• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Why is Jordan the Goat?

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
the same 87 team that came back the next year and had a 7 game series in the conference and finals
This is essentially the same team that got knocked out by Houston just a season before.

You really think Russell doesnt lose a few series to the Jordan bulls? with a version of Michael Jordan, Pippen and Rodman

The 80's Pitsons, Celtics, and Lakers were fantastic teams. I wouldn't ever count out a prime Jordan in finals

Yes, I don't think those Jordan teams could have generated enough points to compete against them. That Lakers team was one of the most difficult teams to defend. In the half court set, I think the Bulls would have given them problems.

But Magic would push the tempo, and it would have been impossible to defend against that. He was the greatest of all-time at it.

They averaged nearly 120 a game, the Bulls never generated that kind of offense. Even with Michael and Pippen going off, they wouldn't have came close to that mark.

And AC Green and Byron Scott took their game to the next level the following year. They added Thompson (Klay's dad) as a back uo center to Kareem, he was very good.

As for Houston beating them the following season. That Laker team was good, but that Houston team, again, had enough offense to do so. They averaged 114 a game. Just 3 points below the Lakers 117 mark.

They had two all-star caliber centers in Hakeem and Samson. Kareem's defense began to slim as he aged. He couldn't defend against a young Hakeem.

To beat LA was to punish them up front. They had a lot of offensive talent in John Lucas and Lloyd to mesh with their twin towers up front.

To beat the Lakers you had to score. They were impossible to stop defensively. Even Jordan's Bulls would have had trouble defending them.

It's about match ups, and they just wouldn't have matched up well.

As for Russell's Celtics. He played with 16 hall of famers throughout his career. You play with that many great players, you're not winning 9 titles by mistake.

That's a different era, with no three point line. Kinda hard to compare different eras. Which I'm always reluctant to do.
 
Last edited:
Jordan's 6-6 in Finals is impressive (Robert Horry was 7-7), but winning Finals MVP in each of them?!:cha (40):
 
Jordan's 6-6 in Finals is impressive (Robert Horry was 7-7), but winning Finals MVP in each of them?!:cha (40):

They didn't even have that award until 1969. Even though Jerry West won the first one (and only time on a losing team), in today's game, they name the award after Bill Russell.

I'm not sure I want to get into any what-if thoughts on LeBron if he played with the Lenny Wilkens Cavs (thinking about "if my aunt had some [body part] that would make her my uncle")... I'm good enough seeing him win with us now...
 
Personally I think Kareem is Jordan's equal and they are tied for the best ever.

That said, if you want a statistical argument beyond just mere totals, because he doesn't have those, the greatest advanced statistical seasons ever are owned by Jordan (along with Wilt). His scoring and efficiency for a guard was and still is greatly, greatly unmatched.
 
Yes, I don't think those Jordan teams could have generated enough points to compete against them. That Lakers team was one of the most difficult teams to defend. In the half court set, I think the Bulls would have given them problems.

But Magic would push the tempo, and it would have been impossible to defend against that. He was the greatest of all-time at it.

They averaged nearly 120 a game, the Bulls never generated that kind of offense. Even with Michael and Pippen going off, they wouldn't have came close to that mark.

And AC Green and Byron Scott took their game to the next level the following year. They added Thompson (Klay's dad) as a back uo center to Kareem, he was very good.

As for Houston beating them the following season. That Laker team was good, but that Houston team, again, had enough offense to do so. They averaged 114 a game. Just 3 points below the Lakers 117 mark.

They had two all-star caliber centers in Hakeem and Samson. Kareem's defense began to slim as he aged. He couldn't defend against a young Hakeem.

To beat LA was to punish them up front. They had a lot of offensive talent in John Lucas and Lloyd to mesh with their twin towers up front.

To beat the Lakers you had to score. They were impossible to stop defensively. Even Jordan's Bulls would have had trouble defending them.

It's about match ups, and they just wouldn't have matched up well.

As for Russell's Celtics. He played with 16 hall of famers throughout his career. You play with that many great players, you're not winning 9 titles by mistake.

That's a different era, with no three point line. Kinda hard to compare different eras. Which I'm always reluctant to do.

The Lakers put up almost 120/game because they played at a much faster pace than any of Jordan's prime Bulls teams.

The 91-92 Bulls scored 115.5 points/100 possessions, the 86-87 Lakers scored 115.6 points/100 possessions.

Perhaps it would have been tougher for the Bulls to maintain their efficiency as the pace quickened, but the offensive discrepancy is not much of one, if any.

I have no idea who'd win, but it'd be a great match up to see.
 
My only argument for Bron to be on Jordan's level, no matter how rudimentary it is, was beating a 73 win team while leading his team in every major statistical category. Jordan could never dominate a game in that many ways, nor did he ever beat a team as talented as the Warriors. Plus now we've got the Warriors with KD being probably the most stacked offensive team ever. Beating them would really put LeBron at least next to Jordan


Kind of funny, the emergence of this Warriors team might actually be the best thing for LeBrons legacy, if he can hold them off one more time
 
The worst team that Jordan won the finals with probably demolishes the best team Bill Russell ever played on.

Era is way too different and today's players are stronger and more physical. I've seen reports that Russell really was only maybe 6'9"/6'10" and 210-220 pounds. Centers in the 90's like Ewing or Hakeem would've snapped him right in half.

Who on those old Celtics teams are guarding Jordan and Pippen? Cousy? K.C. Jones? Hondo? Nah. Jordan would embarrass Cousy/Hondo. Jones might put up a fight, but I can't see him holding Jordan off in a seven gamer. Plus you still have to deal with Scottie who could put up 30 on any given night.

I do think Bill Russell vs. Dennis Rodman would be entertaining as hell to watch FWIW.
 
The Lakers put up almost 120/game because they played at a much faster pace than any of Jordan's prime Bulls teams.

And I think that was how to beat the Bulls. Tempo. You couldn't beat those Bulls teams in the half court, they'd suffocate the hell out of you.

With Magic pushing the tempo (no one was greater than him at it), the amount of weapons the Lakers had, I think would have been too much for Jordan's 72 win team to slow down defensively.

If the Bulls could slow them down and force them into half court game. That's different. But that's hard to do with Magic, especially the weapons he had that year.

The 91-92 Bulls scored 115.5 points/100 possessions, the 86-87 Lakers scored 115.6 points/100 possessions.

Perhaps it would have been tougher for the Bulls to maintain their efficiency as the pace quickened, but the offensive discrepancy is not much of one, if any.

I have no idea who'd win, but it'd be a great match up to see.

But the argument was based on the best team ever Magic's '87 team vs Jordan's '96 Bulls.. I was speaking more to those two teams.

The Bulls team '92 team scored at a greater rate. And I agree that team in particular probably would have stood a better chance against '87 team compared to their '96 team. The match ups are just better for the Bulls, not necessarily the better team compared to the '96.

But the '92 also didn't have the defensive players in Rodman and Harper. Paxson and Armstrong were better offensive players, but didn't provide the defensive diversity of a Harper. Grant wasn't a bad defensive player, definitely better offensively player than Rodman. But defensively Rodman just dominated, especially on the boards.

I'm sure some of Jordan's teams were capable of beating some of Magic's champion teams, no doubt. I don't doubt that at all.

That '87 team was pretty tough. Just a very deep team.
 
The 87 lakers vs Jordan both games came out to about 110 to 100 points.

That was without Pippen. of course those were regular season games but Jordans championship teams would of been right in the mix with those lakers.

afteral there isn't much difference between the 86,87 and 88 lakers.

BTW the 65 Celtics had a 123 pace with an 84.2 defensive rating.

Those teams were playing that open Princeton style of offense we seeing making its way back into the NBA game and they had shooters who could hit those threes

do when looking at these match ups you gotta either take away the tthree from Chicago or project what those Celtics would of shot from the three had all their players

as reference. The ABA Kentucky Colonels 6as team shot 35% as a team from three with no college 3 point line. Dampier and Carriel both shot over 35%.

Heinsolm and Sanders were pretty legit defenders in any era.

going back to the Cousy era Celtics you have don Nelsons dream team small ball lineup that went at a 130 pace. don't think Cousy could hit those clutch threes?

My question who is ggnna keep up with Sam " the Shooter"Jones.

not to mention you have a Draymond green type guy in Tom sanders.

don't forget Tom Heinsholn won rookie of the year over Bill Russell.


Heinsohn like Russell also was a two time nba champion as a coach.

The basketball IQ of this team is off the charts,

Like I said I think Jordan could beat this team in a series but the 60' era Celtics would win that series more often.
 
Last edited:
And I think that was how to beat the Bulls. Tempo. You couldn't beat those Bulls teams in the half court, they'd suffocate the hell out of you.

With Magic pushing the tempo (no one was greater than him at it), the amount of weapons the Lakers had, I think would have been too much for Jordan's 72 win team to slow down defensively.

If the Bulls could slow them down and force them into half court game. That's different. But that's hard to do with Magic, especially the weapons he had that year.



But the argument was based on the best team ever Magic's '87 team vs Jordan's '96 Bulls.. I was speaking more to those two teams.

The Bulls team '92 team scored at a greater rate. And I agree that team in particular probably would have stood a better chance against '87 team compared to their '96 team. The match ups are just better for the Bulls, not necessarily the better team compared to the '96.

But the '92 also didn't have the defensive players in Rodman and Harper. Paxson and Armstrong were better offensive players, but didn't provide the defensive diversity of a Harper. Grant wasn't a bad defensive player, definitely better offensively player than Rodman. But defensively Rodman just dominated, especially on the boards.

I'm sure some of Jordan's teams were capable of beating some of Magic's champion teams, no doubt. I don't doubt that at all.

That '87 team was pretty tough. Just a very deep team.

I don't really agree that the '96 Bulls were Jordan's best team. They just happened to be in a watered down post-expansion league that allowed them to break the wins record. I'll take teams from the first 3-peat.
 
I think Jordan is widely considered the GOAT mainly because of the impact he had on people. Jordan impacted people the way Bruce Lee impacted people. He showed you greatness in a way that made you want to be great. He had an incredible drive to be great and played the game with such love and passion. I think that came through when you watched him play. Then he routinely displayed his amazing level of skill, was always displaying his dominance over everyone and he was just always doing amazing things on the court. I mean, he was really fun to watch.

In short, he was a cultural icon, the best player of that Era, one of the best dunkers ever, one of the best scorers ever, one of the best defensive players ever, one of the best all around players ever, one of the greatest champions ever...the list goes on and on. After a while you just start calling him GOAT.
 
Last edited:
The worst team that Jordan won the finals with probably demolishes the best team Bill Russell ever played on.

Era is way too different and today's players are stronger and more physical. I've seen reports that Russell really was only maybe 6'9"/6'10" and 210-220 pounds. Centers in the 90's like Ewing or Hakeem would've snapped him right in half.

Wilt was 7ft, 275, and Russell did just fine against him.
 
Human evolution is just too big of a factor to really compare across eras. Mid-80's to early/mid-90's isn't that big of a deal, but I wouldn't feel comfortable comparing today's teams to those Celtics/Lakers/Bulls teams, let alone a team from the 60's.

Individual players might have a chance to play across eras and succeed, but entire teams, no way.
 
I don't really agree that the '96 Bulls were Jordan's best team. They just happened to be in a watered down post-expansion league that allowed them to break the wins record. I'll take teams from the first 3-peat.

They were probably the greatest defensive team of all-time. I think Harper, Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman's dominant defense would work well in any era..

It certainly would today with pick-and-roll defense, and the ability to switch with all four of them.

That team just wasn't much glamour outside of Jordan and Pippen.. But Rodman's ability to dominate on the glass, something they never had, changed the game.

Jordan himself was more dominant in those first three title runs. And he had better offensive weapons. But defensively, they were much better in his later run.

Toni Kukoc was pretty good too, and added a different element to their offense they didn't have before.

And the 1992 season was much stronger? Really? I don't really agree with that..

No other team won 60 games that season other than the Bulls in 1992. The team they beat, Portland in the finals, had to be the worst finals team the Bulls ever faced. And it still managed to go 6.

Even the bottom teams were just as bad compared to '96... Vancover was an expansion team that won the least amount of games that season, just 15 games... The Minnesota Timberwolves won just 15 games in '96. In '92 7 teams won under 30 games something games... In '96 6 teams. So at least comparable weak teams at the time in both years.

But the top teams were pretty shitty that year. In the '96 you had the Magic at 60 wins, the Supersonics at 64, SA 59, Utah, 55..

The NRtg for the top 6 teams in '96 was higher than the top 6 teams in '92.. The Magic and Supersonics were at least a threat that season. They were much superior as a team than anyone in that '92 season. The '92 season was when Magic retired, Bird's back was gone. The Pistons were in free-fall. So there was no direct threat at all to the Bulls.

That was very weak point in the NBA, and was basically Michael Jordan's play pen that season.

As for the '92 and '96 Bulls teams themselves.

The '92 and '96 offensive ratings are nearly identically. '92 team ORtg 116.12 compared to 115.72. '92 DRtg 105.05 to '96's 102.71 (that's the drop off). NRtg 10.07 for the '92 team. NRtg 13.49..

Both their better teams, but the '96 is clearly superior IMO.

Defensively is where the two separate, surprisingly their offensive ratings were almost identical.
 
Last edited:
They were probably the greatest defensive team of all-time. I think Harper, Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman's dominant defense would work well in any era..

It certainly would today with pick-and-roll defense, and the ability to switch with all four of them.

That team just wasn't much glamour outside of Jordan and Pippen.. But Rodman's ability to dominate on the glass, something they never had, changed the game.

Jordan himself was more dominant in those first three title runs. And he had better offensive weapons. But defensively, they were much better in his later run.

Toni Kukoc was pretty good too, and added a different element to their offense they didn't have before.

And the 1992 season was much stronger? Really? I don't really agree with that..

No other team won 60 games that season other than the Bulls in 1992. The team they beat, Portland in the finals, had to be the worst finals team the Bulls ever faced. And it still managed to go 6.

Even the bottom teams were just as bad compared to '96... Vancover was an expansion team that won the least amount of games that season, just 15 games... The Minnesota Timberwolves won just 15 games in '96. In '92 7 teams won under 30 games something games... In '96 6 teams. So at least comparable weak teams at the time in both years.

But the top teams were pretty shitty that year. In the '96 you had the Magic at 60 wins, the Supersonics at 64, SA 59, Utah, 55..

The NRtg for the top 6 teams in '96 was higher than the top 6 teams in '92.. The Magic and Supersonics were at least a threat that season. They were much superior as a team than anyone in that '92 season. The '92 season was when Magic retired, Bird's back was gone. The Pistons were in free-fall. So there was no direct threat at all to the Bulls.

That was very weak point in the NBA, and was basically Michael Jordan's play pen that season.

As for the '92 and '96 Bulls teams themselves.

The '92 and '96 offensive ratings are nearly identically. '92 team ORtg 116.12 compared to 115.72. '92 DRtg 105.05 to '96's 102.71 (that's the drop off). NRtg 10.07 for the '92 team. NRtg 13.49..

Both their better teams, but the '96 is clearly superior IMO.

Defensively is where the two separate, surprisingly their offensive ratings were almost identical.

I just don't agree. They added 2 more teams right before the '96 season, which helped water down the league even further after adding 4 other teams to start the decade. It allowed the top teams to dominate more than ever, which is why you see the Magic, Sonic, Spurs, and Jazz with big win totals in '96. The '92 team still had to play against the Ewing/Riley Knicks, and the best Wilkins Cavs team just to get through the East.

I think the '92 team would have had improved ratings across the board if they played against the same competition as the '96 team. Obviously, both were great teams, but I'd give the edge to '92 because that's when Jordan was at his peak.

Plus, I think Horace Grant and BJ Armstrong are very underrated as complementary pieces.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top