Jordan played like crap

Clearly, Jordan is/was a great player. One of the best to lace them up. But THE greatest player EVER??
Nah.

It could be argued that he's the best SG ever, but he even has competition there. He may be tops in the charisma department, however. And in marketing himself for vast sums of money.

I admire him for playing because he wants to, and not for the money or to prove anything to anyone. But this year he has and will play like crap on occasion. That's OK by me. He's earned the right to go out on whatever terms he can manage.

If I were picking a team of players in their prime in fantasyland Jordan would be my SG, Magic the point, Bird at SF, Hakeem at PF, and Wilt at center. Yup, sounds good.

 

I think Jordan is the best player ever because of the combination of basketball skills, dominance, and athleticism, and team success. Chamberlain didn't have quite the same amount of basketball skills or team success that Jordan had, while he may have been more dominant.. Russell didn't have (anywhere close) to the overall basketball skills that Jordan had...I don't even think Russell as the best player ever is even a discussion. To me, what Jordan did as a guard is mind boggling.

But just like every other sport, the best player ever is debatable.

 

DCkid and I will agree to disagree on this one... I don't feel like ranting right now, and I'd never win anyway .

 

Fichte, for a moment, I thought you were the philosopher that bore the same name.

 

For whatever it's worth, here's a news about Jordan wanting a bigger role.

Jordan ready to play more if team doesn't improve
Nov. 25, 2002
SportsLine.com wire reports




WASHINGTON -- Frustrated by a three-game losing streak, Michael Jordan sounds ready to increase his playing time.
Jordan said Monday he isn't necessarily lobbying to start, but he said his minutes should no longer be limited by concerns over his knees, especially if it means keeping the Washington Wizards out of the playoffs.

"I'm not concerned about that right now," Jordan said when asked about the current plan to limit his minutes to save his knees. "I know they are. Doctors are supposed to be very conservative, especially with a guy who's about to turn 40.

"But I may not make 41. Who knows? I'd rather live in the moment. I'm a guy who lives for now. You can save all you want, but if you don't get to where you want to go ... By the time you get there I may be healthy, but I may be playing golf in April or May, and that's not fun for me.

"If I feel good -- which I do feel -- I'd rather get on the court and play."

Jordan was elaborating on his comments after Saturday night's loss at Memphis, the Grizzlies' first victory of the season. At the time, Jordan said he might start playing more "if some of these young kids don't start to play up to their capabilities."

Asked Monday who the young kids are, Jordan said: "Everybody."

"If they don't play well, and we're not winning, then obviously we've got to go to an area where you can count on," Jordan said. "I'd like to think hopefully you can count on me."

Jordan's knees gave out from wear and tear last season, prompting coach Doug Collins to use Jordan off the bench for what is expected to be the superstar's final NBA season. The goal has been to give Jordan about 30 minutes per game. He played 32 against the Grizzlies, two short of his season-high, and is averaging 28.

Collins has been using a rotation that keeps either Jordan or Jerry Stackhouse -- the team's only two consistent scoring threats -- on the floor at all times. Jordan also plays most of the fourth quarter, especially when the game is on the line.

Jordan is averaging 15.7 points per game, second to Stackhouse.

Asked if he wanted to start, Jordan said: "Not starting, per se."

"I'd rather feel, from a strategy standpoint, I'd still like to come off the bench and force teams to match up to us," he added. "But if that's something Doug wants to tinker with, then he definitely has an option to do that. If he wants to put me in the starting lineup, believe me, I'll be ready."

Collins said he has no plans to start Jordan, but that the minutes could go up. The coach said he wants to avoid "heavy minutes," when Jordan is asked to carry the entire team for most of the game.

"All the eyes are on me about the minutes, but I also have to trust him, too, because it's his body," Collins said.

The Wizards (6-7) host Indiana on Tuesday, the first game in a tough five-game stretch. By early December, the Wizards might have a new Jordan plan.

"If we're winning, and other guys are playing well, I'll be over here cheering and wishing everybody the best," Jordan said. "But obviously we haven't been winning. Something has to be done."

http://www.sportsline.com/nba/story/5928833

 

Yeah, I've heard it all before. If it makes you feel any better you did convince me that Chamberlain is the best center of all time. However, I'm still not convinced that Bill Russell is a better basketball player than Dream, but I don't want to bring that up again.

As far as Jordan, I think our definition of basketball skills just might differ. When I talk about skills I'm referring to more of the finesse aspects of the game. So, it's hard for me to ever say a center has more basketball skills than a guard such as Michael Jordan.

And of course, the evolution of the game plays a part in it too, as the game evolved and changed new skills were created.

 

Actually, I don't remember ever saying that Russell was better than Hakeem. If I did, I don't think so now. Russell was the best player on a team of very good players, he probably had the best defensive ability of any big man ever, and he worked extraordinarily well in a team concept, something that some superstars can't say. Better than Dream, though? Not necessarily.

In terms of the "skills"... I understand where you're coming from, but Wilt had an incredible amount of finesse for a man his size, for any man. As I've said before, he played PG for the Globetrotters (think of the skills required there), and his is the only # that they've ever retired. You say that Jordan dominated as a guard, which, admittedly, is tougher to do than dominate as a big man... but Wilt led the league in freakin' assists, the only non-guard ever to do that. His mid-range jumper was as good as any.

Your argument is perfectly reasonable and acceptable, but I think Wilt's abilities and accomplishments were the greater of the two.

 

For me personally, the feelings and statements by former players and coaches weigh quite heavily. When you have guys like Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Charles Barkley, etc. etc. among the plethora of others, all saying that Jordan's the greatest ever, you just can't dismiss it, especially considering the quality of these sources. Is Wilt a valid choice for greatest player ever? without a doubt, yes. He has a good amount of notable backers as well. There shouldn't be any question to whose the most dominant, it's Wilt by a mile. But for Jordan's Bulls to win six championships in the last six full years he played without a dominant low post presence is amazing. Especially considering the wealth of outstanding centers in his era: Olajuwon, O'Neal, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning, etc. Sure, they had Rodman (don't get me wrong, he was an integral piece to the last three championships) who was a terrific post defender and rebounder, but he was only 6'8" and had no offense whatsoever; I wouldn't call him "dominant". People talk about "hype" or whatever, but you have to have a player great enough to earn the amount of "hype" that Jordan had. They don't just place that type of "hype" on any player. Just like Tiger Woods in the past few years; he earned the "hype", with his amazing accomplishments.

 

Jordan is the greatest player of his generation.
everyone agrees?

 

I don't know who is the best ever, but I am more inclined to Jordan. The lack of conlusion is because of being unable to watch enough old games to comment.

Basketball is a team sport. It's the man who elevates the whole team and makes average players overachieve that deserve to be called a great player. Among them the one who milks the most out of their teammates should be the greatest ever - the milkman master .

The rings are also more important than stats. Stats can be misleading and rings can't.

Jordan had comparatively little talent to win the rings. Unlike Wilt and Russel, who had hall of famers as their teammates to win the rings. Jordan had one over achieving complimentary player Scottie Pippen on his side, who despite had amazing all around game, couldn't create his own shot to save his life in the later part of his career. Jordan had made all his teammates felt like warriors and perform above their heads. Under such difficulty he has won 6 championships. Jordan is the puppet master, the ultimate milkman. Cheesy, but true.

BTW, Wilt was a great player and a physical freak, but he faced watered down competition in his era. The big men were smaller, less atheletic and not as powerful. The defense wasn't as good as the late eras. He didnt' have to go through Shaq to score 100 points that's for sure. So an asterisk is needed to put beside his dominance.

Also, Bill Russel would've been crushed by the likes of Shaq if he played now.

 

Just felt like sprinkling my two cents around in a "stream of consciousness" way. A few debates on the question who is the legitimate G.O.A.T. over the years fleshed out my line of thinking, so i have the scars to fall back on.

FWIW, Fichte's a real obscure mother, though... and seems to be frankly indefensible these days.

~Radical Subjectivity~

 

Actually, rings can be VERY misleading. It's called competition. Jordan had to play the likes of the Blazers, who had ONE really good player, an aging Lakers team, and the Jazz, who had three white guys in the starting lineup in the 90s. I mean, come on. Stock, Karla, Horny, Russell, and OSTERTAG!? Shanderson was their top guy off the bench! That is NOT a championship team. Wilt might have had MORE rings than Jordan if he didn't have to play the greatest team ever every year, the Celtics. Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, Ed Macauley, Frank Ramsey, Sam Jones, K.C. Jones... and other players like Clyde Lovellette and Gene Conley who were or could have been stars on other teams before the Celtics got them, where they were relegated to the end of the bench. It doesn't matter how good Wilt was, NO ONE could beat that team. Wilt DID NOT have a plethora of HOFers at his side all the time, and he couldn't do it alone. Even so, Wilt came very close a few times, and that's a testament to how good he was. Jordan won so many rings because the competition in the 90s is so watered down, not the other way around.
Bill Russell would have been crushed? Maybe, but the Celtics team would likely crush the rest of the Lakers (or any other modern team).

 

i cant believe this thread is still here

 

It seems that the conclusion is that people continually confuse statements of taste and opinion as propositions of facts, or statements to be found in objective data.

In other words, whether Michael Jordan is the best player ever is not a matter of fact, but that of opinion, and relies on taste.

If you like high flying aerobatics, killer jump shots allover the floor, wicked ball handling, then more than likely you'll gravitate towards Michael. However, if you choose statistics, certain phases of the game such as scoring, rebounding, blocking shots, dominating the opponent from a physical standpoint, then Wilt is your man. It all boils down to the criterion of taste one already brings to the table, before these discussions ever get started.

Incidentally, after this season it's likely Michael Jordan's point per game average will help his career scoring average drop a few notches, and perhaps he will fall behind the Stilt's career average.

~Rad Subjectivity~

 

There you go: what I've been trying to get across all along.

 

Allright I'll answer your questions in the order they appear:

1. If you derive from my posts that Michael Jordan's stats are not phenomenal, then you have not understood any of them in the slightest. I have already stated that in my previous post that he has the highest career scoring average, for the time being.

2. Yes, Jordan stole the ball a lot. This fact still does not factor whether he was the G. O. A. T. A player who steals a lot is often considered as a gambler- someone who misses on a lot of other passes. This never shows up in the boxscores. Statistics are not necessarily the be-all and the end-all. This book helps expand my point.

3. I would consider him a great defender, who won the award once. However this doesn't mean that MJ is the G.O.A.T. necessarily, given that there are other players who also won this award, and that this award was not created at the inception of the NBA. So, this award is biased toward modern players and should not deserve much further weight in these discussions.

4. I am in no way contesting that a player should impress you more than MJ. However, i am trying to tell you that it is you who already brought several criterion to the table in assessing who is the best. So in order to have a truly fruitful discussion we have to look at the criteria we employ to evaluate the G. O. A. T. Therefore, you have to look at your own means of evaluation, how you arrive at who is the best, not at the conclusions themselves and try to drown out dissenters by shouting opinions as facts.

I hope this is adequate.
~Radical Subjectivity~

 

Since our friend the Son of Israel hasn't directly addressed this point, it bears repeating once more!

~Radical Subjectivity~

 

And you'll notice that this entire discussion has looped all the way back around to the second post in this thread (there's your conclusion, Israel's Son). Ain't it great?