Shaq 96-2002 versus 87-93 Jordan

The problem is there is a fleet of about a dozen fans. They basically say the same things so I conflate them. You differ a bit. I was not talking about you but Team Jordan.

Cartwright's value can't solely be determined by stats. Wennington was never as good as Luc Longley let alone Cartwright.

[QUOTE]Kukoc makes up for myers, imo.[/QUOTE]

? Kukoc was a rookie SF. He did nothing to fill their hole at SG. At SG they had Myers and Kerr. One was out the league for two years and the other was barely staying in the league before 94'.

What do you guys think Kukoc did anyway? He averaged 9/4/3 in 19 minutes per game in the playoffs. Against the Knicks he had one double digit scoring game and averaged only 3 rebounds. This offsets losing the "greatest of all-time"? :wtf:

[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.[/QUOTE]

MJ fans are unique. The natural tendency is to overrate your favorite player's teammates or the players on your favorite team for emotional reasons and for the more practical fact that you see them play more, know more about them, etc. I will read an article about Noah but I couldn't care less about an article about Al Horford.

Look at Laker fans and their overrating of Gasol and Bynum for a prime example. You can find this anywhere, though. Do a search for a Yao vs. Dwight thread. 90% of the people saying Yao is better are Rockets fans. Deron vs. Paul. Nearly every Jazz fan has Deron being better even though the large majority say Paul is better. Nash. Compare the percentage of Suns fans who think he is the best PG to that of the general population. And on and on.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
You keep putting a lot of stock in "others." It is basically you and DR. That is it.[/QUOTE]

Who cares? Okay, other people*. Happy?

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
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]

Exactly. It goes to show other things can have a huge effect.

Lets see what the trend is when he was off the team for significant time 96-06, which were the years he was an elite player:

96 Magic: 20-8, 71%
97 Magic: 45-37, 55%
97 Lakers: 15-16, 48%
98 Lakers: 15-7, 68%
01 Lakers: 5-3, 63%
02 Lakers: 7-8, 47%
03 Lakers: 5-10, 33%
04 Lakers: 6-8, 43%
05 Lakers: 34-48, 41%
05 Heat: 9-3, 75%
06 Heat: 10-13, 43%

I didn't really look too much into what Shaq's record with them was, cause during this time period it was pretty steady, from about 50-60 wins every year. From the looks of it, the percentages are all over the place, and at least a few of these examples had other factors heavily impacting the record like the 97 Magic and 05 Lakers. So with that being the case, there really is no trend you speak of.


[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
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]

If you're always playing with inconsistent lineups its going to have a toll regardless of talent. I'm not really trying to compare the 94 Bulls to the 97 Magic. 94 Pippen > 97 Penny. 94 Grant > 97 Grant. Bulls were better. Pippen was a better leader, more experienced, and himself and Phil Jackson were better at getting a team to deal with issues like this. I wasn't comparing the two. I was comparing the 97 Magic to the 96 Magic, and pointing out that the absence of Shaq wasn't the only significant difference between the two teams.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
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. [/QUOTE]

I'm pointing out that in 20 years some misinformed kid with a computer is going to draw the conclusion that Lebron didn't have GOAT level impact, like you suggest about Jordan, because he didn't win without Mo Williams, and that it took his arrival for Lebron to win a championship. Not sure why you're bringing up Barry and Hakeem.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
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]

Are you f'n kidding me? No one gets the "X didn't win without X" treatment more then Jordan except for probably Kobe before last year, and the main reason he got that was cause people were actually trying to equate Kobe's championships to all the other all-time greats.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
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]

Okay but its pretty natural to argue that with you since thats always what you're implying and relating to. You bring up the 94 season in every single thread and post the same article and quotes, so what do you expect?

I have no problem with someone saying Shaq adds more value. If this was 1985, I'd pick Shaq clearly in a draft. But knowing what we know now, knowing what it takes to build around both these two, knowing their strengths, and especially knowing their flaws, to me this is a no-brainer.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]The problem is there is a fleet of about a dozen fans. They basically say the same things so I conflate them. You differ a bit. I was not talking about you but Team Jordan.[/quote]

Who exactly is "Team Jordan" comprised of?

[quote]Cartwright's value can't solely be determined by stats. Wennington was never as good as Luc Longley let alone Cartwright.[/quote]

Lol, come on, Wennington played better than Cartwright that year. At their peaks, yes Cartwright was better, but he was 35 in 1993.

[quote]? Kukoc was a rookie SF. He did nothing to fill their hole at SG. At SG they had Myers and Kerr. One was out the league for two years and the other was barely staying in the league before 94'.[/quote]

Kukoc could play sf, sg and pf when need be. Also, Pippen could have played the two with Kukoc at sf as well. Also, Kerr was a good outside threat. We all saw how well he did during the second three-peat.

[quote]What do you guys think Kukoc did anyway? He averaged 9/4/3 in 19 minutes per game in the playoffs. Against the Knicks he had one double digit scoring game and averaged only 3 rebounds. This offsets losing the "greatest of all-time"? :wtf:[/quote]

No, but they were still decent enough to win 55 games and overachieved that year.

[quote]MJ fans are unique. The natural tendency is to overrate your favorite player's teammates or the players on your favorite team for emotional reasons and for the more practical fact that you see them play more, know more about them, etc. I will read an article about Noah but I couldn't care less about an article about Al Horford.

Look at Laker fans and their overrating of Gasol and Bynum for a prime example. You can find this anywhere, though. Do a search for a Yao vs. Dwight thread. 90% of the people saying Yao is better are Rockets fans. Deron vs. Paul. Nearly every Jazz fan has Deron being better even though the large majority say Paul is better. Nash. Compare the percentage of Suns fans who think he is the best PG to that of the general population. And on and on.[/QUOTE]

Are we talking about MJ fans or Bulls fans? You're listing teams, not players.

[QUOTE]
Lets see what the trend is when he was off the team for significant time 96-06, which were the years he was an elite player:

96 Magic: 20-8, 71%
97 Magic: 45-37, 55%
97 Lakers: 15-16, 48%
98 Lakers: 15-7, 68%
01 Lakers: 5-3, 63%
02 Lakers: 7-8, 47%
03 Lakers: 5-10, 33%
04 Lakers: 6-8, 43%
05 Lakers: 34-48, 41%
05 Heat: 9-3, 75%
06 Heat: 10-13, 43%

I didn't really look too much into what Shaq's record with them was[/QUOTE]

In his book Elliot Kalb points out Shaq's teams won an average of 56 games from 1993-2003 (the number would be higher when you adjust for games Shaq missed. He compares that to Russell's average of 58 wins (Kareem's average is 57). Here are his team's performance with him (with the 82 game pace in parentheses):

41-40 (42)
49-32 (50)
55-24 (57)
40-14 (61)
38-13 (61)
46-14 (63)
31-18 (52, lockout season)
66-13 (69)
51-23 (57)
51-16 (63)
45-22 (55)
49-18 (60)
53-20 (60)
42-17 (58)
25-15 (51)
25-36 (34)
44-31 (48)
10-5 (55)

His career winning percentage translates to approximately 55 wins per year. If you look at his record from 1993-2006 his teams were on pace for 59 wins over 82 games.

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3753359#post3753359[/url]

Those aren't percentages but people can compare the numbers and reach their own conclusion.

[QUOTE]Not sure why you're bringing up Barry and Hakeem. [/QUOTE]

They were in similar situations to Lebron. :oldlol: @ implying Pippen was on Mo William's level.

I have MJ third or fourth all-time. Of course he had impact. What I argue is that he had less impact than any other top-tier of all-time player.

[QUOTE]Are you f'n kidding me? No one gets the "X didn't win without X" treatment more then Jordan[/QUOTE]

What do you expect? Jordan fans say that about great player after great player so that is going to trigger a response. You were in the Kareem thread, no? The MJ fan argument revolved around two things: 1) "rings as a man" 2) Kareem had Magic for 5 of his rings. What do you expect in response?

[QUOTE]Who exactly is "Team Jordan" comprised of?[/QUOTE]

You'll figure it out soon. It is the same characters in every thread. Not all of them appear in every thread of course but there are always a handful in every thread. You probably have noticed some of them by now.

Wennington was third string for a reason. Cartwright was a solid defender and that does not show up in the stats. Was he great? No but he was definitely better than Wennington.

[QUOTE]Kukoc could play sf, sg and pf when need be. Also, Pippen could have played the two with Kukoc at sf as well. Also, Kerr was a good outside threat. We all saw how well he did during the second three-peat.[/QUOTE]

Your argument is a SF who averaged 9/4/3 in the playoffs in 19 minutes and Kerr, a career backup SG, replace the greatest SG of all-time? Come on. I doubt you really believe that.

Kukoc was a disaster at PF btw in 95'. He scored well but he was a joke when it came to rebounding and struggled defensively. He was a good SF but a lousy PF. Why are you talking about what he could play? He played 19 minutes a game. He was on the bench for 2/3 of games in the 94' playoffs. In the regular season, aside from the 8 games he started, he played 23 minutes per game (24 for the entire season). If he was so great in 94' Jackson could not figure it out. You make it sound as if he was Pippen-lite or Hill-lite.

[QUOTE]No, but they were still decent enough to win 55 games and overachieved that year. [/QUOTE]

That had little to do with Kukoc. They had a top 3 player in Pippen and a top 10 PF in Grant and a good combo guard in Armstrong. What do you expect? 30 wins? Compare them to the other top teams that year (i.e. the Knicks. Pippen more or less=Ewing although Pip was better, Grant=Oakley, Armstrong and Starks were similar in impact although Starks was better especially defensively, and so on.) They did not overachieve. That is a myth MJ fans have pushed to diminish them and to try to hide the fact that MJ played on great teams when he was winning all those "rings as the man." They were just good. However, they had a HUGE hole at SG, though, and if that was corrected they would have likely been champions, especially if it was filled with Hornacek. With a legit SG Hue Hollins could not gift the series to the Knicks.

[QUOTE]Are we talking about MJ fans or Bulls fans? You're listing teams, not players.[/QUOTE]

MJ fans. The same thing applies to player fans. Kobe fans overrate Gasol and Bynum. Kareem fans don't diminish Magic or vice versa. Duncan fans overrated Manu and Parker. Amare fans overrate Nash and vice versa. And on and on. By "overrated" I mean rate substantially higher than the general population does.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]

You'll figure it out soon. It is the same characters in every thread. Not all of them appear in every thread of course but there are always a handful in every thread. You probably have noticed some of them by now.[/quote]

I've seen a few people say Pippen relied solely on Jordan, but most of them never came off as actual MJ fans.

[quote]Wennington was third string for a reason. Cartwright was a solid defender and that does not show up in the stats. Was he great? No but he was definitely better than Wennington.[/quote]

Nevertheless, he was outperformed by a third stringer. Losing him obviously didn't have that great of an impact at that point.

[quote]Your argument is a SF who averaged 9/4/3 in the playoffs in 19 minutes and Kerr, a career backup SG, replace the greatest SG of all-time? Come on. I doubt you really believe that.[/quote]

They didn't replace him. The team faltered and got knocked out of the second round.

[quote]Kukoc was a disaster at PF btw in 95'. He scored well but he was a joke when it came to rebounding and struggled defensively. He was a good SF but a lousy PF. Why are you talking about what he could play? He played 19 minutes a game. He was on the bench for 2/3 of games in the 94' playoffs. In the regular season, aside from the 8 games he started, he played 23 minutes per game (24 for the entire season). If he was so great in 94' Jackson could not figure it out. You make it sound as if he was Pippen-lite or Hill-lite.[/quote]

15/5/5 are good numbers. No, he was not on Pippen's or Hill's level, but he was a solid player and a legit starter.

[quote]That had little to do with Kukoc. They had a top 3 player in Pippen and a top 10 PF in Grant and a good combo guard in Armstrong. What do you expect? 30 wins?[/quote]

Don't forget the GOAT coach, too.

[Quote]They had a HUGE hole at SG, though, and if that was corrected they would have likely been champions, especially if it was filled with Hornacek.[/quote]

Or Harper, but Krause blew that one. :(

[quote]MJ fans. The same thing applies to player fans. Kobe fans overrate Gasol and Bynum. Kareem fans don't diminish Magic or vice versa. Duncan fans overrated Manu and Parker. Amare fans overrate Nash and vice versa. And on and on. By "overrated" I mean rate substantially higher than the general population does.[/QUOTE]

Kobe fans are mixed, some hype up Gasol and Bynum and others think the team isn't stacked enough as well as claiming Bynum is overrated. Duncan fans for the most part seem to think Timmy didn't have much talent in 03 with Manu and Parker. Also, there are Nash fans who think Amare isn't anywhere as good without Nash.

The obvious answer is Shaq. The Lakers went from a 56 win team to a 34 win team when he left. The Bulls went from a 57 win team to a 55 win team when Jordan left. Shaq was a more valuable player. Big men bring more value.

You are looking only at numbers. The funny thing is guy (or Da Realist but he isn't in this thread) would chide you for that (you are 21, didn't watch basketball in 94', are relying heavily on stats. Basically you are doing what I did regarding the late 80's Bulls) if you were arguing the opposite positions but he is saying nothing since your posting suits his agenda. It isn't just you. I've seen threads that guy is in where several Jordan fans said demonstrably false things like "Pippen did nothing in the 98' finals" and guy is silent on that. Come on, guy. Quit the hypocrisy. :oldlol:

Cartwright was a good defender. That is why he was a starter on three championship teams. He wasn't there for his offense.

Kukoc sucked as a PF. 15/5/5 looks good--for a guard. 5 rebounds a game is horrible for a PF and he was a poor defender. He was a good SF but your team was in trouble if he was your starting PF.

The Harper thing was due in part to bad luck. Don't blame it all on Krause. It wasn't his fault Scott Williams got hurt and the way timing worked out given MJ retiring at the last minute Williams' injury was crucial. If Jordan retired a month earlier Krause may have been able to deal Williams in a trade for Harper.

[QUOTE]Kobe fans are mixed, some hype up Gasol and Bynum and others think the team isn't stacked enough as well as claiming Bynum is overrated. Duncan fans for the most part seem to think Timmy didn't have much talent in 03 with Manu and Parker. Also, there are Nash fans who think Amare isn't anywhere as good without Nash.[/QUOTE]

You are cherry picking isolated cases. The general trends are what I outlined. I am a Amare fan and argued Amare vs. Bynum with several Lakers fan back when they were hyping him early in the season. Do all of them overrated Bynum? No but at least 80% if not 90% do. Sticking with Amare, I did not see a single Suns or Nash fan bash Amare in those Amare vs. Bynum threads. See for yourself. [url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3773216#post3773216[/url] [url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=156573[/url]

Duncan fans are correct about 2003. Everyone agrees with that.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]You are looking only at numbers. The funny thing is guy would chide you for that if you were arguing the opposite positions but he is saying nothing since your posting suits his agenda.

Cartwright was a good defender. That is why he was a starter on three championship teams. He wasn't there for his offense.[/quote]

He got outrebounded, too. It wasn't just offense.

[quote]Kukoc sucked as a PF. 15/5/5 looks good--for a guard. 5 rebounds a game is horrible for a PF and he was a poor defender. He was a good SF but your team was in trouble if he was your starting PF.[/quote]

Lol, true. He was a decent forward, though.

[quote]The Harper thing was due in part to bad luck. Don't blame it all on Krause. It wasn't his fault Scott Williams got hurt and the way timing worked out given MJ retiring at the last minute Williams' injury was crucial. If Jordan retired a month earlier Krause may have been able to deal Williams in a trade for Harper.[/quote]

Here's what happened. Dallas was willing to give up Harper for Williams and another player. Krause then offered them a first round pick and just that. He got turned down. Williams got injured after that. Krause had his chance and he failed. Quit blaming the guy who wasn't there at the time and start blaming the one who actually messed up.



[quote][b]You are cherry picking isolated cases. The general trends are what I outlined.[/b] I am a Amare fan and argued Amare vs. Bynum with several Lakers fan back when they were hyping him early in the season. Do all of them overrated Bynum? No but at least 80% if not 90% do. Sticking with Amare, I did not see a single Suns or Nash fan bash Amare in those Amare vs. Bynum threads. See for yourself. [url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3773216#post3773216[/url] [url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=156573[/url][/quote]

:lol Give it up, man.

[quote]Duncan fans are correct about 2003. Everyone agrees with that.[/QUOTE]

Parker, Ginobili, Robinson, Bowen, these guys didn't have an impact?

[QUOTE=KobeLookLike2Pac]The obvious answer is Shaq. The Lakers went from a 56 win team to a 34 win team when he left. [b]The Bulls went from a 57 win team to a 55 win team when Jordan left.[/b] Shaq was a more valuable player. Big men bring more value.[/QUOTE]

A better comparison is the Bulls going from 62 wins and a championship to worse than the Clippers after Jordan left.

[QUOTE=Alhazred]A better comparison is the Bulls going from 62 wins and a championship to worse than the Clippers after Jordan left.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: Jordan retired because he did not want to play without Pippen or Jackson (I wonder why...) and they left. So did Rodman and Longley. The Bulls lost their three best players and four starters. That was hardly the same team. The 94' Bulls had all the key players the 93' Bulls had except for Jordan. The rest of the starting five was exactly the same.

Cartwright wasn't there for rebounding either. That was Grant's job. Cartwright was a good defender, especially historically against Ewing. He was a veteran while Longley was a second year player and Wennington was out the league for a few years. He was given more leeway on defense than they were.

[QUOTE]Lol, true. He was a decent forward, though. [/QUOTE]

Better than decent imo. A good one as a SF. As a PF he sucked because he lacked the toughness and strength a PF needed. All he had was the height of a PF. As a SF his numbers were not Earth shattering but he was a 6th man playing limited minutes and the "#3 option" on offense behind Jordan and Pippen. He could do a lot more in a featured role. He did average 19 ppg in 99' as the "#1 option." Yeah, he did little after Chicago but he was 31 by then.

You are incorrect on Williams and the Harper trade. Negotiations were ongoing when Williams got hurt and his injury killed any shot they had at Harper.

What? Read the threads yourself. Do you see a fleet of Kobe fans bashing Bynum or Nash fans attacking Amare?

Duncan had one of the weakest "supporting casts" of any championship team in 2003. No one disputes this. That team is up there with the 94' Rockets and the 75' or whenever it was in the mid-70's that Barry's Warriors won.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]:oldlol: Jordan retired because he did not want to play without Pippen or Jackson (I wonder why...) and they left. So did Rodman and Longley. The Bulls lost their three best players and four starters. That was hardly the same team. The 94' Bulls had all the key players the 93' Bulls had except for Jordan. The rest of the starting five was exactly the same.[/quote]

The 05 Lakers lost Shaq, Malone, Payton and Jackson. The 94 Bulls are the team that doesn't fit.

[quote]Cartwright wasn't there for rebounding either. That was Grant's job. Cartwright was a good defender, especially historically against Ewing. He was a veteran while Longley was a second year player and Wennington was out the league for a few years. He was given more leeway on defense than they were.[/quote]

Regardless of past history, their was no noticeable difference between Cartwright and Wennington between 93 and 94. It's a wash.

[quote]Better than decent imo. A good one as a SF. As a PF he sucked because he lacked the toughness and strength a PF needed. All he had was the height of a PF. As a SF his numbers were not Earth shattering but he was a 6th man playing limited minutes and the "#3 option" on offense behind Jordan and Pippen. He could do a lot more in a featured role. He did average 19 ppg in 99' as the "#1 option." Yeah, he did little after Chicago but he was 31 by then.[/quote]

:cheers: I also thought he was a very good player. One of my top five favorite Bulls players along with Jordan, Grant, Pippen and Rodman.

[quote]You are incorrect on Williams and the Harper trade. Negotiations were ongoing when Williams got hurt and his injury killed any shot they had at Harper.[/quote]

Krause initally only offered a single number one pick. If he had coughed up Wiliams earlier, the Bulls could have had Harper.



[quote]What? Read the threads yourself. Do you see a fleet of Kobe fans bashing Bynum or Nash fans attacking Amare?[/quote]

No more than I see people bashing Scottie.

[quote]Duncan had one of the weakest "supporting casts" of any championship team in 2003. No one disputes this. That team is up there with the 94' Rockets and the 75' or whenever it was in the mid-70's that Barry's Warriors won.[/QUOTE]

So what does that say about Shaq, considering he had Kobe that year? Maybe we've been comparing MJ to the wrong guy. :oldlol:

I have not seen a single person in this thread say Pippen was not a top 5-10 player during his prime in the league. I have not seen a single person in this thread say Jordan won everything by himself. And yet, here you are again Roundball, discrediting everything Jordan has ever accomplished because of poor unappreciated Pippen.

Where exactly are these "Team Jordan" people? I can't say I have seen much if anything like these people in any thread recently. Yet your crusade continues as if you are the only enlightened basketball mind that has ever graced the earth and it is your mission to destroy these invisible "Team Jordan" people.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]The problem is there is a fleet of about a dozen fans. They basically say the same things so I conflate them. You differ a bit. I was not talking about you but Team Jordan.[/QUOTE]

Well, there you have it Alhazred. You have made very thought out posts, have not once even come close to insinuating that Jordan won anything by himself, or that Pippen is overrated, and you ONLY differ a bit to Roundball. Either we all agree with him about everything he says or we are all "Team Jordan" to him, arguing with someone like this is pointless.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]In his book Elliot Kalb points out Shaq's teams won an average of 56 games from 1993-2003 (the number would be higher when you adjust for games Shaq missed. He compares that to Russell's average of 58 wins (Kareem's average is 57). Here are his team's performance with him (with the 82 game pace in parentheses):

41-40 (42)
49-32 (50)
55-24 (57)
40-14 (61)
38-13 (61)
46-14 (63)
31-18 (52, lockout season)
66-13 (69)
51-23 (57)
51-16 (63)
45-22 (55)
49-18 (60)
53-20 (60)
42-17 (58)
25-15 (51)
25-36 (34)
44-31 (48)
10-5 (55)

His career winning percentage translates to approximately 55 wins per year. If you look at his record from 1993-2006 his teams were on pace for 59 wins over 82 games.

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=3753359#post3753359[/url]

Those aren't percentages but people can compare the numbers and reach their own conclusion.[/QUOTE]

Nice. It looks like you compiled the rest. Actually from 93-06, Shaq's teams were on pace for 57 wins, not 59. If you did the same for Jordan, he's actually 54 wins per 82, 1 less then Shaq. If you take out Jordan's Wizard years, like you did for Shaq's past 4 seasons, he's at about 56. Of course this doesn't tell the whole story. It doesn't take into account that Shaq played with much better teams then what Jordan had in almost all of the 80s except for about 1.5 seasons (93, and the first half of the 07-08 season), and Jordan's Wizard seasons, and more importantly, it doesn't take injuries into account, which Shaq had way more of. The durability of a player should definitely play into "impact".

Anyway, I wasn't trying to say Shaq didn't have much impact. I was just pointing that W-L records without a star player isn't a great way to measure impact because as I showed in Shaq's case, its very different in each. Some teams didn't fall off that badly, some fell off really badly. There wasn't a trend.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
They were in similar situations to Lebron. :oldlol: @ implying Pippen was on Mo William's level.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe either one of them had a teammate that came on and improved the team 15-20 games.

I wasn't implying anything about Pippen. I was talking about your ridiculous logic revolving around putting a player on or off a team and seeing how much the team improves or declines and concluding that there is their impact. According to that logic, someone in 20 years is going to look back and conclude that Mo had this HOF like impact.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
I have MJ third or fourth all-time. Of course he had impact. [B]What I argue is that he had less impact than any other top-tier of all-time player.[/B]
[/QUOTE]

Well I have to highly disagree with that. Not sure what you mean by top tier. If you mean the general consensus top 10, I find that somewhat laughable. But to each his own.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
What do you expect? Jordan fans say that about great player after great player so that is going to trigger a response. You were in the Kareem thread, no? The MJ fan argument revolved around two things: 1) "rings as a man" 2) Kareem had Magic for 5 of his rings. What do you expect in response?
[/QUOTE]

I don't see what's wrong with bringing that up when people try to equate Kareem's 6 rings with Jordan's which many times they try to do. It doesn't necessarily mean Jordan is better, but I understand why its brought up in that case.

Either way, from the beginning there's always been more "Jordan couldn't win without Pippen" comments as opposed to "Magic couldn't win without Kareem", "Bird couldn't win without Parish or McHale", etc. There's absolutely no denying that. Point is Jordan fans aren't the only ones that hold that argument against players. Pretty much everyone does, which in many ways is unfair.


[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
You are looking only at numbers. The funny thing is guy (or Da Realist but he isn't in this thread) would chide you for that (you are 21, didn't watch basketball in 94', are relying heavily on stats. Basically you are doing what I did regarding the late 80's Bulls) if you were arguing the opposite positions but he is saying nothing since your posting suits his agenda. It isn't just you. I've seen threads that guy is in where several Jordan fans said demonstrably false things like "Pippen did nothing in the 98' finals" and guy is silent on that. Come on, guy. Quit the hypocrisy. [/QUOTE]

LOL. Dude I can't respond to everyone. I try not to read every single poster's posts and then respond to them cause I would literally waste my whole day doing that. I have an agenda? I'm on this board alot and respond to many threads based on many different topics.

Most of the people that say crap like "Pippen did nothing" have no idea what they're talking about, and for the most part it shows. They're not much worse then the Kobe trolls who will post a bunch of crap trying to make him look like the GOAT, and will go to the opposite extreme and overrate Pippen to make Kobe look better vs. Jordan. I don't respond to either of them because their a bunch of idiot trolls that really don't know what they're talking about. They are not worth the response.

Most of the Jordan/Bulls fans that know about Pippen generally don't overrate or underrate Pippen, so they won't say things like "Pippen did nothing" and for the most part, I agree with many of their points, so thats why I don't feel the need to respond to them.

So you might wonder why I respond to you? Cause I don't really think of you as those trolls. I do think you have an agenda, but I'll respond to it sometimes because although I think you really don't know what you're talking about and have some really flawed logic to your conclusions, you seem to have done alot of research and know some history. You've put the time and effort to put out well-thought out arguments, even though I think they're mostly all wrong.

Your agenda? Propping up Jordan, diminishing Pippen. Does that mean that is all you post about? No, but not all of my posts are about Jordan either. How many Jordan threads have I ever posted? Most of the MJ threads I have made actually were pro-MJ (from when I first joined ISH)...

[QUOTE]Nice. It looks like you compiled the rest. Actually from 93-06, Shaq's teams were on pace for 57 wins, not 59. [/QUOTE]

Yeah, I meant 94-06'. BTW I did list his whole record. I even included this year (10-5 at the time). The 94-06' thing was because the thread was an advocacy thread for Shaq.

[QUOTE]I don't see what's wrong with bringing that up when people try to equate Kareem's 6 rings with Jordan's which many times they try to do. It doesn't necessarily mean Jordan is better, but I understand why its brought up in that case.[/QUOTE]

There is nothing wrong with it but there also is nothing wrong with the obvious response that will trigger. Jordan fans love saying it when it comes to everyone else but complain when the same thing is done with respect to Jordan.

[QUOTE]"Magic couldn't win without Kareem", "Bird couldn't win without Parish or McHale", etc.[/QUOTE]

? I haven't seen that since I have been here. How many Bird, Kareem, or Magic threads are there? If you read this forum you would think the NBA began in 1990.

It isn't just you. I never see any of the "reasonable" MJ fans correct some blatant misconceptions even when they are in the thread responding to other things. They ignore them because, for whatever reason, MJ fans as a group think Pippen looking worse will somehow elevate Jordan. The last time I checked he is #1 on 90% of lists. He is high as he can go.

[QUOTE]e Kobe trolls who will post a bunch of crap trying to make him look like the GOAT, and will go to the opposite extreme and overrate Pippen to make Kobe look better vs. Jordan[/QUOTE]

Can you explain this Kobe/Pippen thing I keep hearing MJ fans talk about? I said the following in another thread:

[QUOTE]MJ fans. You are a Bulls fan. There is a difference. Only a couple of these MJ fans are Bulls fans (guy, Samuri to name two). You never see most of them defending Rose or talking about what the Bulls should do in 2010 or in a Bulls game thread. Look at any Pippen thread and note who it is who is bashing him. It is the same dozen or so posters and 90% of them aren't Oscar Robertson or Vince Carter fans.

They hide behind Kobe and say they launched a crusade against Pip because Kobe fans "overrate Pippen." Evidently the grand plan is to elevate Pippen to diminish MJ from #1 all-time to #2 or #3 all-time (because somehow elevating Pippen will downgrade Jordan, even though Kareem played with Magic, Wilt with West, etc.) so Kobe can overtake MJ by going from #10 all-time to...#10 all-time. Hey, that is their theory! However, that excuse doesn't fly. You will also notice in those threads that hardly any Kobe fans defend Pippen. It is always Bulls/Pippen fans like me, 97 bulls, kshutts, and hitmary along with a few random people in a given thread. The only Kobe fan who consistently defends Pippen is soopa. If there is a vast Kobe fan conspiracy to elevate Pippen most Kobe fans missed the memo. Besides, it is an idiotic theory. So idiotic that MJ fans should not take it seriously. How exactly would Pippen being viewed as great cause Jordan to tumble from #1 in most eyes? All the greats played with great players when they won rings, some of them with players greater than Pippen. They will probably say "Shaq!". Get real. Everyone knows Shaq>Pippen. Besides, 99% of people on this board believe MJ>Kobe. There is no legit comparison or competition between MJ and Kobe. So why the crusade against a "threat" that does not exist and even if it did would be a farce? Even if Pippen magically moves up to #7 all-time so what (which no one argues) MJ is still MJ. Shaq still>Pippen. MJ still>Kobe.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Most of the Jordan/Bulls fans that know about Pippen generally don't overrate or underrate Pippen,[/QUOTE]

Jordan fans as a group here underrate him. He is almost always 25th, give or take a few spots, on lists. They will say he is top 35, top 40, one guy says he is not top 50, another somehow claims that Pippen is top 25 yet peak Pippen would not even be top 5 today. There are just guys who have stated their rankings. Then there are others. I don't want to name names because it isn't personal but I didn't make these people up (if you think I made them up shoot me a PM). Three of them are in most Pippen threads and one used to be but doesn't post much anymore. Da_Realist and you rate him highly, although you are a strange case since you only talk about him in a negative manner. You are like OldSchoolBBall in that sense, although I get the vibe that OSB genuinely dislikes Pip and you don't. At best you will say "He was a great player but he was overrated for the following ten reasons". :oldlol:

The irony is I have Jordan #3 or #4 all-time and concede he has a case for GOAT. I am in the ballpark with him. I have Pippen 18th-20th. In other words, I am off only a few spots from his average ranking but what do you expect from a Pippen fan and plus I weight winning. The typical MJ fan here is farther off from Pippen's typical ranking then I am on Pippen or Jordan. :oldlol: