RGM GOAT Debate Thread (Part 2)

[Iwasawitness]

So how were the Jordan Bulls to defeat a dynasty team while being a dynasty team themselves ?.

They didn’t, that’s the whole point.

I guess Jordan is on the same boat as Bill Russell then. How can Bill have been any good given he didn’t beat any dynastic teams either?.

I think you’re misinterpreting my point, although I do always say that Jordan’s six rings are overrated.

[MavsDirk41]

Until you pinpoint at what time they won a championship, you will continue to be wrong here. A dynasty in sports requires teams to win multiple championships over a course of multiple seasons. The jazz didn’t do that.

They made the WCF’s in 92, 94, 96, and the finals in 97 and 98. If they weren’t a dynasty they were as close to as one that you can get. And again, you have been wrong on here before in my eyes so we are back to your opinion and my opinion.

This isn’t a matter of opinion. A sports dynasty is a team that dominates a sport for multiple years by winning at the highest level. The jazz didn’t do this. They didn’t even win a single championship. The cavaliers in second stint LeBron years were more of a dynasty… they at least won a championship.

Your opinion about the Jazz move on we disagree. Im not changing my mind brother anymore than you.

[MavsDirk41]

They didn’t, that’s the whole point.

I guess Jordan is on the same boat as Bill Russell then. How can Bill have been any good given he didn’t beat any dynastic teams either?.

I think you’re misinterpreting my point, although I do always say that Jordan’s six rings are overrated.

And see i think Lebron James rings in 2012, 2013, and 2020 are overrated. Im sure you will disagree with me on that. You have your opinions like everyone else on here.

[AmIWrongDude]

They made the WCF’s in 92, 94, 96, and the finals in 97 and 98. If they weren’t a dynasty they were as close to as one that you can get. And again, you have been wrong on here before in my eyes so we are back to your opinion and my opinion.

This isn’t a matter of opinion. A sports dynasty is a team that dominates a sport for multiple years by winning at the highest level. The jazz didn’t do this. They didn’t even win a single championship. The cavaliers in second stint LeBron years were more of a dynasty… they at least won a championship.

Your opinion about the Jazz move on we disagree. Im not changing my mind brother anymore than you.

Dude it’s not an opinion lol. You gotta just take the L on this one. Even if the Jazz won a championship they still wouldn’t be a dynasty. Most people consider dynasties 3+ championships. It’s about sustained dominance over competition and if you never even won once, there is 0 way you’re a dynasty.

[lessthanjake]

This isn’t a matter of opinion. A sports dynasty is a team that dominates a sport for multiple years by winning at the highest level. The jazz didn’t do this. They didn’t even win a single championship. The cavaliers in second stint LeBron years were more of a dynasty… they at least won a championship.

Your opinion about the Jazz move on we disagree. Im not changing my mind brother anymore than you.

Dude it’s not an opinion lol. You gotta just take the L on this one. Even if the Jazz won a championship they still wouldn’t be a dynasty. Most people consider dynasties 3+ championships. It’s about sustained dominance over competition and if you never even won once, there is 0 way you’re a dynasty.

A discussion about whether Jordan faced a “dynasty” is self-evidently stupid IMO. Obviously if a guy constantly won, then the teams he beat along the way will not qualify to be described using a term that you’re defining to require winning multiple titles. It’s not really possible for Jordan to face a “dynasty” when he was constantly winning because he’d have to lose for those opposing teams to qualify to be a “dynasty”! And saying he didn’t face a dynasty and LeBron did doesn’t necessarily mean Jordan faced worse opponents. If Jordan hadn’t been as good as he was, then the Jazz might actually have won titles and been considered a genuine dynasty. They did actually put up the best three-year playoff relative net rating in history for a team that didn’t win a title—which is pretty consistent with a team that had potential to be a dynasty but were just prevented from achieving that by the GOAT.

It’s really not a good GOAT case to talk about how a guy had to face dynasties. It should be obvious that it is much better for one’s GOAT case if one is actually the player who was part of a dynasty (and who therefore could not have had other dynasties in his era). Jordan created a dynasty. LeBron did not, and instead lost to dynasties that other players created in LeBron’s era. That is obviously a massive factor in Jordan’s favor.

[AmIWrongDude]

Your opinion about the Jazz move on we disagree. Im not changing my mind brother anymore than you.

Dude it’s not an opinion lol. You gotta just take the L on this one. Even if the Jazz won a championship they still wouldn’t be a dynasty. Most people consider dynasties 3+ championships. It’s about sustained dominance over competition and if you never even won once, there is 0 way you’re a dynasty.

A discussion about whether Jordan faced a “dynasty” is self-evidently stupid IMO. Obviously if a guy constantly won, then the teams he beat along the way will not qualify to be described using a term that you’re defining to require winning multiple titles. It’s not really possible for Jordan to face a “dynasty” when he was constantly winning because he’d have to lose for those opposing teams to qualify to be a “dynasty”! And saying he didn’t face a dynasty and LeBron did doesn’t necessarily mean Jordan faced worse opponents. If Jordan hadn’t been as good as he was, then the Jazz might actually have won titles and been considered a genuine dynasty. They did actually put up the best three-year playoff relative net rating in history for a team that didn’t win a title—which is pretty consistent with a team that had potential to be a dynasty but were just prevented from achieving that by the GOAT.

It’s really not a good GOAT case to talk about how a guy had to face dynasties. It should be obvious that it is much better for one’s GOAT case if one is actually the player who was part of a dynasty (and who therefore could not have had other dynasties in his era). Jordan created a dynasty. LeBron did not, and instead lost to dynasties that other players created in LeBron’s era. That is obviously a massive factor in Jordan’s favor.

I wasn’t even really a part of that side of the conversation which is a lot more debatable than the Jazz being a dynasty. Obviously MJ could’ve prevented some dynasties but also let’s not act like MJ won every year he played.

[MavsDirk41]

Dude it’s not an opinion lol. You gotta just take the L on this one. Even if the Jazz won a championship they still wouldn’t be a dynasty. Most people consider dynasties 3+ championships. It’s about sustained dominance over competition and if you never even won once, there is 0 way you’re a dynasty.

A discussion about whether Jordan faced a “dynasty” is self-evidently stupid IMO. Obviously if a guy constantly won, then the teams he beat along the way will not qualify to be described using a term that you’re defining to require winning multiple titles. It’s not really possible for Jordan to face a “dynasty” when he was constantly winning because he’d have to lose for those opposing teams to qualify to be a “dynasty”! And saying he didn’t face a dynasty and LeBron did doesn’t necessarily mean Jordan faced worse opponents. If Jordan hadn’t been as good as he was, then the Jazz might actually have won titles and been considered a genuine dynasty. They did actually put up the best three-year playoff relative net rating in history for a team that didn’t win a title—which is pretty consistent with a team that had potential to be a dynasty but were just prevented from achieving that by the GOAT.

It’s really not a good GOAT case to talk about how a guy had to face dynasties. It should be obvious that it is much better for one’s GOAT case if one is actually the player who was part of a dynasty (and who therefore could not have had other dynasties in his era). Jordan created a dynasty. LeBron did not, and instead lost to dynasties that other players created in LeBron’s era. That is obviously a massive factor in Jordan’s favor.

I wasn’t even really a part of that side of the conversation which is a lot more debatable than the Jazz being a dynasty. Obviously MJ could’ve prevented some dynasties but also let’s not act like MJ won every year he played.

Your take that to be defined as a dynasty you must win a minimum of 3 championships is your opinion. Question for you, why does me saying that about Utah bother you so much lol?

[AmIWrongDude]

A discussion about whether Jordan faced a “dynasty” is self-evidently stupid IMO. Obviously if a guy constantly won, then the teams he beat along the way will not qualify to be described using a term that you’re defining to require winning multiple titles. It’s not really possible for Jordan to face a “dynasty” when he was constantly winning because he’d have to lose for those opposing teams to qualify to be a “dynasty”! And saying he didn’t face a dynasty and LeBron did doesn’t necessarily mean Jordan faced worse opponents. If Jordan hadn’t been as good as he was, then the Jazz might actually have won titles and been considered a genuine dynasty. They did actually put up the best three-year playoff relative net rating in history for a team that didn’t win a title—which is pretty consistent with a team that had potential to be a dynasty but were just prevented from achieving that by the GOAT.

It’s really not a good GOAT case to talk about how a guy had to face dynasties. It should be obvious that it is much better for one’s GOAT case if one is actually the player who was part of a dynasty (and who therefore could not have had other dynasties in his era). Jordan created a dynasty. LeBron did not, and instead lost to dynasties that other players created in LeBron’s era. That is obviously a massive factor in Jordan’s favor.

I wasn’t even really a part of that side of the conversation which is a lot more debatable than the Jazz being a dynasty. Obviously MJ could’ve prevented some dynasties but also let’s not act like MJ won every year he played.

Your take that to be defined as a dynasty you must win a minimum of 3 championships is your opinion. Question for you, why does me saying that about Utah bother you so much lol?

Sure needing 3 can be considered an opinion. Needing at least 1 championship to be a dynasty is straight up fact man I’m not sure why you can’t just say you exaggerated or something at least.

Or do you think a team can be considered a Champion without actually winning a Championship? Just doesn’t make sense lol

[MavsDirk41]

I wasn’t even really a part of that side of the conversation which is a lot more debatable than the Jazz being a dynasty. Obviously MJ could’ve prevented some dynasties but also let’s not act like MJ won every year he played.

Your take that to be defined as a dynasty you must win a minimum of 3 championships is your opinion. Question for you, why does me saying that about Utah bother you so much lol?

Sure needing 3 can be considered an opinion. Needing at least 1 championship to be a dynasty is straight up fact man I’m not sure why you can’t just say you exaggerated or something at least.

Or do you think a team can be considered a Champion without actually winning a Championship? Just doesn’t make sense lol

When i said dynasty it was in the essence that over the span of a decade plus they made 3 western conference finals appearances and two finals appearances. And they were built around Malone and Stockton and a goat level head coach. How often do you see a core staying together that long? Especially nowadays? Dynasty or not although they didnt win a championship they were a level of consistency that i appreciate. Im not a fan of star players in their prime teaming up together. Anyways if it makes you feel better i will say they were not a dynasty so we can end this silly debate.

[michaelm]

Your opinion about the Jazz move on we disagree. Im not changing my mind brother anymore than you.

Dude it’s not an opinion lol. You gotta just take the L on this one. Even if the Jazz won a championship they still wouldn’t be a dynasty. Most people consider dynasties 3+ championships. It’s about sustained dominance over competition and if you never even won once, there is 0 way you’re a dynasty.

A discussion about whether Jordan faced a “dynasty” is self-evidently stupid IMO. Obviously if a guy constantly won, then the teams he beat along the way will not qualify to be described using a term that you’re defining to require winning multiple titles. It’s not really possible for Jordan to face a “dynasty” when he was constantly winning because he’d have to lose for those opposing teams to qualify to be a “dynasty”! And saying he didn’t face a dynasty and LeBron did doesn’t necessarily mean Jordan faced worse opponents. If Jordan hadn’t been as good as he was, then the Jazz might actually have won titles and been considered a genuine dynasty. They did actually put up the best three-year playoff relative net rating in history for a team that didn’t win a title—which is pretty consistent with a team that had potential to be a dynasty but were just prevented from achieving that by the GOAT.

It’s really not a good GOAT case to talk about how a guy had to face dynasties. It should be obvious that it is much better for one’s GOAT case if one is actually the player who was part of a dynasty (and who therefore could not have had other dynasties in his era). Jordan created a dynasty. LeBron did not, and instead lost to dynasties that other players created in LeBron’s era. That is obviously a massive factor in Jordan’s favor.

This was exactly my point, which I had thought was so self evident that it required no further explanation, but thank you for having the patience to assay that task. As I said Bill Russell also did not manage to defeat a dynasty during his career.

I didn’t enter into the Utah Jazz side of the argument, you can’t call a team which didn’t win a title a dynasty, but as you say they may qualify as having been reasonably strong opposition.

[AmIWrongDude]

Your take that to be defined as a dynasty you must win a minimum of 3 championships is your opinion. Question for you, why does me saying that about Utah bother you so much lol?

Sure needing 3 can be considered an opinion. Needing at least 1 championship to be a dynasty is straight up fact man I’m not sure why you can’t just say you exaggerated or something at least.

Or do you think a team can be considered a Champion without actually winning a Championship? Just doesn’t make sense lol

When i said dynasty it was in the essence that over the span of a decade plus they made 3 western conference finals appearances and two finals appearances. And they were built around Malone and Stockton and a goat level head coach. How often do you see a core staying together that long? Especially nowadays? Dynasty or not although they didnt win a championship they were a level of consistency that i appreciate. Im not a fan of star players in their prime teaming up together. Anyways if it makes you feel better i will say they were not a dynasty so we can end this silly debate.

Fair enough I can respect that

[michaelm]

Dude it’s not an opinion lol. You gotta just take the L on this one. Even if the Jazz won a championship they still wouldn’t be a dynasty. Most people consider dynasties 3+ championships. It’s about sustained dominance over competition and if you never even won once, there is 0 way you’re a dynasty.

A discussion about whether Jordan faced a “dynasty” is self-evidently stupid IMO. Obviously if a guy constantly won, then the teams he beat along the way will not qualify to be described using a term that you’re defining to require winning multiple titles. It’s not really possible for Jordan to face a “dynasty” when he was constantly winning because he’d have to lose for those opposing teams to qualify to be a “dynasty”! And saying he didn’t face a dynasty and LeBron did doesn’t necessarily mean Jordan faced worse opponents. If Jordan hadn’t been as good as he was, then the Jazz might actually have won titles and been considered a genuine dynasty. They did actually put up the best three-year playoff relative net rating in history for a team that didn’t win a title—which is pretty consistent with a team that had potential to be a dynasty but were just prevented from achieving that by the GOAT.

It’s really not a good GOAT case to talk about how a guy had to face dynasties. It should be obvious that it is much better for one’s GOAT case if one is actually the player who was part of a dynasty (and who therefore could not have had other dynasties in his era). Jordan created a dynasty. LeBron did not, and instead lost to dynasties that other players created in LeBron’s era. That is obviously a massive factor in Jordan’s favor.

I wasn’t even really a part of that side of the conversation which is a lot more debatable than the Jazz being a dynasty. Obviously MJ could’ve prevented some dynasties but also let’s not act like MJ won every year he played.

That is not how the discussion started, 1990s Jazz was a sidetrack, someone arguing for LeBron’s GOAT case brought up that he was mainly beaten by dynasties, as if the dynasties were random occurrences unrelated to the players involved.

I am fine with arguments that LeBron faced strong opposition and even with arguments that being a dynastic team may have been easier to achieve in MJ’s day, although there have been dynastic teams after MJ’s Bulls.

You are doing the straw man thing yourself imo, no one is claiming Jordan won every year or was unlucky not to have won every year, but the Jordan Bulls were at worst the second greatest dynasty in NBA history, which surely is an achievement to be applauded rather than diminished, and 8 years is a fairly long peak by any standard I would have thought. If LeBron has longevity on Jordan as an individual player even though Jordan’s longevity which included 4 titles won after turning 30, the last at age 35, is nothing to be sneered at, LeBron’s 4 titles were within a span of 9 years, only 1 year longer. Sure if LeBron won another title now that would be very significant and at the very least settle the longevity aspect of the debate.

As far as dynastic teams are concerned, and only imo of course, LeBron’s GOAT case which I have never said is negligible would have been better served by him leading a dynasty rather than being beaten by dynasties as has been said.

[michaelm]

They didn’t, that’s the whole point.

