Larry Bird - Greatest Clutch Player Ever - Top 3-5 GOAT

[gengiskhan]

Greatest Clutch Player Ever in NBA History (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3lAuohZvnE) freaking Half court Game Winner Buzzer Beater :bowdown:


"Bird Tells X-Man exactly what buzzer beater he's going to shoot in his face" & does exactly that with double team on him" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjTrcyqlzok&feature=related) :bowdown:


Bird hits turn around fade away Buzzer beater in Magic's face to even NBA Finals series (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPEHglCapG8&feature=related):bowdown:


"Bird Tells X-man exactly from the spot he will shoot game winner." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6sLMupoQLQ&feature=related)

Bird Schools Jordan with Fade away Buzzer Beater (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoGmMx8Ejrw)

Not just 3 MVPs, Finals MVPs, Bird's whole career is Clutch game winners, buzzer beaters. Gets only better in POs. "Legend" gets bigger & Better.

Defensive specialist Dennis Rodman got so jealous of Bird destroying Pistons in POs every year, he used a Race card to insult Bird.

[Friday]

sorry but the greatest clutch player ever is michael jordan

[RRR3]

Genghispauk is like the NBA Forum version of drunk Gundress
Genghiskhan is not Pauk. At least Pauk can be a good poster when he actually tries (which is sadly only about 1% of the time, but hey....). Genghis is just insane (we get it, Genghis you like MJ and hate Kobe)

[L8kersfan222]

:bowdown: larry legend

[Inception28]

Greatest White Player Ever.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Bird Schools Jordan with Fade away Buzzer Beater (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoGmMx8Ejrw)


You mean schools Pippen, who was Bird's defender - MJ was the help defender there and missed the block by half a second. Regardless, Bird is a top 2 clutch player ever imo along with Jordan, and peak-wise, he's right there in the top 4-5 imo (with KAJ, MJ, Shaq being the only 3 definitely above him and you can also make cases for Wilt and Hakeem, though I disagree).

[Duncan21formvp]

Bird was good, but I disagree with his clutch play.

Poster by the name "Colts18" put together the info here.




Just look at Bird's long list of playoff failures while Dirk improves his play in the postseason:

1980- Averaged a .511 TS% in the postseason. In game 5 vs. the Sixers, he shot poorly, 5-19 with just 12 points, as the Celtics lost the game. His man (Dr. J) averaged 25 PPG in this series. His team loses in 5 games despite having HCA and winning 61 games. Had a 18.3 PER in the postseason

1981- Has a .532 TS% in the postseason. He had a bad finals where he averaged just 15 PPG on .419 shooting and .460 TS%.

1982- PPG average dropped from 22.9 PPG to 17.8 PPG. He has an embarrassing .474 TS% in the playoffs. He averaged a pedestrian 18.3 PPG against the Sixers. Averages 17 PPG in the final 2 games of the series. The Celtics lose again with HCA. The Celtics won 63 games and had the #1 SRS in the league. Has a 17.9 PER in the postseason.

1983- The Celtics get swept by the Bucks. The Celtics win 56 games and had the #2 SRS in the league and lose again with HCA. Bird plays awful again. .478 TS%. His PPG average drops 2 PPG in the playoffs. Bird missed a game in the series but that game happened to be the closest one (Celtics lose by 4). In the 3 other games, the Celtics lose by 14.3 PPG with Bird on the court.

1984- Great playoffs. Averaged 27-14-4 in the Finals and had a .607 TS% in the playoffs. First great playoff of his career. Celtics win the title over the Lakers.

1985- Celtics make the finals, but Bird's numbers drop in the playoffs. His PPG drops by 2.8 PPG, Reb by 1.2 Reb, and AST by 0.7 AST. Had an average .536 TS% in the postseason. Bird plays even worse in the finals. His PPG dropped 4.9 PPG, his Reb 1.7 Reb, and AST by 1.6 AST in the finals compared to his regular season average. His Finals TS% is just .527. Not only that, but Celtics finish with 63 wins and lose once again with HCA a constant theme in Bird's career. This is the first time in Celtics history they lost in the finals with HCA.

1986- Great year. His best year ever. Wins the title. .615 TS% in the postseason and amazing finals.

1987- I think this is his most admirable playoffs up until the finals. The Celtics were quite banged up this year. Averaged 27-10-7 in the postseason with .577 TS%. Though his numbers in the finals dropped off once again. His PPG was 3.9 PPG down from the regular season, AST down by 2.1 AST and his TS% was just .534. In game 6, Bird scored just 16 points on 6-16 (.375) shooting. In the final 3 games of this series, Bird averaged just 20 PPG on .377 shooting and .492 TS% with 3.7 TOV. This is the first time Bird has played without HCA in the playoffs and his team loses.

1988- Bird's PPG drops by 5.4 PPG, Reb by 0.5 Reb. Bird shoots an awful 40-114 (.351) against the Pistons. Has a mediocre .538 TS% and 20.2 PER in the playoffs. The Celtics had HCA and the #1 SRS in the league and you probably guessed what happened next, Larry Bird loses with HCA once again.

1989- Injured doesn't play in the postseason.

1990- Bird shoots .539 TS% and has 3.6 TOV as the Celtics once again you guessed it, lose with HCA.

1991- In the first round, his team needs to go 5 vs. the 41 win Pacers. His PPG drop by 2.3 PPG and his Rebounds and Assists also drop quite a bit. Has a .490 TS% 15.8 PER in the playoffs. Against the Pistons Bird averages 13.4 PPG on .446 TS%. His 56 win team played with you guessed it HCA and loses with it.

1992- Doesn't play in the first round as the Celtics sweep the Pacers. In round 2, his team goes 7 against the Cavs, but Bird plays in 4 games and his team was 1-3 in those games. Averages a pathetic 11.3 PPG and 4.5 Reb which are 8.4 PPG and 5.2 Reb down from his regular season average. He has a .514 TS% and 16.4 PER in the postseason.


So out of 12 years, you get 9 years under .540 TS%, 5 under .520 TS%, and 3 under .500 TS%. From 80-83, he had a 19.9 playoff PER. In that span, Johnny Moore, Franklin Edwards, Gus Williams, and Bob Lanier all had better playoff PER and WS/48. Teammates Parish, McHale, Tiny Archibald, and Cedric Maxwell had better TS% in that span. From 88-92, he had a 18.8 PER which is 25th among players with 10 playoff games played. Players who had better playoff PER's in that span include Fat Lever, Terry Cummings, Roy Tarpley, Cedric Ceballos, and Sarunas Marciulionis. His teammates Reggie Lewis and Kevin McHale had better playoff PER's in that span.

With Bird you get a nice 4 year run that had 4 straight finals appearances but outside of that you get a 4 year span of .505 TS% (80-83) and a .525 TS% span (88-92). In 12 years, you get 7 losses with HCA. Basically out of Bird's 13 year career, you have 1 injury season and 3 non-descript postseasons at the end of his plus some playoff disappointments early in his career.

[PTB Fan]

Larry Bird is the greatest clutch shooter ever and arguably greatest clutch player ever as well.

[97 bulls]

Bird was good, but I disagree with his clutch play.

Poster by the name "Colts18" put together the info here.
Great post. Larry Bird is the only player on ish that has never been had his career questioned or attacked. And while he was great, he obviouusly had flaws like everybody else.

[Jacks3]

Bird was good, but I disagree with his clutch play.

Poster by the name "Colts18" put together the info here.
Hilarious how his post-season failings are never discussed compared to other guys....

[DMAVS41]

Great post. Larry Bird is the only player on ish that has never been had his career questioned or attacked. And while he was great, he obviouusly had flaws like everybody else.

Because most posters here did not see Bird play. I've talked quite a bit about Bird and his playoff play....same with JLAUBER

Bird was great, but he was far from perfect....

[Duncan21formvp]

Larry Bird is the greatest clutch shooter ever and arguably greatest clutch player ever as well.

disagree. how can you be the greatest clutch player ever when you lost more series with HCA than any other star in NBA History and never won a series without HCA?

[97 bulls]

Because most posters here did not see Bird play. I've talked quite a bit about Bird and his playoff play....same with JLAUBER

Bird was great, but he was far from perfect....
Very true. I remember jlauber saying birds fg% if going off todays league, would be around 42 to 46%. Notthing very special.

[fos]

IMO Larry Bird is second only to the incomparable Michael Jordan.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I remember jlauber saying birds fg% if going off todays league, would be around 42 to 46%. Notthing very special.

That's what JLauber says he'd shoot, which says nothing about what Bird would actually shoot today.

Look at what Bird was doing with really bad back from age 33-35 from '90-'92. Seasons of 24/10/8, 47 FG%, 19/9/7, 45 FG%, 20/10/7, 47 FG% respectively those 3 years. And he got better as the '90 season went on, commentators were pointing out how his shooting was less consistent due to injuries and rust(he basically missed the '89 season), but averaged 27/10/7 on 49/39/93 shooting percentages after the break.

Boston was also 26-5 before Bird missed any games in '91 and he was shooting 48% at that point. They ended up going 46-14 with him and 10-12 without him.

This version of Bird well into his 30's with a really bad back still had a good amount of those high scoring triple double/near triple double games that everyone went crazy over when Lebron was doing it recently in his prime. I'm talking about games of 50/13/7, 49/14/2/4, 46/8/10, 45/8/8/5, 43/8/13, 43/15/6, 40/11/10 ect.

This was an aging, broken down Bird in the 90's, by the way. This wasn't '84-'88 Bird.

[DMAVS41]

Very true. I remember jlauber saying birds fg% if going off todays league, would be around 42 to 46%. Notthing very special.

I don't remember that and I also don't think predicting f% across eras is really all that possible.

Bird was/is one of the truly best players I've ever seen. He just had his moments in the playoffs/finals where he wasn't as great as "the Legend" suggests. Really not specific to Bird....all great players have come up short or played poorly in the playoffs/finals at some point.

But lets not be overly critical. We are talking about a guy that remains the most clutch...or 2nd most clutch player I've ever seen. A guy that won 3 titles as his teams best player and averaged 24/10/7 on great efficiency for his career in the playoffs.

[jlauber]

Very true. I remember jlauber saying birds fg% if going off todays league, would be around 42 to 46%. Notthing very special.

I don't recall making that comment, but, I have stated that Bird's career FG% of .496 has to be taken in proper context. Bird played the entire decade of the "defenseless 80's", a decade in which EVERY player was shooting nearly 50%. The Lakers TEAM had a season of .548 shooting, and even the 30-52 Kings shot .504 one season.

THEN, in the post-season, Bird dropped to .472. AND, in his five Finals, he shot .455. In fact, Bird had as many games of shooting under 40%, as he did in shooting 50%+, 11 each, in his 31 Finals games. As for clutch, as was pointed out previously, Bird had some HORRIBLE shooting playoffs. In game seven of the '84 Finals, he shot 6-18. On top of that, in his best statistical regular seasons, he had some of his WORST post-seasons. It amazes me that he is held to some "god-like" status here, when, in reality, he had some disasters in the post-season. His best statistical regular season was in 87-88, and yet, he was AWFUL against the Pistons in the playoffs (.351 shooting.) BTW, Magic TORCHED the Pistons in the Finals that year (21.6 ppg on .550 shooting), and SHOULD have won the FMVP.

Bird was a great player, but IMHO, his resume does not move him any higher than 8th all-time, behind Russell, MJ, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Duncan, and both Kobe and Hakeem have cases to be ranked higher.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Never won a title with less than 3 HOF teammates :facepalm

[pauk]

:bowdown: :bowdown:

[pauk]

Never won a title with less than 3 HOF teammates :facepalm

what player didnt need at least 1-2 HOF's to win a championship? this is not tennis...

[PTB Fan]

Larry often had injuries, but he was on money when it was needed most and one of the best at impacting on his team's wins. His worst Finals was when he averaged 15/15/5 in 81, but then he bounced back.

Larry has a great case as the greatest clutch shooter. He had numerous game winners in the post season against excellent competition. And he could be argued as the most clutch player.

Even when he shot badly, he found a way to make an impact and lead his team to wins.

[ILLsmak]

what player didnt need at least 1-2 HOF's to win a championship? this is not tennis...

And which one other than Bill Walton maybe would have made the Hall without being on Bird's team?

I know people will say OMG WUT ABOUT MCHALE but I'd say it's 50/50 at best that he'd make it.

It's not like dude got to play with Kareem.

Guys like Pippen, James Worthy, McHale are amazing players, but who is to say they'd get the nod for the hall if they weren't on teams with top ten players.

-Smak

[swi7ch]

Jordan is the most clutch of all time but Larry Legend is definitely top 3. In fact, he's my GOAT SF. :bowdown:

[97 bulls]

I don't recall making that comment, but, I have stated that Bird's career FG% of .496 has to be taken in proper context. Bird played the entire decade of the "defenseless 80's", a decade in which EVERY player was shooting nearly 50%. The Lakers TEAM had a season of .548 shooting, and even the 30-52 Kings shot .504 one season.

THEN, in the post-season, Bird dropped to .472. AND, in his five Finals, he shot .455. In fact, Bird had as many games of shooting under 40%, as he did in shooting 50%+, 11 each, in his 31 Finals games. As for clutch, as was pointed out previously, Bird had some HORRIBLE shooting playoffs. In game seven of the '84 Finals, he shot 6-18. On top of that, in his best statistical regular seasons, he had some of his WORST post-seasons. It amazes me that he is held to some "god-like" status here, when, in reality, he had some disasters in the post-season. His best statistical regular season was in 87-88, and yet, he was AWFUL against the Pistons in the playoffs (.351 shooting.) BTW, Magic TORCHED the Pistons in the Finals that year (21.6 ppg on .550 shooting), and SHOULD have won the FMVP.

Bird was a great player, but IMHO, his resume does not move him any higher than 8th all-time, behind Russell, MJ, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Duncan, and both Kobe and Hakeem have cases to be ranked higher.
I stand corrected. My mistake on misquoting you. But aren't you implying that by comparing his fg% to the league avg at the time?

[97 bulls]

I don't remember that and I also don't think predicting f% across eras is really all that possible.

Bird was/is one of the truly best players I've ever seen. He just had his moments in the playoffs/finals where he wasn't as great as "the Legend" suggests. Really not specific to Bird....all great players have come up short or played poorly in the playoffs/finals at some point.

But lets not be overly critical. We are talking about a guy that remains the most clutch...or 2nd most clutch player I've ever seen. A guy that won 3 titles as his teams best player and averaged 24/10/7 on great efficiency for his career in the playoffs.
Its funny you say that cuz in every conversation we have, you compare stats across eras.

And I'm not being overly critiical. Bird was great, but like eevery other player, his stats must be put into context.

[97 bulls]

And which one other than Bill Walton maybe would have made the Hall without being on Bird's team?

I know people will say OMG WUT ABOUT MCHALE but I'd say it's 50/50 at best that he'd make it.

It's not like dude got to play with Kareem.

Guys like Pippen, James Worthy, McHale are amazing players, but who is to say they'd get the nod for the hall if they weren't on teams with top ten players.

-Smak
In pippens case, id say he's a shoe in. Just based off 94 and 95.


I don't see mchale making it. Going off of how he led the celts in 89.

Worthy was a shell when magic retired. But he still didnt impress either

[jlauber]

I stand corrected. My mistake on misquoting you. But aren't you implying that by comparing his fg% to the league avg at the time?

Sure. His FG% would have dropped in the 90's and 00's for a variety of reasons, one of them being that he probably would have taken more 3pt shots.

The fact is, you simply HAVE to take into account LEAGUE AVERAGE in any of these cross-era discussions. Those that diminish Wilt's 50 ppg season, based on pace (and here again, MJ's '87 NBA averaged 109.9 ppg compared to Wilt's '62 season of 118.8), conveniently ignore the MUCH lower FG% of that '62 season (and all seasons in the 60's BTW.)

And, as I have shown, player-for-player, improved each year from the early 60's to the late 60's, and again into the 70's. And players who played in both decades of the 70's and 80's almost to a man, shot better in the 80's. THEN, from the 80's, and going into the 90's, there was a slow decline. And before someone brings up the 3pt shot...even the CENTERS who played in the 80's saw a sharp decline by the mid-90's.

Once again, there were a VARIETY of reasons why FG%'s were much lower in the 60's. The game was much more physical (players like Lovellette were elbowing Wilt in the face and mouth); the BALL was not uniform, and I have seen photos of players holding a BALD basketball; the venues were often cold and even breezy; and the perhaps the biggest reason...the BRUTAL scheduling. Once again, in Wilt's 61-62 season, when he averaged 48.5 mpg, he not played in a TON of B2B games, he had SIX "3-in-a-row's", three more separate stretches of "4-in-a-row", and even another SEPARATE run of FIVE-in-a-row (and none of the home games were B2B, either.) Factor in the much worse traveling conditions, and the expectations of playing hurt and with more minutes, and it is easy to see why virtually every player shot worse in the early 60's.

BTW, and as I have pointed out in another long post (and I don't feel like digging it up now), Wilt was not only SWARMED in his career, he was often BRUTALIZED. And not only that, but there were two sets of standards, too. Opposing teams could relentllessly pound on Wilt, and get away with it, but Wilt was often called for fouls that were far less than what he was absorbing.

[DMAVS41]

Its funny you say that cuz in every conversation we have, you compare stats across eras.

And I'm not being overly critiical. Bird was great, but like eevery other player, his stats must be put into context.

there is a difference between putting stats in proper context and making claims about what a player would or wouldn't do today. that is all. bird might shoot better today with these laughable perimeter defensive rules. i don't know.

i do know that stats need to be put into proper context. obviously a guy like elgin baylor shooting only 43% for his career needs to be understood...that simply is way more impressive than someone shooting 43% today.

stuff like that. predicting or projecting exact fg% 30 years apart is impossible.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

what player didnt need at least 1-2 HOF's to win a championship? this is not tennis...

Kobe Bryant only needed 1.... 5 times :confusedshrug:

[97 bulls]

there is a difference between putting stats in proper context and making claims about what a player would or wouldn't do today. that is all. bird might shoot better today with these laughable perimeter defensive rules. i don't know.

i do know that stats need to be put into proper context. obviously a guy like elgin baylor shooting only 43% for his career needs to be understood...that simply is way more impressive than someone shooting 43% today.

stuff like that. predicting or projecting exact fg% 30 years apart is impossible.
The only difference is the wording. As long as you include context in your reasoning. Context is everything. As what it does is take into consideration the different roles and situations of the topic.

For instance, your elgin baylor example. I wholeheartedly agree with this. But for some reason you only try to use this logic for certain players. That I don't understand.

Let look at jlauber. Great poster. He's adjusted my way of thinking on basketball statistics. But he's extremly biased. And can't really put wilts accomplishments into proper perspective. The league was so diffeerent when he played. And defense has evolved so much. As well as the competition.

[DMAVS41]

The only difference is the wording. As long as you include context in your reasoning. Context is everything. As what it does is take into consideration the different roles and situations of the topic.

For instance, your elgin baylor example. I wholeheartedly agree with this. But for some reason you only try to use this logic for certain players. That I don't understand.

Let look at jlauber. Great poster. He's adjusted my way of thinking on basketball statistics. But he's extremly biased. And can't really put wilts accomplishments into proper perspective. The league was so diffeerent when he played. And defense has evolved so much. As well as the competition.

everything with you comes back to one example concerning pippen and magic. i don't flip flop around at all. and i don't base every argument off stats only.

what you want is for people to evaluate pippen like he was scoring 24 or 25 points a game because you think he could. even though he never did at any point in his career.

we just fundamentally disagree on the game of basketball. really nothing more to say. its not that i don't respect your opinions and views, its just that they are fundamentally different than mine. i honestly would say magic johnson was maybe 2 to 3 times better than pippen as a player. you think pippen was a better player. we are so far apart on that and our other views that it just isn't even worth debating anything.

and furthermore, you can't just claim that competition is much better now. is it really? for centers? no doubt the game has changed, but you have to account for some type of adaptation or just admit that the game of basketball is an art form. its not always about bigger/stronger/faster....how come steve nash is still so damn good? how about kevin love dominating the glass? how about dirk torching the league? and i could go on and on....the beauty of basketball is that it can be played so many different ways and each of them can be successful.

its like our debate about individual offense vs individual defense. you have a very stringent way of thinking. you think that the more "complete" player is always better than a specialized player. not the case at all. but once again, you don't see the game that way. you see a player like pippen and question how its possible that a guy like dirk is better. or magic. or bird...or barkely..etc. when they all were pretty clearly better in my opinion. the game just isn't that simple.

[jlauber]

The only difference is the wording. As long as you include context in your reasoning. Context is everything. As what it does is take into consideration the different roles and situations of the topic.

For instance, your elgin baylor example. I wholeheartedly agree with this. But for some reason you only try to use this logic for certain players. That I don't understand.

Let look at jlauber. Great poster. He's adjusted my way of thinking on basketball statistics. But he's extremly biased. And can't really put wilts accomplishments into proper perspective. The league was so diffeerent when he played. And defense has evolved so much. As well as the competition.

And yet, a PRIME Kareem had a season, in the middle of the 70's, when he shot .513 from the floor. He also had two other seasons, in his statistical and physical PRIME, in which he shot .539 and .529.

And how come Nate Thurmond could hold a PRIME Kareem to probably well under .450 shooting in their 50+ H2H games (and a HIGH game of 34 points), and yet, an OLD Kareem could bury Hakeem with THREE games of 40+, and hang a SEASON, in five H2h games, of 33.0 ppg on .634 shooting (as well as having a game against Ewing in that same 85-86 season, in which he outscored Patrick, 40-9, and outshot Ewing, 15-22 to 3-17)? Or that an OLD Wilt would hold a PRIME Kareem to .464 shooting in their 28 H2H games, and even blocked some 15+ skyhooks in the '72 WCF's (in a series in which Kareem shot .457, and only .414 over the last four games)?

Or that 6-9 Dave Cowens could outplay a PRIME Kareem in EVERY facet of the game in a game seven, and on Kareem's home floor?

[ShaqAttack3234]

I don't recall making that comment, but, I have stated that Bird's career FG% of .496 has to be taken in proper context. Bird played the entire decade of the "defenseless 80's", a decade in which EVERY player was shooting nearly 50%. The Lakers TEAM had a season of .548 shooting, and even the 30-52 Kings shot .504 one season.

The average player didn't take the amount of shots that Bird did either.

Bird was slightly below the league average from the field in '80 and '81 and equal to league average in '84. But he was also well above the league average in FT% and led the league in '84.

Look at '86 and '87, Bird clears the league average in FG% while also leading the league in made 3s and FT%.

And about Bird's '86 season.

Bird injured his back paving a driveway during the offseason and wasn't himself to start the season. At Christmas, Bird was averaging just 23.8 ppg, 9.4 rpg and 6.1 apg on 44.6 FG%/52.5 TS%. Far below his usual level. He averaged 26.8 ppg, 10.1 rpg and 7.1 apg on 52.3 FG%/61 TS% over the final 54 games. Right around Bird's usual numbers from '85-'88 and extremely similar to his '86 playoff numbers


THEN, in the post-season, Bird dropped to .472. AND, in his five Finals, he shot .455. In fact, Bird had as many games of shooting under 40%, as he did in shooting 50%+, 11 each, in his 31 Finals games. As for clutch, as was pointed out previously, Bird had some HORRIBLE shooting playoffs. In game seven of the '84 Finals, he shot 6-18. On top of that, in his best statistical regular seasons, he had some of his WORST post-seasons.

Bird's regular season stats from '80-'88 were 25/10/6 on 50 FG%/57 TS%. His playoff numbers were 25/11/6 on 48 FG%/56 TS% during that same time with injuries of course affecting him in the '83 and '85 playoffs and even causing him to miss games.

There's no real drop there. Even great playoff performers usually see a slight drop in efficiency like Bird did.

Who won that game 7 in '84? Bird averaged 27/14/4 on 48% shooting in that series, by the way.

Your mistake is that you seem to think that scoring summed up Bird's game or that statistics do his game justice. He was a great scorer, but I don't even think of him as primarily being a scoring. He was also the greatest passing forward ever, arguably the best rebounding small forward ever and contrary to some revisionist history, his team defense was excellent which is why he made 3 all-defensive second teams.

As far as his worst post seasons during his best regular seasons? Well, you can cite '88 and only his series vs Detroit was subpar.

As far as '85? If you actually knew what you were talking about then you'd know about Bird being injured and missing some games during this run. That's not exactly a secret. And his numbers for the playoffs were still very good, especially when you consider the injuries.

And how about his '84 championship run? He averaged 28/11/6 with 2.3 spg and 1.2 bpg on 52 FG%/61 TS%? Up from 24/10/7, 49 FG%/55 TS% and 1.8 spg/0.8 bpg during the season.

Then there's '86, he had excellent series in all 4 rounds and finished at 26/9/8/2 on 52 FG%/62 TS%. Averaged 27/10/7 on 48 FG%/58 TS% during the '87 playoffs.

Bird did have some subpar series and failures like every other player, but JLauber is making Bird out to be WAY worse than he is. He's already proven his ignorance on Bird many times as well as his bias against Bird.

[97 bulls]

And yet, a PRIME Kareem had a season, in the middle of the 70's, when he shot .513 from the floor. He also had two other seasons, in his statistical and physical PRIME, in which he shot .539 and .529.

And how come Nate Thurmond could hold a PRIME Kareem to probably well under .450 shooting in their 50+ H2H games (and a HIGH game of 34 points), and yet, an OLD Kareem could bury Hakeem with THREE games of 40+, and hang a SEASON, in five H2h games, of 33.0 ppg on .634 shooting (as well as having a game against Ewing in that same 85-86 season, in which he outscored Patrick, 40-9, and outshot Ewing, 15-22 to 3-17)? Or that an OLD Wilt would hold a PRIME Kareem to .464 shooting in their 28 H2H games, and even blocked some 15+ skyhooks in the '72 WCF's (in a series in which Kareem shot .457, and only .414 over the last four games)?

Or that 6-9 Dave Cowens could outplay a PRIME Kareem in EVERY facet of the game in a game seven, and on Kareem's home floor?
But your extrapolating a few games to make a weak point. Obviously kareem had some amazing games vs some young up an comming great centers. But he didn't avg 40 ppg the whole year. So what if I go back and just pick out a few of his not so good games vs some of the scrub centers? He obviously had them to bring his final end of the year avg to 17-20. What your saying isn't much. Older players always show up against the players that are supposed to be their eventual replacement.

[jlauber]

The average player didn't take the amount of shots that Bird did either.

Bird was slightly below the league average from the field in '80 and '81 and equal to league average in '84. But he was also well above the league average in FT% and led the league in '84.

Look at '86 and '87, Bird clears the league average in FG% while also leading the league in made 3s and FT%.

And about Bird's '86 season.

Bird injured his back paving a driveway during the offseason and wasn't himself to start the season. At Christmas, Bird was averaging just 23.8 ppg, 9.4 rpg and 6.1 apg on 44.6 FG%/52.5 TS%. Far below his usual level. He averaged 26.8 ppg, 10.1 rpg and 7.1 apg on 52.3 FG%/61 TS% over the final 54 games. Right around Bird's usual numbers from '85-'88 and extremely similar to his '86 playoff numbers



Bird's regular season stats from '80-'88 were 25/10/6 on 50 FG%/57 TS%. His playoff numbers were 25/11/6 on 48 FG%/56 TS% during that same time with injuries of course affecting him in the '83 and '85 playoffs and even causing him to miss games.

There's no real drop there. Even great playoff performers usually see a slight drop in efficiency like Bird did.

Who won that game 7 in '84? Bird averaged 27/14/4 on 48% shooting in that series, by the way.

Your mistake is that you seem to think that scoring summed up Bird's game or that statistics do his game justice. He was a great scorer, but I don't even think of him as primarily being a scoring. He was also the greatest passing forward ever, arguably the best rebounding small forward ever and contrary to some revisionist history, his team defense was excellent which is why he made 3 all-defensive second teams.

As far as his worst post seasons during his best regular seasons? Well, you can cite '88 and only his series vs Detroit was subpar.

As far as '85? If you actually knew what you were talking about then you'd know about Bird being injured and missing some games during this run. That's not exactly a secret. And his numbers for the playoffs were still very good, especially when you consider the injuries.

And how about his '84 championship run? He averaged 28/11/6 with 2.3 spg and 1.2 bpg on 52 FG%/61 TS%? Up from 24/10/7, 49 FG%/55 TS% and 1.8 spg/0.8 bpg during the season.

Then there's '86, he had excellent series in all 4 rounds and finished at 26/9/8/2 on 52 FG%/62 TS%. Averaged 27/10/7 on 48 FG%/58 TS% during the '87 playoffs.

Bird did have some subpar series and failures like every other player, but JLauber is making Bird out to be WAY worse than he is. He's already proven his ignorance on Bird many times as well as his bias against Bird.

I don't think that his '88 playoffs against Detroit, in arguably his greatest statistical regular season was his ONLY poor playoff series...but someone else beat me to it earlier...


Just look at Bird's long list of playoff failures while Dirk improves his play in the postseason:

1980- Averaged a .511 TS% in the postseason. In game 5 vs. the Sixers, he shot poorly, 5-19 with just 12 points, as the Celtics lost the game. His man (Dr. J) averaged 25 PPG in this series. His team loses in 5 games despite having HCA and winning 61 games. Had a 18.3 PER in the postseason

1981- Has a .532 TS% in the postseason. He had a bad finals where he averaged just 15 PPG on .419 shooting and .460 TS%.

1982- PPG average dropped from 22.9 PPG to 17.8 PPG. He has an embarrassing .474 TS% in the playoffs. He averaged a pedestrian 18.3 PPG against the Sixers. Averages 17 PPG in the final 2 games of the series. The Celtics lose again with HCA. The Celtics won 63 games and had the #1 SRS in the league. Has a 17.9 PER in the postseason.

1983- The Celtics get swept by the Bucks. The Celtics win 56 games and had the #2 SRS in the league and lose again with HCA. Bird plays awful again. .478 TS%. His PPG average drops 2 PPG in the playoffs. Bird missed a game in the series but that game happened to be the closest one (Celtics lose by 4). In the 3 other games, the Celtics lose by 14.3 PPG with Bird on the court.

1984- Great playoffs. Averaged 27-14-4 in the Finals and had a .607 TS% in the playoffs. First great playoff of his career. Celtics win the title over the Lakers.

1985- Celtics make the finals, but Bird's numbers drop in the playoffs. His PPG drops by 2.8 PPG, Reb by 1.2 Reb, and AST by 0.7 AST. Had an average .536 TS% in the postseason. Bird plays even worse in the finals. His PPG dropped 4.9 PPG, his Reb 1.7 Reb, and AST by 1.6 AST in the finals compared to his regular season average. His Finals TS% is just .527. Not only that, but Celtics finish with 63 wins and lose once again with HCA a constant theme in Bird's career. This is the first time in Celtics history they lost in the finals with HCA.

1986- Great year. His best year ever. Wins the title. .615 TS% in the postseason and amazing finals.

1987- I think this is his most admirable playoffs up until the finals. The Celtics were quite banged up this year. Averaged 27-10-7 in the postseason with .577 TS%. Though his numbers in the finals dropped off once again. His PPG was 3.9 PPG down from the regular season, AST down by 2.1 AST and his TS% was just .534. In game 6, Bird scored just 16 points on 6-16 (.375) shooting. In the final 3 games of this series, Bird averaged just 20 PPG on .377 shooting and .492 TS% with 3.7 TOV. This is the first time Bird has played without HCA in the playoffs and his team loses.

1988- Bird's PPG drops by 5.4 PPG, Reb by 0.5 Reb. Bird shoots an awful 40-114 (.351) against the Pistons. Has a mediocre .538 TS% and 20.2 PER in the playoffs. The Celtics had HCA and the #1 SRS in the league and you probably guessed what happened next, Larry Bird loses with HCA once again.

1989- Injured doesn't play in the postseason.

1990- Bird shoots .539 TS% and has 3.6 TOV as the Celtics once again you guessed it, lose with HCA.

1991- In the first round, his team needs to go 5 vs. the 41 win Pacers. His PPG drop by 2.3 PPG and his Rebounds and Assists also drop quite a bit. Has a .490 TS% 15.8 PER in the playoffs. Against the Pistons Bird averages 13.4 PPG on .446 TS%. His 56 win team played with you guessed it HCA and loses with it.

1992- Doesn't play in the first round as the Celtics sweep the Pacers. In round 2, his team goes 7 against the Cavs, but Bird plays in 4 games and his team was 1-3 in those games. Averages a pathetic 11.3 PPG and 4.5 Reb which are 8.4 PPG and 5.2 Reb down from his regular season average. He has a .514 TS% and 16.4 PER in the postseason.


So out of 12 years, you get 9 years under .540 TS%, 5 under .520 TS%, and 3 under .500 TS%. From 80-83, he had a 19.9 playoff PER. In that span, Johnny Moore, Franklin Edwards, Gus Williams, and Bob Lanier all had better playoff PER and WS/48. Teammates Parish, McHale, Tiny Archibald, and Cedric Maxwell had better TS% in that span. From 88-92, he had a 18.8 PER which is 25th among players with 10 playoff games played. Players who had better playoff PER's in that span include Fat Lever, Terry Cummings, Roy Tarpley, Cedric Ceballos, and Sarunas Marciulionis. His teammates Reggie Lewis and Kevin McHale had better playoff PER's in that span.

With Bird you get a nice 4 year run that had 4 straight finals appearances but outside of that you get a 4 year span of .505 TS% (80-83) and a .525 TS% span (88-92). In 12 years, you get 7 losses with HCA. Basically out of Bird's 13 year career, you have 1 injury season and 3 non-descript postseasons at the end of his plus some playoff disappointments early in his career.

Let's not put Bird on some god-like pedastal. Even one of his rings, in which he was not even the best player on the floor, was suspect, since it came at the hands of a 40-42 Rockets team.

And his SHOOTING in his FIVE Finals was downright pathetic. He shot .455 in his 31 Finals games (in leagues that averaged well over .480), and had as many games under 40%, as he did over 50% (11 of each.) He even had TWO games of under 30%!

BTW, a HEALTHY Magic probably wins rings in '81 (depriving Bird of one of his), and again in '89.

[D-Wade316]

Bird is indeed overrated. Without the rings, he would be called out for his epic choke job in the playoffs.

[AlphaWolf24]

I don't think that his '88 playoffs against Detroit, in arguably his greatest statistical regular season was his ONLY poor playoff series...but someone else beat me to it earlier...



Let's not put Bird on some god-like pedastal. Even one of his rings, in which he was not even the best player on the floor, was suspect, since it came at the hands of a 40-42 Rockets team.

And his SHOOTING in his FIVE Finals was downright pathetic. He shot .455 in his 31 Finals games (in leagues that averaged well over .480), and had as many games under 40%, as he did over 50% (11 of each.) He even had TWO games of under 30%!

BTW, a HEALTHY Magic probably wins rings in '81 (depriving Bird of one of his), and again in '89.



the most overrated player on the internet.....doesn't really take a rocket scientist to understand why either...

[ShaqAttack3234]

I don't think that his '88 playoffs against Detroit, in arguably his greatest statistical regular season was his ONLY poor playoff series

I meant it was his only poor series during the '88 run just so people wouldn't mistake it as a run where Bird played poorly for the entire playoffs.


...but someone else beat me to it earlier...

Yeah, and that post has a lot of garbage in it(as evidenced by the use of win shares) as well as ignorance. Which isn't to say to there's no useful information there, but completely ignores context, and ignores Bird's crippling back injury that plagued him in the early 90's and forced him to retire.


Let's not put Bird on some god-like pedastal. Even one of his rings, in which he was not even the best player on the floor, was suspect, since it came at the hands of a 40-42 Rockets team.

And this once again shows your ignorance. If you watched the series instead of focusing on one category in the stat column then you'd know that Bird was easily the Celtics best and most valuable player that series.

And you're also forgetting that Boston beat a 62-20 team to get to the finals that season.


And his SHOOTING in his FIVE Finals was downright pathetic. He shot .455 in his 31 Finals games (in leagues that averaged well over .480), and had as many games under 40%, as he did over 50% (11 of each.) He even had TWO games of under 30%!

What does the league average have to do with the finals? Last I checked, the average team doesn't play in the finals. And the league average wasn't well over 48% every year Bird was in the finals either.


BTW, a HEALTHY Magic probably wins rings in '81 (depriving Bird of one of his), and again in '89.

Magic arguably cost LA that series in '81 and wasn't even the best player on his own team(Kareem was the best in the league), a luxury Bird never had. Not sure how you can say that they probably win in '89 either. Makes me question your knowledge and objectivity once again.

And if you want to play that game. How about a healthy Bird in '85, or a healthy Celtics team in '87? Or if Bird never hurt his back? How many rings could he have finished with?

[colts19]

Your mistake is that you seem to think that scoring summed up Bird's game or that statistics do his game justice. He was a great scorer, but I don't even think of him as primarily being a scoring. He was also the greatest passing forward ever, arguably the best rebounding small forward ever and contrary to some revisionist history, his team defense was excellent which is why he made 3 all-defensive second teams:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

I think this is what everyone is missing. Birds scoring was great but it was the other things that seperated him from other great players. When Bird was shooting bad in a series, how many times did he get a key rebound or make a great pass when the game was on the line. He was also very good a getting steals in key situations.

I saw every home game Larry played in college, and one of the first things I noticed was that he could miss 10 shots in a row but still find a way to help his team win. Same thing in the NBA.

[jlauber]

I meant it was his only poor series during the '88 run just so people wouldn't mistake it as a run where Bird played poorly for the entire playoffs.



Yeah, and that post has a lot of garbage in it(as evidenced by the use of win shares) as well as ignorance. Which isn't to say to there's no useful information there, but completely ignores context, and ignores Bird's crippling back injury that plagued him in the early 90's and forced him to retire.



And this once again shows your ignorance. If you watched the series instead of focusing on one category in the stat column then you'd know that Bird was easily the Celtics best and most valuable player that series.

And you're also forgetting that Boston beat a 62-20 team to get to the finals that season.



What does the league average have to do with the finals? Last I checked, the average team doesn't play in the finals. And the league average wasn't well over 48% every year Bird was in the finals either.



Magic arguably cost LA that series in '81 and wasn't even the best player on his own team(Kareem was the best in the league), a luxury Bird never had. Not sure how you can say that they probably win in '89 either. Makes me question your knowledge and objectivity once again.

And if you want to play that game. How about a healthy Bird in '85, or a healthy Celtics team in '87? Or if Bird never hurt his back? How many rings could he have finished with?

As always you make some good points. Still, IMHO, and in terms of career accomplishments, I don't see Bird having a case over Russell, MJ, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, nor Shaq and Duncan. I think it is a three-horse race for the 8th spot between Bird, Kobe, and possibly Hakeem.

[jlauber]

Your mistake is that you seem to think that scoring summed up Bird's game or that statistics do his game justice. He was a great scorer, but I don't even think of him as primarily being a scoring. He was also the greatest passing forward ever, arguably the best rebounding small forward ever and contrary to some revisionist history, his team defense was excellent which is why he made 3 all-defensive second teams:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

I think this is what everyone is missing. Birds scoring was great but it was the other things that seperated him from other great players. When Bird was shooting bad in a series, how many times did he get a key rebound or make a great pass when the game was on the line. He was also very good a getting steals in key situations.

I saw every home game Larry played in college, and one of the first things I noticed was that he could miss 10 shots in a row but still find a way to help his team win. Same thing in the NBA.

Good post. I certainly never claimed that Bird was not a great player. I just don't think he has the career resume of at least the top-seven... Russell, MJ, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Duncan.

[97 bulls]

everything with you comes back to one example concerning pippen and magic. i don't flip flop around at all. and i don't base every argument off stats only.

what you want is for people to evaluate pippen like he was scoring 24 or 25 points a game because you think he could. even though he never did at any point in his career.

we just fundamentally disagree on the game of basketball. really nothing more to say. its not that i don't respect your opinions and views, its just that they are fundamentally different than mine. i honestly would say magic johnson was maybe 2 to 3 times better than pippen as a player. you think pippen was a better player. we are so far apart on that and our other views that it just isn't even worth debating anything.

and furthermore, you can't just claim that competition is much better now. is it really? for centers? no doubt the game has changed, but you have to account for some type of adaptation or just admit that the game of basketball is an art form. its not always about bigger/stronger/faster....how come steve nash is still so damn good? how about kevin love dominating the glass? how about dirk torching the league? and i could go on and on....the beauty of basketball is that it can be played so many different ways and each of them can be successful.

its like our debate about individual offense vs individual defense. you have a very stringent way of thinking. you think that the more "complete" player is always better than a specialized player. not the case at all. but once again, you don't see the game that way. you see a player like pippen and question how its possible that a guy like dirk is better. or magic. or bird...or barkely..etc. when they all were pretty clearly better in my opinion. the game just isn't that simple.
And again, you bring this back to scottie pippen. Why? I'm questioning your whole inconsistant philosophy. Not just your view on pippen. Its your overrating dirk, the offense/defense discussion we had, as well as scottie pippen. And this is among other things I've read from you since we've been chatting.

And yes the comparisons go far past eras. I just queestion why do you only give certain considerations to some players. Why does your criteria fluctuate? I remember you posting somethin to the effect that 30 ppg now holds a different weight from the early 00s. But why doesn't the same hold true for the 80s/90s comparisons?

I'm not saying wilt would be some scrub now. But I do try to put his amazing statistical accomplishments into context.

What larry bird, magic, dirk, jordan, and whoever else you want to name has done is amazing. But I've always maintained they won cuz they were on the best team. You don't realize how much of a luxery it is to be able to shoot 42% as your teams best player but still win? Or in magic johnsons case literraly not play a lick of defense?

And yes, there is more to basketball than just being the biggest, strongest and fastest. Again, I've aways maintained that you don't have to be a scorer to be effective. Nash uses skill. Love uses hustle and yes strength.

Then people will try to say "well, you can't build a team around etc." And my response is that your gonna need etc to win.

That's what I'm about bro. Winning.

[colts19]

Good post. I certainly never claimed that Bird was not a great player. I just don't think he has the career resume of at least the top-seven... Russell, MJ, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Duncan.

You could be right, I always respect your post. I look at it differently in that if you look at their whole career you might think that Duncan was better than Bird, but if you just watch them play, I think it's clear Bird was better.

I would never argue Russell, Wilt or Kareem weren't better, but Mj, Magic to me are on the same level as Bird with Shaq and Duncan a little behind.

I will never place Shaq in my top 5 because he didn't make the most of his talent. Plus when you run over someone its a foul.

[Math2]

The thing about Bird is that he didn't need to score. Shooting bad? Fine, he'll distribute the ball masterfully. Or he'll mix it up in the boards. Or he'll energize the team with all-out hustle. And then, without fail, he'll hit the game winner.

[goldenboy_smith]

Greatest White Player Ever.
LMAO TRUE DAT :cheers:

[DMAVS41]

And again, you bring this back to scottie pippen. Why? I'm questioning your whole inconsistant philosophy. Not just your view on pippen. Its your overrating dirk, the offense/defense discussion we had, as well as scottie pippen. And this is among other things I've read from you since we've been chatting.

And yes the comparisons go far past eras. I just queestion why do you only give certain considerations to some players. Why does your criteria fluctuate? I remember you posting somethin to the effect that 30 ppg now holds a different weight from the early 00s. But why doesn't the same hold true for the 80s/90s comparisons?

I'm not saying wilt would be some scrub now. But I do try to put his amazing statistical accomplishments into context.

What larry bird, magic, dirk, jordan, and whoever else you want to name has done is amazing. But I've always maintained they won cuz they were on the best team. You don't realize how much of a luxery it is to be able to shoot 42% as your teams best player but still win? Or in magic johnsons case literraly not play a lick of defense?

And yes, there is more to basketball than just being the biggest, strongest and fastest. Again, I've aways maintained that you don't have to be a scorer to be effective. Nash uses skill. Love uses hustle and yes strength.

Then people will try to say "well, you can't build a team around etc." And my response is that your gonna need etc to win.

That's what I'm about bro. Winning.

Its funny because all I have ever talked about here is how it takes a great team to win. Never said anything different. You clearly have me confused with another poster. I've never said anything about winning being about only 1 player. You just take it too far....you want Tyson Chandler to get as much credit as Dirk...and that just ain't happening bro. Makes no sense. Dirk is simply a much better and more valuable player.

As for defense vs offense...I clearly won that debate. End of story. Individual offense at the elite level is clearly more valuable than individual defense. And you can't grasp that because you think Pippen was better than Magic. And he just wasn't. It was obvious to anyone that watched them both play that Magic was the better player. Quite easily I might add. And that destroys your entire theory on basketball because Pippen is arguably the greatest perimeter defender ever....and as you said, Magic didn't play defense much at all. And again...Magic was just better. Same with Barkley...just better than Pippen. Same with Dirk....and none of those guys played much defense.

When discussing players....its about impact. Not who has the most well rounded game. That is what you seem unable to comprehend. Its why Nash vs Payton is actual a legit debate...even though Payton destroys Nash on defense. Not even remotely close....and yet nobody would be laughed out of the room saying Nash is the better player. If individual defense is more important, like you say, then how can Nash be as good as or better than Payton? See your flawed logic bro?

[catch24]

When discussing players....its about impact. Not who has the most well rounded game. That is what you seem unable to comprehend. Its why Nash vs Payton is actual a legit debate...even though Payton destroys Nash on defense. Not even remotely close....and yet nobody would be laughed out of the room saying Nash is the better player.

Yeah, I hear you. Occasionally there will be your gifted defensive player with impact you cannot measure (Russell, Hakeem in his prime, Wilt Chamberlain, etc). Impact that can offset what an elite offensive player registers. For the most part, individual offense > defense though. It's not even close either.

KG is a more well-rounded player than prime Shaq. Does that mean he's better? No way. As someone else said, you'd be a fool taking KG over Shaq, who's impact was insurmountable to his teams.

[DMAVS41]

Yeah, I hear you. Occasionally there will be your gifted defensive player with impact you cannot measure (Russell, Hakeem in his prime, Wilt Chamberlain, etc). Impact that can offset what an elite offensive player registers. For the most part, individual offense > defense though. It's not even close either.

KG is a more well-rounded player than prime Shaq. Does that mean he's better? No way. As someone else said, you'd be a fool taking KG over Shaq, who's impact was insurmountable to his teams.

Exactly. It doesn't mean that a specialized player is always better or something. Far from it. It just means that overall impact is what matters. A player that makes little to no defensive impact can absolutely have a greater impact on the game than a great defender who is also a very good offensive player.

Some examples:

Nash vs. Payton
Magic vs. Pippen
Dirk vs. KG

And let me clarify. I still have KG over Dirk and would probably build a team around KG first...however, its really close. And that just wouldn't be possible if reality was anywhere near the thinking of people like 97 Bulls. If defense really is more valuable on the individual level, then KG should be considerably better than players like Dirk and Barkley....and anyone with a bit of objectivity that watched them all play knows its really really close.

[97 bulls]

Its funny because all I have ever talked about here is how it takes a great team to win. Never said anything different. You clearly have me confused with another poster. I've never said anything about winning being about only 1 player. You just take it too far....you want Tyson Chandler to get as much credit as Dirk...and that just ain't happening bro. Makes no sense. Dirk is simply a much better and more valuable player.
No, you have a losers mentality. All I've ever said is dirk was the best player on the team. But why try to divy out order of importance? The team does not win without either of them. Period, end of discussion.


As for defense vs offense...I clearly won that debate. End of story. Individual offense at the elite level is clearly more valuable than individual defense. And you can't grasp that because you think Pippen was better than Magic. And he just wasn't. It was obvious to anyone that watched them both play that Magic was the better player. Quite easily I might add. And that destroys your entire theory on basketball because Pippen is arguably the greatest perimeter defender ever....and as you said, Magic didn't play defense much at all. And again...Magic was just better. Same with Barkley...just better than Pippen. Same with Dirk....and none of those guys played much defense.
Magic johnson is ranked higher than pippen. That's all. Magic accomplished more than pippen. Not because he was better, but because magic played on no worse than the top 3 teams in the league year in and out. That does not make him better than scottie pippen. Unless you feel magic could beat pippen one on one.


When discussing players....its about impact. Not who has the most well rounded game. That is what you seem unable to comprehend. Its why Nash vs Payton is actual a legit debate...even though Payton destroys Nash on defense. Not even remotely close....and yet nobody would be laughed out of the room saying Nash is the better player. If individual defense is more important, like you say, then how can Nash be as good as or better than Payton? See your flawed logic bro?
Because nash is a better pg than payton. He's better at running a team. And basketball is a team game. Your trying to mix one on one/individual play with team play. Payton would kill nash if they played one on one. Mainly because of his defense. And the same holds true for pippen vs magic. In a one on one matchup, I sincerely feel scottie pippen would beat magic. Again, because pippens defense is better.

And let's address impact. The nba awards are almost always given to the best players on the best teams. This has more to do with politics. The best players don't win without being on the best teams.

[97 bulls]

Yeah, I hear you. Occasionally there will be your gifted defensive player with impact you cannot measure (Russell, Hakeem in his prime, Wilt Chamberlain, etc). Impact that can offset what an elite offensive player registers. For the most part, individual offense > defense though. It's not even close either.

KG is a more well-rounded player than prime Shaq. Does that mean he's better? No way. As someone else said, you'd be a fool taking KG over Shaq, who's impact was insurmountable to his teams.
But was shaq one dimensional? He could rebound, block shots, and control the paint on defense.

Id take olajuwan over shaq. Mainly because of shaqs bad work etic. But also because olajuwan was more versitle.

[97 bulls]

Exactly. It doesn't mean that a specialized player is always better or something. Far from it. It just means that overall impact is what matters. A player that makes little to no defensive impact can absolutely have a greater impact on the game than a great defender who is also a very good offensive player.

Some examples:

Nash vs. Payton
Magic vs. Pippen
Dirk vs. KG

And let me clarify. I still have KG over Dirk and would probably build a team around KG first...however, its really close. And that just wouldn't be possible if reality was anywhere near the thinking of people like 97 Bulls. If defense really is more valuable on the individual level, then KG should be considerably better than players like Dirk and Barkley....and anyone with a bit of objectivity that watched them all play knows its really really close.
Ok....let me ask you this, replace tyson chandler with rik smits, do the mavs still win?

[DMAVS41]

Because nash is a better pg than payton. He's better at running a team. And basketball is a team game. Your trying to mix one on one/individual play with team play. Payton would kill nash if they played one on one. Mainly because of his defense. And the same holds true for pippen vs magic. In a one on one matchup, I sincerely feel scottie pippen would beat magic. Again, because pippens defense is better.

And let's address impact. The nba awards are almost always given to the best players on the best teams. This has more to do with politics. The best players don't win without being on the best teams.

Are you ****ing serious? Of course Dirk was more important than Chandler. Stop being so damn narrow minded. Losers mentality...uhh what? I don't even understand what you are saying. You say Dirk is the best player, but then say it doesn't matter because the Mavs would have lost without Chandler. Makes no sense.

And basketball isn't one on one. Maybe you should learn that. He's something right back at you. Nobody that has been involved in basketball in the last 50 years would take Pippen over Magic for starting a franchise...LOL

Awesome that you think Pippen would beat Magic one on one. Who ****ing cares? Means nothing to me.

[DMAVS41]

Ok....let me ask you this, replace tyson chandler with rik smits, do the mavs still win?

Who knows? Probably. I love Chandler, but the over-rating of him has to stop. He's a borderline top 40 player in the league.

[catch24]

Exactly. It doesn't mean that a specialized player is always better or something. Far from it. It just means that overall impact is what matters. A player that makes little to no defensive impact can absolutely have a greater impact on the game than a great defender who is also a very good offensive player.

Some examples:

Nash vs. Payton
Magic vs. Pippen
Dirk vs. KG

And let me clarify. I still have KG over Dirk and would probably build a team around KG first...however, its really close. And that just wouldn't be possible if reality was anywhere near the thinking of people like 97 Bulls. If defense really is more valuable on the individual level, then KG should be considerably better than players like Dirk and Barkley....and anyone with a bit of objectivity that watched them all play knows its really really close.

Good post, agreed.


But was shaq one dimensional? He could rebound, block shots, and control the paint on defense.

Id take olajuwan over shaq. Mainly because of shaqs bad work etic. But also because olajuwan was more versitle.

No, you're right. Shaq was not one dimensional, but neither was Magic..who could rebound, pass and score. As much as I like Shaq, I'd probably take Hakeem too. At his absolute peak, Hakeem brought just as much impact to his teams as Shaquille.

[97 bulls]

Are you ****ing serious? Of course Dirk was more important than Chandler. Stop being so damn narrow minded. Losers mentality...uhh what? I don't even understand what you are saying. You say Dirk is the best player, but then say it doesn't matter because the Mavs would have lost without Chandler. Makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense. You obviously agree. Who cares that without chandler, the mavs are a 50+ win 2nd or 3rd round exit. Or without dirk, they're a 40-45 win team that loses in the first round. Nnobody remembers 2nd place. Unless you're a loser.

And basketball isn't one on one. Maybe you should learn that. He's something right back at you. Nobody that has been involved in basketball in the last 50 years would take Pippen over Magic for starting a franchise...LOL
1. You didn't ask that, you asked me. I don't care what anyone thinks if I disagree with it. Now I can be swayed. But that's as far as it goes. And 2. You're the one that keeps refering to individual impact. You're the one that want to give more credit to dirk for the mavs win. I credit the whole team. You're the one comparing the individual impact of gary payton vs steve nash. I'm sayiing nash is a product of his team. You keep flip floping.
Awesome that you think Pippen would beat Magic one on one. Who ****ing cares? Means nothing to me.
then what makes magic a better player? Not more accomplished mind you, but better. Cuz he was part of a talent layden team? Well so was pippen. Now if your argument is that magic won as the man and pippen didn't, well that doesn't make him (magic) a better basketball player. Its not pippens fault that instead of kareem, he had luc longley, instead of james worthy, he had a rookie toni kukoc, instead of byron scott, he had pete myers. Sure he had horace grant, but ac green was no slouch either.

I hope this makes sense to you

[97 bulls]

Who knows? Probably. I love Chandler, but the over-rating of him has to stop. He's a borderline top 40 player in the league.
Oh come off it. You know why the mavs won? Because they got smart and got rid of guys like stackhouse, jamison, dampier, and harris. Guys that could fill it up quickly, or offensive players(your type of players) and brought in deshawn stevebson, kidd, marion and chandler. Guys that play some defense. With smits, in place of chandler, the mavs are a 60 win team and a playoff disappointment. What they've been the last 10 years.

[DMAVS41]

I hope this makes sense to you

I give more credit to Dirk because he was simply by far the most valuable player on the Mavericks and I'm not sure any other player in the league could have replaced him and still won a title. I think you could have replaced Chandler with quite a few and still won. That is the difference. Of course I credit Dirk the most. Its absurd not to.

Individual play does not mean one on one. It means simply which player is better. I think "team defense" is hugely important...maybe more important than "team offense"....but for an individual player at an elite level? I think offense is more valuable. And I proved it over and over again in the other thread and clearly won the debate. Sorry.

See, this is your problem. You think I am ranking Magic over Pippen in terms of MVP's and titles and all that other stuff. I'm not. I'm simply saying Magic Johnson was a better basketball player than Scottie Pippen. Quite easily in my opinion. Strip down all the accolades, honors, and titles....those aren't impacting me at all. Pippen was great. Top 40 great. Magic was top 5 of all time great. He was special...the kind of special that you could just feel while watching him. I don't know how much more clear I can be. I'm talking about Magic as a player...not his career. He was just better than Pippen....even without playing a ton of defense. His impact on the game was much greater.

[DMAVS41]

Oh come off it. You know why the mavs won? Because they got smart and got rid of guys like stackhouse, jamison, dampier, and harris. Guys that could fill it up quickly, or offensive players(your type of players) and brought in deshawn stevebson, kidd, marion and chandler. Guys that play some defense. With smits, in place of chandler, the mavs are a 60 win team and a playoff disappointment. What they've been the last 10 years.

But that isn't just specific to Chandler. The Mavs won for a lot of reasons. Terry and Kidd stepping up for a change. Chandler's defense and rebounding. Better coaching. And Dirk finally having a team that complemented him well....and of course Dirk having one of the most clutch playoff runs ever didn't hurt.

I totally agree that a defensive minded center is the best fit around Dirk, but that doesn't mean Chandler has equal value. Not at all. Chandler was a great fit and played really well. But that doesn't change the fact that he's a borderline top 40 player in the league. He's a player that could probably never be the best player on a playoff team. If you honestly don't see the value difference between Chandler and Dirk then I give up.

Just like Magic vs Pippen....If you honestly can't see that Magic was just a better player, you see the game just way too differently than me. I don't know what else to say. Again, I'm not trying to say I'm 100% right....but if we have to debate Magic vs Pippen....its very clear that our views on the game are way too different to have a legit debate. Like I said before, I would probably say Magic was twice as good/valuable than Pippen was.

[Nevaeh]

Kobe Bryant only needed 1.... 5 times :confusedshrug:

And that "ONE" was a top 10 Player, who was Leader for 3 of those 5 rings.

[Jacks3]

And the other did this in 8 seasons before Bryant:

0 All-NBA Teams
0 MVP Votes
1 All-Star Game
Swept in the PS three straight seasons
Not even considered top 5 at his position
Not even considered a top 15 player

And three straight Finals, 2 NBA Championships, 4 straight 55+ win seasons including a 65 win season with that.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[97 bulls]

I give more credit to Dirk because he was simply by far the most valuable player on the Mavericks and I'm not sure any other player in the league could have replaced him and still won a title. I think you could have replaced Chandler with quite a few and still won. That is the difference. Of course I credit Dirk the most. Its absurd not to.

Individual play does not mean one on one. It means simply which player is better. I think "team defense" is hugely important...maybe more important than "team offense"....but for an individual player at an elite level? I think offense is more valuable. And I proved it over and over again in the other thread and clearly won the debate. Sorry.

See, this is your problem. You think I am ranking Magic over Pippen in terms of MVP's and titles and all that other stuff. I'm not. I'm simply saying Magic Johnson was a better basketball player than Scottie Pippen. Quite easily in my opinion. Strip down all the accolades, honors, and titles....those aren't impacting me at all. Pippen was great. Top 40 great. Magic was top 5 of all time great. He was special...the kind of special that you could just feel while watching him. I don't know how much more clear I can be. I'm talking about Magic as a player...not his career. He was just better than Pippen....even without playing a ton of defense. His impact on the game was much greater.
No.... your going off accolades. Or you don't know what your talking about. They were similar offensively, they were mediocre jumpshooters, their post games were similar, they were simlar as far as rebounding, pippen was a far superior athlete, as well as defender, magic is known to be the better passer. But even that doesn't tell the whole story cuz when they both were on the dream team, pippen led that team in assists. Magic was much more charismatic. As well as ft shooter.

[DMAVS41]

No.... your going off accolades. Or you don't know what your talking about. They were similar offensively, they were mediocre jumpshooters, their post games were similar, they were simlar as far as rebounding, pippen was a far superior athlete, as well as defender, magic is known to be the better passer. But even that doesn't tell the whole story cuz when they both were on the dream team, pippen led that team in assists. Magic was much more charismatic. As well as ft shooter.

Don't tell me what I'm going off of. You can't break players down like that. Its about total impact. Not just offense vs offense or skill vs skill.

I'll say it again. Magic was just a better ****ing basketball player than Pippen. I'm not going off accolades at all. I'm going off watching them both play and being able to easily see the difference in quality of play and impact. Pippen was great. Magic was special. Big difference.

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. LOL at trying to breakdown Magic like that...saying things like "known to be a better passer"

Holy shit dude. Wake the **** up.

[1987_Lakers]

No.... your going off accolades. Or you don't know what your talking about. They were similar offensively, they were mediocre jumpshooters, their post games were similar, they were simlar as far as rebounding, pippen was a far superior athlete, as well as defender, magic is known to be the better passer. But even that doesn't tell the whole story cuz when they both were on the dream team, pippen led that team in assists. Magic was much more charismatic. As well as ft shooter.
:roll:

Why do you hate Magic & Bird so much?

[97 bulls]

Don't tell me what I'm going off of. You can't break players down like that. Its about total impact. Not just offense vs offense or skill vs skill.

I'll say it again. Magic was just a better ****ing basketball player than Pippen. I'm not going off accolades at all. I'm going off watching them both play and being able to easily see the difference in quality of play and impact. Pippen was great. Magic was special. Big difference.

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. LOL at trying to breakdown Magic like that...saying things like "known to be a better passer"

Holy shit dude. Wake the **** up.
Then what is your definition of impact? I thought we were breaking it down to their respective skillset. I thought we were throwing out the championships, the mvps, the stats, etc.

[97 bulls]

:roll:

Why do you hate Magic & Bird so much?
Lol I don't hate neither. But they've always had this sense of invulnerability when it comes to fans. As if they've done nothing wrong and played error free basketball.

[1987_Lakers]

Lol I don't hate neither. But they've always had this sense of invulnerability when it comes to fans. As if they've done nothing wrong and played error free basketball.

Of course they had weaknesses as players, but you have to understand why people love them so much, they pretty much saved the NBA & made it a popular sport.

[97 bulls]

That's what JLauber says he'd shoot, which says nothing about what Bird would actually shoot today.

Look at what Bird was doing with really bad back from age 33-35 from '90-'92. Seasons of 24/10/8, 47 FG%, 19/9/7, 45 FG%, 20/10/7, 47 FG% respectively those 3 years. And he got better as the '90 season went on, commentators were pointing out how his shooting was less consistent due to injuries and rust(he basically missed the '89 season), but averaged 27/10/7 on 49/39/93 shooting percentages after the break.

Boston was also 26-5 before Bird missed any games in '91 and he was shooting 48% at that point. They ended up going 46-14 with him and 10-12 without him.

This version of Bird well into his 30's with a really bad back still had a good amount of those high scoring triple double/near triple double games that everyone went crazy over when Lebron was doing it recently in his prime. I'm talking about games of 50/13/7, 49/14/2/4, 46/8/10, 45/8/8/5, 43/8/13, 43/15/6, 40/11/10 ect.

This was an aging, broken down Bird in the 90's, by the way. This wasn't '84-'88 Bird.
I was referring to the mid to late 90s heading into the 00s. The early 90s was the start of the transition to defense. And even stiill, his fg% at that time was par to sub par relative to the league avg.

[97 bulls]

Of course they had weaknesses as players, but you have to understand why people love them so much, they pretty much saved the NBA & made it a popular sport.
Larry bird was great. I've never said or implied different.

[OldSchoolBBall]

lol @ saying that Pippen and Magic are "similar offensively". :oldlol: People (somewhat justifiably) argue Magic above JORDAN offensively, yet this dude thinks Pippen is even in the same league as Magic offensively. :oldlol:

[97 bulls]

lol @ saying that Pippen and Magic are "similar offensively". :oldlol: People (somewhat justifiably) argue Magic above JORDAN offensively, yet this dude thinks Pippen is even in the same league as Magic offensively. :oldlol:
I was refering strictly to their ability to put the ball in the basket. Those that compare magic and jordans offense are including their passing and overall floor game. Annd ability to get their teammates involved.

[cteach111]

I was refering strictly to their ability to put the ball in the basket. Those that compare magic and jordans offense are including their passing and overall floor game. Annd ability to get their teammates involved.
but they both managed around the same scoring volume, and magic was way, way more efficient

[DMAVS41]

Then what is your definition of impact? I thought we were breaking it down to their respective skillset. I thought we were throwing out the championships, the mvps, the stats, etc.

Impact can be defined in so many ways. If you try to break down a player skill vs skill....its simply going to lead to terrible conclusions. Just like you breaking down players the way you do....it leads to your idiotic conclusion that Scottie Pippen was a better basketball player than Magic Johnson.

Everything goes into impact. Every single thing. These players don't play games going through skill drills. They play actual basketball games. Where leadership and respect come into play. Where making teammates better comes into play. Where controlling a game comes into play. Where all your skills come into play. Where your ability to win close games comes in. Everything.

That is your problem. You think this stuff is easily defined. Its not. Basketball is more art than it is science. And so much of Magic was art. Stuff you don't see or get by his stats....or making the claim he didn't play defense. It just didn't matter all that much. He wasn't a great defender yet he was without a doubt one of the best few players of all time...top 6 at worst really.

Pippen just wasn't as good. Again, its really obvious to anyone watching.

If you break it down the way you do, why is Magic better than KG? If defense is most important like you continue to claim, how on earth was Magic a better player? KG was infinitely better defensively...and also a beast on the boards, a great passer, and very good offensively as well.

Please explain to me how Magic could possibly be better than KG if defense is more important than offense. It makes no sense. Thus another huge hole in your theory that defense trumps offense at these elite levels.

[97 bulls]

but they both managed around the same scoring volume, and magic was way, way more efficient
Magic played in a different era and his team ran a different offense. An offense than called for easy transition buckets.

[97 bulls]

Impact can be defined in so many ways. If you try to break down a player skill vs skill....its simply going to lead to terrible conclusions. Just like you breaking down players the way you do....it leads to your idiotic conclusion that Scottie Pippen was a better basketball player than Magic Johnson.

Everything goes into impact. Every single thing. These players don't play games going through skill drills. They play actual basketball games. Where leadership and respect come into play. Where making teammates better comes into play. Where controlling a game comes into play. Where all your skills come into play. Where your ability to win close games comes in. Everything.

That is your problem. You think this stuff is easily defined. Its not. Basketball is more art than it is science. And so much of Magic was art. Stuff you don't see or get by his stats....or making the claim he didn't play defense. It just didn't matter all that much. He wasn't a great defender yet he was without a doubt one of the best few players of all time...top 6 at worst really.

Pippen just wasn't as good. Again, its really obvious to anyone watching.

If you break it down the way you do, why is Magic better than KG? If defense is most important like you continue to claim, how on earth was Magic a better player? KG was infinitely better defensively...and also a beast on the boards, a great passer, and very good offensively as well.

Please explain to me how Magic could possibly be better than KG if defense is more important than offense. It makes no sense. Thus another huge hole in your theory that defense trumps offense at these elite levels.
Kevin garnett could've been. But he really didn't want to be the man in closing minutes. He shiied awway from the big shot. He aquired the reputation of being scary. I remember his stint with the t-wolves. It was troy hudson and sam cassell having to take the big shots in crunchtime. And I mean to the point that they would go to him (garnett) in the post, and he would kick it right back out and run away from the play instead of reposting. The talent was definatly there. Even if he took those shots and missed, I would've defended him until the cows come home.

and just think for a moment.... how much impact can you have on a bad team. As opposed to a good team? This is where you miss the boat. You cant say this player is better than another cuz the latter wasn't able to win with virtually no support. And again, I agree magic should be ranked higher than pippen. He's one of the most accomplished basketball players ever. But those accomplishments are largly due to his having the best team. That does not make him better. Just luckier/more fortunate.

[DMAVS41]

Kevin garnett could've been. But he really didn't want to be the man in closing minutes. He shiied awway from the big shot. He aquired the reputation of being scary. I remember his stint with the t-wolves. It was troy hudson and sam cassell having to take the big shots in crunchtime. And I mean to the point that they would go to him (garnett) in the post, and he would kick it right back out and run away from the play instead of reposting. The talent was definatly there. Even if he took those shots and missed, I would've defended him until the cows come home.

and just think for a moment.... how much impact can you have on a bad team. As opposed to a good team? This is where you miss the boat. You cant say this player is better than another cuz the latter wasn't able to win with virtually no support. And again, I agree magic should be ranked higher than pippen. He's one of the most accomplished basketball players ever. But those accomplishments are largly due to his having the best team. That does not make him better. Just luckier/more fortunate.

How many times must I say this. I'm not talking about ranking these players in tersm of accomplishments.

I'm saying that Magic Johnson was simply a better basketball player than both Pippen and KG.

What I'm asking you, is how is that possible when both KG and Pippen are two of the greatest defenders ever. Do you understand? I'm not factoring in any of the crap you keep talking about.

I'm saying that if I had to choose to start a team and all I had to pick from was those three guys. I'd take Magic first easily. Its not even close for me. He was simply a much better player than both of them.

Again...how is that possible if defense matters more? Please answer. And also please answer if you think KG is/was a better player than Magic. I'm unclear on that as well. Don't say "ranking"....just tell me which player you'd pick first to start a team with out of Magic and KG. You already said you'd take Pippen over Magic. Please answer about KG.

[97 bulls]

How many times must I say this. I'm not talking about ranking these players in tersm of accomplishments.

I'm saying that Magic Johnson was simply a better basketball player than both Pippen and KG.

What I'm asking you, is how is that possible when both KG and Pippen are two of the greatest defenders ever. Do you understand? I'm not factoring in any of the crap you keep talking about.

I'm saying that if I had to choose to start a team and all I had to pick from was those three guys. I'd take Magic first easily. Its not even close for me. He was simply a much better player than both of them.

Again...how is that possible if defense matters more? Please answer. And also please answer if you think KG is/was a better player than Magic. I'm unclear on that as well. Don't say "ranking"....just tell me which player you'd pick first to start a team with out of Magic and KG. You already said you'd take Pippen over Magic. Please answer about KG.
I understand you're saying that you're not going off accomplishments. But the criteria your using "impact" can only be measured by how much a player wins/accomplishes. And players don't win without being on the best teams. So your handicapping players like kidd, payton pippen, barkley, malone, etc. Because they weren't able to overcome the fact that they didn't have the best teams 75% of their career. I firmly believe magic had no worse top 1-3 ranked teams from his rookie season to 91. That's every year he was in the league. Bird would too. But injuries hurt him towards the end. That doesn't make them "better". That's called the luck of the draw. Barkley arguably had the best team one year, 93. Malone, never. Nash, maybe a year or two. Garnett, one in 08 and they won. Pippen never. But he had his teams right in the thick of things and they were not one of the more talented teams in the league.

And I believe I was very clear in the magic/garnett comparison. Id be more willing to take garnett over magic if I could be sure that he wouldn't shy away from pressure. But I feel garnett was more talented than magic.

[RRR3]

97 Bulls, you seriously think Pippen>Magic? :wtf: :eek: Can I see your top ten list please?

[97 bulls]

97 Bulls, you seriously think Pippen>Magic? :wtf: :eek: Can I see your top ten list please?
Lol. I really don't do top 10s. For the reason were having this chat. I don't think its really fair to ranke players based on the luck of the draw. But as far as accomplishments go, its the usual, jordan, shaq, wilt, russell, olajuwan, bird, magic, mikan (yes mikan), etc. I'm sure I'm missing some guys. But its not out of whack or anything.

[RRR3]

Lol. I really don't do top 10s. For the reason were having this chat. I don't think its really fair to ranke players based on the luck of the draw. But as far as accomplishments go, its the usual, jordan, shaq, wilt, russell, olajuwan, bird, magic, mikan (yes mikan), etc. I'm sure I'm missing some guys. But its not out of whack or anything.

Then why are you arguing Pippen vs. Magic? Who are your Top 10 players, you don't have to do "accomplishments".

[97 bulls]

Then why are you arguing Pippen vs. Magic? Who are your Top 10 players, you don't have to do "accomplishments".
As far as talent? That's just too hard. Id put jordan, wilt, james, and olajuwan, on the same level talent-wise. Shaq and barkley would be there too if they had a better work ethic.

[97 bulls]

And I'm not arguing magic/pippen. I'm arguing the philosophy that since magic accomplished more in the nba, that makes him a better basketball player.

[Jacks3]

How much times does Dmavs need to explain that it has nothing to do with accomplishments? :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[Duncan21formvp]

Great post. Larry Bird is the only player on ish that has never been had his career questioned or attacked. And while he was great, he obviouusly had flaws like everybody else.

Everyone knows this, but give him credit for helping the league survive.

[DMAVS41]

I understand you're saying that you're not going off accomplishments. But the criteria your using "impact" can only be measured by how much a player wins/accomplishes. And players don't win without being on the best teams. So your handicapping players like kidd, payton pippen, barkley, malone, etc. Because they weren't able to overcome the fact that they didn't have the best teams 75% of their career. I firmly believe magic had no worse top 1-3 ranked teams from his rookie season to 91. That's every year he was in the league. Bird would too. But injuries hurt him towards the end. That doesn't make them "better". That's called the luck of the draw. Barkley arguably had the best team one year, 93. Malone, never. Nash, maybe a year or two. Garnett, one in 08 and they won. Pippen never. But he had his teams right in the thick of things and they were not one of the more talented teams in the league.

And I believe I was very clear in the magic/garnett comparison. Id be more willing to take garnett over magic if I could be sure that he wouldn't shy away from pressure. But I feel garnett was more talented than magic.

My god. I'm not factoring any of that in. I'm talking strictly from a basketball standpoint. Not winning titles or anything. Its just ****ing obvious that Magic was better than Pippen.

It would be like someone saying that Carmelo has actually been better than Kobe for the last 8 years and that the only reason Kobe is thought to be better is titles.....and that is total bs.

I understand what you are saying, but that really isn't at play between players like Magic and Pippen. The gap is just too big....and for christ sake. Pippen won 6 ****ing titles and played with the GOAT....stop acting like he suffered his career on bad teams or something. We all know how good Pippen was. He was great. Just not as great as Magic.

And I'll say it for the millionth time....this has nothing to do with Magic winning MVP's or anything. He was just a better basketball player. End of story.

[97 bulls]

Everyone knows this, but give him credit for helping the league survive.
Larry bird and magic johnson saved the league no doubt.

[97 bulls]

My god. I'm not factoring any of that in. I'm talking strictly from a basketball standpoint. Not winning titles or anything. Its just ****ing obvious that Magic was better than Pippen.

It would be like someone saying that Carmelo has actually been better than Kobe for the last 8 years and that the only reason Kobe is thought to be better is titles.....and that is total bs.

I understand what you are saying, but that really isn't at play between players like Magic and Pippen. The gap is just too big....and for christ sake. Pippen won 6 ****ing titles and played with the GOAT....stop acting like he suffered his career on bad teams or something. We all know how good Pippen was. He was great. Just not as great as Magic.

And I'll say it for the millionth time....this has nothing to do with Magic winning MVP's or anything. He was just a better basketball player. End of story.
Then what else is there? You want to throw out skills, throw out the championships, throw out the mvps, throw out their repective teammates, throw out one on one. What else is there? What's next? Throw out their ability to breath? You keep throwing things out and you have 2 dead black guys.

And I don't see the comparison between kobe and anthony. Anthony plays no defense. He's a mediocre rebounder. All he does is score. I guess you could draw a parallel due to carmello not really having the best teams in the league and kobe has. But id still say kobe is a better basketball player. I see anthony as a dominique wilkins. But wilkins was better.

[DMAVS41]

Then what else is there? You want to throw out skills, throw out the championships, throw out the mvps, throw out their repective teammates, throw out one on one. What else is there? What's next? Throw out their ability to breath? You keep throwing things out and you have 2 dead black guys.

And I don't see the comparison between kobe and anthony. Anthony plays no defense. He's a mediocre rebounder. All he does is score. I guess you could draw a parallel due to carmello not really having the best teams in the league and kobe has. But id still say kobe is a better basketball player. I see anthony as a dominique wilkins. But wilkins was better.

I'm not throwing out skills. I'm saying you also have to just judge players on their ability to play the game and their impact. They aren't playing games in a drill competition. Basketball is an art form....you can't measure it exactly like you seem to want to.

And the Kobe vs Carmelo example is fine.....pick another one if you want.

You can keep bringing up accolades all you want. I'm not using them. I'm simply saying that Magic Johnson was a better basketball player than Pippen. That is all. And the burden of proof is on you to say otherwise...not me. Because anyone that watched them both play would know in about 10 minutes.

[Bernie Nips]

I'm not throwing out skills. I'm saying you also have to just judge players on their ability to play the game and their impact. They aren't playing games in a drill competition. Basketball is an art form....you can't measure it exactly like you seem to want to.

And the Kobe vs Carmelo example is fine.....pick another one if you want.

You can keep bringing up accolades all you want. I'm not using them. I'm simply saying that Magic Johnson was a better basketball player than Pippen. That is all. And the burden of proof is on you to say otherwise...not me. Because anyone that watched them both play would know in about 10 minutes.

Actually, you made the statement, so the onus is on you. If he comes back and says Pippen is better than Magic, then the onus is on him to prove that, but he hasn't said that.

Just bein' all semantical!

[DMAVS41]

Actually, you made the statement, so the onus is on you. If he comes back and says Pippen is better than Magic, then the onus is on him to prove that, but he hasn't said that.

Just bein' all semantical!

What? He's said Pippen is better than Magic. He clearly feels that way. He's said time and time again that he'd choose Pippen over Magic to start a team.

I'm not going to sit here and write about why I feel Magic was better than Pippen. Its just obvious to me.

He's the one that thinks I have some crazy basketball philosophy because I don't break players down the way he does. His way just doesn't work.

And I destroyed him in the debate about offense vs defense...but he still refuses to yield on that as well.

[97 bulls]

What? He's said Pippen is better than Magic. He clearly feels that way. He's said time and time again that he'd choose Pippen over Magic to start a team.

I'm not going to sit here and write about why I feel Magic was better than Pippen. Its just obvious to me.

He's the one that thinks I have some crazy basketball philosophy because I don't break players down the way he does. His way just doesn't work.

And I destroyed him in the debate about offense vs defense...but he still refuses to yield on that as well.
Say what? What have you debunked? your were comparing two guys that havnt won a damn thing in gary payton and steve nash. Payton did eventually, but he was well past his prime. Again a losers mentality.

And I rebutted with your own team. The dallas mavericks. After 10 years of trying to outscore opponants to win, they wise up and replace a lot of their offensive firepower with guys that were gonna go in there and play some damn defense.

So then you try to change it to what you term or call "individual defense" vs "individual offense". And use the example of which player has a greater impact between bruce bowen and say carmello anthony. The point being that bowen is the better defender while anthony the better scorer. But fail to realize that bowen is a specialist. His strength is man defense. He doesn't have to help, he doesn't have to trap, or full court press, control the paint, rebound, even play passing lanes. His only job is man defense. Anthony is a scorer. Not a specialists. He scores in many ways, be it the post, the mid range, taking guys off the dribble, drawing fouls, shooting threes etc. A scoring specialist would be steve kerr. Who was paid to do one thing. Make teams stay honest by hitting open jumpers if they were to double off him. Or maybe even vinnie johnson of the bad boy pistons. A better comparison would be dennis rodman vs anthony.

[97 bulls]

Actually, you made the statement, so the onus is on you. If he comes back and says Pippen is better than Magic, then the onus is on him to prove that, but he hasn't said that.

Just bein' all semantical!
Allow me to rehash how this debate has evolved in to this. I've alway maintained that the raanking you constantly see on these and other forums. Are largly based on what the said players were able to accomplish in the nba. Not whose better.

We were discussing scottie pippen. And he began with the usual nonsense like pippen didn't take over games and wasn't clutch etc. And then he tried to use pippens stats against him. His career stats no less. So I stated you can't really compare players across eras statistically cuz to many variable need to be included. I then procede to say that prime pippen would've avg 23-24 ppg 9-10 rbds and 7-8 assists if he were to play in the 80s.

He then says those are larry bird type numbers. And we start to compare bird and pippen. He eventually ask me who would I take to start a franchise with magic or pippen. I said based on what they had to work with, id chose pip. Assuming they were gonna have the same talent. Cuz I know that even with a bad team, pippen is gonna keep you're team in playoff contention. And that if he had the talent that magic had around him, he would've led a a team to a few championships. Along with and mvp and a dpoy award.

Magic won a lot, but it wasn't as if he had to drag a bunch of bad teams year in and out. In fact, every year he was in the league he had arguably the best talent every year. I don't think that makes him a top 5 talent ever. Especially with his terrible defensive play.

And yes I would be willing to sacrifice a litte offense in favor of defense. Simply because defense normally wins out. I remember a poster going back and seeing who won between the top defenses and offenses. The defense team more often than not won.

[32Dayz]

Jordan > Shaq > Kareem > Duncan > Wilt > Hakeem > Bill > Larry = Magic.

[DMAVS41]

Say what? What have you debunked? your were comparing two guys that havnt won a damn thing in gary payton and steve nash. Payton did eventually, but he was well past his prime. Again a losers mentality.

And I rebutted with your own team. The dallas mavericks. After 10 years of trying to outscore opponants to win, they wise up and replace a lot of their offensive firepower with guys that were gonna go in there and play some damn defense.

So then you try to change it to what you term or call "individual defense" vs "individual offense". And use the example of which player has a greater impact between bruce bowen and say carmello anthony. The point being that bowen is the better defender while anthony the better scorer. But fail to realize that bowen is a specialist. His strength is man defense. He doesn't have to help, he doesn't have to trap, or full court press, control the paint, rebound, even play passing lanes. His only job is man defense. Anthony is a scorer. Not a specialists. He scores in many ways, be it the post, the mid range, taking guys off the dribble, drawing fouls, shooting threes etc. A scoring specialist would be steve kerr. Who was paid to do one thing. Make teams stay honest by hitting open jumpers if they were to double off him. Or maybe even vinnie johnson of the bad boy pistons. A better comparison would be dennis rodman vs anthony.

The whole time we were debating individual defense vs individual offense in the other thread. Are you serious? Please don't just blatantly lie.

Team defense is totally different and I would have a different opinion. And again, I destroyed you in the debate. As clearly individual offense is almost always more valuable than individual defense at the elite level.

What have I debunked? That your way of breaking down players is extremely flawed. Did you see how Barkley just got ranked over both KG and Malone and Robinson on the ISH rankings? How is that possible if defense matters more. KG and Robinson were infinitely better defensively and also very very very good offensively. That right there alone destroys your entire notion.

What you can't grasp is that Pippen was a number 2. Simple as that. Doesn't mean he couldn't win as the best player if he had the right team, but he's a number 2. He's not a true elite championship number 1 like a Magic, Bird, Barkley, Dirk...etc.

And I don't know why you have to put an asterisk next to things. You think Pippen was a better player than Magic and Bird and Dirk. Simple as that. At least stand firm on what you claim. If you had to start a team and could pick 1 of those 4 players...you'd take Pippen.

Like I've said a million times. Fine, but I can't debate you because your thoughts on the game are just too different. Every time I post you think I'm being inconsistent because I don't think Pippen would have put up 25/10/7 his entire career in different circumstances like you do. And if he did, he wouldn't have been leading teams to titles. That is just my opinion, but I couldn't be more confident that Magic Johnson was simply a better player. Same goes for about 30 other players.

[97 bulls]

The whole time we were debating individual defense vs individual offense in the other thread. Are you serious? Please don't just blatantly lie.
I went back to how this started. Which included quit aa few threads.


Team defense is totally different and I would have a different opinion. And again, I destroyed you in the debate. As clearly individual offense is almost always more valuable than individual defense at the elite level.
You destroyed nothing.


What have I debunked? That your way of breaking down players is extremely flawed. Did you see how Barkley just got ranked over both KG and Malone and Robinson on the ISH rankings? How is that possible if defense matters more. KG and Robinson were infinitely better defensively and also very very very good offensively. That right there alone destroys your entire notion.
And yet again, those ranking are based on what they've accomplished in the nba. Mainly offensively. Why barkley is ranked above malone and kevin garnett is beyond me. But I didn't see the ranking and the reasoning.

What you can't grasp is that Pippen was a number 2. Simple as that. Doesn't mean he couldn't win as the best player if he had the right team, but he's a number 2. He's not a true elite championship number 1 like a Magic, Bird, Barkley, Dirk...etc.

And I don't know why you have to put an asterisk next to things. You think Pippen was a better player than Magic and Bird and Dirk. Simple as that. At least stand firm on what you claim. If you had to start a team and could pick 1 of those 4 players...you'd take Pippen.

Like I've said a million times. Fine, but I can't debate you because your thoughts on the game are just too different. Every time I post you think I'm being inconsistent because I don't think Pippen would have put up 25/10/7 his entire career in different circumstances like you do. And if he did, he wouldn't have been leading teams to titles. That is just my opinion, but I couldn't be more confident that Magic Johnson was simply a better player. Same goes for about 30 other players.
I don't put asterisks next to anything. I go based off results. Plain and simple. And I'm most definatly gonna call a person out that disagrees with me if I see inconsistancies. And you my friend are inconsistant. Why is 30 ppg now, different from 30 ppg back in the early 00s? Why is shooting 43% in the early 60s, different from shooting 43% now? But somehow, scottie pippen would still only manage 22 ppg at best if he played in the 80s even though he'd get more fg attempts, with more of them being in transition. And I didn't say he'd avg 25 ppg for his career, I said prime. Which would be for only 2-3 years.

You want more inconsistancies? Why do you give dirk a pass for not winning before last year saying that his teammates weren't good enough, but knock players like pippen, kidd? Who if were being honest, did much more with less. Even in your post that I'm responding to. How can you say scottie pippen could've led teams to titles had he had a team built around him (like other elite players) along with having the best team. But then in your very next paragraph say he never would've led a team to a championship.

And again, what have you refuted? In your exapmle of who's ranked higher between steve nash and gary payton, you feel you've won because both score about the same but payton is the much better defender but only ranked slightly higher according to you. But you forget that what makes nash great is that he's great at running a team. Basketball is more than just offense and defense.

[DMAVS41]

I don't put asterisks next to anything. I go based off results. Plain and simple. And I'm most definatly gonna call a person out that disagrees with me if I see inconsistancies. And you my friend are inconsistant. Why is 30 ppg now, different from 30 ppg back in the early 00s? Why is shooting 43% in the early 60s, different from shooting 43% now? But somehow, scottie pippen would still only manage 22 ppg at best if he played in the 80s even though he'd get more fg attempts, with more of them being in transition. And I didn't say he'd avg 25 ppg for his career, I said prime. Which would be for only 2-3 years.

You want more inconsistancies? Why do you give dirk a pass for not winning before last year saying that his teammates weren't good enough, but knock players like pippen, kidd? Who if were being honest, did much more with less. Even in your post that I'm responding to. How can you say scottie pippen could've led teams to titles had he had a team built around him (like other elite players) along with having the best team. But then in your very next paragraph say he never would've led a team to a championship.

And again, what have you refuted? In your exapmle of who's ranked higher between steve nash and gary payton, you feel you've won because both score about the same but payton is the much better defender but only ranked slightly higher according to you. But you forget that what makes nash great is that he's great at running a team. Basketball is more than just offense and defense.

I destroyed everything you said.

You: Individual defense is more important. Yet somehow Dirk is a better player than Pippen. Nash can be argued over Payton. Magic is definitely a better player than Pippen. Magic was better than Hakeem. Barkley was as good or better than KG....etc.

How could defense be more valuable when all of the above comparisons are between all time great defenders who also played great offense vs pretty much strictly offensive players?

You got destroyed. Right now you could easily argue that Dirk is better than Howard. And Howard is literally 4 or 5 times better on defense.

You were wrong...just admit it.


This will probably be my last post. I can't say it enough I guess. I'm not basing my opinion on Magic or Barkley on anything other than how good they were at playing basketball. Has nothing to do with with accomplishments. Sorry. Magic and Barkley were just better ****ing basketball players than Pippen.....

Why do you think Barkley is higher than Pippen on every list? Its not accomplishments....scottie won 6 ****ing titles. Its because it was really just obvious. Barkley had a bigger impact on the game.

I love how you bring up accomplishments all the time. Your boy had the luxury of playing with the GOAT and won 6 titles. Pippen probably isn't even considered a top 50 player of all time without MJ...so your whole accomplishments thing is a joke. Much like your player breakdowns. LOL @ acting like Pippen never had a chance or something. You bring up Magic's great teams...what about Pippen? What an absurd double standard.

Here are some players that were just better than Pippen:

Dirk
Magic
Barkley
K. Malone
Bird
Kobe
Wade

None of those guys had the defensive impact Pippen did, but all of them were higher impact players and more valuable.

Again, you really need to change the way you view the game....its leading to some horrid conclusions.

I also never said that Pippen couldn't win a championship as the best player. I said he wasn't a championship level number 1 for the most part. Could he have won? Sure, but it would have probably taken the clear cut best team around him. I just don't think he could have done enough game in game out to lead a team to a title. He wasn't that type of player really. Which is why you'll never grasp why all around players sometimes aren't as good as specialized players that can do certain things consistently night in night out.

There would be too many times a Pippen led team would need a big bucket and just wouldn't be able to consistently get it. Now, if you gave Pippen a loaded team with a great scorer etc....sure he could and would probably win a title at some point. But against who? The very fact of Pippen being your best player puts you at a disadvantage for the most part. The other team in the playoffs would most likely always have a player as good or better.

Its like someone earlier posted about it being somewhat laughable to say Magic was just a better player than Hakeem. The very fact that someone actually thinks this shows just how pathetic player breakdowns have become. Magic was a better player than Hakeem. Not a doubt in my mind. But on paper...using your flawed breakdown system...Hakeem easily comes out on top. And once again, it leads to a terrible conclusion.

[97 bulls]

I destroyed everything you said.

You: Individual defense is more important. Yet somehow Dirk is a better player than Pippen. Nash can be argued over Payton. Magic is definitely a better player than Pippen. Magic was better than Hakeem. Barkley was as good or better than KG....etc.

How could defense be more valuable when all of the above comparisons are between all time great defenders who also played great offense vs pretty much strictly offensive players?

You got destroyed. Right now you could easily argue that Dirk is better than Howard. And Howard is literally 4 or 5 times better on defense.

You were wrong...just admit it.


This will probably be my last post. I can't say it enough I guess. I'm not basing my opinion on Magic or Barkley on anything other than how good they were at playing basketball. Has nothing to do with with accomplishments. Sorry. Magic and Barkley were just better ****ing basketball players than Pippen.....

Why do you think Barkley is higher than Pippen on every list? Its not accomplishments....scottie won 6 ****ing titles. Its because it was really just obvious. Barkley had a bigger impact on the game.

I love how you bring up accomplishments all the time. Your boy had the luxury of playing with the GOAT and won 6 titles. Pippen probably isn't even considered a top 50 player of all time without MJ...so your whole accomplishments thing is a joke. Much like your player breakdowns. LOL @ acting like Pippen never had a chance or something. You bring up Magic's great teams...what about Pippen? What an absurd double standard.

Here are some players that were just better than Pippen:

Dirk
Magic
Barkley
K. Malone
Bird
Kobe
Wade

None of those guys had the defensive impact Pippen did, but all of them were higher impact players and more valuable.

Again, you really need to change the way you view the game....its leading to some horrid conclusions.

I also never said that Pippen couldn't win a championship as the best player. I said he wasn't a championship level number 1 for the most part. Could he have won? Sure, but it would have probably taken the clear cut best team around him. I just don't think he could have done enough game in game out to lead a team to a title. He wasn't that type of player really. Which is why you'll never grasp why all around players sometimes aren't as good as specialized players that can do certain things consistently night in night out.

There would be too many times a Pippen led team would need a big bucket and just wouldn't be able to consistently get it. Now, if you gave Pippen a loaded team with a great scorer etc....sure he could and would probably win a title at some point. But against who? The very fact of Pippen being your best player puts you at a disadvantage for the most part. The other team in the playoffs would most likely always have a player as good or better.

Its like someone earlier posted about it being somewhat laughable to say Magic was just a better player than Hakeem. The very fact that someone actually thinks this shows just how pathetic player breakdowns have become. Magic was a better player than Hakeem. Not a doubt in my mind. But on paper...using your flawed breakdown system...Hakeem easily comes out on top. And once again, it leads to a terrible conclusion.
The most ironic part about this post is that you say pippen could've led a team to championships but he'd need to have a stacked team. But magic never won without a stacked team. Hell he had stacked teams and still lost. Magic, like every other great player can't win without proper support. Unless you feel the 94 bulls aand 95 bulls were on the showtime lakers level talent-wise. And this is where you drop the ball. I'm not saying pippen or kidd or payton should be rankked as high as magic. They didn't lead their teams to championships. But by the same token, they didn't have the team magic had.

I still don't see what your definition of impact is. According to you, it isn't stats, according to you it isn't skillset, according to you it isn't winning according to you, it isn't one on one play. So how can you measure a players impact?

You can't even say pippen didn't take over games. I've given you a short of games he's taken over. Big games too. He's done better. Literrally better when given the same amount of talent as every player you've meentioned when compared to each other. Jordan essentially had what would be at worse the equalvalent of pippens 94 roster in 98 and he did no better. Even worse win% wise.

In 94 and 95 (pippens only to years being the undiputed leader, he was anywhere from top 2 to 5 in the nba. He finside 3rd in mvp votingWhen jordan came back, he went from playing behind jordan to playing alongside jordan.

And you want to know what's unrealistic? The fact that you expected pippen to win mvps and lead the bulls to championships with insufficient help, and in one year to boot. What do you call that? Especially when you've routinely excused dirk nowitzki for losing to 8th seeds as a number 1 seed, losing the nba final with homecourt advantage. And 10 years to try to lead a team to a championship. That's rediculous.

Now if pippen had done what kevin mchale did in 89 id be on board with you. Annd if you don't remember, the celts lose bird fro the whole season and mchale leads the celtics to 42-40 record. In an expansion year. That's no impact. You are clearly showing a double standard. Clearly.

[97 bulls]

u are delusional if u cant see through his posts. that clown is a statgeek. he loves garbage trash like win share per, ortg and all stuff like that. he tries to play it off like he's seen everybody but he hasnt. he doesnt know anything about anyone before 00. he's a newbie fan. probably started watching 4 years ago or around that. y do u think he's hating on pippen? becuz his per is low. im not joking. he doesnt see him as a great player cuz his stats suck
Lol I see what he's saying. He's just going about it wrong. I'm just calling out his inconsistancies. I can't say he's wrong for feeling magic is a better basketball player. 3 times better? You may agree. But that's a drastic exagerration. Magic was great. I'm more arguing why he feels pippen wasn't. He didn't play under the same conditions as magic. So how can one say magic is better? How well would pippen have faired in 94 if you replace longley with jabaar, a rookie kukoc with prime worthy, and pete myers with byron scott. And pippen still would've been the best player on that team cuz jabaar was past his prime. Pippen team wasn't good enough flat out.

Now if he really was nothing more than a good basketball player then the 94 bulls would've done the same thing the 89 celtics did. Mchale put up his usual strong statistics, but they just didn't do too much more than barely stay above 500. And forrtunately for them, 89 was an expansion year and thus 8 of their wins came were at the hands of those expansion teams. Mchale has no argument as a franchise player. Not based on the standards weighted down on pippen.

[DMAVS41]

The most ironic part about this post is that you say pippen could've led a team to championships but he'd need to have a stacked team. But magic never won without a stacked team. Hell he had stacked teams and still lost. Magic, like every other great player can't win without proper support. Unless you feel the 94 bulls aand 95 bulls were on the showtime lakers level talent-wise. And this is where you drop the ball. I'm not saying pippen or kidd or payton should be rankked as high as magic. They didn't lead their teams to championships. But by the same token, they didn't have the team magic had.

I still don't see what your definition of impact is. According to you, it isn't stats, according to you it isn't skillset, according to you it isn't winning according to you, it isn't one on one play. So how can you measure a players impact?

You can't even say pippen didn't take over games. I've given you a short of games he's taken over. Big games too. He's done better. Literrally better when given the same amount of talent as every player you've meentioned when compared to each other. Jordan essentially had what would be at worse the equalvalent of pippens 94 roster in 98 and he did no better. Even worse win% wise.

In 94 and 95 (pippens only to years being the undiputed leader, he was anywhere from top 2 to 5 in the nba. He finside 3rd in mvp votingWhen jordan came back, he went from playing behind jordan to playing alongside jordan.

And you want to know what's unrealistic? The fact that you expected pippen to win mvps and lead the bulls to championships with insufficient help, and in one year to boot. What do you call that? Especially when you've routinely excused dirk nowitzki for losing to 8th seeds as a number 1 seed, losing the nba final with homecourt advantage. And 10 years to try to lead a team to a championship. That's rediculous.

Now if pippen had done what kevin mchale did in 89 id be on board with you. Annd if you don't remember, the celts lose bird fro the whole season and mchale leads the celtics to 42-40 record. In an expansion year. That's no impact. You are clearly showing a double standard. Clearly.

Are you high? I've repeatedly said its everything.

If i bring up stats...you'll claim that Pippen couldn't produce the same as Magic for a bunch of reasons. Even though a lot of the stats that account for league averages and pace favor Magic anyway. If I bring up things like leadership and clutch play and making teammates better...you'll say Pippen never had the chance. If I bring up leading a team to success....you'll talk about 1 year Pippen had a good run as his teams' best player.

Basically you are not in favor of ranking players at all. And that is fine. Then just don't come on here and claim that Pippen was better than Magic or that defensive players are better than offensive players. Because everytime you could put into a corner...you just complain about circumstances. No two players can have the exact same circumstances...so someone who is as narrow minded as you needs to give up ranking players at all.

Again. This is what your thinking leads to:

Chandler is as valuable as Dirk
Pippen was better than Barkley, Dirk, Magic, and Bird
Individual defense is more valuable than individual offense....even though every example destroys that notion

Stop posting in player ranking or comparison threads. You clearly don't think any two players should be compared unless they had the exact same circumstances. And that will never happen.

If the basketball world can't agree on a few obvious principles...then all conversation is pointless. And one of those should simply be that Magic Johnson was a better basketball player than Scottie Pippen. It had nothing to do with teams or circumstances....Magic was just a better player.

If that isn't one, then all comparisons and lists are pointless. Might as well be arguing that Mitch Richmond is better than Kobe Bryant.

[DMAVS41]

Lol I see what he's saying. He's just going about it wrong. I'm just calling out his inconsistancies. I can't say he's wrong for feeling magic is a better basketball player. 3 times better? You may agree. But that's a drastic exagerration. Magic was great. I'm more arguing why he feels pippen wasn't. He didn't play under the same conditions as magic. So how can one say magic is better? How well would pippen have faired in 94 if you replace longley with jabaar, a rookie kukoc with prime worthy, and pete myers with byron scott. And pippen still would've been the best player on that team cuz jabaar was past his prime. Pippen team wasn't good enough flat out.

Now if he really was nothing more than a good basketball player then the 94 bulls would've done the same thing the 89 celtics did. Mchale put up his usual strong statistics, but they just didn't do too much more than barely stay above 500. And forrtunately for them, 89 was an expansion year and thus 8 of their wins came were at the hands of those expansion teams. Mchale has no argument as a franchise player. Not based on the standards weighted down on pippen.

You can't even spell inconsistencies....do you even know what it means?

You think its inconsistent to give the best and most valuable player on a team the most credit...its not. Of course you want everyone to get equal credit...you are a Pippen Stan. You probably think he was just as valuable as MJ.

And I explained to you why Pippen led teams would struggle winning. Who is going to take over games late? Who is going to manufacture big buckets? If they have someone else to consistently do that, that player would probably be better than Pippen. Once again...at some point you have to learn that certain things are more valuable than others. Being a great perimeter defender just isn't as valuable as being a great leader, floor general, and late game player.

Pippen led teams would ultimately fail in too many close games against other quality teams in the playoffs. Pippen was a great number 2....maybe the best number 2 ever. But he was still a number 2. He wasn't a championship caliber first option that gave you a chance to do something special year in year out like a Magic or Bird. And he wasn't on the level of Barkley or Dirk either.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Again. This is what your thinking leads to:

Pippen was better than Barkley, Dirk, Magic, and Bird


He actually believes that, though, so for him there's no inconsistency. Maybe he'd hedge on Magic, but I've seen him say that Pippen was better than Barkley and Dirk.

[BlackJoker23]

Lol I see what he's saying. He's just going about it wrong. I'm just calling out his inconsistancies. I can't say he's wrong for feeling magic is a better basketball player. 3 times better? You may agree. But that's a drastic exagerration. Magic was great. I'm more arguing why he feels pippen wasn't. He didn't play under the same conditions as magic. So how can one say magic is better? How well would pippen have faired in 94 if you replace longley with jabaar, a rookie kukoc with prime worthy, and pete myers with byron scott. And pippen still would've been the best player on that team cuz jabaar was past his prime. Pippen team wasn't good enough flat out.

Now if he really was nothing more than a good basketball player then the 94 bulls would've done the same thing the 89 celtics did. Mchale put up his usual strong statistics, but they just didn't do too much more than barely stay above 500. And forrtunately for them, 89 was an expansion year and thus 8 of their wins came were at the hands of those expansion teams. Mchale has no argument as a franchise player. Not based on the standards weighted down on pippen.
lol u didnt read what i said. u said u didnt know how he defines impact. im telling u his entire definition of impact is found on bballref looking at stats of all kinds. since those stats favor offensive players thats where his whole offense>d shtick comes from. its easy to see because of all the delusional agenda ridden jockers that post here

[97 bulls]

You can't even spell inconsistencies....do you even know what it means?
Lol a classic sign that your losing this debate. Next you'll be questioning my age, then stoop to personal insults.and then eventually threaten to put me on your ignore list.

You think its inconsistent to give the best and most valuable player on a team the most credit...its not.
No. I acknowledge who the best player is and have. I choose not to diminish the roles players contribute to the championships they win.

Of course you want everyone to get equal credit...you are a Pippen Stan. You probably think he was just as valuable as MJ.
Again, no. For instance jud buchler was on all three of the bulls championship teams. I'm more than confidnt that if he wasn't there (not replaced) just wasn't there, the bulls would still win. But they ain't winning without jordan, pippen, rodman, jackson, or maybe even kukoc. And I think its silly to say pippens role on the bulls six championships holds less weight than dirk nowitzkis 1 championship because pippen wasn't the best player on the team.

And I explained to you why Pippen led teams would struggle winning. Who is going to take over games late? Who is going to manufacture big buckets? If they have someone else to consistently do that, that player would probably be better than Pippen. Once again...at some point you have to learn that certain things are more valuable than others. Being a great perimeter defender just isn't as valuable as being a great leader, floor general, and late game player.
But when I showed you instances of pippen taking over games, like 92 vs the blazers 4th quarter game 6. You for some reason want to overlook that. And why couldn't they win in 94 with mithc richmond in place of pete myers?

Pippen led teams would ultimately fail in too many close games against other quality teams in the playoffs. Pippen was a great number 2....maybe the best number 2 ever. But he was still a number 2. He wasn't a championship caliber first option that gave you a chance to do something special year in year out like a Magic or Bird. And he wasn't on the level of Barkley or Dirk either.
And again my reply would be how can you make that kind of determination off of one year? Especially when the team did a lot better than predicted. A year where he was third in the mvp voting. And lost the award to two of the greatest centers ever having what was arguably their best seasons ever. And then finish fifth in the dpoy award voting.

And like I said, be consistant. Why do you raise your bar for some players, and then lower it for others?

Lastly, id like to ask you a question. Not that id get an honest answer. But I want to at least throw it out there. Going back to 94, would you have been more impressed with pippen had he avg 30 ppg 5 rbds and 5 asts but shot a low percentage and played little to no defense, and led his team to 43 wins?

[DMAVS41]

And again my reply would be how can you make that kind of determination off of one year? Especially when the team did a lot better than predicted. A year where he was third in the mvp voting. And lost the award to two of the greatest centers ever having what was arguably their best seasons ever. And then finish fifth in the dpoy award voting.

And like I said, be consistant. Why do you raise your bar for some players, and then lower it for others?

Lastly, id like to ask you a question. Not that id get an honest answer. But I want to at least throw it out there. Going back to 94, would you have been more impressed with pippen had he avg 30 ppg 5 rbds and 5 asts but shot a low percentage and played little to no defense, and led his team to 43 wins?

I honestly don't even know what you are saying. And please learn to use the letter "e"....it will help you.

What is inconsistent about anything I've said? Nothing. You just expect other people to assume that Pippen could be a championship number 1 consistently throughout his career.

And I never said Dirk's 1 title is worth more than Pippen's 6. I never ever ever said that....now you are just making shit up. What I said was that Dirk deserves more credit than any other Mavericks player this year. You disagree. You said Chandler deserves just as much because they wouldn't have won without Chandler. Again, a foolish criteria and a very narrow minded and limited approach.

Its funny because you are being inconsistent. You lament the circumstances of Pippen and act like all these other players had far great chances to be great. Just not true. Pippen played for the GOAT coach and with the GOAT player. He won 6 freaking titles. Stop acting like Magic's career is grossly enhanced by circumstances and then turn around and not apply the same to Pippen. Talk about being INCONSISTENT....what a joke. Does anyone even care about Pippen if he didn't play with MJ and win titles? Certainly not to the extent they do now. Pippen could easily be an after thought it many of these GOAT small forward conversations. Talk about a player whose career was enhanced by circumstances, its Pippen.

And I'm sick of you beating around the bush on all this stuff.

Please bold which player you think is better: No accolades or career rankings. Just the better player.

Magic vs Pippen
Bird vs Pippen
Kobe vs Pippen
Barkley vs Pippen
Dirk vs Pippen
K. Malone vs Pippen
KG vs Pippen
Wade vs Pippen
West vs Pippen
Robinson vs Pippen
Lebron vs Pippen
Thomas vs Pippen

[97 bulls]

He actually believes that, though, so for him there's no inconsistency. Maybe he'd hedge on Magic, but I've seen him say that Pippen was better than Barkley and Dirk.
I knew it was only a matter of time before you would chime in. You're even more of a hypocrite than he is. Let me ask you a question, why didn't jordan win a championship in 85, 86, or 87 aand 88?

[97 bulls]

I honestly don't even know what you are saying. And please learn to use the letter "e"....it will help you.

What is inconsistent about anything I've said? Nothing. You just expect other people to assume that Pippen could be a championship number 1 consistently throughout his career.

And I never said Dirk's 1 title is worth more than Pippen's 6. I never ever ever said that....now you are just making shit up. What I said was that Dirk deserves more credit than any other Mavericks player this year. You disagree. You said Chandler deserves just as much because they wouldn't have won without Chandler. Again, a foolish criteria and a very narrow minded and limited approach.

Its funny because you are being inconsistent. You lament the circumstances of Pippen and act like all these other players had far great chances to be great. Just not true. Pippen played for the GOAT coach and with the GOAT player. He won 6 freaking titles. Stop acting like Magic's career is grossly enhanced by circumstances and then turn around and not apply the same to Pippen. Talk about being INCONSISTENT....what a joke. Does anyone even care about Pippen if he didn't play with MJ and win titles? Certainly not to the extent they do now. Pippen could easily be an after thought it many of these GOAT small forward conversations. Talk about a player whose career was enhanced by circumstances, its Pippen.

And I'm sick of you beating around the bush on all this stuff.

Please bold which player you think is better: No accolades or career rankings. Just the better player.

Magic vs Pippen
Bird vs Pippen
Kobe vs Pippen
Barkley vs Pippen
Dirk vs Pippen
K. Malone vs Pippen
KG vs Pippen
Wade vs Pippen
West vs Pippen
Robinson vs Pippen
Lebron vs Pippen
Thomas vs Pippen
I honestly don't rate players like that. And I would probably take pippen over all due to bias. But there really isn't much difference impact-wise on the court between any of them.

I'm betting on james eventually jumping this tier of players and joining the jordan, shaq, wilt, russell, jabaar, duncan, olajuwan tier. Cuz he has that kind of talent.

[Smoke117]

I honestly don't rate players like that. And I would probably take pippen over all due to bias. But there really isn't much difference impact-wise on the court between any of them.

I'm betting on james eventually jumping this tier of players and joining the jordan, shaq, wilt, russell, jabaar, duncan, olajuwan tier. Cuz he has that kind of talent.

Dude 97 Bulls I'm the greatest Pippen fan I can think of...but you have TO LET IT GO. You are getting to roundmound, gengiskhan and to Dmavs level when it comes to Dirk. Just let it go man. There are fans and there are stans. Don't be a stan. Be a die hard fan, but don't be a stan.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I enjoy the debate going on (Pippen fan here). I don't agree with everything being said, but the arguments have been intriguing nevertheless.

Had Pippen and the Bulls acquired a serviceable SG from 1994-95 it's up in the air. From a scoring perspective, a player like Mitch Richmond (or maybe an Eddie Jones) would feasibly suffice. The only problem is Chicago would be hard pressed to find another guard who's playmaking, defense and clutch-play was similar and/or adjacent to what Jordan brought to the table.

[Smoke117]

Either way, Larry Bird is a top 5 greatest player of all time, top 3 of all time for me after Jordan, Kareem. He's 3rd for me. Let's face it and there is no way of holding back, basketball is predominantly a black man's sport, so Larry Bird has always been underrated because he is white. He has been idolized by whites because he was white but I'm sorry but the african americans cannot deny they try to downplay his achievements and how he dominated the NBA because he was white because how they think it was their sport. I'm not white or black. I'm half mexican and half white...so I'm a mutt. I could give a **** for either of you ******s or honkies. The fact of the matter is to me Larry Bird is the greatest pure basketball player I've ever seen. Take away athleticism this man played basketball BETTER than any man I'VER EVER SEEN and black, white, yellow green, what have you, I KNOW VERY FEW OF YOU CAN DENY THAT. He's a ****ing legend and EVERYONE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT.

[97 bulls]

Dude 97 Bulls I'm the greatest Pippen fan I can think of...but you have TO LET IT GO. You are getting to roundmound, gengiskhan and to Dmavs level when it comes to Dirk. Just let it go man. There are fans and there are stans. Don't be a stan. Be a die hard fan, but don't be a stan.
Really? I don't think so. He asked me where id put pippen as far as his talent. There's nothing really that I saw out of any of the guys on that list that warrants them joning the super-elite list of players that I named. But based on what he accomplished and what the typical criteria used for ranking players, he'd be around 18-25.

[Rooster]

Either way, Larry Bird is a top 5 greatest player of all time, top 3 of all time for me after Jordan, Kareem. He's 3rd for me. Let's face it and there is no way of holding back, basketball is predominantly a black man's sport, so Larry Bird has always been underrated because he is white. He has been idolized by whites because he was white but I'm sorry but the african americans cannot deny they try to downplay his achievements and how he dominated the NBA because he was white because how they think it was their sport. I'm not white or black. I'm half mexican and half white...so I'm a mutt. I could give a **** for either of you ******s or honkies. The fact of the matter is to me Larry Bird is the greatest pure basketball player I've ever seen. Take away athleticism this man played basketball BETTER than any man I'VER EVER SEEN and black, white, yellow green, what have you, I KNOW VERY FEW OF YOU CAN DENY THAT. He's a ****ing legend and EVERYONE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT.

The 95-96 version of Magic was also good. He was slow, old and put up quite a few pounds and still averaged 15 points 6 Rebs 7 assists. Larry Bird being white and underrated is pure BS. Magic did not win his first MVP until Bird won his 3 MVPs.

[ThaRegul8r]

Either way, Larry Bird is a top 5 greatest player of all time, top 3 of all time for me after Jordan, Kareem. He's 3rd for me. Let's face it and there is no way of holding back, basketball is predominantly a black man's sport, so Larry Bird has always been underrated because he is white. He has been idolized by whites because he was white but I'm sorry but the african americans cannot deny they try to downplay his achievements and how he dominated the NBA because he was white because how they think it was their sport. I'm not white or black. I'm half mexican and half white...so I'm a mutt. I could give a **** for either of you ******s or honkies. The fact of the matter is to me Larry Bird is the greatest pure basketball player I've ever seen. Take away athleticism this man played basketball BETTER than any man I'VER EVER SEEN and black, white, yellow green, what have you, I KNOW VERY FEW OF YOU CAN DENY THAT. He's a ****ing legend and EVERYONE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT.

Derogatory racial slurs are certainly the sign of a cogent, intelligent, reasoned argument.

:rolleyes:

[OldSchoolBBall]

Please bold which player you think is better: No accolades or career rankings. Just the better player.

Magic vs Pippen
Bird vs Pippen
Kobe vs Pippen
Barkley vs Pippen
Dirk vs Pippen
K. Malone vs Pippen
KG vs Pippen
Wade vs Pippen
West vs Pippen
Robinson vs Pippen
Lebron vs Pippen
Thomas vs Pippen


I honestly don't rate players like that. And I would probably take pippen over all due to bias. But there really isn't much difference impact-wise on the court between any of them.

Ahahahaha. No, wait for it: AHAHAHAHAHA. :oldlol: :roll: :facepalm

[DMAVS41]

Really? I don't think so. He asked me where id put pippen as far as his talent. There's nothing really that I saw out of any of the guys on that list that warrants them joning the super-elite list of players that I named. But based on what he accomplished and what the typical criteria used for ranking players, he'd be around 18-25.

Not just raw talent. His actual ability to play the game. Stop trying to qualify everything.

The results speak for themselves. You are a huge Pippen stan. End of story.

That would be like me saying Dirk was better than Duncan or Hakeem....you saying Pippen was better than Magic and Bird.

Just laughable. End of debate.

[DMAVS41]

I honestly don't rate players like that. And I would probably take pippen over all due to bias. But there really isn't much difference impact-wise on the court between any of them.

I'm betting on james eventually jumping this tier of players and joining the jordan, shaq, wilt, russell, jabaar, duncan, olajuwan tier. Cuz he has that kind of talent.

Holy Shit......:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[97 bulls]

Not just raw talent. His actual ability to play the game. Stop trying to qualify everything.

The results speak for themselves. You are a huge Pippen stan. End of story.

That would be like me saying Dirk was better than Duncan or Hakeem....you saying Pippen was better than Magic and Bird.

Just laughable. End of debate.
No its not. What can dirk do betteer than duncan besides shoot? Same wiith hakeem. You asked me who I thought was a better basketball player.

For all intents and purposes, scottie pippen brings more to the table than magic johnson. And the one thing magic has on pippen (passing/assists) is often considered one of the most overrated stats in basketball. Both had mediocre to decent jumpshots, both were similar in the post, both were similar as far as rebounding, both were similar at steals, magic is a far better ft shooter, and pippen is the far better defender. How does this translate to magic being 3 times the basketball player pippen was?

And just to look at this from another aspect. You picked kevin mchale over scottie pippen. Why?

[97 bulls]

Ahahahaha. No, wait for it: AHAHAHAHAHA. :oldlol: :roll: :facepalm
Ill ask you again. Why didn't. Michael Jordan win a championship early in his career from 85-89.

I'm sure you won't answer the question because as I said before, the best way to win a debate is to show inconsistencies in your pov. Once I can do that, your crediblity is shot. And as I have before, I'm about to shoot down your credibility. Which is why you won't answer the question.

[Legends66NBA7]

Well this thread got hijacked and derailed.

[97 bulls]

Well this thread got hijacked and derailed.
You're right. But most threads get hijacked

[DMAVS41]

No its not. What can dirk do betteer than duncan besides shoot? Same wiith hakeem. You asked me who I thought was a better basketball player.

For all intents and purposes, scottie pippen brings more to the table than magic johnson. And the one thing magic has on pippen (passing/assists) is often considered one of the most overrated stats in basketball. Both had mediocre to decent jumpshots, both were similar in the post, both were similar as far as rebounding, both were similar at steals, magic is a far better ft shooter, and pippen is the far better defender. How does this translate to magic being 3 times the basketball player pippen was?

And just to look at this from another aspect. You picked kevin mchale over scottie pippen. Why?

You still can't get out of your very narrow minded...black and white approach. Dirk's impact on a basketball game is what is in question....not breaking down players the way you do. What can Dirk do that others his size can't? A lot....a whole hell of a lot. Not just shooting mate.

But this isn't about that. Oh...and Dirk is closer to Duncan/Hakeem than Pippen is to Magic.....LOL

The bold is exactly why you reach such horrible conclusions...I can't make it any clearer. You can't break down players like that. Its absurd.

So where do you rate Lebron all time? He's just a much better version of Pippen to an extent. Again, please just talk in terms of being a better basketball player. Do not factor in any career crap. Surely you don't think Pippen is a more valuable player than Lebron....right?

[OldSchoolBBall]

Ill ask you again. Why didn't. Michael Jordan win a championship early in his career from 85-89.

I'm sure you won't answer the question because as I said before, the best way to win a debate is to show inconsistencies in your pov. Once I can do that, your crediblity is shot. And as I have before, I'm about to shoot down your credibility. Which is why you won't answer the question.

Sure I'll answer the question: because he met up with top 10 teams ALL-TIME for 4 straight years in the postseason with a vastly inferior team around him. With even 80% of the talent these other teams had (Detroit, Boston), he would have had a championship in 1989 at the latest.

[DMAVS41]

Sure I'll answer the question: because he met up with top 10 teams ALL-TIME for 4 straight years in the postseason with a vastly inferior team around him. With even 80% of the talent these other teams had (Detroit, Boston), he would have had a championship in 1989 at the latest.

Forgive him, he thinks Pippen deserves the same amount of credit as MJ. Its hilarious.

He just got done telling me that Chandler was just as valuable as Dirk because the Mavs wouldn't have won without Chandler so it doesn't matter who the better player was/is.

What he doesn't realize is that Chandler is much easier to replace than Dirk is. Same with Pippen. You could replace him. You can't replace MJ. That is the difference. But honestly, he'll never see it.

He actually believes Pippen was better than Magic and Bird. Its absurd.

[97 bulls]

You still can't get out of your very narrow minded...black and white approach. Dirk's impact on a basketball game is what is in question....not breaking down players the way you do. What can Dirk do that others his size can't? A lot....a whole hell of a lot. Not just shooting mate.

But this isn't about that. Oh...and Dirk is closer to Duncan/Hakeem than Pippen is to Magic.....LOL

The bold is exactly why you reach such horrible conclusions...I can't make it any clearer. You can't break down players like that. Its absurd.

So where do you rate Lebron all time? He's just a much better version of Pippen to an extent. Again, please just talk in terms of being a better basketball player. Do not factor in any career crap. Surely you don't think Pippen is a more valuable player than Lebron....right?
When you asked me this question the first time, I said I see lebron james jumping into that echelon of players that include jordan, wilt, jabaar, etc. He's still young and must continue to develope. Especially a post game. As well as changing his mental way of thinking. But right now, I put him in in the second tier.

And right now, id say pippen is better. I told you in another thread that if you replaced lebron james with pippen in this past nba finals, the heat beat the mavericks. Cuz I'm confident pippen wouldn't have allowed jason terry to do what he did to james. As well as jj berea

[97 bulls]

Sure I'll answer the question: because he met up with top 10 teams ALL-TIME for 4 straight years in the postseason with a vastly inferior team around him. With even 80% of the talent these other teams had (Detroit, Boston), he would have had a championship in 1989 at the latest.
So if you willingly admit this (and I agree). I'm just applying the same logic to pippen, payton, kidd, as well as a few others.

The talent was there. Unfortunatly, the opportunity wasn't. That doesn't make them aany less of a player.

[Yung D-Will]

I've had 97 bulls on my ignore list for the past 16 months and this proves why