RGM GOAT Debate Thread (Part 3)

[bledredwine]

I get it, you’re projecting because you didn’t witness the Bulls and I did.

But I hope that you realize I don’t care at all that you post this. You make yourself look silly and desperate, especially since ai actually went to games when I was young.
And the funny thing is that it communicates that you conceded and literally have nothing to say back. But I think that I’m going to start reading some of your posts and reporting them since they’re so childish in the first place.

unrelated or insult = you’ve given up and have nothing to say, every single time, fake bulls fan. Poll has Mj at 3.5X of Lebrick’s votes

You thought the Bulls beat the bad boys Pistons in the 1989 WCF (they didn't). You thought the Bulls made the ECF when MJ returned in 1995 (they didn't) and you thought they beat the Knicks in the ECF to make the finals (didn't happen).

Sorry man, there is just zero chance in hell you watched basketball then. A self proclaimed MJ fanatic getting the most well known and obvious parts of his career completely wrong? How does an MJ fan think they beat the Bad Boys on 1989? Losing to the Bad Boys then finally overcoming them is such a notable part of his career arc.

You thought the Bulls made the finals in 1995 when he returned. I mean, really? I can't believe I forgot that we got the ever-sought-afrer MJ vs Hakeem finals Not as egregious as thinking MJ beat the Bad Boys in 1989, but still something completely obvious to somebody that watched 90s NBA, let alone MJ's #1 white knight.

lol, once again, I told you I type well over 100 wpm, and dates escape me, sometimes I make typos. It happens to me all the time.
I've referred to those series in the past correctly. You're just hanging onto one thing because you have absolutely nothing else.

Once again, doesn't bug me at all, just makes you look desperate and immature.

[ScrantonBulls]

I get it, you’re projecting because you didn’t witness the Bulls and I did.

But I hope that you realize I don’t care at all that you post this. You make yourself look silly and desperate, especially since ai actually went to games when I was young.
And the funny thing is that it communicates that you conceded and literally have nothing to say back. But I think that I’m going to start reading some of your posts and reporting them since they’re so childish in the first place.

unrelated or insult = you’ve given up and have nothing to say, every single time, fake bulls fan. Poll has Mj at 3.5X of Lebrick’s votes

You thought the Bulls beat the bad boys Pistons in the 1989 WCF (they didn't). You thought the Bulls made the ECF when MJ returned in 1995 (they didn't) and you thought they beat the Knicks in the ECF to make the finals (didn't happen).

Sorry man, there is just zero chance in hell you watched basketball then. A self proclaimed MJ fanatic getting the most well known and obvious parts of his career completely wrong? How does an MJ fan think they beat the Bad Boys on 1989? Losing to the Bad Boys then finally overcoming them is such a notable part of his career arc.

You thought the Bulls made the finals in 1995 when he returned. I mean, really? I can't believe I forgot that we got the ever-sought-afrer MJ vs Hakeem finals Not as egregious as thinking MJ beat the Bad Boys in 1989, but still something completely obvious to somebody that watched 90s NBA, let alone MJ's #1 white knight.

lol, once again, I told you I type well over 100 wpm, and dates escape me, sometimes I make typos. It happens to me all the time.
I've referred to those series in the past correctly. You're just hanging onto one thing because you have absolutely nothing else.

Once again, doesn't bug me at all, just makes you look desperate and immature.

Sure, "Typos" lol. You claimed the Bulls were underdogs when they beat the 1989 Pistons. Let's assume you made a "typo" and meant to write 1991 Pistons (even though that's so far off on the keyboard from writing 1989 when you look at it, but ok).
https://www.actionnetwork.com/nba/betting-odds-history-1990s-chicago-bulls-dynasty-michael-jordan

The Bulls were -270 favorites against the Pistons then. So you got the year wrong, but even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and claim you meant the 1991 Pistons, you're still wrong about the Bulls being underdogs.

You claimed the Bulls were underdogs against the Lakers on the 1991 finals. Again, as shown in the link above, the Bulls were -200 favorites.

You claimed the Bulls were underdogs when they beat the Knicks on the ECF on 1995. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt once again and say you meant to say 1993, the only year MJ faced the Knicks in the ECF. Let's take a look at the odds once again. The Bulls were -150 favorites against the Knicks.

So if we give you the benefit of the doubt and claim the wildy incorrect years you posted were "typos", you were still incorrect 3 times when you claimed the Bulls were favorites in those 3 series. It's just comical that you can accuse.somebpdy else of not watching the Bulls during that time when you were wildly incorrect about all those things. Yeah, I don't buy that you watched those teams. I don't think anybody does.

[VanWest82]

What's that say about the league in 1993 if Grant and Pippen were both able to "basically" take the regular season off yet both still made the All Defensive team while Pippen also made All-NBA?

You mean what does it say about the voter group and their propensity to vote based on reputation over actual impact.

As for league quality in 93, it was super high with numerous high quality teams in both East and West. NBA handled the first couple rounds of expansion well before the league got watered down in the mid-late 90s. You had new ATG talent (Shaq, DRob, GP/Kemp, GHill) entering the league with 80s ATGs (Jordan, Barkley, Dream, Stockton/Malone, Ewing, Price/Daugherty, Clyde/Porter) in their prime. The fact that Bulls had so much trouble with Knicks in 93 (and Knicks and Cavs in 92) despite Scottie and Horace actually trying (and getting punked) and MJ legit struggling vs Knicks in first three games of 93, plus teams like Blazers and Suns taking two games in their series vs. prime MJ Bulls says a lot about league quality. The early 90s being weak is without a doubt one of the dumbest anti-Jordan arguments going. Early 90s is in contention for the greatest NBA era of all time before even getting to the swan songs for the Birds, Magics, Isiahs, etc.

There is a case to be made for LeBron, particularly in terms of the wide range of his attributes as an individual player imo, but not one that convinces me. I admit to bias, Jordan was the guy in days when I was considerably younger which predisposes to viewing past events with rose coloured glasses and I have never liked the playing style of LeBron’s teams except perhaps for the 4th title with AD, but attempting to retrofit Jordan’s heyday which those concerned fairly clearly didn’t observe to exalt LeBron 30 years later doesn’t cut it, again only imo of course. Sure Jordan’s team was good, a point in his favour in my view, and Pippen was a particularly good foil for him, but there wasn’t much doubt about the identity of the main man back then.

And even if the numbers on the poll for this thread reflect the continuing strength of the Jordan publicity machine 30 years on that in itself is remarkable and strongly suggests that publicity machine had something to work with anyway, and it is not as though there hasn’t been a LeBron publicity machine in emulation of Jordan’s but with far wider media coverage of the sport these days. As others have said if LeBron can only garner 21% of the vote while still an active player it would seem unlikely that his status will rise to anything which challenges MJ in his retirement.

Bron has a good argument imo. I didn't used to think so but his ability to churn out 21 All NBA seasons and counting is just nuts. I don't like disingenuous arguments denigrating teammates, competition, etc., to make the case for/against a guy. Just tell the truth. That may be hurting him here.

Lebron also played in one of the greatest NBA eras from 06-11 once the league had a year to adjust to new rule changes. Kobe/Gasol, Nash/Suns, Dirk/Mavs, Duncan/Ginobili/Parker, Shaq/Wade, Lebron/Cavs, KG/Pierce/Allen, Dwight/Magic...similar high end quality teams with mix of old and new superstars to late 80s - early 90s. I especially loved the contrast in styles of play in this era. Bron came up short twice in the Finals but he also acquitted himself very well overall during that period.

[michaelm]

You thought the Bulls beat the bad boys Pistons in the 1989 WCF (they didn't). You thought the Bulls made the ECF when MJ returned in 1995 (they didn't) and you thought they beat the Knicks in the ECF to make the finals (didn't happen).

Sorry man, there is just zero chance in hell you watched basketball then. A self proclaimed MJ fanatic getting the most well known and obvious parts of his career completely wrong? How does an MJ fan think they beat the Bad Boys on 1989? Losing to the Bad Boys then finally overcoming them is such a notable part of his career arc.

You thought the Bulls made the finals in 1995 when he returned. I mean, really? I can't believe I forgot that we got the ever-sought-afrer MJ vs Hakeem finals Not as egregious as thinking MJ beat the Bad Boys in 1989, but still something completely obvious to somebody that watched 90s NBA, let alone MJ's #1 white knight.

lol, once again, I told you I type well over 100 wpm, and dates escape me, sometimes I make typos. It happens to me all the time.
I've referred to those series in the past correctly. You're just hanging onto one thing because you have absolutely nothing else.

Once again, doesn't bug me at all, just makes you look desperate and immature.

Sure, "Typos" lol. You claimed the Bulls were underdogs when they beat the 1989 Pistons. Let's assume you made a "typo" and meant to write 1991 Pistons (even though that's so far off on the keyboard from writing 1989 when you look at it, but ok).
https://www.actionnetwork.com/nba/betting-odds-history-1990s-chicago-bulls-dynasty-michael-jordan

The Bulls were -270 favorites against the Pistons then. So you got the year wrong, but even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and claim you meant the 1991 Pistons, you're still wrong about the Bulls being underdogs.

You claimed the Bulls were underdogs against the Lakers on the 1991 finals. Again, as shown in the link above, the Bulls were -200 favorites.

You claimed the Bulls were underdogs when they beat the Knicks on the ECF on 1995. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt once again and say you meant to say 1993, the only year MJ faced the Knicks in the ECF. Let's take a look at the odds once again. The Bulls were -150 favorites against the Knicks.

So if we give you the benefit of the doubt and claim the wildy incorrect years you posted were "typos", you were still incorrect 3 times when you claimed the Bulls were favorites in those 3 series. It's just comical that you can accuse.somebpdy else of not watching the Bulls during that time when you were wildly incorrect about all those things. Yeah, I don't buy that you watched those teams. I don't think anybody does.

So we have someone with an imperfect memory of what he observed, possibly when quite young, but at least formed his own conclusions at the time, as against you desperately trawling for anything which in your view downgrades Jordan in regard to events you very obviously didn’t observe, and immediately pivoting to ad hominem when anyone disagrees with you.

[bledredwine]

And I do know those years, for the record. I remember multitasking at the time. I mixed up dates and even a team. I literally haven’t read what Scranton copy pastes of mine because it’s such a dumb tactic, but I assume it was a detroit date and something about NY? I’ll have a look.

Obviously, I know the Bulls didn’t get past the Pistons until 1991. I also know Scottie was injured and all of the non MJ Bulls sucked remarkably against detroit in 90’, otherwise they would have had a chance at winning. I also literally went to games in 96, including a loss, which was rare. But I do f up dates and even forget dates from last decade but remember events.

But Scranton is a kid and just wants to battle, not actually talk basketball.

[ScrantonBulls]

lol, once again, I told you I type well over 100 wpm, and dates escape me, sometimes I make typos. It happens to me all the time.
I've referred to those series in the past correctly. You're just hanging onto one thing because you have absolutely nothing else.

Once again, doesn't bug me at all, just makes you look desperate and immature.

Sure, "Typos" lol. You claimed the Bulls were underdogs when they beat the 1989 Pistons. Let's assume you made a "typo" and meant to write 1991 Pistons (even though that's so far off on the keyboard from writing 1989 when you look at it, but ok).
https://www.actionnetwork.com/nba/betting-odds-history-1990s-chicago-bulls-dynasty-michael-jordan

The Bulls were -270 favorites against the Pistons then. So you got the year wrong, but even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and claim you meant the 1991 Pistons, you're still wrong about the Bulls being underdogs.

You claimed the Bulls were underdogs against the Lakers on the 1991 finals. Again, as shown in the link above, the Bulls were -200 favorites.

You claimed the Bulls were underdogs when they beat the Knicks on the ECF on 1995. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt once again and say you meant to say 1993, the only year MJ faced the Knicks in the ECF. Let's take a look at the odds once again. The Bulls were -150 favorites against the Knicks.

So if we give you the benefit of the doubt and claim the wildy incorrect years you posted were "typos", you were still incorrect 3 times when you claimed the Bulls were favorites in those 3 series. It's just comical that you can accuse.somebpdy else of not watching the Bulls during that time when you were wildly incorrect about all those things. Yeah, I don't buy that you watched those teams. I don't think anybody does.

So we have someone with an imperfect memory of what he observed, possibly when quite young, but at least formed his own conclusions at the time, as against you desperately trawling for anything which in your view downgrades Jordan in regard to events you very obviously didn’t observe, and immediately pivoting to ad hominem when anyone disagrees with you.

I think you described it perfectly michaelm. I don't often give you credit, but credit is given where credit is deserved. You nailed it. That's the most like reason for him to get 5 things wrong in 2 short sentences. I have no problem with people having memory lapses, but they shouldn't accuse others of never watching a player while geting so many basic and easily verifiable facts wrong about the player. That's all.

[Gregoire]

or a 1-peat if his ass wasn’t saved.

There were 3 times Jordan won and was considered the underdog

1989 Eastern Conference Finals against the Detroit Pistons, the 1991 NBA Finals against the Magic Johnson-led Los Angeles Lakers, and the 1995 Eastern Conference Finals against the NY Knicks

I get it, you’re projecting because you didn’t witness the Bulls and I did.

But I hope that you realize I don’t care at all that you post this. You make yourself look silly and desperate, especially since ai actually went to games when I was young.
And the funny thing is that it communicates that you conceded and literally have nothing to say back. But I think that I’m going to start reading some of your posts and reporting them since they’re so childish in the first place.

unrelated or insult = you’ve given up and have nothing to say, every single time, fake bulls fan. Poll has Mj at 3.5X of Lebrick’s votes

75-25 here, 25-12 in favor of MJ over LeBron in question of "which peak is better than MJ?" even in PC Board (LeBrons fanboys sect), it seems just Jordan became more consensus GOAT the more time is gone. Incredible.
But... PC Board fanboys went berserk in their ritual greatest peak thread, where the voting panel is such a unbias, that in half of posters balots of top-3 Jordan is absent, Im not sure is this just multiple accounts trolls or not... but very funny

[The4thHorseman]

What's that say about the league in 1993 if Grant and Pippen were both able to "basically" take the regular season off yet both still made the All Defensive team while Pippen also made All-NBA?

You mean what does it say about the voter group and their propensity to vote based on reputation over actual impact.

As for league quality in 93, it was super high with numerous high quality teams in both East and West. NBA handled the first couple rounds of expansion well before the league got watered down in the mid-late 90s. You had new ATG talent (Shaq, DRob, GP/Kemp, GHill) entering the league with 80s ATGs (Jordan, Barkley, Dream, Stockton/Malone, Ewing, Price/Daugherty, Clyde/Porter) in their prime. The fact that Bulls had so much trouble with Knicks in 93 (and Knicks and Cavs in 92) despite Scottie and Horace actually trying (and getting punked) and MJ legit struggling vs Knicks in first three games of 93, plus teams like Blazers and Suns taking two games in their series vs. prime MJ Bulls says a lot about league quality. The early 90s being weak is without a doubt one of the dumbest anti-Jordan arguments going. Early 90s is in contention for the greatest NBA era of all time before even getting to the swan songs for the Birds, Magics, Isiahs, etc.

How could Grant make his first All-Defensive team and it be due to reputation? Same with Pippen making both All-NBA and All-Defensive. Don't you have to have that reputation first before claiming that's why they made it??

Sorry man, you can't claim Pippen and Grant half assed it the whole 93 season to prop up Jordan and then claim how great the league was at the time. There's a reason why Stern moved the 3pt line closer for the 94 season and it sure as hell wasn't due to how great the league was offensively at the time.

[Yank3525]

I get it, you’re projecting because you didn’t witness the Bulls and I did.

But I hope that you realize I don’t care at all that you post this. You make yourself look silly and desperate, especially since ai actually went to games when I was young.
And the funny thing is that it communicates that you conceded and literally have nothing to say back. But I think that I’m going to start reading some of your posts and reporting them since they’re so childish in the first place.

unrelated or insult = you’ve given up and have nothing to say, every single time, fake bulls fan. Poll has Mj at 3.5X of Lebrick’s votes

75-25 here, 25-12 in favor of MJ over LeBron in question of "which peak is better than MJ?" even in PC Board (LeBrons fanboys sect), it seems just Jordan became more consensus GOAT the more time is gone. Incredible.
But... PC Board fanboys went berserk in their ritual greatest peak thread, where the voting panel is such a unbias, that in half of posters balots of top-3 Jordan is absent, Im not sure is this just multiple accounts trolls or not... but very funny

This was always going to happen. When Bron retires, they will just move on to the next guy to compare to Jordan. Maybe Shai gets a threepeat and racks up some scoring titles and gets the topic rolling again.

[ScrantonBulls]

I get it, you’re projecting because you didn’t witness the Bulls and I did.

But I hope that you realize I don’t care at all that you post this. You make yourself look silly and desperate, especially since ai actually went to games when I was young.
And the funny thing is that it communicates that you conceded and literally have nothing to say back. But I think that I’m going to start reading some of your posts and reporting them since they’re so childish in the first place.

unrelated or insult = you’ve given up and have nothing to say, every single time, fake bulls fan. Poll has Mj at 3.5X of Lebrick’s votes

75-25 here, 25-12 in favor of MJ over LeBron in question of "which peak is better than MJ?" even in PC Board (LeBrons fanboys sect), it seems just Jordan became more consensus GOAT the more time is gone. Incredible.
But... PC Board fanboys went berserk in their ritual greatest peak thread, where the voting panel is such a unbias, that in half of posters balots of top-3 Jordan is absent, Im not sure is this just multiple accounts trolls or not... but very funny

I always get a kick out of the meltdowns people have over the PC forum because their conclusions don't align with what they want to believe. They get so upset that the PC forum uses in depth analysis and advanced statistics as a basis for their opinions, as opposed to simply using "rangz!" In reality, you are just upset because the majority pick LeBron over Jordan

Imagine complaining about the Peak Project, where they use in depth analysis to make a case for who has the best peak, all while championing the anonymous poll in this that requires no justification or analysis Peak Gregoire right there.

[VanWest82]

What's that say about the league in 1993 if Grant and Pippen were both able to "basically" take the regular season off yet both still made the All Defensive team while Pippen also made All-NBA?

You mean what does it say about the voter group and their propensity to vote based on reputation over actual impact.

As for league quality in 93, it was super high with numerous high quality teams in both East and West. NBA handled the first couple rounds of expansion well before the league got watered down in the mid-late 90s. You had new ATG talent (Shaq, DRob, GP/Kemp, GHill) entering the league with 80s ATGs (Jordan, Barkley, Dream, Stockton/Malone, Ewing, Price/Daugherty, Clyde/Porter) in their prime. The fact that Bulls had so much trouble with Knicks in 93 (and Knicks and Cavs in 92) despite Scottie and Horace actually trying (and getting punked) and MJ legit struggling vs Knicks in first three games of 93, plus teams like Blazers and Suns taking two games in their series vs. prime MJ Bulls says a lot about league quality. The early 90s being weak is without a doubt one of the dumbest anti-Jordan arguments going. Early 90s is in contention for the greatest NBA era of all time before even getting to the swan songs for the Birds, Magics, Isiahs, etc.

How could Grant make his first All-Defensive team and it be due to reputation? Same with Pippen making both All-NBA and All-Defensive. Don't you have to have that reputation first before claiming that's why they made it??

Sorry man, you can't claim Pippen and Grant half assed it the whole 93 season to prop up Jordan and then claim how great the league was at the time. There's a reason why Stern moved the 3pt line closer for the 94 season and it sure as hell wasn't due to how great the league was offensively at the time.

They made it because Bulls were 2x defending champions and media narrative had started to shift belatedly to giving the other Bulls players credit while also turning on Jordan as backlash from all the success and universal adoration from the previous two years (titles, MVPs, FMVPs, Olympics, etc.) had started to take hold with scandals related to gambling and being a hard ass teammate now driving the narrative. Edit: also, in the case of Scottie, he was #7 in DPOY in 91 and #3 in 92 and then not a finalist in 93. Meanwhile, Jordan finishes #2 in DPOY voting in 93 even though he's only #3 in MVP that year. Voters penalized him despite being the best player in the world while acknowledging the effort.

Jordan has to raise his output on both sides of the ball back to late 80s levels to make up for decreased effort from rest of Bulls roster (see his shot attempts, steals, etc.). Both Scottie and Horace had notable down years statistically in 93 by comparison. This wasn’t an accident or unrelated.

Call it whatever you want if you don’t like the “less effort” explanation, but we’ve now seen several teams try for the three-peat since and in every case we saw teams struggle to maintain the same level of consistency in year 3 compared with the first two. Jordan was the only star who actually increased his effort level in year 3 of the three-peat. LeBron, by comparison, didn’t put forth near the same effort defensively in 2014 as he did in 2012 and 2013. I also believe the fall out from Jordan Rules and MJ’s profile and financial situation blowing up coming out of the Olympics played a role.

In summary, Jordan did more in year 3 of the three-peat on both sides of the ball while Scottie and Horace did less than both the year before and after that season. We have numerous sources including Scottie and Horace themselves saying they weren’t happy with how “credit” was allocated (probably code for money) during that period. Tendency to play less hard in year three of three-peat has been documented in numerous other teams with Jordan’s own personal motor/play being an exception. I’d say the evidence for 93 being a significant down year for Scottie and Horace is very strong beyond the obvious eye test argument any Bulls fan from that period would give you.

[VanWest82]

[There's a reason why Stern moved the 3pt line closer for the 94 season and it sure as hell wasn't due to how great the league was offensively at the time.

What does a shortened three point line have to do with the quality of teams?

Pistons changed the game in late 80s with how physical they played, especially in the playoffs. Many teams emulated that model with success including Knicks. In response, NBA shortened the line hoping to entice teams to build more offensively focused rosters and play styles to appeal to fans. It had nothing to do with the quality of teams or basketball being played which was at an all time high to that point.

[bledredwine]

I get it, you’re projecting because you didn’t witness the Bulls and I did.

But I hope that you realize I don’t care at all that you post this. You make yourself look silly and desperate, especially since ai actually went to games when I was young.
And the funny thing is that it communicates that you conceded and literally have nothing to say back. But I think that I’m going to start reading some of your posts and reporting them since they’re so childish in the first place.

unrelated or insult = you’ve given up and have nothing to say, every single time, fake bulls fan. Poll has Mj at 3.5X of Lebrick’s votes

75-25 here, 25-12 in favor of MJ over LeBron in question of "which peak is better than MJ?" even in PC Board (LeBrons fanboys sect), it seems just Jordan became more consensus GOAT the more time is gone. Incredible.
But... PC Board fanboys went berserk in their ritual greatest peak thread, where the voting panel is such a unbias, that in half of posters balots of top-3 Jordan is absent, Im not sure is this just multiple accounts trolls or not... but very funny

This was always going to happen. When Bron retires, they will just move on to the next guy to compare to Jordan. Maybe Shai gets a threepeat and racks up some scoring titles and gets the topic rolling again.

Yep. I called it, but it's also known to researchers. It's common knowledge.

We live in the moment. People saying otherwise are dead wrong or are merely homers saying what they want.

Mayweather is GOAT, Djokovic is GOAT, Lebron is GOAT, that hockey dude is GOAT, what's his face in football is GOAT

What a coincidence that all of the goats (greatest of ALL time) lived during this decade

The beauty of Gretzky and Jordan is we have actual tape, so it's plain to see that Jordan's arsenal is far more impressive than Lebron's more 2-dimensional arsenal. Then there are the stats. Achievements etc etc etc broken record.

Nope. Homers.

[ScrantonBulls]

75-25 here, 25-12 in favor of MJ over LeBron in question of "which peak is better than MJ?" even in PC Board (LeBrons fanboys sect), it seems just Jordan became more consensus GOAT the more time is gone. Incredible.
But... PC Board fanboys went berserk in their ritual greatest peak thread, where the voting panel is such a unbias, that in half of posters balots of top-3 Jordan is absent, Im not sure is this just multiple accounts trolls or not... but very funny

This was always going to happen. When Bron retires, they will just move on to the next guy to compare to Jordan. Maybe Shai gets a threepeat and racks up some scoring titles and gets the topic rolling again.

Yep. I called it, but it's also known to researchers. It's common knowledge.

We live in the moment. People saying otherwise are dead wrong or are merely homers saying what they want.

Mayweather is GOAT, Djokovic is GOAT, Lebron is GOAT, that hockey dude is GOAT, what's his face in football is GOAT

What a coincidence that all of the goats (greatest of ALL time) lived during this decade

The beauty of Gretzky and Jordan is we have actual tape, so it's plain to see that Jordan's arsenal is far more impressive than Lebron's more 2-dimensional arsenal. Then there are the stats. Achievements etc etc etc broken record.

Nope. Homers.

"I don't even know the name of that soccer player, but he isn't the GOAT." That's why you're the best poster on this forum. An absolute legend.

[bledredwine]

This was always going to happen. When Bron retires, they will just move on to the next guy to compare to Jordan. Maybe Shai gets a threepeat and racks up some scoring titles and gets the topic rolling again.

Yep. I called it, but it's also known to researchers. It's common knowledge.

We live in the moment. People saying otherwise are dead wrong or are merely homers saying what they want.

Mayweather is GOAT, Djokovic is GOAT, Lebron is GOAT, that hockey dude is GOAT, what's his face in football is GOAT

What a coincidence that all of the goats (greatest of ALL time) lived during this decade

The beauty of Gretzky and Jordan is we have actual tape, so it's plain to see that Jordan's arsenal is far more impressive than Lebron's more 2-dimensional arsenal. Then there are the stats. Achievements etc etc etc broken record.

Nope. Homers.

"I don't even know the name of that soccer player, but he isn't the GOAT." That's why you're the best poster on this forum. An absolute legend.

Thanks man!

[michaelm]

This was always going to happen. When Bron retires, they will just move on to the next guy to compare to Jordan. Maybe Shai gets a threepeat and racks up some scoring titles and gets the topic rolling again.

Yep. I called it, but it's also known to researchers. It's common knowledge.

We live in the moment. People saying otherwise are dead wrong or are merely homers saying what they want.

Mayweather is GOAT, Djokovic is GOAT, Lebron is GOAT, that hockey dude is GOAT, what's his face in football is GOAT

What a coincidence that all of the goats (greatest of ALL time) lived during this decade

The beauty of Gretzky and Jordan is we have actual tape, so it's plain to see that Jordan's arsenal is far more impressive than Lebron's more 2-dimensional arsenal. Then there are the stats. Achievements etc etc etc broken record.

Nope. Homers.

"I don't even know the name of that soccer player, but he isn't the GOAT." That's why you're the best poster on this forum. An absolute legend.

I think you will find his point is that the guy concerned isn’t the GOAT, but that recency bias has made whoever is the current flavour of the month the GOAT. If he means Messi he may not be correct, not that I know anything about football/soccer.

[bledredwine]

Yep. I called it, but it's also known to researchers. It's common knowledge.

We live in the moment. People saying otherwise are dead wrong or are merely homers saying what they want.

Mayweather is GOAT, Djokovic is GOAT, Lebron is GOAT, that hockey dude is GOAT, what's his face in football is GOAT

What a coincidence that all of the goats (greatest of ALL time) lived during this decade

The beauty of Gretzky and Jordan is we have actual tape, so it's plain to see that Jordan's arsenal is far more impressive than Lebron's more 2-dimensional arsenal. Then there are the stats. Achievements etc etc etc broken record.

Nope. Homers.

"I don't even know the name of that soccer player, but he isn't the GOAT." That's why you're the best poster on this forum. An absolute legend.

I think you will find his point is that the guy concerned isn’t the GOAT, but that recency bias has made whoever is the current flavour of the month the GOAT. If he means Messi he may not be correct, not that I know anything about football/soccer.

Nah, he hasn't learned how to discuss anything yet. He's still young and conditioned to e-fight, ironically with some of the most
self-defeating, harmless posts I've seen.
It's typical of highschooler internet culture as well as a defense mechanism to cover a lack of knowledge. This will improve with time.
We already know he's too young to have experienced the Bulls back then, or even peak Kevin Love, which is wild.
So instead, he'll take one pointless thing and dangle it over and over while no one else cares.

I also think he's just really frustrated from how these threads have panned out in the opposite way than what he'd like, haha. If it was his guy 3.5X ahead in the poll, he'd be saying "TAKE THE L!" and crap like that.

[Jamaaliver]

Spoiler:

Read on Twitter

[/url]

[michaelm]

I get it, you’re projecting because you didn’t witness the Bulls and I did.

But I hope that you realize I don’t care at all that you post this. You make yourself look silly and desperate, especially since ai actually went to games when I was young.
And the funny thing is that it communicates that you conceded and literally have nothing to say back. But I think that I’m going to start reading some of your posts and reporting them since they’re so childish in the first place.

unrelated or insult = you’ve given up and have nothing to say, every single time, fake bulls fan. Poll has Mj at 3.5X of Lebrick’s votes

75-25 here, 25-12 in favor of MJ over LeBron in question of "which peak is better than MJ?" even in PC Board (LeBrons fanboys sect), it seems just Jordan became more consensus GOAT the more time is gone. Incredible.
But... PC Board fanboys went berserk in their ritual greatest peak thread, where the voting panel is such a unbias, that in half of posters balots of top-3 Jordan is absent, Im not sure is this just multiple accounts trolls or not... but very funny

I always get a kick out of the meltdowns people have over the PC forum because their conclusions don't align with what they want to believe. They get so upset that the PC forum uses in depth analysis and advanced statistics as a basis for their opinions, as opposed to simply using "rangz!" In reality, you are just upset because the majority pick LeBron over Jordan

Imagine complaining about the Peak Project, where they use in depth analysis to make a case for who has the best peak, all while championing the anonymous poll in this that requires no justification or analysis Peak Gregoire right there.

As opposed to you of course, who would never ‘melt down’ in the face of disagreement.

The question is whether they have looked at the data then formed the conclusion, or formed the conclusion then looked for data to support that conclusion as is your own wont. I can tell you that in actual science and in medical science in particular retrospective analyses are given quite low weight as evidence.

[Jamaaliver]