How is it even questionable that MJ is GOAT?

[QUOTE=LeBird]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.[/QUOTE]

As opposed to being bitter and blaming a conspiracy theory from ESPN for Jordan's continued sky high popularity with the general public and general consensus GOAT-ness? Pinning your hopes on a mental midget diva to finally dislodge him 14 some years after his Bulls retirement when you know deep down its probably not in cards? :lol

As a Jordan fan I really have no complaints about his career whatsoever. He over-delivered pretty much every time I thought he couldn't get any better.

The only blemish for me is that short lived Wizards stint (might as well have played for the Knicks in 99 instead), but that was for his own love of the game, and I can't hate on him for that.

Conspiracy theorist? :lol

Ladies and gentlemen...pointing out facts is a conspiracy. If you didn't know the delusion was strong...wait until Samurai pipes in and starts talking about Jordan's ***** size.

[QUOTE=LeBird]Conspiracy theorist? :lol

Ladies and gentlemen...pointing out facts is a conspiracy. If you didn't know the delusion was strong...wait until Samurai pipes in and starts talking about Jordan's ***** size.[/QUOTE]

Exactly what "facts" where you point out?

Jordan is still popular today because the public still likes him, I know makes his haters squirm because they know in 15 years no one will give two sh*ts about LeBron or Kobe.

If the NBA/ESPN/Nike/McDonalds could "manufacture" a player's popularity then it should be easy for them to replicate/exceed Jordan, but they've never come close even though they've tried in vain for several decades now really. Because people know the real deal when they see it.

The facts I'm referring to are all the relevant ones which make the case for the guys like Russell, Wilt, Kareem, etc, and also which put doubt on Jordan's (i.e. his team still being a championship contender without him, him not being able to turn his team around, needing Pippen and a rebounding presence, his success coming from a relatively weak era, etc).

The next Jordan is already here: Lebron. He just hasn't finished his career yet. Once he does, it's likely he will be the next GOAT.

But like Jordan, he's just another candidate.

[QUOTE=LeBird]The facts I'm referring to are all the relevant ones which make the case for the guys like Russell, Wilt, Kareem, etc, and also which put doubt on Jordan's (i.e. his team still being a championship contender without him, him not being able to turn his team around, needing Pippen and a rebounding presence, his success coming from a relatively weak era, etc).

[b]The next Jordan is already here: Lebron. He just hasn't finished his career yet. Once he does, it's likely he will be the next GOAT.[/b]

But like Jordan, he's just another candidate.[/QUOTE]

Keep waiting for that bus to come. I'm going to take a wild guess and say you're going to be waiting a loooooooooong ass time. :lol

There's always a "new" Jordan for the last 20 years by the way. It was supposed to be Grant Hill. Then Penny Hardaway. Etc. etc. etc.

Soon it will be Durant if he ever wins 1 title.

Kobe is the only one I felt really could threaten that title because he had a lot of the similar skills but a superior team situation (with Shaq from day 1). But even his career is not going to measure up in the end even after almost 20 years in the league.

A lot of posters on ISH didn't grow up watching MJ. It really doesn't matter though as whoever your GOAT is right now, I am 100% certain 15-20 years from now there'll be a new GOAT candidate. People 15-20 years from now will laugh if you ever mention Jordan or Kobe or even LeBron as the GOAT.

Just look at how very few ppl consider Russell or Wilt as the GOAT. Every generation, there's a new "GOAT".

MJ is GOAT, but era is a factor, as is circumstance. He didn't succeed until he got Scottie and Phil, and it showed how much he needed both Grant and Rodman. 1-9 in the playoffs and zero winning records without Scottie, despite his numbers.

MJ basically never saw an off ball double team, which is the defensive strategy that was frequently used to frustrate similar style of players like Kobe and Lebron in the Finals.

The era was somewhat strong, but a bit diluted in terms of depth throughout the league. They beat enough good teams on their run that you can't discredit it too much.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Very questionable. Both Kareem and Russell have cases for GOAT.

- Russell has more rings and theoritically more FMVPs
- Kareem has more MVPs, more total points, and the GOAT college career if that means anything to anyone in these discussions.

I believe when you put everything together, Jordan may have the strongest case, but AGAIN, it is still debatable.[/QUOTE]

^gets it. fantastic post as always.

imo, magic deserves some praise as goat, as he, imo, is the greatest offensive player ever. possibly the greatest conductor of a TEAM offense ever.

i believe kareem is GOAT when we take his college accolades into consideration. russell is second because of his presumed finals mvps, and either magic or jordan third. that one is tough for me, as i continue to change my rankings.

OT: :bowdown: at the lakers having 2 of the 4 greatest players in history, and 3 of the 5 if you want to put wilt in that mix.

Michael jordan was to poor of a rebounder and passer to be goat he is just one of the greats

[QUOTE=Soundwave]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).[/QUOTE]
They werent old in 92. Jabbar in 87 was older than than anyone on the Celtics in 89. And yet you feel hed be able to lead the Lakers to a Championship appearance without Magic? And unlike Mchale and Parish, he was showing his age. He was hardly the same player of the early 80s and 70s.

[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]
The Bulls still being able to contend for a Championship without Jordan is not an indication that he was not the GOAT. It simply means he had great teammates. Plain and simple.

[QUOTE]And even then the Bulls were right back to being a mediocre team by 94-95, barely able to stay above .500.[/QUOTE]
They had no frontline. How many times do you have to hear that? Thats why they lost to the Magic. By then. They lost Jordan, Cartwright, Williams, Grant, Longley was hurt. The only big they had was Will Perdue. Losing talent is gonna effect your win/loss record.

It's not questionable. Just the usual skinny jean, frame-less glasses wearing, hipster bullshit with herbs trying to be 'ironic'. #SoEdgy

I agree that he is, but the debate is there because of how terrible the first 1/3rd of career is:

First 5 years:

Seasons above .500: TWO
Playoffs: 13-23 (0 Finals appearances)

Tack on a pretty terrible ending to your career, and you got some good reasons to suggest that maybe he wasn't the GOAT. Certainly most of the rest of the guys on the top 5 list like Russell or Kareem or Duncan never had a terrible beginning or ending to their career...theirs were great throughout, with more success overall and without the terrible blemishes that Jordan had...not to mention none of those guys played for the greatest coach of all time, who proved he could win lots of titles without MJ.

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]
Btw, you wanna tell me if MJ had changed teams in the '90's, you would have stopped being a fan of his? Please..[/QUOTE]
MJ's not a coward like LeBron, so not possible.

[QUOTE=ninephive]I agree that he is, but the debate is there because of how terrible the first 1/3rd of career is:

First 5 years:

Seasons above .500: TWO
Playoffs: 13-23 (0 Finals appearances)

Tack on a pretty terrible ending to your career, and you got some good reasons to suggest that maybe he wasn't the GOAT. Certainly most of the rest of the guys on the top 5 list like Russell or Kareem or Duncan never had a terrible beginning or ending to their career...theirs were great throughout, with more success overall and without the terrible blemishes that Jordan had...not to mention none of those guys played for the greatest coach of all time, who proved he could win lots of titles without MJ.[/QUOTE]The problem with your posts is you think team success = individual greatness. How the **** was the 1st 1/3 of MJ's career terrible? He was playing at an extremely high level very few players have reached. Duncan and Russell never played with terrible teammates like Jordan did early in his career.

And going by your logic, what about KAJ missing the playoffs twice in a row in his prime. Is that not "terrible" either?

[QUOTE=Young X]The problem with your posts is you think team success = individual greatness. How the **** was the 1st 1/3 of MJ's career terrible? He was playing at an extremely high level very few players have reached. Duncan and Russell never played with terrible teammates like Jordan did early in his career.

And going by your logic, what about KAJ missing the playoffs twice in a row in his prime. Is that not "terrible" either?[/QUOTE]
OK great. Wilt played at a much higher level than Jordan most of his career, but never had the team success. Everyone has some blemish on their resume when you compare them to the others. That's why there's a debate and that's why it's dumb when people say "how is it even questionable?"

The problem with you denigrating team success all the time is that it's the POINT OF THE GAME. IT'S THE GOAL. IT'S WHAT THE PLAYERS ARE PLAYING TO DO...TO WIN THE GAME. If you want to measure a player's greatness completely by stats, go ahead. But your side agenda is this: you know that if you disregard team success, you get to cut down the winning-est players and say they played in a great "system" or for a great coach, when all the while I think we all know WHY they are considered a great coach...because of their team's success. They are not mutually exclusive, but you try to make it seem more that way to discount players like Duncan or Kareem or Russell who OWNED all of the greatest players of their generation and kept them off the top-5 list (maybe with the exception of Wilt).