How many MVPs SHOULD Jordan have been awarded?

[Samurai Swoosh]

I know how many I think he SHOULD have. Do you think only being a 5x MVP is accurate?

[widowmaker]

none

[tpols]

Shaq was just as dominant in his prime and he had only 1 MVP. I feel like the award has changed since the 90s though. It used to be 'best player in the league' and now it's all about who is most valuable to their respective team.

[supermechasonic]

He should have gotten it in 1992-1993 for sure.

[widowmaker]

No, he really wasn't ...

Jordan was a better defender, and more dominant. More successful too from a team perspective.

At minimum he should have had 6, my count is he should have 8 or 9.

so a perimeter defender is more valuable than a rim defender?

[Christofire]

Shaq was just as dominant in his prime and he had only 1 MVP. I feel like the award has changed since the 90s though. It used to be 'best player in the league' and now it's all about who is most valuable to their respective team.


i actuallly prefer to criteria now....I think it's true to the meaning of most valuable player. If they want the award to just go to the best player then make the best player award. It's quite possible to better than someone but less valuable to your team because you may be surrounded by studs and the other guys surrounded by scrubs.


Jordan should now have had 6.

[tommy3]

He should have gotten 5 but he only got 5.

[Christofire]

In Jordan's case, yes. His team's were better defensively. And he was the team's best defender. He didn't have any weakness defensively. Shaq, you run the screen and roll and he's ****ed. Shaq wasn't even as good of an on ball defender as KG and Duncan.

You can tell the people who grew up strictly in the Shaq era when they say he was as dominant as Jordan.

This dude was 7'2 and can't even compete with Jordan's PPG numbers.

Not to mention, at the end of games, he's a liability.

Anyone who says Shaq > MJ, or was as dominant is flat out retarded.

Jordan had no weaknesses. There is never a point in the game where you can take him out of it. You can't keep the ball out of his hands, because he's a guard.

Shaq can't do it all like MJ could.


did jordan have any weaknesses?...man the jordan perversion never stops.

[widowmaker]

No, he really didn't. The basketball equivelent to the perfect storm. GOAT status. Why are you acting like you don't understand this general consensus?

A game for humanity's life is at stake.

You want Jordan on your team, or Shaq?

Please ...

based on this theory he should have never lost.

[Christofire]

No, he really didn't. The basketball equivelent to the perfect storm. GOAT status. Why are you acting like you don't understand this general consensus?

A game for humanity's life is at stake.

You want Jordan on your team, or Shaq?

Please ...


Shaq...more dominant, harder to effectively gameplan against....Jordan was beast but didnt start winning until his team was stacked. i have no memories of those laker teams being 'stacked" just shaq Kobe and some role players that nobody will bother remember and that were nobodies before and after LA...beside glen rice ofcourse and maybe one or 2 other players.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Depends on the criteria, but at least 6 imo. He won 7 Sporting News MVP's, which are voted on by the players and coaches, so that's probably more accurate than his 5 actual MVP's.

[whoartthou]

Shaq...more dominant, harder to effectively gameplan against....Jordan was beast but didnt start winning until his team was stacked. i have no memories of those laker teams being 'stacked" just shaq Kobe and some role players that nobody will bother remember and that were nobodies before and after LA...beside glen rice ofcourse and maybe one or 2 other players.

THis christ guy is a ****ing idiot
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Shaq won NOTHING without stacked teams... and when he had stacked teams (orlando) he still won jack shit.

He need a top 10 player on his team to win ships... and don't act like the early laker squads were NOT stacked.

[widowmaker]

no weakness = no defeats.. before the 6 championships his weaknesses were exposed, after the 6 championships his weaknesses were exposed. he is the greatest but its funny how people speak of him like he was some kind of demigod

[whoartthou]

Wait the BULLS were stacked?

:oldlol:

And the Lakers had essentially, akin to the current Heat ... 2 bonnafide top five players int he game on the same team?

Jordan was more dominant.

Shaq couldn't win until Kobe / Wade came along.

Both being basically the two best SG's of all-time behind Jordan.

And both players completely covered up for his inadaquacies. And were the closers for both teams.

Jordan started and finished games. THUS clearly more dominant.

Shaq had stacked teams in Orlando ... and then in LA, before Kobe turned into a full fledged superstar

Van Excel
Eddie Jones
Elden Campbell

ring a bell?

seriously, the amount of hate jordan gets from kobe stans is ridiculous.

Jordan is clearly > shaq

[whoartthou]

no weakness = no defeats.. before the 6 championships his weaknesses were exposed, after the 6 championships his weaknesses were exposed. he is the greatest but its funny how people speak of him like he was some kind of demigod

so what were his weaknesses before he won the chips?

[whoartthou]

Like when Jordan spanked that a$$ to the tune of a 4-0 sweep in the ECF.

Shaq, will in my mind always go down as a selfish, underachieving, lazy piece of crap.

Regardless of all that he achieved. He should've been better.

shaq kind of reminds me of marat safin in tennis.

Insanely talented, if not one of the most talented... but wasted his talent due to laziness, and in safins case, serious injuries.

[Shep]

'88-'92, '96, '97

7

[widowmaker]

ask Chuck Daly. Why didn't Jordan signal handedly outscore the Pistons?

[tpols]

I smell a ShaqAttack post coming.

Shaq's early 2000s teams were NOT stacked. He had kobe and a bunch of below average role players. Those two were the huge brunt of the team.

Horace Grant, Dennis rodman, and Toni Kukoc were better role players than any of the role players on those laker teams. And prime pippen was just as impactful as young kobe.

[jlip]

He should have gotten 5 but he only got 5.

:cheers:

[Micku]

I smell a ShaqAttack post coming.

Shaq's early 2000s teams were NOT stacked. He had kobe and a bunch of below average role players. Those two were the huge brunt of the team.


One thing is to argue that if the Lakers were stacked to their respected era. I don't think there were any teams that were stacked with talent except for a couple. In the late 90s, I think the Lakers were more stacked than they were in the early 00s, but they played better in the 00s.

[Ruh-Roh]

23.

[Collie]

Every year of his championship years, and 89 and 90. I have him deserving 8. Magic and Barkley were close during 1990, but none of them had MJ's defensive impact.

[blablabla]

he should have gotten it this year too


come on get off his dick

[whoartthou]

I smell a ShaqAttack post coming.

Shaq's early 2000s teams were NOT stacked. He had kobe and a bunch of below average role players. Those two were the huge brunt of the team.

Horace Grant, Dennis rodman, and Toni Kukoc were better role players than any of the role players on those laker teams. And prime pippen was just as impactful as young kobe.
:rolleyes:

[che guevara]

Seven. '88, '90, '91, '92, '96, '97, '98.

[DMAVS41]

I smell a ShaqAttack post coming.

Shaq's early 2000s teams were NOT stacked. He had kobe and a bunch of below average role players. Those two were the huge brunt of the team.

Horace Grant, Dennis rodman, and Toni Kukoc were better role players than any of the role players on those laker teams. And prime pippen was just as impactful as young kobe.

Shaq's first title team was not all time great or anything. Definitely not stacked and a lot of people forget this.

But no, Pippen did not have the same type of impact that Kobe did in 01 and 02. Kobe was a much better player than Pippen ever was those 2 years.

I'd also point out that if you have Shaq and Kobe.....do you really want a stacked team around them? What good would it do? You want veteran role players than can defend and make big shots. Thats exactly what the Lakers had and they were a great team. Totally top heavy....but it was by design.

You see it with Wade and Lebron now. Do you want Bosh or Tyson Chandler around them? Give me Chandler all day.

[Floppy]

no weakness = no defeats.. before the 6 championships his weaknesses were exposed, after the 6 championships his weaknesses were exposed. he is the greatest but its funny how people speak of him like he was some kind of demigod
:facepalm

[stephanieg]

Zero. He ruined the NBA forever.

[whoartthou]

Shaq's first title team was not all time great or anything. Definitely not stacked and a lot of people forget this.

But no, Pippen did not have the same type of impact that Kobe did in 01 and 02. Kobe was a much better player than Pippen ever was those 2 years.

I'd also point out that if you have Shaq and Kobe.....do you really want a stacked team around them? What good would it do? You want veteran role players than can defend and make big shots. Thats exactly what the Lakers had and they were a great team. Totally top heavy....but it was by design.

You see it with Wade and Lebron now. Do you want Bosh or Tyson Chandler around them? Give me Chandler all day.

great points

[whoartthou]

Zero. He ruined the NBA forever.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Smoke117]

People are silly to say he should have won it in 97. Karl Malone probably had the most dominant season by a PF ever that season. He led his team to 64 wins, led the league in per with a 28.9, averaged 27ppg on a .60ts%. Jazz won 5 less games than the Bulls, but the Bulls were frankly better overall. You take Malone off the Jazz and they are going to do a lot worse than Bulls without Jordan. That bulls team in 97 would still win 50-55 games if you take Jordan off the team if 1994 is any indication, so by that reasoning Karl Malone was more valuable to his team if you want to get down to the most basic definion of MVP. Either way, only the biggest Jordan fanboy can say Karl Malone didn't deserve it.

[whoartthou]

People are silly to say he should have won it in 97. Karl Malone probably had the most dominant season by a PF ever that season. He led his team to 64 wins, led the league in per with a 28.9, averaged 27ppg on a .60ts%. Jazz won 5 less games than the Bulls, but the Bulls were frankly better overall. You take Malone off the Jazz and they are going to do a lot worse than Bulls without Jordan. That bulls team in 97 would still win 50-55 games if you take Jordan off the team if 1994 is any indication, so by that reasoning Karl Malone was more valuable to his team if you want to get down to the most basic definion of MVP. Either way, only the biggest Jordan fanboy can say Karl Malone didn't deserve it.

Sure malone was a deserving winner... but MJ imo still should/could have won

[whoartthou]

People are silly to say he should have won it in 97. Karl Malone probably had the most dominant season by a PF ever that season. He led his team to 64 wins, led the league in per with a 28.9, averaged 27ppg on a .60ts%. Jazz won 5 less games than the Bulls, but the Bulls were frankly better overall. You take Malone off the Jazz and they are going to do a lot worse than Bulls without Jordan. That bulls team in 97 would still win 50-55 games if you take Jordan off the team if 1994 is any indication, so by that reasoning Karl Malone was more valuable to his team if you want to get down to the most basic definion of MVP. Either way, only the biggest Jordan fanboy can say Karl Malone didn't deserve it.

Sure malone was a deserving winner... but MJ imo still should/could have won

[Collie]

People are silly to say he should have won it in 97. Karl Malone probably had the most dominant season by a PF ever that season. He led his team to 64 wins, led the league in per with a 28.9, averaged 27ppg on a .60ts%. Jazz won 5 less games than the Bulls, but the Bulls were frankly better overall. You take Malone off the Jazz and they are going to do a lot worse than Bulls without Jordan. That bulls team in 97 would still win 50-55 games if you take Jordan off the team if 1994 is any indication, so by that reasoning Karl Malone was more valuable to his team if you want to get down to the most basic definion of MVP. Either way, only the biggest Jordan fanboy can say Karl Malone didn't deserve it.

Or those who watched both play.

[Smoke117]

Or those who watched both play.

Whatever you say.

[DMAVS41]

Whatever you say.

Acting like it wasn't close is absurd.

I think Malone deserved it based on the standard criteria, but its not like Malone would have been screwed if Jordan got it.

Come on now.

[LJJ]

Well based on the criteria "Best player in the league" he should have had a bunch more. And while that should be the criteria, we all now it isn't.

The whole criteria who to give MVP is in reality a bunch of subjective, inconsistent shit and that's why you get so many oddball selections.

[Smoke117]

Acting like it wasn't close is absurd.

I think Malone deserved it based on the standard criteria, but its not like Malone would have been screwed if Jordan got it.

Come on now.

Don't put words in my mouth. All I said was this is not a case where Jordan should have won it. My argument is for those people that think Jordan should have clearly won it in 97 which even if he did was not close to being the case. To act as if Jordan was snubbed in any in 97 is just ridiculous. Karl Malone deserved it as much as anyone else.

[Rnbizzle]

Lebron, Kobe and Wade are all greater players then MJ. Stop living in the past bro. Basketball has evolved, MJ wouldn't have shit on prime LBJ for example..
inb4 crucifixion

[sekachu]

Lebron, Kobe and Wade are all greater players then MJ. Stop living in the past bro. Basketball has evolved, MJ wouldn't have shit on prime LBJ for example..
inb4 crucifixion


lebron can't even shxt on kobe, let alone MJ :roll:

[necya]

Seven. '88, '90, '91, '92, '96, '97, '98.

i have the same result for me.

[Doranku]

6 or 7. I don't have a problem with the one that Malone won, but I'd also have no problem if Jordan were the recipient instead.

[asdf1990]

lebron can't even shxt on kobe, let alone MJ :roll:

lebron has always shits on kobe . ..

[Harison]

6 IMO, 7 maybe. Voters get tired of giving one guy rewards, but still voting wasnt as bad as it is now.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Wait the BULLS were stacked?

:oldlol:

And the Lakers had essentially, akin to the current Heat ... 2 bonnafide top five players int he game on the same team?

Jordan was more dominant.

Shaq couldn't win until Kobe / Wade came along.

Both being basically the two best SG's of all-time behind Jordan.

And both players completely covered up for his inadaquacies. And were the closers for both teams.

Jordan started and finished games. THUS clearly more dominant.

Shaq had stacked teams in Orlando ... and then in LA, before Kobe turned into a full fledged superstar

Van Excel
Eddie Jones
Elden Campbell

ring a bell?

:oldlol: at the Lakers being like the current Heat. You forgot that Miami's 3rd option just made his 6th consecutive all-star team and put up 24/11 last year. Yes, the Lakers had two top 5 players in 2001 and 2002, but after that? They didn't have another top 50 player, their 3rd option was Derek Fisher, not even remotely comparable to Chris Bosh, and Miami has better shooters too.

And what about 2000? Kobe wasn't top 5 yet and they still didn't have a good 3rd option, unless you think Glen Rice averaging 12/4/2 in the playoffs on 41% shooting while playing bad enough defense to get him benched late in key games and complaining about shots.

And that Laker team you're referring to....what exactly did Jones, Van Exel and Campbell do in the playoffs? You do realize that Van Exel shot 33% in the 1998 playoffs and 24% in the '98 conference finals? Campbell was getting 11 mpg in the '98 WCF and shooting 21%, and Jones was easily the 2nd option yet only averaged 15/4/3 on 41% shooting that series. Shaq was the only guy who was consistently putting the ball in the basket(32 ppg, 56% shooting). Jordan wouldn't have won shit with his teammates performing that poorly in the conference finals either, regardless of what they look like on paper.

And to answer the question, Jordan deserved his '91, '92, '96 and '98 MVPs that he won. I think he clearly deserved '90 as well and I'd give him '97 as well. His '88 MVP could have gone to Bird too, but I don't have a problem with Jordan winning it.

So 6-7 MVPs probably.

[kaiiu]

0 in this era.

example: see tony allen

[Calabis]

Shaq...more dominant, harder to effectively gameplan against....Jordan was beast but didnt start winning until his team was stacked. i have no memories of those laker teams being 'stacked" just shaq Kobe and some role players that nobody will bother remember and that were nobodies before and after LA...beside glen rice ofcourse and maybe one or 2 other players.

:facepalm

Lakers team won 50 games before Shaq arrived, they added Kobe that same season.....and let's quit acting like it was Shaq/Kobe and scrubs....u just destroyed any credibility u had left

[Papaya Petee]

I would say 6.

1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1996, 1998

Karl Malone averaged 27\12 and his team went 64-18, how is that not grounds for MVP?

[necya]

And to answer the question, Jordan deserved his '91, '92, '96 and '98 MVPs that he won. I think he clearly deserved '90 as well and I'd give him '97 as well. His '88 MVP could have gone to Bird too, but I don't have a problem with Jordan winning it.

So 6-7 MVPs probably.

that's exaclty what i think.
88 was the greatest run for MVP. we will never see 3 guys playing at such a level like Magic, MJ and Bird in 1988.

but i have no problem with Magic, Barkley and Malone honored in 90, 93 and 97.

[BarberSchool]

nine.

[Kblaze8855]

Im not checking right now but...no way did Malone average 27/12 after like 1990 or 91. I know he barely got to 10 his last 10 years or so.

And ill say Jordan should have 6. All those he won plus 97. The greatest player of all time(to most) puts up those numbers, leads the L in scoring, is one of the elite defenders, and leads a team with Rodman and Kukoc out like 25-30 games each to within one missed jumper the last day of the season from 70 wins...hes the MVP.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Im not checking right now but...no way did Malone average 27/12 after like 1990 or 91. I know he barely got to 10 his last 10 years or so.

It was 27.4 pts/9.9 reb in '97.

[Ne 1]

Depends on your criteria for MVP.

IMO MVP's MJ should have won: 1991, 1992, 1996, 1997, 1998


1997: Jordan, not Malone should have won
1988: Bird, not Jordan should have won

[OldSchoolBBall]

1988: Bird, not Jordan should have won

Jordan had better numbers, was DPOY (at the very least, the best non-big defensive player in the game and FAR superior to Bird, just to pre-empt any "b...b...but he didn't deserve DPOY" bullsh*t), and led a FAR worse team to just 7 fewer wins. So no, Bird should not have won in '88.

[gengiskhan]

1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1996
1997
1998

10 x NBA MVP

2 went to Magic deliberately

Magic should've had 2 MVPs at most.

[Ne 1]

Jordan had better numbers, was DPOY (at the very least, the best non-big defensive player in the game and FAR superior to Bird, just to pre-empt any "b...b...but he didn't deserve DPOY" bullsh*t), and led a FAR worse team to just 7 fewer wins. So no, Bird should not have won in '88.

Bird led his team to a better record (57 wins) putting up 30/9/6. As far as better numbers, the only thing Mike had on Larry was 5 more ppg, taking more FGA's.

The difference between who got MVP was probably the fact the Bulls reached 50 wins and the "50 win" mark looks a lot prettier than 49 and what probably ultimately won Jordan votes. The Bulls luckily reached 50 wins because the Celtics played them at the end of the season with Bird and McHale resting because they already had the #1 seed secured, while it was a meaningful game for Chicago seeding wise.

So you had Bird putting up those ridiculous numbers on the best team in the conference and second best team overall in the league, while the Bulls have the 7th best record in the league. Also who's to say Bird doesn't put up even better numbers on a worse team (while still taking them to around 50+ wins)? Yeah, the Celtics did have talent but not like in years past, there is a reason Bird averaged career high in points that year...because they needed it. McHale had injuries, the entire core was aging (DJ/Parish put up their worst seasons up to that point), and they had no bench, and still in spite of all of that with Bird they were the #1 offensive team in the league.

[Da_Realist]

Bird led his team to a better record (57 wins) putting up 30/9/6. As far as better numbers, the only thing Mike had on Larry was 5 more ppg, taking more FGA's.

The difference between who got MVP was probably the fact the Bulls reached 50 wins and the "50 win" mark looks a lot prettier than 49 and what probably ultimately won Jordan votes. The Bulls luckily reached 50 wins because the Celtics played them at the end of the season with Bird and McHale resting because they already had the #1 seed secured, while it was a meaningful game for Chicago seeding wise.

So you had Bird putting up those ridiculous numbers on the best team in the conference and second best team overall in the league, while the Bulls have the 7th best record in the league. Also who's to say Bird doesn't put up even better numbers on a worse team (while still taking them to around 50+ wins)? Yeah, the Celtics did have talent but not like in years past, there is a reason Bird averaged career high in points that year...because they needed it. McHale had injuries, the entire core was aging (DJ/Parish put up their worst seasons up to that point), and they had no bench, and still in spite of all of that with Bird they were the #1 offensive team in the league.


As far as better numbers, the only thing Bird had on MJ was 3 more rbg.

The difference between who got MVP was probably the fact that MJ was as good (or nearly as good) a defensive player as he was an offensive player. Also, he grabbed 200 steals and 100 blocks that season and that has rarely happened. The fact that he did all this while also scoring 35 ppg probably ultimately won Jordan votes.

[Kobe24Clutch]

I'll say from 88-93 96-98 and when he was in the wizards too :lol he pretty much should have gotten the MVPs while he was retired too.:oldlol:

[Nevaeh]

Im not checking right now but...no way did Malone average 27/12 after like 1990 or 91. I know he barely got to 10 his last 10 years or so.

And ill say Jordan should have 6. All those he won plus 97. The greatest player of all time(to most) puts up those numbers, leads the L in scoring, is one of the elite defenders, and leads a team with Rodman and Kukoc out like 25-30 games each to within one missed jumper the last day of the season from 70 wins...hes the MVP.

Had the Bulls hit 70, MJ definitely would have gotten it. Whats crazy is the core of that team were past their primes, dominating young and old teams alike.

[8BeastlyXOIAD]

In reality Kobe Bryant is as good as Michael Jordan.

You can't tell straight up Jordan is superior to Kobe. There is no evidence of this.

Kobe competition against perimeter players against Jordan isn't even close. The best SG Jordan ever played against was freaking Clyde Drexler and Mitch Richmond. Compare that to what Kobe had to go against. (Wade, Carter, Tmac, Iverson etc)

[kaiiu]

In reality Kobe Bryant is as good as Michael Jordan.

You can't tell straight up Jordan is superior to Kobe. There is no evidence of this.

Kobe competition against perimeter players against Jordan isn't even close. The best SG Jordan ever played against was freaking Clyde Drexler and Mitch Richmond. Compare that to what Kobe had to go against. (Wade, Carter, Tmac, Iverson etc)
Mj= Tony Allen today

[8BeastlyXOIAD]

Mj= Tony Allen today

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :applause:

Larry Bird = Mike Dunleavy Jr
Magic Johnson = Shaun Livingston w/o the fast paced offense
Bernard King = Injured Michael Beasley
Kareem = Slower Roy Hibbert

[kaiiu]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :applause:

Larry Bird = Mike Dunleavy Jr
Magic Johnson = Shaun Livingston w/o the fast paced offense
Bernard King = Injured Michael Beasley
Kareem = Slower Roy Hibbert
:no: Larry Bird would be a beast 2day

[8BeastlyXOIAD]

:no: Larry Bird would be a beast 2day

And who said Mike Dunleavy in his prime wasn't a beast?

