RGM GOAT Debate Thread

[tsherkin]

Barkley would target and bully MJ on Offense

Wasn't an issue in 93. Why would it be an issue this way?

Barkley/Pippen Bulls in 6 games vs MJ

Yeah, no. Pippen wasn't good enough to back up Barkley against that squad. Particularly 93 Barkley, who wasn't as incandescent as he'd been for the Sixers as a scoring threat. Jordan leading those Suns would definitely win in 5 or 6 games against the Bulls with Barkley replacing him.

[HotRocks34]

Jordan = GOAT

[LaLover11]

Barkley would target and bully MJ on Offense

Wasn't an issue in 93. Why would it be an issue this way?

Barkley/Pippen Bulls in 6 games vs MJ

Yeah, no. Pippen wasn't good enough to back up Barkley against that squad. Particularly 93 Barkley, who wasn't as incandescent as he'd been for the Sixers as a scoring threat. Jordan leading those Suns would definitely win in 5 or 6 games against the Bulls with Barkley replacing him.

Lmao ok

I completely disagree but I respect your opinion

[Bourne85]

Maybe if Lebron did what Curry ended up doing. But he had a very pedestrian Olympics. Didn’t have a single game where he put his stamp on it. He just did what he always does, collects and pads the stats while other guys take the game over and hit the biggest of shots. Other guys save the day then you look at the stats and see oh wait a minute lebron avg 14ppg 8 rebounds 8 assist surely he was the best. Smh

[tsherkin]

I completely disagree but I respect your opinion

You recall Barkley was a 54% TS guy in the 93 Finals, right? And that his scoring efficiency had in general taken a dive relative to his peak as early as 92, his last season in Philly? In 93, he shot what was then a career-low 52% from the field and managed 47.6% against the Bulls. He wasn't targeting MJ because that would have been foolish; it would have meant him attacking more from the perimeter, with his tepid jump shot and his disadvantage in quickness and length relative to MJ. That would have been suicide offensively.

Meantime, every story which ever came out of Chicago about those practices was about Jordan lighting Pippen up all day long. The chances that Pippen was going to do a lot against him are pretty limited, particularly given his ability to move without the ball. The defenses which gave him trouble were typically fronted by a high-end rim protector, not a dominant on-ball defender. That, and illegally-physical mugging defenses, like the Bad Boys or Riley's Knicks. Pippen wasn't any of that.

Now, you remove one of Chicago's top 2 defenders and KJ starts lighting it up. Now, you give Jordan spacing from Majerle and Ainge. Majerle took more 3s in that series than Paxson and BJ combined. Now you flip the TOV% advantage Chicago had in Phoenix's favor because of Jordan, and you improve their scoring efficiency because Jordan outplayed Barkley, and you remove Chicago's eFG% advantage because again, Jordan would be cooking just the same.

There's no way Phoenix loses that series with that swap.

[tsherkin]

Maybe if Lebron did what Curry ended up doing. But he had a very pedestrian Olympics. Didn’t have a single game where he put his stamp on it. He just did what he always does, collects and pads the stats while other guys take the game over and hit the biggest of shots. Other guys save the day then you look at the stats and see oh wait a minute lebron avg 14ppg 8 rebounds 8 assist surely he was the best. Smh

None of that is right.

He led the team in rebounding, he was their primary playmaker and assist leader. He was 2nd on the team in PPG, and he shot 66% from the field.

He savaged the competition, and was their most reliable player, the cornerstone of their offense.

He was very clearly, unambiguously, the best player during the tournament.

[LaLover11]

I completely disagree but I respect your opinion

You recall Barkley was a 54% TS guy in the 93 Finals, right? And that his scoring efficiency had in general taken a dive relative to his peak as early as 92, his last season in Philly? In 93, he shot what was then a career-low 52% from the field and managed 47.6% against the Bulls. He wasn't targeting MJ because that would have been foolish; it would have meant him attacking more from the perimeter, with his tepid jump shot and his disadvantage in quickness and length relative to MJ. That would have been suicide offensively.

Meantime, every story which ever came out of Chicago about those practices was about Jordan lighting Pippen up all day long. The chances that Pippen was going to do a lot against him are pretty limited, particularly given his ability to move without the ball. The defenses which gave him trouble were typically fronted by a high-end rim protector, not a dominant on-ball defender. That, and illegally-physical mugging defenses, like the Bad Boys or Riley's Knicks. Pippen wasn't any of that.

Now, you remove one of Chicago's top 2 defenders and KJ starts lighting it up. Now, you give Jordan spacing from Majerle and Ainge. Majerle took more 3s in that series than Paxson and BJ combined. Now you flip the TOV% advantage Chicago had in Phoenix's favor because of Jordan, and you improve their scoring efficiency because Jordan outplayed Barkley, and you remove Chicago's eFG% advantage because again, Jordan would be cooking just the same.

There's no way Phoenix loses that series with that swap.

I will do a simulation and will let you know what happens

[PistolPeteJR]

Again, what’s the issue?

Losing

until Kobe was able to join Team USA in 2008.

Truthfully, the Team USA career just solidifies that LBJ wasn't able to win it all unless he got his superteams.

So you’re saying LeBron at 20yo had no excuse but to win while having a 19yo Dwight Howard, a 21yo Chris Bosh, a 22yo Dwyane Wade, a 20yo Chris Paul, etc. The only player that was good that year alongside LeBron was Wade, who had just come off winning a championship and had no rest.

And you’re comparing that to a 2008 team with a much improved LeBron, a much improved Howard, much improved Wade, Paul, etc., along with Kobe, Kidd, Williams, etc.

Okay man, do you.

[PistolPeteJR]

Are we just supposed to ignore the 2006 FIBA performance that followed too?

People opened this door when trying to use Team USA Feats for GOAT arguments.

24mpg, scoring 13.9ppg on 58 FG%, 4.8rpg and 4.1apg, 1.5spg, and decent defense.

Jordan in ‘84: 17.1ppg, 3rpg, 2apg, 1.5spg, and I’m sure also played decent defense, though I never watched. No percentages or minutes played recorded on bballref.

I’m not seeing much of a difference outside of the competition in 2006 being far superior to that in ‘84.

Again, what’s the issue?

USA lost to Greece 101-95 and ended up with the Bronze medal. Greece lost to Spain in the finals 70-47.

Context.

[Bourne85]

Maybe if Lebron did what Curry ended up doing. But he had a very pedestrian Olympics. Didn’t have a single game where he put his stamp on it. He just did what he always does, collects and pads the stats while other guys take the game over and hit the biggest of shots. Other guys save the day then you look at the stats and see oh wait a minute lebron avg 14ppg 8 rebounds 8 assist surely he was the best. Smh

None of that is right.

He led the team in rebounding, he was their primary playmaker and assist leader. He was 2nd on the team in PPG, and he shot 66% from the field.

He savaged the competition, and was their most reliable player, the cornerstone of their offense.

He was very clearly, unambiguously, the best player during the tournament.

I’ll agree to disagree, but one thing is crystal clear, without Curry’s heroics and all time performance vs Serbia and France, we walk away with a Bronze. I can’t see a single other guy on the planet taking over 2 games like Curry did and leading us to Gold. I can however think of a plethora of guys that can be the “Point Guard” for this team and dish it out to 10 other superstars. In fact, I’d argue that having Lebron on the team actually held Curry back as Lebron needs the ball in his hands 24/7. I wonder what heroic all time display he took away by pounding that ball and “leading” a team that didn’t need to be led.

[Woodsanity]

Gold as an American doesn't matter much. Now if there was a non American player in the future with 6 rings 4 mvps and 1 olympic gold that could make them goat for example.

[tsherkin]

I’ll agree to disagree, but one thing is crystal clear, without Curry’s heroics and all time performance vs Serbia and France, we walk away with a Bronze.

Steph was important, no doubt. He played very well the last two games.

I can’t see a single other guy on the planet taking over 2 games like Curry did and leading us to Gold.

He's not the only guy who can score. He is an incredible shooter, though, and that worked out very well with the anchoring threat of other guys.

I can however think of a plethora of guys that can be the “Point Guard” for this team and dish it out to 10 other superstars. In fact, I’d argue that having Lebron on the team actually held Curry back as Lebron needs the ball in his hands 24/7.

It's an old myth that Lebron needs the ball in his hands 24/7. And again, he was their best scorer on the balance of the tournament, so he was doing a lot more more than "just" dishing out assists.

Your characterization of Lebron is very, very telling.

[Wingy]

Gold as an American doesn't matter much. Now if there was a non American player in the future with 6 rings 4 mvps and 1 olympic gold that could make them goat for example.

Yup. Jordan’s golds mean little. Same as Lebron’s, Kobe’s, Durant’s, etc. in the grand scheme. Met expectations, all of them.

[HighFlyer23]

Jordan never hired any media personalities to promote him as the GOAT

This fraud lebron has an army of hired tools and still he cant solidify himself as the GOAT

[KyRo23]

Listen I hate the LeBron Jordan debate and usually stay out of these threads but one thing always seems to be clear….

LeBron always has the most to lose in these situations but on the other hand, if he wins he doesn’t get the benefits of it. People are still bringing up 2004, an Olympics he barely even played in. If they would have lost this year, this would be a major stain on his legacy to a lot of people.

Now on the flip side, people will now say that this doesn’t mean much when comparing the two. But why not? If it would have been the end of the world if a 40 year old lost the Olympics, how come it’s not a major accomplishment if he won it and got MVP? It always seems that with some people, his failures don’t match what’s at stake for his successes

[tsherkin]

Listen I hate the LeBron Jordan debate and usually stay out of these threads but one thing always seems to be clear….

LeBron always has the most to lose in these situations but on the other hand, if he wins he doesn’t get the benefits of it. People are still bringing up 2004, an Olympics he barely even played in. If they would have lost this year, this would be a major stain on his legacy to a lot of people.

Now on the flip side, people will now say that this doesn’t mean much when comparing the two. But why not? If it would have been the end of the world if a 40 year old lost the Olympics, how come it’s not a major accomplishment if he won it and got MVP? It always seems that with some people, his failures don’t match what’s at stake for his successes

Well put.

[infinite11285]

Maybe if Lebron did what Curry ended up doing. But he had a very pedestrian Olympics. Didn’t have a single game where he put his stamp on it. He just did what he always does, collects and pads the stats while other guys take the game over and hit the biggest of shots. Other guys save the day then you look at the stats and see oh wait a minute lebron avg 14ppg 8 rebounds 8 assist surely he was the best. Smh

None of that is right.

He led the team in rebounding, he was their primary playmaker and assist leader. He was 2nd on the team in PPG, and he shot 66% from the field.

He savaged the competition, and was their most reliable player, the cornerstone of their offense.

He was very clearly, unambiguously, the best player during the tournament.

I’ll agree to disagree, but one thing is crystal clear, without Curry’s heroics and all time performance vs Serbia and France, we walk away with a Bronze.

Was everyone playing poorly offensively, or was it that the US fed Curry's hot hand? I've come across many arguments lacking context, giving the impression that Curry single-handedly saved the US team due to everyone else's offensive ineptitude.

[tsherkin]

Was everyone playing poorly offensively, or was it that the US fed Curry's hot hand? I've come across many arguments lacking context, giving the impression that Curry single-handedly saved the US team due to everyone else's offensive ineptitude.

The US pretty clearly rode the hot hand, yeah. Curry was shining over those last two games as a shooter. Lebron and Embiid were 10/13 inside the arc and 4/7 from 3 combined against Serbia, for example. Against France, Booker was 4/5 inside the arc and 2/5 from 3. James was 6/10 overall and 1/2 from 3. AD was 4/5. Curry shot the most and was 8/12 from 3 in particular. He was killing it from outside, so they ran with it.

And why not? That made sense.

[infinite11285]

Was everyone playing poorly offensively, or was it that the US fed Curry's hot hand? I've come across many arguments lacking context, giving the impression that Curry single-handedly saved the US team due to everyone else's offensive ineptitude.

The US pretty clearly rode the hot hand, yeah. Curry was shining over those last two games as a shooter. Lebron and Embiid were 10/13 inside the arc and 4/7 from 3 combined against Serbia, for example. Against France, Booker was 4/5 inside the arc and 2/5 from 3. James was 6/10 overall and 1/2 from 3. AD was 4/5. Curry shot the most and was 8/12 from 3 in particular. He was killing it from outside, so they ran with it.

And why not? That made sense.

It definitely makes sense to me as well. If Curry is on fire, give him the ball and let him do his thing. The idea that the team "needed” Curry to win is entirely misleading, as it suggests that no one else was capable of stepping up if Curry didn't make shots. That argument implies that no one else was capable of closing the door on France, which isn't true at all.

[tsherkin]

It definitely makes sense to me as well. If Curry is on fire, give him the ball and let him do his thing. The idea that the team "needed” Curry to win is entirely misleading, as it suggests that no one else was capable of stepping up if Curry didn't make shots. That argument implies that no one else was capable of closing the door on France, which isn't true at all.

I agree. Steph was really good about picking his spots and not forcing the issue through the whole tournament. But the US did not have a dearth of scoring, that much is clear. Someone was going to do it, and his 3 was dropping, so why not swing it his way?