Would Kareem had won all those chips in place of MJ?

[iamgine]

If you replace MJ with Kareem, do you think he'll win less or more championships? Lets say everything was the same except replace Bulls' C with the same caliber SG for that season.

[Mr Feeny]

Given that Kareem needed Magic to carry him to multiple rings and had a 4 point game 7 performance in one of those title rings, I'd say not a chance.

Jordan and Lebron are simply better.

[SATAN]

Imagine Jordan trying to hurt Kareem's fingers and punching him in the face :roll:

Jordan would have left the league sooner if Bruce Lee's friend Kareem played for Chicago.

[Roundball_Rock]

They would win more. KAJ would not retire multiple times and was durable. Remember, KAJ was a MVP and all-NBA caliber player as late as his 17th season. So if the Bulls draft KAJ in 1985 they get dominant play through 2002 and then get an 18th legitimate all-star season in 2003. KAJ also was easier to build around. It would not take 4 years to get above .500 with Kareem or six years to get more than 50 wins.

With MJ you get 0/0/0 in 94', 99', 00', 01' and a combined 34 games in 86' and 95'.

[Mr Feeny]

Cute. But nah. Given that Kareem only has 2 as lead dog and that was with better number 2 options than Pippen, he would have zero wings in that situation.

Jordan had 6.
Lebron already has 3 with worse situations than what Kareem had.

Imagine lebron getting carried to rings.

[HoopsNY]

Cute. But nah. Given that Kareem only has 2 as lead dog and that was with better number 2 options than Pippen, he would have zero wings in that situation.

Jordan had 6.
Lebron already has 3 with worse situations than what Kareem had.

Imagine lebron getting carried to rings.

Both you and Roundball are right. I think you have a solid point that anyone can see that Kareem would have needed a great assist man and GOAT level players to win. But Roundball makes a good point in that Kareem was durable and could play longer than MJ. It's tough but I don't think he wins 6 - especially with Hakeem, Shaq, and Duncan in the league.

[OrlandoMagicGuy]

He'd win less championships,there's only 1 Michael Jordan.

[DoctorP]

no. Centers are shitty closers by design.

[Roundball_Rock]

no. Centers are shitty closers by design.

Kareem, with the most unstoppable shot in NBA history, couldn't close? Who did the Bucks and Lakers always turn to when they needed a basket?

[DoctorP]

Kareem, with the most unstoppable shot in NBA history, couldn't close? Who did the Bucks and Lakers always turn to when they needed a basket?

I didn't say he couldn't close but the Center position is not optimal because defenses can clog the paint. Shaq was a terrible closer even though he was completely dominant.

A midrange game is optimal to open up the inside using spacing.

[Roundball_Rock]

We are talking KAJ, though, the GOAT. Kareem could shoot free throws so he wasn't a liability late in games like Shaq and Wilt were at times so his teams could turn to him. Kareem's sky hook was accurate from around 16 feet away so he didn't have the short range many other centers did.

The Celtics (with 4 HOF players) doubled and tripled him every time he touched the ball in a Game 7 and he still posted 26/13. You couldn't stop prime Kareem.

[DoctorP]

We are talking KAJ, though, the GOAT. Kareem could shoot free throws so he wasn't a liability late in games like Shaq and Wilt were at times. Kareem's sky hook was accurate from around 16 feet away so he didn't have the short range many other centers did.

This is true but who would close the Laker games, was it KAJ or Magic?

Defenses can cheat on post ups.

[RogueBorg]

Centers, for the most part, cannot dribble to an open space to get their shot. They need a wing player to get them the ball where they'll take that shot. If you think about Kahwi in last year's playoff versus Philly where he caught, dribbled to the corner and shot the game winner. Centers can't do that.

[tpols]

No chance.

[Roundball_Rock]

How many championships have been won with teams whose best player was a center? How many by teams whose best player was a shooting guard? This isn't even close.

The focus has been on offense but the other side of the court is on defense a dominant center is going to have more impact on the game than a dominant shooting guard.

Offensively, a guard has to get close to the basket to get a high percentage shot. A center is already there. Mid-range is an option for a guard but those aren't great percentage shots. People also assume MJ had the ball parachuted into his hands. He had to get the ball passed to him too.


This is true but who would close the Laker games, was it KAJ or Magic?

For a basket it would be KAJ until he got really old. Kareem's sky hook is the easiest 2 points in history.

[tpols]

Centers, for the most part, cannot dribble to an open space to get their shot. They need a wing player to get them the ball where they'll take that shot. If you think about Kahwi in last year's playoff versus Philly where he caught, dribbled to the corner and shot the game winner. Centers can't do that.

im watching old kareem tape, and i think the fundamental issue is they dont really move off ball. They run to their spot, jostle for position, and catch it there everytime. The defense collapses, and its up to their teammates to make long jumpers.

Elite guards OTOH completely dictate the motion of the offense inside and out. MJ could catch it at the top and dribble you down. He could catch it midrange, and post you. He could fake both options and cut back door for a dunk. There's simply far more diversity offensively.

And if we're talking crunchtime? it's not even close. Perimeter players have ALWAYS been clutcher than big men, and that is often the deciding factor.

[DoctorP]

How many championships have been won with teams whose best player was a center? How many by teams whose best player was a shooting guard? This isn't even close.

The focus has been on offense but the other side of the court is on defense a dominant center is going to have more impact on the game than a dominant shooting guard.

Offensively, a guard has to get close to the basket to get a high percentage shot. A center is already there. Mid-range is an option for a guard but those aren't great percentage shots. People also assume MJ had the ball parachuted into his hands. He had to get the ball passed to him too.



For a basket it would be KAJ until he got really old. Kareem's sky hook is the easiest 2 points in history.


None since Shaq, basically. Almost 20 years. You just killed your own point. :lol

[3ball]

All of mj's rings required goat volume and scoring champion production - Kareem only won as the scoring champ once in his peak season of 71'... That's the only season that he matched MJ as a scorer, so that's the only year he could win even one ring with those bulls

27-28 ppg for a playoff run won't win a single ring on the bulls..... 30 ppg wouldn't win it most years.... (And 35 ppg wouldn't work if it's ball-dominant)

[dankok8]

Kareem definitely could have won a whole bunch of rings in place of Jordan on the Bulls. Would he win six or less or more is hard to say but the 90's Bulls with prime Kareem on the team would be favorites for the title every year. People forget that a 38-39 year old Kareem plastered young Hakeem and Ewing in 1986 putting up like 35 ppg on 60% shooting. Even the Rockets with their twin towers of Sampson and Hakeem could do very little to stop a very old Jabbar who lost almost all his quickness and stamina. Thing is the 90's Bulls rarely ever faced dominant bigs. Ewing was one and he would get absolutely owned by Kareem. 90's Bulls never played against Hakeem or Robinson in the finals. Who would stop Kareem? Divac? Duckworth? Ostertag? LMAO... Buck Williams on 92 Blazers was one of the few good big man defenders.

Kareem is a GOAT-level candidate on the level of Jordan, Lebron, Russell... The reason he only won 2 rings as the absolute top dog is he had very subpar teams around him for about 8 prime years. By 1972, Oscar was already getting injured and old and until Magic came he never had proper support. In fact from 1972 to 1979 inclusive, Kareem never had a healthy all-star sidekick in the playoffs. And he faced some great teams like 1972 Lakers, 1974 Celtics, 1977 Blazers...

And you have to value what he did in the 80's. Yes he and Magic were 1a and 1b but Kareem was a monster. See the 1985 Finals. No center other than Shaq or Hakeem had a finals like a 38-year old Kareem mustered and we know Kareem's legendary longevity and his winning credentials from day 1 in the NBA.

Some young ignorant folks on here... Not saying KAJ is better than MJ or Lebron but it's debatable whether you like it or not. He was that good.

[Roundball_Rock]

None since Shaq, basically. Almost 20 years. You just killed your own point. :lol

This is a question about a team in the 80's and 90's so what happened in the 2000's and beyond is irrelevant.

Before Kobe I believe the only team to win with a SG as their best player were the Bulls. The lion's share of championship teams were built around centers.


And if we're talking crunchtime? it's not even close. Perimeter players have ALWAYS been clutcher than big men, and that is often the deciding factor.

We are talking Kareem, though, not Ewing or Dwight Howard. Kareem was clutch as hell. Why not? He had the most reliable shot in NBA history.

The big difference between KAJ and MJ is longevity and durability. Kareem gives you a 17 year window of dominance to win and you can built a contender around him quicker than around a SG, as Chicago and LA later with Kobe discovered.

[Roundball_Rock]

Kareem definitely could have won a whole bunch of rings in place of Jordan on the Bulls. Would he win six or less or more is hard to say but the 90's Bulls with prime Kareem on the team would be favorites for the title every year. People forget that a 38-39 year old Kareem plastered young Hakeem and Ewing in 1986 putting up like 35 ppg on 60% shooting. Even the Rockets with their twin towers of Sampson and Hakeem could do very little to stop a very old Jabbar who lost almost all his quickness and stamina. Thing is the 90's Bulls rarely ever faced dominant bigs. Ewing was one and he would get absolutely owned by Kareem. 90's Bulls never played against Hakeem or Robinson in the finals. Who would stop Kareem? Divac? Duckworth? Ostertag? LMAO... Buck Williams on 92 Blazers was one of the few good big man defenders.

Kareem is a GOAT-level candidate on the level of Jordan, Lebron, Russell... The reason he only won 2 rings as the absolute top dog is he had very subpar teams around him for about 8 prime years. By 1972, Oscar was already getting injured and old and until Magic came he never had proper support. In fact from 1972 to 1979 inclusive, Kareem never had a healthy all-star sidekick in the playoffs. And he faced some great teams like 1972 Lakers, 1974 Celtics, 1977 Blazers...

And you have to value what he did in the 80's. Yes he and Magic were 1a and 1b but Kareem was a monster. See the 1985 Finals. No center other than Shaq or Hakeem had a finals like a 38-year old Kareem mustered and we know Kareem's legendary longevity and his winning credentials from day 1 in the NBA.

Some young ignorant folks on here... Not saying KAJ is better than MJ or Lebron but it's debatable whether you like it or not. He was that good.

https://media.giphy.com/media/NnGGHE0muVqpO/giphy.gif

[tpols]

Kareem definitely could have won a whole bunch of rings in place of Jordan on the Bulls. Would he win six or less or more is hard to say but the 90's Bulls with prime Kareem on the team would be favorites for the title every year. People forget that a 38-39 year old Kareem plastered young Hakeem and Ewing in 1986 putting up like 35 ppg on 60% shooting. Even the Rockets with their twin towers of Sampson and Hakeem could do very little to stop a very old Jabbar who lost almost all his quickness and stamina. Thing is the 90's Bulls rarely ever faced dominant bigs. Ewing was one and he would get absolutely owned by Kareem. 90's Bulls never played against Hakeem or Robinson in the finals. Who would stop Kareem? Divac? Duckworth? Ostertag? LMAO... Buck Williams on 92 Blazers was one of the few good big man defenders.

Kareem is a GOAT-level candidate on the level of Jordan, Lebron, Russell... The reason he only won 2 rings as the absolute top dog is he had very subpar teams around him for about 8 prime years. By 1972, Oscar was already getting injured and old and until Magic came he never had proper support. In fact from 1972 to 1979 inclusive, Kareem never had a healthy all-star sidekick in the playoffs. And he faced some great teams like 1972 Lakers, 1974 Celtics, 1977 Blazers...

And you have to value what he did in the 80's. Yes he and Magic were 1a and 1b but Kareem was a monster. See the 1985 Finals. No center other than Shaq or Hakeem had a finals like a 38-year old Kareem mustered and we know Kareem's legendary longevity and his winning credentials from day 1 in the NBA.

Some young ignorant folks on here... Not saying KAJ is better than MJ or Lebron but it's debatable whether you like it or not. He was that good.

everybody that reps kareem only talks about what he did as an old player.

you NEVER hear them bragging about his peak or prime lol.

That's because he did jack shit in the 70's, which were far worse than the 90's, where MJ went 6/6.

[dankok8]

everybody that reps kareem only talks about what he did as an old player.

you NEVER hear them bragging about his peak or prime lol.

That's because he did jack shit in the 70's, which were far worse than the 90's, where MJ went 6/6.

Far worse in what way? The average title-winning team in the 70's had like 3 HOFers. Because the league was smaller good teams were absolutely stacked and if you had no healthy all-star sidekick which was Kareem's situation from 1972-1979, it was incredibly difficult nigh near impossible to win a title. And what do you mean no one brags. No one brags because he won 2 titles as the absolute top dog which is lacking behind other GOAT candidates but that can be explained by his circumstances. If Jordan never got Pippen from 1988 to 1998 he probably doesn't win a single title.

[Roundball_Rock]

The "rings as the man" thing is a bogus attack. You only hear about it regarding KAJ because his record is impeccable and they can't find anything about him to criticize.

The first tell is no one even knows how many "rings as the man" he has since it is a fake category. The second tell is "rings as the man" never comes up with Magic. He gets full credit for all 5 rings (as does Kobe).

Why are people acting like "rings as the man" grow on trees, that having 2 or 3 is terrible? LeBron and Wilt are GOAT candidates with 3 and 2 total rings, respectively. Meanwhile Duncan has 4 and never comes up in the GOAT discussion...

"Rings as the Man":


Russell 11
Jordan 6
Duncan 4
LeBron 3
Bird 3
Kareem 2-3
Kobe 2
Hakeem 2
Wilt 1
Oscar 0
West 0
Dr. J 0


That's because he did jack shit in the 70's

He won 5 MVP's in the 70's alone. Jordan and Russell won 5 in their entire careers. Wilt and LeBron have "only" 4.

[Roundball_Rock]

Far worse in what way? The average title-winning team in the 70's had like 3 HOFers. Because the league was smaller good teams were absolutely stacked and if you had no healthy all-star sidekick which was Kareem's situation from 1972-1979, it was incredibly difficult nigh near impossible to win a title.

Compare that to when MJ was winning. You could be a contender or champ with John Starks, Rik Smits, Terry Porter, Otis Thorpe as your second option. An old Jeff Hornacek as your second scorer=2 finals trips. That type of team would be lucky to win 30 games in the 70's. 2000's was a similar story. Teams won with Billups as their best player and teams were in the finals with guys like Rashard Lewis or whoever it was (Z? Gibson?) on the 07' Cavs as your second best player. Teams with Aaron McKie as the second scorer.

[tpols]

Far worse in what way? The average title-winning team in the 70's had like 3 HOFers. Because the league was smaller good teams were absolutely stacked and if you had no healthy all-star sidekick which was Kareem's situation from 1972-1979, it was incredibly difficult nigh near impossible to win a title. And what do you mean no one brags. No one brags because he won 2 titles as the absolute top dog which is lacking behind other GOAT candidates but that can be explained by his circumstances. If Jordan never got Pippen from 1988 to 1998 he probably doesn't win a single title.

the 70s are very commonly known as the weakest era in basketball. Drug fueled and talent split between NBA and ABA.

Jordan didnt need pippen to win, he needed anything as he barely lost in the late 80s when pippen played like trash in the playoffs.

The Bull's couldve drafted any decent all star level player over the years and it would've put them over the top.

With Kevin Johnson (7th pick to pippen's 5th) in the late 80s instead of Pippen? they probably wouldve won before '91. KJ popped off far more early on.

[Soundwave]

It's possible but you can do this a hundred different ways.

Does Jordan win 2 titles with Wade and Bosh? Probably more. Kobe probably wins 2 titles in that situation too. How many titles does Jordan win with Magic and Worthy as no.2 and no.3 options?

[OrlandoMagicGuy]

"Rings as the Man":


Russell 11
Jordan 6
Duncan 4
LeBron 3
Bird 3
Kareem 2-3
Kobe 2
Hakeem 2
Wilt 1
Oscar 0
West 0
Dr. J 0

If Bill Russell has 11 rings as the man why isn't he the GOAT?

[3ball]

Zero rings because Kareem can't handle the ridiculous volume required (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?479681-Oscar-Robertson-Compared-to-Other-Sidekicks&p=13984494&viewfull=1#post13984494) of the Bulls' #1 option, as needed to carry the lowest-scoring casts of all-time

[Soundwave]

The "rings as the man" thing is a bogus attack. You only hear about it regarding KAJ because his record is impeccable and they can't find anything about him to criticize.

The first tell is no one even knows how many "rings as the man" he has since it is a fake category. The second tell is "rings as the man" never comes up with Magic. He gets full credit for all 5 rings (as does Kobe).

Why are people acting like "rings as the man" grow on trees, that having 2 or 3 is terrible? LeBron and Wilt are GOAT candidates with 3 and 2 total rings, respectively. Meanwhile Duncan has 4 and never comes up in the GOAT discussion...

"Rings as the Man":


Russell 11
Jordan 6
Duncan 4
LeBron 3
Bird 3
Kareem 2-3
Kobe 2
Hakeem 2
Wilt 1
Oscar 0
West 0
Dr. J 0



He won 5 MVP's in the 70's alone. Jordan and Russell won 5 in their entire careers. Wilt and LeBron have "only" 4.

I think to be "the man" on your team you need to lead the team offensively and the be the lead scorer ... Russell wasn't that on the Celtics. If the ball is going somewhere else when your team really needs a basket, that kind of sticks out like a sore thumb in my view. Great, great defensive player but he never had even a full season above 19 ppg and this in the 60s where it was lets be honest easier to score.

Every other player on that list was responsible for being the go to guy on their teams offence.

Also Shaq should be there with 3.

[3ball]

I think to be "the man" on your team you need to lead the team offensively and the be the lead scorer ... Russell wasn't that on the Celtics. If the ball is going somewhere else when your team really needs a basket, that kind of sticks out like a sore thumb in my view. Great, great defensive player but he never had even a full season above 19 ppg and this in the 60s where it was lets be honest easier to score.

Even without shooting threes, the inception of the 3-point line put a marker on the ground that players stood near, which created more spacing than previously.

Thats why good team ortg's only occurred AFTER the 3-point line was introduced - ortg immediately increased to modern levels once the line was added in 1980..

Essentially, the 3-point line allowed good team offense, which is why all 40 league MVP's since 1980 have been dominant offensive players - so we know Russell wouldn't be MVP-caliber today.. Since Russell isn't MVP-caliber in the modern era, Jordan's 6 rings as the best player is the goat accomplishment of modern basketball/3-pointer basketball

[The Iron Fist]

Kareem was 6-4 against better teams. He would have feasted.

[3ball]

Kareem was 6-4 against better teams. He would have feasted.

Kareem can't take the volume required

Only 71' Kareem could win because he won the title as scoring champ, like MJ always did... Otherwise, 80's Kareem couldn't handle the high volume required to win with that cast

That's why only MJ could win most of those rings - 4 of them required 25 fga at 45% - only mj can do that and it isn't a one-off

[OrlandoMagicGuy]

Winning 6 rings as the best player while being the league scorer and making the all-defensive first teams 6 times would be quite the task along with consistently averaging 30+ pts in regular season/playoffs/finals

[The Iron Fist]

Kareem can't take the volume required

Only 71' Kareem could win because he won the title as scoring champ, like MJ always did... Otherwise, 80's Kareem couldn't handle the high volume required to win with that cast

That's why only MJ could win most of those rings - 4 of them required 25 fga at 45% - only mj can do that and it isn't a one-off

Kareem never needed volume. He was a team player from the start. His success from high school to college proved that already.

[Roundball_Rock]

If Bill Russell has 11 rings as the man why isn't he the GOAT?

Great question. The people who always bring up rings oddly then say MJ is GOAT. Their own criteria says Russell>>>>>>>>>>>everybody else.


I think to be "the man" on your team you need to lead the team offensively and the be the lead scorer

Then Kareem was "the man" easily for 4 rings. Riley himself wrote in his book that Kareem was the first option until the 87' season. You identified a criteria. The Kareem detractors never do since "rings as the man" is a weak sauce excuse to diminish KAJ than a legit rationale.


Also Shaq should be there with 3.

I know I had forgotten someone! Agreed.


the 70s are very commonly known as the weakest era in basketball.

Were teams winning with Otis Thorpe as their second best player in the 70's or in the 90's? Perception isn't always reality.


Jordan didnt need pippen to win, he needed anything as he barely lost in the late 80s when pippen played like trash in the playoffs

So surely MJ won the game where Pippen missed 47 minutes and won the migraine game, right?


With Kevin Johnson (7th pick to pippen's 5th) in the late 80s instead of Pippen? they probably wouldve won before '91. KJ popped off far more early on.

Pippen and Johnson both became all-stars in the same year.

It wouldn't have been Kevin Johnson. It probably would have been Kenny Smith with Pippen going 6th to Sacramento. How many rings does Mike win with Kenny Smith?


The Bull's couldve drafted any decent all star level player over the years and it would've put them over the top.

You mean like Oakley? MJ won what with him?

It is not easy to draft all-star players (unless you are stuck in the lottery). The second options for other superstars then were John Starks, Terry Porter, Otis Thorpe, Sean Elliot, Kevin Willis, Brad Daughtery, Rik Smits, Penny, Kemp. So not exactly beasts outside of Penny and Daughtery, and they were #1 picks that Chicago would not have (and even if Chicago hypothetically did, MJ wins much less with either guy than with Pip). Maybe they draft Kemp late but unlikely. If you have prime MJ you are trying to win now, not drafting a high schooler who wouldn't become an all-star until 94' (when MJ would be retired).

MJ fans are spoiled thinking players like Pippen were the second guys on every contender.

[OrlandoMagicGuy]

Great question. The people who always bring up rings oddly then say MJ is GOAT. Their own criteria says Russell>>>>>>>>>>>everybody else.
I think it's because he was the clear cut #1 option in all 6 of the rings - (30+ ppg scorer - elite defensive player - 1 all-star teammate - role player teammates)


Then Kareem was "the man" easily for 4 rings. Riley himself wrote in his book that Kareem was the first option until the 87' season. You identified a criteria. The Kareem detractors never do since "rings as the man" is a weak sauce excuse to diminish KAJ than a legit rationale.
Kareem was robbed of a few finals mvps,Magic had no business winning it in that first championship.

[dankok8]

the 70s are very commonly known as the weakest era in basketball. Drug fueled and talent split between NBA and ABA.

Jordan didnt need pippen to win, he needed anything as he barely lost in the late 80s when pippen played like trash in the playoffs.

The Bull's couldve drafted any decent all star level player over the years and it would've put them over the top.

With Kevin Johnson (7th pick to pippen's 5th) in the late 80s instead of Pippen? they probably wouldve won before '91. KJ popped off far more early on.

The NBA-ABA talent split doesn't have anything to do with talent concentration on the best teams. Like I said so many 70's NBA teams were insanely stacked with talent. The drug use was rampant from the late 70's well into the 80's. MJ's teammate Orlando Woolridge was a drug user and got banned in 1987 IIRC. Weak era or whatever other narrative you wanna push sure but 1970/1973 Knicks, 1971 Bucks, 1972 Lakers, 1973/1974 Celtics, 1977 Blazers are considered among the greatest teams in league history.

You mention Kevin Johnson but in 1970 and from 1972-1979, Kareem never played with a KJ-caliber player. The one year he had an older but still good Oscar in 1971, he steamrolled to the title and his Bucks were going to win 70 games if they didn't rest the last few games of the regular season. The one year Kareem had help in the 70's, he won a title in dominant fashion.

And I don't want to disparage MJ because he was amazing but no he didn't barely lose in the 80's. Lost to the Bucks, swept twice by the Celtics, and beat by the Pistons twice (once handily and once in a somewhat competitive series). Those are his 80's playoff accomplishments. Till and after Pippen became an All-NBA performer on both ends of the floor, Jordan has little to show for in his playoff career. Now I wouldn't blame him for it but it is what it is.

[3ball]

Kareem never needed volume. He was a team player from the start. His success from high school to college proved that already.

Kareem would need to shoot MJ's volume because his offensive help would be less - furthermore, the Bulls' cast played at capacity or very close next to MJ, so MJ's volume was needed - and only MJ could shoot well at this volume, so only he could win those rings.

People don't seem to realize that jordan's teammates played at capacity next to him, or close to it - so MJ's volume was needed, and only MJ could shoot well at that volume, or shoot high volume within a championship concept... No one in modern history has any record of shooting efficiently at 25+ shots per game in the Playoffs, except Hakeem in 95' and Kobe in 07' - so these are the only guys that could win rings with those bulls

[The Iron Fist]

Kareem would need to shoot MJ's volume because his offensive help would be less - furthermore, the Bulls' cast played at capacity or very close next to MJ, so MJ's volume was needed - and only MJ could shoot well at this volume, so only he could win those rings.

People don't seem to realize that jordan's teammates played at capacity next to him, or close to it - so MJ's volume was needed, and only MJ could shoot well at that volume, or shoot high volume within a championship concept... No one in modern history has any record of shooting efficiently at 25+ shots per game in the Playoffs, except Hakeem in 95' and Kobe in 07' - so these are the only guys that could win rings with those bulls
Jordan’s offensive help was less because he shot more. This is basic shit. Kareems teams never relied on his volume because his teammates were involved. They were allowed to play in the flow of the game and not worry about taking his shots away.

[SouBeachTalents]

The early 70's were definitely legit, you had the Wilt/West Lakers, Reed/Frazier Knicks, Kareem/Oscar Bucks. But roughly '75-'79 imo that is the weakest stretch in NBA history. Look at some of these teams that were making the Finals.

Rick Barry took a team with a 14 ppg Jamaal Wilkes as his 2nd option and swept the Finals

The 42 win Suns made the Finals the following a year, a team I bet nobody on here could name a single player from without looking it up. I'd make that same wager on the Cavs team the Celtics beat in the ECF

And the Bullets & Sonics that met b2b years in the Finals, does anyone here actually think they'd win a championship in the 80's or 90's?

There's never been a stretch of weaker (but obviously still great) players leading their teams to titles. Rick Barry on probably the worst championship team ever, Dave Cowens, Elvin Hayes, Gus Williams, with Walton obviously being the exception

[3ball]

Jordan’s offensive help was less because he shot more.



^^^ Historically false, because when MJ wasn't there, everyone had the same stats or barely better than their high alongside MJ

So jordan's teammates played to capacity, which means MJ's volume was needed... and only he could shoot well at that volume

No one in modern history has any record of shooting efficiently (45% or better) at 25+ shots per game in the Playoffs, except Hakeem in 95' and Kobe in 07' - so these are the only guys that could win rings with those bulls





his is basic shit. Kareems teams never relied on his volume because his teammates were involved. They were allowed to play in the flow of the game and not worry about taking his shots away.




Magic/Worthy/Scott is far better offensive help than Pippen/Grant/BJ.

That's why Kareem didn't need high volume

[The Iron Fist]

^^^ Historically false, because when MJ wasn't there, everyone had the same stats or barely better than their high alongside MJ

So jordan's teammates played to capacity, which means MJ's volume was needed... and only he could shoot well at that volume

No one in modern history has any record of shooting efficiently (45% or better) at 25+ shots per game in the Playoffs, except Hakeem in 95' and Kobe in 07' - so these are the only guys that could win rings with those bulls




Magic/Worthy/Scott is far better offensive help than Pippen/Grant/BJ.

That's why Kareem didn't need high volume

So Kareem made his teammates better. Yea, we established that already.

[OrlandoMagicGuy]

So Kareem made his teammates better. Yea, we established that already.

Jordan made Scottie

[3ball]

So Kareem made his teammates better. Yea, we established that already.

Magic and Worthy were star #1 picks and didn't need Kareem... So no

[The Iron Fist]

Magic and Worthy were star #1 picks and didn't need Kareem... So no

Post their titles without him.

[3ball]

Post their titles without him.

^^^ you can say that about anyone that spent their prime with 1 team


Pippen 2nd Playoffs'..... 9 on 40% in ECF
Worthy 2nd Playoffs... 22 on 64% in Finals


^^^ Clearly, MJ would've won in 89' and 90' with "Big Game" James (Piston-killer) instead of Pippen...

That would've made Worthy better than Pippen in HS, college, draft and a 2-ring headstart as a young pro.. there's no way Pippen overcomes this to still be ranked higher all-time.. he simply won the "play with MJ" lottery, so the winning spotlight inflated his weak stats.

[Vino24]

Kareem can't take the volume required

Only 71' Kareem could win because he won the title as scoring champ, like MJ always did... Otherwise, 80's Kareem couldn't handle the high volume required to win with that cast

That's why only MJ could win most of those rings - 4 of them required 25 fga at 45% - only mj can do that and it isn't a one-off
You don’t need volume to win as a center. Just being bigger will alter shots. Kareem and Scottie would almost be unfair for the league

[Roundball_Rock]

You mention Kevin Johnson but in 1970 and from 1972-1979, Kareem never played with a KJ-caliber player. The one year he had an older but still good Oscar in 1971, he steamrolled to the title and his Bucks were going to win 70 games if they didn't rest the last few games of the regular season. The one year Kareem had help in the 70's, he won a title in dominant fashion.

Facts.


Kareems teams never relied on his volume because his teammates were involved.

Which is why Kareem would fit in any team. MJ couldn't work with a high volume scorer or a high volume passer (like KJ) because he required astronomical usage. Pippen was a perfect teammate for him in many ways because he did so many things well without requiring the ball all the time.

Plus Kareem had insanely high efficiency. He was a career 56% shooter and he was a good free throw shooter compared to other centers.


So Kareem made his teammates better. Yea, we established that already.

:lol


I think it's because he was the clear cut #1 option in all 6 of the rings - (30+ ppg scorer - elite defensive player - 1 all-star teammate - role player teammates)

See the problem? Then it really isn't about rings anymore.


Kareem was robbed of a few finals mvps,Magic had no business winning it in that first championship.

Yup.


Rick Barry took a team with a 14 ppg Jamaal Wilkes as his 2nd option and swept the Finals

You could say that about the 94' Rockets, 03' Spurs or 11' Mavs too, though.


And the Bullets & Sonics that met b2b years in the Finals, does anyone here actually think they'd win a championship in the 80's or 90's?

80's no but why not in the 90's? A team won with only 1 HOF player while others were making the finals with only 1 HOF player. Why wouldn't Hayes and Unseld be able to contend in that era?


Post their titles without him.

Nothing.

[The Iron Fist]

^^^ you can say that about anyone that spent their prime with 1 team


Pippen 2nd Playoffs'..... 9 on 40% in ECF
Worthy 2nd Playoffs... 22 on 64% in Finals


^^^ Clearly, MJ would've won in 89' and 90' with "Big Game" James (Piston-killer) instead of Pippen...

That would've made Worthy better than Pippen in HS, college, draft and a 2-ring headstart as a young pro.. there's no way Pippen overcomes this to still be ranked higher all-time.. he simply won the "play with MJ" lottery, so the winning spotlight inflated his weak stats.

Just post their titles without him. Since he didn’t make them better and they were number 1 pick stars, they should have titles without him right?

[Roundball_Rock]

Just post their titles without him. Since he didn’t make them better and they were number 1 pick stars, they should have titles without him right?

Good question. Why no answer?

He posts Pippen's ECF stats knowing Pippen basically missed a game, but since he played 1 minute before getting a concussion it counts towards his averages. The sleights of hands never end with these guys, do they?

[3ball]

Pippen averaged 12 ppg on 40% without the last game

So my point stands and I win.. you lost due to a weak counter...

[Roundball_Rock]

Pippen averaged 12 ppg on 40% without the last game

So my point stands and I win.. you lost due to a weak counter...

It goes to your credibility.

Worthy had a better second year playoff run. What year did Worthy make his first all-star team? All-NBA team? MVP candidacy? Surely if Worthy was this fast bloomer and Pippen a slowpoke (the constant insinuation from MJ stans--don't be fooled) Worthy's career would have progressed much faster than Pippen's.

[The Iron Fist]

Pippen averaged 12 ppg on 40% without the last game

So my point stands and I win.. you lost due to a weak counter...

Where are Magic and Worthys rings without Kareem? As you said, they were first round draft pick stars.

[Roundball_Rock]

Where are Magic and Worthys rings without Kareem? As you said, they were first round draft pick stars.

They had several years without him too, especially Worthy. Worthy was thrust into the same scenario Pippen was in 94' in 92'. What did Worthy did? Did he emerge as a MVP candidate for the first time in his career?

[3ball]

It goes to your credibility.

Worthy had a better second year playoff run. What year did Worthy make his first all-star team? All-NBA team? MVP candidacy? Surely if Worthy was this fast bloomer and Pippen a slowpoke (the constant insinuation from MJ stans--don't be fooled) Worthy's career would have progressed much faster than Pippen's.

A win is a win

No statistical issue with my posts ever changed the point being made

Ultimately, Worthy and many others would've won with MJ in 88', 89', and 90'... Heck, Xavier McDaniel averaged 25/9/4 on 50% against the 87' Lakers (WCF) - he would've won with MJ in 89'

Pippen simply won the "play with MJ" lottery, but guys like Kemp, Dominique, Coleman, Hill or Worthy were easily better... Krause was begging Seattle to take Pippen in 97'... Lol

[Roundball_Rock]

What did Worthy win without Kareem? Or Magic? You still haven't answered.

We saw MJ play with a player like Xavier McDaniel (who made an all-star team once, in 1988). The results were not pretty...

Dominique wouldn't function with a ball hog like MJ. Hill is irrelevant--he did not enter the NBA until MJ was retired.

[3ball]

What did Worthy win without Kareem? Or Magic? You still haven't answered.

We saw MJ play with a player like Xavier McDaniel (who made an all-star team once, in 1988). The results were not pretty...

Dominique wouldn't function with a ball hog like MJ. Hill is irrelevant--he did not enter the NBA until MJ was retired.

Michael didn't use extended live dribbles and many of his points were assisted, which helps ball movement - MJ was the goat assist target so Dominique would see higher assists alongside Mike just like Pippen did

And MJ's fundamentally-sound game fit into any brand or system, which naturally puts Dominique and MJ in optimal spots in relation to each other... If MJ was a big ball-dominator/live-dribbler like lebron, the triangle would have to be trashed

And no, MJ didn't have anyone as good as rookie X-man... X-man also destroyed Pippen in the 92' ECSF - thats the reason it went 7 games - MJ won many times with HORRIFIC play from pip

[Roundball_Rock]

:kobe:

You can't pair the two best scorers of their era, especially when the other's entire value derives from that one category, and have it mesh. Wilkins won't function with the scraps MJ would leave after taking his customary 25 FGA.

[3ball]

:kobe:

You can't pair the two best scorers of their era, especially when the other's entire value derives from that one category, and have it mesh. Wilkins won't function with the scraps MJ would leave after taking his customary 25 FGA.

there's no glaring hole or weak fundamental in MJ's game that will cause major reduction in any 1 player's stats like lebron did with Hughes, Jamison, Rose, Crowder, Hood, Bosh, or Love... MJ's reduction is more natural, aka 1-2 point haircuts for everyone like when he came back in 95-96'.... And that's mostly the lesser players - Dominique's stats and volume would be mostly unchanged, like Pippen's... Pippen's peak production was actually higher alongside mj (21.0 and 7.0 apg in 92', versus 22.0 and 5.6 in 94')

Ultimately, MJ can seemlessly switch from the primary ball-handler role to the "shooter" role, which allows Dominique to be the ball-dominator and assist Jordan..

Otih, Lebron can't play off-ball or get assisted like that, so he can't play with guys that need the ball in their hands like Pippen or Dominique.. unless they're great shooters and can play the "shooter" role.

[Roundball_Rock]

Dominique and MJ both need volume. Dominique was not a passer. He couldn't move into a point forward role. He had one skill: elite volume scoring and if you take that away he becomes useless.

[1987_Lakers]

It's not like the NBA was filled with super teams in the 90's compared to the 80's or 10's. A prime Kareem & Scottie would have won multiple titles with ease in the 90's, especially with Phil Jackson as coach. Just look at the top teams in the 90's, '92 Blazers who were known for their low IQ play, Knicks who were not consistent offensively, '93 Suns who were average defensively, then you have GP-Kemp Soncis & Malone-Stockton Jazz, would those duos be better than a Kareem & Pippen duo? Hell no. Most of those top 90's teams in general only had 1 HOF player.

And unlike MJ, Kareem doesn't retire after '93, which means more possible titles for the Bulls.

[LAmbruh]

yep, quite easily infact



bulls won 55 wins without MJ as it is

[LeCroix]

Easily, so would lebron.

Mike, leborn, and kareem top goats

[3ball]

Easily, so would lebron.

Mike, leborn, and kareem top goats

Lebron and Kareem (only 3 rings as the best player) shouldn't be in the same sentence as MJ (6).. MJ is on his own level

And again, can Kareem or lebron shoot well at 25+ shots a game - only 70's Kareem - not 80's Kareem... 80's Kareem has zero rings with Pippen... 70's Kareem might win in 91' or 96'... That's it..

and lebron never shoots well at high volume so he can't win, and he doesn't fit with Pippen either.. Pippen and Bron both need good-shooters and closers, so they don't help each other

[1987_Lakers]

Kareem can't take the volume required

Only 71' Kareem could win because he won the title as scoring champ, like MJ always did... Otherwise, 80's Kareem couldn't handle the high volume required to win with that cast

That's why only MJ could win most of those rings - 4 of them required 25 fga at 45% - only mj can do that and it isn't a one-off

The NBA's all-time scoring leader can't take the volume scoring required? Do you know how dumb that statement is?

Kareem from 1970-1980 averaged 30 ppg in the postseason on 54% shooting. Put '71-'78 Kareem on the Bulls from 91-98 and scoring wouldnt be a problem.

[DoctorP]

The NBA's all-time scoring leader can't take the volume scoring required? Do you know how dumb that statement is?

Kareem from 1970-1980 averaged 30 ppg in the postseason on 54% shooting.

nice. id love to see that Kareem compete in todays era

[3ball]

The NBA's all-time scoring leader can't take the volume scoring required? Do you know how dumb that statement is?

Kareem from 1970-1980 averaged 30 ppg in the postseason on 54% shooting.

70's Kareem could do it but not 80's Kareem

and lebron never shoots well at high volume so he can't win, and he doesn't fit with Pippen either.. Pippen and Bron both need good-shooters and closers, so they don't help each other... People thought lebron/Wade were a bad fit but Pippen would be immensely worse.. at least Wade could close/iso

[1987_Lakers]

70's Kareem could do it but not 80's Kareem

and lebron never shoots well at high volume so he can't win, and he doesn't fit with Pippen either.. Pippen and Bron both need good-shooters and closers, so they don't help each other... People thought lebron/Wade were a bad fit but Pippen would be immensely worse.. at least Wade could close/iso

I mean, we all assume OP meant a prime Kareem, no fun in talking about 80's Kareem in this discussion.

[Axe]

yep, quite easily infact



bulls won 55 wins without MJ as it is
Meanwhile, the lakers last season won 37 games in what was bran's maiden season with team.

Yeah, i know there will be some folks here with the audacity to point out that injuries played a major role in ruining on what could have been their potential successful season.

Reasons.

[LeCroix]

Do they get 2 years to rest their pretty minds? Retire early and just chill to rest

[Roundball_Rock]

It's not like the NBA was filled with super teams in the 90's compared to the 80's or 10's. A prime Kareem & Scottie would have won multiple titles with ease in the 90's, especially with Phil Jackson as coach. Just look at the top teams in the 90's, '92 Blazers who were known for their low IQ play, Knicks who were not consistent offensively, '93 Suns who were average defensively, then you have GP-Kemp Soncis & Malone-Stockton Jazz, would those duos be better than a Kareem & Pippen duo? Hell no. Most of those top 90's teams in general only had 1 HOF player.

And unlike MJ, Kareem doesn't retire after '93, which means more possible titles for the Bulls.

Great points all around. :applause:


The NBA's all-time scoring leader can't take the volume scoring required?

:oldlol:

80's Kareem wasn't prime Kareem (outside of 1980) but he was scoring 26 PPG in the playoffs as a 39 year old. GOAT gonna GOAT. :pimp:

[Soundwave]

I have Kareem as my no.2 all time so yeah I think probably, but the 90s was a golden age of really, really good centers. Hakeem and Shaq in particular are unlike anyone Kareem faced and the Rockets were able to beat the Lakers for example.

They didn't just get by them either, they whupped the Lakers pretty hard ... 4-1. Pippen and Grant and Armstrong from Magic and Worthy and Scott is a downgrade overall as a supporting cast, although Kareem would obviously be younger.

That said I don't think Kareem declined much offensively even into his 30s. That was the genius of the hook shot, you don't really need explosive athleticism, you just need to master the angles of the shot and be able to get the shot off.

7 foot 2 is still 7 foot 2, at age 28 or 38. The shot was still near impossible to block and he had mastered being able to get the shot off at will basically.

Age impacted other aspects of Kareem's game like rebounding and shot blocking though.

[Axe]

It's not like the NBA was filled with super teams in the 90's compared to the 80's or 10's. A prime Kareem & Scottie would have won multiple titles with ease in the 90's, especially with Phil Jackson as coach. Just look at the top teams in the 90's, '92 Blazers who were known for their low IQ play, Knicks who were not consistent offensively, '93 Suns who were average defensively, then you have GP-Kemp Soncis & Malone-Stockton Jazz, would those duos be better than a Kareem & Pippen duo? Hell no. Most of those top 90's teams in general only had 1 HOF player.

And unlike MJ, Kareem doesn't retire after '93, which means more possible titles for the Bulls.
I feel surprised that the two-peat rockets teams were omitted in this list.

Then again, mj never faced the team in the finals at all. So of course, they don't get an honorable mention here.

[Soundwave]

I'm actually surprised how bad the Lakers did in Kareem's prime before Magic got there. It's not like all those teams all sucked. The 78-79 Lakers had three other players average over 17 ppg -- Jamaal Wilkes with a Pippen like 18.6 ppg + 7 rpg, Adrian Dantley with 17.3 ppg and just under 6 rpg, Norm Nixon with a very nice 17 ppg and 9 assists per game.

Then you Kareem near his peak prime averaging 23.8 ppg + 13 rpg ... that team should at least win 50 games and make the Conference Finals, but they weren't really close to that. 47 wins only and got destroyed in just the 2nd round in 5 games to the Sonics who's best player was like Gus Williams.

I think if you give Jordan or LeBron three other 17+ ppg scorers at age 30/31, you're getting at least 50+ wins and a Conference Finals minimum.

75-76 Lakers is another head scratcher, embarrassing sub-.500 record with Kareem in his prime at age 28, and I mean Gail Goodridge as a respectable no.2 option at 19.5 ppg and 5.6 apg. Lucius Allen with 14.7 ppg. Two other players in double digit scoring.

I mean yeah maybe not everything is perfect but to not even be an average team with the best player in the world in his prime and OK scoring help is really bizarre.

Gail Goodridge was a 5x NBA All-Star ... I mean I don't see any way a 28 year old Jordan or LeBron or Shaq would only have 40 wins with an All-Star teammate on the roster + 3 other double digit scorers.

[Roundball_Rock]

They didn't just get by them either, they whupped the Lakers pretty hard ... 4-1.

Kareem was 39 by the series and still put up 27/7 and you are using that against Kareem? :biggums: As a comparison, here was Hakeem at age 39: 7/6/1...Shaq? 0/0/0. At age 38 Shaq was 9/5/1.


Pippen and Grant and Armstrong from Magic and Worthy and Scott is a downgrade overall as a supporting cast, although Kareem would obviously be younger.

That is not how it works. The other teams in the 90's didn't have McHale, Parish, Dennis Johnson either. You compare Pippen, Grant, BJ to Starks, Oakley, and Smith or Smits, Davis, and Jackson...I noticed comparisons of "casts" in the context of opposing casts is avoided like the plague by some.


I'm actually surprised how bad the Lakers did in Kareem's prime before Magic got there.

Why? They gutted the team to acquire him. They gave up an all-star, a 16/11 center, and the #2 and #8 picks to get him. He easily could have just waited a year and signed as a free agent if he know people on the internet would rip him 45 years later for not winning with a gutted roster. He still had the same team as the #1 seed in his second year in LA. Unfortunately, his second and third best players both went down in the playoffs (the poor injury luck somehow makes him a worse player according to some).


I think if you give Jordan or LeBron three other 17+ ppg scorers at age 30/31, you're getting at least 50+ wins and a Conference Finals minimum.

Different eras. The Sonics you mention had 7 players who averaged 10+. In 1998 Utah made the NBA finals where their second scorer averaged 10.7 in the series...a team with a second guy barely scoring double digits wouldn't win 30 games outside of the 90's and maybe the 00's.

[Soundwave]

Kareem was 39 by the series and still put up 27/7 and you are using that against Kareem? :biggums: As a comparison, here was Hakeem at age 39: 7/6/1...Shaq? 0/0/0. At age 38 Shaq was 9/5/1.



That is not how it works. The other teams in the 90's didn't have McHale, Parish, Dennis Johnson either. You compare Pippen, Grant, BJ to Starks, Oakley, and Smith or Smits, Davis, and Jackson...I noticed comparisons of "casts" in the context of opposing casts is avoided like the plague by some.



Why? They gutted the team to acquire him. They gave up an all-star, a 16/11 center, and the #2 and #8 picks to get him. He easily could have just waited a year and signed as a free agent if he know people on the internet would rip him 45 years later for not winning with a gutted roster.



Different eras. The Sonics you mention had 7 players who averaged 10+. In 1998 Utah made the NBA finals where their second scorer averaged 10.7 in the series...

If he's the best player in the world though that's still fairly disappointing. The Lakers basically had 5 guys average double figures on their side and Kareem surely should tip the scales much moreso.

I don't see Jordan or LeBron at the same age losing a series like that in those circumstances.

I mean Gus Williams for the Sonics was a decent player, but jeezus Kareem should've been the best player by 10 miles out of anyone on that court and all they could muster was getting beat 4-1. That's not even competitive.

[HoopsNY]

Kareem definitely could have won a whole bunch of rings in place of Jordan on the Bulls. Would he win six or less or more is hard to say but the 90's Bulls with prime Kareem on the team would be favorites for the title every year. People forget that a 38-39 year old Kareem plastered young Hakeem and Ewing in 1986 putting up like 35 ppg on 60% shooting. Even the Rockets with their twin towers of Sampson and Hakeem could do very little to stop a very old Jabbar who lost almost all his quickness and stamina. Thing is the 90's Bulls rarely ever faced dominant bigs. Ewing was one and he would get absolutely owned by Kareem. 90's Bulls never played against Hakeem or Robinson in the finals. Who would stop Kareem? Divac? Duckworth? Ostertag? LMAO... Buck Williams on 92 Blazers was one of the few good big man defenders.

Not sure what you're referring to. Hakeem dominated the Lakers in the '86 playoffs despite being outplayed by Kareem up to that point. The Rockets actually beat the Lakers that year to advance to the finals.

Kareem outplayed Ewing in one game where he scored 40 but the other matchups were pretty even.

Mj faced other great centers too. Daughtery, Mourning, Ewing, and Shaq were all great centers. Not saying Kareem wouldn't do well against these guys but there were a lot of quality big men in the game by the late 80s until 1998.


Kareem is a GOAT-level candidate on the level of Jordan, Lebron, Russell... The reason he only won 2 rings as the absolute top dog is he had very subpar teams around him for about 8 prime years. By 1972, Oscar was already getting injured and old and until Magic came he never had proper support. In fact from 1972 to 1979 inclusive, Kareem never had a healthy all-star sidekick in the playoffs. And he faced some great teams like 1972 Lakers, 1974 Celtics, 1977 Blazers...

Sorry, I'm not buying this sympathy plea for Kareem. Not only did he have Oscar in 1970-71 but he also had Bob Dandridge who was coming into his prime and a great player. He also had Lucius Allen the following year. In 1973 in the series against Golden State, Oscar actually played just as good, if not better than Kareem, averaging nearly as many points and shooting 50% compared to Kareem's 42%.

He then played alongside Gail Goodrich in L.A. and misses the playoffs. Certainly Goodrich wasn't a bum, and Lucius Allen was playing alongside with him as well.

Two years later he starts playing with the likes of Adrian Dantley, Jamaal Wilkes, and Norm Nixon. Kareem was great, but he his flaws too. Dantley, Wilkes, and Nixon were solid players and Kareem certainly had the support. To make it appear as if he had no one is disingenuous.



And you have to value what he did in the 80's. Yes he and Magic were 1a and 1b but Kareem was a monster. See the 1985 Finals. No center other than Shaq or Hakeem had a finals like a 38-year old Kareem mustered and we know Kareem's legendary longevity and his winning credentials from day 1 in the NBA.


Are you sure about that? Moses Malone comes to mind.

[Roundball_Rock]

If he's the best player in the world though that's still fairly disappointing.

It is a team sport. Here is what Dankok8 wrote on 1979 a few years ago:


In 78-79 the Lakers like in 77-78 were simply atrocious as far as perimeter defense and team rebounding. Take a look at these numbers containing the rebounding numbers of the 78-79 and 79-80. Note that Kareem actually rebounded better in 78-79 so it's obvious the difference is from his teammates.



With such terrible rebounding margins it's a miracle the Lakers could win as much as they did. The Nuggets outrebounded them by 7.3 boards a game but Kareem was a monster in that series averaging 28.0 ppg, 13.3 rpg, 5.0 apg, 5.0 bpg on 61.5 %FG and hit a game-winning shot in Game 3.

Against the Sonics they were outrebounded by 13.2 a game!! Kareem had another great series with 28.8 ppg, 12.2 rpg, 4.6 apg, 3.6 bpg on 56.0 %FG. Despite the 4-1 result it was pretty close. 2 games were decided in OT and another came down to Nixon missing a game-winning shot.

Another problem apart form rebounding is the Sonics' 3-headed dragon of Gus Williams, Dennis Johnson, and Fred Brown averaged about 60 ppg in that series. They completely and totally obliterated Laker guards Norm Nixon, Ron Boone (scrub) and Don Ford (scrub) beyond any recognition.

Remember what happened when Chicago was outrebounded 249-240? It was the end of the world and they had to get the best rebounder since Wilt as a result.


I don't see Jordan or LeBron at the same age losing a series like that in those circumstances.

When did they win a series against the eventual champ where their team was outrebounded by 13 boards a game? Kareem went 29/12/5/4. What would MJ and LeBron do?

We can't use Jordan at 31 as a comp because he was coming off 2 years off. Kareem dominated for 17 seasons without any breaks and even in year 18 he was averaging 18 in the season, 19 in the playoffs, and 22 in the finals.

[Soundwave]

Not sure what you're referring to. Hakeem dominated the Lakers in the '86 playoffs despite being outplayed by Kareem up to that point. The Rockets actually beat the Lakers that year to advance to the finals.

Kareem outplayed Ewing in one game where he scored 40 but the other matchups were pretty even.

Mj faced other great centers too. Daughtery, Mourning, Ewing, and Shaq were all great centers. Not saying Kareem wouldn't do well against these guys but there were a lot of quality big men in the game by the late 80s until 1998.



Sorry, I'm not buying this sympathy plea for Kareem. Not only did he have Oscar in 1970-71 but he also had Bob Dandridge who was coming into his prime and a great player. He also had Lucius Allen the following year. In 1973 in the series against Golden State, Oscar actually played just as good, if not better than Kareem, averaging nearly as many points and shooting 50% compared to Kareem's 42%.

He then played alongside Gail Goodrich in L.A. and misses the playoffs. Certainly Goodrich wasn't a bum, and Lucius Allen was playing alongside with him as well.

Two years later he starts playing with the likes of Adrian Dantley, Jamaal Wilkes, and Norm Nixon. Kareem was great, but he his flaws too. Dantley, Wilkes, and Nixon were solid players and Kareem certainly had the support. To make it appear as if he had no one is disingenuous.




Are you sure about that? Moses Malone comes to mind.

I agree actually. The 70s Lakers era is not very flattering for Kareem. Even if they weren't winning titles, they should've at least been comparable to say the LeBron Cavs (first go around) where he was able to get them to the Conference Finals and win 50+ games fairly easily. Or the Bulls once Jordan got a little bit of help but were still getting bullied by the Pistons. But at least they were making the Pistons sweat.

It's not like he was a kid either, when you are 27/28/29/30 you should be able to elevate a team to a decent status with some secondary scoring. When you're young n' dumb and just eager to display your talent that's one thing, but you should grow out of that phase and become a team leader by age 27/28 at least.

[HoopsNY]

I'm actually surprised how bad the Lakers did in Kareem's prime before Magic got there. It's not like all those teams all sucked. The 78-79 Lakers had three other players average over 17 ppg -- Jamaal Wilkes with a Pippen like 18.6 ppg + 7 rpg, Adrian Dantley with 17.3 ppg and just under 6 rpg, Norm Nixon with a very nice 17 ppg and 9 assists per game.

Then you Kareem near his peak prime averaging 23.8 ppg + 13 rpg ... that team should at least win 50 games and make the Conference Finals, but they weren't really close to that. 47 wins only and got destroyed in just the 2nd round in 5 games to the Sonics who's best player was like Gus Williams.

I think if you give Jordan or LeBron three other 17+ ppg scorers at age 30/31, you're getting at least 50+ wins and a Conference Finals minimum.

75-76 Lakers is another head scratcher, embarrassing sub-.500 record with Kareem in his prime at age 28, and I mean Gail Goodridge as a respectable no.2 option at 19.5 ppg and 5.6 apg. Lucius Allen with 14.7 ppg. Two other players in double digit scoring.

I mean yeah maybe not everything is perfect but to not even be an average team with the best player in the world in his prime and OK scoring help is really bizarre.

Gail Goodridge was a 5x NBA All-Star ... I mean I don't see any way a 28 year old Jordan or LeBron or Shaq would only have 40 wins with an All-Star teammate on the roster + 3 other double digit scorers.

Don't tell Roundball this. Actual facts don't matter to him. Just look at how he compares Magic to Kareem in the 80s.

[Axe]

Don't tell Roundball this. Actual facts don't matter to him. Just look at how he compares Magic to Kareem in the 80s.
Yikes. 😬

[Soundwave]

Don't tell Roundball this. Actual facts don't matter to him. Just look at how he compares Magic to Kareem in the 80s.

I like Kareem too, I have him no.2 on my list, but man there's some "hmmmm" things about his 70s resume with the Lakers before Magic showed up.

There's no way they should've been that bad of a team with a mature, in his peak Kareem with some decent no.2 and no.3 options and getting completely destroyed in the 2nd round of the playoffs by nothing special squads like the Sonics.

28/29/30 year old Jordan or LeBron is pretty a stone cold lock for 53-60 wins with any kind of reasonable no.2/3 options and probably Conference Finals minimum if not Finals.

He should be the best player in the world hands down at that time.

[Roundball_Rock]

he 70s Lakers era is not very flattering for Kareem. Even if they weren't winning titles, they should've at least been comparable to say the LeBron Cavs (first go around) where he was able to get them to the Conference Finals and win 50+ games fairly easily.

Based on what? Are you really comparing the teams of that time to the top teams of the 70's which had 2-3 HOF each?

LeBron isn't a fair comp as he probably is the GOAT floor raiser. His issue is his teams' ceiling seems to be capped.


Or the Bulls once Jordan got a little bit of help but were still getting bullied by the Pistons.

That is an interesting comp. Kareem joined a 30 win Lakers team that gave up an all-star, a 16/11 center, the #2 pick and the #8 pick. MJ joined a 27 win team fully intact. So what happened over the next four years?

Lakers: 40-42, 53-29 (#1 seed), 45-37 (50 win pace with KAJ, 31 win pace without him), 47-35.
Bulls: 38-44, 30-52 (41 win pace with MJ, 27 without him), 40-42, 50-32.

The Lakers made a WCF and a WCSF. The Bulls in year four squeaked out of the first round and then lost 4-1 in the second round.

This is favorable to MJ???


It's not like he was a kid either, when you are 27/28/29/30 you should be able to elevate a team to a decent status with some secondary scoring.

He took a 29 win expansion team to 56 wins and the conference finals in the rookie. You tell me: did he get worse at 27-30? Or were there other factors at play beyond scoring?

[Roundball_Rock]

by nothing special squads like the Sonics.

AKA the NBA champion Sonics with 2 HOF players (not the same as playing a team in the ECF with 0 HOF, is it?)...the Sonics were no fluke either. They were back in the WCF the following year. Guess who they lost to?


28/29/30 year old Jordan or LeBron is pretty a stone cold lock for 53-60 wins with any kind of reasonable no.2/3 options and probably Conference Finals minimum if not Finals.

The MJ stuff is pulled out of thin air--when MJ had bad teams he did nothing. With LeBron we have evidence of that. The problem with LeBron is his team's ceiling. He had Wade, Bosh and later Irving and Love. The results? 58, 57 (prorated), 66, 54, 53, 57, 51, 50 wins. So you give LeBron arguably the most talented supporting cast and you get 50-54 wins?

He was getting similar results with Mo Williams and Daniel Gibson. Sure, he eventually won chips in Miami and Cavs 2.0 but who is to say he would not have won if he stayed in Cleveland and was there for an extra 8-10 years versus hopping from Miami, Cleveland and LA during that time.

[HoopsNY]

I agree actually. The 70s Lakers era is not very flattering for Kareem. Even if they weren't winning titles, they should've at least been comparable to say the LeBron Cavs (first go around) where he was able to get them to the Conference Finals and win 50+ games fairly easily. Or the Bulls once Jordan got a little bit of help but were still getting bullied by the Pistons. But at least they were making the Pistons sweat.

It's not like he was a kid either, when you are 27/28/29/30 you should be able to elevate a team to a decent status with some secondary scoring. When you're young n' dumb and just eager to display your talent that's one thing, but you should grow out of that phase and become a team leader by age 27/28 at least.

You're spot on. And this is one of the reasons why Kareem isn't the GOAT. I do place Kareem as top 5, but people forget the flaws in the longevity argument.

[Soundwave]

Based on what? Are you really comparing the teams of that time to the top teams of the 70's which had 2-3 HOF each?

LeBron isn't a fair comp as he probably is the GOAT floor raiser. His issue is his teams' ceiling seems to be capped.



That is an interesting comp. Kareem joined a 30 win Lakers team that gave up an all-star, a 16/11 center, the #2 pick and the #8 pick. MJ joined a 27 win team fully intact. So what happened over the next four years?

Lakers: 40-42, 53-29 (#1 seed), 45-37 (50 win pace with KAJ, 31 win pace without him), 47-35.
Bulls: 38-44, 30-52 (41 win pace with MJ, 27 without him), 40-42, 50-32.

The Lakers made a WCF and a WCSF. The Bulls in year four squeaked out of the first round and then lost 4-1 in the second round.

This is favorable to MJ???



He took a 29 win expansion team to 56 wins and the conference finals in the rookie. You tell me: did he get worse at 27-30? Or were there other factors at play beyond scoring?

I don't know but when you're the best player in the world at age 28/29/30 and you do actually have some secondary scoring I expect LeBron era Cavs (the 1st go around) at minimum.

You should at least be one of the better teams in the league and not be getting embarrassed in the 2nd round like that.

55 wins or so and Conference Finals is not really a big ask if you're that good of a player, it's not like he had 4 other starters only averaging 8-9 ppg.

[HoopsNY]

Yikes. ��

I hate that I even have to say that. I respect Roundball. He raises great points and forced me to reassess even some of my own views. But in this case, as well as the Magic vs Kareem debate, he's allowing his bias to get the better of him.

[Axe]

Lmao since when did mj joined a 27 win team? Afaik, he was originally drafted in 1984 (3rd overall) by the team that won only 27 games in the season prior to his nba debut.

[Axe]

I hate that I even have to say that. I respect Roundball. He raises great points and forced me to reassess even some of my own views. But in this case, as well as the Magic vs Kareem debate, he's allowing his bias to get the better of him.
At this rate, to each his own I guess. But some people simply just try too hard.

[Roundball_Rock]

I don't know but when you're the best player in the world at age 28/29/30 and you do actually have some secondary scoring I expect LeBron era Cavs (the 1st go around) at minimum.

If it is a tennis tournament sure. Wilt was putting up 45/24 at age 26 and his team went 31-49. Wilt's fault, right?


You should at least be one of the better teams in the league

Kareem's fault. He should have known 45 years later people on the internet would define his career by a LA team that was gutted to acquire him, all because he wanted to do right by Milwaukee. He easily could have left them hanging a year later as a free agent and joined an intact roster like we have seen others do...


it's not like he had 4 other starters only averaging 8-9 ppg.


So your entire basis for the team being awesome is scoring. They ranked 5th in offense, 10th in defense. Not bad. Their expected record was 4th best in the NBA. They were 20th in rebounding, though. What did MJ and LeBron do with a team that was 20th in rebounding?

They lost to the champs, a team that won the finals 4-1.


55 wins or so and Conference Finals is not really a big ask if you're that good of a player

This is ironic. As if MJ ever carried a bad roster anywhere.

As to LeBron, you are asking the floor (where he trumps MJ as well as KAJ--MJ was winning 40 with the same rosters). How about the ceiling? LeBron with Wade/Bosh and Irving/Love exceeded 60+ wins only once.

[dankok8]

Not sure what you're referring to. Hakeem dominated the Lakers in the '86 playoffs despite being outplayed by Kareem up to that point. The Rockets actually beat the Lakers that year to advance to the finals.

Kareem outplayed Ewing in one game where he scored 40 but the other matchups were pretty even.

Mj faced other great centers too. Daughtery, Mourning, Ewing, and Shaq were all great centers. Not saying Kareem wouldn't do well against these guys but there were a lot of quality big men in the game by the late 80s until 1998.



Sorry, I'm not buying this sympathy plea for Kareem. Not only did he have Oscar in 1970-71 but he also had Bob Dandridge who was coming into his prime and a great player. He also had Lucius Allen the following year. In 1973 in the series against Golden State, Oscar actually played just as good, if not better than Kareem, averaging nearly as many points and shooting 50% compared to Kareem's 42%.

He then played alongside Gail Goodrich in L.A. and misses the playoffs. Certainly Goodrich wasn't a bum, and Lucius Allen was playing alongside with him as well.

Two years later he starts playing with the likes of Adrian Dantley, Jamaal Wilkes, and Norm Nixon. Kareem was great, but he his flaws too. Dantley, Wilkes, and Nixon were solid players and Kareem certainly had the support. To make it appear as if he had no one is disingenuous.




Are you sure about that? Moses Malone comes to mind.

Re: Kareem vs. Hakeem and Ewing

I wasn't talking about outplaying them per se although he did for large stretches. It was his ability to score almost effortlessly on these guys at almost 40 years of age. That would be akin to Wizards MJ averaging 35 ppg against Kobe and Iverson. How that isn't impressive I don't know.

Re: 90's centers

Considering how well an old Kareem did against the like of Hakeem and Ewing, there's no way he wouldn't dominate in any era. With a 7'2'' frame, nobody is stopping him from getting off that skyhook and his length would bother all those guys. Prime Shaq could maybe bully him but it's not like Shaq could stop him either and a young Kareem would run circles around Shaq in terms of stamina. And no free throw liabilities. Kareem was clutch and hit plenty of huge game-winning shots.

Re: his 70's casts

Bob Dandridge is a solid player, made a few all-star teams. He was hurt in 1973 when Bucks lost. Lucius Allen was just a role player. Goodrich by 1976 was old. I'm sorry and I don't mean to sound offensive but those are weak points you're making. The only reason Kareem missed the playoffs in 1976 was because of weird seeding rules. His team was actually the 4th best in the conference.

Nixon was quite a headcase and Dantley was one of the worst team cancers ever. Every single team he left (Lakers, Jazz, Pistons) became better and he was always the source of locker room troubles. Immensely talented sure and unreal scorer in the post but a guy who made his teams worse. Wilkes was a good player but didn't yet peak.

Re: 1985 Finals

Visit any credible sources and they'll say the same. Prime Shaq had better finals and 1995 Hakeem and of course Kareem himself in his prime. And that's it. Moses was never close to the scoring machine or the defender or the playmaker out of the post that Kareem was.

[dankok8]

I agree actually. The 70s Lakers era is not very flattering for Kareem. Even if they weren't winning titles, they should've at least been comparable to say the LeBron Cavs (first go around) where he was able to get them to the Conference Finals and win 50+ games fairly easily. Or the Bulls once Jordan got a little bit of help but were still getting bullied by the Pistons. But at least they were making the Pistons sweat.

It's not like he was a kid either, when you are 27/28/29/30 you should be able to elevate a team to a decent status with some secondary scoring. When you're young n' dumb and just eager to display your talent that's one thing, but you should grow out of that phase and become a team leader by age 27/28 at least.

Kareem did elevate his team though. The playoffs back then had fewer rounds because there were fewer teams. Losing in the 1st round is like losing in the 2nd round today. Apart from 1973 which was an aberration Kareem's teams in the 70's always lost to really good teams that either won the title or came within a hair.

[Soundwave]

Kareem did elevate his team though. The playoffs back then had fewer rounds because there were fewer teams. Losing in the 1st round is like losing in the 2nd round today. Apart from 1973 which was an aberration Kareem's teams in the 70's always lost to really good teams that either won the title or came within a hair.

I mean 40 wins in one of the seasons with an All-Star teammate and getting destroyed in the 2nd round with a pretty good supporting cast in another year against a team that didn't really have a superstar player is stiff kinda "meh".

I don't think that would happen to LeBron or Jordan or probably even Shaq at that same age (28-31 year old range).

When Magic was 31 he was still taking the Lakers to the Finals without Kareem.

When you're a dominant, best in the world type of player like Conference Finals should be almost a minimum given by the time you mature to age 27/28/29/30/31.

You should have the league fairly figured out by then and really only need a decent/OK supporting cast to be at least a contender.

[brooks_thompson]

Skipped the thread...the answer is it depends on if they have SG Roster Guard #99 on their team or not

NBA Live ‘96 forever

[Roundball_Rock]

I mean 40 wins in one of the seasons with an All-Star teammate

That is shallow analysis. That was a 30 win team before KAJ got there--and they gutted the roster to acquire him giving up an all-star, a 16/11 center, the #2 and #8 picks. So what was the roster he walked into? Maybe a 20 win team? So they go from that to 40.

That is speculation. What we do know is prime Kareem got hurt twice. In the first case his team played at a 14 win level without him and a 44 win level with him. In the second case, in LA, they played at a 31 win level without him and a 50 win level with him. Are you suggesting that MJ or LeBron would be lifting these teams more than the 20-30 wins KAJ apparently did? If so, what evidence during their careers suggests that?


getting destroyed in the 2nd round with a pretty good supporting cast in another year against a team that didn't really have a superstar player

Which keeps ignoring that "other team" was the champion and had 2 HOF players. It is bad faith to act like it was a bunch of scrubs.

LeBron was losing in the second round (for the second time in three years) in 2010 with a 63 win team. He was 25 years old but this was his 7th year in the NBA and he was the reigning back-to-back MVP. Saying he was a puppy doesn't cut it since he was well into his prime. What is your explanation for that?

This was after LeBron lost with a 66 win team to a team whose second option was Rashard Lewis. So we have prime LeBron as the reigning MVP losing to a team with 1 HOF player. How could this be? It had to have been his fault, using the standard set for KAJ, even though he went 39/8/8.


I don't think that would happen to LeBron or Jordan or probably even Shaq at that same age (28-31 year old range).

You are comparing the 70's to a shallower era (90's and 00's) where contenders had 1 (e.g., the 90's Pacers, Blazers, Suns, or 00's Pistons) or even 0 HOF players (*cough* 90's Cavs). That amplifies the value of a superstar, a benefit KAJ did not have. Are you saying MJ, LeBron, Shaq would do anything with a 14 or 31 win team in an era where champs had 2-4 HOF players?

Age is a cop out anyway because of the teams these guys were on during those years were multiple championship teams (not exactly what KAJ had). Shaq had Kobe during that time frame, LeBron had Wade/Bosh or Irving/Love, and MJ had a team that won 55 games without him. Kareem, as mentioned earlier, was working with a 31 win type team at that same age.

Jordan was retired at 30 and 31. We saw MJ's team with MJ removed at his peak (after his age 29 season) and the result was 55 wins, not 14 or 31 (according to his own fans, a rookie Kukoc putting up 11/4/3 was enough to make up for much of the lost peak MJ value). We also saw MJ miss 65 games in 86'. When he came back, and finished 2nd in MVP, the result was...40-42 (30 wins the previous year).

Shaq is speculation because he spent his entire career, outside of his rookie year, on good or great teams (got Penny in year two). The Lakers were a 50+ win team when he got there. Miami wasn't but they had made the ECSF the year before. Shaq's record (look at when he got hurt) does suggest he lifted his teams, which were consistently around .500 without him, around 15-20 wins but you are saying Shaq>>>KAJ in this category. What actual evidence is there to support this?

[Roundball_Rock]

Kareem did elevate his team though. The playoffs back then had fewer rounds because there were fewer teams. Losing in the 1st round is like losing in the 2nd round today.

They never factor in the underlying strength of the team in question. 14 win pace and 31 win pace speaks for itself. Basically with KAJ you hear a bunch of BS points to justify him not being GOAT. The funny thing is 1) the same logic doesn't get applied elsewhere 2) if those things are so damning he can't be #2 or #3 on people's list.

Plus we saw Kareem join a 29 win expansion team and get them to 56 wins and the WCF as a rookie. Jordan needed four years to post a winning record, five to make the ECF and six to win more than 50 games. LeBron fared better but the issue with LeBron, as noted a few times, is his ceiling, not the floor. 17 win team inherited goes to 35, 42, 50, 50 (finals), 45, 66 (ECF), 63. So the team improved quickly, got to the finals in year four (year two for KAJ, year seven for MJ) but the playoff performance tapered off after that with two second round losses and and a ECF loss.


Bob Dandridge is a solid player, made a few all-star teams. He was hurt in 1973 when Bucks lost. Lucius Allen was just a role player. Goodrich by 1976 was old. I'm sorry and I don't mean to sound offensive but those are weak points you're making. The only reason Kareem missed the playoffs in 1976 was because of weird seeding rules. His team was actually the 4th best in the conference.

What do you think the 76' Lakers and beyond would have done if KAJ signed there in 76' and joined an intact roster instead of getting a trade done to allow Milwaukee to get value back for him?


When Magic was 31 he was still taking the Lakers to the Finals without Kareem.

After losing in the WCSF the first year minus KAJ. Magic had a team that went 43-39 without him with Worthy. Not what KAJ had, is it?

[Axe]

Holy copypasta crap.

[LAL]

Roundball, seems like jordan is the goat when you have to make a whole ass weird column defending kareem playofs exits and missing playoffs and winning 1 ring with big 0, who's higher than scottie in every ATG lists. You're even throwing your boy lebron under the bus because you think kareem has a better argument over MJ as goat lol. You're weird, desperate and lost outhere. Go back to defending ron harper's defense or some shit.

[Rysio]

I think goat all around gaurds are more important than goat bigs. Who's gonna take the clutch shots when needed? I think this is what would make bulls teams less dangerous and therefore would win less rings, probably 2-3 rings tops.

[guy]

Using the "look at how many HOFers were on each team" argument is kinda weak. Despite the league expanding and the popularity of the sport in general expanding, the HOF has never really increased the number of NBA players that get in every year. Its still usually 3-4 every year. On top of that, the older players have had more time to get in - of course you can make the case the longer its been they may get forgotten too. But how much does someone like Calvin Murphy, Dan Issel, or George McGinnis deserve it over Kevin Johnson, Mark Price, Glen Rice or Chris Webber who still haven't gotten in or over Chris Bosh or Amare Stoudemire who just became eligible recently but don't look like they are getting in anytime soon?

The same can be said about all-star and to a lesser degree all-nba (they did eventually add a 3rd team).

[Roundball_Rock]

I think goat all around gaurds are more important than goat bigs. Who's gonna take the clutch shots when needed?

Kareem did that for his teams so it is weird to see clutch situations being used as an argument against him. Especially since we so often hear how about centers were in the 80's and 90's and how that was a golden age for centers. Now they are useless?

Shooting guards have been the clear best player on 9 championship teams I believe (Wade, Kobe twice, MJ six times). How much team success did the greatest shooting guards have?

T Mac: never made it out the first round.
Gervin: never made a NBA finals.
Allen: won rings as the 3rd or 4th option.
Miller: 0 rings.
Manu: won multiple rings as the 3rd option.
Drexler: won a ring as the 2nd option.
Harden: zero rings, made the finals as a 3rd option.
Wade: 1 ring as the best player, 2 as the 2nd option.
West: 1 ring but unclear if he or Wilt was better that year.
Jordan: 6 rings, all as the #1.
Kobe: 5 rings, 3 as the #2 and 2 as the #1.

[LostCause]

Young Jordan loses in the 1st round (twice) to a contender for GOAT team with like 6 HOFers = Jordan didn’t do anything.

Prime Kareem loses to a Sonics team with way more help than MJ had = B-b-b-but they had 2 HOFers it’s okay

Logic guys

[Roundball_Rock]

Using the "look at how many HOFers were on each team" argument is kinda weak.

You are deflecting from the obvious: team rosters were diluted due to expansion in the 90's and 00's. Just look at the decline in the quality of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th options on contending teams. The same people who will say the champion Sonics suck will then tell use how stacked a team with John Starks as its second best player was.


the HOF has never really increased the number of NBA players that get in every year

Nor should it. The number of great players remains consistent. That is the point: expansion allows more scrubs and average players into the league, thereby making it easier for superstars to dominate (and pad stats) as talent gets diluted.


On top of that, the older players have had more time to get in - of course you can make the case the longer its been they may get forgotten too.

That works in favor of current players in these discussions...people who ultimately will not get in get discussed as future HOF players by fans because it is assumed they will get in.


Kevin Johnson, Mark Price, Glen Rice or Chris Webber

Johnson was a 3x all-star, Price 4x, Rice 3x. They retired a long time ago and have not gotten in and won't, which is correct. Being good briefly does not make you HOF player.


The same can be said about all-star and to a lesser degree all-nba (they did eventually add a 3rd team).

Same comment: the number of elite players remains consistent over time. Expansion brings in more scrubs and average players.

[Roundball_Rock]

Young Jordan loses in the 1st round (twice) to a contender for GOAT team with like 6 HOFers = Jordan didn’t do anything.

Prime Kareem loses to a Sonics team with way more help than MJ had = B-b-b-but they had 2 HOFers it’s okay

Specious reasoning. What took you long to show up with your sleights of hand? MJ is in the thread title? There is a lot of disingenuousness to unpack:

1) Jordan was the #8 seed in a 23 team league, not the #5 seed in a 22 team league.
2) Jordan lost in the first round (round of 16 of 23), not the second round (round of 8 of 22).
3) The Sonics were the champions that year, Boston lost in the finals (guess who was on that Lakers team?).
4) Boston was not a GOAT team in 87'. They barely even got to the finals.
5) The claim was made MJ would lift a bad team to the stratosphere. The reality was MJ came back to a 30 win team (27 win pace without him) and the result was 40-42.
6) If going from 27 wins to 40 wins is "nothing", that is your interpretation. I don't think it is "nothing" but it is not the mythical dominance Soundwave promised.

[dankok8]

I mean 40 wins in one of the seasons with an All-Star teammate and getting destroyed in the 2nd round with a pretty good supporting cast in another year against a team that didn't really have a superstar player is stiff kinda "meh".

I don't think that would happen to LeBron or Jordan or probably even Shaq at that same age (28-31 year old range).

When Magic was 31 he was still taking the Lakers to the Finals without Kareem.

When you're a dominant, best in the world type of player like Conference Finals should be almost a minimum given by the time you mature to age 27/28/29/30/31.

You should have the league fairly figured out by then and really only need a decent/OK supporting cast to be at least a contender.

40 wins with an all-star teammate? There was no year like that. He won 40 games in 1975-76 which was his first with the Lakers but didn't have any all-star teammates. It was all around a poor team with no point guard or power forward. Conference finals are an arbitrary step to reach. Depends on who you face in the playoffs. Lakers were in fact among the best teams in the world for much of the late 70's despite their total lack of rebounding and that was because of Kareem. From 1977-1979 they were losing to the Blazers and Sonics who were the best teams in the league. In 1980, Kareem again faced the Sonics and put up striking similar and very dominant numbers as the two years prior but the Lakers won the series because they didn't get destroyed on the boards and their guards actually defended. There was a bunch of good posts long ago that were made that the Lakers adding Jim Chones and Michael Cooper before that season improved the Lakers as much as adding Magic because it fixed their rebounding issues and perimeter defense respectively. And Magic himself also helped in the rebounding department. In the late 70's, the Lakers were getting crushed on the boards because no one other than Kareem rebounded the ball. Dantley was cherrypicking under the opponent's basket and Wilkes was too soft to bang underneath. And their guards which were Norm Nixon and a bunch of scrubs were getting lit up by the Seattle guards.

Lebron and Jordan were lucky not to have such poor supporting casts once they entered their primes. The only other great to be stuck with shitty supporting casts like Kareem for much of his prime was Hakeem Olajuwon and he too missed the playoffs one year IIRC and had quite a few first round exits. Sampson got hurt two years into his career and he never got help again until Drexler came. And of course his team success of 2 titles and 1 MVP lags behind other legends but let me tell you Hakeem was as great as any of them. I would take Hakeem over Duncan for instance. He was the better player but had much worse situations around him.

[guy]

You are deflecting from the obvious: team rosters were diluted due to expansion in the 90's and 00's. Just look at the decline in the quality of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th options on contending teams. The same people who will say the champion Sonics suck will then tell use how stacked a team with John Starks as its second best player was.



Nor should it. The number of great players remains consistent. That is the point: expansion allows more scrubs and average players into the league, thereby making it easier for superstars to dominate (and pad stats) as talent gets diluted.



That works in favor of current players in these discussions...people who ultimately will not get in would be discussed as future HOF players by fans because it is assumed they will get in.



Johnson was a 3x all-star, Price 4x, Rice 3x. They retired a long time ago and have not gotten in and won't, which is correct. Being good briefly does not make you HOF player.



Same comment: the number of elite players remains consistent over time. Expansion brings in more scrubs and average players.

Expansion occurs partly because the sport in general has expanded in popularity, which means the talent pool is larger and more people are playing basketball. Sure there's obviously some lag and the NBA doesn't just expand perfectly proportional to the talent pool but it eventually gets there and I would say by the 90s thats more then enough time for the talent pool and size of the league to have caught up with each other so that it wasn't "diluted" relative to the 70s. And thats not even taking into account the fact that much of the 70s had talent split between 2 leagues.

You really think expansion while the sport increased in popularity only allowed lesser players to get in? Maybe from one year to the next, but over time? You'd have a point if the popularity of the league stayed flat, but to think that is silly. A lot of great players may have not even gotten into basketball if that didn't happen. Maybe Jordan sticks with baseball. Maybe AI sticks with football. What are the chances someone like Hakeem or Dirk ends up playing basketball if they were born 10-20 years earlier? so no, its not just scrubs and average players that that impacted.

You can have whatever definition you want for "elite". Depending on how you look at it, you can argue the number of elite players are only consistent due to perception i.e. they are competing with more players for the same number of "elite" spots. Its probably harder for Kevin Johnson to look elite in the 90s then it does for Calvin Murphy in the 70s.

The less number of all-star appearances has alot to do with their not being more all-star spots despite a larger league combined with a larger talent pool. Of course, this resume factor obviously impacts their chances to get into the HOF as well.

[LostCause]

Specious reasoning. What took you long to show up with your sleights of hand? MJ is in the thread title?

It's called having a life. Try it. Jordan doc has you scrambling in every thread lol. Admit it, that's what brought you back, isn't it?


1) Jordan was the #8 seed in a 23 team league, not the #5 seed in a 22 team league.
2) Jordan lost in the first round (round of 16 of 23), not the second round (round of 8 of 22).

Irrelevant considering strength of opponent


3) The Sonics were the champions that year, Boston lost in the finals (guess who was on that Lakers team?).
4) Boston was not a GOAT team in 87'. They barely even got to the finals.

Boston won in 86 but let's pretend I didn't reference 2 years to make it appear like you have a point here. That's what's called a strawman. 86 Celtics are undoubtedly a GOAT team and 87 Celtics lost but were still very good (with 5 HOFers, not just 2). In fact the difference in SRS between those Celtics and Jordans Bulls is greater than it is for those Sonics and Kareems Lakers. So your point here is pretty weak. Here are the SRS comparisons for reference:

1977: Lakers (2.64) vs Blazers (5.39)
1978: Lakers (2.59) vs Sonics (1.48)
1979: Lakers (2.95) vs Sonics (2.69)

1985: Bulls (-0.50) vs Bucks (6.69)
1986: Bulls (-3.12) vs Celtics (9.06)
1987: Bulls (1.26) vs Celtics (6.57)
1988: Bulls (3.76) vs Pistons (5.46)

Let's not forget this is rookie/soph (off injury) MJ comparing to a prime Kareem



5) The claim was made MJ would lift a bad team to the stratosphere. The reality was MJ came back to a 30 win team (27 win pace without him) and the result was 40-42.

B-b-b-but the team was going through changes. Or does an excuse like that only go one way?

[Roundball_Rock]

Lebron and Jordan were lucky not to have such poor supporting casts once they entered their primes. The only other great to be stuck with shitty supporting casts like Kareem for much of his prime was Hakeem Olajuwon and he too missed the playoffs one year IIRC and had quite a few first round exits.

That is why it is misleading to set "once they were 28-31" as the time frame because they were on stacked teams during that period. Conversely, KAJ had his worst "casts" during that same age period.

Moreover, LeBron in particular bounces as soon as his teams start to decline. MJ got burned out mentally and retired instead of playing at a less than optimal level and then came back with fresh legs. What is the counter factual if KAJ took all 82 games of 1978 and 65 games of 1979 off? KAJ basically played 20 years straight. He missed 17 games once, 20 games another time. That is basically it as injuries go. Or if KAJ joined the Sonics or teamed up with Dr. J on another team?


40 wins with an all-star teammate? There was no year like that. He won 40 games in 1975-76 which was his first with the Lakers but didn't have any all-star teammates. It was all around a poor team with no point guard or power forward. Conference finals are an arbitrary step to reach. Depends on who you face in the playoffs. Lakers were in fact among the best teams in the world for much of the late 70's despite their total lack of rebounding and that was because of Kareem.

Hypothetically speaking, do you see any evidence to suggest MJ or LeBron on that team would be winning 50+ and making the WCF?


Expansion occurs partly because the sport in general has expanded in popularity, which means the talent pool is larger and more people are playing basketball.

Different argument. Using that logic, the talent pool today is larger than ever and therefore there is more talent in today's league than the 90's and 80's, particularly due to global expansion and population growth (more basketball players than ever). Do you accept that logical conclusion of your point? When I see your point made they usually use it to diminish the 60's and 70's but don't apply the same to the 80's and 90's.

Why using HOF or all-NBA or whatever is useful because it isn't us sticking our fingers in the wind. For example, Soundwave is telling us the Sonics were bums but you know if we were talking about 90's teams with John Starks (not Dennis Johnson) as their second option he would be hyping them. HOF, all-NBA, etc. provide a neutral metric that can be applied evenly across eras (HOF is a bit tougher for current players but only in borderline cases like Draymond).

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Not as many. While Kareem is an incredible playoff and finals performer, Mike is even better. More points on similar efficiency (TS%), higher PER and overall BPM (the one year Kareem's rebounds weren't tracked wouldn't makeup for the disparity; RAPM and RPM aren't available those years either). In some of their series, Chicago needed all the offense they could get and Jordan provided that.

Beyond that though, Kareem wouldn't have the same chemistry with Pippen. I don't think he motivates Pippen in ways that Jordan did, night and out. In-game, during practices and otherwise.

[Rysio]

Kareem did that for his teams so it is weird to see clutch situations being used as an argument against him. Especially since we so often hear how about centers were in the 80's and 90's and how that was a golden age for centers. Now they are useless?

Shooting guards have been the clear best player on 9 championship teams I believe (Wade, Kobe twice, MJ six times). How much team success did the greatest shooting guards have?

T Mac: never made it out the first round.
Gervin: never made a NBA finals.
Allen: won rings as the 3rd or 4th option.
Miller: 0 rings.
Manu: won multiple rings as the 3rd option.
Drexler: won a ring as the 2nd option.
Harden: zero rings, made the finals as a 3rd option.
Wade: 1 ring as the best player, 2 as the 2nd option.
West: 1 ring but unclear if he or Wilt was better that year.
Jordan: 6 rings, all as the #1.
Kobe: 5 rings, 3 as the #2 and 2 as the #1.

Yea but there would be plenty of times where defenses play good and you couldn't give it to kareem in right spots especially in the clutch that's why in situations like this you can give it to a guy like Jordan anywhere on the court and he would go to work. You can't give it to kareem anywhere on the court and that's where the team would fail in the playoffs.

[Roundball_Rock]

Not as many. While Kareem is an incredible playoff and finals performer, Mike is even better. More points on similar efficiency (TS%), higher PER and overall BPM (the one year Kareem's rebounds weren't tracked wouldn't makeup for the disparity; RAPM and RPM aren't available those years either).

We can't use advanced stats to compare players from prior to the 80's. Those stats include things like steals, blocks so for Kareem they calculate him having 0 steals and 0 blocks for entire seasons. We know if they were Kareem's numbers would leap since he led the league in blocks 4 times from 74' to 80' (so half the time and he was 2nd in those other years).


Yea but there would be plenty of times where defenses play good and you couldn't give it to kareem in right spots especially in the clutch that's why in situations like this you can give it to a guy like Jordan anywhere on the court and he would go to work. You can't give it to kareem anywhere on the court and that's where the team would fail in the playoffs.

Except it worked fine for KAJ, whose teams had more team success than MJ's (contrary to popular belief). The factor you are ignoring is efficiency. Jordan wasn't shooting 56% like KAJ. You could throw it to KAJ for a sky hook--a lot better bet than MJ taking a 20 footer. MJ also needed the ball given to him. MJ wasn't the PG.


It's called having a life. Try it.

I went entire years without posting. :lol


Irrelevant considering strength of opponent

Disingenuous--if you get a seed higher than 8th you wouldn't draw such a tough opponent. Not rocket science.


Boston won in 86 but let's pretend I didn't reference 2 years

Disingenuous again--86' is irrelevant to my comment about 87'. You sought to merge the two in a sleight of hand.


In fact the difference in SRS between those Celtics and Jordans Bulls is greater than it is for those Sonics and Kareems Lakers

What a shock. The gap between the 1 seed and 8 seed is greater than the gap between the 1 and 5 seed (tied for 4th but lost the tiebreaker).


Let's not forget this is rookie/soph (off injury) MJ comparing to a prime Kareem


Ah, so we can only look at MJ in the years his team was stacked (stacking the deck artificially for MJ to look good). That was the construct Soundwave created. We can't look at the years MJ actually did not have a stacked team. Nor can we factor in what his team did without him (not 14 wins or 31 wins).


B-b-b-but the team was going through changes. Or does an excuse like that only go one way?

Ask Soundwave. He is the one who said MJ or LeBron would automatically equate to 50+ wins and the ECF. He put the "ages 28-31" spin on the ball but as noted earlier that is awfully convenient since they spent those years on stacked teams (or in retirement). We do have evidence of MJ and LeBron on bad teams. It tells us a lot. Why not look at it instead of speculating how 29 year old MJ would have done on the Mavericks?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

We can't use advanced stats to compare players from prior to the 80's. Those stats include things like steals, blocks so for Kareem they calculate him having 0 steals and 0 blocks for entire seasons. We know if they were Kareem's numbers would leap since he led the league in blocks 4 times from 74' to 80' (so half the time and he was 2nd in those other years).

But we can. Rebounds, steals and blocks were tracked as early as 1974 :confusedshrug:

I'll give you 70-73. But from 74-79 though, playoff Kareem had worse PER/BPM and scoring efficiency than Jordan.

[LostCause]

I went entire years without posting. :lol

Uh ok? Lol. Did you get a medal for it?

Want one?


Disingenuous--if you get a seed higher than 8th you wouldn't draw such a tough opponent. Not rocket science.

You're using a word you don't understand. Again though seeding has no relevance to what I said


Disingenuous again--86' is irrelevant to my comment about 87'. You sought to merge the two in a sleight of hand.

You're not actually refuting anything here (Strawman argument. It's a logical sleight of hand, btw)

86 Celtics undoubtedly GOAT team, singling out that they weren't as great in 87 hardly makes a difference to my point but carry on


What a shock. The gap between the 1 seed and 8 seed is greater than the gap between the 1 and 5 seed (tied for 4th but lost the tiebreaker).

Cool, and both Celtics team were better than any of those Sonics teams. It also shows that those Lakers were better than the Sonics they lost to, but let me guess...Sleight of hand right?



Ah, so we can only look at MJ in the years his team was stacked (stacking the deck artificially for MJ to look good). That was the construct Soundwave created. We can't look at the years MJ actually did not have a stacked team. Nor can we factor in what his team did without him (not 14 wins or 31 wins).

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Strawman-Fallacy

I don't know why you keep doing this but chill. Don't care about what narratives you have in your head, I'm pointing out the years listed were Jordans rookie and sophomore years (One of which he was largely injured/recovering for). Never said you can't compare them or to "only look at" anything, but you can't exclude the fact you're comparing a players rookie/soph years to another players prime. Period. Though given you're a fan of "sleights of hand" your reaction to that statement isn't surprising

[LAL]

Dude really thinks Kareem had less help with the likes of Magic, Norm Nixon, Worthy, Cooper, Wilkes, McAdoo etc? Really? Pippen and Horace?

[HoopsNY]

Young Jordan loses in the 1st round (twice) to a contender for GOAT team with like 6 HOFers = Jordan didn’t do anything.

Prime Kareem loses to a Sonics team with way more help than MJ had = B-b-b-but they had 2 HOFers it’s okay

Logic guys

That's Roundball for you. Did you see his spin on why Kareem was better than Magic during the Laker years? Epic stuff.

[HoopsNY]

Using the "look at how many HOFers were on each team" argument is kinda weak. Despite the league expanding and the popularity of the sport in general expanding, the HOF has never really increased the number of NBA players that get in every year. Its still usually 3-4 every year. On top of that, the older players have had more time to get in - of course you can make the case the longer its been they may get forgotten too. But how much does someone like Calvin Murphy, Dan Issel, or George McGinnis deserve it over Kevin Johnson, Mark Price, Glen Rice or Chris Webber who still haven't gotten in or over Chris Bosh or Amare Stoudemire who just became eligible recently but don't look like they are getting in anytime soon?

The same can be said about all-star and to a lesser degree all-nba (they did eventually add a 3rd team).

Especially when you consider he had Dandridge who was excellent and then had Goodrich who was still solid. He averaged almost 20 ppg in that season.

[Roundball_Rock]

Rebounds, steals and blocks were tracked as early as 1974

I'll give you 70-73.

In other words, blocks and steals were not tracked during KAJ's most prolific statistical seasons. That is a big omission from the data set. That's like not having that data for Wilt for 62' and 63'.


. But from 74-79 though, playoff Kareem had worse PER/BPM and scoring efficiency than Jordan.

Let's look at their surface level stats for some context.

KAJ playoffs (74'-79'): 32/16/5 with 3 blocks and 1 steal on 57% shooting.
MJ playoffs: 33/6/6 with 2 steals and 1 block on 49% shooting.
MJ playoffs (91'-98'): 33/6/5 with 2 steals and 1 block on on 48% shooting.

So KAJ not exactly a slouch and I would argue 32/16/5>>>33/6/6. Same points, same assists but you are getting more efficiency from KAJ (so he doesn't need to consume 25 FGA a game or the as heavy usage to get the same points) plus 10 more rebounds and KAJ providing more defense as a center.

The advanced stats are quirky. KAJ was 27/14/4 with 4 blocks on 52% in 78' but his BPM is comparable to 89' Pippen.


Again though seeding has no relevance to what I said

Sure it does. Let's try to walk through this.

*Soundwave made the claim that MJ or LeBron on any random team would equal 50+ wins and the ECF at minimum. He added a convenient age qualifier (covering the years they had stacked teams in their real careers).
*I pointed out MJ came back to a 27 win pace team as a MVP candidate and the result was 40-42 (8th seed). So an improvement but not the 50+/ECF floor that we were promised.
*By operation of seeding, the 8 seed plays the 1 seed. The 1 seed usually is the best team in the conference. If Jordan did what Soundwave suggested and had his team at even 50 wins they would have been the 4th or 5th seed (depending on tiebreaker) and faced the Bucks. If they got to 52 they could have been 3rd.
*As a result, that they lost to a team with 4 HOF is not the point. The point is that they drew that team in the first place in the first round.


It also shows that those Lakers were better than the Sonics they lost to

The Lakers, the 5th seed who lost in the WCSF, were better than the 1 seed, who won the NBA championship. :biggums:


The double standard is amusing. KAJ is expected to beat the champs with a 31 win pace team minus him (previous year) while MJ is given a pass against the finals loser with a 27 win pace team minus him (previous year). This whole discussion is about KAJ not winning with these type of teams and how MJ and LeBron would. Well, where are the receipts?


Never said you can't compare them or to "only look at" anything, but you can't exclude the fact you're comparing a players rookie/soph years to another players prime

That is the frame being put out there, including in the initial post leading to this side discussion: qualify that MJ and LeBron would be winning at ages 28-31 when the only evidence we have of them at those ages are on stacked teams or in retirement. The only available evidence of them on weaker teams are before and after those convenient time brackets.

With LeBron it is especially amusing. He was a 7th year player in 2010 (KAJ's 7th year was 76') who had made the NBA finals and two ECFs but supposedly lacked experience because he was 25?

[HoopsNY]

It's called having a life. Try it. Jordan doc has you scrambling in every thread lol. Admit it, that's what brought you back, isn't it?



Irrelevant considering strength of opponent



Boston won in 86 but let's pretend I didn't reference 2 years to make it appear like you have a point here. That's what's called a strawman. 86 Celtics are undoubtedly a GOAT team and 87 Celtics lost but were still very good (with 5 HOFers, not just 2). In fact the difference in SRS between those Celtics and Jordans Bulls is greater than it is for those Sonics and Kareems Lakers. So your point here is pretty weak. Here are the SRS comparisons for reference:

1977: Lakers (2.64) vs Blazers (5.39)
1978: Lakers (2.59) vs Sonics (1.48)
1979: Lakers (2.95) vs Sonics (2.69)

1985: Bulls (-0.50) vs Bucks (6.69)
1986: Bulls (-3.12) vs Celtics (9.06)
1987: Bulls (1.26) vs Celtics (6.57)
1988: Bulls (3.76) vs Pistons (5.46)

Let's not forget this is rookie/soph (off injury) MJ comparing to a prime Kareem




B-b-b-but the team was going through changes. Or does an excuse like that only go one way?

What Roundball does is apply his arguments only to those players he favors. He doesn't consider consistency in any of his arguments, and it clearly showed when he tried to claim Kareem > Magic in their tenure together with LA. But this is just another example of how he butchers analysis.

He won't consider that Kareem was in his prime. He'll develop some spin for it. Then, he'll go on a rail against MJ leaving in his prime and the Bulls having success. But somehow Kareem being in his prime and failing to make the playoffs in back to back years is all about "the opponents!"

[LostCause]

*Soundwave made the claim.....
By operation.....what Soundwave suggested...

There's your problem:

Again though seeding has no relevance to what I said

Never said I adopted Soundwaves arguments. I just pointed out the double standard



The Lakers, the 5th seed who lost in the WCSF, were better than the 1 seed, who won the NBA championship. :biggums:

You're doing exactly what you just accused me of doing :oldlol:. The 78 Sonics weren't the 1 seed nor did they win the Championship. In fact, the 78 Sonics only won 2 more games than the Lakers but that's covered by SRS (Sonics enjoyed a more favorable schedule)

Yet the Lakers lost glaringly

Also since you seem new to this, SRS covers why the Sonics had a better seed in 79. So yes, Lakers still underachieved based off the data we have. Sleight of hand? The fact you didn't highlight the 5-game difference but instead went with the 5th seed vs 1 seed argument is a sleight of hand to make it seem like the difference was bigger than it was, though obviously you knew that


That is the frame being put out there, including in the initial post leading to this side discussion: qualify that MJ and LeBron would be winning at ages 28-31 when the only evidence we have of them at those ages are on stacked teams or in retirement. The only available evidence of them on weaker teams are before and after those convenient time brackets.

Except that has nothing to do with what I said. Look, what I said was simple and clear. You're either reading too much into it or not actually reading enough of it. Since you're not able to figure this out without invoking your own weird narratives, here's the gist of what I was getting at:

You give MJ shit for losing against VERY good teams (Some historically good). Yet you're making all sorts of excuses for Kareem losing to teams not as good as those MJ lost to

The double standard was funny to me. Simple as that

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

In other words, blocks and steals were not tracked during KAJ's most prolific statistical seasons. That is a big omission from the data set. That's like not having that data for Wilt for 62' and 63'.

But a minute ago, you claimed 70s numbers werent tracked. When in reality, we actually have most data from his career. 70-73 are probably some of Kareem's best years but they're also overrated. In the playoffs, '72 and '73 Kareem shot just 42 and 43% from the field. 74-79 were also his prime years while '77 is arguably his peak. In that 5 year stretch, Kareem was never more efficient.


Let's look at their surface level stats for some context.

KAJ playoffs (74'-79'): 32/16/5 with 3 blocks and 1 steal on 57% shooting.
MJ playoffs: 33/6/6 with 2 steals and 1 block on 49% shooting.
MJ playoffs (91'-98'): 33/6/5 with 2 steals and 1 block on on 48% shooting.

So KAJ not exactly a slouch and I would argue 32/16/5>>>33/6/6. Same points, same assists but you are getting more efficiency from KAJ (so he doesn't need to consume 25 FGA a game or the as heavy usage to get the same points) plus 10 more rebounds and KAJ providing more defense as a center.

'98 is not Jordan's prime. I used '87-96 which is commonly and accurately regarded as such. It also includes his peak play.

BTW why use RAW numbers when in that Pippen thread, you raved over advanced ones? I could look again, but there was no mention of "quirkiness" there. Matter of fact, they were presented as factual.

:confusedshrug:


The advanced stats are quirky. KAJ was 27/14/4 with 4 blocks on 52% in 78' but his BPM is comparable to 89' Pippen.

Kareem in '78 averaged a 4.0 BPM compared to Pippen's 3.1. And that's with only 3 games played.

Don't see why you're confused. BPM isn't perfect and its not RAPM/PIPM/RPM either. Still better than everything else though.

[Roundball_Rock]

you claimed 70s numbers werent tracked. When in reality, we actually have most data from his career

Yes, for some of the 70's. I am not going to bother going back and re-quoting myself. :oldlol:


70-73 are probably some of Kareem's best years but they're also overrated.

He was 3rd in MVP as a rookie and then 1st, 1st, 2nd. Overrated?


'98 is not Jordan's prime. I used '87-96 which is commonly and accurately regarded as such.

It shifts. Someone in the earlier thread about that said 89'-93'. Whatever. Adding or chopping off a year or two doesn't make a difference. His numbers were similar with a great team as with a bad team since his usage and FGA remained sky high.


Kareem in '78 averaged a 4.0 BPM compared to Pippen's 3.1. And that's with only 3 games played.


3.8 in 78' versus 3.1 for both (playoff numbers).

Just for kicks, here are the top 10 all-time BPM seasons (LeBron crushes the field):

Rank Player BPM Year

1. LeBron James 17.53 2009
2. Michael Jordan* 14.63 1991
3. Hakeem Olajuwon* 14.53 1988
4. Kawhi Leonard 14.25 2017
5. Michael Jordan* 13.67 1990
6. Dwyane Wade 13.54 2010
7. LeBron James 12.69 2018
8. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 12.24 1977
9. Grant Hill* 12.23 1999
10. Michael Jordan* 12.20 1988

The gap from MJ to LeBron is about the same as from MJ to Jokic.

[guy]

Different argument. Using that logic, the talent pool today is larger than ever….they usually use it to diminish the 60's and 70's but don't apply the same to the 80's and 90's.

It most likely is larger than ever today. The only reason it may not be is because while the population is obviously larger, we are way past the baby boomer era so it’s a more aged population plus white Americans just aren’t as interested in basketball as much as they were before for a number of reasons. That’s the only reason I would say it may not be, but with I believe about 25% of the NBA being foreign born, it seems to indicate that the talent pool is larger.

However people want to use it, doesn’t make it less valid.

The main difference in my opinion is that by the 60s even though basketball had been around for about 70 years, it probably didn’t hit its supergrowth phase yet given its lack of popularity and how segregated it was from black players. So I would say the growth from the 60s/70s to 80s/90s was probably much more significant than the growth from the 80s/90s to 00s/10s, i.e. it started to flatten – at this point I don’t think really think there’s much more to do to grow the game to that significant of a degree.

I know this argument will point to well this era must be so much better and harder. But to me, it seemed to be clearly harder from a physicality standpoint back then, which to me makes it harder for superstars – this doesn’t mean the era in general was better, you can easily argue some players from today wouldn’t make it back then cause they couldn’t take the physical punishment (applies more to your role players, not stars) while players from back then may not make it today cause they didn’t have the talent and were only in the league cause they were able to play that physical. And more importantly, over the years the league has gotten way younger with players only playing 1 year in college and not being as NBA ready coming in as they were before cause teams are more likely to draft based on raw talent and potential versus a more finished product. Not only does that mean younger players aren’t coming in as good, but that older players who are probably still better get pushed out earlier to make room for “prospects.”

[guy]

Why using HOF or all-NBA or whatever is useful because it isn't us sticking our fingers in the wind. For example, Soundwave is telling us the Sonics were bums but you know if we were talking about 90's teams with John Starks (not Dennis Johnson) as their second option he would be hyping them. HOF, all-NBA, etc. provide a neutral metric…

But its not a neutral metric you can apply across eras. In 1976, the last year pre-merger there were 24 all-stars out of 270 players (18 teams). In 1998 there were 24 all-stars out of 435 players (29 teams) . How is that neutral? And these type of accolades are what help and hurt players getting into the HOF. Chris Webber and Kevin Johnson might be 10x all-stars if you just removed 11 teams from the league during their career. That would’ve probably made them surefire HOFers.

I don’t really care about your specific example, but you do realize that the game isn’t 2 on 2 right? Or 3 on 3? Yes, we get it, some teams didn’t have an elite 2nd option, and yes, most historically great teams do have one. That doesn’t mean that’s the difference between one team being great, legit competition vs being garbage competition.

[Roundball_Rock]

But its not a neutral metric you can apply across eras. In 1976, the last year pre-merger there were 24 all-stars out of 270 players (18 teams). In 1998 there were 24 all-stars out of 435 players (29 teams) . How is that neutral?

I don’t really care about your specific example, but you do realize that the game isn’t 2 on 2 right? Or 3 on 3? Yes, we get it, some teams didn’t have an elite 2nd option, and yes, most historically great teams do have one. That doesn’t mean that’s the difference between one team being great, legit competition vs being garbage competition.

In other words, we have no objective way to measure teams. We can't use HOF, all-NBA, all-star selections or even the resume of second and third options. It is purely subjective where a NBA champion sucks and losers like the Knicks and Pacers were awesome. That's the problem. We have to have something if we are going to keep comparing team success across eras.

HOF is a lot better than all-stars which remained static. All-NBA did expand from 10 to 15. For HOF, all-star selections are no excuse. There are 24 at minimum ever year and then sometimes a couple injury replacements. If you are a HOF player you should be able to crack the top 12-14 in your own conference on a consistent basis. KJ looks better than he was on paper because everybody was averaging high APG totals during his era. Some of the people you mentioned just didn't last. That is part of it too. Price's last all-star season was at age 29, for instance. If he kept it up he likely would have made it but he didn't and his peak wasn't high enough to offset his lack of longevity.


The only reason it may not be is because while the population is obviously larger, we are way past the baby boomer era so it’s a more aged population plus white Americans just aren’t as interested in basketball as much as they were before for a number of reasons. That’s the only reason I would say it may not be, but with I believe about 25% of the NBA being foreign born, it seems to indicate that the talent pool is larger.

For the U.S. population the numbers far outweigh aging. The population in 2000 was 281 million, in 1990 249 million. These would represent players like Zion to a 30 year old. In 1960 it was 179 million and 203 million in 1970. Then you add on top of that it is a global pool. The 1994 Spurs had no foreign players while the 2000's championship team had several, including their second and third best players.

[dankok8]

But its not a neutral metric you can apply across eras. In 1976, the last year pre-merger there were 24 all-stars out of 270 players (18 teams). In 1998 there were 24 all-stars out of 435 players (29 teams) . How is that neutral? And these type of accolades are what help and hurt players getting into the HOF. Chris Webber and Kevin Johnson might be 10x all-stars if you just removed 11 teams from the league during their career. That would’ve probably made them surefire HOFers.

I don’t really care about your specific example, but you do realize that the game isn’t 2 on 2 right? Or 3 on 3? Yes, we get it, some teams didn’t have an elite 2nd option, and yes, most historically great teams do have one. That doesn’t mean that’s the difference between one team being great, legit competition vs being garbage competition.


This argument goes both ways though.

If the league had fewer teams it would be NOT be easier for the top 20-30 players to make the all-star game every year because the average level of competition would increase. For example if the current NBA had 20 teams the bottom one third of players in the league would be gone. A higher % of all players would make the all-star team but that doesn't mean that making the all-star team is easier. It's an important distinction. The top teams in the league would also be more stacked because all the good players from the worst teams in the league would now be on contenders. Guys like Devon Booker, Trae Young, KAT...

[guy]

In other words, we have no objective way to measure teams. We can't use HOF, all-NBA, all-star selections or even the resume of second and third options. It is purely subjective where a NBA champion sucks and losers like the Knicks and Pacers were awesome. That's the problem. We have to have something if we are going to keep comparing team success across eras.

Make whatever comparisons you want. Doesn’t mean its not flawed and it shouldn’t be called out especially when you’re using it to make excuses for someone not having as much success in that era.

Its not a law to be able to have a perfect way to compares leagues ~20 years apart. We do it for fun, but yes, there’s not really a great way to do it. Its actually kind of crazy to think there’s a great way to do it.



HOF is a lot better than all-stars which remained static. All-NBA did expand from 10 to 15. For HOF, all-star selections are no excuse. There are 24 at minimum ever year and then sometimes a couple injury replacements. If you are a HOF player you should be able to crack the top 12-14 in your own conference on a consistent basis.

And I can easily make the other argument. Its a lot easier to consistently make the all-star team if you’re in a 270 player league vs 435 player league and if you added 165 players to that 270 player league without any drop in talent and someone like Dave Bing who made 7 all-star games and got into the HOF would’ve only made 3 and not get into the HOF.



KJ looks better than he was on paper because everybody was averaging high APG totals during his era.


League averages in the 70s vs 80s/90s show minimal difference.



Some of the people you mentioned just didn't last. That is part of it too. Price's last all-star season was at age 29, for instance. If he kept it up he likely would have made it but he didn't and his peak wasn't high enough to offset his lack of longevity.

Great point, which further points to how using “number of HOFers” can be misleading. People criticize Jordan for apparently not facing enough HOFers but when he went up against Mark Price, Penny Hardaway, and Shawn Kemp when they were playing at their peaks which is HOF level if they kept it up – the fact that those guys didn’t keep it up due to injuries/personal issues after the fact mean what exactly?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Yes, for some of the 70's. I am not going to bother going back and re-quoting myself. :oldlol:

Here, I got you...


We can't use advanced stats to compare players from prior to the 80's.

Unless you misspoke, you were wrong. But that's fine.


He was 3rd in MVP as a rookie and then 1st, 1st, 2nd. Overrated?

I included postseason play though. Kareem shot poorly in 72 and 73, the years before steals and blocks were tracked. I think those years are definitely overrated compared to his 74-79 run (where he was never more efficient). Moreover, a lot of his fans and the media THEN thought he peaked in 77.


It shifts. Someone in the earlier thread about that said 89'-93'. Whatever. Adding or chopping off a year or two doesn't make a difference. His numbers were similar with a great team as with a bad team since his usage and FGA remained sky high.

Well for people who debate prime versus prime, those are the years that get mentioned. The PC board on the other forum also have 87-96 Jordan as his prime - and that makes sense. Mike always had a ton of skill, but those years he also had incredible athleticism.


3.8 in 78' versus 3.1 for both (playoff numbers).

Just for kicks, here are the top 10 all-time BPM seasons (LeBron crushes the field):

Rank Player BPM Year

1. LeBron James 17.53 2009
2. Michael Jordan* 14.63 1991
3. Hakeem Olajuwon* 14.53 1988
4. Kawhi Leonard 14.25 2017
5. Michael Jordan* 13.67 1990
6. Dwyane Wade 13.54 2010
7. LeBron James 12.69 2018
8. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 12.24 1977
9. Grant Hill* 12.23 1999
10. Michael Jordan* 12.20 1988

Bron is an analytics juggernaut. Not even surprised. Then again, I don't rank players solely off BPM. With Jordan (late 90s) and Lebron, we also have their respective RAPM/RPM numbers. PER is decent if only for efficiency.

[guy]

This argument goes both ways though.

If the league had fewer teams it would be NOT be easier for the top 20-30 players to make the all-star game every year because the average level of competition would increase. For example if the current NBA had 20 teams the bottom one third of players in the league would be gone. A higher % of all players would make the all-star team but that doesn't mean that making the all-star team is easier. It's an important distinction. The top teams in the league would also be more stacked because all the good players from the worst teams in the league would now be on contenders. Guys like Devon Booker, Trae Young, KAT...

Not sure if you were following the argument, but that’s not really the scenario I was referring to. The league more or less expanded by the increase in talent pool. Year to year there’s a lag, but over time, its pretty safe to assume it catches up. The point is a lot of great all-star players today wouldn’t even exist in the basketball world if the sport’s popularity just stayed flat from 1970 on – that means it would’ve made it easier for someone like Zach Lavine, assuming he still ended up growing up playing basketball, to make All-Star teams cause guys like Kyle Lowry and Kyrie Irving wouldn’t exist to take up those spots.

[Roundball_Rock]

Make whatever comparisons you want. Doesn’t mean its not flawed

Sure it is flawed but I have not seen anything better. If you have a better measuring stick I am all ears.


Its a lot easier to consistently make the all-star team if you’re in a 270 player league vs 435 player league

Not really. There aren't 270 or 435 players contending for all-star spots. More like 30, 35 tops.


League averages in the 70s vs 80s/90s show minimal difference

League leaders show a massive difference. League leader/5th place in APG by year:

2020: 10.6/8.2
2010: 11.0/9.1
2000: 10.1/8.9
1995: 12.3/8.7
1990: 14.5/10.0
1985: 13.9/8.6
1980: 10.2/7.5
1975: 8.0/6.2
1970: 9.1/7.5
1965: 11.5/5.3
1960: 9.5/5.5

The spike perfectly coincides with when KJ played.


People criticize Jordan for apparently not facing enough HOFers but when he went up against Mark Price, Penny Hardaway, and Shawn Kemp when they were playing at their peaks which is HOF level if they kept it up – the fact that those guys didn’t keep it up due to injuries/personal issues after the fact mean what exactly?

It is a legit point. The counter probably would be that would apply in any era. So if you count Penny and Price for the 90's you have to include guys like Rose and Roy for recent times. So on net it probably wouldn't change the relative difference.

IMO the best response for MJ is MJ played who was on the schedule. He did his job and MJ would be MJ with 2 rings, 6 rings or 12 rings. The reason people raise the relative difference is so much is made of the specific number of 6 rings and the implication is instead of 6 maybe it would have been 3, 4, or 5 if the Bulls were in the 80's or even the 00's and faced the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and the Spurs instead of Portland, Phoenix, Seattle, etc.


We can't use advanced stats to compare players from prior to the 80's.

Yeah, that was correct: we don't have a full career picture for those players since they are assigned 0's while players whose careers began later get credit for their blocks, steals. In KAJ's case his best statistical years are diminished.


I included postseason play though. Kareem shot poorly in 72 and 73, the years before steals and blocks were tracked

That is one of the problems with playoff numbers: the sample sizes are small and inconsistent among teams. So look at 72'. Kareem draws Wilt and Thurmond as his defenders, two GOAT-level defenders. In 73' he has 6 games in the playoffs and it is Thurmond again.

That goes back to the point about dilution. Kareem was drawing Wilt, Thurmond. Later Walton, Moses, Parish, Hakeem. What SGs did MJ face? Drexler once, Miller once, Dumars a couple times. Then what? Hornacek twice? Hersey Hawkins? Starks several times? Gerald Wilkins? See the difference?

We saw MJ's numbers dip in a similar way against elite defenses (remember Fatal9 had a good thread about that).


Moreover, a lot of his fans and the media THEN thought he peaked in 77.

Me too--but statistically he clearly peaked earlier. Give me 77' KAJ, though. He was a much better passer by this point and he had bulked up so he could play more physically (one problem he had against Wilt and Thurmond when he was more wiry).


we also have their respective RAPM/RPM numbers.

Where are they posted? BBallreference doesn't have them.

[Soundwave]

40 wins with an all-star teammate? There was no year like that. He won 40 games in 1975-76 which was his first with the Lakers but didn't have any all-star teammates. It was all around a poor team with no point guard or power forward. Conference finals are an arbitrary step to reach. Depends on who you face in the playoffs. Lakers were in fact among the best teams in the world for much of the late 70's despite their total lack of rebounding and that was because of Kareem. From 1977-1979 they were losing to the Blazers and Sonics who were the best teams in the league. In 1980, Kareem again faced the Sonics and put up striking similar and very dominant numbers as the two years prior but the Lakers won the series because they didn't get destroyed on the boards and their guards actually defended. There was a bunch of good posts long ago that were made that the Lakers adding Jim Chones and Michael Cooper before that season improved the Lakers as much as adding Magic because it fixed their rebounding issues and perimeter defense respectively. And Magic himself also helped in the rebounding department. In the late 70's, the Lakers were getting crushed on the boards because no one other than Kareem rebounded the ball. Dantley was cherrypicking under the opponent's basket and Wilkes was too soft to bang underneath. And their guards which were Norm Nixon and a bunch of scrubs were getting lit up by the Seattle guards.

Lebron and Jordan were lucky not to have such poor supporting casts once they entered their primes. The only other great to be stuck with shitty supporting casts like Kareem for much of his prime was Hakeem Olajuwon and he too missed the playoffs one year IIRC and had quite a few first round exits. Sampson got hurt two years into his career and he never got help again until Drexler came. And of course his team success of 2 titles and 1 MVP lags behind other legends but let me tell you Hakeem was as great as any of them. I would take Hakeem over Duncan for instance. He was the better player but had much worse situations around him.

Gail Goodridge averaged basically 20 ppg and 5.6 assists in 75-76 that season, and averaged 22.5-26 ppg the previous 4 years. Made the All-Star team 5 times.

That's not a bad player. Lucius Allen with a decent 14.7 ppg, Cornell Walker chipping in with 9 boards a night.

Only 40 wins is pretty bad. If you put a 28 year old LeBron James or Michael Jordan on say the current Knicks (a bad team) they probably still win 50+ games.

No offence to the Sonics either but a team with Gus Williams as the no.1 option and Dennis Johnson as the no.2 option shouldn't be destroying a team with a prime Kareem with decent help around him either.

[Soundwave]

In other words, blocks and steals were not tracked during KAJ's most prolific statistical seasons. That is a big omission from the data set. That's like not having that data for Wilt for 62' and 63'.



Let's look at their surface level stats for some context.

KAJ playoffs (74'-79'): 32/16/5 with 3 blocks and 1 steal on 57% shooting.
MJ playoffs: 33/6/6 with 2 steals and 1 block on 49% shooting.
MJ playoffs (91'-98'): 33/6/5 with 2 steals and 1 block on on 48% shooting.

So KAJ not exactly a slouch and I would argue 32/16/5>>>33/6/6. Same points, same assists but you are getting more efficiency from KAJ (so he doesn't need to consume 25 FGA a game or the as heavy usage to get the same points) plus 10 more rebounds and KAJ providing more defense as a center.

The advanced stats are quirky. KAJ was 27/14/4 with 4 blocks on 52% in 78' but his BPM is comparable to 89' Pippen.



Sure it does. Let's try to walk through this.

*Soundwave made the claim that MJ or LeBron on any random team would equal 50+ wins and the ECF at minimum. He added a convenient age qualifier (covering the years they had stacked teams in their real careers).
*I pointed out MJ came back to a 27 win pace team as a MVP candidate and the result was 40-42 (8th seed). So an improvement but not the 50+/ECF floor that we were promised.
*By operation of seeding, the 8 seed plays the 1 seed. The 1 seed usually is the best team in the conference. If Jordan did what Soundwave suggested and had his team at even 50 wins they would have been the 4th or 5th seed (depending on tiebreaker) and faced the Bucks. If they got to 52 they could have been 3rd.
*As a result, that they lost to a team with 4 HOF is not the point. The point is that they drew that team in the first place in the first round.



The Lakers, the 5th seed who lost in the WCSF, were better than the 1 seed, who won the NBA championship. :biggums:


The double standard is amusing. KAJ is expected to beat the champs with a 31 win pace team minus him (previous year) while MJ is given a pass against the finals loser with a 27 win pace team minus him (previous year). This whole discussion is about KAJ not winning with these type of teams and how MJ and LeBron would. Well, where are the receipts?



That is the frame being put out there, including in the initial post leading to this side discussion: qualify that MJ and LeBron would be winning at ages 28-31 when the only evidence we have of them at those ages are on stacked teams or in retirement. The only available evidence of them on weaker teams are before and after those convenient time brackets.

With LeBron it is especially amusing. He was a 7th year player in 2010 (KAJ's 7th year was 76') who had made the NBA finals and two ECFs but supposedly lacked experience because he was 25?

I added the age qualifier because at age 27/28 you should be a smarter player than you were at 21/22 and have a better grasp on leadership, players when they're 19-22 are often just playing balls out to showcase their raw ability, by 27/28 you should be playing a more well rounded team game overall.

By 27/28 you should have better grasp of being the leader of a winning team.

It's not like the 89-90 Bulls were stacked, Pippen was the no.2 option at 16 ppg, gimme a break saying that's a stacked team but they're in the Conference Finals game 7 against the eventual NBA champions and 55 wins.

[Soundwave]

Not sure what's up with the edit feature, but I'd add LeBron and 09-10 Cavs also ... 61 wins, 2nd round loss with Jamison and Mo Williams as the no.2 options at about 16 ppg for both. This team and the 89-90 Bulls were not "stacked".

77-78 Lakers had like 7 (!) other double figure scorers and still only won 45 games and a 1st round exit.

[Axe]

There's your problem:


Never said I adopted Soundwaves arguments. I just pointed out the double standard




You're doing exactly what you just accused me of doing :oldlol:. The 78 Sonics weren't the 1 seed nor did they win the Championship. In fact, the 78 Sonics only won 2 more games than the Lakers but that's covered by SRS (Sonics enjoyed a more favorable schedule)

Yet the Lakers lost glaringly

Also since you seem new to this, SRS covers why the Sonics had a better seed in 79. So yes, Lakers still underachieved based off the data we have. Sleight of hand? The fact you didn't highlight the 5-game difference but instead went with the 5th seed vs 1 seed argument is a sleight of hand to make it seem like the difference was bigger than it was, though obviously you knew that



Except that has nothing to do with what I said. Look, what I said was simple and clear. You're either reading too much into it or not actually reading enough of it. Since you're not able to figure this out without invoking your own weird narratives, here's the gist of what I was getting at:

You give MJ shit for losing against VERY good teams (Some historically good). Yet you're making all sorts of excuses for Kareem losing to teams not as good as those MJ lost to

The double standard was funny to me. Simple as that
Ah. So i see that guy is basically a kaj stan by being a dickrider to him. I guess this is a case closed already.

[Roundball_Rock]

Gail Goodridge averaged basically 20 ppg and 5.6 assists in 75-76 that season, and averaged 22.5-26 ppg the previous 4 years. Made the All-Star team 5 times.

His last all-star selection was 75', before KAJ got there. He fell off considerably thereafter. 25/3/5 at his peak in 73', 20/3/6 in 76', 13/2/3 in 78', 16/2/5 and 13/3/5 in 79'. He was retired after 79'.

The prime all-star selections are irrelevant. He was a 13/3/5 player by the 79' series.


Lucius Allen with a decent 14.7 ppg, Cornell Walker chipping in with 9 boards a night.

Allen wasn't on the Lakers after 77'. At any rate, he was hurt in the 77' playoffs so on the one hand he is important but on the other his injury doesn't matter? Kermit Washington (LA's #2) was also out for all of the 77' playoffs. So KAJ was down his #2 the entire time and his #3 went down in Game 2 of the WCF.

MJ had nothing like that occur. The closest was a concussion and a migraine game to Pippen in the 89' and 90' ECFs--and we hear MJ fans complain about those losses to this day.


If you put a 28 year old LeBron James or Michael Jordan on say the current Knicks (a bad team) they probably still win 50+ games.

What evidence from their careers can you point to to justify your claim? Anyone can say anything. I could say Jack Haley would lead the Pistons to 60 wins if he played today but is there any substance you can base your claim on?


Only 40 wins is pretty bad

As noted earlier, it was a 30 win team that shed an all-star and a 16/11 player along with the #2 and #8 picks. It is misleading to refer to it as a 40 win team without the context of the team KAJ inherited, which was probably a 20-25 win team. Not sure why you insist on this. You could easily say KAJ had a 25 win team, only got it to 40 and then claim MJ would have won 55 with it.


I added the age qualifier because at age 27/28 you should be a smarter player than you were at 21/22 and have a better grasp on leadership,

That is awfully convenient since MJ and LeBron were on the stacked teams during those years--whereas KAJ had the worst teams of his career during that same time frame.


It's not like the 89-90 Bulls were stacked

Jordan turned 27 in 91', where the Bulls went 61-21 and dominated the second half and the playoffs. His age 27-31 seasons are 91'-95', and he was retired for 1 3/4 of them. When MJ was removed from the equation at age 29 the Bulls won 55; when KAJ missed 20 games at age 30 his team played at a 31 win pace sans him but a 50 win pace with him. It stretches credulity that MJ would be doing much more than lifting a team by 20 wins like KAJ did.

LeBron was age 27-31 from 2012-2016, literally the best five year stretch of teams in his career--where all 3 of his rings came. Your age qualifier doesn't make sense, based on your own explanation. By 2010 (age 25) LeBron had as much experience as KAJ did by age 28.


I'd add LeBron and 09-10 Cavs also ... 61 wins, 2nd round loss with Jamison and Mo Williams as the no.2 options at about 16 ppg for both

I.e., the best record in the NBA but lost to a 50 win 4 seed.

[Axe]

3ball's counterpart banging the rocks together again as usual 🥴

[Roundball_Rock]

Does this Axe clown ever comment on basketball? :lol Adults are having a conversation.

[Soundwave]

His last all-star selection was 75', before KAJ got there. He fell off considerably thereafter. 25/3/5 at his peak in 73', 20/3/6 in 76', 13/2/3 in 78', 16/2/5 and 13/3/5 in 79'. He was retired after 79'.

The prime all-star selections are irrelevant. He was a 13/3/5 player by the 79' series.



Allen wasn't on the Lakers after 77'. At any rate, he was hurt in the 77' playoffs so on the one hand he is important but on the other his injury doesn't matter? Kermit Washington (LA's #2) was also out for all of the 77' playoffs. So KAJ was down his #2 the entire time and his #3 went down in Game 2 of the WCF.

MJ had nothing like that occur. The closest was a concussion and a migraine game to Pippen in the 89' and 90' ECFs--and we hear MJ fans complain about those losses to this day.



What evidence from their careers can you point to to justify your claim? Anyone can say anything. I could say Jack Haley would lead the Pistons to 60 wins if he played today but is there any substance you can base your claim on?



As noted earlier, it was a 30 win team that shed an all-star and a 16/11 player along with the #2 and #8 picks. It is misleading to refer to it as a 40 win team without the context of the team KAJ inherited, which was probably a 20-25 win team. Not sure why you insist on this. You could easily say KAJ had a 25 win team, only got it to 40 and then claim MJ would have won 55 with it.



That is awfully convenient since MJ and LeBron were on the stacked teams during those years--whereas KAJ had the worst teams of his career during that same time frame.



Jordan turned 27 in 91', where the Bulls went 61-21 and dominated the second half and the playoffs. His age 27-31 seasons are 91'-95', and he was retired for 1 3/4 of them. When MJ was removed from the equation at age 29 the Bulls won 55; when KAJ missed 20 games at age 30 his team played at a 31 win pace sans him but a 50 win pace with him. It stretches credulity that MJ would be doing much more than lifting a team by 20 wins like KAJ did.

LeBron was age 27-31 from 2012-2016, literally the best five year stretch of teams in his career--where all 3 of his rings came. Your age qualifier doesn't make sense, based on your own explanation. By 2010 (age 25) LeBron had as much experience as KAJ did by age 28.



I.e., the best record in the NBA but lost to a 50 win 4 seed.

You're not really countering the point though, Jordan and LeBron at similar ages before you could say they had "stacked teams" were having better seasons than Kareem was with the Lakers pre-Magic even if you want to say "well you can't count the 91-93 Bulls or Heat-era LeBron".

OK fine, take those teams out. 89-90 Bulls led by Jordan did a lot better than any of Kareem's Lakers teams and that team wasn't stacked. 09-10 Cavs led by LeBron did a lot better than his pre-Magic Laker squads too.

89-90 Bulls and 09-10 Cavs are not "stacked teams". 77-78 Lakers had like 7 double digit scorers and Dantley averaging over 19 ppg + 7 rpg .... that's not "no one to play with" either.

[LeCroix]

How tf is a top 3 goat not winning in the same spots? Not like MJ beat any tough teams in the finals to begin with???

[Axe]

More than 70% of recent discussions talking about the insecurities of mj stans, as well as composing 3ball-like style opposing narratives. 😂


Does this Axe clown ever comment on basketball? :lol Adults are having a conversation.
Yup. Sure, call me a clown for pointing out your eyesore antics. As long as you're continuing to do your habit, i'm not gonna stop. 😉

[Roundball_Rock]

Jordan and LeBron at similar ages before you could say they had "stacked teams" were having better seasons than Kareem was with the Lakers pre-Magic

Based on what? KAJ won 2 MVP's in LA before Magic (not even counting his 3 in Milwaukee and his 6th with a rookie Magic); LeBron won 2 in Cleveland; MJ had 1 prior to 1991.


89-90 Bulls led by Jordan did a lot better than any of Kareem's Lakers teams and that team wasn't stacked

Based on what? That was the same roster that won the chip a year later. For example, the Bulls actually had a second all-star unlike Los Angeles.


09-10 Cavs led by LeBron did a lot better than his pre-Magic Laker squads too.

A lot better? First, why are we erasing KAJ's Milwaukee years? Oscar? That was discussed elsewhere but Oscar was not there at all KAJ's rookie year...KAJ joined a 29 win expansion team and had them at 56 wins and the WCF as a rookie. MJ joined a 27 win team...and got them to 38 wins and a first round thrashing. MJ did not above .500 until his fourth year (the slowest of any top 10 all-time player). LeBron joined a 17 win team...and got them to 35 wins and missing the playoffs. Granted, he was high school kid but it took him four years to get past the second round; KAJ did it in year one.

LeBron, to be fair, did do better than anyone else with scrubs--but that includes MJ. The issue is his ceiling (struggled to get to 55 with stacked teams). So he got them to 66 and 61 wins, the best record in the NBA twice. What happened in the playoffs? So on the one hand he overachieved but when it counted what happened? They lost to teams that won 7 and 11 less games respectively with HCA.

[guy]

Sure it is flawed but I have not seen anything better. If you have a better measuring stick I am all ears.

I don’t. Not saying I did. But using accolades as some absolute argument in this case is just flawed in my opinion. I’m assuming like me you didn’t watch the 70s and I think I’ve clearly shown how comparing accolades across eras isn’t really fair.



Not really. There aren't 270 or 435 players contending for all-star spots. More like 30, 35 tops.

Come on man, with all the numbers you post, I’m pretty sure you’re intelligent enough to know exactly what I mean. Expansion came as the talent pool grew. When the talent pool grows, its not just that all the new incremental talent is at the bottom i.e. if you label every player in my example on a scale of 1 to 10, its not like those 165 additional players 22 years later are all 1s – there is likely an equal increase at each level. The problem is the accolades other than an additional All-NBA team (and if we really want to get detailed, instead of adding a third team, they should’ve just made the 1st and 2nd teams greater than 5 players), didn’t increase i.e. there’s not more all-star spots, not more HOF players inducted every year, not multiple MVPs, etc. If you can’t see this, I don’t know what else to tell you.



League leaders show a massive difference. League leader/5th place in APG by year:

2020: 10.6/8.2
2010: 11.0/9.1
2000: 10.1/8.9
1995: 12.3/8.7
1990: 14.5/10.0
1985: 13.9/8.6
1980: 10.2/7.5
1975: 8.0/6.2
1970: 9.1/7.5
1965: 11.5/5.3
1960: 9.5/5.5

The spike perfectly coincides with when KJ played.

I was referring to APG by team, but okay. I can buy that the league was more ball dominant by PGs in the 80s/90s vs the 70s. But so what? Plenty of players have gotten into the HOF largely based on their numbers and in many cases that’s highly influenced by the era they played in.



It is a legit point. The counter probably would be that would apply in any era. So if you count Penny and Price for the 90's you have to include guys like Rose and Roy for recent times. So on net it probably wouldn't change the relative difference.

Not really. Maybe if you’re talking just players they faced in general during their career, but I was specifically talking about in the playoffs. That’s more of a case by case basis for each player. Since you brought up Lebron lets use him as an example. Lebron faced Rose, which is legit, but not Roy, in the playoffs. That’s about it in terms of HOF level players in their prime that aren’t going to make it due to longevity. Teams like the Cavs, Sonics, and Magic that Jordan faced are completely dismissed as “meh” competition but people will like you will cite the lack of HOFers they have. They will look at the Bulls 96 run and say they only faced 4 HOFers in the playoffs-Zo, Ewing, Shaq, and Payton-not 6 HOFers because factually that would be incorrect but anyone that is reasonable would see that those 2 clearly were HOF level players during that year just didn’t ultimately get there due to other reasons later on in their career.

[guy]

IMO the best response for MJ is MJ played who was on the schedule. He did his job and MJ would be MJ with 2 rings, 6 rings or 12 rings. The reason people raise the relative difference is so much is made of the specific number of 6 rings and the implication is instead of 6 maybe it would have been 3, 4, or 5 if the Bulls were in the 80's or even the 00's and faced the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and the Spurs instead of Portland, Phoenix, Seattle, etc.


If that’s what you believe, I guess. I don’t think its farfetched at all that Jordan could’ve won 5 or more titles with his Bulls teams in either the 80s, 90s, 00s, or 10s. He was that great offensively and his teams in general are possibly the GOAT defensive teams. I also don’t think its farfetched that if you replaced Magic, Bird, Isiah, Barkley, Drexler, Kobe, Lebron, Wade, Durant, etc. with Jordan in their situations with adjustments for positional differences that there’s a good chance he wins more then they did and/or wins just as much if not more then HE actually did. Most great players get plenty of chances to win titles, not necessarily perfect situations, but enough that they don't need the excuses because they are that great and can be built around for at least close to that level of success. The idea that his situation was this all-time unprecedented luck of the draw is incredibly ridiculous.

And since we’re talking about Kareem, you do realize that his legacy may actually benefit more from “6 rings” then Jordan right? Jordan was already considered the GOAT after 3 rings. Over the last decade or so, Kareem’s become like universally considered a top 2-3 player of all-time. That wasn’t always the case. It was very common for Wilt, Russell, and his teammate Magic to be considered above him. His prime took place in what most consider the worst era of the NBA and argue about it if you want, but based on regular season MVP voting, FMVPs, and a lot of the advanced stats, Magic was considered the best player on the team by 1982 – doesn’t necessarily mean first option – by 1987 it wasn’t even close. But its not really brought up this much. And we can throw out the best player labels if you want, and just focus on his actual play, and yes, he was great but not really GOAT level and his stats show that, which of course was kind of by design, but it is what it is. On the other hand, based on the combination of number of title runs and quality of those title runs, I think its safe to say Jordan was the most individually dominant player in NBA championship history – so I don’t really see why some seem to imply the praise he gets for these runs aren’t deserved or make him overrated.

[Roundball_Rock]

I don’t think its farfetched at all that Jordan could’ve won 5 or more titles with his Bulls teams in either the 80s, 90s, 00s, or 10s.

So you are saying the 90's Bulls would fare basically the same in any era. Here is the problem: they didn't dominate all those finals. They needed a 15 point fourth quarter comeback with the bench (plus Pippen) on the court to avoid a Game 7 against the Blazers, Paxson to avoid Game 7 against the Suns, Kerr to avoid a Game 7 in 97', and MJ over Russell to avoid a Game 7 in 98'. Replace those teams with more stacked teams in other eras.

The caveat is if you put the Bulls in another era, except for the 00's, their roster would gain one more quality player too.


ou do realize that his legacy may actually benefit more from “6 rings” then Jordan right? Jordan was already considered the GOAT after 3 rings. Over the last decade or so, Kareem’s become like universally considered a top 2-3 player of all-time. That wasn’t always the case.

Not because of 6 rings--few people credit him with 6. Some people only credit him with 2. :oldlol:

You are correct, though, that time has been good to KAJ. Remember the GOAT discussion 10, 8 or even 5 years ago? KAJ never came up but he now has cemented a 10-15% market share. I think KAJ has drafted behind LeBron, who has reopened the GOAT debate. As that happens, while KAJ has zero advocates in the media (outside of one Washington Post article weeks ago), he benefits from people doing their own research. His resume and record is impeccable. His game flawless. His longevity unrivaled. That is why you never hear of any criticisms of him as a player, just nonsense about how he didn't win with his #2 and #3 options hurt.

This may shock you, but those old posts exist, when I arrived at ISH I too had MJ as GOAT before I learned more about history. I still have him #2 but I can't ignore the massive difference in longevity between KAJ and MJ.


just focus on his actual play, and yes, he was great but not really GOAT level and his stats show that, which of course was kind of by design, but it is what it is.

What do you mean? He was 30/16/5 in the playoffs in his 10 year prime (MJ something like 33/7/6 or 33/6/6). That compares well to anyone over a 10 year period.


I think its safe to say Jordan was the most individually dominant player in NBA championship history – so I don’t really see why some seem to imply the praise he gets for these runs aren’t deserved or make him overrated.

I consider him equally dominant to KAJ, behind Wilt in their primes. Shaq is in this class at his peak but he lacked staying power. The only reason I have KAJ ahead of MJ is he produced 17 MVP caliber campaigns; MJ only 10-11. If I am drafting a team and don't know anything other than the production of each player, I am taking KAJ and the 17 MVP campaigns over anyone each time because it gives me the highest odds of winning chips. Others may disagree but that is my criteria. It isn't "I hate MJ" or BS. I still have MJ ahead of Wilt, Russell, LeBron.

[Roundball_Rock]

But using accolades as some absolute argument in this case is just flawed in my opinion.

I agree. I just haven't seen a better way to do it.


I can buy that the league was more ball dominant by PGs in the 80s/90s vs the 70s. But so what? Plenty of players have gotten into the HOF largely based on their numbers and in many cases that’s highly influenced by the era they played in.

Fair point. With KJ and Price the answer is obvious: they lacked staying power. Price's last all-star season was his age 29 season. He was a scrub by age 31. KJ's last all-star season was age 27. He was a scrub by age 31. To be clear, these guys went down due to injuries but it happens. They lacked longevity and they did not have the high peaks to offset it like a Walton had.


Since you brought up Lebron lets use him as an example. Lebron faced Rose, which is legit, but not Roy, in the playoffs. That’s about it in terms of HOF level players in their prime that aren’t going to make it due to longevity.

Arenas is another one for LeBron. He was a 29 PPG guy at his peak. IT too if he stayed healthy (29 PPG and a MVP candidate his last healthy year).

Who would it be for MJ? KJ, Price, Daughtery, Kemp. Kemp is debatable. He is borderline as is to get in and his issue was getting fat, not injuries.

The other thing about LeBron is players who people don't think of as HOF players who will get in. Lowry already has 6 all-star selections and a ring. If he gets 1-2 more he is a lock. Joe Johnson is likely to make it. Oladipo if he can stay healthy for several more years.

[Roundball_Rock]

To circle back on Soundwave's contention, here is MJ's actual record with bad teams:

1985: Jordan joins a 27 win team with a 23 PPG second option and a 16 PPG third option. They improve to 38 wins, the 7th seed and lose 1-3 in the first round.
1986: MJ misses 65 games as the team adds Oakley to Woolridge and Daintley. The team performs at a 27 win pace without him, a 41 win pace with him. They are the 8 seed at 30-52 and get swept in the first round.
1987: MJ has a full season, is second in MVP voting. The team goes 40-42, is the #8 seed again, and is swept in the first round again.
1988: Chicago gets a new head coach, drafts Pippen and Grant with lottery picks. The Bulls improve to 50 wins and barely get out the first round for the first time. They get crushed 1-4 in the second round.
1989: 47 wins in year five and one shot away from elimination in the first round but MJ scores over Craig Ehlo. They wind up making the ECF.
1990: first year of more than 50 wins. 55 wins and the ECF again, this time losing in 7.
1991: 61 wins, a chip.
1992: 67 wins, a chip.

Win totals: 27 (before MJ), 38, 30, 40, 50, 47, 55, 61, 67.

This is a story of slow but, by year four, steady growth. This is hardly "MJ and scrubs=50+ wins and the ECF."

In contrast, KAJ joined a 29 win expansion team and had them at 56 wins and the WCF as a rookie. Then he joined a gutted Lakers team that won 30 games without him (more like a 20-25 win roster after the trade). 40 wins in year one, 53 wins and the #1 seed in year two. In year three KAJ misses 20 games and the team is a 31 win pace team sans him, 50 wins with him. Soundwaves claims MJ would be worth more than the extra 19 wins. In 79' they go 47-35, performing at the same level as 78' (the KAJ games).

Which of these two stories suggests the greater "floor raising" power?

Not exactly MJ magically turning things around, is it? None of this implies MJ provided an extra 20-35 wins like KAJ's record in 70', 75', 78' suggests.

https://backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/84-to-90-Healthy-Bulls-SRS.png

[Axe]

Lmao 4 posts in a row.

Anyway, kaj was one of a perennial 7-footer goat during his days.

[Roundball_Rock]

I wish I could be as dumb as a rock and compile my "thoughts" in 1-2 sentences. I envy you.

This will sail over your small head, but adults are having a conversation and we need more than 1-2 sentences to do it. There is a word count limit (which you would not be aware of). In debates you respond to points raised by the opponent. Shocking, isn't it? You have to first have the horsepower to grasp the points being made. Then craft a counter. Like them are not guy and Soundwave are intelligent posters who warrant responses.

Why am I responding to you? Comedy. We have these lengthy basketball discussions. You will have numerous posts in these threads and not offer a single iota of basketball content. You appear to have joined a basketball forum to be critic of those...actually discussing basketball.

Apologies for the fairly lengthy reply. Encapsulating your idiocy cannot be done in 1 sentence.

[FultzNationRISE]

no. Centers are shitty closers by design.


Dawg.

They still have Big Stick Pip.

Closing AINT a problem.

[Axe]

I wish I could be as dumb as a rock and compile my "thoughts" in 1-2 sentences. I envy you.

This will sail over your small head, but adults are having a conversation and we need more than 1-2 sentences to do it. There is a word count limit (which you would not be aware of). In debates you respond to points raised by the opponent. Shocking, isn't it? You have to first have the horsepower to grasp the points being made. Then craft a counter. Like them are not guy and Soundwave are intelligent posters who warrant responses.

Why am I responding to you? Comedy. We have these lengthy basketball discussions. You will have numerous posts in these threads and not offer a single iota of basketball content. You appear to have joined a basketball forum to be critic of those...actually discussing basketball.

Apologies for the fairly lengthy reply. Encapsulating your idiocy cannot be done in 1 sentence.
Oh gag me. :rolleyes:

But yep, cringe all day if you want. In the end tho, it's still apparent that you're basically a 3ball with an opposing perspective and specifically one who is a kaj stan. Your justifications don't help either.

Now do carry on as usual.

[Roundball_Rock]

Kobe Stan, Pippen Stan, Rose Stan, LeBron Stan (days ago), now a KAJ Stan. What will the conspiracy theory be tomorrow from ISH's dullest knives? You morons don't get it , do you? You can favor a player without being a fan. It's called analysis. I have a criteria and it spits out KAJ as GOAT. I can't wave a Space Jam wand and change it because that's inconvenient.

[Axe]

Ok, that's enough drama for today.

https://media1.giphy.com/media/u8u0R51ND9L2/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51ab2468c33db6b9a685851ae71a212 90654db847bc&rid=giphy.gif

[Roundball_Rock]

Thanks for the basketball insight.

[Mr Feeny]

Does this Axe clown ever comment on basketball? :lol Adults are having a conversation.

So why are you talking, then?

Leave it to the adults.

On discussion. Lebron probably gets about 4 or 5 rings.
Kareem probably gets 0 or 1 pushing it.

[Axe]

Thanks for the basketball insight.
https://media1.tenor.com/images/3373f6968bc34456cbebd48f343e020f/tenor.gif?itemid=5194343

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Yeah, that was correct: we don't have a full career picture for those players since they are assigned 0's while players whose careers began later get credit for their blocks, steals. In KAJ's case his best statistical years are diminished.

That is one of the problems with playoff numbers: the sample sizes are small and inconsistent among teams. So look at 72'. Kareem draws Wilt and Thurmond as his defenders, two GOAT-level defenders. In 73' he has 6 games in the playoffs and it is Thurmond again.

That goes back to the point about dilution. Kareem was drawing Wilt, Thurmond. Later Walton, Moses, Parish, Hakeem. What SGs did MJ face? Drexler once, Miller once, Dumars a couple times. Then what?

In your other post, you mentioned comparing players though. Not careers. If the latter is what you originally meant, then of course. Most of Kareem's prime was recorded though. Blocks and steals included.

Postseason play separates the good and great players. In every sport. So while the sample sizes aren't as big, the competition is ALWAYS better. And the stakes higher.

We can ignore Kareem's bad shooting like we can with '96 Jordan, who was defended by Payton. Or '93 Jordan vs the NY grindhouse. Kareem and Jordan's averages are what they are. And what we judge them by.

Kareem also faced an over the hill, Wilt. Really good defender but lets call a spade a spade. For the acclaim Kareem gets, he could've had a better series. We don't make excuses for Jordan, well we know YOU don't, so don't do that here.

Drexler, Reggie Miller and Dumars were all pretty damn good. What's the problem? This isn't boxing or tennis either. Pretty sure Jordan's Bulls beat more 60+ win teams than anyone in history. And Jordan had the best numbers to match his rings, as shown.


Where are they posted? BBallreference doesn't have them.

https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/

Dates back to 1997. If you know anything about RAPM, make sure to adjust for roles and minutes. RPM is better in that the metric takes this into account with a sub category - "WINS"

[Soundwave]

Kobe Stan, Pippen Stan, Rose Stan, LeBron Stan (days ago), now a KAJ Stan. What will the conspiracy theory be tomorrow from ISH's dullest knives? You morons don't get it , do you? You can favor a player without being a fan. It's called analysis. I have a criteria and it spits out KAJ as GOAT. I can't wave a Space Jam wand and change it because that's inconvenient.

If you like KAJ as GOAT, great good for you, what do you want, a cookie? lol.

I still think his Lakers days in the 70s are a bit dissapointing, those teams should have been better, he had multiple teammates averaging over 10+ ppg and a second scoring option usually in the range of 18-19 ppg.

And as you get older into your 20s you should be able to lift a franchise more than that, you should have greater control over the game than in your 1/2/3 seasons where you're still figuring things out.

Great player, but I think that 70s era is a little weak for him. It's not like there was some dominant team like the Durant Warriors or 80s Lakers/Celtics for him to contend against either ... the Sonics whupped them with Gus Williams and Dennis Johnson .... that's not exactly the all time great 86 Celtics or even the KG/Pierce/Allen Celtics either.

[LAL]

I wish I could be as dumb as a rock and compile my "thoughts" in 1-2 sentences. I envy you.

It's better to be dumb as a rock and compile it in 1-2 sentences than a wall of text. You're hurting our eyes with your desperation. His last MVP was in 80, then he started winning while getting worse and older? Magic and the Showtime Lakers perhaps? He wasn't winning much in the 70s at all, Nash won 2 mvps and is considered a loser. Why is he greater than MJ? Keep it simple weirdo.

[Axe]

It's better to be dumb as a rock and compile it in 1-2 sentences than a wall of text. You're hurting our eyes with your desperation. His last MVP was in 80, then he started winning while getting worse and older? Magic and the Showtime Lakers perhaps? He wasn't winning much in the 70s at all, Nash won 2 mvps and is considered a loser. Why is he greater than MJ? Keep it simple weirdo.
Yeah, outside of the showtime lakers, kareem's only biggest contribution to his team was leading the bucks to their first ever finals appearance and championship in just his second season. They had another finals appearance in 1974 but came up short.

Having that said, it was previously mentioned that he had greater longevity than mj, which is true. Honestly, they're all great in their own ways. We don't need to be a bandwagon nor mudslingers of certain athletes just to recognize them.

[Roundball_Rock]

So the central claim regarding MJ here is: MJ would do better than KAJ with those teams. Not a shred of evidence is presented from his career to bolster the claim. Guess why? It does not exist. Only MJ gets credit for things he did not do. :oldlol:

Jordan's record shows he joins bad teams and they stay bad. There was zero improvement on the Bulls from 85' to 87'. Then magically as soon as the roster gets improved with lottery picks and Cartwright (an "all-star", right?) and better coaching the wins start increasing. Still, it takes MJ four years to get over .500, five years to make the ECF, and six years to exceed 50 wins.

In Washington it was the same: MJ joins a bad team, it remains a bad team in both years. True, MJ was 38 when he joined the Wizards but KAJ was all-NBA 1st team and top 5 in MVP voting at the same age--and MJ had the benefit of taking 5 seasons off and making less deep playoffs runs. MJ had much fresher legs, is supposedly GOAT (not KAJ), and the team continued to lose like Chicago did until reinforcements arrived.

KAJ showed quicker improvements. 29 wins to 56 and the WCF as a rookie (MJ needed five years to get to the ECF and seven years to get to 56+ wins). Even with a gutted LA roster which was a 30 win team the prior year, more akin to a 20-25 win roster that he inherited due to the trade, they went to 40 wins and then 53 (#1 seed). KAJ had them at a 50 win pace in 78' when he played. In 79' a decline, but only to 47 wins.


he had multiple teammates averaging over 10+ ppg and a second scoring option usually in the range of 18-19 ppg.

What did they do without him? 7-13, a 31 win pace. Not exactly 55-27.

MJ had several scorers in Chicago when he was losing (and in DC). What is the explanation for that? They are called "nobodys" and "scrubs."


Kareem also faced an over the hill, Wilt. Really good defender but lets call a spade a spade.

Wilt was 3rd and 4th in MVP voting those years. :oldlol: Over the hill would be a 35 year old Goodrich producing half his peak level but we are hearing MJ would be winning big with him.


Drexler, Reggie Miller and Dumars were all pretty damn good.

Only one of them was a strong defender (Dumars) and MJ last faced him in 1991. He faced Drexler and Miller once. The guys he faced multiple times were underwhelming to say the least. Look at his most iconic shots: over Craig Ehlo and Byron Russell twice. :lol Look at this "tough" defense:

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/18154240/3c36578965

https://sneakernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/michael-jordan-steve-kerr-1.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D595Wi5W0AAbENa?format=jpg&name=900x900

[knicksman]

I wish I could be as dumb as a rock and compile my "thoughts" in 1-2 sentences. I envy you.

This will sail over your small head, but adults are having a conversation and we need more than 1-2 sentences to do it. There is a word count limit (which you would not be aware of). In debates you respond to points raised by the opponent. Shocking, isn't it? You have to first have the horsepower to grasp the points being made. Then craft a counter. Like them are not guy and Soundwave are intelligent posters who warrant responses.

Why am I responding to you? Comedy. We have these lengthy basketball discussions. You will have numerous posts in these threads and not offer a single iota of basketball content. You appear to have joined a basketball forum to be critic of those...actually discussing basketball.

Apologies for the fairly lengthy reply. Encapsulating your idiocy cannot be done in 1 sentence.

Nah.youre like bron. Compensating his lack of skills through statpadding. Just like you compensating your lack of IQ through wall of texts. But at the end of the day, you have kareem over jordan coz of pippen when kareem has magic. Thats all we need to know about your IQ.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

So now Reggie Miller and Clyde Drexler aren't good players. And instead of backing that up with evidence, you post oversized images....of Jordan game-winners? :oldlol: @ calling Jordan's era 'stiffs' when Kareem played in the 70s - the weakest offensive era and talent pool IN HISTORY. By 1972, WIlt had taken a backseat and changed his role completely. He was also one year away from retiring. I couldn't care less what his peers thought of him, that isn't what we are talking about. So again, Kareem doesn't get a pass for shooting poorly in 1972 and 1973.


Look at this "tough" defense

We do know Jordan faced better overall teams. And beat more 60+ win teams than Kareem.

Do your weak arguments have any substance? lol. Didn't think you wanted to talk about Kareem as a Laker. Before Magic. Must be a sensitive subject hence the trolling :oldlol:

[Roundball_Rock]

By 1972, WIlt had taken a backseat and changed his role completely.

His role was to dominate on defense and rebound (AKA the Russell role). :oldlol: So his focus in that series was completely defending KAJ, while KAJ had to do everything.


We do know Jordan faced better overall teams

Based on what metrics? Win totals after heavy expansion? Simmons (who loves MJ) was talking about it yesterday. Utah is a good measuring stick. Suddenly after being together since the mid-80's they started winning 60+...


Didn't think you wanted to talk about Kareem as a Laker. Before Magic

Dankok and I are the only ones talking about him as a Laker minus Magic (also mentioned his time in Milwaukee without Oscar--completely ignored by MJ stans). All we are getting from MJ stans is "he didn't win those four years, therefore he is a fraud." Some deep analysis (while completely dodging MJ's own record on bad teams).

The funny thing is KAJ somehow is at fault for his key teammates getting hurt, especially during 77' which was their best shot in LA pre-Magic. These are the same people who complain about one game de facto missed in the 89' ECF (concussed 1 minute in) and the migraine game. The fault is on the player with health issues--the same people do not blame MJ for not "getting it done." All he had to do was win one game, not entire series.


So now Reggie Miller and Clyde Drexler aren't good players

Mischaracterization--I said they were not great defenders.

Who do you think faced more all-D defenders or HOF players at their positions in the playoffs? I have not looked it up but I think it is pretty obvious what the answers would be and it wouldn't be close. Yet, what is the point of going through the exercise? The MJ crowd will say we can't use HOF, we can't use all-D, we can't use all-NBA. It is just whatever I feel like it. So 35 year old Gail Goodrich is awesome but 24 year old Pippen is, meh.


you have kareem over jordan coz of pippen when kareem has magic.

Another falsehood. :lol

[Roundball_Rock]

So to recap here are the completing claims.

The MJ Side

*KAJ can't be trusted in the clutch, even though he was one of the most clutch players ever, because he was a center.
*KAJ did not win when he joined a 25 or so win caliber team. MJ would have easily gotten 50+ and the ECF at minimum with those teams. However, zero evidence from MJ's career is presented to support this because none exists.
*KAJ could not match the scoring of MJ. Prime KAJ scored "only" 30 PPG in the playoffs and he could not get to the extra 3 PPG that MJ scored. This is very flimsy. MJ had record usage and FGA attempts (why the guard and center had similar assist totals...). If you give KAJ the same his scoring would increase.

The KAJ side

*KAJ would provide more dominant years for the Bulls, 17 instead of 11. KAJ would not retire at his peak nor retire again at 35. In sum, the Bulls would get a lot more cracks at a championship with MJ.
*KAJ is easier to build around so the Bulls would become contenders faster. Evidence of this is Milwaukee and Los Angeles progressive a lot faster than the Bulls did by every available metric during the same time frame (which is 4 years each since Magic and Oscar years don't count--but all Pippen years get to count for MJ).
*KAJ did more with lesser teams. Evidence of this is he elevated the 70' Bucks by 27 wins upon arrival, 75' Bucks by 30 wins, and the 78' Lakers by 19 wins in terms of win pace. MJ? 85' Bulls +11, 86' Bulls +14 in season, 87' Bulls +10 relative to prior season (+13 relative to 86' win place sans MJ). You do the math.
*KAJ did not need 7 years to learn team ball. He always played team ball.
*KAJ is more durable. The Bulls would not be a 30 win team in 86' with KAJ.
*KAJ is more valuable on defense as an elite defender at C versus SG.

[Axe]

Lol where the hell is 3ball atm

[Axe]

Nah.youre like bron. Compensating his lack of skills through statpadding. Just like you compensating your lack of IQ through wall of texts. But at the end of the day, you have kareem over jordan coz of pippen when kareem has magic. Thats all we need to know about your IQ.
Notice how the guy actually gets butthurt and emotional when i called him a kaj stan. Having to resort with 3ball-like style narratives to boost his post count, i feel very sorry for him.

[HoopsNY]

Jordan's record shows he joins bad teams and they stay bad. There was zero improvement on the Bulls from 85' to 87'.

This is why most people on this thread aren't taking you seriously. You find ways to criticize other great players without taking into account several factors.

1) Are you considering that Chicago went from a 27 win team to a 38 win team in his rookie season?

2) The second season he missed almost all of the entire season. When Jordan returns he's put on a minutes restriction. For the first 7 games, he was limited to no more than 22 minutes a game, with the majority of those games averaging between 13-19 minutes a game. Their record? 1-6. When the team allows him to play more minutes, the team goes 5-3. You don't see a trend here? What kind of half baked analysis is this?

3) Are you even factoring in the strength of conference? Who were the biggest opponents for Kareem's Bucks and Lakers after '71? The Lakers won 69 games that one season, but no powerhouse teams like the mid 80s Celtics, Sixers, Bucks, or Pistons. Even the Hawks were an excellent team. The Eastern Conference was stacked.


Then magically as soon as the roster gets improved with lottery picks and Cartwright (an "all-star", right?) and better coaching the wins start increasing.

