What would Jordan have had to do for Lebron fans to be convinced he's the Goat?

[Walk on Water]

Let's play a little game here and see if you could answer honestly without getting off track and changing the subject. That's what Lebron Stans tend to do. But in order for Jordan to be the Goat, what would you have expected him to do differently?

So he was 6 and 0 in the Finals. Is that not good enough? Would he have to be 8 and 0 or 9 and 0? And just try to answer the question in general instead of bringing up Scottie Pippen. WITH the cast he already had, what would you expect his record to be for you to consider him the Goat? 10 and 0?

How many points would you expect Jordan to average for you to be impressed? 35 points per game?

And you LOVE to mention how he was 1 and 9. So what record would he have to be in those 10 games?

Jordan also had 10 NBA Defensive selections I believe. Would he need 12 or 15 for you?

How many MVPS? He had what 5? Would he need 7 or 8? 10?

He was a 3 times steals leader. How many times should he have been the steals leader for you to be impressed? Maybe 6 or 7?

Also Jordan never lost in the Finals, but would you rank him higher if he made the Finals 12 times and only won 4? Even if he needed a couple more stars on his team to do so? Would that make him the GOAT?

If he had never played baseball and stayed and won 1 of those years, would you then maybe consider him the GOAT? Or would you just respect him more for never quitting and playing baseball? Do you think that he played baseball because he was scared to play basketball? Would that give him a higher ranking?

Just let me know what he would have to do differently for you to change your mind. What if he was 9 and 0 in the Finals?

[HylianNightmare]

Probably if he went 4/10 in the finals

[3ba11]

Probably if he went 4/10 in the finals


Indeed, after being upset in 09' and 10', Lebron needed to collude just to make the Finals, and then he did worse than anyone ever did once he got there (worst record ever).. So his career is a sham

[Walk on Water]

Probably if he went 4/10 in the finals


Okay so if Jordan won less 2 FMVP and Finals you would respect him more if he at least made 4 more Finals.

[Tavr]

Not sure there's anything he could do because LeBron stans always change the narrative. If its not Bill Russell's record then they'll harp on the 90s being awful. If its not that...they'll talk about MJ retiring and not sustaining longevity. If they want to really stoop low though they'll use Rookie Pippen and claim he was more important than MJ. Lol rinse and repeat.

I originally thought your topic asked what Jordan would've had to do not to be GOAT. Just for fun, I'd say lose a finals or two with very poor production. A more nuanced answer is MJ having real holes in his game. If a defense just sagged off MJ and dared him to shoot jumpers that's something fans definitely would mention.

[sdot_thadon]

Mj has already done enough to be considered the goat. So has Kareem. So has Lebron. It just depends on how you want to frame the question. What I want to know is why not a single Mj goat extremist/Lebron hater can explain why hes goat over Russell. Maybe I should make a thread.....

[3ba11]

why hes goat over Russell


It wasn't offensive basketball, that's why.. The lack of spacing in 2-pointer basketball meant that defense won and MVP's could be defenders.... But once the 3-point line was instituted in 1980, 45 of 45 MVP's were dominant offensive players from 1980 to 2025.. So Russell wouldn't be MVP-caliber in the modern era.

Hope that helps.. Essentially, the GOAT refers to the goat of offensive/modern basketball, aka modern era.. In the modern era, Jordan won twice as many rings as the best player as anyone else (since it can be easily argued that Duncan and Lebron were the best player for only 3 chips each).

[sdot_thadon]

It wasn't offensive basketball, that's why.. The lack of spacing in 2-pointer basketball meant that defense won and MVP's could be defenders.... But once the 3-point line was instituted in 1980, 45 of 45 MVP's were dominant offensive players from 1980 to 2025.. So Russell wouldn't be MVP-caliber in the modern era.

Hope that helps.. Essentially, the GOAT refers to the goat of offensive/modern basketball, aka modern era.. In the modern era, Jordan won twice as many rings as the best player as anyone else (since it can be easily argued that Duncan and Lebron were the best player for only 3 chips each).

And this era is that much different from Mike's era especially considering the 3 point shot. Outside of Russell who else would you consider a one way guy? Unseld? Why is Russell the only guy that could win Mvp that way? Because he was special. He was the Jordan of the defensive end. You cant discount his career because youre too young to know what he did and represented. You dont know anything outside of ppg so its not like youre a reliable person to answer this question anyway.

[ImKobe]

Needed to lose a bunch of Finals and join superteams for the rest of his career like LeBronze.


Bran is the Drake of the modern NBA. A complete fraud.

[3ba11]

And this era is that much different from Mike's era especially considering the 3 point shot. Outside of Russell who else would you consider a one way guy? Unseld? Why is Russell the only guy that could win Mvp that way? Because he was special. He was the Jordan of the defensive end. You cant discount his career because youre too young to know what he did and represented. You dont know anything outside of ppg so its not like youre a reliable person to answer this question anyway.


It was a good explanation that you should be satisfied with - it exactly answered your question - it wasn't offensive basketball/modern era.

[Walk on Water]

Mj has already done enough to be considered the goat. So has Kareem. So has Lebron. It just depends on how you want to frame the question. What I want to know is why not a single Mj goat extremist/Lebron hater can explain why hes goat over Russell. Maybe I should make a thread.....



You’re bringing up Russell again :oldlol::lol

[sdot_thadon]

It was a good explanation that you should be satisfied with - it exactly answered your question - it wasn't offensive basketball/modern era.

It wasn't. An explanation that cuts basketball to only offense is clown shit.

[sdot_thadon]

You’re bringing up Russell again :oldlol::lol

More like im waiting for an explanation for the inconsistencies.

[Full Court]

Probably if he went 4/10 in the finals

This right here. Bronie fluffers hold losing in high esteem, so for them to consider Jordan the GOAT, he would have had to lose a whole lot more than he did and have a whole bunch of choke jobs.

[Baller234]

@sdot_thadon

The reason Russell doesn't get put over Jordan all time is because people have eyes. We respect that Russell was great and was ahead of his time but his style of play doesn't hold up. The game evolved and changed.

I've been watching hoops since the very early 90's. During that time I've never seen a case where the most valuable or most dominant player was someone with average offensive skill. That suggests to me that Russell could have only dominated with his style of play during the era in which he played.

If you wanna draw a line between the eras then fine, you could say Russell was the best during HIS era. But in the grand scheme of things taking the entire history of the game into account, Russell cannot shine Jordan's shoes. Nobody is ever picking Russell over Jordan for their lineup.

[sdot_thadon]

@sdot_thadon

The reason Russell doesn't get put over Jordan all time is because people have eyes. We respect that Russell was great and was ahead of his time but his style of play doesn't hold up. The game evolved and changed.

I've been watching hoops since the very early 90's. During that time I've never seen a case where the most valuable or most dominant player was someone with average offensive skill. That suggests to me that Russell could have only dominated with his style of play during the era in which he played.

If you wanna draw a line between the eras then fine, you could say Russell was the best during HIS era. But in the grand scheme of things taking the entire history of the game into account, Russell cannot shine Jordan's shoes. Nobody is ever picking Russell over Jordan for their lineup.

See this is where the lines get all blurred and screwed up. Russell was better than that on offense and is probably one of the better passing bigs of all time. He wasn't in Boston to score, they had plenty of scoring while they won all those chips. His defense, rebounding and outlets were the heart of the 60s Celtics. When Cousy left he became more of a passer than his 1st few years. But it's kinda funny to hear the same guys who tell these kids they weren't old enough to watch Mj have authoritative views on Russell. Im a Jordan era kid i had to read and research the players that came before. Was Mjs game prettier than Bill's? Sure. I agree 1000%, but Bill knew how to win and thats all he did. Its just strange to see the Lebron/Jordan conversation supposedly always be decided by Ring count while ignoring the elephant in the room with 11.

[Baller234]

See this is where the lines get all blurred and screwed up. Russell was better than that on offense and is probably one of the better passing bigs of all time. He wasn't in Boston to score, they had plenty of scoring while they won all those chips. His defense, rebounding and outlets were the heart of the 60s Celtics. When Cousy left he became more of a passer than his 1st few years. But it's kinda funny to hear the same guys who tell these kids they weren't old enough to watch Mj have authoritative views on Russell. Im a Jordan era kid i had to read and research the players that came before. Was Mjs game prettier than Bill's? Sure. I agree 1000%, but Bill knew how to win and thats all he did. Its just strange to see the Lebron/Jordan conversation supposedly always be decided by Ring count while ignoring the elephant in the room with 11.

We ring count Jordan and Lebron because they were comparable from a dominance standpoint and there are players from their eras that overlap. I'm not saying it comes strictly down to ring count but championships do have to factor into the equation.

Like you said, Russell's defense and rebounding was the X-factor for the Celtics. That's fantastic and all, but that would have never been the case at any point after the merger. The only championship team in my lifetime where the best player was arguably a defensive player were the 2004 Pistons... and that is debatable. So even if Bill Russell is a Ben Wallace type with better offensive skills, he still wouldn't have been the best player in the league.

If you wanna discuss impact and legacy then sure Russell is in the convo, but if you wanna talk about pure value as a basketball player then Russell is nowhere close to MJ and Lebron. That's why we don't care about his 11 rings as far as it pertains to the debate. We respect his 11 rings, but MJ and LeBron are held to a different and more elevated standard.

The most extreme example of this is Robert Horry. Obviously I'm not saying it's a 1:1 comparison, it's not even a really good comparison honestly, but it helps drive the point home. Horry has more rings than most HOF'ers but he's not held to the same standard.

Also, if you really wanna compare Jordan and Russell, you could say that Russell was drafted to a much better team and that Jordan was drafted to a bottom feeder. If Jordan joined a Bulls team that had multiple star players and an all time coach, maybe he wins 9 straight too. I mean he won in college didn't he? So he knew what it took to win. Magic joined Lew and started winning right out of the gate so I think MJ could have too if he were as lucky.

[Chick Stern]

OP do you think Jordan QUIT, or was SUSPENDED?

see if you could answer honestly without getting off track and changing the subject.

[sdot_thadon]

We ring count Jordan and Lebron because they were comparable from a dominance standpoint and there are players from their eras that overlap. I'm not saying it comes strictly down to ring count but championships do have to factor into the equation.

Like you said, Russell's defense and rebounding was the X-factor for the Celtics. That's fantastic and all, but that would have never been the case at any point after the merger. The only championship team in my lifetime where the best player was arguably a defensive player were the 2004 Pistons... and that is debatable. So even if Bill Russell is a Ben Wallace type with better offensive skills, he still wouldn't have been the best player in the league.

If you wanna discuss impact and legacy then sure Russell is in the convo, but if you wanna talk about pure value as a basketball player then Russell is nowhere close to MJ and Lebron. That's why we don't care about his 11 rings as far as it pertains to the debate. We respect his 11 rings, but MJ and LeBron are held to a different and more elevated standard.

The most extreme example of this is Robert Horry. Obviously I'm not saying it's a 1:1 comparison, it's not even a really good comparison honestly, but it helps drive the point home. Horry has more rings than most HOF'ers but he's not held to the same standard.

Also, if you really wanna compare Jordan and Russell, you could say that Russell was drafted to a much better team and that Jordan was drafted to a bottom feeder. If Jordan joined a Bulls team that had multiple star players and an all time coach, maybe he wins 9 straight too. I mean he won in college didn't he? So he knew what it took to win. Magic joined Lew and started winning right out of the gate so I think MJ could have too if he were as lucky.

This comes from a narrow appreciation of the game. Russell had huge impact, but not in the entertaining way we've been pacified with from guys Ike Mj or Lebron. But you mean ro tell me if you put a guy on a team and they go from worst defense to best in the league for the entirety of his run, while keeping your offense high scoring and fast paced. Comes in and averages any where from 15-20 ppg with 20 rpg, 4 assists and maybe close to 10 blocks a game, while winning almost every chip......this guy won't be considered the best in the game? How not? And then throw in the fact that he takes over for his coach while still playing and wins the last 2 chips coaching the team he plays for. Thats crazy man.

[Chick Stern]

OP do you think Jordan QUIT, or was SUSPENDED?

see if you could answer honestly without getting off track and changing the subject.

Is this mike on?….

[Carbine]

@sdot_thadon

The reason Russell doesn't get put over Jordan all time is because people have eyes. We respect that Russell was great and was ahead of his time but his style of play doesn't hold up. The game evolved and changed.

I've been watching hoops since the very early 90's. During that time I've never seen a case where the most valuable or most dominant player was someone with average offensive skill. That suggests to me that Russell could have only dominated with his style of play during the era in which he played.

If you wanna draw a line between the eras then fine, you could say Russell was the best during HIS era. But in the grand scheme of things taking the entire history of the game into account, Russell cannot shine Jordan's shoes. Nobody is ever picking Russell over Jordan for their lineup.

I think Russell absolutely had a case to be the GOAT.

You can make a logical argument that basketball was never supposed to have a 3 pt line. The person who invented the game didn't think so. The game was played many many years before a 3pt line ever came into effect.

Therefore, I think you could say the rules that Russell played under (specifically no 3 pt line) was the PUREST form of the game as seen by its inventor.

Under those rules, protecting the rim and rebounding was of the upmost importance. Which is likely why Russell has so many titles and individual accolades during his time - he was the best combination of those things (him or Wilt)

Jordan would be like a Jerry West of steroids during that time. Is he the GOAT under those rules? Nobody knows.

Which is why you can only say who the GOAT of eras are if you're doing it logically. It's not Russell's fault (in fact I'd argue it's a testament to his goatness) that he dominated the era which closest resembled the game it's original creator imagined it to be.

[Baller234]

I think Russell absolutely had a case to be the GOAT.

You can make a logical argument that basketball was never supposed to have a 3 pt line. The person who invented the game didn't think so. The game was played many many years before a 3pt line ever came into effect.

Therefore, I think you could say the rules that Russell played under (specifically no 3 pt line) was the PUREST form of the game as seen by its inventor.

Under those rules, protecting the rim and rebounding was of the upmost importance. Which is likely why Russell has so many titles and individual accolades during his time - he was the best combination of those things (him or Wilt)

Jordan would be like a Jerry West of steroids during that time. Is he the GOAT under those rules? Nobody knows.

Which is why you can only say who the GOAT of eras are if you're doing it logically. It's not Russell's fault (in fact I'd argue it's a testament to his goatness) that he dominated the era which closest resembled the game it's original creator imagined it to be.

I agree with a lot of your post. This is a conversation more people should be having. I also feel like the 3pt shot undermined the integrity of the game.

There's no way to determine for sure what happens to Jordan's career if there's no 3pt line, but being that it effects both teams the same, I'm willing to bet not much if at all changes. It's not like the Bulls had a dedicated 3pt attack. No team did really. On the Bulls the great 3pt shooters were always role players.

For the first half of the 80's teams were barely even shooting 3's. They were taking like 3-4 a game on average. So it was almost a non factor. If Bill Russell in his prime takes a time machine to 1980's, do you still think he's the best player in the league? Do you take him over Magic? Bird? Alcindor? Moses? I know that's an unfair question, but it's still something to consider.

There really is no fair way to have this conversation. You CAN argue that Russell and Wilt were only as dominant as they were because the average player in the league was a way inferior body and athlete. You CAN argue that Jordan wouldn't be shit without Elgin Baylor and Julius Erving paving the way and laying the foundation.

So if you really wanna have this conversation, it requires honesty, context and nuance. Above all though I think you really have to trust your own eyes. I know none us here were old enough to watch basketball in the 60's but we've all watched countless footage at this point. Some have even watched full games. So take into account all the basketball you have ever witnessed, whether it was past or present, who do you honestly think is the greatest player you have ever seen?

For me it's simple.

No one before, no one after.

[Hey Yo]

For starters....not quit the league twice in like a 5yr span