Here's what I don't get about attempts to diminish Jordan

[Asukal]

I can think of no legitimate argument that would say that since the Bulls before Jordan, made up of completely different people, and the Bulls after Jordan, also made up of completely different people, didn't win a title that Jordan = GOAT. There is, literally, zero relevance to that argument.

If I want to "stoop" to your level, the Bulls also never won a title without Pippen. So is he also the GOAT?

Dick Bradley, Bill Bradley, Dave Debusschere, Walt Frazier and Willis Reed are also the GOAT, since the Knicks never won a title without them.

So, now that we've put that completely irrelevant argument to rest... Those bolded items were team accomplishments. Last I checked, it's literally impossible to win a title or a FMVP or an MVP on a terrible team.

Ok genius, according to your logic there is no GOAT basketball player because the game is a team game.

We should disregard a player's role on his team in winning championships since according to you it is a team game. Russell's 11 chips means nothing so he should be far down the all time list since his stats aren't very impressive. Your logic.

[Young X]

Jordan and maybe KAJ are the only players where you have to use things outside of their control to discredit them. To this day I've never heard a solid argument against MJ's GAME on the court.

With Russell you could say he wasn't dominant enough offensively, with Wilt you could say his numbers dropped in the playoffs, with Bird you could say he had a few underwhelming playoff runs/not enough longevity, with Magic you could say he didn't play defense good enough/not enough longevity, etc.

With MJ what could you say? He played in a weak era? Didn't win fast enough when he played with garbage teammates (just like everybody else)? His media popularity? What does that have to do with how he played on the court?

Only real thing you could bring up is his ****ups/chokes in the '95 Magic series and he still averaged 31/7/4. Elite on both sides of the court, never lost with HCA, almost never had bad series, good longevity, the best playoff career and possibly the best regular season career also. How do you really argue against that?

[scandisk_]

Jordan and maybe KAJ are the only players where you have to use things outside of their control to discredit them. To this day I've never heard a solid argument against MJ's GAME on the court.

With Russell you could say he wasn't dominant enough offensively, with Wilt you could say his numbers dropped in the playoffs, with Bird you could say he had a few underwhelming playoff runs/not enough longevity, with Magic you could say he didn't play defense good enough/not enough longevity, etc.

With MJ what could you say? He played in a weak era? Didn't win fast enough when he played with garbage teammates (just like everybody else)? The media popularity? What does that have to do with how he played on the court?

KAJ had it all. Rings, Stats, Accolades, Intagibles, Longevity, etc etc. Dude was a straight up beast ever since his early days. HS champ, college champ, NBA champ.

[Roundball_Rock]

With Russell you could say he wasn't dominant enough offensively, with Wilt you could say his numbers dropped in the playoffs, with Bird you could say he

The Wilt stuff also is without any context. A lot of that was due to his role on the team changing, a lot of his runs being when he was no longer a big scorer and because a lot of his series were against the GOAT defender.

[SamuraiSWISH]

You realize that at Garnett's age Jordan was still sleeping in a bunk bed and playing against other kids right??

Um KG was 25 in 2002. Getting TORCHED by near 39 year old Jordan. Keep trying to discredit though, troll.

[played0ut]

You realize that at Garnett's age Jordan was still sleeping in a bunk bed and playing against other kids right??

Um KG was 25 in 2002. Getting TORCHED by near 39 year old Jordan. Keep trying to discredit though, troll.

heh Lol.

Though tbh there's no all-time great offensive player that can be stopped by any one person. Slowed down, worn down maybe. But that's it.


He torched him good though. Dem hands. Elite skill and athleticism too, but those hands really make a difference-- allows him to 'weave' around bigs in the air without losing control of the ball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu92R-UR12o

@ 7:45 watch two plays.

Lays it in with HAkeem Olajuwon contesting him. Chest to chest too.

[TheCorporation]

People who say Jordan is not the GOAT, is the same thing as people who still say the earth is flat.

[G-train]

People who say Jordan is not the GOAT, is the same thing as people who still say the earth is flat.

I personally wouldn't go that far.
But he is the best player of his era and the best I have seen since the mid 80's.
TBH Kobe and Lebron aren't far off him, coming from my perspective of seeing them all play 100's of times... not just highlight reels with 'I believe I can fly' playing in the background.
But not sure how anyone can say that he was better than Wilt Chamberlain, or Bill Russell (who was much more than a defender).
Not sure how you can prove he was better than Jerry West or Oscar.
It was a different league, and too many people use titles as reasoning for Jordan elevating over other great players, but team success is too hard to factor in current eras let alone previous ones.

[kshutts1]

Ok genius, according to your logic there is no GOAT basketball player because the game is a team game.

We should disregard a player's role on his team in winning championships since according to you it is a team game. Russell's 11 chips means nothing so he should be far down the all time list since his stats aren't very impressive. Your logic.

Bolded is correct, anyway.

Who am I to sift through all of the positional, team make-up, and era differences and proclaim one person better than the rest?

Once the on-the-court dominance is there, and basketball abilities are included.. you know, the easy(er) stuff, there are just so many factors. Russell and Jordan were asked to do COMPLETELY different things, playing totally different positions in eras so different that they bear almost no resemblance to one another. That is akin to comparing apples to oranges.
Hell, Wilt and Russell should be an easy comparison, since they played the same position in the same era, but not everyone can even agree on that! Now you're saying we should all agree when we stretch the time line and change the positions?

You can ask me who's better between Jordan and Kobe (Jordan, by far), Chris Paul and Russell Westbrook (Westbrook), or any other combination of players that played in, basically, the same era of basketball and similar positions. But once we start throwing other variables in there, it's so difficult to know.

There are a handful of us on here that just don't do all time rankings. And I have to assume that the others don't do it for basically the same reason as the above. I'll rank them in tiers, but I just can't put a numerical order to it.

[BoutPractice]

Aside from statistics, two things are clear: when you tell someone "you're the Michael Jordan of (whatever)" they instantly understand what you mean, and if only 5 athletes have to be remembered from the 20th century he will be one of them (also you can argue several of them but he would probably be the only unanimous selection).

And keep in mind that athletes usually aren't remembered historically, save from semi-mythical figures like Milo of Croton from Ancient Greek times (who was sort of the Wilt Chamberlain of his time, famous for having allegedly carried a bull on his shoulders). The 20th century being the American century could be an exception, so there's a good chance that Jordan will be one of a very, very select list of athletes from the whole of human history up to this point.

[GimmeThat]

Aside from statistics, two things are clear: when you tell someone "you're the Michael Jordan of (whatever)" they instantly understand what you mean, and if only 5 athletes have to be remembered from the 20th century he will be one of them (also you can argue several of them but he would probably be the only unanimous selection).

I guess people don't remember those who win by grace, or those won with signatures.

[Knoe Itawl]

Jordan and maybe KAJ are the only players where you have to use things outside of their control to discredit them. To this day I've never heard a solid argument against MJ's GAME on the court.

With Russell you could say he wasn't dominant enough offensively, with Wilt you could say his numbers dropped in the playoffs, with Bird you could say he had a few underwhelming playoff runs/not enough longevity, with Magic you could say he didn't play defense good enough/not enough longevity, etc.

With MJ what could you say? He played in a weak era? Didn't win fast enough when he played with garbage teammates (just like everybody else)? His media popularity? What does that have to do with how he played on the court?

Only real thing you could bring up is his ****ups/chokes in the '95 Magic series and he still averaged 31/7/4. Elite on both sides of the court, never lost with HCA, almost never had bad series, good longevity, the best playoff career and possibly the best regular season career also. How do you really argue against that?

I think this really sums it up for me. Haters really have to twist themselves in knots, and come up with all kinds of nonsense to discredit Jordan. Most logical people see right through that though. In all honestly, unless you're a Jordan detractor (not to be confused with someone who is allegedly looking objectively at the issue and commenting based on that), you really can't discredit a career that great.

The only people I usually see attempting to do so are people who just flat out don't like him. I've never seen anyone neutral go to the lengths of say a Roundball Rock to do so. This lets you know that doing so is agenda driven, as opposed to some sort of mission to expose the "truth the mythologists don't want you to know". These people dislike Jordan, for whatever reason, and hate the fact that he's considered GOAT (not because he doesn't deserve it, but because they dislike him) and so they feel the need to attempt to knock his career because of it.

They could be Kobe stans (the most egregious ones), Lebron stans (creeping up on Kobe stans in obnoxiousness, but still a ways to go) or just people that disliked Jordan.

[3ball]