Michael Jordan explains why Russell's Celtics aren't as impressive as the 3peat bulls

[TheMarkMadsen]

sorry but winning 8 games in the playoffs and then calling yourself champion isn't as impressive as what the 3peat Bulls and Lakers were able to accomplish..

Obviously you can only play the cards you're dealt, and winning that much definitely says a lot about Celtics relative to their era and also says a lot about certain players from that same era who couldn't win just 8 freaking games to win a couple titles..

1:09 - 1:39

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a57OYN-gTVo

ignore the title of the video

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

11 >>> 6
8peat >>>> 2 3peats >>> 3peat

[SpecialQue]

Wining damn near every year for a decade in a league where all of the talent is condensed into a small number of teams, thus a higher concentration of talent per team and more difficulty advancing, is a hell of a lot more impressive than winning all your championships when your top competition either has a busted up back (Bird) is worn out from repeating (Pistons) or filled to overflowing with HIV (Magic). Not to mention the league expanding, thus watering down the league and giving you more shitty teams to steamroll on your way to a championship.

No player had it easier than Jordan.

[sfballa13]

Wining damn near every year for a decade in a league where all of the talent is condensed into a small number of teams, thus a higher concentration of talent per team and more difficulty advancing, is a hell of a lot more impressive than winning all your championships when your top competition either has a busted up back (Bird) is worn out from repeating (Pistons) or filled to overflowing with HIV (Magic). Not to mention the league expanding, thus watering down the league and giving you more shitty teams to steamroll on your way to a championship.

No player had it easier than Jordan.

Pass me some of that meth buddy

Ewing, Hakeem the Dream, Drexler, Dumars/Thomas/Bad Boy Pistons, Malone/Stockton/Horny, Shaq/Penny, Bird, Magic

The list goes on and on

Jordan played during one of the toughest eras and pulled out 6 championships

[plowking]

Good research on the video OP. :oldlol:

[97 bulls]

Wining damn near every year for a decade in a league where all of the talent is condensed into a small number of teams, thus a higher concentration of talent per team and more difficulty advancing, is a hell of a lot more impressive than winning all your championships when your top competition either has a busted up back (Bird) is worn out from repeating (Pistons) or filled to overflowing with HIV (Magic). Not to mention the league expanding, thus watering down the league and giving you more shitty teams to steamroll on your way to a championship.

No player had it easier than Jordan.
You might have a point if it had not been for the Bulls smacking the Lakers and Pistons 8-1. And lets not forget Jordan was playing with a bad big toe.

Oh and please tell me what year it was that any of the 80s teams beat each other when both were at full strength.

[warriorfan]

Good research on the video OP. :oldlol:

:oldlol:

[TheMarkMadsen]

Good research on the video OP. :oldlol:

has 2+ million views.. have seen it around a lot while looking at nba videos

:confusedshrug: :confusedshrug:

[Psileas]

Nowhere does he claim that Russell's Celtics aren't as impressive. He doesn't even clearly mention Russell's Celtics, he mentions the Celtics in general, that they never won a title in a league with a specific number of teams, etc. He claims the Bulls' 3 titles in a row should put them in the discussion for best ever, implying that it's not just a 8 vs 3 or 16 vs 3 comparison. But nowhere does he make the comparison directly and puts the Bulls ahead of the Celtics.

Which would be absurd, btw, since this would also mean that the Lakers' and the Pistons' back to back titles in an arguably even more competitive era should also be comparable to winning 8 in a row and, needless to say, it isn't...

[TheMarkMadsen]

Nowhere does he claim that Russell's Celtics aren't as impressive. He doesn't even clearly mention Russell's Celtics, he mentions the Celtics in general, that they never won a title in a league with a specific number of teams, etc. He claims the Bulls' 3 titles in a row should put them in the discussion for best ever, implying that it's not just a 8 vs 3 or 16 vs 3 comparison. But nowhere does he make the comparison directly and puts the Bulls ahead of the Celtics.

Which would be absurd, btw, since this would also mean that the Lakers' and the Pistons' back to back titles in an arguably even more competitive era should also be comparable to winning 8 in a row and, needless to say, it isn't...

he says very kindly while referencing Russell's celtics (obvious exaggeration when he says they won 16 in a row) that you can make a strong argument for his bulls being the best team ever because they did it against way more competition and talent..

which is absolutly true..

[jlip]

Russell trolled MJ (http://www.thesportsfanjournal.com/columns/starting-lineups-bill-russell-provide-evidence-supports-jordan-retirement-conspiracy/) about this very matter.

[B]Russell recalls a golf outing he had with Jordan during the Bulls

[warriorfan]

[QUOTE=jlip]Russell trolled MJ (http://www.thesportsfanjournal.com/columns/starting-lineups-bill-russell-provide-evidence-supports-jordan-retirement-conspiracy/) about this very matter.

[B]Russell recalls a golf outing he had with Jordan during the Bulls

[Asukal]

[QUOTE=jlip]Russell trolled MJ (http://www.thesportsfanjournal.com/columns/starting-lineups-bill-russell-provide-evidence-supports-jordan-retirement-conspiracy/) about this very matter.

[B]Russell recalls a golf outing he had with Jordan during the Bulls

[SyRyanYang]

[QUOTE=jlip]Russell trolled MJ (http://www.thesportsfanjournal.com/columns/starting-lineups-bill-russell-provide-evidence-supports-jordan-retirement-conspiracy/) about this very matter.

[B]Russell recalls a golf outing he had with Jordan during the Bulls

[FKAri]

Wining damn near every year for a decade in a league where all of the talent is condensed into a small number of teams, thus a higher concentration of talent per team and more difficulty advancing, is a hell of a lot more impressive than winning all your championships when your top competition either has a busted up back (Bird) is worn out from repeating (Pistons) or filled to overflowing with HIV (Magic). Not to mention the league expanding, thus watering down the league and giving you more shitty teams to steamroll on your way to a championship.

No player had it easier than Jordan.

Talent? What talent? We talkin bout the 60s nigguh. People were rejecting NBA contracts to work as mechanics instead. Only losers with no jobs and no prospects were wasting their time playing ball.

[swagga]

Talent? What talent? We talkin bout the 60s nigguh. People were rejecting NBA contracts to work as mechanics instead. Only losers with no jobs and no prospects were wasting their time playing ball.

some of these guys preferred to go to vietnam then to play ball. That's how shitty the pay was tbh.

[Dragonyeuw]

Wining damn near every year for a decade in a league where all of the talent is condensed into a small number of teams, thus a higher concentration of talent per team and more difficulty advancing, is a hell of a lot more impressive than winning all your championships when your top competition either has a busted up back (Bird) is worn out from repeating (Pistons) or filled to overflowing with HIV (Magic). Not to mention the league expanding, thus watering down the league and giving you more shitty teams to steamroll on your way to a championship.

No player had it easier than Jordan.

Hold up. The 60's Celtics had like 5-6 players who are HOFers, playing in a league where divisional champs were given first round byes until 1967, which would have benefited Boston for 9 titles during their run.....but MJ had it easiest?

Granted, Bird's Celtics were over the hill by the time MJ ascended, and the 91 Lakers weren't the showtime Lakers( that said, the 'HIV overflowing' Magic was MVP runner-up in 91, MVP winner in 90, and his 91 season stats were pretty much right in line with career averages. Not exactly over the hill but whatever). I'm not buying the Pistons were worn out from defending, no excuses. Thomas and Rodman were 30, Dumars 28, Aguirre 31, their core players were in their prime. MJ led the 98 Bulls to a title at 35, with a 36 year old Rodman and Pippen missing 35 games. The 98 Bulls were more 'over the hill' than the 91 Pistons.

[BigBoss]

Kind of like the Ronda Rousey debate. Just because she's a woman doesn't mean she isn't dominant in her class and era. Respect greatness. 11 rings is 11 f'n rings.

[Psileas]

he says very kindly while referencing Russell's celtics (obvious exaggeration when he says they won 16 in a row) that you can make a strong argument for his bulls being the best team ever because they did it against way more competition and talent..

which is absolutly true..

Wilt Chamberlain alone >> anyone the Bulls ever faced
and
Wilt Chamberlain alone >>...>>(with an unspeakable number of >s) anyone Jordan faced individually (except Magic, who's much closer and whom Jordan only faced once and only part time)

[gasolina]

[QUOTE=jlip]

[jlip]

Alpha being alpha I guess. These players are just so competitive they just feel the need to one up one another every time.


Exactly. That's why I said that Russell trolled MJ.

[gasolina]

Exactly. That's why I said that Russell trolled MJ.

I see what he meant now. Russell wasn't speaking in the context of how his Celtics were better than Michael's Bulls based on accolades/accomplishments alone.

This was basically a "Hey my team is better than yours" discussion. He's saying that the equivalent of his today would've been all-NBA first and second teamers.

This actually makes me feel better. Two alpas talking about how their crew (not individuals) were better than the other. A far cry from ISH "Lebron took a d-leaguers to the finals" talk

[aj1987]

Wilt Chamberlain alone >> anyone the Bulls ever faced
and
Wilt Chamberlain alone >>...>>(with an unspeakable number of >s) anyone Jordan faced individually (except Magic, who's much closer and whom Jordan only faced once and only part time)
Shaq >>>>>>>>>>>>> Wilt. It's not particularly close either. Hakeem, Ewing, and D-Rob >>>>>>>>>>> Wilt as well. Wilt would a Rik Smits with a bit better rebounding.

[miles berg]

Wilt Chamberlain alone >> anyone the Bulls ever faced
and
Wilt Chamberlain alone >>...>>(with an unspeakable number of >s) anyone Jordan faced individually (except Magic, who's much closer and whom Jordan only faced once and only part time)

Lol Shaq would eat him alive. Hakeem, DRob, Ewimg, Shaq, Zo, etc...Jordan went agains the greatest era of bigs in history.

Try again, Squirt.

[Rake2204]

This doesn't make sense. Not to slurp on Jordan but as an earlier poster noted, an even better player than Paxson would've take that shot.

This also assumes the talent pool is evenly distributed in the hypothetical scenario. Now, not having lived in the 60's, I can't comment on how recruiting was in that era. Didn't the Celtics have 5-6 HOF players? What about the other teams in the 60's? Did they have HOF players too?

Alpha being alpha I guess. These players are just so competitive they just feel the need to one up one another every time.This topic is always interesting to me, because I can see both sides pretty clearly at times.

Regarding the 5-6 Hall of Famers on the Celtics in the 60's, I think that could be a chicken-or-the-egg situation. As in, did the Celtics always win because they had 5-6 Hall of Famers on their team or did some of those guys make the Hall of Fame because they were a part of a team that always won? Or a little bit of both?

Anyhow, sometimes I try to personalize this debate. I ponder to myself, if I had a choice, would I like my chances better if I entered a tournament with a pretty good supporting cast and had to win four rounds against other teams whose supporting casts ranged from pretty-good-to-not, or would I prefer having a great supporting cast and having to win two series against similarly great teams.

I think I'd take the second option (the 60's Celtics route), particularly if my team really did have the best collective talent and coaching of all the other great teams. It'd seem to offer the least resistance and least chance for something to go wrong, with the potential for limited variability.

[Psileas]

Lol Shaq would eat him alive. Hakeem, DRob, Ewimg, Shaq, Zo, etc...Jordan went agains the greatest era of bigs in history.

Try again, Squirt.

ROFL. Shaq wasn't even eating alive the centers that you mentioned, let alone the GOAT.
Jordan "went agains the greatest era of bigs in history" and yet, in the Finals, he faced teams whose centers were Divac, Duckworth, Mark West, Ervin Johnson and Ostertag.

GOAT center era. :bowdown:

[aj1987]

:roll:

Somebody's mad because their idol is the greatest choker in the history of basketball. :oldlol:

2 rings... :roll:

[wally_world]

11 x 16 = 176
6 x 29 = 174

176 > 174

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

ROFL. Shaq wasn't even eating alive the centers that you mentioned, let alone the GOAT.
Jordan "went agains the greatest era of bigs in history" and yet, in the Finals, he faced teams whose centers were Divac, Duckworth, Mark West, Ervin Johnson and Ostertag.

GOAT center era. :bowdown:

In his third season, Shaq basically played peak Hakeem to a statistical draw, and H2H, for his career, has outplayed him dramatically.

In the playoffs? Dude outplayed every relevant center at that time pretty considerably (greatest era of centers).

[ISHGoat]

11 x 16 = 176
6 x 29 = 174

176 > 174

6 rings * 4 rounds = 24 ring rounds
11 rings * 2 rounds = 22 ring rounds

24 > 22

[ArbitraryWater]

Good research on the video OP. :oldlol:

:roll:

[Psileas]

In his third season, Shaq basically played peak Hakeem to a statistical draw, and H2H, for his career, has outplayed him dramatically.

In the playoffs? Dude outplayed every relevant center at that time pretty considerably (greatest era of centers).

3rd season or not, 1995 Shaq, statistically, was close to his own peak, as well. So, it's not that surprising that he'd play Hakeem to a statistical draw.

Playoffs? After '96, there's nothing resembling "greatest era of centers". Hakeem starts going south quickly, Robinson gets injured in late '96 and is never the same again, Ewing also loses steps, Zo lasts for a few seasons more, but doesn't matter, since the two never faced each other in the playoffs.

Shaq faced 0 great centers in '94, 1 in '95 (in a 4 round run), 0 in '96, 0 in '97 (what ifs don't count), 0 in '98 and 2 in '99, but both past their primes.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

3rd season or not, 1995 Shaq, statistically, was close to his own peak, as well. So, it's not that surprising that he'd play Hakeem to a statistical draw.

Playoffs? After '96, there's nothing resembling "greatest era of centers". Hakeem starts going south quickly, Robinson gets injured in late '96 and is never the same again, Ewing also loses steps, Zo lasts for a few seasons more, but doesn't matter, since the two never faced each other in the playoffs.

Shaq faced 0 great centers in '94, 1 in '95 (in a 4 round run), 0 in '96, 0 in '97 (what ifs don't count), 0 in '98 and 2 in '99, but both past their primes.

3rd year Shaq is still 3rd year Shaq, which means he wasn't GOAT tier like he was in 2000, or during the 2001 playoffs (where he dismantled the leagues DPOY).

BTW, Sabonis was an all-time great, international center. Smits who put up ~17/8 was good for his time AND another all-star caliber center. Shaq also faced Ben Wallace (one of the greatest defenders during his prime) and Duncan (duel PF/C) who he has series against, totally outplaying him.

Shaq never discriminated. He proved himself against the BEST centers during an era where they reigned supreme. Dude is also one of the greatest playoff and finals performers - against quality competition too.

[Psileas]

3rd year Shaq is still 3rd year Shaq, which means he wasn't GOAT tier like he was in 2000, or during the 2001 playoffs (where he dismantled the leagues DPOY).

BTW, Sabonis was an all-time great, international center. Smits who put up ~17/8 was good for his time AND another all-star caliber center. Shaq also faced Ben Wallace (one of the greatest defenders during his prime) and Duncan (duel PF/C) who he has series against, totally outplaying him.

Shaq never discriminated. He proved himself against the BEST centers during an era where they reigned supreme. Dude is also one of the greatest playoff and finals performers - against quality competition too.

He wasn't GOAT tier because his career was only taking off, not because he wasn't playing at a high enough level. Statistically, he was probably already more than 90% of what his peak 2000 self was.
As for the rest, so did any GOAT tier center really. Some of them faced more often high quality centers than Shaq has. Especially if you're willing to enter guys like Smits and Sabonis.

[Elosha]

[QUOTE=jlip]Russell trolled MJ (http://www.thesportsfanjournal.com/columns/starting-lineups-bill-russell-provide-evidence-supports-jordan-retirement-conspiracy/) about this very matter.

[B]Russell recalls a golf outing he had with Jordan during the Bulls

[aj1987]

He wasn't GOAT tier because his career was only taking off, not because he wasn't playing at a high enough level. Statistically, he was probably already more than 90% of what his peak 2000 self was.
As for the rest, so did any GOAT tier center really. Some of them faced more often high quality centers than Shaq has. Especially if you're willing to enter guys like Smits and Sabonis.
Sounds like you're making excuses to make Chokerlain look better than Shaq. Something which is never gonna happen. One elevated his play in the PO's and the other wilts. You can guess who's who.


Paxon would most definitely not be up in the stands in the 60's. He's truly underrated. Great clutch shooter, better than expected ballhandler (not fancy but very solid and risk free), good soft touch around the rim. He's just another Bulls player that did his job well and without complaint, while getting overshadowed by his start teammates.
Yep. Dude knows it, but can't admit it. The guy won 11 in the weakest era EVER. A joke era, TBH. All those "records" should come with and asterisk and be ignored.

[riseagainst]

so a better player would have taken the shot?

:lol
:oldlol:
:roll: