When you look at MJ

[Vino24]

Answer: tough competition

[Dr Hawk]

Failures.

[LAmbruh]

https://s3-media3.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/wJEDYINAMZHRMxhNEJaudg/ls.jpg

[Vino24]

Failures.
Losing records against pistons and Celtics. Next.

[superduper]

MJ faced tougher competition than Bran in the playoffs 75% of the time.

Did you know that OP?

[Vino24]

MJ faced tougher competition than Bran in the playoffs 75% of the time.

Did you know that OP?
Proof?

[bullettooth]

He should have lost 6 times in the finals instead. Apparently being a loser is now celebrated.

[superduper]

Proof?

Average SRS of teams Lebron faced in 1st round: -0.15
Average SRS of teams Jordan faced in 1st round: 3.03

Average SRS of teams Lebron faced in 2nd round: 2.93
Average SRS of teams Jordan faced in 2nd round: 3.68

Average SRS of teams Lebron faced in 3rd round: 4.11
Average SRS of teams Jordan faced in 3rd round: 5.39

Average SRS of teams Lebron faced in the finals: 7.75
Average SRS of teams Jordan faced in the finals: 6.84

Peace OP

[Nowoco]

Failures.

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Denzel-Washington-Boom-Gif.gif

[bison]

Average SRS of teams Lebron faced in 1st round: -0.15
Average SRS of teams Jordan faced in 1st round: 3.03

Average SRS of teams Lebron faced in 2nd round: 2.93
Average SRS of teams Jordan faced in 2nd round: 3.68

Average SRS of teams Lebron faced in 3rd round: 4.11
Average SRS of teams Jordan faced in 3rd round: 5.39

Average SRS of teams Lebron faced in the finals: 7.75
Average SRS of teams Jordan faced in the finals: 6.84

Peace OP

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Denzel-Washington-Boom-Gif.gif

[MrFonzworth]

https://s3-media3.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/wJEDYINAMZHRMxhNEJaudg/ls.jpg
:roll::roll::roll:

[The Iron Fist]

Finals losses. Colluding. 4th quarter shrinking. Emo pictures in front of the mirror. Phony broken hands.

[FKAri]

Long, unaccounted for periods between jobs.

[sdot_thadon]

Long, unaccounted for periods between jobs.
:roll:

[Manny98]

Longevity

He only has 11 total superstar level seasons in his career which is pathetic

[Manny98]

Losing records against pistons and Celtics. Next.
Also this he has a losing record to almost all of his biggest rivals

Thomas
Bird
Hakeem

Only could beat Shaq when Grant got injured

[Jay-B]

Actually what he

[bullettooth]

Longevity

He only has 11 total superstar level seasons in his career which is pathetic

LOL, retard.

[Spurs m8]

Bron stans getting creamed as usual

[G0ATbe]

Beating competition comparable to his teams. Everytime we saw him going up against teams on par or better than his he got murdered. Could never defy the odds like bron

[r0drig0lac]

Average SRS of teams Lebron faced in 1st round: -0.15
Average SRS of teams Jordan faced in 1st round: 3.03

Average SRS of teams Lebron faced in 2nd round: 2.93
Average SRS of teams Jordan faced in 2nd round: 3.68

Average SRS of teams Lebron faced in 3rd round: 4.11
Average SRS of teams Jordan faced in 3rd round: 5.39

Average SRS of teams Lebron faced in the finals: 7.75
Average SRS of teams Jordan faced in the finals: 6.84

Peace OP

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Denzel-Washington-Boom-Gif.gif

[Uncle Drew]

A father.

[Bawkish]

A father.

so Delonte West is now officially Lebron's daddy? :oldlol:

[Psileas]

Actually what he’s lacking is his greatness came as soon as the Celtics lakers and pistons got old. Would of loved to see the 90’s Bulls 10 years earlier in the 80’s

Good answer. Despite his titles and his 6/6, it's generally lacking the incredible team overperformances that someone would expect that the team of the "undisputed GOAT" would be able to frequently pull off. People talk all the time about Jordan never being upset in the playoffs, but I don't remember him pulling off any all-time major upsets either, at least when he wasn't playing for title contenders. Hakeem beating the Showtime Lakers in '86 (even with Sampson, they were still major underdogs), sending the mighty 86' Celtics to 6 games, leading a 47 win team to the title while beating 4 59+ win teams, leading a team without a single all-star/all-NBA level player (emphasis on "level", so don't give me '91 Jordan, Pippen was just 1 year away from joining the Dream Team) to 59 wins and the title, these are team feats that I would expect the "GOAT" to pull off multiple times in his career, yet, I don't see any of those. And, yeah, let's not even get to LeBron beating the Warriors. His biggest upset was what? Beating the '89 Cavs? Beating the '93 Knicks and Suns because his Bulls were cruising in the R.S and won 3-6 games less? Maybe some honorable loss, like sending the '89 Pistons to 6 games? Nice feats, but no reasonable fan can seriously put them among the all-time GOAT upsets.

[Vino24]

Good answer. Despite his titles and his 6/6, it's generally lacking the incredible team overperformances that someone would expect that the team of the "undisputed GOAT" would be able to frequently pull off. People talk all the time about Jordan never being upset in the playoffs, but I don't remember him pulling off any all-time major upsets either, at least when he wasn't playing for title contenders. Hakeem beating the Showtime Lakers in '86 (even with Sampson, they were still major underdogs), sending the mighty 86' Celtics to 6 games, leading a 47 win team to the title while beating 4 59+ win teams, leading a team without a single all-star/all-NBA level player (emphasis on "level", so don't give me '91 Jordan, Pippen was just 1 year away from joining the Dream Team) to 59 wins and the title, these are team feats that I would expect the "GOAT" to pull off multiple times in his career, yet, I don't see any of those. And, yeah, let's not even get to LeBron beating the Warriors. His biggest upset was what? Beating the '89 Cavs? Beating the '93 Knicks and Suns because his Bulls were cruising in the R.S and won 3-6 games less? Maybe some honorable loss, like sending the '89 Pistons to 6 games? Nice feats, but no reasonable fan can seriously put them among the all-time GOAT upsets.
This is well said :cheers:

[LostCause]

Good answer. Despite his titles and his 6/6, it's generally lacking the incredible team overperformances that someone would expect that the team of the "undisputed GOAT" would be able to frequently pull off. People talk all the time about Jordan never being upset in the playoffs, but I don't remember him pulling off any all-time major upsets either, at least when he wasn't playing for title contenders. Hakeem beating the Showtime Lakers in '86 (even with Sampson, they were still major underdogs), sending the mighty 86' Celtics to 6 games, leading a 47 win team to the title while beating 4 59+ win teams, leading a team without a single all-star/all-NBA level player (emphasis on "level", so don't give me '91 Jordan, Pippen was just 1 year away from joining the Dream Team) to 59 wins and the title, these are team feats that I would expect the "GOAT" to pull off multiple times in his career, yet, I don't see any of those. And, yeah, let's not even get to LeBron beating the Warriors. His biggest upset was what? Beating the '89 Cavs? Beating the '93 Knicks and Suns because his Bulls were cruising in the R.S and won 3-6 games less? Maybe some honorable loss, like sending the '89 Pistons to 6 games? Nice feats, but no reasonable fan can seriously put them among the all-time GOAT upsets.

:biggums:

This is essentially saying MJs GOAT resume would be better served if his teams weren

[Vino24]

[QUOTE=LostCause]:biggums:

This is essentially saying MJs GOAT resume would be better served if his teams weren

[LAmbruh]

MJ's resume is simply non-organic

[LostCause]

If it was a goat resume he would have upset an 80’s team

89 Cavs
https://www.sbnation.com/2010/5/7/1050674/5-07-1989-the-shot

Also beat the defending champ Pistons but ok I guess lol

[Vino24]

89 Cavs
https://www.sbnation.com/2010/5/7/1050674/5-07-1989-the-shot

Also beat the defending champ Pistons but ok I guess lol
They were not the title favorites :oldlol:

[sdot_thadon]

[QUOTE=LostCause]:biggums:

This is essentially saying MJs GOAT resume would be better served if his teams weren

[Manny98]

Imagine bragging about beating the Craig Ehlo Cavs :roll:

[LostCause]

Imagine bragging about beating the Craig Ehlo Cavs :roll:

Imagine not knowing NBA history to the point you think a bench player led a team :roll:

[LostCause]

No, it's just one of the few decent critiques you can make about MJ's resume. Other guys fought harder odds. He's right.

I mean yeah its a critique but its a reach considering how dominant and successful his resume is

Putting your team in a position where you dominate the comp and win is always better than not putting your team in that position and then facing "harder odds" to win

[LAmbruh]

Imagine bragging about beating the Craig Ehlo Cavs :roll:
:roll: :roll:

[LostCause]

B-b-b-but the 89 Cavs have a higher SRS than the 09 Magic that Bron lost to!

[dbugz]

Courage to ask for more help every effin season :oldlol:
















coz he doesn't need to, to be honest :pimp:

MJ The GOAT :pimp:

[jstern]

Free trips to the Final due to weak conference. Missing the playoff 1st time in a competitive conference. Losing as a favorite. Losing as a favorite multiple times. Losing as a favorite as a league MVP to players the likes of Dwight Howard. Colluding because he kept losing to players like Dwight Howard. 2011 performances. Handing out FMVPs. Handing out Finals MVPs to bench players. Jason Terry situations.

[Hey Yo]

Free trips to the Final due to weak conference. Missing the playoff 1st time in a competitive conference. Losing as a favorite. Losing as a favorite multiple times. Losing as a favorite as a league MVP to players the likes of Dwight Howard. Colluding because he kept losing to players like Dwight Howard. 2011 performances. Handing out FMVPs. Handing out Finals MVPs to bench players. Jason Terry situations.
Why bring Magic and Kareem's Lakers into the discussion?

[sdot_thadon]

I mean yeah its a critique but its a reach considering how dominant and successful his resume is

Putting your team in a position where you dominate the comp and win is always better than not putting your team in that position and then facing "harder odds" to win
It's not a reach at all imo. There's so many double standards dealing with these debates. On one end we have a legion of posters ranting about "deck stacking" way back when lebron got Ben Wallace as a teammate and going forward. On the other hand some other greats had the deck stacked for them and it falls on deaf ears and blind eyes. Mj led a team better than most teams he faced. Guys like Hakeem and Dirk's greatness pretty much hinge on their underdog title runs. It's not a reach just another aspect of career greatness. Can't have em all.

[jstern]

Why bring Magic and Kareem's Lakers into the discussion?

You brought them up. I'm just posting some of the things that are lacking in MJ's resume.

[Leviathon1121]

It's not a reach at all imo. There's so many double standards dealing with these debates. On one end we have a legion of posters ranting about "deck stacking" way back when lebron got Ben Wallace as a teammate and going forward. On the other hand some other greats had the deck stacked for them and it falls on deaf ears and blind eyes. Mj led a team better than most teams he faced. Guys like Hakeem and Dirk's greatness pretty much hinge on their underdog title runs. It's not a reach just another aspect of career greatness. Can't have em all.
There were teams more talented from top to bottom then the Bulls, they just didn

[sdot_thadon]

[QUOTE=Leviathon1121]There were teams more talented from top to bottom then the Bulls, they just didn

[LostCause]

It's not a reach at all imo. There's so many double standards dealing with these debates. On one end we have a legion of posters ranting about "deck stacking" way back when lebron got Ben Wallace as a teammate and going forward. On the other hand some other greats had the deck stacked for them and it falls on deaf ears and blind eyes. Mj led a team better than most teams he faced. Guys like Hakeem and Dirk's greatness pretty much hinge on their underdog title runs. It's not a reach just another aspect of career greatness. Can't have em all.

It's a reach to say it's what he's "missing". Now if MJ's teams weren't that dominant and he underperformed in these cases, it's a valid criticism. Why would he need to have great "underdog" victories when his teams were almost always top of the league and winning?

However, essentially docking him FOR being dominant and winning is silly. It's like saying Bill Russel isn't as great because he won too much and wasn't an underdog

[sdot_thadon]

It's a reach to say it's what he's "missing". Now if MJ's teams weren't that dominant and he underperformed in these cases, it's a valid criticism. Why would he need to have great "underdog" victories when his teams were almost always top of the league and winning?

However, essentially docking him FOR being dominant and winning is silly. It's like saying Bill Russel isn't as great because he won too much and wasn't an underdog
That was the question this thread poses. What's lacking, would a better answer for you be "nothing, he's perfect"? Other guys that are in the discussion (top 10) have that as part f their respective resumes. It's literally one of the few correct answers this question could have. You literally can ask this question about any of the top 10 guys and find an area they lack where others are strong.

[sportjames23]

[QUOTE=Vino24]When you look at MJ

[Vino24]

Those 80

[3ball]

Good answer. Despite his titles and his 6/6, it's generally lacking the incredible team overperformances that someone would expect that the team of the "undisputed GOAT" would be able to frequently pull off. People talk all the time about Jordan never being upset in the playoffs, but I don't remember him pulling off any all-time major upsets either, at least when he wasn't playing for title contenders.


by definition of being the best, anytime MJ had the minimal help that the typical star needs to contend, he had a juggernaut.

you can't produce "legendary" upsets if you always produce juggernauts with the baseline level of help needed to contend.

Otoh, Lebron had big underdogs with multiple Big 3's (Wade/Bosh or Kyrie/Love).. You've simply weaponized his losing by saying "remember how great it was the 1 time he won".. (2-6 overall vs Warriors/Spurs/Mavs)

If MJ somehow produced 6 Finals underdogs with Big 3's like Lebron did, I'm sure he'd win 1 or 2, since the odds themselves say a 3 to 1 underdog will win 1 in 4..

Again, you've weaponized Lebron's losing and thinking about this the wrong way entirely.. The honest question to ask is 'why did Curry win 70 with Klay/Dray, while Lebron couldn't even win 60 with Kyrie/Love?'.. Kawhi flirted with 70 wins that year too, so Lebron has no excuse for being an underdog in the first place in 16'.. His only excuse is that Curry plays a superior way (not ball-dominant, great catch-and-shoot), so he gets more out of the entire team and can play a better brand of ball than Lebron does with his CP3/Nash-level skillset.. The same analogy applies to MJ, who played a superior way to win 70 games and get more out of teams than Lebron.





Hakeem beating the Showtime Lakers in '86 (even with Sampson, they were still major underdogs)


But they had the talent (like Lebron's teams) and therefore shouldn't have been huge underdogs - it's their fault for not doing better in the regular season to narrow/nullify the odds..

You can't underperform the regular season to get sympathy in the playoffs for losing with talented teams.... and then get overpraised the 1 time you win as underdogs - that's what Lebron does and it's a slimy fraud..

If he's bad enough to be 1/4 underdogs or whatever, then he's supposed to win 1 in 4 times - so let's not overpraise his 1 victory and 1-3 record vs the Warriors.. :rolleyes: :facepalm





Hakeem sending the mighty 86' Celtics to 6 games


Huh?.. Both Hakeem's 6-game series with the 86' champs and MJ's 6-game series with the 89' champs make Lebron look bad for getting swept by the 07' champs.. Or the 18' champs.. Or his 14' record defeat with his 2 seed and Big 3..





leading a 47 win team to the title while beating 4 59+ win teams, leading a team without a single all-star/all-NBA level [/COLOR player (emphasis on "level", so don't give me '91 Jordan, Pippen was just 1 year away from joining the Dream Team)


Hakeem won the ring in 1994 with no all-star-level players, but Dirk did that in 2011 too.. In both instances, the best player in the league was missing in action - MJ was retired in 94, and Lebron choked in 11'

Otherwise, MJ won rings with the least offensive help - even 538 agreed that MJ's 1991 and 1993 rings are the weakest casts ever to win, outside the aforementioned Dirk Mavs and Hakeem Rockets..

MJ was a legitimate 1-man show on offense for each ring, which is why he's the only guy to win a ring as a scoring champ (6 times).. It's funny because no one else could win a ring during their hot-dog scoring champion years - they had to tone it down to win.. Only MJ's game was sufficiently fundamentally-sound that he could be both a hot dog scoring champ and have championship teamwork - only MJ could score that much in a championship capacity.

Ultimately, MJ stands alone in playoff history at 33.5 ppg, while everyone else is bunched up at the more human level of 27-29.. The gap in scoring is almost as impressive of HOW he's getting those points (championship brand, fundamentally-sound, not ball-dominant)





And, yeah, let's not even get to [COLOR="Navy"]LeBron beating the Warriors. His biggest upset was what? Beating the '89 Cavs? Beating the '93 Knicks and Suns because his Bulls were cruising in the R.S and won 3-6 games less? Maybe some honorable loss, like sending the '89 Pistons to 6 games?

Nice feats, but no reasonable fan can seriously put them among the all-time GOAT upsets.


Lebron didn't overcome any talent disadvantage against the 16' Warriors and his 2nd option infact outplayed the dub's #1 option.. The underdog status was based on the Cavs' inferior record in the regular season to 70-win chasers Kawhi and Curry.

Otoh, MJ's upsets overcame ACTUAL talent and seeding disadvantages - the 89' Cavs were considered title contenders and had three 3x all-stars that year plus 20/5/5 Ron Harper (a Big 4), while the Bulls were a 1-man show and low seed.. It was viewed as a monumental upset and reported as legendary.

Regarding the Pistons - they had 3x all-stars at every starting spot - that's 5 perennial all-stars and 3 HOF's, to the Bulls' 2 all-stars/HOF's.. That's why MJ's rise through the Bad Boys was impressive - everyone knew he was doing it with far less talent than the Bad Boys.. His 89' run was a better low seed and "weak-cast" performance against championship competition than Lebron ever had - Lebron was blown away against the champs in 07' and probably had a BETTER cast than his opponent in 16'.





I would expect the "GOAT" to pull off multiple times in his career, yet, I don't see any of those.


The 89' Bulls only won 47 games and would've missed the 45-win playoff cut (lottery) without Jordan's 33/8/8 - this exact same lottery cast from 89' won a three-peat in 93'.. But since they started as a lottery cast, we know their championship success from 91-93' and solid showing in 94' wasn't due to talent, but teamwork and know-how instead.

Ultimately, the Bulls' ascension from borderline lottery in 1989 to champion in 1991 is astounding and the most legendary ascension ever.. And it started with "the shot".. If MJ misses that shot, the Bulls would've been 1st round losers and in rebuild-mode again, instead of conference finals veterans and on the verge of winning it all..

Lebron never impacted a team like that because he isn't clutch enough to hit legendary or Finals winners.. And overall, his ball-dominant skillset (make everyone a spot-up shooter) results in weaker teams (needs more help to win).. So his weak teams get swept by the champs; they don't go 6 and 7 games like Jordan's (and yes, we know that both Lebron and MJ didn't know how to win shit their first few years in the league).

[aau]

the sweeping narrative that the Bulls weren't head and shoulders better than their opposition more times than not......


this can be examined;

91 LA - like Doc, just glad he got his first
92 PORT - series wasn't close - repeat
93 PHX - the pt differential was zero
no game decided by more than ten

I didn't look hard but the only
series found as competitive
94 HOU -5 versus NYK
again, no game +10

96 SEA - missed the repeat rockets
97 UT - 4 of 6 decided by 5 or less
98 UT - 5 of 6 decided by 5 or less


head and shoulders

like -70s

[Leviathon1121]

See at one point I held that same view, however the narrative and reality just aren't the same thing. It's not so much about a couple of teams maybe having more talent on paper or what not, but the sweeping narrative that the Bulls weren't head and shoulders better than their opposition more times than not. Sometimes i think us old heads need history lessons on our memories as kids.....
What is this based on? Hindsight? Are you just looking at who won and saying that makes them the more talented team? I think we can all agree that the most talented team does not always win.

The whole Jordan had a stacked team to diminish him is ridiculous. If his team was so stacked, why wasn

[AirFederer]

Retarded stans

[Psileas]

:biggums:

This is essentially saying MJs GOAT resume would be better served if his teams weren’t as dominant so that they could upset other teams more. That’s a pretty silly premise

No, this is essentially saying: If Jordan is the clear GOAT, what the heck are we supposed to worship in Jordan's 1985-90 team trajectories? These seasons include part of Jordan's prime, if not peak (1988-1990), which many want to consider as the GOAT prime/peak. So, is this really what the "undisputed GOAT" would achieve team-wise in his peak that nobody else could fathom of achieving?

[superduper]

NBA Finals losses.

Ka....boom...

[aau]

If Jordan is the clear GOAT, what the heck are we supposed to worship in Jordan's 1985-90 team trajectories? These seasons include part of Jordan's prime.


the upcoming . . .

used to be players weren't judged on their losses
. . . until they start adding up

you took your asswhuppins like a man
before you learned how to win

not run city to city

begn4help

[Leviathon1121]

No, this is essentially saying: If Jordan is the clear GOAT, what the heck are we supposed to worship in Jordan's 1985-90 team trajectories? These seasons include part of Jordan's prime, if not peak (1988-1990), which many want to consider as the GOAT prime/peak. So, is this really what the "undisputed GOAT" would achieve team-wise in his peak that nobody else could fathom of achieving?
Wow, what a ridiculous attitude. I hope you judge every top 10 player equally as harshly in any season they failed to win a title.

[Da_Realist]

the upcoming . . .

used to be players weren't judged on their losses
. . . until they start adding up

you took your asswhuppins like a man
before you learned how to win

not run city to city

begn4help

:applause:

[andgar923]

The Bulls WERE underdogs in some series tho.

They were underdogs vs the Cavs when MJ hit 'The Shot'.
They were underdogs vs the Magic 2nd time around.
They were underdogs vs the Knicks in some series

Shit... I just saw a clip in which they were underdogs vs the Nets and even the Hawks in the mid 90s because they were old and banged up.

Some predicted they'd lose vs the Lakers in 91
Some even predicted they wouldn't go back to back and even more said nobody has ever Threepeated and the Bulls wouldn't be the first to do so.

So those are the Bulls led by MJ winning as 'underdogs'. They may not have been heavy underdogs, but were still underdogs nonetheless.

Fact is MJ had doubters and detractors his entire career. Ya'll act as if MJ had it smooth and handed to him on a platter, when that's not the case. What makes MJ's story mythological is because he did overcome odds, he was criticized, he was doubted, he was hated, he was knocked down, he was challenged for various reasons, ranging from "he can't make his team winners" to "scoring champions don't win championships".

So what is he lacking exactly?

A Delorian so he could come to this era and whoop everyone's ass.

[3ball]

[QUOTE=Leviathon1121]What is this based on? Hindsight? Are you just looking at who won and saying that makes them the more talented team? I think we can all agree that the most talented team does not always win.

The whole Jordan had a stacked team to diminish him is ridiculous. If his team was so stacked, why wasn

[LAmbruh]

Vino done did it again :lol :applause:

[Vino24]

Vino done did it again :lol :applause:
Another sleepless night for 3ball. That retirement life :roll:

[LAmbruh]

Another sleepless night for 3ball. That retirement life :roll:
https://media1.tenor.com/images/f43e46a64140545750e4fcc81507a489/tenor.gif

[3ball]

Vino done did it again :lol :applause:
How can someone execute a big upset, when they produce juggernaut teams anytime they have the minimal help a typical star needs to win?

i.e. Pippen became a viable 2nd option, and the Bulls become Warriors-level juggernauts - so how is MJ supposed to execute an upset as a juggernaut favorite??

Otoh, lebron is routinely big underdogs with high seeds and various Big 3 super-team... Heck, guys like Kawhi and Curry flirt with 70 wins with just Klay/Dray, while lebron can't even win 60 with Kyrie/Love

[sdot_thadon]

[QUOTE=Leviathon1121]What is this based on? Hindsight? Are you just looking at who won and saying that makes them the more talented team? I think we can all agree that the most talented team does not always win.

The whole Jordan had a stacked team to diminish him is ridiculous. If his team was so stacked, why wasn

[LAmbruh]

sdot thotson steamrolling cats :applause:

[3ball]

sdot thotson steamrolling cats :applause:
So when Giannis wins 70 games next year with Middleton, and Lebron wins 55 with AD, are you going to call it an upset if they win like you did in 16'??

:facepalm

[NBAGOAT]

It's a reach to say it's what he's "missing". Now if MJ's teams weren't that dominant and he underperformed in these cases, it's a valid criticism. Why would he need to have great "underdog" victories when his teams were almost always top of the league and winning?

However, essentially docking him FOR being dominant and winning is silly. It's like saying Bill Russel isn't as great because he won too much and wasn't an underdog

Some people do criticize Russell for mostly being a favorite. It may be wrong to do so but wilt gets tons of credit for just taking the Celtics to 7 since they think the Celtics were more talented than wilts teams

Also you can nitpick and say mj didn’t beat a dominant opponent like magic and bird did in each other but also early bad boy pistons and dr.j’s sixers to a lesser extent.

I personally think some 90s teams are getting underrated like some could definitely be better than the early 80s sixers or like the 87 pistons but those teams have more credibility with a lot of people I think because those cores later won titles

[NBAGOAT]

So when Giannis wins 70 games next year with Middleton, and Lebron wins 55 with AD, are you going to call it an upset if they win like you did in 16'??

:facepalm

Well Giannis should be a better player next year than bron too, don

[Leviathon1121]

I'd say its based on:
1) data, that apparently i need to make a thread on.
2) common sense
3) this era's chosen criteria for judging players.

You seem incapable of separating years and eras of a team. The bulls weren't the same team his entire time there nor were they the same talent level that entire time either.


Especially the 96 version, they went 72-10 based on years of playing together right? I mean only 2 guys on the roster played during the 1st 3peat. :confusedshrug:
You are funny, using your 3 criteria listed there, the 97 Lakers were FAR more talented then the 97 Jazz...and yet the Jazz swept them. How exactly did a team of milkmen and plumbers beat a prime Shaq, with all that coveted athleticism that seems to be so important by today

[3ball]

Well Giannis should be a better player next year than bron too, don’t gloss over that. Rest of the roster matters too.

It’s a moot point however, mil is not going add 10 wins losing brogdon unless Giannis has a goat lvl year and/or some weird happens like Middleton becoming a top 10 player, Bledsoe becoming prime Gary Payton, and/or a lopsided trade happening. Your hypotheticals are awful
The point is that Curry won 70 with Klay/Dray.... but Lebron couldn't even win 60 with Kyrie/Love, so you called his 16' win an "upset" when the talent was the same... Lebron-ball simply produces underachieving teams, but you weaponize this by celebrating his 1 victory that the odds PREDICT he'll get, i.e. 3 to 1 underdog means he'll win 1 in 4.. it couldn't be more pathetic an argument

[sdot_thadon]

[QUOTE=Leviathon1121]You are funny, using your 3 criteria listed there, the 97 Lakers were FAR more talented then the 97 Jazz...and yet the Jazz swept them. How exactly did a team of milkmen and plumbers beat a prime Shaq, with all that coveted athleticism that seems to be so important by today

[tanibanana]

Without bias... he

[Psileas]

Wow, what a ridiculous attitude. I hope you judge every top 10 player equally as harshly in any season they failed to win a title.

I don't know what you hope, but I know Jordan has been getting more excuses for every failure he's suffered than any top 10 player. Well, not by me. If he has to prove to be the clear-cut GOAT, he has to take the exact opposite road than the road he took, iow, face the harshest criticism and withstand all of it.

[Manny98]

B-b-b-but the 89 Cavs have a higher SRS than the 09 Magic that Bron lost to!
The 18 Raptors who LeBron swept had a higher SRS than the bad boy Pistons that spanked MJ 3 consecutive years

[Psileas]

by definition of being the best, anytime MJ had the minimal help that the typical star needs to contend, he had a juggernaut.

you can't produce "legendary" upsets if you always produce juggernauts with the baseline level of help needed to contend.

Otoh, Lebron had big underdogs with multiple Big 3's (Wade/Bosh or Kyrie/Love).. You've simply weaponized his losing by saying "remember how great it was the 1 time he won".. (2-6 overall vs Warriors/Spurs/Mavs)

If MJ somehow produced 6 Finals underdogs with Big 3's like Lebron did, I'm sure he'd win 1 or 2, since the odds themselves say a 3 to 1 underdog will win 1 in 4..

Again, you've weaponized Lebron's losing and thinking about this the wrong way entirely.. The honest question to ask is 'why did Curry win 70 with Klay/Dray, while Lebron couldn't even win 60 with Kyrie/Love?'.. Kawhi flirted with 70 wins that year too, so Lebron has no excuse for being an underdog in the first place in 16'.. His only excuse is that Curry plays a superior way (not ball-dominant, great catch-and-shoot), so he gets more out of the entire team and can play a better brand of ball than Lebron does with his CP3/Nash-level skillset.. The same analogy applies to MJ, who played a superior way to win 70 games and get more out of teams than Lebron.

Oh, nope. Jordan isn't the "typical star" or even the "typical GOAT candidate" and you know it. He's constantly deified like nobody else ever has or maybe ever will. You expect me to hold him in the same "low" standards that I hold other GOAT candidates? Matter of fact is, if Jordan is that much above everyone else, he wouldn't need that much help to start winning titles or, at least, produce title contenders. I don't remember rookie Robinson (not even a GOAT candidate) having all that much help when he pushed the Spurs to 56 wins. I don't remember rookie Bird play with prime superstars to immediately make the Celtics contenders. Why should I excuse Jordan from not being able to do at least the same thing?
Btw, this wasn't specifically a LeBron comparison post, but you conveniently left out LeBron leading to 66 wins a roster with Mo, Z and Varejao as his best teammates.


But they had the talent (like Lebron's teams) and therefore shouldn't have been huge underdogs - it's their fault for not doing better in the regular season to narrow/nullify the odds..

You can't underperform the regular season to get sympathy in the playoffs for losing with talented teams.... and then get overpraised the 1 time you win as underdogs - that's what Lebron does and it's a slimy fraud..

If he's bad enough to be 1/4 underdogs or whatever, then he's supposed to win 1 in 4 times - so let's not overpraise his 1 victory and 1-3 record vs the Warriors..

The Rockets had the talent to counter the Showtime Lakers and Celtics? Seriously now? :rolleyes:


Huh?.. Both Hakeem's 6-game series with the 86' champs and MJ's 6-game series with the 89' champs make Lebron look bad for getting swept by the 07' champs.. Or the 18' champs.. Or his 14' record defeat with his 2 seed and Big 3..


Again, I'm not the one here who comes to deify LeBron. And nobody has ever listed these losses as among LeBron's best moments or pretends that LeBron had no failures.


Hakeem won the ring in 1994 with no all-star-level players, but Dirk did that in 2011 too.. In both instances, the best player in the league was missing in action - MJ was retired in 94, and Lebron choked in 11'

Otherwise, MJ won rings with the least offensive help - even 538 agreed that MJ's 1991 and 1993 rings are the weakest casts ever to win, outside the aforementioned Dirk Mavs and Hakeem Rockets..

MJ was a legitimate 1-man show on offense for each ring, which is why he's the only guy to win a ring as a scoring champ (6 times).. It's funny because no one else could win a ring during their hot-dog scoring champion years - they had to tone it down to win.. Only MJ's game was sufficiently fundamentally-sound that he could be both a hot dog scoring champ and have championship teamwork - only MJ could score that much in a championship capacity.

Ultimately, MJ stands alone in playoff history at 33.5 ppg, while everyone else is bunched up at the more human level of 27-29.. The gap in scoring is almost as impressive of HOW he's getting those points (championship brand, fundamentally-sound, not ball-dominant)

He's won with enough help to make the Bulls constantly top "GOAT team" polls. He's won with someone talented enough to be considered the best SF in the 90's and Dream Team material, a PF who could produce DD's at will on very high scoring efficiency, replaced later on with the player who constantly is considered the GOAT rebounder (even defender, by some) plus a big who was good enough in his youth to average close to 20 ppg and was willing to become a bruiser, and later on, a guard who, till recently (back then) was a 20 ppg scorer, one of the GOAT all-around Euros, one of the GOAT role shooters and elite coaching stuff.
So, you have to choose your poison. You either believe that Jordan was that good, but not the Bulls, which means that little or none of the above is true, but you have to justify things like how they won 55 games without him or even how they were a 34-31 team without MJ+Grant in '95, which would still easily secure them a playoff spot or that Jordan was more human than many make him be and there's more to it than the scoring help he got.


The 89' Bulls only won 47 games and would've missed the 45-win playoff cut (lottery) without Jordan's 33/8/8 - this exact same lottery cast from 89' won a three-peat in 93'.. But since they started as a lottery cast, we know their championship success from 91-93' and solid showing in 94' wasn't due to talent, but teamwork and know-how instead.

Ultimately, the Bulls' ascension from borderline lottery in 1989 to champion in 1991 is astounding and the most legendary ascension ever.. And it started with "the shot".. If MJ misses that shot, the Bulls would've been 1st round losers and in rebuild-mode again, instead of conference finals veterans and on the verge of winning it all..

Lebron never impacted a team like that because he isn't clutch enough to hit legendary or Finals winners.. And overall, his ball-dominant skillset (make everyone a spot-up shooter) results in weaker teams (needs more help to win).. So his weak teams get swept by the champs; they don't go 6 and 7 games like Jordan's (and yes, we know that both Lebron and MJ didn't know how to win shit their first few years in the league).

Considering the inferior '88 Bulls won 50 games, the '89 Bulls winning 47 is, if anything, underwhelming and on the "LeBron side" that you blame. Of course, they were 34-23 at one point, then Jordan decided to out-Magic Magic to shut some critics who were saying he wasn't all-around enough and this resulted in a Westbrook-like period, instead of a Magic-like one, despite triple-doubles generally having a very positive correlation with winning.

Now, excuse me, but I don't have the time for consecutive back and forth walls of text posts.

[Leviathon1121]

The 3 things i listed there aren't a criteria set for the 97 Lakers or jazz. They are the reasons i say the bulls enjoyed a talent advantage over their opponents for the most part.

And I'll disregard the facetious part of your reply and give you the facts.

The 97 jazz:
-Had the reigning Mvp

-sent 2 guys to the allstar game to match the Lakers sending 2 guys.

-had 2 all nba players to the lakers 1

-had 2 all defensive guys to the Lakers zero.

-and on top of that had a better coach.

yet they still were inferior to the Bulls because I doubt it needs to be said that 97 Pippen > 97 Stockton and thats assuming you think 97 Malone >= 97 Mj, which we also know is not the case at all.
So you just made up a criteria who

[Manny98]

Leviathon getting manhandled in this thread :oldlol:

[sdot_thadon]

[QUOTE=Leviathon1121]So you just made up a criteria who

[Vino24]

Leviathon getting manhandled in this thread :oldlol:
This guy was dormant before the thread. Got them crawling out of the woodworks :yaohappy:

[bison]

It’s somehow Jordan’s fault that he never went up against the 2016 warriors or the 60s Celtics? Yes he had to deal with showtime Lakers and bad boy pistons in the 80s, yet he managed to be an international icon way before he even won his first ring. The thing about MJ is he packs so much revolutionary intrigue in his 11 years than stat padders like lebron do over two decades. Even if the myth of lebron facing tougher competition is true, the fact is lebron LOSES more than MJ ever did, and in any context history respects winners over losers. Hate to say but you had to be there to see it and no one over the age of 12 thinks MJ isn’t the GOAT

https://i.ibb.co/wc8hjw5/F19-AF080-E1-FE-43-A2-A51-A-45-D6-F9595-BA8.jpg

[3ball]

You expect me to hold him in the same "low" standards that I hold other GOAT candidates?


Yes, and when he does way better than everyone under those equal standards (6/6), you should diefy him as goat like everyone else does...

6 rings and 5 MVP's is the most in 3-pointer basketball.. 6 FMVP's is 3 more than anyone else.. :confusedshrug:

Again, he did way more than anyone else with the minimal help every star needs to contend, thereby making him consensus goat.. this isn't my opinion - i'm informing you of the historical record





I don't remember rookie Robinson (not even a GOAT candidate)


Bigs can often win right away, but perimeter players like Durant, Lebron, Curry, Giannis, Kyrie, or MJ typically miss the playoffs their first few seasons before they learn how to win

But once they get a few seasons under their belt, they can carry weak casts to good records or deep in the playoffs, like MJ in 88' or 89' and lebron in 07'.





Why should I excuse Jordan from not being able to do at least the same thing?



MJ's upsets were greater by every metric:



2007 Cavs:. #7 SRS.. 50 wins.. 2 seed
2007 tDET:. #6 SRS.. 53 wins.. 1 seed

1989 Bulls:. #10 SRS.. 47 wins.. 6 seed
1989 Cavs:. n#1 SRS.. 57 wins.. 3 seed



Bigger Overachievement: Jordan's 1989 Playoff Run vs. Lebron's 2007


Jordan's Bulls were 47-25 and the 6 seed.
Lebron's Cavs were 50-32 and the 2 seed.


1st Round Jordan: CLE...(#3 seed, 57-25, #2 ranked defense... 40.0.. 6.0.. 8.1.. 51.8% FG)
1st Round Lebron: WSH (#7 seed, 41-41, #28 ranked defense.. 27.0.. 8.5.. 7.5.. 42.5% FG)

2nd Round Jordan: NYK (#2 seed, 52-30, #10 ranked defense... 35.5.. 9.5.. 8.3.. 55.0% FG)
2nd Round Lebron: NJN (#6 seed, 41-41, #15 ranked defense... 24.7.. 7.3.. 8.5.. 42.3% FG)

Conf. Finals Jordan: DET (#1 seed, 62-30, #3 ranked defense... 30.0.. 5.5.. 6.5.. 46.0% FG)
Conf. Finals Lebron: DET (#1 seed, 53-29, #7 ranked defense... 25.7.. 9.1.. 8.5.. 44.9% FG)


NO COMPARISON





I don't remember rookie Robinson (not even a GOAT candidate) having all that much help when he pushed the Spurs to 56 wins. I don't remember rookie Bird play with prime superstars to immediately make the Celtics contenders. Why should I excuse Jordan from not being able to do at least the same thing?


MJ led the Bulls to 50 wins and the 3 seed with absolutely nothing in 1988 - less help than Robinson had when he won 56.. MJ did this by getting 35/6/6/dpoy - Robinson never had to do that, which proves MJ carried the bigger lead

In 1989, the bulls won less because they traded away the veteran Oakley and put Pippen in the starting lineup - Pippen was young and didn't produce or defend like Oakley, so 1989 was a transition year of young player development.. They only won 47 games and got the 6 seed, but MJ led upsets in every round and took the Bad Boys 6 games in the ECF (the only team to go 6 with the Bad Boys)..

This legendary carry-job in 1989 (shown above) avoided 1st round defeat/rebuild, and put the Bulls on the verge of a title.. It's superior to lebron's 07' by every metric (shown above)





Matter of fact is, if Jordan is that much above everyone else, he wouldn't need that much help to start winning titles or, at least, produce title contenders.



What planet are you living on - MJ won with the least - everyone else needed much more to win:... :biggums:


All-star appearances while playing with Kareem:

Magic 10
Worthy 6
Bob Dandridge 2
Jamaal Wilkes 2
Oscar 2
Flynn Robinson 1
Norm Nixon 1
AC Green 1
_____________
8 players, 25 appearances = 6/9 in Finals



All-star appearances while playing with Magic:

Kareem 10
Worthy 6
Jamaal Wilkes 2
Norm Nixon 1
AC Green 1
_____________
5 players, 20 appearances = 5/9 in Finals



All-star appearances while playing with Bird:

Parish 9
McHale 6
Tiny Archibald 3
D Johnson 1
_____________
4 players, 19 appearances = 3/5 in Finals



All-star appearances while playing with Shaq:

Kobe 7
Wade 3
Penny 2
Van Exel 1
Eddie Jones 1
Horace Grant 1
_________________
6 players, 15 appearances = 4/6 in Finals



All-star appearances while playing with Lebron:

Wade 4
Bosh 4
Kyrie 2
Love 3
Mo Williams 1
Zydrunas 1
______________
6 players, 15 appearances = 3/9 in Finals



All-star appearances while playing with Duncan:

Parker 6
Robinson 3
Ginobili 2
________________
3 players, 11 appearances = 5/6 in Finals



All-star appearances while playing with MJ:

Pippen 6
_______________
1 player, 6 appearances = 6/6 in Finals



CONTINUED...
.

[3ball]

.
CONTINUED...





LeBron leading to 66 wins a roster with Mo, Z and Varejao as his best teammates.


But he wasn't a title contender because he underperformed so badly in the playoffs - Jordan's 6 seed was more of a title contender in 1989 than lebron's 1 seed was in 2009.

Btw, the Cavs only won 45 games in 2008 with the exact same roster as 09', except for Mo Williams - Mo Williams caused a 21-win increase in 09', and his stats show that he was far better than 89' Pippen, and also better than say, Chris Middleton..

Mo was an all-star in 09', and Zydrunas was a 2-time all-star, while Varejao was all-defense.. The roster was easily good enough to win the East, especially since many guys won the conference in that decade with weak casts (09' Dwight, 03' Kidd, 07' Lebron, 01' AI).. Lebron simply choked as the 1 seed, similar to Giannis this year, except Lebron lost 2 years in a row with 60-win, 1 seeds (a record).

Btw, we know that lebron carried his team less because 28/8/7 got him 66 wins in 09', while 33/8/8 got Jordan 47 wins in 89'.. the 19-win gap is due to lebron's better cast - he had 3 teammates with all-star or all-defense experience, while mj had nobody.. And keep in mind that 35/6/6/dpoy only got 50 wins, while 37/5/5 only got 42 wins - mj simply had much weaker casts than lebron





The Rockets had the talent to counter the Showtime Lakers and Celtics? Seriously now? :rolleyes:


The Rockets had a lot of talent - but admittedly, not as much as the 16' Cavs, who had more talent than the Warriors.... regardless, an upset wasn't that shocking in either case.. it was a sweep infact for the rockets





Again, I'm not the one here who comes to deify LeBron. And nobody has ever listed these losses as among LeBron's best moments or pretends that LeBron had no failures.



Who cares about failing - it's how MANY big failures he had:


07' Finals - 20-year old Magic was goating in Game 7 of the Finals; 23-year-old MJ broke the all-time record against the 86' Celtics and their #1 defense, so there's no excuse for 22-year-old Lebron averaging 22 on 36%.. a horrific performance

09' ECF - loss as clear favorite to a weak team and nobody player (Dwight); opposing coach says he exploited Lebron

11' Finals - goat choke

14' Finals - record loss to old guys, despite a high seed and Big 3 super-team

17' Finals - near-record loss, despite a high seed and Big 3 super-team

18' Finals - record loss (broke his own record)





He's won with enough help to make the Bulls constantly top "GOAT team" polls. He's won with someone talented enough to be considered the best SF in the 90's and Dream Team material, a PF who could produce DD's at will on very high scoring efficiency, replaced later on with the player who constantly is considered the GOAT rebounder (even defender, by some) plus a big who was good enough in his youth to average close to 20 ppg and was willing to become a bruiser, and later on, a guard who, till recently (back then) was a 20 ppg scorer, one of the GOAT all-around Euros, one of the GOAT role shooters and elite coaching stuff.


Pippen was the only star, and he averaged 17.6 on 40.8% for the entire 96-98' playoffs,

Kukoc was 13 ppg utility guy equivalent to 6th man of the year JR Smith - every team has players of this caliber... Horace was a 12/9 player that every team has - he was a little better than Tristan Thompson and worse than Zydrunas.

Rodman averaged 4/8 for the entire 97' playoffs and wasn't even the starter in the 98' playoffs.. He was 36 years old and a shell by 1997.. ultimately, its a testament to MJ's great scoring and the Bulls' teamwork that they had goat offenses (team ortg's) despite rodman and Pippen's weak offense..

the Bulls' weak offensive help is why the bulls needed their top guy to give scoring champion production - mj is the only guy to win rings as the league scoring champ (6 times).. edit: Kareem and Shaq did it once each in their peak seasons of 71' and 00'.. so their peak burden was MJ's standard burden to win a ring.





So, you have to choose your poison. You either believe that Jordan was that good, but not the Bulls, which means that little or none of the above is true, but you have to justify things like how they won 55 games without him or even how they were a 34-31 team without MJ+Grant in '95, which would still easily secure them a playoff spot or that Jordan was more human than many make him be and there's more to it than the scoring help he got.


Yes, I believe the bolded - the bulls had sub-par supporting talent for a champion

But they made up for it with goat teamwork and MJ to become the goat dynasty of the modern era

They were infact a lottery cast in 1989, that grew to champion in 1991 - so it wasn't a talented cast - they simply learned the teamwork and know-how to win (and they got the necessary boost of conference finals experience in 1989, when MJ's carry-job boosted them from 1st round loser to ECF veteran - without that boost in 89', the bulls don't win by 91')

Their lottery origins in 1989 prove that their future success from 91-94' wasn't based on talent, but teamwork and know-how instead





Considering the inferior '88 Bulls won 50 games, the '89 Bulls winning 47 is, if anything, underwhelmiyhat they were 34-23 at one point, then Jordan decided to out-Magic Magic to shut some critics who were saying he wasn't all-around enough and this resulted in a Westbrook-like period, instead of a Magic-like one, despite triple-doubles generally having a very positive correlation with winning.


^^^ An outright lie

The starting PG Sam Vincent got hurt so MJ took over at PG

It worked for a little while but teams always figure out the basic Nash/CP3/Lebron style - so he was only about .500 with that style, and much better before he switched like you said





Now, excuse me, but I don't have the time for consecutive back and forth walls of text posts.


That's fine.. I crush you again so get going.. on your bike

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

-More seasons with better 3PT shooting.
-Making the playoffs during his Wizard stint
-Playing an 80s juggernaut in the finals...like the 80s Lakers or Celtics

All of that makes his resume perfect though. Not exactly realistic.

Mike's resume is as good as it gets.

[Real14]

Losing 5 or more finals is what he lacks the most.

[3ball]

-More seasons with better 3PT shooting.
-Making the playoffs during his Wizard stint
-Playing an 80s juggernaut in the finals...like the 80s Lakers or Celtics

All of that makes his resume perfect though. Not exactly realistic.

Mike's resume is as good as it gets.
The 80's celtics/lakers is the only time juggernauts ever met in the Finals

So the idea of "facing a juggernaut" is a bullshit argument and not something MJ is lacking... Otherwise everyone outside of magic/bird/kareem lack it too

Im baffled that people buy the bullshit narratives seen on tv and created by the clutch sports handlers

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

The 80's celtics/lakers is the only time juggernauts ever met in the Finals

So the idea of "facing a juggernaut" is a bullshit argument and not something MJ is lacking... Otherwise everyone outside of magic/bird/kareem lack it too

Im baffled that people buy the bullshit narratives seen on tv and created by the clutch sports handlers

No shit.

Its why I said that it would make his resume perfect.

In other words...not realistic.

[NBAGOAT]

The 80's celtics/lakers is the only time juggernauts ever met in the Finals

So the idea of "facing a juggernaut" is a bullshit argument and not something MJ is lacking... Otherwise everyone outside of magic/bird/kareem lack it too

Im baffled that people buy the bullshit narratives seen on tv and created by the clutch sports handlers

As I mentioned earlier. They may be overrated but the early 80s sixers even pre Moses and the bad boys pistons could be considered juggernauts too

Edit: the 70s is a weak era but the bucks with Kareem/Oscar and lakers with west/wilt seem like juggernauts too imo.

[Da_Realist]

What major upsets did the 80's teams have? Bird and Magic played on evenly matched teams. Dr J's Sixers were every bit as good too. All three of those teams were on the same level year after year. At best, Bird beating the Lakers in 84 was a mild upset. In fact, the Celtics won 62 games and had homecourt advantage that year. The Lakers won only 54.

Everything else was mostly evenly matched teams battling each other. No major upsets because teams with superstar players playing in their prime typically pushed their teams to play to their maximum capacity and max out their potential throughout the year.

Typically when a leader is playing at the top of his game his team is the best in the league and either matches up against an evenly matched team or is the league favorite. Only Lebron has had such low expectations that his teams have never been considered juggernauts. If you're that good, you shouldn't be aiming to (or get credit for) beating juggernauts, you should be the juggernaut. You shouldn't be such an underdog to begin with. 2016 Cleveland should have been considered an even matchup against Golden State.

Credit for the players that push their teams to maximize their greatness, be the target of the league and deal with the pressure of being expected to win the title from day 1.

[NBAGOAT]

What major upsets did the 80's teams have? Bird and Magic played on evenly matched teams. Dr J's Sixers were every bit as good too. All three of those teams were on the same level year after year. At best, Bird beating the Lakers in 84 was a mild upset. In fact, the Celtics won 62 games and had homecourt advantage that year. The Lakers won only 54.

Everything else was mostly evenly matched teams battling each other. No major upsets because teams with superstar players playing in their prime typically pushed their teams to play to their maximum capacity and max out their potential throughout the year.

Typically when a leader is playing at the top of his game his team is the best in the league and either matches up against an evenly matched team or is the league favorite. Only Lebron has had such low expectations that his teams have never been considered juggernauts. If you're that good, you shouldn't be aiming to (or get credit for) beating juggernauts, you should be the juggernaut. You shouldn't be such an underdog to begin with. 2016 Cleveland should have been considered an even matchup against Golden State.

Credit for the players that push their teams to maximize their greatness, be the target of the league and deal with the pressure of being expected to win the title from day 1.

arguable. for a playoff series. There's a simple reason cavs "only" won 57 that year which you and 3ball overlook, kyrie missed 30ish games and was rusty during the rs too, simple look at his stats is enough verification.

You can get on lebron for coasting any other year with cle and I wouldnt argue but his effort in 16 was great. ofc i dont think any other cle year you can blame lebron for the cavs being an underdog even if he was coasting.

The closest talent disparity was 2017 when gs was the goat rs team srs wise when healthy, undefeated in the playoffs, had 2 of the top 5 players in the league, 1 more all-nba guy along with klay thompson and somehow solid depth which you rarely see on such star heavy teams

[LostCause]

That was the question this thread poses. What's lacking, would a better answer for you be "nothing, he's perfect"? Other guys that are in the discussion (top 10) have that as part f their respective resumes. It's literally one of the few correct answers this question could have. You literally can ask this question about any of the top 10 guys and find an area they lack where others are strong.

It's a thing where we can't dock a player for being dominant. That just doesn't make sense. As you yourself mentioned, some players have their career highlights beating juggernaut teams, but other players PLAYED on those juggernaut teams and were largely the reasons FOR said teams being juggernauts. Jordan is in that group. So it's not something he's "missing", he has something better.

To say he's lacking great underdog wins when the chief reason for that is because he was so dominant he was rarely an underdog is disingenuous at best. Doesn't make him perfect. His resume is certainly not perfect.

-Not great 3-pt shooting
-Shortened his own prime by retiring 3 times (So his longevity doesnt stack up to say, Kareem)
-Wizards years (Didn't make playoffs, pretty bad statistically)
-etc

Those are all valid criticisms with his resume. I suppose you can say him losing for 3 years to the Pistons is a valid criticism as well, but that would be debatable


The 18 Raptors who LeBron swept had a higher SRS than the bad boy Pistons that spanked MJ 3 consecutive years

But the Bulls had a lower SRS than those Pistons and weren't favored to win. The Cavs had a much higher SRS than those Magic and WERE favored, but lost

No, this is essentially saying: If Jordan is the clear GOAT, what the heck are we supposed to worship in Jordan's 1985-90 team trajectories? These seasons include part of Jordan's prime, if not peak (1988-1990), which many want to consider as the GOAT prime/peak. So, is this really what the "undisputed GOAT" would achieve team-wise in his peak that nobody else could fathom of achieving?

GOAT =/= Perfect or unbeatable. 85-90 includes his rookie season, a 2nd season he barely played in due to injury (and had to force ownership to even allow him on the court), and then facing the 2x champion Pistons. Even the Celtics he faced in 86 went on to be one of the GOAT teams and won a championship

So I'm not sure what the issue is here. Was he supposed to come into the league beating the best built teams right off the bat while playing with, what he himself described as "Looney Toons" and teammates doing coke before games? And because he didn't that's knock against his GOAT candidacy? That's a pretty ridiculous expectation, it's a reach and it's simply not realistic

Also I don't know who considers Jordans peak 88-90. Most folks have his peak at 90-91, with 91 usually being his universal peak. As for his career trajectory, again, it was in-line with some of the best in history according to Ben Taylor of Backpicks. Here's his graphic illustrating it

http://www.backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/84-to-90-Healthy-Bulls-SRS-1024x676.png

As well as his own research into the matter


Before Michael, the 1984 Bulls were a 27-win team (-4.7 SRS) with an average defense and a futile offense that finished 5 points worse than the league (rORtg). Jordan immediately provided the scoring punch that they needed and Chicago improved to just above average on offense in his rookie year, with an overall improvement of nearly 4 points per game. In his second season, he missed a significant chunk of time after breaking his foot, then logged fewer than 20 minutes in each of his first six games back. Excluding those sub-20 minute games, the Bulls played 15 contests with Jordan at a 40-win pace (-0.3 SRS) that year.

As Michael progressed, Chicago upgraded its roster, adding Charles Oakley in 1986 (a defensive-minded rebounder) and John Paxson (a shooter) in ’87 before bringing in new coach Doug Collins that year. Collins preferred defensive lineups, and Chicago improved 5.9 points in relative defensive efficiency (rDRtg) in ’87 with bigger bodies playing more minutes.6 This, together with Jordan’s own growth, nudged the Bulls to a 45-win pace. In ’88, they added rookies Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant, Jordan transformed defensively and Chicago played at a 52-win clip (3.8 SRS). The Bulls finished with the third-best defense in the league, but again, the offense remained pedestrian, finishing about a point better than league average. Given the lack of offensive talent on those teams, these results are inline with some of the better carry-jobs in league history

I think you're being entirely unreasonable with the bolded. That's not what being the GOAT means. Last I checked, it measures an entire body of work throughout the career. I don't recall anyone else saying he was "undisputed" GOAT either. That makes no sense considering Kareem has a STRONG argument for it himself. If we applied your logic it would disqualify almost anyone from being the GOAT because no one won THAT much

[3ball]

^^^ how can anyone read those facts and think MJ's help compares to lebron teaming up with 2 stars twice?

MJ had to grow into being the favorite, and the Pistons were still favored heading into 91' season.

Meanwhile, lebron was gifted two big 3's that were favored to win the Finals heading into Year 1 of existence (11' and 15').. So MJ's organic path was obviously the harder way to win (that lebron had already failed at with two 60-win 1 seeds)

Ultimately, Lebron's ball-dominant skillset forced him to need ready-made stars to win - he had to skip the team and teammate development stages that occur with organic growth because his "be a spot-up shooter" style can't develop players or high-level teamwork.. Naturally, he loses to stars that have skillsets capable of fostering better ball-movement and sustainable, organic teamwork (the kind that wins most rings)

[GimmeThat]

friendemy

#vegeta

[LAmbruh]

Another Vino classic :lol:applause:

[Gileraracer]

He should have lost 6 times in the finals instead. Apparently being a loser is now celebrated.

:lol :lol :lol

[Psileas]

GOAT =/= Perfect or unbeatable. 85-90 includes his rookie season, a 2nd season he barely played in due to injury (and had to force ownership to even allow him on the court), and then facing the 2x champion Pistons. Even the Celtics he faced in 86 went on to be one of the GOAT teams and won a championship

So I'm not sure what the issue is here. Was he supposed to come into the league beating the best built teams right off the bat while playing with, what he himself described as "Looney Toons" and teammates doing coke before games? And because he didn't that's knock against his GOAT candidacy? That's a pretty ridiculous expectation, it's a reach and it's simply not realistic

Also I don't know who considers Jordans peak 88-90. Most folks have his peak at 90-91, with 91 usually being his universal peak. As for his career trajectory, again, it was in-line with some of the best in history according to Ben Taylor of Backpicks. Here's his graphic illustrating it

If we're not expecting Jordan to do things that could not be doable by any other player in history, why should we be so inclined to call him the GOAT without any serious objection? I've seen players improve their teams faster than Jordan and I'm not really thrilled by how well his teams performed when he wasn't getting the help that most NBA players would want to get, aka, the best SF of the 90's+a GOAT level rebounder+defender + elite role players, despite 3ball's best BS attempts to downgrade their huge impact just because Jordan always wanted the glory of his team leaving volume shooting on him. Him calling them "Looney Tunes" wasn't helping, either, since for many years he wasn't the ideal teammate who could harmonically blend with his team and inspire his less talented and controlled teammates instead of putting them down. Honestly, Jordan's fans should be thankful to Krause for discovering a hard working second star next to him in Pippen. Not many could have co-existed that well with a guy like Jordan.


I think you're being entirely unreasonable with the bolded. That's not what being the GOAT means. Last I checked, it measures an entire body of work throughout the career. I don't recall anyone else saying he was "undisputed" GOAT either. That makes no sense considering Kareem has a STRONG argument for it himself. If we applied your logic it would disqualify almost anyone from being the GOAT because no one won THAT much


GOAT means whatever someone may want it to mean. And it's funny how it can easily include factors that could favor players other than Jordan, yet very few dare use these other definitions if they know they don't favor Jordan.
And I don't know how you don't see how many don't call Jordan the undisputed GOAT. Seriously, when a guy routinely gets like 70% of the public's votes and the next best is typically at 8-12%, you don't think that a high number of fans would have him as undisputed GOAT?

PS. Oh, and, 3ball, I've quickly read your ranting and, as usual, when it comes to defending Jordan vs other GOATs, it's double standards and cherry-picking all over the place. Like I've said, I'm not interested in a multiple day back and forth exchange and the reason isn't "getting crushed" by someone who calls Rodman a 4/8 guy, believes Mo Williams was better than post-rookie Pippen because of stats, says LeBron underperformed in 2009 playoffs (L O L) and that his 2 last Finals losses to much more talented teams are "big failures". If you really believe such stuff, you may as well subscribe to some Flat Earth-like society, whose members aren't changing their minds even when you shove counter-evidence on their throats and because of their unwillingness to change, they declare themselves "winners".

[sdot_thadon]

It's a thing where we can't dock a player for being dominant. That just doesn't make sense. As you yourself mentioned, some players have their career highlights beating juggernaut teams, but other players PLAYED on those juggernaut teams and were largely the reasons FOR said teams being juggernauts. Jordan is in that group.
Sure, but you can say that then tell me a player is supposed to be docked for not having the team around him to get it done. Both are circumstances out of the players hands. And again I'm not sure why all the push back is necessary for the most honest answer to the question the thread poses. Mj didn't face the level of comp a few other guys did, and that's ok because he has things on his resume some of them don't. That's how this works.


So it's not something he's "missing", he has something better.
Yeah Kevin Durant has that same something and we celebrated it daily while he played for the Warriors right? :rolleyes:


Also I don't know who considers Jordans peak 88-90. Most folks have his peak at 90-91, with 91 usually being his universal peak. As for his career trajectory, again, it was in-line with some of the best in history according to Ben Taylor of Backpicks. Here's his graphic illustrating it
People did consider it his peak at one point because it's when his numbers were the most gaudy and his motor was it's highest. Definitely his physical peak. Now we're so dumbed down that we have to include a championship season as someone's peak even when it's not the truth. But agendas, agendas, agendas.

[3ball]

PS. Oh, and, 3ball, I've quickly read your ranting and, as usual, when it comes to defending Jordan vs other GOATs, it's double standards and cherry-picking all over the place. Like I've said, I'm not interested in a multiple day back and forth exchange and the reason isn't "getting crushed" by someone who calls Rodman a 4/8 guy, believes Mo Williams was better than post-rookie Pippen because of stats, says LeBron underperformed in 2009 playoffs (L O L) and that his 2 last Finals losses to much more talented teams are "big failures". If you really believe such stuff, you may as well subscribe to some Flat Earth-like society, whose members aren't changing their minds even when you shove counter-evidence on their throats and because of their unwillingness to change, they declare themselves "winners".
You started the long responses - I simply provided facts to shed light on your false assumptions and claims

Here's responses to your latest string of false claims:

- Rodman averaged 4/8 for the entire 97' playoffs. And wasn't the starter in the 98 playoffs (another 4/8 in the 98' Finals)

He was a shell and you overrated him

- Mo caused a 21-win increase and destroys 89' Pippen - it's not even close in RS or PO .. Pippen averaged 10 ppg on 40% in ecf

- Also, I never said lebron underperformed in 09'... I said his narrow skillset was exploited because that's what the opposing coach said.

- And lebron losing in 17' is a failure because he has a super-team and could've been a 70 win
juggernaut himself.. those cavs shouldn't have been underdogs in 16', which would've made them defending champion juggernauts in 17'.. but 16' was viewed as a fluke upset, so they went into 17' as underdogs again
.

[Leviathon1121]

PS. Oh, and, 3ball, I've quickly read your ranting and, as usual, when it comes to defending Jordan vs other GOATs, it's double standards and cherry-picking all over the place. Like I've said, I'm not interested in a multiple day back and forth exchange and the reason isn't "getting crushed" by someone who calls Rodman a 4/8 guy, believes Mo Williams was better than post-rookie Pippen because of stats, says LeBron underperformed in 2009 playoffs (L O L) and that his 2 last Finals losses to much more talented teams are "big failures". If you really believe such stuff, you may as well subscribe to some Flat Earth-like society, whose members aren't changing their minds even when you shove counter-evidence on their throats and because of their unwillingness to change, they declare themselves "winners".

And yet you have been saying that Jordan losing, in the very beginning of his career, to much more talented teams SHOULD be used against him. Talk about double standards, hypocrite.

[Phoenix]

People did consider it his peak at one point because it's when his numbers were the most gaudy and his motor was it's highest. Definitely his physical peak. Now we're so dumbed down that we have to include a championship season as someone's peak even when it's not the truth. But agendas, agendas, agendas.

Shaq's physical peak didn't coincide with his championship run. He was a more cerebral player in 2000 and that's generally how I would view comparing Jordan in 89 versus Jordan in 92. He was more athletically explosive in 89 but he was smarter player in 92, mentally more ready to apply his skills in ways that translated to winning. No different with Lebron either, while we're on this topic. I saw some 2009 highlights of him recently. Dude was all over the court for 40 minutes, high motor, high impact athleticism. There should be no argument that his physical peak didn't coincide with his championship run, but I think most people consider him at his best in 2013. Still had most of his athleticism, but more experienced, more refined, more cerebral.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Nobody really considers '88 or '89 Jordan his peak.

You could say Mike was @ his athletic apex those years. Some include 88 and on as part of his "prime" too. But peak? Nah. 90-93 Jordan had improved his jumper quite a bit. He also started lifting weights regularly, and was overall more tactful in his approach.

You could also argue that playing on a championship team altered Mike's approach. I'd say he's the biggest reason Chicago was championship caliber...

[sdot_thadon]

Shaq's physical peak didn't coincide with his championship run. He was a more cerebral player in 2000 and that's generally how I would view comparing Jordan in 89 versus Jordan in 92. He was more athletically explosive in 89 but he was smarter player in 92, mentally more ready to apply his skills in ways that translated to winning. No different with Lebron either, while we're on this topic. I saw some 2009 highlights of him recently. Dude was all over the court for 40 minutes, high motor, high impact athleticism. There should be no argument that his physical peak didn't coincide with his championship run, but I think most people consider him at his best in 2013. Still had most of his athleticism, but more experienced, more refined, more cerebral.


Nobody really considers '88 or '89 Jordan his peak.

You could say Mike was @ his athletic apex those years. Some include 88 and on as part of his "prime" too. But peak? Nah. 90-93 Jordan had improved his jumper quite a bit. He also started lifting weights regularly, and was overall more tactful in his approach.

You could also argue that playing on a championship team altered Mike's approach. I'd say he's the biggest reason Chicago was championship caliber...
good stuff. But you guys have common sense, can't say that for the majority.

Also as a Houstonian things like Hakeem's peak come to mind. Everyone assumes it's cut and dry that the title run were his peak and ignore the 93 season because he didn't have the hype a champion recieves. He was a beast that season as well, if i remember correctly that was his best season by the numbers.

[guy]

He doesn

[3ball]

If we're not expecting Jordan to do things that aren't doable by any other player in history, why should we be so inclined to call him the GOAT?


^^^^ No, we are expecting MJ to do things that no one else ever did:

- 6 rings in modern era/3-pointer basketball
- 2 three-peats
- 6 FMVP's
- 6/6 record in the championship
- 5 MVP's in modern era/3-pointer basketball
- 10 scoring titles
- won ring as scoring champ (6 times)


Here's more:

- only player with career 30/5/5 average for regular season... or playoffs... or Finals
- all-time leader in playoff PPG at 33.5, while everyone else is at 29 or below (4-5 point edge on all the best scorers in NBA history)
- #1 all-time in PPG and efficiency rating (Player Efficiency Rating, aka PER)
- only player that is top 2 in career PER, VORP, BPM, WS/48 for regular season and playoffs
- #1 all-time championship frequency since the 3-point line began (6 in 15 yrs.. 40.0%)
- all-time playoff records for single game pts, series ppg, and Finals ppg
- most seasons with both 1st team all-nba and 1st team all-defense (9 seasons, consecutive)
- only top 10 candidate to never lose as the 1 or 2 seed (i.e. kareem lost 9 times, magic/lebron/bird 6 each).. MJ was 6-0
- only MJ/Kobe won multiple rings with 1 all-star teammate, except Shaq (who had Kobe), and Hakeem (when MJ was out of league)
- only HOF that was never outscored by anyone in a playoff series (MJ led team by average margin of 15.4 ppg over 2nd option)
- only player to win the goat 2-way distinction: scoring title & dpoy in same season (88').. he also won MVP that yr (goat individual season)
- only #1 option to win 70+ and the championship (goat team season)
- only player to win 70+, championship, all 3 MVP's, scoring title and 1st-team all-D (goat overall season, 1996)
- Best winning stats ever - 33.7 ppg and 6.6 apg in 91-93' PO (27.2 and 7.2 for lebron in 12/13/16' PO)
- Best losing stats ever - 44 ppg against champion 86' celtics and their #1 defense, or 37/7/7 in 90' PO
.

[LostCause]

If we're not expecting Jordan to do things that could not be doable by any other player in history, why should we be so inclined to call him the GOAT without any serious objection?

You keep saying this and it's almost becoming a troll point. As I've said before, you can certainly object. Kareem has a legit argument for being GOAT, so does Russell. You can argue LeBron too. It doesn't take away from Jordan widely being regarded as the GOAT because everything he did was insurmountable. You obviously don't need to do that to be GOAT


GOAT means whatever someone may want it to mean. And it's funny how it can easily include factors that could favor players other than Jordan, yet very few dare use these other definitions if they know they don't favor Jordan.
And I don't know how you don't see how many don't call Jordan the undisputed GOAT. Seriously, when a guy routinely gets like 70% of the public's votes and the next best is typically at 8-12%, you don't think that a high number of fans would have him as undisputed GOAT?


If something is undisputed, then everyone agrees with it. It can't be questoined. If 8-12% of people don't see him as GOAT then obviously he's not undisputed

Additionally, you're conflating being the GOAT with being perfect/flawless. You don't have to be perfect to be the GOAT, and no one ever claimed Jordan was flawless so citing a couple flaws doesn't show he can't be the GOAT. Not sure why you keep making that reach but it's a dishonest discussion if that's your position on what the GOAT should be

[LostCause]

Sure, but you can say that then tell me a player is supposed to be docked for not having the team around him to get it done. Both are circumstances out of the players hands. And again I'm not sure why all the push back is necessary for the most honest answer to the question the thread poses. Mj didn't face the level of comp a few other guys did, and that's ok because he has things on his resume some of them don't. That's how this works.

I don't have any pushback with this, the facts show that LeBrons Finals comp has been stronger than MJ's (But MJ's in-conference competition has been stronger)

I'm just pushing back on the idea that he's missing something by NOT being an underdog because his teams were so good. That just doesn't add up. Everyone's career is different and Jordans is such that the underdog narrative just doesn't fit the trajectory of his career (I also wouldn't necessarily say it's just out of his control - He was obviously a huge part of why those teams were so dominant)


Yeah Kevin Durant has that same something and we celebrated it daily while he played for the Warriors right? :rolleyes:

Now you're being intellectually dishonest. Whats the real reason people give KD shit?


People did consider it his peak at one point because it's when his numbers were the most gaudy and his motor was it's highest. Definitely his physical peak. Now we're so dumbed down that we have to include a championship season as someone's peak even when it's not the truth. But agendas, agendas, agendas.

I'd say it's dumber to say it's his peak simply because a couple raw stats are highest. 90 and 91 is when he actually put it all together (Even had a strong 3-point shot those years) and had his maximum impact on his teams winning. He also had by far his greatest playoff play in 90 and 91 and it's really not even that close. No surprise his team won a championship in one of those years and came a migraine away from probably doing it in 1990, too

[ArbitraryWater]

MJ clearly scores more at the same efficiency, but Lebron has a superior assist rate, whilst using less of the ball.

Here's where it gets interesting

MJ Box Plus Minus stats:
OBPM: +8.3
DBPM: +1.8

Total BPM of +10.1

Lebron Box Plus Minus stats:
OBPM: +7.3
DBPM: +3.2

Total BPM of +10.5

LeBron has 4 seasons where he averaged 60+ FG% from 2 point shots.

Jordan = None

And LeBron has already made more and has a higher FG% from 3 point land than Jordan.


Peak:


Playoffs: 1990 Jordan / 2009 LeBron

Jordan: 36.7 / 7.2 / 6.8 / 2.8 / 0.9 + 3.5 turnovers on 51/32/84 splits

LeBron: 35.3 / 9.1 / 7.3 / 1.6 / 0.9 + 2.7 turnovers on 51/33/79 splits

Per 100 possessions

Jordan: 45.1 points, 8.8 rebounds, 8.4 assists, 3.5 steals, 1.1 blocks, 59% TS

LeBron: 47.5, 12.3 rebounds, 9.8 assists, 2.2 steals, 1.2 blocks, 62% TS


2018 LeBron wins as well.

[sdot_thadon]

I don't have any pushback with this, the facts show that LeBrons Finals comp has been stronger than MJ's (But MJ's in-conference competition has been stronger)

I'm just pushing back on the idea that he's missing something by NOT being an underdog because his teams were so good. That just doesn't add up. Everyone's career is different and Jordans is such that the underdog narrative just doesn't fit the trajectory of his career (I also wouldn't necessarily say it's just out of his control - He was obviously a huge part of why those teams were so dominant)
It's not so much about being the underdog, it's more about facing a high enough caliber opponent that your outcome is in serious doubt or you even become the underdog as a result. In boxing terms Ali is probably the most widespread goat choice. His argument hinges on the fact that he had to defeat absolute legends to win some of his belts, given he lost some of those fights but his resume says he fought monsters. Fast forward to the 80's and Tyson is scorched earth destroying his division, but never was seen in the light Ali was even before his fall from grace.....because he didn't beat legend(s) in order to cement his status. Not his fault but circumstances are what they are. If it's something other greats have encountered/overcome and it's a piece of their resume, it's missing on Mjs resume and it's not much to debate.



Now you're being intellectually dishonest. Whats the real reason people give KD shit?
It was really just intended as a cheeky response to what you said. The topic isn't about if Mj had something better. It just asks what his resume is missing and after the above response hopefully you can grasp my pov.

[Manny98]

Lack of great teams beaten

LeBron beat

Duncan Spurs
KG Celtics
73 win Warriors
3 MVP Thunder

Jordan never beat a team that was on par with those

[Psileas]

And yet you have been saying that Jordan losing, in the very beginning of his career, to much more talented teams SHOULD be used against him. Talk about double standards, hypocrite.

I'm not a LeBron deifier, unlike extreme Jordanists around here and elsewhere. I'm not holding LeBron at a superman level and I'm not spreading the "he's the clear-cut GOAT" BS that these people do. As long as this trend exists, as long as many think that Jordan is on another level compared to other GOAT candidates, LeBron included, I reserve the right to use stricter criteria for him than everyone else, period.

[Da_Realist]

It's not so much about being the underdog, it's more about facing a high enough caliber opponent that your outcome is in serious doubt or you even become the underdog as a result. In boxing terms Ali is probably the most widespread goat choice. His argument hinges on the fact that he had to defeat absolute legends to win some of his belts, given he lost some of those fights but his resume says he fought monsters. Fast forward to the 80's and Tyson is scorched earth destroying his division, but never was seen in the light Ali was even before his fall from grace.....because he didn't beat legend(s) in order to cement his status. Not his fault but circumstances are what they are. If it's something other greats have encountered/overcome and it's a piece of their resume, it's missing on Mjs resume and it's not much to debate.


It was really just intended as a cheeky response to what you said. The topic isn't about if Mj had something better. It just asks what his resume is missing and after the above response hopefully you can grasp my pov.

Right. So the 89 Cavs, 89 Knicks, 91 Lakers, 93 Knicks, 93 Suns and 98 Jazz being favored to knock off the Bulls shows none of those series was in doubt, right? Plus many still thought the Pistons would win again in 91 and the Pacers would beat the Bulls in 98.

The Bulls beat a two time defending champion as well as a team considered the team of the 80's who was in the Finals for the 4th time out of the previous 5 years and then went on to beat multiple 60+ win teams that LBJ fanboys want to pretend were scrubs on the way to winning 6 titles.

* Isiah Thomas/Joe Dumars/Dennis Rodman/Mark Aguirre
* Magic/James Worthy/Sam Perkins/Byron Scott
* Ewing/Gerald Wilkins/Xavier McDaniel/Mark Jackson/Anthony Mason/Charles Oakley/John Starks
* Drexler/Porter/Kersey/Buck Williams/Danny Ainge
* Barkley/Kevin Johnson/Dan Majerle/Tom Chambers/Richard Dumas/Danny Ainge
* Shaq/Penny/Nick Anderson/Dennis Scott/Brian Shaw
* Gary Payton/Shawn Kemp/Nate McMillan/Sam Perkins/Detlef Shrempf
* Alonzo Morning/Tim Hardaway/Dan Majerle/Jamal Mashburn
* John Stockton/Karl Malone/Jeff Hornacek
* Reggie Miller/Mark Jackson/Rik Smits/Chris Mullin/Antonio Davis/Dale Davis

There are many that have lost to lesser teams than these.

[3ball]

Psileas, FYI I answered your question about goat standard in post #102 (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13800148&postcount=102)

The first sentence answers you; the remaining list is overkill

[sdot_thadon]

Right. So the 89 Cavs, 89 Knicks, 91 Lakers, 93 Knicks, 93 Suns and 98 Jazz being favored to knock off the Bulls shows none of those series was in doubt, right? Plus many still thought the Pistons would win again in 91 and the Pacers would beat the Bulls in 98.

The Bulls beat a two time defending champion as well as a team considered the team of the 80's who was in the Finals for the 4th time out of the previous 5 years and then went on to beat multiple 60+ win teams that LBJ fanboys want to pretend were scrubs on the way to winning 6 titles.

* Isiah Thomas/Joe Dumars/Dennis Rodman/Mark Aguirre
* Magic/James Worthy/Sam Perkins/Byron Scott
* Ewing/Gerald Wilkins/Xavier McDaniel/Mark Jackson/Anthony Mason/Charles Oakley/John Starks
* Drexler/Porter/Kersey/Buck Williams/Danny Ainge
* Barkley/Kevin Johnson/Dan Majerle/Tom Chambers/Richard Dumas/Danny Ainge
* Shaq/Penny/Nick Anderson/Dennis Scott/Brian Shaw
* Gary Payton/Shawn Kemp/Nate McMillan/Sam Perkins/Detlef Shrempf
* Alonzo Morning/Tim Hardaway/Dan Majerle/Jamal Mashburn
* John Stockton/Karl Malone/Jeff Hornacek
* Reggie Miller/Mark Jackson/Rik Smits/Chris Mullin/Antonio Davis/Dale Davis

There are many that have lost to lesser teams than these.
As a fan the last time I thought it was possible the Bulls would lose was the Lakers in 91, and even then in hindsight no one should have thought that with Worthy being banged up going into the series. That wasn't showtime.

How many games a team won is an incredible double standard because a guy like you will say 60 win teams as some sort of qualifier and then try to downplay beating a 70 win team. Honestly like everything else theres a degree of nuance that needs to be respected in these debates that always gets ignored.

The majority of the opponents who faced the Bulls once they started winning had less than the bulls, plain and simple. I know this type of claim infuriates Mj stans but it is what it is. The majority of those names you listed only mean something to us because we grew up in that era. Our generation get a warm fuzzy feeling talking about guys like X-man and Duckworth, but In the grand scheme some of those guys aren't worth the time you took to type their names.

[Psileas]

You keep saying this and it's almost becoming a troll point. As I've said before, you can certainly object. Kareem has a legit argument for being GOAT, so does Russell. You can argue LeBron too. It doesn't take away from Jordan widely being regarded as the GOAT because everything he did was insurmountable. You obviously don't need to do that to be GOAT



If something is undisputed, then everyone agrees with it. It can't be questoined. If 8-12% of people don't see him as GOAT then obviously he's not undisputed

Additionally, you're conflating being the GOAT with being perfect/flawless. You don't have to be perfect to be the GOAT, and no one ever claimed Jordan was flawless so citing a couple flaws doesn't show he can't be the GOAT. Not sure why you keep making that reach but it's a dishonest discussion if that's your position on what the GOAT should be

Never did I say that it's a unanimous decision that Jordan is GOAT. However, it's vastly Jordan supporters the ones who claim that their GOAT blows everyone else out of the water. No-one ever claimed Jordan was practically flawless you say? Wanna look again at the 1st reply to the topic?

I want to be more honest to my criticism than most Jordan fans. So, I said it: When Jordan's overall (and not just scoring) help wasn't reasonably great, his team results weren't indicating "GOAT". Want other criticisms? He wasn't a great long range shooter. He's not among the all-time triple-double leaders. He wasn't always a likeable teammate. He reacted when Jackson wanted to reduce his playing time and shots. He didn't beat really elite teams when the Bulls were at their best. He retired twice, thus saving fuel in his tank for later, when other superstars were busting their asses non-stop, getting fatigued, injured etc. He lost in '95 and, despite often playing great, his fans still want to pretend he was "rusty". He was having off nights in 1996-98 that are routinely excused, while others like 2008-10 Kobe are routinely crucified for stuff like the "6/24" night.
And, of course, very few dare to mention anything of the above. I'm leaving his Wizards days aside, although I don't think Kareem stopped getting criticized when he got too old. I'm also leaving college aside, since I suppose we only talk about NBA careers.

[sdot_thadon]

I'm not a LeBron deifier, unlike extreme Jordanists around here and elsewhere. I'm not holding LeBron at a superman level and I'm not spreading the "he's the clear-cut GOAT" BS that these people do. As long as this trend exists, as long as many think that Jordan is on another level compared to other GOAT candidates, LeBron included, I reserve the right to use stricter criteria for him than everyone else, period.
:applause: well put.

[Psileas]

3ball, I'm not talking about things that only Jordan did, but about things that only Jordan could do, if him+Jordan faced similar circumstances. If we were talking about things that only Jordan did, I could similarly be listing certain feats and combos that only "some other superstar" has ever done and call it "proof he's GOAT".

[Leviathon1121]

As a fan the last time I thought it was possible the Bulls would lose was the Lakers in 91, and even then in hindsight no one should have thought that with Worthy being banged up going into the series. That wasn't showtime.

How many games a team won is an incredible double standard because a guy like you will say 60 win teams as some sort of qualifier and then try to downplay beating a 70 win team. Honestly like everything else theres a degree of nuance that needs to be respected in these debates that always gets ignored.

The majority of the opponents who faced the Bulls once they started winning had less than the bulls, plain and simple. I know this type of claim infuriates Mj stans but it is what it is. The majority of those names you listed only mean something to us because we grew up in that era. Our generation get a warm fuzzy feeling talking about guys like X-man and Duckworth, but In the grand scheme some of those guys aren't worth the time you took to type their names.
Actually it

[ArbitraryWater]

I'm not a LeBron deifier, unlike extreme Jordanists around here and elsewhere. I'm not holding LeBron at a superman level and I'm not spreading the "he's the clear-cut GOAT" BS that these people do. As long as this trend exists, as long as many think that Jordan is on another level compared to other GOAT candidates, LeBron included, I reserve the right to use stricter criteria for him than everyone else, period.

on the money

[ArbitraryWater]

MJ clearly scores more at the same efficiency, but Lebron has a superior assist rate, whilst using less of the ball.

Here's where it gets interesting

MJ Box Plus Minus stats:
OBPM: +8.3
DBPM: +1.8

Total BPM of +10.1

Lebron Box Plus Minus stats:
OBPM: +7.3
DBPM: +3.2

Total BPM of +10.5

LeBron has 4 seasons where he averaged 60+ FG% from 2 point shots.

Jordan = None

And LeBron has already made more and has a higher FG% from 3 point land than Jordan.


Peak:


Playoffs: 1990 Jordan / 2009 LeBron

Jordan: 36.7 / 7.2 / 6.8 / 2.8 / 0.9 + 3.5 turnovers on 51/32/84 splits

LeBron: 35.3 / 9.1 / 7.3 / 1.6 / 0.9 + 2.7 turnovers on 51/33/79 splits

Per 100 possessions

Jordan: 45.1 points, 8.8 rebounds, 8.4 assists, 3.5 steals, 1.1 blocks, 59% TS

LeBron: 47.5, 12.3 rebounds, 9.8 assists, 2.2 steals, 1.2 blocks, 62% TS


2018 LeBron wins as well.

[NBAGOAT]

[QUOTE=Leviathon1121]Actually it

[sdot_thadon]

Actually it’s just your opinion.
It's progressed beyond being an opinion a while back, seeing as it's a verifiable comment. I told you the other day i guess i need to make a thread about it.

[NBAGOAT]

It's progressed beyond being an opinion a while back. I told you the other day i guess i need to make a thread about it.

it would be great with the lack of activity and lazy repetitive threads right now

[3ball]

As a fan the last time I thought it was possible the Bulls would lose was the Lakers in 91, and even then in hindsight no one should have thought that with Worthy being banged up going into the series. That wasn't showtime.


That series taught us that the Bulls were a juggernaut - we learned that MJ produced juggernauts with 1 other star, so how was he supposed to execute a Finals upset after that? How do juggernauts execute upsets?

You want 98' MJ to win 51 games like the 17' Cavs, so they can claim upset victory by beating the 64-win jazz?... It makes MJ a better player if he did that?... Wtf are you talking about






The majority of the opponents who faced the Bulls once they started winning had less than the bulls, plain and simple. I know this type of claim infuriates Mj stans but it is what it is. The majority of those names you listed only mean something to us because we grew up in that era. Our generation get a warm fuzzy feeling talking about guys like X-man and Duckworth, but In the grand scheme some of those guys aren't worth the time you took to type their names

.
^^^ bolded is nonsense and opposite of the common thinking and reporting at the time - from the 93' Finals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6og_pOVi2w&t=01m34s


People usually felt the Bulls would win because they knew MJ finally had the minimal help he needed to win

Once Pippen started averaging about 17 ppg, everyone was like "welp, it isn't Kareem and Worthy, but it's enough for MJ to win"
.

[Da_Realist]

The majority of the opponents who faced the Bulls once they started winning had less than the bulls, plain and simple. I know this type of claim infuriates Mj stans but it is what it is.

Yes because the Bulls had Michael Jordan and the other teams didn't. Very simple. Yet still, the Bulls were not favored to beat the 93 Knicks, 93 Suns or the 98 Jazz. All three series was after they started winning. It's only after the Bulls spanked them that they are now considered "nobodies" within the echo chamber of LeBron fanboys.

If LeBron was as good as MJ, he would have been favored more. After all, he gets to choose his teams and coach...and even who should be replaced before mid-season.

[Leviathon1121]

by this logic jordan being the goat would be "just an opinion" too, what a terrible response. His opinion I think is a relatively popular one so it definitely has merit even if you disagree.
It is an opinion, it

[Leviathon1121]

Yes because the Bulls had Michael Jordan and the other teams didn't. Very simple. Yet still, the Bulls were not favored to beat the 93 Knicks, 93 Suns or the 98 Jazz. All three series was after they started winning. It's only after the Bulls spanked them that they are now considered "nobodies" within the echo chamber of LeBron fanboys.

If LeBron was as good as MJ, he would have been favored more. After all, he gets to choose his teams and coach...and even who should be replaced before mid-season.
Exactly, if the Bulls simply had more talent then everyone, they would have been favored to win every series...but they weren

[sdot_thadon]

it would be great with the lack of activity and lazy repetitive threads right now
Yeah judging by these replies i need to go ahead and compile some data I've looked at and make some splits so it can be enough info worthy of a thead. It's definitely a different reality than what's normally presented I'll say that much.

[NBAGOAT]

[QUOTE=Leviathon1121]It is an opinion, it

[Leviathon1121]

yes that's my point... sdot's opinion is a relatively popular one too so it has merit
Is it? I honestly don

[NBAGOAT]

[QUOTE=Leviathon1121]Is it? I honestly don

[And1AllDay]

big fax and kids will runnnnnnnnnn from this

...


mike beat cupcakes plain and simple

[Da_Realist]

[QUOTE=Leviathon1121]Is it? I honestly don

[Leviathon1121]

the thing is even bringing up an instance like the 93 suns and knicks being favored doesnt counter his point since he only said majority. I would even dispute the knicks being more talented outside of ewing than the bulls outside of jordan but that may be offensive bias kicking in. Then again people dont acknowledge offensive bias being a thing when they bring up the magic however...
But that

[And1AllDay]

imagine your mike and your best win is the 2011 clippers (utah jazz) :oldlol:

[NBAGOAT]

But that’s understandable in my opinion. I would think anytime a player like Jordan, or LeBron has a championship caliber team, they are going to be favored in almost all their matchups, which is indeed the case for both players.

well this is a little off topic again, his point was about the other talent so we'll see how convincing his post is. I maybe should've addressed this but i'll go on a tangent myself and say looking at favorites can not be the most indicative either of a team's talent level.

For example, this year mil was favorites in the ecf and it wasnt because giannis was considered better than kawhi because kawhi had just come off the philly series. This means people thought mil had a clearly more talented cast but with some hindsight, you can argue they werent and people(myself included) were overreacting to how poorly they played vs philly(and maybe underrated how good philly's defense with their size was) and how well mil played vs bos, a series a good number of people thought mil would lose.

P.S again the benefit of hindsight but we may have overrated how good bos was put way too much stock into playoff kyrie and how well bos' young guys performed in the playoffs last year.

[NBAGOAT]

imagine your mike and your best win is the 2011 clippers (utah jazz) :oldlol:

the 2011 clippers didnt even have cp3 and the early clips didnt have good help around cp3/griffin like malone/stockton did. 2014 would be far better even though it's still a bad comparison

[3ball]

3ball, I'm not talking about things that only Jordan did, but about things that only Jordan could do, if him+Jordan faced similar circumstances

.
you cannot produce a list of accomplishments of mj's magnitude because they dont exist - mj won the most in the modern era while having the highest ppg and efficiency rating - only mj combined goat-level winning with goat-level dominance/stats (and 6 FMVP's.. no one is close)





I could similarly be listing certain upsets and combos that only "some other superstar" has ever done and call it "proof he's GOAT"

.
Regarding upsets - 16' Lebron had a better Big 3 than Curry, so the upset wasn't one of talent - MJ overcame actual talent deficits (and really big ones) vs the 89' Cavs and 88-91' Bad Boys'

Also, the 91' Finals taught us that the Bulls were a juggernaut - we learned that MJ produced juggernauts with 1 other star, so how was he supposed to execute a Finals upset after that? How do juggernauts execute upsets?

You want 98' MJ to win 51 games like the 17' Cavs, so they can claim upset victory by beating the 64-win jazz?... That makes MJ a better player?... Wtf are you talking about
.

[Leviathon1121]

well this is a little off topic again, his point was about the other talent so we'll see how convincing his post is. I maybe should've addressed this but i'll go on a tangent myself and say looking at favorites can not be the most indicative either of a team's talent level.

For example, this year mil was favorites in the ecf and it wasnt because giannis was considered better than kawhi because kawhi had just come off the philly series. This means people thought mil had a clearly more talented cast but with some hindsight, you can argue they werent and people(myself included) were overreacting to how poorly they played vs philly(and maybe underrated how good philly's defense with their size was) and how well mil played vs bos, a series a good number of people thought mil would lose.

P.S again the benefit of hindsight but we may have overrated how good bos was put way too much stock into playoff kyrie and how well bos' young guys performed in the playoffs last year.
Off topic but your tangent brings up something we are starting to see more often now. I do think the Bucks were the best team, but they went cold from 3 and couldn

[3ball]

Those 91' Finals (that you thought the bulls could lose) taught us that the Bulls were a juggernaut - we learned that MJ produced juggernauts with 1 other star, so how was he supposed to execute a Finals upset after that? How do juggernauts execute upsets?

You want 98' MJ to win 51 games like the 17' Cavs, so they can claim upset victory by beating the 64-win jazz?... It makes MJ a better player if he did that?... Wtf are you talking about




It's nonsense to say that MJ's opponents had weaker casts and opposite of the common thinking and reporting at the time - from the 93' Finals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6og_pOVi2w&t=01m34s


People usually felt the Bulls would win because they knew MJ finally had the minimal help he needed to win

Once Pippen started averaging about 17 ppg, everyone was like "welp, it isn't Kareem and Worthy, but it's enough for MJ to win"

.
sdot running from this. He had enough drubbing from Leviathon already itt

[NBAGOAT]

[QUOTE=Leviathon1121]Off topic but your tangent brings up something we are starting to see more often now. I do think the Bucks were the best team, but they went cold from 3 and couldn

[NZStreetBaller]

Tough competition is not really something any player could control. Nor is there any accurate way of saying that jordans bulls would be crushed in todays game. Its very likely that if jordan played in todays game hed adjust in a way that would make him successful. That was just him his mentality adaptability and physical gifts is what made him great so it wouldnt really matter who he was up against hed always be great.

[ClipperRevival]

NBA Finals losses.

Ouchee :yaohappy:

[superduper]

Yes because the Bulls had Michael Jordan and the other teams didn't. Very simple. Yet still, the Bulls were not favored to beat the 93 Knicks, 93 Suns or the 98 Jazz. All three series was after they started winning. It's only after the Bulls spanked them that they are now considered "nobodies" within the echo chamber of LeBron fanboys.

If LeBron was as good as MJ, he would have been favored more. After all, he gets to choose his teams and coach...and even who should be replaced before mid-season.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/26xBGekbXJHY8KpUY/giphy.gif

[superduper]

imagine your mike and your best win is the 2011 clippers (utah jazz) :oldlol:

Why was 75% of the playoffs tougher for Jordan? (3 rounds).

Why was only 25% of the playoffs tougher for Bran? (1 round).

Interested in your input. (not really)

[Vino24]

LeBron

[LAmbruh]

LeBron’s dominance was just much more organic. Didn’t need expansion or tailored rules to enhance his game
Yup

MJ never adjusted to a 3pt shot until the line was pushed closer and immediately returned to shit when Stern pushed it back again

Proving even with practice he wouldn't develop in todays league, simply had no range

the Derozan before Derozan existed