Who's the G.O.A.T. ?

[70sFan]

MJ is the goat because he's the only player ever who was the best player in the league every year he played.

Jordan wasn't even top 3 in 1985.
He wasn't in 1986 either.

I'd take Magic and Bird over 1987 Jordan as well - he had cute scoring stats on weak team and it didn't translate to meaningful results (he was also weak defender in that year).

He definitely wasn't in 1995.

He wasn't in Wizard years.

That's already 6 of 15 seasons and you can argue that he wasn't the best in the league in years like 1988 or 1993.

When you call the single highest ppg in the last 57 seasons "cute," your bias is showing pretty clearly. I'm not saying you're right or wrong about your other opinions. I'm just saying.

I don't have any bias, I use this language because people in this thread act like Jordan is incomparale and untouchable. Jordan wasn't the best player in 1987.

[VanWest82]

“Wilt didn’t win enough” what is enough? Exactly as much or more than Jordan did, in the way Jordan did, against as weak of competition as Jordan did?
Check the poll, read some books by people that watched basketball in the 60s, listen to a variety of people that have studied the game. Jordan was and never will be the consensus GOAT

Too many people from that era have questioned Wilt's approach. Bill Simmons is still calling Wilt a "loser" on his podcast and he actually researched and wrote a book on it. Wilt probably should have had 3 or 4 titles or more instead of 2. Maybe MJ should've had 7 or 8 titles but he still got 6.

When you're talking about greatest ever it's about winning. It's that simple, just win. That's why Oscar doesn't enter into any of these debates despite being the best offensive player in the league for a decade, and why Russell will always be just a little higher than Wilt even though he wasn't quite the player.

MJ's run in the 90s does allow for some freedom to get reductive about his 80s seasons given that for much of the time it was a better version of MJ. If slightly inferior 90s versions can win over and over again, surely better 80s versions could have won too. There's no playoff evidence - a series he screwed up that caused the team to lose - one can point to disprove the theory: MJ would've been the best player and won the title every year of his Bulls career with a title ready roster.

It's hard to watch the 86 series vs. Celtics and argue with a straight face that someone else was better. Listen to Magic and Bird interviews. They know. The Bucks series in 85 was in some ways more impressive: league best defense, best equipped to stop Jordan with Moncrief and Pressey, the perfect combo of Jordan stoppers. They threw the kitchen sink at him, couldn't guard him, and he was still the best player in that series. Factoring in the stacked odds, it was the single most impressive performance of the 85 playoffs imo. He was already likely the best player at that point.

[VanWest82]

Jordan wasn't even top 3 in 1985.
He wasn't in 1986 either.

I'd take Magic and Bird over 1987 Jordan as well - he had cute scoring stats on weak team and it didn't translate to meaningful results (he was also weak defender in that year).

He definitely wasn't in 1995.

He wasn't in Wizard years.

That's already 6 of 15 seasons and you can argue that he wasn't the best in the league in years like 1988 or 1993.

When you call the single highest ppg in the last 57 seasons "cute," your bias is showing pretty clearly. I'm not saying you're right or wrong about your other opinions. I'm just saying.

I don't have any bias, I use this language because people in this thread act like Jordan is incomparale and untouchable. Jordan wasn't the best player in 1987.

Who's saying he's incomparable and untouchable?

70sFan, you are a well reasoned and well thought out poster, but it does seem like you have an anti-MJ bias. You're frequently right or close about other topics but your MJ takes are consistently bearish.

I said this above in a post but it's hard to re-watch the 86 Celtics series and act like he wasn't already the best player on the planet. I would argue 85 as well but I understand the counter-argument.

What changed for you in 87? How did we go from embarrassing one of the greatest teams of all time to "cute" scorer? To me 87 felt like a classic carry job like we saw with Kobe in 06 and Wilt in 62 among others, something born out of necessity because management had mucked up the roster so badly around their star.

I think it's ok to say that you value extended playoff runs and winning. But if we're just talking about who was the best independent of roster how do you argue against Bird and Magic when they basically told us Jordan was the best / God / most talented by far. That's the language they used.

[Lukeem]

“Wilt didn’t win enough” what is enough? Exactly as much or more than Jordan did, in the way Jordan did, against as weak of competition as Jordan did?
Check the poll, read some books by people that watched basketball in the 60s, listen to a variety of people that have studied the game. Jordan was and never will be the consensus GOAT

Too many people from that era have questioned Wilt's approach. Bill Simmons is still calling Wilt a "loser" on his podcast and he actually researched and wrote a book on it. Wilt probably should have had 3 or 4 titles or more instead of 2. Maybe MJ should've had 7 or 8 titles but he still got 6.

When you're talking about greatest ever it's about winning. It's that simple, just win. That's why Oscar doesn't enter into any of these debates despite being the best offensive player in the league for a decade, and why Russell will always be just a little higher than Wilt even though he wasn't quite the player.

MJ's run in the 90s does allow for some freedom to get reductive about his 80s seasons given that for much of the time it was a better version of MJ. If slightly inferior 90s versions can win over and over again, surely better 80s versions could have won too. There's no playoff evidence - a series he screwed up that caused the team to lose - one can point to disprove the theory: MJ would've been the best player and won the title every year of his Bulls career with a title ready roster.

It's hard to watch the 86 series vs. Celtics and argue with a straight face that someone else was better. Listen to Magic and Bird interviews. They know. The Bucks series in 85 was in some ways more impressive: league best defense, best equipped to stop Jordan with Moncrief and Pressey, the perfect combo of Jordan stoppers. They threw the kitchen sink at him, couldn't guard him, and he was still the best player in that series. Factoring in the stacked odds, it was the single most impressive performance of the 85 playoffs imo. He was already likely the best player at that point.

Try this little thought experiment read your own post and assume it’s someone else. See if you can spot the blatant hypocrisy. Then get back to me. And that’s without even focusing on using a Celtic homer that didn’t watch wilt as your reference

[VanWest82]

Try this little though experiment read your own post and assume it’s someone else. See if you can spot the blatant hypocrisy. Then get back to me. And that’s without even focusing on using a Celtic homer that didn’t watch wilt as your reference

It's not hypocritical because MJ won when he had title ready rosters and Wilt didn't, so logically it makes sense that he was also likely a surer bet earlier in his career than Wilt was in his had they both been in better situations.

You can call BS a Celtics homer but that's different from calling him a liar. It's highly unlikely Simmons didn't watch a tonne from that era as part of his research. There's lots of smoke re criticisms of Wilt's approach to the game. It's not just Simmons. The questions about MJ's approach went away when he won six times as a volume scorer.

[70sFan]

Who's saying he's incomparable and untouchable?

A lot of people, including in this thread.

70sFan, you are a well reasoned and well thought out poster, but it does seem like you have an anti-MJ bias. You're frequently right or close about other topics but your MJ takes are consistently bearish.

Thanks for kind words, but not agreeing that Jordan is clear cut GOAT isn't the same as having anti-MJ bias.

I said this above in a post but it's hard to re-watch the 86 Celtics series and act like he wasn't already the best player on the planet. I would argue 85 as well but I understand the counter-argument.

You can use the same argument for other players who went hot in extremely small sample of size. Donovan Mitchell is perfect example of this phenomena - he's not among the best players in the league just because he played great in one series (that was twice as long as 1986 Jordan's by the way).

Jordan had absolutely all-time great performance in game two. I can't deny, it's among the most impressive individual performances I've ever seen. This game showed how much potential Jordan had, but it wasn't something he could ever duplicate. In game 3, Celtics blown Bulls out and Jordan didn't even score 20 points.

I can't blame Jordan for the loss, but Celtics beat Bulls easily and we can't say that Jordan was the best player in the world because of one game.

What changed for you in 87?

To be honest, nothing. Jordan was healthy and he proved that he was already an all-time scorer but his overall offensive game didn't reach his peak. He had a lot of bad tendencies and he forced way too much relative to other all-time great offensive players. His defense was also pretty bad in that season. He became much smarter player in next seasons.

By the way, he wasn't nearly as good against the (worse version of) Celtics in 1987 playoffs. Which sample of size should we believe?

How did we go from embarrassing one of the greatest teams of all time to "cute" scorer?

Nothing, it seems that you can't differentiate small samples results from overall picture. Jordan was all-time scorer, but he wasn't on Magic level in 1987. Do you realize that 1986 Bulls were actually better offensively than 1987 Bulls despite missing Jordan for almost full season? It doesn't mean that Jordan was negative for them, but it shows that Jordan didn't help his team to reach their full potential.

By the way, you got my comment way too harsh. I wanted to show that Jordan didn't have as much impact in 1987 as his scoring suggest, not that he wasn't elite scorer.

To me 87 felt like a classic carry job like we saw with Kobe in 06 and Wilt in 62 among others, something born out of necessity because management had mucked up the roster so badly around their star.

It's true, but both Kobe and Wilt finished with better results. I mean, Wilt's team contended for the title in 1962 and 2006 Lakers almost upset Suns. All while both 1962 Warriors and 2006 Lakera being better offensively than 1987 Bulls.

I think it's ok to say that you value extended playoff runs and winning. But if we're just talking about who was the best independent of roster how do you argue against Bird and Magic when they basically told us Jordan was the best / God / most talented by far. That's the language they used.

Their opinion don't mean more than mine or your. I'd make a case based on how they helped their teams to maximize their potential within the offensive flow. It's not about winning and extended playoff runs - I'd take 1986 Magic over 1986 Jordan even though Magic lost in 5 gamds in WCF. You know why? Because Magic was much better player at this point.

[Lukeem]

Try this little though experiment read your own post and assume it’s someone else. See if you can spot the blatant hypocrisy. Then get back to me. And that’s without even focusing on using a Celtic homer that didn’t watch wilt as your reference

It's not hypocritical because MJ won when he had title ready rosters and Wilt didn't, so logically it makes sense that he was also likely a surer bet earlier in his career than Wilt was in his had they both been in better situations.

You can call BS a Celtics homer but that's different from calling him a liar. It's highly unlikely Simmons didn't watch a tonne from that era as part of his research. There's lots of smoke re criticisms of Wilt's approach to the game. It's not just Simmons. The questions about MJ's approach went away when he won six times as a volume scorer.

Really thought you could find it. See if this helps.

So to sum up your non hypocrisy
When Jordan was dominant but didn’t win because he had tough competition like the 80s bucks he’s still the best. But when wilt only loses to the greatest dynasty of all time across sports that had an absolute stacked teams it’s because he wasn’t good enough didn’t matter that he was the most dominant scorer and rebounder ever in those seasons.


So wilt is not the greatest because he didn’t win enough. Jordan is the greatest because his amount of winning is just right despite being less than others before him.

Everyone knows Simmons is a Celtics homer, I never called him I liar, I’m pointing out his opinion on wilt is heavily biased.

[Lukeem]

Who's saying he's incomparable and untouchable?

A lot of people, including in this thread.

70sFan, you are a well reasoned and well thought out poster, but it does seem like you have an anti-MJ bias. You're frequently right or close about other topics but your MJ takes are consistently bearish.

Thanks for kind words, but not agreeing that Jordan is clear cut GOAT isn't the same as having anti-MJ bias.

I said this above in a post but it's hard to re-watch the 86 Celtics series and act like he wasn't already the best player on the planet. I would argue 85 as well but I understand the counter-argument.

You can use the same argument for other players who went hot in extremely small sample of size. Donovan Mitchell is perfect example of this phenomena - he's not among the best players in the league just because he played great in one series (that was twice as long as 1986 Jordan's by the way).

Jordan had absolutely all-time great performance in game two. I can't deny, it's among the most impressive individual performances I've ever seen. This game showed how much potential Jordan had, but it wasn't something he could ever duplicate. In game 3, Celtics blown Bulls out and Jordan didn't even score 20 points.

I can't blame Jordan for the loss, but Celtics beat Bulls easily and we can't say that Jordan was the best player in the world because of one game.

What changed for you in 87?

To be honest, nothing. Jordan was healthy and he proved that he was already an all-time scorer but his overall offensive game didn't reach his peak. He had a lot of bad tendencies and he forced way too much relative to other all-time great offensive players. His defense was also pretty bad in that season. He became much smarter player in next seasons.

By the way, he wasn't nearly as good against the (worse version of) Celtics in 1987 playoffs. Which sample of size should we believe?

How did we go from embarrassing one of the greatest teams of all time to "cute" scorer?

Nothing, it seems that you can't differentiate small samples results from overall picture. Jordan was all-time scorer, but he wasn't on Magic level in 1987. Do you realize that 1986 Bulls were actually better offensively than 1987 Bulls despite missing Jordan for almost full season? It doesn't mean that Jordan was negative for them, but it shows that Jordan didn't help his team to reach their full potential.

By the way, you got my comment way too harsh. I wanted to show that Jordan didn't have as much impact in 1987 as his scoring suggest, not that he wasn't elite scorer.

To me 87 felt like a classic carry job like we saw with Kobe in 06 and Wilt in 62 among others, something born out of necessity because management had mucked up the roster so badly around their star.

It's true, but both Kobe and Wilt finished with better results. I mean, Wilt's team contended for the title in 1962 and 2006 Lakers almost upset Suns. All while both 1962 Warriors and 2006 Lakera being better offensively than 1987 Bulls.

I think it's ok to say that you value extended playoff runs and winning. But if we're just talking about who was the best independent of roster how do you argue against Bird and Magic when they basically told us Jordan was the best / God / most talented by far. That's the language they used.

Their opinion don't mean more than mine or your. I'd make a case based on how they helped their teams to maximize their potential within the offensive flow. It's not about winning and extended playoff runs - I'd take 1986 Magic over 1986 Jordan even though Magic lost in 5 gamds in WCF. You know why? Because Magic was much better player at this point.

Very well put!

[Jef]

.
WHAT ABOUT LARRY BOID??!!

[VanWest82]

Donovan Mitchell got hot vs. Nuggets. MJ got hot vs. 86 Celtics, one of the greatest teams ever. It wasn't just one game - he had 49 in game one. MJ was also great vs. a stacked Bucks team perfectly set up to stop him. The sample size argument doesn't work when it turns out to be the norm for a guy's career. Average out those first three playoff series and MJ had 36/6/7/2.5/1.5 on 56% TS against title worthy teams. How is that not best player caliber?

[VanWest82]

So to sum up your non hypocrisy
When Jordan was dominant but didn’t win because he had tough competition like the 80s bucks he’s still the best. But when wilt only loses to the greatest dynasty of all time across sports that had an absolute stacked teams it’s because he wasn’t good enough didn’t matter that he was the most dominant scorer and rebounder ever in those seasons.

Celtics weren't the better team every year, and Wilt lost to more than just the Celtics. What happened vs. Knicks? When you lose repeatedly with a title contending supporting cast eventually you lose the benefit of the doubt in these discussions.

So wilt is not the greatest because he didn’t win enough. Jordan is the greatest because his amount of winning is just right despite being less than others before him.

The last part is just opinion and clearly untrue. Wilt didn't make the most of his chances; MJ did, and that's the difference. You look at 66, 68, 69, 70, 73...that's five years Wilt could've won and didn't.

[Lukeem]

So to sum up your non hypocrisy
When Jordan was dominant but didn’t win because he had tough competition like the 80s bucks he’s still the best. But when wilt only loses to the greatest dynasty of all time across sports that had an absolute stacked teams it’s because he wasn’t good enough didn’t matter that he was the most dominant scorer and rebounder ever in those seasons.

