Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 48 of 48

Thread: Here are the things Jordan are #1 all time at

  1. #46
    Life goes on. ILLsmak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,536

    Default Re: Here are the things Jordan are #1 all time at

    Quote Originally Posted by ballinhun8
    No. You would say "they are three of the greatest players of all time.


    Greatest of All Time means one person.
    You can't say the greatest players of all time? No doubt, some stuff people say is off the wall, when it comes to grammar, but in a way you can look at a sentence like a formula with no variables (yet.) Imagine diagramming a sentence.

    You can assume a lot. Most people believe you can only have something like "you" assumed, but I think you can take it much further.

    Not to mention, sometimes a word or abbreviation changes. GOAT has becoming synonymous with great or greatness. Saying top three greatest is not wrong, but tacking on of all time may have been what confused you. Just assume it is "greatest."

    GOAT is a singular thing, true, but people can say he's on the GOAT list. He is GOAT tier. When people say he's GOAT of all time then that's stupid.

    GOAT gonna GOAT. GOATing. All of those wouldn't fit, but they work because we know. No excess, nothing is wrong, nothing is misunderstood. That's what we should all aim for when making a sentence.

    Edit: I really think the issue is that in school they say great, greater, greatest... and most people say only one can be greatest. However, we know many can especially when comparing cross-era. Greatest x of all time... candy bars, movie stars, days... etc.

    -Smak
    Last edited by ILLsmak; 11-07-2014 at 12:56 PM.

  2. #47
    Bulls | Bears | W. Sox ballinhun8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ehhhh, BANDWAGON BOSTON
    Posts
    6,627

    Default Re: Here are the things Jordan are #1 all time at

    Quote Originally Posted by ILLsmak
    You can't say the greatest players of all time? No doubt, some stuff people say is off the wall, when it comes to grammar, but in a way you can look at a sentence like a formula with no variables (yet.) Imagine diagramming a sentence.

    You can assume a lot. Most people believe you can only have something like "you" assumed, but I think you can take it much further.

    Not to mention, sometimes a word or abbreviation changes. GOAT has becoming synonymous with great or greatness. Saying top three greatest is not wrong, but tacking on of all time may have been what confused you. Just assume it is "greatest."

    GOAT is a singular thing, true, but people can say he's on the GOAT list. He is GOAT tier. When people say he's GOAT of all time then that's stupid.

    GOAT gonna GOAT. GOATing. All of those wouldn't fit, but they work because we know. No excess, nothing is wrong, nothing is misunderstood. That's what we should all aim for when making a sentence.

    Edit: I really think the issue is that in school they say great, greater, greatest... and most people say only one can be greatest. However, we know many can especially when comparing cross-era. Greatest x of all time... candy bars, movie stars, days... etc.

    -Smak

    This is what I was trying to say bro LOL.

    I get what you mean in everything tho. I was implying that you would have to include the word "tier" or "category" to say what the original poster said about the word goat.

  3. #48
    NBA rookie of the year Psileas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Great!
    Posts
    6,737

    Default Re: Here are the things Jordan are #1 all time at

    Russell - Thing is, he had a quality supporting cast, but I don't think it was as good as one would think based on 7 HOFers. How many were dominant defensive players? His teams were always best in the league by a long shot in DRtg (and were shit before and after), and mediocre to poor in ORtg. His teams were better than Wilt's, but Wilt had better squads while with the Sixers and Lakers than Russ did at the same time.
    Given the health situations in the playoffs and that a squad also includes the coach, I'll say the Sixers were really better on paper than the Celtics only in the season they actually beat them, 1967.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •