FACT: MJ never lost a series where his team had the HCA.

[ClipperRevival]

1984-85 - Bulls 38-44 - Lost to Milwaukee (59-23)
1985-86 - Bulls 30-52 - Lost to Celtics (67-15) - Champs
1986-87 - Bulls 40-42 - Lost to Celtics (59-23) - Lost Finals
1987-88 - Bulls 50-32 - Lost to Pistons (54-28) - Lost Finals
1988-89 - Bulls 47-35 - Lost to Pistons (63-19) - Champs
1989-90 - Bulls 55-27 - Lost to Pistons (59-23) - Champs


MJs numbers from this period (first 6 seasons):

Reg season: 32.8 PPG, 29.9 PER, 6.3 rpg, 6.0 apg, 2.8 spg
Playoffs: 35.8 PPG, 29.7 PER, 6.9 rpg, 6.7 apg, 2.5 spg

We all know what he did starting the 1990-91 season. But this gives you a perspective on what type of help MJ had and what type of teams he had to go up against. All-time great, legendary teams. He really had no chance. It wasn't until Pippen and Grant matured along with PJ coming on board as coach when MJ had enough firepower to start beating elite teams. But look at his individual numbers during this time, just dominant from the get go. This is what the GOAT does.

Drop the mic.

[ArbitraryWater]

Thanks, this has been well talked about.

[ClipperRevival]

And MJ might've won his first title a year sooner in 1990 if Pippen didn't have the worst game EVER for a 2nd fiddle star in a game 7.

2 point (1/10 from the field).

The infamous migraine game where he pretty much admitted the pressure got to him.

[ArbitraryWater]

And MJ might've won his first title a year sooner in 1990 if Pippen didn't have the worst game EVER for a 2nd fiddle start in a game 7.

2 point (1/10 from the field).

Like you really know this for a fact.. Gasol's 2nd fiddle in the 2010 finals game 7 was probably worse given the volume of the suckery

[ClipperRevival]

Like you really know this for a fact.. Gasol's 2nd fiddle in the 2010 finals game 7 was probably worse given the volume of the suckery

:facepalm I'm a Laker fan. I saw that game like 10 times. Gasol was the MVP of game 7 along with Artest.

[mehyaM24]

another fact: jordan never went up against the super teams of the '80s e.g. the celtics, lakers and sixers.

when playing teams on the level you're on, or better, homecourt just doesn't really matter.

the bulls were simply better than everyone they played from 91 & on.

[ClipperRevival]

another fact: jordan never went up against the super teams of the '80s e.g. the celtics, lakers and sixers.

when playing teams on the level you're on, or better, homecourt just doesn't really matter.

the bulls were simply better than everyone they played from 91 & on.

:facepalm Do you not even take the time to read my OP?

[ClipperRevival]

This is what's fun about being a fan of the GOAT, you have truth on your side. It's like having God on your side, you just can't lose. The deeper you dig, the clearer the truth is revealed. This is just stuff I do when I have time at work. I dig up MJ stuff and see what I can come up with. And viola, another truth revealed about MJ.

In due time, when you youngsters (not meant to be derogatory in any way) have watched and played the game for a few decades and had the chance to watch dynastic teams rise and fall and legends come and go, you too will see the truth.

MJ very well might be the GOAT for eternity and I'm not saying this as a homer. I saw with my own eyes what he did on the court. His impact might never be duplicated.

[mehyaM24]

:facepalm Do you not even take the time to read my OP?

of course, which is why i mentioned the sixers & lakers (with KAJ). you didn't have them in your OP. :confusedshrug:

your little factoid is silly, because jordan's bulls never played a super team when they had homecourt.

unlike bird and his celtics
unlike magic and his lakers
unlike doctor j and his sixers

do your homework kiddo

[ArbitraryWater]

:facepalm I'm a Laker fan. I saw that game like 10 times. Gasol was the MVP of game 7 along with Artest.

That's why I said Gasol's 2nd fiddle not Gasol.. we agree.

[Hey Yo]

1984-85 - Bulls 38-44 - Lost to Milwaukee (59-23)
1985-86 - Bulls 30-52 - Lost to Celtics (67-15) - Champs
1986-87 - Bulls 40-42 - Lost to Celtics (59-23) - Lost Finals
1987-88 - Bulls 50-32 - Lost to Pistons (54-28) - Lost Finals
1988-89 - Bulls 47-35 - Lost to Pistons (63-19) - Champs
1989-90 - Bulls 55-27 - Lost to Pistons (59-23) - Champs


MJs numbers from this period (first 6 seasons):

Reg season: 32.8 PPG, 29.9 PER, 6.3 rpg, 6.0 apg, 2.8 spg
Playoffs: 35.8 PPG, 29.7 PER, 6.9 rpg, 6.7 apg, 2.5 spg

We all know what he did starting the 1990-91 season. But this gives you a perspective on what type of help MJ had and what type of teams he had to go up against. All-time great, legendary teams. He really had no chance. It wasn't until Pippen and Grant matured along with PJ coming on board as coach when MJ had enough firepower to start beating elite teams. But look at his individual numbers during this time, just dominant from the get go. This is what the GOAT does.

Drop the mic.
He had no chance?

1989 Bulls and Pistons. Series tied at 2 apiece and game 5 was most likely the biggest playoff game in MJ's career up to that point.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/198905310DET.html

:wtf: :confusedshrug: ........what happen???

[ShawkFactory]

This is what's fun about being a fan of the GOAT, you have truth on your side. It's like having God on your side, you just can't lose. The deeper you dig, the clearer the truth is revealed. This is just stuff I do when I have time at work. I dig up MJ stuff and see what I can come up with. And viola, another truth revealed about MJ.

In due time, when you youngsters (not meant to be derogatory in any way) have watched and played the game for a few decades and had the chance to watch dynastic teams rise and fall and legends come and go, you too will see the truth.

MJ very well might be the GOAT for eternity and I'm not saying this as a homer. I saw with my own eyes what he did on the court. His impact might never be duplicated.
Not a great analogy.

I like the post though

[ClipperRevival]

of course, which is why i mentioned the sixers & lakers (with KAJ). you didn't have them in your OP. :confusedshrug:

your little factoid is silly, because jordan's bulls never played a super team when they had homecourt.

unlike bird and his celtics
unlike magic and his lakers
unlike doctor j and his sixers

do your homework kiddo

The Sixers were past it by MJ's time so why even bring them up? MJ lost to two legendary teams for five straight years and he beat Magic's Lakers in 1991.

Keep coming with the lame excuses. It's entertaining.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Meh, I'm a Jordan fan but this "fact" has always sounded contrived and without context.

Maybe that's just me though :confusedshrug:

[riseagainst]

As he should. He had the superior team.

[ClipperRevival]

Meh, I'm a Jordan fan but this "fact" has always sounded contrived and without context.

Maybe that's just me though :confusedshrug:

It's true. I looked it up and the facts are in front of you in the OP. No point in checking 1990-91 onward because MJ never lost a series.

[mehyaM24]

The Sixers were past it by MJ's time so why even bring them up? MJ lost to two legendary teams for five straight years and he beat Magic's Lakers in 1991.

Keep coming with the lame excuses. It's entertaining.

because jordan never faced superteams by the time they finally were awared home court.

you really need to do more research. jordan fans think the league started in the 90s, but its not totally their fault. the media has warped these poor souls.

btw- the lakers were missing kaj (retired), and byron scott/james worthy were injured throughout the series (even missed the last game) - los angeles in 1991 was not a super team. in fact, what magic did by taking them to the finals was considered herculean.

[ClipperRevival]

Getting into an argument AGAIN with Laz about Wilt had me thinking about this. The "Big Dipper" choked away two playoff series when he had the HCA against Russell's Celtics in 1968 and 1969. So I wanted to see what MJ was about in those situations.

I wonder if any other legend can boast this fact.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

It's true. I looked it up and the facts are in front of you in the OP. No point in checking 1990-91 onward because MJ never lost a series.

Where did I say they weren't true? Its just a dumb fact imo, and devoid of any context.

[ClipperRevival]

Where did I say they weren't true? Its just a dumb fact imo, and devoid of any context.

I think it's an interesting fact. I wonder if any other legend can boast this claim.

[Young X]

FACTS. Bulls never once lost when they were supposed to win. They always handled business. When they lost, they lost to vastly superior teams that they had little chance against (besides Orlando). 24-0 with homecourt. And they even managed to win 6 series without homecourt.

[ArbitraryWater]

I think it's an interesting fact. I wonder if any other legend can boast this claim.

no you don't wonder, we know nobody else has this, this context-less fact.

[LAZERUSS]

I always wondered what happened to MJ in '95.

He basically replaced Horace Grant on a roster that went 55-27 without him in '94 (and in fact Grant and Pippen missed a combined 22 games....or they would have easily won 60+) ...and that team lost a close and controversial seven game series to a NY team that would lose a seven game series to a 58-24 Rockets team in the Finals.

And yet, with all that surrounding talent....they were beaten 4-2 in the ECSF's by a team that would get swept by a 47-35 Rockets team in the Finals.

Luckily for MJ, the Bulls then ADDED Rodman to that roster, and the rest was history.

[ClipperRevival]

FACTS. Bulls never once lost when they were supposed to win. They always handled business. When they lost, they lost to vastly superior teams that they had little chance against (besides Orlando). 24-0 with homecourt. And they even managed to win 6 series without homecourt.

GOAT gonna GOAT. It really is amazing when you see the teams he faced before the emergence of Pip/Grant and PJ coming on board.

[Hey Yo]

He had no chance?

1989 Bulls and Pistons. Series tied at 2 apiece and game 5 was most likely the biggest playoff game in MJ's career up to that point.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/198905310DET.html

:wtf: :confusedshrug: ........what happen???
hello, McFly???

[Sarcastic]

Well this pretty much ends the 1-9 criticism.

Well done OP. Well done. :applause:

[ClipperRevival]

He had no chance?

1989 Bulls and Pistons. Series tied at 2 apiece and game 5 was most likely the biggest playoff game in MJ's career up to that point.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/198905310DET.html

:wtf: :confusedshrug: ........what happen???

Context is key here. When looking back, we see that the Pistons were in the midst of a dynasty. They were just the better team. MJ having an off game means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Yes, even the GOAT can have off games. :cheers:

[ClipperRevival]

I always wondered what happened to MJ in '95.

He basically replaced Horace Grant on a roster that went 55-27 without him in '94 (and in fact Grant and Pippen missed a combined 22 games....or they would have easily won 60+) ...and that team lost a close and controversial seven game series to a NY team that would lose a seven game series to a 58-24 Rockets team in the Finals.

And yet, with all that surrounding talent....they were beaten 4-2 in the ECSF's by a team that would get swept by a 47-35 Rockets team in the Finals.

Luckily for MJ, the Bulls then ADDED Rodman to that roster, and the rest was history.

MJ only played 17 games. He simply didn't have his basketball legs under him and just wasn't in rhythm with his teammates. It takes longer than 17 games to get in sync with the game. And he proved this by 3 peating. :cheers:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Context is key here. When looking back, we see that the Pistons were in the midst of a dynasty. They were just the better team. MJ having an off game means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Yes, even the GOAT can have off games. :cheers:

Why does MJ get needed context, but not the other way around?

That in and of itself shows you why this is a contrived achievement (nevermind a team one). Nobody would think any less of MJ, or you, if you just admitted that. :oldlol:

[LAZERUSS]

Context is key here. When looking back, we see that the Pistons were in the midst of a dynasty. They were just the better team. MJ having an off game means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Yes, even the GOAT can have off games. :cheers:

But an injured Wilt losing to the greatest dynasty in NBA history, and in a series in which he pummelled Russell counts against Wilt.

Makes perfect sense.

MJ gets an excuse for his numbers declining considerably against the Bad Boys, and for quitting on his team in a pivotal game five...but no excuses for Wilt.

Yep...no bias there.

[Young X]

I always bring this up and I'm gonna do it again. In Jordan's 15 seasons he was on a contender only from '90-'98.

Outside of those years, every other team he was on was terrible.

He and the Bulls had about 7 realistic chances to win a ring and they ended up with 6 of them.

The one they didn't get? Took the defending (and eventual repeat champion) Pistons to game 7 of the ECF as the underdog in 1990. Jordan averaged about 32/7/6 on 57 TS% in the series against one of the toughest defenses of all time. Maybe they could've won if Pippen didn't have that migraine.

[LAZERUSS]

I always bring this up and I'm gonna do it again. In Jordan's 15 seasons he was on a contender only from '90-'98.

Outside of those years, every other team he was on was terrible.

He and the Bulls had about 7 realistic chances to win a ring and they ended up with 6 of them.

The one they didn't get? Took the defending (and eventual repeat champion) Pistons to game 7 of the ECF as the underdog in 1990. Jordan averaged about 32/7/6 on 57 TS% in the series against one of the toughest defenses of all time. Maybe they could've won if Pippen didn't have that migraine.

And '95?

Replacing Grant on a 55 win roster?

[Hey Yo]

Context is key here. When looking back, we see that the Pistons were in the midst of a dynasty. They were just the better team. MJ having an off game means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Yes, even the GOAT can have off games. :cheers:
An off-game is 7-26 or 6-27

Only registering 8FGA in the biggest playoff game of your career sounds more like he quit or gave up before the game even started.

So in short, the Bulls DID really have a chance. Could have went up 3-2 in the series with game 6 in Chicago, but MJ had other plans.

[LAZERUSS]

MJ only played 17 games. He simply didn't have his basketball legs under him and just wasn't in rhythm with his teammates. It takes longer than 17 games to get in sync with the game. And he proved this by 3 peating. :cheers:

But an injured Wilt, or a Wilt who had major knee surgery, came back way before expectations, played three poor regular season games...and loses a game seven in the Finals against a heavily-favored Knick team, in a game in which he hung a 21-24 statline, in a series in which he hung a 23-24 .625 FG% stat-line? Nope, no excuses for Wilt.

[LAZERUSS]

An off-game is 7-26 or 6-27

Only registering 8FGA in the biggest playoff game of your career sounds more like he quit or gave up before the game even started.

So in short, the Bulls DID really have a chance. Could have went up 3-2 in the series with game 6 in Chicago, but MJ had other plans.

He DID quit. Flat out quit on his team.

[Young X]

And '95?

Replacing Grant on a 55 win roster?- No homecourt
- 5th seed
- Only 17 games with the team coming from baseball

:applause:

[Hey Yo]

- No homecourt
- 5th seed
- Only 17 games with the team coming from baseball

:applause:
Yet after his 4th or 5th game back, he dropped 55 on the Knicks and the word was:

"MJ's back, he never missed a beat. He's GOD!!!!"

[LAZERUSS]

- No homecourt
- 5th seed
- Only 17 games with the team coming from baseball

:applause:

So Grant was more valuable to this same roster than MJ was?

Again, luckily for MJ that ownership realized that...and then ADDED Rodman to a roster that had MJ replacing a player on a 55 win team.

[juju151111]

Yet after his 4th or 5th game back, he dropped 55 on the Knicks and the word was:

"MJ's back, he never missed a beat. He's GOD!!!!"
Whqt does that have to do with the OP? He never lost with HCA

[mehyaM24]

Why does MJ get needed context, but not the other way around?

That in and of itself shows you why this is a contrived achievement (nevermind a team one). Nobody would think any less of MJ, or you, if you just admitted that. :oldlol:


But an injured Wilt losing to the greatest dynasty in NBA history, and in a series in which he pummelled Russell counts against Wilt.

Makes perfect sense.

MJ gets an excuse for his numbers declining considerably against the Bad Boys, and for quitting on his team in a pivotal game five...but no excuses for Wilt.

Yep...no bias there.

exactly

ok - jordan didn't lose with homecourt. all well and fine, but don't pretend jordan did it playing any of the teams in the op. or the teams i listed on the first page.

[Young X]

Yet after his 4th or 5th game back, he dropped 55 on the Knicks and the word was:

"MJ's back, he never missed a beat. He's GOD!!!!"He also dropped 51 as an old cripple on the Wizards. Who cares. One game doesn't mean shit.

[warriorfan]

1984-85 - Bulls 38-44 - Lost to Milwaukee (59-23)
1985-86 - Bulls 30-52 - Lost to Celtics (67-15) - Champs
1986-87 - Bulls 40-42 - Lost to Celtics (59-23) - Lost Finals
1987-88 - Bulls 50-32 - Lost to Pistons (54-28) - Lost Finals
1988-89 - Bulls 47-35 - Lost to Pistons (63-19) - Champs
1989-90 - Bulls 55-27 - Lost to Pistons (59-23) - Champs


MJs numbers from this period (first 6 seasons):

Reg season: 32.8 PPG, 29.9 PER, 6.3 rpg, 6.0 apg, 2.8 spg
Playoffs: 35.8 PPG, 29.7 PER, 6.9 rpg, 6.7 apg, 2.5 spg

We all know what he did starting the 1990-91 season. But this gives you a perspective on what type of help MJ had and what type of teams he had to go up against. All-time great, legendary teams. He really had no chance. It wasn't until Pippen and Grant matured along with PJ coming on board as coach when MJ had enough firepower to start beating elite teams. But look at his individual numbers during this time, just dominant from the get go. This is what the GOAT does.

Drop the mic.

otoh LeBron has lost multiple times while having HCA

[sportjames23]

1984-85 - Bulls 38-44 - Lost to Milwaukee (59-23)
1985-86 - Bulls 30-52 - Lost to Celtics (67-15) - Champs
1986-87 - Bulls 40-42 - Lost to Celtics (59-23) - Lost Finals
1987-88 - Bulls 50-32 - Lost to Pistons (54-28) - Lost Finals
1988-89 - Bulls 47-35 - Lost to Pistons (63-19) - Champs
1989-90 - Bulls 55-27 - Lost to Pistons (59-23) - Champs


MJs numbers from this period (first 6 seasons):

Reg season: 32.8 PPG, 29.9 PER, 6.3 rpg, 6.0 apg, 2.8 spg
Playoffs: 35.8 PPG, 29.7 PER, 6.9 rpg, 6.7 apg, 2.5 spg

We all know what he did starting the 1990-91 season. But this gives you a perspective on what type of help MJ had and what type of teams he had to go up against. All-time great, legendary teams. He really had no chance. It wasn't until Pippen and Grant matured along with PJ coming on board as coach when MJ had enough firepower to start beating elite teams. But look at his individual numbers during this time, just dominant from the get go. This is what the GOAT does.

Drop the mic.


Never lost with HCA, undefeated in the NBA Finals, never lost in the Olympics, undefeated in championship games/series (NCAA, Olympics, NBA Finals).

GOAT. Straight up GOAT.

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

[Hey Yo]

He also dropped 51 as an old cripple on the Wizards. Who cares. One game doesn't mean shit.
Except for the fact when MJ scored 55 against the NYK his 5th game back.
it meant shit!!!!

[GrapeApe]

Except for the fact when MJ scored 55 against the NYK his 5th game back.
it meant shit!!!!

I don't think there's any debate that Jordan wasn't fully himself in 1995. You cannot have a 2 year absence and return to top form in 17 games. Not at the highest level of basketball. More importantly, it's impossible to establish (or reestablish) championship level chemistry in that short a time frame. He was certainly capable of a dominant single game performance, he could do that on talent alone, but it takes time to fine-tune all the nuances of the game.

[livinglegend]

Jordan also had a team that could win 55 games without him (the team wasn't even fully healthy). FACT

[livinglegend]

Never lost with HCA, undefeated in the NBA Finals, never lost in the Olympics, undefeated in championship games/series (NCAA, Olympics, NBA Finals).

GOAT. Straight up GOAT.

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

Never made the second round without Pippen :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[mehyaM24]

itt, jordan fans crediting their guy with team accolades. :lol

reminds me of a thread months back, where jordan fans huff and puffed after i reminded them having "the most fmvps" was another trite fact (bill russell, had the award existed, would've had more).

jordan fans are literally the kings of bullshit, inconsequential facts.

[SouBeachTalents]

An off-game is 7-26 or 6-27

Only registering 8FGA in the biggest playoff game of your career sounds more like he quit or gave up before the game even started.

So in short, the Bulls DID really have a chance. Could have went up 3-2 in the series with game 6 in Chicago, but MJ had other plans.

Only registering 11 FGA in the biggest playoff game of your career sounds more like he quit or gave up before the game started.

So in short, the Heat DID really have a chance. Could have went up 3-1 in the series with games 6 & 7 in Miami, but LeBron had other plans.

Bottomline, if you believe that about Jordan, same exact thing applies to LeBron for Game 4 of the 2011 Finals. Yet you blame Wade for that one. Makes you a huge hypocrite. If Jordan quit, then LeBron did too

[Hey Yo]

I don't think there's any debate that Jordan wasn't fully himself in 1995. You cannot have a 2 year absence and return to top form in 17 games. Not at the highest level of basketball. More importantly, it's impossible to establish (or reestablish) championship level chemistry in that short a time frame. He was certainly capable of a dominant single game performance, he could do that on talent alone, but it takes time to fine-tune all the nuances of the game.
So if he didn't choose to quit those 2yrs, he would have scored 91 instead of 55 that night?

[GrapeApe]

itt, jordan fans crediting their guy with team accolades. :lol

reminds me of a thread months back, where jordan fans huff and puffed after i reminded them having "the most fmvps" was another trite fact (bill russell, had the award existed, would've had more).

jordan fans are literally the kings of bullshit, inconsequential facts.

Wait, so team accolades are no longer part of a player's legacy? You're saying that being the best player on a championship team is irrelevant?

[Smoke117]

itt, jordan fans crediting their guy with team accolades. :lol

reminds me of a thread months back, where jordan fans huff and puffed after i reminded them having "the most fmvps" was another trite fact (bill russell, had the award existed, would've had more).

jordan fans are literally the kings of bullshit, inconsequential facts.

Pretty much.

[GrapeApe]

So if he didn't choose to quit those 2yrs, he would have scored 91 instead of 55 that night?

So you completely ignore everthing else I said in that post?

What the hell? :oldlol:

[mehyaM24]

Wait, so team accolades are no longer part of a player's legacy? You're saying that being the best player on a championship team is irrelevant?

not when you credit jordan to the extent his fans have.

most of them think scottie pippen was a mediocre all star, and could've easily been replaced by some one-dimensional scorer.

they don't really value rebounding, playmaking, defense and other aspects that make an otherwise adequate scorer, ATG.

[Hey Yo]

Only registering 11 FGA in the biggest playoff game of your career sounds more like he quit or gave up before the game started.

So in short, the Heat DID really have a chance. Could have went up 3-1 in the series with games 6 & 7 in Miami, but LeBron had other plans.

Bottomline, if you believe that about Jordan, same exact thing applies to LeBron for Game 4 of the 2011 Finals. Yet you blame Wade for that one. Makes you a huge hypocrite. If Jordan quit, then LeBron did too
You're forgetting the part where MJ was the clear cut captain/ leader, FG attempter (no, not a word) ball handler/scoring machine for the Bulls in 89

Once the 2011 Finals started we were shown it was still Wade's team in which he let the media and fans know by handing the reigns off to LeBron later that summer.

OP said MJ had no real chance against Detroit and other stacked teams. I showed him where MJ did and asked what happened.

I never said LeBron had no real chance against Dallas.

No hypocrite here, chico

[Donkey4trading]

:facepalm I'm a Laker fan. I saw that game like 10 times. Gasol was the MVP of game 7 along with Artest.

give him credit, the little guy was trying his best drum up the Kobe hate.. :oldlol: :oldlol:

[iamgine]

1984-85 - Bulls 38-44 - Lost to Milwaukee (59-23)
1985-86 - Bulls 30-52 - Lost to Celtics (67-15) - Champs
1986-87 - Bulls 40-42 - Lost to Celtics (59-23) - Lost Finals
1987-88 - Bulls 50-32 - Lost to Pistons (54-28) - Lost Finals
1988-89 - Bulls 47-35 - Lost to Pistons (63-19) - Champs
1989-90 - Bulls 55-27 - Lost to Pistons (59-23) - Champs


MJs numbers from this period (first 6 seasons):

Reg season: 32.8 PPG, 29.9 PER, 6.3 rpg, 6.0 apg, 2.8 spg
Playoffs: 35.8 PPG, 29.7 PER, 6.9 rpg, 6.7 apg, 2.5 spg

We all know what he did starting the 1990-91 season. But this gives you a perspective on what type of help MJ had and what type of teams he had to go up against. All-time great, legendary teams. He really had no chance. It wasn't until Pippen and Grant matured along with PJ coming on board as coach when MJ had enough firepower to start beating elite teams. But look at his individual numbers during this time, just dominant from the get go. This is what the GOAT does.

Drop the mic.
If we're to make excuses that he only lost to All-time great legendary teams, we should also note that he never faced All-time great legendary teams once he started winning.

[ballinhun8]

Jordan also had a team that could win 55 games without him (the team wasn't even fully healthy). FACT


They also were 34-31 without him the next year before he came back



Did you know that son?

[tmacattack33]

Okay...so that would just mean that he did worse than we mighta expected on the road. :confusedshrug:

He's great and he is the GOAT, but weird stats like this are irrelevant. Just as you might think its good that he took care of business when he had HCA, someone else can say that this is not a good thing because it means he was rattled when he didn't have HCA.

[LAZERUSS]

They also were 34-31 without him the next year before he came back



Did you know that son?

They also had lost GRANT, too. Based on their 55-27 record in '94 WITH Grant, they likely would have gone at least 12-5 in those same games that they went 13-4 with Jordan. And the reality was, that 55-27 record was deceptive, as well. Pippen and Grant missed a combined 22 games in that '94 season. Had those two been relatively healthy all season, and they probably would have won 60+ games. Which would have been huge. Why? Because they lost to the 56-26 Knicks in a close seven game series...BUT, they went 3-0 at home. Had they had HCA, and they likely would have won that series. And given the fact that they owned Indiana during the regular season, they probably would have dispatched the Pacers in the ECF's. And since we know that the Knicks gave the 58-24 Rockets all they could handle in the Finals (losing a close game seven, and outscoring Houston in that series), they might very well have won a title without Jordan.

Did you know that son?

So, here was Pippen basically carrying a team without BOTH MJ and Grant, to a 34-31 record.

Find me a season in which Jordan had a winning record without Pippen and Grant, or Pippen and Rodman.

[ClipperRevival]

I always bring this up and I'm gonna do it again. In Jordan's 15 seasons he was on a contender only from '90-'98.

Outside of those years, every other team he was on was terrible.

He and the Bulls had about 7 realistic chances to win a ring and they ended up with 6 of them.

The one they didn't get? Took the defending (and eventual repeat champion) Pistons to game 7 of the ECF as the underdog in 1990. Jordan averaged about 32/7/6 on 57 TS% in the series against one of the toughest defenses of all time. Maybe they could've won if Pippen didn't have that migraine.

Agreed.

[ClipperRevival]

But an injured Wilt, or a Wilt who had major knee surgery, came back way before expectations, played three poor regular season games...and loses a game seven in the Finals against a heavily-favored Knick team, in a game in which he hung a 21-24 statline, in a series in which he hung a 23-24 .625 FG% stat-line? Nope, no excuses for Wilt.

Who even brought up the Knicks series? But anyways, my only gripe with Wilt in 1970 is that he dropped 45 in game 6 and had a hobbled Reed in game 7 and he should've tried to do more and be more aggressive. But he wasn't. But in the grand scheme of things, I don't hold 1970 against him too much given the fact that the Knicks were a better team.

[ClipperRevival]

I don't think there's any debate that Jordan wasn't fully himself in 1995. You cannot have a 2 year absence and return to top form in 17 games. Not at the highest level of basketball. More importantly, it's impossible to establish (or reestablish) championship level chemistry in that short a time frame. He was certainly capable of a dominant single game performance, he could do that on talent alone, but it takes time to fine-tune all the nuances of the game.

Gets it. Having a great individual scoring game is NOT the same as being in sync with your teammates and having your basketball legs under you for the long, playoff grind.

[Dragonyeuw]

If we're to make excuses that he only lost to All-time great legendary teams, we should also note that he never faced All-time great legendary teams once he started winning.

It's all relative. The Blazers, Suns, Sonics, and Jazz from top to bottom were as talented, if not moreso, than the Bulls were. The Knicks were also, from 1-12, more loaded. After you got past MJ, Pippen, and Grant/Rodman( and Kukoc as a supersub), the Bulls had otherwise marginally talented players. The main difference was Jordan was the best player on the court no matter who they faced.

[ClipperRevival]

Jordan also had a team that could win 55 games without him (the team wasn't even fully healthy). FACT

Yup. MJ was the DIFFERENCE between a 55 win, 2nd round exit team to an all-time great team that won 72 games and 69 games the two years after that and 3 peated.

Also, you can't ignore fact that the Bulls were a well coached, well oiled machine when MJ left and had that confidence of champions. Sort of like if Duncan was out for a year, do you think that a Pop coached team would fall on its face? Of course not. But winning 50+ games in one season is different from being a 3 peat team. Also, you have to factor in that the Bulls added Kukoc, Kerry and Longley that season.

[LAZERUSS]

Who even brought up the Knicks series? But anyways, my only gripe with Wilt in 1970 is that he dropped 45 in game 6 and had a hobbled Reed in game 7 and he should've tried to do more and be more aggressive. But he wasn't. But in the grand scheme of things, I don't hold 1970 against him too much given the fact that the Knicks were a better team.

The thing is, Chamberlain only had ONE poor post-season SERIES in his NBA career. And that was in his '68-69 season, and it came with a horrific coach, who openly despised Wilt. Van Breda Kolff's coaching ultimately cost the city of Los Angeles their first NBA title. Of course, when LA brought in Bill Sharman a couple of years later, they went on their 33 game winning streak, hung a 69-13 regular season, and blew thru their opposition in the post-season en route to a dominating title.

The "bashers" basically use Chamberlain's '69 post-season as some kind of epitome of his entire post-season career.

Let me ask you this...swap rosters (and coaches) with Russell, and how many rings does Wilt end up with? And then, where would you rank him all-time?

[ClipperRevival]

If we're to make excuses that he only lost to All-time great legendary teams, we should also note that he never faced All-time great legendary teams once he started winning.

It's hard to be a legendary team when MJ's team beats everyone doesn't it? :oldlol: Say the Bulls lost to the Jazz twice, history would view the Jazz as a "legendary" team would they not? But again, MJ didn't let it get to that.

[ClipperRevival]

They also were 34-31 without him the next year before he came back



Did you know that son?

Of course not. They CLING to the 1993-94 season as if that's proof that the Bulls were a great team. As I said above, it's sort of like if Duncan was out for a year in a Pop coached team. Do you think they would fall flat on their face? Of course not. The years of playing in the same system, of being well coached, of having that championship swagger along with adding key pieces (Kukoc, Kerr, Longley) would all play a factor in having that team stay competitive. But being competitive isn't the same as being championship caliber.

[ClipperRevival]

Okay...so that would just mean that he did worse than we mighta expected on the road. :confusedshrug:

He's great and he is the GOAT, but weird stats like this are irrelevant. Just as you might think its good that he took care of business when he had HCA, someone else can say that this is not a good thing because it means he was rattled when he didn't have HCA.

Again, look at the teams he faced when he first came into the league. They weren't just solid teams that had a slight edge in wins but all-time great teams. A great individual talent has no chance against an all-time great team. None.

But still, the fact is, when MJ had the HCA, he never lost. And he also won 6 playoff series when he didn't have HCA.

[ClipperRevival]

The thing is, Chamberlain only had ONE poor post-season SERIES in his NBA career. And that was in his '68-69 season, and it came with a horrific coach, who openly despised Wilt. Van Breda Kolff's coaching ultimately cost the city of Los Angeles their first NBA title. Of course, when LA brought in Bill Sharman a couple of years later, they went on their 33 game winning streak, hung a 69-13 regular season, and blew thru their opposition in the post-season en route to a dominating title.

The "bashers" basically use Chamberlain's '69 post-season as some kind of epitome of his entire post-season career.

Let me ask you this...swap rosters (and coaches) with Russell, and how many rings does Wilt end up with? And then, where would you rank him all-time?

There's no way to answer that. You play to win the game, not put up great numbers. Stats can be empty and misleading. You can get yours at the expense of winning. On the flip side, you can be very impactful while putting up mediocre numbers.

Watching docs of both Russell and Wilt, one thing is very clear, Russell took the game seriously. He was all business on the court. Legendary mind game tricks. Tried everything he could to try to win. Always thinking. That's the type of mentality you need to have to be a 11 time champ. He was a killer.

Wilt came across as kind of aloof and sort of a individual stats guy. And all of that plays a factor in those crucial situations when it's do or die.

[LAZERUSS]

There's no way to answer that. You play to win the game, not put up great numbers. Stats can be empty and misleading. You can get yours at the expense of winning. On the flip side, you can be very impactful while putting up mediocre numbers.

Watching docs of both Russell and Wilt, one thing is very clear, Russell took the game seriously. He was all business on the court. Legendary mind game tricks. Tried everything he could to try to win. Always thinking. That's the type of mentality you need to have to be a 11 time champ. He was a killer.

Wilt came across as kind of aloof and sort of a individual stats guy. And all of that plays a factor in those crucial situations when it's do or die.

And yet, in their H2H's, it was almost always Wilt who was coming up big...especially in their biggest games, and in the biggest moments.

Had those two swapped rosters, and Russell being asked to carry mediocre teammates who played even worse in the post-season, and there is no doubt in my mind that John Wooden was right....

It would have been Wilt holding all those rings.

[Dragonyeuw]

The crux of the matter is this: MJ always won when he should have( HCA, better team) and lost when he should have(no HCA, worse team). You'd have hell to find many situations where the Bulls actually lost because of MJ under-performing well below his capabilities, especially once he hit his prime.

[ClipperRevival]

And yet, in their H2H's, it was almost always Wilt who was coming up big...especially in their biggest games, and in the biggest moments.

Had those two swapped rosters, and Russell being asked to carry mediocre teammates who played even worse in the post-season, and there is no doubt in my mind that John Wooden was right....

It would have been Wilt holding all those rings.

Don't do this again man. It's a fact Wilt had plenty of help once he went to Phila and the Lakers. He lost twice to Russell with HCA in 1968 and 1969. And those were Russell's last 2 seasons in the league. He was close to the end and Wilt still couldn't take advantage. Heck, in 1969, Russell was the HC also. No one in the world expected the Celtics to beat the Lakers that year. And for the Lakers to lose game 7 at home by 2? That's a big hit on Wilt's legacy.

[ClipperRevival]

For example, I don't hold 2007 and 2015 against LeBron. He really had no chance. If Bron had done the impossible in 2015, that would've been a huge feather in his cap but he came up short and that's no big deal. And I think most objective fans think the same way. 2011 is another story.

So why can't some of you accept the fact that MJ really had no chance against the Celtics and Pistons until he got more help later in his career?

[LAZERUSS]

Don't do this again man. It's a fact Wilt had plenty of help once he went to Phila and the Lakers. He lost twice to Russell with HCA in 1968 and 1969. And those were Russell's last 2 seasons in the league. He was close to the end and Wilt still couldn't take advantage. Heck, in 1969, Russell was the HC also. No one in the world expected the Celtics to beat the Lakers that year. And for the Lakers to lose game 7 at home by 2? That's a big hit on Wilt's legacy.

NO ONE expected the REMNANTS of the '68 Sixers, a team that was DECIMATED by injuries to even get to the Celtics in the '68 EDF's. NO ONE.

And yet, with HALF of their roster injured, or missing completely, they STILL took a 3-1 series lead, and wound up losing a game seven by FOUR points.

A HEALTHY '68 Sixer team would have repeated their annihilation of the '67 Celtics ( a 60-21 team that was stacked from 1-10...and yet the Sixers still destroyed them.)

'69? After Wilt and West, the Celtics were a better team. And sorry, but Baylor was of no use in that series. He had games of 2-14, 4-18, and 8-22 in losses.

And even then, LA was ONE PLAY away from winning that series, 4-1. BUT, with an incompetent coach putting the ball in Egan's hands at the end of game four, the result was inevitable.

Oh, and in that game seven, Chamberlain easily outplayed Russell. Had Russell's teammates not outshot Wilt's teammates by a .477 to .360 margin in that game seven, and Wilt would have won yet another ring.

And AGAIN, you are holding ONE playoff series H2H between them against Wilt. And again, Wilt outplayed Russell in that series, and easily outplayed him in game seven.

Next...

[LAZERUSS]

For example, I don't hold 2007 and 2015 against LeBron. He really had no chance. If Bron had done the impossible in 2015, that would've been a huge feather in his cap but he came up short and that's no big deal. And I think most objective fans think the same way. 2011 is another story.

So why can't some of you accept the fact that MJ really had no chance against the Celtics and Pistons until he got more help later in his career?

Because you don't cut Wilt the same slack.

And you forget that Wiklt's TEAMs were losing to STACKED teams.

TEN times in his post-season career, Wilt's TEAMs lost to GREAT teams.

SEVEN times to the greatest dynasty in NBA history (and four of those were GAME SEVEN losses by margins of 2, 1, 4 and 2 points.)

Then TWICE to Knick teams that had between 4-6 HOFers.

And to a 66-16 Milwaukee team that was considered the next great dynasty (and that Wilt would beat the very next year.)

Even when he had good teammates, Wilt's TEAMs were usually outgunned. Hell, his '64 Warriors were outgunned by an 8-3 margin HOFers (and his two other "HOF" teammates were Guy Rodgers, the worst shooter of his era, and rookie Nate Thurmond,w ho was playing part-time and out of position. BTW, those two shot .258 and .326 in that Finals series against Russell's Celtics.)

[dankok8]

Bill Russell also never lost a series with HCA. And no we are not counting the 1958 Finals when he totally missed two games and played very little in two more.

But here is where it gets interesting and shows how insane his winning was. Bill Russell is 4-1 (80%) in series where he didn't have HCA. Somehow people who say "Bill only won because of overwhelming talent" overlook that he won the 1966, 1968, 1969 titles as an underdog, especially the last two. They also skip right past the fact that KC Jones and Frank Ramsey (and Satch Sanders although he got in as a contributor) quite simply weren't HOF caliber players and only got in because of Russell. Neither ever even made an all-star game. Hawks from 1957-1961, Warriors in 1960 and 1962, Royals in 1963 and 1964, Knicks in 1969, Lakers in 1962 and 1968, and Sixers from 1965-1968 were definitely up there in talent with the Celtics.

For example the aforementioned 1964 Celtics had 8 HOFers as LAZERUSS said but let's break it down and look at it in context. People get caught up on names without actually looking at the level at which they played.

Bill Russell

Sam Jones - all-star who averaged 19/5/3

John Havlicek - all-star caliber but not a superstar yet; only in his second year playing as a 6th man and averaged 20/5/3

Tom Heinsohn - good role player who averaged 16/6/2

KC Jones - role player who averaged 8/5/5

Satch Sanders - role player who averaged 11/8/1

Frank Ramsey - role player who averaged 9/3/1

Clyde Lovellette - scrub who averaged 7/3/1 in his last season


We see that looking at Boston as a 8 HOFer team is erroneous!! They had 3 guys that were all-star caliber which is great but nothing out of the ordinary for a dynastic team.

[LAZERUSS]

Bill Russell also never lost a series with HCA. And no we are not counting the 1958 Finals when he totally missed two games and played very little in two more.

But here is where it gets interesting and shows how insane his winning was. Bill Russell is 4-1 (80%) in series where he didn't have HCA. Somehow people who say "Bill only won because of overwhelming talent" overlook that he won the 1966, 1968, 1969 titles as an underdog, especially the last two. They also skip right past the fact that KC Jones and Frank Ramsey (and Satch Sanders although he got in as a contributor) quite simply weren't HOF caliber players and only got in because of Russell. Neither ever even made an all-star game. Hawks from 1957-1961, Warriors in 1960 and 1962, Royals in 1963 and 1964, Knicks in 1969, Lakers in 1962 and 1968, and Sixers from 1965-1968 were definitely up there in talent with the Celtics.

For example the aforementioned 1964 Celtics had 8 HOFers as LAZERUSS said but let's break it down and look at it in context. People get caught up on names without actually looking at the level at which they played.

Bill Russell

Sam Jones - all-star who averaged 19/5/3

John Havlicek - all-star caliber but not a superstar yet; only in his second year playing as a 6th man and averaged 20/5/3

Tom Heinsohn - good role player who averaged 16/6/2

KC Jones - role player who averaged 8/5/5

Satch Sanders - role player who averaged 11/8/1

Frank Ramsey - role player who averaged 9/3/1

Clyde Lovellette - scrub who averaged 7/3/1 in his last season


We see that looking at Boston as a 8 HOFer team is erroneous!! They had 3 guys that were all-star caliber which is great but nothing out of the ordinary for a dynastic team.

Sam Jones was already an established 23 ppg scorer by that time.
Havlicek was already a 20 ppg scorer that season.
KC Jones and Satch Sanders were considered the best defensive players at their positions at that time.
Lovelette was not a scrub, he had averaged 20 ppg just the season before. Just goes to show you how powerful those Celtics were when a 20 ppg scorer is their 7th best player.

Player-for-player, the '64 Celtics were FAR superior to Wilt's cast of retreads.

[ClipperRevival]

Bill Russell also never lost a series with HCA. And no we are not counting the 1958 Finals when he totally missed two games and played very little in two more.

But here is where it gets interesting and shows how insane his winning was. Bill Russell is 4-1 (80%) in series where he didn't have HCA. Somehow people who say "Bill only won because of overwhelming talent" overlook that he won the 1966, 1968, 1969 titles as an underdog, especially the last two. They also skip right past the fact that KC Jones and Frank Ramsey (and Satch Sanders although he got in as a contributor) quite simply weren't HOF caliber players and only got in because of Russell. Neither ever even made an all-star game. Hawks from 1957-1961, Warriors in 1960 and 1962, Royals in 1963 and 1964, Knicks in 1969, Lakers in 1962 and 1968, and Sixers from 1965-1968 were definitely up there in talent with the Celtics.

For example the aforementioned 1964 Celtics had 8 HOFers as LAZERUSS said but let's break it down and look at it in context. People get caught up on names without actually looking at the level at which they played.

Bill Russell

Sam Jones - all-star who averaged 19/5/3

John Havlicek - all-star caliber but not a superstar yet; only in his second year playing as a 6th man and averaged 20/5/3

Tom Heinsohn - good role player who averaged 16/6/2

KC Jones - role player who averaged 8/5/5

Satch Sanders - role player who averaged 11/8/1

Frank Ramsey - role player who averaged 9/3/1

Clyde Lovellette - scrub who averaged 7/3/1 in his last season


We see that looking at Boston as a 8 HOFer team is erroneous!! They had 3 guys that were all-star caliber which is great but nothing out of the ordinary for a dynastic team.

Not surprised at all that Russell is also undefeated when he has HCA. Russell and MJ were cut from the same cloth. Both killers. Both masters of the mind game and tried to beat you at all costs. Never tried to show weakness on the court. The mental game was just as important to them as the physical game. The two GOAT winners ever.

And yeah, when you win THAT much, there are going to be a couple of guys that get inducted in the HOF that might not even get consideration had they not won all those rings. But Russell was the guy that made it all happen.

[LAZERUSS]

Bill Russell also never lost a series with HCA. And no we are not counting the 1958 Finals when he totally missed two games and played very little in two more.

But here is where it gets interesting and shows how insane his winning was. Bill Russell is 4-1 (80%) in series where he didn't have HCA. Somehow people who say "Bill only won because of overwhelming talent" overlook that he won the 1966, 1968, 1969 titles as an underdog, especially the last two. They also skip right past the fact that KC Jones and Frank Ramsey (and Satch Sanders although he got in as a contributor) quite simply weren't HOF caliber players and only got in because of Russell. Neither ever even made an all-star game. Hawks from 1957-1961, Warriors in 1960 and 1962, Royals in 1963 and 1964, Knicks in 1969, Lakers in 1962 and 1968, and Sixers from 1965-1968 were definitely up there in talent with the Celtics.

For example the aforementioned 1964 Celtics had 8 HOFers as LAZERUSS said but let's break it down and look at it in context. People get caught up on names without actually looking at the level at which they played.

Bill Russell

Sam Jones - all-star who averaged 19/5/3

John Havlicek - all-star caliber but not a superstar yet; only in his second year playing as a 6th man and averaged 20/5/3

Tom Heinsohn - good role player who averaged 16/6/2

KC Jones - role player who averaged 8/5/5

Satch Sanders - role player who averaged 11/8/1

Frank Ramsey - role player who averaged 9/3/1

Clyde Lovellette - scrub who averaged 7/3/1 in his last season


We see that looking at Boston as a 8 HOFer team is erroneous!! They had 3 guys that were all-star caliber which is great but nothing out of the ordinary for a dynastic team.

How good was Wilt's supporting cast in that '63-64 season?

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9854454&postcount=98

A last place roster that couldn't beat a team of rookies without Wilt.

BTW, his two "HOF" teammates, Rodgers and Thurmond shot .258 and .326 from the field in the '64 Finals.

[joshwake]

This is what's fun about being a fan of the GOAT, you have truth on your side. It's like having God on your side, you just can't lose. The deeper you dig, the clearer the truth is revealed. This is just stuff I do when I have time at work. I dig up MJ stuff and see what I can come up with. And viola, another truth revealed about MJ.
.

So basically cherry picking stats to back your argument. that is reverse scientific method. You can do that with basically any top 100 player and make them look like the GOAT.

However, I do agree on MJ being the GOAT, but ppl really just make themselves look silly selectively picking stats. If anything it just makes it more difficult to get your point across because you create haters.

[dankok8]

Sam Jones was already an established 23 ppg scorer by that time.
Havlicek was already a 20 ppg scorer that season.
KC Jones and Satch Sanders were considered the best defensive players at their positions at that time.
Lovelette was not a scrub, he had averaged 20 ppg just the season before. Just goes to show you how powerful those Celtics were when a 20 ppg scorer is their 7th best player.

Player-for-player, the '64 Celtics were FAR superior to Wilt's cast of retreads.

How good was Wilt's supporting cast in that '63-64 season?

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...4&postcount=98

A last place roster that couldn't beat a team of rookies without Wilt.

BTW, his two "HOF" teammates, Rodgers and Thurmond shot .258 and .326 from the field in the '64 Finals.

Sam Jones averaged 19/5/3 not 23 ppg.

Havlicek made his first all-star game in 1966. He was already a very good player but not a star.

Lovellette was two years removed from a 20 ppg season and had declined heavily since then. Even playing on the Celtics he shot a woeful %.



Of course Wilt's cast was much worse that year. My point is that saying the Celtics had 8 HOFers is misleading. They had 3 stars and then 5-6 good role players. That's nothing unusual for a championship team.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

LAZ, you are a brilliant poster, but you have to understand that in the end, this is all opinion, I mean, if someone is hating on wilt, I understand being upset, but if someone just says a statement you dont agree with on wilt, and is sincere, then like, Dont get pissed dude, just try to have a peaceful arguement.

Doesent apply to this, I know.


I swear whenever ClipperRevival and Lazarus make a thread it turns into this

Wilt sucked

Wilt was awesome

He was a choker

Prove it

Look at his killer instinct

What about it

Thats it you cant see it

His teammates sucked

He only has 2 rings

His teammates sucked

stop making excuses

Compare them to Russells HOF teammates

Russells teammates were overrated

What

They didnt deserve to go to the hall of fame

U saying Havlicek is a scrub?

Hell yeah

Are you dumb?

Are you dumb?

Look at Wilt choking against an injured Willis Reed

Wilt was INJURED as well

In 68 look at what happened

what HAPPENED was that wilt was INJURED

but russell had the most killer instinct ever

LOOK at HIS inbounds PLAY where HE hit THE backboard

look at his ringz

thats because of his team

tell me, how many rings does wilt have?

2.

Hah. choker

He scored 13 points straight, against Russell, in teh 4th quarter in teh playoffs.

How many rings bitch.

**** you

**** you too.

By the way LAZ, I know you hate advanced stats, but here are some on wilt in that 64-65. take it how you want it, a +9 rating on offense is superb (overall +9 I meant)
Wilt was sick this year, and was hardly his regular self. bane of the first few games was defense, which isnt suprising.

technically, offense was similar to teh year before, defense just dropped due to Wilts Illness. going through motions and stuff like that right? something like that. Cant remember what he said.

That being said, only reason defense got better without wilt, otehr than wilt being ill (I dont think this effected his offense too heavily) is that Thurmond got to play in his correct position.

Looking at it it looks like while offense was somewhat teh same (obviously a bit worse but still) it was teh defense that suffered, so it looks like a good enough indicator of his offense.

Despite Thurmond playing in teh right positon and Paul and Connie coming, there was a marked improvement. adding in his defense Id say that it proves that 64 wilt was better than Russell in any year, though granted, its kinda that way for alot of things. I have Russell higher (starting to change my m ind tbh, but im just saying this so I dont get executed, I put them at a tie right now, because lets be honest, Russell probably is teh best leader ever, and I think that his consistency puts him on teh same pedestal, and his peak was top 7 too)
but I think wilt peaked higher, and honestly, russell's best season is probably worse than 3 or 4 of Wilts.


1964-65 Warriors Total
119.7 poss/48 min
9651 poss/3870 min


Wilt In
4153 Pts Scored
4342 Pts Allowed
1801 Min
4491 Poss
92.5 ORtg
96.7 DRtg


Wilt Out
4312 Pts Scored
4618 Pts Allowed
2069 Min
5160 Poss
83.6 ORtg
89.5 DRtg

Based on this Id put his impact at teh top 5 level in his peak.

that might sound blasphemous, but my "top 5 peaks" are interchangable, though generally I have Jordan on top. (shaq, even for him, had an outlier year in 2000, so while wilts 3 best seasons are>Shaqs 3 imo, at the same time, I think that Shaqs best is about the same)

Generally, I have Jordan on top, and I find That Lebron in 09, Shaq in 00, and Wilt in 67 are interchangable (I also consider taking jordan out of that top spot at times)

I see teh top 4 peaks to basically be a wash.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

How good was Wilt's supporting cast in that '63-64 season?

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9854454&postcount=98

A last place roster that couldn't beat a team of rookies without Wilt.

BTW, his two "HOF" teammates, Rodgers and Thurmond shot .258 and .326 from the field in the '64 Finals.


not arguing one way or the other, but im preeeeetty sure he wasnt being literal

[Straight_Ballin]

This is what's fun about being a fan of the GOAT, you have truth on your side. It's like having God on your side, you just can't lose.

Hence the reason why I've never lost an argument on this site.

[3ball]

I think one of the points OP is making is that MJ never lost when his team was favored to win.

MJ's game allowed teammates to play to capacity, so the TEAM always played to capacity, and therefore never underachieved.

Otoh, it's a statistical fact that guys like Lebron lower the ppg and apg (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=385841) of teammates - with teammates playing below capacity, it's no surprisee that his TEAMS play below-capacity, and underachieve (2009, 2011, 2014).

[3ball]

misinformation itt

[iamgine]

It's hard to be a legendary team when MJ's team beats everyone doesn't it? :oldlol: Say the Bulls lost to the Jazz twice, history would view the Jazz as a "legendary" team would they not? But again, MJ didn't let it get to that.
Not really. They'd be more like '93-'95 Rockets, which I don't think is considered legendary.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

It's hard to be a legendary team when MJ's team beats everyone doesn't it? :oldlol: Say the Bulls lost to the Jazz twice, history would view the Jazz as a "legendary" team would they not? But again, MJ didn't let it get to that.

Wow dude how delusional are you? :oldlol:

I don't mean to repeat myself, but damn get a grip. The Jazz were nowhere near "legendary" like some of the teams listed in your OP, and throughout this thread.

[3ball]

:rolleyes:

[3ball]

Wilt In

92.5 ORtg
96.7 DRtg


Wilt Out

83.6 ORtg
89.5 DRtg


Bulls ORtg with Jordan 1991-1993:....... #1 all-time (115)

Bulls ORtg without Jordan 1994:...... 14th in league (106)


^^^^GOAT IMPACT


Keep in mind that these kind of ORtg comparisons are normally done with an on-off format, so the player in question is replaced by NOBODY - whereas the Bulls replaced Jordan with Kukoc.

More importantly, unlike the impact of most players, the offensive improvement the Bulls experienced with Jordan didn't come at the expense of defense - they had the 6th ranked defense in 1994, which is the same as 1991-1993 (4th, 7th, 4th).

Jordan enabled a TWO-WAY TEAM, which shouldn't be surprising since Popovich said Jordan was the standard for two-way play (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11875185&postcount=49).

[3ball]

Wow dude how delusional are you? :oldlol:

I don't mean to repeat myself, but damn get a grip. The Jazz were nowhere near "legendary" like some of the teams listed in your OP, and throughout this thread.


It's hard to be a legendary team when the goat team keeps beating you.

However, if we put the Bulls in the 2000's era, and we might never have heard of the Spurs.. They damn sure wouldn't be "legendary".

[Magic 32]

Bird = 7 (1980, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1988, 1990, 1991)

Duncan = 6 (2001, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2012)

Kareem = 5 (1973, 1974, 1977, 1981, 1986)

Shaq = 5 (1994, 1995, 2004, 2005, 2010)

Wilt = 5 (1961, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1973)

Oscar = 4 (1962, 1965, 1973, 1974)

Magic = 4 (1981, 1986, 1990, 1996)

Lebron = 3 (2009, 2010, 2011)

Hakeem = 2 (1985, 1987)

Kobe = 2 (2004, 2011)

Russell = 1 (1958)

MJ = 0

[ClipperRevival]

Wow dude how delusional are you? :oldlol:

I don't mean to repeat myself, but damn get a grip. The Jazz were nowhere near "legendary" like some of the teams listed in your OP, and throughout this thread.

I said had they beaten MJs Bulls twice, they would've been. Beating the GOAT twice carries a lot of weight.

[LAZERUSS]

Bird = 7 (1980, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1988, 1990, 1991)

Duncan = 6 (2001, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2012)

Kareem = 5 (1973, 1974, 1977, 1981, 1986)

Shaq = 5 (1994, 1995, 2004, 2005, 2010)

Wilt = 5 (1961, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1973)

Oscar = 4 (1962, 1965, 1973, 1974)

Magic = 4 (1981, 1986, 1990, 1996)

Lebron = 3 (2009, 2010, 2011)

Hakeem = 2 (1985, 1987)

Kobe = 2 (2004, 2011)

Russell = 1 (1958)

MJ = 0

TEAM game.

These are only relevant if the GOAT-tier player played poorly, or perhaps was outplayed by an opposing GOAT-tier player.

For instance...Wilt in '61. He averaged 37 ppg and 23 rpg in that series. How about his teammates? They collectively shot .332 from the floor.

How about Wilt in '66? He averaged 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot .509 from the floor, and badly outplayed Russell in the process. How about Wilt's teammates? They collectively shot.352 from the field.

In any case, the bottom line...it is a TEAM game.

[LAZERUSS]

LAZ, you are a brilliant poster, but you have to understand that in the end, this is all opinion, I mean, if someone is hating on wilt, I understand being upset, but if someone just says a statement you dont agree with on wilt, and is sincere, then like, Dont get pissed dude, just try to have a peaceful arguement.

Doesent apply to this, I know.


I swear whenever ClipperRevival and Lazarus make a thread it turns into this

Wilt sucked

Wilt was awesome

He was a choker

Prove it

Look at his killer instinct

What about it

Thats it you cant see it

His teammates sucked

He only has 2 rings

His teammates sucked

stop making excuses

Compare them to Russells HOF teammates

Russells teammates were overrated

What

They didnt deserve to go to the hall of fame

U saying Havlicek is a scrub?

Hell yeah

Are you dumb?

Are you dumb?

Look at Wilt choking against an injured Willis Reed

Wilt was INJURED as well

In 68 look at what happened

what HAPPENED was that wilt was INJURED

but russell had the most killer instinct ever

LOOK at HIS inbounds PLAY where HE hit THE backboard

look at his ringz

thats because of his team

tell me, how many rings does wilt have?

2.

Hah. choker

He scored 13 points straight, against Russell, in teh 4th quarter in teh playoffs.

How many rings bitch.

**** you

**** you too.

By the way LAZ, I know you hate advanced stats, but here are some on wilt in that 64-65. take it how you want it, a +9 rating on offense is superb (overall +9 I meant)
Wilt was sick this year, and was hardly his regular self. bane of the first few games was defense, which isnt suprising.

technically, offense was similar to teh year before, defense just dropped due to Wilts Illness. going through motions and stuff like that right? something like that. Cant remember what he said.

That being said, only reason defense got better without wilt, otehr than wilt being ill (I dont think this effected his offense too heavily) is that Thurmond got to play in his correct position.

Looking at it it looks like while offense was somewhat teh same (obviously a bit worse but still) it was teh defense that suffered, so it looks like a good enough indicator of his offense.

Despite Thurmond playing in teh right positon and Paul and Connie coming, there was a marked improvement. adding in his defense Id say that it proves that 64 wilt was better than Russell in any year, though granted, its kinda that way for alot of things. I have Russell higher (starting to change my m ind tbh, but im just saying this so I dont get executed, I put them at a tie right now, because lets be honest, Russell probably is teh best leader ever, and I think that his consistency puts him on teh same pedestal, and his peak was top 7 too)
but I think wilt peaked higher, and honestly, russell's best season is probably worse than 3 or 4 of Wilts.


1964-65 Warriors Total
119.7 poss/48 min
9651 poss/3870 min


Wilt In
4153 Pts Scored
4342 Pts Allowed
1801 Min
4491 Poss
92.5 ORtg
96.7 DRtg


Wilt Out
4312 Pts Scored
4618 Pts Allowed
2069 Min
5160 Poss
83.6 ORtg
89.5 DRtg

Based on this Id put his impact at teh top 5 level in his peak.

that might sound blasphemous, but my "top 5 peaks" are interchangable, though generally I have Jordan on top. (shaq, even for him, had an outlier year in 2000, so while wilts 3 best seasons are>Shaqs 3 imo, at the same time, I think that Shaqs best is about the same)

Generally, I have Jordan on top, and I find That Lebron in 09, Shaq in 00, and Wilt in 67 are interchangable (I also consider taking jordan out of that top spot at times)

I see teh top 4 peaks to basically be a wash.

Excellent post, as always.

I don't have time to comment on this right now, but all-in-all, outstanding post.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I said had they beaten MJs Bulls twice, they would've been. Beating the GOAT twice carries a lot of weight.

I could see that if Utah won TWICE, but had they just beat Chicago in '98? They'd be more like the 95 Rockets. Reality is they weren't good enough to beat them, ergo they weren't on the level of those teams you listed in OP.

The 86 Celtics and quite a few Laker teams could and would've beaten some of those Bulls teams. Are you disputing this?

[24-Inch_Chrome]

3ball is lying about the Bulls having the #1 all-time offense. They didn't post the highest ORTG ever or the highest ORTG differential, he's full of shit. This isn't the first time I've called him on it.

1986-1987 Lakers posted a 115.6 ORTG, higher than any season ORTG for the Bulls.

Steve Nash's Mavs/Suns posted better ORTG differentials.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Bulls ORtg with Jordan 1991-1993:....... #1 all-time (115)

Bulls ORtg without Jordan 1994:...... 14th in league (106)


^^^^GOAT IMPACT


Keep in mind that these kind of ORtg comparisons are normally done with an on-off format, so the player in question is replaced by NOBODY - whereas the Bulls replaced Jordan with Kukoc.



More importantly, unlike the impact of most players, the offensive improvement the Bulls experienced with Jordan didn't come at the expense of defense - they had the 6th ranked defense in 1994, which is the same as 1991-1993 (4th, 7th, 4th).

Jordan enabled a TWO-WAY TEAM, which shouldn't be surprising since Popovich said Jordan was the standard for two-way play (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11875185&postcount=49).


You realize wilt was traded for 2 players right?

also, offensive rating is only useful, comparing across eras, and years, when looking at the lead on second place, and league average.

Don't have time for this today...

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Excellent post, as always.

I don't have time to comment on this right now, but all-in-all, outstanding post.


This entire thread makes no sense lmao

Context does not equal excuses

[ClipperRevival]

I could see that if Utah won TWICE, but had they just beat Chicago in '98? They'd be more like the 95 Rockets. Reality is they weren't good enough to beat them, ergo they weren't on the level of those teams you listed in OP.

The 86 Celtics and quite a few Laker teams could and would've beaten some of those Bulls teams. Are you disputing this?

I specifically said twice.

And many regard the 1986 Celtics as the GOAT team and the 1987 Lakers right there with them. Who knows what would've happened. It's all time great teams going at it.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I specifically said twice.

And many regard the 1986 Celtics as the GOAT team and the 1987 Lakers right there with them. Who knows what would've happened. It's all time great teams going at it.

I know you did. But the Jazz had more opportunities as well (see: 1988, 1992 and 1996). It wasn't just the Bulls and Jordan denying them.

By your way of thinking, you and I could set up hypotheticals for ALL superstars and teams that we see fit.


This entire thread makes no sense lmao

Context does not equal excuses

Pretty much.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

I know you did. But the Jazz had more opportunities as well (see: 1988, 1992 and 1996). It wasn't just the Bulls and Jordan denying them.

By your way of thinking, you and I could set up hypotheticals for ALL superstars and teams that we see fit.



Pretty much.

lol

[dubeta]

FACT: MJ has 1 total playoff win without Pippen in 5 seasons

[ClipperRevival]

Another fact. MJ got two of his rings when he didn't have the HCA (1993 Suns and 1998 Jazz). As a matter of fact, in 1993, the Bulls didn't have HCA against the Knicks and Suns.

[3ball]

FACT: MJ has 1 total playoff win without Pippen in 5 seasons



FACT #1: MJ scored at least 10 ppg more than his 2nd option in every single playoff series OF HIS CAREER (except two, where he scored 8 ppg and 5 ppg more).

He also led his team in passing by assisting on the highest proportion of teammate field goals (MJ led the Bulls in assist percentage for for both 3-peats (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11713121&postcount=49))... AND he played goat-level defense.

To summarize - MJ led his team in scoring by the biggest margin ever, while also leading in passing and playing goat-level defense.. No other player in history has come anywhere NEAR carrying this kind of load.



FACT #2: NBA.com tracks the percentage of team points (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=392376) scored by a player while they are on the floor.

MJ scored 45-50% of his team's 4th quarter points in the 1997 and 1998 playoffs and Finals.. This dwarfs anyone else in the database by a mile.



FACT #3: When you account for pace, MJ scored more than Wilt Chamberlain's 50 ppg season.

In 1987, the Bulls played at a 96 pace, compared to 131 for Philly during Wilt's 50 ppg season... Obviously, when you account for the pace difference, Wilt only averaged 33.5 ppg, or less than MJ's 37 ppg.. Of course, MJ's career playoff average was 33.5 ppg, compared to Wilt's 22 ppg.

MJ is easily the greatest scorer of all time.. FAR BETTER THAN WILT CHAMBERLAIN.. These are the facts.. That is all.