I guess Jordan is on the same boat as Bill Russell then. How can Bill have been any good given he didn’t beat any dynastic teams either?.

I think you’re misinterpreting my point, although I do always say that Jordan’s six rings are overrated.

Absolutely like you I am only posting my opinions, and you are entitled to your opinions about strength of opposition etc.

However I had pretty much retired from this thread, which from my point of view is for people including a loquacious Curry fan who value individual players over teams and team play, but was drawn into the thread again to make an elementary point in logic which Less Than Jake has expanded, that it is rather difficult to beat dynasties if you are leading a dynasty. I even went reductio ad absurdum and brought in Bill Russell, but you still didn’t take my point.

I don’t believe any title win is unimpressive or should be discounted btw, all title wins of which I am aware were achieved by teams beating everyone who turned up to play them, and teams also imo deserve the assumption they would have found a way to win regardless of circumstances. I include both the 2015 title won by GSW and the 2019 title won by the Raptors in this, injuries are part of the sport, and anything else descends into could’ves, would’ves, should’ves/going down a giant rabbit hole.

[MavsDirk41]

Sure needing 3 can be considered an opinion. Needing at least 1 championship to be a dynasty is straight up fact man I’m not sure why you can’t just say you exaggerated or something at least.

Or do you think a team can be considered a Champion without actually winning a Championship? Just doesn’t make sense lol

When i said dynasty it was in the essence that over the span of a decade plus they made 3 western conference finals appearances and two finals appearances. And they were built around Malone and Stockton and a goat level head coach. How often do you see a core staying together that long? Especially nowadays? Dynasty or not although they didnt win a championship they were a level of consistency that i appreciate. Im not a fan of star players in their prime teaming up together. Anyways if it makes you feel better i will say they were not a dynasty so we can end this silly debate.

Fair enough I can respect that

Thank you!

[The4thHorseman]

LeBron has his own dynasty winning 3 in 5 years with 3 fmvp's

[michaelm]

LeBron has his own dynasty winning 3 in 5 years with 3 fmvp's

A fair point but doesn’t mean other players or teams involved in dynasties can be dismissed, or that any of the teams beaten by his teams were as good as the 1997 Bulls, 2014 Spurs, or 2017 GSW which is to the credit of the players who led those teams/had those teams built around them,

[ReggiesKnicks]

LeBron has his own dynasty winning 3 in 5 years with 3 fmvp's

A fair point but doesn’t mean other players or teams involved in dynasties can be dismissed, or that any of the teams beaten by his teams were as good as the 1997 Bulls, 2014 Spurs, or 2017 GSW which is to the credit of the players who led those teams/had those teams built around them,

Also to the credit of those teams putting together great rosters. Not sure how the 2017 Warriors or 2008 Celtics can somehow be seen as a negative to LeBron James legacy.

The 1998 Jazz beating the Bulls doesn't somehow discredit or undermine Jordan's accomplishments or greatness.

Are the 1983 76ers somehow detrimental to the GOAT case of Kareem?

[AmIWrongDude]

A discussion about whether Jordan faced a “dynasty” is self-evidently stupid IMO. Obviously if a guy constantly won, then the teams he beat along the way will not qualify to be described using a term that you’re defining to require winning multiple titles. It’s not really possible for Jordan to face a “dynasty” when he was constantly winning because he’d have to lose for those opposing teams to qualify to be a “dynasty”! And saying he didn’t face a dynasty and LeBron did doesn’t necessarily mean Jordan faced worse opponents. If Jordan hadn’t been as good as he was, then the Jazz might actually have won titles and been considered a genuine dynasty. They did actually put up the best three-year playoff relative net rating in history for a team that didn’t win a title—which is pretty consistent with a team that had potential to be a dynasty but were just prevented from achieving that by the GOAT.

It’s really not a good GOAT case to talk about how a guy had to face dynasties. It should be obvious that it is much better for one’s GOAT case if one is actually the player who was part of a dynasty (and who therefore could not have had other dynasties in his era). Jordan created a dynasty. LeBron did not, and instead lost to dynasties that other players created in LeBron’s era. That is obviously a massive factor in Jordan’s favor.

I wasn’t even really a part of that side of the conversation which is a lot more debatable than the Jazz being a dynasty. Obviously MJ could’ve prevented some dynasties but also let’s not act like MJ won every year he played.

That is not how the discussion started, 1990s Jazz was a sidetrack, someone arguing for LeBron’s GOAT case brought up that he was mainly beaten by dynasties, as if the dynasties were random occurrences unrelated to the players involved.

I am fine with arguments that LeBron faced strong opposition and even with arguments that being a dynastic team may have been easier to achieve in MJ’s day, although there have been dynastic teams after MJ’s Bulls.

You are doing the straw man thing yourself imo, no one is claiming Jordan won every year or was unlucky not to have won every year, but the Jordan Bulls were at worst the second greatest dynasty in NBA history, which surely is an achievement to be applauded rather than diminished, and 8 years is a fairly long peak by any standard I would have thought. If LeBron has longevity on Jordan as an individual player even though Jordan’s longevity which included 4 titles won after turning 30, the last at age 35, is nothing to be sneered at, LeBron’s 4 titles were within a span of 9 years, only 1 year longer. Sure if LeBron won another title now that would be very significant and at the very least settle the longevity aspect of the debate.

As far as dynastic teams are concerned, and only imo of course, LeBron’s GOAT case which I have never said is negligible would have been better served by him leading a dynasty rather than being beaten by dynasties as has been said.

With all due respect, you’re talking about predecessors and straw man arguments and I’m not sure how that relates to me. Again, the only thing I said was that the Jazz weren’t a dynasty because they clearly weren’t. So I’m not sure exactly what I’m supposed to be responding to.

[Triple7]

Lebron’s epic meltdown in the 2011 finals against the Mavs disqualifies him from the GOAT debate. Just imagine your goat choking hard after forming a super team, having the 3rd best scoring average from his team. 17pts lol, while averaging 2.2pts in the 4th quarter haha. 4 rings in 21 years 6 finals losses??? Jeez. I’ll give him longevity and the fact that he still plays good at 40, he has an arguement for top 5 all time. Also, i give him the title of greatest flopper in history. Man, he should be ashamed flopping around for calls. Embarrassing actually. How can your goat also be the greatest flopper in the game lol. I have MJ as my Goat. More championships, mvps, fmvps, all defensive 1st teams. DPOY award, all nba 1st teams. Undefeated in the finals. Most scoring titles. Man MJ is a straight up killer. Teams and players fear his defense almost as much as his ability to score. Nobody fears lebron. Just watch the series against the mavs, and the series against the spurs when the heat lost. Lebron is freakin scared to shoot free throws his lips turned pale. So many holes in his game. Lebron fan boys are the worst!

[michaelm]

LeBron has his own dynasty winning 3 in 5 years with 3 fmvp's

A fair point but doesn’t mean other players or teams involved in dynasties can be dismissed, or that any of the teams beaten by his teams were as good as the 1997 Bulls, 2014 Spurs, or 2017 GSW which is to the credit of the players who led those teams/had those teams built around them,

Also to the credit of those teams putting together great rosters. Not sure how the 2017 Warriors or 2008 Celtics can somehow be seen as a negative to LeBron James legacy.

The 1998 Jazz beating the Bulls doesn't somehow discredit or undermine Jordan's accomplishments or greatness.

Are the 1983 76ers somehow detrimental to the GOAT case of Kareem?

It was perhaps in an idle moment, but I was in my view arguing the reverse case which is that you can’t criticise a player for not beating dynastic teams if this is because said player was the leader of the dynastic team of his era. And imo that a dynastic team could be built around a player is salient to the GOAT debate, and that a Jordan Bulls team was possibly the greatest team ever counts in his favour in the GOAT debate, again only imo of course.

Of course credit to the Bad Boy Pistons for beating earlier versions of the Jordan Bulls, they were before my time but must have been really something themselves.