-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ln20w9Q7vm1qk2ix2o1_400.gif[/img]
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]The guy who runs the site doesn't want one. All requests have been ignored.[/QUOTE]
Shame.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
1991 was actually Pippen's best playoffs: 21.6ppg 8.9rpg 5.8apg 2.5spg 1.1bpg .504%fg .792%ft and led the league during the playoffs in defensive rating. Most teams would be happy to have their BEST PLAYER put up stats like that.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
It has never happened and never will... this is not tennis... You can be the greatest talent to ever lace up a pair of shoes, 7 foot Point-Guard dpoy defending pure shooting quadruple double average freak athlete... doesnt matter, if you dont have the required supporting cast around you then you wont get that championship....
Everybody knows this, yet everybody still keep ranking a player on their all-time lists based on championships being the #1 priority...... its funny... this would work only if all superstars/all-stars in NBA history had the same exact supporting cast............. you go ahead and take Bill Russell and ill go with Wilt Chamberlain, lets assume both have the exact supporting cast... see how that works out for you......
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE=Smoke117]1991 was actually Pippen's best playoffs: 21.6ppg 8.9rpg 5.8apg 2.5spg 1.1bpg .504%fg .792%ft and led the league during the playoffs in defensive rating. Most teams would be happy to have their BEST PLAYER put up stats like that.[/QUOTE]
But, but he was not an All-Star (you know, that crap which happens [B]midseason[/B]), hence, he regressed. :oldlol: Which would mean that Jordan should bear the blame for his 1990 failure to win the title with a "better" Pippen.
Oh, so Pippen wasn't a starter in the 1990 ASG. Neither was Karl Malone. He lost to [B]AC freaking Green[/B] and almost got less votes than McDaniel as well. This should say a lot about the credibility of judging players by their All-Star appearances.
Hakeem in '94 won the title with 0 all-star [B]quality/level[/B] players, 0 all-NBA, 0 all-defensive team and 0 all-rookie guys. Rick Barry in '75 had 1 all-rookie teammate and that was all.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
Hey man, did you know that basketball is a 5 on 5 game?
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]:oldlol: Nice Try :facepalm :rolleyes:
Barkley Never Said What You Say About Pippen. Bull. He Actually Said Jordan Was Lucky to Play With Pippen in His Prime, as Well as Grant and Rodman!. Jordan had 2 All Stars Back Him Up In Their Primes and His Prime His Whole Career.
Pippen Became an All Star in 1990 In Case You Forgot and He Helped Jordan Win a Ring by [B]Guarding Drexler and Magic the Best[/B]. out of those 1st Two Rings.
He Was the Best Defender in the Bulls by Far and [B][COLOR="Red"]The Best Perimeter Defender in the League[/COLOR][/B].
He Had More Responsabilities than Jordan because He Was the Point-Forward Under a Trinagle that Diminished His Stats. He Had To Do More Stuff than Just Score. Create and Be the Best Defender in the Team is Something That Usually is Given to 2 Different Players, Yet Pippen Had No Problem With That and Did Both Jobs at a Great Level ( Not to Mention, Rebound, Score, Team Defend etc)
He Had To Create (Something Jordan finally Accepted since Phil Was Trying to Make Jordan Understand This and Finally It Happened), Be the 2nd Lead Scorer, Be The 2nd Lead Rebounder, Be The Best Defender, Be The Best Team Defender and Play as a Teamate More than a Star.
Pippen`s 1991 Stats while Being the Best Individual Defender For Those Play-Offs and Finals (Defensive Rating Agrees): 20.8 PPG (45.3% FG), 9.4 RPG, 6.6 APG, 2.4 SPG and 1.0 BPG.
If Those are Not All Star Level Stats Then What Are? [/B][/QUOTE]
First he guarded Magic less than Jordan and the switch was made because 2 early fouls on MJ in game 2...Pippen hardly stopped Magic, watch the game, Magic penetrated any time he wanted too, so much so, Jordan almost picked up his third foul when taking a charge after Pippen was blown by.
Drexler, lmao the only time he guarded Drexler was when Jordan was out of the game, his main defensive assignment was Kersey/Robinson
The one in red I do agree with, not because he was a better man defender than Jordan, just due to his size giving him the ability to guard multiple positions...but I guess the same can be said about Jordan who guarded Divac at times in the 91 Finals
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
He obviously had help. But his help and how supposedly fortunate he was is greatly overstated, which is the case with a lot of the all time greats that have won multiple titles.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
Who believes Pippen would have become the player that he was if he played an practiced alongside Kobe or Lebron?
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE=Calabis]First he guarded Magic less than Jordan and the switch was made because 2 early fouls on MJ in game 2...Pippen hardly stopped Magic, watch the game, Magic penetrated any time he wanted too, so much so, Jordan almost picked up his third foul when taking a charge after Pippen was blown by.
Drexler, lmao the only time he guarded Drexler was when Jordan was out of the game, his main defensive assignment was Kersey/Robinson
The one in red I do agree with, not because he was a better man defender than Jordan, just due to his size giving him the ability to guard multiple positions...but I guess the same can be said about Jordan who guarded Divac at times in the 91 Finals[/QUOTE]
Lol hardly stopped? Heres how Jordan's father felt about Pippens job on Magic.
[url]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-06-06/sports/9102200317_1_scottie-pippen-magic-johnson-bulls[/url]
You are the ONLY person who feels Pippen didnt stop Magic.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE=guy]He obviously had help. But his help and how supposedly fortunate he was is greatly overstated, which is the case with a lot of the all time greats that have won multiple titles.[/QUOTE]
In what context is it "overstated"? Noone denies Jordan was the best player on the Bulls. But this isnt tennis. You dont win championships without help.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
Wasn't Shaq pretty much a one man army in 2000?
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
Dwyane Wade won a finals with Antoine Walker being their second leading scorer at 13.8 ppg and Shaq only averaging 13/10. Wade at ~35/4/8 is the closest thing to MJ, and I don't care what anyone says regarding the whistle. The Heat had no offense but Wade ball. Anyone who watched it knows it was damn impressive what a 24 year old did to a prime Dirk squad.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE=gengiskhan]Biggest F'ing Joke. [B]MJ couldn't win a ring without Pippen[/B]. :lol
[b]Fact 1[/b]: 1991 NBA Champions, BULLS had only [u][B]one a.k.a. Single All-star in their whole roster[/U][/b]. His name was a SG called Michael Jeffery Jordan. [B]rest were still 1987 -1991 "Jordanaires" (incl. Pippen)[/B]
[b]Fact 2[/b]:In 1991, [b][U]Scottie Pippen was NOT even good enough to secure all-star 2nd team spot[/u][/b]. let alone becoming all-star starter from the East in 1991.
[b]Fact 3[/b]:[B][U]Pippen matured in 1992 season into an all-star starter[/U][/B] & a legit threat as a complete player at both ends of the court. BUT. MJ has already won a ring by then. so pressure is off Scottie completely so he blossomed.
[b]Fact 4[/b]: How did MJ won a ring by himself? [B][U]He averaged [SIZE="3"]11.4 [/SIZE]Asists [/U]after scoring 31.2 Pts & 6.6 Rebs[/U][/b]
1991 NBA Finals. Besides Guarding Magic, [B][U]Pippen had ZERO responsibility offensively[/U][/B]. MJ dished out all the assists while taking over the clutch every single game & also making key steals.
Pippen was just [B]not[/B] good enough yet in 1991. [B]Many here FAIL to understand this very logic here[/B].
Pippen became The Great Scottie Pippen from 1992 season NOT 1991.
& this is how MJ revolutionized the game forever. He did what bigger, taller Clyde in 1989 Finals. couldn't do as perimeter player despite having an all-star terry porter
[B]Backcourt perimeter player like Magic needed 2 HOF all-stars to win titles.
Backcourt perimeter player like Bird needed 2 HOF all-stars to win titles[/B].
[B][SIZE="3"]Michael Jordan is the only "BACKCOURT PERIMETER" player in the NBA History to win a title by himself WITHOUT any help as a lone all-star on a bulls roster.... Hence the GOAT title forever.[/SIZE][/B]
This feat has NEVER been repeated even to this day. that incl. LBJ etc etc
Faaking [B]Kobe as a lone all-star on LAL roster cound'nt even make it to POs.or if he did, lost the series being up 3-1[/B] :roll:
[B]Even though Dirk won as lone MAVs all-star in 2011 BUT he is a 7-footer playing forward in a weak era with rules in his favor.
Lone perimeter backcourt all-star will never do it again despite rules favoring him in today's era.
MJ IS THE ONLY ONE.[/B] :coleman:[/QUOTE]
90-91 is before my time but pippen's line looks pretty damn good to me.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE=Smoke117]1991 was actually Pippen's best playoffs: 21.6ppg 8.9rpg 5.8apg 2.5spg 1.1bpg .504%fg .792%ft and led the league during the playoffs in defensive rating. Most teams would be happy to have their BEST PLAYER put up stats like that.[/QUOTE]
I think people need to let this sink in. 22/9/6/3/1 on 50% shooting. And led the playoffs in defensive rating.
And understand. He led the playoffs in defensive rating going up against Kiki Vandewghe, then Charles Barkley, Mark Aguire, and James Worthy. Obviously noone defends a guy exclusively, but these were the opposing SFs. As Smoke stated, Teams would be ecstatic if their best player had these kind of results.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
nobody wins by himself. basketball is 5 on 5.
logic fail
thread epic fail
troll success
now where is that neg button?
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
Rick Barry in 1975
Hakeem Olajuwon in 1994
Tim Duncan in 2003
Dirk Nowtizki in 2011
Those are the closest anybody came in "winning it by himself" (yes, I know nobody wins it by himself). They had far inferior rosters compared to any Jordan championship team.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
1991 Pippen:
Against the Knicks: 21/11/5/4/3 in the closeout game.
Against the Sixers: 28/8/6 in the closeout game.
Against the Pistons: Having memories of the “migraine game” fresh in his mind, Pippen had a great all-around performance in his first crack at the Pistons since that game. 18 points, 5 boards, only 2 assists but 6 steals and 5 blocks! He had 23/6/10 in the closeout game.
Against the Lakers (21/9/7 for the series):
*Game 2 of the 1991 NBA finals: After losing Game 1 the upstart Bulls suddenly stared the prospect of facing an 0-2 deficit against Magic Johnson's Lakers when Michael Jordan got into early foul trouble. Phil Jackson put Pippen on Johnson for that game and Pippen's long arms, size harassed Magic into having his worst game of the finals. [url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/...stats_playoffs[/url] The Bulls won the game.
[QUOTE]”Your defense on Magic Johnson changed the fortunes of the series.”-Phil Jackson[/QUOTE]
*Game 5 of the 1991 NBA finals: 32/13/7/5, including something like 26 or 28 second half points to finish off the Lakers.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
Nobody wins a title by themselves, and as others have pointed out, Pippen was an all-star the previous season when he clearly wasn't as good as he was in '91. Pippen showed numerous improvements in '91 including becoming a smarter defender, a better outside shooter and taking on a greater playmaking role.
But by '90, he was already a fine all around player, just not as mature and consistent as '91. Pippen did play great through the first 2 playoff rounds in '90 as well. In fact, while it's an exaggeration, commentators during the Milwaukee series were already saying he'd be the man on most teams.
Jordan's '91 playoff run speaks for itself. Nobody questions the level he played at, or what he did for his team. You don't have to be insecure and start exaggerating.
[QUOTE=gengiskhan]If 1991 Pippen is not 2000 Kobe to Shaq
If 1991 Pippen is not 2012 Wade to LBJ[/QUOTE]
Funny because he easily had the best playoff run of the 3.
[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]Rick Barry in 1975
Hakeem Olajuwon in 1994
Tim Duncan in 2003
Dirk Nowtizki in 2011
Those are the closest anybody came in "winning it by himself" (yes, I know nobody wins it by himself). They had far inferior rosters compared to any Jordan championship team.[/QUOTE]
I don't think they necessarily came closer to winning it "by themselves." I think people overlook when teams got contributions from a bunch of different guys as opposed to 2-3 stars. Usually when teams win a title without 2 legitimate all-stars they also have a bunch of guys step up at the right times.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
Hakeem in 94 for me is the most I've ever seen a dude carry his team.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE=Rubio2Gasol]Hakeem in 94 for me is the most I've ever seen a dude carry his team.[/QUOTE]
His teams arguably revolved around him more than any other championship team that I've seen. He had to score about 30 per game, but they also played 4 out/1 in with the shooters getting looks from Hakeem's doubles. So the offense really relied on him whether he was scoring or not. Obviously, he also had to anchor the defense, and Houston wasn't the best rebounding team, partially to the 4 out/1 in system, so they relied on Hakeem to be a decent rebounding team as well. Although their system primarily took away offensive rebounding opportunities that first year, but that just shows how much more they had to rely on Hakeem for their offense.
Although the '95 team had more offensive firepower and a legit second all-star in Clyde Drexler, you could argue Hakeem had to carry them even more that year. Houston got themselves in a hole by finishing as the 6th seed and had to beat teams that won 60, 59, 62 and 57 games to win the title. And Houston had less defensive support and less rebounding around Hakeem this year because of the small lineup.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
I have trouble accepting that people like this are serious.
I guess Carlos Boozer was alone on the Jazz when Deron was not an all star in 07, 08, and 09 while he was doing like 20/10 in the playoffs? Boozer an all star 2 of those years. all alone out there with no help...even if he might have been his teams second best player......
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
OP is either an extremely frustrated Pippen fan or just a nut job, I go with the latter.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE=Psileas]
Hakeem in '94 won the title with 0 all-star [B]quality/level[/B] players, 0 all-NBA, 0 all-defensive team and 0 all-rookie guys. Rick Barry in '75 had 1 all-rookie teammate and that was all.[/QUOTE]
He didn't have all-star talent, but he had well placed role players, quality players, and basically a stacked roster ... which is different than being the most talented.
The '94 Knicks and '94 Rockets were mirror images of one another in terms of their talent, their rosters and how they were built.
Kenny Smith
Vernon Maxwell
Sam Cassell
Robert Horry
Otis Thorpe
That's a quality roster when it's built around Hakeem, the do it all center. Sometimes having a well balanced roster is better than having top heavy talent from a couple of superstars.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE=97 bulls]In what context is it "overstated"? Noone denies Jordan was the best player on the Bulls. But this isnt tennis. You dont win championships without help.[/QUOTE]
In the context that when people refer to him having so much help, they act as if Jordan had absolutely nothing to do with his help being that good and him having that type of quality help around him was more due to dumb luck and he was just so much more fortunate then other superstars.
These people fail to point out that Jordan from the beginning established a winning culture and expectation in the organization with his level of play and competitiveness.
They bring up Scottie Pippen but fail to point out that Jordan was greatly instrumental in the development of Scottie Pippen, who entered the league as a DIV II raw college player. Now you can say Pippen would've ended up like that anyway or someone else would've done what Jordan did and help bring out his potential. But the fact is it was Jordan who did that, a DIV II college player succeeding the way Pippen did is extremely rare, and there isn't a similar story of a great player taking a teammate under his wing and helping him become a superstar thats anywhere near as documented as what Jordan did to Pippen (not saying it may have not happened, cause obviously Jordan's stories get more coverage, but regardless there's nothing we know of thats similar). And he didn't take him under his wing, but you can say that Jordan was very instrumental in the development of Horace Grant too just by getting to play together so much and the experience of going deep in the playoffs. Jordan was huge in the toughening up of Pippen and Grant that eventually won them championships.
They bring up Phil Jackson, but then fail to point out that Phil had zero head coaching experience before he got to Chicago and only 2 years as an assistant. He had less experience after the first championhip then Erik Spoelstra did.
They bring up Dennis Rodman in the 2nd three-peat, but then fail to point out that despite leading the league in rebounds for years, NO team wanted to touch him cause of his attitude. Only the Bulls felt they had the leadership to contain him, and Jordan was obviously a huge part of that leadership.
And then they bring up all these role players like BJ Armstrong, John Paxson, Bill Cartwright, Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr, Ron Harper, etc. and act like they were special players when the reality is that role players are clearly interchangeable. They aren't players that dramatically change a team. They have skillsets who's utilization is mostly a function of how star players and coaches use them. Now, people look back and think they were just these stacked rosters cause of players like this, when the reality is there were a number of players like this in the league, but they are mostly forgotten because they weren't as successful cause they didn't get to play on championship teams. I guess people will most likely say the same thing in 10-20 years about players like Udonis Haslem, Joel Anthony, Mario Chalmers, Norris Cole, etc if the Heat win a bunch of titles even though now most people say the Heat suck outside of the big 3.
Another thing people don't realize is that a huge reason for a team's success is continuity. Bulls had a formula that worked so they didn't need to fix it. When a team doesn't have to continuosly make adjustments, they are usually ahead of everyone else because of their experience together and playing a certain way, not necessarily because they are more talented. Compare that to the experience of someone like Charles Barkley or Karl Malone, who weren't as easy to build around and didn't have the same success, so they were constantly in different situations where their team was always looking for the right formula, whether it was on the same team in Malone's case or on multiple teams in Barkley's case. The continuity is also helped by the superstar who helps lay a solid foundation to build around, and Jordan was more of a ROCK to build around then a mental midget like Malone or Ewing, a player with poor work ethic like Barkley, a hot head like Hakeem, a nice guy like Robinson, etc.
People make way too much of a great player's "help". They act like its a black and white thing where that player has absolutely nothing to do with the help he's getting, when thats not the case at all. I'm not talking about this with just Jordan, but in the cases of other great players as well. People point to Magic having Kareem, not pointing out that many people believe that Magic significantly extended Kareem's career. People point to Bird with McHale and Parish, not pointing out that McHale wasn't even that good his first few years, and Parish wasn't even considered that good of player before he got to Boston. People point to Tim Duncan with Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, not pointing out that without a selfless leader like Duncan, those two may not have flourished like they did or buy into relatively limited roles in comparison to their peers. Then you got these stupid comparisons where people compare how a team does with and without their superstar and the bigger the dropoff dictates how valuable that player is to the team, which is completely stupid. In many cases it should be a negative reflection. Somehow when a team like the Bulls does well without Derrick Rose, it means he's not that valuable despite the fact that you can clearly see he positively influences that team's locker room with the way they seem to take on his attitude, work ethic, and demeanor. But then when the Magic last year were doing bad without Dwight Howard after he went down with his injury, it means he's very valuable despite the fact that maybe him destroying that locker room with his trade demands, coach firing requests, etc had something to do with it?
Anyway, like I said, people overstate these things. I'm obviously not saying a star player has everything to do with his help, cause thats impossible because the potential has to be there in the first place, plus in many cases they don't have much of an impact on it. I'm just saying people here make way too much of it, especially in Jordan's case.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE=Money 23]
That's a quality roster when it's built around Hakeem, the do it all center. Sometimes having a well balanced roster is better than having top heavy talent from a couple of superstars.[/QUOTE]
True, complementing your star with a system and supporting cast that suit him will be more effective than a team with several all-stars who don't fit together. Many people don't look at how well teams are built enough. Regardless, it required Hakeem to play incredible basketball all year because of how much the team revolved around him. He had players that complemented him and a system that brought out the best in him, but it takes a hell of a player to succeed with that type of responsibility.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE=guy]In the context that when people refer to him having so much help, they act as if Jordan had absolutely nothing to do with his help being that good and him having that type of quality help around him was more due to dumb luck and he was just so much more fortunate then other superstars.
These people fail to point out that Jordan from the beginning established a winning culture and expectation in the organization with his level of play and competitiveness.
They bring up Scottie Pippen but fail to point out that Jordan was greatly instrumental in the development of Scottie Pippen, who entered the league as a DIV II raw college player. Now you can say Pippen would've ended up like that anyway or someone else would've done what Jordan did and help bring out his potential. But the fact is it was Jordan who did that, a DIV II college player succeeding the way Pippen did is extremely rare, and there isn't a similar story of a great player taking a teammate under his wing and helping him become a superstar thats anywhere near as documented as what Jordan did to Pippen (not saying it may have not happened, cause obviously Jordan's stories get more coverage, but regardless there's nothing we know of thats similar). And he didn't take him under his wing, but you can say that Jordan was very instrumental in the development of Horace Grant too just by getting to play together so much and the experience of going deep in the playoffs. Jordan was huge in the toughening up of Pippen and Grant that eventually won them championships.
They bring up Phil Jackson, but then fail to point out that Phil had zero head coaching experience before he got to Chicago and only 2 years as an assistant. He had less experience after the first championhip then Erik Spoelstra did.
They bring up Dennis Rodman in the 2nd three-peat, but then fail to point out that despite leading the league in rebounds for years, NO team wanted to touch him cause of his attitude. Only the Bulls felt they had the leadership to contain him, and Jordan was obviously a huge part of that leadership.
And then they bring up all these role players like BJ Armstrong, John Paxson, Bill Cartwright, Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr, Ron Harper, etc. and act like they were special players when the reality is that role players are clearly interchangeable. They aren't players that dramatically change a team. They have skillsets who's utilization is mostly a function of how star players and coaches use them. Now, people look back and think they were just these stacked rosters cause of players like this, when the reality is there were a number of players like this in the league, but they are mostly forgotten because they weren't as successful cause they didn't get to play on championship teams. I guess people will most likely say the same thing in 10-20 years about players like Udonis Haslem, Joel Anthony, Mario Chalmers, Norris Cole, etc if the Heat win a bunch of titles even though now most people say the Heat suck outside of the big 3.
Another thing people don't realize is that a huge reason for a team's success is continuity. Bulls had a formula that worked so they didn't need to fix it. When a team doesn't have to continuosly make adjustments, they are usually ahead of everyone else because of their experience together and playing a certain way, not necessarily because they are more talented. Compare that to the experience of someone like Charles Barkley or Karl Malone, who weren't as easy to build around and didn't have the same success, so they were constantly in different situations where their team was always looking for the right formula, whether it was on the same team in Malone's case or on multiple teams in Barkley's case. The continuity is also helped by the superstar who helps lay a solid foundation to build around, and Jordan was more of a ROCK to build around then a mental midget like Malone or Ewing, a player with poor work ethic like Barkley, a hot head like Hakeem, a nice guy like Robinson, etc.
People make way too much of a great player's "help". They act like its a black and white thing where that player has absolutely nothing to do with the help he's getting, when thats not the case at all. I'm not talking about this with just Jordan, but in the cases of other great players as well. People point to Magic having Kareem, not pointing out that many people believe that Magic significantly extended Kareem's career. People point to Bird with McHale and Parish, not pointing out that McHale wasn't even that good his first few years, and Parish wasn't even considered that good of player before he got to Boston. People point to Tim Duncan with Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, not pointing out that without a selfless leader like Duncan, those two may not have flourished like they did or buy into relatively limited roles in comparison to their peers. Then you got these stupid comparisons where people compare how a team does with and without their superstar and the bigger the dropoff dictates how valuable that player is to the team, which is completely stupid. In many cases it should be a negative reflection. Somehow when a team like the Bulls does well without Derrick Rose, it means he's not that valuable despite the fact that you can clearly see he positively influences that team's locker room with the way they seem to take on his attitude, work ethic, and demeanor. But then when the Magic last year were doing bad without Dwight Howard after he went down with his injury, it means he's very valuable despite the fact that maybe him destroying that locker room with his trade demands, coach firing requests, etc had something to do with it?
[B]Anyway, like I said, people overstate these things.[/B] I'm obviously not saying a star player has everything to do with his help, cause thats impossible because the potential has to be there in the first place, plus in many cases they don't have much of an impact on it. I'm just saying people here make way too much of it, especially in Jordan's case.[/QUOTE]
Says the topic sentence of the conclusion to a huge ass wall of text stating MJ's monumental influence on a bunch of retards that turned them into a 6 time championship team.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[IMG]http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/bulls/photos/finals1991_100922.jpg[/IMG]
Who are the rest of those guys celebrating?
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]True, complementing your star with a system and supporting cast that suit him will be more effective than a team with several all-stars who don't fit together. Many people don't look at how well teams are built enough. Regardless, it required Hakeem to play incredible basketball all year because of how much the team revolved around him. He had players that complemented him and a system that brought out the best in him, but it takes a hell of a player to succeed with that type of responsibility.[/QUOTE]
He did but the system you described ain't really what it was.
Firstly - the 4 out 1 in system you're describing wasn't run. Otis was a banger who hustled inside, rebounded well and complimented well on D because he could defend the post and let him freelance. He never set foot outside the 3 PT line. He was an amazing outlet passer as well.
Vernon - I love him - but people like to make him seem like more than he actually was. He was as inconsistent a scorer you will ever see and while he was a x-factor for some games in that Knicks series and won the personal battle with Starks....he was neither a great fit with Hakeem nor a legit 2nd option. He would launch 3's but he didn't make them and he was best taking people off the dribble - something Rudy really gave him the room to do.
Horry was a good compliment, he shot OK crashed the offensive boards and defended.
Kenny was effectively a shooter. Cassel was a rookie backup point so just steer clear of that.
But in alll reason - as far as talent besides Hakeem - these teams were bare bones compared to the Portland or Phoenix teams they beat - the Bulls being discussed now or any team that won a chip since . Then you factor in that the performance of the others depended on his own - it's really pretty clear cut.
So "stacked" is not a word I'd use to describe them.
To me that's a word that should be reserved for teams like Shaq and Kobe's Lakers - which had the two best players in the game + glove fitted role players. The Bulls who had the best defenders everywhere to go with Jordan and Pippen. Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers.
This team was perhaps well constructed - in the same vein a Indiana currently is..but so were the ones I outlined. The difference is they had 3x the talent.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE=kmartshopper]And so it begins. The great shitstorm of our time.[/QUOTE]
:lol :lol
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE=funnystuff]ISH should make a seperate "Historic players" forum.[/QUOTE]
How would that fix the Kobe problem though? Maybe Jeff should add a "Historic players" forum AND a "Incredibly overrated NBA players" forum.
No more Rondo, Kobe, or Irving?
:applause:
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE]MJ won 1991 title without a real sidekick.[/QUOTE]
Possibly the dumbest fuggin thing Ive ever seen on here and thats saying something.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE=dunksby]Says the topic sentence of the conclusion to a huge ass wall of text stating MJ's monumental influence on a bunch of retards that turned them into a 6 time championship team.[/QUOTE]
Where did I say or imply that he played with a bunch of "retards"? Yes, he had a huge influence as most star players do. And this is a message board, and obviously my huge ass wall of text wasn't long enough for you not to read it.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE=guy]In the context that when people refer to him having so much help, they act as if Jordan had absolutely nothing to do with his help being that good and him having that type of quality help around him was more due to dumb luck and he was just so much more fortunate then other superstars.
These people fail to point out that Jordan from the beginning established a winning culture and expectation in the organization with his level of play and competitiveness.
They bring up Scottie Pippen but fail to point out that Jordan was greatly instrumental in the development of Scottie Pippen, who entered the league as a DIV II raw college player. Now you can say Pippen would've ended up like that anyway or someone else would've done what Jordan did and help bring out his potential. But the fact is it was Jordan who did that, a DIV II college player succeeding the way Pippen did is extremely rare, and there isn't a similar story of a great player taking a teammate under his wing and helping him become a superstar thats anywhere near as documented as what Jordan did to Pippen (not saying it may have not happened, cause obviously Jordan's stories get more coverage, but regardless there's nothing we know of thats similar). And he didn't take him under his wing, but you can say that Jordan was very instrumental in the development of Horace Grant too just by getting to play together so much and the experience of going deep in the playoffs. Jordan was huge in the toughening up of Pippen and Grant that eventually won them championships.
They bring up Phil Jackson, but then fail to point out that Phil had zero head coaching experience before he got to Chicago and only 2 years as an assistant. He had less experience after the first championhip then Erik Spoelstra did.
They bring up Dennis Rodman in the 2nd three-peat, but then fail to point out that despite leading the league in rebounds for years, NO team wanted to touch him cause of his attitude. Only the Bulls felt they had the leadership to contain him, and Jordan was obviously a huge part of that leadership.
And then they bring up all these role players like BJ Armstrong, John Paxson, Bill Cartwright, Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr, Ron Harper, etc. and act like they were special players when the reality is that role players are clearly interchangeable. They aren't players that dramatically change a team. They have skillsets who's utilization is mostly a function of how star players and coaches use them. Now, people look back and think they were just these stacked rosters cause of players like this, when the reality is there were a number of players like this in the league, but they are mostly forgotten because they weren't as successful cause they didn't get to play on championship teams. I guess people will most likely say the same thing in 10-20 years about players like Udonis Haslem, Joel Anthony, Mario Chalmers, Norris Cole, etc if the Heat win a bunch of titles even though now most people say the Heat suck outside of the big 3.
Another thing people don't realize is that a huge reason for a team's success is continuity. Bulls had a formula that worked so they didn't need to fix it. When a team doesn't have to continuosly make adjustments, they are usually ahead of everyone else because of their experience together and playing a certain way, not necessarily because they are more talented. Compare that to the experience of someone like Charles Barkley or Karl Malone, who weren't as easy to build around and didn't have the same success, so they were constantly in different situations where their team was always looking for the right formula, whether it was on the same team in Malone's case or on multiple teams in Barkley's case. The continuity is also helped by the superstar who helps lay a solid foundation to build around, and Jordan was more of a ROCK to build around then a mental midget like Malone or Ewing, a player with poor work ethic like Barkley, a hot head like Hakeem, a nice guy like Robinson, etc.
People make way too much of a great player's "help". They act like its a black and white thing where that player has absolutely nothing to do with the help he's getting, when thats not the case at all. I'm not talking about this with just Jordan, but in the cases of other great players as well. People point to Magic having Kareem, not pointing out that many people believe that Magic significantly extended Kareem's career. People point to Bird with McHale and Parish, not pointing out that McHale wasn't even that good his first few years, and Parish wasn't even considered that good of player before he got to Boston. People point to Tim Duncan with Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, not pointing out that without a selfless leader like Duncan, those two may not have flourished like they did or buy into relatively limited roles in comparison to their peers. Then you got these stupid comparisons where people compare how a team does with and without their superstar and the bigger the dropoff dictates how valuable that player is to the team, which is completely stupid. In many cases it should be a negative reflection. Somehow when a team like the Bulls does well without Derrick Rose, it means he's not that valuable despite the fact that you can clearly see he positively influences that team's locker room with the way they seem to take on his attitude, work ethic, and demeanor. But then when the Magic last year were doing bad without Dwight Howard after he went down with his injury, it means he's very valuable despite the fact that maybe him destroying that locker room with his trade demands, coach firing requests, etc had something to do with it?
Anyway, like I said, people overstate these things. I'm obviously not saying a star player has everything to do with his help, cause thats impossible because the potential has to be there in the first place, plus in many cases they don't have much of an impact on it. I'm just saying people here make way too much of it, especially in Jordan's case.[/QUOTE]
Im sorry Guy. I disagree with just about everything youve stated. Ill respond in full in a bit.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE=Rubio2Gasol]He did but the system you described ain't really what it was.
Firstly - the 4 out 1 in system you're describing wasn't run. Otis was a banger who hustled inside, rebounded well and complimented well on D because he could defend the post and let him freelance. He never set foot outside the 3 PT line. He was an amazing outlet passer as well.
Vernon - I love him - but people like to make him seem like more than he actually was. He was as inconsistent a scorer you will ever see and while he was a x-factor for some games in that Knicks series and won the personal battle with Starks....he was neither a great fit with Hakeem nor a legit 2nd option. He would launch 3's but he didn't make them and he was best taking people off the dribble - something Rudy really gave him the room to do.
Horry was a good compliment, he shot OK crashed the offensive boards and defended.
Kenny was effectively a shooter. Cassel was a rookie backup point so just steer clear of that.
But in alll reason - as far as talent besides Hakeem - these teams were bare bones compared to the Portland or Phoenix teams they beat - the Bulls being discussed now or any team that won a chip since . Then you factor in that the performance of the others depended on his own - it's really pretty clear cut.
So "stacked" is not a word I'd use to describe them.
To me that's a word that should be reserved for teams like Shaq and Kobe's Lakers - which had the two best players in the game + glove fitted role players. The Bulls who had the best defenders everywhere to go with Jordan and Pippen. Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers.
This team was perhaps well constructed - in the same vein a Indiana currently is..but so were the ones I outlined. The difference is they had 3x the talent.[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree with much of your assessment of the Rockets, but they still were running a 4 out/1 in type of offense. Otis obviously wasn't a 3 point shooter, and he rarely even took mid-range jumpers, but he'd often be away from the basket for spacing, and be used in screen/rolls, or he'd cut the basket. He'd get some touches inside as well, but a lot of his points by that point came in the way I described, or from running the floor.
But what's also true is that players such as Thorpe and Kenny Smith took on lesser roles, and didn't utilize their entire skill set to accommodate the offense revolving around Hakeem.
I never called Houston stacked either, but the Shaq/Kobe Lakers weren't either. Those teams relied as heavily on 2 players as any team I've seen. They had a few nice role players on each of the 3 championship teams, but they lacked a 3rd guy near all-star level, were a below average 3 point shooting team(one of the worst in the league in 2000), had some of the worst starting PFs in the league in 2000 and 2002, always had 2, if not 3 players starting who were below average starters at their position, and never had a 3rd scorer except for 2000 with Glen Rice who was past his prime, but even he didn't produce like one in the playoffs, didn't fit in the triangle at all, complained and was a liability defensively.
The team was special because of the duo and such a great coach, but stacked is definitely not the right word. An example of stacked teams would be the Portland and Sacramento teams they beat.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]I don't disagree with much of your assessment of the Rockets, but they still were running a 4 out/1 in type of offense. Otis obviously wasn't a 3 point shooter, and he rarely even took mid-range jumpers, but he'd often be away from the basket for spacing, and be used in screen/rolls, or he'd cut the basket. He'd get some touches inside as well, but a lot of his points by that point came in the way I described, or from running the floor.
But what's also true is that players such as Thorpe and Kenny Smith took on lesser roles, and didn't utilize their entire skill set to accommodate the offense revolving around Hakeem.
I never called Houston stacked either, but the Shaq/Kobe Lakers weren't either. Those teams relied as heavily on 2 players as any team I've seen. They had a few nice role players on each of the 3 championship teams, but they lacked a 3rd guy near all-star level, were a below average 3 point shooting team(one of the worst in the league in 2000), had some of the worst starting PFs in the league in 2000 and 2002, always had 2, if not 3 players starting who were below average starters at their position, and never had a 3rd scorer except for 2000 with Glen Rice who was past his prime, but even he didn't produce like one in the playoffs, didn't fit in the triangle at all, complained and was a liability defensively.
The team was special because of the duo and such a great coach, but stacked is definitely not the right word. An example of stacked teams would be the Portland and Sacramento teams they beat.[/QUOTE]
I think Money 23 or someone called them stacked. He's a Jordan homer so it should be expected.
That's a different take from the 4 in 1 out system than I've ever seen. To me it usually involves a 3 pt threat because even if you set up away from the basket or set high picks - dudes have no incentive to cover you. So it was still relatively easy to double Hakeem.
Lakers for me were stacked - they had the two best players in the game for a couple years (something that never really happens). In 2000 they weren't and they honestly got lucky against Portland.
Kenny found his niche being a spot up shooter for that playoff run. That wasn't his game in it's entirety but I don't think he could have been better than he was at the time playing any other role.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE=Rubio2Gasol]I think Money 23 or someone called them stacked. He's a Jordan homer so it should be expected.
That's a different take from the 4 in 1 out system than I've ever seen. To me it usually involves a 3 pt threat because even if you set up away from the basket or set high picks - dudes have no incentive to cover you. So it was still relatively easy to double Hakeem.
Lakers for me were stacked - they had the two best players in the game for a couple years (something that never really happens). In 2000 they weren't and they honestly got lucky against Portland.
Kenny found his niche being a spot up shooter for that playoff run. That wasn't his game in it's entirety but I don't think he could have been better than he was at the time playing any other role.[/QUOTE]
The Rockets before they went small weren't quite a 4 out/1 in the way Orlando was with Dwight, but I consider it a variation, much like the mid 90's Magic, even though they had Grant. Although Grant while not a 3 point shooter, was a mid-range shooter unlike Thorpe, but not a post player.
The Lakers did arguably have the 2 best players in the game at one point(though I personally considered Duncan 2nd) however that's still not stacked to me. Stacked has to do with depth as well and talent throughout your rotation. The Lakers didn't have a 3rd player who was particularly talented individually, much less 4th, 5th and 6th guys like the '02 Kings for example. They did get good contributions from several role players in the 2001 playoffs(Fisher, Fox, Grant and Horry to a lesser extent) but in 2002, the role players didn't do anything outside of Horry and Fox. And again, you couldn't call any of those guys above average starters, and were all probably below average if you look at the other players starting at their positions.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
Reall Talk....
I remember watching the Bull's dominate in 91'....
It seemed unfair.....because ...
[QUOTE][B]A)[/B] You had Michael F'ing Jordan......Hitting cot damn every shot imaginable....
[SIZE="3"]I was like[/SIZE]...[B]" Hey we forced MJ Baseline!...we got this Mufaka in check....oh sh!T!!![/B] ( MJ jumps in the air twists his body around 3 defenders and ends up with a F'ing soft azz layup)..[B]what the F*** just happened?"[/B]
[SIZE="3"]then like...[/SIZE]
[B]"Hey we forced MJ to take a 20' contested Jumper[/B]....( He rises up for like 3' off the ground.....swishes that sh!t)..[B]WTF[/B]?....( he then hits a fadeaway off a reverse pivot)...[B]Da FUQ?....Now MJ got accurate Fadeaways??"[/B]
[B]B)[/B][SIZE="4"]Then you had this Long gangley Mufaka with go go gadget arms.....Pippen was blockin everyones shot....gettin all the damn rebounds.....then shuttin down little PG's....[/SIZE]
[SIZE="3"]I was like.........[/SIZE]
WTF?......the Bull's got the 2 most dope'est Hard core MF'ers on the same team....[/QUOTE]
like someone else said.....anyone who saw the Bull's knew they had 2 PITBULLS......MJ might have been the DAD...but they def 2 full grown Game ready PITS!
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE=AlphaWolf24]Reall Talk....
I remember watching the Bull's dominate in 91'....
It seemed unfair.....because ...
[B]A)[/B] You had Michael F'ing Jordan......Hitting cot damn every shot imaginable....
[SIZE="3"]I was like[/SIZE]...[B]" Hey we forced MJ Baseline!...we got this Mufaka in check....oh sh!T!!![/B] ( MJ jumps in the air twists his body around 3 defenders and ends up with a F'ing soft azz layup)..[B]what the F*** just happened?"[/B]
[SIZE="3"]then like...[/SIZE]
[B]"Hey we forced MJ to take a 20' contested Jumper[/B]....( He rises up for like 3' off the ground.....swishes that sh!t)..[B]WTF[/B]?....( he then hits a fadeaway off a reverse pivot)...[B]Da FUQ?....Now MJ got accurate Fadeaways??"[/B]
[B]B)[/B][SIZE="4"]Then you had this Long gangley Mufaka with go go gadget arms.....Pippen was blockin everyones shot....gettin all the damn rebounds.....then shuttin down little PG's....[/SIZE]
[SIZE="3"]I was like.........[/SIZE]
WTF?......the Bull's got the 2 most dope'est Hard core MF'ers on the same team....
like someone else said....[B].anyone who saw the Bull's knew they had 2 PITBULLS..[/B]....MJ might have been the DAD...but they def 2 full grown Game ready PITS![/QUOTE]
Back then, everyone thought of them as Dobermans. They were sleek, fast and vicious when need be.
-
Re: Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH
[QUOTE=Rubio2Gasol]I think Money 23 or someone called them stacked. He's a Jordan homer so it should be expected.[/quote]
No, that's just an honest assessment. I feel there is a difference between being "stacked" and more "talented" ... for instance, the Heat I feel are more talented due to LeBron, Wade, and Bosh than the Clippers and Knicks. But I feel the Clippers and Knicks are more stacked because of the well rounded talent at ALL positions and off the bench.
There is absolutely a significant difference to account for ... the early 2000s Lakers weren't stacked. They were just more talented. The Blazers had legit talent, albeit not superstar talent, at all five positions and off the bench. Thus, they were more stacked.
Hakeem's '94 Rockets had talent at all five positions, quality starters and role players. Defensive players, shooters, and size. They were a stacked team. As were the Knicks. New York didn't have a co superstar to pair with Ewing but they had tons of talent and quality role players. Jordan's Bulls were more talented than the Knicks, thanks to MJ and Pip. But outside of those two the Knicks had better players at all positions.