How is it even questionable that MJ is GOAT?

[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[B] Russell or Kareem or Duncan never had a terrible beginning or ending to their career[/B]...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]

Those guys all had great situations during the beginning and end of their careers. Look at Kareem's record after Big O and before Magic. He spent the second half of his career as not even the best player on his own team. The Lakers were winning/competing for championships when he was a 10PPG/ 5 RPG role player. And the team went on to win 63 the season after he retired, then made the finals the season after that. But the hipster squad loves to point out that the Bulls winning 55 and making to the second round then fading into .500 obscurity = MJ overrated :oldlol:

Same with Russell- the man was his generation's Dennis Rodman. The Cs were winning titles with him as the [I]7th[/I] option, not even putting up 10 PPG in the finals on teams that were getting upwards of 120 possessions per game.

And Timmy's my dude, but he walked into one of the most perfect situations for a #1 pick ever. Robinson going down in '96 was the best thing that ever happened to the Spurs. Tim joined a 55-60 win caliber squad that through sheer luck lost their franchise player for a season and flipped that into 2 franchise players. And Timmy's aging like fine wine, but he's nowhere remotely close to his prime and the Spurs are still winning rings with the 'others' winning FMVPs. Let's not act like he's playing with the Jahidi White Wizards here :lol

[SIZE="1"]michael jordans[/SIZE] wife left him for a bigger *****.

Vanessa came back:confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=rlsmooth775]Michael jordan was to poor of a rebounder and passer to be goat he is just one of the greats[/QUOTE]

Adjusted for pace his 1988-89 numbers are comparable or better than Oscar Robertson's best all around seasons. I think that demonstrates his ability as a rebounder and passer.

[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]
Are you talking about in '75 when Kareem missed 17 games (Bucks were 35-30 with him and went 3-14 without him to miss the playoffs)?

Or are you talking about '76 when he brought the Lakers up to 40-42 in his first year with them? Unfortunately for him, of course, he wasn't playing in Jordan's pathetic Eastern Conference where 30-52 teams were making the playoffs (that being Jordan's Bulls, who made the playoffs the year he was out with an injury).

[QUOTE=ninephive]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).[/QUOTE]How did Wilt play at a "much higher level than Jordan"?

Of course you should include team accomplishments, the problem is when people like you rely too heavily on them to rank players. Just because Jordan was losing to vastly better teams with scrubs doesn't mean he was "terrible" just means he wasn't as lucky as the other greats earlier on. Simple as that.

What you're forgetting is all greats don't play in equal winning positions throughout their careers, some players are luckier with teammates/injuries/competition/coaching/management (all which have nothing to do with individual greatness) than others.

If you wanna go that route you should look at how many times that player had a contending team in comparison to how many times they won it all. Jordan was 6/7.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Those guys all had great situations during the beginning and end of their careers. Look at Kareem's record after Big O and before Magic. He spent the second half of his career as not even the best player on his own team. The Lakers were winning/competing for championships when he was a 10PPG/ 5 RPG role player. And the team went on to win 63 the season after he retired, then made the finals the season after that. But the hipster squad loves to point out that the Bulls winning 55 and making to the second round then fading into .500 obscurity = MJ overrated :oldlol:

Same with Russell- the man was his generation's Dennis Rodman. The Cs were winning titles with him as the [I]7th[/I] option, not even putting up 10 PPG in the finals on teams that were getting upwards of 120 possessions per game.

And Timmy's my dude, but he walked into one of the most perfect situations for a #1 pick ever. Robinson going down in '96 was the best thing that ever happened to the Spurs. Tim joined a 55-60 win caliber squad that through sheer luck lost their franchise player for a season and flipped that into 2 franchise players. And Timmy's aging like fine wine, but he's nowhere remotely close to his prime and the Spurs are still winning rings with the 'others' winning FMVPs. Let's not act like he's playing with the Jahidi White Wizards here :lol[/QUOTE]
All I'm saying is we got to see what Jordan could do WITHOUT a stacked cast, and it wasn't great at all (in terms of winning). He couldn't do it...obviously. He played pretty much with 3 "cores" his whole career and could win with one of the three. It sucks that he got drafted and then ultimately put himself in those positions, but he was such a great competitor he wanted to TRY and see if he could do it. He couldn't...it was way too much for even him.

With guys like Duncan, we probably will never see him put himself or be put in that situation. Most likely he will retire with 18 consecutive .600+ seasons and will never miss the playoffs. He will probably never even be an 8-seed. He will have 10+ seasons as a 1/2 seed and only 2 times will he open the playoffs on the road. That level of sustained excellence will most likely never be seen again in NBA history, all in the Duncan era.

I agree with him having a great situation, but no one on the top-5 list had a bad situation...all of them had TONS of help (coaching & players), otherwise they wouldn't be there.

[QUOTE=Young X]How did Wilt play at a "much higher level than Jordan"?

Of course you should include team accomplishments, the problem is when people like you rely too heavily on them to rank players. Just because Jordan was losing to vastly better teams with scrubs doesn't mean he was "terrible" just means he wasn't as lucky as the other greats earlier on. Simple as that.

What you're forgetting is all greats don't play in equal winning positions throughout their careers, some players are luckier with teammates/injuries/competition/coaching/management (all which have nothing to do with individual greatness) than others.

If you wanna go that route you should look at how many times that player had a contending team in comparison to how many times they won it all. Jordan was 6/7.[/QUOTE]
A player that was only a contender for 7 years should NEVER be considered the GOAT IMO. Of course, I would argue that Jordan's teams were contenders more than that.

[QUOTE=ninephive]Unfortunately for him, of course, he wasn't playing in Jordan's pathetic Eastern Conference where 30-52 teams were making the playoffs (that being Jordan's Bulls, who made the playoffs the year he was out with an injury).[/QUOTE]

great point. jordan fans constantly bring up lebron's competition en-route to the finals in 2007, but as you pointed out, his team(s) went 30-52, made the playoffs, and could only muster 1 win in 10 playoff games.

seriously, how is jordan's 1-9 playoff record without pippen ignored in these discussions? lebron, wilt, kareem, and magic all had more success without their second best player. they all made it out of the first round too.

when we talk about who the "GOAT" is, we MUST include everything, positive or negative. period.

wrgon thread

[QUOTE=ninephive]All I'm saying is we got to see what Jordan could do WITHOUT a stacked cast, and it wasn't great at all (in terms of winning). He couldn't do it...obviously. He played pretty much with 3 "cores" his whole career and could win with one of the three. It sucks that he got drafted and then ultimately put himself in those positions, but he was such a great competitor he wanted to TRY and see if he could do it. He couldn't...it was way too much for even him.[/QUOTE]

Kareem post Oscar, pre Magic:

74-75: 38-44 (Milwaukee, first season without the Big O. [B]The team won 59 games and lost in 7 in the finals to the Cs the season before in Oscar's last run[/B])

75-76: 40-42 (First season in Los Angeles)

76-77: 53-29 (swept by the Blazers)

77-78: 45-37 (Team featured Adrian Dantley, James Edwards, Jamaal 'Silky' Wilkes... lost in the first round)

78-79: 47-35 (Lost in the second round)

79-80: 60-22 ([B]Magic is drafted, leads team to championship while winning finals MVP with Kareem out[/B])

And like I pointed out above, Lakers were in the finals competing for rings when Kareem was a 10/5 role player. LA won 63 games the season after Kareem retired and made the finals the season after that.

By Hipster logic, all this says Kareem is out of the GOAT running and is massively overrated. Couldn't win a damn thing without Oscar or Magic, both top 5-15 players ever. Team had massive success with him as a role player and continued to be great immediately after he left.

:applause:

[QUOTE]With guys like Duncan, we probably will never see him put himself or be put in that situation. Most likely he will retire with 18 consecutive .600+ seasons and will never miss the playoffs. He will probably never even be an 8-seed. He will have 10+ seasons as a 1/2 seed and only 2 times will he open the playoffs on the road. That level of sustained excellence will most likely never be seen again in NBA history, all in the Duncan era.[/QUOTE]

Timmy is a bad muthaphucka, no arguments from me :pimp:

[QUOTE]I agree with him having a great situation, but no one on the top-5 list had a bad situation...all of them had TONS of help (coaching & players), otherwise they wouldn't be there.[/QUOTE]

OK, but people act like Jordan was somehow cheating by having a 16/6/5 career player as the best teammate he's ever played with. Meanwhile Kareem played with Oscar and Magic and was coached by Pat Riley. Russell had Cousy, Havlicek, Jones, etc and was coached by Red Auerbach. Even Timmy played with Robinson from day one and later got Parker, Ginobli and was coached by Pop since being drafted.

[QUOTE=Soundwave]Trolls and people using alts should be banned. People who have 1500+ posts in a year, 90% of them being troll posts should be banned.

Why would a person even argue otherwise? It's really for their own good, getting banned from here might nudge them to actually do something productive with their time.

[B]Actually a simple way to do it would be to just ban everyone in the red as it were ... if you have a red on your rep account ... it's 99.9% likely because you make a lot of stupid posts[/B].[/QUOTE]
Wow, what a stupid analysis.

If someone is in the red, then it's probably because they're not a MJ or Kobe stan. Their feathers seem to get ruffled the most when provided with facts. Hence the reasoning for them giving out negs.

I was negged by a MJ stan for saying I thought Gretzky's domination of the NHL outweighed MJ's in the NBA.

How dare I saying something so trollish :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Young X][B]How did Wilt play at a "much higher level than Jordan"?
[/B]
Of course you should include team accomplishments, the problem is when people like you rely too heavily on them to rank players. Just because Jordan was losing to vastly better teams with scrubs doesn't mean he was "terrible" just means he wasn't as lucky as the other greats earlier on. Simple as that.

What you're forgetting is all greats don't play in equal winning positions throughout their careers, some players are luckier with teammates/injuries/competition/coaching/management (all which have nothing to do with individual greatness) than others.

If you wanna go that route you should look at how many times that player had a contending team in comparison to how many times they won it all. Jordan was 6/7.[/QUOTE]
I guess just meaning if you took their first 8 seasons (over half of their careers), you've got Jordan at 32.3/6.3/[B]6.0[/B] and Wilt at [B]37.6[/B]/[B]24.8[/B]/4.0 on better shooting.

[QUOTE=ninephive]I guess just meaning if you took their first 8 seasons (over half of their careers), you've got Jordan at 32.3/6.3/[B]6.0[/B] and Wilt at [B]37.6[/B]/[B]24.8[/B]/4.0 on better shooting.[/QUOTE]Wilt played at a much higher pace, adjusted for pace their numbers are similar and there's hardly any video evidence of his play. Not to mention these are regular season numbers. In the playoffs Wilt's numbers dropped while MJ's got better.[QUOTE=ninephive]A player that was only a contender for 7 years should NEVER be considered the GOAT IMO. Of course, I would argue that Jordan's teams were contenders more than that.[/QUOTE]By contending teams I mean teams with a realistic potential of winning a championship going into the playoffs. I counted his championship years plus 1990 when they won 55 games and got to game 7 of the ECF as contending years.

Besides maybe 1995 when he came back from 1 1/2 years of baseball what years did he have a contending team around him? Every other year he played with scrub teammates and he still got 6 rings despite that. That's GOAT sh!t.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Kareem post Oscar, pre Magic:

74-75: 38-44 (Milwaukee, first season without the Big O. [B]The team won 59 games and lost in 7 in the finals to the Cs the season before in Oscar's last run[/B])

75-76: 40-42 (First season in Los Angeles)

76-77: 53-29 (swept by the Blazers)

77-78: 45-37 (Team featured Adrian Dantley, James Edwards, Jamaal 'Silky' Wilkes... lost in the first round)

78-79: 47-35 (Lost in the second round)

79-80: 60-22 ([B]Magic is drafted, leads team to championship while winning finals MVP with Kareem out[/B])

And like I pointed out above, Lakers were in the finals competing for rings when Kareem was a 10/5 role player. LA won 63 games the season after Kareem retired and made the finals the season after that.

By Hipster logic, all this says Kareem is out of the GOAT running and is massively overrated. Couldn't win a damn thing without Oscar or Magic, both top 5-15 players ever. Team had massive success with him as a role player and continued to be great immediately after he left.

:applause:



Timmy is a bad muthaphucka, no arguments from me :pimp:



OK, but people act like Jordan was somehow cheating by having a 16/6/5 career player as the best teammate he's ever played with. Meanwhile Kareem played with Oscar and Magic and was coached by Pat Riley. Russell had Cousy, Havlicek, Jones, etc and was coached by Red Auerbach. Even Timmy played with Robinson from day one and later got Parker, Ginobli and was coached by Pop since being drafted.[/QUOTE]
Good stuff, I agree with all of that (with exception of Kareem's 38-44 season...he put the team at 35-30 with him on the court).

I believe every player has a case against them. I actually usually make the argument that Duncan has the least amount of "holes" in his resume among the greats...great on offense, great on defense, greatest ever at his position, greatest consistency in winning, greatest longevity, and took out all the greats of his generation in Shaq/Kobe/Lebron/Dirk/Garnett/Nash/Kidd/CP3/Stoudemire/Melo/Durant/Wade/Payton/Iverson/Deron/Marbury/VC/Allen/Howard/Gasol/etc. along with great teams like the '05 Pistons.

Why in the world do we think MJ wouldn't be on that list when Duncan's taken out the first 10 on that list multiple times in the playoffs?

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Those guys all had great situations during the beginning and end of their careers. Look at Kareem's record after Big O and before Magic. He spent the second half of his career as not even the best player on his own team. The Lakers were winning/competing for championships when he was a 10PPG/ 5 RPG role player. And the team went on to win 63 the season after he retired, then made the finals the season after that. But the hipster squad loves to point out that the Bulls winning 55 and making to the second round then fading into .500 obscurity = MJ overrated :oldlol:

Same with Russell- the man was his generation's Dennis Rodman. The Cs were winning titles with him as the [I]7th[/I] option, not even putting up 10 PPG in the finals on teams that were getting upwards of 120 possessions per game.

And Timmy's my dude, but he walked into one of the most perfect situations for a #1 pick ever. Robinson going down in '96 was the best thing that ever happened to the Spurs. Tim joined a 55-60 win caliber squad that through sheer luck lost their franchise player for a season and flipped that into 2 franchise players. And Timmy's aging like fine wine, but he's nowhere remotely close to his prime and the Spurs are still winning rings with the 'others' winning FMVPs. Let's not act like he's playing with the Jahidi White Wizards here :lol[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://pricechopper.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/zzzquil6ozliquid1.jpg[/IMG]