“Pippen is the only player who can score 5 points & dominate the game" -Reggie Miller

[TheGoatest]

And keep in mind that the great Scottie Pippen averaged 20 points all throughout the 90s.
That means that, according to Jordan's main rival at the shooting guard position in the 90s, Pippen was dominant, and then dominant 3 more times on top of that dominance on an average night. :eek: :applause:

[Reggie43]

https://youtu.be/3yif1LTsPms


https://i.ibb.co/K0NbPyB/IMG-20211204-183434.jpg (https://ibb.co/C1Jmc04)

[Baller789]

Stans should really stop using players and coaches quotes for your agendas.

Makes you guys look like imbeciles.

[3ba11]

So MJ is supposed to win without a 2nd scoring option?

I could understand if Pippen was 5th option and defensive specialist, but he's supposed to be 2nd option.

So his scoring and efficiency levels were often UNACCEPTABLE, which is why MJ needed goat production rate to win (ppg, PER, BPM and WS/48)

[72-10]

Michael Cooper

Tree Rollins

[TheCorporation]

So MJ is supposed to win without a 2nd scoring option?

I could understand if Pippen was 5th option and defensive specialist, but he's supposed to be 2nd option.

So his scoring and efficiency levels were often UNACCEPTABLE, which is why MJ needed goat production rate to win (ppg, PER, BPM and WS/48)

He had Orlando Woolridge in 1985, Gervin and Woolridge in 1986 and Charles Oakley 1987. He also had, by 3ball's own admission, the Goat Larry Hughes in 2003 and 2004.

[SATAN]

I'd add FMVP vote snatcher Dennis Rodman

[kawhileonard2]

https://youtu.be/3yif1LTsPms


https://i.ibb.co/K0NbPyB/IMG-20211204-183434.jpg (https://ibb.co/C1Jmc04)

This!

[kawhileonard2]

He had Orlando Woolridge in 1985, Gervin and Woolridge in 1986 and Charles Oakley 1987. He also had, by 3ball's own admission, the Goat Larry Hughes in 2003 and 2004.

Lebron had Carlos Boozer, Big Z, Tim Duncan, Allen Iverson, Shaq, Ben Wallace and still got bronze medal and never got to the finals.

[BigShotBob]

https://youtu.be/3yif1LTsPms


https://i.ibb.co/K0NbPyB/IMG-20211204-183434.jpg (https://ibb.co/C1Jmc04)

/thread

[Baller789]

Lebron had Carlos Boozer, Big Z, Tim Duncan, Allen Iverson, Shaq, Ben Wallace and still got bronze medal and never got to the finals.

:lebroncry::lebroncry::lebroncry:

[3ba11]

https://youtu.be/3yif1LTsPms


https://i.ibb.co/K0NbPyB/IMG-20211204-183434.jpg (https://ibb.co/C1Jmc04)


At some point in everyone's career, they had equal-scoring teammates to attract equal defensive attention for various playoff runs, and therefore weren't facing maximum defensive attention - any period without max defensive attention are inflated stats compared to Jordan, who faced max defensive attention for his entire career by carrying the scoring load in every SERIES, let alone playoff run..

So Jordan's stats are the baseline to which everyone is compared because his stats are the only stats that reflect max defensive attention for an entire career, aka no periods without facing max defensive attention (no inflation).

[Phoenix]

So MJ is supposed to win without a 2nd scoring option?

I could understand if Pippen was 5th option and defensive specialist, but he's supposed to be 2nd option.

So his scoring and efficiency levels were often UNACCEPTABLE, which is why MJ needed goat production rate to win (ppg, PER, BPM and WS/48)

I wonder when you'll realize that advocating for MJ having a better 2nd scoring option('more help') would have reduced his own production and made his path to winning titles easier. That's literally the antithesis of the arguing points you make every day for why you consider MJ the GOAT.

[3ba11]

I wonder when you'll realize that advocating for MJ having a better 2nd scoring option('more help') would have reduced his own production and made his path to winning titles easier. That's literally the antithesis of the arguing points you make every day for why you consider MJ the GOAT.


At some point in everyone's career, they had equal-scoring teammates to attract equal defensive attention for various playoff runs, and therefore weren't facing maximum defensive attention - any period without max defensive attention are inflated stats compared to Jordan, who faced max defensive attention for his entire career by carrying the scoring load in every SERIES, let alone playoff run..

So Jordan's stats are the baseline to which everyone is compared because his stats are the only stats that reflect max defensive attention for an entire career, aka no periods without facing max defensive attention (no inflation).



I wonder when you'll realize that advocating for MJ having a better 2nd scoring option('more help') would have reduced his own production and made his path to winning titles easier. That's literally the antithesis of the arguing points you make every day for why you consider MJ the GOAT.


If MJ had more help (the kind of help that everyone else gets, aka sidekicks capable of being equal-scoring partners for various playoff runs, aka elite-producing sidekicks, not draymond-type at sidekick), then he would've won titles from 85-99', aside from a couple breaks in between because we know MJ gets bored of dominating.. He needs action (a chance he will lose)

Furthermore, everyone says that Lebron had bad stats in the 07' Finals because he had no help and the opponents' defense was focused solely on him - well Jordan faced that for an entire career - aka max defensive attention because he lacked an equal-scoring partner to attract equal defensive attention like everyone else in history had... Only Jordan faced max defensive attention for his entire career, which DEFLATES his stats compared to everyone else.

[Phoenix]

If MJ had more help (the kind of help that everyone else gets, aka sidekicks capable of being equal-scoring partners for various playoff runs, aka elite-producing sidekicks, not draymond-type at sidekick), then he would've won titles from 85-99', aside from a couple breaks in between because we know MJ gets bored of dominating.. He needs action (a chance he will lose)

No he wouldn't have. Because you speak of the 2 star format( which was a byproduct of expansion). If you gave MJ a better 2nd scorer in the 80s he's still likely coming up short, because all the championship teams were stacked with multiple hall of famers and scorers. In order for MJ to start winning a title from 85( as a rookie), he would have had to also pair with other hall of fame level talent to beat the Lakers and Celtics. If that happens, that means his own statistical output is reduced. Does that help or hinder his GOAT case?

He won 6 titles between 91-98, in every full season he played. But advocating for him to having better scoring help, you're saying the path for him winning titles would have been easier. Does that help or hinder his GOAT case?

[Phoenix]

At some point in everyone's career, they had equal-scoring teammates to attract equal defensive attention for various playoff runs, and therefore weren't facing maximum defensive attention - any period without max defensive attention are inflated stats compared to Jordan, who faced max defensive attention for his entire career by carrying the scoring load in every SERIES, let alone playoff run..



Thanks, I was waiting for the 'equal scoring' partner argument to surface. You proclaim that Lebron can't be GOAT because he had an 'equal scoring' partner for a few of his title runs. Ok, let's put that aside for the moment.

Now.....give MJ someone like Dominique Wilkins as a 2nd option. They win 6 titles. During their run, MJ averages 28/6/6, Nique averages 25/7/4. Having Nique, a better scorer than Scottie, as a 2nd option reduces MJ's scoring output. MJ doesn't need to score as much, because he has more scoring help. You with me so far? Ok....so with MJ now needing to score less to win his titles.......does having lesser stats help or hinder his GOAT case? If having an 'equal scoring partner' removes Lebron from the GOAT discussion in your eyes, would MJ having one also remove him or does the criteria have to change again?

[3ba11]

No he wouldn't have. Because you speak of the 2 star format( which was a byproduct of expansion). If you gave MJ a better 2nd scorer in the 80s he's still likely coming up short, because all the championship teams were stacked with multiple hall of famers and scorers. In order for MJ to start winning a title from 85( as a rookie), he would have had to also pair with other hall of fame level talent to beat the Lakers and Celtics. If that happens, that means his own statistical output is reduced. Does that help or hinder his GOAT case?

He won 6 titles between 91-98, in every full season he played. But advocating for him to having better scoring help, you're saying the path for him winning titles would have been easier. Does that help or hinder his GOAT case?


By 1988, non-super-teams could win - the Pistons proved this by basically beating an ancient Kareem that year, except the Isiah injury and a bad call on Laimbeer changed their fortunes.. The Pistons were the bridge between the super-team 80's and the 2-star 90's - Jordan would've taken advantage of this and beaten them if he had more help.. The Bulls were already competing well with the Pistons with virtually no cast in 88' and 89', while basically beating them in 90' with very little help.

So Jordan would've definitely started winning titles from 88-98' with more help in place of Pippen.. Winning those missed titles from 88-90' and 95' would make MJ goat, while his efficiency and production rate would be higher from not facing max defensive attention (by having an equal-scoring partner to attract equal defensive attention).. Jordan's stats from his actual career were infact DEFLATED by facing max defensive attention for his entire career, while no one else did that (everyone else had equal-scoring partners are various points in their career to boost their efficiency and make producing easier).

[Phoenix]

By 1988, non-super-teams could win - the Pistons proved this by basically beating an ancient Kareem that year, except the Isiah injury and a bad call on Laimbeer changed their fortunes.. The Pistons were the bridge between the super-team 80's and the 2-star 90's - Jordan would've taken advantage of this and beaten them if he had more help.. The Bulls were already competing well with the Pistons with virtually no cast in 88' and 89', while basically beating them in 90' with very little help.

So Jordan would've definitely started winning titles from 88-98' with more help in place of Pippen.. Winning those missed titles from 88-90' and 95' would make MJ goat, while his efficiency and production rate would be higher from not facing max defensive attention (by having an equal-scoring partner to attract equal defensive attention).. Jordan's stats from his actual career were infact DEFLATED by facing max defensive attention for his entire career, while no one else did that (everyone else had equal-scoring partners are various points in their career to boost their efficiency and make producing easier).

This is retarded. His efficiency rate definitely would have been helped by not being the center of the defensive scouting report, but his actual volume/production rate? MJ had some runs averaging over 35ppg. He's not going to have to score that much if he has better scoring help. Why would he need to average 41ppg in the 93 finals if he had a 2nd scorer who was capable of averaging 25 or more? You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, by saying MJ would still score the exact same(OR MORE) while he also gets to benefit from having a better 2nd scorer. Alot of the big scoring series and games that MJ produced probably get thanos-snapped out of existence, so you're removing data points for his GOAT case. Does MJ still score 63 points in 86 if he had enough scoring help to start winning titles that early? Of course not, and why would he have to?

Does giving MJ a better 2nd scorer make his path to titles harder or easier? If easier, does that help or hinder his GOAT case? This question stands alone, bolded and separated from the above paragraph, because I want you to answer THAT question without throwing a bunch of bullshit at the wall and not answering the content of the question( and hoping I don't notice).

[Phoenix]

Thanks, I was waiting for the 'equal scoring' partner argument to surface. You proclaim that Lebron can't be GOAT because he had an 'equal scoring' partner for a few of his title runs. Ok, let's put that aside for the moment.

Now.....give MJ someone like Dominique Wilkins as a 2nd option. They win 6 titles. During their run, MJ averages 28/6/6, Nique averages 25/7/4. Having Nique, a better scorer than Scottie, as a 2nd option reduces MJ's scoring output. MJ doesn't need to score as much, because he has more scoring help. You with me so far? Ok....so with MJ now needing to score less to win his titles.......does having lesser stats help or hinder his GOAT case? If having an 'equal scoring partner' removes Lebron from the GOAT discussion in your eyes, would MJ having one also remove him or does the criteria have to change again?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkdmOVejUlI&t=47s

[97 bulls]

This is retarded. His efficiency rate definitely would have been helped by not being the center of the defensive scouting report, but his actual volume/production rate? MJ had some runs averaging over 35ppg. He's not going to have to score that much if he has better scoring help. Why would he need to average 41ppg in the 93 finals if he had a 2nd scorer who was capable of averaging 25 or more? You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, by saying MJ would still score the exact same(OR MORE) while he also gets to benefit from having a better 2nd scorer. Alot of the big scoring series and games that MJ produced probably get thanos-snapped out of existence, so you're removing data points for his GOAT case. Does MJ still score 63 points in 86 if he had enough scoring help to start winning titles that early? Of course not, and why would he have to?

Does giving MJ a better 2nd scorer make his path to titles harder or easier? If easier, does that help or hinder his GOAT case? This question stands alone, bolded and separated from the above paragraph, because I want you to answer THAT question without throwing a bunch of bullshit at the wall and not answering the content of the question( and hoping I don't notice).

Great points Phoenix.

[ELITEpower23]

Thanks, I was waiting for the 'equal scoring' partner argument to surface. You proclaim that Lebron can't be GOAT because he had an 'equal scoring' partner for a few of his title runs. Ok, let's put that aside for the moment.

Now.....give MJ someone like Dominique Wilkins as a 2nd option. They win 6 titles. During their run, MJ averages 28/6/6, Nique averages 25/7/4. Having Nique, a better scorer than Scottie, as a 2nd option reduces MJ's scoring output. MJ doesn't need to score as much, because he has more scoring help. You with me so far? Ok....so with MJ now needing to score less to win his titles.......does having lesser stats help or hinder his GOAT case? If having an 'equal scoring partner' removes Lebron from the GOAT discussion in your eyes, would MJ having one also remove him or does the criteria have to change again?

3clown? Care to reply?

[Phoenix]

Great points Phoenix.

:cheers:

It appears my question doesn't have a copy and paste reply on standby for 3nutball.

[Phoenix]

3clown? Care to reply?

Dude did a good ole Grandpa Simpson at that one :lol

https://c.tenor.com/yTxA7WgkBEUAAAAC/grandpa-abe-exit.gif

[3ba11]

This is retarded. His efficiency rate definitely would have been helped by not being the center of the defensive scouting report, but his actual volume/production rate? MJ had some runs averaging over 35ppg. He's not going to have to score that much if he has better scoring help. Why would he need to average 41ppg in the 93 finals if he had a 2nd scorer who was capable of averaging 25 or more?





Because the way winning basketball works is to have the player with the best chance shoot the ball.. So the addition of an elite-scoring sidekick merely shifts the shot allocation around so role players take the haircut, not MJ or the sidekick..

It's still better to have MJ shoot the ball than Paxson, so if MJ still has capacity left, any coach will use it up before giving shots to lesser players... So MJ would still reach peak scoring levels like he always did - he'd average 30-35 as always and Drexler would get 25-27 - both with insane efficiency - because that makes more sense than giving it to Paxson.. Don't you think?..

10 scoring titles in a row - 6 as champion.. Not even the no-dribble triangle could hold him down..

Ultimately, big dogs always eat and the role players are secondary considerations.. When Jordan returned in 1995, everyone took a 1-2 point haircut (sidenote: it was an equitable reduction across the board because MJ's on-ball/off-ball game fit with everyone, whereas Lebron's on-ball focus craters various player types).. Pippen's usage went down 2 percentage points, and MJ's actually increased slightly above the first 1st three-peat.






Does giving MJ a better 2nd scorer make his path to titles harder or easier? If easier, does that help or hinder his GOAT case? This question stands alone, bolded and separated from the above paragraph, because I want you to answer THAT question without throwing a bunch of bullshit at the wall and not answering the content of the question( and hoping I don't notice).





Jordan would win titles easier but he'd have more of them - he could've won from 88-90 and 95', so that's potentially 10 titles as the best player.. He's already goat with 6 and no one seems to care about the goat statistical gap that he also has - 6 rings as the best player is all that matters.. No one is even aware of the stats when they call him goat - they're just thinking about the 6 chips as the best player, so 10 chips as the best player (or anything more than 6) makes him even more goat than now.

Btw, Jordan's 6 titles as the best player is the most in 3-pointer history by a 2 ring margin...

So his goat PER, PPG and other stats could take a hit and he'd probably still have the best goat case - that's basically what happened during his Wizards years (it reduced his career averages) and most people still say he's the goat 20 years later.. 6 rings as the statistical leader is all that matters - no one is even aware of the stats when they call him goat - they're just thinking about the 6 chips as the best player.

[Phoenix]

Because the way winning basketball works is to have the player with the best chance shoot the ball.. So the addition of an elite-scoring sidekick merely shifts the shot allocation around so role players take the haircut, not MJ or the sidekick..

It's still better to have MJ shoot the ball than Paxson, so if MJ still has capacity left, any coach will use it up before giving shots to lesser players... So MJ would still reach peak scoring levels like he always did - he'd average 30-35 as always and Drexler would get 25-27 - both with insane efficiency - because that makes more sense than giving it to Paxson.. Don't you think?..

10 scoring titles in a row - 6 as champion.. Not even the no-dribble triangle could hold him down..

Ultimately, big dogs always eat and the role players are secondary considerations.. When Jordan returned in 1995, everyone took a 1-2 point haircut (sidenote: it was an equitable reduction across the board because MJ's on-ball/off-ball game fit with everyone, whereas Lebron's on-ball focus craters various player types).. Pippen's usage went down 2 percentage points, and MJ's actually increased slightly above the first 1st three-peat.






Jordan would win titles easier but he'd have more of them - he could've won from 88-90 and 95', so that's potentially 10 titles as the best player.. He's already goat with 6 and no one seems to care about the goat statistical gap that he also has - 6 rings as the best player is all that matters.. No one is even aware of the stats when they call him goat - they're just thinking about the 6 chips as the best player, so 10 chips as the best player (or anything more than 6) makes him even more goat than now.

Btw, Jordan's 6 titles as the best player is the most in 3-pointer history by a 2 ring margin...

So his goat PER, PPG and other stats could take a hit and he'd probably still have the best goat case - that's basically what happened during his Wizards years (it reduced his career averages) and most people still say he's the goat 20 years later.. 6 rings as the statistical leader is all that matters - no one is even aware of the stats when they call him goat - they're just thinking about the 6 chips as the best player.

That doesn't answer my question, so let's try again:

Does giving MJ a better 2nd scorer make his path to titles harder or easier? If easier, does that help or hinder his GOAT case?

The answer to the first question has one of two replies: harder or easier. The answer to the 2nd question has one of two replies: help or hinder.

Your turn.

[Phoenix]

It's still better to have MJ shoot the ball than Paxson, so if MJ still has capacity left, any coach will use it up before giving shots to lesser players... So MJ would still reach peak scoring levels like he always did - he'd average 30-35 as always and Drexler would get 25-27 - both with insane efficiency - because that makes more sense than giving it to Paxson.. Don't you think?..



So basically, MJ averaged 30-35 because Pippen was a subpar 2nd option. You have over 30 thousand posts saying some form of this sentiment.

You're now saying giving MJ a better 2nd scoring option, like a Clyde Drexler, doesn't result in any dip in scoring, even though the need to score that much in the first place has been remedied by giving him a guy who can score 25-27 instead of 19-21.

[3ba11]

That doesn't answer my question, so let's try again:

Does giving MJ a better 2nd scorer make his path to titles harder or easier? If easier, does that help or hinder his GOAT case?

The answer to the first question has one or two replies: harder or easier. The answer to the 2nd question has one of two replies: help or hinder.

Your turn.


are you deflecting - you have to be retarded to not understand my post

so you're allowed to make a long post but I must respond with 1 or 2 words?

[3ba11]

So basically, MJ averaged 30-35 because Pippen was a subpar 2nd option. You have over 30 thousand posts saying some form of this sentiment.

You're now saying giving MJ a better 2nd scoring option, like a Clyde Drexler, doesn't result in any dip in scoring, even though the need to score that much in the first place has been remedied by giving him a guy who can score 25-27 instead of 19-21.


Again, the addition of an elite scorer would take shots away from Paxson, not a better player like Jordan..

comprende

and obviously, my previous post says that adding an elite scorer would make Jordan's title runs easier, which results in more titles as the best player, which results in a better goat case.. most people don't know the stats and awarded Jordan goat status based on 6 titles as the best player - so if 6 was enough to get Jordan goat status, more titles as the best player would give him a better goat case.

[Phoenix]

are you deflecting - you have to be retarded to not understand my post

so you're allowed to make a long post but I must respond with 1 or 2 words?

Are you? I've asked that question in at least 3 posts. They require binary responses.

[Phoenix]

Again, the addition of an elite scorer would take shots away from Paxson, not a better player like Jordan..

comprende

John Paxson was taking 6 shots a game average between 91 and 93. You couldn't possibly reduce his shot output any more without it effectively being 4 on 5.

comprende? Now answer the fukking question as it was asked.

[3ba11]

John Paxson was taking 6 shots a game average between 91 and 93. You couldn't possibly reduce his shot output any more without it effectively being 4 on 5.

comprende? Now answer the fukking question as it was asked.


Paxson isn't the only role player - most of the team is role players and they would all take a 1-2 point haircut, just like when MJ returned in 95'..

and obviously, my previous post says that adding an elite scorer would make Jordan's title runs easier, which results in more titles as the best player, which results in a better goat case..

most people don't know the stats and awarded Jordan goat status based on 6 titles as the best player - so if 6 was enough to get Jordan goat status, more titles as the best player would give him a better goat case, regardless of stats... as long as he was the best player on 6+ titles, he's goat.. adding an elite scorer allows him to do that

[Phoenix]

Does giving MJ a better 2nd scorer make his path to titles harder or easier? If easier, does that help or hinder his GOAT case

Binary questions, binary replies. I'm waiting.

[3ba11]

Does giving MJ a better 2nd scorer make his path to titles harder or easier? If easier, does that help or hinder his GOAT case

Binary questions, binary replies. I'm waiting.


my previous post says that adding an elite scorer would make Jordan's title runs easier, which results in more titles as the best player, which results in a better goat case..

most people don't know the stats and awarded Jordan goat status based on 6 titles as the best player - so if 6 was enough to get Jordan goat status, more titles as the best player would give him a better goat case, regardless of stats... as long as he was the best player on 6+ titles, he's goat.. adding an elite scorer allows him to do that

[Phoenix]

and obviously, my previous post says that adding an elite scorer would make Jordan's title runs easier, which results in more titles as the best player, which results in a better goat case.. most people don't know the stats and awarded Jordan goat status based on 6 titles as the best player - so if 6 was enough to get Jordan goat status, more titles as the best player would give him a better goat case.

So let's deal with the first 6 years of his career. Which 2nd option are you giving him between 85 and 88 which beats the Lakers and Celtics enroute to titles.

[3ba11]

So let's deal with the first 6 years of his career. Which 2nd option are you giving him between 85 and 88 which beats the Lakers and Celtics enroute to titles.


If you'd read my previous posts all the way through, you'd see that I conceded that the Pistons' title contention was the beginning of the non-super-team era, so Jordan wouldn't start winning until then (1988)..

He was already competing well against those Pistons with no help in 88' and 89', so an elite-scoring sidekick would've easily won those years alongside Jordan.. Pippen averaged 9.7 on 40% in the 89' ECF, so almost anything would've won in his place.

[97 bulls]

So basically, 3ball is saying two guys taking turns playing hero ball is better than a team concept. Even though that's never been the case in any team sport.

I mean think about how dumb his logic is. He thinks it's better to have Jordan scoring 35ppg and let's say Dominique Wilkins scoring 32, and then everyone else scoring 2-3 ppg lol.

[97 bulls]

If you'd read my previous posts all the way through, you'd see that I conceded that the Pistons' title contention was the beginning of the non-super-team era, so Jordan wouldn't start winning until then (1988)..

He was already competing well against those Pistons with no help in 88' and 89', so an elite-scoring sidekick would've easily won those years alongside Jordan.. Pippen averaged 9.7 on 40% in the 89' ECF, so almost anything would've won in his place.

You ain't saying much, they swept the Pistons in 91 without having an "elite-scoring sidekick". Lol

[3ba11]

So basically, 3ball is saying two guys taking turns playing hero ball is better than a team concept. Even though that's never been the case in any team sport.

I mean think about how dumb his logic is. He thinks it's better to have Jordan scoring 35ppg and let's say Dominique Wilkins scoring 32, and then everyone else scoring 2-3 ppg lol.


Jordan had elite jumpshooting skill and scored while the ball moved - there was no your-turn-my-turn - there was only ball movement and Jordan spraying the court with jumpers from everywhere like Curry except 2 point range (the goat 2-point jumpshooter)

Jordan's ability to score while the ball moved allowed the best teammate fits and the best team strategy (ball movement), which allowed the best team ceilings/Finals records.

[Phoenix]

If you'd read my previous posts all the way through, you'd see that I conceded that the Pistons title contention was the beginning of the non-super-team era, so Jordan wouldn't start winning until then (1988).. He was already competing well against those Pistons with no help in 88' and 89', so an elite-scoring sidekick would've easily won those years alongside Jordan.

Ok, now we're zeroing on on the meat and potatoes. This is progress.

In 1988, the Bulls lost 4-1. That's not 'competing well'. So for this year, what 2nd option are you giving MJ which turns it from a gentleman sweep for the Pistons to a win for the Bulls, and then beating the Lakers in the finals? Ditto for 89,a more competitive series but still a 4-2 loss ultimately.

The point you're trying to make is mostly applicable to 1990 because it's possible the Bulls beat the Pistons if either 1) Pippen is healthy for game 7 or 2) a better 2nd option in place of Scottie is there. Then they go on to beat the Blazers. Entirely plausible, which translates to 7 titles. You're trying to concoct some scenario where he goes from 4-1 and 4-2 losses to the Pistons in 88 and 89....alllllll the way to winning the title....and I'm going to need to see the receipts here. Which 2nd option behind MJ facilitate those scenarios. And what scoring ppg is the 2nd option doing here?

Fantasizing about a 'better 2nd scorer' after 1990 up till 98 is irrelevant because the Bulls won those titles( when Jordan and Pippen played full seasons). They literally could not have been more successful if the end-game is winning a championship. Replacing Pippen in this years with who you perceive as a better 2nd scorer/option makes those title runs easier. Nobody has ever made a case that winning a title 'easier' strengthens a GOAT case. It's why nobody gives a fukk about KD's 2017 and 2018 chips. You spend copious amounts of time arguing MJ's GOAT case on your perception of the difficulty of winning titles and the required production he achieved in doing so. You undermine that concept by replacing Pippen with your choice of 'better scorer' to assist MJ with scoring.

[Phoenix]

So basically, 3ball is saying two guys taking turns playing hero ball is better than a team concept. Even though that's never been the case in any team sport.

I mean think about how dumb his logic is. He thinks it's better to have Jordan scoring 35ppg and let's say Dominique Wilkins scoring 32, and then everyone else scoring 2-3 ppg lol.

Effectively yes. MJ score 35, Nique score 32, and the other players on the court grab the rebounds and play a little D I guess.

But stay with me on the bolded. That would basically be an 'equal scoring partner' scenario. Why is that a relevant observation, you ask? Because he gives Lebron shit for having Kyrie in 2016 and AD in 2020 being 'equal scoring partners' to Lebron, but apparently it's no issue whatsoever for MJ's GOAT case to win titles in the same fashion.

[97 bulls]

Jordan had elite jumpshooting skill and scored while the ball moved - there was no your-turn-my-turn - there was only ball movement and Jordan spraying the court with jumpers from everywhere like Curry except 2 point range (the goat 2-point jumpshooter)

Jordan's ability to score while the ball moved allowed the best teammate fits and the best team strategy (ball movement), which allowed the best team ceilings/Finals records.

Bro. You just stated that this second great scorer isn't gonna effect Jordan's scoring opportunities. Only everyone else's. That's hero ball. One guy taking all the shots. But instead, you have two guys taking all the shots.

My suggestion is break your fingers so you can't post anymore. Cuz Phoenix is kicking your ass up and down this chat.

[Phoenix]

Bro. You just stated that this second great scorer isn't gonna effect Jordan's scoring opportunities. Only everyone else's. That's hero ball. 2 guy taking all the shots. But instead, you have two guys taking all the shots.

My suggestion is break your fingers so you can't post anymore. Cuz Phoenix is kicking your ass up and down this chat.

:roll:

[3ba11]

Ok, now we're zeroing on on the meat and potatoes. This is progress.

In 1988, the Bulls lost 4-1. That's not 'competing well'. So for this year, what 2nd option are you giving MJ which turns it from a gentleman sweep for the Pistons to a win for the Bulls, and then beating the Lakers in the finals? Ditto for 89,a more competitive series but still a 4-2 loss ultimately.

The point you're trying to make is mostly applicable to 1990 because it's possible the Bulls beat the Pistons if either 1) Pippen is healthy for game 7 or 2) a better 2nd option in place of Scottie is there. Then they go on to beat the Blazers. Entirely plausible, which translates to 7 titles. You're trying to concoct some scenario where he goes from 4-1 and 4-2 losses to the Pistons in 88 and 89....alllllll the way to winning the title....and I'm going to need to see the receipts here. Which 2nd option behind MJ facilitate those scenarios. And what scoring ppg is the 2nd option doing here?

Fantasizing about a 'better 2nd scorer' after 1990 up till 98 is irrelevant because the Bulls won those titles( when Jordan and Pippen played full seasons). They literally could not have been more successful if the end-game is winning a championship. Replacing Pippen in this years with who you perceive as a better 2nd scorer/option makes those title runs easier. Nobody has ever made a case that winning a title 'easier' strengthens a GOAT case. It's why nobody gives a **** about KD's 2017 and 2018 chips. You spend copious amounts of time arguing MJ's GOAT case on your perception of the difficulty of winning titles and the required production he achieved in doing so. You undermine that concept by replacing Pippen with your choice of 'better scorer' to assist MJ with scoring.


Based on the PPG and ORTG differentials between the 2 teams, Jordan's loss in 89' ECF was a closer loss than the 15' Finals, 10' ECSF, or 06' ECSF, and nearly as close as the 09' ECF or 11' Finals... So he lifted a worse team (low seed and 9 ppg sidekick) to more competitive series against better comp (dynasty), than any of those 5 series for Lebron, who had a high seed against non-dynasties..

Since the 89' ECF was a close loss, the Bulls would've won if any solid player replaced Pippen's 9.7 on 40%, let alone an elite-scoring all-star... So that gives Jordan 8 chips since you conceded 1990 already.. 8 chips as the best player makes Jordan the goat more than his current 6 chips as the best player.. KD's rings with the Warriors are irrelevant because he only won 2, not 8.

And tons of guys ranked below Pippen all-time would've helped MJ beat the 88' Bad Boys, starting with the guy nicknamed "Bad Boy Killer" (worthy), or tons of other guys.. Pippen was a rookie benchwarmer in 1988 - an elite-scoring sidekick would've been a sea change of difference and made the Bulls the favorite in the East... And obviously, as the league transitioned out of the super-team era in 89' and onwards (including 95'), Jordan wins those chips with a non-bed-wetting sidekick instead of Pippen .

[Phoenix]

Based on the PPG and ORTG differentials between the 2 teams, Jordan's loss in 89' ECF was a closer loss than the 15' Finals, 10' ECSF, or 06' ECSF, and nearly as close as the 09' ECF or 11' Finals... So he lifted a worse team (low seed and 9 ppg sidekick) to more competitive series against better comp (dynasty), than any of those 5 series I mentioned for Lebron, who had a high seed against non-dynasties..

Since the 89' ECF was a close loss, the Bulls would've won if any solid player replaced Pippen's 9.7 on 40%, let alone an elite-scoring all-star... So that gives Jordan 8 chips since you conceded 1990 already.. 8 chips as the best player makes Jordan the goat more than his current 6 chips as the best player.. KD's rings with the Warriors are irrelevant because he only won 2, not 8.

And tons of guys ranked below Pippen all-time would've helped MJ beat the 88' Bad Boys, starting with the guy nicknamed "Bad Boy Killer" (worthy), or tons of other guys.. Pippen was a rookie benchwarmer in 1988 - an elite-scoring sidekick would've been a sea change of difference and made the Bulls the favorite in the East.

Worthy? So basically.... if you take one of the best players off the Lakers to give to MJ, thus weakening them in the process, he'll win. incredibly insightful. Tomorrow you'll tell us if MJ had Joe Dumars in 1990, he would have beaten the Pistons. How's about namedropping some guys from teams that we aren't discussing as direct obstacles for Chicago to a title? There's tons of them according to you, so you should have no issue plucking guys from teams other than the Lakers, Celtics or Pistons to make whatever point you're trying to.

The point of bringing up KD is relevant if you have two functioning braincells. I'm not talking about the number of chips KD won, I'm talking about with WHOM he won them and how fair credit is assigned when you bring CONTEXT into the equation. If you gave MJ Charles Barkley or Hakeem in 1992 and they run off 3 championships, that doesn't make his case for GOAT stronger.

Also, I've long held the view that if Pippen was healthy in game 7 1990, the Bulls could have won the title. That's neither a controversial take, or something I haven't said myself in other instances( not this thread). So there was nothing to concede.

Here's what you fail to grasp. I'm not here trying to make arguments against the notion that MJ is GOAT. I'm telling you that you undermine your own position, and this would be obvious to anyone who skims through your 'arguments' for 30 seconds.

[3ba11]

Worthy? So basically.... if you take one of the best players off the Lakers to give to MJ, he'll win. incredibly insightful. Tomorrow you'll tell us if MJ had Joe Dumars in 1990, he would have beaten the Pistons. How's about namedropping some guys from teams that we aren't discussing as direct obstacles for Chicago to a title?

The point of bringing up KD is relevant if you have two functioning braincells. I'm not talking about the number of chips KD won, I'm talking about with WHOM he won them and how fair credit is assigned when you bring CONTEXT into the equation. If you gave MJ Charles Barkley or Hakeem in 1992 and they run off 3 championships, that doesn't make his case for GOAT stronger.

You asked for a lower-ranked all-time player than Pippen that Jordan would've beaten the 88/89 Bad Boys with....

so naturally I chose the "Bad-Boy Killer".. But a lot of other guys would've won too.. And the 89' ECF was close, so they would've won with any solid player replacing Pippen's 9.7 on 40%, let alone an elite-scoring all-star..

And let's rewind - you initially said that having an elite-scoring partner would reduce Jordan's stats, which I destroyed in multiple ways:

1) lesser chances to score (role players) are sacrificed before better chances to score (stars).. so as long as there's a bunch of role players on the team, Jordan and his sidekick will remain close to their scoring capacity... 2) Jordan would face less defensive attention with an elite-scoring teammate... 3) People awarded Jordan goat status based on 6 titles as the best player, not stats - so any statistical change is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is ring count as the best player and Jordan would have MORE rings as the best player with an equal or elite-scoring teammate like everyone else enjoyed..

[ELITEpower23]

Never seen a more self-destructive person than 3ball making his own bed and shitting in it repeatedly :oldlol:


Phoenix and 97 Bulls taking turns going to town on the clown.

[Phoenix]

You asked for a lower-ranked all-time player than Pippen that Jordan would've beaten the 88/89 Bad Boys with....

so naturally I chose the "Bad-Boy Killer".. But a lot of other guys would've won too.. And the 89' ECF was close, so they would've won with any solid player replacing Pippen's 9.7 on 40%, let alone an elite-scoring all-star..

And let's rewind - you initially said that having an elite-scoring partner would reduce Jordan's stats, which I destroyed in multiple ways:

1) lesser chances to score (role players) are sacrificed before better chances to score (stars).. so as long as there's a bunch of role players on the team, Jordan and his sidekick will remain close to their scoring capacity... 2) Jordan would face less defensive attention with an elite-scoring teammate... 3) People awarded Jordan goat status based on 6 titles as the best player, not stats - so any statistical change is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is rings as the best player and Jordan would have MORE rings as the best player with an equal-scoring teammate..

Where did I ask for a 'lower ranked' all-time player? Please quote exactly where I asked for that. I asked for what 2nd option would you give MJ for those years. Said absolutely nothing about 'ranked'. Keep up.......

You haven't destroyed anything............LITERALLY anything.....about any of my arguments and I've been sitting here watching youtube clips and eating breakfast while skimming over your bullshit. The effort made countering anything you've said here is akin to offloading on the toilet after my bran cereal and a few cups of coffee. It's just beyond easy.

Let's give you a modern example of two elite scorers coming together. In 2017 KD and Steph joined forces. Did their scoring production INCREASE or DECREASE from their 2016 PPG? This is.....again....a binary question with one of two replies: INCREASE, OR DECREASE.

So when it comes to equal scoring teammates, why is this a problem for Lebron but not for MJ? You made this post less than an hour ago in a different thread:


Lebron lost lost with HCA to a career loser in Dwight Howard because the series required a high-scoring, carry-job against a good team, and Lebron's high-scoring is too ball-dominant to beat good teams.. His high-scoring simply lacks the elite jumpshooting skill needed to have sufficient ball movement.

so he needs elite-scoring sidekicks to win (guys that can match his playoff scoring like the 11', 16' or 20' Playoffs) and can't carry the scoring load on the Finals level or beat good teams with bed-wetting teammates.

So, MJ having an elite scoring teammate for titles wouldn't impact his status, just Lebrons. Interesting......

[3ba11]

Where did I ask for a 'lower ranked' all-time player? Please quote exactly where I asked for that. I asked for what 2nd option would you give MJ for those years. Said absolutely nothing about 'ranked'. Keep up.......

You haven't destroyed anything............LITERALLY anything.....about any of my arguments and I've been sitting here watching youtube clips and eating breakfast while skimming over your bullshit. The effort made countering anything you've said here is akin to offloading on the toilet after my bran cereal and a few cups of coffee. It's just beyond easy.

Let's give you a modern example of two elite scorers coming together. In 2017 KD and Steph joined forces. Did their scoring production INCREASE or DECREASE from their 2016 PPG? This is.....again....a binary question with one of two replies: INCREASE, OR DECREASE.

So when it comes to equal scoring teammates, why is this a problem for Lebron but not for MJ? You made this post less than an hour ago in a different thread:



So, MJ having an elite scoring teammate for titles wouldn't impact his status, just Lebrons. Interesting......


Curry and Durant didn't see their scoring decrease together unless you compare it to their career high years - otherwise, it's the same or higher than their career without each other.

and there's still 2 other ways that I destroyed it (2 and 3 below):


1) lesser chances to score (role players) are sacrificed before better chances to score (stars).. so as long as there's a bunch of role players on the team, Jordan and his sidekick will remain close to their scoring capacity... 2) Jordan would face less defensive attention with an elite-scoring teammate... 3) People awarded Jordan goat status based on 6 titles as the best player, not stats - so any statistical change is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is ring-count as the best player and Jordan would have MORE rings as the best player with an elite-scoring teammate..

[Phoenix]

so you don't like my first response below, but there's still 2 other ways that I destroyed it:


1) lesser chances to score (role players) are sacrificed before better chances to score (stars).. so as long as there's a bunch of role players on the team, Jordan and his sidekick will remain close to their scoring capacity... 2) Jordan would face less defensive attention with an elite-scoring teammate... 3) People awarded Jordan goat status based on 6 titles as the best player, not stats - so any statistical change is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is rings as the best player and Jordan would have MORE rings as the best player with an equal-scoring teammate..

And 97Bulls literally diarrhea'd all over that. In order for MJ to retain the same stats with an elite scoring 2nd option, that would mean the other 3 players on the court would have to be virtual bystanders. Never mind ball movement, that you constantly harp on about. Never mind the destruction of team chemistry from the result of having two elite scorers playing hero ball at the expense of team ball. Magic Johnson knew to make Kurt Rambis feel important, because its critical for marginal players to feel like contributing entities and not traffic cones. That is, frankly, garbage basketball and you need to drop the facade of pretending like you actually enjoy the sport.

Basketball is not watching MJ score 35, Nique 32, and John Paxson taking 2 shots in sacrifice of the aforementioned two. Do you think Paxson in 93 hits the shot in game 6 if the strategy is be completely disengaged from the offensive side so that two elite scorers can have their cake?

[3ba11]

And 97Bulls literally diarrhea'd all over that. In order for MJ to retain the same stats with an elite scoring 2nd option, that would mean the other 3 players on the court would have to be virtual bystanders. Never mind ball movement, that you constantly harp on about. Never mind the destruction of team chemistry from the result of having two elite scorers playing hero ball at the expense of team ball. Magic Johnson knew to make Kurt Rambis feel important, because its critical for marginal players to feel like contributing entities and not traffic cones. That is, frankly, garbage basketball and you need to drop the facade of pretending like you actually enjoy the sport.

Basketball is not watching MJ score 35, Nique 32, and John Paxson taking 2 shots in sacrifice of the aforementioned two. Do you think Paxson in 93 hits the shot in game 6 if the strategy is be completely disengaged from the offensive side so that two elite scorers can have their cake?


Curry and Durant didn't see their scoring decrease together unless you compare it to their career high years - otherwise, it's the same or higher than their career without each other.

And the Bulls basketball was about watching MJ drop 41, Pippen drop 20, and everyone else drop nothing... so I'm not sure about your word salad at the end was there.. Someone else in Pippen's place getting 27 merely makes the cast take a 7 point haircut (less than 1 ppg each)

and there's still 2 other ways that I destroyed it (2 and 3 below):


1) lesser chances to score (role players) are sacrificed before better chances to score (stars).. so as long as there's a bunch of role players on the team, Jordan and his sidekick will remain close to their scoring capacity... 2) Jordan would face less defensive attention with an elite-scoring teammate... 3) People awarded Jordan goat status based on 6 titles as the best player, not stats - so any statistical change is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is ring-count as the best player and Jordan would have MORE rings as the best player with an elite-scoring teammate..

[Phoenix]

Curry and Durant didn't see their scoring decrease together unless you compare it to their career high years - otherwise, it's the same or higher than their career without each other.



You very clumsily tip-toed around that.

In 2016, Steph averaged 30. In 2017 he averaged 25. In 2016, KD averaged 28. In 2017 he averaged 25. The difference in their scoring apart versus together was very immediate and obvious. Adhering to your retarded opinion, both of them should have averaged more together. Oh but there's more.....with those two together Klay must have fallen right off, yeah? 2016 pre-KD, he averaged 22. 2017 with KD, he averaged..............wait for it.......22.

Need more? In 2020 Harden averaged 34. In 2021 next to KD? 25. There's basketball, and there's fantasyland. I think we all know where your takes lie.

[3ba11]

Bro. You just stated that this second great scorer isn't gonna effect Jordan's scoring opportunities. Only everyone else's. That's hero ball. One guy taking all the shots. But instead, you have two guys taking all the shots.

My suggestion is break your fingers so you can't post anymore. Cuz Phoenix is kicking your ass up and down this chat.


That's how the Bulls won - jordan scoring everything (carry-job) - no one ever carried a bigger scoring load or a load anywhere NEAR jordan's load...

Of course, he was skilled enough with elite jumpshooting skill to score while the team employed the best strategy (ball movement), but MJ was still carrying the scoring load by averaging 10-30 more than teammates in every SERIES.

Otoh, guys like Lebron needed teammates to match their scoring for entire playoff runs and never won a Finals while carrying the scoring load - so everyone else needed equal-scoring partners to attract equal defensive attention and didn't beat max defensive attention for their entire careers like Jordan.. So everyone's stats are inflated compared to Jordan.

[Phoenix]

And the Bulls basketball was about watching MJ drop 41, Pippen drop 20, and everyone else drop nothing... so I'm not sure about your word salad at the end was there.. Someone else in Pippen's place getting 27 merely makes the cast take a 7 point haircut (less than 1 ppg each)



Except in that series BJ averaged 14 and Grant 11. So replacing Pippen in that finals averaging 21 with, let's stick with Nique. He drops 27. Your contention is that MJ will still drop his 41, Nique will drop 27, and BJ/Horace will drop, what? 6 points a piece? That's not how basketball......or reality.....works. Thing is, Scottie was the 2nd leading scorer in the series. You want a better scorer in place of Scottie in the situation. That equates to an easier win for the Bulls. Not the argument you want to make here.

[Phoenix]

Of course, he was skilled enough with elite jumpshooting skill to score while the team employed the best strategy (ball movement), but MJ was still carrying the scoring load by averaging 10-30 more than teammates in every SERIES.



And how is ball movement achieved here by creating a situation where MJ retains the same scoring load, have a 2nd elite scorer drop eg. 27ppg, and maintain a thriving offense when you've reduced the role players to bystanders? You seem to be of the impression that chemistry plays absolutely no role here, just as long as MJ gets his stats.

Also, if MJ has a 2nd scorer next to him dropping 27 while he dropped 33.....then he's not scoring more than 10-30 points more than teammates in every series. Whoops, there goes another bullet point.

[3ba11]

You very clumsily tip-toed around that.

In 2016, Steph averaged 30. In 2017 he averaged 25. In 2016, KD averaged 28. In 2017 he averaged 25. The difference in their scoring apart versus together was very immediate and obvious. Adhering to your retarded opinion, both of them should have averaged more together. Oh but there's more.....with those two together Klay must have fallen right off, yeah? 2016 pre-KD, he averaged 22. 2017 with KD, he averaged..............wait for it.......22.

Need more? In 2020 Harden averaged 34. In 2021 next to KD? 25. There's basketball, and there's fantasyland. I think we all know where your takes lie.


KD and Curry averaged 35 and 27 in the 17' Finals.. Overall, they averaged the same or more alongside each other as their careers without each other, so I don't care about your cherry-picked years because the fact remains - lesser chances to score (role players) are sacrificed before better chances to score (stars), so as long as there's a bunch of role players on the team (not a dream team), Curry/KD will remain close to their scoring capacity - and they did.

And Jordan led everyone in playoff scoring by 4-5 ppg, so even a decrease in scoring will result in him still being the GOAT scorer..

But it's all irrelevant anyway because people awarded Jordan goat status based on 6 titles as the best player, not stats - most people don't know his stats - so any statistical change is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is ring-count as the best player and Jordan would have MORE rings as the best player with an elite-scoring teammate

[Phoenix]

KD and Curry averaged the same or more alongside each other as their careers without each other, so I don't care about your cherry-picked years because the fact remains - lesser chances to score (role players) are sacrificed before better chances to score (stars), so as long as there's a bunch of role players on the team (not a dream team), Curry/KD will remain close to their scoring capacity - and they did.

And Jordan led everyone in playoff scoring by 4-5 ppg, so even a decrease in scoring will result in him still being the GOAT scorer..

But it's all irrelevant anyway because people awarded Jordan goat status based on 6 titles as the best player, not stats - most people don't know his stats - so any statistical change is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is ring-count as the best player and Jordan would have MORE rings as the best player with an elite-scoring teammate

Steph and KD didn't maintain their 2016 scoring when they joined, they both dipped as any normal person would expect. Those are the facts, and they don't require you to cherrypick what you care about or otherwise.



And Jordan led everyone in playoff scoring by 4-5 ppg, so even a decrease in scoring will result in him still being the GOAT scorer..




Maybe, but the gap is less and part of your premise for arguing MJ as GOAT is the size of said gap. Iverson, Durant, West all average 29. The margin of error isn't 'that' wide saying oh it doesn't matter if MJ's scoring in the playoffs decreased. He enjoys a 4ppg edge on #2, not 10.

[Phoenix]

But it's all irrelevant anyway because people awarded Jordan goat status based on 6 titles as the best player, not stats - most people don't know his stats - so any statistical change is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is ring-count as the best player and Jordan would have MORE rings as the best player with an elite-scoring teammate

For someone who has over 30k posts talking about MJ's PPG and Pippen's relative lack of scoring, it's quite the heel turn on your part declaring that scoring no longer matters in these kinds of discussions, just ring count. If it's just about ring count, then Bill Russell is the GOAT and the conversation ends. Oh but MJ is still GOAT anyway? Ok, and what's the argument now since people don't know MJ"s stats and wouldn't care if they changed due to having another elite scorer next to him?

[3ba11]

Steph and KD didn't maintain their 2016 scoring when they joined, they both dipped as any normal person would expect. Those are the facts, and they don't require you to cherrypick what you care about or otherwise.





KD and Curry averaged 35 and 27 in the 17' Finals (career high for Durant) and both averaged 28 for that playoff run.... Heck, Curry and Klay averaged 31 and 26 in the 19' Finals... Jordan is a better scorer than all these guys and wouldn't be hampered just like they weren't hampered - the lesser defensive attention infact HELPED by giving Curry, Klay and Durant career-high ppg in the Finals and career-high efficiency in general.

Overall, Curry/KD averaged the same or more alongside each other as their careers without each other, so I don't care about your cherry-picked years.. Ultimately, lesser chances to score (role players) are sacrificed before better chances to score (stars), so as long as there's a bunch of role players on the team (not a dream team), Curry/KD will remain close to their scoring capacity - and they did.






Maybe, but the gap is less and part of your premise for arguing MJ as GOAT is the size of said gap. Iverson, Durant, West all average 29. The margin of error isn't 'that' wide saying oh it doesn't matter if MJ's scoring in the playoffs decreased. He enjoys a 4ppg edge on #2, not 10.





In addition to being wrong, your point about elite-scoring teammates reducing KD or Jordan's stats is irrelevant because people awarded Jordan goat status based on 6 titles as the best player, not stats - most people don't know his stats - so any statistical change is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is ring-count as the best player and Jordan would have MORE rings as the best player with an elite-scoring teammate.

[Phoenix]

KD and Curry averaged 35 and 27 in the 17' Finals (career high for Durant) and both averaged 28 for that playoff run.... Heck, Curry and Klay averaged 31 and 26 in the 19' Finals... Jordan is a better scorer than all these guys and wouldn't be hampered just like they weren't hampered - the lesser defensive attention infact HELPED by giving Curry, Klay and Durant career-high ppg in the Finals and career-high efficiency in general.

Overall, Curry/KD averaged the same or more alongside each other as their careers without each other, so I don't care about your cherry-picked years.. Ultimately, lesser chances to score (role players) are sacrificed before better chances to score (stars), so as long as there's a bunch of role players on the team (not a dream team), Curry/KD will remain close to their scoring capacity - and they did.






In addition to being wrong, your point about elite-scoring teammates reducing KD or Jordan's stats is irrelevant because people awarded Jordan goat status based on 6 titles as the best player, not stats - most people don't know his stats - so any statistical change is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is ring-count as the best player and Jordan would have MORE rings as the best player with an elite-scoring teammate.

Oh, back to copying prior posts? This should only take a minute then.

Steph and KD didn't maintain their 2016 scoring when they joined, they both dipped as any normal person would expect. Those are the facts, and they don't require you to cherrypick what you care about or otherwise.

[3ba11]

Oh, back to copying prior posts? This should only take a minute then.

Steph and KD didn't maintain their 2016 scoring when they joined, they both dipped as any normal person would expect. Those are the facts, and they don't require you to cherrypick what you care about or otherwise.


You were defeated:

KD and Curry didn't restrict each other's scoring because they averaged 35 and 27 in the 17' Finals (career high for Durant) and both averaged 28 for that playoff run.... Heck, Curry and Klay averaged 31 and 26 in the 19' Finals... Jordan is a better scorer than all these guys and wouldn't be hampered just like they weren't hampered - the lesser defensive attention from having elite-scoring teammates helped by giving Curry, Klay and Durant career-high ppg in the Finals and career-high efficiency in general.

Overall, Curry/KD averaged the same or more alongside each other as their careers without each other, so I don't care about your cherry-picked years.. Ultimately, lesser chances to score (role players) are sacrificed before better chances to score (stars), so as long as there's a bunch of role players on the team (not a dream team), Curry/KD will remain close to their scoring capacity - and they did.

In addition to being wrong, your point about elite-scoring teammates reducing KD or Jordan's stats is irrelevant because people awarded Jordan goat status based on 6 titles as the best player, not stats - most people don't know his stats - so any statistical change is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is ring-count as the best player and Jordan would have MORE rings as the best player with an elite-scoring teammate.

[Phoenix]

You were defeated:

KD and Curry didn't restrict each other's scoring because they averaged 35 and 27 in the 17' Finals (career high for Durant) and both averaged 28 for that playoff run.... Heck, Curry and Klay averaged 31 and 26 in the 19' Finals... Jordan is a better scorer than all these guys and wouldn't be hampered just like they weren't hampered - the lesser defensive attention from having elite-scoring teammates helped by giving Curry, Klay and Durant career-high ppg in the Finals and career-high efficiency in general.

Overall, Curry/KD averaged the same or more alongside each other as their careers without each other, so I don't care about your cherry-picked years.. Ultimately, lesser chances to score (role players) are sacrificed before better chances to score (stars), so as long as there's a bunch of role players on the team (not a dream team), Curry/KD will remain close to their scoring capacity - and they did.

In addition to being wrong, your point about elite-scoring teammates reducing KD or Jordan's stats is irrelevant because people awarded Jordan goat status based on 6 titles as the best player, not stats - most people don't know his stats - so any statistical change is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is ring-count as the best player and Jordan would have MORE rings as the best player with an elite-scoring teammate.

You were defeated two pages ago:


Thanks, I was waiting for the 'equal scoring' partner argument to surface. You proclaim that Lebron can't be GOAT because he had an 'equal scoring' partner for a few of his title runs. Ok, let's put that aside for the moment.

Now.....give MJ someone like Dominique Wilkins as a 2nd option. They win 6 titles. During their run, MJ averages 28/6/6, Nique averages 25/7/4. Having Nique, a better scorer than Scottie, as a 2nd option reduces MJ's scoring output. MJ doesn't need to score as much, because he has more scoring help. You with me so far? Ok....so with MJ now needing to score less to win his titles.......does having lesser stats help or hinder his GOAT case? If having an 'equal scoring partner' removes Lebron from the GOAT discussion in your eyes, would MJ having one also remove him or does the criteria have to change again?


And how is ball movement achieved here by creating a situation where MJ retains the same scoring load, have a 2nd elite scorer drop eg. 27ppg, and maintain a thriving offense when you've reduced the role players to bystanders? You seem to be of the impression that chemistry plays absolutely no role here, just as long as MJ gets his stats.

Also, if MJ has a 2nd scorer next to him dropping 27 while he dropped 33.....then he's not scoring more than 10-30 points more than teammates in every series. Whoops, there goes another bullet point.


Where did I ask for a 'lower ranked' all-time player? Please quote exactly where I asked for that. I asked for what 2nd option would you give MJ for those years. Said absolutely nothing about 'ranked'. Keep up.......

You haven't destroyed anything............LITERALLY anything.....about any of my arguments and I've been sitting here watching youtube clips and eating breakfast while skimming over your bullshit. The effort made countering anything you've said here is akin to offloading on the toilet after my bran cereal and a few cups of coffee. It's just beyond easy.

Let's give you a modern example of two elite scorers coming together. In 2017 KD and Steph joined forces. Did their scoring production INCREASE or DECREASE from their 2016 PPG? This is.....again....a binary question with one of two replies: INCREASE, OR DECREASE.

So when it comes to equal scoring teammates, why is this a problem for Lebron but not for MJ? You made this post less than an hour ago in a different thread:



So, MJ having an elite scoring teammate for titles wouldn't impact his status, just Lebrons. Interesting......

:confusedshrug:

[3ba11]

Thanks, I was waiting for the 'equal scoring' partner argument to surface. You proclaim that Lebron can't be GOAT because he had an 'equal scoring' partner for a few of his title runs. Ok, let's put that aside for the moment.

Now.....give MJ someone like Dominique Wilkins as a 2nd option. They win 6 titles. During their run, MJ averages 28/6/6, Nique averages 25/7/4. Having Nique, a better scorer than Scottie, as a 2nd option reduces MJ's scoring output. MJ doesn't need to score as much, because he has more scoring help. You with me so far?





Once Dominique comes on board and averages 10 more than Pippen, that's 10 less points that the role players have to score (1 less polnt each), not 10 less that Jordan has to score - why would a coach allow Paxson or any role player to play at capacity but MJ below capacity?... They wouldn't - that's why KD had a career-high in the 17' Finals alongside Curry and averaged the same or more alongside Curry than his career without Curry..






ok....so with MJ now needing to score less to win his titles.......does having lesser stats help or hinder his GOAT case? If having an 'equal scoring partner' removes Lebron from the GOAT discussion in your eyes, would MJ having one also remove him or does the criteria have to change again?





it makes no difference because people awarded Jordan goat status based on 6 titles as the best player, not stats - most people don't know his stats - so any statistical change is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is ring-count as the best player and Jordan would have MORE rings as the best player with an elite-scoring teammate.

[Phoenix]

No, I'm not with you because once Dominique comes on board and averages 10 more than Pippen, that's 10 less points that the role players have to score (1 less polnt each), not 10 less that Jordan has to score - why would a coach allow Paxson or any role player to play at capacity but MJ below capacity?... They wouldn't - that's why KD had a career-high in the 17' Finals alongside Curry and averaged the same or more alongside Curry than his career without Curry..



Oh ok. So at the beginning of the 93 season in training camp, the meeting will go something like this:

Guys, MJ averages 30. We not fukking with that. And we need to have Nique score 30 which would be 10 more than Scottie. Horace, we need you to average 10 instead of 13. BJ, instead of 12 you're averaging 9. Pax, we need you to drop from 7 to 5. Stacey, last year you scored 5. Don't score more than 4 this year. Bill, just don't shoot at all. Oh and Pax, while we need you to more or less be a bystander, we also expect you to be in rhythm and prepared to hit a championship gamewinner if the situation arises.

So a strategic readjusting of everyone else's scoring numbers in service of maintaining MJs is in order per 3nut bizarro world, when MJ having a better 2nd scorer solves the issue of why he needed to score at that rate in the first place. This is 'optimal team ball'.

You say a coach wouldn't allow MJ to play below capacity. So are you saying that the 30-33 ppg MJ was scoring between 91-93 was representative of his max scoring capacity then, or representative of team personnel and strategy? If having better teammates in the 90's than the 80's meant MJ didn't need to score 35-37ppg, then why wouldn't a better scorer than Scottie have the same effect on MJ's scoring? Your entire argument hinges on what MJ 'needed' to score because of team personnel. MJ wouldn't 'need' to score 33ppg if he has Nique. You're simply saying he does and will cause reasons, while ignoring that MJ's scoring rate when he was winning titles was less than when he was losing in the 80s.



most people don't know his stats - so any statistical change is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is ring-count as the best player and Jordan would have MORE rings as the best player with an elite-scoring teammate.

For someone who has over 30k posts talking about MJ's PPG and Pippen's relative lack of scoring, it's quite the heel turn on your part declaring that scoring no longer matters in these kinds of discussions, just ring count. If it's just about ring count, then Bill Russell is the GOAT and the conversation ends. Oh but MJ is still GOAT anyway? Ok, and what's the argument now since people don't know MJ"s stats and wouldn't care if they changed due to having another elite scorer next to him?

[3ba11]

.
Thread Cliffs


Scoring is what determines if someone is a 2nd scoring option or not, and MJ can't be expected to win with 5 points from his 2nd scoring option.

Accordingly, 5 points from Pippen is unacceptable and demonstrates people's misperception of him

Ultimately, Pippen ranged from 16-22 ppg in any playoff series during his prime, so he never did much more than tie opposing 2nd option's scoring while having worst-ever efficiency - so he was outplayed for the vast majority of his playoff career.

[Phoenix]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2020/04/27/the-last-dance-phil-jackson-michael-jordan-philosophy/3023329001/


Jackson stressed that he did not view Jordan as a selfish player. Jackson viewed Jordan as a star who would need to elevate his teammates.

“'I’m not worried about you,’” Jordan recalled Jackson said. “'But we have to find other ways to make the other guys better. We have to create threats.'”

It took some time for Jordan to agree with Jackson on how to do that.


So on one hand, we have Phil Jackson here saying he viewed MJ as needing to elevate his teammates. This would be achieved by sharing the ball more and making other guys 'threats' in an equal opportunity offense( which means making every one on the court offensively accountable, not meaning that everyone is scoring equally), meaning other guys need to contribute more so that the pressure on MJ is less to score 35ppg.

And on the other hand, we have 3nutball saying that if the Bulls swapped Pippen for someone like Nique, that Phil would elevate the surrounding cast by.......reducing their offensive contributions so that MJ could continue to get his 30 and Nique get his.

[Phoenix]

3nutball Threadcliifs

Michael Jordan having an equal opportunity scoring partner and potentially winning more chips doesn't impact his GOAT case. On the other hand, Lebron James having an equal opportunity scoring partner is detrimental to his GOAT case.


Michael Jordan is the GOAT because he scores 10-30ppg more than his teammates. On the other hand, if Michael had an equal scoring partner and doesn't score 10-30ppg more than his teammates, he's still the GOAT.


The role players on the Bulls would have been elevated by being told to sacrifice a point off their scoring so that Michael Jordan can continue to score at the exact same level, even if they pair him with a better 2nd scoring option so he doesn't have to score at the exact same level.

Michael Jordan is the leading ppg scorer in the season and playoffs. That said, nobody cares about stats, only ring count except when that doesn't favor MJ in which case, we'll care about stats.

[3ba11]

For someone who has over 30k posts talking about MJ's PPG and Pippen's relative lack of scoring, it's quite the heel turn on your part declaring that scoring no longer matters in these kinds of discussions, just ring count. If it's just about ring count, then Bill Russell is the GOAT and the conversation ends. Oh but MJ is still GOAT anyway? Ok, and what's the argument now since people don't know MJ"s stats and wouldn't care if they changed due to having another elite scorer next to him?





The only reason that I ever used stats is because that was the argument originally used by Lebron stans (before they realized that Jordan still had better stats), so I use stats to beat them with their own argument (and also beat less knowledgeable posters on occasion).

But everyone knows that ring count as the best player is the goat standard that most people use in their rankings..

Unfortunately, Russell's ring count is compromised by playing a format of the game that gave him a lower burden to be MVP-caliber.. He didn't have to be the best offensive player on his team, whereas offensive dominance is REQUIRED to be mvp-caliber in basketball with a 3-point line - since Russell isn't MVP-caliber in the modern era, Jordan's 6 rings as the best player the goat accomplishment.






Oh ok. So at the beginning of the 93 season in training camp, the meeting will go something like this:

Guys, MJ averages 30. We not fukking with that. And we need to have Nique score 30 which would be 10 more than Scottie. Horace, we need you to average 10 instead of 13. BJ, instead of 12 you're averaging 9. Pax, we need you to drop from 7 to 5. Stacey, last year you scored 5. Don't score more than 4 this year. Bill, just don't shoot at all.

So a strategic readjusting of everyone else's scoring numbers in service of maintains MJs is in order per 3nut bizarro world is, when MJ having a better 2nd scorer solves the issue of why he needed to score at that rate in the first place. You say a coach wouldn't allow MJ to play below capacity. So are you saying that the 30-33 ppg MJ was scoring between 91-93 was representative of his max scoring capacity then, or representative of team personnel and strategy? If having better teammates in the 90's than the 80's meant MJ didn't need to score 35-37ppg, then why wouldn't a better scorer than Scottie have the same effect on MJ's scoring? Your entire argument hinges on what MJ 'needed' to score because of team personnel. MJ wouldn't 'need' to score 33ppg if he has Nique. You're simply saying he does and will cause reasons, while ignoring that MJ's scoring rate when he was winning titles was less than when he was losing in the 80s.





It isn't coincidence that MJ was scoring champ on lottery casts in the 80's and for all 6 titles, while averaging 36/7/8 in the 91-93' Finals (same as the 80's), or 34/7/7 in the 91-93' Playoffs (same as the 80's outside of 87'), or career-high usage outside the 1st Round in the 92', 93' and 98' Playoffs.

So MJ always reaches his scoring capacity of scoring champion and 32-36 ppg regardless of cast (lottery cast or champion cast) because every team outside of Dream Teams have a bunch of role players that get reduced before stars like MJ.. Similarly, role players took the hit when KD achieved his career high alongside Curry in the 17' Finals or averaged well-above his career averages alongside Curry.. KD could go bananas because Curry was attracting defensive attention away from KD - everyone had this advantage except MJ

[Phoenix]

The only reason that I ever used stats is because that was the argument originally used by Lebron stans (before they realized that Jordan still had better stats), so I use stats to beat them with their own argument (and also beat less knowledgeable posters on occasion).

But everyone knows that ring count as the best player is the goat standard that most people use in their rankings..

Unfortunately, Russell's ring count is compromised by playing a format of the game that gave him a lower burden to be MVP-caliber.. He didn't have to be the best offensive player on his team, whereas offensive dominance is REQUIRED to be mvp-caliber in basketball with a 3-point line - since Russell isn't MVP-caliber in the modern era, Jordan's 6 rings as the best player the goat accomplishment.




Why would offensive dominance matter? He was the best player on a team and won the most rings. Isn't that what you said really matters? Let's see...





it makes no difference because people awarded Jordan goat status based on 6 titles as the best player, not stats - most people don't know his stats - so any statistical change is irrelevant because the only thing that matters is ring-count as the best player and Jordan would have MORE rings as the best player with an elite-scoring teammate.

https://c.tenor.com/5vcncLxsNYcAAAAC/whoops-whoopsie.gif

Why is 3point basketball more important than 2 point basketball? If they incorporate a 4 point line in the year 2040 and someone wins 6 titles under 4 point ball, is that the new GOAT achievement?

[3ba11]

Why would offensive dominance matter? He was the best player on a team and won the most rings. Isn't that what you said really matters? Why is 3point basketball more important than 2 point basketball? If they incorporate a 4 point line in the year 2040 and someone wins 6 titles under 4 point ball, is that the new GOAT achievement?


basketball with a 3-point line is different than basketball without a 3-point line - it's a different game that requires offensive dominance to be the best player

[Phoenix]

basketball with a 3-point line is different than basketball without a 3-point line - it's a different game that requires offensive dominance to be the best player

That doesn't address what makes it better, just different. Why is winning in a '2 point basketball' context less important? What happens if they introduce 4 point basketball which requires even more offensive dominance since 3 point line ball requires more offensive dominance than 2 point line ball? Your logic, not mine, I'm just extending it to its natural conclusion?

[Soundwave]

This is probably more true of Rodman, not Pippen. There weren't too many games Scottie "dominated" by only scoring 5 points.

[Axe]

It is really painfully ironic that op keeps on saying that the nba in the 90s suck. The said era was weak and watered-down but it didn't stop him from praising pippen too much lmao.

[3ba11]

3nutball Threadcliifs

Michael Jordan having an equal opportunity scoring partner and potentially winning more chips doesn't impact his GOAT case. On the other hand, Lebron James having an equal opportunity scoring partner is detrimental to his GOAT case.


Michael Jordan is the GOAT because he scores 10-30ppg more than his teammates. On the other hand, if Michael had an equal scoring partner and doesn't score 10-30ppg more than his teammates, he's still the GOAT.


The role players on the Bulls would have been elevated by being told to sacrifice a point off their scoring so that Michael Jordan can continue to score at the exact same level, even if they pair him with a better 2nd scoring option so he doesn't have to score at the exact same level.

Michael Jordan is the leading ppg scorer in the season and playoffs. That said, nobody cares about stats, only ring count except when that doesn't favor MJ in which case, we'll care about stats.


Nope - Lebron weak ring count is why he's nowhere near GOAT - his inability to carry the scoring load is just icing on the cake that further confirms that he's nowhere near MJ.. Otoh, MJ would have 6+ rings as the best player regardless of whether he has an equal-scoring partner or not, so he remains goat regardless of whether his cast improves beyond a bum like Pippen or not.

[Phoenix]

Nope - Lebron weak ring count is why he's nowhere near GOAT - his inability to have carry the scoring load is just icing on the cake that further confirms that he's nowhere near MJ.. Remember, my argument is that he's nowhere near MJ, so ring count makes that point but the gap in burden and lack of help makes it crystal clear.

Lebron is closer in ring count to MJ than MJ is to Russell.

[3ba11]

Lebron is closer in ring count to MJ than MJ is to Russell.


Regardless of whether or not MJ's cast improved beyond Pippen to an elite-producing sidekick, MJ would still have 6+ rings as the best player, so he would be goat regardless of any statistical reduction from having said elite-producing teammate (the statistical reduction was your theory).

However, based on empirical data showing that guys like Durant or Shaq saw goat numbers alongside goat-scoring sidekicks due to role players taking haircuts instead of stars, we know your theory about statistical reduction is wrong...

Heck, people make excuses for Lebron's 07' Finals by saying all eyes were on him and he had no one to attract defensive attention away - jordan's entire CAREER was this way... ONLY jordan's career was this way, so everyone's stats are inflated compared to his, since they spent periods without facing max defensive attention by virtue of having elite-producing teammates to take defensive attention away.

[Phoenix]

Regardless of whether or not MJ's cast improved beyond Pippen to an elite-producing sidekick, MJ would still have 6+ rings as the best player, so he would be goat regardless of any statistical reduction from having said equal-scoring teammate (your theory).

However, based on empirical data showing that guys like Durant or Shaq saw goat numbers alongside goat-scoring sidekicks due to role players taking haircuts instead of stars, we know your theory about statistical reduction is wrong...

Heck, people make excuses for Lebron's 07' Finals by saying all eyes were on him and he had no one to attract defensive attention away - jordan's entire CAREER was this way... ONLY jordan's career was this way, so everyone's stats are inflated compared to his, since they spent periods without facing max defensive attention by virtue of having elite-producing teammates to take defensive attention away.

Lebron is closer in ring count to MJ than MJ is to Russell.

Since your post here said alot but nothing actually related to THAT point, I'll just do the copy and paste thing until you answer why MJ should be GOAT over Russell since you're now placing the highest value on ring count as the best player. Post #70 is just kind of sitting there in the wind, lonely, unanswered..

[3ba11]

Lebron is closer in ring count to MJ than MJ is to Russell.

Since your post here said alot but nothing actually related to THAT point, I'll just do the copy and paste thing until you answer why MJ should be GOAT over Russell since you're now placing the highest value on ring count as the best player. Post #70 is just kind of sitting there in the wind, lonely, unanswered..


Modern era ring count is why everyone considers MJ goat (2-way basketball) - his goat ring count in 3-pointer basketball and 2-way dominance is considered better than Russell.. (top 5 dpoy and scoring champ from 88-98)

So your statistical reduction theory is wrong and irrelevant - modern era ring count (2-way basketball) is why most people consider MJ goat

[Phoenix]

Modern era ring count is why everyone considers MJ goat (2-way basketball) - his goat ring count in 3-pointer basketball and 2-way dominance is considered better than Russell.. (top 5 dpoy and scoring champ from 88-98)

So your statistical reduction theory is wrong and irrelevant - modern era ring count (2-way basketball) is why most people consider MJ goat

Why is basketball played with the rules of a 3 point line better than playing with the rules of a 2 point line? 5 hours later and I'm still waiting on why winning with one set of rules is better than the other, and what happens if they institute a 4 point line rule in 2040, does winning 6 rings in that era then become the GOAT achievement?

[3ba11]

Why is basketball played with the rules of a 3 point line better than playing with the rules of a 2 point line? 5 hours later and I'm still waiting on why winning with one set of rules is better than the other, and what happens if they institute a 4 point line rule in 2040, does winning 6 rings in that era then become the GOAT achievement?


3 > 2

2-way basketball > 1-way basketball (mvp in modern era requires offensive dominance, so 1-way russell is out)

That's why Jordan's ring count as the best player is respected more than Russell's

[Phoenix]

3 > 2...... 2-way basketball > 1-way basketball (mvp in modern era requires offensive dominance, so 1-way russell is out)

That's why Jordan's ring count as the best player is respected more than Russell's

So if they institute a 4 point line, 4>3 and whoever wins a number of rings under those conditions then replaces MJ's 'GOAT standard'. Your rules bucko.....

[3ba11]

So if they institute a 4 point line, 4>3 and whoever wins a number of rings under those conditions then replaces MJ's 'GOAT standard'. Your rules bucko.....


I'm just telling you the biggest factor for why everyone considers MJ goat - it's because of his modern era ring count as the best player

you can keep bringing up 1-way basketball that Bill Russell played, but that's a different sport.. We're talking about basketball with a 3-point line, where MJ is king and the GOAT primarily because of his goat ring count (goat winning)

[TheCorporation]

I'm just telling you the biggest factor for why everyone considers MJ goat - it's because of his modern era ring count as the best player

you can keep bringing up 1-way basketball that Bill Russell played, but that's a different sport.. We're talking about basketball with a 3-pointn line, where MJ is king and the GOAT

Ring quality counts, otherwise Russell is the GOAT and this conversation is over. Therefore, LeBron having four top tier chips and Jordan having maybe 1 or 2 makes it clear to me that LBJ is the GOAT.

[Phoenix]

I'm just telling you the biggest factor for why everyone considers MJ goat - it's because of his modern era ring count as the best player

you can keep bringing up 1-way basketball that Bill Russell played, but that's a different sport.. We're talking about basketball with a 3-point line, where MJ is king and the GOAT primarily because of his goat ring count (goat winning)

Today is a different sport from the 90s. In 50 years they may put jetpacks on the players and have them play on the moon. That's a different sport too. What's important is what you do playing against your competition in the era you played. Trying to argue which version of basketball is 'best' is a never ending conversation because there will always be 'different' versions of the sport. This shit is like the Matrix, we're like on version 4.0 of the NBA game at this point.

What isn't subjective is 11 rings as the best player beats 6 rings as the best player. All the other bullshit mental gymnastics arguing about 3point ball and 2point ball is.....well I already said what it was. Bullshit.

[Johnny32]

At some point in everyone's career, they had equal-scoring teammates to attract equal defensive attention for various playoff runs, and therefore weren't facing maximum defensive attention - any period without max defensive attention are inflated stats compared to Jordan, who faced max defensive attention for his entire career by carrying the scoring load in every SERIES, let alone playoff run..

So Jordan's stats are the baseline to which everyone is compared because his stats are the only stats that reflect max defensive attention for an entire career, aka no periods without facing max defensive attention (no inflation).

the rules catered to isolation basketball lol.

[3ba11]

T

What isn't subjective is 11 rings as the best player beats 6 rings as the best player. All the other bullshit mental gymnastics arguing about 3point ball and 2point ball is.....well I already said what it was. Bullshit.





Lebron doesn't win any category - not rings... not production rate/stats... not accolades... literally nothing...

Otoh, Jordan has the #1 ring count in 3-pointer basketball/modern era as the best player, and the goat production rate/stats, and goat 2-way accolade or FMVP count or scoring title count

[Phoenix]

Lebron doesn't win any category - not rings... not production rate/stats... not accolades... literally nothing...

Otoh, Jordan has the #1 ring count in 3-pointer basketball/modern era as the best player, and the goat production rate/stats, and goat 2-way accolade or FMVP count or scoring title count

Otoh, Bill Russell has the #1 ring count in 2 pointer basketball which is different from 3 point basketball, not worse. Dominance within the era, rules and competition is objective. Bill Russell winning more than MJ is objective. 3point ball being better than 2point ball is subjective.

[72-10]

Bobby Jones

you get a defensive Terminator in there and he might be able to do this for you

Pippen did this in the opening game of the '98 Eastern Finals against the Pacers, played well despite woeful shooting, couldn't get anything to fall

[TheCorporation]

Bobby Jones

you get a defensive Terminator in there and he might be able to do this for you

Pippen did this in the opening game of the '98 Eastern Finals against the Pacers, played well despite woeful shooting, couldn't get anything to fall

https://media.giphy.com/media/EzGslrzAb5AxG/giphy.gif

[RogueBorg]

He had Orlando Woolridge in 1985, Gervin and Woolridge in 1986 and Charles Oakley 1987. He also had, by 3ball's own admission, the Goat Larry Hughes in 2003 and 2004.

Man you really are clueless. You've been bringing up Woolridge for years as some great teammate. Let me remind you he played 14 seasons and never made an All-Star team ever, with or without Jordan. As for Gervin, they played together in the Ice Man's final season. All you know how to do is read box scores. Keep your nose out of anything prior to 2005, it's obvious you know nothing before that.

[bizil]

The evolution of Pip's game MEANT the Bulls had the TOP TWO players in the league in the all around sense two way wise. Meaning scoring, passing, defense, and rebounding as a package. FROM there both could play and defend PG, SG, and SF. In Pip's case even some PF.

The KEY though is Pip's floor game ENABLED MJ to save energy to dominate scoring. MJ didn't need to be the top scorer AND top floor game guy for the Bulls to be at their best. Pip's floor game was on par with MJ's. And since Pip wasn't an alpha dog scorer, his 20 PPG and pass first mentality ALSO was huge for the Bulls. Their would be NO CLASH scoring ego OR fit wise with MJ and Pip. SEAMLESS transition! And why the Bulls took off IMMEDIATELY once Pip became a true All Star type of player.

Bulls were NEVER a superteam like the Celtics and Lakers in terms of their roster. BUT you Jordan and Pip were WAY AHEAD of their time! And could cover up so many gaps. Bulls should be given MAJOR CREDIT for wheelin and dealin to get Pippen in the draft.

NO OTHER perimeter player would have taken the heat off of MJ like Pip did IN TERMS of the two way sense. Sure Pip WASN'T an alpha dog scorer. BUT 20 PPG alongside MJ was MORE THAN ENOUGH! When the defense, triangle, and coaching is on an epic level. So morale of the story is the more VERSATILE your superstars are TWO WAY WISE, it can SUPERCEDE more talented teams. Sure MJ would have won chips with other superstars in Pip's place. BUT NONE OF THEM would have directly saved MJ so much energy two way wise like Pippen!

[97 bulls]

The evolution of Pip's game MEANT the Bulls had the TOP TWO players in the league in the all around sense two way wise. Meaning scoring, passing, defense, and rebounding as a package. FROM there both could play and defend PG, SG, and SF. In Pip's case even some PF.

The KEY though is Pip's floor game ENABLED MJ to save energy to dominate scoring. MJ didn't need to be the top scorer AND top floor game guy for the Bulls to be at their best. Pip's floor game was on par with MJ's. And since Pip wasn't an alpha dog scorer, his 20 PPG and pass first mentality ALSO was huge for the Bulls. Their would be NO CLASH scoring ego OR fit wise with MJ and Pip. SEAMLESS transition! And why the Bulls took off IMMEDIATELY once Pip became a true All Star type of player.

Bulls were NEVER a superteam like the Celtics and Lakers in terms of their roster. BUT you Jordan and Pip were WAY AHEAD of their time! And could cover up so many gaps. Bulls should be given MAJOR CREDIT for wheelin and dealin to get Pippen in the draft.

NO OTHER perimeter player would have taken the heat off of MJ like Pip did IN TERMS of the two way sense. Sure Pip WASN'T an alpha dog scorer. BUT 20 PPG alongside MJ was MORE THAN ENOUGH! When the defense, triangle, and coaching is on an epic level. So morale of the story is the more VERSATILE your superstars are TWO WAY WISE, it can SUPERCEDE more talented teams. Sure MJ would have won chips with other superstars in Pip's place. BUT NONE OF THEM would have directly saved MJ so much energy two way wise like Pippen!

Great summary Biz.

[3ba11]

.
PLAYOFFS


94' Hakeem.... 27.7 PER.... 8.5 BPM... 2.6 VORP... 0.208 WS/48... 28.9 ppg
94' Horry........ 16.7 PER.... 5.0 BPM... 1.4 VORP... 0.152 WS/48... 11.7 ppg
GAP.................. 11.0...........3.5........... 1.2............ 0.056........ 17.2

93' Jordan...... 30.1 PER... 11.6 BPM... 2.9 VORP... 0.270 WS/48... 35.1 ppg
93' Pippen...... 16.9 PER..... 2.0 BPM... 0.8 VORP... 0.083 WS/48... 20.1 ppg
GAP.................. 13.2........... 9.6........... 2.1............ 0.187....... 15.0

11' Dirk.......... 25.2 PER... 5.5 BPM... 1.6 VORP... 0.210 WS/48... 27.7 ppg
11' Terry......... 20.3 PER... 4.6 BPM... 1.1 VORP... 0.179 WS/48... 17.5 ppg
GAP................... 4.9............1.1........... 0.5............ 0.031........ 10.2

92' Jordan...... 27.2 PER.... 9.9 BPM... 2.8 VORP... 0.216 WS/48... 34.5 ppg
92' Pippen...... 20.1 PER.... 6.6 BPM... 2.0 VORP... 0.168 WS/48... 19.5 ppg
GAP.................. 7.1............ 3.3............ 0.8............ 0.048........ 15.0

91' Jordan...... 32.0 PER... 14.6 BPM... 2.9 VORP... 0.333 WS/48... 31.1 ppg
91' Pippen...... 22.0 PER..... 6.5 BPM... 1.5 VORP... 0.197 WS/48... 21.6 ppg
GAP.................. 10.0........... 8.1........... 1.4............ 0.136........ 9.5

96' Jordan...... 26.7 PER... 10.7 BPM... 2.4 VORP.. 0.317 WS/48... 30.7 ppg
96' Pippen...... 19.4 PER..... 7.8 BPM... 1.8 VORP.. 0.195 WS/48... 16.9 ppg
GAP................... 7.3........... 2.9............ 0.6............ 0.122....... 13.8

97' Jordan...... 27.1 PER.... 9.9 BPM... 2.4 VORP... 0.235 WS/48... 31.1 ppg
97' Pippen...... 18.1 PER.... 5.1 BPM... 1.4 VORP... 0.145 WS/48... 19.2 ppg
GAP.................. 9.1........... 4.8............ 1.0............ 0.090....... 11.9

98' Jordan...... 28.1 PER.... 9.0 BPM... 2.4 VORP... 0.265 WS/48... 32.4 ppg
98' Pippen...... 19.4 PER.... 5.6 BPM... 1.6 VORP... 0.166 WS/48... 16.8 ppg
GAP.................. 8.7........... 3.4............ 0.8............ 0.095........ 16.4

[3ba11]

The evolution of Pip's game MEANT the Bulls had the TOP TWO players in the league in the all around sense two way wise. Meaning scoring, passing, defense, and rebounding as a package.





Jordan and Pippen weren't rebounders and never led their team in rebounds.. So you're making up stuff that doesn't mean anything..

Greatness in 2 categories is worth more than being above-average in 4 categories... Every 18/8 career point guard was a better scorer/passer than Pippen.. Every 18/8 big man was a better scorer/rebounder than Pippen..






both could play and defend PG, SG, and SF. In Pip's case even some PF.





^^^ tons of guys can do that including Horry, Hill, McKey, Schrempf, Jordan, Anthony Mason and many more






Pip's floor game ENABLED MJ to save energy to dominate scoring.





If Pippen's mid-tier playmaking helped Jordan (5 APG), then what would a top-tier playmaker like Stockton or Harden do (10-15 apg)?

So you're just lionizing Pippen's low-production into something it was not... jordan won IN SPITE of pippen's low scoring, assists, and worst-ever efficiency (https://i.ibb.co/qBBHvB1/chrome-d-EXe-R4x-E8t.jpg)..

Jordan also scored more before Pippen in 87' and when Pippen was a bench-warmer in 88'.. So he didn't need Pippen's presence to score more than anyone ever has..






Pippen's floor game





Jordan averaged more assists and assist percentage than Pippen in the Finals, playoffs and regular season, while getting more DPOY votes every year and doubling his playoff scoring... He averaged more assists than Pippen on 6 of 9 playoff runs, including 3 title runs.

If elite assists were needed (more than 7 APG), only Jordan could provide it and he did in numerous series.. When Jordan played point guard briefly in 1989 (25 games), the media said he was better than Magic and Stockton after just 10 games at the position because Jordan proved to be a 30/10/10 point guard 30 years before Luka, Westbrook and today's generation.. Ringer.com documents this here (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?499374-Ringer-com-MJ-was-30-yrs-ahead-of-time-as-30-10-10-PG-like-Westbrook-Luka-etc).. Jordan was a 30/10/10 point guard and he wasn't even in the 30/10/10 era.

Ultimately, only Jordan won more than 2 Finals without a teammate getting FMVP or 25 ppg in 1 of the Finals - so only MJ won more than 2 rings with a lower-producing sidekick.






the Bulls took off IMMEDIATELY once Pip became a true All Star type of player.





The Bulls took off when Pippen became an all-star because Jordan only needed a low-producing sidekick like pippen or igoudala or draymond to win - that's the kind of player pippen was and i'm not sure he's as good as draymond overall.






Jordan and Pip were WAY AHEAD of their time!





On any other team, Pippen's athletic slasher/defender style would be a role player like we saw in Houston or Portland - Pippen was only a 2nd option alongside MJ..

Even when MJ was playing baseball, we saw that Pippen couldn't build a franchise each year like 1st options are expected to do because the 95' Bulls were cratering and borderline lottery until MJ returned - so Pippen had destroyed a 3-peat dynasty in less than 2 years, including historic and embarassing chokes.. That's how incapable he was of being a 1st option and he was only a 2nd option alongside MJ (role player alongside anyone else).. Pippen without MJ = Horry






NO OTHER perimeter player would have taken the heat off of MJ like Pip did IN TERMS of the two way sense.





Pippen forced MJ to be the only player in history that faced maximum defensive attention for his entire career.

Everyone in history had equal-scoring teammates to attract equal-defensive attention on various playoff runs, while mj led pippen in every SERIES by 10-30 ppg, and therefore faced maximum defensive attention for his entire career - an entire career of carry-jobs in every series.

So Jordan would have it much easier with an equal-scoring partner to attract equal defensive attention like everyone else in history had - but instead he faced maximum defensive attention because of pippen's weak scoring... Like Shaq said, "Pippen was never on the scouting report - it was all about Mike"






BUT NONE OF THEM would have directly saved MJ so much energy two way wise like Pippen!





You know what's more tiring than anything?

Having to score more than anyone in history against maximum defensive attention because your sidekick isn't a threat and a low-producer.

Carrying the scoring load is tiring, while also leading in assists and being the team's best defender that guards the opposing team's best player (MJ was the primary defender on Magic, Drexler, Miller, Payton, Isiah).. Pippen didn't save Jordan from shit and was the most carried player in history by far.. it isn't remotely close and the stats confirm that (see previous post above).

[ShawkFactory]

The evolution of Pip's game MEANT the Bulls had the TOP TWO players in the league in the all around sense two way wise. Meaning scoring, passing, defense, and rebounding as a package. FROM there both could play and defend PG, SG, and SF. In Pip's case even some PF.

The KEY though is Pip's floor game ENABLED MJ to save energy to dominate scoring. MJ didn't need to be the top scorer AND top floor game guy for the Bulls to be at their best. Pip's floor game was on par with MJ's. And since Pip wasn't an alpha dog scorer, his 20 PPG and pass first mentality ALSO was huge for the Bulls. Their would be NO CLASH scoring ego OR fit wise with MJ and Pip. SEAMLESS transition! And why the Bulls took off IMMEDIATELY once Pip became a true All Star type of player.

Bulls were NEVER a superteam like the Celtics and Lakers in terms of their roster. BUT you Jordan and Pip were WAY AHEAD of their time! And could cover up so many gaps. Bulls should be given MAJOR CREDIT for wheelin and dealin to get Pippen in the draft.

NO OTHER perimeter player would have taken the heat off of MJ like Pip did IN TERMS of the two way sense. Sure Pip WASN'T an alpha dog scorer. BUT 20 PPG alongside MJ was MORE THAN ENOUGH! When the defense, triangle, and coaching is on an epic level. So morale of the story is the more VERSATILE your superstars are TWO WAY WISE, it can SUPERCEDE more talented teams. Sure MJ would have won chips with other superstars in Pip's place. BUT NONE OF THEM would have directly saved MJ so much energy two way wise like Pippen!

Very well said.

[SATAN]

Jordan and Pippen weren't rebounders and never led their team in rebounds.. So you're making up stuff that doesn't mean anything..

Greatness in 2 categories is worth more than being above-average in 4 categories... Every 18/8 career point guard was a better scorer/passer than Pippen.. Every 18/8 big man was a better scorer/rebounder than Pippen..






^^^ tons of guys can do that including Horry, Hill, McKey, Schrempf, Jordan, Anthony Mason and many more






If Pippen's mid-tier playmaking helped Jordan (5 APG), then what would a top-tier playmaker like Stockton or Harden do (10-15 apg)?

So you're just lionizing Pippen's low-production into something it was not... jordan won IN SPITE of pippen's low scoring, assists, and worst-ever efficiency (https://i.ibb.co/qBBHvB1/chrome-d-EXe-R4x-E8t.jpg)..

Jordan also scored more before Pippen in 87' and when Pippen was a bench-warmer in 88'.. So he didn't need Pippen's presence to score more than anyone ever has..






Jordan averaged more assists and assist percentage than Pippen in the Finals, playoffs and regular season, while getting more DPOY votes every year and doubling his playoff scoring... He averaged more assists than Pippen on 6 of 9 playoff runs, including 3 title runs.

If elite assists were needed (more than 7 APG), only Jordan could provide it and he did in numerous series.. When Jordan played point guard briefly in 1989 (25 games), the media said he was better than Magic and Stockton after just 10 games at the position because Jordan proved to be a 30/10/10 point guard 30 years before Luka, Westbrook and today's generation.. Ringer.com documents this here (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?499374-Ringer-com-MJ-was-30-yrs-ahead-of-time-as-30-10-10-PG-like-Westbrook-Luka-etc).. Jordan was a 30/10/10 point guard and he wasn't even in the 30/10/10 era.

Ultimately, only Jordan won more than 2 Finals without a teammate getting FMVP or 25 ppg in 1 of the Finals - so only MJ won more than 2 rings with a lower-producing sidekick.






The Bulls took off when Pippen became an all-star because Jordan only needed a low-producing sidekick like pippen or igoudala or draymond to win - that's the kind of player pippen was and i'm not sure he's as good as draymond overall.






On any other team, Pippen's athletic slasher/defender style would be a role player like we saw in Houston or Portland - Pippen was only a 2nd option alongside MJ..

Even when MJ was playing baseball, we saw that Pippen couldn't build a franchise each year like 1st options are expected to do because the 95' Bulls were cratering and borderline lottery until MJ returned - so Pippen had destroyed a 3-peat dynasty in less than 2 years, including historic and embarassing chokes.. That's how incapable he was of being a 1st option and he was only a 2nd option alongside MJ (role player alongside anyone else).. Pippen without MJ = Horry






Pippen forced MJ to be the only player in history that faced maximum defensive attention for his entire career.

Everyone in history had equal-scoring teammates to attract equal-defensive attention on various playoff runs, while mj led pippen in every SERIES by 10-30 ppg, and therefore faced maximum defensive attention for his entire career - an entire career of carry-jobs in every series.

So Jordan would have it much easier with an equal-scoring partner to attract equal defensive attention like everyone else in history had - but instead he faced maximum defensive attention because of pippen's weak scoring... Like Shaq said, "Pippen was never on the scouting report - it was all about Mike"






You know what's more tiring than anything?

Having to score more than anyone in history against maximum defensive attention because your sidekick isn't a threat and a low-producer.

Carrying the scoring load is tiring, while also leading in assists and being the team's best defender that guards the opposing team's best player (MJ was the primary defender on Magic, Drexler, Miller, Payton, Isiah).. Pippen didn't save Jordan from shit and was the most carried player in history by far.. it isn't remotely close and the stats confirm that (see previous post above).

Seething.

[theman93]

https://youtu.be/3yif1LTsPms


https://i.ibb.co/K0NbPyB/IMG-20211204-183434.jpg (https://ibb.co/C1Jmc04)

1st post slay LOL :lol

[Round Mound]

The evolution of Pip's game MEANT the Bulls had the TOP TWO players in the league in the all around sense two way wise. Meaning scoring, passing, defense, and rebounding as a package. FROM there both could play and defend PG, SG, and SF. In Pip's case even some PF.

The KEY though is Pip's floor game ENABLED MJ to save energy to dominate scoring. MJ didn't need to be the top scorer AND top floor game guy for the Bulls to be at their best. Pip's floor game was on par with MJ's. And since Pip wasn't an alpha dog scorer, his 20 PPG and pass first mentality ALSO was huge for the Bulls. Their would be NO CLASH scoring ego OR fit wise with MJ and Pip. SEAMLESS transition! And why the Bulls took off IMMEDIATELY once Pip became a true All Star type of player.

Bulls were NEVER a superteam like the Celtics and Lakers in terms of their roster. BUT you Jordan and Pip were WAY AHEAD of their time! And could cover up so many gaps. Bulls should be given MAJOR CREDIT for wheelin and dealin to get Pippen in the draft.

NO OTHER perimeter player would have taken the heat off of MJ like Pip did IN TERMS of the two way sense. Sure Pip WASN'T an alpha dog scorer. BUT 20 PPG alongside MJ was MORE THAN ENOUGH! When the defense, triangle, and coaching is on an epic level. So morale of the story is the more VERSATILE your superstars are TWO WAY WISE, it can SUPERCEDE more talented teams. Sure MJ would have won chips with other superstars in Pip's place. BUT NONE OF THEM would have directly saved MJ so much energy two way wise like Pippen!

This :applause:

[72-10]

Maurice Cheeks did this stunt to his opponent quite often

[72-10]

Philly vs. Denver, April 8, 1979: perfect shooting, 3 reb, 5 ast, 4 stl, no tov, 4 pts
Philly vs. Kansas City, November 7, 1979: 4 reb, 10 ast, 5 stl, 4 pts
Philly at Pacers, December 16, 1980: 3 reb, 10 ast, 4 stl, 4 pts
Philly vs. Chicago, November 11, 1981: 3 reb, 10 ast, 5 stl, no tov, 4 pts
Philly vs. Milwaukee, November 18, 1981: 2 reb, 11 ast, 3 stl, 4 pts
Phily vs. Detroit, November 28, 1981: 2 reb, 12 ast, 6 stl, 4 pts
Philly vs. New York, December 17, 1982: 2 reb, 10 ast, 5 stl, 5 pts
Philly at New Jersey, November 27, 1985: 2 reb, 6 ast, 5 stl, 5 pts
Philly vs. Cleveland, March 14, 1986: 2 reb, 11 ast, 2 stl, 5 pts
Philly at L.A. Lakers, December 28, 1988: 1 reb, 10 ast, 3 stl, 1 tov, 4 pts
San Antonio vs. Charlotte, January 31, 1990: 6 reb, 5 ast, 5 stl, no tov, 5 pts
New York at Minnesota, March 15, 1990: perfect shooting, 3 reb, 9 ast, 1 stl, no tov, 4 pts
New York at Philly, March 13, 1991: 11 ast, 4 stl, 1 tov, 4 pts
Atlanta vs. Charlotte, November 12, 1991: 1 reb, 11 ast, 4 stl, 2 tov, 4 pts
New Jersey vs. Pacers, April 6, 1993: 2 reb, 4 ast, 3 stl, no tov, 5 pts

[72-10]

Dwight just had one of the most impressive 5 points games in the league!

[3ba11]

So Lebron needs AD to completely dominate and Kyrie or Bosh to destroy the league MVP, but it's okay for Jordan's 2nd option to score 5 points

show me a player in history that won with their 2nd scoring option getting 5 points

waiting

so people just talk shit about Jordan and have no idea whst they're talking about - it isn't okay for a 2nd scoring option to get 5 points

[Axe]

Op stubbornly continues to point out in numerous threads that the 90s were a weak and watered-down era, with no significance in talent and competition compared to other eras. Especially against modern ones like the 10s and currently the 20s.

By that crazy logic then, all players aside from mj who were involved and played in that said era must've sucked too. That automatically includes pippen, bird, magic, barkley, hakeem, ewing, rodman, divac, isiah, shaq, penny, reggie, malone, stockton, carter, duncan, bryant, garnett, allen, pierce, mcgrady and so on.

[TheGoatest]

Op stubbornly continues to point out in numerous threads that the 90s were a weak and watered-down era, with no significance in talent and competition compared to other eras. Especially against modern ones like the 10s and currently the 20s.

By that logic then, all players aside from mj who were involved and played in that said era must've sucked too. That includes pippen, bird, magic, barkley, hakeem, ewing, rodman, divac, isiah, shaq, penny, reggie, malone, stockton, carter, duncan, bryant, garnett, allen, pierce, mcgrady and so on.

90s:

Centers - great
Power forwards - okay
Perimeter players - The best and second best perimeter players of the decade played on the same team. And that team also had an elite rebounder/all-defensive post player. 1992-93 Mark Price, 1993-94 Latrell Sprewell and 1996-97 Tim Hardaway are the worst, or as bad as any all-NBA 1st team perimeter player selections since the 1950s. 1991-92 Chris Mullin isn't far behind. Shooting guards in particular, post 1991-92 Drexler (who even in 91-92 was still below peak Paul George level), sucked ass till it was sore.

All these are facts. Deal with it.

[000]

That doesn't answer my question, so let's try again:

Does giving MJ a better 2nd scorer make his path to titles harder or easier? If easier, does that help or hinder his GOAT case?

The answer to the first question has one of two replies: harder or easier. The answer to the 2nd question has one of two replies: help or hinder.

Your turn.
MJ with a better scorer alongside him would've been insane, damn. Could've gone 6-0 in the Finals with 2x threepeats or something ridiculous like that

[Baller789]

90s:

Centers - great
Power forwards - okay
Perimeter players - The best and second best perimeter players of the decade played on the same team. And that team also had an elite rebounder/all-defensive post player. 1992-93 Mark Price, 1993-94 Latrell Sprewell and 1996-97 Tim Hardaway are the worst, or as bad as any all-NBA 1st team perimeter player selections since the 1950s. 1991-92 Chris Mullin isn't far behind. Shooting guards in particular, post 1991-92 Drexler (who even in 91-92 was still below peak Paul George level), sucked ass till it was sore.

All these are facts. Deal with it.

Jordan went 1-9.
Yet his competition is weak.
So which is it?

[TheGoatest]

Jordan went 1-9.
Yet his competition is weak.
So which is it?

Um, Jordan went 1-9 in the 80s.
He thrived in the 90s.
He had the luxury of playing right after the 80s Lakers/Celtics/Pistons got washed or injured, and was like a kid in a candy store during one of the weakest decades ever.

If those Bulls didn't exist, the 90s would've had 7-8 different champions, even more champions than the 1970s, which is generally regarded as the weakest decade in the history of basketball.

[Axe]

Um, Jordan went 1-9 in the 80s.
He thrived in the 90s.
He had the luxury of playing right after the 80s Lakers/Celtics/Pistons got washed or injured, and was like a kid in a candy store during one of the weakest decades ever.

If those Bulls didn't exist, the 90s would've had 7-8 different champions, even more champions than the 1970s, which is generally regarded as the weakest decade in the history of basketball.
How would you feel tho if other users use your immature logic against you about your mighty precious hero this time, that after lebron got swept in the finals 14 years ago he only made it there again after he hopped in south beach to form the triumvirate in which they still lost the finals in their first year together? What if they tell you that in most of the 10s the east was utterly weak because no other players and their respective teams from that conference have gotten to the finals aside from his teams because they didn't collude at all? :ohwell:

If he didn't make that move that served as his catalyst for his extended finals runs, then he wouldn't have had a losing 4/10 in his finals record nor he wouldn't have been swept twice before moving on to the west because there would be other eastern champions in his place too. He also wouldn't have won two rings if not for big bailout shots from allen and irving. His two other rings were also won in seasons that went less than the usual 82 games, via lockout and the disney bubble respectively. And no, don't tell me those rings were more challenging to achieve. Other related players had to go through them as well.

Regardless he's a great player who will end up in the hof someday and i have nothing against him but i find your rage and biasedness against his nemesis to be extremely ridiculous.

[Baller789]

Um, Jordan went 1-9 in the 80s.
He thrived in the 90s.
He had the luxury of playing right after the 80s Lakers/Celtics/Pistons got washed or injured, and was like a kid in a candy store during one of the weakest decades ever.

If those Bulls didn't exist, the 90s would've had 7-8 different champions, even more champions than the 1970s, which is generally regarded as the weakest decade in the history of basketball.
Your 2nd paragraph doesn't even remotely make sense.

If there are different champions within the decade, that means there is league parity. Which means there is competition.

But then it would contradict your point that the MJ Bulls sucked and only won because it was a weak era.
If the Bulls dominated = weak era
If the Bulls lost = MJ sucked

It seems you just want to have your cake and eat it too. :oldlol:

[TheGoatest]

How would you feel tho if other users use your immature logic against you about your mighty precious hero this time, that after lebron got swept in the finals 14 years ago he only made it there again after he hopped in south beach to form the triumvirate in which they still lost the finals in their first year together? What if they tell you that in most of the 10s the east was utterly weak because no other players and their respective teams from that conference have gotten to the finals aside from his teams because they didn't collude at all? :ohwell:

If he didn't make that move that served as his catalyst for his extended finals runs, then he wouldn't have had a losing 4/10 in his finals record nor he wouldn't have been swept twice before moving on to the west because there would be other eastern champions in his place too. He also wouldn't have won two rings if not for big bailout shots from allen and irving. His two other rings were also won in seasons that went less than the usual 82 games, via lockout and the disney bubble respectively. And no, don't tell me those rings were more challenging to achieve. Other related players had to go through them as well.

Regardless he's a great player who will end up in the hof someday and i have nothing against him but i find your rage and biasedness against his nemesis to be extremely ridiculous.

My post you're replying to didn't mention anything about LeBron. :oldlol: Yet you have the audacity to tell me I'm posting about nothing but LeBron. Jordan stans just can't stick to the subject - the fact that the 90s were an extremely weak era that could be easily exploited.

[Baller789]

My post you're replying to didn't mention anything about LeBron. :oldlol: Yet you have the audacity to tell me I'm posting about nothing but LeBron. Jordan stans just can't stick to the subject - the fact that the 90s were an extremely weak era that could be easily exploited.

So Axe is a Jordan stan now?

[TheGoatest]

Your 2nd paragraph doesn't even remotely make sense.

If there are different champions within the decade, that means there is league parity. Which means there is competition.

But then it would contradict your point that the MJ Bulls sucked and only won because it was a weak era.
If the Bulls dominated = weak era
If the Bulls lost = MJ sucked

It seems you just want to have your cake and eat it too. :oldlol:

Yeah, right. :oldlol: You WISH that your "logic" would hold water = the more different champions there are, the stronger the era.
That's why the 1970s, and in particular the 1975-1979 period with 5 different champions in 5 different seasons (Warriors, Celtics, Blazers, Bullets, Sonics) is known as the strongest era ever. :oldlol:

The thing is, we don't have to look at the 6 seasons where the Bulls won to see how weak of an era the 90s really was.
Thanks to Jordan's legacy-ruining decision to retire in 1993, we can just look at the seasons between the two Bulls 3-peats:
A championship was won where the 2nd leading scorer in the playoffs on a championship team averaged 13.8 on .376 in the playoffs and 13.4 on .365 in the finals. And this is supposed to be a strong era? :roll: Tell that shit to the birds.

[Baller789]

Yeah, right. :oldlol: You WISH that your "logic" would hold water = the more different champions there are, the stronger the era.
That's why the 1970s, and in particular the 1975-1979 period with 5 different champions in 5 different seasons (Warriors, Celtics, Blazers, Bullets, Sonics) is known as the strongest era ever. :oldlol:

The thing is, we don't have to look at the 6 seasons where the Bulls won to see how weak of an era the 90s really was.
Thanks to Jordan's legacy-ruining decision to retire in 1993, we can just look at the seasons between the two Bulls 3-peats:
A championship was won where the 2nd leading scorer in the playoffs on a championship team averaged 13.8 on .376 in the playoffs and 13.4 on .365 in the finals. And this is supposed to be a strong era? :roll: Tell that shit to the birds.

So based on your own logic..

If Lebron won 10 straight NBA Championships with his second option putting up 13.8 on .376 that is considered the weakest era.

Got it!

[TheGoatest]

So Axe is a Jordan stan now?

Yes, he (probably your alt) claims he is neither a Jordan nor LeBron fan, yet somehow mysteriously always takes the anti-LeBron stance over an anti-Jordan stance in any thread about the subject. Even when it comes to the posts that exclusively criticize Jordan and don't even mention LeBron (my post above about the 90s), he starts shitting on LeBron.

[TheGoatest]

So based on your own logic..

If Lebron won 10 straight NBA Championships, that is considered the weakest era.

Got it!

If he won multiple championships, then retired and in the period he retired teams with historically weak rosters won championships, while that era included the caliber of perimeter players like 1992-93 Mark Price, 1993-94 Latrell Sprewell and 1996-97 Tim Hardaway getting selected on the all-NBA 1st teams, then yes, that is a weak era. I hope you get it.

[Baller789]

So Axe is a Jordan stan now?


Yes, he (probably your alt) claims he is neither a Jordan nor LeBron fan, yet somehow mysteriously always takes the anti-LeBron stance over an anti-Jordan stance in any thread about the subject. Even when it comes to the posts that exclusively criticize Jordan and don't even mention LeBron (my post above about the 90s), he starts shitting on LeBron.

Hey slick, this guy says your a Jordan stan.
He sounds legit and an expert psychic.

[TheGoatest]

How can you, who supposedly dislikes both Jordan and LeBron, deny that Jordan's era was objectively weaker?
Even the people who picked Jordan over LeBron in a recent survey (was posted on this forum around the start of the season, can't find the thread) that analyzed all the factors in a Jordan-LeBron debate admitted that LeBron's era was tougher, while at the same time clinging to the usual pro-Jordan bullshit (Jordan being more clutch than LeBron, LeBron lacking Jordan's "killer instinct", etc.) as being the reason for why they still picked Jordan.

[Baller789]

If he won multiple championships, then retired and in the period he retired teams with historically weak rosters won championships, while that era included the caliber of perimeter players like 1992-93 Mark Price, 1993-94 Latrell Sprewell and 1996-97 Tim Hardaway getting selected on the all-NBA 1st teams, then yes, that is a weak era. I hope you get it.

But Lebron only won 4/10 championships.
So if 10 straight championships makes Lebron a champ in a weak era in the above conditions you made.
What does a mere 4 championships make him? A G-league fringe level player?

[TheGoatest]

But Lebron only won 4/10 championships.
So if 10 straight championships makes Lebron a champ in a weak era in the above conditions you made.
What does a mere 4 championships make him? A G-league fringe level player?

Yes, he won 4 and the times he lost, he lost to legit dynasties (Spurs, who have won 3 other championships aside from the 2 he lost against them, Warriors who have literally swept the entire western conference 12-0 in the playoffs prior to the finals.. Or he lost because his supporting cast didn't play in the playoffs/finals due to injury. Which is something that Jordan, ON TOP of having the luxury of playing in a weak era never, EVER had to deal with when it came to Pippen, Rodman or Grant, all 3 who have literally played every single playoff/finals game in the 6 Bulls championship runs.

[Baller789]

Yes, he won 4 and the times he lost, he lost to legit dynasties (Spurs, who have won 3 other championships aside from the 2 he lost against them, Warriors who have literally swept the entire western conference 12-0 in the playoffs prior to the finals.. Or he lost because his supporting cast didn't play in the playoffs/finals due to injury. Which is something that Jordan, ON TOP of having the luxury of playing in a weak era never, EVER had to deal with when it came to Pippen, Rodman or Grant, all 3 who have literally played every single playoff/finals game in the 6 Bulls championship runs.

Seems pretty convenient that those "dynasties" were always located opposite of Lebrons Conference.

And judging by his teams being uncompetetive and being swept twice in the finals and a series against an aging Spurs team inflicting a record breaking margin of ar$3 whooping to Bran's hapless team...

It seems to point that his own Conference is pretty weak and only consistently went to the finals because his own conference was pretty crappy.

[ImKobe]

How can you, who supposedly dislikes both Jordan and LeBron, deny that Jordan's era was objectively weaker?
Even the people who picked Jordan over LeBron in a recent survey (was posted on this forum around the start of the season, can't find the thread) that analyzed all the factors in a Jordan-LeBron debate admitted that LeBron's era was tougher, while at the same time clinging to the usual pro-Jordan bullshit (Jordan being more clutch than LeBron, LeBron lacking Jordan's "killer instinct", etc.) as being the reason for why they still picked Jordan.

How was Lebron's era tougher than MJ's? The East was a joke for about 90% of Bron's career which allowed him to make 9 of his 10 Finals, he formed a superteam in an era where Kobe went to 3 straight Finals and won 2 with Pau Gasol lol. At one point, the EC only had three of the 15 All-NBA players and 2 of those 3 were on the Cavs..

Jordan played in the Magic/Bird era and had to face the Pistons in the EC every year, the mid-2000s was much weaker in comparison. The '93 Suns were an absolutely loaded team with peak Chuck, KJ and 5 other players who averaged 10+ ppg (legit All-Star caliber players Majerle, Chambers etc). MJ's era was more balanced in comparison as players could not form superteams via FA or by forcing trades as they did not have as much power at the time, which makes Jordan's accomplishment even more impressive as he did not have the power nor the need to stack the deck, and he still won 6 in 8 years.

[TheGoatest]

Seems pretty convenient that those "dynasties" were always located opposite of Lebrons Conference.

And judging by his teams being uncompetetive and being swept twice in the finals and a series against an aging Spurs team inflicting a record breaking margin of ar$3 whooping to Bran's hapless team...

It seems to point that his own Conference is pretty weak and only consistently went to the finals because his own conference was pretty crappy.

Not as convenient as a team that Jordan never met in a 7 game series winning the chip the exact two seasons the Bulls didn't win. And all the other teams/players he beat in the Bulls championship runs failed to beat Hakeem + a bunch of role players those two seasons.

Judging by the fact that the Pistons beat Jordan, beat him again, and then beat him again in the 80s, before he finally beat a washed version of said Pistons when the 90s kicked in seems to point that he wouldn't have won jack shit had his career started in 1974 and he had to win championships throughout the 80s, instead of having the fortune of it starting in 1984 and him having the luxury of winning championships in the 90s. Now go on with your "not a Jordan fan" Jordan defense post number 1695.

[TheGoatest]

How was Lebron's era tougher than MJ's? The East was a joke for about 90% of Bron's career which allowed him to make 9 of his 10 Finals, he formed a superteam in an era where Kobe went to 3 straight Finals and won 2 with Pau Gasol lol. At one point, the EC only had three of the 15 All-NBA players and 2 of those 3 were on the Cavs..

Jordan played in the Magic/Bird era and had to face the Pistons in the EC every year, the mid-2000s was much weaker in comparison. The '93 Suns were an absolutely loaded team with peak Chuck, KJ and 5 other players who averaged 10+ ppg (legit All-Star caliber players Majerle, Chambers etc). MJ's era was more balanced in comparison as players could not form superteams via FA or by forcing trades as they did not have as much power at the time, which makes Jordan's accomplishment even more impressive as he did not have the power nor the need to stack the deck, and he still won 6 in 8 years.

You can say the east was a joke all you want. He still beat the western conference champions three times, all three of which were better teams than any team Jordan ever beat in a 7 game series. And the only healthy season LeBron was playing in the west he was a #1 seed after 60+ games played, before Covid started. At the age of 35.

The 93 Suns were great offensively, but one of the worst defensive teams ever in the finals.

You're right about Jordan playing in the Magic/Bird era. Except he didn't win jack shit until that era ended and Kareem not only declined, but retired entirely and was replaced by Vlade Divac. He won in an era where Hakeem was able to win with a sub 14 ppg, sub 40% shooting 2nd option in the playoffs and finals, and the eastern conference champions failed to defeat this team. So for every time you mention that east was shit in LeBron's era, I will counter with the fact that both east AND west were shit in the 90s.

[3ba11]

You can say the east was a joke all you want. He still beat the western conference champions three times, all three of which were better teams than any team Jordan ever beat in a 7 game series. And the only healthy season LeBron was playing in the west he was a #1 seed after 60+ games played, before Covid started. At the age of 35.

The 93 Suns were great offensively, but one of the worst defensive teams ever in the finals.

You're right about Jordan playing in the Magic/Bird era. Except he didn't win jack shit until that era ended and Kareem not only declined, but retired entirely and was replaced by Vlade Divac. He won in an era where Hakeem was able to win with a sub 14 ppg, sub 40% shooting 2nd option in the playoffs and finals, and the eastern conference champions failed to defeat this team. So for every time you mention that east was shit in LeBron's era, I will counter with the fact that both east AND west were shit in the 90s.


Jordan would destroy any team in history if he had an extra all-star teammate (3rd all-star,) like Lebron had when he won 3 Finals against the West.

And Lebron lost to the West twice as much as he won, so he underachieved..

Specifically, he had the preseason favorite (the on-paper talent favorite) from 2011-2016 but only won 3 times, including 2 teammate bailouts - that's nothing compared to Jordan.

Finally, Jordan beat opponents that had more all-stars (93' and 96') while Lebron never did... Infact, the 91' Lakers and 92' Blazers had better defenses and far more scoring options - the Lakers had 4 guys average 17+ in the 91' Finals (4 Pippen's)

[Axe]

My post you're replying to didn't mention anything about LeBron. :oldlol: Yet you have the audacity to tell me I'm posting about nothing but LeBron. Jordan stans just can't stick to the subject - the fact that the 90s were an extremely weak era that could be easily exploited.
Yet that doesn't even stop you from mentioning him and the era he played jn the other threads that have nothing to do with those two. Also if you think i am a jordan stan, then that only goes to show what a big retard you really are.

[Axe]

Yes, he (probably your alt) claims he is neither a Jordan nor LeBron fan, yet somehow mysteriously always takes the anti-LeBron stance over an anti-Jordan stance in any thread about the subject. Even when it comes to the posts that exclusively criticize Jordan and don't even mention LeBron (my post above about the 90s), he starts shitting on LeBron.
Fyfi outside of trolling i can respect both players. However what i'm concerned about is you. You're trolling mad about someone who you think is a fraud but that didn't stop you from being obsessed with him, judging by the threads you make and the comments you're posting. Plus you're doing this shit in a daily basis, just like 3ball does with lebron. I also call and troll him out in his threads too. Now that i'm pointing your shtick out, i'm anti-lebron all of a sudden, just because i made a post about your crappy logic being used against you? Lmao kids these days.

[Axe]

How can you, who supposedly dislikes both Jordan and LeBron, deny that Jordan's era was objectively weaker?
Even the people who picked Jordan over LeBron in a recent survey (was posted on this forum around the start of the season, can't find the thread) that analyzed all the factors in a Jordan-LeBron debate admitted that LeBron's era was tougher, while at the same time clinging to the usual pro-Jordan bullshit (Jordan being more clutch than LeBron, LeBron lacking Jordan's "killer instinct", etc.) as being the reason for why they still picked Jordan.
Except i didn't disagree to that. I also never said anything about his competition being superior to king kong's either but when you have a gimmick account, along with other accounts, made to loathe on just one common player each day and tells you in his own threads that bringing up his hero has nothing to do you with this subject while he does the same against his nemesis in threads that also have nothing to do him, guys would only know that op is a goddamn hypocrite.

[Baller789]

Not as convenient as a team that Jordan never met in a 7 game series winning the chip the exact two seasons the Bulls didn't win. And all the other teams/players he beat in the Bulls championship runs failed to beat Hakeem + a bunch of role players those two seasons.

Judging by the fact that the Pistons beat Jordan, beat him again, and then beat him again in the 80s, before he finally beat a washed version of said Pistons when the 90s kicked in seems to point that he wouldn't have won jack shit had his career started in 1974 and he had to win championships throughout the 80s, instead of having the fortune of it starting in 1984 and him having the luxury of winning championships in the 90s. Now go on with your "not a Jordan fan" Jordan defense post number 1695.

That's the defence of your precious hero?

Deflecting to Jordan? I haven't read a single point that even remotely defends his team's sh!tting the bed in the Finals.

You might as well pack it up and go home.

No Mike.. No Bran.

:basketball