Is Jordan the best ever?

[big daddy russ]

That other thread made me realize how many people think he's the best ever. I want to know why you think that. Give me facts.

[NHSRattler60]

Space Jam.

Nuff Said.

[pirate44]

in my opinion its difficult to pick a greatest of all time. the game and its rules, and the way it's called by the refs have changed over the years. there are a few players that could rightfully be given that crown. but saying Michael Jordan is the greatest is a VERY safe choice.

[vet93]

1. Overall Point Production and contribution to the team
2. Leadership
3. Ability to play well in big games
4. Ability to take the last shot and make it count
5. Championships
6. Personal charisma

[hata_hurta06]

Thats easy...HECK YEA HE IS!!!!

[TMer25]

I'd have to go with Bill Russell first, and then Jordan.

[raider red 2000]

many young people will say jordan. we have seen him play.

we have onl seen tapes or highlight sof the past greats....and we hear stories of the feats that they accomplished.

i think that Duncan will go down as a great also. he isnt as popular as a Jordan, Kobe, or LaBron but he gets the job done.

I am not as big of a THump Thump fan as many of yall, but watching Duncan's fundamentals is awesome. I wish more young people wanted to learn his game than trying to learn from those And 1 videos.

[Maroon87]

When it came to taking the last shot to win a game...and making it...there was no one better than 23. Only one even close is Larry Bird.

[Adidas410s]

Originally posted by NHSRattler60
Space Jam.

Nuff Said.

i agree...

[DUKE22]

I would say Jordan is the best, i think he has earned the right to be called the best. However if I was picking a team I think Magic would be my first pick. Well after one the famous big men of course. Magic could play any one of five spots, he could score, he could defend, he could pass. He won five rings in a much tougher decade to play in than Jordan did.

[Hupernikomen]

I think when you decide who is the best ever you have to compare how dominate he was in his era versus everyone else in their era.

For example, Babe Ruth is hands down the best ever baseball player when you use this criteria. IMO of course.

I would say Jordan was pretty dern dominate, but so was Chamberlain, Russell and Kareem.

[injuredinmelee]

I didnt think this was even an argument even more. Jordan established himself as a greatest ever by production, championships, and clutch shots. ALl that and he was a prime classy example off the floor and away from the game. He too this day is still the classiest man to ever represent the NBA. Jordan being 6'6" and still able to dominate a game and the league is what made him better than Wilt and all the others. A athletic big man can dominate because he was blessed with size. Jordan did it being average size for an NBA player.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by injuredinmelee
I didnt think this was even an argument even more. Jordan established himself as a greatest ever by production, championships, and clutch shots... A athletic big man can dominate because he was blessed with size. Jordan did it being average size for an NBA player.
The whole reason he's considered the greatest is because a couple of sports writers pondered the question after he retired the first time (back in '94). It was hotly debated, but he was never actually given the crown until he came back. When he came back for his second go-round and won three more titles, that's when all the sportswriters started crowning Jordan the greatest.

The reason it's not an argument is because most of the old school players just don't say anything anymore. Dr. J and Bill Cousy called him the greatest of his generation, but stopped short of crowning him the greatest ever. And George Mikan said "he's certainly up there somewhere," but said he doesn't know if he'd put him at the top.

The size argument's a slippery slope. Are we arguing about the best player inch-for-inch or are we asking about the greatest player ever?

Food for thought.

[Macarthur]

My personal vote would be for Jordan. I think the only other one that could be in the discussion is Wilt.

[District303aPastPlayer]

Bill Russell.

[TMer25]

Russell won 11 championships in 13 seasons. Isn't that the most important thing?

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by TMer25
Russell won 11 championships in 13 seasons. Isn't that the most important thing?

No, not really when you are talking about the best every. It's important, but not the only thing.

[District303aPastPlayer]

Originally posted by Macarthur
No, not really when you are talking about the best every. It's important, but not the only thing.

how do you top 11 in 13? Seriously.

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by District303aPastPlayer
how do you top 11 in 13? Seriously.
13 in 11

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by TMer25
Russell won 11 championships in 13 seasons. Isn't that the most important thing?
That, and he dominated the "most dominant" player ever head to head.

Here's Russell's argurments:

1. Bob Cousy, K.C. Jones, Jerry West, and Bob Pettit said that you can't measure Russell's value by his stats alone.

It's true.

Russell never averaged more than 20 ppg in an era when guys like Wilt averaged 50, yet he's still mentioned in the same breath as Wilt and Jordan (the other two guys you routinely hear in this argument).

2. Russell's legacy is tarnished by his lack of All-NBA First Team selections.

Sounds silly, right?

Russell only made the team three times, but he has five MVP awards.

Why?

Because the All-NBA has always been more of a statistical award, whereas the MVP award is the award given to the actual Most Valuable player.

One more thing to think about: the years that Wilt averaged 50 ppg (1962) and 44 ppg (1963), Russell won the MVP award. That's significant because no other player in the NBA or the ABA has ever averaged more than 37.09 ppg. Even during Wilt's two best years Russell was the MVP.


3. If you want to get into the size argument, Bill Russell was only three inches taller than Jordan but has almost twice as many titles.


4. Everyone talks about how Jordan controlled the game, but all the oldies compare him to Russell in this aspect of the game. They still haven't given him the nod over Russell when it comes to forcing your will over the other players.


5. Another thing to consider, Russell's greatest contribution to the game was help defense. He could guard three guys in an era long before Bob Holzmann started coaching centers to defend both their man and the rim. The first time Cousy stepped on the court with Russell he was amazed at the way Russell played the game. Russell would be at the top of the key on his man's hip then explode down the lane and block the shot of a penetrating guard. Nobody had ever done that before, and because of Russell's defense, their opponents' best guards/forwards would be double teamed the entire game while Russell handled the lesser offensive threats.

BTW, you'll never see a Russell statline with blocks because they didn't start taking record until three years after he retired, but it would be safe to say that he probably led the NBA in that stat through most of his 13 seasons.

6. One, final argument for Russell. Wilt took the Lakers to the Championship against the Knicks in 1970. The Knicks got out to a 3-2 lead when star C Willis Reed (that year's All-Star MVP, League MVP, and Finals MVP) went down with a thigh injury. LA demolished the Knicks in game 6 to even the series up at three a piece.

Game 7 was supposed to be a joke. Wilt and LA was supposed to dominate NY and everyone but Willis, but Reed limped onto the court and lifted his team. He somehow outjumped Wilt for the opening tip, then scored the Knicks' first four points before being shelved.

When Russell was asked about it after the game, he said something to the effect of "If (Reed's) going to limp onto my court he's going to be carried off." That's killer instinct.



I think you know who I think is the greatest player ever. I've just never heard a Jordan argument that I buy. The only two things that Jordan has on Russell are 1.) stats and 2.) the fact that he's three inches shorter. He didn't dominate the way Russell did, he didn't impose his will on the other team the way Russell did, and Russell hit just as many clutch shots as Jordan, they're just not aired on Sportscenter every 30 minutes.

On that note, I think Pirate 44 hit the nail on the head when he talked about the way the game has changed and that it's always subjective, but until someone gives me a believable Jordan argument I'm just going to chock that argument up to a bunch of biased sportswriters and players who couldn't beat Jordan. Because the ones who couldn't beat Russell still argue that he's the guy.

[raider red 2000]

now vote for BILL :)

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by big daddy russ


I think you know who I think is the greatest player ever. I've just never heard a Jordan argument that I buy. The only two things that Jordan has on Russell are 1.) stats and 2.) the fact that he's three inches shorter. He didn't dominate the way Russell did, he didn't impose his will on the other team the way Russell did, and Russell hit just as many clutch shots as Jordan, they're just not aired on Sportscenter every 30 minutes.


You can make a valid argument for Russell, but your above statement shows that you have no objectivity. Jordan did dominate and did impose his will on opposing teams, time and time again. If that's the argument you have against Jordan, that's pretty weak.

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by District303aPastPlayer
how do you top 11 in 13? Seriously.

Because I don't think winning championships is the ONLY thing to consider.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Macarthur
You can make a valid argument for Russell, but your above statement shows that you have no objectivity.
If you ever took or take journalism classes, one of the first things they'll teach you is that the media determines public opinion more than any other factor outside of one's family. If anything, as a former member of the media I try to take all subjectivity out of my arguments and look at the body of work as a whole. The media is where the "Jordan is the greatest" argument started and picked up steam (along with the comments from all the newer players).

Russell never had that exposure, as the NBA was never really popular and didn't get much TV exposure until the mid-80's. Hell, it almost folded in the late 70's/early 80's. That's why you always hear that Magic and Bird saved the league... because they did for the NBA what Red Grange did for the NFL. Jordan was just the first "greatest" candidate to come along after the NBA latched on with CBS.

Back to the whole argument about objectivity, this:

Originally posted by big daddy russ
I think you know who I think is the greatest player ever.

would make my argument every bit as subjective as this:

Originally posted by Macarthur
I think you know who I think is the greatest player ever. .

I said that I believe Russell is the best player ever for these reasons. You could apply that same statement towards your opinion of Jordan.

The use of the words "think" or "believe" do not take the objectivity out of an opinion. If anything, my opinion is more objective than 90% of everyone out there. Russell is not my favorite player and the Celtics are anything but my favorite team. I just happen to believe he's the best.



Originally posted by Macarthur
Jordan did dominate and did impose his will on opposing teams, time and time again. If that's the argument you have against Jordan, that's pretty weak.
You misunderstood my argument. Jordan could and did impose his will on other teams. He just didn't do it as well or as often as Russell. That's where the 11 championships vs. 6 come in. That's why he only missed the championship series once in a 13-year career... and it took a team with Wilt Chamberlain, Hal Greer, Chet Walker and Billy Cunningham to knock off an aging, injured Russell.

Another thing, Jordan developed his game to where he was as good as Russell. Russell never had to develop his game to be that good. He was that good all 13 years of his career.

[big daddy russ]

Mac, one more thing. I completely understand your opinion that Jordan is the greatest ever. It's not a bad opinion to have because it's what the vast majority of people everywhere believe. I just choose not to unless someone can prove it to me... which is a longshot because I'm hardheaded. :D

My top 10 (in order) are:
1. Russell
2. Jordan
3. Wilt (was just unlucky... played in the same era as Russell. If he played for, oh, let's say the Warriors for the past few years, I don't know if the Lakers or Spurs would have any titles.
4. George Mikan
5a. Magic Johnson
5b. Larry Bird
5c. Oscar Robertson
8. Hakeem Olajuwon
9. Shaq
10. *Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

...Kobe and LeBron should pass up Hakeem before it's all said and done. Timmy D should pass up *Kareem.

*EDIT: Forgot all about Lew, so had to put him there in place of Dr. J. But Erving, Bob Cousy, and several others are nipping on his heels.

[raider red 2000]

BD Russ- earlier you said that media plays a big role in perception.

do you that if Tim Duncan tries to be a rapper or had more tats would he be higher on more people's lists?

disclaimer: it isnt supposed to be a slam if it sounds that way.....you sound very smart and can word things well.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by raider red 2000
BD Russ- earlier you said that media plays a big role in perception.

do you that if Tim Duncan tries to be a rapper or had more tats would he be higher on more people's lists?
I think if he played for the Knicks or Lakers he'd be higher on Joe Average's list, but as far as NBA insiders go just about everyone gives him the nod as the best player right now. I think he has been for (at the very least) the last three years.

Now best player and most unstoppable are two different things. I do believe that Kobe is completely unstoppable, whereas Timmy has problems getting his offense going against the long, athletic guys like Marcus Camby and Rasheed Wallace.

But Duncan will find ways to win even when he's not on. He affects the other team at both ends of the floor. If a defense starts collapsing on him, he'll try to hit Ginobili and Parker in their cuts for easy buckets (he's a great passer out of the low block), and if that isn't working those three try to bring the defense in and then kick it out to Bowen, Horry, or Barry. He just has so many ways to kill you and if nothing's working he'll always find a way. That Duncan/Popovich mentality that they're going to scratch and claw and find a way to beat you is why the Spurs can get badly outplayed on any given night but still pull off the win.

For proof of this, just look at game two of the Sacramento series.

Duncan's the closest thing to Russell nowadays, whereas Kobe is this closest thing to Jordan and LeBron is the closest thing to Magic. Duncan will be the first of these who's forgotten, though. He's not as flashy and plays in a smaller market. Russell also lacked that flash, but they both just get the job done.

[raider red 2000]

well stated.

i like the answer.

[Macarthur]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
If you ever took or take journalism classes, one of the first things they'll teach you is that the media determines public opinion more than any other factor outside of one's family. If anything, as a former member of the media I try to take all subjectivity out of my arguments and look at the body of work as a whole. The media is where the "Jordan is the greatest" argument started and picked up steam (along with the comments from all the newer players).

Fair enough.


Russell never had that exposure, as the NBA was never really popular and didn't get much TV exposure until the mid-80's. Hell, it almost folded in the late 70's/early 80's. That's why you always hear that Magic and Bird saved the league... because they did for the NBA what Red Grange did for the NFL. Jordan was just the first "greatest" candidate to come along after the NBA latched on with CBS.

I don't disagree, but it seems you may be unfairly "discounting" Jordan a bit simply because he happened to play during an era of increased exposure.




You misunderstood my argument. Jordan could and did impose his will on other teams. He just didn't do it as well or as often as Russell. That's where the 11 championships vs. 6 come in. That's why he only missed the championship series once in a 13-year career... and it took a team with Wilt Chamberlain, Hal Greer, Chet Walker and Billy Cunningham to knock off an aging, injured Russell.

Well, I could argue, and I think correctly, that the league has been much more competitive and the talent level more even than during the time Russell played. I don't think there's any doubt that the level of play has steadily increased to the point that Jordan was competing against much more difficult competition than Russell.


Another thing, Jordan developed his game to where he was as good as Russell. Russell never had to develop his game to be that good. He was that good all 13 years of his career.

I would disagree with this. Jordan was great from the minute he came into the league. He simply didn't have much of a supporting cast around him his first couple of years. And I would go back to the competition thing again. I just don't think the level was that good across the board in Russell's time. Jordan played against much better athletes.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by raider red 2000
well stated.

i like the answer.
I'll tell you one thing I think I think:

Timmy's done more with less talent than any man to ever play the game. During his first championship, his best sidekick was an aging Admiral. His second one, he had nobody. Ginobili and Parker hadn't quite come into their own in 2003.

Jordan always had one of the 50 greatest players of all time at his side (and that's when Pippen was at his peak), along with an All-Star-caliber PF every step of the way. (Horace Grant the first three titles, Dennis Rodman the last three)

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Macarthur
Well, I could argue, and I think correctly, that the league has been much more competitive and the talent level more even than during the time Russell played. I don't think there's any doubt that the level of play has steadily increased to the point that Jordan was competing against much more difficult competition than Russell.
I could agree with this, but remember that Russell played in a league with only eight teams. Jordan played in a league with 28. There may be more talent, but at the same time it's more spread out.

Good point, though.



Originally posted by Macarthur
I would disagree with this. Jordan was great from the minute he came into the league. He simply didn't have much of a supporting cast around him his first couple of years. And I would go back to the competition thing again. I just don't think the level was that good across the board in Russell's time. Jordan played against much better athletes.
See, I don't know about this one. Granted, Bob Cousy was already an established star when Russell came into the league, but Quintin Dailey and Orlando Woolridge weren't slouches when Jordan came into the league. If I remember correctly, that team got better by something like 10 games when Jordan first came in, but they weren't considered a decent team until around '88, when they had their first 50-win season.

I know Jordan made the playoffs his rookie year, but I think that was when the league was sending eight out of 11 teams to the playoffs. Jordan made the playoffs every year of his career, but he didn't even have his first winning season until that '88 campaign.

The turning point of Jordan's career was that '89 series win over the heavily-favored Cavs in the first round. That was Jordan's first trip to the Conference Finals and that's when everyone started thinking that maybe there's more to this guy than "me, me, me." Remember, Jordan was considered a ballhog for the first five years of his career, and rightfully so. He accounted for a third of the Bulls' points during the '87 season, and Doug Collins was letting him run the point.

[Keith7]

What I want to know is how tall was Wilt Chamberlin?? and what was the rest of the league's average heigth at the time??

does anyone know this?

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Keith7
What I want to know is how tall was Wilt Chamberlin?? and what was the rest of the league's average heigth at the time??

does anyone know this?
Wilt Chamberlain was 7-1. Your average center back in the early- to mid-60's was probably about 6'9," but you had your exceptions like Chamberlain or Walt Bellamy.

The average 2 guard was probably around 6'3" (Jerry West was 6'2") and the average SF went about 6'5" or 6'6."

Your elite PF's went in the 6'8" to 6'9" range. Bob Pettit was 6'9," Bob McAdoo (even though he didn't come around 'till the early 70's) was 6'9," and John Havlicek went 6'7."

[Cameron Crazy]

Jordan is the best ever and everyone saying that Kobe is better open your eyes and look at stats...Jordan IS THE BEST

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Cameron Crazy
Jordan is the best ever and everyone saying that Kobe is better open your eyes and look at stats...Jordan IS THE BEST
I don't think anyone said that Kobe's the best. I don't think anyone said anything close to that.

The argument can pretty much be whittled down to Jordan, Wilt, and Bill Russell.

[TheDOCTORdre]

Originally posted by District303aPastPlayer
how do you top 11 in 13? Seriously.


Originally posted by Buccaneer
13 in 11

chuck norris could do it

[District303aPastPlayer]

Originally posted by TheDOCTORdre
chuck norris could do it

i bet he could.