The "Ring" Argument

[QUOTE=Tenchi Ryu]Basketball is a team sport, which is true. But the thing about Basketball is that unlike any other team sport, the court and overall flow of the game can be effected by one person. One person can be making a huge impact on the game. Its usually these people who are brought up in the RING discussion in the first place, not the role-players or scrubs who did their intended part.

You would never hear Fisher > Iverson cause of rings, cause his impact wasn't a dominate force to GET the ring.

Compare to say a argument like Kobe > Iverson cause of rings, that's different since Kobe WAS one of the dominant forces mostly responsible for the ring. Teammates are important, but the more elite you are, the better you'll make your team, simple as that.[/QUOTE]

100% agree with this.

The Ring matters.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]No its not. What player could you have replaced MJ with and still won titles? Very few if any. I'd say 50% is low.[/QUOTE]
We've heard this song before. The 96-98 bulls were essentially the 94 bulls without jordan and rodman. There's no doubt in my mind that you could replace jordan with a top notch SG and the bulls still win.

Do they win 72, 69, and 62 (with pippen missing half the season) games? No. And they probably don't win in 98. But that team had a lot of talent and depth. They're gonna have 6 hofers once kukoc gets in. 7 if you count krause.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]We've heard this song before. The 96-98 bulls were essentially the 94 bulls without jordan and rodman. There's no doubt in my mind that you could replace jordan with a top notch SG and the bulls still win.

Do they win 72, 69, and 62 (with pippen missing half the season) games? No. And they probably don't win in 98. But that team had a lot of talent and depth. They're gonna have 6 hofers once kukoc gets in. 7 if you count krause.[/QUOTE]

I don't think you understand just how fragile winning and losing the title those years were. You have no doubt they could replace the GOAT with someone and still three peat? What the **** are you smoking?

Please list the players in 96, 97, and 98 that you think could have replaced MJ and the Bulls still win....

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I don't think you understand just how fragile winning and losing the title those years were. You have no doubt they could replace the GOAT with someone and still three peat? What the **** are you smoking?

Please list the players in 96, 97, and 98 that you think could have replaced MJ and the Bulls still win....[/QUOTE]
Lol did you read my post? I mean, did you really, really, read my post?

I'm not saying that you could just put some schmuck in jordans place and the bulls still win. I'm sure prime drexler and mitch richmond could've replaced jordan and they still win. Maybe not 3, and they wouldn't be nearly as dominant. Meaning they don't win 70+ games, and they don't win 69. More like 62 in 96, and 60 in 97. Neither drexler or richmond could've kept that team afloat the way jordan did in 98.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Lol did you read my post? I mean, did you really, really, read my post?

I'm not saying that you could just put some schmuck in jordans place and the bulls still win. I'm sure prime drexler and mitch richmond could've replaced jordan and they still win. Maybe not 3, and they wouldn't be nearly as dominant. Meaning they don't win 70+ games, and they don't win 69. More like 62 in 96, and 60 in 97. Neither drexler or richmond could've kept that team afloat the way jordan did in 98.[/QUOTE]

Prime Drexler didn't exist at that time so thats irrelevant. Might as well say prime Wade or prime Kobe if you're going to say that then. If Richmond was on the team, there's no way they get that far IMO. I'd say they'd at least lose to Orlando in 96 and either Miami or Utah in 97.

[QUOTE=guy]Prime Drexler didn't exist at that time so thats irrelevant. Might as well say prime Wade or prime Kobe if you're going to say that then. If Richmond was on the team, there's no way they get that far IMO. I'd say they'd at least lose to Orlando in 96 and either Miami or Utah in 97.[/QUOTE]
I guess well have to agree to disagree. Based on what I saw in 94, and there's no doubt the 96-98 bulls without jordan were better than the 94 bulls without jordan cuz kukoc, longley, and chemistry all improved. And we saw what they did in 94.

I can't really think of another sg off the top of my head in 97, maybe spreewell? They would've won, they wouldn't have been as dominant. They had a lot of depth.

If or when Lebron ever does win a ring, they'll stop saying how pointless rings are.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]I guess well have to agree to disagree. Based on what I saw in 94, and there's no doubt the 96-98 bulls without jordan were better than the 94 bulls without jordan cuz kukoc, longley, and chemistry all improved. And we saw what they did in 94.

I can't really think of another sg off the top of my head in 97, maybe spreewell? They would've won, they wouldn't have been as dominant. They had a lot of depth.[/QUOTE]

The thought of an immature hothead like Sprewell meshing well with the Bulls, specifically being able to command the respect of someone like Rodman,sounds far-fetched.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Lol did you read my post? I mean, did you really, really, read my post?

I'm not saying that you could just put some schmuck in jordans place and the bulls still win. I'm sure prime drexler and mitch richmond could've replaced jordan and they still win. Maybe not 3, and they wouldn't be nearly as dominant. Meaning they don't win 70+ games, and they don't win 69. More like 62 in 96, and 60 in 97. Neither drexler or richmond could've kept that team afloat the way jordan did in 98.[/QUOTE]

Yes. And I laugh at the notion that prime Richmond is winning anything from 96-98.

Drexler wasn't in his prime then so I don't really understand where that comes from.....but even with prime Drexler I don't think they win 1 title. Prime Wade and Kobe? Yea...they probably win 1....maybe 2 if lucky...definitely not 3 though.

You continue to grossly under-rate the impact the star and best player on a team have in terms of winning a title....especially with the GOAT. There is a difference between a team being very good and winning the title. A huge difference.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41] There is a difference between a team being very good and winning the title. A huge difference.[/QUOTE]

Definitely seems like people don't understand this. There's like 7-8 very good teams every year and even a significant upgrade at one position doesn't necessarily make them go from very good to winning a title.

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]I remember watching the 1997 Finals and seeing Jordan's average of ppg go up each time from regular season, playoffs (first 3 rounds), and finals.

Offcourse, that's not the only way to guage by just ppg, but then when you look further:

Playoff PPG:

Jordan: 31.1
Rest of the Bulls: 57.8

35% of the scoring coming from Jordan.

And in the Finals PPG:

Jordan: 32.3
Rest of the Bulls: 55.5

36.7% of the scoring coming from Jordan.

Offcourse, their defense is also another big reason why they won, but Jordan was literally carrying the load on offense.

So you got to give a lot of credit to Jordan for being the best player/leader of that team.

35-40%, sounds right ?[/QUOTE]

35-40% sounds fair. I'd up the ante and go 50% (like guy). That's just me though. Pippen and Jackson get something like forty percent while the rest of the Bulls makeup the remaining ten.

Teams win championships, but its asinine to think someone like Jordan only had 1% of his teams doing. Totally absurd :oldlol:

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Yes. And I laugh at the notion that prime Richmond is winning anything from 96-98.

Drexler wasn't in his prime then so I don't really understand where that comes from.....but even with prime Drexler I don't think they win 1 title. Prime Wade and Kobe? Yea...they probably win 1....maybe 2 if lucky...definitely not 3 though.

You continue to grossly under-rate the impact the star and best player on a team have in terms of winning a title....especially with the GOAT. There is a difference between a team being very good and winning the title. A huge difference.[/QUOTE]
There is a difference. But 50%? Especially when we actually saw how they'd fair without jordan? Come on.

The bulls were slightly off their 94 pace in 98 when pippen was hurt. Does that mean pippen is more important than jordan? Get serious.

I watched jordan struggle in the 80s when he didn't have very much help. I watch the bulls when jordan abruptly retired in 94. They were beaten by the knicks in 7, the team that they beat in the playoffs in 7 games only one year earlier. Losing jordan did not result in what id call a 50% or more drop.

What's more, is how you can sit here and say that the bulls with drexler, sprewell, or richmond wouldn't have gotton them over the hump in 94. They lost to the knicks in 7. The knicks in turn lost to the rockets in 7. The rockets barely beat the knicks and the knicks barely beat the bulls.

[QUOTE=guy]Definitely seems like people don't understand this. There's like 7-8 very good teams every year and even a significant upgrade at one position doesn't necessarily make them go from very good to winning a title.[/QUOTE]
Really? The heat went from being a joke, gutting their whole team for james and bosh, to being a contender. How bout the clippers? How much better has just adding chris paul made them? They've been a laughing stock for almost 30 years.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]There is a difference. But 50%? Especially when we actually saw how they'd fair without jordan? Come on.

The bulls were slightly off their 94 pace in 98 when pippen was hurt. Does that mean pippen is more important than jordan? Get serious.

I watched jordan struggle in the 80s when he didn't have very much help. I watch the bulls when jordan abruptly retired in 94. They were beaten by the knicks in 7, the team that they beat in the playoffs in 7 games only one year earlier. Losing jordan did not result in what id call a 50% or more drop.

What's more, is how you can sit here and say that the bulls with drexler, sprewell, or richmond wouldn't have gotton them over the hump in 94. They lost to the knicks in 7. The knicks in turn lost to the rockets in 7. The rockets barely beat the knicks and the knicks barely beat the bulls.[/QUOTE]

Because there is a fine line between winning and losing. And I never actually said that. I was discussing 96-98 as you pointed out.

Jordan didn't struggle in the 80's....his teams did.

You just seem unable to grasp what should be obvious. MJ was by far the most important player on the Bulls. By far. You simply could not replace him and get similar results.

Just like Dirk was by far the most important player on the Mavs this year. You wanted it to be more about Tyson Chandler or some other BS crap you were spewing.

You just don't get the game man. All of your conclusions just aren't in line with reality. Whether its that Dirk doesn't deserve more credit than everyone else, Pippen was better than Magic, MJ was replaceable.....it just goes on and on. The conclusions you make simply don't register with reality.

You have to keep going back to just 1 year in which the Bulls lost in the 2nd freaking round. Its not even close to enough evidence.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Because there is a fine line between winning and losing. And I never actually said that. I was discussing 96-98 as you pointed out.

Jordan didn't struggle in the 80's....his teams did.

You just seem unable to grasp what should be obvious. MJ was by far the most important player on the Bulls. By far. You simply could not replace him and get similar results.

Just like Dirk was by far the most important player on the Mavs this year. You wanted it to be more about Tyson Chandler or some other BS crap you were spewing.

You just don't get the game man. All of your conclusions just aren't in line with reality. Whether its that Dirk doesn't deserve more credit than everyone else, Pippen was better than Magic, MJ was replaceable.....it just goes on and on. The conclusions you make simply don't register with reality.

You have to keep going back to just 1 year in which the Bulls lost in the 2nd freaking round. Its not even close to enough evidence.[/QUOTE]
Statistically jordan didn't struggle. But his teams weren't talented enough to be competitive.

Here's your problem. You mistake the best player as being the most valuable. Yes dirk was the best player on the mavs there no disputing that. But chandler manning the paint, along with marion and stevensons defense, and the mavs timely shooting was just as important to the mavs winning.

What's ironic is the very same people that tout these silly excuse for dirk, james, wade etc . The excuse that. They didn't have a good enough team when they lose, are the same one that want to give minimal credit to the "role" players when they do win.

Its just amazing