[QUOTE=Fatal9]Jordan's playmaking and clutchness in the last two minutes puts him over Shaq imo. Both have a similar impact outside of that, but Jordan really separates himself in the closing minutes.[/QUOTE]
:wtf: Are you sick Fatal9?
Printable View
[QUOTE=Fatal9]Jordan's playmaking and clutchness in the last two minutes puts him over Shaq imo. Both have a similar impact outside of that, but Jordan really separates himself in the closing minutes.[/QUOTE]
:wtf: Are you sick Fatal9?
[QUOTE=Fatal9]Jordan's playmaking and clutchness in the last two minutes puts him over Shaq imo. Both have a similar impact outside of that, but Jordan really separates himself in the closing minutes.[/QUOTE]
Who hacked Fatal's account??:lol
[QUOTE=poido123]Your hate for Jordan sticks out like dogballs.
Jordan 87-93 better than any player at their peak...[/QUOTE]
Wilt Chamberlain wanna say HI:cheers:
[QUOTE=madmax]Wilt Chamberlain wanna say HI:cheers:[/QUOTE]
Wilt Chamberlain would get murked by David Robinson ...
F' outta here
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Yeah--50. This is a thread comparing him to Shaq. Shaq inherited a 21 win team (Jordan inherited a 27 win team) that had been in the NBA for only a few years and never sniffed the playoffs. Shaq took them to 41 wins in year one, 50 in his second year, 57 and the NBA finals in his third. That does not compare to going from 27 to 38, going 9-9, then coming back for a full season and lifting your team only 10 more wins from the previous year (40-42). Of course, Shaq did luck into Penny in his second year to be fair.
Yeah--and Anderson and Scott played poorly in the NBA finals.
No, but it makes him the excuse for Jordan losing in 1990 even though Jordan's bullying is the reason he was playing in the first place when he was in no condition to play. The point is this: if we blame teammates whenever Jordan lost (and we know when he won it was all him) we need to look at the teammates of the player he is being compared to. What MJ fans consistently do is blame the team for Jordan losing from 1985-1990 and 2002-03 yet attack Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, or anyone else being compared to MJ for losing. Why? They lost, period. MJ fans never look at their teammates or context in their cases.
Here is what the Lakers did without Shaq from 2001-03:
2001: 51-23 (69%) with him, 5-3 (63%) without him
2002: 51-16 (76%) with him, 7-8 (47%) without him
2003: 45-22 (67%) with him, 5-10 (33%) without him
Hell, let's add 2004. 49-18 (73%) with him, 7-18 (47%) without him. The record speaks for itself. With him they were championship caliber teams; without him they were not even 0.500. They were a measely 24-39. I am sorry, I just don't believe Jordan added this much value to his team. Shaq was replaced by a legit NBA player. Imagine if they replaced him with a D-League level player...
You cherry picked a five game sample. AI was top 10 in assists four times and top 5 once. He shot the ball less than Jordan. Yet he is considered a ballhog? Would you really want the player who took more shots than[B] anyone[/B] in the history of the league to be your PG? You may say yes but I strongly doubt you actually believe that.
Yeah, but that is not the point of contention. The dispute is over who is easier to build around and the record strongly suggests Shaq is. So does history with respect to building around dominant centers versus dominant guards. In other words, imo the odds of winning with Shaq are greater than Jordan. Jordan has more "needs." Shaq just needs a good perimeter player and that is pretty much it. Jordan needs a special kind of faux PG like Paxson or Harper (a career SG...) and some mystery person to serve as the primary ballhandler who doesn't need the ball as much as a traditional PG. Think about this. In effect you cannot have a great PG with MJ. That means you are not going to have a great player at the position since every great PG functions like a typical PG who needs the ball a lot to be effective. That leaves three positions. You need to strike lightening with a great SF, PF, or C--and one of them probably has to be versatile enough to serve as the primary ballhandler. That all but eliminates the C option. Even if you give him a great C you need someone to run the offense. You basically would need a Pippen, Hill, or Garnett type to win with Jordan.
MJ paved the way for Shaq, Kobe, and Lebron. Bird and Magic were not on the same level as MJ as far as marketing goes. Read Halberstam. He talks about the confluence of events that combined to make MJ the icon he is and that includes Stern and timing. If he showed up in 1980 he would not stand out over Magic and Bird. If he showed up in 1974 or 1964 he simply could not become the marketing phenomenon he became due to racism.
Yeah but Penny lacked experience. He had a total of 3 playoff games under his belt before 1995. Anderson was a very good player--until the 95' finals and he never recovered from that epic chokejob.
Exactly. So why did Jordan bully him into playing? Did he do it so he could have the safety valve of his fans blaming his teammate for him losing 20 years later? Well, he was always clutch. :oldlol:
Yeah--since he was injured. This is what annoys me about MJ fans. I like you btw but even you do this. When it comes to everyone else all that matters is what they did. Shaq lost, period. Kareem won only once on the 70's, period. Pippen played bad, period. And on and on. Yet when it comes to St. Michael we have to look at context. We have to look at his teammates. Pippen was freaking injured and MJ fans ignore that and shamefully call a guy who performed extraordinarily in the NBA finals year after year a choker. Even in 1990 he had a very good playoff run until the migraine. You condemn Pippen for a poor game when he was injured yet ignore Nick Anderson pulling off a world-class choke when healthy in the 95' finals when it comes to Shaq? :confusedshrug:
BTW, Jordan had some choke moment" too yet MJ fans act as if he always played well in big games. Yeah, he was one of the most clutch players ever but he was not a god. Everyone has some bad games, whether it is Jordan Pippen or legends in other sports like Joe Montana (clutch but again even he had some bad games).
Once they had great teams around them Shaq was a bit more team dependent for the reasons you stated. What I am arguing is Shaq could do more with a random team and is easier to build around.[/QUOTE]
What a load of freaking crap. Paxton and kerr:wtf: I can say Hsaq can't win without a great Sg and a clutch player like Horry/Posey. Mj doesn't need someone to handle the ball?? Mj could handle the ball fine. You mean someone else who could handle the ball. yep, Shaq also need someone like that. I told you once and i will tell u again. Give the Bulls hakeem and they win 8-9 chips. You trying to underrate MJ running the offense. LOL Yes having multiple players being able to run the offense is different, but just because Pip could run the offense didn't mean Mj couldn't.
Pippen isn't on Garnetts level.
MJ didn't bully anyone into playing. Pippen is a grown Men and didn't have to play if he didn't want to. Plenty of teammates would of tell their teammates to try to play through it because they could smeell the chip. Pippen could smell it too which is why he steeped on the floor injured. MJ is the one who hyped the team up to push it to seven games.
Nick thing didn't happen in the 7th game of the series. Teams can regroup.
Paxson, Armstrong, and Ron Harper were MJ's "point guards" during his championship years. Do you realize Ron Harper was a career SG until he came to Chicago and he was a "PG" in name only?
[QUOTE]Mj doesn't need someone to handle the ball?? Mj could handle the ball fine.[/QUOTE]
Yeah--and then take more shots than anyone in history. That is who you want as a PG? The primary task of a PG is to distribute the ball...
[QUOTE]yep, Shaq also need someone like that. [/QUOTE]
Shaq needed a run of the mill PG. He didn't have a special need in that area. Shaq could play with any PG. Jordan couldn't, hence the revolving door of guards in Chicago before Paxson.
[QUOTE]Give the Bulls hakeem and they win 8-9 chips.[/QUOTE]
Give Shaq Hakeem (playing PF) and he wins a lot too so what does that prove?
[QUOTE]Pippen isn't on Garnetts level.[/QUOTE]
Most people would disagree with that, other than MJ fans of course. There is a reason why they are near each other on practically every all-time list. Those were just examples anyway. Jordan could win with Hill even though Pippen is better than Hill. The point was with any PG on a Jordan team having to be at best an average player due to his special needs you are left with PF, SF, C to find a great second player for a MJ team. Even if you get a great center you need someone to run the offense. That means the best case scenario would be a versatile forward like Pippen, Garnett, Hill, or Lebron. Kukoc and Odom types who can play "point forward" do not cut it because they are not great players. The only way Kukoc or Odom would work is if MJ had a great player at the other forward spot or center position. Jordan+Pippen/Garnett/Hill/Lebron is pretty much enough to win on its own, so long as some other roles are filled (i.e. rebounding and interior D in the case of the SF's).
[QUOTE]Nick thing didn't happen in the 7th game of the series. Teams can regroup.[/QUOTE]
People can but Anderson didn't in that series. In fact, he [I]never[/I] did.
Shaq put up 28/13/6 on 60% and ran into peak Hakeem and Clyde Drexler, who is arguably the third best SG of all-time.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Yeah--50. This is a thread comparing him to Shaq. Shaq inherited a 21 win team (Jordan inherited a 27 win team) that had been in the NBA for only a few years and never sniffed the playoffs. Shaq took them to 41 wins in year one, 50 in his second year, 57 and the NBA finals in his third. That does not compare to going from 27 to 38, going 9-9, then coming back for a full season and lifting your team only 10 more wins from the previous year (40-42). Of course, Shaq did luck into Penny in his second year to be fair.[/quote]
Like I said, Shaq had a better team around him. Also, how many cokeheads did Shaq have on his team?
[quote]Yeah--and Anderson and Scott played poorly in the NBA finals.[/quote]
Jordan had teammates who performed poorly, too. Also, Penny played quite well, didn't he?
[quote]No, but it makes him the excuse for Jordan losing in 1990 even though Jordan's bullying is the reason he was playing in the first place when he was in no condition to play.[/quote]
Either way, the Bulls were screwed. It was either no Pippen or one who could barely see. I think that was just as much of a deterrent to the team as Anderson's choke moments in 95.
[quote]The point is this: if we blame teammates whenever Jordan lost (and we know when he won it was all him).[/quote]
That's not what I believe, so....
[quote]Here is what the Lakers did without Shaq from 2001-03:
2001: 51-23 (69%) with him, 5-3 (63%) without him
2002: 51-16 (76%) with him, 7-8 (47%) without him
2003: 45-22 (67%) with him, 5-10 (33%) without him
Hell, let's add 2004. 49-18 (73%) with him, 7-18 (47%) without him. The record speaks for itself. With him they were championship caliber teams; without him they were not even 0.500. They were a measely 24-39. I am sorry, I just don't believe Jordan added this much value to his team. Shaq was replaced by a legit NBA player. Imagine if they replaced him with a D-League level player...[/quote]
They acquired Odom and Caron Butler in the Shaq trade. If Phil hadn't left, that team easily wins 40-45 barring injury.
[quote]You cherry picked a five game sample. AI was top 10 in assists four times and top 5 once. He shot the ball less than Jordan. Yet he is considered a ballhog? Would you really want the player who took more shots than[B] anyone[/B] in the history of the league to be your PG? You may say yes but I strongly doubt you actually believe that.[/quote]
Allen Iverson also had an atrocious field goal percentage. Would I want MJ as a full time point guard? No, I'd rather team him up with another decent passer, like Pippen. Doesn't mean he's a bad playmaker. Pippen last I checked wasn't a full time point guard, either.
[quote]Yeah, but that is not the point of contention. The dispute is over who is easier to build around and the record strongly suggests Shaq is.[/quote]
Not really.
[quote]So does history with respect to building around dominant centers versus dominant guards. In other words, imo the odds of winning with Shaq are greater than Jordan. Jordan has more "needs." Shaq just needs a good perimeter player and that is pretty much it. Jordan needs a special kind of faux PG like Paxson or Harper (a career SG...) and some mystery person to serve as the primary ballhandler who doesn't need the ball as much as a traditional PG. Think about this. In effect you cannot have a great PG with MJ. That means you are not going to have a great player at the position since every great PG functions like a typical PG who needs the ball a lot to be effective. That leaves three positions. You need to strike lightening with a great SF, PF, or C--and one of them probably has to be versatile enough to serve as the primary ballhandler. That all but eliminates the C option. Even if you give him a great C you need someone to run the offense. You basically would need a Pippen, Hill, or Garnett type to win with Jordan.[/quote]
Shaq requires multiple outside threats as well as a decent big man who can play defense and not command shots. He had Grant for multiple seasons and had Alonzo Mourning backing him up in 06. Also, Penny, Kobe and Wade made All-NBA teams with him. You can't just add any guard with Shaq and expect a title. Eddie Jones and Nick Van Exel were good guards but LA still didn't make it past the WCF from 1997-1999.
[quote]MJ paved the way for Shaq, Kobe, and Lebron. Bird and Magic were not on the same level as MJ as far as marketing goes. Read Halberstam. He talks about the confluence of events that combined to make MJ the icon he is and that includes Stern and timing. If he showed up in 1980 he would not stand out over Magic and Bird. If he showed up in 1974 or 1964 he simply could not become the marketing phenomenon he became due to racism.[/quote]
Magic and Bird were huge in 1984, both of them started to peak in popularity at around that time. Have you read Bird's and Magic's new book? They talk about how they and Stern turned the NBA around and increased it's popularity tremendously. Jordan would have made an impact regardless of era. If he played in the 60s or 70s he would still get acclaim, at least on the level of West or Robertson.
[quote]Yeah but Penny lacked experience. He had a total of 3 playoff games under his belt before 1995. Anderson was a very good player--until the 95' finals and he never recovered from that epic chokejob.[/quote]
Pippen lacked experience from 1988 to 1990, too.
[quote]Exactly. So why did Jordan bully him into playing? Did he do it so he could have the safety valve of his fans blaming his teammate for him losing 20 years later? Well, he was always clutch. :oldlol:[/quote]
He got overly competitive. Not that hard to figure out.
[quote]Yeah--since he was injured. This is what annoys me about MJ fans. I like you btw but even you do this. When it comes to everyone else all that matters is what they did. Shaq lost, period. Kareem won only once on the 70's, period. Pippen played bad, period. And on and on. Yet when it comes to St. Michael we have to look at context. We have to look at his teammates. Pippen was freaking injured and MJ fans ignore that and shamefully call a guy who performed extraordinarily in the NBA finals year after year a choker. Even in 1990 he had a very good playoff run until the migraine. You condemn Pippen for a poor game when he was injured yet ignore Nick Anderson pulling off a world-class choke when healthy in the 95' finals when it comes to Shaq? :confusedshrug:[/quote]
I'm not condemning Pippen, just saying his migraine was detrimental to the Bulls' winning. That was the equivalent of Penny going down against Indiana in 95.
[quote]BTW, Jordan had some choke moment" too yet MJ fans act as if he always played well in big games. Yeah, he was one of the most clutch players ever but he was not a god. Everyone has some bad games, whether it is Jordan Pippen or legends in other sports like Joe Montana (clutch but again even he had some bad games).[/quote]
Agreed, so why rag on Anderson?
Give me Michael Jordan, but 1996-2002 Shaq is probably the most dominant player in NBA History.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Paxson, Armstrong, and Ron Harper were MJ's "point guards" during his championship years. Do you realize Ron Harper was a career SG until he came to Chicago and he was a "PG" in name only?[/quote]
Harper did the same thing with Shaq.
[quote]Shaq needed a run of the mill PG. He didn't have a special need in that area. Shaq could play with any PG. Jordan couldn't, hence the revolving door of guards in Chicago before Paxson.[/quote]
Shaq usually needed a combo guard to distribute. He never won a ring with a prototypical pg. Also, I think DFish falls into that role as the pg who doesn't handle the ball much and usually hangs back for jumpshots and threes.
[quote]Give Shaq Hakeem (playing PF) and he wins a lot too so what does that prove?[/quote]
Doubt it. Not enough shots to go around and they would clash in the post.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Paxson, Armstrong, and Ron Harper were MJ's "point guards" during his championship years. Do you realize Ron Harper was a career SG until he came to Chicago and he was a "PG" in name only?
Yeah--and then take more shots than anyone in history. That is who you want as a PG? The primary task of a PG is to distribute the ball...
Shaq needed a run of the mill PG. He didn't have a special need in that area. Shaq could play with any PG. Jordan couldn't, hence the revolving door of guards in Chicago before Paxson.
Give Shaq Hakeem (playing PF) and he wins a lot too so what does that prove?
Most people would disagree with that, other than MJ fans of course. There is a reason why they are near each other on practically every all-time list. Those were just examples anyway. Jordan could win with Hill even though Pippen is better than Hill. The point was with any PG on a Jordan team having to be at best an average player due to his special needs you are left with PF, SF, C to find a great second player for a MJ team. Even if you get a great center you need someone to run the offense. That means the best case scenario would be a versatile forward like Pippen, Garnett, Hill, or Lebron. Kukoc and Odom types who can play "point forward" do not cut it because they are not great players. The only way Kukoc or Odom would work is if MJ had a great player at the other forward spot or center position. Jordan+Pippen/Garnett/Hill/Lebron is pretty much enough to win on its own, so long as some other roles are filled (i.e. rebounding and interior D in the case of the SF's).
People can but Anderson didn't in that series. In fact, he [I]never[/I] did.
Shaq put up 28/13/6 on 60% and ran into peak Hakeem and Clyde Drexler, who is arguably the third best SG of all-time.[/QUOTE]
??? How did Mj need a point guard??? He needed another great allstar like Pippen Paxton was just the point guard during that time. Like i said Where is Shaq without Horry and posey??
LOL WTH are you taking about?? You were saying MJ can't run the offense. Yes he could. You acting like Mj point guards were some godly passers or something.
Shaq need a allstar SG and clutch players around him.
Most people??? WHere do you get this crap from? KG is better then Pippen(FACT)
The point is that game 1 isn't has important has game 7.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
Yeah, but that is not the point of contention. The dispute is over who is easier to build around and the record strongly suggests Shaq is. So does history with respect to building around dominant centers versus dominant guards. In other words, imo the odds of winning with Shaq are greater than Jordan. Jordan has more "needs." Shaq just needs a good perimeter player and that is pretty much it. Jordan needs a special kind of faux PG like Paxson or Harper (a career SG...) and some mystery person to serve as the primary ballhandler who doesn't need the ball as much as a traditional PG. Think about this. In effect you cannot have a great PG with MJ. That means you are not going to have a great player at the position since every great PG functions like a typical PG who needs the ball a lot to be effective. That leaves three positions. You need to strike lightening with a great SF, PF, or C--and one of them probably has to be versatile enough to serve as the primary ballhandler. That all but eliminates the C option. Even if you give him a great C you need someone to run the offense. You basically would need a Pippen, Hill, or Garnett type to win with Jordan.
[/QUOTE]
Hold on. Are you seriously saying that because it would be better to complement Jordan with a PG such as Paxson, BJ, or Harper, who are either shooters are good defensive players, instead of a traditional PG such as a John Stockton or Kevin Johnson, that means Jordan is more needy? Are you serious? That makes no sense. There are way more players that could've done Paxson and BJ's job then who could've done a traditional PGs job, which should make Jordan less needy. Great wing players in general don't need PGs like that.
And once again, you're really overstating Pippen's primary ballhandling duties. He wasn't Steve Nash or Chris Paul. There were a number of players back then and today that could've done that. And I'm not knocking Pippen. There was way more to him then his ballhandling duties. But his ballhandling duties wasn't some highly irreplaceable function like you seem to imply.
Just because it was better for Jordan to not have to handle the ball as much to save energy, that doesn't mean he couldn't have done it and win with a different type of team. And the idea that Jordan would need a SF, PF, or C to be the primary ballhandler is a bit ridiculous. It really doesn't seem like Kobe Bryant, who's pretty much the same type of player, has had that problem throughout his career. Give Terry Porter, Mo Williams, or Derek Fisher to Jordan, and there goes your theory.
I really can't believe you're arguing Jordan had more needs then Shaq. Shaq is literally a guy that was regularly forced to transfer his primary scoring responsibilities in the end of games to another player. And Jordan was more needy?
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock] Even if you get a great center you need someone to run the offense. That means the best case scenario would be a versatile forward like Pippen, Garnett, Hill, or Lebron. Kukoc and Odom types who can play "point forward" do not cut it because they are not great players. The only way Kukoc or Odom would work is if MJ had a great player at the other forward spot or center position. Jordan+Pippen/Garnett/Hill/Lebron is pretty much enough to win on its own, so long as some other roles are filled (i.e. rebounding and interior D in the case of the SF's).
[/QUOTE]
So you're saying Jordan couldn't win with Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Zo, or Shaq?
Why exactly are we comparing these two? They are completely different players, and not just by position..
There is soooo much wrong in this thread...
This whole PG argument can be settled very easily. Triangle offense. You dont need or really want a traditional PG to run your team. Spot up shooters. DFish exactly, except he COULD bring the ball up the floor. Did he really do any point guarding? HELL NO! He's short so the "point guard" label was automatic.
And whats all this Ron Harper talk? He lost his explosiveness and HAD to take a lesser role. You seem more choked about this than Ron Harper himself, haha.
You could give both MJ and Shaq the same exact rosters and I'm damn sure (along with almost ANYONE) Michael Jordans team will prevail.
Betting against MJ is like betting against John Rambo. You just dont do it man.
[QUOTE]Like I said, Shaq had a better team around him[/QUOTE]
After 1994, yes, thanks to the Penny fluke but there is a reason that team won 21 games in 1992. Jordan inherited a 27 win team. It isn't as if Shaq joined the 80' Lakers.
Regarding Anderson, I brought it up only after MJ fans brought up Shaq losing in, among other years, 95'. When MJ lost it was the team but when Shaq puts up 28/13 with 6 assists (as a center!) on 60% it is all his fault? That is hypocritical.
[QUOTE]They acquired Odom and Caron Butler in the Shaq trade. If Phil hadn't left, that team easily wins 40-45 barring injury.[/QUOTE]
Think about that, though. They acquired a very good player in Odom and a young Butler and even if healthy and with Kobe you are projecting them as a 40-45 win team. What does that say about Shaq's impact? The Bulls lost Jordan and gained nothing in exchange for him. As Krause said no team in history ever had to deal with a situation like this, aside from the Lakers with Magic but obviously Magic could not control that. The only other comparable sudden retirements I can think of are Ricky Williams and Barry Sanders in football.
“...We were left two days before training camp started with no advance notice, no nothing. We had no clue.”
No notice. Not even a hint. So they replaced him with a D-Leaguer because no one else was available. What did they do? You mention injuries with the 05' Lakers. Let's look at injuries with the 94' Bulls. If healthy they would have won 60+. With Pippen and Grant they went 44-15 (75%). That is a 61 win pace over 82 games and that isn't even getting to the myriad of other injuries they had to role players.
[QUOTE]Shaq requires multiple outside threats as well as a decent big man who can play defense and not command shots. [/QUOTE]
You are going by what he had on his teams. He did not “require” a decent big man who can play defense because peak Shaq was a great interior defender himself. Jordan required a Paxson or Harper because he could not function with a legit PG. There is only one basketball. Yeah, he could play with one but at the expense of chemistry and ultimately winning.
It isn't hard to assemble a team with outside shooters. Practically every team has a few decent ones. How hard is it to find a Derek Fisher?
No one has said MJ was a bad playmaker. He was a good one.
[QUOTE]You can't just add any guard with Shaq and expect a title.[/QUOTE]
Sure you can if you give him an elite SF like Pippen or Hill. With Pippen in place of Penny he would have won multiple rings in Orlando (remember, Pippen in Orlando means Kukoc would be the starting SF in Chicago).
[QUOTE]Jordan would have made an impact regardless of era. If he played in the 60s or 70s he would still get acclaim, at least on the level of West or Robertson.[/QUOTE]
Robertson? How many endorsements did he get in the 60's? He couldn't even drink from some water fountains so how could he become a national pitchman for numerous corporations like MJ did?
Magic and Bird increased the NBA's popularity; Jordan/Stern and their alliance with corporate America took it to another level.
[QUOTE]Pippen lacked experience from 1988 to 1990, too.
[/QUOTE]
Pippen played in 10 playoff games as a rookie alone. Penny had 3 playoff games under his belt before 1995.
[QUOTE]WHere do you get this crap from? KG is better then Pippen(FACT)
[/QUOTE]
I didn't say that. I said they are in the same group of legends and practically every all-time list agrees, aside from MJ fans. Look at ISH and RealGM's lists. Look at Bill Simmons. Look at Slam Magazine. Look at the lists people here make.
[QUOTE]Hold on. Are you seriously saying that because it would be better to complement Jordan with a PG such as Paxson, BJ, or Harper, who are either shooters are good defensive players, instead of a traditional PG such as a John Stockton or Kevin Johnson, that means Jordan is more needy? Are you serious? That makes no sense. There are way more players that could've done Paxson and BJ's job then who could've done a traditional PGs job, which should make Jordan less needy. Great wing players in general don't need PGs like that.[/QUOTE]
With a Paxson or Harper you need someone else to serve as the primary ballhandler/playmaker. Of course it is easier to find a Paxson or Harper. The problem is finding another player who is not a PG to serve as the chief ballhandler.
[QUOTE]But his ballhandling duties wasn't some highly irreplaceable function like you seem to imply. [/QUOTE]
As I said, you could give his ballhandling role to someone like Kukoc or Odom but that means you have no great player at one forward position and at PG. Jordan needed a second elite teammate to win. How many forwards and C's could fit the bill? Remember, my argument is the Shaq could win more with a random team than Jordan. If you are randomly selected players what are the odds that you are going to land a great PF or C using the Kukoc scenario?
Speaking of Kukoc, he actually replaced Pippen as a ballhandler and we know what happened to everyone's FG %...
[QUOTE]Just because it was better for Jordan to not have to handle the ball as much to save energy, that doesn't mean he couldn't have done it and win with a different type of team.[/QUOTE]
I know, I know. Greatest of all-time. He could score 30+ ppg, lead the league in FGA as a primary ballhandler, play great defense, rebound very well for a guard all in nearly 40 minutes a night and not skip a beat. I bet he could average 10 boards too if his team needed it. He was human. He had limits. I can't see Jordan doing all that and winning even aside from the obvious problem of having a primary ballhandler who is leading the league in FGA every year.
[QUOTE]Shaq is literally a guy that was regularly forced to transfer his primary scoring responsibilities in the end of games to another player. And Jordan was more needy?[/QUOTE]
As far as building a team from scratch, yes. Once the team is built then yeah, Shaq needs more help. Look at what Shaq actually did. He joined a 21 win team and as a rookie elevated them to 41 wins. Imagine peak Shaq on that team. Imo Shaq could win 50+ with practically any team, unless it is a horrendous team that would be a 15 win team without him. Put Shaq on a team on the level of the 10' Sixers or 10' Clippers and I can see them winning 50+ with peak Shaq. A championship? Of course not but they would be very competitive.
[QUOTE]So you're saying Jordan couldn't win with Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Zo, or Shaq?[/QUOTE]
Provided they solved the ballhandling issue and they worked out how to reconcile pairing two elite scorers together (aside from Zo') he could. I am talking about average teams in this thread, not fantasy pairings. Those pairings would have simply too much talent to not win multiple rings. The only thing that could realistically stop them is chemistry problems.
[QUOTE]This whole PG argument can be settled very easily. Triangle offense. You dont need or really want a traditional PG to run your team.[/QUOTE]
Maybe you should look into why the triangle was implemented in the first place on the Bulls...
You don't need a traditional PG but you need someone to be the primary ballhandler/playmaker because you are in trouble if you give MJ that role.
Ron Harper was an example of the list of nontraditional "point guards" that Chicago used after numerous guards failed to mesh with Jordan prior to Paxson.
[QUOTE]You could give both MJ and Shaq the same exact rosters and I'm damn sure (along with almost ANYONE) Michael Jordans team will prevail.[/QUOTE]
That is because of the mystique surrounding him. He did join a bad team and he improved it from 27 wins to 38. He got hurt for 80% of 86' and they slipped 8 games. He came back and they improved 10 games. This is not exactly dominating with a bad team. Shaq took a 21 win team to 41 wins as a rookie, turned LA around, turned Miami around. LA was decent before him but Orlando was horrible and Miami average. When he left Orlando they collapsed (Penny was hurt for part of the regular season but he was spectacular in the playoffs and they still lost in the first round). When he left LA or he got hurt they collapsed. Shaq was traded for Lamar Odom and Caron Butler and the team did nothing until 2008. Jordan was replaced by a D-Leaguer and the team won 55 games and went 44-15 in games in which Pippen and Grant both played. Yet it is ridiculous to assert that Shaq had more value to his teams than Jordan? :wtf:
All of this is speculation. We will never know the answer but imo the circumstantial evidence is pretty clear. Even Shaq's mighty Laker teams went 24-39 without him from 2001-2004. That should answer the question about value to a team.
[QUOTE=Samurai Swoosh]Wilt Chamberlain would get murked by David Robinson ...
F' outta here[/QUOTE]
Seriously?
You know that Wilt Chamberlain was able to play evenly with Kareem, right?
The 60s were overall less developed, but that doesn't mean that some standouts wouldn't be able to be great in the modern area.