Jordan vs. James (Nurture vs. Nature)

[Ed Monix]

*******Please don't comment yet as I haven't finished my post*******

This is my thoughts on who's the true modern G.O.A.T and why I believe it to be the case.

I am amongst the consensus who believes if you break down basic & advanced statistics, the eye test, career achievements and cultural impact...Michael Jordan is the true G.O.A.T.

The final conclusion isn't so simple and quite a bit of luck had to go Jordan's way in order for him to retain his crown.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Jordan - James

30.1 PPG 27.1
6.2   REB  7.5
5.3   AST  7.4
2.3   STL  1.6
0.8   BLK  0.8
2.7   TOV  3.5
38.3 MIN  38.2
49.7 FG% 50.4
32.7 3P% 34.5
83.5 FT% 73.4

[celticsclay]

Lol we all already know who is gonna argue with whatever your reasoning is.

[slamtheking]

*******Please don't comment yet as I haven't finished my post*******

This is my thoughts on who's the true modern G.O.A.T and why I believe it to be the case.

I am amongst the consensus who believes if you break down basic & advanced statistics, the eye test, career achievements and cultural impact...Michael Jordan is the true G.O.A.T.

The final conclusion isn't so simple and quite a bit of luck had to go Jordan's way in order for him to retain his crown.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Jordan - James

30.1 PPG 27.1
6.2   REB  7.5
5.3   AST  7.4
2.3   STL  1.6
0.8   BLK  0.8
2.7   TOV  3.5
38.3 MIN  38.2
49.7 FG% 50.4
32.7 3P% 34.5
83.5 FT% 73.4

the flaw in your logic is you excluded the real GOAT - Bill Russell. 

[Kernewek]

This Jordan James fellow seems like one to watch.

[Roy H.]

if you break down basic & advanced statistics, the eye test, career achievements and cultural impact...Michael Jordan is the true G.O.A.T.

Should cultural impact be considered?  There's certainly a difference between best player of all time, and most marketable player of all-time.  I think that stuff can be considered for Hall Of Fame inclusion as an "influence", but to me it has no bearing on who the greatest player is.

But, one missing piece of criteria is the rules under which the players played.  Lebron never played in the hand-check era, or without the benefit of offenses designed around spacing.  He rarely has had to drive the ball into the paint against two true big men.  Jordan never faced a zone defense.

[Donoghus]

if you break down basic & advanced statistics, the eye test, career achievements and cultural impact...Michael Jordan is the true G.O.A.T.

Should cultural impact be considered? There's certainly a difference between best player of all time, and most marketable player of all-time.  I think that stuff can be considered for Hall Of Fame inclusion as an "influence", but to me it has no bearing on who the greatest player is.

But, one missing piece of criteria is the rules under which the players played.  Lebron never played in the hand-check era, or without the benefit of offenses designed around spacing.  He rarely has had to drive the ball into the paint against two true big men.  Jordan never faced a zone defense.

No, it shouldn't.

[Moranis]

if you break down basic & advanced statistics, the eye test, career achievements and cultural impact...Michael Jordan is the true G.O.A.T.

Should cultural impact be considered? There's certainly a difference between best player of all time, and most marketable player of all-time.  I think that stuff can be considered for Hall Of Fame inclusion as an "influence", but to me it has no bearing on who the greatest player is.

But, one missing piece of criteria is the rules under which the players played.  Lebron never played in the hand-check era, or without the benefit of offenses designed around spacing.  He rarely has had to drive the ball into the paint against two true big men.  Jordan never faced a zone defense.

No, it shouldn't.

Doesn't it depend on what cultural impact actually means?  I mean if it relates to the culture of basketball, then I think you probably could include it, but if you are just talking about culture in general, then no it probably shouldn't.  To that point, I think Jordan had a pretty big impact on culture as it pertains to basketball.  The impact to shoes, brand image, etc. that Jordan has is incredible and has absolutely affected how the game has been played.  Kobe had that and today, Curry is probably the biggest impact in that regard.  James has had far more cultural impact to things unrelated to basketball than Jordan (charity work, the school in Akron, BLM, etc.), but I don't think that should really come into play when looking at the discussion of basketball greatness whereas I do think Jordan's impact actually did affect some on the Court.  That said, that should be way down the list in any sort of analysis as it didn't really affect wins/losses, stats, etc.

[Donoghus]

if you break down basic & advanced statistics, the eye test, career achievements and cultural impact...Michael Jordan is the true G.O.A.T.

Should cultural impact be considered? There's certainly a difference between best player of all time, and most marketable player of all-time.  I think that stuff can be considered for Hall Of Fame inclusion as an "influence", but to me it has no bearing on who the greatest player is.

But, one missing piece of criteria is the rules under which the players played.  Lebron never played in the hand-check era, or without the benefit of offenses designed around spacing.  He rarely has had to drive the ball into the paint against two true big men.  Jordan never faced a zone defense.

No, it shouldn't.

Doesn't it depend on what cultural impact actually means?  I mean if it relates to the culture of basketball, then I think you probably could include it, but if you are just talking about culture in general, then no it probably shouldn't.  To that point, I think Jordan had a pretty big impact on culture as it pertains to basketball.  The impact to shoes, brand image, etc. that Jordan has is incredible and has absolutely affected how the game has been played.  Kobe had that and today, Curry is probably the biggest impact in that regard.  James has had far more cultural impact to things unrelated to basketball than Jordan (charity work, the school in Akron, BLM, etc.), but I don't think that should really come into play when looking at the discussion of basketball greatness whereas I do think Jordan's impact actually did affect some on the Court.  That said, that should be way down the list in any sort of analysis as it didn't really affect wins/losses, stats, etc.

If people actually want to bring cultural impact into the equation, then its Jordan.   Case closed, argument over.  Not even close.

The much more compelling argument is basketball greatness.   Cultural impact shouldn't have any impact in that argument.  Like Roy said, it shouldn't have any bearing on who the greatest basketball player is.

[zeitgeist49]

I agree that cultural influence shouldn't have any bearing on determining who the GOAT is. I also agree that examining the rules of the game and how the game is played in a given era can be an important factor. Career stats can be informative or deceiving, depending on the context. For me, winning and having the ability to make your team mates better are the most important criteria. Bill Russell said, "You play to win." The implication is ... you don't play to make more money ... you don't play to demonstrate your world class athleticism ... you don't play to pad the stat sheet. You play to win. Bill Russell is the GOAT. Every generation will have their favorite choice of GOAT. Russell's BBIQ, his fierce competitiveness, his focus and athleticism transcend generations. Some fans will criticize Russell's limited offensive game and stats. Well, Russ scored 37 points twice and once in a playoff game. He scored 30 points 20 times in his career. The Celtics didn't need him to be an offensive force. They needed him to be a defensive force and a rebounding machine. They needed him to win. The U.S. and BR won the gold medal in 1956. He won 2 NCAA championships with USF. And he won 11 NBA championships in 13 years. Russ was a winner and would be a winner in any era.

[Finkelskyhook]

Russell won more than either while playing by the same rules as his peers.  No contest on who the greatest of all time is. 

Jordan and James,  had/has played their careers essentially 8-on-5.  Both traveled/travels at will.  Drew/draws phantom fouls at will.  Jordan hacked at will defensively.  We'll never know how great either could have been had they played by the same rules as their peers. 

[Surferdad]

if you break down basic & advanced statistics, the eye test, career achievements and cultural impact...Michael Jordan is the true G.O.A.T.

Should cultural impact be considered? There's certainly a difference between best player of all time, and most marketable player of all-time.  I think that stuff can be considered for Hall Of Fame inclusion as an "influence", but to me it has no bearing on who the greatest player is.

But, one missing piece of criteria is the rules under which the players played.  Lebron never played in the hand-check era, or without the benefit of offenses designed around spacing.  He rarely has had to drive the ball into the paint against two true big men.  Jordan never faced a zone defense.

No, it shouldn't.

Doesn't it depend on what cultural impact actually means?  I mean if it relates to the culture of basketball, then I think you probably could include it, but if you are just talking about culture in general, then no it probably shouldn't.  To that point, I think Jordan had a pretty big impact on culture as it pertains to basketball.  The impact to shoes, brand image, etc. that Jordan has is incredible and has absolutely affected how the game has been played.  Kobe had that and today, Curry is probably the biggest impact in that regard.  James has had far more cultural impact to things unrelated to basketball than Jordan (charity work, the school in Akron, BLM, etc.), but I don't think that should really come into play when looking at the discussion of basketball greatness whereas I do think Jordan's impact actually did affect some on the Court.  That said, that should be way down the list in any sort of analysis as it didn't really affect wins/losses, stats, etc.

If people actually want to bring cultural impact into the equation, then its Jordan.   Case closed, argument over.  Not even close.

The much more compelling argument is basketball greatness.   Cultural impact shouldn't have any impact in that argument.  Like Roy said, it shouldn't have any bearing on who the greatest basketball player is.

Cultural impact should be included and in the case of Jordan his cultural impact was that he changed the game with his athleticism. He did things routinely on the basketball court that were not common up to that point. MANY players who came after him followed his lead.  He changed the game of basketball.

That said, Jordan’s “cultural” impact alone does not make him the GOAT.  Russell changed the game with his defense and rebounding and also had many more championships than anyone.  Wilt changed the game too, and still holds the ultimate single-game scoring record.  Kareem scored more points than anyone else and perfected the most unguardable shot, the skyhook.  LeBron won a championship in 3 different franchises.  These are the unique contributions that define true greatness.

[Kernewek]

You make some good points Surferdad, but I don’t know if I would necessarily equate “cultural impact” with on the court achievements.

I do think the discussion about game changing impact is worth discussing, though. I just wouldn’t call that culture - I think in terms of cultural impact you have, chronologically, Jordan and Iverson and then… James I guess? Kobe was always baby Jordan so I don’t think of his “impact” so much since he basically codified the status quo.

In terms of game changing, maybe Shaq? The 2004 Pistons? Guys who lead to rule changes, more or less.

[Surferdad]

You make some good points Surferdad, but I don’t know if I would necessarily equate “cultural impact” with on the court achievements.

I do think the discussion about game changing impact is worth discussing, though. I just wouldn’t call that culture.

Fair enough, but think about the impact to kids watching him play and how he was a role model for a new style of basketball.  This has nothing to do with how many point you score or how many championships you win, so I lumped it together with "culture".

[Surferdad]

In terms of game changing, maybe Shaq? The 2004 Pistons? Guys who lead to rule changes, more or less.

Shaq was a dominant force, but was Wilt a dominant force before him. Shaq isn't even in my top-10 GOAT.

2004 Pistons didn't change anything, in fact they were an exception. No team has ever won since without a superstar or two.

[Roy H.]

I don't think that making the game more popular, or selling shoes, or increasing the revenue of the sport counts in any way.

The only "off the court" event that I consider is players who had to play during segregation / blatant racism.  Bill Russell isn't a greater basketball player because he was a civil rights champion.  He's a better person, but not a better basketball player.  However, his play on the court during such immense pressure does elevate him in my book.  Having to perform on a nightly basis despite large portions of the country booing you and hating you says something about a player's mental toughness.  That's not just Russell, it's all of the black players who played in the 50s and 60s, especially.