07-08: 19.2PPG 5.2RPG 3.5APG 47FG% 42(3P%)..........translate those stats into the 80's pace and you get Larry Bird's prime numbers

[Ne 1]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :applause:

Larry Bird = Mike Dunleavy Jr
Magic Johnson = Shaun Livingston w/o the fast paced offense
Bernard King = Injured Michael Beasley
Kareem = Slower Roy Hibbert

:oldlol:

Bill Russell = much less athletic Marcus Camby

Wilt Chamberlain = Sean May

Dominique Wilkins = David Noel

Michael Jordan = current Vince Carter

Larry Bird = Adam Morrison

Scottie Pippen = John Salmons

David Robinson = Hilton Armstrong

Magic Johnson = Boris Diaw

Kevin McHale = Troy Murphy

Charles Barkley = Carl Landry

Pistol Pete = Luke Ridnour

Alex English = Quincy Douby

John Stockton = Steve Blake

Dikembe Mutumbo = Johan Petro

Patrick Ewing = Roy Hibbert

Dan Majerle = Joe Alexander

Hakeem Olajuwon = Michael Olowokandi

Isiah Thomas = Nate Robinson

Clyde Drexler = Gerald Green with less range on his jump shot

Chris Mullin = Brent Barry

Kareem Abdul Jabbar = Marc Blount

Bill Walton = less athletic Brad Miller

Dale Ellis = Much less athletic, no swag version of Anthony Morrow

Dr. J = Travis Outlaw

Moses Malone = Eric Dampier

Bob Pettitt = Jose Garbajosa

Bob Cousy = less athletic Steve Nash

Willis Reed = Jason Collins

Earl Monroe = Arthur Agee

Fat Lever = poor mans Rajon Rondo

Karl Malone = Leon Powe

Elgin Baylor = Lenny Cooke

Oscar Robertson = Jason Kidd 5 years from now

Moses Malone = Alton Ford

Tiny Archibald = Sebastian Telifiair

Sidney Moncrief = less athletic Tony Allen

Larry Nance = much less athletic Stromile Swift

Dennis Rodman = Reggie Evans

James Worthy = Nicholas Batum

Bernard King = less athletic Wilson Chandler

Reggie Miller = scrawny version of Ben Gordon

[kaiiu]

Wilt= Ryan Hollins
Russell= Thabeet
West= Colby Karl
Reggie Miller= Anthony Parker

[Big#50]

that's exaclty what i think.
88 was the greatest run for MVP. we will never see 3 guys playing at such a level like Magic, MJ and Bird in 1988.

but i have no problem with Magic, Barkley and Malone honored in 90, 93 and 97.
Barkley wasn't honored for past career achievements or anything. He was the mvp that season. Took the Suns over the hump. Had his teammates all playing at a high level. He was the most valuable player that season. Jordan is not god.

[kaiiu]

And who said Mike Dunleavy in his prime wasn't a beast?

07-08: 19.2PPG 5.2RPG 3.5APG 47FG% 42(3P%)..........translate those stats into the 80's pace and you get Larry Bird's prime numbers
Isaiah Thomas= Boykins
Parish= Darell Author

[Ne 1]

Isaiah Thomas= Boykins
Parish= Darell Author

Alonzo Mourning = Etan Thomas

Patrick Ewing = Amir Johnson

Kevin Johnson = poor-man's Monta Ellis

Gary Payton = Jrue Holiday

[97 bulls]

Shaq...more dominant, harder to effectively gameplan against....Jordan was beast but didnt start winning until his team was stacked. i have no memories of those laker teams being 'stacked" just shaq Kobe and some role players that nobody will bother remember and that were nobodies before and after LA...beside glen rice ofcourse and maybe one or 2 other players.
But the teams the lakers played weren't stacked either. I liked the 00 lakers cuz they had rice. Even if statistically he didn't put up his usual numbers, he was very capable of scoring 20 ppg and thus had to be accounted for.

I also believe the lakers played some of the worse teams to ever make an nba final. So they didn't need to be as stacked.

[blablabla]

wilt=saer sene
bird=luke walton
nique=black joe alexander
barkley=maxiell
prime jordan=derozan last year
russell=theo ratliff right now

[kaiiu]

Barkley= Fatter Dejuan Blair
Dominique Wilkins= Jamario Moon with more FGA
Chris Mullin= Troy Murphy

[ShaqAttack3234]

But the teams the lakers played weren't stacked either. I liked the 00 lakers cuz they had rice. Even if statistically he didn't put up his usual numbers, he was very capable of scoring 20 ppg and thus had to be accounted for.

I also believe the lakers played some of the worse teams to ever make an nba final. So they didn't need to be as stacked.

The Kings and Blazers were stacked.

Rice really didn't need to be accounted for. He certainly didn't make the Lakers think twice about tripling Shaq constantly, he wasn't going to take over a game by that point and the Lakers were still a below average 3 point shooting team, and again, 12/4/2, 41 FG% with mediocre defense in the playoffs is very poor for a championship 3rd option.

Again, the Lakers were called "two deep" compared to the Blazers who were called "too deep". The 3peat Lakers definitely weren't stacked, and Rice played like complete crap after the 1st round that year.

[che guevara]

People are silly to say he should have won it in 97. Karl Malone probably had the most dominant season by a PF ever that season. He led his team to 64 wins, led the league in per with a 28.9, averaged 27ppg on a .60ts%. Jazz won 5 less games than the Bulls, but the Bulls were frankly better overall. You take Malone off the Jazz and they are going to do a lot worse than Bulls without Jordan. That bulls team in 97 would still win 50-55 games if you take Jordan off the team if 1994 is any indication, so by that reasoning Karl Malone was more valuable to his team if you want to get down to the most basic definion of MVP. Either way, only the biggest Jordan fanboy can say Karl Malone didn't deserve it.
:oldlol: LMAO. You've got to be shitting me. Barkley in every season from '87-'91 and '93 was better than Malone ever was (and if you want to say he missed too many games in '87 and '91, then fine, he was better in '88, '89, '90, and '93). Duncan from '99-'05 and '07 was better than Malone ever was, too, when you account for the fact that he was one of the greatest defensive players ever while Malone was nothing much as a help defender (and was overrated as a 1v1 defender too, he hardly tried to contest shots after like '95).

Malone had a better case for MVP in '98, he might have had an even better season than he did in '97 while Jordan had his worst season as a Bull aside from his rookie year (unless you want to count '86 and '95). I wouldn't argue if you said he was the '98 MVP, Jordan or Malone were both good choices but I would lean to MJ. In '97, Jordan was clearly a superior player, and I hope I don't need to explain why.


Barkley wasn't honored for past career achievements or anything. He was the mvp that season. Took the Suns over the hump. Had his teammates all playing at a high level. He was the most valuable player that season. Jordan is not god.
Yeah, I'm fine with Barkley winning the '93 MVP. If I had a vote I would've voted for Hakeem, but any of Jordan, Barkley or Hakeem are good choices.

[bond10]

no weakness = no defeats.. before the 6 championships his weaknesses were exposed, after the 6 championships his weaknesses were exposed. he is the greatest but its funny how people speak of him like he was some kind of demigod

No weaknesses as a PLAYER. It still takes an adequate team to win games. God you're an idiot.

[whoartthou]

Bird led his team to a better record (57 wins) putting up 30/9/6. As far as better numbers, the only thing Mike had on Larry was 5 more ppg, taking more FGA's.

The difference between who got MVP was probably the fact the Bulls reached 50 wins and the "50 win" mark looks a lot prettier than 49 and what probably ultimately won Jordan votes. The Bulls luckily reached 50 wins because the Celtics played them at the end of the season with Bird and McHale resting because they already had the #1 seed secured, while it was a meaningful game for Chicago seeding wise.

So you had Bird putting up those ridiculous numbers on the best team in the conference and second best team overall in the league, while the Bulls have the 7th best record in the league. Also who's to say Bird doesn't put up even better numbers on a worse team (while still taking them to around 50+ wins)? Yeah, the Celtics did have talent but not like in years past, there is a reason Bird averaged career high in points that year...because they needed it. McHale had injuries, the entire core was aging (DJ/Parish put up their worst seasons up to that point), and they had no bench, and still in spite of all of that with Bird they were the #1 offensive team in the league.

agenda is obvious

[Nastradamus]

Karl Malone won over him(twice?) for the same reasons Rose won over Lebron and co. this year. Better story.

