So let me get this straight, Jordan played with 5 Hall of Famers? [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

View Full Version : So let me get this straight, Jordan played with 5 Hall of Famers?

28renyoy

08-15-2011, 04:00 AM

2 of which were in their prime? And 2 Hall of Fame coaches? And 3 more players that made all star teams while on the Bulls? No wonder he won 6 titles...

ThaSwagg3r

08-15-2011, 04:01 AM

Dennis Rodman was in his prime when he was on the Bulls? Thanks for showing your age and knowledge.

28renyoy

08-15-2011, 04:03 AM

Dennis Rodman was in his prime when he was on the Bulls? Thanks for showing your age and knowledge.

Rebounding champion-check
1st team all nba defense-check

Peak? No, Prime? yes

imbecile

ThaSwagg3r

08-15-2011, 04:06 AM

Rebounding champion-check
1st team all nba defense-check

imbecile
Lets see he won his two DPOYs (1990-1991) when he was with the Pistons, he also had All-Defensive 1st team selections with the Pistons and his only two all-star appearances where when he was with the Pistons.

At least do your research.

28renyoy

08-15-2011, 04:07 AM

Lets see he won his two DPOYs (1990-1991) when he was with the Pistons, he also had All-Defensive 1st team selections with the Pistons and his only two all-star appearances where when he was with the Pistons.

At least do your research.

Was Chris Bosh in his prime last season?

ThaSwagg3r

08-15-2011, 04:11 AM

Was Chris Bosh in his prime last season?
One could argue that, yes he probably was. I have no idea what you're trying to get at. Rodman was in his prime with Detroit. I bet you didn't even know Rodman played as much SF as he did PF with those Pistons teams. His prime was with Detroit because he was a much better defensive player in those days and he was still a rebounding beast. He just focused on rebounding later on in his career and nothing more.

Here, I just googled this for you.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=201192

Lets see who thinks Rodman was in his prime with the Bulls.

sekachu

08-15-2011, 05:16 AM

Rebounding champion-check
1st team all nba defense-check

Peak? No, Prime? yes

imbecile

He wasn't in his prime during 96 bulls year but he played so smart and discipline as a role player. No one expected that he could fix into bulls system so well though.

ballerz

08-15-2011, 05:21 AM

No, jordan made them hall of famers

Stuckey

08-15-2011, 05:24 AM

No, jordan made them hall of famers

phil jackson and the desire for more pvssy, glory and money made them all HOFers

Jordan aint shi without his Jesus testicles

28renyoy

08-15-2011, 05:51 AM

One could argue that, yes he probably was. I have no idea what you're trying to get at. Rodman was in his prime with Detroit. I bet you didn't even know Rodman played as much SF as he did PF with those Pistons teams. His prime was with Detroit because he was a much better defensive player in those days and he was still a rebounding beast. He just focused on rebounding later on in his career and nothing more.

Here, I just googled this for you.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=201192

Lets see who thinks Rodman was in his prime with the Bulls.

uh...like half of the replies in that thread say he was his best with the bulls

LebronairJAMES

08-15-2011, 06:00 AM

1
2 of which were in their prime? And 2 Hall of Fame coaches? And 3 more players that made all star teams while on the Bulls? No wonder he won 6 titles...
shut up!

97 bulls

08-15-2011, 06:02 AM

miller-time

08-15-2011, 06:03 AM

2 of which were in their prime? And 2 Hall of Fame coaches? And 3 more players that made all star teams while on the Bulls? No wonder he won 6 titles...

3 more players? i count pippen and rodman? who am i forgetting?

Collie

08-15-2011, 06:18 AM

Wait are you counting PJ and Tex in those Hall of Famers??

TAC602

08-15-2011, 06:19 AM

Lucifer

08-15-2011, 06:21 AM

Jordan wuz a sidekick to 5 hall of famers, and he played in the weakest era in any sport ... and in a league full of gnomes and dwarfs.

KOBE played in the land of the giants and won 5 titles by himself!

PROOF: Kobe is GOAT.

What does this thread have ANYTHING to do with kobe. You know Kobe is GREAT when his name constantly pops up in MJ threads. :roll:

OmniStrife

08-15-2011, 06:33 AM

Jordan was the main reason they got into that HOF in the 1st place.
And they gave him their thanks during their speeches.

Stuckey

08-15-2011, 06:39 AM

Jordan was the main reason they got into that HOF in the 1st place.
And they gave him their thanks during their speeches.

jordan is a poor man's kobe

those defenses suckedddd, i could average 20 points

jordan whined about management like an immature brat in the HOF, kobe has the modesty to speak his mind in a parking lot

kobe would destroy Jordan's resume if they switched places, you think Jordan would want 2nd fiddle to Shaq? lol he would flee to Boston and turn Pierce into Pippen and get burned by the Pistons all over again

madmax

08-15-2011, 06:55 AM

Well, it is interesting to read so many posts about how he single-handedly won all of his titles. But yet whenever a hypothetical thread surfaces, those Bulls teams would apparently crush every other great all-time team. Or maybe he just wasn't short on help, to say the least.

bingo:oldlol:
It's really funny to watch all these homers squirming in their chairs now when their agenda gets demolished more and more in retrospective....
5 HOF teammates -check
Diluted talent level in the league - check
No worthy opponent in any of the finals - check

Looks like winning 6 titles wasn't such a huge accomplishment like some of His Airness fans wants us to believe

97 bulls

08-15-2011, 07:00 AM

Jordan was the main reason they got into that HOF in the 1st place.
And they gave him their thanks during their speeches.
Oh come off it. Nobody wins by themself. Jordan had 7 years to accomplish this feat. And he couldn't get it done.those guys made it to the hall based on what they accomplished on the court, the vision to create an offense that's won 12 championships, and the genius to lead 2 seperate teams to 3pts and repeats. 4 actually. Stop acting like jordan is god.

1987_Lakers

08-15-2011, 07:00 AM

Its gonna be six once kukoc gets in. After sabonis made it, I'm sure kukoc will too. He accomplished more overseas than sabonis and had a better nba career too. And yes I believe rodman was still in his prime with the bulls. Eveen if he didn't win a dpoy award. I think he had his 3rd highest rebounding season with chicago or 2nd.

If Kukoc does get in it will be because of his overseas accomplishments, because what he did in the NBA is no where near HOF worthy. Saying "Jordan played with HOFer Toni Kukoc" is kind of flawed.

Collie

08-15-2011, 07:02 AM

Hittin_Shots

08-15-2011, 07:04 AM

You know winning titles is more likely to get u in the HoF, this is why that guy with the Russell played with this many HoF'ers pisses me off, he won 11 titles, means his teammates won lots to, same with jordan he won 6 titles, his teammates also won those therefore giving them a better chance of being HoF.

97 bulls

08-15-2011, 07:05 AM

bingo:oldlol:
It's really funny to watch all these homers squirming in their chairs now when their agenda gets demolished more and more in retrospective....
5 HOF teammates -check
Diluted talent level in the league - check false
No worthy opponent in any of the finals - check false

Looks like winning 6 titles wasn't such a huge accomplishment like some of His Airness fans wants us to believe
I know no amount of reason will show you the error in your thinking, but your wrong. Why do you guys act as if the 87 lakers, the 86 celtics and the 83 sixers played each other every year?

The 87 lakers beat a celtic team that was injured. The 86 celtics didn't even play the lakers, and the 83 sixers beat the lakers without james worthy. Not that worthy was in his prime, but the fact is the lakers weren't at full strength.

Teanett

08-15-2011, 07:16 AM

i don't get it.
pip, worm, parish and...?
who are the others??

97 bulls

08-15-2011, 07:18 AM

If Kukoc does get in it will be because of his overseas accomplishments, because what he did in the NBA is no where near HOF worthy. Saying "Jordan played with HOFer Toni Kukoc" is kind of flawed.
Bill walton wasn't playing at a hall of fame level with the celtics. But you gladly include him in your argument.

And kukoc helping the bulls to 3 championships, and winning a 6th man award does show on his resume.

Truth be told, I don't think walton should even be in the hall. What for 3 goo to great years? A classic case on getting there based on what mightve been.

97 bulls

08-15-2011, 07:19 AM

Wait, I didn't get those Hall of Famers. Are we counting a past-prime Gervin? Or are we also hypothetically inducting Horace Grant and Bill Cartwright? I'm confused, help me out. I counted 2 players, a coach and an assistant coach.
He counting tex winter and phil jackson as part of the team.in so facto.... the bulls have 5 hofers on their squad.

Teanett

08-15-2011, 07:20 AM

Bill walton wasn't playing at a hall of fame level with the celtics. But you gladly include him in your argument.

And kukoc helping the bulls to 3 championships, and winning a 6th man award does show on his resume.

Truth be told, I don't think walton should even be in the hall. What for 3 goo to great years? A classic case on getting there based on what mightve been.

he won a champioship and he was great doing it.
some people get in for less.

1987_Lakers

08-15-2011, 07:24 AM

Bill walton wasn't playing at a hall of fame level with the celtics. But you gladly include him in your argument.

No I don't. Bill Walton was no where near HOF level in 1986, he was just a valuable role player off the bench who won 6MOY.

And kukoc helping the bulls to 3 championships, and winning a 6th man award does show on his resume.
I said if we were going by NBA careers only Kukoc wouldn't touch the hall of fame, winning the 6MOY once and never making the all-star game won't get you in.:oldlol:

Truth be told, I don't think walton should even be in the hall. What for 3 goo to great years? A classic case on getting there based on what mightve been.

Arguably the greatest college basketball player of all-time doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame? You're an idiot.:roll:

guy

08-15-2011, 09:26 AM

5 players? Pippen, Rodman, Gervin, Parish, and who? Gervin and Parish were nowhere near there primes when they played with Jordan.

bond10

08-15-2011, 09:36 AM

Why are people so reluctant to accept Jordan as the GOAT? these agendas are hilarious...can't wait til luc longley gets in the HoF

Doranku

08-15-2011, 09:50 AM

Collie

08-15-2011, 09:51 AM

5 players? Pippen, Rodman, Gervin, Parish, and who? Gervin and Parish were nowhere near there primes when they played with Jordan.

Yeah it's a stupid premise since Parish was like 42 years old, and Gervin played 1 year (his final and by far his least productive) where MJ played EIGHTEEN games, and averaged 5 ppg in the playoffs.

Then again, troll thread so it's expected I guess.

MasterDurant24

08-15-2011, 10:49 AM

I know no amount of reason will show you the error in your thinking, but your wrong. Why do you guys act as if the 87 lakers, the 86 celtics and the 83 sixers played each other every year?

The 87 lakers beat a celtic team that was injured. The 86 celtics didn't even play the lakers, and the 83 sixers beat the lakers without james worthy. Not that worthy was in his prime, but the fact is the lakers weren't at full strength.
The talent level in the later 90s was defintely diluted, due to more teams.

That Sixers team beat the Lakers with a still productive Kareem(leading scorer), Jamaal Wilkes(one of the most underrated players of all time), Norm Nixon(another one of the most underrated players), and of course Magic. They also had Michael Cooper, one of the best defensive players of all time. Worthy was just a rookie. Wilkes, Kareem, and Magic were all allstars.

