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

[trojanfan12]

Well, then neither does MJ.

Wilt only has 2.

 

[trojanfan12]

I don't get how that's an argument to what we're talking about.

It's not. I was just posting it along with what @tlance posted about what players made back then.

Didn't think it was that difficult understand.

Also shows that players weren't always able to spend their off-seasons working on their games like they can today.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Wilt only has 2.

Jordan only has 6

 

[Albuquerque Rams]

Doesn't have the rings.

It's not just that. It's that Wilt was also a severe postseason underperformer. In every Game 7 loss to Boston, Wilt was outscored by Sam Jones. No disrespect meant to Jones, but if Joe Dumars had outscored MJ in even a single Game 7 - let alone four - none of us would have MJ as the GOAT.

Some give him a pass for 1969 because Van Breda Kolf took him out in the 4th quarter. But the truth is Wilt had already choked in two other crucial games in that series. In Game 4, the Lakers had a chance to take a 3-1 series lead; Wilt scores 8 points and misses 9 free throws in a game Boston won by a single point. In Game 6, the Lakers could have ended the series in Boston and Wilt came out with another 8 point performance. So basically, if he hadn't vanished in those other two games, Game 7 never even happens.

 

[msgkings322]

No man.

Because the money wasn’t there.

In 1960 Bill Russell had the biggest contract at 35K.

The average salary was about 12K and many players were making 4-5K.

Median family income for normal people was 5.6K.

Back then, you didn’t have kids from all over the world training relentlessly to fulfill their lifelong dream of playing in the NBA.

In fact, some guys who were good enough to play in the NBA opted for other careers because the NBA money was far from life changing.

That simply is not the case today. The NBA is the ultimate dream job. And as such, the competition for those roster spots in a global league is infinitely tougher.

This is obvious to any rational individual and Friscus shows he’s not a serious person when he argues some of the shit he does. Pure bias.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Yet the best player of that era could only manage a single championship against a 42-win team during that stretch.

I guess it wasn't that spread thin then...

The Lakers weren't hampered by losing Kurt Rambis or Tony Campbell. The Pistons weren't hampered by losing Rick Mahorn. The Rockets weren't hampered by losing Tracy Murray. Basically no evidence exists of any team being hampered by expansion.

I guess it's that whole math thing that gets in the way. Adding teams waters down any league because every team in some way gets less whether it be through players leaving or other teams outspending them for players they used to be able to get. There is evidence in that there's math.

There have been just as many "worst team ever" candidates in the LeBron era (2005 Hawks, 2010 Nets, 2012 Bobcats, 2016 Sixers) as there were in Jordan's, if not more. And last time I checked, none of those expansion teams have disappeared since LeBron entered the league.

Like many, you used 1994 to try to discredit MJ. Problem is none of the expansion teams that propped up in the late '80s disappeared when Jordan was gone. So taking your argument to its logical conclusion, 1994 didn't mean anything either. But that would require you to not be disingenuous.

1994 is a crushing blow to any MJ GOAT case.. as it proved that a Pippen-Phil Jackson run team is nearly as good as one with MJ on it. They only won 2 less games without MJ, and nearly made the finals. MJ is easily a top 3 player of all time no dispute, and he provides a closing presence that few have displayed. But Jordan didn't equate to team wins as much as guys like Larry Bird, Tim Duncan, or Lebron James.

I never claimed MVPs were always awarded like that back then, but it was more likely to happen in those days.

I don't think you know that. I think you're making it up. I provided data. Why don't you provide your own.

Russell and Mutombo are more or less the same type of player. Difference is Mutombo wasn't surrounded by the most stacked roster in NBA history. Just like how Draymond is Anthony Mason with better luck and better marketing.

Ah yes, they were so the Same:

Mutumbo Career Averages: 9.8ppg, 10.3 boards, 1 assist
- 13th in MVP voting one year
- 1x All NBA 2nd team
- 2x All NBA 3rd team
- 8x All Star

Bill Russell Career Averages: 15.1ppg, 22.5 boards, 4.3 assts
- 5 MVP's, 2nd in MVP twice, 3rd in MVP twice, 4th in MVP twice
- 3x 1st team All NBA
- 8x 2nd team All NBA
- 12x All Star

Totally the same. LMAO. This is almost as dumb of a take as Skip Layless saying Johnny Manziel will light up Cleveland more than Lebron James ever did, and its kind of fun to have you on the ropes and mock it.. and it deserves to be mocked especially with how chesty you came in here. And then you offer up this gem? Wow

 

[MAGA2024]

Wow do you like to make things up (lie), Tommy. Not onesingle core teammate improved his PPG average while playing alongside Lebron? Kyrie's best season pre-Lebron was 20.7 ppg. Raised it to 21.7 first year with Lebron and was over 25 ppg a couple seasons later. Gooden (guy brought in to replace Boozer) went from 11.6 ppg in Orlando to 14.4 here in first season with Lebron (best scoring season of his career)........Mo Williams went from 17.2 ppg to career best 17.8 and all star season with Lebron. Only 3 I checked as why even keep looking?

It's cool you are giddy over MJ and hate Lebron......but is says more about you than anyone that you need to lie to support your agenda.

In you to own you lied and got caught......again?

How did "I" lie...? I didn't make up the numbers; was referencing the chart in the link that was posted, and those PPG stats reflect the entire time a player teamed with Jordan / LeBron vs. the portion of their career when they did not. It's not looking at just one (1) random season.

I don't lie... when you have facts on yiour side there's no reason to lie.

 

[Albuquerque Rams]

Another point I'd like to address is the "no winning season until 4th year" as well as 1994.

It took until 1990, Jordan's sixth season, for the Bulls to have a winning record when he didn't score at least 30 points. The supporting cast was particularly awful in 1986-87: the Bulls were 37-30 when Jordan scored 30+, 3-12 when he scored anything less than that. It's also silly to hold his second season against him when he hardly played due to injury and was on a minutes restriction when he returned late in the season.

For all the claims about LeBron having "bums" as teammates his first Cleveland stint, Jordan's were actually worse in his early years. And for all the narratives about Bron dragging "bums" to the NBA Finals in 2007, the Cavs were 27-18 when he scored less than 30.

As for 1994, the Bulls were 20-44 when Jordan was out with the broken foot in '86.

 

[Albuquerque Rams]

I guess it wasn't that spread thin then...

I guess it's that whole math thing that gets in the way. Adding teams waters down any league because every team in some way gets less whether it be through players leaving or other teams outspending them for players they used to be able to get. There is evidence in that there's math.


1994 is a crushing blow to any MJ GOAT case.. as it proved that a Pippen-Phil Jackson run team is nearly as good as one with MJ on it. They only won 2 less games without MJ, and nearly made the finals. MJ is easily a top 3 player of all time no dispute, and he provides a closing presence that few have displayed. But Jordan didn't equate to team wins as much as guys like Larry Bird, Tim Duncan, or Lebron James.

I don't think you know that. I think you're making it up. I provided data. Why don't you provide your own.

Ah yes, they were so the Same:

Mutumbo Career Averages: 9.8ppg, 10.3 boards, 1 assist
- 13th in MVP voting one year
- 1x All NBA 2nd team
- 2x All NBA 3rd team
- 8x All Star

Bill Russell Career Averages: 15.1ppg, 22.5 boards, 4.3 assts
- 5 MVP's, 2nd in MVP twice, 3rd in MVP twice, 4th in MVP twice
- 3x 1st team All NBA
- 8x 2nd team All NBA
- 12x All Star

Totally the same. LMAO. This is almost as dumb of a take as Skip Layless saying Johnny Manziel will light up Cleveland more than Lebron James ever did, and its kind of fun to have you on the ropes and mock it.. and it deserves to be mocked especially with how chesty you came in here. And then you offer up this gem? Wow

It was objectively spread thin for the reasons I stated. Kareem just wasn't better than MJ.

First off the Bulls did not "almost make the Finals", they were beaten in the second round. Second off, if they were actually nearly as good, they would have won the title that year. But Pippen showed his true colors by disappearing in every 4th quarter of that series. Pippen got 17 PPG in that series from both Grant and BJ, which is more production than what MJ got from Pippen and Grant against the Knicks in the '92 series. As 1995 would prove, 1994 was a fluke. Lastly, the Bulls were 20-44 when Jordan was out with the foot injury in '86 and he was on a minutes restriction when he came back. Also, if regular season records in absentia are so important to you, why don't I see you making a David Robinson>Michael Jordan argument?

And like I said, if you're going to discredit any of his rings because of expansion, then you must also discredit 1994 for the same reason because those expansion teams didn't go away that season. But I can see you're not intellectually honest.

Mutombo was a double digit scorer his first 11 seasons while playing on much slower-paced teams than those Russell played on. He'd have far more scoring, rebounding and block opportunities in that era. If Russell can bother Wilt on defense while being 6'9, then another 7-footer most certainly will. Passing is about the only thing Russell is clearly better at.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

Another point I'd like to address is the "no winning season until 4th year" as well as 1994.

It took until 1990, Jordan's sixth season, for the Bulls to have a winning record when he didn't score at least 30 points. The supporting cast was particularly awful in 1986-87: the Bulls were 37-30 when Jordan scored 30+, 3-12 when he scored anything less than that. It's also silly to hold his second season against him when he hardly played due to injury and was on a minutes restriction when he returned late in the season.

For all the claims about LeBron having "bums" as teammates his first Cleveland stint, Jordan's were actually worse in his early years. And for all the narratives about Bron dragging "bums" to the NBA Finals in 2007, the Cavs were 27-18 when he scored less than 30.

As for 1994, the Bulls were 20-44 when Jordan was out with the broken foot in '86.

You come in here type some long ass paragraph and act as if scoring is the only metric to driving a team.

 

[tlance]

Because it didn't exist. You have to keep things in context.

Back then, the best basketball players available played on less teams. They had minimal training compared to today's acquired knowledge, zero plyometric training, minimal strategy compared to today, no nutritional push, minimal injury/body maintainance.... so you can't just compare them straight up to today's players who have all that.

It's like comparing the 1940 powerlifting champ to the 2025 powerlifting champ. The 2025 will lift far more, but also has tons of advantages. The guy from 1940 might have been more dominant, thus, more impressive.

No.

It is a big fish in a small pond thing.

The competition that Bill Russell played against was not good compared to modern eras.

The pond was relatively tiny because the NBA was not a destination job. There is comparison to what the league is today.

And Russell wasn’t even the biggest fish in the pond. He just happened to play on a team that stacked up more big fish than anyone else.

 

[Wamu]

(1)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.

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

(3)Yes, do you?

(4)Except I never did that.

(5)I'd read posts more carefully before you reply.

1- Don't tell me to look at Russell's rebounds, I'm a Celtics fan. I know all about him. I'm trying to tell you, but you don't wanna hear it, because of his ppg average + his career FG% he's not in the GOAT conversation. But I'll tell what he is. A legend and the most important player on the leagues best dynasty of all time. Without him the Celtics don't win all those titles.

2. You gotta take into consideration the size of the league when he played.

3. Been following the NBA since the early 80's. When did you start, this century?

4. Well seeing as how I was asking a question and not making a statement maybe you didn't really understand what I asked.

5. Says the fella that thought I was making a statement when I was asking you a question. Which by the way you didn't answer. That's okay, it was sarcastic anyway.

And your reading comprehension is lousy. Here's a reminder.

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.

Rings don't always tell the full story of a players career.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Now pay attention. I clearly said see how absurd of a question that is. I never accused you of saying anything. Reading comprehension, figure it out.