Why would he need to play all five positions? I guess you think Bert Campaneris was greater than Ted Williams, too.

I won't argue if you want to put Hakeem ahead of Jordan. I think putting Duncan that high is a mistake, but this is all subjective anyway.

If it is all subjective then why are you arguing against the overwhelming consensus that Jordan is #1?

For the same reason Jordan needs to perform "important aspects of the game" that only centers can.

The funnier thing is in an argument when the Bulls fan is advocating for Jordan he'll talk about how Michael had to "do it himself". In the next argument when he is insisting some Bulls team was the best ever he will be telling you how great Pippen and Rodman were.

I'm not allowed to argue? That's kind of funny coming from you. But, a) I'm arguing with a bunch of Bulls fans in this forum and b) if you're talking about a larger consensus among basketball writers and commentators, I would suggest that there is this largely unspoken belief that NBA history begins with Bird and Magic and that is the narrow context in which Jordan is declared "The Greatest That Ever Was, The Greatest That Ever Will Be". It's an era that fetishizes "posterization" and rings.

Nobody ever says he had to do it by himself. You're one of the only people I've ever met who basically thinks Pippen is just a guy.

Why do you do that? I've never said Pippen was "just a guy". What I've said is I don't think he was a top 50 player of all-time. I'll also say he was the perfect guy to caddy for Jordan. Most NBA players aren't going to subjugate their game the way he did to accommodate Jordan.

If you truly believe something is subjective then you can have your opinion but you really shouldn't tell others they are wrong especially when most of your argument is that you believe tall players are better without really justifying it.

You keep saying that, but you haven't justified Jordan being the greatest, beyond "everybody says so".

You're doing it too! none us have ever said Jordan had to do it by himself or posterizing and titles are why Jordan is the goat.

You said Shaq is better than Jordan. It's not my job to justify the opposite. It is your job to justify that.

However, I will play. Please make your complete argument as to why Shaq is better than Jordan. I'll do the opposite unless someone who knows NBA basketball more than me does it first. Go.

If that's true, that might be worse than any ltg basketball thought ever.

If not for the rings and the "posterization" factor what is it that makes you think Jordan could possibly be greater than someone like Wilt Chamberlain who led the the league in scoring seven times, in rebounding ten or eleven times, and also once led the league in scoring and assists in the same season while playing center?

:lol:

Arguing that just "playing center" is a positive for one guy is not an actual argument. It's just you saying it.

Because Michael Jordan led the league in scoring 10 times.

Jordan was a better scorer than Wilt, as evidenced by PPG. He was unquestionably a better defensive player. He's the best scorer and two way player ever. On top of that, he beats Wilt in the advanced stats like Win Shares and PER. If you really want I can pull up some websites and we can put all their stats and individual awards next to eachother. Jordan will crush him.

Wilt's main rival was Bill Russell, who he lost to almost every time they faced eachother. How can you be the best player of all time but you can't even beat your biggest rival even 20% of the time? We can also note here that Michael Jordan did not have any individual rivals.

So if you factor in individual accomplishments and stats, winning and team success, there's no argument for Wilt > Jordan. We can do this with Shaq also but he compares even more unfavorably.

:lol:

Arguing that just "playing center" is a positive for one guy is not an actual argument. It's just you saying it.

That's probably why Magic was better too. He played center at times.

If we're talking offensive versatility, I don't see how you could possibly argue that Jordan was better.

There's so much wrong in this post I don't know where to begin, but I might start with pointing out how you conveniently ignore the rebounding. Also the idea that Jordan was an "unquestionably better" defender is just baseless.

Do you know how many Hall of Famers played on those teams of Russell's that beat Chamberlain? I know you do, but you want to ignore it because you've already made up your mind.

Jorr what is the criteria here? Putting height aside since its just an attribute like speed

If we're talking offensive versatility, I don't see how you could possibly argue that Jordan was better.

The post is dead on, which is why all you can cling to is rebounding. It's literally the only facet of the game Jordan wasn't better at. And the defensive thing isn't baseless at all. Jordan made a shitload more defensive teams, won DPOY, and has better defensive stats. It's baseless to suggest they are even comparable defensively.

You're conveniently ignoring that Wilt needed two other Hall of Famers to finally win a title as well. We are talking about the best player of all time, I'm not putting a ton of stock into how much help they had.

Your main beef with Rodman is his inability to score, yet you like to ignore this when talking about Jordan.

All I can do is cite rebounding? There were seasons when Chamberlain average 50 points per game. He played center and averaged less than an assist a game less than Jordan who often brought the ball up the court.

And I don't even think they had an all-defensive team most of the years Wilt played, so it isn't much of an argument. And regardless, he likely wasn't going to be on them when Russell was flat out the greatest defender in history.

What do you mean?

Jordan is the best scorer in the history of the NBA, but it seems like you don't really care about that, especially when comparing him to a guy like Shaq or Magic. With Rodman, it's all you wanted to focus on.