Celtics weren't the better team every year, and Wilt lost to more than just the Celtics. What happened vs. Knicks? When you lose repeatedly with a title contending supporting cast eventually you lose the benefit of the doubt in these discussions.

So wilt is not the greatest because he didn’t win enough. Jordan is the greatest because his amount of winning is just right despite being less than others before him.

The last part is just opinion and clearly untrue. Wilt didn't make the most of his chances. MJ did, and that's the difference. You look at 66, 68, 69, 70, 73...that's five years Wilt could've won and didn't.

Wilt lost to the nationals, Celtics and knicks in playoffs. And that was running into the Celtics I think 9 times.

Jordan lost to the bucks, Celtics, pistons and magic plus his two years of not making the playoffs. The way you can say wilt had the better team was because he was on it and the most dominant player ever.

The last part is not an opinion, it is a fact. Jordan didn’t win as much as Russell that’s a fact not an opinion.

Jordan never beat a team as good as the 67 Celtics... wilt could have won more and it would have looked better. Same goes for Jordan. Same goes for bill Russell. You look really bad when you love the field goal posts depending on what player you’re talking about.

[VanWest82]

Wilt lost to the nationals, Celtics and knicks in playoffs. And that was running into the Celtics I think 9 times.

Jordan lost to the bucks, Celtics, pistons and magic plus his two years of not making the playoffs. The way you can say wilt had the better team was because he was on it and the most dominant player ever.

The last part is not an opinion, it is a fact. Jordan didn’t win as much as Russell that’s a fact not an opinion.

Jordan never beat a team as good as the 67 Celtics... wilt could have won more and it would have looked better. Same goes for Jordan. Same goes for bill Russell. You look really bad when you love the field goal posts depending on what player you’re talking about.

I'm not moving any goal posts. MJ and Russell capitalized on their opportunities to win, hence why they're ahead. Wilt however was the one seed and lost. He had home court and lost. He switched teams and got HOF teammates and lost, then he did it again and lost. If anything you seem to be one moving the goal posts for Wilt. How can he be the most dominant player ever but it was never his fault when he lost while on a contender? He wasn't the unluckiest player ever. He had some underwhelming playoff series that contributed to losing.

[70sFan]

Donovan Mitchell got hot vs. Nuggets. MJ got hot vs. 86 Celtics, one of the greatest teams ever. It wasn't just one game - he had 49 in game one. MJ was also great vs. a stacked Bucks team perfectly set up to stop him. The sample size argument doesn't work when it turns out to be the norm for a guy's career. Average out those first three playoff series and MJ had 36/6/7/2.5/1.5 on 56% TS against title worthy teams. How is that not best player caliber?

Jordan had one great game vs Bucks, one decent one and two poor ones. He didn't dominate them at all. Jordan didn't dominate against the Celtics either in 1987. He put up huge volume numbers in non-competitive losses.

Nobody says that Jordan was bad player in 1985-87 period, but he wasn't the best player in the league. How? Because volume stats aren't the end of the world and Jordan's playmaking/defense/decision making were all suspect at that point.

I mean, Magic was arguably better offensive player than Jordan in 1991 but you're trying to sell me the idea that 1985-87 Jordan was better than peak Magic?

[SeanieWard]

Hoodie Melo

[70sFan]

Wilt lost to the nationals, Celtics and knicks in playoffs. And that was running into the Celtics I think 9 times.

Jordan lost to the bucks, Celtics, pistons and magic plus his two years of not making the playoffs. The way you can say wilt had the better team was because he was on it and the most dominant player ever.

The last part is not an opinion, it is a fact. Jordan didn’t win as much as Russell that’s a fact not an opinion.

Jordan never beat a team as good as the 67 Celtics... wilt could have won more and it would have looked better. Same goes for Jordan. Same goes for bill Russell. You look really bad when you love the field goal posts depending on what player you’re talking about.

I'm not moving any goal posts. MJ and Russell capitalized on their opportunities to win, hence why they're ahead. Wilt however was the one seed and lost. He had home court and lost. He switched teams and got HOF teammates and lost, then he did it again and lost. If anything you seem to be one moving the goal posts for Wilt. How can he be the most dominant player ever but it was never his fault when he lost while on a contender? He wasn't the unluckiest player ever. He had some underwhelming playoff series that contributed to losing.

So Wilt is a loser because he went to 6 finals and 6 conference finals while putting up gigantic stats?

You just defended Jordan for early losses in 1985-87 because he averaged huge stats. Wilt averaged 35/26/3 on +2 rTS% in 1960-62 period and unlike Jordan, he actually won two series and was competitive in all of them.

[VanWest82]

You can use the same argument for other players who went hot in extremely small sample of size. Donovan Mitchell is perfect example of this phenomena - he's not among the best players in the league just because he played great in one series (that was twice as long as 1986 Jordan's by the way).

I addressed this is another post but suffice to say that the bubble Nuggets weren't the 86 Celtics, and when you look at Jordan's first three series vs. Bucks and Celtics x2 he's averaging like 36/6/7/2.5/1.5 on good efficiency. He also had 49 in game one in 86. It wasn't one game, and it wasn't a small sample size. That three year playoff span was pretty close to the norm for his playoff career.

What changed for you in 87?

To be honest, nothing. Jordan was healthy and he proved that he was already an all-time scorer but his overall offensive game didn't reach his peak. He had a lot of bad tendencies and he forced way too much relative to other all-time great offensive players. His defense was also pretty bad in that season. He became much smarter player in next seasons.

So...I agree MJ was more of a "play maker" defensively in 87 due to the load he took on offensively, and that he went up a level on the other end in 88. But please explain, how does Jordan go from "pretty bad" to DPOY in one season?

[70sFan]

But please explain, how does Jordan go from "pretty bad" to DPOY in one season?

It's simple - he improved a great deal. Is this really that strange? A lot of young athletic freaks are usually weak defensively at the beginning and in Jordan's case his BBIQ improved by a large amount between these seasons. It's normal for elite young players to make such leaps in their games.

It's another thing that Jordan shouldn't have won 1988 DPOTY over Eaton or Hakeem of course.

[DonaldSanders]

deuces

But I was told that him forming a super team in Miami would make his legacy a joke and that those rings wouldn't count.

Guess Durant should have just stayed in Golden State and become the "GOAT" that way since all that stuff becomes irrelevant after a few years...

Was a completely different move with completely different ramifications

Not really. Both tried to make an OP super team, the difference was that LeBron had the biggest choke job in the history of the NBA Finals, while KD clutched.

Do you not remember "Not 1, Not 2, Not 3, Not 4?

LeBron tried to do exactly the same thing, he just played worse.

[VanWest82]

Jordan had one great game vs Bucks, one decent one and two poor ones. He didn't dominate them at all. Jordan didn't dominate against the Celtics either in 1987. He put up huge volume numbers in non-competitive losses.

Wait which were his two "poor" games vs. Bucks? He didn't shoot well in game one. I went back and re-watched games 2, 3, and 4 the other night and MJ was clearly the best player in that series just like he was vs. Celtics. He made those games competitive despite the giant disparity in talent.

Nobody says that Jordan was bad player in 1985-87 period, but he wasn't the best player in the league. How? Because volume stats aren't the end of the world and Jordan's playmaking/defense/decision making were all suspect at that point.

You say his play making was suspect, and yet in 85-87 playoffs vs. high quality opponents his AST% is ~30%, greater than his career average. His defense was "suspect" and "pretty bad" despite 4.4 blocks + steals per game in 87. You made a comment about how Bulls offense stayed relatively flat in 86 with MJ out, but their defense sure took a one year nose dive 85-86-87. Gee, I wonder what was missing? You're being unreasonably critical highlighting faults that weren't really there. His game wasn't perfect but none of it was suspect. He just didn't have the horses. That's an argument one can make for Wilt as well, but again, Wilt didn't come through when he got his shots later so it's harder to go back and look at his early career work and say he would've won...or at least it's a flimsier case.