Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > NBA Forum

NBA Forum NBA Message Board - NBA Fan Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-07-2012, 10:47 AM   #421
BlueandGold
Lakers 2017
 
BlueandGold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,820
Default Re: Is Michael Jordan the unanimous G.O.A.T on ISH?

I can't believe this is still a thread, I skimmed through a lot of the threads I missed and it's mostly Lebird trying to bait people into an argument. I'll go more in depth later cause I have to be at work in 15 min =/

This is mostly what he believes in:

that 80s basketball was considerably more difficult than 90s: false

that Jordan had no true rival, unlike Magic/Bird thus it made his titles easier: false, Jordan obliterated all his rivals and kept hall of fame players (and coaches) from getting titles. There are a whole hall of fame list of players who have 0 titles thanks to Michael (Reggie, Malone, Barkley, Stockton, Ewing)

I don't remember his other arguments but they are a stretch as well. He's not even arguing that Jordan isn't the best, he's arguing that "we can't objectively have an undisputed #1 so let's have a big jar of players we can throw in there." (thus allowing him to prop up Bird) The theory of gravity is disputed upon from time to time, let's throw that out the window too?
BlueandGold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 11:05 AM   #422
hawke812
High School Varsity 6th Man
 
hawke812's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 699
Default Re: Is Michael Jordan the unanimous G.O.A.T on ISH?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueandGold

I can't believe this is still a thread...
It was always a thread. When was it not?

I skimmed through a lot of the threads I missed and it's mostly Lebird trying to bait people into an argument. I'll go more in depth later cause I have to be at work in 15 min =/
Kay...

that 80s basketball was considerably more difficult than 90s: false
Not false, but true. See expansion era.

that Jordan had no true rival, unlike Magic/Bird thus it made his titles easier: false...
Who guarded Jordan? Answer: nobody. No one guarded him. They played no defense in the 90's.


Jordan obliterated all his rivals and kept hall of fame players (and coaches) from getting titles.
Against D-League competition, yes you are right. He obliterated all of them

There are a whole hall of fame list of players who have 0 titles thanks to Michael (Reggie, Malone, Barkley, Stockton, Ewing)
Thanks to Stern for watering down the league, thus allowing Michael to excel. Insert Vince Carter, T-Mac, Allen Iverson, Kobe, etc. All would have 6+ rings guaranteed.

I don't remember his other arguments but they are a stretch as well. He's not even arguing that Jordan isn't the best, he's arguing that "we can't objectively have an undisputed #1 so let's have a big jar of players we can throw in there." (thus allowing him to prop up Bird) The theory of gravity is disputed upon from time to time, let's throw that out the window too?
Wut

Ah yes, the stans keep on coming. Hopefully one day stans will be a thing of the past.

Last edited by hawke812 : 08-07-2012 at 11:10 AM.
hawke812 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 11:15 AM   #423
guy
3-time NBA All-Star
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,187
Default Re: Is Michael Jordan the unanimous G.O.A.T on ISH?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBird
That's not really the point. It is to show you that Jordan wasn't a complete player in the way Magic or Bird were. There are a number of NBA line-ups you can create to show where Jordan would lack; there's very few you can do for the aforementioned due to their adaptability. The fact that Jordan got the right players around him is a credit to his club; it could have been far worse.

And it wasn't a credit to the Celtics and Lakers for the pieces around Magic and Bird? Are you saying Jordan wouldn't have won titles with those Celtics and Lakers? By the way, the 1st and 2nd three-peat were almost completely different teams. Almost all of the key pieces other then Pippen and Rodman in the 2nd three-peat were brought in while Jordan was retired, so they were building that team without Jordan in mind, which throws your last sentence out of the window. And the Bulls were the only team in the league that were willing to take a chance on Rodman because they felt they had the leadership to keep him in check, with Jordan being a big reason for that. Scottie Pippen is the only player the Bulls brought in to team up with Jordan that wasn't relatively easily replaceable that management deserves 100% credit for having the foresight to bring in, and even after that Jordan had a huge hand in Pippen's development.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBird
You see these things through the eyes of Jordan so it makes sense to you. I see them as a net positive or a net negative to the team. Jordan was a volume shooter and scorer. His needing to get a shot is justified because he is a fantastic scorer. But for his team's sake it may be even better if he was more like Bird - a player who could shoot 14 times and have 20 points - and facilitated so that a teammate instead could get more buckets would help his team in terms of net positive. Someone has to get assists, someone has to get the points. If there are only two great players both who are fantastic scorers it is immeasurably great to be able to ask one of them to playmake more so that the team could compete more. If Jordan were more a Durant-like scorer, someone who didn't need to be as dominant on the ball I could see your point; but he wasn't.

If Jordan was playing with a player like a Melo, he would get the points and the assists. Just cause Jordan wasn't the playmaker Bird was, doesn't mean he wasn't a great playmaker in his own right. Are you implying that he wasn't? That all he did on offense was score? That he's more Melo then he is Lebron? He is a net positive. Pippen wasn't a consistently great scorer, but there were times that Pippen went off largely because of Jordan's playmaking and attention he drew. On top of that, Jordan was able to completely dominate and change games defensively, which Bird wasn't able to do.

Jordan didn't dominate the ball nearly as much as you are saying. He's alot closer to someone like Durant then Iverson like you are implying, at least in the 90s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBird
In the sense that it didn't happen and can't be proven you're of course right. I don't think it is exaggerated though when you look at Jordan's skillset coupled with his mentality. I don't think Kobe, Lebron or Wade come close to Jordan's need to being the main guy. I'd say that Lebron doesn't even belong in that comparison; Kobe did let Shaq take over; and Wade has recently let Lebron take over.

You bring up Kobe and Wade letting others do it, but like I said, they were put in situations where it made sense. Jordan was never put in anywhere close to a situation where that made sense, and furthermore, there weren't many if any possible scenarios where that would make sense since he's arguably been the greatest scorer ever. Point being, if Kobe and Wade were as great as Jordan, it wouldn't have made sense for them to do that, and they have both been in plenty of the same situations that Jordan was in for his whole career and took the same approach Jordan did.

Lebron doesn't belong in the same conversation cause he's been passive to a fault. He cost himself a title doing that. Before this year's playoffs, he didn't come close to Jordan, Magic, or Bird's decision-making ]when it came to being passive or aggressive. It seems like he's found that balance now, but he would've been way better off up until that point had he played more like Jordan then Magic or Bird.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBird
And there is also the argument that even if he did, it'd probably lessen his legacy because while it would be a net positive for his team it may mean he is a lesser player because of it. Neither Bird nor Magic were lesser players when they facilitated because when asked to they could be the best in the league at it. Jordan could be good, but not that good. Although, having said that asking Magic to shoulder the scoring (as that would be his secondary forte in terms of attacking) is probably less reliable than asking Bird to do either score or pass.

Well like I said, there arguably isn't a situation where he would have to do that because he's that great at what he does. And if he had better scorers around him, he'd still score alot while having more success as a playmaker. If he played with someone like Melo for example, something like 30/8/6 is very possible while still winning the same amount or close to it. I don't think that would bring him down from what he is right now at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBird
I don't see it that way at all actually. I think Jordan would be better only for the teams who didn't have a premier scoring option and which had the other pieces (size on the boards and a decent PG). Heck, the 'other' teams is basically what the Bulls were in the 80s when Jordan was struggling without Grant and Pippen. How'd his team do then? Not great.

And most teams don't have a premier scoring option, but they have size on the boards, and have at least a decent PG.

Jordan played 2 full seasons before Pippen and Grant came, and they both were hardly that relevant in their first 2 seasons in the league when they won 50 games in 88 and they made it to the ECF pushing the eventual champs to 6 games. Lets stop acting like that meant so much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBird
I actually still think such teams would be better placed to choose Bird because he'd only be slightly less than Jordan in terms of being the premier scorer (although, he showed when he had to shoulder it he was a 30+ppg scorer) and he'd boost basically every other facet (besides man-to-man defence) of the team more than Jordan. Larry inherited the 2nd worst team in the league and made them the #1 team almost overnight. Jordan also inherited the 2nd worst team and it took him years.

Bird was the biggest reason, but there was considerably more that happened that resulted in the Celtics huge turnaround.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBird
I think your point in the above is more valid for Magic than Bird because I don't think Magic comes close to them in terms of having to shoulder a scoring load. On the other hand it can be questioned whether he could make shots for his teammates. In those kinds of scenarios I tend to put value on a player like Jordan over Magic because he can get the points regardless of whether his teammates can or not whereas Magic, as great of a playmaker he is, will still have to rely on them putting the ball into the basket regardless how good his passes are.

Your main argument seems to be that Jordan couldn't adjust to not being the no. 1 scorer on a team, while Bird could. First of all, Bird always was still the no. 1 scorer except when he broke down. Second, I don't see that being that relevant since there's literally arguably no situation where Jordan SHOULD NOT be the no. 1 scorer on a team. And in Bird's case, there are only a few situations like that as well. So who cares?

You're also completely downplaying the significant difference between them defensively. Jordan is one of the few perimeter players in history that could completely change games defensively with his man defense and more specifically his help defense. And it wasn't something he was ever lacking that ever needed to be "covered" by someone like Pippen like you put it.

I'm not saying they aren't close (prime-wise at least). But the significant difference defensively and the fact that Bird broke down faster and only had about 10 seasons where he was healthy and still one of the best in league at the end of year, while Jordan had about 13 seasons like that makes this is an easy choice to me.

Last edited by guy : 08-07-2012 at 11:21 AM.
guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 11:57 AM   #424
Calabis
Good college starter
 
Calabis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,140
Default Re: Is Michael Jordan the unanimous G.O.A.T on ISH?

Quote:
Originally Posted by guy
And it wasn't a credit to the Celtics and Lakers for the pieces around Magic and Bird? Are you saying Jordan wouldn't have won titles with those Celtics and Lakers? By the way, the 1st and 2nd three-peat were almost completely different teams. Almost all of the key pieces other then Pippen and Rodman in the 2nd three-peat were brought in while Jordan was retired, so they were building that team without Jordan in mind, which throws your last sentence out of the window. And the Bulls were the only team in the league that were willing to take a chance on Rodman because they felt they had the leadership to keep him in check, with Jordan being a big reason for that. Scottie Pippen is the only player the Bulls brought in to team up with Jordan that wasn't relatively easily replaceable that management deserves 100% credit for having the foresight to bring in, and even after that Jordan had a huge hand in Pippen's development.



If Jordan was playing with a player like a Melo, he would get the points and the assists. Just cause Jordan wasn't the playmaker Bird was, doesn't mean he wasn't a great playmaker in his own right. Are you implying that he wasn't? That all he did on offense was score? That he's more Melo then he is Lebron? He is a net positive. Pippen wasn't a consistently great scorer, but there were times that Pippen went off largely because of Jordan's playmaking and attention he drew. On top of that, Jordan was able to completely dominate and change games defensively, which Bird wasn't able to do.

Jordan didn't dominate the ball nearly as much as you are saying. He's alot closer to someone like Durant then Iverson like you are implying, at least in the 90s.



You bring up Kobe and Wade letting others do it, but like I said, they were put in situations where it made sense. Jordan was never put in anywhere close to a situation where that made sense, and furthermore, there weren't many if any possible scenarios where that would make sense since he's arguably been the greatest scorer ever. Point being, if Kobe and Wade were as great as Jordan, it wouldn't have made sense for them to do that, and they have both been in plenty of the same situations that Jordan was in for his whole career and took the same approach Jordan did.

Lebron doesn't belong in the same conversation cause he's been passive to a fault. He cost himself a title doing that. Before this year's playoffs, he didn't come close to Jordan, Magic, or Bird's decision-making ]when it came to being passive or aggressive. It seems like he's found that balance now, but he would've been way better off up until that point had he played more like Jordan then Magic or Bird.



Well like I said, there arguably isn't a situation where he would have to do that because he's that great at what he does. And if he had better scorers around him, he'd still score alot while having more success as a playmaker. If he played with someone like Melo for example, something like 30/8/6 is very possible while still winning the same amount or close to it. I don't think that would bring him down from what he is right now at all.



And most teams don't have a premier scoring option, but they have size on the boards, and have at least a decent PG.

Jordan played 2 full seasons before Pippen and Grant came, and they both were hardly that relevant in their first 2 seasons in the league when they won 50 games in 88 and they made it to the ECF pushing the eventual champs to 6 games. Lets stop acting like that meant so much.



Bird was the biggest reason, but there was considerably more that happened that resulted in the Celtics huge turnaround.



Your main argument seems to be that Jordan couldn't adjust to not being the no. 1 scorer on a team, while Bird could. First of all, Bird always was still the no. 1 scorer except when he broke down. Second, I don't see that being that relevant since there's literally arguably no situation where Jordan SHOULD NOT be the no. 1 scorer on a team. And in Bird's case, there are only a few situations like that as well. So who cares?

You're also completely downplaying the significant difference between them defensively. Jordan is one of the few perimeter players in history that could completely change games defensively with his man defense and more specifically his help defense. And it wasn't something he was ever lacking that ever needed to be "covered" by someone like Pippen like you put it.

I'm not saying they aren't close (prime-wise at least). But the significant difference defensively and the fact that Bird broke down faster and only had about 10 seasons where he was healthy and still one of the best in league at the end of year, while Jordan had about 13 seasons like that makes this is an easy choice to me.

Its pointless, u have spilled facts after facts, no point in debating with a guy who claims a player who put up back to back 8 point games in the Finals and still wins(Maxwell get the MVP of the series), is greater because he can "adjust" his game Don't know what the hell he's talking about. Jordan never could have gotten away with that shit.