The Celtics faced one of the best power forward-center tandems ever, with Ralph and Hakeem. The same Houston team that beat Kareem, Magic, Worthy, and Byron Scott in 5 games.

Unstoppabull

08-15-2011, 10:54 AM

Even if it's true, who the hell cares?

You can't diminish Jordan's legacy kid, you just can't.

catch24

08-15-2011, 11:00 AM

97 bulls

08-15-2011, 12:56 PM

Butters

08-15-2011, 01:00 PM

97 bulls

08-15-2011, 01:08 PM

No I don't. Bill Walton was no where near HOF level in 1986, he was just a valuable role player off the bench who won 6MOY.
ok, we will see next time a greatest of all time team thread comes up.

I said if we were going by NBA careers only Kukoc wouldn't touch the hall of fame, winning the 6MOY once and never making the all-star game won't get you in.:oldlol:
your right..... I agree. All I said is kukoc will get in based on why sabonis got in. Your the one that tried to argue it.

Arguably the greatest college basketball player of all-time doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame? You're an idiot.:roll:
If were talking about nba accomplishments then no I don't believe walton belongs in the hall. But basketball career? Oh yeah..... he belongs.
I also do think kukoc would've made multiple all-star games had he been in a different situation. But eother way, kukoc will get in based on him being one of the greatest european players ever.

creepingdeath

08-15-2011, 01:18 PM

Would someone just post a picture of that compulsive liar OP so we can end this thread?

97 bulls

08-15-2011, 01:20 PM

Jordan got off to a very slow start post season wise in the winning department.So i wouldn't say his "goat" playoff resume is in concrete.
I'm actually on both sides of this argument.

Jordan never had the teams good enough to win when he first entered the league. That's. Really not his fault

But there's also the implication that a lot of the bulls championship contributions were minimal. And that jordan won on his own that also is wrong.

TAC602

08-15-2011, 01:23 PM

:roll:

Jordan won 6 titles because he was the GOAT Playoff performer and GOAT Finals performer.

Sure, he had help, but so has every legend during their title runs. To think those Bulls teams were any more stacked than what Bird, Magic, Kareem, Russell, etc. played with is simply revisionist history.

No player will EVER come close to averaging 33 ppg in the playoffs over an entire career for as long as Jordan did.

Some of you are just :roll: with your ridiculous insinuations that Jordan was a product of great teams. Jordan made those teams what they were. No disrespect to the other great players he played with like Scottie and Dennis, but let's be real: No one can compare with Jordan's playoff resume.

It's not really an agenda if you consider him the GOAT. And on paper, his Bulls were less stacked than the teams of the players mentioned above. Relative to the league? No doubt the most stacked, especially if we are talking 1996-1998. And he was without a doubt the best player on those teams, so I don't really see a problem or anything to be ashamed of. The actual problem is when people want to pretend he won six championships with casts comparable to '94 Olajuwon or '03 Duncan. That may seem preposterous to you, maybe you believe it, but it's definitely as much a rampant train of thought as anything else.

jlip

08-15-2011, 01:31 PM

Yeah it's a stupid premise since Parish was like 42 years old, and Gervin played 1 year (his final and by far his least productive) where MJ played EIGHTEEN games, and averaged 5 ppg in the playoffs.

Then again, troll thread so it's expected I guess.

It's the same thing people do and have been doing to Bill Russell for years. All they spew out is, "Russell's teams were loaded with all of those hall of famers. That's why they won all of those titles." They ignore the fact that two of his hall of fame teammates, K.C. Jones and Frank Ramsey were never all stars or all NBA anything when they played. They ignore the fact that "hall of famer", Clyde Lovellete, joined Russell's Celtics at the end of his career playing a ca. '97 Robert Parish role, barely averaging 6ppg. Sam Jones didn't even start getting 20 mpg in the playoffs until his 4th season. Russell had already won 3 titles by then. What is also left out is the fact that a few of Russell's hof teammates were inducted 15-20 years after they retired, which shows that they were far from "first ballot".

All Net

08-15-2011, 01:38 PM

You always need good talent to win, always been the same.

LJJ

08-15-2011, 01:45 PM

Jordan got off to a very slow start post season wise in the winning department.So i wouldn't say his "goat" playoff resume is in concrete.
How many playoff series has Jordan played? 32+?

He never ever lost a series with a higher seed, and he is 6-0 in the finals. No one comes close to Jordan in terms of playoffs resume, at least no one other than Bill Russell.

Mr. I'm So Rad

08-15-2011, 01:49 PM

Jordan played with great teammates and GOAT coach. Who cares? You need talent to win it's a team game. No one wins entirely on their own.

jlip

08-15-2011, 01:56 PM

How many playoff series has Jordan played? 32+?

He never ever lost a series with a higher seed, and he is 6-0 in the finals. No one comes close to Jordan in terms of playoffs resume, at least no one other than Bill Russell.

This criterion regurgitated to no end by MJ fans has always baffled me. Assuming that MJ's career from '91-'98 had remained the same, I'm wondering, if he had been able to lead the Bulls past the Pistons in game 7 of the '90 ECF but lost to the Blazers in the Finals making him 6-1 in the Finals, would that be seen as worse than being 6-0 or undefeated in the Finals? From some people it appears as if not even making it to the Finals is better than actually advancing and losing once you get there.

97 bulls

08-15-2011, 01:57 PM

The talent level in the later 90s was defintely diluted, due to more teams.

That Sixers team beat the Lakers with a still productive Kareem(leading scorer), Jamaal Wilkes(one of the most underrated players of all time), Norm Nixon(another one of the most underrated players), and of course Magic. They also had Michael Cooper, one of the best defensive players of all time. Worthy was just a rookie. Wilkes, Kareem, and Magic were all allstars.

The Celtics faced one of the best power forward-center tandems ever, with Ralph and Hakeem. The same Houston team that beat Kareem, Magic, Worthy, and Byron Scott in 5 games.
When you say the talent in the 90s was diluted, are you taking into consideration that the popularity of the nba grew during the 80s? And that more athletes chose basketball as their main sport to play? Are you taking into consideration the influx of talent from players overseas? Are you accounting for the fact that since there are more people in the world, that there obviously are gonna be more athletes?

Ok so what was wrong with some of the teams the bulls beat in the championship?

The lakers had magic, worthy, scott, perkins, and green.

The trailblazers had drexler, porter, clifford robinson, kersey, duckworth. They were regarde as the most talented team durin the late 80s.

The suns had barkley, kj, tom chambers, ceballos, and marjle.

The sonics had payton, kemp, shrempf, mcmillan, hawkins

The jazz had stockton, malone, hornacek, carr, and a good man defender in byron russel and they were led by jerry sloan.

There's /nothing wrong with the teams the bulls beat in the championship.

LJJ

08-15-2011, 02:03 PM

This criterion regurgitated to no end by MJ fans has always baffled me. Assuming that MJ's career from '91-'98 had remained the same, I'm wondering, if he had been able to lead the Bulls past the Pistons in game 7 of the '90 ECF but lost to the Blazers in the Finals making him 6-1 in the Finals, would that be seen as worse than being 6-0 or undefeated in the Finals? From some people it appears as if not even making it to the Finals is better than actually advancing and losing once you get there.

If you don't understand the mysticism of never losing in the finals that's one you. Everyone with common sense understands it is a special achievement, especially when a player has been to the finals six times.

And MJ never "not reached the finals" when he wasn't supposed to.

97 bulls

08-15-2011, 02:06 PM

Nevaeh

08-15-2011, 02:27 PM

Even if it's true, who the hell cares?

You can't diminish Jordan's legacy kid, you just can't.

Really though. Jordan's about be on another NBA 2k cover thirteen years after his last Chip. Dude's still moving game units as if he never retired. He ain't going anywhere, no matter how many peeps may wish he never existed. :oldlol:

jlip

08-15-2011, 02:36 PM

If you don't understand the mysticism of never losing in the finals that's one you. Everyone with common sense understands it is a special achievement, especially when a player has been to the finals six times.

And MJ never "not reached the finals" when he wasn't supposed to.

I understand the "mysticism" people try to make it, but i'm just not overtaken by it myself. Also, my point about this issue has nothing to do with whether he was "supposed to reach the Finals" at any other time. It's about doing it, because the "He's 6-0 in the Finals" comments rarely come with the caveat, "He wasn't supposed to lead his team to the Finals in any other season." They so often stand alone and are just repeated to the point of ad nauseum. But since it was brought up, there are a few players who have led serious underdog teams to Finals when they weren't "supposed" to. So MJ gets a pass for not doing it when he wasn't "supposed" to?

Look I'm no MJ hater. I actually don't have single GOAT. I have tiers, and MJ is on that exclusive top tier IMO and has one of the strongest cases for GOAT. But it appears as if many people, especially those of my age bracket (I'm 34) watched his career, were inundated with the unprecedented GOAT hype, and developed a criteria for determining GOAT that was based upon "the way MJ did it". Obviously no one will be MJ's equal in a person's mind if, "the way MJ did it" is the standard.

LJJ

08-15-2011, 02:44 PM

I understand the "mysticism" people try to make it, but i'm just not overtaken by it myself. Also, my point about this issue has nothing to do with whether he was "supposed to reach the Finals" at any other time. It's about doing it, because the "He's 6-0 in the Finals" comments rarely come with the caveat, "He wasn't supposed to lead his team to the Finals in any other season." They so often stand alone and are just repeated to the point of ad nauseum. But since it was brought up, there are a few players who have led serious underdog teams to Finals when they weren't "supposed" to. So MJ gets a pass for not doing it when he wasn't "supposed" to?

Look I'm no MJ hater. I actually don't have single GOAT. I have tiers, and MJ is on that exclusive top tier IMO and has one of the strongest cases for GOAT. But it appears as if many people, especially those of my age bracket (I'm 34) watched his career, were inundated with the unprecedented GOAT hype, and developed a criteria for determining GOAT that was based upon "the way MJ did it". Obviously no one will be MJ's equal in a person's mind if, "the way MJ did it" is the standard.`

I don't have Jordan as the sole inarguable GOAT above all other greats most of whom he didn't even really play against either, but there is no need to speak disrespectful of the man's accomplishments.

Where people "regurgitate" the fact that Jordan played and won 6 NBA finals, and repeat those facts "ad nauseum". :rolleyes:

This is simply what happened. It's a tremendous achievement rivaled by virtually no other basketball player ever. Other basketball players have had success, but pretty much no one has the flawless playoffs career Jordan had. So this is forbidden to be mentioned?

So it's not supposed to be brought up..... In a thread about Micheal Jordan's career in reply to someone posting his playoff resume "isn't that great"? What were you complaining about again? As if I'm the one who brought it up in the first place. If people bring it up, surely it must be allowed to point it out. Or is there some kind of hidden agenda at place here? You must really hate Micheal Jordan and his legacy.

OldSchoolBBall

08-15-2011, 02:51 PM

Jordan got off to a very slow start post season wise in the winning department.So i wouldn't say his "goat" playoff resume is in concrete.

There is no one in the league who even has a remote chance of overtaking Jordan as a playoff performer. Shaq was the closest and he's gone now and didn't do that great his last few times in the playoffs.

DuMa

08-15-2011, 03:15 PM

phil's career is overrated. he wouldnt be winning those rings if he didnt have shaq or mj.

97 bulls

08-15-2011, 03:26 PM

phil's career is overrated. he wouldnt be winning those rings if he didnt have shaq or mj.
Really? Whata bout riley and magic? Or auerbach and russel? Why do people always put a standard on the bulls that nobody or no other team must meet.

mr beast

08-15-2011, 03:31 PM

MJ played with 5 HOF , but he's still the primary reason why they all won 6 championship

one can arguably say Jordan made their careers (vice versa of course) but the way Jordan impacted the game was amazing.

he was simply the best of the bests

I.R.Beast

08-15-2011, 05:27 PM

TAC602

08-15-2011, 05:38 PM

Can you expand on your assertion that "on paper" the bulls were less stacked? I assume your talking when compared to other championship teams.

Yeah, I don't believe he had greater supporting casts than Bird, Magic (vice versa Jabbar), et al. I'm talking about the teams separate of their best players. With them, I don't think there's any question the late 90s Bulls teams can compete with the mid-80s Lakers and Celtics if that's what your getting at or are offended by. Do you think Magic and Bird actually won with less help than Jordan? You don't seem to have a high opinion of either of them.

97 bulls

08-15-2011, 06:29 PM

Yeah, I don't believe he had greater supporting casts than Bird, Magic (vice versa Jabbar), et al. I'm talking about the teams separate of their best players. With them, I don't think there's any question the late 90s Bulls teams can compete with the mid-80s Lakers and Celtics if that's what your getting at or are offended by. Do you think Magic and Bird actually won with less help than Jordan? You don't seem to have a high opinion of either of them.
They all had the best supporting cast in their respective times. And id take pippen and rodman over parrish and mchale or worthy and an older jabaar.

And its not that I have a low opinion on either magic or bird. I just don't see how you can say player A is better than player B when player A is playing in a different style offense.

You just have to watch what these jordan supporters say. Go look at the mj/wilt thread. The pro jordan supporters love to say jordan is the better offensive player even though wilt is clearly better based on cold hard stats. The jordan fans counter with the era, the competition, the pace etc. And I whole heatedly agree. I just apply that same logic to every player. Not just when it helps my argument.

catch24

08-15-2011, 06:50 PM

You just have to watch what these jordan supporters say. Go look at the mj/wilt thread. The pro jordan supporters love to say jordan is the better offensive player even though wilt is clearly better based on cold hard stats. The jordan fans counter with the era, the competition, the pace etc. And I whole heatedly agree. I just apply that same logic to every player. Not just when it helps my argument.

If you're referring to me, 97 bulls, I'd say there's a bit of a difference. You and I argued about pace from the late 80s and early 90s (not much of a difference), but it's crazy to say Wilt's 30-40 rebound seasons would translate into an ERA where he wouldn't be playing 40 minutes (or have the same number of possessions). 10-15 years isn't 30-40, where the game was still considered somewhat "new". This is exactly why people usually rank players relative to ERA.

Hope that helps.

TAC602

08-15-2011, 07:01 PM

They all had the best supporting cast in their respective times. And id take pippen and rodman over parrish and mchale or worthy and an older jabaar.

And its not that I have a low opinion on either magic or bird. I just don't see how you can say player A is better than player B when player A is playing in a different style offense.

This is ultimately why people base their rankings soley on career accomplishments a lot of times, a summarization what players did in their own era even though you'd be absolutely correct to say that much more goes into attaining a lot of those accolades other than individual's own talent. That argument usually proves to be too tedious to entertain for a lot of people, even on an NBA Forum.

Go look at the MJ/Wilt thread. The pro jordan supporters love to say jordan is the better offensive player even though wilt is clearly better based on cold hard stats. The jordan fans counter with the era, the competition, the pace etc. And I whole heatedly agree. I just apply that same logic to every player. Not just when it helps my argument.

I find that the Wilt/60s ball enthusiasts to be just as ridiculous in a lot of cases. They have no problem talking about how Wilt crushes Jordan in the regular season scoring with no regards to context, but when Jordan's cracking that whip on Chamberlain in games that matter, they want to separate what type of player Chamberlain was in certain time periods and situations.

catch24

08-15-2011, 07:07 PM

I find that the Wilt/60s ball enthusiasts to be just as ridiculous in a lot of cases. They have no problem talking about how Wilt crushes Jordan in the regular season scoring with no regards to context, but when Jordan's cracking that whip on Chamberlain in games that matter, they want to separate what type of player Chamberlain was in certain time periods and situations.

This; someone gets it. By any chance are you Bring-your-J's? Both of you are solid posters.

TAC602

08-15-2011, 07:12 PM

This; someone gets it. By any chance are you Bring-your-J's? Both of you are solid posters.

:applause:

Know him personally, was referred here by him. Both live in Phoenix (hence the 602). He has a much higher opinion of Barkley though.

97 bulls

08-15-2011, 07:19 PM

If you're referring to me, 97 bulls, I'd say there's a bit of a difference. You and I argued about pace from the late 80s and early 90s (not much of a difference), but it's crazy to say Wilt's 30-40 rebound seasons would translate into an ERA where he wouldn't be playing 40 minutes (or have the same number of possessions). 10-15 years isn't 30-40, where the game was still considered somewhat "new". This is exactly why people usually rank players relative to ERA.

Hope that helps.
Honestly catch, I see you as one of the more reasonable posters. I don't see you as a jordan homer.

But the only difference in our conversation is the numbers. The concept is the same. The teams in the nba just didn't. Run in the mid 90s. The teams in mid 80s took 700-800 more shots on averge than the teams in the mid 90. Defense was more stressed. FG% were lower due to the lack of emphasis on the opportunity for easy buckets utilizing the fast break.

And I never said pippen would score 30 ppg in the 80s. I said he'd score right around 24. That's only 2-3 pts higher than what he did average in his prime. Just think. If the bulls avg an xtra 10 shots per game, which is about what they would've. Took if they played in the 80s, jordan would probably get 4 of those shots and pippen about 3 on avg. He was right around 50% so give him about 3 pts. Then consider that he'd get more fts. That would get him another pt or 2. That's 4-5 pts right there. He avg about 20 playing alongside jordan. What's so far fetched about that?

97 bulls

08-15-2011, 07:24 PM

This is ultimately why people base their rankings soley on career accomplishments a lot of times, a summarization what players did in their own era even though you'd be absolutely correct to say that much more goes into attaining a lot of those accolades other than individual's own talent. That argument usually proves to be too tedious to entertain for a lot of people, even on an NBA Forum.

I find that the Wilt/60s ball enthusiasts to be just as ridiculous in a lot of cases. They have no problem talking about how Wilt crushes Jordan in the regular season scoring with no regards to context, but when Jordan's cracking that whip on Chamberlain in games that matter, they want to separate what type of player Chamberlain was in certain time periods and situations.
Lol classic.

catch24

08-15-2011, 07:52 PM

Know him personally, was referred here by him. Both live in Phoenix (hence the 602). He has a much higher opinion of Barkley though.

Good stuff, and welcome to the board. Haven't seen J's in a while, tell him I said what's up. His wealthy basketball knowledge is needed on this forum.

Honestly catch, I see you as one of the more reasonable posters. I don't see you as a jordan homer.

But the only difference in our conversation is the numbers. The concept is the same. The teams in the nba just didn't. Run in the mid 90s. The teams in mid 80s took 700-800 more shots on averge than the teams in the mid 90. Defense was more stressed. FG% were lower due to the lack of emphasis on the opportunity for easy buckets utilizing the fast break.

And I never said pippen would score 30 ppg in the 80s. I said he'd score right around 24. That's only 2-3 pts higher than what he did average in his prime. Just think. If the bulls avg an xtra 10 shots per game, which is about what they would've. Took if they played in the 80s, jordan would probably get 4 of those shots and pippen about 3 on avg. He was right around 50% so give him about 3 pts. Then consider that he'd get more fts. That would get him another pt or 2. That's 4-5 pts right there. He avg about 20 playing alongside jordan. What's so far fetched about that?

Thanks. I got a better understanding of you as a poster in the other thread, so right back at you.

In our discssusion I was strictly talking about the differences from the early 90's and mid-to-late 80's - and if you look at possessions/head-to-head pace, you won't see that much of a difference from 85ish-92/93 (of course that's not to say there weren't better defenses during the early 90's). Teams from the middle-to-late 90's slowed the game down and defenses were more emphasized. That I do agree with.

You know what I'm about, dude. I'd rather not estimate what a players "exact" production would be, but those adjusted numbers seem fair enough. Pippen definitely had the talent to put those type of numbers up, when healthy, as a #1 option.

Here's an interesting article of the top scoring seasons when adjusted for pace (kudos to OSB for sharing this):

http://www.backpicks.com/2011/01/28/top-scoring-rate-seasons-in-nba-history/

MasterDurant24

08-15-2011, 07:53 PM

When you say the talent in the 90s was diluted, are you taking into consideration that the popularity of the nba grew during the 80s? And that more athletes chose basketball as their main sport to play? Are you taking into consideration the influx of talent from players overseas? Are you accounting for the fact that since there are more people in the world, that there obviously are gonna be more athletes?

Ok so what was wrong with some of the teams the bulls beat in the championship?

The lakers had magic, worthy, scott, perkins, and green.

The trailblazers had drexler, porter, clifford robinson, kersey, duckworth. They were regarde as the most talented team durin the late 80s.

The suns had barkley, kj, tom chambers, ceballos, and marjle.

The sonics had payton, kemp, shrempf, mcmillan, hawkins

The jazz had stockton, malone, hornacek, carr, and a good man defender in byron russel and they were led by jerry sloan.

There's /nothing wrong with the teams the bulls beat in the championship.
I wasn't saying anything against Jordan, I was just saying there weren't as many as teams with 2 or 3 Hall of Fame level players like there was in the 80s with the Sixers, Celtics, Rockets, Bucks, Lakers, and Pistons.

guy

08-15-2011, 09:38 PM

NumberSix

08-15-2011, 10:29 PM

Jordan wuz a sidekick to 5 hall of famers, and he played in the weakest era in any sport ... and in a league full of gnomes and dwarfs.

KOBE played in the land of the giants and won 5 titles by himself!

PROOF: Kobe is GOAT.
You understand that players were taller when MJ played, right? Not only that, but the rules still favored big men.

Do you even watch basketball, or did you just buy your first pair of Kobe's a few days ago and decided to jump on the fanboy train?

Bring-Your-Js

08-15-2011, 10:35 PM

Good stuff, and welcome to the board. Haven't seen J's in a while, tell him I said what's up. His wealthy basketball knowledge is needed on this forum.

:cheers:

I've actually learned quite a bit from the better posters here.

You understand that players were taller when MJ played, right? Not only that, but the rules still favored big men.

Do you even watch basketball, or did you just buy your first pair of Kobe's a few days ago and decided to jump on the fanboy train?

That's a troll account.

Bigsmoke

08-15-2011, 10:49 PM

Stfu

Rose

08-16-2011, 01:46 AM

:cheers:

I've actually learned quite a bit from the better posters here.

That's a troll account.
BEST POST....ever.:roll:

EricForman

08-16-2011, 01:49 AM

Wait, I didn't get those Hall of Famers. Are we counting a past-prime Gervin? Or are we also hypothetically inducting Horace Grant and Bill Cartwright? I'm confused, help me out. I counted 2 players, a coach and an assistant coach.

It's Kobe stans, of course they're counting past-his-prime-in-final-years George Gervin.

I'm supposed those idiots haven't dug up that Robert Parish in his final year played with the Bulls too.

"ZOMGZ! JORDAN COULD WIN TITLE CAUSE HE HAD ROBERT PARISH, ONE THIRD OF THE GREATEST FRONT COURT EVER MANNING THE MIDDLE. KOBE ONLY HAS WEAK BYNUM, JORDAN HAD PARISH, JORDAN'S TEAM WAS SOOOO STACKED IT WAS UNFAIR".

These idiots wanna claim that Rodman, who was like 35-38 on the Bulls teams as "prime". If we go by that, Kobe played with PRIME Mitch Richmond, JR Rider, Horace Grant, and Glen Rice in consecutive years from 2000 to 2003 along with PRIME Shaq and the greatest role player ever Robert Horry. :oldlol:

EricForman

08-16-2011, 01:58 AM

It's not really an agenda if you consider him the GOAT. And on paper, his Bulls were less stacked than the teams of the players mentioned above. Relative to the league? No doubt the most stacked, especially if we are talking 1996-1998. And he was without a doubt the best player on those teams, so I don't really see a problem or anything to be ashamed of. The actual problem is when people want to pretend he won six championships with casts comparable to '94 Olajuwon or '03 Duncan. That may seem preposterous to you, maybe you believe it, but it's definitely as much a rampant train of thought as anything else.

By the 98 playoffs, Rodman was 38 and a bench player and Pippen had a bad back and was highly unproductive.

Watch the final few games of the finals, Jordan definitely carried more weight there than 03 Duncan or 94 Hakeem. And keep in mind Jordan himself was 36 and off three straight 100 game seasons.

And stop hyping up Hakeem's 94 team. Hakeem is becoming the most overrated great on ISH (people put him above Shaq and Duncan when he has half the rings). 94 team didn't have a second superstar but that team went 8 deep. If we rated players 1-99, NBA 2k style, 97/98 Jordan played with another player in the 90s and then the rest of the guys were 60s to 70s. Hakeem had like 5 teammates in the 80s and then 3 more in the 70s.

And if we going to put Hakeem winning in 94 on a pedestal, can we mention Hakeem losing with Chuck and Clyde for several years then? I mean it wasn't like Barkley or Clyde were ancient in 97, right, right?

Hakeem is a top ten player of all time, but on the low end, and I'm tired of ISH pimping Hakeem like he belongs int he same breath with Jordan/Magic/Bird/Kareem.

LALakerFan4Life

08-16-2011, 03:17 AM

PrimeJohnnyDepp

08-16-2011, 03:55 AM

Everyone just likes those days of NBA. Just make everyone on that Bulls team a HOFer, it's good for basketball and noone would complain really.

Seriously, teams were sooo good back then and they made 2 amazing three-peats. I don't know how an adult could diss Jordan as a player.

keepinitreal

08-16-2011, 05:12 AM

So let me get this straight, Jordan made 5 Hall of Famers?

:banana:

TAC602

08-16-2011, 01:32 PM

By the 98 playoffs, Rodman was 38 and a bench player and Pippen had a bad back and was highly unproductive.

Watch the final few games of the finals, Jordan definitely carried more weight there than 03 Duncan or 94 Hakeem. And keep in mind Jordan himself was 36 and off three straight 100 game seasons.

Watch Game 6 of the '94 Finals. And keep in mind Olajuwon was going up against another HOF Center in addition to the most physical front court in the league. Definitely?

And stop hyping up Hakeem's 94 team. Hakeem is becoming the most overrated great on ISH (people put him above Shaq and Duncan when he has half the rings). 94 team didn't have a second superstar but that team went 8 deep. If we rated players 1-99, NBA 2k style, 97/98 Jordan played with another player in the 90s and then the rest of the guys were 60s to 70s. Hakeem had like 5 teammates in the 80s and then 3 more in the 70s.

Nobody is saying the Rockets didn't have scrappy players that added value to the team, but compared to most championship teams throughout history, they're definitely near the bottom talent-wise. How arguable is it when their second leading scorer over the '94 playoffs was Vernon Maxwell at 13.8 ppg on 37.6% shooting. Who is considered in the 80s on that team?

And if we going to put Hakeem winning in 94 on a pedestal, can we mention Hakeem losing with Chuck and Clyde for several years then? I mean it wasn't like Barkley or Clyde were ancient in 97, right, right?

Hakeem is a top ten player of all time, but on the low end, and I'm tired of ISH pimping Hakeem like he belongs int he same breath with Jordan/Magic/Bird/Kareem.

They weren't ancient in '97, but Charles was clearly out shape even compared to the previous season. Not only that, but he was dealing with injury issues for the fourth consecutive year and was badly outplayed by Malone. And Olajuwon put up 27/9/4/3 on 59.2% shooting against the Jazz in that series. So that can't really be ignored when bring up the subject. Not to mention Drexler's hilariously idiotic shot at the end of Game 6 that allowed Karl Malone to show off one of his finest illegal screens of all-time.

People put him in the same breath as Bird and Magic because he had equal to if not greater impact than those guys if you consider defense at the center position important, not to mention he was one of the most skilled offensive players ever, as well as an elite rebounder. He played with nowhere near the talent they did either for the majority of his prime. Duncan? He was just a better player, on both ends. Shaq was obviously more efficient offensively, but Olajuwon could be counted on more at the end of games, wasn't a liability at the free throw line and was a better defender.

If you didn't like his 1994 run, how about '95:

Olajuwon had missed 10 games during the regular season, with the Rockets dropping seven of them. Entered the playoffs as a 6th seed with no HCA in any series against a 60-win team in the first round, 59-win team in the second and NBA best 62-win team in the Conference Finals. Over the first two series alone, the Rockets faced elimination five times with Olajuwon putting up:

40/8/3/1
33/10/4/1
31/16/3/1
30/8/10/5
29/11/4/1

Conference Finals vs Spurs (MVP Robinson)

27/8/6/5
41/16/4/2
43/11/4/5
20/14/5/3
42/9/8/5
39/17/3/5

NBA Finals vs Magic (Shaq)

31/6/7/4
34/11/2/4
31/14/7/2
35/15/6/3

Postseason, Overall: 33.0 ppg, 10.3 rpg, 4.5 apg, 2.8 bpg, .531fg%

Teanett

08-16-2011, 02:08 PM

Watch Game 6 of the '94 Finals. And keep in mind Olajuwon was going up against another HOF Center in addition to the most physical front court in the league. Definitely?

what???
jordan kicked that hof center's and his frontcourt's physical ass EVERYTIME he faced them. so yes, Definitely!

:roll:

TAC602

08-16-2011, 02:36 PM

what???
jordan kicked that hof center's and his frontcourt's physical ass EVERYTIME he faced them. so yes, Definitely!

Nothing to do with the conversation.

He was referring to the 1998 Finals against the Utah Jazz in comparison to Olajuwon's impact in 1994. The larger topic at hand were the 1996-98 Bulls teams. Would you say those teams had less talent than the 1994 Rockets?

Big164

08-16-2011, 02:44 PM

MasterDurant24

08-16-2011, 06:14 PM

Roundball_Rock

08-16-2011, 06:40 PM

bagelred

08-16-2011, 06:48 PM

2 of which were in their prime? And 2 Hall of Fame coaches? And 3 more players that made all star teams while on the Bulls? No wonder he won 6 titles...

u mad cause you to young to remember Jordan?

yeah, u mad.:lol

catch24

08-16-2011, 06:48 PM

Hall of Famers on each team

NBA finals

98' Chicago 3, Utah 2
97' Chicago 3, Utah 2
96' Chicago 3 (4 if you count Parish), Seattle 1
93' Chicago 2, Phoenix 1
92' Chicago 2, Portland 1
91' Chicago 2, Los Angeles 2

Parish wasn't playing for Chicago in '96. A better way of debating a teams talent relative to league play would be factoring in all-stars (current) and raw individual production. Basic stuff.

Roundball_Rock

08-16-2011, 07:04 PM

Parish wasn't playing for Chicago in '96. A better way of debating a teams talent relative to league play would be factoring in all-stars (current) and raw individual production. Basic stuff.

Yes, but Parish did play for Chicago in 97'.

Of course we should look at other things too. For instance, in 1996 Chicago had the top 2 finishers in all-NBA voting and two players in the top 5 in MVP voting along with 3 all-first Defensive team members, including the top vote getter (Pippen) as well as the 6th man of the year. Things like this are never mentioned by MJ fans. It is MJ plus a vastly diminished Pippen and scrubs in their telling of the tale.

Is there any other 90's team team that had two players in the top 5 in MVP voting? That speaks volumes. The only other team in the 90's with two players at that elite caliber of play was young Orlando with Shaq and Penny for one season.

bagelred

08-16-2011, 07:05 PM

Robert Parish? :roll: :hammerhead: He was 41 when he was on the Bulls and he barely played.....:oldlol:

Da_Realist

08-16-2011, 07:17 PM

Robert Parish? :roll: :hammerhead: He was 41 when he was on the Bulls and he barely played.....:oldlol:

:oldlol: Dudes will say anything to make a point.

catch24

08-16-2011, 07:20 PM

Yes, but Parish did play for Chicago in 97'

Right, just correcting you.

Of course we should look at other things too. For instance, in 1996 Chicago had the top 2 finishers in all-NBA voting and two players in the top 5 in MVP voting along with 3 all-first Defensive team members, including the top vote getter (Pippen) as well as the 6th man of the year. Things like this are never mentioned by MJ fans. It is MJ plus a vastly diminished Pippen and scrubs in their telling of the tale.

No doubt. From my understanding, the reason "MJ fans" divulge in that type of conversation, are because of Pippen's nagging injuries (i.e., the '97 postseason and half the 1998 season). Not saying I agree with the zealots who claim MJ played with "no help", but I'm betting the injuries to Pippen is the basis of their logic.

Is there any other 90's team team that had two players in the top 5 in MVP voting?

No idea, you should find out. Relative to the league, Chicago's '96-98 teams were clearly stacked. I'm not sure I've seen anyone sans Jocker-diehards that have argued otherwise.

Big164

08-16-2011, 07:28 PM

Kareem has 6 MVPs.

Kareem has 2 finals MVPs in 5.5 Finals wins.

Ring 1 Kareem
Ring 1.5 Magic (Kareem didnt even play in the final game)
Ring 2.5 Magic
Ring 3.5 Magic
Ring 4.5 Kareem
Ring 5.5 Worthy

Kobe has 2 Finals MVPs in 5 finals wins

Ring 1 Shaq
Ring 2 Shaq
Ring 3 Shaq
Ring 4 Kobe
Ring 5 Kobe

Jordan is 6 for 6

Jordan is the only player who won all his rings without being challenged by a second hall of famer. Gasol was closer to stealing an MVP from Kobe than Pippen was from Jordan.

Smoke117

08-16-2011, 07:28 PM

By the 98 playoffs, Rodman was 38 and a bench player and Pippen had a bad back and was highly unproductive.

Way to distort the facts. Rodman played 80 games and averaged the most minutes he had played on the Bulls IN 98 during both the regular season and the post season. Pippen was far from unproductive. He was absolutely vital for them vs the Pacers and the Jazz especially on the defensive end. He wasn't unproductive either offensively as before he hurt his back in that game 5 vs the Jazz he was actually the front runner on the bulls to win the FMVP. Not sure how you can be unproductive when you are the favorite on your team for FMVP through 4 games.

Sarcastic

08-16-2011, 07:28 PM

97 bulls

08-16-2011, 07:36 PM

Without Jordan, Pippen would not be in the HOF, and neither would Phil Jackson nor Tex Winters. Phil Jackson would not have been picked to coach the Shaq/Kobe Lakers without those first 6 titles that Jordan gave him.
This is conjecture in the highest sense. I never understood this line of resoning. Without jordan brother, he probably doesn't develope his greatest strengths. Which were his will and competive nature. So is his brother greater than him?

Da_Realist

08-16-2011, 07:55 PM

So how did Phoenix and New York win 62 games in the 93 season with just 1 Hall of Famer? Is Barkley and Ewing better than ISH gives them credit for? Or is there more to being a good team than counting how many HOF'ers are on the ballot?

How many HOF'ers were on that Pistons team that beat the HOF dream team (Shaq, Kobe, Malone, Payton and coached by Jackson/Winters) in 5 games back in 2004? ISH must be missing something...

Roundball_Rock

08-16-2011, 08:00 PM

Way to distort the facts. Rodman played 80 games and averaged the most minutes he had played on the Bulls IN 98 during both the regular season and the post season. Pippen was far from unproductive. He was absolutely vital for them vs the Pacers and the Jazz especially on the defensive end. He wasn't unproductive either offensively as before he hurt his back in that game 5 vs the Jazz he was actually the front runner on the bulls to win the FMVP. Not sure how you can be unproductive when you are the favorite on your team for FMVP through 4 games.

Correct. In other words, Pippen was the FMVP when Chicago won 3 of the first 4 games...

Robert Parish? He was 41 when he was on the Bulls and he barely played.....

When it comes to statistics there have to be basic ground rules to ensure consistency. If we are to play the exclusion game--which I did to an extent when I put Parish in a different category than the legit HOF'ers--we could exclude James Worthy for the Lakers since he got hurt in the series. Or how about Reggie Miller? Should he count given how summarily voters dismissed him this year? This is why it is good to have a basic, easy to quantify standard: actual HOFers and those deemed to be HOF worthy by most observers.

Not saying I agree with the zealots who claim MJ played with "no help", but I'm betting the injuries to Pippen is the basis of their logic.

Yeah it is just the MJ zealots, but there are a lot of them out there. :oldlol: According to MJ zealots he won 6 rings practically all by himself. Most of the ones on here do not even know Pippen was hurt since they did not watch back then. A lot of them cited Pip's injuries and his consequent decline in FG % to try to paint a guy with 6 rings as a choker. :roll:

No idea, you should find out.

Off the top of my head the answer is no. The closest is teams having 2 top 10 finishers, for example Utah or Chicago 92'. What also would be illustrative is to compare MVP voting in the 90's among top teams and excluding "the man." How many MVP votes did James Worthy, Terry Porter, Kevin Johnson, Shawn Kemp, and John Stockton receive when their teams were in the finals? Did they ever finish first in MVP voting in their conference like Pippen in 94'? Yet MJ fans act as if Pippen was a run-of-the-mill all-star and his equivalents were on every elite team.

Relative to the league, Chicago's '96-98 teams were clearly stacked.

The key portion is "relative to the league." MJ fans compare those teams to teams from a less diluted era to make MJ look better vis-a-vis some past legends.

Without Jordan, Pippen would not be in the HOF, and neither would Phil Jackson nor Tex Winters.

Perhaps, but without them Jordan may have been another Lebron. The only way he could have won a ring without Pippen and Jackson was to leave Chicago because they would have been like Cleveland with Lebron: lacking the tradeable assets to acquire a superstar to pair with MJ.

So how did Phoenix and New York win 62 games in the 93 season with just 1 Hall of Famer?

Simple, having 1 HOFer was par for the course during that era. Only Chicago and Utah had several years with more than 1 HOF'er. Maybe you can count Houston, but they had past their prime HOFers. Chicago and Utah had HOFers share their primes together for years.

Or is there more to being a good team than counting how many HOF'ers are on the ballot?

Of course. I simply was putting some facts on the table for consideration. I know MJ fans like to ignore things like that and act as if 90's Chicago was just another good team elevated to dominance by MJ. That was the only team along with the 96' Magic that could win 55 games and compete for the #1 seed with their "the man" figure. You mentioned the Knicks and Suns. In 94' they won 57 and 56 wins with Ewing and Barkley (Barkley missed a few games, his team sucked in them.); the Bulls won 55 without Jordan. Yet MJ fans act as if MJ did not have a competitive advantage over peers like Barkley and Ewing??? (Ewing was 4th in MVP voting that year--behind MJ's "sidekick"?! :confusedshrug: )

97 bulls

08-16-2011, 08:51 PM

Correct. In other words, Pippen was the FMVP when Chicago won 3 of the first 4 games...

When it comes to statistics there have to be basic ground rules to ensure consistency. If we are to play the exclusion game--which I did to an extent when I put Parish in a different category than the legit HOF'ers--we could exclude James Worthy for the Lakers since he got hurt in the series. Or how about Reggie Miller? Should he count given how summarily voters dismissed him this year? This is why it is good to have a basic, easy to quantify standard: actual HOFers and those deemed to be HOF worthy by most observers.

Yeah it is just the MJ zealots, but there are a lot of them out there. :oldlol: According to MJ zealots he won 6 rings practically all by himself. Most of the ones on here do not even know Pippen was hurt since they did not watch back then. A lot of them cited Pip's injuries and his consequent decline in FG % to try to paint a guy with 6 rings as a choker. :roll:

Off the top of my head the answer is no. The closest is teams having 2 top 10 finishers, for example Utah or Chicago 92'. What also would be illustrative is to compare MVP voting in the 90's among top teams and excluding "the man." How many MVP votes did James Worthy, Terry Porter, Kevin Johnson, Shawn Kemp, and John Stockton receive when their teams were in the finals? Did they ever finish first in MVP voting in their conference like Pippen in 94'? Yet MJ fans act as if Pippen was a run-of-the-mill all-star and his equivalents were on every elite team.

The key portion is "relative to the league." MJ fans compare those teams to teams from a less diluted era to make MJ look better vis-a-vis some past legends.

Perhaps, but without them Jordan may have been another Lebron. The only way he could have won a ring without Pippen and Jackson was to leave Chicago because they would have been like Cleveland with Lebron: lacking the tradeable assets to acquire a superstar to pair with MJ.

Simple, having 1 HOFer was par for the course during that era. Only Chicago and Utah had several years with more than 1 HOF'er. Maybe you can count Houston, but they had past their prime HOFers. Chicago and Utah had HOFers share their primes together for years.

Of course. I simply was putting some facts on the table for consideration. I know MJ fans like to ignore things like that and act as if 90's Chicago was just another good team elevated to dominance by MJ. That was the only team along with the 96' Magic that could win 55 games and compete for the #1 seed with their "the man" figure. You mentioned the Knicks and Suns. In 94' they won 57 and 56 wins with Ewing and Barkley (Barkley missed a few games, his team sucked in them.); the Bulls won 55 without Jordan. Yet MJ fans act as if MJ did not have a competitive advantage over peers like Barkley and Ewing??? (Ewing was 4th in MVP voting that year--behind MJ's "sidekick"?! :confusedshrug: )
I agree with your post all the way until you say the league the bulls played in were weak. I just don't buy this assumption. I don't see what made the league weak expansion? That may have netted the bulls some xtra wins. But the fact that they won 55 games wothout jordan pre expansion and then followed that up with 69 and then 62 without scottie pippen for half the season solidifies the bulls and makes their accomplishments legit.

Not to mention basketball really took of in the 90s. More of the top athletes chose it as their main sport, the influx of the european players like sabonis, divac kukoc, etc also helped make the league much more competitive.

And 96 wasn't the first time the nba expanded. They did in 89, why didn't the lakers win close to 70 games? The nba and aba literraly spilt the talent in the 70s for half the decade. Why didn't any of kareems teams accomplish this feat?

And are you honestly of the opinion that kareem was playing at a hall of fame level in 87 when he avg about 17 pts and 6 rebounds? That's good, but not hofer worthy. And speaking of worthy, was he a hall of fame caliber player when he wasn't even starting in 85? How many hofers were on the 83 sixers? I count 2. The celtics had four but they lost 2 out of three time to the lakers. Who never had more than 2 players playing at a hof level.

I just don't see how or why the bulls accomplishments should hold any less weight than any other great team.

Da_Realist

08-16-2011, 09:10 PM

Of course. I simply was putting some facts on the table for consideration. I know MJ fans like to ignore things like that and act as if 90's Chicago was just another good team elevated to dominance by MJ. That was the only team along with the 96' Magic that could win 55 games and compete for the #1 seed with their "the man" figure. You mentioned the Knicks and Suns. In 94' they won 57 and 56 wins with Ewing and Barkley (Barkley missed a few games, his team sucked in them.); the Bulls won 55 without Jordan. Yet MJ fans act as if MJ did not have a competitive advantage over peers like Barkley and Ewing??? (Ewing was 4th in MVP voting that year--behind MJ's "sidekick"?! :confusedshrug: )

In 93, the Bulls won 57 games with MJ and Pippen. Ewing won 62 all by himself (apparently). Barkley won 62 all by himself. Hakeem won with 0 HOF's on his roster in 94 and didn't win any with 2 HOF's by his side in 97. It's flawed logic. The number of HOF's on the team does not guarantee a championship team or even a competitive advantage. The 90's Bulls were a great, but top heavy team. Top 2 players were great, the others were solid. New York and Phoenix had more depth/talent than the Bulls did in 93, for example. Chicago didn't have a competitive advantage because they had 2 HOF's, but because they were a championship hardened team that had amazing chemistry and an all time great playing at the top of his game.

SpecialQue

08-18-2011, 10:10 PM

As soon as he entered the NBA, there was only ONE year that Bill Russell didn't play in the finals.

For his entire career, Bill Russell only missed out on winning a ring twice. The last two rings he won as both a player and the coach.

Without using the bull$hit excuse that the league was weaker in the 60s, please tell me how Jordan's career is more impressive than Russell's.

jlauber

08-19-2011, 02:17 AM

Hall of Famers on each team

NBA finals

98' Chicago 3, Utah 2
97' Chicago 3, Utah 2
96' Chicago 3 (4 if you count Parish), Seattle 1
93' Chicago 2, Phoenix 1
92' Chicago 2, Portland 1
91' Chicago 2, Los Angeles 2

Conference finals

98' Chicago 3, Indiana 1
97' Chicago 3, Miami 1
96' Chicago 3, Orlando 1
93' Chicago 2, New York 1
92' Chicago 2, Cleveland 0
91' Chicago 2, Detroit 3

All of the above ignores Jordan having the GOAT coach...
It is not surprising his team dominated. In a diluted era he had a rare team with multiple HOF'ers with the GOAT coach to boot...Keep in mind MJ retired, was replaced by a scrub from an Italian league and the Bulls still won 55 games without MJ. Imagine what they could have done if they had enough time to find a legitimate SG to replace MJ! MJ is a great player but he has 6 rings because he had dominant teams.

This. :applause:

I have argued this point before. Same with Hakeem's supposed dominant run in '94. Who were the great players on those opponents? And beating the Knicks with Ewing? Who the hell did Ewing have?

It's one thing to claim that a player had a quality supporting cast, but quite another to compare the quality of their opponents. Look at MJ's '92 run...in FOUR playoff series...a TOTAL of TWO HOF players (Ewing and Drexler.)

And it just amazes me how MJ gets credit for six rings, and yet, how come he played on losing teams in his first three seasons? Or went 1-9 in his first three playoff series? Or didn't win a ring until his seventh season? And how come the '94 Bulls went 55-27, and narrowly losing a controversial game seven to the Knicks, who would then lose a close game seven to the eventual chmapion Rockets, WITHOUT Jordan (and essentially replacing him with part-timers Kukoc and Myers)? And why couldn't a refreshed MJ, who had 17 games under his belt at the end of the '95 season, take that same basic roster from '94 (sans GRANT) to a title? And what happened to MJ in his last three Finals, when he shot .455, .427, and a horrid .415?

97 bulls

08-19-2011, 02:31 AM

This. :applause:

I have argued this point before. Same with Hakeem's supposed dominant run in '94. Who were the great players on those opponents? And beating the Knicks with Ewing? Who the hell did Ewing have?

It's one thing to claim that a player had a quality supporting cast, but quite another to compare the quality of their opponents. Look at MJ's '92 run...in FOUR playoff series...a TOTAL of TWO HOF players (Ewing and Drexler.)

And it just amazes me how MJ gets credit for six rings, and yet, how come he played on losing teams in his first three seasons? Or went 1-9 in his first three playoff series? Or didn't win a ring until his seventh season? And how come the '94 Bulls went 55-27, and narrowly losing a controversial game seven to the Knicks, who would then lose a close game seven to the eventual chmapion Rockets, WITHOUT Jordan (and essentially replacing him with part-timers Kukoc and Myers)? And why couldn't a refreshed MJ, who had 17 games under his belt at the end of the '95 season, take that same basic roster from '94 (sans GRANT) to a title? And what happened to MJ in his last three Finals, when he shot .455, .427, and a horrid .415?
Hey jlauber what % of players from the 60s went to the hall of fame? or roughly how many?

jlauber

08-19-2011, 02:50 AM

Hey jlauber what % of players from the 60s went to the hall of fame? or roughly how many?

Not sure, but I see where you are going with this. And yes, you are right, it was too many. Still, it was not so much the HOFers, although Russell's Celtics, and the Knicks of the 70's were LOADED with them, but it was that the leagues of the 60's were CONCENTRATED with TALENT.

This is a good example...

How about Wilt's 66-67 season when he LED his team to a 68-13 record, and then an overwhelming title. A TEN team league. How about the 39-42 Hawks. Players like Lou Hudson, who had SEVEN seasons of 20+ ppg (and on high efficiencies too, including two of 27 ppgf): or Bill Bridges, who was capable of 15 rpg seasons' or FIVE-TIME all-star CENTER Zelmo Beatty, who had FIVE seasons of 20+ ppg; or Paul Silas, who was habitually among the rebound leaders in his career; or HOFer Lenny Wilkens, who was one of the premier PG's of his era.

Then there was the 36-45 NY Knicks. A team thatt had SEVEN players average double-figure scoring. Rookie Cazzie Russell, who would go on to become one of the league's best "sixth men", and a player who had a 20+ ppg season later in his career. Or 6-5 GUARD Dick Van Arsdale who would have THREE 20+ ppg seasons in his career, and SIX over 17.8 ppg. Or 6-4 guard Dick Barnett, who had SIX seasons of 17+ ppg in his career, including 17.0 in 66-67. And, then, they had the "twin towers" of HOF bookends 6-9 Willis Reed and Walt Bellamy, and both near their primes. Reed averaged 20.9 ppg , 14.6 rpg, and shot .489; while Bellamy was a 19.0 ppg scorer, a 13.5 rpg rebounder, and shot .521 (more on that later.)

How about the Lakers, who finished 36-45? Think about this...that Laker team had BOTH Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, and in their PRIMES, and they still went 36-45. Those two were the Wade and Lebron counterparts of the 60's, and yet...36-45. They also had Archie Clark, who would average 19.9 ppg the very next season; HOFer Gail Goodrich; 7-0 Mel Counts; and Abdul-Rahman (Walt Hazzard), a player who average 24.0 ppg the very next season.

The Royals? They also finished under .500, at 39-42. Must have been pretty crappy right? All that team had was players like Happy Hairston, who would be among the best rebounding forwards of his era; or Bob Love, who would become one of the premier scorers within a few years. Or Flynn Robinson, who was one of the best pure shooters of his era, and proved he could score 20 ppg later in his career. Or Jon McGlocklin, a 6-5 guard with 25+ ft. range who had seasons of .500 shooting (including a a staggering .535 mark in 70-71.) Oh, and BTW, that team also had a Oscar and Lucas. Oscar merely averaged 30.5 ppg, 6.2 rpg, 10.7 apg, and shot .493 (in a league that shot .441.) And Lucas was at 17.8 ppg, 19.1 rpg, and shot .489.

That is FOUR LOADED teams, in a league with TEN teams, right there. And they were all LOSING teams.

How about the winning teams? The Warriors went 44-37, and they also had SEVEN players average double-figure scoring. All they had were players like Tom Meschery; Fred Hetel, who would average 19 ppg the very next season; Clyde Lee, who was a 15 rpp guy (in limited minutes) a few years later (and who averaged 7.4 rpg in 17 mpg that season); Jeff Mullins, who had several 20 ppg seasons within a couple of seasons; Al Attles; and Paul Neuman. Oh wait...they also had HOFer Rick Barry, who would lead the league in scoring at 35.6 ppg; and 6-11 HOFer Nate Thurmond, who averaged 18.7 ppg and 21.3 rpg that season.

I have mentioned it before, but IMHO, the 60-21 Celtics had the most LOADED roster in NBA history. True, there were other Celtic teams that had more HOFers (their 63-64 team had EIGHT, and their 62-63 team had NINE.) But players 1-10 were exceptional players on that 66-67 team. SIX of them averaged double-figure scoring. Their bench had HOFer Wayne Embry; guard Jim Barnett; 14.1 ppg scorer Larry Siegfried; Don Nelson; and HOFer John Havlicek, and his 21.4 ppg (yes, he was their SIXTH man that season.) Havlicek would have a TON of 20+ ppg seasons, BTW, including two of 28.9 ppg and 27.5 ppg. Their starters were HOFer Satch Sanders (one of the top defensive forwards of his era); HOFer KC Jones (again, considered one of the best defensive players of his era); HOFer Baiey Howell, who 20 ppg on .512 shooting in '67; HOFer Sam Jones, who LED the team in scoring that season, at 22.1 ppg )and who had MUTIPLE seasons of 20+ ppg, including a high of 25.9. AND, of course, they had the great Bill Russell, who averaged 13.3 ppg and 21.0 rpg that season, and as always, was a defensive beast.

Wilt's Sixers were also LOADED, albeit, they were not very deep (a pattern in almost every one of Wilt's seasons.) HOFer Hal Greer; HOFer Billy Cunningham; streak-shooting Wali Jones; PF Luke Jackson, who was 6-9 250 lbs.; Forward Chet Walker, a great all-around player; and a Chamberlain in his absolute, and unstoppable, PRIME. Chamberlain was dominant defensively; led the league in rebounding by a sizeable margin, at 24.2 rpg (in "only" 45 mpg BTW); averaged 24.1 ppg; handed out 7.8 apg (THIRD in the league); and shot a minb-boggling .683, which was .162 ahead of his nearest competitor, Walt Bellamy, and in a league that shot .441 overall.

How about the post-season? Chamberlain faced TEN HOF players in his three rounds (Oscar, Lucas, Barry, Thurmond, and the SIX that Boston had.) And they MURDERED them all. Chamberlain completely CRUSHED Dierking, Russell, and then Thurmond in those series, as well.

So, the teams of the 60's were LOADED. Even the majority of losing teams had SUPERSTAR players.

Once again, I do agree that many of the "HOFers" were probably not as deserving. Russell had very good teammates like Sanders, KC Jones, Ramsey, and Howell, ...once again, very good players, who were not "HOF-worthy." And I have always found it comical that Wilt's teammate in gthe early 60's, Tom Gola, made the HOF. First of all, his CAREER averages were 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, and .431 FG%. But, not only that, he was simply an awful shooter in his post-season career, at get this... a .336 FG% over the course of his five post-seasons.

In any case...and using the '67 Lakers as an example...you could argue that LA had the "Lebron" and "Wade" of their era, in Baylor and West...and that team still could only go 36-45. THAT was just how TALENTED those rosters were.

97 bulls

08-19-2011, 03:11 AM

Not sure, but I see where you are going with this. And yes, you are right, it was too many. Still, it was not so much the HOFers, although Russell's Celtics, and the Knicks of the 70's were LOADED with them, but it was that the leagues of the 60's were CONCENTRATED with TALENT.

This is a good example...

Once again, I do agree that many of the "HOFers" were probably not as deserving. Russell had very good teammates like Sanders, KC Jones, Ramsey, and Howell, ...once again, very good players, who were not "HOF-worthy." And I have always found it comical that Wilt's teammate in gthe early 60's, Tom Gola, made the HOF. First of all, his CAREER averages were 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, and .431 FG%. But, not only that, he was simply an awful shooter in his post-season career, at get this... a .336 FG% over the course of his five post-seasons.

In any case...and using the '67 Lakers as an example...you could argue that LA had the "Lebron" and "Wade" of their era, in Baylor and West...and that team still could only go 36-45. THAT was just how TALENTED those rosters were.
I just took a look at that 67 lakers roster. They didn't look very impressive past their big 2. Goodrich was young. Looked like they mayve had to endure injuries to key players. I just don't see it.

Besides. From what I've heard. Basketball wasn't nearly as popular back then as it is now. Its my understanding that a lot of the best athletes played basball, football, and boxed. Basketball in the 60s was similar to hockey now. So when you say the talent was more concentrated, that may be true. But the best athletes? I don't know about that

What do you think ?

OldSchoolBBall

08-19-2011, 03:34 AM

And it just amazes me how MJ gets credit for six rings, and yet, how come he played on losing teams in his first three seasons? Or went 1-9 in his first three playoff series?

Maybe because no one else would have done any better in the same situation? Ever think of that? Reasonable people realize that. Jordan faced a vastly more talented Bucks team in his rookie year (and, you know, he was also a ROOKIE) and then faced perhaps the GOAT team the following two years with his "second option" averaging 21 ppg/40% FG/46% TS in '86 and 20 ppg/38% FG/50% TS in '87. That's not gonna get it done against perhaps the most stacked team ever - I don't care who you are.

As for the team record during the RS, he improved the team by 11 wins in his rookie year and then missed 60+ games his sophomore year, which explains their record. In his third season he played on perhaps the least talented team in history relative to the league, and had to average 40 ppg/53% FG in Chicago's victories just to win 40 games with that anemic offensive squad.

So that's why he doesn't get much flak for it. Again, reasonable people realize all this.

jlauber

08-19-2011, 04:47 AM

Maybe because no one else would have done any better in the same situation? Ever think of that? Reasonable people realize that. Jordan faced a vastly more talented Bucks team in his rookie year (and, you know, he was also a ROOKIE) and then faced perhaps the GOAT team the following two years with his "second option" averaging 21 ppg/40% FG/46% TS in '86 and 20 ppg/38% FG/50% TS in '87. That's not gonna get it done against perhaps the most stacked team ever - I don't care who you are.

As for the team record during the RS, he improved the team by 11 wins in his rookie year and then missed 60+ games his sophomore year, which explains their record. In his third season he played on perhaps the least talented team in history relative to the league, and had to average 40 ppg/53% FG in Chicago's victories just to win 40 games with that anemic offensive squad.

So that's why he doesn't get much flak for it. Again, reasonable people realize all this.

Well, Chamberlain played on a roster in '63 which collectively shot .412 without his .528. His second best player averaged 16 ppg (behind Wilt's 44.8 ppg.) MJ shot .482 on a team that shot .473, and without looking up the exact numbers, I suspect that his teammates probably shot close to .470 aside from him. He also had the league's leading rebounder, too, in Oakley. Kobe played on a putrid roster in '06, too.

Look, I am fully aware of MJ's greatness here. BUT, I find it fascinating that he is elevated to some kind of god-like status, when he couldn't come CLOSE to carrying average rosters to titles. Meanwhile, Chamberlain was taking a 40-40 team to a game seven, one-point loss against the 62-18 Celtics, with a 30-31 seven game series, and yet some here portray him having singnificantly "declined" in his post-season play. BTW, you will NEVER see the Wilt detractors ever post his OPPOSING centers numbers in his post-season play, many of whom shot close to 100 points lower (or more, as in Kareem's case) than their regular season FG%'s.

And speaking of Kareem...he won ONE ring in the 70's, the last six seasons in which were among the weakest era in NBA history. And even that one title was somewhat deceiving. His 66-16 Bucks beat a 41-41 Warrior team in the first round. Then, they beat a 48-34 Laker team that was without BOTH West and Baylor in the second round (and BTW, a 34 year-old Wilt, and a year removed from major knee surgery, battled a statistically prime Kareem to a complete draw in that series.) And then, they beat a 42-40 Bullets team in the Finals. In the entire decade of the 70's, he had a 56-26 team eliminated in the ECF's; a 63-19 defending champion team beaten 4-2, including losing the clincher on his home floor (and in a series in which he shot .457...including going .414 in the last four games); a 60-22 team that was stunned, 4-2, by a 47-35 team (in a series in which he shot .428); a 59-23 team that lost a game seven, in a blowout loss, and on their home floor, and in a game in which Dave Cowens outplayed Kareem in every facet; a 38-44 non-playoff team (after Oscar retired); a 40-42 team (in which Kareem's numbers were among his worst of the decade...and in which Rick Barry's 48-34 Warriors won the title...and in which Barry's second best player was rookie Keith Wilkes...and a bunch of no-names); a 53-29 team with the best record in the league, and being SWEPT in the WCF's; a 45-37 team that was beaten in the first round by a 47-35 Sonics team, with one borderline HOF player...and with Kareem having teammates like Hudson, Nixon, Dantley, and a more prime Wilkes...and BTW, in a league in which a 44-38 team won the title; and a 47-35 team that was again crushed by a 52-30 Sonics team, 4-1, and again, with Kareem having that same LOADED roster. Even in the 80's, when Magic came to the rescue, Kareem was beaten to a pulp by Moses in two playoff series; was outplayed Hakeem in the playoffs, after averaging 33 ppg on .634 shooting against him in the regular season; and was just plain AWFUL in the '88 and '89 post-seasons. Yet, Kareem is another "great" that gets a free pass for his multiple "flop-jobs."

Bird? Lost SIX times in the playoffs with HCA; had a 56-26 team get SWEPT by a 51-31 Bucks team; had a .419 FG% Finals with 15.3 ppg, and his 62-20 Celtics struggling to beat a 40-42 Rockets team in that Finals; was only the third best player on the court in the '85 and '87 Finals; had his greatest statistical season in '88, and then promptly shot .351 against the Pistons in the playoffs; shot .455 in his 31 Finals games (in leagues that shot about .480 on average)...including as many under 40%, eleven, as over 50%. And he "only" won three rings with LOADED rosters that had as many as FIVE HOFers.

Hakeem? He is another player that just has to be the most over-rated player on this forum. He played EIGHTEEN seasons. He won two rebounding titles, and three blocked shot titles...and that was it. He was outrebounded by FOUR rpg by his own TEAMMATE in one season. He played on FIVE teams that won 50+ games...again, in 18 seasons, with a HIGH of 58 wins. He won two rings, one in which came in a league in which the best player was playing minor league baseball. He only went to FOUR Conference Finals. He only went to THREE Finals. He played on FOUR teams that lost to lower seeds in the playoffs (and three teams that did not even make the playoffs.) And, his biggest "black-eye"...EIGHT FIRST ROUND EXITS.

Hell, Hakeem won ONE MVP (again, in a year in which Jordan decided to take off.) He came in second, ONCE. He was voted top-4 on TWO other occasions. And he was voted in the top-10, only NINE times...again, in EIGHTEEN seasons...or HALF the time. Think about that...Hakeem was not even considered a Top-TEN player in HALF of his career...and only a Top-4 player in FOUR years. And yet there are posters here who have him in their TOP-5's????

My point being...so much of a player's greatness is based not only on the quality of their teammates, but the level of competition that they faced. And virtually ALL of the greats had their "flop-jobs." Yet, MJ, Kareem, Bird, and Hakeem are worshiped here, while Russell's eleven rings are diminished because of his LOADED rosters, and then the same posters that use that argument against Russell, then rip Chamberlain for losing to Russell's HOF-laden teams, even when Wilt was playing BRILLIANTLY, and with pathetic rosters in HALF of his career.

OldSchoolBBall

08-19-2011, 06:19 AM

Well, Chamberlain played on a roster in '63 which collectively shot .412 without his .528. His second best player averaged 16 ppg (behind Wilt's 44.8 ppg.) MJ shot .482 on a team that shot .473, and without looking up the exact numbers, I suspect that his teammates probably shot close to .470 aside from him.

Wilt's teammates in 1963 excluding him shot 2.9% FG below league average; they scored 73.7 ppg w/o Wilt (41.6 ppg below league average); Wilt had to score 37.8% of his team's ppg; his second highest scorer averaged 16.0 ppg/42.5% FG (1.6% FG below league average).

Jordan's teammates in 1987 excluding him shot 46.8% (-1.2% FG); they scored 67.7 ppg w/o MJ (42.2 ppg below league avg); Jordan had to score 35.4% of his team's ppg; his second leading scorer averaged 14.5 ppg/44.5% FG (3.5% FG below league average).

Looks like pretty similar circumstances to me. And teams weren't as talented/stacked in the early 60's as the mid-late 80's. Once you looked past the Celtics in the early 60's it was pretty thin, and one superstar can affect games against teams of middling talent much more than they can affect games against teams of extreme talent.

Kobe played on a putrid roster in '06, too.

Not as poor offensively relative to the league as the one Jordan played with. Definitely a very bad team, though.

97 bulls

08-19-2011, 12:25 PM

Wilt's teammates in 1963 excluding him shot 2.9% FG below league average; they scored 73.7 ppg w/o Wilt (41.6 ppg below league average); Wilt had to score 37.8% of his team's ppg; his second highest scorer averaged 16.0 ppg/42.5% FG (1.6% FG below league average).

Jordan's teammates in 1987 excluding him shot 46.8% (-1.2% FG); they scored 67.7 ppg w/o MJ (42.2 ppg below league avg); Jordan had to score 35.4% of his team's ppg; his second leading scorer averaged 14.5 ppg/44.5% FG (3.5% FG below league average).

Looks like pretty similar circumstances to me. And teams weren't as talented/stacked in the early 60's as the mid-late 80's. Once you looked past the Celtics in the early 60's it was pretty thin, and one superstar can affect games against teams of middling talent much more than they can affect games against teams of extreme talent.

Not as poor offensively relative to the league as the one Jordan played with. Definitely a very bad team, though.
So since it seems as if jordan and wilt basically had the same load so to speak offensively, who faired better?

97 bulls

08-19-2011, 12:30 PM

305Baller

08-19-2011, 01:02 PM

"So let me get this straight, Jordan played with 5 Hall of Famers?"
Yeah, Jordan was a role player.

OldSchoolBBall

08-19-2011, 04:12 PM

This is why stats don't tell the whole story. The stats your posting is very similar to what the bulls did during the last 3pt. Even jordans numbers didn't measure up. Why were they able to get past utah and seattle?

Because they weren't facing perhaps the GOAT team, which was loaded with offensive weapons, was still great defensively, and was led by a top 6 player of all time at his peak. That's why. Utah and Seattle != '86/'87 Celtics.

So since it seems as if jordan and wilt basically had the same load so to speak offensively, who faired better?

MJ's '87 Bulls won 40 games (.488 winning %) and Wilt's '63 Warriors won 31 games (.388 winning %). Can't see Wilt's splits for back then, but I wonder if he had to play as stellar as Jordan did just to win games (MJ averaged 40 pg/53% FG in the Chicago wins that season versus "only" 34.2 ppg/44% FG in the losses). I wonder if we'd see the same spread for Wilt.

97 bulls

08-19-2011, 04:27 PM

Because they weren't facing perhaps the GOAT team, which was loaded with offensive weapons, was still great defensively, and was led by a top 6 player of all time at his peak. That's why. Utah and Seattle != '86/'87 Celtics.

MJ's '87 Bulls won 40 games (.488 winning %) and Wilt's '63 Warriors won 31 games (.388 winning %). Can't see Wilt's splits for back then, but I wonder if he had to play as stellar as Jordan did just to win games (MJ averaged 40 pg/53% FG in the Chicago wins that season versus "only" 34.2 ppg/44% FG in the losses). I wonder if we'd see the same spread for Wilt.
But weren't the bulls swept? It seems to me that by your logic he should've got one game. Its not as if the sonics and jazz were scrub teams.

This is where you miss the boat the most. You act as if the sonics and jazz are a college team. They're all great teams. The celtics are obviously better. But not miles apart better. Come on.

guy

08-19-2011, 04:46 PM

But weren't the bulls swept? It seems to me that by your logic he should've got one game. Its not as if the sonics and jazz were scrub teams.

This is where you miss the boat the most. You act as if the sonics and jazz are a college team. They're all great teams. The celtics are obviously better. But not miles apart better. Come on.

What are you getting at? He had alot more help in the 90s. And him getting swept doesn't say much. He played 6 games total against the Celtics in those 2 years with 2 of them being on the road. Its not really a great sample size for it to mean anything.

BlackJoker23

08-19-2011, 05:05 PM

op still a *******, 21 year old mj still better than kd.

OldSchoolBBall

08-19-2011, 06:14 PM

But weren't the bulls swept? It seems to me that by your logic he should've got one game. Its not as if the sonics and jazz were scrub teams.

This is where you miss the boat the most. You act as if the sonics and jazz are a college team. They're all great teams. The celtics are obviously better. But not miles apart better. Come on.

Umm, OF COURSE the '86 Celts were miles better than the Jazz or Sonics. Get real. :oldlol:

And no, there's no reason to believe they should have won even a single game when he had zero support like he did despite averaging 43/6/6 one playoffs and 36/7/6 the other. Those Celtics teams were loaded. It's almost like asking the Sixers today to win a game vs. the EC all-stars in a 5 game series. Not gonna happen.

97 bulls

08-19-2011, 06:23 PM

What are you getting at? He had alot more help in the 90s. And him getting swept doesn't say much. He played 6 games total against the Celtics in those 2 years with 2 of them being on the road. Its not really a great sample size for it to mean anything.
I just don't see any consistancy in oldschools pov. According to him, the statistical difference between the 80s is to small to rely on. And that the bulls won in spite of their bad offense cuz of the jordans offense. But then when they loose its cuz jordan didn't have help. And in both cases, their offensive support he got was similar statistically.

He tries to cover this inconsistancy by saying that seattle and utah weren't as good as the celtics. Which might be true. But seeing as how most of seattle and utah main players played and were succesful in the 80s, why couldn't jordan at least win a game on his own? Seattle and utah had been routinely 2 of the best teams in the league year in and out. It wasn't as if they came out of nowhere and won. Why didn't jordan win at least a game vs the celtics in 86?

97 bulls

08-19-2011, 06:26 PM

Umm, OF COURSE the '86 Celts were miles better than the Jazz or Sonics. Get real. :oldlol:

And no, there's no reason to believe they should have won even a single game when he had zero support like he did despite averaging 43/6/6 one playoffs and 36/7/6 the other. Those Celtics teams were loaded. It's almost like asking the Sixers today to win a game vs. the EC all-stars in a 5 game series. Not gonna happen.
Oh stop it. These are pros. No team is "miles" better than another. And I didn't say every single game. I said at least one game.

OldSchoolBBall

08-19-2011, 06:32 PM

Oh stop it. These are pros. No team is "miles" better than another. And I didn't say every single game. I said at least one game.

And I said there was no reason to expect that team to win even a single game against those Celtics given the talent/production disparity. No one in history would have done any better.

And yes, the '86 Celtics are miles better than the '97 Jazz, for instance.

And that the bulls won in spite of their bad offense cuz of the jordans offense. But then when they loose its cuz jordan didn't have help. And in both cases, their offensive support he got was similar statistically.

But they weren't going up against equally potent offensive teams in the late 90's as they were in the mid-late 80's. What part aren't you understanding? Their defense was also better in the 90's, so that helped them close the gap and limit opposition offense.

97 bulls

08-19-2011, 06:59 PM

And I said there was no reason to expect that team to win even a single game against those Celtics given the talent/production disparity. No one in history would have done any better.

And yes, the '86 Celtics are miles better than the '97 Jazz, for instance.

But they weren't going up against equally potent offensive teams in the late 90's as they were in the mid-late 80's. What part aren't you understanding? Their defense was also better in the 90's, so that helped them close the gap and limit opposition offense.
I understand what your saying. And I agree that jordan didn't have enough help to win vs the celtics. But look at what your doing. In this very thread you try to use pace, era etc to show or better yet put wilt chamberlains amazing stats into context.

But you only do that when it fits you. Again here you compare the offense of the 97 jazz to the 86 celtics. Even say the jazz offense wasn't as potent. They were second in pts scored and offense rating. And I'm sure they'd be one of the better offenses in 86. What with more shot attempts not as much focus on defense.

All I'm saying is while I agree that wilts stats should be taken into context which you like to use, well why not do that in every situation?

28renyoy

08-19-2011, 07:05 PM

op still a *******, 21 year old mj still better than kd.

Durant was just 21 last year :lol

97 bulls

08-19-2011, 07:19 PM

Here's the other side of the coin old school. You will never hear or read a post in which I say that the 90s defenses are better than the 80s. Even though statistically they are. Cuz as I'm sure you will agree the emphasis on what was important changed over the course of time. The players and teams that were good defenders in anytime would still be good defender no matter where you put them and that same rule appiles to scoring.

Cuz if you disagree. Then your saying that the defenses the teams faced in the 90s were better than the 80s. Which would give reason as to why fg% were down.

I think it wasn't due to 90s defenses being better but that teams stressed defense more by walking the ball up the court and taking calculated shots etc.

Nick Young

10-01-2011, 09:19 AM

bump

pauk

10-01-2011, 09:41 AM

i think Rodman was most definitely at his best with the Bulls....

Jacks3

10-01-2011, 09:43 AM

Never played with a top 2 player in the world AND another top 12 player/24-10 caliber player though.

pauk

10-01-2011, 09:54 AM

Never played with a top 2 player in the world AND another top 12 player/24-10 caliber player though.

stacked overall team/best coach/all players complement eachother >>>> 2 players that dont complement eachother so well, a half player and scrubs, no chemistry, weak coach

AlphaWolf24

10-01-2011, 12:07 PM

He has 6 finals MVPs thats the only number that matters.

Wheres kareems 6 mvps?
Wheres Kobe's?

When you play with other hall of famers they tend to steal mvps from you like Magic and Worthy did. No one Jordan played with challenged him as best player.

.

This sh!t again??....

Where's Michael Jordan's 11 NBA Championship Rings?

Where's Michael Jordan's Final MVP award named after him?

Where's Michael Jordan's back 2 back NCAA Titles

again....Where's Micahel Jordan's Final MVP's compared to the real GOAT winner in American team sports History...Russell...

They didn't even name the award after him because everyone knows he isn't the greatest champion ever....not even close.

Jordan stans......ruining basketball one post at a time:lol

next

rmt

10-01-2011, 01:07 PM

Plat

10-01-2011, 02:31 PM

what a troll :roll:

Akrazotile

02-14-2019, 02:29 AM

:lebronamazed:

72-10

02-14-2019, 02:31 AM

why'd you bump this?

And1AllDay

02-14-2019, 02:49 AM

Yikes

warriorfan

02-14-2019, 02:50 AM

After such an insightful thread such as this it

Bawkish

02-14-2019, 03:28 AM

this explains even the Wilt stans or the Kobe stans or MJ stans 8 yrs ago were at least brought enough context to debate themselves

Lebron stans today were like arguing with flat earth tards

72-10

02-14-2019, 03:44 AM

K, so for the one year that Jordan played with Gervin, Gervin sucked, and Jordan was injured. Plus Jordan ran into one of the greatest teams of all time in the playoffs. He dragged a scrub team into the playoffs. So there's one.

Pippen wasn't a great player at first, and he didn't make an all-world first team until 1993.

Jackson is kind of in on his own merits, but everyone knows the Bulls won more due to the Jordan-Pippen chemistry than Jackson's advocacy of the triangle offense.

Rodman played his best basketball before he was on the Bulls. He used to defend all over the court, but just defended mostly in the post when he played with the Bulls. Rodman caused all kinds of problems off the court while he played with the Bulls, and didn't play full seasons. MJ wasn't even sure he wanted him on the team.

Tex is basically the same as the Zen Master.

Celtics 1825

02-14-2019, 04:12 AM

Washed up HOF's don't count.

Shaquille O'Neal

02-14-2019, 11:37 AM

The 62-63 Celtics have...NINE (9) Hall of Fame players.

These poor kids doing everything they can to try to discredit the GOAT MJ since LBJ is showing his true Le-Fraud-ness.

Manny98

02-14-2019, 11:42 AM

Those second 3 peat Bulls were even more stacked than the Warriors especially when you take into consideration how poor the talent the rest of the league was at the time due to the expansion

superduper

02-14-2019, 11:57 AM

TheCorporation

02-14-2019, 12:07 PM

Those second 3 peat Bulls were even more stacked than the Warriors especially when you take into consideration how poor the talent the rest of the league was at the time due to the expansion

100% You could literally take AWAY MJ from the Bulls and the Bulls would still have the best big two or big three

Pippen-Rodman
or
Pippen-Rodman-Kukoc

It was the 90s version of the Warriors, just like you could drop Curry from the Warriors and still have
Durant-Klay
or
Durant-Klay-Cousins/Draymond

superduper

02-14-2019, 12:10 PM

100% You could literally take AWAY MJ from the Bulls and the Bulls would still have the best big two or big three

Pippen-Rodman
or
Pippen-Rodman-Kukoc

It was the 90s version of the Warriors, just like you could drop Curry from the Warriors and still have
Durant-Klay
or
Durant-Klay-Cousins/Draymond

Imagine saying Pippen/Rodman is the best big 2 in the league :biggums:

You morons stay exposing yourselves every single time you post

TheCorporation

02-14-2019, 05:09 PM

Imagine saying Pippen/Rodman is the best big 2 in the league :biggums:

You morons stay exposing yourselves every single time you post

Lemme guess it was 6'2 Payton and Kemp :lol

or Lemme guess it was Malone and 9 ppg Stockton :lol

72-10

02-16-2019, 12:42 PM

Payton-Kemp-Hawkins (and then Schrempf)

and

Malone-Stockton-Hornacek

would both beat Pippen-Rodman-Kukoc, or is it Pippen-Rodman-Harper, hard to say.

not to mention the unsuccessful

Olajuwon-Barkley-Drexler?

sportjames23

02-16-2019, 01:30 PM

OP and the rest of the Bron stans are absolutely FUMING their boy will ever be better than MJ.

https://i.ibb.co/TbDYH7X/E4743654-D511-4668-8824-6-F03-D875-BB7-E.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

FKAri

02-16-2019, 01:30 PM

OP and the rest of the Bron stans are absolutely FUMING their boy will ever be better than MJ.

https://i.ibb.co/TbDYH7X/E4743654-D511-4668-8824-6-F03-D875-BB7-E.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)
Nigguh look drunk af here too :oldlol:

72-10

02-16-2019, 01:35 PM

I digress that the Bulls would probably pose a matchup problem with those teams I mentioned due to their length

Manny98

02-16-2019, 02:05 PM

egokiller

02-16-2019, 02:14 PM

Has there ever been a time when player stans have to hang their head in shame when they talk about basketball? As someone who witnessed GOAT MJ, whenever I converse with lestans they always have low self esteem and are dragging their head in the sand. It's a really sad sight. They try to think positive, but then the fact of 3/9 enters their mind and from there it's all down hill. Imagine trying to apologize for a guy who loses 6 times in the finals. What a life.