MJ says "I would never would've retired in 93", so he didn't NEED to retire

[3ba11]

.
MJ in 2001:



"If I was playing for the stats, I would never have retired in 93' and I would probably still be chasing Kareem's scoring record right now"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njN5M4rjoRE&t=08m23s


So he could've played in 1994, but his unprecedented modern 3-peat and subsequent goat status gave him the luxury of retiring to mourn his father.. Essentially, any notion that he was too burnt out to play is false - people act like he was physically incapable of playing, when he obviously could've played if he wanted to.

[Soundwave]

He said he was coming back and wanted to win a 4th championship during the post-game press conference after the Bulls beat the Suns in Finals.

It's always been obvious he retired because to grieve the death of his father, that's all the retirement was and that's what the baseball thing was about.

[Soundwave]

He said he was coming back and wanted to win a 4th championship during the post-game press conference after the Bulls beat the Suns in Finals.

It's always been obvious he retired as a way to grieve the death of his father, that's all the retirement was and that's what the baseball thing was about.

[sdot_thadon]

I get the whole nobility and sanctity route we take with Mj, but lets be real. If he wasn't playing for stats he wouldn't have cared about whether or not he was winning scoring titles or how many assists he needed for triple doubles. He wouldn't check back into games that are out of hand to get closer to his averages. Theres always more to the story than what we get to know.

[3ba11]

I get the whole nobility and sanctity route we take with Mj, but lets be real. If he wasn't playing for stats he wouldn't have cared about whether or not he was winning scoring titles or how many assists he needed for triple doubles. He wouldn't check back into games that are out of hand to get closer to his averages. Theres always more to the story than what we get to know.


He's talking specifically about Kareem's scoring record - he pointed out that it was never considered something worth chasing..... And he said that if it HAD been considered something worth chasing, he would've never retired in 93'

[sdot_thadon]

He's talking specifically about Kareem's scoring record - he pointed out that it was never considered something worth chasing..... And he said that if it HAD been considered something worth chasing, he would've never retired in 93'

Yeah because once upon a time, Kareem's record was deemed untouchable. Especially to a guy who'd already considered retiring before his 1st chip. It was decidedly out of reach, so why even try?

[3ba11]

Yeah because once upon a time, Kareem's record was deemed untouchable. Especially to a guy who'd already considered retiring before his 1st chip. It was decidedly out of reach, so why even try?


Thanks to quotes from Mike over the years, new fans like yourself can learn what 90's kids already know - that Jordan retired suddenly on a whim, and didn't NEED to retire - no one thought he was injured and couldn't play - everyone knew that he could obviously keep playing and went to play baseball for other reasons (like 3-peating, aka already reaching GOAT... and also family murder),

[sdot_thadon]

Thanks to quotes from Mike over the years, new fans like yourself can learn what 90's kids already know - that Jordan retired suddenly on a whim, and didn't NEED to retire - no one thought he was injured and couldn't play - everyone knew that he could obviously keep playing and went to play baseball for other reasons (like 3-peating, aka already reaching GOAT... and also family murder),

Far from a new fan, and enough of a fan to know Mike floated the idea of retirement before he ever won a chip and a fan long enough to know how insurmountable Kareem's record was billed to be. There was never talk of Mike or anyone else becoming the all time leading scorer, just talk of how unbreakable a record it truly was. And honestly, no matter what the truth of the matter is behind his 1st retirement.....it still happened and its time to recognize it as such. A missed opportunity to make his case insurmountable like Kareem's record once was.

[Da_Realist]

I get the whole nobility and sanctity route we take with Mj, but lets be real. If he wasn't playing for stats he wouldn't have cared about whether or not he was winning scoring titles or how many assists he needed for triple doubles. He wouldn't check back into games that are out of hand to get closer to his averages. Theres always more to the story than what we get to know.

MJ played to dominate his peers not to hoard cumulative career stats. That's pretty obvious. MJ often sat on the bench or took his foot off the pedal when the game was out of reach. Like scoring 35 points in the first half of a Finals game then only 4 more after that.

[guy]

He said he was coming back and wanted to win a 4th championship during the post-game press conference after the Bulls beat the Suns in Finals.

It's always been obvious he retired as a way to grieve the death of his father, that's all the retirement was and that's what the baseball thing was about.

To be fair, as it’s been pointed out before including in the Last Dance, he did mention to people that he would consider retiring after the 93 season even before his dad was killed.

With that said, you have to be completely delusional to think his father’s murder had absolutely no impact on his decision. It most likely swayed him more in that direction combined with the fact that with good reason he felt he had nothing left to prove.

[guy]

Yeah because once upon a time, Kareem's record was deemed untouchable. Especially to a guy who'd already considered retiring before his 1st chip. It was decidedly out of reach, so why even try?

Jordan retired with most people crowning him the GOAT. Whether that was deserved or not, that was the case. He measured himself against his peers, specifically Magic and Bird and by 3-peating felt like he surpassed them and most people did as well. There wasn’t a Kareem/Jordan comparison really made. I’m sure if he constantly heard he wasn’t as good as Kareem yet and he needed to surpass the record to do that, he may have went for it. But that wasn’t part of his calculation nor was it really anyone’s at the time.

[Da_Realist]

Jordan retired with most people crowning him the GOAT. Whether that was deserved or not, that was the case. He measured himself against his peers, specifically Magic and Bird and by 3-peating felt like he surpassed them and most people did as well. There wasn’t a Kareem/Jordan comparison really made. I’m sure if he constantly heard he wasn’t as good as Kareem yet and he needed to surpass the record to do that, he may have went for it. But that wasn’t part of his calculation nor was it really anyone’s at the time.

That's because no one cared about cumulative stats. That was just a trivia question. Players were evaluated by how they dominated their competition not what numbers they end up with after a long career. Career numbers have no context or meaning.

[sdot_thadon]

MJ played to dominate his peers not to hoard cumulative career stats. That's pretty obvious. MJ often sat on the bench or took his foot off the pedal when the game was out of reach. Like scoring 35 points in the first half of a Finals game then only 4 more after that.

Sure he did, and he also went back into games that were out of reach to Jack up a few shots to get his numbers. He also went to the scorers table to find out how far he was from triple doubles, hes famously quoted for breaking down how many buckets he needed a quarter to average 30. When the triangle was being implemented his initial reaction was "he's (phil) not gonna let me win the scoring title" I know the wheaties fairy tale sounds better for TV specials but if you were truly a Jordan fan you remember these things.

[sdot_thadon]

Jordan retired with most people crowning him the GOAT. Whether that was deserved or not, that was the case. He measured himself against his peers, specifically Magic and Bird and by 3-peating felt like he surpassed them and most people did as well. There wasn’t a Kareem/Jordan comparison really made. I’m sure if he constantly heard he wasn’t as good as Kareem yet and he needed to surpass the record to do that, he may have went for it. But that wasn’t part of his calculation nor was it really anyone’s at the time.

Exactly, the reason 6 rings was such a big deal when it happened is becauee it was one more than Magic had. Mj cared about his scoring titles in comparison to Wilt's. He did t care about Kareem's record because nobody thought it was possible to replicate it. If Mj was the all time leading scorer it would be a big part of the taglines we use when we run down his accomplishments. It just happens to be one of the few major things he couldn't pull off, and thats ok. He's still goat, 1a-1b or #2 for me depending on criteria.

[Da_Realist]

Sure he did, and he also went back into games that were out of reach to Jack up a few shots to get his numbers. He also went to the scorers table to find out how far he was from triple doubles, hes famously quoted for breaking down how many buckets he needed a quarter to average 30. When the triangle was being implemented his initial reaction was "he's (phil) not gonna let me win the scoring title" I know the wheaties fairy tale sounds better for TV specials but if you were truly a Jordan fan you remember these things.

You can stop with the petty insults. We know you're bitter. Anyway, you can leave 1989 now with the triple doubles. Even that was because he was trying to prove he was an all around player, not accumulate career numbers...or he would have kept going the rest of his career.

And yes, he wanted to win the scoring title. To prove he could lead the league in scoring while winning. To prove he was good enough to do it, and he was, doing it 6 times.

But that's still not the same as being focused on accumulating career numbers. If he was hyper focused on it, he would have never retired, which is what he said.

[guy]

Exactly, the reason 6 rings was such a big deal when it happened is becauee it was one more than Magic had. Mj cared about his scoring titles in comparison to Wilt's. He did t care about Kareem's record because nobody thought it was possible to replicate it. If Mj was the all time leading scorer it would be a big part of the taglines we use when we run down his accomplishments. It just happens to be one of the few major things he couldn't pull off, and thats ok. He's still goat, 1a-1b or #2 for me depending on criteria.

I could be wrong but I’ve never heard him reference Wilt when it came to him wanting to win scoring titles. In fact, he retired the first time with 7, tied with Wilt. That kind of proves the point that he didn’t care about records whether it was far out of reach or not cause he could’ve easily have gotten to 8 the very next year and was just more concerned about how he measured against his peers.

And 6 rings and surpassing Magic in rings was not a big deal. That was not a narrative throughout the year or anything like that. Sure it was pointed out once it happened, but there wasn’t really a debate between the two regardless of rings.

[ShawkFactory]

What do you mean he didn't NEED to retire??

You've already set the precent that because something happened in a certain way means that it NEEDED to. That was you.

[Da_Realist]

I could be wrong but I’ve never heard him reference Wilt when it came to him wanting to win scoring titles. In fact, he retired the first time with 7, tied with Wilt. That kind of proves the point that he didn’t care about records whether it was far out of reach or not cause he could’ve easily have gotten to 8 the very next year and was just more concerned about how he measured against his peers.

And 6 rings and surpassing Magic in rings was not a big deal. That was not a narrative throughout the year or anything like that. Sure it was pointed out once it happened, but there wasn’t really a debate between the two regardless of rings.

Great points about Wilt and Magic. MJ could have easily won 8 straight scoring titles but retired instead. And as for the rings... he just wanted to carve out his own lane. He wasn't focused on Magic's 5 titles like everyone today is focused on MJ's 6. He wanted to do something unique that neither Magic or Bird did (threepeat). When he set himself apart, he retired. His retirement was one part grief over his father and one part grief over losing his measuring sticks (Bird and Magic). He was not concerned about career numbers.

After a year and a half of playing baseball, MJ felt motivation again when he saw new stars take over the league so he came back to prove he could win against them too. But he wasn't specifically targeting Magic's rings to overcome.

[Phoenix]

This may be a deep cut, and I'm gonna have hell trying to even find out if it exists anywhere, but I remember a 60 minutes special on Jordan in the early 90s, I want to say this was after the first title, where he kind of hinted that he wasn't going to stick around for much longer. Does anyone here remember that? But beyond that, I do specifically recall this interview bit in 'Michael Jordan Jordan Above and beyond' at the 8:37 mark:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo8XY-bNcPs&ab_channel=ELPinata

So taking his comments at face value here, after 7 scoring titles, a threepeat and 3 of the prior 5 MVPs, it didn't seem as though he was necessarily interested in breaking any established markers, Kareems scoring record or MVP count, Russells 11 titles which would be impossible to chase. The conversations were different back then because I don't recall anyone saying he had to pass Magic's 5 rings, or pass Kareem in scoring in order to be considered the GOAT. By 93 it was kind of already viewed that this was largely the case at that point based on his body of work and just how he played in general.

Going for a 4th straight or another MVP or more counting numbers didn't seem to be motivating factors coming off the 93 season. But if something in any way sparked a desire to come back in 94, his fathers death took that away. I mean, things just kind of happened the way it did at that point in time. He was also being killed in the media that year with all the gambling side stories, nights in Atlantic City right before a playoff game against the Knicks, stuff like that. Seemed like a number of things that led to that choice to retire in 93. I figured without the tragic father murder, coming back for a 4th title would have been enough of a motivating factor (but I won't claim to be in his head knowing what drove him). That 94 team with a 31 year old MJ, 28 year old Pippen/Grant, Kukoc coming onboard and other roster upgrades would have been special, very likely the best version of that Bulls dynasty if it had played out that way. But generally speaking, that way that year played out leading through the summer, as shocked as we all were that MJ walked away at that point, being in the moment it also made sense. Talking about it now in hindsight doesn't really capture what was happening in real-time.

[Hey Yo]

Great points about Wilt and Magic. MJ could have easily won 8 straight scoring titles but retired instead. And as for the rings... he just wanted to carve out his own lane. He wasn't focused on Magic's 5 titles like everyone today is focused on MJ's 6. He wanted to do something unique that neither Magic or Bird did (threepeat). When he set himself apart, he retired. His retirement was one part grief over his father and one part grief over losing his measuring sticks (Bird and Magic). He was not concerned about career numbers.

After a year and a half of playing baseball, MJ felt motivation again when he saw new stars take over the league so he came back to prove he could win against them too. But he wasn't specifically targeting Magic's rings to overcome.

More like the MLB was going on strike and MJ was still under his 8yr Bulls deal so Reinsdorf wasn't going to let him do nothing and still collect pay checks. He basically had no choice but to comeback to the Bulls if he wanted paid and we both know Mike liked having gambling money.

[sdot_thadon]

You can stop with the petty insults. We know you're bitter. Anyway, you can leave 1989 now with the triple doubles. Even that was because he was trying to prove he was an all around player, not accumulate career numbers...or he would have kept going the rest of his career.

And yes, he wanted to win the scoring title. To prove he could lead the league in scoring while winning. To prove he was good enough to do it, and he was, doing it 6 times.

But that's still not the same as being focused on accumulating career numbers. If he was hyper focused on it, he would have never retired, which is what he said.

Petty insults? Boy you got some thin skin to be posting here then lol. So what youre telling me is its ok to want to accumulate per game numbers because you supposedly know his reasons, but its bad to want to accumulate career numbers? Wtf make it make sense. When you gotta start jumping through hoops to avoid the truth youre probably better off with just the truth bro.

[Full Court]

So taking his comments at face value here, after 7 scoring titles, a threepeat and 3 of the prior 5 MVPs, it didn't seem as though he was necessarily interested in breaking any established markers, Kareems scoring record or MVP count, Russells 11 titles which would be impossible to chase. The conversations were different back then because I don't recall anyone saying he had to pass Magic's 5 rings, or pass Kareem in scoring in order to be considered the GOAT. By 93 it was kind of already viewed that this was largely the case at that point based on his body of work and just how he played in general.


Nobody ever thought total career points meant anything as far as the GOAT conversation goes. It wasn't until it started looking like Lebron was going to break Kareem's record that all of a sudden Bronie fluffers started trying to push this narrative that total points was some huge GOAT benchmark. They really had no choice though, since Lebron had already fallen woefully short in the criteria that actually mattered.

[Da_Realist]

Petty insults? Boy you got some thin skin to be posting here then lol. So what youre telling me is its ok to want to accumulate per game numbers because you supposedly know his reasons, but its bad to want to accumulate career numbers? Wtf make it make sense. When you gotta start jumping through hoops to avoid the truth youre probably better off with just the truth bro.

Career numbers mean nothing. They're without context. You can score 30 million points but never actually dominate. Just play a long time. Look at LeBron. Career leader in points but led the league in scoring only once. No one thinks Mark Jackson is a better floor general than Magic Johnson but he has more career assists. Because he played longer. Career numbers don't indicate dominance. Per-game numbers is much indicative of how good a guy is for a season.

That's why guys, until recently, were more interested in their per-game numbers than career totals. Every award is based on what a guy does for season, not a career.

[guy]

More like the MLB was going on strike and MJ was still under his 8yr Bulls deal so Reinsdorf wasn't going to let him do nothing and still collect pay checks. He basically had no choice but to comeback to the Bulls if he wanted paid and we both know Mike liked having gambling money.

:oldlol: You really think the $4M he was getting paid in 96 was what he came back for?

[sdot_thadon]

I could be wrong but I’ve never heard him reference Wilt when it came to him wanting to win scoring titles. In fact, he retired the first time with 7, tied with Wilt. That kind of proves the point that he didn’t care about records whether it was far out of reach or not cause he could’ve easily have gotten to 8 the very next year and was just more concerned about how he measured against his peers.

And 6 rings and surpassing Magic in rings was not a big deal. That was not a narrative throughout the year or anything like that. Sure it was pointed out once it happened, but there wasn’t really a debate between the two regardless of rings.
Yeah you could be wrong for sure, he and Wilt went back an forth in the media. And at the 50th anniversary at all star weekend they sat in a corner arguing pretty hard about who was the goat. Doesn't really sound like a guy who didn't care to me. Wilt was the guy any scorer wanted to be, to have anything over him asna scorer is a huge flex. They gave MJ a trophy when he made 30k points, but yeah career stats arent a big deal. And about Magic im not talking about the media dialog im talking about the one Magic and Mj had between the 2 of them. The ive got t and you got less trash talk. That's the earliest instance of rangz talk I can recall. Oh and Wilt saying Mjs 4 dont mean much becuase he knows a guy with 11.

[sdot_thadon]

Career numbers mean nothing. They're without context. You can score 30 million points but never actually dominate. Just play a long time. Look at LeBron. Career leader in points but led the league in scoring only once. No one thinks Mark Jackson is a better floor general than Magic Johnson but he has more career assists. Because he played longer. Career numbers don't indicate dominance. Per-game numbers is much indicative of how good a guy is for a season.

That's why guys, until recently, were more interested in their per-game numbers than career totals. Every award is based on what a guy does for season, not a career.

If career numbers mean(t) nothing, explain to me why Mj was given a trophy for accumulating 30k points? Kinda weird for something irrelevant dont ya think? You really believe Mark Jackson is a decent comparison to what Lebron has done? Lebrons career numbers didn't just come because he played long, thats pretty silly. He made those numbers because he dominated for more years than anyone else. Whether or not you think he outplayed Mj, he played at a comparable level for way longer. Thats the big deal.

[Full Court]

If career numbers mean(t) nothing, explain to me why Mj was given a trophy for accumulating 30k points? Kinda weird for something irrelevant dont ya think? You really believe Mark Jackson is a decent comparison to what Lebron has done? Lebrons career numbers didn't just come because he played long, thats pretty silly. He made those numbers because he dominated for more years than anyone else. Whether or not you think he outplayed Mj, he played at a comparable level for way longer. Thats the big deal.

Jordan had 10 scoring titles to Lebron's 1. THAT's dominance. The other stat is longevity. Jordan's dominance is on a whole other level from LeShrivel's.

[sdot_thadon]

Jordan had 10 scoring titles to Lebron's 1. THAT's dominance. The other stat is longevity. Jordan's dominance is on a whole other level from LeShrivel's.

Who made scoring titles the only measure of dominance? Whenever you try to play the weak longevity card youre sonning yourself. If we're talking vince carter, kevin willis type of longevity then youve got a point, most guys who have longevity watch it play out as a role player not a star, and certainly not as the face of the league. In that sense Lebron's longevity is one of a kind, hes given elite longevity thats the difference and why your statement doesn't move the needle.

[Full Court]

Who made scoring titles the only measure of dominance? Whenever you try to play the weak longevity card youre sonning yourself. If we're talking vince carter, kevin willis type of longevity then youve got a point, most guys who have longevity watch it play out as a role player not a star, and certainly not as the face of the league. In that sense Lebron's longevity is one of a kind, hes given elite longevity thats the difference and why your statement doesn't move the needle.


Hmmmm. How about we make winning the measure of dominance then. Jordan three-peated TWICE. Remind me, how many times did LeShrivel three-peat?

Yep, you've got nothing. "Bu-bu-bu-but total points!!!"

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.tenor.com%2Fm%2FH8akeoCjEZ sAAAAC%2Fincredulous-cormier.gif&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=9c23bebb1ac03fd53c5697a2b71a3e295b96608ec86ba8 04f1f2bf4386073bde

[sdot_thadon]

Hmmmm. How about we make winning the measure of dominance then. Jordan three-peated TWICE. Remind me, how many times did LeShrivel three-peat?

Yep, you've got nothing. "Bu-bu-bu-but total points!!!"

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.tenor.com%2Fm%2FH8akeoCjEZ sAAAAC%2Fincredulous-cormier.gif&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=9c23bebb1ac03fd53c5697a2b71a3e295b96608ec86ba8 04f1f2bf4386073bde

Who made 3peats the measure of dominance when there's a guy with an 8peat?

[Full Court]

Who made 3peats the measure of dominance when there's a guy with an 8peat?

That's exactly why Bill Russell is ranked higher than Lebron.

Again, you've got nothing.

[Da_Realist]

If career numbers mean(t) nothing, explain to me why Mj was given a trophy for accumulating 30k points? Kinda weird for something irrelevant dont ya think? You really believe Mark Jackson is a decent comparison to what Lebron has done? Lebrons career numbers didn't just come because he played long, thats pretty silly. He made those numbers because he dominated for more years than anyone else. Whether or not you think he outplayed Mj, he played at a comparable level for way longer. Thats the big deal.

The NBA also hands out sportsmanship awards no one cares about. Actually, I didn't even realize he got a 30K trophy and I doubt most people who don't dig for it remembers it either. No one ever talks about it because it doesn't matter. Great example.

[Full Court]

The NBA also hands out sportsmanship awards no one cares about. Actually, I didn't even realize he got a 30K trophy and I doubt most people who don't dig for it remembers it either. No one ever talks about it because it doesn't matter. Great example.

Exactly. 30k was a mildly interesting stat that nobody really cared about. But when Lebron hit 40k, since that's all they had left to desperately cling to, the Bronie fluffers all started soiling their panties. It really was a bizarre psychological phenomenon, albeit predictable if you understand how their little brains work.

[Da_Realist]

Who made 3peats the measure of dominance when there's a guy with an 8peat?

It is a measure of dominance precisely because it has so rarely been done since the 60's, when the NBA was way different. Even if we accept the 8-peat as the highest accomplishment, you still need to get a three-peat first.

Greats raise the stakes. For the longest time after the NBA and ABA merged then expanded to what it looks like now, good teams would win one and fall back. Great teams would win one here and one there. All time greats would win one here, there and there. But then Magic's Lakers raised the stakes. They repeated. Something not done since the 60's. Isiah's Pistons matched it. MJ's Bulls raised the stakes again by winning three in a row. Then did it again. Shaq and Kobe's Lakers matched it. So now that's the standard for the modern era. When a team wins four straight, that will be the new standard of the highest excellence in the modern era until it is surpassed.

[1987_Lakers]

Exactly. 30k was a mildly interesting stat that nobody really cared about.

This isn't the case at all. 30k points is looked at as the 3k career hits in baseball. You are just making up shit now. Whenever a player has hit 30k career points, a big deal was made out of it.

And Russell is the GOAT if 3peats are the measure of dominance. :lol

[sdot_thadon]

The NBA also hands out sportsmanship awards no one cares about. Actually, I didn't even realize he got a 30K trophy and I doubt most people who don't dig for it remembers it either. No one ever talks about it because it doesn't matter. Great example.
I guess this is the part where you get old enough to see shit twisted into weird territory. The 20k club had always been a notable milestone for star players and the 30k club was for the upper echelon. Its so damn strange being told now that it supposedly didn't mean much then , yet a scoring title is the end, all be all accolade to be listed in the same breath as mvps and finals mvps.......not fishy at all:oldlol:


It is a measure of dominance precisely because it has so rarely been done since the 60's, when the NBA was way different. Even if we accept the 8-peat as the highest accomplishment, you still need to get a three-peat first.

Greats raise the stakes. For the longest time after the NBA and ABA merged then expanded to what it looks like now, good teams would win one and fall back. Great teams would win one here and one there. All time greats would win one here, there and there. But then Magic's Lakers raised the stakes. They repeated. Something not done since the 60's. Isiah's Pistons matched it. MJ's Bulls raised the stakes again by winning three in a row. Then did it again. Shaq and Kobe's Lakers matched it. So now that's the standard for the modern era. When a team wins four straight, that will be the new standard of the highest excellence in the modern era until it is surpassed.
Bro, i love these debates for a completely different reason than when I used to have my nose in record books looking at wilts numbers. I get to see all the hypocrisy yall use in these arguments. If an 8 peat existed, magic , Mj, etc didn't raise any effing stakes lol. They didn't 8peat. You say the 60s was way different, time to wake up and smell the coffee. The "modern" NBA isnt the 90s anymore, that was 30 plus years ago. We're further from the 90s than the 90s were from the 60s. And yes tbe game is way different now too, we compare and complain daily about how it used to be. I loved the 90s, hell ive loved every NBA era ive got to see live in its own way, but the 60s cant be the stone age anymore when we're 30 plus years from the 90s. Time to start discussing reality instead of romanticizing your childhood era.

[Da_Realist]

I guess this is the part where you get old enough to see shit twisted into weird territory. The 20k club had always been a notable milestone for star players and the 30k club was for the upper echelon. Its so damn strange being told now that it supposedly didn't mean much then , yet a scoring title is the end, all be all accolade to be listed in the same breath as mvps and finals mvps.......not fishy at all:oldlol:


Bro, i love these debates for a completely different reason than when I used to have my nose in record books looking at wilts numbers. I get to see all the hypocrisy yall use in these arguments. If an 8 peat existed, magic , Mj, etc didn't raise any effing stakes lol. They didn't 8peat. You say the 60s was way different, time to wake up and smell the coffee. The "modern" NBA isnt the 90s anymore, that was 30 plus years ago. We're further from the 90s than the 90s were from the 60s. And yes tbe game is way different now too, we compare and complain daily about how it used to be. I loved the 90s, hell ive loved every NBA era ive got to see live in its own way, but the 60s cant be the stone age anymore when we're 30 plus years from the 90s. Time to start discussing reality instead of romanticizing your childhood era.

It's a notable milestone on one night when the announcers say something and the crowd claps for a few minutes. That's it.

Sorry bro. No one cares about your hero's 40k stat padded points on 7 different teams. No one cares about whatever plaque he got for it. No one cared about whatever plaque Kareem may or may not have received for his points. No one has ever cared beyond some tepid acknowledgement by the announcers for the night of the game. No one ever brought it up until your hero needed to stuff it down everyone's throats hoping we'd like it. MJ retired in his prime not caring about it. He retired again not caring about it. And retired again. Kobe passed him up but no one cared after two days. Karl Malone passed him up at some point. We don't even know when or what shot did it because no one cared. He's top 5 all time scoring yet no one cares about Karl Malone because no one cares about his total points. No one has ever cared about total points until your hero and his media fanboys needed to use that for his fake GOAT case. Now you're on here pretending everyone gives a damn about it. We don't. And never have.

[guy]

Yeah you could be wrong for sure, he and Wilt went back an forth in the media. And at the 50th anniversary at all star weekend they sat in a corner arguing pretty hard about who was the goat. Doesn't really sound like a guy who didn't care to me. Wilt was the guy any scorer wanted to be, to have anything over him asna scorer is a huge flex. They gave MJ a trophy when he made 30k points, but yeah career stats arent a big deal. And about Magic im not talking about the media dialog im talking about the one Magic and Mj had between the 2 of them. The ive got t and you got less trash talk. That's the earliest instance of rangz talk I can recall. Oh and Wilt saying Mjs 4 dont mean much becuase he knows a guy with 11.

Am I wrong? I was expecting you to actually show me where I was and that Jordan actually cared about that stuff. At the 50th anniversary Jordan already had 8 scoring titles :oldlol:

Harmless trash talk when these guys see each other is not the equivalent of the constant narratives of today.

It’s revisionist history to say that players cared and strived for certain accomplishments which they clearly didn’t and there’s no evidence that they did and that they were talking points at the time. What’s considered important today doesn’t equate to back then.

[Tavr]

Yeah, there's definitely a bit of trolling going on.

I remember Kobe becoming one of the youngest to climb up the all-time points board and then eventually passing guys like Wilt... It definitely was talked about although the discussion and "celebration" were pretty brief. When Kobe led the league in scoring in 2006 and 2007, though, everyone was buzzing. And it was the topic of discussion for YEARS (he was quite literally considered the games best scorer because of that).

Personally? I wont dismiss longevity feats like the all-time points record. Not going to pretend it isn't an accomplishment. But to the degree of what a player produces in real time? THAT YEAR? I mean obviously not, but that's just common sense. Per game metrics give us a clearer picture on how players measure up against their peers.

[sdot_thadon]

It's a notable milestone on one night when the announcers say something and the crowd claps for a few minutes. That's it.

Sorry bro. No one cares about your hero's 40k stat padded points on 7 different teams. No one cares about whatever plaque he got for it. No one cared about whatever plaque Kareem may or may not have received for his points. No one has ever cared beyond some tepid acknowledgement by the announcers for the night of the game. No one ever brought it up until your hero needed to stuff it down everyone's throats hoping we'd like it. MJ retired in his prime not caring about it. He retired again not caring about it. And retired again. Kobe passed him up but no one cared after two days. Karl Malone passed him up at some point. We don't even know when or what shot did it because no one cared. He's top 5 all time scoring yet no one cares about Karl Malone because no one cares about his total points. No one has ever cared about total points until your hero and his media fanboys needed to use that for his fake GOAT case. Now you're on here pretending everyone gives a damn about it. We don't. And never have.
So then tell me what amazing things happen in contrast when someone wins the scoting title? I'll wait this should be good. Milestones have always been notable in any sport, thats why this seems so silly to me. When you have to disregard the accomplishments of others because it wasnt something specific to Jordan, it kinda brings MJ's case into question without saying a word. Also a weird part of this discussion is the examples like Malone to try to downplay Lebrons accolades. Malone never won a thing, so no shit his totals dont put him in a room he doesn't belong in.
When Kobe passed Mike on the all-time scoring list? You bet your ass it was a big deal, these are things that illustrate your caliber as a player if not a specific aspect of basketball. You guys never cared about it before becuase nobody comparable to Mj in your eyes ever reached those plateaus.

[sdot_thadon]

Am I wrong? I was expecting you to actually show me where I was and that Jordan actually cared about that stuff. At the 50th anniversary Jordan already had 8 scoring titles :oldlol:

Harmless trash talk when these guys see each other is not the equivalent of the constant narratives of today.

It’s revisionist history to say that players cared and strived for certain accomplishments which they clearly didn’t and there’s no evidence that they did and that they were talking points at the time. What’s considered important today doesn’t equate to back then.

Theres plenty of anecdotal accounts floating around to tell us he cared about his numbers. I get why you dont want to acknowledge them, but they exist. Guys cared about their numbers all the way back to Wilts era, again there exists accounts from people who lived it. Its fine to have your preference of what's more important but its weird to only downplay the categories that dont support your idol.

[sdot_thadon]

Yeah, there's definitely a bit of trolling going on.

I remember Kobe becoming one of the youngest to climb up the all-time points board and then eventually passing guys like Wilt... It definitely was talked about although the discussion and "celebration" were pretty brief. When Kobe led the league in scoring in 2006 and 2007, though, everyone was buzzing. And it was the topic of discussion for YEARS (he was quite literally considered the games best scorer because of that).

Personally? I wont dismiss longevity feats like the all-time points record. Not going to pretend it isn't an accomplishment. But to the degree of what a player produces in real time? THAT YEAR? I mean obviously not, but that's just common sense. Per game metrics give us a clearer picture on how players measure up against their peers.

I agree there's a bit of trolling going on. Because if scoring titles is the end all be all, then what happens when its time to discuss why James Harden has more than Kobe?

[Tavr]

I agree there's a bit of trolling going on. Because if scoring titles is the end all be all, then what happens when its time to discuss why James Harden has more than Kobe?
A few things

1. Scoring titles are not the "end all be all", at least not for me. I'm talking about what a player does in real time. During that season, and it carrying more weight for people who are watching.

2. If I were comparing James Harden to Kobe then I'd grant James Harden the edge in scoring titles, but would also use context (e.g. the rules being more lax from 2018-2020). Then I'd talk about playoff scoring and what they did in the finals etc.

Point being? I'm initially going to debate things they did on a per game basis. Not their career totals.

[Manny98]

All MJ stans have been reduced to are "would've & could've" :oldlol:

facts are LeBron is and will always be number #1 until the day you die and decades after that

https://i.postimg.cc/mrwL3bLF/292005662-1083181009213798-2195399891237915237-n.jpg

[guy]

Theres plenty of anecdotal accounts floating around to tell us he cared about his numbers. I get why you dont want to acknowledge them, but they exist. Guys cared about their numbers all the way back to Wilts era, again there exists accounts from people who lived it. Its fine to have your preference of what's more important but its weird to only downplay the categories that dont support your idol.

I think we’re talking about 2 different things here and/or you’re changing the argument.

Sure, Jordan cared about triple doubles during 1 season cause he wanted to be known as a complete player like Magic and Bird and then he wanted to win scoring titles - but that was all in the context of how he compared to his PEERS at the time.

It seems like you’re trying to argue that he and the media/fans in general had this focus on him accomplishing these milestones from a historical perspective i.e. more championships, more points, more scoring titles than X, Y, and Z player as they do all the time today. But he didn’t, none of his actions really show that, and maybe more importantly there was no real pressure or expectation from fans/media that he needed to do that for his legacy.

[sdot_thadon]

A few things

1. Scoring titles are not the "end all be all", at least not for me. I'm talking about what a player does in real time. During that season, and it carrying more weight for people who are watching.

2. If I were comparing James Harden to Kobe then I'd grant James Harden the edge in scoring titles, but would also use context (e.g. the rules being more lax from 2018-2020). Then I'd talk about playoff scoring and what they did in the finals etc.

Point being? I'm initially going to debate things they did on a per game basis. Not their career totals.

I get that line of thinking. I think that's more aimed at others in this thread ive had previous debates with. I will say this. All those "in the moment" seasons make the career totals at the end. And if those are your values, how do you view a guy like Bill Walton?

[sdot_thadon]

I think we’re talking about 2 different things here and/or you’re changing the argument.

Sure, Jordan cared about triple doubles during 1 season cause he wanted to be known as a complete player like Magic and Bird and then he wanted to win scoring titles - but that was all in the context of how he compared to his PEERS at the time.

It seems like you’re trying to argue that he and the media/fans in general had this focus on him accomplishing these milestones from a historical perspective i.e. more championships, more points, more scoring titles than X, Y, and Z player as they do all the time today. But he didn’t, none of his actions really show that, and maybe more importantly there was no real pressure or expectation from fans/media that he needed to do that for his legacy.
It seems like youre trying to put words in my mouth lol. I never said that, i just said the stats had more meaning than this downplaying bs we're doing in this thread. And honestly you nor i know his statistical motivations, we just know the stories people who were there told. Ive seen enough to believe Mj cared about his stats just as much as any star has.i dont think these things are any players precise motivation until they start approaching these marks as reality. Once its within reach yeah you can see guys bear down and go on tears before they break a record. Its a neat footnote to have once everything is said and done. The whole it matters for someones legacy shit started with the toxic ass goat debate we got once Kobe and later Lebron hit the league. I feel like the reason scoring benchmarks stopped running through Wilt was because his level was unattainable, the measure of a winner stoppied running throuugh Russell because his level was unattainable, The averaging a triple double for a season was unattainable, Kareems scoring record was unattainable. We had to make a lower bar to justify the guy we had at the time. Its funny because most of you guys would argue about LeBron that Mj is at an unattainable level, while never reaching the previous unattainable level himself. Goat doesn't require you to surpass what someone else has done. Clearly.

[Tavr]

I get that line of thinking. I think that's more aimed at others in this thread ive had previous debates with. I will say this. All those "in the moment" seasons make the career totals at the end. And if those are your values, how do you view a guy like Bill Walton?

Sure, but lets be honest. When you start comparing and debating these players, do you really do the following?

“LeBron is the better player because he has 42,000 points and 11,000 assists.” Lol. I know as a poster you’re a little more nuanced and analyze what LeBron did in his peak and prime. The only fans who really argue like that are casuals, and I think its safe to say none of us here are that.

As for Bill Walton, truthfully, I don’t know. Great but short peak/prime and his injuries make him difficult to rank. After the top 25 or so, I don’t have a “definitive list” but there would be at least 20 more players I’d rank ahead of him.

[Phoenix]

Sure, but lets be honest. When you start comparing and debating these players, do you really do the following?

“LeBron is the better player because he has 42,000 points and 11,000 assists.” Lol. I know as a poster you’re a little more nuanced and analyze what LeBron did in his peak and prime. The only fans who really argue like that are casuals, and I think its safe to say none of us here are that.

As for Bill Walton, truthfully, I don’t know. Great but short peak/prime and his injuries make him difficult to rank. After the top 25 or so, I don’t have a “definitive list” but there would be at least 20 more players I’d rank ahead of him.

You're not alone in that regard. The 'logic' of these lists really become more obscured the further we go. You can have 5 different publications drop a top 50 list and the players from like 30-50 are either going to wildly differ in names or ranking order. The community seems to have settled on a core top 10-12, maybe even top 20, but after 25? Or trying to rank 40 to 50? Wild west. I've seen Isiah Thomas ranked inside the top 30 and outside the top 40 in the last few years.

[sdot_thadon]

Sure, but lets be honest. When you start comparing and debating these players, do you really do the following?

“LeBron is the better player because he has 42,000 points and 11,000 assists.” Lol. I know as a poster you’re a little more nuanced and analyze what LeBron did in his peak and prime. The only fans who really argue like that are casuals, and I think its safe to say none of us here are that.

As for Bill Walton, truthfully, I don’t know. Great but short peak/prime and his injuries make him difficult to rank. After the top 25 or so, I don’t have a “definitive list” but there would be at least 20 more players I’d rank ahead of him.
Me personally? No thats not how I figure out rankings. I consider the whole picture, I dont rule out anyone's achievements for reason x, y, or z.....because then I have to do that for everyone. The main issue that keeps the debates not only interesting but frustrating is every person can have a different criteria. Theres guys out here that legit beleive that winning the dunk contest is an important point in the goat debate. Or never losing with homecourt advantage, and other trivial things. I consider all the big bullet points, but i probably weigh them differently than some people in this thread too. The reason i ask about Walton is because it gives me insight to your process. If you value peak play over everything you cant have a guy like him too far down your list. But most lists start imploding on themselves they further you go.


You're not alone in that regard. The 'logic' of these lists really become more obscured the further we go. You can have 5 different publications drop a top 50 list and the players from like 30-50 are either going to wildly differ in names or ranking order. The community seems to have settled on a core top 10-12, maybe even top 20, but after 25? Or trying to rank 40 to 50? Wild west. I've seen Isiah Thomas ranked inside the top 30 and outside the top 40 in the last few years. Yeah if you want to see someone's list fall apart ask them to list the next 10 players lol. Most of the time it gets super hypocritical once they place their favorites where they think they belong.

[JBSptfn]

More like the MLB was going on strike and MJ was still under his 8yr Bulls deal so Reinsdorf wasn't going to let him do nothing and still collect pay checks. He basically had no choice but to comeback to the Bulls if he wanted paid and we both know Mike liked having gambling money.

He sure did. Reinsdorf knew that. He also knew what MJ was involved in. That's why Jerry (and David Stern) told him to leave the game in Oct. 1993 (watch around 2:17):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpNhCLWz0nc

https://www.thefixisin.net/like-mike

[Tavr]

You're not alone in that regard. The 'logic' of these lists really become more obscured the further we go. You can have 5 different publications drop a top 50 list and the players from like 30-50 are either going to wildly differ in names or ranking order. The community seems to have settled on a core top 10-12, maybe even top 20, but after 25? Or trying to rank 40 to 50? Wild west. I've seen Isiah Thomas ranked inside the top 30 and outside the top 40 in the last few years.

Yup. After the top 25-30, I think it just gets subjective. Well, most lists are subjective, but at least with the common top players, there are core principles we apply. Further down the lists go, I believe one of the reasons they look borderline erratic is due to all the 60s and 70s players. Most of us haven't seen enough of them (if at all) to generally get a feel for that time. No 3PT line? Yeah, that's tough if you're looking for a statistical debate.


Me personally? No thats not how I figure out rankings. I consider the whole picture, I dont rule out anyone's achievements for reason x, y, or z.....because then I have to do that for everyone. The main issue that keeps the debates not only interesting but frustrating is every person can have a different criteria. Theres guys out here that legit beleive that winning the dunk contest is an important point in the goat debate. Or never losing with homecourt advantage, and other trivial things. I consider all the big bullet points, but i probably weigh them differently than some people in this thread too. The reason i ask about Walton is because it gives me insight to your process. If you value peak play over everything you cant have a guy like him too far down your list. But most lists start imploding on themselves they further you go.

I knew you weren't THAT into counting stats, because nobody serious about these rankings will use that as their basis. There's simply too much context left out. I agree that you don't rule out anything, and that is why I mentioned I'd never dismiss something like total points. Growing up, Kareem's record was considered a milestone, and more or less viewed as untouchable.

Lol including all-star MVPs and slam dunk contests is definitely wild. Might as well start including preseason numbers.

[Phoenix]

Yup. After the top 25-30, I think it just gets subjective. Well, most lists are subjective, but at least with the common top players, there are core principles we apply. Further down the lists go, I believe one of the reasons they look borderline erratic is due to all the 60s and 70s players. Most of us haven't seen enough of them (if at all) to generally get a feel for that time. No 3PT line? Yeah, that's tough if you're looking for a statistical debate.



That, and the further down you go you get into the 'almost but not quite all-time GOAT elite' guys so it's harder to parse apart their resumes( taking into account that resumes are very circumstantial and success is based around team, coaching, and health as much as raw ability and skills). I've been a proponent of two things, either have a cut off point because its hard enough to compare people from 30 years, never mind 70 years ago to now. Or, and this is what I tend to do, have a tier based system where you can place players roughly in the same category of 'greatness' as opposed to doing rankings. Like, is there really much difference between the 6th ranked guy and the 9th? Or 21st guy and the 25th? As far as what would be observable if they were on the court playing each other, very little if anything at all. So people get caught up nitpicking petty shit.

[Phoenix]

Yup. After the top 25-30, I think it just gets subjective. Well, most lists are subjective, but at least with the common top players, there are core principles we apply. Further down the lists go, I believe one of the reasons they look borderline erratic is due to all the 60s and 70s players. Most of us haven't seen enough of them (if at all) to generally get a feel for that time. No 3PT line? Yeah, that's tough if you're looking for a statistical debate.



That, and the further down you go you get into the 'almost but not quite all-time GOAT elite' guys so it's harder to parse apart their resumes( taking into account that resumes are very circumstantial and success is based around team, coaching, and health as much as raw ability and skills). I've been a proponent of two things, either have a cut off point because its hard enough to compare people from 30 years, never mind 70 years ago to now. Or, and this is what I tend to do, have a tier based system where you can place players roughly in the same category of 'greatness' as opposed to doing rankings. Like, is there really much difference between the 6th ranked guy and the 9th? Or 21st guy and the 25th? As far as what would be observable if they were on the court playing each other, very little if anything at all. So people get caught up nitpicking petty shit.

[sdot_thadon]

That, and the further down you go you get into the 'almost but not quite all-time GOAT elite' guys so it's harder to parse apart their resumes( taking into account that resumes are very circumstantial and success is based around team, coaching, and health as much as raw ability and skills). I've been a proponent of two things, either have a cut off point because its hard enough to compare people from 30 years, never mind 70 years ago to now. Or, and this is what I tend to do, have a tier based system where you can place players roughly in the same category of 'greatness' as opposed to doing rankings. Like, is there really much difference between the 6th ranked guy and the 9th? Or 21st guy and the 25th? As far as what would be observable if they were on the court playing each other, very little if anything at all. So people get caught up nitpicking petty shit.

Exactly this, and the further you go down the list people tend to bypass the exceptions they made for the guys they've got a soft spot for, and then the lists stop making sense.

[Tavr]

That, and the further down you go you get into the 'almost but not quite all-time GOAT elite' guys so it's harder to parse apart their resumes( taking into account that resumes are very circumstantial and success is based around team, coaching, and health as much as raw ability and skills). I've been a proponent of two things, either have a cut off point because its hard enough to compare people from 30 years, never mind 70 years ago to now. Or, and this is what I tend to do, have a tier based system where you can place players roughly in the same category of 'greatness' as opposed to doing rankings. Like, is there really much difference between the 6th ranked guy and the 9th? Or 21st guy and the 25th? As far as what would be observable if they were on the court playing each other, very little if anything at all. So people get caught up nitpicking petty shit.

Tiers are a great way to to weed through the nonsense. Agreed.

I'm of the opinion Prime and Peak Wade was every bit as good as Kobe (arguably better depending on the year). All-time you'll see Kobe Top 10ish, though, while DWade is down in the 20s. Pretty certain most of that is based on career accomplishments and resume. I've always valued play on the court over media awards and counting stats, so based on that, tiers would be something I'd definitely look into.

[WhiteKyrie]

He said he was coming back and wanted to win a 4th championship during the post-game press conference after the Bulls beat the Suns in Finals.

It's always been obvious he retired as a way to grieve the death of his father, that's all the retirement was and that's what the baseball thing was about.

Yup