Printable View
lol @ Roundball's bullsh!t claims. :oldlol: Jordan, one of the best off the ball scorers in NBA history, couldn't play with a traditional PG? My ass. :oldlol:
I love how all RR's claims are just accepted at face value. Jordan would average like 34 pts/53% FG playing with a guy like Nash, who would find him in perfect position all the time.
[QUOTE=guy]
The point is its not really "screwing" the team. Things like that happen in the workplace all the time, and people need to take time off. It happens, and no one calls it "screwing." And your right he was considering retiring anyway. And the Bulls were WELL AWARE of that. In the 93 Finals after they won, Bob Costas asked Jordan about it in front of everyone. I highly doubt he didn't speak to the Bulls about it.
[/QUOTE]
You know, if Jordan was already talking about it, then it wasn't really out of the blue, was it?
[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]
I love how all RR's claims are just accepted at face value. Jordan would average like 34 pts/53% FG playing with a guy like Nash, who would find him in perfect position all the time.[/QUOTE]
I agree with him that Jordan is better off playing with a guy like John Paxson instead of a traditional PG, if we're talking about average players. But if we're talking about great players such as Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, or Magic Johnson then its a different story.
I agree Shaq had limits. Every player did. I just believe he had less as far as building a team is concerned. Shaq could not win rings with Nash in a run and gun system (although he did have a fine season with Nash last year despite being in his 17th season...) but I could see him winning with practically any PG.
[QUOTE]By the way, why don't you respond to the fact that you completely ignored the context of what happened in 93 when Shaq was supposedly the sole reason the Magic improved 20 games?[/QUOTE]
I can admit I was wrong. The case for Shaq and team value is based on more than one or two examples. It is based on his entire record. Orlando after him. LA before him. LA without him when he got hurt (championship team to 24-39 from 2001-04!). LA after he left. Miami before him. Miami when he got hurt. Orlando winning 31 games in 92' (btw 18 in 91') doesn't change the consistent trend in Shaq's career.
[QUOTE]The point is its not really "screwing" the team. Things like that happen in the workplace all the time, and people need to take time off. It happens, and no one calls it "screwing." And your right he was considering retiring anyway. And the Bulls were WELL AWARE of that. In the 93 Finals after they won, Bob Costas asked Jordan about it in front of everyone. I highly doubt he didn't speak to the Bulls about it.[/QUOTE]
They were and they weren't. Why the shock when it happened if they were completely sure? A lot of people didn't take him seriously when he said it, according to their own words. Jordan was talking about retiring early as soon as 1990 so it wasn't new for MJ (Jordan Rules).
[QUOTE]Roundball, Krause didn't go through with it because it meant giving up a first round pick. If he had, the Bulls would have gotten him.[/QUOTE]
First round pick? Who gives a damn. They were in first place in the East at the time. Who cares about the 27th pick? The problem was finding a SG to replace Hornacek in a three-way trade. Krause said he didn't know Philadelphia would take Jeff Malone. :wtf:
[QUOTE]Can't say I blame either of them.[/QUOTE]
:D
[QUOTE]Depends on the teammates. Duncan seems like an easier player to deal with, imo, although peak Shaq was a more dominant presence.[/QUOTE]
Duncan just wasn't as good. If they are close then you can look at things like that but they aren't close.
[QUOTE]But if we're talking about great players such as Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, or Magic Johnson then its a different story.[/QUOTE]
I agree with that. When you are talking about that level of ability then other things can be overcome.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]I agree Shaq had limits. Every player did. I just believe he had less as far as building a team is concerned. Shaq could not win rings with Nash in a run and gun system (although he did have a fine season with Nash last year despite being in his 17th season...) but I could see him winning with practically any PG.[/quote]
Depends if their personalities clash, imo.
[quote]First round pick? Who gives a damn. They were in first place in the East at the time. Who cares about the 27th pick? The problem was finding a SG to replace Hornacek in a three-way trade. Krause said he didn't know Philadelphia would take Jeff Malone. :wtf:[/quote]
The Bulls were in a position where all they had to give up was a first round pick and they would have gotten Hornacek. Krause had a fetish for first round picks though and turned it down. Here's a thread that mentions it.
[url]http://www.bullspodcasters.com/forums?func=view&catid=5&id=31375&limit=15&start=15[/url]
[quote]Duncan just wasn't as good. If they are close then you can look at things like that but they aren't close.[/quote]
When it comes to individual scoring, yes, but when it comes to defense, rebounding and passing, its close. Timmy was also a better free throw shooter.
That isn't a legit source. You are citing a random poster on a website. I am citing Krause himself! Do you realize Philadelphia got a 16 ppg guy for Hornacek who scored 18 ppg in 93' and then in 95'? They didn't trade him for nothing. Why would you? Hornacek was an all-star caliber 19-20 ppg player in his prime.
You probably googled to find that message board. I did a quick search and found this:
[QUOTE][B] [U]Despite Krause's denials[/U], they have serious interest in Dallas' Derek Harper and Philadelphia's Jeff Hornace[/B]k, guards who would infuse more life into their offense, now featuring Scottie Pippen and whoever else can step up his game.
[B]Krause's negotiating power suffered a momentary blow when forward/center Scott Williams went down with a damaged tendon in his right knee [/B]Friday night. Williams, who won't need surgery and will likely miss up to a month, was being dangled in a deal with Dallas for Harper and center Sean Rooks.
DEERFIELD, Ill., Nov. 1 (AP) -- The journeyman guard Pete Myers will take Michael Jordan's spot in the starting lineup for the Chicago Bulls, Coach Phil Jackson said today.
[B]
The 6-foot-6-inch Myers, who played for Chicago, San Antonio, Philadelphia and the Knicks before spending the last two years in Italy,[U] was not even expected to make the team when training camp opened. [/U][/B][/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/02/sports/pro-basketball-jordan-must-make-retirement-official-with-letter-to-nba.html?pagewanted=1[/url]
This is what they replaced the "greatest of all-time" with and then MJ fans criticize Pippen and the team for losing? :wtf: Myers himself did not expect to make any NBA roster! He showed up at training camp to work on his game in a NBA setting.
You can't just compare them based on areas where they are better. Shaq simply had more overall impact at his peak than Duncan ever did. Look at this thread. It is comparing prime Shaq to the majority GOAT. If someone made a thread comparing prime Duncan to prime Jordan it would be a joke but Shaq/MJ in their primes is a legit comparison.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]I agree Shaq had limits. Every player did. I just believe he had less as far as building a team is concerned. Shaq could not win rings with Nash in a run and gun system (although he did have a fine season with Nash last year despite being in his 17th season...) but I could see him winning with practically any PG.
[/QUOTE]
Well Shaq had much more limits then Jordan. The free throw shooting, health, work ethic, bad attitude at times were all bigger limits then anything of Jordan's. Jordan literally had no weakness, except for earlier in his career when he struggled between the balance of scoring and deferring, and alot of that can be explained by the fact that Jordan didn't really have much to work with. And I'm not saying Jordan was this perfect basketball player, I'm just saying even though there were aspects he wasn't great at, he wasn't exactly bad at it either. There was nothing a team can do to expose Jordan, like they could to Shaq.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
I can admit I was wrong. The case for Shaq and team value is based on more than one or two examples. It is based on his entire record. Orlando after him. LA before him. LA without him when he got hurt (championship team to 24-39 from 2001-04!). LA after he left. Miami before him. Miami when he got hurt. Orlando winning 31 games in 92' (btw 18 in 91') doesn't change the consistent trend in Shaq's career.
[/QUOTE]
Like someone else said, LA after he left is a horrible example considering everything that happened there. Shaq wasn't the only difference. Shaq left along with Payton, Malone, Fox, Grant, and Fisher. Phil Jackson left, who was replaced by Rudy T, who left midseason, and both Kobe and Odom missed alot of games due to injury.
Even Miami before him isn't as great of an example as people think. Dwyane Wade missed 20 games in 04, and by 05 he went from rookie to one of the best SGs in the league. Even without Shaq that year, they were pretty good.
Orlando's record in 97 isn't a good example to use either. Penny missed 21 games, Grant missed 15, Scott missed 16, Nick missed 19, Seikaly missed 8. There starting lineup missed a combined 79 games. There record without Shaq the previous year, when he missed 28 games, was really good at 20-8.
In Shaq's first two seasons with the Lakers, where he missed a bunch of games, they went 15-16 and then 15-7 without him. Why was it different both seasons? Not sure.
I'm not going to bother going into what happened during the championship seasons, cause no matter how you look at it, Shaq clearly had impact. The point is like myself and others have told you before, you can't just look at a team's record with or without there superstar and equate the difference as impact. So many things change from season to season, and sometimes through the course of a season, not just circumstances surrounding that one superstar player. All of these changes will very likely affect a team's record.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
They were and they weren't. Why the shock when it happened if they were completely sure? A lot of people didn't take him seriously when he said it, according to their own words. Jordan was talking about retiring early as soon as 1990 so it wasn't new for MJ (Jordan Rules).[/QUOTE]
The shock was there cause the arguable GOAT was retiring in the middle of his prime at the young age of 30. No one took it seriously cause it was so unheard of. If he was talking about it, don't you think thats enough notice for the Bulls to prepare themselves for? If someone in the workplace is openly talking about leaving, especially someone as important as Jordan was to the Bulls, you think that person's boss is just going to sit around and not pay any attention to that?
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]That isn't a legit source. You are citing a random poster on a website. I am citing Krause himself! Do you realize Philadelphia got a 16 ppg guy for Hornacek who scored 18 ppg in 93' and then in 95'? They didn't trade him for nothing. Why would you? Hornacek was an all-star caliber 19-20 ppg player in his prime.
You probably googled to find that message board. I did a quick search and found this:
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/02/sports/pro-basketball-jordan-must-make-retirement-official-with-letter-to-nba.html?pagewanted=1[/url]
This is what they replaced the "greatest of all-time" with and then MJ fans criticize Pippen and the team for losing? :wtf: Myers himself did not expect to make any NBA roster! He showed up at training camp to work on his game in a NBA setting.[/quote]
[url]http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_n5_v217/ai_14765644/[/url]
[quote]Scottie Pippen and Coach Phil Jackson both want General Manager Jerry Krause to fill Jordan's $2-million salary slot before the trading deadline. Pippen was especially annoyed when the Bulls didn't try harder to get Derek Harper from the Mavericks.
Jackson wanted Harper, too, and he particularly didn't want to see him in a Knicks uniform. [b]But Krause offered the Mavericks only a first-round pick, when Harper and forward Sean Rooks could've been exchanged for Scott Williams and Stacey King[/b]. Jackson also didn't agree with Krause when the Bulls released guard Jo Jo English.
[/quote]
I'm not criticizing them for losing, just saying that Jordan's sudden retirement didn't doom them.
[quote]You can't just compare them based on areas where they are better. Shaq simply had more overall impact at his peak than Duncan ever did. Look at this thread. It is comparing prime Shaq to the majority GOAT. If someone made a thread comparing prime Duncan to prime Jordan it would be a joke but Shaq/MJ in their primes is a legit comparison.[/QUOTE]
Didn't Timmy win two rings within his first five years in the league? Seems to me that he had a bigger impact than Shaq and Jordan, lol. :lol
Jk, Shaq and MJ are better.
[QUOTE]Well Shaq had much more limits then Jordan. The free throw shooting, health, work ethic, bad attitude at times were all bigger limits then anything of Jordan's.[/QUOTE]
I agree with all of that. What I meant was limits imo as far as building a team around him based primarily on him being a center and it is easier to build around a dominant C than a dominant guard. The only teams to win multiple rings led by a guard are the Bulls and Pistons and we know it took them years to build themselves into champions.
[QUOTE]Even Miami before him isn't as great of an example as people think. Dwyane Wade missed 20 games in 04, and by 05 he went from rookie to one of the best SGs in the league. Even without Shaq that year, they were pretty good.[/QUOTE]
In 2005 they were. They went 6-3 without him but in 2006 they were 10-13 without him.
[QUOTE]Orlando's record in 97 isn't a good example to use either. Penny missed 21 games, Grant missed 15, Scott missed 16, Nick missed 19, Seikaly missed 8. There starting lineup missed a combined 79 games. There record without Shaq the previous year, when he missed 28 games, was really good at 20-8.[/QUOTE]
Injuries happen every year. We can do the same thing with the 94' Bulls and their starters plus 6th man.
There are always outliers. I look at trends. The best evidence is when Shaq was directly removed for sufficient sample sizes on teams that where champions or championship contenders with him. Year to year is tougher because there are changes, sometimes significant changes as you mentioned with the 05' Lakers.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
Injuries happen every year. We can do the same thing with the 94' Bulls and their starters plus 6th man.
[/QUOTE]
Check the amount of time the Bulls starters missed compared to Orlando's. Pippen missed 10, Grant missed 12, Kukoc missed 8, and Wennington missed 6. Other guys with smaller roles missed significant time, but for the most part the Bulls' best players were healthier.
[QUOTE][B]Only two players in the East, Scottie Pippen and Shaquille O'Neal, are playing at the consistently high level an All-Star should.[/B]
It hasn't been a coincidence that the Bulls have prospered since Pippen returned from an early-season ankle injury. He is one of the few players capable of putting up double figures in four categories -- scoring, rebounding, steals and assists. O'Neal is battling David Robinson for the scoring lead and showing us his commitment to basketball runs deeper than we think.[/QUOTE]
Wait. I thought Pippen was never a top 5 player according to most MJ fans and you are posting an article which says he was the best or second best player in the East? Oh yeah. I bet the top 5 players were all in the West. :roll:
What does that article have to do with Hornacek/Myers?
[QUOTE]I'm not criticizing them for losing, just saying that Jordan's sudden retirement didn't doom them.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]DEERFIELD, Ill., Nov. 1 (AP) -- The journeyman guard Pete Myers will take Michael Jordan's spot in the starting lineup for the Chicago Bulls, Coach Phil Jackson said today.
The 6-foot-6-inch Myers, who played for Chicago, San Antonio, Philadelphia and the Knicks before spending the last two years in Italy, [B]was not even expected to make the team when training camp opened.[/B] [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
Check the amount of time the Bulls starters missed compared to Orlando's. Pippen missed 10, Grant missed 12, Kukoc missed 8, and [B]Wennington missed 6[/B][/QUOTE]
Wennington wasn't their starter. Wennington was another guy barely staying in the league/out the league the Bulls acquired that year. He was out the NBA for several years before 94'. The Bulls starting center was Bill Cartwright. He missed [B]40[/B] games and played only about 5 minutes in the first round against Cleveland. Wennington was the third stringer behind Cartwright and Longley.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]I agree with all of that. What I meant was limits imo as far as building a team around him based primarily on him being a center and it is easier to build around a dominant C than a dominant guard. The only teams to win multiple rings led by a guard are the Bulls and Pistons and we know it took them years to build themselves into champions.[/QUOTE]
Yes. And like others have told you before, there really wasn't much of a blueprint on how to build around guards before Jordan.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
In 2005 they were. They went 6-3 without him but in 2006 they were 10-13 without him.[/QUOTE]
And that just goes to show how flawed your logic is unless you actually think Shaq was better in 06 then 05.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
Injuries happen every year. We can do the same thing with the 94' Bulls and their starters plus 6th man. [/QUOTE]
The 94 Bulls didn't have it as bad as the 97 Magic. Five starters miss nearly a season combined every year, there best player misses 21 of those games, and 4 out of 5 of them miss at least 15 games? Thats a bullsh*t excuse and you know it. Yes technically you could say the same thing about the Bulls but more then half of those missed games were due to Cartwright, who was old as hell and who had 4 backups that really weren't much worse then him. Injuries happen all the time, but nobody succeeds when they have injuries to that degree. Its a complete joke that you act like it didn't have much to do with it.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
There are always outliers. I look at trends. The best evidence is when Shaq was directly removed for sufficient sample sizes on teams that where champions or championship contenders with him. Year to year is tougher because there are changes, sometimes significant changes as you mentioned with the 05' Lakers.[/QUOTE]
Now you're just picking and choosing whatever fits your agenda. The trends show that when Shaq was absent, the team played bad, decent, or even very good. No one is denying Shaq had enormous impact. But your logic is wrong, plain and simple. So many things change, from season-to-season, month-to-month, and maybe even game-to-game. It could be big things, like injuries, schedule, trades. Or it could be the smallest things from a team's center having motivational issues for a month cause of a death in the family to a PG playing with a bum knee for a week, and even these can be the difference between a win or a loss. However, you wouldn't know everything just looking at basketball-reference.com.
I find it funny that one day 15-20 years from now, someone is going to look back at Lebron's career, and after many awards, championships, records he's won, that person will look at something on the internet and conclude that he wouldn't have done nearly as much if he didn't have Mo Williams.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Wait. I thought Pippen was never a top 5 player according to most MJ fans and you are posting an article which says he was the best or second best player in the East? Oh yeah. I bet the top 5 players were all in the West. :roll:[/quote]
Hey, I like Pip and he was certainly a top five player in 94.
[quote]What does that article have to do with Hornacek/Myers?[/quote]
Not Hornacek, but it mentions that Krause blew his chance with the Harper trade.
[quote]Wennington wasn't their starter. Wennington was another guy barely staying in the league/out the league the Bulls acquired that year. He was out the NBA for several years before 94'. The Bulls starting center was Bill Cartwright. He missed [B]40[/B] games and played only about 5 minutes in the first round against Cleveland. Wennington was the third stringer behind Cartwright and Longley.[/QUOTE]
My mistake. That being said, Wennington actually put up better numbers than Cartwright did the year before.
Bill Cartwright 1993
5.6 ppg 41.1% shooting 3.7 rpg.
Bill Wennington 1994
7.1 ppg 48.8% shooting 4.6 rpg
[QUOTE]Hey, I like Pip and he was certainly a top five player in 94.
[/QUOTE]
One year? He was just as good in 95' and 96' and nearly as good in 97'. Even duncan21formvp, when he feels like it, will concede 94' but the Team Jordan argument (especially from the MJ fans who never saw Pippen play) is he was basically what Brandon Roy or Chris Bosh are today for the rest of the 90's. Plus he wasn't just a player who barely reached 5th once or twice. Some people had him as high as second or third during his best years and he was the consensus best perimeter player when Jordan was retired and most people had him second for several of the seasons when Jordan was playing. Does this sound like a player on the level of 10' Brandon Roy or 10' Chris Bosh?
[QUOTE]Not Hornacek, but it mentions that Krause blew his chance with the Harper trade. [/QUOTE]
In part because of Williams' injury. I am not saying Krause is without any fault. What I am saying is that it would be easier to find a legit NBA starting SG in the offseason because there would be more options.
[QUOTE]My mistake. That being said, Wennington actually put up better numbers than Cartwright did the year before.[/QUOTE]
Wennington was third string for a reason. It wasn't just about numbers. Wennington was out the NBA and could never beat Longley and Will Perdue ( :roll: ) for the starting C job. I like Wennington. I am glad he is calling Bulls games on the radio now. He was a good player for the role he played but he was never close to being capable of being a NBA starter.
[QUOTE]Yes. And like others have told you before, there really wasn't much of a blueprint on how to build around guards before Jordan.[/QUOTE]
You keep putting a lot of stock in "others." It is basically you and DR. That is it.
[QUOTE]And that just goes to show how flawed your logic is unless you actually think Shaq was better in 06 then 05. [/QUOTE]
He wasn't better. How many instances do we have of him getting hurt or joining/leaving a team? The vast majority of time what happens? There is a trend.
[QUOTE]The 94 Bulls didn't have it as bad as the 97 Magic.[/QUOTE]
PF Grant
SF Scott
C Seiklay
SG Anderson
PG Penny
PF Grant
SF Pippen
C Cartwright
[B]SG Myers[/B]
PG Armstrong
Yeah, they had more health but they had much more talent and no glaring hole at a position. They had five good starters and one elite player. Seiklay and Grant were top 10 at their positions.
[QUOTE]I find it funny that one day 15-20 years from now, someone is going to look back at Lebron's career, and after many awards, championships, records he's won, that person will look at something on the internet and conclude that he wouldn't have done nearly as much if he didn't have Mo Williams.[/QUOTE]
Rick Barry? Hakeem? No one is saying they had stacked teams. Duncan in 03' too but that was fairly recent. Lebron will stand the test of time like Barry and Hakeem did if he wins with this team, although of course adding a second scorer helped the team.
The proper comparison is to the typical greats who won with at least one elite teammate. Does anyone hold it against Kareem that he won with Magic? Bird with McHale? Wilt with West? And so on. The only people who do are MJ fans who like to attack everyone else for winning with an elite teammate then complain when people apply their logic to Jordan.
Besides, no one really was talking about Jordan "needing" Pippen in this thread but rather that Jordan needed a great team built around him to compete and that Shaq added more value to his team. That is completely different.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]One year? He was just as good in 95' and 96' and nearly as good in 97'. Even duncan21formvp, when he feels like it, will concede 94' but the [b]Team Jordan argument (especially from the MJ fans who never saw Pippen play)[/b] is he was basically what Brandon Roy or Chris Bosh are today for the rest of the 90's. Plus he wasn't just a player who barely reached 5th once or twice. Some people had him as high as second or third during his best years and he was the consensus best perimeter player when Jordan was retired and most people had him second for several of the seasons when Jordan was playing. Does this sound like a player on the level of 10' Brandon Roy or 10' Chris Bosh?[/quote]
I didn't say just one year, just that he was definitely top five that season. Calm down, I know he's better than Roy and Bosh. If anything, he's more like what Grant Hill would have been had he stayed healthy and played on a contender.
[quote]In part because of Williams' injury. I am not saying Krause is without any fault. What I am saying is that it would be easier to find a legit NBA starting SG in the offseason because there would be more options.[/quote]
True, but then how do you know Krause wouldn't have messed that up, as well?
[quote]Wennington was third string for a reason. It wasn't just about numbers. Wennington was out the NBA and could never beat Longley and Will Perdue ( :roll: ) for the starting C job. I like Wennington. I am glad he is calling Bulls games on the radio now. He was a good player for the role he played but he was never close to being capable of being a NBA starter.[/quote]
Yet he was still able to outperform the Bulls previous starting center from 93?
[quote]
PF Grant
SF Scott
C Seiklay
SG Anderson
PG Penny
PF Grant
SF Pippen
C Cartwright
[B]SG Myers[/B]
PG Armstrong
Yeah, they had more health but they had much more talent and no glaring hole at a position. They had five good starters and one elite player. Seiklay and Grant were top 10 at their positions.[/quote]
Kukoc makes up for myers, imo.
[quote]Rick Barry? Hakeem? No one is saying they had stacked teams. Duncan in 03' too but that was fairly recent. Lebron will stand the test of time like Barry and Hakeem did if he wins with this team, although of course adding a second scorer helped the team.
The proper comparison is to the typical greats who won with at least one elite teammate. Does anyone hold it against Kareem that he won with Magic? Bird with McHale? Wilt with West? And so on. The only people who do are MJ fans who like to attack everyone else for winning with an elite teammate then complain when people apply their logic to Jordan.[/quote]
The Celtics, Lakers and every other team has fans who make stupid attacks on other players. It's been going on since the beginning of the NBA and before that, some stupid MJ fans are not alone in doing this.