Jordan was considered GOAT in 1992

[90sgoat]

Olympic.org - 1992

http://www.olympic.org/videos/michael-jordan-greatest-basketballer-of-all-time


Michael Jordan is regarded as the greatest basketball player of all time.

LA Times - 1993

articles.latimes.com/1993-10-06/news/mn-42811_1_michael-jordan


Michael Jordan, called by many the greatest basketball player ever, is retiring.

[Genaro]

Had he retired for good in 93 I think many people would consider him the GOAT but it wouldn't be like it's today. He coming back, winning 3 more in a row and having the kind of regular season records the Bulls had solidified his status as GOAT to an almost unanimous level.

[90sgoat]

Had he retired for good in 93 I think many people would consider him the GOAT but it wouldn't be like it's today. He coming back, winning 3 more in a row and having the kind of regular season records the Bulls had solidified his status as GOAT to an almost unanimous level.

See the first video.

The eye test alone was enough to crown MJ GOAT.

This is what the kids of the LeBrony generation don't get. MJ's superior talent in a time with BOTH Bird and Magic was so obvious that one ring, let alone two was more than enough to be called GOAT.

The fact that he did two 3-peats just completely blew it out of the ballpark and practically SHUT DOWN any talks of other contenders. Even the dumbest of the dumb sportsfans simply can't argue against MJ, but everyone who knew ball had MJ as GOAT in 1992.

[jlip]

From an old thread about this.



I've addressed this many times before. MJ being called GOAT before his 2nd ring was not something unique to him and was not by any means an accurate assessment of his rank as a player at the time. Someone calling him GOAT in '92 was just the latest example of a long line of premature GOAT proclamations made about "the next big superstar."

In this 1956 article (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ENUmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=owIGAAAAIBAJ&pg=2445,4482680&dq=russell+so-good-he-scares-you+mikan&hl=en), George Mikan calls Bill Russell the "best ever" before Russell even played one NBA game.

I did two separate threads about Kareem (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=282043) and Bird (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=241244)GOAT conversations. Kareem didn't win his 2nd title until 1980, and I listed multiple quotes from the 70's with people saying he was already the greatest ever. The same with Bird. Jerry Sloan called Bird the "greatest player ever to play in this league" (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6536738&postcount=4) in 1980 while Bird was still a rookie.

[90sgoat]

From an old thread about this.

So what?

Kareem WAS the greatest of all time early in his career, it was obvious from eye test.

Bird had a peak so high had he sustained it he would indeed have been GOAT.

I wouldn't blame anyone for having Bird or Magic over Kareem either peakwise.

[mehyaM24]

i like that the media is returning back to old form, not mindlessly ranking someone "GOAT" because of team achievements.

look at lebron and curry's ranking from espn this past month.

heck, look at the recent articles from when lebron played in miami. many proclaimed dude as the greatest to play.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/06/6-reasons-lebron-james-will-be-better-than-michael-jordan

http://elitesportsny.com/2015/06/10/nba-finals-5-reasons-lebron-james-is-better-than-michael-jordan/

http://thebiglead.com/2015/06/02/lebron-michael-jordan-nba-finals-supporting-cast/

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/343567-8-reasons-lebron-james-is-better-than-michael-jordan/

[90sgoat]

i like that the media is returning back to old form, not mindlessly ranking someone "GOAT" because of team achievements.

look at lebron and curry's ranking from espn this past month.

heck, look at the recent articles from when lebron played in miami. many proclaimed dude as the greatest to play.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/06/6-reasons-lebron-james-will-be-better-than-michael-jordan

http://elitesportsny.com/2015/06/10/nba-finals-5-reasons-lebron-james-is-better-than-michael-jordan/

http://thebiglead.com/2015/06/02/lebron-michael-jordan-nba-finals-supporting-cast/

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/343567-8-reasons-lebron-james-is-better-than-michael-jordan/

Lol at you linking to trash gutter rag clickbait websites.

[mehyaM24]

Lol at you linking to trash gutter rag clickbait websites.

usatoday is absolutely reputable and if you look at their history, they have articles suggesting jordan was once "GOAT" too.

http://nypost.com/2015/06/08/lebron-james-is-on-his-way-to-being-best-player-ever/

just look at the numbers. lebron's net ratings and PER (higher in the playoffs than jordan) back all this up.

as a player, nothing separates lebron from anybody tbh. he's just not as accomplished, but again, most of that derives from TEAM play.

[90sgoat]

usatoday is absolutely reputable and if you look at their history, they have articles suggesting jordan was once "GOAT" too.

http://nypost.com/2015/06/08/lebron-james-is-on-his-way-to-being-best-player-ever/

just look at the numbers. lebron's net ratings and PER (higher in the playoffs than jordan) back all this up.

as a player, nothing separates lebron from anybody tbh. he's just not as accomplished, but again, most of that derives from TEAM play.

And USA Today write 'will be' not 'is'.

Case closed.

[mehyaM24]

And USA Today write 'will be' not 'is'.

Case closed.

tomayto, tomahto

the point is they already entertained it, and believe he WILL be the GOAT.

that's ALL based on lebron's play too. lol @ team achievements being weighed less and less. people that know nothing about the game are being weeded out quick.

[TheMarkMadsen]

In this 1956 article, George Mikan calls Bill Russell the "best ever" before Russell even played one NBA game.

back in the day when sports writers apparently considered you GOAT if you could jump and block a shot :oldlol: :oldlol:

[90sgoat]

tomayto, tomahto

the point is they already entertained it, and believe he WILL be the GOAT.

that's ALL based on lebron's play too. lol @ team achievements being weighed less and less. people that know nothing about the game are being weeded out quick.

Find me a source with the credibility of LA Times or in particular the official Olympic website and we can talk, that's a job for you Homer.

[mehyaM24]

Find me a source with the credibility of LA Times or in particular the official Olympic website and we can talk, that's a job for you Homer.

usatoday is just as reputable. :confusedshrug: find me proof otherwise.

not sure why you would think otherwise. is english your second language?

[90sgoat]

back in the day when sports writers apparently considered you GOAT if you could jump and block a shot :oldlol: :oldlol:

Why is this funny?

Anyone with eyes would have seen Bill Russel in college and understood he was the best basketball player in the world by far.

This is what you don't get. The eye test rules supreme. The basketball wise know what they see. They see the talent and skill, the execution of talent and skill is what ultimately cements someone in the top. One championship ring is usually required to be taken seriously, while 8 rings can be considered worth nothing in the GOAT discussion. However, no ring is not good, if you're really a top 10 level player you will win a ring.

Someone watching Kareem destroy Wilt would not be in doubt this guy was better, but for him to dethrone Wilt he needs to win a ring. 2 rings for Kareem would not make him worse than 5 rings.

Lebron's rings are weak. Lebron's finals are weak. Ranking him one the fringes of top 10 is where that ends up.

[90sgoat]

usatoday is just as reputable. :confusedshrug: find me proof otherwise.

not sure why you would think otherwise. is english your second language?

Yes and they make a prediction - not a statement. There is a massive difference in 'will be' meaning 'can be' and 'is'.

And yes, English is a second language and I'm better at it than you.

[mehyaM24]

espn and sports illustrated already have lebron in their top 5.

another title playing as the man, and he will be arguably the GOAT. the writing is on the wall - just be thankful rings aren't a sole determiner otherwise russell would be undsisputed "GOAT".

[90sgoat]

espn and sports illustrated already have lebron in their top 5.

another title playing as the man, and he will be arguably the GOAT. the writing is on the wall - just be thankful rings aren't a sole determiner otherwise russell would be undsisputed "GOAT".

That's what you don't get. Lebron's legacy was decided in Miami. It was good, not great.

Lebron needs to have a truly dominant series. Averaging 40 on less than .400 is not doing that.

If he wins FMVP with 40ppg on 50% then maybe we can talk about him moving up.

Just tagging along with Kyrie and Love won't do enough.

[mehyaM24]

Yes and they make a prediction - not a statement. There is a massive difference in 'will be' meaning 'can be' and 'is'.

And yes, English is a second language and I'm better at it than you.

apparently not, otherwise you would have picked up on the tone in which said "prediction" was written.

the piece was intentionally decisive, with no margin for error considering titles weren't the main argument.

[Young X]

another title playing as the man, and he will be arguably the GOAT. the writing is on the wall - just be thankful rings aren't a sole determiner otherwise russell would be undsisputed "GOAT".Not to anybody who isn't stupid.

[Young X]

or to people that actually watched his career, have the numbers to back it up, and aren't shamelessly stuck in the past.

posters like this 90sgoat idiot legitimately think jordan was on another tier than lebron. :oldlol:Jordan was definitely a better player than Lebron. Has nothing to do with being stuck in the past.

[mehyaM24]

That's what you don't get. Lebron's legacy was decided in Miami. It was good, not great.

Lebron needs to have a truly dominant series. Averaging 40 on less than .400 is not doing that.

If he wins FMVP with 40ppg on 50% then maybe we can talk about him moving up.

Just tagging along with Kyrie and Love won't do enough.

the ny post and espn put lebron's finals performance up their with jordan's best - and most reputable media outlets suggested had lebron pulled off an upset (single-handedly), it would've been greater than ANYTHING jordan accomplished.

you need to read between the lines.

that or read the pieces i linked again. ditto with sports illustrated's take on lebron after last years finals.


Not to anybody who isn't stupid.

or to people that actually watched his career, have the numbers to back it up, and aren't shamelessly stuck in the past.

posters like this 90sgoat idiot legitimately think jordan was on another tier than lebron. :oldlol:

[mehyaM24]

Jordan was definitely a better player than Lebron. Has nothing to do with being stuck in the past.

lebron has a greater player efficiency rating (peak) and his net impact numbers are up there with any player in history. the only thing "definitely" better about jordan are the number of titles - which again, are team achievements.

[Young X]

lebron has a greater player efficiency rating (peak) and his net impact numbers are up there with any player in history. the only thing "definitely" better about jordan are the number of titles - which again, are team achievements.So? Dirk has a higher PER than Larry Bird, does that make him better? No, that's not the way you measure a player's greatness.

[mehyaM24]

So? Dirk has a higher PER than Larry Bird, does that make him better? No, that's not the way you measure a player's greatness.

:confusedshrug:

player efficiency is just one thing i mentioned. lebron's rapm and rpm (impact data) are the highest of any perimeter player in history.

jordan's rapm during the ENTIRE 90s wasn't even as good - yet we're supposed to believe jordan is "definitely better"? i'll pass on being a sheep.

[Young X]

:confusedshrug:

player efficiency is just one thing i mentioned. lebron's rapm and rpm (impact data) are the highest of any perimeter player in history.

jordan's rapm during the ENTIRE 90s wasn't even as good - yet we're supposed to believe jordan is "definitely better"? i'll pass on being a sheep.How the hell would you even know Jordan's RAPM or whatever when they didn't even track plus/minus stats back then? You don't even know what you're talking about.

[mehyaM24]

How the hell would you even know Jordan's RAPM or whatever when they didn't even track plus/minus stats back then? You don't even know what you're talking about.

lol?

look up xRAPM

essentially the same thing as RPM, as per fpliii

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11939963&postcount=7

[Young X]

lol?

look up xRAPM

essentially the same thing as RPM, as per fpliii

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11939963&postcount=7xRAPM is a boxscore-related stat, not just an impact stat. He even said it was "fake" in that link you posted.

Which makes sense since they didn't track play-by-play and plus/minus data in the 80's and early 90's.

[mehyaM24]

xRAPM is a boxscore-related stat, not just an impact stat. He even said it was "fake" in that link you posted.

Which makes sense since they didn't track play-by-play and plus/minus data in the 80's and early 90's.

so is rpm (its fake rapm), but it still manages to do its BEST separating team from player unlike other metrics e.g. winshares, ortg, etc.

RPM and xRAPM both include box scores, which is why they're essentially the same. educate yourself on the minor differences, and look up the posts me and fpliii had where he explains all of this.

btw, raw +/- has been around since the 70s.

[Young X]

so is rpm (its fake rapm), but it still manages to do its BEST separating team from player unlike other metrics e.g. winshares, ortg, etc.

RPM and xRAPM both include box scores, which is why they're essentially the same. educate yourself on the minor differences, and look up the posts me and fpliii had where he explains all of this.

btw, raw +/- has been around since the 70s.No, why would I be interested in knowing about something called "fake RAPM"?

Why don't you explain to us what makes Lebron better than Jordan using basketball skills and ability instead of just relying on advanced stats?

[knicksman]

You know youre a statnerd if you consider bran better than jordan or even kobe. The guy disappeared 7 out of 8 times against teams that matters. And had it been spurs instead of okc in the finals, it wouldve been 8/8. Lol

[mehyaM24]

No, why would I be interested in knowing about something called "fake RAPM"?


Why don't you explain to us what makes Lebron better than Jordan using basketball skills and ability instead of just relying on advanced stats?

because "fake rapm" can often be better than PURE rapm.

if you took the time to learn about these stats, i wouldn't have to repeat myself.

you can also look back @ posts where i have broken down lebron's game, skill for skill, and why i don't think jordan is necessarily better (just greater).

but you know that. hell, i remember you in those threads. :lol

[Derka]

3ball alt?

[Blue&Orange]

as a player, nothing separates lebron from anybody tbh.
:lol The gap in talent between Jordan and Lebron is so frigging big, only brainwashed brainless idiots can try to compare both players.

[Marchesk]

Someone watching Kareem destroy Wilt would not be in doubt this guy was better,

:facepalm

Wilt was in his 30s post major knee injury. Kareem didn't play against prime Wilt. Wilt was also had a more Bill Russell-like role on the Lakers. And don't forget, Wilt's team in 72 defeated Kareem's in the playoffs in route to a title, led by Wilt. Wilt's inspired play pushed the Lakers past the Bucks, and Cavs uploaded a video of Wilt just destroying Kareem late in that series. And then a 35 year old Chamberlain wins FMVP.

[ClipperRevival]

Had MJ retired in 1993, the debate for GOAT would've been a good one with several worthy candidates. But what MJ did in his 2nd 3 peat really sealed the deal. He just put to any rest how great he really was. You see Bron at age 31 already declining and already gave up his throne to Curry. MJ won 3 more rings, 3 more fmvp and 2 more mvp at the age of 33, 34 and 35. And he was still by far and away the best in the world. He retired as the best in the world. Unheard of.

[jstern]

I think the difference with Jordan is that not only was he so good so far through out his career, eye test and stats wise. He was so overwhelmingly good that people like Larry Bird, who doesn't BS, Magic Johnson, Isaiah Thomas were calling him the GOAT by that point.

You can bring up that other players were also called GOAT during their career, Bird and Kareem. But that doesn't mean that it's not a legitimate statement. In term of his current prime that was happening live, perhaps he was the best of all time.

More so than anything people were basing it on ability.

Remember the thread with old forum posts? I remember many of the Jordan posts made in the 80s, the ones that were being critical of him would say things like, "He's the best player of all time, but..." At that point they were basing it on his ability, the way he played the game of basketball.

That type of discussion back then were more honest, less agenda driven discussion. Since players didn't have army of fanboys backing them up, with every new member joining a family. People were free to give their honest opinions.

[Euroleague]

Olympic.org - 1992



http://www.olympic.org/videos/michael-jordan-greatest-basketballer-of-all-time

Quote:
Michael Jordan is regarded as the greatest basketball player of all time.





LA Times - 1993



articles.latimes.com/1993-10-06/news/mn-42811_1_michael-jordan

Quote:
Michael Jordan, called by many the greatest basketball player ever, is retiring.



https://media1.giphy.com/media/Z0rcMUDEsHcDS/200.gif