Would Prime Kareem be the best player in the NBA now?

[Duncan21formvp]

I say yes, but some think he wouldn't be.

[Roundball_Rock]

Prime Kareem would be the best in any era. After all, he is the GOAT.

[Dizzle-2k7]

Yea he would.. easily..

this question would be better asked in 2003 when Kobe/Shaq/Duncan/KG were all in their primes as well.

[Alhazred]

Yes.

[1987_Lakers]

Stop taking threads from realgm:lol

Anyways, a peak Kareem would without a doubt be the best player in the league today.

[Duncan21formvp]

Prime Kareem would be the best in any era. After all, he is the GOAT.

He wasn't the best in the 80's, his own teammate was better. And in the 70's for a while Rick Barry can be considered better. Afterall he won a title in the same era with barely a supporting cast, while Kareem in the middle of his prime didn't even make the playoffs. And this was actually prime Kareem who won MVP.

[Lakers13]

Yes, easily.

[1987_Lakers]

He wasn't the best in the 80's, his own teammate was better. And in the 70's for a while Rick Barry can be considered better. Afterall he won a title in the same era with barely a supporting cast, while Kareem in the middle of his prime didn't even make the playoffs. And this was actually prime Kareem who won MVP.

lol

[Manute for Ever!]

Of course, any era.

[WeaponX2024]

I say yes, but some think he wouldn't be.
Who are these some?

[dffsaf9]

i still say LEBRON is playing like and will be the best player ever so no...completely unstoppable, set all-time NBA record for per last year..come on guys, wheres lebron in this conversation...kareem would be nextttt

[Duncan21formvp]

Who are these some?

See next post.

[juju151111]

Prime Kareem would be the best in any era. After all, he is the GOAT.
DRAMA

[tontoz]

He wasn't the best in the 80's, his own teammate was better. And in the 70's for a while Rick Barry can be considered better. Afterall he won a title in the same era with barely a supporting cast, while Kareem in the middle of his prime didn't even make the playoffs. And this was actually prime Kareem who won MVP.


Kareem was drafted in '69. He wasn't in his prime in the 80s.

Rick Barry was never considered better than Kareem. Kareem won 5 MVPs in the 70s. Barry didn't win any.

Yes a prime Kareem would be considered the best player now. He averaged 30/16 for 3 straight years the 70s.

[Duncan21formvp]

lol

I only said that because he won it all in 1975 with pretty much no one on his team while the next year Kareem won MVP at his peak and failed to make the playoffs.

But I do agree Kareem in any era is definitely a top 2 for sure. I can only see 2 guys being considered better overall.

[Roundball_Rock]

I only said that because he won it all in 1975 with pretty much no one on his team while the next year Kareem won MVP at his peak and failed to make the playoffs.

That says more about his "supporting cast" than it does about Kareem. Not every top-tier great can be blessed with the best team in the league during his physical peak.

[Abraham Lincoln]

But I do agree Kareem in any era is definitely a top 2 for sure.


Would be a good debate season by season amongst the other select few greats. I'd love to have seen a Kareem vs. Russell duel. Especially how he would deal with Russ psychologically, for Bill was "like a gladiator fighting for his life" (in Wilt's words). By all accounts the most driven player in league history. And also how Russ would guard the skyhook. Perhaps muscle him out of his comfort zone? It would be just fantastic to watch.

[Duncan21formvp]

That says more about his "supporting cast" than it does about Kareem. Not every top-tier great can be blessed with the best team in the league during his physical peak.

Well he did play for a great organization during that time already. It's one thing if he played for an organization that never accomplished anything but he did play for the Lakers already.

Also managed to get not 1 but 2 no#1 picks while on the Lakers in 1980 and 1982.

[EricForman]

a few facts about Kareem

1: best numbers came in the 70s when every stat was skewed

2: didn't start winning ringS until he had someone who could be argued to be greater than him on his team. almost certainly was a sidekick for at least 2-3 of the rings.

3: dominated no doubt, but also had several instances of being completely outplayed, some of them came on the biggest stage (Wilt, Moses, Hakeem, Walton)

he's on the short list of goat candidates but hardly would he annihilate this era with ease like some posters suggest. He couldn't have stopped prime Shaq any more than 2001 Mutombo could.

[Rafael Delaget]

Peak Wilt was better.

Prime Mikan sh!ts on both of them. SMH at young whippersnappers knowing nothing of the game's history.

[Fatal9]

That says more about his "supporting cast" than it does about Kareem. Not every top-tier great can be blessed with the best team in the league during his physical peak.
Actually Kareem missed the playoffs twice in the 70s. Once it was when he was out with a hand injury and his team collapsed without him (on pace to be worst without him) and then when he came back it was too late, despite the team playing great ball (on pace to win around 50 with him in the lineup). The other time when he missed the playoffs despite being MVP was when he was actually on a top 4 team in the conference. It's just they had retarded way of determining seeding, two teams from the other weaker conference had to make the playoffs, even though they just won 38 and 36 games. It's classic ignorance from Jordan fans to even bring those instances up. We've already seen from your Kareem thread (and several others) that they know little about the NBA pre-1990.

[Roundball_Rock]

2: didn't start winning ringS until he had someone who could be argued to be greater than him on his team

:wtf:


3: dominated no doubt, but also had several instances of being completely outplayed, some of them came on the biggest stage (Wilt, Moses, Hakeem, Walton)

Evidence? Age? Walton is the only case before age 33. Kareem scored 35 ppg in that series. How exactly was he outplayed?

Walton against Kareem

Snapper Jones: "What battles? Bill lost them all. Bill Walton got his fanny kicked by Abdul-Jabbar. Kareem had no team around him. Portland killed the Lakers in the backcourt. But Abdul-Jabber was still Abdul-Jabber. He was great."

1976: 19/15/7
1977: 24/21/5 (in 1977 Kareem averaged 35/18/4 in the playoffs)
1978: 16/16/5

[Duncan21formvp]

Actually Kareem missed the playoffs twice in the 70s. Once it was when he was out with a hand injury and his team collapsed without him (on pace to be worst without him) and then when he came back it was too late, despite the team playing great ball (on pace to win around 50 with him in the lineup). The other time when he missed the playoffs despite being MVP was when he was actually on a top 4 team in the conference. It's just they had retarded way of determining seeding, two teams from the other weaker conference had to make the playoffs, even though they just won 38 and 36 teams. It's classic ignorance from Jordan fans to even bring those instances up. We've already seen from your Kareem thread (and several others) that they know little about the NBA pre-1990.

You should talk? You didn't even start watching basketball until 2000.

Lakers won 63 games without Kareem which is more than any year that Kareem was in his prime with them.

[Abraham Lincoln]

[QUOTE=Rafael Delaget

[Fatal9]

:wtf:



Evidence? Age? Walton is the only case before age 33. Kareem scored 35 ppg in that series. How exactly was he outplayed?

Walton against Kareem

Snapper Jones: "What battles? Bill lost them all. Bill Walton got his fanny kicked by Abdul-Jabbar. Kareem had no team around him. Portland killed the Lakers in the backcourt. But Abdul-Jabber was still Abdul-Jabber. He was great."

1976: 19/15/7
1977: 24/21/5 (in 1977 Kareem averaged 35/18/4 in the playoffs)
1978: 16/16/5
It's laughable really. I've posted highlights from TWO games and stats from the series, and people who have seen 0 games are still talking out of their ass. http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=154369&page=3 < check out the end of this thread...still waiting for a response. It's funny because people trying to criticize Kareem in that series didn't even know who was even playing :oldlol:

[Roundball_Rock]

:oldlol:

Plus it ignores the larger context that series occurred in. 1977. Race was a much larger factor in society then (the 70's were the years of the school busing controversy, residual opposition to integration, etc.) and definitely was in basketball. EricForman should know since he read Simmon's book and Simmons spends a lot of time talking about this. Walton was good for the league. Kareem was bad. Kareem was also hostile to reporters--by his own admission. Kareem came off as an angry jerk, was black, was a Muslim (would "Lew Alcindor" be considered the GOAT today?). The league would have been better off with another player supplanting him as the premier player in the game. It would be convenient for the league for that player to be white. When you combine all this it is no surprise "Walton outplayed Kareem" became a media narrative.

[catch24]

Yes, easily.

[Duncan21formvp]

Walton beat Kareem and swept him and this when Kareem had the better record and the HCA.

Cowens/Hondo beat Kareem and Oscar in a game 7 of the finals when Kareem had the HCA/Better Record

[EllEffEll]

:wtf:



Evidence? Age? Walton is the only case before age 33. Kareem scored 35 ppg in that series. How exactly was he outplayed?

Walton against Kareem

Snapper Jones: "What battles? Bill lost them all. Bill Walton got his fanny kicked by Abdul-Jabbar. Kareem had no team around him. Portland killed the Lakers in the backcourt. But Abdul-Jabber was still Abdul-Jabber. He was great."

1976: 19/15/7
1977: 24/21/5 (in 1977 Kareem averaged 35/18/4 in the playoffs)
1978: 16/16/5

Excuse me, but I was at Game 1 of the 1977 Lakers vs. Trailblazers playoff series. Bill Walton made Kareem look silly that night. Tastes like *S* to say it and it was shocking, but I was there. Kareem was pissed and came back to score 41 the next game, but LA was swept out of that series in four straight.

[bdreason]

Right now, a prime Kareem would be the best player in the NBA.

[indiefan23]

I say yes, but some think he wouldn't be.

Hmm... prime Kareem's numbers are really inflated. You can look at the year after the merger and see a distinct drop. He'd be really good, but I don't think he'd be the best. Despite the increased competition among big men there are rules that would make him less effective. And please don't say that typical line about how there are no good centers today as average talent at that position is WAY above 1970's.

[Clifton]

When you consider prime Duncan would be the best player in the game today, by a pretty wide margin, and the consider what a scrub Duncan looks like when you compare him with Kareem, I'd have to say yes.

Kareem had all the fundamentals and patience and awareness that makes Duncan one of the all-time greats, but also had way more size, way more skill, way more scoring ability, better shot-blocking ability, etc.

Another way to look at it: Can you even think of a post player in the NBA who is nearly as physically talented as Kareem was, in terms of mobility, length and size? Now add the ability to hang 35 points a night, what would be today top-5 rebounding ability, and all the stuff that makes Duncan great.

[Roundball_Rock]

That is one game. No one is saying Kareem outplayed him in every game. Snapper Jones was there for the entire series. The argument is that Kareem outplayed him over the four game series. It isn't surprising a team missing two of its starters lost.


Walton beat Kareem and swept him and this when Kareem had the better record and the HCA.

Cowens/Hondo beat Kareem and Oscar in a game 7 of the finals when Kareem had the HCA/Better Record

77' has been discussed. In 74' Kareem put up 32/12/5 in the finals and made the clutch game winner in the legendary double OT Game 6. It wasn't his fault the Bucks lost.

[indiefan23]

When you consider prime Duncan would be the best player in the game today, by a pretty wide margin, and the consider what a scrub Duncan looks like when you compare him with Kareem, I'd have to say yes.


Hmm... how exactly is Duncan a scrub compared to Kareem? IMHO, Duncan would own him.

[indiefan23]

Now add the ability to hang 35 points a night

Heh, like seriously, should I point out why this is so foolish, or do you already know and accept it so we can move on?

[Disaprine]

Easily, it would be funny seeing Kareem block the shit out of lebron, kobe and wade. :lol

[EricForman]

Easily, it would be funny seeing Kareem block the shit out of lebron, kobe and wade. :lol


yeah, guy was backpedalling scared when Zeke was charging at him on a fastbreak during the finals, he's gonna block Lebron alright:rolleyes:

(not saying kareem would never block lebron but if you think kareem is harder to dunk on than say any other great center you're delusional)

[Disaprine]

yeah, guy was backpedalling scared when Zeke was charging at him on a fastbreak during the finals, he's gonna block Lebron alright:rolleyes:

(not saying kareem would never block lebron but if you think kareem is harder to dunk on than say any other great center you're delusional)
your delusional if you think Kareem isn't that good and the topic is about prime Kareem(when he was with the bucks) Issiah would have gotten his ass to put to the floor against a young and agressive Kareem.

[EllEffEll]

your delusional if you think Kareem isn't that good and the topic is about prime Kareem(when he was with the bucks) Issiah would have gotten his ass to put to the floor against a young and agressive Kareem.

Quoted for truth :pimp:

[Clifton]

Hmm... how exactly is Duncan a scrub compared to Kareem? IMHO, Duncan would own him.
Because there isn't anything that Duncan can do that Kareem can't do better.


Heh, like seriously, should I point out why this is so foolish, or do you already know and accept it so we can move on?
You're going to have to point it out. If Kobe has the ability to score 35 a night, why couldn't prime Kareem?

I'm not saying if Kareem were put into the NBA he'd score 35 points a game. I'm saying he'd have the ability. Melo scores 30. Durant scores like 28. Both have the ability to score more than that.

Duncan doesn't have the ability to score 35, and I'm not even so sure about 30 for that matter. He can't get you buckets on demand. He is a flow of the offense player. (compared to other all-time greats of course.) He makes his teammates great, that's what makes him great. Kareem did that too; but he could also score at will.

[tontoz]

Hmm... prime Kareem's numbers are really inflated. You can look at the year after the merger and see a distinct drop. He'd be really good, but I don't think he'd be the best. Despite the increased competition among big men there are rules that would make him less effective. And please don't say that typical line about how there are no good centers today as average talent at that position is WAY above 1970's.

The two years after the merger Kareem averaged 26 pts, 13 rebounds, 3 blocks, 4 assists. In his last two years with the Bucks he averaged 28.5 pts, 14.25 rebounds, 3.3 blocks and 4.5 assists.

I am not really seeing your point.

[vert48]

yeah, guy was backpedalling scared when Zeke was charging at him on a fastbreak during the finals, he's gonna block Lebron alright:rolleyes:

(not saying kareem would never block lebron but if you think kareem is harder to dunk on than say any other great center you're delusional)How many games did you get to see Kareem play in person in the '70's? If the answer is none, then you really need to STFU. Kareem was completely unguardable at that point in his career. He was a monster on both ends of the floor.
He was the finals MVP 14 years apart. The next greatest spread is Jordan and Magic at 7 years apart. he was greater, for longer, than anyone that has ever played.

[indiefan23]

When you consider prime Duncan would be the best player in the game today, by a pretty wide margin, and the consider what a scrub Duncan looks like when you compare him with Kareem, I'd have to say yes.

Kareem had all the fundamentals and patience and awareness that makes Duncan one of the all-time greats, but also had way more size, way more skill, way more scoring ability, better shot-blocking ability, etc.

Another way to look at it: Can you even think of a post player in the NBA who is nearly as physically talented as Kareem was, in terms of mobility, length and size? Now add the ability to hang 35 points a night, what would be today top-5 rebounding ability, and all the stuff that makes Duncan great.

Actually, it becomes pretty obvious that you will think that's accurate in any way. So lets take two seasons. Duncan from 05 champion team and Kareem's 34.7 ppg.

Kareem had 34.8 and 16.6 boards. Duncan had 20.3 and 11.1. So lets adjust it by some obvious factors.

So first we adjust for minutes as Duncan only played 33.4 to Kareem's 44.2.

33.4/44.2 *( 34.8 ppg and 16.6 rpg) = 26.2 PPG and 12.5 RPG

But there's also pace to adjust for.

Duncan's defensive team played at a pace of 90. Kareem's offensive Bucks played at a pace of 104.7. So...

90/104.7 *(26.2 PPG and 12.5 RPG) = 22.5 PPG and 10.7 RPG

Now that's all before we even mention that playing a grinding defensive pace is much, MUCH more taxing athletically. And that's all before we mention that Duncan played in league that was much more competent in the post. Wilt and Kareem going head to head in a few inter-conference games a year in a watered down ABA talent stripped league does NOT equal Karl Malone/Barkley/Dream/KG/Forston/Ostertag being in your division, while the rest of the conference is filled out with Shaq/Sheed/Sabonis/Jermaine O'Neal/Webber et al. That's how Duncan's opposition was looking at the turn of the decade.

Would Duncan be able to get 22 and 10 if his top competition was 1. in another conference (Shaq/Chamberlain) and 2. In another league entirely? How much longer would Duncan's career last if he didn't have to bang Shaq like Kareem didn't have to bang Artis Gilmore for years like Kareem didn't? Kareem's best comp was a post-prime Wilt who was only around for a few years with Kareem when he was in his mid 30's after never really recovering from a serious knee injury.

Anyway, I'm guessing maybe there's some kind of counter out there that says "it doesn't matter, he's still the best" but when you evaluate the talent and skill of each player 'fairly' it's very debateable, and IMHO, duncan would destroy Kareem who didn't even lift weights and would be shoved around in the post pretty effortlessly.

[EricForman]

How many games did you get to see Kareem play in person in the '70's? If the answer is none, then you really need to STFU. Kareem was completely unguardable at that point in his career. He was a monster on both ends of the floor.
He was the finals MVP 14 years apart. The next greatest spread is Jordan and Magic at 7 years apart. he was greater, for longer, than anyone that has ever played.


I said he wouldn't be swatting the hell out of lebron/kobe, etc like one poster suggested, and you respond with this junk which barely mentions his defense.

um okay.

and yeah im glad i didnt get to see kareem play in the 70s, it means i'm still young. only on ISH would claiming to be around in the 60s and 70s be a good thing :oldlol:

there are these things called television, books, and internet. there's also this action human beings can do called research. one does not have to be alive at the time of said events to have knowledge about it. Is a 78 year old history teacher guaranteed to be better than 48 year old one? :confusedshrug:

[indiefan23]

How many games did you get to see Kareem play in person in the '70's? If the answer is none, then you really need to STFU. Kareem was completely unguardable at that point in his career. He was a monster on both ends of the floor.
He was the finals MVP 14 years apart. The next greatest spread is Jordan and Magic at 7 years apart. he was greater, for longer, than anyone that has ever played.

Vert, I'm completely unguardable too... when I play children and old men. Who was guarding Kareem? Don't you think his longevity is more connected to the fact that everyone was around 200 pounds and people didn't bang too much? Why was he better then Artis Gilmore? Cuz he was on a stacked Laker's team that won a lot of rings? Longevity wise, Gilmore kicks his ass putting up 20/10 in 1985. Kareem couldn't do that past 1981 and became a scorer cuz of his hook shot. He had an amazing hook, granted, and could still become that imposing force from time to time, but he was done being that guy on the team long before Gilmore was. You're not a dominant post force when your PG is out rebounding you.

Great career, no doubt, but it gets over hyped because of reasons that are not KAJ, but are external circumstances. Full circle, Gilmore is not even in the HOF and probably won't be till everyone who remembers him is dead. Way to go Springfield!

[Carbine]

There is no way Kareem would be the best player in the league without a doubt like it was common knowledge and universally accepted.

LeBron is playing too well. He's too good of a player to take a clear back seat to anyone who has ever played. Nobody is CLEARLY better than he is now. From taking an absolutly brutal squad to the finals, to putting up 40/10/10 games in the playoffs and nobody really is surprised, to his defensive growth, to his passing ability, his shooting improvments.... etc, etc.... he's on THAT level. When we look back in 20 years and people want to argue "primes" and who had the most dominant one, LeBron will no doubt be mentioned with the Shaqs, Jordans, Birds.

Kareem would easily be a top two or three player in the league, but not clearly the best.

[indiefan23]

your delusional if you think Kareem isn't that good and the topic is about prime Kareem(when he was with the bucks) Issiah would have gotten his ass to put to the floor against a young and agressive Kareem.

Ha, why? Cuz Hakeem Olajuwon sucked? Isiah did it to everyone in a league packed with talent, not just old players, and in comparison to Kareem, not a league with a grand total of 0 games vs half the best players in the world.

[D-Rose]

There is no way Kareem would be the best player in the league without a doubt like it was common knowledge and universally accepted.

LeBron is playing too well. He's too good of a player to take a clear back seat to anyone who has ever played. Nobody is CLEARLY better than he is now. From taking an absolutly brutal squad to the finals, to putting up 40/10/10 games in the playoffs and nobody really is surprised, to his defensive growth, to his passing ability, his shooting improvments.... etc, etc.... he's on THAT level. When we look back in 20 years and people want to argue "primes" and who had the most dominant one, LeBron will no doubt be mentioned with the Shaqs, Jordans, Birds.

Kareem would easily be a top two or three player in the league, but not clearly the best.
LeBron isn't "universally accepted" as the best player in the game today and his competition is 31 year old Kobe, but he's better than the GOAT Center in his Prime :oldlol:

[NBASTATMAN]

Prime Kareem would be the best in any era. After all, he is the GOAT.


All my research has led me to believe that Kareem and MJ are the two best players ever... Every metric available shows these two are in a class of their own.. I have no problem with people saying Kareem over Mj.. After all this can be debated by using all type of stats , awards, and titles... No other players are even close when you really take a look...

[G.O.A.T]

In 74' Kareem put up 32/12/5 in the finals and made the clutch game winner in the legendary double OT Game 6. It wasn't his fault the Bucks lost.

Not his fault no, but if Jordan doesn't come up huge in the flu game, the three-pointer game (vs. Portland), the Phoenix Series, and hit all of those game winners, it wouldn't have been his fault the Bulls lost either. But he might not be remembered so widely as the Greatest Ever.

There are five players I think that can be ranked ahead of Kareem one is Wilt based on pure individually abilty and dominance and the other four would be based on their ability to lead and make other players better while still assuming the role of best player.

[NBASTATMAN]

There is no way Kareem would be the best player in the league without a doubt like it was common knowledge and universally accepted.

LeBron is playing too well. He's too good of a player to take a clear back seat to anyone who has ever played. Nobody is CLEARLY better than he is now. From taking an absolutly brutal squad to the finals, to putting up 40/10/10 games in the playoffs and nobody really is surprised, to his defensive growth, to his passing ability, his shooting improvments.... etc, etc.... he's on THAT level. When we look back in 20 years and people want to argue "primes" and who had the most dominant one, LeBron will no doubt be mentioned with the Shaqs, Jordans, Birds.

Kareem would easily be a top two or three player in the league, but not clearly the best.


I like Lebron's game.. And in my opinion he is the most dominant player in the game... But if we went back to the rules used in 2004 he would not be as dominant.. All of the current players including Lebron have performed at a higher level since the no touch rules came into effect.. Kareem would dominate the current crop of Centers.. Too easy...

[indiefan23]

There is no way Kareem would be the best player in the league without a doubt like it was common knowledge and universally accepted.

LeBron is playing too well. He's too good of a player to take a clear back seat to anyone who has ever played. Nobody is CLEARLY better than he is now.

Jordan/Magic/Bird were clearly better, but it's not fair because Lebron's career is not over yet. Lebron benefits from rules that did not exist vs Jordan. He's not close to Jordan's level yet. I've said for a long time he could surpass Jordan but he's not there yet... a leap or two away. I'm starting to doubt if he can get there honestly. He is the only one who's even come close though, so kudos to him. I really hope he does do it.

[Anton Chigurh]

i still say LEBRON is playing like and will be the best player ever so no...completely unstoppable, set all-time NBA record for per last year..come on guys, wheres lebron in this conversation...kareem would be nextttt

Lebron is on pace for zero rings :applause:

[NBASTATMAN]

Not his fault no, but if Jordan doesn't come up huge in the flu game, the three-pointer game (vs. Portland), the Phoenix Series, and hit all of those game winners, it wouldn't have been his fault the Bulls lost either. But he might not be remembered so widely as the Greatest Ever.


One thing MJ has over everyone is that he never lost in the FINALS... Never was outplayed by any other star player.. Still if we are talking about basketball I think College careers have to be taken into account.. Mj had a great career but Kareem had a better one..

[indiefan23]

LeBron isn't "universally accepted" as the best player in the game today and his competition is 31 year old Kobe, but he's better than the GOAT Center in his Prime :oldlol:

I don't think Kobe has been close to Lebron since like, 2005 even. Not for a lack of effort, Kobe improves at a better rate... Lebron's just naturally better at the game. It's not even close now. If you look at Kobe's clutch stats, Lebron has been crushing him for years. Kobe's been operating on a Manu Ginobli (before Manu was hurt) level, while Lebron has been far and away above everyone in the game.

[Roundball_Rock]

Not his fault no, but if Jordan doesn't come up huge in the flu game, the three-pointer game (vs. Portland), the Phoenix Series, and hit all of those game winners, it wouldn't have been his fault the Bulls lost either. But he might not be remembered so widely as the Greatest Ever.

The "flu game" may not have mattered if his teammate didn't have the "foot game."

92'? His best teammate gave him 21/8/8 in the series and led erased a 15 point fourth quarter deficit with a bunch of bench players in Game 6. If that doesn't happen there who knows what would have happened in Game 7.

93'? 21/9/8 from his teammate in the NBA finals. Again, this is a series average, not a line from one game.

Oscar gave Kareem 12/4/8 in 1974...Kareem had Magic in the 80's but during his youth he didn't have the help Jordan had during his heyday. Oscar was past his prime. Oscar was no longer an all-NBA or even an all-star player after 1972. From 1973 until Magic showed up in 1980 he did not have an elite teammate. Why does this matter? We are talking about Kareem from ages 25-31. In other words, his prime. This is what is overlooked by MJ fans on ISH when they criticize his 70's record.


One thing MJ has over everyone is that he never lost in the FINALS... Never was outplayed by any other star player

He played SG. Who was his competition at that position? Drexler, Richmond, and Reggie Miller. Drexler was in the West as was Richmond. Richmond's teams could not even make the playoffs. That leaves Miller, who Jordan faced only once in the playoffs and almost lost (although not because of MJ. The team was just old by 98').

[NBASTATMAN]

I don't think Kobe has been close to Lebron since like, 2005 even. Not for a lack of effort, Kobe improves at a better rate... Lebron's just naturally better at the game. It's not even close now. If you look at Kobe's clutch stats, Lebron has been crushing him for years. Kobe's been operating on a Manu Ginobli (before Manu was hurt) level, while Lebron has been far and away above everyone in the game.


in 2005-2007 Kobe was clearly the best player in the game.. Not always the most valuable but he was the best.. Afterwards I would say Lebron has been the best but since he hasn't won a title he doesn't get universally excepted..

[NBASTATMAN]

The "flu game" may not have mattered if his teammate didn't have the "foot game."

92'? His best teammate gave him 21/8/8 in the series and led erased a 15 point fourth quarter deficit with a bunch of bench players in Game 6. If that doesn't happen there who knows what would have happened in Game 7.

93'? 21/9/8 from his teammate in the NBA finals. Again, this is a series average, not a line from one game.

Oscar gave Kareem 12/4/8 in 1974...Kareem had Magic in the 80's but during his youth he didn't have the help Jordan had during his heyday. Oscar was past his prime. Oscar was no longer an all-NBA or even an all-star player after 1972. From 1973 until Magic showed up in 1980 he did not have an elite teammate. Why does this matter? We are talking about Kareem from ages 25-31. In other words, his prime. This is what is overlooked by MJ fans on ISH when they criticize his 70's record.



You could use all this but you could then use the MAGIC winning without Kareem... Magic is probably my fav to watch....

[Roundball_Rock]

You could use all this but you could then use the MAGIC winning without Kareem... Magic is probably my fav to watch....

?

Magic never won a championship without Kareem.

I wasn't knocking MJ. My point was Kareem didn't have anyone like that in his prime. Oscar was good in 71' but Kareem was 23. In his physical prime he had old Oscar and no other elite player. Many MJ fans here act as if Kareem was playing on stacked teams and won only one ring in the 70's. By the time he got rookie Magic he was 32. Jordan had perfect timing in many ways. Does that automatically make him the GOAT?

[NBASTATMAN]

?

Magic never won a championship without Kareem.

I wasn't knocking MJ. My point was Kareem didn't have anyone like that in his prime. Oscar was good in 71' but Kareem was 23. In his physical prime he had old Oscar and no other elite player.


Magic won one with Kareem injured in his rookie year.. Kareem was injured and Magic played great.. Yea he didn't win the whole series without Kareem but he won the most important game without him... As a rookie... What other player could do that?

Plus Magic wasn't able to play whole career because of HIV... If he had than maybe he would have been paired without someone better than A young VLADE...And probably would have won again...

[Fatal9]

Oscar gave Kareem 12/4/8 in 1974...Kareem had Magic in the 80's but during his youth he didn't have the help Jordan had during his heyday. Oscar was past his prime.
Not to mention Oscar shot 2/13 in the game 7 while Kareem was setting up him and others with open jumpers due to the defensive attention he was drawing. Even Jordan can't win when his teammates poorly (see game 7 of the Pistons series, a boxscore Jordan fans love to bring up repeatedly too).

[Roundball_Rock]

Magic won one with Kareem injured in his rookie year.. Kareem was injured and Magic played great.. Yea he didn't win the whole series without Kareem but he won the most important game without him... As a rookie... What other player could do that?

Plus Magic wasn't able to play whole career because of HIV... If he had than maybe he would have been paired without someone better than A young VLADE...And probably would have won again...

Magic won one game. Kareem averaged something like 33/14/5 in the finals. Magic's line in that finals is reminiscent of Pippen's when healthy yet...

Yeah but Magic was declining by the time he retired--as was his team. Was he really going to win championships after 91'? I could see him getting another MVP but another ring? Worthy retired after 93' and the team sucked for a few years.


Not to mention Oscar shot 2/13 in the game 7 while Kareem was setting up him and others with open jumpers due to the defensive attention he was drawing. Even Jordan can't win when his teammates poorly (see game 7 of the Pistons series, a boxscore Jordan fans love to bring up repeatedly too).

Kareem had poor timing. He got his great, long-term squad at age 32 and by then the great Celtic and Sixer teams were on the scene. Jordan got his team conveniently when the Celtics and Lakers had declined and the Pistons lacked staying power. Kareem and Magic had to battle Boston for a decade. Chicago had no long-term rival in the 90's, other than the Knicks and even then how much of a rivalry is it when one side won every year. Plus Ewing/Starks/Oakley is hardly Bird/McHale/Parish or Moses/Dr. J/Toney/Cheeks.

[Clifton]

So first we adjust for minutes as Duncan only played 33.4 to Kareem's 44.2.


But there's also pace to adjust for.

Okay all you've done here is played some games with numbers to manipulate the data to downplay Kareem. Even if you were right (you aren't), you're going to have a hard time convincing people this way, because everyone knows that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics, and people aren't fooled by numbers when they can see for their own eyes that Kareem could score whenever he wanted and Duncan has to use midrange jumpers in rhythm, about three total post moves in an isolation, and high-IQ/awareness to get his points.

Which is not to say Duncan doesn't belong in the top 20 all time; I think he clearly does. But he's up against stiff competition in this thread and ultimately, he's an underwhelming scoring threat when compared to almost anyone else at his level. What makes him great is everything else, but Kareem had all the everything else Duncan has and then some.


Anyway, I'm guessing maybe there's some kind of counter out there that says "it doesn't matter, he's still the best" but when you evaluate the talent and skill of each player 'fairly' it's very debateable,
Yeah it's called watching them play basketball games with a critical eye. Almost everyone who's done so ranks Kareem as superior.

You ascribe Kareem scoring more points than anyone in history to what? Lack of competition? Are you serious? He was playing against NBA players; how bad could the competition be? He only got those numbers because he played 44 minutes a game, huh? Well then why doesn't everyone play 44 minutes a game? Probably because they don't have the stamina and control to last that long on the court and be effective for that whole time. If Duncan played 44 minutes a game he wouldn't score as many points per minute and you know why? Because he'd get tired. Kareem didn't.


and IMHO, duncan would destroy Kareem who didn't even lift weights and would be shoved around in the post pretty effortlessly.
If Kareem had lifted weights, maybe he wouldn't have been an effective NBA player through age 42; maybe he wouldn't have been able to play the 44 minutes per game Duncan doesn't and can't play that you claim to be necessary for him to put up his "inflated" 35 ppg.

Kareem was skinny as f*ck, but he knew how to use his body and he had lean muscle. I've never seen him get pushed around in the post.

[Fatal9]

When you consider prime Duncan would be the best player in the game today, by a pretty wide margin
Not better than Lebron, sorry. Would be a tossup between him and current Kobe for the second best player.

It's actually incredible to see how underrated Lebron is. No one other than Shaq has come close to putting up his type of production but for some reason, the question of who the best in the league is, still exists. Consider this...the Cavs have played 8 games without Lebron in the last 2.5 years, and they've lost ALL of them. That's right...0-8. His impact on that team is unbelievable, and the numbers he's put up in these last two years even more so.

[NBASTATMAN]

Not to mention Oscar shot 2/13 in the game 7 while Kareem was setting up him and others with open jumpers due to the defensive attention he was drawing. Even Jordan can't win when his teammates poorly (see game 7 of the Pistons series, a boxscore Jordan fans love to bring up repeatedly too).


Pippen shooting was horrible in the last two playoff runs... I know he was injured.. Not trying to diss Pip...

[NBASTATMAN]

Not better than Lebron, sorry. Would be a tossup between him and current Kobe for the second best player.


What if you got rid of the no touch rules? Would Lebron or Kobe be as good.. Hell no... Kobe's and lebron's shooting percentages have gone up every year since the no touch rules were in effect.. Most guards have... Under the old rules Duncan would be better.. People forget Duncan beat kobe and shaq with no other stars in his lineup.. Guy just played smart ball.. Never has played with a true superstar either...

[NBASTATMAN]

Not better than Lebron, sorry. Would be a tossup between him and current Kobe for the second best player.

It's actually incredible to see how underrated Lebron is. No one other than Shaq has come close to putting up his type of production but for some reason, the question of who the best in the league is, still exists. Consider this...the Cavs have played 8 games without Lebron in the last 2.5 years, and they've lost ALL of them. That's right...0-8. His impact on that team is unbelievable, and the numbers he's put up in these last two years even more so.


someone has hacked fatal's account... :lol

[Roundball_Rock]

Pippen shooting was horrible in the last two playoff runs... I know he was injured.. Not trying to diss Pip...

96' was poor. He shot 42% in the next two playoff runs. That isn't great but it isn't bad either considering the fact it was the playoffs and they were facing great defenses and his injury problems. Jordan himself shot "only" 46% in those two playoff runs.

During the second three peat his chief contribution arguably was on defense (where he was the "#1 option"), especially in 98'. He shut down the Utah offense in the finals and wreaked havoc on the Indiana offense in the ECF. He always played legendary D regardless of injury or if his shot was falling. Some of these other "sidekicks" we hear about were one-way players.

[NBASTATMAN]

Magic won one game. Kareem averaged something like 33/14/5 in the finals. Magic's line in that finals is reminiscent of Pippen's when healthy yet...

Yeah but Magic was declining by the time he retired--as was his team. Was he really going to win championships after 91'? I could see him getting another MVP but another ring? Worthy retired after 93' and the team sucked for a few years.



Kareem had poor timing. He got his great, long-term squad at age 32 and by then the great Celtic and Sixer teams were on the scene. Jordan got his team conveniently when the Celtics and Lakers had declined and the Pistons lacked staying power. Kareem and Magic had to battle Boston for a decade. Chicago had no long-term rival in the 90's, other than the Knicks and even then how much of a rivalry is it when one side won every year. Plus Ewing/Starks/Oakley is hardly Bird/McHale/Parish or Moses/Dr. J/Toney/Cheeks.



One thing I can agree on is that Kareem is the one guy that I could put against MJ and it would be close... No other player ...

[Clifton]

Not better than Lebron, sorry. Would be a tossup between him and current Kobe for the second best player.
Prime Duncan or current Lebron... you might actually be right.

I'm so used to calling Duncan the best of our time that it's hard to adjust to what Lebron is doing right now.

If I had to choose between prime Duncan and current Lebron I'd have a tough choice on my hands. At this moment I'm probably leaning 60-40 toward Duncan but that might change tomorrow.

Either way I'm taking Kareem over both. I can't see Lebron ever developing the penache and sense of mastery of the game beyond the physical realm that Magic, Bird, and MJ seemed to have. And when it's really close, the prize always goes to the post player, in my book, unless the perimeter player has said "X factor."

[Alhazred]

96' was poor. He shot 42% in the next two playoff runs. That isn't great but it isn't bad either considering the fact it was the playoffs and they were facing great defenses and his injury problems. Jordan himself shot "only" 46% in those two playoff runs.

Roundball, didn't you hear? The 90s were totally depleted, man. Pippen was shooting poorly against watered down competition, OMG!

Just kidding, he was awesome. Just tired of hearing all this "90s was watered down" crap.


During the second three peat his chief contribution arguably was on defense (where he was the "#1 option"), especially in 98'. He shut down the Utah offense in the finals and wreaked havoc on the Indiana offense in the ECF. He always played legendary D regardless of injury or if his shot was falling. Some of these other "sidekicks" we hear about were one-way players.

Like who? McHale and Dumars were good on both ends. So were Magic(Well, good at everything but man to man d) and Kareem, not sure who would be considered the sidekick, though.

[NBASTATMAN]

96' was poor. He shot 42% in the next two playoff runs. That isn't great but it isn't bad either considering the fact it was the playoffs and they were facing great defenses and his injury problems. Jordan himself shot "only" 46% in those two playoff runs.

During the second three peat his chief contribution arguably was on defense (where he was the "#1 option"), especially in 98'. He shut down the Utah offense in the finals and wreaked havoc on the Indiana offense in the ECF. He always played legendary D regardless of injury or if his shot was falling. Some of these other "sidekicks" we hear about were one-way players.


But Kukoc shot 36 percent and harper 40 percent steve kerr 42 and rodman who was always left alone 37 percent.. Come on.. I know that Rodman played great defense but he only avg 8 reb.. This was the 97 playoffs..



One thing to consider is that Duncan's best teammate has never been a superstar.. Yet he has 4 titles.. No other player can say this..

[Roundball_Rock]

Too much is made of dilution/expansion. Yeah, the more teams there are the weaker the absolute talent of your opponents are since it is more spread out. And? The same thing applies to your team too! Look at the Bulls. They lost BJ Armstrong due to expansion. The key is to look at relative talent imo.


Like who? McHale and Dumars were good on both ends. So were Magic(Well, good at everything but man to man d) and Kareem, not sure who would be considered the sidekick, though.

Magic was an all-time great defender? It was a general comment. People always look at offense but ignore defense. I don't recall Tony Parker shutting down the Phoenix offense or Paul Pierce dominating an ECF game in which he scored only 4 points due to his defense.


But Kukoc shot 36 percent and harper 40 percent steve kerr 42 and rodman who was always left alone 37 percent.. Come on.. I know that Rodman played great defense but he only avg 8 reb.. This was the 97 playoffs..

That shows you the tough defenses they faced. Jordan shot 46% because he was Jordan. :bowdown:


One thing to consider is that Duncan's best teammate has never been a superstar.. Yet he has 4 titles.. No other player can say this..

Yeah I can see it for 03' and to a lesser extent 05' but he had solid help in 99' and 07'. Robinson was still an all-star caliber player in 99' and in 07' Parker and Manu were good. What Duncan did in 03' is amazing and overlooked, especially since he beat Shaq-Kobe on his way to the finals that year.

[Fatal9]

I like how Pippen's bad shooting series are brought up, but nothing is said of MJ shooting 35-42% in several series during the second threepeat, or shooting horribly in many big games (game 7 vs. Pacers for example). You know why the Bulls still won those series? Because the Pippen-led Bulls defense could constantly hold teams to under 90, 80, or even 70 points. But who cares about anything other than scoring :rolleyes:

[NBASTATMAN]

Too much is made of dilution/expansion. Yeah, the more teams there are the weaker the absolute talent of your opponents are since it is more spread out. And? The same thing applies to your team too! Look at the Bulls. They lost BJ Armstrong due to expansion. The key is to look at relative talent imo.



Magic was an all-time great defender? It was a general comment. People always look at offense but ignore defense. I don't recall Tony Parker shutting down the Phoenix offense or Paul Pierce dominating an ECF game in which he scored only 4 points due to his defense.



That shows you the tough defenses they faced. Jordan shot 46% because he was Jordan. :bowdown:



Yeah I can see it for 03' and to a lesser extent 05' but he had solid help in 99' and 07'. Robinson was still an all-star caliber player in 99' and in 07' Parker and Manu were good. What Duncan did in 03' is amazing and overlooked, especially since he beat Shaq-Kobe on his way to the finals that year.



99 Drob avg 15 pts a game .. Regular season and playoffs.. Borderline all star.

03 Tony parker was second best scorer at around 14.7 but he shot 40 percent

[NBASTATMAN]

I like how Pippen's bad shooting series are brought up, but nothing is said of MJ shooting 35-42% in several series during the second threepeat, or shooting horribly in many big games (game 7 vs. Pacers for example). You know why the Bulls still won those series? Because the Pippen-led Bulls defense could constantly hold teams to under 90, 80, or even 70 points. But who cares about anything other than scoring :rolleyes:


Everyone has bad games and even bad series.. But when I wrote about Pippen or kukoc I was writing about all playoff games in that year.. Mj never shot bad for a whole playoff...

[Roundball_Rock]

Everyone has bad games and even bad series.. But when I wrote about Pippen or kukoc I was writing about all playoff games in that year.. Mj never shot bad for a whole playoff...

When did Jordan get seriously hurt in the playoffs, though? He had great luck all-around during his career. His only serious injury was in his second season when his team sucked anyway and in 2002 when he was battling for 8th place at age 38. Pippen was hurt when that happened and I am pretty sure Kukoc was as well in 97'.

Robinson's stats were solid (16/10) but not great but you have to factor in defense. Robinson and Duncan as your interior D? :eek:

03' I agree on. No significant help yet he won it all, beat Shaq-Kobe.


I like how Pippen's bad shooting series are brought up, but nothing is said of MJ shooting 35-42% in several series during the second threepeat, or shooting horribly in many big games (game 7 vs. Pacers for example). You know why the Bulls still won those series? Because the Pippen-led Bulls defense could constantly hold teams to under 90, 80, or even 70 points. But who cares about anything other than scoring

They have that covered too, though. :oldlol: If you bring up D they will say MJ was close to Pippen on D. Notice the irony? When it comes to defense being close is enough (by close they mean top 1-3 defender versus a 9th-10th defender. Top 1-3 player with a top 10 player. Sounds like the first three peat doesn't it?) to split the credit equally. Yet overall it doesn't matter. MJ was better hence he deserves 90% of the credit. It doesn't matter that Pippen was #2 in all-NBA voting in 96' behind MJ and #1 in all-Defense voting (#3/#1 respectively in 95', #1/#1 in 94' yet he was never a top 5 player according to some MJ fans today). Jordan was better. Being that close is irrelevant.

[NBASTATMAN]

When did Jordan get seriously hurt in the playoffs, though? He had great luck all-around during his career. His only serious injury was in his second season when his team sucked anyway and in 2002 when he was battling for 8th place at age 38. Pippen was hurt when that happened and I am pretty sure Kukoc was as well in 97'.

Robinson's stats were solid (16/10) but not great but you have to factor in defense. Robinson and Duncan as your interior D? :eek:

03' I agree on. No significant help yet he won it all, beat Shaq-Kobe.



They have that covered too, though. :oldlol: If you bring up D they will say MJ was close to Pippen on D. Notice the irony? When it comes to defense being close is enough (by close they mean top 1-3 defender versus a 9th-10th defender. Top 1-3 player with a top 10 player. Sounds like the first three peat doesn't it?) to split the credit equally. Yet overall it doesn't matter. MJ was better hence he deserves 90% of the credit. It doesn't matter that Pippen was #2 in all-NBA voting in 96' behind MJ and #1 in all-Defense voting (#3/#1 respectively in 95', #1/#1 in 94' yet he was never a top 5 player according to some MJ fans today). Jordan was better. Being that close is irrelevant.


Look you are trying to make this into a Pippen thread once again.. I understand Pippen was hurt... Still Mj was able to carry the load.. Name another player at 34 and 35 who took years off the sport that would be able to do the same.... NONE...Not trying to diss PIP...

[Roundball_Rock]

Still Mj was able to carry the load.. Name another player at 34 and 35 who took years off the sport that would be able to do the same.... NONE...Not trying to diss PIP...

True. Pippen being hurt meant MJ had to shoulder more of the scoring load--especially in Games 5 and 6 of the 98' finals when Pippen was useless as a scorer (still great D and 11 boards and 11 assists in Game 5, though). I don't dispute that. In 97' it was MJ and Pippen and no one else scoring. Kukoc was the #3 scorer at 8 ppg. :eek:

[Alhazred]

Too much is made of dilution/expansion. Yeah, the more teams there are the weaker the absolute talent of your opponents are since it is more spread out. And? The same thing applies to your team too! Look at the Bulls. They lost BJ Armstrong due to expansion. The key is to look at relative talent imo.

Well said.



Magic was an all-time great defender? It was a general comment. People always look at offense but ignore defense. I don't recall Tony Parker shutting down the Phoenix offense or Paul Pierce dominating an ECF game in which he scored only 4 points due to his defense.

Ok, that's fair. Pippen is definitely better than Pierce and Parker.

I wasn't saying that Magic was a great defender, just that he generally did a bit of everything, like scoring, rebounding, passing, ect.

[Roundball_Rock]

It isn't even just Pippen. He is just one example. Look at a more recent example: Bruce Bowen. If you look at scoring you would think he was almost irrelevant on those teams when in reality his perimeter defense was key, combined with Duncan's interior D, in making many of those Spurs teams great defensively.


I wasn't saying that Magic was a great defender, just that he generally did a bit of everything, like scoring, rebounding, passing, ect.

All that is lost in scoring fetishism as well. People don't look at the role players have on teams. KG was not the leading scorer on the 08' Celtics. Will people 40 years from now think Pierce>KG that year because Pierce scored more and won FMVP even though KG's defense and leadership were the key to that team (plus he was their best player too but his margin there was not huge. Where he > Pierce and Allen was on defense and leadership)?

[Alhazred]

I like how Pippen's bad shooting series are brought up, but nothing is said of MJ shooting 35-42% in several series during the second threepeat, or shooting horribly in many big games (game 7 vs. Pacers for example). You know why the Bulls still won those series? Because the Pippen-led Bulls defense could constantly hold teams to under 90, 80, or even 70 points. But who cares about anything other than scoring :rolleyes:

Fatal, even without Pippen that was a very good defensive team. Remember that the Bulls won 62 games despite Pippen missing nearly half the season that year.

Also, did you consider Pippen's offense to be better than Jordan's defense that year? Just curious.

[Fatal9]

Also, did you consider Pippen's offense to be better than Jordan's defense that year? Just curious.
How the hell do you even go about comparing that?

Bulls were actually struggling a lot trying to cope with Pippen's absence. Everyone was surprised (it was a team that won 69 games a year before, playing .500 ball) but Bulls had a soft stretch in their schedule after the first month or so of the season and they went on a winning streak to make their record w/o Pip respectable. This masked how much they actually struggled without him and how awful they were in that first month (not to mention once Pippen came back and filled the distributor void, basically everyone began started shooting better).

[Alhazred]

How the hell do you even go about comparing that?

Ok, let me put it this way: Did Jordan's defense have a larger or smaller impact than Pippen's scoring? Basically what I'm getting at is that whereas Pippen was a slightly better defender than Jordan, Jordan's scoring was much better than Pippen's.

Also, defensive/offensive rating and defensive/offensive win shares is a way to compare them. I don't think they're entirely accurate, but I do think they offer an idea of how a player did in one area.

[LAClipsFan33]

Kareem would average like 35 ppg and 12-15 rpg

He would be hands down the best player in this NBA

[Fatal9]

What would that prove? That Jordan is the better player? Who is arguing that? Jordan had more of an impact on the game than Pippen ever did. I was merely pointing out that despite Pippen shooting poorly, the things he did on defense (which helped mask many off-shooting nights by second threepeat MJ) and his role in distributing the ball on offense, never made me think that Pippen was playing poorly in any of those playoff runs, despite what the shooting percentages may suggest to those who didn't watch the games.

[LAClipsFan33]

What would that prove? That Jordan is the better player? Who is arguing that? Jordan had more of an impact on the game than Pippen ever did. I was merely pointing out that despite Pippen shooting poorly, the things he did on defense (which helped mask many off-shooting nights by second threepeat MJ) and his role in distributing the ball on offense, never made me think that Pippen was playing poorly in any of those playoff runs, despite what the shooting percentages may suggest to those who didn't watch the games.

I agree. I remember Pippen having bad shooting nights, but never bad games in the playoffs overall because no matter what he had that night on offense he always brought it on defense and always remained a smart player on offense moving the ball and running through the offense even if his shot wasn't dropping. Pippen rose up to a high level in every playoff game I ever saw him in

[Alhazred]

How the hell do you even go about comparing that?

Bulls were actually struggling a lot trying to cope with Pippen's absence. Everyone was surprised (it was a team that won 69 games a year before, playing .500 ball) but Bulls had a soft stretch in their schedule after the first month or so of the season and they went on a winning streak to make their record w/o Pip respectable. This masked how much they actually struggled without him and how awful they were in that first month (not to mention once Pippen came back and filled the distributor void, basically everyone began started shooting better).

I checked the games Pippen missed and although you were correct that the Bulls did get some wins against weak teams, they also chalked up wins against the Lakers(61-21), Suns(56-26), Cavs(47-35), Spurs(56-26), Hornets(51-31), Hawks(50-32) and some .500 teams like New Jersey.


24-11 overall once Scottie got back. Not as great as the year before obviously, but still respectable.

[Roundball_Rock]

What would that prove? That Jordan is the better player? Who is arguing that? Jordan had more of an impact on the game than Pippen ever did. I was merely pointing out that despite Pippen shooting poorly, the things he did on defense (which helped mask many off-shooting nights by second threepeat MJ) and his role in distributing the ball on offense, never made me think that Pippen was playing poorly in any of those playoff runs, despite what the shooting percentages may suggest to those who didn't watch the games.

This. No one has ever argued Jordan was not better or more important. MJ clearly was during the first three peat but imo they were 1a/1b during the second one--with MJ always being "1a." As BJ Armstrong observed, MJ needed Pippen to be MJ during those years, which is why Armstrong believes MJ was more appreciative of him during that time than before his retirement. He was old. He needed to divide more of the workload with another great player in order to play at his high level over the course of a season.


Also, defensive/offensive rating and defensive/offensive win shares is a way to compare them. I don't think they're entirely accurate, but I do think they offer an idea of how a player did in one area.

Those stats are trash imo. Do you realize only one perimeter player has ever led the league in defensive rating (Pippen in 95')? That stat is skewed toward big men as is win shares (rewards rebounding, rewards high FG %, penalizes turnovers by primary ballhandlers, etc.)


whereas Pippen was a slightly better defender than Jordan, Jordan's scoring was much better than Pippen's.

In those years when healthy he was a 20-21 ppg scorer. Jordan was a 29-30 ppg scorer. Then you have to factor in points produced by assists. When you do that the offensive gap was about 5 points. So even there scoring does not tell the whole story. As Fatal noted, the shooting percentages of everyone skyrocketed when Pippen came back. David Halberstam in his MJ book analogizes Pippen to a skilled watchmaker running the offense. Everyone knew where to go, he knew where to get the ball, he knew who to help get a good shot to keep in the game, etc. That stuff doesn't show up in the scoring column.


24-11 overall once Scottie got back. Not as great as the year before obviously, but still respectable.

Sure but that would mean the #2 or #3 seed--which means Game 7 of the ECF, which the Bulls barely won, would be in Indiana. With him they were on a 66 win pace. Also, MJ would have tailed off if he didn't have Pippen for the whole season due to fatigue. He had to do too much without him. Would MJ have been MJ come the finals if he had to carry so much of the load? Basically all the scoring load. No one scored without Pippen there. Kukoc, Longley, Harper all scored less without him because their shooting percentages plummeted. MJ had to carry more of the playmaking load and more of the defensive load as well.

In 1997-98 Scottie played only 9 games before the all-star break. Let's look at the stats of the Bulls' top five scorers other than Pippen before and after the all-star break.

Toni Kukoc: 12.6 ppg on 45% shooting before the ASG, 14.4 on 46.4% after the ASG

Luc Longley: 11.1 ppg on 44.4% before the ASG, 12.8 ppg on 50% after the ASG

Ron Harper: 9.6 on 42.9% before the ASG, 8.8 on 46% after the ASG

Steve Kerr: 7.1 on 41.1% before the ASG, 8.0 on 50.7% after the ASG

Michael Jordan: 28.9 on 45.0% before the ASG, 28.5 on 48.9% after the ASG

Gee, maybe this was all just a string of coincidences? Let's try one more, Bill Wennington. 3.3 ppg on 41.4% before the ASG, 3.7 on 45.9% after the ASG.

None of this stuff shows up when basketballreference.com says he averaged 19 ppg in 98'.


I agree. I remember Pippen having bad shooting nights, but never bad games in the playoffs overall because no matter what he had that night on offense he always brought it on defense and always remained a smart player on offense moving the ball and running through the offense even if his shot wasn't dropping Pippen rose up to a high level in every playoff game I ever saw him in

:applause:

[Alhazred]

What would that prove? That Jordan is the better player? Who is arguing that? Jordan had more of an impact on the game than Pippen ever did. I was merely pointing out that despite Pippen shooting poorly, the things he did on defense (which helped mask many off-shooting nights by second threepeat MJ) and his role in distributing the ball on offense, never made me think that Pippen was playing poorly in any of those playoff runs, despite what the shooting percentages may suggest to those who didn't watch the games.

Defending Pippen's ability to impact games is one thing, but from the post below it sounds like you believe Pippen was the main reason for them winning.


"I like how Pippen's bad shooting series are brought up, but nothing is said of MJ shooting 35-42% in several series during the second threepeat, or shooting horribly in many big games (game 7 vs. Pacers for example). You know why the Bulls still won those series? Because the Pippen-led Bulls defense could constantly hold teams to under 90, 80, or even 70 points. But who cares about anything other than scoring "

If not, then I'm sorry I misread your post.

[Roundball_Rock]

He is right. The key was the defense. Of course, the defense meant Jordan, Rodman, and Harper too. It wasn't all Pippen, just as it was never all Jordan on offense. He didn't say it was all Pippen but the defense, which he led, was the key. I think most people agree with that statement. What you said is accurate. Jordan's combination of scoring, defense, playmaking>that of anyone else on the team and hence he was the most important player. No one disputes that.

[Alhazred]

This. No one has ever argued Jordan was not better or more important. MJ clearly was during the first three peat but imo they were 1a/1b during the second one--with MJ always being "1a." As BJ Armstrong observed, MJ needed Pippen to be MJ during those years, which is why Armstrong believes MJ was more appreciative of him during that time than before his retirement. He was old. He needed to divide more of the workload with another great player in order to play at his high level over the course of a season.

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. I don't deny that Pippen made a big impact on the team, just that they weren't crap without him, either. Inferior, yes, but not bad.




Those stats are trash imo. Do you realize only one perimeter player has ever led the league in defensive rating (Pippen in 95')? That stat is skewed toward big men as is win shares (rewards rebounding, rewards high FG %, penalizes turnovers by primary ballhandlers, etc.)

True, but Jordan and Pippen played a similar game which I think makes it accurate in this case.




In those years when healthy he was a 20-21 ppg scorer. Jordan was a 29-30 ppg scorer. Then you have to factor in points produced by assists. When you do that the offensive gap was about 5 points. So even there scoring does not tell the whole story.

Jordan and Pippen usually averaged a similar amount of assists, though, so how does the difference change?


As Fatal noted, the shooting percentages of everyone skyrocketed when Pippen came back. David Halberstam in his MJ book analogizes Pippen to a skilled watchmaker running the offense. Everyone knew where to go, he knew where to get the ball, he knew who to help get a good shot to keep in the game, etc. That stuff doesn't show up in the scoring column.

He also added another scoring option to the team, don't forget. He wasn't going to explode for 50 a night, but he was still a viable scoring threat which helped the Bulls offense.




Sure but that would mean the #2 or #3 seed--which means Game 7 of the ECF, which the Bulls barely won, would be in Indiana. With him they were on a 66 win pace. Also, MJ would have tailed off if he didn't have Pippen for the whole season due to fatigue. He had to do too much without him. Would MJ have been MJ come the finals if he had to carry so much of the load? Basically all the scoring load. No one scored without Pippen there. Kukoc, Longley, Harper all scored less without him because their shooting percentages plummeted. MJ had to carry more of the playmaking load and more of the defensive load as well.

The Bulls wouldn't have won it all that year, I think. They would have gotten a decent amount of wins and would have advanced to at least the Semi-Finals or Conference Finals, though.

[indiefan23]

One thing MJ has over everyone is that he never lost in the FINALS... Never was outplayed by any other star player.. Still if we are talking about basketball I think College careers have to be taken into account.. Mj had a great career but Kareem had a better one..

I agree that no star has outplayed MJ, but what does winning or losing in the finals have to do with it? MJ had better teams then everyone he's ever faced in the finals. The Jordan/Pippen O and D combo destroyed every perimeter in the game. Jordan outplayed Barkley, sure, but Barkley played like a superstar none the less. It wasn't Barkley wasn't Kevin Johnson and the other dudes who were crushed under the D.

[Roundball_Rock]

I agree with 90% of your post.

Regarding assists, let's suppose each assist is worth 2.2 points. That means a difference of two assists will translate to 4.4 points.


True, but Jordan and Michael played a similar game which I think makes it accurate in this case.

Yeah but things like throwing off the entire Utah offense's timing and hence decreasing their efficiency (103 ppg to 80 ppg!) doesn't show up in a defensive rating or defensive wins share stat. Things like steals and blocks would and the team as a whole playing good defense is reflected but subtle things like that won't.


He also added another scoring option to the team, don't forget. He wasn't going to explode for 50 a night, but he was still a viable scoring threat which helped the Bulls offense.

I agree.

Without him they would win around 55 games, give or take a few and make the ECF. There were three very good teams in the East that year: Indiana, Chicago, and Miami. Well Miami choked in the first round. That would mean the Bulls would face a 43 win Knicks team in the second round. They probably would have won that series but they weren't beating the Pacers.

[indiefan23]

in 2005-2007 Kobe was clearly the best player in the game.. Not always the most valuable but he was the best.. Afterwards I would say Lebron has been the best but since he hasn't won a title he doesn't get universally excepted..

It wasn't clear at all. He was clearly taking the most shots. Personally, I think Kobe was 3'rd to Lebron and Nash.

I mean, in 05, how is he clearly the best player in the game when he was scoring the same points, significantly less assists/rebounds/steals, less blocks, more turnovers, and a lower FG% and 3 point FG%? Kobe was clearly better because he shot 6% better on his FT's to score .4 me PPG? ;0

Cuz that's the only cat he's marginally better in. And I mean, Kobe had just broken up a championship team and pushed the best coach of all time off the team after shooting 17% from 3 in the finals and losing an entire title for his team. He took one less three then his HOF teammate and second leading scorer of all time took... and that is even low because there was an entire half of a game where he refused to shoot using a finals loss to prove a point.

And you're saying he was clearly the best player in the game? ;0 Again, Kobe was behind Steve Nash AND Wade for that matter Duncan as well, and has never actually 'clearly' been the best player in the league even for a single season. The closest he's ever been without LA media/hype is like, maybe 3'rd, but I'd have to think about that cuz I'm not sure if he's even been that high since I'm putting KG WAY above Kobe too. Maybe 4'th or 5'th?

[crisoner]

Hell yeah....

I rank the bigs like this.......

Wilt
Kareem
The Dream
Russel
Shaq

[indiefan23]

Okay all you've done here is played some games with numbers to manipulate the data to downplay Kareem. Even if you were right (you aren't), you're going to have a hard time convincing people this way, because everyone knows that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics, and people aren't fooled by numbers when they can see for their own eyes that Kareem could score whenever he wanted and Duncan has to use midrange jumpers in rhythm, about three total post moves in an isolation, and high-IQ/awareness to get his points.

What? I don't know where to start. Lets start with the dumbest one.

TD can only score from midrange jumpers off his IQ? What?

4:10 4:25 are particular good examples of how to be wrong

I'd watch the whole mix. TD did anything he wanted to.

Secondly, all I've done is play with the numbers? That's actually what you did, is used a stat to show something. So first you're a hypocrite there. Second, all I did was took the pace that KAJ'a Bucks team played at and adjusted his numbers based on if he played the same # of possessions as TD. Playing more possessions means you get more total numbers. That's logical.

I adjusted for the minutes TD/KAJ played in those seasons. If you play more minutes, you get more total numbers. That's logical too.

It can be much simpler. The fact is that in that season, KAJ played 44.2 MPG. So that's 44.2/48min=~92 percent of the 104 possessions. TD played 33/48=~68.7% of 90 possessions. So:

KAJ .92*104.7=96.32pos/game * 82=7,899 possessions played that season

TD .687*90= 61.8 pos/game * 82=5,070 possessions played that season

So KAJ played 2829 more possessions that season.

Now, TD was injured for some of it, but it's pretty clear to see that over 82 games the reason KAJ's numbers are so enormous, first and foremost, because he's a fantastic player, but in comparison to TD, who's also fantastic, the obvious, straight forward reason is because KAJ played nearly 3000 more possessions then TD did over that 82 game span. Since we know how many he played a game and TD played, lets compare that.

KAJ played 2829/96.32= 29.6 games, good for over a third a season more in the early 70's and by the standard of 05 TD, he played, watch this now...

2829/61.8= 47.39 more TD games in 2005. So KAJ's in the 70's played in well over half a season of possessions that 05 TD did on his championship Spurs.

I didn't twist that number out or manipulate anything, he played that much more in the single season, yet you're still dividing by the exact same 82 games which drastically brings KAJ's numbers down to earth.


Which is not to say Duncan doesn't belong in the top 20 all time; I think he clearly does. But he's up against stiff competition in this thread and ultimately, he's an underwhelming scoring threat when compared to almost anyone else at his level. What makes him great is everything else, but Kareem had all the everything else Duncan has and then some.

Yeah it's called watching them play basketball games with a critical eye. Almost everyone who's done so ranks Kareem as superior.

No one who watches basketball would ever say that TD was an underwhelming scoring threat. Not padding your scoring scoring stats makes you a better scorer, not a weaker one. TD didn't care about stats.


You ascribe Kareem scoring more points than anyone in history to what? Lack of competition? Are you serious? He was playing against NBA players; how bad could the competition be?

Pretty terrible. As I said earlier, half of the best players in the world were in the ABA as loosely dictated that the year after the merger half of the all stars were ex ABA players. 75% of the ABA players were hired by NBA teams forcing out the dead weight that had accumulated there. Basketball talent was just not really that good before the 70's. KAJ was a big part of that revolution obviously. Watch some old 60's games and you'll find it shocking how bad they are. Lots of people can't dribble with both hands or execute a crossover.

If you want to see some old footage (http://www.fullcourtpest.com/2009/05/nba-fan-evolution-part-1-fan-eras.html)


He only got those numbers because he played 44 minutes a game, huh? Well then why doesn't everyone play 44 minutes a game? Probably because they don't have the stamina and control to last that long on the court and be effective for that whole time. If Duncan played 44 minutes a game he wouldn't score as many points per minute and you know why? Because he'd get tired. Kareem didn't.

As stated earlier, the up and down pace is actually much, much easier stamina wise then the grinding defence style that Duncan plays. This massively affects bigger players much more as they're the one's doing all the pushing and banging. In 05 Lebron played 42 MPG and the rest are all guards. In 71 the 5'th highest MPG is 43 and the rest are all higher then Lebron's league leading 42, including Wilt Chamberlain. Also, due to the increased physicality of the center position TD racks up more fouls. It's not because KAJ had better stamina that he was on the floor longer as KAJ played much less taxing ball.


If Kareem had lifted weights, maybe he wouldn't have been an effective NBA player through age 42; maybe he wouldn't have been able to play the 44 minutes per game Duncan doesn't and can't play that you claim to be necessary for him to put up his "inflated" 35 ppg.

Kareem was skinny as f*ck, but he knew how to use his body and he had lean muscle. I've never seen him get pushed around in the post.

If KAJ didn't lift weights, Duncan would have eaten him alive on the blocks. As would Robinson. As would Shaq. I don't know if you've played post much, but size matters. A lot. Sure, KAJ knew how to use his body, but TD absolutely, positively knows how to box him out too, and with the added size, KAJ would not be able to compete and his slight frame would wear out trying to contain Shaq. It's simple physics. If you have to push a 350 lb Shaq around, or you play in a league that doesn't really set Shaq up in half court sets to pound you out of the key too much so you just run around, which is more taxing? Shaq would give up some things to KAJ, his hook is beautiful, but forget 35/16 seasons in that kind of NBA. He simply could not compete at that level as the player he was.

[indiefan23]

Hell yeah....

I rank the bigs like this.......

Wilt
Kareem
The Dream
Russel
Shaq

Why?

[Alhazred]

Regarding assists, let's suppose each assist is worth 2.2 points. That means a difference of two assists will translate to 4.4 points.

Ok. Let's take their averages from 1998.

Jordan 3.5 apgx2.2= 7.7+31.5= 39.2 ppg.

Pippen 5.8 apgx2.2= 12.76 +17.1= 29.86 ppg.

That being said, I was only referring to individual scoring in my other post, not assists, sorry for not being more precise.



Yeah but things like throwing off the entire Utah offense's timing and hence decreasing their efficiency (103 ppg to 80 ppg!) doesn't show up in a defensive rating or defensive wins share stat. Things like steals and blocks would and the team as a whole playing good defense is reflected but subtle things like that won't.

Point taken, I didn't think of that.


Without him they would win around 55 games, give or take a few and make the ECF. There were three very good teams in the East that year: Indiana, Chicago, and Miami. Well Miami choked in the first round. That would mean the Bulls would face a 43 win Knicks team in the second round. They probably would have won that series but they weren't beating the Pacers.

Sounds about right to me. Ok, I think I'm gonna go to bed, it's a bit late here. Thanks for the debate, it was fun.

[tontoz]

Vert, I'm completely unguardable too... when I play children and old men. Who was guarding Kareem?


Who would be guarding him now? Noah? Horford? Brook Lopez? :oldlol:

[Anaximandro1]

Yes,Kareem would be the best player in the NBA.


When you consider prime Duncan would be the best player in the game today, by a pretty wide margin,

Yes,Duncan would be the best.


and the consider what a scrub Duncan looks like when you compare him with Kareem,I'd have to say yes

:roll:


Kareem had all the fundamentals and patience and awareness that makes Duncan one of the all-time greats, but also had way more size,better shot-blocking ability

:roll:


ALL PLAYOFF LEADERS : BY TOTAL BLOCKS

1 Hakeem Olajuwon 472 (3.3 BPG)
2 Shaquille O'Neal 446 (2.2 BPG)
3 Tim Duncan 421 (2.6 BPG)
4 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 399 (1.7 BPG)


http://www.nba.com/statistics/encyc/Player.jsp?type=TOTALS&season=all&conf=all&team=all&position=all&age=all&height=all&active=all&exp=all&rule=all&clock=all&college=all&min=all&sortOrder=18




Duncan can't get you buckets on demand.He's an underwhelming scoring threat when compared to almost anyone else at his level


:roll:


ALL PLAYOFF LEADERS : BY TOTAL POINTS

1 Michael Jordan 5.987
2 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 5.762
3 Shaquille O'Neal 5.121
4 Karl Malone 4.761
5 Jerry West 4.457
6 Kobe Bryant 4.381
7 Larry Bird 3.897
8 John Havlicek 3.776
9 Hakeem Olajuwon 3.755
10 Tim Duncan 3.724



ALL PLAYOFF LEADERS : BY POINTS PER GAME

Jordan 33.4 ppg (48.7%)



Olajuwon 25.9 ppg (52.8%)

Shaq 25.2 ppg (56.4%)

Kobe 25.0 ppg (44.7%)

Karl Malone 24.7 ppg (46.3%)

Kareem 24.3 ppg (53.3%)

Larry Bird 23.8 ppg (47.2%)

Tim Duncan 23.3 ppg (50.1%)

Barkley 23.0 ppg (51.3%)

Wilt Chamberlain 22.5 ppg (52.2%)

Oscar Robertson 22.2 ppg (46.0%)

Moses Malone 22.1 ppg (47.9%)

Julius Erving 21.9 ppg (48.6%)

Kevin Garnett 21.6 ppg (47%)

Patrick Ewing 20.2 ppg (46.9%)

Magic Johnson 19.5 ppg (50.6%)

David Robinson 18.1 ppg(47.9%)

Bill Russell 16.2 ppg (43.0%)



PLAYOFFS

Kareem 24.3 ppg,10.5 rb,3.2 ast,1.7 blk

Duncan 23.3 ppg,12.6 rb,3.5 ast,2.6 blk

http://www.nba.com/statistics/encyc/Player.jsp?type=PER%20GAME&season=all&conf=all&team=all&position=all&age=all&height=all&active=all&exp=all&rule=all&clock=all&college=all&min=all&sortOrder=15

[Alhazred]

Here's a comparison of Kareem's and Duncan's first 12 seasons in the league, Duncan being 32 in his twelfth year and Kareem being 33.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=abdulka01&y1=1981&p2=duncati01&y2=2009


Regular Season

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

28.1 ppg 55.6 fg%, 14.1 rpg, 4.4 apg, 1.2 spg, 3.4 bpg 40.5 mpg

Tim Duncan

20.9 ppg 50.5 fg%, 11.7 rpg, 3.2 apg, 0.8 spg, 2.4 bpg, 36.9 mpg

Playoffs

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

30.3 ppg 53.3 fg%, 15.7 rpg, 3.9 apg, 44.1 mpg

Tim Duncan

23.3 ppg 50.1 fg %, 12.6 rpg, 3.5 apg, 39.8 mpg

Also, Kareem later in his career started working out and weighed 265 towards the end of his career. I know I'm only comparing their primes, I just thought it was worth mentioning that Kareem wasn't afraid to lift weights and most likely would today if it meant improving his play. Assuming he did, Duncan would have to face a 7' 2" 265 pound Kareem in his prime. He was quick as Hell, too. When Kareem played his first pre season games in 1969, Willis Reed (6-10) said he was as quick as Russell. :lol


Reed- "I lost one headache when Russell retired. Now, I've got another. At this point, I'd rather have my Russell headache. Bill was quick as a cat, but at least he wasn't someone I had to look up to."

Timmy's great, but Kareem was epic.

[Anaximandro1]

Don't get me wrong.I think Kareem is better,but we compare apples and oranges all the time.



Here's a comparison of Milwaukee and San Antonio.


1970-71 Milwaukee Bucks

Points Per Game: 118.4 (1st of 17) ▪

Opponent Points Per Game: 106.2 ((3rd of 17)



2002-03 San Antonio Spurs

Points Per Game: 95.8( (12th of 29)▪

Opponent Points Per Game: 90.4(3rd of 29)



http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIL/1971.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2003.html



Playoffs 1971

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 26.6 ppg,17.0 rpg,2.5 apg

Playoffs 2003

Tim Duncan 24.7 ppg,15.4 rpg,5.3 apg,3.3 bpg


:cheers:

[Alhazred]

Don't get me wrong.I think Kareem is better,but we compare apples and oranges all the time.



Here's a comparison of Milwaukee and San Antonio.


1970-71 Milwaukee Bucks

Points Per Game: 118.4 (1st of 17) ▪

Opponent Points Per Game: 106.2 ((3rd of 17)



2002-03 San Antonio Spurs

Points Per Game: 95.8( (12th of 29)▪

Opponent Points Per Game: 90.4(3rd of 29)



http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIL/1971.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2003.html



Playoffs 1971

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 26.6 ppg,17.0 rpg,2.5 apg

Playoffs 2003

Tim Duncan 24.7 ppg,15.4 rpg,5.3 apg,3.3 bpg


:cheers:

Lol, no fair comparing Kareem's 2nd season to Duncan's fifth. Here's Kareem's fourth season in the playoffs since the Bucks missed it in 75.

32.2 ppg 55.7%, 15.8 rpg, 4.9 apg, 47.4 mpg

Duncan's close, I'll admit, but I still prefer Kareem.

[gts]

prime kareem would be the best player in any era in any bb league...

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

He is right. The key was the defense. Of course, the defense meant Jordan, Rodman, and Harper too. It wasn't all Pippen, just as it was never all Jordan on offense. He didn't say it was all Pippen but the defense, which he led, was the key. I think most people agree with that statement. What you said is accurate. Jordan's combination of scoring, defense, playmaking>that of anyone else on the team and hence he was the most important player. No one disputes that.

Scottie Pippen is overrated. He played one All-Star Calibur season when he was chosen to be on the first U.S. Olympic Men's basketball. He was chosen ahead of Isiah Thomas who at the time had just led the Detroit Pistons to two NBA Championships and was beginning to wind down his Hall of Fame career. Some say that Pippen may have benefited from the Jordan revenge on Thomas for the alleged "Freeze out" in the 1985 NBA All-Star Game. The real Freeze out in that game was when "Iceman" George Gervin torched Jordan and the East for 23 points. Pippen belongs on Dream Team 2, not the original Dream Team, his stardom was not fully established when he was selected for Dream Team 1.

The media also likes to make up labels for their fav people to make them look better than they really are. Remember the 2000 Presidential Election when Democrats in the media made up the term "gravitas" to make their guy Al Gore look more presidential than his opponents? There is no NBA award for "All-Around best player" It's just a special label that was made up for one guy: Scottie Pippen. The pro-pipp media was not happy saying "1995 All-Star game MVP Scottie Pippen" they wanted something to make him look better than he really was. If other point-forwards like Connie Hawkins were also magnified for their "All-Around Best Play" then this "label" would have some merit. On the day Scottie left Chicago the media immediately stopped using the phrase "All Around" to describe him.

Pippen also made the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History list. Oscar Robertson said this: "Beyond the first 10 or 12 guys the 50 greatest players list was about who had the best P.R.. Bob McAdoo, a former league MVP, did not make the list." Where is Dominique Wilkins? Give me Nique > Pipp during their primes. If Pipp had played in a small market like Portland or Denver for his entire career it is highly unlikely that he would have been on the 50 greateast players list. Just ask Sidney Moncrief. I would like to say that I thought Pippen was one of the best forwards in the game when he was at his peak. The fact remains that his accomplishments were magnified by his playing in Chicago. Pippen would have been an All-Star no matter where he played, but there would have been far less attention and good P.R. in a small market. Pippen's first year in Portland showed on a national stage another huge weakness his game: He can't take his team on his back in the clutch and win. That is why Scottie was MIA when his Blazers went to L.A. and pulled off the most collosal Game 7 fourth quarter choke in NBA playoff history. Pippen spent that fourth quarter watching Rasheed Wallace and Brian Grant lay bricks instead of taking over when it was obvious his team was in trouble. All the Blazers needed was a few baskets to stave off the Laker rally. That is why it is absurd to think that Pippen is of the same caliber as Larry Bird, Elgin Baylor and Julius Erving, those guys would not have let their team choke so badly if they were Blazers in Pippen's place.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

prime kareem would be the best player in any era in any bb league...

ALL-TIME SCORING RECORDS:
1st Place: MJ, 24 scoring records
2nd Place: Wilt, 18 scoring records


- Highest career scoring average: MJ 30.12
- Highest career playoff scoring average: MJ 33.4
- Highest career Finals scoring average: MJ 33.6 (min. 15 games)
- Highest single season playoff average: MJ 43.7
- Highest single Finals series average: MJ 41.0
- Most Total Points Playoffs: MJ 5987
- Most seasons leading league in scoring: MJ 10
- Most seasons leading league in total points: MJ 11
- Most consecutive seasons leading in scoring: MJ, Wilt tied at 7
- Most 50 point games playoffs: MJ 8
- Most 40 point games playoffs: MJ 38
- Most 30 point games: MJ 563
- Most 30 point games playoffs: MJ 109
- Most consecutive 50 point games playoffs: MJ 2
- Most consecutive 45 point games playoffs: MJ 3
- Most consecutive 40 point games finals: MJ 4
- Most consecutive 30 point games finals: MJ 9
- Most consecutive 20 point games playoffs: MJ 60
- Most consecutive 20 point games finals: MJ 35
- Most consecutive double figures scoring: MJ 866
- Highest scoring game playoffs: MJ 63
- Most points in one half finals: MJ 35
- Oldest to score 50: MJ 51 at age 38
- Oldest to score 40: MJ 43 at age 40

Give me Jordan

[gts]

ALL-TIME SCORING RECORDS:
1st Place: MJ, 24 scoring records
2nd Place: Wilt, 18 scoring records


- Highest career scoring average: MJ 30.12
- Highest career playoff scoring average: MJ 33.4
- Highest career Finals scoring average: MJ 33.6 (min. 15 games)
- Highest single season playoff average: MJ 43.7
- Highest single Finals series average: MJ 41.0
- Most Total Points Playoffs: MJ 5987
- Most seasons leading league in scoring: MJ 10
- Most seasons leading league in total points: MJ 11
- Most consecutive seasons leading in scoring: MJ, Wilt tied at 7
- Most 50 point games playoffs: MJ 8
- Most 40 point games playoffs: MJ 38
- Most 30 point games: MJ 563
- Most 30 point games playoffs: MJ 109
- Most consecutive 50 point games playoffs: MJ 2
- Most consecutive 45 point games playoffs: MJ 3
- Most consecutive 40 point games finals: MJ 4
- Most consecutive 30 point games finals: MJ 9
- Most consecutive 20 point games playoffs: MJ 60
- Most consecutive 20 point games finals: MJ 35
- Most consecutive double figures scoring: MJ 866
- Highest scoring game playoffs: MJ 63
- Most points in one half finals: MJ 35
- Oldest to score 50: MJ 51 at age 38
- Oldest to score 40: MJ 43 at age 40

Give me Jordan

scoring? it's about more than scoring but i'll bite.. here are kareems numbers

Career Points Scored 38,387 #1 all time NBA scoring leader

here's some more reading for those whose nba knowledge doesn't go back past the dawn of the internet

Career
Rebounds 17,440
Blocks 3,189


6

[indiefan23]

Who would be guarding him now? Noah? Horford? Brook Lopez? :oldlol:

Well, yea, and a plethora of role player centers who are leaps and bounds better then the role player centers who guarded him in 1971. You're leaving out Howard, Shaq, Duncan, Amare, KG, Perkins, Yao, Bynum, Gasol, Marion (a year or two ago), Oden (a year or two later), Marc Gasol, Bosh, Lee, Sheed, Ben Wallace, Varejeo(sp) and lots of others. In 1971, a 6'8" guy was 5'th in the league with 16 RPG. Competition is WAY better now. Heh, in that guy's prime, at 6'8" and 230 lbs, he pulled down over 20 RPG and you're meaning to tell me that he'd do that today?

[Alhazred]

Well, yea, and a plethora of role player centers who are leaps and bounds better then the role player centers who guarded him in 1971. You're leaving out Howard, Shaq, Duncan, Amare, KG, Perkins, Yao, Bynum, Gasol, Marion (a year or two ago), Oden (a year or two later), Marc Gasol, Bosh, Lee, Sheed, Ben Wallace, Varejeo(sp) and lots of others. In 1971, a 6'8" guy was 5'th in the league with 16 RPG. Competition is WAY better now. Heh, in that guy's prime, at 6'8" and 230 lbs, he pulled down over 20 RPG and you're meaning to tell me that he'd do that today?

Howard is limited, Shaq is too slow and out of shape now to guard him, Ming is too slow to guard Jabbar, Amare is a bum on defense, KG is smaller than Kareem and not any faster so no advantage really, and the others aren't that much better, either. Also, Kareem once dropped 50 points on Wilt Chamberlain, and that was when Wilt weighed about 290 pounds and in terrific shape, better than how Shaq is right now and bigger than anyone you listed other than Shaq and Ming. Size really wouldn't be that big of a deal.

[indiefan23]

Pippen also made the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History list. Oscar Robertson said this: "Beyond the first 10 or 12 guys the 50 greatest players list was about who had the best P.R.. Bob McAdoo, a former league MVP, did not make the list."

Heh, this is because Oscar was an athlete and not so bright. The NBA at 50 didn't have a first 10 or 12 guys, they listed the athletes by position and randomly.

Bob McAdoo had a short prime and got hurt at age 25 and was never really the same dominant player again. If he should be in so should Grant Hill.

[tontoz]

Well, yea, and a plethora of role player centers who are leaps and bounds better then the role player centers who guarded him in 1971. You're leaving out Howard, Shaq, Duncan, Amare, KG, Perkins, Yao, Bynum, Gasol, Marion (a year or two ago), Oden (a year or two later), Marc Gasol, Bosh, Lee, Sheed, Ben Wallace, Varejeo(sp) and lots of others. In 1971, a 6'8" guy was 5'th in the league with 16 RPG. Competition is WAY better now. Heh, in that guy's prime, at 6'8" and 230 lbs, he pulled down over 20 RPG and you're meaning to tell me that he'd do that today?


I can't believe the guys you included there. Amare? David Lee? :oldlol:

Neither of the Gasols would have a chance against Kareem. Neither of those guys are known for their defense. Most of the others are just too small. Kareem could shoot right over them routinely.

Rodman would be leading the league in rebounding right now if he was in his prime. So would Kareem.

[indiefan23]

Howard is limited, Shaq is too slow and out of shape now to guard him, Ming is too slow to guard Jabbar, Amare is a bum on defense, KG is smaller than Kareem and not any faster so no advantage really, and the others aren't that much better, either. Also, Kareem once dropped 50 points on Wilt Chamberlain, and that was when Wilt weighed about 290 pounds and in terrific shape, better than how Shaq is right now and bigger than anyone you listed other than Shaq and Ming. Size really wouldn't be that big of a deal.

Why? Howard is limited? Seriously, how is he limited? ;0

Why is Shaq too slow? Shaq would still be able to box out Kareem easily. Howard would eat him on the blocks and dominate th paint. Likewise for everyone else. KG is like, an inch shorter then Kareem but way, way stronger due to you know, actually lifting and engineering his body with the best trainers on the planet.

Kareem dropped 50 on Wilt when he was an old man with a bum knee. Aside from all of that, people actually play defence in the NBA as opposed to the early 70's when they still ran back and fourth and didn't really box out on rebounds. I just don't see how Kareem gets position on Dwight Howard or Shaq. You suggested that he'd have the same numbers... when the merger happened his numbers sharply declined in response. If he inserted himself into a modern NBA, it would be a far, far a bigger talent hike then the ABA merger. And again, instead of bums filling out rosters who couldn't play, you have people like Marcin Gortat backing up Howard who could easily start on other teams. Or even guys like Dampier who would physically beat on a 71 Jabbar. Merely stating that everyone is too slow does not make it so. KAJ would be incredibly slower after a few good bangs with Shaq.

[indiefan23]

I can't believe the guys you included there. Amare? David Lee? :oldlol:

Neither of the Gasols would have a chance against Kareem. Neither of those guys are known for their defense. Most of the others are just too small. Kareem could shoot right over them routinely.

Rodman would be leading the league in rebounding right now if he was in his prime. So would Kareem.

Heh, unfortunately, I'm talking about basketball, not 'could Kareem still score points'. He could not be the dominant center he was in 71. The hook is money but he'd have to leave the 16 board/34 point seasons in the 70's. The just would not happen.

[Alhazred]

Kareem dropped 50 on Wilt when he was an old man with a bum knee. Aside from all of that, people actually play defence in the NBA as opposed to the early 70's when they still ran back and fourth and didn't really box out on rebounds. I just don't see how Kareem gets position on Dwight Howard or Shaq. You suggested that he'd have the same numbers... when the merger happened his numbers sharply declined in response. If he inserted himself into a modern NBA, it would be a far, far a bigger talent hike then the ABA merger. And again, instead of bums filling out rosters who couldn't play, you have people like Marcin Gortat backing up Howard who could easily start on other teams. Or even guys like Dampier who would physically beat on a 71 Jabbar. Merely stating that everyone is too slow does not make it so. KAJ would be incredibly slower after a few good bangs with Shaq.

Lol, Wilt was still in excellent shape and even led the Lakers to the 72 championship. He was still a very good player and better than Shaq is now.

As for Kareem's numbers declining after the merger? They didn't.

26.2 ppg 57.9 fg %, 13.3 rpg, 3.9 apg, 1.2 spg, 3.2 bpg, 36.8 mpg

He also played almost five minutes less per game compared to the previous year.


Why? Howard is limited? Seriously, how is he limited? ;0

He's too short, Kareem has about 3 or four inches on him.


Likewise for everyone else. KG is like, an inch shorter then Kareem but way, way stronger due to you know, actually lifting and engineering his body with the best trainers on the planet.

Wait, is this thread called "70s Kareem in today's game" or "Prime Kareem in today's game"? If Kareem plays now, then he'll have access to the same technology that everyone else today has. Like I said before, Kareem bulked up to 265 pounds later in his career. If he had that kind of muscle in his prime, then Shaq is the only one with a real advantage. Also, I didn't say every one was slow, just Shaq and Ming. The rest are a lot shorter, though, plus Garnett isn't any bigger than Kareem was.


Seriously, if I didn't know any better, I would assume that you were suggesting that Kareem actually play against today's competition but only using 70s workouts and exercises. :lol

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

[QUOTE=gts]scoring? it's about more than scoring but i'll bite.. here are kareems numbers

Career Points Scored 38,387 #1 all time NBA scoring leader

here's some more reading for those whose nba knowledge doesn't go back past the dawn of the internet

Career
Rebounds 17,440
Blocks 3,189


6

[iggy>]

kareem is not better than jordan

[Alhazred]

kareem is not better than jordan

Eh, he's close though. On the all time list he should only be a spot or two away from MJ.

[iggy>]

Eh, he's close though. On the all time list he should only be a spot or two away from MJ.
i agree

[artex]

hell yeah he would be, hes the GOAT of the nba

[Duckie MAN]

Jordan won 10 scoring titles, 5 he won while making over 50% of his shots, Jordan led the league in steals, Jordan was the best shot blocking guard, Jordan won 14 combined MVP's (3 all star, 5 league, 6 finals). Jordan averaged 33, 6, and 6 in the Finals for his career. Jordan averaged 31.5ppg on 51.5% shooting when he wore a Bulls uniform while leading the league in scoring 10 times.


Doug Collins decided to move Jordan to the point guard spot against Seattle on March 11, 1989. He finished that game with 15 assists. Two days later, he had a game of 21/14/14 against the Pacers in just 30 minutes of playing time in a 32-point blowout win. He reached the triple double mark in just 21 minutes. Jordan continued to play at the PG spot until the end of the season. In these 24 games he averaged 29.3ppg, 8.9rpg, 10.6 apg, 2.4spg. Between March 24 and April 14, 1989, he recorded a triple double in ten of the eleven games, including seven consecutive ones. In the game he didn't record a triple double, he finished with 40 points, 11 assists and 7 rebounds. The hands down greatest of all time, anyone disputing this is a misinformed individual. So what makes Michael Jordan the greatest of all time? Well, it's quite simple actually, it's his combination of individual dominance (10 scoring titles, undisputed best player in the league for so many years, numerous MVP awards, and numerous scoring records), the way he raised his level of play in the playoffs, the way he led his teams to so many championships, and his accuracy/consistency as an all-around two way player.

Here's a great formula that depicts what I'm trying to display:
NBA ALL-TIME LEADERS (Current as of 12/17/08):
(All statistical records + playoff records + career averages + playoff averages + MVPs + Finals MVPs + Rings + All-1st teams + All-1st Defensive Teams + All-star games + All-star MVPS):
1st Place: MJ, 149 total points
2nd Place: Wilt, 124 total points
3rd Place: Bill, 118 total points
4th Place: Jabbar, 114 total points
5th Place: Magic, 102 total points
(Active Players):
1st Place: Shaq, 85 total points
2nd Place: Tim, 73 total points
3rd Place: KB, 54 total points

Now, that list is a little out of date (1 1/2 years), but the rankings haven't changed and the rankings aren't even close to changing.


http://www.youtube.com/user/hoopsencyclopedia

[vert48]

Wait, is this thread called "70s Kareem in today's game" or "Prime Kareem in today's game"? If Kareem plays now, then he'll have access to the same technology that everyone else today has.I always assume on these types of threads that it is PlayerX in today's game, not 19xx's PlayerX in today's game.

So, the way I read the question is this:
Given access to today's nutrition and training, would Prime Kareem be the best player in the NBA now?

IMO, he would.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

http://www.youtube.com/user/hoopsencyclopedia

http://www.youtube.com/user/ferrari365gtb and proboards.

[Alhazred]

I always assume on these types of threads that it is PlayerX in today's game, not 19xx's PlayerX in today's game.

So, the way I read the question is this:
Given access to today's nutrition and training, would Prime Kareem be the best player in the NBA now?

IMO, he would.

That's what I thought too, thanks.

[tontoz]

Heh, unfortunately, I'm talking about basketball, not 'could Kareem still score points'. He could not be the dominant center he was in 71. The hook is money but he'd have to leave the 16 board/34 point seasons in the 70's. The just would not happen.

I thought the topic of the thread was would a prime Kareem be the best in todays game, not whether or not he would put up identical stats. Thanks for enlightening me.

[tontoz]

Why? Howard is limited? Seriously, how is he limited? ;0

Why is Shaq too slow? Shaq would still be able to box out Kareem easily. Howard would eat him on the blocks and dominate th paint. Likewise for everyone else. KG is like, an inch shorter then Kareem but way, way stronger due to you know, actually lifting and engineering his body with the best trainers on the planet.




:oldlol:

This is one of the dumbest things i have ever seen on this board. KG is weak, that is why he stays out of the paint. He has always been a soft jump shooter. I have seen KG up close in a gym and he looked like a stiff wind would blow him over. He can't back down anyone.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

KG is like, an inch shorter then Kareem but way, way stronger due to you know, actually lifting and engineering his body with the best trainers on the planet.

:roll:

[Abraham Lincoln]

KG is like, an inch shorter then Kareem but way, way stronger due to you know, actually lifting and engineering his body with the best trainers on the planet.

Yes, just like Russell & Wilt at peak form could not compete at the high school level today right? :oldlol:

[branslowski]

:oldlol: @ Dude who said that KG is way stronger thn Kareem...

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


Anyway...Kareem probably would avg 32ppg 16reb 4ast this season in his prime and would arguably be the best player...Still, LeBron and Kobe would get the nod mainly because their attractive play.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

:oldlol: @ Dude who said that KG is way stronger thn Kareem...

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


Anyway...Kareem probably would avg 32ppg 16reb 4ast this season in his prime and would arguably be the best player...Still, LeBron and Kobe would get the nod mainly because their attractive play.

I agree with this.

[Abraham Lincoln]

Jabbar also had exceptional offensive beauty in his game. He was undoubtedly the best post pivot center to ever play and perhaps best pivot player at any position. Note here below how quickly yet smoothly & gracefully he turns into the hook shot, despite Wilt's physical muscling.

1:08 mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbcdliLtkEs



Kareem wrote of this importance in his autobiography, crediting the Big O with the ability to propely set him up.


"Oscar had a knack of getting me the ball in the right place at the right time. Not too high, didn't want to go up and lose the ground you fought for. Not too low, didn't want to bend for the ball and create a scramble down there. Never wanted to put the ball on the floor where some littel guy could come in and steal it away. Oscar knew all of this, and his genius was, whether two men were in his face trying to prevent him from making a pass or in mine trying to prevent me from receiving it, in getting me the ball chest-high so I could turn and hook in one unbroken motion."

[Roundball_Rock]

Here's a great formula that depicts what I'm trying to display:
NBA ALL-TIME LEADERS (Current as of 12/17/08):
(All statistical records + playoff records + career averages + playoff averages + MVPs + Finals MVPs + Rings + All-1st teams + All-1st Defensive Teams + All-star games + All-star MVPS):
1st Place: MJ, 149 total points
2nd Place: Wilt, 124 total points
3rd Place: Bill, 118 total points

When were FMVP's first rewarded? When were all-Defensive teams first created? What a joke. A formula rigged for Jordan cloaked in scientific objectivity. Career averages are also a joke. If Kareem and Wilt retired for five seasons their career averages would be higher. Fortunately when they retired they gave their teams proper notice and didn't screw them. MVP's? Wilt and Russell had to battle each other for MVP's every year. Jordan's chief MVP competition in the 90's was Karl Malone. The fact Wilt and Russell are that close despite the rigging says a lot...

[LAClipsFan33]

All this talk about how strong players are today and what not...realistically there is not a player who has ever lived who could stop Prime Kareem from putting the ball in the hoop at will.

It's just fact.

LOL at 6'10" Dwight Howard the hack guarding 7'2" Kareem's sky hook and out of this world post moves. I like Garnett, but Kareem would put up as many points as he felt like putting up on Garnett. When he was still young and quick he was absolutely unstoppable.

[Alhazred]

When were FMVP's first rewarded? When were all-Defensive teams first created?

The late 60s and 70s.


What a joke. A formula rigged for Jordan cloaked in scientific objectivity. Career averages are also a joke. If Kareem and Wilt retired for five seasons their career averages would be higher. Fortunately when they retired they gave their teams proper notice and didn't screw them. MVP's? Wilt and Russell had to battle each other for MVP's every year. Jordan's chief MVP competition in the 90's was Karl Malone. The fact Wilt and Russell are that close despite the rigging says a lot...

Charles Barkley, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, Shaq, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Clyde Drexler and Isiah Thomas were pretty good adversaries, wouldn't you say? He won MVPs when these guys were in the league. He won it in 88 when Bird was at his peak while Magic and Isiah played 7 games in the Finals. Is that worthless in comparison to Wilts' and Russells' awards?

[Abraham Lincoln]

He won it in 88 when Bird was at his peak while Magic and Isiah played 7 games in the Finals. Is that worthless in comparison to Wilts' and Russells' awards?
According to him Jordan did not deserve the MVP or DPOY that year.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

When were FMVP's first rewarded? When were all-Defensive teams first created? What a joke.

:roll:

When was being a 'winner' excluded determining the greatness of a player?

Yes, it's a conspiracy, clearly it's 'rigged'. Jordan had the best statistical records + playoff records + career averages + playoff averages + MVPs + Finals MVPs + Rings + All-1st teams + All-1st Defensive Teams + All-star games + All-star MVPS. The facts do not lie Roundball_rock.

[Fatal9]

Already been discussed that by traditional MVP standards, Jordan should not have won. Especially when Bird put together a sick 30/9/6 statline (on insane efficiency, especially when his 3pt and FT shooting in considered). Bulls were 4th or 5th seed while Celtics were #1. Bulls only reached the 50 win mark because Bird and the Celtics starters were rested in the final week of the season (Jordan seized the opportunity to torch the Celtics bench and win the game...not to mention Celtics were winless without Bird playing in those final games, so they would have easily reached 60).

When you give it some thought, you realize the fact that Bird was rested for the final couple of games, one of which gave Bulls enough wins to reach 50, is the only reason Jordan won the award over him (whatever edge Jordan may have had as an individual player, doesn't make up for the fact that Bird was on #1 seed and Jordan on #4 or 5). There was even a little outrage by long time basketball journalists at the time at Jordan winning over Bird. I'm pretty sure btw, it's the lowest win total for an MVP in the last 30 years. There is a perfectly legitimate case that Jordan was the better individual player, but if that were the criteria for MVP, we would need to take back all those MVP awards from Russell (in place of Wilt). When Bird did play against Jordan, he dominated him in that '86-'88 stretch. Though Jordan put up respectable games against them, Bird outplayed him 3/4 times they went head to head: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=146170.

[stephanieg]

No, he'd be Nellie's 12th man.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Jordan won the scoring title while making 53.5% of his shot attempts (higher efficiency than Bird), won the Slam Dunk Contest, Named NBA All-Star Games Most Valuable Player, named NBA Defensive Player of the Year. Pippen was still developing, the help around Jordan was limited, lost to the eventual world champs in the playoffs, still got them to the playoffs. Jordan easily deserved the DPOY racking up 3.2 steals and 1.6 blocked shots per game.

[Duncan21formvp]

It's no coincidence that 7 of the top 10 all time have the highest win shares in the playoffs history.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_career_p.html

1. Michael Jordan* 39.76
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 35.56
3. Magic Johnson* 32.63
4. Wilt Chamberlain* 31.46
5. Shaquille O'Neal 30.66
6. Tim Duncan 27.90
7. Bill Russell* 27.76


Not only that but Jordan played 50 less playoff games than Kareem and still has more playoff win shares.

[Roundball_Rock]

Charles Barkley, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, Shaq, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Clyde Drexler and Isiah Thomas were pretty good adversaries, wouldn't you say?

Isiah Thomas? He was a blip in MVP voting during the late 80's.

Top 3 in MVP voting in MJ's seasons (age in parentheses)

1988: Jordan (24), Bird (31), Magic (28)
1991: Jordan (27), Magic (31), Robinson (25)
1992: Jordan (28), Drexler (29), Robinson (26)
1996: Jordan (32), Robinson (30), Penny Hardaway (24)
1998: Jordan (34), Malone (34), Payton (29)

So his chief competitor actually turns out to be David Robinson. :oldlol: That compares to competing against Wilt every year in Russell's case or vice versa? He did beat old Bird in 88' and old Magic in 91', though.


According to him Jordan did not deserve the MVP or DPOY that year.

I never said that. Reported. This is about the tenth time you have blatantly lied about what I have said in order to smear me. You are a habitual liar yet have the gall to name yourself after Honest Abe?


When was being a 'winner' excluded determining the greatness of a player?

Yes, it's a conspiracy, clearly it's 'rigged'. Jordan had the best statistical records + playoff records + career averages + playoff averages + MVPs + Finals MVPs + Rings + All-1st teams + All-1st Defensive Teams + All-star games + All-star MVPS. The facts do not lie Roundball_rock.

Simple: the FMVP was not even awarded until 1969. All-D teams did not exist either until 1969. Anyone using them to compare Wilt and Russell to Jordan is either ignorant about basics of NBA history or deliberately trying to mislead people. The writer falls in the latter category.


Pippen was still developing, the help around Jordan was limite

If Jordan could "make" HOFers, as you allege, why didn't he? The help excuse is a joke. He could "make" help at will but didn't? Either he couldn't do it or he simply slacked and didn't care about winning. Anyone who knows anything about MJ knows which is the correct answer.

[Fatal9]

I've gotta love how anyone who can be a fan of old school ball can be so ignorant about it. I mean really, Jordan was the better defensive player over Hakeem and Eaton? That wasn't even Jordan's best defensive year, not even top 3 (that would be the stretch from '89-'91). We've even had long time Bulls fans on this site criticize how Jordan played defense for stats that year (after enduring criticism that he wasn't a good defender in years past). You can reduce defense to stats (especially when a player is visibly chasing them) and act like Jordan had the same impact on defense as centers like Hakeem and Eaton did though. I don't really care though, Jordan fans are too single minded and will believe what they want to believe. This same discussion has been made countless times before, and I'm really not interested in going on about pages again...huge waste of time (especially when I know the other doesn't know jacksh*t about anything except Jordan highlights).

[Alhazred]

Already been discussed that by traditional MVP standards, Jordan should not have won. Especially when Bird put together a sick 30/9/6 statline (on insane efficiency, especially when his 3pt and FT shooting in considered). Bulls were 4th or 5th seed while Celtics were #1. Bulls only reached the 50 win mark because Bird and the Celtics starters were rested in the final week of the season (Jordan seized the opportunity to torch the Celtics bench and win the game...not to mention Celtics were winless without Bird playing in those final games, so they would have easily reached 60).

When you give it some thought, you realize the fact that Bird was rested for the final couple of games, one of which gave Bulls enough wins to reach 50, is the only reason Jordan won the award over him (whatever edge Jordan may have had as an individual player, doesn't make up for the fact that Bird was on #1 seed and Jordan on #4 or 5). There was even a little outrage by long time basketball journalists at the time at Jordan winning over Bird. I'm pretty sure btw, it's the lowest win total for an MVP in the last 30 years. There is a perfectly legitimate case that Jordan was the better individual player, but if that were the criteria for MVP, we would need to take back all those MVP awards from Russell (in place of Wilt). When Bird did play against Jordan, he dominated him in that '86-'88 stretch. Though Jordan put up respectable games against them, Bird outplayed him 3/4 times they went head to head: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=146170.

No MVP is ever unanimous. A lot of people feel Barkley should have had it in 1990. Still didn't happen and the fact remains that Jordan won an MVP in a season where Bird, Magic and Isiah were all playing at a high level.

[Alhazred]

Isiah Thomas? He was a blip in MVP voting during the late 80's.

Top 3 in MVP voting in MJ's seasons (age in parentheses)

1988: Jordan (24), Bird (31), Magic (28)
1991: Jordan (27), Magic (31), Robinson (25)
1992: Jordan (28), Drexler (29), Robinson (26)
1996: Jordan (32), Robinson (30), Penny Hardaway (24)
1998: Jordan (34), Malone (34), Payton (29)

So his chief competitor actually turns out to be David Robinson. :oldlol: That compares to competing against Wilt every year in Russell's case or vice versa? He did beat old Bird in 88' and old Magic in 91', though.


Bird, Magic and Barkley's 1988 stats:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=birdla01&y1=1988&p2=johnsma02&y2=1988&p3=barklch01&y3=1988

Magic also averaged 19.4 ppg, 47.7 fg%, 7 rpg and 12.5 apg in 1991. Oh yeah, he was totally done for by then....

[Roundball_Rock]

No MVP is ever unanimous. A lot of people feel Barkley should have had it in 1990. Still didn't happen and the fact remains that Jordan won an MVP in a season where Bird, Magic and Isiah were all playing at a high level.

Isiah's MVP finishes from 1987-1991: 8th, 12th, 17th, 13th, 13th. Yeah, technically Jordan "beat" Isiah for MVP but so did many other players. You can't cite Isiah as real competition for Jordan in MVP voting. Old Bird and old Magic (91') are legit, though. He had competition, of course, but there is a difference between Wilt being your chief rival for MVP and David Robinson (!!!) being your top competitor.


Magic also averaged 19.4 ppg, 47.7 fg%, 7 rpg and 12.5 apg in 1991. Oh yeah, he was totally done for by then....

He wasn't done. They had different career timelines. Their primes never overlapped. Who were the best players whose primes coincided with Jordan's? That is what I meant. Wilt and Russell had to battle each other every year, plus others like West and Oscar year after year.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

If Jordan could "make" HOFers, as you allege, why didn't he? The help excuse is a joke. He could "make" help at will but didn't? Either he couldn't do it or he simply slacked and didn't care about winning. Anyone who knows anything about MJ knows which is the correct answer.

Is Pippen not a top 50 player of all time? Did Pippen not claim Jordan taught him, most of everything he knew? MJ does know the correct answer, so does Scottie 'sidekick' Pippen.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

3 steals and close to 2 blocks per game is not defensive player of the year worthy? :oldlol: Lets not forget his 1v1 perimeter defense, which Doug Collins admired and praised.

The stupidity these misinformed posters use to back their claims. Why does anyone comment on something they CLEARLY did not witness. You are not qualified to throw out opinions, that is all.

[Roundball_Rock]

Is Pippen not a top 50 player of all time? Did Pippen not claim Jordan taught him, most of everything he knew? MJ does know the correct answer, so does Scottie 'sidekick' Pippen.

Yes, no. Can you produce a quote? Do you know what MJ has said about Dean Smith and Kevin Loughery and their impact on his development?

Here is a logical breakdown of what you and other MJ fans claim.

1) Jordan has an ability to "make" a top 20-25 of all-time player from scratch (the only player in basketball history to have this magic ability)
2) Jordan had no help in Chicago other than Pippen/Jordan had no help in Washington/Jordan's team has no great player in Charlotte
3) Jordan has this ability yet he did not use it in Chicago on anyone other than Pippen/he did not use it in Washington/he is not using it in Charlotte. (Forget HOF. None of these other players can even make an all-star team playing with or under Jordan)
4) Therefore Jordan is slacking off. Jordan can mint great players but is too lazy to do so except in one case two decades ago. Jordan no longer obsesses over winning.

Anyone who knows anything about Jordan's character would know this is laughable. Jordan would do anything to win. He obsessed over winning at even Pac Man and Monopoly (not to mention basketball, golf, cards). Yet he is content with his teams doing so poorly that he got fired in Washington? He is content with five straight losing seasons in Charlotte?

Lastly, the "he is retired" excuse doesn't fly. He can "make" Gerald Wallace a HOFer in practice. Plus, as I informed you in the other thread, Jordan did play in Washington for two years. Jerry Stackhouse and Rip Hamilton both made all-star teams--but never alongside Jordan. There were other talented players there. Larry Hughes scored 19 ppg the year after MJ retired and 22 ppg the year after. Now, of course, MJ fans will say Pippen was better than these players. This is not what your story holds. The story--your story--is Pippen was no better, probably worse, than these players until MJ "made" him. Pippen was a scrub pre-Jordan. These aren't my words. This is your story. If he could do it with Pippen why not Stackhouse or Hamilton? Why not with Gerald Wallace?


Why does anyone comment on something they CLEARLY did not witness. You are not qualified to throw out opinions, that is all.

This coming from someone who:

1) Didn't know FMVPs and all-D teams didn't exist until 1969
2) Doesn't know Pippen didn't play half of 1998
3) Apparently doesn't even know Jordan played in Washington
4) Thinks Pippen did not play in a game due to a migraine

This is just off the top of my head. Add this:


Lets not forget his 1v1 perimeter defense, which Doug Collins admired and praised.

Doug Collins. In the other thread you quoted Chuck Daly and now Doug Collins. Do you know who Collins thinks are the two best perimeter defenders ever (hint: Dominique Wilkins isn't one of them)? Do you know what Collins thought about the late 80's Bulls' personnel (hint: what Daly thought)? Do you know what Collins did with some of that personnel in practice? Probably no, no, no for all three questions.

[Alhazred]

Isiah's MVP finishes from 1987-1991: 8th, 12th, 17th, 13th, 13th. Yeah, technically Jordan "beat" Isiah for MVP but so did many other players. You can't cite Isiah as real competition for Jordan in MVP voting. Old Bird and old Magic (91') are legit, though. He had competition, of course, but there is a difference between Wilt being your chief rival for MVP and David Robinson (!!!) being your top competitor.

Misleading. Barkley and Hakeem both won MVPs in the 90s.



He wasn't done. They had different career timelines. Their primes never overlapped. Who were the best players whose primes coincided with Jordan's? That is what I meant. Wilt and Russell had to battle each other every year, plus others like West and Oscar year after year.

Barkley, Hakeem, Drexler, Stockton, Malone and Ewing all either entered the league at the same time, the year before or the year after Jordan. Dumars, Miller and GP were his rivals, too.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Yes, no. Can you produce a quote? Do you know what MJ has said about Dean Smith and Kevin Loughery and their impact on his development?

Kevin Loughery and Dean Smith didn't have as much impact to Jordan's game like Pippen's game did to Jordan's. This is documented. Duncanismvp has the quote located in this very thread I believe. You're still ignorant, like that is new though?


Jordan had no help in Chicago other than Pippen/Jordan had no help in Washington/Jordan's team has no great player in Charlotte

Isiah Thomas and Magic Johnson had no love for Pippen. "Take the three of us away (Jordan included) from our respective teams and we would easily beat the Bulls"

He was a sidekick!


Jordan has this ability yet he did not use it in Chicago on anyone other than Pippen/he did not use it in Washington/he is not using it in Charlotte. (Forget HOF. None of these other players can even make an all-star team playing with or under Jordan)

This is EXACTLY why Pippen was a career choker. When the game mattered most he sat out games (having headaches and being an ego maniac) while disappearing completely (evident by game 7 at Staples Center).

Jordan carried the Bulls:

- Highest career scoring average: MJ 30.12
- Highest career playoff scoring average: MJ 33.4
- Highest career Finals scoring average: MJ 33.6 (min. 15 games)
- Highest single season playoff average: MJ 43.7
- Highest single Finals series average: MJ 41.0
- Most Total Points Playoffs: MJ 5987
- Most seasons leading league in scoring: MJ 10
- Most seasons leading league in total points: MJ 11
- Most consecutive seasons leading in scoring: MJ, Wilt tied at 7
- Most 50 point games playoffs: MJ 8
- Most 40 point games playoffs: MJ 38
- Most 30 point games: MJ 563
- Most 30 point games playoffs: MJ 109
- Most consecutive 50 point games playoffs: MJ 2
- Most consecutive 45 point games playoffs: MJ 3
- Most consecutive 40 point games finals: MJ 4
- Most consecutive 30 point games finals: MJ 9
- Most consecutive 20 point games playoffs: MJ 60
- Most consecutive 20 point games finals: MJ 35
- Most consecutive double figures scoring: MJ 866
- Highest scoring game playoffs: MJ 63
- Most points in one half finals: MJ 35

Jordan averaged 31.5ppg on 51.5% shooting when he wore a Bulls uniform while leading the league in scoring 10 times.


Pippen has no excuses, he was a choker at highest degree. Jordan's gap was monstrous in comparison. Without Rings, at best he is ranked somewhere right outside the 50's.

[Alhazred]

You're being way too harsh on Pippen, he had some bad moments in the playoffs but he had plenty of great ones too from 91-98.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

You're being way too harsh on Pippen, he had some bad moments in the playoffs but he had plenty of great ones too from 91-98.

Of course he has, but I'm merely calling a spade a spade.

[Roundball_Rock]

Misleading. Barkley and Hakeem both won MVPs in the 90s.

It doesn't matter. I posted the top 3 finishers in MVP voting during the seasons MJ won the MVP. What people did in other seasons doesn't matter. Is your argument that he "beat" Barkley for a MVP in a year where Barkley was 12th in MVP voting (1996)? Yeah, technically he did but his real competition was with others. The only time he beat Barkley was 90'. Besides, is Barkley on the same level as Wilt?


Barkley, Hakeem, Drexler, Stockton, Malone and Ewing all either entered the league at the same time, the year before or the year after Jordan. Dumars, Miller and GP were his rivals, too.

Compare that to Russell, Wilt, West, Oscar, Baylor, Petit, Cousy, and co.


Kevin Loughery and Dean Smith didn't have as much impact to Jordan's game like Pippen's game did to Jordan's.

Where was Jordan before Dean Smith? He wasn't considered as good as his roommate Buzz Peterson before going to UNC.

duncanmvp's quote says Jordan helped Pippen. And? Teammates help teammates all the time. How ignorant does one have to be to claim help="making"? Moses Malone taught Hakeem. Ewing taught Yao and Dwight. There are other examples like Brad Miller helping Noah (if MJ fans didn't jump of the Bulls bandwagon after 98' they would know this) but there is no point going further because people like you can't grasp the logical implications. The logical conclusion of claiming MJ made Pippen is that Moses made Hakeem, Ewing made both Yao and Dwight (GOAT coach then, right? Anyone he touches becomes the league's best center.). MJ fans never say that, though. It would sound stupid because it is. Ewing helped Yao but Yao made Yao just as Jordan made Jordan, not Dean Smith.


Isiah Thomas and Magic Johnson had no love for Pippen. "Take the three of us away (Jordan included) from our respective teams and we would easily beat the Bulls"

:oldlol:

Chuck Daly's talent evaluation>>>>Isiah's.

Magic Johnson played with Kareem, Worthy, Scott and Cooper. Of course that team would beat young Pippen, young Grant, Paxson and Cartwright. How do you take that to mean they "had no love for Pippen"? :wtf: Your logical reasoning tends to be, um, strange...

BTW, for your information, Magic praised Pippen when Pippen's jersey was retired. Odd for someone with "no love" for him. What is even more interesting, though, is what MJ said that night...


This is EXACTLY why Pippen was a career choker.

21/9/8, 21/8/8, 21/9/7 in the finals when healthy. 20/8/4 on one foot. Shutting down Utah's offense with a bad back. This is choking?


Jordan carried the Bulls:

To 1-9 in the playoffs and no winning records without Pippen. :roll: Well, 1-9 beats what he did in Washington (0-0).

The "career choker" won 143 playoff games as a starter, second most all-time behind Kareem.

Here is Doug Collins:


Did someone have to get to Michael early and let him know he had to be a better teammate, because just you alone will not have the type of career until you learn that lesson?

“I think that happened simply because he got better players around him. I always tell people that when we started out and I was with Michael, if he didn’t throw up 35 to 40 points every night and dominate the game, we just didn’t have enough with him at that point in time to win. Obviously my first year there in Chicago — Charles Oakley was a terrific player, I think was second in the league in rebounding that year, I think averaging 15 to 17 points a night. At that point in time, if you look at Magic Johnson and the players he had with him, and Isiah Thomas, and Larry Bird and a lot these guys early in their careers. Michael did not have that kind of supporting cast. To me, the big turn around was when we were able to get Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant, and then all of a sudden the talent was there so Michael could do other things and not have to dominate as much. He could pick and choose to maybe to turn it on in the fourth quarter and not have to carry your team the entire night. I think it was an unfair label that Michael didn’t do that as a young player; I mean he did that at North Carolina as a freshman and they won a National Championship. He played with great players there. I think as he got better teammates and more talented teammates that became a more natural progression for him.”

http://sportsradiointerviews.com/2009/09/09/doug-collins-scottie-pippen-and-tex-winter-should-be-in-the-hall/


You're being way too harsh on Pippen, he had some bad moments in the playoffs but he had plenty of great ones too from 91-98.

These ignoramuses don't know MJ sometimes had bad shooting games (see Game 7 of the 98' ECF or 17% shooting when down 0-2 in the 93' ECF in Game 3) too like everyone else. They think he is god. Ergo, he is perfect and never had a bad game. You are one of the few rational MJ fans here.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

duncanmvp's quote says Jordan helped Pippen. And?

My question exactly...And? I've said that Pippen had much help from Jordan compared to Jordan/Dean Smith. Pippen IS the player he was because of Jordan. Pippen also believes Jordan is GOAT. Take what you want from that.


Chuck Daly's talent evaluation>>>>Isiah's.

Of course. But we're talking about teams, not talent. Chuck Daly never said the Bulls teams were AS talented as his or the Lakers teams. The greatest point guards to ever play had absolutely no respect for Pippen (evident by what they said regarding teams minus their superstar). Pippen, also, did NOT deserve to start over the Nique during the first Olympic team.


Magic Johnson played with Kareem, Worthy, Scott and Cooper. Of course that team would beat young Pippen

:applause:


21/9/8, 21/8/8, 21/9/7 in the finals when healthy. 20/8/4 on one foot. Shutting down Utah's offense with a bad back. This is choking?

You forgot to post his FG%. He sat out playoff games because of headaches, choked game 7 with Portland and refused to come in games because Phil Jackson didn't trust him to make the 'last shot'. :oldlol:


The "career choker" won 143 playoff games as a starter, second most all-time behind Kareem

While playing on great teams to start out with. Bulls before Pippen 'led' the team? 3x championships. Blazers before Pippen? 35-15, on pace, well you can do the math :oldlol:


These ignoramuses don't know MJ sometimes had bad shooting games

Did MJ tank as many games individually compared to Pippen? No, sorry, he did not. Try again.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

"To me, the big turn around was when we were able to get Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant, and then all of a sudden the talent was there"

:oldlol: I'm glad you agree that early on, Jordan's teams were just not that good

:applause:

[Alhazred]

It doesn't matter. I posted the top 3 finishers in MVP voting during the seasons MJ won the MVP. What people did in other seasons doesn't matter. Is your argument that he "beat" Barkley for a MVP in a year where Barkley was 12th in MVP voting (1996)? Yeah, technically he did but his real competition was with others. The only time he beat Barkley was 90'. Besides, is Barkley on the same level as Wilt?


Michael beat out Malone, Payton, Shaq and Duncan in 98. Here's a full list of the players who were eligible for MVP voting when Jordan won.

1988

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_1988.html#mvp

1991

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_1991.html#mvp

1992

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_1992.html#mvp

1996

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_1996.html#mvp

1998

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_1998.html#mvp


Compare that to Russell, Wilt, West, Oscar, Baylor, Petit, Cousy, and co.

Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Charles Barkley, Shaquille O' Neal, Tim Duncan, Gary Payton, Scottie Pippen, Hakeem Olajuwon, Clyde Drexler, Dominique Wilkins, David Robinson.... seems pretty even talent wise.





These ignoramuses don't know MJ sometimes had bad shooting games (see Game 7 of the 98' ECF or 17% shooting when down 0-2 in the 93' ECF in Game 3) too like everyone else. They think he is god. Ergo, he is perfect and never had a bad game. You are one of the few rational MJ fans here.

Lol, well thanks. :)

[Roundball_Rock]

I've said that Pippen had much help from Jordan compared to Jordan/Dean Smith. Pippen IS the player he was because of Jordan.

Pippen was a top 5 pick from a small school before Jordan; before Smith Jordan was on Jerry Stackhouse's level, not an alleged GOAT level player. Who improved more?


But we're talking about teams, not talent. Chuck Daly never said the Bulls teams were AS talented as his or the Lakers teams.

He never directly said "more talented" but the implication was there. Jackson, directly said it.


The greatest point guards to ever play had absolutely no respect for Pippen (evident by what they said regarding teams minus their superstar

Really? Ask John Stockton what he thinks about Pippen. Or better yet, watch the 98' NBA finals...

Magic praised Pippen later. Yet he had no respect for him?

Isiah didn't respect Pippen; Daly did. Whose talent evaluation is better?


You forgot to post his FG%.

Look it up. Solid FG %'s in those years.


He sat out playoff games because of headaches,

This never happened. Which game do you keep claiming he did not play in because of a headache?


choked game 7 with Portland

It beats 37-45 and missing the playoffs. When you can't make the playoffs in the pathetically weak East in the early 2000's...


While playing on great teams to start out with.

How can a team be great when its primary playmaker, secondary scorer, secondary rebounder, primary defender is a choker? You just owned yourself. :oldlol: Portland played 0.500 ball when Pippen got hurt; with him they won nearly 70% of their games.


Did MJ tank as many games individually compared to Pippen?

Well, going out in the first round or missing the playoffs 1/3 of the time helps since you had less opportunities to do so. :oldlol: On a serious note, his point was you are cherry picking games to act as if Pippen was a choker. You can do that with anyone, including MJ.


"To me, the big turn around was when we were able to get Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant, and then all of a sudden the talent was there"

I'm glad you agree that early on, Jordan's teams were just not that good

I've said that several times. It is you and other MJ fans who fail to explain why he had weak teams. If he can "make" HOFers why didn't he? Too busy selling sneakers or practicing Pac Man to beat Dave Corzine?

Allhazred, he beat great players--Russell beat greater players. That was the point. Russell's MVP's were tougher to get than Jordan's. That was not reflected in that warped formula.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Pippen was a top 5 pick from a small school before Jordan; before Smith Jordan was on Jerry Stackhouse's level, not an alleged GOAT level player. Who improved more?

And? What was his production his first two seasons? He was pretty much absent. He came to Jordan, and guess what? A star was born. This is NBA talk, if you want to discuss college, there's another section on these boards you can go to. :oldlol:


He never directly said "more talented" but the implication was there. Jackson, directly said it.

The implication was, well the fact was (going by statistical evidence), the Pistons, Lakers had more talent. There is seriously no debating this, why are you trying to?


Really? Ask John Stockton what he thinks about Pippen. Or better yet, watch the 98' NBA finals...

Really, what? Pippen wasn't clutch. Look at his shooting %'s and watch the end of those games. Who was there to close them? That's right, Jordan was.


Magic praised Pippen later. Yet he had no respect for him?

We aren't talking about later, we are talking about that particular time. He simply wasn't the player he grew out to be during the mid 90's. Stay with the topic.


Isiah didn't respect Pippen; Daly did. Whose talent evaluation is better?

Daly's was during the Dream team. Magic and Isiah's comments were not. They were evaluating teams, not individual players. The fact that they left out Pippen shows how little his production bothered them during their battles.


Look it up. Solid FG %'s in those years.

I don't need to. I know for a fact he shot terrible in the post season during the second 3peat.


This never happened. Which game do you keep claiming he did not play in because of a headache?

Yes, it did. Look it up. http://readjack.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/moving-on-the-tale-of-the-1994-scottie-pippen-bulls/

That's just one example. Jordan has been quoted saying Pipp sat out with migraines because of the pressure during playoff games.


It beats 37-45 and missing the playoffs. When you can't make the playoffs in the pathetically weak East in the early 2000's...

Choking on the highest level doesn't even compare. It's significantly detrimental to an individuals legacy. Jordan was 40 years old. Pippen was in his mid late 30's. :oldlol:


How can a team be great when its primary playmaker, secondary scorer, secondary rebounder, primary defender is a choker?

Because the "all around man" didn't effect games when they counted most, during the end. Pippen's struggles late during crunch time is universally known. He shot the Bulls out of games during the playoffs as well (second 3peat).

:roll:

[Roundball_Rock]

And? What was his production his first two seasons? He was pretty much absent. He came to Jordan, and guess what? A star was born.

What simplistic "reasoning." What was Clyde Drexler's production in his first two seasons? Sam Bowie made him? :oldlol:


The implication was, well the fact was (going by statistical evidence), the Pistons, Lakers had more talent.

They had more talent but it was only a matter of time before Chicago would eclipse them according to Daly?


Really, what?

You mentioned what great PG's think of Pippen. Ask Stockton. :D


Who was there to close them? That's right, Jordan was.

And? Kobe "closed" most games Shaq was in. Does that mean Shaq wasn't clutch? Jordan made most shots at the end of the game because he took 90% of them.


Daly's was during the Dream team. Magic and Isiah's comments were not.

No, Daly's was going as far back as 1988-89.

Magic had 0 playoff battles with MJ until 91' when Pippen dropped 21/9/7 in the finals.


I don't need to. I know for a fact he shot terrible in the post season during the second 3peat.

Yeah, because he was hurt and 42% isn't "terrible" considered the D's they faced. MJ was at 46%.

Nice bait and switch. 21/9/8, 21/8/8, 21/9/7 was during the first threepeat. He was healthy. What were his FG %'s then?


That's just one example. Jordan has been quoted saying Pipp sat out with migraines because of the pressure during playoff games.


:roll: a blog. Which games are you talking about? The game MJ fans often cite, with complete ignorance of what happened leading up to it, was one in which he played 40+ minutes.


Jordan was 40 years old. Pippen was in his mid late 30's.

That excuse doesn't fly. MJ was #2 in FGA per game in 2002, #9 or #10 in 2003. He took the responsibility and has to take the consequences. Pippen was not the leading scorer on Portland. Rasheed Wallace was. Different situations. Plus, Pippen didn't retire twice (once screwing his team by doing it suddenly before the season) and take five years off. MJ in 2002 and 2003 had approximately the mileage of 2000 Pippen.


Because the "all around man" didn't effect games when they counted most, during the end.

:roll:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

What simplistic "reasoning." What was Clyde Drexler's production in his first two seasons? Sam Bowie made him?

:oldlol: at comparing Sam Bowie to Jordan. One of your many gems!


They had more talent but it was only a matter of time

3 years to be exact.


You mentioned what great PG's think of Pippen. Ask Stockton

Which has no relevance to what was happening in 1992. Again, stay with the topic at hand.


And? Kobe "closed" most games Shaq was in. Does that mean Shaq wasn't clutch? Jordan made most shots at the end of the game because he took 90% of them.

That's because Kobe's a guard. Kobe also passed it to Horry, Fisher, and Shaq, to a name a few, were JUST as clutch. In a thread months back, I posted Shaq's clutch stats from 2000-2001


No, Daly's was going as far back as 1988-89.

Which was still when Detroit was contending for a title (beating the Bulls)


Magic had 0 playoff battles with MJ until 91' when Pippen dropped 21/9/7 in the finals.

Relevance? Isiah and Magic said this during the 92 Finals.

[Roundball_Rock]

at comparing Sam Bowie to Jordan.

:oldlol: @ you not grasping what sarcasm is.


3 years to be exact.

And?


Which has no relevance to what was happening in 1992.

You said "greatest point guards ever." There was no time qualifier.


That's because Kobe's a guard.

That is looking at the context. Do the same with Pippen. Jordan took 90% of the shots at the end of games so he made most of them. Get it?


Which was still when Detroit was contending for a title (beating the Bulls)

Which shows how great his ability to evaluate talent is. He saw Chicago and Pippen coming when no one else did.


Isiah and Magic said this during the 92 Finals.

21/9/7 against Magic's Lakers, 21/8/8 in the 92' finals.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

:oldlol: @ you not grasping what sarcasm is

You using sarcasm with a factual statement :confusedshrug: . What was the point of your sarcastic comment? :oldlol:



You said "greatest point guards ever." There was no time qualifier.

Magic was widely considered GOAT (for his position) after '91. Isiah Thomas was one of the greatest as well. Still fail to see the point of this response as well.



That is looking at the context. Do the same with Pippen. Jordan took 90% of the shots at the end of games so he made most of them. Get it?

90% of the shots at the end of games, yes, because he was efficient and known to be clutch. What about Pippen during the 94 and 75% of the 95 season? :oldlol: Not so much.

"Phil, why aren't you designing this play for me, look at my production!"
"Well Scottie, you simply aren't mentally tough to hit one"

:oldlol:




Which shows how great his ability to evaluate talent is. He saw Chicago and Pippen coming when no one else did.

And it took 3 years. The quote from Daily was right during the '92 Olympic team. Idiot.


21/9/7 against Magic's Lakers, 21/8/8 in the 92' finals.

Magic: "Had I and Michael Jordan sat out, we'd beat the Bulls." He didn't even bother discussing Pippen's importance

:roll:

[Roundball_Rock]

What was the point of your sarcastic comment?

To mock the simplistic "thinking" that confuses correlation with causation (plus it removes every possible cause except for MJ :oldlol: ).


Magic was widely considered GOAT (for his position) after '91. Isiah Thomas was one of the greatest as well

So was Stockton.


And it took 3 years. The quote from Daily was right during the '92 Olympic team. Idiot.

You don't know what you are talking about. There was no "the quote." You are confusing one quote from 92' with his views during the late 80's.

3 years. Who but Daly saw it coming in 1988-89?


Magic: "Had I and Michael Jordan sat out, we'd beat the Bulls." He didn't even bother discussing Pippen's importance

That isn't the same as saying Pippen sucked. That is a comment on players 2-12 on LA vs. those on Chicago.

What did LA do after Magic retired btw? Remain a top 5 team?

[juju151111]

Isiah Thomas? He was a blip in MVP voting during the late 80's.

Top 3 in MVP voting in MJ's seasons (age in parentheses)

1988: Jordan (24), Bird (31), Magic (28)
1991: Jordan (27), Magic (31), Robinson (25)
1992: Jordan (28), Drexler (29), Robinson (26)
1996: Jordan (32), Robinson (30), Penny Hardaway (24)
1998: Jordan (34), Malone (34), Payton (29)

So his chief competitor actually turns out to be David Robinson. :oldlol: That compares to competing against Wilt every year in Russell's case or vice versa? He did beat old Bird in 88' and old Magic in 91', though.



I never said that. Reported. This is about the tenth time you have blatantly lied about what I have said in order to smear me. You are a habitual liar yet have the gall to name yourself after Honest Abe?



Simple: the FMVP was not even awarded until 1969. All-D teams did not exist either until 1969. Anyone using them to compare Wilt and Russell to Jordan is either ignorant about basics of NBA history or deliberately trying to mislead people. The writer falls in the latter category.



If Jordan could "make" HOFers, as you allege, why didn't he? The help excuse is a joke. He could "make" help at will but didn't? Either he couldn't do it or he simply slacked and didn't care about winning. Anyone who knows anything about MJ knows which is the correct answer.
Pip was a rookie. He needed time.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

So was Stockton.

Which has no direct relevance to 1992. Try again.


You don't know what you are talking about. There was no "the quote." You are confusing one quote from 92' with his views during the late 80's.

No, I am not. Post his quote from the late 80's. Otherwise it'll be like your Kareem post, not true :oldlol:


That isn't the same as saying Pippen sucked. That is a comment on players 2-12 on LA vs. those on Chicago.

Of course it isn't, but it's also saying Pippen was pretty much irrelevant.[/quote]


What did LA do after Magic retired btw? Remain a top 5 team?

What did the Bulls do after Jordan retired?

Your posts are full of redundancy. You're all over the place, keep up.

[Roundball_Rock]

Which has no direct relevance to 1992.

And? Your statement was regarding the opinions of the greatest PG's ever.


Post his quote from the late 80's.

Read Halberstam's MJ book. Educate yourself.


Of course it isn't, but it's also saying Pippen was pretty much irrelevant.[/

Yeah, 21/9/7 is irrelevant. :oldlol:


What did the Bulls do after Jordan retired?

55 wins (on pace for 58 when Pippen played), remain a top 5 team. LA? 43-39, quick first round exit.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

And? Your statement was regarding the opinions of the greatest PG's ever.

No it was regarding the greatest point guards ever at the time who made the statements. Again, the correlation?



Read Halberstam's MJ book. Educate yourself.

LOL, what a joke. While I do that, be sure to know when players sat out games before throwing out opinions like a cheap hooker does with her pie.



Yeah, 21/9/7 is irrelevant

Which has nothing to do with being 'clutch'

:roll:


55 wins (on pace for 58 when Pippen played), remain a top 5 team. LA? 43-39, quick first round exit.

Yes, while having the exact lineup the previous years (3x championships), including Tony Kukoc and Steve Kerr. Try again.

[Roundball_Rock]

No it was regarding the greatest point guards ever at the time who made the statements

You are changing your statement. The original statement was "greatest point guards ever."


LOL, what a joke.

Yeah, books written by Pulitizer Prize authors who have far more access to people like Chuck Daly than you do is a joke. No wonder you became a fan of the mass marketing hero. :oldlol:


Which has nothing to do with being 'clutch'

Again, you are changing your statement. Your original claim was he was "irrelevant."


Yes, while having the exact lineup the previous years (3x championships)

What key changes occurred in LA? Magic left. MJ left. MJ's team did better without him than Magic's team without him.

[iggy>]

roundball, u seem to be a pretty intelligent poster. but why are you always hyping up scottie pippen? is it motive driven? are u trying to downplay jordans career because it helps the kareem=GOAT arguement? dont get me wrong scottie was a great player, the perfect second option. but thats all he was. he never won a title as the best player on his own team, thats gotta drag him down. hes one of the best perimeter defenders ever ill give u that, but his offensive game was limited when compared to other greats.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

You are changing your statement. The original statement was "greatest point guards ever."

Wrong, I never changed my statements. I said, and you can quote it, that these greatest of all time guards had no love for Pippen. HE was irrelevant to them. Well in 1992 he was. :oldlol:


Yeah, books written by Pulitizer Prize authors who have far more access to people like Chuck Daly than you do is a joke. No wonder you became a fan of the mass marketing hero. :oldlol:

Yes, books with quotes I've never heard of. Chuck Daly is no joke, but he made is sentiments on Pippen during 1992. Even if he did say Pippen was a talent, that still doesn't close the gap between the Pistons, Lakers. Thomas and Magic agree.



Again, you are changing your statement. Your original claim was he was "irrelevant."

Nope, I am not. I said he wasn't clutch, you gave me his all around numbers (which don't include clutch stats). Yes, that is irrelevant.


What key changes occurred in LA? Magic left. MJ left. MJ's team did better without him than Magic's team without him.

The fact they didn't come off a 3peat. The fact that they were not as talented as the Bulls (overall) in 1994. The fact their coach wasn't on par with Phil. The fact that they didn't defend nearly as well as the Bulls.

Try again.

[Roundball_Rock]

The original statement was:


The greatest point guards to ever play had absolutely no respect for Pippen (evident by what they said regarding teams minus their superstar



Yes, books with quotes I've never heard of. Chuck Daly is no joke, but he made is sentiments on Pippen during 1992.

He made the statements in the late 80's. He saw it then. You are thinking of him saying Pippen was the second best player on the Dream Team in 92'.

You should read it. It is very pro-MJ. If you read it (or anything about MJ) you will understand why MJ accepting 10th place for his team when he could easily "make" HOFers is a ridiculous claim.


I said he wasn't clutch

Wrong:



Daly's was during the Dream team. Magic and Isiah's comments were not. They were evaluating teams, not individual players. The fact that they left out Pippen shows how little his production bothered them during their battles.



Of course it isn't, but it's also saying Pippen was pretty much irrelevant.


The fact they didn't come off a 3peat. The fact that they were not as talented as the Bulls (overall) in 1994.

:roll: Once again you are proven wrong and you simply change your story. Now the Bulls were more talented.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

The original statement was:

[quote]He made the statements in the late 80's. He saw it then. You are thinking of him saying Pippen was the second best player on the Dream Team in 92'.

While I still do not believe he said it, because you did not provide proof other than saying it was in a novel, it doesn't change the fact that the Bulls teams of 1992 were far less talented than the Lakers of the 80's with prime Worthy and the Pistons with their all around guys.




Once again you are proven wrong and you simply change your story. Now the Bulls were more talented.

:oldlol: The Bulls of 1994 were MORE talented due to experience as well as growth with key acquisitions than the Lakers of 1991. The Lakers of the 80's were far more talented than the early 90's and late Bulls teams. Simple as that. I did not change my OP, rather, it's just you having a tough time comprehending.

[Roundball_Rock]

While I still do not believe he said it

Ok. A Pulitizer Prize winning historian who wrote well over a dozen books has no credibility. His book is pro-MJ--very much pro-MJ. Yet he fabricated a quote by Chuck Daly just to make Pippen look good. I guess this was to prop up Kobe? We know how big Kobe was in 1999. :oldlol:


The Bulls of 1994 were MORE talented due to experience as well as growth with key acquisitions than the Lakers of 1991.

Experience is not relevant to talent.

Key acquisitions? Steve Kerr and Toni Kukoc? :oldlol: They were also riddled with injuries to their starting C, the starting PG on two of the title teams, and Pippen and Grant also missed 10 or more games due to injury.


The Lakers of the 80's were far more talented than the early 90's and late Bulls teams.

I agree. The difference was Worthy wasn't Pippen. Pippen was great enough to keep his team afloat.

[juju151111]

roundball, u seem to be a pretty intelligent poster. but why are you always hyping up scottie pippen? is it motive driven? are u trying to downplay jordans career because it helps the kareem=GOAT arguement? dont get me wrong scottie was a great player, the perfect second option. but thats all he was. he never won a title as the best player on his own team, thats gotta drag him down. hes one of the best perimeter defenders ever ill give u that, but his offensive game was limited when compared to other greats.
The real story is RB thought MJ was the Goat, but he so certain MJfans bashing PIP(mostly when Kobe tards bring up BS) so he decided to go on a crusade against MJ. He bashes showing record without Pip and says PIP has more IMpact then him:lol with some of his stats. He then starts to like Kareem in a way to push MJ to #2( He will pretend and say KAJ the poster changed his mind) basically the story of Roundball stay in ISH.

[Roundball_Rock]

I brought up 1-9 after a MJ fan bashed Pippen's record without Jordan. What do you expect? Pippen is my favorite player so I will defend him just as MJ fans defend Jordan. The difference is I am in the ballpark with MJ. I am not ranking him 20 spots behind where most people have him.

MJ obviously had more impact. I have MJ top 2-4 all-time; Pippen top 18-20. The only time Pippen was better was 95'. What is BS is acting as if Pippen was a run-of-the-mill all-star, which is what MJ fans do.

I don't understand this Kobe obsession. I rarely see Kobe fans in Pippen threads. It is just MJ fans bashing Pippen. Where is this vast Kobe conspiracy to prop up Pippen?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Ok. A Pulitizer Prize winning historian who wrote well over a dozen books has no credibility. His book is pro-MJ--very much pro-MJ. Yet he fabricated a quote by Chuck Daly just to make Pippen look good. I guess this was to prop up Kobe? We know how big Kobe was in 1999.[quote]

As I said, irrelevance. What does Kobe have to do with this? No idea. Chuck Daly claiming Pippen had talent is meaningless to me, most of the NBA has 'talent'. Subject closed.

[quote]Experience is not relevant to talent.

Still more experienced and talented, overall, than the 1991 Lakers. Try again.

[Roundball_Rock]

Chuck Daly claiming Pippen had talent is meaningless to me, most of the NBA has 'talent'.

Yeah, most of the NBA has superstar talent. :oldlol: You don't even know what he said yet keep talking about it.


Still more experienced and talented, overall, than the 1991 Lakers.

A team with a 6/4 starting center and a starting SG who was out the NBA for two years had more talent than a team with Worthy, Scott, Divac and Perkins. Experience? Yeah, because the 91' Lakers lacked playoff experience. :oldlol:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Yeah, most of the NBA has superstar talent. :oldlol: You don't even know what he said yet keep talking about it.

You're still debating a subject I closed. It's irrelevant now.


A team with a 6/4 starting center and a starting SG who was out the NBA for two years had more talent than a team with Worthy, Scott, Divac and Perkins. Experience? Yeah, because the 91' Lakers lacked playoff experience. :oldlol:

A team of Pippen (who was great all around during 94, allstar), Horace Grant (allstar), BJ armstrong (allstar), Tony Kukoc (great 3PT shooter), Steve Kerr (amongst the top in 3PT field goal percentage), and a coach who knew how to work with talent was superior. This is not debatable.

[Roundball_Rock]

You're still debating a subject I closed. It's irrelevant now.


How could you close what you don't even know? Daly said Pippen had superstar talent. I didn't think I had to spell it out. Do you think he feared the rise of a random NBA player? Come on.


A team of Pippen (who was great all around during 94, allstar), Horace Grant (allstar), BJ armstrong (allstar), Tony Kukoc (great 3PT shooter), Steve Kerr (amongst the top in 3PT field goal percentage), and a coach who knew how to work with talent was superior. This is not debatable.

Debatable.

Grant averaged 15/11 during the season (great D, though) and only 6 rebounds against the Knicks.

Armstrong was voted in by the fans. His numbers in 94'<Iverson's today.

Kukoc was not great in 94'.

Still, you could argue they were better because this is all opinion but the 91' Lakers had a talented team even without Magic. No one can dispute that.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

How could you close what you don't even know? Daly said Pippen had superstar talent. I didn't think I had to spell it out. Do you think he feared the rise of a random NBA player? Come on.

Why do you keep responding to something I've acknowledged? You can look at previous posts of mine, I can care less. The fact remains, the 80's Lakers and Pistons had far more talent than the early 90's Bulls.

Not debatable.


Grant averaged 15/11 during the season (great D, though) and only 6 rebounds against the Knicks.

What were his overall stats during the season? What was the Bulls record prior to the break? He played great D, as you said.

"Armstrong was voted in by the fans. His numbers in 94'<Iverson's today."

And? During that particular season he was putting just as good of production on winning teams than anyone. The fans voted a worthy candidate.



Kukoc was not great in 94'.

His 3PT shooting was, as I said earlier.

Still, you could argue they were better because this is all opinion but the 91' Lakers had a talented team even without Magic. No one can dispute that.[/QUOTE]

And No one is, it's just the Bulls on paper, and record wise, were better.

[Roundball_Rock]

What were his overall stats during the season?

15/11. Against New York it was 17/6.


What was the Bulls record prior to the break?

I forgot but they were tied for first place with Atlanta after starting out 5-7 (4-6 without Pippen, even with a soft schedule. They were 0-4 or 0-5 against playoff teams. They beat two lottery teams by a combined two points).


"Armstrong was voted in by the fans. His numbers in 94'<Iverson's today."

And? During that particular season he was putting just as good of production on winning teams than anyone. The fans voted a worthy candidate.

If you think 15/2/4 are all-star numbers and that is enough to be one of the top 2 guards in a conference then yes.


His 3PT shooting was, as I said earlier.

If you think 27% is great. :confusedshrug:


And No one is, it's just the Bulls on paper, and record wise, were better.

Thanks to Pippen. Without him they sucked. When he was hurt they were a lottery team. When Worthy was hurt in 92' his team was a .500 team--the same as with him.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

15/11. Against New York it was 17/6.

Not bad. His efficiency and overall defense was...well it was his defense


I forgot but they were tied for first place with Atlanta after starting out 5-7 (4-6 without Pippen, even with a soft schedule. They were 0-4 or 0-5 against playoff teams. They beat two lottery teams by a combined two points).

Pippen led that team. His overall numbers were one of the reasons he was top 5 in MVP voting that season.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlFeJdRg5Uw (one of my favorite games from him).


If you think 15/2/4 are all-star numbers and that is enough to be one of the top 2 guards in a conference then yes.

Which depicts his teams wins. Numbers aside, he himself was great defensively and ran the 5 pretty well for the defending champs.


If you think 27% is great.

And 42% during the post season

Thanks to Pippen. Without him they sucked. When he was hurt they were a lottery team. When Worthy was hurt in 92' his team was a .500 team--the same as with him.[/QUOTE]

They wouldn't of sucked, but more than likely would have a tough time making the playoffs in a tough eastern conference. Still, though, that team was confident and wanted to prove themselves after Jordan retired. 3 allstars on that team further proves it.

[Roundball_Rock]

Not bad.

Not in the regular season but in the playoffs yes. They needed more than 6 boards against New York out of the PF position, especially since they had no great rebounding C. He went from 11 to 6.

The team was good but not as good as "three all-stars" suggests since two were borderline all-stars. One may not have even made it if it weren't for the fans.

Great game by Pip! :rockon:

[juju151111]

Not bad. His efficiency and overall defense was...well it was his defense



Pippen led that team. His overall numbers were one of the reasons he was top 5 in MVP voting that season.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlFeJdRg5Uw (one of my favorite games from him).



Which depicts his teams wins. Numbers aside, he himself was great defensively and ran the 5 pretty well for the defending champs.



And 42% during the post season

Thanks to Pippen. Without him they sucked. When he was hurt they were a lottery team. When Worthy was hurt in 92' his team was a .500 team--the same as with him.

They wouldn't of sucked, but more than likely would have a tough time making the playoffs in a tough eastern conference. Still, though, that team was confident and wanted to prove themselves after Jordan retired. 3 allstars on that team further proves it.[/QUOTE]

two of my fav Pip games http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8wYtPuXb4Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Llgnf6gY_gM

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Not in the regular season but in the playoffs yes. They needed more than 6 boards against New York out of the PF position, especially since they had no great rebounding C. He went from 11 to 6.

That's true, but New Yorks front line were beasts rebounding. The Bulls missed Jordan's leadership and scoring much in that series.


The team was good but not as good as "three all-stars" suggests since two were borderline all-stars. One may not have even made it if it weren't for the fans.

Never the less amongst the top talent wise in the league.

[Roundball_Rock]

:applause: The Christmas game is my favorite game of all-time. Remember the ending? "Smith stopped again by Pippen!" :bowdown: The entire game is also up at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sHoYlBmA7g&feature=related

93' ECF 6 was great too. I also like Game 1 of the 97' finals, especially since it was unclear whether he was even going to play and then he had a great game.


That's true, but New Yorks front line were beasts rebounding

Yeah but that doesn't excuse Grant falling off from 11 to 6. Pippen was right up to par rebounding-wise. Why wasn't Grant?


The Bulls missed Jordan's leadership and scoring much in that series.

Definitely. Even without him though it is a shame the Hollins call happened. There is no way NY was going to win Game 6 in Chicago. I think they would have reached the finals and lost to Houston. With MJ? They easily roll through the playoffs and probably take Houston in 5 games. Houston had trouble with the Knicks and Suns, after all.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Yeah but that doesn't excuse Grant falling off from 11 to 6. Pippen was right up to par rebounding-wise. Why wasn't Grant?

I agree, it doesn't. This is why Pippen was better than Grant though, also why Grant made only one Allstar appearance.


Definitely. Even without him though it is a shame the Hollins call happened. There is no way NY was going to win Game 6 in Chicago. I think they would have reached the finals and lost to Houston. With MJ? They easily roll through the playoffs and probably take Houston in 5 games. Houston had trouble with the Knicks and Suns, after all.

Agreed!

[indiefan23]

roundball, u seem to be a pretty intelligent poster. but why are you always hyping up scottie pippen? is it motive driven? are u trying to downplay jordans career because it helps the kareem=GOAT arguement? dont get me wrong scottie was a great player, the perfect second option. but thats all he was. he never won a title as the best player on his own team, thats gotta drag him down. hes one of the best perimeter defenders ever ill give u that, but his offensive game was limited when compared to other greats.

How is 20 ppg on 50% shooting with 7 dimes limited in any shape or fashion??? This all during the apex of defensive intensity. Could Scotti Pippen score 30 PPG in today's NBA with much weaker centers, rules dictating he can't be hand checked and defensive 3 seconds? Yes, he could. Easily. Mitch Richmond, as the first option, only scored 22.5 PPG that year... is he offensively limited too? I mean, Pippen was in the top 10 of the league for scoring that year alone and had a better APG then Kenny Smith, and .1 less dimes then Isiah Thomas.

Seriously, Round Ball Rock would look foolish for bringing up Pippen all the time if you guys didn't justify him doing it so much. Pippen was a devastating offensive player who could beat you by scoring 40 points or by handing out 15 assists, or both. He was so good at everything then nearly all his peers that he didn't have to focus on one thing as his specialty. If Pippen came into the league today after his third or fourth year in the league, he would be Lebron James, with better numbers when you consider that Pippen's numbers compare to his in a league that was much, much harder to get those numbers in.

In comparison to legacy players, the bulls played at a pace of 90. In comparison to guy's in the 60's and 70's it's like scoring 30-40 PPG considering they played way more minutes and teams played at a pace of 114 just in the 70's, which were way slower compared to the 60's and 50's. Pippen in Elgin Baylor's shoes would average way over a 40/20. Its basically a fact. Then all the morons here who are saying he was a poor scorer would be calling him the unquestioned GOAT.

I'm sure someone is going to respond to this claiming I'm insane to suggest Pippen would have these numbers, but he would. Its nearly not even debatable.

[indiefan23]

The real story is RB thought MJ was the Goat, but he so certain MJfans bashing PIP(mostly when Kobe tards bring up BS) so he decided to go on a crusade against MJ. He bashes showing record without Pip and says PIP has more IMpact then him:lol with some of his stats. He then starts to like Kareem in a way to push MJ to #2( He will pretend and say KAJ the poster changed his mind) basically the story of Roundball stay in ISH.

That's pretty silly JuJu, you know it's not even the case at all. Watch this.

Yo, RBR, answer me these questions... just fill in the blanks. Who's the greatest most talented most skilled most determined most competitive player to ever play the game?

_______ ______

Is it even close, at all?

__

I thought so.

[indiefan23]

Yes, just like Russell & Wilt at peak form could not compete at the high school level today right? :oldlol:

Abe, I said most of the NBA could not a really good high school team, and that was regarding the 50's 60's of Bill Russel/Wilt, not the 70's when things were improving. I have no problem standing behind what I said, or being ridiculed for something I said if I deserve it, but don't mis-represent me. Its cheap.

[Cyclone112]

How is 20 ppg on 50% shooting with 7 dimes limited in any shape or fashion??? This all during the apex of defensive intensity. Could Scotti Pippen score 30 PPG in today's NBA with much weaker centers, rules dictating he can't be hand checked and defensive 3 seconds? Yes, he could. Easily. Mitch Richmond, as the first option, only scored 22.5 PPG that year... is he offensively limited too? I mean, Pippen was in the top 10 of the league for scoring that year alone and had a better APG then Kenny Smith, and .1 less dimes then Isiah Thomas.

Seriously, Round Ball Rock would look foolish for bringing up Pippen all the time if you guys didn't justify him doing it so much. Pippen was a devastating offensive player who could beat you by scoring 40 points or by handing out 15 assists, or both. He was so good at everything then nearly all his peers that he didn't have to focus on one thing as his specialty. If Pippen came into the league today after his third or fourth year in the league, he would be Lebron James, with better numbers when you consider that Pippen's numbers compare to his in a league that was much, much harder to get those numbers in.

In comparison to legacy players, the bulls played at a pace of 90. In comparison to guy's in the 60's and 70's it's like scoring 30-40 PPG considering they played way more minutes and teams played at a pace of 114 just in the 70's, which were way slower compared to the 60's and 50's. Pippen in Elgin Baylor's shoes would average way over a 40/20. Its basically a fact. Then all the morons here who are saying he was a poor scorer would be calling him the unquestioned GOAT.

I'm sure someone is going to respond to this claiming I'm insane to suggest Pippen would have these numbers, but he would. Its nearly not even debatable.

I know I'm going to just get murdered for this so this is my only post in this thread before I duck out and go to bed.

Pippen scored 40+ points 5 times in his career(0 times in the playoffs)
Pippen recorded 15 assists 2 times and 12+ assists 21 times(once in the playoffs)

I'm not pointing out these numbers to hate on Pippen. I'm just pointing them out because I felt your post was a HUGE exaggeration. I don't even think Roundball would agree with parts of your post, of course some of it makes sense like the Mitch Richmond mention and the slow pace of that season but a few other parts of that post are just ludicrous and I won't get into the others right now, someone else can spend the time on it.

EDIT: missed a few of the 12 assist games when he was on the Blazers.

[indiefan23]

I always assume on these types of threads that it is PlayerX in today's game, not 19xx's PlayerX in today's game.

So, the way I read the question is this:
Given access to today's nutrition and training, would Prime Kareem be the best player in the NBA now?

IMO, he would.

Why would you assume that? I mean, Kareem with today's nutrition, training and technology is NOT the same player. KAJ IS a 70's player produced by 70's training and 70's nutrition. It's who he is. If you suddenly assume he has modern training and nutrition, you're not longer claiming that KAJ is the GOAT but some mythical player who does not and never did exist. Your prime 90's KAJ would destroy the 70's version and disgrace that 70's player. I really don't understand why more people don't see how pretending older players need these evaluative crutches is anything but an insult.

If Jordan and Kobe are better then their peers because they found better ways to train then those guys, why does that count, but vs Bill Russel it does not count?

The silly thing about these all time discussions is that when we compare players today we compare their PERFORMANCE but when we compare old stars, we disgrace their performances by only considering their HYPE.

[indiefan23]

I know I'm going to just get murdered for this so this is my only post in this thread before I duck out and go to bed.

Pippen scored 40+ points 5 times in his career(0 times in the playoffs)
Pippen recorded 15 assists 1 time and 12+ assists 18 times(once in the playoffs)

I'm not pointing out these numbers to hate on Pippen. I'm just pointing them out because I felt your post was a HUGE exaggeration. I don't even think Roundball would agree with your post, of course parts of it make sense like the Mitch Richmond part and the slow pace of that season but a few other parts of that post are just ludicrous and I won't get into the others right now, someone else can spend the time on it.

Heh, no murder. Pippen played in the 90's which was easily the most intense defensive era ever. Given today's rules and the fact that he played with Jordan massively sacrificing his scoring stats for the good of the team it's not a stretch to say that he was not capable of scoring 40 points in a game to kill you at all. The main point though was just that instead of being a specialist, Pippen would change his strategy on a nightly basis to help his team win which is not only does not show up in a per/game stat, but negatively affects your per game stats. Especially if the adjustment includes focusing more on defence. If Pippen played like Kobe, would he have a plethora of 40 point games? Yes, he would.

Regarding the 40/20 stat, if you examine the circumstances I stated enough you'll see that statement is rock solid. Like I said, not even debatable.

[Abraham Lincoln]

Abe, I said most of the NBA could not a really good high school team, and that was regarding the 50's 60's of Bill Russel/Wilt, not the 70's when things were improving. I have no problem standing behind what I said, or being ridiculed for something I said if I deserve it, but don't mis-represent me. Its cheap.
Sorry I just don't see this being true of the 60's players. I could understand if you were referring to a team like the 1906 UT Basketball squad (as shown below). Agree to disagree.

http://www.cah.utexas.edu/exhibits/EarlyYearsExhibit/images/mens_basketball_large.jpg

[indiefan23]

Lol, Wilt was still in excellent shape and even led the Lakers to the 72 championship. He was still a very good player and better than Shaq is now.

Wilt was past his prime and won a championship as a role player dude. He was the fourth leading scorer in that run scoring 1.2 more PPG then Happy Hariston! ;0 Christ.


As for Kareem's numbers declining after the merger? They didn't.

26.2 ppg 57.9 fg %, 13.3 rpg, 3.9 apg, 1.2 spg, 3.2 bpg, 36.8 mpg

He also played almost five minutes less per game compared to the previous year.

Minutes count. Everyone's minutes/production went down after the merger because suddenly playing got harder when you had to contend with a guy like Artis Gilmore who was a 20/20 threat himself before the merger. Pre merger stats are absolutely inflated for the very reason you list.


He's too short, Kareem has about 3 or four inches on him.

KG is listed barefoot. If he was listed in shoes, he'd be listed 7'1" or 7'2"


Wait, is this thread called "70s Kareem in today's game" or "Prime Kareem in today's game"? If Kareem plays now, then he'll have access to the same technology that everyone else today has. Like I said before, Kareem bulked up to 265 pounds later in his career. If he had that kind of muscle in his prime, then Shaq is the only one with a real advantage. Also, I didn't say every one was slow, just Shaq and Ming. The rest are a lot shorter, though, plus Garnett isn't any bigger than Kareem was.

Seriously, if I didn't know any better, I would assume that you were suggesting that Kareem actually play against today's competition but only using 70s workouts and exercises. :lol

Hmm.... well, when was KAJ's prime? The 70's. He's a 70's player. If you want to take player's latter weights into consideration this way, its not only Shaq. Shaq bulked up to 350. And Duncan did NOT stay at 248 his whole career... that was skinny Duncan the rookie. Dwight Howard is NOT 240 lbs right now. ;0 Time passes and things ebb and flow but past athletes don't improve with it. What you're suggesting is the equivalent of going to see a Charlie Chaplin movie and coming out of it thinking the sound and color were very comparable to today.

[indiefan23]

Sorry I just don't see this being true of the 60's players. I could understand if you were referring to a team like the 1906 UT Basketball squad (as shown below). Agree to disagree.

http://www.cah.utexas.edu/exhibits/EarlyYearsExhibit/images/mens_basketball_large.jpg

Heh, nice pic. :)

I dunno, honestly think about the guys on the bench in the 1950's. Don't think of Bill Russel. Think of the dudes who were on the bench of the mediocre to bad teams that never got coverage on TV that you never saw.

Then ask if they can compete with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4cBlv4dEsQ&feature=fvw

I believe in my original statement, i said they couldn't start. Given that I don't know a single coach who starts a player who does not box out on rebounds, and that was standard practice in 50's/60's finals games that mattered, I don't see how they start. In 1976, 75 NBA players did not even deserve to be in the league in the first place as their ABA counter parts took their places. Half of the year's previous all stars didn't make it either. I don't think it's crazy to say the crappy bench players who couldn't dribble with both hands in the 50's would have trouble making the best HS squads.

[indiefan23]

:oldlol:

This is one of the dumbest things i have ever seen on this board. KG is weak, that is why he stays out of the paint. He has always been a soft jump shooter. I have seen KG up close in a gym and he looked like a stiff wind would blow him over. He can't back down anyone.

Explain to me how someone who's weak leads the league in rebounding with 13.9 PER in a division with the second leading rebounder, Tim Duncan not to mention guys like Shaq/Yao/Malone/Camby/et al in his conference? Here is a rule: if you lead the league in boards, you are strong as an Ox. FACT!

[indiefan23]

:oldlol: @ Dude who said that KG is way stronger thn Kareem...

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


Anyway...Kareem probably would avg 32ppg 16reb 4ast this season in his prime and would arguably be the best player...Still, LeBron and Kobe would get the nod mainly because their attractive play.

Why would he average that when that is essentially his peak numbers in a very weak early 70's era with 0 rules that make it harder to get those specific numbers and a third to half a season's worth fewer possessions? You're suggesting there would be 0 drop off? I think Kareem would be good today, but he'd be a 20/10 guy with 1 or 2 blocks tops. Maybe more points cuz of his killer hook and a few less boards.

[indiefan23]

All this talk about how strong players are today and what not...realistically there is not a player who has ever lived who could stop Prime Kareem from putting the ball in the hoop at will.

It's just fact.

LOL at 6'10" Dwight Howard the hack guarding 7'2" Kareem's sky hook and out of this world post moves. I like Garnett, but Kareem would put up as many points as he felt like putting up on Garnett. When he was still young and quick he was absolutely unstoppable.

His hook was unstoppable, but there is a whole lot more to the game then scoring points, especially at the center position. He was unstoppable, but he would not be as effective vs today's defensive schemes and players, especially in the 90's. He'd have a harder time getting position and that's just for starters.

I love how ISH's standard of "who's better" is "can they score one on one". :0 Scoring is not even the second priority of a center.

[indiefan23]

Okay, I'm leaving the silliness for a while. You guys can dream up more ways to try and argue that prime KAJ would produce MORE today then in the 70's when half the best players were in another league, common players still were not really athletic enough to dunk yet, no three point line meant the floor was much less spread and no rules like defensive 3 seconds existed. ;0

[tontoz]

Explain to me how someone who's weak leads the league in rebounding with 13.9 PER in a division with the second leading rebounder, Tim Duncan not to mention guys like Shaq/Yao/Malone/Camby/et al in his conference? Here is a rule: if you lead the league in boards, you are strong as an Ox. FACT!


So Marcus Camby is strong as an ox? :roll:

If KG is such an ox why does he score half as many points in the paint as Josh Smith?

[Alhazred]

Wilt was past his prime and won a championship as a role player dude. He was the fourth leading scorer in that run scoring 1.2 more PPG then Happy Hariston! ;0 Christ.

Take Wilt off the 72 Lakers and how far do you think they would have gone?




Minutes count. Everyone's minutes/production went down after the merger because suddenly playing got harder when you had to contend with a guy like Artis Gilmore who was a 20/20 threat himself before the merger. Pre merger stats are absolutely inflated for the very reason you list.


Kareem's fg % went up after the merger, plus he was dropping 40/20 games against prime Bill Walton post-merger.



KG is listed barefoot. If he was listed in shoes, he'd be listed 7'1" or 7'2"

Whoopee. Still skinny as Hell, too.




Hmm.... well, when was KAJ's prime? The 70's. He's a 70's player.

Correct, but we're talking about him playing now in his prime. If he plays now, why would he not use better technology to improve himself?


If you want to take player's latter weights into consideration this way, its not only Shaq. Shaq bulked up to 350. And Duncan did NOT stay at 248 his whole career... that was skinny Duncan the rookie. Dwight Howard is NOT 240 lbs right now. ;0 Time passes and things ebb and flow but past athletes don't improve with it. What you're suggesting is the equivalent of going to see a Charlie Chaplin movie and coming out of it thinking the sound and color were very comparable to today.

Bad example. It's more like taking the people who worked on the Charlie Chaplin movies and giving them modern technology to create it. Big difference.

[indiefan23]

So Marcus Camby is strong as an ox? :roll:

If KG is such an ox why does he score half as many points in the paint as Josh Smith?

Uh, well, yes, he is strong. Tony Parker has led the league in points in the paint, you're point is pretty foolish. Pulling down 14 boards a game and 6 straight seasons with +12 RPG in a league with Shaq/Yao/Duncan/Robinson and a slew of others is not done without being strong. KG pulls people outside anyway because no one his size can match up with his agility. Where did you find this stat anyway, or like, did you just make it up?

[tontoz]

Uh, well, yes, he is strong. Tony Parker has led the league in points in the paint, you're point is pretty foolish. Pulling down 14 boards a game and 6 straight seasons with +12 RPG in a league with Shaq/Yao/Duncan/Robinson and a slew of others is not done without being strong. KG pulls people outside anyway because no one his size can match up with his agility. Where did you find this stat anyway, or like, did you just make it up?

Any big man who is truly a beast will punish people inside, like Dwight Howard does.

http://www.82games.com/0910/09ORL12.HTM


You are clueless if you think Camby and KG are strong relative to NBA big men. both are relatively weak but they are effective due to their length and mobility. Noah is tied for 2nd in rebounding currently and he is weak as well. The only way he will ever get any muscle definition is if someone photoshops one of his pictures.

Speaking of Tony Parker i bet Garnett couldn't even back him down. Garnett is weak.

[indiefan23]

Take Wilt off the 72 Lakers and how far do you think they would have gone?

What does it matter? You said he was in top form leading his team to a championship. He was not in top form. He was a rebounding role player and their fourth leading scorer. The funny thing is, they didn't win till he became their 4'th (and nearly 5'th) leading scorer.


Kareem's fg % went up after the merger, plus he was dropping 40/20 games against prime Bill Walton post-merger.

So what again? The statement was that he'd average 35/16 in today's NBA. I didn't say his talent diminished, I said his pre-merger stats that statement was based on were inflated by the lack of competition and the drop in them is apparent after the merger as it is in everyone's stats dropping from both leagues post merger. If his stats dropped playing weaker player from the ABA then today, then why would anyone expect him to do that today?



Whoopee. Still skinny as Hell, too.

Whoopee, you're dead wrong. He has a minimal height advantage on KG who would easily out muscle him.


Correct, but we're talking about him playing now in his prime. If he plays now, why would he not use better technology to improve himself?

Well then that is not even the same player at all. I don't get it... are you arguing Kareem's DNA? Or saying that if Kareem was a way better basketball player then he was, would he be the best player in the league today? KAJ is one guy from the 70's and the question is if that guy played today, how would he fare in a game. Not if that guy from the 70's was actually better then he was and played.


Bad example. It's more like taking the people who worked on the Charlie Chaplin movies and giving them modern technology to create it. Big difference.

No, it's a great example. The question says would a prime KAJ be the best now. It's talking about a specific player and time period in his career as he was, not a fictional comic hero KAJ-MAN who drinks future juice and gets tips from David Thorpe and Tim Grover with an entire life/career rewritten being born in the prime of the real KAJ. It's about the player he WAS vs the league NOW because both of those are tangible things.

KAJ-MAN born in 1975 never makes it out of college because the weed is just too damn good anyway.

[indiefan23]

Any big man who is truly a beast will punish people inside, like Dwight Howard does.

http://www.82games.com/0910/09ORL12.HTM


You are clueless if you think Camby and KG are strong relative to NBA big men. both are relatively weak but they are effective due to their length and mobility. Noah is tied for 2nd in rebounding currently and he is weak as well. The only way he will ever get any muscle definition is if someone photoshops one of his pictures.

Speaking of Tony Parker i bet Garnett couldn't even back him down. Garnett is weak.

Dude, Marcus Camby is 35 years old. He's not getting boards by pogo sticking around the court anymore. When he was in NY maybe but he hasn't done that for years. Besides:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=garneke01&p2=onealsh01

You don't match Shaq in boards head to head for your career if you're weak. Everyone in the NBA is long and mobile. Those are assets of their game but to suggest that a guy like KG is 'weak' is farcical. The truly retarded thing is that 'backing someone down' is useless way to tell if someone's strong. Is Ben Wallace weak too because he doesn't back people down? ;0 Or is he strong because he keeps people off the blocks and can box them out for boards, you know, like KG did for his stellar all NBA defensive career. ;0

[Chitownkiddd33]

I don't think Kobe has been close to Lebron since like, 2005 even. Not for a lack of effort, Kobe improves at a better rate... Lebron's just naturally better at the game. It's not even close now. If you look at Kobe's clutch stats, Lebron has been crushing him for years. Kobe's been operating on a Manu Ginobli (before Manu was hurt) level, while Lebron has been far and away above everyone in the game.


:hammerhead: Please dont tell me you believe that bull**** of a website 82games.

According to them Lebron should get another 2/3 in the clutch because he hit 2 lay ups and missed 1 shot under the 24 second shot clock. He misses the game winning 3 yet that website says he went 2 for 3. Dont believe that crap.

[indiefan23]

:hammerhead: Please dont tell me you believe that bull**** of a website 82games.

According to them Lebron should get another 2/3 in the clutch because he hit 2 lay ups and missed 1 shot under the 24 second shot clock. He misses the game winning 3 yet that website says he went 2 for 3. Dont believe that crap.

How's that different when Kobe does the same thing? The stats even out. I'm more into how his assist/steals/blocks/FG%/3P%/boards own Kobe's. I don't think a method that treats Lebron and Kobe equally really makes up for him being totally owned at the end of games statistically. 'maybe' if it was close you could argue that as something that pushes Kobe over the top, but it's not even close to close.

And, for that matter, my opinion is based on what I see. 82 games just backs that up.

[Alhazred]

What does it matter? You said he was in top form leading his team to a championship. He was not in top form. He was a rebounding role player and their fourth leading scorer. The funny thing is, they didn't win till he became their 4'th (and nearly 5'th) leading scorer.

Lol, I did not say "top form". I said he was in excellent shape and better than Shaq is now. 14 point a game on 64.9 fg% along with 19.2 rpg and 4 apg is not the sign of a "role player". Do you think Bill Russell was a role player, too?




So what again? The statement was that he'd average 35/16 in today's NBA. I didn't say his talent diminished, I said his pre-merger stats that statement was based on were inflated by the lack of competition and the drop in them is apparent after the merger as it is in everyone's stats dropping from both leagues post merger. If his stats dropped playing weaker player from the ABA then today, then why would anyone expect him to do that today?

Check his stats again. His shooting % went up after the merger, now why is that?



Whoopee, you're dead wrong. He has a minimal height advantage on KG who would easily out muscle him.

:lol


Well then that is not even the same player at all. I don't get it... are you arguing Kareem's DNA? Or saying that if Kareem was a way better basketball player then he was, would he be the best player in the league today? KAJ is one guy from the 70's and the question is if that guy played today, how would he fare in a game. Not if that guy from the 70's was actually better then he was and played.

So if Kareem with no knowledge or training from beyond 1977 played today, he would get owned? That kind of goes without saying. The game has changed quite a bit since then.


No, it's a great example. The question says would a prime KAJ be the best now. It's talking about a specific player and time period in his career as he was, not a fictional comic hero KAJ-MAN who drinks future juice and gets tips from David Thorpe and Tim Grover with an entire life/career rewritten being born in the prime of the real KAJ. It's about the player he WAS vs the league NOW because both of those are tangible things.

The op only says "prime Kareem", not "If a 1970s version of Kareem played in a random game today." Just dropping 1976 Kareem into a random NBA game with no knowledge of the numerous changes is ridiculous.


KAJ-MAN born in 1975 never makes it out of college because the weed is just too damn good anyway.

:lol

[tontoz]

Dude, Marcus Camby is 35 years old. He's not getting boards by pogo sticking around the court anymore. When he was in NY maybe but he hasn't done that for years. Besides:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=garneke01&p2=onealsh01

You don't match Shaq in boards head to head for your career if you're weak. Everyone in the NBA is long and mobile. Those are assets of their game but to suggest that a guy like KG is 'weak' is farcical. The truly retarded thing is that 'backing someone down' is useless way to tell if someone's strong. Is Ben Wallace weak too because he doesn't back people down? ;0 Or is he strong because he keeps people off the blocks and can box them out for boards, you know, like KG did for his stellar all NBA defensive career. ;0


There are few players in the NBA that have the length and mobility that KG and Camby have. They get rebounds in spite of their lack of strength, just like Noah.

LOL @ bringing up Wallace. He doesn't back people down because he can't score.

[indiefan23]

There are few players in the NBA that have the length and mobility that KG and Camby have. They get rebounds in spite of their lack of strength, just like Noah.

LOL @ bringing up Wallace. He doesn't back people down because he can't score.

Ergo, why using points in the paint is a useless indicator of strength. Dwight Howard does not take shots outside the key because he can't get them to go through the hoop. The difference has nothing to do with who's strong or weak.

KG has owned prime Shaq on the blocks many games. He doesn't look huge and beefy but that does not mean you're weak especially when all the floor strength comes from you quads anyway. KG was the definition of a beast in his prime. You taking some stats about how he's shooting less inside after a knee injury only proves the weakness of your point.

[indiefan23]

Lol, I did not say "top form". I said he was in excellent shape and better than Shaq is now. 14 point a game on 64.9 fg% along with 19.2 rpg and 4 apg is not the sign of a "role player". Do you think Bill Russell was a role player, too?

What difference does it make if he was better then Shaq is now? He was a shell of his former self and had his game altered by a knee injury. I don't call that 'excellent shape' at all. He was a defensive role player, a fantastic one, but none the less, that's what he was.


Check his stats again. His shooting % went up after the merger, now why is that?

What point are you really trying to make that his FG% went up .05% anyway? That's noise created by a nearly unblockable shot. I stated that his production went down, not his %age. Why do you deny this happened when it's present in nearly every star's stats from this time?


So if Kareem with no knowledge or training from beyond 1977 played today, he would get owned? That kind of goes without saying. The game has changed quite a bit since then.

:) Okay, well this is really all I am saying and honestly, I think it's logical. If we are not talking about the player Kareem actually was, then the argument is really about Kareem's DNA being used to create a new player, not Kareem as a player. I guess the DNA conversation is interesting, but it's not a very good sports discussion.



The op only says "prime Kareem", not "If a 1970s version of Kareem played in a random game today." Just dropping 1976 Kareem into a random NBA game with no knowledge of the numerous changes is ridiculous.

Of course it's ridiculous. But the OP does say a 1970's version, because he references prime kareem: a specific person in a specific period in time, which is the 1970's.

I think you'll find that lots of people in this thread are saying that that player would dominate the league today in the same way he did in the 70's. I don't even get the point of saying the 'given today's adantages' thing. Today's advantages come from 20 years of being developed in a more advanced time. If Kareem moved up a generation he would not likely play the same way at all. He probably does not even have a hook.

I never really get how people get so hung up on denial of the game's evolution. The world's population has doubled since KAJ first started shooting hoops and the popularity of hoop has doubled a whole bunch of times. It's normal that those trends produce better players and more competition all time.

[tontoz]

Ergo, why using points in the paint is a useless indicator of strength. Dwight Howard does not take shots outside the key because he can't get them to go through the hoop. The difference has nothing to do with who's strong or weak.

KG has owned prime Shaq on the blocks many games. He doesn't look huge and beefy but that does not mean you're weak especially when all the floor strength comes from you quads anyway. KG was the definition of a beast in his prime. You taking some stats about how he's shooting less inside after a knee injury only proves the weakness of your point.


Would you rather use muscle mass as an indicator of strength? I didn't think so. :oldlol:

You are using rebounding as an indicator of strength when it has shown to have little correlation to strength. Amare is certainly stronger than Gerald Wallace, KG, Camby and Noah yet all those guys punk him on the boards.

If rebounding is an indicator of strength then why is Garnett averaging only 7.6 rebounds this year? Why did he average only 8.5 last year?

[indiefan23]

Would you rather use muscle mass as an indicator of strength? I didn't think so. :oldlol:

You are using rebounding as an indicator of strength when it has shown to have little correlation to strength. Amare is certainly stronger than Gerald Wallace, KG, Camby and Noah yet all those guys punk him on the boards.

If rebounding is an indicator of strength then why is Garnett averaging only 7.6 rebounds this year? Why did he average only 8.5 last year?

Garnett was injured last year and recovering this year moron. He's also slightly past his prime. He averaged 14 a game for a whole season in an era dominated by bigs. Why is Amare stronger then KG? Like, what's that based on? Pictures? ;0

[tontoz]

Garnett was injured last year and recovering this year moron. He's also slightly past his prime. He averaged 14 a game for a whole season in an era dominated by bigs. Why is Amare stronger then KG? Like, what's that based on? Pictures? ;0

Garnett's rebounding dropped as soon as he put on a Celtics jersey. Did he suddenly become weaker in a matter of months? Or was it the because there wasn't anyone else in Minny to get rebounds?

Who says Amare is stronger than KG? Anyone with a clue.

[Alhazred]

What difference does it make if he was better then Shaq is now? He was a shell of his former self and had his game altered by a knee injury. I don't call that 'excellent shape' at all. He was a defensive role player, a fantastic one, but none the less, that's what he was.

I mentioned Shaq because you said he would have given Kareem trouble due to his size. To an extent yes, but Kareem was able to hold his own against larger opponents which is what I was getting at. A mid thirties Wilt was much better than a 37 year old Shaq, wouldn't you agree?


What point are you really trying to make that his FG% went up .05% anyway? That's noise created by a nearly unblockable shot. I stated that his production went down, not his %age. Why do you deny this happened when it's present in nearly every star's stats from this time?

His overall numbers did go down, so I agree that he wouldn't be averaging 34/16. That said, he could still put up great numbers. The only reason his numbers went down slightly was due to his minutes being reduced and the fact that he was almost 30 could have played a part in it as well.




:) Okay, well this is really all I am saying and honestly, I think it's logical. If we are not talking about the player Kareem actually was, then the argument is really about Kareem's DNA being used to create a new player, not Kareem as a player. I guess the DNA conversation is interesting, but it's not a very good sports discussion.

Maybe not, but how is putting a random player into a different era with no knowledge or preparation any better?





Of course it's ridiculous. But the OP does say a 1970's version, because he references prime kareem: a specific person in a specific period in time, which is the 1970's.

Technically, but I assumed it meant him growing up and playing in today's league. Ok, let's just agree it's 70s Kareem and not an alternate 2000s version, then. The man was slightly bigger than Kevin Garnett and had about the same muscle mass. If Garnett is capable of playing in today's game, then why not Kareem? He was also extremely fast for his size and had excellent shooting range for a center.


I think you'll find that lots of people in this thread are saying that that player would dominate the league today in the same way he did in the 70's. I don't even get the point of saying the 'given today's adantages' thing. Today's advantages come from 20 years of being developed in a more advanced time. If Kareem moved up a generation he would not likely play the same way at all. He probably does not even have a hook.


Today's advantages include not playing in a league where lifting weights was considered taboo.

http://espn.go.com/trainingroom/s/fitness/index.html



"People used to think in basketball that if you lifted weights, you couldn't shoot because you'd be too muscle-bound," Traina said. "These guys spend a lot of time in the weight room. You look at the athletes now compared to 20 or 25 years ago, and they're cut, they're muscular. Karl Malone is huge."

[indiefan23]

Garnett's rebounding dropped as soon as he put on a Celtics jersey. Did he suddenly become weaker in a matter of months? Or was it the because there wasn't anyone else in Minny to get rebounds?

Who says Amare is stronger than KG? Anyone with a clue.

Heh, dude, you need a lesson in 'perception'. KG is like, 4 inches taller then Amare. KG's boards went down because he went from playing 40 MPG to 32, while instead of carrying Eddie Griffen/Mark Blount he was playing with Paul Pierce. Kendrick Perkins, James Posey, Ray Ray. His production was nearly the same and he was even more efficient. Did you go to an inane comment school or something?

[indiefan23]

I mentioned Shaq because you said he would have given Kareem trouble due to his size. To an extent yes, but Kareem was able to hold his own against larger opponents which is what I was getting at. A mid thirties Wilt was much better than a 37 year old Shaq, wouldn't you agree?

Is he? I'm not really sure. Wilt was playing almost 40 minutes and Shaq is playing 22. Per 36 minutes, Shaq is putting up 16/11, Wilt was putting up 11/16. If Shaq was trying to grab boards vs the ultra watered down early 70's NBA with no defensive 3 seconds or 3 point line to spread the floor would he pull down 5 more boards? Probably. The point is that in the 70's there were no Dwight Howard/KG type players guarding people. Today's Shaq is probably more broken down then Wilt and could not sustain the minutes, but that does not mean that there were Kendrick Perkins quality role players in the early 70's for him to square off against. Did KAJ have what, 8 games in his whole career vs chamberlain? Was it even that many? VS today's size/power in the NBA KAJ would have it harder then then. That's the point.


His overall numbers did go down, so I agree that he wouldn't be averaging 34/16. That said, he could still put up great numbers. The only reason his numbers went down slightly was due to his minutes being reduced and the fact that he was almost 30 could have played a part in it as well.

For sure. I think he could do well but would be much more an offensive guy then the dominant center he was. I don't think he has 4 block seasons or 15+ rebound seasons, if he even breaks 10 boards at all. Maybe he does, but 20/10 I think is his ceiling with maybe a little more on the 20 and less on the 10.


Maybe not, but how is putting a random player into a different era with no knowledge or preparation any better?

Cuz that conversation is actually about sports. I can tell you one thing, if prime KAJ stepped onto an NBA floor right now he would play like a rookie. He'd be in awe that some random bench player like Joe Alexander was more athletic then Dr. J, but couldn't get playing time. The speed of players would astound the guy. The defensive schemes teams used would blow his mind with how complex they were. The training regimens would leave him aching for days because he'd never strained his body that much in training and he would be devastated by the force of some dude boxing him out with 250-300 pounds of muscle.

I think it's silly myself but it's interesting. Over time things change and it's interesting to think about where those division lines are. KAJ could play in the 70's and 80's, but he'd show severe decline if he had to grind out defences in the 90's. Most likely, honestly, he sustains some injuries, blows out a knee, and his career is short and sweet. Consider this too... if KAJ went back to the 50's and played as Wilt... I think he destroys Wilt all time. He had to spend most of his career playing with far superior athletes then Wilt did.


Technically, but I assumed it meant him growing up and playing in today's league. Ok, let's just agree it's 70s Kareem and not an alternate 2000s version, then. The man was slightly bigger than Kevin Garnett and had about the same muscle mass. If Garnett is capable of playing in today's game, then why not Kareem? He was also extremely fast for his size and had excellent shooting range for a center.

I think KAJ is totally capable of playing in today's game. For sure. I just don't think he'd be the best player in the league at all and I know for a fact that he does not put up nearly the same jaw dropping numbers. If he played in the 90's, I seriously doubt his longevity is the same. The strain of playing 10 years of hoop in the 90's is 100 fold that of playing in the 70's. Just so much more force being used.


Today's advantages include not playing in a league where lifting weights was considered taboo.

http://espn.go.com/trainingroom/s/fitness/index.html

Yep... and here's a point too. It's pretty much agreed that if KAJ played today he would be bigger. He's put on some weight and muscle, and ESP if he played in the 90's. With that, I really think the chances of him getting injured increase big time. An extra 50 pounds on your ligaments/tendons is a really huge deal over 10-30 years. Do the number counters really talk KAJ up so much if he didn't play 20 solid years? I don't think so. Granted, playing that long is a massive achievement, but it skews things a little when his name is all over record books.