Shaq 96-2002 versus 87-93 Jordan

[QUOTE=Inspector Rick]There is soooo much wrong in this thread...

This whole PG argument can be settled very easily. Triangle offense. You dont need or really want a traditional PG to run your team. Spot up shooters. DFish exactly, except he COULD bring the ball up the floor. Did he really do any point guarding? HELL NO! He's short so the "point guard" label was automatic.

And whats all this Ron Harper talk? He lost his explosiveness and HAD to take a lesser role. You seem more choked about this than Ron Harper himself, haha.

You could give both MJ and Shaq the same exact rosters and I'm damn sure (along with almost ANYONE) Michael Jordans team will prevail.

Betting against MJ is like betting against John Rambo. You just dont do it man.[/QUOTE]
This.

Mike didn't need great point guards. The triangle offense is not based on traditional positions, but based on post play and players filling spcific roles. Plus, Shaq has needed clutch superstar wingmen for every one of his successful teams. That makes him quite needy.

[QUOTE]Maybe you should look into why the triangle was implemented in the first place on the Bulls...[/QUOTE]

I know why the triangle was implemented.

[QUOTE]You don't need a traditional PG but you need someone to be the primary ballhandler/playmaker because you are in trouble if you give MJ that role. [/QUOTE]

It made no sense to have MJ in that role. Doesn't mean he couldn't do it though. Pip, for the most part would facilitate of the offense and Jordan would break down the defense allowing the offense to operate, which still is a form of playmaking.

Having two different 3 peats does make things confusing here, early 90's Jordan compared to mid 90's is a whole other player.

[QUOTE]That is because of the mystique surrounding him. He did join a bad team and he improved it from 27 wins to 38. He got hurt for 80% of 86' and they slipped 8 games. He came back and they improved 10 games. This is not exactly dominating with a bad team. Shaq took a 21 win team to 41 wins as a rookie, turned LA around, turned Miami around. LA was decent before him but Orlando was horrible and Miami average. When he left Orlando they collapsed. When he left LA or he got hurt they collapsed. Shaq was traded for Lamar Odom and Caron Butler and the team did nothing until 2008. Jordan was replaced by a D-Leaguer and the team won 55 games and went 44-15 in games in which Pippen and Grant both played. Yet it is ridiculous to assert that Shaq had more value to his teams than Jordan? [/QUOTE]

Decades play a factor here also. Jordan had the misfortune (but not really) of playing against the Celtics (dynasty), Pistons (cusp of dynasty), Knicks and Cavs in the playoffs. Michael Jordan or not, your damn right he better be losing to those teams. Celtics/Pistons. Thats all you need to know. Those beatings allowed the young Bulls core to grow and mature and become Champions.

And I dont quite understand this D League argument. Rosters have a pecking order. Its not like MJ leaves and you fill his spot exactly with some random bum. Pete Meyers took over the starting SG role. Nothing special but a serviceable NBA player nonetheless.

Jordan over Shaq. Shaq was starting to decline by 2002. Also Shaq was missing several games yearly. In 1996 and 1997 he played roughly 50 games. In 1998 he played 60 games.

It's no coincedence however that they are the top 3 in overall PER and top finals performances ever.

Also a knock on Shaq is that his teammate actually finished ahead of him in MVP voting in 1996. Penny finished 3rd while Shaq finished 9th.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]After 1994, yes, thanks to the Penny fluke but there is a reason that team won 21 games in 1992. Jordan inherited a 27 win team. It isn't as if Shaq joined the 80' Lakers.[/quote]

No, but his teammates matched him better. That is undeniable. Anderson, Scott and Skiles were all skilled perimeter players who could shoot from the three point line. Teamed up with Shaq, that makes a nice combination. Who complemented Jordan in 85?

[quote]Regarding Anderson, I brought it up only after MJ fans brought up Shaq losing in, among other years, 95'. When MJ lost it was the team but when Shaq puts up 28/13 with 6 assists (as a center!) on 60% it is all his fault? That is hypocritical.[/quote]

I never said it was his fault. Also, Nick was the third or fourth best player on the team. Shaq still had Penny and Grant.

[quote]Think about that, though. They acquired a very good player in Odom and a young Butler and even if healthy and with Kobe you are projecting them as a 40-45 win team. What does that say about Shaq's impact?[/quote]

That he's worth about ten to 15 wins. That's also with GP and Malone gone, by the way.

[quote][b]The Bulls lost Jordan and gained nothing in exchange for him.[/b] As Krause said no team in history ever had to deal with a situation like this, aside from the Lakers with Magic but obviously Magic could not control that. The only other comparable sudden retirements I can think of are Ricky Williams and Barry Sanders in football.

“...We were left two days before training camp started with no advance notice, no nothing. We had no clue.”[/quote]

That also plays to the Bulls advantage, since teams had to immediately readjust to them.

[quote]No notice. Not even a hint. So they replaced him with a D-Leaguer because no one else was available. What did they do? You mention injuries with the 05' Lakers. Let's look at injuries with the 94' Bulls. [b]If healthy they would have won 60+. With Pippen and Grant they went 44-15 (75%). That is a 61 win pace over 82 games[/b] and that isn't even getting to the myriad of other injuries they had to role players[/quote]

They also gained Kukoc and Kerr, so you had Kukoc, Kerr, Armstrong and Pippen who could play on the perimeter. Add in Grant and Longley and you have a solid defensive minded team.

[quote]You are going by what he had on his teams. He did not “require” a decent big man who can play defense because peak Shaq was a great interior defender himself.[/quote]

In 2000, yes. His defense was inconsistent, though. Look at what happened when Grant go injured in 96, the Magic couldn't get past the second round without him.

[quote]Jordan required a Paxson or Harper because he could not function with a legit PG. There is only one basketball. Yeah, he could play with one but at the expense of chemistry and ultimately winning.[/quote]

Paxson and Harper had highly limited roles that most guys could play. DFish would have fit perfectly.

[quote]It isn't hard to assemble a team with outside shooters. Practically every team has a few decent ones. How hard is it to find a Derek Fisher?[/quote]

You mean a pg who doesn't handle the ball much and shoots outside most of the time, kind of like Paxson?

[quote]No one has said MJ was a bad playmaker. He was a good one.[/quote]

Ok, cool.


[quote]Sure you can if you give him an elite SF like Pippen or Hill. With Pippen in place of Penny he would have won multiple rings in Orlando (remember, Pippen in Orlando means Kukoc would be the starting SF in Chicago).[/quote]

So who do the Bulls get for Pippen? Shawn Kemp?

[quote]Robertson? How many endorsements did he get in the 60's? He couldn't even drink from some water fountains so how could he become a national pitchman for numerous corporations like MJ did?[/quote]

Bad example. Julius Erving, then.

[quote]Magic and Bird increased the NBA's popularity; Jordan/Stern and their alliance with corporate America took it to another level.[/quote]

Magic doesn't have an alliance with corporate America? :lol Well, ok, then.

[quote]Pippen played in 10 playoff games as a rookie alone. Penny had 3 playoff games under his belt before 1995.[/quote]

Yeah and Penny outplayed him in the playoffs.

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=pippesc01&y1=1990&p2=hardaan01&y2=1996[/url]


[quote]With a Paxson or Harper you need someone else to serve as the primary ballhandler/playmaker. Of course it is easier to find a Paxson or Harper. The problem is finding another player who is not a PG to serve as the chief ballhandler.[/quote]

Except you don't need someone to be the chief ballhandler, just someone who can share some of the playmaking duties, not take over.

Kukoc can do it, as can Armstrong. Chris Mullin would have been capable, as well.

[quote]As I said, you could give his ballhandling role to someone like Kukoc or Odom but that means you have no great player at one forward position and at PG. Jordan needed a second elite teammate to win. How many forwards and C's could fit the bill?[/quote]

Alonzo Mourning, Shawn Kemp, Chris Webber, Kevin Garnett, Dikembe Mutombo, Brad Daugherty, Dennis Rodman, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Robert Parish, Kevin McHale, Tim Duncan, Horace Grant, Buck Williams....

[quote]Remember, my argument is the Shaq could win more with a random team than Jordan. If you are randomly selected players what are the odds that you are going to land a great PF or C using the Kukoc scenario?[/quote]

Depends. If 80s and 90s players are available, the it's no bad.

[quote]Speaking of Kukoc, he actually replaced Pippen as a ballhandler and we know what happened to everyone's FG %...[/quote]

And we know the team was on pace for 56 wins.

[quote]Maybe you should look into why the triangle was implemented in the first place on the Bulls...

You don't need a traditional PG but you need someone to be the primary ballhandler/playmaker because you are in trouble if you give MJ that role.[/quote]

Except Jordan had more assists than anyone else in the 91 playoff run, so that hypothesis goes right out the window.


As for Jordan's impact, look what happened to the Bulls post-98. Worse than the Clippers, imo.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]After 1994, yes, thanks to the Penny fluke but there is a reason that team won 21 games in 1992. Jordan inherited a 27 win team. It isn't as if Shaq joined the 80' Lakers.

Regarding Anderson, I brought it up only after MJ fans brought up Shaq losing in, among other years, 95'. When MJ lost it was the team but when Shaq puts up 28/13 with 6 assists (as a center!) on 60% it is all his fault? That is hypocritical.



Think about that, though. They acquired a very good player in Odom and a young Butler and even if healthy and with Kobe you are projecting them as a 40-45 win team. What does that say about Shaq's impact? The Bulls lost Jordan and gained nothing in exchange for him. As Krause said no team in history ever had to deal with a situation like this, aside from the Lakers with Magic but obviously Magic could not control that. The only other comparable sudden retirements I can think of are Ricky Williams and Barry Sanders in football.

[QUOTE]Except you don't need someone to be the chief ballhandler, just someone who can share some of the playmaking duties, not take over.

Kukoc can do it, as can Armstrong. Chris Mullin would have been capable, as well.[/QUOTE]

Somehow Fisher is the exception.

Regarding the Bulls second 3 peat, Jordan initiated the offense from the post, much like Shaq with the Lakers 2000 title run. DFish/Horry... Harper/Kukoc.... whats the difference?

[QUOTE]Mike didn't need great point guards.[/QUOTE]

He needed to [I]not[/I] have a great point guard. That leaves three positions to find an elite teammate for MJ to win championships. That is what I was saying. Shaq could play with any PG and he would just need an elite perimeter player.

[QUOTE]It made no sense to have MJ in that role. Doesn't mean he couldn't do it though. Pip, for the most part would facilitate of the offense and Jordan would break down the defense allowing the offense to operate, which still is a form of playmaking.[/QUOTE]

Jordan had the ability but not the mentality of a PG and he was human. I can't believe people think he could score 30+ ppg, run the offense, and anchor the defense and remain as effective as he was with that kind of workload over 82 games and in the playoffs. Could he do it? Sure. Would he be as effective as he was? No. Plus, it is not healthy to have a guy who shot more than anyone in the history of the game as your PG.

[QUOTE]Decades play a factor here also. Jordan had the misfortune (but not really) of playing against the Celtics (dynasty), Pistons (cusp of dynasty), Knicks and Cavs in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]

Knicks? Cavs? Shaq lost to a Rockets team that won two straight championships, the Duncan Spurs dynasty, and Malone-Stockton Jazz which won 60+ games two straight years en route to the finals. It isn't as if Shaq was losing to the Hornets or Bullets.

[QUOTE]Nothing special but a serviceable NBA player nonetheless.[/QUOTE]

He was out the NBA in the previous two seasons and barely lasted after 94' for a reason. He just wasn't that good. If Jordan retired in a normal fashion like everyone other this side of Ricky Williams and Barry Sanders, or at least gave them notice that he was considering retiring, do you really think they would have chosen Pete Myers to replace him? They still tried to acquire Jeff Hornacek and Derek Harper but could not pull it off. It would have been easier to find a legit NBA caliber starting SG if they had the entire offseason, or even most of it, to search for one.

[QUOTE]Who complemented Jordan in 85? [/QUOTE]

He had the 12th leading scorer in the league (23 ppg) on his team and a 16 ppg "#3 option."

[QUOTE]That he's worth about ten to 15 wins. [/QUOTE]

Wins are harder to come by as you move up the ladder. It is easier to go from 35 wins to 50 wins than it is to go from 50 wins to 65. Why? You need to have a much better batting average against good teams to get to 65. Do you really think Shaq was worth 10 to 15 wins? That is speculation. We know what happened when Shaq was injured. LA from 2000-04. Wins over 82 games in parentheses.

66-13 (69)
51-23 (57)
51-16 (63)
45-22 (55)
49-18 (60)

Without him from 2001-04:

5-3 (51)
7-8 (38)
5-10 (27)
7-8 (38)

This suggests he was worth 20-30 wins and that he could drag 27-38 win teams without him to championships at his peak.

[QUOTE]That also plays to the Bulls advantage, since teams had to immediately readjust to them.[/QUOTE]

Now you are reaching. The Bulls lost the best player in the league, the alleged "greatest of all-time" and replaced him with nothing and you are claiming this was an advantage? :wtf:

[QUOTE]They also gained Kukoc and Kerr, so you had Kukoc, Kerr, Armstrong and Pippen who could play on the perimeter. Add in Grant and Longley and you have a solid defensive minded team.[/QUOTE]

Three of those five players were bench players. Teams change rosters all the time. Were the 05' Lakers and the 97' Magic the same exact teams as the previous years?

Kukoc was a rookie, Kerr was barely staying in the league and Longley a second year player at the time.

The Bulls replaced the "greatest of all-time" with a combo of a guy who was out the NBA for the previous two seasons and another guy who was barely staying in the league at the time in Myers and Kerr. Their other key addition was Kukoc.

Who replaced Shaq? In Orlando he was replaced by a very good C in Rony Seikley. He put up 17/10 that year. Yet the team still collapsed! In LA he was replaced by a scrub but the Orlando example is revealing. Even when replaced by a very good player the team still could not do anything without Shaq!

To recap: you can replace Jordan with a guy who could not even make it as a 12th man in the previous two years and remain a top 5 team. You can replace Shaq with a 17/10 center who was top 10 at his position throughout the 90's and still not do anything. So who added more value to his team? The answer is obvious...

[QUOTE]Look at what happened when Grant go injured in 96, the Magic couldn't get past the second round without him.[/QUOTE]

? They made the ECF and that is when Grant got hurt. They lost to a 72-10 team. Even with Grant they would lose that series. There is no shame losing to that 72-10 juggernaut.

[QUOTEYou mean a pg who doesn't handle the ball much and shoots outside most of the time, kind of like Paxson?][/QUOTE]

Again, of course you could put any clown at PG. You would still need someone to perform the actual duties of a PG.

[QUOTE]So who do the Bulls get for Pippen? Shawn Kemp?
[/QUOTE]

What does Kemp have to do with Orlando? This was just an example. The point was Shaq could win rings without an elite guard if he had an elite SF like Pippen or Hill.

Dr. J and Magic were hardly the the corporate spokesmen Jordan was. Jordan is in a class by himself. Anyway this is off topic. If you want to talk about marketing post a thread asking if there is a single American athlete whose level of marketing approaches that of MJ. Read the Halberstam book. He talks about Stern's plans and how MJ fit perfectly into them.

[QUOTE]Alonzo Mourning, Shawn Kemp, Chris Webber, Kevin Garnett, Dikembe Mutombo, Brad Daugherty, Dennis Rodman, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Robert Parish, Kevin McHale, Tim Duncan, Horace Grant, Buck Williams....
[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: @ the notion that Jordan could win rings with some of these guys as his second best player. Buck Williams? Grant? I notice you left Charles Oakley of that list. He is comparable to Horace Grant. What did Jordan did when Oakley was his second best player? He also had Rodman as his second best player for a half a season and a 69 win team became a 55-56 win team.

What you also did is pick any all-star PF or C from the mid 80's to the late 90's to make the list appear large. In a given season there were only a handful of people at each position who fit that bill. This thread is about 1987-1993.

PF's MJ could win with from 1987-1993: Barkley, Malone, McHale
C's MJ could win with from 1987-1993: Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Daughetry, Shaq (1993)

You may argue he could win with a few others but the general point stands. I listed three PF's and five C's, with one center being available for only one of those seasons. That leaves seven elite big men Jordan could have won with (and McHale declined and was not elite for some of those years and Robinson did not even begin to play until 1990). What are the odds of randomly selecting players and winding up with Ewing or Malone?

Shaq could win with any elite wing player and as well as with an elite PF like Duncan or Webber. Shaq fits in with 99% of teams since he can win with an elite player at any position.

[QUOTE]Depends. If 80s and 90s players are available, the it's no bad. [/QUOTE]

According to the above the odds actually are. I am talking about elite players, namely all-NBA caliber players not all-star caliber players like Horace Grant and Charles Oakley as your second best player. Jordan could not win with someone like Oakley as his second best player as was proven.

[QUOTE]And we know the team was on pace for 56 wins. [/QUOTE]

And? I thought Pippen was easily replicable as a playmaker? That is what the guy I responded to said even though when Pippen actually was replaced the team suffered. 56 wins sounds nice but not compared to 69 with the same team the previous year. You may say 13 wins but there is a huge difference between a 69 win caliber team and a 56 win caliber team. 56 wins=10' Mavs and 10' Hawks. 69 wins=immortal teams.

[QUOTE]As for Jordan's impact, look what happened to the Bulls post-98. Worse than the Clippers, imo.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: Jordan alone did not leave. Pippen, Rodman, Jackson and even Longley were gone. Come on. You are really reaching now. Shaq left and was replaced by a top 10 center and his team collapsed. Jordan left and was replaced by a scrub and his team remained a top 5 team in 94'. That speaks for itself. There is no need to reach with respect to Shaq because his record time and again shows the value he had to his teams.

Look, Jordan was a great player. As I said he may been superior individually to prime Shaq. It is just easier to build around a dominant center than a dominant guard. I am not saying Shaq>Jordan. I have Jordan #3 or #4 all-time and Shaq #5.

[QUOTE]Mj was playing with pax since 87. WTF are you talking about???[/QUOTE]

Paxson did not get solidified as a starter until 1990.

[QUOTE]He needed to [I]not[/I] have a great point guard. That leaves three positions to find an elite teammate for MJ to win championships. That is what I was saying. Shaq could play with any PG and he would just need an elite perimeter player. [/QUOTE]
Well, he didn't even have a chance to play with one. Whats the difference then playing with a point forward, and a point guard though? They start the offense the same way. Just end up at a different position in the end.


[QUOTE]Jordan had the ability but not the mentality of a PG and he was human. I can't believe people think he could score 30+ ppg, run the offense, and anchor the defense and remain as effective as he was with that kind of workload over 82 games and in the playoffs. Could he do it? Sure. Would he be as effective as he was? No. Plus, it is not healthy to have a guy who shot more than anyone in the history of the game as your PG.[/QUOTE]
Well, jordan did it. Its not good for the team though, I think thats one of the biggest problems with the Cavs. Lebron is the first option on offense, and the only passer. Doesn't usually work out well.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
He had the 12th leading scorer in the league (23 ppg) on his team and a 16 ppg "#3 option."[/quote]

Wooldrige and Dailey? Both of the were cokeheads and dysfunctional. I would hardly call them good teammates.



[quote]Wins are harder to come by as you move up the ladder. It is easier to go from 35 wins to 50 wins than it is to go from 50 wins to 65. Why? You need to have a much better batting average against good teams to get to 65. Do you really think Shaq was worth 10 to 15 wins? That is speculation. We know what happened when Shaq was injured. LA from 2000-04. Wins over 82 games in parentheses.

66-13 (69)
51-23 (57)
51-16 (63)
45-22 (55)
49-18 (60)

Without him from 2001-04:

5-3 (51)
7-8 (38)
5-10 (27)
7-8 (38)

This suggests he was worth 20-30 wins and that he could drag 27-38 win teams without him to championships at his peak.[/quote]

In 05, though, they won 34 games without Jackson plus Kobe and Odom both played less than 68 games each. With Jackson and a healthy roster, tha team easily wins 40-45 games.

[quote]Now you are reaching. The Bulls lost the best player in the league, the alleged "greatest of all-time" and replaced him with nothing and you are claiming this was an advantage? :wtf:[/quote]

The timing was an adantage, not his actual absence. If he had left early, teams would have had time to prepare their stategies against the Bulls. Him leaving without notice takes away any chance of that.



[quote]Three of those five players were bench players. Teams change rosters all the time. Were the 05' Lakers and the 97' Magic the same exact teams as the previous years?

Kukoc was a rookie, Kerr was barely staying in the league and Longley a second year player at the time.

The Bulls replaced the "greatest of all-time" with a combo of a guy who was out the NBA for the previous two seasons and another guy who was barely staying in the league at the time in Myers and Kerr. Their other key addition was Kukoc.[/quote]

They then turned the team into a defensive juggernaught. Kerr and the rest were just fine in their roles.

[quote]Who replaced Shaq? In Orlando he was replaced by a very good C in Rony Seikley. He put up 17/10 that year. Yet the team still collapsed! In LA he was replaced by a scrub but the Orlando example is revealing. Even when replaced by a very good player the team still could not do anything without Shaq![/quote]

Lol, they won 45 games despite Penny, Grant, Anderson and Scott missing 15 games each. They didn't collapse.

[quote]To recap: you can replace Jordan with a guy who could not even make it as a 12th man in the previous two years and remain a top 5 team. You can replace Shaq with a 17/10 center who was top 10 at his position throughout the 90's and still not do anything. So who added more value to his team? The answer is obvious...[/quote]

O RLY? :lol

[quote]? They made the ECF and that is when Grant got hurt. They lost to a 72-10 team. Even with Grant they would lose that series. There is no shame losing to that 72-10 juggernaut.[/quote]

No, but they had a chance. Sorry, Imean to say the ECF before, not the Semi-Finals.

[quote]Again, of course you could put any clown at PG. You would still need someone to perform the actual duties of a PG.[/quote]

Yeah, have Jordan share duties with a guy like Armstrong or Kukoc. Then team them up with Oakley or Rodman and you'd have a 50+win team.


[quote][b]Dr. J and Magic were hardly the the corporate spokesmen Jordan was.[/b] Jordan is in a class by himself. Anyway this is off topic. If you want to talk about marketing post a thread asking if there is a single American athlete whose level of marketing approaches that of MJ. Read the Halberstam book. He talks about Stern's plans and how MJ fit perfectly into them.[/quote]

Dr. J, maybe, but Magic? Come on, you're fooling yourself now. :oldlol:



[quote]:oldlol: @ the notion that Jordan could win rings with some of these guys as his second best player. Buck Williams? Grant? I notice you left Charles Oakley of that list. He is comparable to Horace Grant. What did Jordan did when Oakley was his second best player? He also had Rodman as his second best player for a half a season and a 69 win team became a 55-56 win team.[/quote]

Rodman and him were both over 35. So a middle aged Jordan and Rodman were capable of leading a team to a 56 win season? Nothing wrong with that.

[quote]What you also did is pick any all-star PF or C from the mid 80's to the late 90's to make the list appear large. In a given season there were only a handful of people at each position who fit that bill. This thread is about 1987-1993.

PF's MJ could win with from 1987-1993: Barkley, Malone, McHale
C's MJ could win with from 1987-1993: Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Daughetry, Shaq (1993)

You may argue he could win with a few others but the general point stands. I listed three PF's and five C's, with one center being available for only one of those seasons. That leaves seven elite big men Jordan could have won with (and McHale declined and was not elite for some of those years and Robinson did not even begin to play until 1990). What are the odds of randomly selecting players and winding up with Ewing or Malone?[/quote]

You forgot Buck Williams, Robert Parish, Tom Chambers, Bill Laimbeer, James Worthy and AC Green. 87-93 was pretty loaded wit good frontcourt stars.

[quote]Shaq could win with any elite wing player and as well as with an elite PF like Duncan or Webber. Shaq fits in with 99% of teams since he can win with an elite player at any position.[/quote]

Tell that to Rodman.

[quote]According to the above the odds actually are. I am talking about elite players, namely all-NBA caliber players not all-star caliber players like Horace Grant and Charles Oakley as your second best player. Jordan could not win with someone like Oakley as his second best player as was proven.[/quote]

That was with no Phil Jackson on the team. Also, Jordan along with Kukoc and Oakley is actually a pretty decent lineup.

[quote]And? I thought Pippen was easily replicable as a playmaker? That is what the guy I responded to said even though when Pippen actually was replaced the team suffered. 56 wins sounds nice but not compared to 69 with the same team the previous year. You may say 13 wins but there is a huge difference between a 69 win caliber team and a 56 win caliber team. 56 wins=10' Mavs and 10' Hawks. 69 wins=immortal teams.[/quote]

69 wins+ a championship= immortal. Also, didn't they finish with 62 wins? Assuming the Bulls actually did win 56 games without Pippen, then he was really only worth 6 wins. So Jordan is worth two wins while Pippen is worth 6. :lol

[quote]:oldlol: Jordan alone did not leave. Pippen, Rodman, Jackson and even Longley were gone. Come on. You are really reaching now.[/quote]

Lol, then why mention the 05 Lakers as evidence of Shaq's dominance?

[quote]Shaq left and was replaced by a top 10 center and his team collapsed. Jordan left and was replaced by a scrub and his team remained a top 5 team in 94'. That speaks for itself. There is no need to reach with respect to Shaq because his record time and again shows the value he had to his teams.[/quote]

I already explained that Orlando had multiple injuries the following season.

I think people forget that MJ won the title in 1991 with role players as he had no other allstar on the team.

Seems as though I really hurt Roundball's feelings this time. It's as if the dude was actually kicking and screaming when he wrote those posts in where he quoted me.

[QUOTE] Well, he didn't even have a chance to play with one. Whats the difference then playing with a point forward, and a point guard though? They start the offense the same way. Just end up at a different position in the end. [/QUOTE]

He couldn't. Even if he did they would no longer be great because Jordan needed the ball so much (#1 all-time in usage).

The difference is a point forward like Pippen can remain an elite player alongside Jordan because he didn't need the ball to be effective. What elite PG's could function well if they had the ball less than they had for their entire careers in the triangle in the first place and with Jordan in the second? That is what they do: dominate the ball and make plays for others. With Jordan that is thrown out of whack, especially late in games when Jordan would take 90% of the shots. What good would a Steve Nash be late in a game if he is relegated to bringing the ball up and then watching Jordan isolate?

[QUOTE]Wooldrige and Dailey? Both of the were cokeheads and dysfunctional. I would hardly call them good teammates.[/QUOTE]

23 ppg is 23 ppg regardless of what the guy does off the court.

[QUOTE]In 05, though, they won 34 games without Jackson plus Kobe and Odom both played less than 68 games each. With Jackson and a healthy roster, tha team easily wins 40-45 games.[/QUOTE]

No dispute there but 40-45 wins means nothing. Any team with a top 5 player should be able to win that many games almost solely on the strength of that player.

[QUOTE]The timing was an adantage, not his actual absence. If he had left early, teams would have had time to prepare their stategies against the Bulls. Him leaving without notice takes away any chance of that. [/QUOTE]

:wtf: This is news to Phil Jackson, Scottie Pippen, Jerry Krause and everyone else involved with that team. Your argument is Jordan retiring at the last possible minute helped them because of the element of surprise even though they had no time to find a legit NBA starter to replace him? How about the damage to team morale Jordan's retirement did? Kukoc was in tears when he heard the news.

[QUOTE]They then turned the team into a defensive juggernaught[/QUOTE]

:roll: @ Luc Longley, Steve Kerr, and Toni Kukoc being the reasons for the Bulls having a great defense. They didn't turn into anything. They remained what they were in the preceding years: a great defense.

[QUOTE]Lol, they won 45 games despite Penny, Grant, Anderson and Scott missing 15 games each. They didn't collapse. [/QUOTE]

60 wins and the ECF (losing to a 72 win team) to 45 wins and getting crushed in the first round is a collapse. They were nowhere near elite without Shaq.

[QUOTE]O RLY? [/QUOTE]

It is a shame Krause failed to pull off the Hornacek trade. He is comparable to Seikaly in that he was a top 10 SG. Give the 94' Bulls Hornacek instead of Harper and they win it all...

[QUOTE]No, but they had a chance. Sorry, Imean to say the ECF before, not the Semi-Finals.[/QUOTE]

72-10. Zero chance.

[QUOTE]Yeah, have Jordan share duties with a guy like Armstrong or Kukoc. Then team them up with Oakley or Rodman and you'd have a 50+win team.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but read what you just said. Your scenario involves him having a good wing player like Armstrong and Kukoc along with an all-star caliber PF who is dominant defensively. Shaq could win 50+ with any team. Put peak Shaq on any team in the league this year and they become a 50+ win team imo, with he exception of the Nets.

[QUOTE]Dr. J, maybe, but Magic? Come on, you're fooling yourself now[/QUOTE]

There is no one in the history of American sports and perhaps global sports who had anywhere near the level of marketing behind him that Jordan did. Comparing him to Magic is a joke. The proper comparison is presidential campaigns...

[QUOTE]Rodman and him were both over 35. So a middle aged Jordan and Rodman were capable of leading a team to a 56 win season? Nothing wrong with that. [/QUOTE]

Rodman was still a great defender and the best rebounder in the league. That was also a 69 win team the previous year. It was hardly a random team. Parachute Jordan and Rodman to the 10' Knicks or 10' Sixers and do they contend for 55+ wins?

What about Jordan and young Oakley? 38-44, 9-9, 40-42 in the regular season and 1-9 in the playoffs. Oak was #2 in rebounding in the last two seasons so you can't play the "he sucked back then" card.

[QUOTE]You forgot Buck Williams, Robert Parish, Tom Chambers, Bill Laimbeer, James Worthy and AC Green. 87-93 was pretty loaded wit good frontcourt stars.[/QUOTE]

Jordan would won absolutely nothing with Laimbeer, Green and Williams. Maybe Chambers and Worthy.

[QUOTE]That was with no Phil Jackson on the team. [/QUOTE]

lol so now Jordan "needs" the GOAT coach? Add that to the list. Thanks. I forgot that. Shaq could reach the NBA finals with Brian Hill.

[QUOTE]69 wins+ a championship= immortal. Also, didn't they finish with 62 wins? [/QUOTE]

They were on pace for 67 when Pippen played.

[QUOTE]then why mention the 05 Lakers as evidence of Shaq's dominance? [/QUOTE]

? I mentioned his entire record during or near his prime. Orlando before and after him. LA before and after. Miami before him. LA was 24-39 without him from 2001-2004. That says it all. I won't even bother calculating their W-L record with him because we all know they were championship caliber 60+ win teams with him.

[QUOTE]I already explained that Orlando had multiple injuries the following season.[/QUOTE]

Penny was amazing in the playoffs. The injury excuse does not cut it. Every team has injuries. The Bulls had a lot of injuries in 94' too. When healthy they were a 60+ caliber win. Their starting C was injured in the playoffs and Pippen got hurt at the end of Game 1 against the Knicks when the Bulls were leading.

[QUOTE]Seems as though I really hurt Roundball's feelings this time. It's as if the dude was actually kicking and screaming when he wrote those posts in where he quoted me.[/QUOTE]

Don't flatter yourself. I was going to post those things anyway to make the case for Shaq being more valuable to a random team.

[QUOTE]He couldn't. Even if he did they would no longer be great because Jordan needed the ball so much (#1 all-time in usage).

The difference is a point forward like Pippen can remain an elite player alongside Jordan because he didn't need the ball to be effective. What elite PG's could function well if they had the ball less than they had for their entire careers in the triangle in the first place and with Jordan in the second? That is what they do: dominate the ball and make plays for others. With Jordan that is thrown out of whack, especially late in games when Jordan would take 90% of the shots. What good would a Steve Nash be late in a game if he is relegated to bringing the ball up and then watching Jordan isolate?[/QUOTE]
Nash would have trouble with if you replaced him with pippen. A guy like Stockton, or Payton, or Probably Kidd, he'd be good with.
There isn't a difference between what a point guard and a point forward does though. Just play on different positions on the floor. At least for you're average point. Nash needs the ball in his hands nonstop to be effective, and he wouldn't be a good fit on a lot of teams.
Though the same arguement could be made for guys like Bird, and Jerry West, and kobe. None of them needed the ball any less then Jordan.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]

23 ppg is 23 ppg regardless of what the guy does off the court.[/quote]

Neither of them stayed in town long. Just goes to show that scoring alone doesn't make you a good player.



[quote]No dispute there but 40-45 wins means nothing. Any team with a top 5 player should be able to win that many games almost solely on the strength of that player.[/quote]

Unless they lose three of their best players from the previous year, then it get's a bit tricky.

[quote]:wtf: This is news to Phil Jackson, Scottie Pippen, Jerry Krause and everyone else involved with that team. Your argument is Jordan retiring at the last possible minute helped them because of the element of surprise even though they had no time to find a legit NBA starter to replace him? How about the damage to team morale Jordan's retirement did? Kukoc was in tears when he heard the news.[/quote]

What damage? Who on that team had their psyche damaged beyond repair from him leaving? Sure, it was a big shock, but I doubt anyone was that badly affected. Kukoc crying? He never got to play with Jordan, I would have been bummed too, but I'd get over it.

[quote]:roll: @ Luc Longley, Steve Kerr, and Toni Kukoc being the reasons for the Bulls having a great defense. They didn't turn into anything. They remained what they were in the preceding years: a great defense.[/quote]

LOL, never said they were responsible for the team's defense. They did play decently, though.

[quote]60 wins and the ECF (losing to a 72 win team) to 45 wins and getting crushed in the first round is a collapse. They were nowhere near elite without Shaq.[/quote]

Four starters missed at least 15 games each. If they were all healthy, 50 wins was plausible, maybe more.

[quote]It is a shame Krause failed to pull off the Hornacek trade. He is comparable to Seikaly in that he was a top 10 SG. Give the 94' Bulls Hornacek instead of Harper and they win it all...[/quote]

They had their chance after game six and blew it. They might have gotten to the ECF, maybe.

[quote]Yeah but read what you just said. Your scenario involves him having a good wing player like Armstrong and Kukoc along with an all-star caliber PF who is dominant defensively. Shaq could win 50+ with any team. Put peak Shaq on any team in the league this year and they become a 50+ win team imo, with he exception of the Nets.[/quote]

New York, Minnesota, the Clippers? Really? Because I don't see it/

[quote]There is no one in the history of American sports and perhaps global sports who had anywhere near the level of marketing behind him that Jordan did. Comparing him to Magic is a joke. The proper comparison is presidential campaigns...[/quote]

Not really. Magic played in LA, there was no way he wasn't getting exposure. Only until 91 did people start calling Jordan better.

[quote]Rodman was still a great defender and the best rebounder in the league. That was also a 69 win team the previous year. It was hardly a random team. Parachute Jordan and Rodman to the 10' Knicks or 10' Sixers and do they contend for 55+ wins?[/quote]

Jordan and Rodman in D'Antoni's system? Definitely. 50 if they're not trying.

What about Jordan and young Oakley? 38-44, 9-9, 40-42 in the regular season and 1-9 in the playoffs. Oak was #2 in rebounding in the last two seasons so you can't play the "he sucked back then" card.



[quote]Jordan would won absolutely nothing with Laimbeer, Green and Williams. Maybe Chambers and Worthy.[/quote]

:lol If you say so.



lol so now Jordan "needs" the GOAT coach? Add that to the list. Thanks. I forgot that. Shaq could reach the NBA finals with Brian Hill.



[quote]They were on pace for 67 when Pippen played.[/quote]

[b]On pace[/b].

[quote]? I mentioned his entire record during or near his prime. Orlando before and after him. LA before and after. Miami before him. LA was 24-39 without him from 2001-2004. That says it all. I won't even bother calculating their W-L record with him because we all know they were championship caliber 60+ win teams with him.[/quote]

Their record from 01-04 does not apply to the 05 team. The lineups are totally different and they had two different mentalities.

[quote]Penny was amazing in the playoffs. The injury excuse does not cut it. Every team has injuries. The Bulls had a lot of injuries in 94' too. When healthy they were a 60+ caliber win. Their starting C was injured in the playoffs and Pippen got hurt at the end of Game 1 against the Knicks when the Bulls were leading.[/quote]

The Magic's starting lineup missed many more games. The injury explanation still stands.

[QUOTE]Unless they lose three of their best players from the previous year, then it get's a bit tricky. [/QUOTE]

What three players did they lose from 2001-2004 every time Shaq got injured?

[QUOTE]What damage? Who on that team had their psyche damaged beyond repair from him leaving? Sure, it was a big shock, but I doubt anyone was that badly affected.[/QUOTE]

It left a void. Their morale was naturally not 100% early in the season. Fortunately, when Pippen came back they went on a 30-5 roll and got their confidence back. Sort of. They weren't dumb. They realized they had a glaring weakness and SG and wanted that remedied. Pippen even publicly criticized the team for failing to do so when the Knicks replaced Doc Rivers (with Derek Harper) practically overnight when he got hurt while the Bulls never replaced MJ in 94'.

[QUOTE]They had their chance after game six and blew it.[/QUOTE]

I don't recall seeing Jeff Hornacek in Game 7. :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE]New York, Minnesota, the Clippers? Really? Because I don't see it/ [/QUOTE]

Imo yes. He was that good at his peak.

[QUOTE]Not really. Magic played in LA, there was no way he wasn't getting exposure. Only until 91 did people start calling Jordan better.[/QUOTE

Timing. Of course he got exposure. There is no need to even discuss this. Everyone knows MJ by far had the biggest marketing campaign in American sports history behind him. If you want to compare him select a presidential campaign, not Magic or any other athlete. Jordan was on another level.

[QUOTE]Jordan and Rodman in D'Antoni's system? Definitely. 50 if they're not trying.[/QUOTE]

I disagree but this is speculation.

[QUOTE]Their record from 01-04 does not apply to the 05 team. The lineups are totally different and they had two different mentalities.[/QUOTE]

Who cares about 05'? His total record speaks for itself. 01'-04' are even better because it was the same exact team with the only difference being Shaq was out at times. What happened?

[QUOTE]The Magic's starting lineup missed many more games. [/QUOTE]

I won't even bother looking it up. Who cares? They were on different levels. One maybe would have hit 50 wins and the other would have won 60+ if healthy.