Who are the top 10 by superstars they stopped from winning a ring?

[Stephonit]

One of the things that makes Jordan's years so dominant is the list of superstar victims he had who weren't able to win a ring on his watch. Barkley, Ewing, Malone, Stockton, etc.

Who has the most impressive list of victims that they blocked from winning a ring?

We're looking for absolute dominance. Blocking someone once but not doing so another time doesn't count.

[guy]

Would Payton count for Jordan? He won in 06, way after Jordan retired. I think it should. You can add Kemp as well even though his elite seasons were shortlived. There’s also Reggie Miller. I don’t know if you would count Nique, but he did lose to Jordan as a 7th seed in 93. If you did count him, for Jordan it would be Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Ewing, Payton, Kemp, Miller, Nique.

If we’re going by the strict definition of they never lost to this player AND that player never won a ring while they were in the league, no else comes that close to Jordan. This means even if one or both of those things happened past their primes, it still counts i.e. Shaq and Robinson still beat Hakeem and/or won a title technically on Hakeem’s “watch” even though he was way past his prime.

Shaq and Kobe would both have Miller, AI, and Webber on their list, but they couldn’t have Kidd, KG, or Dirk on there.

Lebron has a decent list: Rose, Melo, Westbrook, Harden, PG, Butler, Derozan, IT

I literally can’t think of anyone for Duncan. Bird and Magic won a lot, but guys like Jordan, Isiah, Moses, Dr. J, etc. still won on their “watch”.

[NBAGOAT]

Would Payton count for Jordan? He won in 06, way after Jordan retired. I think it should. You can add Kemp as well even though his elite seasons were shortlived. There’s also Reggie Miller. I don’t know if you would count Nique, but he did lose to Jordan as a 7th seed in 93. If you did count him, for Jordan it would be Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Ewing, Payton, Kemp, Miller, Nique.

If we’re going by the strict definition of they never lost to this player AND that player never won a ring while they were in the league, no else comes that close to Jordan. This means even if one or both of those things happened past their primes, it still counts i.e. Shaq and Robinson still beat Hakeem and/or won a title technically on Hakeem’s “watch” even though he was way past his prime.

Shaq and Kobe would both have Miller, AI, and Webber on their list, but they couldn’t have Kidd, KG, or Dirk on there.

Lebron has a decent list: Rose, Melo, Westbrook, Harden, PG, Butler, Derozan, IT

I literally can’t think of anyone for Duncan. Bird and Magic won a lot, but guys like Jordan, Isiah, Moses, Dr. J, etc. still won on their “watch”.

duncan has a few though he may not deserve full credit for all of them. nash and cp3 are big names.

[Vino24]

LeBron beat Duncan which is a 5time champ and top 10 GOAT. He also beat the only unanimous mvp in curry who will likely be top 10 GOAT. He beat 3 MVPS Durant, Harden, and Westbrook who were all on the same team

[guy]

duncan has a few though he may not deserve full credit for all of them. nash and cp3 are big names.

Those guys have beat Duncan in a series though so I don't think they would count.

[guy]

LeBron beat Duncan which is a 5time champ and top 10 GOAT. He also beat the only unanimous mvp in curry who will likely be top 10 GOAT. He beat 3 MVPS Durant, Harden, and Westbrook who were all on the same team

Curry, Durant and Duncan have literally beaten Lebron for championships

[Roundball_Rock]

Russell would win if we take this exercise seriously but it has three flaws: 1) it is a team sport (swap teams and who wins...?) 2) it ignores losses to other teams 3) it ignores underperformance resulting in losses that had zero to do with that player in question.

The best example of #2 is somehow Jordan is the reason Ewing is ringless when Ewing melted down in the finals with Jordan retired. The best example of #3 is Malone declined from 60% TS in the 97' RS to 49% in the finals. That had zero to do with MJ and if Malone came close to maintaining his level, the Jazz would have won the series.

Jordan is a great case because we literally saw what happened when he disappeared from the equation not once but twice. It wasn't the Jazz, Knicks, or Pacers winning--it was Houston, San Antonio, and the Lakers.


There’s also Reggie Miller.

Another good example: the guy gets outplayed by the other team's fourth best player in the series as well as in Game 7 and it gets chalked up to "Jordan", not Miller underperforming. The very next year Miller gets outplayed by Sprewell, Houston, Camby and Larry Johnson in the ECF. Jordan is retired. The year after, MJ still retired, Miller loses in the finals. Going back in time, MJ retired again, Miller loses in the ECF in 94'. Noticing a pattern here? :oldlol:

These guys have to be held accountable. These results weren't foreordained--unless you are saying these are tomato cans that had no shot. If people showed up, they had the team around them to win.

[NBAGOAT]

Those guys have beat Duncan in a series though so I don't think they would count.

ah damn you cant have lost in any series then. That along with having to beat a guy multiple times makes this really hard for anyone outside jordan.

[ImKobe]

Russell would win if we take this exercise seriously but it has three flaws: 1) it is a team sport (swap teams and who wins...?) 2) it ignores losses to other teams 3) it ignores underperformance resulting in losses that had zero to do with that player in question.

The best example of #2 is somehow Jordan is the reason Ewing is ringless when Ewing melted down in the finals with Jordan retired. The best example of #3 is Malone declined from 60% TS in the 97' RS to 49% in the finals. That had zero to do with MJ and if Malone came close to maintaining his level, the Jazz would have won the series.

Jordan is a great case because we literally saw what happened when he disappeared from the equation not once but twice. It wasn't the Jazz, Knicks, or Pacers winning--it was Houston, San Antonio, and the Lakers.



Another good example: the guy gets outplayed by the other team's fourth best player in the series as well as in Game 7 and it gets chalked up to "Jordan", not Miller underperforming. The very next year Miller gets outplayed by Sprewell, Houston, Camby and Larry Johnson in the ECF. Jordan is retired. The year after, MJ still retired, Miller loses in the finals. Going back in time, MJ retired again, Miller loses in the ECF in 94'. Noticing a pattern here? :oldlol:

These guys have to be held accountable. These results weren't foreordained--unless you are saying these are tomato cans that had no shot. If people showed up, they had the team around them to win.

Jordan literally took the ball out of Malone's hands and hit the shot to win the series :kobe: . MJ gets no credit for outperforming the opposing superstars? How you think the Bulls won those series?

[Phoenix]

LeBron beat Duncan which is a 5time champ and top 10 GOAT. He also beat the only unanimous mvp in curry who will likely be top 10 GOAT. He beat 3 MVPS Durant, Harden, and Westbrook who were all on the same team

:facepalm

[Vino24]

This thread should be about who beat the most soup cans

[Roundball_Rock]

...

Jordan didn't defend Malone and cause him to go from 60% to 49%--that was Rodman, Longley, and Dele. That matters when the winning margin is 0.6 for the series and the Bulls wins came by 2, 12, 2, and 4...

Jordan gets credit for being the best player in the series but that doesn't negate the reality if Malone didn't underperform badly in 97' (or Stockton in 98') the Jazz win. Or of Miller outplays Kukoc the Pacers win in 98'. They had the teams to win but couldn't get it done. Not surprisingly, those were career long trends.

The MJ stan argument is in conflict when it comes to this stuff: on the one hand MJ singlehandedly slayed all these giants, on the other hand all these giants were tomato cans who had zero chance to win no matter what they did. :oldlol:

[guy]

Russell would have West, Baylor, and Oscar on the list Wilt and Pettit won on his watch. I’m sure there are more, but I and most people aren’t as aware of a lot of other big names from that era.

Its obviously a flawed exercise. Its interesting to point out though. I think the overall point is player X has a significantly better chance of winning a title if player Y doesn’t exist for that series (vs a definite chance since both Barkley and Ewing can’t win in 93 for example).



Jordan is a great case because we literally saw what happened when he disappeared from the equation not once but twice. It wasn't the Jazz, Knicks, or Pacers winning--it was Houston, San Antonio, and the Lakers.

Your point here is completely flawed. For the years in question, no one actually thinks Houston, San Antonio or the Lakers had a better chance then the Jazz, Knicks or Pacers. 91-93 and 96-98 are not 94-95. Shit, the Jazz literally beat the Rockets, Spurs and Lakers in 98 :oldlol:.


These guys have to be held accountable. These results weren't foreordained--unless you are saying these are tomato cans that had no shot. If people showed up, they had the team around them to win.

These are HOF, multi-millionaires. But for many of them, one of the first things that come to mind when you mention them, if not for the first thing, is that they didn’t win a ring. They aren’t held accountable? :oldlol:

[Vino24]

I think beating Wilt like 8 times is better than any of MJ’s undefeated records against soup cans

[Roundball_Rock]

Russell would have West, Baylor, and Oscar on the list Wilt and Pettit won on his watch

West, Oscar won after Russell retired. Petit won because Russell got hurt in the finals.

Malone, Stockton, Ewing, Miller, et al. had two bites at the "MJ retired" apple and failed both times. There is an obvious difference here...


I think the overall point is player X has a significantly better chance of winning a title if player Y doesn’t exist for that series (vs a definite chance since both Barkley and Ewing can’t win in 93 for example).

Obviously but you can do that in any year if you remove the best player, especially if he is on a contender.

Barkley and Ewing are amusing--per this narrative both would somehow have rings if MJ didn't exist. Co-rings? :oldlol:


Your point here is completely flawed

You missed the point, which is those players/teams didn't win chips because they had flaws that caused them to come up short, Jordan or no Jordan, as their entire careers show.

You listed a bunch of players in your first post. Kemp, Payton, Miller, Wilkins all lost to "Jordan" once. What happened in the rest of their careers? You listed Barkley as well, who is a unique case. He lost to "Jordan" multiple times--but only once with a contender and unlike all these other guys, he didn't have the team around him to win. He did his part, they lost anyway. He wasn't outplayed by BJ Armstrong or something while losing.


But for many of them, one of the first things that come to mind when you mention them, if not for the first thing, is that they didn’t win a ring

Followed by the "Jordan" free pass. A free pass ringless players from other eras don't get.

Try holding them accountable--people who stand idly by when others get criticized rush to their defenses. The poor saps never stood a chance (in those threads--here they were giants slayed by MJ--the agendas always shift :lol ) therefore it is unfair to hold them accountable for their roles in those losses.


I think beating Wilt like 8 times is better than any of MJ’s undefeated records against soup cans

The agenda always shifts--sometimes they are soup cans, sometimes super tough comp that only the GOAT could have stopped.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Kawhi has led his team in GmSc for each series while eliminating 9 MVPS all in their primes

- LeBron 2014 finals (4 time MVP)
- Harden 2017 2nd round (1 time MVP)
- Giannis 2019 ECF (2 time MVP)
- Curry 2019 finals (2 time MVP)

[guy]

West, Oscar won after Russell retired. Petit won because Russell got hurt in the finals.

Are you arguing that West and Oscar should be on Russell’s list or not? I counted West and Oscar cause they won outside of Russell’s “watch” as the OP put it. If you don’t count them as part of the list, that’s most of Russell’s argument.

Russell still played most of the series vs Pettit.



Malone, Stockton, Ewing, Miller, et al. had two bites at the "MJ retired" apple and failed both times. There is an obvious difference here...

That Hakeem decided to peak in those years then come down to earth before and after?



Barkley and Ewing are amusing--per this narrative both would somehow have rings if MJ didn't exist. Co-rings? :oldlol:

Did I not address this?



You missed the point, which is those players/teams didn't win chips because they had flaws that caused them to come up short, Jordan or no Jordan, as their entire careers show.
You listed a bunch of players in your first post. Kemp, Payton, Miller, Wilkins all lost to "Jordan" once. What happened in the rest of their careers? You listed Barkley as well, who is a unique case. He lost to "Jordan" multiple times--but only once with a contender and unlike all these other guys, he didn't have the team around him to win. He did his part, they lost anyway. He wasn't outplayed by BJ Armstrong or something while losing


Every team’s flaws are relative to the eventual champion.

Jesus man, if Jordan doesn’t exist those years, who’s the champion? Its not like the championships are just vacated and cease to exist those years. Barring some crazy butterfly effect, the top 2 likely champs in no order in 93, 96, 97, and 98 are the Suns/Knicks, Sonics/Magic, Jazz/Heat, Jazz/Pacers. Its not that complicated. So in that sense, yes Jordan likely prevented them from winning a championship (that doesn't mean that was the only thing preventing them from winning during their entire career). I already addressed examples like Dominique, but the bottom line is in most cases those were those players’ best chances at a championship.



Followed by the "Jordan" free pass. A free pass ringless players from other eras don't get.


Really? The majority of people automatically rank certain players over other players due to “rings”. And they get penalized for that.

There’s also not a lot of ringless players in other eras, and in many of those cases they didn’t get to the level of team success Barkley and Malone did. Guys like Nash, Melo, Westbrook, Harden, CP3 never made a finals. None of those guys even faced Lebron in a series where they were the best player and/or there team was a serious contender. And AI rarely won a playoff series outside of 01 - and some people treat that run like AI actually still won a title.

I know it doesn’t the help this 6 month anti-Jordan crusade you’ve been on, but stop overexaggerating shit. :oldlol:

[Roundball_Rock]

Are you arguing that West and Oscar should be on Russell’s list or not? I counted West and Oscar cause they won outside of Russell’s “watch” as the OP put it. If you don’t count them as part of the list, that’s most of Russell’s argument.

It's a ridiculous exercise. My point was those guys got it done when the "obstacle" was removed; the 90's guys didn't when MJ was gone.


if Jordan doesn’t exist those years, who’s the champion? Its not like the championships are just vacated and cease to exist those years.

A useless exercise unless you apply that logic to every era. The implication is that it is unique to the Jordan.


Really?

By your own admission you don't follow this stuff closely. The narrative often is they lost but hey, it was going to happen anyway because of "Jordan" was unbeatable so it can't really be held against them.


Guys like Nash, Melo, Westbrook, Harden, CP3 never made a finals.

Harden, Nash kept losing to dynasties--no free passes issued, exactly the type of stuff I am talking about.


anti-Jordan

Saying MJ had legitimate competition (in given series) who had legitimate chances of winning if they played better but failed to do so due to career long flaws is somehow "anti-Jordan." :oldlol: I suppose it is "pro-Jordan" to say they were tomato cans who had no shot no matter what they did then? That somehow makes Jordan look better? :confusedshrug: If MJ stans can't keep their own narratives straight, no need for the rest of us to worry about it.

[guy]

It's a ridiculous exercise. My point was those guys got it done when the "obstacle" was removed; the 90's guys didn't when MJ was gone.
Actually someone from the 90s did get it done when Jordan retired and he became the “obstacle”. Those championships exist. The league moved on and someone took the mantle. That’s what happens :oldlol:. And that guy is deservingly considered better then those other guys and isn’t part of any “list”.



A useless exercise unless you apply that logic to every era. The implication is that it is unique to the Jordan.


If its useless, the f*ck are you wasting your time for then? :oldlol:

Its not unique to Jordan. Which is why the OP literally asked for examples of other players. And I gave a few other examples. :oldlol:

The OP wasn’t implying that this made Jordan better then anybody. The people that come into a thread just to say “this thread is stupid” are the worst :oldlol:. There’s plenty of other topics you can spend your energy on.



By your own admission you don't follow this stuff closely. The narrative often is they lost but hey, it was going to happen anyway because of "Jordan" was unbeatable so it can't really be held against them.


I follow enough to notice that the “he never won” argument has been prevalent for years and it became a much bigger deal for guys from the 90s cause that’s when a lot of guys didn’t win. Most great players mentioned regularly have won at least 1 ring – for example, the original top 50 players list from 1997 only had 9 guys that never won rings and 4 of them were Barkley, Ewing, Malone and Stockton. Clearly they get penalized for it.



Harden, Nash kept losing to dynasties--no free passes issued, exactly the type of stuff I am talking about.


And they never got to the Finals as a no. 1 option or even a 2nd option. Which was my point. If Harden gets to the Finals he will be considered a lot greater even if he loses. And after that, even if he doesn’t even win a ring depending on how the rest of his career goes, he will likely be considered on the level of Barkley/Malone or greater.




Saying MJ had legitimate competition (in given series) who had legitimate chances of winning if they played better but failed to do so due to career long flaws is somehow "anti-Jordan." :oldlol: I suppose it is "pro-Jordan" to say they were tomato cans who had no shot no matter what they did then? That somehow makes Jordan look better? :confusedshrug: If MJ stans can't keep their own narratives straight, no need for the rest of us to worry about it.

That’s not all you’re saying. You’re making overexaggerations that certain guys get passes when they don’t.

You’re making a mountain of a molehill cause you’ve been on a pathetic anti-Jordan crusade ever since the Last Dance came out. Its cool. :oldlol:

[Roundball_Rock]

Actually someone from the 90s did get it done when Jordan retired and he became the “obstacle”. Those championships exist. The league moved on and someone took the mantle.

Yup--and it wasn't Malone, Miller, Ewing, Payton. :oldlol:



Its not unique to Jordan. Which is why the OP literally asked for examples of other players.

:coleman:


I follow enough to notice that the “he never won” argument has been prevalent for years and it became a much bigger deal for guys from the 90s cause that’s when a lot of guys didn’t win

It seems it has swung the other direction--but only for the 90's guys.


And they never got to the Finals as a no. 1 option or even a 2nd option

They would have if Curry or Duncan kept retiring. Come on. Ewing, Miller never made it when MJ was in the league and Barkley did it when he went to the other conference. Payton was in the other conference.

Nash, Harden happened to be in the same conference as the best team. Hard to make the finals with the best team in your own conference. The amusing thing is if they played for the Baltimore Rockets or Tampa Suns they would somehow be considered to be better since those losses would have come in the finals.


anti-Jordan

It is anti-Jordan to say he had legitimate comp? I know you don't follow this stuff per your own admission, but the anti-MJ line is he faced plumbers, weak teams, etc. not flawed greats whose teams were competitive. :lol

[guy]

Yup--and it wasn't Malone, Miller, Ewing, Payton. :oldlol:

I’m not sure what you are arguing here. Part of winning and losing is a function of competition. Hakeem happened to peak in the years Jordan was gone so as a result, also contributed to those guys not winning. Which is a big reason why he is regularly ranked ahead of those players and rightly so.

That doesn’t change the fact that in the years I mentioned, those are likely the players that win if Jordan isn’t around. They don’t just battle each other out to a draw :oldlol: . There would still be a champion. David Stern isn’t saying “Hey Utah, I know you guys just beat the Pacers 4-2, but despite that, YOU GUYS STILL SUCK so no one wins this year”:oldlol: .



:coleman:


If you’re going to respond to my posts, are you actually following them or you just purposefully being a ****ing idiot?


It seems it has swung the other direction--but only for the 90's guys.


Sure :hammerhead:



They would have if Curry or Duncan kept retiring. Come on. Ewing, Miller never made it when MJ was in the league and Barkley did it when he went to the other conference. Payton was in the other conference.

Well this year, the Warriors are clearly out of his way, but it looks like the Lakers and Clippers seem to be favorites over them and will likely take the Warriors place as the team of the West. That somehow means the Rockets wouldn’t have likely been that if the Warriors didn’t exist the last few years? Cause that’s basically what you seem to be saying about the 90s .



Nash, Harden happened to be in the same conference as the best team. Hard to make the finals with the best team in your own conference. The amusing thing is if they played for the Baltimore Rockets or Tampa Suns they would somehow be considered to be better since those losses would have come in the finals.

There’s a simple-minded argument that made everything about rings and then eventually Finals appearances. That wasn’t a pro-Jordan agenda.



It is anti-Jordan to say he had legitimate comp? I know you don't follow this stuff per your own admission, but the anti-MJ line is he faced plumbers, weak teams, etc. not flawed greats whose teams were competitive. :lol

That’s not what I was addressing. Like I said, You’re making overexaggerations that certain guys get passes when they don’t.

You’re making a mountain of a molehill cause you’ve been on a pathetic anti-Jordan crusade ever since the Last Dance came out. Its cool :oldlol:.

[SamuraiSWISH]

LeBron beat Duncan which is a 5time champ and top 10 GOAT. He also beat the only unanimous mvp in curry who will likely be top 10 GOAT. He beat 3 MVPS Durant, Harden, and Westbrook who were all on the same team
KD daddy D'ed Le 3 for 9 two seasons in a row, outplaying him. Had LeCommunist scared to even defend him mano y mano.

[Roundball_Rock]

That doesn’t change the fact that in the years I mentioned, those are likely the players that win if Jordan isn’t around.

Probably but 1) people lump them all in as if Ewing and Barkley somehow would both win in 93' 2) other teams exist 3) the Bulls themselves still exist. If Jordan retires a year earlier, that doesn't mean the Knicks win the East by acclimation. That means they likely play the 54 win Cavs. We also know the Knicks struggled to beat the Bulls even without Jordan. In a Jordan-less world the Bulls exist somewhere in each bracket. For these reasons, it isn't foreordained the EC runner up would automatically make the finals every single year if MJ doesn't exist.


it looks like the Lakers and Clippers seem to be favorites over them and will likely take the Warriors place as the team of the West. That somehow means the Rockets wouldn’t have likely been that if the Warriors didn’t exist the last few years?

They are a 6 seed these days, not the same team as before. The Knicks, Pacers, Jazz basically came back at the same level in 94', 95', 99', (00' too for the Pacers). What happened? Jordan bounced right in the middle of their contention window the first time.


You’re making overexaggerations that certain guys get passes when they don’t.

You seem to only appear in Jordan related threads but there are threads up on Harden and Westbrook. No one is saying "but for the Warriors" they would have rings in either.

[insidious301]

For superstars and sheer volume, it has to be Russell staving off Wilt. Can anyone explain why we're giving Jordan sole credit for preventing Ewing from a ring? The year Ewing actually made the finals it was against Hakeem. It was also Hakeem who outplayed Ewing in that series. Hakeem also staved off Barkley who Jordan is solely getting credit for.

[Overdrive]

Would Payton count for Jordan? He won in 06, way after Jordan retired. I think it should. You can add Kemp as well even though his elite seasons were shortlived. There’s also Reggie Miller. I don’t know if you would count Nique, but he did lose to Jordan as a 7th seed in 93. If you did count him, for Jordan it would be Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Ewing, Payton, Kemp, Miller, Nique.

If we’re going by the strict definition of they never lost to this player AND that player never won a ring while they were in the league, no else comes that close to Jordan. This means even if one or both of those things happened past their primes, it still counts i.e. Shaq and Robinson still beat Hakeem and/or won a title technically on Hakeem’s “watch” even though he was way past his prime.

Shaq and Kobe would both have Miller, AI, and Webber on their list, but they couldn’t have Kidd, KG, or Dirk on there.

Lebron has a decent list: Rose, Melo, Westbrook, Harden, PG, Butler, Derozan, IT

I literally can’t think of anyone for Duncan. Bird and Magic won a lot, but guys like Jordan, Isiah, Moses, Dr. J, etc. still won on their “watch”.

Let's take aside that the sole intention of this thread is to diminish Lebron, who lost against anyone he also beat, you can't just namedrop guys that never won, but had a chance against other teams, guys who actually got ring or teams that lost in prior rounds.

First point. How did Jordan block Miller from getting a ring when his sole finals appearance was vs Shaq's Lakers? Same for Ewing.

Payton. How did he block him when he actually won?

How did he block Nique when he was a 7th seed and never reached a CF Jordan or not.

He(his team actually) only blocked guys, who only had their direct chances against the Bulls. Barkley, Kemp, Stockton & Malone.

[NBAGOAT]

You seem to only appear in Jordan related threads but there are threads up on Harden and Westbrook. No one is saying "but for the Warriors" they would have rings in either.

westbrook is up in the air because thunder-cavs in 2016 is uncertain. people say all the time if cp3 didnt get injured harden would win a ring so they do. problem with harden is even with a ring he still sees playoff declines so he still gets criitcism.

[Roundball_Rock]

Good points insidious and Overdrive. Plus, the Bulls preventing teams winning is separate from their underperformance. Jordan didn't guard Malone or Stockton so not sure how their underperformance somehow is attributable to Jordan. Hornacek? Sure but not those guys.

Jordan could have done exactly what he did and still lost if Malone and/or Stockton played better.


westbrook is up in the air because thunder-cavs in 2016 is uncertain.

You can say the same about Knicks-Suns or Jazz-Heat etc.

[NBAGOAT]

Good points insidious and Overdrive. Plus, the Bulls preventing teams winning is separate from their underperformance. Jordan didn't guard Malone or Stockton so not sure how their underperformance somehow is attributable to Jordan. Hornacek? Sure but not those guys.

Jordan could have done exactly what he did and still lost if Malone and/or Stockton played better.



You can say the same about Knicks-Suns or Jazz-Heat etc.

well you just do an either or situation. I think it's fine assume 1 of ewing/barkley and malone/mourning win. It is inaccurate to just list names like all of them would've won but some of them would've

[insidious301]

Good points insidious and Overdrive. Plus, the Bulls preventing teams winning is separate from their underperformance. Jordan didn't guard Malone or Stockton so not sure how their underperformance somehow is attributable to Jordan. Hornacek? Sure but not those guys.

Jordan could have done exactly what he did and still lost if Malone and/or Stockton played better.



You can say the same about Knicks-Suns or Jazz-Heat etc.

That is exactly what I'm getting at, Roundball. If we are going to credit players for preventing others in earlier rounds, do that for them all. Not only Jordan. Hakeem prevented Barkely from a ring when Phoenix was maybe at their best, in 1994 and 1995. And if we are only singling out the finals then Hakeem staved off Ewing especially. They went head to head for a championship!

[Overdrive]

Good points insidious and Overdrive. Plus, the Bulls preventing teams winning is separate from their underperformance. Jordan didn't guard Malone or Stockton so not sure how their underperformance somehow is attributable to Jordan. Hornacek? Sure but not those guys.

Jordan could have done exactly what he did and still lost if Malone and/or Stockton played better.



You can say the same about Knicks-Suns or Jazz-Heat etc.

Got to disagree here. The opposing star player playing great puts a lot of pressure to produce on your star. Direct matchup or not.

[Roundball_Rock]

well you just do an either or situation. I think it's fine assume 1 of ewing/barkley and malone/mourning win.

The problem is in this alternate universe we don't know for sure if they come out the East since if the Bulls vanish there are other good teams they would have to beat (like the 93' Cavs). Also, the Bulls won 69 games with MJ and crushed the Heat. Are we assuming if MJ doesn't exist they go from 69 wins and crushing the Heat to 45 wins and being a non-factor? Highly unlikely given what we saw when the "Jordan retires" scenario happened.

What is more pertinent is we know Ewing was in the finals the next year, had a 55 win team in 95', had a 57 win team in 97'. Jordan doesn't hold as an excuse for any of those years. Indiana--Jordan retires and Miller underperforms again in the ECF getting outplayed by several Knicks. Then loses the finals in 00'. Their record is what it is: they had legit shots with MJ nowhere to be seen and didn't get it done. Why all these hoops to give them fictional chips?

This doesn't even get to winnable series in 93' for the Knicks and Pacers in 98'. If Miller averages 21/3/3 instead of 17/2/2 the Pacers win, Jordan or no Jordan. Is outplaying the opposing team's fourth best player in the ECF too much to ask for a "superstar" (how Miller was described earlier in this thread)?


Not only Jordan. Hakeem prevented Barkely from a ring when Phoenix was maybe at their best, in 1994 and 1995. And if we are only singling out the finals then Hakeem staved off Ewing especially. They went head to head for a championship!

Yup. Ewing has always been the funniest to me. He shoots 39% TS (as a center!) in the finals and the narrative is "but for Jordan" instead of "damn, he choked away a ring."

[guy]

Let's take aside that the sole intention of this thread is to diminish Lebron, who lost against anyone he also beat, you can't just namedrop guys that never won, but had a chance against other teams, guys who actually got ring or teams that lost in prior rounds.

First point. How did Jordan block Miller from getting a ring when his sole finals appearance was vs Shaq's Lakers? Same for Ewing.

Payton. How did he block him when he actually won?

How did he block Nique when he was a 7th seed and never reached a CF Jordan or not.

He(his team actually) only blocked guys, who only had their direct chances against the Bulls. Barkley, Kemp, Stockton & Malone.

Fair to not include Nique. I mentioned it was questionable to include him, so fair not to. When most people bring this up, they don’t include Nique as part of it for good reason. Can’t include Melo for Lebron either then.

I brought up because Payton because the OP specifically mentioned “on his watch”. Payton won well after Jordan retired. And if we’re not including that, we can’t include West and Oscar for Russell either.

I’m including CF and Finals because more than likely, the CF loser is facing the finals loser if player X doesn’t exist.

This topic is not meant to be taken so literal, but in the way most people have looked at it over the years. When people say Malone didn’t win a championship cause of Jordan, unless you’re an idiot, most people don’t take that statement as Jordan literally beat Malone every year in the finals and if it wasn’t for that, Malone would’ve been a shoe-in to win every year.

[guy]

Probably
If you agree that is probable, then what are we arguing? The best you can get regarding any speculation is probable.



but 1) people lump them all in as if Ewing and Barkley somehow would both win in 93'

Are you reading all my posts? I did address this.



2) other teams exist 3) the Bulls themselves still exist. If Jordan retires a year earlier, that doesn't mean the Knicks win the East by acclimation. That means they likely play the 54 win Cavs. We also know the Knicks struggled to beat the Bulls even without Jordan. In a Jordan-less world the Bulls exist somewhere in each bracket. For these reasons, it isn't foreordained the EC runner up would automatically make the finals every single year if MJ doesn't exist.


Hence the word “likely” which I’ve said in all of my posts.



They are a 6 seed these days, not the same team as before. The Knicks, Pacers, Jazz basically came back at the same level in 94', 95', 99', (00' too for the Pacers). What happened? Jordan bounced right in the middle of their contention window the first time.


There win % is nearly identical to what it was last year. If that’s not what you’re basing this on, then you really think the Knicks, Pacers, and Jazz were the “same team” for 6-7 years straight? Lakers/Clippers have stepped up in the Warrior’s absence, same way the Hakeem’s Rockets did in Jordan’s Bulls absence back then. That doesn’t change the fact that the Rockets are likely making the finals and maybe making winning it for many of the years the Warriors won if the Warriors didn’t exist. Same thing applies in the 90s. Its literally an analogous situation that you’re predictably making a huge deal about.



You seem to only appear in Jordan related threads but there are threads up on Harden and Westbrook. No one is saying "but for the Warriors" they would have rings in either.

I could care less what a few posters you’re arguing with on message boards have been saying the last few months. That’s not reflective of how the national media and most people in general have viewed things for a much longer time. The dominant viewpoint on those 90s players is that they didn’t win and they get penalized for it. Shit, Barkley is ridiculed over it almost every Inside episode and they rarely ever bring up Jordan in response to it.

Now in terms of the “but for the Warriors” argument, part of it not being brought up that often is due to the fact that guys like Harden and Westbrook are still relatively young and have a lot of their careers left. This wasn’t mentioned as often for Jordan back then while he was playing cause no one knew for sure that Barkley, Ewing, Malone, Stockton, etc were going to end up with zero rings. But anyway, lets do the exercise for Steph, which is basically the same thing as Warriors.

Who did Steph prevent from winning a ring (criteria is he had to have faced them and beaten them and never lost to them and they couldn’t have won a ring otherwise, and they should’ve had a legit chance to contend (so not Nique in 93 for Jordan for example)? Harden, Howard, Westbrook, Lillard.

Hmmmm, not a terribly long list and like I said, a lot of those players still have significant time to get off that list so its no wonder its not a dominant narrative.

[guy]

For superstars and sheer volume, it has to be Russell staving off Wilt. Can anyone explain why we're giving Jordan sole credit for preventing Ewing from a ring? The year Ewing actually made the finals it was against Hakeem. It was also Hakeem who outplayed Ewing in that series. Hakeem also staved off Barkley who Jordan is solely getting credit for.

Wilt literally won championships and beat Russell on the way there. He only beat him once, but he did beat him. You can say that Russell was the reason Wilt didn't win MORE rings, but by the definition of the OP and the context of this usual topic, Wilt wouldn't apply here to Russell.

No one ever said anything about one guy getting sole credit. Hakeem's list just isn't that long given the definition. There's Ewing and Barkley and thats about it. Malone and Stockton eventually beat him in the playoffs. Shaq beat him and won rings while Hakeem was still in the league even though both were way past his prime. Robinson won a ring with Hakeem in the league even though it was past his prime.

[insidious301]

Wilt literally won championships and beat Russell on the way there. He only beat him once, but he did beat him. You can say that Russell was the reason Wilt didn't win MORE rings, but by the definition of the OP and the context of this usual topic, Wilt wouldn't apply here to Russell.

No one ever said anything about one guy getting sole credit. Hakeem's list just isn't that long given the definition. There's Ewing and Barkley and thats about it. Malone and Stockton eventually beat him in the playoffs. Shaq beat him and won rings while Hakeem was still in the league even though both were way past his prime. Robinson won a ring with Hakeem in the league even though it was past his prime.

Fair enough. The criteria is inconsistent however. Noting only Jordan did those things when there were others during his era who did the same, is half-done. I had spoke on Hakeem beating Ewing in the only finals Ewing ever went to. By the name dropping in this thread(like Jordan staving off Stockton/Malone), it is a stronger case than Jordan fending him off in the semi & conference finals.

[guy]

Fair enough. The criteria is inconsistent however. Noting only Jordan did those things when there were others during his era who did the same, is half-done. I had spoke on Hakeem beating Ewing in the only finals Ewing ever went to. By the name dropping in this thread(like Jordan staving off Stockton/Malone), it is a stronger case than Jordan fending him off in the semi & conference finals.

Whats inconsistent? The OP asked for other examples and I also gave examples of Shaq, Kobe, and Lebron doing it. No one ever said no one else did it. I can't name every single example in history.

[insidious301]

Whats inconsistent? The OP asked for other examples and I also gave examples of Shaq, Kobe, and Lebron doing it. No one ever said no one else did it. I can't name every single example in history.

Not saying you specifically. I mean posters and the thread in general. I was the only one who brought up Hakeem to counter the lone Jordan mention. We saw Hakeem mentioned, but only for players that beat him. We saw Payton's name too even though he actually won a ring. After I brought up Russell beating Wilt though suddenly "by definition" it doesn't count. Sounds contradictory.

[guy]

Not saying you specifically. I mean posters and the thread in general. I was the only one who brought up Hakeem to counter the lone Jordan mention. We saw Hakeem mentioned, but only for players that beat him. We saw Payton's name too even though he actually won a ring. After I brought up Russell beating Wilt though suddenly "by definition" it doesn't count. Sounds contradictory.

Where was Hakeem mentioned as someone beating him? I don't see it. He won a championship anyway so he can't be on anyone's list except for Bird, who hasn't been mentioned, going by the same reasoning putting Payton on Jordan's list.

The Payton thing is up for debate. OP mentions "on his watch" and he's brought up as a name when people mention this topic in the media.

Not sure where the contradiction with Russell/Wilt is. OP literally says that situation wouldn't count.

[insidious301]

Where was Hakeem mentioned as someone beating him? He won a championship so he can't be on anyone's list except for Bird, who hasn't been mentioned, going by the same reasoning putting Payton on Jordan's list.

On the first page. A poster brings up players who beat Hakeem on his watch. And what do you mean that he can't be on anyones list? By the OP's definition he prevented Ewing from a ring, did he not?

[guy]

On the first page. A poster brings up players who beat Hakeem on his watch. And what do you mean that he can't be on anyones list? By the OP's definition he prevented Ewing from a ring, did he not?

Yes, that was me. Shaq and Robinson won on Hakeem's "watch". When I say "list", he can't be on anyone's list. Ewing is on Hakeem's "list".

[insidious301]

Yes, that was me. Shaq and Robinson won on Hakeem's "watch". When I say "list", he can't be on anyone's list. Ewing is on Hakeem's "list".

Okay sure. Same as Shaq winning under Jordan's watch. However we're in agreement Hakeem is up there with the OP's idea.