Shaq 96-2002 versus 87-93 Jordan

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]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]

Maybe, maybe not. I really don't know.

[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]

The guy's dad was murdered less than three months earlier and was printed in God knows how many publications. Seems like a legit reason to quit to me.

[quote]So the 94' Bulls would have been even stronger if custom built for Pippen, not Jordan?[/quote]

Lol, no. Were the 94 Bulls better than the year before?

[quote]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?[/quote]

That Jordan was the difference between a repeat champion going all the way and falling out in the second round.

[quote]Shaq could not be replaced by a top 10 center let alone a D-League level player out the NBA for 2 years.[/QUOTE]

Replace him with Duncan, KG or Webber in their primes and I easily see the early 00s Lakers winning it all.

[QUOTE]Maybe, maybe not. I really don't know.[/QUOTE]

You just can't bring yourself to credit that team. 5 more wins when they were 44-15 with Pippen and Grant is a stretch?

[QUOTE]The guy's dad was murdered less than three months earlier and was printed in God knows how many publications. Seems like a legit reason to quit to me.[/QUOTE]

If that is the reason he retired then he should have told them he was considering it due to that and they could have planned for him possibly retiring. Jordan didn't retire from sports. He retired from basketball btw.

[QUOTE]Were the 94 Bulls better than the year before?[/QUOTE]

No but they would still be the best team in the East and probably the NBA if you gave them a legit SG like Hornacek. With Hornacek they definitely are good enough to win it all.

[QUOTE]That Jordan was the difference between a repeat champion going all the way and falling out in the second round. [/QUOTE]

That ignores that Jordan screwed the team. To fairly compare them you need a legit replacement for Jordan, like Orlando had with Seikaly for Shaq. Plus we know what happened in the second round. It isn't as if they were not legit title contenders.

[QUOTE]Replace him with Duncan, KG or Webber in their primes and I easily see the early 00s Lakers winning it all.[/QUOTE]

All those guys were at least top 3 players at their peaks. Replace him with a good, but not great player and they do nothing. Replace him with a bench level player and they do nothing, as they showed when he got hurt.

The 00's Lakers barely beat the Blazers and Kings in 2000 and 2002. It isn't clear that they win each time with Duncan, KG, or Webber. They could win with them but not three straight.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]You just can't bring yourself to credit that team. 5 more wins when they were 44-15 with Pippen and Grant is a stretch?[/quote]

Ok, sure, they win 60 games. But then they get swept in the second round due to overconfidence. :lol

[quote]If that is the reason he retired then he should have told them he was considering it due to that and they could have planned for him possibly retiring. Jordan didn't retire from sports. He retired from basketball btw.[/quote]

Lol, I know he played baseball.

[quote]No but they would still be the best team in the East and probably the NBA if you gave them a legit SG like Hornacek. With Hornacek they definitely are good enough to win it all.[/quote]

Maybe, if they could get past Houston which I doubt. Hakeem was a Bulls killer in the early 90s.

[quote]That ignores that Jordan screwed the team. To fairly compare them you need a legit replacement for Jordan, like Orlando had with Seikaly for Shaq. Plus we know what happened in the second round. It isn't as if they were not legit title contenders.[/quote]

Krause screwed them, you already admitted they could have gotten Harper if he had reacted fast enough. Maybe Krause would have ended up letting Hornacek slip away regardless of the circumstances?

[quote]All those guys were at least top 3 players at their peaks. Replace him with a good, but not great player and they do nothing. Replace him with a bench level player and they do nothing, as they showed when he got hurt.[/quote]

The Bulls were 0-4 without Jordan from 89-93. Not a large sample size, but it goes to show that losing the team's number 1 option and changing your gameplan doesn't mean your team is doomed without him.

[quote]The 00's Lakers barely beat the Blazers and Kings in 2000 and 2002. It isn't clear that they win each time with Duncan, KG, or Webber. They could win with them but not three straight.[/QUOTE]

Well, the teams would be different if Webber or Duncan played on the Lakers. I'd pick Kobe/Duncan over the Kings most of the time, though and I could easily see them threepeating.

[QUOTE]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 ring[/QUOTE]

I said the same thing. Of course, if you are talking about a random team what are the odds of someone of the caliber of Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, or Shaq being on it?

[QUOTE]Jordan needed a second elite teammate to win. Yes, so has every great player.[/QUOTE]

Having an average PG reduces the odds of finding one. That is what I was saying. That leaves three positions to find one. With Shaq all he needs is an elite teammate, period. There may not be much of a difference between four positions and three at first blush but there are 33% more players available if you can choose from four positions.


[QUOTE]Krause screwed them, you already admitted they could have gotten Harper if he had reacted fast enough. Maybe Krause would have ended up letting Hornacek slip away regardless of the circumstances?[/QUOTE]

He reacted, tried and had a shot at doing it before Scott Williams got hurt. If Jordan gave him notice he could have swung the deal before Williams wound up getting hurt (Dallas wanted him). You are being blinded by devotion to MJ. You are attacking Krause for not getting the job done quickly when Jordan is the reason the timing was messed up in the first place. What he did is unprecedented. Jordan, Ricky Williams, and Barry Sanders. That is it as far as superstars retiring at the last minute. Magic too but he had a legit reason and could not do anything about timing. It is funny how Williams and Sanders were criticized for it but Jordan given a free pass and the timing of his retirement has been vaporized from the annals of basketball history.

Harper was not a great player. All they needed was a legit NBA player who could play SG. They didn't necessarily need Mitch Richmond or even an all-star caliber SG like Hornacek (who they tried to get before the trade deadline), although obviously that would be preferable. Common sense and history shows you have more options finding a player like this in the offseason then at the last minute during the season. Look at the 2010 season. No significant trades have occurred yet and by the trade deadline only a handful of players will be available.

[QUOTE]Maybe, if they could get past Houston which I doubt. Hakeem was a Bulls killer in the early 90s. [/QUOTE]

Except that the Pippen-led Bulls went 2-1 against him in 1994 and 1995 when Pippen played.

[QUOTE]The Bulls were 0-4 without Jordan from 89-93. Not a large sample size, but it goes to show that losing the team's number 1 option and changing your gameplan doesn't mean your team is doomed without him.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: You are reaching again. Four games over four years is a useless sample size and how many of those games were meaningless games at the end of the season when their seed was determined?

You are underrating Shaq or overrating Duncan if you think they could win three straight with Duncan. They barely won twice with Shaq despite Shaq having some of the greatest playoff runs of all-time. Duncan is a great player, top 10 all-time, but he never was in the same league as 2000-2002 Shaq.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
Having an average PG reduces the odds of finding one. That is what I was saying. That leaves three positions to find one. With Shaq all he needs is an elite teammate, period. There may not be much of a difference between four positions and three at first blush but there are 33% more players available if you can choose from four positions. [/QUOTE]

Okay, what makes you think Shaq could've played with an elite PF? What about PG? In fact the one time he played with a great PF and PG it didn't work out so well, although I will point out he was way past his prime at that point. Either way, there really is no evidence at all. And although I agree with you that a John Paxson-type PG is better alongside Jordan then a traditional one, what makes you think Jordan could not have played with an elite PG? Jordan did not play with any elite PGs before the title years. I have my doubts that Jordan couldn't have won titles with a Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas, Kevin Johnson, or John Stockton. Maybe not as much, but that duo is too talented to say without a doubt he couldn't have won with an elite PG. Just cause players like Ennis Watley, Sam Vincent, and Rory Sparrow couldn't play well with Jordan, doesn't mean no PGs can, especially when you consider none of them did anything special on other teams.

And I'm not saying Shaq couldn't have won with an elite PF and/or PG. All I'm saying is in both cases there isn't enough evidence to suggest they could or couldn't play with certain players.


[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
[B]You are attacking Krause[/B] for not getting the job done quickly when Jordan is the reason the timing was messed up in the first place. What he did is unprecedented. Jordan, Ricky Williams, and Barry Sanders. That is it as far as superstars retiring at the last minute. Magic too but he had a legit reason and could not do anything about timing. It is funny how Williams and Sanders were criticized for it but Jordan given a free pass and the timing of his retirement has been vaporized from the annals of basketball history.[/QUOTE]

Umm, and you are attacking Jordan for "screwing" the Bulls for retiring too late when this was in the aftermath of his dad getting brutally murdered.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
Except that the Pippen-led Bulls went 2-1 against him in 1994 and 1995 when Pippen played.



:oldlol: You are reaching again. Four games over four years is a useless sample size and how many of those games were meaningless games at the end of the season when their seed was determined?

[/QUOTE]

LOL, a little hypocrisy? 3 regular season games over 2 years doesn't say much either. Regular season series in general doesn't say much.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
[b]With Shaq all he needs is an elite teammate, period.[/b] There may not be much of a difference between four positions and three at first blush but there are 33% more players available if you can choose from four positions.[/quote]

Are you sure? What if he gets teamed up with a pg who likes to run, or joins a team with a big man who averages 20+/10 and doesn't like to play outside the lowpost?


[quote]He reacted, tried and had a shot at doing it before Scott Williams got hurt. If Jordan gave him notice he could have swung the deal before Williams wound up getting hurt (Dallas wanted him). You are being blinded by devotion to MJ. You are attacking Krause for not getting the job done quickly when Jordan is the reason the timing was messed up in the first place.[/quote]

You're missing the bigger picture. The guys dad had been [b]shot to death[/b]. Also, here's what Krause had to say on the Hornacek issue.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/26/sports/on-pro-basketball-a-team-a-master-builder-would-really-love.html?pagewanted=1[/url]

[quote] The Knicks replaced Doc Rivers with Harper. Orlando is reportedly trying to add Danny Manning. Krause has a response to those who say that the Bulls are a shooting guard away from going over the top and that he must simply add a veteran scorer like Jeff Hornacek.

"A few years ago it was Walter Davis," he said, remembering a campaign orchestrated by Jordan. "It was as if I had to go get him. We won three championships. Where is Walter Davis now?" [/quote]

Sounds like he wasn't too concerned about getting him, does it?

[quote]What he did is unprecedented. Jordan, Ricky Williams, and Barry Sanders. That is it as far as superstars retiring at the last minute. Magic too but he had a legit reason and could not do anything about timing. It is funny how Williams and Sanders were criticized for it but Jordan given a free pass and the timing of his retirement has been vaporized from the annals of basketball history.[/quote]

I never ragged on Sanders. I know he retired prematurely, bu I'm sure he had his reasons. Williams I don't know too much about, no comment.

[quote]Harper was not a great player. All they needed was a legit NBA player who could play SG. They didn't necessarily need Mitch Richmond or even an all-star caliber SG like Hornacek (who they tried to get before the trade deadline), although obviously that would be preferable. Common sense and history shows you have more options finding a player like this in the offseason then at the last minute during the season. Look at the 2010 season. No significant trades have occurred yet and by the trade deadline only a handful of players will be available.[/quote]

Krause had his chance to sign them, but passed them over because he wasn't worried about it. No wonder Pip hated him.

[quote]Except that the Pippen-led Bulls went 2-1 against him in 1994 and 1995 when Pippen played.[/quote]

Does that mean they would have gone all the way, though? Hakeem was an upgrade over Ewing and had better scorers around him. I still don't see Houston losing that series.

[quote]:oldlol: You are reaching again. Four games over four years is a useless sample size and how many of those games were meaningless games at the end of the season when their seed was determined?[/quote]

None of them took place towards the end of the season, all took place midseason, I think.

Regardless, they had no wins without him in the lineup from 89-93. None. Zip. Zilch. 4 games isn't much, no, but it still happened.

[quote]You are underrating Shaq or overrating Duncan if you think they could win three straight with Duncan. They barely won twice with Shaq despite Shaq having some of the greatest playoff runs of all-time. Duncan is a great player, top 10 all-time, but he never was in the same league as 2000-2002 Shaq.[/QUOTE]

Even if they didn't threepeat from 00-02, what about from 03-05? Not a whole lot of competition other than New Jersey or Detroit.

I already said he won't fit on a run and gun team. That goes to offensive schemes, not player personnel per se.

You keep harping on Jordan's father being shot to death. That has no relevance but does pull some emotional strings. If he considered retiring due to that he should have given notice to the team. Besides, he was considering retiring during the 1993 season before his dad was shot anyway.

[QUOTE]Sounds like he wasn't too concerned about getting him, does it?[/QUOTE]

:wtf: This is classic MJ fan revisionist history. What do you expect him to say in public? "I agree, if we don't find a legitimate NBA starting SG we are severely handicapped come the playoffs." Don't look at what he said publicly. Look at what he did. He tried to work a deal for Hornacek up until the trade deadline. Jackson, Pippen, and Grant all believed they needed to fill a void at SG. Pip even publicly called Krause out on this. It doesn't take a basketball genius talent evaluator to realize they had a massive hole at the SG position. They went from the GOAT SG to the worst starting SG in the league!

[QUOTE]I never ragged on Sanders. I know he retired prematurely, bu I'm sure he had his reasons. Williams I don't know too much about, no comment.[/QUOTE]

Sanders retired a month before the regular season began because he claimed he was tired of losing. Ricky Williams retired to smoke weed. :lol

[QUOTE]Even if they didn't threepeat from 00-02, what about from 03-05? Not a whole lot of competition other than New Jersey or Detroit.[/QUOTE]

That is a different question from the OP, which is about prime Shaq. Would anyone take prime Duncan over prime Shaq?

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]I already said he won't fit on a run and gun team. That goes to offensive schemes, not player personnel per se.[/QUOTE]

Okay, well the two best PGs of Shaq's era, Nash and Kidd, played best in uptempo systems. So pretty much, that limits who Shaq can play with according to you. And anyway, basically what you're saying is Shaq had limits by not being able to play in an uptempo system. How is that any different of a limit then Jordan not being able to play well with a traditional PG? Shaq played on some teams with young, athletic and explosive players as well as 3-point shooters who would've thrived if they played more uptempo. The Penny/Anderson/Scott Magic, Jones/NVE/Kobe Lakers, and even the three-peat Lakers would've benefitted greatly if they could've played more uptempo at times, but that wasn't much of an option (sure they did do it sometimes) mainly because of Shaq. Maybe just maybe the 97 and 98 Lakers would've beaten the Jazz and made it to the Finals if Jones/NVE/Kobe could've ran the Jazz out the building. Maybe if they were able to do that, Shaq's supporting cast wouldn't have played so badly. Like I said, you're making something out of nothing. There are certain styles and teammates that will complement all players better or worse.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
You keep harping on Jordan's father being shot to death. That has no relevance but does pull some emotional strings. If he considered retiring due to that he should have given notice to the team. Besides, he was considering retiring during the 1993 season before his dad was shot anyway.
[/QUOTE]

The point is its not really "screwing" the team. Things like that happen in the workplace all the time, and people need to take time off. It happens, and no one calls it "screwing." And your right he was considering retiring anyway. And the Bulls were WELL AWARE of that. In the 93 Finals after they won, Bob Costas asked Jordan about it in front of everyone. I highly doubt he didn't speak to the Bulls about it.

By the way, why don't you respond to the fact that you completely ignored the context of what happened in 93 when Shaq was supposedly the sole reason the Magic improved 20 games? And how about the "small sample size" arrgument?

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]I already said he won't fit on a run and gun team. That goes to offensive schemes, not player personnel per se.[/quote]


[quote]You keep harping on Jordan's father being shot to death. That has no relevance but does pull some emotional strings. If he considered retiring due to that he should have given notice to the team. Besides, he was considering retiring during the 1993 season before his dad was shot anyway.[/quote]

He was considering it, but I think his father's death pushed him over the edge. Also, why


[quote]:wtf: [b]This is classic MJ fan revisionist history. What do you expect him to say in public? "I agree, if we don't find a legitimate NBA starting SG we are severely handicapped come the playoffs."[/b] Don't look at what he said publicly. Look at what he did. He tried to work a deal for Hornacek up until the trade deadline. Jackson, Pippen, and Grant all believed they needed to fill a void at SG. Pip even publicly called Krause out on this. It doesn't take a basketball genius talent evaluator to realize they had a massive hole at the SG position. They went from the GOAT SG to the worst starting SG in the league![/quote]

Roundball, Krause didn't go through with it because it meant giving up a first round pick. If he had, the Bulls would have gotten him. You are blaming the wrong person for the Bulls not being able to get Hornacek or Harper.

[quote]Sanders retired a month before the regular season began because he claimed he was tired of losing. Ricky Williams retired to smoke weed. :lol[/quote]

Can't say I blame either of them. :lol

[quote]That is a different question from the OP, which is about prime Shaq. Would anyone take prime Duncan over prime Shaq?[/QUOTE]

Depends on the teammates. Duncan seems like an easier player to deal with, imo, although peak Shaq was a more dominant presence.

Miguel

lol @ Roundball's bullsh!t claims. :oldlol: Jordan, one of the best off the ball scorers in NBA history, couldn't play with a traditional PG? My ass. :oldlol:

I love how all RR's claims are just accepted at face value. Jordan would average like 34 pts/53% FG playing with a guy like Nash, who would find him in perfect position all the time.

[QUOTE=guy]
The point is its not really "screwing" the team. Things like that happen in the workplace all the time, and people need to take time off. It happens, and no one calls it "screwing." And your right he was considering retiring anyway. And the Bulls were WELL AWARE of that. In the 93 Finals after they won, Bob Costas asked Jordan about it in front of everyone. I highly doubt he didn't speak to the Bulls about it.
[/QUOTE]


You know, if Jordan was already talking about it, then it wasn't really out of the blue, was it?

[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]
I love how all RR's claims are just accepted at face value. Jordan would average like 34 pts/53% FG playing with a guy like Nash, who would find him in perfect position all the time.[/QUOTE]

I agree with him that Jordan is better off playing with a guy like John Paxson instead of a traditional PG, if we're talking about average players. But if we're talking about great players such as Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, or Magic Johnson then its a different story.

I agree Shaq had limits. Every player did. I just believe he had less as far as building a team is concerned. Shaq could not win rings with Nash in a run and gun system (although he did have a fine season with Nash last year despite being in his 17th season...) but I could see him winning with practically any PG.

[QUOTE]By the way, why don't you respond to the fact that you completely ignored the context of what happened in 93 when Shaq was supposedly the sole reason the Magic improved 20 games?[/QUOTE]

I can admit I was wrong. The case for Shaq and team value is based on more than one or two examples. It is based on his entire record. Orlando after him. LA before him. LA without him when he got hurt (championship team to 24-39 from 2001-04!). LA after he left. Miami before him. Miami when he got hurt. Orlando winning 31 games in 92' (btw 18 in 91') doesn't change the consistent trend in Shaq's career.

[QUOTE]The point is its not really "screwing" the team. Things like that happen in the workplace all the time, and people need to take time off. It happens, and no one calls it "screwing." And your right he was considering retiring anyway. And the Bulls were WELL AWARE of that. In the 93 Finals after they won, Bob Costas asked Jordan about it in front of everyone. I highly doubt he didn't speak to the Bulls about it.[/QUOTE]

They were and they weren't. Why the shock when it happened if they were completely sure? A lot of people didn't take him seriously when he said it, according to their own words. Jordan was talking about retiring early as soon as 1990 so it wasn't new for MJ (Jordan Rules).

[QUOTE]Roundball, Krause didn't go through with it because it meant giving up a first round pick. If he had, the Bulls would have gotten him.[/QUOTE]

First round pick? Who gives a damn. They were in first place in the East at the time. Who cares about the 27th pick? The problem was finding a SG to replace Hornacek in a three-way trade. Krause said he didn't know Philadelphia would take Jeff Malone. :wtf:

[QUOTE]Can't say I blame either of them.[/QUOTE]

:D

[QUOTE]Depends on the teammates. Duncan seems like an easier player to deal with, imo, although peak Shaq was a more dominant presence.[/QUOTE]

Duncan just wasn't as good. If they are close then you can look at things like that but they aren't close.

[QUOTE]But if we're talking about great players such as Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, or Magic Johnson then its a different story.[/QUOTE]

I agree with that. When you are talking about that level of ability then other things can be overcome.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]I agree Shaq had limits. Every player did. I just believe he had less as far as building a team is concerned. Shaq could not win rings with Nash in a run and gun system (although he did have a fine season with Nash last year despite being in his 17th season...) but I could see him winning with practically any PG.[/quote]

Depends if their personalities clash, imo.

[quote]First round pick? Who gives a damn. They were in first place in the East at the time. Who cares about the 27th pick? The problem was finding a SG to replace Hornacek in a three-way trade. Krause said he didn't know Philadelphia would take Jeff Malone. :wtf:[/quote]

The Bulls were in a position where all they had to give up was a first round pick and they would have gotten Hornacek. Krause had a fetish for first round picks though and turned it down. Here's a thread that mentions it.

[url]http://www.bullspodcasters.com/forums?func=view&catid=5&id=31375&limit=15&start=15[/url]

[quote]Duncan just wasn't as good. If they are close then you can look at things like that but they aren't close.[/quote]

When it comes to individual scoring, yes, but when it comes to defense, rebounding and passing, its close. Timmy was also a better free throw shooter.

That isn't a legit source. You are citing a random poster on a website. I am citing Krause himself! Do you realize Philadelphia got a 16 ppg guy for Hornacek who scored 18 ppg in 93' and then in 95'? They didn't trade him for nothing. Why would you? Hornacek was an all-star caliber 19-20 ppg player in his prime.

You probably googled to find that message board. I did a quick search and found this:

[QUOTE][B] [U]Despite Krause's denials[/U], they have serious interest in Dallas' Derek Harper and Philadelphia's Jeff Hornace[/B]k, guards who would infuse more life into their offense, now featuring Scottie Pippen and whoever else can step up his game.

[B]Krause's negotiating power suffered a momentary blow when forward/center Scott Williams went down with a damaged tendon in his right knee [/B]Friday night. Williams, who won't need surgery and will likely miss up to a month, was being dangled in a deal with Dallas for Harper and center Sean Rooks.

DEERFIELD, Ill., Nov. 1 (AP) -- The journeyman guard Pete Myers will take Michael Jordan's spot in the starting lineup for the Chicago Bulls, Coach Phil Jackson said today.
[B]
The 6-foot-6-inch Myers, who played for Chicago, San Antonio, Philadelphia and the Knicks before spending the last two years in Italy,[U] was not even expected to make the team when training camp opened. [/U][/B][/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/02/sports/pro-basketball-jordan-must-make-retirement-official-with-letter-to-nba.html?pagewanted=1[/url]

This is what they replaced the "greatest of all-time" with and then MJ fans criticize Pippen and the team for losing? :wtf: Myers himself did not expect to make any NBA roster! He showed up at training camp to work on his game in a NBA setting.

You can't just compare them based on areas where they are better. Shaq simply had more overall impact at his peak than Duncan ever did. Look at this thread. It is comparing prime Shaq to the majority GOAT. If someone made a thread comparing prime Duncan to prime Jordan it would be a joke but Shaq/MJ in their primes is a legit comparison.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]I agree Shaq had limits. Every player did. I just believe he had less as far as building a team is concerned. Shaq could not win rings with Nash in a run and gun system (although he did have a fine season with Nash last year despite being in his 17th season...) but I could see him winning with practically any PG.
[/QUOTE]

Well Shaq had much more limits then Jordan. The free throw shooting, health, work ethic, bad attitude at times were all bigger limits then anything of Jordan's. Jordan literally had no weakness, except for earlier in his career when he struggled between the balance of scoring and deferring, and alot of that can be explained by the fact that Jordan didn't really have much to work with. And I'm not saying Jordan was this perfect basketball player, I'm just saying even though there were aspects he wasn't great at, he wasn't exactly bad at it either. There was nothing a team can do to expose Jordan, like they could to Shaq.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
I can admit I was wrong. The case for Shaq and team value is based on more than one or two examples. It is based on his entire record. Orlando after him. LA before him. LA without him when he got hurt (championship team to 24-39 from 2001-04!). LA after he left. Miami before him. Miami when he got hurt. Orlando winning 31 games in 92' (btw 18 in 91') doesn't change the consistent trend in Shaq's career.
[/QUOTE]

Like someone else said, LA after he left is a horrible example considering everything that happened there. Shaq wasn't the only difference. Shaq left along with Payton, Malone, Fox, Grant, and Fisher. Phil Jackson left, who was replaced by Rudy T, who left midseason, and both Kobe and Odom missed alot of games due to injury.

Even Miami before him isn't as great of an example as people think. Dwyane Wade missed 20 games in 04, and by 05 he went from rookie to one of the best SGs in the league. Even without Shaq that year, they were pretty good.

Orlando's record in 97 isn't a good example to use either. Penny missed 21 games, Grant missed 15, Scott missed 16, Nick missed 19, Seikaly missed 8. There starting lineup missed a combined 79 games. There record without Shaq the previous year, when he missed 28 games, was really good at 20-8.

In Shaq's first two seasons with the Lakers, where he missed a bunch of games, they went 15-16 and then 15-7 without him. Why was it different both seasons? Not sure.

I'm not going to bother going into what happened during the championship seasons, cause no matter how you look at it, Shaq clearly had impact. The point is like myself and others have told you before, you can't just look at a team's record with or without there superstar and equate the difference as impact. So many things change from season to season, and sometimes through the course of a season, not just circumstances surrounding that one superstar player. All of these changes will very likely affect a team's record.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
They were and they weren't. Why the shock when it happened if they were completely sure? A lot of people didn't take him seriously when he said it, according to their own words. Jordan was talking about retiring early as soon as 1990 so it wasn't new for MJ (Jordan Rules).[/QUOTE]

The shock was there cause the arguable GOAT was retiring in the middle of his prime at the young age of 30. No one took it seriously cause it was so unheard of. If he was talking about it, don't you think thats enough notice for the Bulls to prepare themselves for? If someone in the workplace is openly talking about leaving, especially someone as important as Jordan was to the Bulls, you think that person's boss is just going to sit around and not pay any attention to that?

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]That isn't a legit source. You are citing a random poster on a website. I am citing Krause himself! Do you realize Philadelphia got a 16 ppg guy for Hornacek who scored 18 ppg in 93' and then in 95'? They didn't trade him for nothing. Why would you? Hornacek was an all-star caliber 19-20 ppg player in his prime.

You probably googled to find that message board. I did a quick search and found this:



[url]http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/02/sports/pro-basketball-jordan-must-make-retirement-official-with-letter-to-nba.html?pagewanted=1[/url]

This is what they replaced the "greatest of all-time" with and then MJ fans criticize Pippen and the team for losing? :wtf: Myers himself did not expect to make any NBA roster! He showed up at training camp to work on his game in a NBA setting.[/quote]

[url]http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_n5_v217/ai_14765644/[/url]

[quote]Scottie Pippen and Coach Phil Jackson both want General Manager Jerry Krause to fill Jordan's $2-million salary slot before the trading deadline. Pippen was especially annoyed when the Bulls didn't try harder to get Derek Harper from the Mavericks.

Jackson wanted Harper, too, and he particularly didn't want to see him in a Knicks uniform. [b]But Krause offered the Mavericks only a first-round pick, when Harper and forward Sean Rooks could've been exchanged for Scott Williams and Stacey King[/b]. Jackson also didn't agree with Krause when the Bulls released guard Jo Jo English.

[/quote]

I'm not criticizing them for losing, just saying that Jordan's sudden retirement didn't doom them.

[quote]You can't just compare them based on areas where they are better. Shaq simply had more overall impact at his peak than Duncan ever did. Look at this thread. It is comparing prime Shaq to the majority GOAT. If someone made a thread comparing prime Duncan to prime Jordan it would be a joke but Shaq/MJ in their primes is a legit comparison.[/QUOTE]

Didn't Timmy win two rings within his first five years in the league? Seems to me that he had a bigger impact than Shaq and Jordan, lol. :lol

Jk, Shaq and MJ are better.

[QUOTE]Well Shaq had much more limits then Jordan. The free throw shooting, health, work ethic, bad attitude at times were all bigger limits then anything of Jordan's.[/QUOTE]

I agree with all of that. What I meant was limits imo as far as building a team around him based primarily on him being a center and it is easier to build around a dominant C than a dominant guard. The only teams to win multiple rings led by a guard are the Bulls and Pistons and we know it took them years to build themselves into champions.

[QUOTE]Even Miami before him isn't as great of an example as people think. Dwyane Wade missed 20 games in 04, and by 05 he went from rookie to one of the best SGs in the league. Even without Shaq that year, they were pretty good.[/QUOTE]

In 2005 they were. They went 6-3 without him but in 2006 they were 10-13 without him.

[QUOTE]Orlando's record in 97 isn't a good example to use either. Penny missed 21 games, Grant missed 15, Scott missed 16, Nick missed 19, Seikaly missed 8. There starting lineup missed a combined 79 games. There record without Shaq the previous year, when he missed 28 games, was really good at 20-8.[/QUOTE]

Injuries happen every year. We can do the same thing with the 94' Bulls and their starters plus 6th man.

There are always outliers. I look at trends. The best evidence is when Shaq was directly removed for sufficient sample sizes on teams that where champions or championship contenders with him. Year to year is tougher because there are changes, sometimes significant changes as you mentioned with the 05' Lakers.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]


Injuries happen every year. We can do the same thing with the 94' Bulls and their starters plus 6th man.
[/QUOTE]

Check the amount of time the Bulls starters missed compared to Orlando's. Pippen missed 10, Grant missed 12, Kukoc missed 8, and Wennington missed 6. Other guys with smaller roles missed significant time, but for the most part the Bulls' best players were healthier.

[QUOTE][B]Only two players in the East, Scottie Pippen and Shaquille O'Neal, are playing at the consistently high level an All-Star should.[/B]

It hasn't been a coincidence that the Bulls have prospered since Pippen returned from an early-season ankle injury. He is one of the few players capable of putting up double figures in four categories -- scoring, rebounding, steals and assists. O'Neal is battling David Robinson for the scoring lead and showing us his commitment to basketball runs deeper than we think.[/QUOTE]

Wait. I thought Pippen was never a top 5 player according to most MJ fans and you are posting an article which says he was the best or second best player in the East? Oh yeah. I bet the top 5 players were all in the West. :roll:

What does that article have to do with Hornacek/Myers?

[QUOTE]I'm not criticizing them for losing, just saying that Jordan's sudden retirement didn't doom them.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]DEERFIELD, Ill., Nov. 1 (AP) -- The journeyman guard Pete Myers will take Michael Jordan's spot in the starting lineup for the Chicago Bulls, Coach Phil Jackson said today.

The 6-foot-6-inch Myers, who played for Chicago, San Antonio, Philadelphia and the Knicks before spending the last two years in Italy, [B]was not even expected to make the team when training camp opened.[/B] [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]
Check the amount of time the Bulls starters missed compared to Orlando's. Pippen missed 10, Grant missed 12, Kukoc missed 8, and [B]Wennington missed 6[/B][/QUOTE]

Wennington wasn't their starter. Wennington was another guy barely staying in the league/out the league the Bulls acquired that year. He was out the NBA for several years before 94'. The Bulls starting center was Bill Cartwright. He missed [B]40[/B] games and played only about 5 minutes in the first round against Cleveland. Wennington was the third stringer behind Cartwright and Longley.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]I agree with all of that. What I meant was limits imo as far as building a team around him based primarily on him being a center and it is easier to build around a dominant C than a dominant guard. The only teams to win multiple rings led by a guard are the Bulls and Pistons and we know it took them years to build themselves into champions.[/QUOTE]

Yes. And like others have told you before, there really wasn't much of a blueprint on how to build around guards before Jordan.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
In 2005 they were. They went 6-3 without him but in 2006 they were 10-13 without him.[/QUOTE]

And that just goes to show how flawed your logic is unless you actually think Shaq was better in 06 then 05.


[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
Injuries happen every year. We can do the same thing with the 94' Bulls and their starters plus 6th man. [/QUOTE]

The 94 Bulls didn't have it as bad as the 97 Magic. Five starters miss nearly a season combined every year, there best player misses 21 of those games, and 4 out of 5 of them miss at least 15 games? Thats a bullsh*t excuse and you know it. Yes technically you could say the same thing about the Bulls but more then half of those missed games were due to Cartwright, who was old as hell and who had 4 backups that really weren't much worse then him. Injuries happen all the time, but nobody succeeds when they have injuries to that degree. Its a complete joke that you act like it didn't have much to do with it.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
There are always outliers. I look at trends. The best evidence is when Shaq was directly removed for sufficient sample sizes on teams that where champions or championship contenders with him. Year to year is tougher because there are changes, sometimes significant changes as you mentioned with the 05' Lakers.[/QUOTE]

Now you're just picking and choosing whatever fits your agenda. The trends show that when Shaq was absent, the team played bad, decent, or even very good. No one is denying Shaq had enormous impact. But your logic is wrong, plain and simple. So many things change, from season-to-season, month-to-month, and maybe even game-to-game. It could be big things, like injuries, schedule, trades. Or it could be the smallest things from a team's center having motivational issues for a month cause of a death in the family to a PG playing with a bum knee for a week, and even these can be the difference between a win or a loss. However, you wouldn't know everything just looking at basketball-reference.com.

I find it funny that one day 15-20 years from now, someone is going to look back at Lebron's career, and after many awards, championships, records he's won, that person will look at something on the internet and conclude that he wouldn't have done nearly as much if he didn't have Mo Williams.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Wait. I thought Pippen was never a top 5 player according to most MJ fans and you are posting an article which says he was the best or second best player in the East? Oh yeah. I bet the top 5 players were all in the West. :roll:[/quote]

Hey, I like Pip and he was certainly a top five player in 94.

[quote]What does that article have to do with Hornacek/Myers?[/quote]

Not Hornacek, but it mentions that Krause blew his chance with the Harper trade.

[quote]Wennington wasn't their starter. Wennington was another guy barely staying in the league/out the league the Bulls acquired that year. He was out the NBA for several years before 94'. The Bulls starting center was Bill Cartwright. He missed [B]40[/B] games and played only about 5 minutes in the first round against Cleveland. Wennington was the third stringer behind Cartwright and Longley.[/QUOTE]

My mistake. That being said, Wennington actually put up better numbers than Cartwright did the year before.

Bill Cartwright 1993

5.6 ppg 41.1% shooting 3.7 rpg.

Bill Wennington 1994

7.1 ppg 48.8% shooting 4.6 rpg

[QUOTE]Hey, I like Pip and he was certainly a top five player in 94.
[/QUOTE]

One year? He was just as good in 95' and 96' and nearly as good in 97'. Even duncan21formvp, when he feels like it, will concede 94' but the Team Jordan argument (especially from the MJ fans who never saw Pippen play) is he was basically what Brandon Roy or Chris Bosh are today for the rest of the 90's. Plus he wasn't just a player who barely reached 5th once or twice. Some people had him as high as second or third during his best years and he was the consensus best perimeter player when Jordan was retired and most people had him second for several of the seasons when Jordan was playing. Does this sound like a player on the level of 10' Brandon Roy or 10' Chris Bosh?

[QUOTE]Not Hornacek, but it mentions that Krause blew his chance with the Harper trade. [/QUOTE]

In part because of Williams' injury. I am not saying Krause is without any fault. What I am saying is that it would be easier to find a legit NBA starting SG in the offseason because there would be more options.

[QUOTE]My mistake. That being said, Wennington actually put up better numbers than Cartwright did the year before.[/QUOTE]

Wennington was third string for a reason. It wasn't just about numbers. Wennington was out the NBA and could never beat Longley and Will Perdue ( :roll: ) for the starting C job. I like Wennington. I am glad he is calling Bulls games on the radio now. He was a good player for the role he played but he was never close to being capable of being a NBA starter.

[QUOTE]Yes. And like others have told you before, there really wasn't much of a blueprint on how to build around guards before Jordan.[/QUOTE]

You keep putting a lot of stock in "others." It is basically you and DR. That is it.

[QUOTE]And that just goes to show how flawed your logic is unless you actually think Shaq was better in 06 then 05. [/QUOTE]

He wasn't better. How many instances do we have of him getting hurt or joining/leaving a team? The vast majority of time what happens? There is a trend.

[QUOTE]The 94 Bulls didn't have it as bad as the 97 Magic.[/QUOTE]

PF Grant
SF Scott
C Seiklay
SG Anderson
PG Penny

PF Grant
SF Pippen
C Cartwright
[B]SG Myers[/B]
PG Armstrong

Yeah, they had more health but they had much more talent and no glaring hole at a position. They had five good starters and one elite player. Seiklay and Grant were top 10 at their positions.

[QUOTE]I find it funny that one day 15-20 years from now, someone is going to look back at Lebron's career, and after many awards, championships, records he's won, that person will look at something on the internet and conclude that he wouldn't have done nearly as much if he didn't have Mo Williams.[/QUOTE]

Rick Barry? Hakeem? No one is saying they had stacked teams. Duncan in 03' too but that was fairly recent. Lebron will stand the test of time like Barry and Hakeem did if he wins with this team, although of course adding a second scorer helped the team.

The proper comparison is to the typical greats who won with at least one elite teammate. Does anyone hold it against Kareem that he won with Magic? Bird with McHale? Wilt with West? And so on. The only people who do are MJ fans who like to attack everyone else for winning with an elite teammate then complain when people apply their logic to Jordan.

Besides, no one really was talking about Jordan "needing" Pippen in this thread but rather that Jordan needed a great team built around him to compete and that Shaq added more value to his team. That is completely different.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]One year? He was just as good in 95' and 96' and nearly as good in 97'. Even duncan21formvp, when he feels like it, will concede 94' but the [b]Team Jordan argument (especially from the MJ fans who never saw Pippen play)[/b] is he was basically what Brandon Roy or Chris Bosh are today for the rest of the 90's. Plus he wasn't just a player who barely reached 5th once or twice. Some people had him as high as second or third during his best years and he was the consensus best perimeter player when Jordan was retired and most people had him second for several of the seasons when Jordan was playing. Does this sound like a player on the level of 10' Brandon Roy or 10' Chris Bosh?[/quote]

I didn't say just one year, just that he was definitely top five that season. Calm down, I know he's better than Roy and Bosh. If anything, he's more like what Grant Hill would have been had he stayed healthy and played on a contender.

[quote]In part because of Williams' injury. I am not saying Krause is without any fault. What I am saying is that it would be easier to find a legit NBA starting SG in the offseason because there would be more options.[/quote]

True, but then how do you know Krause wouldn't have messed that up, as well?

[quote]Wennington was third string for a reason. It wasn't just about numbers. Wennington was out the NBA and could never beat Longley and Will Perdue ( :roll: ) for the starting C job. I like Wennington. I am glad he is calling Bulls games on the radio now. He was a good player for the role he played but he was never close to being capable of being a NBA starter.[/quote]

Yet he was still able to outperform the Bulls previous starting center from 93?

[quote]
PF Grant
SF Scott
C Seiklay
SG Anderson
PG Penny

PF Grant
SF Pippen
C Cartwright
[B]SG Myers[/B]
PG Armstrong

Yeah, they had more health but they had much more talent and no glaring hole at a position. They had five good starters and one elite player. Seiklay and Grant were top 10 at their positions.[/quote]

Kukoc makes up for myers, imo.

[quote]Rick Barry? Hakeem? No one is saying they had stacked teams. Duncan in 03' too but that was fairly recent. Lebron will stand the test of time like Barry and Hakeem did if he wins with this team, although of course adding a second scorer helped the team.

The proper comparison is to the typical greats who won with at least one elite teammate. Does anyone hold it against Kareem that he won with Magic? Bird with McHale? Wilt with West? And so on. The only people who do are MJ fans who like to attack everyone else for winning with an elite teammate then complain when people apply their logic to Jordan.[/quote]

The Celtics, Lakers and every other team has fans who make stupid attacks on other players. It's been going on since the beginning of the NBA and before that, some stupid MJ fans are not alone in doing this.

The problem is there is a fleet of about a dozen fans. They basically say the same things so I conflate them. You differ a bit. I was not talking about you but Team Jordan.

Cartwright's value can't solely be determined by stats. Wennington was never as good as Luc Longley let alone Cartwright.

[QUOTE]Kukoc makes up for myers, imo.[/QUOTE]

? Kukoc was a rookie SF. He did nothing to fill their hole at SG. At SG they had Myers and Kerr. One was out the league for two years and the other was barely staying in the league before 94'.

What do you guys think Kukoc did anyway? He averaged 9/4/3 in 19 minutes per game in the playoffs. Against the Knicks he had one double digit scoring game and averaged only 3 rebounds. This offsets losing the "greatest of all-time"? :wtf:

[QUOTE]The Celtics, Lakers and every other team has fans who make stupid attacks on other players. It's been going on since the beginning of the NBA and before that, some stupid MJ fans are not alone in doing this.[/QUOTE]

MJ fans are unique. The natural tendency is to overrate your favorite player's teammates or the players on your favorite team for emotional reasons and for the more practical fact that you see them play more, know more about them, etc. I will read an article about Noah but I couldn't care less about an article about Al Horford.

Look at Laker fans and their overrating of Gasol and Bynum for a prime example. You can find this anywhere, though. Do a search for a Yao vs. Dwight thread. 90% of the people saying Yao is better are Rockets fans. Deron vs. Paul. Nearly every Jazz fan has Deron being better even though the large majority say Paul is better. Nash. Compare the percentage of Suns fans who think he is the best PG to that of the general population. And on and on.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
You keep putting a lot of stock in "others." It is basically you and DR. That is it.[/QUOTE]

Who cares? Okay, other people*. Happy?

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
He wasn't better. How many instances do we have of him getting hurt or joining/leaving a team? The vast majority of time what happens? There is a trend.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. It goes to show other things can have a huge effect.

Lets see what the trend is when he was off the team for significant time 96-06, which were the years he was an elite player:

96 Magic: 20-8, 71%
97 Magic: 45-37, 55%
97 Lakers: 15-16, 48%
98 Lakers: 15-7, 68%
01 Lakers: 5-3, 63%
02 Lakers: 7-8, 47%
03 Lakers: 5-10, 33%
04 Lakers: 6-8, 43%
05 Lakers: 34-48, 41%
05 Heat: 9-3, 75%
06 Heat: 10-13, 43%

I didn't really look too much into what Shaq's record with them was, cause during this time period it was pretty steady, from about 50-60 wins every year. From the looks of it, the percentages are all over the place, and at least a few of these examples had other factors heavily impacting the record like the 97 Magic and 05 Lakers. So with that being the case, there really is no trend you speak of.


[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
PF Grant
SF Scott
C Seiklay
SG Anderson
PG Penny

PF Grant
SF Pippen
C Cartwright
[B]SG Myers[/B]
PG Armstrong

Yeah, they had more health but they had much more talent and no glaring hole at a position. They had five good starters and one elite player. Seiklay and Grant were top 10 at their positions.
[/QUOTE]

If you're always playing with inconsistent lineups its going to have a toll regardless of talent. I'm not really trying to compare the 94 Bulls to the 97 Magic. 94 Pippen > 97 Penny. 94 Grant > 97 Grant. Bulls were better. Pippen was a better leader, more experienced, and himself and Phil Jackson were better at getting a team to deal with issues like this. I wasn't comparing the two. I was comparing the 97 Magic to the 96 Magic, and pointing out that the absence of Shaq wasn't the only significant difference between the two teams.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
Rick Barry? Hakeem? No one is saying they had stacked teams. Duncan in 03' too but that was fairly recent. Lebron will stand the test of time like Barry and Hakeem did if he wins with this team, although of course adding a second scorer helped the team. [/QUOTE]

I'm pointing out that in 20 years some misinformed kid with a computer is going to draw the conclusion that Lebron didn't have GOAT level impact, like you suggest about Jordan, because he didn't win without Mo Williams, and that it took his arrival for Lebron to win a championship. Not sure why you're bringing up Barry and Hakeem.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
The proper comparison is to the typical greats who won with at least one elite teammate. Does anyone hold it against Kareem that he won with Magic? Bird with McHale? Wilt with West? And so on. The only people who do are MJ fans who like to attack everyone else for winning with an elite teammate then complain when people apply their logic to Jordan.[/QUOTE]

Are you f'n kidding me? No one gets the "X didn't win without X" treatment more then Jordan except for probably Kobe before last year, and the main reason he got that was cause people were actually trying to equate Kobe's championships to all the other all-time greats.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
Besides, no one really was talking about Jordan "needing" Pippen in this thread but rather that Jordan needed a great team built around him to compete and that Shaq added more value to his team. That is completely different.[/QUOTE]

Okay but its pretty natural to argue that with you since thats always what you're implying and relating to. You bring up the 94 season in every single thread and post the same article and quotes, so what do you expect?

I have no problem with someone saying Shaq adds more value. If this was 1985, I'd pick Shaq clearly in a draft. But knowing what we know now, knowing what it takes to build around both these two, knowing their strengths, and especially knowing their flaws, to me this is a no-brainer.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]The problem is there is a fleet of about a dozen fans. They basically say the same things so I conflate them. You differ a bit. I was not talking about you but Team Jordan.[/quote]

Who exactly is "Team Jordan" comprised of?

[quote]Cartwright's value can't solely be determined by stats. Wennington was never as good as Luc Longley let alone Cartwright.[/quote]

Lol, come on, Wennington played better than Cartwright that year. At their peaks, yes Cartwright was better, but he was 35 in 1993.

[quote]? Kukoc was a rookie SF. He did nothing to fill their hole at SG. At SG they had Myers and Kerr. One was out the league for two years and the other was barely staying in the league before 94'.[/quote]

Kukoc could play sf, sg and pf when need be. Also, Pippen could have played the two with Kukoc at sf as well. Also, Kerr was a good outside threat. We all saw how well he did during the second three-peat.

[quote]What do you guys think Kukoc did anyway? He averaged 9/4/3 in 19 minutes per game in the playoffs. Against the Knicks he had one double digit scoring game and averaged only 3 rebounds. This offsets losing the "greatest of all-time"? :wtf:[/quote]

No, but they were still decent enough to win 55 games and overachieved that year.

[quote]MJ fans are unique. The natural tendency is to overrate your favorite player's teammates or the players on your favorite team for emotional reasons and for the more practical fact that you see them play more, know more about them, etc. I will read an article about Noah but I couldn't care less about an article about Al Horford.

Look at Laker fans and their overrating of Gasol and Bynum for a prime example. You can find this anywhere, though. Do a search for a Yao vs. Dwight thread. 90% of the people saying Yao is better are Rockets fans. Deron vs. Paul. Nearly every Jazz fan has Deron being better even though the large majority say Paul is better. Nash. Compare the percentage of Suns fans who think he is the best PG to that of the general population. And on and on.[/QUOTE]

Are we talking about MJ fans or Bulls fans? You're listing teams, not players.

[QUOTE]
Lets see what the trend is when he was off the team for significant time 96-06, which were the years he was an elite player:

96 Magic: 20-8, 71%
97 Magic: 45-37, 55%
97 Lakers: 15-16, 48%
98 Lakers: 15-7, 68%
01 Lakers: 5-3, 63%
02 Lakers: 7-8, 47%
03 Lakers: 5-10, 33%
04 Lakers: 6-8, 43%
05 Lakers: 34-48, 41%
05 Heat: 9-3, 75%
06 Heat: 10-13, 43%

I didn't really look too much into what Shaq's record with them was[/QUOTE]

In his book Elliot Kalb points out Shaq's teams won an average of 56 games from 1993-2003 (the number would be higher when you adjust for games Shaq missed. He compares that to Russell's average of 58 wins (Kareem's average is 57). Here are his team's performance with him (with the 82 game pace in parentheses):

41-40 (42)
49-32 (50)
55-24 (57)
40-14 (61)
38-13 (61)
46-14 (63)
31-18 (52, lockout season)
66-13 (69)
51-23 (57)
51-16 (63)
45-22 (55)
49-18 (60)
53-20 (60)
42-17 (58)
25-15 (51)
25-36 (34)
44-31 (48)
10-5 (55)

His career winning percentage translates to approximately 55 wins per year. If you look at his record from 1993-2006 his teams were on pace for 59 wins over 82 games.

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3753359#post3753359[/url]

Those aren't percentages but people can compare the numbers and reach their own conclusion.

[QUOTE]Not sure why you're bringing up Barry and Hakeem. [/QUOTE]

They were in similar situations to Lebron. :oldlol: @ implying Pippen was on Mo William's level.

I have MJ third or fourth all-time. Of course he had impact. What I argue is that he had less impact than any other top-tier of all-time player.

[QUOTE]Are you f'n kidding me? No one gets the "X didn't win without X" treatment more then Jordan[/QUOTE]

What do you expect? Jordan fans say that about great player after great player so that is going to trigger a response. You were in the Kareem thread, no? The MJ fan argument revolved around two things: 1) "rings as a man" 2) Kareem had Magic for 5 of his rings. What do you expect in response?

[QUOTE]Who exactly is "Team Jordan" comprised of?[/QUOTE]

You'll figure it out soon. It is the same characters in every thread. Not all of them appear in every thread of course but there are always a handful in every thread. You probably have noticed some of them by now.

Wennington was third string for a reason. Cartwright was a solid defender and that does not show up in the stats. Was he great? No but he was definitely better than Wennington.

[QUOTE]Kukoc could play sf, sg and pf when need be. Also, Pippen could have played the two with Kukoc at sf as well. Also, Kerr was a good outside threat. We all saw how well he did during the second three-peat.[/QUOTE]

Your argument is a SF who averaged 9/4/3 in the playoffs in 19 minutes and Kerr, a career backup SG, replace the greatest SG of all-time? Come on. I doubt you really believe that.

Kukoc was a disaster at PF btw in 95'. He scored well but he was a joke when it came to rebounding and struggled defensively. He was a good SF but a lousy PF. Why are you talking about what he could play? He played 19 minutes a game. He was on the bench for 2/3 of games in the 94' playoffs. In the regular season, aside from the 8 games he started, he played 23 minutes per game (24 for the entire season). If he was so great in 94' Jackson could not figure it out. You make it sound as if he was Pippen-lite or Hill-lite.

[QUOTE]No, but they were still decent enough to win 55 games and overachieved that year. [/QUOTE]

That had little to do with Kukoc. They had a top 3 player in Pippen and a top 10 PF in Grant and a good combo guard in Armstrong. What do you expect? 30 wins? Compare them to the other top teams that year (i.e. the Knicks. Pippen more or less=Ewing although Pip was better, Grant=Oakley, Armstrong and Starks were similar in impact although Starks was better especially defensively, and so on.) They did not overachieve. That is a myth MJ fans have pushed to diminish them and to try to hide the fact that MJ played on great teams when he was winning all those "rings as the man." They were just good. However, they had a HUGE hole at SG, though, and if that was corrected they would have likely been champions, especially if it was filled with Hornacek. With a legit SG Hue Hollins could not gift the series to the Knicks.

[QUOTE]Are we talking about MJ fans or Bulls fans? You're listing teams, not players.[/QUOTE]

MJ fans. The same thing applies to player fans. Kobe fans overrate Gasol and Bynum. Kareem fans don't diminish Magic or vice versa. Duncan fans overrated Manu and Parker. Amare fans overrate Nash and vice versa. And on and on. By "overrated" I mean rate substantially higher than the general population does.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]

You'll figure it out soon. It is the same characters in every thread. Not all of them appear in every thread of course but there are always a handful in every thread. You probably have noticed some of them by now.[/quote]

I've seen a few people say Pippen relied solely on Jordan, but most of them never came off as actual MJ fans.

[quote]Wennington was third string for a reason. Cartwright was a solid defender and that does not show up in the stats. Was he great? No but he was definitely better than Wennington.[/quote]

Nevertheless, he was outperformed by a third stringer. Losing him obviously didn't have that great of an impact at that point.

[quote]Your argument is a SF who averaged 9/4/3 in the playoffs in 19 minutes and Kerr, a career backup SG, replace the greatest SG of all-time? Come on. I doubt you really believe that.[/quote]

They didn't replace him. The team faltered and got knocked out of the second round.

[quote]Kukoc was a disaster at PF btw in 95'. He scored well but he was a joke when it came to rebounding and struggled defensively. He was a good SF but a lousy PF. Why are you talking about what he could play? He played 19 minutes a game. He was on the bench for 2/3 of games in the 94' playoffs. In the regular season, aside from the 8 games he started, he played 23 minutes per game (24 for the entire season). If he was so great in 94' Jackson could not figure it out. You make it sound as if he was Pippen-lite or Hill-lite.[/quote]

15/5/5 are good numbers. No, he was not on Pippen's or Hill's level, but he was a solid player and a legit starter.

[quote]That had little to do with Kukoc. They had a top 3 player in Pippen and a top 10 PF in Grant and a good combo guard in Armstrong. What do you expect? 30 wins?[/quote]

Don't forget the GOAT coach, too.

[Quote]They had a HUGE hole at SG, though, and if that was corrected they would have likely been champions, especially if it was filled with Hornacek.[/quote]

Or Harper, but Krause blew that one. :(

[quote]MJ fans. The same thing applies to player fans. Kobe fans overrate Gasol and Bynum. Kareem fans don't diminish Magic or vice versa. Duncan fans overrated Manu and Parker. Amare fans overrate Nash and vice versa. And on and on. By "overrated" I mean rate substantially higher than the general population does.[/QUOTE]

Kobe fans are mixed, some hype up Gasol and Bynum and others think the team isn't stacked enough as well as claiming Bynum is overrated. Duncan fans for the most part seem to think Timmy didn't have much talent in 03 with Manu and Parker. Also, there are Nash fans who think Amare isn't anywhere as good without Nash.

The obvious answer is Shaq. The Lakers went from a 56 win team to a 34 win team when he left. The Bulls went from a 57 win team to a 55 win team when Jordan left. Shaq was a more valuable player. Big men bring more value.

You are looking only at numbers. The funny thing is guy (or Da Realist but he isn't in this thread) would chide you for that (you are 21, didn't watch basketball in 94', are relying heavily on stats. Basically you are doing what I did regarding the late 80's Bulls) if you were arguing the opposite positions but he is saying nothing since your posting suits his agenda. It isn't just you. I've seen threads that guy is in where several Jordan fans said demonstrably false things like "Pippen did nothing in the 98' finals" and guy is silent on that. Come on, guy. Quit the hypocrisy. :oldlol:

Cartwright was a good defender. That is why he was a starter on three championship teams. He wasn't there for his offense.

Kukoc sucked as a PF. 15/5/5 looks good--for a guard. 5 rebounds a game is horrible for a PF and he was a poor defender. He was a good SF but your team was in trouble if he was your starting PF.

The Harper thing was due in part to bad luck. Don't blame it all on Krause. It wasn't his fault Scott Williams got hurt and the way timing worked out given MJ retiring at the last minute Williams' injury was crucial. If Jordan retired a month earlier Krause may have been able to deal Williams in a trade for Harper.

[QUOTE]Kobe fans are mixed, some hype up Gasol and Bynum and others think the team isn't stacked enough as well as claiming Bynum is overrated. Duncan fans for the most part seem to think Timmy didn't have much talent in 03 with Manu and Parker. Also, there are Nash fans who think Amare isn't anywhere as good without Nash.[/QUOTE]

You are cherry picking isolated cases. The general trends are what I outlined. I am a Amare fan and argued Amare vs. Bynum with several Lakers fan back when they were hyping him early in the season. Do all of them overrated Bynum? No but at least 80% if not 90% do. Sticking with Amare, I did not see a single Suns or Nash fan bash Amare in those Amare vs. Bynum threads. See for yourself. [url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3773216#post3773216[/url] [url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=156573[/url]

Duncan fans are correct about 2003. Everyone agrees with that.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]You are looking only at numbers. The funny thing is guy would chide you for that if you were arguing the opposite positions but he is saying nothing since your posting suits his agenda.

Cartwright was a good defender. That is why he was a starter on three championship teams. He wasn't there for his offense.[/quote]

He got outrebounded, too. It wasn't just offense.

[quote]Kukoc sucked as a PF. 15/5/5 looks good--for a guard. 5 rebounds a game is horrible for a PF and he was a poor defender. He was a good SF but your team was in trouble if he was your starting PF.[/quote]

Lol, true. He was a decent forward, though.

[quote]The Harper thing was due in part to bad luck. Don't blame it all on Krause. It wasn't his fault Scott Williams got hurt and the way timing worked out given MJ retiring at the last minute Williams' injury was crucial. If Jordan retired a month earlier Krause may have been able to deal Williams in a trade for Harper.[/quote]

Here's what happened. Dallas was willing to give up Harper for Williams and another player. Krause then offered them a first round pick and just that. He got turned down. Williams got injured after that. Krause had his chance and he failed. Quit blaming the guy who wasn't there at the time and start blaming the one who actually messed up.



[quote][b]You are cherry picking isolated cases. The general trends are what I outlined.[/b] I am a Amare fan and argued Amare vs. Bynum with several Lakers fan back when they were hyping him early in the season. Do all of them overrated Bynum? No but at least 80% if not 90% do. Sticking with Amare, I did not see a single Suns or Nash fan bash Amare in those Amare vs. Bynum threads. See for yourself. [url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3773216#post3773216[/url] [url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=156573[/url][/quote]

:lol Give it up, man.

[quote]Duncan fans are correct about 2003. Everyone agrees with that.[/QUOTE]

Parker, Ginobili, Robinson, Bowen, these guys didn't have an impact?

[QUOTE=KobeLookLike2Pac]The obvious answer is Shaq. The Lakers went from a 56 win team to a 34 win team when he left. [b]The Bulls went from a 57 win team to a 55 win team when Jordan left.[/b] Shaq was a more valuable player. Big men bring more value.[/QUOTE]

A better comparison is the Bulls going from 62 wins and a championship to worse than the Clippers after Jordan left.

[QUOTE=Alhazred]A better comparison is the Bulls going from 62 wins and a championship to worse than the Clippers after Jordan left.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: Jordan retired because he did not want to play without Pippen or Jackson (I wonder why...) and they left. So did Rodman and Longley. The Bulls lost their three best players and four starters. That was hardly the same team. The 94' Bulls had all the key players the 93' Bulls had except for Jordan. The rest of the starting five was exactly the same.

Cartwright wasn't there for rebounding either. That was Grant's job. Cartwright was a good defender, especially historically against Ewing. He was a veteran while Longley was a second year player and Wennington was out the league for a few years. He was given more leeway on defense than they were.

[QUOTE]Lol, true. He was a decent forward, though. [/QUOTE]

Better than decent imo. A good one as a SF. As a PF he sucked because he lacked the toughness and strength a PF needed. All he had was the height of a PF. As a SF his numbers were not Earth shattering but he was a 6th man playing limited minutes and the "#3 option" on offense behind Jordan and Pippen. He could do a lot more in a featured role. He did average 19 ppg in 99' as the "#1 option." Yeah, he did little after Chicago but he was 31 by then.

You are incorrect on Williams and the Harper trade. Negotiations were ongoing when Williams got hurt and his injury killed any shot they had at Harper.

What? Read the threads yourself. Do you see a fleet of Kobe fans bashing Bynum or Nash fans attacking Amare?

Duncan had one of the weakest "supporting casts" of any championship team in 2003. No one disputes this. That team is up there with the 94' Rockets and the 75' or whenever it was in the mid-70's that Barry's Warriors won.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]:oldlol: Jordan retired because he did not want to play without Pippen or Jackson (I wonder why...) and they left. So did Rodman and Longley. The Bulls lost their three best players and four starters. That was hardly the same team. The 94' Bulls had all the key players the 93' Bulls had except for Jordan. The rest of the starting five was exactly the same.[/quote]

The 05 Lakers lost Shaq, Malone, Payton and Jackson. The 94 Bulls are the team that doesn't fit.

[quote]Cartwright wasn't there for rebounding either. That was Grant's job. Cartwright was a good defender, especially historically against Ewing. He was a veteran while Longley was a second year player and Wennington was out the league for a few years. He was given more leeway on defense than they were.[/quote]

Regardless of past history, their was no noticeable difference between Cartwright and Wennington between 93 and 94. It's a wash.

[quote]Better than decent imo. A good one as a SF. As a PF he sucked because he lacked the toughness and strength a PF needed. All he had was the height of a PF. As a SF his numbers were not Earth shattering but he was a 6th man playing limited minutes and the "#3 option" on offense behind Jordan and Pippen. He could do a lot more in a featured role. He did average 19 ppg in 99' as the "#1 option." Yeah, he did little after Chicago but he was 31 by then.[/quote]

:cheers: I also thought he was a very good player. One of my top five favorite Bulls players along with Jordan, Grant, Pippen and Rodman.

[quote]You are incorrect on Williams and the Harper trade. Negotiations were ongoing when Williams got hurt and his injury killed any shot they had at Harper.[/quote]

Krause initally only offered a single number one pick. If he had coughed up Wiliams earlier, the Bulls could have had Harper.



[quote]What? Read the threads yourself. Do you see a fleet of Kobe fans bashing Bynum or Nash fans attacking Amare?[/quote]

No more than I see people bashing Scottie.

[quote]Duncan had one of the weakest "supporting casts" of any championship team in 2003. No one disputes this. That team is up there with the 94' Rockets and the 75' or whenever it was in the mid-70's that Barry's Warriors won.[/QUOTE]

So what does that say about Shaq, considering he had Kobe that year? Maybe we've been comparing MJ to the wrong guy. :oldlol:

I have not seen a single person in this thread say Pippen was not a top 5-10 player during his prime in the league. I have not seen a single person in this thread say Jordan won everything by himself. And yet, here you are again Roundball, discrediting everything Jordan has ever accomplished because of poor unappreciated Pippen.

Where exactly are these "Team Jordan" people? I can't say I have seen much if anything like these people in any thread recently. Yet your crusade continues as if you are the only enlightened basketball mind that has ever graced the earth and it is your mission to destroy these invisible "Team Jordan" people.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]The problem is there is a fleet of about a dozen fans. They basically say the same things so I conflate them. You differ a bit. I was not talking about you but Team Jordan.[/QUOTE]

Well, there you have it Alhazred. You have made very thought out posts, have not once even come close to insinuating that Jordan won anything by himself, or that Pippen is overrated, and you ONLY differ a bit to Roundball. Either we all agree with him about everything he says or we are all "Team Jordan" to him, arguing with someone like this is pointless.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]In his book Elliot Kalb points out Shaq's teams won an average of 56 games from 1993-2003 (the number would be higher when you adjust for games Shaq missed. He compares that to Russell's average of 58 wins (Kareem's average is 57). Here are his team's performance with him (with the 82 game pace in parentheses):

41-40 (42)
49-32 (50)
55-24 (57)
40-14 (61)
38-13 (61)
46-14 (63)
31-18 (52, lockout season)
66-13 (69)
51-23 (57)
51-16 (63)
45-22 (55)
49-18 (60)
53-20 (60)
42-17 (58)
25-15 (51)
25-36 (34)
44-31 (48)
10-5 (55)

His career winning percentage translates to approximately 55 wins per year. If you look at his record from 1993-2006 his teams were on pace for 59 wins over 82 games.

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3753359#post3753359[/url]

Those aren't percentages but people can compare the numbers and reach their own conclusion.[/QUOTE]

Nice. It looks like you compiled the rest. Actually from 93-06, Shaq's teams were on pace for 57 wins, not 59. If you did the same for Jordan, he's actually 54 wins per 82, 1 less then Shaq. If you take out Jordan's Wizard years, like you did for Shaq's past 4 seasons, he's at about 56. Of course this doesn't tell the whole story. It doesn't take into account that Shaq played with much better teams then what Jordan had in almost all of the 80s except for about 1.5 seasons (93, and the first half of the 07-08 season), and Jordan's Wizard seasons, and more importantly, it doesn't take injuries into account, which Shaq had way more of. The durability of a player should definitely play into "impact".

Anyway, I wasn't trying to say Shaq didn't have much impact. I was just pointing that W-L records without a star player isn't a great way to measure impact because as I showed in Shaq's case, its very different in each. Some teams didn't fall off that badly, some fell off really badly. There wasn't a trend.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
They were in similar situations to Lebron. :oldlol: @ implying Pippen was on Mo William's level.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe either one of them had a teammate that came on and improved the team 15-20 games.

I wasn't implying anything about Pippen. I was talking about your ridiculous logic revolving around putting a player on or off a team and seeing how much the team improves or declines and concluding that there is their impact. According to that logic, someone in 20 years is going to look back and conclude that Mo had this HOF like impact.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
I have MJ third or fourth all-time. Of course he had impact. [B]What I argue is that he had less impact than any other top-tier of all-time player.[/B]
[/QUOTE]

Well I have to highly disagree with that. Not sure what you mean by top tier. If you mean the general consensus top 10, I find that somewhat laughable. But to each his own.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
What do you expect? Jordan fans say that about great player after great player so that is going to trigger a response. You were in the Kareem thread, no? The MJ fan argument revolved around two things: 1) "rings as a man" 2) Kareem had Magic for 5 of his rings. What do you expect in response?
[/QUOTE]

I don't see what's wrong with bringing that up when people try to equate Kareem's 6 rings with Jordan's which many times they try to do. It doesn't necessarily mean Jordan is better, but I understand why its brought up in that case.

Either way, from the beginning there's always been more "Jordan couldn't win without Pippen" comments as opposed to "Magic couldn't win without Kareem", "Bird couldn't win without Parish or McHale", etc. There's absolutely no denying that. Point is Jordan fans aren't the only ones that hold that argument against players. Pretty much everyone does, which in many ways is unfair.


[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
You are looking only at numbers. The funny thing is guy (or Da Realist but he isn't in this thread) would chide you for that (you are 21, didn't watch basketball in 94', are relying heavily on stats. Basically you are doing what I did regarding the late 80's Bulls) if you were arguing the opposite positions but he is saying nothing since your posting suits his agenda. It isn't just you. I've seen threads that guy is in where several Jordan fans said demonstrably false things like "Pippen did nothing in the 98' finals" and guy is silent on that. Come on, guy. Quit the hypocrisy. [/QUOTE]

LOL. Dude I can't respond to everyone. I try not to read every single poster's posts and then respond to them cause I would literally waste my whole day doing that. I have an agenda? I'm on this board alot and respond to many threads based on many different topics.

Most of the people that say crap like "Pippen did nothing" have no idea what they're talking about, and for the most part it shows. They're not much worse then the Kobe trolls who will post a bunch of crap trying to make him look like the GOAT, and will go to the opposite extreme and overrate Pippen to make Kobe look better vs. Jordan. I don't respond to either of them because their a bunch of idiot trolls that really don't know what they're talking about. They are not worth the response.

Most of the Jordan/Bulls fans that know about Pippen generally don't overrate or underrate Pippen, so they won't say things like "Pippen did nothing" and for the most part, I agree with many of their points, so thats why I don't feel the need to respond to them.

So you might wonder why I respond to you? Cause I don't really think of you as those trolls. I do think you have an agenda, but I'll respond to it sometimes because although I think you really don't know what you're talking about and have some really flawed logic to your conclusions, you seem to have done alot of research and know some history. You've put the time and effort to put out well-thought out arguments, even though I think they're mostly all wrong.

Your agenda? Propping up Jordan, diminishing Pippen. Does that mean that is all you post about? No, but not all of my posts are about Jordan either. How many Jordan threads have I ever posted? Most of the MJ threads I have made actually were pro-MJ (from when I first joined ISH)...

[QUOTE]Nice. It looks like you compiled the rest. Actually from 93-06, Shaq's teams were on pace for 57 wins, not 59. [/QUOTE]

Yeah, I meant 94-06'. BTW I did list his whole record. I even included this year (10-5 at the time). The 94-06' thing was because the thread was an advocacy thread for Shaq.

[QUOTE]I don't see what's wrong with bringing that up when people try to equate Kareem's 6 rings with Jordan's which many times they try to do. It doesn't necessarily mean Jordan is better, but I understand why its brought up in that case.[/QUOTE]

There is nothing wrong with it but there also is nothing wrong with the obvious response that will trigger. Jordan fans love saying it when it comes to everyone else but complain when the same thing is done with respect to Jordan.

[QUOTE]"Magic couldn't win without Kareem", "Bird couldn't win without Parish or McHale", etc.[/QUOTE]

? I haven't seen that since I have been here. How many Bird, Kareem, or Magic threads are there? If you read this forum you would think the NBA began in 1990.

It isn't just you. I never see any of the "reasonable" MJ fans correct some blatant misconceptions even when they are in the thread responding to other things. They ignore them because, for whatever reason, MJ fans as a group think Pippen looking worse will somehow elevate Jordan. The last time I checked he is #1 on 90% of lists. He is high as he can go.

[QUOTE]e Kobe trolls who will post a bunch of crap trying to make him look like the GOAT, and will go to the opposite extreme and overrate Pippen to make Kobe look better vs. Jordan[/QUOTE]

Can you explain this Kobe/Pippen thing I keep hearing MJ fans talk about? I said the following in another thread:

[QUOTE]MJ fans. You are a Bulls fan. There is a difference. Only a couple of these MJ fans are Bulls fans (guy, Samuri to name two). You never see most of them defending Rose or talking about what the Bulls should do in 2010 or in a Bulls game thread. Look at any Pippen thread and note who it is who is bashing him. It is the same dozen or so posters and 90% of them aren't Oscar Robertson or Vince Carter fans.

They hide behind Kobe and say they launched a crusade against Pip because Kobe fans "overrate Pippen." Evidently the grand plan is to elevate Pippen to diminish MJ from #1 all-time to #2 or #3 all-time (because somehow elevating Pippen will downgrade Jordan, even though Kareem played with Magic, Wilt with West, etc.) so Kobe can overtake MJ by going from #10 all-time to...#10 all-time. Hey, that is their theory! However, that excuse doesn't fly. You will also notice in those threads that hardly any Kobe fans defend Pippen. It is always Bulls/Pippen fans like me, 97 bulls, kshutts, and hitmary along with a few random people in a given thread. The only Kobe fan who consistently defends Pippen is soopa. If there is a vast Kobe fan conspiracy to elevate Pippen most Kobe fans missed the memo. Besides, it is an idiotic theory. So idiotic that MJ fans should not take it seriously. How exactly would Pippen being viewed as great cause Jordan to tumble from #1 in most eyes? All the greats played with great players when they won rings, some of them with players greater than Pippen. They will probably say "Shaq!". Get real. Everyone knows Shaq>Pippen. Besides, 99% of people on this board believe MJ>Kobe. There is no legit comparison or competition between MJ and Kobe. So why the crusade against a "threat" that does not exist and even if it did would be a farce? Even if Pippen magically moves up to #7 all-time so what (which no one argues) MJ is still MJ. Shaq still>Pippen. MJ still>Kobe.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Most of the Jordan/Bulls fans that know about Pippen generally don't overrate or underrate Pippen,[/QUOTE]

Jordan fans as a group here underrate him. He is almost always 25th, give or take a few spots, on lists. They will say he is top 35, top 40, one guy says he is not top 50, another somehow claims that Pippen is top 25 yet peak Pippen would not even be top 5 today. There are just guys who have stated their rankings. Then there are others. I don't want to name names because it isn't personal but I didn't make these people up (if you think I made them up shoot me a PM). Three of them are in most Pippen threads and one used to be but doesn't post much anymore. Da_Realist and you rate him highly, although you are a strange case since you only talk about him in a negative manner. You are like OldSchoolBBall in that sense, although I get the vibe that OSB genuinely dislikes Pip and you don't. At best you will say "He was a great player but he was overrated for the following ten reasons". :oldlol:

The irony is I have Jordan #3 or #4 all-time and concede he has a case for GOAT. I am in the ballpark with him. I have Pippen 18th-20th. In other words, I am off only a few spots from his average ranking but what do you expect from a Pippen fan and plus I weight winning. The typical MJ fan here is farther off from Pippen's typical ranking then I am on Pippen or Jordan. :oldlol: