Why does espn shove Jordan down everyone's throat.

[rlsmooth775]

Dr J came on first take and all Stephen and skip wanted to talk about was Jordan and why he wasn't in Julius top 5. Why did they care so much and seem hurt he didn't want to acknowledge him

[navy]

http://ballerball.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Michael-Jordan-Rings.jpg

[Rameek]

Why do they shove LBJ down people throats????

[Patrick Chewing]

He was and is still the best. But for another superstar of Dr. J's level to not have him in his Top 5 is silly.

[rlsmooth775]

Why do they shove LBJ down people throats????


Lebron still plays in the nba

[fpliii]

Because he's one of the best ever? :confusedshrug:

[rlsmooth775]

Why does Stephen a want Jordan to be the logo over Jerry west we are only allowed to celebrate Jordan in his mind and everyone else on espn.

[played0ut]

Lest we forget...

[sportjames23]

http://ballerball.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Michael-Jordan-Rings.jpg


GOAT always gonna GOAT. :bowdown:

[NumberSix]

Because Michael Jordan will kill you.

[moe94]

Because Michael Jordan will kill you.
:roll:

[Asukal]

Nothing wrong with his list. He explained why he made those choices. Stephen A is just trying to rub him wrong, he knows DR J doesn't like MJ. :oldlol:

[CavaliersFTW]

Because he's one of the best ever? :confusedshrug:
No reason for them to get pissy when a guy as prominent as Doctor J believes he isn't the greatest ever though. That's what they did. MJ isn't the unanimous GOAT, and it shouldn't be blasphemous to put others above him. They act like it is. Lebron and Jordan are all they ever want to talk about when it comes to basketball.

[Rubio2Gasol]

I honestly don't know. Stephen A is annoying in general. His top 10 list would have like 50 people on it, the kinda shit he says.

Skip was a Chicago beat writer no? When you're that close to it, that close to greatness like that, I understand it. Guys that close will always have some degree of tunnel vision.

[atljonesbro]

Even though people may not think he's the GOAT, they feel like they have to think MJ is the GOAT or they'll be ostracized. Happens in music as well to a much larger extent with Tupac who isn't even in the realm of GOAT territory.

[NumberSix]

No reason for them to get pissy when a guy as prominent as Doctor J believes he isn't the greatest ever though. That's what they did. MJ isn't the unanimous GOAT, and it shouldn't be blasphemous to put others above him. They act like it is. Lebron and Jordan are all they ever want to talk about when it comes to basketball.
Michael Jordan was the first truly great player of the all encompassing media era. I know he won more titles, but are his performances really any more impressive than Jerry West's?

[LoneyROY7]

Because Michael Jordan will kill you.

:roll:

[moe94]

No reason for them to get pissy when a guy as prominent as Doctor J believes he isn't the greatest ever though. That's what they did. MJ isn't the unanimous GOAT, and it shouldn't be blasphemous to put others above him. They act like it is. Lebron and Jordan are all they ever want to talk about when it comes to basketball.

Wait....

LeBron not having Russell in his Mount Rushmore, which I'm sure you took to offense, is an issue but Jordan outside a top 5 isn't? :coleman:

[Asukal]

Michael Jordan was the first truly great player of the all encompassing media era. I know he won more titles, but are his performances really any more impressive than Jerry West's?

:yaohappy:

[CavaliersFTW]

Wait....

LeBron not having Russell in his Mount Rushmore, which I'm sure you took to offense, is an issue but Jordan outside a top 5 isn't? :coleman:
Lebron doesn't know his NBA history, that's my issue with him and if you follow my threads and posts, my position on him is consistent. Don't waste your time trying to find an inconsistency in my opinion on this subject, there isn't one.

[CavaliersFTW]

:yaohappy:
You laugh, but do you know? West averaged over 45ppg against the Baltimore Bullets in the 1965 Playoffs. Was that any less impressive than any playoff series Jordan had? Really? How so.

[moe94]

Lebron doesn't know his NBA history, that's my issue with him and if you follow my threads and posts, my position on him is consistent. Don't waste your time trying to find an inconsistency in my opinion on this subject, there isn't one.

What I'm saying is you're angry at one dude for stating his opinion while suggesting another dude for doing the same is just stating his opinion. Are you denying that? Both are opinions, after all. Hell, I'd go as far as to say what LeBron did is less controversial. :confusedshrug:

[CavaliersFTW]

What I'm saying is you're angry at one dude for stating his opinion while suggesting another dude for doing the same is just stating his opinion. Are you denying that? Both are opinions, after all. Hell, I'd go as far as to say what LeBron did is less controversial. :confusedshrug:
One dude's opinion is informed

The other dude's isn't.

I always take issue with uninformed opinions.

[NumberSix]

What I'm saying is you're angry at one dude for stating his opinion while suggesting another dude for doing the same is just stating his opinion. Are you denying that? Both are opinions, after all. Hell, I'd go as far as to say what LeBron did is less controversial. :confusedshrug:
I don't even have Bill Russell as a top 50 player.

[Warfan]

Lebron doesn't know his NBA history, that's my issue with him and if you follow my threads and posts, my position on him is consistent. Don't waste your time trying to find an inconsistency in my opinion on this subject, there isn't one.

And how do you know that??

[LAZERUSS]

You laugh, but do you know? West averaged over 45ppg against the Baltimore Bullets in the 1965 Playoffs. Was that any less impressive than any playoff series Jordan had? Really? How so.

46.3 ppg to be precise...

[moe94]

That is pure nonsense and you know it. All I see is you being a hypocrite.

[NumberSix]

And how do you know that??
Because LeBron's opinions are different than his own.

[Legends66NBA7]

If ESPN shoved someone else down everyone's throat, then we would be making threads about that too.

[LoneyROY7]

Informed b/c he agrees with it, and uniformed b/c he disagrees with it.

:roll:

[Slim_Slugga]

Same reason they shove the gay agenda down our throats

[Droid101]

Michael Jordan was the first truly great player of the all encompassing media era. I know he won more titles, but are his performances really any more impressive than Jerry West's?
10/10, goat troll post.

This is how you do it correctly, people.

[CavaliersFTW]

If ESPN shoved someone else down everyone's throat, then we would be making threads about that too.
Yep.

Good thing there exists such things as fairness and balance. Wish they'd learn the history of the game than proceed to use it. No single player needs shoved down anyone's throat.

[moe94]

10/10, goat troll post.

This is how you do it correctly, people.

It's not really a troll post. Jerry West beasted in the playoffs. Unless you're going to disregard eras, I don't see how anyone could take offense to this.

[Droid101]

It's not really a troll post. Jerry West beasted in the playoffs. Unless you're going to disregard eras, I don't see how anyone could take offense to this.
Uh, this is precisely why this is a troll post that has a high potential for inflammatory replies.

[Roundball_Rock]

How often do you see ESPN reference Joe Montana? Show clips of Gretzky? Mention Willie Mays? Talk about Kareem hitting a game winner in the Finals? Reference how Ali is the gold standard? There is only one retired athlete who gets more coverage than many contemporary luminaries. You would think Game 6 of the 1998 Finals was played yesterday or that a first round game winner in 1989 was the most consequential moment in sports history based on how often ESPN runs those clips.

Jordan wasn't the biggest winner, most dominant--even in his own sport let alone among legends in sports in general. He didn't have any impact outside of his sport like, say, Ali or Jackie Robinson. He arguably is the #1 player in the #3 sport in America. The answer for why he gets this much coverage even today is Jordan is, and was, a cash cow. No other athlete in American history has had 30 years of non-stop marketing to a degree rivaling that of a presidential campaign, only a campaign that never seems to end.

MJ stans will claim it is because MJ>>>>>>>any other athlete in history. That is absurd. The problem for MJ stans is that at some point the gravy train runs out. This year's incoming college freshmen were infants when MJ last played a relevant game. Once the cup runs dry a new cash cow will have to be found, and the same forces who brought you MJ are teeing up a certain other player for that mantle. It will be amusing to see the reaction from MJ stans when the gravy train is idled and replaced.

[NumberSix]

Same reason they shove the gay agenda down our throats
Marxism?

[Legends66NBA7]

It's not really a troll post. Jerry West beasted in the playoffs. Unless you're going to disregard eras, I don't see how anyone could take offense to this.

Exactly.

Which is why I don't understand Six's point. I would say Jordan is the better playoff performer overall that West and it's topped off with Jordan winning titles as the main guy. So....

[CavaliersFTW]

How often do you see ESPN reference Joe Montana? Show clips of Gretzky? Mention Willie Mays? Talk about Kareem hitting a game winner in the Finals? Reference how Ali is the gold standard? There is only one retired athlete who gets more coverage than many contemporary luminaries. He wasn't the biggest winner, most dominant--even in his own sport let alone among legends in sports in general. He didn't have any impact outside of his sport like, say, Ali or Jackie Robinson. The answer for why he gets this much coverage even today is Jordan is, and was, a cash cow. No other athlete in American history has had 30 years of non-stop marketing to a degree rivaling that of a presidential campaign, only a campaign that never seems to end.

MJ stans will claim it is because MJ>>>>>>>any other athlete in history. That is absurd. The problem for MJ stans is that at some point the gravy train runs out. This year's incoming college freshmen were infants when MJ last played a relevant game. Once the cup runs dry a new cash cow will have to be found, and the same forces who brought you MJ are teeing up a certain other player for that mantle. It will be amusing to see the reaction from MJ stans when the gravy train is idled and replaced.
:applause:

[Asukal]

Yep.

Good thing there exists such things as fairness and balance. Wish they'd learn the history of the game than proceed to use it. No single player needs shoved down anyone's throat.

I wonder if you would be saying that if they'd shove Wilt down everyone's throat instead. :rolleyes:

[navy]

Same reason they shove the gay agenda down our throats
Curious. What is the end goal of the gay agenda?

[To4]

How often do you see ESPN reference Joe Montana? Show clips of Gretzky? Mention Willie Mays? Talk about Kareem hitting a game winner in the Finals? Reference how Ali is the gold standard? There is only one retired athlete who gets more coverage than many contemporary luminaries. You would think Game 6 of the 1998 Finals was played yesterday or that a first round game winner in 1989 was the most consequential moment in sports history based on how often ESPN runs those clips.

Jordan wasn't the biggest winner, most dominant--even in his own sport let alone among legends in sports in general. He didn't have any impact outside of his sport like, say, Ali or Jackie Robinson. He arguably is the #1 player in the #3 sport in America. The answer for why he gets this much coverage even today is Jordan is, and was, a cash cow. No other athlete in American history has had 30 years of non-stop marketing to a degree rivaling that of a presidential campaign, only a campaign that never seems to end.

MJ stans will claim it is because MJ>>>>>>>any other athlete in history. That is absurd. The problem for MJ stans is that at some point the gravy train runs out. This year's incoming college freshmen were infants when MJ last played a relevant game. Once the cup runs dry a new cash cow will have to be found, and the same forces who brought you MJ are teeing up a certain other player for that mantle. It will be amusing to see the reaction from MJ stans when the gravy train is idled and replaced.

:applause: I somewhat agree to this.. thats why ESPN or any media keeps on trying to prop Lebron James most of the time.. but its still different from Jordan.. I dunno why :confusedshrug:

[atljonesbro]

How often do you see ESPN reference Joe Montana? Show clips of Gretzky? Mention Willie Mays? Talk about Kareem hitting a game winner in the Finals? Reference how Ali is the gold standard? There is only one retired athlete who gets more coverage than many contemporary luminaries. You would think Game 6 of the 1998 Finals was played yesterday or that a first round game winner in 1989 was the most consequential moment in sports history based on how often ESPN runs those clips.

Jordan wasn't the biggest winner, most dominant--even in his own sport let alone among legends in sports in general. He didn't have any impact outside of his sport like, say, Ali or Jackie Robinson. He arguably is the #1 player in the #3 sport in America. The answer for why he gets this much coverage even today is Jordan is, and was, a cash cow. No other athlete in American history has had 30 years of non-stop marketing to a degree rivaling that of a presidential campaign, only a campaign that never seems to end.

MJ stans will claim it is because MJ>>>>>>>any other athlete in history. That is absurd. The problem for MJ stans is that at some point the gravy train runs out. This year's incoming college freshmen were infants when MJ last played a relevant game. Once the cup runs dry a new cash cow will have to be found, and the same forces who brought you MJ are teeing up a certain other player for that mantle. It will be amusing to see the reaction from MJ stans when the gravy train is idled and replaced.
MJ's marketing is unmatched which is a massive part of the reason people think he's God in comparison to every other player in NBA history which he clearly isn't.

[moe94]

Uh, this is precisely why this is a troll post that has a high potential for inflammatory replies.

I view a troll post more as something intentionally asinine.

[CavaliersFTW]

I wonder if you would be saying that if they'd shove Wilt down everyone's throat instead. :rolleyes:
I absolutely would still say that. Does my own Youtube channel even serve to promote exclusively Wilt? How can you seriously not know my position on NBA history by this point in time, I push that people should learn history of the game ABOVE any favortism of Wilt. Wilt is my favorite player. But even he isn't the unanimous GOAT unless your criteria is heavily weighted on individual statistical and physical dominance. There can be so many other criteria that can go behind trying to quantify greatness. And if you don't know the history of the game and what everyone has accomplished than what's the point of trying to even discuss anything "all-time".

[Slim_Slugga]

Curious. What is the end goal of the gay agenda?
For everyone to turn into pc liberal fa99ots

[navy]

Cultural subversion. Destruction of western culture. Obvi.
:biggums:

It must be stopped. Cant have people thinking Jordan is the GOAT and gays are acceptable.

[NumberSix]

:biggums:

It must be stopped. Cant have people thinking Jordan is the GOAT and gays are acceptable.
Gays are acceptable.

[moe94]

For everyone to turn into pc liberal fa99ots

It's pathetic. Why can't I be a bigot in the work place? It's only words. It's nonsense.

[Roundball_Rock]

I wonder if you would be saying that if they'd shove Wilt down everyone's throat instead. :rolleyes:

Google News search results for:

Michael Jordan 149,000
Wilt Chamberlain 1,710
Kareem Abdul Jabbar 3,190
Bill Russell 86,700

Kevin Durant 27,400
Kobe Bryant 29,200
Peyton Manning 12,500
Sidney Crosby 8,360

Wayne Gretzky 2,790
Jerry Rice 12,200
Muhammad Ali 30,200
Jack Nicklaus 11,300
Willie Mays 2,190
Richard Petty 5,350

Russell and Ali are the outliers because they have more common names. The search will turn up any article with both, say, "Muhammad" and "Ali" in it.


I somewhat agree to this.. thats why ESPN or any media keeps on trying to prop Lebron James most of the time.. but its still different from Jordan.. I dunno why

It is different because Jordan is the incumbent for our generation; for those freshmen going to college LeBron will be their generation's guy, so long as he gets into MJ's zip code in terms of resume. It also is different because LeBron is in the middle of his career and his resume is incomplete. I am sure people from older generations felt the same way about MJ in the 90's when they viewed KAJ or Wilt or Russell as GOAT. MJ was being called the clear GOAT by the press after 3 rings, 3 MVP's, 3 Finals appearances in 9 years.


MJ's marketing is unmatched which is a massive part of the reason people think he's God in comparison to every other player in NBA history which he clearly isn't.

Yup. Unmatched in any sport.

[TheWINdyCity]

thread title should be changed 2..

Why does Derivative shove Jordan threads down everyone's throat.

[moe94]

Hey, Roundball, do you get mad when Jordan fans say he created Pippen?

[DonDadda59]

GOAT gonna GOAT. Haters gonna hate. World gonna keep spinning.


MJ's marketing is unmatched which is a massive part of the reason people think he's God in comparison to every other player in NBA history which he clearly isn't.

Jordan got a 5 year/$500,000 contract from Nike coming out of 3 years, a National player of the year, and championship winning shot as a freshman campaign at UNC. This was only after his first apparel company choice, Adidas, failed to match that offer. In 2013, the Air Jordan brand sold $2.3 billion worth of merchandise.

LeBron James was given a $100 million dollar contract after his senior year of High School by the same company (plus complimentary embarrassing tape confiscation services). In 2013, the LeBron James brand sold $300 million in merchandise (highest of any active NBA player).

The clothes don't make the GOAT, the GOAT makes the clothes.

Fact. :pimp:

[KNOW1EDGE]

He is the best basketball player ever.

So whenever basketball is discussed his name is likely to come up.

[Roundball_Rock]

Hey, Roundball, do you get mad when Jordan fans say he created Pippen?

No, but it is another example of Jordan mythology. How do you "create" a HOF'er and why has MJ failed to do so in Charlotte, Washington where his teams have never even sniffed 50 wins? Why didn't he do it with any other Chicago players? The fact is Pippen was the #5 pick. Sacramento wanted him at #6. Detroit was trying to trade up for him because its GM and Chuck Daly viewed him as a future superstar (imagine Pippen hitting his stride as Detroit's core aged--and Pip on Detroit, not Chicago). Krause did the trade with Seattle because he feared, correctly, that Pippen would not be available when Chicago picked at #8. Yet MJ stans try to act as if MJ took Brian Scalberine and made him a HOF'er. :rolleyes:

Pippen had showed tremendous growth, both physically and as a player. He averaged 4/3 as a freshmen in college; he posted 26/10 as a senior. He was the team manager--the guy who handed out towels--when he started college. Was it MJ who get him from 4/3 to the #5 pick? Jordan helped him just as Pippen helped MJ and teammates help others or older co-workers help younger ones. It was not something revolutionary. MJ stans also ignore Phil Jackson teaching Pippen defense or Collins staying late to do extra work with Pippen and Grant. Again, if MJ can "make" a HOF'er why doesn't he--the ultimate competitor--do it in Charlotte?

[GimmeThat]

because their job is to cover every single sports.

and 6/6 out of 8 years with 2 years in retirement when comparing different sports is something that can't be left out on their board.

they don't care about basketball history.
they care more about sports history.


2 cents.

[Roundball_Rock]

because their job is to cover every single sports.

and 6/6 out of 8 years with 2 years in retirement when comparing different sports is something that can't be left out on their board.

they don't care about basketball history.
they care more about sports history.


2 cents.

6 championships is not the record--not even in basketball.

[Droid101]

I view a troll post more as something intentionally asinine.
I'm quite the student on internet trolls.

Trolls only look for responses. So, if I want to troll LeBron fans, I'll say "2/5" and watch how they reason and respond to that. If I want to troll Kobe fans, I'll say 2/7 or 1/18 or whatever, and look at how many responses I get.

Trolling is looking for the most replies with the least amount of effort.

In my travels, anyway.


Curious. What is the end goal of the gay agenda?

http://idesh.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/57018-gayroller.jpg

[RRR3]

I'm quite the student on internet trolls.

Trolls only look for responses. So, if I want to troll LeBron fans, I'll say "2/5" and watch how they reason and respond to that. If I want to troll Kobe fans, I'll say 2/7 or 1/18 or whatever, and look at how many responses I get.

Trolling is looking for the most replies with the least amount of effort.

In my travels, anyway.



http://idesh.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/57018-gayroller.jpg
Make a thread on this for each star player called "how I troll NBA stars 101" or something:cheers:

[fpliii]

No reason for them to get pissy when a guy as prominent as Doctor J believes he isn't the greatest ever though. That's what they did. MJ isn't the unanimous GOAT, and it shouldn't be blasphemous to put others above him. They act like it is. Lebron and Jordan are all they ever want to talk about when it comes to basketball.
Oh I agree 100%. The two of them (Stephen A and Skip) are clowns (though like the ones you see in the circus, they can be entertaining at times).

MJ obviously isn't the unanimous GOAT. I don't have a problem with what Dr. J said, or his logic. I don't have a top 5 or fave 5 per se, but I think MJ would feature in mine. Doesn't mean he has to appear in everybody else's.

[Soundwave]

6 championships is not the record--not even in basketball.

6 titles as the best player on the team is ridiculously rare, how many examples of it even exist in team sports in the color TV era?

Jordan - 6
Derek Jeter - 5 (?) in 20 seasons
Wayne Gretzky - 4 in 20 seasons
Shaquille O'Neal - 3
Magic Johnson - 3
Tom Brady - 3

[GimmeThat]

6 titles as the best player on the team is ridiculously rare, how many examples of it even exist in team sports in the color TV era?

Jordan - 6
Derek Jeter - 5 (?) in 20 seasons
Wayne Gretzky - 4 in 20 seasons
Shaquille O'Neal - 3
Magic Johnson - 3


besides the fact that basketball is a 5 man team sports right?

[SpanishACB]

No reason for them to get pissy when a guy as prominent as Doctor J believes he isn't the greatest ever though. That's what they did. MJ isn't the unanimous GOAT, and it shouldn't be blasphemous to put others above him. They act like it is. Lebron and Jordan are all they ever want to talk about when it comes to basketball.

As opposed to you and your man crush on Wilt?

I mean, you didn't even mention him in your post but I can see you looking at his real size poster in your room as if looking for acknolwedgment before pressing the submit button:rolleyes:

[Soundwave]

It's fine for people to say MJ isn't GOAT, but to say he's not one of the five greatest basketball players to play is ridiculous.

It's like saying Wayne Gretzky isn't one of the five best hockey players ever.

You have to do a bunch of retarded mental gymnastics to justify it. Even the dumbest f*cking 13-year-old idiot on this forum wouldn't even bother to argue that. And that's saying something because there are a few of them.

[deja vu]

Because he is the pinnacle of success and achievement in this sport. The gold standard in basketball.

Why do you think people say things like "the Michael Jordan of car racing" or something like that?

[LeBird]

It's fine for people to say MJ isn't GOAT, but to say he's not one of the five greatest basketball players to play is ridiculous.

It's like saying Wayne Gretzky isn't one of the five best hockey players ever.

You have to do a bunch of retarded mental gymnastics to justify it. Even the dumbest f*cking 13-year-old idiot on this forum wouldn't even bother to argue that. And that's saying something because there are a few of them.

Wayne Gretzky was a far, far, far more dominant player than Jordan.

Not only was he the greatest scorer and assister of all time, he had more assists by himself than anyone in NHL history has points (goals and assists combined). :lol

Jordan isn't even outright the best scorer of all-time (it's, really, probably Wilt) and that was his main claim to fame.

[moe94]

Wayne Gretzky was a far, far, far more dominant player than Jordan.

Not only was he the greatest scorer and assister of all time, he had more assists by himself than anyone in NHL history has points (goals and assists combined). :lol

Jordan isn't even outright the best scorer of all-time (it's, really, probably Wilt) and that was his main claim to fame.

What's good with Wilt's playoff scoring? His Finals?

[Soundwave]

Wayne Gretzky was a far, far, far more dominant player than Jordan.

Not only was he the greatest scorer and assister of all time, he had more assists by himself than anyone in NHL history has points (goals and assists combined). :lol

Jordan isn't even outright the best scorer of all-time (it's, really, probably Wilt) and that was his main claim to fame.

Give me a plausible argument for how Jordan isn't the one of the top five NBA players ever.

You have to reach really hard to do so.

As dominant as Gretzky was, Jordan bested him with 6 titles in a shorter career, Gretzky was dominant from 1981-1990, but after that Lemieux was probably the best player in the game.

I'm a huge Gretzky fan (over any athlete actually), but I'll say Jordan is the only one I really hold in similar esteem to Gretzky from a team sports POV.

[Yankstar]

Because LeBron's opinions are different than his own.

:applause:

Real talk right here :bowdown:

[LeBird]

Give me a plausible argument for how Jordan isn't the one of the top five NBA players ever.

You have to reach really hard to do so.

No, you don't.

To start off:
KAJ, Wilt, Russell.

Either or both statistical freaks who won a lot at arguably the most important position in the sport.

KAJ - has all the trophies, etc, that Jordan did and was far better for his team than Jordan was for his when they were crap and couldn't help him to a title.

Wilt - Statistical freak who was unlucky to have had to face-off against the greatest dynasty of all time. Otherwise, he would have won much more in terms of titles and individual awards but for Russell's Celtics.

Russell - the greatest defensive player of all time and the most winningest player of all time by a mile.

Then the other two:

Bird and Magic:

Two guys who won titles and individual awards in the toughest era in NBA history. Two guys who were far more of a net positive for their team. Especially in Bird's case having taken over the 2nd worst team in the league. Magic might be the greatest offensive player of all-time because of his points+assists combined. Either the Celtics or the Lakers in the 90s win as many if not more titles than the Bulls.

Not really that much of a stretch. Especially if you hold against Jordan the fact that he couldn't do jack when these guys were playing near their primes against him and the fact that when he took over a relatively weak team he could hardly improve them showing that despite his offensive prowess he wasn't much of a net positive.


As dominant as Gretzky was, Jordan bested him with 6 titles in a shorter career, Gretzky was dominant from 1981-1990, but after that Lemieux was probably the best player in the game.

I'm a huge Gretzky fan (over any athlete actually), but I'll say Jordan is the only one I really hold in similar esteem to Gretzky from a team sports POV.

This is a false equivalency. You're comparing two different sports with different dynamics in terms of the way and number of titles that can be won.

Moreover, Jordan himself is not near the top for winning NBA titles. Even amongst GOAT candidates, Russell blows him out of the water.

What makes it even stupider is that titles are won by teams. We are talking about individuals; Jordan is not the dirt on Gretzky's shoe. He's not a standout in any category. Gretzky's point differential is crazy. He is 1st with 2,857 points; Messier is 2nd with 1,887. That is bonkers.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/history/leaders

http://s30.postimg.org/3o14j0us1/Screen_Shot_2014_07_17_at_5_30_33_pm.png

[Rose'sACL]

Gretzky and Bradman are probably the most dominant players in team sports. Jordan doesn't touch either of those in terms of dominance.

[Soundwave]

No, you don't.

To start off:
KAJ, Wilt, Russell.

Either or both statistical freaks who won a lot at arguably the most important position in the sport.

KAJ - has all the trophies, etc, that Jordan did and was far better for his team than Jordan was for his when they were crap and couldn't help him to a title.

Wilt - Statistical freak who was unlucky to have had to face-off against the greatest dynasty of all time. Otherwise, he would have won much more in terms of titles and individual awards but for Russell's Celtics.

Russell - the greatest defensive player of all time and the most winningest player of all time by a mile.

Then the other two:

Bird and Magic:

Two guys who won titles and individual awards in the toughest era in NBA history. Two guys who were far more of a net positive for their team. Especially in Bird's case having taken over the 2nd worst team in the league. Magic might be the greatest offensive player of all-time because of his points+assists combined. Either the Celtics or the Lakers in the 90s win as many if not more titles than the Bulls.

Not really that much of a stretch. Especially if you hold against Jordan the fact that he couldn't do jack when these guys were playing near their primes against him and the fact that when he took over a relatively weak team he could hardly improve them showing that despite his offensive prowess he wasn't much of a net positive.



This is a false equivalency. You're comparing two different sports with different dynamics in terms of the way and number of titles that can be won.

Moreover, Jordan himself is not near the top for winning NBA titles. Even amongst GOAT candidates, Russell blows him out of the water.

What makes it even stupider is that titles are won by teams. We are talking about individuals; Jordan is not the dirt on Gretzky's shoe. He's not a standout in any category. Gretzky's point differential is crazy. He is 1st with 2,857 points; Messier is 2nd with 1,887. That is bonkers.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/history/leaders

http://s30.postimg.org/3o14j0us1/Screen_Shot_2014_07_17_at_5_30_33_pm.png

I'm well aware of Gretzky's stats. I've met him in person three times and seen him play on several occasions.

Jordan is the only team athlete I feel on a team level who is comparable. Even there, in hockey one player really can't control the entire game the way a basketball player can. Gretzky lost in the Finals twice and only won 4 titles in a 20 season career.

Wilt with one measly title doesn't get over Jordan, putting Bird and Magic over him requires a fairly large stretch, Jordan has as many titles as the no.1 option as Bird (3) and Magic (3) combined. On top of more titles, he has more MVPs than either, and he's a far better defensive player than either on top of being a far more dominant scorer. He demolished Magic the one time they met in the playoffs and against Bird he was the best individual player in those series', he just had a laughably sh*t team around him whereas Bird had a borderline All-Star team.

The moment Pippen became an acceptably solid no.2 option level player the Bulls started winning multiple titles and were basically unbeatable, Magic and Bird needed 2-3 All-Star level players around them.

Bird told the Celtics front office that they had to win as many titles before the Bulls got their sh*t together and put a decent team around him because he knew what was coming.

[LeBird]

No offence, but I don't care about how you feel about a certain player.

These are facts. Jordan was not superlative or otherwordly in any one facet of the game. None. Not for scoring, not for his shooting, not for even winning titles as the man. Nothing.

Gretzky's dominance in his sport is on a whole other level.

The rest of your argument about why Wilt or whoever aren't over Jordan is just your opinion. The discussion was can you make a legit and objective argument over Jordan for them, and yes you can. You simply choose parameters that favour Jordan. I for one don't care that Wilt won only 2 titles, he faced the Celtics otherwise he would have won more.

I don't care that Jordan won 6 when Magic and Bird won less; they would have won just as much in the Bulls. None of them had teams where if they left their team was only 2 games worse. See, it's very easy and it doesn't require much of an argument to show why they all have a case.

[Soundwave]

No offence, but I don't care about how you feel about a certain player.

These are facts. Jordan was not superlative or otherwordly in any one facet of the game. None. Not for scoring, not for his shooting, not for even winning titles as the man. Nothing.

Gretzky's dominance in his sport is on a whole other level.

The rest of your argument about why Wilt or whoever aren't over Jordan is just your opinion. The discussion was can you make a legit and objective argument over Jordan for them, and yes you can. You simply choose parameters that favour Jordan. I for one don't care that Wilt won only 2 titles, he faced the Celtics otherwise he would have won more.

I don't care that Jordan won 6 when Magic and Bird won less; they would have won just as much in the Bulls. See, it's very easy and it doesn't require much of an argument to show why they all have a case.

Do you even watch hockey? lol. I grew up in Alberta. Gretzky was great in his prime, Lemieux honestly probably was better he just had injuries and a crappier team. After being traded from the Oilers in '88, Gretzky was never really a threat to win a Cup aside from '93 where he did put the Kings on his back and had a terrific playoff run, but lost to a workmanlike Habs squad. The Oilers meanwhile won the Cup again without Gretzky in 1990 and then made the Conference Finals in '91 and '92 (unlike you guys who get giddy over Pippen leading the Bulls to one playoff series win, lol, and then straight to .500 mediocrity before Jordan returned).

Jordan is superlative and other wordly in several aspects of the game, you're just bitter if you're pushing that laughable arguement. He's the leading ppg scorer in NBA history.

Fun fact ... the regular season ppg is Jordan's crown, but the playoff one is not so close, there's an even larger gap there which is even more impressive.

A person doesn't need to skew anything for Jordan to be considered GOAT, he comes up roses in most of the important categories ... championships? He has plenty, Russell is the only player with more than 6 as "the man" and even there he did not shoulder the responsibility of being the no.1 option on offence. Individual accolades? More MVPs than Magic, Bird, Shaq, Kareem bests him here by one. Highest ppg in NBA history. Highest ppg in NBA playoff history (here he crushes Wilt and Kareem).

All-around offensive and defensive ability? Jordan was dominant on both ends of the floor.

These aren't stretches, they are fairly basic things to look at when looking at GOAT-ability. Team accomplishments, individual accomplishments, and general intangibles (clutch ability, completeness as a basketball player, etc.) ... Jordan comes up in spades in every area, that's not hype, that's fact.

[LeBird]

I know all about Lemieux, he's the only legit contender but in the end he fell short exactly because he didn't last. Gretzky himself suffered a back injury that kept him from breaking the records even further and if he had never made the swap to LA he would have won more titles.

All this is irrelevant because Jordan is not a grade above anyone in any facet of the game. When will people get this through their heads?

PPG? He is level with Wilt, who stopped trying to score through the latter part of his career otherwise he would have cleared Jordan easily. Jordan could never dream of a 50ppg season. Even him aside, James, Durant, Baylor, West, etc are only a few points off him. Not a whole gargantuan leap.

Of course you have to skew things in his favour. He was rubbish at turning a team around which showed as far as his team impact he wasn't really close to guys like Bird, KAJ or Lebron. Heck, even Magic who went to an already fairly strong Lakers improved them more in his first year than Jordan did the Bulls.

In order to laud Jordan's rings, you have to forget that he played in the weakest era in the past 3-4 decades, and during that time he had clearly the best team.

Again, Jordan is nowhere close to being the stand-out GOAT in basketball. You have to know very little or have little knowledge of basketball before the 90s to claim as such.

[Soundwave]

I know all about Lemieux, he's the only legit contender but in the end he fell short exactly because he didn't last. Gretzky himself suffered a back injury that kept him from breaking the records even further and if he had never made the swap to LA he would have won more titles.

All this is irrelevant because Jordan is not a grade above anyone in any facet of the game. When will people get this through their heads?

PPG? He is level with Wilt, who stopped trying to score through the latter part of his career otherwise he would have cleared Jordan easily. Jordan could never dream of a 50ppg season. Even him aside, James, Durant, Baylor, West, etc are only a few points off him. Not a whole gargantuan leap.

Of course you have to skew things in his favour. He was rubbish at turning a team around which showed as far as his team impact he wasn't really close to guys like Bird, KAJ or Lebron. Heck, even Magic who went to an already fairly strong Lakers improved them more in his first year than Jordan did the Bulls.

In order to laud Jordan's rings, you have to forget that he played in the weakest era in the past 3-4 decades, and during that time he had clearly the best team.

Again, Jordan is nowhere close to being the stand-out GOAT in basketball. You have to know very little or have little knowledge of basketball before the 90s to claim as such.

Magic had Kareem to play with. Boo hoo, what a terrible situation to be in. He refused to be drafted by the Bulls period :oldlol: Didn't want any part of that.

The Oilers won the Cup without Gretzky in 90, and beat him in the playoffs for like three straight seasons. If didn't have such a cheap owner who literally traded every good player on the team in 3-4 year span they could've probably won another Cup or two without Gretzky. That was legitimately a phenomenal team, Pippen's Bulls were paper tigers by comparison, one good regular season.

Jordan faced Magic and Bird three times in the playoffs and was the best player on the court each time, but it is a team sport, Bird had a loaded All-Star team around him, so he was able to beat up on Jordan then. So really IMO it was Magic/Bird who were lucky that they could keep him at bay as long as they did because the Bulls were that bad.

I still don't see a reasonable case for Jordan not being in the top five. I think that's simply a retarded argument but if you want to cling to that, good for you.

You really think Wilt Chamberlain is averaging 50 ppg in 1998 or even 1988? What was Jordan's ppg average at the same age LeBron and Durant are at now? *crickets*

[Hands of Iron]

In no way was Bird 'lucky' to have played in the era he did if it's simply a matter of tallying up career accolades without regard to the strength and competitiveness of the aforementioned, which actually happens quite regularly. It's really not that difficult to rattle off numerous aspects of the game in which he was either better than or more skilled than Mike. I'm not as renegade as LeBird - one of the top five posters on ISH - Jordan's production from '88-'93 in particular was magnificent and he'd be a GOAT candidate if he'd stayed retired/suspended after that but he's also a very nauseating figure these days.

[Soundwave]

In no way was Bird 'lucky' to have played in the era he did if it's simply a matter of tallying up career accolades without regard to the strength and competitiveness of the aforementioned, which actually happens quite regularly. It's really not that difficult to rattle off numerous aspects of the game in which he was either better than or more skilled than Mike. I'm not as renegade as LeBird - one of the top five posters on ISH - Jordan's production from '88-'93 in particular was magnificent and he'd be a GOAT candidate if he'd stayed retired/suspended after that but he's also a very nauseating figure these days.

Yeah coming back and winning three more titles, three more scoring titles, two more MVPs, three more FMVPS, and having a record 72 game win season sure hurt Jordan's legacy :oldlol: If only he had stayed retired he'd be GOAT.

Jordan was that good. People need to just get over that already and stop being butt hurt over it because the opposite of that (trying to be a basketball equivalent of a dickish hipster who wants to be cool by being "different") is even lamer.

Yes ESPN pays Jordan and LeBron and Kobe a lot of attention. That's because they're f**king good players. And no, you're not a special snowflake because you think someone else is a pretty good player.

[BoutPractice]

It's not like someone was lying to you about Michael Jordan's greatness. There's no conspiracy here.

For those who doubt opinion and trust advanced stats, Michael Jordan is pretty much the PER and adjusted plus minus god... Whatever complicated stat you come up with to measure a player's greatness, Jordan somehow always comes on top or close to it.

So you can add that distinction to someone who also has 6 NBA MVPs, 6 NBA titles (2 threepeats) as the best player on his team from the shooting guard position, an olympic gold medal, a defensive player of the year award, led the league in scoring 10 times and in steals 3 times, is virtually synonymous with clutch, played until 39, finished his career with 32000 points, 6500 rebounds, 5500 assists, and 2500 steals...

If you seriously believe that Nike, ESPN and so on "made" Jordan, you're just ignorant. Every objective measure of his actual output on the basketball court has him as either the best or one of the best that have ever played. I'm not a worshipper, just a realist...

[juju151111]

How often do you see ESPN reference Joe Montana? Show clips of Gretzky? Mention Willie Mays? Talk about Kareem hitting a game winner in the Finals? Reference how Ali is the gold standard? There is only one retired athlete who gets more coverage than many contemporary luminaries. You would think Game 6 of the 1998 Finals was played yesterday or that a first round game winner in 1989 was the most consequential moment in sports history based on how often ESPN runs those clips.

Jordan wasn't the biggest winner, most dominant--even in his own sport let alone among legends in sports in general. He didn't have any impact outside of his sport like, say, Ali or Jackie Robinson. He arguably is the #1 player in the #3 sport in America. The answer for why he gets this much coverage even today is Jordan is, and was, a cash cow. No other athlete in American history has had 30 years of non-stop marketing to a degree rivaling that of a presidential campaign, only a campaign that never seems to end.

MJ stans will claim it is because MJ>>>>>>>any other athlete in history. That is absurd. The problem for MJ stans is that at some point the gravy train runs out. This year's incoming college freshmen were infants when MJ last played a relevant game. Once the cup runs dry a new cash cow will have to be found, and the same forces who brought you MJ are teeing up a certain other player for that mantle. It will be amusing to see the reaction from MJ stans when the gravy train is idled and replaced.
It's been 16 years bro. When the replacement coming. Jordan is the biggest winner in the modern era. None of those players you listed have the combination of Dominance, accolades, intangible s has MJ. Kareem is the only one that comes close but wasn't the man for two of his rings and less finals MVPs.

[kshutts1]

It's fine for people to say MJ isn't GOAT, but to say he's not one of the five greatest basketball players to play is ridiculous.

It's like saying Wayne Gretzky isn't one of the five best hockey players ever.

You have to do a bunch of retarded mental gymnastics to justify it. Even the dumbest f*cking 13-year-old idiot on this forum wouldn't even bother to argue that. And that's saying something because there are a few of them.
I guess I must be the dumbest 12 year old? 11? Take your pick.

I wouldn't argue AGAINST Jordan in the top 5, but rather I'd argue that there're so many variables and that anyone leaving Jordan out can be totally justified.

Not to mention, you said "five greatest basketball players" rather than "on a five man team".

Anyway, my first tier is, in no particular order, Jordan, Russell, Wilt, Magic, Bird, Oscar, Shaq. So if we're talking "five greatest basketball players ever" I won't care who you pick, but I will disagree with you if you pick anyone other than those 8.

[LeBird]

Magic had Kareem to play with. Boo hoo, what a terrible situation to be in. He refused to be drafted by the Bulls period :oldlol: Didn't want any part of that.

And yet even with Kareem, they only won 5 in the toughest era ever. Jordan coasted to 6 with the weakest.


The Oilers won the Cup without Gretzky in 90, and beat him in the playoffs for like three straight seasons. If didn't have such a cheap owner who literally traded every good player on the team in 3-4 year span they could've probably won another Cup or two without Gretzky. That was legitimately a phenomenal team, Pippen's Bulls were paper tigers by comparison, one good regular season.


The Oilers were as stacked as they come. You're digressing though. No one is in under any illusion that this detracts from Gretzky who on an individual level is superior to anyone, comfortably.


Jordan faced Magic and Bird three times in the playoffs and was the best player on the court each time, but it is a team sport, Bird had a loaded All-Star team around him, so he was able to beat up on Jordan then. So really IMO it was Magic/Bird who were lucky that they could keep him at bay as long as they did because the Bulls were that bad.


He really wasn't that complete in those years. He scored a lot of points, great stats. But that's what you expect when you're the #1 usage and #1 shots per game player in the history of the game. When it came to a team game, he was found sorely lacking. He didn't win a single playoff game against the Celtics in those earlier runs.

But this is irrelevant, another digression. The point wasn't that Jordan needed to beat them to be seen as a champion. Jordan couldn't even improve his lowly Bulls as much as Magic improved the Lakers. And that's noticeable, because it would be harder to improve an already good team.


I still don't see a reasonable case for Jordan not being in the top five. I think that's simply a retarded argument but if you want to cling to that, good for you.

You really think Wilt Chamberlain is averaging 50 ppg in 1998 or even 1988? What was Jordan's ppg average at the same age LeBron and Durant are at now? *crickets*

That's because you live by parameters that solely benefit Jordan. If you were a bit more open and objective, considered extenuating circumstances, you'll see Jordan is clearly matched, if not superseded, by a decent number of players.

He simply is not that ahead. You picked out LeBron and Durant, forget them, how about Iverson, Petit, West and Baylor? The difference between Jordan and the rest of the top 10 ppg players is a few points. It's not a huge deal.

Gretzky's point total paint him out as an alien. He is an outlier that shouldn't exist. Honestly, you can't be this dense or biased.

[LeBird]

In no way was Bird 'lucky' to have played in the era he did if it's simply a matter of tallying up career accolades without regard to the strength and competitiveness of the aforementioned, which actually happens quite regularly. It's really not that difficult to rattle off numerous aspects of the game in which he was either better than or more skilled than Mike. I'm not as renegade as LeBird - one of the top five posters on ISH - Jordan's production from '88-'93 in particular was magnificent and he'd be a GOAT candidate if he'd stayed retired/suspended after that but he's also a very nauseating figure these days.

Jordan inherited the 2nd worst team in the NBA. Bird inherited the 2nd worst team in the NBA. Bird leads them to a 61 win record, taking them to the #1 record, and to the conference finals. Jordan improves his team 11 games, from a 27 win team to a 38 win team - the 14th best team overall - first round exit.

So the idea that Bird just lucked it is hilarious. This is why this myth just won't die. There is 1001 excuses for Jordan. It's not that everybody else is perfect and he can't have a few extenuating circumstances, it just means you can't paint him out as god. He didn't walk on water. He wasn't doing things plenty of other stars were capable of. Even if he is your GOAT, he's simply not that far ahead, it's definitely debatable. In basketball, there just is not stand-out. There's no Bradman, there is no Gretzky.

[Soundwave]

And yet even with Kareem, they only won 5 in the toughest era ever. Jordan coasted to 6 with the weakest.



The Oilers were as stacked as they come. You're digressing though. No one is in under any illusion that this detracts from Gretzky who on an individual level is superior to anyone, comfortably.



He really wasn't that complete in those years. He scored a lot of points, great stats. But that's what you expect when you're the #1 usage and #1 shots per game player in the history of the game. When it came to a team game, he was found sorely lacking. He didn't win a single playoff game against the Celtics in those earlier runs.

But this is irrelevant, another digression. The point wasn't that Jordan needed to beat them to be seen as a champion. Jordan couldn't even improve his lowly Bulls as much as Magic improved the Lakers. And that's noticeable, because it would be harder to improve an already good team.



That's because you live by parameters that solely benefit Jordan. If you were a bit more open and objective, considered extenuating circumstances, you'll see Jordan is clearly matched, if not superseded, by a decent number of players.

He simply is not that ahead. You picked out LeBron and Durant, forget them, how about Iverson, Petit, West and Baylor? The difference between Jordan and the rest of the top 10 ppg players is a few points. It's not a huge deal.

Gretzky's point total paint him out as an alien. He is an outlier that shouldn't exist. Honestly, you can't be this dense or biased.

Yes, I have bizarre parameters like championships, individual dominance, and offensive/defensive completeness as a player. What bizarre parameters those are.

While we're at it, Iverson had a few years at 30 ppg, he must be almost as good as Jordan too, lol. No real difference.

I mean hell, Luc Longley can dribble a basketball too ... are we really sure that Jordan was better? Damn ESPN and their hype machine.

Guys who lead their team to six titles and have the highest ppg in NBA history must happen all the time. I mean we only have to go back to a time when President Kennedy was in office to find a guy who led his team to more than 5 titles. That's only ... what 50 years ago.

Who says the 80s was the greatest era either? Isiah's Pistons beat both the Celtics and Lakers, and I don't think it's a stretch to say the Bulls became superior to the Pistons (once Pippen got over his migranes and grew some balls).

[Soundwave]

Jordan inherited the 2nd worst team in the NBA. Bird inherited the 2nd worst team in the NBA. Bird leads them to a 61 win record, taking them to the #1 record, and to the conference finals. Jordan improves his team 11 games, from a 27 win team to a 38 win team - the 14th best team overall - first round exit.

So the idea that Bird just lucked it is hilarious. This is why this myth just won't die. There is 1001 excuses for Jordan. It's not that everybody else is perfect and he can't have a few extenuating circumstances, it just means you can't paint him out as god. He didn't walk on water. He wasn't doing things plenty of other stars were capable of. Even if he is your GOAT, he's simply not that far ahead, it's definitely debatable. In basketball, there just is not stand-out. There's no Bradman, there is no Gretzky.

It's debatable if Gretzky is the greatest in hockey, but he is the consensus no.1.

Same thing in basketball. Someone has to be no.1, if its Jordan, then that's one f*cking amazing resume to justify it at least.

Jordan's career as well has a storybook quality to it. Winning the 4th title on father's day, trouncing Magic for the 1st and giving notice that the 80s were over, clinching the second threepeat with the game winning shot ... you can't write that sh*t, it's straight out of a Hollywood movie. That lends itself to a certain mythology, but it doesn't change the fact that the accomplishments themselves are fairly amazing.

We throw around things like "well 6 titles isn't a lot". By what f*cking metric? No one in any pro sport has led his team to 6 in the last half century, not even Gretzky (who you cite as an alien) and in hockey terms the Oilers were far more stacked than the Bulls could ever dream of being. They only won 4 with Gretzky, and never three straight.

If you have to go back to the 60s to point to Russell which is 50 freaking years ago, lets admit what Jordan did with the Bulls is pretty damn impressive and rare.

That ain't a bus that comes around every 10 minutes.

[LeBird]

Yes, I have bizarre parameters like championships, individual dominance, and offensive/defensive completeness as a player. What bizarre parameters those are.

That's not bizarre, that you choose to ignore context is what is bizarre. Who says Jordan's 6 rings are better than Bird's 3 considering the era? Who says we should ignore the trash teams Wilt or KAJ found themselves on when they weren't winning, if they were even more dominant than Jordan?

You just ignore this to pretend like they don't have an argument.


While we're at it, Iverson had a few years at 30 ppg, he must be almost as good as Jordan too, lol. No real difference.


The point is that the difference in their ppgs is not as monstrous as the difference between Gretzky's points tally. There's one guy on another planet almost 1000 points between him and 2nd place. But from 2nd place to 25th there is about 500 points separating the players in question. Let's stop pretending that as a scorer Jordan compares to that. Even if we accept him as the best, he wasn't that far ahead.


I mean hell, Luc Longley can dribble a basketball too ... are we really sure that Jordan was better? Damn ESPN and their hype machine.


Nonsense disguised to look like a witty response.


Guys who lead their team to six titles and have the highest ppg in NBA history must happen all the time. I mean we only have to go back to a time when President Kennedy was in office to find a guy who led his team to more than 5 titles. That's only ... what 50 years ago.


See, what I mean by parameters? Who says being the highest ppg scorer makes you the greatest, or winning 6 titles (which isn't even the most) makes you the greatest?

You are just creating a narrative to suit your agenda.


Who says the 80s was the greatest era either? Isiah's Pistons beat both the Celtics and Lakers, and I don't think it's a stretch to say the Bulls became superior to the Pistons (once Pippen got over his migranes and grew some balls).

No one says the Bulls weren't great...but they're not winning 6 in the 80s. So forget about it. If you accept that reasonable assumption; that's where your parameters (high ppger who won 6 rings) starts to fall apart. And that's just touching the surface on the kind of critiques you can make for Jordan. So there's clearly a handful of players that are comparable to him.


It's debatable if Gretzky is the greatest in hockey, but he is the consensus no.1.

Same thing in basketball. Someone has to be no.1, if its Jordan, then that's one f*cking amazing resume to justify it at least.

Gretzky is the hugely overwhelming favourite, and not just because Nike told us so. More to the point: he's also on another planet in terms of offence. Something Jordan isn't. 2,857 points...it's mind boggling.

[Hands of Iron]

Yeah coming back and winning three more titles, three more scoring titles, two more MVPs, three more FMVPS, and having a record 72 game win season sure hurt Jordan's legacy :oldlol: If only he had stayed retired he'd be GOAT.

Jordan was that good. People need to just get over that already and stop being butt hurt over it because the opposite of that (trying to be a basketball equivalent of a dickish hipster who wants to be cool by being "different") is even lamer.

Yes ESPN pays Jordan and LeBron and Kobe a lot of attention. That's because they're f**king good players. And no, you're not a special snowflake because you think someone else is a pretty good player.

:lol

You're an excited stan who fails at reading comprehension, apparently. There just simply isn't any other way you could take that post as some sort of negative or slate towards Michael Jordan. I think the only thing you might've accurately got out of it was the outrageous claim Bird was better in numerous facets of the game: As actual basketball players and what they brought to the court, you know? That's just truth serum. Jordan isn't tiers above everyone else in this team sport and I don't think I'd hesitate to take Bird over him if I had to choose between the best versions of either with all things being equal in terms of fielding a team made up of otherwise average players. If that's too much to handle, then sort your life out.

[Soundwave]

Gretzky is the hugely overwhelming favourite, and not just because Nike told us so. More to the point: he's also on another planet in terms of offence. Something Jordan isn't.

Yet Jordan led his (considerably less talented) team to two more championships and threepeated twice.

How many players in any team sport since the advent of color TV have more than 5 as "the go to player"?

Pick a sport. Any sport. NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL. It should be easy to find many players that have done it.

In the last 50 years, how many can you come up with? *crickets*

In 100 years of basketball, there's only two guys that really have led their team to more than 4 titles as the go to player and Russell didn't have to bear the burden of being the no.1 (or even often no.2) offensive option.

Jordan's accomplishments are incredibly rare.

[kshutts1]

Yet Jordan led his (considerably less talented) team to two more championships and threepeated twice.

How many players in any team sport since the advent of color TV have more than 5 as "the go to player"?

Pick a sport. Any sport. NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL. It should be easy to find many players that have done it.

In the last 50 years, how many can you come up with? *crickets*
Second time I've seen you post this, but why do you mention "color TV"?

[LeBird]

Yet Jordan has two more championships and threepeated twice.

Jordan doesn't...the Bulls do. Comprende? That has nothing to do with individual ability, which is what we're talking about here.


How many players in any team sport since the advent of color TV have more than 5 as "the go to player"?


Haha, the parameters again.


Pick a sport. Any sport. NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL. It should be easy to find many players that have done it.

In the last 50 years, how many can you come up with? *crickets*

You do know that had Gretzky stayed he would have won far more, right? Exactly. If it helps you sleep at night, you play dumb my friend.

[Soundwave]

Jordan doesn't...the Bulls do. Comprende? That has nothing to do with individual ability, which is what we're talking about here.



Haha, the parameters again.



You do know that had Gretzky stayed he would have won far more, right? Exactly. If it helps you sleep at night, you play dumb my friend.

The Oilers would have won several championships even without Gretzky. I'm actually an Oilers fan, so if you want to go down this road, be my guest, just make sure you know your sh*t. The Oilers won the Cup again in 90 and knocked Gretzky out of the playoffs 3 out of 4 times, so who needed who?

Gretzky was a great offensive player, but a fairly mediocre 2 way player, Messier was always far better at that.

Everything can be stated as a parameter. You say the 80s is the best era, well someone else can turn around and say that's your imaginary parameter.

If you're just going by cold, hard statistics without any context (or "parameters") whatsoever, then only Russell, Wilt, and Kareem are on Jordan's level, Magic and Bird both falter there.

[LeBird]

The Oilers would have won several championships even without Gretzky. I'm actually an Oilers fan, so if you want to go down this road, be my guest, just make sure you know your sh*t.

And if the Bulls replaced Jordan with someone better than Pete Myers they may have too. Or, you know, if they weren't robbed by the ref.

The point is, if Gretzky wanted to keep his ring count going, all he had to do was stay.

This is irrelevant though. Gretzky isn't considered the best because he was in teams that won the most rings...it was because he was by far the biggest outlier in scoring and assists in history.

The only way you could really compare that is for example you had a player who led the league all-time in rebounds and assists, and was so far ahead of the 2nd placed guy that he had more assists than they had rebounds and assists combined.

Player X: 24000 rebounds, 15000 assists
Player Y: 7500 rebounds, 7500 assists

That is what you call dominance.


Everything can be stated as a parameter. You say the 80s is the best era, well someone else can turn around and say that's your imaginary parameter.

If you're just going by cold, hard statistics without any context (or "parameters") whatsoever, then only Russell, Wilt, and Kareem are on Jordan's level, Magic and Bird both falter there.

You've made your parameter nice and tidy to fit a certain narrative. I'm open minded. I can see multiple arguments without having to bend reality. I can accept the cases of Wilt, Russell, KAJ, Magic and Bird when it comes to the GOAT discussion. You're pretending as if Jordan is by far the greatest player legitimately. I'm saying there is nothing that he has which puts him on this level. All you can try to do is build an amalgam of somewhat arbitrary parameters just so you can prop him up.

A player like Gretzky's case is simple: 2,857 career points. That in itself is a big STFU to anyone that really wants to argue. Which doesn't stop people from debating it, but it's the kind of dominant facet that Jordan lacks.

[Akhenaten]

Career playoff PPG

Wilt: 22

Jordan: 33

[LeBird]

Career playoff PPG

Wilt: 22

Jordan: 33

Iverson: 29.73
West: 29.13

[Soundwave]

And if the Bulls replaced Jordan with someone better than Pete Myers they may have too. Or, you know, if they weren't robbed by the ref.

The point is, if Gretzky wanted to keep his ring count going, all he had to do was stay.

This is irrelevant though. Gretzky isn't considered the best because he was in teams that won the most rings...it was because he was by far the biggest outlier in scoring and assists in history.

The only way you could really compare that is for example you had a player who led the league all-time in rebounds and assists, and was so far ahead of the 2nd placed guy on rebounds that he had more assists than they had rebounds and assists combined.



You've made your parameter nice and tidy to fit a certain narrative. I'm open minded. I can see multiple arguments without having to bend reality. I can accept the cases of Wilt, Russell, KAJ, Magic and Bird when it comes to the GOAT discussion. You're pretending as if Jordan is by far the greatest player legitimately. I'm saying there is nothing that he has which puts him on this level. All you can try to do is build an amalgam of sometimes pointless parameters just so you can prop him up.

A player like Gretzky's case is simple: 2,857 career points. That in itself is a big STFU to anyone that really wants to argue. Which doesn't stop people from debating it, but it's the kind of dominant facet that Jordan lacks.

Gretzky also put up those numbers in the highest scoring era for hockey by about a country mile.

The offense have developed faster than the mediocre goaltending of the 80s, as a result something like 6 of the top 8 scoring NHL players all-time racked up most of their points in the 1980s (Gretzky, Messier, Dionne, Francis, Yzerman, Mario). Scores like 8-2 were a routine event in the 80s. Like the NBA, the NHL suffered a huge drop in scoring by the time the 90s kicked into full gear.

It's why Sidney Crosby will never probably even sniff Yzerman numbers, not because he isn't a better player, but because modern defenses and goalies simply don't allow 7-4 games every second night.

What's impressive about Jordan is he is the NBA's all-time PPG leader, but he didn't necessarily need to rely on a high scoring era ... the 90s by and large was a lower scoring era, yet he still comes out of that as the leading scorer by PPG in history.

That's something a lot of people don't point out.

[LeBird]

Gretzky also put up those numbers in the highest scoring era for hockey by about a country mile.

The offense have developed faster than the mediocre goaltending of the 80s, as a result something like 6 of the top 8 scoring NHL players all-time racked up most of their points in the 1980s (Gretzky, Messier, Dionne, Francis, Yzerman, Mario). Scores like 8-2 were a routine event in the 80s. Like the NBA, the NHL suffered a huge drop in scoring by the time the 90s kicked into full gear.

What's impressive about Jordan is he is the NBA's all-time PPG leader, but he didn't necessarily need to rely on a high scoring era ... the 90s by and large was a lower scoring era, yet he still comes out of that as the leading scorer by PPG in history.

That's something a lot of people don't point out.

No one during his era put up Gretzky's career numbers. It's not even an argument.

Seriously, I think we've reached a dead end here. You actually believe Jordan was on the same kind of dominance Gretzky was on. Either you need a statistician or a psychiatrist.

[juju151111]

Iverson: 29.73
West: 29.13
Mj doesn't shoot a low % and Wilt isn't the playoffs performer MJ was. Neither was Bird Show me someone that has the combination of Dominance, accolades, MVPs,playoffs etc.... That MJ have. The only one is Kareem and he wasn't the best player for the last two chips nor was he the fmvps.

[bagelred]

The real question is...why are you watching ESPN?

[juju151111]

Gretzky also put up those numbers in the highest scoring era for hockey by about a country mile.

The offense have developed faster than the mediocre goaltending of the 80s, as a result something like 6 of the top 8 scoring NHL players all-time racked up most of their points in the 1980s (Gretzky, Messier, Dionne, Francis, Yzerman, Mario). Scores like 8-2 were a routine event in the 80s. Like the NBA, the NHL suffered a huge drop in scoring by the time the 90s kicked into full gear.

It's why Sidney Crosby will never probably even sniff Yzerman numbers, not because he isn't a better player, but because modern defenses and goalies simply don't allow 7-4 games every second night.

What's impressive about Jordan is he is the NBA's all-time PPG leader, but he didn't necessarily need to rely on a high scoring era ... the 90s by and large was a lower scoring era, yet he still comes out of that as the leading scorer by PPG in history.

That's something a lot of people don't point out.
The Bulls played at a slow ass pace even in the 80s.

[LeBird]

Mj doesn't shoot a low % and Wilt isn't the playoffs performer MJ was. Neither was Bird Show me someone that has the combination of Dominance, accolades, MVPs,playoffs etc.... That MJ have. The only one is Kareem and he wasn't the best player for the last two chips nor was he the fmvps.

I think what really holds them back is that they weren't all that + born on Feb 17th in 1963, in Brooklyn, New York. :lol

[juju151111]

I think what really holds them back is that they weren't all that + born on Feb 17th in 1963, in Brooklyn, New York. :lol
What holds me back is this. 6>3, 5>3,6fmvps>2,better playoffs performer, and defender. :applause: :applause:

[Soundwave]

No one during his era put up Gretzky's numbers. It's not even an argument.

Seriously, I think we've reached a dead end here. You actually believe Jordan was on the same kind of dominance Gretzky was on. Either you need a statistician or a psychiatrist.

Because I understand the difference between the two sports.

Gretzky was a great player who could put up big offensive numbers, but he's not the winner that Jordan was, nor could he will his teams to win just on his back, but this is more of a product of hockey being a very different sport.

It was actually Messier that turned the 84 Finals in the Oilers favor.

Of the 4 Oiler Cups, Gretzky only won the Conne Smythe (playoff MVP) two of the four times. In his last 13 seasons he won 0 Stanley Cups and made the Finals only 1 time.

He wasn't always the best player on the ice.

Just racking up points (especially in hockey where you have the secondary assist, which means on a good team a player can up their point totals massively) isn't the be all, end all for the best player, a lot of people would take Jonathan Toews over Sidney Crosby, even though Crosby outscores Toews by a large margin. Toews is the more complete player.

And I do generally agree with the consensus that Gretzky is the greatest hockey player of all time, and Jordan is the greatest basketball player. I think both are exceptionally rare in their own ways.

A prime Jordan would still average 30-32 ppg in the modern NBA, I have zero doubt about that, it may probably even be easier for him today. A prime Gretzky would put up no where close to the same numbers in the modern NHL.

[Basketball IQ]

Why doesn't anyone bring up competition

[Roundball_Rock]

As dominant as Gretzky was, Jordan bested him with 6 titles in a shorter career, Gretzky was dominant from 1981-1990, but after that Lemieux was probably the best player in the game.

11>>>>>6. Using your metric Russell is the clear GOAT.

Basketball and hockey are team sports. They aren't tennis or golf. It is not sensible to use rings as a raw measure. There are a lot of factors that go into winning and one player can only control so much. Jordan had the perfect timing of coming along when the Lakers, Pistons, Celtics fell and before the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and Spurs rose. If he was born a couple years earlier or later he would have had less rings. Would that make him a lesser player? Jordan also had the fortune of his teams avoiding major injuries in the playoffs; KAJ lost several times in the 70's due to his second best player going down.


After being traded from the Oilers in '88, Gretzky was never really a threat to win a Cup aside from '93 where he did put the Kings on his back and had a terrific playoff run, but lost to a workmanlike Habs squad.

You just provided a prime example of how external factors affect how many rings players have. If Jordan was traded to a mid-pack team in, say, 1992 he would have less rings too. Does the trade diminish Gretzky's ability?



In order to laud Jordan's rings, you have to forget that he played in the weakest era in the past 3-4 decades, and during that time he had clearly the best team.

Again, Jordan is nowhere close to being the stand-out GOAT in basketball. You have to know very little or have little knowledge of basketball before the 90s to claim as such.

Swap Jordan with Magic/Bird. How would the ring tables look then?


Jordan faced Magic and Bird three times in the playoffs and was the best player on the court each time, but it is a team sport

Typical of a MJ fan: Jordan wins; the team loses. He gets all the credit for the titles but zero of the blame for the abysmal record before Pippen became a starter.



Yes ESPN pays Jordan and LeBron and Kobe a lot of attention. That's because they're f**king good players.

Jordan, LeBron, Kobe, and Durant. Which one is not like the others?


That's because you live by parameters that solely benefit Jordan. If you were a bit more open and objective, considered extenuating circumstances, you'll see Jordan is clearly matched, if not superseded, by a decent number of players.

Exactly. That is what MJ stans do: set a criteria tailor-made for MJ and then act as if MJ being the GOAT is the logical sole answer to an analysis of the facts.


Jordan inherited the 2nd worst team in the NBA. Bird inherited the 2nd worst team in the NBA. Bird leads them to a 61 win record, taking them to the #1 record, and to the conference finals. Jordan improves his team 11 games, from a 27 win team to a 38 win team - the 14th best team overall - first round exit.

:applause:


(once Pippen got over his migranes and grew some balls).

Again, MJ wins; the team loses. People keep invoking Magic to diminish KAJ but look at KAJ without Magic and MJ without Pippen...

KAJ without Magic: 1 ring, 2 Finals, 4 conference finals, 5 MVP's
MJ without Pippen: 0 rings, 0 Finals, 0 conference finals, 1 MVP

MJ without Pippen as a starter:

38-44, 1-3 in the first round
9-9, 0-3 in the first round
40-42, 0-3 in the first round
50-32, 2-2 in the first round
13-12
24-11
30-30, missed playoffs
37-45, missed playoffs

A grand total of 0 series won. :rolleyes:


See, what I mean by parameters? Who says being the highest ppg scorer makes you the greatest, or winning 6 titles (which isn't even the most) makes you the greatest?

You are just creating a narrative to suit your agenda.

:applause:


Yet Jordan led his (considerably less talented) team to two more championships and threepeated twice.

Less talented relative to the era?

Celtics without Bird: 57 wins to 42
Lakers without Magic: 58 wins to 43
Bulls without Jordan: 57 wins to 55

The Bulls actually declined more with Pippen out (down from 69 wins to a 56 win pace) than with MJ out.


I can see multiple arguments without having to bend reality. I can accept the cases of Wilt, Russell, KAJ, Magic and Bird when it comes to the GOAT discussion. You're pretending as if Jordan is by far the greatest player legitimately. I'm saying there is nothing that he has which puts him on this level. All you can try to do is build an amalgam of somewhat arbitrary parameters just so you can prop him up.

:applause:


What's impressive about Jordan is he is the NBA's all-time PPG leader, but he didn't necessarily need to rely on a high scoring era

No one shot the ball more per game or had a higher usage rate.

My problems are with the myths that MJ>>>>>>>>>>>>>anyone else and that MJ won all by himself. The guy struggled to crack 0.500 without Pippen starting. He is the arguable GOAT, I currently have him tied with KAJ, but the mythology is absurd.

[knicksman]

players like bird, bran are low risk, low reward players. You go for these players if you have no idea how to build a team because they can produce wins right away. But the drawback they are less likely to win rings. While jordan, kobe are high risk, high reward players. They wont give you wins right away but they will give you a higher chance of winning rings if you know how to compliment them. And thats because their skills doesnt overlap with other stars. They provide impact while not reducing teammates impact. While bran although providing higher individual impact reduces the impact of his star teammates so his net impact really isnt as great as the net impact of jordan/kobe.

its the reason why kobe/jordan combined for 11 rings compared to bird/brans 5 rings. And its not even discounting the cheap rings bran has. And if you include robertson and magic then the gap becomes wider with jordan/magic/kobe winning. So stop comparing the pure players(pure sg/pg)to all around players. Coz just like dogs. Pures will always be better than mix.

[GimmeThat]

because not enough people watch basketball.

and Jordan with the Jordan Brand is still the best way to marketize it.

[Euroleague]

Are people serious with this question? It's very obvious why. The same reason they do it with LeChoke, and with the biggest choker ever Peyton, etc.

Get a clue people.

[juju151111]

What the argument for Bird at #1. You people keep claiming this shit. What argument puts Bird over Mj,Kaj, and Magic.

[Soundwave]

11>>>>>6. Using your metric Russell is the clear GOAT.

Basketball and hockey are team sports. They aren't tennis or golf. It is not sensible to use rings as a raw measure. There are a lot of factors that go into winning and one player can only control so much. Jordan had the perfect timing of coming along when the Lakers, Pistons, Celtics fell and before the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and Spurs rose. If he was born a couple years earlier or later he would have had less rings. Would that make him a lesser player? Jordan also had the fortune of his teams avoiding major injuries in the playoffs; KAJ lost several times in the 70's due to his second best player going down.



You just provided a prime example of how external factors affect how many rings players have. If Jordan was traded to a mid-pack team in, say, 1992 he would have less rings too. Does the trade diminish Gretzky's ability?



Swap Jordan with Magic/Bird. How would the ring tables look then?



Typical of a MJ fan: Jordan wins; the team loses. He gets all the credit for the titles but zero of the blame for the abysmal record before Pippen became a starter.



Jordan, LeBron, Kobe, and Durant. Which one is not like the others?



Exactly. That is what MJ stans do: set a criteria tailor-made for MJ and then act as if MJ being the GOAT is the logical sole answer to an analysis of the facts.



:applause:



Again, MJ wins; the team loses. People keep invoking Magic to diminish KAJ but look at KAJ without Magic and MJ without Pippen...

KAJ without Magic: 1 ring, 2 Finals, 4 conference finals, 5 MVP's
MJ without Pippen: 0 rings, 0 Finals, 0 conference finals, 1 MVP

MJ without Pippen as a starter:

38-44, 1-3 in the first round
9-9, 0-3 in the first round
40-42, 0-3 in the first round
50-32, 2-2 in the first round
13-12
24-11
30-30, missed playoffs
37-45, missed playoffs

A grand total of 0 series won. :rolleyes:



:applause:



Less talented relative to the era?

Celtics without Bird: 57 wins to 42
Lakers without Magic: 58 wins to 43
Bulls without Jordan: 57 wins to 55

The Bulls actually declined more with Pippen out (down from 69 wins to a 56 win pace) than with MJ out.



:applause:



No one shot the ball more per game or had a higher usage rate.

My problems are with the myths that MJ>>>>>>>>>>>>>anyone else and that MJ won all by himself. The guy struggled to crack 0.500 without Pippen starting. He is the arguable GOAT, I currently have him tied with KAJ, but the mythology is absurd.

Or if Portland hadn't been idiots and drafted Jordan, he may have curb stopped the Lakers/Celtics before the Pistons picked them apart. Drexler may have piggybacked himself to 7-8 titles. I've felt that Magic and Bird were fortunate that Jordan got stuck with a legitimately bad team that required several years to get good basically because of Sam Bowie (lol) and a pick the Blazers would dearly love to do over.

"If" you're going to play that "if" game then that's a two way street.

Scottie Pippen was injured in the 98 Finals by the way, couldn't even walk properly by game six. No one remembers or cares because Jordan came through and the Bulls won. Dennis Rodman went AWOL in '97, going to wrestle in the middle of the Finals ... no one remembers that really because Jordan came through (like he always did) and the Bulls won.

Typical Jordan hater ... spends all day hating on Jordan but then even admits he probably is either the GOAT or at worst tied for GOAT. He's just upset by the "mythology", which is about the dumbest, non-sensical argument.

[Euroleague]

6 titles as the best player on the team is ridiculously rare, how many examples of it even exist in team sports in the color TV era?

Jordan - 6
Derek Jeter - 5 (?) in 20 seasons
Wayne Gretzky - 4 in 20 seasons
Shaquille O'Neal - 3
Magic Johnson - 3
Tom Brady - 3

:roll:

[Soundwave]

:roll:

Shrugs. Had to pick someone to represent baseball.

6 titles in any pro sport is slim f*cking pickings, no one's done it in the modern era.

[jzek]

cos he's the true GOAT :confusedshrug:

[Akhenaten]

These are facts. Jordan was not superlative or otherwordly in any one facet of the game. None. Not for scoring

su

[Soundwave]

Also I'll add I don't think it's really marketing, Jordan's been retired for 16 years now, the last time I saw Jordan TV commercial was like maybe 2 years ago for Hanes underwear.

I see more commercials for Sham-Wow and Arby's roast beef than that.

The reason I think he's still so popular is because the general public loves what he represents.

For them it's not about numbers, it's about the fantasy of being someone who seems to be in total control, who's going to win, and win in the most dramatic possible fashion. To be the best. To have the hype but to live up to the hype and even exceed it.


People love that sh*t. It's archetypical, once upon a time we had stories of Greek gods, today athletes, rock stars, 8000 superhero movies, etc. fill that void for us, Jordan just has the "best" story and the best part is he was actually real (take that Santa Claus).

That's why he's still relevant and so beloved today, it's fuelled by the *public*, ESPN just gives the people what they want. Jordan represents "winning" in the modern sense to the public, Magic, Bird, Russell ... really ... don't.

[Psileas]

Career playoff PPG

Wilt: 22

Jordan: 33

Another Jordan fan who finds it a bit too hard to understand that 22.54 rounds up to 23, not 22.

And, no, statistically, it's not "33 vs 23", either. It's 33/6/6/2 vs 23/24/4/5+.

[Roundball_Rock]

Scottie Pippen was injured in the 98 Finals by the way, couldn't even walk properly by game six. No one remembers or cares because Jordan came through and the Bulls won. Dennis Rodman went AWOL in '97, going to wrestle in the middle of the Finals ... no one remembers that really because Jordan came through (like he always did) and the Bulls won.

:lol Pippen led the Bulls to 3 of Chicago's 4 wins with the GOAT defensive Finals from a perimeter player, demolishing the #1 offense in the league. Yet once again it was all MJ. :rolleyes: Dennis Rodman? The Bulls were bounced in the second round before he got there. They actually did slightly worse in the playoffs with MJ in 95' than they did in 94' with Grant. They lost in 6, not 7 games, and they legitimately lost. They were not robbed by a ref.

The Bulls' formula for success always was MJ+Pippen+Jackson+a PF who could defend and rebound. The one year they lacked such a PF was the worst year they had from 1990-1998. That is no coincidence.


It's 33/6/6/2 vs 23/24/4/5+.

:eek:

[ArbitraryWater]

One dude's opinion is informed

The other dude's isn't.

I always take issue with uninformed opinions.

LMFAO how do you even want to know?

Hypocrite

[Soundwave]

:lol Pippen led the Bulls to 3 of Chicago's 4 wins with the GOAT defensive Finals from a perimeter player, demolishing the #1 offense in the league. Yet once again it was all MJ. :rolleyes: Dennis Rodman? The Bulls were bounced in the second round before he got there. They actually did slightly worse in the playoffs with MJ in 95' than they did in 94' with Grant. :lol They lost in 6, not 7 games, and they legitimately lost. They were not robbed by a ref.

The Bulls' formula for success always was MJ+Pippen+Jackson+a PF who could defend and rebound. The one year they lacked such a PF was the worst year they had from 1990-1998. That is no coincidence.

Your point was that Kareem had to deal with injuries or was let down by teammates, yet I point out two specific examples where Jordan had to deal with issues due to teammates.

And Pippen was actually hurt in the Indiana series, he was not 100% for any of that Utah '98 Finals, it just got so bad by about game 6 of the Finals he could barely walk upright anymore.

Rodman was a f*cking nut job most of 96-97, from kicking that reporter in the balls to running his mouth against mormons in the Finals to leaving in the middle of the Finals to go wrestle alongside Hulk Hogan.

Bulls win, Jordan takes home Finals MVP, one of the Final's he plays with food poisoning to seal a win the other one he has maybe the greatest clutch sequence of his career culminating in the championship winning shot. Just another couple of days at the office, no biggie.

[juju151111]

Another Jordan fan who finds it a bit too hard to understand that 22.54 rounds up to 23, not 22.

And, no, statistically, it's not "33 vs 23", either. It's 33/6/6/2 vs 23/24/4/5+.
His rebounding stars are inflated especially the early 60s ones with garbage comp.

[juju151111]

:lol Pippen led the Bulls to 3 of Chicago's 4 wins with the GOAT defensive Finals from a perimeter player, demolishing the #1 offense in the league. Yet once again it was all MJ. :rolleyes: Dennis Rodman? The Bulls were bounced in the second round before he got there. They actually did slightly worse in the playoffs with MJ in 95' than they did in 94' with Grant. They lost in 6, not 7 games, and they legitimately lost. They were not robbed by a ref.

The Bulls' formula for success always was MJ+Pippen+Jackson+a PF who could defend and rebound. The one year they lacked such a PF was the worst year they had from 1990-1998. That is no coincidence.



:eek:
95 Orlando are superior to Tue 94 Knicks and what was Pippen doing in the 95 playoffs at his peak. Pippen barely did shit in game 6 in 98.

[Akhenaten]

Another Jordan fan who finds it a bit too hard to understand that 22.54 rounds up to 23, not 22.

And, no, statistically, it's not "33 vs 23", either. It's 33/6/6/2 vs 23/24/4/5+.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v300/Haskel45/i32ty213hpo9q4nvyzm5.gif

[GimmeThat]

What the argument for Bird at #1. You people keep claiming this shit. What argument puts Bird over Mj,Kaj, and Magic.

I'm just going to say Bird had 3 rings by the time he was 29.

[juju151111]

I'm just going to say Bird had 3 rings by the time he was 29.
What's your point? What puts him over those 3.

[Soundwave]

Just as an aside, Dennis Rodman was actually fairly mediocre in both the 97 and 98 Finals.

2.3 ppg/7.7 rpg in '97

3.3 ppg/8 rpg in '98

"Big three" my ass.

[Roundball_Rock]

Your point was that Kareem had to deal with injuries or was let down by teammates, yet I point out two specific examples where Jordan had to deal with issues due to teammates.

Wow. Are you really comparing Pippen being hobbled for one game to KAJ missing his second best player for an entire playoffs or Oscar being useless?

From dankok8:


Oscar of course was a complete shell in the playoffs because of his abdominal strain including the WCF against the Lakers.

To make matters worse two key back-up guards John McGlocklin (4th best player) and Wali Jones were completely useless because of injuries with Jon missing a few games in the WCF as well.

Here is an article link that highlights the Bucks' injuries:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...69 71,1413423

The Bucks should have been obliterated by the Lakers considering their state of injuries. They had a hobbled Oscar and Lucious Allen going up against West and Goodrich. McMillian was shooting the lights out and Hairston was outplaying Curtis Perry... The only reason the series was close was Kareem's play.



In 73-74 however... Oscar again had a back injury 34 games into the season and was never the same. Let's compare:

First 34 Games with a Healthy Oscar

Oscar: 15.4 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 6.9 apg on 45.0 %FG/84.4 %FT
Bucks Record: 27-7 (65 win pace)
Bucks MOV: 12.21 (WOW!)

Next 48 Games

Oscar: 10.1 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 5.8 apg on 42.6 %FG/82.4 %FT
Bucks Record: 32-16 (55 win pace)
Bucks MOV: 5.08

In the playoffs Oscar averaged a resurgent 14.0 ppg and 9.3 apg on 45.0% shooting through injury but in the Finals against a tough-nosed Celtics backcourt of White and Chaney the going was much tougher.

Bucks also missed starting SG Lucious Allen to injury. He was DNP for the entire playoffs.


In 74-75 Oscar was retired, Lucious Allen missed 72 games, and yet Kareem kept the Bucks afloat. In the games he played healthy the Bucks were 35-30 (44 win pace). In the game he missed (plus the game he got injured in) Bucks were 3-14 (14 win pace). He was worth 30 extra wins to his team. I don't know what else to say.

Allen was hurt in the 77' playoffs as well, the year the Lakers had the top seed and arguably KAJ's peak year.


95 Orlando are superior to Tue 94 Knicks

The 94' Knicks were one shot away from beating the Rockets; the Magic were swept by them.

Pippen had 19/10/7/3 in the ECSF and carried the team on defense. MJ choked hard in that series.

[Soundwave]

Reggie Miller took the Knicks to 7 games in 94 too ... came closer to beating them than Scottie actually.

The fact is the 94 Knicks couldn't close a pre-paid hooker.

They let the Bulls and Pacers both back into series that they should have won in 5-6 games, including the hilarious melt down to Reggie Miller where he scored like 8 points in 30 seconds or whatever that was.

It finally came back to bite the Knicks in the rear end when they had a chance to close the Rockets in game 6 but choked it away again and then game 7 ... well Starks goes like 3-498 from the field.

Might as well have just gift delivered the title to Hakeem at that point.

I think the mental hurdle of Jordan being retired and the Knicks suddenly having the pressure of being the favorite f*cked them up mentally something fierce.

[LeBird]

[QUOTE=Akhenaten]su

[juju151111]

Wow. Are you really comparing Pippen being hobbled for one game to KAJ missing his second best player for an entire playoffs or Oscar being useless?

From dankok8:







Allen was hurt in the 77' playoffs as well, the year the Lakers had the top seed and arguably KAJ's peak year.



The 94' Knicks were one shot away from beating the Rockets; the Magic were swept by them.

Pippen had 19/10/7/3 in the ECSF and carried the team on defense. MJ choked hard in that series.
The 95 Rockets were superior they added Clyde numnuts. Why do you gloss over things like you do with LJ Big 3 without him comparison.

Scottie Pippen averaged 19ppg on 40% shooting:cheers: in his prime year. Tf was he doing. That Bulls team was very capable of beating the Orlando team. It wasn't like the bulls got destroyed or something.

Reggie took them to 7 games too who. The 94 KNICKSwere not that good

[Akhenaten]

superlative
suːˈpəːlətɪv,sjuː-/Submit
adjective
1.
of the highest quality or degree.
"a superlative piece of skill"
synonyms: excellent, magnificent, wonderful, glorious, marvellous, brilliant, supreme, consummate, outstanding, prodigious, dazzling, remarkable, formidable, fine, choice, sterling, first-rate, first-class, of the first water, of the first order, of the highest order, premier, prime, unsurpassed, unequalled, unparalleled, unrivalled, unbeatable, peerless, matchless, singular, unique, transcendent, best, greatest, worthiest, pre-eminent, perfect, faultless, flawless;

you are aware that all those synonyms apply to Jordan when it comes to playoff and Finals PPG right?

http://laughingloudly.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/50centt.gif

[Soundwave]

The 95 Rockets were superior they added Clyde numnuts. Why do you gloss over things like you do with LJ Big 3 without him comparison.

Scottie Pippen averaged 19ppg on 40% shooting:cheers: in his prime year. Tf was he doing. That Bulls team was very capable of beating the Orlando team. It wasn't like the bulls got destroyed or something.

The Bulls probably could've won in 95 too ... Jordan's rhythm just was a little bit too far off.

If he had come back a little earlier, say around the All-Star break, they probably win that series.

They had their opportunities, game 1 they should've won.

[Roundball_Rock]

Reggie Miller took the Knicks to 7 games in 94 too ... came closer to beating them than Scottie actually.

Did the Pacers outscore the Knicks? The Knicks won 3 of their games against Chicago by 1*, 4, and 5 points and were outscored by the Bulls.


They let the Bulls and Pacers both back into series that they should have won in 5-6 games, including the hilarious melt down to Reggie Miller where he scored like 8 points in 30 seconds or whatever that was.

That was in 1995, not 1994.

The Bulls were the team that struggled to close. They blew double digit fourth quarter leads in New York in games 1 and 2 and almost did the same in game 3. That is where they missed MJ--and the lack of a legitimate second scorer (which is what they signed Harper to be for 95'). MJ would always step up in such situations. Moreover, when he was off, like he was for most of the 93' ECF against the same Knicks, he had a second scorer who could step up; the 94' Bulls lacked that. Chicago led in the fourth quarter in six of seven games. The Bulls should have won. Hollins robbed us.


I think the mental hurdle of Jordan being retired and the Knicks suddenly having the pressure of being the favorite f*cked them up mentally something fierce.

That is an interesting theory. It is possible that it had an affect since that was the only time they were nominal favorites, although the Bulls and Hawks were up there as well. Still, if you look at the record of the 90's Knicks they always had close series. 7 game ECSF in 92' with CHI, a close 6 game ECF in 93' where they blew a 0-2 lead, 7 games against CHI, IND, and HOU in 94', 7 games against the Pacers in the ECSF in 95' and yet another 7 games series against the Heat in the 97' ECSF. I think part of it is they punched above their weight via gritty and physical play. In terms of talent they were not as good as their results suggested.


The 95 Rockets were superior

Probably but is Drexler the difference between a sweep and a 7 game series? The Magic were too inexperienced to compete in the Finals. They were swept in 94', 95' and 96'--every year they were in the playoffs. The Magic won 57 games in 95'; the Knicks won 57 in 94'. The Knicks had legitimate playoff experience from 93' and 92' while 95' was the first real playoff run the Magic had (they were swept in the first round in 94'). The Knicks also had an all-time great coach.


The 94 KNICKSwere not that good

LeBird, isn't this interesting? The 90's Knicks are the team MJ fans always point to as the prime example of the tough competition MJ faced. Yet here you have two MJ fans arguing the best version of those teams was just another run-of-the-mill contender on par with the Pacers and MJ-less Bulls...
yet these people say MJ's 6 should be taken at face value?

[GimmeThat]

What's your point? What puts him over those 3.

nothing, I actually find it retarded for people to put someone on the top 10 who ended their career early because of injury.

[Soundwave]

superlative
suːˈpəːlətɪv,sjuː-/Submit
adjective
1.
of the highest quality or degree.
"a superlative piece of skill"
synonyms: excellent, magnificent, wonderful, glorious, marvellous, brilliant, supreme, consummate, outstanding, prodigious, dazzling, remarkable, formidable, fine, choice, sterling, first-rate, first-class, of the first water, of the first order, of the highest order, premier, prime, unsurpassed, unequalled, unparalleled, unrivalled, unbeatable, peerless, matchless, singular, unique, transcendent, best, greatest, worthiest, pre-eminent, perfect, faultless, flawless;

So, he did nothing that wasn't rivalled. He may have been the best in certain things, but is not the outright, by a clear margin, leader at anything in the way Gretzky was.

Not even for usage rate or shot attempts :lol

NHL points per game (minimum 500 points)

Wayne Gretzky, 1.921
Mario Lemieux, 1.883
Mike Bossy, 1.497
Sidney Crosby, 1.415

Lemieux is very close to Gretzky, he just dealt with a lot more injuries and cancer (from which he came back from and led the league in scoring again).

Crosby is actually maybe the most impressive considering he plays in a much lower scoring era, put him in the 80s and he might very well outscore Gretzky.

Gretzky cleaned up on assists, when it comes to actual goal scoring things tighten up considerably, he's not actually in the top 5 for either goals per game regular season or playoffs.

[juju151111]

[/CODE]
Did the Pacers outscore the Knicks? The Knicks won 3 of their games against Chicago by 1*, 4, and 5 points and were outscored by the Bulls.



That was in 1995, not 1994.

The Bulls were the team that struggled to close. They blew double digit fourth quarter leads in New York in games 1 and 2 and almost did the same in game 3. That is where they missed MJ--and the lack of a legitimate second scorer (which is what they signed Harper to be for 95'). MJ would always step up in such situations. Moreover, when he was off, like he was for most of the 93' ECF against the same Knicks, he had a second scorer who could step up; the 94' Bulls lacked that. Chicago led in the fourth quarter in six of seven games. The Bulls should have won. Hollins robbed us.



That is an interesting theory. It is possible that it had an affect since that was the only time they were nominal favorites, although the Bulls and Hawks were up there as well. Still, if you look at the record of the 90's Knicks they always had close series. 7 game ECSF in 92' with CHI, a close 6 game ECF in 93' where they blew a 0-2 lead, 7 games against CHI, IND, and HOU in 94', 7 games against the Pacers in the ECSF in 95' and yet another 7 games series against the Heat in the 97' ECSF. I think part of it is they punched above their weight via gritty and physical play. In terms of talent they were not as good as their results suggested.



Probably but is Drexler the difference between a sweep and a 7 game series? The Magic were too inexperienced to compete in the Finals. They were swept in 94', 95' and 96'--every year they were in the playoffs. The Magic won 57 games in 95'; the Knicks won 57 in 94'. The Knicks had legitimate playoff experience from 93' and 92' while 95' was the first real playoff run the Magic had (they were swept in the first round in 94'). The Knicks also had an all-time great coach.



LeBird, isn't this interesting? The 90's Knicks are the team MJ fans always point to as the prime example of the tough competition MJ faced. Yet here you have two MJ fans arguing the best version of those teams was just another run-of-the-mill contender on par with the Pacers and MJ-less Bulls...
yet these people say MJ's 6 should be taken at face value?
Yes he is. He even had a higher playoffs per then Hakeem that year. He wanted a ring bad. Also Clyde didn't come to the rockets till the middle of the season. Records means nothing they are a 60 win teams

[GimmeThat]

Just as an aside, Dennis Rodman was actually fairly mediocre in both the 97 and 98 Finals.

2.3 ppg/7.7 rpg in '97

3.3 ppg/8 rpg in '98

"Big three" my ass.


I'm not gonna lie.

Jordan and Pippen kept those Jazz team under 90 points per game themselves.

I mean, that's some really good defense when you considered their FG%

[juju151111]

Clyde came in at the middle of the season. If he played the whole season they win 60+ games easily.

[Soundwave]

Did the Pacers outscore the Knicks? The Knicks won 3 of their games against Chicago by 1*, 4, and 5 points and were outscored by the Bulls.



That was in 1995, not 1994.

The Bulls were the team that struggled to close. They blew double digit fourth quarter leads in New York in games 1 and 2 and almost did the same in game 3. That is where they missed MJ--and the lack of a legitimate second scorer (which is what they signed Harper to be for 95'). MJ would always step up in such situations. Moreover, when he was off, like he was for most of the 93' ECF against the same Knicks, he had a second scorer who could step up; the 94' Bulls lacked that. Chicago led in the fourth quarter in six of seven games. The Bulls should have won. Hollins robbed us.


A Scottie Pippen team that falls apart in the 4th quarter?

How shocking

http://www.warriorsworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Shaq.jpg

Knicks were a bunch of choking b*tches too.

[Roundball_Rock]

Yeah, Pip actually contended for a ring without MJ. :lol

[juju151111]

178-190. :roll:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199006030DET.html :roll:

[Soundwave]

178-190. :roll:

Sometimes honestly I think Chicago didn't deserve Jordan. Franchise never did sh*t before he got there and hasn't been sh*t since. Garbage/cheap-skate ownership too that lucked into the greatest player ever thanks to Portland. Truth.

Jordan would've gotten his anywhere, there was nothing special in Chicago. Worse come to worse he would've been traded to the Lakers like every other good player and won 5-6+ there.

[juju151111]

Sometimes honestly I think Chicago didn't deserve Jordan. Franchise never did sh*t before he got there and hasn't been sh*t since. Garbage ownership too. Truth.
Can you tell me what you see here http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199006030DET.html

[Roundball_Rock]

juju, where was MJ without Pippen as a starter?

38-44, 1-3
9-9, 0-3
40-42, 0-3
50-32, 2-2
13-12
24-11
30-30, missed playoffs
37-45, missed playoffs

:roll: :roll:



Sometimes honestly I think Chicago didn't deserve Jordan. Franchise never did sh*t before he got there and hasn't been sh*t since. Truth.

What has Jordan done in Washington, Charlotte and Birmingham?

The Bulls had lousy luck with Rose's injuries but should be back this year.

[juju151111]

juju, where was MJ without Pippen as a starter?

38-44, 1-3
9-9, 0-3
40-42, 0-3
50-32, 2-2
13-12
24-11
30-30, missed playoffs
37-45, missed playoffs

:roll: :roll:




What has Jordan done in Washington, Charlotte and Birmingham?

The Bulls had lousy luck with Rose's injuries but should be back this year.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199006030DET.html 1989 and 1990. Tf is this:lol Mj basically asts on all the starters points. They made like10FGs combined and Mj had 9 asts:roll: pathetic

[Soundwave]

juju, where was MJ without Pippen as a starter?

38-44, 1-3
9-9, 0-3
40-42, 0-3
50-32, 2-2
13-12
24-11
30-30, missed playoffs
37-45, missed playoffs

:roll: :roll:




What has Jordan done in Washington, Charlotte and Birmingham?

The Bulls had lousy luck with Rose's injuries but should be back this year.

Birmingham, lol, scraping at the bottom of the barrell there. Washington was MJ's deal, he wanted to play for his own satisfaction, I don't begrudge him for that. He could've taken the b*tch route and gone and played for Phil and the Lakers or something and padded his resume with 1-2 more titles but he chose to play at that age for a rebuilding team.

Bulls are a crap organization that always talk a big game about bringing in talent and always fail every summer. The lame part is they were criminally underpaying Jordan and Pippen for years and had the audacity to think they were the ones driving that franchise's success.

They were lucky to get Jordan otherwise they would have 0 titles and those 6 (or more) that Jordan would've got are hanging up in the rafters in Portland instead.

The Bulls are just the ugly pudgy guy who somehow ended up with the hottest girl at prom.

[Roundball_Rock]

Who do you root for these days?

[juju151111]

Who do you root for these days?
The Bulls and if the Bulls get knocked out OKC because I like Durant.

[rlsmooth775]

It's pretty funny how passionate Jordan fans

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

I didn't read every post but in regards to Skip Bayless:

He was a hack sportswriter in the Dallas Metro Area. He and Troy Aikman back in the early 90's had a huge fight. (Mainly because of Bayliss's accusations on Aikman's sexual preference.) He also during that time continue to put down all Dallas sports.... eventually he was "run out of town."

And that is a major reason why he is a Spurs fan. Because he hates all of Dallas sports, and slams them any chance he gets.

He is basically the "shock jock of radio" for ESPN TV.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

I don't even have Bill Russell as a top 50 player.

:biggums:

[mehyaM24]

love the moronic samurai swish's in this thread. soundwave sounds like a bumbling retard with jordan's c*ck shoved firmly down his throat.

again, jordan isn't the goat, nor has a case for it.

and LMAO at him being the "goat athlete"

wilt anybody? im no fan of wilt, in fact i think he's overrated, but the guy was a track star in college (conference champion in the high jump and national champion in the shot put). his vertical leap was higher than jordan's, and he was faster and the second strongest man to ever play basketball (shaq being #1).

[Knoe Itawl]

People like Roundball and LeBird are just dedicated Jordan detractors. However, he's one player that met and exceeded the hype. People can write long dissertations to justify just about anything, yet still be completely incorrect. So the fact that they can type long posts full of bullshyt doesn't make their arguments any more reasonable.

What's clear to any reasonable basketball fan, is that Jordan embodied a ridiculous combination of clutchness, offensive prowess, defensive prowess, fundamentals and off the charts intangibles. He channeled all of this into 6 NBA titles, and a slew of other accomplishments. He also had perhaps the most aesthetically pleasing game of all time.

So he had off the charts substance AND style. Of COURSE he was going to be heavily marketed. But he was also as GOOD as the hype. People like Roundball, LeBird, etc. pretend that only they can see through the ESPN/Nike marketing machine that has blinded everyone and that's garbage. People see what he did on the COURT, and that's why he's looked at as GOAT by so many. It just so happens that he's GOAT AND he was heavily marketed. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

At any rate, it's worthless to argue with people like that because their mind is made up but Jordan's accomplishments speak for themselves, and really don't need defending. That's the beauty of it. No matter how many longwinded essays Roundball and Lebird come up with, Jordan is that rare athlete that you really can't deny or you look like an irrational detractor. Not even top 5. lol.

[DonDadda59]

love the moronic samurai swish's in this thread. soundwave sounds like a bumbling retard with jordan's c*ck shoved firmly down his throat.

again, jordan isn't the goat, nor has a case for it.

and LMAO at him being the "goat athlete"

wilt anybody? im no fan of wilt, in fact i think he's overrated, but the guy was a track star in college (conference champion in the high jump and national champion in the shot put). his vertical leap was higher than jordan's, and he was faster and the second strongest man to ever play basketball (shaq being #1).

This. I mean, how many women did Jordan slay... or mountain lions for that matter?

Not as many as Wilt is how many.

[mehyaM24]

This. I mean, how many women did Jordan slay... or mountain lions for that matter?

Not as many as Wilt is how many.

http://eleutherophobia.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/wilt21.jpg

[Roundball_Rock]

Jordan embodied a ridiculous combination of clutchness, offensive prowess, defensive prowess, fundamentals and off the charts intangibles. He channeled all of this into 6 NBA titles, and a slew of other accomplishments. He also had perhaps the most aesthetically pleasing game of all time.

So he had off the charts substance AND style. Of COURSE he was going to be heavily marketed. But he was also as GOOD as the hype.

Who disputes any of this? What people are saying is MJ is the only GOAT candidate who is promoted. How often do you see ESPN or SI or XYZ hyping up KAJ, Wilt, or Russell? Given this massive disparity, it is not surprising MJ is viewed as the GOAT by 90% of people. Moreover, he has not played a relevant game in 16 years; yet ESPN talks about him every day. They don't do that with any other retired player in any other sport.

The lowest MJ is ever ranked is 4th or 5th, i.e. http://airjudden2.tripod.com/jordan/rank.htm

[mehyaM24]

People like Roundball and LeBird are just dedicated Jordan detractors. However, he's one player that met and exceeded the hype. People can write long dissertations to justify just about anything, yet still be completely incorrect. So the fact that they can type long posts full of bullshyt doesn't make their arguments any more reasonable.

What's clear to any reasonable basketball fan, is that Jordan embodied a ridiculous combination of clutchness, offensive prowess, defensive prowess, fundamentals and off the charts intangibles. He channeled all of this into 6 NBA titles, and a slew of other accomplishments. He also had perhaps the most aesthetically pleasing game of all time.

So he had off the charts substance AND style. Of COURSE he was going to be heavily marketed. But he was also as GOOD as the hype. People like Roundball, LeBird, etc. pretend that only they can see through the ESPN/Nike marketing machine that has blinded everyone and that's garbage. People see what he did on the COURT, and that's why he's looked at as GOAT by so many. It just so happens that he's GOAT AND he was heavily marketed. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

At any rate, it's worthless to argue with people like that because their mind is made up but Jordan's accomplishments speak for themselves, and really don't need defending. That's the beauty of it. No matter how many longwinded essays Roundball and Lebird come up with, Jordan is that rare athlete that you really can't deny or you look like an irrational detractor. Not even top 5. lol.

just because you disagree with them, doesn't mean they're irrational

roundball and lebird both raise valid arguments.

if you look objectively, jordan's career had a lot to do with media spinning and narratives

[tontoz]

So what was Irving's top 5?

If someone doesn't have Jordan in their top 5 then it is most likely a personal issue.

[KNOW1EDGE]

MJ is the best to ever play basketball.

So naturally, ESPN will likely talk about and compare other players to Michael. Why does that upset you? Because they don't mention other names in the GOAT talk? Maybe cuz MJ is quite clearly the GOAT.

The younger generation is always going to dispute reality

[Knoe Itawl]

just because you disagree with them, doesn't mean they're irrational

roundball and lebird both raise valid arguments.

if you look objectively, jordan's career had a lot to do with media spinning and narratives

No, they really don't. There's no "media spinning" to just being able to watch what he actually did on the court. How do you "spin" 6 titles as MVP each time? How do you "spin" his stats? Legendary moments? Prowess on both ends of the floor?

That's all I, and most serious basketball fans care about. We could give a shyt about his Wheaties commercials. In fact, I actually hate the "hype without substance" aspect of much marketing. However, Jordan, like Pele or Gretzky was the real deal. He met and surpassed the hype and kept raising the bar. Can you nitpick his career? Sure, you can nitpick just about anything if you really want to. I can nitpick any top 10 players' career to make them look not as good. So what?

But everyone's entitled to their opinions. The majority of the basketball world will (rightfully) look at him as GOAT. And Roundballs wish that youngsters will grow up and push Lebron over him is just wishful thinking (unless Bron earns it). People still call Babe Ruth the greatest baseball player all these years later, so people are going to suddenly stop calling Jordan GOAT when there's tons of footage on Youtube, ESPN Classic, him still being brought up all the time on ESPN, the Internet making his stats, accomplishments, etc. readily available for all Air Jordan still being the number 1 shoe brand by faaaaar, etc. etc?

Nah, not happening any time soon. Deal with it. Or keep making long essays and whining about it. Doesn't matter either way. He's still gonna GOAT cause that's what GOATs do.

:pimp:

[Roundball_Rock]

MJ is the best to ever play basketball.

So naturally, ESPN will likely talk about and compare other players to Michael. Why does that upset you? Because they don't mention other names in the GOAT talk? Maybe cuz MJ is quite clearly the GOAT.

The younger generation is always going to dispute reality

He arguably is the #1 player in the nation's #3 sport. It isn't just NBA legends that are ignored. What about NFL, MLB, NHL, auto racing, boxing, golf, and tennis legends? The U.S. is a large country with several significant sports; the NBA is generally considered the #3 sport and lags well behind the #1 NFL.


People still call Babe Ruth the greatest baseball player all these years later

How often is he referenced? Ruth dominated his era in a way that only Gretzky can approach.

[KNOW1EDGE]

No, they really don't. There's no "media spinning" to just being able to watch what he actually did on the court. How do you "spin" 6 titles as MVP each time? How do you "spin" his stats? Legendary moments? Prowess on both ends of the floor?

Exactly. We aren't talking about his status in the media.

We are talking about how good of a basketball player he was. The media didn't win 6 rings, mvp, dpoy etc etc, Michael Jordan did that, and that's why he is the GOAT. Not because ESPN reported the news.

[Legends66NBA7]

So what was Irving's top 5?

If someone doesn't have Jordan in their top 5 then it is most likely a personal issue.

No particular order:

Bill Russell
Wilt Chamberlain
Elgin Baylor (his favouite of them all)
Oscar Robertson
Jerry West

He said he compiled this list has a teenager (14-15 years old) and the main basis is on what he saw. It doesn't seem like a personal issue, but his own preference, which I'm assuming some will take it as his own bias.

[juju151111]

just because you disagree with them, doesn't mean they're irrational

roundball and lebird both raise valid arguments.

if you look objectively, jordan's career had a lot to do with media spinning and narratives
Media spinner Mj to 6 chips and 6 FMVPs:lol

[moe94]

just because you disagree with them, doesn't mean they're irrational

roundball and lebird both raise valid arguments.

if you look objectively, jordan's career had a lot to do with media spinning and narratives

People who agree with me raise valid arguments. People who disagree are deluded and biased.

[Calabis]

Dr J came on first take and all Stephen and skip wanted to talk about was Jordan and why he wasn't in Julius top 5. Why did they care so much and seem hurt he didn't want to acknowledge him

Probably the same reason you decided to start another Jordan thread:confusedshrug:

[played0ut]

just because you disagree with them, doesn't mean they're irrational

roundball and lebird both raise valid arguments.

if you look objectively, jordan's career had a lot to do with media spinning and narratives

the irony.....

[Calabis]

Jordan inherited the 2nd worst team in the NBA. Bird inherited the 2nd worst team in the NBA. Bird leads them to a 61 win record, taking them to the #1 record, and to the conference finals. Jordan improves his team 11 games, from a 27 win team to a 38 win team - the 14th best team overall - first round exit.

So the idea that Bird just lucked it is hilarious. This is why this myth just won't die. There is 1001 excuses for Jordan. It's not that everybody else is perfect and he can't have a few extenuating circumstances, it just means you can't paint him out as god. He didn't walk on water. He wasn't doing things plenty of other stars were capable of. Even if he is your GOAT, he's simply not that far ahead, it's definitely debatable. In basketball, there just is not stand-out. There's no Bradman, there is no Gretzky.

Here goes this moron with the same shit over and over, when its been pointed out, Bird did not inherit the same fvcking team. How many times do you need to be told? U keep shouting out this same lame ass crap like Fox News and Benghazi....:facepalm

Tiny missed a entire year with a leg injury, the next season he was traded to the Celtics, due to inactivity/injury, he came in out of shape and overweight, he also was playing for he first time in a year and rarely played more than half a game if that(less than 25 minutes per game). The following year Birds arrival he was back in shape and played at an All Star level, hence his selection to the All Star game.

Cowens on being a player/coach, it was a struggle for Cowens. "I never had any coaching experience prior to that," he told HOOP magazine. "It was too much for me." yeah but u'r right coaching doesn't matter in the nba, and Fitch being the NBA Coach of the Year had no impact

Cowens now has no burden of Coaching and only needs to worry about basketball....solid play

Chris Ford gets in a full training camp with teammates after being traded after the season started the year prior and provides some solid play

Also ML Carr, coming off the bench putting in work and being a stud defender didn't help at all of course:rolleyes:

Maxwell, was a damn good player in the post, with another year under his belt and went on to win Finals MVP, while Bird avg 15ppg in the Finals, putting up back to back 8 point games, still winning one of them

Robey first full season with the Celtics, after being traded halfway through the season the year prior, plays solid basketball


Jordan second full season:

86-87: And the Glide of Portland isn't shoveling bull about this Bull."What happened in the fourth quarter?" Someone asks."They started to execute their offense. In other words, Michael took over." "Just how good is Michael?"
"MVP. He's got my vote." OK. But what about Larry and Magic? "If Michael had the same supporting cast as Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, he would win as often as they do. If your talking who's most valuable to his team, it's Michael."

Magic: Or that the Lakers' Magic admits, "I have a few more horses than he does."

[Calabis]

Media spinner Mj to 6 chips and 6 FMVPs:lol

You know guys like Bird, Magic, Kobe and Lebron never had any media hype:rolleyes:

[LeBird]

you are aware that all those synonyms apply to Jordan when it comes to playoff and Finals PPG right?


No, it doesn't. Learn English. Every stat Jordan excels in he is rivalled for.


NHL points per game (minimum 500 points)

Wayne Gretzky, 1.921
Mario Lemieux, 1.883
Mike Bossy, 1.497
Sidney Crosby, 1.415

Lemieux is very close to Gretzky, he just dealt with a lot more injuries and cancer (from which he came back from and led the league in scoring again).

Crosby is actually maybe the most impressive considering he plays in a much lower scoring era, put him in the 80s and he might very well outscore Gretzky.

Gretzky cleaned up on assists, when it comes to actual goal scoring things tighten up considerably, he's not actually in the top 5 for either goals per game regular season or playoffs.

See how you're squirming. The fact is Lemieux didn't get close to Greztky precisely because he couldn't last. His game was based on skill and physical ability whereas Gretzky was a hockey-savant. People even back then couldn't pick how the heck this guy evaded so much contact and always was where he should have been, exactly at the right time.

As for your other digression: the point was Gretzky was the greatest points leader (goals and assists) in NHL history by a country mile. Something that is of great importance (it isn't some random stat) and of which you can't now omit what makes up half of that equation just to prop up your hero. The fact is even aside from all his assists he was the #1 scorer too. :lol As I said, before, mind-boggling.

[LeBird]

Here goes this moron with the same shit over and over, when its been pointed out, Bird did not inherit the same fvcking team. How many times do you need to be told? U keep shouting out this same lame ass crap like Fox News and Benghazi....:facepalm

Tiny missed a entire year with a leg injury, the next season he was traded to the Celtics, due to inactivity/injury, he came in out of shape and overweight, he also was playing for he first time in a year and rarely played more than half a game if that(less than 25 minutes per game). The following year Birds arrival he was back in shape and played at an All Star level, hence his selection to the All Star game.

Tiny was finished by 79-80 as a super star (that's what he was prior to Celtics).

He was a 14/3/8 player by that stage. The only reason he was an all-star was because of Bird.

In his Rookie season, Bird wins the Rookie of the Year award by a landslide (Magic not even close) and was also getting MVP shouts (he came 4th). Yet it was really Tiny that turned it around? :lol


Cowens on being a player/coach, it was a struggle for Cowens. "I never had any coaching experience prior to that," he told HOOP magazine. "It was too much for me." yeah but u'r right coaching doesn't matter in the nba, and Fitch being the NBA Coach of the Year had no impact


The one legit argument to state that aided Bird was the coach changing. But the Celtics were poor even the season prior - they were a 32 win team. Through 77-79 they had Heinsohn, Sanders and then Cowens. All of them had pathetic records because the Celtics were done by then.

Unless you're talking about one of the GOAT coaches you do not go from a 29 win team to a 61 win team because of the coach change.

Especially since the coach in question was Bill Fitch. Prior to coaching the Celtics, he had about a decade's worth of experience at Cleveland. He only managed to go above .500 3 times. His best season was a 49 win season.

Coming to the Celtics inherits Bird and goes a consecutive 3 60 win (.700+) seasons. Once he leaves the Celtics, he never again approaches that kind of record. In the proceeding 12 seasons, the highlight is taking a Twin Towers Houston to get beat by the Celtics in the final. Other than that, a fairly crappy record for a coach who basically lucked out apart from a handful of seasons.

http://s3.postimg.org/luiybnf6r/Screen_Shot_2014_07_18_at_10_39_51_am.png


Chris Ford gets in a full training camp with teammates after being traded after the season started the year prior and provides some solid play

Also ML Carr, coming off the bench putting in work and being a stud defender didn't help at all of course:rolleyes:

Maxwell, was a damn good player in the post, with another year under his belt and went on to win Finals MVP, while Bird avg 15ppg in the Finals, putting up back to back 8 point games, still winning one of them

ML Carr and Chris Ford are 11/3/3 kind of players :lol

Maxwell and Cowens had better seasons in 78-79, when they were a 29 win team.

78-79
Maxwell: 19/10/3
Cowens: 17/10/4

79-80 (Bird's year)
Maxwell: 18/9/3/
Cowens: 14/8/3

And Bird was comfortably the real FMVP.


Robey first full season with the Celtics, after being traded halfway through the season the year prior, plays solid basketball


Robey: 12.4/7.4/2 > 11.5/6.5/1.5

You're so desperate. :lol


Jordan second full season:

86-87: And the Glide of Portland isn't shoveling bull about this Bull."What happened in the fourth quarter?" Someone asks."They started to execute their offense. In other words, Michael took over." "Just how good is Michael?"
"MVP. He's got my vote." OK. But what about Larry and Magic? "If Michael had the same supporting cast as Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, he would win as often as they do. If your talking who's most valuable to his team, it's Michael."

Magic: Or that the Lakers' Magic admits, "I have a few more horses than he does."

You have to love anecdotal evidence to go over facts.

Bulls pre Jordan: 27 win team.
Bulls with Jordan: 38 win team.
2nd full season with Jordan: 40 win team.

Larry in that time never had a legit 23ppg scorer like Jordan had in Woolridge in his first season. He was playing with journeymen, almost-but-never-made-it men, once-were-good-not-anymore-men and the like. Your whole argument revolves around nobodies playing 'solid' to explain a 29 win team transforming into a 61 win team...yet Jordan's help is excused for improving the team only 13 games in 2 full seasons.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you didn't know what deluded meant before, you know it now.

[Roundball_Rock]

Jordan second full season:

86-87: And the Glide of Portland isn't shoveling bull about this Bull."What happened in the fourth quarter?" Someone asks."They started to execute their offense. In other words, Michael took over." "Just how good is Michael?"
"MVP. He's got my vote." OK. But what about Larry and Magic? "If Michael had the same supporting cast as Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, he would win as often as they do. If your talking who's most valuable to his team, it's Michael."



:lol quoting Drexler? Drexler thinks he>Jordan.

"Give me Pippen and then let's see what I can do."--Clyde Drexler (paraphrase)


Tiny was finished by 79-80 as a super star (that's what he was prior to Celtics).

He was a 14/3/8 player by that stage. The only reason he was an all-star was because of Bird.

In his Rookie season, Bird wins the Rookie of the Year award by a landslide (Magic not even close) and was also getting MVP shouts (he came 4th). Yet it was really Tiny that turned it around? :lol



The one legit argument to state that aided Bird was the coach changing. But the Celtics were poor even the season prior - they were a 32 win team. Through 77-79 they had Heinsohn, Sanders and then Cowens. All of them had pathetic records because the Celtics were done by then.

Unless you're talking about one of the GOAT coaches you do not go from a 29 win team to a 61 win team because of the coach change.

Especially since the coach in question was Bill Fitch. Prior to coaching the Celtics, he had about a decade's worth of experience at Cleveland. He only managed to go above .500 3 times. His best season was a 49 win season.

Coming to the Celtics inherits Bird and goes a consecutive 3 60 win (.700+) seasons. Once he leaves the Celtics, he never again approaches that kind of record. In the proceeding 12 seasons, the highlight is taking a Twin Towers Houston to get beat by the Celtics in the final. Other than that, a fairly crappy record for a coach who basically lucked out apart from a handful of seasons.

http://s3.postimg.org/luiybnf6r/Screen_Shot_2014_07_18_at_10_39_51_am.png



ML Carr and Chris Ford are 11/3/3 kind of players :lol

Maxwell and Cowens had better seasons in 78-79, when they were a 29 win team.

78-79
Maxwell: 19/10/3
Cowens: 17/10/4

79-80 (Bird's year)
Maxwell: 18/9/3/
Cowens: 14/8/3



Robey: 12.4/7.4/2 > 11.5/6.5/1.5

You're so desperate. :lol



You have to love anecdotal evidence to go over facts.

Bulls pre Jordan: 27 win team.
Bulls with Jordan: 38 win team.
2nd full season with Jordan: 40 win team.

Larry in that time never had a legit 23ppg scorer like Jordan had in Woolridge in his first season. He was playing with journeymen, almost-but-never-made-it men and the like. Your whole argument revolves around nobodies playing 'solid' to explain a 29 win team transforming into a 61 win team...yet Jordan's help is excused for improving the team only 13 games in 2 full seasons.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you didn't know what deluded meant before, you know it now.

:bowdown:

[houston]

How often do you see ESPN reference Joe Montana? Show clips of Gretzky? Mention Willie Mays? Talk about Kareem hitting a game winner in the Finals? Reference how Ali is the gold standard? There is only one retired athlete who gets more coverage than many contemporary luminaries. You would think Game 6 of the 1998 Finals was played yesterday or that a first round game winner in 1989 was the most consequential moment in sports history based on how often ESPN runs those clips.

Jordan wasn't the biggest winner, most dominant--even in his own sport let alone among legends in sports in general. He didn't have any impact outside of his sport like, say, Ali or Jackie Robinson. He arguably is the #1 player in the #3 sport in America. The answer for why he gets this much coverage even today is Jordan is, and was, a cash cow. No other athlete in American history has had 30 years of non-stop marketing to a degree rivaling that of a presidential campaign, only a campaign that never seems to end.

MJ stans will claim it is because MJ>>>>>>>any other athlete in history. That is absurd. The problem for MJ stans is that at some point the gravy train runs out. This year's incoming college freshmen were infants when MJ last played a relevant game. Once the cup runs dry a new cash cow will have to be found, and the same forces who brought you MJ are teeing up a certain other player for that mantle. It will be amusing to see the reaction from MJ stans when the gravy train is idled and replaced.


this true