What if the Bulls traded Jordan in 1988? [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

Roundball_Rock

11-30-2009, 02:23 PM

Samurai Swoosh

11-30-2009, 02:30 PM

In the end Reinsdorf vetoed a trade solely on financial grounds: MJ was worth too much $$$$ in fan attendance.
It was also worth too much in that it resulted in 6 NBA Championships

And if it weren't for a 2 year hiatus, possibly 8 Championships

And if the team wasn't broken up, and the old Bulls played in a shortened NBA season ... 9 is definetely a possibility as well.

See all the hypotheticals running wild in this thread and making hypothetical babies?

As we all know, Pippen probably wouldn't have been near the caliber player he turned out to be without Jordan. So a 1988 and onward team without Jordan, we have no clue what they would be.

Shih508

11-30-2009, 02:33 PM

fatal

bulls would had became like Sixers today lol

Da_Realist

11-30-2009, 02:34 PM

Which ultimately resulted in 6 NBA Championships

And if it weren't for a 2 year hiatus, possibly 8

And if the team wasn't broken up, and the old Bulls played in a shortened NBA season ... 9 is definetely a possibility as well.

See all the hypotheticals running wild in this thread and making hypothetical babies?

Plus there's no way Pippen becomes the best SF of the 90's without MJ.

While Jordan’s torrid scoring would slightly slow over the years and he learned to put greater reliance on teammates, it was the endless practice sessions that Pippen said in which the greatest improvements were made.

“He was very competitive, so he went at me and that helped me learn,” said Pippen. “You continue to compete against the very best every day, and you will get better, or you’ll be embarrassed.”

Pippen knew he had room for improvement, and he focused on getting stronger as a player, and becoming a better passer and ballhandler. He worked on his shooting as well, and his efforts paid off in the 1988 playoffs, when he claimed a spot in the starting lineup.

“I went to a small school, so I had to be a jack of all trades and master a few,” said Pippen. “Defense was one thing I was really able to work at and get better. I came into a situation where I had some good coaches who really understood the defensive end of the game. They taught me things that made a difference.

“A lot of my instincts came from guarding Michael all the time in practice,” he added. “I had four other guys on my team, but I had schemes that I would throw out there depending on what he did. I’d say, ‘If I make Michael do this, then you go trap him.’ There were things I tried to do on defense to trigger him into a mistake. He was a great player, and if you couldn’t try it on him in practice, there was nowhere else to try it.”

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/jordanhof_pippen_090910.html

HylianNightmare

11-30-2009, 02:34 PM

don't live in the world of if's

you get too many crazy scenarios

Roundball_Rock

11-30-2009, 02:36 PM

SS, Jordan retired prematurely twice. Mitch Richmond wouldn't have, especially not strangely retiring a few days before the preseason. Perhaps they could have won more with this lineup? Who would be better than them in the 90's?

Relax. There was a thread a few months ago about Houston having Hakeem/Jordan/Drexler--which almost happened.

don't live in the world of if's you get too many crazy scenarios

The Clippers trade was on the table, strongly considered by the team until Reinsdorf vetoed it on financial grounds (they believed they would be more likely to win championship with the trade).

kshutts1

11-30-2009, 02:38 PM

don't live in the world of if's

you get too many crazy scenarios
I agree with the sentiment of the thread..

*WARNING* the following may spark more Pippen/Jordan debate, etc, so please keep an even head, I'm not trying to start anything
*END WARNING*

I LOATHE saying this.. I HATE saying this.. but I must defend my favorite player: Jordan would not have been the same player without Pippen, either. Sure, he had the statistics early in his career, and we can ASSUME he would have won at least one title in his career.. but 6? And 6 FMVPs? Etc, etc...

That has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.. just my favoritism coming out to defend Pip from those that say that Pippen wouldn't have been the player he was without Jordan (true, but keep in mind the other side of the coin, please).

Roundball_Rock

11-30-2009, 02:41 PM

I LOATHE saying this.. I HATE saying this.. but I must defend my favorite player: Jordan would not have been the same player without Pippen, either. Sure, he had the statistics early in his career, and we can ASSUME he would have won at least one title in his career.. but 6? And 6 FMVPs? Etc, etc...

That has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.. just my favoritism coming out to defend Pip from those that say that Pippen wouldn't have been the player he was without Jordan (true, but keep in mind the other side of the coin, please).

Would MJ be top 10 all-time with 0 rings?

The "MJ made Pippen" thing is a myth. Pippen improved in his first few years. Guess what? So does nearly everyone. Does this mean Ewing "made" Yao? Pippen's improvement tracked with the natural trajectory of a young player.

Samurai Swoosh

11-30-2009, 02:45 PM

SS, Jordan retired prematurely twice. Mitch Richmond wouldn't have, especially not strangely retiring a few days before the preseason.
What does that have to do with anything? Jordan was a superior player to Mitch Richmond in virtually everyway ... Like there is no point even debating better because no case can be made. He surely wouldn't be able to bring the intangibles and will to win, killer instinct, and never say die attitude to the Bulls that MJ brought.

He surely wouldn't be able to shape a mentally weak Scottie Pippen as he was early in his career into the player he eventually became.

You basically composited a 90's all star on the team, not taking into account how they came to be as players within context. Your center piece, Scottie Pippen, wouldn't have been the player you're expecting him to be without Jordan.

Where is the leadership and strong willed mentality on that team? It's certainly not coming from a 1988 Scottie Pippen.

:roll:

Perhaps they could have won more with this lineup? Who would be better than them in the 90's?
Doubt it. But it still resides in "could've / would've / should've" land ...

If the Clippers got away with that trade, it would've been the biggest steal of all time since Ruth got sent to the Yankees by the Red Sox. We all know Krause was an egotistical blundering idiot when it came to managing. He was always insedious with envy that the Bulls success was always directly attributed to MJ and not him. As he said, managment wins championships ... :roll:

Krause believed alot of dumb thoughts over the course of his tenure. Like Eddy Curry / Tyson Chandler being a better player than Elton Brand. Crumbs has always been a joke.

kshutts1

11-30-2009, 02:47 PM

Would MJ be top 10 all-time with 0 rings?

The "MJ made Pippen" thing is a myth. Pippen improved in his first few years. Guess what? So does nearly everyone. Does this mean Ewing "made" Yao? Pippen's improvement tracked with the natural trajectory of a young player.
Again.. to go off on a tangent, MJ would not likely have 6 rings, nor would he likely have 0, in a different situation.

MJ would likely not be MJ, and Pippen would still be a fabulous player, whose historical greatness could fluctuate greatly in EITHER direction.

I assume MJ (who strikes me as Lebron with more of a killer instinct) would get at least 2-3 titles in his years playing ball... which still puts him in the top 10, assuming his statistical production stays the same. Consensus GOAT he would not be, though.

As for Pippen, he could really blossom without Jordan, and with a better shooter on the wing, and a PG that knows how to, and looks to, set him up better than Jordan did... or he could become not-as-great with most likely less than 6 titles, and his numbers may be hurt playing with another ball-dominant player in KJ, plus weaker supporting defenders in Mitch and KJ...

All around, WAY too many variables to consider... Pippen has the most to lose, and gain, from the scenario though (after the Bulls), as Jordan would still be top 10 all-time.

guy

11-30-2009, 02:50 PM

How many titles would this team have won in the 90's?

PF Horace Grant or Charles Oakley
SF Scottie Pippen
C Rik Smits
SG Mitch Richmond
PG Kevin Johnson

This almost happened with the Bulls. The Bulls seriously considered trading Jordan to the Clippers. Sterling wanted a big draw to compete with the Lakers and Magic. What bigger draw was there than MJ? The Bulls believed they could win a championship faster without a player who, er, "dominated the ball" less (Krause: "If we had Akeem [Hakeem] Olajuwon we would already have won a championship by now) who also was "not very nice" to his teammates and didn't listen to the coach. The idea was to trade MJ for high draft picks to the Clippers and then use them to select Smits and Richmond. With MJ gone the ball would be freed up, and they would have depth, so they could go after a legit PG like Kevin Johnson. Krause believed they could have obtained Johnson from the Cavs for either Oakley or Grant. Keep in mind KJ was a 9/2/5.5 player in 88' so it is more feasible than it looks.

Alternatively, with Smits taken with their first or second pick they would have no need to use their original pick (#11) on Will Perdue. They would be set at PF, SF, C, SG. That leaves PG. They could have taken Rod Strickland with that pick.

The Bulls would have (under the KJ scenario) the best SF of the 90's, the second or third best SG (obviously MJ was the best and Drexler also had a case over Richmond), second or third best PG (Payton was the best and Stockton also had a case over prime KJ), and two all-star level big men who were top 10 at their positions in the 90's. Three superstars and two very good big men!

This is the Bulls' side of the equation. What would have become of Jordan if he were on the Clippers? He would have made them a big attraction, kind of like Gretzky did with the Kings but how much would he have won there? Would he have tolerated perennial mediocrity there or demanding a trade? If so, what would be a likely destination for him? Would he be considered the majority GOAT today if he went to the Clippers and never won a ring?

In the end Reinsdorf vetoed a trade solely on financial grounds: MJ was worth too much $$$$ in fan attendance.

Not saying you're lying, but where did you hear this? You have a link? I find it far-fetched that they were going to trade Jordan for just a few draft picks, when they could've gotten way more for a guy in the prime of his career who just won MVP and 2 scoring titles . The whole team is completely different in this case. Pippen and Grant would probably still become great, but I don't think they develop the same. KJ was always battling injuries throughout his career. I'd say that this team still very talented regardless, and if they get Phil, I'd say they could win 2-3 titles assuming everything else stays the same, which it wouldn't but its too hard to speculate further. Keyword is "could", cause none of those guys really brought the intangibles that Jordan had. None of them had the killer instinct, intensity, and focus to close out and have big playoff games on a regular basis like Jordan did. As far as Jordan goes, no way he stays with the Clippers.

Roundball_Rock

11-30-2009, 03:00 PM

What does that have to do with anything? Jordan was a superior player to Mitch Richmond in virtually everyway ...

You evidently didn't read the OP.

Of course MJ>Richmond. I said it in the OP. Read the OP and look at the lineup they were looking at if they traded MJ. Richmond+Smits+Kevin Johnson>just Jordan.

It wouldn't have been a big steal. It would have been an equal trade. The Clipper's agenda was to make money by using MJ to sell tickets. The Bulls agenda was to win championships. With Pippen/Richmond/Johnson/Smits/Grant or Oakley they would win multiple championships and dominate the 90's. MJ would not be "MJ". Like I said, would he even be top 10 all-time if he won 0 rings with the Clippers? The trade looks unfathomable now only because of hindsight and MJ becoming the majority GOAT (because the Bulls started winning).

Krause was right. He drafted Jordan, Pippen, and Grant. He acquired Rodman and Kukoc. Surely you don't believe MJ won all by himself. Imagine MJ without Pippen, Grant, Rodman, and Kukoc.

Great point, KShutts. Pippen could go either way. He could have fell down the all-time ranks or he could have moved up as the best player on the dominant team of the 90's. It would come down to how many rings they won. Winning 2-3 as the "# 1" carries more weight with people than winning 6 as the "#2". He would move up if they won multiple rings. If they won 6+ then he would be top 15 and maybe be knocking on the door of the top 10 (if he had a full prime as the best player on his team, and in this scenario his team would be the best team of the decade, he likely would have a MVP or two). Of course, if they never won a ring he would be 35-40th.

I think MJ would have won one or two rings under this scenario--if he got out of LA at some point. If he remained with the Clippers he wouldn't have won anything. Who would he have there? A decent team with prime Ron Harper and prime Danny Manning but is that team going to beat LA, Portland, or Phoenix? Then after 94' he would have nothing as Manning would be gone, Dominique was past his prime by 95', Harper went from a 20 ppg scorer to a role player after 94', etc.

All in all I agree with you, KShutts. Good post.

Rekindled

11-30-2009, 03:03 PM

You evidently didn't read the OP.

Of course MJ>Richmond. I said it in the OP. Read the OP and look at the lineup they were looking at if they traded MJ. Richmond+Smits+Kevin Johnson>just Jordan.

It wouldn't have been a big steal. It would have been an equal trade. The Clipper's agenda was to make money by using MJ to sell tickets. The Bulls agenda was to win championships. With Pippen/Richmond/Johnson/Smits/Grant or Oakley they would win multiple championships and dominate the 90's. MJ would not be "MJ". Like I said, would he even be top 10 all-time if he won 0 rings with the Clippers? The trade looks unfathomable now only because of hindsight and MJ becoming the majority GOAT (because the Bulls started winning).

Krause was right. He drafted Jordan, Pippen, and Grant. He acquired Rodman and Kukoc. Surely you don't believe MJ won all by himself. Imagine MJ without Pippen, Grant, Rodman, and Kukoc.

Great point, KShutts. Pippen could go either way. He could have fell down the all-time ranks or he could have moved up as the best player on the dominant team of the 90's. It would come down to how many rings they won. Winning 2-3 as the "# 1" carries more weight with people than winning 6 as the "#2". He would move up if they won multiple rings. If they won 6+ then he would be top 15 and maybe be knocking on the door of the top 10 (if he had a full prime as the best player on his team, and in this scenario his team would be the best team of the decade, he likely would have a MVP or two). Of course, if they never won a ring he would be 35-40th.

I think MJ would have won one or two rings under this scenario--if he got out of LA at some point. If he remained with the Clippers he wouldn't have won anything. Who would he have there? A decent team with prime Ron Harper and prime Danny Manning but is that team going to beat LA, Portland, or Phoenix? Then after 94' he would have nothing as Manning would be gone, Dominique was past his prime by 95', Harper went from a 20 ppg scorer to a role player after 94', etc.

All in all I agree with you, KShutts. Good post.

Rod Thorn drafted Jordan

triangleoffense

11-30-2009, 03:05 PM

Taking Jordan away from the Bulls would be like taking fisher away from the Jazz, and then the Lakers. Jazz went to the WCF with fisher, next year they barely made the playoffs. Lakers went to the finals twice in a row as soon as fisher came back to LA. It's the mentality of a player that makes him great. There are plenty of players who have the same talent and skill set as kobe bryant (the same cannot be said of lebron because he is a freak of nature physically) but there are none who has the same mental capacity. His perservance, work ethnic, basketball IQ, mental awareness, all of the mental intangibles that makes a player become more than a top-tier player Kobe Bryant has.

Da_Realist

11-30-2009, 03:06 PM

I agree with the sentiment of the thread..

*WARNING* the following may spark more Pippen/Jordan debate, etc, so please keep an even head, I'm not trying to start anything
*END WARNING*

I LOATHE saying this.. I HATE saying this.. but I must defend my favorite player: Jordan would not have been the same player without Pippen, either. Sure, he had the statistics early in his career, and we can ASSUME he would have won at least one title in his career.. but 6? And 6 FMVPs? Etc, etc...

That has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.. just my favoritism coming out to defend Pip from those that say that Pippen wouldn't have been the player he was without Jordan (true, but keep in mind the other side of the coin, please).

During his career, Jordan was getting GOAT mentions before he won a ring. From his peers at that. And after he retired with only 3 titles, he was widely regarded as such.

Now...after time passes and memories fade, pure numbers hold much more emphasis on how a player is judged.

So I think you're wrong...and right. Wrong in that during his time, when people were actually watching him play, the number of titles and Finals MVP's he won was not the deciding factor in determining whether he was the greatest to play.

But you're right in that...since his time, the biggest case for MJ being the GOAT is his numbers.

Without Pippen, and assuming MJ didn't have as much team success, he still would have likely been labeled as GOAT even without 6 titles/6 FMVP's during his time -- as long as he won a couple. But years later, posters like RR -- who makes convincing posts about players he didn't really see too much based on statistical data - would have long killed that goose.

Roundball_Rock

11-30-2009, 03:06 PM

Not saying you're lying, but where did you hear this? You have a link? I find it far-fetched that they were going to trade Jordan for just a few draft picks, when they could've gotten way more for a guy in the prime of his career who just won MVP and 2 scoring titles

http://www.amazon.com/Jordan-Rules-Sam-Smith/dp/0671796666 Pages 106-107. The fact a link has to be even provided is telling. The MJ story is so set in stone the fact that this was seriously even considered has been "vaporized" from history.

I agree that none of those players would have the intangibles of MJ, especially the killer instinct. However, with a stacked team like that there would not be a need to have one guy dominate at the end of the game. With so many great players the most likely thing would be to give it to who was hot on that day.

Pippen/Johnson/Richmond. We are talking three HOFers. That is like Garnett/Pierce/Allen. The differences are twofold:

1) Pippen/Johnson/Richmond would team up in their youth, grow together, and have their primes together. KG/Pierce/Allen came together when they were all past their prime.

2) KG/Pierce/Allen had two mediocre at best starters in the lineup (Rondo was not good in 08'). Pippen/Johnson/Richmond would have Rik Smits as the center (after Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Shaq, Mourning, and Mutumbo he was the best center of the 90's. Being 7th best at a position doesn't sound great but we are talking about the golden age for centers. If Smits played today he would be a top 3 center) and either Grant or Oakley at PF. This team would have no weakness. They would have quality at all positions and would still have BJ Armstrong and later Toni Kukoc coming off the bench.

Edit: thanks for the correction regarding MJ/Thorn. Still, every other key piece of that team was acquired by Krause. Pippen AND Grant in the same draft? Later he got Cartwright, Kukoc, Armstrong, and Rodman. Krause is the reason Tex Winter was there and hence the Triangle. Krause hired Jackson. Other than MJ, every other piece of the dynasty was put together by Krause.

kshutts1

11-30-2009, 03:14 PM

During his career, Jordan was getting GOAT mentions before he won a ring. From his peers at that. And after he retired with only 3 titles, he was widely regarded as such.

Now...after time passes and memories fade, pure numbers hold much more emphasis on how a player is judged.

So I think you're wrong...and right. Wrong in that during his time, when people were actually watching him play, the number of titles and Finals MVP's he won was not the deciding factor in determining whether he was the greatest to play.

But you're right in that...since his time, the biggest case for MJ being the GOAT is his numbers.

Without Pippen, and assuming MJ didn't have as much team success, he still would have likely been labeled as GOAT even without 6 titles/6 FMVP's during his time -- as long as he won a couple. But years later, posters like RR -- who makes convincing posts about players he didn't really see too much based on statistical data - would have long killed that goose.

Fair enough, but IMO.. Kareem would have most arguments at that point... how can you be the GOAT if you don't win a lot, and convincingly, as well as put up the stats?

The best argument for Jordan as GOAT is that he is the "best combination" of: stats, wins, titles, MVPs, FMVPs, and All NBA selections..

If his titles drop from 6, and his FMVPs, to maybe 2-3... then he's got comparable #s with lots of greats, comparable or LESS wins/titles/FMVPs, and comparable All NBA selections. There would be no "clear-cut" argument to use for him, aside from Stern's marketing campaign.

guy

11-30-2009, 03:19 PM

http://www.amazon.com/Jordan-Rules-Sam-Smith/dp/0671796666 Pages 106-107. The fact a link has to be even provided is telling. The MJ story is so set in stone the fact that this was seriously even considered has been "vaporized" from history.

I agree that none of those players would have the intangibles of MJ, especially the killer instinct. However, with a stacked team like that there would not be a need to have one guy dominate at the end of the game. With so many great players the most likely thing would be to give it to who was hot on that day.

Pippen/Johnson/Richmond. We are talking three HOFers. That is like Garnett/Pierce/Allen. The differences are twofold:

1) Pippen/Johnson/Richmond would team up in their youth, grow together, and have their primes together. KG/Pierce/Allen came together when they were all past their prime.

2) KG/Pierce/Allen had two mediocre at best starters in the lineup (Rondo was not good in 08'). Pippen/Johnson/Richmond would have Rik Smits as the center (after Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Shaq, Mourning, and Mutumbo he was the best center of the 90's. Being 7th best at a position doesn't sound great but we are talking about the golden age for centers. If Smits played today he would be a top 3 center) and either Grant or Oakley at PF. This team would have no weakness. They would have quality at all positions and would still have BJ Armstrong and later Toni Kukoc coming off the bench.

Edit: thanks for the correction regarding MJ/Thorn. Still, every other key piece of that team was acquired by Krause. Pippen AND Grant in the same draft? Later he got Cartwright, Kukoc, Armstrong, and Rodman. Krause is the reason Tex Winter was there and hence the Triangle. Krause hired Jackson. Other than MJ, every other piece of the dynasty was put together by Krause.

Thanks. I'll have to read it cause I've never had the chance. I find it very hard to believe that the Bulls ever gave this serious consideration. I wouldn't be surprised if they ever seriously considered trading Jordan, but for that deal? Hard to believe, but I'll have to read it.

And sorry man, I don't know what you were watching back then, but Pippen/Johnson/Richmond is not on the same level as KG/Pierce/Allen. Neither Richmond or KJ are even HOFers, although KJ did play at a HOF level before he was robbed by injuries.

kshutts1

11-30-2009, 03:25 PM

Thanks. I'll have to read it cause I've never had the chance. I find it very hard to believe that the Bulls ever gave this serious consideration. I wouldn't be surprised if they ever seriously considered trading Jordan, but for that deal? Hard to believe, but I'll have to read it.
While it looks lopsided now (and then, considering production) the Bulls FO is notorious for OVERvaluing potential. See: Tyson (or Curry, but pretty sure it was Tyson) vs Brand, Tyrus Thomas vs Aldridge.. one of the few times they made the right pick was Hinrich

but the book is definitely a great read.

Da_Realist

11-30-2009, 03:26 PM

Roundball_Rock

11-30-2009, 03:32 PM

Fair enough, but IMO.. Kareem would have most arguments at that point... how can you be the GOAT if you don't win a lot, and convincingly, as well as put up the stats?

The best argument for Jordan as GOAT is that he is the "best combination" of: stats, wins, titles, MVPs, FMVPs, and All NBA selections..

If his titles drop from 6, and his FMVPs, to maybe 2-3... then he's got comparable #s with lots of greats, comparable or LESS wins/titles/FMVPs, and comparable All NBA selections. There would be no "clear-cut" argument to use for him, aside from Stern's marketing campaign.

I agree. There is always hype. There were some people calling Jeff Gordon the GOAT NASCAR driver a few years ago. The "Peyton can be the GOAT" hype began a few years into his career. Some began calling Brady the GOAT QB after only a few seasons, albeit he had 3 rings by that point, unlike Manning at that point. MJ definitely would not be the majority GOAT today if he never won a ring. Would he be in the conversation? Perhaps but after the hype faded away if he had no rings what would be the case for him? Individual achievements. If that is your standard then Wilt>MJ and Wilt should be your GOAT.

History has not been kind to players who never won a championship. Look at the players usually considered to be top 10 all-time. All of the have championships. Is this a coincidence? I don't think so. There is a bias toward championships in historical evaluation. Most players never win a ring. Does anyone really believe none of them were good enough to at least be top 10 all-time? Some were but they paid the price historically for not winning a ring. At best MJ without a ring would be Dan Marino: great individual numbers, in the conversation, have his partisans but ultimately the vast majority of people pick a GOAT QB with rings (Montana, Manning, Favre, Brady, et al.)

Thanks. I'll have to read it cause I've never had the chance. I find it very hard to believe that the Bulls ever gave this serious consideration. I wouldn't be surprised if they ever seriously considered trading Jordan, but for that deal? Hard to believe, but I'll have to read it.

The reason they seriously considered it was because Krause and Collins were convinced they could never win a ring with MJ because he dominated the ball too much. At the time only one scoring champ had won a championship in the same season (Kareem). I am about 3/5 through the book. Jackson is obsessed with getting Jordan to share the ball. This is part of the purpose of the triangle. In the end, we know, MJ found the right balance between scoring and involving teammates but at the time it was reasonable to think he never would.

Yeah, I do find it odd that they considered trading MJ for draft picks. If you were going to trade MJ do it straight up for a great, albeit by default lesser, player and attach maybe a draft pick or two or another solid player with it. The Clippers had no players they were interested in. If they pulled the trigger it would have worked out given who the picks would have been. I don't know if they could have gotten Johnson but if they got Smits there would be no need to draft Perdue so they may have taken Rod Strickland with their original pick. Pippen/Richmond/Strickland/Smits/Grant or Oakley with Armstrong coming off the bench and later Kukoc coming off the bench is still a dominant team.

In retrospect it sounds unfathomable but I was surprised that the consensus within the team was that they would be more likely to win a championship by getting rid of MJ. Reinsdorf vetoed the trade on financial, not basketball grounds.

“A lot of my instincts came from guarding Michael all the time in practice,” he added. “I had four other guys on my team, but I had schemes that I would throw out there depending on what he did. I’d say, ‘If I make Michael do this, then you go trap him.’ There were things I tried to do on defense to trigger him into a mistake. He was a great player, and if you couldn’t try it on him in practice, there was nowhere else to try it.”

The scenario has him playing Kevin Johnson, Mitch Richmond (the second best SG of the 90's according to MJ) in practice. Those were easy guys to guard? Even MJ always had trouble with Richmond.

Players help teammates all the time. I assume, since you were a MJ fan, that you are a Bulls fan. Lindsay Hunter is helping Rose, Brad Miller is helping Noah. Does that mean they "made" them if they become HOF'ers? Players improve. Look at the trajectory of players. There are a handful of players like Lebron who are superstars from day 1. Others, like a Chris Paul, Yao, Deron, or Dwight Howard steadily improve (even superstars from day 1 consistently improve, albeit not at the same rate). They weren't superstars from day 1. Does this mean Ewing "made" Yao?

Jordan himself has said Pippen helped make MJ the best he could be. Does that mean Pippen "made" MJ the majority GOAT?

Da_Realist

11-30-2009, 03:35 PM

I agree. There is always hype. There were some people calling Jeff Gordon the GOAT NASCAR driver a few years ago. The "Peyton can be the GOAT" hype began a few years into his career. Some began calling Brady the GOAT QB after only a few seasons, albeit he had 3 rings by that point, unlike Manning at that point. MJ definitely would not be the majority GOAT today if he never won a ring. Would he be in the conversation? Perhaps but after the hype faded away if he had no rings what would be the case for him? Individual achievements. If that is your standard then Wilt>MJ and Wilt should be your GOAT.

History has not been kind to players who never won a championship. Look at the players usually considered to be top 10 all-time. All of the have championships. Is this a coincidence? I don't think so. There is a bias toward championships in historical evaluation. Most players never win a ring. Does anyone really believe none of them were good enough to at least be top 10 all-time? Some were but they paid the price historically for not winning a ring. At best MJ without a ring would be Dan Marino: great individual numbers, in the conversation, have his partisans but ultimately the vast majority of people pick a GOAT QB with rings (Montana, Manning, Favre, Brady, et al.)

So now MJ wouldn't have won ANY??? :wtf:

kshutts1

11-30-2009, 03:36 PM

It depends. I consider Larry Bird to be as big a winner as Michael Jordan but he only has 3 titles. Knowledgeable fans -- not the media or fans that didn't see them play -- would openly admit Larry Bird has as much a case as anybody. Kobe has won more titles in his career than Bird, but I'd take Bird over Kobe 10 times out of 10. If winning only 2-3 titles leaves MJ in that company, then so be it.

Most GOAT talk is by a consensus. Most of those people couldn't tell you about real basketball so they fall on the numbers. 6 titles, 6 FMVP's is convincing as hell so they run with it. But MJ at 2-3 titles is still MJ...the only thing changed is his career. So yeah, the consensus would say that MJ didn't have a strong enough case to be GOAT, but the ones that actually saw him play would still be as convinced.
I saw him play, and I"m not convinced. And I agree with you about Kobe and Bird, as well.

Winners are not made/shown by just titles.. completely agree with that point.. and MJ would still be a winner. But I am a logical person, I need statistics to back up my opinion. I look at MJ and it's hard to argue against what he's done quantitatively... but at the same time, I keep an open eye in the sense that a lot of "Jordan's" achievements -- wins, titles, FMVPs -- are a team accomplishment. The "team accomplishment" aspect, and the differences in era and competition making it impossible to properly compare players, are the reasons for me using the tiered structure.

MJ would not be MJ for the sole reason that he would no longer be consensus GOAT. Those of us that actually watch basketball would choose MJ... or Kareem or Wilt or Bird or Magic or Shaq as is NOW done. I agree that all that would change would be the blind favoritism/bias for MJ as GOAT, and it would be an open discussion. And IMO, how can you be a GOAT if others have very strong arguments themselves?

edit - can't believe I forgot Russell when naming other GOAT candidates

guy

11-30-2009, 03:38 PM

While it looks lopsided now (and then, considering production) the Bulls FO is notorious for OVERvaluing potential. See: Tyson (or Curry, but pretty sure it was Tyson) vs Brand, Tyrus Thomas vs Aldridge.. one of the few times they made the right pick was Hinrich

but the book is definitely a great read.

Okay, but you're talking about Elton Brand not Michael Jordan, who was one of the greatest players ever in the middle of his prime, the current MVP at the time, and the scoring champ of the previous 2 seasons. Its really far-fetched to think they considered trading him for a few draft picks. Like I said, I haven't read the book, but its been known that Sam Smith has a reputation as someone that stretches the truth and tries to go for some shock value, and was considered biased against Jordan for that reason (not saying anything he said about Jordan wasn't true.) His recent article about Lebron joining the Lakers is a clear example of that. I'm not saying its not possible that this deal was proposed, I just find it hard to believe that it was seriously considered. But like I said, I'll have to read it myself.

kshutts1

11-30-2009, 03:41 PM

So now MJ wouldn't have won ANY??? :wtf:
Don't get your panties in a bunch, and read the whole thread, it is only 2 pages...

RR said in an earlier post that he would likely get 1-2 titles, which is pretty realistic. I believe it would be more like 2-3, but 1-2 is realistic.

guy

11-30-2009, 03:43 PM

The reason they seriously considered it was because Krause and Collins were convinced they could never win a ring with MJ because he dominated the ball too much. At the time only one scoring champ had won a championship in the same season (Kareem).

When they had just improved by 10 games, winning 50 and got to the 2nd round for the first time in years? And Jordan was only 25 and in the middle of his prime? Sounds weird, but I'll have to read it. If they seriously considered that, then Jordan was right to consider him an idiot GM at the time (although Jordan himself is worse.) This would be the equivalent of trading Lebron today for draft picks.

kshutts1

11-30-2009, 03:43 PM

Okay, but you're talking about Elton Brand not Michael Jordan, who was one of the greatest players ever in the middle of his prime, the current MVP at the time, and the scoring champ of the previous 2 seasons. Its really far-fetched to think they considered trading him for a few draft picks. Like I said, I haven't read the book, but its been known that Sam Smith has a reputation as someone that stretches the truth and tries to go for some shock value, and was considered biased against Jordan for that reason (not saying anything he said about Jordan wasn't true.) His recent article about Lebron joining the Lakers is a clear example of that. I'm not saying its not possible that this deal was proposed, I just find it hard to believe that it was seriously considered. But like I said, I'll have to read it myself.
By middle of prime you mean his 3rd season in the league? His best statistical season, but not his best season...

And Brand was obviously not on MJs level, but he was no slouch.. he was 20 ppg and 10 rpg and 2 bpg BETTER THAN THE GUY THE BULLS TRADED HIM FOR.

Edit: Also, while Brand was not MJ by any stretch again, he was still VERY young and putting up great numbers... so now you're trading a young, good post player... I mean.. that is a very coveted piece when rebuilding a team (which the Bulls were)... in hindsight, and at the time, it was a huge mistake.

guy

11-30-2009, 03:46 PM

By middle of prime you mean his 3rd season in the league? His best statistical season, but not his best season...

And Brand was obviously not on MJs level, but he was no slouch.. he was 20 ppg and 10 rpg and 2 bpg BETTER THAN THE GUY THE BULLS TRADED HIM FOR.

This would've been after the 1988 season, Jordan's 4th season and first MVP season. Brand was great, but he was far from a top 3 player in the league like Jordan was.

Roundball_Rock

11-30-2009, 03:48 PM

And sorry man, I don't know what you were watching back then, but Pippen/Johnson/Richmond is not on the same level as KG/Pierce/Allen. Neither Richmond or KJ are even HOFers, although KJ did play at a HOF level before he was robbed by injuries.

It is comparable. Richmond should be a HOFer but he may not get in because he played on pathetic lottery teams during his prime. Who was a better SG than him in the 90's? Obviously MJ, perhaps Drexler. Who else? He was top 3 at his position. Compare that to Allen. Where does Allen rank among 00's SG's? Kobe, Wade, and prime Carter are/were better. Roy arguably is too, but Roy came along after Allen was out of his prime.

Pippen=KG

Johnson>Pierce, although KJ lacks Pierce's longevity. Johnson made 4 all-NBA second teams. Pierce has made only one.

You also have to consider age. These guys would get together when they were young, not when they were all past their prime. Plus, they would have Smits and Oakley or Grant with them in the starting 5, not Perkins and Rondo. Pippen/KJ/Richmond is comparable to KG/Pierce/Allen but Pippen/Richmond/Johnson/Smits/Grant>KG/Pierce/Allen/Rondo/Perkins.

While it looks lopsided now (and then, considering production) the Bulls FO is notorious for OVERvaluing potential.

I don't see how it was lopsided. If anything the Bulls would be better pulling this off. Yeah, at the time dealing the best player in the league for two draft picks and a first year 9/2/6 player in KJ was lopsided on paper but look at how good Richmond, Johnson, and Smits wound up being. Given that it would be a good trade. Which lineup is stronger?

Grant
Pippen
Cartwright
Jordan
Paxson

Or

Grant
Pippen
Smits
Richmond
Johnson

Grant=Grant
Pippen=Pippen
Smits>>>Cartwright
Richmond<<Jordan
Johnson>>>Paxson

Knowledgeable fans -- not the media or fans that didn't see them play -- would openly admit Larry Bird has as much a case as anybody.

Interesting. Is there a single person on ISH who considers Bird the GOAT? He is always in the conversation but does anyone ever place him first?

Achievements, especially winning matters in historical evaluation of sports figures. Maybe this is wrong but that is just the way it is. Why do you think every top 10 all-time NBA player has a ring? The same holds true in other sports as well. Why was A Rod winning a ring such a big deal? A Rod would still be A Rod with or without a championship. What about Elway? Past his prime Elway winning 2 rings with Terrell Davis made him a better playe? No, but 2 Super Bowl championships look a lot better than being 0-3 in the Super Bowl. Of course, the best example of this is Dan Marino. 0 rings and his case for being the GOAT QB is very weak.

kshutts1

11-30-2009, 03:53 PM

It is comparable. Richmond should be a HOFer but he may not get in because he played on pathetic lottery teams during his prime. Who was a better SG than him in the 90's? Obviously MJ, perhaps Drexler. Who else? He was top 3 at his position. Compare that to Allen. Where does Allen rank among 00's SG's? Kobe, Wade, and prime Carter are/were better. Roy arguably is too, but Roy came along after Allen was out of his prime.

Pippen=KG

Johnson>Pierce, although KJ lacks Pierce's longevity. Johnson made 4 all-NBA second teams. Pierce has made only one.

You also have to consider age. These guys would get together when they were young, not when they were all past their prime. Plus, they would have Smits and Oakley or Grant with them in the starting 5, not Perkins and Rondo. Pippen/KJ/Richmond is comparable to KG/Pierce/Allen but Pippen/Richmond/Johnson/Smits/Grant>KG/Pierce/Allen/Rondo/Perkins.

I don't see how it was lopsided. If anything the Bulls would be better pulling this off. Yeah, at the time dealing the best player in the league for two draft picks and a first year 9/2/6 player in KJ was lopsided on paper but look at how good Richmond, Johnson, and Smits wound up being. Given that it would be a good trade. Which lineup is stronger?

Grant
Pippen
Cartwright
Jordan
Paxson

Or

Grant
Pippen
Smits
Richmond
Johnson

Grant=Grant
Pippen=Pippen
Smits>>>Cartwright
Richmond<<Jordan
Johnson>>>Paxson

Interesting. Is there a single person on ISH who considers Bird the GOAT? He is always in the conversation but does anyone ever place him first?

Achievements, especially winning matters in historical evaluation of sports figures. Maybe this is wrong but that is just the way it is. Why do you think every top 10 all-time NBA player has a ring? The same holds true in other sports as well. Why was A Rod winning a ring such a big deal? A Rod would still be A Rod with or without a championship. What about Elway? Past his prime Elway winning 2 rings with Terrell Davis made him a better playe? No, but 2 Super Bowl championships look a lot better than being 0-3 in the Super Bowl. Of course, the best example of this is Dan Marino. 0 rings and his case for being the GOAT QB is very weak.
Huge mistake. You must look at the trade from when it would have gone down. The Bulls were not trading for those 3 players IN THEIR PRIMES. They were trading for them before they were relevant. What's to say they would have turned out the same? That the Bulls would have gotten the players in the draft they wanted? etc... at the time, seriously lopsided trade

Da_Realist

11-30-2009, 03:56 PM

Interesting. Is there a single person on ISH who considers Bird the GOAT? He is always in the conversation but does anyone ever place him first?

Achievements, especially winning matters in historical evaluation of sports figures. Maybe this is wrong but that is just the way it is. Why do you think every top 10 all-time NBA player has a ring? The same holds true in other sports as well. Why was A Rod winning a ring such a big deal? A Rod would still be A Rod with or without a championship. What about Elway? Past his prime Elway winning 2 rings with Terrell Davis made him a better playe? No, but 2 Super Bowl championships look a lot better than being 0-3 in the Super Bowl. Of course, the best example of this is Dan Marino. 0 rings and his case for being the GOAT QB is very weak.

I don't know about ISH, but I know many fans (not just Celtics fans) that think Larry Bird is the best player ever. Most of ISH probably never saw him play so this might be a moot question.

Roundball_Rock

11-30-2009, 04:09 PM

So now MJ wouldn't have won ANY??? :wtf:

Not with the Clippers. I mentioned Jordan/Harper/Manning earlier. With MJ there the Clippers would never acquire a 20 ppg scoring SG like prime Harper. Jordan/Manning would have been enough???? If he got traded he probably would, but that would depend on where he got traded. What would be possible destinations for him? You would have to consider a team with a dominant scorer would not want MJ due to chemistry issues. You can't have two 30 ppg scorers on the same team. Among top 90's teams that makes Houston, Orlando, San Antonio, Phoenix, and Utah unlikely. If they had a franchise SG like Drexler or Miller would they remain loyal or go for the upgrade with MJ? Of course, the Pacers would not be the Pacers without Smits.

The only top team that could work with MJ would be the Knicks--IF Ewing was willing to accept reducing his scoring to around 20 ppg. They could pull the trigger, acquire Jordan but if Ewing was disgruntled the pairing wouldn't work as you would think he would then demand a trade.

Another intriguing possibility would be Charlotte. It was an expansion team and acquiring the local hero would be a marketing dream for them. Add in the fact that the local hero is the best player in the league and it would be the GOAT marketing opportunity. Charlotte would have two good young players in Johnson and Mourning who would be willing, in theory, to defer to MJ. They also had some good role players like Mugsy. However, Mourning and LJ clashed. Could they handle a 30 ppg superstar?

Even if Ewing went to NY or Charlotte he would have to face a Pippen/Richmond/KJ/Smits/Kukoc juggernaut (assuming Grant left anyway) just to get out the East.

The Bulls were not trading for those 3 players IN THEIR PRIMES. They were trading for them before they were relevant. What's to say they would have turned out the same?

What do you mean? KJ became great in his second season (20 ppg, 12 apg). Richmond developed on a similarly offensively stacked team with prime Mullin and Tim Hardaway. If he developed there why couldn't he do so with Pippen/KJ? Pippen scored less than Mullin and Hardaway is comparable to Johnson.

I don't know about ISH, but I know many fans (not just Celtics fans) that think Larry Bird is the best player ever. Most of ISH probably never saw him play so this might be a moot question.

Yeah, but surely many ISH'ers saw him.

You said you could see Bird as the GOAT. How? Did you ever see Mikan, Russell, Wilt, and prime Kareem play contemporaneously?

This would've been after the 1988 season, Jordan's 4th season and first MVP season. Brand was great, but he was far from a top 3 player in the league like Jordan was.

The best player in the eyes of the Bulls. The idea was to build a team. They believed that MJ would never be more than a one man show. This may have happened but fortunately Phil Jackson got MJ to buy into the team concept. The book is interesting. MJ is constantly complaining about his teammates. His teammates are constantly complaining about MJ complaining about them and hogging the ball. They'll say things like how can they step up if they never get the ball? On top of this there were players clashing with management over contracts and Jordan clashing with Krause, Jackson. At one point Reinsdorf had to meet with MJ to get him to stop criticizing Krause and his teammates. MJ himself was considering asking for a trade because he believed he could never win with the Bulls.

It was fortuitous the Bulls won in 91'. MJ thought he could never win with the Bulls (bad management, bad teammates in his eyes). The Bulls thought they could never win with MJ. If they came up short again in 91' who knows what would have happened in 92'. Would MJ have demanded a trade? What could they have gotten for him? Where would MJ have wound up?

guy

11-30-2009, 04:16 PM

It is comparable. Richmond should be a HOFer but he may not get in because he played on pathetic lottery teams during his prime. Who was a better SG than him in the 90's? Obviously MJ, perhaps Drexler. Who else? He was top 3 at his position. Compare that to Allen. Where does Allen rank among 00's SG's? Kobe, Wade, and prime Carter are/were better. Roy arguably is too, but Roy came along after Allen was out of his prime.

Well the 00's SG's are better then the 90's SG's overall due to the plethora of great swingmen that came along at the time. So just cause Richmond might be the 3rd best in the 90s, while Allen is worse relative to the 00s, that doesn't mean Richmond>Allen.

Pippen=KG

No they're not. KG is better, but its close enough so I'm not going to go through another war of words with you about Pippen.

Johnson>Pierce, although KJ lacks Pierce's longevity. Johnson made 4 all-NBA second teams. Pierce has made only one.

No. Like you said, KJ lacks Pierce's longevity. Pierce is a lock for the HOF, KJ is not. No way is KJ better.

You also have to consider age. These guys would get together when they were young, not when they were all past their prime. Plus, they would have Smits and Oakley or Grant with them in the starting 5, not Perkins and Rondo. Pippen/KJ/Richmond is comparable to KG/Pierce/Allen but Pippen/Richmond/Johnson/Smits/Grant>KG/Pierce/Allen/Rondo/Perkins.

Well I did, thats why I said they could win multiple titles. I don't think the Celtics will another one, but I'll still take the 08 Celtics over any version of those hypothetical Bulls, although it would be a great and close matchup.

I don't see how it was lopsided. If anything the Bulls would be better pulling this off. Yeah, at the time dealing the best player in the league for two draft picks and a first year 9/2/6 player in KJ was lopsided on paper but look at how good Richmond, Johnson, and Smits wound up being. Given that it would be a good trade. Which lineup is stronger?

Grant
Pippen
Cartwright
Jordan
Paxson

Or

Grant
Pippen
Smits
Richmond
Johnson

Grant=Grant
Pippen=Pippen
Smits>>>Cartwright
Richmond<<Jordan
Johnson>>>Paxson

LOL @ you being so confident that they would be better off. So you're really that confident that they would've won 6 titles or more? Sorry thats a joke.

And either way, if the Bulls management would've known exactly how good Rik Smits and Mitch Richmond became, it wouldn't be as lopsided (but still lopsided). BUT THEY DIDNT. They didn't even know if those guys would be available to pick. The trade wasn't Jordan for Smits and Richmond, it was Jordan for two draft picks, where they had prospects in mind but they didn't know if they would be availabe to pick and they didn't know if those prospects would be as great as they're hoping (which is the case with about 90% of draft picks.) Like I said for the millionth time I need to read the book, but trading the reigning MVP who is only 25 years old for those very uncertain and risky assets would be considered the dumbest move ever at the time (and maybe even now if things didn't work out for the Bulls.)

Da_Realist

11-30-2009, 04:16 PM

You said you could see Bird as the GOAT. How? Did you ever see Mikan, Russell, Wilt, and prime Kareem play contemporaneously?

I said I thought Bird has as much a case as anybody. How? Just watch a few of his games. He was that good.

Cyclone112

11-30-2009, 04:19 PM

Pippen=KG
Johnson>Pierce

Seriously? Hopefully some Boston fans will come in here and start bashing you.

It's funny how you can't accomplish trashing MJ in your other threads with KAJ so now you resort to 20 year old unrealistic hypotheticals

Knoe Itawl

11-30-2009, 04:21 PM

Boy this Roundball Rock dude is annoying. Typing long winded essays of "what if" scenarios all in an attempt to detract from Jordan. The funniest thing is that he says Jordan wouldn't have won any titles or won less titles away from Pippen as if it's FACT, which it isn't. Guess what? Jordan played on the Bulls, he got all the titles, got all the awards and that's that. I could write longwinded essays about how Kobe wouldn't have ONE title without Shaq, and without being a whiner who forced a trade, but what's the point? What if scenarios can be interesting at times, but you go on and on and on as if you're hypotheticals are facts.

TMac three + titles with prime Shaq
DWade three + titles with prime Shaq
LeBron three + titles with prime Shaq
Prime AI, 2 or more titles with prime Shaq
Kobe zero titles without whining his way to LA + Shaq
Kobe zero titles as the team leader without lopsided, ridiculous trade by Memphis

and on and on and on and on.

It must really annoy you that so many people consider Jordan the GOAT, and I've never understood that. Look at the guy's resume (oh that's right, people like you know the resume is impeccable so you have to take little shots at it by trying to nitpick things here and there). Even if someone doesn't think he's goat, which is certainly their right, only an idiot would think he has no claim to the title. Only and idiot would think media hype has ANYTHING to do with it. Media hype is Kobe Bryant getting credit for 3 Shaq dominated titles as if he was equal. Name any other players with Jordan's resume? I thought so. Therefore, even if you don't think he's GOAT, to devote so much time to trying to knock him down a peg just shows the mindstate of those that attempt to do it. At the very LEAST he has an argument for being GOAT. Jordan detractors kill me because they try to hide behind this veil of "just trying to offer a different view" or whatever but in reality the man, and his legend makes them burn slow. You'll deny it, of course, but your actions say otherwise. That's why, despite your attempts at allegedly providing "thought provoking discussion on the Jordan legend!", most of your threads are worthless.

kshutts1

11-30-2009, 04:21 PM

What do you mean? KJ became great in his second season (20 ppg, 12 apg). Richmond developed on a similarly offensively stacked team with prime Mullin and Tim Hardaway. If he developed there why couldn't he do so with Pippen/KJ? Pippen scored less than Mullin and Hardaway is comparable to Johnson.
What I meant is that you can't just assume all else will stay the same. Who you play with, for, etc, all change who you are as a player (something Jordan fans and Pippen fans alike fail to realize when discussing the merits of either player). You can not just assume that you can change nearly all of the variables, and the end result remains the same. On the same token, another variable that you neglected to mention was the draft picks.. who says those are the players picked? that the Bulls get those picks/players? etc..

I can agree with you that it's likely that the players would each turn out pretty close to what they were, it is not a given, and you must allow room for error, etc.

I will say that IF the players in question turned out to be the exact same, then the Bulls would be more talented, but I am unsure they would win the same amount. Jordan's drive to win is.... pretty high, and quite contagious.

kshutts1

11-30-2009, 04:23 PM

Seriously? Hopefully some Boston fans will come in here and start bashing you.

It's funny how you can't accomplish trashing MJ in your other threads with KAJ so now you resort to 20 year old unrealistic hypotheticals
Uh... I hope someone comes in to educate me, as well, as I agree about those two comparisons. The ONLY claim Pierce has over KJ is longevity, but since we're not talking about winning titles until KJ is 40... it's kinda irrelevant. When healthy, KJ was a better player than Pierce is, IMO. KJ was arguably the best PG in the league when healthy... and that's with Stockton and Isiah in the league! Pierce has never been the best SG/SF in the league.. always right around 3rd....

Roundball_Rock

11-30-2009, 04:32 PM

Well the 00's SG's are better then the 90's SG's overall due to the plethora of great swingmen that came along at the time. So just cause Richmond might be the 3rd best in the 90s, while Allen is worse relative to the 00s, that doesn't mean Richmond>Allen.

You would agree that Richmond is at least comparable to Allen?

No they're not. KG is better, but its close enough so I'm not going to go through another war of words with you about Pippen.

KG probably was. When I say "=" I don't mean they are 100% the same. I just mean they are close.

No way is KJ better.

Prime KJ>Pierce. Prime KJ was a beast. Has Pierce ever even been a top 10 player? Pierce had the better career but Johnson was the better player.

I'll still take the 08 Celtics over any version of those hypothetical Bulls, although it would be a great and close matchup.

If you are talking about winning in a given year then maybe the KG/Pierce/Allen Celtics have a case but when you factor in age than Pippen/Richmond/Johnson/Smits/Grant> the Celtics big 3. The former would have a decade's window to win a ring. The Celtics had 2 years and this year may be their last real shot.

So you're really that confident that they would've won 6 titles or more?

Who would have been better than them? Remember, MJ retired in 94'. This squad wins in 94'. 95' is questionable. If they kept Oakley instead of Grant they would be favorites in 95'. If they kept Grant and he left they would be weak rebounding-wise and vulnerable. At the time Oakley was proven, Grant wasn't so it is more likely they would have kept Oak. These are 2 championships they could have won with this team that they didn't with MJ. So even if they lost in 2 of the 6 Jordan-era title years they would still reach 6.

And either way, if the Bulls management would've known exactly how good Rik Smits and Mitch Richmond became, it wouldn't be as lopsided (but still lopsided). BUT THEY DIDNT. They didn't even know if those guys would be available to pick.

Krause was very high on Smits. The Clippers had the #1 and #6 picks, and Chicago the #11. They could have had one of them with the #1. Richmond went 5th. They could have swapped the #5 and #6 in a trade to get Richmond. Them taking Smits would be easy. Richmond would take a little work. If Golden State didn't trade their pick Hersey Hawkins and Dan Majerle (who Krause also loved) would be all-star level SG's available. With Smits there would be no need to take Perdue with the #11 pick. Rod Strickland would be available as a PG at that point. So under this alternate scenario:

PF Oakley or Grant
SF Pippen
C Smits
SG Hawkins or Majerle
PG Strickland or Johnson

This team would still be a championship team good enough for multiple titles. Without Richmond, though, I don't think 4-5 or even more rings would be possible. The above team would have all-star level players at all starting positions but only one or two superstar (one if they couldn't get KJ).

trading the reigning MVP who is only 25 years old for those very uncertain and risky assets would be considered the dumbest move ever at the time

I agree with that. I was surprised when I read it. I can understand why they wanted to trade MJ but to trade him for picks would be dumb. If you were going to trade him do it for another superstar plus a role player and/or a draft pick. I.e.: Jordan for Ewing with a role player and a first round pick.

Keep in mind it was the Clippers he made the offer, not the Bulls, but the Bulls did seriously consider it.

Roundball_Rock

11-30-2009, 04:45 PM

Boy this Roundball Rock dude is annoying. Typing long winded essays of "what if" scenarios all in an attempt to detract from Jordan. The funniest thing is that he says Jordan wouldn't have won any titles or won less titles away from Pippen as if it's FACT, which it isn't.

RIF: Reading Is Fundamental. I said Jordan would not have won with the Clippers. If he got traded he probably would have won a ring or two, depending on where he went.

Interesting. This is to detract from Jordan? Where were your complaints regarding the "Hakeem/Drexler/Jordan in Houston" thread (a very similar scenario based on trading a superstar and draft picks)? That was a great what if; this is a "bad" one. :confusedshrug: Was Hakeem/MJ/Drexler an attempt to detract from Pippen or even Hakeem (Hakeem=2 rings, MJ there=total domination)? Why is there so much hypocrisy from MJ fans? MJ may have benefited from one set of rules for him and another for the rest of the team on the Bulls but it is absurd to extend that special treatment vis-a-vis MJ to internet message boards.

TMac three + titles with prime Shaq
DWade three + titles with prime Shaq
LeBron three + titles with prime Shaq
Prime AI, 2 or more titles with prime Shaq
Kobe zero titles without whining his way to LA + Shaq
Kobe zero titles as the team leader without lopsided, ridiculous trade by Memphis

I agree with what you are saying, although you have to factor in timing and ag. Wade and Lebron would not be in the NBA until Shaq was past his prime and they would not yet be in theirs. Prime AI and Shaq? Multiple rings. AI was the league leader in scoring by 99'. Shaq/AI would probably win every ring from 1999-02 and maybe even beyond that if the team stayed together. 04' would be a good opportunity as would 05'. The caveat is would AI be willing to share the ball with Shaq?

Even if someone doesn't think he's goat, which is certainly their right, only an idiot would think he has no claim to the title.

Of course he has a claim to it. Don't you notice that even his biggest detractors never have him lower than 5th all-time?

Only and idiot would think media hype has ANYTHING to do with it.

That is a naive statement. Why do you think every sport's GOAT happened to be around in the past 20-25 years? The answer is they benefit from the most recent hype and benefit from people having fresher memories of them.

Name any other players with Jordan's resume?

Kareem, Russell, Wilt, Shaq, Bird, Magic, Duncan.

most of your threads are worthless.

How many Jordan threads have I posted? Second, why read worthless threads? That is idiotic, no?

I said I thought Bird has as much a case as anybody. How? Just watch a few of his games. He was that good.

How? How can you compare his case to that of Mikan, Russell, Wilt, and Kareem?

AirJordan23

11-30-2009, 04:52 PM

http://doubledribble.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/jordan-shows-6-fingers-to-utah.jpg

Blzrfn

11-30-2009, 04:53 PM

A Bulls team with KJ, Mitch, Smits, Oak Tree, and Pip? Interesting. That team would have won a few rings, but not the six that they won in the 90's.

As for MJ in Clipperland, I don't know if he would have wanted to stay there for too long. Sterling doesn't care about winning. He probably would have left for the Knicks as a FA, and him and Ewing would have teamed for a few rings.

guy

11-30-2009, 05:07 PM

Who would have been better than them? Remember, MJ retired in 94'. This squad wins in 94'. 95' is questionable. If they kept Oakley instead of Grant they would be favorites in 95'. If they kept Grant and he left they would be weak rebounding-wise and vulnerable. At the time Oakley was proven, Grant wasn't so it is more likely they would have kept Oak. These are 2 championships they could have won with this team that they didn't with MJ. So even if they lost in 2 of the 6 Jordan-era title years they would still reach 6

Who would have been better then them? Hard to tell, but even on paper (which is all we have) they definitely wouldn't have been the clear cut favorites every single year, as opposed to the Jordan-Hakeem-Drexler trio you mentioned earlier and what the actual Bulls were in most of their title seasons. Are you forgetting that KJ was injury-prone, and this will probably be exposed even more with the Bulls having to go through the most physical teams in the league such as the Pistons and/or Knicks for possibly 6 straight postseasons (which they did for 7 straight postseasons from 88-94)? Where is the evidence that Mitch Richmond doesn't shrink in the playoffs against some of the better teams? By no fault of his own, he never played more then 2 rounds in the playoffs, and only played in 3 postseasons in his prime. Who's to say he would've been a consistent threat every year in deep playoff runs? Who's to say Rik Smits would've been as effective as the 4th option on a team as opposed to the 2nd option he was in Indiana? There's way too many variables here for players that have way too many question marks and weren't that great in the first place (in KJ's case-in certain stages of his career). To assume they would've had equal or better success is really ridiculous.

Rake2204

11-30-2009, 05:18 PM

The Jordan thing is a fun hypothetical but I wonder how close it came to actually going down.

The "what-if" I always like to think about is David Robinson's scenario with the San Antonio Spurs. San Antonio selected Robinson in 1987 knowing he'd have to serve two years in the Navy before playing. Robinson also had the unique opportunity of not signing with the Spurs, waiting a year from the moment he was drafted, then signing with a team of his choice.

Now, Robinson turned around the Spurs franchise instantaneously and eventually played a hefty role in a pair of championships, but can you imagine Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, or Isiah and Joe getting a young David Robinson (24 and 12 in his rookie year) to play along their side? John Paxon, Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, David Robinson? That would have been something.

A.M.G.

11-30-2009, 05:22 PM

Let's be real, they almost certainly would not have won any championships.

Roundball_Rock

11-30-2009, 05:28 PM

Hard to tell, but on paper (which is all we have) they definitely wouldn't have been the clear cut favorites every single year, as opposed to the Jordan-Hakeem-Drexler trio you mentioned earlier.

There are question marks even with the Jordan-Hakeem-Drexler scenario (the proposal was to trade Sampson to Portland for Drexler and the #2 pick, which Houston would use on MJ). Could three superstars coexist in their prime? Jordan was a 37 ppg scorer in his prime, Hakeem 28 ppg, and Drexler 27 ppg. Would they be willing to sacrifice stats? In retrospect it looks simple: designate MJ as the #1 option, Hakeem #2, and Drexler #3. However, they came in the league together. Hakeem and Jordan would be rookies, Clyde a second year player in 1985. Why would they defer to Jordan? If anything Hakeem is the player they most likely would defer to. He was a center, the #1 draft pick, and Drexler and Hakeem played together in college. Would Jordan accept being the #2 option or even the #3 option at the beginning? Unlikely. Remember the reason the Bulls even considered trading MJ is because of his ball hogging. This was when he was averaging 37 and 35 ppg. This guy was going to be content as the #2 or even #3 option in Houston? Under that scenario either Jordan doesn't become "Jordan" or Hakeem doesn't become "Hakeem" as we now know them.

You can nitpick with any "what if", which is partly what makes them interesting.

Compare a Pippen/Richmond/Johnson/Smits/Oakely team to the other top teams of the 90's. Who is better, at least on paper? Portland? Utah? Seattle? Orlando? Houston? New York? Indiana would be out the picture as a top team without Smits.

KJ was injury prone--but his record is actually good when it comes to being able to play during playoff games. During his prime I believe he missed only one playoff game and he played well every year other than 92'. His other worst playoff performances were 17/10 and 17/8, which is more than enough when you have Pippen/Richmond/Smits/Oakley on your squad. That team wouldn't need KJ to put up 28/15.

Richmond has a solid playoffs record, although it is obviously a short record. Yeah, maybe he would have been a choker in the ECF and NBA finals but maybe he would have been a Reggie Miller. The thing is with a team so stacked it isn't as if they would need big numbers from Richmond.

Smits actually did function as the #4 and then the #3 option in Indiana first behind Miller/Schrempf/Person and then Miller/Schrempf.

Equal success means 6 rings. Think about that. Under this scenario the team would be a title contender by 1989. They would also contend in 94' and 95' since no one would retire prematurely. They would have three extra years to reach 6. If they won in, say, two of those years and then went 4/6 from 91'-98' that would bring them to 6. Is that really far fetched?

There are so many variables that go into winning a ring. What if Paxson missed that shot in 93'? What if Pippen didn't lead the bench to a 4th quarter comeback in 92'? What if Worthy didn't get hurt in 91'? What if Jordan missed that shot in 98'? What if Malone made his free throws in 97'? Given this it is impossible to say with any certainty that a team would win a specific number of rings in any hypothetical but Pippen/Richmond/Johnson/Smits/Oakley or Grant with Armstrong and Kukoc coming off the bench isn't good enough for at least 4 rings in the 90's?

Roundball_Rock

11-30-2009, 05:33 PM

The Jordan thing is a fun hypothetical but I wonder how close it came to actually going down.

Very close. After considering it for a few days it was ultimately vetoed by the owner on financial grounds, not basketball grounds. What does that tell you? Both Krause and Collins believed they could not win a ring with MJ.

they almost certainly would not have won any championships.

What makes you say that?

He probably would have left for the Knicks as a FA, and him and Ewing would have teamed for a few rings.

Either that or a trade to Charlotte. The question is of timing. Would he have left for the Knicks in 92' or 95'? There is a difference. Plus, which team is better?

Bulls

PF Oakley or Grant
SF Pippen
C Smits
SG Richmond
PG Johnson

Bench: BJ Armstrong, Toni Kukoc

Knicks

PF Mason or Oakley
SF Smith
C Ewing
SG Jordan
PG Harper

Bench: Starks and maybe Mason

Do you see the Knicks getting past the Bulls? Maybe once but multiple times? You would also have the Magic as contenders in 95' and 96' with Shaq/Penny/Anderson/Scott and maybe Grant.

guy

11-30-2009, 05:46 PM

There are question marks even with the Jordan-Hakeem-Drexler scenario (the proposal was to trade Sampson to Portland for Drexler and the #2 pick, which Houston would use on MJ). Could three superstars coexist in their prime? Jordan was a 37 ppg scorer in his prime, Hakeem 28 ppg, and Drexler 27 ppg. Would they be willing to sacrifice stats? In retrospect it looks simple: designate MJ as the #1 option, Hakeem #2, and Drexler #3. However, they came in the league together. Hakeem and Jordan would be rookies, Clyde a second year player in 1985. Why would they defer to Jordan? If anything Hakeem is the player they most likely would defer to. He was a center, the #1 draft pick, and Drexler and Hakeem played together in college. Would Jordan accept being the #2 option or even the #3 option at the beginning? Unlikely. Remember the reason the Bulls even considered trading MJ is because of his ball hogging. This was when he was averaging 37 and 35 ppg. This guy was going to be content as the #2 or even #3 option in Houston? Under that scenario either Jordan doesn't become "Jordan" or Hakeem doesn't become "Hakeem" as we now know them.

You can nitpick with any "what if", which is partly what makes them interesting.

Compare a Pippen/Richmond/Johnson/Smits/Oakely team to the other top teams of the 90's. Who is better, at least on paper? Portland? Utah? Seattle? Orlando? Houston? New York? Indiana would be out the picture as a top team without Smits.

KJ was injury prone--but his record is actually good when it comes to being able to play during playoff games. During his prime I believe he missed only one playoff game and he played well every year other than 92'. His other worst playoff performances were 17/10 and 17/8, which is more than enough when you have Pippen/Richmond/Smits/Oakley on your squad. That team wouldn't need KJ to put up 28/15.

Richmond has a solid playoffs record, although it is obviously a short record. Yeah, maybe he would have been a choker in the ECF and NBA finals but maybe he would have been a Reggie Miller. The thing is with a team so stacked it isn't as if they would need big numbers from Richmond.

Smits actually did function as the #4 and then the #3 option in Indiana first behind Miller/Schrempf/Person and then Miller/Schrempf.

Equal success means 6 rings. Think about that. Under this scenario the team would be a title contender by 1989. They would also contend in 94' and 95' since no one would retire prematurely. They would have three extra years to reach 6. If they won in, say, two of those years and then went 4/6 from 91'-98' that would bring them to 6. Is that really far fetched?

There are so many variables that go into winning a ring. What if Paxson missed that shot in 93'? What if Pippen didn't lead the bench to a 4th quarter comeback in 92'? What if Worthy didn't get hurt in 91'? What if Jordan missed that shot in 98'? What if Malone made his free throws in 97'? Given this it is impossible to say with any certainty that a team would win a specific number of rings in any hypothetical but Pippen/Richmond/Johnson/Smits/Oakley or Grant with Armstrong and Kukoc coming off the bench isn't good enough for at least 4 rings in the 90's?

Of course the Jordan/Hakeem/Drexler has question marks as well. But they are way closer to a sure thing then this team because they are much greater players. And you're missing my point about KJ. KJ's body could've deteriorated even more playing the more physical teams in the East. And sure he didn't miss many playoff games, but he also played alot of those games hurt. And lol at that team being a title contender right away. Are you kidding me? The 89 and 90 Pistons would've stomped the hell out of that young and very inexperienced team and the 92-94 Knicks may have too (they possibly would've never toughened up against those teams without Jordan's intensity and will to win, and before you jump on my back let me make it clear that that doesn't mean he deserves all the credit). I don't really care that you think they may have won just as much (which is ridiculous already IMO), but to have that much confidence that you would assume they win as much is really stupid. We're not talking about replacing Jordan with 3 HOFers, just 3 really good players.

guy

11-30-2009, 05:55 PM

Plus, which team is better?

Bulls

PF Oakley or Grant
SF Pippen
C Smits
SG Richmond
PG Johnson

Bench: BJ Armstrong, Toni Kukoc

Knicks

PF Mason or Oakley
SF Smith
C Ewing
SG Jordan
PG Harper

Bench: Starks and maybe Mason

Do you see the Knicks getting past the Bulls? Maybe once but multiple times? You would also have the Magic as contenders in 95' and 96' with Shaq/Penny/Anderson/Scott and maybe Grant.

Joking right? So pretty much the 90s Bulls minus Jordan and Cartwright plus KJ, Richmond, and Smits vs. the 90s Knicks minus Oakley plus Jordan? (I'm assuming they would've traded Oakley for KJ, since that would've been the much better deal at the time for the Cavs.) Thats pretty much Jordan + another HOFer in Patrick Ewing + HOF coach in Pat Riley (in some years) + a bunch of great role players/borderline all-stars (a lot that you didn't mention such as Xavier McDaniel, Gerald Wilkins, Mark Jackson, Doc Rivers, Greg Anthony, Allan Houston, Larry Johnson although to be fair they didn't all play together at the same time but the Knicks were always deep regardless). That Knick team would've beat them not easily, but convincingly.

And I would say its more then likely that Jordan goes to the Knicks. They were a playoff team that had something missing and that was a go-to scorer, especially in the clutch. They were the best team with a great big man, and were in a big market. It would've made the most sense. Of course this is all a what-if.

Roundball_Rock

11-30-2009, 06:21 PM

Of course the Jordan/Hakeem/Drexler has question marks as well. But they are way closer to a sure thing then this team because they are much greater players.

I agree, in theory. They are greater players but also would come with a greater chance of chemistry problems, number being would Jordan accept being the #2 option behind Hakeem?

Pippen, Johnson, Richmond, and Smits were able to have successful tenures as #2 or even #3 options so we know they could work with each other. None of them "needed" to score 30 points every night.

you're missing my point about KJ. KJ's body could've deteriorated even more playing the more physical teams in the East

Perhaps--or it could have held up better as he would have a lesser role on a Pippen/Richmond/KJ/Smits team and hence would take hits less often than he did in Phoenix. In Phoenix he was the best player until Barkley and then the second best player. Under this scenario not only would he not be the best player but the scoring load would be more evenly distributed among the team. Remember, Kukoc and Armstrong would be coming off the bench too.

And sure he didn't miss many playoff games, but he also played alot of those games hurt.

Yeah, but he was still effective. Add in Pippen, Richmond, Smits, and Oakley/Grant and he would produce more than enough needed to win.

lol at that team being a title contender right away. Are you kidding me? The 89 and 90 Pistons would've stomped the hell out of that young and very inexperienced team and the 92-94 Knicks may have too

Your response implicitly accepts them as immediate title contenders. You seem to have them penciled in as going to the ECF against the Pistons. The 89' Jordan/Pippen/Grant Bulls took the big bad Pistons to 7 games. Do you think this Bulls team would not have a shot against them? The 90' Pistons were not the same as the 87'-89' Pistons. The Jordan/Pippen/Grant team swept them.

The Knicks? First of all, Oakley may have been on the Bulls side. That would weaken the Knicks considerably and make them less tough. Even then you would have so much talent on the Bulls side. Would the Knicks really be favored over Pippen/Richmond/Johnson/Smits/Grant? If it is Oakley instead of Grant--fairly likely since Oak was proven and Grant was a rookie--then the Knicks would have no shot.

We're not talking about replacing Jordan with 3 HOFers, just 3 really good players.

2 HOFers and one really good player in Smits. Richmond and Johnson definitely played HOF ball. I believe MJ himself called Richmond the second best SG in the league. Richmond and Johnson may not make the HOF but it isn't because of a lack of talent or performance. Richmond had the horrible luck of playing on lottery teams during his prime and Johnson had injury problems.

Do you think Reggie Miller is a HOFer? Richmond>Miller.

That team would've made beat the crap out of them.

Really? PF is a push. SF is in favor of the Bulls. C and SG favor the Knicks. PG is in favor of the Bulls. You may think they would win simply because of Jordan and the aura he now has but would Jordan outscore Richmond enough, and Ewing Smits enough to offset the Bulls' big advantages at SF and PG? The Bulls would have all-star level players at all 5 positions. The Knicks would have an above average PG and an average SF. The Bulls would have 3 HOF'ers, the Knicks 2.

Johnson and Houston didn't get there until Ewing got old.

And I would say its more then likely that Jordan goes to the Knicks. They were a playoff team that had something missing and that was a go-to scorer, especially in the clutch. They were the best team with a great big man, and were in a big market. It would've made the most sense. Of course this is all a what-if.

I agree. NY and Charlotte (expansion team, MJ's local team, and good pieces with Mourning and LJ plus solid roll players)make the most sense for Jordan. The thing is the trade would be in 89'. How many years would Jordan spend in LA? He may have gotten there when Ewing was past his prime. The only question I have about NY is whether Ewing would accept being the #2 option at that point. Charlotte would work better because it is easier to see a young Zo' and young LJ deferring to MJ than Ewing doing it. Ewing had trouble accepting Allan Houston becoming the #1 option and this was old, well past his prime Ewing. He was a 24-24.5 ppg guy from 92'-95'. With MJ taking shots he would be probably be around 20-21 ppg.

juju151111

11-30-2009, 06:22 PM

juju151111

11-30-2009, 06:27 PM

Roundball_Rock

11-30-2009, 06:29 PM

Pippen=KG my fuking ass. GTFO please

Bill Simmons: Pippen #24 all-time, Garnett #22 (Isiah #23, Stockton #25)
Slam Magazine: Pippen #27, Garnett #29
ISH: Pippen #26, Garnett #37

juju, why do you underrate Pippen so much? Prime Pippen was a top 5 player in the league for several years. Some people had him as high as #2. How is that not similar to prime KG?

juju151111

11-30-2009, 06:32 PM

Very close. After considering it for a few days it was ultimately vetoed by the owner on financial grounds, not basketball grounds. What does that tell you? Both Krause and Collins believed they could not win a ring with MJ.

What makes you say that?

Either that or a trade to Charlotte. The question is of timing. Would he have left for the Knicks in 92' or 95'? There is a difference. Plus, which team is better?

Bulls

PF Oakley or Grant
SF Pippen
C Smits
SG Richmond
PG Johnson

Bench: BJ Armstrong, Toni Kukoc

Knicks

PF Mason or Oakley
SF Smith
C Ewing
SG Jordan
PG Harper

Bench: Starks and maybe Mason

Do you see the Knicks getting past the Bulls? Maybe once but multiple times? You would also have the Magic as contenders in 95' and 96' with Shaq/Penny/Anderson/Scott and maybe Grant.
Wow Knicks with Mj/ewing would kill that Bulls team every single time.

juju151111

11-30-2009, 06:34 PM

Bill Simmons: Pippen #24 all-time, Garnett #22 (Isiah #23, Stockton #25)
Slam Magazine: Pippen #27, Garnett #29
ISH: Pippen #26, Garnett #37

juju, why do you underrate Pippen so much? Prime Pippen was a top 5 player in the league for several years. Some people had him as high as #2. How is that not similar to prime KG?
Why are you posting Bill simmons has to prove something. LOL KG is better then Pippen. The overrating continues.

Roundball_Rock

11-30-2009, 06:41 PM

Why are you posting Bill simmons has to prove something. LOL KG is better then Pippen. The overrating continues.

Simmons, Slam, and ISH are all overrating him? It seems everyone "overrates" Pip to MJ fans. :oldlol:

KG may have been slightly better, although Pip had a better career. The point is they are in the same class of player. Surely you can at least concede that?! Although, you said prime Pippen wasn't as good as current Chris Paul so maybe not. juju, how good do you think prime Pippen was? Top 5? Top 3? Top 10? Top 15? Top 20?

juju151111

11-30-2009, 06:51 PM

Simmons, Slam, and ISH are all overrating him? It seems everyone "overrates" Pip to MJ fans. :oldlol:

KG may have been slightly better, although Pip had a better career. The point is they are in the same class of player. Surely you can at least concede that?! Although, you said prime Pippen wasn't as good as current Chris Paul so maybe not. juju, how good do you think prime Pippen was? Top 5? Top 3? Top 10? Top 15? Top 20?
Where in ISh do people put Pip=KG?? Have u lose your mind?? KG is not slightly better. I told you Pip is ranked 25 and when did i say anything about cp3 and pip? LOL KG

Roundball_Rock

11-30-2009, 06:56 PM

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=92725

25 all-time. Then where do you have KG????

What about prime Pippen? How good was he? A top 3, 5, 10, 15, or top 20 player?

The Paul thing is when I analogized Jordan-Pippen during 96' and 97' to Lebron-Paul today. You didn't think Pippen then was as good as Paul today. If anything prime Pippen was better than current Paul (Paul has not hit his prime yet). Some thought Pippen was the second best player in the league; no one ever has Paul that high. He is usually #4, sometimes #5 and very rarely you see him at #3.

juju151111

11-30-2009, 07:09 PM

Roundball_Rock

11-30-2009, 07:16 PM

That thread was the result of a long ISH poll. That thread reflects ISH consensus.

You have Pip 25th all-time. How high do you have KG???

96' definitely was. He was all-NBA first team that year and 5th in MVP voting (and would have been 4th if he didn't get hurt late in the year--he was only 2% behind Hakeem for 4th and maybe even 3rd. This was despite playing on the same team as MJ!). In 97' he slowed a bit but was still 95% as good as 96'. His prime was 94'-97' and he had great years from 91'-93' and 98' as well, with very good years in 89'-90' and 99'-00' (his stats were not great in 99' and 00' but he had a reduced scoring role in those seasons).

How good do you think he was in 96' and 97' and how about his peak? I assume you have his peak as 94'.

Pippen was a top 5 player for several years. How is that not similar to prime KG in the 2000's? Both were also versatile players who were great defenders.

Manute for Ever!

11-30-2009, 08:06 PM

How many titles would this team have won in the 90's?

PF Horace Grant or Charles Oakley
SF Scottie Pippen
C Rik Smits
SG Mitch Richmond
PG Kevin Johnson

This almost happened with the Bulls. The Bulls seriously considered trading Jordan to the Clippers. Sterling wanted a big draw to compete with the Lakers and Magic. What bigger draw was there than MJ? The Bulls believed they could win a championship faster without a player who, er, "dominated the ball" less (Krause: "If we had Akeem [Hakeem] Olajuwon we would already have won a championship by now) who also was "not very nice" to his teammates and didn't listen to the coach. The idea was to trade MJ for high draft picks to the Clippers and then use them to select Smits and Richmond. With MJ gone the ball would be freed up, and they would have depth, so they could go after a legit PG like Kevin Johnson. Krause believed they could have obtained Johnson from the Cavs for either Oakley or Grant. Keep in mind KJ was a 9/2/5.5 player in 88' so it is more feasible than it looks.

Alternatively, with Smits taken with their first or second pick they would have no need to use their original pick (#11) on Will Perdue. They would be set at PF, SF, C, SG. That leaves PG. They could have taken Rod Strickland with that pick.

The Bulls would have (under the KJ scenario) the best SF of the 90's, the second or third best SG (obviously MJ was the best and Drexler also had a case over Richmond), second or third best PG (Payton was the best and Stockton also had a case over prime KJ), and two all-star level big men who were top 10 at their positions in the 90's. Three superstars and two very good big men!

This is the Bulls' side of the equation. What would have become of Jordan if he were on the Clippers? He would have made them a big attraction, kind of like Gretzky did with the Kings but how much would he have won there? Would he have tolerated perennial mediocrity there or demanding a trade? If so, what would be a likely destination for him? Would he be considered the majority GOAT today if he went to the Clippers and never won a ring?

In the end Reinsdorf vetoed a trade solely on financial grounds: MJ was worth too much $$$$ in fan attendance.

This may have already been mentioned, haven't read the full thread, but how in the hell was Payton a better PG than Stockton?

juju151111

11-30-2009, 08:31 PM

That thread was the result of a long ISH poll. That thread reflects ISH consensus.

You have Pip 25th all-time. How high do you have KG???

96' definitely was. He was all-NBA first team that year and 5th in MVP voting (and would have been 4th if he didn't get hurt late in the year--he was only 2% behind Hakeem for 4th and maybe even 3rd. This was despite playing on the same team as MJ!). In 97' he slowed a bit but was still 95% as good as 96'. His prime was 94'-97' and he had great years from 91'-93' and 98' as well, with very good years in 89'-90' and 99'-00' (his stats were not great in 99' and 00' but he had a reduced scoring role in those seasons).

How good do you think he was in 96' and 97' and how about his peak? I assume you have his peak as 94'
Pippen was a top 5 player for several years. How is that not similar to prime KG in the 2000's? Both were also versatile players who were great defenders.
94 was obviously his prime. What do you mean despite playing with Mj. Pip was putting up similar stats in 92.:confusedshrug:

KG is hovering around right now. 18.

Duncan21formvp

11-30-2009, 08:49 PM

How many titles would this team have won in the 90's?

PF Horace Grant or Charles Oakley
SF Scottie Pippen
C Rik Smits
SG Mitch Richmond
PG Kevin Johnson

This almost happened with the Bulls. The Bulls seriously considered trading Jordan to the Clippers. Sterling wanted a big draw to compete with the Lakers and Magic. What bigger draw was there than MJ? The Bulls believed they could win a championship faster without a player who, er, "dominated the ball" less (Krause: "If we had Akeem [Hakeem] Olajuwon we would already have won a championship by now) who also was "not very nice" to his teammates and didn't listen to the coach. The idea was to trade MJ for high draft picks to the Clippers and then use them to select Smits and Richmond. With MJ gone the ball would be freed up, and they would have depth, so they could go after a legit PG like Kevin Johnson. Krause believed they could have obtained Johnson from the Cavs for either Oakley or Grant. Keep in mind KJ was a 9/2/5.5 player in 88' so it is more feasible than it looks.

Alternatively, with Smits taken with their first or second pick they would have no need to use their original pick (#11) on Will Perdue. They would be set at PF, SF, C, SG. That leaves PG. They could have taken Rod Strickland with that pick.

The Bulls would have (under the KJ scenario) the best SF of the 90's, the second or third best SG (obviously MJ was the best and Drexler also had a case over Richmond), second or third best PG (Payton was the best and Stockton also had a case over prime KJ), and two all-star level big men who were top 10 at their positions in the 90's. Three superstars and two very good big men!

This is the Bulls' side of the equation. What would have become of Jordan if he were on the Clippers? He would have made them a big attraction, kind of like Gretzky did with the Kings but how much would he have won there? Would he have tolerated perennial mediocrity there or demanding a trade? If so, what would be a likely destination for him? Would he be considered the majority GOAT today if he went to the Clippers and never won a ring?

In the end Reinsdorf vetoed a trade solely on financial grounds: MJ was worth too much $$$$ in fan attendance.

They essentially become the Blazers, Sonics, Knicks, etc of the 90's.

guy

11-30-2009, 09:35 PM

I agree, in theory. They are greater players but also would come with a greater chance of chemistry problems, number being would Jordan accept being the #2 option behind Hakeem?

Seriously, all this talk about someone not being able to accept #2 option is all derived from the Kobe-Shaq drama. Just cause two great players couldn't get along (and I wouldn't even call it that overall since they ended up winning 3 titles together), doesn't mean that this would happen with all great players. People seem to forget that Jordan came from UNC, where he was the go-to guy for 2 of 3 seasons, but didn't get the greenlight from Dean Smith to shoot it as much as he wanted. And he didn't have a problem with it. In the 84 Olympics, playing with the likes of Patrick Ewing and Chris Mullin, he didn't do it there either. I have my doubts that he would've had a huge problem if he came to Houston as a rookie playing with Hakeem. And two things:

1. Who's to say Hakeem is there first scoring option anyway? If you want to compare it the Kobe-Shaq situation, realize that a rookie Hakeem was never the scorer 97-04 Shaq was, and that 97-04 Kobe was arguably never as great of a scorer as rookie Jordan was. Its not far-fetched to think that Jordan would've been their primary scorer and playmaker, while Hakeem was most responsible for defense and rebounding.

2. This idea that two players have to scale back so much to play with each other is ridiculous. There's no reason why Jordan couldn't have averaged the 28-32 ppg that he did for most of his career, while Hakeem averaged the 20-24 ppg that he did for most of his career. Much of the stats lost from sharing with each other could've been made up by them getting easier shots playing off each other. Fact is rarely do you see one player suffer so much from scoring due to the addition of another player. Even your boy Pippen. His career high ppg with Jordan vs. Without Jordan? 22.0 ppg to 21.0 ppg. Big difference, and I think most people will agree that Pippen maturing as a player has something to do with that 1 ppg difference.

Pippen, Johnson, Richmond, and Smits were able to have successful tenures as #2 or even #3 options so we know they could work with each other. None of them "needed" to score 30 points every night.

Part of the reason Pippen didn't have much of a problem being #2 was cause he knew Jordan was clearly better then him. Who's to say he would've been okay giving away more shots to guys that he's better then? You're familiar with the whole Pippen-Kukoc thing right? Part of the reason he acted the way he did that game was he didn't like the fact that for years the Bulls, who drafted Kukoc in 1990, were so hyped to bring him to the Bulls and possibly take Pippen's starting job, when he felt he was better. And the combination of Johnson/Richmond/Smits probably takes even more shots then Jordan/Cartwright.

Mitch Richmond played on fast paced teams for almost his whole career. Thats why his FGA per game stayed close to the same regardless of him being 1st or 2nd option. Are you sure he would've been okay taking less shots on a slower paced team where he had to share the ball more?

KJ was 20-10 guy for many years. Mitch Richmond was a great ISO scorer that wouldn't need a guy like KJ to set him up. Pippen could run the point as well and set up the offense and was very effective doing that. Who's to say KJ would've been okay not being as ball-dominant during that time? When Barkley came around he wasn't the same due to injuries.

I don't think any of these guys are selfish, and I think they wouldn't have had a problem adjusting. But we definitely don't KNOW they could work with each other like you just said. The same way we don't know the Jordan/Hakeem/Drexler trio could've worked with each other. What we do know is that one group has clearly greater players.

Perhaps--or it could have held up better as he would have a lesser role on a Pippen/Richmond/KJ/Smits team and hence would take hits less often than he did in Phoenix. In Phoenix he was the best player until Barkley and then the second best player. Under this scenario not only would he not be the best player but the scoring load would be more evenly distributed among the team. Remember, Kukoc and Armstrong would be coming off the bench too.

Out of this group of players KJ was the best from 88-91. He would've been their leader and best player, and he still would've played his game which meant attacking the basket and had a big role overall regardless. Playing the more physical teams could've added more to his injuries. Would it have happened? Maybe not, but there is definitely a high possibility, and as a result its stupid to assume they win 6 titles.

Yeah, but he was still effective. Add in Pippen, Richmond, Smits, and Oakley/Grant and he would produce more than enough needed to win.

He wasn't as effective, just like most players aren't when they play hurt.

Your response implicitly accepts them as immediate title contenders. You seem to have them penciled in as going to the ECF against the Pistons. The 89' Jordan/Pippen/Grant Bulls took the big bad Pistons to 7 games. Do you think this Bulls team would not have a shot against them? The 90' Pistons were not the same as the 87'-89' Pistons. The Jordan/Pippen/Grant team swept them.

Or it could mean they face them in the first or second round. And you have your years wrong. The 89 Bulls lost in 6 games and the 90 Bulls lost in 7 games. You're seriously telling me that a team with 3 2nd-year players (Pippen/Grant/KJ) and 2 rookies (Richmond/Smits) as their best players could've had a shot against the 89 Pistons? LOL. The main reason those series were close was cause they had Jordan playing at an all-time level. Sure he had help, but he was the main reason. The whole dynamic of those teams are different without him when you replace him 1st and 2nd year players with a lack of experience.

The Knicks? First of all, Oakley may have been on the Bulls side. That would weaken the Knicks considerably and make them less tough. Even then you would have so much talent on the Bulls side. Would the Knicks really be favored over Pippen/Richmond/Johnson/Smits/Grant? If it is Oakley instead of Grant--fairly likely since Oak was proven and Grant was a rookie--then the Knicks would have no shot.

Like I said, why would that be? If the Cavs were offered Oakley or Grant for KJ, they would've easily taken Oakley. If Oakley is on that team it might be different, but the fact is the reason the Bulls lose to the Knicks is cause they aren't tough enough. Maybe eventually they get through the Knicks, but probably not in 92, when the Knicks just beat them up the whole series, and probably not in 93 when the Knicks would've probably had the better record (especially with KJ and Richmond missing nearly half the season although that might've not been the case on a different team but who knows), and the Knicks were going into that series with like a 28 home game winning streak.

2 HOFers and one really good player in Smits. Richmond and Johnson definitely played HOF ball. I believe MJ himself called Richmond the second best SG in the league. Richmond and Johnson may not make the HOF but it isn't because of a lack of talent or performance. Richmond had the horrible luck of playing on lottery teams during his prime and Johnson had injury problems.

If we're talking HOF, aren't we taking longevity into account? And shouldn't longevity be taken into account when you're saying a team will have almost a decade-long dynasty? Richmond did have bad luck playing on bad teams, but so did other HOFers who brought there teams to the playoffs regularly with good records. Maybe Richmond was just another talented player putting up good stats on bad teams, and had he played on a good team he wouldn't have had nearly as much of an impact on them.

Do you think Reggie Miller is a HOFer? Richmond>Miller.

I think Reggie Miller is incredibly overrated. I don't know if he should get in, but I know he will. Maybe the fact that he was one of the greatest at one particular skill (shooting) and one of the greatest at one intangible (clutchness), means he should get in but I don't know. I'll definitely take Miller over Richmond though. Richmond is the better all-around player, but I have more faith in Reggie Miller when I need someone to come up big for a playoff performance or be incredibly clutch. Richmond's all-around game doesn't make up for that difference (or at least difference in faith, not ability). It maybe cause Richmond didn't get those same opportunities as Reggie, but thats irrelevant, cause I'll have to go with the supporting evidence.

Really? PF is a push. SF is in favor of the Bulls. C and SG favor the Knicks. PG is in favor of the Bulls. You may think they would win simply because of Jordan and the aura he now has but would Jordan outscore Richmond enough, and Ewing Smits enough to offset the Bulls' big advantages at SF and PG? The Bulls would have all-star level players at all 5 positions. The Knicks would have an above average PG and an average SF. The Bulls would have 3 HOF'ers, the Knicks 2.

If you want to matchup position by position you can do that for many matchups and it wouldn't make sense. It doesn't work like that. If these two teams played in a 7-game series, every game would be fairly close as in within 10 points. So the main question is who can close a game out better? The team with no consistent threat in the clutch? Or the team with arguably the most clutch player of all-time? And this isn't all cause of Jordan because keep in mind the supporting casts are just about equal.

And this doesn't mean Jordan's going to hit every shot down the stretch. But he will consistently lead this team efficiently at the end of games. Is Pippen, KJ, or Richmond going to do that? Don't get me wrong, they've had their moments, but they weren't consistent as the leader in the clutch. Jordan was. Sure he didn't come through all the time, but in a 7 game series with all those weapons on his team, its a no-brainer to pick the Knicks. Not to mention that Knicks team is clearly tougher then that Bulls team, which is what happens in many cases.

Thats one big reason the Knicks never got past the Jordan-Bulls, and never won a title in general. They didn't have anyone great to lead them at the end of close games cause Ewing just wasn't that guy, which usually resulted in games where John Starks had to jack up contested threes.

Johnson and Houston didn't get there until Ewing got old.

They came there in 1997. KJ was an injured mess before he even turned 30, and Pippen had a bad back in 1998.

guy

11-30-2009, 09:35 PM

I agree. NY and Charlotte (expansion team, MJ's local team, and good pieces with Mourning and LJ plus solid roll players)make the most sense for Jordan. The thing is the trade would be in 89'. How many years would Jordan spend in LA? He may have gotten there when Ewing was past his prime. The only question I have about NY is whether Ewing would accept being the #2 option at that point. Charlotte would work better because it is easier to see a young Zo' and young LJ deferring to MJ than Ewing doing it. Ewing had trouble accepting Allan Houston becoming the #1 option and this was old, well past his prime Ewing. He was a 24-24.5 ppg guy from 92'-95'. With MJ taking shots he would be probably be around 20-21 ppg.

Well Jordan signed a 8-year contract extension in the offseason of 1988 (I believe it was an extension, not sure he just wasn't a free agent, cause if he was, I doubt that trade is even possible), the same offseason this trade would've taken place. If he's traded that summer, its highly doubtful he signs a long-term extension with the Clippers.

Now lets say Jordan had 3 years left on that deal and signs with the Knicks. You honestly think Ewing wouldn't have deferred to Jordan? As great as Ewing was, he was considered a disappointment in NY, was constantly criticized by the harsh NY media, and wasn't anywhere near the scorer Jordan was. On top of that they were both friends, and Jordan was the most popular and best player in the league and was even considered that by NY. You really think he wouldn't have deferred and let him take some pressure off of him? That he wouldn't have let Jordan lead the way at the end of close games, so he didn't have that responsibility? And Ewing feuded with Houston? Never heard of that.

Look I don't care that you think they would've been just as successful. IMO your clearly delusional and overrate Pippen to death and think that Jordan was just as replaceable as Pippen (maybe even moreso), and nothing I say is going to change that. But don't make a stupid ASSUMPTION that they would've been just as successful, especially if Jordan ends up on a great team like those Knicks.

juju151111

11-30-2009, 09:39 PM

Seriously, all this talk about someone not being able to accept #2 option is all derived from the Kobe-Shaq drama. Just cause two great players couldn't get along (and I wouldn't even call it that overall since they ended up winning 3 titles together), doesn't mean that this would happen with all great players. People seem to forget that Jordan came from UNC, where he was the go-to guy for 2 of 3 seasons, but didn't get the greenlight from Dean Smith to shoot it as much as he wanted. And he didn't have a problem with it. In the 84 Olympics, playing with the likes of Patrick Ewing and Chris Mullin, he didn't do it there either. I have my doubts that he would've had a huge problem if he came to Houston as a rookie playing with Hakeem. And two things:

1. Who's to say Hakeem is there first scoring option anyway? If you want to compare it the Kobe-Shaq situation, realize that a rookie Hakeem was never the scorer 97-04 Shaq was, and that 97-04 Kobe was arguably never as great of a scorer as rookie Jordan was. Its not far-fetched to think that Jordan would've been their primary scorer and playmaker, while Hakeem was most responsible for defense and rebounding.

2. This idea that two players have to scale back so much to play with each other is ridiculous. There's no reason why Jordan couldn't have averaged the 28-32 ppg that he did for most of his career, while Hakeem averaged the 20-21 ppg that he did for most of his career. Much of the stats lost from sharing with each other could've been made up by them getting easier shots playing off each other. Fact is rarely do you see one player suffer so much from scoring due to the addition of another player. Even your boy Pippen. His career high ppg with Jordan vs. Without Jordan? 22.0 ppg to 21.0 ppg. Big difference, and I think most people will agree that Pippen maturing as a player has something to do with that 1 ppg difference.

Part of the reason Pippen didn't have much of a problem being #2 was cause he knew Jordan was clearly better then him. Who's to say he would've been okay giving away more shots to guys that he's better then? You're familiar with the whole Pippen-Kukoc thing right? Part of the reason he acted the way he did that game was he didn't like the fact that for years the Bulls, who drafted Kukoc in 1990, were so hyped to bring him to the Bulls and possibly take Pippen's starting job, when he felt he was better. And the combination of Johnson/Richmond/Smits probably takes even more shots then Jordan/Cartwright.

Mitch Richmond played on fast paced teams for almost his whole career. Thats why his FGA per game stayed close to the same regardless of him being 1st or 2nd option. Are you sure he would've been okay taking less shots on a slower paced team where he had to share the ball more?

KJ was 20-10 guy for many years. Mitch Richmond was a great ISO scorer that wouldn't need a guy like KJ to set him up. Pippen could run the point as well and set up the offense and was very effective doing that. Who's to say KJ would've been okay not being as ball-dominant during that time? When Barkley came around he wasn't the same due to injuries.

I don't think any of these guys are selfish, and I think they wouldn't have had a problem adjusting. But we definitely don't KNOW they could work with each other like you just said. The same way we don't know the Jordan/Hakeem/Drexler trio could've worked with each other. What we do know is that one group has clearly greater players.

Out of this group of players KJ was the best from 88-91. He would've been their leader and best player, and he still would've played his game which meant attacking the basket and had a big role overall regardless. Playing the more physical teams could've added more to his injuries. Would it have happened? Maybe not, but there is definitely a high possibility, and as a result its stupid to assume they win 6 titles.

He wasn't as effective, just like most players aren't when they play hurt.

Or it could mean they face them in the first or second round. And you have your years wrong. The 89 Bulls lost in 6 games and the 90 Bulls lost in 7 games. You're seriously telling me that a team with 3 2nd-year players (Pippen/Grant/KJ) and 2 rookies (Richmond/Smits) as their best players could've had a shot against the 89 Pistons? LOL. The main reason those series were close was cause they had Jordan playing at an all-time level. Sure he had help, but he was the main reason. The whole dynamic of those teams are different without him when you replace him 1st and 2nd year players with a lack of experience.

Like I said, why would that be? If the Cavs were offered Oakley or Grant for KJ, they would've easily taken Oakley. If Oakley is on that team it might be different, but the fact is the reason the Bulls lose to the Knicks is cause they aren't tough enough. Maybe eventually they get through the Knicks, but probably not in 92, when the Knicks just beat them up the whole series, and probably not in 93 when the Knicks would've probably had the better record (especially with KJ and Richmond missing nearly half the season although that might've not been the case on a different team but who knows), and the Knicks were going into that series with like a 28 home game winning streak.

If we're talking HOF, aren't we taking longevity into account? And shouldn't longevity be taken into account when you're saying a team will have almost a decade-long dynasty? Richmond did have bad luck playing on bad teams, but so did other HOFers who brought there teams to the playoffs regularly with good records. Maybe Richmond was just another talented player putting up good stats on bad teams, and had he played on a good team he wouldn't have had nearly as much of an impact on them.

I think Reggie Miller is incredibly overrated. I don't know if he should get in, but I know he will. Maybe the fact that he was one of the greatest at one particular skill (shooting) and one of the greatest at one intangible (clutchness), means he should get in but I don't know. I'll definitely take Miller over Richmond though. Richmond is the better all-around player, but I have more faith in Reggie Miller when I need someone to come up big for a playoff performance or be incredibly clutch. Richmond's all-around game doesn't make up for that difference (or at least difference in faith, not ability). It maybe cause Richmond didn't get those same opportunities as Reggie, but thats irrelevant, cause I'll have to go with the supporting evidence.

If you want to matchup position by position you can do that for many matchups and it wouldn't make sense. It doesn't work like that. If these two teams played in a 7-game series, every game would be fairly close as in within 10 points. So the main question is who can close a game out better? The team with no consistent threat in the clutch? Or the team with arguably the most clutch player of all-time? And this isn't all cause of Jordan because keep in mind the supporting casts are just about equal.

And this doesn't mean Jordan's going to hit every shot down the stretch. But he will consistently lead this team efficiently at the end of games. Is Pippen, KJ, or Richmond going to do that? Don't get me wrong, they've had their moments, but they weren't consistent as the leader in the clutch. Jordan was. Sure he didn't come through all the time, but in a 7 game series with all those weapons on his team, its a no-brainer to pick the Knicks. Not to mention that Knicks team is clearly tougher then that Bulls team, which is what happens in many cases.

Thats one big reason the Knicks never got past the Jordan-Bulls, and never won a title in general. They didn't have anyone great to lead them at the end of close games cause Ewing just wasn't that guy, which usually resulted in games where John Starks had to jack up contested threes.

They came there in 1997. KJ was an injured mess before he even turned 30, and Pippen had a bad back in 1998.
why do you respond to this kid?? He thinks Pip was the only person Mj could win chips with. Hakeem>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>PIP Fact and also the big decision to relsease shaq was because they lose in 03-04. You think the GM would of traded either if the won a chip in both years:wtf: No way in hell. He would of gotten shaq his damn money. I don't see MJ/Dream losing from 88-98.

juju151111

11-30-2009, 09:44 PM

Also why do people keep saying Mj and Dream won't wrk because of Shot attempts. News flash Kobe and Shaq both attempted plenty of shots wehn they were a duo. Kobe was just inferior to shaq. While Mj and Dream won't disappear in finals for people to say who better. they probably split the finals MVP 5-5.

Roundball_Rock

11-30-2009, 09:58 PM

Jeff Van Gundy mentioned it during a game. He didn't say feud. He said Ewing was hostile to the idea of making Houston the #1 option.

If he went to the Knicks in 92' he would probably win a ring--if he didn't retire in 94'. There are no guarantees during a two year window. By 96' Ewing had declined.

How many prime 29 ppg scorers are willing to accept limiting themselves to 20-21 ppg? He is viewed as a disappointment only in retrospect. He was considered someone you could build a championship team around and actually did come within one shot of winning a title in 94'.

Why NY? Maybe he would have went to Charlotte, his hometown team. Maybe he would have went elsewhere. Could the Knicks even afford him? Besides, if it looked like MJ was walking would the Clippers let him leave without getting anything in return? The smart thing would be to trade him if it was clear he was leaving. What would the Knicks be able to offer in exchange for Jordan? The only offer that would be a decent one would be Ewing for Jordan. Obviously since MJ was the best player in the league you could not get equal value for him but you could get good value for him. Ewing for Jordan with draft picks would be decent. Maybe throw in John Starks since with MJ he would expendable. Ewing+Starks+a first round pick for MJ would be a good deal. Still, with that the Knicks would not be the Knicks as we knew them in the 90's. Could MJ win without Ewing in NY?

David Robinson was in high demand at the time and was young. The likely first choice for the Clippers would have been Robinson. Would the Spurs trade him for Jordan, though? I doubt it.

He thinks Pip was the only person Mj could win chips with.

Read the thread. Jordan would have worked well with Mourning and LJ, at least temporarily. He would have two elite teammates and he could be the clear #1. The problem with MJ is--and this is why they were considering trading him in the first place--is his "dominance of the ball" (especially early in his career). How many superstars would accept playing with someone like that? On the other side of the coin, suppose a superstar would accept MJ. Would MJ accept ceding some of his stats? Would MJ accept scoring 25 ppg instead of 30 ppg to share the ball with a Ewing?

Pippen was unique in that he was a superstar content with scoring 19-21 ppg alongside MJ. Chemistry matters. Unselfishness matters. Wilt was a better individual player than Magic but I would much rather have Magic on my team than Wilt since Magic could fit in just about personnel and didn't need to take all the shots. Really, who quits in game 5 of a ECF with the series tied 2-2 when a coach tells you that you taking 31% of the team's shot is a bad thing???? Yet we are to believe such a player could coexist with 28-30 ppg scorers in their primes? You do realize no one ever averaged more than 21.5 ppg alongside MJ, and that was Stackhouse when MJ was 39 and Jordan was "only" 9th in FGA. Even then MJ took more shots than Stackhouse, even though Stackhouse was just one season removed from being a 30 ppg scorer. :oldlol:

why do people keep saying Mj and Dream won't wrk because of Shot attempts. News flash Kobe and Shaq both attempted plenty of shots wehn they were a duo.

MJ led the league in FGA every year (even at age 38 he was second behind AI at 22 FGA :roll: ). Kobe and Shaq worked temporarily because Shaq had seniority. Once Kobe had equal status to him things fell apart. Hakeem and Jordan would enter the league together in 85' and have similar status. Why would MJ defer to Hakeem or vice versa (remember, it was Hakeem who was the #1 draft pick)? How would Drexler fit in? Why would Drexler, a SG, defer to a rookie MJ?

94 was obviously his prime. What do you mean despite playing with Mj. Pip was putting up similar stats in 92.

KG is hovering around right now. 18.

I was talking about MVP voting. How often do two teammates finish in the top 5? The only other time I can think of is Kareem and Magic.

How good was he in your view in 94'? Top 3, 5, 10, 15, 20? You are confusing peak with prime. No one has a one year prime. He was basically the same from 94'-97'.

18? Few people have KG that high. Anyway, there isn't a significant difference between 18 and 25.

nbastatus

11-30-2009, 10:50 PM

MJ can win about 3-4 easily rings without Pippen.

Roundball_Rock

11-30-2009, 10:55 PM

MJ can win about 3-4 easily rings without Pippen.

Where? With Danny Manning on the Clippers?

Jordan didn't even win 3-4 playoff games without Pip yet we have people saying he "easily" would win 3-4 rings without him. :roll:

magnax1

11-30-2009, 10:58 PM

If Jordan got traded to the Clippers the universe would have imploded. Putting the best player ever on the worst franchise ever........ they only got in the playoffs twice (?) in the past twenty years? Jordan was 6 rings in 10 years?

Cyclone112

11-30-2009, 11:02 PM

Seriously, all this talk about someone not being able to accept #2 option is all derived from the Kobe-Shaq drama. Just cause two great players couldn't get along (and I wouldn't even call it that overall since they ended up winning 3 titles together), doesn't mean that this would happen with all great players. People seem to forget that Jordan came from UNC, where he was the go-to guy for 2 of 3 seasons, but didn't get the greenlight from Dean Smith to shoot it as much as he wanted. And he didn't have a problem with it. In the 84 Olympics, playing with the likes of Patrick Ewing and Chris Mullin, he didn't do it there either. I have my doubts that he would've had a huge problem if he came to Houston as a rookie playing with Hakeem. And two things:

1. Who's to say Hakeem is there first scoring option anyway? If you want to compare it the Kobe-Shaq situation, realize that a rookie Hakeem was never the scorer 97-04 Shaq was, and that 97-04 Kobe was arguably never as great of a scorer as rookie Jordan was. Its not far-fetched to think that Jordan would've been their primary scorer and playmaker, while Hakeem was most responsible for defense and rebounding.

2. This idea that two players have to scale back so much to play with each other is ridiculous. There's no reason why Jordan couldn't have averaged the 28-32 ppg that he did for most of his career, while Hakeem averaged the 20-24 ppg that he did for most of his career. Much of the stats lost from sharing with each other could've been made up by them getting easier shots playing off each other. Fact is rarely do you see one player suffer so much from scoring due to the addition of another player. Even your boy Pippen. His career high ppg with Jordan vs. Without Jordan? 22.0 ppg to 21.0 ppg. Big difference, and I think most people will agree that Pippen maturing as a player has something to do with that 1 ppg difference.

Part of the reason Pippen didn't have much of a problem being #2 was cause he knew Jordan was clearly better then him. Who's to say he would've been okay giving away more shots to guys that he's better then? You're familiar with the whole Pippen-Kukoc thing right? Part of the reason he acted the way he did that game was he didn't like the fact that for years the Bulls, who drafted Kukoc in 1990, were so hyped to bring him to the Bulls and possibly take Pippen's starting job, when he felt he was better. And the combination of Johnson/Richmond/Smits probably takes even more shots then Jordan/Cartwright.

Mitch Richmond played on fast paced teams for almost his whole career. Thats why his FGA per game stayed close to the same regardless of him being 1st or 2nd option. Are you sure he would've been okay taking less shots on a slower paced team where he had to share the ball more?

KJ was 20-10 guy for many years. Mitch Richmond was a great ISO scorer that wouldn't need a guy like KJ to set him up. Pippen could run the point as well and set up the offense and was very effective doing that. Who's to say KJ would've been okay not being as ball-dominant during that time? When Barkley came around he wasn't the same due to injuries.

I don't think any of these guys are selfish, and I think they wouldn't have had a problem adjusting. But we definitely don't KNOW they could work with each other like you just said. The same way we don't know the Jordan/Hakeem/Drexler trio could've worked with each other. What we do know is that one group has clearly greater players.

Out of this group of players KJ was the best from 88-91. He would've been their leader and best player, and he still would've played his game which meant attacking the basket and had a big role overall regardless. Playing the more physical teams could've added more to his injuries. Would it have happened? Maybe not, but there is definitely a high possibility, and as a result its stupid to assume they win 6 titles.

He wasn't as effective, just like most players aren't when they play hurt.

Or it could mean they face them in the first or second round. And you have your years wrong. The 89 Bulls lost in 6 games and the 90 Bulls lost in 7 games. You're seriously telling me that a team with 3 2nd-year players (Pippen/Grant/KJ) and 2 rookies (Richmond/Smits) as their best players could've had a shot against the 89 Pistons? LOL. The main reason those series were close was cause they had Jordan playing at an all-time level. Sure he had help, but he was the main reason. The whole dynamic of those teams are different without him when you replace him 1st and 2nd year players with a lack of experience.

Like I said, why would that be? If the Cavs were offered Oakley or Grant for KJ, they would've easily taken Oakley. If Oakley is on that team it might be different, but the fact is the reason the Bulls lose to the Knicks is cause they aren't tough enough. Maybe eventually they get through the Knicks, but probably not in 92, when the Knicks just beat them up the whole series, and probably not in 93 when the Knicks would've probably had the better record (especially with KJ and Richmond missing nearly half the season although that might've not been the case on a different team but who knows), and the Knicks were going into that series with like a 28 home game winning streak.

If we're talking HOF, aren't we taking longevity into account? And shouldn't longevity be taken into account when you're saying a team will have almost a decade-long dynasty? Richmond did have bad luck playing on bad teams, but so did other HOFers who brought there teams to the playoffs regularly with good records. Maybe Richmond was just another talented player putting up good stats on bad teams, and had he played on a good team he wouldn't have had nearly as much of an impact on them.

I think Reggie Miller is incredibly overrated. I don't know if he should get in, but I know he will. Maybe the fact that he was one of the greatest at one particular skill (shooting) and one of the greatest at one intangible (clutchness), means he should get in but I don't know. I'll definitely take Miller over Richmond though. Richmond is the better all-around player, but I have more faith in Reggie Miller when I need someone to come up big for a playoff performance or be incredibly clutch. Richmond's all-around game doesn't make up for that difference (or at least difference in faith, not ability). It maybe cause Richmond didn't get those same opportunities as Reggie, but thats irrelevant, cause I'll have to go with the supporting evidence.

If you want to matchup position by position you can do that for many matchups and it wouldn't make sense. It doesn't work like that. If these two teams played in a 7-game series, every game would be fairly close as in within 10 points. So the main question is who can close a game out better? The team with no consistent threat in the clutch? Or the team with arguably the most clutch player of all-time? And this isn't all cause of Jordan because keep in mind the supporting casts are just about equal.

And this doesn't mean Jordan's going to hit every shot down the stretch. But he will consistently lead this team efficiently at the end of games. Is Pippen, KJ, or Richmond going to do that? Don't get me wrong, they've had their moments, but they weren't consistent as the leader in the clutch. Jordan was. Sure he didn't come through all the time, but in a 7 game series with all those weapons on his team, its a no-brainer to pick the Knicks. Not to mention that Knicks team is clearly tougher then that Bulls team, which is what happens in many cases.

Thats one big reason the Knicks never got past the Jordan-Bulls, and never won a title in general. They didn't have anyone great to lead them at the end of close games cause Ewing just wasn't that guy, which usually resulted in games where John Starks had to jack up contested threes.

They came there in 1997. KJ was an injured mess before he even turned 30, and Pippen had a bad back in 1998.

Wow, I must commend you on such a great post. Very well thought out and put together, no insulting or anything just logic and realistic points. If repping was still possible you would have one from me.

nbastatus

11-30-2009, 11:21 PM

Scottie is nothing without the GOAT. He had his chance to try to win a ring without MJ from seasons 1993-1995, and he didn't even make to the Finals.

Soopa

11-30-2009, 11:26 PM

Scottie is nothing without the GOAT. He had his chance to try to win a ring without MJ from seasons 1993-1995, and he didn't even make to the Finals.

Scottie Pippen

juju151111

11-30-2009, 11:29 PM

Jeff Van Gundy mentioned it during a game. He didn't say feud. He said Ewing was hostile to the idea of making Houston the #1 option.

If he went to the Knicks in 92' he would probably win a ring--if he didn't retire in 94'. There are no guarantees during a two year window. By 96' Ewing had declined.

How many prime 29 ppg scorers are willing to accept limiting themselves to 20-21 ppg? He is viewed as a disappointment only in retrospect. He was considered someone you could build a championship team around and actually did come within one shot of winning a title in 94'.

Why NY? Maybe he would have went to Charlotte, his hometown team. Maybe he would have went elsewhere. Could the Knicks even afford him? Besides, if it looked like MJ was walking would the Clippers let him leave without getting anything in return? The smart thing would be to trade him if it was clear he was leaving. What would the Knicks be able to offer in exchange for Jordan? The only offer that would be a decent one would be Ewing for Jordan. Obviously since MJ was the best player in the league you could not get equal value for him but you could get good value for him. Ewing for Jordan with draft picks would be decent. Maybe throw in John Starks since with MJ he would expendable. Ewing+Starks+a first round pick for MJ would be a good deal. Still, with that the Knicks would not be the Knicks as we knew them in the 90's. Could MJ win without Ewing in NY?

David Robinson was in high demand at the time and was young. The likely first choice for the Clippers would have been Robinson. Would the Spurs trade him for Jordan, though? I doubt it.

Read the thread. Jordan would have worked well with Mourning and LJ, at least temporarily. He would have two elite teammates and he could be the clear #1. The problem with MJ is--and this is why they were considering trading him in the first place--is his "dominance of the ball" (especially early in his career). How many superstars would accept playing with someone like that? On the other side of the coin, suppose a superstar would accept MJ. Would MJ accept ceding some of his stats? Would MJ accept scoring 25 ppg instead of 30 ppg to share the ball with a Ewing?

Pippen was unique in that he was a superstar content with scoring 19-21 ppg alongside MJ. Chemistry matters. Unselfishness matters. Wilt was a better individual player than Magic but I would much rather have Magic on my team than Wilt since Magic could fit in just about personnel and didn't need to take all the shots. Really, who quits in game 5 of a ECF with the series tied 2-2 when a coach tells you that you taking 31% of the team's shot is a bad thing???? Yet we are to believe such a player could coexist with 28-30 ppg scorers in their primes? You do realize no one ever averaged more than 21.5 ppg alongside MJ, and that was Stackhouse when MJ was 39 and Jordan was "only" 9th in FGA. Even then MJ took more shots than Stackhouse, even though Stackhouse was just one season removed from being a 30 ppg scorer. :oldlol:

MJ led the league in FGA every year (even at age 38 he was second behind AI at 22 FGA :roll: ). Kobe and Shaq worked temporarily because Shaq had seniority. Once Kobe had equal status to him things fell apart. Hakeem and Jordan would enter the league together in 85' and have similar status. Why would MJ defer to Hakeem or vice versa (remember, it was Hakeem who was the #1 draft pick)? How would Drexler fit in? Why would Drexler, a SG, defer to a rookie MJ?

I was talking about MVP voting. How often do two teammates finish in the top 5? The only other time I can think of is Kareem and Magic.

How good was he in your view in 94'? Top 3, 5, 10, 15, 20? You are confusing peak with prime. No one has a one year prime. He was basically the same from 94'-97'.

18? Few people have KG that high. Anyway, there isn't a significant difference between 18 and 25.
Why would Mj have to defer to him??? Mj could still take 22+ shots and Hakeem his ushal amount. Hakeem is a cener and doesn't need much shot. Look at Shaq and Kobe in 02 and 03. They were both taking more shots. LOL MJ just desroys Drexler in practice and he quickly relizes who the boss. lOL really tho, but I think drexler isn't the selfish type. He didn't seem like he cared if he was the best on the team or not. KB avged 30ppg with shaq. WTF are you talking about?? Why can't Mj avg 30 with ewing??? Mj never held Pip back. Pip was improving every season and if Mj never retired he would be the same in 94.

juju151111

11-30-2009, 11:31 PM

[QUOTE=Soopa]Scottie Pippen

Soopa

11-30-2009, 11:39 PM

MJ can win about 3-4 easily rings without Pippen.

The Bulls had losing records in EACH of Jordan's first 3 seaons, and his record in the playoffs was ONE WIN AND NINE LOSES. Three straight first round exits!!

It wasn't until AFTER Pippen joined the Bulls that they started winning anything.

After Jordan's first retirement, the Bulls drop a WHOPPING TWO GAMES IN THE WIN COLUMN (57 to 55)...this after replacing the "greatest player of all time" with a CBA journeyman named Pete Myers !! :oldlol:

Plus, they even make it to the 2nd round of the playoffs, with Scottie, and without Michael...which is better than they ever did with Michael/but without Scottie...In 1994, Scottie became the 2nd player in NBA history to lead his team in scoring, rebounding, assists, blocks and steals... yeah, Michael made him better.

Also in 1994, Pippen, B.J. Armstrong and Horace Grant ALL MAKE THE ALL STAR TEAM... even though Michael wasn't there to "make them better". What does THAT tell you, other than the fact that these guys were better WITHOUT Michael than they ever were WITH HIM! LOL

Jordan played five years of his career without Pippen. ALL FIVE WERE LOSING TEAMS.

Now, what was that you were saying about JORDAN making SCOTTIE BETTER???

Without Pippen, Jordan doesn't even GET to the finals to put up all those shots/points.

As a great man once said, without Scottie Pippen, Jordan was nothing more than a bald-headed Dominique Wilkins.

recap... The Bulls won 55 without Michael but with Scottie, which is fine... how'd they do WITH Michael but WITHOUT Scottie? Let's check:

38, 30 and 40 wins... that's it... aw, that's too bad... 40 wins is SO CLOSE to a .500 season, I'd almost want to give Michael credit for a winning season that year... but I can't... a loser is a loser. I can't change the laws of mathematics... if you lose more games than you win, you're a LOSER! And that's what Michael was without Scottie as a teammate... sorry if the truth hurts, but you Jordan stans will (hopefully) get over it.

Hard to believe that the "greatest player of all time" had NOTHING BUT LOSING SEASONS without Pippen as a teammate... but, the record books don't lie... they just don't lie.

Roundball_Rock

11-30-2009, 11:44 PM

1. Who's to say Hakeem is there first scoring option anyway?

Center, #1 pick, local guy. Plus, regarding Houston how would Drexler work? He played the same position as MJ and had a year of experience and was also a local guy. Who is to say MJ would be favored over Drexler initially?

2. This idea that two players have to scale back so much to play with each other is ridiculous. There's no reason why Jordan couldn't have averaged the 28-32 ppg that he did for most of his career, while Hakeem averaged the 20-24 ppg that he did for most of his career.

There is only one basketball. If one player is taking 2,000 shots every year that is 2,000 shots taken off the table for the rest of the team.

Part of the reason Pippen didn't have much of a problem being #2 was cause he knew Jordan was clearly better then him. Who's to say he would've been okay giving away more shots to guys that he's better then?

Perhaps but unlikely. Pippen always had a pass-first mentality borne of his experience as a PG in college.

Are you sure he would've been okay taking less shots on a slower paced team where he had to share the ball more?

Probably since he would come into a new team and adapt to whatever system was in place. However, part of the reason to get rid of MJ was that Collins wanted to run more but MJ's ball-hogging prevented it (Collin's view). With MJ gone the Bulls would have been a fast paced team.

Who's to say KJ would've been okay not being as ball-dominant during that time?

Perhaps, but remember he was a 9/2/5.5 guy as a rookie. He would have no expectation of being a 20/10 ball dominant player in Chicago.

He wasn't as effective, just like most players aren't when they play hurt.

More than effective enough. Look up his playoff record. He had one terrible run. His next worst performance was 17/8. That is more than enough.

Or it could mean they face them in the first or second round.

KJ, Richmond were 20 ppg guys by 89' and Pippen was a 16 ppg guy in 89' as a starter'. These guys plus Smits and Grant/Oakley would not be a force?

If the Cavs were offered Oakley or Grant for KJ, they would've easily taken Oakley.

Sure but if you believed you could get KJ for either Oakley or Grant you would, at the time, be more likely to try offering Grant first.

You can't rely solely on the toughness angle. This team would be very deep. The 92' team had Paxson and Cartwright starting. :oldlol: How many rings did those tough Knicks win?

Johnson played in every playoff game in 93'. Richmond would not be able to play, though. Even then the Bulls would have a shot against the Knicks. Smits would be a big upgrade over Cartwright. Pippen/Johnson/Smits/Grant is still a formidable group. You can't play the 0-2 card either. The chief reason they were 0-2 is MJ was shooting something like 30% yet still jacking up 30 shots.

If we're talking HOF, aren't we taking longevity into account? And shouldn't longevity be taken into account when you're saying a team will have almost a decade-long dynasty

KJ was still a 20/9 guy in 97'. Pippen and Richmond remained elite players until 98'. Smits was a 17 ppg guy until 98'. The window would at best go to 98'. Considering that the Pacers almost made it to the NBA finals with Miller/Smits leading them Pippen/Richmond/Smits would have a shot. Even KJ rallied for 14/5 in the 98' playoffs.

Richmond did have bad luck playing on bad teams, but so did other HOFers who brought there teams to the playoffs regularly with good records

He was hurt by playing in a small market. Isn't Sacramento the smallest market in the NBA?

Maybe Richmond was just another talented player putting up good stats on bad teams, and had he played on a good team he wouldn't have had nearly as much of an impact on them.

He did play on a good team early in his career. He averaged 22-24 ppg in Golden State (with Mullim and Hardaway). From 93'-98' he averaged between 22-23 ppg every year, aside from one year of 26 ppg. His numbers clearly were not a product of playing on a bad team.

I think Reggie Miller is incredibly overrated. I don't know if he should get in, but I know he will. Maybe the fact that he was one of the greatest at one particular skill (shooting) and one of the greatest at one intangible (clutchness), means he should get in but I don't know. I'll definitely take Miller over Richmond though. Richmond is the better all-around player, but I have more faith in Reggie Miller when I need someone to come up big for a playoff performance or be incredibly clutch.

Miller was great but only the 4th best SG of the 90's. I agree that he is overrated because his best moments happened to come in the playoffs against New York (especially MSG) and Chicago. If his best moments were against Miami and Cleveland he wouldn't be remembered nearly as fondly.

Yeah, Miller was very clutch. Prime Richmond only made the playoffs once and was out in the first round so it is unclear how clutch he would be. Still, with such a stacked team there wouldn't be the need for one "go-to" guy.

If these two teams played in a 7-game series, every game would be fairly close as in within 10 points. So the main question is who can close a game out better? The team with no consistent threat in the clutch? Or the team with arguably the most clutch player of all-time? And this isn't all cause of Jordan because keep in mind the supporting casts are just about equal.

The supporting casts are not equal. Assuming that somehow Jordan/Ewing would work financially and in basketball terms, that team would have weak links at SF and PG. If your premise are the teams are equal then, yeah, the logical conclusion is Jordan's team would win but I don't except that premise.

With three HOFers and two other all-star players PLUS Kukoc and Armstrong there is no need for a consistent go to guy. Give it to the player with the hot hand.

Duncan21formvp

11-30-2009, 11:56 PM

The Bulls had losing records in EACH of Jordan's first 3 seaons, and his record in the playoffs was ONE WIN AND NINE LOSES. Three straight first round exits!!

It wasn't until AFTER Pippen joined the Bulls that they started winning anything.

After Jordan's first retirement, the Bulls drop a WHOPPING TWO GAMES IN THE WIN COLUMN (57 to 55)...this after replacing the "greatest player of all time" with a CBA journeyman named Pete Myers !! :oldlol:

Plus, they even make it to the 2nd round of the playoffs, with Scottie, and without Michael...which is better than they ever did with Michael/but without Scottie...In 1994, Scottie became the 2nd player in NBA history to lead his team in scoring, rebounding, assists, blocks and steals... yeah, Michael made him better.

Also in 1994, Pippen, B.J. Armstrong and Horace Grant ALL MAKE THE ALL STAR TEAM... even though Michael wasn't there to "make them better". What does THAT tell you, other than the fact that these guys were better WITHOUT Michael than they ever were WITH HIM! LOL

Jordan played five years of his career without Pippen. ALL FIVE WERE LOSING TEAMS.

Now, what was that you were saying about JORDAN making SCOTTIE BETTER???

Without Pippen, Jordan doesn't even GET to the finals to put up all those shots/points.

As a great man once said, without Scottie Pippen, Jordan was nothing more than a bald-headed Dominique Wilkins.

recap... The Bulls won 55 without Michael but with Scottie, which is fine... how'd they do WITH Michael but WITHOUT Scottie? Let's check:

38, 30 and 40 wins... that's it... aw, that's too bad... 40 wins is SO CLOSE to a .500 season, I'd almost want to give Michael credit for a winning season that year... but I can't... a loser is a loser. I can't change the laws of mathematics... if you lose more games than you win, you're a LOSER! And that's what Michael was without Scottie as a teammate... sorry if the truth hurts, but you Jordan stans will (hopefully) get over it.

Hard to believe that the "greatest player of all time" had NOTHING BUT LOSING SEASONS without Pippen as a teammate... but, the record books don't lie... they just don't lie.

Hard to believe that Kobe Bryant never made it out of round 1 without Derek Fisher while Derek Fisher made it to the Conference finals without Kobe.

I mean Derek Fisher in his prime is as good or better than Scottie was in 1988 and 1989.

Roundball_Rock

11-30-2009, 11:58 PM

Alphawolf is back. Here is how i know. He always says this "It makes you wonder who made who a better ball player, or at least who was the most valuable player to the win-loss column" This can only be him or Roundball/Fatal.

Just because he is copy and pasting from AW's site doesn't mean it is AW. Even Abe Lincoln copy and pastes from AW's site for his Wilt vs. Kareem comparison.

The typical Jordan fan will respond with "how many championships did Pippen win without Jordan?" The answer is zero. Likewise, how many championships did Jordan win without Pippen? Zero. Comparing these two players apart from each is very unfavorable for Jordan. Pippen had a better career record and a better post-season record than Jordan. Pippen's only losing season was his final year in the NBA, when he missed much of the season due to injury and was in a veteran leadership role for the young re-building Bulls. That was the only time in Pippen's career he had a losing record and the only time he missed the playoffs. Jordan played 5 seasons without Pippen. Out of those 5 seasons, he posted 5 losing records, missed the playoffs twice, and was 1-9 in the playoffs.

They are too foolish to realize the idiocy of comparing them without the other. :D The alleged GOAT having such a poor record without his best teammate, at minimum, raises questions...

win a ring without MJ from seasons 1993-1995, and he didn't even make to the Finals.

Really? MJ played in 1993 and 1995. In 1994 everyone except MJ fans agrees he was on his way to the NBA finals if it weren't for arguably the worst playoff call ever. In 2000 he was 3 minutes away from a ring. MJ never got within 3 rounds of a ring without Pippen! :oldlol:

Why would Mj have to defer to him??? Mj could still take 22+ shots and Hakeem his ushal amount.

Because there can only be one "#1 option". There is only one basketball. Both would shoot less if they played together. The thing is could MJ, who took 22 shots a game even at age 38, accept taking 16-18 a game next to Hakeem?

Look at Shaq and Kobe in 02 and 03. They were both taking more shots.

Look at MJ himself. As Pippen and Grant began taking more shots, MJ's FGA declined.

KB avged 30ppg with shaq.

Shaq didn't. Shaq averaged 30 ppg in 00' before the rise of Kobe.

Look at Garnett/Allen/Pierce. Their numbers all fell substantially when they went to Boston. When Jordan came back, Pippen went from 22 ppg to 20 ppg. Armstrong, others also fell. Aside from Shaq/Kobe, how often have two teammates averaged 28-30 ppg together (giving Shaq a break for 27.5)?

Samurai Swoosh

12-01-2009, 12:02 AM

Where? With Danny Manning on the Clippers?

Jordan didn't even win 3-4 playoff games without Pip yet we have people saying he "easily" would win 3-4 rings without him. :roll:
Yeah he did ... he won a few playoff series with scrub Scottie Pippen who wasn't more valuable or as valuable as many starters in the league. I love how you act as if Pippen was a true #1 option caliber player that was making major impact from day one like the true greats do ... Magic, LeBron, Jordan, Bird, etc

Pippen developed over the course of 3 - 4 years. He wasn't a true perrenial all star talent till 1990 or 1991.

Scottie knowns who to thank for the route his career took. Jordan acknowledges Pip as the man who HELPED him, Pip has acknowledged Jordan as the man that CREATED his development as a player.

You pair Jordan with a varrying number of top players in the league that don't replicate what Jordan does on the floor and you have more than enough opportunites to say Jordan would easily win at the very least 1 - 2 rings.

Duncan21formvp

12-01-2009, 12:05 AM

Really? MJ played in 1993 and 1995. In 1994 everyone except MJ fans agrees he was on his way to the NBA finals if it weren't for arguably the worst playoff call ever. In 2000 he was 3 minutes away from a ring. MJ never got within 3 rounds of a ring without Pippen! :oldlol:

Because there can only be one "#1 option". There is only one basketball. Both would shoot less if they played together. The thing is could MJ, who took 22 shots a game even at age 38, accept taking 16-18 a game next to Hakeem?

Umm no. The Pacers were up 3-2 on the Knicks as well and got jacked in game 7 by the refs in which a flagrant was called on Reggie with 5 seconds left in the game.

And no Pippen was like the 4th best player on those Blazers teams. It's like giving Bruce Bowen credit on the Spurs teams that won it all.

Roundball_Rock

12-01-2009, 12:06 AM

Scottie knowns who to thank for the route his career took. Jordan acknowledges Pip as the man who HELPED him, Pip has acknowledged Jordan as the man that CREATED his development as a player.

You pair Jordan with a varrying number of top players in the league that don't replicate what Jordan does on the floor and you have more than enough opportunites to say Jordan would easily win at the very least 1 - 2 rings.

1) When did Pippen say Jordan "created" him? Do you realize Pippen was a top 5 draft pick despite coming out of a small school?

2) Such as who? What would Jordan have done on the Clippers? Yeah, you could say he could have went to Team X and Stockton, Malone would join him there with Payton and Reggie Miller coming off the bench. Jordan to the Clippers nearly happened. Jordan to Houston nearly did as well and I agree he and Drexler would have won numerous rings as as #2 and #3 options behind Hakeem. Jordan would not be Jordan as we know him if he played as Hakeem's "sidekick" from day 1. Jordan said he became a superstar because he was given a chance to by Kevin Loughery in Chicago instead of being relegated to a lesser role or treated with training wheels like most rookies. Remember, this was a guy who was James Worthy's "sidekick" in college. Hakeem went to-to-toe with Ewing in college. Why do you think Hakeem was the clear #1 pick?

P.S. Don't you see the irony in saying Pippen should thank Jordan for the route his career took?

he won a few playoff series with scrub Scottie Pippen who wasn't more valuable or as valuable as many starters in the league

Even if we are generous and add the one playoff series Jordan won in 88' that doesn't change much. He would be 1-4 in playoff series and 5-15 in playoff games. That is hardly impressive.

Duncan21formvp

12-01-2009, 12:07 AM

Horace Grant and BJ Armstrong were the 2 best players on the Bulls team in 1994. They led the team in win shares in the playoffs.

Also Pippen was like 3rd in win shares in 1992, 1993 and 1998 on the Bulls teams, yet he is getting credit as if he was #1 in win shares and PER.

Pippen's role on those Bulls title teams was comparable to Manu's role on the Spurs teams.

Duncan21formvp

12-01-2009, 12:09 AM

1) When did Pippen say Jordan "created" him? Do you realize Pippen was a top 5 draft pick despite coming out of a small school?

2) Such as who? What would Jordan have done on the Clippers? Yeah, you could say he could have went to New York and Stockton, Malone would join him there with Payton and Reggie Miller coming off the bench. Jordan to the Clippers nearly happened.

Pippen became great due to playing with Jordan, he even said so himself.

Source: GoogleBooks (http://books.google.com/books?id=aQ84ViBNkYwC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=Game+Michael+Jordan+broke+his+leg&source=web&ots=Y9Xtn3nomR&sig=6shSn2cklYKVP1kBaC6nI0A_oko&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA39,M1)

Pippen, unlike other Bulls who usually kept their distance from Jordan, tried to learn all he could from Jordan in practice. In turn, Jordan worked with Pippen on his moves, jump shot, and defense and taught him mental toughness.

Pippen relates on how his game improved - Link (http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/jordanhof_pippen_090910.html)

“He was very competitive, so he went at me and that helped me learn,” said Pippen. “You continue to compete against the very best every day, and you will get better, or you’ll be embarrassed.”

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/asksam_091030.html

Sam: I know there's that "he's a rookie thing," though I thought more with Rose was the way he drove and then was so quick he could avoid the contact. I think with him he was more accustomed to having just come out of playing in the Chicago playgrounds where you aren't going to get calls going to the basket. I remember watching Jordan not long after Pippen joined the Bulls showing Pippen how to drive and go into a defender and then finish your shot. Wade was a more mature player having gone to college several years, and Anthony played in the post and inside a lot. That's one area for Rose for improve. He's a quick study and I think you'll see him taking the hit since he's strong and can do it and drawing more calls this season.

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/asksam_091023.html

Would you still consider pippen to be included on the 50 greatest players list? I know that he pioneered/changed the way that his position was played creating more of a point-forward spot, which paved the way for players like melo and lebron. But he never did accomplish anything by himself, and proved in Portland that he couldn't carry a team.

Sam: You can't judge with Portland given he was well past his athletic prime and had lost basically all his explosiveness and was operating on guile. He was a much smarter player than ever given credit for, though many still question his top 50 inclusion. The notion is if not for Jordan, there would be no chance. And I tend to agree. If he were picked by the Clippers at No. 4 in that draft as he should have been, he would not have been a top 50 player because he couldn't create that much for himself. But he wasn't and he was the No. 2 part of six championships and was a multiple defensive player and gold medalist on the Dream Team. So he deserves the recognition and will be inducted into the Hall of Fame as a result. Most everyone who has succeeded has benefitted from good timing on occasion. Pippen did as well, but he also made the most of it.

Samurai Swoosh

12-01-2009, 12:15 AM

1) When did Pippen say Jordan "created" him? Do you realize Pippen was a top 5 draft pick despite coming out of a small school?
Darko Millicic was a top 3 pick ... Kwame Brown was a number 1 pick. The point being

And I love how you failed to quote it and respond to it

You are acting as if Jordan didn't win without Pippen (playoff games) ... when in actuality he won playoff SERIES without the man you're refering to as Scottie Pippen.

For the first few years in the league, Jordan carried Scottie "Migraine" Pippen. The man who was just merely a solid starting SF. His first two years in the league, he was NOTHING special. Neither was Horace Grant.

Was Pippen a top 5 draft pick? Yeah? But he wasn't a legit All Star caliber player till 1990 / 1991 - ish. You do realize this, right? He didn't perform and produce like a top five pick

2) Such as who? What would Jordan have done on the Clippers? Yeah, you could say he could have went to New York and Stockton, Malone would join him there with Payton and Reggie Miller coming off the bench. Jordan to the Clippers nearly happened.
On the Clippers? I don't know, because whose to say after acquiring Jordan they wouldn't try to reorganize their roster around him. I'm not going to go into "what if" land ... all I know is what DID happen. Anything else is a guess at the hypothetical. And your educated guesses stem further from the probability and more to the possibility. And anything is "possible" ...

And Kobe nearly came to the Bulls ... TWICE.

Alot of things have nearly happened over time. The fact is they didn't. No one knows what would've happened if Jordan went to the Clippers. But I will tell you this. It's definetely more probable that the minute Jordan arrived in Clipper town, that team would have instant credibility. Just as rebuilt with his own hands a wretched franchise in the Chicago Bulls. You can't say the same if the Clippers acquired a rookie Scottie Pippen.

:oldlol:

guy

12-01-2009, 12:15 AM

Jeff Van Gundy mentioned it during a game. He didn't say feud. He said Ewing was hostile to the idea of making Houston the #1 option.

Hostile? Okay, wasn't a feud, sounds like a disagreement. Either way, thats Allan Houston, not prime Michael Jordan.

If he went to the Knicks in 92' he would probably win a ring--if he didn't retire in 94'. There are no guarantees during a two year window. By 96' Ewing had declined.

How many prime 29 ppg scorers are willing to accept limiting themselves to 20-21 ppg? He is viewed as a disappointment only in retrospect. He was considered someone you could build a championship team around and actually did come within one shot of winning a title in 94'.

LOL at 29 ppg. He had one season averaging that much, and another season averaging 27 ppg. Every other of his great years, he averaged about 20-24 ppg. Don't make it seem like Ewing was that great of a scorer for that long.

Why NY? Maybe he would have went to Charlotte, his hometown team. Maybe he would have went elsewhere. Could the Knicks even afford him? Besides, if it looked like MJ was walking would the Clippers let him leave without getting anything in return? The smart thing would be to trade him if it was clear he was leaving. What would the Knicks be able to offer in exchange for Jordan? The only offer that would be a decent one would be Ewing for Jordan. Obviously since MJ was the best player in the league you could not get equal value for him but you could get good value for him. Ewing for Jordan with draft picks would be decent. Maybe throw in John Starks since with MJ he would expendable. Ewing+Starks+a first round pick for MJ would be a good deal. Still, with that the Knicks would not be the Knicks as we knew them in the 90's. Could MJ win without Ewing in NY?

Whatever these are all hypotheticals. Maybe the Knicks would turn down that trade knowing they might not be able to contend anymore as a result, and knowing that they'd have a great chance to just sign MJ once he became a free agent.

Would MJ accept ceding some of his stats? Would MJ accept scoring 25 ppg instead of 30 ppg to share the ball with a Ewing?

Why would he need to? LOL at going down to 25 ppg. Like I said, rarely does a player stats go down that much in a situation like this. If you take 1992 for example, whats more likely to happen is they trade/waive/DNP John Starks who played 26 mpg off the bench and averaged 14 ppg and cut Gerald Wilkins 29 minutes in half who averaged 12.4 ppg. Thats about 20 ppg that needs to be made up. Then other players such as Mark Jackson, Xavier McDaniel, Anthony Mason, and Charles Oakley cut there shot attempts and there scoring goes down by 1-2 ppg each, and then of course Jordan will add 4 ppg to the team's ppg because he naturally makes them a better scoring team. Thats about 30 ppg right there while Patrick Ewing still averages 24 ppg. Like I said this is hypothetical, but the point is its not the top 2 guys' scoring thats necessarily going to change at all.

Pippen was unique in that he was a superstar content with scoring 19-21 ppg alongside MJ.

LOL Yea. Instead of the lousy 19-21 ppg he averaged with Jordan, he would've averaged a beastly 22.0 ppg without him. Yea Pippen really sacrificed his stats.

Yet we are to believe such a player could coexist with 28-30 ppg scorers in their primes?

When did he ever get to play with one?

You do realize no one ever averaged more than 21.5 ppg alongside MJ, and that was Stackhouse when MJ was 39 and Jordan was "only" 9th in FGA. Even then MJ took more shots than Stackhouse, even though Stackhouse was just one season removed from being a 30 ppg scorer.

Actually Jerry Stackhouse averaged 21.4 ppg in 02, the year before he played with Jordan. He averaged almost exactly the same.

MJ led the league in FGA every year (even at age 38 he was second behind AI at 22 FGA :roll: ). Kobe and Shaq worked temporarily because Shaq had seniority. Once Kobe had equal status to him things fell apart. Hakeem and Jordan would enter the league together in 85' and have similar status. Why would MJ defer to Hakeem or vice versa (remember, it was Hakeem who was the #1 draft pick)? How would Drexler fit in? Why would Drexler, a SG, defer to a rookie MJ?

Because maybe the coach would realize Jordan was the best scorer on the team? Why would Drexler, who had an unimpressive rookie year even be a threat to Jordan who was highly touted as the next great swingmen after his junior year and Olympics?

Samurai Swoosh

12-01-2009, 12:20 AM

Even if we are generous and add the one playoff series Jordan won in 88' that doesn't change much. He would be 1-4 in playoff series and 5-15 in playoff games. That is hardly impressive.
No, no ...

Wrong again, son.

Jordan carried the Bulls and scrub Scottie Pippen to playoff series wins in 1987 - 1988, where he led the Bulls to the 2nd round and lost to the Pistons ... and 1988 - 1989 where Jordan led the Bulls to the ECF where they would lose to the eventual champions in 6 games.

Scottie Pippen didn't become a very good contributor until 1989 - 1990, yet still wasn't a star caliber player, was prone to mental collapse (such as b1tching out with a myserious "migrane" in the crucial Playoffs) ....

Duncan21formvp

12-01-2009, 12:24 AM

Roundball_Rock is getting torn up as usual.

Anyway, Jordan is the only player ever to win multiple titles without even having an allstar on his team. He did so in 1991 and 1998.

Also Jordan is the only top 10 player ever to never play with a guy who won league or finals mvp.

Jordan's 2nd option on the Bulls was Pippen who is the equivalent of Glen Rice or Manu Ginobili.

juju151111

12-01-2009, 12:33 AM

Just because he is copy and pasting from AW's site doesn't mean it is AW. Even Abe Lincoln copy and pastes from AW's site for his Wilt vs. Kareem comparison.

They are too foolish to realize the idiocy of comparing them without the other. :D The alleged GOAT having such a poor record without his best teammate, at minimum, raises questions...

Really? MJ played in 1993 and 1995. In 1994 everyone except MJ fans agrees he was on his way to the NBA finals if it weren't for arguably the worst playoff call ever. In 2000 he was 3 minutes away from a ring. MJ never got within 3 rounds of a ring without Pippen! :oldlol:

Because there can only be one "#1 option". There is only one basketball. Both would shoot less if they played together. The thing is could MJ, who took 22 shots a game even at age 38, accept taking 16-18 a game next to Hakeem?

Look at MJ himself. As Pippen and Grant began taking more shots, MJ's FGA declined.

Shaq didn't. Shaq averaged 30 ppg in 00' before the rise of Kobe.

Look at Garnett/Allen/Pierce. Their numbers all fell substantially when they went to Boston. When Jordan came back, Pippen went from 22 ppg to 20 ppg. Armstrong, others also fell. Aside from Shaq/Kobe, how often have two teammates averaged 28-30 ppg together (giving Shaq a break for 27.5)?
?? WTF when did Hakeem avg 30ppg?? Have you lost your mind?? Hakeem can still avg his 22-25ppg and his FG% will jump up. More wide open shots and drive dishes from Mj. 1987-1998 chips. I don't see who is going to beat them like spurs did to LA in 03. It's not happening.

Roundball_Rock

12-01-2009, 12:41 AM

Darko Millicic was a top 3 pick ... Kwame Brown was a number 1 pick.

:oldlol: Who drafted Kwame? Why didn't MJ "create" Kwame into a NBA starter? Forget making him a HOFer. How about just a starter?

For the first few years in the league, Jordan carried Scottie "Migraine" Pippen. The man who was just merely a solid starting SF. His first two years in the league, he was NOTHING special. Neither was Horace Grant.

Based on what? Pippen averaged 15.8 ppg when he became a starter in 89' and 16.5 ppg in 90'. That extra 0.7 ppg made the difference? Pippen and Grant were the second and third best players on the team.

Was Pippen a top 5 draft pick? Yeah? But he wasn't a legit All Star caliber player till 1990 / 1991 - ish. You do realize this, right? He didn't perform and produce like a top five pick

Really? His trajectory was normal, especially for a top 5 pick. Even some #1's like Yao and Howard took a few years to become superstars. Fortunately Patrick Ewing was there to "create" them. :oldlol:

On the Clippers? I don't know, because whose to say after acquiring Jordan they wouldn't try to reorganize their roster around him.

They had a decent team in the early 90's with Manning, Harper, Mark Jackson/Doc Rivers and Charles Smith. Replace Harper (SG) with Jordan. Jordan/Manning/Jackson/Smith. Is that enough to win a championship?

It's definetely more probable that the minute Jordan arrived in Clipper town, that team would have instant credibility.

Of course. That was the point of acquiring MJ: sell tickets.

LOL at 29 ppg. He had one season averaging that much, and another season averaging 27 ppg. Every other of his great years, he averaged about 20-24 ppg.

That was due to Riley coming to NY and implementing a slow paced system.

The 29 ppg goes to capability. If you are capable of that are you going to be happy with 20 ppg when your teammate is leading the league in FGA and scoring 30 ppg?

The other thing is ego. Why do you think top players don't pair with other top players via free agency to form super teams? It is because they want to be "the man." Lebron-Wade or Lebron-Kobe would be a lock for a ring but neither will happen because of ego, just as in the 90's prime Malone going to play with, say, prime Drexler would be ridiculous.

knowing that they'd have a great chance to just sign MJ once he became a free agent.

Based on what? What big free agent did the Knicks acquire from 89-96'? They did get Houston for 97' but by then Ewing was past his prime. For all the hype about NY being such a big draw for free agents their record is poor in this regard. Allan Houston and who else in the past two decades? Even Houston was not that huge of a signing. He wasn't even an all-star before coming to NY.

whats more likely to happen is they trade/waive/DNP John Starks who played 26 mpg off the bench and averaged 14 ppg and cut Gerald Wilkins 29 minutes in half who averaged 12.4 ppg. Thats about 20 ppg that needs to be made up.

They would get rid of Starks and keep Wilkins???

When did he ever get to play with one?

That is the point. Here is a guy who had trouble coexisting with 14-17 ppg scorers. Yet we are to believe he would work perfectly with 28-30 ppg guys?

Actually Jerry Stackhouse averaged 21.4 ppg in 02, the year before he played with Jordan. He averaged almost exactly the same.

That was on a 50 win team. On the Wizards he should have averaged more. Instead his FGA actually dropped from 17.4 to 17.2 when he went to the lottery bound Wizards.

Because maybe the coach would realize Jordan was the best scorer on the team?

Why was Hakeem, not Jordan, the #1 pick? Jordan may have emerged as the #1 option later on but at the beginning it would have been Hakeem. Jordan as a #2 option may not have become Jordan as we know him.

Why would Drexler, who had an unimpressive rookie year even be a threat to Jordan

Why do you think Houston wanted him? They saw his potential. He averaged 17/6/6 in his second year. That is who Jordan would be competing against, not rookie Drexler.

Roundball_Rock

12-01-2009, 12:45 AM

Jordan carried the Bulls and scrub Scottie Pippen to playoff series wins in 1987 - 1988,

The Bulls won one playoff series that year.

1988 - 1989 where Jordan led the Bulls to the ECF where they would lose to the eventual champions in 6 games.

Scottie Pippen didn't become a very good contributor until 1989 - 1990

Why? Because he scored 0.7 ppg more in 90' than he did in 89' once he became a starter?

It is sad the Bulls lost in the 89' ECF. Maybe if Jordan didn't quit in Game 5 with the series tied 2-2. The Bulls lost that game by single digits. If MJ didn't quit...

Part of the reason Pippen--and others--could not contribute that much was because MJ's ball-hogging, which led to MJ quitting in Game 5. Ask several Bulls' said, how can you expect people to contribute when they never get the ball? Why do you think the Bulls were considering trading Jordan in the first place??????????

Soopa

12-01-2009, 12:45 AM

:oldlol: look at the Jordan fanatics getting mad.......So your saying Pippen averaging 10 and 5 in the playoffs did not help Jordan win?....

Jordan was shooting 25 times a game....of course he is going to average 30+ points a game....Defense wins....Pippens defense and rebounding helped the Bull's win........

after all MJ averaged 37 PPG and got SWEPT! without Pippen....but you would'nt understand.....all you understand is Nike, Gatorade and Space Jam.

When Jordan retired 3 of his teamates made the allstar team!...in fact his 7 players shot a higher FG% despite taking MORE SHOTS!..and the Bulls played BETTER defense holding opponents to fewer points and lower shooting % WITHOUT MJ!

1992-93 (w/ Jordan) Pippen = 18.6ppg, 47%FG...Grant 13.2PPG 50%FG

1993-94 (w/o Jordan).....Pippen 22PPG, 49%FG.......Grant 15PPG , 52%FG

there were nine players who played with Jordan in 1993 and without him 1994, you see that they actually shot BETTER without Jordan (48.6%) than they did with him (48.2%). As I showed previously, this was also true of the top 2 scorers (Pippen and Grant). In contrast, the 1992 Lakers and the 1989 Celtics saw nearly everyone on the team fall in fg% and ppg, due to the absence of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, respectively. This difference may not seem like much, but remember, Jordan is SUPPOSED to make life easier for teammates, not harder. And the trend in the league was decreased fg% every year. How could this be?

The short answer is that players like Jordan (ballhogs) do not make those around them better. Jordan has always been more interested in scoring his points than in helping his team - he practically said so himself.

Let's look at those 3 myths again:

Jordan carried the team to 6 championships - As I showed, the Bulls did not suffer greatly when he retired. When he returned, they didn't even make the conference finals, until they replaced their power forward. Compared to Jordan's peers (the short list of the elite players in NBA history), Jordan was the least valuable to his team out of all of them. His impact was felt the least.

Jordan made those around him better - I proved this collectively by showing that the players who played with him shot better without him.

Jordan was the most valuable player ever - He simply did not affect the W-L column, or the playoff performance as greatly as the other players that I showed above. This is indisputable. Yes, Jordan has 6 championships, because he played on a very good team...a team that was good enough to win 55 games and go deep into the playoffs without him. I list 7 players (Jordan included), as the "elite" players. Out of these 7 players, guess which player has the most losing seasons in his career? Jordan. Guess which team didn't felt the least loss when he sat out for a season? Jordan's.

Let me point this out: Jordan joined a losing team in 1984. His first year, they remained a losing team. The next year, they were a losing team. The third year, they posted their 3rd consecutive losing season. During Jordan's first three years, he was not able to make the Bulls into a contender. He couldn't even get them above .500. This man has a legendary "will to win", but can't win? Then, the Bulls add Horace Grant and Scottie Pippen, the next year, and the Bulls put up a winning record and advance another round of the playoffs. The Bulls keep adding players and they keep winning more and more until they win 3 titles. Jordan retires, and the Bulls only slip 2 games. He comes back the next year, and they do WORSE in the playoffs than they did the year before him. After the Bulls add Rodman and win 3 more titles, they disband the team. Two years later, Jordan joins a losing Wizards team. Under Jordan, they remain a losing team both years and fail to make the playoffs each year. He retires again, and the Wizards continue losing the next year.

Do you see the trend? Jordan joins teams and they don't turn into contenders. They don't even get above .500, even during his second year there. When he leaves, they stay the same. If they are a good team, they continue winning games and if they are a losing team with Jordan, they continue losing games. Jordan doesn't "will" teams to a new level. His impact to the win column is minimal. How, then, can he be the most valuable player ever? I pointed out that over and over in his career that his teams don't go to a new level because of him. If you can't see this, then you are simply ignoring facts.

nbastatus

12-01-2009, 12:47 AM

The Bulls had losing records in EACH of Jordan's first 3 seaons, and his record in the playoffs was ONE WIN AND NINE LOSES. Three straight first round exits!!

It wasn't until AFTER Pippen joined the Bulls that they started winning anything.

After Jordan's first retirement, the Bulls drop a WHOPPING TWO GAMES IN THE WIN COLUMN (57 to 55)...this after replacing the "greatest player of all time" with a CBA journeyman named Pete Myers !! :oldlol:

Plus, they even make it to the 2nd round of the playoffs, with Scottie, and without Michael...which is better than they ever did with Michael/but without Scottie...In 1994, Scottie became the 2nd player in NBA history to lead his team in scoring, rebounding, assists, blocks and steals... yeah, Michael made him better.

Also in 1994, Pippen, B.J. Armstrong and Horace Grant ALL MAKE THE ALL STAR TEAM... even though Michael wasn't there to "make them better". What does THAT tell you, other than the fact that these guys were better WITHOUT Michael than they ever were WITH HIM! LOL

Jordan played five years of his career without Pippen. ALL FIVE WERE LOSING TEAMS.

Now, what was that you were saying about JORDAN making SCOTTIE BETTER???

Without Pippen, Jordan doesn't even GET to the finals to put up all those shots/points.

As a great man once said, without Scottie Pippen, Jordan was nothing more than a bald-headed Dominique Wilkins.

recap... The Bulls won 55 without Michael but with Scottie, which is fine... how'd they do WITH Michael but WITHOUT Scottie? Let's check:

38, 30 and 40 wins... that's it... aw, that's too bad... 40 wins is SO CLOSE to a .500 season, I'd almost want to give Michael credit for a winning season that year... but I can't... a loser is a loser. I can't change the laws of mathematics... if you lose more games than you win, you're a LOSER! And that's what Michael was without Scottie as a teammate... sorry if the truth hurts, but you Jordan stans will (hopefully) get over it.

Hard to believe that the "greatest player of all time" had NOTHING BUT LOSING SEASONS without Pippen as a teammate... but, the record books don't lie... they just don't lie.
Wow.
38 wins was his first season in the NBA, and he actually carried his team to the playoff. Plus. his teammates were nowhere as good compared to the league. During his sophmore year, he played about 18 games and started only 7 games. How does that make him a loser when he barely played?

browntown

12-01-2009, 12:48 AM

Bulls wouldn't have won all those chips and Jordan would win the somewhere else. Next!

Roundball_Rock

12-01-2009, 12:50 AM

Jordan was shooting 25 times a game....of course he is going to average 30+ points a game....Defense wins....Pippens defense and rebounding helped the Bull's win........

after all MJ averaged 37 PPG and got SWEPT! without Pippen....but you would'nt understand.....all you understand is Nike, Gatorade and Space Jam.

:applause: This is why Krause and Collins were convinced they could never win with MJ. He was too much of a ballhog. Of course no one else was going to score much when Jordan was taking 1,000+ more shots than Hakeem was!

there were nine players who played with Jordan in 1993 and without him 1994, you see that they actually shot BETTER without Jordan (48.6%) than they did with him (48.2%). As I showed previously, this was also true of the top 2 scorers (Pippen and Grant). In contrast, the 1992 Lakers and the 1989 Celtics saw nearly everyone on the team fall in fg% and ppg, due to the absence of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, respectively. This difference may not seem like much, but remember, Jordan is SUPPOSED to make life easier for teammates, not harder. And the trend in the league was decreased fg% every year. How could this be?

Great point. The same thing happened with the Bulls when Pippen was out due to injury, but all these guys look at is ppg. This is why the Bulls' winning percentage declined more without Pippen than without Jordan.

Good posting. Welcome to ISH! We need more voices against the Jordan brigades. :D

magnax1

12-01-2009, 12:52 AM

The Pippen is more important than Jordan arguement is just stupid, Pippen was a secondary star, and one of the best ever, but he was not a superstar. Pippen had chances to show he was a superstar in 94, 95, 99, and 2000, but he didn't even with that great Blazer team. People say that Jordan was selfish, and a locker room problem, but Pippen asked for trades multiple times EVEN when he was in the middle of the Bulls best years, just because he wanted to be the best player on his team. Jordan did not make Pippen, but Pippen was not a superstar.

guy

12-01-2009, 12:57 AM

Center, #1 pick, local guy. Plus, regarding Houston how would Drexler work? He played the same position as MJ and had a year of experience and was also a local guy. Who is to say MJ would be favored over Drexler initially?

Because it doesn't make sense to cater to a guy coming off an 8/3/2 season over someone coming off a great college season, olympics and is considered to be a sure thing just because that player is "local guy".

There is only one basketball. If one player is taking 2,000 shots every year that is 2,000 shots taken off the table for the rest of the team.

Yes, and more then likely Hakeem Olajuwon would be the last guy Jordan takes shots away from if he even needs to.

Perhaps but unlikely. Pippen always had a pass-first mentality borne of his experience as a PG in college.

But it could've happened so don't make stupid assumptions.

Probably since he would come into a new team and adapt to whatever system was in place. However, part of the reason to get rid of MJ was that Collins wanted to run more but MJ's ball-hogging prevented it (Collin's view). With MJ gone the Bulls would have been a fast paced team.

So Mitch Richmond would've adapted to whatever system? How are you so sure? I find it funny that you're so sure of that, but for whatever reason you're not sure that Jordan couldn't have adapted to whatever system coming out of college (and one of the best basketball colleges ever). You realize Mitch Richmond never attempted less then 16 FGA until he was in his 12th season right?

Perhaps, but remember he was a 9/2/5.5 guy as a rookie. He would have no expectation of being a 20/10 ball dominant player in Chicago.

Perhaps, but also perhaps not. Maybe without that responsibility, he doesn't develop as well and doesn't become the same player. So like I said, don't make assumptions.

More than effective enough. Look up his playoff record. He had one terrible run. His next worst performance was 17/8. That is more than enough.

You can't just look at complete playoff runs. Check the 93 Finals where the guy was completely irrelevant in the first 2 games, which they lost at home. Injuries undoubtedly effected the guy. Playing with talented players doesn't necessarily change that, since he played with some pretty talented players anyway.

KJ, Richmond were 20 ppg guys by 89' and Pippen was a 16 ppg guy in 89' as a starter'. These guys plus Smits and Grant/Oakley would not be a force?

To the point that they'd have a chance against Isiah, Dumars, Rodman, Laimbeer, Vinnie, Aguirre, Mahorn, Salley and Edwards? No.

Sure but if you believed you could get KJ for either Oakley or Grant you would, at the time, be more likely to try offering Grant first.

Whatever, Cleveland probably rejects that considering they already had big man, unless they get someone better, such as Oakley.

You can't rely solely on the toughness angle. This team would be very deep. The 92' team had Paxson and Cartwright starting. :oldlol: How many rings did those tough Knicks win?

And there best years (92-94) they lost to Jordan's Bulls and Hakeem's Rockets, teams that were better and were able to match their intensity and toughness. I have my doubts that this Bulls team could do that.

Johnson played in every playoff game in 93'. Richmond would not be able to play, though. Even then the Bulls would have a shot against the Knicks. Smits would be a big upgrade over Cartwright. Pippen/Johnson/Smits/Grant is still a formidable group. You can't play the 0-2 card either. The chief reason they were 0-2 is MJ was shooting something like 30% yet still jacking up 30 shots.

LOL at your agenda. Maybe it had to do with Knicks playing amazing defense, which would be the same defense this Bulls team would have to face. I hope you're not implying that the 93 Bulls team would've won those games (please don't tell me the series) without Jordan.

KJ was still a 20/9 guy in 97'. Pippen and Richmond remained elite players until 98'. Smits was a 17 ppg guy until 98'. The window would at best go to 98'. Considering that the Pacers almost made it to the NBA finals with Miller/Smits leading them Pippen/Richmond/Smits would have a shot. Even KJ rallied for 14/5 in the 98' playoffs.

Sure it could've. Doesn't mean they win. And it doesn't mean they'd be going for anywhere close to their 6th title.

He was hurt by playing in a small market. Isn't Sacramento the smallest market in the NBA?

Irrelevant to my point.

He did play on a good team early in his career. He averaged 22-24 ppg in Golden State (with Mullim and Hardaway). From 93'-98' he averaged between 22-23 ppg every year, aside from one year of 26 ppg. His numbers clearly were not a product of playing on a bad team.

I said earlier that those were the fastest paced teams in the league, which could've had something to do with it.

Don't get me wrong though, Richmond was a great player, just telling you its stupid to assume things.

Miller was great but only the 4th best SG of the 90's. I agree that he is overrated because his best moments happened to come in the playoffs against New York (especially MSG) and Chicago. If his best moments were against Miami and Cleveland he wouldn't be remembered nearly as fondly.

Yeah, Miller was very clutch. Prime Richmond only made the playoffs once and was out in the first round so it is unclear how clutch he would be. Still, with such a stacked team there wouldn't be the need for one "go-to" guy.

How often do teams win championships without a go-to guy? The 04 Pistons come to mind and thats it. Keep in mind, go-to guy doesn't necessarily mean scoring.

The supporting casts are not equal. Assuming that somehow Jordan/Ewing would work financially and in basketball terms, that team would have weak links at SF and PG. If your premise are the teams are equal then, yeah, the logical conclusion is Jordan's team would win but I don't except that premise.

With three HOFers and two other all-star players PLUS Kukoc and Armstrong there is no need for a consistent go to guy. Give it to the player with the hot hand.

You're clearly delusional if you think Jordan + Ewing + all those great role players isn't equal to that Bulls team. And Charles Smith and Derek Harpers (the SF and PG you mentioned I believe) are weak links? What? You're acting like those were scrubs.

Like I said, comparing position to position doesn't always work. Look at the 07 Cavs. Pistons. Sheed, Rip, and Billups were by far better then Gooden, Pavlovic, and Hughes, while Z wasn't that much better then Webber, and Lebron was by far better then Prince. Sounds like the Pistons are better right? That wasn't the case.

Samurai Swoosh

12-01-2009, 12:57 AM

:oldlol: Who drafted Kwame? Why didn't MJ "create" Kwame into a NBA starter? Forget making him a HOFer. How about just a starter?
Jordan drafted Kwame. Just as another great player in Joe Dumars drafted Milicic.

His abilities as a GM aren't what's being judged here. And based off your tendancy to lean on critiquing MJ's legend as a player, by bringing in his GM's duties into account, you don't think you scream out in bold capital letters that you're an MJ HATER?

You still haven't heard the stories of Kwame folding like a chair under MJ's pressure?

Pippen learned and busted his ass to improve, difference.

Pippen's rise to true dominance took 4 years under young MJ's tutelage.

Jordan was supposed to do better in 2 years, as a 40 year old, with a mentally fragile pu$$y of a player?

yeaaa, ok.

Based on what? Pippen averaged 15.8 ppg when he became a starter in 89' and 16.5 ppg in 90'. That extra 0.7 ppg made the difference? Pippen and Grant were the second and third best players on the team.
No, Scottie Pippen averaged 10 ppg his first year, 13 his second. Not only is that average, the next year he averaged 19. While being a significant improvement, he still wasn't a star player.

One would know this if you actually followed the sport in that time viewing it within context. You're a self proclaimed Bulls fan, but don't even really know the context of history that surrounds the stats your keep typing.

Really? His trajectory was normal, especially for a top 5 pick.
Really? Where is the guide map to "trajectories" for top five picks? Most of the time if a player is a true star in his own right upon enterance into the NBA, without a "trajectory" ... without having to be worked on and built up (hey, thanks MJ) ... they would dominate and show brillaince from the word go. Scottie didn't start to show his flashed till his 3rd year. Scottie Pippen didn't have as big of an impact as even Ben Gordon did his first two years in the league for the Bulls. And that's saying something from someone who despises Ben Gordon.

You proclaim whether in spoken or subversion that Scottie Pippen had as great of an impact, if not greater than Michael Jordan being he was the player he was in his prime when he was drafted ... yet can't explain the anomaly that he didn't just bust out on the scene and deliver like the true greats and number 1 option caliber players usually do ...

Even some #1's like Yao and Howard took a few years to become superstars. Fortunately Patrick Ewing was there to "create" them. :oldlol:
Generally those who took sometime were HS'ers. Or in Yao's case was getting adjusted not only to the pro game, the American style of play, but an entire culture. Even then Yao had greater impact his first few seasons than Pippen ever did.

Of course. That was the point of acquiring MJ: sell tickets.
That was of course one of the reasons. No one could ever sell tickets like MJ. He was the most entralling player of all time, like watching Picasso with a paint brush. But the real reason for instant credibility, would be that MJ a proven winner, would make that team an INSTANT threat. And even with that team you mentioned around him, swap a young and very good Ron Harper (pre knee injury) for another piece to surround Jordan with ... and MJ could very well take that team deep into the Playoffs, if not the Finals. I mean he pushed the envelope with a young Scottie Pippen, and a decent PF in Horace Grant.

Samurai Swoosh

12-01-2009, 01:02 AM

The Pippen is more important than Jordan arguement is just stupid, Pippen was a secondary star, and one of the best ever, but he was not a superstar. Pippen had chances to show he was a superstar in 94, 95, 99, and 2000, but he didn't even with that great Blazer team. People say that Jordan was selfish, and a locker room problem, but Pippen asked for trades multiple times EVEN when he was in the middle of the Bulls best years, just because he wanted to be the best player on his team. Jordan did not make Pippen, but Pippen was not a superstar.
Jordan didn't "make" Pippen ... it's just a term meant in extreme reaction to an obvious hater. But Jordan's guidance definetely accentuated Pippen's natural abilities into making him become the player he eventually would become. Which while great, still wasn't a #1 option. And yes, Pippen was a very selfish person / player.

guy

12-01-2009, 01:18 AM

That was due to Riley coming to NY and implementing a slow paced system.

The 29 ppg goes to capability. If you are capable of that are you going to be happy with 20 ppg when your teammate is leading the league in FGA and scoring 30 ppg?

Well if he doesn't care about Riley implementing a slow paced system thus deflating their stats if it results in wins, why would he care about bringing in a better scorer that will take more pressure off him. Like I said, Patrick Ewing will be the last one affected by Jordan's shot attempts.

The other thing is ego. Why do you think top players don't pair with other top players via free agency to form super teams? It is because they want to be "the man." Lebron-Wade or Lebron-Kobe would be a lock for a ring but neither will happen because of ego, just as in the 90's prime Malone going to play with, say, prime Drexler would be ridiculous.

This is true. But its not like it couldn't have happened. These two were friends, and unlike Lebron-Wade, they played completely different positions and could've looked forward to being one of the greatest inside-out duos ever.

Based on what? What big free agent did the Knicks acquire from 89-96'? They did get Houston for 97' but by then Ewing was past his prime. For all the hype about NY being such a big draw for free agents their record is poor in this regard. Allan Houston and who else in the past two decades? Even Houston was not that huge of a signing. He wasn't even an all-star before coming to NY.

Ummm, well Jordan was going to join the Knicks in 96, if he didn't like the Bulls offer.

They would get rid of Starks and keep Wilkins???

They wouldn't need both those guys. It could've been the other way, it doesn't matter. But the point is they would've needed to sacrifice to make room for Jordan.

That is the point. Here is a guy who had trouble coexisting with 14-17 ppg scorers. Yet we are to believe he would work perfectly with 28-30 ppg guys?

What 14-17 ppg scorers did he have trouble with?

That was on a 50 win team. On the Wizards he should have averaged more. Instead his FGA actually dropped from 17.4 to 17.2 when he went to the lottery bound Wizards.

Have you compared the 01 Pistons to 02 Pistons? They didn't change in talent much at all. What did happen was Jerry Stackhouse started taking less shots. Maybe it was better for them, since Stackhouse was shooting only 40% during those years, and only shot 41% for his career. Stackhouse was nothing special and I find it very funny when people say AI and Jordan held him back when they played with him.

Why was Hakeem, not Jordan, the #1 pick? Jordan may have emerged as the #1 option later on but at the beginning it would have been Hakeem. Jordan as a #2 option may not have become Jordan as we know him.

Cause scoring isn't everything.

Why do you think Houston wanted him? They saw his potential. He averaged 17/6/6 in his second year. That is who Jordan would be competing against, not rookie Drexler.

I don't remember who offered to who, but do you really think the attractive asset for the Rockets in that deal was the Clyde Drexler, not the 2nd pick? Obviously they wanted to get as much back as possible. In that summer, Jordan would be competing against an 8/3/2 Drexler cause thats what he was at the time. He wasn't putting up 17/6/6 numbers yet.

Roundball_Rock

12-01-2009, 01:43 AM

The Pippen is more important than Jordan arguement is just stupid, Pippen was a secondary star, and one of the best ever, but he was not a superstar. Pippen had chances to show he was a superstar in 94, 95, 99, and 2000

What is your definition of a superstar? A top 5 player is not a superstar? Let me guess: only Lebron, Kobe, and Wade are superstars in your book?

In 99' and 00' he was past his prime. He was ravaged by injuries over the previous three seasons and he was never the same after the back injury he suffered in the 98' finals.

I am glad you alluded to his Portland years. Why were his Portland teams .500 teams when he didn't play? Value to a team goes beyond stats. His stats were okay by then but his impact was such that his teams would go from a 66% win rate to .500.

Because it doesn't make sense to cater to a guy coming off an 8/3/2 season over someone coming off a great college season, olympics and is considered to be a sure thing just because that player is "local guy".

Why do you think they wanted Drexler? If Jordan was a sure thing in their view why acquire another young SG?

Yes, and more then likely Hakeem Olajuwon would be the last guy Jordan takes shots away from if he even needs to

Those 2,000 shots would just come from nowhere?

So Mitch Richmond would've adapted to whatever system?

Perhaps. Regardless, Collins wanted to move to a fast paced system. The obstacle? Jordan's ball-hogging. With Jordan gone they could make the switch.

Jordan could have adapted too. I can see Jordan adapted to being the #2 option behind Hakeem from day 1 but then Jordan wouldn't be Jordan. You are comparing a rookie with a guy who was an established superstar, MVP. A rookie is easier to adapt to a system than an established superstar--just ask Doug Collins and Phil Jackson!

Maybe without that responsibility, he doesn't develop as well and doesn't become the same player.

He wouldn't need to. He also could have developed better playing with better teammates than he had in Phoenix.

:oldlol: @ your opposition to assumptions. "What ifs?" are inherently based on assumptions.

You can't just look at complete playoff runs.

Sure you can. You are looking at 2 games rather than a decade's worth of playoff runs. Which is a more reliable sample?

To the point that they'd have a chance against Isiah, Dumars, Rodman, Laimbeer, Vinnie, Aguirre, Mahorn, Salley and Edwards?

No chance???

Cleveland probably rejects that considering they already had big man, unless they get someone better, such as Oakley.

We are talking about 9/2/5.5 bench KJ. Grant for KJ would be a fair trade. Asking for Oakley may be asking for too much. They already had Mark Price so Johnson was expendable.

Either way, Oakley and Grant are similarly good PF's.

And there best years (92-94) they lost to Jordan's Bulls and Hakeem's Rockets, teams that were better and were able to match their intensity and toughness.

They won 51, 60, and 57 games during that span. From 95'-97' they won 55, 47, and 57. Why limit the sample to three years when they were comparable in 95'-97'? They were a finger roll away from the ECF in 95' and were up 3-1 in the ECSF in 97' before the big fight and subsequent suspensions.

Hakeem's Rockets were better? They were one shot away from defeat in Game 6 and won by 6 points in Game 7. The Knicks didn't exactly get dominated by the Rockets.

Maybe it had to do with Knicks playing amazing defense, which would be the same defense this Bulls team would have to face. I hope you're not implying that the 93 Bulls team would've won those games (please don't tell me the series) without Jordan.

The difference is most players don't take 30 shots when they are shooting 30%. That problem wouldn't exist with a Pippen/Richmond/KJ/Smits/Grant or Oak team.

Irrelevant to my point.

HOF voting isn't influenced by hype and visibility???? If Richmond played in a big market like Chicago he would be a lock for the HOF.

How often do teams win championships without a go-to guy? The 04 Pistons come to mind and thats it.

How often do teams have 3 HOFers and 2 other all-star level players in their starting 5 with players like Kukoc and Armstrong on the bench?

This hypothetical team>the 04' Pistons.

You're clearly delusional if you think Jordan + Ewing + all those great role players isn't equal to that Bulls team. And Charles Smith and Derek Harpers (the SF and PG you mentioned I believe) are weak links?

Relatively speaking. Compare Smith and Harper to Pippen and Johnson.

Yeah, yeah, I'm stupid and delusional for not worshiping MJ. :sleeping

Look at the 07 Cavs. Pistons. Sheed, Rip, and Billups were by far better then Gooden, Pavlovic, and Hughes, while Z wasn't that much better then Webber, and Lebron was by far better then Prince. Sounds like the Pistons are better right? That wasn't the case.

They were better; they choked. The 07' Cavs were a fluke. The 07' Pistons were in the midst of 5 straight trips to the conference finals.

You still haven't heard the stories of Kwame folding like a chair under MJ's pressure?

What pressure? I hope it wasn't the same "pressure' he used on his Bulls teammates...

No, Scottie Pippen averaged 10 ppg his first year, 13 his second. Not only is that average, the next year he averaged 19. While being a significant improvement, he still wasn't a star player.

Those are playoff numbers. His regular season trajectory was normal. His second year playoff improvement was not on par with one would expect, but playoff numbers are a small sample size.

19 ppg in the playoffs is not a star player? By what standard? He averaged 18 ppg in 91' when you say he became a star (22 ppg in the playoffs). He averaged 21 in 92' (20 in the playoffs), 19 in 93' (20 in the playoffs). Was he not a star in 92' and 93'?

Where is the guide map to "trajectories" for top five picks? Most of the time if a player is a true star in his own right upon enterance into the NBA, without a "trajectory" ... without having to be worked on and built up

I'll give you four names off the top of my head. You may have heard of them: Yao Ming (#1), Dwight Howard (#1), Deron Williams (#3), and Chris Paul (#4). Paul had a good rookie year but was hardly a superstar as a rookie. By his third year he was a MVP candidate.

You are a Bulls fan, no? Derrick Rose is being helped by Lindsay Hunter. Why? Miller is helping Noah. This is par for the course. Retired players sometimes help players too. Ewing with Yao and Dwight, Kareem with Bynum, and Pippen with Odom.

I saw the Yao excuse. What is your excuse for Deron (11/2/4.5), Drexler (9 ppg as a rookie), Danny Granger (7.5/5/1), Bosh (11.5/7/1), and Joe Johnson (7.5/3/2)? Plenty of top level players did not have great rookie years.

That was of course one of the reasons. No one could ever sell tickets like MJ. He was the most entralling player of all time, like watching Picasso with a paint brush. But the real reason for instant credibility, would be that MJ a proven winner, would make that team an INSTANT threat. And even with that team you mentioned around him, swap a young and very good Ron Harper (pre knee injury) for another piece to surround Jordan with ... and MJ could very well take that team deep into the Playoffs, if not the

Ron Harper was in Cleveland at the time. With Jordan there they would never trade for a scoring SG like pre-injury Harper. He would have a rookie Danny Manning, Ken Norman, Charles Smith, and Quintin Dailey (who he did nothing with in Chicago) as his best teammates in LA.

Roundball_Rock

12-01-2009, 01:51 AM

Which while great, still wasn't a #1 option

Yeah, top 2-5 players are not #1 options. :oldlol:

yes, Pippen was a very selfish person / player.

Not on the basketball court, other than that one incident. Why do you think his teammates loved him? You can tell a lot about a player by how the people who work with him, see him nearly daily, view him...

Well if he doesn't care about Riley implementing a slow paced system thus deflating their stats if it results in wins, why would he care about bringing in a better scorer that will take more pressure off him.

Ego. It isn't just about stats. It is more about ego. He was still the #1 option under Riley.

This is true. But its not like it couldn't have happened. These two were friends, and unlike Lebron-Wade, they played completely different positions and could've looked forward to being one of the greatest inside-out duos ever.

I could see it working, if the Knicks could afford MJ. As I said earlier, the only quality teams I could see MJ going to would be NY or Charlotte.

Ummm, well Jordan was going to join the Knicks in 96, if he didn't like the Bulls offer.

Really? What is the story behind that?

In 1990 Jordan was tired of basketball and thinking of retiring by 1995. Who knows: if he hadn't won a ring by then he would take his money and stay away from basketball. I doubt it, though. I think the challenge would keep him motivated.

They wouldn't need both those guys. It could've been the other way, it doesn't matter. But the point is they would've needed to sacrifice to make room for Jordan.

Starks>Wilkins. There is a big difference if your backup SG is Starks or Wilkins.

What 14-17 ppg scorers did he have trouble with?

His entire team. Collins and Jackson wanted him to pass the ball more to the other 11 players. MJ refused to early in his career.

Cause scoring isn't everything.

Well, MJ said his rookie coach letting him have such a big role (28 ppg) made him who he was. He contrasted this to the limited role many other rookies are given and believed it killed or reduced the potential of many of them.

I don't remember who offered to who, but do you really think the attractive asset for the Rockets in that deal was the Clyde Drexler, not the 2nd pick?

Why two SG's, though? They could have asked for a PG, SF, or PF. They were set at center with Hakeem and Jordan would be at SG. The only way it makes sense is if they weren't sure who would wind up being better and wanted a C-SG combo, or perhaps they planned to convert Drexler to a SF.

CB4GOATPF

12-01-2009, 02:09 AM

Roundball_Rock

12-01-2009, 02:27 AM

They are all probably feverishly hitting the alert button to try to get Soopa banned for speaking the truth. :roll:

Jordan carried the team to 6 championships - As I showed, the Bulls did not suffer greatly when he retired. When he returned, they didn't even make the conference finals, until they replaced their power forward. Compared to Jordan's peers (the short list of the elite players in NBA history), Jordan was the least valuable to his team out of all of them. His impact was felt the least.

100% truth. Ask a MJ fan to name a top-tier (i.e. the top 7-10 all-time) who had less impact than MJ.

Jordan was the most valuable player ever - He simply did not affect the W-L column, or the playoff performance as greatly as the other players that I showed above. This is indisputable. Yes, Jordan has 6 championships, because he played on a very good team...a team that was good enough to win 55 games and go deep into the playoffs without him. I list 7 players (Jordan included), as the "elite" players. Out of these 7 players, guess which player has the most losing seasons in his career? Jordan. Guess which team didn't felt the least loss when he sat out for a season? Jordan's.

Again factual.

Let me point this out: Jordan joined a losing team in 1984. His first year, they remained a losing team. The next year, they were a losing team. The third year, they posted their 3rd consecutive losing season. During Jordan's first three years, he was not able to make the Bulls into a contender. He couldn't even get them above .500. This man has a legendary "will to win", but can't win?

Compare this track record to every other top-tier great. All of them made it to the conference finals in 2-3 years; Kareem, Magic, Bird, Russell, Shaq, Hakeem, and Duncan were all in the NBA finals in 2-3 years. Kareem, Bird, and Russell became champions within 2 years (Russell as a rookie). Jordan is the anomaly of this group, going 1-9 in the playoffs after three seasons.

The "weak supporting cast" excuse doesn't cut it. They all were high draft picks. They all were drafted by lousy teams, other than Magic and Duncan (due to the Robinson fluke injury). When they left or got hurt in/near their primes their teams collapsed.

Their response will be to attempt to lynch, Soopa. :rolleyes:

ArizaAttack24

12-01-2009, 02:29 AM

Roundball_Rock

12-01-2009, 02:35 AM

1 or 2 Max. Kevin Johnson might have pushed Pippen to be the player he ended up being, but I think Jordan brought out the max potential in Pippen. I think highly of Kevin Johnson so I believe they could easily win at least 1 ring and they have some big men down there that do the dirty work. At least 1 ring, but at max, 2 rings.

Who beats them from 89-98? I can see the Pistons in 89' and maybe 90' but what about from 91'-98'? They would at least be the favorites going into every season.

You are an Ariza fan...Who "made" Ariza? Pippen made Pippen. Only MJ fans claim he "created" a HOFer. Do you see, say, Bird fans claiming he "made" McHale (10 ppg in the regular season, 8.5 in the playoffs on the bench as a rookie)? This is why people get annoyed at MJ. There are so many Paul Bunyan myths surrounding him. The guy was a basketball player, not a god. He is 0-7 in having a winning season as a GM. Not a single all-star has emerged during his time as GM in Washington and Charlotte. Why doesn't he just "create" another HOFer there? Is he too lazy? Has he lost his legendary obsession with winning? Or is the answer that he simply is a human and lacks the magic ability to create HOFers from average players?

ArizaAttack24

12-01-2009, 02:38 AM

Who beats them from 89-98? I can see the Pistons in 89' and maybe 90' but what about from 91'-98'? They would at least be the favorites going into every season.

You are an Ariza fan...Who "made" Ariza? Pippen made Pippen. Only MJ fans claim he "created" a HOFer. Do you see, say, Bird fans claiming he "made" McHale (10 ppg in the regular season, 8.5 in the playoffs on the bench as a rookie)? This is why people get annoyed at MJ. There are so many Paul Bunyan myths surrounding him. The guy was a basketball player, not a god. He is 0-7 in having a winning season as a GM. Not a single all-star has emerged during his time as GM in Washington and Charlotte. Why doesn't he just "create" another HOFer there? Is he too lazy? Has he lost his legendary obsession with winning? Or is the answer that he simply is a human and lacks the magic ability to create HOFers from average players?
Jordan pushed the hell out of Pippen and squeezed the hell out of him to bring out all the potential he had out there on the court each and every night. I don't recall that with Ariza and Kobe pushing him, If I recall correctly Ariza just wanted to answer his critics wrong and fix his game due to injuries he had suffered and couldn't play in the 08 season. I'm sure it is a 2-sided story, but I could see a lot of runner up championships in the 90-98 ending up winning the championship at the end.

Roundball_Rock

12-01-2009, 02:49 AM

Jordan pushed the hell out of Pippen and squeezed the hell out of him

Which is partly why they considered trading him. He was harsh on his teammates...

Let me ask you, MJ played in the NBA for 16 years. He has been a GM for 7. How come only Pippen has even made an all-star team while playing with Jordan? Why can't he "make" all-stars? If he could take an alleged scrub, make him a HOFers surely he could practically mint all-stars. Why is he 0-7 as a GM with 0 all-stars when he has this magic ability--that only MJ has--to "create" a HOFer from scratch?

Who beats them? The 91' Lakers? Pippen did great against them in the 91' finals, Johnson in the 90' playoffs. 92' Blazers? The Bulls are better at every position except SG, where the gap is not big since the Bulls have Richmond. 96' Sonics? They are better at PF, even at PG, and weaker everywhere else (especially at center, where they have a scrub). 97' Jazz? Better at PF, equal at PG, much weaker everywhere else. And so on. Luck is always a factor in winning a title or even a playoff series against a great team but I can't see any team that would be favored over this team from 91'-98'.

Ariza made Ariza. You are a Rockets fan. Did Ewing "make" Yao (and later Dwight)?

EricForman

12-01-2009, 02:57 AM

I don't see how it was lopsided. If anything the Bulls would be better pulling this off. Yeah, at the time dealing the best player in the league for two draft picks and a first year 9/2/6 player in KJ was lopsided on paper but look at how good Richmond, Johnson, and Smits wound up being. Given that it would be a good trade. Which lineup is stronger?

Grant
Pippen
Cartwright
Jordan
Paxson

Or

Grant
Pippen
Smits
Richmond
Johnson

Grant=Grant
Pippen=Pippen
Smits>>>Cartwright
Richmond<<Jordan
Johnson>>>Paxson

Are you really saying the Bulls would have done better had they made that trade? So what, the Bulls would have won 7 rings in the 90s with Pip/Mitch/Smits/KJ core? :oldlol: :oldlol: They go 73-9 in 96 season?

Your blind hatred for Jordan is sickening.

Roundball_Rock

12-01-2009, 03:01 AM

Are you really saying the Bulls would have done better had they made that trade? So what, the Bulls would have won 7 rings in the 90s with Pip/Mitch/Smits/KJ core? :oldlol: :oldlol: They go 73-9 in 96 season?

Perhaps. Who beats them? MJ fans diminish that squad by saying they would win 0, 1, or 2-3 rings but can never spell out a team that would be better than them (other than one person claiming the 92'-94' Knicks). Pippen/Johnson/Richmond/Smits/Grant or Oakley>Garnett/Pierce/Allen/and scrubs in 08' past their primes.

Mitch Richmond would not strangely retire days before the preseason in 94'. The Bulls win that year and in 95'. Those are 2 rings they would have that they did not have as a result of not making the trade. They would also have a strong chance of winning in 90'. Even if they drop 2 of the 6 years they won with MJ they would still reach 6.

Blind hatred? The Bulls thought making the trade would give them a better shot at winning a championship. Was that hatred or simple calculation?

EricForman

12-01-2009, 03:02 AM

Roundball_Rock

12-01-2009, 03:03 AM

so now jordan on the 90s rough and rugged 90s knicks with Ewing and Oakley wouldn't be able to beat a Bulls team led by Pip/Mitch Richmond and Kevin Johnson?

Oak would probably be a Bull.

The Jordan to NY scenario depends on when he gets there. Does he get there in 92' or 95'? Big difference. The NY scenario also assumes NY has enough $$$$ to sign him.

PF Grant/Oakley=Oakley/Mason
SF Pippen>Smith
C Smits<Ewing
SG Richmond<Jordan
PG Johnson>Harper (or Rivers)

The biggest disparities are at SF and PG. The Bulls would have HOFers are three positions and all-star level players at the other two. The Knicks would have two HOFers, an all-star level PF, and only above average players at SF and PG. The bench would be strong too with Kukoc and Armstrong leading that unit.

EricForman

12-01-2009, 03:04 AM

Perhaps. Who beats them? MJ fans diminish that squad by saying they would win 0, 1, or 2-3 rings but can never spell out a team that would be better than them (other than one person claiming the 92'-94' Knicks). Pippen/Johnson/Richmond/Smits/Grant or Oakley>Garnett/Pierce/Allen/and scrubs in 08' past their primes.

Mitch Richmond would not strangely retire days before the preseason in 94'. The Bulls win that year and in 95'. Those are 2 rings they would have that they did not have as a result of not making the trade. They would also have a strong chance of winning in 90'. Even if they drop 2 of the 6 years they won with MJ they would still reach 6.

Blind hatred? The Bulls thought making the trade would give them a better shot at winning a championship. Was that hatred or simple calculation?

you're a troll flat out. not one person on this board would agree with you that the bulls could have topped 6 rings in the 90s with that what-if lineup you mentioned led by Pip/Mitch and KJ. if you had said they could have won a couple rings then okay but you're trying to pretend they had a real shot at topping what Jordan and the Bulls did in the 90s.

you're a goon.

Samurai Swoosh

12-01-2009, 03:08 AM

Blind hatred? The Bulls thought making the trade would give them a better shot at winning a championship. Was that hatred or simple calculation?
No revisionist history.

Jerry Krause thought that ...

Albeit briefly. Didn't pull the trigger, Reinsdorf probably vetoed the hell out of that dumb move and the result?

6 rings, vaults full of cash, and the ability to say the best there ever was to play laced them up for their franchise.

The end.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Xd7W6OPSCuI/SKx1ovWxhNI/AAAAAAAAA5A/w7sFbS9rB5g/s400/michael_jordan_trophy_rings.jpg

Michael Jordan powered the Bulls into being the 3rd most relevant and dominant franchise in NBA history .... after decades of at best mediocrity.

Roundball_Rock

12-01-2009, 03:10 AM

you're a troll flat out. not one person on this board would agree with you that the bulls could have topped 6 rings in the 90s with that what-if lineup you mentioned led by Pip/Mitch and KJ. if you had said they could have won a couple rings then okay but you're trying to pretend they had a real shot at topping what Jordan and the Bulls did in the 90s.

you're a goon.

Simple question: Who beats them from 89'-98'? They need to win 6 out of 10. Who beats them 5 or more times? Remember, Phoenix and Indiana would be removed from the short list of elite 90's teams without Johnson and Smits. Who is left in the East? The Knicks, the Cavs (92-93'), Magic (for a two year period), and Heat (in 97'). Who is their big competition long-term other than the Knicks with the Pacers being non-factors?

Albeit briefly. Didn't pull the trigger, Reinsdorf probably vetoed the hell out of that dumb move and the result?

He vetoed it on financial grounds. What is implicit in that is...

The result was great with the veto. The question is what would the result have been without it? Better, worse, or comparable? The honest answer is comparable, give or take 1-2 rings.

Cyclone112

12-01-2009, 03:30 AM

EricForman

12-01-2009, 03:41 AM

Simple question: Who beats them from 89'-98'? They need to win 6 out of 10. Who beats them 5 or more times? Remember, Phoenix and Indiana would be removed from the short list of elite 90's teams without Johnson and Smits. Who is left in the East? The Knicks, the Cavs (92-93'), Magic (for a two year period), and Heat (in 97'). Who is their big competition long-term other than the Knicks with the Pacers being non-factors?

I like how you take Richmond, KJ and Smits away from their teams and then assume they wouldn't find other ways to get better and just be trash teams. I also like how you assume Clippers would remain the Clippers with Jordan. Just to play your stupid-ass what-if game, allow me to lay out this scenario...

Lets say Jordan gets to the 88 clippers, he surely improves them a bit but they'd still be a bad team. But they'd be better--hence lower lottery pick. Instead of getting the #2 and blowing it on Danny Ferry, the Clippers may have ended up with say, the 12th or 14th pick, which they would have picked Tim Hardaway.

Then with Hardawaya nd Jordan scoring the Clips wouldn't need their former leading scorer Ken norman (who was 18 and 8), they'd trade him after a few years, probably for a high draft pick in 91. Which would have resulted in Mutombo.

Plus they're in LA, everyone wants to play for them. Free agents would have signed there. Nique would have signed there in the early 90s as a last hurrah.

OMGZZZZZ JORDAN HARDAWAY MUTOMBO NIQUE!! WHO BEATZZZ THEM?

roundball, is this clips team not better than the bulls team?

Jordan >> Pip
Hardaway >> KJ
Mutombo >> Smits
Nique = young Mitch

they would win rings from 92 to 2000. Jordan wouldnt have retired because his father wouldnt have been killed (he would have been in LA instead of chicago) and living in LA , Joradn would have had an easier time gambling hence he wouldnt be so obsessed whenever he did travel near Atlantic city (rumor that he retired due to gambling charages). Basicaly MJ wouldnt have retired and him Nique Timmy Hardaway woulda won rings. and rings and rings. who beats them?

OMGZ

Damn I wish that trade had gone down, Jordan would have 9 rings and be president of the US!

Cyclone112

12-01-2009, 03:43 AM

I like how you take Richmond, KJ and Smits away from their teams and then assume they wouldn't find other ways to get better and just be trash teams. I also like how you assume Clippers would remain the Clippers with Jordan. Just to play your stupid-ass what-if game, allow me to lay out this scenario...

Lets say Jordan gets to the 88 clippers, he surely improves them a bit but they'd still be a bad team. But they'd be better--hence lower lottery pick. Instead of getting the #2 and blowing it on Danny Ferry, the Clippers may have ended up with say, the 12th or 14th pick, which they would have picked Tim Hardaway.

Then with Hardawaya nd Jordan scoring the Clips wouldn't need their former leading scorer Ken norman (who was 18 and 8), they'd trade him after a few years, probably for a high draft pick in 91. Which would have resulted in Mutombo.

Plus they're in LA, everyone wants to play for them. Free agents would have signed there. Nique would have signed there in the early 90s as a last hurrah.

OMGZZZZZ JORDAN HARDAWAY MUTOMBO NIQUE!! WHO BEATZZZ THEM?

roundball, who can beat this clips team?

Jordan >> Pip
Hardaway >> KJ
Mutombo >> Smits
Nique = young Mitch

they would win rings from 92 to 2000. Jordan wouldnt have retired because his father wouldnt have been killed (he would have been in LA instead of chicago) and omg Jordan would have 8 rings.

OMGZ

:bowdown: lmfao.

Roundball_Rock

12-01-2009, 03:47 AM

I like how you take Richmond, KJ and Smits away from their teams and then assume they wouldn't find other ways to get better and just be trash teams.

Richmond played on a perennial lottery team. Even with him as a franchise player they couldn't find any way to get better...

Phoenix would acquire Barkley and be very good but how many Kevin Johnson level PG's were there in the 90's? I would say three: Payton, Stockton, and Tim Hardaway. Payton and Stockton were not available for trades by their teams.

When is the last time Indiana made a major move for a superstar?

Lets say Jordan gets to the 88 clippers, he surely improves them a bit but they'd still be a bad team.

Wait. He is the "greatest of all-time" and all he can do is improve them a bit???

Instead of getting the #2 and blowing it on Danny Ferry, the Clippers may have ended up with say, the 12th or 14th pick, which they would have picked Tim Hardaway.

Did they have a need for a PG?

Oh, I see it is more typical "Eric Forman" posting. :oldlol: Why are MJ fans so angry over this? They were all talking about how many rings Hakeem/Jordan/Drexler would win. The scenario in this thread was as close to happening as that one, if not closer. I don't know if they mulled the Portland-Houston trade over for several days.

So again, can you become the first MJ fan to name who would have stopped them from getting 6 rings? All you have to do is point out 5 teams who would defeat them from 89'-98'. Why can't any MJ fan do that?

EricForman

12-01-2009, 03:50 AM

Oh, I see it is more typical "Eric Forman" posting. :oldlol: Why are MJ fans so angry over this? They were all talking about how many rings Hakeem/Jordan/Drexler would win. The scenario in this thread was as close to happening as that one, if not closer. I don't know if they mulled the Portland-Houston trade over for several days.

But but but why dont u answer my question? who beats a Jordan/Tim Hardaway/Nique/Zeke team?

Shaq would have signed there too instead of Laker! OMGZ Jordan would have been winning rings (albeit as a second fiddle from 1999 on, but remember what you and KAJ=Goat asid, second fiddle rings means jsut as much!) Jordan would have 12 rings.

MOVE OVER BILL RUSSELL!

Roundball_Rock

12-01-2009, 03:58 AM

We know that team would have won 6 or more rings but we can't bring ourselves to admit it for some reasons we cannot fathom.

This is all you have to say. :rockon:

raptorfan_dr07

12-01-2009, 04:49 AM

LMFAO :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

I was really beginning to think that Roundball Rock may actually be a decent, although sometimes misguided, poster. This pretty much confirms he has NO CLUE what he's talking about. A lineup of:

G Kevin Johnson
G Mitch Richmond
C Rik Smits
F Horace Grant
F Scottie Pippen

does not even get past Riley, Ewing, and the Knicks in the East let alone make it to the Finals. Also, without MJ, that team likely never figures out how to beat the Bad Boys. The Pistons used to punk Scottie all the time, Rodman speaks about it in his book. In 91, we're likely seeing a chance for a Pistons 3peat. Not even sure if they beat the Cavs either. Shaq and the Magic would have been a force as well. Shaq actually beat MJ in the playoffs. Shaq, albeit being young at the time, proved he could do what none of those guys(Pippen, Johnson, Richmond) could ever do, and that's lead a team. Say they do make it, Sloan, Stock and Malone would crush them if not Dream. Maybe the Sonics.

If you want we can even play your retarded little "what if" game. Whatever team MJ was on would have built around him and would eventually be a title contender. They would definitely have won some rings in the 90's. Also, Rodman never ends up on the Bulls. Maybe he stays in SA and they can end up being able to work things out. He toughens up DRob to go against Dream. Prime Admiral with a focused Rodman and Sean Elliot and solid role players such as the Little General, Vinny Del Negro, and Chuck Person maybe wins a ring or two as well.

There is NOBODY on that team that is a legit number one franchise level player who can lead their team to multiple championships. MJ alone>>>>KJ and Richmond combined. Seriously this sh*t is just too f*cking stupid how was it even allowed to become a topic?? MJ is the consensus GOAT, just ask any player who ever played in the NBA from the beginning to now and they've all said MJ is the GOAT. Bird's said it, Magic's said it, West's said it, Isiah's said it, Kobe's said it, Shaq's said it, the list is endless.

MJ is in the same echleon as Shaq, Magic, Kareem, Bird, Duncan, Wilt, Russell, i.e. players who are that good that you know they would make an immediate impact and eventually win rings no matter where or who they played with. One of a kind unique players. That's why they've led their teams to mulitple championships, won multiple Finals MVPs, and they're all in the top 10 greatest players ever. There's a reason guys like Pippen, KJ, Mitch Richmond, etc are NEVER mentioned among those guys. They simply were NEVER good enough.

The short answer is that players like Jordan (ballhogs) do not make those around them better. Jordan has always been more interested in scoring his points than in helping his team - he practically said so himself.

Yep AlphaWolf, you're right, just like how Kobe doesn't make his teammates better either. Ever since he came into the league he's been more interested in his personal legacy than what's best for the team. Gasol makes the Lakers much better than Kobe does. In fact, guys numbers are up since Gasol's come back. Kobe's 3 point shooting is up, Fisher's numbers are up, Shannon Brown's been playing better, Famar's been playing better. Artest played like sh*t to start the year and all of a sudden he's clicking now and playing awesome. The only guys whose numbers are down are Bynum and Odom although that's to be expected since Bynum is no longer the 2nd option and Odom is back on the bench. Gasol is so unselfish and creates for his teammates rather than himself and it shows. The team is on a five game winning streak since Gasol came back killing teams by an average of 18 points when before they were struggling to beat teams like OKC and Houston. Kinda makes you wonder who REALLY makes who a better player and who REALLY makes a bigger impact in the win/loss column.

NOTE: REAL Lakers Fans, don't take what I said above seriously. This guy "Soopa" is "Alpha Wolf" who was a known Kobe fanatic similar to KB42PAH and Fatal9, only worse. His basketball knowledge is pretty much equivalent to that of a 2 year old. He could never string together a coherent argument and was constantly laughed off the board. He was banned for quite some time but now I guess he's back under a new username. I DO NOT believe that Gasol is the most important or best player on the Lakers and have laughed at those who've suggested it. I was merely showing how f*cking stupid his "logic" is and how we can apply to his "hero".

Well that's it, I'm off the bed. Can't believe the stupidity of some of these posters. :rolleyes: That Bulls team may have won one ring, possibly two, but no more and certainly NOT as much as MJ's Bulls did. I guarantee you, we do not talk about the Bulls today like we do if that was their team.

Roundball_Rock

12-01-2009, 05:01 AM

Your first paragraph is premised on Jordan/Pippen/Grant/Cartwright/Paxson>Pippen/Richmond/Johnson/Smits/Grant.

Whatever team MJ was on would have built around him and would eventually be a title contender.

The Clippers? :oldlol:

Also, Rodman never ends up on the Bulls.

He would never be needed with Grant/Oakley there.

MJ alone>>>>KJ and Richmond combined.

That is opinion, not fact. Would you rather have Brandon Roy and Dirk or just Lebron? I would take Roy/Dirk, two elite players although not top 5 players.

Seriously this sh*t is just too f*cking stupid how was it even allowed to become a topic??

This is after 20+ years of the biggest marketing campaign in sports history. The fact is at the time this was considered by the Bulls and only vetoed on financial grounds, not basketball grounds.

MJ is in the same echleon as Shaq, Magic, Kareem, Bird, Duncan, Wilt, Russell, i.e. players who are that good that you know they would make an immediate impact

Wrong. He made far less impact on his teams than every other player you listed. Great individual player, bad teammate and ballhog.

What does Kobe have to do with Soopa's post? You made a claim: Jordan's impact is equal to that of Shaq, Magic, Kareem, Bird, Duncan, Wilt, and Russell. He provided some facts that show otherwise. Why not explain why Jordan's team improved the least with him and suffered the least without him of all these players? Prime MJ leaves and they drop only 2 games? :confusedshrug: You can't refute his evidence--the only refutations are theoretical ("Jordan 'would' have done X, Y, Z") by the evidence is clear. Add Jordan, subtract Jordan=less impact than any other top-tier player. Since no factual refutation is possible you resort to calling others stupid.

Duncan21formvp

12-01-2009, 09:37 AM

Pippen became great due to playing with Jordan, he even said so himself.

Source: GoogleBooks (http://books.google.com/books?id=aQ84ViBNkYwC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=Game+Michael+Jordan+broke+his+leg&source=web&ots=Y9Xtn3nomR&sig=6shSn2cklYKVP1kBaC6nI0A_oko&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA39,M1)

Pippen, unlike other Bulls who usually kept their distance from Jordan, tried to learn all he could from Jordan in practice. In turn, Jordan worked with Pippen on his moves, jump shot, and defense and taught him mental toughness.

Pippen relates on how his game improved - Link (http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/jordanhof_pippen_090910.html)

[quote]

Da_Realist

12-01-2009, 09:58 AM

100% truth. Ask a MJ fan to name a top-tier (i.e. the top 7-10 all-time) who had less impact than MJ.

Less impact than MJ? He led a team with one all-star to 6 titles. And bagged 6 Finals MVP's along with it. :confusedshrug:

guy

12-01-2009, 11:41 AM

Who beats them from 89-98? I can see the Pistons in 89' and maybe 90' but what about from 91'-98'? They would at least be the favorites going into every season.

LOL @ maybe the 90 Pistons. Seriously you're delusional. When was the last time a team with their starting lineup being made up of 1st and 2nd year guys or 2nd and 3rd year guys ever been that great? That team might've had all the talent in the world, but their not winning championships within the first few years. Teams that they would've definitely lost to:

89 Pistons
90 Pistons
92 Knicks
93 Knicks
95 Magic
98 Jazz

The following teams would have a great shot at beating them as well:

89 Cavs
89 Knicks
91 Pistons
91 Lakers
94 Knicks
94 Rockets
96 Magic
96 Sonics
97 Jazz
98 Pacers

Like I said, they could've won a couple titles, but thats really it.

guy

12-01-2009, 11:46 AM

guy

12-01-2009, 12:17 PM

Those 2,000 shots would just come from nowhere?

What part of my 92 Knicks example did you not get? Did Shaq's scoring production go drastically down when Kobe was scoring close to 30 ppg? How many times do I have to say its the role players that sacrifice first? There the ones who's minutes get cut which also contributes to their less FGA. The addition of one player doesn't cut into another player's scoring that significantly. Are you saying Hakeem Olajuwon 1258 shots would go down to 0 cause of Jordan? cause according to you thats where those 2,000 shots would solely come from. LOL. This is a dumb argument, especially under this scenario. You realize Ralph Sampson, who took 1499 FGA in 1985 would be gone right? Jordan took 1625 in 1985. The absence of Ralph Sampson and role players taking 126 shots less (not even 2 per game) means both Jordan and Hakeem could've easily had the same exact stats playing together. And this is just a rough example. I'll respond to the rest later, I'm at work.

Mister JT

12-01-2009, 12:42 PM

Ahh... yet another thread bashing the great Michael Jordan.

As always, fans of MJ are being described as either bandwagon fans who just follow what the media tells them, or extremist MJ Stans. Haha!

I remember the image of Pippen in '95 displaying the sole of his white/black/red Air Jordan 9s to the TV camera, while motioning with his index finger, telling MJ to come back to the Bulls. Even with the perceived notion that MJ does not make his teammates better (according to some posters here), Pippen still wanted Jordan to return. Maybe Pippen was brainwashed too?

So what if Krause and Collins were convinced that they could not win with Jordan the ballhog. The FACT remains that they were WRONG because Jordan eventually LEAD the Bulls to 6 championships in 8 years. And IN MY OPINION, Krauss and Collins were dumbasses to think that way.

I think if Jordan was traded to the Clips, he would have HELPED them become competitive, and could have influenced Sterling to not be so thrifty with his money, and spent more to get championship-caliber players.

And I will give Jordan the benefit of the doubt regarding his attitude towards playing with Hakeem or Ewing. Jordan accepted the triangle offense that limited him. Who is to say that he would have not liked scoring a little less in exchange for wins? Jordan, even while scoring a ton of points, has proven throughout his career, that he was a team player, and a WILLING and SKILLED passer. It's just that sometimes, he CARRIED his teams to wins.

On the Bulls side, I think Pippen would be the second option in scoring, but still would be a LEADER on the team, just like he was when he played with Jordan.

I think Pippen could average 17 points and be the third-leading scorer (with Mitch and KJ could average around 25-20 points) and have about 7 rebounds and 4 assists (because they have a dominant PG in KJ).

Or he could be the second-leading scorer averaging about 21 points (with Mitch averaging about 23 and KJ about 18).

It's all speculation!

phoenix18

12-01-2009, 12:43 PM

So many quotes... cant read that much on one page.

juju151111

12-01-2009, 12:43 PM

They are all probably feverishly hitting the alert button to try to get Soopa banned for speaking the truth. :roll:

100% truth. Ask a MJ fan to name a top-tier (i.e. the top 7-10 all-time) who had less impact than MJ.

Again factual.

Compare this track record to every other top-tier great. All of them made it to the conference finals in 2-3 years; Kareem, Magic, Bird, Russell, Shaq, Hakeem, and Duncan were all in the NBA finals in 2-3 years. Kareem, Bird, and Russell became champions within 2 years (Russell as a rookie). Jordan is the anomaly of this group, going 1-9 in the playoffs after three seasons.

The "weak supporting cast" excuse doesn't cut it. They all were high draft picks. They all were drafted by lousy teams, other than Magic and Duncan (due to the Robinson fluke injury). When they left or got hurt in/near their primes their teams collapsed.

Their response will be to attempt to lynch, Soopa. :rolleyes:
Mj has more rings tyhen half those players you just listed?? 6 rings has the man isn't passed by anyone, but Russell and he wasn't always the best player on the team. LOL yes Mj impacted his team to 6 chips. Kareem impacted his team to 3 and then became a role player. Magic only 2 impact rings. Last time i checked Mj won more chips then your so called impact players. Call me when Magic,Kareem, and Bird win 6 rings has the man.

NuggetsFan

12-01-2009, 12:46 PM

You'd think a Bulls fan\Pippen fan would be praising Jordan as Bulls\Jordan fans would be praising Pippen. Jordan doesn't have as much success without Pippen and who knows what happens to Pippen .. he's a great player but without all that hardware I seriously doubt he gets ranked as highly as now.

If MJ ends up getting traded you'd see the death of a future dynasty.

catch24

12-01-2009, 02:28 PM

I see some things never change. Can this idiot be any more deluded?

Roundball_Rock

12-01-2009, 02:40 PM

Less impact than MJ? He led a team with one all-star to 6 titles. And bagged 6 Finals MVP's along with it. :confusedshrug:

Different era, as you surely know. With dilution one all-star--or even none--can win you a ring. Aside from the 08' Celtics, how many recent champions (meaning past 20 years) have had more than 2 all-stars? Surely a student of the game such as you realizes this.

When was the last time a team with their starting lineup being made up of 1st and 2nd year guys or 2nd and 3rd year guys ever been that great?

When is the last time a team with 3 young future HOFers and 2 young all-star level players was assembled?

Teams that they would've definitely lost to:

89 Pistons
90 Pistons
92 Knicks
93 Knicks
95 Magic
98 Jazz

What happened to young teams not being able to win?

:oldlol: @ how MJ fans are hyping the 90's Knicks as some sort of dominant team. They won zero championships. Yeah, yeah here comes the Jordan excuse. :sleeping Without Jordan they needed Hue Hollins to bail them out in the ECSF in 94', narrowly beat the Pacers, and then lost to the Rockets. In 95' they couldn't beat the Pacers in the ECSF (you know, that "tough" team led by Miller and Smits). In 97' they were back--57 wins--and lost in the second round again to the Heat. This is the record of a juggernaut?

What part of my 92 Knicks example did you not get? Did Shaq's scoring production go drastically down when Kobe was scoring close to 30 ppg?

Look at Jordan himself. As Pippen and Grant increased their scoring, Jordan's scoring declined.

This. I have no problem with someone saying they could've won a few titles, cause that team is talented and Pippen was that good, but 6 or more titles? And he's passing it off as its a fact that that would've happened.

Typical religious-type zealotry. So one can't express an opinion if it doesn't fit with the MJ fan line?

As always, fans of MJ are being described as either bandwagon fans who just follow what the media tells them, or extremist MJ Stans. Haha!

Their extremism can be found again and again. Read this thread.

Regarding the media/mass marketing, let's face it. If MJ got traded to the Clippers 80% of his "fans" on ISH would never have gotten on, or would have left, his bandwagon. Why do you think so many "Jordan fans" love Lebron now? Coincidence? Let me guess: their favorite golfer is Tiger? :oldlol:

Even with the perceived notion that MJ does not make his teammates better (according to some posters here), Pippen still wanted Jordan to return.

You're confusing making his teammates better with making his team better. Of course adding one of the greatest players of all-time makes the team better.

So what if Krause and Collins were convinced that they could not win with Jordan the ballhog. The FACT remains that they were WRONG because Jordan eventually LEAD the Bulls to 6 championships in 8 years.

They actually were right. Jordan began to win only when he began to pass the ball more. The triangle offense saved Jordan.

I think if Jordan was traded to the Clips, he would have HELPED them become competitive, and could have influenced Sterling to not be so thrifty with his money, and spent more to get championship-caliber players.

And I will give Jordan the benefit of the doubt regarding his attitude towards playing with Hakeem or Ewing. Jordan accepted the triangle offense that limited him. Who is to say that he would have not liked scoring a little less in exchange for wins? Jordan, even while scoring a ton of points, has proven throughout his career, that he was a team player, and a WILLING and SKILLED passer. It's just that sometimes, he CARRIED his teams to wins.

On the Bulls side, I think Pippen would be the second option in scoring, but still would be a LEADER on the team, just like he was when he played with Jordan.

I think Pippen could average 17 points and be the third-leading scorer (with Mitch and KJ could average around 25-20 points) and have about 7 rebounds and 4 assists (because they have a dominant PG in KJ).

Or he could be the second-leading scorer averaging about 21 points (with Mitch averaging about 23 and KJ about 18).

Good post. I don't agree with all of it but it is a good post. I am glad a MJ fan managed a legit response, few have. I noticed their reaction to this hypothetical was of anger while they were talking about "10 rings" for Hakeem/Jordan/Drexler despite that too being a hypothetical which required speculation (i.e. who would be the #1 option? Would the others accept being #2 and #3?)

Mj has more rings tyhen half those players you just listed??

Yeah--once he got the perfect team around him. That is the point. The others didn't need to have a team built around them to make an immediate impact. They were just that good and impactful.

who knows what happens to Pippen .. he's a great player but without all that hardware I seriously doubt he gets ranked as highly as now.

Pippen could have went either way, up or down 10ish spots. He probably would have been better off winning 1 or 2 championships as "the man" than 6 as a "sidekick." Look at ISH. How many of them "count" rings if a player wasn't the "#1 option".

You'd think a Bulls fan\Pippen fan would be praising Jordan as Bulls\Jordan fans would be praising Pippen.

I joined this year and I was pro-Jordan initially, until I saw MJ fans constantly diminishing Pippen (name pro-Pippen MJ fans here. Exactly...). From what I have heard this started because Jordan fans sought to diminish Kobe by saying he couldn't have won without Shaq. This triggered the logical response (something they often fail to anticipate): Jordan could not have won without Pippen. Evidently at that point they launched a crusade against Pippen. The funny thing is they keep playing the Shaq card regarding Kobe (or Magic with Kareem or with anyone else when it is convenient) yet cry bloody murder when the same logic is applied to Jordan. What makes it downright hilarious is of the entire top 10 all-time Jordan has by far the worst record without his best teammate yet they foolishly keep making "Player X could not win without Player Y" argument against other greats. :roll:

andgar923

12-01-2009, 02:52 PM

Let me just cut through the bs here, and get at what the OP really intended.

The Bulls without MJ or MJ without Pip (as the op would prefer it).... Pip becomes the GOAT candidate and MJ just another good player.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

12-01-2009, 03:11 PM

Ewing would have multiple Finals MVPs :pimp:

andgar923

12-01-2009, 03:13 PM

Ewing would have multiple Finals MVPs :pimp:

Stop being an idiot!

We all know that he wouldn't be able to beat Pippen's Bulls.

Roundball_Rock

12-01-2009, 03:38 PM

:oldlol: andgar. Pippen was one horrendous foul call away from beating the Knicks in 94' with Grant, Armstrong, a CBA (90's version of D-League) player as his starting SG, and a revolving door of 6/4/2 type centers. Yet the notion that Pippen could beat the "mighty" Knicks with Johnson/Richmond/Smits/Grant or Oakley (which means no Oak on the Knicks) is absurd? Only to MJ fans. :oldlol:

Smits>>>Cartwright/Longley/Wennington (all scrubs by this point)
Richmond>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Pete Myers (worst starter in the league. If MJ didn't strangely retire days before the preseason the Bulls would have found a legit replacement and Myers would have remained in the CBA)
Johnson>>>Armstrong

Armstrong would then be on the bench, which would strengthen that unit.

The "mighty" Knicks nearly lost to Miller/Smits/and role players in the ECF in 94' and fell to them in 95' in the ECSF (the superpower Knicks didn't even win their division in 95' so the Pacers had HCA as Central division champs). Miller/Smits/roleplayers>Pippen/Johnson/Richmond/Smits/Grant? According to MJ fans. Yet they talk about delusions?

As to the "great" 51 win 92' Knicks, they nearly lost to a washed up Detroit team in the first round. They had the series of their life and suddenly they are a great team. Using that logic the 08' Hawks were beasts because they took the eventual champs to 7 games too! :bowdown: If KG were replaced by a combo of Gasol, Deron Williams, and Al Jefferson at center would the Celtics have been able to beat the Hawks?

Soopa

12-01-2009, 09:02 PM

Hollins' call still resonates after 15 years

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=adande_ja&page=Hollins-090529

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2009/0528/nba_a_pippen_davis1_sw_400.jpg

(Scottie Pippen's foul of Hubert Davis cost the Bulls Game 5 of the 1994 Eastern Conference semifinals.)

BlackMamba24

12-01-2009, 09:10 PM

kobe would be the goat..not to say he still isnt but he'd be the consensus goat

Soopa

12-01-2009, 10:02 PM

What does Kobe have to do with Soopa's post? You made a claim: Jordan's impact is equal to that of Shaq, Magic, Kareem, Bird, Duncan, Wilt, and Russell. He provided some facts that show otherwise. Why not explain why Jordan's team improved the least with him and suffered the least without him of all these players? Prime MJ leaves and they drop only 2 games? You can't refute his evidence--the only refutations are theoretical ("Jordan 'would' have done X, Y, Z") by the evidence is clear. Add Jordan, subtract Jordan=less impact than any other top-tier player. Since no factual refutation is possible you resort to calling others stupid.

http://airjudden2.tripod.com/jordan/19941995.htm

Da_Realist

12-01-2009, 11:10 PM

Da_Realist

12-01-2009, 11:36 PM

Wrong. He made far less impact on his teams than every other player you listed. Great individual player, bad teammate and ballhog.

Did you know that Michael Jordan averaged more assists over more games than Pippen did despite Pippen being the "point-forward" and having the advantage of passing the ball to a dominant league-leading 50+ fg% scorer? An advantage that Jordan didn't have?

Regular Season
Pippen 5.2 assists over 1053 games
Jordan 5.3 assists over 1072 games

Playoffs
Pippen 5.0 assists over 208 games
Jordan 5.7 assists over 179 games **

** Overall Pippen got 26 more career playoff assists than Jordan did, but it took him 29 more games to do it. That's less than 1 assist per game. So the difference in the number of playoff games played between the two is irrelevant.

Or that of all the guards in the history of the league that has averaged more assists than Jordan, only about 5 or 6 of them were shooting guards? And only Drexler played as many as 1000 games (Jordan played 1072).

In the playoffs, the discrepancy is even larger. Of all the guards (point and shooting guards) who played 150 playoff games (Jordan played 179), Jordan is 4th all time in assists per game. Of all the guards that played 125 playoff games, Jordan is 8th all time.

juju151111

12-01-2009, 11:51 PM

Different era, as you surely know. With dilution one all-star--or even none--can win you a ring. Aside from the 08' Celtics, how many recent champions (meaning past 20 years) have had more than 2 all-stars? Surely a student of the game such as you realizes this.

When is the last time a team with 3 young future HOFers and 2 young all-star level players was assembled?

What happened to young teams not being able to win?

:oldlol: @ how MJ fans are hyping the 90's Knicks as some sort of dominant team. They won zero championships. Yeah, yeah here comes the Jordan excuse. :sleeping Without Jordan they needed Hue Hollins to bail them out in the ECSF in 94', narrowly beat the Pacers, and then lost to the Rockets. In 95' they couldn't beat the Pacers in the ECSF (you know, that "tough" team led by Miller and Smits). In 97' they were back--57 wins--and lost in the second round again to the Heat. This is the record of a juggernaut?

Look at Jordan himself. As Pippen and Grant increased their scoring, Jordan's scoring declined.

Typical religious-type zealotry. So one can't express an opinion if it doesn't fit with the MJ fan line?

Their extremism can be found again and again. Read this thread.

Regarding the media/mass marketing, let's face it. If MJ got traded to the Clippers 80% of his "fans" on ISH would never have gotten on, or would have left, his bandwagon. Why do you think so many "Jordan fans" love Lebron now? Coincidence? Let me guess: their favorite golfer is Tiger? :oldlol:

You're confusing making his teammates better with making his team better. Of course adding one of the greatest players of all-time makes the team better.

They actually were right. Jordan began to win only when he began to pass the ball more. The triangle offense saved Jordan.

Good post. I don't agree with all of it but it is a good post. I am glad a MJ fan managed a legit response, few have. I noticed their reaction to this hypothetical was of anger while they were talking about "10 rings" for Hakeem/Jordan/Drexler despite that too being a hypothetical which required speculation (i.e. who would be the #1 option? Would the others accept being #2 and #3?)

Yeah--once he got the perfect team around him. That is the point. The others didn't need to have a team built around them to make an immediate impact. They were just that good and impactful.

Pippen could have went either way, up or down 10ish spots. He probably would have been better off winning 1 or 2 championships as "the man" than 6 as a "sidekick." Look at ISH. How many of them "count" rings if a player wasn't the "#1 option".

I joined this year and I was pro-Jordan initially, until I saw MJ fans constantly diminishing Pippen (name pro-Pippen MJ fans here. Exactly...). From what I have heard this started because Jordan fans sought to diminish Kobe by saying he couldn't have won without Shaq. This triggered the logical response (something they often fail to anticipate): Jordan could not have won without Pippen. Evidently at that point they launched a crusade against Pippen. The funny thing is they keep playing the Shaq card regarding Kobe (or Magic with Kareem or with anyone else when it is convenient) yet cry bloody murder when the same logic is applied to Jordan. What makes it downright hilarious is of the entire top 10 all-time Jordan has by far the worst record without his best teammate yet they foolishly keep making "Player X could not win without Player Y" argument against other greats. :roll:
I am pro pip until i met Fatal and ur dumbass. Trying to downplay the Goat. The funny thing is u scream at the top of ur lungs and Mj still has the best variety with MVPs,rings,dominance,defense, etc... Those impact players can't even win has much has the lowly ranked MJ. Man they sux.

juju151111

12-01-2009, 11:54 PM

Different era, as you surely know. With dilution one all-star--or even none--can win you a ring. Aside from the 08' Celtics, how many recent champions (meaning past 20 years) have had more than 2 all-stars? Surely a student of the game such as you realizes this.

When is the last time a team with 3 young future HOFers and 2 young all-star level players was assembled?

What happened to young teams not being able to win?

:oldlol: @ how MJ fans are hyping the 90's Knicks as some sort of dominant team. They won zero championships. Yeah, yeah here comes the Jordan excuse. :sleeping Without Jordan they needed Hue Hollins to bail them out in the ECSF in 94', narrowly beat the Pacers, and then lost to the Rockets. In 95' they couldn't beat the Pacers in the ECSF (you know, that "tough" team led by Miller and Smits). In 97' they were back--57 wins--and lost in the second round again to the Heat. This is the record of a juggernaut?

Look at Jordan himself. As Pippen and Grant increased their scoring, Jordan's scoring declined.

Typical religious-type zealotry. So one can't express an opinion if it doesn't fit with the MJ fan line?

Their extremism can be found again and again. Read this thread.

Regarding the media/mass marketing, let's face it. If MJ got traded to the Clippers 80% of his "fans" on ISH would never have gotten on, or would have left, his bandwagon. Why do you think so many "Jordan fans" love Lebron now? Coincidence? Let me guess: their favorite golfer is Tiger? :oldlol:

You're confusing making his teammates better with making his team better. Of course adding one of the greatest players of all-time makes the team better.

They actually were right. Jordan began to win only when he began to pass the ball more. The triangle offense saved Jordan.

Good post. I don't agree with all of it but it is a good post. I am glad a MJ fan managed a legit response, few have. I noticed their reaction to this hypothetical was of anger while they were talking about "10 rings" for Hakeem/Jordan/Drexler despite that too being a hypothetical which required speculation (i.e. who would be the #1 option? Would the others accept being #2 and #3?)

Yeah--once he got the perfect team around him. That is the point. The others didn't need to have a team built around them to make an immediate impact. They were just that good and impactful.

Pippen could have went either way, up or down 10ish spots. He probably would have been better off winning 1 or 2 championships as "the man" than 6 as a "sidekick." Look at ISH. How many of them "count" rings if a player wasn't the "#1 option".

I joined this year and I was pro-Jordan initially, until I saw MJ fans constantly diminishing Pippen (name pro-Pippen MJ fans here. Exactly...). From what I have heard this started because Jordan fans sought to diminish Kobe by saying he couldn't have won without Shaq. This triggered the logical response (something they often fail to anticipate): Jordan could not have won without Pippen. Evidently at that point they launched a crusade against Pippen. The funny thing is they keep playing the Shaq card regarding Kobe (or Magic with Kareem or with anyone else when it is convenient) yet cry bloody murder when the same logic is applied to Jordan. What makes it downright hilarious is of the entire top 10 all-time Jordan has by far the worst record without his best teammate yet they foolishly keep making "Player X could not win without Player Y" argument against other greats. :roll:
Yes they needed a team around them to win chips u fing dumbass.

Roundball_Rock

12-01-2009, 11:56 PM

Jordan leading a team to 50 wins with inexperienced players, coach and front office in 88 >>> Pippen leading a team to 55

There was tougher competition across-the-board in 94' than in 88'. There was much more parity in 94'. In 94' there were 7 teams that won 55+ games; in 88' only 2. The gap between #1 and #3 in the East was 2 games in 94', 7 games in 88'. The gap from #1 to #5 was 15 games in 88'; 10 games in 94'. From #1 to #8 it was 19 games in 88'; 15 games in 94'. The East had only 6 .500+ teams in 88' (and two of them were 42-40); in 94' there were 9 .500+ teams. In 1988 38 wins would get you the #7 seed, 42 wins the #5. In 94' the respective numbers were 45 wins and 47 wins. 55 wins in 94'>50 wins in 88'.

Kareem's prime being in the 70's is held against him by many people.

Impact = 6 titles and 6 Finals MVP's.

He is kind of like Jacques Villeneuve. Villenueve was a race car driver who had great impact: finished 2nd in the Indy 500 as a rookie, won it in his second year, won the IndyCar championship in his second year, went to Formula 1 and qualified first for his first race and was winning until mechanical troubles, won in his fourth race, nearly won the championship as a rookie (2nd), and then did so in his second year along with winning 7 races. He looked like a future GOAT candidate. He had the Midas touch. Wherever he went, success followed.

Here is the rest of JV's career: 5th, 21st, 7th, 7th, 12th, 16th, 14th, and 12th. What happened? He didn't have a perfect team around him for the rest of his career. His original team declined (1st to 5th) and then he left for a start-up team and it never worked out.

Villenueve had immense impact on the racing world during a 4-5 year period, both on and off the track. Yet what is the verdict on him? Talented driver (thrilling to watch--always on the edge and no one drove with bigger balls the prime JV), left a lot on the table with stupid career decisions (he had a chance to join the Lakers of F1 but opted to go to a start-up owned by his friend) and ultimately was not a great as originally believed because he needed a perfect team to succeed. Michael Schumacer, F1's analogue to MJ (the most recent "great" and hence the most popular GOAT candidate.), was Villenuve's contemporary and former rival. The difference between a top-tier great like Schumacher and a second or third-tier one like Villeneuve is that Schumacher did not need the best car to win. He won races with notoriously inferior cars for a few years. He even contended for titles with them. When he had great cars, no one could touch him.

What does this have to do with Jordan? For individual impact you have to look at the whole record. You also have to separate the team component from the individual component. Jordan's place in the basketball constellation is much greater than Villeneuve's in the racing constellation. However, both needed perfect teams to do anything (this coming from a Villenueve fan!). The other top-tier basketball greats did more with bad/average teams. I don't know if you are a basketball only fan but I am a big racing and football fan so I am influenced by thought in those parts of the sports world. For me looking at the team aspect is an automatic thing.

Hollins' call still resonates after 15 years

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playof...Hollins-090529

Soopa, who do you think was more happier over the Hollins atrocity? Spike Lee, the NBA, or Jordan fans?

The fact that 15 years later there was an article on ESPN's website says it all about how bad that call was and how significant it was for historical reasons. As the article noted, both Pippen and Jackson took a hit historically because of it. If Jackson won that year the "Jackson could only win with two great players" card could not be used against him; if Pippen won or even "just" made it to the NBA finals it would silence those who claim he could never lead a title contender on his own (since they ignore 2000 Portland).

Did you know that Michael Jordan averaged more assists

There is no shortage of ballhogs who have averaged a lot of assists. Marbury averaged 8 during his career.

Pippen is #1 all-time in assists by a forward, ahead of even...

Mj still has the best variety with MVPs,rings,dominance,defense, etc

Opinion, not fact. MJ fans view that as a fact and then complain when it is questioned. Of course MJ has a case for GOAT but so do half a dozen other players.

It is MJ fans who diminish Pippen. What do you expect in response? As Soopa noted, it is a stupid thing to do because the comparison shows Jordan in a more unfavorable light than ESPN/Nike/Gatorade/Hanes/Stern/Etc. show him. What is best for MJ fans is the status quo but they keep claiming others (whether it is Kobe or Kareem) could not win without a particular teammate or that Pippen couldn't win without Jordan. :confusedshrug:

Yes they needed a team around them to win chips u fing dumbass.

How good were those teams before they got there?

Da_Realist

12-02-2009, 12:17 AM

There was tougher competition across-the-board in 94' than in 88'. There was much more parity in 94'. In 94' there were 7 teams that won 55+ games; in 88' only 2. The gap between #1 and #3 in the East was 2 games in 94', 7 games in 88'. The gap from #1 to #5 was 15 games in 88'; 10 games in 94'. From #1 to #8 it was 19 games in 88'; 15 games in 94'. The East had only 6 .500+ teams in 88' (and two of them were 42-40); in 94' there were 9 .500+ teams. In 1988 38 wins would get you the #7 seed, 42 wins the #5. In 94' the respective numbers were 45 wins and 47 wins. 55 wins in 94'>50 wins in 88'.

Kareem's prime being in the 70's is held against him by many people.

Your opinion. But that's sort of the problem. It's an opinion. My opinion is 50 wins in 88 with an inexperienced team led by a young star >>> 55 wins in 94 with 3 all stars and 3 years worth of championship experience up and down the board.

He is kind of like Jacques Villeneuve. Villenueve was a race car driver who had great impact: finished 2nd in the Indy 500 as a rookie, won it in his second year, won the IndyCar championship in his second year, went to Formula 1 and qualified first for his first race and was winning until mechanical troubles, won in his fourth race, nearly won the championship as a rookie (2nd), and then did so in his second year along with winning 7 races. He looked like a future GOAT candidate. He had the Midas touch. Wherever he went, success followed.

Here is the rest of JV's career: 5th, 21st, 7th, 7th, 12th, 16th, 14th, and 12th. What happened? He didn't have a perfect team around him for the rest of his career. His original team declined (1st to 5th) and then he left for a start-up team and it never worked out.

Villenueve had immense impact on the racing world during a 4-5 year period, both on and off the track. Yet what is the verdict on him? Talented driver (thrilling to watch--always on the edge and no one drove with bigger balls the prime JV), left a lot on the table with stupid career decisions (he had a chance to join the Lakers of F1 but opted to go to a start-up owned by his friend) and ultimately was not a great as originally believed because he needed a perfect team to succeed. Michael Schumacer, F1's analogue to MJ (the most recent "great" and hence the most popular GOAT candidate.), was Villenuve's contemporary and former rival. The difference between a top-tier great like Schumacher and a second or third-tier one like Villeneuve is that Schumacher did not need the best car to win. He won races with notoriously inferior cars for a few years. He even contended for titles with them. When he had great cars, no one could touch him.

What does this have to do with Jordan? For individual impact you have to look at the whole record. You also have to separate the team component from the individual component. Jordan's place in the basketball constellation is much greater than Villeneuve's in the racing constellation. However, both needed perfect teams to do anything (this coming from a Villenueve fan!). The other top-tier basketball greats did more with bad/average teams. I don't know if you are a basketball only fan but I am a big racing and football fan so I am influenced by thought in those parts of the sports world. For me looking at the team aspect is an automatic thing.

Therein lies the difference between you and most basketball fans. We judge a player by what he does on the court. You judge a player by his absence. My way properly evaluates MJ's career. Your way doesn't. In fact, it evaluates what Pippen did in his absence -- which has no bearing on what Jordan brought to the table.

There is no shortage of ballhogs who have averaged a lot of assists. Marbury averaged 8 during his career.

And? Prove to me that Jordan was a ballhog when he has more assists than Pippen in both the regular season and playoffs despite leading the league in scoring. How many assists per game was Jordan's 30+ pts and 50+ fg% worth to Pippen's overall averages?

Pippen is #1 all-time in assists by a forward, ahead of even...

Ahead of who? :confusedshrug:

Fatal9

12-02-2009, 12:18 AM

Roundball_Rock

12-02-2009, 12:34 AM

People really think Pippen led Bulls with an all-star cast are not contenders year after year until at least 1996? Pippen led a far worse cast to near 60 wins, and would have defeated the BEST Knicks team to come out of the early 90s (1994 Knicks > 1993 Knicks > 1992 Knicks). And yet with more help, he would struggle to beat inferior teams? I also like how people are acting like Jordan wasn't working with much on those Bulls teams, when no other "legend" has been been missed as little as he was. I would have loved to see Pippen defend Jordan btw. If Craig Ehlo could make Jordan struggle after being motivated because he was called soft, I'd hate to see the things Pippen would do to him.

:oldlol: at this nonsense of Bulls being taken lightly in 1994. "Yea guys, they are the top team in the conference, led by top 5 player and are the defending champions...no need to take them seriously."

Fatal FTW! :rockon:

Your opinion. But that's sort of the problem. It's an opinion. My opinion is 50 wins in 88 with an inexperienced team led by a young star >>> 55 wins in 94 with 3 all stars and 3 years worth of championship experience up and down the board.

What is the problem? This is a discussion forum created to share opinions. :confusedshrug:

Therein lies the difference between you and most basketball fans. We judge a player by what he does on the court.

Villenueve did amazing things on the track too. For example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5VOe11hzoo

If we applied your reasoning to Villeneuve we would throw away 2/3 of his career and look only at that amazing 4-5 year period. If you limit it that way he has a case for being a top-tier great. No one--not even JV fans--make that case because it would sound ridiculous, at least to the ears of race fans. You can cite his performance when he had great cars/a great team to show his talent and move him up a few spots all-time but no one is going to argue that the rest of his career should completely be ignored and hence he is a top-tier great.

You judge a player by his absence. My way properly evaluates MJ's career. Your way doesn't.

?

I look at players' impact when they join a team, when they leave (whether due to injury, a trade, or retirement). Jordan moved the needle from 27 wins to 38 wins when he arrived. That is by far the worst of any top-tier great. That is supposed to be ignored?

Impact is just one factor in determining a player's legacy in my book, but everyone has their own criteria. I look at other things like individual dominance, longevity, and winning.

If you want to talk about tunnel vision look at the Kareem GOAT thread. All we heard from MJ fans was "6 FMVP's". :confusedshrug:

And? Prove to me that Jordan was a ballhog when he has more assists than Pippen in both the regular season and playoffs despite leading the league in scoring.

Ask Doug Collins and Phil Jackson. He put up great assist numbers under Collins, no?

Duncan21formvp

12-02-2009, 12:38 AM

Da_Realist

12-02-2009, 12:43 AM

If we applied your reasoning to Villeneuve we would throw away 2/3 of his career and look only at that amazing 4-5 year period. If you limit it that way he has a case for being a top-tier great. No one--not even JV fans--make that case because it would sound ridiculous, at least to the ears of race fans. You can cite his performance when he had great cars/a great team to show his talent and move him up a few spots all-time but no one is going to argue that the rest of his career should completely be ignored and hence he is a top-tier great.

Funny how your reasoning knocks out all but 4 years of Jordan's 15 year career. The irony.

I look at players' impact when they join a team, when they leave (whether due to injury, a trade, or retirement). Jordan moved the needle from 27 wins to 38 wins when he arrived. That is by far the worst of any top-tier great. That is supposed to be ignored?

Impact is just one factor in determining a player's legacy in my book, but everyone has their own criteria. I look at other things like individual dominance, longevity, and winning.

No. You nitpick a few negative things, remove all context and post as fact.

Individual Dominance = too many to name
Longevity = 15 years
Winning = 6 titles, 6 FMVP's

But this doesn't count? :oldlol:

Ask Doug Collins and Phil Jackson. He put up great assist numbers under Collins, no?

That's your evidence?

NuggetsFan

12-02-2009, 12:44 AM

Usually don't like to prop up Jordan but with this Fatal9\Roundballrock guy I thought I'd just say ..

If you don't think 6 finals MVP's = Impact regardless of what your team looks like than you should probably go turn off the t.v and stop watching basketball and go watch some nascar or whatever it is that your always ****ing bringing up.

Face it .. your pissed because your a Pippen fan and Jordan steals the Thunder because he's usually the consensus GOAT or he's a main choice. It's a shame Pippen couldn't wrestle one of those Finals MVP's away from Jordan :confusedshrug:

No hate intended on Pippen or any other players .. just really annoying seeing this RoundBallRock guy spit out the same garbage.

NuggetsFan

12-02-2009, 12:46 AM

Funny how your reasoning knocks out all but 4 years of Jordan's 15 year career. The irony.

No. You nitpick a few negative things, remove all context and post as fact.

Individual Dominance = too many to name
Longevity = 15 years
Winning = 6 titles, 6 FMVP's

But this doesn't count? :oldlol:

That's your evidence?

:applause:

guy

12-02-2009, 12:47 AM

Why do you think they wanted Drexler? If Jordan was a sure thing in their view why acquire another young SG?

I'm pretty sure Portland were the one's that offered that deal. But either way, you really think Drexler was the attractive part of this deal? You really think Houston was more excited about possibly getting an 8/3/2 guy then having the no. 2 draft pick? Think about how stupid that sounds. Even if it was Houston the deal, maybe they just wanted as much as they could get, cause at the time, a 21/11 guy is definitely worth more then one stinking draft pick, even one as high as no. 2.

Perhaps. Regardless, Collins wanted to move to a fast paced system. The obstacle? Jordan's ball-hogging. With Jordan gone they could make the switch.

Maybe. Whatever the case, if the Bulls wanted to move to a fast paced system, that makes the likelihood of winning championships even smaller. They were some great fast paced teams in the early 90s such as the Suns and Blazers, but there weren't many, and by the mid-90s those teams really had no shot at a championship, and none of them ever won a championship.

Jordan could have adapted too. I can see Jordan adapted to being the #2 option behind Hakeem from day 1 but then Jordan wouldn't be Jordan. You are comparing a rookie with a guy who was an established superstar, MVP. A rookie is easier to adapt to a system than an established superstar--just ask Doug Collins and Phil Jackson!

He wouldn't need to. He also could have developed better playing with better teammates than he had in Phoenix.

:oldlol: @ your opposition to assumptions. "What ifs?" are inherently based on assumptions.

I love "What ifs?" But for you to think that the Bulls would win 6 championships is one thing, but for you to be so confident and to assume they would win that much (comments along the lines of "of course they would win as much, why wouldn't they? who would beat them" implies an assumption IMO), is completely stupid in this case and shows your ignorance of the era. Its a little different when someone says the same thing about a possible Jordan/Hakeem/Drexler trio because we're talking about the consensus top 2 players of their era and another top 10 player of his era.

There's a ton (and I mean alot more then 1, not just possible "chemistry issues" that you have suggested with Jordan/Hakeem/Drexler, which is fairly legit) of variables in this case.

1. KJ's injury issues that plagued him for much of his career, and now he'll be playing in a more physical conference. He might've had a reduced role, but he still would've been there best player for much of that time, would've still had a huge role as the team's starting PG, and would've still probably played his game which required alot of attacking the basket.
2. Not enough of a sample that shows Mitch Richmond would've been a great, or at least good enough, playoff performer.
3. That this would rely on a fast-paced system, which has its drawbacks and hasn't produced a championship since the 80s Lakers, which was orchestrated by the greatest PG ever.
4. None of these players have ever led a team to a championship or even Finals appearance as the no. 1 guy (to be fair both KJ and Pippen were close.)

Sure you can. You are looking at 2 games rather than a decade's worth of playoff runs. Which is a more reliable sample?

You don't get the point. He had more injury issues then a superstar usually does, and it made his status somewhat unpredictable even at the worse times, such as game 1 and 2 of the 93 Finals.

No chance???

Your f'n kidding me right? A team full of 1st and 2nd year players is not beating a team that is arguably a top 10 team of all-time, which the 89 Pistons are considered by a good amount. I don't care how talented they are. Talent isn't everything, and I'm sure this Bulls team would add on to their talent, but not enough in their first year.

We are talking about 9/2/5.5 bench KJ. Grant for KJ would be a fair trade. Asking for Oakley may be asking for too much. They already had Mark Price so Johnson was expendable.

Either way, Oakley and Grant are similarly good PF's.

Well my thinking is that the Cavs already had 3 big men in Brad Daugherty, Hot Rod Williams, and Larry Nance, and that they wouldn't bother bringing in another PF unless he was proven, such as Charles Oakley, who was a double digit rebounder.

However, I then realized that Larry Nance was actually traded for Kevin Johnson in the middle of the 88 season? So was the proposed trade bringing KJ from the Suns? It would have to be if it was in the 88 offseason. I was under the impression that KJ played a full season with the Cavs.

They won 51, 60, and 57 games during that span. From 95'-97' they won 55, 47, and 57. Why limit the sample to three years when they were comparable in 95'-97'? They were a finger roll away from the ECF in 95' and were up 3-1 in the ECSF in 97' before the big fight and subsequent suspensions.

Most people watching at the time would agree that the 92-94 Knicks were better then the 95-97 Knicks, regardless of record. There's probably a case that the 97 Knicks were just as good though. The 92-94 Knicks (at least starting in the 92 playoffs) was what I consider there best teams though. The 93 team was easily the best IMO.

Hakeem's Rockets were better? They were one shot away from defeat in Game 6 and won by 6 points in Game 7. The Knicks didn't exactly get dominated by the Rockets.

Who said they were dominated? And your just helping my case even more pointing out just how close they were to winning a championship.

The difference is most players don't take 30 shots when they are shooting 30%. That problem wouldn't exist with a Pippen/Richmond/KJ/Smits/Grant or Oak team.

So Mitch Richmond and KJ couldn't have combined for 30 shots in a game? And is at that far-fetched that they couldn't have been held down defensively the same way? By the way it wasn't 30%, it was around 37%, still bad but a significant difference.

I'm sure you've played or watch enough basketball to know what coaches and teammates always tell great scorers to do even when they're not shooting well. KEEP SHOOTING. They tell them to keep shooting, keep being aggressive, keep playing their game. It happens with all great scorers. I would think as an AI fan, you would understand that, since AI is probably more notorious for this then anybody (has a bad shooting night but still keeps playing the same way as if he's already scored 50 points).

HOF voting isn't influenced by hype and visibility???? If Richmond played in a big market like Chicago he would be a lock for the HOF.

How often do teams have 3 HOFers and 2 other all-star level players in their starting 5 with players like Kukoc and Armstrong on the bench?

Okay really, cut the crap about "3 HOFers". First of all, Mitch Richmond is NOT a HOFer, and he never played at a HOF level. He's a great player, but a HOFer does not lead his team to below .500 records and 1 playoff appearance for 7 straight seasons. It doesn't matter how crappy the team is, HOFers will have more success then that over 7 seasons. Maybe things would've been a different in a different situation, but who knows. All we do know is that Mitch Richmond never did anything HOF-worthy.

So where does that leave us? Pippen and KJ. KJ played at a HOF level from 1989-1992. Unfortunately his injuries robbed him, and he can only show glimpses of that HOF level for the rest of his career. Pippen wasn't playing at a HOF level until the 1991 playoffs. So really, they would've only had 2 postseasons and 1 regular season with 2 HOFers, not 10 like your thinking.

Mitch Richmond would go under that category of all-star level players. Horace Grant and Rik Smits? Hell no. Why are they considered all-star level players? Because they made 1 all-star game EACH for their whole career? Please, thats ridiculous. So get this "3 HOFers and 2 all-star level players" bull**** out of here. The equivalent of what you're saying would be if the 90s Jazz had David Robinson, Glen Rice, and Latrell Sprewell playing with Malone and Stockton all in their primes. Now that would be 3 HOFers and 2 all-star level players.

This hypothetical team>the 04' Pistons.

Maybe, maybe not. I have my doubts if they're playing the fast paced style you're talking about, but if they slow it down maybe not. Either way, those type of teams (stacked but no designated go-to guy)usually don't win much, and the 04 Pistons only won 1 title.

Relatively speaking. Compare Smith and Harper to Pippen and Johnson.

There's a huge difference. What's your point? There's a huge difference between Jordan/Richmond and Ewing/Smits. What did you mean weak links? As if they are bad players?

Yeah, yeah, I'm stupid and delusional for not worshiping MJ. :sleeping

No, you're delusional for thinking Pippen with an equal supporting cast (or lets say slightly better since you insist on saying they're better, it would be slightly at the most) would actually have a chance against Jordan's team. Its clear that thats what you're trying to say here. If instead of Pippen, it was Bird, Magic, Kareem, or Shaq, it wouldn't be a delusional thing to say, but thats not the case. Face it, Pippen was not that great. He was more closer to Ewing's level then Jordan's level, which there is nothing wrong with, and Ewing is on Jordan's team in this case.

They were better; they choked. The 07' Cavs were a fluke. The 07' Pistons were in the midst of 5 straight trips to the conference finals.

LOL. Ok. They weren't better, thats why they lost. Maybe on paper they were better, and if you matchup position by position they were better. But the complacency of that Pistons team, and there lack of caring did them in. It wasn't a fluke. Pistons mind set was messed up, which made them the worse team, and resulted in a loss. Cavaliers were hungry, and that difference was enough for them to win. The game is not all about matchups, alot of it is mental.

Fatal9

12-02-2009, 12:49 AM

If you don't think 6 finals MVP's = Impact
Magic, Kareem, Bird (healthy), Wilt, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq ALL get at least 5 finals MVPs in the same situation. Hell, even Kobe would take down 6 rings on those Bulls teams from 1991-1998. People forget, no other legends were playing on teams that contended immediately following their retirement. So either Jordan's teams were capable of contending without him, or the 90s playoff competition was weak...which one is it?

Roundball_Rock

12-02-2009, 12:50 AM

That's your evidence?

Ok, ask his teammates at the time (MJ did begin to share the ball a bit more during the title years). We have his coaches, teammates, and GM all agreeing he was a ballhog. He did improve, but he still led the league in FGA every year. Even at age 38 he ranked second in FGA per game, 9th at age 39.

Funny how your reasoning knocks out all but 4 of Jordan's career. The irony.

His entire career counts but has to be placed in context. There is a reason why he would from 38, 30*, 40, 50, and 47 wins to suddenly win 6 championships in 7 years--and then reverted back to back-to-back 37 win seasons. What changed? The answer is the team, just like in Villeneuve's case (and he is just the most glaring example). If you gave Villeneuve the best team for a decade he would have a case for GOAT too today (I mentioned Schumacher earlier. During JV's first three years "Villeneuve vs. Schumacher" was a big debate like "Lebron vs. Kobe" today. That debate is now viewed like the brief "Jordan vs. Drexler" debate...). Teams matter.

Individual Dominance = too many to name
Longevity = 15 years
Winning = 6 titles, 6 FMVP's

Those things are why he is in the top-tier of all-time. Just because I don't consider him the GOAT doesn't mean I think he sucked.

NuggetsFan

12-02-2009, 12:55 AM

Magic, Kareem, Bird (healthy), Wilt, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq ALL get at least 5 finals MVPs in the same situation. Hell, even Kobe would take down 6 rings on those Bulls teams from 1991-1998. People forget, no other legends were playing on teams that contended immediately following their retirement. So either Jordan's teams were capable of contending without him, or the 90s playoff competition was weak...which one is it?

:rolleyes: Alright. I'll let you live in your what if scenario's all day but fact is 6 Finals MVP's = Impact no matter what YOU think would happen if roles\players were switched around and the day you understand that is probably the day you get Kobe's dick out of your mouth.

Duncan21formvp

12-02-2009, 12:55 AM

Magic, Kareem, Bird (healthy), Wilt, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq ALL get at least 5 finals MVPs in the same situation. Hell, even Kobe would take down 6 rings on those Bulls teams from 1991-1998. People forget, no other legends were playing on teams that contended immediately following their retirement. So either Jordan's teams were capable of contending without him, or the 90s playoff competition was weak...which one is it?

No they wouldn't. Those guys all played with guys who won league and finals mvp's and had allstars yearly and they all lost to inferior teams as well. Jordan is the only one to win multiple titles without even having an allstar on the team.

Soopa

12-02-2009, 12:56 AM

guy

12-02-2009, 12:56 AM

Roundball_Rock

12-02-2009, 12:57 AM

If you don't think 6 finals MVP's = Impact regardless of what your team looks like than you should probably go turn off the t.v and stop watching basketball and go watch some nascar or whatever it is that your always ****ing bringing up.

It does=impact. So does doing all of the following in a 4 year period:

*Finishing 2nd in the Indy 500 as a rookie, top 5 in points, winning ROY
*Winning the Indy 500 in your second year after coming back from 2 laps down
*Winning the IndyCar championship in your second year

*Qualifying first, dominating, and finishing 2nd in your first race (record)
*Winning 4 races as a rookie (a record)
*Nearly winning the F1 championship as a rookie by finishing 2nd (record)
*Winning the F1 championship in your second season (record)
*Winning 7 races in your second season (record)

This is HUGE impact. Notice all the records?

No hate intended on Pippen or any other players .. just really annoying seeing this RoundBallRock guy spit out the same garbage.

If you don't suck MJ's balls people can't handle it. Why? It is a discussion forum. Every player gets criticized here but St. Michael is off limits? Quit whining and use the ignore function.

You seemed to only look at the top. Look at the bottom. 8 teams that won less then 30 games in 1994, and only 4 in 1988. Which means there were more opportunities to beat up on bad teams in 94.

That has no relevance to parity among the top teams. It wasn't just that more teams won 55+ games. The gaps between the top teams and even between the top teams and average teams were closer than in 88'.

Magic, Kareem, Bird (healthy), Wilt, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq ALL get at least 5 finals MVPs in the same situation. Hell, even Kobe would take down 6 rings on those Bulls teams from 1991-1998. People forget, no other legends were playing on teams that contended immediately following their retirement. So either Jordan's teams were capable of contending without him, or the 90s playoff competition was weak...which one is it?

Many of them don't understand historical evaluation. What they do is set their own criteria for GOAT, which is tailor-made to suit MJ (i.e. the obsession with final's MVP's), and then treat it as gospel. They then cry foul when anyone questions their dogma.

Imagine these guys becoming historians. Suppose they are Bill Clinton fans. They would say economic growth is how presidents should be judged and therefore Clinton is the GOAT. No context would be needed. The fact there were no big crises during his tenure would be ignored. It would be 22 million jobs>whatever was created under Washington, Lincoln, et al.

Finals MVP is a pretty useless award.

Exactly. Parker, Billups, Cedric Maxwell, and JoJo White have won it. The roster of all-star game MVP's is more impressive than the roster of FMVP's.

Duncan21formvp

12-02-2009, 12:59 AM

Finals MVP is a pretty useless award.

Yeah when you only have 1 and your teammate had 3.

It's like saying getting an "A" in a class is useless.

Abraham Lincoln

12-02-2009, 12:59 AM

Usually don't like to prop up Jordan but with this Fatal9\Roundballrock guy I thought I'd just say ..

If you don't think 6 finals MVP's = Impact regardless of what your team looks like than you should probably go turn off the t.v and stop watching basketball and go watch some nascar or whatever it is that your always ****ing bringing up.

Face it .. your pissed because you're a Pippen fan and Jordan steals the Thunder because he's usually the consensus GOAT or he's a main choice. It's a shame Pippen couldn't wrestle one of those Finals MVP's away from Jordan :confusedshrug:

No hate intended on Pippen or any other players .. just really annoying seeing this RoundBallRock guy spit out the same garbage.
:lol

Da_Realist

12-02-2009, 01:00 AM

Ok, ask his teammates at the time (MJ did begin to share the ball a bit more during the title years). We have his coaches, teammates, and GM all agreeing he was a ballhog. He did improve, but he still led the league in FGA every year. Even at age 38 he ranked second in FGA per game, 9th at age 39.

Share the ball a bit? He averaged more assists than Pippen "the point-forward" :oldlol:

His entire career counts but has to be placed in context. There is a reason why he would from 38, 30*, 40, 50, and 47 wins to suddenly win 6 championships in 7 years--and then reverted back to back-to-back 37 win seasons. What changed?

Talent, experience, chemistry. All these things. Maybe if you would stop hating, get your head out of the stat book and watch those games you would see what everyone else saw. One all star on that team and he still leads them to 6 championships. And he gets all 6 Finals MVP's. Not only that...but he also gets 5 Regular Season MVP's -- and could have been more. We're not only looking at 6 years. We're looking at his whole career. You are the one that only wants to take bits and pieces of his career and make judgements.

Why did he revert back to 37 win seasons? Were you watching? He was old for one thing and secondly he was injured throughout most of that time.

NuggetsFan

12-02-2009, 01:03 AM

It does=impact.

Yes it sure does.

If you don't suck MJ's balls people can't handle it. Why? It is a discussion forum. Every player gets criticized here but St. Michael is off limits? Quit whining and use the ignore function.

I'm a Nuggets fan and could really care less what people say about MJ :oldlol: but it's 100% clear that half the posts you make are intended to put MJ down. That's perfectly fine but after a while it gets really annoying .. and than you act like MJ has these crazy fans when your crazy yourself :oldlol: .

But anyways carry on pal.

EricForman

12-02-2009, 01:06 AM

can we all agree that roundball is an idiot for saying, with a straight face, that a team of pip/mitch/rik smits/KJ would have won more than six rings in the 90s?

once we all agree on this. there is simply no need to discuss bball with him anymore.

Roundball_Rock

12-02-2009, 01:07 AM

I'm a Nuggets fan and could really care less what people say about MJ :oldlol: but it's 100% clear that half the posts you make are intended to put MJ down. That's perfectly fine but after a while it gets really annoying .. and than you act like MJ has these crazy fans when your crazy yourself :oldlol:

Use the ignore function.

It is MJ fans who initiate the attacks on Pippen 99% of the time. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure it out. All you need to do is understand sequence. The amusing thing is their hypocrisy: they attack Pippen all the time yet cry bloody murder when Pip fans respond.

can we all agree that roundball is an idiot for saying, with a straight face, that a team of pip/mitch/rik smits/KJ would have won more than six rings in the 90s?

once we all agree on this. there is simply no need to discuss bball with him anymore.

This coming from someone who said Brandon Jennings and some rookie from last year averaged 28/7/6 like Kobe did in 01' or 02'. :roll: The only reason I don't have you on ignore is for comedic value.

Duncan21formvp

12-02-2009, 01:07 AM

Roundball_Rock getting broke down again. He must enjoy getting broke down.

guy

12-02-2009, 01:08 AM

Really? What is the story behind that?

In 1990 Jordan was tired of basketball and thinking of retiring by 1995. Who knows: if he hadn't won a ring by then he would take his money and stay away from basketball. I doubt it, though. I think the challenge would keep him motivated.

It was a story back then, and it was brought up in an article again this summer by Sam Smith. When Jordan became a free agent after the 96 season, his first choice was obviously Chicago, but if they didn't give him the right deal, he was going to go to New York. But the Bulls ended up giving him a 30 million/1 year contract. They said Jordan going to New York was never really close to happening, cause Chicago giving him the right deal was pretty much a given. But it was the backup plan.

Starks>Wilkins. There is a big difference if your backup SG is Starks or Wilkins.

Whatever. Point is that minutes and shot attempts would be sacrificed by the role players, so the stars don't have to sacrifice much.

His entire team. Collins and Jackson wanted him to pass the ball more to the other 11 players. MJ refused to early in his career.

Okay, name one player that played with Jordan in the 80s, that had a huge ppg jump into the 14-17 ppg range once they stopped playing with Jordan. Jordan played with scrubs during this time and thats a fact. He wasn't holding them down, cause they never ended up doing anything except for Pippen and Grant who developed and blossomed PLAYING WITH Jordan.

Well, MJ said his rookie coach letting him have such a big role (28 ppg) made him who he was. He contrasted this to the limited role many other rookies are given and believed it killed or reduced the potential of many of them.

Possibly. But IMO great players like that will become great no matter what the situation. Guys like Jordan, Bird, Magic, Duncan, Hakeem, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, etc.

Why two SG's, though? They could have asked for a PG, SF, or PF. They were set at center with Hakeem and Jordan would be at SG. The only way it makes sense is if they weren't sure who would wind up being better and wanted a C-SG combo, or perhaps they planned to convert Drexler to a SF.

I responded to this earlier. Who knows, maybe they would've converted Drexler to a SF. He did have the size.

Duncan21formvp

12-02-2009, 01:18 AM

Source: NBA.com (http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/smith_081201.html)

Once upon a time, not so long ago, the Knicks offered a ton of money to a future Hall of Famer free agent guard. But Michael Jordan turned them down, and LeBron James could do the same in 2010.

It was the time Michael Jordan was a free agent and almost signed with the New York Knicks.

Well, perhaps not almost, and Jordan's agent, David Falk, still denies it ever was serious or under discussion. But it's part of NBA lore, and Knicks and Bulls insiders at the time remember it as what was portrayed then by Falk as a strong possibility.

In the end, Jordan signed a one-year $30 million contract with the Bulls, and then in 1997-98, a one-year $33 million deal for his final Bulls contract. But there were some at the time who believed Jordan, like LeBron James now, wanted the Madison Square Garden/New York City spotlight to conclude his glorious career. Though it's also a function of the players there at the time, and the Knicks of 1996-97 were a good team with Patrick Ewing, a healthy Allan Houston and Jordan's best buddy, Charles Oakley. With Jordan, they likely would have been champions. They seemed a lot better prepared to guarantee Jordan a title than they would now with James in two years.

Jordan was just concluding his eight-year $25 million contract with the Bulls, signed in 1988 as the Bulls only re-negotiation ever. It was precedent setting at the time with no athlete ever making as much, but soon outdated with expanding league revenue and salary cap. Jordan stuck to it, and perhaps as thanks, the Bulls paid him his full basketball salary the 18 months Jordan was out playing baseball.

Jordan returned in March 1995, and the Bulls won their fourth championship and record 72 games in 1995-96. There was a brief labor impasse lockout and signing moratorium at the beginning of July 1996, and the Knicks were said ready to pounce then with Falk's approval. Perhaps it was just a Falk bargaining ploy, which is hardly uncommon.

The Bulls, because of the Bird exception, could pay Jordan more than any team, just like the Cavs with James. But the word was Jordan could make up the money in New York easily in other sources. Falk initially told the Bulls it would take a salary starting in the mid to high $20s of millions of dollars to sign Jordan, so there apparently was some hesitation as no one in the NBA made anywhere near that.

In the end, the Bulls topped that figure at $30 million, and maybe the New York threat was the reason. Falk, to this day, insists there never was one, though that's not what you hear around the NBA offices in New York. Perhaps Jordan is telling James now what really went on and what to do.

guy

12-02-2009, 01:32 AM

When is the last time a team with 3 young future HOFers and 2 young all-star level players was assembled?

Like I said earlier, that wouldn't have been the case here.

What happened to young teams not being able to win?

LOL at you comparing an 89 version of this Bulls to the 95 Magic. First of all, 95 Shaq is a beast that none of those guys can compare to, and he was in his 3rd year. Second, 95 Penny is better then all of them as well except for 89 KJ. And top of that, THEY HAD VETERANS. Dennis Scott and Nick Anderson were good scorer in their 5th and 6th seasons. Horace Grant was a 3-time champion and coming off an all-star season the year before. This wasn't a team fully dependent on rookies and sophomores. Do you think the rookie or sophomore team of last year would have had a chance at the title in the 09? Cause its almost the same thing.

:oldlol: @ how MJ fans are hyping the 90's Knicks as some sort of dominant team. They won zero championships. Yeah, yeah here comes the Jordan excuse. :sleeping Without Jordan they needed Hue Hollins to bail them out in the ECSF in 94', narrowly beat the Pacers, and then lost to the Rockets. In 95' they couldn't beat the Pacers in the ECSF (you know, that "tough" team led by Miller and Smits). In 97' they were back--57 wins--and lost in the second round again to the Heat. This is the record of a juggernaut?

I've already said the 95-97 teams weren't as good as the 92-94. IMO if its not for the 92 Bulls, the Knicks beat the Cavs and Blazers to win a title. If its not for the 93 Bulls, the Knicks beat the Suns for the title. And like you mentioned earlier, they were one shot away from beating the Rockets in 94. They were a great team. You have mentioned yourself that you weren't even watching before 94, so you didn't even see the best of them.

Look at Jordan himself. As Pippen and Grant increased their scoring, Jordan's scoring declined.

Significantly?

1988 - Jordan 35 ppg, Pippen/Grant 15.6 ppg
1989 - Jordan 32.5 ppg, Pippen/Grant 26.4 ppg
1990 - Jordan 33.6 ppg, Pippen/Grant 29.9 ppg
1991 - Jordan 31.5 ppg, Pippen/Grant 30.6 ppg
1992 - Jordan 30.1 ppg, Pippen/Grant 35.2 ppg
1993 - Jordan 32.6 ppg, Pippen/Grant 31.8 ppg

In 1990, Jordan's scoring actually increases while Pippen/Grant increases. Either way, there's not a significant difference if you take out 1988, when Pippen/Grant weren't doing much anyway. Jordan's stats fluctuates about 3 points, and the biggest jump for Pippen/Grant of 4.6 ppg from 91 to 92, only resulted in a 1.4 ppg drop for Jordan. You can also take into the account that not only did Pippen/Grant make the team significantly better then what it was in Jordan's first 4 years, but the team overall was better. And this is two players wer'e talking about anyway, not just one, like I was in the Jordan-Ewing and Jordan-Hakeem examples. Like I said a million times before, one guy doesn't affect another's scoring stats that much.

Typical religious-type zealotry. So one can't express an opinion if it doesn't fit with the MJ fan line?

You ever notice how almost everyone that watched the Bulls before 1994 thinks its laughable how much you overrate Pippen and how you think he was capable of leading a team to as much success as you think? Fans/Bulls fans from the 80s such as Da Realist, OldSchoolBall, Samurai Swoosh, Andgar that saw Pippen from the beginning of his career all think some of your posts rank up there with the most ridiculous. You think thats a coincidence? Or that there all the nutty ones that don't know what there talking about while you, who missed 6 seasons of Pippen's career + never saw KJ in his prime + didn't watch Mitch Richmond on those run and gun Warriors, are the one making very educated opinions?

Soopa

12-02-2009, 01:43 AM

Yeah when you only have 1 and your teammate had 3.

It's like saying getting an "A" in a class is useless.

:confusedshrug:

Playing great for 4-7 games is not that big of a deal. There should be a playoffs MVP.

Cyclone112

12-02-2009, 01:46 AM

:confusedshrug:
Playing great for 4-7 games is not that big of a deal. There should be a playoffs MVP.

True, so MJ also has 6 Playoff MVP's then. GOAT.

Roundball_Rock

12-02-2009, 03:02 AM

True, so MJ also has 6 Playoff MVP's then. GOAT.

If a Playoffs MVP existed he probably would not have the most. You would assume to be eligible for a playoff MVP your team would have to had made a deep run, at least to the conference finals. Kareem made it there 14 times, Russell nearly every year if not every year, Magic 10 times. Jordan did it 8 times--equal to Shaq and Bird. Russell definitely would have more than MJ and perhaps any of Kareem/Magic/Shaq/Bird.

Fatal9

12-02-2009, 04:13 AM

Roundball_Rock

12-02-2009, 04:18 AM

I still can't get over this....

Pippen + scrubs (I love Grant and BJ, but not as my second and third best players) came a BS call away from knocking out the BEST Knicks teams of the 90s. You could even say the '94 Knicks were the best Eastern conference team (other than the Bulls) between the 1991-1998 timespan. But Pippen + all-star caliber teammates would have trouble with 1992, 1993 Knicks and 1991 Pistons (who barely won 50 games)? Right...:oldlol:

90s East was there to be taken, and Pippen almost did with a sh*tty cast.

Exactly. He did it with scrubs at center and SG. Replace Pete Myers with Mitch Richmond (the second or third best SG of the 90's, not a D-League scrub like Myers), the revolving doors of scrubs at center with Rik Smits (who had a good record against the Knicks) and they don't win? :wtf: Ignore Kevin Johnson being the starting PG and Armstrong the 6th man for a moment...Richmond+Smits alone is more than enough.

Of course these are the same people who were in the 94' Bulls thread a few months ago claiming they wouldn't have gotten to the finals even without the Hollins' call when nearly every non-MJ fan agreed they would have gotten there, with some having them winning.

Fatal9

12-02-2009, 04:29 AM

This is why Jordan's "6 Finals MVPs" have never impressed me as much as they should. The East could be won year after year by replacing him with any number of players (including almost with Pete Myers :oldlol:). You can keep arguing the "impact" of Finals MVPs all you want, while ignoring context completely. This is without even mentioning how lucky he was to have the defense the Bulls (Pippen especially) provided for him to shoot 40-42% year after year in the finals during the second three-peat and still WIN. Look at Jordan's production against #1 defenses during the 90s (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=136345), it's putrid. Those were usually the touighest teams the Bulls would face and you mean to tell me that his flat out CHUCKING could not be replaced by multiple all-stars? :roll:

OldSchoolBBall

12-02-2009, 04:35 AM

I still can't get over this....

Pippen + scrubs (I love Grant and BJ, but not as my second and third best players) came a BS call away from knocking out the BEST Knicks teams of the 90s.

The call was in game 5, and wouldn't have decided the series.

OldSchoolBBall

12-02-2009, 04:38 AM

This is why Jordan's "6 Finals MVPs" have never impressed me as much as they should. The East could be won year after year by replacing him with any number of players

:roll: :roll:

Fatal9

12-02-2009, 04:42 AM

Roundball_Rock

12-02-2009, 04:42 AM

The call was in game 5, and wouldn't have decided the series.

:roll: Only a MJ fan would say that.

The home team won every game that series. The Bulls go up 3-2 in Game 5 as they justly should have and Game 6 was in Chicago (the Bulls won it). Only MJ fans think the Bulls would have lost that game. The Bulls had home court, were great there, and that game would be Chicago Stadium's last if they lost.

Fatal, do you have that 94' thread saved or remember its title? I want to read it again for comedic purposes. The consensus was they would beat the Knicks, beat Indiana and get to the finals at minimum. The only dissenters were insecure MJ fans who can't admit that the "clear GOAT" retired and his team was NBA finals worthy without him thanks to the great #33.

Roundball, the 1993 Knicks could never be beaten by Pippen and an all-star supporting cast. Jordan's 40% shooting (35.2% in five of those games) could never be replaced. Jordan failing to make a single FG in the fourth quarter (he was 0-7) of the close out game (while Pippen made shot after shot, including the game clinching three pointer) could never be replaced. Jordan laying eggs when his team was on the verge of being swept could never be replaced. Jordan did "create" for his teammates that series, but it's not like KJ could ever do that . You just don't get it, you could give the Bulls our entire Navy and Jordan would still be irreplaceable. Just look at how easily a better version of the Knicks dispatched of them in '94.

:oldlol: Exactly. You have a knack for saying in one paragraph what it takes me 4-5 to say. :toast:

But seriously, two scenarios I would have loved to see is the one that this thread outlined, while the other is Kareem playing in the same situation as Jordan did. Wonder who would be the "inarguable" GOAT then?

Yeah. I wish they pulled the trigger. We wouldn't have to deal with all these bandwagon MJ fans if he were another Dominique scoring 30 ppg on also rans (some MJ fans are legit but let's face it, most of them are bandwagon fans. It is no coincidence many of them now love Lebron). Hell, many of these same people would be Pippen fans today since Pip would be the best player on the dominant team of the 90's under this scenario. :roll:

Kareem with the best team in the league for a decade in his prime? That would be criminal! Add his longevity, add his early success and Kareem would be to basketball what Gretzky is to hockey.

Of course they would cling to another criteria then. That is what this FMVP stuff is about. They know no other superstar in NBA history has been as lucky as Jordan and it is unlikely anyone will ever have enough luck to win 6 FMVP's. If he had 0 or just 1 they would likely cling to ppg as their chief criterion in determining GOAT status.

Fatal9

12-02-2009, 04:48 AM

The call was in game 5, and wouldn't have decided the series.
3-2 lead for the Bulls with a chance to knockout the Knicks at home, where the Knicks were 1-4 all year (and the only victory came in the meaningless last game of the season where Knicks held the tiebreakers). Who would YOU bet on in this scenario, especially after witnessing how they got destroyed the next game anyways?

Roundball_Rock

12-02-2009, 04:57 AM

The worst call in NBA history? ESPN readers think so. http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/readers/worstcalls.html

:oldlol: Google "Hue Hollins" and "Hue Hollins calls foul against Scottie Pippen" automatically comes up as the first or second option. Click on it. Get this: the call is so bad that even overseas people know it! I am not talking about basketball bastions like Europe or China or Argentina. Pakistan. Even in Pakistan the call is a disgrace (5th link)! What does THAT tell you?

http://www.apakistannews.com/hue-hollins-calls-foul-against-scottie-pippen-2-123086

Granted, it was under "US News" but the fact they think this was a major American story--15 years after it happened--is revealing.

Fatal9

12-02-2009, 05:03 AM

Fatal, do you have that 94' thread saved or remember its title?
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=136085

Gotta love the die-hard Bulls "fans" (with a Bulls avatar and everything) defending the call :oldlol:. You'll note all reasonable, non-MJ fans said they make at least the finals. If not for that single bullsh*t call, and Bulls end up going all the way...does Jordan even bother to ever come back? I mean that's gotta be a blow to your pride after everyone called you the greatest and everything. And even more concerning, how would the Jordan DVDs explain his team winning after he was replaced by a scrub? It was a legacy-saving call for Jordan.

Roundball_Rock

12-02-2009, 05:13 AM

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=136085

Gotta love the die-hard Bulls "fans" (with a Bulls avatar and everything) defending the call :oldlol:. You'll note all reasonable, non-MJ fans said they make at least the finals. If not for that single bullsh*t call, and Bulls end up going all the way...does Jordan even bother to ever come back? I mean that's gotta be a blow to your pride after everyone called you the greatest and everything. And even more concerning, how would the Jordan DVDs explain his team winning after he was replaced by a scrub? It had a huge impact on the legacies of both Pippen and Jordan, and luck would have it, it ended up in Jordan's favor.

:oldlol: Come into a Bulls game thread sometime. 90% of the "usual suspect" MJ fans are never in them...

Yeah, would MJ come back? They were champs without him or at least runner-ups and he would be expected to match that in 95'. If they lost in the second round (if Grant left--if the Bulls were champs he may have re-signed to go for 5 straight rings) that would look very bad for MJ. Since the Bulls were a 6th place team in 95' with the loss of Grant and having no rebounding/interior D there were no real expectations for MJ in 95'. He could come in out the blue and play the savior. If they won, it would be due to him. If they lost, it would be "rust." (historical footnote: the Bulls did better in the 94' playoffs than the 95' playoffs. This has been airbrushed from the "official" story) He had nothing to lose; he would if he came back after they went to the finals the year before.

Personally I think he would come back (especially if, nah...) but it would be a lose-neutral situation. If they won again it would be par for the course; if they did worse it would look bad. The "clear GOAT" comes back and the Bulls do worse?

People always talk about things like Game 6 of the 02' WCF (legitimately imo, that was fishy as hell) but they forget the big picture ramifications of Game 5 of the 94' ECSF. It was in the NBA's interest to have New York in the finals that year (as it was in 99' with the BS LJ 4 point play). "Scottie and scrubs" would not make for great television. Scottie in the finals would be par for the course and no one would tune in to watch Pete Myers or Luc Longley.

94' is what annoys me when I hear people say nonsense like "Pippen could not lead a championship" team. He was on his way to proving that but got robbed in 94'. They also forget the 2000 WCF because it was formally the WCF. In reality that was the NBA finals for that year (and basically every year of the 00's until 04' when Detroit emerged in the East). Do you think they lose with prime Pippen???

Don't forget Jackson. The knock on him is he always had at least one top 3 and another top 15 player on all his title teams. If he won with Grant as his second best player, Armstrong his third best, a D-Leaguer as his starting SG, a committee of 6/4/2 type scrubs at center that one knock against him would be gone.

Roundball_Rock

12-02-2009, 05:38 AM

Fatal I skimmed the thread. Here is what I found regarding whether people believed they could get to the finals if Hollins didn't rob them:

non-MJ fans: 9-0
non-MJ/non-Pip fans: 7-0 (excluding Pippen fans like us)
MJ fans: 0-8
Knick fan: 0-1

Wow! The numbers speak for themselves. The next time they complain about Pippen fans diminishing Jordan (a response to their crusade against Pip) I am going to link them to that thread. That says it all. Every non-MJ fan had the 94' Bulls going to the finals (some had them winning it). Zero MJ fans had the Bulls in the finals.

Blzrfn

12-02-2009, 05:52 AM

Quote "I've already said the 95-97 teams weren't as good as the 92-94. IMO if its not for the 92 Bulls, the Knicks beat the Cavs and Blazers to win a title. If its not for the 93 Bulls, the Knicks beat the Suns for the title. And like you mentioned earlier, they were one shot away from beating the Rockets in 94. They were a great team. You have mentioned yourself that you weren't even watching before 94, so you didn't even see the best of them." Quote

I am not so sure that the Knicks would have beaten Portland in 1992, especially since the Blazers would have had home court, and the fact that they were there before. I am not even that sure if they would have beaten Cleveland in 92 because they had a pretty good team with Price, Daugherty, and Larry Nance.

zabuza666

12-02-2009, 07:43 AM

How many titles would this team have won in the 90's?

PF Horace Grant or Charles Oakley
SF Scottie Pippen
C Rik Smits
SG Mitch Richmond
PG Kevin Johnson

This almost happened with the Bulls. The Bulls seriously considered trading Jordan to the Clippers. Sterling wanted a big draw to compete with the Lakers and Magic. What bigger draw was there than MJ? The Bulls believed they could win a championship faster without a player who, er, "dominated the ball" less (Krause: "If we had Akeem [Hakeem] Olajuwon we would already have won a championship by now) who also was "not very nice" to his teammates and didn't listen to the coach. The idea was to trade MJ for high draft picks to the Clippers and then use them to select Smits and Richmond. With MJ gone the ball would be freed up, and they would have depth, so they could go after a legit PG like Kevin Johnson. Krause believed they could have obtained Johnson from the Cavs for either Oakley or Grant. Keep in mind KJ was a 9/2/5.5 player in 88' so it is more feasible than it looks.

Alternatively, with Smits taken with their first or second pick they would have no need to use their original pick (#11) on Will Perdue. They would be set at PF, SF, C, SG. That leaves PG. They could have taken Rod Strickland with that pick.

The Bulls would have (under the KJ scenario) the best SF of the 90's, the second or third best SG (obviously MJ was the best and Drexler also had a case over Richmond), second or third best PG (Payton was the best and Stockton also had a case over prime KJ), and two all-star level big men who were top 10 at their positions in the 90's. Three superstars and two very good big men!

This is the Bulls' side of the equation. What would have become of Jordan if he were on the Clippers? He would have made them a big attraction, kind of like Gretzky did with the Kings but how much would he have won there? Would he have tolerated perennial mediocrity there or demanding a trade? If so, what would be a likely destination for him? Would he be considered the majority GOAT today if he went to the Clippers and never won a ring?

In the end Reinsdorf vetoed a trade solely on financial grounds: MJ was worth too much $$$$ in fan attendance.

They would have won 0 titles, as the team Jordan went to would get them all.

Happy?

Da_Realist

12-02-2009, 11:34 AM

Roundball, the 1993 Knicks could never be beaten by Pippen and an all-star supporting cast. Jordan's 40% shooting (35.2% in five of those games) could never be replaced. Jordan failing to make a single FG in the fourth quarter (he was 0-7) of the close out game (while Pippen made shot after shot, including the game clinching three pointer) could never be replaced. Jordan laying eggs when his team was on the verge of being swept could never be replaced. Jordan did "create" for his teammates that series, but it's not like KJ could ever do that :rolleyes:. You just don't get it, you could give the Bulls our entire Navy and Jordan would still be irreplaceable. Just look at how easily a better version of the Knicks dispatched of them in '94.

But seriously, two scenarios I would have loved to see is the one that this thread outlined, while the other is Kareem playing in the same situation as Jordan did. Wonder who would be the "inarguable" GOAT then?

The height of hypocrisy. :oldlol:

Jordan vs Knicks 1993
32.1 pts, 6.2 rebs, 7.0 asts, 2.5 stls, 1.0 blk, 3.0 to's on 40.0 fg%

Pippen vs Knicks 1994
23.3 pts, 7.6 rebs, 5.9 asts, 1.9 stls, 0.6 blk, 3.3 to's on 40.4 fg%

So Jordan is getting raked over the coals for having his team "carry" him while Pippen is lauded as a hero for "dragging" his undermanned team to a near-upset? :oldlol: Jordan had better averages in everything except rebounds over what Pippen produced in 94. In fact, Mr ballhog averaged more ASSISTS than Pippen and less turnovers. :wtf: And he had the series biggest assist -- to BJ Armstrong near the end of Game 5 to give the Bulls a one-point lead before the doberman's closed it out defensively. The assist to win THE crucial game of the series? Along with a triple double???

In fact, Jordan led the team in assists against the Knicks in 93. Wasn't Pippen the point-forward during this series? So then how could Jordan average more assists when he handled the ball LESS??? How can this be when he was a selfish ballhog?

If I'm only going to get 40 fg% out of my main guy, I'll take the one with more points, more assists, more steals, more blocks and less turnovers. But that's me.

One other thing. Watch those games in 94. That Kukoc deal in Game 3 was not the only thing Pippen was getting criticized for during that series. Pippen folded in the clutch so much the Knicks were BRAGGING about it between games!

Check this out --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOXKxNdLPFc

It's bad quality so I'll just type out what was said...

Michael Jordan

"...but at some point in time, everyone has to make the decision to move forward away from games -- either be it your choice or someone ele's choice. And...I've just been fortunate that I can make that choice now"

Marv Albert

Michael Jordan's decision left Scottie Pippen with no choice. Step forward and lead the Bulls to a 4th straight NBA title. It was a golden opportunity to shake the shadow of his predecessor. That opportunity is being tarnished and the Knicks are claiming responsibility. For three quarters, they have sent Pippen a message -- "Get it while you can. Because in the final 12 minutes -- you're ours." They have silenced Chicago's go-to guy in the fourth quarter. His game was nowhere to be found.

Pippen's vanishing act was most noticeable in Game 3. The team leader choosing to be a spectator with 1.8 seconds left. The outcome of the game didn't seem to be his top priority. Unlike Toni Kukoc, who electrified the Chicago faithful with a breath of life. A breath that could have been extinguished due to Pippen's selfish act. If this is how he leads by example, could this be the Bull's last celebration of the year?

Now let's look at how Jordan's absence affected the team since that's Roundball's way of determining "impact".

1993 w Jordan = 6 game win

1994 w/o Jordan = 7 game loss

1993 w Jordan = Pippen 22.5 pts, 6.7 rebs, 4.0 asts, 1.8 stls, 0.5 blks, 4.0 to's on 51 fg%

1994 w/o Jordan = Pippen 23.3 pts, 7.6 rebs, 5.9 asts, 1.9 stls, 0.6 blk, 3.3 to's on 40 fg%

Wow. His averages pretty much stayed the same but his fg% was MUCH higher with Jordan on the floor. Does this suggest that Pippen benefited from Jordan being the primary focus of the Knicks defense in 93? In 93, Pippen came through -- had big games during the ones in which Jordan struggled shooting the ball. The next year, with Pippen being the focus -- the "clear" no. 1 option -- he was held by pretty much the same team to a -11% fg pct drop while the Knicks bragged that he couldn't beat them at the end of games.

Can this be used as determing Jordan's "impact"? Or is there some excuse?

EricForman

12-02-2009, 12:21 PM

The height of hypocrisy. :oldlol:

Jordan vs Knicks 1993
32.1 pts, 6.2 rebs, 7.0 asts, 2.5 stls, 1.0 blk, 3.0 to's on 40.0 fg%

Pippen vs Knicks 1994
23.3 pts, 7.6 rebs, 5.9 asts, 1.9 stls, 0.6 blk, 3.3 to's on 40.4 fg%

So Jordan is getting raked over the coals for having his team "carry" him while Pippen is lauded as a hero for "dragging" his undermanned team to a near-upset? :oldlol: Jordan had better averages in everything except rebounds over what Pippen produced in 94. In fact, Mr ballhog averaged more ASSISTS than Pippen and less turnovers. :wtf: And he had the series biggest assist -- to BJ Armstrong near the end of Game 5 to give the Bulls a one-point lead before the doberman's closed it out defensively. The assist to win THE crucial game of the series? Along with a triple double???

In fact, Jordan led the team in assists against the Knicks in 93. Wasn't Pippen the point-forward during this series? So then how could Jordan average more assists when he handled the ball LESS??? How can this be when he was a selfish ballhog?

If I'm only going to get 40 fg% out of my main guy, I'll take the one with more points, more assists, more steals, more blocks and less turnovers. But that's me.

One other thing. Watch those games in 94. That Kukoc deal in Game 3 was not the only thing Pippen was getting criticized for during that series. Pippen folded in the clutch so much the Knicks were BRAGGING about it between games!

Check this out --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOXKxNdLPFc

It's bad quality so I'll just type out what was said...

Michael Jordan

"...but at some point in time, everyone has to make the decision to move forward away from games -- either be it your choice or someone ele's choice. And...I've just been fortunate that I can make that choice now"

Marv Albert

Michael Jordan's decision left Scottie Pippen with no choice. Step forward and lead the Bulls to a 4th straight NBA title. It was a golden opportunity to shake the shadow of his predecessor. That opportunity is being tarnished and the Knicks are claiming responsibility. For three quarters, they have sent Pippen a message -- "Get it while you can. Because in the final 12 minutes -- you're ours." They have silenced Chicago's go-to guy in the fourth quarter. His game was nowhere to be found.

Pippen's vanishing act was most noticeable in Game 3. The team leader choosing to be a spectator with 1.8 seconds left. The outcome of the game didn't seem to be his top priority. Unlike Toni Kukoc, who electrified the Chicago faithful with a breath of life. A breath that could have been extinguished due to Pippen's selfish act. If this is how he leads by example, could this be the Bull's last celebration of the year?

Now let's look at how Jordan's absence affected the team since that's Roundball's way of determining "impact".

1993 w Jordan = 6 game win

1994 w/o Jordan = 7 game loss

1993 w Jordan = Pippen 22.5 pts, 6.7 rebs, 4.0 asts, 1.8 stls, 0.5 blks, 4.0 to's on 51 fg%

1994 w/o Jordan = Pippen 23.3 pts, 7.6 rebs, 5.9 asts, 1.9 stls, 0.6 blk, 3.3 to's on 40 fg%

Wow. His averages pretty much stayed the same but his fg% was MUCH higher with Jordan on the floor. Does this suggest that Pippen benefited from Jordan being the primary focus of the Knicks defense in 93? In 93, Pippen came through -- had big games during the ones in which Jordan struggled shooting the ball. The next year, with Pippen being the focus -- the "clear" no. 1 option -- he was held by pretty much the same team to a -11% fg pct drop while the Knicks bragged that he couldn't beat them at the end of games.

Can this be used as determing Jordan's "impact"? Or is there some excuse?

Wow, Realist. That was brutal. i think you just did the fatality on roundball and fatal9

Roundball_Rock

12-02-2009, 02:27 PM

The height of hypocrisy.

Jordan vs Knicks 1993
32.1 pts, 6.2 rebs, 7.0 asts, 2.5 stls, 1.0 blk, 3.0 to's on 40.0 fg%

Pippen vs Knicks 1994
23.3 pts, 7.6 rebs, 5.9 asts, 1.9 stls, 0.6 blk, 3.3 to's on 40.4 fg%

Hypocrisy is comparing a player whose first job is to facilitate for others with someone who is chiefly a scorer. It is funny how people can realize this when it comes to formal PG's but fail to realize it regarding de facto PG's like Pippen simply because he was listed as a SF.

Regarding assists, after taking 57 shots on around 30% shooting in the first two games Jordan did start passing the ball more. He had 11 assists in game 3, limited himself to shooting "only" 18 times (17%) while Pippen shot 83%.

Jordan wasn't "carried" by Pippen in the 93' ECF--just as Jordan rarely "carried" Pippen. Pippen was just more valuable in that series, just like Jordan was in most Bulls series.

Does this suggest that Pippen benefited from Jordan being the primary focus of the Knicks defense in 93?

Get your story straight. I thought the MJ fan story was the Knicks homed in on Pippen because he was "soft". Now the story is they basically left him alone to kill them? :oldlol:

The 93' team had more firepower. Other than Pippen there was no good scorer on the 94' team. Armstrong was okay, Grant averaged more points than Armstrong but when you factor in what he got from put backs it was Armstrong who was the bigger threat. The 94' team had a D-League (CBA) player as the starting SG so there was no offensive production from the SG and C positions. Of course it is easier for a team to focus on one scoring threat as opposed to two. The original post hypothesized the Bulls having 3 great scorers and a very good fourth one in Smits. Funny how this depth was ignored for 10 pages or however long this thread was by MJ fans and now MJ's contribution to depth is invoked.

Still, you raised good points. Too bad that series is an outlier. His 94' shooting percentage (72 games) was better than his 93' percentage (81 games). What about 95' when Jordan came back? He shot 50% in February (13 games), 52% in March (15 games, MJ came back in the middle of the month), and 49% in April (10 games). There was no increase in his shooting percentage due to Jordan's return.

You posted quotes. How about some from 93'?

Sports Illustrated headline: "A versatile star led the Bulls to a 4-2 elimination of the Knicks, and he wasn't named Jordan"

It was not surprising that Jordan was able to pick up Pippen, of course; such acts are part of Superman's daily agenda. But it was intriguing to see Pippen step into the temporary vacuums left by the sometimes physically exhausted and mentally overburdened Jordan (page 13). For the first time in Chicago's three successive marches into the NBA Finals, in fact, a Bull other than Jordan would have deserved to be named MVP in a playoff series, were such an honor awarded for a series other than the Finals.

The spotlight will inevitably be trained on Jordan and his superstar counterpart, Charles Barkley of the Phoenix Suns, in the 1993 NBA Finals, which began in Phoenix on Wednesday. But if Jordan's shaky shooting continues—a career 52% shooter, he made only 40% of his shots against the Knicks—Pippen's number will be called, again and again.

During the decisive Game 6 of the Eastern Conference finals, for example, it was not Jordan who made the big second-half shots but Pippen, he of the supposedly crumbling-cookie composure. When the Knicks, having almost eliminated a seven-point deficit, threatened to steal the game late in the fourth period, two Pippen jumpers with the shot clock almost at zero bailed out the Bulls. The first came from the deep right corner just after Pippen had flashed a smirk at Knick superfan Spike Lee, sitting at courtside. The second, a three-pointer from beyond the top of the key, was followed by Pippen's raising his index finger and glancing at Starks with another Were you there? expression on his face. Boy, the Knicks must've felt like killing Pippen.

Then again, that was precisely their strategy as the series began. And it will most likely be the plan employed by the Suns, though not as overtly. Look for Phoenix guard Dan Majerle, among others, to bang Pippen around physically, and look for the Suns' suddenly feisty point guard Kevin Johnson to get in Pippen's face a time or two. "It's no secret," says Bull coach Phil Jackson. "So goes Scottie Pippen, so goes Chicago." Nothing like a little pressure, eh, Pip?

Yet MJ fans can't even concede that Pippen was more valuable than Jordan in even one of the numerous series they played together. :oldlol:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1138680/index.htm

A final point, no one is saying the 94' team was better without Jordan. If he played they would have won a 4th championship. The argument is the Bulls without Jordan suffered less than any other team who lost a top-tier great in/near his prime (whether due to injury, trade, or retirement). What MJ fans fail to realize is they inadvertently lend credence to this. The 94' team being so strong could be explained by Pippen just being that good and being able to raise his game. Jordan fans say Pip was just a run-of-the-mill all-star*. Recap: Jordan retires, is replaced by a CBA (90's D-League) scrub as SG and the team remains a top five team. Jordan is replaced as team leader by a run-of-the-mill all-star, think Ray Allen. That leaves only one logical conclusion yet Jordan fans amusingly fail to realize it. The best "diminishers" of Jordan, at least regarding 94', are his biggest fans.

*I am talking generally. I know you respect Pip. Unfortunately, 90% of your fellow Jordan fans in this thread don't.

guy

12-02-2009, 02:53 PM

The 94' team being so strong could be explained by Pippen just being that good and being able to raise his game. Jordan fans say Pip was just a run-of-the-mill all-star*.

I think Da Realist was just trying show that its pretty ridiculous to go off on Jordan for having a bad series, when it was actually a better series then what Pippen had in 94 vs. Knicks, which is a series he's worshipped for.

Now name one reasonable Jordan fan that actually disagrees with the quoted? I've said this numerous times, while you on the other hand like to imply that Jordan's impact was literally just 2 games, and generally nitpick certain years of Jordan's career to bring him down. So who's the one being extreme here?

Roundball_Rock

12-02-2009, 03:00 PM

Now name one reasonable Jordan fan that actually disagrees with the quoted? I've said this numerous times, while you on the other hand like to imply that Jordan's impact was literally just 2 games, and generally nitpick certain years of Jordan's career to bring him down. So who's the one being extreme here?

Remember the "What if Hollins didn't rob the Bulls thread" from a few months ago? Fatal posted the link in this thread.

Roundball_Rock

Fatal I skimmed the thread. Here is what I found regarding whether people believed they could get to the finals if Hollins didn't rob them:

non-MJ fans: 9-0
non-MJ/non-Pip fans: 7-0 (excluding Pippen fans like us)
MJ fans: 0-8
Knick fan: 0-1

Wow! The numbers speak for themselves. The next time they complain about Pippen fans diminishing Jordan (a response to their crusade against Pip) I am going to link them to that thread. That says it all. Every non-MJ fan had the 94' Bulls going to the finals (some had them winning it). Zero MJ fans had the Bulls in the finals.

As I said, the numbers speak for themselves. Whenever Pippen is being bashed it is by Jordan fans 90% of the time. How do you not notice this when you often are in these threads?

Of course his impact was not literally 2 games. The point is his impact was less than that of the other top-tier grats.

I look at Jordan's whole record when comparing him to the other top-tier greats (notice that I always included him in that group). To me it makes no sense to look at only 6 years (since MJ fans pretend 95' never happened) and declare someone the GOAT. Jordan is strange in that his record as far as team success goes was amazing for 6 seasons, good for another 2-3 years, but horrible for another 5. He was individually great the whole time. What changed? The other greats were able to lift teams to greater heights. Jordan didn't do much until he got the perfect team.

Jordan joins the Bulls and they go from 27 wins to 38 wins. Jordan missed 4/5 of the 86' season and the Bulls slip to 30-52. The "greatest of all-time" comes back the next season and all he can lift them to is 40-42 and a first round sweep? +11, -8, +10. This is the impact of the "greatest of all-time"???? 94' is not an outlier. It is part of a trend. No one is saying he sucked. Everyone agrees he was a top-tier great and I have yet to see anyone not have him top 5 all-time (yes, Alpha Wolf has him 5th). All some of us are saying is he is not the superman he is made out to be by the mass media.

guy

12-02-2009, 03:53 PM

I look at Jordan's whole record when comparing him to the other top-tier greats (notice that I always included him in that group). To me it makes no sense to look at only 6 years (since MJ fans pretend 95' never happened) and declare someone the GOAT. Jordan is strange in that his record as far as team success goes was amazing for a 7 year stretch, good for another 2 years, but horrible for another 5. He was individually great the whole time. What changed? The other greats were able to lift teams to greater heights. Jordan didn't do much until he got the team.

Thats bulls***. You do look at only 6 years. You nitpick at the first 3 years of his careers where he was a rookie with crap for teammates, the last 2 years of his career where he was 39-40 with crap for teammates, and the difference between 93, where you disregard the widely known fact that Jordan/Pippen were burnt out and the Bulls coasted through the season, and 94, where the Bulls and Pippen in his absolute prime were hell bent on proving to everyone that they were still a great team without Jordan.

You then disregard or rarely bring up the following: the fact that in 1989 and 1990, he pushed the eventual champs in the ECF, with not much help. In 1991, he led the Bulls to 61 wins without another all-star. In 1995, an out of shape Jordan led them to 13-4 after they only went 34-31 before he returned, an improvement from a 43 win pace to 63 win pace, 20 games. the fact that with an in-shape Jordan and Dennis Rodman, the Bulls won 72 games, a 29 game improvement from the pre-Jordan pace in 95, which probably at least 2/3 of that improvement can be attributed to Jordan. That in 1998, an old Jordan with an old Bulls team, led them to a 56 win pace without Pippen (might make you wonder what he could've done if he was 28 years old). That in 2002, although they missed the playoffs due to injuries, at 39 years old he led the Wizards to an 18 game improvement, which would've been more had he not gotten injured (this also might make you wonder what he would've done if he was at 28 years old.) That whenever the Bulls needed a big game or clutch play, it was Jordan that responded and came through almost all the time (others did as well, but it was Jordan significantly most of the time.) You don't mention this stuff cause you clearly have an agenda. Don't pass yourself off as someone being fair.

And anyway, lets say we assume even without Jordan the Bulls were good for 55 wins every season with Pippen leading the way. How much would they need to win with Jordan for you to consider to him have an impact on par with the other greats? Would they need to win 75 games? 80? 82-0? You see how ridiculous that sounds.

LOL @ perfect team. They were great, absolutely amazing, but FAR from perfect. Perfect pieces for a lead SG is probably Kobe's current team, not a team that has a weak center and only one other reliable scorer that can give them 18-22 ppg.

Roundball_Rock

12-02-2009, 04:37 PM

You do look at only 6 years. You nitpick at the first 3 years of his careers where he was a rookie with crap for teammates, the last 2 years of his career where he was 39-40 with crap for teammates

Look at how many championships the rest of the top 10 all-time have:

Kareem 6
Jordan 6
Russell 11
Shaq 4
Bird 3
Magic 5
Wilt 2
Duncan 4
Hakeem 2
Kobe 4

So what with the notion that his 6 championships makes him the GOAT? All the top 10 greats won multiple rings, 8 of them 3+, 7 of them 4+. Many people here declare Jordan the GOAT based on 6 rings. That makes no sense when basically all the other top-tier greats had great success too. Playing a simple numbers game, 6>5, 6>3, 6>4 doesn't work either because you have to look at the context they won it in. Not everyone can have the dominant team of the decade for their prime.

You then disregard or rarely bring up the following: the fact that in 1989 and 1990, he pushed the eventual champs in the ECF, with not much help.

Which is great--if we are talking about a second or third tier great. He has to be judged relative his peers. KG going to the WCF in 04' is not the same as MJ doing it.

Regarding 89', the series was tied 2-2 when Jordan quit on the team in Game 5. MJ fans never acknowledge this and blame "the help" for them losing. Maybe if Jordan tried in that game--which they lost by single digits--they would have taken a 3-2 lead and perhaps made the finals. Why did Jordan quit anyway? He was taking 31% of the team's shots! Collins asked him to pass the ball, Jordan quit in Game 5 to prove a point a la Kobe against the Suns in Game 7 a few years ago.

You guys keep blaming his teammates for Jordan losing but ignore the role Jordan played in them not putting up big numbers. Read the Jordan Rules. Teammate after teammate (even MJ's great friend Charles Oakley...), coaches, even NBA players with friends on the Bulls say you cannot do much because Jordan hogs the ball so much. It is a valid criticism: how can someone produce when they barely get any shots?

In 1991, he led the Bulls to 61 wins without another all-star.

Misleading. Pippen was better in 91' than in 90', when he became an all-star. He averaged 22/9/6 in the playoffs. That isn't an all-star? Don't take my word for it, though. Ask Chuck Daly. The first round of players he wanted for the Dream Team were Jordan, Magic, Bird, David Robinson, and Pippen in that order. Magic was retired, Bird past his prime. They were there for leadership and out of respect for their accomplishments. So effectively Pippen was his third real choice and second among perimeter players. Pippen. Not Drexler, not John Stockton, not Kevin Johnson, not Mullin, not Dominique Wilkins, and so on. Based on 91' Daly concluded Pippen was better than all these guys when all of them were in their primes and Pippen yet to his prime.

In 1995, an out of shape Jordan led them to 13-4 after they only went 34-31 before he returned, an improvement from a 43 win pace to 63 win pace, 20 games.

That sounds great until you remember they got hot before Jordan came back. They were on a 8-2 roll before him and went 13-4 with him. That is basically the same. Jordan fans make it sound as if it was Jordan that got the team rolling.

the fact that with an in-shape Jordan and Dennis Rodman, the Bulls won 72 games, a 29 game improvement from the pre-Jordan pace in 95, which probably at least 2/3 of that improvement can be attributed to Jordan.

Not if you looked at the Bulls' problem in 95'. The problem was rebounding and interior defense. Jordan did nothing to improve these things; Rodman did. With just Jordan they lost to Orlando; with Rodman they swept Orlando the next year. Yet the increase is attributed solely to Jordan by MJ fans even though Jordan was there in 95'.

The "rust" excuse doesn't fly. Jordan's playoff record in 95' was better than his record in 96'. Let's get real. No team is going to win a championship when its leading rebounder averages 8 boards and is a SF and their second best rebounder is a SG.

That in 1998, an old Jordan with an old Bulls team, led them to a 56 win pace without Pippen (might make you wonder what he could've done if he was 28 years old)

56 wins. They won 69 the previous year. That is a decline of 13--a greater decline than when Jordan retired or got hurt (-2, -8). Is the argument that 94' Pippen>98' Jordan?

That in 2002, although they missed the playoffs due to injuries, at 39 years old he led the Wizards to an 18 game improvement, which would've been more had he not gotten injured

What you didn't mention is they lacked stability in 2001.. Mitch Richmond played in only 37 games, Juwan Howard and Rod Strickland got traded at mid-season. So arguably their three best players were either hurt or traded.

Still, he did have some impact in Washington. That raises the question: if he could do it then why not when he was younger? Maybe it is because he "dominated" less when he was older? Or perhaps it was an outlier.

That whenever the Bulls needed a big game or clutch play, it was Jordan that responded and came through almost all the time (others did as well, but it was Jordan significantly most of the time.) You don't mention this stuff cause you clearly have an agenda

Agenda is conspiratorial. Bias? Yes. I can admit it. Can you? Read that thread yourself. Every non-MJ fan has the 94' Bulls going to the finals; zero MJ fans do. What does that tell you? You won't admit it because you were one of the MJ fans talking down on the team.

I don't mention that because everyone knows it.

Jordan won 5 MVP's, all-NBA numbers times, etc. What you did is make a case for him being a great player. No one disputes that. When you compare his record with that of his peers that is where he falls short, at least in terms of impact.

I find it hard to believe the "greatest of all-time" joins a team and they improve just 11 games, he gets hurt they drop only 8 games, he comes back and the improvement is only +10 and then he retires and the team remains a top-five team. When you compare that to the other top-tier greats (i.e. when Kareem got hurt his team went 3-14 without him, a measly 14 win pace and with him they were 35-30, a 44 win pace. That is +30.) it is striking.

lets say we assume even without Jordan the Bulls were good for 55 wins every season with Pippen leading the way. How much would they need to win with Jordan for you to consider to him have an impact on par with the other greats?

Look it up yourself. See how their teams did before them and after them. See how they did when they were hurt. When I did that I no longer considered Jordan the GOAT. I can see others doing it, but like I said, I don't buy the "greatest of all-time" only being able to improve the team 8-11 wins.

LOL @ perfect team. They were great, absolutely amazing, but FAR from perfect. Perfect pieces for a lead SG is probably Kobe's current team, not a team that has a weak center and only one other reliable scorer that can give them 18-22 ppg.

Different eras. There are a few stacked teams today (LA, Orlando, Boston, San Antonio) although I agree Kobe has a perfect team (not in a literal sense--they have a weak PG but in a relative sense. They clearly have the best team in the league. Jordan did not have a perfect team in a literal sense either).

In the 90's there was only one dominant team. Jordan had the best SF of the 90's/GOAT perimeter defender, GOAT coach, GOAT rebounder, best 6th man, and best three point shooter. Who had a better team, other than the two year Shaq/Penny run in Orlando? Jordan had a team where its second best player was better than or approximately equal to the best player on the other team (unless the other team had Hakeem or Shaq). Who else had such a luxury? Stockton and Malone is comparable, Shaq/Penny for a brief period but that is it.

Soundwave

12-02-2009, 04:46 PM

I think Bulls still could've beaten the Magic in '95 even without Rodman if Jordan had a full season to get into real basketball shape actually.

They had chances to win that series, but in the end it all worked out I suppose, as without that, I'm not sure 72-10 the next year and sweet, sweet redemption happens the exact same way.

Abraham Lincoln

12-02-2009, 04:48 PM

GOAT rebounder

Wilt & Russell never played for the Bulls.

Roundball_Rock

12-02-2009, 04:54 PM

Arguably GOAT rebounder (all "GOATs" are arguably). He does have the record for % of rebounds grabbed. He doesn't have the RPG, but that is because of the slower pace of the 90's. Even if he is not the GOAT rebounder he clearly was the best rebounder of his generation. Jordan had the best SF, best rebounder, best three point shooter, and arguably even the best 6th man of the 90's all on his team.

The Bulls were desperate enough to trade for a guy who was such a cancer in San Antonio that they were willing to take a scrub (Will Perdue) for him. This alone is revealing. They didn't think waiting for Jordan to "shake off his rust" would be enough.

Abraham Lincoln

12-02-2009, 04:56 PM

Even if he is not the GOAT rebounder he clearly was the best rebounder of his generation. Right next to Barkley. :cheers:

Blzrfn

12-02-2009, 05:56 PM

This is a good Jordan WI, but a better one would be:

What if Jordan waited until 1985 to enter the NBA Draft?

I heard that he almost did when I read a book about the 84 Draft. He made the decision to come out at the last minute.

Roundball_Rock

12-02-2009, 06:04 PM

What if Jordan waited until 1985 to enter the NBA Draft?

I heard that he almost did when I read a book about the 84 Draft. He made the decision to come out at the last minute.

That is a good one and thread worthy on its own.

In 85' there is no way the Knicks were going to take Jordan over Ewing but him going #2 to Indiana would be possible. If they skipped him then it would be the Clippers a #3. :oldlol:

Jordan in Indiana would be interesting. That team did become a contender with Miller (of course with MJ there they would have no need to draft Miller) and Jordan could win championships there. The caveat is the Pacers drafted Smits, the second best player on those mid to late 90's Pacers teams, with the #2 pick in 88'. With Jordan there they would not have had a high enough pick. Without Smits it would be Jordan, Schrempf, and Chuck Person in the late 80's and early 90's. That is a solid core but championship worthy?

Of course the Clippers are the Clippers and he wouldn't have won any titles there.

Soundwave

12-02-2009, 06:07 PM

xcesswee

12-02-2009, 07:10 PM

Jordan and Kareem are GOAT. I'll put Jordan slightly ahead because I am biased and saw him play more than Kareem. But putting kareem ahead of jordan wouldn't be that wrong of an opinion

xcesswee

12-02-2009, 07:14 PM

So what with the notion that his 6 championships makes him the GOAT? All the top 10 greats won multiple rings, 8 of them 3+, 7 of them 4+. Many people here declare Jordan the GOAT based on 6 rings. That makes no sense when basically all the other top-tier greats had great success too. Playing a simple numbers game, 6>5, 6>3, 6>4 doesn't work either because you have to look at the context they won it in. Not everyone can have the dominant team of the decade for their prime.

It's his six championships along with his numbers that make him in many people's eyes the greatest. Also, IMO the reason why he's greater than everyone else is he had so many BIG AND MEMORABLE games in the biggest stages of the NBA Playoffs. He hit so many big shots and had so many clutch moments throughout his NBA career. If you don't count the Wizard days, Jordan's career is almost like a hollywood story that you wouldn't think in million years would happen.

guy

12-02-2009, 07:17 PM

Look at how many championships the rest of the top 10 all-time have:

Kareem 6
Jordan 6
Russell 11
Shaq 4
Bird 3
Magic 5
Wilt 2
Duncan 4
Hakeem 2
Kobe 4

So what with the notion that his 6 championships makes him the GOAT? All the top 10 greats won multiple rings, 8 of them 3+, 7 of them 4+. Many people here declare Jordan the GOAT based on 6 rings. That makes no sense when basically all the other top-tier greats had great success too. Playing a simple numbers game, 6>5, 6>3, 6>4 doesn't work either because you have to look at the context they won it in. Not everyone can have the dominant team of the decade for their prime.

I think you misunderstood my post. I said that you nitpick on 6 years (85-87, 93, 02,03.) And if we're talking about prime, Jordan only had the dominant team for 3 years of his prime.

Which is great--if we are talking about a second or third tier great. He has to be judged relative his peers. KG going to the WCF in 04' is not the same as MJ doing it.

No its not cause KG actually had a really good squad in 04.

Regarding 89', the series was tied 2-2 when Jordan quit on the team in Game 5. MJ fans never acknowledge this and blame "the help" for them losing. Maybe if Jordan tried in that game--which they lost by single digits--they would have taken a 3-2 lead and perhaps made the finals. Why did Jordan quit anyway? He was taking 31% of the team's shots! Collins asked him to pass the ball, Jordan quit in Game 5 to prove a point a la Kobe against the Suns in Game 7 a few years ago.

I didn't read the book, like I said I will. The point is Jordan still wasn't working with much, got to the conference finals, and pushed the eventual champs and what some consider a top 10 team of all-time to 6 games. Thats impact.

You guys keep blaming his teammates for Jordan losing but ignore the role Jordan played in them not putting up big numbers. Read the Jordan Rules. Teammate after teammate (even MJ's great friend Charles Oakley...), coaches, even NBA players with friends on the Bulls say you cannot do much because Jordan hogs the ball so much. It is a valid criticism: how can someone produce when they barely get any shots?

I asked you before, what teammate of Jordan during those years ended up going somewhere else and started producing way more then they did with Jordan? No one, which means at the time (before Pippen and Grant developed more) his teammates sucked.

Misleading. Pippen was better in 91' than in 90', when he became an all-star. He averaged 22/9/6 in the playoffs. That isn't an all-star? Don't take my word for it, though. Ask Chuck Daly. The first round of players he wanted for the Dream Team were Jordan, Magic, Bird, David Robinson, and Pippen in that order. Magic was retired, Bird past his prime. They were there for leadership and out of respect for their accomplishments. So effectively Pippen was his third real choice and second among perimeter players. Pippen. Not Drexler, not John Stockton, not Kevin Johnson, not Mullin, not Dominique Wilkins, and so on. Based on 91' Daly concluded Pippen was better than all these guys when all of them were in their primes and Pippen yet to his his.

I said he led his team to 61 wins without an all-star in the regular season. I said nothing about playoffs. Sure, Pippen was an all-star the year before, and was actually better in 91, but that goes to show that Pippen still wasn't that great if him being an all-star in 91 wasn't considered a given. Pippen solidified himself in the 91 playoffs.

That sounds great until you remember they got hot before Jordan came back. They were on a 8-2 roll before him and went 13-4 with him. That is basically the same. Jordan fans make it sound as if it was Jordan that got the team rolling.

LOL. You really want to play that game? First of all, they didn't play anyone that great during those 10 games. They were playing bad teams or teams that were right on there level (in that 42-44 win range, which the Bulls were on before Jordan came back.) Second, I could do the exact same thing for the 98 season. The Bulls started off slow that year, probably cause of Pippen's absence and Jordan's injured hand, only going 8-7. They then went 16-4 until Pippen came back. So going by your logic that Jordan just tagged along for the ride in 1995, Pippen did the same in 98 and did not improve the team by 13 games.

Not if you looked at the Bulls' problem in 95'. The problem was rebounding and interior defense. Jordan did nothing to improve these things; Rodman did. With just Jordan they lost to Orlando; with Rodman they swept Orlando the next year. Yet the increase is attributed solely to Jordan by MJ fans even though Jordan was there in 95'.

It was also cause of Jordan being out of shape. He had a bad game 1 and game 6, which were very winnable games, and all 4 losses were pretty close. Game 1 they were only about 1 play away from winning. Game 6 especially when the Bulls were actually on the verge of winning that game, but Jordan got very unnoticeably and uncharacteristically tired and couldn't close them out. If you watch that game, its pretty clear he wasn't in the right shape. Rebounding and interior defense was a problem too though. I think if the Bulls had Jordan at full-strength OR Rodman or Grant, they win that series.

The "rust" excuse doesn't fly. Jordan's playoff record in 95' was better than his record in 96'. Let's get real. No team is going to win a championship when its leading rebounder averages 8 boards and is a SF and their second best rebounder is a SG.

So what are you trying to say? That there was no difference between Jordan in 95 and 96? I'm starting to wonder that maybe you actually started watching after 1994, cause the difference between Jordan in 95 and 96 was clear as day to anyone that saw it.

56 wins. They won 69 the previous year. That is a decline of 13--a greater decline than when Jordan retired or got hurt (-2, -8). Is the argument that 94' Pippen>98' Jordan?

Okay, so you are saying impact is judged by W-L solely ? LOL.

What you didn't mention is they lacked stability in 2001.. Mitch Richmond played in only 37 games, Juwan Howard and Rod Strickland got traded at mid-season. So arguably their three best players were either hurt or traded.

OMG get this crap out of here. When Rod Strickland stopped starting they were 5-23. When Juwan Howard left they were 13-41. Please stop with the excuses. So what are you saying? Without those 3 players they should in theory be a worse team. And they were ALL gone by the beginning of the 02 season. So in theory without those 3 players they would've been even worse then 19-63 in 01. Howard and Richmond were two of their best players. So the 18 game turnaround is actually understated I guess in that case (which it already was since Jordan missed so many games.)

Its funny you use stability too. Look at the 1979 Celtics, and tell me how stable they were. How about the 1992 Lakers?

Still, he did have some impact in Washington. That raises the question: if he could do it then why not when he was younger? Maybe it is because he "dominated" less when he was older? Or perhaps it was an outlier.

You don't think Jordan from 88-98 instead of 02 makes that team much better?

Hmmm, its funny you've used the word outlier alot. If you believe in outliers, isn't there a chance the 94 season the Bulls had was an outlier?

Agenda is conspiratorial. Bias? Yes. I can admit it. Can you? Read that thread yourself. Every non-MJ fan has the 94' Bulls going to the finals; zero MJ fans do. What does that tell you? You won't admit it because you were one of the MJ fans talking down on the team.

I don't mention that because everyone knows it.

When was I ever talking down on the team? I gave them their credit. I just don't think if that game 5 call goes the other way, that automatically means they win that series, the series after that, and the series after that. I find it funny how some people think that if that one call doesn't happen, it would've automatically resulted in the Bulls winning 2-3 more playoff series.

Jordan won 5 MVP's, all-NBA numbers times, etc. What you did is make a case for him being a great player. No one disputes that. When you compare his record with that of his peers that is where he falls short, at least in terms of impact.

I find it hard to believe the "greatest of all-time" joins a team and they improve just 11 games, he gets hurt they drop only 8 games, he comes back and the improvement is only +10 and then he retires and the team remains a top-five team. When you compare that to the other top-tier teams (i.e. when Kareem got hurt his team went 3-14 without him, a measly 14 win pace and with him they were 35-30, a 44 win pace. That is +30.).

The Bulls were actually 9-9 in 1986 with Jordan, and were 21-43 without him. They were on pace for 41 wins with him and 27 wins without him. And even that win rate maybe understated since he didn't start 11 of those games, and played in limited minutes for some others. I would say 14 wins is impact, and that was Jordan in his early years. Did it ever occur to you that some players just develop differently? You keep comparing what happened to Jordan in his early years to what Kareem did. You realize Kareem arguably peaked within his first few years right?

Look it up yourself. See how their teams did before them and after them. See how they did when they were hurt. When I did that I no longer considered Jordan the GOAT. I can see others doing it, but like I said, I don't buy the "greatest of all-time" only being able to improve the team 8-11 wins.

To add to what I just said, there weren't many situations during Jordan's prime or 96-98 where this came up cause Jordan rarely missed games, except for the 94 season which has been explained by myself and others a million times. From 88-93, Jordan 7 games, and they went 1-6 in those. Small sample, but it gives you an idea what they missed when he wasn't around during that time. As far as others, there's other explanations in some of the cases you've mentioned that helped contribute to the record differences such as injuries, age, stability, etc. I believe I've cited examples of this in another post to you.

Different eras. There are a few stacked teams today (LA, Orlando, Boston, San Antonio) although I agree Kobe has a perfect team (not in a literal sense--they have a weak PG but in a relative sense. They clearly have the best team in the league. Jordan did not have a perfect team in a literal sense either).

Too bad he didn't have it for his whole or almost his whole career the way Magic and Bird did, or we might not be having this stupid argumetn right now.

guy

12-02-2009, 07:17 PM

In the 90's there was only one dominant team. Jordan had the best SF of the 90's/GOAT perimeter defender, GOAT coach, GOAT rebounder, best 6th man, and best three point shooter. Who had a better team, other than the two year Shaq/Penny run in Orlando?

LOL, its like you almost completely forgot the first 3 championships, where they did not have the GOAT rebounder or best 6th man or best 3pt shooter.

In the 60s there was one dominant team. In the 80s there were two dominant teams, that really didn't take too much from each other (at the most the Celtics cost the Lakers 1 title, and the Lakers cost them 2 titles, either way they wouldn't have more then 6.)

Jordan had a team where its second best player was better than or approximately equal to the best player on the other team (unless the other team had Hakeem or Shaq).

Or if there names were Magic, Barkley, Ewing (in certain years), Malone. And I'm just talking about teams they played in the playoffs.

Who else had such a luxury? Stockton and Malone is comparable, Shaq/Penny for a brief period but that is it.

Sounds alot like some of the luxuries all the great players had.

Da_Realist

12-02-2009, 09:08 PM

...

Good job

Abraham Lincoln

12-02-2009, 09:21 PM

You could even say the '94 Knicks were the best Eastern conference team (other than the Bulls) between the 1991-1998 timespan.

Sorry Bryant fan, but the '94 Knicks were no better than the '92 Knicks, the '93 Knicks, & especially the '97 Knicks. Fans were robbed of what would have been the grittiest Knicks/Bulls ECF showdown.

Roundball_Rock

12-02-2009, 09:49 PM

I think you misunderstood my post. I said that you nitpick on 6 years (85-87, 93, 02,03.) And if we're talking about prime, Jordan only had the dominant team for 3 years of his prime.

61, 67 wins isn't dominant?

No its not cause KG actually had a really good squad in 04.

You missed the point. The point is there is a difference between a great on the level of KG (or a Pippen, who is on that level) doing something and a top-tier great. If your expectations are the same for Lebron as a KG then you need to reassess how highly you rate the former.

The point is Jordan still wasn't working with much, got to the conference finals, and pushed the eventual champs and what some consider a top 10 team of all-time to 6 games.

Sure--but part of the problem was Jordan himself. For one there was a revolving door of guards there because Jordan was so "ball dominant" only certain types, i.e. spot up shooters like Paxson, could function with him. Then there is ballhogging problem which freezed the rest of the team out. On top of that there is the constant harsh criticism of teammates. He wasn't exactly a Steve Nash or Magic getting all he could out of his teammates. Jordan is such a folk hero his warts have been erased from history.

I asked you before, what teammate of Jordan during those years ended up going somewhere else and started producing way more then they did with Jordan?

Grant and Armstrong became all-stars when Jordan left, Pippen an MVP candidate. Orlando Woolridge had a 25 ppg season after Chicago, Threatt (who warned someone, I think it was Hopson, of the dangers of playing with MJ) produced more post-Chicago and Dave Corzine declined as soon as MJ came to town. They didn't start lighting the world on fire but they did produce more.

Obviously he didn't exactly have the 86' Celtics but part of the problem was him.

I said he led his team to 61 wins without an all-star in the regular season. I said nothing about playoffs. Sure, Pippen was an all-star the year before, and was actually better in 91, but that goes to show that Pippen still wasn't that great if him being an all-star in 91 wasn't considered a given. Pippen solidified himself in the 91 playoffs.

You don't dispute his production. So what if it took the media and others in the league some time to catch on? Do you think a player can show up one day and show himself as being an elite talent? It takes time to build a reputation. There are always players who show flashes of brilliance and then do nothing so people naturally are not going to declare someone great based on a good stretch.

Second, I could do the exact same thing for the 98 season.

You could. You don't see the premise. Pippen's impact is similar to Jordan's regardless of how you slice the "with/without" numbers.

It was also cause of Jordan being out of shape.

Sure he wasn't 100% but he was close and him being 100% would not have changed the outcome.

I agree they would have won that series (and at least made the finals) if they had a great rebounder, even with 85-90% MJ.

Of course there was a difference from 95' MJ and 96' MJ. This is what I say 95' was the only year Pippen was better than MJ.

Ok. I'll concede the 02' Wizards. Still, that raises the obvious question: why could old MJ have as much if not more W-L impact than young MJ?

The 94' Bulls were not outliers. 90 games is a sufficient sample size. If they had a good few games, yeah, but 90 games is definitely a sufficient sample.

I just don't think if that game 5 call goes the other way, that automatically means they win that series, the series after that, and the series after that. I find it funny how some people think that if that one call doesn't happen, it would've automatically resulted in the Bulls winning 2-3 more playoff series.

Again:

Non-MJ fans regarding whether the 94' Bulls would have made the finals: 9-0
MJ fans regarding whether the 94' Bulls would have made the finals: 0-8

That says it all.

I didn't count how many people said they would win the finals but it was a minority view. The reason people believe they would have beaten Indiana is because they crushed them in the regular season and clearly were the superior team. Who would you bet on? The 94' Pacers or 94' Bulls?

I would say 14 wins is impact, and that was Jordan in his early years.

14 wins is impact but it isn't "greatest of all-time" impact. 36 and 37 year old Scottie had similar impact (prime Scottie=+25-30 wins). No one is saying he had no impact. The question is did he have the impact of the other top-tier greats? You guys cite things he did that a second-tier great could do but fail to realize the irony. The "greatest of all-time" had an impact comparable to second-tier greats??

Did it ever occur to you that some players just develop differently? You keep comparing what happened to Jordan in his early years to what Kareem did. You realize Kareem arguably peaked within his first few years right?

The season I was referring to was Kareem's 6th or 7th season, not one of his few couple of years.

That is Kareem. What about Russell, Wilt, Bird, Magic, Shaq, Duncan, and Hakeem? The entire top 9 of all-time. Kobe came in as a high schooler and has only been hurt once so it is hard to assess him (the one time he did get hurt he had little impact).

Too bad he didn't have it for his whole or almost his whole career the way Magic and Bird did, or we might not be having this stupid argumetn right now.

Bird inherited a 29 win team and took it to the ECF and 56 wins as a rookie.

You do realize it is MJ fans who raise the team issue? If the team is to blame for him losing then the logical question is to ask what role the team played in him suddenly winning 6 straight titles in 6 full seasons.

LOL, its like you almost completely forgot the first 3 championships, where they did not have the GOAT rebounder or best 6th man or best 3pt shooter.

Yeah but they were close. Grant was very good. They arguably did have the best three point shooters, or at least among the best, in Hodges and Armstrong. 6th man is where they were much weaker than the second three-peat.

Or if there names were Magic, Barkley, Ewing (in certain years), Malone. And I'm just talking about teams they played in the playoffs.

Yeah, because there was a long list of teams with players better than Pippen. :oldlol: Other than the Jazz, who had a second best player of that caliber for more than 2-3 years?

Pippen was a top 5 player during most of his prime, no? He was top 10 at least for the entire 91-98' period, no? Since there were close to 30 teams and then 30 after 96' do the math. Top 5 player. The top player is on the Bulls. That means there are at most 26 teams with a better player than him.

Sounds alot like some of the luxuries all the great players had.

Different periods. Yeah, they had more all-stars and more HOFers but so did their opponents. The key is relative strength. In the past 20 years how many champions have had more than 2 all-stars? Some have even had 1.

Sorry Bryant fan, but the '94 Knicks were no better than the '92 Knicks, the '93 Knicks, & especially the '97 Knicks. Fans were robbed of what would have been the grittiest Knicks/Bulls ECF showdown.

Starks was at his absolute peak in 94', Oakley arguably had his best year as well, Derek Harper was an upgrade at PG, etc. The 94' Knicks were a superior team to the 93' or 92' squads. The "mighty" 92' Knicks nearly lost in the first round to a washed up Pistons team and were a 51 win team. The 97' team may have been the best but that is revealing. The "superpower" Knicks even with their best team could not get out the second round or even win their division? This is the team MJ fans conveniently latched onto in this thread to project as the dominant team of the 90's without MJ? :oldlol:

pierce2008mvp

12-02-2009, 09:52 PM

Jordan and Glen Rice would have won 8 titles on those Bulls teams. Glen Rice was just a better player than Pippen.

Roundball_Rock

12-02-2009, 09:59 PM

Jordan and Glen Rice would have won 8 titles on those Bulls teams. Glen Rice was just a better player than Pippen.

Bruce is that you? :eek:

Mister JT

12-02-2009, 10:17 PM

Why are you using the opinions of MJ fans and non-MJ fans ON THIS BOARD to strengthen your point about the 94 Bulls-Knicks series? You seem to be implying that MJ fans thought that the Bulls would still lose to the Knicks because they want to give all the credit to Jordan. But you also ignored that a lot of the non-MJ fans on this board are also MJ haters who will try to minimize Jordan's greatness so they can raise the profile of their favorite players. It goes both ways.

And they still had to play the game. A Bulls win in game 5 would change the dynamic of the series. Players' motivations and sense of urgency would have changed. Coaches' would have made adjustments. Etc. The Bulls could have won in 6. They could have won in 7. Or they could actually still have lost.

Yes, there is a difference between making teammates better and making the team better. But you are concluding that MJ did't make his teammates better based solely on their statistical production. Players can have a drop in production, but that does not mean that they became worse. The drop in production could be attributed to the fact that they simply did not have to produce as much because Jordan was there to carry a large chunk of the burden.

Roundball_Rock

12-02-2009, 10:36 PM

you also ignored that a lot of the non-MJ fans on this board are also MJ haters who will try to minimize Jordan's greatness so they can raise the profile of their favorite players.

KBLaze is a MJ hater? I will give you the names and decide for yourself. Before that, though, I will point out Bill Simmons agrees it was a horrible call as does J.A. Adande (who wrote the article 15 years later). These guys are MJ haters too? You also have ESPN readers voting on the worst calls in sports history and this one was the only NBA call to make the list. Take out me, Fatal, and AlphaWolf and it is still 6-0 in favor of the 94' Bulls among non-MJ fans. Basically everyone agrees they would get to the finals--except MJ fans, which is odd since they presumably are/were (maybe not when MJ retired?) Bulls fans.

Non-MJ fans (all said the Bulls would make the finals

D.J.
Me
Fatal
vert48
AlphaWolf
ScottPippen
White Chocolate
32jazz

MJ fans (all said the Bulls would not make the finals

juju
guy
OldSchool
bruceblitz
duncan21
NBAstatman
Samuri Swoosh
Indian_Guy
chitownsfinest (he at least had them making the ECF)

Niko, a Knicks fan, said the Knicks would win.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=3729437

There you have it. There is a nice mix of people who say the Bulls would make it to the finals. Yet there is unanimous opposition from MJ fans. Why? When Pippen is being diminished why is it 90% of the people here doing it are MJ fans? You aren't in all the Pippen threads. It is the same group of MJ fans diminishing him in every thread. You'll notice that if you read more Pip threads. I bet if you posted a thread ranking Pippen all-time 90% of the people who have him outside the top 30 would be MJ fans.

Yes, there is a difference between making teammates better and making the team better. But you are concluding that MJ did't make his teammates better based solely on their statistical production.

Production would increase when you take 30 ppg off the table but efficiency should decrease as defenses focus more on the remaining players, especially the best ones (Pippen, Grant, and Armstrong in this case). This is what usually happens when someone like Magic or Bird or even 98' Pippen is gone.

pierce2008mvp

12-02-2009, 10:41 PM

Bruce is that you? :eek:

Scottie was good. He was the same tier as Steve Smith on the Hawks, or Glen Rice on the Hornets or Tom Chambers on the Suns or Mitch Richmond on the Kings.

That is the tier he belongs on.

Basically guys who aren't good enough to lead a team past the 2nd round as the best player on the team and who only have a shot to win allstar game mvp.

Roundball_Rock

12-02-2009, 10:46 PM

Scottie was good. He was the same tier as Steve Smith on the Hawks, or Glen Rice on the Hornets or Tom Chambers on the Suns or Mitch Richmond on the Kings.

That is the tier he belongs on.

Basically guys who aren't good enough to lead a team past the 2nd round as the best player on the team and who only have a shot to win allstar game mvp.

See what I mean, Mister JT? Don't be fooled by the pierce gimmick. This is a MJ fan account that came out the blue after the Kareem GOAT thread and came out firing in several threads against Pippen and Kareem.

Welcome back, bruce. :cheers: :D

19 playoff wins>1 playoff win :roll:

Mister JT

12-02-2009, 11:08 PM

First of all, I agree that it was a bad call against the Bulls.

And I think that Pippen was a level above guys like Mitch Richmond, who barely played in garbage time when he won a championship with the Lakers. I actually have Richmond on the Shareef Abdur-Rahim level.

What do you mean by efficiency? FG shooting or total production?

I don't automatically equate being more efficient with being better. I certainly think 98 Jordan was better than pre-championship Jordan.

Abraham Lincoln

12-02-2009, 11:09 PM

Starks was at his absolute peak in 94' Arguable, and he was also playing on a surgically repaired torn knee tendon in the playoffs.

Oakley arguably had his best year as well, Derek Harper was an upgrade at PG, etc. The 94' Knicks were a superior team to the 93' or 92' squads. The "mighty" 92' Knicks nearly lost in the first round to a washed up Pistons team and were a 51 win team. And yet they were the most physically brutal & punishing of the Knicks teams, prior to the interior post defense rule changes just before the '93 season. How else might they push the Bulls to 7 games? There be differing creedence on this amongst most Knick fans Ihave conversed with. Some feel the 1997 team was the top dog, Others believe the 1993 Knicks were the best. Others the 1994 team. Starks played on a tender knee in the '94 playoffs & Rivers was out for much of that season. To indisputably rank one above the rest in foolish, considering you did not watch prior to 1994 in your own Pippen fan masqueradering words.

The 97' team may have been the best but that is revealing. The "superpower" Knicks even with their best team could not get out the second round or even win their division?
The Heat baited NY players into suspensions for leaving the bench, notably Ewing. Much like another one of your other fake favorite players Stoudemire was suspended for bullcrap two years ago. NY was dominating the series with a 3-1 lead prior to the suspension. Knicks lost Game 6 by five points without Ewing as the brawl was the turning point in the series. And they were 4 losses behind the powerful Heat with their first full season together after Riley had spent the previous year making moves, notably for Tim Hardaway. He turned them into the top defensive team in the NBA, just as he did in New York a few years prior. Point to be that the greatness of a true team is determined by their play in the playoffs, whilst the regular season does factor in, one must also factor in proper injuries as well. You are equivalent to that of JordansBulls (Duncan21MVP/piercemvp2008 on this forum), bruceblitz, & KB42PAH in misleading out of context. All the infamous one's behind the overemphasis on home court advantage, Finals MVP's, Win shares, & various other dependent stats.

This is the team MJ fans conveniently latched onto in this thread to project as the dominant team of the 90's without MJ?

No Bryant fan, I did not state which Knicks team was the best. Rather than label everyone who does not play stupid in following your misguiding creedence an MJ fan, clear yourself of the obsessive mentality your types are infamous for.

Roundball_Rock

12-02-2009, 11:18 PM

No Bryant fan, I did not state which Knicks team was the best. Rather than label everyone who does not play stupid in following your misguiding creedence an MJ fan, clear yourself of the obsessive mentality your types are infamous for.

:roll: :roll: :roll: @ the irony. Yeah, I am watching the Bulls-Pistons game tonight just to keep my charade as a Pippen fan up. :lol Anyway, I decided a week or two ago that there are too many idiots around here so one way to weed them out is to ignore people who can't figure out I am not even a Lakers fan. Given that there is no point in replying to the rest of your post.

As to MJ fans, read the thread. The people who keep hyping the Knicks are all MJ fans. Just ask them.

Last thing: please stop disgracing the name of the GOAT president. Couldn't you pick another name?

Abraham Lincoln

12-02-2009, 11:26 PM

:roll: :roll: :roll: @ the irony. Yeah, I am watching the Bulls-Pistons game tonight just to keep my charade as a Pippen fan up. :lol Anyway, I decided a week or two ago that there are too many idiots around here so one way to weed them out is to ignore people who can't figure out I am not even a Lakers fan.

No, you're a Kobe fan. Come out and be free. There's plenty of support on this board waiting for you. Just look at the mass appeal a gimmick account like branslowski has produced here.

As to MJ fans, read the thread. The people who keep hyping the Knicks are all MJ fans. Just ask them. Actually it was you hyping the '94 Knicks under your other account as well as this one.

Last thing: please stop disgracing the name of the GOAT president. Couldn't you pick another name?

Much like you have disgraced Pippen's good name under both of your user accounts? It was obvious that you were a Kobe Bryant only fan 6 months ago and it is obvious today. I may be a double backup username, but still sadly am amongst the top posters. No wonder RealGM laughs at this place, where members from other forums use this board exclusively as a troll haven.

pierce2008mvp

12-02-2009, 11:30 PM

See what I mean, Mister JT? Don't be fooled by the pierce gimmick. This is a MJ fan account that came out the blue after the Kareem GOAT thread and came out firing in several threads against Pippen and Kareem.

Welcome back, bruce. :cheers: :D

19 playoff wins>1 playoff win :roll:

Steve Smith led his team as did Glen Rice. Pippen was the 3rd best player on his team in 1994 and played with 2 star players. Pippen has never done anything without having players on the team that actually made the allstar team.

Roundball_Rock

12-02-2009, 11:33 PM

3rd best player?

Abraham Lincoln

12-02-2009, 11:36 PM

Steve Smith led his team as did Glen Rice. Pippen was the 3rd best player on his team in 1994 and played with 2 star players. Pippen has never done anything without having players on the team that actually made the allstar team.

:banghead:

Abraham Lincoln

12-02-2009, 11:38 PM

3rd best player?
As I said, they laugh at this board. Most posters here are a joke to them, and rightfully so. Without the proper moderation and order, it will not change.

pierce2008mvp

12-02-2009, 11:45 PM

3rd best player?

Grant and BJ were allstars and led the team in win shares in the playoffs. Pippen was 3rd best.

Roundball_Rock

12-02-2009, 11:52 PM

Grant and BJ were allstars and led the team in win shares in the playoffs. Pippen was 3rd best.

Hook, line, and sinker. You exposed yourself duncan21mvp. Why create a gimmick account for a gimmick account? I will say this, your pierce2008 account is entertaining. :D

Leading the team in scoring, rebounding (Grant went from 11 boards in the season to 7 boards in the playoffs), assists, steals, and second in blocks shows who the best player was. Win shares are a joke and this is one of the best examples of it. One thing is for sure: you couldn't replace Pippen with a CBA player and remain a top-five team.

Da_Realist

12-03-2009, 12:09 AM

Hypocrisy is comparing a player whose first job is to facilitate for others with someone who is chiefly a scorer.

That's exactly what underlines just how great Jordan was. He wasn't supposed to be the facilitator for the offense. Yet --

Regular Season (1989 - 1998)
Pippen averaged 5.7 asts
Jordan averaged 5.4 asts

Playoffs (1989 - 1998)
Pippen averaged 5.4 asts
Jordan averaged 5.7 asts

This, despite 2 major advantages Pippen had over Jordan:

1) Pippen was the point-forward whose role was to facilitate for others
2) He had a teammate that averaged over 30 ppg while shooting over 50 fg%

Yet somehow, the selfish ballhog averaged about the same number of assists as the point forward "facilitator of the offense" did over a 9** year span despite 2 major disadvantages.

** I didn't count 1994 since they didn't play together

Still think Jordan was "chiefly a scorer"?

Roundball_Rock

12-03-2009, 12:15 AM

What was his primary task on offense? To score, right?

When you have the ball as often as he did of course you will rack up assists. Look at players like Marbury and AI. AI was top 10 in assists for four straight seasons and even made the top 5 once. Do you consider Marbury and AI paragons of team play?

He was a selfish ballhog early in his career. Teammate after teammate, both of his coaches, and even others around the league agreed with this. Even when a player was hot on a night at the end of the game he would get frozen out while MJ took all the shots. He improved on this later in his career but it is no coincidence that he led the league in FGA every year. This is a guy who took 22 FGA (#2 in the league behind AI) at age 38 when he had a young Rip Hamilton and then again was 9th in FGA at 39 years old despite having Jerry Stackhouse, one year removed from a 30 ppg season, on his team. What else can you call someone who is shooting 30% but takes 57 shots in two games as his team goes down 0-2 in a playoff series? If you are shooting that poorly common sense says to reduce your shooting, especially if you have a 20 ppg guy on your team. Why take 30 shots in a game when you are struggling?

Da_Realist

12-03-2009, 12:20 AM

Roundball_Rock

12-03-2009, 12:25 AM

He was more than a scorer. That is implicit in saying he was "chiefly" a scorer or his "primary" job was to score. That means he did other things. Yeah he was a good passer, very good rebounder for his size and position, and a legendary defender. He didn't sell sneakers or Gatorade because of his D or his rebounding, though. I wasn't painting him as a Ben Gordon type.

Da_Realist

12-03-2009, 12:28 AM

AI3Anthony

12-03-2009, 12:44 AM

stupid thread because they didnt

guy

12-03-2009, 02:03 AM

61, 67 wins isn't dominant?

And you continue to misunderstand me. His prime was 88-93. Only for three of those years, 91-93, did he have arguably the best team in the league. You're comment "Not everyone can have the dominant team of the decade for their prime" implies that 96-98 was part of his prime, which it wasn't.

You missed the point. The point is there is a difference between a great on the level of KG (or a Pippen, who is on that level) doing something and a top-tier great. If your expectations are the same for Lebron as a KG then you need to reassess how highly you rate the former.

No you missed the point. You brought up KG for no reason in response to me saying Jordan brought a team to the ECF without much to work with. KG is not on Jordan's level and he never took a team as bad as Jordan's in 89 to the WCF. His team was really good that year. As far as Lebron goes, taking into account how weak the Eastern Conference was in 07, I would say Jordan taking that Bulls team to the ECF was equivalent to Lebron taking the Cavs to the Finals in 07, which was amazing regardless of how weak the conference was.

Sure--but part of the problem was Jordan himself. For one there was a revolving door of guards there because Jordan was so "ball dominant" only certain types, i.e. spot up shooters like Paxson, could function with him. Then there is ballhogging problem which freezed the rest of the team out. On top of that there is the constant harsh criticism of teammates. He wasn't exactly a Steve Nash or Magic getting all he could out of his teammates. Jordan is such a folk hero his warts have been erased from history.

Never said he was Nash or Magic. Yes, I agree part of the problem was Jordan himself. For example, if 91 Jordan replaced 89 Jordan, maybe they win 53 games instead of 47. In 1990, maybe they win 58 games instead of 55 with 91 Jordan instead. He obviously matured over the years. But I'm saying it didn't make that much of a difference. They still would've lost to the Pistons those years regardless, cause there was a significant difference in his teammates, whether it be old teammates vs. new teammates, or the fact that guys like Pippen and Grant were still young/immature/raw and developed over time. And I wouldn't say Bird or Magic get further with those teams either.

Grant and Armstrong became all-stars when Jordan left, Pippen an MVP candidate. Orlando Woolridge had a 25 ppg season after Chicago, Threatt (who warned someone, I think it was Hopson, of the dangers of playing with MJ) produced more post-Chicago and Dave Corzine declined as soon as MJ came to town. They didn't start lighting the world on fire but they did produce more.

Grant didn't have significantly greater production without Jordan. In 92, he had 14/10 on 58%, in 94 he had 15/11 on 52%. In 93, BJ had 12/4 on 50%, in 94 he had 15/4 on 48%. Pippen was an MVP candidate, cause obviously he took a bigger role that he didn't need to take before. Production wise he didn't change much at all. Orlando Woolridge had a 25 ppg after Chicago? He also had a 23 ppg season with Jordan in 1985. Sedalle Threatt averaged 7 ppg in 45 games with Chicago and only played 16 mpg. His MPG were very different throughout his career, but his per minute stats that year are almost exactly the same as it was for his career (per 36 in 88 was 15.3, his whole career was 15.0). Dave Corzine's numbers did go down from 12.2 to 8.5 when Jordan came, but they eventually went back up to 10.1 Like I said, there is no one that really suffered that much from playing with Jordan, if they did, there would've been a very noticeable difference somewhere else. So it goes to show that maybe Jordan's teams suffered from his selfishness, but also goes to show that it didn't make much of a difference and his teammates weren't that good regardless..

You don't dispute his production. So what if it took the media and others in the league some time to catch on? Do you think a player can show up one day and show himself as being an elite talent? It takes time to build a reputation. There are always players who show flashes of brilliance and then do nothing so people naturally are not going to declare someone great based on a good stretch.

If someone is that good, getting "noticed" wouldn't be an issue. Like you said, he was showing "flashes of brilliance". He wasn't a sure-fire all-star until after his performance in the 91 playoffs.

You could. You don't see the premise. Pippen's impact is similar to Jordan's regardless of how you slice the "with/without" numbers.

LOL. Just admit that you bringing up the 8-2 record before Jordan's return in 95 was hypocritical bull**** to try and downplay what Jordan did that year. if you want to disregard the Bulls record with Jordan that year, then don't bother bringing up the Bulls record with Pippen in 98, cause its completely hypocritical.

Sure he wasn't 100% but he was close and him being 100% would not have changed the outcome.

Maybe, maybe not. Like I said, there were two games the Bulls were on the verge of winning. With a 96 Jordan, I'd say they win those games, and the series as a result.

Ok. I'll concede the 02' Wizards. Still, that raises the obvious question: why could old MJ have as much if not more W-L impact than young MJ?

88-98 Jordan more then likely improves that team more then that. 85-87 Jordan? Who knows. Like I said before, the improvement or decline of a team from year to year isn't solely based on the addition or removal of one player.

The 94' Bulls were not outliers. 90 games is a sufficient sample size. If they had a good few games, yeah, but 90 games is definitely a sufficient sample.

Okay, well like you have said a bunch of times, the Bulls without Pippen that year were 4-6, which is a 33 win pace. But isn't that a small sample size? Who's to say that over 90 games, that team led by Horace Grant and Toni Kukoc couldn't have gotten it together and won 49 games, meaning Pippen's
real impact was only 6 wins. Isn't the 3-14 record you always bring up for the Bucks without Kareem a small size as well? So couldn't these be outliers? This is going by your logic.

Again:

Non-MJ fans regarding whether the 94' Bulls would have made the finals: 9-0
MJ fans regarding whether the 94' Bulls would have made the finals: 0-8

That says it all.

Don't really care what other fans are saying, especially when what they're saying isn't unreasonable at all.

I didn't count how many people said they would win the finals but it was a minority view. The reason people believe they would have beaten Indiana is because they crushed them in the regular season and clearly were the superior team. Who would you bet on? The 94' Pacers or 94' Bulls?

Good reason to believe that. But definitely isn't a certainty like you imply it to be. Pacers went 1-4 vs. the Bulls. But they also peaked during the playoffs. They also went 0-4 vs. the Knicks in the regular season that year. Then what happened? They pushed them to 7 games in the playoffs. The same exact thing could've happened vs. the Bulls, or maybe even beter.

14 wins is impact but it isn't "greatest of all-time" impact. 36 and 37 year old Scottie had similar impact (prime Scottie=+25-30 wins). No one is saying he had no impact. The question is did he have the impact of the other top-tier greats? You guys cite things he did that a second-tier great could do but fail to realize the irony. The "greatest of all-time" had an impact comparable to second-tier greats??

Yes well no one is calling 1986 Jordan, one of the worse versions of Jordan, the GOAT, who's impact was still 14 wins.

Bird inherited a 29 win team and took it to the ECF and 56 wins as a rookie.

Did you look at the stability of that team?

You do realize it is MJ fans who raise the team issue? If the team is to blame for him losing then the logical question is to ask what role the team played in him suddenly winning 6 straight titles in 6 full seasons.

His team got better, which everyone acknowledges.

Yeah but they were close. Grant was very good. They arguably did have the best three point shooters, or at least among the best, in Hodges and Armstrong. 6th man is where they were much weaker than the second three-peat.

LOL, Grant was not close. He was a great rebounder but he was never one of the top in the league along the likes of Rodman, Barkley, Robinson, Hakeem, etc. Great three-point shooters are a dime a dozen.

Yeah, because there was a long list of teams with players better than Pippen. :oldlol: Other than the Jazz, who had a second best player of that caliber for more than 2-3 years?

Pippen was a top 5 player during most of his prime, no? He was top 10 at least for the entire 91-98' period, no? Since there were close to 30 teams and then 30 after 96' do the math. Top 5 player. The top player is on the Bulls. That means there are at most 26 teams with a better player than him.

I'd say top 5 from 94-97, taking into account the amount of games other players missed(i.e. no way I would take Pippen over Shaq in 96 and 97, but Pippen was the better player that year overall cause Shaq missed many games.)

Different periods. Yeah, they had more all-stars and more HOFers but so did their opponents. The key is relative strength. In the past 20 years how many champions have had more than 2 all-stars? Some have even had 1.

Yup, 5 teams over the past 20, and 2 of them were the 91 and 98 Bulls lol. The others are the 94 and 95 Rockets and 03 Spurs.

The season I was referring to was Kareem's 6th or 7th season, not one of his few couple of years.

That is Kareem. What about Russell, Wilt, Bird, Magic, Shaq, Duncan, and Hakeem? The entire top 9 of all-time. Kobe came in as a high schooler and has only been hurt once so it is hard to assess him (the one time he did get hurt he had little impact).

I'm really not going to bother going into this since most people either already know about these situations or don't make stupid assumptions about something they don't know the context of.

Let me just add one thing. Mo Williams = GOAT candidate. Cavs had a 21 game improvement from 08 to 09 with their only addition being Mo Williams. Everyone needs to watch out for this guy, cause we're watching greatness unfolding.

And Vince Carter? Nets won 34 games this year, and at the rate their going, they'll be lucky to get to 10 this year. Vince Carter was the only signicant roster change this offseason. That's almost a 24 game decline. LOL @ people saying he's had a disappointing career. Bulls would've won 10 titles with him instead of Jordan.

Okay this discussion is over. Not going to continue wasting my time arguing with someone that didn't even watch prime Jordan play, and either doesn't know the context or ignores the context thats been explained to him of certain situations in NBA history.

Cyclone112

12-03-2009, 02:50 AM

Non-MJ fans (all said the Bulls would make the finals

D.J.
Me
Fatal
vert48
AlphaWolf
ScottPippen
White Chocolate
32jazz

MJ fans (all said the Bulls would not make the finals

juju
guy
OldSchool
bruceblitz
duncan21
NBAstatman
Samuri Swoosh
Indian_Guy
chitownsfinest (he at least had them making the ECF)

Niko, a Knicks fan, said the Knicks would win.

Non-MJ fans (all said the Bulls would make the finals
RoundBall - MJ hater, Pippen groupie
Fatal - Biggest Kobe nut hugger and MJ hater
vert48 - Can't remember exactly but if I recall correctly he is a Kobe fan/MJ hater but I could be wrong.
AlphaWolf - Fatal9 with down syndrome, never made a post without dissing MJ or nut hugging Kobe

MJ fans (all said the Bulls would not make the finals

juju - simply saying they'd lose to piss you and Fatal9 off as he knows you guys are both MJ hating douches.
guy - seems to mostly lean toward them making the Finals

I don't think its that the Knicks didn't try. But there's no denying that a team has a completely different mind set in those situations. I wouldn't say they didn't try, but they didn't have a sense of urgency. IMO, if the Knicks had that they probably would've won game 6 and then 7. But there's also definitely a good chance the Bulls win that series.

If the Bulls play the Pacers, I wouldn't say they would've definitely won. The Pacers were a team that came out of nowhere that year, and no one expected them to give the Knicks as much difficulty as they did. I'd expect the Bulls to win though.

Pippen is already considered greater then other players who have led their teams to the Finals.

OldSchool- Didn't say they wouldn't make it to the finals, just stated he hates IF scenarios and that just because the Bulls would be up 3-2 doesn't mean you can guarantee a win. He never really gave his opinion especially with the Pacers.
bruceblitz - MJ groupie
duncan21 - troll, Kobe hater
Samuri Swoosh - I'd have to ask him to clarify but my understanding is he meant nobody expected the Bulls to make the finals without MJ but I could easily be wrong
chitownsfinest (he at least had them making the ECF) - Nothing wrong with that, you can't just automatically jump them to the Finals when not a single game was played.
Niko, a Knicks fan, said the Knicks would win. - If you actually read what he says he basically implies its a stupid hypothetical and that an equally bad call was made before the Pippen call.
Cyclone112 (Supposed MJ stan) - I believe they would have won that series and had a great shot at making the Finals as well. Was it guaranteed in any way? Absolutely not.

Seems to me like you just made a giant biased list including obvious trolls/haters like duncan21, alphawolf etc, people who didn't even give opinions or were talking hypotheticals and you even just comprehended what some people said completely wrong.

EDIT: Also something you need to realize with your constant claims of certain members of being MJ stans is that BruceBlitz left because of MJ fans telling him to. He didn't care when Kobe fans told him to leave but when his own fellow MJ fans oldl him to cut it out because what he posts is just ridiculous hate filled garbage he finally left and I was one of the main people telling him to leave. The difference between you and I is, I prefer logic and if someone is logical, unbiased and respectful I have no problem stating their case. Abe constantly talks about Wilt being the GOAT over MJ and I have no problem with it because he doesn't attack people and just presents his case instead of attempting to tear MJ down to prove his point. KB42PAH, Fatal9 and BruceBlitz are all the same. I hate them all even though BruceBlitz is an Mj fan while the other two Kobe fans.

Blzrfn

12-03-2009, 06:02 AM

That is a good one and thread worthy on its own.

In 85' there is no way the Knicks were going to take Jordan over Ewing but him going #2 to Indiana would be possible. If they skipped him then it would be the Clippers a #3. :oldlol:

Jordan in Indiana would be interesting. That team did become a contender with Miller (of course with MJ there they would have no need to draft Miller) and Jordan could win championships there. The caveat is the Pacers drafted Smits, the second best player on those mid to late 90's Pacers teams, with the #2 pick in 88'. With Jordan there they would not have had a high enough pick. Without Smits it would be Jordan, Schrempf, and Chuck Person in the late 80's and early 90's. That is a solid core but championship worthy?

Of course the Clippers are the Clippers and he wouldn't have won any titles there.

I agree with you about the Knicks. It is the same reason why Bowie was taken over MJ. Big men were the first priority, as there was no precedence for a guard-oriented team to win the title at the time.

If he went to Indiana and stuck it out, they may have built the right team around him, since they did put together a good team in the 90's. If he goes to the Clips, he probably would have had a much more negative legacy, and may be known today as a guy who can light up the scoreboard, but who can't be a team player and a winner.

Speaking of MJ scenarios, I just thought of a wild one:

In the Fall of 1982, the Rockets traded Moses Malone to Philly. However, what if they would have traded him to Portland instead? The Blazers had their #1 picks in the next two drafts, and they had Indiana's #1 in 1984, which was pretty much guaranteed to be higher than any pick Portland had since the Pacers were so lousy. So, Portland could have sent that pick they would end up using on Sam Bowie to Houston for Malone.

That would put the Rockets in the catbird seat by the Summer of 1984, and they would have the top two picks in the draft, and would probably drafted Hakeem and Jordan.

Da_Realist

12-03-2009, 08:08 AM

And you continue to misunderstand me. His prime was 88-93. Only for three of those years, 91-93, did he have arguably the best team in the league. You're comment "Not everyone can have the dominant team of the decade for their prime" implies that 96-98 was part of his prime, which it wasn't.

No you missed the point. You brought up KG for no reason in response to me saying Jordan brought a team to the ECF without much to work with. KG is not on Jordan's level and he never took a team as bad as Jordan's in 89 to the WCF. His team was really good that year. As far as Lebron goes, taking into account how weak the Eastern Conference was in 07, I would say Jordan taking that Bulls team to the ECF was equivalent to Lebron taking the Cavs to the Finals in 07, which was amazing regardless of how weak the conference was.

Never said he was Nash or Magic. Yes, I agree part of the problem was Jordan himself. For example, if 91 Jordan replaced 89 Jordan, maybe they win 53 games instead of 47. In 1990, maybe they win 58 games instead of 55 with 91 Jordan instead. He obviously matured over the years. But I'm saying it didn't make that much of a difference. They still would've lost to the Pistons those years regardless, cause there was a significant difference in his teammates, whether it be old teammates vs. new teammates, or the fact that guys like Pippen and Grant were still young/immature/raw and developed over time. And I wouldn't say Bird or Magic get further with those teams either.

Grant didn't have significantly greater production without Jordan. In 92, he had 14/10 on 58%, in 94 he had 15/11 on 52%. In 93, BJ had 12/4 on 50%, in 94 he had 15/4 on 48%. Pippen was an MVP candidate, cause obviously he took a bigger role that he didn't need to take before. Production wise he didn't change much at all. Orlando Woolridge had a 25 ppg after Chicago? He also had a 23 ppg season with Jordan in 1985. Sedalle Threatt averaged 7 ppg in 45 games with Chicago and only played 16 mpg. His MPG were very different throughout his career, but his per minute stats that year are almost exactly the same as it was for his career (per 36 in 88 was 15.3, his whole career was 15.0). Dave Corzine's numbers did go down from 12.2 to 8.5 when Jordan came, but they eventually went back up to 10.1 Like I said, there is no one that really suffered that much from playing with Jordan, if they did, there would've been a very noticeable difference somewhere else. So it goes to show that maybe Jordan's teams suffered from his selfishness, but also goes to show that it didn't make much of a difference and his teammates weren't that good regardless..

If someone is that good, getting "noticed" wouldn't be an issue. Like you said, he was showing "flashes of brilliance". He wasn't a sure-fire all-star until after his performance in the 91 playoffs.

LOL. Just admit that you bringing up the 8-2 record before Jordan's return in 95 was hypocritical bull**** to try and downplay what Jordan did that year. if you want to disregard the Bulls record with Jordan that year, then don't bother bringing up the Bulls record with Pippen in 98, cause its completely hypocritical.

Maybe, maybe not. Like I said, there were two games the Bulls were on the verge of winning. With a 96 Jordan, I'd say they win those games, and the series as a result.

88-98 Jordan more then likely improves that team more then that. 85-87 Jordan? Who knows. Like I said before, the improvement or decline of a team from year to year isn't solely based on the addition or removal of one player.

Okay, well like you have said a bunch of times, the Bulls without Pippen that year were 4-6, which is a 33 win pace. But isn't that a small sample size? Who's to say that over 90 games, that team led by Horace Grant and Toni Kukoc couldn't have gotten it together and won 49 games, meaning Pippen's
real impact was only 6 wins. Isn't the 3-14 record you always bring up for the Bucks without Kareem a small size as well? So couldn't these be outliers? This is going by your logic.

Don't really care what other fans are saying, especially when what they're saying isn't unreasonable at all.

Good reason to believe that. But definitely isn't a certainty like you imply it to be. Pacers went 1-4 vs. the Bulls. But they also peaked during the playoffs. They also went 0-4 vs. the Knicks in the regular season that year. Then what happened? They pushed them to 7 games in the playoffs. The same exact thing could've happened vs. the Bulls, or maybe even beter.

Yes well no one is calling 1986 Jordan, one of the worse versions of Jordan, the GOAT, who's impact was still 14 wins.

Did you look at the stability of that team?

His team got better, which everyone acknowledges.

LOL, Grant was not close. He was a great rebounder but he was never one of the top in the league along the likes of Rodman, Barkley, Robinson, Hakeem, etc. Great three-point shooters are a dime a dozen.

I'd say top 5 from 94-97, taking into account the amount of games other players missed(i.e. no way I would take Pippen over Shaq in 96 and 97, but Pippen was the better player that year overall cause Shaq missed many games.)

Yup, 5 teams over the past 20, and 2 of them were the 91 and 98 Bulls lol. The others are the 94 and 95 Rockets and 03 Spurs.

I'm really not going to bother going into this since most people either already know about these situations or don't make stupid assumptions about something they don't know the context of.

Let me just add one thing. Mo Williams = GOAT candidate. Cavs had a 21 game improvement from 08 to 09 with their only addition being Mo Williams. Everyone needs to watch out for this guy, cause we're watching greatness unfolding.

And Vince Carter? Nets won 34 games this year, and at the rate their going, they'll be lucky to get to 10 this year. Vince Carter was the only signicant roster change this offseason. That's almost a 24 game decline. LOL @ people saying he's had a disappointing career. Bulls would've won 10 titles with him instead of Jordan.

Okay this discussion is over. Not going to continue wasting my time arguing with someone that didn't even watch prime Jordan play, and either doesn't know the context or ignores the context thats been explained to him of certain situations in NBA history.

Just end the thread right here. The last four paragraphs just buried this discussion. :applause:

juju151111

12-03-2009, 10:10 AM

Roundball_Rock

12-03-2009, 06:52 PM

stupid thread because they didnt

In your opinion, what is more stupid? A stupid thread or clicking on a stupid thread to complain about it being a stupid thread?

RoundBall - MJ hater, Pippen groupie
Fatal - Biggest Kobe nut hugger and MJ hater
vert48 - Can't remember exactly but if I recall correctly he is a Kobe fan/MJ hater but I could be wrong.
AlphaWolf - Fatal9 with down syndrome, never made a post without dissing MJ or nut hugging Kobe

I don't remember vert48's views on MJ. That in and of itself suggests he/she is not a "MJ hater" for he would be in MJ threads and memorable as a "MJ hater."

Why didn't you mention:

D.J.
Me
Fatal
vert48
KBlaze
AlphaWolf
ScottPippen
White Chocolate
32jazz

What are their agendas? They are MJ haters too? You speak of "bias" and "agendas" yet are unable to recognize your own bias and "agenda". Even if we accept your claims the remaining "unbiased" fans ALL had them in the finals. What does that say? KBlaze is perhaps the most respected poster here. He is out to get MJ too?

Note: ScottPippen is equally a Pippen and MJ fan. He has said he chose his name because he modeled his own game after Pippen.

juju - simply saying they'd lose to piss you and Fatal9 off as he knows you guys are both MJ hating douches.

Weak spin. juju is a card carrying member of the MJ Pippen diminishing brigade.

OldSchool- Didn't say they wouldn't make it to the finals, just stated he hates IF scenarios

You obviosly know nothing about OSB, another card carrying member of the MJ fan Pippen diminishing brigade. This is a guy who would quibble over 1 ppg and 1-1.5 apg regarding Pippen. Where did he do that? In "what if" scenarios (i.e. Pippen playing in the 70's in a Pip vs. Havelick thread). :oldlol:

bruceblitz - MJ groupie
duncan21 - troll, Kobe hater

duncan21 is a troll? I haven't heard a single MJ fan complain about him. What does being an alleged Kobe hater have to do with the 94' Bulls?

Samuri Swoosh - I'd have to ask him to clarify but my understanding is he meant nobody expected the Bulls to make the finals without MJ but I could easily be wrong

Another card carrying member of the MJ fan Pippen diminishing brigade. Again, more spin. Did he say they would make it? No. Everyone other than MJ fans did.

chitownsfinest (he at least had them making the ECF) - Nothing wrong with that, you can't just automatically jump them to the Finals when not a single game was played.

Irrelevant. You fail to see the larger picture. Of all the MJ fans zero had them in the finals and only one even had them in the ECF. In contrast, it was 9-0 among non-MJ fans.

Niko, a Knicks fan, said the Knicks would win. - If you actually read what he says he basically implies its a stupid hypothetical and that an equally bad call was made before the Pippen call.

Yeah--in 1993 (Charles Smith). Niko did not have them in the finals and being a Knicks fan one presumes he would have them winning. Either way he didn't have the Bulls in the finals. Stupid hypothetical? Why did he click on the thread?

Cyclone112 (Supposed MJ stan) - I believe they would have won that series and had a great shot at making the Finals as well. Was it guaranteed in any way? Absolutely not.

Irrelevant. 9-0 among non-MJ fans, 0-8 among MJ fans. There were no questions among non-MJ fans. They were all very confident the Bulls would get to the finals. Even if we adjust you that is 9-0 versus 1-7. The overall point stands.

This thread was not an anomaly. The same dozen MJ fans diminish Pippen in every Pippen-related thread. Just look at this one. The ones downplaying the Pippen/Richmond/Johnson/Smits Bulls are almost all Jordan fans.

I prefer logic and if someone is logical, unbiased and respectful I have no problem stating their case

You apparently don't prefer logic, or understand it, if you fail to realize there are always inherent biases.

Let me explain some logic to you:

A: Jordan fans diminish Pippen
B: Pippen fans attack Jordan
C: Jordan fans diminish Pippen on their own
D: Pippen fan attacks on Jordan are a response to Jordan fan attacks on Pippen

Yet your "logic" blames Pippen fans for responding. Jordan fans outnumber us by a huge margin. They initiate. Yet it is Pippen fans who are at fault? What brilliant logic.

Abe constantly talks about Wilt being the GOAT over MJ and I have no problem with it because he doesn't attack people

Nice "logic". Abe doesn't attack people? :roll:

KB42PAH, Fatal9 and BruceBlitz are all the same.

I never saw KB post so I can't comment on him. Fatal is logical, intelligent, and backs his opinions up with facts. Face it: your problem with him is his conclusions. If that is your problem why are you even on a discussion forum? Discussion. Forum. Both imply a diversity of views. If you oppose that create a Soviet-style "Jordan worship" forum where no dissent is allowed.

Lastly, :roll: @ the irony of complaining about "tearing down" players when you fail to even grasp the MJ fan campaign against Pippen, which you absurdly defended (9-0 versus 0-8. The 0-8 has no agenda :oldlol: ). Again, your problem is with people's conclusions. You complain about bias yet don't even recognize your own.

MJ fans complained about blitz because he was incurring a backlash from the large Kobe fan contingent and there were many people bashing Jordan as a response. They didn't do it out of any principle. Can you name the MJ fans who told blitz to knock it off? Let's see if they are consistent...

Blazerfn

If he went to Indiana and stuck it out, they may have built the right team around him, since they did put together a good team in the 90's. If he goes to the Clips, he probably would have had a much more negative legacy, and may be known today as a guy who can light up the scoreboard, but who can't be a team player and a winner.

I agree. Walsh would have put a good team around MJ. The Clips, well they are the Clips.

That would put the Rockets in the catbird seat by the Summer of 1984, and they would have the top two picks in the draft, and would probably drafted Hakeem and Jordan.

That almost happened anyway. There was a proposed trade of Ralph Sampson to Portland in exchange for the #2 pick and Clyde Drexler. The #2 pick would have wound up being Jordan. They rated MJ higher than Bowie due to the latter's injury problems. Besides, with Hakeem as the #1 pick selecting Bowie would be redudant. So you would have Hakeem, MJ, and Drexler playing their entire careers together. Wow! There was a thread on this hypothetical a few months ago and 0 MJ fans cried about that (in fact they were talking about "a decade's worth of championships") but don't worry, MJ fans have no agenda. :oldlol:

Roundball_Rock

12-03-2009, 06:52 PM

And you continue to misunderstand me. His prime was 88-93. Only for three of those years, 91-93, did he have arguably the best team in the league. You're comment "Not everyone can have the dominant team of the decade for their prime" implies that 96-98 was part of his prime, which it wasn't.

Technical prime. Was he the best player in the league during the entire period? Yes. Who else had a team like that for a decade while they were the dominant player? Kareem didn't get his great team until his reign was ending.

No you missed the point. You brought up KG for no reason in response to me saying Jordan brought a team to the ECF without much to work with. KG is not on Jordan's level

That is the point. That is the reason I brought him up. There are different expectations for a second-tier, top 20-25 all-time great like KG and a top-tier great like MJ. I could have used other examples to make the same point.

Regarding his teammates, no one is saying Paxson would have scored 25 ppg without Jordan. The point is a little more production here, a little more there adds up. Especially when a player is hot. If someone has made 80% of his shots does it make sense to give him only 2 shots in the 4th quarter? Does it make sense to pass up an open, hot shooter in order to take a shot over 2 defenders? No. His teammates and coaches recognize this. Guess who else did? MJ himself. By the end of the 91' season he becomes a better teammate. He actually is looking for Paxson in the NBA finals when Paxson was hot--and doing so at the end of the game! He improved then and was even better as a teammate (less harsh) after he experienced being a mediocre player during his baseball stint. It wasn't a coincidence that he began to win the more he "trusted" his teammates.

If someone is that good, getting "noticed" wouldn't be an issue. Like you said, he was showing "flashes of brilliance". He wasn't a sure-fire all-star until after his performance in the 91 playoffs.

Noticed, yes. All-star? No. Why? There are always players who look great for a brief period and then revert to their previous form. A good month or two does not make you an all-star. Andrew Bynum and the perennial Andrew Bynum Winter Hypefest is a perfect example. He has put together very good stretches but has yet to prove that he has staying power.

Ok, I can admit. It was BS.

Okay, well like you have said a bunch of times, the Bulls without Pippen that year were 4-6, which is a 33 win pace. But isn't that a small sample size? Who's to say that over 90 games, that team led by Horace Grant and Toni Kukoc couldn't have gotten it together and won 49 games, meaning Pippen's real impact was only 6 wins. Isn't the 3-14 record you always bring up for the Bucks without Kareem a small size as well? So couldn't these be outliers? This is going by your logic.

An outlier is an anomalous data point. Pippen missed 10 or games five times in his career (excluding 04' when he was just there for leadership purposes and beyond washed up). Four times his teams regressed, one time they improved. The outlier obviously was the latter (01' Portland).

Pippen's teams with him (94', 98', 01', 02', 03'): 199-94 (68%, 56 wins)
Pippen's teams without him (same years): 67-50 (57%, 47 wins)

If you look at it by a yearly basis his impact was +25, +13, -8, +16, +13

When he left Chicago, the Bulls collapsed although he was only one reason for that. When he left Houston they went from a 51 win pace (remember the lockout was in 99') to 34 wins. When he left Portland they went from a 54 win pace with him to 41 wins. So whenever he is not there his teams perform worse, with only one exception. That is the definition of an outlier.

Good reason to believe that. But definitely isn't a certainty like you imply it to be. Pacers went 1-4 vs. the Bulls. But they also peaked during the playoffs. They also went 0-4 vs. the Knicks in the regular season that year. Then what happened? They pushed them to 7 games in the playoffs. The same exact thing could've happened vs. the Bulls, or maybe even beter.

There are no certainties in sports. The odds were heavily in favor of them. There also is no certainty that the Rockets would have beaten them either, which is what most people believe, but the odds favor the Rockets.

Yes well no one is calling 1986 Jordan, one of the worse versions of Jordan, the GOAT, who's impact was still 14 wins.

36 and 37 year old Scottie had the same impact (+16, +13) and this was when Pippen was a 11/5/6 and 11/4/5 guy. Impact goes beyond stats. Leadership matters. Making your teammates better matters. Doing the dirty work matters.

LOL, Grant was not close.

Defensively and rebounding-wise no but he was very good in both areas. He was far better than Rodman offensively, though.

I'd say top 5 from 94-97, taking into account the amount of games other players missed(i.e. no way I would take Pippen over Shaq in 96 and 97, but Pippen was the better player that year overall cause Shaq missed many games.)

I admitted my BS. Can you admit yours?

1) You're implying he was not legit top 5, that he needed injuries to move into the top 5. What was he in your view? Top 7? Top 8?
2) What about 91-93' and 98'? Top 10?
3) Let's be conservative and say he was the 10th best player in 1996. There are 30 teams. The best player was on the Bulls. That leaves players 2-9. Therefore, at least 22 teams had a best player who was not as good as the Bulls second best player (at least because a team may have had two top 10 players of its own, i.e. Utah or Orlando). That is a huge luxury.

Yup, 5 teams over the past 20, and 2 of them were the 91 and 98 Bulls lol. The others are the 94 and 95 Rockets and 03 Spurs.

Lakers: 2
Celtics: 3
Spurs: 2
Heat: 2
Spurs: 2
Pistons: 1 (B. Wallace)
Spurs: 1
Lakers: 2
Lakers: 2
Lakers: 2
Spurs: N/A
Rockets: 1
Rockets: 1

You get the point. Having 1-2 all-stars is enough to win in modern times. Moreover, all all-stars are not equal. How many HOF level players did these teams have?

Lakers: 1/2/2/2
Celtics: 3
Spurs: 1/1/2/2
Heat: 1 or 2 (Wade?)
Pistons: 0 or 1 (Billups?)
Rockets: 1/2

The Bulls had: 2/2/2/3/3/3

And Vince Carter? Nets won 34 games this year, and at the rate their going, they'll be lucky to get to 10 this year. Vince Carter was the only signicant roster change this offseason. That's almost a 24 game decline. LOL @ people saying he's had a disappointing career. Bulls would've won 10 titles with him instead of Jordan.

The Nets lost their two best players, Carter and Harris has been out due to injury practically all year (only started 5 games). Their 4th leading scorer has yet to play this season and Yi has played only 4 games and Jarvis Hayes has played only 2 minutes. So they lost their two best players and five of their top six. Of course they are going to collapse.

Jordan had impact. The problem is his impact was not "greatest of all-time" impact. Compare it to that of every other top-tier great. Only Kobe fares as poorly, and he was hurt for an extended period only once. The top 9 all fare far better than Jordan. It is revealing that his biggest impacts came post-baseball (95' and 01'). Maybe he was too much of a ballhog, too much of a prick (lower morale=lower productivity) early in his career?

Regarding, "seeing" particular years contemporaneously (you do realize--well maybe an old timer doesn't--there is ESPN Classic, NBA TV, and YouTube), it is amusing you cling to that when you have no clue what your hero's teammates or his coaches thought of him during that period. Maybe you were watching blind. You couldn't "see" what his teammates and coaches saw regarding his ballhogging? I can understand not "seeing" what he said on the bench, on the court, in the lockeroom, at practice, etc. but you couldn't "see" what everyone on his team could? :confusedshrug:

Da_Realist

12-03-2009, 07:37 PM

Impact goes beyond stats.

Your whole argument is based on obscure stats of what happens when the player isn't even on the floor. Ironic.

It is revealing that his biggest impacts came post-baseball (95' and 01').

You mean Michael Jordan? His biggest impact happened after 95 and 01??? The same guy that retired in 93 amongst the chorus that he was the greatest ever (or at least in the discussion)? Are we talking about the same person?

Maybe he was too much of a ballhog, too much of a prick (lower morale=lower productivity) early in his career?

Regarding, "seeing" particular years contemporaneously (you do realize--well maybe an old timer doesn't--there is ESPN Classic, NBA TV, and YouTube), it is amusing you cling to that when you have no clue what your hero's teammates or his coaches thought of him during that period. Maybe you were watching blind. You couldn't "see" what his teammates and coaches saw regarding his ballhogging? I can understand not "seeing" what he said on the bench, on the court, in the lockeroom, at practice, etc. but you couldn't "see" what everyone on his team could? :confusedshrug:

No...there's more context than what you are reading in Sam Smith's book. In fact, there are 10 books that hype the positive affects MJ had on the team to every one that highlights a negative.

There's a ton of evidence that goes against what you're saying. From 89 - 93 he averaged more assists than Scottie Pippen did. You're going to have to find a way to dispute how he was selfish despite that evidence. And if assists don't matter, then it shouldnt' matter for anyone. You can't get assists without passing the ball.

Was he selfish because he wanted the offense to go through him? Then so was Magic Johnson. Was he selfish because he thought the best way for the team to win was for him to shoot the ball? Well, having a higher fg%, a better work ethic, a more insatiable lust to win and nerves of steel would convince a young player with that much talent that might be the best option. Was he selfish because he didn't embrace the triangle at first? Well, neither did Scottie Pippen.

Do you know that no championship team was ever built around a guard before Jordan? Do you realize that Chicago had to go against conventional wisdom because they didn't have a reliable big man? Do you know that Chicago was a perpetual losing franchise before Jordan got there? Have you read any quotes of how the team had a losing attitude and had players that did not like/want to compete? Do you know how hard it is to turn a franchise completely around? Around a GUARD?

Don't you think a losing franchise that had never won anything would take some time to figure out how to win going against conventional wisdom (i.e. building around a guard)? The Lakers had won titles before Kareem got there. Maybe not the year or two before, but there were members of the organization that were there that knew how to win. The Celtics had won before Bird. The only championship team that also had to go against conventional wisdom and build a champion from scratch is the Detroit Pistons. And it took them from 1982 (when Isiah was drafted) to 1989 to finally get their ring.

This slow progress should not be put all on Jordan's shoulders when he was so productive on the court. He and the team from the top down had to learn how to win together. That takes time. Pippen did not come in at the beginning of the process and didn't really make much of a contribution for a couple of years. You can't compare anyone to MJ's situation because there's no one else that was in MJ's situation.

That's what we mean when we say you don't understand the context. As great as youtube and espnclassic is, you can't get everything from watching that. You can't just look at the win/loss record before and after a star's absence to determine impact. And to understand it better, you have to go beyond reading one book meant to make money off displaying negative aspects of his personality. There's much more to it than that.

Notice how all the guys you mention are big guys down low? Bird, Kareem, David Robinson, etc? That's because that is how the NBA used to be won. Until Jordan. Kobe, Lebron, DWade all have MORE impact on their teams (in absence, by your logic) because of what MJ did with the Bulls. At least they have a blueprint for how to build around a perimeter-oriented player. That's not IMPACT?

juju151111

12-03-2009, 07:46 PM

Technical prime. Was he the best player in the league during the entire period? Yes. Who else had a team like that for a decade while they were the dominant player? Kareem didn't get his great team until his reign was ending.

That is the point. That is the reason I brought him up. There are different expectations for a second-tier, top 20-25 all-time great like KG and a top-tier great like MJ. I could have used other examples to make the same point.

Regarding his teammates, no one is saying Paxson would have scored 25 ppg without Jordan. The point is a little more production here, a little more there adds up. Especially when a player is hot. If someone has made 80% of his shots does it make sense to give him only 2 shots in the 4th quarter? Does it make sense to pass up an open, hot shooter in order to take a shot over 2 defenders? No. His teammates and coaches recognize this. Guess who else did? MJ himself. By the end of the 91' season he becomes a better teammate. He actually is looking for Paxson in the NBA finals when Paxson was hot--and doing so at the end of the game! He improved then and was even better as a teammate (less harsh) after he experienced being a mediocre player during his baseball stint. It wasn't a coincidence that he began to win the more he "trusted" his teammates.

Noticed, yes. All-star? No. Why? There are always players who look great for a brief period and then revert to their previous form. A good month or two does not make you an all-star. Andrew Bynum and the perennial Andrew Bynum Winter Hypefest is a perfect example. He has put together very good stretches but has yet to prove that he has staying power.

Ok, I can admit. It was BS.

An outlier is an anomalous data point. Pippen missed 10 or games five times in his career (excluding 04' when he was just there for leadership purposes and beyond washed up). Four times his teams regressed, one time they improved. The outlier obviously was the latter (01' Portland).

Pippen's teams with him (94', 98', 01', 02', 03'): 199-94 (68%, 56 wins)
Pippen's teams without him (same years): 67-50 (57%, 47 wins)

If you look at it by a yearly basis his impact was +25, +13, -8, +16, +13

When he left Chicago, the Bulls collapsed although he was only one reason for that. When he left Houston they went from a 51 win pace (remember the lockout was in 99') to 34 wins. When he left Portland they went from a 54 win pace with him to 41 wins. So whenever he is not there his teams perform worse, with only one exception. That is the definition of an outlier.

There are no certainties in sports. The odds were heavily in favor of them. There also is no certainty that the Rockets would have beaten them either, which is what most people believe, but the odds favor the Rockets.

36 and 37 year old Scottie had the same impact (+16, +13) and this was when Pippen was a 11/5/6 and 11/4/5 guy. Impact goes beyond stats. Leadership matters. Making your teammates better matters. Doing the dirty work matters.

Defensively and rebounding-wise no but he was very good in both areas. He was far better than Rodman offensively, though.

I admitted my BS. Can you admit yours?

1) You're implying he was not legit top 5, that he needed injuries to move into the top 5. What was he in your view? Top 7? Top 8?
2) What about 91-93' and 98'? Top 10?
3) Let's be conservative and say he was the 10th best player in 1996. There are 30 teams. The best player was on the Bulls. That leaves players 2-9. Therefore, at least 22 teams had a best player who was not as good as the Bulls second best player (at least because a team may have had two top 10 players of its own, i.e. Utah or Orlando). That is a huge luxury.

Lakers: 2
Celtics: 3
Spurs: 2
Heat: 2
Spurs: 2
Pistons: 1 (B. Wallace)
Spurs: 1
Lakers: 2
Lakers: 2
Lakers: 2
Spurs: N/A
Rockets: 1
Rockets: 1

You get the point. Having 1-2 all-stars is enough to win in modern times. Moreover, all all-stars are not equal. How many HOF level players did these teams have?

Lakers: 1/2/2/2
Celtics: 3
Spurs: 1/1/2/2
Heat: 1 or 2 (Wade?)
Pistons: 0 or 1 (Billups?)
Rockets: 1/2

The Bulls had: 2/2/2/3/3/3

The Nets lost their two best players, Carter and Harris has been out due to injury practically all year (only started 5 games). Their 4th leading scorer has yet to play this season and Yi has played only 4 games and Jarvis Hayes has played only 2 minutes. So they lost their two best players and five of their top six. Of course they are going to collapse.

Jordan had impact. The problem is his impact was not "greatest of all-time" impact. Compare it to that of every other top-tier great. Only Kobe fares as poorly, and he was hurt for an extended period only once. The top 9 all fare far better than Jordan. It is revealing that his biggest impacts came post-baseball (95' and 01'). Maybe he was too much of a ballhog, too much of a prick (lower morale=lower productivity) early in his career?

Regarding, "seeing" particular years contemporaneously (you do realize--well maybe an old timer doesn't--there is ESPN Classic, NBA TV, and YouTube), it is amusing you cling to that when you have no clue what your hero's teammates or his coaches thought of him during that period. Maybe you were watching blind. You couldn't "see" what his teammates and coaches saw regarding his ballhogging? I can understand not "seeing" what he said on the bench, on the court, in the lockeroom, at practice, etc. but you couldn't "see" what everyone on his team could? :confusedshrug:
Go look at ECF in 90 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uDNUsz5zPI he was looking for them all game. WTF are you talking about?? Difference in 91 hey made the shots???:confusedshrug:

Mj also never had a top 5 player in his career and never had Oscar for the start.

I see you skip over his mo williams part?? Why is that???

Roundball_Rock

12-03-2009, 09:52 PM

Your whole argument is based on obscure stats of what happens when the player isn't even on the floor. Ironic.

You mean Michael Jordan? His biggest impact happened after 95 and 01??? The same guy that retired in 93 amongst the chorus that he was the greatest ever (or at least in the discussion)? Are we talking about the same person?

No...there's more context than what you are reading in Sam Smith's book. In fact, there are 10 books that hype the positive affects MJ had on the team to every one that highlights a negative.

There's a ton of evidence that goes against what you're saying. From 89 - 93 he averaged more assists than Scottie Pippen did. You're going to have to find a way to dispute how he was selfish despite that evidence. And if assists don't matter, then it shouldnt' matter for anyone. You can't get assists without passing the ball.

Was he selfish because he wanted the offense to go through him? Then so was Magic Johnson. Was he selfish because he thought the best way for the team to win was for him to shoot the ball? Well, having a higher fg%, a better work ethic, a more insatiable lust to win and nerves of steel would convince a young player with that much talent that might be the best option. Was he selfish because he didn't embrace the triangle at first? Well, neither did Scottie Pippen.

Do you know that no championship team was ever built around a guard before Jordan? Do you realize that Chicago had to go against conventional wisdom because they didn't have a reliable big man? Do you know that Chicago was a perpetual losing franchise before Jordan got there? Have you read any quotes of how the team had a losing attitude and had players that did not like/want to compete? Do you know how hard it is to turn a franchise completely around? Around a GUARD?

Don't you think a losing franchise that had never won anything would take some time to figure out how to win going against conventional wisdom (i.e. building around a guard)? The Lakers had won titles before Kareem got there. Maybe not the year or two before, but there were members of the organization that were there that knew how to win. The Celtics had won before Bird. The only championship team that also had to go against conventional wisdom and build a champion from scratch is the Detroit Pistons. And it took them from 1982 (when Isiah was drafted) to 1989 to finally get their ring.

This slow progress should not be put all on Jordan's shoulders when he was so productive on the court. He and the team from the top down had to learn how to win together. That takes time. Pippen did not come in at the beginning of the process and didn't really make much of a contribution for a couple of years. You can't compare anyone to MJ's situation because there's no one else that was in MJ's situation.

That's what we mean when we say you don't understand the context. As great as youtube and espnclassic is, you can't get everything from watching that. You can't just look at the win/loss record before and after a star's absence to determine impact. And to understand it better, you have to go beyond reading one book meant to make money off displaying negative aspects of his personality. There's much more to it than that.

Notice how all the guys you mention are big guys down low? Bird, Kareem, David Robinson, etc? That's because that is how the NBA used to be won. Until Jordan. Kobe, Lebron, DWade all have MORE impact on their teams (in absence, by your logic) because of what MJ did with the Bulls. At least they have a blueprint for how to build around a perimeter-oriented player. That's not IMPACT?

Good post, although I don't agree with all of it your post is thought-provoking. :applause:

DR what do you think about Playing for Keeps? I am thinking about getting that. I did wind up liking MJ more by the end of Smith's book.

Mj also never had a top 5 player in his career and never had Oscar for the start.

True, but other than Magic/Kareem no one did and even in that case their primes did not overlap. In absolute terms he had less talent than any top-tier great other than Duncan but in relative terms he had great talent given the league in the 90's.

Do you think adding a second scorer didn't help the Cavs? I don't think Williams is worth 21 wins but he definitely significantly helped them.

You can't look at one data point or even two. You have to look for trends. There is a clear trend, for instance, with Pippen that I mentioned in the last post. That said, DR made some very good points. I do agree after this thread that I place too much emphasis on the "with/without" thing.