for those old enough to remember, what was the GOAT discussions like before MJ?

[STATUTORY]

was there a undisputed GOAT?

[AirBonner]

It’s still indisputably Bill Russell

[Kblaze8855]

Wilt, Bird, Oscar, and Kareem were the names I heard most. I didn’t have a full grasp on what Russell had done till later. I knew the name and that I had family who repped him but the arguments were not like we have now. If I had to narrow it to the 2 I heard most before Jordan proved who he was....Wilt and Bird with Oscar third. Oscar got more love than Kareem I’d say.

[STATUTORY]

Wilt, Bird, Oscar, and Kareem were the names I heard most. I didn’t have a full grasp on what Russell had done till later. I knew the name and that I had family who repped him but the arguments were not like we have now. If I had to narrow it to the 2 I heard most before Jordan proved who he was....Wilt and Bird with Oscar third. Oscar got more love than Kareem I’d say.

Oscar and Wilt, interesting, those names dont come up for the top 10 nearly as much nowdays. what is it about their legacies that made it less resilient to the test of time or fall out of favor

[Kblaze8855]

And if you said Dr. J was the best ever in the 80s You would not just be shouted down. People would accept that answer.

[AirBonner]

And if you said Dr. J was the best ever in the 80s You would not just be shouted down. People would accept that answer.

That was nearly 40 years ago which is a lot of time. Players are never cemented in status. Even MJ

[Kblaze8855]

Oscar and Wilt, interesting, those names dont come up for the top 10 nearly as much nowdays. what is it about their legacies that made it less resilient to the test of time or fall out of favor

While it’s clear what you want to talk about I’d say the answer is a little different.

The rise of sports media and the internet brought in millions of casual fans who didn’t have the attention span to talk about players skill sets and so on. The kinda fans who would tell you Oscar was the best ever in 1985 might not even know he averaged a triple double. Nobody cared. It was a serious basketball discussion among like....local coaches, former players, and real diehards who loved college ball too and would talk with equal respect about what Oscar did in college as whatever he did in the nba.

There were not “How many rangz doe?” modern sports fans looking for the shortest point to make for a tv segment or twitter reply.

You should hear my uncle and his friends talk about Elgin Bayor. I’m a pretty serious fan and he’s made me feel shallow all my life. His friend Clyde Mayes played in the nba in the 70s and will go on for 30 minutes about how good Elvin Hayes was and while maybe I don’t agree....who the **** am I to argue with a guy who played him and saw him in person for years?

Those old fans will son you.

And they do not talk about ring count or finals records. Well I guess they might now to connect with current fans but you find an article from 35 years ago on why Bird or Oscar is the best you aren’t gonna see that kinda talk.

It’s just the changing nature of sports talk.

None of the people with Bird as GOAT said it due to the shallow end reasons we use now. Jerry Sloan said it after the second round of the 81 playoffs. His reasons were not those ISH would accept.

[red1]

the newspapers say wilt


wilt was bigger than the NBA

[RogueBorg]

was there a undisputed GOAT?

I don't remember having any GOAT player conversations in the 80's other than who was the best center of all-time.

I recall arguing who was the best team of all-time.

When the Bulls won their first Three-Peat the local radio station was going on and on about how the Bulls would have done versus Larry's Celtics and Magics Lakers. I vividly recall Magic stating in an interview that that '93 Bulls team wouldn't have beaten them and he pointed directly at Jabbar. Who on Chicago would guard Jabbar. It was a fun time living in Chicago in the 80's and 90's.

[Stephonit]

Such discussions were muted because it didn't yet become a big marketing gimmick.

[jlip]

Just from research it appears that the options were more diverse, and people were more willing to accept multiple options. My Kareem GOAT conversation thread which featured articles and quotes from the mid 70s to the mid 80's was deleted with the switch to the new format, but many people were calling him GOAT at the time. My 80's Bird GOAT conversation thread seemed to also have been at least compacted too. I remember old posters such as ThaRegul8r and G.O.A.T posting an article which stated that in 1980 Bill Russell was the only NBA player unanimously selected to the 35th? (I believe) anniversary team. Growing up I used to hear a lot of Wilt and Oscar GOAT talk also.

[Metroid]

was there a undisputed GOAT?

I remember in 1991 before Jordan even won his first championship where ever I went and the topic was about who the greatest was it was usually Jordan. People didn't even seem to really consider rings. It was all about the quality of play. I only knew of this one kid in school who hated Jordan. I'll never forget him because he was in a wheelchair. Other than him everyone was in the Jordan camp.

[Naero]

It wasn't nearly the same hot topic that it is today, in large part because fans didn't overemphasize individual greatness. Most strictly followed their local teams rather than individual players because: 1. National game coverage was inexhaustive at best; 2. The NBA's popularity—while it was on the upswing with the advent of Larry and Magic—hadn't yet burgeoned enough for superstars to become marketably renowned.

Many still had opinions on it, of course, but they follow any conventional criteria to form them—and therefore didn't have a clear-cut consensus. The discussions were unscholarly (relative to the modern criteria), because they didn't have Wikipedia and Basketball-Reference at the tip of their fingers to regurgitate stats and accolades; they had to make do with the eye test and recency bias, where big-market superstars like Magic and Bird typically prevailed before Jordan's peak.

If you talked to NBA historians (by '80s standards), Russell, Kareem, and Wilt were popular choices, though they'd never try foisting them onto the ahistorical fans. No one made a living off of peddling the GOAT discussion as the modern-day media does since most were uninterested in the discussion, and such distinctions belonged to individual sports, such as boxing and Muhammad Ali, because '80s fans didn't need incessant reminders that basketball's a team sport.

It wasn't until Jordan's first three-peat that the topic had strong traction, and then people started lumping together individual impact with accolades because the newly anointed GOAT had the best of both worlds.

You can find many of the scattered pre-Jordan opinions on the old group forums (https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!search/greatest$20basketball$20player$20all$20time$20afte r$3A1979$2F05$2F01$20before$3A1991$2F6$2F02). It's an unscientific frame of reference, but it's the best '80s substitute you have for today's basketball boards.

[Stephonit]

I remember Kareem was on The Jump and the topic came up and Kareem brought up Russell. Not that big a deal to the past greats. It's the post-Star Wars branding and marketing snowflakes of today who make a big deal out of it.

[iamgine]

Before MJ means before...'84-85 season?

I'd imagine Kareem, Russell, Wilt was the top 3, then Oscar, Erving, Moses, Bird next 4. And then guys like Pettit, Mikan, West, Barry, Baylor, Reed etc next.

[Roundball_Rock]

Two questions:

1) Was the GOAT debate about players' achievements or team achievements? Basically all we hear today from MJ stans is "6-0" and "3-6" on a continuous loop.

2) How did MJ get declared the GOAT by 1993? He had 3 MVPs, 3 rings, and not even 10 dominant seasons by that point. Yet he was deemed ahead of Kareem, Wilt, Russell, and even Magic and Bird?

[sdot_thadon]

There still isn't an undisputed goat, but yeah it was Wilt, Magic, Bird and Kareem. Weird that Russell didn't have much love then at all compared to where he sits today. I even had adults telling me Dr.J was the goat here and there.

edit. and Kblaze is absolutely right, Oscar was brought up as goat more often than Magic and he's non existent today.

[RogueBorg]

2) How did MJ get declared the GOAT by 1993? He had 3 MVPs, 3 rings, and not even 10 dominant seasons by that point. Yet he was deemed ahead of Kareem, Wilt, Russell, and even Magic and Bird?

It probably started with Bird, coming off three MVP's in 1986, saying God was disguised as Jordan in the '86 playoffs culminating with Magic and the 1992 Dream Team.

[sdot_thadon]

It probably started with Bird, coming off three MVP's in 1986, saying God was disguised as Jordan in the '86 playoffs culminating with Magic and the 1992 Dream Team.

and to piggyback this post, he had goat talk after the 1st ring. That's right. Because back then the number of rings you won didn't really hold much weight in the debate, just that you won a few was validation you truly belonged in the conversation. Bill with the most rings was discussed the least of the top 5 or 6 candidates when i was coming up. As others have said Oscar and Wilt figured heavily into the conversation and Wilt only won 2, Oscar didn't even win one as the no.1 option. The criteria has been skewed into something totally different over the years.

[72-10]

I think the most widely held view was for Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, although there were many who thought Larry Bird starting around 1982. Others in the conversation included Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Earvin "Magic" Johnson, Oscar Robertson, and Julius Erving. No one really thought Erving until his career was done.

[Mr Feeny]

Two questions:

1) Was the GOAT debate about players' achievements or team achievements? Basically all we hear today from MJ stans is "6-0" and "3-6" on a continuous loop.

2) How did MJ get declared the GOAT by 1993? He had 3 MVPs, 3 rings, and not even 10 dominant seasons by that point. Yet he was deemed ahead of Kareem, Wilt, Russell, and even Magic and Bird?

Jordan was always considered the best individual player, even as early as 86 and definitely by 87. But some people had the mindset that he needed to win to establish the fact that he was the best. And when he did that in 91, they finally admitted that he was the greatest.

When he accomplished the 3peat in 93, he had accomplished what nobody could since the merger. He had tied the nba record for most fmvps (all consecutive) and wilts record for most scoring titles (all consecutive). He was by far the best player statistically and has now proven he could win.

Magic declared him the greatest athlete ever in 199 not just the greatest basketball player.

[Mr Feeny]

I think the most widely held view among those who held one was for Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, although there were many who thought Larry Bird starting around 1982. Others in the conversation included Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Earvin "Magic" Johnson, Oscar Robertson, and Julius Erving.

Not at that point in time. No chance. It was Bird in the late 80s ad some started to anoint Magic after Bird hurt his back and Magic won the last 2 titles.

[Roundball_Rock]

and to piggyback this post, he had goat talk after the 1st ring. That's right. Because back then the number of rings you won didn't really hold much weight in the debate, just that you won a few was validation you truly belonged in the conversation.

It isn't just rings, though. How much had he achieved in 7 years? He had 2 MVPs for example; Kareem had 6. Did his popularity elevate him in a way no one else would have been that early?


There still isn't an undisputed goat

There is in the media. Among fans it is heavily MJ but mixed, LeBron has a large bloc and then a scattering for the others.

[STATUTORY]

Such discussions were muted because it didn't yet become a big marketing gimmick.

the GOAT discussion has become commercialized and much more media driven

[sdot_thadon]

It isn't just rings, though. How much had he achieved in 7 years? He had 2 MVPs for example; Kareem had 6. Did his popularity elevate him in a way no one else would have been that early?



There is in the media. Among fans it is heavily MJ but mixed, LeBron has a large bloc and then a scattering for the others.

You kinda nailed it. His popularity and visibility as the face of the league was at a magnitude no other player had the opportunity to reach. Cable Tv brought his home games to households around the country in addition to the national broadcasts. I can't remember exactly which year Wgn was a basic cable channel but as a kid at some point I was able to watch bulls home games in texas.

I was trying to focus more on the actual basketball reasons, but yeah he had alot going right at the same time. The most important probably being how exciting his game was to watch at that time as well. If he debuted into the league today we'd be in awe of his athleticism but it wouldn't carry the same aura because we've seen plenty of crazy athletes by the year 2020. In 1985 he was from another planet.

[RogueBorg]

edit. and Kblaze is absolutely right, Oscar was brought up as goat more often than Magic and he's non existent today.

After thinking about, I do recall the old-timers saying no way Jordan was better than Oscar. Now I'm the old-timer saying no way LeBron is better than Jordan.

I think it'll keep rolling along. You guys will be defending LeBron from some up and comer real soon. Thought it might have been Curry but no, he's not the one.

Zion

[jlip]

I think too many people are underselling Bill Russell's place in the pre MJ GOAT conversation. Russell's "legend's profile" on NBA.com speaks to the very issue of this thread.

"In 1974, Russell was elected to the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame. In 1980, he was named to the NBA 35th Anniversary All-Time Team. That same year, he was voted Greatest Player in the History of the NBA by the Professional Basketball Writers Association of America.

Although the arrival of Michael Jordan later in the decade may have reopened the debate over who was truly the game's best player, what remains irrefutable is that Russell radically changed people's thinking about how basketball games are won."

https://www.nba.com/history/legends/profiles/bill-russell

Article from 1980 discussing Russell's GOAT vote (http://https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1979&dat=19801031&id=AJUiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=u6kFAAAAIBAJ&pg=996,10535444)

[Roundball_Rock]

I was trying to focus more on the actual basketball reasons, but yeah he had alot going right at the same time.

Your post does a good job outlining those factors. I also think he benefited from not having a rival player in the 90s. He looked better because there was no consistent, clear second best player. It was a rotating group and there was always a large gap between MJ and the second and third best guys in any given year. Malone probably was the guy who had the most top 3 seasons in the 90s after MJ. There was no Bird to his Magic or no Russell to his Wilt. Even with LeBron's prime there was a clear cut #2 (Durant), even if there was a gap.


I think too many people are underselling Bill Russell's place in the pre MJ GOAT conversation.

I think that depends on what you consider the pre-MJ conversation. If it is meant as pre-1993 its different than in 1980. In 1980 Kareem was halfway through his career, Magic and Bird rookies so the conversation presumably was Russell, Wilt, Oscar, maybe some West and Kareem.

[Turbo Slayer]

how to calculate win pace?

[Naero]

I think the most widely held view was for Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, although there were many who thought Larry Bird starting around 1982. Others in the conversation included Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Earvin "Magic" Johnson, Oscar Robertson, and Julius Erving. No one really thought Erving until his career was done.

There was no clear-cut GOAT at the time. Kareem sounds like a no-brainer now that he's widely considered the runner-up GOAT, but he was one out of several neck-and-neck candidates in the '80s.

Kareem didn't have the gaudy stats of a Wilt, the championship panoply of a Bill Russell, or the dazzling playstyle of a Julius Erving; his only strong claim to fame were his several regular-season MVPs, which looked too disproportionate to his then-single championship with the Bucks. When he started stockpiling rings with the Lakers, Magic detracted away from too much of his credit.

His legacy's aged like fine wine since now that people overvalue accolades—and he was ironically the first to bite at Jordan's heels in the GOAT debate after the latter's apotheosis—but that certainly wasn't the narrative pre-Jordan. The GOAT discussion previously boiled down to "the best player I've seen in my lifetime," where Bird, Wilt, Bill Russell, Kareem, Dr. J, Oscar Robertson, and Magic were all comparably named until Jordan's ascent.

[Overdrive]

I can't speak for the time before MJ, but a big reason for the shift in debate style might lie within online discussion and as blaze said the casuals, who got a chance to voice their narrow views. Never before I started posting online about basketball did I think were my fav players stand on a hypothetical list. If we talked ball on the blacktop we talked about skills, impact and of course also team success, but it was never about "6>3 doe" BS. Also stuff like GOAT or top 10 never mattered.

[Roundball_Rock]

how to calculate win pace?

Whatever the win percentage during the sample in question translates to over 82 games. So .500 would equate to a 41 win pace, for example.


His legacy's aged like fine wine since now that people overvalue accolades

Historians will say you need at least 20 years to evaluate a president properly with perspective and biases faded. That probably applies to basketball legends too. Look at the LeBron vs. MJ debate. It's almost all emotion, very little legitimate discussion.

What will the GOAT debate look like 20-25 years (when more people are looking at resumes and less so on their impressions at the time since 1) memories fade 2) the number of people who never formed memories in the first place increases)?

I suspect LeBron will fare well, for reasons similar to Kareem. He will have big career stats, longevity. Russell could resurge if the "team success is everything" view continues to gain ground, making him the logical GOAT. Jordan and Kareem will still be there. Kareem could gain even more ground. Right now Jordan and LeBron benefit from recent or fairly recent memories (on the part of the generation running the media right now who keep reminding of us MJ as a routine media subject). When Kareem is on equal footing with them he looks better than he does as a ghost in a 2 way media debate. Kobe probably will fade. He has the resume of Duncan but is talked about like he had the resume of LeBron or Kareem. Similar story with Magic, who is Bird but often is discussed 3-5 spots higher than Bird on lists.

Wilt probably will still be the odd man out. Stats would in theory be his lane but people don't know he operated in multiple roles in his career, which deflated his career averages, and he doesn't have the longevity to have massive career totals. Kareem or LeBron would be the career stats guys.

Every generation generates a challenger or two. I suspect Giannis will be in the conversation the same way LeBron is today, or maybe it will be Luka or Zion.

[Turbo Slayer]

So if a team has a 6-9 record, what does that translate over 82 games?

Also is there a website or tool to help calculate win pace/percentage?

[Roundball_Rock]

So if a team has a 6-9 record, what does that translate over 82 games?

33 wins. Not aware of a website, you can just calculate the percentage by 82 multiplied by .400 (32.8) or whatever the % is.

[Turbo Slayer]

33 wins. Not aware of a website, you can just calculate the percentage by 82 multiplied by .400 (32.8) or whatever the % is.



Thanks!!

[andgar923]

The conversation was different back then. It wasn't based on stats as much. It was based on chips and making your teams better.

Magic, Bird, Kareem, Russell, Wilt, Oscar, Elgin, Erving were the top names, but no undisputed. It ranged on who you asked and which day of the week.

I may have been too young, but I don't remember people arguing like they do now on the GOAT. Nowhere to this degree (otherwise I'd remember).

[Whoah10115]

Your post does a good job outlining those factors. I also think he benefited from not having a rival player in the 90s. He looked better because there was no consistent, clear second best player. It was a rotating group and there was always a large gap between MJ and the second and third best guys in any given year. Malone probably was the guy who had the most top 3 seasons in the 90s after MJ. There was no Bird to his Magic or no Russell to his Wilt. Even with LeBron's prime there was a clear cut #2 (Durant), even if there was a gap.



I think that depends on what you consider the pre-MJ conversation. If it is meant as pre-1993 its different than in 1980. In 1980 Kareem was halfway through his career, Magic and Bird rookies so the conversation presumably was Russell, Wilt, Oscar, maybe some West and Kareem.

Durant isn't a clear-cut #2. Curry is right there and has obviously had greater team success, with a spectacular single season.

Neither Michael nor LeBron had a specific rival. But Jordan looked as good as he did because he had so many guys, Barkley in particular and then Hakeem, and he had Admiral, Malone and Ewing. So don't really think one different from the other. Kareem didn't have one either, and neither did Dr. J.

[Roundball_Rock]

Durant isn't a clear-cut #2. Curry is right there and has obviously had greater team success, with a spectacular single season.

Maybe in the all-time sense (although I would disagree) but until 2015 Durant was clearly considered #2. Then Curry had a boomlet in 2015 and 2016 but when the two played on the same team Durant was considered the better player pretty universally. So from 2012-2014 and 2017-2019 Durant was the guy and I think in retrospect it is clear the Curry stuff was inflated because of the 140 wins in two years, his popularity, etc.

I think in the long term Durant will be remembered as the #2 guy for this era. 20-25 years from now people will remember they played together in their primes and KD was the best player on the team. If they stayed separate Curry could have had a case.


But Jordan looked as good as he did because he had so many guys, Barkley in particular and then Hakeem, and he had Admiral, Malone and Ewing. So don't really think one different from the other.

Hakeem was the strongest but MJ was retired for the bulk of Hakeem's peak so we missed that contrast. So it was Magic, then Barkley, then Hakeem, then Malone with Robinson being in the #3-4 spot a lot (I don't think he ever got to #2 when MJ played a full season). No one had staying power in the #2 spot.


Kareem didn't have one either, and neither did Dr. J.

I would argue Dr. J was the Durant to Kareem's LeBron. He may have been even closer perception wise at the time since he probably was the most popular 70s player (Durant has never built a real fan base like LeBron, Curry have).

[LeCroix]

So if a team has a 6-9 record, what does that translate over 82 games?

Also is there a website or tool to help calculate win pace/percentage?

Take the total wins: 6
Divided by total games = 15 (6+9)
Multiply by 82 games

(6 / 15 ) * 82 = 32.8 win pace with a 6-9 sample start of 82 game season

[sdot_thadon]

The conversation was different back then. It wasn't based on stats as much. It was based on chips and making your teams better.

Magic, Bird, Kareem, Russell, Wilt, Oscar, Elgin, Erving were the top names, but no undisputed. It ranged on who you asked and which day of the week.

I may have been too young, but I don't remember people arguing like they do now on the GOAT. Nowhere to this degree (otherwise I'd remember).

Absolutely disagree. It was based more on exactly the opposite of what you're saying. It was not based on chips because Wilt with only 2 rings was seen as goat by some, and as stated by others Oscar was seen as goat by some without a single ring as the best player. Wilt was seen at his previous stature due absolutely to stats, scoring titles and the like. Why do you think so much emphasis was put on MJ's scoring titles then? It was in context of comparing to Wilt's, nobody even gives a shit about scoring titles in our current league. The only ring narrative that existed back then was you had to win one to punch your ticket into the conversation, it's the reason great players such as Barkley and Malone were discounted immediately once their careers ended. The way Mj got goat talk after his 1st title also flys in the face of your comment. Actually if i remember correctly, it's been a long time but the 1st time i heard the ring counting thing was between Magic and Mj, because even Mj had broken through and won Magic was still like yeah now win 5 and we'll talk. Maybe I'm wrong but i seem to remember that being the reason winning 6 was significant.

[STATUTORY]

Absolutely disagree. It was based more on exactly the opposite of what you're saying. It was not based on chips because Wilt with only 2 rings was seen as goat by some, and as stated by others Oscar was seen as goat by some without a single ring as the best player. Wilt was seen at his previous stature due absolutely to stats, scoring titles and the like. Why do you think so much emphasis was put on MJ's scoring titles then? It was in context of comparing to Wilt's, nobody even gives a shit about scoring titles in our current league. The only ring narrative that existed back then was you had to win one to punch your ticket into the conversation, it's the reason great players such as Barkley and Malone were discounted immediately once their careers ended. The way Mj got goat talk after his 1st title also flys in the face of your comment. Actually if i remember correctly, it's been a long time but the 1st time i heard the ring counting thing was between Magic and Mj, because even Mj had broken through and won Magic was still like yeah now win 5 and we'll talk. Maybe I'm wrong but i seem to remember that being the reason winning 6 was significant.

do you think the discussion and criteria for GOAT has gotten better or worse?

seems like it was more reliant on the eye test back in the day?

maybe the discussion hasnt gotten worse, but rather the answer has just become less clear cut

[sdot_thadon]

do you think the discussion and criteria for GOAT has gotten better or worse?

seems like it was more reliant on the eye test back in the day?

maybe the discussion hasnt gotten worse, but rather the answer has just become less clear cut

Although I'm glad to see Russell and Kareem get more love, it definitely changed for the worst. I feel like any criteria that involves trashing guys who have done more than 99% of people to ever touch the rock is terrible. The previous way of thinking was more about appreciating guys than tearing them down, and ring counting is lazy, sometimes even disingenuous. The eye test was a good way to form an opinion but has obvious biases attached, so now we have the more sterile but not exactly better numbers approach. I hate that Wilt is becoming a footnote despite being the 1st real mainstream type player, maybe it's because he's passed away and can't remind us how great he was anymore.

[Shaquille O'Neal]

and to piggyback this post, he had goat talk after the 1st ring. That's right. Because back then the number of rings you won didn't really hold much weight in the debate, just that you won a few was validation you truly belonged in the conversation. Bill with the most rings was discussed the least of the top 5 or 6 candidates when i was coming up. As others have said Oscar and Wilt figured heavily into the conversation and Wilt only won 2, Oscar didn't even win one as the no.1 option. The criteria has been skewed into something totally different over the years.

This. I started college in the fall of 91 and it was the consensus for the most part. I rooted against Jordan until about '96 - dude was just too good. Felt unfair. Just like I felt about Shaq in the 2000 season, but MJ's "unfairness" was much longer.

[Roundball_Rock]

This. I started college in the fall of 91 and it was the consensus for the most part.

I think that is part of what triggers a backlash: that other players' view valid claims are casually dismissed or erased from the conversation. Did that start circa 91' or did that come later? It is one think to say GOAT and say why he was better than the other guys mentioned but these days it is GOAT with no debate or discussion, outside of LeBron. The cases for Kareem, Russell, Wilt, etc. are never presented in the media.

[sdot_thadon]

I think that is part of what triggers a backlash: that other players' view valid claims are casually dismissed or erased from the conversation. Did that start circa 91' or did that come later? It is one think to say GOAT and say why he was better than the other guys mentioned but these days it is GOAT with no debate or discussion, outside of LeBron. The cases for Kareem, Russell, Wilt, etc. are never presented in the media.

Seems like it happened as career progressed. One might even be able to say that the rest of the general top 10 guys had their cases we still use today formed around MJ's case during his career. There was a need to separate him at some point so the fans began sniping at the other guys to rationalize the pecking orders.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

Alot of arguments were made for Magic, Bird, KAJ, Wilt, Russell, Oscar and Dr J. Jerry shouldve been in the convos but wasnt really seen in that light but Oscar had the triple double narrative going for him

Arguments were much more regional then

After MJ and even now its been unanimous for really the 1st time

[Doranku]

I remember in 1991 before Jordan even won his first championship where ever I went and the topic was about who the greatest was it was usually Jordan. People didn't even seem to really consider rings. It was all about the quality of play. I only knew of this one kid in school who hated Jordan. I'll never forget him because he was in a wheelchair. Other than him everyone was in the Jordan camp.

What a small world. Can't believe you went to school with Simon's dad.

[Jasper]

It was not as much about GOAT as it was great player discussion …

Elgin, Wilt, Big O , Kareem , Larry, Russell to name a few …
But Kareem was probably the coveted guy that took over Wilts respect..

[baudkarma]

Bird and Magic. Kareem sometimes, and occasionally you'd hear Russ and Wilt. MJ wasn't really talked about as the GOAT until the second 3-peat.

[Roundball_Rock]

After MJ and even now its been unanimous for really the 1st time

How much of that is the media? Were any of the other players pushed as GOAT the same way MJ is by the media? MJ is presented as GOAT as a matter of fact and only LeBron is presented as a rival (in other words, they present the weakest of his challengers as the alternative).


Seems like it happened as career progressed. One might even be able to say that the rest of the general top 10 guys had their cases we still use today formed around MJ's case during his career. There was a need to separate him at some point so the fans began sniping at the other guys to rationalize the pecking orders.

Thanks. I can see why they wanted to promote MJ but what about now? Why is MJ treated differently than every other retired legend? Why can't the media have an honest discussion that includes all the GOAT candidates? What is your take?

[sdot_thadon]

Thanks. I can see why they wanted to promote MJ but what about now? Why is MJ treated differently than every other retired legend? Why can't the media have an honest discussion that includes all the GOAT candidates? What is your take?
Well 1st of all, because he was that damn good. He's the NBA's Babe Ruth, untouchable legend. That said he's probably the NBA's 1st propaganda driven legend as well, and it worked so well he has worshippers who've grown from children to adults singing his praises, drinking gatorade and eating wheaties so to speak. He's the most profitable and potent tool the nba has possessed and to give credit where it's due, he didn't single handedly get the nba to it's current popularity level but he damn sure built the stage most of the work was done from. From a cultural standpoint it's absolutely well deserved, from a career and all time great standpoint it's a bit unfair to the others who've grown the game internally but not internationally. I only really play devil's advocate in Mj debates because he is judged on different standards, lower standards than other guys supposedly not in his league. I think he'll hold a similar type of love that Ruth has enjoyed, he'll ultimately be surpassed by someone, hell maybe even Lebron but no one will ever be as beloved. Also the media is made up of guys who lived or grew up through this era Mj was deified in, so once these guys start retiring and being replaced with a younger generation the nature of the discussion will change with them.

[Roundball_Rock]

Also the media is made up of guys who lived or grew up through this era Mj was deified in, so once these guys start retiring and being replaced with a younger generation the nature of the discussion will change with them.

Agreed and that will be fascinating to watch. Regarding the marketing power of Jordan, that is a factor in all this but eventually that will fade. You can only market a retired legend for so long. Jordan has kept it going for two plus decades but that won't continue into perpetuity.


I only really play devil's advocate in Mj debates because he is judged on different standards, lower standards than other guys supposedly not in his league.

That is a part of my motivation too. I would also add his warts are all erased. We hear chapter and verse about LeBron's. Whenever an older player comes up some of their flaws will be raised. Jordan is presented as flawless. The media aids him by never talking about them or airing a bad MJ game. The third piece is he has the worst fan base. They are the only fan base I have encountered anywhere that is willing to flat out lie to promote their agenda.


Well 1st of all, because he was that damn good. He's the NBA's Babe Ruth, untouchable legend.

What if he played his prime in the same era as Kareem, Wilt, or LeBron? I think there would be a legitimate debate as to who was the best player in the league because their dominance was comparable to his (peak Shaq too but Shaq couldn't sustain it like the others listed did). The way MJ is spoken about, though, you would think MJ would be the clear cut #1 no matter what.

[defyinside]

What if he played his prime in the same era as Kareem, Wilt, or LeBron? I think there would be a legitimate debate as to who was the best player in the league because their dominance was comparable to his (peak Shaq too but Shaq couldn't sustain it like the others listed did). The way MJ is spoken about, though, you would think MJ would be the clear cut #1 no matter what.

The thing MJ has over everyone else of the players you've named, is the eye-candy.
He was so smooth, the perfect balance between basketball fundamentals and athletism an strength.
Those reverse layups are so natural, he makes them look so easy.
His fadeway jumper is the ultimate weapon, like Kareem skyhook.
+ he has the resumé that goes along with this, won in college, olympics even in 1984, all star games, slam dunk contests, just look at his last NBA Finals Shot or ASG shot over Marion.

Iconic moments all over the place.

Listen from minute 7 to 20 roughly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTXFcIGZ09I

[HylianNightmare]

And if you said Dr. J was the best ever in the 80s You would not just be shouted down. People would accept that answer.

I asked some old ass man who he thought was the goat and he said Dr. J would be dominant in any era

[sdot_thadon]

That is a part of my motivation too. I would also add his warts are all erased. We hear chapter and verse about LeBron's. Whenever an older player comes up some of their flaws will be raised. Jordan is presented as flawless. The media aids him by never talking about them or airing a bad MJ game. The third piece is he has the worst fan base. They are the only fan base I have encountered anywhere that is willing to flat out lie to promote their agenda.
Kinda crazy but true.


What if he played his prime in the same era as Kareem, Wilt, or LeBron? I think there would be a legitimate debate as to who was the best player in the league because their dominance was comparable to his (peak Shaq too but Shaq couldn't sustain it like the others listed did). The way MJ is spoken about, though, you would think MJ would be the clear cut #1 no matter what.
I imagine if they all played at the same time neither would stand out the way they were able to in their respective eras. They'd all be elite level great but I'm not sure those 3 guys in a league together would seem as awe inspiring individually. Mj benefited from being a level of athlete without peer in the league. So did Wilt, as well as Lebron. I imagine if Lebron hits the league in '84 and Mj is drafted a few years later his awe and impact could be somewhat diminished, and the same if it was the other way around. The league was primed to be wowed at that particular moment. And yeah there would be a brutal debate if it was this current era, imagine.....

[Roundball_Rock]

I imagine if they all played at the same time neither would stand out the way they were able to in their respective eras. They'd all be elite level great but I'm not sure those 3 guys in a league together would seem as awe inspiring individually. Mj benefited from being a level of athlete without peer in the league. So did Wilt, as well as Lebron. I imagine if Lebron hits the league in '84 and Mj is drafted a few years later his awe and impact could be somewhat diminished, and the same if it was the other way around. The league was primed to be wowed at that particular moment. And yeah there would be a brutal debate if it was this current era, imagine.....

Agreed.

[Metroid]

What a small world. Can't believe you went to school with Simon's dad.

I'm afraid I don't follow.

[Stephonit]

Then Curry had a boomlet in 2015 and 2016 but when the two played on the same team Durant was considered the better player pretty universally.

Only for people who weren't paying attention and took their cues from the media. This would not be the case for Warriors fans who watched the team all the time.

Stephen Curry, Not Kevin Durant, Is The Golden State Warriors' Best Player (https://www.forbes.com/sites/andybailey/2019/05/12/stephen-curry-not-kevin-durant-is-the-golden-state-warriors-best-player/)



So from 2012-2014 and 2017-2019 Durant was the guy and I think in retrospect it is clear the Curry stuff was inflated because of the 140 wins in two years, his popularity, etc.

Wins cause a player's reputation to be inflated? You have a better basis to base a player's reputation on?

"The Warriors are +4131 with Stephen Curry on the court over the last five years. They are -447 with Stephen Curry on the bench."

https://i.imgflip.com/3yorn2.gif

And there is also this from after the 2017 finals:

"Here’s a quick tale-of-tape with someone I consider to have a very strong peak (Durant). Keep in mind Steph tops in him APM, efficiency, scoring rate (!), efficiency and matches him in defensive APM."

https://i.imgflip.com/3yopd2.gif




I think in the long term Durant will be remembered as the #2 guy for this era. 20-25 years from now people will remember they played together in their primes and KD was the best player on the team. If they stayed separate Curry could have had a case.

Why Stephen Curry (Not LeBron) Is the N.B.A. Player of the Decade (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/25/sports/basketball/stephen-curry-lebron-james.html)

[Roundball_Rock]

You have a better basis to base a player's reputation on?

Wins say Draymond is better than Barkley, as he notes. See the problem?

Curry definitely was more important to that team than Durant but if there is a draft of all NBA players you know Durant will go ahead of Curry just like he would have in any year.

[LeCroix]

The debate was tough to decide, circling around who was GOAT 90s sg

Jordan
Starks
Hornacek
Porter

[LeCroix]

Only for people who weren't paying attention and took their cues from the media. This would not be the case for Warriors fans who watched the team all the time.

Stephen Curry, Not Kevin Durant, Is The Golden State Warriors' Best Player (https://www.forbes.com/sites/andybailey/2019/05/12/stephen-curry-not-kevin-durant-is-the-golden-state-warriors-best-player/)




Wins cause a player's reputation to be inflated? You have a better basis to base a player's reputation on?

"The Warriors are +4131 with Stephen Curry on the court over the last five years. They are -447 with Stephen Curry on the bench."

https://i.imgflip.com/3yorn2.gif

And there is also this from after the 2017 finals:

"Here’s a quick tale-of-tape with someone I consider to have a very strong peak (Durant). Keep in mind Steph tops in him APM, efficiency, scoring rate (!), efficiency and matches him in defensive APM."

https://i.imgflip.com/3yopd2.gif





Why Stephen Curry (Not LeBron) Is the N.B.A. Player of the Decade (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/25/sports/basketball/stephen-curry-lebron-james.html)
All this essay to say Curry has led team in finals win 0 times?? 0 fmvp

[Stephonit]

All this essay to say Curry has led team in finals win 0 times?? 0 fmvp

You bothered to reply just to expose yourself as a lemming? People who place so much weight on the opinions of eleven individuals like Rachel Nichols should be embarrassed.