You can't be serious. Pippen and Grant were rookies, bench warmers, who averaged 7 ppg each. You could literally replace them with nearly anyone else and receive similar production. You amount the Bulls' rise from 40 wins to 50 wins to the addition of two bench warming rookies who averaged 7 ppg each and not the the league's MVP award winner, steals title winner, scoring title winner, and Defensive Player of the Year? Even a child can see how unfair you're being. Your hatred is blinding and it's really sad that you can't see this.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

His role was to dominate on defense and rebound (AKA the Russell role). So his focus in that series was completely defending KAJ, while KAJ had to do everything.

So basically Kareem didn't have to work on defense. By your own words, Wilt's role was on defense.

That's a great argument. You HELPED make my point :lol

BTW tell us how that worked out for Mutombo when defending Shaq. Or Mourning and the litany of centers who abused him.


Dankok and I are the only ones talking about him as a Laker minus Magic (also mentioned his time in Milwaukee without Oscar--completely ignored by MJ stans). All we are getting from MJ stans is "he didn't win those four years, therefore he is a fraud." Some deep analysis (while completely dodging MJ's own record on bad teams)

Kareem "fans" talking about...Kareem? Well damn. Might as well debate whose softball reaches home plate lol. You're hurling excuses left and right, but why don't you do that with Jordan? Why is he held to an unrealistic standard, if like Kareem, he is also a GOAT candidate.

Be consistent.


Mischaracterization--I said they were not great defenders.

Who do you think faced more all-D defenders or HOF players at their positions in the playoffs? I have not looked it up but I think it is pretty obvious what the answers would be and it wouldn't be close. Yet, what is the point of going through the exercise? The MJ crowd will say we can't use HOF, we can't use all-D, we can't use all-NBA. It is just whatever I feel like it. So 35 year old Gail Goodrich is awesome but 24 year old Pippen is, meh.

That's a mischaracterization in and of itself.

Provide evidence. Be it with BPM, RAPM or anything objective. Data is available for these players by the way, so lets hear it.

Far as comp goes, Jordan faced more HOFers. But this is a team sport so lets use SRS. A better measure than anything you and I can just...say.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.fcgi?id=V4hH2

:confusedshrug:

The 90s have more teams in Top 20 SRS than the 70s do.

So far all you've done here is throw out baseless claims. When you're ready for an objective debate, let me know.

[HoopsNY]

Only one of them was a strong defender (Dumars) and MJ last faced him in 1991. He faced Drexler and Miller once. The guys he faced multiple times were underwhelming to say the least. Look at his most iconic shots: over Craig Ehlo and Byron Russell twice. Look at this "tough" defense:

He faced Dumars in 4 series. He faced Drexler once, Miller once, he also faced Ron Harper, Gary Payton, Dan Majerle, and a Knicks squad that was a dominant defensive team three times.

[Roundball_Rock]

So basically Kareem didn't have to work on defense. By your own words, Wilt's role was on defense.

Not quite. KAJ was his team's defensive anchor but it is true he did not have to expend high energy on his individual match up. Unfortunately, we don't have blocks info for back then.


BTW tell us how that worked out for Mutombo when defending Shaq. Or Mourning and the litany of centers who abused him.

Let's find out. :oldlol:

KAJ versus Wilt in 71' and 72' playoffs: 25/17/4 on 48%, 34/18/5 on 46%.
Wilt versus KAJ in the 71' and 72' playoffs: 22/19/2 on 49%, 11/19/3 on 45%.

Shaq versus Mutumbo in 01': 33/16/5 on 57%
Mutumbo versus Shaq in 01': 17/12/0 on 60%

What struck me is how KAJ managed the same efficiency on much less volume. This is Wilt we are talking about, who shot a league leading 65% in 72' (73% the next year). What did MJ do against comparable caliber defenders (basically Payton for 3 games and Moncrief for a first round loss)?

Not sure how Mourning is relevant. He was a perennial 20/10 guy in his prime, not a defensive specialist.


Kareem "fans" talking about...Kareem?

Specious. It was MJ fans who brought up those years--but suddenly don't want to talk about them when the facts showed up...:lol


Simply claiming something doesn't work here.

We have seen plenty of that: the 76'-79' Lakers were awesome, based on fluff while the Bulls that won championships were average. It seems literally everybody had help except poor Mike.


Far as comp goes, Jordan faced more HOFers.

This is frankly a shocking statement. It is pretty obvious KAJ did but this is revealing. You must not have any idea of who he played against.


this is a team sport so lets use SRS.

Correct, it is a team sport. SRS is a solid measure--but you have to compare the team's SRS to the other team...as you note, it is a team sport. The funny thing about "60 win teams" and "50 win teams" is the win totals of the other teams are conveniently always omitted. It is obvious why. :oldlol:


The 90s have more teams in Top 20 SRS than the 70s do.

Hoping I didn't click on the link? Here are the top teams in SRS:

1) 71' Bucks (KAJ) 2) 96' Bulls (MJ) 3) 72' Lakers ("over the hill" Wilt) 4) 17' Warriors 5) 97' Bulls (MJ) 6) 72' Bucks (KAJ) 7) 20' Bucks 8) 16' Warriors 9) 16' Spurs 10) 92' Bulls

What he didn't tell you is those "90's teams" happen to be the Bulls time and again (which is why you will never see their SRS relative to the opposing team ever posted, at least not by them). The one exception is the 94' Sonics--who lost in the first round.

[HoopsNY]

He faced Dumars in 4 series. He faced Drexler once, Miller once, he also faced Ron Harper, Gary Payton, Dan Majerle, and a Knicks squad that was a dominant defensive team three times.

And I'm not sure, but I believe MJ faced off against the great Alvin Robertson as well.

[Roundball_Rock]

Just comparing HOF comp using their first three finals runs. MJ faces an extra team since they added an extra round by then.

1991 (4 rounds): Ewing, Barkley, Dumars, Zeke, Rodman, Magic, Worthy, Divac (international)
1992 (4 rounds): Ewing, Drexler
1993 (4 rounds): Wilkins, Ewing, Barkley

1971 (3 rounds): Lucas, Thurmond, Wilt, West, Baylor, Goodrich, Unseld, Monroe, G. Johnson
1974 (3 rounds): West, Hawkins, Goodrich, Walker, Havlicek, Cowens, White, Westphal
1980 (3 rounds): Westphal, D. Johnson, Sikma, Erving, Cheeks, Jones

So MJ has an extra round but still has much less HOF competition. :oldlol:

The most HOF players KAJ faced in the finals was 5; the most MJ faced was 3, and you need Divac (a 1x all-star) to get you there.
The least HOF players KAJ faced in the finals was 3; the least MJ faced was 1 (three times, AKA half his finals).

MJ had more HOF in every finals he was in, except 91', and he had more HOF in every ECF, except 91'. What a luxury! More HOF in every playoff series from 1992-1998.

Meanwhile KAJ was facing 2-3 HOF in the first round at times while MJ was getting 0-1 in the ECF and 1 in half his finals. :roll:

"6-0!"

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Not quite. KAJ was his team's defensive anchor but it is true he did not have to expend high energy on his individual match up. Unfortunately, we don't have blocks info for back then.

Those are you words though. Not quite as in you're backtracking or not "not quite" because you misspoke again?


Let's find out. :oldlol:

KAJ versus Wilt in 71' and 72' playoffs: 25/17/4 on 48%, 34/18/5 on 46%.
Wilt versus KAJ in the 71' and 72' playoffs: 22/19/2 on 49%, 11/19/3 on 45%.

Right. Shaq annihilated Mutombo. Not sure what that proves. Shooting 46% against a past prime Wilt...is something we're praising now?

Low standards, I guess.

Mourning was also renowned for his defense. For his entire career. Sure he could score, I never claimed otherwise. But his specialty was on defense, so don't revise history


Specious. It was MJ fans who brought up those years--but suddenly don't want to talk about them when the facts showed up...:lol

But none of that changes the fact you've made excuses for Kareem that you'd be unwilling to do for Jordan.

Kareem's losses are contextual. While Jordan's mysteriously are not.

"B-b-but Scottie Pippen!" :oldlol:


This is frankly a shocking statement. It is pretty obvious KAJ did but this is revealing. You must not have any idea of who he played against.

Post the number of HOFers Jordan beat versus Kareem. :Confusedshrug:

I'll readily admit that I am wrong.


Correct, it is a team sport. SRS is a solid measure--but you have to compare the team's SRS to the other team...as you note, it is a team sport. The funny thing about "60 win teams" and "50 win teams" is the win totals of the other teams are conveniently always omitted. It is obvious why. :oldlol:

Its the best measure we have. Since you don't like win totals here is where we are at. Nothing dubious about it.


Hoping I didn't click on the link? Here are the top teams in SRS:

1) 71' Bucks (KAJ) 2) 96' Bulls (MJ) 3) 72' Lakers ("over the hill" Wilt 4) 17' Warriors 5) 97' Bulls (MJ) 6) 72' Bucks (KAJ) 7) 20' Bucks 8) 16' Warriors 9) 16' Spurs 10) 92' Bulls

Are you confused or something? They drew even in the Top 10 which is why I broadened the sample to 20.

5 beats 3 unless you're flat out denying elementary math.

[dankok8]

It's pretty telling that the one year in the 70's Kareem had a really good 2nd option in Oscar (1971), he ended up leading his team to the highest SRS of all time and a dominating title. And like the OP posted in another thread, Oscar was a really good player in 1971 but no longer in his prime.

And no Jordan didn't face more HOFers LMAO. Not that HOFers are the entire argument or anything like that but that's just blatantly false.

[Roundball_Rock]

It's pretty telling that the one year in the 70's Kareem had a really good 2nd option in Oscar (1971), he ended up leading his team to the highest SRS of all time and a dominating title.

Great points. KAJ had an all-NBA teammate once between 1970-1981 and look at the results that year.

The whole team success argument is bogus because KAJ didn't have the stacked teams MJ, LeBron and every other top legend had during their primes. To be fair, what else do they have to use against him? His individual record is impeccable and he had no major weakness in his game.


And no Jordan didn't face more HOFers LMAO. Not that HOFers are the entire argument or anything like that but that's just blatantly false

It is pretty obvious, so shocking he isn't aware or simply lying. KAJ played in a much tougher era for team talent among contenders. You had first round teams with 2-3 HOF then compared to finals teams with 1 for half of MJ's or 0 in the case of the 92' Cavs in the ECF.

Your statement Kuniva: "So basically Kareem didn't have to work on defense."

In fact he did as the defensive anchor, he just didn't have to do as much against his match up as he would otherwise have had to do. It is pretty straightforward.


Shooting 46% against a past prime Wilt...is something we're praising now?

It beats shooting 40% against John Starks, doesn't it? Wilt is an all-time great defender; Starks isn't.


his specialty was on defense

He wasn't a specialist. That is like saying MJ's "specialty was on scoring." Mutumbo was a defensive specialist, Rodman was, etc.


you've made excuses for Kareem that you'd be unwilling to do for Jordan.

The basis of this claim is...?


5 beats 3 unless you're flat out denying elementary math.

This is incredibly dumb: the 90's were a tough era because the Bulls towered so much over their (weak) competition. :oldlol:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Great points. KAJ had an all-NBA teammate once between 1970-1981 and look at the results that year. The whole team success argument is bogus but KAJ didn't have the stacked teams MJ, LeBron and every other top legend had during their primes. To be fair, what else do they have to use against him? His individual record is impeccable and he had no major weakness in his game.

Your statement Kuniva: "So basically Kareem didn't have to work on defense."

But his role was to play defense and rebound, as per your own words. If that's his role, what is Kareem defending exactly? :oldlol:


In fact he did as the defensive anchor, he just didn't have to do as much against his match up as he would otherwise have had to do. It is pretty straightforward.

That doesn't sound straight forward at all. Its sound like you're mincing words, and backtracking again.


It beats shooting 40% against John Starks, doesn't it? Wilt is an all-time great defender; Starks isn't.

But I'm not praising that series like you are doing here for Wilt.


He wasn't a specialist. That is like saying MJ's "specialty was on scoring." Mutumbo was a defensive specialist, Rodman was, etc.

Not at all. Mourning from the late 90s going into the 00s was noted more for his defense. Of course he could score, I haven't debated otherwise.


The basis of this claim is...?

How about just a few quotes above?

You posted Kareem's inefficient log vs Wilt, and are here acting like we should be impressed.

You then brought up the Knicks series to hammer Jordan. Yet the Knicks were and are STILL recognized as one of the best defensive teams. Ever.


This is incredibly dumb: the 90's were a tough era because the Bulls towered so much over their competition. :oldlol:

So now SRS is dumb? You just called it a great stat in your last post.

Are you OK bud? :oldlol:

[Turbo Slayer]

Hate to interrupt the 2 of you but what are you all arguing about?

[Axe]

Hate to interrupt the 2 of you but what are you all arguing about?
It's a kareem vs. mj debate here in some very specific scenarios

[Turbo Slayer]

It's a kareem vs. mj debate here in some very specific scenarios Oh thanks! :pimp:

[guy]

So you are saying the 90's Bulls would fare basically the same in any era. Here is the problem: they didn't dominate all those finals. They needed a 15 point fourth quarter comeback with the bench (plus Pippen) on the court to avoid a Game 7 against the Blazers, Paxson to avoid Game 7 against the Suns, Kerr to avoid a Game 7 in 97', and MJ over Russell to avoid a Game 7 in 98'. Replace those teams with more stacked teams in other eras.

Kerr’s shot was to avoid OT, not game 7. And even though its only 1 game, I think it’s a big difference to win in 6 vs win in 7. They didn’t just totally dominate, but they weren’t in much danger of losing the series.

You realize that these other dominant teams you’re referring didn’t always dominate every series they played in right? And I’m not just talking about the series they played against each other. I’m talking about against teams that weren’t as good as the Bulls and/or also not any better and maybe even worse then some of the “weak competition” the Bulls faced in the 90s. Lets look at the 80s Celtics and Lakers for example:

80s Celtics:
1981 - 6 games to beat the below .500 Rockets in the finals
1983 - Swept by the Bucks
1984 - 7 games to beat the Knicks (there 2nd best player was literally Bill Cartwright)
1987 - 7 games to beat the Bucks
1988 - 7 games to beat the Hawks
1990 - Lose 3-2 to the Knicks

80s Lakers:
1981 – Lose 2-1 to the below .500 Rockets
1986 – Lose 4-1 to the Rockets
1988 – 7 games to beat the Jazz
1988 – 7 games to beat the Mavs
1990 – Lose 4-1 to the Suns

And for both of them I’d bring up the early 80s Sixers pre-Moses that beat the Celtics twice and lost to them in 7 once and pushed the Lakers to 6 in the Finals in both 1980 and 1982. Those teams weren’t better then the Bulls. You can go through the roster and tell me why you think they could be.

And other than the 86 Rockets I brought up, its not like these teams had a bunch of big guys or so many elite players and that’s why they were able to match up with them. That’s not the case.

I’m not saying based on this the Bulls couldn’t still lose to the Celtics or Lakers (for all 3 teams I’m sure we can say they played down to their competition at times – its just human nature) and be just as successful as they were. Maybe they wouldn’t - I don’t’ believe that, but I don’t think anyone is crazy for thinking that. But there’s this assumption that its a foregone conclusion that they wouldn’t come close, which based on the above seems like an incredible overexaggeration.



Not because of 6 rings--few people credit him with 6. Some people only credit him with 2. :oldlol:

I don’t really see that. They may not hype up his 6 rings as much because clearly his contribution and responsibility on average was less than Jordan’s, but if he’s brought up in the media in these debates they don’t get into that detail.

[guy]

You are correct, though, that time has been good to KAJ. Remember the GOAT discussion 10, 8 or even 5 years ago? KAJ never came up but he now has cemented a 10-15% market share. I think KAJ has drafted behind LeBron, who has reopened the GOAT debate. As that happens, while KAJ has zero advocates in the media (outside of one Washington Post article weeks ago), he benefits from people doing their own research. His resume and record is impeccable. His game flawless. His longevity unrivaled. That is why you never hear of any criticisms of him as a player, just nonsense about how he didn't win with his #2 and #3 options hurt.
This may shock you, but those old posts exist, when I arrived at ISH I too had MJ as GOAT before I learned more about history. I still have him #2 but I can't ignore the massive difference in longevity between KAJ and MJ.

Right, and over time he got more into the GOAT discussion because of the focus on rings, which really is because of Kobe when people tried to compare the rings at “X” age for him to Jordan’s just ignoring all context around it, and now the focus on longevity, which is the argument for Lebron. He wasn’t getting the argument much before .

I don’t remember everywhere I’ve read it, but I’m pretty sure there were plenty of criticisms of Kareem as a leader. He was aloof, barely talked or engaged with his teammates, was questioned about how much he really cared about the game, and things of that nature and it wasn’t until Magic came along that Kareem started to open up more and he benefited a lot from not having to take on as much of a leadership responsibility. As much as people consider Jordan a dick, you couldn’t say that about him – most people covering him wouldn’t argue that he didn’t get the best out of his teammates. To me, that trumps longevity, which is more like 17 vs 13 elite seasons (Jordan still played in 86 and 95 and he was elite – just obviously not at his best.) Those 4 extra seasons where Kareem is putting up ~22/7 when he wasn’t carrying the offense nearly that much given his teammates don’t mean THAT much to me, especially given his questionable leadership when he didn’t have someone like Magic on his team. With that said, I didn’t watch the 70s and I’m relying on what I’ve read, and obviously there’s a ton of evidence supporting Kareem’s greatness, so its not crazy to call him the GOAT – at minimum I probably have him top 5.




What do you mean? He was 30/16/5 in the playoffs in his 10 year prime (MJ something like 33/7/6 or 33/6/6). That compares well to anyone over a 10 year period.

I was talking about him in just the 80s.

[guy]

I consider him equally dominant to KAJ, behind Wilt in their primes. Shaq is in this class at his peak but he lacked staying power. The only reason I have KAJ ahead of MJ is he produced 17 MVP caliber campaigns; MJ only 10-11. If I am drafting a team and don't know anything other than the production of each player, I am taking KAJ and the 17 MVP campaigns over anyone each time because it gives me the highest odds of winning chips. Others may disagree but that is my criteria. It isn't "I hate MJ" or BS. I still have MJ ahead of Wilt, Russell, LeBron.

I was talking about just championship campaigns (or even just Finals campaigns) – you can’t really argue that anyone had a better combination of individual dominance and team success then Jordan – which is why his rings get as much hype they do. I would agree with that overall too though .

I have the same criteria, I just put Jordan ahead for all the reasons I stated earlier.


I agree. I just haven't seen a better way to do it.
Fair point. With KJ and Price the answer is obvious: they lacked staying power. Price's last all-star season was his age 29 season. He was a scrub by age 31. KJ's last all-star season was age 27. He was a scrub by age 31. To be clear, these guys went down due to injuries but it happens. They lacked longevity and they did not have the high peaks to offset it like a Walton had.

George McGinnis last all-star season came at 28 . Calvin Murphy only had 1 appearance and it was at 30. Like I said, given minimal increase in accolades as the game expanded, it just became harder to get these honors.



Arenas is another one for LeBron. He was a 29 PPG guy at his peak. IT too if he stayed healthy (29 PPG and a MVP candidate his last healthy year).

Fair. Forgot about those guys. I guess I just don’t really see them as winning type players or there teams as threatening, but you’re not wrong here.



Who would it be for MJ? KJ, Price, Daughtery, Kemp. Kemp is debatable. He is borderline as is to get in and his issue was getting fat, not injuries.

I alluded to Penny, just didn’t mention him by name.

Kemp is not debatable. He had weight and drug issues and this isn’t solely about injuries. The point is for whatever reason he declined significantly and didn’t make it to the HOF as a result but that was after the fact – he played Jordan in the Finals when he was on that trajectory of a HOF level player – so why does what happened afterward matter when assessing Jordan’s competition?



The other thing about LeBron is players who people don't think of as HOF players who will get in. Lowry already has 6 all-star selections and a ring. If he gets 1-2 more he is a lock. Joe Johnson is likely to make it. Oladipo if he can stay healthy for several more years.

I doubt they get in. If they got in while some of the others I mentioned didn’t, that would be terrible and would make the “HOF” argument even weaker.

[Roundball_Rock]

what is Kareem defending exactly?

The paint. :lol


But I'm not praising that series like you are doing here for Wilt.

The series came up when you posted playoff stats without context for level of comp. Yes, 34/18/5 against an all-time great defender is a lot more impressive than 32/6/7 against John Starks. If MJ faced the level of competition at his position that KAJ did his numbers would dip, but he was facing Starks, Majerle, Hornacek, Hawkins, etc. When he faced Moncrief he shot 44% (29/6/9). Against Payton (last three games)?



First three games: 31 points, 46 fg%, 50 3fg%, 12.3 FTA.
Last three games: 23.7 points, 36.7 fg%, 11.1 3fg% 10 FTA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2014/08/21/how-putting-gary-payton-on-michael-jordan-sooner-could-have-changed-the-1996-nba-finals/

So Mike was being Mike until he got an all-time great defender on him and he shot 37%.


You then brought up the Knicks series to hammer Jordan. Yet the Knicks were and are STILL recognized as one of the best defensive teams. Ever

You raised the issue of playoff performance without context. Why do MJ fans dislike context being brought into the conversation? The point of the Knicks series (or the Heat, etc.) is MJ had "bad" series against tough defenses who didn't have Wilt or Nate Thurmond.


So now SRS is dumb? You just called it a great stat in your last post.


RS is a solid measure--but you have to compare the team's SRS to the other team...as you note, it is a team sport.

So another mischaracterization--minutes later.

It is dumb to claim a team had "tough" comp because its SRS was so high precisely because the competition was so weak. This is simple logic that any sensible person could understand.

Radio silence on the opposition's SRS. Care to post the relative SRS numbers for the Bulls' and their opponents? I don't think so...

Here I will help you out.

1996: Bulls 11.80, Magic 5.40, Sonics 7.40. "60 wins, doe!"
1997: Bulls 10.7, Heat 5.6, Jazz 8.0. "60 wins!"
1992: Bulls 10.7, Cavs 5.3, Blazers 6.94

The difference between the Bulls and Magic was akin to that between the Magic and Warriors (36 win team). Surprise surprise the Bulls sweep the Magic. GOAT gonna GOAT. :pimp:

If SRS is the be all end all, the 95' Bulls (minus MJ) were the second best team in the East with a 3.8 SRS. So they lose peak MJ, lose Grant and still are this good? "6-0!"

Meanwhile KAJ's teams go 3-14 and 7-13 without him and MJ stans are asking why he didn't win rings with those teams.

[Axe]

Looks like someone here just desperately needs to be seduced by this. Seriously.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTFcquxyJPrw0CcJU0NDKKKPH7O3fj ycbaIjI7aKcrAgJikOhKu&usqp=CAU

[Roundball_Rock]

You realize that these other dominant teams you’re referring didn’t always dominate every series they played in right?

Obviously but it stands to reason that if the Bulls played the 80's Celtics, 80's Lakers, 80's Sixers, 80's Pistons instead of the 90's Knicks, 90's Cavs, 90's Jazz, 90's Pacers as their main rivals they would have less than 6 rings.


I don’t really see that. They may not hype up his 6 rings as much because clearly his contribution and responsibility on average was less than Jordan’s, but if he’s brought up in the media in these debates they don’t get into that detail.

He isn't brought up in the media at all, unfortunately. I meant among fans. The entire "case" against KAJ you see on ISH and elsewhere is basically:

1) KAJ won only 1 ring in the 70's (that he won in 1980 conveniently is outside the cut-off :oldlol:)
2) KAJ won 5 rings in the 80's, but he was "the man" for only X. Therefore, his other rings don't really count.
3) KAJ had Oscar and Magic for 14 of 20 seasons. Those seasons don't count. What did he do in the other 6? This logic is conveniently not applied to MJ with Pippen, who fares even worse by this "logic". This also ignores Oscar wasn't Oscar at the end, and that Oscar wasn't there his rookie year.

Point three has been the big discussion here. So his entire prime, outside of 1970 and 1976-1979 is nullified. No context is given for his teams upon arrival in Milwaukee. So no credit for going from 29 wins to 56 and the WCF. Where is the ring? Lakers, no credit for going from 30 wins to the #1 seed in year two. No credit for his teams sucking without him. Where are the rings? MJ would have won with those teams! LeBron! His #2 and #3 got hurt in the 77' playoffs. MJ would have found a way! (like MJ did during the migraine game and the Pippen concussion right?)

It is all bad faith, just like saying Wilt and Russell playing against plumbers because they want to erase them from the GOAT conversation.


Right, and over time he got more into the GOAT discussion because of the focus on rings,

What makes you think that? I think he got there because of his accolades. The most MVPs, the most all-NBA teams, the most all-star selections, the most points, etc. So you have people looking up resumes and they see KAJ has more MVPs than MJ and two more than LeBron. That registers with some.

[Roundball_Rock]

s much as people consider Jordan a dick, you couldn’t say that about him – most people covering him wouldn’t argue that he didn’t get the best out of his teammates. To me, that trumps longevity, which is more like 17 vs 13 elite seasons (Jordan still played in 86 and 95 and he was elite – just obviously not at his best.)

Those are legit arguments, although some of what you said about KAJ applied to MJ early in his career as Sam Smith documented. I can't credit MJ with elite seasons when he plays 17 seasons. We had this conversation years ago when you ranked Pippen year by year for his prime and noted Pippen couldn't be a top 10 player in 98' because he missed 2/5 the games.

95' is a better argument but 86' was useless. MJ comes back and they get slaughtered by an all-time great team in the first round. A waste of a season. 95' at least they had a shot because the team was competitive without him and got a decent seed.


I was talking about him in just the 80s.

80's Kareem still has a better resume than guys like Ewing, Payton, Kidd, Drexler, etc. and actually won a MVP unlike those guys.



I was talking about just championship campaigns (or even just Finals campaigns) – you can’t really argue that anyone had a better combination of individual dominance and team success then Jordan

Probably but a product of favorable team circumstances, especially during his prime. Russell arguably trumps him. He wasn't a scorer but he won as many MVP's as MJ and he won them over Wilt, West and Oscar. MJ was winning against Drexler, Robinson, Malone. Not the same.


I have the same criteria, I just put Jordan ahead for all the reasons I stated earlier.

Perfectly reasonable but you put some thought into it not just "rings as the man" or "6-0" which is what we see from most MJ fans. Find a NBA discussion on social media. It is all about "6-0" and "3-6".


George McGinnis last all-star season came at 28 . Calvin Murphy only had 1 appearance and it was at 30. Like I said, given minimal increase in accolades as the game expanded, it just became harder to get these honors.

True, but McGinnis for example racked up a MVP (ABA), 5 all-NBA/all-ABA, 2 rings (ABA), 6 all-star selections. So like Walton he had a peak argument that Price or KJ don't have. Then you have guys like Laettner who make it due to college or Divac due to international work.


Kemp is not debatable. He had weight and drug issues and this isn’t solely about injuries. The point is for whatever reason he declined significantly and didn’t make it to the HOF as a result but that was after the fact – he played Jordan in the Finals when he was on that trajectory of a HOF level player – so why does what happened afterward matter when assessing Jordan’s competition?

Fair point. Small caveat: 1) Boozer was 20/10 his best four year run. Kemp was 19/10. So could it be argued Boozer was on a HOF track at one point? He had only 2 all-star selections but he came to mind because he was a huge bust for the Bulls. :facepalm

I just think if you do the "HOF track" adjustment it won't help MJ or anyone because every era has several of those guys.

Lowry is 86% to get in basketball reference (between JoJoe White and Billups). The ring will help him.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

The paint. :lol

Against who? The guy who played defense and rebounded?

For the record, I never made that claim. YOU DID. But I can see why you quickly backtracked.


The series came up when you posted playoff stats without context for level of comp. Yes, 34/18/5 against an all-time great defender is a lot more impressive than 32/6/7 against John Starks.

Once again, I'm not comparing individual series. YOU are. You're impressed with Kareem shooting 46% while I'm not. With either series. Keep bringing them up though. Your non-sequiturs are amusing to me :oldlol:


If MJ faced the level of competition at his position that KAJ did his numbers would dip, but he was facing Starks, Majerle, Hornacek, Hawkins, etc. When he faced Moncrief he shot 44% (29/6/9). Against Payton (last three games)?

Would they? Where is the evidence for that? We already know the 90s had more teams with a better SRS. How about Wilkins and Mcdaniels. Were they good defenders? Shitty narratives aside, do you actually have data to back your claims?

Majerle was a good defender too btw. What happened in the '93 finals?

Whoops :lol


It is dumb to claim a team had "tough" comp because its SRS was so high precisely because the competition was so weak. This is simple logic that any sensible person could understand.

Nobody sane who watched then calls Jordan's competition "so weak".

Educate yourself and quit spewing bullshit narratives. :oldlol:

Repeating false claims isn't debating.


Radio silence on the opposition's SRS. Care to post the relative SRS numbers for the Bulls' and their opponents? I don't think so...

You quoted and asked if I would "care" to post something. Then did it yourself a few words later. In the same post.

I'll ask again. Are you OK? :oldlol:


1996: Bulls 11.80, Magic 5.40, Sonics 7.40. "60 wins, doe!"
1997: Bulls 10.7, Heat 5.6, Jazz 8.0. "60 wins!"
1992: Bulls 10.7, Cavs 5.3, Blazers 6.94

The difference between the Bulls and Magic was akin to that between the Magic and Warriors (36 win team). Surprise surprise

That's an idiotic take. The '96 Bulls compared to most teams in history have the same disparity. Apparently MOST teams in NBA history are comparable to the 37-win Warriors now.

Do you know how statistics work?

[Roundball_Rock]

Nobody sane who watched then calls Jordan's competition "so weak"

By your own preferred metric they were weak. They were not even remotely close to the Bulls' super team.


The '96 Bulls compared to most teams in history have the same disparity

Here is how SRS works when teams are comparable. Since we are talking KAJ, let's use some KAJ teams and the comp in the WCF and NBA finals (like I did with the Bulls).

1980: Lakers 5.4, Sonics 4.2, Sixers 4.0. (The same Sonics who sucked.) :oldlol:
1982: Lakers 4.4, Spurs 1.8, Sixers 5.7
1983: Lakers 5.1, Spurs 3.1, Sixers 7.5
1984: Lakers 3.3, Suns 0.7, Celtics 6.4
1985: Lakers 6.5, Nuggets 2.1, Celtics 6.5

So what does SRS suggest? The Lakers had parity or inferiority against their finals opponent's. The delta between them and their WCF opponent was much closer than that of the Bulls and their ECF opponents. Needless to say, when you have real competition sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Hence why Kareem/Magic aren't "6-0" like Jordan/Pippen.

Now let's compare, as a reminder, to the Bulls' "competition":

1996: Bulls 11.80, Magic 5.40, Sonics 7.40.
1997: Bulls 10.7, Heat 5.6, Jazz 8.0.
1992: Bulls 10.7, Cavs 5.3, Blazers 6.94

The Chicago Globetrotters. :lol


We already know the 90s had more teams with a better SRS

I'll let you in on a secret: SRS is judged against all the other teams in the league. So when you expand 6 teams in a short period and weaken the league, those scrub teams boost the SRS for the good teams.

How about fun with SRS without yearly context?

1980 Sixers: 4.0
1995 Bulls (minus MJ): 3.8
2015 Hawks 4.8

According to your logic, the Hawks>the 80' Sixers and the Bulls minus MJ and Grant/Rodman=the 80's Sixers. MJ's team was that stacked even down MJ and Grant/Rodman? "6-0!" :bowdown:

For those who don't know, here is what SRS is:

(SRS): a team rating that takes into account average point differential and strength of schedule. The rating is denominated in points above/below average, where zero is average. It works by first finding how many points, on average, a team wins/loses by.



Against who?

In basketball players frequently try to score at or near the rim. This is because these are the highest efficiency shots. Having a dominant center there to erase or alter these shots is very important. Don't be obtuse. You know the value of that since you pointed out Mutumbo and Mourning.


Once again, I'm not comparing individual series. YOU are.

Let's try to walk through this.

*You posted playoff stats.
*I pointed out that, among other things, MJ had the benefit of playing against weaker competition at his position.
*As a result of the weaker opposition, we can't take his stats at face value against Kareem's.
*Various series are case studies about the impact facing an elite or (in the case of Wilt, Thurmond, Payton, and Moncrief) all-time great defender has.

I am sorry your point was so shaky: MJ scored 3 more PPG in his prime on 2 more FGA and much higher usage against weak competition. This was the primary basis of your claim that MJ would win more because KAJ could not replicate MJ's scoring.


Would they? Where is the evidence for that?

Defensively? Payton, Moncrief, and Dumars. What are his numbers against them versus the tomato cans?

[dankok8]

Just want to bring back an old post of mine. Kareem didn't face good competition huh? Not enough HOFers?

Ok well here are the facts. In the 97 playoffs games from 1970-1981 which was his prime and his first 12 years in the league, he played a HOF center in 73 of those 97 games which is 75%. Tell me what percentage of games other GOAT candidates played against a HOFer at their position? I can tell you off of the top of my head that Jordan didn't play a HOF at the SG position anywhere near 75% of the time.

Anyway here are Kareem's aggregate stats in those games vs. each of those HOF centers.

vs. Wilt Chamberlain (11 games): 29.7 ppg, 17.4 rpg, 4.5 apg on 46.6 %FG/49.2 %TS
vs. Nate Thurmond (16 games): 24.4 ppg, 16.9 rpg, 2.9 apg on 43.8 %FG/46.8 %TS
vs. Willis Reed (5 games): 34.2 ppg, 17.8 rpg, 4.8 apg on 55.2 %FG/58.5 %TS
vs. Dave Cowens (7 games): 32.6 ppg, 12.1 rpg, 5.4 apg on 52.4 %FG/55.3 %TS
vs. Wes Unseld (4 games): 27.0 ppg, 18.5 rpg, 2.8 apg on 60.5 %FG/63.4 %TS
vs. Bill Walton (4 games): 30.3 ppg, 16.0 rpg, 3.8 apg on 60.8 %FG/66.1 %TS
vs. Moses Malone (3 games): 26.7 ppg, 16.7 rpg, 4.0 apg on 46.2 %FG/51.7 %TS
vs. Robert Parish (7 games): 37.1 ppg, 18.7 rpg, 4.3 apg on 60.7 %FG/64.0 %TS
vs. Dan Issel (3 games): 28.0 ppg, 13.3 rpg, 5.0 apg on 61.5 %FG/67.1 %TS
vs. Jack Sikma (13 games): 29.1 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 4.1 apg on 55.9 %FG/58.8 %TS

vs. All HOF Centers (73 games): 29.4 ppg, 15.8 rpg, 4.0 apg on 52.0 %FG/55.3 %TS

[Soundwave]

Kareem certainly has a case for best longevity, the combination of mastering the sky hook means you are an offensive threat even when your athleticism fades, also being on a superteam like the 80s Lakers that played a high octane offensive style certainly likely helped.

I think Shaq honestly is really the best center ever prime for prime though. Yes, even above Kareem and Wilt.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

By your own preferred metric they were weak. They were not even remotely close to the Bulls' super team.

Or just not in the TIER with the '96 Bulls. Who were better than MOST teams all-time.

:confusedshrug:


Here is how SRS works when teams are comparable. Since we are talking KAJ, let's use some KAJ teams and the comp.

1980: Lakers 5.4, Sonics 4.2, Sixers 4.0. (The same Sonics who sucked.) :oldlol:
1982: Lakers 4.4, Spurs 1.8, Sixers 5.7
1983: Lakers 5.1, Spurs 3.1, Sixers 7.5
1984: Lakers 3.3, Suns 0.7, Celtics 6.4
1985: Lakers 6.5, Nuggets 2.1, Celtics 6.5

But you originally used 1-on-1 matchups as a metric for good comp.:oldlol: Don't need to know 'how it works' when I brought it up. And added it to this debate.


So what does SRS suggest? The Lakers had parity or inferiority against their finals opponent's. The delta between them and their WCF opponent was much closer than that of the Bulls and their ECF or finals opponents. Needless to say, when you have real competition sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Hence why Kareem/Magic aren't "6-0" like Jordan/Pippen.

We can say the same thing for MOST of Jordan's Chicago teams. The '96 Bulls are what call an outlier.

Once again, do you understand how statistics work?


Now let's compare, as a reminder, to the Bulls' "competition":

1996: Bulls 11.80, Magic 5.40, Sonics 7.40.
1997: Bulls 10.7, Heat 5.6, Jazz 8.0.
1992: Bulls 10.7, Cavs 5.3, Blazers 6.94

The Jazz had a 8.0 SRS compared to the Bulls 10.7?

And that's your argument for "weak competition"? I don't think you understand how this works.

You conveniently left out years 1991, 93 and 98 in your "analysis", by the way. Wonder why. :oldlol:


'll let you in on a secret: SRS is judged against all the other teams in the league. So when you expand 6 teams in a short period and weaken the league, those scrub teams boost the SRS for the good teams.

Yeah how else would individual SRS be measured? Thanks for "dropping knowledge" bro. What would we do without you? :lol

SRS is also compared across eras. What you don't do is compare teams with a same SRS and conclude they are equal. Which is what you're incorrectly doing


How about fun with SRS without yearly context?

1980 Sixers: 4.0
1995 Bulls (minus MJ): 3.8

According to your logic, the Bulls minus MJ and Grant/Rodman=the 80's Sixers. MJ's team was that stacked even down MJ and Grant/Rodman? "6-0!" :bowdown:[/quote]

According to MY logic? More like according to your 'analysis' Look above :oldlol:


In basketball players frequently try to score at or near the rim. This is because these are the highest efficiency shots. Having a dominant center there to erase or alter these shots is very important. Don't be obtuse. You know the value of that since you pointed out Mutumbo and Mourning.

Exactly. But you said Wilt was a rebounder and defender as a Laker.

Are you retracting that statement now?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Character limit :cheers:


*You posted playoff stats.
*I pointed out that, among other things, MJ had the benefit of playing against weaker competition at his position.
*As a result of the weaker opposition, we can't take his stats at face value against Kareem's.
*Various series are case studies about the impact facing an elite or (in the case of Wilt, Thurmond, Payton, and Moncrief) all-time great defender.

Wrong. I used playoff stats because you had no evidence to back your claims. The numbers I posted were then taken out of context by you, and used incorrectly.

So no. I never compared series' or made an individual number comparison. Once again, that was you. There were more teams with better ALL TIME SRS in the "weak 90s" compared to the 70s - the era you overrate.


Defensively? Payton, Moncrief, and Dumars. What are his numbers against them versus the tomato cans?

So...you're back to using shitty narratives again. Who were these tomato cans? How do you determine whose 'weak'? Any data to back your claims?

[HoopsNY]

Or just not in the TIER with the '96 Bulls. Who were better than MOST teams all-time.

:confusedshrug:



But you originally used 1-on-1 matchups as a metric for good comp.:oldlol: Don't need to know 'how it works' when I brought it up. And added it to this debate.



We can say the same thing for MOST of Jordan's Chicago teams. The '96 Bulls are what call an outlier.

Once again, do you understand how statistics work?



The Jazz had a 8.0 SRS compared to the Bulls 10.7?

And that's your argument for "weak competition"? I don't think you understand how this works.

You conveniently left out years 1991, 93 and 98 in your "analysis", by the way. Wonder why. :oldlol:



Yeah how else would individual SRS be measured? Thanks for "dropping knowledge" bro. What would we do without you? :lol

SRS is also compared across eras. What you don't do is compare teams with a same SRS and conclude they are equal. Which is what you're incorrectly doing



According to your logic, the Bulls minus MJ and Grant/Rodman=the 80's Sixers. MJ's team was that stacked even down MJ and Grant/Rodman? "6-0!" :bowdown:

You're debating with someone who tries to use 1984-87 against Jordan, failing to mention that the Bulls win total increased by 11 games in his first season. He then fails to mention that Jordan missed almost the entire '85-'86 season, and tries to use pace metrics to justify his claim. What he doesn't tell you is that Chicago was severely limiting Jordan's minutes upon return.

When Mj returned that year, Chicago went 1-6 in the first 7 games where he only played 13-19 minutes. After that the minutes increase and surprise surprise, the Bulls go 5-3.

He then tries to erroneously claim that the rise from 40 to 50 wins in the '87-'88 season is somehow due to the addition of Pippen and Grant. Yet he fails to mention that they were rookies averaging 7 points of the bench. But Mike averaging 35.0 ppg, winning the scoring title, winning the steals title, winning MVP, and winning Defensive Player of the Year wasn't a bigger indicator somehow.

[ArbitraryWater]

Just want to bring back an old post of mine. Kareem didn't face good competition huh? Not enough HOFers?

Ok well here are the facts. In the 97 playoffs games from 1970-1981 which was his prime and his first 12 years in the league, he played a HOF center in 73 of those 97 games which is 75%. Tell me what percentage of games other GOAT candidates played against a HOFer at their position? I can tell you off of the top of my head that Jordan didn't play a HOF at the SG position anywhere near 75% of the time.

Anyway here are Kareem's aggregate stats in those games vs. each of those HOF centers.

vs. Wilt Chamberlain (11 games): 29.7 ppg, 17.4 rpg, 4.5 apg on 46.6 %FG/49.2 %TS
vs. Nate Thurmond (16 games): 24.4 ppg, 16.9 rpg, 2.9 apg on 43.8 %FG/46.8 %TS
vs. Willis Reed (5 games): 34.2 ppg, 17.8 rpg, 4.8 apg on 55.2 %FG/58.5 %TS
vs. Dave Cowens (7 games): 32.6 ppg, 12.1 rpg, 5.4 apg on 52.4 %FG/55.3 %TS
vs. Wes Unseld (4 games): 27.0 ppg, 18.5 rpg, 2.8 apg on 60.5 %FG/63.4 %TS
vs. Bill Walton (4 games): 30.3 ppg, 16.0 rpg, 3.8 apg on 60.8 %FG/66.1 %TS
vs. Moses Malone (3 games): 26.7 ppg, 16.7 rpg, 4.0 apg on 46.2 %FG/51.7 %TS
vs. Robert Parish (7 games): 37.1 ppg, 18.7 rpg, 4.3 apg on 60.7 %FG/64.0 %TS
vs. Dan Issel (3 games): 28.0 ppg, 13.3 rpg, 5.0 apg on 61.5 %FG/67.1 %TS
vs. Jack Sikma (13 games): 29.1 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 4.1 apg on 55.9 %FG/58.8 %TS

vs. All HOF Centers (73 games): 29.4 ppg, 15.8 rpg, 4.0 apg on 52.0 %FG/55.3 %TS

Will kuntiva respond?

[HoopsNY]

Will kuntiva respond?

I don't think the debate is about that though. Not sure if anyone is saying Kareem didn't face HOF'ers or "enough" HOF'ers. Maybe I missed it.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Will kuntiva respond?

Nipping at me heels again? Little bitch :oldlol:

Never claimed Kareem didn't face enough HOFers.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

You're debating with someone who tries to use 1984-87 against Jordan, failing to mention that the Bulls win total increased by 11 games in his first season. He then fails to mention that Jordan missed almost the entire '85-'86 season, and tries to use pace metrics to justify his claim. What he doesn't tell you is that Chicago was severely limiting Jordan's minutes upon return.

When Mj returned that year, Chicago went 1-6 in the first 7 games where he only played 13-19 minutes. After that the minutes increase and surprise surprise, the Bulls go 5-3.

He then tries to erroneously claim that the rise from 40 to 50 wins in the '87-'88 season is somehow due to the addition of Pippen and Grant. Yet he fails to mention that they were rookies averaging 7 points of the bench. But Mike averaging 35.0 ppg, winning the scoring title, winning the steals title, winning MVP, and winning Defensive Player of the Year wasn't a bigger indicator somehow.

Yup.

I'm aware of the bullshyt. Too bad it doesn't work against people who watched those games. Or have any inkling on how stats work.

You have solid posts here btw. Thought you were Hoopsencyclopedia at one point, and am still convinced you are! Haha. Welcome to the board dude

[HoopsNY]

Yup.

I'm aware of the bullshyt. Too bad it doesn't work against people who watched those games. Or have any inkling on how stats work.

You have solid posts here btw. Thought you were Hoopsencyclopedia at one point, and am still convinced you are! Haha. Welcome to the board dude

Thanks. Tbh, I'm completely new. When I first got here, everyone thought I was 3ball for some reason. I don't know who Hoopsencyclopedia is but would love to meet him.

[Roundball_Rock]

Just want to bring back an old post of mine. Kareem didn't face good competition huh? Not enough HOFers?

Ok well here are the facts. In the 97 playoffs games from 1970-1981 which was his prime and his first 12 years in the league, he played a HOF center in 73 of those 97 games which is 75%. Tell me what percentage of games other GOAT candidates played against a HOFer at their position? I can tell you off of the top of my head that Jordan didn't play a HOF at the SG position anywhere near 75% of the time.

Anyway here are Kareem's aggregate stats in those games vs. each of those HOF centers.

vs. Wilt Chamberlain (11 games): 29.7 ppg, 17.4 rpg, 4.5 apg on 46.6 %FG/49.2 %TS
vs. Nate Thurmond (16 games): 24.4 ppg, 16.9 rpg, 2.9 apg on 43.8 %FG/46.8 %TS
vs. Willis Reed (5 games): 34.2 ppg, 17.8 rpg, 4.8 apg on 55.2 %FG/58.5 %TS
vs. Dave Cowens (7 games): 32.6 ppg, 12.1 rpg, 5.4 apg on 52.4 %FG/55.3 %TS
vs. Wes Unseld (4 games): 27.0 ppg, 18.5 rpg, 2.8 apg on 60.5 %FG/63.4 %TS
vs. Bill Walton (4 games): 30.3 ppg, 16.0 rpg, 3.8 apg on 60.8 %FG/66.1 %TS
vs. Moses Malone (3 games): 26.7 ppg, 16.7 rpg, 4.0 apg on 46.2 %FG/51.7 %TS
vs. Robert Parish (7 games): 37.1 ppg, 18.7 rpg, 4.3 apg on 60.7 %FG/64.0 %TS
vs. Dan Issel (3 games): 28.0 ppg, 13.3 rpg, 5.0 apg on 61.5 %FG/67.1 %TS
vs. Jack Sikma (13 games): 29.1 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 4.1 apg on 55.9 %FG/58.8 %TS

vs. All HOF Centers (73 games): 29.4 ppg, 15.8 rpg, 4.0 apg on 52.0 %FG/55.3 %TS

So that is a lot more than facing Drexler, Miller once and Dumars a couple times early in his career. :lol


Or just not in the TIER with the '96 Bulls. Who were better than MOST teams all-time.

Same net result: the Bulls had no competition in the 90's.


But you originally used 1-on-1 matchups as a metric for good comp.

There are many ways to slice it. They all show the same thing...

No comment on SRS showing KAJ had real competition? No surprise.


The Jazz had a 8.0 SRS compared to the Bulls 10.7?

That is a 2.7 delta. Compare it to the delta of the KAJ final's opponents...


You conveniently left out years 1991, 93 and 98 in your "analysis", by the way. Wonder why.

Don't worry. All the info will be coming for KAJ, MJ, and LBJ. :D


But you said Wilt was a rebounder and defender as a Laker.


The Lakers had four other players on the court at any given time, including a guy named Jerry West.


There were more teams with better ALL TIME SRS in the "weak 90s" compared to the 70s - the era you overrate.

By that logic, the 80's were a weak era too. The highest 80's team was the 86' Celtics (14th) and the next was the 86'...Bucks (16th).

The SRS leader board is littered with teams from the 90's to today. It isn't hard to see why: expansion. 5 of the top 11 SRS teams are from 2015-2020. GOAT era then, right?

[Roundball_Rock]

Regarding the trolling:


You're debating with someone who tries to use 1984-87 against Jordan, failing to mention that the Bulls win total increased by 11 games in his first season.

I've mentioned that 4-5 times in this thread. :oldlol: You know, comparing the Bulls' growth toe the Bucks' and Lakers' with KAJ (KAJ improved Milwaukee by 27).


He then fails to mention that Jordan missed almost the entire '85-'86 season

Mentioned multiple times in this thread, hence using both the 27 win pace minus MJ and the 30 win total for the full season.


He then tries to erroneously claim that the rise from 40 to 50 wins in the '87-'88 season is somehow due to the addition of Pippen and Grant.

Well, new coaching too. It was written in black and white.


I'm aware of the bullshyt.

He lied multiple times. A go to move of rattled MJ stans it seems. :lol The amusing thing is the rest of the readers aren't dumb. They are capable of reading.

[Roundball_Rock]

RIP HoopsNYC. This is just one of numerous examples of me saying the type of things that Hoops explicitly claimed that I did not say.


To circle back on Soundwave's contention, here is MJ's actual record with bad teams:

1985: Jordan joins a 27 win team with a 23 PPG second option and a 16 PPG third option. They improve to 38 wins, the 7th seed and lose 1-3 in the first round.
1986: MJ misses 65 games as the team adds Oakley to Woolridge and Daintley. The team performs at a 27 win pace without him, a 41 win pace with him. They are the 8 seed at 30-52 and get swept in the first round.
1987: MJ has a full season, is second in MVP voting. The team goes 40-42, is the #8 seed again, and is swept in the first round again.
1988: Chicago gets a new head coach, drafts Pippen and Grant with lottery picks. The Bulls improve to 50 wins and barely get out the first round for the first time. They get crushed 1-4 in the second round.
1989: 47 wins in year five and one shot away from elimination in the first round but MJ scores over Craig Ehlo. They wind up making the ECF.
1990: first year of more than 50 wins. 55 wins and the ECF again, this time losing in 7.
1991: 61 wins, a chip.
1992: 67 wins, a chip.

Win totals: 27 (before MJ), 38, 30, 40, 50, 47, 55, 61, 67.

This is a story of slow but, by year four, steady growth. This is hardly "MJ and scrubs=50+ wins and the ECF."

In contrast, KAJ joined a 29 win expansion team and had them at 56 wins and the WCF as a rookie. Then he joined a gutted Lakers team that won 30 games without him (more like a 20-25 win roster after the trade). 40 wins in year one, 53 wins and the #1 seed in year two. In year three KAJ misses 20 games and the team is a 31 win pace team sans him, 50 wins with him. Soundwaves claims MJ would be worth more than the extra 19 wins. In 79' they go 47-35, performing at the same level as 78' (the KAJ games).

Which of these two stories suggests the greater "floor raising" power?

Not exactly MJ magically turning things around, is it? None of this implies MJ provided an extra 20-35 wins like KAJ's record in 70', 75', 78' suggests.

https://backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/84-to-90-Healthy-Bulls-SRS.png

[Roundball_Rock]

The sad thing is they (HoopsNYC in this one but there is another troll account who does the same thing in thread after thread) think people are dumb enough to fall for clear lies (evidently Kuniva is but I doubt the rest of the thread is). :oldlol: If they are willing to blatantly lie, how can you trust any "fact" they cite?

When you have the facts on your side, you simply let them speak for themselves. KAJ>MJ at raising team floors. That is why one side was able to talk team performance and use facts to support it and the others had...nothing. One side is naming HOF names, the other is not. One side is comparing competition levels, the other is concealing the weakness of their guy's opposition. And on and on.

:hammertime:


Sure it does. Let's try to walk through this.

*Soundwave made the claim that MJ or LeBron on any random team would equal 50+ wins and the ECF at minimum. He added a convenient age qualifier (covering the years they had stacked teams in their real careers).
*I pointed out MJ came back to a 27 win pace team as a MVP candidate and the result was 40-42 (8th seed). So an improvement but not the 50+/ECF floor that we were promised.
*By operation of seeding, the 8 seed plays the 1 seed. The 1 seed usually is the best team in the conference. If Jordan did what Soundwave suggested and had his team at even 50 wins they would have been the 4th or 5th seed (depending on tiebreaker) and faced the Bucks. If they got to 52 they could have been 3rd.
*As a result, that they lost to a team with 4 HOF is not the point. The point is that they drew that team in the first place in the first round.

The Lakers, the 5th seed who lost in the WCSF, were better than the 1 seed, who won the NBA championship. :biggums:

The double standard is amusing. KAJ is expected to beat the champs with a 31 win pace team minus him (previous year) while MJ is given a pass against the finals loser with a 27 win pace team minus him (previous year). This whole discussion is about KAJ not winning with these type of teams and how MJ and LeBron would. Well, where are the receipts?

That is the frame being put out there, including in the initial post leading to this side discussion: qualify that MJ and LeBron would be winning at ages 28-31 when the only evidence we have of them at those ages are on stacked teams or in retirement. The only available evidence of them on weaker teams are before and after those convenient time brackets.

[HoopsNY]

Relax. I forgot you mentioned the 27 to 38 win total. So I apologize. That wasn't intentional, geez.

But you really needed 3 posts for that? lol. In any case, you're still maintaining deceptive analysis. For one, you're using pace numbers, but you're completely ignoring that the Bulls put minutes restriction on Jordan. Why are you ignoring that where the data is concerned? Forgive my ignorance, but does win pace account for a player playing 14 minutes in a game?


Well, new coaching too. It was written in black and white.

And? Doug Collins was a new coach. You're behaving as if they brought in a coach with a proven track record. You're being deceptive here because you don't want to admit that saying the addition of Grant and Pippen was of note is clearly something silly.

Lastly, I don't want to fight. If I've insulted you, I apologize (and I have insulted you many times but it goes both ways). I'm also not commenting for the sake of proving MJ > Kareem.

What I am trying to show you is the inconsistencies in your logic. There are two very clear examples here in this thread with you using the '85-'86 season and win pace, as well as bringing up coaching and two rookies as a determinant of sorts.

[Roundball_Rock]

Backpedaling after being exposed. :oldlol: The multiple posts go to credibility (lack thereof in this case). The information came up about half a dozen times--and Kuniva and you still had to lie despite seeing it again and again. :oldlol:


In any case, you're still maintaining deceptive analysis. For one, you're using pace numbers, but you're completely ignoring that the Bulls put minutes restriction on Jordan. Why are you ignoring that where the data is concerned?

Easy: the 41 win pace with MJ was consistent with their win total with him over a full season that next year (40). What is the excuse for that?

MJ joins the team: +11 wins
MJ in 86': +14 wins when he plays versus when he does not
MJ in 87': +13 wins compared to the 27 win pace without him

KAJ joins the team (MIL): +27 wins, WCF
KAJ gets hurt in 75': +30 wins when he plays versus when he does not
KAJ joins the team (LA): +10 wins
KAJ gets in 78': +19 wins when he plays versus when he does not

It is obvious who has the clear edge. Only 76' KAJ comes close to MJ and that is because the Lakers gutted their roster to acquire him so it was not a real 30 win but more like a 20-25 win roster that he inherited. This all implies prime KAJ is worth around 20-30 wins. MJ? Not so much.

I also posted the SRS graphic for MJ. It shows the same trend, about 8-12 wins when MJ is added to the equation.

CHI with MJ: 38 wins, 30 (injured), 40, 50, 47

Where is the big MJ led turnaround? ZERO improvement (+2 is statistically insignificant) after three years. Anyone with sense can see something shift by 88' because that is when the improvements finally began.

[HoopsNY]

Couldn't even accept the apology? Sheesh. Call it what you like.


Easy: the 41 win pace with MJ was consistent with their win total with him over a full season that next year (40). What is the excuse for that?

And the loss of Gervin, Woolridge, Dailey, with reduced production from Corzine had no impact in the following season? Are you even considering that you're comparing the player's rookie and sophomore years with another player's prime years as well as considering the strength of conference?

And you didn't answer, does win pace account for minutes played? Because Jordan was on restricted minutes after returning from injury, barely averaging 15 minutes a game his first 7 games back where the team went 1-6.

And nice job ignoring your assessment of the 40 to 50 win leap being amounted to a rookie coach, a rookie small forward, and a rookie power forward. But I'm the one "being exposed."

[Roundball_Rock]

The data speaks for itself. All that data points show the same level of win increase for MJ. Are they perfect? No, but this is pro sports. We don't get to conduct controlled experiments. The closest thing we have is if a player gets injured since we see the "before and after." With MJ we don't really have that since he got hurt once in Chicago and he was on a minutes restriction. We do have it twice with KAJ: +30 and +19.

The next best data point is when a player joins a team but there is always roster turnover so that isn't as useful.


And nice job ignoring your assessment of the 40 to 50 win leap being amounted to a rookie coach, a rookie small forward, and a rookie power forward.

This is interesting. The same people who say this are the same people who, essentially, argue that a rookie Kukoc (11/4/3) largely offset the loss of peak MJ (the same people here who are saying MJ's impact is so large he would contend with scrubs). Pippen/Grant combined for 16/10/3 so more than Kukoc.

Frankly, though, I think the coaching upgrade was the bigger factor. Who cares if he was a rookie? Didn't we see a rookie head coach just win a ring? Jackson was a rookie head coach too and they went from 47 wins to 55 with him (eclipsing 50 for the first time, six years into the MJ era).


Are you even considering that you're comparing the player's rookie and sophomore years with another player's prime years

I used KAJ's rookie year but they ignore it throughout the thread. 29 wins to 56 and the WCF. Not a single comment about it. You know why.

As to his sophomore year, we are banned from using it because Oscar was there (meanwhile for MJ they use all of his years with Pippen).


And the loss of Gervin, Woolridge, Dailey, with reduced production from Corzine had no impact in the following season?

This is where Pippen and Grant come in. They were taking minutes that would have went to lesser players on the 87' team.

Reduced production is misleading (exactly what you claim to decry). Everybody's production plummeted. Why? MJ came in and consumed 28 FGA and 12 FTA. His usage rate was 38% in the season and 39% in the playoffs.

This is part of the problem with MJ's hero ball. How are other players supposed to produce when they never see the ball? KAJ never had this problem. MJ did and it took Phil Jackson and Tex Winter to solve it many years later (i.e., the GOAT coach and a brand new offensive system). This is a big reason it took so long for Chicago to improve. It is hard to build around this type of player. We saw LA have the same issue with Kobe. Three years of 34-45 wins until they finally broke through in year four with Gasol joining the team, Bynum improving, etc.

What does his usage mean? Here are the top 10 seasons. MJ was basically at Kobe, Westbrook, Iverson levels.

Rank Player Usg% Season

1. Russell Westbrook 41.65 2016-17
2. James Harden 40.47 2018-19
3. Kobe Bryant* 38.74 2005-06
4. Russell Westbrook 38.37 2014-15
5. Michael Jordan* 38.29 1986-87
6. Allen Iverson* 37.78 2001-02
7. Giannis Antetokounmpo 37.43 2019-20
8. Luka Dončić 36.95 2019-20
9. DeMarcus Cousins 36.50 2016-17
10. James Harden 36.41 2019-20

[knicksman]

heres really the difference between kobe/jordan stans and lebron stans.
Lebron stans - lebron is better coz he beats superteams.
kobe stans - but hes the reason why those superteams exist.

Lebron stans analysis is just surface level. They just dont have the IQ for higher level analysis so its no surprise why reading stats is all they could do.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Same net result: the Bulls had no competition in the 90's.

There are many ways to slice it. They all show the same thing...

That is a 2.7 delta. Compare it to the delta of the KAJ final's opponents...

The Lakers had four other players on the court at any given time, including a guy named Jerry West. And Wilt, according to your original statement, was a rebounder and defender. So who did Kareem "defend" again?

By that logic, the 80's were a weak era too. The highest 80's team was the 86' Celtics (14th) and the next was the 86'...Bucks (16th). The SRS leader board is littered with teams from the 90's to today. It isn't hard to see why: expansion. 5 of the top 11 SRS teams are from 2015-2020. GOAT era then, right?

More false claims.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1998.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1991.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1993.html

Let me know when you're done making up shit. Kind of tedious cleaning up your trash :oldlol:

And no, your wild claims don't match "SRS".

According to you, Chicago were clear underdogs in 93. Jordan only averaged 40 in the finals.

Ouch :lol

Remember. YOU claimed Wilt was a rebounder and defender. So who did Kareem "defend"?

Touching on SRS again...so...is this you admitting the 90s weren't weak? I mean, if that's your claim about the 90s, what does that say about the 70s? Who DON'T have as many ATG teams per SRS? :confusedshrug:

And "expansion"? That would make them WORSE :oldlol: Expansion teams would mean bad play all-around. So no. That doesn't add up either.

Try another excuse.

[Axe]

heres really the difference between kobe/jordan stans and lebron stans.
Lebron stans - lebron is better coz he beats superteams.
kobe stans - but hes the reason why those superteams exist.

Lebron stans analysis is just surface level. They just dont have the IQ for higher level analysis so its no surprise why reading stats is all they could do.
The Roundball dude is not even a lebron stan. He's just a kaj stan who obnoxiously expresses his disdain towards those he calls insecure mj stans way too much to the point that he's not that much different from 3ball himself.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Rockball crying about 'liars' when I literally have to clean up his lies. EVERY other post.

:oldlol:

The irony is palpable.

[3ball]

What does his usage mean?





From the inventors of usage:



a player's ORtg needed to be judged in conjunction with his Usage Rate, a measure of how big a role the player fills in his team's offense. The bigger the role, the more difficult it is to maintain a high ORtg; the smaller the role, the easier it is to be highly efficient. Because of this, Oliver stressed that a player's ORtg should primarily be compared to those of other players in a similar role.


So Jordan had the biggest role ever in an offense (goat usage), which was accompanied by goat efficiency among wings (118 ORtg) - the bulls needed goat volume at 118 efficiency to win, and only MJ was good enough to provide it...

Everyone else was LESS efficient, at LOWER usage and volume, so they couldn't satisfy the goat usage/ortg requirements to win - only MJ had the volume and efficiency to win with those Bulls casts (the lowest scoring casts of all time)






with MJ's hero ball. How are other players supposed to produce when they never see the ball?



You can't point to a single teammate whose career high (capacity) without MJ is significantly more than their high/capacity with him

So that's where your argument falls apart - the stats show that teammates played to capacity alongside MJ, so his goat volume/usage was needed.. and only MJ was efficient at that volume/usage (see what the inventors of usage said above)

Btw, your responses are well edited, but that doesn't fool anyone into thinking they aren't obvious dodges of the point being made.. it's almost like you think that any response is a good one







coaching upgrade was the bigger factor.



the new coaching got the same result in 1990 (ECF loss)

Otoh, the changing factor was Pippen's increased production to a minimal level of viability - so the cast's continued improvement allowed the win, while the lower-producing cast failed in 1989.. those are the statistical facts..

Btw, Pippen's choke in Game 7 could be solely blamed for the 90' loss if we wanted to go that route.. but carry on





The 1990 Bulls eclipsed 50 wins for the first time, six years into the MJ era



^^^ False

Bulls won 50 in 1988... It required 35 ppg from MJ because the Bulls were inexperienced with weak teamwork.. otoh, the 94' bulls only needed 22 from Pippen because they had 3-peat experience and system... Night and day

Btw, the increase from 47 to 55 wins in 1990 was due to Pippen's production increase and Jordan not having a 24-game stint at PG like in 89' (only .500 during that stretch of losing ball-dominance - without this stretch, bulls were a 50+ win pace)

[Roundball_Rock]

More false claims.

https://www.basketball-reference.com.../NBA_1998.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com.../NBA_1991.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com.../NBA_1993.html

That proves what? :lol


Let me know when you're done making up shit. Kind of tedious cleaning up your trash

I am flying too high above for the rim for you. It is okay. I'm willing to help.


According to you, Chicago were clear underdogs in 93.

This is your preferred metric, remember?

Boys and girls, did you notice he did not provide any numbers? Here is why: Phoenix's SRS was 6.3. Chicago's was...6.2. "Clear underdogs", right?

Phoenix had more wins. Chicago had more HOF players. Chicago had more all-NBA players. So CHI leads on 2 measures, PHX on 1, and the other is an even split. "Clear underdogs."

Notice he did not post the numbers for the 91', 93', 98' seasons? Here is why:


1991: Bulls 8.6, Pistons 3.1, Lakers 6.7.
1993: Bulls 6.2, Knicks 5.9, Suns 6.3.
1998: Bulls 7.2, Pacers 6.3, Jazz 5.7.

How dumb does he think you all are? He is relying on people being too lazy to click on the links.


And "expansion"? That would make them WORSE Expansion teams would mean bad play all-around

Expansion increases point differentials and inflates win totals. The evidence shows this and this is reflected in the SRS numbers being boosted. What he is telling you is the SRS numbers for the 90's>the 70's. What he is concealing from you is the SRS numbers also>the 80's. Today's SRS numbers>80's, 70's, etc. Don't be fooled.

Don't take my word for it. See the data yourself: https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.fcgi?id=V4hH2 Unfortunately, the way bballreference lays it out doesn't lend itself to pasting.

[Roundball_Rock]

Here are the # of top 100 SRS seasons by decade. The data pretty clearly shows as the league expanded the number of SRS teams increased in tandem (as bad teams inflated point differentials and win totals). As expansion stopped, the increases leveled off--with one exception: recent years. There has been a disproportionate number of these teams recently. This presumably is a product of tanking, which is another mechanism to inflate point differentials and win totals.

10’s: 24
00’s: 20
90’s: 21
80’s: 13
70’s: 10
60’s: 7
50’s: 3
40’s: 2

2015-2020: 13
2020: 3

You were told expansion had nothing to do with the SRS jump; the data speaks for itself.

So according to Kuniva, the 2015-2020 half decade>the entire 80's. 2020 had basically as many "great" teams as the entire 50's.

You can do a similar review of 60+ and 50+ win teams. You will find the same trend.

It is obvious what is going on here. Kuniva may not grasp it but I am sure you can.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

That proves what? :lol

Are you paying attention? What that "proves" is your claim about the 90s is incorrect lol. Like most of your wild claims.


I am flying too high above for the rim for you. It is okay. I'm willing to help.

This is your preferred metric, remember?

You'd need a step ladder to reach my level. Dont kid yourself.

And don't forget that you used "SRS" to claim 'disparity = no comp'. So no. This is all on YOU. Don't twist the facts. :oldlol:


Boys and girls, did you notice he did not provide any numbers? Here is why: Phoenix's SRS was 6.3. Chicago's was...6.2. "Clear underdogs", right?

Provide the numbers? They're in the links dude! :oldlol: Remember: YOU claimed the 90s were weak. Was Phoenix a 'weak' finals opponent too? How about the 98 Jazz? Post that picture of Bryon Russell again. Failed memes are great! :oldlol:


1991: Bulls 8.6, Pistons 3.1, Lakers 6.7.
1993: Bulls 6.2, Knicks 5.9, Suns 6.3.
1998: Bulls 7.2, Pacers 6.3, Jazz 5.7.

So the Bulls ACTUALLY had competition? But a minute ago you said the 90s were weak. What happened?

Whoops...

Imagine thinking Utah in '98 having a ~6.0 SRS compared to Chicago's 7.2...means there was no comp. Educate yourself

Now tell us why this "disparity" is SO different than years you praised Kareem for. :confusedshrug:


How dumb does he think you all are? He is relying on people being too lazy to click on the links.

Open up the links. That's why I posted them! Poor guy thinks I'm just posting shit, "praying" nobody clicks on them

Maybe that's how you debate, but I do it with integrity. Anyway, tell us how Phoenix having a higher SRS than Chicago = "no comp'".

This should be INTERESTING :lol


Expansion increases point differentials and inflates win totals. The evidence shows this and this is reflected in the SRS numbers being boosted. What he is telling you is the SRS numbers for the 90's>the 70's. What he is concealing from you is the SRS numbers also>the 80's. Today's SRS numbers>80's, 70's, etc. Don't be fooled

But how when expansion teams are LITERALLY used to point out poor level of play. Top 10 SRS = 3 teams from the 90s and 3 from the 70s. So again, according to you, that would also mean the 70s were "weak".

Something doesn't add up, Rockhead. Better check your receipts again! :oldlol:

Me? I don't hold onto these talking points like my life depended on it. They come back and bite you in the ass. Like they have here. With you.


The lion's share of top SRS teams are from the 90's, 00's, 10's. Kuniva can't figure it out but I bet most people here can figure out what distinguishes those decades from every previous decade...

But earlier, you used SRS to claim that Kareem's 70s comp wasn't weak. And even BRAGGED that multiple teams then made the top 10. Losing your train of thought again, Rockhead?

[knicksman]

The Roundball dude is not even a lebron stan. He's just a kaj stan who obnoxiously expresses his disdain towards those he calls insecure mj stans way too much to the point that he's not that much different from 3ball himself.

hes a lebron stan thats why he props pippen so much coz they play alike.

[Roundball_Rock]

Let's not forget we earlier were told that MJ faced more HOF players. That claim was exposed as false.


Just want to bring back an old post of mine. Kareem didn't face good competition huh? Not enough HOFers?

Ok well here are the facts. In the 97 playoffs games from 1970-1981 which was his prime and his first 12 years in the league, he played a HOF center in 73 of those 97 games which is 75%. Tell me what percentage of games other GOAT candidates played against a HOFer at their position? I can tell you off of the top of my head that Jordan didn't play a HOF at the SG position anywhere near 75% of the time.

Anyway here are Kareem's aggregate stats in those games vs. each of those HOF centers.

vs. Wilt Chamberlain (11 games): 29.7 ppg, 17.4 rpg, 4.5 apg on 46.6 %FG/49.2 %TS
vs. Nate Thurmond (16 games): 24.4 ppg, 16.9 rpg, 2.9 apg on 43.8 %FG/46.8 %TS
vs. Willis Reed (5 games): 34.2 ppg, 17.8 rpg, 4.8 apg on 55.2 %FG/58.5 %TS
vs. Dave Cowens (7 games): 32.6 ppg, 12.1 rpg, 5.4 apg on 52.4 %FG/55.3 %TS
vs. Wes Unseld (4 games): 27.0 ppg, 18.5 rpg, 2.8 apg on 60.5 %FG/63.4 %TS
vs. Bill Walton (4 games): 30.3 ppg, 16.0 rpg, 3.8 apg on 60.8 %FG/66.1 %TS
vs. Moses Malone (3 games): 26.7 ppg, 16.7 rpg, 4.0 apg on 46.2 %FG/51.7 %TS
vs. Robert Parish (7 games): 37.1 ppg, 18.7 rpg, 4.3 apg on 60.7 %FG/64.0 %TS
vs. Dan Issel (3 games): 28.0 ppg, 13.3 rpg, 5.0 apg on 61.5 %FG/67.1 %TS
vs. Jack Sikma (13 games): 29.1 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 4.1 apg on 55.9 %FG/58.8 %TS

vs. All HOF Centers (73 games): 29.4 ppg, 15.8 rpg, 4.0 apg on 52.0 %FG/55.3 %TS

[Axe]

hes a lebron stan thats why he props pippen so much coz they play alike.
Unlikely.

[3ball]

Given that Kareem needed Magic to carry him to multiple rings and had a 4 point game 7 performance in one of those title rings, I'd say not a chance.

Jordan and Lebron are simply better.

The problem is that lebron's 2011 is a bigger choke than Kareem's 4-point game

And lebron needed equal-scoring and usage sidekicks to win - so he was carried like Kareem - lebron teamed up with Kobe in 2011, and a 28 ppg Finals closer in 2015.. (and top 3 PF's to play significantly-reduced tertiary roles)

[Roundball_Rock]

Are you paying attention? What that "proves" is your claim about the 90s is incorrect lol.

It proves nothing. Your tactic is obvious: make a claim, pretend to prove it, and hope no one notices or calls you on it. So it "proves" what exactly and how? Thanks in advance. I look forward to this. :oldlol:


And don't forget that you used "SRS" to claim 'disparity = no comp'

What I said was it is one element of assessing teams. Any way you slice it we get the same results. It isn't surprising. The best teams tend to have the highest SRS, the most wins, the most HOF, the most all-NBA, etc. "Will to win" and other stuff is pure marketing.


So the Bulls ACTUALLY had competition?

That is a bizarre way to interpret that data set but, hey, it is a free country.

I read it as the Bulls consistently were the superior team. The one exception was 93'. The full data set for those runs is consistent with my read:

1991: Bulls 8.6, Pistons 3.1, Lakers 6.7.
1992: Bulls 10.1, Cavs 5.3, Blazers 6.9.
1993: Bulls 6.2, Knicks 5.9, Suns 6.3.
1996: Bulls 11.8, Magic 5.4, Sonics 7.4.
1997: Bulls 10.7, Heat 5.6, Jazz 8.0.
1998: Bulls 7.2, Pacers 6.3, Jazz 5.7.

They towered over the comp in 91', 92', 96', 97'. 98' they enjoyed clear superiority but the SRS was diminished---because Pippen was out most of the first half of the season:

98' Bulls point differential (pre-ASG): 5.6
98' Bulls point differential (post-ASG): 9.4

So their SRS was artificially deflated in 98'. With both their superstars present it was the same old Bulls. Their point differential in 97' was about 11. In 92' about 10.

93' was the one year they were comparable in SRS. Same story with wins. However, HOF and all-NBA players show the Bulls with their customary superiority. Recall that earlier in the thread it was noted the Bulls faced a total of 3 HOF players in the entire 93' run; Chicago itself had 2 HOF players.


thinking Utah in '98 having a ~6.0 SRS compared to Chicago's 7.2...means there was no comp. Educate yourself

He either didn't watch back then or is conveniently pretending the Bulls did not have a big drop-off minus Pippen (67 win pace with him, 56 win pace without him).


Top 10 SRS = 3 teams from the 90s and 3 from the 70s.

Misleading, as usual. He isn't telling you those 3 teams are all the Bulls. The top 100 list speaks for itself, which he won't address.

[Roundball_Rock]

First HoopsNYC, with an assist from Kuniva. Now Kuniva. When on the ropes...just lie. :roll:


So again, according to you

Yet another false statement. I have said consistently (quote below :lol ) to assess teams you have to compare relative strength. So you are either lying or do not grasp what this means. Either way, the concept of relative strength was explained to you earlier in the thread.


you used SRS to claim that Kareem's 70s comp wasn't weak. And even BRAGGED that multiple teams then made the top 10.

What I did was use SRS, your metric, to show how real comp looks. In other words, that there was parity between the teams in many cases. Do you understand what the word "parity" means? Dictionary.com if needed.

Here are the receipts:


Correct, it is a team sport. SRS is a solid measure--but you have to compare the team's SRS to the other team...as you note, it is a team sport. The funny thing about "60 win teams" and "50 win teams" is the win totals of the other teams are conveniently always omitted. It is obvious why.


The 90s have more teams in Top 20 SRS than the 70s do.


Here are the top teams in SRS:

1) 71' Bucks (KAJ) 2) 96' Bulls (MJ) 3) 72' Lakers ("over the hill" Wilt) 4) 17' Warriors 5) 97' Bulls (MJ) 6) 72' Bucks (KAJ) 7) 20' Bucks 8) 16' Warriors 9) 16' Spurs 10) 92' Bulls

What he didn't tell you is those "90's teams" happen to be the Bulls time and again (which is why you will never see their SRS relative to the opposing team ever posted, at least not by them). The one exception is the 94' Sonics--who lost in the first round.


Here is how SRS works when teams are comparable. Since we are talking KAJ, let's use some KAJ teams and the comp in the WCF and NBA finals (like I did with the Bulls).

1980: Lakers 5.4, Sonics 4.2, Sixers 4.0. (The same Sonics who sucked.)
1982: Lakers 4.4, Spurs 1.8, Sixers 5.7
1983: Lakers 5.1, Spurs 3.1, Sixers 7.5
1984: Lakers 3.3, Suns 0.7, Celtics 6.4
1985: Lakers 6.5, Nuggets 2.1, Celtics 6.5

So what does SRS suggest? The Lakers had parity or inferiority against their finals opponent's. The delta between them and their WCF opponent was much closer than that of the Bulls and their ECF opponents. Needless to say, when you have real competition sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Hence why Kareem/Magic aren't "6-0" like Jordan/Pippen.

This stuff shouldn't be hard. :oldlol:

[RRR3]

The problem is that lebron's 2011 is a bigger choke than Kareem's 4-point game

And lebron needed equal-scoring and usage sidekicks to win - so he was carried like Kareem - lebron teamed up with Kobe in 2011, and a 28 ppg Finals closer in 2015.. (and top 3 PF's to play significantly-reduced tertiary roles)
:roll:

When did this happen?

Stop doing meth.

[Roundball_Rock]

:roll:

When did this happen?

Stop doing meth.

How many flat out falsehoods are they going to post? It is pathetic.

[Axe]

How many flat out falsehoods are they going to post? It is pathetic.
Hypocrite

[Roundball_Rock]

Hypocrite

Name, with the quote and/or link, a falsehood I posted. Thanks in advance. :cheers:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

It proves nothing. Your tactic is obvious: make a claim, pretend to prove it, and hope no one notices or calls you on it. So it "proves" what exactly and how? Thanks in advance. I look forward to this. :oldlol:

Except, YOU made the claim the 90s were 'weak'. Those links I provided...proved you were wrong :lol

More projection from the "Pippen fan" :oldlol: Must suck that your favorite player played in a weak ass era, man!


What I said was it is one element of assessing teams. Any way you slice it we get the same results. It isn't surprising. The best teams tend to have the highest SRS, the most wins, the most HOF, the most all-NBA, etc. "Will to win" and other stuff is pure marketing.

But you're wrong. WHY do you praise Kareem and those 70s teams for being rated fairly. Yet in the same breath, downplay 90s teams who do as well?

Expansion must have been rampant in the 70s... :oldlol:

You're an easy debate bro. Not even flexing right now.


I read it as the Bulls consistently were the superior team. The one exception was 93'. The full data set for those runs is consistent with my read:

1991: Bulls 8.6, Pistons 3.1, Lakers 6.7.
1992: Bulls 10.1, Cavs 5.3, Blazers 6.9.
1993: Bulls 6.2, Knicks 5.9, Suns 6.3.
1996: Bulls 11.8, Magic 5.4, Sonics 7.4.
1997: Bulls 10.7, Heat 5.6, Jazz 8.0.
1998: Bulls 7.2, Pacers 6.3, Jazz 5.7.

So again, the Jazz and Pacers had a rated ~6 SRS...were they not competition for the Bulls?

You keep posting the same data, and are claiming I am 'interpreting it wrong'. If that were true, then there was NO competition. You're on record here. Basically a 1 point differential is what you wanna hang your hat on?

Guess you can't fix stupid.


So their SRS was artificially deflated in 98'. With both their superstars present it was the same old Bulls. Their point differential in 97' was about 11. In 92' about 10.

How does that work when the 90s were allegedly...weak? Wouldn't that mean Jordan and Pippen were...weak players? Not only that but why were THREE 70s teams rated Top 10 in SRS? Expansion????? :oldlol:


He either didn't watch back then or is conveniently pretending the Bulls did not have a big drop-off minus Pippen (67 win pace with him, 56 win pace without him).

Listen to the excuses lol

So what happened in '93? When Pippen was healthy? And played the ENTIRE season? Were there NOT multiple teams with a higher SRS than Chicago?

Weak 90s though :lol


Misleading, as usual. He isn't telling you those 3 teams are all the Bulls. The top 100 list speaks for itself, which he won't address.

So 'misleading', a page back you BRAGGED about Kareem and some of those teams THEN...cracking the top 10.

Breakout the violin! Roundball is crying that his LIES are falling apart :lol

[RRR3]

Guys can we all stop arguing for a second and appreciate the fact that 3braincells just said LeBron teamed up with Kobe in 2011? :roll:

[HoopsNY]

The data speaks for itself. All that data points show the same level of win increase for MJ. Are they perfect? No, but this is pro sports. We don't get to conduct controlled experiments. The closest thing we have is if a player gets injured since we see the "before and after." With MJ we don't really have that since he got hurt once in Chicago and he was on a minutes restriction. We do have it twice with KAJ: +30 and +19.


Sorry but if you can't contextualize data then you run into a host of problems. Anyone with any sense of fairness understands that for 15 of the 17 games that Mj played, Chicago had him on serious minutes restrictions. Just in the first 7 games alone, the Bulls were 1-6. So your analysis isn't false, but it's grossly misleading.


I used KAJ's rookie year but they ignore it throughout the thread. 29 wins to 56 and the WCF. Not a single comment about it. You know why.

I'm not ignoring his rookie year. I'm speaking about his prime years. And I'm speaking about his prime years in relation to two things:

1) The fact that Jordan was a rookie and a sophomore, where one of those seasons he misses almost entirely and whatever time he DID play, the team limited his minutes severely.

2) The fact that you're taking those years and comparing them to Kareem's prime years. As mentioned before, Kareem is the only prime player to miss the playoffs back to back years.

3) The fact that you're not considering strength of conference. The Eastern Conference in the mid-80s was stronger than the conferences Kareem was up against during the mid-70s.


Reduced production is misleading (exactly what you claim to decry). Everybody's production plummeted. Why? MJ came in and consumed 28 FGA and 12 FTA. His usage rate was 38% in the season and 39% in the playoffs.

This is where you continue to be deceptive. You're on a roll bro. I clearly mentioned 4 players, 3 of which were no longer with the team, and you decide to focus on Corzine. And Corzine didn't see his numbers go down because of Jordan. His numbers went down simply because he wasn't as good, not because "Jordan took away field goal attempts from everyone else!"

Corzine 1985-86: 7.7 fg attempts/ .491 fg%/ .743 fth%/ 9.6 pts/ 14.6 PER/ .540% TS%/ 0.6 BPM
Corzine 1986-87: 7.5 fg attempts/ .475 fg%/ .736 fth%/ 8.3 pts/ 12.4 PER/ .505% TS%/ -0.4 BPM


This is where Pippen and Grant come in. They were taking minutes that would have went to lesser players on the 87' team.

Bs....the Bulls averaged about the same ppg in 1986-87 as they did in 1987-88. Stop overrating Grant and Pippen. They weren't out there putting up 15/10 or 20/7 like they were in the 90s. Nor was their contribution significant enough to even be considered a stepping stone to 50 wins.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Name, with the quote and/or link, a falsehood I posted. Thanks in advance. :cheers:

I'll save you the suspense. Peep the entire thread. :lol

[RRR3]

Kuniva, look what 3ball posted bruh.

Come on I can’t be the only one dying over this :roll:


LeBron and Kobe in 2011 :roll:

[Axe]

Kuniva, look what 3ball posted bruh.

Come on I can’t be the only one dying over this :roll:


LeBron and Kobe in 2011 :roll:
That's surely way beyond stupidity, to say something like that.

[Roundball_Rock]

YOU made the claim the 90s were 'weak'. Those links I provided proved...you were wrong.

Correct for once--I did say the 90's were weak. How do those links "prove" otherwise? Why can't you string a sentence or two explaining why? Because you know the data proves no such thing...


WHY do you praise Kareem and those 70s teams for being rated fairly. Yet in the same breath, downplay 90s teams who do as well.

False--this was explained with the receipts. I didn't "praise Kareem" and those 70's teams as great. That would be weird. The 70's teams were low on SRS, as were 80's teams.

We have been over the expansion and dilution impact on inflating SRS. No need to state it for the fourth or fifth time.


Expansion must have been rampant in the 70s!!!

It was in that era. The NBA went from 10 teams to 17 from 1967 to 1970. Guess which part of the 70's the high SRS teams are from?


the Jazz and Pacers had a rated ~6 SRS...were they no competition for the Bulls?


Harping on the one season the Bulls' SRS was artificially deflated due to their offense sucking without Pippen. Come on.


How does that work when the 90s were allegedly...weak? Wouldn't that mean Jordan and Pippen were...weak players?

To a MJ stan, I suppose, since MJ stans correlate team results and team contexts with greatness. To me, as I always say, players are great...because players are great. MJ with 2 rings is the same to me as MJ with 6 or MJ with 10. Same with Pippen or anyone else. You guys are the ones hanging your hats on team success all the time.


So what happened in '93? When Pippen was healthy? And played the ENTIRE season? Were there NOT multiple teams with a higher SRS than Chicago?

Surely you jest. So of 6 years you pick their one lowest year and that somehow negates their absolute dominance over the run? It also does not explain their all-NBA, HOF advantages.

Pippen was not healthy in 93'. He was playing hurt. Anyway, teams have dips in performance. The history of teams seeking a threepeat consistently shows it. The wear and tear takes a toll--which is why MJ taking 2 years off was huge.


a page back you BRAGGED about Kareem and some of those teams THEN...cracking the top 10.

No I did not. I merely listed the top 10. The quote is posted above in my prior post--anyone can read it.

[RRR3]

That's surely way beyond stupidity, to say something like that.
I mean I knew 3ball doesn’t watch basketball but I thought he at least paid attention. The man has gone completely insane.

[HoopsNY]

kareem averged 20 boards and nearly 4 blocks a game.jordan co:lebronamazed:uldnt rebound or block shots
kareem would win in 89 90 and 95,hes a winner,jordan sucks he cant rebound or block shots

How many shooting guards have averaged more rebounds per game than Mj? How many guards have averaged more blocks per game than Mj? Jordan is one of the best rebounding guards and shot blocking guards ever.

[Roundball_Rock]

I'll save you the suspense. Peep the entire thread.

In other words, there is none. :oldlol: Can you find one example?

FYI, saying the 90's were weak or MJ doesn't walk on water is not "false." That is called an "opinion", which tend to be common on message boards.

A falsehood is fabricating a quote or fact. :lol

[knicksman]

Kuniva, look what 3ball posted bruh.

Come on I can’t be the only one dying over this :roll:


LeBron and Kobe in 2011 :roll:

You have pretty low standards. thats why

[3ball]

:roll:

When did this happen?

Stop doing meth.

Wade was actually better than Kobe at that time

So by saying Wade is Kobe, it shows how stacked lebron's heat were

Lebron teamed up with a Kobe-equivalent in 2011 and a top 3 PF....... and went 2/4 including the goat choke and record loss... And perennial underdog status!!..... Goat doh! Lol

[HoopsNY]

Let's not forget we earlier were told that MJ faced more HOF players. That claim was exposed as false.

Not really. That post speaks about 1971-1982. The contention people have is with Kareem:

1) Not winning a chip without another GOAT level player
2) Missing the playoffs 2 consecutive years in the midst of his prime

[Axe]

I mean I knew 3ball doesn’t watch basketball but I thought he at least paid attention. The man has gone completely insane.
Naturally but then again, i thought majority of people in these boards have been used to not taking him seriously anymore... apart from some people who act like him, of course.

[3ball]

Naturally but then again, i thought majority of people in these boards have been used to not taking him seriously anymore... apart from some people who act like him, of course.

Wade was actually better than Kobe at that time

So it shows how stacked lebron's heat were to say Wade is Kobe

Lebron teamed up with a Kobe-equivalent in 2011 and a top 3 PF....... but then went 2/4 including the goat choke and record loss... And perennial underdog status!!..... Goat doh! Lol

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Kuniva, look what 3ball posted bruh.

Come on I can’t be the only one dying over this :roll:


LeBron and Kobe in 2011 :roll:

Not gonna pretend i know what's going on with 3ball :lol Always posts like he got faded as fukk before logging in.

[RRR3]

Look at this fool scrambling after he forgot who LeBron played with :roll:

[Axe]

Wade was actually better than Kobe at that time

So by saying Wade is Kobe, it shows how stacked lebron's heat were

Lebron teamed up with a Kobe-equivalent in 2011 and a top 3 PF....... and went 2/4 including the goat choke and record loss... And perennial underdog status!!..... Goat doh! Lol
What the hell are you talking about now? You literally just said earlier that lebron joined kobe way back in 2011. 😂

[RRR3]

Not gonna pretend i know what's going on with 3ball :lol Always posts like he got faded as fukk before logging in.
Dude’s ridiculous. You’d think his constant band would teach him something.

[3ball]

Look at this fool scrambling after he forgot who LeBron played with :roll:

No, I said that on purpose, but you're so shook that you took me seriously - that's the sign of being rattled (interpreting sarcasm seriously - the media does it with Trump)

it shows how stacked lebron's heat were to say Wade is Kobe - that's why I said it

Lebron teamed up with a Kobe-equivalent in 2011 and a top 3 PF....... but then went 2/4 including the goat choke and record loss... Nowhere near goat - that's not even top 30 tbh

[Roundball_Rock]

Anyone with any sense of fairness understands that for 15 of the 17 games that Mj played, Chicago had him on serious minutes restrictions

Do I need to spoon feed that? We all saw the doc, didn't we?


I'm speaking about his prime years. And I'm speaking about his prime years in relation to two things

Well? We are talking his prime years because we are told we can't use his years with Oscar. So that erases 1971-1974. We can't use his years with Magic. That erases 1980-1989. That leaves only 1970 and 1975-1979. This construction happens to focus on some of his prime years. Surely you understand why...those happen to be the years his teams were the weakest.

So we are to judge KAJ when his teams are the weakest; MJ when they are strongest. I didn't make the rules. I went with it because KAJ's record even in those years is strong, certainly better than MJ's when he had bad teams.


Anyone with any sense of fairness understands that for 15 of the 17 games that Mj played, Chicago had him on serious minutes restrictions. Just in the first 7 games alone, the Bulls were 1-6. So your analysis isn't false, but it's grossly misleading.


As mentioned before, Kareem is the only prime player to miss the playoffs back to back years.

So this isn't "grossly misleading"?


3) The fact that you're not considering strength of conference. The Eastern Conference in the mid-80s was stronger than the conferences Kareem was up against during the mid-70s.

I would have to do a deeper dive but that likely is the case at the top. Probably not at the bottom or the middle. For example, a 30 win team made the playoffs. Your theory has more relevance to playoff performance than season performance since you play Boston or Detroit only so many times--and it is the same for the rest of the teams in your conference.


This is where you continue to be deceptive. You're on a roll bro. I clearly mentioned 4 players, 3 of which were no longer with the team, and you decide to focus on Corzine.

This is where I continue to have superior knowledge. I know the numbers. The team had 6 double digit scorers in 86' and two more guys at 9.6. That is 8. What happened when MJ returned?


the Bulls averaged about the same ppg in 1986-87 as they did in 1987-88.

Guilty of what you decried. So you looked up the offense but not the defense? That is odd and unlikely...they went from #11 to #3 in defense. Is that why that went unmentioned? ; )

[3ball]

2010 Wade > Kobe

Wade was #2 in BPM, PER, WS/48, and VORP... aka the #2 producer in the league, aka the best help possible

So Lebron teamed up with a player better than Kobe... And mostly lost and was embarrassed... :yaohappy:

[RRR3]

No, I said that on purpose, but you're so shook that you took me seriously - that's the sign of being rattled (interpreting sarcasm seriously - the media does it with Trump)

it shows how stacked lebron's heat were to say Wade is Kobe - that's why I said it

Lebron teamed up with a Kobe-equivalent in 2011 and a top 3 PF....... but then went 2/4 including the goat choke and record loss... Nowhere near goat - that's not even top 30 tbh
You didn’t say a “Kobe equivalent” you literally said he teamed up with Kobe. That’s not sarcasm, do you have any idea what sarcasm is? :wtf:

[3ball]

You didn’t say a “Kobe equivalent” you literally said he teamed up with Kobe. That’s not sarcasm, do you have any idea what sarcasm is? :wtf:

It's not sarcasm but it's word play that rattled you

It bothers the SHIT out of you that lebron teamed up with Kobe (Wade) but mostly got destroyed.. hence your lamestream reaction

[Roundball_Rock]

Not really.


That post speaks about 1971-1982.

That's already enough there. :oldlol: MJ has Drexler, Miller, Dumars. Maybe 1-2 others if I looked year by year. Clearly not anywhere close to the KAJ list. Do you disagree? Keep in mind the guy who originally claimed MJ faced more HOF has dodged that point ever since the facts showed up.


The contention people have is with Kareem:

1) Not winning a chip without another GOAT level player
2) Missing the playoffs 2 consecutive years in the midst of his prime

I know. It is hilarious that is all people have. Oscar 19/6/8. GOAT level performance...KAJ's best shot in the late 70's, his #2 and #3 go down. That makes him a worse player, as if MJ could overcome that ("migraine" anyone?).

The missing the playoffs part is deceptive. It is funny KAJ raised his team's level substantially--including 14 win pace to 44 win pace--and this is used as a prime exhibit against him (because the fantasy is MJ would lift the team by 40 win pace, 50, like he did...never :lol).


...

Running away from your claim? You wouldn't know a fact if it hit you in the face so how could you assess a falsehood in the first place?

[Axe]

No, I said that on purpose, but you're so shook that you took me seriously - that's the sign of being rattled (interpreting sarcasm seriously - the media does it with Trump)

it shows how stacked lebron's heat were to say Wade is Kobe - that's why I said it

Lebron teamed up with a Kobe-equivalent in 2011 and a top 3 PF....... but then went 2/4 including the goat choke and record loss... Nowhere near goat - that's not even top 30 tbh
Well, it seems nobody cares anymore about what you're saying at this point.