[97 bulls]

The Kings and Blazers were stacked.

Rice really didn't need to be accounted for. He certainly didn't make the Lakers think twice about tripling Shaq constantly, he wasn't going to take over a game by that point and the Lakers were still a below average 3 point shooting team, and again, 12/4/2, 41 FG% with mediocre defense in the playoffs is very poor for a championship 3rd option.

Again, the Lakers were called "two deep" compared to the Blazers who were called "too deep". The 3peat Lakers definitely weren't stacked, and Rice played like complete crap after the 1st round that year.
I agree as far as the kings as blazers. But normally, the teams you play in the championship are a cut above the rest. I question whether the the sixers and nets were better than your avg semi final squad. I doubt they could beat this years lakers, hawks, celtics, or the grizzlies.

And you can't use stats to support your argument as far as rice. 41% really isn't bad when you consider that a large protion of his shots were 3s. And regardeless, his reputation didn't leave once he joined the lakers.

[97 bulls]

Karl Malone won over him(twice?) for the same reasons Rose won over Lebron and co. this year. Better story.
Actually, malone won 1 while jordan was playing, and that was in 97. And he won for the same reasons othe players not names jordan won. Cuz they didn't want to award it to jordan every year

And I do agree the mvp is warded now a days based more on results from situations. Rose this year, nashh a few years ago. Pippen would've won the mvp in 94 if the criteria was based on how it is now. What he did was farr more amazing than rose or nash. And he had better stats to boot. And that's not accounting his contributions on defense

[ShaqAttack3234]

I agree as far as the kings as blazers. But normally, the teams you play in the championship are a cut above the rest. I question whether the the sixers and nets were better than your avg semi final squad. I doubt they could beat this years lakers, hawks, celtics, or the grizzlies.

And you can't use stats to support your argument as far as rice. 41% really isn't bad when you consider that a large protion of his shots were 3s. And regardeless, his reputation didn't leave once he joined the lakers.

Fair point about competition, but as Phil said in his book "More Than A Game", he thought the Pacers, Blazers, Suns, Knicks and Kings, iirc had more talent as far as their top 8-9 or guys.

Rice's TS% in the 2000 playoffs was only 52 or 53%, iirc because he only made 1 three per game, which isn't great for a shooting specialist who was their only real 3 point threat that year, particularly playing alongside the most doubled player in the league who was also an excellent passer as well as Kobe who could penetrate and create shots for teammates.

Not to mention that he didn't embrace the role of spot up shooter and complained about Phil not running more plays with him and stood around when he didn't have the ball.

He wasn't a bad player, but a bad fit, not a great team player and he certainly wasn't all-star caliber by that point and when he wasn't doing a great job at the one thing that made him great in the first place(shooting scoring) combined with the natural decline at that age(32-33) and the elbow surgery from '99, he was not a luxury or key part of the Lakers as he was expected to be.

And really, Rice was not feared at all at that point. It was speculated from the start of the season that the Lakers were going to trade him and I believe they didn't offer him a contract after the season and of course went on to win 2 more titles.

Like I said, he did not consistently make teams pay when they overloaded on Shaq and didn't make teams hesitant to do so, that was a HUGE factor in Portland almost beating LA. I've never seen a player receive that much defensive attention in a series and a big reason why was because the Lakers didn't have the shooters to make them pay.

The 2000 Lakers team had the best player in the league and a great duo, but after that, they were mediocre and could have been constructed better. And Kobe at that point was in the top 10-11 range in the league rather than top 3 like the next 2 titles which would make up more for the Lakers lack of talent outside their duo.

Think about it, the team was below average at 2 positions and average at best at another.

And the Lakers had the 5th worst 3P% in the league(32.9%) and that was with a ton of open looks.

Again, look at Miami, they have the best player in the league(Lebron), another top 3 player(Wade) and a 6-time all-star(Bosh) as well as a few solid role players and some experience plus better shooters than that Laker team(Miami shot 37% on 3s this year, good for 7th best in the league).

Yet I've heard that Miami isn't balanced enough all year, compare that to the 2000 Lakers.

[Stringer Bell]

that's exaclty what i think.
88 was the greatest run for MVP. we will never see 3 guys playing at such a level like Magic, MJ and Bird in 1988.

but i have no problem with Magic, Barkley and Malone honored in 90, 93 and 97.

1988 was a great run for MVP, and I also thought 1990 was. If I were a voter, I have no idea whom I would vote for.


David Robinson- 24.3 PPG, 12 RPG, 3.9 BPG, 53% FG, Spurs improve their win total by 35 games.

Charles Barkley- 25.2 PPG, 11.5 RPG, 3.0 APG, 60% FG

Magic Johnson- 22.3 PPG, 11.5 APG, 6.6 RPG, Lakers go 63-19, best in the league

Michael Jordan- 33.6 PPG, 6.9 RPG, 6.3 APG, 2.8 SPG, 52.6 FG%

Then you have Karl Malone, who put up 31 and 11 a game on 56% FG.

[97 bulls]

Fair point about competition, but as Phil said in his book "More Than A Game", he thought the Pacers, Blazers, Suns, Knicks and Kings, iirc had more talent as far as their top 8-9 or guys.

Rice's TS% in the 2000 playoffs was only 52 or 53%, iirc because he only made 1 three per game, which isn't great for a shooting specialist who was their only real 3 point threat that year, particularly playing alongside the most doubled player in the league who was also an excellent passer as well as Kobe who could penetrate and create shots for teammates.

Not to mention that he didn't embrace the role of spot up shooter and complained about Phil not running more plays with him and stood around when he didn't have the ball.

He wasn't a bad player, but a bad fit, not a great team player and he certainly wasn't all-star caliber by that point and when he wasn't doing a great job at the one thing that made him great in the first place(shooting scoring) combined with the natural decline at that age(32-33) and the elbow surgery from '99, he was not a luxury or key part of the Lakers as he was expected to be.

And really, Rice was not feared at all at that point. It was speculated from the start of the season that the Lakers were going to trade him and I believe they didn't offer him a contract after the season and of course went on to win 2 more titles.

Like I said, he did not consistently make teams pay when they overloaded on Shaq and didn't make teams hesitant to do so, that was a HUGE factor in Portland almost beating LA. I've never seen a player receive that much defensive attention in a series and a big reason why was because the Lakers didn't have the shooters to make them pay.

The 2000 Lakers team had the best player in the league and a great duo, but after that, they were mediocre and could have been constructed better. And Kobe at that point was in the top 10-11 range in the league rather than top 3 like the next 2 titles which would make up more for the Lakers lack of talent outside their duo.

Think about it, the team was below average at 2 positions and average at best at another.

And the Lakers had the 5th worst 3P% in the league(32.9%) and that was with a ton of open looks.

Again, look at Miami, they have the best player in the league(Lebron), another top 3 player(Wade) and a 6-time all-star(Bosh) as well as a few solid role players and some experience plus better shooters than that Laker team(Miami shot 37% on 3s this year, good for 7th best in the league).

Yet I've heard that Miami isn't balanced enough all year, compare that to the 2000 Lakers.
Rices primary role was to spread the floor. He shot 42% from the field but he also shot 41% from 3 which was damn good. And during the 00 playoffs he took about 230 shots. Out of those, about 70 were 3s. That's almost half his shots. And im sure alot more of his attempts were from long range. And he didn't get traded for playing bad, he was traded for running his mouth along with his wife. The lakers had had enough of that. And while the lakers won the next 2 years, I feel if they played indiana in 01 and 02, they woulsve had a much harder time wining. The neats and sixers were flat out terrible eastern conference represenatives.

And to me, the lakers role players were solid. Is there really any difference between shaw, fox, horry, fisher and other championship teams role player like the 03 spurs role players of horry,kerr, (who both were old), malik rose, and jarren jackson? Or the 08 celtics role players. Glen davis, pj brown, james posey, and eddie house? How bout the showitme 87 lakers who had rambis, cooper, an old mychal thompson, and larry spriggs? Or the celtics who had an old bill walton, scott wedman, jerry sitching, and gre kite? How bout the 89 pistons who had probably the best bench but werent as top heavy. They had rodman, vinnie johnson, james edwards, and john salley. Even my favorite team the 97 bulls with kukoc, kerr, caffey, and williams.

They just weren't that bad. And the teams I mentiened were all-time great teams

[OldSchoolBBall]

Bird led his team to a better record (57 wins) putting up 30/9/6. As far as better numbers, the only thing Mike had on Larry was 5 more ppg, taking more FGA's.

Jordan certainly had better numbers. 35/6/6/54% FG/61% TS > 30/9/6/52% FG/61% TS. 5 ppg on equal/greater efficiency is quite significant, and certainly worth more than 3 more reb/gm (all of which were defensive boards, btw - MJ averaged more off-reb than Bird, 1.7 vs. 1.4). And again, MJ's defensive impact was light years beyond Bird's (he spearheaded the league's third best defense that year with no other standout defenders on the team).


Yeah, the Celtics did have talent but not like in years past, there is a reason Bird averaged career high in points that year...because they needed it. McHale had injuries, the entire core was aging (DJ/Parish put up their worst seasons up to that point), and they had no bench, and still in spite of all of that with Bird they were the #1 offensive team in the league.

GFTO with that nonsense. :oldlol: Yeah, their bench was weaker than in years past, but their talent was FAR superior to Chicago's. Look at their top 5 mpg players after Bird/Jordan:

Celtics -

McHale - 22.6 ppg/8.4 reb/60% FG
Ainge - 15.7 pts/6.2 ast/49% FG
Parish - 14.3 pts/8.5 reb/56% FG
Johnson - 12.6 pts/7.8 ast/44% FG
Paxson - 8.7 ppg/49% FG


Bulls -

Oakley - 12.4 pts/13.0 reb/48% FG
Corzine - 10.1 pts/6.6 reb/48% FG
Sellers - 9.5 pts/3.0 reb/46% FG (3 rebs as a 7-footer!)
Pippen - 7.9 reb/3.8 reb/46% FG
Paxson - 7.9 pts/3.7 ast/49% FG

This is not even close. Far worse scoring (on FAR worse efficiency to boot, which makes it even worse), worse rebounding, far worse passing/playmaking, and worse defense. You give 1988 MJ Bird's cast and he wins 60+ games easily.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Rices primary role was to spread the floor. He shot 42% from the field but he also shot 41% from 3 which was damn good. And during the 00 playoffs he took about 230 shots. Out of those, about 70 were 3s. That's almost half his shots. And im sure alot more of his attempts were from long range. And he didn't get traded for playing bad, he was traded for running his mouth along with his wife. The lakers had had enough of that. And while the lakers won the next 2 years, I feel if they played indiana in 01 and 02, they woulsve had a much harder time wining. The neats and sixers were flat out terrible eastern conference represenatives.

And to me, the lakers role players were solid. Is there really any difference between shaw, fox, horry, fisher and other championship teams role player like the 03 spurs role players of horry,kerr, (who both were old), malik rose, and jarren jackson? Or the 08 celtics role players. Glen davis, pj brown, james posey, and eddie house? How bout the showitme 87 lakers who had rambis, cooper, an old mychal thompson, and larry spriggs? Or the celtics who had an old bill walton, scott wedman, jerry sitching, and gre kite? How bout the 89 pistons who had probably the best bench but werent as top heavy. They had rodman, vinnie johnson, james edwards, and john salley. Even my favorite team the 97 bulls with kukoc, kerr, caffey, and williams.

They just weren't that bad. And the teams I mentiened were all-time great teams

Rice's 3P% would have helped his efficiency had he made more, regardless of his %, he only made 1.1 per game and ended up with a mediocre TS% of 53%, not 3rd option quality when you're only averaging 12/4/2, playing crappy defense, running your mouth about your role and not doing the little things such as moving without the ball.

Again, those guys were solid role players, but that's all they were, every team has a few guys like that.

But it's not like those guys were constants every year either.

Fox didn't emerge as a key contributor until he was the starter and got his confidence in 2001(read more on that in Phil's book).

Fisher shot under 35% from the field in the 2000 regular season and ended up their 4th guard in the 2000 playoffs. In 2002, he shot 36% in the playoffs and it seems like every point guard was killing him. Bibby had the series of his life, Kidd averaged like 20 ppg and close to a triple double vs the Lakers, iirc and even rookie Tony Parker had some big games vs the Lakers, iirc.

Harper was a solid role player and probably the Lakers 3rd best player in the 2000 playoffs(which should tell you something), but he was done after that, he was injured in 2001 and barely ended up playing in the playoffs.

Shaw was a very small time contributor to begin with, he had those lobs to Shaq, played pretty solid defense and hit a couple of big shots in game 7 vs Portland, but what he brought on a day to day basis was barely notable.

The bottom line is that the 2000-2002 Lakers definitely lacked a 3rd option and 3 point shooting.

Regarding the 2003 Spurs, well that is regarded as one of the weakest supporting casts a superstar has won a title with.

And 2008 Celtics? They had an all-star 3rd option, Posey was a better defender than any of those Laker role players(same with Perkins) and they had much better 3 point shooters in fact they were top 5 in the league with a 3P% of 38.1%.

I'm not even going to bother with the 80's examples you gave who had 5+ scoring options as opposed to 2 and in all of those cases an elite 6th men and the '86 Celtics had the 6th man of the year while the '87 Lakers had the DPOY among their role players.

[97 bulls]

Rice's 3P% would have helped his efficiency had he made more, regardless of his %, he only made 1.1 per game and ended up with a mediocre TS% of 53%, not 3rd option quality when you're only averaging 12/4/2, playing crappy defense, running your mouth about your role and not doing the little things such as moving without the ball.

Again, those guys were solid role players, but that's all they were, every team has a few guys like that.

But it's not like those guys were constants every year either.

Fox didn't emerge as a key contributor until he was the starter and got his confidence in 2001(read more on that in Phil's book).

Fisher shot under 35% from the field in the 2000 regular season and ended up their 4th guard in the 2000 playoffs. In 2002, he shot 36% in the playoffs and it seems like every point guard was killing him. Bibby had the series of his life, Kidd averaged like 20 ppg and close to a triple double vs the Lakers, iirc and even rookie Tony Parker had some big games vs the Lakers, iirc.

Harper was a solid role player and probably the Lakers 3rd best player in the 2000 playoffs(which should tell you something), but he was done after that, he was injured in 2001 and barely ended up playing in the playoffs.

Shaw was a very small time contributor to begin with, he had those lobs to Shaq, played pretty solid defense and hit a couple of big shots in game 7 vs Portland, but what he brought on a day to day basis was barely notable.

The bottom line is that the 2000-2002 Lakers definitely lacked a 3rd option and 3 point shooting.

Regarding the 2003 Spurs, well that is regarded as one of the weakest supporting casts a superstar has won a title with.

And 2008 Celtics? They had an all-star 3rd option, Posey was a better defender than any of those Laker role players(same with Perkins) and they had much better 3 point shooters in fact they were top 5 in the league with a 3P% of 38.1%.

I'm not even going to bother with the 80's examples you gave who had 5+ scoring options as opposed to 2 and in all of those cases an elite 6th men and the '86 Celtics had the 6th man of the year while the '87 Lakers had the DPOY among their role players.
I really don't understand why you would seem to admit he shot well from 3pt range (rice) but then say he didn't make enough. Would you rather he shoot 25% but make 3 a game? And I just don't see what was wrong with their core players. So what they had a bad playoffs one year. All players have. That's why I don't like using playoff stats. Especially for teams that won. I don't care if a guy shot 19%, if they win, they win. And a few bad playoff series don't indicate tthe talent of a player. Rick fox was a solid player, as was horry, shaw etc. And understand, when I compare players from the 80s. I try to put their stats into context. For instance, bill walton avg 8 ppg in 86. That's equivalent to about 5-6 ppg in the 90s/00s. So just add 2-3 ppg to fox, horry, shaw etc and their stats are very similarr to their 80s counterparts.

I agree the 01 and 02 lakers didn't have that 3rd scorer. But they didn't need one. To be honest, I just don't think the league was as good at the time. Plus they had two 30 pt scorers. And a great defense.

[Ne 1]

............


You know Dominique Wilkins also won 50 games that same year with pretty much as much talent as MJ had. And Boston would have won 59-60 games had they had not decided to rest Bird (they were 2-4 without Bird overall). Bulls as a result would not have reached the 50 win mark if Celtics did that (because they rested Bird and McHale in last game of the season vs. Chicago). If Bulls win 49 games instead of 50, MJ is not winning the MVP. That's all I am saying, that Bird sitting out those games basically conceded the MVP to Jordan. Getting to "50" is huge psychologically for voters. Bird's stats are ridiculous on the best team in the conference, dude could have averaged even more if he wanted but you have to sacrifice stats on a winning team sometimes...why the hell would he need to average 35 ppg? His offensive impact was huge, he still made the Celtics the best offensive team in the league despite McHale missing the first month of the season, Parish and DJ having the worst seasons of their career (DJ was nearing retirement), and the Celtics having a very poor bench.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I really don't understand why you would seem to admit he shot well from 3pt range (rice) but then say he didn't make enough. Would you rather he shoot 25% but make 3 a game? And I just don't see what was wrong with their core players. So what they had a bad playoffs one year. All players have. That's why I don't like using playoff stats. Especially for teams that won. I don't care if a guy shot 19%, if they win, they win. And a few bad playoff series don't indicate tthe talent of a player. Rick fox was a solid player, as was horry, shaw etc. And understand, when I compare players from the 80s. I try to put their stats into context. For instance, bill walton avg 8 ppg in 86. That's equivalent to about 5-6 ppg in the 90s/00s. So just add 2-3 ppg to fox, horry, shaw etc and their stats are very similarr to their 80s counterparts.

I agree the 01 and 02 lakers didn't have that 3rd scorer. But they didn't need one. To be honest, I just don't think the league was as good at the time. Plus they had two 30 pt scorers. And a great defense.

I'm saying that Rice's overall efficiency was still mediocre in the playoffs and that his 3P% doesn't make up for it because he only made 1 per game leaving his TS% at a mediocre 53%.

And the 2001 Lakers? Turns out they didn't need a 3rd scorer due to freakish playoff runs by Shaq and Kobe averaging 30+ ppg and 29+ ppg, respectively on excellent efficiency while playing great all around ball, but that speaks more to the historic level the duo played at rather than their supporting cast, though the cast did play well, Fisher got hot and shot very well in the playoffs, Horace Grant rebounded and defended opposing PF well and Fox played good all around ball.

But in 2002? They certainly could've used a 3rd option, I mean they didn't exactly have an easy time with the Kings, even with Peja injured, Webber shooting free throws much worse than Shaq and the Kings completely choking in game 7.

And come on, the Lakers did not have a bench player comparable to '86 Walton regardless of stats, his role was small, but he gave the Celtics an excellent backup center(something the Lakers didn't have, and didn't necessarily need, but it shows how much the Lakers relied on Shaq). When Walton was on the court, his passing was terrific, he still had the fundamental offensive game, he could start the break with his outlet passing and he'd rebound and block shots, plus his basketball IQ was always off the charts. He won 6th man of the year, the Lakers didn't have a 6th man of the year candidate from 2000-2002.

Not to mention that Boston had 4 hall of famers in the starting lineup and they weren't past their prime hall of famers on their last legs either, then they had Danny Ainge who is damn good for a 5th option and would've been the 3peat Lakers 3rd option.

[97 bulls]

I'm saying that Rice's overall efficiency was still mediocre in the playoffs and that his 3P% doesn't make up for it because he only made 1 per game leaving his TS% at a mediocre 53%.

And the 2001 Lakers? Turns out they didn't need a 3rd scorer due to freakish playoff runs by Shaq and Kobe averaging 30+ ppg and 29+ ppg, respectively on excellent efficiency while playing great all around ball, but that speaks more to the historic level the duo played at rather than their supporting cast, though the cast did play well, Fisher got hot and shot very well in the playoffs, Horace Grant rebounded and defended opposing PF well and Fox played good all around ball.

But in 2002? They certainly could've used a 3rd option, I mean they didn't exactly have an easy time with the Kings, even with Peja injured, Webber shooting free throws much worse than Shaq and the Kings completely choking in game 7.

And come on, the Lakers did not have a bench player comparable to '86 Walton regardless of stats, his role was small, but he gave the Celtics an excellent backup center(something the Lakers didn't have, and didn't necessarily need, but it shows how much the Lakers relied on Shaq). When Walton was on the court, his passing was terrific, he still had the fundamental offensive game, he could start the break with his outlet passing and he'd rebound and block shots, plus his basketball IQ was always off the charts. He won 6th man of the year, the Lakers didn't have a 6th man of the year candidate from 2000-2002.

Not to mention that Boston had 4 hall of famers in the starting lineup and they weren't past their prime hall of famers on their last legs either, then they had Danny Ainge who is damn good for a 5th option and would've been the 3peat Lakers 3rd option.
Your right. No player on the lakers was on the level of walton. Especially the 01 ans 02 lakers. I just think you sell rice a little short. The fact is his job was more or less make teams pay when they doubled off him. He shot over 40% from 3 so he did his job. Rather it was 1 3 made or 4. Especially when there's not very many shots available after shaq and kobe take their share.

And why would a team leave rice, a known long range threat instead of another player? Even if you wanna say he shot bad, which I disagree with based on his role, he still had that rep. Which didn't leave him in 00.

[Psileas]

Since we're talking about MVP's, not seasons when he was the best player, 6 would be my guess-timate.

88, 90, 91, 92, 96, 97.

Not '89, since Magic had a really great all-around season himself (arguably his best ever) and led the Lakers to the best record in the W.C, while the Bulls finished like 7th in the East.
Not in '93, either, since his team regressed by 10 wins, while the Suns won 63 - and before arguing how talented the Suns were, which they were, consider how difficult it is for a newly moved there superstar to mesh with his new team and lead them to a lot more wins than last season. To give this image, imagine in 1992-93 Jordan going to the Suns and Barkley going to the Bulls, so the Bulls regress from 67 wins to 57 and the Suns win 63. There would be no way in hell Barkley would be voted. Now, maybe on this case it would be a bit closer, since Jordan was the better individual player and bigger name, but I hope you realize how Barkley's choice was correct.
Finally, I'd swap '97 and '98. Maybe people wanted to give the '97 MVP to Malone as a "career recognition"/"lifetime achievement", not expecting such a great season to repeat itself. But Malone in '98 led the Jazz to the #1 record in the whole NBA. However, it was evident that Malone would not repeat.

[97 bulls]

Since we're talking about MVP's, not seasons when he was the best player, 6 would be my guess-timate.

88, 90, 91, 92, 96, 97.

Not '89, since Magic had a really great all-around season himself (arguably his best ever) and led the Lakers to the best record in the W.C, while the Bulls finished like 7th in the East.
Not in '93, either, since his team regressed by 10 wins, while the Suns won 63 - and before arguing how talented the Suns were, which they were, consider how difficult it is for a newly moved there superstar to mesh with his new team and lead them to a lot more wins than last season. To give this image, imagine in 1992-93 Jordan going to the Suns and Barkley going to the Bulls, so the Bulls regress from 67 wins to 57 and the Suns win 63. There would be no way in hell Barkley would be voted. Now, maybe on this case it would be a bit closer, since Jordan was the better individual player and bigger name, but I hope you realize how Barkley's choice was correct.
Finally, I'd swap '97 and '98. Maybe people wanted to give the '97 MVP to Malone as a "career recognition"/"lifetime achievement", not expecting such a great season to repeat itself. But Malone in '98 led the Jazz to the #1 record in the whole NBA. However, it was evident that Malone would not repeat.
Malone definately didn't deserve. The mvp in 98. Jordan led the bulls to the same record even though scottie pippen missed 38 games that year.

[magnax1]

88
89
Possibly 90 (he and barkley are hard to choose from)
91
92
96
97
maybe 98
So probably deserved 6 or 7 . 97 and 89 he got robbed in my opinion.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

In Jordan's case, yes. His team's were better defensively. And he was the team's best defender. He didn't have any weakness defensively. Shaq, you run the screen and roll and he's ****ed. Shaq wasn't even as good of an on ball defender as KG and Duncan.

You can tell the people who grew up strictly in the Shaq era when they say he was as dominant as Jordan.

This dude was 7'2 and can't even compete with Jordan's PPG numbers.

Not to mention, at the end of games, he's a liability.

Anyone who says Shaq > MJ, or was as dominant is flat out retarded.

Jordan had no weaknesses. There is never a point in the game where you can take him out of it. You can't keep the ball out of his hands, because he's a guard.

Shaq can't do it all like MJ could.
Scottie Pippen disagrees!
:roll: :roll:

[gengiskhan]

88
89
Possibly 90 (he and barkley are hard to choose from)
91
92
96
97
maybe 98
So probably deserved 6 or 7 . 97 and 89 he got robbed in my opinion.

88-89. MJ definitely got robbed. 32.5ppg. 8rpg. 8apg for all 82 games at 53.5%FG. ofcourse MJ got robbed.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

A lot more.
Including one of Barkley's.
The voters get tired of voting for the same MVP over and over.

[Calabis]

And who said Mike Dunleavy in his prime wasn't a beast?

07-08: 19.2PPG 5.2RPG 3.5APG 47FG% 42(3P%)..........translate those stats into the 80's pace and you get Larry Bird's prime numbers

this coming from a guy, who thinks Beasley is good:roll:

[Calabis]

You know Dominique Wilkins also won 50 games that same year with pretty much as much talent as MJ had. And Boston would have won 59-60 games had they had not decided to rest Bird (they were 2-4 without Bird overall). Bulls as a result would not have reached the 50 win mark if Celtics did that (because they rested Bird and McHale in last game of the season vs. Chicago). If Bulls win 49 games instead of 50, MJ is not winning the MVP. That's all I am saying, that Bird sitting out those games basically conceded the MVP to Jordan. Getting to "50" is huge psychologically for voters. Bird's stats are ridiculous on the best team in the conference, dude could have averaged even more if he wanted but you have to sacrifice stats on a winning team sometimes...why the hell would he need to average 35 ppg? His offensive impact was huge, he still made the Celtics the best offensive team in the league despite McHale missing the first month of the season, Parish and DJ having the worst seasons of their career (DJ was nearing retirement), and the Celtics having a very poor bench.

GTFOH!!! You KobeStans are pathetic, Wilkins had a better team and a much deeper bench...u'r credibility is shot...who on the Bulls roster was as good as Moses Malone dropping 20/11??? Reggie Theus a proven scorer and Doc Rivers a floor general and good defensive player??? Please stay out of Jordan topics, because u try to act like u claim Jordan is GOAT, yet u turn around and say he's Vince Carter if playing today......:facepalm

http://cureanxiety.com/images/bipolar-disorder-symptoms.jpg

[JellyBean]

He should have gotten 5 but he only got 5.

I agree.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Scottie Pippen disagrees!
:roll: :roll:

He's talking about Jordan's prime, and Jordan was the best defender on the Bulls until he retired in 1993. The only year it's even arguable is 1993 itself, when Pippen was entering his defensive prime. And that year MJ finished second in DPOY voting and was voted DPOY by the coaches.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Your right. No player on the lakers was on the level of walton. Especially the 01 ans 02 lakers. I just think you sell rice a little short. The fact is his job was more or less make teams pay when they doubled off him. He shot over 40% from 3 so he did his job. Rather it was 1 3 made or 4. Especially when there's not very many shots available after shaq and kobe take their share.

And why would a team leave rice, a known long range threat instead of another player? Even if you wanna say he shot bad, which I disagree with based on his role, he still had that rep. Which didn't leave him in 00.

Rice wasn't their first choice to leave, but guys weren't thinking twice about leaving him to double or triple Shaq.

And you're forgetting that Rice didn't embrace the role of spot up shooter which would have made him more effective. He wanted more plays run for him.

And he was brought in and paid that money to be their 3rd scoring option which he certainly didn't live up to in the 2000 playoffs.

The 2000 Lakers definitely lacked 3 point shooting overall(as evidenced by them having the 5th worst 3P% in the league and Portland being able to play Shaq the way they did) and they didn't have a 3rd option plus Kobe was closer to the top 10-11 range rather than top 3 like the following 2 years so that team was definitely not stacked.

[Ne 1]

Wilkins had a better team and a much deeper bench...u'r credibility is shot...who on the Bulls roster was as good as Moses Malone dropping 20/11??? Reggie Theus a proven scorer and Doc Rivers a floor general and good defensive player?

Huh? Neither Malone or Theus were on the '88 Hawks. :confusedshrug:

[97 bulls]

Rice wasn't their first choice to leave, but guys weren't thinking twice about leaving him to double or triple Shaq.

And you're forgetting that Rice didn't embrace the role of spot up shooter which would have made him more effective. He wanted more plays run for him.

And he was brought in and paid that money to be their 3rd scoring option which he certainly didn't live up to in the 2000 playoffs.

The 2000 Lakers definitely lacked 3 point shooting overall(as evidenced by them having the 5th worst 3P% in the league and Portland being able to play Shaq the way they did) and they didn't have a 3rd option plus Kobe was closer to the top 10-11 range rather than top 3 like the following 2 years so that team was definitely not stacked.
Fair points shaaq. As teams go, the 00 lakers aren't gonna be considered the best team ever. But im not gonna knock players for having a bad series. That all im saying. All your other points are too true. How bout this. If you were to create glen rice on nba 2k11 what would you feel is a fair overall rating? Id say around 80 to 83.

[Psileas]

Malone definately didn't deserve. The mvp in 98. Jordan led the bulls to the same record even though scottie pippen missed 38 games that year.

The Bulls were deeper than the Jazz, not to mention that Utah won 62 games with Stockton missing 18 games himself.

[97 bulls]

The Bulls were deeper than the Jazz, not to mention that Utah won 62 games with Stockton missing 18 games himself.
The bulls were deeper. But still 40 games by your second best player? That's double the amount stockton missed. Depth can only take you so far. And they lost some of that depth when the bulls traded away jason caffey. Who was similar to big baby davis as far as production was concerned.

[Calabis]

Huh? Neither Malone or Theus were on the '88 Hawks. :confusedshrug:

88-89 dude ...u mentioned 88....and 50 wins