How is it even questionable that MJ is GOAT?

[QUOTE=3ball]will post late tonight or tomorrow..

the media guides each show total dunks for each player for the particular year that the media guide covers... I have media guides for 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1993.

However, the Sixers 93' media guide shows the total dunks for each player for the previous 6 seasons (so 88-93) - the total number of dunks for the 6-year period... i can tell you right now, Jordan was 3rd in dunks during this period with 746...

I don't have time right now, but I will take pictures of the pages and post them in a thread tonight or tomorrow.[/QUOTE]
One other thing, does the 93 media guide have plus-minus numbers for players in the league? According to this article (Dec. 94):

[url]http://articles.philly.com/1994-12-29/sports/25855805_1_sixers-nate-mcmillan-sonics[/url]

Pollack was tracking it by then. He does have plus-minus in the one guide I own (90-91), but it's only for Sixers players and opponents.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Uh oh, meltdown alert. LOL[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://www.anarchyinthesandbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/post-18879-Jon-Hamm-Yeah-Ok-gif-1dnC.gif[/IMG]

1-9 is the correct answer here

MJ is goat. Only Kobe fans try to dispute this fact.

[QUOTE=bizil]I have MJ as my GOAT, but it's mainly due to that Ali and Babe Ruth factor and just dominating the game in a way NO PERIMETER PLAYER EVER HAS! [B]Top to bottom, guys like Wilt, Kareem, Russell, Magic, and Bird had WAY BETTER supporting casts than MJ ever did.[/B] MJ cut his teeth in the Golden Era of the NBA and was THE GUY to take the game worldwide after Magic and Bird set the table.

But I wouldn't argue is someone said Kareem was the GOAT. Kareem's resume is just as impressive as MJ's. Wilt was a mythical figure like a Ruth or Ali too and he has a case due to that. And Russell has the most rings and Magic was the most versatile player of all time until Lebron came around. So any of those five I guess u could argue, but I rolling with MJ![/QUOTE]
For the life of me, I cant see why this concept is always mentioned. Please explain why the Lakers and Celtics or Magic and Birds supporting cast failed miserably and the Bulls thrived?

The Bulls will have three Hofers when its all said and done once Kukoc gets in. Along with two Hall of Fame coaches. Why is this always dismissed?

[QUOTE=fpliii]One other thing, does the 93 media guide have plus-minus numbers for players in the league? According to this article (Dec. 94):

[url]http://articles.philly.com/1994-12-29/sports/25855805_1_sixers-nate-mcmillan-sonics[/url]

Pollack was tracking it by then. He does have plus-minus in the one guide I own (90-91), but it's only for Sixers players and opponents.[/QUOTE]
The 93' guide does not have plus-minus data the way we like to have it.... it just has plus-minus data for every player VERSUS the Sixers specifically.

And yeah, I was going to go ahead and cop those 94', 95', 96', and 97 guides for the heck of it.

plane and simple: jordan didnt win a title without goat coach and goat team.

jordan being carried often enough by pippen etc.

give duncan jordans team, and you wouldnt even remember who jordan was.

[QUOTE=3ball]The 93' guide does not have plus-minus data the way we like to have it.... it just has plus-minus data for every player VERSUS the Sixers specifically.

And yeah, I was going to go ahead and cop those 94', 95', 96', and 97 guides for the heck of it.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, same thing in the 91 book, sucks. Maybe the later years have it for all players on every team.

Well you said you have 89, 90, 91, 93, so we need those four and 92. Are you going to buy all of them? Here's 92:

[url]http://www.ebay.com/itm/1991-92-Philadelphia-76ers-NBA-Basketball-Media-Guide-/201053731009?pt=Vintage_Sports_Memorabilia&hash=item2ecfbc78c1[/url]

If you don't need the physical books, we can split up buying them, and each scan some of them.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]For the life of me, I cant see why this concept is always mentioned. Please explain why the Lakers and Celtics or Magic and Birds supporting cast failed miserably and the Bulls thrived?

The Bulls will have three Hofers when its all said and done once Kukoc gets in. Along with two Hall of Fame coaches. Why is this always dismissed?[/QUOTE]

They didn't "thrive". They had one solid season where they lost in the second round and then they were back to being about a .500 team going nowhere until the miracle of a baseball strike changed everything for them again.

The Bulls situation is different for other reasons too ... Jordan retired very unexpectedly with the rest of his core group still in their 20s in '93.

The Celtics were simply an old bunch by the time Bird retired and the Lakers were going through a bit of a retool but still Worthy was passed his prime by that point (also missed like 30 games in 91-92) and Kareem was gone.

The Lakers lost Kareem, Magic, and had an oft-injured Worthy, that is worse than the Bulls losing Jordan even if he is the GOAT but gaining back Kukoc, which helped ease the blow somewhat.
going to lie down and die like everyone thought they would.

[QUOTE=Soundwave]They didn't "thrive". They had one solid season where they lost in the second round and then they were back to being about a .500 team going nowhere until the miracle of a baseball changed everything for them again.

The Bulls situation is different for other reasons too ... Jordan retired very unexpectedly with the rest of his core group still in their 20s in '93.[/quote]
Thank You ... '97 bulls is delusional. "Thrived", mother of god. All they did was taker advantage of being slept on, and the motivating circumstances. People still acting like losing in the 2nd round was winning a championship.

[QUOTE=Soundwave]They didn't "thrive". They had one solid season where they lost in the second round and then they were back to being about a .500 team going nowhere until the miracle of a baseball strike changed everything for them again. [/QUOTE]
Fine. Call it solid. The point is it was far better than any other team that lost their best player.

[QUOTE]The Bulls situation is different for other reasons too ... Jordan retired very unexpectedly with the rest of his core group still in their 20s in '93. [/QUOTE]
So the situations have to be [B]EXACTLY[/B] the same? Come on. Theres no such thing. Thats why I said similar. The other teams replaced their best player with pretty good players in Threat and Lewis. The Bulls didnt. Had the Celtics and Lakers had Bird and Magic, they wouldve been expected to be competing for a title. Just like if the Bulls had Jordan.

[QUOTE]The Celtics were simply an old bunch by the time Bird retired and the Lakers were going through a bit of a retool but still Worthy was passed his prime by that point (also missed like 30 games in 91-92) and Kareem was gone.[/QUOTE]
Lol. Old? They won 42 games in an expansion year. 8 of those wins came againt expansion teams. Besides. Both Paxson and Cartwright were old too. The Lakers situation was even closer to the Bulls in that both teams were "retooling". And the core group from their team that made the championship weren't old. Granted Worthy did miss 25 games, but Pippen and Grant missed 10 a piece. And again, they had replaced Magic with a starter caliber PG.

[QUOTE]The Lakers lost Kareem, Magic, and had an oft-injured Worthy, that is worse than the Bulls losing Jordan even if he is the GOAT but gaining back Kukoc, which helped ease the blow somewhat.[/QUOTE]
Lol. Ease the blow? You dismiss the Celtics situation by using the age argument. Kukoc was an inexperienced rookie that not only didnt have any experience playing NBA ball, he had no experience playing the American style of basketball as well.

[QUOTE]going to lie down and die like everyone thought they would.[/QUOTE]
This is a weak argument. The Bulls had a good record and were battling for first place throughout the season. Why would any team take them lightly?

[QUOTE=SamuraiSWISH]Thank You ... '97 bulls is delusional. "Thrived", mother of god. All they did was taker advantage of being slept on, and the motivating circumstances. People still acting like losing in the 2nd round was winning a championship.[/QUOTE]
My only point was that I dont see how anyone can say the Celts and Lakers had far better talent than the Bulls when the the latter played better without their best player.

I see no reason why the Bulls wouldn't have made it back to the ECF or championship had they had a better replacement for Jordan.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]My only point was that I dont see how anyone can say the Celts and Lakers had far better talent than the Bulls when the the latter played better without their best player.

I see no reason why the Bulls wouldn't have made it back to the ECF or championship had they had a better replacement for Jordan.[/QUOTE]

If Magic got AIDS in say 1987, when the Lakers core was still relatively young and Worthy was the same age as Pippen in '93, they'd still be pretty good.

I'd say they'd probably make the Finals still (Kareem + Worthy + Coop + Scott).

The Jordan retirement is really such an outlier, it's something that pretty much never happens in team sport, a player doesn't retire in the middle of their prime with a relatively young championship team still around them.

The only comparable I can really think of is the Oilers losing Wayne Gretzky in '88 (basically "sold" away in his prime due to a greedy owner), but still winning the Cup again in 1990. But that doesn't mean Gretzky isn't the GOAT.

And even then the Bulls were right back to being a mediocre team by 94-95, barely able to stay above .500.

[QUOTE=SamuraiSWISH]DaMighTy was too big a puss to mention my name though. Especially when asked.

You of all people should keep your mouth shut, considering your a LeBron stan. Hopping from one team to the next like a groupie slut. Now you're a Cavs fan?

My statements are in essence why MJ clearly has the best case as GOAT basketball player. I streamlined it. Don't be salty because it's the widely held belief.[/QUOTE]

It's okay, don't get all sensitive because you look like a retard rn...

Btw, you wanna tell me if MJ had changed teams in the '90's, you would have stopped being a fan of his? Please..

It's a rite of passage. One day you're sitting in front of your TV with your Space Jam DVD playing; decked out in your Bulls apparel and Js on; eating a Big Mac meal; sipping on Gatorade... then you mature and realise that Jordan's only one of a handful of GOAT candidates and that he has several gaping holes in his legacy.