You can't say stuff like: and then when someone shows a clip stating something different you say "Oh they're just cherry picking highlights." Even if they were cherry picking highlights it still makes what you said false. The fact of the matter is that whether it be "for his era" or "for any era" he was still very dominant and that can't/shouldn't be ignored.
great players make big shots in big games in big moments... http://chasing23.com/michael-jordan-game-winning-shots/ Jordan, in the playoffs, when game is on the line, hit 50% of those... the next person behind him? Kobe at 28%. I am not saying that is the "tell all" stat, but it provides some pretty good evidence.
Yeah actually I can say that . A video specifically designed to showcase the rare occasions in which it resembled the modern game should NOT be used to infer that play overall (esp. from the early60s of which there is very little footage in that clip) resembled that. Rather if you actually watch a Wilt or Oscar or Pettit clip from the early 60s, that's NOT specifically designed show either athleticism or lack thereof, there's an awful lot of small slow white guys barely contesting shots. Trust me if you want to see crappy defense, build a time machine and watch any game in 1962. No cherry picking needed.
I agree with you that overall the defense and athleticism of that time is not even close to what we have now, I'm just saying that you can't say that there was NO defense and NO above the rim play. Even if it is "cherry picking highlights" it still proves your statement incorrect.
The only guys in the early 60s that played like that were the Wilts and Russells and Baylors that are in the clip. The problem is that the Darrel Imhoffs and Dolph Schayes did not.
Because people believe hype. People today still think the Rockets have yet to win a championship with Jordan in the league. You can't argue with them, all you can do is nod and smile...
Just watch footage of some of his regular season games. Pick any random 3-4 games and Jordan will still have you in awe. He was that good.
There is no hype... There's results and what's already happened now. All the information you need to see about Jordan has already happened. The Rockets thing isn't as big as you think, some uneducated homers may say that but that shouldn't be used against why people think Jordan is the GOAT.
It's not like Russell was playing in the minor leagues. For his day, he was up against the very best competition there was. The best a basketball player can ever do is beat the other team that he's up against. No one in NBA history has done so as remarkably consistently well as Bill Russell. One can make the argument that Russell was one of the all time greatest basketball players while still conceding that he's not the best athlete to ever play the game. John Wooden once said basketball is only secondarily a game of size, speed and strength. It is primarily a game of skill, timing, and positioning. We can speculate that the players of that era wouldn't be special today, but we don't know. Given the same access to modern knowledge of diet, training, and coaching, the basketball ability that made Russell a legend in his day may well have made him a legend in any other era, for all we know. There's no way to know how a player from the post would fare today. You can say we never saw Russell play against any of the centers of today, and so Russell has never proved he could stop them. By the same token we can argue that we never saw any of the centers of today try to score on Russell, so it has still never been shown that he could ever be overmatched.
Who's better? Hank Aaron or Barry Bonds? Johnny Unitas or Joe Montana? Jesse Owens or Carl Lewis? Mark Spitz or Michael Phelps? John Rockefeller or Bill Gates? Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein? It's really silly to compare ancient genius with modern genius. If you gave the AK47 to the South, the Civil War would have turned out differently. So what?
The statement that "there was no above the rim play" is not true if there is a video showing otherwise.
Clever. You're just picking random metrics to make Jordan look bad. But I agree that he's not the best ever.
What's so clever about it? First off I didn't pick random metrics, I picked the stats that most people like to use to point out how great a player is, MVP's, PPG, Championships, and Winning Percentage. 2nd you DON'T agree with me, I said he was/is the best. Obviously you didn't read the entire post...
Oops you're right. I misread your post. So you're making a case for MJ being the greatest with the metrics most people like to use. So, why do you still feel the need to ask?
Prim, Here is the main reason why Jordan is the greatest. I will use Kobe Bryant as a barometer, as he is currently the most decorated player of this era. This will allow those who were not around to see Jordan's career to understand the reason he is considered the best. Kobe is most like Jordan as he wants to win more than anyone in the league. Kobe has the greatest desire to win of his era. Lebron still needs to win a few more rings to be in the same conversation. Now, what set Jordan apart was his even greater desire to crush his opponents soul. Kobe is satisfied to just win, but Jordan wanted destroy you. It was this trait of Jordan's that lead to so many dramatic wins in games that counted.
Earlier in his career, Kobe's narcissism and obsession with his legacy and numbers outweighed his obsession with winning. I don't think he was in Jordan's league in terms of having that pathological, borderline-unhealthy desire to win (in ANYTHING) at any and all cost. In fact, I'm not sure ANYONE has ever been in Jordan's league when it came to that, though you could make a case for Bird, and probably Magic late in his career. There wasn't enough media coverage back then to really make a definitive case for Russell.
Kobe was Scottie Pippen to Shaq's Jordan for his first THREE championships. Jordan was always the best player on his team for all SIX. Kobe isn't even close. Equally as laughable as comparing Lebron to Jordan now. But Lebron has a lot of career left to change that. Kobe...not so much. If the Lakers win another one with Dwight then Kobe will be Scottie once again :grin:
I'm not asking in a sense of "Who would ever consider MJ the greatest" I'm more or less just wondering what makes us consider him the best. I think a lot of people have made great points as to how he's the best, and that's exactly what I was trying to ask: What is the stat/trait/reason that sets someone apart from being great vs. someone who is considered the G.O.A.T.
