How is it even questionable that MJ is GOAT?

I've ordered the 1993-1994 Philly Sixers Media Guide.

It is supposed to show the number of dunks each NBA player got for the previous 6 years (1988-1993 seasons) - this type of information is not available with a Google search.

I already have media guides showing 3 years of data, and it shows Jordan dunking about 140 times per year and as much as 153 times... I looked up dunk stats for Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant, Paul George, Paul Pierce, Vince Carter - all of these guys had literally less than half as many dunks each year...

It's interesting because even though some of Kobe's highlights are comparable to Jordan's standard, I always thought Jordan was far more athletic, and this pretty much proves it - Kobe was indeed relying on that jumpshot as much as it [I]looked[/I] like he was at times (in comparison with Jordan, who obviously was attacking much more)... With McGrady and Paul George - even though some of their highlights compare to Jordan's standard, the consistency wasn't there and I always thought they were more frail than Jordan and lacked the strength and power that Jordan went up with.

The only wing players from this era that have as many dunks as Jordan is Durant and Lebron, who routinely have over 100 dunks, just like Jordan... Neither of them have had a 153 dunk year.. [I]and neither of them played when the NBA allowed defenders to occupy the paint[/I], which was before the defensive 3 seconds rule came into effect.. well, actually Lebron played his rookie year before the rule changes - he shot 48% TS.

Durant and Lebron also don't play with the type of shot-blocking bigs Jordan faced.. and the average NBA height is shorter today than it was back then... here are height stats for the NBA... [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_league_average_height,_weight,_age_and_playing_experience[/url]

When I get the dunk data for the full 6 years (1988-1993), i'll make a thread and post it with a screen shot.

[QUOTE=HurricaneKid][url]http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/[/url]


Not sure on the calculations. I think it is probably just xRAPM. But I would also assume box score influenced +/- would favor MJ.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, but I'm gonna have to assume that that's rubbish calculation due to the lack of play by play data from back then. There's no way in hell that Durant/Lebron have twice the impact of prime Jordan. That doesn't pass the smell test.

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! Top to bottom, guys like Wilt, Kareem, Russell, Magic, and Bird had WAY BETTER supporting casts than MJ ever did. 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=Psileas]And Russell having no stans (whatever you mean by "stans") is supposed to be our fault now? This is a board heavily focused on stats and the vast majority of posters are way too young to even care about players they didn't see play. Do you even think I (and others) somehow like it that Russell doesn't get more talk?
Lazeruss happens to believe that Wilt was individually better than Russell and focuses on this (that's, I suppose, why he's Wilt fan). But some others believe that Russell was nothing more than Joakim Noah or Dikembe Mutombo. So, who's exactly more anti-Russell again? [B]And how come you, a supposed fan of him, are never there to refute their claims?[/B][/QUOTE]

Why should I? A troll post like "Russell=Noah" is not worth refuting. Every knowledgeable poster knows its BS. Is it not enough that I consider him #2? :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Asukal]Oh get off your high horse, outside of all time lists Russell never gets talked about. He has NO st[B]ans, nada, ZERO! And kids who disrespect him are LBJ and Kobe stans. Jlauber/LAZ is his biggest hater, no surprise since he hates every great center not named Wilt[/B]. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]


Find me any list of mine in which I have Russell lower than #5 all-time.

In fact, here is MY Top-5 right now...

1. Wilt
2. MJ
3. Magic
4. KAJ
5. Russell

And that is the LOWEST I have EVER ranked him.

I have been one of his biggest supporters on the forum, even if I don't think he was as great as Wilt.

[QUOTE=Soundwave]Sadly I don't think ISH wants to do this because it would cut down on traffic to the forum, but unfortunately it's also made this board the butt end of jokes on other basketball forums.
[/QUOTE]
Other basketball forums as in places where fun-deprived, egomaniacal basketball geeks go to take themselves seriously and m********e on their alleged knowledge of basketball as if it's nuclear physics? Oh darn, you can not imagine how much I care about that...

[QUOTE=3ball]I've ordered the 1993-1994 Philly Sixers Media Guide.

It is supposed to show the number of dunks each NBA player got for the previous 6 years (1988-1993 seasons) - this type of information is not available with a Google search.

I already have media guides showing 3 years of data, and it shows Jordan dunking about 140 times per year and as much as 153 times... I looked up dunk stats for Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant, Paul George, Paul Pierce, Vince Carter - all of these guys had literally less than half as many dunks each year...

It's interesting because even though some of Kobe's highlights are comparable to Jordan's standard, I always thought Jordan was far more athletic, and this pretty much proves it - Kobe was indeed relying on that jumpshot as much as it [I]looked[/I] like he was at times (in comparison with Jordan, who obviously was attacking much more)... With McGrady and Paul George - even though some of their highlights compare to Jordan's standard, the consistency wasn't there and I always thought they were more frail than Jordan and lacked the strength and power that Jordan went up with.

The only wing players from this era that have as many dunks as Jordan is Durant and Lebron, who routinely have over 100 dunks, just like Jordan... Neither of them have had a 153 dunk year.. [I]and neither of them played when the NBA allowed defenders to occupy the paint[/I], which was before the defensive 3 seconds rule came into effect.. well, actually Lebron played his rookie year before the rule changes - he shot 48% TS.

Durant and Lebron also don't play with the type of shot-blocking bigs Jordan faced.. and the average NBA height is shorter today than it was back then... here are height stats for the NBA... [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_league_average_height,_weight,_age_and_playing_experience[/url]

When I get the dunk data for the full 6 years (1988-1993), i'll make a thread and post it with a screen shot.[/QUOTE]
Pretty cool, looking forward to it.

Do you have the data for 93-94, 94-95, 95-96? Every year after (starting with 96-97) we have play-by-play data for (stats.nba.com).

It's really not.

[QUOTE=fpliii]Pretty cool, looking forward to it.

Do you have the data for 93-94, 94-95, 95-96? Every year after (starting with 96-97) we have play-by-play data for (stats.nba.com).[/QUOTE]
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.

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=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]
I have the 90-91 media guide, didn't know it contained dunks. Pretty cool.

The top 10 (game high in parentheses):
D. Robinson 197 (9)
Thorpe 162 (6)
Barkley 161 (6)
Jordan 153 (6)
M. West 132 (5)
Olajuwon 130 (5)
D. Wilkins 128 (5)
Drexler 125 (5)
Ewing 119 (6)
Pippen 119 (5)

On the bottom of the page it says there were 282 dunkers for 7011 over 89-90, 264 for 6475 in 88-89, 264 for 5757 in 87-88, so it seems that's indeed the first season in which Pollack recorded them.

Do you know if 94-95, 95-96, 96-97 contain them as well? All three are cheap:

[url]http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-1994-1995-Philadelphia-76ers-Sixers-NBA-Media-Guide-Book-NEW-Mint-/291211815506?pt=Vintage_Sports_Memorabilia&hash=item43cd93aa52[/url]
[url]http://www.ebay.com/itm/1995-96-PHILADELPHIA-SIXERS-MEDIA-GUIDE-/231158221871?pt=Vintage_Sports_Memorabilia&hash=item35d21a8c2f[/url]
[url]http://www.ebay.com/itm/1996-97-PHILADELPHIA-SIXERS-MEDIA-GUIDE-IVERSON-ROOKIE-YEAR-/231158222875?pt=Vintage_Sports_Memorabilia&hash=item35d21a901b[/url]

so maybe I'll pick them up if they have the dunk data.

MJ, a guard outperforming GIANTS. GOAT gonna GOAT. Missed 2 years of his prime to play baseball in honor of his deceased father. Comes back, mid 30s, leads Bulls to best record ever and three peat. His heart alone makes him better than everyone else. Magic, LeBron? *******. Kobe? Derivative. Russell? Weak offensively. Wilt? A loser. Kareem? Sidekick for rings.

[QUOTE=SamuraiSWISH]MJ, a guard outperforming GIANTS. GOAT gonna GOAT. Missed 2 years of his prime to play baseball in honor of his deceased father. Comes back, mid 30s, leads Bulls to best record ever and three peat. His heart alone makes him better than everyone else. Magic, LeBron? *******. Kobe? Derivative. Russell? Weak offensively. Wilt? A loser. Kareem? Sidekick for rings.[/QUOTE]

...

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Player zealots, specifically the Jordan, Kobe and LeBron stans.

Neither of these clowns are actual fans of ANY team (there are quite a few MJ stans masquerading as "Bulls fans" on the internet, ISH included), making them, equally, by FAR the worst.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=SamuraiSWISH]Don't be soft. Name them.

MJ / Bulls fans and just purely MJ fans are pretty clearly divided. Especially on ISH. None of them are trolls either. I don't see them shitting on Wilt, Russell, Bird, Magic, Barkley, Shaq, etc.[/QUOTE]

:roll: :roll:

Cracked up hard

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]...





:roll: :roll:

Cracked up hard[/QUOTE]
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=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]

Uh oh, meltdown alert. LOL

[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.

[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.