If you watched Michael Jordan play there is no question.
If you are a 19 year old Cholo then you claim Kobe is the GOAT.
If you are a 15 year old b1tch boy then you claim LeBron is the GOAT.
None of it matters.
Printable View
If you watched Michael Jordan play there is no question.
If you are a 19 year old Cholo then you claim Kobe is the GOAT.
If you are a 15 year old b1tch boy then you claim LeBron is the GOAT.
None of it matters.
[QUOTE=Soundwave]If Magic got AIDS in say 1987, when the Lakers core was still relatively young and Worthy was the same age as Pippen in '93, they'd still be pretty good.
I'd say they'd probably make the Finals still (Kareem + Worthy + Coop + Scott).[/QUOTE]
They werent old in 92. Jabbar in 87 was older than than anyone on the Celtics in 89. And yet you feel hed be able to lead the Lakers to a Championship appearance without Magic? And unlike Mchale and Parish, he was showing his age. He was hardly the same player of the early 80s and 70s.
[QUOTE]The Jordan retirement is really such an outlier, it's something that pretty much never happens in team sport, a player doesn't retire in the middle of their prime with a relatively young championship team still around them.
The only comparable I can really think of is the Oilers losing Wayne Gretzky in '88 (basically "sold" away in his prime due to a greedy owner), but still winning the Cup again in 1990. But that doesn't mean Gretzky isn't the GOAT. [/QUOTE]
The Bulls still being able to contend for a Championship without Jordan is not an indication that he was not the GOAT. It simply means he had great teammates. Plain and simple.
[QUOTE]And even then the Bulls were right back to being a mediocre team by 94-95, barely able to stay above .500.[/QUOTE]
They had no frontline. How many times do you have to hear that? Thats why they lost to the Magic. By then. They lost Jordan, Cartwright, Williams, Grant, Longley was hurt. The only big they had was Will Perdue. Losing talent is gonna effect your win/loss record.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]They werent old in 92. Jabbar in 87 was older than than anyone on the Celtics in 89. And yet you feel hed be able to lead the Lakers to a Championship appearance without Magic? And unlike Mchale and Parish, he was showing his age. He was hardly the same player of the early 80s and 70s.
The Bulls still being able to contend for a Championship without Jordan is not an indication that he was not the GOAT. It simply means he had great teammates. Plain and simple.
They had no frontline. How many times do you have to hear that? Thats why they lost to the Magic. By then. They lost Jordan, Cartwright, Williams, Grant, Longley was hurt. The only big they had was Will Perdue. Losing talent is gonna effect your win/loss record.[/QUOTE]
You're using double standards here, it's OK to remove Kareem, Magic, and even Worthy missed almost 30 games for the Lakers in 91-92.
The Lakers and Celtics were deeper than the Bulls in terms of overall talent in part because they were built prior to the expansion era, with fewer teams, talent is more concentrated, hence the better teams have more talent.
Even Roundball Rock understands this concept.
Toni Kukoc or Horace Grant (the third offensive option on the Bulls runs) would never even sniff a Finals MVP ... James Worthy on the Lakers did so.
Cedric Maxwell also won the Finals MVP for the Celtics and Dennis Johnson was at times their best player in some series'.
The Bulls never ever had that luxury.
I think 3ball had a good post on this but Jordan had to assume a higher percentage of the offensive output for the Bulls than basically any other superstar on any other dynasty franchise ... because the Bulls needed that level of output.
The Lakers won series' where Magic was only the third best player, even in some of the Celtics series' Bird could afford to be the second best player.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]
The Bulls still being able to contend for a Championship without Jordan is not an indication that he was not the GOAT. It simply means he had great teammates. Plain and simple. [/QUOTE]
When did they contend for a championship? You mean when they got to the second round of the playoffs, like 8 teams do every year?
[QUOTE=KNOW1EDGE]If you watched Michael Jordan play there is no question.
If you are a 19 year old Cholo then you claim Kobe is the GOAT.
If you are a 15 year old b1tch boy then you claim LeBron is the GOAT.
None of it matters.[/QUOTE]
A lot depends on the era you mainly watched, yes.
For all the Bulls fans, this is debateable and it's no slight on MJ, but for some people in the world, they have different criteria and watched different eras to call this type of judgement.
Some may weigh Russel's titles as the dominant factor.
Some may weigh Kareem's longevity as the dominant factor.
Some may weigh Wilt's statistical dominance as the dominant factor.
That's it.
[QUOTE=Soundwave]You're using double standards here, it's OK to remove Kareem, Magic, and even Worthy missed almost 30 games for the Lakers in 91-92. [/QUOTE]
Im comparing them to the outcome of the previous season. Im comparing the 43 win 92 Lakers that lost in the first round to the 58 win team that made it to the Finals. Im comparing the 89 Celtics team that won 42 games (8 against expansion teams), to the 88 team that won 57 and made it to the ECF. Huge drops in spite of getting very good players to replace their teams best player. Toni Kukoc as a rookie and Pete Myers are not equal to Reggie Lewis or Sedale Threat.
[QUOTE]The Lakers and Celtics were deeper than the Bulls in terms of overall talent in part because they were built prior to the expansion era, with fewer teams, talent is more concentrated, hence the better teams have more talent. [/QUOTE]
This is a straw man. You make this argument because you refuse to acknowledge that as the popularity of the NBA increased, so did the talent pool.
Even Roundball Rock understands this concept.
[QUOTE]Toni Kukoc or Horace Grant (the third offensive option on the Bulls runs) would never even sniff a Finals MVP ... James Worthy on the Lakers did so. [/QUOTE]
James Worthy wasn't the number three guy when he won finals MVP in 88. In fact, he was the first option. Ask Jerry Sloan who the MVP of the 98 Finals was and hed say Pippen. You've been shown clipping from reputable news sources plainly stating that Pippen was deserving of Finals MVP after game four. As well as George Karls statements on Dennis Rodmans dominance in 96.
[QUOTE]Cedric Maxwell also won the Finals MVP for the Celtics and Dennis Johnson was at times their best player in some series'. [/QUOTE]
There were times when Pippen or Rodman was arguably the catalyst to the Bulls winning. Neither Maxwell nor Johnson were ever their teams best player.
[QUOTE]The Bulls never ever had that luxury.[/QUOTE]
Can you explain how you arrive at this conclusion?
[QUOTE]I think 3ball had a good post on this but Jordan had to assume a higher percentage of the offensive output for Bulls than basically any other superstar on any other dynasty franchise ... because the Bulls needed that level of output.[/QUOTE]
Jordan chose to shoot at the rate he did. 1994 provved that the Bulls didnt need Jordan avg 30 ppg. There is no doubt in my mind that with a Latrell Sprewell or Mitch Richmond theyd win a Championship.
[QUOTE]The Lakers won series' where Magic was only the third best player, even in some of the Celtics series' Bird could afford to be the second best player.[/QUOTE]
Never happened. Maybe.early in Magics career with Jabbar but thats it.
[QUOTE=fpliii]One other thing, does the 93 media guide have plus-minus numbers for players in the league? According to this article (Dec. 94):
[url]http://articles.philly.com/1994-12-29/sports/25855805_1_sixers-nate-mcmillan-sonics[/url]
Pollack was tracking it by then. He does have plus-minus in the one guide I own (90-91), but it's only for Sixers players and opponents.[/QUOTE]
Here's the page showing the total dunks for each player over a 6 season period.. I will be making a thread of this tomorrow at some point with more pictures, and with some red meat for the stans :)
[IMG]https://scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/s720x720/1795563_10204531167778660_7768591196828075347_n.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=3ball]Here's the page showing the total dunks for each player over a 6 season period..
[IMG]https://scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/s720x720/1795563_10204531167778660_7768591196828075347_n.jpg[/IMG]
I will be making a thread of this tomorrow at some point, with some red meat for the stans :)[/QUOTE]
Thanks for sharing.
I'm actually more interested in the yearly totals. Do the other guides (again, I only have 90-91) have this page:
[url]http://i62.tinypic.com/29aw57s.jpg[/url]
?
If so, could you scan them? Maybe we can put together a spreadsheet with dunks for each guy by year.
[quote=fpliii] Pollack was tracking it by then. He does have plus-minus in the one guide I own (90-91), but it's only for Sixers players and opponents.[/quote]
Could you post the Sixers plus/minus? Thanks.
[QUOTE=PHILA]Could you post the Sixers plus/minus? Thanks.[/QUOTE]
Here you go:
[url]http://www18.zippyshare.com/v/47770687/file.html[/url]
I only have the 90-91 guide for Philly (so it's for 89-90 only). Based on this article:
[url]http://articles.philly.com/1994-12-29/sports/25855805_1_sixers-nate-mcmillan-sonics[/url]
It seems the media guide for 94-95 (meaning it has stats for the 93-94 season) might have league-wide +/-, which is two seasons before stats.nba.com starts. I don't know if the 91-92 through 93-94 editions do. I'm also not sure if editions before 90-91 contain data for just Philly. Maybe 3ball can check.
[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]When did they contend for a championship? You mean when they got to the second round of the playoffs, like 8 teams do every year?[/QUOTE]
Yep
[quote=fpliii]Here you go:
[URL="http://www18.zippyshare.com/v/47770687/file.html"]http://www18.zippyshare.com/v/47770687/file.html[/URL]
I only have the 90-91 guide for Philly (so it's for 89-90 only). Based on this article:
[URL="http://articles.philly.com/1994-12-29/sports/25855805_1_sixers-nate-mcmillan-sonics"]http://articles.philly.com/1994-12-29/sports/25855805_1_sixers-nate-mcmillan-sonics[/URL]
It seems the media guide for 94-95 (meaning it has stats for the 93-94 season) might have league-wide +/-, which is two seasons before stats.nba.com starts. I don't know if the 91-92 through 93-94 editions do. I'm also not sure if editions before 90-91 contain data for just Philly. Maybe 3ball can check.[/quote]
I know those are just raw numbers, but in looking at the starters it shows Barkley as the top offensive player and Mahorn as the best defensive player, both by big margins. Hawkins looks more balanced as a two way player.
[QUOTE=fpliii]Thanks for sharing.
I'm actually more interested in the yearly totals. Do the other guides (again, I only have 90-91) have this page:
[url]http://i62.tinypic.com/29aw57s.jpg[/url]
?
If so, could you scan them? Maybe we can put together a spreadsheet with dunks for each guy by year.[/QUOTE]
Yes, all the guides have the yearly totals, and this is what I will post when I make the thread tomorrow.
I'll scan them or whatever you like, sounds good.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]Yep[/QUOTE]
This coward couldn't even answer Loki's question.
How is a 2nd round exit considered "contending for a championship"?
Not even proud Chicago fans in 1994 considered that season some massive success without Jordan. Or considered us contenders for a championship.
We outplayed expectations given 3 consecutive years of championship experience, an improved roster, and the players were motivated to show what they were sans GOAT.
When stans ('97 bulls, Roundball_Rock, LeBird, etc) use 2nd round exits and call them "contending for championships" the agenda is exposed. 8 teams every season reach the 2nd round.
I only consider championship contenders to be Conference Finalists.
[QUOTE=3ball]Yes, all the guides have the yearly totals, and this is what I will post when I make the thread tomorrow.
I'll scan them or whatever you like, sounds good.[/QUOTE]
Cool, thanks. Looking forward to it. :cheers: