bit short being pit against small periods which make him look worthy does not really lead to a happy middle where Jordan is somehow 1. And that is all before a wealth of other potential considerations come into play..

And still you place him 1 - and others may place him 8. I do not think that warrants such a confrontational approach.

[homecourtloss]

This is the mindset that engenders so much of the animus in these debates: Anyone who dares put forth reasonable cases (and we’ve seen multiple reasonable cases backed with data by highly intelligent posters) is from the outset categorized as “anti-Jordan” who posit based on “faulty Jordan assumptions.” People have a problem when posters mention “deification” and “hagiographic” sentiments (reactions to comments such as these, mind you), but when original positions start out with what’s posted here, it’s hard ;
not to frame as such.

If I'm out of line for claiming a bunch of the stuff itt flat out anti-Jordan, then you're just as out of line for calling the pro-Jordan sentiments deification and hagiographic. Further, it's WAY more likely that a bunch of posters like you with a history of crapping on MJ all over the place would succumb to their bias than posters like me actually seeing Jordan as some kind of God. Get real.

This type of post only furthers my point, i.e., an angry, emotional, accusatory post devoid of substance targeting someone who dares not have Jordan at the top and labeling those ideas and posts stating as such as “crapping on MJ all over the place,” a projection of what many do here regarding LeBron or anyone else anyone dares discusses as a GOAT candidate other than Jordan; sadly, this is par for the course.

[The Explorer]

#3, behind Abdul Jabbar and/or Russell.

[Djoker]

We've had a couple of posters come on here saying that Jordan doesn't have a reasonable case for #1. I won't name names but we know who they are and their takes have been just ridiculous. It can only be expected that Jordan fans will respond to that in kind with equally extreme takes like "Jordan is untouchable".

The bottom line is...

Jordan has a very easy case for GOAT. Given that he has the best box score stats and is the most decorated player of the modern era, it is a quick, painless argument. Which is why most people do have him as the GOAT.

Other players obviously also have cases for GOAT. I have made such cases for both Russell and Kareem in the past and in fact Russell is my GOAT narrowly ahead of MJ. I've also laid out my reasoning for why I feel like Lebron's case is weaker than the other three and why I ranked him #4 all-time but he still has a reasonable case.

[1993Playoffs]

I know it’s all subjective but some people really think it’s “unreasonable” to have Lebron over MJ in 2023?

That’s pure insanity IMO

[bigboi]

I know it’s all subjective but some people really think it’s “unreasonable” to have Lebron over MJ in 2023?

That’s pure insanity IMO

Yes.

[eminence]

I probably wouldn't call MJ part of the modern era any more, I think you can argue for the modern era either starting with MDA or with the mid 10s Kerr/LeBron returning to CLE/Harden in Houston as Kobe/Duncan/KG/Dirk all faded out. But MJ? The game is just massively different at this point.

[Cavsfansince84]

I probably wouldn't call MJ part of the modern era any more, I think you can argue for the modern era either starting with MDA or with the mid 10s Kerr/LeBron returning to CLE/Harden in Houston as Kobe/Duncan/KG/Dirk all faded out. But MJ? The game is just massively different at this point.

I would say definitely not. I think there's a new era every 10-15 years. It's just a matter of what that in itself means to people when discussing/comparing players.

[OhayoKD]

Jordan has a very easy case for GOAT. Given that he has the best box score stats and is the most decorated player of the modern era, it is a quick, painless argument. Which is why most people do have him as the GOAT.

Nothing says "very easy case for GOAT" like forgetting what GOAT stands for.

"best box-score stats' also isn't really a thing.

We've had a couple of posters come on here saying that Jordan doesn't have a reasonable case for #1. I won't name names but we know who they are and their takes have been just ridiculous. It can only be expected that Jordan fans will respond to that in kind with equally extreme takes like "Jordan is untouchable".

And yet one set of "ridiculous takes" has continued to gain-traction in a board that has never seriously entertained anyone else as being better(excepting career length).

I'd say that speaks to an advantage in evidence, reasoning, and argumentation, but cope however you see fit.