Why are Michael Jordan fans the worst in sports?

[SwagKingKong]

I understood your point quite clearly. You don't particularly like Wilt Chamberlain, therefore you apply "stat adjustments" to come up with fictitious numbers in order to make his game look unfavorable. And you think Michael Jordan is the greatest player of all time.

IE, your an MJ stan, and that doesn't hesitate to unfavorably throw at least one other GOAT candidate under the bus whenever he's discussed (in this case Wilt)

Ergo your coming off as just another stan.

the fukk are you talking about. I was comparing their numbers, how the hell else would you do it? You're comparing two people who played in completely different eras, if you don't atleast try to take that into consideration then you might aswell stop the debate now, beacuse no one will touch Wilts raw numbers. It's impossible in todays game.

calling me a stan for trying to understand who's the better player. That's cute.

 

[Captain Crunch]

Lebron is a beter defender; passer, rebounder, and teammate.

Spoiler

Plus Lebron takes pics w/ brothers

 

[Lakerman0834]

Not sure about Magic and I am a Magic fan. MJ got Magic breh.

Ill give u better scorer and defender for MJ but Magic styles on him in every other category plus he could play pg-center, but i can also see the case for MJ over him

 

[dantheman9758]

lets quickly review the titles...he won with Oscar another top ten player of all time in 70-71 but Oscar wasn't quite Oscar... that was Kareem's team. That's the first title.

1980.. Kareem's team despite Magic or Wilkes doin work. Great team. That's two as a top player.

1982 Kareem still put in work. top player. Another great Laker team but MJ had Pippen who was an elite player in their era so can't hold it again't Kareem.

1985 Magic had ridiculous numbers and Worthy putting in work but Kareem still holding his own. Give it to him as a top player. He was still Kareem.

1987 Kareem is finally starting to slow down.. Magic and Worthy were ridiculous. Hard to say they win without Kareem but he wasn't the top player on that team.

1988 he's a very solid role player.

They both won six titles but I would say MJ won all six being by far the best player on his own team while Kareem wasn't THE guy on at least two of the Laker title teams.

Splitting hairs? Maybe... Obviously as far as individual numbers go Kareem is right there with MJ but so are others like Oscar..

I think Oscar was still Oscar in '71, his stats took a dip for the same reasons Lebron's or Wade's stats took a dip in Miami, and he also took on an increased defensive role relative to prior years when he was putting up bigger offensive numbers. I have some Bucks NBA games from their championship season and a few documentaries on it (both from that era, and afterwards) made about that team. Oscar and Kareem were pretty much 1a and 1b more or less on virtually equal grounds for that teams success. Kareem took the MVP home and the Finals MVP but that's because of his undeniable statistical accomplishments and the value that era placed on dominant center play. When it came to actual gameplay you could tell Oscar was the captain and voice of that team and even the announcers of the games were acknowledging Oscar as being Finals MVP worthy and a shame he couldn't get one too.

 

[Malta]

lets quickly review the titles...he won with Oscar another top ten player of all time in 70-71 but Oscar wasn't quite Oscar... that was Kareem's team. That's the first title.

1980.. Kareem's team despite Magic or Wilkes doin work. Great team. That's two as a top player.

1982 Kareem still put in work. top player. Another great Laker team but MJ had Pippen who was an elite player in their era so can't hold it again't Kareem.

1985 Magic had ridiculous numbers and Worthy putting in work but Kareem still holding his own. Give it to him as a top player. He was still Kareem.

1987 Kareem is finally starting to slow down.. Magic and Worthy were ridiculous. Hard to say they win without Kareem but he wasn't the top player on that team.

1988 he's a very solid role player.

They both won six titles but I would say MJ won all six being by far the best player on his own team while Kareem wasn't THE guy on at least two of the Laker title teams.

Splitting hairs? Maybe... Obviously as far as individual numbers go Kareem is right there with MJ but so are others like Oscar..

It is splitting hairs, mainly because someone who believes Bill Russell is the best could just use your own criteria to say Bill is greatest ever.

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

It is splitting hairs, mainly because someone who believes Bill Russell is the best could just use your own criteria to say Bill is greatest ever.

As a Celtics fan I would love for you to tell me Bill is the greatest ever

Anyway, I will take Dan's word for it that Oscar was still basically the same Oscar. He has seen a lot more than me.

Back to Bill... I mean you want to talk about stacked teams...

But you are correct. I don't particularly enjoy debating championships won because everyone has a different criteria. Is Kobe's 5 almost as good as MJ's six or do we hold it against Kobe that Shaq was one of the most dominant centers we've ever seen in an era where there were no centers?

They are fun arguments but they never reach a conclusion.

 

[RedBull]

OP has a point that needs to be addressed. No one is addressing it, I just see "You mad" posts.

 

[dantheman9758]

the fukk are you talking about. I was comparing their numbers, how the hell else would you do it? You're comparing two people who played in completely different eras, if you don't atleast try to take that into consideration then you might aswell stop the debate now, beacuse no one will touch Wilts raw numbers. It's impossible in todays game.

calling me a stan for trying to understand who's the better player. That's cute.

You weren't comparing their numbers, you were comparing fictitious numbers with real numbers. You don't f*ck with Wilt's numbers like that (28ppg, and a worse rebounder than KG lol). You look at what Wilt accomplished, who he accomplished it against, what they also accomplished, and you leave it at that. You don't tamper with people's numbers and try and create imaginary ones especially the messed up way you went about it. You were deliberately slighting Wilt to hilarious levels w/o using any sort of context at all. The season Wilt was scoring 50, the next best guy was putting up 30. I'm not counting Baylor cause he didn't play a full season. You honestly think if Wilt's 50 "is basically 28ppg today" that the next best scorer in 1962 would be doing what, 17ppg? Are you serious?

You probably jip Wilt on everything imaginable to come up with fictitious numbers like that, you'd probably slice up his minutes, give him no credit for stamina, no credit for his indefatiguable pursuit and ability to chase and smash records, no credit to his teammates and coaching systems which for some seasons were FEEDING HIM THE BALL (it was their game plan that '62 season to ensure he got 50 a game, the coach actually wanted him to hit 50 as his goal that's what he thought it'd take to beat Boston that season), and you sure as hell are off base on TRB%'s w/o factoring in important things like his ability to play incredible minutes w/o tiring, and how coaches actually preferred he stay on the floor because of it.

So what your doing is using your bias to adjust Wilt's stats, to reduce them. Your aim from the start, is to reduce Wilt. One could just as easily be a Wilt stan and counter your fictitious stats with equally fictitious inflated ones, like Walt Frazier saying Wilt would average 75ppg in the modern league. I've seen MJ stans say MJ would average 50 in todays league. You and these "number adjustment" types of stans could have a field day discussing all kinds of fictitious stats. But at the end of the day, they are fictitious

 

[SwagKingKong]

You weren't comparing their numbers, you were comparing fictitious numbers with real numbers. You don't f*ck with Wilt's numbers like that (28ppg, and a worse rebounder than KG lol). You look at what Wilt accomplished, who he accomplished it against, what they also accomplished, and you leave it at that. You don't tamper with people's numbers and try and create imaginary ones especially the messed up way you went about it. You were deliberately slighting Wilt to hilarious levels w/o using any sort of context at all. The season Wilt was scoring 50, the next best guy was putting up 30. I'm not counting Baylor cause he didn't play a full season. You honestly think if Wilt's 50 "is basically 28ppg today" that the next best scorer in 1962 would be doing what, 17ppg? Are you serious?

You probably jip Wilt on everything imaginable to come up with fictitious numbers like that, you'd probably slice up his minutes, give him no credit for stamina, no credit for his indefatiguable pursuit and ability to chase and smash records, no credit to his teammates and coaching systems which for some seasons were FEEDING HIM THE BALL (it was their game plan that '62 season to ensure he got 50 a game, the coach actually wanted him to hit 50 as his goal that's what he thought it'd take to beat Boston that season), and you sure as hell are off base on TRB%'s w/o factoring in important things like his ability to play incredible minutes w/o tiring, and how coaches actually preferred he stay on the floor because of it.

So what your doing is using your bias to adjust Wilt's stats, to reduce them. Your aim from the start, is to reduce Wilt. One could just as easily be a Wilt stan and counter your fictitious stats with equally fictitious inflated ones, like Walt Frazier saying Wilt would average 75ppg in the modern league. I've seen MJ stans say MJ would average 50 in todays league. You and these "number adjustment" types of stans could have a field day discussing all kinds of fictitious stats. But at the end of the day, they are fictitious

Are you serious man?

These aren't fictional numbers. If you adjust for pace, that's the actual numbers you get. Like I said, no one will touch Wilts raw numbers, it's impossible. Teams don't play at the same pace anymore.

I like how you brush of rebounding percentage when it's probably the best tool there is to establish who's a great rebounder and who's not. I was NOT saying he was a worse rebounder than KG in his prime, I was saying that in his last three years in the league (because that's the only seasons we have this kind of data for Wilt), he posted worse rebounding numbers than Garnett at his peak as a rebounder. There's no shame in that, Garnett won four rebounding titles straight with those numbers. All I'm saying is, don't expect his 20+ rebounding seasons if he played today, it would be impossible because of the pace.

The statement; "Your aim from the start, is to reduce Wilt." and "You were deliberately slighting Wilt to hilarious levels w/o using any sort of context at all." is just false. I didn't intend to reduce Wilt when I did my research on him, I looked at the numbers and realized that when you dig deeper, you'll see that his raw numbers aren't as impressive as they seemed to me when I was younger. And don't tell me I didn't use context when I clearly said that I adjusted the numbers for pace.

You think I honestly started looking at Wilts numbers to prop up another player? When I learned this stuff about Wilt, it was because I wanted to know how good he actually was. I didn't learn this for this thread specifically, this is things I've read about several times before. Not to downgrade anyone or prop up another player, I just try to find out how good players actually were and how they stack up against eachother.

 

[Thegospel]

What a shytty opening statement. You're stupid

 

[Gravity]

There are a billion MJ fans and dude is acting like they all share one brain and are responsible for what every other MJ fan has said. Lock and key this garbage.

 

[Malta]

As a Celtics fan I would love for you to tell me Bill is the greatest ever

Anyway, I will take Dan's word for it that Oscar was still basically the same Oscar. He has seen a lot more than me.

Back to Bill... I mean you want to talk about stacked teams...

But you are correct. I don't particularly enjoy debating championships won because everyone has a different criteria. Is Kobe's 5 almost as good as MJ's six or do we hold it against Kobe that Shaq was one of the most dominant centers we've ever seen in an era where there were no centers?

They are fun arguments but they never reach a conclusion.

No, my point is that your criteria against Kareem can be flipped in favor of Bill over Mike. I don't feel Bill is better than Mike, but once you try to use that argument against Kareem, then you have to do the same with Bill vs Mike.

 

[My Girl is Bow Legged]

Always felt that anyone who says either Wilt or Russell is the GOAT is either just trying to sound like some smarmy ass sports guru or is just being a contrarian.

Unless you 70 years old you know you don't give a fukk about either of them dusty nikkas

 

[Silky Johnson]

How the fukk do you build an argument around a stupid stat like "adjusted for pace"? You can't just adjust for pace in a formula without accounting for minutes played and fatigue. You can't just talk about possessions per game because the rules changed, defenses changed and a whole bunch of other factors that a formula can't account for.

 

[Rakim Allah]

Kobe has the worst stans of any player ever they tear down any peer compared to kobe Ie: shaq,t mac,iverson,wade,lebron,durant and MJ and they try to discredit the whole 90's era

Jordan fans don't have to tear down others cuz he's regarded as the goat by hall of fame coaches,players and the general consensus of nba fans.This thread is some bitter nikka ventin cuz he hates jordan personally.This premise don't even make sense when you think about it

You're a Kobe stan though so U would know.