Shaq 96-2002 versus 87-93 Jordan

[catch24]

During this particular 6 year span (both players in their prime), as a GM, who would you build around competing for a title, and why?

Shaquille O'neal
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jo0rv-fSdsI/SY456ToaQ9I/AAAAAAAABt4/FcLaFAgS-lI/s400/shaqlakers.jpg

Shaq's average from '96-02: 27 PPG 57 FG% 12 rebounds 3 assists 2.4 blocks

Best season from that time span?
2000: 29.7 PPG 57 FG% 13.6 rebounds 3.8 assists 3.0 blocks -- his entire game came together and his defense was very underrated this season.

How did he make his team better? Shaq Led 3 Lakers teams to the finals (2000-2002), winning all 3 of them. Doing so he picked up 3 finals mvps.

Michael Jordan
http://jefferykrit.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/michael_jordan.jpg

Jordan's average from '87-93: 33 PPG 52 FG% 6 rebounds 6 assists 2.8 steals

Best season from that time span?
1991: 31.5 PPG 54 FG% 6.0 rebounds 5.5 assists 2.7 steals -- Mike's entire game too came together and in my opinion, he never played better than this particular year.

How did he make his team better? Jordan led 3 Bulls teams to the finals (1991-1993), winning all 3 of them. Doing so he picked up 3 finals mvps.

edited *changed title*

[plowking]

This is a decent question. With Shaq you really only needed a solid guard and you were competing for a title each year. Jordan on the other hand was the most dominant player around and could carry his team on his back...

I'd probably go with Jordan seeing as he's the better player and more accessible in terms of being more readily available in end of game situations. By that I mean, able to do more things at the end of the game like making his free throws, hitting game winners, setting up a team mate.

[madmax]

It's Shaq and it's not even close really...dominant big > any perimeter guy, no matter how good he is

[Batman]

It's Shaq and it's not even close really...dominant big > any perimeter guy, no matter how good he is

clearly he is trolling. Jordan was the greatest player ever. You can't take anybody in front of him especially in his statistically prime. Shaq was a liability always in the clutch because of his 50-60% FT shooting. As a GM i can't have that when i could pick the GOAT. In fact i would have a Tim Duncan at that time rather than Shaq also

[madmax]

clearly he is trolling. Jordan was the greatest player ever. You can't take anybody in front of him especially in his statistically prime. Shaq was a liability always in the clutch because of his 50-60% FT shooting. As a GM i can't have that when i could pick the GOAT. In fact i would have a Tim Duncan at that time rather than Shaq also
well, it's your opinion...first of all perimeter guys are generally harder to build arround due to the fact that specific teammates are needed, while dominant and efficient bigs are pretty much a lock for the title with any squad, because they have ability to change the game in many ways

[sbw19]

Jordan by a hair. FT% is the decider here.

[Juges8932]

Jordan by a hair. FT% is the decider here.


That's how I feel. This wasn't a big deal for the Lakers because they had Kobe, but if it was just one or the other, Jordan because of all-around reliability.

[KG5MVP]

It's Shaq and it's not even close really...dominant big > any perimeter guy, no matter how good he is

except for when it's michael jordan:pimp:

[ShaqAttack3234]

For 1 or 2 seasons? Shaq in 2000 and 2001, but for the entire 6 year period? Thats tough. Jordan was putting up monster numbers on teams that didnt do much frm '87-'89, but he was healthy every season.

[Samurai Swoosh]

For 1 or 2 seasons? Shaq in 2000 and 2001, but for the entire 6 year period? Thats tough. Jordan was putting up monster numbers on teams that didnt do much frm '87-'89, but he was healthy every season.
From '87 - '89 the Bulls got better every year, went to the ECF in '89 I believe ... with significantly less talent around him than Shaq from 1996 till 2000, so that statement makes little to no sense.

For 1 or 2 years? Jordan

For the whole period? Jordan

He's easily the better option. More durable, just as dominant, more versatile in his ability to dominate. Just from top to bottom you can DO more WITH Jordan.

[Alhazred]

Jordan, although I could understand someone picking Shaq over him. Having a prime Shaq on your team pretty much made you an instant title contender from 1996-2002.

[Samurai Swoosh]

Jordan, although I could understand someone picking Shaq over him. Having a prime Shaq on your team pretty much made you an instant title contender from 1996-2002.
How could you see taking Shaq over Jordan?

According to ShaqAttack's rules ... they didn't DO anything.

In 1995, got BOUNCED in the FINALS, in a SWEEP.

In 1996, got BOUNCED in the ECF, in a SWEEP (via past his prime Jordan)

In 1997, got BOUNCED by the Jazz in the Western Semis, 4 games to 1

In 1998 got BOUNCED in the WCF, by the Jazz, in a SWEEP

Noticing a pattern here?

And it wasn't like each one of these teams was lacking in talent.

In 1999 got BOUNCED in the WCF, by the Spurs, in get this ... a SWEEP

Once Kobe Bryant developed into a legit star caliber player ... the Lakers went onto win a ring in 2000

Then in 2001, when Kobe eclipsed star player status, and went to the "superstar" realm ... the Lakers became even more dominant.

So you could really see taking Shaq over Jordan? Prime Jordan doesn't go down in sweeps.

[Roundball_Rock]

This is a decent question. With Shaq you really only needed a solid guard and you were competing for a title each year. Jordan on the other hand was the most dominant player around and could carry his team on his back...

More Paul Bunyan myths surrounding Jordan. :oldlol: Look at Jordan's record:

38-44
9-9
40-42
50-32
47-35
55-27
61-21
67-15
57-25
13-4
72-10
69-13
62-20
30-30
37-45

He didn't "need" anything yet mysteriously his teams were average for a good chunk of his career then magically became dominant? Was 91' Jordan that much better than 87' or 88' Jordan? What changed was he needed a great team around him and he got it by 91'. :roll: @ the notion that MJ could carry a team by himself.

You want to talk about carrying teams look at Shaq. He showed up in Orlando and they improved from 21 wins to 41 wins in his first year (Jordan managed only an increase from 27 wins to 38 wins. Amazing stuff.). Shaq had the Magic in the NBA finals after three years. After Shaq left Orlando they collapsed. Shaq joined LA and made them champions. When he got hurt, they struggled. When he left they collapsed. Shaq joined Miami and made them instant contenders and then champions in his second season. Jordan retired 2 days before training camp so he had to be replaced by a D-League caliber SG since all the legit NBA starter caliber SG's were taken by then. What happened? The team remained a top 5 team. Can you imagine Shaq being replaced by a D-Leaguer and his team continuing to do well? Shaq was replaced by legit NBA talent when he left Orlando and LA and the teams collapsed. Imagine them replacing him with a guy who could not even make it as a 12th man in the previous two seasons! Yet you argue Jordan is the one who could carry a team "by himself"? :wtf:


clearly he is trolling. Jordan was the greatest player ever. You can't take anybody in front of him especially in his statistically prime.

Trolling? Catch24 loves MJ.

Jordan may be the greatest player ever but that is another question. That does not mean he had the best peak. As far as absolute peak, Wilt>everyone. Wilt could do everything you could want on the court except make long J's, but he was a center so that is no big deal. He also sucked at FT's but so did Shaq. Wilt was the most dominant scorer in league history, led the league in assists, led the league in rebounding, led the league in FG % (seasons at 73% and 68% :bowdown: ), and was considered the best defender in the league. He did not do all this at once but it shows how great of an individual skill set he had. Jordan could lead the league in scoring and dominate defensively as much as a SG can and that is it. Prime Kareem could do everything Wilt could only on a lesser scale. Then there are others with cases over MJ's peak like Bird and Shaq.


first of all perimeter guys are generally harder to build arround due to the fact that specific teammates are needed, while dominant and efficient bigs are pretty much a lock for the title with any squad, because they have ability to change the game in many ways

Half this board thinks MJ "won by himself" so they don't realize that it took five or six years to build a contender around him. His record speaks for itself. At the beginning of his career he won nothing; at the end he won nothing. Yet in the middle he suddenly began to dominate? It is obvious 92' MJ was not 27 wins better than 87' MJ. What changed was Pippen and Grant emerged.

Great point. Look at all the great big men. They made huge impacts on their teams right off the bat because it is easier to build around them. Jordan needed an elite wing player and a all-star caliber PF around him to start winning. Kareem, Wilt, Russell, and Shaq just showed up and improved their teams instantly.

As to the OP, I assume you are talking about a random team. If that is the case I take Shaq for the reasons mentioned above regarding centers vs. perimeter players. They are comparable but Shaq would win more games with a random team than Jordan. If you have a team with an elite wing player a la Pippen and an all-star caliber PF a la Grant and Rodman then you can argue Jordan but I don't see how, looking at their histories, one can legitimately argue that prime Jordan would win more with a random team than prime Shaq would. You could plug Shaq into any team and he would make them solid immediately. The argument that he "needed" a great guard around him is purely speculation. Yeah, by coincidence he always had a great guard around him pre-Cleveland (exception: 1993 Orlando and even in 94' Penny was not yet great) but Jordan always had a great small forward with him. Does that mean Jordan "needed" a great small forward? Both players needed an elite teammate to win but the notion that Shaq "needed" a SG (Penny was a combo guard) is as false as saying Jordan "needed" a SF.

Aside from the traditional difficulties posed by building around a perimeter player versus a dominant center, Jordan comes with the added problem of not being able to function with traditional point guards. You would need to find: 1) a PG, or a SG listed as PG like Ron Harper, who can accept just standing in the corner and waiting for spot up crumbs or simply accept becoming a defensive specialist 2) someone else to serve as the team's primary ballhandler/playmaker. Jordan had the skills to do the latter but not the mentality. Just ask Phil Jackson and Doug Collins. Plus, even if he had the mentality needed for a PG it would cause him to expend too much energy if he had to be the primary scorer at a clip of 30+ ppg, primary playmaker and a dominant defender. So a traditional PG couldn't do it. You would need either a PG/SG who would be willing to forfeit shooting and driving the ball, which is rare, or a "point forward" like Pippen or Kukoc. Good luck finding these type of people on random teams!

Prime Jordan may have been a better player than prime Shaq. He was more clutch in late game situations, although we cannot ignore that Shaq from 2000-2002 arguably had the GOAT finals run. Jordan was better defensively relative to other SG's than Shaq was relative to C's (although one could argue Shaq had more impact defensively since he was a center). However, Shaq is a C and MJ was a SG and if it is close in terms of talent you have to go with the dominant C.

[Bigsmoke]

87-93 Jordan > [insert player]

[madmax]

Great great points Roundball...:applause: It's really amaizng how casual NBA fans don't realize the importance of dominant bigs and always fo for flash and flare of perimeter guards - I guess that's why His Airness also became most hyped and promoted NBA player of all time, Stern just couldn't resist of milking that name and making tons of money. Everyone seems to forget that he also needed great teammates and a GOAT coach to start winning. It's sad how people always choose flash over substance:confusedshrug:

[Samurai Swoosh]

Great great points Roundball...:applause: It's really amaizng how casual NBA fans don't realize the importance of dominant bigs and always fo for flash and flare of perimeter guards - I guess that's why His Airness also became most hyped and promoted NBA player of all time, Stern just couldn't resist of milking that name and making tons of money. Everyone seems to forget that he also needed great teammates and a GOAT coach to start winning. It's sad how people always choose flash over substance:confusedshrug:
You could say the same exact things for Shaq.

Bigs can't get the ball without solid guards.

Jordan could do it all. As a guard who had as much if not more dominance than Shaquille O'Neal.

And Jordan had a rookie Phil Jackson as coach. When Shaq got him he was on his way to GOAT pro coach. Huge difference there, wouldn't you say?

Jordan was still getting into ECF in the Playoffs, and not going down in sweeps without Phil Jackson. Once everyone picked up their weight on that team ... once Ho Grant became reliable, once Pippen manned up stopped with the idiotic mistakes / migraines / pu$$y attitude and took that next level step to a star player ... thats what put the Bulls over the hump.

That isn't media fabrication or hype. Jordan always lived up to and exceeded hype. He was flasy but he was also fundamental. I mean hitting free throws is fundamental, no? Jordan's the GOAT on his own merits. He doesn't need myths or marketing to make that statement for him.

[Desperado]

Shaq.... without Pippen Jordan was nothing but a bald-headed Dominique Wilkins

[Bigsmoke]

Shaq.... without Pippen Jordan was nothing but a bald-headed Dominique Wilkins

Kobe and Wade > Pippen

[Disaprine]

MJ wins by a little.

[Samurai Swoosh]

Shaquille O'Neal playoff Resume from 1995 till his 1st Ring



In 1995, got BOUNCED in the FINALS, in a SWEEP.

In 1996, got BOUNCED in the ECF, in a SWEEP (via past his prime Jordan)

In 1997, got BOUNCED by the Jazz in the Western Semis, 4 games to 1

In 1998 got BOUNCED in the WCF, by the Jazz, in a SWEEP

In 1999 got BOUNCED in the WCF, by the Spurs, in a SWEEP

[Samurai Swoosh]

Kobe and Wade > Pippen
Yeah ...

Let's also not forget

Penny Hardaway
Nick Anderson
Dennis Scott

Eddie Jones
Nick Van Excel

Glenn Rice
Robert Horry

Gary Payton
Karl Malone

Kobe and Wade ... two players on their way to potentially being in the top five all-time at their position.

[Bigsmoke]

Yeah ...

Let's also not forget

Penny Hardaway
Nick Anderson
Dennis Scott

Eddie Jones
Nick Van Excel

Glenn Rice
Robert Horry

Kobe and Wade ... two players on their way to potentially being in the top five all-time at their position.

if anything, I think MJ was the one who developed Pippen into the player he was.

[Samurai Swoosh]

if anything, MJ was the one who developed Pippen into the player he was.
He did ...

[Roundball_Rock]

I guess that's why His Airness also became most hyped and promoted NBA player of all time, Stern just couldn't resist of milking that name and making tons of money

He came along at the perfect time. Great point about Stern. Had MJ came along when Larry O'Brien was the commish he would not have become MJ the cultural icon he became. He would have been just another great players with a case for GOAT.


Bigs can't get the ball without solid guards.

Jordan could do it all. As a guard who had as much if not more dominance than Shaquille O'Neal.

He had as much dominance with the caveat that he needed a custom built team around him. Can you really argue that MJ would win more with a random team than Shaq would?


And Jordan had a rookie Phil Jackson as coach. When Shaq got him he was on his way to GOAT pro coach. Huge difference there, wouldn't you say?

Shaq made the NBA finals with Brian Hill!


Jordan was still getting into ECF in the Playoffs, and not going down in sweeps without Phil Jackson. Once everyone picked up their weight on that team ... once Ho Grant became reliable, once Pippen manned up stopped with the idiotic mistakes / migraines / pu$$y attitude and took that next level step to a star player ... thats what put the Bulls over the hump.

It took MJ five years to reach the ECF. Shaq made it to the NBA finals in three.

You make fair points except the migraine point. Pippen should not have been playing in that game. Of course, Jordan bullied him into playing and now MJ fans 20 years later blame Pippen for playing poorly when he could barely see even though their hero is the reason he was in the game! The smart thing would be to have a guy whose vision was so poor he could barely distinguish between his teammates and the Pistons was to have him sit out. Yeah, Pippen caved into MJ's bullying and he deserves blame for that but that is irrelevant to the MJ fan hypocrisy of acting as if MJ had nothing to do with the migraine game.

How about extending that logic to Shaq's teams? It wasn't Shaq who played poorly in the 95' finals. It wasn't Shaq who caused LA to keep losing before 2000. If you blame MJ's teammates whenever he lost you have to look at Shaq's teammates when he lost and if you do you will find it was Shaq's teammates who let him down.


That isn't media fabrication or hype.

Saying Jordan could "win by himself" is a fabrication and hype. Saying he was by far the most dominant player ever at his peak is fabrication and hype.


Kobe and Wade > Pippen

Really? As far as peaks go yes but Pippen in 96' and 97'>Kobe from 00'-02'. How about third teammates? Did Shaq have a third HOFer like Dennis Rodman half the time?

Plus this "Kobe>Pippen" thing ignores team roles. Jordan could not function with Kobe or Wade. Jordan needed a superstar willing to let him lead the league in FGA every year. Jordan needed someone to serve as the primary ballhandler/playmaker who was not a traditional PG. Kobe and Wade could not fill these roles. Saying "Kobe>Pippen" is too simplistic. Pippen was the perfect player for Jordan: a superstar who wasn't concerned with scoring 25+ ppg and a forward who could allow Jordan to have people like John Paxson and even a SG like Ron Harper in the back court with Jordan because MJ could not function with a normal PG.


In 1995, got BOUNCED in the FINALS, in a SWEEP.

In 1996, got BOUNCED in the ECF, in a SWEEP (via past his prime Jordan)

In 1997, got BOUNCED by the Jazz in the Western Semis, 4 games to 1

In 1998 got BOUNCED in the WCF, by the Jazz, in a SWEEP

In 1999 got BOUNCED in the WCF, by the Spurs, in a SWEEP

Tally: 1 NBA finals trip, 4 conference finals trips, 5 conference semi trips

How about MJ's record before his first ring?

In 1985 lost in four games in the first round
In 1986 got swept in the first round
In 1987 got swept again in the first round
In 1988 lost in five games in the second round
In 1989 ECF
In 1990 ECF

Shaq's record prior to his championship>Jordan's. Yeah, he get swept but are we to penalize Shaq for reaching the NBA finals? That is better than losing in the first or second round, no?


if anything, I think MJ was the one who developed Pippen into the player he was.

More Paul Bunyan myths. This is another example of why MJ is overrated. Pippen made Pippen. Did Jordan help him? Yeah, but teammates help teammates all the time and even retired players help others. Only MJ fans claim that MJ "made" another player. No other fan group makes such an absurd claim. The hilarious thing is MJ fans only do it in the case of one player. Why hasn't Jordan "made" a HOFer in Washington and Charlotte? He can show up in practice and teach them what he did with Pippen. The "Jordan made Pippen" myth also ignores the fact that coaches exist and that other teammates exist. Collins played a huge role in developing Pippen and Grant. Other players like Oakley helped Pippen.

[Alhazred]

More Paul Bunyan myths surrounding Jordan. :oldlol: Look at Jordan's record:

38-44
9-9
40-42
50-32
47-35
55-27
61-21
67-15
57-25
13-4
72-10
69-13
62-20
30-30
37-45

He didn't "need" anything yet mysteriously his teams were average for a good chunk of his career then magically became dominant? Was 91' Jordan that much better than 87' or 88' Jordan? What changed was he needed a great team around him and he got it by 91'. :roll: @ the notion that MJ could carry a team by himself.

"Magically" became dominant? That track record clearly shows that by 88 the Bulls were on their way to becoming a great team, after a mere three(more like two) seasons with Jordan. What had they won beforehand?


You want to talk about carrying teams look at Shaq. He showed up in Orlando and they improved from 21 wins to 41 wins in his first year (Jordan managed only an increase from 27 wins to 38 wins. Amazing stuff.). Shaq had the Magic in the NBA finals after three years. After Shaq left Orlando they collapsed. Shaq joined LA and made them champions. When he got hurt, they struggled. When he left they collapsed.

Shaq had an all-star backcourt with Penny, Anderson and Scott plus he had prime Horace Grant in the frontcourt with him, one of Jordan's ex-teammates. Also, LA collapsed due to Shaq, Malone, GP and Phil Jackson leaving which magnified the collapse much moreso than if Shaq alone had left.


Half this board thinks MJ "won by himself" so they don't realize that it took five or six years to build a contender around him.

3-4, actually. That was also with a dud franchise that had won crap it's whole existence.


Great point. Look at all the great big men. They made huge impacts on their teams right off the bat because it is easier to build around them. Jordan needed an elite wing player and a all-star caliber PF around him to start winning. Kareem, Wilt, Russell, and Shaq just showed up and improved their teams instantly.

Those guys had teams that fit them better. Also, didn't the Celtics make it to the second round of the playoffs the year before Russell showed up with Bill Sharman and Bob Cousy? Russell joining the Celtics was the equivalent of Michael Jordan joining the Spurs in 1998.

Those guys were great and all, but their situations were much different than Jordan's was in 84.


As to the OP, I assume you are talking about a random team. If that is the case I take Shaq for the reasons mentioned above regarding centers vs. perimeter players. They are comparable but Shaq would win more games with a random team than Jordan. If you have a team with an elite wing player a la Pippen and an all-star caliber PF a la Grant and Rodman then you can argue Jordan but I don't see how, looking at their histories, one can legitimately argue that prime Jordan would win more with a random team than prime Shaq would. You could plug Shaq into any team and he would make them solid immediately. The argument that he "needed" a great guard around him is purely speculation. Yeah, by coincidence he always had a great guard around him pre-Cleveland (exception: 1993 Orlando and even in 94' Penny was not yet great) but Jordan always had a great small forward with him. Does that mean Jordan "needed" a great small forward? Both players needed an elite teammate to win but the notion that Shaq "needed" a SG (Penny was a combo guard) is as false as saying Jordan "needed" a SF.

Aside from the traditional difficulties posed by building around a perimeter player versus a dominant center, Jordan comes with the added problem of not being able to function with traditional point guards. You would need to find: 1) a PG, or a SG listed as PG like Ron Harper, who can accept just standing in the corner and waiting for spot up crumbs or simply accept becoming a defensive specialist 2) someone else to serve as the team's primary ballhandler/playmaker. Jordan had the skills to do the latter but not the mentality. Just ask Phil Jackson and Doug Collins. Plus, even if he had the mentality needed for a PG it would cause him to expend too much energy if he had to be the primary scorer at a clip of 30+ ppg, primary playmaker and a dominant defender. So a traditional PG couldn't do it. You would need either a PG/SG who would be willing to forfeit shooting and driving the ball, which is rare, or a "point forward" like Pippen or Kukoc. Good luck finding these type of people on random teams!



See, this is what confuses me. Why was Michael dishing out nearly 11 assists a game during the 91 Finals, then? Just for kicks?

Also, with Shaq you need an ALL-NBA guard like Penny, Kobe or Wade, then you would need to surround him with three point shooters like Robert Horry, Rick Fox and Glen Rice. You'd also need role players like Ron Harper or Horace Grant. Hey, who did those last guys play with again?

[Samurai Swoosh]

Tally: 1 NBA finals trip, 4 conference finals trips, 5 conference semi trips

How about MJ's record before his first ring?

In 1985 lost in four games in the first round
In 1986 got swept in the first round
In 1987 got swept again in the first round
In 1988 lost in five games in the second round
In 1989 ECF
In 1990 ECF

Shaq's record prior to his championship>Jordan's. Yeah, he get swept but are we to penalize Shaq for reaching the NBA finals? That is better than losing in the first or second round, no?
Not when taking into account the talents that surrounded Shaq as opposed to the talents that surrounded Jordan. Jordan didn't have a legit star caliber player next to him till 1991. Shaq in 1995 had possibly the best guard in the game on his team. Getting swept in a round of the Playoffs is like not even getting there at all. They didn't even put up a fight, basically. Jordan faced superior teams as well on his way to the ECF. The late 80's Pistons, the late 80's / early 90's Cavs, the early 90's Knicks, the late 80's Celtics ... you kidding me?

[madmax]

Sometimes it feels like talking to a brick wall with all these Jordan stans and fanatics:hammerhead: We get it - guy was great, has a case for being the GOAT, as some other playes in history too, but is there really a need to mystify him and put him on pedestal? Dude couldn't win ANYTHING in the 80's, apart from ballhoging and stat padding all the time, yet he is considered the "winner", and a guy like Shaq isn't one? GTFO of here with this nonsense.

[catch24]

Roundball, Samurai and Alhazred...The three of you make great points and back your arguments with 'proof', I guess you can say. As to why or who I'd take personally? It's tough, but I'd give the nod to MJ given he was very clutch at the end of games (with him making most of his shots, he generally was the reason Chicago would be in close games playing with his rather sub par teammates). Mike was a better overall player (skilled), better shooter, better passer, just as dominant scoring, better defender etc. With all that said Shaq was better at finishing near the rim (obviously), better at passing out of doubles, stronger physically, opened up the floor with his body. He was tough to guard, an unreal presence inside.

[Roundball_Rock]

You MJ fans can't have it both ways. When Jordan loses it his teammates but when Shaq loses it is because of him? Look at what Shaq did in the playoffs those years.

1994: 21/13/2 51%
1995: 26/12/3 58% and 28/13/6 on 60% with 3 blocks in the 95' finals
1996: 26/10/5 61%
1997: 27/11/3 51%
1998: 31/10/2 61%
1999: 27/12/2 51%

Other than 94' he always performed well in the playoffs. Yeah, 51% in 97' and 99' is down but it is the playoffs and you are facing better defenses.


"Magically" became dominant? That track record clearly shows that by 88 the Bulls were on their way to becoming a great team, after a mere three(more like two) seasons with Jordan. What had they won beforehand?


In other words, he needed a great team custom built around him to start winning and that took time.


Shaq had an all-star backcourt with Penny, Anderson and Scott plus he had prime Horace Grant in the frontcourt with him, one of Jordan's ex-teammates

Grant went down in Game 1 of the 96' ECF. You can't cite Grant and then attack him for getting swept by the 72-10 Bulls. Anderson? Scott? ANDERSON! :roll: They choked in the NBA finals.


Also, LA collapsed due to Shaq, Malone, GP and Phil Jackson leaving which magnified the collapse much moreso than if Shaq alone had left.

Really? Look at LA's record when Shaq was hurt from 2001-2003.


See, this is what confuses me.

Ask Phil Jackson or Doug Collins the next time you see them. Jordan shot the ball more than anyone in history. That is who you want as a PG? :wtf:


Also, with Shaq you need an ALL-NBA guard like Penny, Kobe or Wade, then you would need to surround him with three point shooters like Robert Horry, Rick Fox and Glen Rice. You'd also need role players like Ron Harper or Horace Grant.

That is speculation. Just because he always had a great guard with him until Cleveland doesn't mean he "needed" one. Could he have won with a great SF like Lebron or Pippen? Yes. Using your logic Jordan "needed" a great SF and an all-star caliber PF. You are being too specific. Yeah, they both needed a great second teammate and good teams as a whole around them but to say they needed a particular position simply because Kobe, Wade happened to be SG's and Penny a combo guard is inaccurate as saying Jordan "needed" a SF and an all-star caliber PF. He needed a PF to rebound and play interior defense. He could get that from a C. What he needed Pippen for had little to do with being a SF and as we know Pippen was not a traditional SF.


Jordan faced superior teams as well on his way to the ECF.

Shaq faced absolute peak Hakeem in 95', a 72-10 team in 96', the 60+ win Malone-Stockton Jazz in 97' and 98' and the Duncan-Robinson Spurs in 99'. It isn't as if Shaq was losing to Golden State a la the 07' Mavs.


guy was great, has a case for being the GOAT, as some other playes in history too, but is there really a need to mystify him and put him on pedestal? Dude couldn't win ANYTHING in the 80's, apart from ballhoging and stat padding all the time, yet he is considered the "winner", and a guy like Shaq isn't one? GTFO of here with this nonsense.

:applause:

[guy]

More Paul Bunyan myths surrounding Jordan. :oldlol: Look at Jordan's record:

38-44
9-9
40-42
50-32
47-35
55-27
61-21
67-15
57-25
13-4
72-10
69-13
62-20
30-30
37-45

He didn't "need" anything yet mysteriously his teams were average for a good chunk of his career then magically became dominant? Was 91' Jordan that much better than 87' or 88' Jordan? What changed was he needed a great team around him and he got it by 91'. :roll: @ the notion that MJ could carry a team by himself.




LOL wow you are so damn sensitive. I'm pretty sure plowking didn't mean it literally. From the rest of his post, it sounds like he's saying that Shaq was way more dependent on his teammates then Jordan, which is absolutely true because of the fact that at times he was just a complete liability at the end of games.

As far as the topic goes, I'd go with Jordan for the above reason and he wasn't injured so much like Shaq was.

[Alhazred]

He came along at the perfect time. Great point about Stern. Had MJ came along when Larry O'Brien was the commish he would not have become MJ the cultural icon he became. He would have been just another great players with a case for GOAT.

That would be the same for every other great player that joined the NBA from 1980 and beyond, so....?




Shaq made the NBA finals with Brian Hill!

And prime Penny, prime Anderson, prime Grant....


Really? As far as peaks go yes but Pippen in 96' and 97'>Kobe from 00'-02'. How about third teammates? Did Shaq have a third HOFer like Dennis Rodman half the time?

Actually, Shaq had Rodman in 1999! Guess what? Rodman hated it and left the team midseason. :lol




More Paul Bunyan myths. This is another example of why MJ is overrated. Pippen made Pippen. Did Jordan help him? Yeah, but teammates help teammates all the time and even retired players help others. Only MJ fans claim that MJ "made" another player. No other fan group makes such an absurd claim. The hilarious thing is MJ fans only do it in the case of one player. Why hasn't Jordan "made" a HOFer in Washington and Charlotte? He can show up in practice and teach them what he did with Pippen. The "Jordan made Pippen" myth also ignores the fact that coaches exist and that other teammates exist. Collins played a huge role in developing Pippen and Grant. Other players like Oakley helped Pippen.

Here's an excerpt from Who's Better, Who's Best? by Elliot Kalb.


James Worthy had the television exposure, the flashy nickname("Big Game James") and the pedigree of Dean Smith from North Carolina. But Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar were the reasons the Lakers won those titles. Put Jerome Kersey in Worthy's spot and Kersey has the rings.

:(

[Roundball_Rock]

I'm pretty sure plowking didn't mean it literally.

Plowking thinks Jordan is far and away the best basketball player ever so he probably did mean it.

You can argue Shaq was more dependent on his teammates in late game situations but over the course of 48 minutes and 82 games it can be argued Jordan was more dependent on having the "right" team around him.


That would be the same for every other great player that joined the NBA from 1980 and beyond, so....?

No. Only MJ was the "chosen one."


And prime Penny, prime Anderson, prime Grant....


Prime Penny? How often is a player in his prime in his second season? Anderson choked in the NBA finals so bad that he never recovered from it.


James Worthy had the television exposure, the flashy nickname("Big Game James") and the pedigree of Dean Smith from North Carolina. But Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar were the reasons the Lakers won those titles. Put Jerome Kersey in Worthy's spot and Kersey has the rings.

And? He didn't say Kareem made Worthy a #1 draft pick. He didn't say Magic made him an elite player. All he said is he won rings because of them. He is wrong btw. Just compare Worthy's finals performances to Kersey's.

[Alhazred]

In other words, he needed a great team custom built around him to start winning and that took time.

2-3 seasons to start winning 50+, and that was after missing the playoffs for multiple seasons beforehand.




Grant went down in Game 1 of the 96' ECF. You can't cite Grant and then attack him for getting swept by the 72-10 Bulls. Anderson? Scott? ANDERSON! :roll: They choked in the NBA finals.

I was citing the 95 season, not 96. Also, Pippen has choked before too, but that doesn't make him any less great, does it?




Really? Look at LA's record when Shaq was hurt from 2001-2003.

Yeah, I know. He was a major factor, but do you think a healthy Lakers roster and Phil Jackson couldn't have won 40-50 games the next season? Note that I said "healthy".


Ask Phil Jackson or Doug Collins the next time you see them. Jordan shot the ball more than anyone in history. That is who you want as a PG?

Yet he averaged 11 assist a game in the Finals? Did Phil chastise him for passing so much? If not, why? I thought Jordan couldn't be trusted to handle the ball and make plays?


That is speculation. Just because he always had a great guard with him until Cleveland doesn't mean he "needed" one. Could he have won with a great SF like Lebron or Pippen? Yes. Using your logic Jordan "needed" a great SF and an all-star caliber PF. You are being too specific. Yeah, they both needed a great second teammate and good teams as a whole around them but to say they needed a particular position simply because Kobe, Wade happened to be SG's and Penny a combo guard is inaccurate as saying Jordan "needed" a SF and an all-star caliber PF. He needed a PF to rebound and play interior defense. He could get that from a C. What he needed Pippen for had little to do with being a SF and as we know Pippen was not a traditional SF.

So we both agree that they needed a great player to be on their side. Thanks.

[Alhazred]

No. Only MJ was the "chosen one."

Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron? Really, they'd all be the same? Bird and Magic were the golden boys back in the 80s. Shaq, Kobe and Lebron have been the same for this past decade.


Prime Penny? How often is a player in his prime in his second season? Anderson choked in the NBA finals so bad that he never recovered from it.

Penny was 21/7/4 and Anderson was 15/4/4. Also, check Pippen's early choke moments. I understand he had a migraine and that's not his fault, but that also means Jordan had a teammate who could barely see the rim, and that guy is the one who's supposed to be the team's second option. Plus, Pip had a bad game six in 89, too.


And? He didn't say Kareem made Worthy a #1 draft pick. He didn't say Magic made him an elite player. All he said is he won rings because of them. He is wrong btw. Just compare Worthy's finals performances to Kersey's.

I agree he's wrong. He's also implying that Kersey would have basically done the exact same things as Worthy, though, like scoring 20 points a game on 55% shooting. That's what I got from his comment.

[guy]

You can argue Shaq was more dependent on his teammates in late game situations but over the course of 48 minutes and 82 games it can be argued Jordan was more dependent on having the "right" team around him.


Not really. IMO if two teams are pretty close in talent, its most of the time going to be a close game through at least the first 3-3.5 quarters and the thing that eventually separates two teams is how well they closeout. Take the Spurs-Suns rivalry for example. Almost every game those two teams have is a close game, and it usually ends with a Spurs win. Why's that? Cause they closeout better cause there one of the best defensive teams while the Suns are one of the worst.

You can say one needed a better team around them for certain parts of the games, but the difference isn't that significant EXCEPT for the end of games where both of them were almost exact opposites. Both Shaq and Jordan no matter what team they were on usually made games close and when they lost its just cause the other team had the overall firepower to close out better. Now I'm not saying the first 3.5 quarters don't matter, it clearly does. All I'm saying is even if you want to argue that Jordan needed more help through the first 3.5 quarters, which I don't necessarily agree with, that insignificant difference would not outweigh the enormous difference there is at the end of a game.

[Roundball_Rock]

2-3 seasons to start winning 50+, and that was after missing the playoffs for multiple seasons beforehand.


Yeah--50. This is a thread comparing him to Shaq. Shaq inherited a 21 win team (Jordan inherited a 27 win team) that had been in the NBA for only a few years and never sniffed the playoffs. Shaq took them to 41 wins in year one, 50 in his second year, 57 and the NBA finals in his third. That does not compare to going from 27 to 38, going 9-9, then coming back for a full season and lifting your team only 10 more wins from the previous year (40-42). Of course, Shaq did luck into Penny in his second year to be fair.


I was citing the 95 season, not 96.

Yeah--and Anderson and Scott played poorly in the NBA finals.


Also, Pippen has choked before too, but that doesn't make him any less great, does it?

No, but it makes him the excuse for Jordan losing in 1990 even though Jordan's bullying is the reason he was playing in the first place when he was in no condition to play. The point is this: if we blame teammates whenever Jordan lost (and we know when he won it was all him) we need to look at the teammates of the player he is being compared to. What MJ fans consistently do is blame the team for Jordan losing from 1985-1990 and 2002-03 yet attack Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, or anyone else being compared to MJ for losing. Why? They lost, period. MJ fans never look at their teammates or context in their cases.


Yeah, I know. He was a major factor, but do you think a healthy Lakers roster and Phil Jackson couldn't have won 40-50 games the next season? Note that I said "healthy".

Here is what the Lakers did without Shaq from 2001-03:

2001: 51-23 (69%) with him, 5-3 (63%) without him
2002: 51-16 (76%) with him, 7-8 (47%) without him
2003: 45-22 (67%) with him, 5-10 (33%) without him

Hell, let's add 2004. 49-18 (73%) with him, 7-18 (47%) without him. The record speaks for itself. With him they were championship caliber teams; without him they were not even 0.500. They were a measely 24-39. I am sorry, I just don't believe Jordan added this much value to his team. Shaq was replaced by a legit NBA player. Imagine if they replaced him with a D-League level player...


Yet he averaged 11 assist a game in the Finals? Did Phil chastise him for passing so much? If not, why? I thought Jordan couldn't be trusted to handle the ball and make plays?

You cherry picked a five game sample. AI was top 10 in assists four times and top 5 once. He shot the ball less than Jordan. Yet he is considered a ballhog? Would you really want the player who took more shots than anyone in the history of the league to be your PG? You may say yes but I strongly doubt you actually believe that.


So we both agree that they needed a great player to be on their side.

Yeah, but that is not the point of contention. The dispute is over who is easier to build around and the record strongly suggests Shaq is. So does history with respect to building around dominant centers versus dominant guards. In other words, imo the odds of winning with Shaq are greater than Jordan. Jordan has more "needs." Shaq just needs a good perimeter player and that is pretty much it. Jordan needs a special kind of faux PG like Paxson or Harper (a career SG...) and some mystery person to serve as the primary ballhandler who doesn't need the ball as much as a traditional PG. Think about this. In effect you cannot have a great PG with MJ. That means you are not going to have a great player at the position since every great PG functions like a typical PG who needs the ball a lot to be effective. That leaves three positions. You need to strike lightening with a great SF, PF, or C--and one of them probably has to be versatile enough to serve as the primary ballhandler. That all but eliminates the C option. Even if you give him a great C you need someone to run the offense. You basically would need a Pippen, Hill, or Garnett type to win with Jordan.


Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Shaq, Kobe, Lebron? Really, they'd all be the same? Bird and Magic were the golden boys back in the 80s. Shaq, Kobe and Lebron have been the same for this past decade.

MJ paved the way for Shaq, Kobe, and Lebron. Bird and Magic were not on the same level as MJ as far as marketing goes. Read Halberstam. He talks about the confluence of events that combined to make MJ the icon he is and that includes Stern and timing. If he showed up in 1980 he would not stand out over Magic and Bird. If he showed up in 1974 or 1964 he simply could not become the marketing phenomenon he became due to racism.


Penny was 21/7/4 and Anderson was 15/4/4.

Yeah but Penny lacked experience. He had a total of 3 playoff games under his belt before 1995. Anderson was a very good player--until the 95' finals and he never recovered from that epic chokejob.


check Pippen's early choke moments. I understand he had a migraine and that's not his fault, but Jordan had a teammate who could barely see the rim

Exactly. So why did Jordan bully him into playing? Did he do it so he could have the safety valve of his fans blaming his teammate for him losing 20 years later? Well, he was always clutch. :oldlol:


Pip had a bad game six in 89, too.

Yeah--since he was injured. This is what annoys me about MJ fans. I like you btw but even you do this. When it comes to everyone else all that matters is what they did. Shaq lost, period. Kareem won only once on the 70's, period. Pippen played bad, period. And on and on. Yet when it comes to St. Michael we have to look at context. We have to look at his teammates. Pippen was freaking injured and MJ fans ignore that and shamefully call a guy who performed extraordinarily in the NBA finals year after year a choker. Even in 1990 he had a very good playoff run until the migraine. You condemn Pippen for a poor game when he was injured yet ignore Nick Anderson pulling off a world-class choke when healthy in the 95' finals when it comes to Shaq? :confusedshrug:

BTW, Jordan had some choke moment" too yet MJ fans act as if he always played well in big games. Yeah, he was one of the most clutch players ever but he was not a god. Everyone has some bad games, whether it is Jordan Pippen or legends in other sports like Joe Montana (clutch but again even he had some bad games).


You can say one needed a better team around them for certain parts of the games, but the difference isn't that significant EXCEPT for the end of games where both of them were almost exact opposites. Both Shaq and Jordan no matter what team they were on usually made games close and when they lost its just cause the other team had the overall firepower to close out better. Now I'm not saying the first 3.5 quarters don't matter, it clearly does. All I'm saying is even if you want to argue that Jordan needed more help through the first 3.5 quarters, which I don't necessarily agree with, that insignificant difference would not outweigh the enormous difference there is at the end of a game.

Once they had great teams around them Shaq was a bit more team dependent for the reasons you stated. What I am arguing is Shaq could do more with a random team and is easier to build around.

[OldSchoolBBall]

lol @ Roundball's incessant anti-MJ trolling. Every topic, he's there with the same shtick. :oldlol:

[catch24]

lol @ Roundball's incessant anti-MJ trolling. Every topic, he's there with the same shtick. :oldlol:

Your take on the OP?

[Roundball_Rock]

lol @ Roundball's incessant anti-MJ trolling. Every topic, he's there with the same shtick. :oldlol:

This coming from a guy who supposedly (Loki?) has been banned previously for trolling. :roll:

Shaq has a case for being more valuable to his team in his prime than Jordan. Deal with it.

[guy]

Once they had great teams around them Shaq was a bit more team dependent for the reasons you stated. What I am arguing is Shaq could do more with a random team and is easier to build around.

What? He was more dependent for those reasons regardless of teams. It would've been even worse for Shaq if he was on bad teams and didn't have other players to go to in the clutch. Thats not the case with Jordan on bad teams, who many times would actually carry a team to make it close and then be the primary reason for still having a great chance on actually winning the game, which is why I have to disagree on the Shaq being able to do more with a random team claim.

And I really don't think Shaq is easier to build around. Sure Shaq was the dominant C but the guy had way more shortcomings then Jordan: horrible FT shooting, injury-prone, out of shape at times, foul-prone, dramatic, etc. Jordan, Magic, and Bird, and maybe Lebron and Kobe are the exception to the "always take a dominant big over small" rule.

[Fatal9]

Jordan's playmaking and clutchness in the last two minutes puts him over Shaq imo. Both have a similar impact outside of that, but Jordan really separates himself in the closing minutes.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Jordan had comparable/superior statistical impact and was far better in the 4th/clutch, and more capable of winning games by sheer force of will. Therefore, it's Jordan.

[catch24]

Jordan had comparable/superior statistical impact and was far better in the 4th/clutch, and more capable of winning games by sheer force of will. Therefore, it's Jordan.

I agree with you and fatal9. Roundball does make a legitimate case for Shaq being just as effective/reliable though -- makes sense.

[Brandon Roy]

Jordan because of his clutch ability, as opposed to Shaq's anti-clutch free throw shooting ability.

But Shaq is as dominant as any player ever. He by himself dominated and controlled the paint on offense AND defense.

Just from a "holy crap" standpoint, he used to go up and dunk with like 2 or 3 players hanging on to him. Guards used to drive into the paint, see Shaq, and just dribble back out. He instilled the Fear of Shaq into the league for the better part of his career.

But Mike is probably the greatest player of all time. And those were his prime years.

[poido123]

Great great points Roundball...:applause: It's really amaizng how casual NBA fans don't realize the importance of dominant bigs and always fo for flash and flare of perimeter guards - I guess that's why His Airness also became most hyped and promoted NBA player of all time, Stern just couldn't resist of milking that name and making tons of money. Everyone seems to forget that he also needed great teammates and a GOAT coach to start winning. It's sad how people always choose flash over substance:confusedshrug:

Your hate for Jordan sticks out like dogballs.

Jordan 87-93 better than any player at their peak...

[poido123]

Jordan's playmaking and clutchness in the last two minutes puts him over Shaq imo. Both have a similar impact outside of that, but Jordan really separates himself in the closing minutes.

:wtf: Are you sick Fatal9?

[juju151111]

Jordan's playmaking and clutchness in the last two minutes puts him over Shaq imo. Both have a similar impact outside of that, but Jordan really separates himself in the closing minutes.
Who hacked Fatal's account??:lol

[madmax]

Your hate for Jordan sticks out like dogballs.

Jordan 87-93 better than any player at their peak...
Wilt Chamberlain wanna say HI:cheers:

[Samurai Swoosh]

Wilt Chamberlain wanna say HI:cheers:
Wilt Chamberlain would get murked by David Robinson ...

F' outta here

[juju151111]

Yeah--50. This is a thread comparing him to Shaq. Shaq inherited a 21 win team (Jordan inherited a 27 win team) that had been in the NBA for only a few years and never sniffed the playoffs. Shaq took them to 41 wins in year one, 50 in his second year, 57 and the NBA finals in his third. That does not compare to going from 27 to 38, going 9-9, then coming back for a full season and lifting your team only 10 more wins from the previous year (40-42). Of course, Shaq did luck into Penny in his second year to be fair.



Yeah--and Anderson and Scott played poorly in the NBA finals.



No, but it makes him the excuse for Jordan losing in 1990 even though Jordan's bullying is the reason he was playing in the first place when he was in no condition to play. The point is this: if we blame teammates whenever Jordan lost (and we know when he won it was all him) we need to look at the teammates of the player he is being compared to. What MJ fans consistently do is blame the team for Jordan losing from 1985-1990 and 2002-03 yet attack Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, or anyone else being compared to MJ for losing. Why? They lost, period. MJ fans never look at their teammates or context in their cases.



Here is what the Lakers did without Shaq from 2001-03:

2001: 51-23 (69%) with him, 5-3 (63%) without him
2002: 51-16 (76%) with him, 7-8 (47%) without him
2003: 45-22 (67%) with him, 5-10 (33%) without him

Hell, let's add 2004. 49-18 (73%) with him, 7-18 (47%) without him. The record speaks for itself. With him they were championship caliber teams; without him they were not even 0.500. They were a measely 24-39. I am sorry, I just don't believe Jordan added this much value to his team. Shaq was replaced by a legit NBA player. Imagine if they replaced him with a D-League level player...



You cherry picked a five game sample. AI was top 10 in assists four times and top 5 once. He shot the ball less than Jordan. Yet he is considered a ballhog? Would you really want the player who took more shots than anyone in the history of the league to be your PG? You may say yes but I strongly doubt you actually believe that.



Yeah, but that is not the point of contention. The dispute is over who is easier to build around and the record strongly suggests Shaq is. So does history with respect to building around dominant centers versus dominant guards. In other words, imo the odds of winning with Shaq are greater than Jordan. Jordan has more "needs." Shaq just needs a good perimeter player and that is pretty much it. Jordan needs a special kind of faux PG like Paxson or Harper (a career SG...) and some mystery person to serve as the primary ballhandler who doesn't need the ball as much as a traditional PG. Think about this. In effect you cannot have a great PG with MJ. That means you are not going to have a great player at the position since every great PG functions like a typical PG who needs the ball a lot to be effective. That leaves three positions. You need to strike lightening with a great SF, PF, or C--and one of them probably has to be versatile enough to serve as the primary ballhandler. That all but eliminates the C option. Even if you give him a great C you need someone to run the offense. You basically would need a Pippen, Hill, or Garnett type to win with Jordan.



MJ paved the way for Shaq, Kobe, and Lebron. Bird and Magic were not on the same level as MJ as far as marketing goes. Read Halberstam. He talks about the confluence of events that combined to make MJ the icon he is and that includes Stern and timing. If he showed up in 1980 he would not stand out over Magic and Bird. If he showed up in 1974 or 1964 he simply could not become the marketing phenomenon he became due to racism.



Yeah but Penny lacked experience. He had a total of 3 playoff games under his belt before 1995. Anderson was a very good player--until the 95' finals and he never recovered from that epic chokejob.



Exactly. So why did Jordan bully him into playing? Did he do it so he could have the safety valve of his fans blaming his teammate for him losing 20 years later? Well, he was always clutch. :oldlol:



Yeah--since he was injured. This is what annoys me about MJ fans. I like you btw but even you do this. When it comes to everyone else all that matters is what they did. Shaq lost, period. Kareem won only once on the 70's, period. Pippen played bad, period. And on and on. Yet when it comes to St. Michael we have to look at context. We have to look at his teammates. Pippen was freaking injured and MJ fans ignore that and shamefully call a guy who performed extraordinarily in the NBA finals year after year a choker. Even in 1990 he had a very good playoff run until the migraine. You condemn Pippen for a poor game when he was injured yet ignore Nick Anderson pulling off a world-class choke when healthy in the 95' finals when it comes to Shaq? :confusedshrug:

BTW, Jordan had some choke moment" too yet MJ fans act as if he always played well in big games. Yeah, he was one of the most clutch players ever but he was not a god. Everyone has some bad games, whether it is Jordan Pippen or legends in other sports like Joe Montana (clutch but again even he had some bad games).



Once they had great teams around them Shaq was a bit more team dependent for the reasons you stated. What I am arguing is Shaq could do more with a random team and is easier to build around.
What a load of freaking crap. Paxton and kerr:wtf: I can say Hsaq can't win without a great Sg and a clutch player like Horry/Posey. Mj doesn't need someone to handle the ball?? Mj could handle the ball fine. You mean someone else who could handle the ball. yep, Shaq also need someone like that. I told you once and i will tell u again. Give the Bulls hakeem and they win 8-9 chips. You trying to underrate MJ running the offense. LOL Yes having multiple players being able to run the offense is different, but just because Pip could run the offense didn't mean Mj couldn't.

Pippen isn't on Garnetts level.

MJ didn't bully anyone into playing. Pippen is a grown Men and didn't have to play if he didn't want to. Plenty of teammates would of tell their teammates to try to play through it because they could smeell the chip. Pippen could smell it too which is why he steeped on the floor injured. MJ is the one who hyped the team up to push it to seven games.

Nick thing didn't happen in the 7th game of the series. Teams can regroup.

[Roundball_Rock]

Paxson, Armstrong, and Ron Harper were MJ's "point guards" during his championship years. Do you realize Ron Harper was a career SG until he came to Chicago and he was a "PG" in name only?


Mj doesn't need someone to handle the ball?? Mj could handle the ball fine.

Yeah--and then take more shots than anyone in history. That is who you want as a PG? The primary task of a PG is to distribute the ball...


yep, Shaq also need someone like that.

Shaq needed a run of the mill PG. He didn't have a special need in that area. Shaq could play with any PG. Jordan couldn't, hence the revolving door of guards in Chicago before Paxson.


Give the Bulls hakeem and they win 8-9 chips.

Give Shaq Hakeem (playing PF) and he wins a lot too so what does that prove?


Pippen isn't on Garnetts level.

Most people would disagree with that, other than MJ fans of course. There is a reason why they are near each other on practically every all-time list. Those were just examples anyway. Jordan could win with Hill even though Pippen is better than Hill. The point was with any PG on a Jordan team having to be at best an average player due to his special needs you are left with PF, SF, C to find a great second player for a MJ team. Even if you get a great center you need someone to run the offense. That means the best case scenario would be a versatile forward like Pippen, Garnett, Hill, or Lebron. Kukoc and Odom types who can play "point forward" do not cut it because they are not great players. The only way Kukoc or Odom would work is if MJ had a great player at the other forward spot or center position. Jordan+Pippen/Garnett/Hill/Lebron is pretty much enough to win on its own, so long as some other roles are filled (i.e. rebounding and interior D in the case of the SF's).


Nick thing didn't happen in the 7th game of the series. Teams can regroup.

People can but Anderson didn't in that series. In fact, he never did.

Shaq put up 28/13/6 on 60% and ran into peak Hakeem and Clyde Drexler, who is arguably the third best SG of all-time.

[Alhazred]

Yeah--50. This is a thread comparing him to Shaq. Shaq inherited a 21 win team (Jordan inherited a 27 win team) that had been in the NBA for only a few years and never sniffed the playoffs. Shaq took them to 41 wins in year one, 50 in his second year, 57 and the NBA finals in his third. That does not compare to going from 27 to 38, going 9-9, then coming back for a full season and lifting your team only 10 more wins from the previous year (40-42). Of course, Shaq did luck into Penny in his second year to be fair.

Like I said, Shaq had a better team around him. Also, how many cokeheads did Shaq have on his team?


Yeah--and Anderson and Scott played poorly in the NBA finals.

Jordan had teammates who performed poorly, too. Also, Penny played quite well, didn't he?


No, but it makes him the excuse for Jordan losing in 1990 even though Jordan's bullying is the reason he was playing in the first place when he was in no condition to play.

Either way, the Bulls were screwed. It was either no Pippen or one who could barely see. I think that was just as much of a deterrent to the team as Anderson's choke moments in 95.


The point is this: if we blame teammates whenever Jordan lost (and we know when he won it was all him).

That's not what I believe, so....



Here is what the Lakers did without Shaq from 2001-03:

2001: 51-23 (69%) with him, 5-3 (63%) without him
2002: 51-16 (76%) with him, 7-8 (47%) without him
2003: 45-22 (67%) with him, 5-10 (33%) without him

Hell, let's add 2004. 49-18 (73%) with him, 7-18 (47%) without him. The record speaks for itself. With him they were championship caliber teams; without him they were not even 0.500. They were a measely 24-39. I am sorry, I just don't believe Jordan added this much value to his team. Shaq was replaced by a legit NBA player. Imagine if they replaced him with a D-League level player...

They acquired Odom and Caron Butler in the Shaq trade. If Phil hadn't left, that team easily wins 40-45 barring injury.


You cherry picked a five game sample. AI was top 10 in assists four times and top 5 once. He shot the ball less than Jordan. Yet he is considered a ballhog? Would you really want the player who took more shots than anyone in the history of the league to be your PG? You may say yes but I strongly doubt you actually believe that.

Allen Iverson also had an atrocious field goal percentage. Would I want MJ as a full time point guard? No, I'd rather team him up with another decent passer, like Pippen. Doesn't mean he's a bad playmaker. Pippen last I checked wasn't a full time point guard, either.


Yeah, but that is not the point of contention. The dispute is over who is easier to build around and the record strongly suggests Shaq is.

Not really.


So does history with respect to building around dominant centers versus dominant guards. In other words, imo the odds of winning with Shaq are greater than Jordan. Jordan has more "needs." Shaq just needs a good perimeter player and that is pretty much it. Jordan needs a special kind of faux PG like Paxson or Harper (a career SG...) and some mystery person to serve as the primary ballhandler who doesn't need the ball as much as a traditional PG. Think about this. In effect you cannot have a great PG with MJ. That means you are not going to have a great player at the position since every great PG functions like a typical PG who needs the ball a lot to be effective. That leaves three positions. You need to strike lightening with a great SF, PF, or C--and one of them probably has to be versatile enough to serve as the primary ballhandler. That all but eliminates the C option. Even if you give him a great C you need someone to run the offense. You basically would need a Pippen, Hill, or Garnett type to win with Jordan.

Shaq requires multiple outside threats as well as a decent big man who can play defense and not command shots. He had Grant for multiple seasons and had Alonzo Mourning backing him up in 06. Also, Penny, Kobe and Wade made All-NBA teams with him. You can't just add any guard with Shaq and expect a title. Eddie Jones and Nick Van Exel were good guards but LA still didn't make it past the WCF from 1997-1999.


MJ paved the way for Shaq, Kobe, and Lebron. Bird and Magic were not on the same level as MJ as far as marketing goes. Read Halberstam. He talks about the confluence of events that combined to make MJ the icon he is and that includes Stern and timing. If he showed up in 1980 he would not stand out over Magic and Bird. If he showed up in 1974 or 1964 he simply could not become the marketing phenomenon he became due to racism.

Magic and Bird were huge in 1984, both of them started to peak in popularity at around that time. Have you read Bird's and Magic's new book? They talk about how they and Stern turned the NBA around and increased it's popularity tremendously. Jordan would have made an impact regardless of era. If he played in the 60s or 70s he would still get acclaim, at least on the level of West or Robertson.




Yeah but Penny lacked experience. He had a total of 3 playoff games under his belt before 1995. Anderson was a very good player--until the 95' finals and he never recovered from that epic chokejob.

Pippen lacked experience from 1988 to 1990, too.


Exactly. So why did Jordan bully him into playing? Did he do it so he could have the safety valve of his fans blaming his teammate for him losing 20 years later? Well, he was always clutch. :oldlol:

He got overly competitive. Not that hard to figure out.


Yeah--since he was injured. This is what annoys me about MJ fans. I like you btw but even you do this. When it comes to everyone else all that matters is what they did. Shaq lost, period. Kareem won only once on the 70's, period. Pippen played bad, period. And on and on. Yet when it comes to St. Michael we have to look at context. We have to look at his teammates. Pippen was freaking injured and MJ fans ignore that and shamefully call a guy who performed extraordinarily in the NBA finals year after year a choker. Even in 1990 he had a very good playoff run until the migraine. You condemn Pippen for a poor game when he was injured yet ignore Nick Anderson pulling off a world-class choke when healthy in the 95' finals when it comes to Shaq? :confusedshrug:

I'm not condemning Pippen, just saying his migraine was detrimental to the Bulls' winning. That was the equivalent of Penny going down against Indiana in 95.


BTW, Jordan had some choke moment" too yet MJ fans act as if he always played well in big games. Yeah, he was one of the most clutch players ever but he was not a god. Everyone has some bad games, whether it is Jordan Pippen or legends in other sports like Joe Montana (clutch but again even he had some bad games).

Agreed, so why rag on Anderson?

[Lebron23]

Give me Michael Jordan, but 1996-2002 Shaq is probably the most dominant player in NBA History.

[Alhazred]

Paxson, Armstrong, and Ron Harper were MJ's "point guards" during his championship years. Do you realize Ron Harper was a career SG until he came to Chicago and he was a "PG" in name only?

Harper did the same thing with Shaq.


Shaq needed a run of the mill PG. He didn't have a special need in that area. Shaq could play with any PG. Jordan couldn't, hence the revolving door of guards in Chicago before Paxson.

Shaq usually needed a combo guard to distribute. He never won a ring with a prototypical pg. Also, I think DFish falls into that role as the pg who doesn't handle the ball much and usually hangs back for jumpshots and threes.


Give Shaq Hakeem (playing PF) and he wins a lot too so what does that prove?

Doubt it. Not enough shots to go around and they would clash in the post.

[juju151111]

Paxson, Armstrong, and Ron Harper were MJ's "point guards" during his championship years. Do you realize Ron Harper was a career SG until he came to Chicago and he was a "PG" in name only?



Yeah--and then take more shots than anyone in history. That is who you want as a PG? The primary task of a PG is to distribute the ball...



Shaq needed a run of the mill PG. He didn't have a special need in that area. Shaq could play with any PG. Jordan couldn't, hence the revolving door of guards in Chicago before Paxson.



Give Shaq Hakeem (playing PF) and he wins a lot too so what does that prove?



Most people would disagree with that, other than MJ fans of course. There is a reason why they are near each other on practically every all-time list. Those were just examples anyway. Jordan could win with Hill even though Pippen is better than Hill. The point was with any PG on a Jordan team having to be at best an average player due to his special needs you are left with PF, SF, C to find a great second player for a MJ team. Even if you get a great center you need someone to run the offense. That means the best case scenario would be a versatile forward like Pippen, Garnett, Hill, or Lebron. Kukoc and Odom types who can play "point forward" do not cut it because they are not great players. The only way Kukoc or Odom would work is if MJ had a great player at the other forward spot or center position. Jordan+Pippen/Garnett/Hill/Lebron is pretty much enough to win on its own, so long as some other roles are filled (i.e. rebounding and interior D in the case of the SF's).



People can but Anderson didn't in that series. In fact, he never did.

Shaq put up 28/13/6 on 60% and ran into peak Hakeem and Clyde Drexler, who is arguably the third best SG of all-time.
??? How did Mj need a point guard??? He needed another great allstar like Pippen Paxton was just the point guard during that time. Like i said Where is Shaq without Horry and posey??

LOL WTH are you taking about?? You were saying MJ can't run the offense. Yes he could. You acting like Mj point guards were some godly passers or something.

Shaq need a allstar SG and clutch players around him.

Most people??? WHere do you get this crap from? KG is better then Pippen(FACT)

The point is that game 1 isn't has important has game 7.

[guy]

Yeah, but that is not the point of contention. The dispute is over who is easier to build around and the record strongly suggests Shaq is. So does history with respect to building around dominant centers versus dominant guards. In other words, imo the odds of winning with Shaq are greater than Jordan. Jordan has more "needs." Shaq just needs a good perimeter player and that is pretty much it. Jordan needs a special kind of faux PG like Paxson or Harper (a career SG...) and some mystery person to serve as the primary ballhandler who doesn't need the ball as much as a traditional PG. Think about this. In effect you cannot have a great PG with MJ. That means you are not going to have a great player at the position since every great PG functions like a typical PG who needs the ball a lot to be effective. That leaves three positions. You need to strike lightening with a great SF, PF, or C--and one of them probably has to be versatile enough to serve as the primary ballhandler. That all but eliminates the C option. Even if you give him a great C you need someone to run the offense. You basically would need a Pippen, Hill, or Garnett type to win with Jordan.


Hold on. Are you seriously saying that because it would be better to complement Jordan with a PG such as Paxson, BJ, or Harper, who are either shooters are good defensive players, instead of a traditional PG such as a John Stockton or Kevin Johnson, that means Jordan is more needy? Are you serious? That makes no sense. There are way more players that could've done Paxson and BJ's job then who could've done a traditional PGs job, which should make Jordan less needy. Great wing players in general don't need PGs like that.

And once again, you're really overstating Pippen's primary ballhandling duties. He wasn't Steve Nash or Chris Paul. There were a number of players back then and today that could've done that. And I'm not knocking Pippen. There was way more to him then his ballhandling duties. But his ballhandling duties wasn't some highly irreplaceable function like you seem to imply.

Just because it was better for Jordan to not have to handle the ball as much to save energy, that doesn't mean he couldn't have done it and win with a different type of team. And the idea that Jordan would need a SF, PF, or C to be the primary ballhandler is a bit ridiculous. It really doesn't seem like Kobe Bryant, who's pretty much the same type of player, has had that problem throughout his career. Give Terry Porter, Mo Williams, or Derek Fisher to Jordan, and there goes your theory.

I really can't believe you're arguing Jordan had more needs then Shaq. Shaq is literally a guy that was regularly forced to transfer his primary scoring responsibilities in the end of games to another player. And Jordan was more needy?


Even if you get a great center you need someone to run the offense. That means the best case scenario would be a versatile forward like Pippen, Garnett, Hill, or Lebron. Kukoc and Odom types who can play "point forward" do not cut it because they are not great players. The only way Kukoc or Odom would work is if MJ had a great player at the other forward spot or center position. Jordan+Pippen/Garnett/Hill/Lebron is pretty much enough to win on its own, so long as some other roles are filled (i.e. rebounding and interior D in the case of the SF's).


So you're saying Jordan couldn't win with Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Zo, or Shaq?

[GreatGreg]

Why exactly are we comparing these two? They are completely different players, and not just by position..

[Inspector Rick]

There is soooo much wrong in this thread...

This whole PG argument can be settled very easily. Triangle offense. You dont need or really want a traditional PG to run your team. Spot up shooters. DFish exactly, except he COULD bring the ball up the floor. Did he really do any point guarding? HELL NO! He's short so the "point guard" label was automatic.

And whats all this Ron Harper talk? He lost his explosiveness and HAD to take a lesser role. You seem more choked about this than Ron Harper himself, haha.

You could give both MJ and Shaq the same exact rosters and I'm damn sure (along with almost ANYONE) Michael Jordans team will prevail.

Betting against MJ is like betting against John Rambo. You just dont do it man.

[Roundball_Rock]

Like I said, Shaq had a better team around him

After 1994, yes, thanks to the Penny fluke but there is a reason that team won 21 games in 1992. Jordan inherited a 27 win team. It isn't as if Shaq joined the 80' Lakers.

Regarding Anderson, I brought it up only after MJ fans brought up Shaq losing in, among other years, 95'. When MJ lost it was the team but when Shaq puts up 28/13 with 6 assists (as a center!) on 60% it is all his fault? That is hypocritical.


They acquired Odom and Caron Butler in the Shaq trade. If Phil hadn't left, that team easily wins 40-45 barring injury.

Think about that, though. They acquired a very good player in Odom and a young Butler and even if healthy and with Kobe you are projecting them as a 40-45 win team. What does that say about Shaq's impact? The Bulls lost Jordan and gained nothing in exchange for him. As Krause said no team in history ever had to deal with a situation like this, aside from the Lakers with Magic but obviously Magic could not control that. The only other comparable sudden retirements I can think of are Ricky Williams and Barry Sanders in football.

“...We were left two days before training camp started with no advance notice, no nothing. We had no clue.”

No notice. Not even a hint. So they replaced him with a D-Leaguer because no one else was available. What did they do? You mention injuries with the 05' Lakers. Let's look at injuries with the 94' Bulls. If healthy they would have won 60+. With Pippen and Grant they went 44-15 (75%). That is a 61 win pace over 82 games and that isn't even getting to the myriad of other injuries they had to role players.


Shaq requires multiple outside threats as well as a decent big man who can play defense and not command shots.

You are going by what he had on his teams. He did not “require” a decent big man who can play defense because peak Shaq was a great interior defender himself. Jordan required a Paxson or Harper because he could not function with a legit PG. There is only one basketball. Yeah, he could play with one but at the expense of chemistry and ultimately winning.

It isn't hard to assemble a team with outside shooters. Practically every team has a few decent ones. How hard is it to find a Derek Fisher?

No one has said MJ was a bad playmaker. He was a good one.


You can't just add any guard with Shaq and expect a title.

Sure you can if you give him an elite SF like Pippen or Hill. With Pippen in place of Penny he would have won multiple rings in Orlando (remember, Pippen in Orlando means Kukoc would be the starting SF in Chicago).


Jordan would have made an impact regardless of era. If he played in the 60s or 70s he would still get acclaim, at least on the level of West or Robertson.

Robertson? How many endorsements did he get in the 60's? He couldn't even drink from some water fountains so how could he become a national pitchman for numerous corporations like MJ did?

Magic and Bird increased the NBA's popularity; Jordan/Stern and their alliance with corporate America took it to another level.


Pippen lacked experience from 1988 to 1990, too.


Pippen played in 10 playoff games as a rookie alone. Penny had 3 playoff games under his belt before 1995.


WHere do you get this crap from? KG is better then Pippen(FACT)


I didn't say that. I said they are in the same group of legends and practically every all-time list agrees, aside from MJ fans. Look at ISH and RealGM's lists. Look at Bill Simmons. Look at Slam Magazine. Look at the lists people here make.


Hold on. Are you seriously saying that because it would be better to complement Jordan with a PG such as Paxson, BJ, or Harper, who are either shooters are good defensive players, instead of a traditional PG such as a John Stockton or Kevin Johnson, that means Jordan is more needy? Are you serious? That makes no sense. There are way more players that could've done Paxson and BJ's job then who could've done a traditional PGs job, which should make Jordan less needy. Great wing players in general don't need PGs like that.

With a Paxson or Harper you need someone else to serve as the primary ballhandler/playmaker. Of course it is easier to find a Paxson or Harper. The problem is finding another player who is not a PG to serve as the chief ballhandler.


But his ballhandling duties wasn't some highly irreplaceable function like you seem to imply.

As I said, you could give his ballhandling role to someone like Kukoc or Odom but that means you have no great player at one forward position and at PG. Jordan needed a second elite teammate to win. How many forwards and C's could fit the bill? Remember, my argument is the Shaq could win more with a random team than Jordan. If you are randomly selected players what are the odds that you are going to land a great PF or C using the Kukoc scenario?

Speaking of Kukoc, he actually replaced Pippen as a ballhandler and we know what happened to everyone's FG %...


Just because it was better for Jordan to not have to handle the ball as much to save energy, that doesn't mean he couldn't have done it and win with a different type of team.

I know, I know. Greatest of all-time. He could score 30+ ppg, lead the league in FGA as a primary ballhandler, play great defense, rebound very well for a guard all in nearly 40 minutes a night and not skip a beat. I bet he could average 10 boards too if his team needed it. He was human. He had limits. I can't see Jordan doing all that and winning even aside from the obvious problem of having a primary ballhandler who is leading the league in FGA every year.


Shaq is literally a guy that was regularly forced to transfer his primary scoring responsibilities in the end of games to another player. And Jordan was more needy?

As far as building a team from scratch, yes. Once the team is built then yeah, Shaq needs more help. Look at what Shaq actually did. He joined a 21 win team and as a rookie elevated them to 41 wins. Imagine peak Shaq on that team. Imo Shaq could win 50+ with practically any team, unless it is a horrendous team that would be a 15 win team without him. Put Shaq on a team on the level of the 10' Sixers or 10' Clippers and I can see them winning 50+ with peak Shaq. A championship? Of course not but they would be very competitive.


So you're saying Jordan couldn't win with Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Zo, or Shaq?

Provided they solved the ballhandling issue and they worked out how to reconcile pairing two elite scorers together (aside from Zo') he could. I am talking about average teams in this thread, not fantasy pairings. Those pairings would have simply too much talent to not win multiple rings. The only thing that could realistically stop them is chemistry problems.


This whole PG argument can be settled very easily. Triangle offense. You dont need or really want a traditional PG to run your team.

Maybe you should look into why the triangle was implemented in the first place on the Bulls...

You don't need a traditional PG but you need someone to be the primary ballhandler/playmaker because you are in trouble if you give MJ that role.

Ron Harper was an example of the list of nontraditional "point guards" that Chicago used after numerous guards failed to mesh with Jordan prior to Paxson.


You could give both MJ and Shaq the same exact rosters and I'm damn sure (along with almost ANYONE) Michael Jordans team will prevail.

That is because of the mystique surrounding him. He did join a bad team and he improved it from 27 wins to 38. He got hurt for 80% of 86' and they slipped 8 games. He came back and they improved 10 games. This is not exactly dominating with a bad team. Shaq took a 21 win team to 41 wins as a rookie, turned LA around, turned Miami around. LA was decent before him but Orlando was horrible and Miami average. When he left Orlando they collapsed (Penny was hurt for part of the regular season but he was spectacular in the playoffs and they still lost in the first round). When he left LA or he got hurt they collapsed. Shaq was traded for Lamar Odom and Caron Butler and the team did nothing until 2008. Jordan was replaced by a D-Leaguer and the team won 55 games and went 44-15 in games in which Pippen and Grant both played. Yet it is ridiculous to assert that Shaq had more value to his teams than Jordan? :wtf:

All of this is speculation. We will never know the answer but imo the circumstantial evidence is pretty clear. Even Shaq's mighty Laker teams went 24-39 without him from 2001-2004. That should answer the question about value to a team.

[Bodhi]

Wilt Chamberlain would get murked by David Robinson ...

F' outta here

Seriously?

You know that Wilt Chamberlain was able to play evenly with Kareem, right?

The 60s were overall less developed, but that doesn't mean that some standouts wouldn't be able to be great in the modern area.

[Brandon Roy]

There is soooo much wrong in this thread...

This whole PG argument can be settled very easily. Triangle offense. You dont need or really want a traditional PG to run your team. Spot up shooters. DFish exactly, except he COULD bring the ball up the floor. Did he really do any point guarding? HELL NO! He's short so the "point guard" label was automatic.

And whats all this Ron Harper talk? He lost his explosiveness and HAD to take a lesser role. You seem more choked about this than Ron Harper himself, haha.

You could give both MJ and Shaq the same exact rosters and I'm damn sure (along with almost ANYONE) Michael Jordans team will prevail.

Betting against MJ is like betting against John Rambo. You just dont do it man.
This.

Mike didn't need great point guards. The triangle offense is not based on traditional positions, but based on post play and players filling spcific roles. Plus, Shaq has needed clutch superstar wingmen for every one of his successful teams. That makes him quite needy.

[Inspector Rick]

Maybe you should look into why the triangle was implemented in the first place on the Bulls...

I know why the triangle was implemented.


You don't need a traditional PG but you need someone to be the primary ballhandler/playmaker because you are in trouble if you give MJ that role.

It made no sense to have MJ in that role. Doesn't mean he couldn't do it though. Pip, for the most part would facilitate of the offense and Jordan would break down the defense allowing the offense to operate, which still is a form of playmaking.

Having two different 3 peats does make things confusing here, early 90's Jordan compared to mid 90's is a whole other player.


That is because of the mystique surrounding him. He did join a bad team and he improved it from 27 wins to 38. He got hurt for 80% of 86' and they slipped 8 games. He came back and they improved 10 games. This is not exactly dominating with a bad team. Shaq took a 21 win team to 41 wins as a rookie, turned LA around, turned Miami around. LA was decent before him but Orlando was horrible and Miami average. When he left Orlando they collapsed. When he left LA or he got hurt they collapsed. Shaq was traded for Lamar Odom and Caron Butler and the team did nothing until 2008. Jordan was replaced by a D-Leaguer and the team won 55 games and went 44-15 in games in which Pippen and Grant both played. Yet it is ridiculous to assert that Shaq had more value to his teams than Jordan?

Decades play a factor here also. Jordan had the misfortune (but not really) of playing against the Celtics (dynasty), Pistons (cusp of dynasty), Knicks and Cavs in the playoffs. Michael Jordan or not, your damn right he better be losing to those teams. Celtics/Pistons. Thats all you need to know. Those beatings allowed the young Bulls core to grow and mature and become Champions.

And I dont quite understand this D League argument. Rosters have a pecking order. Its not like MJ leaves and you fill his spot exactly with some random bum. Pete Meyers took over the starting SG role. Nothing special but a serviceable NBA player nonetheless.

[Duncan21formvp]

Jordan over Shaq. Shaq was starting to decline by 2002. Also Shaq was missing several games yearly. In 1996 and 1997 he played roughly 50 games. In 1998 he played 60 games.

It's no coincedence however that they are the top 3 in overall PER and top finals performances ever.

Also a knock on Shaq is that his teammate actually finished ahead of him in MVP voting in 1996. Penny finished 3rd while Shaq finished 9th.

[Alhazred]

After 1994, yes, thanks to the Penny fluke but there is a reason that team won 21 games in 1992. Jordan inherited a 27 win team. It isn't as if Shaq joined the 80' Lakers.

No, but his teammates matched him better. That is undeniable. Anderson, Scott and Skiles were all skilled perimeter players who could shoot from the three point line. Teamed up with Shaq, that makes a nice combination. Who complemented Jordan in 85?


Regarding Anderson, I brought it up only after MJ fans brought up Shaq losing in, among other years, 95'. When MJ lost it was the team but when Shaq puts up 28/13 with 6 assists (as a center!) on 60% it is all his fault? That is hypocritical.

I never said it was his fault. Also, Nick was the third or fourth best player on the team. Shaq still had Penny and Grant.


Think about that, though. They acquired a very good player in Odom and a young Butler and even if healthy and with Kobe you are projecting them as a 40-45 win team. What does that say about Shaq's impact?

That he's worth about ten to 15 wins. That's also with GP and Malone gone, by the way.


The Bulls lost Jordan and gained nothing in exchange for him. As Krause said no team in history ever had to deal with a situation like this, aside from the Lakers with Magic but obviously Magic could not control that. The only other comparable sudden retirements I can think of are Ricky Williams and Barry Sanders in football.

“...We were left two days before training camp started with no advance notice, no nothing. We had no clue.”

That also plays to the Bulls advantage, since teams had to immediately readjust to them.


No notice. Not even a hint. So they replaced him with a D-Leaguer because no one else was available. What did they do? You mention injuries with the 05' Lakers. Let's look at injuries with the 94' Bulls. If healthy they would have won 60+. With Pippen and Grant they went 44-15 (75%). That is a 61 win pace over 82 games and that isn't even getting to the myriad of other injuries they had to role players

They also gained Kukoc and Kerr, so you had Kukoc, Kerr, Armstrong and Pippen who could play on the perimeter. Add in Grant and Longley and you have a solid defensive minded team.


You are going by what he had on his teams. He did not “require” a decent big man who can play defense because peak Shaq was a great interior defender himself.

In 2000, yes. His defense was inconsistent, though. Look at what happened when Grant go injured in 96, the Magic couldn't get past the second round without him.


Jordan required a Paxson or Harper because he could not function with a legit PG. There is only one basketball. Yeah, he could play with one but at the expense of chemistry and ultimately winning.

Paxson and Harper had highly limited roles that most guys could play. DFish would have fit perfectly.


It isn't hard to assemble a team with outside shooters. Practically every team has a few decent ones. How hard is it to find a Derek Fisher?

You mean a pg who doesn't handle the ball much and shoots outside most of the time, kind of like Paxson?


No one has said MJ was a bad playmaker. He was a good one.

Ok, cool.



Sure you can if you give him an elite SF like Pippen or Hill. With Pippen in place of Penny he would have won multiple rings in Orlando (remember, Pippen in Orlando means Kukoc would be the starting SF in Chicago).

So who do the Bulls get for Pippen? Shawn Kemp?


Robertson? How many endorsements did he get in the 60's? He couldn't even drink from some water fountains so how could he become a national pitchman for numerous corporations like MJ did?

Bad example. Julius Erving, then.


Magic and Bird increased the NBA's popularity; Jordan/Stern and their alliance with corporate America took it to another level.

Magic doesn't have an alliance with corporate America? :lol Well, ok, then.


Pippen played in 10 playoff games as a rookie alone. Penny had 3 playoff games under his belt before 1995.

Yeah and Penny outplayed him in the playoffs.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=pippesc01&y1=1990&p2=hardaan01&y2=1996



With a Paxson or Harper you need someone else to serve as the primary ballhandler/playmaker. Of course it is easier to find a Paxson or Harper. The problem is finding another player who is not a PG to serve as the chief ballhandler.

Except you don't need someone to be the chief ballhandler, just someone who can share some of the playmaking duties, not take over.

Kukoc can do it, as can Armstrong. Chris Mullin would have been capable, as well.


As I said, you could give his ballhandling role to someone like Kukoc or Odom but that means you have no great player at one forward position and at PG. Jordan needed a second elite teammate to win. How many forwards and C's could fit the bill?

Alonzo Mourning, Shawn Kemp, Chris Webber, Kevin Garnett, Dikembe Mutombo, Brad Daugherty, Dennis Rodman, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Robert Parish, Kevin McHale, Tim Duncan, Horace Grant, Buck Williams....


Remember, my argument is the Shaq could win more with a random team than Jordan. If you are randomly selected players what are the odds that you are going to land a great PF or C using the Kukoc scenario?

Depends. If 80s and 90s players are available, the it's no bad.


Speaking of Kukoc, he actually replaced Pippen as a ballhandler and we know what happened to everyone's FG %...

And we know the team was on pace for 56 wins.


Maybe you should look into why the triangle was implemented in the first place on the Bulls...

You don't need a traditional PG but you need someone to be the primary ballhandler/playmaker because you are in trouble if you give MJ that role.

Except Jordan had more assists than anyone else in the 91 playoff run, so that hypothesis goes right out the window.


As for Jordan's impact, look what happened to the Bulls post-98. Worse than the Clippers, imo.

[juju151111]

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]After 1994, yes, thanks to the Penny fluke but there is a reason that team won 21 games in 1992. Jordan inherited a 27 win team. It isn't as if Shaq joined the 80' Lakers.

Regarding Anderson, I brought it up only after MJ fans brought up Shaq losing in, among other years, 95'. When MJ lost it was the team but when Shaq puts up 28/13 with 6 assists (as a center!) on 60% it is all his fault? That is hypocritical.



Think about that, though. They acquired a very good player in Odom and a young Butler and even if healthy and with Kobe you are projecting them as a 40-45 win team. What does that say about Shaq's impact? The Bulls lost Jordan and gained nothing in exchange for him. As Krause said no team in history ever had to deal with a situation like this, aside from the Lakers with Magic but obviously Magic could not control that. The only other comparable sudden retirements I can think of are Ricky Williams and Barry Sanders in football.

[Inspector Rick]

Except you don't need someone to be the chief ballhandler, just someone who can share some of the playmaking duties, not take over.

Kukoc can do it, as can Armstrong. Chris Mullin would have been capable, as well.

Somehow Fisher is the exception.

Regarding the Bulls second 3 peat, Jordan initiated the offense from the post, much like Shaq with the Lakers 2000 title run. DFish/Horry... Harper/Kukoc.... whats the difference?

[Roundball_Rock]

Mike didn't need great point guards.

He needed to not have a great point guard. That leaves three positions to find an elite teammate for MJ to win championships. That is what I was saying. Shaq could play with any PG and he would just need an elite perimeter player.


It made no sense to have MJ in that role. Doesn't mean he couldn't do it though. Pip, for the most part would facilitate of the offense and Jordan would break down the defense allowing the offense to operate, which still is a form of playmaking.

Jordan had the ability but not the mentality of a PG and he was human. I can't believe people think he could score 30+ ppg, run the offense, and anchor the defense and remain as effective as he was with that kind of workload over 82 games and in the playoffs. Could he do it? Sure. Would he be as effective as he was? No. Plus, it is not healthy to have a guy who shot more than anyone in the history of the game as your PG.


Decades play a factor here also. Jordan had the misfortune (but not really) of playing against the Celtics (dynasty), Pistons (cusp of dynasty), Knicks and Cavs in the playoffs.

Knicks? Cavs? Shaq lost to a Rockets team that won two straight championships, the Duncan Spurs dynasty, and Malone-Stockton Jazz which won 60+ games two straight years en route to the finals. It isn't as if Shaq was losing to the Hornets or Bullets.


Nothing special but a serviceable NBA player nonetheless.

He was out the NBA in the previous two seasons and barely lasted after 94' for a reason. He just wasn't that good. If Jordan retired in a normal fashion like everyone other this side of Ricky Williams and Barry Sanders, or at least gave them notice that he was considering retiring, do you really think they would have chosen Pete Myers to replace him? They still tried to acquire Jeff Hornacek and Derek Harper but could not pull it off. It would have been easier to find a legit NBA caliber starting SG if they had the entire offseason, or even most of it, to search for one.


Who complemented Jordan in 85?

He had the 12th leading scorer in the league (23 ppg) on his team and a 16 ppg "#3 option."


That he's worth about ten to 15 wins.

Wins are harder to come by as you move up the ladder. It is easier to go from 35 wins to 50 wins than it is to go from 50 wins to 65. Why? You need to have a much better batting average against good teams to get to 65. Do you really think Shaq was worth 10 to 15 wins? That is speculation. We know what happened when Shaq was injured. LA from 2000-04. Wins over 82 games in parentheses.

66-13 (69)
51-23 (57)
51-16 (63)
45-22 (55)
49-18 (60)

Without him from 2001-04:

5-3 (51)
7-8 (38)
5-10 (27)
7-8 (38)

This suggests he was worth 20-30 wins and that he could drag 27-38 win teams without him to championships at his peak.


That also plays to the Bulls advantage, since teams had to immediately readjust to them.

Now you are reaching. The Bulls lost the best player in the league, the alleged "greatest of all-time" and replaced him with nothing and you are claiming this was an advantage? :wtf:


They also gained Kukoc and Kerr, so you had Kukoc, Kerr, Armstrong and Pippen who could play on the perimeter. Add in Grant and Longley and you have a solid defensive minded team.

Three of those five players were bench players. Teams change rosters all the time. Were the 05' Lakers and the 97' Magic the same exact teams as the previous years?

Kukoc was a rookie, Kerr was barely staying in the league and Longley a second year player at the time.

The Bulls replaced the "greatest of all-time" with a combo of a guy who was out the NBA for the previous two seasons and another guy who was barely staying in the league at the time in Myers and Kerr. Their other key addition was Kukoc.

Who replaced Shaq? In Orlando he was replaced by a very good C in Rony Seikley. He put up 17/10 that year. Yet the team still collapsed! In LA he was replaced by a scrub but the Orlando example is revealing. Even when replaced by a very good player the team still could not do anything without Shaq!

To recap: you can replace Jordan with a guy who could not even make it as a 12th man in the previous two years and remain a top 5 team. You can replace Shaq with a 17/10 center who was top 10 at his position throughout the 90's and still not do anything. So who added more value to his team? The answer is obvious...


Look at what happened when Grant go injured in 96, the Magic couldn't get past the second round without him.

? They made the ECF and that is when Grant got hurt. They lost to a 72-10 team. Even with Grant they would lose that series. There is no shame losing to that 72-10 juggernaut.




Again, of course you could put any clown at PG. You would still need someone to perform the actual duties of a PG.


So who do the Bulls get for Pippen? Shawn Kemp?


What does Kemp have to do with Orlando? This was just an example. The point was Shaq could win rings without an elite guard if he had an elite SF like Pippen or Hill.

Dr. J and Magic were hardly the the corporate spokesmen Jordan was. Jordan is in a class by himself. Anyway this is off topic. If you want to talk about marketing post a thread asking if there is a single American athlete whose level of marketing approaches that of MJ. Read the Halberstam book. He talks about Stern's plans and how MJ fit perfectly into them.


Alonzo Mourning, Shawn Kemp, Chris Webber, Kevin Garnett, Dikembe Mutombo, Brad Daugherty, Dennis Rodman, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Robert Parish, Kevin McHale, Tim Duncan, Horace Grant, Buck Williams....


:oldlol: @ the notion that Jordan could win rings with some of these guys as his second best player. Buck Williams? Grant? I notice you left Charles Oakley of that list. He is comparable to Horace Grant. What did Jordan did when Oakley was his second best player? He also had Rodman as his second best player for a half a season and a 69 win team became a 55-56 win team.

What you also did is pick any all-star PF or C from the mid 80's to the late 90's to make the list appear large. In a given season there were only a handful of people at each position who fit that bill. This thread is about 1987-1993.

PF's MJ could win with from 1987-1993: Barkley, Malone, McHale
C's MJ could win with from 1987-1993: Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Daughetry, Shaq (1993)

You may argue he could win with a few others but the general point stands. I listed three PF's and five C's, with one center being available for only one of those seasons. That leaves seven elite big men Jordan could have won with (and McHale declined and was not elite for some of those years and Robinson did not even begin to play until 1990). What are the odds of randomly selecting players and winding up with Ewing or Malone?

Shaq could win with any elite wing player and as well as with an elite PF like Duncan or Webber. Shaq fits in with 99% of teams since he can win with an elite player at any position.


Depends. If 80s and 90s players are available, the it's no bad.

According to the above the odds actually are. I am talking about elite players, namely all-NBA caliber players not all-star caliber players like Horace Grant and Charles Oakley as your second best player. Jordan could not win with someone like Oakley as his second best player as was proven.


And we know the team was on pace for 56 wins.

And? I thought Pippen was easily replicable as a playmaker? That is what the guy I responded to said even though when Pippen actually was replaced the team suffered. 56 wins sounds nice but not compared to 69 with the same team the previous year. You may say 13 wins but there is a huge difference between a 69 win caliber team and a 56 win caliber team. 56 wins=10' Mavs and 10' Hawks. 69 wins=immortal teams.


As for Jordan's impact, look what happened to the Bulls post-98. Worse than the Clippers, imo.

:oldlol: Jordan alone did not leave. Pippen, Rodman, Jackson and even Longley were gone. Come on. You are really reaching now. Shaq left and was replaced by a top 10 center and his team collapsed. Jordan left and was replaced by a scrub and his team remained a top 5 team in 94'. That speaks for itself. There is no need to reach with respect to Shaq because his record time and again shows the value he had to his teams.

Look, Jordan was a great player. As I said he may been superior individually to prime Shaq. It is just easier to build around a dominant center than a dominant guard. I am not saying Shaq>Jordan. I have Jordan #3 or #4 all-time and Shaq #5.


Mj was playing with pax since 87. WTF are you talking about???

Paxson did not get solidified as a starter until 1990.

[magnax1]

He needed to not have a great point guard. That leaves three positions to find an elite teammate for MJ to win championships. That is what I was saying. Shaq could play with any PG and he would just need an elite perimeter player.
Well, he didn't even have a chance to play with one. Whats the difference then playing with a point forward, and a point guard though? They start the offense the same way. Just end up at a different position in the end.



Jordan had the ability but not the mentality of a PG and he was human. I can't believe people think he could score 30+ ppg, run the offense, and anchor the defense and remain as effective as he was with that kind of workload over 82 games and in the playoffs. Could he do it? Sure. Would he be as effective as he was? No. Plus, it is not healthy to have a guy who shot more than anyone in the history of the game as your PG.
Well, jordan did it. Its not good for the team though, I think thats one of the biggest problems with the Cavs. Lebron is the first option on offense, and the only passer. Doesn't usually work out well.

[Alhazred]

He had the 12th leading scorer in the league (23 ppg) on his team and a 16 ppg "#3 option."

Wooldrige and Dailey? Both of the were cokeheads and dysfunctional. I would hardly call them good teammates.




Wins are harder to come by as you move up the ladder. It is easier to go from 35 wins to 50 wins than it is to go from 50 wins to 65. Why? You need to have a much better batting average against good teams to get to 65. Do you really think Shaq was worth 10 to 15 wins? That is speculation. We know what happened when Shaq was injured. LA from 2000-04. Wins over 82 games in parentheses.

66-13 (69)
51-23 (57)
51-16 (63)
45-22 (55)
49-18 (60)

Without him from 2001-04:

5-3 (51)
7-8 (38)
5-10 (27)
7-8 (38)

This suggests he was worth 20-30 wins and that he could drag 27-38 win teams without him to championships at his peak.

In 05, though, they won 34 games without Jackson plus Kobe and Odom both played less than 68 games each. With Jackson and a healthy roster, tha team easily wins 40-45 games.


Now you are reaching. The Bulls lost the best player in the league, the alleged "greatest of all-time" and replaced him with nothing and you are claiming this was an advantage? :wtf:

The timing was an adantage, not his actual absence. If he had left early, teams would have had time to prepare their stategies against the Bulls. Him leaving without notice takes away any chance of that.




Three of those five players were bench players. Teams change rosters all the time. Were the 05' Lakers and the 97' Magic the same exact teams as the previous years?

Kukoc was a rookie, Kerr was barely staying in the league and Longley a second year player at the time.

The Bulls replaced the "greatest of all-time" with a combo of a guy who was out the NBA for the previous two seasons and another guy who was barely staying in the league at the time in Myers and Kerr. Their other key addition was Kukoc.

They then turned the team into a defensive juggernaught. Kerr and the rest were just fine in their roles.


Who replaced Shaq? In Orlando he was replaced by a very good C in Rony Seikley. He put up 17/10 that year. Yet the team still collapsed! In LA he was replaced by a scrub but the Orlando example is revealing. Even when replaced by a very good player the team still could not do anything without Shaq!

Lol, they won 45 games despite Penny, Grant, Anderson and Scott missing 15 games each. They didn't collapse.


To recap: you can replace Jordan with a guy who could not even make it as a 12th man in the previous two years and remain a top 5 team. You can replace Shaq with a 17/10 center who was top 10 at his position throughout the 90's and still not do anything. So who added more value to his team? The answer is obvious...

O RLY? :lol


? They made the ECF and that is when Grant got hurt. They lost to a 72-10 team. Even with Grant they would lose that series. There is no shame losing to that 72-10 juggernaut.

No, but they had a chance. Sorry, Imean to say the ECF before, not the Semi-Finals.


Again, of course you could put any clown at PG. You would still need someone to perform the actual duties of a PG.

Yeah, have Jordan share duties with a guy like Armstrong or Kukoc. Then team them up with Oakley or Rodman and you'd have a 50+win team.



Dr. J and Magic were hardly the the corporate spokesmen Jordan was. Jordan is in a class by himself. Anyway this is off topic. If you want to talk about marketing post a thread asking if there is a single American athlete whose level of marketing approaches that of MJ. Read the Halberstam book. He talks about Stern's plans and how MJ fit perfectly into them.

Dr. J, maybe, but Magic? Come on, you're fooling yourself now. :oldlol:




:oldlol: @ the notion that Jordan could win rings with some of these guys as his second best player. Buck Williams? Grant? I notice you left Charles Oakley of that list. He is comparable to Horace Grant. What did Jordan did when Oakley was his second best player? He also had Rodman as his second best player for a half a season and a 69 win team became a 55-56 win team.

Rodman and him were both over 35. So a middle aged Jordan and Rodman were capable of leading a team to a 56 win season? Nothing wrong with that.


What you also did is pick any all-star PF or C from the mid 80's to the late 90's to make the list appear large. In a given season there were only a handful of people at each position who fit that bill. This thread is about 1987-1993.

PF's MJ could win with from 1987-1993: Barkley, Malone, McHale
C's MJ could win with from 1987-1993: Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Daughetry, Shaq (1993)

You may argue he could win with a few others but the general point stands. I listed three PF's and five C's, with one center being available for only one of those seasons. That leaves seven elite big men Jordan could have won with (and McHale declined and was not elite for some of those years and Robinson did not even begin to play until 1990). What are the odds of randomly selecting players and winding up with Ewing or Malone?

You forgot Buck Williams, Robert Parish, Tom Chambers, Bill Laimbeer, James Worthy and AC Green. 87-93 was pretty loaded wit good frontcourt stars.


Shaq could win with any elite wing player and as well as with an elite PF like Duncan or Webber. Shaq fits in with 99% of teams since he can win with an elite player at any position.

Tell that to Rodman.


According to the above the odds actually are. I am talking about elite players, namely all-NBA caliber players not all-star caliber players like Horace Grant and Charles Oakley as your second best player. Jordan could not win with someone like Oakley as his second best player as was proven.

That was with no Phil Jackson on the team. Also, Jordan along with Kukoc and Oakley is actually a pretty decent lineup.


And? I thought Pippen was easily replicable as a playmaker? That is what the guy I responded to said even though when Pippen actually was replaced the team suffered. 56 wins sounds nice but not compared to 69 with the same team the previous year. You may say 13 wins but there is a huge difference between a 69 win caliber team and a 56 win caliber team. 56 wins=10' Mavs and 10' Hawks. 69 wins=immortal teams.

69 wins+ a championship= immortal. Also, didn't they finish with 62 wins? Assuming the Bulls actually did win 56 games without Pippen, then he was really only worth 6 wins. So Jordan is worth two wins while Pippen is worth 6. :lol


:oldlol: Jordan alone did not leave. Pippen, Rodman, Jackson and even Longley were gone. Come on. You are really reaching now.

Lol, then why mention the 05 Lakers as evidence of Shaq's dominance?


Shaq left and was replaced by a top 10 center and his team collapsed. Jordan left and was replaced by a scrub and his team remained a top 5 team in 94'. That speaks for itself. There is no need to reach with respect to Shaq because his record time and again shows the value he had to his teams.

I already explained that Orlando had multiple injuries the following season.

[Duncan21formvp]

I think people forget that MJ won the title in 1991 with role players as he had no other allstar on the team.

[plowking]

Seems as though I really hurt Roundball's feelings this time. It's as if the dude was actually kicking and screaming when he wrote those posts in where he quoted me.

[Roundball_Rock]

Well, he didn't even have a chance to play with one. Whats the difference then playing with a point forward, and a point guard though? They start the offense the same way. Just end up at a different position in the end.

He couldn't. Even if he did they would no longer be great because Jordan needed the ball so much (#1 all-time in usage).

The difference is a point forward like Pippen can remain an elite player alongside Jordan because he didn't need the ball to be effective. What elite PG's could function well if they had the ball less than they had for their entire careers in the triangle in the first place and with Jordan in the second? That is what they do: dominate the ball and make plays for others. With Jordan that is thrown out of whack, especially late in games when Jordan would take 90% of the shots. What good would a Steve Nash be late in a game if he is relegated to bringing the ball up and then watching Jordan isolate?


Wooldrige and Dailey? Both of the were cokeheads and dysfunctional. I would hardly call them good teammates.

23 ppg is 23 ppg regardless of what the guy does off the court.


In 05, though, they won 34 games without Jackson plus Kobe and Odom both played less than 68 games each. With Jackson and a healthy roster, tha team easily wins 40-45 games.

No dispute there but 40-45 wins means nothing. Any team with a top 5 player should be able to win that many games almost solely on the strength of that player.


The timing was an adantage, not his actual absence. If he had left early, teams would have had time to prepare their stategies against the Bulls. Him leaving without notice takes away any chance of that.

:wtf: This is news to Phil Jackson, Scottie Pippen, Jerry Krause and everyone else involved with that team. Your argument is Jordan retiring at the last possible minute helped them because of the element of surprise even though they had no time to find a legit NBA starter to replace him? How about the damage to team morale Jordan's retirement did? Kukoc was in tears when he heard the news.


They then turned the team into a defensive juggernaught

:roll: @ Luc Longley, Steve Kerr, and Toni Kukoc being the reasons for the Bulls having a great defense. They didn't turn into anything. They remained what they were in the preceding years: a great defense.


Lol, they won 45 games despite Penny, Grant, Anderson and Scott missing 15 games each. They didn't collapse.

60 wins and the ECF (losing to a 72 win team) to 45 wins and getting crushed in the first round is a collapse. They were nowhere near elite without Shaq.


O RLY?

It is a shame Krause failed to pull off the Hornacek trade. He is comparable to Seikaly in that he was a top 10 SG. Give the 94' Bulls Hornacek instead of Harper and they win it all...


No, but they had a chance. Sorry, Imean to say the ECF before, not the Semi-Finals.

72-10. Zero chance.


Yeah, have Jordan share duties with a guy like Armstrong or Kukoc. Then team them up with Oakley or Rodman and you'd have a 50+win team.

Yeah but read what you just said. Your scenario involves him having a good wing player like Armstrong and Kukoc along with an all-star caliber PF who is dominant defensively. Shaq could win 50+ with any team. Put peak Shaq on any team in the league this year and they become a 50+ win team imo, with he exception of the Nets.


Dr. J, maybe, but Magic? Come on, you're fooling yourself now

There is no one in the history of American sports and perhaps global sports who had anywhere near the level of marketing behind him that Jordan did. Comparing him to Magic is a joke. The proper comparison is presidential campaigns...


Rodman and him were both over 35. So a middle aged Jordan and Rodman were capable of leading a team to a 56 win season? Nothing wrong with that.

Rodman was still a great defender and the best rebounder in the league. That was also a 69 win team the previous year. It was hardly a random team. Parachute Jordan and Rodman to the 10' Knicks or 10' Sixers and do they contend for 55+ wins?

What about Jordan and young Oakley? 38-44, 9-9, 40-42 in the regular season and 1-9 in the playoffs. Oak was #2 in rebounding in the last two seasons so you can't play the "he sucked back then" card.


You forgot Buck Williams, Robert Parish, Tom Chambers, Bill Laimbeer, James Worthy and AC Green. 87-93 was pretty loaded wit good frontcourt stars.

Jordan would won absolutely nothing with Laimbeer, Green and Williams. Maybe Chambers and Worthy.


That was with no Phil Jackson on the team.

lol so now Jordan "needs" the GOAT coach? Add that to the list. Thanks. I forgot that. Shaq could reach the NBA finals with Brian Hill.


69 wins+ a championship= immortal. Also, didn't they finish with 62 wins?

They were on pace for 67 when Pippen played.


then why mention the 05 Lakers as evidence of Shaq's dominance?

? I mentioned his entire record during or near his prime. Orlando before and after him. LA before and after. Miami before him. LA was 24-39 without him from 2001-2004. That says it all. I won't even bother calculating their W-L record with him because we all know they were championship caliber 60+ win teams with him.


I already explained that Orlando had multiple injuries the following season.

Penny was amazing in the playoffs. The injury excuse does not cut it. Every team has injuries. The Bulls had a lot of injuries in 94' too. When healthy they were a 60+ caliber win. Their starting C was injured in the playoffs and Pippen got hurt at the end of Game 1 against the Knicks when the Bulls were leading.


Seems as though I really hurt Roundball's feelings this time. It's as if the dude was actually kicking and screaming when he wrote those posts in where he quoted me.

Don't flatter yourself. I was going to post those things anyway to make the case for Shaq being more valuable to a random team.

[magnax1]

He couldn't. Even if he did they would no longer be great because Jordan needed the ball so much (#1 all-time in usage).

The difference is a point forward like Pippen can remain an elite player alongside Jordan because he didn't need the ball to be effective. What elite PG's could function well if they had the ball less than they had for their entire careers in the triangle in the first place and with Jordan in the second? That is what they do: dominate the ball and make plays for others. With Jordan that is thrown out of whack, especially late in games when Jordan would take 90% of the shots. What good would a Steve Nash be late in a game if he is relegated to bringing the ball up and then watching Jordan isolate?
Nash would have trouble with if you replaced him with pippen. A guy like Stockton, or Payton, or Probably Kidd, he'd be good with.
There isn't a difference between what a point guard and a point forward does though. Just play on different positions on the floor. At least for you're average point. Nash needs the ball in his hands nonstop to be effective, and he wouldn't be a good fit on a lot of teams.
Though the same arguement could be made for guys like Bird, and Jerry West, and kobe. None of them needed the ball any less then Jordan.

[Alhazred]

23 ppg is 23 ppg regardless of what the guy does off the court.

Neither of them stayed in town long. Just goes to show that scoring alone doesn't make you a good player.




No dispute there but 40-45 wins means nothing. Any team with a top 5 player should be able to win that many games almost solely on the strength of that player.

Unless they lose three of their best players from the previous year, then it get's a bit tricky.


:wtf: This is news to Phil Jackson, Scottie Pippen, Jerry Krause and everyone else involved with that team. Your argument is Jordan retiring at the last possible minute helped them because of the element of surprise even though they had no time to find a legit NBA starter to replace him? How about the damage to team morale Jordan's retirement did? Kukoc was in tears when he heard the news.

What damage? Who on that team had their psyche damaged beyond repair from him leaving? Sure, it was a big shock, but I doubt anyone was that badly affected. Kukoc crying? He never got to play with Jordan, I would have been bummed too, but I'd get over it.


:roll: @ Luc Longley, Steve Kerr, and Toni Kukoc being the reasons for the Bulls having a great defense. They didn't turn into anything. They remained what they were in the preceding years: a great defense.

LOL, never said they were responsible for the team's defense. They did play decently, though.


60 wins and the ECF (losing to a 72 win team) to 45 wins and getting crushed in the first round is a collapse. They were nowhere near elite without Shaq.

Four starters missed at least 15 games each. If they were all healthy, 50 wins was plausible, maybe more.


It is a shame Krause failed to pull off the Hornacek trade. He is comparable to Seikaly in that he was a top 10 SG. Give the 94' Bulls Hornacek instead of Harper and they win it all...

They had their chance after game six and blew it. They might have gotten to the ECF, maybe.


Yeah but read what you just said. Your scenario involves him having a good wing player like Armstrong and Kukoc along with an all-star caliber PF who is dominant defensively. Shaq could win 50+ with any team. Put peak Shaq on any team in the league this year and they become a 50+ win team imo, with he exception of the Nets.

New York, Minnesota, the Clippers? Really? Because I don't see it/


There is no one in the history of American sports and perhaps global sports who had anywhere near the level of marketing behind him that Jordan did. Comparing him to Magic is a joke. The proper comparison is presidential campaigns...

Not really. Magic played in LA, there was no way he wasn't getting exposure. Only until 91 did people start calling Jordan better.


Rodman was still a great defender and the best rebounder in the league. That was also a 69 win team the previous year. It was hardly a random team. Parachute Jordan and Rodman to the 10' Knicks or 10' Sixers and do they contend for 55+ wins?

Jordan and Rodman in D'Antoni's system? Definitely. 50 if they're not trying.

What about Jordan and young Oakley? 38-44, 9-9, 40-42 in the regular season and 1-9 in the playoffs. Oak was #2 in rebounding in the last two seasons so you can't play the "he sucked back then" card.




Jordan would won absolutely nothing with Laimbeer, Green and Williams. Maybe Chambers and Worthy.

:lol If you say so.



lol so now Jordan "needs" the GOAT coach? Add that to the list. Thanks. I forgot that. Shaq could reach the NBA finals with Brian Hill.




They were on pace for 67 when Pippen played.

On pace.


? I mentioned his entire record during or near his prime. Orlando before and after him. LA before and after. Miami before him. LA was 24-39 without him from 2001-2004. That says it all. I won't even bother calculating their W-L record with him because we all know they were championship caliber 60+ win teams with him.

Their record from 01-04 does not apply to the 05 team. The lineups are totally different and they had two different mentalities.


Penny was amazing in the playoffs. The injury excuse does not cut it. Every team has injuries. The Bulls had a lot of injuries in 94' too. When healthy they were a 60+ caliber win. Their starting C was injured in the playoffs and Pippen got hurt at the end of Game 1 against the Knicks when the Bulls were leading.

The Magic's starting lineup missed many more games. The injury explanation still stands.

[Roundball_Rock]

Unless they lose three of their best players from the previous year, then it get's a bit tricky.

What three players did they lose from 2001-2004 every time Shaq got injured?


What damage? Who on that team had their psyche damaged beyond repair from him leaving? Sure, it was a big shock, but I doubt anyone was that badly affected.

It left a void. Their morale was naturally not 100% early in the season. Fortunately, when Pippen came back they went on a 30-5 roll and got their confidence back. Sort of. They weren't dumb. They realized they had a glaring weakness and SG and wanted that remedied. Pippen even publicly criticized the team for failing to do so when the Knicks replaced Doc Rivers (with Derek Harper) practically overnight when he got hurt while the Bulls never replaced MJ in 94'.


They had their chance after game six and blew it.

I don't recall seeing Jeff Hornacek in Game 7. :confusedshrug:


New York, Minnesota, the Clippers? Really? Because I don't see it/

Imo yes. He was that good at his peak.


Not really. Magic played in LA, there was no way he wasn't getting exposure. Only until 91 did people start calling Jordan better.[/QUOTE

Timing. Of course he got exposure. There is no need to even discuss this. Everyone knows MJ by far had the biggest marketing campaign in American sports history behind him. If you want to compare him select a presidential campaign, not Magic or any other athlete. Jordan was on another level.

[QUOTE]Jordan and Rodman in D'Antoni's system? Definitely. 50 if they're not trying.

I disagree but this is speculation.


Their record from 01-04 does not apply to the 05 team. The lineups are totally different and they had two different mentalities.

Who cares about 05'? His total record speaks for itself. 01'-04' are even better because it was the same exact team with the only difference being Shaq was out at times. What happened?


The Magic's starting lineup missed many more games.

I won't even bother looking it up. Who cares? They were on different levels. One maybe would have hit 50 wins and the other would have won 60+ if healthy.

[Alhazred]

What three players did they lose from 2001-2004 every time Shaq got injured?

Once again, irrelevant. Two different teams with two different rosters.


It left a void. Their morale was naturally not 100% early in the season. Fortunately, when Pippen came back they went on a 30-5 roll and got their confidence back. Sort of. They weren't dumb. They realized they had a glaring weakness and SG and wanted that remedied. Pippen even publicly criticized the team for failing to do so when the Knicks replaced Doc Rivers (with Derek Harper) practically overnight when he got hurt while the Bulls never replaced MJ in 94'.

So then why blame Jordan when it was clearly management's fault for not signing Harper? He was available late in the season when they had time to sign him.




I don't recall seeing Jeff Hornacek in Game 7. :confusedshrug:

Lol, misread the post. My bad.




Imo yes. He was that good at his peak.

Shaq in a run and gun system like in New York? I don't see it.


Timing. Of course he got exposure. There is no need to even discuss this. Everyone knows MJ by far had the biggest marketing campaign in American sports history behind him. If you want to compare him select a presidential campaign, not Magic or any other athlete. Jordan was on another level.

Only from 91 and onward.


Who cares about 05'? His total record speaks for itself. 01'-04' are even better because it was the same exact team with the only difference being Shaq was out at times. What happened?

The team was focused around Shaq, not Kobe. That's the difference between 05 and those seasons.


I won't even bother looking it up. Who cares? They were on different levels. One maybe would have hit 50 wins and the other might have won 60+ if healthy.

Fixed.

[Roundball_Rock]

Two different teams with two different rosters.


? Same rosters. The only difference is Shaq was taken off the roster.


So then why blame Jordan when it was clearly management's fault for not signing Harper? He was available late in the season when they had time to sign him.

Simple: if Jordan retired in a normal fashion or at least gave notice they would have more time to swing a deal and more options. Basically all that was available by the time MJ retired was Hornacek and Harper and the Knicks quickly got Harper. Plus the Bulls did have a shot at Harper--until Scott Williams, who Dallas wanted, got hurt and that was that. See that luck thing again? 94' Bulls=very unlucky. :cry:


Shaq in a run and gun system like in New York?

I forgot that. I am talking about the rosters. Put him with that roster with a normal scheme and yes.

Who cares about focus? The Bulls were constructed to fit around Jordan.

Fixed? 44-15 is a good sample size, no?

[guy]

With a Paxson or Harper you need someone else to serve as the primary ballhandler/playmaker. Of course it is easier to find a Paxson or Harper. The problem is finding another player who is not a PG to serve as the chief ballhandler.

As I said, you could give his ballhandling role to someone like Kukoc or Odom but that means you have no great player at one forward position and at PG. Jordan needed a second elite teammate to win. How many forwards and C's could fit the bill? Remember, my argument is the Shaq could win more with a random team than Jordan. If you are randomly selected players what are the odds that you are going to land a great PF or C using the Kukoc scenario?

Speaking of Kukoc, he actually replaced Pippen as a ballhandler and we know what happened to everyone's FG %...


Okay, and like I said, players like Mo Williams, Derek Fisher, and Terry Porter pretty much solve both of those problems, as in they're not traditional PGs yet they can score efficiently without being ball dominant. You're making it seem like ONLY Scottie Pippen or a player like him could've solved this problem. And BTW its hardly a problem. Having a great ballhandler is hardly an issue when you already have a guy like Jordan, Lebron, Kobe, or Wade since those guys rightfully will be controlling the offense for much of that itme. You're making something out of nothing.

Jordan needed a second elite teammate to win. Yes, so has every great player.



I know, I know. Greatest of all-time. He could score 30+ ppg, lead the league in FGA as a primary ballhandler, play great defense, rebound very well for a guard all in nearly 40 minutes a night and not skip a beat. I bet he could average 10 boards too if his team needed it. He was human. He had limits. I can't see Jordan doing all that and winning even aside from the obvious problem of having a primary ballhandler who is leading the league in FGA every year.

Get that sarcastic bull**** out of here. No one said anything about Jordan averaging 10 boards a game. In his one season as PG, he led a not so good team to the ECF and only 2 games away from the Finals. Its not farfetched to think he would've done better then that if he got to play that role 10+ years, especially considering he would've learned and adjusted. Anyway, I didn't even say anything about him being the "primary" ballhandler. I said he could take a larger role in that aspect if he needed to.

You're making this assumption that just cause Jordan won a certain way, that he couldn't win ANY OTHER WAY, which is a bold thing to say about someone who was arguably the greatest player ever and definitely one of the most versatile players ever. Its a bold thing to say about anyone who played at that level.



As far as building a team from scratch, yes. Once the team is built then yeah, Shaq needs more help. Look at what Shaq actually did. He joined a 21 win team and as a rookie elevated them to 41 wins. Imagine peak Shaq on that team. Imo Shaq could win 50+ with practically any team, unless it is a horrendous team that would be a 15 win team without him. Put Shaq on a team on the level of the 10' Sixers or 10' Clippers and I can see them winning 50+ with peak Shaq. A championship? Of course not but they would be very competitive.

There you go again completely IGNORING context. Did you even bother to look at the 1992 Magic? That team was ravaged by injuries. And I know you'll say every team deals with his injuries, but not usually to this extent. Nick Anderson missed 22 games, Dennis Scott missed 64 games, Anthony Bowie missed 30 games, and alot of their other bench players missed a bunch of games. The year before when they were healthier? 31 wins.

As far as building from scratch, I've already said my reasons why I would take Jordan. If you put Jordan with the worse possible NBA players there are and do the same with Shaq, I'd easily go with Jordan's teams for the reasons I've stated. If we want to talk "random teams" it'll be different in each case depending on the team.



Provided they solved the ballhandling issue and they worked out how to reconcile pairing two elite scorers together (aside from Zo') he could. I am talking about average teams in this thread, not fantasy pairings. Those pairings would have simply too much talent to not win multiple rings. The only thing that could realistically stop them is chemistry problems.


Not fantasy pairings? Yet you mentioned Jordan with Garnett or Lebron? You can put pretty much put any starting PG and most backup PGs with Jordan and Hakeem/Robinson/Ewing/Shaq and they would win multiple titles. If you don't think so you're completely underrating and/or overrating someone. That team is simply too talented to not win multiple rings, which is who I believe you're referring to.

[Alhazred]

? Same rosters. The only difference is Shaq was taken off the roster.

Also add Odom, Butler and a new team strategy no relying on O' Neal.


Simple: if Jordan retired in a normal fashion or at least gave notice they would have more time to swing a deal and more options. Basically all that was available by the time MJ retired was Hornacek and Harper and the Knicks quickly got Harper. Plus the Bulls did have a shot at Harper--until Scott Williams, who Dallas wanted, got hurt and that was that. See that luck thing again? 94' Bulls=very unlucky. :cry:

So then blame Krause for not being quick enough to sign Harper. Anything that happened after Jordan retired cannot be pinned on him. Krause is the one who comes out looking bad since he had the chance to sign Derek but failed.


I forgot that. I am talking about the rosters. Put him with that roster with a normal scheme and yes.

Maybe, I'm not too sure myself.


Who cares about focus? The Bulls were constructed to fit around Jordan.

Yeah and when they removed him that focus was changed.


Fixed? 44-15 is a good sample size, no?

Assuming they didn't hit a slump at some point. It happens.

[Roundball_Rock]

The 94' Bulls won 55 games even with their injury problems. Is it really a stretch to see them winning 60+ if healthy? When I say "60+" I mean 60-63. I am not saying they were going to win 67 games or anything like that.


So then blame Krause for not being quick enough to sign Harper. Anything that happened after Jordan retired cannot be pinned on him. Krause is the one who comes out looking bad since he had the chance to sign Derek but failed.

I do blame Krause--and Jordan and luck (if Scott Williams didn't get hurt they may have pulled it off). Other than Magic, Ricky Williams, and Barry Sanders who else retired at the last minute? At least Magic had a legit reason. If Jordan even just gave them notice that he was considering retiring they could have done something as an insurance policy.


Yeah and when they removed him that focus was changed.

So the 94' Bulls would have been even stronger if custom built for Pippen, not Jordan? Anyway, this is not a thread about the 94' Bulls. It is obvious that Shaq had great impact on his teams in/near his prime. Jordan did not have as much. Your argument is the reason the team stayed afloat was because of two bench players. That is a stretch. Even if we accept that what does that say about MJ's value to the team? Shaq could not be replaced by a top 10 center let alone a D-League level player out the NBA for 2 years.

[Alhazred]

The 94' Bulls won 55 games even with their injury problems. Is it really a stretch to see them winning 60+ if healthy? When I say "60+" I mean 60-63. I am not saying they were going to win 67 games or anything like that.

Maybe, maybe not. I really don't know.


I do blame Krause--and Jordan and luck (if Scott Williams didn't get hurt they may have pulled it off). Other than Magic, Ricky Williams, and Barry Sanders who else retired at the last minute? At least Magic had a legit reason. If Jordan even just gave them notice that he was considering retiring they could have done something as an insurance policy.

The guy's dad was murdered less than three months earlier and was printed in God knows how many publications. Seems like a legit reason to quit to me.


So the 94' Bulls would have been even stronger if custom built for Pippen, not Jordan?

Lol, no. Were the 94 Bulls better than the year before?


Anyway, this is not a thread about the 94' Bulls. It is obvious that Shaq had great impact on his teams in/near his prime. Jordan did not have as much.
Your argument is the reason the team stayed afloat was because of two bench players. That is a stretch. Even if we accept that what does that say about MJ's value to the team?

That Jordan was the difference between a repeat champion going all the way and falling out in the second round.


Shaq could not be replaced by a top 10 center let alone a D-League level player out the NBA for 2 years.

Replace him with Duncan, KG or Webber in their primes and I easily see the early 00s Lakers winning it all.

[Roundball_Rock]

Maybe, maybe not. I really don't know.

You just can't bring yourself to credit that team. 5 more wins when they were 44-15 with Pippen and Grant is a stretch?


The guy's dad was murdered less than three months earlier and was printed in God knows how many publications. Seems like a legit reason to quit to me.

If that is the reason he retired then he should have told them he was considering it due to that and they could have planned for him possibly retiring. Jordan didn't retire from sports. He retired from basketball btw.


Were the 94 Bulls better than the year before?

No but they would still be the best team in the East and probably the NBA if you gave them a legit SG like Hornacek. With Hornacek they definitely are good enough to win it all.


That Jordan was the difference between a repeat champion going all the way and falling out in the second round.

That ignores that Jordan screwed the team. To fairly compare them you need a legit replacement for Jordan, like Orlando had with Seikaly for Shaq. Plus we know what happened in the second round. It isn't as if they were not legit title contenders.


Replace him with Duncan, KG or Webber in their primes and I easily see the early 00s Lakers winning it all.

All those guys were at least top 3 players at their peaks. Replace him with a good, but not great player and they do nothing. Replace him with a bench level player and they do nothing, as they showed when he got hurt.

The 00's Lakers barely beat the Blazers and Kings in 2000 and 2002. It isn't clear that they win each time with Duncan, KG, or Webber. They could win with them but not three straight.

[Alhazred]

You just can't bring yourself to credit that team. 5 more wins when they were 44-15 with Pippen and Grant is a stretch?

Ok, sure, they win 60 games. But then they get swept in the second round due to overconfidence. :lol


If that is the reason he retired then he should have told them he was considering it due to that and they could have planned for him possibly retiring. Jordan didn't retire from sports. He retired from basketball btw.

Lol, I know he played baseball.


No but they would still be the best team in the East and probably the NBA if you gave them a legit SG like Hornacek. With Hornacek they definitely are good enough to win it all.

Maybe, if they could get past Houston which I doubt. Hakeem was a Bulls killer in the early 90s.


That ignores that Jordan screwed the team. To fairly compare them you need a legit replacement for Jordan, like Orlando had with Seikaly for Shaq. Plus we know what happened in the second round. It isn't as if they were not legit title contenders.

Krause screwed them, you already admitted they could have gotten Harper if he had reacted fast enough. Maybe Krause would have ended up letting Hornacek slip away regardless of the circumstances?


All those guys were at least top 3 players at their peaks. Replace him with a good, but not great player and they do nothing. Replace him with a bench level player and they do nothing, as they showed when he got hurt.

The Bulls were 0-4 without Jordan from 89-93. Not a large sample size, but it goes to show that losing the team's number 1 option and changing your gameplan doesn't mean your team is doomed without him.


The 00's Lakers barely beat the Blazers and Kings in 2000 and 2002. It isn't clear that they win each time with Duncan, KG, or Webber. They could win with them but not three straight.

Well, the teams would be different if Webber or Duncan played on the Lakers. I'd pick Kobe/Duncan over the Kings most of the time, though and I could easily see them threepeating.

[Roundball_Rock]

You can put pretty much put any starting PG and most backup PGs with Jordan and Hakeem/Robinson/Ewing/Shaq and they would win multiple titles. If you don't think so you're completely underrating and/or overrating someone. That team is simply too talented to not win multiple ring

I said the same thing. Of course, if you are talking about a random team what are the odds of someone of the caliber of Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, or Shaq being on it?


Jordan needed a second elite teammate to win. Yes, so has every great player.

Having an average PG reduces the odds of finding one. That is what I was saying. That leaves three positions to find one. With Shaq all he needs is an elite teammate, period. There may not be much of a difference between four positions and three at first blush but there are 33% more players available if you can choose from four positions.



Krause screwed them, you already admitted they could have gotten Harper if he had reacted fast enough. Maybe Krause would have ended up letting Hornacek slip away regardless of the circumstances?

He reacted, tried and had a shot at doing it before Scott Williams got hurt. If Jordan gave him notice he could have swung the deal before Williams wound up getting hurt (Dallas wanted him). You are being blinded by devotion to MJ. You are attacking Krause for not getting the job done quickly when Jordan is the reason the timing was messed up in the first place. What he did is unprecedented. Jordan, Ricky Williams, and Barry Sanders. That is it as far as superstars retiring at the last minute. Magic too but he had a legit reason and could not do anything about timing. It is funny how Williams and Sanders were criticized for it but Jordan given a free pass and the timing of his retirement has been vaporized from the annals of basketball history.

Harper was not a great player. All they needed was a legit NBA player who could play SG. They didn't necessarily need Mitch Richmond or even an all-star caliber SG like Hornacek (who they tried to get before the trade deadline), although obviously that would be preferable. Common sense and history shows you have more options finding a player like this in the offseason then at the last minute during the season. Look at the 2010 season. No significant trades have occurred yet and by the trade deadline only a handful of players will be available.


Maybe, if they could get past Houston which I doubt. Hakeem was a Bulls killer in the early 90s.

Except that the Pippen-led Bulls went 2-1 against him in 1994 and 1995 when Pippen played.


The Bulls were 0-4 without Jordan from 89-93. Not a large sample size, but it goes to show that losing the team's number 1 option and changing your gameplan doesn't mean your team is doomed without him.

:oldlol: You are reaching again. Four games over four years is a useless sample size and how many of those games were meaningless games at the end of the season when their seed was determined?

You are underrating Shaq or overrating Duncan if you think they could win three straight with Duncan. They barely won twice with Shaq despite Shaq having some of the greatest playoff runs of all-time. Duncan is a great player, top 10 all-time, but he never was in the same league as 2000-2002 Shaq.

[guy]

Having an average PG reduces the odds of finding one. That is what I was saying. That leaves three positions to find one. With Shaq all he needs is an elite teammate, period. There may not be much of a difference between four positions and three at first blush but there are 33% more players available if you can choose from four positions.

Okay, what makes you think Shaq could've played with an elite PF? What about PG? In fact the one time he played with a great PF and PG it didn't work out so well, although I will point out he was way past his prime at that point. Either way, there really is no evidence at all. And although I agree with you that a John Paxson-type PG is better alongside Jordan then a traditional one, what makes you think Jordan could not have played with an elite PG? Jordan did not play with any elite PGs before the title years. I have my doubts that Jordan couldn't have won titles with a Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas, Kevin Johnson, or John Stockton. Maybe not as much, but that duo is too talented to say without a doubt he couldn't have won with an elite PG. Just cause players like Ennis Watley, Sam Vincent, and Rory Sparrow couldn't play well with Jordan, doesn't mean no PGs can, especially when you consider none of them did anything special on other teams.

And I'm not saying Shaq couldn't have won with an elite PF and/or PG. All I'm saying is in both cases there isn't enough evidence to suggest they could or couldn't play with certain players.




You are attacking Krause for not getting the job done quickly when Jordan is the reason the timing was messed up in the first place. What he did is unprecedented. Jordan, Ricky Williams, and Barry Sanders. That is it as far as superstars retiring at the last minute. Magic too but he had a legit reason and could not do anything about timing. It is funny how Williams and Sanders were criticized for it but Jordan given a free pass and the timing of his retirement has been vaporized from the annals of basketball history.

Umm, and you are attacking Jordan for "screwing" the Bulls for retiring too late when this was in the aftermath of his dad getting brutally murdered.



Except that the Pippen-led Bulls went 2-1 against him in 1994 and 1995 when Pippen played.



:oldlol: You are reaching again. Four games over four years is a useless sample size and how many of those games were meaningless games at the end of the season when their seed was determined?



LOL, a little hypocrisy? 3 regular season games over 2 years doesn't say much either. Regular season series in general doesn't say much.

[Alhazred]

With Shaq all he needs is an elite teammate, period. There may not be much of a difference between four positions and three at first blush but there are 33% more players available if you can choose from four positions.

Are you sure? What if he gets teamed up with a pg who likes to run, or joins a team with a big man who averages 20+/10 and doesn't like to play outside the lowpost?



He reacted, tried and had a shot at doing it before Scott Williams got hurt. If Jordan gave him notice he could have swung the deal before Williams wound up getting hurt (Dallas wanted him). You are being blinded by devotion to MJ. You are attacking Krause for not getting the job done quickly when Jordan is the reason the timing was messed up in the first place.

You're missing the bigger picture. The guys dad had been shot to death. Also, here's what Krause had to say on the Hornacek issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/26/sports/on-pro-basketball-a-team-a-master-builder-would-really-love.html?pagewanted=1


The Knicks replaced Doc Rivers with Harper. Orlando is reportedly trying to add Danny Manning. Krause has a response to those who say that the Bulls are a shooting guard away from going over the top and that he must simply add a veteran scorer like Jeff Hornacek.

"A few years ago it was Walter Davis," he said, remembering a campaign orchestrated by Jordan. "It was as if I had to go get him. We won three championships. Where is Walter Davis now?"

Sounds like he wasn't too concerned about getting him, does it?


What he did is unprecedented. Jordan, Ricky Williams, and Barry Sanders. That is it as far as superstars retiring at the last minute. Magic too but he had a legit reason and could not do anything about timing. It is funny how Williams and Sanders were criticized for it but Jordan given a free pass and the timing of his retirement has been vaporized from the annals of basketball history.

I never ragged on Sanders. I know he retired prematurely, bu I'm sure he had his reasons. Williams I don't know too much about, no comment.


Harper was not a great player. All they needed was a legit NBA player who could play SG. They didn't necessarily need Mitch Richmond or even an all-star caliber SG like Hornacek (who they tried to get before the trade deadline), although obviously that would be preferable. Common sense and history shows you have more options finding a player like this in the offseason then at the last minute during the season. Look at the 2010 season. No significant trades have occurred yet and by the trade deadline only a handful of players will be available.

Krause had his chance to sign them, but passed them over because he wasn't worried about it. No wonder Pip hated him.


Except that the Pippen-led Bulls went 2-1 against him in 1994 and 1995 when Pippen played.

Does that mean they would have gone all the way, though? Hakeem was an upgrade over Ewing and had better scorers around him. I still don't see Houston losing that series.


:oldlol: You are reaching again. Four games over four years is a useless sample size and how many of those games were meaningless games at the end of the season when their seed was determined?

None of them took place towards the end of the season, all took place midseason, I think.

Regardless, they had no wins without him in the lineup from 89-93. None. Zip. Zilch. 4 games isn't much, no, but it still happened.


You are underrating Shaq or overrating Duncan if you think they could win three straight with Duncan. They barely won twice with Shaq despite Shaq having some of the greatest playoff runs of all-time. Duncan is a great player, top 10 all-time, but he never was in the same league as 2000-2002 Shaq.

Even if they didn't threepeat from 00-02, what about from 03-05? Not a whole lot of competition other than New Jersey or Detroit.

[Roundball_Rock]

I already said he won't fit on a run and gun team. That goes to offensive schemes, not player personnel per se.

You keep harping on Jordan's father being shot to death. That has no relevance but does pull some emotional strings. If he considered retiring due to that he should have given notice to the team. Besides, he was considering retiring during the 1993 season before his dad was shot anyway.


Sounds like he wasn't too concerned about getting him, does it?

:wtf: This is classic MJ fan revisionist history. What do you expect him to say in public? "I agree, if we don't find a legitimate NBA starting SG we are severely handicapped come the playoffs." Don't look at what he said publicly. Look at what he did. He tried to work a deal for Hornacek up until the trade deadline. Jackson, Pippen, and Grant all believed they needed to fill a void at SG. Pip even publicly called Krause out on this. It doesn't take a basketball genius talent evaluator to realize they had a massive hole at the SG position. They went from the GOAT SG to the worst starting SG in the league!


I never ragged on Sanders. I know he retired prematurely, bu I'm sure he had his reasons. Williams I don't know too much about, no comment.

Sanders retired a month before the regular season began because he claimed he was tired of losing. Ricky Williams retired to smoke weed. :lol


Even if they didn't threepeat from 00-02, what about from 03-05? Not a whole lot of competition other than New Jersey or Detroit.

That is a different question from the OP, which is about prime Shaq. Would anyone take prime Duncan over prime Shaq?

[guy]

I already said he won't fit on a run and gun team. That goes to offensive schemes, not player personnel per se.

Okay, well the two best PGs of Shaq's era, Nash and Kidd, played best in uptempo systems. So pretty much, that limits who Shaq can play with according to you. And anyway, basically what you're saying is Shaq had limits by not being able to play in an uptempo system. How is that any different of a limit then Jordan not being able to play well with a traditional PG? Shaq played on some teams with young, athletic and explosive players as well as 3-point shooters who would've thrived if they played more uptempo. The Penny/Anderson/Scott Magic, Jones/NVE/Kobe Lakers, and even the three-peat Lakers would've benefitted greatly if they could've played more uptempo at times, but that wasn't much of an option (sure they did do it sometimes) mainly because of Shaq. Maybe just maybe the 97 and 98 Lakers would've beaten the Jazz and made it to the Finals if Jones/NVE/Kobe could've ran the Jazz out the building. Maybe if they were able to do that, Shaq's supporting cast wouldn't have played so badly. Like I said, you're making something out of nothing. There are certain styles and teammates that will complement all players better or worse.



You keep harping on Jordan's father being shot to death. That has no relevance but does pull some emotional strings. If he considered retiring due to that he should have given notice to the team. Besides, he was considering retiring during the 1993 season before his dad was shot anyway.


The point is its not really "screwing" the team. Things like that happen in the workplace all the time, and people need to take time off. It happens, and no one calls it "screwing." And your right he was considering retiring anyway. And the Bulls were WELL AWARE of that. In the 93 Finals after they won, Bob Costas asked Jordan about it in front of everyone. I highly doubt he didn't speak to the Bulls about it.

By the way, why don't you respond to the fact that you completely ignored the context of what happened in 93 when Shaq was supposedly the sole reason the Magic improved 20 games? And how about the "small sample size" arrgument?

[Alhazred]

I already said he won't fit on a run and gun team. That goes to offensive schemes, not player personnel per se.



You keep harping on Jordan's father being shot to death. That has no relevance but does pull some emotional strings. If he considered retiring due to that he should have given notice to the team. Besides, he was considering retiring during the 1993 season before his dad was shot anyway.

He was considering it, but I think his father's death pushed him over the edge. Also, why



:wtf: This is classic MJ fan revisionist history. What do you expect him to say in public? "I agree, if we don't find a legitimate NBA starting SG we are severely handicapped come the playoffs." Don't look at what he said publicly. Look at what he did. He tried to work a deal for Hornacek up until the trade deadline. Jackson, Pippen, and Grant all believed they needed to fill a void at SG. Pip even publicly called Krause out on this. It doesn't take a basketball genius talent evaluator to realize they had a massive hole at the SG position. They went from the GOAT SG to the worst starting SG in the league!

Roundball, Krause didn't go through with it because it meant giving up a first round pick. If he had, the Bulls would have gotten him. You are blaming the wrong person for the Bulls not being able to get Hornacek or Harper.


Sanders retired a month before the regular season began because he claimed he was tired of losing. Ricky Williams retired to smoke weed. :lol

Can't say I blame either of them. :lol


That is a different question from the OP, which is about prime Shaq. Would anyone take prime Duncan over prime Shaq?

Depends on the teammates. Duncan seems like an easier player to deal with, imo, although peak Shaq was a more dominant presence.

[allball]

Miguel

[OldSchoolBBall]

lol @ Roundball's bullsh!t claims. :oldlol: Jordan, one of the best off the ball scorers in NBA history, couldn't play with a traditional PG? My ass. :oldlol:

I love how all RR's claims are just accepted at face value. Jordan would average like 34 pts/53% FG playing with a guy like Nash, who would find him in perfect position all the time.

[Alhazred]

The point is its not really "screwing" the team. Things like that happen in the workplace all the time, and people need to take time off. It happens, and no one calls it "screwing." And your right he was considering retiring anyway. And the Bulls were WELL AWARE of that. In the 93 Finals after they won, Bob Costas asked Jordan about it in front of everyone. I highly doubt he didn't speak to the Bulls about it.



You know, if Jordan was already talking about it, then it wasn't really out of the blue, was it?

[guy]

I love how all RR's claims are just accepted at face value. Jordan would average like 34 pts/53% FG playing with a guy like Nash, who would find him in perfect position all the time.

I agree with him that Jordan is better off playing with a guy like John Paxson instead of a traditional PG, if we're talking about average players. But if we're talking about great players such as Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, or Magic Johnson then its a different story.

[Roundball_Rock]

I agree Shaq had limits. Every player did. I just believe he had less as far as building a team is concerned. Shaq could not win rings with Nash in a run and gun system (although he did have a fine season with Nash last year despite being in his 17th season...) but I could see him winning with practically any PG.


By the way, why don't you respond to the fact that you completely ignored the context of what happened in 93 when Shaq was supposedly the sole reason the Magic improved 20 games?

I can admit I was wrong. The case for Shaq and team value is based on more than one or two examples. It is based on his entire record. Orlando after him. LA before him. LA without him when he got hurt (championship team to 24-39 from 2001-04!). LA after he left. Miami before him. Miami when he got hurt. Orlando winning 31 games in 92' (btw 18 in 91') doesn't change the consistent trend in Shaq's career.


The point is its not really "screwing" the team. Things like that happen in the workplace all the time, and people need to take time off. It happens, and no one calls it "screwing." And your right he was considering retiring anyway. And the Bulls were WELL AWARE of that. In the 93 Finals after they won, Bob Costas asked Jordan about it in front of everyone. I highly doubt he didn't speak to the Bulls about it.

They were and they weren't. Why the shock when it happened if they were completely sure? A lot of people didn't take him seriously when he said it, according to their own words. Jordan was talking about retiring early as soon as 1990 so it wasn't new for MJ (Jordan Rules).


Roundball, Krause didn't go through with it because it meant giving up a first round pick. If he had, the Bulls would have gotten him.

First round pick? Who gives a damn. They were in first place in the East at the time. Who cares about the 27th pick? The problem was finding a SG to replace Hornacek in a three-way trade. Krause said he didn't know Philadelphia would take Jeff Malone. :wtf:


Can't say I blame either of them.

:D


Depends on the teammates. Duncan seems like an easier player to deal with, imo, although peak Shaq was a more dominant presence.

Duncan just wasn't as good. If they are close then you can look at things like that but they aren't close.


But if we're talking about great players such as Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, or Magic Johnson then its a different story.

I agree with that. When you are talking about that level of ability then other things can be overcome.

[Alhazred]

I agree Shaq had limits. Every player did. I just believe he had less as far as building a team is concerned. Shaq could not win rings with Nash in a run and gun system (although he did have a fine season with Nash last year despite being in his 17th season...) but I could see him winning with practically any PG.

Depends if their personalities clash, imo.


First round pick? Who gives a damn. They were in first place in the East at the time. Who cares about the 27th pick? The problem was finding a SG to replace Hornacek in a three-way trade. Krause said he didn't know Philadelphia would take Jeff Malone. :wtf:

The Bulls were in a position where all they had to give up was a first round pick and they would have gotten Hornacek. Krause had a fetish for first round picks though and turned it down. Here's a thread that mentions it.

http://www.bullspodcasters.com/forums?func=view&catid=5&id=31375&limit=15&start=15


Duncan just wasn't as good. If they are close then you can look at things like that but they aren't close.

When it comes to individual scoring, yes, but when it comes to defense, rebounding and passing, its close. Timmy was also a better free throw shooter.

[Roundball_Rock]

That isn't a legit source. You are citing a random poster on a website. I am citing Krause himself! Do you realize Philadelphia got a 16 ppg guy for Hornacek who scored 18 ppg in 93' and then in 95'? They didn't trade him for nothing. Why would you? Hornacek was an all-star caliber 19-20 ppg player in his prime.

You probably googled to find that message board. I did a quick search and found this:


Despite Krause's denials, they have serious interest in Dallas' Derek Harper and Philadelphia's Jeff Hornacek, guards who would infuse more life into their offense, now featuring Scottie Pippen and whoever else can step up his game.

Krause's negotiating power suffered a momentary blow when forward/center Scott Williams went down with a damaged tendon in his right knee Friday night. Williams, who won't need surgery and will likely miss up to a month, was being dangled in a deal with Dallas for Harper and center Sean Rooks.

DEERFIELD, Ill., Nov. 1 (AP) -- The journeyman guard Pete Myers will take Michael Jordan's spot in the starting lineup for the Chicago Bulls, Coach Phil Jackson said today.

The 6-foot-6-inch Myers, who played for Chicago, San Antonio, Philadelphia and the Knicks before spending the last two years in Italy, was not even expected to make the team when training camp opened.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/02/sports/pro-basketball-jordan-must-make-retirement-official-with-letter-to-nba.html?pagewanted=1

This is what they replaced the "greatest of all-time" with and then MJ fans criticize Pippen and the team for losing? :wtf: Myers himself did not expect to make any NBA roster! He showed up at training camp to work on his game in a NBA setting.

You can't just compare them based on areas where they are better. Shaq simply had more overall impact at his peak than Duncan ever did. Look at this thread. It is comparing prime Shaq to the majority GOAT. If someone made a thread comparing prime Duncan to prime Jordan it would be a joke but Shaq/MJ in their primes is a legit comparison.

[guy]

I agree Shaq had limits. Every player did. I just believe he had less as far as building a team is concerned. Shaq could not win rings with Nash in a run and gun system (although he did have a fine season with Nash last year despite being in his 17th season...) but I could see him winning with practically any PG.


Well Shaq had much more limits then Jordan. The free throw shooting, health, work ethic, bad attitude at times were all bigger limits then anything of Jordan's. Jordan literally had no weakness, except for earlier in his career when he struggled between the balance of scoring and deferring, and alot of that can be explained by the fact that Jordan didn't really have much to work with. And I'm not saying Jordan was this perfect basketball player, I'm just saying even though there were aspects he wasn't great at, he wasn't exactly bad at it either. There was nothing a team can do to expose Jordan, like they could to Shaq.



I can admit I was wrong. The case for Shaq and team value is based on more than one or two examples. It is based on his entire record. Orlando after him. LA before him. LA without him when he got hurt (championship team to 24-39 from 2001-04!). LA after he left. Miami before him. Miami when he got hurt. Orlando winning 31 games in 92' (btw 18 in 91') doesn't change the consistent trend in Shaq's career.


Like someone else said, LA after he left is a horrible example considering everything that happened there. Shaq wasn't the only difference. Shaq left along with Payton, Malone, Fox, Grant, and Fisher. Phil Jackson left, who was replaced by Rudy T, who left midseason, and both Kobe and Odom missed alot of games due to injury.

Even Miami before him isn't as great of an example as people think. Dwyane Wade missed 20 games in 04, and by 05 he went from rookie to one of the best SGs in the league. Even without Shaq that year, they were pretty good.

Orlando's record in 97 isn't a good example to use either. Penny missed 21 games, Grant missed 15, Scott missed 16, Nick missed 19, Seikaly missed 8. There starting lineup missed a combined 79 games. There record without Shaq the previous year, when he missed 28 games, was really good at 20-8.

In Shaq's first two seasons with the Lakers, where he missed a bunch of games, they went 15-16 and then 15-7 without him. Why was it different both seasons? Not sure.

I'm not going to bother going into what happened during the championship seasons, cause no matter how you look at it, Shaq clearly had impact. The point is like myself and others have told you before, you can't just look at a team's record with or without there superstar and equate the difference as impact. So many things change from season to season, and sometimes through the course of a season, not just circumstances surrounding that one superstar player. All of these changes will very likely affect a team's record.



They were and they weren't. Why the shock when it happened if they were completely sure? A lot of people didn't take him seriously when he said it, according to their own words. Jordan was talking about retiring early as soon as 1990 so it wasn't new for MJ (Jordan Rules).

The shock was there cause the arguable GOAT was retiring in the middle of his prime at the young age of 30. No one took it seriously cause it was so unheard of. If he was talking about it, don't you think thats enough notice for the Bulls to prepare themselves for? If someone in the workplace is openly talking about leaving, especially someone as important as Jordan was to the Bulls, you think that person's boss is just going to sit around and not pay any attention to that?

[Alhazred]

That isn't a legit source. You are citing a random poster on a website. I am citing Krause himself! Do you realize Philadelphia got a 16 ppg guy for Hornacek who scored 18 ppg in 93' and then in 95'? They didn't trade him for nothing. Why would you? Hornacek was an all-star caliber 19-20 ppg player in his prime.

You probably googled to find that message board. I did a quick search and found this:



http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/02/sports/pro-basketball-jordan-must-make-retirement-official-with-letter-to-nba.html?pagewanted=1

This is what they replaced the "greatest of all-time" with and then MJ fans criticize Pippen and the team for losing? :wtf: Myers himself did not expect to make any NBA roster! He showed up at training camp to work on his game in a NBA setting.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_n5_v217/ai_14765644/


Scottie Pippen and Coach Phil Jackson both want General Manager Jerry Krause to fill Jordan's $2-million salary slot before the trading deadline. Pippen was especially annoyed when the Bulls didn't try harder to get Derek Harper from the Mavericks.

Jackson wanted Harper, too, and he particularly didn't want to see him in a Knicks uniform. But Krause offered the Mavericks only a first-round pick, when Harper and forward Sean Rooks could've been exchanged for Scott Williams and Stacey King. Jackson also didn't agree with Krause when the Bulls released guard Jo Jo English.



I'm not criticizing them for losing, just saying that Jordan's sudden retirement didn't doom them.


You can't just compare them based on areas where they are better. Shaq simply had more overall impact at his peak than Duncan ever did. Look at this thread. It is comparing prime Shaq to the majority GOAT. If someone made a thread comparing prime Duncan to prime Jordan it would be a joke but Shaq/MJ in their primes is a legit comparison.

Didn't Timmy win two rings within his first five years in the league? Seems to me that he had a bigger impact than Shaq and Jordan, lol. :lol

Jk, Shaq and MJ are better.

[Roundball_Rock]

Well Shaq had much more limits then Jordan. The free throw shooting, health, work ethic, bad attitude at times were all bigger limits then anything of Jordan's.

I agree with all of that. What I meant was limits imo as far as building a team around him based primarily on him being a center and it is easier to build around a dominant C than a dominant guard. The only teams to win multiple rings led by a guard are the Bulls and Pistons and we know it took them years to build themselves into champions.


Even Miami before him isn't as great of an example as people think. Dwyane Wade missed 20 games in 04, and by 05 he went from rookie to one of the best SGs in the league. Even without Shaq that year, they were pretty good.

In 2005 they were. They went 6-3 without him but in 2006 they were 10-13 without him.


Orlando's record in 97 isn't a good example to use either. Penny missed 21 games, Grant missed 15, Scott missed 16, Nick missed 19, Seikaly missed 8. There starting lineup missed a combined 79 games. There record without Shaq the previous year, when he missed 28 games, was really good at 20-8.

Injuries happen every year. We can do the same thing with the 94' Bulls and their starters plus 6th man.

There are always outliers. I look at trends. The best evidence is when Shaq was directly removed for sufficient sample sizes on teams that where champions or championship contenders with him. Year to year is tougher because there are changes, sometimes significant changes as you mentioned with the 05' Lakers.

[Alhazred]

Injuries happen every year. We can do the same thing with the 94' Bulls and their starters plus 6th man.


Check the amount of time the Bulls starters missed compared to Orlando's. Pippen missed 10, Grant missed 12, Kukoc missed 8, and Wennington missed 6. Other guys with smaller roles missed significant time, but for the most part the Bulls' best players were healthier.

[Roundball_Rock]

Only two players in the East, Scottie Pippen and Shaquille O'Neal, are playing at the consistently high level an All-Star should.

It hasn't been a coincidence that the Bulls have prospered since Pippen returned from an early-season ankle injury. He is one of the few players capable of putting up double figures in four categories -- scoring, rebounding, steals and assists. O'Neal is battling David Robinson for the scoring lead and showing us his commitment to basketball runs deeper than we think.

Wait. I thought Pippen was never a top 5 player according to most MJ fans and you are posting an article which says he was the best or second best player in the East? Oh yeah. I bet the top 5 players were all in the West. :roll:

What does that article have to do with Hornacek/Myers?


I'm not criticizing them for losing, just saying that Jordan's sudden retirement didn't doom them.


DEERFIELD, Ill., Nov. 1 (AP) -- The journeyman guard Pete Myers will take Michael Jordan's spot in the starting lineup for the Chicago Bulls, Coach Phil Jackson said today.

The 6-foot-6-inch Myers, who played for Chicago, San Antonio, Philadelphia and the Knicks before spending the last two years in Italy, was not even expected to make the team when training camp opened.



Check the amount of time the Bulls starters missed compared to Orlando's. Pippen missed 10, Grant missed 12, Kukoc missed 8, and Wennington missed 6

Wennington wasn't their starter. Wennington was another guy barely staying in the league/out the league the Bulls acquired that year. He was out the NBA for several years before 94'. The Bulls starting center was Bill Cartwright. He missed 40 games and played only about 5 minutes in the first round against Cleveland. Wennington was the third stringer behind Cartwright and Longley.

[guy]

I agree with all of that. What I meant was limits imo as far as building a team around him based primarily on him being a center and it is easier to build around a dominant C than a dominant guard. The only teams to win multiple rings led by a guard are the Bulls and Pistons and we know it took them years to build themselves into champions.

Yes. And like others have told you before, there really wasn't much of a blueprint on how to build around guards before Jordan.



In 2005 they were. They went 6-3 without him but in 2006 they were 10-13 without him.

And that just goes to show how flawed your logic is unless you actually think Shaq was better in 06 then 05.




Injuries happen every year. We can do the same thing with the 94' Bulls and their starters plus 6th man.

The 94 Bulls didn't have it as bad as the 97 Magic. Five starters miss nearly a season combined every year, there best player misses 21 of those games, and 4 out of 5 of them miss at least 15 games? Thats a bullsh*t excuse and you know it. Yes technically you could say the same thing about the Bulls but more then half of those missed games were due to Cartwright, who was old as hell and who had 4 backups that really weren't much worse then him. Injuries happen all the time, but nobody succeeds when they have injuries to that degree. Its a complete joke that you act like it didn't have much to do with it.



There are always outliers. I look at trends. The best evidence is when Shaq was directly removed for sufficient sample sizes on teams that where champions or championship contenders with him. Year to year is tougher because there are changes, sometimes significant changes as you mentioned with the 05' Lakers.

Now you're just picking and choosing whatever fits your agenda. The trends show that when Shaq was absent, the team played bad, decent, or even very good. No one is denying Shaq had enormous impact. But your logic is wrong, plain and simple. So many things change, from season-to-season, month-to-month, and maybe even game-to-game. It could be big things, like injuries, schedule, trades. Or it could be the smallest things from a team's center having motivational issues for a month cause of a death in the family to a PG playing with a bum knee for a week, and even these can be the difference between a win or a loss. However, you wouldn't know everything just looking at basketball-reference.com.

I find it funny that one day 15-20 years from now, someone is going to look back at Lebron's career, and after many awards, championships, records he's won, that person will look at something on the internet and conclude that he wouldn't have done nearly as much if he didn't have Mo Williams.

[Alhazred]

Wait. I thought Pippen was never a top 5 player according to most MJ fans and you are posting an article which says he was the best or second best player in the East? Oh yeah. I bet the top 5 players were all in the West. :roll:

Hey, I like Pip and he was certainly a top five player in 94.


What does that article have to do with Hornacek/Myers?

Not Hornacek, but it mentions that Krause blew his chance with the Harper trade.


Wennington wasn't their starter. Wennington was another guy barely staying in the league/out the league the Bulls acquired that year. He was out the NBA for several years before 94'. The Bulls starting center was Bill Cartwright. He missed 40 games and played only about 5 minutes in the first round against Cleveland. Wennington was the third stringer behind Cartwright and Longley.

My mistake. That being said, Wennington actually put up better numbers than Cartwright did the year before.

Bill Cartwright 1993

5.6 ppg 41.1% shooting 3.7 rpg.

Bill Wennington 1994

7.1 ppg 48.8% shooting 4.6 rpg

[Roundball_Rock]

Hey, I like Pip and he was certainly a top five player in 94.


One year? He was just as good in 95' and 96' and nearly as good in 97'. Even duncan21formvp, when he feels like it, will concede 94' but the Team Jordan argument (especially from the MJ fans who never saw Pippen play) is he was basically what Brandon Roy or Chris Bosh are today for the rest of the 90's. Plus he wasn't just a player who barely reached 5th once or twice. Some people had him as high as second or third during his best years and he was the consensus best perimeter player when Jordan was retired and most people had him second for several of the seasons when Jordan was playing. Does this sound like a player on the level of 10' Brandon Roy or 10' Chris Bosh?


Not Hornacek, but it mentions that Krause blew his chance with the Harper trade.

In part because of Williams' injury. I am not saying Krause is without any fault. What I am saying is that it would be easier to find a legit NBA starting SG in the offseason because there would be more options.


My mistake. That being said, Wennington actually put up better numbers than Cartwright did the year before.

Wennington was third string for a reason. It wasn't just about numbers. Wennington was out the NBA and could never beat Longley and Will Perdue ( :roll: ) for the starting C job. I like Wennington. I am glad he is calling Bulls games on the radio now. He was a good player for the role he played but he was never close to being capable of being a NBA starter.


Yes. And like others have told you before, there really wasn't much of a blueprint on how to build around guards before Jordan.

You keep putting a lot of stock in "others." It is basically you and DR. That is it.


And that just goes to show how flawed your logic is unless you actually think Shaq was better in 06 then 05.

He wasn't better. How many instances do we have of him getting hurt or joining/leaving a team? The vast majority of time what happens? There is a trend.


The 94 Bulls didn't have it as bad as the 97 Magic.

PF Grant
SF Scott
C Seiklay
SG Anderson
PG Penny

PF Grant
SF Pippen
C Cartwright
SG Myers
PG Armstrong

Yeah, they had more health but they had much more talent and no glaring hole at a position. They had five good starters and one elite player. Seiklay and Grant were top 10 at their positions.


I find it funny that one day 15-20 years from now, someone is going to look back at Lebron's career, and after many awards, championships, records he's won, that person will look at something on the internet and conclude that he wouldn't have done nearly as much if he didn't have Mo Williams.

Rick Barry? Hakeem? No one is saying they had stacked teams. Duncan in 03' too but that was fairly recent. Lebron will stand the test of time like Barry and Hakeem did if he wins with this team, although of course adding a second scorer helped the team.

The proper comparison is to the typical greats who won with at least one elite teammate. Does anyone hold it against Kareem that he won with Magic? Bird with McHale? Wilt with West? And so on. The only people who do are MJ fans who like to attack everyone else for winning with an elite teammate then complain when people apply their logic to Jordan.

Besides, no one really was talking about Jordan "needing" Pippen in this thread but rather that Jordan needed a great team built around him to compete and that Shaq added more value to his team. That is completely different.

[Alhazred]

One year? He was just as good in 95' and 96' and nearly as good in 97'. Even duncan21formvp, when he feels like it, will concede 94' but the Team Jordan argument (especially from the MJ fans who never saw Pippen play) is he was basically what Brandon Roy or Chris Bosh are today for the rest of the 90's. Plus he wasn't just a player who barely reached 5th once or twice. Some people had him as high as second or third during his best years and he was the consensus best perimeter player when Jordan was retired and most people had him second for several of the seasons when Jordan was playing. Does this sound like a player on the level of 10' Brandon Roy or 10' Chris Bosh?

I didn't say just one year, just that he was definitely top five that season. Calm down, I know he's better than Roy and Bosh. If anything, he's more like what Grant Hill would have been had he stayed healthy and played on a contender.


In part because of Williams' injury. I am not saying Krause is without any fault. What I am saying is that it would be easier to find a legit NBA starting SG in the offseason because there would be more options.

True, but then how do you know Krause wouldn't have messed that up, as well?


Wennington was third string for a reason. It wasn't just about numbers. Wennington was out the NBA and could never beat Longley and Will Perdue ( :roll: ) for the starting C job. I like Wennington. I am glad he is calling Bulls games on the radio now. He was a good player for the role he played but he was never close to being capable of being a NBA starter.

Yet he was still able to outperform the Bulls previous starting center from 93?



PF Grant
SF Scott
C Seiklay
SG Anderson
PG Penny

PF Grant
SF Pippen
C Cartwright
SG Myers
PG Armstrong

Yeah, they had more health but they had much more talent and no glaring hole at a position. They had five good starters and one elite player. Seiklay and Grant were top 10 at their positions.

Kukoc makes up for myers, imo.


Rick Barry? Hakeem? No one is saying they had stacked teams. Duncan in 03' too but that was fairly recent. Lebron will stand the test of time like Barry and Hakeem did if he wins with this team, although of course adding a second scorer helped the team.

The proper comparison is to the typical greats who won with at least one elite teammate. Does anyone hold it against Kareem that he won with Magic? Bird with McHale? Wilt with West? And so on. The only people who do are MJ fans who like to attack everyone else for winning with an elite teammate then complain when people apply their logic to Jordan.

The Celtics, Lakers and every other team has fans who make stupid attacks on other players. It's been going on since the beginning of the NBA and before that, some stupid MJ fans are not alone in doing this.

[Roundball_Rock]

The problem is there is a fleet of about a dozen fans. They basically say the same things so I conflate them. You differ a bit. I was not talking about you but Team Jordan.

Cartwright's value can't solely be determined by stats. Wennington was never as good as Luc Longley let alone Cartwright.


Kukoc makes up for myers, imo.

? Kukoc was a rookie SF. He did nothing to fill their hole at SG. At SG they had Myers and Kerr. One was out the league for two years and the other was barely staying in the league before 94'.

What do you guys think Kukoc did anyway? He averaged 9/4/3 in 19 minutes per game in the playoffs. Against the Knicks he had one double digit scoring game and averaged only 3 rebounds. This offsets losing the "greatest of all-time"? :wtf:


The Celtics, Lakers and every other team has fans who make stupid attacks on other players. It's been going on since the beginning of the NBA and before that, some stupid MJ fans are not alone in doing this.

MJ fans are unique. The natural tendency is to overrate your favorite player's teammates or the players on your favorite team for emotional reasons and for the more practical fact that you see them play more, know more about them, etc. I will read an article about Noah but I couldn't care less about an article about Al Horford.

Look at Laker fans and their overrating of Gasol and Bynum for a prime example. You can find this anywhere, though. Do a search for a Yao vs. Dwight thread. 90% of the people saying Yao is better are Rockets fans. Deron vs. Paul. Nearly every Jazz fan has Deron being better even though the large majority say Paul is better. Nash. Compare the percentage of Suns fans who think he is the best PG to that of the general population. And on and on.

[guy]

You keep putting a lot of stock in "others." It is basically you and DR. That is it.

Who cares? Okay, other people*. Happy?



He wasn't better. How many instances do we have of him getting hurt or joining/leaving a team? The vast majority of time what happens? There is a trend.

Exactly. It goes to show other things can have a huge effect.

Lets see what the trend is when he was off the team for significant time 96-06, which were the years he was an elite player:

96 Magic: 20-8, 71%
97 Magic: 45-37, 55%
97 Lakers: 15-16, 48%
98 Lakers: 15-7, 68%
01 Lakers: 5-3, 63%
02 Lakers: 7-8, 47%
03 Lakers: 5-10, 33%
04 Lakers: 6-8, 43%
05 Lakers: 34-48, 41%
05 Heat: 9-3, 75%
06 Heat: 10-13, 43%

I didn't really look too much into what Shaq's record with them was, cause during this time period it was pretty steady, from about 50-60 wins every year. From the looks of it, the percentages are all over the place, and at least a few of these examples had other factors heavily impacting the record like the 97 Magic and 05 Lakers. So with that being the case, there really is no trend you speak of.




PF Grant
SF Scott
C Seiklay
SG Anderson
PG Penny

PF Grant
SF Pippen
C Cartwright
SG Myers
PG Armstrong

Yeah, they had more health but they had much more talent and no glaring hole at a position. They had five good starters and one elite player. Seiklay and Grant were top 10 at their positions.


If you're always playing with inconsistent lineups its going to have a toll regardless of talent. I'm not really trying to compare the 94 Bulls to the 97 Magic. 94 Pippen > 97 Penny. 94 Grant > 97 Grant. Bulls were better. Pippen was a better leader, more experienced, and himself and Phil Jackson were better at getting a team to deal with issues like this. I wasn't comparing the two. I was comparing the 97 Magic to the 96 Magic, and pointing out that the absence of Shaq wasn't the only significant difference between the two teams.



Rick Barry? Hakeem? No one is saying they had stacked teams. Duncan in 03' too but that was fairly recent. Lebron will stand the test of time like Barry and Hakeem did if he wins with this team, although of course adding a second scorer helped the team.

I'm pointing out that in 20 years some misinformed kid with a computer is going to draw the conclusion that Lebron didn't have GOAT level impact, like you suggest about Jordan, because he didn't win without Mo Williams, and that it took his arrival for Lebron to win a championship. Not sure why you're bringing up Barry and Hakeem.



The proper comparison is to the typical greats who won with at least one elite teammate. Does anyone hold it against Kareem that he won with Magic? Bird with McHale? Wilt with West? And so on. The only people who do are MJ fans who like to attack everyone else for winning with an elite teammate then complain when people apply their logic to Jordan.

Are you f'n kidding me? No one gets the "X didn't win without X" treatment more then Jordan except for probably Kobe before last year, and the main reason he got that was cause people were actually trying to equate Kobe's championships to all the other all-time greats.



Besides, no one really was talking about Jordan "needing" Pippen in this thread but rather that Jordan needed a great team built around him to compete and that Shaq added more value to his team. That is completely different.

Okay but its pretty natural to argue that with you since thats always what you're implying and relating to. You bring up the 94 season in every single thread and post the same article and quotes, so what do you expect?

I have no problem with someone saying Shaq adds more value. If this was 1985, I'd pick Shaq clearly in a draft. But knowing what we know now, knowing what it takes to build around both these two, knowing their strengths, and especially knowing their flaws, to me this is a no-brainer.

[Alhazred]

The problem is there is a fleet of about a dozen fans. They basically say the same things so I conflate them. You differ a bit. I was not talking about you but Team Jordan.

Who exactly is "Team Jordan" comprised of?


Cartwright's value can't solely be determined by stats. Wennington was never as good as Luc Longley let alone Cartwright.

Lol, come on, Wennington played better than Cartwright that year. At their peaks, yes Cartwright was better, but he was 35 in 1993.


? Kukoc was a rookie SF. He did nothing to fill their hole at SG. At SG they had Myers and Kerr. One was out the league for two years and the other was barely staying in the league before 94'.

Kukoc could play sf, sg and pf when need be. Also, Pippen could have played the two with Kukoc at sf as well. Also, Kerr was a good outside threat. We all saw how well he did during the second three-peat.


What do you guys think Kukoc did anyway? He averaged 9/4/3 in 19 minutes per game in the playoffs. Against the Knicks he had one double digit scoring game and averaged only 3 rebounds. This offsets losing the "greatest of all-time"? :wtf:

No, but they were still decent enough to win 55 games and overachieved that year.


MJ fans are unique. The natural tendency is to overrate your favorite player's teammates or the players on your favorite team for emotional reasons and for the more practical fact that you see them play more, know more about them, etc. I will read an article about Noah but I couldn't care less about an article about Al Horford.

Look at Laker fans and their overrating of Gasol and Bynum for a prime example. You can find this anywhere, though. Do a search for a Yao vs. Dwight thread. 90% of the people saying Yao is better are Rockets fans. Deron vs. Paul. Nearly every Jazz fan has Deron being better even though the large majority say Paul is better. Nash. Compare the percentage of Suns fans who think he is the best PG to that of the general population. And on and on.

Are we talking about MJ fans or Bulls fans? You're listing teams, not players.

[Roundball_Rock]

Lets see what the trend is when he was off the team for significant time 96-06, which were the years he was an elite player:

96 Magic: 20-8, 71%
97 Magic: 45-37, 55%
97 Lakers: 15-16, 48%
98 Lakers: 15-7, 68%
01 Lakers: 5-3, 63%
02 Lakers: 7-8, 47%
03 Lakers: 5-10, 33%
04 Lakers: 6-8, 43%
05 Lakers: 34-48, 41%
05 Heat: 9-3, 75%
06 Heat: 10-13, 43%

I didn't really look too much into what Shaq's record with them was

In his book Elliot Kalb points out Shaq's teams won an average of 56 games from 1993-2003 (the number would be higher when you adjust for games Shaq missed. He compares that to Russell's average of 58 wins (Kareem's average is 57). Here are his team's performance with him (with the 82 game pace in parentheses):

41-40 (42)
49-32 (50)
55-24 (57)
40-14 (61)
38-13 (61)
46-14 (63)
31-18 (52, lockout season)
66-13 (69)
51-23 (57)
51-16 (63)
45-22 (55)
49-18 (60)
53-20 (60)
42-17 (58)
25-15 (51)
25-36 (34)
44-31 (48)
10-5 (55)

His career winning percentage translates to approximately 55 wins per year. If you look at his record from 1993-2006 his teams were on pace for 59 wins over 82 games.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3753359#post3753359

Those aren't percentages but people can compare the numbers and reach their own conclusion.


Not sure why you're bringing up Barry and Hakeem.

They were in similar situations to Lebron. :oldlol: @ implying Pippen was on Mo William's level.

I have MJ third or fourth all-time. Of course he had impact. What I argue is that he had less impact than any other top-tier of all-time player.


Are you f'n kidding me? No one gets the "X didn't win without X" treatment more then Jordan

What do you expect? Jordan fans say that about great player after great player so that is going to trigger a response. You were in the Kareem thread, no? The MJ fan argument revolved around two things: 1) "rings as a man" 2) Kareem had Magic for 5 of his rings. What do you expect in response?


Who exactly is "Team Jordan" comprised of?

You'll figure it out soon. It is the same characters in every thread. Not all of them appear in every thread of course but there are always a handful in every thread. You probably have noticed some of them by now.

Wennington was third string for a reason. Cartwright was a solid defender and that does not show up in the stats. Was he great? No but he was definitely better than Wennington.


Kukoc could play sf, sg and pf when need be. Also, Pippen could have played the two with Kukoc at sf as well. Also, Kerr was a good outside threat. We all saw how well he did during the second three-peat.

Your argument is a SF who averaged 9/4/3 in the playoffs in 19 minutes and Kerr, a career backup SG, replace the greatest SG of all-time? Come on. I doubt you really believe that.

Kukoc was a disaster at PF btw in 95'. He scored well but he was a joke when it came to rebounding and struggled defensively. He was a good SF but a lousy PF. Why are you talking about what he could play? He played 19 minutes a game. He was on the bench for 2/3 of games in the 94' playoffs. In the regular season, aside from the 8 games he started, he played 23 minutes per game (24 for the entire season). If he was so great in 94' Jackson could not figure it out. You make it sound as if he was Pippen-lite or Hill-lite.


No, but they were still decent enough to win 55 games and overachieved that year.

That had little to do with Kukoc. They had a top 3 player in Pippen and a top 10 PF in Grant and a good combo guard in Armstrong. What do you expect? 30 wins? Compare them to the other top teams that year (i.e. the Knicks. Pippen more or less=Ewing although Pip was better, Grant=Oakley, Armstrong and Starks were similar in impact although Starks was better especially defensively, and so on.) They did not overachieve. That is a myth MJ fans have pushed to diminish them and to try to hide the fact that MJ played on great teams when he was winning all those "rings as the man." They were just good. However, they had a HUGE hole at SG, though, and if that was corrected they would have likely been champions, especially if it was filled with Hornacek. With a legit SG Hue Hollins could not gift the series to the Knicks.


Are we talking about MJ fans or Bulls fans? You're listing teams, not players.

MJ fans. The same thing applies to player fans. Kobe fans overrate Gasol and Bynum. Kareem fans don't diminish Magic or vice versa. Duncan fans overrated Manu and Parker. Amare fans overrate Nash and vice versa. And on and on. By "overrated" I mean rate substantially higher than the general population does.

[Alhazred]

You'll figure it out soon. It is the same characters in every thread. Not all of them appear in every thread of course but there are always a handful in every thread. You probably have noticed some of them by now.

I've seen a few people say Pippen relied solely on Jordan, but most of them never came off as actual MJ fans.


Wennington was third string for a reason. Cartwright was a solid defender and that does not show up in the stats. Was he great? No but he was definitely better than Wennington.

Nevertheless, he was outperformed by a third stringer. Losing him obviously didn't have that great of an impact at that point.


Your argument is a SF who averaged 9/4/3 in the playoffs in 19 minutes and Kerr, a career backup SG, replace the greatest SG of all-time? Come on. I doubt you really believe that.

They didn't replace him. The team faltered and got knocked out of the second round.


Kukoc was a disaster at PF btw in 95'. He scored well but he was a joke when it came to rebounding and struggled defensively. He was a good SF but a lousy PF. Why are you talking about what he could play? He played 19 minutes a game. He was on the bench for 2/3 of games in the 94' playoffs. In the regular season, aside from the 8 games he started, he played 23 minutes per game (24 for the entire season). If he was so great in 94' Jackson could not figure it out. You make it sound as if he was Pippen-lite or Hill-lite.

15/5/5 are good numbers. No, he was not on Pippen's or Hill's level, but he was a solid player and a legit starter.


That had little to do with Kukoc. They had a top 3 player in Pippen and a top 10 PF in Grant and a good combo guard in Armstrong. What do you expect? 30 wins?

Don't forget the GOAT coach, too.


They had a HUGE hole at SG, though, and if that was corrected they would have likely been champions, especially if it was filled with Hornacek.

Or Harper, but Krause blew that one. :(


MJ fans. The same thing applies to player fans. Kobe fans overrate Gasol and Bynum. Kareem fans don't diminish Magic or vice versa. Duncan fans overrated Manu and Parker. Amare fans overrate Nash and vice versa. And on and on. By "overrated" I mean rate substantially higher than the general population does.

Kobe fans are mixed, some hype up Gasol and Bynum and others think the team isn't stacked enough as well as claiming Bynum is overrated. Duncan fans for the most part seem to think Timmy didn't have much talent in 03 with Manu and Parker. Also, there are Nash fans who think Amare isn't anywhere as good without Nash.

[KobeLookLike2Pac]

The obvious answer is Shaq. The Lakers went from a 56 win team to a 34 win team when he left. The Bulls went from a 57 win team to a 55 win team when Jordan left. Shaq was a more valuable player. Big men bring more value.

[Roundball_Rock]

You are looking only at numbers. The funny thing is guy (or Da Realist but he isn't in this thread) would chide you for that (you are 21, didn't watch basketball in 94', are relying heavily on stats. Basically you are doing what I did regarding the late 80's Bulls) if you were arguing the opposite positions but he is saying nothing since your posting suits his agenda. It isn't just you. I've seen threads that guy is in where several Jordan fans said demonstrably false things like "Pippen did nothing in the 98' finals" and guy is silent on that. Come on, guy. Quit the hypocrisy. :oldlol:

Cartwright was a good defender. That is why he was a starter on three championship teams. He wasn't there for his offense.

Kukoc sucked as a PF. 15/5/5 looks good--for a guard. 5 rebounds a game is horrible for a PF and he was a poor defender. He was a good SF but your team was in trouble if he was your starting PF.

The Harper thing was due in part to bad luck. Don't blame it all on Krause. It wasn't his fault Scott Williams got hurt and the way timing worked out given MJ retiring at the last minute Williams' injury was crucial. If Jordan retired a month earlier Krause may have been able to deal Williams in a trade for Harper.


Kobe fans are mixed, some hype up Gasol and Bynum and others think the team isn't stacked enough as well as claiming Bynum is overrated. Duncan fans for the most part seem to think Timmy didn't have much talent in 03 with Manu and Parker. Also, there are Nash fans who think Amare isn't anywhere as good without Nash.

You are cherry picking isolated cases. The general trends are what I outlined. I am a Amare fan and argued Amare vs. Bynum with several Lakers fan back when they were hyping him early in the season. Do all of them overrated Bynum? No but at least 80% if not 90% do. Sticking with Amare, I did not see a single Suns or Nash fan bash Amare in those Amare vs. Bynum threads. See for yourself. http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3773216#post3773216 http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=156573

Duncan fans are correct about 2003. Everyone agrees with that.

[Alhazred]

You are looking only at numbers. The funny thing is guy would chide you for that if you were arguing the opposite positions but he is saying nothing since your posting suits his agenda.

Cartwright was a good defender. That is why he was a starter on three championship teams. He wasn't there for his offense.

He got outrebounded, too. It wasn't just offense.


Kukoc sucked as a PF. 15/5/5 looks good--for a guard. 5 rebounds a game is horrible for a PF and he was a poor defender. He was a good SF but your team was in trouble if he was your starting PF.

Lol, true. He was a decent forward, though.


The Harper thing was due in part to bad luck. Don't blame it all on Krause. It wasn't his fault Scott Williams got hurt and the way timing worked out given MJ retiring at the last minute Williams' injury was crucial. If Jordan retired a month earlier Krause may have been able to deal Williams in a trade for Harper.

Here's what happened. Dallas was willing to give up Harper for Williams and another player. Krause then offered them a first round pick and just that. He got turned down. Williams got injured after that. Krause had his chance and he failed. Quit blaming the guy who wasn't there at the time and start blaming the one who actually messed up.




You are cherry picking isolated cases. The general trends are what I outlined. I am a Amare fan and argued Amare vs. Bynum with several Lakers fan back when they were hyping him early in the season. Do all of them overrated Bynum? No but at least 80% if not 90% do. Sticking with Amare, I did not see a single Suns or Nash fan bash Amare in those Amare vs. Bynum threads. See for yourself. http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3773216#post3773216 http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=156573

:lol Give it up, man.


Duncan fans are correct about 2003. Everyone agrees with that.

Parker, Ginobili, Robinson, Bowen, these guys didn't have an impact?

[Alhazred]

The obvious answer is Shaq. The Lakers went from a 56 win team to a 34 win team when he left. The Bulls went from a 57 win team to a 55 win team when Jordan left. Shaq was a more valuable player. Big men bring more value.

A better comparison is the Bulls going from 62 wins and a championship to worse than the Clippers after Jordan left.

[Roundball_Rock]

A better comparison is the Bulls going from 62 wins and a championship to worse than the Clippers after Jordan left.

:oldlol: Jordan retired because he did not want to play without Pippen or Jackson (I wonder why...) and they left. So did Rodman and Longley. The Bulls lost their three best players and four starters. That was hardly the same team. The 94' Bulls had all the key players the 93' Bulls had except for Jordan. The rest of the starting five was exactly the same.

Cartwright wasn't there for rebounding either. That was Grant's job. Cartwright was a good defender, especially historically against Ewing. He was a veteran while Longley was a second year player and Wennington was out the league for a few years. He was given more leeway on defense than they were.


Lol, true. He was a decent forward, though.

Better than decent imo. A good one as a SF. As a PF he sucked because he lacked the toughness and strength a PF needed. All he had was the height of a PF. As a SF his numbers were not Earth shattering but he was a 6th man playing limited minutes and the "#3 option" on offense behind Jordan and Pippen. He could do a lot more in a featured role. He did average 19 ppg in 99' as the "#1 option." Yeah, he did little after Chicago but he was 31 by then.

You are incorrect on Williams and the Harper trade. Negotiations were ongoing when Williams got hurt and his injury killed any shot they had at Harper.

What? Read the threads yourself. Do you see a fleet of Kobe fans bashing Bynum or Nash fans attacking Amare?

Duncan had one of the weakest "supporting casts" of any championship team in 2003. No one disputes this. That team is up there with the 94' Rockets and the 75' or whenever it was in the mid-70's that Barry's Warriors won.

[Alhazred]

:oldlol: Jordan retired because he did not want to play without Pippen or Jackson (I wonder why...) and they left. So did Rodman and Longley. The Bulls lost their three best players and four starters. That was hardly the same team. The 94' Bulls had all the key players the 93' Bulls had except for Jordan. The rest of the starting five was exactly the same.

The 05 Lakers lost Shaq, Malone, Payton and Jackson. The 94 Bulls are the team that doesn't fit.


Cartwright wasn't there for rebounding either. That was Grant's job. Cartwright was a good defender, especially historically against Ewing. He was a veteran while Longley was a second year player and Wennington was out the league for a few years. He was given more leeway on defense than they were.

Regardless of past history, their was no noticeable difference between Cartwright and Wennington between 93 and 94. It's a wash.


Better than decent imo. A good one as a SF. As a PF he sucked because he lacked the toughness and strength a PF needed. All he had was the height of a PF. As a SF his numbers were not Earth shattering but he was a 6th man playing limited minutes and the "#3 option" on offense behind Jordan and Pippen. He could do a lot more in a featured role. He did average 19 ppg in 99' as the "#1 option." Yeah, he did little after Chicago but he was 31 by then.

:cheers: I also thought he was a very good player. One of my top five favorite Bulls players along with Jordan, Grant, Pippen and Rodman.


You are incorrect on Williams and the Harper trade. Negotiations were ongoing when Williams got hurt and his injury killed any shot they had at Harper.

Krause initally only offered a single number one pick. If he had coughed up Wiliams earlier, the Bulls could have had Harper.




What? Read the threads yourself. Do you see a fleet of Kobe fans bashing Bynum or Nash fans attacking Amare?

No more than I see people bashing Scottie.


Duncan had one of the weakest "supporting casts" of any championship team in 2003. No one disputes this. That team is up there with the 94' Rockets and the 75' or whenever it was in the mid-70's that Barry's Warriors won.

So what does that say about Shaq, considering he had Kobe that year? Maybe we've been comparing MJ to the wrong guy. :oldlol:

[Leviathon1121]

I have not seen a single person in this thread say Pippen was not a top 5-10 player during his prime in the league. I have not seen a single person in this thread say Jordan won everything by himself. And yet, here you are again Roundball, discrediting everything Jordan has ever accomplished because of poor unappreciated Pippen.

Where exactly are these "Team Jordan" people? I can't say I have seen much if anything like these people in any thread recently. Yet your crusade continues as if you are the only enlightened basketball mind that has ever graced the earth and it is your mission to destroy these invisible "Team Jordan" people.

[Leviathon1121]

The problem is there is a fleet of about a dozen fans. They basically say the same things so I conflate them. You differ a bit. I was not talking about you but Team Jordan.

Well, there you have it Alhazred. You have made very thought out posts, have not once even come close to insinuating that Jordan won anything by himself, or that Pippen is overrated, and you ONLY differ a bit to Roundball. Either we all agree with him about everything he says or we are all "Team Jordan" to him, arguing with someone like this is pointless.

[guy]

In his book Elliot Kalb points out Shaq's teams won an average of 56 games from 1993-2003 (the number would be higher when you adjust for games Shaq missed. He compares that to Russell's average of 58 wins (Kareem's average is 57). Here are his team's performance with him (with the 82 game pace in parentheses):

41-40 (42)
49-32 (50)
55-24 (57)
40-14 (61)
38-13 (61)
46-14 (63)
31-18 (52, lockout season)
66-13 (69)
51-23 (57)
51-16 (63)
45-22 (55)
49-18 (60)
53-20 (60)
42-17 (58)
25-15 (51)
25-36 (34)
44-31 (48)
10-5 (55)

His career winning percentage translates to approximately 55 wins per year. If you look at his record from 1993-2006 his teams were on pace for 59 wins over 82 games.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3753359#post3753359

Those aren't percentages but people can compare the numbers and reach their own conclusion.

Nice. It looks like you compiled the rest. Actually from 93-06, Shaq's teams were on pace for 57 wins, not 59. If you did the same for Jordan, he's actually 54 wins per 82, 1 less then Shaq. If you take out Jordan's Wizard years, like you did for Shaq's past 4 seasons, he's at about 56. Of course this doesn't tell the whole story. It doesn't take into account that Shaq played with much better teams then what Jordan had in almost all of the 80s except for about 1.5 seasons (93, and the first half of the 07-08 season), and Jordan's Wizard seasons, and more importantly, it doesn't take injuries into account, which Shaq had way more of. The durability of a player should definitely play into "impact".

Anyway, I wasn't trying to say Shaq didn't have much impact. I was just pointing that W-L records without a star player isn't a great way to measure impact because as I showed in Shaq's case, its very different in each. Some teams didn't fall off that badly, some fell off really badly. There wasn't a trend.



They were in similar situations to Lebron. :oldlol: @ implying Pippen was on Mo William's level.

I don't believe either one of them had a teammate that came on and improved the team 15-20 games.

I wasn't implying anything about Pippen. I was talking about your ridiculous logic revolving around putting a player on or off a team and seeing how much the team improves or declines and concluding that there is their impact. According to that logic, someone in 20 years is going to look back and conclude that Mo had this HOF like impact.



I have MJ third or fourth all-time. Of course he had impact. What I argue is that he had less impact than any other top-tier of all-time player.


Well I have to highly disagree with that. Not sure what you mean by top tier. If you mean the general consensus top 10, I find that somewhat laughable. But to each his own.



What do you expect? Jordan fans say that about great player after great player so that is going to trigger a response. You were in the Kareem thread, no? The MJ fan argument revolved around two things: 1) "rings as a man" 2) Kareem had Magic for 5 of his rings. What do you expect in response?


I don't see what's wrong with bringing that up when people try to equate Kareem's 6 rings with Jordan's which many times they try to do. It doesn't necessarily mean Jordan is better, but I understand why its brought up in that case.

Either way, from the beginning there's always been more "Jordan couldn't win without Pippen" comments as opposed to "Magic couldn't win without Kareem", "Bird couldn't win without Parish or McHale", etc. There's absolutely no denying that. Point is Jordan fans aren't the only ones that hold that argument against players. Pretty much everyone does, which in many ways is unfair.




You are looking only at numbers. The funny thing is guy (or Da Realist but he isn't in this thread) would chide you for that (you are 21, didn't watch basketball in 94', are relying heavily on stats. Basically you are doing what I did regarding the late 80's Bulls) if you were arguing the opposite positions but he is saying nothing since your posting suits his agenda. It isn't just you. I've seen threads that guy is in where several Jordan fans said demonstrably false things like "Pippen did nothing in the 98' finals" and guy is silent on that. Come on, guy. Quit the hypocrisy.

LOL. Dude I can't respond to everyone. I try not to read every single poster's posts and then respond to them cause I would literally waste my whole day doing that. I have an agenda? I'm on this board alot and respond to many threads based on many different topics.

Most of the people that say crap like "Pippen did nothing" have no idea what they're talking about, and for the most part it shows. They're not much worse then the Kobe trolls who will post a bunch of crap trying to make him look like the GOAT, and will go to the opposite extreme and overrate Pippen to make Kobe look better vs. Jordan. I don't respond to either of them because their a bunch of idiot trolls that really don't know what they're talking about. They are not worth the response.

Most of the Jordan/Bulls fans that know about Pippen generally don't overrate or underrate Pippen, so they won't say things like "Pippen did nothing" and for the most part, I agree with many of their points, so thats why I don't feel the need to respond to them.

So you might wonder why I respond to you? Cause I don't really think of you as those trolls. I do think you have an agenda, but I'll respond to it sometimes because although I think you really don't know what you're talking about and have some really flawed logic to your conclusions, you seem to have done alot of research and know some history. You've put the time and effort to put out well-thought out arguments, even though I think they're mostly all wrong.

[Roundball_Rock]

Your agenda? Propping up Jordan, diminishing Pippen. Does that mean that is all you post about? No, but not all of my posts are about Jordan either. How many Jordan threads have I ever posted? Most of the MJ threads I have made actually were pro-MJ (from when I first joined ISH)...


Nice. It looks like you compiled the rest. Actually from 93-06, Shaq's teams were on pace for 57 wins, not 59.

Yeah, I meant 94-06'. BTW I did list his whole record. I even included this year (10-5 at the time). The 94-06' thing was because the thread was an advocacy thread for Shaq.


I don't see what's wrong with bringing that up when people try to equate Kareem's 6 rings with Jordan's which many times they try to do. It doesn't necessarily mean Jordan is better, but I understand why its brought up in that case.

There is nothing wrong with it but there also is nothing wrong with the obvious response that will trigger. Jordan fans love saying it when it comes to everyone else but complain when the same thing is done with respect to Jordan.


"Magic couldn't win without Kareem", "Bird couldn't win without Parish or McHale", etc.

? I haven't seen that since I have been here. How many Bird, Kareem, or Magic threads are there? If you read this forum you would think the NBA began in 1990.

It isn't just you. I never see any of the "reasonable" MJ fans correct some blatant misconceptions even when they are in the thread responding to other things. They ignore them because, for whatever reason, MJ fans as a group think Pippen looking worse will somehow elevate Jordan. The last time I checked he is #1 on 90% of lists. He is high as he can go.


e Kobe trolls who will post a bunch of crap trying to make him look like the GOAT, and will go to the opposite extreme and overrate Pippen to make Kobe look better vs. Jordan

Can you explain this Kobe/Pippen thing I keep hearing MJ fans talk about? I said the following in another thread:


MJ fans. You are a Bulls fan. There is a difference. Only a couple of these MJ fans are Bulls fans (guy, Samuri to name two). You never see most of them defending Rose or talking about what the Bulls should do in 2010 or in a Bulls game thread. Look at any Pippen thread and note who it is who is bashing him. It is the same dozen or so posters and 90% of them aren't Oscar Robertson or Vince Carter fans.

They hide behind Kobe and say they launched a crusade against Pip because Kobe fans "overrate Pippen." Evidently the grand plan is to elevate Pippen to diminish MJ from #1 all-time to #2 or #3 all-time (because somehow elevating Pippen will downgrade Jordan, even though Kareem played with Magic, Wilt with West, etc.) so Kobe can overtake MJ by going from #10 all-time to...#10 all-time. Hey, that is their theory! However, that excuse doesn't fly. You will also notice in those threads that hardly any Kobe fans defend Pippen. It is always Bulls/Pippen fans like me, 97 bulls, kshutts, and hitmary along with a few random people in a given thread. The only Kobe fan who consistently defends Pippen is soopa. If there is a vast Kobe fan conspiracy to elevate Pippen most Kobe fans missed the memo. Besides, it is an idiotic theory. So idiotic that MJ fans should not take it seriously. How exactly would Pippen being viewed as great cause Jordan to tumble from #1 in most eyes? All the greats played with great players when they won rings, some of them with players greater than Pippen. They will probably say "Shaq!". Get real. Everyone knows Shaq>Pippen. Besides, 99% of people on this board believe MJ>Kobe. There is no legit comparison or competition between MJ and Kobe. So why the crusade against a "threat" that does not exist and even if it did would be a farce? Even if Pippen magically moves up to #7 all-time so what (which no one argues) MJ is still MJ. Shaq still>Pippen. MJ still>Kobe.


Most of the Jordan/Bulls fans that know about Pippen generally don't overrate or underrate Pippen,

Jordan fans as a group here underrate him. He is almost always 25th, give or take a few spots, on lists. They will say he is top 35, top 40, one guy says he is not top 50, another somehow claims that Pippen is top 25 yet peak Pippen would not even be top 5 today. There are just guys who have stated their rankings. Then there are others. I don't want to name names because it isn't personal but I didn't make these people up (if you think I made them up shoot me a PM). Three of them are in most Pippen threads and one used to be but doesn't post much anymore. Da_Realist and you rate him highly, although you are a strange case since you only talk about him in a negative manner. You are like OldSchoolBBall in that sense, although I get the vibe that OSB genuinely dislikes Pip and you don't. At best you will say "He was a great player but he was overrated for the following ten reasons". :oldlol:

The irony is I have Jordan #3 or #4 all-time and concede he has a case for GOAT. I am in the ballpark with him. I have Pippen 18th-20th. In other words, I am off only a few spots from his average ranking but what do you expect from a Pippen fan and plus I weight winning. The typical MJ fan here is farther off from Pippen's typical ranking then I am on Pippen or Jordan. :oldlol:

[juju151111]

Your agenda? Propping up Jordan, diminishing Pippen. Does that mean that is all you post about? No, but not all of my posts are about Jordan either. How many Jordan threads have I ever posted? Most of the MJ threads I have made actually were pro-MJ (from when I first joined ISH)...



Yeah, I meant 94-06'. BTW I did list his whole record. I even included this year (10-5 at the time). The 94-06' thing was because the thread was an advocacy thread for Shaq.



There is nothing wrong with it but there also is nothing wrong with the obvious response that will trigger. Jordan fans love saying it when it comes to everyone else but complain when the same thing is done with respect to Jordan.



? I haven't seen that since I have been here. How many Bird, Kareem, or Magic threads are there? If you read this forum you would think the NBA began in 1990.

It isn't just you. I never see any of the "reasonable" MJ fans correct some blatant misconceptions even when they are in the thread responding to other things. They ignore them because, for whatever reason, MJ fans as a group think Pippen looking worse will somehow elevate Jordan. The last time I checked he is #1 on 90% of lists. He is high as he can go.



Can you explain this Kobe/Pippen thing I keep hearing MJ fans talk about? I said the following in another thread:





Jordan fans as a group here underrate him. He is almost always 25th, give or take a few spots, on lists. They will say he is top 35, top 40, one guy says he is not top 50, another somehow claims that Pippen is top 25 yet peak Pippen would not even be top 5 today. There are just guys who have stated their rankings. Then there are others. I don't want to name names because it isn't personal but I didn't make these people up (if you think I made them up shoot me a PM). Three of them are in most Pippen threads and one used to be but doesn't post much anymore. Da_Realist and you rate him highly, although you are a strange case since you only talk about him in a negative manner. You are like OldSchoolBBall in that sense, although I get the vibe that OSB genuinely dislikes Pip and you don't. At best you will say "He was a great player but he was overrated for the following ten reasons". :oldlol:

The irony is I have Jordan #3 or #4 all-time and concede he has a case for GOAT. I am in the ballpark with him. I have Pippen 18th-20th. In other words, I am off only a few spots from his average ranking but what do you expect from a Pippen fan and plus I weight winning. The typical MJ fan here is farther off from Pippen's typical ranking then I am on Pippen or Jordan. :oldlol:
LOL Your first statement about pro Mj thread sounds just like Fatal. He says the same crap. How is ranking Pippen 25th wrong?? You have Pippen 7 spots from where he is normally at. 3 away from 10. You act like people can't see your agenda here man. It's been obvious from the start. Some Mj trolls didn't agree with you on Pip and bashed him, so u go on missions in every thread to downgrade MJ. In the last 4 months u dropped MJ from 1st to 4th. LOL Give it up you tool.

[Roundball_Rock]

Your first statement about pro Mj thread sounds just like Fatal. He says the same crap. H

Fatal? You mean the guy I argued with that MJ was the GOAT?

Pippen 25th is not wrong. Neither is having him 5th or 95th btw. People can have opinions. That is why we have a place like this. What I said is the typical ranking is him 25th, give or take a few spots. 35th, 40th, outside the top 50 is way off the mark. :oldlol: @ you saying prime Pippen would be just another top 10 player if he played today and then saying I am way off the mark for saying MJ is #3 or #4 all-time.


It's been obvious from the start.

Really? Is that why I saw MJ fans pasting a thread I made when I first joined ISH elsewhere on the internet?


Some Mj trolls didn't agree with you on Pip and bashed him

Your words, not mine. They did it before I got here. Do you think I signed up the first time I read this forum? The Pip bashing is what caused me to move from a lurker to sign up. After posting here for a while and getting to know posters I noticed 90% of the people bashing Pippen "happen" to be MJ fans.

[juju151111]

Fatal? You mean the guy I argued with that MJ was the GOAT?

Pippen 25th is not wrong. Neither is having him 5th or 95th btw. People can have opinions. That is why we have a place like this. What I said is the typical ranking is him 25th, give or take a few spots. 35th, 40th, outside the top 50 is way off the mark. :oldlol: @ you saying prime Pippen would be just another top 10 player if he played today and then saying I am way off the mark for saying MJ is #3 or #4 all-time.



Really? Is that why I saw MJ fans pasting a thread I made when I first joined ISH elsewhere on the internet?



Your words, not mine. They did it before I got here. Do you think I signed up the first time I read this forum? The Pip bashing is what caused me to move from a lurker to sign up. After posting here for a while and getting to know posters I noticed 90% of the people bashing Pippen "happen" to be MJ fans.
I find it funny you were a lurker, but you said you never seen Fatal BS 2008 year posts???? LOL DuH MJ fans bash Pippen because Kobe fans used Pip. They are trolls its wat they do. Just like Mj fans use Shaq and gasol to degrade Pip. :confusedshrug:

[Roundball_Rock]

:oldlol: do you think an opinion person like me lurked for over a year before joining? I lurked for about 2 months.


MJ fans bash Pippen because Kobe fans used Pip.

Where? Who? Can you respond to:


MJ fans. You are a Bulls fan. There is a difference. Only a couple of these MJ fans are Bulls fans (guy, Samuri to name two). You never see most of them defending Rose or talking about what the Bulls should do in 2010 or in a Bulls game thread. Look at any Pippen thread and note who it is who is bashing him. It is the same dozen or so posters and 90% of them aren't Oscar Robertson or Vince Carter fans.

They hide behind Kobe and say they launched a crusade against Pip because Kobe fans "overrate Pippen." Evidently the grand plan is to elevate Pippen to diminish MJ from #1 all-time to #2 or #3 all-time (because somehow elevating Pippen will downgrade Jordan, even though Kareem played with Magic, Wilt with West, etc.) so Kobe can overtake MJ by going from #10 all-time to...#10 all-time. Hey, that is their theory! However, that excuse doesn't fly. You will also notice in those threads that hardly any Kobe fans defend Pippen. It is always Bulls/Pippen fans like me, 97 bulls, kshutts, and hitmary along with a few random people in a given thread. The only Kobe fan who consistently defends Pippen is soopa. If there is a vast Kobe fan conspiracy to elevate Pippen most Kobe fans missed the memo. Besides, it is an idiotic theory. So idiotic that MJ fans should not take it seriously. How exactly would Pippen being viewed as great cause Jordan to tumble from #1 in most eyes? All the greats played with great players when they won rings, some of them with players greater than Pippen. They will probably say "Shaq!". Get real. Everyone knows Shaq>Pippen. Besides, 99% of people on this board believe MJ>Kobe. There is no legit comparison or competition between MJ and Kobe. So why the crusade against a "threat" that does not exist and even if it did would be a farce? Even if Pippen magically moves up to #7 all-time so what (which no one argues) MJ is still MJ. Shaq still>Pippen. MJ still>Kobe.

[ShaqAttack3234]

How could you see taking Shaq over Jordan?

According to ShaqAttack's rules ... they didn't DO anything.

In 1995, got BOUNCED in the FINALS, in a SWEEP.

In 1996, got BOUNCED in the ECF, in a SWEEP (via past his prime Jordan)

In 1997, got BOUNCED by the Jazz in the Western Semis, 4 games to 1

In 1998 got BOUNCED in the WCF, by the Jazz, in a SWEEP

Noticing a pattern here?

And it wasn't like each one of these teams was lacking in talent.

In 1999 got BOUNCED in the WCF, by the Spurs, in get this ... a SWEEP

Once Kobe Bryant developed into a legit star caliber player ... the Lakers went onto win a ring in 2000

Then in 2001, when Kobe eclipsed star player status, and went to the "superstar" realm ... the Lakers became even more dominant.

So you could really see taking Shaq over Jordan? Prime Jordan doesn't go down in sweeps.

In 1995, Shaq averaged 28 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 6 apg and 2.5 bpg in the finals on 60% shooting. If Nick Anderson doesn't miss four straight free throws, they don't get sweeped, but I guess that's Shaq's fault. :oldlol: And where exactly did Jordan lead his team at 23 years old or his 3rd season?

1996. Shaq was swept by the team with the best record ever, no shame in that. He still played very well.

1997, same thing, O'Neal played well, but his supporting cast forgot to show up.

1998, O'Neal was a beast in the playoffs, averaging 31/10 on 61% shooting, now look up his teammates numbers.

1999, you have a legit point, but there is the disctraction of the 3 head coaches, the shortened season and the Rodman distraction.

In 2000, Shaq led them to a 12-3 record without Kobe and Kobe averaged 15/4/4 on 36% shooting in the finals and missed 2 games while Shaq averaged 38/17/3/2 on 61% shooting.

In 2001, Shaq also led the Lakers to a great record without Kobe(11-3).

[guy]

Your agenda? Propping up Jordan, diminishing Pippen. Does that mean that is all you post about? No, but not all of my posts are about Jordan either. How many Jordan threads have I ever posted? Most of the MJ threads I have made actually were pro-MJ (from when I first joined ISH)...

I'm not propping up Jordan or diminishing Pippen. I'm just having discussions with people. I'm not actually starting these threads or trying to find little things to argue with. I'm also not making outrageous claims about either Jordan or Pippen. I'm naturally going to have discussions about Jordan since I watched the guy religiously for over a decade and Pippen to a lesser extent.




There is nothing wrong with it but there also is nothing wrong with the obvious response that will trigger. Jordan fans love saying it when it comes to everyone else but complain when the same thing is done with respect to Jordan.

I understand why that response comes out. But its not the same thing. Saying Kareem didn't win 6 rings as the man, and that he won 3-4 them as a 2nd option or worse is not meant to diminish him. Its the truth. It doesn't mean Kareem couldn't have won 6 rings as the man, it just means he did not. Saying Jordan didn't win without Pippen is irrelevant, cause unlike Kareem, he won all of his as the best player, so it shouldn't be brought up as a response. But now I'm just talking about pointless anyway, cause lets face it, there's no changing that from happening.



? I haven't seen that since I have been here. How many Bird, Kareem, or Magic threads are there? If you read this forum you would think the NBA began in 1990.

Yes, cause like I said, Jordan gets that treatment way more then all of them.



It isn't just you. I never see any of the "reasonable" MJ fans correct some blatant misconceptions even when they are in the thread responding to other things. They ignore them because, for whatever reason, MJ fans as a group think Pippen looking worse will somehow elevate Jordan. The last time I checked he is #1 on 90% of lists. He is high as he can go.


I can't really speak for everyone else.




Can you explain this Kobe/Pippen thing I keep hearing MJ fans talk about? I said the following in another thread:


LOL I don't think its that serious. Kobe fans first started saying Jordan couldn't without Pippen in response to Kobe can't win without Shaq, and eventually started overrating Pippen to further there argument for Kobe>Jordan or at least that he's closer then most of us think. I don't think anyone has said its part of some grand plan. Its just a trend here.



Jordan fans as a group here underrate him. He is almost always 25th, give or take a few spots, on lists. They will say he is top 35, top 40, one guy says he is not top 50, another somehow claims that Pippen is top 25 yet peak Pippen would not even be top 5 today. There are just guys who have stated their rankings. Then there are others. I don't want to name names because it isn't personal but I didn't make these people up (if you think I made them up shoot me a PM). Three of them are in most Pippen threads and one used to be but doesn't post much anymore. Da_Realist and you rate him highly, although you are a strange case since you only talk about him in a negative manner. You are like OldSchoolBBall in that sense, although I get the vibe that OSB genuinely dislikes Pip and you don't. At best you will say "He was a great player but he was overrated for the following ten reasons". :oldlol:


I don't hate Pippen and I don't purposefully try to talk about him in a negative manner. I've always been a fan. It annoyed me back in the day when everyone underrated him, then eventually he started getting his due, but then he eventually got overrated, which is also annoying. As one of my favorite players ever, I don't think its right to make him out to be more then he was. We should just appreciate him for what he was. I'm also an AI fan, and the same thing can be said about him.


Part of the negative manner towards him comes because in most of the discussions about him, he's brought up in a direct or indirect comparison to someone like Jordan, Bird, Shaq, Lebron, Kobe, etc. So when that comes up, I'm obviously going to talk down about him cause people are overrating him when they compare to those guys. And when I say indirectly, an example would be the "Jordan couldn't win without Pippen" response to "Kobe couldn't win without Shaq" which implies that Pippen was somewhat close to Shaq.

[Roundball_Rock]

I'm not propping up Jordan or diminishing Pippen. I'm just having discussions with people. I'm not actually starting these threads

How many anti-Jordan threads have I ever started? MJ fans act as if I am here every day with a new screed on Jordan. My computer's windows crashed in July so I lost my bookmarks but here is a list of topics I have started since then:

By title


Jordan went to NC Boys State? (giving props to MJ for showing intelligence and leadership abilities even in 11th grade)
Perception is reality? Lebron vs. Dirk in the playoffs
Charles Barkley's cheapshot against Pippen tonight
The NBA's backup plan: Joe Johnson
Was Wilt as selfish as Bill Simmons alleges?
Rank the following PF's: Amare, Bosh, Boozer, and Gasol
Rose rated 26th in the league
What do you expect from the Suns' next few games?
How should a MVP be determined?
Is Kareem the GOAT?
How do you distinguish between "1a/1b" and "1/2"?
Touched by NC girl's death, Shaq pays for funeral
92' finals: Game 6, Bulls come back from down 15 in the fourth quarter
Favorite Iverson moment
Two Phoenix Suns game threads
Ewing and the NJ coaching vacancy
Ewing and his historical ranking
What if the Bulls traded Jordan in 1988?
Shaq is top 5 all-time
Is Noah the third best center in the East?
Pippen on Christmas during the 1994-95 season (my favorite game ever)
Myth: Derrick Rose is in a sophomore slump
F1 GOAT Schumacher close to a comeback!!!
Amare: 21/11 over the past nine games
Pau Gasol vs. Dirk Nowitzki
ISH age breakdown survey
How many of you saw “old legends”
SNL
Pippen jersey to be retired at UCA
Scott Skiles being hospitalized (which I heard while listening to a Bulls game yet I am called a closet Lakers fan by several MJ fans?)
Bosh to Bulls rumor (for Hinrich and Thomas)

By topic

Pippen 5 (counting the 92' finals link, even though I gave props to MJ in that thread too. I also counted the 88' MJ trade hypothetical as a Pippen thread and a Jordan thread)
Shaq 2
Ewing 2
Phoenix Suns game threads 2
Jordan 2
Rose 2
Noah 1
Phoenix Suns 1
Lebron vs. Dirk 1
Amare 1
Comparing 4 PF's 1
Joe Johnson 1
Kareem 1
Iverson 1
Wilt 1
MVP criteria 1
Michael Schumacher 1
Age survey 1
SNL 1
Scott Skiles 1
Bosh trade rumor 1

Part of the problem is I usually don't come across MJ fans in a typical thread I am in, whether I created it or not. I have seen you in Bulls threads but I can only remember talking to you once about something not related to Jordan or Pippen and that was Boozer.


I understand why that response comes out. But its not the same thing. Saying Kareem didn't win 6 rings as the man, and that he won 3-4 them as a 2nd option or worse is not meant to diminish him. Its the truth. It doesn't mean Kareem couldn't have won 6 rings as the man, it just means he did not.

It raises the team strength issue. That is where Pippen becomes relevant. Kareem played with 0 all-stars from ages 26-31. Jordan had Pippen during that period. By the time Kareem got his dominant team he was 32 and too old to win a zillion rings as the clear cut "man" on his team. If you switched the two would Jordan have more "rings as the man"? Perhaps but he would not have 6 like he did and Kareem would have more than 2 as the clear cut "man". When the entire case made by MJ fans in that thread revolved around "rings as the man" that is naturally going to shine a light on the team issue.


Kobe fans first started saying Jordan couldn't without Pippen in response to Kobe can't win without Shaq, and eventually started overrating Pippen to further there argument for Kobe>Jordan or at least that he's closer then most of us think. I don't think anyone has said its part of some grand plan. Its just a trend here.

Where? It would be nice to have help from all these allegedly pro-Pippen Kobe fans whenever Pippen comes up and I have to go up against a dozen Jordan fans, with 90% of them saying Pippen sucks even though half of them did not even see Pippen play ( example: anyone who says Pippen did nothing in the 98' finals obviously did not watch basketball in 1998). Where are they? It is basically always me, 97 bulls, kshutts, and hitmary if he happens to be online. (side note: I don't know about hitmary but 97, kshutts, and I are still Bulls fans. Most Jordan fans here seem to have jumped off the bandwagon in 1998 yet these clowns call me a closet Lakers fan? :roll: ) Where are the Kobe fans? You should know this because you are in a lot of these threads. I don't see the fleet of Kobe fans defending Pippen like they do with, say, Bynum (or at least used to until a few weeks ago :oldlol: ).

I don't buy this "Kobe>Jordan" claim Jordan fans hide behind to bash Pippen. Who? Can you name three legit posters here who think that? Gimmicks and trolls don't count.


I don't hate Pippen and I don't purposefully try to talk about him in a negative manner. I've always been a fan. It annoyed me back in the day when everyone underrated him, then eventually he started getting his due, but then he eventually got overrated, which is also annoying. As one of my favorite players ever, I don't think its right to make him out to be more then he was. We should just appreciate him for what he was. I'm also an AI fan, and the same thing can be said about him.

The thing is I never see you correct the people underrating him and you see far more of that in Pippen/Jordan threads than overrating him. A guy two posts above you could say something like "Peak Pippen would not be a top 5 player today" and you will let that slide but if someone says something in the other direction like comparing Pippen to Lebron you will be all over that person.

[guy]

The thing is I never see you correct the people underrating him and you see far more of that in Pippen/Jordan threads than overrating him. A guy two posts above you could say something like "Peak Pippen would not be a top 5 player today" and you will let that slide but if someone says something in the other direction like comparing Pippen to Lebron you will be all over that person.

I'm not going to bother responding to the rest, cause we're really going off topic and I don't want to spend my time talking about something that really has nothing to do with basketball, which is what I come here for. To the above though, like I said, I don't respond to everyone, such as people that underrate Pippen who are mostly all trolls and gimmicks like you mentioned. I only respond to some posters on here such as yourself. For whatever reason, I like having discussions with you. And by the way, I don't think you're a closet Kobe fan, in case you think thats what I think.

[triangleoffense]

eww at any jordan comparison, especially with players post 2000 (hand-check rule). Especially since one is a guard and one is a center. Shooting 57% for the season is maybe semi above par/mediocre for a player who is only taking shots inside the paint. Shooting 54% for the season as a guard, however, is a tremendous feat. Plus Shaq needed top5 shooting guards to win all of his titles in Kobe and Wade. Jordan had Pippen who isn't even a top5 SF.

Obvious teeny troll owned.

Also, Shaq got bitched out of LA by Kobe and the upper management. you think Pippen could have done that to Jordan? Jordan was above the owner in chicago.

this is why shaq will never have a statue outside staples but kobe will. Plus his need for attention is borderline sociopathic narcissistic/disgusting. rofl he can't even average 10/7 now being that disgusting a human being and that fat and huge rofl.

[juju151111]

:oldlol: do you think an opinion person like me lurked for over a year before joining? I lurked for about 2 months.



Where? Who? Can you respond to:
i am sorry this forum doesn't have a seach system and i don't bookmark posts like you do.

[fadeaway3]

this is why shaq will never have a statue outside staples but kobe will. Plus his need for attention is borderline sociopathic narcissistic/disgusting. rofl he can't even average 10/7 now being that disgusting a human being and that fat and huge rofl.

Nope, pretty sure you got him confused with his former teammate whom I've gone ahead and bolded his name for you. Pretty sure Shaq never raped a woman, that's definitely cause for being a "disgusting human being". Pretty sure Shaq never tried to completely emulate every single move and mannerisim of another player like Kobe did with MJ. Now THAT'S, borderline sociopathic disgusting. Even tried to talk/sound just like him. Really, really disturbing. Kobe's that kind of person who nobody really likes and is loner so they desperately cry out for attention, hence the rape. Most people love Shaq and think he is a funny guy. More people will miss Shaq and his humor when he retires than Kobe and his lack of charisma/fakeness.

[triangleoffense]

[quote=Roundball_Rock]How many anti-Jordan threads have I ever started? MJ fans act as if I am here every day with a new screed on Jordan. My computer's windows crashed in July so I lost my bookmarks but here is a list of topics I have started since then:

By title


Jordan went to NC Boys State? (giving props to MJ for showing intelligence and leadership abilities even in 11th grade)
Perception is reality? Lebron vs. Dirk in the playoffs
Charles Barkley's cheapshot against Pippen tonight
The NBA's backup plan: Joe Johnson
Was Wilt as selfish as Bill Simmons alleges?
Rank the following PF's: Amare, Bosh, Boozer, and Gasol
Rose rated 26th in the league
What do you expect from the Suns' next few games?
How should a MVP be determined?
Is Kareem the GOAT?
How do you distinguish between "1a/1b" and "1/2"?
Touched by NC girl's death, Shaq pays for funeral
92' finals: Game 6, Bulls come back from down 15 in the fourth quarter
Favorite Iverson moment
Two Phoenix Suns game threads
Ewing and the NJ coaching vacancy
Ewing and his historical ranking
What if the Bulls traded Jordan in 1988?
Shaq is top 5 all-time
Is Noah the third best center in the East?
Pippen on Christmas during the 1994-95 season (my favorite game ever)
Myth: Derrick Rose is in a sophomore slump
F1 GOAT Schumacher close to a comeback!!!
Amare: 21/11 over the past nine games
Pau Gasol vs. Dirk Nowitzki
ISH age breakdown survey
How many of you saw

[Roundball_Rock]

I understand but I think you get what I am saying about the team issue being raised when people argue MJ>KAJ based on "rings as the man."

Well, I like posting with you too or else I would not put in the time to make lengthy responses to you. I often disagree with you but your posts are always well-argued.


To the above though, like I said, I don't respond to everyone, such as people that underrate Pippen who are mostly all trolls and gimmicks like you mentioned.

I don't think they are. The person who said peak Pippen would not be top 5 today was juju, for instance. He is not a troll. The person who made the comment about Pippen and in the 98' finals is EricForman. He may have some troll tendencies but he isn't a troll per se. NBAStatman has Pippen top 40 all-time. Allhazred top 35. These guys clearly are not trolls. They just underrate him. Then there are all the nameless MJ fans who can't fathom that Pippen was considered a top 5 player for several years. In other words, he was basically what Brandon Roy is today: a clear cut top 10 player but someone with no case for top 5. So when I see you doing things like going after someone for comparing Pippen (and Hill) to Lebron and then saying nothing about these people it appears as if you have an agenda. I believe you. I don't see the point in you lying about this but I think you can see the impression your posting would give to someone who sees you talk about Pippen a lot.

I will say that I do notice a difference between people like you and DR and how you view Pippen compared to some of the younger MJ fans. I actually bookmarked your "year by year" ranking of Pippen in his prime and I made my own when a MJ fan asked me about that in a PM and I wasn't that far off from you. I had Pippen 2nd in 94' instead of 3rd and had him 3rd in 96' instead of 5th like you do, for example. (I was never sold on D Rob)


And by the way, I don't think you're a closet Kobe fan, in case you think thats what I think.

Neither does DR and neither did brubeblitz so I am not surprised. You guys saw him play at the time and know how good he was, how popular he was ( :roll: @ people thinking it is unfathomable that Pippen has fans when in reality he was one of the most popular players of the 90's) etc. and perhaps most importantly how he was viewed by people at the time so when I say something like "Pippen was a top 3 player in season X" you guys may not agree with it but you can see where I am coming from because you know how highly he was rated in his prime, especially from 1994-1997. Probably half of MJ fans here, though, never saw him play live or maybe caught some of 97' and 98' (when he played only half the year) and to them my comments seem so outrageous that they would have to be the result of an ulterior motive. These are the ones who tend to think I am a closet Kobe fan. The funny thing is I have always said Lebron>Kobe and even have said Wade>Kobe last year and I criticize him whenever Kobe and Pippen are compared (when people say young Kobe>prime Pippen) yet several MJ fans still think I am a Kobe fan. I like him but if I qualify as a fan of him that means I am a "fan" of a dozen other players. The only players today I a legit fan of are Amare and Rose.


Plus just because you don't make anti-jordan threads doesn't mean you don't post that stuff in other threads.

Yes, and I admit that. What I am saying is this myth that all I do on ISH is bash Jordan is garbage.

[juju151111]

I understand but I think you get what I am saying about the team issue being raised when people argue MJ>KAJ based on "rings as the man."

Well, I like posting with you too or else I would not put in the time to make lengthy responses to you. I often disagree with you but your posts are always well-argued.



I don't think they are. The person who said peak Pippen would not be top 5 today was juju, for instance. He is not a troll. The person who made the comment about Pippen and in the 98' finals is EricForman. He may have some troll tendencies but he isn't a troll per se. NBAStatman has Pippen top 40 all-time. Allhazred top 35. These guys clearly are not trolls. They just underrate him. Then there are all the nameless MJ fans who can't fathom that Pippen was considered a top 5 player for several years. In other words, he was basically what Brandon Roy is today: a clear cut top 10 player but someone with no case for top 5. So when I see you going after someone for comparing Pippen (and Hill) to Lebron and then saying nothing about these people it appears as if you have an agenda. I believe you. I don't see the point in you lying about this but I think you can see the impression your posting would give to someone who sees you talk about Pippen a lot.

I will say that I do notice a difference between people like you and DR and how you view Pippen compared to some of the younger MJ fans. I actually bookmarked your "year by year" ranking of Pippen in his prime and I made my own when a MJ fan asked me about that in a PM and I wasn't that far off from you. I had Pippen 2nd in 94' instead of 3rd and had him 3rd in 96' instead of 5th like you do, for example. (I was never sold on D Rob)



Neither does DR and neither did brubeblitz so I am not surprised. You guys saw him play at the time and know how good he was, how popular he was ( :roll: @ people thinking it is unfathomable that Pippen has fans when in reality he was one of the most popular players of the 90's) etc. and perhaps most importantly how he was viewed by people at the time so when I say something like "Pippen was a top 3 player in season X" you guys may not agree with it but you can see where I am coming from because you know how highly he was rated in his prime, especially from 1994-1997. Probably half of MJ fans here, though, never saw him play live or maybe caught some of 97' and 98' (when he played only half the year) and to them my comments seem so outrageous that they would have to be the result of an ulterior motive. These are the ones who tend to think I am a closet Kobe fan. The funny thing is I have always said Lebron>Kobe and even have said Wade>Kobe last year and I criticize him whenever Kobe and Pippen are compared (when people say young Kobe>peak Pippen) yet several MJ fans still think I am a Kobe fan. I like him but if I qualify as a fan of him that means I am a fan of 15 other players. The only players today I a legit fan of are Amare and Rose.



Yes, and I admit that. What I am saying is this myth that all I do on ISH is bash Jordan is garbage.
LOL How do i underrate him?? I have him at 25. Your the one putting him at 18 not me.

You say Pippen would be top 5 today??
Who is Pippen better then???
He is not better then the Kobe,LJ, and Wade. So lets get that out of there.

He isn't better then Tim duncan

He isn't better then CP3.

Prove to me he better then those.Also answer this question. Where do you rank LJ all0time.

[catch24]

Shooting 57% for the season is maybe semi above par/mediocre for a player who is only taking shots inside the paint. Shooting 54% for the season as a guard, however, is a tremendous feat.

I think Jordan was better during his prime, but you downplaying a bigs dominance because he scorers "closer to the basket" says a lot about your intelligence when it pertains to basketball. Apparently you don't value effectiveness. Putting the ball in the hoop is, well, putting the ball in the hoop. If scoring inside 5-10 feet in ("dunking mostly") was so easy, you'd see near all 7 footers scoring in double figures. I won't even get into the rest of your post, talk about a train wreck.

[Roundball_Rock]

You say Pippen would be top 5 today??
Who is Pippen better then???


He isn't better then Tim duncan

He isn't better then CP3.

I disagree. This is a matter of opinion. My point was that there is a larger gap between where MJ fans rate Pippen and the typical ranking of him than there is between me Jordan's ranking.

Duncan is past his prime, although still very good. Many, if not most, people think Kevin Durant>Paul this year yet Pippen would not be better? As to Wade, what he is doing now with scrubs is comparable to what Pippen did with scrubs for 80% of 95' so how is it a stretch to say he was at a similar level?

It is hard to project players into different years. What is clear is that when he played he was considered a top 5 player for several seasons and some people had him as high as second and third. Could the argument be made that there more great players today then in the mid-90's and hence he could have been top 5 then in his prime but not today? Judge yourself:

Top players in the mid-90's (1994-1996 to be specific): Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, Pippen, Malone, Hill, Robinson, Payton, Ewing, Barkley, Richmond, Mourning, Penny, T. Hardaway (no order)
Top players in 2010: Lebron, Wade, Kobe, Dirk, Carmelo, Durant, Paul, Deron, Roy, Bosh, Howard, Duncan (no order)

I don't think there are more great players today than there were back then. If anything there were more back then. Today we have only one GOAT candidate caliber player in/near his prime playing (Lebron, not Kobe, for the MJ fans reading this who are wondering :oldlol: ), another top 10 all-time player in/near his prime, top 10 all-time Duncan past his prime and none of the other guys on the list right now look to be top 20-25 all-time players other than maybe Paul. It is too soon to project how good prime Durant will be. I can't see Roy, Deron, Carmelo, Dirk, or Bosh reaching the top 25 all-time. The mid-90's featured two GOAT candidate caliber players (Jordan and Shaq), another top 10 all-time player at his peak (Hakeem), and a few top 20-25 all-time players in/near their primes (Malone, Pippen, Barkley, Robinson).


Where do you rank LJ all0time.

I haven't given it much thought because he is going to move up every year for the next few years. He isn't like Kobe or Duncan where most of their careers are over and you can get a good idea of where they fall. I think Lebron has a very good chanc at winding up top 5 all-time and maybe even the GOAT. He actually has a decent chance of becoming the "majority GOAT" because of merit but also because the same forces that elevated Jordan so far past Kareem, Wilt, Russell, et al. will work to do the same with Lebron vis-a-vis Jordan. It will be fun to watch how MJ fans react if that happens. :D

[juju151111]

I disagree. This is a matter of opinion. My point was that there is a larger gap between where MJ fans rate Pippen and the typical ranking of him than there is between me Jordan's ranking.

Duncan is past his prime, although still very good. Many, if not most, people think Kevin Durant>Paul this year yet Pippen would not be better? As to Wade, what he is doing now with scrubs is comparable to what Pippen did with scrubs for 80% of 95' so how is it a stretch to say he was at a similar level?

It is hard to project players into different years. What is clear is that when he played he was considered a top 5 player for several seasons and some people had him as high as second and third. Could the argument be made that there more great players today then in the mid-90's and hence he could have been top 5 then in his prime but not today? Judge yourself:

Top players in the mid-90's (1994-1996 to be specific): Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, Pippen, Malone, Hill, Robinson, Payton, Ewing, Barkley, Richmond, Mourning, Penny, T. Hardaway (no order)
Top players in 2010: Lebron, Wade, Kobe, Dirk, Carmelo, Durant, Paul, Deron, Roy, Bosh, Howard, Duncan (no order)

I don't think there are more great players today than there were back then. If anything there were more back then. Today we have only one GOAT candidate caliber player in/near his prime playing (Lebron, not Kobe, for the MJ fans reading this who are wondering :oldlol: ), another top 10 all-time player in/near his prime, top 10 all-time Duncan past his prime and none of the other guys on the list right now look to be top 20-25 all-time players other than maybe Paul. It is too soon to project how good prime Durant will be. I can't see Roy, Deron, Carmelo, Dirk, or Bosh reaching the top 25 all-time. The mid-90's featured two GOAT candidate caliber players (Jordan and Shaq), another top 10 all-time player at his peak (Hakeem), and a few top 20-25 all-time players in/near their primes (Malone, Pippen, Barkley, Robinson).



I haven't given it much thought because he is going to move up every year for the next few years. He isn't like Kobe or Duncan where most of their careers are over and you can get a good idea of where they fall. I think Lebron has a very good chanc at winding up top 5 all-time and maybe even the GOAT. He actually has a decent chance of becoming the "majority GOAT" because of merit but also because the same forces that elevated Jordan so far past Kareem, Wilt, Russell, et al. will work to do the same with Lebron vis-a-vis Jordan. It will be fun to watch how MJ fans react if that happens. :D
LOL A matter of opinion? LOL so you admit kevin durant is better this seson then Pippen then?

LOL Wade is better then Pippen. Where are you coming from with this crap and WHen Wade retires he will be ahead of pippen. They are not at any similar level. Wade is making a case for 3rd best SG. Wade is better then Pippen.(Fact)

You still didn't tell me how Pippen is better then Cp3. I am still waiting.

[Roundball_Rock]

so you admit kevin durant is better this seson then Pippen then?

:roll: Durant is a better scorer than Pippen ever was but that is it. Pippen crushes him when you look at them overall.

Scoring: Durant>Pippen
Playmaking: Pippen>>>Durant
Rebounding: Pippen>Durant
Defense: Pippen>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Durant


. Where are you coming from with this crap and WHen Wade retires he will be ahead of pippen.

Ahead? Maybe but if he is it won't be by much. To be well ahead of Pippen he would have to be in the top 15 all-time conversation and I don't think he is that good. Wade may wind up 20th and Pippen 24th. So what?


Wade is making a case for 3rd best SG.

We shall see. Wade has a history of injuries and his game relies a lot on athleticism. We have to see if he has staying power. I don't see him as better than Jerry West or Kobe. He could be better than Drexler or Iverson, though.


You still didn't tell me how Pippen is better then Cp3.

If Durant>CP3 this year then Pippen>CP3.

[juju151111]

:roll: Durant is a better scorer than Pippen ever was but that is it. Pippen crushes him when you look at them overall.

Scoring: Durant>Pippen
Playmaking: Pippen>>>Durant
Rebounding: Pippen>Durant
Defense: Pippen>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Durant



Ahead? Maybe but if he is it won't be by much. To be well ahead of Pippen he would have to be in the top 15 all-time conversation and I don't think he is that good. Wade may wind up 20th and Pippen 24th. So what?



We shall see. Wade has a history of injuries and his game relies a lot on athleticism. We have to see if he has staying power. I don't see him as better than Jerry West or Kobe. He could be better than Drexler or Iverson, though.



If Durant>CP3 this year then Pippen>CP3.
I will be back in a few.

[juju151111]

:roll: Durant is a better scorer than Pippen ever was but that is it. Pippen crushes him when you look at them overall.

Scoring: Durant>Pippen
Playmaking: Pippen>>>Durant
Rebounding: Pippen>Durant
Defense: Pippen>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Durant



Ahead? Maybe but if he is it won't be by much. To be well ahead of Pippen he would have to be in the top 15 all-time conversation and I don't think he is that good. Wade may wind up 20th and Pippen 24th. So what?



We shall see. Wade has a history of injuries and his game relies a lot on athleticism. We have to see if he has staying power. I don't see him as better than Jerry West or Kobe. He could be better than Drexler or Iverson, though.



If Durant>CP3 this year then Pippen>CP3.
Durant is avging 7 rebounds a game and rising. Where are you getting this >>>>>>>>x10 from?? KD defense has improved and in the top 10 in defensive win shares.
Also ou failed to mention how KD is the way better scorer not just > better. He is also the way better FT shooter.

[Roundball_Rock]

Juju, the following players are clearly better than Durant: Lebron, Kobe, Dirk, Wade, and Carmelo. The following have a legit case over Durant: Duncan, Paul, Deron, Howard. Since Durant>prime Pippen does that mean prime Pippen would be the 10th or 11th best player today (I assume you will say Pippen>Deron but you probably would stand by the others)? Then there are players like Roy, Nash, and Bosh. Are they better than Pippen too?

Obviously I disagree with you but I am trying to get a clear read on where you stand. You said Pippen would be top 10 today in another thread but if Durant>Pippen that almost automatically means Lebron, Kobe, Dirk, Wade, and Carmelo are better. Add Durant and that is six players right there that >Pippen according to you. That puts him 7th. You said the 2010 versions of Duncan and Paul>Pippen. That puts him 9th. Was he better than Howard, Deron, Roy, Nash, and Bosh? Hell, I know you love Gasol. Gasol>Pip?

Durant may wind up being a better rebounder but that is speculation. We are comparing prime Pippen to Durant. Prime Pippen was almost top 20 in the league in rebounding before Rodman joined the team and gobbled up such a high percentage of boards. Pippen did this as a SF. Durant is averaging 7 boards a game. That is run of the mill for a SF.


KD defense has improved and in the top 10 in defensive win shares.

That goes to show you the win share stat is a joke. You are a Bulls fan, right? According to win shares Noah>>>Rose, Deng>>Rose, Salmons>Rose, and Taj Gibson=Rose.

You are comparing the defense of the GOAT defensive SF who is arguably also the GOAT perimeter defender with Durant's? :wtf:


Also ou failed to mention how KD is the way better scorer not just > better.

True but we have to consider their roles. Pippen was always tasked with being his team's primary playmaker. He couldn't just focus on scoring. He had a pass first mentality and role. You can't compare their scoring at face value. Durant today is a 28 ppg guy. Pippen was never capable of that but I could see him scoring 24-25 ppg if his role was the same as Durant's. He scored 22 ppg without Jordan even when he was tasked as the team's playmaker (and defensive anchor. Durant has to expend little energy on defense). In 92' he scored 21 ppg alongside Jordan and did the same in 96' and 97' when healthy.

Yeah, Durant also is a much better shooter than Pippen ever was, both at FT's and FG's.

How about the rest, though? Durant is average at best at playmaking and defense. He is average at rebounding. All he does better than Pippen is score.

[juju151111]

Juju, the following players are clearly better than Durant: Lebron, Kobe, Dirk, Wade, and Carmelo. The following have a legit case over Durant: Duncan, Paul, Deron, Howard. Since Durant>prime Pippen does that mean prime Pippen would be the 10th or 11th best player today (I assume you will say Pippen>Deron but you probably would stand by the others)? Then there are players like Roy, Nash, and Bosh. Are they better than Pippen too?

Obviously I disagree with you but I am trying to get a clear read on where you stand. You said Pippen would be top 10 today in another thread but if Durant>Pippen that almost automatically means Lebron, Kobe, Dirk, Wade, and Carmelo are better. Add Durant and that is six players right there that >Pippen according to you. That puts him 7th. You said the 2010 versions of Duncan and Paul>Pippen. That puts him 9th. Was he better than Howard, Deron, Roy, Nash, and Bosh? Hell, I know you love Gasol. Gasol>Pip?

Durant may wind up being a better rebounder but that is speculation. We are comparing prime Pippen to Durant. Prime Pippen was almost top 20 in the league in rebounding before Rodman joined the team and gobbled up such a high percentage of boards. Pippen did this as a SF. Durant is averaging 7 boards a game. That is run of the mill for a SF.



That goes to show you the win share stat is a joke. You are a Bulls fan, right? According to win shares Noah>>>Rose, Deng>>Rose, Salmons>Rose, and Taj Gibson=Rose.

You are comparing the defense of the GOAT defensive SF who is arguably also the GOAT perimeter defender with Durant's? :wtf:



True but we have to consider their roles. Pippen was always tasked with being his team's primary playmaker. He couldn't just focus on scoring. He had a pass first mentality and role. You can't compare their scoring at face value. Durant today is a 28 ppg guy. Pippen was never capable of that but I could see him scoring 24-25 ppg if his role was the same as Durant's. He scored 22 ppg without Jordan even when he was tasked as the team's playmaker (and defensive anchor. Durant has to expend little energy on defense). In 92' he scored 21 ppg alongside Jordan and did the same in 96' and 97' when healthy.

Yeah, Durant also is a much better shooter than Pippen ever was, both at FT's and FG's.

How about the rest, though? Durant is average at best at playmaking and defense. He is average at rebounding. All he does better than Pippen is score.
I agree for me posting win shares. I don't know wat came over me. LOL I have said how thrash that stat is in the past. He has improved his defense through. LOL Carmelo isn't better then KD this season are you kidding me?

Carmelo isn't better then Durant this season. The only players i said who was better are the ones i listed from above. I forgot to add KD in my first post. So Prime Pip would be top 7 today. How is 7.2 avg for a SF??? His rebounding has been increasing since his rookie season. His avg has been going up every month in rebounding. Pip in his prime was a 7-8 rebound guy. Lets see where KD rebounding at the end of the season. Rememeber every season he has gotten stronger with weight lifting.

[Roundball_Rock]

7th. Wow. I disagree with that but all this is opinion and involves speculation since it is hard to compare retired players to today's players.

Pippen was at 9 rpg in 94' and was around the same in 95' until Jordan came back. He was at only 7 rpg during the second threepeat but that was because Rodman took away such a high percentage of rebounds. Durant with Rodman would be at about 5-5.5 boards.

Durant may wind up being better but right now I can't see him being better than prime Pippen or even Carmelo. It isn't just me. There was a KD vs. Carmelo thread a few days ago and most people were saying Carmelo>Durant today but that in a few years Durant will surpass Carmelo. I agree on both counts.

[branslowski]

Durant is avging 7 rebounds a game and rising. Where are you getting this >>>>>>>>x10 from?? KD defense has improved and in the top 10 in defensive win shares.
Also ou failed to mention how KD is the way better scorer not just > better. He is also the way better FT shooter.

Are you seriously trying to make this argument bro?

Your a cool dude, but please stop with this...

We both know Pippen is a better Rebounder than Durant...We know he's a better playmaker, and we know he's by far a better defender...

We all know Durant is the greater scorer...If you just base the whole game of Basketball on just scoring...Then Durant is better I suppose.

[juju151111]

Are you seriously trying to make this argument bro?

Your a cool dude, but please stop with this...

We both know Pippen is a better Rebounder than Durant...We know he's a better playmaker, and we know he's by far a better defender...

We all know Durant is the greater scorer...If you just base the whole game of Basketball on just scoring...Then Durant is better I suppose.
We are talking about this season. KD is avging 7.2 and has been growing since the season started. When did i say he was the better playmaker???

[juju151111]

7th. Wow. I disagree with that but all this is opinion and involves speculation since it is hard to compare retired players to today's players.

Pippen was at 9 rpg in 94' and was around the same in 95' until Jordan came back. He was at only 7 rpg during the second threepeat but that was because Rodman took away such a high percentage of rebounds. Durant with Rodman would be at about 5-5.5 boards.

Durant may wind up being better but right now I can't see him being better than prime Pippen or even Carmelo. It isn't just me. There was a KD vs. Carmelo thread a few days ago and most people were saying Carmelo>Durant today but that in a few years Durant will surpass Carmelo. I agree on both counts.
We will see where KD rebounding is at the end of the year since your comparing for this year. He has been getting more and more every month. I see him at 7.5+ at the end of the season.

[Roundball_Rock]

KD isn't in Pippen's league as a rebounder. Pippen was the best rebounding SF in his prime. Before MJ came back he was top 20 in the league in rebounding in 95' and obviously #1 among SF's.

I didn't realize KD improved his rebounding as much as he has. He is good but not at the same level as prime Pippen. Here is KD's rebounding compared to top SF's:

Lebron 7.2
Durant 7.2
Carmelo 6.3
Pierce 4.9
Butler 6.8
Granger 5.7
Artest 5.0
Turkulo 4.5
Gay 6.1

How about 94' Pippen compared to top SF's?

Pippen 8.7
Rice 5.4
Mashburn 4.5
Schrempf 5.6
Mullin 5.6
Wilkins 6.5

Pippen was head and shoulders above the other top SF's in rebounding in 94'. You might say 8.7 is not much more than 7.2 but you have to compare them with their peers in their era. If 8.7 rpg was so easy for a SF how come the other top SF's could not come close to it in 94'? Also keep in mind Pippen was playing with Horace Grant, who was pulling down 11.0 boards a game. The best rebounding teammate Durant has is at 6.1.

[juju151111]

KD isn't in Pippen's league as a rebounder. Pippen was the best rebounding SF in his prime. Before MJ came back he was top 20 in the league in rebounding in 95' and obviously #1 among SF's.

I didn't realize KD improved his rebounding as much as he has. He is good but not at the same level as prime Pippen. Here is KD's rebounding compared to top SF's:

Lebron 7.2
Durant 7.2
Carmelo 6.3
Pierce 4.9
Butler 6.8
Granger 5.7
Artest 5.0
Turkulo 4.5
Gay 6.1

How about 94' Pippen compared to top SF's?

Pippen 8.7
Rice 5.4
Mashburn 4.5
Schrempf 5.6
Mullin 5.6
Wilkins 6.5

Pippen was head and shoulders above the other top SF's in rebounding in 94'. You might say 8.7 is not much more than 7.2 but you have to compare them with their peers in their era. If 8.7 rpg was so easy for a SF how come the other top SF's could not come close to it in 94'? Also keep in mind Pippen was playing with Horace Grant, who was pulling down 11.0 boards a game. The best rebounding teammate Durant has is at 6.1.
Carmelo and LJ are really the only close ones and they are superstars. Yep and on his twitter page he tells you when he working out lol. He gotten stronger, but he just still looks the same way. Lets wait until the season end to see his complete season. He will make it to 7.5 or+ book it.

[Roundball_Rock]

Carmelo and LJ are really the only close ones

No one was close to peak Pippen among top SF's in 1994 or 1995 (in 96' Hill developed and was better)! :bowdown:

Durant is solid but Pippen was great for his position. He even outrebounded Grant in the playoffs in 94' and I believe in two of the first threepeat years. I know for sure he did it in one of the threepeat years in the playoffs. Pip's rebounding would consistently increase in the playoffs too. Regular season listed first, playoff average second:

1989: 6.1 7.6
1990: 6.7 7.2
1991: 7.3 8.9
1992: 7.7 8.8
1993: 7.7 6.9
1994: 8.7 8.3
1995: 8.1 8.6
1996: 6.4 8.5
1997: 6.5 6.8*
1998: 5.2 7.1

We don't know if Durant can do this because we haven't seen him in the playoffs yet.

*including Game 5 of the ECF where he got hurt and played only 5 or 6 minutes. If you exclude that he would be at something like 7.1 or 7.2.

Durant may wind up better than Pippen but I believe prime Pip>2010 Durant. However, beating Pip means Durant would have to end up being one of the 20-25 greatest players ever. He is off to a good start, though.

[juju151111]

No one was close to peak Pippen among top SF's in 1994 or 1995 (in 96' Hill developed and was better)! :bowdown:

Durant is solid but Pippen was great for his position. He even outrebounded Grant in the playoffs in 94' and I believe in two of the first threepeat years. I know for sure he did it in one of the threepeat years in the playoffs. Pip's rebounding would consistently increase in the playoffs too. Regular season listed first, playoff average second:

1989: 6.1 7.6
1990: 6.7 7.2
1991: 7.3 8.9
1992: 7.7 8.8
1993: 7.7 6.9
1994: 8.7 8.3
1995: 8.1 8.6
1996: 6.4 8.5
1997: 6.5 6.8*
1998: 5.2 7.1

We don't know if Durant can do this because we haven't seen him in the playoffs yet.

*including Game 5 of the ECF where he got hurt and played only 5 or 6 minutes. If you exclude that he would be at something like 7.1 or 7.2.

Durant may wind up better than Pippen but I believe prime Pip>2010 Durant. However, beating Pip means Durant would have to end up being one of the 20-25 greatest players ever. He is off to a good start, though.
I agree about the playoffs, but what KD ends up with a better season then pip ever did and gets injured following season?? Most people have LJ ahead of pip and his career isn't even close to over yet.

I will have to wait until the playoffs for the final judgement on KD, but you still have to prove me about CP3.

[Roundball_Rock]

I agree about the playoffs, but what KD ends up with a better season then pip ever did and gets injured following season?? Most people have LJ ahead of pip and his career isn't even close to over yet.

Then Pip>Durant forever. Longevity matters or Grant Hill would be considered one of the greatest SF's of all-time. Lebron has played for 6 1/2 years and achieved a lot (MVP, has been the best player in the NBA for multiple seasons, led a team to the NBA finals, won 66 games with scrubs, etc.). Even with that people don't have him that far ahead of Pippen at this point, although Lebron will move up every year for the next few years as he adds to his accomplishments. I think most people would say prime Pippen>2010 Durant. For example, 09' Wade>any version of Pippen but Pippen is well ahead of Wade on all-time lists because Wade does not have the level of achievements needed to get to the top 30. Wade too will move up if he stays healthy, though.