It's not questionable. Just the usual skinny jean, frame-less glasses wearing, hipster bullshit with herbs trying to be 'ironic'. #SoEdgy
Printable View
It's not questionable. Just the usual skinny jean, frame-less glasses wearing, hipster bullshit with herbs trying to be 'ironic'. #SoEdgy
I agree that he is, but the debate is there because of how terrible the first 1/3rd of career is:
First 5 years:
Seasons above .500: TWO
Playoffs: 13-23 (0 Finals appearances)
Tack on a pretty terrible ending to your career, and you got some good reasons to suggest that maybe he wasn't the GOAT. Certainly most of the rest of the guys on the top 5 list like Russell or Kareem or Duncan never had a terrible beginning or ending to their career...theirs were great throughout, with more success overall and without the terrible blemishes that Jordan had...not to mention none of those guys played for the greatest coach of all time, who proved he could win lots of titles without MJ.
[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]
Btw, you wanna tell me if MJ had changed teams in the '90's, you would have stopped being a fan of his? Please..[/QUOTE]
MJ's not a coward like LeBron, so not possible.
[QUOTE=ninephive]I agree that he is, but the debate is there because of how terrible the first 1/3rd of career is:
First 5 years:
Seasons above .500: TWO
Playoffs: 13-23 (0 Finals appearances)
Tack on a pretty terrible ending to your career, and you got some good reasons to suggest that maybe he wasn't the GOAT. Certainly most of the rest of the guys on the top 5 list like Russell or Kareem or Duncan never had a terrible beginning or ending to their career...theirs were great throughout, with more success overall and without the terrible blemishes that Jordan had...not to mention none of those guys played for the greatest coach of all time, who proved he could win lots of titles without MJ.[/QUOTE]The problem with your posts is you think team success = individual greatness. How the **** was the 1st 1/3 of MJ's career terrible? He was playing at an extremely high level very few players have reached. Duncan and Russell never played with terrible teammates like Jordan did early in his career.
And going by your logic, what about KAJ missing the playoffs twice in a row in his prime. Is that not "terrible" either?
[QUOTE=Young X]The problem with your posts is you think team success = individual greatness. How the **** was the 1st 1/3 of MJ's career terrible? He was playing at an extremely high level very few players have reached. Duncan and Russell never played with terrible teammates like Jordan did early in his career.
And going by your logic, what about KAJ missing the playoffs twice in a row in his prime. Is that not "terrible" either?[/QUOTE]
OK great. Wilt played at a much higher level than Jordan most of his career, but never had the team success. Everyone has some blemish on their resume when you compare them to the others. That's why there's a debate and that's why it's dumb when people say "how is it even questionable?"
The problem with you denigrating team success all the time is that it's the POINT OF THE GAME. IT'S THE GOAL. IT'S WHAT THE PLAYERS ARE PLAYING TO DO...TO WIN THE GAME. If you want to measure a player's greatness completely by stats, go ahead. But your side agenda is this: you know that if you disregard team success, you get to cut down the winning-est players and say they played in a great "system" or for a great coach, when all the while I think we all know WHY they are considered a great coach...because of their team's success. They are not mutually exclusive, but you try to make it seem more that way to discount players like Duncan or Kareem or Russell who OWNED all of the greatest players of their generation and kept them off the top-5 list (maybe with the exception of Wilt).
[QUOTE=ninephive]I agree that he is, but the debate is there because of how terrible the first 1/3rd of career is:
First 5 years:
Seasons above .500: TWO
Playoffs: 13-23 (0 Finals appearances)
Tack on a pretty terrible ending to your career, and you got some good reasons to suggest that maybe he wasn't the GOAT. Certainly most of the rest of the guys on the top 5 list like[B] Russell or Kareem or Duncan never had a terrible beginning or ending to their career[/B]...theirs were great throughout, with more success overall and without the terrible blemishes that Jordan had...not to mention none of those guys played for the greatest coach of all time, who proved he could win lots of titles without MJ.[/QUOTE]
Those guys all had great situations during the beginning and end of their careers. Look at Kareem's record after Big O and before Magic. He spent the second half of his career as not even the best player on his own team. The Lakers were winning/competing for championships when he was a 10PPG/ 5 RPG role player. And the team went on to win 63 the season after he retired, then made the finals the season after that. But the hipster squad loves to point out that the Bulls winning 55 and making to the second round then fading into .500 obscurity = MJ overrated :oldlol:
Same with Russell- the man was his generation's Dennis Rodman. The Cs were winning titles with him as the [I]7th[/I] option, not even putting up 10 PPG in the finals on teams that were getting upwards of 120 possessions per game.
And Timmy's my dude, but he walked into one of the most perfect situations for a #1 pick ever. Robinson going down in '96 was the best thing that ever happened to the Spurs. Tim joined a 55-60 win caliber squad that through sheer luck lost their franchise player for a season and flipped that into 2 franchise players. And Timmy's aging like fine wine, but he's nowhere remotely close to his prime and the Spurs are still winning rings with the 'others' winning FMVPs. Let's not act like he's playing with the Jahidi White Wizards here :lol
[SIZE="1"]michael jordans[/SIZE] wife left him for a bigger *****.
Vanessa came back:confusedshrug:
[QUOTE=rlsmooth775]Michael jordan was to poor of a rebounder and passer to be goat he is just one of the greats[/QUOTE]
Adjusted for pace his 1988-89 numbers are comparable or better than Oscar Robertson's best all around seasons. I think that demonstrates his ability as a rebounder and passer.
[QUOTE=Young X]The problem with your posts is you think team success = individual greatness. How the **** was the 1st 1/3 of MJ's career terrible? He was playing at an extremely high level very few players have reached. Duncan and Russell never played with terrible teammates like Jordan did early in his career.
And going by your logic, what about KAJ missing the playoffs twice in a row in his prime. Is that not "terrible" either?[/QUOTE]
Are you talking about in '75 when Kareem missed 17 games (Bucks were 35-30 with him and went 3-14 without him to miss the playoffs)?
Or are you talking about '76 when he brought the Lakers up to 40-42 in his first year with them? Unfortunately for him, of course, he wasn't playing in Jordan's pathetic Eastern Conference where 30-52 teams were making the playoffs (that being Jordan's Bulls, who made the playoffs the year he was out with an injury).
[QUOTE=ninephive]OK great. Wilt played at a much higher level than Jordan most of his career, but never had the team success. Everyone has some blemish on their resume when you compare them to the others. That's why there's a debate and that's why it's dumb when people say "how is it even questionable?"
The problem with you denigrating team success all the time is that it's the POINT OF THE GAME. IT'S THE GOAL. IT'S WHAT THE PLAYERS ARE PLAYING TO DO...TO WIN THE GAME. If you want to measure a player's greatness completely by stats, go ahead. But your side agenda is this: you know that if you disregard team success, you get to cut down the winning-est players and say they played in a great "system" or for a great coach, when all the while I think we all know WHY they are considered a great coach...because of their team's success. They are not mutually exclusive, but you try to make it seem more that way to discount players like Duncan or Kareem or Russell who OWNED all of the greatest players of their generation and kept them off the top-5 list (maybe with the exception of Wilt).[/QUOTE]How did Wilt play at a "much higher level than Jordan"?
Of course you should include team accomplishments, the problem is when people like you rely too heavily on them to rank players. Just because Jordan was losing to vastly better teams with scrubs doesn't mean he was "terrible" just means he wasn't as lucky as the other greats earlier on. Simple as that.
What you're forgetting is all greats don't play in equal winning positions throughout their careers, some players are luckier with teammates/injuries/competition/coaching/management (all which have nothing to do with individual greatness) than others.
If you wanna go that route you should look at how many times that player had a contending team in comparison to how many times they won it all. Jordan was 6/7.
[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Those guys all had great situations during the beginning and end of their careers. Look at Kareem's record after Big O and before Magic. He spent the second half of his career as not even the best player on his own team. The Lakers were winning/competing for championships when he was a 10PPG/ 5 RPG role player. And the team went on to win 63 the season after he retired, then made the finals the season after that. But the hipster squad loves to point out that the Bulls winning 55 and making to the second round then fading into .500 obscurity = MJ overrated :oldlol:
Same with Russell- the man was his generation's Dennis Rodman. The Cs were winning titles with him as the [I]7th[/I] option, not even putting up 10 PPG in the finals on teams that were getting upwards of 120 possessions per game.
And Timmy's my dude, but he walked into one of the most perfect situations for a #1 pick ever. Robinson going down in '96 was the best thing that ever happened to the Spurs. Tim joined a 55-60 win caliber squad that through sheer luck lost their franchise player for a season and flipped that into 2 franchise players. And Timmy's aging like fine wine, but he's nowhere remotely close to his prime and the Spurs are still winning rings with the 'others' winning FMVPs. Let's not act like he's playing with the Jahidi White Wizards here :lol[/QUOTE]
All I'm saying is we got to see what Jordan could do WITHOUT a stacked cast, and it wasn't great at all (in terms of winning). He couldn't do it...obviously. He played pretty much with 3 "cores" his whole career and could win with one of the three. It sucks that he got drafted and then ultimately put himself in those positions, but he was such a great competitor he wanted to TRY and see if he could do it. He couldn't...it was way too much for even him.
With guys like Duncan, we probably will never see him put himself or be put in that situation. Most likely he will retire with 18 consecutive .600+ seasons and will never miss the playoffs. He will probably never even be an 8-seed. He will have 10+ seasons as a 1/2 seed and only 2 times will he open the playoffs on the road. That level of sustained excellence will most likely never be seen again in NBA history, all in the Duncan era.
I agree with him having a great situation, but no one on the top-5 list had a bad situation...all of them had TONS of help (coaching & players), otherwise they wouldn't be there.
[QUOTE=Young X]How did Wilt play at a "much higher level than Jordan"?
Of course you should include team accomplishments, the problem is when people like you rely too heavily on them to rank players. Just because Jordan was losing to vastly better teams with scrubs doesn't mean he was "terrible" just means he wasn't as lucky as the other greats earlier on. Simple as that.
What you're forgetting is all greats don't play in equal winning positions throughout their careers, some players are luckier with teammates/injuries/competition/coaching/management (all which have nothing to do with individual greatness) than others.
If you wanna go that route you should look at how many times that player had a contending team in comparison to how many times they won it all. Jordan was 6/7.[/QUOTE]
A player that was only a contender for 7 years should NEVER be considered the GOAT IMO. Of course, I would argue that Jordan's teams were contenders more than that.
[QUOTE=ninephive]Unfortunately for him, of course, he wasn't playing in Jordan's pathetic Eastern Conference where 30-52 teams were making the playoffs (that being Jordan's Bulls, who made the playoffs the year he was out with an injury).[/QUOTE]
great point. jordan fans constantly bring up lebron's competition en-route to the finals in 2007, but as you pointed out, his team(s) went 30-52, made the playoffs, and could only muster 1 win in 10 playoff games.
seriously, how is jordan's 1-9 playoff record without pippen ignored in these discussions? lebron, wilt, kareem, and magic all had more success without their second best player. they all made it out of the first round too.
when we talk about who the "GOAT" is, we MUST include everything, positive or negative. period.
wrgon thread
[QUOTE=ninephive]All I'm saying is we got to see what Jordan could do WITHOUT a stacked cast, and it wasn't great at all (in terms of winning). He couldn't do it...obviously. He played pretty much with 3 "cores" his whole career and could win with one of the three. It sucks that he got drafted and then ultimately put himself in those positions, but he was such a great competitor he wanted to TRY and see if he could do it. He couldn't...it was way too much for even him.[/QUOTE]
Kareem post Oscar, pre Magic:
74-75: 38-44 (Milwaukee, first season without the Big O. [B]The team won 59 games and lost in 7 in the finals to the Cs the season before in Oscar's last run[/B])
75-76: 40-42 (First season in Los Angeles)
76-77: 53-29 (swept by the Blazers)
77-78: 45-37 (Team featured Adrian Dantley, James Edwards, Jamaal 'Silky' Wilkes... lost in the first round)
78-79: 47-35 (Lost in the second round)
79-80: 60-22 ([B]Magic is drafted, leads team to championship while winning finals MVP with Kareem out[/B])
And like I pointed out above, Lakers were in the finals competing for rings when Kareem was a 10/5 role player. LA won 63 games the season after Kareem retired and made the finals the season after that.
By Hipster logic, all this says Kareem is out of the GOAT running and is massively overrated. Couldn't win a damn thing without Oscar or Magic, both top 5-15 players ever. Team had massive success with him as a role player and continued to be great immediately after he left.
:applause:
[QUOTE]With guys like Duncan, we probably will never see him put himself or be put in that situation. Most likely he will retire with 18 consecutive .600+ seasons and will never miss the playoffs. He will probably never even be an 8-seed. He will have 10+ seasons as a 1/2 seed and only 2 times will he open the playoffs on the road. That level of sustained excellence will most likely never be seen again in NBA history, all in the Duncan era.[/QUOTE]
Timmy is a bad muthaphucka, no arguments from me :pimp:
[QUOTE]I agree with him having a great situation, but no one on the top-5 list had a bad situation...all of them had TONS of help (coaching & players), otherwise they wouldn't be there.[/QUOTE]
OK, but people act like Jordan was somehow cheating by having a 16/6/5 career player as the best teammate he's ever played with. Meanwhile Kareem played with Oscar and Magic and was coached by Pat Riley. Russell had Cousy, Havlicek, Jones, etc and was coached by Red Auerbach. Even Timmy played with Robinson from day one and later got Parker, Ginobli and was coached by Pop since being drafted.
[QUOTE=Soundwave]Trolls and people using alts should be banned. People who have 1500+ posts in a year, 90% of them being troll posts should be banned.
Why would a person even argue otherwise? It's really for their own good, getting banned from here might nudge them to actually do something productive with their time.
[B]Actually a simple way to do it would be to just ban everyone in the red as it were ... if you have a red on your rep account ... it's 99.9% likely because you make a lot of stupid posts[/B].[/QUOTE]
Wow, what a stupid analysis.
If someone is in the red, then it's probably because they're not a MJ or Kobe stan. Their feathers seem to get ruffled the most when provided with facts. Hence the reasoning for them giving out negs.
I was negged by a MJ stan for saying I thought Gretzky's domination of the NHL outweighed MJ's in the NBA.
How dare I saying something so trollish :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Young X][B]How did Wilt play at a "much higher level than Jordan"?
[/B]
Of course you should include team accomplishments, the problem is when people like you rely too heavily on them to rank players. Just because Jordan was losing to vastly better teams with scrubs doesn't mean he was "terrible" just means he wasn't as lucky as the other greats earlier on. Simple as that.
What you're forgetting is all greats don't play in equal winning positions throughout their careers, some players are luckier with teammates/injuries/competition/coaching/management (all which have nothing to do with individual greatness) than others.
If you wanna go that route you should look at how many times that player had a contending team in comparison to how many times they won it all. Jordan was 6/7.[/QUOTE]
I guess just meaning if you took their first 8 seasons (over half of their careers), you've got Jordan at 32.3/6.3/[B]6.0[/B] and Wilt at [B]37.6[/B]/[B]24.8[/B]/4.0 on better shooting.
[QUOTE=ninephive]I guess just meaning if you took their first 8 seasons (over half of their careers), you've got Jordan at 32.3/6.3/[B]6.0[/B] and Wilt at [B]37.6[/B]/[B]24.8[/B]/4.0 on better shooting.[/QUOTE]Wilt played at a much higher pace, adjusted for pace their numbers are similar and there's hardly any video evidence of his play. Not to mention these are regular season numbers. In the playoffs Wilt's numbers dropped while MJ's got better.[QUOTE=ninephive]A player that was only a contender for 7 years should NEVER be considered the GOAT IMO. Of course, I would argue that Jordan's teams were contenders more than that.[/QUOTE]By contending teams I mean teams with a realistic potential of winning a championship going into the playoffs. I counted his championship years plus 1990 when they won 55 games and got to game 7 of the ECF as contending years.
Besides maybe 1995 when he came back from 1 1/2 years of baseball what years did he have a contending team around him? Every other year he played with scrub teammates and he still got 6 rings despite that. That's GOAT sh!t.
[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Kareem post Oscar, pre Magic:
74-75: 38-44 (Milwaukee, first season without the Big O. [B]The team won 59 games and lost in 7 in the finals to the Cs the season before in Oscar's last run[/B])
75-76: 40-42 (First season in Los Angeles)
76-77: 53-29 (swept by the Blazers)
77-78: 45-37 (Team featured Adrian Dantley, James Edwards, Jamaal 'Silky' Wilkes... lost in the first round)
78-79: 47-35 (Lost in the second round)
79-80: 60-22 ([B]Magic is drafted, leads team to championship while winning finals MVP with Kareem out[/B])
And like I pointed out above, Lakers were in the finals competing for rings when Kareem was a 10/5 role player. LA won 63 games the season after Kareem retired and made the finals the season after that.
By Hipster logic, all this says Kareem is out of the GOAT running and is massively overrated. Couldn't win a damn thing without Oscar or Magic, both top 5-15 players ever. Team had massive success with him as a role player and continued to be great immediately after he left.
:applause:
Timmy is a bad muthaphucka, no arguments from me :pimp:
OK, but people act like Jordan was somehow cheating by having a 16/6/5 career player as the best teammate he's ever played with. Meanwhile Kareem played with Oscar and Magic and was coached by Pat Riley. Russell had Cousy, Havlicek, Jones, etc and was coached by Red Auerbach. Even Timmy played with Robinson from day one and later got Parker, Ginobli and was coached by Pop since being drafted.[/QUOTE]
Good stuff, I agree with all of that (with exception of Kareem's 38-44 season...he put the team at 35-30 with him on the court).
I believe every player has a case against them. I actually usually make the argument that Duncan has the least amount of "holes" in his resume among the greats...great on offense, great on defense, greatest ever at his position, greatest consistency in winning, greatest longevity, and took out all the greats of his generation in Shaq/Kobe/Lebron/Dirk/Garnett/Nash/Kidd/CP3/Stoudemire/Melo/Durant/Wade/Payton/Iverson/Deron/Marbury/VC/Allen/Howard/Gasol/etc. along with great teams like the '05 Pistons.
Why in the world do we think MJ wouldn't be on that list when Duncan's taken out the first 10 on that list multiple times in the playoffs?
[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Those guys all had great situations during the beginning and end of their careers. Look at Kareem's record after Big O and before Magic. He spent the second half of his career as not even the best player on his own team. The Lakers were winning/competing for championships when he was a 10PPG/ 5 RPG role player. And the team went on to win 63 the season after he retired, then made the finals the season after that. But the hipster squad loves to point out that the Bulls winning 55 and making to the second round then fading into .500 obscurity = MJ overrated :oldlol:
Same with Russell- the man was his generation's Dennis Rodman. The Cs were winning titles with him as the [I]7th[/I] option, not even putting up 10 PPG in the finals on teams that were getting upwards of 120 possessions per game.
And Timmy's my dude, but he walked into one of the most perfect situations for a #1 pick ever. Robinson going down in '96 was the best thing that ever happened to the Spurs. Tim joined a 55-60 win caliber squad that through sheer luck lost their franchise player for a season and flipped that into 2 franchise players. And Timmy's aging like fine wine, but he's nowhere remotely close to his prime and the Spurs are still winning rings with the 'others' winning FMVPs. Let's not act like he's playing with the Jahidi White Wizards here :lol[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://pricechopper.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/zzzquil6ozliquid1.jpg[/IMG]
If you watched Michael Jordan play there is no question.
If you are a 19 year old Cholo then you claim Kobe is the GOAT.
If you are a 15 year old b1tch boy then you claim LeBron is the GOAT.
None of it matters.
[QUOTE=Soundwave]If Magic got AIDS in say 1987, when the Lakers core was still relatively young and Worthy was the same age as Pippen in '93, they'd still be pretty good.
I'd say they'd probably make the Finals still (Kareem + Worthy + Coop + Scott).[/QUOTE]
They werent old in 92. Jabbar in 87 was older than than anyone on the Celtics in 89. And yet you feel hed be able to lead the Lakers to a Championship appearance without Magic? And unlike Mchale and Parish, he was showing his age. He was hardly the same player of the early 80s and 70s.
[QUOTE]The Jordan retirement is really such an outlier, it's something that pretty much never happens in team sport, a player doesn't retire in the middle of their prime with a relatively young championship team still around them.
The only comparable I can really think of is the Oilers losing Wayne Gretzky in '88 (basically "sold" away in his prime due to a greedy owner), but still winning the Cup again in 1990. But that doesn't mean Gretzky isn't the GOAT. [/QUOTE]
The Bulls still being able to contend for a Championship without Jordan is not an indication that he was not the GOAT. It simply means he had great teammates. Plain and simple.
[QUOTE]And even then the Bulls were right back to being a mediocre team by 94-95, barely able to stay above .500.[/QUOTE]
They had no frontline. How many times do you have to hear that? Thats why they lost to the Magic. By then. They lost Jordan, Cartwright, Williams, Grant, Longley was hurt. The only big they had was Will Perdue. Losing talent is gonna effect your win/loss record.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]They werent old in 92. Jabbar in 87 was older than than anyone on the Celtics in 89. And yet you feel hed be able to lead the Lakers to a Championship appearance without Magic? And unlike Mchale and Parish, he was showing his age. He was hardly the same player of the early 80s and 70s.
The Bulls still being able to contend for a Championship without Jordan is not an indication that he was not the GOAT. It simply means he had great teammates. Plain and simple.
They had no frontline. How many times do you have to hear that? Thats why they lost to the Magic. By then. They lost Jordan, Cartwright, Williams, Grant, Longley was hurt. The only big they had was Will Perdue. Losing talent is gonna effect your win/loss record.[/QUOTE]
You're using double standards here, it's OK to remove Kareem, Magic, and even Worthy missed almost 30 games for the Lakers in 91-92.
The Lakers and Celtics were deeper than the Bulls in terms of overall talent in part because they were built prior to the expansion era, with fewer teams, talent is more concentrated, hence the better teams have more talent.
Even Roundball Rock understands this concept.
Toni Kukoc or Horace Grant (the third offensive option on the Bulls runs) would never even sniff a Finals MVP ... James Worthy on the Lakers did so.
Cedric Maxwell also won the Finals MVP for the Celtics and Dennis Johnson was at times their best player in some series'.
The Bulls never ever had that luxury.
I think 3ball had a good post on this but Jordan had to assume a higher percentage of the offensive output for the Bulls than basically any other superstar on any other dynasty franchise ... because the Bulls needed that level of output.
The Lakers won series' where Magic was only the third best player, even in some of the Celtics series' Bird could afford to be the second best player.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]
The Bulls still being able to contend for a Championship without Jordan is not an indication that he was not the GOAT. It simply means he had great teammates. Plain and simple. [/QUOTE]
When did they contend for a championship? You mean when they got to the second round of the playoffs, like 8 teams do every year?
[QUOTE=KNOW1EDGE]If you watched Michael Jordan play there is no question.
If you are a 19 year old Cholo then you claim Kobe is the GOAT.
If you are a 15 year old b1tch boy then you claim LeBron is the GOAT.
None of it matters.[/QUOTE]
A lot depends on the era you mainly watched, yes.
For all the Bulls fans, this is debateable and it's no slight on MJ, but for some people in the world, they have different criteria and watched different eras to call this type of judgement.
Some may weigh Russel's titles as the dominant factor.
Some may weigh Kareem's longevity as the dominant factor.
Some may weigh Wilt's statistical dominance as the dominant factor.
That's it.
[QUOTE=Soundwave]You're using double standards here, it's OK to remove Kareem, Magic, and even Worthy missed almost 30 games for the Lakers in 91-92. [/QUOTE]
Im comparing them to the outcome of the previous season. Im comparing the 43 win 92 Lakers that lost in the first round to the 58 win team that made it to the Finals. Im comparing the 89 Celtics team that won 42 games (8 against expansion teams), to the 88 team that won 57 and made it to the ECF. Huge drops in spite of getting very good players to replace their teams best player. Toni Kukoc as a rookie and Pete Myers are not equal to Reggie Lewis or Sedale Threat.
[QUOTE]The Lakers and Celtics were deeper than the Bulls in terms of overall talent in part because they were built prior to the expansion era, with fewer teams, talent is more concentrated, hence the better teams have more talent. [/QUOTE]
This is a straw man. You make this argument because you refuse to acknowledge that as the popularity of the NBA increased, so did the talent pool.
Even Roundball Rock understands this concept.
[QUOTE]Toni Kukoc or Horace Grant (the third offensive option on the Bulls runs) would never even sniff a Finals MVP ... James Worthy on the Lakers did so. [/QUOTE]
James Worthy wasn't the number three guy when he won finals MVP in 88. In fact, he was the first option. Ask Jerry Sloan who the MVP of the 98 Finals was and hed say Pippen. You've been shown clipping from reputable news sources plainly stating that Pippen was deserving of Finals MVP after game four. As well as George Karls statements on Dennis Rodmans dominance in 96.
[QUOTE]Cedric Maxwell also won the Finals MVP for the Celtics and Dennis Johnson was at times their best player in some series'. [/QUOTE]
There were times when Pippen or Rodman was arguably the catalyst to the Bulls winning. Neither Maxwell nor Johnson were ever their teams best player.
[QUOTE]The Bulls never ever had that luxury.[/QUOTE]
Can you explain how you arrive at this conclusion?
[QUOTE]I think 3ball had a good post on this but Jordan had to assume a higher percentage of the offensive output for Bulls than basically any other superstar on any other dynasty franchise ... because the Bulls needed that level of output.[/QUOTE]
Jordan chose to shoot at the rate he did. 1994 provved that the Bulls didnt need Jordan avg 30 ppg. There is no doubt in my mind that with a Latrell Sprewell or Mitch Richmond theyd win a Championship.
[QUOTE]The Lakers won series' where Magic was only the third best player, even in some of the Celtics series' Bird could afford to be the second best player.[/QUOTE]
Never happened. Maybe.early in Magics career with Jabbar but thats it.
[QUOTE=fpliii]One other thing, does the 93 media guide have plus-minus numbers for players in the league? According to this article (Dec. 94):
[url]http://articles.philly.com/1994-12-29/sports/25855805_1_sixers-nate-mcmillan-sonics[/url]
Pollack was tracking it by then. He does have plus-minus in the one guide I own (90-91), but it's only for Sixers players and opponents.[/QUOTE]
Here's the page showing the total dunks for each player over a 6 season period.. I will be making a thread of this tomorrow at some point with more pictures, and with some red meat for the stans :)
[IMG]https://scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/s720x720/1795563_10204531167778660_7768591196828075347_n.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=3ball]Here's the page showing the total dunks for each player over a 6 season period..
[IMG]https://scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/s720x720/1795563_10204531167778660_7768591196828075347_n.jpg[/IMG]
I will be making a thread of this tomorrow at some point, with some red meat for the stans :)[/QUOTE]
Thanks for sharing.
I'm actually more interested in the yearly totals. Do the other guides (again, I only have 90-91) have this page:
[url]http://i62.tinypic.com/29aw57s.jpg[/url]
?
If so, could you scan them? Maybe we can put together a spreadsheet with dunks for each guy by year.
[quote=fpliii] Pollack was tracking it by then. He does have plus-minus in the one guide I own (90-91), but it's only for Sixers players and opponents.[/quote]
Could you post the Sixers plus/minus? Thanks.
[QUOTE=PHILA]Could you post the Sixers plus/minus? Thanks.[/QUOTE]
Here you go:
[url]http://www18.zippyshare.com/v/47770687/file.html[/url]
I only have the 90-91 guide for Philly (so it's for 89-90 only). Based on this article:
[url]http://articles.philly.com/1994-12-29/sports/25855805_1_sixers-nate-mcmillan-sonics[/url]
It seems the media guide for 94-95 (meaning it has stats for the 93-94 season) might have league-wide +/-, which is two seasons before stats.nba.com starts. I don't know if the 91-92 through 93-94 editions do. I'm also not sure if editions before 90-91 contain data for just Philly. Maybe 3ball can check.
[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]When did they contend for a championship? You mean when they got to the second round of the playoffs, like 8 teams do every year?[/QUOTE]
Yep
[quote=fpliii]Here you go:
[URL="http://www18.zippyshare.com/v/47770687/file.html"]http://www18.zippyshare.com/v/47770687/file.html[/URL]
I only have the 90-91 guide for Philly (so it's for 89-90 only). Based on this article:
[URL="http://articles.philly.com/1994-12-29/sports/25855805_1_sixers-nate-mcmillan-sonics"]http://articles.philly.com/1994-12-29/sports/25855805_1_sixers-nate-mcmillan-sonics[/URL]
It seems the media guide for 94-95 (meaning it has stats for the 93-94 season) might have league-wide +/-, which is two seasons before stats.nba.com starts. I don't know if the 91-92 through 93-94 editions do. I'm also not sure if editions before 90-91 contain data for just Philly. Maybe 3ball can check.[/quote]
I know those are just raw numbers, but in looking at the starters it shows Barkley as the top offensive player and Mahorn as the best defensive player, both by big margins. Hawkins looks more balanced as a two way player.
[QUOTE=fpliii]Thanks for sharing.
I'm actually more interested in the yearly totals. Do the other guides (again, I only have 90-91) have this page:
[url]http://i62.tinypic.com/29aw57s.jpg[/url]
?
If so, could you scan them? Maybe we can put together a spreadsheet with dunks for each guy by year.[/QUOTE]
Yes, all the guides have the yearly totals, and this is what I will post when I make the thread tomorrow.
I'll scan them or whatever you like, sounds good.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]Yep[/QUOTE]
This coward couldn't even answer Loki's question.
How is a 2nd round exit considered "contending for a championship"?
Not even proud Chicago fans in 1994 considered that season some massive success without Jordan. Or considered us contenders for a championship.
We outplayed expectations given 3 consecutive years of championship experience, an improved roster, and the players were motivated to show what they were sans GOAT.
When stans ('97 bulls, Roundball_Rock, LeBird, etc) use 2nd round exits and call them "contending for championships" the agenda is exposed. 8 teams every season reach the 2nd round.
I only consider championship contenders to be Conference Finalists.
[QUOTE=3ball]Yes, all the guides have the yearly totals, and this is what I will post when I make the thread tomorrow.
I'll scan them or whatever you like, sounds good.[/QUOTE]
Cool, thanks. Looking forward to it. :cheers:
[QUOTE=SamuraiSWISH]This coward couldn't even answer Loki's question.
How is a 2nd round exit considered "contending for a championship"?
Not even proud Chicago fans in 1994 considered that season some massive success without Jordan. Or considered us contenders for a championship.
We outplayed expectations given 3 consecutive years of championship experience, an improved roster, and the players were motivated to show what they were sans GOAT.
When stans ('97 bulls, Roundball_Rock, LeBird, etc) use 2nd round exits and call them "contending for championships" the agenda is exposed. 8 teams every season reach the 2nd round.
I only consider championship contenders to be Conference Finalists.[/QUOTE]
Lol. So one win ONE!!!!!!!! Separates the 94 Bulls from being a team that contended for a Championship?
I disagree. Having the fifth best record in the NBA, playing and almost beating the evntual EC Championship Knicks who would then almost win the Championship in seven games tell me the Bulls were on their Level.
[QUOTE=3ball]Here's the page showing the total dunks for each player over a 6 season period.. I will be making a thread of this tomorrow at some point with more pictures, and with some red meat for the stans :)
[IMG]https://scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/s720x720/1795563_10204531167778660_7768591196828075347_n.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Wow, Otis Thorpe dunked a lot.
Lol, Shaq was at 322 after a single season, almost 4 per game.
How many had Kareem registered in this period (practically in the '87-'89 period)?
In order of Goat
Bill Russell/Kareem/Wilt in any order
followed by Jordan.
Then you have people who believe Oscar,Bird,Magic,Dr J,Earl Monroe,Manigual
were the Goat and they really wouldn't be that wrong if compared to Jordan or other possible Goat candidates.
Jordan fans otoh believe MJ is untouchable in Goat talk even though he has NO categories he actually has an advantage in aside from 24/7 media worship.
Winning---Kareem,Russell
Stats--Wilt,Oscar,Magic
Dominance--Wilt,Russell,Shaq
Records--Wilt,Russell,Kareem,Oscar
Oscar his first 7 seasons avg nearly 30,10,10
Wilt avg nearly 39,25,4 first 7
Bill Russell won almost every single year of his career
Kareem played for 20 years,won Finals MVP at 38,Has a record leading 38,000+ pts,has 6 MVPS.
Look at Kareems,Oscars,Wilts,Russells records and stats and if Jordan is above them and its not arguable,then you should stop posting bc you don't know sht about basketball.