Also talking about adjusting his game, didn't Jordan have to run point, due to team injuries and put up 7 straight triple doubles and 10 in 11 games. 32/8/8....8 ast per game, more than Larry has ever avg in a single season, with HOF post players and point guard.... Jordan wasn't a playmaker?
Calabis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 12:22 PM   #425
Hands of Iron
[ [ Sickplicity ] ]
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 641
Default Re: Is Michael Jordan the unanimous G.O.A.T on ISH?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 97 bulls
"When defense is factored in"? Throw out their defense and Jordans still a better offensive player than Bird. Bird couldn't break people off the dribble, and I wouldn't feel comfortable allowing him to run an offense.

C'mon now 97, if you want to say Bird did his most damage scoring playing off the ball and knocking down quick-release fallaways that's fine, but honestly he could break defenders standing still before he even put the ball on the hardwood. The Celtics almost dared you to double him because there wasn't a pass in the book he couldn't make with picture perfect precision to the open man who'd either be cutting or in position to get a good look at the basket. Obviously it doesn't hurt to have some capable teammates. Once the Celtics got their core in place, few teams in league history had better chemistry on the court IMO and they never cease to amaze if you watch them operating at their best. Bird was the driving force, main cog, the closer and the man of those squads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSchoolBBall
31.2 pts/6.7 reb/11.4 ast/2.8 stl/1.4 blk/56% FG in the '91 Finals says otherwise. Perhaps the best all-around playoff series ever.

EDIT: lol @ your "Jordan didn't have the skills to do x/y/z" comment. Jordan was SIGNIFICANTLY more skilled than Magic (even offensively), and at least on par with Bird when defense is factored in. Try again.

Would it be accurate to say that you could count on one hand the number of players in league history with whom you'd consider Jordan the one to come 'up to par' with from an offensive standpoint when he's arguably the GOAT there already? Sorry, but I can't view this as anything but an enormous compliment to Larry Bird. I also agree with the indirect statement that Bird > Magic. In blunt terms, the gap between Bird being a better scorer than Magic is greater than Magic's being a better passer than Bird, and we're talking about the greatest PG to ever play the game.
Hands of Iron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 12:26 PM   #426
LeBird
Local High School Star
 
LeBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,271
Default Re: Is Michael Jordan the unanimous G.O.A.T on ISH?

Quote:
Originally Posted by guy
And it wasn't a credit to the Celtics and Lakers for the pieces around Magic and Bird? Are you saying Jordan wouldn't have won titles with those Celtics and Lakers? By the way, the 1st and 2nd three-peat were almost completely different teams. Almost all of the key pieces other then Pippen and Rodman in the 2nd three-peat were brought in while Jordan was retired...

I am pretty sure I am being clear enough, yet the discussion seems to always digress because people take away what they want from my posts.

I didn't say the Celtics or the Lakers had nobody or that Bird or Magic didn't get players to compliment them. The point was that there are a far wider range of players that they could adjust to and still be dominant. Whereas unless MJ carried the scoring load his other skills weren't on the same level to be the same player. That the Bulls surrounded him with players that didn't interfere with his preferred way of playing is a credit to them.

The rest of your rant is meaningless to my point. Who cares if the Bulls took a chance on Rodman or not? I am not arguing the merit of the Bulls organisation skills. I am saying that Rodman, like Grant, did something for the team that Jordan couldn't. Compare with Bird; whether Rodman existed or not he could still take on the rebound duties and compete with the best...Jordan couldn't. Full stop.


Quote:
If Jordan was playing with a player like a Melo, he would get the points and the assists. Just cause Jordan wasn't the playmaker Bird was, doesn't mean he wasn't a great playmaker in his own right. Are you implying that he wasn't? That all he did on offense was score? That he's more Melo then he is Lebron? He is a net positive. Pippen wasn't a consistently great scorer, but there were times that Pippen went off largely because of Jordan's playmaking and attention he drew. On top of that, Jordan was able to completely dominate and change games defensively, which Bird wasn't able to do.

Jordan didn't dominate the ball nearly as much as you are saying. He's alot closer to someone like Durant then Iverson like you are implying, at least in the 90s.

We'll agree to completely disagree here. For mine, you are so far off what Jordan was that it means discussing this is silly. Jordan was far closer to an Iverson. He is the second all-time shots-per-game taker. He dominated the ball and had to. He wasn't near Bird or Magic in terms of playmaking. And often his playmaking was of a different sort - where they were pass-first players he was a score-first player who passed the majority of the time when that wasn't an option.

You can argue that this is what he had to do; but it was what he was best at doing nonetheless.

Quote:
You bring up Kobe and Wade letting others do it, but like I said, they were put in situations where it made sense. Jordan was never put in anywhere close to a situation where that made sense, and furthermore, there weren't many if any possible scenarios where that would make sense since he's arguably been the greatest scorer ever. Point being, if Kobe and Wade were as great as Jordan, it wouldn't have made sense for them to do that, and they have both been in plenty of the same situations that Jordan was in for his whole career and took the same approach Jordan did.

Lebron doesn't belong in the same conversation cause he's been passive to a fault. He cost himself a title doing that. Before this year's playoffs, he didn't come close to Jordan, Magic, or Bird's decision-making ]when it came to being passive or aggressive. It seems like he's found that balance now, but he would've been way better off up until that point had he played more like Jordan then Magic or Bird.

TBH, Kobe only had to do it because at the time he had a comparable teammate and that teammate was better than him. He may have not dont so later in his career. Jordan would have never have done it unless he was older, with less time, and no rings.

Besides, this is irrelevant, I am not talking about being the #2 player in the team but the #2 scorer. If Jordan is a well-rounded player and his teammate isn't; it only makes sense that he gets the most out of his teammate whilst he takes up other duties to give his team a net positive. Jordan simply couldn't do it at the level Bird or Magic could. Jordan never played that type of game; whether it was with the Bulls or the Wizards.


Quote:
Well like I said, there arguably isn't a situation where he would have to do that because he's that great at what he does. And if he had better scorers around him, he'd still score alot while having more success as a playmaker. If he played with someone like Melo for example, something like 30/8/6 is very possible while still winning the same amount or close to it. I don't think that would bring him down from what he is right now at all.

Why wouldn't there? We know what happened with the Bulls - that is a matter of history and record - but he could have very easily been given a teammate such as what is being described instead of someone like Pippen. It is a very real proposition IMO. I find it somewhat funny that not only are you saying that a player who was equally dominant on the ball and a big scorer wouldn't lessen his scoring; but it would increase his assists. Sorry, that isn't how it works. Playing with other dominant scorers makes it harder to have a bigger share of the pie. Scoring doesn't happen in linear fashion and there is a diminishing returns element.


Quote:
And most teams don't have a premier scoring option, but they have size on the boards, and have at least a decent PG.

Jordan played 2 full seasons before Pippen and Grant came, and they both were hardly that relevant in their first 2 seasons in the league when they won 50 games in 88 and they made it to the ECF pushing the eventual champs to 6 games. Lets stop acting like that meant so much.

Everyone and their uncle knows that without those guys Jordan doesn't win a championship. He struggles to get his team to .500. Because, that is what happened.

Regardless of whether you think all teams are like that: Bird takes a side like that, scores only slightly less while being a better rebounder and passer than Jordan. We already know what happened when both players inherited poor sides. Bird turned it around without Parish or McHale; Jordan couldn't until the Bulls worked in Pippen and Grant.

Quote:
Bird was the biggest reason, but there was considerably more that happened that resulted in the Celtics huge turnaround.

I've heard this argument from yourself and 97 bulls and...from no one else. It's a preposterous argument. A team with old has beens, injured, who for two seasons running were crap - the season before the 2nd worst team - and it is in huge part to Bird. Even in his Rookie season he was being spoken in the conversation of MVP.

Quote:
Your main argument seems to be that Jordan couldn't adjust to not being the no. 1 scorer on a team, while Bird could. First of all, Bird always was still the no. 1 scorer except when he broke down. Second, I don't see that being that relevant since there's literally arguably no situation where Jordan SHOULD NOT be the no. 1 scorer on a team. And in Bird's case, there are only a few situations like that as well. So who cares?

You're also completely downplaying the significant difference between them defensively. Jordan is one of the few perimeter players in history that could completely change games defensively with his man defense and more specifically his help defense. And it wasn't something he was ever lacking that ever needed to be "covered" by someone like Pippen like you put it.

I'm not saying they aren't close (prime-wise at least). But the significant difference defensively and the fact that Bird broke down faster and only had about 10 seasons where he was healthy and still one of the best in league at the end of year, while Jordan had about 13 seasons like that makes this is an easy choice to me.

Because there are a lot of situations where it could happen - not very few as you keep claiming. It all depends on who he was partnered up with. Teams don't usually go for just one big scoring option if they can get two. That Jordan's team recruited the right players is a big factor in his legacy. As I said, he could have very easily had an Elgin Baylor type career - fantastic stats, fantastic individual, no titles.

Bird was the #1 scorer, #1 rebounder, #1 assister, and generally lead his team in most categories. Not just that, he could compete at those facets against the very best in the league. So whether he had Shaq or not wouldn't make a difference for him because he was as good of a playmaker as he was a scorer. You can't say the same about Jordan...I don't even see how this is a discussion.

You can argue that you don't need to be a great all-round player, that a team of specialists is what matters, etc; but don't pretend that Jordan was as all-round as someone like Bird or as adaptable as someone like Magic. It just screams of revisionism.

The rest of your point - duration, defense, etc - we've talked about so I won't rehash. I'll just repeat that I put less value on them than you do. Larry - and Magic - played for more than enough for me to gauge him as a player, his defense was far better for mine than you describe and his man-to-man defense is just a small facet of the game. You act like he was a muppet - no one abused Bird like that. He was fine, he just wasn't at the all-time great level of Jordan in terms of man-to-man. In terms of team defense he was fantastic - and that for me is a bigger facet of the game. Just like attack is not a 1v1 proposition most of the time, neither is defense.

Last edited by LeBird : 08-07-2012 at 12:31 PM.
LeBird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 12:30 PM   #427
RoseCity07
NBA Legend
 
RoseCity07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Portland
Posts: 16,229
Default Re: Is Michael Jordan the unanimous G.O.A.T on ISH?

So bored at jury duty waiting. First page of this thread looks promising. I'm sure the next 10 are just as good to keep me entertained.
RoseCity07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 12:34 PM   #428
RoseCity07
NBA Legend
 
RoseCity07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Portland
Posts: 16,229
Default Re: Is Michael Jordan the unanimous G.O.A.T on ISH?

I have to admit kareem has a very strong case for the greatest player of all time. More points and rebounds. I'm pretty sure more blocked shots and higher fg percentage. You can make a real case for why kareem is the undesputed goat.
RoseCity07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 01:24 PM   #429
OldSchoolBBall
NBA sixth man of the year
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 7,199
Default Re: Is Michael Jordan the unanimous G.O.A.T on ISH?

Quote:
Originally Posted by eliteballer
Put down da crack pipe son

Err, no. Magic wasn't even able to take pull-up jumpers (he took perhaps a dozen in his entire career), had no triple-threat game to speak of, and his footwork in any context was vastly inferior to Jordan's. Jordan was also a better shooter from 22 feet and in than Magic ever was, and even proved himself more from beyond the arc than Magic did. Jordan was more SKILLED than Magic offensively. You try again.

Keep in mind that skill != impact. Jordan was pretty clearly more SKILLED than Magic offensively, but I have no problem with anyone suggesting that Magic's IMPACT offensively is equal to or slightly greater than Jordan's.
OldSchoolBBall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 01:45 PM   #430
97 bulls
NBA Superstar
 
97 bulls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,905
Default Re: Is Michael Jordan the unanimous G.O.A.T on ISH?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSchoolBBall
Err, no. Magic wasn't even able to take pull-up jumpers (he took perhaps a dozen in his entire career), had no triple-threat game to speak of, and his footwork in any context was vastly inferior to Jordan's. Jordan was also a better shooter from 22 feet and in than Magic ever was, and even proved himself more from beyond the arc than Magic did. Jordan was more SKILLED than Magic offensively. You try again.

Keep in mind that skill != impact. Jordan was pretty clearly more SKILLED than Magic offensively, but I have no problem with anyone suggesting that Magic's IMPACT offensively is equal to or slightly greater than Jordan's.
What youre referring to is man offense. Magic was potent offensively because he could score, but most importantly run a team. Thats his strength over both Jordan and Bird. Bird was the best at moving without the ball. And Jordan was the best at creating his own offense. I do disagree with your assumption that Birds offense was so great that. Jordans offense and defense only gives him a slight advantage
97 bulls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 01:47 PM   #431
guy
3-time NBA All-Star
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,187
Default Re: Is Michael Jordan the unanimous G.O.A.T on ISH?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBird
I am pretty sure I am being clear enough, yet the discussion seems to always digress because people take away what they want from my posts.

I didn't say the Celtics or the Lakers had nobody or that Bird or Magic didn't get players to compliment them. The point was that there are a far wider range of players that they could adjust to and still be dominant. Whereas unless MJ carried the scoring load his other skills weren't on the same level to be the same player. That the Bulls surrounded him with players that didn't interfere with his preferred way of playing is a credit to them.

The rest of your rant is meaningless to my point. Who cares if the Bulls took a chance on Rodman or not? I am not arguing the merit of the Bulls organisation skills. I am saying that Rodman, like Grant, did something for the team that Jordan couldn't. Compare with Bird; whether Rodman existed or not he could still take on the rebound duties and compete with the best...Jordan couldn't. Full stop.

I'm not arguing between who is more adaptable or not. I never was. I was arguing against this idea that Jordan was such a difficult player to play with that it made such a difference. If Magic and Bird can play with 100% of the players out there, I'd say Jordan could play with about 75%. Thats not that relevant. You're making it seem like it would be like 30-40% for Jordan. You're acting like Jordan was such an impediment for the Bulls to build around. As if they spent years trying to put elite players around him and it didn't work and then they put certain role players that would adapt to him and that did work. Thats not what happened at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBird
We'll agree to completely disagree here. For mine, you are so far off what Jordan was that it means discussing this is silly. Jordan was far closer to an Iverson. He is the second all-time shots-per-game taker. He dominated the ball and had to. He wasn't near Bird or Magic in terms of playmaking. And often his playmaking was of a different sort - where they were pass-first players he was a score-first player who passed the majority of the time when that wasn't an option.

You can argue that this is what he had to do; but it was what he was best at doing nonetheless.

He passed when it was the right decision to make which was partly based on if he could get a better shot or not, which he was much better at creating for himself then Bird or Magic were. Are you saying those weren't the right decisions? Thats primarily the biggest reason why he had the mentality of a score-first player.

Taking alot of shots doesn't equate to ball dominance. Lebron is more ball dominant then Jordan but he didn't take as many shots. Jordan didn't unnecessarily and endlessly dribble the ball around for half the shot clock like Iverson did especially in the 90s.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBird
TBH, Kobe only had to do it because at the time he had a comparable teammate and that teammate was better than him. He may have not dont so later in his career. Jordan would have never have done it unless he was older, with less time, and no rings.

Besides, this is irrelevant, I am not talking about being the #2 player in the team but the #2 scorer. If Jordan is a well-rounded player and his teammate isn't; it only makes sense that he gets the most out of his teammate whilst he takes up other duties to give his team a net positive. Jordan simply couldn't do it at the level Bird or Magic could. Jordan never played that type of game; whether it was with the Bulls or the Wizards.

Jordan came out of UNC where he wasn't forced to shoot that much and take such a huge role. If he was put in the same situation as Kobe, I highly doubt he would just take over an established team from Shaq right away. I just think by his 4th or 5th season he would take over just cause he was that great and they both would've fed off each other much like Kobe and Shaq did and probably to a greater degree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBird
Why wouldn't there? We know what happened with the Bulls - that is a matter of history and record - but he could have very easily been given a teammate such as what is being described instead of someone like Pippen. It is a very real proposition IMO. I find it somewhat funny that not only are you saying that a player who was equally dominant on the ball and a big scorer wouldn't lessen his scoring; but it would increase his assists. Sorry, that isn't how it works. Playing with other dominant scorers makes it harder to have a bigger share of the pie. Scoring doesn't happen in linear fashion and there is a diminishing returns element.

I don't see why it isn't possible. He'd take more of a playmaking role without Pippen. And even if it didn't, he'd still keep his usual 28-30/5-6/5-6. Look at Lebron. His stats are not much different at all from what he had in Cleveland. So in the end, I don't see him being looked at as a lesser player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBird
Everyone and their uncle knows that without those guys Jordan doesn't win a championship. He struggles to get his team to .500. Because, that is what happened.

Regardless of whether you think all teams are like that: Bird takes a side like that, scores only slightly less while being a better rebounder and passer than Jordan. We already know what happened when both players inherited poor sides. Bird turned it around without Parish or McHale; Jordan couldn't until the Bulls worked in Pippen and Grant.

To .500? Thats what I'm talking about. The team won 50 games in 88 with Pippen and Grant as 20 mpg bench playing rookies. That had alot more to do with the team just maturing and getting better and experienced as a whole, specifically Jordan in only his 3rd full season. The Bulls were turning around regardless at that point. Just because technically it happened once Pippen and Grant doesn't mean it wasn't going to happen anyway is my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBird
I've heard this argument from yourself and 97 bulls and...from no one else. It's a preposterous argument. A team with old has beens, injured, who for two seasons running were crap - the season before the 2nd worst team - and it is in huge part to Bird. Even in his Rookie season he was being spoken in the conversation of MVP.

I did say it was in huge part to him. But they had multiple coaching changes, injuries, bad trades, etc in the previous years. So it wasn't just him that was the reason they turned around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBird
Because there are a lot of situations where it could happen - not very few as you keep claiming. It all depends on who he was partnered up with. Teams don't usually go for just one big scoring option if they can get two. That Jordan's team recruited the right players is a big factor in his legacy. As I said, he could have very easily had an Elgin Baylor type career - fantastic stats, fantastic individual, no titles.

No there wasn't. I changed my mind above saying that possibly in his younger years when he wasn't as established he would've deferred to an older elite player, but that would be more due to reputation and experience. What other possible situations? I asked you to name a player that Jordan once he hit his prime should defer to being the no.1 scoring option on his team. There really isn't.

And another thing, as far as usually wanting to go for just one big scoring option instead of two, you are probably right. But at the same time, its also alot easier to build a team around one big scoring option plus a bunch of complementary players that take on a defensive mind set like the Bulls then a team built around a bunch of scoring options specifically a great all around player with other offensively elite big men or an all-time great PG with an all-time great big man and a bunch of finishers like those Celtics and Lakers. What do you think a GM would find easier to do? What would they rather do if they know it'll result in about the same success but also knowing that putting together some of those pieces are more difficult to assemble then others?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBird
Bird was the #1 scorer, #1 rebounder, #1 assister, and generally lead his team in most categories. Not just that, he could compete at those facets against the very best in the league. So whether he had Shaq or not wouldn't make a difference for him because he was as good of a playmaker as he was a scorer. You can't say the same about Jordan...I don't even see how this is a discussion.

You can argue that you don't need to be a great all-round player, that a team of specialists is what matters, etc; but don't pretend that Jordan was as all-round as someone like Bird or as adaptable as someone like Magic. It just screams of revisionism.

When you factor in defense? Yes he was. You're just completely downplaying it. Its huge. You keep talking about players that were needed to cover Jordan, but its hilarious to me that you completely ignore players that had to cover for those two defensively. Put Jordan on those teams in their place, and they may not even need certain players like DJ or Cooper.
guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 01:47 PM   #432
guy
3-time NBA All-Star
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,187
Default Re: Is Michael Jordan the unanimous G.O.A.T on ISH?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBird
The rest of your point - duration, defense, etc - we've talked about so I won't rehash. I'll just repeat that I put less value on them than you do. Larry - and Magic - played for more than enough for me to gauge him as a player, his defense was far better for mine than you describe and his man-to-man defense is just a small facet of the game. You act like he was a muppet - no one abused Bird like that. He was fine, he just wasn't at the all-time great level of Jordan in terms of man-to-man. In terms of team defense he was fantastic - and that for me is a bigger facet of the game. Just like attack is not a 1v1 proposition most of the time, neither is defense.

I don't really remember you providing a response to that. +3 more years to me is pretty huge though. His team defense still isn't anywhere close to Jordan's.
guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 01:52 PM   #433
DatAsh
National High School Star
 
DatAsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,082
Default Re: Is Michael Jordan the unanimous G.O.A.T on ISH?

Just curious, but where did this notion that Jordan needed the ball in order to be a dominant scorer come from?

statements like this

Quote:
If Jordan were more a Durant-like scorer, someone who didn't need to be as dominant on the ball

really leave me scratching my head. Did you even watch 90s Jordan? Durant, while possibly the best off ball 1st option in the league today(in a league of offensively inept off-ball superstars), was still not on Jordan's level.

To me, one of Jordan's greatest strengths was that he was a fantastic off the ball player that could get his points in just about any offense. If the team lacked a playmaker(like the 80s-early 90s Bulls) he could do that. If the team already had a great playmaker and needed a great off ball scorer(like the late 90s Bulls), he could do that.

As far as this cloning scenario, it's a bit silly(what are the odds that you're going to get two players of that caliber on one team), but two Jordans would be better than two Birds in my opinion, just by the very fact that defense tends towards a linear curve while offense is generally logarithmic.

Jordan + Bird would be better than either though

Last edited by DatAsh : 08-07-2012 at 06:54 PM.
DatAsh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 01:55 PM   #434
BlueandGold
Lakers 2017
 
BlueandGold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,820
Default Re: Is Michael Jordan the unanimous G.O.A.T on ISH?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawke812
Ah yes, the stans keep on coming. Hopefully one day stans will be a thing of the past.
So according to you "no one played defense in the 90s" and "Jordan played against d-league level competition"

Congratulations. In two sentences you've managed to wipe away any semblance of respect on this forum. Something that posters like Lebron23 or Paulk took years to do.

have fun debating with no one since not a lot of ppl are going to take you seriously after that
BlueandGold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2012, 02:13 PM   #435
TheMan
Repping mis Mexicanas!
 
TheMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: amongst wackos
Posts: 10,428
Default Re: Is Michael Jordan the unanimous G.O.A.T on ISH?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawke812
His first two scoring titles were luck. It was like Linsanity, no one knew who he was so did not defend him. Back in those days, they could not watch film and plan out how to defend him like today with modern technology.By the time anyone could plan to defend him, all the good players from the 80's were in the grave and replaced by watered down talent.

If he played in today's game, he would be stopped in about 10 games.

From '89 and up, watered down era. If you are still unable to see this as truth, then you are just a blind stan
This is literally the most idiotic post I have ever read...they had tv back then, vhs tapes you fakking retard and did you just mention Lin=Jordan?

I'm done with you, one more fakking moron I need to ignore Christ, ISH is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
TheMan is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:37 PM.




NBA BASKETBALL FORUM KEY LINKS:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
Search Site

FOLLOW US
Twitter
Facebook
















Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy