0 1-way defenders won MVP or FMVP in modern era - only dominant offensive guys, so

[3ball]

being your team's dominant offensive player while winning a championship is the goat criteria (winning as "the man), and Bill Russell's player type (defensive dominator) would win zero MVP's or FMVP's in the modern era/3-pointer basketball era..

and if defensive dominators are out as goat candidates in the modern era and winning as "the man" is the criteria, then MJ's 6 rings as "the man" make him goat (2nd place has 3 rings as "the man")

how can this logic be effectively countered

[RRR3]

1-9

[MrFonzworth]

Iguodala. Next?
[COLOR="White"]1-9[/COLOR]

[Shogon]

1-9

[3ball]

Iguodala. Next?
[COLOR="White"]1-9[/COLOR]

I was waiting for someone to find the lone exception, thus proving the rule - Iggy as the lone exception shows how ridiculous it is

He didn't deserve it that year and the voters were brain-f.ucked by lebron in thinking the 40% he shot against Iggy was somehow more impressive than the 40% he shot against Crowder, Butler and every other defender in those playoffs

But I think you see the point being made - other than Iggy, every FMVP of the modern era led their team in scoring and/or assists... Bill Russell simply wouldn't be an MVP consideration any more than Wallace was in 04' or Dikembe ever was.. Dominant offensive players are the MVP-caliber players of the modern era, and the best winner among them is goat - that's MJ - 6 FMVP and rings as "the man", while 2nd place has 3.. checkmate

[Bronbron23]

being your team's dominant offensive player while winning a championship is the goat criteria (winning as "the man), and Bill Russell's player type (defensive dominator) would win zero MVP's or FMVP's in the modern era/3-pointer basketball era..

and if defensive dominators are out as goat candidates in the modern era and winning as "the man" is the criteria, then MJ's 6 rings as "the man" make him goat.

how can this logic be effectively countered

I guess so but I'm not sure bill Russell fits in that category. He still scored 15-20 points and had a shit ton of rebounds. That along with his elite defence would make him pretty hard to beat. Scottie pip was one game away from making it to the Eastern conference finals with absolutely no help. If he could do that in the modern era with no help there's no reason why Billy couldn't win a bunch of chips in the modern era with help

[Kblaze8855]

If you

[Kblaze8855]

The idea that exceptions prove rules has always been hilarious to me. It

[3ball]

I guess so but I'm not sure bill Russell fits in that category. He still scored 15-20 points and had a shit ton of rebounds. That along with his elite defence would make him pretty hard to beat. Scottie pip was one game away from making it to the Eastern conference finals with absolutely no help. If he could do that in the modern era with no help there's no reason why Billy couldn't win a bunch of chips in the modern era with help

Only dominant offensive players win MVP - so how could Bill Russell be a goat candidate, or even top 10 if has zero MVP's as a 15 ppg guy who is obviously very limited offensively?

And Pippen had a 3-peat system with a team that had come a long way in it's strategy and know-how - Pippen himself averaged 9 ppg as a weak, 2nd year player in the 89' ECF when the 6th-seeded Bulls were a lottery cast, PRE-system

Now what if MJ misses "the shot" and the 6-seed Bulls lose in the 1st round and rebuild again, rather than him hitting it and becoming ECF veterans, rivals of the champs, and 1 year away from starting a 3-peat??

Pippen obviously wasn't leading shit that year was he???.... ...Only after the team developed a 3-peat system could he make the 2nd round without MJ

[3ball]

If you’re gonna throw out anyone for what might happen in a modern era take the last two letters off “GOAT” and call it best player of recent times and be done with it.

Any argument that relies on finding a way to not count inconveniently great players is starting off poorly.

Only dominant offensive players win MVP - so how could Bill Russell be a goat candidate, or even top 10 if has zero MVP's as a 15 ppg guy who is very limited offensively?

A guy that isn't capable of even 1 MVP in the modern era is a goat candidate?.. how are they even top 10?...

[RRR3]

I would pay my life savings to get a chance to suck MJ off

[jlip]

being your team's dominant offensive player while winning a championship is the goat criteria (winning as "the man), and Bill Russell's player type (defensive dominator) would win zero MVP's or FMVP's in the modern era/3-pointer basketball era..

and if defensive dominators are out as goat candidates in the modern era and winning as "the man" is the criteria, then MJ's 6 rings as "the man" make him goat (2nd place has 3 rings as "the man")

how can this logic be effectively countered

That says more about what media personalities value in an era of mass marketing than it does about a player's actual value to his team's success. Being your team's leading scorer is far more marketable than being the primary reason opposing teams score 10 fewer ppg against you all than they do against the rest of the league.

BTW...If anyone thinks Bill Russell only impacted the defensive side of the ball, then they don't know anything about his game.

[3ball]

The goat criteria was always staring us in the face... ... It's simply: "who won the most as "the man"???


Pretty simple right???.... ..


And the answer is obvious - MJ is goat because he won 6 times as "the man" and 2nd place only won 3 times...

[Ainosterhaspie]

Duncan got FMVP in 05 on 20 ppg. Thats not exactly a great offensive showing. Leonard in 14 got FMVP because of his defense. Same with Iggy in 15. Yes voters tend to vote for flash and story not necessarily who is the actual most impactful player. Doesn't mean guys aren't causing their team to win with their defense and actually deserving of FMVP.

[Bronbron23]

Only dominant offensive players win MVP - so how could Bill Russell be a goat candidate, or even top 10 if has zero MVP's as a 15 ppg guy who is obviously very limited offensively?

And Pippen had a 3-peat system with a team that had come a long way in it's strategy and know-how - Pippen himself averaged 9 ppg as a weak, 2nd year player in the 89' ECF when the 6th-seeded Bulls were a lottery cast, PRE-system

Now what if MJ misses "the shot" and the 6-seed Bulls lose in the 1st round and rebuild again, rather than him hitting it and becoming ECF veterans, rivals of the champs, and 1 year away from starting a 3-peat??

Pippen obviously wasn't leading shit that year was he???.... ...Only after the team developed a 3-peat system could he make the 2nd round without MJ

That's not always true. I wouldn't call Duncan and kg dominant offensive players.

And yeah Russell only had 15ish points but he was an offensive rebounding machine. He was giving his team a shit ton of extra possessions while limiting the opposing teams with his d.

And what is this 3 peat system you keep talking about? It was just the triangle that happened to be crazy successful because of mj and pip. Take our mj and add Russell and the bulls still win 6 rings. Probably more actually because Russell wouldn't have retired in his prime