MJ keeps vanquishing all the "next MJs" like Ant/Bron, etc.

[3ba11]

:hammertime:

[Wardell Curry]

Jordan has been retired for over 20 years. He doesn't "keep" doing anything except staying retired and running a franchise further into the ground with each passing year.

Oh my bad he doesn't even do that because he gave up and sold them.

[sdot_thadon]

Today I learned vanquishing is another word for being locked into a comparison with the other guy for over a solid decade with no end in sight.:kobe:

[ImKobe]

Hate that the media tries to do this every time a young player has a great stretch of basketball. Putting GOAT standards on Ant because he had a hot few weeks in the POs is stupid af. They build you up just to tear you down. In Bron's case it was different because he called himself "the Chosen One" and has talked about chasing Jordan but it was unfair what they did to Ant.

[ShawkFactory]

Hate that the media tries to do this every time a young player has a great stretch of basketball. Putting GOAT standards on Ant because he had a hot few weeks in the POs is stupid af. They build you up just to tear you down. In Bron's case it was different because he called himself "the Chosen One" and has talked about chasing Jordan but it was unfair what they did to Ant.

It only works though if idiots feed into. Don’t be one of them and enjoy.

[sdot_thadon]

Hate that the media tries to do this every time a young player has a great stretch of basketball. Putting GOAT standards on Ant because he had a hot few weeks in the POs is stupid af. They build you up just to tear you down. In Bron's case it was different because he called himself "the Chosen One" and has talked about chasing Jordan but it was unfair what they did to Ant.

Bron absolutely lived up to the comparison, that's the main difference here. Ant is just getting the initial buzz from a great stretch of play, we'll have to wait and see if he can sustain the level or even exceed it.

[ImKobe]

Bron absolutely lived up to the comparison, that's the main difference here. Ant is just getting the initial buzz from a great stretch of play, we'll have to wait and see if he can sustain the level or even exceed it.

Statistically yeah but as far as winning goes absolutely not. It's pretty much impossible to do what Jordan did which is why it's unfair to Ant. He's not calling himself the next Jordan or the chosen one. They put that on him after a few weeks of basketball just to tear him down. That's what these talk shows do.

It's very unlikely that we'll see anyone replicate the level of dominance + winning and the consistency that Jordan had in the 90s. You might say that Lebron lived up to it but he got nowhere close to 6 titles & 6 FMVPs with an undefeated record. Even if you think 4 is relatively close he was not the best player and the leading scorer on his team in every single series in his career. Jordan carried the NBA and was a global icon to a level that we haven't seen since. The league's popularity grew so much just off his back and it paved the way for everyone that came after him. Not just the league but Nike and the sneaker deals that would come after he started that shit. There's levels to this.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

It’s interesting that you don’t want a player to come up and play great basketball. One would think a fan of Michael Jordan and basketball at large would be yearning for such a player to arise. I’m starting to think you’re maybe taking this MJ fanhood thing too far. Will report more findings as I see them.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Oh wow, that infamous Nuggets thread got binned. Wonder who/what caused that. So much to unearth.

[Manny98]

Bro you're like 50 years old hating on a 22 year old kid just because he's being compared to your lover

What a life :oldlol:

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Bro you're like 50 years old hating on a 22 year old kid just because he's being compared to your lover

What a life :oldlol:

3ball is a concubine, at best.

[SouBeachTalents]

Bro you're like 50 years old hating on a 22 year old kid just because he's being compared to your lover

What a life :oldlol:
And he considers this a "W" in his life.

[ShawkFactory]

Oh wow, that infamous Nuggets thread got binned. Wonder who/what caused that. So much to unearth.

Yea it's all becoming a little more clear.

[Axe]

Statistically yeah but as far as winning goes absolutely not. It's pretty much impossible to do what Jordan did which is why it's unfair to Ant. He's not calling himself the next Jordan or the chosen one. They put that on him after a few weeks of basketball just to tear him down. That's what these talk shows do.

It's very unlikely that we'll see anyone replicate the level of dominance + winning and the consistency that Jordan had in the 90s. You might say that Lebron lived up to it but he got nowhere close to 6 titles & 6 FMVPs with an undefeated record. Even if you think 4 is relatively close he was not the best player and the leading scorer on his team in every single series in his career. Jordan carried the NBA and was a global icon to a level that we haven't seen since. The league's popularity grew so much just off his back and it paved the way for everyone that came after him. Not just the league but Nike and the sneaker deals that would come after he started that shit. There's levels to this.
Why does it only have to be about scoring or anything that falls under the offensive end that can make someone the 'goat'? Why can't it be something else that could be equally intriguing, like being clutch defensively in crucial playoff moments or being all-around overall? :confusedshrug:

[NBAGOAT]

unlike ant or bron, mj aint ever faced anyone like prime jokic

[3ba11]

It’s interesting that you don’t want a player to come up and play great basketball. One would think a fan of Michael Jordan and basketball at large would be yearning for such a player to arise. I’m starting to think you’re maybe taking this MJ fanhood thing too far. Will report more findings as I see them.


MJ hit the league like a tsunami, so when someone comes along that is better than MJ - everyone will know.

And I'll be ecstatic because that player will be more spectacular and amazing than Jordan was.. They will blow our minds..

Ant isn't that - he's just another decent little player like Rose or Steve Francis that gets hot for a few games to start each playoffs because no one is expecting anything and he can surprise the opponent with his energy.. But ultimately, he's just a down-hill player seeking 3's or layups, which isn't 5-man basketball, so he isn't capable of the chemistry required to "elevate teammates" and have a well-performing supporting cast, aka good team..

This is similar to Luka or even Lebron, whose "down-hill" style needed to team up with opposing franchise players and still mostly lost.. Otoh, expert jumpshooters like Curry and MJ, or fundamental bigs like Jokic and Duncan can let the ball move and play 5-man basketball, which allows higher team ceilings/Finals records..

Their superior brand of ball allows better records/perennial favorite status or "unbeatable" status over various stretches of time, whereas Bron-ball mostly lost with every cast he ever had.. Accordingly, the "down-hill" brand (high-scoring ball-domination) isn't capable of mostly winning for any stretch of time with any cast, aka objectively inferior at basketball to superior skillsets like expert jumpshooters (MJ, Curry, Kobe, Bird), or fundamental bigs (Russell, Jokic, Duncan, Kareem).

[ImKobe]

Why does it only have to be about scoring or anything that falls under the offensive end that can make someone the 'goat'? Why can't it be something else that could be equally intriguing, like being clutch defensively in crucial playoff moments or being all-around overall? :confusedshrug:

Great offense beats great defense. Jordan was a SG and the consistency he had as a scorer is just impossible to replicate. Playmaking can be volatile because to get an assist you need your teammate to make the shot, defense you can do everything right but a great player will still make their shots if they're hot.

There's no one more consistent in the POs for their career than Jordan. People talk shit about the 2 bad games he had in that Seattle series and it's arguably his worst series ever, and he still averaged 27/5/4 on ~54%TS overall. His lowest ppg in a series was 26.6 and he averaged 10+ rpg 5+ apg 2 spg and 1.4 bpg on top of it.

[Axe]

Great offense beats great defense. Jordan was a SG and the consistency he had as a scorer is just impossible to replicate. Playmaking can be volatile because to get an assist you need your teammate to make the shot, defense you can do everything right but a great player will still make their shots if they're hot.
Without a doubt he'd have cemented himself if he was also phenomenal in making 3s. But it's never the case.


There's no one more consistent in the POs for their career than Jordan. People talk shit about the 2 bad games he had in that Seattle series and it's arguably his worst series ever, and he still averaged 27/5/4 on ~54%TS overall. His lowest ppg in a series was 26.6 and he averaged 10+ rpg 5+ apg 2 spg and 1.4 bpg on top of it.
Ok. But what do you think about game 3 of the 1993 east finals where he went 3/18 and got bailed out by scottie pippen that night?

[3ba11]

Ok. But what do you think about game 3 of the 1993 east finals where he went 3/18 and got bailed out by scottie pippen that night?


Anyone that watched that series knew that the Knicks were mailing in that game - they knew they couldn't go up 3-0 in Chicago Stadium.. So the game was over after 1 quarter, where MJ had 8 points and 6 assists, compared to 6 and 0 for Pippen.. So Jordan dominated when the game was contested and the rest was garbage time - they were up 20-something midway through the 2nd quarter and the intro to Game 4 said "the cast rallied around Jordan" (here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzuMJ0hlMS4&t=51s)).

Of course MJ had 54 in Game 4, which caused the Knicks to throw the kitchen sink at him in Game 5 (14 assists), so Jordan controlled even the very best opponents - the 93' Knicks were a championship team that took the Bulls 7 games in 92' when they had X-Man (who dominated Pippen in that series).. X-Man recently said that the Knicks would've won the title if they kept him heading into 93'.

[Axe]

Stfu andrew. I ain't talking to ya.

[3ba11]

Stfu andrew. I ain't talking to ya.


Again, anyone that watched that series knew that the Knicks were mailing in Game 3 - they knew they couldn't go up 3-0 in Chicago Stadium.. So the game was over after the 1st quarter, where MJ had 8 points and 6 assists, compared to 6 and 0 for Pippen.. So Jordan dominated when the game was contested and the rest was garbage time - they were up 20-something midway through the 2nd quarter and the intro to Game 4 said "the cast rallied around Jordan" (here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzuMJ0hlMS4&t=51s)).

[Axe]

:blah

[3ba11]

:blah


Jokic had "bad games" with 13 points, or Lebron had bad games with 6 or 8 points.. Jordan's "bad games" were 22/8/11 where he dominated when the game was contested... that's goat.. oh, and he WON these so-called bad games (elevated teammates and dominated when the game was contested).. carry on

[ImKobe]

Without a doubt he'd have cemented himself if he was also phenomenal in making 3s. But it's never the case.


Ok. But what do you think about game 3 of the 1993 east finals where he went 3/18 and got bailed out by scottie pippen that night?

I'm sure if he had been a phenomenal 3-Point shooter you'd find something else to poke at. He didn't need 3s because he was unstoppable inside the arc. 3s are more volatile than any other shot so if anything it would have led to more lows for him like we've seen with Steph.

He shot 3/18 and finished with 22/8/11/2/2 with a 21.7 GameScore. Even with a bad shooting night he could have a good game in a blowout win. Pippen had a great shooting night (while MJ drew all the attention from the defense which led to wide open looks for Pip) but didn't contribute as much in other areas, and they won by 20 so it's not like it mattered either because they shut the Knicks down.

You're not going to win this. There's no one more consistent and better. The lows from Jordan are the highs for 99.9% of the players in NBA history. He doesn't have anything close to the 2011 Finals to his name. A bad game here or there does nothing for me lol. Jordan haters have to resort to nit-picking his worst shooting games from series that he won. That tells me he's leagues above anyone else.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

MJ hit the league like a tsunami, so when someone comes along that is better than MJ - everyone will know.

And I'll be ecstatic because that player will be more spectacular and amazing than Jordan was.. They will blow our minds..


Doubt. Very much doubt you’ll be ecstatic.


But yes, I do agree Edwards has been very overrated thus far.

[3ba11]

Doubt. Very much doubt you’ll be ecstatic.


But yes, I do agree Edwards has been very overrated thus far.


As time progresses, we continue to see expert jumpshooters like MJ, Kobe, Curry, or Bird, and fundamental bigs like Russell, Jokic, Duncan, or Kareem elevate teammates via great chemistry more than "down-hill" pursuit of 3's or layups (not 5-man basketball) employed by Ant, Lebron, aka the "modern player" - a rudimentary skillset produced by today's spaced-out, hands-off, beginner format.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

As time progresses, we continue to see expert jumpshooters like MJ, Kobe, Curry, or Bird, and fundamental bigs like Russell, Jokic, Duncan, or Kareem elevate teammates via great chemistry more than "down-hill" pursuit of 3's or layups (not 5-man basketball) employed by Ant, Lebron, aka the "modern player" - a rudimentary skillset produced by today's spaced-out, hands-off, beginner format.


These points, and their variants, were pretty roundly debunked over the course of 100+ pages/various threads that you eventually bent the knee on, before they were (apparently) deleted. Feel free to revive them and then address the points therein if you wish to continue this discussion.

you must have some kind of dossier on the site admins here LOL.

[sdot_thadon]

Statistically yeah but as far as winning goes absolutely not. It's pretty much impossible to do what Jordan did which is why it's unfair to Ant. He's not calling himself the next Jordan or the chosen one. They put that on him after a few weeks of basketball just to tear him down. That's what these talk shows do.

It's very unlikely that we'll see anyone replicate the level of dominance + winning and the consistency that Jordan had in the 90s. You might say that Lebron lived up to it but he got nowhere close to 6 titles & 6 FMVPs with an undefeated record. Even if you think 4 is relatively close he was not the best player and the leading scorer on his team in every single series in his career. Jordan carried the NBA and was a global icon to a level that we haven't seen since. The league's popularity grew so much just off his back and it paved the way for everyone that came after him. Not just the league but Nike and the sneaker deals that would come after he started that shit. There's levels to this.
The problem I've always had about this line of thinking is the blatant slander of other greats it takes for Mj to supposedly be "the goat" Statistically he's matched Mj at the very minimum, he's got his fair share of the record book. Winning? So you mean to tell me 4 is so far away from 6 (factoring in 10 total appearances and clearly better comp) that he doesn't measure up to Mj in "winning" yet 6 is some how more than 11? The math ain't mathing lil bro. Just incase you in fact can't add and subtract, 11 is 5 more than 6. Thats the actual "way more" when it comes to winning. And yes, we've seen this before there was a guy who is the Michael Jordan of defense that dominated the league while Mj was an Infant. There's a guy right now that is the Lebron James of basketball who's done and is still doing things Mj couldn't dream of. It's time to give everyone their flowers instead of repeating the same tired ass toxic debates ad nauseam. Lebrons at a point where still denying his place in history is like walking around with your pants down.

[3ba11]

These points, and their variants, were pretty roundly debunked over the course of 100+ pages/various threads that you eventually bent the knee on, before they were (apparently) deleted. Feel free to revive them and then address the points therein if you wish to continue this discussion.

you must have some kind of dossier on the site admins here LOL.


Many people thought the Wolves were "just too much" for the poor Nuggets after 2 games, but now they say Ant needs more help.

How can this be??... How can they have more talent with "length everywhere" according to Lebron, and also the 6MOY, DPOY, and an All-NBA player that carried the franchise until Ant recently took over?

So obviously, Ant doesn't need more help - he could literally tell management that "I don't need more help" because he has plenty... The problem is that his "down-hill" skillset of seeking 3's and layups isn't 5-man basketball, so it can't produce the elite chemistry needed to "elevate teammates" and have well-performing casts, aka great teams..

Casts need great chemistry to play great and Ant simply lacks the brand of ball to foster this chemistry.. This is typical of today's modern "down-hill" players like Luka, SGA, Ant, Lebron, etc. - they always "need more help" because they lack the skillset to produce great chemistry that elevates teammates.

Otoh, expert jumpshooters like Curry and MJ, or fundamental bigs like Jokic or Duncan can dominate while the ball moves... Accordingly, they foster great chemistry and get the most out of teammates and don't "need more help"... It's actually a travesty that today's media says that Ant and Lebron "need more help", which promotes talent-based winning (all-star team strategy) and therefore discourages players from improving their skillset to foster better chemistry like Jokic, Curry and MJ did.

