If Michael Jordan was a Knick

[Knicksfever2010]

If the Knicks had MJ from the start and he won the same amount of championships as a Knick, would the NBA have been more popular?

[Trentknicks]

Stallionare, NumberSix etc would have probably killed themselves a birth, and rightfully so, to the delight of ISH.

[stickfigure87]

it's hard to imagine jordan getting any MORE exposure than what he already received. he was the perfect spokesman of the nba already, and every media outlet was already at his feet.

also, i think the new york media wouldn't have protected jordan as much, and so a lot of the shady things he did (gambling, punching a teammate in the face, not paying for food) would've made it way to print and we'd have a imperfect superstar rather than the god like status we've turned him into.

[kennethgriffin]

well then they dont get ewing

magic ends with 6 rings

barkleys a champion

knicks maybe if lucky win a title or 2 in the 90's... the bulls were just perfect defensively top to bottom 6 times out of 8 years... with guys like harper, rodman, pippen, grant locking people up... and a coach like phil... just too many things to replicate in order for mj to have even close to the same success

[coin24]

Imagine if Jordan went to the knicks after the 98 season and played the lockout shortened season with them... They beat the Spurs IMO...:rockon:

[KG215]

well then they dont get ewing

magic ends with 6 rings

barkleys a champion

knicks maybe if lucky win a title or 2 in the 90's... the bulls were just perfect defensively top to bottom 6 times out of 8 years... with guys like harper, rodman, pippen, grant locking people up... and a coach like phil... just too many things to replicate in order for mj to have even close to the same success

Sorry, but Jordan was going to win multiple rings regardless of where he played or who he played for. Obviously he'd have needed a good second banana (every all-time great does) but he didn't specifically need a player as talented or similar skill wise to Scottie Pippen.

And what does "too many perfect things to replicate" even mean? He's no different than any other top 5-10 player all-time in that regard.

[jstern]

it's hard to imagine jordan getting any MORE exposure than what he already received. he was the perfect spokesman of the nba already, and every media outlet was already at his feet.

also, i think the new york media wouldn't have protected jordan as much, and so a lot of the shady things he did (gambling, punching a teammate in the face, not paying for food) would've made it way to print and we'd have a imperfect superstar rather than the god like status we've turned him into.

Jordan had god like status because of his game. This whole retarded notion that the media told us he was good and that's the reason he's regarded as #1.

[DaHeezy]

Jordan had god like status because of his game. This whole retarded notion that the media told us he was good and that's the reason he's regarded as #1.

It's naive statements like this that makes Jordan the most overrate athlete in sports history.

The power of media is to make you believe it doesn't exist

[DStebb716]

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn119/kobeowen125/jordannyk.jpg

[jstern]

It's naive statements like this that makes Jordan the most overrate athlete in sports history.

The power of media is to make you believe it doesn't exist

Do you really think a freaking Gatorade commercial is enough to overshadow a person's career, stats, complete domination, extreme clutch performance in the biggest moments? The reasons why Jordan got all of those commercials was because of his domination, not because it was given to him. People who care and watch basketball back then don't need commercials for them to know Jordan is the GOAT, and that's basically what you're saying. That people who watch basketball and are old enough to have seen Jordan are brain washed by the media. You're saying that people like Kobe are brain washed, since he often says Jordan is the GOAT. And Magic Johnson, Larry Bird. The media wasn't as big as it today also. Outside of the games commercials were my only other exposure of Jordan, and I ignored them just like every other commercial. I didn't even like Jordan, but had enough sense to know he was the best.

[NewYorkNoPicks]

Imagine if Jordan went to the knicks after the 98 season and played the lockout shortened season with them... They beat the Spurs IMO...:rockon:

This was actually supposed to happen. Anyone know why it didnt work out?

[DatAsh]

well then they dont get ewing

magic ends with 6 rings

barkleys a champion

knicks maybe if lucky win a title or 2 in the 90's... the bulls were just perfect defensively top to bottom 6 times out of 8 years... with guys like harper, rodman, pippen, grant locking people up... and a coach like phil... just too many things to replicate in order for mj to have even close to the same success

This post comes across as extremely bitter and agenda driven given the posters history.

[Nash]

If the Knicks had MJ from the start and he won the same amount of championships as a Knick, would the NBA have been more popular?
Yes, imagine if Jordan did what he did in New York City. He would have been even bigger than he already is.

[DaHeezy]

Do you really think a freaking Gatorade commercial is enough to overshadow a person's career, stats, complete domination, extreme clutch performance in the biggest moments? The reasons why Jordan got all of those commercials was because of his domination, not because it was given to him. People who care and watch basketball back then don't need commercials for them to know Jordan is the GOAT, and that's basically what you're saying. That people who watch basketball and are old enough to have seen Jordan are brain washed by the media.

That is a pretty ignorant statement. Of course Gatorade commercials are not going to influence people's opinions. The media DOES include news media, sports analysts, print media.....And yes those people are brainwashed, just like fans of today are brainwashed to believe Kobe and Lebron's status are far more overrated today. I'M old enough to have witnessed both. Why do you think the generation of fans before don't think he is? Because they see how media influences the fans of those years


You're saying that people like Kobe are brain washed, since he often says Jordan is the GOAT. And Magic Johnson, Larry Bird. The media wasn't as big as it today also. Outside of the games commercials were my only other exposure of Jordan, and I ignored them just like every other commercial. I didn't even like Jordan, but had enough sense to know he was the best.

You really believe they think that? It's a PR thing to keep a fanbase because if they said anything else guys like you would criticize them for not claiming he is.

Just recently Magic claimed Bird was the greatest player he ever played against. Plyers say things in front of the media because it's the right thing to say, not neccessarily because it's what they believe

[DatAsh]

Why do you think the generation of fans before don't think he is? Because they see how media influences the fans of those years

Think he is what? What do you mean by previous generation?





You really believe they think that? It's a PR thing to keep a fanbase because if they said anything else guys like you would criticize them for not claiming he is.

Just recently Magic claimed Bird was the greatest player he ever played against. Plyers say things in front of the media because it's the right thing to say, not neccessarily because it's what they believe

Somewhat true, but with Magic I think it's just more of him being a humble guy. Magic will tell you that Kobe is better than him.

[kennethgriffin]

i think jordan fans are way worse than me or any other kobe fan


the problem with them is they have a religious, destiny view on life ( in my opinion )

they all assume everything will pan out the same. but changing even the slightest thing like adding jordan would have been a 4th dimensional timeline butterfly effect ripple on the history of the knicks. completely changes every single draft pick they and allot of other teams got from 1984 till now

not a single team would have anything close to the same players they have today.


the knicks would have stunk it up and relied on key additions. and whos to know that they would have ever come?




people don't realise how lucky they are to even be born. its like hitting the lottery 100 times in a row. if your parents even hold off having sex for half a second. you're never born.

its why i always tell these people like the natives, black slavery or other victoms of historical racism or genocide. if it never happend. chances are you're never born. we're all here because history made it possible. if any slightest thing changed we become one of the other 100 million sperm that died off

so in the end. its like explaning science to a religious person. jordan fans think in terms of fairy tales and that jordan would be playing with ewing, starks, oakley and more. its just not the case. jordan may verry well have been stuck with nobody and chances are a bunch of different teams end up winning titles instead.

[greymatter]

Sorry, but Jordan was going to win multiple rings regardless of where he played or who he played for.

Sorry, but no. Jordan could carry a team, but he wasn't the type who made everybody else on the floor better. He was a SG version of Wilt in terms of outstanding production on both sides of the ball, but the difference is that he had the benefit of a better team and didn't have to play against any great teams in the 90s (the best competition he faced was the 93 Suns). There were plenty of teams on which he could have wound up never winning a title for. Clips, Mavs, Warriors just to start.



Obviously he'd have needed a good second banana (every all-time great does) but he didn't specifically need a player as talented or similar skill wise to Scottie Pippen.

Jordan never won without at least 1.5 other all-stars and a solid core of role players. Just a good 2nd banana wouldn't be enough unless it were a dominant big at least on Alonzo Mourning's level and a solid bench and complement of role players.

[calvin671996]

what if......what if.........what if..........
I think he can also get 6 rings, just because he is MJ

[DaHeezy]

Think he is what? What do you mean by previous generation?




The generation of fans before the Jordan era.

[DaHeezy]

i think jordan fans are way worse than me or any other kobe fan


the problem with them is they have a religious, destiny view on life ( in my opinion )

they all assume everything will pan out the same. but changing even the slightest thing like adding jordan would have been a 4th dimensional timeline butterfly effect ripple on the history of the knicks. completely changes every single draft pick they and allot of other teams got from 1984 till now

not a single team would have anything close to the same players they have today.


the knicks would have stunk it up and relied on key additions. and whos to know that they would have ever come?




people don't realise how lucky they are to even be born. its like hitting the lottery 100 times in a row. if your parents even hold off having sex for half a second. you're never born.

its why i always tell these people like the natives, black slavery or other victoms of historical racism or genocide. if it never happend. chances are you're never born. we're all here because history made it possible. if any slightest thing changed we become one of the other 100 million sperm that died off

so in the end. its like explaning science to a religious person. jordan fans think in terms of fairy tales and that jordan would be playing with ewing, starks, oakley and more. its just not the case. jordan may verry well have been stuck with nobody and chances are a bunch of different teams end up winning titles instead.


1000% exactamundo
Statistically he's amazing, but he's a product of a good situation. I don't believe he's got that team changing ability like a Shaq or Duncan. If he did the Bulls would have been successful alot quicker. Who knows, Jordan may have been pegged for being the worst individual in sports history. You think he would have gotten away with belittling and punching out his teammates like he did in Chicago? Heeellll no.

[andgar923]

it's hard to imagine jordan getting any MORE exposure than what he already received. he was the perfect spokesman of the nba already, and every media outlet was already at his feet.

also, i think the new york media wouldn't have protected jordan as much, and so a lot of the shady things he did (gambling, punching a teammate in the face, not paying for food) would've made it way to print and we'd have a imperfect superstar rather than the god like status we've turned him into.

You're forgetting why the media in general covered up for MJ for the early part of his career

[DatAsh]

The generation of fans before the Jordan era.

Ok, but you didn't answer my first question.

[DaHeezy]

Ok, but you didn't answer my first question.

Most of that generation doesn't feel Jordan was the greatest player ever in favor of players from their generation and do feel fans of the Jordan era were affected by media

[DatAsh]

Most of that generation doesn't feel Jordan was the greatest player ever in favor of players from their generation and do feel fans of the Jordan era were affected by media

Has there been some published study that's shown this to be true, or are you just going by feeling? "Most" is a pretty bold claim to be making without significant evidence to back it up.

I would consider myself to be of the generation before Jordan. Does the fact I consider him to be a top 1-2 player ever put me in the minority?

[DatAsh]

i think jordan fans are way worse than me or any other kobe fan


the problem with them is they have a religious, destiny view on life ( in my opinion )

they all assume everything will pan out the same. but changing even the slightest thing like adding jordan would have been a 4th dimensional timeline butterfly effect ripple on the history of the knicks. completely changes every single draft pick they and allot of other teams got from 1984 till now

not a single team would have anything close to the same players they have today.


the knicks would have stunk it up and relied on key additions. and whos to know that they would have ever come?




people don't realise how lucky they are to even be born. its like hitting the lottery 100 times in a row. if your parents even hold off having sex for half a second. you're never born.

its why i always tell these people like the natives, black slavery or other victoms of historical racism or genocide. if it never happend. chances are you're never born. we're all here because history made it possible. if any slightest thing changed we become one of the other 100 million sperm that died off

so in the end. its like explaning science to a religious person. jordan fans think in terms of fairy tales and that jordan would be playing with ewing, starks, oakley and more. its just not the case. jordan may verry well have been stuck with nobody and chances are a bunch of different teams end up winning titles instead.

I agree with much of what you're saying, but you've been just as guilty of the very thing you accuse Jordan fans of doing.

The truth is we don't know how Jordan's career turns out had he been drafted to the Knicks. Saying "he maybe if lucky win a title or 2 in the 90's" is as pure speculation as Jordan fans saying he'd have won more. The truth is we don't know. It's an unknown.

[DaHeezy]

Has there been some published study that's shown this to be true, or are you just going by feeling? "Most" is a pretty bold claim to be making without significant evidence to back it up.

I would consider myself to be of the generation before Jordan. Does the fact I consider him to be a top 1-2 player ever put me in the minority?

Not at all, but it has been proven true with most people that I've ever encountered, and it holds very true here.

[DatAsh]

Not at all, but it has been proven true with most people that I've ever encountered, and it holds very true here.

Ok, then say that.

Also, wouldn't your second statement require you to know the ages of posters on this board?

[eliteballer]

Chicago was the 2nd biggest city in the country in the 80's, wouldnt have made a difference.

[DaHeezy]

Ok, then say that.

Also, wouldn't your second statement require you to know the ages of posters on this board?

I've been very keen on following posters who I've respected opinions of and got to know their histories so yes I do have an idea.

[alwaysunny]

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn119/kobeowen125/jordannyk.jpg

lol what's up with the Kobe tattoo on his arm?

[ShawnieMac06]

Chicago was the 2nd biggest city in the country in the 80's, wouldnt have made a difference.

I agree...I think it was perfectly good timing for the Bulls, because they were a floundering franchise that needed some sort of starpower (sorry, Reggie Theus and Artis Gilmore, two great players in their own right, weren't exactly household names outside of Chicago).

I could imagine Jordan and Bernard King on the same Knicks team back then...lots of scoring (probably close to 60 PPG between them), and probably would have won a couple of playoff rounds.

[DatAsh]

I've been very keen on following posters who I've respected opinions of and got to know their histories so yes I do have an idea.

Knowing the age of a few posters who you respect is not enough to make the general claim you made.

[greymatter]

i think jordan fans are way worse than me or any other kobe fan

Luckily no one pays you to think.



the problem with them is they have a religious, destiny view on life ( in my opinion )

The word you're looking for is predestination. Maybe you can broaden your vocabulary while you study for that GED.


they all assume everything will pan out the same. but changing even the slightest thing like adding jordan would have been a 4th dimensional timeline butterfly effect ripple on the history of the knicks. completely changes every single draft pick they and allot of other teams got from 1984 till now

Anyone with a science background or is simply a sci-fi fan can only /epic facepalm at the lame attempt at slapping together a bunch of things you don't understand into a sentence. You balled with against any white honkeys lately?




people don't realise how lucky they are to even be born. its like hitting the lottery 100 times in a row. if your parents even hold off having sex for half a second. you're never born.

Not surprising that your knowledge of biology is equally inept.



its why i always tell these people like the natives, black slavery or other victoms of historical racism or genocide. if it never happend. chances are you're never born. we're all here because history made it possible. if any slightest thing changed we become one of the other 100 million sperm that died off

so in the end. its like explaning science to a religious person. jordan fans think in terms of fairy tales and that jordan would be playing with ewing, starks, oakley and more. its just not the case. jordan may verry well have been stuck with nobody and chances are a bunch of different teams end up winning titles instead.

You could have simply left it at: if Jordan played for the Knicks, they'd have never drafted Ewing in 85, Oakley would probably have never been traded to NY, etc. Your attempt at drawing parallels to alternate timelines and probabilities was downright pathetic.

[bukowski81]

Most of that generation doesn't feel Jordan was the greatest player ever in favor of players from their generation and do feel fans of the Jordan era were affected by media

Thats just not true. Its pretty unanimous among fans, players, coaches and analysts athat Jordan is the GOAT. And of course its not media brainwashing as you claim.

[DaHeezy]

Knowing the age of a few posters who you respect is not enough to make the general claim you made.

It does if their opinions are well articulated therefor it reflects the knowledgable fans of their era.

I'm going tostop it at there because you seem like you're bent on trying to discredit any POV that wouldn't lead to that generations assessment. I could do the research and bring up threads but in this case I think it would be senseless

[DatAsh]

I'm going tostop it at there because you seem like you're bent on trying to discredit any POV that wouldn't lead to that generations assessment. I could do the research and bring up threads but in this case I think it would be senseless

I'm not bent on discrediting anything other than baseless generalizations. If you really are capable of putting together evidence that shows that more than half of the "older" generation considers Jordan to be a product of media hype, I'd be very interested to see it.

[kennethgriffin]

Luckily no one pays you to think.



The word you're looking for is predestination. Maybe you can broaden your vocabulary while you study for that GED.



Anyone with a science background or is simply a sci-fi fan can only /epic facepalm at the lame attempt at slapping together a bunch of things you don't understand into a sentence. You balled with against any white honkeys lately?



Not surprising that your knowledge of biology is equally inept.



You could have simply left it at: if Jordan played for the Knicks, they'd have never drafted Ewing in 85, Oakley would probably have never been traded to NY, etc. Your attempt at drawing parallels to alternate timelines and probabilities was downright pathetic.


you sound like a christian


everything i said was truth

[guy]

its why i always tell these people like the natives, black slavery or other victoms of historical racism or genocide. if it never happend. chances are you're never born. we're all here because history made it possible. if any slightest thing changed we become one of the other 100 million sperm that died off


:oldlol: What the hell are you saying here? That victims of racism and genocide shouldn't complain and should actually be grateful for it because they wouldn't have existed otherwise?

Its hilarious how you're implying that Jordan was very lucky considering who you are a fan of.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Griff you are on a roll right now.

[KG215]

Sorry, but no. Jordan could carry a team, but he wasn't the type who made everybody else on the floor better. He was a SG version of Wilt in terms of outstanding production on both sides of the ball, but the difference is that he had the benefit of a better team and didn't have to play against any great teams in the 90s (the best competition he faced was the 93 Suns). There were plenty of teams on which he could have wound up never winning a title for. Clips, Mavs, Warriors just to start.
That's just wrong. You don't win SIX championships as your teams best player if you don't make everybody else on the floor better to some extent. One or two, maybe, but not six. I don't give a damn if you thnk the 90s was a weak era and there weren't any great teams, you don't win that many championships unless you do more than just carry a team and produce stats.

First 3-peat Jordan, especially, was a tremendous playmaker and facilitator. I was wrong in saying he would win multiple championships in hsi career regardless of who he played for so defiantly, as if it were fact, though. However, I feel pretty confident that, even with just one other All-Star caliber teammate, peak/prime Jordan finds a way to win a couple of championships in the 90s.

[Young X]

As long as he plays the same way, he'd still be the best player ever.

[greymatter]

you sound like a christian


everything i said was truth

Were you born stupid or did you just work really hard at it? Everything you said was incredibly stupid. It was like listening to Sarah Palin trying to explain the intricacies of Russian/Ukranian geopolitics.

[Soundwave]

Well it's not like Chicago is Sacramento, lol. Chicago is one of the biggest metropolitan centers in the world.

I don't think it would've made much of a difference, Jordan was about as popular as an athlete can get, at some point that would just be diminishing returns.

Besides I think the red/black Bulls colors just looked better and sold jerseys/hats/t-shirts to every kid in the 90s.

I remember going to junior high and even non-basketball fans like girls would be wearing Bulls stuff because it was a "cool" brand. Simple as that.

[KOBE143]

Patrick Ewing of the 90s.. No rings and absolute loser.. Knicks sucks..

[MetsPackers]

The Jordan hate in this thread is absolutely insanse. Is this real life?? :wtf:

People are acting like he's not basically the undisputed GOAT. Even if by butterfly effect some other team gets Ewing, Barkley, idk Payton - Jordan still gets 3 titles minimum with whoever the richest team in the NBA provides him.

[Eric Cartman]

The Jordan hate in this thread is absolutely insanse. Is this real life?? :wtf:

People are acting like he's not basically the undisputed GOAT. Even if by butterfly effect some other team gets Ewing, Barkley, idk Payton - Jordan still gets 3 titles minimum with whoever the richest team in the NBA provides him.

Not gonna lie, i got creeped out by your avatar. Thought you were the "evil one".

[greymatter]

That's just wrong. You don't win SIX championships as your teams best player if you don't make everybody else on the floor better to some extent. One or two, maybe, but not six. I don't give a damn if you thnk the 90s was a weak era and there weren't any great teams, you don't win that many championships unless you do more than just carry a team and produce stats.

Bulls won 55 games in 93-94 and came close to going to the finals again. BJ Armstrong and Horace Grant also made their 1st and only all-star teams. The Bulls dropped off a lot more when Grant left for Orlando than when Jordan retired. Grant's interior defense and rebounding was more important for the team than Jordan's wing defense and scoring since Pippen and Armstrong were able to largely fill that void. Simply put, Jordan clearly didn't make Pip and Grant better. Those two guys worked hard on their game and made themselves better.


First 3-peat Jordan, especially, was a tremendous playmaker and facilitator. I was wrong in saying he would win multiple championships in hsi career regardless of who he played for so defiantly, as if it were fact, though. However, I feel pretty confident that, even with just one other All-Star caliber teammate, peak/prime Jordan finds a way to win a couple of championships in the 90s.

I guarantee you that Jordan never wins a title with just one all-star 1-3 (unless it included an ATG in Bird or Magic) or just a PF the caliber of a Tyrone Hill or Horace Grant.

[KOBE143]

Bulls won 55 games in 93-94 and came close to going to the finals again. BJ Armstrong and Horace Grant also made their 1st and only all-star teams. The Bulls dropped off a lot more when Grant left for Orlando than when Jordan retired. Grant's interior defense and rebounding was more important for the team than Jordan's wing defense and scoring since Pippen and Armstrong were able to largely fill that void. Simply put, Jordan clearly didn't make Pip and Grant better. Those two guys worked hard on their game and made themselves better.



I guarantee you that Jordan never wins a title with just one all-star 1-3 (unless it included an ATG in Bird or Magic) or just a PF the caliber of a Tyrone Hill or Horace Grant.
:applause:

[DatAsh]

Bulls won 55 games in 93-94 and came close to going to the finals again. BJ Armstrong and Horace Grant also made their 1st and only all-star teams. The Bulls dropped off a lot more when Grant left for Orlando than when Jordan retired. Grant's interior defense and rebounding was more important for the team than Jordan's wing defense and scoring since Pippen and Armstrong were able to largely fill that void. Simply put, Jordan clearly didn't make Pip and Grant better. Those two guys worked hard on their game and made themselves better.


This isn't really true when you dig a bit deeper and actually take a look at what was going on.

Going by SRS, which is a much better measure of team strength than team record, because it accounts for SoS, the Bulls dropped 3.32 - from 6.19 to 2.87 - points when Jordan left - down 7.2 from 92' - and actually got better without Grant in 95', gaining 1.44 from the previous year. A lot of improvement from 94' to 95' was because of Jordan though - they were +5.16 in the final 17 games with Jordan and like +7 with him in the playoffs.

[97 bulls]

This isn't really true when you dig a bit deeper and actually take a look at what was going on.

Going by SRS, which is a much better measure of team strength than team record, because it accounts for SoS, the Bulls dropped 3.32 - from 6.19 to 2.87 - points when Jordan left - down 7.2 from 92' - and actually got better without Grant in 95', gaining 1.44 from the previous year. A lot of improvement from 94' to 95' was because of Jordan though - they were +5.16 in the final 17 games with Jordan and like +7 with him in the playoffs.
How is SRS a much better measurement of a teams strength than its actual record?

[MavsSuperFan]

the bulls wouldnt have many fans.

[DatAsh]

How is SRS a much better measurement of a teams strength than its actual record?

Because it accounts for strength of schedule. The downside is that teams play for record, not SRS. Even still, SRS has proved time and time again to be the more accurate measure of overall team strength, both for looking back, and for predicting the future.

For instance, it was seen as a huge surprise when Walton's 49-33 Blazers swept Kareem's 53-29 Lakers, but when you look at the two team's SRS - 5.69 and 3.65, respectively - it's not all that surprising. Of course there were other factors in that series - Laker injuries, Walton missing games in the RS - but that was just an example off the top of my head.

[Money 23]

As long as he plays the same way, he'd still be the best player ever.
Kobe kids / Laker sluts (eliteballer) destroying this thread, these boards, and general bball intelligence in general.

[KG215]

Bulls won 55 games in 93-94 and came close to going to the finals again. BJ Armstrong and Horace Grant also made their 1st and only all-star teams. The Bulls dropped off a lot more when Grant left for Orlando than when Jordan retired. Grant's interior defense and rebounding was more important for the team than Jordan's wing defense and scoring since Pippen and Armstrong were able to largely fill that void. Simply put, Jordan clearly didn't make Pip and Grant better. Those two guys worked hard on their game and made themselves better.
That's just an incredibly ignorant statement. I'm not one of those that believe Jordan "made" Pippen and Grant. Obviously they were very good players and Pippen showed he could be the lead-dog on a playoff. But to just flatout say "Jordan clearly didn't make them better" is wrong.

And let me get this straight, you feel Horace Grant was more important to those Bulls teams than Jordan? Or are you saying his role on the team was more important? Either way, I disagree.




I guarantee you that Jordan never wins a title with just one all-star 1-3 (unless it included an ATG in Bird or Magic) or just a PF the caliber of a Tyrone Hill or Horace Grant.
You guarantee he wouldn't? So the consensus GOAT could only win with not only a payer of Pippen's caliber, but also a player of Rodman's caliber? You couldn't have teamed him up with some other All-NBA or All-Star caliber player (and not a one-time fluke All-Star like Tyrone Hill) and got a ring or two in the 90s? Really?

Hakeem can win two titles with that supporting cast, Stockton and Malone and no other All-Stars can make the Finals twice and push the Bulls to six games, Gary Payton and Shawn Kemp can make the Finals and play the Bulls tough but Jordan had to have two teammates of the caliber of Pippen and Rodman?

[Overdrive]

Jordan wouldn't have been more popular or brought more popularity to the NBA in NY than in CHI, because his popularity exceeded the regional scale by far.


i think jordan fans are way worse than me or any other kobe fan


the problem with them is they have a religious, destiny view on life ( in my opinion )

they all assume everything will pan out the same. but changing even the slightest thing like adding jordan would have been a 4th dimensional timeline butterfly effect ripple on the history of the knicks. completely changes every single draft pick they and allot of other teams got from 1984 till now

not a single team would have anything close to the same players they have today.

Jordan would be the same human being entering the NBA. That's no variable. So the variables that are interchangeable are his teammates, the development of Jordan, the coaches.

To figure out how Jordan's career would've turned out, we first would need to find out how Jordan could've been taken by the Knicks(obviously trade vs pick). Then we'd have to take the roster of the Knicks sans the traded player(we could figure out the players in question by the rules for trades back in the day) and project wins by a formular and by that future picks by the Knicks. I'm pretty sure some people here could put up realistic models for the event Jordan got drafted by NY.

The bolded sentence sounds weird. Just dropping some phrases to sound smart. Jordan on the Knicks doesn't cause a "butterflyeffect". Butterfly effect means that the number of variables on a model is overwhelming and you cannot predict the outcome in the slightest sense. Hence butterfly effect.

The concept of the butterfly effect has the swing of the butterfly wings as the only constant. Nothing could happen or it could cause a storm. It tries to explain that a tiny cause can lead to big effects.

A basketball superstar however always has a big effect. Maybe it doesn't lead to rings, but he, the superstar, makes them likely. And the NBA consists of a pool of the toptalent in Basketball. Basically if you got a top 30 current talent, you also got atleast top 50-60 talent, etcetc. Meaning a topstar with only scrubs on his team is very rare.

btw 4th dimensional timeline is redundant.



the knicks would have stunk it up and relied on key additions. and whos to know that they would have ever come?

As said, people can put up realistic models. Just stating they'd have stunk it up is way worse.



people don't realise how lucky they are to even be born. its like hitting the lottery 100 times in a row. if your parents even hold off having sex for half a second. you're never born.

Yes and no. Usually the "fittest" sperm makes it. So basically it's not just chance. Not every sperm is the same, holding off for 5 minutes might result in the same child. Taking a condom and getting a kid on another "shot" is a different story though.



its why i always tell these people like the natives, black slavery or other victoms of historical racism or genocide. if it never happend. chances are you're never born. we're all here because history made it possible. if any slightest thing changed we become one of the other 100 million sperm that died off

That's just one end of a theory. But, yes, this fits the butterfly effect better; actually it might be possible that I'd be still alive, if some chinese emperor wouldn't have killed thousands of people.



so in the end. its like explaning science to a religious person. jordan fans think in terms of fairy tales and that jordan would be playing with ewing, starks, oakley and more. its just not the case. jordan may verry well have been stuck with nobody and chances are a bunch of different teams end up winning titles instead.

No it's not. People don't tell a Jordan fairytale, they get that he most possibly wouldn't have played with Ewing et al, but as said he still would've been the same player coming into the NBA. It's way harder to predict such outcomes for players who were "sleepers" coming into the NBA.

[guy]

Considering how much New York overrates the Knicks, it actually wouldn't surprise me if it was more popular. Chicago even now is still considered more of a football town, and correct me if I'm wrong but a more baseball town as well, then it is a basketball town.

[DaHeezy]

That's just an incredibly ignorant statement. I'm not one of those that believe Jordan "made" Pippen and Grant. Obviously they were very good players and Pippen showed he could be the lead-dog on a playoff. But to just flatout say "Jordan clearly didn't make them better" is wrong.

And let me get this straight, you feel Horace Grant was more important to those Bulls teams than Jordan? Or are you saying his role on the team was more important? Either way, I disagree.




You guarantee he wouldn't? So the consensus GOAT could only win with not only a payer of Pippen's caliber, but also a player of Rodman's caliber? You couldn't have teamed him up with some other All-NBA or All-Star caliber player (and not a one-time fluke All-Star like Tyrone Hill) and got a ring or two in the 90s? Really?

Hakeem can win two titles with that supporting cast, Stockton and Malone and no other All-Stars can make the Finals twice and push the Bulls to six games, Gary Payton and Shawn Kemp can make the Finals and play the Bulls tough but Jordan had to have two teammates of the caliber of Pippen and Rodman?

You give Jordan too much credit. Plus those Jazz and Sonic teams had extremely important role players and HOF coaches. You come off clearly bias. No Jordan couldn't have carried a mediocre team with a single all star to championships.

Take for example that Rocket team. It was tailored made for Hakeem and he clearly carried them and they in turned worked their asses off for him. Not to mention they still had a performing Drexler.
Replace Hakeem with Jordan on that team and he's more likely to punch out every single teammate and get his coach fired. He could not have garnered the same success with that same roster.

[DaHeezy]

Considering how much New York overrates the Knicks, it actually wouldn't surprise me if it was more popular. Chicago even now is still considered more of a football town, and correct me if I'm wrong but a more baseball town as well, then it is a basketball town.

Possibly hockey too!

[97 bulls]

Considering how much New York overrates the Knicks, it actually wouldn't surprise me if it was more popular. Chicago even now is still considered more of a football town, and correct me if I'm wrong but a more baseball town as well, then it is a basketball town.
That wasn't the case back in the 90s during the Bulls dynasty. Id say basketball was almost on par with football. And baseball was a distant third

[guy]

You give Jordan too much credit. Plus those Jazz and Sonic teams had extremely important role players and HOF coaches. You come off clearly bias. No Jordan couldn't have carried a mediocre team with a single all star to championships.

Jordan+one other all-star with average other talent is mediocre? Are you saying Jordan on the Jazz or Sonics in place of Stockton, Malone, Payton, or Kemp couldn't have won titles?



Take for example that Rocket team. It was tailored made for Hakeem and he clearly carried them and they in turned worked their asses off for him. Not to mention they still had a performing Drexler.
Replace Hakeem with Jordan on that team and he's more likely to punch out every single teammate and get his coach fired. He could not have garnered the same success with that same roster.

You know Hakeem has punched out teammates before right? For even worse reasons then whats been reported of Jordan.

I agree that you can't just replace Hakeem with Jordan. Makes no sense at all that they would be built the same since they play completely different positions. I would say the equivalent to Hakeem's help in 94 would probably be those 94 Bulls w/o Pippen. And I'm not bringing up the 95 Rockets cause Hakeem's help those years are more comparable to Jordan's with the first 3peat Bulls then to Hakeem's help the previous year because of the inclusion of Drexler. So basically, could Jordan with the 94 Bulls minus Pippen win titles in certain years like Hakeem with the 94 Rockets did? Of course they could. Not 6, but they could definitely win a few.

The funny thing is, people are propping up what the 94 Bulls did and saying they almost made the Finals and were close to winning a title without Jordan to say Jordan needed so much help. Well, unless you think Pippen is better then Jordan or that they are even close, if you replaced Pippen with Jordan i.e. a significantly better player, wouldn't you expect more success? And since they got soo close with Pippen to the Finals, would it be far-fetched for the Bulls to win it all in 94 with Jordan instead?

[guy]

That wasn't the case back in the 90s during the Bulls dynasty. Id say basketball was almost on par with football. And baseball was a distant third

Right. But if it was more of a basketball town in general, the way New York is, then they would've been even more popular.

[KG215]

You give Jordan too much credit. Plus those Jazz and Sonic teams had extremely important role players and HOF coaches. You come off clearly bias. No Jordan couldn't have carried a mediocre team with a single all star to championships.

Take for example that Rocket team. It was tailored made for Hakeem and he clearly carried them and they in turned worked their asses off for him. Not to mention they still had a performing Drexler.
Replace Hakeem with Jordan on that team and he's more likely to punch out every single teammate and get his coach fired. He could not have garnered the same success with that same roster.

How am I giving him too much credit? It's not absurd to think a guy who was the best player on six championship teams could have won multiple rings on a different team with just one All-Star teammate and a supporting cast built around and tailored to fit around him, which is exactly what any competent front office (not just Chicago) would've been doing if they had Jordan. Does he win six in any other situation? Of course not, but given what we saw from Jordan, and how his career unfolded, it's not ridiculous to think he could've won two or three rings somewhere else with different teammates.

[greymatter]

That's just an incredibly ignorant statement. I'm not one of those that believe Jordan "made" Pippen and Grant. Obviously they were very good players and Pippen showed he could be the lead-dog on a playoff. But to just flatout say "Jordan clearly didn't make them better" is wrong.

The only thing you can credit Jordan for with regards to Pip and Grant is pushing them in practice to work as hard as he did. In terms of making those around him better, that simply wasn't Jordan's style. It's really not hard to grasp. Jordan is arguably the best overall talent alongside Chamberlain, but like Chamberlain, wasn't anywhere close to being the best teammate.



And let me get this straight, you feel Horace Grant was more important to those Bulls teams than Jordan?

Never said that. If you'd stop and think about it for a bit, you'd realize that Pippen, Armstrong (and the other committee guards) all stepped up their production to offset what was lost in Jordan's leaving. When Grant left, who was there to fill the void? Corey Blount,Toni Kukoc, Dickey Simpkins? Good luck replacing tough interior defense and rebounding with that.



Or are you saying his role on the team was more important? Either way, I disagree.

Jordan never won a title without Grant or Rodman. There isn't a title team out there that didn't win without at least a quality front court player. Bosh, Dirk, Gasol, KG, Duncan, the list goes on and on.

Of course Jordan's role was more important, simply based on talent. Just like there's no comparison between Lebron and Bosh. But there's no way Lebron wins his title without Bosh.



You guarantee he wouldn't? So the consensus GOAT could only win with not only a payer of Pippen's caliber, but also a player of Rodman's caliber? You couldn't have teamed him up with some other All-NBA or All-Star caliber player (and not a one-time fluke All-Star like Tyrone Hill) and got a ring or two in the 90s? Really?

Dominant 2-3 is perhaps the most useless combo to have AS quality players at. Wade and Lebron proved that. You could give Jordan any combo of many-time AS caliber SFs, other SGs, or PGs, he'd never win a title unless one of them was Magic or Bird and that's because they were so versatile and could play 4 positions (in addition to being GOATs at their positions).

Teams with mediocre or worse front courts simply never win titles. It has to have at least 1 quality player. If you gave Jordan/Pippen a front court that was league average in terms of defense/rebounding for their entire careers, neither of them would have ever had a title.


Hakeem can win two titles with that supporting cast

That's because Hakeem and Otis Thorpe made up an elite front court.



, Stockton and Malone and no other All-Stars can make the Finals twice and push the Bulls to six games, Gary Payton and Shawn Kemp can make the Finals and play the Bulls tough but Jordan had to have two teammates of the caliber of Pippen and Rodman?

It's really quite simple. It's all about what positions you have your all-star caliber talent in. The Jazz and Sonics had elite PG/PF combos. An elite PG and big is the ideal formula for winning titles.

How many titles do you think just Jordan/Pippen and an average supporting cast wins against a CP3/Olajuwon combo with average players rounding out their roster? I'd say exactly zero.

[97 bulls]

Right. But if it was more of a basketball town in general, the way New York is, then they would've been even more popular.
I think Chicago was a basketball town in the 90s.

[guy]

The only thing you can credit Jordan for with regards to Pip and Grant is pushing them in practice to work as hard as he did. In terms of making those around him better, that simply wasn't Jordan's style. It's really not hard to grasp. Jordan is arguably the best overall talent alongside Chamberlain, but like Chamberlain, wasn't anywhere close to being the best teammate.



Never said that. If you'd stop and think about it for a bit, you'd realize that Pippen, Armstrong (and the other committee guards) all stepped up their production to offset what was lost in Jordan's leaving. When Grant left, who was there to fill the void? Corey Blount,Toni Kukoc, Dickey Simpkins? Good luck replacing tough interior defense and rebounding with that.




Jordan never won a title without Grant or Rodman. There isn't a title team out there that didn't win without at least a quality front court player. Bosh, Dirk, Gasol, KG, Duncan, the list goes on and on.

Of course Jordan's role was more important, simply based on talent. Just like there's no comparison between Lebron and Bosh. But there's no way Lebron wins his title without Bosh.



Dominant 2-3 is perhaps the most useless combo to have AS quality players at. Wade and Lebron proved that. You could give Jordan any combo of many-time AS caliber SFs, other SGs, or PGs, he'd never win a title unless one of them was Magic or Bird and that's because they were so versatile and could play 4 positions (in addition to being GOATs at their positions).

Teams with mediocre or worse front courts simply never win titles. It has to have at least 1 quality player. If you gave Jordan/Pippen a front court that was league average in terms of defense/rebounding for their entire careers, neither of them would have ever had a title.



That's because Hakeem and Otis Thorpe made up an elite front court.




It's really quite simple. It's all about what positions you have your all-star caliber talent in. The Jazz and Sonics had elite PG/PF combos. An elite PG and big is the ideal formula for winning titles.

How many titles do you think just Jordan/Pippen and an average supporting cast wins against a CP3/Olajuwon combo with average players rounding out their roster? I'd say exactly zero.

The Bulls won titles with probably the worst frontcourts in history. Horace Grant wasn't some rare type of player. There were plenty of tough interior defensive PFs in the league back then. He wasn't that much more irreplaceable then someone like Kenny Smith or Vernon Maxwell. And Cartwright and Longley, especially Longley, were probably the worst starting centers to ever win titles.

There's been one combo of an elite PG/elite big that has won titles since 1980, and thats Magic/Kareem, which isn't even saying much considering how much Magic's greatness was from his ability to do things that your typical PG did not do. History suggests that that combo isn't ideal over other combos.

The Bulls were pretty average outside of Jordan/Pippen. For the most part, in the past 25 years or so every playoff team's #3-#12 hasn't been that much better or worse then everyone else and if they have been, those teams have had alot of depth but not that great of a #1-#2.

[97 bulls]

The only thing you can credit Jordan for with regards to Pip and Grant is pushing them in practice to work as hard as he did. In terms of making those around him better, that simply wasn't Jordan's style. It's really not hard to grasp. Jordan is arguably the best overall talent alongside Chamberlain, but like Chamberlain, wasn't anywhere close to being the best teammate.
I wouldn't even say Jordan taught them how to practice. Those guys had it in them from the start. You have to be on a whole nother lever competitively to play with Jordan.


Never said that. If you'd stop and think about it for a bit, you'd realize that Pippen, Armstrong (and the other committee guards) all stepped up their production to offset what was lost in Jordan's leaving. When Grant left, who was there to fill the void? Corey Blount,Toni Kukoc, Dickey Simpkins? Good luck replacing tough interior defense and rebounding with that.
True



Jordan never won a title without Grant or Rodman. There isn't a title team out there that didn't win without at least a quality front court player. Bosh, Dirk, Gasol, KG, Duncan, the list goes on and on.
True


Of course Jordan's role was more important, simply based on talent. Just like there's no comparison between Lebron and Bosh. But there's no way Lebron wins his title without Bosh.
In a way id argee. Obviously Jordan was the most talented. But both Grants and Rodmans role was just as important as Jordans and Pippens.


Dominant 2-3 is perhaps the most useless combo to have AS quality players at. Wade and Lebron proved that. You could give Jordan any combo of many-time AS caliber SFs, other SGs, or PGs, he'd never win a title unless one of them was Magic or Bird and that's because they were so versatile and could play 4 positions (in addition to being GOATs at their positions).
This I disagree with. While I get what you're saying. Even if Jordan had a Magic or Bird, without quality low post defenders, that type of a team has no shot. Both Jordan and Magic/Bird would put up great stats and them get owned in the playoffs due to lack of interior defense. Especially seeing as hoe both Magic and Bird weren't very good perimeter defenders

Teams with mediocre or worse front courts simply never win titles. It has to have at least 1 quality player. If you gave Jordan/Pippen a front court that was league average in terms of defense/rebounding for their entire careers, neither of them would have ever had a title.
Again id beg to differ. While its true teams don't win without quality bigs, that POV can be easily flipped. You need competant perimeter support too.


That's because Hakeem and Otis Thorpe made up an elite front court.
But the Rockets perimeter players weren't chopped liver. Kenny Smith, Sam Cassel, Vernon Maxwell and Mario Elie played huge roles in Houtons run. Then they essentially replaced Thorpe for Drexler and still won



It's really quite simple. It's all about what positions you have your all-star caliber talent in. The Jazz and Sonics had elite PG/PF combos. An elite PG and big is the ideal formula for winning titles.

How many titles do you think just Jordan/Pippen and an average supporting cast wins against a CP3/Olajuwon combo with average players rounding out their roster? I'd say exactly zero.
Providing they both have the same teams? Id still go with Jordan/Pippen because they're more versitle. They can fill so many holes on a team. And do it at a high level.

I think the main problem is people far too often try to compare players instead of teams. I do agree with Greymatter that its not easy to build around Jordan. Not due to lack of talent, but his mentality wouldn't allow him to share the spotlight with another player.

[guy]

I think the main problem is people far too often try to compare players instead of teams. I do agree with Greymatter that its not easy to build around Jordan. Not due to lack of talent, but his mentality wouldn't allow him to share the spotlight with another player.

Like who? Give an example where that would be an issue.

[KG215]

The Bulls won titles with probably the worst frontcourts in history. Horace Grant wasn't some rare type of player. There were plenty of tough interior defensive PFs in the league back then. He wasn't that much more irreplaceable then someone like Kenny Smith or Vernon Maxwell. And Cartwright and Longley, especially Longley, were probably the worst starting centers to ever win titles.

There's been one combo of an elite PG/elite big that has won titles since 1980, and thats Magic/Kareem, which isn't even saying much considering how much Magic's greatness was from his ability to do things that your typical PG did not do. History suggests that that combo isn't ideal over other combos.

The Bulls were pretty average outside of Jordan/Pippen. For the most part, in the past 25 years or so every playoff team's #3-#12 hasn't been that much better or worse then everyone else and if they have been, those teams have had alot of depth but not that great of a #1-#2.

While I agree with some of what greymatter is saying in principle, I do think he's overstating Grant's ability and importance. In the playoffs, from '91-'93, Grant averaged 12-8-3-1-1 on 56% shooting. That's a quality frontcourt player but nothing special. Grant was, what, a one time All-Star in the mid-90s? No All-NBA teams or All-Defense teams or anything like that. He was someone you could win championships with as the third best player when you had someone as good as Jordan and Pippen as your #1 and #2, but it's not like he was some perennial All-Star that kinda sorta flirted with the HOF after his career was done.

Don't get me wrong, Grant was a good player who was a solid two-way player who filled his role well, but he wasn't some all-time great third option. Obviously you probably can't give Jordan Bill Cartwright and Stacey King or Cliff Levingston and expect them to win a championship, but saying he needed a frontcourt player of Horace Grant's quality as proof as to why he couldn't have won a ring or two in another situation on a different team is pretty "meh" in my opinion.

I know he wasn't a "dime a dozen" type player, but is Grant even a top 5 PF in today's NBA? Maybe at his peak he's in that group with Love, Dirk, Gasol, Bosh, Griffin, Aldridge, and a healthy Amare Stoudeimre. He was a 13 and 9 player at his best, which probably translates to 15 and 10 as a #2 option or something, but it's not like he was Chris Bosh who was averaging 23 and 10 while making All-Star teams and an All-NBA team; or Pau Gasol who was a 19 and 9 guy leading some so-so Memphis teams to the playoffs. I know Grant started his career in Chicago and never really got the chance to prove what he could've done on his own, but you get what I'm saying.

[97 bulls]

Like who? Give an example where that would be an issue.
Shaq, Wilt, James, Bird, Bryant, basically any dominant scorer. And I don't see those guys relinquishing their role or playing a lesser role. Or if they did, their role or impact wouldn't be great enough to bring one championship much less multiple

[KG215]

Shaq, Wilt, James, Bird, Bryant, basically any dominant scorer. And I don't see those guys relinquishing their role or playing a lesser role. Or if they did, their role or impact wouldn't be great enough to bring one championship much less multiple

That's going to the extreme and picking some of the most "alpha" lead-dogs and best scorers in NBA history. Of course Jordan would have a harder time to co-existing with any of them.

[DatAsh]

Shaq, Wilt, James, Bird, Bryant, basically any dominant scorer. And I don't see those guys relinquishing their role or playing a lesser role. Or if they did, their role or impact wouldn't be great enough to bring one championship much less multiple

I definately don't agree with Wilt being on that list. Take a look at the last half of his career. Wilt had no problem switching roles to accommodate other players.

[97 bulls]

While I agree with some of what greymatter is saying in principle, I do think he's overstating Grant's ability and importance. In the playoffs, from '91-'93, Grant averaged 12-8-3-1-1 on 56% shooting. That's a quality frontcourt player but nothing special. Grant was, what, a one time All-Star in the mid-90s? No All-NBA teams or All-Defense teams or anything like that. He was someone you could win championships with as the third best player when you had someone as good as Jordan and Pippen as your #1 and #2, but it's not like he was some perennial All-Star that kinda sorta flirted with the HOF after his career was done.

Don't get me wrong, Grant was a good player who was a solid two-way player who filled his role well, but he wasn't some all-time great third option. Obviously you probably can't give Jordan Bill Cartwright and Stacey King or Cliff Levingston and expect them to win a championship, but saying he needed a frontcourt player of Horace Grant's quality as proof as to why he couldn't have won a ring or two in another situation on a different team is pretty "meh" in my opinion.

I know he wasn't a "dime a dozen" type player, but is Grant even a top 5 PF in today's NBA? Maybe at his peak he's in that group with Love, Dirk, Gasol, Bosh, Griffin, Aldridge, and a healthy Amare Stoudeimre. He was a 13 and 9 player at his best, which probably translates to 15 and 10 as a #2 option or something, but it's not like he was Chris Bosh who was averaging 23 and 10 while making All-Star teams and an All-NBA team; or Pau Gasol who was a 19 and 9 guy leading some so-so Memphis teams to the playoffs. I know Grant started his career in Chicago and never really got the chance to prove what he could've done on his own, but you get what I'm saying.
But Grant wasn't a scorer. His strengths was defense and hustle. And he had much more of that than most of the players you mentioned. For example. Replace Grant with Aldridge. Sure you'll get more offense. But at the expense of rebounding and defense. And with Jordan and Pippen, and that offense. Aldridge would be relegated to just being a Jumpshooter. The same thing Grant was but without the rebounding

[97 bulls]

I definately don't agree with Wilt being on that list. Take a look at the last half of his career. Wilt had no problem switching roles to accommodate other players.
Wilt was in the twighlight of his career. Players tend to do that.

[Money 23]

:biggums:

I never thought I'd see the day when Michael Jordan, the greatest to ever lace them up, would get wrongly critiqued as a player.

He was an extremely durable, super athletic, fiercly intelligent, insanely competitive, flawless player on BOTH sides of the ball.

Only knock on him was in his youth, pre-1996 may have been cutting and overly mean / intense with teammates in order to make warriors of them.

He was the bad cop, to Pippen's good cop.

The myth perpetuated by idiots. Pippen didn't cover up any holes in MJ's game. 1996 - 1998 he just alievated MOUNDS of pressure that Jordan had to carry in his prime / peak with a slowly developing Pippen (molded by Jordan himself over time) ... because it benefitted MJ and the team if MJ didn't have to be the utility guy doing EVERYTHING. He didn't have the wind or the legs to do it at that age for extended periods of time, but he could still do it.

Guy was 35 years old playing MVP caliber ball w/o Pippen, being that do all LeBron-esque type player for over half the regular season and had the Bulls sitting pretty in the ECF with his next best offensive weapons being Scott Burrell and Toni Kukoc? Are you kidding me?

MJ could playmake, and dish off assists with the best of them. He had the perfect basketball mindset. If the other team's offensive player was hot, MJ would want to shut them down and dominate that end of the floor, just as much as he wanted to dominate you on offense.

He poured in buckets, but never at the expense of his teammates, or in self indulgent excess for no reason. He'd make his alpha dominant point, and then proceed to elevate his teammates games.

Literally the perfect player. For both on the floor production in actual SPORTS terms, and for front office considering the MASSIVE amounts of money he brought to his team and the league in general.

He dominated a league that had elite interior presence, which before Jordan was the only thing known to win championships. He dominated a league when it was still more a sport, than an entertainment product with built in soft rules to increase scoring, highlight plays, and boost numbers for the casual / fantasy sports fan.

Sure he got treated well by refs, but he was NEVER, even in a more physical league handed free throws like they do to virtually ANYONE now a days. He scored through actual meaningful buckets. He worked just as well with the ball as without the ball on offense. A lethal ability that has VANISHED from all current guards (except for Ray Allen) let alone superstars, who only know how to do their thing while pounding the rock at the top of the key or elbow extended.

There is no one greater than MJ. At least not yet. To anyone insinuating otherwise, they're either jelly or a Laker slut.

:oldlol: @ anyone who says they wouldn't want to build their team around the best to ever do it.

See alphawolf24, eliteballer and the purple and gold circle jerk crew.

[97 bulls]

That's going to the extreme and picking some of the most "alpha" lead-dogs and best scorers in NBA history. Of course Jordan would have a harder time to co-existing with any of them.
Well he asked. And that's the point. You can't just put anyone next to Jordan and they win multiple rings. But I guess that rule applies to everybody

[DatAsh]

Wilt was in the twighlight of his career. Players tend to do that.

Not at all, just the opposite in fact. Wilt was at his absolute pinnacle as a player when he decreased his fga from 25 a game down to just 14 a game to accommodate the other scorers on his team.

[KG215]

Well he asked. And that's the point. You can't just put anyone next to Jordan and they win multiple rings. But I guess that rule applies to everybody
Right, I agree.

And I understand what Grant's role was, I don't think it was fair of me to compare him to the better PF's of today, or Gasol and Bosh, by using his offensive numbers. I'm just not sure how confident I would be in Grant's ability to even get a team to the playoffs as the #1 option compared to some of those guys. Granted Love and Aldridge missed the playoffs this year and Griffin wasn't his team's best player.

Do you get what I'm saying, though? I feel like greymatter was sort of overstating how good Grant was, especially during the first and probably second year of the 3-peat. Grant really didn't start to peak as a player until the mid-90s in my opinion. He started to emerge during the early 90s during the 3-peat, but I'm not sure you couldn't have gotten similar (or better) production/play out of half a dozen or more PFs in the NBA at that time. Of course they may not have fit those particular Bulls teams as well as Grant.

[guy]

Shaq, Wilt, James, Bird, Bryant, basically any dominant scorer. And I don't see those guys relinquishing their role or playing a lesser role. Or if they did, their role or impact wouldn't be great enough to bring one championship much less multiple

Shaq - played with a lesser SG and didn't get along with him and still won multiple titles.

Wilt - wasn't even the leading scorer on his team in the playoffs when he won his first title in what was arguably his best season.

Lebron - very unselfish and had no problem playing with Wade. One of the greatest passers ever and basically has Pippen's mentality.

Bird - very unselfish and one of the greatest passers ever, and never had a problem dominating the ball.

Kobe - valid but that has way more to do with them playing the same position and having almost the exact same scoring mentality. Even with that being the case, they are arguably way too talented for them not to win.

And there's no reason for them to hold back their game much. It's completely unfounded. In fact it's the lesser role players on a team that usually sacrifice more when stars team up. This whole idea that its hard for two great players to play with each other only came after Kobe and Shaq. It was never brought up before, and even those 2 still won 3 titles together.

[guy]

But Grant wasn't a scorer. His strengths was defense and hustle. And he had much more of that than most of the players you mentioned. For example. Replace Grant with Aldridge. Sure you'll get more offense. But at the expense of rebounding and defense. And with Jordan and Pippen, and that offense. Aldridge would be relegated to just being a Jumpshooter. The same thing Grant was but without the rebounding

Hustle is not a strength in the sense that scoring, defense, and rebounding are. Anyone can hustle.

[guy]

Right, I agree.

And I understand what Grant's role was, I don't think it was fair of me to compare him to the better PF's of today, or Gasol and Bosh, by using his offensive numbers. I'm just not sure how confident I would be in Grant's ability to even get a team to the playoffs as the #1 option compared to some of those guys. Granted Love and Aldridge missed the playoffs this year and Griffin wasn't his team's best player.

Do you get what I'm saying, though? I feel like greymatter was sort of overstating how good Grant was, especially during the first and probably second year of the 3-peat. Grant really didn't start to peak as a player until the mid-90s in my opinion. He started to emerge during the early 90s during the 3-peat, but I'm not sure you couldn't have gotten similar (or better) production/play out of half a dozen or more PFs in the NBA at that time. Of course they may not have fit those particular Bulls teams as well as Grant.

He's clearly overstating him. And Grant as the best player on a team would have a very hard time getting a team to 15 wins, although I don't think he was ever trying to say that.

[KG215]

He's clearly overstating him. And Grant as the best player on a team would have a very hard time getting a team to 15 wins, although I don't think he was ever trying to say that.

Especially since he said teams never won a championship without a quality frontcourt player and then sorta compared Grant to Dirk, KG, Duncan, Gasol, and Bosh. 3/5 of those were perennial All-Stars, All-NBA, and MVP caliber players, and Gasol and Bosh showed they could be 20 and 10-ish guys and lead mediocre teams to 40-50 wins and the playoffs. Again, I'm not trying to say Grant was a run of the mill/dime-a-dozen type PF, but I don't think he was that caliber of player either.

Not sure I'd go as far as saying a team with Horace Grant would have a hard time getting to 15 wins, but I don't think they'd be a playoff caliber team like the Raptors with Bosh and Grizzlies with Gasol.

[97 bulls]

Right, I agree.

And I understand what Grant's role was, I don't think it was fair of me to compare him to the better PF's of today, or Gasol and Bosh, by using his offensive numbers. I'm just not sure how confident I would be in Grant's ability to even get a team to the playoffs as the #1 option compared to some of those guys. Granted Love and Aldridge missed the playoffs this year and Griffin wasn't his team's best player.

Do you get what I'm saying, though? I feel like greymatter was sort of overstating how good Grant was, especially during the first and probably second year of the 3-peat. Grant really didn't start to peak as a player until the mid-90s in my opinion. He started to emerge during the early 90s during the 3-peat, but I'm not sure you couldn't have gotten similar (or better) production/play out of half a dozen or more PFs in the NBA at that time. Of course they may not have fit those particular Bulls teams as well as Grant.
True. I see your point. The opposite end is Grant would flounder in Aldridges role in Portland.

I guess I just get confrontational because I'm more about teams as opposed to talent. Chemistry is probably the most important aspect in team sports. Id bet a team full of less or not so talented players would whip a bunch of individuals. Not everyone can score. There's only one ball and its shared between five people on the court. And there's soo many different variables that its just not eay to plug an play. You can't just plug Jordan into Birds role and expect the Celtics to not miss a beat. Why? Because Jordan liked to penetrate as opposed to being solely a jumpshooter which Bird was. Now Mchale, and Parrish have to find ways to be effective without clogging the paint. What do Longley, Wennington, Kliene, and Cartwright all have in common? They all could shoot. That's what made them valuable. They weren't gonna get you 20 ppg but they'd make you pay if you left them. I would say that second threepeat Jordan could do what Bird did and then some because of his defense.

How bout Bird on the Bulls? The Celtics offense revolved around setting picks and screens for Bird and then he either shot or passed based on how the defense played it. Or when Bird didn't have it, (which happened more than you guys would care to admit) they'd post up Mchale and Parrish. He wouldn't have that luxery with the Bulls. He'd be much easier to guard with Bigs that are so limited offensively. Pippens offensensive role would increase but at the expense of running the team. Perhaps while having Kukoc handle more of the facilitating duties. And his defense? Forget it. The Bulls defense would fall so far. If Bird were expected to do what Jordan did on defense.


Both players teams were built perfectlyfor them because they catered to their strengths.

[TheBigVeto]

Yes
/thread

[97 bulls]

Shaq - played with a lesser SG and didn't get along with him and still won multiple titles.
They should've won many more. And the teams they played in the Finasl weren't. Very good. Sure the Western conference was tough but that's the case for most roads Champions took.


Wilt - wasn't even the leading scorer on his team in the playoffs when he won his first title in what was arguably his best season.
I guess it depends on who you talk to. Wilt struck me as a selfish player. I remember the disdain on his face when Glen Rice broke his record in the allstar game. Or the multiple jabs at Jordan during Jordans reign. But I'm supposed to believe he'd be willing to take a back set to Jordan? Come on


Lebron - very unselfish and had no problem playing with Wade. One of the greatest passers ever and basically has Pippen's mentality.
James needs the ball in his hands. We saw how he'd do when Wade dominated the ball and he was relegated to a lesser role.


Bird - very unselfish and one of the greatest passers ever, and never had a problem dominating the ball.
But his defense is bad. The theory is who could Jordan win with without having any competant bigs


Kobe - valid but that has way more to do with them playing the same position and having almost the exact same scoring mentality. Even with that being the case, they are arguably way too talented for them not to win.
Then perhaps you'd like to explain why the 04 olympic team had such a hard time winning ball games much less a medal.


And there's no reason for them to hold back their game much. It's completely unfounded. In fact it's the lesser role players on a team that usually sacrifice more when stars team up. This whole idea that its hard for two great players to play with each other only came after Kobe and Shaq. It was never brought up before, and even those 2 still won 3 titles together.
It was never brought up before because it rarely happens. Magic was young in Jabaars heyday. Then when Jabbar aged began to show, their role changed. Pippen was an alltime great talent, but he was a team player by nature. When did Jabaar and Robertson get together? When Jabaar was young and Robertson was aging. Duncan and Robinson? Wilt/West? Drexler/Olajuwon? It rarely happens that two super talented players find themselves on the same team in their primes. Erving and Malone is another example.

[97 bulls]

Hustle is not a strength in the sense that scoring, defense, and rebounding are. Anyone can hustle.
Lol true. But not everyone does. And even when a player does, can they sustain it for 38 minutes? Over a week? A month? A season? A career?

Truth be told, everyone in the NBA can score.

[Bigsmoke]

we would have Michael Jordan and Nas commercials.

two G.O.A.T.s :pimp:

[guy]

They should've won many more. And the teams they played in the Finasl weren't. Very good. Sure the Western conference was tough but that's the case for most roads Champions took.

Okay, but the only season they lost arguably because of their inability to get along was 2004, and even that is arguable. The other 4 seasons they lost had nothing to do with that. They always had great on-court chemistry. The biggest reason they didn't win in those first 3 years together was cause Kobe just wasn't that good yet. Jordan was great from day 1 of his career, and he was a greater player in general. And even with that being the case, they won 3 titles like I said. You said they wouldn't even win 1, which is ridiculous. Now of course you can argue they would break up early due to chemistry, which is what actually happened. But even with that being the case, any 8-year Bulls version of Jordan + any 8-year version of Shaq before 2007 together for 8 years might win a title every year.



I guess it depends on who you talk to. Wilt struck me as a selfish player. I remember the disdain on his face when Glen Rice broke his record in the allstar game. Or the multiple jabs at Jordan during Jordans reign. But I'm supposed to believe he'd be willing to take a back set to Jordan? Come on

So you think a facial expression and a few comments from Wilt decades after he played is greater evidence then WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? :oldlol: It does not depend on who you talk to. This happened IN REAL LIFE. Wilt in his prime deferred to lesser players then Jordan.



James needs the ball in his hands. We saw how he'd do when Wade dominated the ball and he was relegated to a lesser role.

Jordan's a much better player then Wade and not nearly as ball-dominant as he is one of the greatest off-ball players ever. Even with all the problems Wade and Lebron had in their first year, they lost mainly cause Lebron had the greatest choking in NBA history. Not because they couldn't play together. Had Lebron played the way he played the first 3 rounds, they would've won it. And if it was Jordan instead of Wade, they might've still won despite Lebron's choking because Jordan is clearly a greater player then Wade.

And if anything, the main problem they ran into alot was cause Wade had the alpha-mentality while not actually having greater talent then Lebron to justify Lebron not taking over when he should. That wouldn't be the case with Jordan.



But his defense is bad. The theory is who could Jordan win with without having any competant bigs

No, we weren't talking competent bigs, or whoever else was around. You were saying you can't see them winning together regardless. Bird's defense wasn't nearly as bad as you've made it to be. Put Bird in place of Pippen and they are still a great defensive team because they still have great defenders and are coached great on defense. They wouldn't be as great defensively, but still great, while clearly being a great offensive team. There is no team during that time that would've beaten Jordan/Bird/Grant/Paxson/Armstrong/etc. or Jordan/Bird/Rodman/Kukoc/Harper/etc and it would be completely silly to suggest there would've been anywhere close to 6 teams that would've beaten them. That goes for Lebron in Pippen's place as well.



Then perhaps you'd like to explain why the 04 olympic team had such a hard time winning ball games much less a medal.

No offense, but this is a really stupid comparison. If we just put Kobe and Jordan together randomly with 10 other random players and gave them a few weeks of practice, gave them a 5 game season, and then expected them to play a 3 round single game elimination tournament, I wouldn't be surprised if they lost (I'd still put alot more faith in them and would probably predict them to win still cause Jordan and Kobe aren't exactly AI and Marbury). That's completely different then a 1 month training camp+1 month preseason+82 game season+4 round best of 7 playoffs+continuity from previous seasons in the following seasons.



It was never brought up before because it rarely happens. Magic was young in Jabaars heyday. Then when Jabbar aged began to show, their role changed. Pippen was an alltime great talent, but he was a team player by nature. When did Jabaar and Robertson get together? When Jabaar was young and Robertson was aging. Duncan and Robinson? Wilt/West? Drexler/Olajuwon? It rarely happens that two super talented players find themselves on the same team in their primes. Erving and Malone is another example.

Right, that exact scenario where its two in their primes rarely happens. Which is why there's not much of a basis for this claim. What we do know is great players have gotten together and won multiple titles, and if they didn't, it wasn't cause of the chemistry issues you have brought up. The one case where chemistry was arguably ever a problem, that team still won 3 titles. Like I said, its unfounded. Its just a narrative that people want to generalize the whole NBA history with because of one team that was actually one of the few dynasties we've seen in the NBA :oldlol:

And by the way, what makes Pippen more of a team player "by nature" then other players that have been mentioned? It seems like just cause a player can and/or did average 30 ppg whenever they wanted, you seem to assume that didn't make them team players. In fact, you can argue that all of those players have held back themselves individually from what they were capable of more then Pippen did.


Lol true. But not everyone does. And even when a player does, can they sustain it for 38 minutes? Over a week? A month? A season? A career?

Truth be told, everyone in the NBA can score.

Yes but not everyone can score at the same level. If a player is in the best shape, he can sustain it up to his own capacity. Thats more about energy and stamina. Hustle is basically effort. Thats not a skill you actually work to get better at like scoring, rebounding, defense, etc.

[guy]

Especially since he said teams never won a championship without a quality frontcourt player and then sorta compared Grant to Dirk, KG, Duncan, Gasol, and Bosh. 3/5 of those were perennial All-Stars, All-NBA, and MVP caliber players, and Gasol and Bosh showed they could be 20 and 10-ish guys and lead mediocre teams to 40-50 wins and the playoffs. Again, I'm not trying to say Grant was a run of the mill/dime-a-dozen type PF, but I don't think he was that caliber of player either.

Not sure I'd go as far as saying a team with Horace Grant would have a hard time getting to 15 wins, but I don't think they'd be a playoff caliber team like the Raptors with Bosh and Grizzlies with Gasol.

Well it depends on whats around him. But when you said no. 1 option, did you mean no. 1 scorer? Cause if thats the case, then that team would have a hard time not being the worst team in NBA history :oldlol:

[KG215]

Well it depends on whats around him. But when you said no. 1 option, did you mean no. 1 scorer? Cause if thats the case, then that team would have a hard time not being the worst team in NBA history :oldlol:

#1 option might've been a bad way to put it. I meant if he was the best player on the team. I know it'd be hard for him to have been viewed as such without leading the team in scoring (as dumb as that would be), but still. The only reason I say 15 wins might be too low is because that's really awful.

[guy]

#1 option might've been a bad way to put it. I meant if he was the best player on the team. I know it'd be hard for him to have been viewed as such without leading the team in scoring (as dumb as that would be), but still. The only reason I say 15 wins might be too low is because that's really awful.

Plenty of players have been the best player on a team without leading in scoring. But yea, 15 wins might be too low.

[greymatter]

He's clearly overstating him. And Grant as the best player on a team would have a very hard time getting a team to 15 wins, although I don't think he was ever trying to say that.

I never said anything to suggest that Grant was anything but an excellent, but never quite AS caliber player. As far as his impact goes, he was a 4 time all NBA 2nd team defender. Considering that the only better defender at his position during that stretch was Rodman -the guy he'd eventually be replaced with- I'd say that he's in pretty good company.

[greymatter]

Especially since he said teams never won a championship without a quality frontcourt player and then sorta compared Grant to Dirk, KG, Duncan, Gasol, and Bosh. 3/5 of those were perennial All-Stars, All-NBA, and MVP caliber players, and Gasol and Bosh showed they could be 20 and 10-ish guys and lead mediocre teams to 40-50 wins and the playoffs. Again, I'm not trying to say Grant was a run of the mill/dime-a-dozen type PF, but I don't think he was that caliber of player either.

Grant was a 4 time all NBA 2nd team defender. The only guy better than him during that stretch at PF was Rodman. Grant may not have been as great an individual talent as any of the others I mentioned, but his impact was easily as great as Gasol's or Bosh's given how the Bulls were built.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Grant was a 4 time all NBA 2nd team defender. The only guy better than him during that stretch at PF was Rodman. Grant may not have been as great an individual talent as any of the others I mentioned, but his impact was easily as great as Gasol's or Bosh's given how the Bulls were built.

You're out of your mind if you think his impact was equal to Bosh's or especially Gasol's during '08-'11. Pure insanity. :oldlol:

Buck Williams made two defensive first teams and one second team from '90-'92, and Grant made all of his four second teams from '93 onward. So MJ only had one season of defensive second team Grant, yet somehow Williams isn't equal or better defensively than Grant during the first three-peat stretch? Okay... :oldlol:

[greymatter]

I guess I just get confrontational because I'm more about teams as opposed to talent. Chemistry is probably the most important aspect in team sports. Id bet a team full of less or not so talented players would whip a bunch of individuals. Not everyone can score. There's only one ball and its shared between five people on the court. And there's soo many different variables that its just not eay to plug an play. You can't just plug Jordan into Birds role and expect the Celtics to not miss a beat. Why? Because Jordan liked to penetrate as opposed to being solely a jumpshooter which Bird was. Now Mchale, and Parrish have to find ways to be effective without clogging the paint. What do Longley, Wennington, Kliene, and Cartwright all have in common? They all could shoot. That's what made them valuable. They weren't gonna get you 20 ppg but they'd make you pay if you left them. I would say that second threepeat Jordan could do what Bird did and then some because of his defense.

Agree.



How bout Bird on the Bulls? The Celtics offense revolved around setting picks and screens for Bird and then he either shot or passed based on how the defense played it. Or when Bird didn't have it, (which happened more than you guys would care to admit) they'd post up Mchale and Parrish. He wouldn't have that luxery with the Bulls. He'd be much easier to guard with Bigs that are so limited offensively. Pippens offensensive role would increase but at the expense of running the team. Perhaps while having Kukoc handle more of the facilitating duties. And his defense? Forget it. The Bulls defense would fall so far. If Bird were expected to do what Jordan did on defense.

Disagree. Bird was an underrated defender. Bird was also an excellent post player and would have had a field day hitting Armstrong, Pip, and whatever shooters you surrounded him with for easy looks. What gets constantly overlooked on ISH is the fact that Bird didn't have McHale and Parish until his 2nd year. His rookie year he only led his team to 61 wins for a whopping +32 turnaround from the year before. Bird didn't have to have a team crafted for him, unlike Jordan, hence why it's no comparison as to whom was the better teammate.

[greymatter]

You're out of your mind if you think his impact was equal to Bosh's or especially Gasol's during '08-'11. Pure insanity. :oldlol:

The #1 Jordan groupie has weighed in. Whoopee.

Someone apparently doesn't remember the offensive rebound that led to Paxson's 3 in game 6 of the 93 finals and in the ensuing play where he blocked Kevin Johnson's floater attempt to seal the game.

[OldSchoolBBall]

The #1 Jordan groupie has weighed in. Whoopee.

Someone apparently doesn't remember the offensive rebound that led to Paxson's 3 in game 6 of the 93 finals and in the ensuing play where he blocked Kevin Johnson's floater attempt to seal the game.

Yeah, and Gasol has about 500 critical offensive rebounds in the playoffs. Try again.

lmao @ you suggesting that Grant = Gasol in impact. So sad. :facepalm Try Pippen vs. Gasol to get an actual realistic comparison.

[KG215]

Grant was a 4 time all NBA 2nd team defender. The only guy better than him during that stretch at PF was Rodman. Grant may not have been as great an individual talent as any of the others I mentioned, but his impact was easily as great as Gasol's or Bosh's given how the Bulls were built.

Again, you're not looking at the right years. As OldSchoolBBall pointed out, Grant made his All-Defense teams from '93 on. Like I already said, Grant during the first two years of the 3-peat was a good player, but nothing special compared to who knows how many other frontcourt players on championship teams.

I'm not disagreeing with your theory in princple, I just think you are way overstating how good Horace Grant was, especially in '91 and '92.

[guy]

The #1 Jordan groupie has weighed in. Whoopee.

Someone apparently doesn't remember the offensive rebound that led to Paxson's 3 in game 6 of the 93 finals and in the ensuing play where he blocked Kevin Johnson's floater attempt to seal the game.

Someone doesn't remember that there was never an offensive rebound on that play at all.

The idea that Grant had the same impact as Gasol is absolutely ridiculous.

[Money 23]

Yeah, and Gasol has about 500 critical offensive rebounds in the playoffs. Try again.
Like the game winning tip in to win the critical game v.s. OKC in game 6 (2010)

Or Artest rebound and game winning putback of a Kobe airball to win a playoff game v.s. Phoenix in 2010 as well.

[97 bulls]

Okay, but the only season they lost arguably because of their inability to get along was 2004, and even that is arguable. The other 4 seasons they lost had nothing to do with that. They always had great on-court chemistry. The biggest reason they didn't win in those first 3 years together was cause Kobe just wasn't that good yet. Jordan was great from day 1 of his career, and he was a greater player in general. And even with that being the case, they won 3 titles like I said. You said they wouldn't even win 1, which is ridiculous. Now of course you can argue they would break up early due to chemistry, which is what actually happened. But even with that being the case, any 8-year Bulls version of Jordan + any 8-year version of Shaq before 2007 together for 8 years might win a title every year.
Shaq and Kobe won two championships with what Id consider Kobe in his prime. After two years, of in-fighting they were done. They won mainly due to a lack of great teams. San Antonio was in transition. And Sacremento got jobbed. Hell if I remember correct, Duncan didn't even play in the playoffs in 00. I just done see Jordan and Shaq coexiting for 3 years much less 8.



So you think a facial expression and a few comments from Wilt decades after he played is greater evidence then WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? :oldlol: It does not depend on who you talk to. This happened IN REAL LIFE. Wilt in his prime deferred to lesser players then Jordan.
Wiltss reaction to players breaking his records or getting compared to his dominance were real too bro. Its clear he did not like it. But I'm supposed to believe he could've coexited with Jordan for the prime of his career and play second fiddle? I guess I'm just more street smart than you.


Jordan's a much better player then Wade and not nearly as ball-dominant as he is one of the greatest off-ball players ever. Even with all the problems Wade and Lebron had in their first year, they lost mainly cause Lebron had the greatest choking in NBA history. Not because they couldn't play together. Had Lebron played the way he played the first 3 rounds, they would've won it. And if it was Jordan instead of Wade, they might've still won despite Lebron's choking because Jordan is clearly a greater player then Wade.
The latter might be true. Regardless. James impact is minimal when he can't have total control of the ball. We saw that.


And if anything, the main problem they ran into alot was cause Wade had the alpha-mentality while not actually having greater talent then Lebron to justify Lebron not taking over when he should. That wouldn't be the case with Jordan.
Wade had a great series. He wasn't the problem. James defense or lack there of was the problem


No, we weren't talking competent bigs, or whoever else was around. You were saying you can't see them winning together regardless. Bird's defense wasn't nearly as bad as you've made it to be. Put Bird in place of Pippen and they are still a great defensive team because they still have great defenders and are coached great on defense. They wouldn't be as great defensively, but still great, while clearly being a great offensive team. There is no team during that time that would've beaten Jordan/Bird/Grant/Paxson/Armstrong/etc. or Jordan/Bird/Rodman/Kukoc/Harper/etc and it would be completely silly to suggest there would've been anywhere close to 6 teams that would've beaten them. That goes for Lebron in Pippen's place as well.
I never said the Bulls couldn't win if Pippen were replaced with the players you mentioned. The argument was centered around two great players winning with no help. It won't happen. Especially when the two players are perimeter oriented


No offense, but this is a really stupid comparison. If we just put Kobe and Jordan together randomly with 10 other random players and gave them a few weeks of practice, gave them a 5 game season, and then expected them to play a 3 round single game elimination tournament, I wouldn't be surprised if they lost (I'd still put alot more faith in them and would probably predict them to win still cause Jordan and Kobe aren't exactly AI and Marbury). That's completely different then a 1 month training camp+1 month preseason+82 game season+4 round best of 7 playoffs+continuity from previous seasons in the following seasons.
No offense but it seems as if you're comprehension skills are minimal at best. My point is you can't just win chmpionships based on talent. That 04 olympic team team was not made up of a couple great players and afterthoughts. They were the best the NBA had to offer and they got their ass handed to them by lesser players as far as talent, but a much better team


Right, that exact scenario where its two in their primes rarely happens. Which is why there's not much of a basis for this claim. What we do know is great players have gotten together and won multiple titles, and if they didn't, it wasn't cause of the chemistry issues you have brought up. The one case where chemistry was arguably ever a problem, that team still won 3 titles. Like I said, its unfounded. Its just a narrative that people want to generalize the whole NBA history with because of one team that was actually one of the few dynasties we've seen in the NBA :oldlol:
Its not unfounded. It just flatout doesn't happen. What basis do you have to say it does? How often do two great players spend their primes together?


And by the way, what makes Pippen more of a team player "by nature" then other players that have been mentioned? It seems like just cause a player can and/or did average 30 ppg whenever they wanted, you seem to assume that didn't make them team players. In fact, you can argue that all of those players have held back themselves individually from what they were capable of more then Pippen did.
When I say by nature I mean he didn't have to sacrifice his scoring much because he was more of a do everything player. And notice I said MUCH. Knowing you that sentence will be misconstrude all kinds of ways. Pippens impact went way past scoring. And that's why him and Joran complimented each other so well and were so successful. I don't see Bird being able to do what Pippen did with the Bulls defensively. And he would have to find some way to effect the game because his scoring would suffer in that offense along with playing alongside Jordan.


Yes but not everyone can score at the same level. If a player is in the best shape, he can sustain it up to his own capacity. Thats more about energy and stamina. Hustle is basically effort. Thats not a skill you actually work to get better at like scoring, rebounding, defense, etc.
But not everyone has it. And you feel they do. Not everyone is able to have the motor of a kevin love. Its a great asset to have.

[97 bulls]

Someone doesn't remember that there was never an offensive rebound on that play at all.

The idea that Grant had the same impact as Gasol is absolutely ridiculous.
Well he did pass the ball to paxson for the gamwinning shot. Then got the game saving block on Johnson

[greymatter]

Someone doesn't remember that there was never an offensive rebound on that play at all.

I remembered wrong, so sue me. Grant made the assist on that wide open look.



The idea that Grant had the same impact as Gasol is absolutely ridiculous.

Grant is easily the superior defender and was the lone enforcer on Chicago's interior defense. Without Gasol, the Lakers still had 2 other quality defenders in Bynum and Odom on the inside.

[OldSchoolBBall]

I remembered wrong, so sue me. Grant made the assist on that wide open look.



Grant is easily the superior defender and was the lone enforcer on Chicago's interior defense. Without Gasol, the Lakers still had 2 other quality defenders in Bynum and Odom on the inside.

lol @ calling Grant an enforcer first of all. :oldlol: And Gasol was no slouch in terms of defensive impact. He did a very, very good job in terms of post defense against guys like Duncan, KG, and Howard during the Lakers' runs, and his length alone with a deterrent to penetration. And, of course, his offensive impact absolutely dwarfs anything Grant can muster.

Again: you're delusional if you think Grant = Gasol. That's just a joke.

[greymatter]

Yeah, and Gasol has about 500 critical offensive rebounds in the playoffs. Try again.

And Grant didn't? Grant's defensive clutchness >> anything Gasol will ever be remembered for.


lmao @ you suggesting that Grant = Gasol in impact. So sad. :facepalm Try Pippen vs. Gasol to get an actual realistic comparison.

Given how these teams were constructed, Grant's impact most definitely = Gasol. You aren't taking into account into how those teams were built and what their absences meant. Without Gasol, the Lakers had no decent 2nd option on offense, but still had a solid interior defense. Without Grant, the Bulls had no interior presence at all on defense. Neither team could win a championship without them. Simple as that.

[greymatter]

lol @ calling Grant an enforcer first of all. :oldlol:

Where were the Bulls without Horace Grant? Oh yes, sucking Orlando Magic balls until they got Dennis Rodman.



And Gasol was no slouch in terms of defensive impact. He did a very, very good job in terms of post defense against guys like Duncan, KG, and Howard during the Lakers' runs, and his length alone with a deterrent to penetration. And, of course, his offensive impact absolutely dwarfs anything Grant can muster.

Again: you're delusional if you think Grant = Gasol. That's just a joke.

I never said Grant = Gasol. Clearly Gasol is the better overall player. And clearly you don't know how to ****ing read. In terms of what each player giving what their teams need in order to win, Grant was easily as important to the Bulls as Gasol was to LA. You aren't factoring in what each player means to their team's chemistry.

[greymatter]

lol @ calling Grant an enforcer first of all. :oldlol:

Grant was remembered for being "hard-nosed" and "gritty". What's Gasol remembered for? Oh yeah, "Gasoft".

[97 bulls]

Id have to agree with greymatter. Grant overall impact was on par with Gasol. Neither team could win a championship without the two.

[greymatter]

Again, you're not looking at the right years. As OldSchoolBBall pointed out, Grant made his All-Defense teams from '93 on. Like I already said, Grant during the first two years of the 3-peat was a good player, but nothing special compared to who knows how many other frontcourt players on championship teams.

Grant didn't suddenly become an elite defender at PF from 93 on. He was already very good. Larry Nance and Buck Williams (in addition to Dennis Rodman) just happened to be a little better and then got too old.


I'm not disagreeing with your theory in princple, I just think you are way overstating how good Horace Grant was, especially in '91 and '92.

Again, I'm not hyping up Grant's overall talent as a player. I know he's clearly inferior to all the other PFs from all the recent championship teams I listed. My whole point is that he epitomizes the concept of whole >> sum of all parts when taking into account how he fit into his team and what his absence meant. It was clear as day to MJ and Pip. They were willing to take on the league's biggest ****ing headcase in Dennis Rodman because they knew that's exactly what they needed to challenge for a title.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Id have to agree with greymatter. Grant overall impact was on par with Gasol. Neither team could win a championship without the two.

God... :oldlol:

We can add this to your list of outlandish statements, like Pippen > Bird/Magic. :oldlol:

[Money 23]

Where were the Bulls without Horace Grant? Oh yes, sucking Orlando Magic balls until they got Dennis Rodman.
You do realize, that with a total LACK of a legit PF on the roster the Bulls almost took the Magic 7 games, if it weren't for a WIDE OPEN blown layup by 7'2 Luc Longely at the end of game 6 thanks to a for sure playmaking assist from Jordan.

How exactly was that sucking balls?

:biggums:

[DatAsh]

True. I see your point. The opposite end is Grant would flounder in Aldridges role in Portland.

I guess I just get confrontational because I'm more about teams as opposed to talent. Chemistry is probably the most important aspect in team sports. Id bet a team full of less or not so talented players would whip a bunch of individuals. Not everyone can score. There's only one ball and its shared between five people on the court. And there's soo many different variables that its just not eay to plug an play. You can't just plug Jordan into Birds role and expect the Celtics to not miss a beat. Why? Because Jordan liked to penetrate as opposed to being solely a jumpshooter which Bird was. Now Mchale, and Parrish have to find ways to be effective without clogging the paint. What do Longley, Wennington, Kliene, and Cartwright all have in common? They all could shoot. That's what made them valuable. They weren't gonna get you 20 ppg but they'd make you pay if you left them. I would say that second threepeat Jordan could do what Bird did and then some because of his defense.

How bout Bird on the Bulls? The Celtics offense revolved around setting picks and screens for Bird and then he either shot or passed based on how the defense played it. Or when Bird didn't have it, (which happened more than you guys would care to admit) they'd post up Mchale and Parrish. He wouldn't have that luxery with the Bulls. He'd be much easier to guard with Bigs that are so limited offensively. Pippens offensensive role would increase but at the expense of running the team. Perhaps while having Kukoc handle more of the facilitating duties. And his defense? Forget it. The Bulls defense would fall so far. If Bird were expected to do what Jordan did on defense.


Both players teams were built perfectlyfor them because they catered to their strengths.

You bring up some interesting points here. Chemistry does play a large role in overall team success. In a lot of ways I credit chemistry for the fact that Lebron was having more RS success in Cleveland than he is in Miami. Clevland was an example of team with loads of chemistry and little talent, while Miami is a paragon for loads of talent and little chemistry.

I generally think second three peat Jordan's defense is overrated. How big of a gap do you see between him and prime Bird? While I'll acknowledge that a gap does exist, I don't think it's anywhere near as big as you're making it out to be.

[OldSchoolBBall]

You bring up some interesting points here. Chemistry does play a large role in overall team success. In a lot of ways I credit chemistry for the fact that Lebron was having more RS success in Cleveland than he is in Miami. Clevland was an example of team with loads of chemistry and little talent, while Miami is a paragon for loads of talent and little chemistry.

I generally think second three peat Jordan's defense is overrated. How big of a gap do you see between him and prime Bird? While I'll acknowledge that a gap does exist, I don't think it's anywhere near as big as you're making it out to be.

There was still an enormous gap between second three-peat MJ's defense and any version of Bird.

[greymatter]

You do realize, that with a total LACK of a legit PF on the roster the Bulls almost took the Magic 7 games, if it weren't for a WIDE OPEN blown layup by 7'2 Luc Longely at the end of game 6 thanks to a for sure playmaking assist from Jordan.

How exactly was that sucking balls?

:biggums:

Even though the Magic had the better record, there were more than a few analysts picking Chicago over Orlando due to the inexperience factor. Shaq and Penny were in their 3rd and 2nd years respectively. After being swept by the Pacers the year before, the majority of "experts" were picking an upset by Chicago.

[DatAsh]

Id have to agree with greymatter. Grant overall impact was on par with Gasol. Neither team could win a championship without the two.

This is one of the silliest comments I've heard in awhile. Grant's impact is similar to Gasols? and did I hear Bosh?

People here are letting their bias get in the way of rational thought process.

Horace Grant is a 14/10/3 type player with solid defense.
Chris Bosh is a 24/9/4 player with solid defense.

Don't get me wrong, chemistry is important - that I agree with - , but chemistry only goes so far. The Bulls would have traded two Horace Grants for a player of Bosh's caliber, and it would have improved the team drastically. This is not some minor difference. This is like saying that the Knicks wouldn't improve by trading Carmelo for Lebron, and then citing chemistry as the reason.

[OldSchoolBBall]

This is one of the silliest comments I've heard in awhile. Grant's impact is similar to Gasols? and did I hear Bosh?

People here are letting their bias get in the way of rational thought process.

Horace Grant is a 14/10/3 type player with solid defense.
Chris Bosh is a 24/9/4 player with solid defense.

Don't get me wrong, chemistry is important - that I agree with - , but chemistry only goes so far. The Bulls would have traded two Horace Grant's for a player of Bosh's caliber, and it would have improved the team drastically. This is not some minor difference. This is like saying that the Knicks wouldn't improve by trading Carmelo for Lebron, and then citing chemistry as the reason.

Even that is understating the difference, since Bosh can create 23+ ppg largely on his own offense, while Grant was dependent on MJ/Pip (and later Penny and Shaq) setting him up for the majority of his buckets both inside and on the perimeter off player movement due to double teaming on the stars or penetration. The difference is enormous.

[greymatter]

This is one of the silliest comments I've heard in awhile. Grant's impact is similar to Gasols? and did I hear Bosh?

People here are letting their bias get in the way of rational thought process.

Horace Grant is a 14/10/3 type player with solid defense.
Chris Bosh is a 24/9/4 player with solid defense.

Don't get me wrong, chemistry is important - that I agree with - , but chemistry only goes so far. The Bulls would have traded two Horace Grant's for a player of Bosh's caliber, and it would have improved the team drastically. This is not some minor difference. This is like saying that the Knicks wouldn't improve by trading Carmelo for Lebron, and then citing chemistry as the reason.

The Bulls wouldn't have "improved drastically". Just look at Bosh's role with the Heat. The fact that Bosh is capable of putting up 24ppg as a first option is useless when he's a 3rd option. He needs others to feed him or run PnRs in order to get involved in the offense to get his 18ppg. Grant didn't need any plays run for him in order to be effective. He could get his 13-14ppg mostly off garbage buckets or kickouts for his rock solid 12-18ft jumper all while playing much better defense.

The Bulls would still win a few titles, but would be more exposed in certain matchups where defense was more crucial. If you replaced Grant/Rodman with Bosh, the Bulls probably lose to the 93 Suns and maybe the 96 Sonics.

[DatAsh]

The Bulls wouldn't have "improved drastically". Just look at Bosh's role with the Heat. The fact that Bosh is capable of putting up 24ppg as a first option is useless when he's a 3rd option. He needs others to feed him or run PnRs in order to get involved in the offense to get his 18ppg. Grant didn't need any plays run for him in order to be effective. He could get his 13-14ppg mostly off garbage buckets or kickouts for his rock solid 12-18ft jumper all while playing much better defense.

The Bulls would still win a few titles, but would be more exposed in certain matchups where defense was more crucial. If you replaced Grant/Rodman with Bosh, the Bulls probably lose to the 93 Suns and maybe the 96 Sonics.


What nonsense - especially the bold. They would get worse wish Bosh in place of Grant? Now I've heard it all. Bosh is 95% the defender that Grant is, and twice the offensive player. They would improve DRASTICALLY with Bosh in place of Grant.

These Bulls fans are some of the most blatantly biased posters on this site.

[DatAsh]

There was still an enormous gap between second three-peat MJ's defense and any version of Bird.

I just don't see it when watching the two. Second three peat Jordan took many games off on the defensive end to conserve energy for offense. There exists a clear gap between first three peat Jordan and second three peat Jordan on the defensive end, in my opinion.

[Nevaeh]

The Bulls wouldn't have "improved drastically". Just look at Bosh's role with the Heat. The fact that Bosh is capable of putting up 24ppg as a first option is useless when he's a 3rd option. He needs others to feed him or run PnRs in order to get involved in the offense to get his 18ppg. Grant didn't need any plays run for him in order to be effective. He could get his 13-14ppg mostly off garbage buckets or kickouts for his rock solid 12-18ft jumper all while playing much better defense.

The Bulls would still win a few titles, but would be more exposed in certain matchups where defense was more crucial. If you replaced Grant/Rodman with Bosh, the Bulls probably lose to the 93 Suns and maybe the 96 Sonics.

With Jordan and Pip pushing him to think "defense", I'm sure Bosh would have no problem against those teams. His offense, and ability to knock down shots from ANYWHERE as has been proven, would just be icing on the cake. If you watched Bosh in last season's Finals, you would know that he's no push over defensively.

Those Bulls teams had a defensive "culture" thanks to Phil Jackson and his assistant coaches. If anything, a player like Bosh would have been a God send, because he would stretch opposing team's defenses in ways that Rodman and Grant can only dream about.

[Poochymama]

The Bulls would still win a few titles, but would be more exposed in certain matchups where defense was more crucial. If you replaced Grant/Rodman with Bosh, the Bulls probably lose to the 93 Suns and maybe the 96 Sonics.


:roll: :roll: :roll:

You just went full retard with that statement.

[Poochymama]

With Jordan and Pip pushing him to think "defense", I'm sure Bosh would have no problem against those teams. His offense, and ability to knock down shots from ANYWHERE as has been proven, would just be icing on the cake. If you watched Bosh in last season's Finals, you would know that he's no push over defensively.

Those Bulls teams had a defensive "culture" thanks to Phil Jackson and his assistant coaches. If anything, a player like Bosh would have been a God send, because he would stretch opposing team's defenses in ways that Rodman and Grant can only dream about.


Those Bulls team's would have been laughably unfair with Bosh in place of Grant.

[greymatter]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

You just went full retard with that statement.

Yet another imbecile who simply thinks you can randomly swap out parts to upgrade a team. No doubt you'd think that Chamberlain would have won 11 titles if he were swapped for Russell.

[greymatter]

What nonsense - especially the bold. They would get worse wish Bosh in place of Grant? Now I've heard it all. Bosh is 95% the defender that Grant is, and twice the offensive player. They would improve DRASTICALLY with Bosh in place of Grant.

These Bulls fans are some of the most blatantly biased posters on this site.

You vastly overrate Bosh's defense. He's solid, but not great. And certainly isn't ever going to be knocking on any All-NBA defensive squads.

FYI, I am most certainly not a Bulls fan. I'm a Magic fan. When Horace Grant rolled into town, he became the team leader for the grittiness and mental toughness he brought the team. He's became that glue guy that Orlando needed to break into legit title contenders.

Chicago had a solid 3a/3b combo on offense with Grant and Armstrong. Replacing Grant with Bosh wasn't going to add much more offensive efficiency just like sticking Karl Malone on the Lakers didn't suddenly make them that much better of an offensive team. The upgrade of a 3rd option on offense when the first two already put up 50+ ppg isn't going to make much of a difference when one guy averages 14ppg and the other 18ppg as 3rd options.

[OldSchoolBBall]

The Bulls wouldn't have "improved drastically". Just look at Bosh's role with the Heat. The fact that Bosh is capable of putting up 24ppg as a first option is useless when he's a 3rd option. He needs others to feed him or run PnRs in order to get involved in the offense to get his 18ppg. Grant didn't need any plays run for him in order to be effective. He could get his 13-14ppg mostly off garbage buckets or kickouts for his rock solid 12-18ft jumper all while playing much better defense.

The Bulls would still win a few titles, but would be more exposed in certain matchups where defense was more crucial. If you replaced Grant/Rodman with Bosh, the Bulls probably lose to the 93 Suns and maybe the 96 Sonics.

What you fail to realize is that Bosh would be getting those exact same "garbage" points and open jumpers Grant got if he were playing with the Bulls. Give me a break. :oldlol:

[Poochymama]

Yet another imbecile who simply thinks you can randomly swap out parts to upgrade a team. No doubt you'd think that Chamberlain would have won 11 titles if he were swapped for Russell.

I understand chemistry and give it it's proper due when appropriate, but Bosh/Gasol and Grant are in completely different stratospheres as players, not to mention that Bosh would probably have better chemistry then Grant given that he's also very good defensively and would stretch the floor for Jordan and Pippen's drives.

90-93 Bulls would probably be 70+ win teams with Bosh instead of Grant, it'd be completely unfair for the rest of the league.

[greymatter]

The bottom line is that sometimes having a good "glue-guy" can be more important than a guy who was an AS 1st option being relegated to 3rd.

Case in point:

Mark Aguirre was a 3 time AS who averaged 24+ppg for the Mavs before joining the Pistons. Pistons already had a lot of guys who could score and were very well balanced. He basically became the 4th option on that team behind the likes of Bill Laimbeer and James Edwards. By that time, Dennis Rodman was already all NBA first team defense.

[greymatter]

I understand chemistry and give it it's proper due when appropriate, but Bosh/Gasol and Grant are in completely different stratospheres as players, not to mention that Bosh would probably have better chemistry then Grant given that he's also very good defensively and would stretch the floor for Jordan and Pippen's drives.

Grant was a good PnR player and his midrange jumpshot was every bit as good as Bosh's. Stretching the floor wasn't a problem for Grant, though his range didn't extend past 20ft. Bosh's advantage is at finishing near the rim. That particular skillset would have been a bonus, but not that much extra considering that Jordan and Pippen were much better at it.



90-93 Bulls would probably be 70+ win teams with Bosh instead of Grant, it'd be completely unfair for the rest of the league.

If Bosh is so much better than Grant, Wade >> Pippen, and Lebron nearly as good as Jordan, then the Heat should have totally steamrolled the entire league. They didn't. They finished behind Chicago and San Antonio 2 straight years. On paper, LBJ/Wade/Bosh are much more talented than MJ/Pip/Grant, but they never sniffed anywhere close to a 70+ win pace.

Whatever advantage gained on offense over Grant would have been more than offset in what was lost on defense. If the Heat and Bulls only had Lebron and MJ, then of course Bosh is >> Grant. Seeing as how we're talking 3rd options, that changes everything.

[greymatter]

What you fail to realize is that Bosh would be getting those exact same "garbage" points and open jumpers Grant got if he were playing with the Bulls. Give me a break. :oldlol:

Assuming Bosh could play effectively without any touches except for the type Grant was limited to (huge if), where does that leave him when defending the likes of Shawn Kemp, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone? Oh yeah....mincemeat. No such downside with Grant since he could mostly hold his own against them.

[Poochymama]

Assuming Bosh could play effectively without any touches except for the type Grant was limited to (huge if), where does that leave him when defending the likes of Shawn Kemp, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone? Oh yeah....mincemeat. No such downside with Grant since he could mostly hold his own against them.

You're drastically underrating Bosh's defense. This past year + playoff run Bosh basically showed that he's 99% the defender Grant was.

[greymatter]

With Jordan and Pip pushing him to think "defense", I'm sure Bosh would have no problem against those teams. His offense, and ability to knock down shots from ANYWHERE as has been proven, would just be icing on the cake. If you watched Bosh in last season's Finals, you would know that he's no push over defensively.

Never said Bosh was a pushover on defense, just that he's nothing compared to Grant.


Those Bulls teams had a defensive "culture" thanks to Phil Jackson and his assistant coaches. If anything, a player like Bosh would have been a God send, because he would stretch opposing team's defenses in ways that Rodman and Grant can only dream about.

Grant was every bit as good as Bosh from 12-18ft out. Bosh rarely takes any of his midrange shots from farther than 18ft. Don't see much of an appreciable difference between the two as far as asking them to hit open jumpshots are concerned. Yet, with Rodman, a guy with a much worse jumpshot, the Bulls were a far superior team than while Grant played for them. Being the best defender/rebounder ever to play PF will do that for you. Rodman's shortcomings on offense were easily offset by those 5+ offensive boards per game which led to very high 2nd % shot opportunities and his stifling defense.

[greymatter]

You're drastically underrating Bosh's defense. This past year + playoff run Bosh basically showed that he's 99% the defender Grant was.

Who did Bosh play against at PF/C this year in the playoffs?

KG (for 2 games), Hibbert, West, (for 1 game) , Ibaka, Perkins? Not impressed. And no, he's nowhere close to being 99% the defender Grant was else he'd be able to make an all NBA defensive team over the likes of Josh Smith, Anderson Verejao, Luol Deng, and Andre Iguodala.

[97 bulls]

What you fail to realize is that Bosh would be getting those exact same "garbage" points and open jumpers Grant got if he were playing with the Bulls. Give me a break. :oldlol:
He would've. But how would he have handled himself on defense? This is the 800lb gorilla that always overlooked. Not to mention Bosh is nowhere near the rebounder Grant was

[97 bulls]

I understand chemistry and give it it's proper due when appropriate, but Bosh/Gasol and Grant are in completely different stratospheres as players, not to mention that Bosh would probably have better chemistry then Grant given that he's also very good defensively and would stretch the floor for Jordan and Pippen's drives.

90-93 Bulls would probably be 70+ win teams with Bosh instead of Grant, it'd be completely unfair for the rest of the league.
Are we talking about them as skill players? Or their role and impact on their respective team.

[raptorfan_dr07]

well then they dont get ewing

magic ends with 6 rings

barkleys a champion

knicks maybe if lucky win a title or 2 in the 90's... the bulls were just perfect defensively top to bottom 6 times out of 8 years... with guys like harper, rodman, pippen, grant locking people up... and a coach like phil... just too many things to replicate in order for mj to have even close to the same success

Kobe in staying in Charlotte where he was drafted wins zero rings and is remembered as a slightly more glorified Allen Iverson. Most overrated scum of all time.

[guy]

Shaq and Kobe won two championships with what Id consider Kobe in his prime. After two years, of in-fighting they were done. They won mainly due to a lack of great teams. San Antonio was in transition. And Sacremento got jobbed. Hell if I remember correct, Duncan didn't even play in the playoffs in 00. I just done see Jordan and Shaq coexiting for 3 years much less 8.

The competition was fine. Seriously, if you want to use the competition as an argument in those years, you can use it for literally half the history of the NBA. Thats a stupid argument that you're reaching for. They never lost due to a lack of on-court chemistry except for arguably in 2004, regardless of what in-fighting was going on. Thats my point. Except for those 2004 Finals, they never lost in the playoffs due to one player being overly selfish and the other being neglected for it as a result.

I never said they'd get along perfectly and not have their quarrels. They would've coexisted for the simple fact that teams don't just let players as good as Jordan or Shaq go that soon just cause they can't get along. Of course unless they would've gotten to the point that there would've been a rumble every day in practice and eventually Jordan and Shaq would've started bringing guns in, which is a scenario you and all the others that try to bring up this argument probably think would happen for some reason :oldlol:



Wiltss reaction to players breaking his records or getting compared to his dominance were real too bro. Its clear he did not like it. But I'm supposed to believe he could've coexited with Jordan for the prime of his career and play second fiddle? I guess I'm just more street smart than you.

Street Smart? :roll: :roll: Sorry to say, but from your posts there doesn't seem to be anything smart about you. It doesn't take street smarts to see COMMON SENSE. This isn't something theoretical, unlike all the other comparisons we've made. A few facial expressions and remarks decades later in his 60s doesn't outdo the FACT that he actually did what you're saying he wouldn't have done. He deferred to players like Hal Greer and Jerry West. Had no problem averaging less points then them and taking less shots then them. Its incredible that facts are laid right in front of you and you still try to argue around them. :oldlol: Street Smart. Who talks like that on an internet message board?



The latter might be true. Regardless. James impact is minimal when he can't have total control of the ball. We saw that.

Actually my whole post was true. What wasn't? Jordan being a much better player and not as ball-dominant as Wade? Wade and Lebron could play together?

They would've won the championship had they played the way they played the previous 3 rounds, as ball dominant as he was. He would've been able to be even more dominant with Jordan instead of Wade, and had a much better player next to him.



Wade had a great series. He wasn't the problem. James defense or lack there of was the problem

I wasn't talking about the series. I was talking about when they had chemistry issues during the season. Lebron's defense, offense, and whole approach to the game was the problem in those Finals.



I never said the Bulls couldn't win if Pippen were replaced with the players you mentioned. The argument was centered around two great players winning with no help. It won't happen. Especially when the two players are perimeter oriented

You specifically said its hard to build around Jordan due to his inability to share the spotlight. I don't see how that dynamic would be different if they were surrounded by poor players or great players.



No offense but it seems as if you're comprehension skills are minimal at best. My point is you can't just win chmpionships based on talent. That 04 olympic team team was not made up of a couple great players and afterthoughts. They were the best the NBA had to offer and they got their ass handed to them by lesser players as far as talent, but a much better team


My comprehension skills are fine. Are yours? Do you not understand how completely different the situations are? How one situation has much better leaders, much greater preparation time, more room for error, while the other has much worse leaders, much less preparation time, and very little room for error?



Its not unfounded. It just flatout doesn't happen. What basis do you have to say it does? How often do two great players spend their primes together?


It is unfounded. There's one situation and the two actually won 3 titles together. For whatever reason, it always comes up with Jordan, not anyone else. Everyone thinks if he played with another superstar, he'd rip there eyes out and hang them in his locker :oldlol: The majority of time, superstars get along when they're paired together. Kobe and Shaq is the exception. For whatever reason, I guess because people think Kobe and Jordan are the exact same person and they would've acted the same in each scenario, we have to assume Jordan is an exception as well, even though he actually complained about the LACK OF TALENT he had around them and was hard on them when they played like scrubs.



When I say by nature I mean he didn't have to sacrifice his scoring much because he was more of a do everything player. And notice I said MUCH. Knowing you that sentence will be misconstrude all kinds of ways. Pippens impact went way past scoring. And that's why him and Joran complimented each other so well and were so successful. I don't see Bird being able to do what Pippen did with the Bulls defensively. And he would have to find some way to effect the game because his scoring would suffer in that offense along with playing alongside Jordan.

He didn't sacrifice scoring much, if at all, because he wasn't that capable of a scorer like all those other players who were very much do everything type of players as well. :oldlol: @ Bird having to find a way to effect the game without scoring.



But not everyone has it. And you feel they do. Not everyone is able to have the motor of a kevin love. Its a great asset to have.


Sure it is. And much of it is the result of the fact that alot of those hustle type players aren't very skilled so they wouldn't have much of an impact without that. There's obviously some exceptions, and its obviously a great thing to have, but thats why I definitely don't consider it some kind of skill. Its 100% effort.

[guy]

God... :oldlol:

We can add this to your list of outlandish statements, like Pippen > Bird/Magic. :oldlol:

He's also said Kukoc = Bosh. So according to him, Jordan played with the equivalent of Bird and Gasol in the first three-peat, and then Bird, Bosh, and Rodman in the 2nd three-peat :oldlol: It wouldn't surprise me if he thought Dennis Rodman = Dwight Howard.

[97 bulls]

He's also said Kukoc = Bosh. So according to him, Jordan played with the equivalent of Bird and Gasol in the first three-peat, and then Bird, Bosh, and Rodman in the 2nd three-peat :oldlol: It wouldn't surprise me if he thought Dennis Rodman = Dwight Howard.
We cant have a sensible conversation about Kukoc and Bosh because youre bullheaded. I stopped responding to you in that conversation when you tried to argue me down that Kukoc led a team with the same talent as Bosh with the Raptors. Totally ignoring that Bosh was surrounded by better players. Discounting the Bulls situation. Bosh is not a leader or franchise player. Hes exactly what Kukoc was on the Bulls. Youre not out to find a commom ground. Theres nothing Bosh has done in leading the Raptors that should catapult him over Kukoc.


The difference between the two is Bosh had multiple seasons to succeed and couldn't. The only difference between the two is Bosh had a fair chance.

[guy]

We cant have a sensible conversation about Kukoc and Bosh because youre bullheaded. I stopped responding to you in that conversation when you tried to argue me down that Kukoc led a team with the same talent as Bosh with the Raptors. Totally ignoring that Bosh was surrounded by better players. Discounting the Bulls situation. Bosh is not a leader or franchise player. Hes exactly what Kukoc was on the Bulls. Youre not out to find a commom ground. Theres nothing Bosh has done in leading the Raptors that should catapult him over Kukoc.


The difference between the two is Bosh had multiple seasons to succeed and couldn't. The only difference between the two is Bosh had a fair chance.

We can't have a sensible conversation on them cause you think Kukoc would've averaged 7 apg as a SF, down from 8 apg initially, on that stacked Raptor team you speak of. We can't have a sensible conversation because you ignore that Bosh is significantly better at most aspects of the game. We can't have a sensible conversation because you ignore that Kukoc was traded for a 35 year old John Starks and a draft pick, while nothing even close to that would be considered for Bosh. I didn't ignore your point. I said it wasn't that relevant, especially given all of the above.

[97 bulls]

We can't have a sensible conversation on them cause you think Kukoc would've averaged 7 apg as a SF, down from 8 apg initially, on that stacked Raptor team you speak of. We can't have a sensible conversation because you ignore that Bosh is significantly better at most aspects of the game. We can't have a sensible conversation because you ignore that Kukoc was traded for a 35 year old John Starks and a draft pick, while nothing even close to that would be considered for Bosh. I didn't ignore your point. I said it wasn't that relevant, especially given all of the above.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/news/2000/02/16/bulls_kukoc_ap/?mobile=n

I already stated Kukoc wasnt traded for starks only. The bulls also got Golden States lottery pick. Which ended up being Ron Artest. Notice how you trivialize that lottery pick the Bulls recieved. Youre not interested in finding a common ground.

And even if you disagree that Kukoc wouldnt increase to 7, its surely gonna go up significantly if he passing to significantly better scorers.Then you have to factor in that the Bulls still ran the triangle under Floyd. Which did limit Kukocs ability to have the ball in his hands more. I just dont see why his asts couldnt jump from 5.3 under the triangle passing to the players the Bulls had in 99. To probably jumping to 6.7 comsidering the style of offense the Raptors ran along with passing to better players. Plus his Fg% would improve because he has better players around him. Is it really that far fetched to say that Kukoc could've put up say 19.3 ppg on 47%, 7 rbds, and 6.7 asts? Along with the Raptors having essentially the same record?

[BlueandGold]

As for Jordan's overall success it would be argued either way.. but just imagine him being taught by a prime pat riley and also having the Knicks bankroll instead of the Bulls shafting Pippen for 6 championship(8 total) seasons. Would the Knicks have paid like five players more than what was unarguably the most influential glue guy in the history of the league.

Jordan also has historically played above average even for his standards at MSG.

[Nevaeh]

As for Jordan's overall success it would be argued either way.. but just imagine him being taught by a prime pat riley and also having the Knicks bankroll instead of the Bulls shafting Pippen for 6 championship(8 total) seasons. Would the Knicks have paid like five players more than what was unarguably the most influential glue guy in the history of the league.

Jordan also has historically played above average even for his standards at MSG.

Yep, plus he was born in Brooklyn NY, and as much love as Chicago showed him all those years, having him with the Knicks as the "Hometown Kid" would've been overkill.
:oldlol:

[Knicksfever2010]

Yep, plus he was born in Brooklyn NY, and as much love as Chicago showed him all those years, having him with the Knicks as the "Hometown Kid" would've been overkill.
:oldlol:

you mean like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG1MpPR929I&feature=related

[guy]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/news/2000/02/16/bulls_kukoc_ap/?mobile=n

I already stated Kukoc wasnt traded for starks only. The bulls also got Golden States lottery pick. Which ended up being Ron Artest. Notice how you trivialize that lottery pick the Bulls recieved. Youre not interested in finding a common ground.

And even if you disagree that Kukoc wouldnt increase to 7, its surely gonna go up significantly if he passing to significantly better scorers.Then you have to factor in that the Bulls still ran the triangle under Floyd. Which did limit Kukocs ability to have the ball in his hands more. I just dont see why his asts couldnt jump from 5.3 under the triangle passing to the players the Bulls had in 99. To probably jumping to 6.7 comsidering the style of offense the Raptors ran along with passing to better players. Plus his Fg% would improve because he has better players around him. Is it really that far fetched to say that Kukoc could've put up say 19.3 ppg on 47%, 7 rbds, and 6.7 asts? Along with the Raptors having essentially the same record?

It wasn't Ron Artest. It was Chris Mihm. They ended up trading Mihm for Jamal Crawford. I'm not trivializing anything. Replace Kukoc with Bosh and that trade would never be considered, and if it was it would be one of the worst in recent history. It would probably be put in one of those "worst trades ever" lists. Instead, it was Kukoc and no one even cared.

Common ground? This isn't a negotiation. Its my opinion and yours.

Basketball isn't some math problem where better teammates automatically mean more assists. On top of that, you're saying with better teammates he'd score more then ever did and keep the same career high in rebounds while getting 40+ wins like Bosh did with that team. Thats a wild assumption, especially considering Bosh was significantly better at almost every aspect of the game, and this is why its hard to take your opinion seriously.

Back to the assists, I posted this in the other thread to you about this:Do you know why I disagreed? Because rarely does APG change significantly just from a change in the quality of teammates. Its one of the biggest misconceptions around. When Lebron and CP3 went to much better teams, there APG actually went DOWN. You know why that is? On a worse team, the better passers/playmakers are more relied upon to setup their teammates. On a better team, the assist opportunities are probably converted at a higher rate because of better offensive players, but since better offensive players will probably result in better ball movement and/or better teammates that can create scoring opportunities for themselves, there are probably less assist opportunities in general for an individual, which makes it basically a wash. This is why Lebron didn't average 10 apg like people thought he would going to the Heat. This is why CP3 didn't average 12 apg like people thought he would going to the Clippers throwing lobs to Griffin and Jordan all game long. This is why Steve Nash probably won't average 12 apg on the Lakers despite the fact that they have 3 better scoring options then the Suns did last year when Nash averaged 11 apg. And this is why not much would change for a guy like Toni Kukoc who isn't even a PG or a ball-dominant player regardless of what teammates are around him. The idea that he could've averaged 2 more apg then he ever did is laughable.

Bottom line is you seem to think that just cause a player didn't get a chance to do something that someone else did, then that means there's a good chance they could've done it as well. No not necessarily. Thats a stupid thing to just assume out of thin air. You should actually compare them as players and their capabilities. Like if you said someone like Rajon Rondo or Russell Westbrook could do what Bosh did with similar talent, but just never had the chance cause they've been around great players their whole career, that wouldn't be ridiculous at all and I'd actually agree with you.

[97 bulls]

It wasn't Ron Artest. It was Chris Mihm. They ended up trading Mihm for Jamal Crawford. I'm not trivializing anything.
Regardless. John Starks wasn't the integral part of what the Bulls got for Kukoc. And you know it. They traded him for a lottery pick

Replace Kukoc with Bosh and that trade would never be considered, and if it was it would be one of the worst in recent history. It would probably be put in one of those "worst trades ever" lists. Instead, it was Kukoc and no one even cared.
The Sixers cared. They gave up a good young guard in Larry Hughes. And Billy Owens to get Kukoc. Krause traded Kukoc because he was trying to stockpile draft picks and cap space. Not because Kukoc wasn't any good.

Common ground? This isn't a negotiation. Its my opinion and yours.

Basketball isn't some math problem where better teammates automatically mean more assists. On top of that, you're saying with better teammates he'd score more then ever did and keep the same career high in rebounds while getting 40+ wins like Bosh did with that team. Thats a wild assumption, especially considering Bosh was significantly better at almost every aspect of the game, and this is why its hard to take your opinion seriously.
I say that because that's normally what happens when you're surrounded by better players, and are put into a situation where the offense is more free flowing. I notice you won't acknowledge the offense the Bulls ran either. Why? That has a huge effect on a players production.


Back to the assists, I posted this in the other thread to you about this:Do you know why I disagreed? Because rarely does APG change significantly just from a change in the quality of teammates. Its one of the biggest misconceptions around. When Lebron and CP3 went to much better teams, there APG actually went DOWN. You know why that is? On a worse team, the better passers/playmakers are more relied upon to setup their teammates. On a better team, the assist opportunities are probably converted at a higher rate because of better offensive players, but since better offensive players will probably result in better ball movement and/or better teammates that can create scoring opportunities for themselves, there are probably less assist opportunities in general for an individual, which makes it basically a wash. This is why Lebron didn't average 10 apg like people thought he would going to the Heat. This is why CP3 didn't average 12 apg like people thought he would going to the Clippers throwing lobs to Griffin and Jordan all game long. This is why Steve Nash probably won't average 12 apg on the Lakers despite the fact that they have 3 better scoring options then the Suns did last year when Nash averaged 11 apg. And this is why not much would change for a guy like Toni Kukoc who isn't even a PG or a ball-dominant player regardless of what teammates are around him. The idea that he could've averaged 2 more apg then he ever did is laughable.
James assists are not gonna be as high as they were in cleveland because he's sharing the ball with another ball dominant player that's more of an ISO guy in Wade. Paul share a lot of the PG duties with Billups and Williams. In fact, Paul played a lot of shooting guard with the Clippers. Where as with New Orleans, he didnt share the ball with anyone.


Bottom line is you seem to think that just cause a player didn't get a chance to do something that someone else did, then that means there's a good chance they could've done it as well. No not necessarily. Thats a stupid thing to just assume out of thin air. You should actually compare them as players and their capabilities. Like if you said someone like Rajon Rondo or Russell Westbrook could do what Bosh did with similar talent, but just never had the chance cause they've been around great players their whole career, that wouldn't be ridiculous at all and I'd actually agree with you.
The difference is I like to or try to take everything into consideration when comparing plaayers. That includes their role on the team as well as their ability. Sometimes players are better than what they're able to show on the court. For instance James Harden. With the Thunder he's avg roughhly 18 ppg. If he goes to another team where his offensive role would be bigger, I see him avg 24-25 ppg. Now Kukoc wasn't the scorer Bosh was. Bosh getting more rebounds than Kukoc was more a product of where they're comfortable on the court. Kukoc is more of a perimeter player. While Bosh works closer to the rim. Another aspect you neglect to acknowledge. But still Kukoc managed to get seven rebounds as a perimeter player. That's nothing to scoff at. You think Bosh was a better defender than Kukoc. Fine. Kukoc strength was his ability to make his teammates better. That's why he was nicknamed the "Waiter" and "Euro Magic"


As far as the common ground comment. Obviously this isn't a negotiation. But its also not an argument. You seem to be more trying to win a battle than trying to sway my opinion. I'm not like that. For instance. I've had a debate with a poster on James Worthy aand his capabilities. I never thought he was much of a rebounder. But a poster bought up a good point. Worthys role wasn't to get rebounds. He was supposed to get out on the wing and run. Not stay around and rebound. Thast true. Taking that into consideration I meust agree. Worthy on another team with a bigger role may avg somewhere around 24/8.


That's how sensible people converse. That's what I mean by common ground. You won't acknowledge anything. It was no secret that Krause intetions were not to put a winner on the court in 99. He wanted the worse team possible. While the Raptors were trying to be competitive. Theress no metric that you could give that would even begin to show that Kukoc and Bosh were working with essentially the same type of talent.

And you know Kukoc being traded by chicago to philly was much more involved than starks. But you're trying to win an argument. So context and reason is thrown out the window.

By and large I never saw anything Bosh did that couldn't be done by Kukoc as a franchise player. Put Bosh on those Bulls teams and he'd be the fourth best player just like Kukoc was behind Rodman, Jordan, and Pipppen.

[guy]

Regardless. John Starks wasn't the integral part of what the Bulls got for Kukoc. And you know it. They traded him for a lottery pick

Okay, and Bosh, who's been considered close to a franchise player and max player would not just be traded for a lottery pick in his prime, unless he actually wanted out of town, and even then that team would get more for him.



The Sixers cared. They gave up a good young guard in Larry Hughes. And Billy Owens to get Kukoc. Krause traded Kukoc because he was trying to stockpile draft picks and cap space. Not because Kukoc wasn't any good.

And if the Sixers got Bosh with that trade, it would be considered a huge steal. But instead it was Kukoc, and no one thought anything of it. You've proved my point even more.



I say that because that's normally what happens when you're surrounded by better players, and are put into a situation where the offense is more free flowing. I notice you won't acknowledge the offense the Bulls ran either. Why? That has a huge effect on a players production.

No its not what normally happens as I stated in my example. Good job just completely ignoring that.



James assists are not gonna be as high as they were in cleveland because he's sharing the ball with another ball dominant player that's more of an ISO guy in Wade. Paul share a lot of the PG duties with Billups and Williams. In fact, Paul played a lot of shooting guard with the Clippers. Where as with New Orleans, he didnt share the ball with anyone.

Wow, thats basically exactly what I said. You could've just acknowledged that instead of basically stating it again. Better team = better ball movement and more independent shot creation. Tell me how that would be different with Kukoc if he's on a better team when he's not even a primary ballhandler like those two are.



The difference is I like to or try to take everything into consideration when comparing plaayers. That includes their role on the team as well as their ability. Sometimes players are better than what they're able to show on the court. For instance James Harden. With the Thunder he's avg roughhly 18 ppg. If he goes to another team where his offensive role would be bigger, I see him avg 24-25 ppg. Now Kukoc wasn't the scorer Bosh was. Bosh getting more rebounds than Kukoc was more a product of where they're comfortable on the court. Kukoc is more of a perimeter player. While Bosh works closer to the rim. Another aspect you neglect to acknowledge. But still Kukoc managed to get seven rebounds as a perimeter player. That's nothing to scoff at. You think Bosh was a better defender than Kukoc. Fine. Kukoc strength was his ability to make his teammates better. That's why he was nicknamed the "Waiter" and "Euro Magic"

Bosh made his teammates better to a greater degree then Kukoc did, as is the case with better players. He actually commanded double teams and opened things up for his teammates unlike Kukoc. Kukoc was a better passer and thats absolutely it. While Bosh is significantly better at every other aspect.

Kukoc being a worse rebounder cause he was more of a perimeter player is irrelevant. Its like if I said Howard's only a better rebounder then Rondo cause Rondo is more of a perimeter player. Kukoc's style of play lends himself to that, and part of the reason he is more of a perimeter player is cause he wasn't able to bang down low with PFs and centers anyway. You do realize when he actually started at PF in 95, he only averaged 6 rpg right? In the 98 playoffs when he started the majority of the playoffs at PF, he only averaged 4 rpg right? On the other hand, Bosh's low in a season or playoffs has never less then Kukoc's high. And he's had multiple 10+ rpg seasons. Really, there's no argument for Kukoc to be even close as a rebounder.



As far as the common ground comment. Obviously this isn't a negotiation. But its also not an argument. You seem to be more trying to win a battle than trying to sway my opinion. I'm not like that. For instance. I've had a debate with a poster on James Worthy aand his capabilities. I never thought he was much of a rebounder. But a poster bought up a good point. Worthys role wasn't to get rebounds. He was supposed to get out on the wing and run. Not stay around and rebound. Thast true. Taking that into consideration I meust agree. Worthy on another team with a bigger role may avg somewhere around 24/8.

That's how sensible people converse. That's what I mean by common ground. You won't acknowledge anything. It was no secret that Krause intetions were not to put a winner on the court in 99. He wanted the worse team possible. While the Raptors were trying to be competitive. Theress no metric that you could give that would even begin to show that Kukoc and Bosh were working with essentially the same type of talent.

Everything you've said is either irrelevant, wrong, or a wild assumption and thats why I haven't acknowledged anything. This isn't a battle. It just so happens, you don't say much.

You really want to talk about sensible? I laid out an ACTUAL FACT in front of you about Wilt, and you tried to argue about it with Wilt's facial expressions and comments he made in his 60s. Thats sensible?



And you know Kukoc being traded by chicago to philly was much more involved than starks. But you're trying to win an argument. So context and reason is thrown out the window.

By and large I never saw anything Bosh did that couldn't be done by Kukoc as a franchise player. Put Bosh on those Bulls teams and he'd be the fourth best player just like Kukoc was behind Rodman, Jordan, and Pipppen.

Actually it would definitely be more of an argument between Rodman and Bosh. Rodman might be more valuable to the Bulls because they'd already have Jordan and Pippen who provide more of what Bosh does then Rodman, but as far as who was a better player who's more impactful and that you would actually build around, it would definitely be arguable especially given Rodman's personality. So the idea that its arguable between Kukoc and him is ridiculous.

[97 bulls]

Okay, and Bosh, who's been considered close to a franchise player and max player would not just be traded for a lottery pick in his prime, unless he actually wanted out of town, and even then that team would get more for him.
Again you're not taking into consideration circumstances. Or the stage Kukocs career was when he was traded. Kukoc was 31. Bosh is 27. Let's see how Bosh is regarded when he turns 31.


And if the Sixers got Bosh with that trade, it would be considered a huge steal. But instead it was Kukoc, and no one thought anything of it. You've proved my point even more.
Again we will see how highly Bosh is regarded at 31.


No its not what normally happens as I stated in my example. Good job just completely ignoring that.



Wow, thats basically exactly what I said. You could've just acknowledged that instead of basically stating it again. Better team = better ball movement and more independent shot creation. Tell me how that would be different with Kukoc if he's on a better team when he's not even a primary ballhandler like those two are.
If he's not the primary ballhandler then his assists would probably stay the same. But if he were and able to show his ability then I see no reason why he wouldn't be pushing 7 assists. The only time he got free reing to do what did best was in Atlanta. There he did avg 6.2 asts. But he got hurt and then was traded.


Bosh made his teammates better to a greater degree then Kukoc did, as is the case with better players. He actually commanded double teams and opened things up for his teammates unlike Kukoc. Kukoc was a better passer and thats absolutely it. While Bosh is significantly better at every other aspect.
Kukoc was better at running a team. That's his strength. That's why he's able to lead a team to basically the same record as Bosh without nearly the same level of talent.


Kukoc being a worse rebounder cause he was more of a perimeter player is irrelevant. Its like if I said Howard's only a better rebounder then Rondo cause Rondo is more of a perimeter player. Kukoc's style of play lends himself to that, and part of the reason he is more of a perimeter player is cause he wasn't able to bang down low with PFs and centers anyway. You do realize when he actually started at PF in 95, he only averaged 6 rpg right? In the 98 playoffs when he started the majority of the playoffs at PF, he only averaged 4 rpg right? On the other hand, Bosh's low in a season or playoffs has never less then Kukoc's high. And he's had multiple 10+ rpg seasons. Really, there's no argument for Kukoc to be even close as a rebounder.
Irrelevant? Where you spend most of your time on the court has a huge bearing on how many Rebounds you get. Even when Kukoc was starting a power forward, he was never that type of player. He was a tall PG. He could post up, but he wasn't a banger.


Everything you've said is either irrelevant, wrong, or a wild assumption and thats why I haven't acknowledged anything. This isn't a battle. It just so happens, you don't say much.
Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it wrong.


You really want to talk about sensible? I laid out an ACTUAL FACT in front of you about Wilt, and you tried to argue about it with Wilt's facial expressions and comments he made in his 60s. Thats sensible?
Again. Wilt was past his prime when he joined the Lakers. He really had no choice because his coach said he wasn't gonna be the focal point of the offense. You know why he feels the 68 Sixers were better than the 72 Lakers? Because he played a bigger role. He was the focal point of the offense and defense. Even though by every measure the Lakers should be considered better. Not to mentiion he despised Jordan. He had excuses for evey record Jordan broke of his. Whether it be Jordans competiton, modern medicine, rule changes. There was always an excuse. But I'm supposed to believe that he'd take a backseat to Jordan in his prime? Yeah right


Actually it would definitely be more of an argument between Rodman and Bosh. Rodman might be more valuable to the Bulls because they'd already have Jordan and Pippen who provide more of what Bosh does then Rodman, but as far as who was a better player who's more impactful and that you would actually build around, it would definitely be arguable especially given Rodman's personality. So the idea that its arguable between Kukoc and him is ridiculous.
I would never pick Bosh over Rodman. Rodman had far more impact on a game then Bosh ever did. Bosh isn't. A franchise player. And he benifitts greatly from the lack of bigs in the league.

[DatAsh]

Again. Wilt was past his prime when he joined the Lakers. He really had no choice because his coach said he wasn't gonna be the focal point of the offense. You know why he feels the 68 Sixers were better than the 72 Lakers? Because he played a bigger role. He was the focal point of the offense and defense. Even though by every measure the Lakers should be considered better. Not to mentiion he despised Jordan. He had excuses for evey record Jordan broke of his. Whether it be Jordans competiton, modern medicine, rule changes. There was always an excuse. But I'm supposed to believe that he'd take a backseat to Jordan in his prime? Yeah right

He had absolutely no problem deferring to Cunningham and Greer in his absolute prime. What makes you think he'd have trouble deferring to the best scorer ever?

Wilt is the paragon of a player who does whatever his coach asks him to do. Saying that Wilt Chamberlain would have trouble adapting to a particular role is like saying Dennis Rodman would have trouble playing a full 48 minutes.

[97 bulls]

He had absolutely no problem deferring to Cunningham and Greer in his absolute prime. What makes you think he'd have trouble deferring to the best scorer ever?

Wilt is the paragon of a player who does whatever his coach asks him to do. Saying that Wilt Chamberlain would have trouble adapting to a particular role is like saying Dennis Rodman would have trouble playing a full 48 minutes.
Deferring offensively and being the recognized best player on your team are two dfferent things. Primadonnas don't like sharing the spotlight with other primadonnas. Its not their skills. Its their mentality.

[DatAsh]

Deferring offensively and being the recognized best player on your team are two dfferent things. Primadonnas don't like sharing the spotlight with other primadonnas. Its not their skills. Its their mentality.


How does that relate to the discussion though? Jordan wouldn't have any problem playing with a defensive anchor, low post, rebounding type big man - which is what Wilt would most likely be playing with Jordan.

I see Wilt and Jordan coexisting beautifully - much more so than Shaq/Kobe.

[guy]

Again you're not taking into consideration circumstances. Or the stage Kukocs career was when he was traded. Kukoc was 31. Bosh is 27. Let's see how Bosh is regarded when he turns 31.

Again we will see how highly Bosh is regarded at 31.

Actually a good point. But if you want to talk about how they're regarded, how was Kukoc regarded at 28, which is what Bosh is now? A great 6th man, probably somewhere in the #35-#50 best players in the league that was never even considered an all-star. On the other hand, Bosh is considered a top 20 player in the league, an all-star, and close to a max player. And really, the Bulls could've made those same trades for Kukoc when he was 28, and no one would've thought anything of it. You actually did make a good point thought. But still, if you want to compare how they're regarded right now, that hurts your argument.



If he's not the primary ballhandler then his assists would probably stay the same. But if he were and able to show his ability then I see no reason why he wouldn't be pushing 7 assists. The only time he got free reing to do what did best was in Atlanta. There he did avg 6.2 asts. But he got hurt and then was traded.

Why in the world would someone thats 6'11 and relatively slow as an ox in comparison to other PGs and point forwards be the primary ballhandler? Thats a recipe for a disaster. And by the way, that short time with ATL you bring up they were 5-12. I don't see how that helps your point at all. And if he was in Toronto, there's no way he'd be the primary ballhandler with TJ Ford and Jose Calderon on the team.



Kukoc was better at running a team. That's his strength. That's why he's able to lead a team to basically the same record as Bosh without nearly the same level of talent.

Thats not his strength. He's better then Bosh at it, but thats not something he was elite at and would do for a playoff team for anything more then stretches. No GM would sign Kukoc to "run their team" like a PG or in the point forward fashion the way players like Hill, Pippen, and Lebron have. It wouldn't happen. Saying Kukoc was better at running a team then Bosh was is like saying Deron Williams is better at defending big men then Chris Paul. Who cares? Its not something relevant cause it would't happen that much. And its especially ridiculous to say that the Raptors would still be a 40+ win because of that, when they already had players like T.J. Ford, Jose Calderon, and Jarret Jack who would clearly still run that team.




Irrelevant? Where you spend most of your time on the court has a huge bearing on how many Rebounds you get. Even when Kukoc was starting a power forward, he was never that type of player. He was a tall PG. He could post up, but he wasn't a banger.

Right, he wasn't that type of player, which also means he wasn't as good of a rebounder.

Rajon Rondo could probably get 10-15 rpg if he really focused on that. So let me ask, do you think that would put him in the range of rebounders from Pau Gasol to Dwight Howard?



Again. Wilt was past his prime when he joined the Lakers. He really had no choice because his coach said he wasn't gonna be the focal point of the offense. You know why he feels the 68 Sixers were better than the 72 Lakers? Because he played a bigger role. He was the focal point of the offense and defense. Even though by every measure the Lakers should be considered better. Not to mentiion he despised Jordan. He had excuses for evey record Jordan broke of his. Whether it be Jordans competiton, modern medicine, rule changes. There was always an excuse. But I'm supposed to believe that he'd take a backseat to Jordan in his prime? Yeah right

We were talking about both teams. Did you not read this? He deferred to Hal Greer. And by the way, when he joined the Lakers, he was coming off 3 straight MVP seasons :oldlol: He was still arguably the best player in the league and better then Jerry West, and was probably a top 5 player for the next few years. Just because he was past his prime doesn't mean he wasn't a great player. You're making it seem like he was what Shaq was in his last few years.

He was also a bitter old man jealous of the more credit all players of later eras received because of the globalization of the game. Thats not an issue if they are playing at the same time. And by the way, Jordan didn't break alot of Wilt's records.



I would never pick Bosh over Rodman. Rodman had far more impact on a game then Bosh ever did. Bosh isn't. A franchise player. And he benifitts greatly from the lack of bigs in the league.

Let me guess, you think he would be as good as Luc Longley back then?:oldlol: I don't disagree that he wouldn't be as successful due to that, but we're only talking about an era 8-15 years apart.

Rodman doesn't FAR more impact a game then Bosh. He does very little if anything on offense before he goes for a rebound.

If you need to start from scratch and the goal is to win as many games as possible and you need to take one or the other as your best player, you take Bosh. If you already have 1 or 2 better players then both of them though, you take Rodman. The second scenario is probably more relevant then the first scenario because you clearly aren't winning a title or going deep in the playoffs with either of them as your best player, so thats why I'd ultimately say Rodman is better.



Deferring offensively and being the recognized best player on your team are two dfferent things. Primadonnas don't like sharing the spotlight with other primadonnas. Its not their skills. Its their mentality.


You're backpedaling and trying to argue around what was said cause now you've realized you're wrong. Just admit you're wrong.

Wilt had no problem with Jerry West getting arguably more credit and being considered a better player. He had no problem sharing that spotlight with him. There's no reason to think he'd have that problem with Jordan, especially when he'd most likely have alot more success with him then West.

[guy]

How does that relate to the discussion though? Jordan wouldn't have any problem playing with a defensive anchor, low post, rebounding type big man - which is what Wilt would most likely be playing with Jordan.

I see Wilt and Jordan coexisting beautifully - much more so than Shaq/Kobe.

No they wouldn't. Wilt would throw him over his shoulders like a mountain lion and Jordan would come to practice the next day with a bazooka and shoot a hole through him. Wilt is that egotistical and Jordan is that angry :oldlol:

[97 bulls]

How does that relate to the discussion though? Jordan wouldn't have any problem playing with a defensive anchor, low post, rebounding type big man - which is what Wilt would most likely be playing with Jordan.

I see Wilt and Jordan coexisting beautifully - much more so than Shaq/Kobe.
Lol why? All four players have the same mentality. They don't want anyone getting more pub than them. Or being compared to them. Shaqs comparing Howard to Brook Lopez. He couldn't stand Kobe, he couldn't stand Penny. Wilt routinely tried to poke holes in Jordans dominance. Kobes on record as saying the Lakers are still "my team". Jordan made it a point to insult just about every player he competed against. These guys are on a whole nother level when it comes to spotlight and their willingness to share it.

[97 bulls]

Actually a good point. But if you want to talk about how they're regarded, how was Kukoc regarded at 28, which is what Bosh is now? A great 6th man, probably somewhere in the #35-#50 best players in the league that was never even considered an all-star. On the other hand, Bosh is considered a top 20 player in the league, an all-star, and close to a max player. And really, the Bulls could've made those same trades for Kukoc when he was 28, and no one would've thought anything of it. You actually did make a good point thought. But still, if you want to compare how they're regarded right now, that hurts your argument.
Again, you're trying to compare Bosh and Kukoc as if their careers had the same path. Kukoc was one of the first players to come from Europe. He was a second round pick because he was under contract with the team he played for in Italy. He was regarded as the best European basketball player. That's in company with Sabonis, Petrovic, Divac etc. He joins the threepeat champion Bulls. With all players in their prime. Most knowledgeable people feel had he been in a different situation with a bigger role, he'd have a few allstar game appearances. His role with the Bulls was by design, not because that's all he could ever be.


Why in the world would someone thats 6'11 and relatively slow as an ox in comparison to other PGs and point forwards be the primary ballhandler? Thats a recipe for a disaster. And by the way, that short time with ATL you bring up they were 5-12. I don't see how that helps your point at all. And if he was in Toronto, there's no way he'd be the primary ballhandler with TJ Ford and Jose Calderon on the team.
Kukoc was a great ball handler. Did you even watch kukoc play? There's a reason he was compared to Magic Johnson.


Thats not his strength. He's better then Bosh at it, but thats not something he was elite at and would do for a playoff team for anything more then stretches. No GM would sign Kukoc to "run their team" like a PG or in the point forward fashion the way players like Hill, Pippen, and Lebron have. It wouldn't happen. Saying Kukoc was better at running a team then Bosh was is like saying Deron Williams is better at defending big men then Chris Paul. Who cares? Its not something relevant cause it would't happen that much. And its especially ridiculous to say that the Raptors would still be a 40+ win because of that, when they already had players like T.J. Ford, Jose Calderon, and Jarret Jack who would clearly still run that team.




Right, he wasn't that type of player, which also means he wasn't as good of a rebounder. Rajon Rondo could probably get 10-15 rpg if he really focused on that. So let me ask, do you think that would put him in the range of rebounders from Pau Gasol to Dwight Howard?



We were talking about both teams. Did you not read this? He deferred to Hal Greer. And by the way, when he joined the Lakers, he was coming off 3 straight MVP seasons :oldlol: He was still arguably the best player in the league and better then Jerry West, and was probably a top 5 player for the next few years. Just because he was past his prime doesn't mean he wasn't a great player. You're making it seem like he was what Shaq was in his last few years.

He was also a bitter old man jealous of the more credit all players of later eras received because of the globalization of the game. Thats not an issue if they are playing at the same time. And by the way, Jordan didn't break alot of Wilt's records.
once Jordan began being compare and then regarded as being better than Wilt, he made it his civic duty to question Jordans dominance.


Let me guess, you think he would be as good as Luc Longley back then?:oldlol: I don't disagree that he wouldn't be as successful due to that, but we're only talking about an era 8-15 years apart.

Rodman doesn't FAR more impact a game then Bosh. He does very little if anything on offense before he goes for a rebound.

If you need to start from scratch and the goal is to win as many games as possible and you need to take one or the other as your best player, you take Bosh. If you already have 1 or 2 better players then both of them though, you take Rodman. The second scenario is probably more relevant then the first scenario because you clearly aren't winning a title or going deep in the playoffs with either of them as your best player, so thats why I'd ultimately say Rodman is better.



You're backpedaling and trying to argue around what was said cause now you've realized you're wrong. Just admit you're wrong.

Wilt had no problem with Jerry West getting arguably more credit and being considered a better player. He had no problem sharing that spotlight with him. There's no reason to think he'd have that problem with Jordan, especially when he'd most likely have alot more success with him then West.
That's because by then West was probably btter.

[guy]

Again, you're trying to compare Bosh and Kukoc as if their careers had the same path. Kukoc was one of the first players to come from Europe. He was a second round pick because he was under contract with the team he played for in Italy. He was regarded as the best European basketball player. That's in company with Sabonis, Petrovic, Divac etc. He joins the threepeat champion Bulls. With all players in their prime. Most knowledgeable people feel had he been in a different situation with a bigger role, he'd have a few allstar game appearances. His role with the Bulls was by design, not because that's all he could ever be.

I don't remember if I've heard him being regarded as the best European basketball player and if it was it was definitely after Sabonis' injuries. His legacy is nowhere near that of Sabonis or Petrovic. And either way, the best European player back in the early to mid 90s means basically nothing when it comes to the NBA.

I've never heard any knowledgeable person in the media or on this board think Kukoc could've done what you're saying i.e. make a few all-star games and lead a team to the playoffs. Point these people out to me please.

There's something you don't seem to realize. Greatness shines and is evident so all this path and role bullshit you keep spewing is complete nonsense. Players like Ginobili and Harden were 6th men as well yet are clearly great players that people constantly point to that could've led teams and make all-star games, which Ginobili actually has and Harden most likely will. Roles don't hold down greatness. If a player is that great, it shows. And you seem to be the only person in the world that thinks what was actually shown is a huge contrast from what he actually is.



Kukoc was a great ball handler. Did you even watch kukoc play? There's a reason he was compared to Magic Johnson.

For his size and position, yes. He wasn't on your average PGs level like Calderon and Ford. Yes, he was called the Euro Magic. So what? That means absolutely nothing in 1992.



once Jordan began being compare and then regarded as being better than Wilt, he made it his civic duty to question Jordans dominance.

You're just looking way too much into this to back up a silly argument. You realize there's a huge difference in a setting where Wilt and Jordan would be teammates coming up together vs. a setting where Wilt's 20 years removed from his career comparing himself to new players that he is no connection with at all right?

The evidence that myself and Datash have brought up is alot more telling then the little sh*t you're bringing up because its very close to the same scenario while yours is nowhere near. Why do you keep arguing this? Does it offend you when people say Jordan could've easily won multiple titles with other great players besides Pippen?



That's because by then West was probably btter.

Seems like it was very arguable actually. In their historic 1972 season, West was 2nd in MVP voting and Wilt was 3rd in MVP voting, and then Wilt ended up winning Finals MVP. From what I've read, I've never really ever heard anyone say West was clearly better then him actually i.e. like what was the case with Magic/Kareem when it was clear Magic was better in the 2nd half of the 80s. By the way, I also forgot to point out that he was also deferring to Elgin Baylor.

[DatAsh]

Lol why? All four players have the same mentality. They don't want anyone getting more pub than them. Or being compared to them. Shaqs comparing Howard to Brook Lopez. He couldn't stand Kobe, he couldn't stand Penny. Wilt routinely tried to poke holes in Jordans dominance. Kobes on record as saying the Lakers are still "my team". Jordan made it a point to insult just about every player he competed against. These guys are on a whole nother level when it comes to spotlight and their willingness to share it.

You're missing the point. Wilt would most likely only be taking 12-14 fga per game - less than Scottie Pippen. Jordan wouldn't have anymore trouble co-existing with Wilt than he would Pippen. Wilt would be the super efficient scorer putting up ~ 24/15/5 on 68% while also being the team's best defender - by far - and Jordan would be the team's #1 option at ~ 33/6/7 on 56%.

It seems like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point, but I'll just end this with saying that, if you think Wilt would have trouble deferring to Jordan offensively, you don't know enough about Wilt.