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

[QUOTE=Tavr;15022793]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.[/QUOTE]

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?

[QUOTE=guy;15022828]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.

[B]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 [/B]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.[/QUOTE]
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 [B]unattainable[/B], 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.

[QUOTE=sdot_thadon;15022839]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.[B] All those "in the moment" seasons make the career totals at the end[/B]. And if those are your values, how do you view a guy like Bill Walton?[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Tavr;15022939]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. A[B]fter 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.[/B][/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Tavr;15022939]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15022946]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.[/QUOTE] 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.

[QUOTE=Hey Yo;15022540]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.[/QUOTE]

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):

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

[url]https://www.thefixisin.net/like-mike[/url]

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15022946]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=sdot_thadon;15023027]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.[/quote]

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.

[QUOTE=Tavr;15023050]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. [B]Further down the lists go, I believe one of the reasons they look borderline erratic is due to all the 60s and 70s players. [/B]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.

[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Tavr;15023050]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. [B]Further down the lists go, I believe one of the reasons they look borderline erratic is due to all the 60s and 70s players. [/B]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.

[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15023141]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15023137]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.[/QUOTE]

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.