0 1-way defenders won MVP or FMVP in modern era - only dominant offensive guys, so

[3ball]

being your team's dominant offensive player while winning a championship is the goat criteria (winning as "the man), and Bill Russell's player type (defensive dominator) would win zero MVP's or FMVP's in the modern era/3-pointer basketball era..

and if defensive dominators are out as goat candidates in the modern era and winning as "the man" is the criteria, then MJ's 6 rings as "the man" make him goat (2nd place has 3 rings as "the man")

how can this logic be effectively countered

[RRR3]

1-9

[MrFonzworth]

Iguodala. Next?
1-9

[Shogon]

1-9

[3ball]

Iguodala. Next?
1-9


I was waiting for someone to find the lone exception, thus proving the rule - Iggy as the lone exception shows how ridiculous it is

He didn't deserve it that year and the voters were brain-f.ucked by lebron in thinking the 40% he shot against Iggy was somehow more impressive than the 40% he shot against Crowder, Butler and every other defender in those playoffs

But I think you see the point being made - other than Iggy, every FMVP of the modern era led their team in scoring and/or assists... Bill Russell simply wouldn't be an MVP consideration any more than Wallace was in 04' or Dikembe ever was.. Dominant offensive players are the MVP-caliber players of the modern era, and the best winner among them is goat - that's MJ - 6 FMVP and rings as "the man", while 2nd place has 3.. checkmate

[Bronbron23]

being your team's dominant offensive player while winning a championship is the goat criteria (winning as "the man), and Bill Russell's player type (defensive dominator) would win zero MVP's or FMVP's in the modern era/3-pointer basketball era..

and if defensive dominators are out as goat candidates in the modern era and winning as "the man" is the criteria, then MJ's 6 rings as "the man" make him goat.

how can this logic be effectively countered
I guess so but I'm not sure bill Russell fits in that category. He still scored 15-20 points and had a shit ton of rebounds. That along with his elite defence would make him pretty hard to beat. Scottie pip was one game away from making it to the Eastern conference finals with absolutely no help. If he could do that in the modern era with no help there's no reason why Billy couldn't win a bunch of chips in the modern era with help

[Kblaze8855]

If you

[Kblaze8855]

The idea that exceptions prove rules has always been hilarious to me. It

[3ball]

I guess so but I'm not sure bill Russell fits in that category. He still scored 15-20 points and had a shit ton of rebounds. That along with his elite defence would make him pretty hard to beat. Scottie pip was one game away from making it to the Eastern conference finals with absolutely no help. If he could do that in the modern era with no help there's no reason why Billy couldn't win a bunch of chips in the modern era with help
Only dominant offensive players win MVP - so how could Bill Russell be a goat candidate, or even top 10 if has zero MVP's as a 15 ppg guy who is obviously very limited offensively?

And Pippen had a 3-peat system with a team that had come a long way in it's strategy and know-how - Pippen himself averaged 9 ppg as a weak, 2nd year player in the 89' ECF when the 6th-seeded Bulls were a lottery cast, PRE-system

Now what if MJ misses "the shot" and the 6-seed Bulls lose in the 1st round and rebuild again, rather than him hitting it and becoming ECF veterans, rivals of the champs, and 1 year away from starting a 3-peat??

Pippen obviously wasn't leading shit that year was he???.... :coleman: ...Only after the team developed a 3-peat system could he make the 2nd round without MJ

[3ball]

If you’re gonna throw out anyone for what might happen in a modern era take the last two letters off “GOAT” and call it best player of recent times and be done with it.

Any argument that relies on finding a way to not count inconveniently great players is starting off poorly.
Only dominant offensive players win MVP - so how could Bill Russell be a goat candidate, or even top 10 if has zero MVP's as a 15 ppg guy who is very limited offensively?

A guy that isn't capable of even 1 MVP in the modern era is a goat candidate?.. how are they even top 10?...

[RRR3]

I would pay my life savings to get a chance to suck MJ off
:biggums:

[jlip]

being your team's dominant offensive player while winning a championship is the goat criteria (winning as "the man), and Bill Russell's player type (defensive dominator) would win zero MVP's or FMVP's in the modern era/3-pointer basketball era..

and if defensive dominators are out as goat candidates in the modern era and winning as "the man" is the criteria, then MJ's 6 rings as "the man" make him goat (2nd place has 3 rings as "the man")

how can this logic be effectively countered

That says more about what media personalities value in an era of mass marketing than it does about a player's actual value to his team's success. Being your team's leading scorer is far more marketable than being the primary reason opposing teams score 10 fewer ppg against you all than they do against the rest of the league.

BTW...If anyone thinks Bill Russell only impacted the defensive side of the ball, then they don't know anything about his game.

[3ball]

:biggums:


The goat criteria was always staring us in the face... :facepalm ... It's simply: "who won the most as "the man"???


Pretty simple right???.... :hammerhead:.. :cheers:


And the answer is obvious - MJ is goat because he won 6 times as "the man" and 2nd place only won 3 times... :bowdown:

[Ainosterhaspie]

Duncan got FMVP in 05 on 20 ppg. Thats not exactly a great offensive showing. Leonard in 14 got FMVP because of his defense. Same with Iggy in 15. Yes voters tend to vote for flash and story not necessarily who is the actual most impactful player. Doesn't mean guys aren't causing their team to win with their defense and actually deserving of FMVP.

[Bronbron23]

Only dominant offensive players win MVP - so how could Bill Russell be a goat candidate, or even top 10 if has zero MVP's as a 15 ppg guy who is obviously very limited offensively?

And Pippen had a 3-peat system with a team that had come a long way in it's strategy and know-how - Pippen himself averaged 9 ppg as a weak, 2nd year player in the 89' ECF when the 6th-seeded Bulls were a lottery cast, PRE-system

Now what if MJ misses "the shot" and the 6-seed Bulls lose in the 1st round and rebuild again, rather than him hitting it and becoming ECF veterans, rivals of the champs, and 1 year away from starting a 3-peat??

Pippen obviously wasn't leading shit that year was he???.... :coleman: ...Only after the team developed a 3-peat system could he make the 2nd round without MJ

That's not always true. I wouldn't call Duncan and kg dominant offensive players.

And yeah Russell only had 15ish points but he was an offensive rebounding machine. He was giving his team a shit ton of extra possessions while limiting the opposing teams with his d.

And what is this 3 peat system you keep talking about? It was just the triangle that happened to be crazy successful because of mj and pip. Take our mj and add Russell and the bulls still win 6 rings. Probably more actually because Russell wouldn't have retired in his prime

[RRR3]

The goat criteria was always staring us in the face... :facepalm ... It's simply: "who won the most as "the man"???


Pretty simple right???.... :hammerhead:.. :cheers:


And the answer is obvious - MJ is goat because he won 6 times as "the man" and 2nd place only won 3 times... :bowdown:
Okay LeBron is tied for second then :applause:

[3ball]

Duncan got FMVP in 05 on 20 ppg. Thats not exactly a great offensive showing. Leonard in 14 got FMVP because of his defense. Same with Iggy in 15. Yes voters tend to vote for flash and story not necessarily who is the actual most impactful player. Doesn't mean guys aren't causing their team to win with their defense and actually deserving of FMVP.
It's all les - everything you think about the game

Duncan has always been a post presence that you could run an offense through - he's literally one of the best post players ever.. So this is nothing like Russell... Look - I understand using the stats for guidance but a quick glance at their games tells you that Russell and Duncan are vastly different

And Kawhi got FMVP because he averaged 24 on 70% for the last 3 games - before that he was at 12 ppg..

Lebron's stats looked good in people's eyes so Kawhi's defense wasn't talked about - it was kawhi's surprise offense - he wasn't just spotting up - he was creating and doing the same shit he does now.. his ppg increased from 12 to 18 and 24 for the last 3 games on lights out shooting - all in Lebron's grill - that's why he got FMVP

[3ball]

Okay LeBron is tied for second then :applause:
Yes tied for 2nd with Shaq and Magic

But all that does is open up the floodlines for arguments that Magic or Shaq is equal or better, and also that guys with 2 FMVP's (Kareem, Kobe, Bird, Kawhi, Durant) are also in the discussion

So now Lebron isn't even a lock at #2, and is struggling to stay in the top 7-8.. :applause: :rockon: :dancin:

Soon he won't be top 10

[StrongLurk]

Yes tied for 2nd with Shaq and Magic

But all that does is open up the floodlines for arguments that Magic or Shaq is equal or better, and also that guys with 2 FMVP's (Kareem, Kobe, Bird, Kawhi, Durant) are also in the discussion

So now Lebron isn't even a lock at #2, and is struggling to stay in the top 7-8.. :applause: :rockon: :dancin:

Soon he won't be top 10

Except Lebron also has 4 MVPS, and better/just as good per game stats. Of course, he will also have better longevity than most of those other players.

So Lebron is locked as a mount rushmore player (top 4) when factoring in winning, MVPS, final MVPs, stats.

Also LOL at adding Kawhi in there. Dude has like 8,000 career points in 7 seasons...

[3ball]

That's not always true. I wouldn't call Duncan and kg dominant offensive players.

And yeah Russell only had 15ish points but he was an offensive rebounding machine. He was giving his team a shit ton of extra possessions while limiting the opposing teams with his d.

And what is this 3 peat system you keep talking about? It was just the triangle that happened to be crazy successful because of mj and pip. Take our mj and add Russell and the bulls still win 6 rings. Probably more actually because Russell wouldn't have retired in his prime
adding Russell to the Bulls wouldn't start holding teams to 50 points or anything ridiculous like that - the bulls were already a goat defensive team, so adding Russell would take off a point or two more at the most.

Otoh, replacing MJ with Russell would be a loss of 20 ppg.... The Bulls would probably fall off the same way they did with Pete Myers - they went from the #1 ORtg to #14 in the league - a massive drop-off (bulls were #2 all-time in 1992)

The Bulls simply had shit offensive help (1-man show) and therefore needed scoring champion production from their #1 option to win - and only MJ could provide that - only MJ won titles as scoring champ (6 times), except Shaq/Kareem did it once each in their peak seasons of 71' and 00'
.

[AirBonner]

Russell knew how to win from day one better than MJ. 8 straight in a league with no Wilt? Cake walk

[3ball]

Russell knew how to win from day one better than MJ. 8 straight in a league with no Wilt? Cake walk
Russell had 8 HOF teammates from day 1

Otoh, MJ had to drag a 6 seed to the 89' ECF - that allowed them to contend with the champs in 89' and be ready to win in 91', rather than a 1st round exit/rebuild in 89' and nothing by 91'...

So MJ had the much tougher path and STILL could've won 8 straight against the likes of Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing and DR... :facepalm :bowdown:

Ultimately, MJ all-but won 8 straight with only 2 HOF teammates, while Russell needed 8 HOF teammates and didn't face as many dominant bigs or modern offensive strategy

[Ainosterhaspie]

Kinda sad really. Jordan could only turn one guy into a hall of famer, meanwhile Russell turned 8 guys into hall of famers.

[sdot_thadon]

being your team's dominant offensive player while winning a championship is the goat criteria (winning as "the man), and Bill Russell's player type (defensive dominator) would win zero MVP's or FMVP's in the modern era/3-pointer basketball era..

and if defensive dominators are out as goat candidates in the modern era and winning as "the man" is the criteria, then MJ's 6 rings as "the man" make him goat (2nd place has 3 rings as "the man")

how can this logic be effectively countered
Guess this type of shit logic compels others to reply with equally shit logic. I suppose my post is supposed to go something like: Why couldn't Mj impact a game the way Russell could without scoring 30? Was he too one dimensional that he only had a single way to be impactful, meanwhile Bill could impact games so much that he won mvps in seasons where he only averaged 14 or 16 points a game? Winning 11 titles as the leader of your team, or even 2 while simultaneously also serving as head coach for them will never be matched. And Russell would probably have more than 8 dpoy and fmvp awards had they been handed out in his era.

Russell only failed to win the title 2 years of his entire career.

[3ball]

Guess this type of shit logic compels others to reply with equally shit logic. I suppose my post is supposed to go something like: Why couldn't Mj impact a game the way Russell could without scoring 30? Was he too one dimensional that he only had a single way to be impactful, meanwhile Bill could impact games so much that he won mvps in seasons where he only averaged 14 or 16 points a game? Winning 11 titles as the leader of your team, or even 2 while simultaneously also serving as head coach for them will never be matched. And Russell would probably have more than 8 dpoy and fmvp awards had they been handed out in his era.

Russell only failed to win the title 2 years of his entire career.
Show me where a league MVP wasn't a dominant offensive player and I'll concede that Russell could win MVP's..

otherwise, there's no way a zero-MVP player is a goat candidate, or even a top 10 candidate, and MJ is therefore goat for winning the most as 'the man"/his team's best offensive player (6 rings as "the man" and 2nd place has 3)

Russell is simply a product of an era that didn't have a 3-point line, and therefore lacked the spacing for good team offense - this allowed a 1-way defender like Russell to dominate

[Bronbron23]

adding Russell to the Bulls wouldn't start holding teams to 50 points or anything ridiculous like that - the bulls were already a goat defensive team, so adding Russell would take off a point or two more at the most.

Otoh, replacing MJ with Russell would be a loss of 20 ppg.... The Bulls would probably fall off the same way they did with Pete Myers - they went from the #1 ORtg to #14 in the league - a massive drop-off (bulls were #2 all-time in 1992)

The Bulls simply had shit offensive help (1-man show) and therefore needed scoring champion production from their #1 option to win - and only MJ could provide that - only MJ won titles as scoring champ (6 times), except Shaq/Kareem did it once each in their peak seasons of 71' and 00'
.
I disagree. Bull scored about 7 pts less a game when mj retired but held teams to 5 pts less a game defensively. So with mj out it was only a difference of a few points really. if you add in Russell with his rebounding extra points and defence the bulls could easily go on to win multiple chips. They would still score 100 plus points due to extra possessions and maybe not hold teams to 50 but they could easily hold teams to 80-85.

The main thing your missing about the bulls scoring if Russell was there in place of mj is that Russell would be giving the bulls 10 or more extra possessions with his rebounding. Thats worth 10 or more points right there. So even though he couldn't score like mj he could rebound alot better which would result in just as much if not more offensive production because of the extra possessions.

Do you agree that bulls with Russell become a better defensive team and a much better rebounding team?

[3ball]

I disagree. Bull scored about 7 pts less a game when mj retired but held teams to 5 pts less a game defensively.


bulls ranked 7th, 4th and 7th in DRtg from 91-93', and 6th in 94'... So they're DRtg rank didn't change despite the 4 less ppg because the entire league scored 4 less ppg..

Otoh, the 7 less points for the Bulls offensively provided a 3-poiint cushion over the 4-pt league change, and those 3 extra points = 13 ranks lower in ORtg (2nd to 14th).

And you're aren't understanding the degree of the drop-off offensively - the Bulls achieved the #2 all-time ORtg in 1992 (115.5), and #5 all-time in 1991 (114.6) - so they went from possibly the best offense ever to 14th in the league without MJ (106.7) .. otoh, defense is more of a team effort so they didn't drop-off at all without MJ, and the same would be true for Russell assuming the same great defensive system and a few other solid defenders..





So with mj out it was only a difference of a few points really.


That's the difference between the #14 offense in the league (an average offense), and possibly the greatest offense ever

(2nd, 5th, 12th, and 16th highest ORtg's ever - the most top 10 and top 20 offenses ever)





If you add in Russell with his rebounding extra points and defence the bulls could easily go on to win multiple chips. They would still score 100 plus points due to extra possessions and maybe not hold teams to 50 but they could easily hold teams to 80-85.

The main thing your missing about the bulls scoring if Russell was there in place of mj is that Russell would be giving the bulls 10 or more extra possessions with his rebounding. Thats worth 10 or more points right there. So even though he couldn't score like mj he could rebound alot better which would result in just as much if not more offensive production because of the extra possessions.

Do you agree that bulls with Russell become a better defensive team and a much better rebounding team?


Not at all because MJ yielded 2-way teams - MJ gave the Bulls a great defense while having literally a goat offense (not just a good offense) - only MJ did this... Teams have a limited amount of energy, and most great offenses don't have energy for a great defense or vice versa.. But MJ's goat 2-way play gave his team the same.
.

[sdot_thadon]

Show me where a league MVP wasn't a dominant offensive player and I'll concede that Russell could win MVP's..

otherwise, there's no way a zero-MVP player is a goat candidate, or even a top 10 candidate, and MJ is therefore goat for winning the most as 'the man"/his team's best offensive player (6 rings as "the man" and 2nd place has 3)

Russell is simply a product of an era that didn't have a 3-point line, and therefore lacked the spacing for good team offense - this allowed a 1-way defender like Russell to dominate
This is a pretty stupid statement seeing as Russell is in fact the guy you are asking for in this reply. He not only won an mvp, he won 5. Russell won Mvp the same season one guy put up 50 points and 26 boards, and another averaged a 30 point triple double. Theres alot more to Russell if you choose to research, but that says it all.

[Bronbron23]

bulls ranked 7th, 4th and 7th in DRtg from 91-93', and 6th in 94'... So they're DRtg rank didn't change despite the 4 less ppg because the entire league scored 4 less ppg..

Otoh, the 7 less points for the Bulls offensively provided a 3-poiint cushion over the 4-pt league change, and those 3 extra points = 13 ranks lower in ORtg (2nd to 14th).

And you're aren't understanding the degree of the drop-off offensively - the Bulls achieved the #2 all-time ORtg in 1992 (115.5), and #5 all-time in 1991 (114.6) - so they went from possibly the best offense ever to 14th in the league without MJ (106.7) .. otoh, defense is more of a team effort so they didn't drop-off at all without MJ, and the same would be true for Russell assuming the same great defensive system and a few other solid defenders..



That's the difference between the #14 offense in the league (an average offense), and possibly the greatest offense ever

(2nd, 5th, 12th, and 16th highest ORtg's ever - the most top 10 and top 20 offenses ever)



Not at all because MJ yielded 2-way teams - MJ gave the Bulls a great defense while having literally a goat offense (not just a good offense) - only MJ did this... Teams have a limited amount of energy, and most great offenses don't have energy for a great defense or vice versa.. But MJ's goat 2-way play gave his team the same.
.
I don't know man. Obviously the bulls were better offensively with mj than without but to act like mj was the only guy that could of won six in that system is a bit disingenuous. Kawhi, Russell and Duncan all would of been good fits in the triangle and all would of won multiple chips. I'm not saying they're all as good as mj just that they'd be just as successful in the triangle as mj was.

Phil won 55 games with one all star. If you add any great atg player to that squad they most likely win a chip. Especially if that atg player is bill Russell who's gonna get you more stops than mj did and way more rebounds and thus way more possessions.

[3ball]

Phil won 55 games with one all star. If you add any great atg player to that squad they most likely win a chip. Especially if that atg player is bill Russell who's gonna get you more stops than mj did and way more rebounds and thus way more possessions.


Similar to the 18' Celtics (#1 defense), the Bulls had a great defensive system - they were already getting a maximum number of possessions in the league without Russell and didn't need his defense or rebounding - it would've been redundant.... it's MJ's offense that they couldn't do without - their team ortg dropped from #2 all-time to #14 in the league in 94', while their defensive ranking remained the same..

So again, the bulls had maximum possessions because of their system, personnel (mj/pip) and also because MJ was scoring with maximum frequency without turning it over and taking care if possessions - the bulls' scoring frequency is far superior with mj - they have a MUCH BETTER offense with MJ than Russell - you realize that right?..

MJ + minimal offensive help = goat offenses... mj is the goat offensive player and you're saying the bulls would have better offenses with a defender like Russell... It makes no sense... :hammerhead:





I don't know man. Obviously the bulls were better offensively with mj than without but to act like mj was the only guy that could of won six in that system is a bit disingenuous. Kawhi, Russell and Duncan all would of been good fits in the triangle and all would of won multiple chips. I'm not saying they're all as good as mj just that they'd be just as successful in the triangle as mj was.


Duncan and Kawhi, not Russell.. Russell wasn't an offensive player.. Pip/Grant didn't need another defender - they needed a goat offensive player to carry the offense

And you obviously don't think it's significant that the bulls needed scoring champion production from their #1 option for all 6 rings, but it's everything - scoring champion production is the only way you can have the goat offenses typical of a goat dynasty despite going 4 on 5 offensively with rodman.. it's also how you 3-peat despite getting only 17 on 40.8% from the 2nd option (pip) for the entire 96-98' playoffs..

Ultimately, the Bulls needed scoring champion production to have goat offenses and dominant dynasty despite crap offensive help.. and the scoring champ production must be in championship form, which only MJ could do - only MJ was good enough to win rings as scoring champion.. everyone else had to tone their game down.. i.e. Kobe couldn't hot dog it to a ring in 09' with his 06' scoring champion swag... He had to tone it down, along with every other player in history.. but MJ's game was naturally solid/optimal enough to still score at scoring champion level, while winning titles

so kawhi and Duncan don't have enough to fit the scoring champion role that the Bulls needed at #1 option, so they would win zero rings as a bull - those bulls simply didn't need kawhi/Duncan/mj's defense - they needed MJ's scoring

[3ball]

:rooleyes:

[Smoke117]

You didn't read the OP - it says IN THE MODERN ERA/3-POINTER BASKETBALL, there's never been a league MVP that wasn't a dominant offensive player

So Russell wouldn't be an MVP or n the modern era

and there's no way a zero-MVP player is a goat candidate, or even a top 10 candidate, and MJ is therefore goat for winning the most as 'the man"/his team's best offensive player (6 rings as "the man" and 2nd place has 3)

Russell is simply a product of an era that didn't have a 3-point line, and therefore lacked the spacing for good team offense - this allowed a 1-way defender like Russell to dominate

Aren't you in the east of USA? It's 2am there. Go to bed, you ****ing nuttter.

[3ball]

Aren't you in east of USA? It's 2am there. Go to bed, you ****ing nuttter.
I'm on Pacific Time so it's 11

[3ball]

This is a pretty stupid statement seeing as Russell is in fact the guy you are asking for in this reply. He not only won an mvp, he won 5. Russell won Mvp the same season one guy put up 50 points and 26 boards, and another averaged a 30 point triple double. Theres alot more to Russell if you choose to research, but that says it all.
You didn't read the OP - it says IN THE MODERN ERA/3-POINTER BASKETBALL, there's never been a league MVP that wasn't a dominant offensive player, so we know Bill Russell could never win a league MVP post-1980..

And there's no way a zero-MVP player is a goat candidate, or even a top 10 candidate.. Russell is simply a product of an era that didn't have a 3-point line, and therefore lacked the spacing for good team offense - this allowed a 1-way defender like Russell to dominate and MVP-caliber...

But the modern era requires a dominant offensive player - winning as "the man" (a team's best offensive player) has become the holy grail of basketball accomplishment that defined the careers of guys like Kobe (when he won without Shaq), Dirk, Durant and others.. So MJ is goat for winning the most as "the man" (6 rings as "the man", while 2nd place has 3)
.

[Smoke117]

I'm on Pacific Time so it's 11

Oh? Let's meet up, baby boy. Maybe if I kick your head enough your brain might straighten out.

[sdot_thadon]

You didn't read the OP - it says IN THE MODERN ERA/3-POINTER BASKETBALL, there's never been a league MVP that wasn't a dominant offensive player, so we know Bill Russell could never win a league MVP post-1980..

And there's no way a zero-MVP player is a goat candidate, or even a top 10 candidate.. Russell is simply a product of an era that didn't have a 3-point line, and therefore lacked the spacing for good team offense - this allowed a 1-way defender like Russell to dominate and MVP-caliber...

But the modern era requires a dominant offensive player - winning as "the man" (a team's best offensive player) has become the holy grail of basketball accomplishment that defined the careers of guys like Kobe (when he won without Shaq), Dirk, Durant and others.. So MJ is goat for winning the most as "the man" (6 rings as "the man", while 2nd place has 3)
.
I read the op, but I'm at a point where in order to digest your posts it's best to ignore the blatantly stupid pieces and deal with the substance of the argument. Everyone who's read any post of yours already has the understanding that your m.o. is to downplay anything anyone has over Mj. Thus we make up shit like "3 pointer basketball'' and for that reason other people counter you with shit like expansion era, car mechanics, and wnba 3 pointer basketball. Just stick to the truth, Russell has more rings and rings "as the man" than Mj does and was able to win just as many Mvps without being even half the offensive player. Common sense, which obviously isn't your strength suggests Russell had everything else in excess. :biggums:

[3ball]

Thus we make up shit like "3 pointer basketball''


I'm "making up" that the 3-point line made the game different???... :whatever:

It's literally the biggest landmark in the history of the game

once the 3-point line spread the floor and changed where offensive players stood (even if they weren't taking the shot), team ortg's instantly shot up in 1980 and remained in the current 105-108 range for the last 40 years (since the 3-point line was introduced).. it became a different game where offensive players were now the most valuable

and actually, only the last 2 seasons have ORtg's gone passed the 108 mark and into 109 and 110 territory, which shows you how much the current format of maximum threes/spacing has affected defenses and offenses.. because that's a massive increase and the first time those levels have ever been reached in hoops history - it's an absolute cakewalk to score and MJ would average at least 42-43, if not damn near 50, like everyone said he would



I read the op, but I'm at a point where in order to digest your posts it's best to ignore the blatantly stupid pieces and deal with the substance of the argument. Everyone who's read any post of yours already has the understanding that your m.o. is to downplay anything anyone has over Mj. Thus we make up shit like "3 pointer basketball'' and for that reason other people counter you with shit like expansion era, car mechanics, and wnba 3 pointer basketball. Just stick to the truth, Russell has more rings and rings "as the man" than Mj does and was able to win just as many Mvps without being even half the offensive player. Common sense, which obviously isn't your strength suggests Russell had everything else in excess. :biggums:
You're dancing around the issue being presented

Since the 3-point line began (1980), how many of the 40 league MVP's weren't dominant offensive players?... :coleman:

Zero - that's how many...

So Russell isn't capable of being MVP in the modern era (since 1980).... And there's no way a zero-MVP player is a goat candidate, or even a top 10 candidate.. Russell is simply a product of an era that didn't have a 3-point line, and therefore lacked the spacing for good team offense - this allowed a 1-way defender like Russell to dominate and be MVP-caliber...

But the modern era requires a dominant offensive player - winning as "the man" (a team's best offensive player) has become the holy grail of basketball accomplishment that defined the careers of guys like Kobe (when he won without Shaq), Dirk, Durant and others.. So MJ is goat for winning the most as "the man" (6 rings as "the man", while 2nd place has 3)