There is one reason why Michael Jordan is the greatest of all-time

[QUOTE=Soothsayer]The Bulls that Jordan had led and [B]helped[/B] create were a championship, battle tested squad, with a nice squad in 93-94. But to say that they were only 2 game worse "without Jordan" is silly, considering Jordan already led the same squad that won 57 games in 1993 to 67 wins the previous year.

Plus, once again, the bulls added both Kerr and Kukoc who contributed a combined 50 minutes per night in the 93-94 season. Add Jordan to that, and you are looking at 70 or so wins in 93-94 vs. 55 without him.

Other than that, Jordan's career can stand on it's own and nothing really needs to be said to defend it.[/QUOTE]

Finally, we are getting somewhere. Jordan HELPED, and HAD help. He was NO miracle worker. Was he a great player? Of course he was...top-5 in MY book. BUT, the fact that he went 1-9 in his first three playoff appearances (ok...him, and his TEAM)...and struggled for his first six seasons...and did not win a title without Pippen and a supporting cast of Grant, Paxson, Cartwright...and later with Pippen, Rodman, Kerr, Kukoc, and Harper...tells me all I need to know. He led great rosters to titles. BUT, he never led good, or average, or mediocre rosters anywhere close to a title.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I am not disputing that MJ's presence would PROBABLY have led to another championship. BUT, the FACT remains that the Bulls were a LOADED team, withOUT him.

Jordan never carried a GOOD team to a title. Hell, he played on FIVE losers in his career. How come Kareem, D. Robinson, Bird, and Wilt, could take last-place teams to instant contenders...but Jordan could not?[/QUOTE]


dROB did not take a last place team to instant contender.. They added drob, cummings and some other piece that season... The others showed their true worth.. Maybe Bird, wilt, and Kareem should all have a case over MJ... Considering they all won titles as the main man as well...

[QUOTE=jlauber]Finally, we are getting somewhere. Jordan HELPED, and HAD help. He was NO miracle worker. Was he a great player? Of course he was...top-5 in MY book. BUT, the fact that he went 1-9 in his first three playoff appearances (ok...him, and his TEAM)...and struggled for his first six seasons...and did not win a title without Pippen and a supporting cast of Grant, Paxson, Cartwright...and later with Pippen, Rodman, Kerr, Kukoc, and Harper...tells me all I need to know. He led great rosters to titles. BUT, he never led good, or average, or mediocre rosters anywhere close to a title.[/QUOTE]

"Jordan had help". That's simply a platitude, a truism for every player who every played organized basketball. Ergo, pointless statement.

Jordan did as much to contribute to his teams' success as anyone ever has, and he did it year after year.

1-9 irrelevant considering he joined a horrid 27 win bulls team and was facing a vastly superior team in the Celts and Bucks. Jordan's early bulls team were not exactly stacked. Meanwhile, Bird was playing with multiple HOFers, as was Magic. So once again, really pointless.

Jordan simply LED teams to more titles than Bird, Magic, and all his contemporaries. Hence Magic's admonition, "There's Michael...and then there's the rest of us."

[QUOTE=jlauber]Finally, we are getting somewhere. Jordan HELPED, and HAD help. He was NO miracle worker. Was he a great player? Of course he was...top-5 in MY book. BUT, the fact that he went 1-9 in his first three playoff appearances (ok...him, and his TEAM)...and struggled for his first six seasons...and did not win a title without Pippen and a supporting cast of Grant, Paxson, Cartwright...and later with Pippen, Rodman, Kerr, Kukoc, and Harper...tells me all I need to know. He led great rosters to titles. BUT, he never led good, or average, or mediocre rosters anywhere close to a title.[/QUOTE]

Before Jordan won his first ring over Magic and the Lakers in 91, nobody was going gaga over the talent on the Bulls. You would never hear anybody proclaim, "Wow, look at all the talent the bulls have, amazing Jordan can't win with them!". The consensus was that Jordan had an up-and-coming Pippen, and then some nice ROLE PLAYERS, whom Jordan eventually led to a ring in 91. After that, the rest is history. :cheers:

:oldlol: at MJ fans pulling numbers out of MJ's rear. 70 wins? Maybe it would have been 80! It happened only once in NBA history yet a 55 win team that won 57 the year before would certainly win 70 in 94'? MJ fans keep talking about 67 wins in 92'. Put that into context. Bulls win totals from 1990-1994: 55, 61, 67, 57, and 55. Yet 67 is the sacred number? Teams vary their win totals by year. The Cavs won 66 last year; 61 this year. The Lakers won 65 last year; 57 this year.

[QUOTE]Actually Jordan's supporting cast is probably the most UNDERRATED IN NBA HISTORY.


Below is some factual info in regard to Jordan's supporting cast that I posted in another thread a few days ago.


Jordan and the Bulls won the title in 1993.

The Bulls won 57 games that year.

Before the 1994 season, Jordan retired. This is gives us a real good "apples to apples" comparison as to just how good Jordan's supporting cast really was.

The following year without Jordan (1994), the Bulls with Pippen, Grant etc. won 55 games and still advanced to the second round of the playoffs. There was only a 2 game difference between the Bulls in 1993 vs 1994 even without the remarkable Jordan.


Here is a look at how Bulls (without Jordan) faired in 1994 against the compeition that included some HOF all time great players.




Here are the records of some notable teams in 1994.


Houston Rockets 58-24- Hakeem Olajuwon is in the prime of his career. He is voted MVP and Defensive Player of the Year. He is regarded as the best player in the world. He is MVP of the NBA finals.



New York Knicks 57-25- Patrick Ewing is in the prime of his career. So is John Starks. Pat Riley is the head coach. Yet they are only 2 games better than the Jordanless Bulls.



Phoenix Suns 56-26- Charles Barkley is in the prime of his career. He was MVP of the league last year.



San Antonio Spurs 55-27-David Robinson is in the prime of his career. He leads the NBA in scoring at 29.8 points per game. Rodman is at his peak too. He leads the NBA in rebounding at 17.3 per contest.



*******Chicago Bulls 55-27- No Jordan, no problem. With Pippen, Grant and Head coach Phil Jackson the Bulls have no problem hanging with the NBA’s elite. Remarkably they finish tied with the Spurs despite a career year by Robinson and Rodman. And they are just 3 games behind the Rockets who won the NBA title with Olajuwon who was MVP and DPY. So, is Scotty Pippen still a nobody?******** Jordan's supporting cast won just 2 less games without him when comparing the Bulls of 1993 to the Bulls of 1994.


Utah Jazz- 53-29- Two all time great players are in the prime of their careers for this team. This includes Karl Malone who is often regarded as the greatest Power Forward in NBA history. Stockton led the NBA in assists that year with 12.6 per game. Yet they finished 2 games behind the Bulls (minus Michael Jordan).



Orlando Magic-50-32- Shaq was not quite in his prime yet. But the Magic were just one year away from a NBA finals appearance. With Shaq, Dennis Scott and Penny Hardaway, they were 5 games worse than the Bulls playing without Jordan.




The more you research this, the better Jordan’s supporting cast gets. I don’t see how the issue of star players carrying otherwise bad teams to the NBA finals is even debatable.


The fact is Jordan's supporting cast was a 55 win team without him. Jordan's supporting cast alone ranked was easily among the best teams in the NBA.

Can we say the same for Kobe's Lakers?

Would this year's Cavs win 55 games without Lebron.


The Bulls were legit NBA title contenders without Jordan. This is indisputable evidence as to how strong Jordan's supporting cast truly was. And it provides further evidence that the notion of one great player carrying his team to a championship is largely a myth. Even when we take an accurate look at the supporting cast of the great Michael Jordan.



The thread with more info can be found here.


[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=174444[/url][/QUOTE]

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Keep in mind this was with MJ retiring at the last possible minute and the Bulls being forced to replace him with a D-League scrub. Imagine that team with a legit starting SG, not the worst starting SG in the league who could not make a NBA roster in the previous two seasons...

The Kukoc and Kerr hype is hilarious. Every team adds role players in a given year. I guess Channing Frye is why the Suns went from 9th to 3rd in the West this year? :lol Rookie Kukoc averaged 9/4/3 in 18 minutes a game in the playoffs and Kerr averaged 3.5 points a game in the playoffs. These mostly offset losing the alleged GOAT?

[QUOTE]1-9 irrelevant considering he joined a horrid 27 win bulls team and was facing a vastly superior team in the Celts and Bucks. [/QUOTE]

Yeah--and he lifted a 27 win team to only 38 wins. This is easily the least impact any GOAT caliber player had on his team. Why? The "clear GOAT" had the least impact, even though he joined the #12 scorer in the league? :oldlol: at invoking his superior opponents. Maybe MJ should have led them to winning records in 85' and 87' and gotten a decent seed? (I'll give him a break for 86')

[QUOTE=jlauber]Finally, we are getting somewhere. Jordan HELPED, and HAD help. He was NO miracle worker. Was he a great player? Of course he was...top-5 in MY book. BUT, the fact that he went 1-9 in his first three playoff appearances (ok...him, and his TEAM)...and struggled for his first six seasons...and did not win a title without Pippen and a supporting cast of Grant, Paxson, Cartwright...and later with Pippen, Rodman, Kerr, Kukoc, and Harper...tells me all I need to know. He led great rosters to titles. BUT, he never led good, or average, or mediocre rosters anywhere close to a title.[/QUOTE]

I think everyone here is confusing things. The Bulls no doubt had a very good squad without Jordan. But they went from winning the title to losing in the 2nd round. To say Jordan is just top 5 is insane. Its not all about rings....let me say that again.....ITS NOT ALL ABOUT RINGS.

I am so sick and tired of hearing this debate going back and forth when everyone only factors in rings. Its much more about what kind of player you were. If Jordan had only won 3 titles.....most people would still consider him the best to ever play. Jordan averaged 33 points 6 boards and 6 assists for his career in the playoffs and was one of the ten best defenders the league has ever seen. He just brought his game up to another level compared to the other greats to play......bird/magic have no case against jordan whatsoever. Kareem has a legit argument for the GOAT....but that is about it. Its not just about rings....its about how well you play the game first and foremost. You can't discount any titles for a player that is clearly the alpha dog/leader of the team....its really hard to win in the NBA and if you lead a team to a title you deserve big time credit. Factor in that Jordan was able to accomplish what he did without a legit post presence in a defensive era much more difficult on perimeter player and you will start to realize why most consider him the best ever. If Jordan played his career over the last decade he would have easily averaged 38 points a game in the playoffs on the same number of shots because he would have been impossible to guard without fouling.

These players do not play in a vacuum. Are you going to penalize Magic for winning with Kareem or vice versa? Shaq for winning with Kobe or vice versa? Come on guys. MJ was the best 2 way player of all time. One of the 3 best offensive players ever and one of the 10 greatest defensive players ever. He's easily one of the two best players ever.

The OP sounds like a homo.

[QUOTE]But they went from winning the title to losing in the 2nd round. [/QUOTE]

Yeah, and he came back the following year and they performed slightly worse in the playoffs (Pippen+Grant outperformed Pippen+Jordan in 95'). What is your point? When Grant left the team went from a 55 win team to a 45 win team. When Pippen got hurt for half a season they went form a 69 win team to a 55 win team. :lol at everyone who acts if MJ's subtraction is the only one that would impact the Bulls when the facts clearly show otherwise.

Plus most non-MJ fans know why the Bulls "lost" in the second round...

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]:oldlol: at MJ fans pulling numbers out of MJ's rear. 70 wins? Maybe it would have been 80! It happened only once in NBA history yet a 55 win team that won 57 the year before would certainly win 70 in 94'? MJ fans keep talking about 67 wins in 92'. Put that into context. Bulls win totals from 1990-1994: 55, 61, 67, 57, and 55. Yet 67 is the sacred number? Teams vary their win totals by year. The Cavs won 66 last year; 61 this year. The Lakers won 65 last year; 57 this year.



:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Keep in mind this was with MJ retiring at the last possible minute and the Bulls being forced to replace him with a D-League scrub. Imagine that team with a legit starting SG, not the worst starting SG in the league who could not make a NBA roster in the previous two seasons...

The Kukoc and Kerr hype is hilarious. Every team adds role players in a given year. I guess Channing Frye is why the Suns went from 9th to 3rd in the West this year? :lol Rookie Kukoc averaged 9/4/3 in 18 minutes a game in the playoffs and Kerr averaged 3.5 points a game in the playoffs. These mostly offset losing the alleged GOAT?



Yeah--and he lifted a 27 win team to only 38 wins. This is easily the least impact any GOAT caliber player had on his team. Why? The "clear GOAT" had the least impact, even though he joined the #12 scorer in the league? :oldlol: at invoking his superior opponents. Maybe MJ should have led them to winning records in 85' and 87' and gotten a decent seed? (I'll give him a break for 86')[/QUOTE]

Pulling numbers out of MJ's rear? Hardly. The 92 bulls has already won 67 games. Add Kukoc and Kerr to the mix. You are looking at the 96 team which won 72 games, with Grant subbed for Rodman, and a younger, better Jordan.

70 games is highly plausible and certainly not pulled out of anyone's ass, least of all simply because you said so.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Yeah, and he came back the following year and they performed slightly worse in the playoffs (Pippen+Grant outperformed Pippen+Jordan in 95'). What is your point? When Grant left the team went from a 55 win team to a 45 win team. When Pippen got hurt for half a season they went form a 69 win team to a 55 win team. :lol at everyone who acts if MJ's subtraction is the only one that would impact the Bulls when the facts clearly show otherwise.

Plus most non-MJ fans know why the Bulls "lost" in the second round...[/QUOTE]

Ok. Let me explain it better. The Bulls had a 0% chance to win the title without MJ. With MJ they would have been the favorites in both 94 and 95 if he had not retired. Just stop it. The Bulls had an under-rated supporting cast....i agree with that....but you aren't factoring in the difference between the regular season and playoffs. Ask Cavs fans about the difference.

But even so. The Bulls championship teams had less talent overall than the pistons, lakers, celtics teams that were winning titles before MJ.

I have been saying it for weeks on here.....YOU NEED A REALLY REALLY GOOD TEAM AND GOOD COACHING TO WIN A NBA TITLE.

MJ was no exception to that rule.....but he had less help than most stars historically and he still won 6 titles and never lost in the finals as his team's best player. That is very impressive and something that no other player i can think of can match.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]:oldlol: at MJ fans pulling numbers out of MJ's rear. 70 wins? Maybe it would have been 80! It happened only once in NBA history yet a 55 win team that won 57 the year before would certainly win 70 in 94'? MJ fans keep talking about 67 wins in 92'. Put that into context. Bulls win totals from 1990-1994: 55, 61, 67, 57, and 55. Yet 67 is the sacred number? Teams vary their win totals by year. The Cavs won 66 last year; 61 this year. The Lakers won 65 last year; 57 this year.



:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Keep in mind this was with MJ retiring at the last possible minute and the Bulls being forced to replace him with a D-League scrub. Imagine that team with a legit starting SG, not the worst starting SG in the league who could not make a NBA roster in the previous two seasons...

The Kukoc and Kerr hype is hilarious. Every team adds role players in a given year. I guess Channing Frye is why the Suns went from 9th to 3rd in the West this year? :lol Rookie Kukoc averaged 9/4/3 in 18 minutes a game in the playoffs and Kerr averaged 3.5 points a game in the playoffs. These mostly offset losing the alleged GOAT?



Yeah--and he lifted a 27 win team to only 38 wins. This is easily the least impact any GOAT caliber player had on his team. Why? The "clear GOAT" had the least impact, even though he joined the #12 scorer in the league? :oldlol: at invoking his superior opponents. Maybe MJ should have led them to winning records in 85' and 87' and gotten a decent seed? (I'll give him a break for 86')[/QUOTE]

You'll give Jordan a break the year that he missed nearly the entire season with a broken foot? Wow, how magnanimous of you. :)

Jordan joined a franchise without a history of success like the lakers and celtics had. The bulls were perennial losers. The culture of success had long since been ingrained in Boston and LA. MJ built that shit from the ground up.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Yeah, and he came back the following year and they performed slightly worse in the playoffs (Pippen+Grant outperformed Pippen+Jordan in 95'). What is your point? When Grant left the team went from a 55 win team to a 45 win team. When Pippen got hurt for half a season they went form a 69 win team to a 55 win team. :lol at everyone who acts if MJ's subtraction is the only one that would impact the Bulls when the facts clearly show otherwise.

Plus most non-MJ fans know why the Bulls "lost" in the second round...[/QUOTE]

Wrong. When Pippen was out half the season, in 97-98, the bulls won 62 games, not 55. Quit posting misinformation.

[QUOTE=t-rex]Actually Jordan's supporting cast is probably the most [B][U]UNDERRATED IN NBA HISTORY.[/U][/B]


Below is some factual info in regard to Jordan's supporting cast that I posted in another thread a few days ago.


Jordan and the Bulls won the title in 1993.

The Bulls won 57 games that year.

Before the 1994 season, Jordan retired. This is gives us a real good "apples to apples" comparison as to just how good Jordan's supporting cast really was.

The following year without Jordan (1994), the Bulls with Pippen, Grant etc. won 55 games and still advanced to the second round of the playoffs. There was only a 2 game difference between the Bulls in 1993 vs 1994 even without the remarkable Jordan.


Here is a look at how Bulls (without Jordan) faired in 1994 against the compeition that included some HOF all time great players.




Here are the records of some notable teams in 1994.


Houston Rockets 58-24- Hakeem Olajuwon is in the prime of his career. He is voted MVP and Defensive Player of the Year. He is regarded as the best player in the world. He is MVP of the NBA finals.



New York Knicks 57-25- Patrick Ewing is in the prime of his career. So is John Starks. Pat Riley is the head coach. Yet they are only 2 games better than the Jordanless Bulls.



Phoenix Suns 56-26- Charles Barkley is in the prime of his career. He was MVP of the league last year.



San Antonio Spurs 55-27-David Robinson is in the prime of his career. He leads the NBA in scoring at 29.8 points per game. Rodman is at his peak too. He leads the NBA in rebounding at 17.3 per contest.



*******Chicago Bulls 55-27- No Jordan, no problem. With Pippen, Grant and Head coach Phil Jackson the Bulls have no problem hanging with the NBA’s elite. Remarkably they finish tied with the Spurs despite a career year by Robinson and Rodman. And they are just 3 games behind the Rockets who won the NBA title with Olajuwon who was MVP and DPY. So, is Scotty Pippen still a nobody?******** Jordan's supporting cast won just 2 less games without him when comparing the Bulls of 1993 to the Bulls of 1994.




Utah Jazz- 53-29- Two all time great players are in the prime of their careers for this team. This includes Karl Malone who is often regarded as the greatest Power Forward in NBA history. Stockton led the NBA in assists that year with 12.6 per game. Yet they finished 2 games behind the Bulls (minus Michael Jordan).



Orlando Magic-50-32- Shaq was not quite in his prime yet. But the Magic were just one year away from a NBA finals appearance. With Shaq, Dennis Scott and Penny Hardaway, they were 5 games worse than the Bulls playing without Jordan.




The more you research this, the better Jordan’s supporting cast gets. I don’t see how the issue of star players carrying otherwise bad teams to the NBA finals is even debatable.


The fact is Jordan's supporting cast was a 55 win team without him. Jordan's supporting cast alone ranked was easily among the best teams in the NBA.

Can we say the same for Kobe's Lakers?

Would this year's Cavs win 55 games without Lebron.


The Bulls were legit NBA title contenders without Jordan. This is indisputable evidence as to how strong Jordan's supporting cast truly was. And it provides further evidence that the notion of one great player carrying his team to a championship is largely a myth. Even when we take an accurate look at the supporting cast of the great Michael Jordan.



The thread with more info can be found here.


[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=174444[/url][/QUOTE]

Wow, that's a lot of rambling about regular season records, while nearly ignoring the playoffs. :roll:

Surely, if you have learned anything this post season, it's that the regular season means relatively little.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]:oldlol: at MJ fans pulling numbers out of MJ's rear. 70 wins? Maybe it would have been 80! It happened only once in NBA history yet a 55 win team that won 57 the year before would certainly win 70 in 94'? MJ fans keep talking about 67 wins in 92'. Put that into context. Bulls win totals from 1990-1994: 55, 61, 67, 57, and 55. Yet 67 is the sacred number? Teams vary their win totals by year. The Cavs won 66 last year; 61 this year. The Lakers won 65 last year; 57 this year.



:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Keep in mind this was with MJ retiring at the last possible minute and the Bulls being forced to replace him with a D-League scrub. Imagine that team with a legit starting SG, not the worst starting SG in the league who could not make a NBA roster in the previous two seasons...

[B][U]The Kukoc and Kerr hype is hilarious. Every team adds role players in a given year.[/U][/B] I guess Channing Frye is why the Suns went from 9th to 3rd in the West this year? :lol Rookie Kukoc averaged 9/4/3 in 18 minutes a game in the playoffs and Kerr averaged 3.5 points a game in the playoffs. These mostly offset losing the alleged GOAT?



Yeah--and he lifted a 27 win team to only 38 wins. This is easily the least impact any GOAT caliber player had on his team. Why? The "clear GOAT" had the least impact, even though he joined the #12 scorer in the league? :oldlol: at invoking his superior opponents. Maybe MJ should have led them to winning records in 85' and 87' and gotten a decent seed? (I'll give him a break for 86')[/QUOTE]

Thank you for admitting that Kerr and Kukoc were ROLE PLAYERS. Jordan won his first 3 rings with just pippen and a bunch of role players. He won his last 3 rings with Pippen, Rodman, and a bunch of role players. :)

Those were 2 key role players on the 72 win team in 96. Add them to the 92 team (same as 93), which MJ had already led to 67 wins and you are looking at a clear possibility of 70+ wins.

[QUOTE=Soothsayer]Wrong. When Pippen was out half the season, in 97-98, the bulls won 62 games, not 55. Quit posting misinformation.[/QUOTE]

Their winning percentage was on par with a 56 win team without him for half a season (maybe they should have replaced him with Pete Myers? :oldlol: ). This is reasonable speculation based on what the team did. I didn't pull out numbers from nowhere and say they would have won 75 if he played all year.

[QUOTE]70 games is highly plausible[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: There is a reason it only happened once. The 97' Bulls>the 94' Bulls and could not win 70.

[QUOTE]The Bulls had a 0% chance to win the title without MJ.[/QUOTE]

:wtf: Obviously you did not watch in 94'. They were battling for the #1 seed all year and would have had it without Pip's injury early in the season and they were robbed against the Knicks in the playoffs and the Knicks came within 1 shot of a ring. To say they had "no shot" is ridiculous. 94' was a very competitive year and the Bulls were right in mix.

[QUOTE]With MJ they would have been the favorites in both 94 and 95 if he had not retired.[/QUOTE]

Jordan did play in 95' and his team lost in the second round (legitimately) this time.

[QUOTE]The Bulls championship teams had less talent overall than the pistons, lakers, celtics teams that were winning titles before MJ. [/QUOTE]

And? One word: dilution. The championship teams this decade generally have had less talent than the 90's Bulls. Look at the Spurs teams.

[QUOTE]You'll give Jordan a break the year that he missed nearly the entire season with a broken foot?[/QUOTE]

Well, they were only 9-9 when he played and were swept in the playoffs...

[QUOTE]Jordan joined a franchise without a history of success like the lakers and celtics had. The bulls were perennial losers. The culture of success had long since been ingrained in Boston and LA. MJ built that shit from the ground up.[/QUOTE]

You sound like Da_Realist...

If the claims made about MJ are accurate none of this would be necessary. His record would suffice yet MJ fans to this day diminish his teammates incessantly.