[sdot_thadon]

Jokic had "bad games" with 13 points, or Lebron had bad games with 6 or 8 points.. Jordan's "bad games" were 22/8/11 where he dominated when the game was contested... that's goat.. oh, and he WON these so-called bad games (elevated teammates and dominated when the game was contested).. carry on

Nah actually a bad Mj game looked like this


Working More Magic, Jordan Disappears as Bulls Lose to Pistons

8 shots in a 2-2 series with a trip to his 1st finals on the line. Help yourself to a story lost to time and knob polishing.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-06-01-sp-1414-story.html

[3ba11]

Nah actually a bad Mj game looked like this



8 shots in a 2-2 series with a trip to his 1st finals on the line. Help yourself to a story lost to time and knob polishing.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-06-01-sp-1414-story.html


Ant has a lot of help and one of the league favorites, so he can't run out of gas like 89' MJ, who was carrying a lottery cast like the 04' Cavs or 19' Wolves.. It's no comparison.. The 89' Bulls had major upsets in every round, while the current Wolves are a favored, veteran high seed.

Btw, Pippen effectively missed games 5 and 6 of the 89' ECF... People don't realize that these were his first "migraines" and actually confirmed that his choke in Game 7 the following year was par for the course and not an actual "migraine" (since it happened in 89' too).. Pippen missing these games in addition to an already thin cast - that's why MJ ran out of gas and had a "bad" game of 18 points (compared to 6 or 8 points for Lebron's "bad" games, or even 13 points for Jokic's "bad" games).

But the real issue is that MJ's team of role players played the 89' and 90' Bad Boys just as tough as Bird and Magic's super-teams - their super-teams could barely hang with the Bad Boys, while MJ was nearly beating them with nothing in 89' and 90' before sweeping them with just one other star in 91' - this massive chasm in what Bird/Magic needed to barely hang with the Bad Boys, while MJ needed nothing by comparison - this shows how much better MJ was than Magic/Bird..

Many people thought MJ could beat the Bad Boys by himself in the 80's and when he finally did beat them, he needed nothing compared to what Bird/Magic needed.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Many people thought the Wolves were "just too much" for the poor Nuggets after 2 games, but now they say Ant needs more help.

How can this be??... How can they have more talent with "length everywhere" according to Lebron, and also the 6MOY, DPOY, and an All-NBA player that carried the franchise until Ant recently took over?

So obviously, Ant doesn't need more help - he could literally tell management that "I don't need more help" because he has plenty... The problem is that his "down-hill" skillset of seeking 3's and layups isn't 5-man basketball, so it can't produce the elite chemistry needed to "elevate teammates" and have well-performing casts, aka great teams..

Casts need great chemistry to play great and Ant simply lacks the brand of ball to foster this chemistry.. This is typical of today's modern "down-hill" players like Luka, SGA, Ant, Lebron, etc. - they always "need more help" because they lack the skillset to produce great chemistry that elevates teammates.

Otoh, expert jumpshooters like Curry and MJ, or fundamental bigs like Jokic or Duncan can dominate while the ball moves... Accordingly, they foster great chemistry and get the most out of teammates and don't "need more help"... It's actually a travesty that today's media says that Ant and Lebron "need more help", which promotes talent-based winning (all-star team strategy) and therefore discourages players from improving their skillset to foster better chemistry like Jokic, Curry and MJ did.

Top paragraph: yes, absolutely. The Wolves are a very talented, well-constructed and deep team. Despite this they are not an elite offence, even with offence being Ant’s stronger side. Forget MJ comparisons, I don’t think he’s even a Top 5 current player yet, and is at best borderline Top 10.

Bottom paragraph: see previous post, this has all been refuted pretty definitively, with nary a response in sight to the specific points raised.