Chris Mullin vs Larry Bird $100 bucks a shot

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Lol I should be banned for having a pov? The problem is I got you to admit that if pippen played in the 80s, he'd avg 24/9/8 which are bird type numbers. Andit makes you soooooooo mad.[/QUOTE]

It's not just the point of view you have. It's the troll-like extremes you go to. [I]Pippen would average 30 if he played in the 80's![/I] Those type of statements just aren't stimulating conversation nor fun to debate. [I]The problem[/I] is that your opinions always consist of what-if scenarios. You simply can't backup what you type. I don't know you personally. You don't make me "mad". Of course one is entitled to an opinion, but after a while it gets both redundant and stupid seeing someone post from their ass not having a single iota of perspective. Simply put - stop talking about players you never watched.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]No, you can't debate me on magic and pippen.[/QUOTE]

There's no debate. Magic is a tier or two above Pippen, easily.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Even if you feel bird is better offensively, they're not being in the same universe? That's taking it wayyyyy to far.[/QUOTE]


Nooooo, it isn't. Bird's production was vastly beyond Mullin and the result of that production (Awards, Championships) was way beyond what Mullin did. They are similar only in that they are both white dudes who could shoot. There is a reason why Larry Bird is Larry Bird. His face would be on the Mount Rushmore of the NBA, Mullin's would not. Again, I'm not trying to shit on Mullin. Mullin was awesome, but his impact in a game didn't approach Bird's. And, anyone who would take Pip over Magic needs to have their head examined.

[QUOTE=Kobe 4 The Win]Nooooo, it isn't. Bird's production was vastly beyond Mullin and the result of that production (Awards, Championships) was way beyond what Mullin did. They are similar only in that they are both white dudes who could shoot. There is a reason why Larry Bird is Larry Bird. His face would be on the Mount Rushmore of the NBA, Mullin's would not. Again, I'm not trying to shit on Mullin. Mullin was awesome, but his impact in a game didn't approach Bird's. And, anyone who would take Pip over Magic needs to have their head examined.[/QUOTE]
Isn't this what I said in the first place? Bird is obviously more accomplished cuz he had the better teams. Most of the awards bird won are given to the best player on the best team. But offensively, I really didn't see much of a diffeerence between the two. Definately not to the point that bird is lightyears ahead of mullin as you put it.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Isn't this what I said in the first place? Bird is obviously more accomplished cuz he had the better teams. Most of the awards bird won are given to the best player on the best team. But offensively, I really didn't see much of a diffeerence between the two. Definately not to the point that bird is lightyears ahead of mullin as you put it.[/QUOTE]

^^^^

Did not watch Bird play

[QUOTE=catch24]It's not just the point of view you have. It's the troll-like extremes you go to. [I]Pippen would average 30 if he played in the 80's![/I] Those type of statements just aren't stimulating conversation nor fun to debate. [I]The problem[/I] is that your opinions always consist of what-if scenarios. You simply can't backup what you type. I don't know you personally. You don't make me "mad". Of course one is entitled to an opinion, but after a while it gets both redundant and stupid seeing someone post from their ass not having a single iota of perspective. Simply put - stop talking about players you never watched.[/QUOTE]
Lol I never said pippen would avg 30 ppg in the 80s. I said he'd avg anywhere between 24-26 but he'd be right at around 24/9/8, which you agreed with I might add.

And as I said before, when you try to compare players that never really played together in their prime, it becomes a what if scenario.

I believed I used the example of wilt chamberlain. Statistically, he's the greatest ever. But a lot of people don't consider him the greatest ever cuz [B]IF[/B] he played in the modern era, he wouldn't be anywhere near as statistically dominant as he was in the 60s.

If you don't believe in what if scenarios, then surely the 96 bulls are the greatest team ever cuz they have the greatest record ever. Is this true?

[QUOTE=Miller for 3]^^^^

Did not watch Bird play[/QUOTE]
Lol why? Cuz I don't feel bird was lightyears better offensively than mullin. Maybe my definition of "lightyears" is different from yours.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Lol I never said pippen would avg 30 ppg in the 80s. I said he'd avg anywhere between 24-26 but he'd be right at around 24/9/8, which you agreed with I might add.[/quote]

All circumstantial. To be honest, I don't even remember agreeing with you. What if he had to carry a team for a long period of time? Could he be as effective of a leader/playmaker as Bird? Magic? Again I'm not going to steer away from the OP but these questions have to be asked and analyzed before you start to extrapolate numbers.


[quote]If you don't believe in what if scenarios, then surely the 96 bulls are the greatest team ever cuz they have the most the greatest record ever. Is this true?[/QUOTE]

This has nothing to do with a 'what-if scenario'. In this case, you would have to use context; i.e., who the Bulls and their contemporaries faced as competition.

Also catch24, you want say this is redundant? You bring this stuff up. Not that I mind cuz I enjoy the conversation.

Didn't Pippen quit on his team one time? Very LeBron esque.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Why does every thread that were in together revolve around my stance on pippen? I think I shed new light on how basketball is played and won and you can't deal with it. This is a bird/mullin thread. You want me to debate you on magic and pippen, I have no problem with it. And just know ill own you like I always do.

If not, let it go. Pippen beat magic on the biggest nba stage. Get over it. It unhealthy[/QUOTE]
Why in every thread you proclaim that you won? You didn't win anything you dumb ass.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]What's with the insult? If you disagree with me then show your vast basketball knowledge and show me why. If I agree, ill gladly change my stance. I've been wrong before.[/QUOTE]
I can't argue anything with you anymore. You just say too much dumbshit.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9csnrFENGc#t=7m53s[/url]


Magic on Mullin's jumper

must be nice to play for 100 bucks a shot

[QUOTE=catch24]All circumstantial. To be honest, I don't even remember agreeing with you. What if he had to carry a team for a long period of time? Could he be as effective of a leader/playmaker as Bird? Magic? Again I'm not going to steer away from the OP but these questions have to be asked and analyzed before you start to extrapolate numbers.




This has nothing to do with a 'what-if scenario'. In this case, you would have to use context; i.e., who the Bulls and their contemporaries faced as competition.[/QUOTE]
I agree its circumstantial cuz none of these players had the same career. But "circumstantial", "if", "context" whats the difference? None is a definite. Its all deductive. Reasoning. But look at what your saying. In some comparisons, like pippen, you want to stay away from context. You don't want to take into consideration, the offense the bulls played, him playing behind jordan, him playing in a league that didnt really stress an uptempo style like the 80s.

But when you want to discuss the bulls and their dominance, then you want "context". You want to factor in contemporaires, competition etc. Which I agree with. I don't think the 96 bulls are the best team cuz they are the only team to win 70+ games, they have the best away record ever, they tied the record for pt differential. Like you said, there's sooo many factors that are involved in a comparison. Pippen is not different

I don't see any real consistancy in this point of view.