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

[Mr. Friscus]

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.

I gave pointed facts, ones you are avoiding because it's inconvenient to your narrative. If you want to be taken seriously, I'd address those.

Meanwhile, You gave no specifics. How is he more accomplished and decorated? That's vague claims that don't mean anything. Also, playing at the highest of elite levels for longer means the player had a better career. MJ quit twice. That killer instinct really wasn't that killer, and it's held against him.

 

[Albuquerque Rams]

I gave pointed facts, ones you are avoiding because it's inconvenient to your narrative. If you want to be taken seriously, I'd address those.

Meanwhile, You gave no specifics. How is he more accomplished and decorated? That's vague claims that don't mean anything. Also, playing at the highest of elite levels for longer means the player had a better career. MJ quit twice. That killer instinct really wasn't that killer, and it's held against him.

So MJ quit twice yet still has more MVPs, rings, Finals MVPs, and all-defense selections. All LeBron has are empty cumulative stats.

It's hilarious you believe calling MJ a quitter somehow helps LeBron's case. It doesn't. Because it means LeBron has accomplished less in far more time than a so-called quitter. That's like calling someone stupid only to score lower than that person on every test time and again.

That's the extent to which I'm going to dignify your argument. I could actually go a lot deeper if I wanted to but you aren't worth the time and effort. The truth is this was always a manufactured debate.

Again, when your GOAT case depends so much on narratives and excuses, you don't have a case. End of story.

 

[tlance]

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.

... 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.

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?

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.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

So MJ quit twice yet still has more MVPs, rings, Finals MVPs, and all-defense selections. All LeBron has are empty cumulative stats.

Bill Russell has the same MVP's and 5 more rings, and if they had DPOY and All-Defense back when Russell played would have many more of those than MJ.

Let me guess.. suddenly your goal posts/standards will change, and you'll get "excuses".

Well, let's here em. What are your excuses for MJ, because he doesn't measure up to Russell in the accolades you mentioned.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

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.

It was the beginning of the mainstreaming of the sport, and everyone was on the same playing field.

Are you going to discredit all of the 80's and 90's teams because they didn't have to deal with the influx of elite european talent that is in the NBA recently and today (Luka, Jokic, Giannis, Dirk, Tony Parker, Ginobli, etc.)

 

[trojanfan12]

Says who?

Anyone who has ever seen Wilt Chamberlain play.

 

[Albuquerque Rams]

Bill Russell has the same MVP's and 5 more rings, and if they had DPOY and All-Defense back when Russell played would have many more of those than MJ.

Let me guess.. suddenly your goal posts/standards will change, and you'll get "excuses".

Well, let's here em. What are your excuses for MJ, because he doesn't measure up to Russell in the accolades you mentioned.

Nearly all of Russell's titles came when there were only two rounds of playoffs. Once they were expanded beyond that, nobody ever won more than three in a row.

Also as another poster pointed out, they basically just gave the MVP to the most high profile player on the team with the best record in those days.

And again, he was too one dimensional.

Nice try.

 

[trojanfan12]

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

Who said that?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Nearly all of Russell's titles came when there were only two rounds of playoffs. Once they were expanded beyond that, nobody ever won more than three in a row.

And I can say that the Bulls Championships came when the league was watered down with 30 teams and in the weakest decade in the past 45 years.

It was harder for teams back then to win back to back to back because all the teams were loaded with the best available talent. You thought less teams made it easier, but you played yourself.

Also as another poster pointed out, they basically just gave the MVP to the most high profile player on the team with the best record in those days.

And I replied that there were many instances where that wasn't true, and also that while that's somewhat common, it happens all the time today as well. So.. there's no difference or point there.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Anyone who has ever seen Wilt Chamberlain play.

I could make the case for Wilt as the GOAT for sure.

 

[trojanfan12]

So, if not MJ, who?

Basically, there are 3 in the GOAT convo...MJ, Kareem and Lebron. They are interchangeable as a strong case can be made for any of the 3. You can pick any of the 3 and not be wrong.

People who try to claim that there is only 1 undisputed GOAT or that one is significantly better than the other 2 can't be taken seriously and should be mocked.

 

[tlance]

It was the beginning of the mainstreaming of the sport, and everyone was on the same playing field.

Are you going to discredit all of the 80's and 90's teams because they didn't have to deal with the influx of elite european talent that is in the NBA recently and today (Luka, Jokic, Giannis, Dirk, Tony Parker, Ginobli, etc.)

Compared to today?

A little bit sure.

But nearly to the extent of what it was before the sport was mainstream.

Kids today grow up with the dream of being an NBA player. That wasn’t true with Russell generation players.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Compared to today?

A little bit sure.

But nearly to the extent of what it was before the sport was mainstream.

Kids today grow up with the dream of being an NBA player. That wasn’t true with Russell generation players.

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.

 

[trojanfan12]

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.

Back then, many players, even star players, had regular jobs in the off-season. If memory serves, in Wilt's early days in the league he worked as a bellhop at a resort in the summer (Catskills, I think).

 

[Albuquerque Rams]

And I can say that the Bulls Championships came when the league was watered down with 30 teams and in the weakest decade in the past 45 years.

It was harder for teams back then to win back to back to back because all the teams were loaded with the best available talent. You thought less teams made it easier, but you played yourself.

And I replied that there were many instances where that wasn't true, and also that while that's somewhat common, it happens all the time today as well. So.. you made no point.

Except there's no credible claim to the league being "watered down". There was also a lot of expansion in the late 60s to early 70s yet nobody during that span repeated.

If anything it's harder to repeat when you have to win more playoff games in order to do so. The longer your season, the more spent you are.

It was more common to just give the MVP to the most high profile player on the best record in those days. And again, Russell was too one-dimensional. You could replace Russell with Mutombo on those teams and nothing changes.

In the end, none of this matters. The fact is LeBron is less accomplished and less decorated than MJ despite playing far longer. All he has is empty cumulative stats in his favor. You can make all the excuses and narratives in the world, LeBron is forever in MJ's shadow.

 

[trojanfan12]

I could make the case for Wilt as the GOAT for sure.

Doesn't have the rings.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Except there's no credible claim to the league being "watered down".

I guess it's implied. When you go to 30 teams and add multiple new teams that have crappy rosters.. it's easier to gain wins, and talent is more spread around the league.

If anything it's harder to repeat when you have to win more playoff games in order to do so. The longer your season, the more spent you are.

You're making this up on the fly, as you're doing with all of your points. I get what you're saying, but all teams would be under the same issue, it's not just the bulls who would be more spent. Meanwhile, repeats and 3 peats became somewhat normal starting in the late 80's with the Pistons. So it's not like the Bulls were in a vaccuum.

It was more common to just give the MVP to the most high profile player on the best record in those days.

And is still so today. Again, I showed it didn't always happen back then, and we know much of the time the MVP is from the best team in today's game or recent game. I don't think you actually know what you're claiming, you're just guessing it's correct.

And again, Russell was too one-dimensional. You could replace Russell with Mutombo on those teams and nothing changes.

LMAO. I don't get it, you're that caught up on MJ that you'll equate a 5 time MVP from one era to a bottom-level all-star on another. Dude, get a grip.

In the end, none of this matters. The fact is LeBron is less accomplished and less decorated than MJ despite playing far longer. All he has is empty cumulative stats in his favor. You can make all the excuses and narratives in the world, LeBron is forever in MJ's shadow.

You're welcome to that opinion.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Doesn't have the rings.

Well, then neither does MJ.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Back then, many players, even star players, had regular jobs in the off-season. If memory serves, in Wilt's early days in the league he worked as a bellhop at a resort in the summer (Catskills, I think).

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

 

[Albuquerque Rams]

I guess it's implied. When you go to 30 teams and add multiple new teams that have crappy rosters.. it's easier to gain wins, and talent is more spread around the league.

You're making this up on the fly, as you're doing with all of your points. I get what you're saying, but all teams would be under the same issue, it's not just the bulls who would be more spent. Meanwhile, repeats and 3 peats became somewhat normal starting in the late 80's with the Pistons. So it's not like the Bulls were in a vaccuum.

And is still so today. Again, I showed it didn't always happen back then, and we know much of the time the MVP is from the best team in today's game or recent game. I don't think you actually know what you're claiming, you're just guessing it's correct.

LMAO. I don't get it, you're that caught up on MJ that you'll equate a 5 time MVP from one era to a bottom-level all-star on another. Dude, get a grip.

You're welcome to that opinion.

The NBA expanded more from '66-'74 than it did from '89-'95, doubling the number of teams from 9 to 18. More significantly, it expanded at a time when a rival league existed and half of the best players in the world were playing in that rival league. If anything the talent was spread far thinner back then. Yet the best player of that era could only manage a single championship against a 42-win team during that stretch.

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.

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.

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

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.