Re: FACT: MJ never lost a series where his team had the HCA.
[QUOTE=Young X]I always bring this up and I'm gonna do it again. In Jordan's 15 seasons he was on a contender only from '90-'98.
Outside of those years, every other team he was on was terrible.
He and the Bulls had about 7 realistic chances to win a ring and they ended up with 6 of them.
The one they didn't get? Took the defending (and eventual repeat champion) Pistons to game 7 of the ECF as the underdog in 1990. Jordan averaged about 32/7/6 on 57 TS% in the series against one of the toughest defenses of all time. Maybe they could've won if Pippen didn't have that migraine.[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
Re: FACT: MJ never lost a series where his team had the HCA.
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]But an injured Wilt, or a Wilt who had major knee surgery, came back way before expectations, played three poor regular season games...and loses a game seven in the Finals against a heavily-favored Knick team, in a game in which he hung a 21-24 statline, in a series in which he hung a 23-24 .625 FG% stat-line? Nope, no excuses for Wilt.[/QUOTE]
Who even brought up the Knicks series? But anyways, my only gripe with Wilt in 1970 is that he dropped 45 in game 6 and had a hobbled Reed in game 7 and he should've tried to do more and be more aggressive. But he wasn't. But in the grand scheme of things, I don't hold 1970 against him too much given the fact that the Knicks were a better team.
Re: FACT: MJ never lost a series where his team had the HCA.
[QUOTE=GrapeApe]I don't think there's any debate that Jordan wasn't fully himself in 1995. You cannot have a 2 year absence and return to top form in 17 games. Not at the highest level of basketball. More importantly, it's impossible to establish (or reestablish) championship level chemistry in that short a time frame. He was certainly capable of a dominant single game performance, he could do that on talent alone, but it takes time to fine-tune all the nuances of the game.[/QUOTE]
Gets it. Having a great individual scoring game is NOT the same as being in sync with your teammates and having your basketball legs under you for the long, playoff grind.
Re: FACT: MJ never lost a series where his team had the HCA.
[QUOTE=iamgine]If we're to make excuses that he only lost to All-time great legendary teams, we should also note that he never faced All-time great legendary teams once he started winning.[/QUOTE]
It's all relative. The Blazers, Suns, Sonics, and Jazz from top to bottom were as talented, if not moreso, than the Bulls were. The Knicks were also, from 1-12, more loaded. After you got past MJ, Pippen, and Grant/Rodman( and Kukoc as a supersub), the Bulls had otherwise marginally talented players. The main difference was Jordan was the best player on the court no matter who they faced.
Re: FACT: MJ never lost a series where his team had the HCA.
[QUOTE=livinglegend]Jordan also had a team that could win 55 games without him (the team wasn't even fully healthy). FACT[/QUOTE]
Yup. MJ was the DIFFERENCE between a 55 win, 2nd round exit team to an all-time great team that won 72 games and 69 games the two years after that and 3 peated.
Also, you can't ignore fact that the Bulls were a well coached, well oiled machine when MJ left and had that confidence of champions. Sort of like if Duncan was out for a year, do you think that a Pop coached team would fall on its face? Of course not. But winning 50+ games in one season is different from being a 3 peat team. Also, you have to factor in that the Bulls added Kukoc, Kerry and Longley that season.
Re: FACT: MJ never lost a series where his team had the HCA.
[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]Who even brought up the Knicks series? But anyways, my only gripe with Wilt in 1970 is that he dropped 45 in game 6 and had a hobbled Reed in game 7 and he should've tried to do more and be more aggressive. But he wasn't. But in the grand scheme of things, I don't hold 1970 against him too much given the fact that the Knicks were a better team.[/QUOTE]
The thing is, Chamberlain only had ONE poor post-season SERIES in his NBA career. And that was in his '68-69 season, and it came with a horrific coach, who openly despised Wilt. Van Breda Kolff's coaching ultimately cost the city of Los Angeles their first NBA title. Of course, when LA brought in Bill Sharman a couple of years later, they went on their 33 game winning streak, hung a 69-13 regular season, and blew thru their opposition in the post-season en route to a dominating title.
The "bashers" basically use Chamberlain's '69 post-season as some kind of epitome of his entire post-season career.
Let me ask you this...swap rosters (and coaches) with Russell, and how many rings does Wilt end up with? And then, where would you rank him all-time?
Re: FACT: MJ never lost a series where his team had the HCA.
[QUOTE=iamgine]If we're to make excuses that he only lost to All-time great legendary teams, we should also note that he never faced All-time great legendary teams once he started winning.[/QUOTE]
It's hard to be a legendary team when MJ's team beats everyone doesn't it? :oldlol: Say the Bulls lost to the Jazz twice, history would view the Jazz as a "legendary" team would they not? But again, MJ didn't let it get to that.
Re: FACT: MJ never lost a series where his team had the HCA.
[QUOTE=ballinhun8]They also were 34-31 without him the next year before he came back
Did you know that son?[/QUOTE]
Of course not. They CLING to the 1993-94 season as if that's proof that the Bulls were a great team. As I said above, it's sort of like if Duncan was out for a year in a Pop coached team. Do you think they would fall flat on their face? Of course not. The years of playing in the same system, of being well coached, of having that championship swagger along with adding key pieces (Kukoc, Kerr, Longley) would all play a factor in having that team stay competitive. But being competitive isn't the same as being championship caliber.
Re: FACT: MJ never lost a series where his team had the HCA.
[QUOTE=tmacattack33]Okay...so that would just mean that he did worse than we mighta expected on the road. :confusedshrug:
He's great and he is the GOAT, but weird stats like this are irrelevant. Just as you might think its good that he took care of business when he had HCA, someone else can say that this is not a good thing because it means he was rattled when he didn't have HCA.[/QUOTE]
Again, look at the teams he faced when he first came into the league. They weren't just solid teams that had a slight edge in wins but all-time great teams. A great individual talent has no chance against an all-time great team. None.
But still, the fact is, when MJ had the HCA, he never lost. And he also won 6 playoff series when he didn't have HCA.
Re: FACT: MJ never lost a series where his team had the HCA.
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]The thing is, Chamberlain only had ONE poor post-season SERIES in his NBA career. And that was in his '68-69 season, and it came with a horrific coach, who openly despised Wilt. Van Breda Kolff's coaching ultimately cost the city of Los Angeles their first NBA title. Of course, when LA brought in Bill Sharman a couple of years later, they went on their 33 game winning streak, hung a 69-13 regular season, and blew thru their opposition in the post-season en route to a dominating title.
The "bashers" basically use Chamberlain's '69 post-season as some kind of epitome of his entire post-season career.
[B]Let me ask you this...swap rosters (and coaches) with Russell, and how many rings does Wilt end up with? And then, where would you rank him all-time[/B]?[/QUOTE]
There's no way to answer that. You play to win the game, not put up great numbers. Stats can be empty and misleading. You can get yours at the expense of winning. On the flip side, you can be very impactful while putting up mediocre numbers.
Watching docs of both Russell and Wilt, one thing is very clear, Russell took the game seriously. He was all business on the court. Legendary mind game tricks. Tried everything he could to try to win. Always thinking. That's the type of mentality you need to have to be a 11 time champ. He was a killer.
Wilt came across as kind of aloof and sort of a individual stats guy. And all of that plays a factor in those crucial situations when it's do or die.
Re: FACT: MJ never lost a series where his team had the HCA.
[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]There's no way to answer that. You play to win the game, not put up great numbers. Stats can be empty and misleading. You can get yours at the expense of winning. On the flip side, you can be very impactful while putting up mediocre numbers.
Watching docs of both Russell and Wilt, one thing is very clear, Russell took the game seriously. He was all business on the court. Legendary mind game tricks. Tried everything he could to try to win. Always thinking. That's the type of mentality you need to have to be a 11 time champ. He was a killer.
Wilt came across as kind of aloof and sort of a individual stats guy. And all of that plays a factor in those crucial situations when it's do or die.[/QUOTE]
And yet, in their H2H's, it was almost always Wilt who was coming up big...especially in their biggest games, and in the biggest moments.
Had those two swapped rosters, and Russell being asked to carry mediocre teammates who played even worse in the post-season, and there is no doubt in my mind that John Wooden was right....
It would have been Wilt holding all those rings.
Re: FACT: MJ never lost a series where his team had the HCA.
The crux of the matter is this: MJ always won when he should have( HCA, better team) and lost when he should have(no HCA, worse team). You'd have hell to find many situations where the Bulls actually lost [I]because of[/I] MJ under-performing well below his capabilities, especially once he hit his prime.
Re: FACT: MJ never lost a series where his team had the HCA.
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]And yet, in their H2H's, it was almost always Wilt who was coming up big...especially in their biggest games, and in the biggest moments.
Had those two swapped rosters, [B]and Russell being asked to carry mediocre teammates who played even worse in the post-season[/B], and there is no doubt in my mind that John Wooden was right....
It would have been Wilt holding all those rings.[/QUOTE]
Don't do this again man. It's a fact Wilt had plenty of help once he went to Phila and the Lakers. He lost twice to Russell with HCA in 1968 and 1969. And those were Russell's last 2 seasons in the league. He was close to the end and Wilt still couldn't take advantage. Heck, in 1969, Russell was the HC also. No one in the world expected the Celtics to beat the Lakers that year. And for the Lakers to lose game 7 at home by 2? That's a big hit on Wilt's legacy.
Re: FACT: MJ never lost a series where his team had the HCA.
For example, I don't hold 2007 and 2015 against LeBron. He really had no chance. If Bron had done the impossible in 2015, that would've been a huge feather in his cap but he came up short and that's no big deal. And I think most objective fans think the same way. 2011 is another story.
So why can't some of you accept the fact that MJ really had no chance against the Celtics and Pistons until he got more help later in his career?
Re: FACT: MJ never lost a series where his team had the HCA.
[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]Don't do this again man. It's a fact Wilt had plenty of help once he went to Phila and the Lakers. He lost twice to Russell with HCA in 1968 and 1969. And those were Russell's last 2 seasons in the league. He was close to the end and Wilt still couldn't take advantage. Heck, in 1969, Russell was the HC also. No one in the world expected the Celtics to beat the Lakers that year. And for the Lakers to lose game 7 at home by 2? That's a big hit on Wilt's legacy.[/QUOTE]
NO ONE expected the REMNANTS of the '68 Sixers, a team that was DECIMATED by injuries to even get to the Celtics in the '68 EDF's. NO ONE.
And yet, with HALF of their roster injured, or missing completely, they STILL took a 3-1 series lead, and wound up losing a game seven by FOUR points.
A HEALTHY '68 Sixer team would have repeated their annihilation of the '67 Celtics ( a 60-21 team that was stacked from 1-10...and yet the Sixers still destroyed them.)
'69? After Wilt and West, the Celtics were a better team. And sorry, but Baylor was of no use in that series. He had games of 2-14, 4-18, and 8-22 in losses.
And even then, LA was ONE PLAY away from winning that series, 4-1. BUT, with an incompetent coach putting the ball in Egan's hands at the end of game four, the result was inevitable.
Oh, and in that game seven, Chamberlain easily outplayed Russell. Had Russell's teammates not outshot Wilt's teammates by a .477 to .360 margin in that game seven, and Wilt would have won yet another ring.
And AGAIN, you are holding ONE playoff series H2H between them against Wilt. And again, Wilt outplayed Russell in that series, and easily outplayed him in game seven.
Next...
