Is Michael Jordan the only athlete that gets held to a different set of standards?

[Roundball_Rock]

And all with the legendary Pete Myers replacing MJ.

Jordan's supporting casts from '90 thru '98 were easily the best in the league. True, he went 6/7 in that run, but he SHOULD have. Stacked rosters in a watered-down NBA. Hell, had he played in '94, he would have easily have one more ring on his resume (and Hakeem one less.) BUT, again, he SHOULD have.

:cheers: Jordan was the Russell of his era and the Bulls the Celtics of his era. They won what they should have but let's not act as if they would have won as many on another team or that other GOAT-caliber players like KAJ, Wilt would not have had similar results.



A HEALTHY '94 Bulls team, sans MJ, would have won 60+ games. As it was, with Pippen missing 10 games, and other players missing multiple games... 55-27.

That '94 team came within an eyelash of beating a 56-26 Knicks team, that would lose a close game se
So Bulls lost Grant, Cartwright, Paxson and was still a playoff team? how is that possible? What's that? In the NBA you can sign new players to replace players leaving?ven to the 58-24 Rockets in the Finals (and in a series in which they outscored Houston.)

Sorry, but the FACTS are the FACTS.

The '94 Bulls, WITHOUT Jordan, were certainly capable of winning a title.

Exactly. If that team was healthy it easily would have won 60+.



So Bulls lost Grant, Cartwright, Paxson and was still a playoff team? how is that possible? What's that? In the NBA you can sign new players to replace players leaving?

Obviously you did not watch basketball back then. They failed to replace Jordan in 94' and Grant in 95'. By 95' they got Ron Harper to fill the SG slot--he was supposed to be a 20 ppg second option but turned into an offensive bust. They did not replace Grant until 96' when they got Rodman.

The reason they remained a 5th-6th place team despite these flaws is they had a superstar in Pippen--a rare team with the luxury of having two superstars in that era. A top 3-5 player in his peak alone is going to keep a team competitive and the Bulls also had some other talent in Kukoc, Armstrong, and the GOAT coach.

Imagine the Cavs losing LeBron, replacing him with a D-Leaguer, and losing Love and replacing him with scrubs like Corie Blount and Dickey Simpkins. How many games do you think the Cavs would win? 25 at best--surely nowhere near 45.


You are getting carried away now. MJ's intangibles alone provided more than just being a "20 ppg" scorer. Get real.

We all agree. I think Lazz just means that team still would have won multiple titles, obviously not 6, but multiple if, say, Jordan was replaced by Reggie Miller or Mitch Richmond at SG.

They were contenders with a D-Leaguer at SG. As we know, teams don't win every year. If that core was kept together for 4-5 years they may have punched through at some point or they would have wound up bridesmaids like the Knicks and Pacers of that era. However, if you give them a 20 ppg SG like Richmond or Miller along with Pippen, Grant/Rodman, Armstrong, and Kukoc the likely win rings.

[3ball]

let's not act like MJ was single-handedly carrying those rosters


He was..

MJ averaged 40/6/8 against the Cavs in 1989 playoffs, and hit the walk-off Ray Allen to win the series.. That's carrying your team.. Plain and simple.

MJ's playoff and Finals stats are far better than everyone else's, so that means he contributed more to his team than anyone else... If you can't show me someone who put up better playoff stats, than GTFO

[LAZERUSS]

Those rosters were similar to the Kobe Bryant one's in 2006 and 2007, except both years Mike faced 2 of the greatest teams ever.

I mean, with those Bulls rosters, could you name another perimeter player that would've lead Chicago past those Celtics? :confusedshrug:

None.

MJ was the greatest perimeter player of all-time.

But, MJ was also no miracle worker, either. Without supporting casts that were capable of 50+ wins without him...zero rings.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

None.

MJ was the greatest perimeter player of all-time.

But, MJ was also no miracle worker, either. Without supporting casts that were capable of 50+ wins without him...zero rings.

Disagree, but at least you aren't totally unfair. :cheers:

Those Bulls teams were definitely loaded, and primed for another title run had it not been for Hue Hollins. Shame.

[LAZERUSS]

He was..

MJ averaged 40/6/8 against the Cavs in 1989 playoffs, and hit the walk-off Ray Allen to win the series.. That's carrying your team.. Plain and simple.

MJ's playoff and Finals stats are far better than everyone else's, so that means he contributed more to his team than anyone else... If you can't show me someone who put up better playoff stats, than GTFO

The '89 team was wiped out by the Pistons, which included a critical game five in which Jordan quit on his team. Plain-and-simple.

Again, an MJ without Pippen and Grant (and later Pippen and Rodman), a playoff loser.

MJ was the biggest shot-jacker in post-season NBA history. His TEAM won Finals in which he shot .455, .427 and even .415. He had playoff series against an aging Celtic team of .417, and against a Knick team of .400.

Shaq, Wilt, and Kareem, at their peaks, were considerably more dominant than a shot-jacking MJ was. Hell, his teams were capable of winning when he was shooting horrifically.

[3ball]

MJ was the greatest perimeter player of all-time.



Magic went 5/9 with 3-all star teammates and the DPOY (Kareem, Worthy, Green, Cooper).

Bird went 3/5 with 3 all-star teammates and 6th man of year (McHale, Parish, DJ, Walton)

Lebron went 2/4 with 2 all-star teammates and the greatest shooter of all time (Wade, Bosh, Allen)

MJ went 6/6 with 1 all-star (Pippen).

You do the math.. That's why MJ needed to put up the best playoff and Finals stats of anyone, ever.

[LAZERUSS]

Disagree, but at least you aren't totally unfair. :cheers:

Those Bulls teams were definitely loaded, and primed for another title run had it not been for Hue Hollins. Shame.

Yeah...don't get me wrong...MJ has a case as the GOAT (as does Wilt, Kareem, Russell and Magic.)

And those Bulls teams wouldn't have won six rings without him, but he wouldn't have won six rings without them, as well. That was a fact.

But these Jordanites will tell you he was single-handedly carrying those teams to titles. Which is complete nonsense.

[LAZERUSS]

Magic went 5/9 with 3-all star teammates and the DPOY (Kareem, Worthy, Green, Cooper).

Bird went 3/5 with 3 all-star teammates and 6th man of year (McHale, Parish, DJ, Walton)

Lebron went 2/4 with 2 all-star teammates and the greatest shooter of all time (Wade, Bosh, Allen)

MJ went 6/6 with 1 all-star (Pippen).

You do the math.. That's why MJ needed to put up the best playoff and Finals stats of anyone, ever.

And when MJ faced a Pistons team from the late 80's...blown out.

There was no way in hell that MJ's 90's Bulls would have won six rings in the 80's. Hell, they might not have won any.

[LJJ]

Jordan does get held to a different standard compared to other GOAT candidates in basketball. The part where OP is wrong though, is that Jordan actually gets held to a higher standard. Not a lower one. All the others in the discussion did less with more.

[LAZERUSS]

Jordan does get held to a different standard compared to other GOAT candidates in basketball. The part where OP is wrong though, is that Jordan actually gets held to a higher standard. Not a lower one. All the others in the discussion did less with more.

But against FAR greater competition.

MJ's 90's Bulls would likely have never beaten the '83 Sixers, the '86 Celtics, the '80 '82, '85, '87, and even the '88 Lakers, nor the '89 and '90 Pistons. It wasn't until the Bad Boys crumbled, that he finally beat them.

[3ball]

But these Jordanites will tell you he was single-handedly carrying those teams to titles. Which is complete nonsense.


MJ averaged 40/6/8 on 60% TS and hit a walk-off Ray Allen ("the shot (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5WUOnTxwPw)") to beat the heavily-favored, 57-win Cavs in the 1989 Playoffs.

This is after MJ averaged 33/8/8 in regular season while his 2nd option was at 14.4 (2nd year Pippen).

If that doesn't meet your criteria for "carrying your team" than your criteria is wrong and unfairly biased against MJ.
.

[LJJ]

But against FAR greater competition.

MJ's 90's Bulls would likely have never beaten the '83 Sixers, the '86 Celtics, the '80 '82, '85, '87, and even the '88 Lakers, nor the '89 and '90 Pistons. It wasn't until the Bad Boys crumbled, that he finally beat them.

Precisely what I'm talking about here, this misguided attitude. If there was no Jordan other teams that competed would be seen as strong. The only reason it's considered a weak era is because Jordan essentially won 6 straight.

That's exactly one of the impossibly higher standards that is only thrown at Jordan. You are saying Jordan did too well, was too dominant. Lol.

[LAZERUSS]

MJ averaged 40/6/8 on 60% TS and hit a walk-off Ray Allen ("the shot") to beat the heavily-favored, 57-win Cavs in the 1989 Playoffs.

This is after MJ averaged 33/8/8 in regular season while his 2nd option was at 14.4 (2nd year Pippen).

If that is not meet your criteria for "carrying your team" than your criteria is wrong and unfairly biased against MJ.

A prime Chamberlain ROUTINELY put up performances like that, and against far greater teams that the '89 Cavs for cryingoutloud. Hell, he single-handedly took what were last place rosters to within an eyelash of beating the greatest dynasty in NBA history on two occassions, and when he finally had an equal supporting cast to those Celtic teams, he and his team destroyed them. And we are talking about a HOF-laden 60-21, eight-time defending champion here...not a Cavs team that couldn't come close to a title.

[LAZERUSS]

Precisely what I'm talking about here, this misguided attitude. If there was no Jordan other teams that competed would be seen as strong. The only reason it's considered a weak era is because Jordan essentially won 6 straight.

That's exactly one of the impossibly higher standards that is only thrown at Jordan. You are saying Jordan did too well, was too dominant. Lol.

Not all...give me these great rosters of the teams that MJ was beating in the 90's. Find me the Magic's, Kareem's, and Worthy's on them.

I'll save you the time. You won't. Not even close.

Malone-and-Stockton? :roll: :roll: :roll:

[3ball]

A prime Chamberlain ROUTINELY put up performances like that, and against far greater teams that the '89 Cavs for cryingoutloud. Hell, he single-handedly took what were last place rosters to within an eyelash of beating the greatest dynasty in NBA history on two occassions, and when he finally had an equal supporting cast to those Celtic teams, he and his team destroyed them. And we are talking about a HOF-laden 60-21, eight-time defending champion here...not a Cavs team that couldn't come close to a title.
C'mon dude... That's Wilt.. He's the only guy with a legit argument to rival MJ for GOAT.. The ONLY guy.

I never thought Kareem was anywhere NEAR Wilt... KAJ's career high was 35/17 in 1972... Just 6 years earlier in 1966, Wilt put up 34/25, nowhere NEAR his career high, but far superior to Kareem.

To me, that definitively proves Wilt much > KAJ.. Wilt is the GOAT big... MJ is the GOAT non-big... Who's the overall GOAT??... I'd take MJ, but it could be Wilt.

[LJJ]

Not all...give me these great rosters of the teams that MJ was beating in the 90's. Find me the Magic's, Kareem's, and Worthy's on them.

I'll save you the time. You won't. Not even close.

Malone-and-Stockton? :roll: :roll: :roll:

You are just showing you lack of intelligence here. Yes if Malone Stockton won two rings they would be seen as an all time great team on the level of the 80s Celts and Lakers. But that's just one pf the teams, Jordan ****ed the legacy of a lot of great teams.

Instead you desperately cling to the fantasy that the quality of players took a massive nosedive during the 90s.

[LAZERUSS]

You are just showing you lack of intelligence here. Yes if Malone Stockton won two rings they would be seen as an all time great team on the level of the 80s Celts and Lakers. But that's just one pf the teams, Jordan ****ed the legacy of a lot of great teams.

Instead you desperately cling to the fantasy that the quality of players took a massive nosedive during the 90s.

BUT, they CLEARLY did. In a league that expanded.

Again...Stockton and Malone the equivalent of Magic, Kareem, Worthy (and then a host of talented players like Scott and Cooper)????

Please. Do some real research and get back to me.

[LJJ]

BUT, they CLEARLY did. In a league that expanded.

Again...Stockton and Malone the equivalent of Magic, Kareem, Worthy (and then a host of talented players like Scott and Cooper)????

Please. Do some real research and get back to me.

The research, numbers, etcetera all speak for Jordan. That's the impossibly high standard you hold the man to. You just don't like him and can't separate that from the facts, that's all there is to it.

[LAZERUSS]

C'mon dude... That's Wilt.. He's the only guy with a legit argument to rival MJ for GOAT.. The ONLY guy.

I never thought Kareem was anywhere NEAR Wilt... KAJ's career high was 35/17 in 1972... Just 6 years earlier in 1966, Wilt put up 34/25, nowhere NEAR his career high, but far superior to Kareem.

To me, that definitively proves Wilt much > KAJ.. Wilt is the GOAT big... MJ is the GOAT non-big... Who's the overall GOAT??... I'd take MJ, but it could be Wilt.

And I have BOTH Wilt and MJ in my list of all-time GOATs (Kareem, Magic, and Russell.) In fact, if you want to claim MJ as the GOAT, I won't argue.

But my main point in all of this...is that MJ won with great rosters. As did Magic, Kareem, Russell, and even Wilt in the two that he did win with.

And aside from Russell and even Magic...a peak Kareem and a peak Wilt were on the same level as a peak MJ. Give those guys equal rosters, and equal competition, and they win as well. My only problem with KAJ, was that after his '72 post-season meltdown, he was never as dominant again. Although, he showed flashes of it (the '77 WCF's.)

Magic and Russell's arguments are that they both elevated the play of their teammates.


:cheers:

[LAZERUSS]

The research, numbers, etcetera all speak for Jordan. That's the impossibly high standard you hold the man to. You just don't like him and can't separate that from the facts, that's all there is to it.

My list of GOATs, and in any order...

Wilt, MJ, Magic, Kareem, and Russell.

And gun to my head...Wilt, with MJ at #2.

[LAZERUSS]

MJ and Russell...basically won when they should have. Russell losing to Wilt's Sixers in '67, and MJ not winning in '95 being the exceptions.

Wilt should have won in '69, except his coach prevented it (and even with that, they were ONE PLAY away from winning that series, 4-1.)

Kareem should have won '73, '74, '81, and '84.

Magic should have won in '81, and '84.

[3ball]

MJ won with great rosters.


Magic went 5/9 with 3-all star teammates and the DPOY (Kareem, Worthy, Green, Cooper).

Bird went 3/5 with 3 all-star teammates and 6th man of year (McHale, Parish, DJ, Walton)

Lebron went 2/4 with 2 all-star teammates and the greatest shooter of all time (Wade, Bosh, Allen)

MJ went 6/6 with 1 all-star (Pippen).

You do the math.. That's why MJ needed to put up the best playoff and Finals stats of anyone, ever.
.

[3ball]

MJ's supporting cast


All of MJ's supporting casts required him to lead the league in scoring - every single Bulls championship required MJ to be the best scorer in history, and be the best clutch player in history.

Specifically, they needed him to average 35 PPG and 7 APG in the playoffs thru his first 3-peat, and 36 PPG and 8 APG in the Finals... This is the most any production any player has ever been required to give his team.

So the 1994 Bulls didn't win because they had talented players that could score a lot of points - they won because of the superior strategy, teamwork, and mental ability they accumulated while 3-peating with MJ.. Anyone who watched at the time and/or knows hoops, is aware of this.
.

[3ball]

Wilt and Kareem


:facepalm ... KAJ's career high was 34/17 in 1972.

Just 6 years earlier in 1966, a past-his-prime Wilt put up 34/25 - this was nowhere near his best (50/25), but it was easily enough to eclipse KAJ's best..

That definitively proves Wilt > KAJ... I don't care how many more rings Kareem won playing 2nd and 3rd fiddle on Magic's Lakers.

[LAZERUSS]

:facepalm ... KAJ's career high was 34/17 in 1972.

Just 6 years earlier in 1966, a past-his-prime Wilt put up 34/25 - this was nowhere near his best (50/25), but it was easily enough to eclipse KAJ's best..

That definitively proves Wilt > KAJ... I don't care how many more rings Kareem won playing 2nd and 3rd fiddle on Magic's Lakers.

Wilt was near his peak in '66. He shot .540 from the field, in a league that shot .433 overall, and with 5.2 apg.

And he was hanging 45 point games on Thurmond, 46 point games on Russell (in a must-win playoff game no less), and 50 point games on Bellamy. The year before that he was shelling Reed (who would move to PF from '66 thru half of '69) with games of 52 and 58 points.

There is no doubt in my mind, that Wilt could have averaged 40+ ppg in his '66 and '67 seasons. Hell, even an injury-plagued Wilt hung games of 52, 53, 53, and 68 in his '68 season.


As for Kareem...and IMHO, he was at his absolute peak from the second half of his rookie season, including playoffs ('69-70) thru his entire 70-71 season (and including playoffs), and thru his 71-72 regular season. He was as dominant as any player has ever been in that span. However, when he was outplayed by an aging Thurmond in the first round of the '72 playoffs, and then couldn't a hit to save his life in the last four games of the '72 WCF's (shooting .414 against a way-past-his-prime Wilt), he never recovered.

And I don't give his five rings with Magic nearly as much value, either. You could make a case that he was the best player in the league in '80, and that he had a great Finals...but the fact remains, that his team played better without him in the clinching game six win on the road in that Finals (in a game that Magic hung a 42-15-7.)

The rest of his rings were as a second, third, or even 5th wheel.

[Blue&Orange]

and then with the same exact roster, except MJ replacing Grant, they get wiped out by a Magic team that would get swept by a 47-35 Rockets team in the Finals.

I don't even... :facepalm

what's your point? Adding Jordan and having a worse season proves that the previous wasn't a fluke? lol
Or that not only Pete Myers = Jordan but Horace Grant > Jordan? lol

Carry on brilliant stuff being said.

Oh, let's ignore this fact, ok?

The '95 Bulls went 34-31 without BOTH MJ and GRANT. A playoff team with out TWO of it's THREE best players.

You have no idea what the hell you are talking about, do you?


So Bulls lost Grant, Cartwright, Paxson and was still a playoff team? how is that possible? What's that? In the NBA you can sign new players to replace players leaving? What does this mean? bulls kept changing role players and the end result was the same? Bu-bu-bu wasn't Jordan incredible lucky and had the best role players possible? lol :roll:


No, it's an MJ basically replacing Grant from the '94 team, that could have easily won a title..and then not only not getting them any further, but in all reality, doing considerably worse. BTW, Grant was on the team that wiped out his '95 Bulls in the ECSF's.

FACTS my friend...FACTS.
So AGAIN you are not only saying that not only Pete Myers = Jordan but Horace Grant > Jordan? lol

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/nick-cage-lol.gif

How can someone be this stupid.

You're a stupid dumb c#unt that keep changing the argument because guess what you're a stupid dumb c#unt.


FACTS my friends... FACTS.

[Blue&Orange]

The retards on this thread :lol

Knicks two years ago won 58 games with Melo JR, Shumpert and Felton, and other that aren't even in the league by now, while being the most injury stricken team in the NBA. They went 5-2 on Heat and spurs, including blowouts.


Yeah fluke seasons don't happen!!!

So yeah players that were verbally abused by Jordan didn't want to prove they could win without him and had a fluke season, it's just Jordan impact in the game = Pete Myers !!!


:roll: :roll: :roll:


:lol :lol :lol


:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm



But hey carry on with your cute circle jerk.
again, fluke seasons don't exist

Pete Myers = Jordan
Horace Grant > Jordan



Ish have reach it's nirvana, the level of stupidity in this thread cannot be beaten. These people aren't trolling either.

[Asukal]

Yeah...don't get me wrong...MJ has a case as the GOAT (as does Wilt, Kareem, Russell and Magic.)

And those Bulls teams wouldn't have won six rings without him, but he wouldn't have won six rings without them, as well. That was a fact.

But these Jordanites will tell you he was single-handedly carrying those teams to titles. Which is complete nonsense.

Grandpa making up stories again. Shhhhhh! Go to bed already and take your meds. :whatever:

[Asukal]

My list of GOATs, and in any order...

Wilt, MJ, Magic, Kareem, and Russell.

And gun to my head...Wilt, with MJ at #2.

"Greatest of all time" is not synonymous to "failing" which Wilt made a routine of. Go drink your meds grandpa, you smokin that shit again. :whatever:

[TheMan]

And when MJ faced a Pistons team from the late 80's...blown out.

There was no way in hell that MJ's 90's Bulls would have won six rings in the 80's. Hell, they might not have won any.
Blown out? Are you high? MJ and the Bulls took the Pistons to 6 and 7 game series in the EC and were tougher challengers than the Lakers and Blazers in the Finals :facepalm

Any of the early 90s Bulls would most likely beat any version of the Bad Boys, GTFOH

[Elosha]

Laz - I get what you're trying to do. No, MJ isn't perfect by any stretch of imagination. No player is. But trying to claim he only went "1-9" in his first 10 playoff games with no context and then claiming he only won with the greatest supporting cast in the 90's when he went 6 for 6, and then claiming he only won when he should have won, and claiming he would have won hardly anything in the 80's -- is, imo, farfetched.

I'm not sure if you are arguing this hard against MJ to prop up Wilt, but if so, please stop. People that live in glass houses should not throw stones. Wilt went 2-6. In an era where he mostly needed to win only two rounds to win the championship. If you will be completely honest with yourself, you will admit that there were many years, many playoff games where Wilt did not play up to par. Games where he missed an inordinate amount of free throws. Leads blown. Lack of killer instinct. All of these charges could be leveled against Wilt and with good reason. And no, you can't just pass it off by constantly blaming his teammates and coaches. I will NEVER believe, for one passing moment, that Wilt was as successful, dominant, or transcendent as Michael Jordan in the playoffs.

But I'm not going to rip on Wilt indefinitely. IMO, he's a top 10 player and probably top 5. And I think you could even make a plausible case that he's GOAT. I think there are better arguments for MJ and perhaps others, but I'll respect someone as knowledgeable as you who has a different opinion.

I'm not even sure you really believe the things you are saying about MJ in this thread as I've seen you be very complementary about him in other threads. But you seem to be determined to tear him down in this thread, and for what reason? I would guess at least partially to prop up Wilt.

I could answer all of your arguments against MJ with relative ease, but first, ask yourself, why are you doing this in the first place? And I say that with all due respect. Be secure that Wilt is an all time great in the opinion of knowledgeable members of ISH, but at the same time, you're never going to convince those of us who think others are better, that Wilt is somehow still the GOAT.

[SamuraiSWISH]

MJ is the standard?!

[sportjames23]

Laz - I get what you're trying to do. No, MJ isn't perfect by any stretch of imagination. No player is. But trying to claim he only went "1-9" in his first 10 playoff games with no context and then claiming he only won with the greatest supporting cast in the 90's when he went 6 for 6, and then claiming he only won when he should have won, and claiming he would have won hardly anything in the 80's -- is, imo, farfetched.

I'm not sure if you are arguing this hard against MJ to prop up Wilt, but if so, please stop. People that live in glass houses should not throw stones. Wilt went 2-6. In an era where he mostly needed to win only two rounds to win the championship. If you will be completely honest with yourself, you will admit that there were many years, many playoff games where Wilt did not play up to par. Games where he missed an inordinate amount of free throws. Leads blown. Lack of killer instinct. All of these charges could be leveled against Wilt and with good reason. And no, you can't just pass it off by constantly blaming his teammates and coaches. I will NEVER believe, for one passing moment, that Wilt was as successful, dominant, or transcendent as Michael Jordan in the playoffs.

But I'm not going to rip on Wilt indefinitely. IMO, he's a top 10 player and probably top 5. And I think you could even make a plausible case that he's GOAT. I think there are better arguments for MJ and perhaps others, but I'll respect someone as knowledgeable as you who has a different opinion.

I'm not even sure you really believe the things you are saying about MJ in this thread as I've seen you be very complementary about him in other threads. But you seem to be determined to tear him down in this thread, and for what reason? I would guess at least partially to prop up Wilt.

I could answer all of your arguments against MJ with relative ease, but first, ask yourself, why are you doing this in the first place? And I say that with all due respect. Be secure that Wilt is an all time great in the opinion of knowledgeable members of ISH, but at the same time, you're never going to convince those of us who think others are better, that Wilt is somehow still the GOAT.


Damn. :bowdown:

[GimmeThat]

well, that would be a matter of whether or not basketball student/historians treat Dr. J's ABA championship equivalent to that of an NBA one?

[LAZERUSS]

Laz - I get what you're trying to do. No, MJ isn't perfect by any stretch of imagination. No player is. But trying to claim he only went "1-9" in his first 10 playoff games with no context and then claiming he only won with the greatest supporting cast in the 90's when he went 6 for 6, and then claiming he only won when he should have won, and claiming he would have won hardly anything in the 80's -- is, imo, farfetched.

I'm not sure if you are arguing this hard against MJ to prop up Wilt, but if so, please stop. People that live in glass houses should not throw stones. Wilt went 2-6. In an era where he mostly needed to win only two rounds to win the championship. If you will be completely honest with yourself, you will admit that there were many years, many playoff games where Wilt did not play up to par. Games where he missed an inordinate amount of free throws. Leads blown. Lack of killer instinct. All of these charges could be leveled against Wilt and with good reason. And no, you can't just pass it off by constantly blaming his teammates and coaches. I will NEVER believe, for one passing moment, that Wilt was as successful, dominant, or transcendent as Michael Jordan in the playoffs.

But I'm not going to rip on Wilt indefinitely. IMO, he's a top 10 player and probably top 5. And I think you could even make a plausible case that he's GOAT. I think there are better arguments for MJ and perhaps others, but I'll respect someone as knowledgeable as you who has a different opinion.

I'm not even sure you really believe the things you are saying about MJ in this thread as I've seen you be very complementary about him in other threads. But you seem to be determined to tear him down in this thread, and for what reason? I would guess at least partially to prop up Wilt.

I could answer all of your arguments against MJ with relative ease, but first, ask yourself, why are you doing this in the first place? And I say that with all due respect. Be secure that Wilt is an all time great in the opinion of knowledgeable members of ISH, but at the same time, you're never going to convince those of us who think others are better, that Wilt is somehow still the GOAT.

CONTEXT. You get it.

These "6/6", or "2/6", or "11/13", or "6/10", or "2/3", or "3/13", or "5/7" discussions need CONTEXT.

Jordan didn't go 6/6. He went 6/15. Yes, 6/15. The Jordanites will use EXCUSES in his other NINE seasons. He was old, he was rusty, he had horrible supporting casts, etc, etc. Th REALITY was this...he had GREAT supporting casts from '91 thru '98 (missed '94), and very good supporting casts in '88 and '89. Some here will argue that his '88 team was nothing special, but you could see that Grant and Pippen were already becoming very good players by their play in the playoffs (and given their minutes.)

No one would have expected MJ's '85 thru '87 teams to win anything, and they didn't. He was no Bird, nor Wilt, nor Kareem, nor Robinson...players who took last place rosters to outstanding seasons. And certainly no one would have expected a washed up MJ to lead two horrible teams to titles in his last two years, either.

BUT, MJ's teams from '91 thru '93 had OUTSTANDING supporting casts. We saw all the evidence we needed from their '94 season, without him. Hell, they not only went 55-27, they had numerous injuries, and had they been healthy, they not only likely would have won 60+ games, with HCA, they very likely would have won a title. YES, a TITLE, and withOUT MJ. As it was, they lost a close, and very controversial seven game series to a 56-26 Knicks team, that would go on to lose a very close game seven in the Finals to a 58-24 Rockets team (in a series in which they outscored the Rockets.) I'm sorry to tell you, but that was NOT a FLUKE season. Again, a healthy Bulls team likely WINS the TITLE in '94.

FURTHERMORE, a fully refreshed MJ comes back to join nearly the same exact roster, sans GRANT, and play the last 17 games of the '95 season. By the time the playoffs roll around, he is clearly on top of his game...as his numbers CLEARLY SHOW. His '95 playoff numbers were nearly as good as his '93 playoff run, and were easily better than his '96 run. Some will argue that the Bulls were "only" 34-31 when he came back (and they went 13-4 with him.) BUT, the '95 team was now minus GRANT...and if you carry it even further...they had went 34-31 without TWO of their top THREE players from their '93 title team. That speaks volumes about just how good those '91 thru '93 teams were.

THEN, with the same basic roster the '94 Bulls had, except MJ replacing GRANT...the '95 Bulls lose in the ECSF's, 4-2, to a team that would go to get swept in the Finals by a 47-35 Rockets team.

I don't blame MJ for losing in '95. He played well. But, the point is, there have been several greats who have played well in the post-season, even with talented teams, that did not win titles.

CONTEXT. MJ's Bulls won six titles in the 90's...in a watered down NBA. I'm sorry, but when Hakeem, with his average rosters, wins TWO rings in the middle of the decade, that is all I need to know. The second best team of the 90's (no it was never Hakeem's) were the Utah Jazz. You know...Stockton and Malone. They won 60+ games three times, and routinely won 55. Even in the strike season of '99 they were on pace for 60 wins. Yet, compare their rosters with the Sixers of the early 80's, or the Pistons of the late 80's...not even close. And they certainly were nowhere near the Celtics HOF-laden rosters in the 80's, nor the Showtime Lakers of the 80's.

Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

The Bad Boys of the late 80's were great teams. I would never put them in the elite, all-time great teams category, though. Both the Lakers and the Celtics were on the decline by the end of the decade, and neither were close to their peaks of the mid-80's. To Magic's credit, he continued to carry rapidly declining, and injury-plagued rosters, to 60 wins and even one more Finals (and they beat a 63-19 Blazers team to get their.)

MJ's Bulls of the late 80's didn't beat the Bad Boys. In fact, they went 6-12 against them in the playoffs. They routed the Pistons in '91, but that Detroit team had fallen apart, and would not be a factor the rest of the decade. All of which tells me all I need to know. Put MJ's 90's Bulls into the 80's, and he is not going to win six rings (or go "6/6.") In fact, I would say that his '92 and '96 teams MIGHT win a title in that decade. His supporting casts from '96 thru '98 were even better than his '91 thru '93 rosters, but MJ, himself, was starting to slip.

Again...CONTEXT.

That's why Bird's "3/13", and Magic's ("5/13") need further inspection. Those HOF-laden teams not only had to battle each other in the decade of the 80's...they had to face the Sixers of the first half of the decade (and the '83 Sixers were an all-time great team BTW), but also the Bad Boys of the last half of the decade.

I always find it fascinating that no one disparages Bird's THREE rings in 13 seasons. Why? Because he playing against ELITE teams in the entire decade. You move Bird's 80's Celtics into the 90's, and MJ is not going to win six rings. Or, reverse it, and put MJ's 90's Bulls into the 80's, and again, maybe two titles.

Wilt's "2/6"?. Again...CONTEXT.

In Wilt's 14 seasons, he went to the post-season 13 times. And in the one year that his team failed to make the playoffs, he led the NBA in FIFTEEN categories, including WIN SHARES (and by a mile.) In fact, his '63 team, with arguably the worst roster in NBA history (16 different players, several of whom only played briefly in the NBA) lost 35 games by single digits, and overall, had a -2.2 ppg differential. They battled the Celtics, and their NINE HOFers, in nine games, and aside from one blowout loss, and a blowout WIN, the other seven games (all losses) were all close.

How bad was that '63 roster? The Warriors new coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a pre-season scrimmage with his veterans, sans Wilt, and against a team comprised of rookies and rejects. He was horrified when the rejects won.

Wilt then took that same crappy roster, to a 48-32 record, and then he single-handedly carried them past a 46-36 Hawks team that was better players 2-6, in a seven game series in which he averaged 39-23 and on a .559 FG% (in a post-season in which the NBA shot .420.) Then, he faced Russell's 59-21 team, and with it's EIGHT HOFers in the Finals. Wilt's Warriors lost that series, 4-1, but the last two games were decided in the waning seconds. In a series in which Chamberlain just trashed Russell (outscoring him 29.2 ppg to 11.2 ppg; outrebounding him, 27.8 rpg to 25.2 rpg; and outshooting him by a .517 to .386 margin.) BTW, those that have actually researched it, have claimed that Russell's '64 season was the greatest individual defensive season in NBA history.

The REALITY was, Wilt took two different last place, or near last place, rosters ('62 and '65), to withing an eyelash of beating the greatest dynasty in NBA history, and in series in which he just obliterated Russell. I mentioned last place, because when his '62 team had the same core as his rookie season in '60, in which Chamberlain took a last place team to a 49-26 record. And had Wilt not badly injured his hand in a melee at the end of gam two in the EDF's, his Warriors might have done better than their 4-2 series loss (and with game six decided by two points.)

Chamberlain's play in the '62 post-season was truly remarkable. He carried his team past a more talented Syracuse team in the first round, and then to a game seven, two point loss against a 60-20 HOF-laden Celtic team. In a seven game series in which Wilt averaged 34 ppg and 27 rpg. Oh, and BTW, in that entire post-season, Wilt's teammates collectively shot .354.

His play in the '65 EDF's was even more incredible. He took a 40-40 team to a first round romp over Oscar's stacked 48-32 Royals. And then he single-handedly carried that same bottom-feeding roster, to a game seven, on point loss, against a 62-18 team at the peak of their dynasty...in a series in which Chamberlain averaged 30 ppg, 31 rpg, and shot .555 (in a post-season NBA that shot .429 overall.)

All of which should give the "Wilt-bashers" some food for thought. Chamberlain played with FAR inferior rosters as to what Russell had in their first SIX seasons. Swap rosters, and Chamberlain easily wins SIX rings. No question.


Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

In Wilt's last four seasons in the decade of the 60's, his teams had the best record in the league in three of them, and then went 55-27 in '68-69. Yet, he "only" won ONE ring.

CONTEXT.

His '65-66 Sixers went 55-25, and edged out Russell's 54-26 Celtics by one game. BUT, the Celtics players missed a TON of games that year. A healthy Celtic team probably waltzes to the best record in the league.

Wilt's Sixers went 6-4 against those Celtics in their regular season H2H's, BUT, Chamberlain missed one game, and naturally, it was a blowout Celtics win. So, with Wilt, the Sixers went 6-3 against Boston. In those nine games, Chamberlain averaged 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, and shot .473 from the floor.

In the EDF's against Boston, Wilt averaged 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509.
And yet, his team was wiped out, 4-1. What happened? Chamberlain's teammates puked all over the floor, and collectively shot .352 from the field. As was almost always the case...Russell's teammates badly outplayed Wilt's.


The '66-67 season finally proved what so many had known. Give Wilt an equal supporting cast to Russell's, and that was healthy, and BOOM...a dominating championship for Chamberlain. As ALWAYS, Wilt butchered Russell in their post-season H2H's, but this time, with a supporting cast that neutralized Russell's...and it was a 4-1 series blowout. In fact, the Sixers were a mere four points away from a sweep in game four.

And when I say "neutralized" that is exactly what I meant. The Sixers outscored Boston, per game, in that series, by a 121.2 ppg to 111.2 ppg margin...or exactly 10.0 ppg. Wilt oustcored Russell, per game, by a 21.6 ppg to 10.2 ppg margin...or +10.4 ppg. Of course, he also annihilated him on the glass, by a 32.0 rpg to 23.4 rpg margin, outshot Russell from the floor by a staggering .556 to .358 margin, and outassisted Russell, per game, 10.0 apg to 6.0 apg.

Wilt then slaughtered Nate Thurmond, in his greatest season, in the Finals, en route to leading the Sixers to an NBA title.


And the '67-68 regular season followed the same script. Wilt's Sixers ran away with the best record in the league, and were universally picked to win their second straight title.

Unfortunately, the Sixer team that went 62-20 in the regular season, was not the same Sixer team in the playoffs.

They were DECIMATED by injuries...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328011&postcount=14

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328006&postcount=13

and with all of that, and again, with Wilt NOTICEABLY LIMPING in the series, Chamberlain's Sixers lost a game seven by FOUR points.

A healthy Sixer squad most certainly would have repeated their destruction of Boston from in the '67 EDF's.


The ONLY post-season in Wilt's career, in which you can claim that his team was favored to win a title (aside from that '68 injury-decimated team) was in the '69 Finals. There were a myriad of reasons why his Lakers lost a game seven by two points, and I have covered them many times here before, but Wilt's Lakers SHOULD have won that title. However, they were poorly coached, they had a shot-jacking Baylor who couldn't throw a rock into the Grand Canyon from the ledge, they suffered TWO miraculous game-winning shots, and they had Wilt sitting on the bench in the last five minutes of a game seven, two point loss.

BTW, they were ONE PLAY away from winning that series, 4-1.

The last four seasons of Wilt's career were basically post-injury. He suffered a horrific knee injury early in the '69-70 season, and although he made a truly miraculous return for the playoffs...he was nowhere near 100%. Still, he carried his team back from a 3-1 series deficit in the first round, then a sweep in the second round, and then with a 23-24 .625 FG% seven game Finals, his team lost a game seven to a heavily-favored Knicks team.

In the '71 post-season, Chamberlain played without his TWO best teammates, West and Baylor, and still got that roster past the first round. However, in a series in which he outplayed a PEAK Alcindor (Kareem), but without any support, his team was beaten 4-1 by the 66-16 Bucks.

Wilt carried a healthy Laker team to a stunning 69-13 record in the '71-72 season, and then a 12-3 record in the post-season, en route to a dominating title. Along the way, he chopped down a PEAK Kareem in the '72 WCF's, including badly outplaying him down the stretch in a come-from-behind clinching road win. And with a 19-23 .600 Finals, including a series clinching game five of 24 points, on 10-14 shooting, with 29 rebounds (the entire NY team had 39 BTW), and 8 blocks, he would go on to win a convincing FMVP.

In his last season, he led LA to a 60-22 record. In the post-season, he mopped the floor with Nate Thurmond, in a 4-1 series blowout...the same Thurmond who had led his 47-35 Warriors to a stunning win over Kareem's heavily-favored 60-22 Bucks. Alas, in the Finals, and with West and Hairston hurting, the HOF-laden Knicks (SIX HOFers) beat Wilt's Lakers, 4-1. However, all four wins were decided in the last minute.


THAT's Wilt's "2/6." TWO dominating rings. And TEN playoff losses to teams that would go on to win the title. And FIVE of those involved game seven's, and FOUR of those were by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.

The REALITY was, Wilt's teams only had ONE season, in his entire career, in which they SHOULD have won a title, and didn't. And even in that ONE, Wilt was sitting on the bench in the last five minutes of a two-point loss.


Wilt was an eye-lash away from winning as many as FIVE more rings. And in a couple of those, he carried pathetic rosters to within margins of 2, and 1 point, from beating the eventual champions.

Furthermore, and as John Wooden claimed...

Swap rosters and coaches, with Russell, and it would have been Wilt holding all those rings. Imagine that...a Wilt with up to as many as 11 rings!

Continued...

[scandisk_]

MJ thread............

posts about wilt

:hammerhead:

[StephHamann]

Jordan was baby dicked, Wilt was packing.

So Jordan had more reasons to shine on the court, because Wilt shined in bed.

[3ball]

http://i.imgur.com/eW8DUBC.gif


MJ's Bulls of the late 80's didn't beat the Bad Boys.



Looks like he beat the Bad Boys to me.. MJ might've beaten the Bad Boys in 1990 as well if Scottie had showed up.. Well-documented.





The Bad Boys of the late 80's were great teams. I would never put them in the elite, all-time great teams category, though.

Both the Lakers and the Celtics were on the decline by the end of the decade, and neither were close to their peaks of the mid-80's. To Magic's credit, he continued to carry rapidly declining, and injury-plagued rosters, to 60 wins and even one more Finals (and they beat a 63-19 Blazers team to get their.)


You aren't giving the Bad Boys credit for getting better each season - i.e. the 1988 Bad Boys would BEAT the 1987 Celtics.. The 1989 Pistons would BEAT the 1988 Lakers..

Every championship ever won could be "taken away" if we considered teams that on the slight up or downtick - but that happens every year with every team, so it all evens out.

Similarly, the 1991 Bulls would BEAT the 1990 Bad Boys in that infamous Game 7 ECF, instead of Pippen choking.. Teams get better every year and some teams get worse.. But it all evens out.

Btw, Magic won league-MVP in 1990 and was runner-up in 1991 - so he was 100% in his prime in 1989 when Detroit beat them (and MJ in 1991).

[LAZERUSS]

Continued...

Again...CONTEXT.

I have Kareem on my list of GOATs, along with MJ, Magic, Russell, and Wilt. I personally have it, Wilt, MJ, Magic, KAJ, and Russell, but I wouldn't put up much of an argument against any order.

BUT, let's examine KAJ's "6/10" shall we?

IMO, Kareem's greatest season came in his second year. He played 40 mpg, averaged 31.7 ppg, 16.0 rpg, and shot .577 (in a league which shot .449...or a .128 differential against the league average...which was the highest of his career.) Not only that, but his Bucks went 66-16, and just crushed the league. They outscored their opposition by a +12.2 ppg, and outshot them by a still-record margin of .509 to .424.

And they were every bit as dominating in the post-season, as well. They went 12-2, and outscored their opponents by a +14.5 margin (an NBA record), and outshot them by a staggering .497 to .395 margin.

HOWEVER, while I believe they would still have won a title...those Bucks had arguably the easiest road to a title in NBA history. They wiped out a 41-41 Warrior team in the first round. Then, even with an aging Wilt outplaying a peak Kareem in the WCF's, they crushed an LA team without both West and Baylor, 4-1. And then they swept the 42-40 Bullets in the Finals.


That would be it in the decade of the 70's for Kareem. In perhaps the weakest decade for champions in NBA history, Kareem won one title, went to two Finals, lost with HCA in one Final, lost with HCA in the first round of another, swept in the WCF's in another with HCA, lost with a massive edge in talent in two post-seasons ('78 and '79), and missed the playoffs altogether in two more.

Think about that. A PRIME Kareem, in the first ten years of his career...ONE RING. And yet the "Wilt-bashers" will claim that WILT was a failure.

Now, we all know what happened when Magic joined the Lakers in '80. LA jumped to a 60-22 record, wiped out those pesky Sonics in the WCF's (the same team that beat Kareem's in '78 and '79), and then stomped the Sixers, 4-2, in the Finals. KAJ deserved won an MVP (his sixth and last.) And Kareem had a dominant post-season, as well. In fact, he was averaging 33-14 in the Finals thru five games. However, he missed game six, due to a sprained ankle (let's get real here...Wilt not only would have played with a sprained ankle, he likely would have put up at least a 20-20 game.) And amazingly, without Kareem, the Lakers played their best game of the Finals, routing the Sixers on their home floor...in a game in which Magic hung 42-15-7.

I'll give KAJ a solid ring in '80. BUT, in his last season as THE MAN, in '80-81, he was badly outplayed by Moses in the first round series, and his Lakers were shocked, 2-1, by a 40-42 Rockets team. Magic played poorly in that series (albeit he dominated the glass)...but in his defense, he missed nearly the entire last half of the season due to injury. In any case, you can hang that series loss on Kareem. Furthermore, those Rockets gave Bird's Celtics all they could handle in the Finals. IMHO, that was another season in which Kareem SHOULD have won a ring (to go along with '73, and '74.)

Magic took over the team in the '81-82 season, and from that point on, he was the main man (and the MVP balloting would reflect that, as well, as he would outvote Kareem in their last eight seasons together.)

Still, Kareem gets credit for a ring in '82, when you could argue that Bob McAdoo was just as valuable. McAdoo put up essentially the same numbers, but in considerably less minutes. Of course, Magic dominated in the post-season, and easily won FMVP.

I won't blame either Magic, nor Kareem, for their '83 Finals loss to the Sixers. True, they didn't have Worthy, but I doubt he would have been enough, given the series sweep by the 65-17 Sixers. Of course, Moss just battered Kareem in that Finals, and put a stamp on his career domination of Kareem.

However, BOTH Kareem and Magic SHOULD have won a ring in '84. In fact, they SHOULD have SWEPT the Celtics in the Finals (and even Bird said so.) Magic was clearly the better player in that series, though (even with the RIDICULOUS "Tragic" label.)

Kareem played well in the '85 Finals, and deserved the FMVP, but overall, Magic was their REAL post-season MVP.

Kareem dominated Hakeem in their regular season H2H's, in '86, so Fitch assigned Sampson to him in the '86 WCF's, and Ralph basically outplayed him (and yes, Hakeem had a great series.) Still, there was no excuse for a 62 win LA team to lose that series. It might have been moot, anyway, as Boston had a sensational season, going 67-15 and winning the title.

Kareem gets credit for a ring in '87, but he was now the "third wheel" behind Magic and now Worthy. BTW, Magic hung a Finals for the ages that season. In any case, I have long maintained that LA could have given KAJ's minutes to Thompson and Green, and still easily won a title.

Worse, yet, Kareem received a ring in his '88 season, DESPITE his AWFUL post-season, Finals, and game seven of the Finals. IMO, they could have replaced Kareem with Betty White, and gotten just as much out of her as they did with him. To be perfectly honest, it is a disgrace that Kareem gets credit for #6 that season.

So, in REALITY, KAJ's "6/10" needs some real CONTEXT. He had a secondary role in at least four of them, and in another, his minutes could have been given to other players, and then in yet another, his team won a ring DESPITE him.

Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

Looks like he beat the Bad Boys to me.. MJ might've beaten the Bad Boys in 1990 as well if Scottie had showed up.. Well-documented.



You aren't giving the Bad Boys credit for getting better each season - i.e. the 1988 Bad Boys would BEAT the 1987 Celtics.. The 1989 Pistons would BEAT the 1988 Lakers..

Every championship ever won could be "taken away" if we considered teams that on the slight up or downtick - but that happens every year with every team, so it all evens out.

Similarly, the 1991 Bulls would BEAT the 1990 Bad Boys in that infamous Game 7 ECF, instead of Pippen choking.. Teams get better every year and some teams get worse.. But it all evens out.

Btw, Magic won league-MVP in 1990 and was runner-up in 1991 - so he was 100% in his prime in 1989 when Detroit beat them (and MJ in 1991).

Magic took his '89 team into the Finals with an 11-0 playoff record. HOWEVER, the Lakers lost 20 ppg scorer Byron Scott in the WCF's, and he would miss the Finals. THEN, Magic was injured in game two (and the game was tied at the time), and that was basically it. He tried to go in game three, but he couldn't.

And it was a MIRACLE that Magic carried his '91 injury-plagued roster past the 63-19 Blazers, and into the Finals against a 61-21 healthy Bulls team. Thy had no business even getting to Finals that season.

[3ball]

And it was a MIRACLE that Magic carried his '91 injury-plagued roster past the 63-19 Blazers, and into the Finals against a 61-21 healthy Bulls team. Thy had no business even getting to Finals that season.


Quit lying.. In 1991, Worthy was 3rd-Team All-NBA and didn't get hurt until Game 5 - he actually led the Lakers in scoring in the 1991 Finals with 19.3 PPG on 48%.

Magic was runner-up for MVP in 1991 and was healthy the whole Finals: he played all 5 games, 43 MPG, 18.6 PPG, 12 APG, 8 RPG, 61% TS.

In addition to Worthy and Magic, the Lakers had a supporting cast of Spurs-type, smart play-makers, except they were rich-man's versions of what the Spurs have: Vlade Divac (17 PPG in Finals), Sam Perkins (17 PPG), AC Green, Byron Scott, Elden Campbell.

[3ball]

.
In the picture below, weakside floor-spreaders have drawn defenders away from the strongside.. If Noah doesn't leave #20 Mosgov and flood to the strongside, the strongside will only have 2 defenders on it.. A primary objective of every team's 3-point shooting strategy is to reduce the number of strongside defenders by spacing the weakside of the floor - weakside spacing is standard practice for every team in today's game.


http://i61.tinypic.com/2z7mnvm.png



Otoh, previous eras didn't have weakside floor-spreaders or spacing to draw defenders away from the strongside, so the strongside was ALREADY FLOODED with all 5 defenders, as seen below:


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/54cd4db17a9330ca58b8e33a0b6f9b2f.gif


Without 3-point shooting, previous eras didn't have spacing or weakside floor-spreaders to draw defenders away from the strongside, so players faced more defenders on the strongside than today's game, usually all 5 (http://forums.*********.com/forums/index.php?topic=88719.msg1474018#msg1474018), like the GIF above.. Contrastingly, in today's game, weakside spacing ensures a more porous distribution of strongside defenders that requires the flooding of defenders BACK TO the strongside..

That's how the strongside flood originated - to compensate for weakside spacing.. If defenders never left the strongside, they would never need to be flooded back, like the 5-defender strongsides shown earlier.. The strongside flood merely attempts to mimick the loaded-up strongsides that previous eras automatically had from the lack of spacing and weakside spacing.

In these playoffs, Lebron has been living off strongside clearouts where there's only 1 strongside defender - all 4 help defenders are behind the far side of the paint on the weakside, guarding weakside floor-spreaders.. To jog your memory of Lebron's isolations against 1-defender strongsides, here's a few examples from Game 1 of Finals:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=378398

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

Russell's "11/13."

Russell is considered the greatest "winner" in NBA history (albeit, Magic had a higher overall career winning percentage...in fact, the highest in NBA history.)

BUT, let's examine that "11/13" a little further, shall we?

Russell was actually Boston's SECOND pick in the '56 draft (behind eventual ROY, Tom Heinsohn.) He essentially joined a 39-33 playoff team. Not only that, but Russell played in 48 games in his rookie season, and Boston went 28-20 in those games. Without Russell, and with Risen at center,... 16-8. They actually played better withOUT Russell that season.

The Celtics would add Sam Jones to that roster the very next season. THREE HOFers in two seasons. The '58 Finals were very interesting, as well. The series was tied 1-1, and in game three, and with the score tied, Russell injured his ankle. St. Louis would go on to win game three by a 111-108 margin.

Then, with Russell missing the next game, Boston still easily won by a 109-98 margin, to tie the series, at 2-2.

With Russell again missing another game, the Hawks eked out a 102-100 win in game five.

Russell tried to go in game six, but could only play 20 minutes. Boston actually played better without him, albeit, in a 110-109 loss.

THAT should give you a little bit better perspective on just how good those Celtic teams really were.

AND, Auerbach would continue to ADD talent to those rosters. By the lat 50's they were fielding SEVEN HOFers. They drafted Havlicek and the '63 Celtics acquired HOFer Clyde Lovellette, who had averaged 20 ppg the previous season. He would be their EIGHTH best player on a roster that had NINE HOFers.

Later in the decade of the 60's they would add players like career 20 ppg scorer Bailey Howell (who would also get into the HOF), and even little known players like m Bryant...who would put up a 20 point game in a game seven of the Finals.

Russell didn't win a ring in that injury-plagued '58 Finals, nor did he win a ring in the '67 season, either. Even with a stacked 60-21 team, that was the eight-time defending champs, they were still routed by a Wilt-led 68-13 Sixers team in the EDF's. I mentioned it earlier, but when Wilt was finally given an equal supporting cast, that was healthy, he and his team just crushed Russell and his dynasty.

The REALITY was, Russell SHOULD have those 11 rings. But, when he faced a team with an equal supporting cast that he had, but now up against a peak Chamberlain...he was completely destroyed.

And again...had Russell and Wilt swapped rosters (and coaches) in their ten years in the league together, and Wilt might have won as many as TEN rings in that same span. And even with say "only" six, that would have given Wilt SEVEN rings (and Russell six.)

Where would a Chamberlain with SEVEN rings (and perhaps as many as 11) be ranked among the all-time greats?

[3ball]

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/6-05-2015/P5Zone.gif


i have to agree.. I've never seen a strongside with just 1 defender on it, where all the help defenders were behind the far side of the paint on the weakside.. That only happens in today's game where defenders have to guard weakside 3-pointers.. They didn't have to guard 3-pointers at all in the 80's, so defenders were never that far on the weakside.. Plus paint-camping was legal.



Indeed, the main point is quite simple - today's weakside spacing reduces the number of strongside defenders and forces those defenders to help from further away (the weakside).. To defend weakside 3-pointers, defenders must position themselves behind the far side of the paint on the weakside, which is furthest away from helping on strongside action and leaves the paint/strongside wide open with zero help defenders (see GIF above).

By forcing the help defenders on strongside penetration to come from the furthest distance (behind the far side of the paint on weakside), weakside spacing maximizes overall spacing, which is why all teams use it to reduce the number of strongside defenders, including isolation plays.. Unfortunately for the Cavs, Lebron ranked only 78th out of 350 in isolation PPP in the regular season, while his FG% ranked 117th out of 350.. In the playoffs, Lebron is 35th out of 40 in isolation PPP, and 30th out of 40 in FG%:

http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/isolation/?dir=1

Of course, someone capable of maintaining better efficiency at high shooting volumes, like MJ or Bird, would have a far better impact than Lebron is having against the aforementioned porous, 1-defender strongsides.. After all, previous eras didn't have weakside spacing to draw defenders away from the strongside, so 5-defender strongsides (http://forums.*********.com/forums/index.php?topic=88719.msg1474018#msg1474018) were common, meaning all 4 help defenders were on the strongside, in closest proximity to help.. People like to say that these help defenders were actively guarding guys - of course they are, but today's weakside help defenders are actively guarding their man too, but they are doing so on the weakside and furthest away to help (not the strongside, and closest to help).

Of course, the 5-defender strongsides FORCED great players like Bird (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=366456), MJ (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11188520&postcount=37), Dantley, etc. to have great mid-range games and be great mid-range shooters - 5-defender strongsides simply don't allow players in the paint anytime they want like today's 1-defender strongsides and wide open paints - in previous eras, the lack of weakside spacing and resulting 5-defender strongsides meant the paint was often sealed and simply too congested for players to get in there - in the GIF below, there are too many people in the paint for MJ to get in there, so he is FORCED to settle for a mid-range jumper instead: *

http://www.gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/e026bdb37635f1d39f79bf0ad068f961.gif


Also, ball movement wasn't as good an option on 5-defender strongsides as it is on today's more spaced out and porous strongsides - so with lane penetration and ball movement often ruled out, players were forced to engage in 1-on-1 and SETTLE a ton of mid-range (as seen in previous GIF).

[LAZERUSS]

3ball,

I respect your knowledge.

And, MJ has a strong case as the GOAT.

Once again, though, I tend to rank him with Wilt, Magic, Kareem, and Russell.

:cheers:

[Blue&Orange]

someone went off the meds.

[3ball]

3ball,

I respect your knowledge.

And, MJ has a strong case as the GOAT.

Once again, though, I tend to rank him with Wilt, Magic, Kareem, and Russell.


Magic won MVP in 1990 and was runner-up in 1991.. Yet MJ destroyed Magic in the 1991 Finals.. And MJ had to guard Magic, while Magic had the easier assignment on Paxson or Pippen.

Magic even had a better supporting talent (Worthy/Green/Divac/Perkins/Byron Scott/Elden Campbell > Pippen/Grant/Cartwright/Paxson/No-Name Players).

Yet MJ averaged 33/8/11 on 64% TS, while Magic was 19/8/12 on 61% TS.. So I would forget Magic - MJ proved convincingly on the biggest stage that he was superior, prime vs. prime..

Regarding the others - I'd give it to the guy that has the most FMVP's and the best playoff and Finals stats, using the most well-known metrics (PER, win shares, PPG).. That would be MJ.. By a wide margin.
.

[PsychoBe]

lazzerus "off his meds" vs the giftastic 3ball

[hateraid]

Magic won MVP in 1990 and was runner-up in 1991.. Yet MJ destroyed Magic in the 1991 Finals.. And MJ had to guard Magic, while Magic had the easier assignment on Paxson or Pippen.

Magic even had a better supporting talent (Worthy/Green/Divac/Perkins/Byron Scott/Elden Campbell > Pippen/Grant/Cartwright/Paxson/No-Name Players).

Yet MJ averaged 33/8/11 on 64% TS, while Magic was 19/8/12 on 61% TS.. So I would forget Magic - MJ proved convincingly on the biggest stage that he was superior, prime vs. prime..

Regarding the others - I'd give it to the guy that has the most FMVP's and the best playoff and Finals stats, using the most well-known metrics (PER, win shares, PPG).. That would be MJ.. By a wide margin.
.

Sorry, but it was well documented Magic was abusing Jordan game 1 so a defensive switch was made that had Pippen on Magic and put Jordan on Divac who wasn't a threat to score.
While the Bulls beat on a depleted Lakers the individual matchup of Jordan vs Magic was won by Magic

[light]

I feel Jordan more than any athlete has a different set of standards. Where all his failures and short comings are given excuses and are never recognized along side his accomplishments. Even his shortcomings within his own personal life seem to be stricken from public record.
Do you agree?

Yes. It was like that for the longest time but it's starting to change now. More and more people now understand that the golden boy "Be like Mike" image he built up through the 80's and 90's wasn't real. The character we all fell in love with in the 80's was not real. It was an act for marketing. Nobody wants to be like the real Michael Jordan, who is a tortured and sensitive a$$hole and a basic playground bully. We understand that now.

[BigShotBob]

Yes. It was like that for the longest time but it's starting to change now. More and more people now understand that the golden boy "Be like Mike" image he built up through the 80's and 90's wasn't real. The character we all fell in love with in the 80's was not real. It was an act for marketing. Nobody wants to be like the real Michael Jordan, who is a tortured and sensitive a$$hole and a basic playground bully. We understand that now.

Pure cope

[egokiller]

Last time I saw OP he was standing outside Gold’s Gym.

[sdot_thadon]

Lath time I saw OP he was thanding outhide Gold’s Gym.

I knew I recognized that accent somewhere....

[Axe]

Where's op nowadays

[Johnny32]

definitely. jordan failed his last two seasons at unc as the best player in the country. then he failed to get out of the 1st rd for 3 years. then he failed to get to the finals for 3 more. that's 8 consecutive years of failing. that's longer than the real goat's first stint in cleveland.

[HoopsNY]

It is true that MJ gets more credit and almost zero criticism. This is largely because his career was so successful, and ended on such a high note in 1998.

It really is a struggle to pinpoint meltdowns or pitfalls in his career. They're certainly not on the same level as some other players. And nearly every area that you could point towards has some mitigating circumstance (1995 - returning from nearly a 2 year retirement, for example).

But we do hear a lot of excuses for his lack of team play earlier on in his career. What I think needs to be recognized more is the contributions of Phil Jackson, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, and other guys who were really a tremendous part of the Bulls' success. I almost never hear how great Paxson was, and quite frankly - he was.

If anything, that is more egregious than simply avoiding MJ's downfalls, which are few and far apart.

[Axe]

It is true that MJ gets more credit and almost zero criticism. This is largely because his career was so successful, and ended on such a high note in 1998.

It really is a struggle to pinpoint meltdowns or pitfalls in his career. They're certainly not on the same level as some other players. And nearly every area that you could point towards has some mitigating circumstance (1995 - returning from nearly a 2 year retirement, for example).

But we do hear a lot of excuses for his lack of team play earlier on in his career. What I think needs to be recognized more is the contributions of Phil Jackson, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, and other guys who were really a tremendous part of the Bulls' success. I almost never hear how great Paxson was, and quite frankly - he was.

If anything, that is more egregious than simply avoiding MJ's downfalls, which are few and far apart.
He didn't have the longevity that some other legends have but that doesn't make his career less solid if anything. It's just sad that he retired twice though; first was due to serving his detention for his controversial gambling habits and second when the dynasty split-up 23 years ago. He didn't want to leave the core pieces (phil and scottie) that made him so successful.

[egokiller]

I knew I recognth that accenth somthwhere....

:roll:

Yo yo yo can you repeat using a non lisp accent? I don't speak lisp so I'm having trouble understanding what you are trying to say. Maybe use an accent similar to the one used in this vid: https://vimeo.com/267485618

[TheCorporation]

I knew I recognized that accent somewhere....

:roll::lol:lol