The Case Against MJ as the GOAT (topical discussion only please)

[Tomhusker]

So you can't name a single person that has said LeBron > MJ. Just as I figured.

So, if not MJ, who?

 

[tlance]

So, if not MJ, who?

Ummm….

He said he had MJ as GOAT

But it is very close.

The only people who are wrong are the ones pretending it isn’t.

 

[Wamu]

So, if not MJ, who?

Are you alright? Here's a quick review for you. Seems you have forgotten what you said.

No. Those who think he is better than Jordan are.

Odd you refuse to answer exactly who has said LeBron > MJ.

 

[Wamu]

Ummm….

He said he had MJ as GOAT <---

But it is very close.

The only people who are wrong are the ones pretending it isn’t.

Ain't it odd how he ignored I said that?

 

[tlance]

Ain't it odd how he ignored I said that?

Don’t think he can get past the thread title

 

[Wamu]

Don’t think he can get past the thread title

That would explain things. Because he's being irrational.

 

[Albuquerque Rams]

I could make a GOAT case for 5 players.. but notice that even suggesting MJ isn’t the goat makes MJ fans rage towards Lebron without any prompting

I made this argument specifically in this manner to not just make the case, but to show the insecurity of MJ fanatics when it comes to Lebron James, which occurs every time

Funny 'cause Bron Stans throw a hissy fit any time you don't use any of his many excuses or even suggest he might not be the GOAT. At a much greater rate than MJ fans. No fanbase is more insecure or disingenuous than Bronsexuals.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Look at his ppg average + his lousy FG %.

Both not elite for his time, agreed. Look at his rebounds, look at his defense, look at his effect on games, look at his MVP's.

I didn't know they just gave 5 MVP's out to bums.

Do you even follow the NBA?

Yes, do you?

Do you rate players by rings only...if so does that mean you got Horry (7 rings) > MJ (6)? Now see how absurd of a question that is.

Except I never did that.

I'd read posts more carefully before you reply.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

No fanbase is more insecure or disingenuous than Bronsexuals.

The fact that you have to use that moniker shows you're quite insecure.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Because he was the best player on a team full of HOFers.

A defensive specialist simply cannot be the greatest of all time.

That is what Russell was. The GOAT has to dominate on both ends of the court.

If he was just a defensive specialist, he wouldn't have 5 MVP's.

It's really remarkable that you're trying to write off Russell as some Dennis Rodman... Did Rodman ever get into the top 10 in MVP voting once?

You don't have to agree Russell is the outright GOAT, but you're really avoiding some hard truths here. So they just gave MVP's out to any old player who played good defense back then? is that how it worked?

 

[Albuquerque Rams]

The fact that you have to use that moniker shows you're quite insecure.

Bron Stans have an almost sexual fascination with him. It's an appropriate label.

A fanbase that needs a laundry list of excuses, narratives and degradations of prior legends is by far the most insecure in the world. What you call "insecurity" from the Jordan crowd is merely countering the excuses and narratives.

 

[Albuquerque Rams]

If he was just a defensive specialist, he wouldn't have 5 MVP's.

It's really remarkable that you're trying to write off Russell as some Dennis Rodman... Did Rodman ever get into the top 10 in MVP voting once?

You don't have to agree Russell is the outright GOAT, but you're really avoiding some hard truths here. So they just gave MVP's out to any old player who played good defense back then? is that how it worked?

Russell had to be surrounded by a bunch of scorers for a reason; he wasn't good enough at that end to carry them on the offensive side. Give Dikembe Mutombo or Ben Wallace that many scorers and they'll be 5-time MVPs or 11 time champs.

 

[tlance]

If he was just a defensive specialist, he wouldn't have 5 MVP's.

It's really remarkable that you're trying to write off Russell as some Dennis Rodman... Did Rodman ever get into the top 10 in MVP voting once?

You don't have to agree Russell is the outright GOAT, but you're really avoiding some hard truths here. So they just gave MVP's out to any old player who played good defense back then? is that how it worked?

It was a different era.

There simply wasn’t a lot of competition back then.

Best player on best team won MVP. That is how it was awarded.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Bron Stans have an almost sexual fascination with him. It's an appropriate label.

A fanbase that needs a laundry list of excuses, narratives and degradations of prior legends is by far the most insecure in the world. What you call "insecurity" from the Jordan crowd is merely countering the excuses and narratives.

You're free to address points I made. I don't think you will. It seems like you have a sentimental ego claim, and if anyone disagrees, even if they give factual reasons, you call them "excuses".

I guess you demand religious faith in your assertion? Sorry.. doesn't work like that. You're free to make your case for Jordan, you haven't made one.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Russell had to be surrounded by a bunch of scorers for a reason; he wasn't good enough at that end to carry them on the offensive side. Give Dikembe Mutombo or Ben Wallace that many scorers and they'll be 5-time MVPs or 11 time champs.

Sure they would. LOL

Just when you thought you heard the dumbest thing you've heard in a week, this guy comes in and takes the cake.

You hear that @tlance? Dikembe and Ben Wallace would be 5 Time MVP's! LOL

 

[Albuquerque Rams]

You're free to address points I made. I don't think you will. It seems like you have a sentimental ego claim, and if anyone disagrees, even if they give factual reasons, you call them "excuses".

I guess you demand religious faith in your assertion? Sorry.. doesn't work like that. You're free to make your case for Jordan, you haven't made one.

I don't have to make a case. The fact your case relies so heavily on excuses, narratives and degradations is enough for me to dismiss it.

 

[tlance]

Sure they would. LOL

Just when you thought you heard the dumbest thing you've heard in a week, this guy comes in and takes the cake.

You hear that @tlance? Dikembe and Ben Wallace would be 5 Time MVP's! LOL

Had they played in 1960?

Maybe so.

Russell is better than those two, but honestly not by a ton over Dikembe.

 

[Albuquerque Rams]

You're free to address points I made. I don't think you will. It seems like you have a sentimental ego claim, and if anyone disagrees, even if they give factual reasons, you call them "excuses".

I guess you demand religious faith in your assertion? Sorry.. doesn't work like that. You're free to make your case for Jordan, you haven't made one.

In the end, you long rambling paragraph that opened this thread is irrelevant to one simple, indisputable fact; that Jordan is more accomplished and decorated than LeBron despite playing far fewer games. For that reason alone, Bron remains forever in MJ's shadow.

That's the only case that needs to be made.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

It was a different era.

Agreed, but you have to hold both sides of the coin accountable. You can't just crap on the earlier eras, because if you put modern players back then but also took away their knowledge, training, nutrition, etc.. they'd play the exact same way. And if you put Russell and Wilt in today's NBA, and gave them nutrition, shooting training, plyometrics, weight lifting, modern coaching etc... they'd be all-time greats today.

There simply wasn’t a lot of competition back then.

... which means the best players were all on less teams, making it harder to dominate.

Just imagine if today's 30-team NBA was changed to 14 teams. You'd have 14 stacked teams with tons of high level players and all-stars on every roster. Not imagine one of those teams amidst this loaded league won 11 straight titles. It's actually more impressive that there were less teams to dominate. Modern teams have a watered-down league, especially the 90's when you had expansion and not yet had the european invasion.

Best player on best team won MVP. That is how it was awarded.

Let's Test that theory:
1955: MVP Bob Pettit STL (33-39). Best Team 45-27 (Philly)
1956: MVP Bob Cousy BOS from best team
1957 MVP Bill Russell BOS from best team
1958 MVP Bob Pettit STL (49-23). Best team 52-20 Boston
1959 MVP Wilt PHI (49-26). Best team 59-16 Boston
1960 MVP Russell BOS from best team
1961 MVP Russell BOS from best team
1962 MVP Russell BOS from best team
1963 MVP Oscar Robertson CIN (55-25). Best Team 59-21 Boston
1964 MVP Bill Russell BOS from best team
1965 MVP Wilt PHI from best team
1966 MVP Wilt PHI from best team
1967 MVP Wilt PHI from best team
1968 MVP Wes Unseld BAL from best team
1969 MVP Willis Reed NYK from best team

So this means many things:
1. Your absolute claims was clearly false
2. The tendency and correlation are certainly there
3. It didn't just benefit Russell. He had teams that were the best many years and he didn't win MVP.

Also, you said back then they just gave it to the best player on the best team.. that happens a ton throughout the past 30 years, does it not? Probably at a similar rate.

SGA will win it this year, won't he?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Had they played in 1960? Maybe so.

Russell is better than those two, but honestly not by a ton over Dikembe.

LMAO. Dude, you're killing your credibility here.