Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH

[QUOTE=Rubio2Gasol]Hakeem in 94 for me is the most I've ever seen a dude carry his team.[/QUOTE]

His teams arguably revolved around him more than any other championship team that I've seen. He had to score about 30 per game, but they also played 4 out/1 in with the shooters getting looks from Hakeem's doubles. So the offense really relied on him whether he was scoring or not. Obviously, he also had to anchor the defense, and Houston wasn't the best rebounding team, partially to the 4 out/1 in system, so they relied on Hakeem to be a decent rebounding team as well. Although their system primarily took away offensive rebounding opportunities that first year, but that just shows how much more they had to rely on Hakeem for their offense.

Although the '95 team had more offensive firepower and a legit second all-star in Clyde Drexler, you could argue Hakeem had to carry them even more that year. Houston got themselves in a hole by finishing as the 6th seed and had to beat teams that won 60, 59, 62 and 57 games to win the title. And Houston had less defensive support and less rebounding around Hakeem this year because of the small lineup.

I have trouble accepting that people like this are serious.

I guess Carlos Boozer was alone on the Jazz when Deron was not an all star in 07, 08, and 09 while he was doing like 20/10 in the playoffs? Boozer an all star 2 of those years. all alone out there with no help...even if he might have been his teams second best player......

OP is either an extremely frustrated Pippen fan or just a nut job, I go with the latter.

[QUOTE=Psileas]
Hakeem in '94 won the title with 0 all-star [B]quality/level[/B] players, 0 all-NBA, 0 all-defensive team and 0 all-rookie guys. Rick Barry in '75 had 1 all-rookie teammate and that was all.[/QUOTE]
He didn't have all-star talent, but he had well placed role players, quality players, and basically a stacked roster ... which is different than being the most talented.

The '94 Knicks and '94 Rockets were mirror images of one another in terms of their talent, their rosters and how they were built.

Kenny Smith
Vernon Maxwell
Sam Cassell
Robert Horry
Otis Thorpe

That's a quality roster when it's built around Hakeem, the do it all center. Sometimes having a well balanced roster is better than having top heavy talent from a couple of superstars.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]In what context is it "overstated"? Noone denies Jordan was the best player on the Bulls. But this isnt tennis. You dont win championships without help.[/QUOTE]

In the context that when people refer to him having so much help, they act as if Jordan had absolutely nothing to do with his help being that good and him having that type of quality help around him was more due to dumb luck and he was just so much more fortunate then other superstars.

These people fail to point out that Jordan from the beginning established a winning culture and expectation in the organization with his level of play and competitiveness.

They bring up Scottie Pippen but fail to point out that Jordan was greatly instrumental in the development of Scottie Pippen, who entered the league as a DIV II raw college player. Now you can say Pippen would've ended up like that anyway or someone else would've done what Jordan did and help bring out his potential. But the fact is it was Jordan who did that, a DIV II college player succeeding the way Pippen did is extremely rare, and there isn't a similar story of a great player taking a teammate under his wing and helping him become a superstar thats anywhere near as documented as what Jordan did to Pippen (not saying it may have not happened, cause obviously Jordan's stories get more coverage, but regardless there's nothing we know of thats similar). And he didn't take him under his wing, but you can say that Jordan was very instrumental in the development of Horace Grant too just by getting to play together so much and the experience of going deep in the playoffs. Jordan was huge in the toughening up of Pippen and Grant that eventually won them championships.

They bring up Phil Jackson, but then fail to point out that Phil had zero head coaching experience before he got to Chicago and only 2 years as an assistant. He had less experience after the first championhip then Erik Spoelstra did.

They bring up Dennis Rodman in the 2nd three-peat, but then fail to point out that despite leading the league in rebounds for years, NO team wanted to touch him cause of his attitude. Only the Bulls felt they had the leadership to contain him, and Jordan was obviously a huge part of that leadership.

And then they bring up all these role players like BJ Armstrong, John Paxson, Bill Cartwright, Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr, Ron Harper, etc. and act like they were special players when the reality is that role players are clearly interchangeable. They aren't players that dramatically change a team. They have skillsets who's utilization is mostly a function of how star players and coaches use them. Now, people look back and think they were just these stacked rosters cause of players like this, when the reality is there were a number of players like this in the league, but they are mostly forgotten because they weren't as successful cause they didn't get to play on championship teams. I guess people will most likely say the same thing in 10-20 years about players like Udonis Haslem, Joel Anthony, Mario Chalmers, Norris Cole, etc if the Heat win a bunch of titles even though now most people say the Heat suck outside of the big 3.

Another thing people don't realize is that a huge reason for a team's success is continuity. Bulls had a formula that worked so they didn't need to fix it. When a team doesn't have to continuosly make adjustments, they are usually ahead of everyone else because of their experience together and playing a certain way, not necessarily because they are more talented. Compare that to the experience of someone like Charles Barkley or Karl Malone, who weren't as easy to build around and didn't have the same success, so they were constantly in different situations where their team was always looking for the right formula, whether it was on the same team in Malone's case or on multiple teams in Barkley's case. The continuity is also helped by the superstar who helps lay a solid foundation to build around, and Jordan was more of a ROCK to build around then a mental midget like Malone or Ewing, a player with poor work ethic like Barkley, a hot head like Hakeem, a nice guy like Robinson, etc.

People make way too much of a great player's "help". They act like its a black and white thing where that player has absolutely nothing to do with the help he's getting, when thats not the case at all. I'm not talking about this with just Jordan, but in the cases of other great players as well. People point to Magic having Kareem, not pointing out that many people believe that Magic significantly extended Kareem's career. People point to Bird with McHale and Parish, not pointing out that McHale wasn't even that good his first few years, and Parish wasn't even considered that good of player before he got to Boston. People point to Tim Duncan with Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, not pointing out that without a selfless leader like Duncan, those two may not have flourished like they did or buy into relatively limited roles in comparison to their peers. Then you got these stupid comparisons where people compare how a team does with and without their superstar and the bigger the dropoff dictates how valuable that player is to the team, which is completely stupid. In many cases it should be a negative reflection. Somehow when a team like the Bulls does well without Derrick Rose, it means he's not that valuable despite the fact that you can clearly see he positively influences that team's locker room with the way they seem to take on his attitude, work ethic, and demeanor. But then when the Magic last year were doing bad without Dwight Howard after he went down with his injury, it means he's very valuable despite the fact that maybe him destroying that locker room with his trade demands, coach firing requests, etc had something to do with it?

Anyway, like I said, people overstate these things. I'm obviously not saying a star player has everything to do with his help, cause thats impossible because the potential has to be there in the first place, plus in many cases they don't have much of an impact on it. I'm just saying people here make way too much of it, especially in Jordan's case.

[QUOTE=Money 23]
That's a quality roster when it's built around Hakeem, the do it all center. Sometimes having a well balanced roster is better than having top heavy talent from a couple of superstars.[/QUOTE]

True, complementing your star with a system and supporting cast that suit him will be more effective than a team with several all-stars who don't fit together. Many people don't look at how well teams are built enough. Regardless, it required Hakeem to play incredible basketball all year because of how much the team revolved around him. He had players that complemented him and a system that brought out the best in him, but it takes a hell of a player to succeed with that type of responsibility.

[QUOTE=guy]In the context that when people refer to him having so much help, they act as if Jordan had absolutely nothing to do with his help being that good and him having that type of quality help around him was more due to dumb luck and he was just so much more fortunate then other superstars.

These people fail to point out that Jordan from the beginning established a winning culture and expectation in the organization with his level of play and competitiveness.

They bring up Scottie Pippen but fail to point out that Jordan was greatly instrumental in the development of Scottie Pippen, who entered the league as a DIV II raw college player. Now you can say Pippen would've ended up like that anyway or someone else would've done what Jordan did and help bring out his potential. But the fact is it was Jordan who did that, a DIV II college player succeeding the way Pippen did is extremely rare, and there isn't a similar story of a great player taking a teammate under his wing and helping him become a superstar thats anywhere near as documented as what Jordan did to Pippen (not saying it may have not happened, cause obviously Jordan's stories get more coverage, but regardless there's nothing we know of thats similar). And he didn't take him under his wing, but you can say that Jordan was very instrumental in the development of Horace Grant too just by getting to play together so much and the experience of going deep in the playoffs. Jordan was huge in the toughening up of Pippen and Grant that eventually won them championships.

They bring up Phil Jackson, but then fail to point out that Phil had zero head coaching experience before he got to Chicago and only 2 years as an assistant. He had less experience after the first championhip then Erik Spoelstra did.

They bring up Dennis Rodman in the 2nd three-peat, but then fail to point out that despite leading the league in rebounds for years, NO team wanted to touch him cause of his attitude. Only the Bulls felt they had the leadership to contain him, and Jordan was obviously a huge part of that leadership.

And then they bring up all these role players like BJ Armstrong, John Paxson, Bill Cartwright, Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr, Ron Harper, etc. and act like they were special players when the reality is that role players are clearly interchangeable. They aren't players that dramatically change a team. They have skillsets who's utilization is mostly a function of how star players and coaches use them. Now, people look back and think they were just these stacked rosters cause of players like this, when the reality is there were a number of players like this in the league, but they are mostly forgotten because they weren't as successful cause they didn't get to play on championship teams. I guess people will most likely say the same thing in 10-20 years about players like Udonis Haslem, Joel Anthony, Mario Chalmers, Norris Cole, etc if the Heat win a bunch of titles even though now most people say the Heat suck outside of the big 3.

Another thing people don't realize is that a huge reason for a team's success is continuity. Bulls had a formula that worked so they didn't need to fix it. When a team doesn't have to continuosly make adjustments, they are usually ahead of everyone else because of their experience together and playing a certain way, not necessarily because they are more talented. Compare that to the experience of someone like Charles Barkley or Karl Malone, who weren't as easy to build around and didn't have the same success, so they were constantly in different situations where their team was always looking for the right formula, whether it was on the same team in Malone's case or on multiple teams in Barkley's case. The continuity is also helped by the superstar who helps lay a solid foundation to build around, and Jordan was more of a ROCK to build around then a mental midget like Malone or Ewing, a player with poor work ethic like Barkley, a hot head like Hakeem, a nice guy like Robinson, etc.

People make way too much of a great player's "help". They act like its a black and white thing where that player has absolutely nothing to do with the help he's getting, when thats not the case at all. I'm not talking about this with just Jordan, but in the cases of other great players as well. People point to Magic having Kareem, not pointing out that many people believe that Magic significantly extended Kareem's career. People point to Bird with McHale and Parish, not pointing out that McHale wasn't even that good his first few years, and Parish wasn't even considered that good of player before he got to Boston. People point to Tim Duncan with Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, not pointing out that without a selfless leader like Duncan, those two may not have flourished like they did or buy into relatively limited roles in comparison to their peers. Then you got these stupid comparisons where people compare how a team does with and without their superstar and the bigger the dropoff dictates how valuable that player is to the team, which is completely stupid. In many cases it should be a negative reflection. Somehow when a team like the Bulls does well without Derrick Rose, it means he's not that valuable despite the fact that you can clearly see he positively influences that team's locker room with the way they seem to take on his attitude, work ethic, and demeanor. But then when the Magic last year were doing bad without Dwight Howard after he went down with his injury, it means he's very valuable despite the fact that maybe him destroying that locker room with his trade demands, coach firing requests, etc had something to do with it?

[B]Anyway, like I said, people overstate these things.[/B] I'm obviously not saying a star player has everything to do with his help, cause thats impossible because the potential has to be there in the first place, plus in many cases they don't have much of an impact on it. I'm just saying people here make way too much of it, especially in Jordan's case.[/QUOTE]
Says the topic sentence of the conclusion to a huge ass wall of text stating MJ's monumental influence on a bunch of retards that turned them into a 6 time championship team.

[IMG]http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/bulls/photos/finals1991_100922.jpg[/IMG]

Who are the rest of those guys celebrating?

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]True, complementing your star with a system and supporting cast that suit him will be more effective than a team with several all-stars who don't fit together. Many people don't look at how well teams are built enough. Regardless, it required Hakeem to play incredible basketball all year because of how much the team revolved around him. He had players that complemented him and a system that brought out the best in him, but it takes a hell of a player to succeed with that type of responsibility.[/QUOTE]

He did but the system you described ain't really what it was.

Firstly - the 4 out 1 in system you're describing wasn't run. Otis was a banger who hustled inside, rebounded well and complimented well on D because he could defend the post and let him freelance. He never set foot outside the 3 PT line. He was an amazing outlet passer as well.

Vernon - I love him - but people like to make him seem like more than he actually was. He was as inconsistent a scorer you will ever see and while he was a x-factor for some games in that Knicks series and won the personal battle with Starks....he was neither a great fit with Hakeem nor a legit 2nd option. He would launch 3's but he didn't make them and he was best taking people off the dribble - something Rudy really gave him the room to do.

Horry was a good compliment, he shot OK crashed the offensive boards and defended.

Kenny was effectively a shooter. Cassel was a rookie backup point so just steer clear of that.

But in alll reason - as far as talent besides Hakeem - these teams were bare bones compared to the Portland or Phoenix teams they beat - the Bulls being discussed now or any team that won a chip since . Then you factor in that the performance of the others depended on his own - it's really pretty clear cut.

So "stacked" is not a word I'd use to describe them.

To me that's a word that should be reserved for teams like Shaq and Kobe's Lakers - which had the two best players in the game + glove fitted role players. The Bulls who had the best defenders everywhere to go with Jordan and Pippen. Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers.

This team was perhaps well constructed - in the same vein a Indiana currently is..but so were the ones I outlined. The difference is they had 3x the talent.

[QUOTE=kmartshopper]And so it begins. The great shitstorm of our time.[/QUOTE]

:lol :lol

[QUOTE=funnystuff]ISH should make a seperate "Historic players" forum.[/QUOTE]
How would that fix the Kobe problem though? Maybe Jeff should add a "Historic players" forum AND a "Incredibly overrated NBA players" forum.

No more Rondo, Kobe, or Irving?

:applause:

[QUOTE]MJ won 1991 title without a real sidekick.[/QUOTE]

Possibly the dumbest fuggin thing Ive ever seen on here and thats saying something.

[QUOTE=dunksby]Says the topic sentence of the conclusion to a huge ass wall of text stating MJ's monumental influence on a bunch of retards that turned them into a 6 time championship team.[/QUOTE]

Where did I say or imply that he played with a bunch of "retards"? Yes, he had a huge influence as most star players do. And this is a message board, and obviously my huge ass wall of text wasn't long enough for you not to read it.

[QUOTE=guy]In the context that when people refer to him having so much help, they act as if Jordan had absolutely nothing to do with his help being that good and him having that type of quality help around him was more due to dumb luck and he was just so much more fortunate then other superstars.

These people fail to point out that Jordan from the beginning established a winning culture and expectation in the organization with his level of play and competitiveness.

They bring up Scottie Pippen but fail to point out that Jordan was greatly instrumental in the development of Scottie Pippen, who entered the league as a DIV II raw college player. Now you can say Pippen would've ended up like that anyway or someone else would've done what Jordan did and help bring out his potential. But the fact is it was Jordan who did that, a DIV II college player succeeding the way Pippen did is extremely rare, and there isn't a similar story of a great player taking a teammate under his wing and helping him become a superstar thats anywhere near as documented as what Jordan did to Pippen (not saying it may have not happened, cause obviously Jordan's stories get more coverage, but regardless there's nothing we know of thats similar). And he didn't take him under his wing, but you can say that Jordan was very instrumental in the development of Horace Grant too just by getting to play together so much and the experience of going deep in the playoffs. Jordan was huge in the toughening up of Pippen and Grant that eventually won them championships.

They bring up Phil Jackson, but then fail to point out that Phil had zero head coaching experience before he got to Chicago and only 2 years as an assistant. He had less experience after the first championhip then Erik Spoelstra did.

They bring up Dennis Rodman in the 2nd three-peat, but then fail to point out that despite leading the league in rebounds for years, NO team wanted to touch him cause of his attitude. Only the Bulls felt they had the leadership to contain him, and Jordan was obviously a huge part of that leadership.

And then they bring up all these role players like BJ Armstrong, John Paxson, Bill Cartwright, Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr, Ron Harper, etc. and act like they were special players when the reality is that role players are clearly interchangeable. They aren't players that dramatically change a team. They have skillsets who's utilization is mostly a function of how star players and coaches use them. Now, people look back and think they were just these stacked rosters cause of players like this, when the reality is there were a number of players like this in the league, but they are mostly forgotten because they weren't as successful cause they didn't get to play on championship teams. I guess people will most likely say the same thing in 10-20 years about players like Udonis Haslem, Joel Anthony, Mario Chalmers, Norris Cole, etc if the Heat win a bunch of titles even though now most people say the Heat suck outside of the big 3.

Another thing people don't realize is that a huge reason for a team's success is continuity. Bulls had a formula that worked so they didn't need to fix it. When a team doesn't have to continuosly make adjustments, they are usually ahead of everyone else because of their experience together and playing a certain way, not necessarily because they are more talented. Compare that to the experience of someone like Charles Barkley or Karl Malone, who weren't as easy to build around and didn't have the same success, so they were constantly in different situations where their team was always looking for the right formula, whether it was on the same team in Malone's case or on multiple teams in Barkley's case. The continuity is also helped by the superstar who helps lay a solid foundation to build around, and Jordan was more of a ROCK to build around then a mental midget like Malone or Ewing, a player with poor work ethic like Barkley, a hot head like Hakeem, a nice guy like Robinson, etc.

People make way too much of a great player's "help". They act like its a black and white thing where that player has absolutely nothing to do with the help he's getting, when thats not the case at all. I'm not talking about this with just Jordan, but in the cases of other great players as well. People point to Magic having Kareem, not pointing out that many people believe that Magic significantly extended Kareem's career. People point to Bird with McHale and Parish, not pointing out that McHale wasn't even that good his first few years, and Parish wasn't even considered that good of player before he got to Boston. People point to Tim Duncan with Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, not pointing out that without a selfless leader like Duncan, those two may not have flourished like they did or buy into relatively limited roles in comparison to their peers. Then you got these stupid comparisons where people compare how a team does with and without their superstar and the bigger the dropoff dictates how valuable that player is to the team, which is completely stupid. In many cases it should be a negative reflection. Somehow when a team like the Bulls does well without Derrick Rose, it means he's not that valuable despite the fact that you can clearly see he positively influences that team's locker room with the way they seem to take on his attitude, work ethic, and demeanor. But then when the Magic last year were doing bad without Dwight Howard after he went down with his injury, it means he's very valuable despite the fact that maybe him destroying that locker room with his trade demands, coach firing requests, etc had something to do with it?

Anyway, like I said, people overstate these things. I'm obviously not saying a star player has everything to do with his help, cause thats impossible because the potential has to be there in the first place, plus in many cases they don't have much of an impact on it. I'm just saying people here make way too much of it, especially in Jordan's case.[/QUOTE]
Im sorry Guy. I disagree with just about everything youve stated. Ill respond in full in a bit.

[QUOTE=Rubio2Gasol]He did but the system you described ain't really what it was.

Firstly - the 4 out 1 in system you're describing wasn't run. Otis was a banger who hustled inside, rebounded well and complimented well on D because he could defend the post and let him freelance. He never set foot outside the 3 PT line. He was an amazing outlet passer as well.

Vernon - I love him - but people like to make him seem like more than he actually was. He was as inconsistent a scorer you will ever see and while he was a x-factor for some games in that Knicks series and won the personal battle with Starks....he was neither a great fit with Hakeem nor a legit 2nd option. He would launch 3's but he didn't make them and he was best taking people off the dribble - something Rudy really gave him the room to do.

Horry was a good compliment, he shot OK crashed the offensive boards and defended.

Kenny was effectively a shooter. Cassel was a rookie backup point so just steer clear of that.

But in alll reason - as far as talent besides Hakeem - these teams were bare bones compared to the Portland or Phoenix teams they beat - the Bulls being discussed now or any team that won a chip since . Then you factor in that the performance of the others depended on his own - it's really pretty clear cut.

So "stacked" is not a word I'd use to describe them.

To me that's a word that should be reserved for teams like Shaq and Kobe's Lakers - which had the two best players in the game + glove fitted role players. The Bulls who had the best defenders everywhere to go with Jordan and Pippen. Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers.

This team was perhaps well constructed - in the same vein a Indiana currently is..but so were the ones I outlined. The difference is they had 3x the talent.[/QUOTE]

I don't disagree with much of your assessment of the Rockets, but they still were running a 4 out/1 in type of offense. Otis obviously wasn't a 3 point shooter, and he rarely even took mid-range jumpers, but he'd often be away from the basket for spacing, and be used in screen/rolls, or he'd cut the basket. He'd get some touches inside as well, but a lot of his points by that point came in the way I described, or from running the floor.

But what's also true is that players such as Thorpe and Kenny Smith took on lesser roles, and didn't utilize their entire skill set to accommodate the offense revolving around Hakeem.

I never called Houston stacked either, but the Shaq/Kobe Lakers weren't either. Those teams relied as heavily on 2 players as any team I've seen. They had a few nice role players on each of the 3 championship teams, but they lacked a 3rd guy near all-star level, were a below average 3 point shooting team(one of the worst in the league in 2000), had some of the worst starting PFs in the league in 2000 and 2002, always had 2, if not 3 players starting who were below average starters at their position, and never had a 3rd scorer except for 2000 with Glen Rice who was past his prime, but even he didn't produce like one in the playoffs, didn't fit in the triangle at all, complained and was a liability defensively.

The team was special because of the duo and such a great coach, but stacked is definitely not the right word. An example of stacked teams would be the Portland and Sacramento teams they beat.