Jordan's playmaking and clutchness in the last two minutes puts him over Shaq imo. Both have a similar impact outside of that, but Jordan really separates himself in the closing minutes.
Printable View
Jordan's playmaking and clutchness in the last two minutes puts him over Shaq imo. Both have a similar impact outside of that, but Jordan really separates himself in the closing minutes.
Jordan had comparable/superior statistical impact and was far better in the 4th/clutch, and more capable of winning games by sheer force of will. Therefore, it's Jordan.
[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]Jordan had comparable/superior statistical impact and was far better in the 4th/clutch, and more capable of winning games by sheer force of will. Therefore, it's Jordan.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you and fatal9. Roundball does make a legitimate case for Shaq being just as effective/reliable though -- makes sense.
Jordan because of his clutch ability, as opposed to Shaq's anti-clutch free throw shooting ability.
But Shaq is as dominant as any player ever. He by himself dominated and controlled the paint on offense AND defense.
Just from a "holy crap" standpoint, he used to go up and dunk with like 2 or 3 players hanging on to him. Guards used to drive into the paint, see Shaq, and just dribble back out. He instilled the Fear of Shaq into the league for the better part of his career.
But Mike is probably the greatest player of all time. And those were his prime years.
[QUOTE=madmax]Great great points Roundball...:applause: It's really amaizng how casual NBA fans don't realize the importance of dominant bigs and always fo for flash and flare of perimeter guards - [B]I guess that's why His Airness also became most hyped and promoted NBA player of all time[/B], Stern just couldn't resist of milking that name and making tons of money. Everyone seems to forget that he also needed great teammates and a GOAT coach to start winning. It's sad how people always choose flash over substance:confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]
Your hate for Jordan sticks out like dogballs.
Jordan 87-93 better than any player at their peak...
[QUOTE=Fatal9]Jordan's playmaking and clutchness in the last two minutes puts him over Shaq imo. Both have a similar impact outside of that, but Jordan really separates himself in the closing minutes.[/QUOTE]
:wtf: Are you sick Fatal9?
[QUOTE=Fatal9]Jordan's playmaking and clutchness in the last two minutes puts him over Shaq imo. Both have a similar impact outside of that, but Jordan really separates himself in the closing minutes.[/QUOTE]
Who hacked Fatal's account??:lol
[QUOTE=poido123]Your hate for Jordan sticks out like dogballs.
Jordan 87-93 better than any player at their peak...[/QUOTE]
Wilt Chamberlain wanna say HI:cheers:
[QUOTE=madmax]Wilt Chamberlain wanna say HI:cheers:[/QUOTE]
Wilt Chamberlain would get murked by David Robinson ...
F' outta here
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Yeah--50. This is a thread comparing him to Shaq. Shaq inherited a 21 win team (Jordan inherited a 27 win team) that had been in the NBA for only a few years and never sniffed the playoffs. Shaq took them to 41 wins in year one, 50 in his second year, 57 and the NBA finals in his third. That does not compare to going from 27 to 38, going 9-9, then coming back for a full season and lifting your team only 10 more wins from the previous year (40-42). Of course, Shaq did luck into Penny in his second year to be fair.
Yeah--and Anderson and Scott played poorly in the NBA finals.
No, but it makes him the excuse for Jordan losing in 1990 even though Jordan's bullying is the reason he was playing in the first place when he was in no condition to play. The point is this: if we blame teammates whenever Jordan lost (and we know when he won it was all him) we need to look at the teammates of the player he is being compared to. What MJ fans consistently do is blame the team for Jordan losing from 1985-1990 and 2002-03 yet attack Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, or anyone else being compared to MJ for losing. Why? They lost, period. MJ fans never look at their teammates or context in their cases.
Here is what the Lakers did without Shaq from 2001-03:
2001: 51-23 (69%) with him, 5-3 (63%) without him
2002: 51-16 (76%) with him, 7-8 (47%) without him
2003: 45-22 (67%) with him, 5-10 (33%) without him
Hell, let's add 2004. 49-18 (73%) with him, 7-18 (47%) without him. The record speaks for itself. With him they were championship caliber teams; without him they were not even 0.500. They were a measely 24-39. I am sorry, I just don't believe Jordan added this much value to his team. Shaq was replaced by a legit NBA player. Imagine if they replaced him with a D-League level player...
You cherry picked a five game sample. AI was top 10 in assists four times and top 5 once. He shot the ball less than Jordan. Yet he is considered a ballhog? Would you really want the player who took more shots than[B] anyone[/B] in the history of the league to be your PG? You may say yes but I strongly doubt you actually believe that.
Yeah, but that is not the point of contention. The dispute is over who is easier to build around and the record strongly suggests Shaq is. So does history with respect to building around dominant centers versus dominant guards. In other words, imo the odds of winning with Shaq are greater than Jordan. Jordan has more "needs." Shaq just needs a good perimeter player and that is pretty much it. Jordan needs a special kind of faux PG like Paxson or Harper (a career SG...) and some mystery person to serve as the primary ballhandler who doesn't need the ball as much as a traditional PG. Think about this. In effect you cannot have a great PG with MJ. That means you are not going to have a great player at the position since every great PG functions like a typical PG who needs the ball a lot to be effective. That leaves three positions. You need to strike lightening with a great SF, PF, or C--and one of them probably has to be versatile enough to serve as the primary ballhandler. That all but eliminates the C option. Even if you give him a great C you need someone to run the offense. You basically would need a Pippen, Hill, or Garnett type to win with Jordan.
MJ paved the way for Shaq, Kobe, and Lebron. Bird and Magic were not on the same level as MJ as far as marketing goes. Read Halberstam. He talks about the confluence of events that combined to make MJ the icon he is and that includes Stern and timing. If he showed up in 1980 he would not stand out over Magic and Bird. If he showed up in 1974 or 1964 he simply could not become the marketing phenomenon he became due to racism.
Yeah but Penny lacked experience. He had a total of 3 playoff games under his belt before 1995. Anderson was a very good player--until the 95' finals and he never recovered from that epic chokejob.
Exactly. So why did Jordan bully him into playing? Did he do it so he could have the safety valve of his fans blaming his teammate for him losing 20 years later? Well, he was always clutch. :oldlol:
Yeah--since he was injured. This is what annoys me about MJ fans. I like you btw but even you do this. When it comes to everyone else all that matters is what they did. Shaq lost, period. Kareem won only once on the 70's, period. Pippen played bad, period. And on and on. Yet when it comes to St. Michael we have to look at context. We have to look at his teammates. Pippen was freaking injured and MJ fans ignore that and shamefully call a guy who performed extraordinarily in the NBA finals year after year a choker. Even in 1990 he had a very good playoff run until the migraine. You condemn Pippen for a poor game when he was injured yet ignore Nick Anderson pulling off a world-class choke when healthy in the 95' finals when it comes to Shaq? :confusedshrug:
BTW, Jordan had some choke moment" too yet MJ fans act as if he always played well in big games. Yeah, he was one of the most clutch players ever but he was not a god. Everyone has some bad games, whether it is Jordan Pippen or legends in other sports like Joe Montana (clutch but again even he had some bad games).
Once they had great teams around them Shaq was a bit more team dependent for the reasons you stated. What I am arguing is Shaq could do more with a random team and is easier to build around.[/QUOTE]
What a load of freaking crap. Paxton and kerr:wtf: I can say Hsaq can't win without a great Sg and a clutch player like Horry/Posey. Mj doesn't need someone to handle the ball?? Mj could handle the ball fine. You mean someone else who could handle the ball. yep, Shaq also need someone like that. I told you once and i will tell u again. Give the Bulls hakeem and they win 8-9 chips. You trying to underrate MJ running the offense. LOL Yes having multiple players being able to run the offense is different, but just because Pip could run the offense didn't mean Mj couldn't.
Pippen isn't on Garnetts level.
MJ didn't bully anyone into playing. Pippen is a grown Men and didn't have to play if he didn't want to. Plenty of teammates would of tell their teammates to try to play through it because they could smeell the chip. Pippen could smell it too which is why he steeped on the floor injured. MJ is the one who hyped the team up to push it to seven games.
Nick thing didn't happen in the 7th game of the series. Teams can regroup.
Paxson, Armstrong, and Ron Harper were MJ's "point guards" during his championship years. Do you realize Ron Harper was a career SG until he came to Chicago and he was a "PG" in name only?
[QUOTE]Mj doesn't need someone to handle the ball?? Mj could handle the ball fine.[/QUOTE]
Yeah--and then take more shots than anyone in history. That is who you want as a PG? The primary task of a PG is to distribute the ball...
[QUOTE]yep, Shaq also need someone like that. [/QUOTE]
Shaq needed a run of the mill PG. He didn't have a special need in that area. Shaq could play with any PG. Jordan couldn't, hence the revolving door of guards in Chicago before Paxson.
[QUOTE]Give the Bulls hakeem and they win 8-9 chips.[/QUOTE]
Give Shaq Hakeem (playing PF) and he wins a lot too so what does that prove?
[QUOTE]Pippen isn't on Garnetts level.[/QUOTE]
Most people would disagree with that, other than MJ fans of course. There is a reason why they are near each other on practically every all-time list. Those were just examples anyway. Jordan could win with Hill even though Pippen is better than Hill. The point was with any PG on a Jordan team having to be at best an average player due to his special needs you are left with PF, SF, C to find a great second player for a MJ team. Even if you get a great center you need someone to run the offense. That means the best case scenario would be a versatile forward like Pippen, Garnett, Hill, or Lebron. Kukoc and Odom types who can play "point forward" do not cut it because they are not great players. The only way Kukoc or Odom would work is if MJ had a great player at the other forward spot or center position. Jordan+Pippen/Garnett/Hill/Lebron is pretty much enough to win on its own, so long as some other roles are filled (i.e. rebounding and interior D in the case of the SF's).
[QUOTE]Nick thing didn't happen in the 7th game of the series. Teams can regroup.[/QUOTE]
People can but Anderson didn't in that series. In fact, he [I]never[/I] did.
Shaq put up 28/13/6 on 60% and ran into peak Hakeem and Clyde Drexler, who is arguably the third best SG of all-time.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Yeah--50. This is a thread comparing him to Shaq. Shaq inherited a 21 win team (Jordan inherited a 27 win team) that had been in the NBA for only a few years and never sniffed the playoffs. Shaq took them to 41 wins in year one, 50 in his second year, 57 and the NBA finals in his third. That does not compare to going from 27 to 38, going 9-9, then coming back for a full season and lifting your team only 10 more wins from the previous year (40-42). Of course, Shaq did luck into Penny in his second year to be fair.[/quote]
Like I said, Shaq had a better team around him. Also, how many cokeheads did Shaq have on his team?
[quote]Yeah--and Anderson and Scott played poorly in the NBA finals.[/quote]
Jordan had teammates who performed poorly, too. Also, Penny played quite well, didn't he?
[quote]No, but it makes him the excuse for Jordan losing in 1990 even though Jordan's bullying is the reason he was playing in the first place when he was in no condition to play.[/quote]
Either way, the Bulls were screwed. It was either no Pippen or one who could barely see. I think that was just as much of a deterrent to the team as Anderson's choke moments in 95.
[quote]The point is this: if we blame teammates whenever Jordan lost (and we know when he won it was all him).[/quote]
That's not what I believe, so....
[quote]Here is what the Lakers did without Shaq from 2001-03:
2001: 51-23 (69%) with him, 5-3 (63%) without him
2002: 51-16 (76%) with him, 7-8 (47%) without him
2003: 45-22 (67%) with him, 5-10 (33%) without him
Hell, let's add 2004. 49-18 (73%) with him, 7-18 (47%) without him. The record speaks for itself. With him they were championship caliber teams; without him they were not even 0.500. They were a measely 24-39. I am sorry, I just don't believe Jordan added this much value to his team. Shaq was replaced by a legit NBA player. Imagine if they replaced him with a D-League level player...[/quote]
They acquired Odom and Caron Butler in the Shaq trade. If Phil hadn't left, that team easily wins 40-45 barring injury.
[quote]You cherry picked a five game sample. AI was top 10 in assists four times and top 5 once. He shot the ball less than Jordan. Yet he is considered a ballhog? Would you really want the player who took more shots than[B] anyone[/B] in the history of the league to be your PG? You may say yes but I strongly doubt you actually believe that.[/quote]
Allen Iverson also had an atrocious field goal percentage. Would I want MJ as a full time point guard? No, I'd rather team him up with another decent passer, like Pippen. Doesn't mean he's a bad playmaker. Pippen last I checked wasn't a full time point guard, either.
[quote]Yeah, but that is not the point of contention. The dispute is over who is easier to build around and the record strongly suggests Shaq is.[/quote]
Not really.
[quote]So does history with respect to building around dominant centers versus dominant guards. In other words, imo the odds of winning with Shaq are greater than Jordan. Jordan has more "needs." Shaq just needs a good perimeter player and that is pretty much it. Jordan needs a special kind of faux PG like Paxson or Harper (a career SG...) and some mystery person to serve as the primary ballhandler who doesn't need the ball as much as a traditional PG. Think about this. In effect you cannot have a great PG with MJ. That means you are not going to have a great player at the position since every great PG functions like a typical PG who needs the ball a lot to be effective. That leaves three positions. You need to strike lightening with a great SF, PF, or C--and one of them probably has to be versatile enough to serve as the primary ballhandler. That all but eliminates the C option. Even if you give him a great C you need someone to run the offense. You basically would need a Pippen, Hill, or Garnett type to win with Jordan.[/quote]
Shaq requires multiple outside threats as well as a decent big man who can play defense and not command shots. He had Grant for multiple seasons and had Alonzo Mourning backing him up in 06. Also, Penny, Kobe and Wade made All-NBA teams with him. You can't just add any guard with Shaq and expect a title. Eddie Jones and Nick Van Exel were good guards but LA still didn't make it past the WCF from 1997-1999.
[quote]MJ paved the way for Shaq, Kobe, and Lebron. Bird and Magic were not on the same level as MJ as far as marketing goes. Read Halberstam. He talks about the confluence of events that combined to make MJ the icon he is and that includes Stern and timing. If he showed up in 1980 he would not stand out over Magic and Bird. If he showed up in 1974 or 1964 he simply could not become the marketing phenomenon he became due to racism.[/quote]
Magic and Bird were huge in 1984, both of them started to peak in popularity at around that time. Have you read Bird's and Magic's new book? They talk about how they and Stern turned the NBA around and increased it's popularity tremendously. Jordan would have made an impact regardless of era. If he played in the 60s or 70s he would still get acclaim, at least on the level of West or Robertson.
[quote]Yeah but Penny lacked experience. He had a total of 3 playoff games under his belt before 1995. Anderson was a very good player--until the 95' finals and he never recovered from that epic chokejob.[/quote]
Pippen lacked experience from 1988 to 1990, too.
[quote]Exactly. So why did Jordan bully him into playing? Did he do it so he could have the safety valve of his fans blaming his teammate for him losing 20 years later? Well, he was always clutch. :oldlol:[/quote]
He got overly competitive. Not that hard to figure out.
[quote]Yeah--since he was injured. This is what annoys me about MJ fans. I like you btw but even you do this. When it comes to everyone else all that matters is what they did. Shaq lost, period. Kareem won only once on the 70's, period. Pippen played bad, period. And on and on. Yet when it comes to St. Michael we have to look at context. We have to look at his teammates. Pippen was freaking injured and MJ fans ignore that and shamefully call a guy who performed extraordinarily in the NBA finals year after year a choker. Even in 1990 he had a very good playoff run until the migraine. You condemn Pippen for a poor game when he was injured yet ignore Nick Anderson pulling off a world-class choke when healthy in the 95' finals when it comes to Shaq? :confusedshrug:[/quote]
I'm not condemning Pippen, just saying his migraine was detrimental to the Bulls' winning. That was the equivalent of Penny going down against Indiana in 95.
[quote]BTW, Jordan had some choke moment" too yet MJ fans act as if he always played well in big games. Yeah, he was one of the most clutch players ever but he was not a god. Everyone has some bad games, whether it is Jordan Pippen or legends in other sports like Joe Montana (clutch but again even he had some bad games).[/quote]
Agreed, so why rag on Anderson?
Give me Michael Jordan, but 1996-2002 Shaq is probably the most dominant player in NBA History.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Paxson, Armstrong, and Ron Harper were MJ's "point guards" during his championship years. Do you realize Ron Harper was a career SG until he came to Chicago and he was a "PG" in name only?[/quote]
Harper did the same thing with Shaq.
[quote]Shaq needed a run of the mill PG. He didn't have a special need in that area. Shaq could play with any PG. Jordan couldn't, hence the revolving door of guards in Chicago before Paxson.[/quote]
Shaq usually needed a combo guard to distribute. He never won a ring with a prototypical pg. Also, I think DFish falls into that role as the pg who doesn't handle the ball much and usually hangs back for jumpshots and threes.
[quote]Give Shaq Hakeem (playing PF) and he wins a lot too so what does that prove?[/quote]
Doubt it. Not enough shots to go around and they would clash in the post.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Paxson, Armstrong, and Ron Harper were MJ's "point guards" during his championship years. Do you realize Ron Harper was a career SG until he came to Chicago and he was a "PG" in name only?
Yeah--and then take more shots than anyone in history. That is who you want as a PG? The primary task of a PG is to distribute the ball...
Shaq needed a run of the mill PG. He didn't have a special need in that area. Shaq could play with any PG. Jordan couldn't, hence the revolving door of guards in Chicago before Paxson.
Give Shaq Hakeem (playing PF) and he wins a lot too so what does that prove?
Most people would disagree with that, other than MJ fans of course. There is a reason why they are near each other on practically every all-time list. Those were just examples anyway. Jordan could win with Hill even though Pippen is better than Hill. The point was with any PG on a Jordan team having to be at best an average player due to his special needs you are left with PF, SF, C to find a great second player for a MJ team. Even if you get a great center you need someone to run the offense. That means the best case scenario would be a versatile forward like Pippen, Garnett, Hill, or Lebron. Kukoc and Odom types who can play "point forward" do not cut it because they are not great players. The only way Kukoc or Odom would work is if MJ had a great player at the other forward spot or center position. Jordan+Pippen/Garnett/Hill/Lebron is pretty much enough to win on its own, so long as some other roles are filled (i.e. rebounding and interior D in the case of the SF's).
People can but Anderson didn't in that series. In fact, he [I]never[/I] did.
Shaq put up 28/13/6 on 60% and ran into peak Hakeem and Clyde Drexler, who is arguably the third best SG of all-time.[/QUOTE]
??? How did Mj need a point guard??? He needed another great allstar like Pippen Paxton was just the point guard during that time. Like i said Where is Shaq without Horry and posey??
LOL WTH are you taking about?? You were saying MJ can't run the offense. Yes he could. You acting like Mj point guards were some godly passers or something.
Shaq need a allstar SG and clutch players around him.
Most people??? WHere do you get this crap from? KG is better then Pippen(FACT)
The point is that game 1 isn't has important has game 7.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
Yeah, but that is not the point of contention. The dispute is over who is easier to build around and the record strongly suggests Shaq is. So does history with respect to building around dominant centers versus dominant guards. In other words, imo the odds of winning with Shaq are greater than Jordan. Jordan has more "needs." Shaq just needs a good perimeter player and that is pretty much it. Jordan needs a special kind of faux PG like Paxson or Harper (a career SG...) and some mystery person to serve as the primary ballhandler who doesn't need the ball as much as a traditional PG. Think about this. In effect you cannot have a great PG with MJ. That means you are not going to have a great player at the position since every great PG functions like a typical PG who needs the ball a lot to be effective. That leaves three positions. You need to strike lightening with a great SF, PF, or C--and one of them probably has to be versatile enough to serve as the primary ballhandler. That all but eliminates the C option. Even if you give him a great C you need someone to run the offense. You basically would need a Pippen, Hill, or Garnett type to win with Jordan.
[/QUOTE]
Hold on. Are you seriously saying that because it would be better to complement Jordan with a PG such as Paxson, BJ, or Harper, who are either shooters are good defensive players, instead of a traditional PG such as a John Stockton or Kevin Johnson, that means Jordan is more needy? Are you serious? That makes no sense. There are way more players that could've done Paxson and BJ's job then who could've done a traditional PGs job, which should make Jordan less needy. Great wing players in general don't need PGs like that.
And once again, you're really overstating Pippen's primary ballhandling duties. He wasn't Steve Nash or Chris Paul. There were a number of players back then and today that could've done that. And I'm not knocking Pippen. There was way more to him then his ballhandling duties. But his ballhandling duties wasn't some highly irreplaceable function like you seem to imply.
Just because it was better for Jordan to not have to handle the ball as much to save energy, that doesn't mean he couldn't have done it and win with a different type of team. And the idea that Jordan would need a SF, PF, or C to be the primary ballhandler is a bit ridiculous. It really doesn't seem like Kobe Bryant, who's pretty much the same type of player, has had that problem throughout his career. Give Terry Porter, Mo Williams, or Derek Fisher to Jordan, and there goes your theory.
I really can't believe you're arguing Jordan had more needs then Shaq. Shaq is literally a guy that was regularly forced to transfer his primary scoring responsibilities in the end of games to another player. And Jordan was more needy?
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock] Even if you get a great center you need someone to run the offense. That means the best case scenario would be a versatile forward like Pippen, Garnett, Hill, or Lebron. Kukoc and Odom types who can play "point forward" do not cut it because they are not great players. The only way Kukoc or Odom would work is if MJ had a great player at the other forward spot or center position. Jordan+Pippen/Garnett/Hill/Lebron is pretty much enough to win on its own, so long as some other roles are filled (i.e. rebounding and interior D in the case of the SF's).
[/QUOTE]
So you're saying Jordan couldn't win with Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Zo, or Shaq?
Why exactly are we comparing these two? They are completely different players, and not just by position..
There is soooo much wrong in this thread...
This whole PG argument can be settled very easily. Triangle offense. You dont need or really want a traditional PG to run your team. Spot up shooters. DFish exactly, except he COULD bring the ball up the floor. Did he really do any point guarding? HELL NO! He's short so the "point guard" label was automatic.
And whats all this Ron Harper talk? He lost his explosiveness and HAD to take a lesser role. You seem more choked about this than Ron Harper himself, haha.
You could give both MJ and Shaq the same exact rosters and I'm damn sure (along with almost ANYONE) Michael Jordans team will prevail.
Betting against MJ is like betting against John Rambo. You just dont do it man.
[QUOTE]Like I said, Shaq had a better team around him[/QUOTE]
After 1994, yes, thanks to the Penny fluke but there is a reason that team won 21 games in 1992. Jordan inherited a 27 win team. It isn't as if Shaq joined the 80' Lakers.
Regarding Anderson, I brought it up only after MJ fans brought up Shaq losing in, among other years, 95'. When MJ lost it was the team but when Shaq puts up 28/13 with 6 assists (as a center!) on 60% it is all his fault? That is hypocritical.
[QUOTE]They acquired Odom and Caron Butler in the Shaq trade. If Phil hadn't left, that team easily wins 40-45 barring injury.[/QUOTE]
Think about that, though. They acquired a very good player in Odom and a young Butler and even if healthy and with Kobe you are projecting them as a 40-45 win team. What does that say about Shaq's impact? The Bulls lost Jordan and gained nothing in exchange for him. As Krause said no team in history ever had to deal with a situation like this, aside from the Lakers with Magic but obviously Magic could not control that. The only other comparable sudden retirements I can think of are Ricky Williams and Barry Sanders in football.
“...We were left two days before training camp started with no advance notice, no nothing. We had no clue.”
No notice. Not even a hint. So they replaced him with a D-Leaguer because no one else was available. What did they do? You mention injuries with the 05' Lakers. Let's look at injuries with the 94' Bulls. If healthy they would have won 60+. With Pippen and Grant they went 44-15 (75%). That is a 61 win pace over 82 games and that isn't even getting to the myriad of other injuries they had to role players.
[QUOTE]Shaq requires multiple outside threats as well as a decent big man who can play defense and not command shots. [/QUOTE]
You are going by what he had on his teams. He did not “require” a decent big man who can play defense because peak Shaq was a great interior defender himself. Jordan required a Paxson or Harper because he could not function with a legit PG. There is only one basketball. Yeah, he could play with one but at the expense of chemistry and ultimately winning.
It isn't hard to assemble a team with outside shooters. Practically every team has a few decent ones. How hard is it to find a Derek Fisher?
No one has said MJ was a bad playmaker. He was a good one.
[QUOTE]You can't just add any guard with Shaq and expect a title.[/QUOTE]
Sure you can if you give him an elite SF like Pippen or Hill. With Pippen in place of Penny he would have won multiple rings in Orlando (remember, Pippen in Orlando means Kukoc would be the starting SF in Chicago).
[QUOTE]Jordan would have made an impact regardless of era. If he played in the 60s or 70s he would still get acclaim, at least on the level of West or Robertson.[/QUOTE]
Robertson? How many endorsements did he get in the 60's? He couldn't even drink from some water fountains so how could he become a national pitchman for numerous corporations like MJ did?
Magic and Bird increased the NBA's popularity; Jordan/Stern and their alliance with corporate America took it to another level.
[QUOTE]Pippen lacked experience from 1988 to 1990, too.
[/QUOTE]
Pippen played in 10 playoff games as a rookie alone. Penny had 3 playoff games under his belt before 1995.
[QUOTE]WHere do you get this crap from? KG is better then Pippen(FACT)
[/QUOTE]
I didn't say that. I said they are in the same group of legends and practically every all-time list agrees, aside from MJ fans. Look at ISH and RealGM's lists. Look at Bill Simmons. Look at Slam Magazine. Look at the lists people here make.
[QUOTE]Hold on. Are you seriously saying that because it would be better to complement Jordan with a PG such as Paxson, BJ, or Harper, who are either shooters are good defensive players, instead of a traditional PG such as a John Stockton or Kevin Johnson, that means Jordan is more needy? Are you serious? That makes no sense. There are way more players that could've done Paxson and BJ's job then who could've done a traditional PGs job, which should make Jordan less needy. Great wing players in general don't need PGs like that.[/QUOTE]
With a Paxson or Harper you need someone else to serve as the primary ballhandler/playmaker. Of course it is easier to find a Paxson or Harper. The problem is finding another player who is not a PG to serve as the chief ballhandler.
[QUOTE]But his ballhandling duties wasn't some highly irreplaceable function like you seem to imply. [/QUOTE]
As I said, you could give his ballhandling role to someone like Kukoc or Odom but that means you have no great player at one forward position and at PG. Jordan needed a second elite teammate to win. How many forwards and C's could fit the bill? Remember, my argument is the Shaq could win more with a random team than Jordan. If you are randomly selected players what are the odds that you are going to land a great PF or C using the Kukoc scenario?
Speaking of Kukoc, he actually replaced Pippen as a ballhandler and we know what happened to everyone's FG %...
[QUOTE]Just because it was better for Jordan to not have to handle the ball as much to save energy, that doesn't mean he couldn't have done it and win with a different type of team.[/QUOTE]
I know, I know. Greatest of all-time. He could score 30+ ppg, lead the league in FGA as a primary ballhandler, play great defense, rebound very well for a guard all in nearly 40 minutes a night and not skip a beat. I bet he could average 10 boards too if his team needed it. He was human. He had limits. I can't see Jordan doing all that and winning even aside from the obvious problem of having a primary ballhandler who is leading the league in FGA every year.
[QUOTE]Shaq is literally a guy that was regularly forced to transfer his primary scoring responsibilities in the end of games to another player. And Jordan was more needy?[/QUOTE]
As far as building a team from scratch, yes. Once the team is built then yeah, Shaq needs more help. Look at what Shaq actually did. He joined a 21 win team and as a rookie elevated them to 41 wins. Imagine peak Shaq on that team. Imo Shaq could win 50+ with practically any team, unless it is a horrendous team that would be a 15 win team without him. Put Shaq on a team on the level of the 10' Sixers or 10' Clippers and I can see them winning 50+ with peak Shaq. A championship? Of course not but they would be very competitive.
[QUOTE]So you're saying Jordan couldn't win with Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Zo, or Shaq?[/QUOTE]
Provided they solved the ballhandling issue and they worked out how to reconcile pairing two elite scorers together (aside from Zo') he could. I am talking about average teams in this thread, not fantasy pairings. Those pairings would have simply too much talent to not win multiple rings. The only thing that could realistically stop them is chemistry problems.
[QUOTE]This whole PG argument can be settled very easily. Triangle offense. You dont need or really want a traditional PG to run your team.[/QUOTE]
Maybe you should look into why the triangle was implemented in the first place on the Bulls...
You don't need a traditional PG but you need someone to be the primary ballhandler/playmaker because you are in trouble if you give MJ that role.
Ron Harper was an example of the list of nontraditional "point guards" that Chicago used after numerous guards failed to mesh with Jordan prior to Paxson.
[QUOTE]You could give both MJ and Shaq the same exact rosters and I'm damn sure (along with almost ANYONE) Michael Jordans team will prevail.[/QUOTE]
That is because of the mystique surrounding him. He did join a bad team and he improved it from 27 wins to 38. He got hurt for 80% of 86' and they slipped 8 games. He came back and they improved 10 games. This is not exactly dominating with a bad team. Shaq took a 21 win team to 41 wins as a rookie, turned LA around, turned Miami around. LA was decent before him but Orlando was horrible and Miami average. When he left Orlando they collapsed (Penny was hurt for part of the regular season but he was spectacular in the playoffs and they still lost in the first round). When he left LA or he got hurt they collapsed. Shaq was traded for Lamar Odom and Caron Butler and the team did nothing until 2008. Jordan was replaced by a D-Leaguer and the team won 55 games and went 44-15 in games in which Pippen and Grant both played. Yet it is ridiculous to assert that Shaq had more value to his teams than Jordan? :wtf:
All of this is speculation. We will never know the answer but imo the circumstantial evidence is pretty clear. Even Shaq's mighty Laker teams went 24-39 without him from 2001-2004. That should answer the question about value to a team.
[QUOTE=Samurai Swoosh]Wilt Chamberlain would get murked by David Robinson ...
F' outta here[/QUOTE]
Seriously?
You know that Wilt Chamberlain was able to play evenly with Kareem, right?
The 60s were overall less developed, but that doesn't mean that some standouts wouldn't be able to be great in the modern area.
[QUOTE=Inspector Rick]There is soooo much wrong in this thread...
This whole PG argument can be settled very easily. Triangle offense. You dont need or really want a traditional PG to run your team. Spot up shooters. DFish exactly, except he COULD bring the ball up the floor. Did he really do any point guarding? HELL NO! He's short so the "point guard" label was automatic.
And whats all this Ron Harper talk? He lost his explosiveness and HAD to take a lesser role. You seem more choked about this than Ron Harper himself, haha.
You could give both MJ and Shaq the same exact rosters and I'm damn sure (along with almost ANYONE) Michael Jordans team will prevail.
Betting against MJ is like betting against John Rambo. You just dont do it man.[/QUOTE]
This.
Mike didn't need great point guards. The triangle offense is not based on traditional positions, but based on post play and players filling spcific roles. Plus, Shaq has needed clutch superstar wingmen for every one of his successful teams. That makes him quite needy.
[QUOTE]Maybe you should look into why the triangle was implemented in the first place on the Bulls...[/QUOTE]
I know why the triangle was implemented.
[QUOTE]You don't need a traditional PG but you need someone to be the primary ballhandler/playmaker because you are in trouble if you give MJ that role. [/QUOTE]
It made no sense to have MJ in that role. Doesn't mean he couldn't do it though. Pip, for the most part would facilitate of the offense and Jordan would break down the defense allowing the offense to operate, which still is a form of playmaking.
Having two different 3 peats does make things confusing here, early 90's Jordan compared to mid 90's is a whole other player.
[QUOTE]That is because of the mystique surrounding him. He did join a bad team and he improved it from 27 wins to 38. He got hurt for 80% of 86' and they slipped 8 games. He came back and they improved 10 games. This is not exactly dominating with a bad team. Shaq took a 21 win team to 41 wins as a rookie, turned LA around, turned Miami around. LA was decent before him but Orlando was horrible and Miami average. When he left Orlando they collapsed. When he left LA or he got hurt they collapsed. Shaq was traded for Lamar Odom and Caron Butler and the team did nothing until 2008. Jordan was replaced by a D-Leaguer and the team won 55 games and went 44-15 in games in which Pippen and Grant both played. Yet it is ridiculous to assert that Shaq had more value to his teams than Jordan? [/QUOTE]
Decades play a factor here also. Jordan had the misfortune (but not really) of playing against the Celtics (dynasty), Pistons (cusp of dynasty), Knicks and Cavs in the playoffs. Michael Jordan or not, your damn right he better be losing to those teams. Celtics/Pistons. Thats all you need to know. Those beatings allowed the young Bulls core to grow and mature and become Champions.
And I dont quite understand this D League argument. Rosters have a pecking order. Its not like MJ leaves and you fill his spot exactly with some random bum. Pete Meyers took over the starting SG role. Nothing special but a serviceable NBA player nonetheless.
Jordan over Shaq. Shaq was starting to decline by 2002. Also Shaq was missing several games yearly. In 1996 and 1997 he played roughly 50 games. In 1998 he played 60 games.
It's no coincedence however that they are the top 3 in overall PER and top finals performances ever.
Also a knock on Shaq is that his teammate actually finished ahead of him in MVP voting in 1996. Penny finished 3rd while Shaq finished 9th.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]After 1994, yes, thanks to the Penny fluke but there is a reason that team won 21 games in 1992. Jordan inherited a 27 win team. It isn't as if Shaq joined the 80' Lakers.[/quote]
No, but his teammates matched him better. That is undeniable. Anderson, Scott and Skiles were all skilled perimeter players who could shoot from the three point line. Teamed up with Shaq, that makes a nice combination. Who complemented Jordan in 85?
[quote]Regarding Anderson, I brought it up only after MJ fans brought up Shaq losing in, among other years, 95'. When MJ lost it was the team but when Shaq puts up 28/13 with 6 assists (as a center!) on 60% it is all his fault? That is hypocritical.[/quote]
I never said it was his fault. Also, Nick was the third or fourth best player on the team. Shaq still had Penny and Grant.
[quote]Think about that, though. They acquired a very good player in Odom and a young Butler and even if healthy and with Kobe you are projecting them as a 40-45 win team. What does that say about Shaq's impact?[/quote]
That he's worth about ten to 15 wins. That's also with GP and Malone gone, by the way.
[quote][b]The Bulls lost Jordan and gained nothing in exchange for him.[/b] As Krause said no team in history ever had to deal with a situation like this, aside from the Lakers with Magic but obviously Magic could not control that. The only other comparable sudden retirements I can think of are Ricky Williams and Barry Sanders in football.
“...We were left two days before training camp started with no advance notice, no nothing. We had no clue.”[/quote]
That also plays to the Bulls advantage, since teams had to immediately readjust to them.
[quote]No notice. Not even a hint. So they replaced him with a D-Leaguer because no one else was available. What did they do? You mention injuries with the 05' Lakers. Let's look at injuries with the 94' Bulls. [b]If healthy they would have won 60+. With Pippen and Grant they went 44-15 (75%). That is a 61 win pace over 82 games[/b] and that isn't even getting to the myriad of other injuries they had to role players[/quote]
They also gained Kukoc and Kerr, so you had Kukoc, Kerr, Armstrong and Pippen who could play on the perimeter. Add in Grant and Longley and you have a solid defensive minded team.
[quote]You are going by what he had on his teams. He did not “require” a decent big man who can play defense because peak Shaq was a great interior defender himself.[/quote]
In 2000, yes. His defense was inconsistent, though. Look at what happened when Grant go injured in 96, the Magic couldn't get past the second round without him.
[quote]Jordan required a Paxson or Harper because he could not function with a legit PG. There is only one basketball. Yeah, he could play with one but at the expense of chemistry and ultimately winning.[/quote]
Paxson and Harper had highly limited roles that most guys could play. DFish would have fit perfectly.
[quote]It isn't hard to assemble a team with outside shooters. Practically every team has a few decent ones. How hard is it to find a Derek Fisher?[/quote]
You mean a pg who doesn't handle the ball much and shoots outside most of the time, kind of like Paxson?
[quote]No one has said MJ was a bad playmaker. He was a good one.[/quote]
Ok, cool.
[quote]Sure you can if you give him an elite SF like Pippen or Hill. With Pippen in place of Penny he would have won multiple rings in Orlando (remember, Pippen in Orlando means Kukoc would be the starting SF in Chicago).[/quote]
So who do the Bulls get for Pippen? Shawn Kemp?
[quote]Robertson? How many endorsements did he get in the 60's? He couldn't even drink from some water fountains so how could he become a national pitchman for numerous corporations like MJ did?[/quote]
Bad example. Julius Erving, then.
[quote]Magic and Bird increased the NBA's popularity; Jordan/Stern and their alliance with corporate America took it to another level.[/quote]
Magic doesn't have an alliance with corporate America? :lol Well, ok, then.
[quote]Pippen played in 10 playoff games as a rookie alone. Penny had 3 playoff games under his belt before 1995.[/quote]
Yeah and Penny outplayed him in the playoffs.
[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=pippesc01&y1=1990&p2=hardaan01&y2=1996[/url]
[quote]With a Paxson or Harper you need someone else to serve as the primary ballhandler/playmaker. Of course it is easier to find a Paxson or Harper. The problem is finding another player who is not a PG to serve as the chief ballhandler.[/quote]
Except you don't need someone to be the chief ballhandler, just someone who can share some of the playmaking duties, not take over.
Kukoc can do it, as can Armstrong. Chris Mullin would have been capable, as well.
[quote]As I said, you could give his ballhandling role to someone like Kukoc or Odom but that means you have no great player at one forward position and at PG. Jordan needed a second elite teammate to win. How many forwards and C's could fit the bill?[/quote]
Alonzo Mourning, Shawn Kemp, Chris Webber, Kevin Garnett, Dikembe Mutombo, Brad Daugherty, Dennis Rodman, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Robert Parish, Kevin McHale, Tim Duncan, Horace Grant, Buck Williams....
[quote]Remember, my argument is the Shaq could win more with a random team than Jordan. If you are randomly selected players what are the odds that you are going to land a great PF or C using the Kukoc scenario?[/quote]
Depends. If 80s and 90s players are available, the it's no bad.
[quote]Speaking of Kukoc, he actually replaced Pippen as a ballhandler and we know what happened to everyone's FG %...[/quote]
And we know the team was on pace for 56 wins.
[quote]Maybe you should look into why the triangle was implemented in the first place on the Bulls...
You don't need a traditional PG but you need someone to be the primary ballhandler/playmaker because you are in trouble if you give MJ that role.[/quote]
Except Jordan had more assists than anyone else in the 91 playoff run, so that hypothesis goes right out the window.
As for Jordan's impact, look what happened to the Bulls post-98. Worse than the Clippers, imo.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]After 1994, yes, thanks to the Penny fluke but there is a reason that team won 21 games in 1992. Jordan inherited a 27 win team. It isn't as if Shaq joined the 80' Lakers.
Regarding Anderson, I brought it up only after MJ fans brought up Shaq losing in, among other years, 95'. When MJ lost it was the team but when Shaq puts up 28/13 with 6 assists (as a center!) on 60% it is all his fault? That is hypocritical.
Think about that, though. They acquired a very good player in Odom and a young Butler and even if healthy and with Kobe you are projecting them as a 40-45 win team. What does that say about Shaq's impact? The Bulls lost Jordan and gained nothing in exchange for him. As Krause said no team in history ever had to deal with a situation like this, aside from the Lakers with Magic but obviously Magic could not control that. The only other comparable sudden retirements I can think of are Ricky Williams and Barry Sanders in football.
[QUOTE]Except you don't need someone to be the chief ballhandler, just someone who can share some of the playmaking duties, not take over.
Kukoc can do it, as can Armstrong. Chris Mullin would have been capable, as well.[/QUOTE]
Somehow Fisher is the exception.
Regarding the Bulls second 3 peat, Jordan initiated the offense from the post, much like Shaq with the Lakers 2000 title run. DFish/Horry... Harper/Kukoc.... whats the difference?
[QUOTE]Mike didn't need great point guards.[/QUOTE]
He needed to [I]not[/I] have a great point guard. That leaves three positions to find an elite teammate for MJ to win championships. That is what I was saying. Shaq could play with any PG and he would just need an elite perimeter player.
[QUOTE]It made no sense to have MJ in that role. Doesn't mean he couldn't do it though. Pip, for the most part would facilitate of the offense and Jordan would break down the defense allowing the offense to operate, which still is a form of playmaking.[/QUOTE]
Jordan had the ability but not the mentality of a PG and he was human. I can't believe people think he could score 30+ ppg, run the offense, and anchor the defense and remain as effective as he was with that kind of workload over 82 games and in the playoffs. Could he do it? Sure. Would he be as effective as he was? No. Plus, it is not healthy to have a guy who shot more than anyone in the history of the game as your PG.
[QUOTE]Decades play a factor here also. Jordan had the misfortune (but not really) of playing against the Celtics (dynasty), Pistons (cusp of dynasty), Knicks and Cavs in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]
Knicks? Cavs? Shaq lost to a Rockets team that won two straight championships, the Duncan Spurs dynasty, and Malone-Stockton Jazz which won 60+ games two straight years en route to the finals. It isn't as if Shaq was losing to the Hornets or Bullets.
[QUOTE]Nothing special but a serviceable NBA player nonetheless.[/QUOTE]
He was out the NBA in the previous two seasons and barely lasted after 94' for a reason. He just wasn't that good. If Jordan retired in a normal fashion like everyone other this side of Ricky Williams and Barry Sanders, or at least gave them notice that he was considering retiring, do you really think they would have chosen Pete Myers to replace him? They still tried to acquire Jeff Hornacek and Derek Harper but could not pull it off. It would have been easier to find a legit NBA caliber starting SG if they had the entire offseason, or even most of it, to search for one.
[QUOTE]Who complemented Jordan in 85? [/QUOTE]
He had the 12th leading scorer in the league (23 ppg) on his team and a 16 ppg "#3 option."
[QUOTE]That he's worth about ten to 15 wins. [/QUOTE]
Wins are harder to come by as you move up the ladder. It is easier to go from 35 wins to 50 wins than it is to go from 50 wins to 65. Why? You need to have a much better batting average against good teams to get to 65. Do you really think Shaq was worth 10 to 15 wins? That is speculation. We know what happened when Shaq was injured. LA from 2000-04. Wins over 82 games in parentheses.
66-13 (69)
51-23 (57)
51-16 (63)
45-22 (55)
49-18 (60)
Without him from 2001-04:
5-3 (51)
7-8 (38)
5-10 (27)
7-8 (38)
This suggests he was worth 20-30 wins and that he could drag 27-38 win teams without him to championships at his peak.
[QUOTE]That also plays to the Bulls advantage, since teams had to immediately readjust to them.[/QUOTE]
Now you are reaching. The Bulls lost the best player in the league, the alleged "greatest of all-time" and replaced him with nothing and you are claiming this was an advantage? :wtf:
[QUOTE]They also gained Kukoc and Kerr, so you had Kukoc, Kerr, Armstrong and Pippen who could play on the perimeter. Add in Grant and Longley and you have a solid defensive minded team.[/QUOTE]
Three of those five players were bench players. Teams change rosters all the time. Were the 05' Lakers and the 97' Magic the same exact teams as the previous years?
Kukoc was a rookie, Kerr was barely staying in the league and Longley a second year player at the time.
The Bulls replaced the "greatest of all-time" with a combo of a guy who was out the NBA for the previous two seasons and another guy who was barely staying in the league at the time in Myers and Kerr. Their other key addition was Kukoc.
Who replaced Shaq? In Orlando he was replaced by a very good C in Rony Seikley. He put up 17/10 that year. Yet the team still collapsed! In LA he was replaced by a scrub but the Orlando example is revealing. Even when replaced by a very good player the team still could not do anything without Shaq!
To recap: you can replace Jordan with a guy who could not even make it as a 12th man in the previous two years and remain a top 5 team. You can replace Shaq with a 17/10 center who was top 10 at his position throughout the 90's and still not do anything. So who added more value to his team? The answer is obvious...
[QUOTE]Look at what happened when Grant go injured in 96, the Magic couldn't get past the second round without him.[/QUOTE]
? They made the ECF and that is when Grant got hurt. They lost to a 72-10 team. Even with Grant they would lose that series. There is no shame losing to that 72-10 juggernaut.
[QUOTEYou mean a pg who doesn't handle the ball much and shoots outside most of the time, kind of like Paxson?][/QUOTE]
Again, of course you could put any clown at PG. You would still need someone to perform the actual duties of a PG.
[QUOTE]So who do the Bulls get for Pippen? Shawn Kemp?
[/QUOTE]
What does Kemp have to do with Orlando? This was just an example. The point was Shaq could win rings without an elite guard if he had an elite SF like Pippen or Hill.
Dr. J and Magic were hardly the the corporate spokesmen Jordan was. Jordan is in a class by himself. Anyway this is off topic. If you want to talk about marketing post a thread asking if there is a single American athlete whose level of marketing approaches that of MJ. Read the Halberstam book. He talks about Stern's plans and how MJ fit perfectly into them.
[QUOTE]Alonzo Mourning, Shawn Kemp, Chris Webber, Kevin Garnett, Dikembe Mutombo, Brad Daugherty, Dennis Rodman, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Robert Parish, Kevin McHale, Tim Duncan, Horace Grant, Buck Williams....
[/QUOTE]
:oldlol: @ the notion that Jordan could win rings with some of these guys as his second best player. Buck Williams? Grant? I notice you left Charles Oakley of that list. He is comparable to Horace Grant. What did Jordan did when Oakley was his second best player? He also had Rodman as his second best player for a half a season and a 69 win team became a 55-56 win team.
What you also did is pick any all-star PF or C from the mid 80's to the late 90's to make the list appear large. In a given season there were only a handful of people at each position who fit that bill. This thread is about 1987-1993.
PF's MJ could win with from 1987-1993: Barkley, Malone, McHale
C's MJ could win with from 1987-1993: Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Daughetry, Shaq (1993)
You may argue he could win with a few others but the general point stands. I listed three PF's and five C's, with one center being available for only one of those seasons. That leaves seven elite big men Jordan could have won with (and McHale declined and was not elite for some of those years and Robinson did not even begin to play until 1990). What are the odds of randomly selecting players and winding up with Ewing or Malone?
Shaq could win with any elite wing player and as well as with an elite PF like Duncan or Webber. Shaq fits in with 99% of teams since he can win with an elite player at any position.
[QUOTE]Depends. If 80s and 90s players are available, the it's no bad. [/QUOTE]
According to the above the odds actually are. I am talking about elite players, namely all-NBA caliber players not all-star caliber players like Horace Grant and Charles Oakley as your second best player. Jordan could not win with someone like Oakley as his second best player as was proven.
[QUOTE]And we know the team was on pace for 56 wins. [/QUOTE]
And? I thought Pippen was easily replicable as a playmaker? That is what the guy I responded to said even though when Pippen actually was replaced the team suffered. 56 wins sounds nice but not compared to 69 with the same team the previous year. You may say 13 wins but there is a huge difference between a 69 win caliber team and a 56 win caliber team. 56 wins=10' Mavs and 10' Hawks. 69 wins=immortal teams.
[QUOTE]As for Jordan's impact, look what happened to the Bulls post-98. Worse than the Clippers, imo.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol: Jordan alone did not leave. Pippen, Rodman, Jackson and even Longley were gone. Come on. You are really reaching now. Shaq left and was replaced by a top 10 center and his team collapsed. Jordan left and was replaced by a scrub and his team remained a top 5 team in 94'. That speaks for itself. There is no need to reach with respect to Shaq because his record time and again shows the value he had to his teams.
Look, Jordan was a great player. As I said he may been superior individually to prime Shaq. It is just easier to build around a dominant center than a dominant guard. I am not saying Shaq>Jordan. I have Jordan #3 or #4 all-time and Shaq #5.
[QUOTE]Mj was playing with pax since 87. WTF are you talking about???[/QUOTE]
Paxson did not get solidified as a starter until 1990.
[QUOTE]He needed to [I]not[/I] have a great point guard. That leaves three positions to find an elite teammate for MJ to win championships. That is what I was saying. Shaq could play with any PG and he would just need an elite perimeter player. [/QUOTE]
Well, he didn't even have a chance to play with one. Whats the difference then playing with a point forward, and a point guard though? They start the offense the same way. Just end up at a different position in the end.
[QUOTE]Jordan had the ability but not the mentality of a PG and he was human. I can't believe people think he could score 30+ ppg, run the offense, and anchor the defense and remain as effective as he was with that kind of workload over 82 games and in the playoffs. Could he do it? Sure. Would he be as effective as he was? No. Plus, it is not healthy to have a guy who shot more than anyone in the history of the game as your PG.[/QUOTE]
Well, jordan did it. Its not good for the team though, I think thats one of the biggest problems with the Cavs. Lebron is the first option on offense, and the only passer. Doesn't usually work out well.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
He had the 12th leading scorer in the league (23 ppg) on his team and a 16 ppg "#3 option."[/quote]
Wooldrige and Dailey? Both of the were cokeheads and dysfunctional. I would hardly call them good teammates.
[quote]Wins are harder to come by as you move up the ladder. It is easier to go from 35 wins to 50 wins than it is to go from 50 wins to 65. Why? You need to have a much better batting average against good teams to get to 65. Do you really think Shaq was worth 10 to 15 wins? That is speculation. We know what happened when Shaq was injured. LA from 2000-04. Wins over 82 games in parentheses.
66-13 (69)
51-23 (57)
51-16 (63)
45-22 (55)
49-18 (60)
Without him from 2001-04:
5-3 (51)
7-8 (38)
5-10 (27)
7-8 (38)
This suggests he was worth 20-30 wins and that he could drag 27-38 win teams without him to championships at his peak.[/quote]
In 05, though, they won 34 games without Jackson plus Kobe and Odom both played less than 68 games each. With Jackson and a healthy roster, tha team easily wins 40-45 games.
[quote]Now you are reaching. The Bulls lost the best player in the league, the alleged "greatest of all-time" and replaced him with nothing and you are claiming this was an advantage? :wtf:[/quote]
The timing was an adantage, not his actual absence. If he had left early, teams would have had time to prepare their stategies against the Bulls. Him leaving without notice takes away any chance of that.
[quote]Three of those five players were bench players. Teams change rosters all the time. Were the 05' Lakers and the 97' Magic the same exact teams as the previous years?
Kukoc was a rookie, Kerr was barely staying in the league and Longley a second year player at the time.
The Bulls replaced the "greatest of all-time" with a combo of a guy who was out the NBA for the previous two seasons and another guy who was barely staying in the league at the time in Myers and Kerr. Their other key addition was Kukoc.[/quote]
They then turned the team into a defensive juggernaught. Kerr and the rest were just fine in their roles.
[quote]Who replaced Shaq? In Orlando he was replaced by a very good C in Rony Seikley. He put up 17/10 that year. Yet the team still collapsed! In LA he was replaced by a scrub but the Orlando example is revealing. Even when replaced by a very good player the team still could not do anything without Shaq![/quote]
Lol, they won 45 games despite Penny, Grant, Anderson and Scott missing 15 games each. They didn't collapse.
[quote]To recap: you can replace Jordan with a guy who could not even make it as a 12th man in the previous two years and remain a top 5 team. You can replace Shaq with a 17/10 center who was top 10 at his position throughout the 90's and still not do anything. So who added more value to his team? The answer is obvious...[/quote]
O RLY? :lol
[quote]? They made the ECF and that is when Grant got hurt. They lost to a 72-10 team. Even with Grant they would lose that series. There is no shame losing to that 72-10 juggernaut.[/quote]
No, but they had a chance. Sorry, Imean to say the ECF before, not the Semi-Finals.
[quote]Again, of course you could put any clown at PG. You would still need someone to perform the actual duties of a PG.[/quote]
Yeah, have Jordan share duties with a guy like Armstrong or Kukoc. Then team them up with Oakley or Rodman and you'd have a 50+win team.
[quote][b]Dr. J and Magic were hardly the the corporate spokesmen Jordan was.[/b] Jordan is in a class by himself. Anyway this is off topic. If you want to talk about marketing post a thread asking if there is a single American athlete whose level of marketing approaches that of MJ. Read the Halberstam book. He talks about Stern's plans and how MJ fit perfectly into them.[/quote]
Dr. J, maybe, but Magic? Come on, you're fooling yourself now. :oldlol:
[quote]:oldlol: @ the notion that Jordan could win rings with some of these guys as his second best player. Buck Williams? Grant? I notice you left Charles Oakley of that list. He is comparable to Horace Grant. What did Jordan did when Oakley was his second best player? He also had Rodman as his second best player for a half a season and a 69 win team became a 55-56 win team.[/quote]
Rodman and him were both over 35. So a middle aged Jordan and Rodman were capable of leading a team to a 56 win season? Nothing wrong with that.
[quote]What you also did is pick any all-star PF or C from the mid 80's to the late 90's to make the list appear large. In a given season there were only a handful of people at each position who fit that bill. This thread is about 1987-1993.
PF's MJ could win with from 1987-1993: Barkley, Malone, McHale
C's MJ could win with from 1987-1993: Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Daughetry, Shaq (1993)
You may argue he could win with a few others but the general point stands. I listed three PF's and five C's, with one center being available for only one of those seasons. That leaves seven elite big men Jordan could have won with (and McHale declined and was not elite for some of those years and Robinson did not even begin to play until 1990). What are the odds of randomly selecting players and winding up with Ewing or Malone?[/quote]
You forgot Buck Williams, Robert Parish, Tom Chambers, Bill Laimbeer, James Worthy and AC Green. 87-93 was pretty loaded wit good frontcourt stars.
[quote]Shaq could win with any elite wing player and as well as with an elite PF like Duncan or Webber. Shaq fits in with 99% of teams since he can win with an elite player at any position.[/quote]
Tell that to Rodman.
[quote]According to the above the odds actually are. I am talking about elite players, namely all-NBA caliber players not all-star caliber players like Horace Grant and Charles Oakley as your second best player. Jordan could not win with someone like Oakley as his second best player as was proven.[/quote]
That was with no Phil Jackson on the team. Also, Jordan along with Kukoc and Oakley is actually a pretty decent lineup.
[quote]And? I thought Pippen was easily replicable as a playmaker? That is what the guy I responded to said even though when Pippen actually was replaced the team suffered. 56 wins sounds nice but not compared to 69 with the same team the previous year. You may say 13 wins but there is a huge difference between a 69 win caliber team and a 56 win caliber team. 56 wins=10' Mavs and 10' Hawks. 69 wins=immortal teams.[/quote]
69 wins+ a championship= immortal. Also, didn't they finish with 62 wins? Assuming the Bulls actually did win 56 games without Pippen, then he was really only worth 6 wins. So Jordan is worth two wins while Pippen is worth 6. :lol
[quote]:oldlol: Jordan alone did not leave. Pippen, Rodman, Jackson and even Longley were gone. Come on. You are really reaching now.[/quote]
Lol, then why mention the 05 Lakers as evidence of Shaq's dominance?
[quote]Shaq left and was replaced by a top 10 center and his team collapsed. Jordan left and was replaced by a scrub and his team remained a top 5 team in 94'. That speaks for itself. There is no need to reach with respect to Shaq because his record time and again shows the value he had to his teams.[/quote]
I already explained that Orlando had multiple injuries the following season.
I think people forget that MJ won the title in 1991 with role players as he had no other allstar on the team.
Seems as though I really hurt Roundball's feelings this time. It's as if the dude was actually kicking and screaming when he wrote those posts in where he quoted me.
[QUOTE] Well, he didn't even have a chance to play with one. Whats the difference then playing with a point forward, and a point guard though? They start the offense the same way. Just end up at a different position in the end. [/QUOTE]
He couldn't. Even if he did they would no longer be great because Jordan needed the ball so much (#1 all-time in usage).
The difference is a point forward like Pippen can remain an elite player alongside Jordan because he didn't need the ball to be effective. What elite PG's could function well if they had the ball less than they had for their entire careers in the triangle in the first place and with Jordan in the second? That is what they do: dominate the ball and make plays for others. With Jordan that is thrown out of whack, especially late in games when Jordan would take 90% of the shots. What good would a Steve Nash be late in a game if he is relegated to bringing the ball up and then watching Jordan isolate?
[QUOTE]Wooldrige and Dailey? Both of the were cokeheads and dysfunctional. I would hardly call them good teammates.[/QUOTE]
23 ppg is 23 ppg regardless of what the guy does off the court.
[QUOTE]In 05, though, they won 34 games without Jackson plus Kobe and Odom both played less than 68 games each. With Jackson and a healthy roster, tha team easily wins 40-45 games.[/QUOTE]
No dispute there but 40-45 wins means nothing. Any team with a top 5 player should be able to win that many games almost solely on the strength of that player.
[QUOTE]The timing was an adantage, not his actual absence. If he had left early, teams would have had time to prepare their stategies against the Bulls. Him leaving without notice takes away any chance of that. [/QUOTE]
:wtf: This is news to Phil Jackson, Scottie Pippen, Jerry Krause and everyone else involved with that team. Your argument is Jordan retiring at the last possible minute helped them because of the element of surprise even though they had no time to find a legit NBA starter to replace him? How about the damage to team morale Jordan's retirement did? Kukoc was in tears when he heard the news.
[QUOTE]They then turned the team into a defensive juggernaught[/QUOTE]
:roll: @ Luc Longley, Steve Kerr, and Toni Kukoc being the reasons for the Bulls having a great defense. They didn't turn into anything. They remained what they were in the preceding years: a great defense.
[QUOTE]Lol, they won 45 games despite Penny, Grant, Anderson and Scott missing 15 games each. They didn't collapse. [/QUOTE]
60 wins and the ECF (losing to a 72 win team) to 45 wins and getting crushed in the first round is a collapse. They were nowhere near elite without Shaq.
[QUOTE]O RLY? [/QUOTE]
It is a shame Krause failed to pull off the Hornacek trade. He is comparable to Seikaly in that he was a top 10 SG. Give the 94' Bulls Hornacek instead of Harper and they win it all...
[QUOTE]No, but they had a chance. Sorry, Imean to say the ECF before, not the Semi-Finals.[/QUOTE]
72-10. Zero chance.
[QUOTE]Yeah, have Jordan share duties with a guy like Armstrong or Kukoc. Then team them up with Oakley or Rodman and you'd have a 50+win team.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but read what you just said. Your scenario involves him having a good wing player like Armstrong and Kukoc along with an all-star caliber PF who is dominant defensively. Shaq could win 50+ with any team. Put peak Shaq on any team in the league this year and they become a 50+ win team imo, with he exception of the Nets.
[QUOTE]Dr. J, maybe, but Magic? Come on, you're fooling yourself now[/QUOTE]
There is no one in the history of American sports and perhaps global sports who had anywhere near the level of marketing behind him that Jordan did. Comparing him to Magic is a joke. The proper comparison is presidential campaigns...
[QUOTE]Rodman and him were both over 35. So a middle aged Jordan and Rodman were capable of leading a team to a 56 win season? Nothing wrong with that. [/QUOTE]
Rodman was still a great defender and the best rebounder in the league. That was also a 69 win team the previous year. It was hardly a random team. Parachute Jordan and Rodman to the 10' Knicks or 10' Sixers and do they contend for 55+ wins?
What about Jordan and young Oakley? 38-44, 9-9, 40-42 in the regular season and 1-9 in the playoffs. Oak was #2 in rebounding in the last two seasons so you can't play the "he sucked back then" card.
[QUOTE]You forgot Buck Williams, Robert Parish, Tom Chambers, Bill Laimbeer, James Worthy and AC Green. 87-93 was pretty loaded wit good frontcourt stars.[/QUOTE]
Jordan would won absolutely nothing with Laimbeer, Green and Williams. Maybe Chambers and Worthy.
[QUOTE]That was with no Phil Jackson on the team. [/QUOTE]
lol so now Jordan "needs" the GOAT coach? Add that to the list. Thanks. I forgot that. Shaq could reach the NBA finals with Brian Hill.
[QUOTE]69 wins+ a championship= immortal. Also, didn't they finish with 62 wins? [/QUOTE]
They were on pace for 67 when Pippen played.
[QUOTE]then why mention the 05 Lakers as evidence of Shaq's dominance? [/QUOTE]
? I mentioned his entire record during or near his prime. Orlando before and after him. LA before and after. Miami before him. LA was 24-39 without him from 2001-2004. That says it all. I won't even bother calculating their W-L record with him because we all know they were championship caliber 60+ win teams with him.
[QUOTE]I already explained that Orlando had multiple injuries the following season.[/QUOTE]
Penny was amazing in the playoffs. The injury excuse does not cut it. Every team has injuries. The Bulls had a lot of injuries in 94' too. When healthy they were a 60+ caliber win. Their starting C was injured in the playoffs and Pippen got hurt at the end of Game 1 against the Knicks when the Bulls were leading.
[QUOTE]Seems as though I really hurt Roundball's feelings this time. It's as if the dude was actually kicking and screaming when he wrote those posts in where he quoted me.[/QUOTE]
Don't flatter yourself. I was going to post those things anyway to make the case for Shaq being more valuable to a random team.
[QUOTE]He couldn't. Even if he did they would no longer be great because Jordan needed the ball so much (#1 all-time in usage).
The difference is a point forward like Pippen can remain an elite player alongside Jordan because he didn't need the ball to be effective. What elite PG's could function well if they had the ball less than they had for their entire careers in the triangle in the first place and with Jordan in the second? That is what they do: dominate the ball and make plays for others. With Jordan that is thrown out of whack, especially late in games when Jordan would take 90% of the shots. What good would a Steve Nash be late in a game if he is relegated to bringing the ball up and then watching Jordan isolate?[/QUOTE]
Nash would have trouble with if you replaced him with pippen. A guy like Stockton, or Payton, or Probably Kidd, he'd be good with.
There isn't a difference between what a point guard and a point forward does though. Just play on different positions on the floor. At least for you're average point. Nash needs the ball in his hands nonstop to be effective, and he wouldn't be a good fit on a lot of teams.
Though the same arguement could be made for guys like Bird, and Jerry West, and kobe. None of them needed the ball any less then Jordan.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
23 ppg is 23 ppg regardless of what the guy does off the court.[/quote]
Neither of them stayed in town long. Just goes to show that scoring alone doesn't make you a good player.
[quote]No dispute there but 40-45 wins means nothing. Any team with a top 5 player should be able to win that many games almost solely on the strength of that player.[/quote]
Unless they lose three of their best players from the previous year, then it get's a bit tricky.
[quote]:wtf: This is news to Phil Jackson, Scottie Pippen, Jerry Krause and everyone else involved with that team. Your argument is Jordan retiring at the last possible minute helped them because of the element of surprise even though they had no time to find a legit NBA starter to replace him? How about the damage to team morale Jordan's retirement did? Kukoc was in tears when he heard the news.[/quote]
What damage? Who on that team had their psyche damaged beyond repair from him leaving? Sure, it was a big shock, but I doubt anyone was that badly affected. Kukoc crying? He never got to play with Jordan, I would have been bummed too, but I'd get over it.
[quote]:roll: @ Luc Longley, Steve Kerr, and Toni Kukoc being the reasons for the Bulls having a great defense. They didn't turn into anything. They remained what they were in the preceding years: a great defense.[/quote]
LOL, never said they were responsible for the team's defense. They did play decently, though.
[quote]60 wins and the ECF (losing to a 72 win team) to 45 wins and getting crushed in the first round is a collapse. They were nowhere near elite without Shaq.[/quote]
Four starters missed at least 15 games each. If they were all healthy, 50 wins was plausible, maybe more.
[quote]It is a shame Krause failed to pull off the Hornacek trade. He is comparable to Seikaly in that he was a top 10 SG. Give the 94' Bulls Hornacek instead of Harper and they win it all...[/quote]
They had their chance after game six and blew it. They might have gotten to the ECF, maybe.
[quote]Yeah but read what you just said. Your scenario involves him having a good wing player like Armstrong and Kukoc along with an all-star caliber PF who is dominant defensively. Shaq could win 50+ with any team. Put peak Shaq on any team in the league this year and they become a 50+ win team imo, with he exception of the Nets.[/quote]
New York, Minnesota, the Clippers? Really? Because I don't see it/
[quote]There is no one in the history of American sports and perhaps global sports who had anywhere near the level of marketing behind him that Jordan did. Comparing him to Magic is a joke. The proper comparison is presidential campaigns...[/quote]
Not really. Magic played in LA, there was no way he wasn't getting exposure. Only until 91 did people start calling Jordan better.
[quote]Rodman was still a great defender and the best rebounder in the league. That was also a 69 win team the previous year. It was hardly a random team. Parachute Jordan and Rodman to the 10' Knicks or 10' Sixers and do they contend for 55+ wins?[/quote]
Jordan and Rodman in D'Antoni's system? Definitely. 50 if they're not trying.
What about Jordan and young Oakley? 38-44, 9-9, 40-42 in the regular season and 1-9 in the playoffs. Oak was #2 in rebounding in the last two seasons so you can't play the "he sucked back then" card.
[quote]Jordan would won absolutely nothing with Laimbeer, Green and Williams. Maybe Chambers and Worthy.[/quote]
:lol If you say so.
lol so now Jordan "needs" the GOAT coach? Add that to the list. Thanks. I forgot that. Shaq could reach the NBA finals with Brian Hill.
[quote]They were on pace for 67 when Pippen played.[/quote]
[b]On pace[/b].
[quote]? I mentioned his entire record during or near his prime. Orlando before and after him. LA before and after. Miami before him. LA was 24-39 without him from 2001-2004. That says it all. I won't even bother calculating their W-L record with him because we all know they were championship caliber 60+ win teams with him.[/quote]
Their record from 01-04 does not apply to the 05 team. The lineups are totally different and they had two different mentalities.
[quote]Penny was amazing in the playoffs. The injury excuse does not cut it. Every team has injuries. The Bulls had a lot of injuries in 94' too. When healthy they were a 60+ caliber win. Their starting C was injured in the playoffs and Pippen got hurt at the end of Game 1 against the Knicks when the Bulls were leading.[/quote]
The Magic's starting lineup missed many more games. The injury explanation still stands.
[QUOTE]Unless they lose three of their best players from the previous year, then it get's a bit tricky. [/QUOTE]
What three players did they lose from 2001-2004 every time Shaq got injured?
[QUOTE]What damage? Who on that team had their psyche damaged beyond repair from him leaving? Sure, it was a big shock, but I doubt anyone was that badly affected.[/QUOTE]
It left a void. Their morale was naturally not 100% early in the season. Fortunately, when Pippen came back they went on a 30-5 roll and got their confidence back. Sort of. They weren't dumb. They realized they had a glaring weakness and SG and wanted that remedied. Pippen even publicly criticized the team for failing to do so when the Knicks replaced Doc Rivers (with Derek Harper) practically overnight when he got hurt while the Bulls never replaced MJ in 94'.
[QUOTE]They had their chance after game six and blew it.[/QUOTE]
I don't recall seeing Jeff Hornacek in Game 7. :confusedshrug:
[QUOTE]New York, Minnesota, the Clippers? Really? Because I don't see it/ [/QUOTE]
Imo yes. He was that good at his peak.
[QUOTE]Not really. Magic played in LA, there was no way he wasn't getting exposure. Only until 91 did people start calling Jordan better.[/QUOTE
Timing. Of course he got exposure. There is no need to even discuss this. Everyone knows MJ by far had the biggest marketing campaign in American sports history behind him. If you want to compare him select a presidential campaign, not Magic or any other athlete. Jordan was on another level.
[QUOTE]Jordan and Rodman in D'Antoni's system? Definitely. 50 if they're not trying.[/QUOTE]
I disagree but this is speculation.
[QUOTE]Their record from 01-04 does not apply to the 05 team. The lineups are totally different and they had two different mentalities.[/QUOTE]
Who cares about 05'? His total record speaks for itself. 01'-04' are even better because it was the same exact team with the only difference being Shaq was out at times. What happened?
[QUOTE]The Magic's starting lineup missed many more games. [/QUOTE]
I won't even bother looking it up. Who cares? They were on different levels. One maybe would have hit 50 wins and the other would have won 60+ if healthy.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]What three players did they lose from 2001-2004 every time Shaq got injured?[/quote]
Once again, irrelevant. Two different teams with two different rosters.
[quote]It left a void. Their morale was naturally not 100% early in the season. Fortunately, when Pippen came back they went on a 30-5 roll and got their confidence back. Sort of. They weren't dumb. They realized they had a glaring weakness and SG and wanted that remedied. Pippen even publicly criticized the team for failing to do so when the Knicks replaced Doc Rivers (with Derek Harper) practically overnight when he got hurt while the Bulls never replaced MJ in 94'.[/quote]
So then why blame Jordan when it was clearly management's fault for not signing Harper? He was available late in the season when they had time to sign him.
[quote]I don't recall seeing Jeff Hornacek in Game 7. :confusedshrug:[/quote]
Lol, misread the post. My bad.
[quote]Imo yes. He was that good at his peak.[/quote]
Shaq in a run and gun system like in New York? I don't see it.
[quote]Timing. Of course he got exposure. There is no need to even discuss this. Everyone knows MJ by far had the biggest marketing campaign in American sports history behind him. If you want to compare him select a presidential campaign, not Magic or any other athlete. Jordan was on another level.[/quote]
Only from 91 and onward.
[quote]Who cares about 05'? His total record speaks for itself. 01'-04' are even better because it was the same exact team with the only difference being Shaq was out at times. What happened?[/quote]
The team was focused around Shaq, not Kobe. That's the difference between 05 and those seasons.
[quote]I won't even bother looking it up. Who cares? They were on different levels. One maybe would have hit 50 wins and the other [b]might[/b] have won 60+ if healthy.[/QUOTE]
Fixed.
[QUOTE]Two different teams with two different rosters.
[/QUOTE]
? Same rosters. The only difference is Shaq was taken off the roster.
[QUOTE]So then why blame Jordan when it was clearly management's fault for not signing Harper? He was available late in the season when they had time to sign him.[/QUOTE]
Simple: if Jordan retired in a normal fashion or at least gave notice they would have more time to swing a deal and more options. Basically all that was available by the time MJ retired was Hornacek and Harper and the Knicks quickly got Harper. Plus the Bulls did have a shot at Harper--until Scott Williams, who Dallas wanted, got hurt and that was that. See that luck thing again? 94' Bulls=very unlucky. :cry:
[QUOTE]Shaq in a run and gun system like in New York? [/QUOTE]
I forgot that. I am talking about the rosters. Put him with that roster with a normal scheme and yes.
Who cares about focus? The Bulls were constructed to fit around Jordan.
Fixed? 44-15 is a good sample size, no?
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
With a Paxson or Harper you need someone else to serve as the primary ballhandler/playmaker. Of course it is easier to find a Paxson or Harper. The problem is finding another player who is not a PG to serve as the chief ballhandler.
As I said, you could give his ballhandling role to someone like Kukoc or Odom but that means you have no great player at one forward position and at PG. Jordan needed a second elite teammate to win. How many forwards and C's could fit the bill? Remember, my argument is the Shaq could win more with a random team than Jordan. If you are randomly selected players what are the odds that you are going to land a great PF or C using the Kukoc scenario?
Speaking of Kukoc, he actually replaced Pippen as a ballhandler and we know what happened to everyone's FG %...
[/QUOTE]
Okay, and like I said, players like Mo Williams, Derek Fisher, and Terry Porter pretty much solve both of those problems, as in they're not traditional PGs yet they can score efficiently without being ball dominant. You're making it seem like ONLY Scottie Pippen or a player like him could've solved this problem. And BTW its hardly a problem. Having a great ballhandler is hardly an issue when you already have a guy like Jordan, Lebron, Kobe, or Wade since those guys rightfully will be controlling the offense for much of that itme. You're making something out of nothing.
Jordan needed a second elite teammate to win. Yes, so has every great player.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
I know, I know. Greatest of all-time. He could score 30+ ppg, lead the league in FGA as a primary ballhandler, play great defense, rebound very well for a guard all in nearly 40 minutes a night and not skip a beat. I bet he could average 10 boards too if his team needed it. He was human. He had limits. I can't see Jordan doing all that and winning even aside from the obvious problem of having a primary ballhandler who is leading the league in FGA every year.[/QUOTE]
Get that sarcastic bull**** out of here. No one said anything about Jordan averaging 10 boards a game. In his one season as PG, he led a not so good team to the ECF and only 2 games away from the Finals. Its not farfetched to think he would've done better then that if he got to play that role 10+ years, especially considering he would've learned and adjusted. Anyway, I didn't even say anything about him being the "primary" ballhandler. I said he could take a larger role in that aspect if he needed to.
You're making this assumption that just cause Jordan won a certain way, that he couldn't win ANY OTHER WAY, which is a bold thing to say about someone who was arguably the greatest player ever and definitely one of the most versatile players ever. Its a bold thing to say about anyone who played at that level.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
As far as building a team from scratch, yes. Once the team is built then yeah, Shaq needs more help. Look at what Shaq actually did. He joined a 21 win team and as a rookie elevated them to 41 wins. Imagine peak Shaq on that team. Imo Shaq could win 50+ with practically any team, unless it is a horrendous team that would be a 15 win team without him. Put Shaq on a team on the level of the 10' Sixers or 10' Clippers and I can see them winning 50+ with peak Shaq. A championship? Of course not but they would be very competitive.[/QUOTE]
There you go again completely IGNORING context. Did you even bother to look at the 1992 Magic? That team was ravaged by injuries. And I know you'll say every team deals with his injuries, but not usually to this extent. Nick Anderson missed 22 games, Dennis Scott missed 64 games, Anthony Bowie missed 30 games, and alot of their other bench players missed a bunch of games. The year before when they were healthier? 31 wins.
As far as building from scratch, I've already said my reasons why I would take Jordan. If you put Jordan with the worse possible NBA players there are and do the same with Shaq, I'd easily go with Jordan's teams for the reasons I've stated. If we want to talk "random teams" it'll be different in each case depending on the team.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
Provided they solved the ballhandling issue and they worked out how to reconcile pairing two elite scorers together (aside from Zo') he could. I am talking about average teams in this thread, not fantasy pairings. Those pairings would have simply too much talent to not win multiple rings. The only thing that could realistically stop them is chemistry problems.
[/QUOTE]
Not fantasy pairings? Yet you mentioned Jordan with Garnett or Lebron? You can put pretty much put any starting PG and most backup PGs with Jordan and Hakeem/Robinson/Ewing/Shaq and they would win multiple titles. If you don't think so you're completely underrating and/or overrating someone. That team is simply too talented to not win multiple rings, which is who I believe you're referring to.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]? Same rosters. The only difference is Shaq was taken off the roster.[/quote]
Also add Odom, Butler and a new team strategy no relying on O' Neal.
[quote]Simple: if Jordan retired in a normal fashion or at least gave notice they would have more time to swing a deal and more options. Basically all that was available by the time MJ retired was Hornacek and Harper and the Knicks quickly got Harper. Plus the Bulls did have a shot at Harper--until Scott Williams, who Dallas wanted, got hurt and that was that. See that luck thing again? 94' Bulls=very unlucky. :cry:[/quote]
So then blame Krause for not being quick enough to sign Harper. Anything that happened after Jordan retired cannot be pinned on him. Krause is the one who comes out looking bad since he had the chance to sign Derek but failed.
[quote]I forgot that. I am talking about the rosters. Put him with that roster with a normal scheme and yes.[/quote]
Maybe, I'm not too sure myself.
[quote]Who cares about focus? The Bulls were constructed to fit around Jordan.[/quote]
Yeah and when they removed him that focus was changed.
[quote]Fixed? 44-15 is a good sample size, no?[/QUOTE]
Assuming they didn't hit a slump at some point. It happens.
The 94' Bulls won 55 games even with their injury problems. Is it really a stretch to see them winning 60+ if healthy? When I say "60+" I mean 60-63. I am not saying they were going to win 67 games or anything like that.
[QUOTE]So then blame Krause for not being quick enough to sign Harper. Anything that happened after Jordan retired cannot be pinned on him. Krause is the one who comes out looking bad since he had the chance to sign Derek but failed.[/QUOTE]
I do blame Krause--and Jordan and luck (if Scott Williams didn't get hurt they may have pulled it off). Other than Magic, Ricky Williams, and Barry Sanders who else retired at the last minute? At least Magic had a legit reason. If Jordan even just gave them notice that he was considering retiring they could have done something as an insurance policy.
[QUOTE]Yeah and when they removed him that focus was changed.[/QUOTE]
So the 94' Bulls would have been even stronger if custom built for Pippen, not Jordan? Anyway, this is not a thread about the 94' Bulls. It is obvious that Shaq had great impact on his teams in/near his prime. Jordan did not have as much. Your argument is the reason the team stayed afloat was because of two bench players. That is a stretch. Even if we accept that what does that say about MJ's value to the team? Shaq could not be replaced by a top 10 center let alone a D-League level player out the NBA for 2 years.