Better floor leader: Jordan or Magic?

[97 bulls]

It's not that much the old age, it's the mileage of a team that reaches to the NBA Finals year after year after year and rests way less than the average. The Lakers from 1982 to 1989 missed the Finals only once. In 1990, they were at least as good as in 1991, and they still lost to the Suns. Add this to the fact that players like Kareem and McAdoo were definitely old and Magic, though almost 31 in 1991, was already in his 12th season, and this makes the team way older than its players' ages show. By contrast, among the 1991-98 Bulls, I can only recall one player who played all these 8 years with the team, Pippen, and even he, by 1998, wasn't the same player he was in the first half of the 90's.
Of course, the 1991 Lakers weren't the Showtime Lakers for the reasons you mentioned, unless we also call the 1990 Bulls or the 1995 Bulls "prime Bulls".

And then I could come back with the fact that the Lakers never really had a serious rival in the west during the 80s. The Celtics did have to battle the Sixers, then the Bucks, then the Pistons.

[eliteballer]

The Lakers played a lot of great teams in the West.

The defending champion Sonics in1980
Gervin/Gilmore Spurs
Hakeem/Sampson Rockets
Stockton/Malone Jazz
Drexler Blazers
Blackman/Aguirre Mavs who were just as good as those Bucks
Early 80's Suns who fielded 50+ win teams year after year

Then they had to play all those other teams in the Finals..

[97 bulls]

The Lakers played a lot of great teams in the West.

The defending champion Sonics in1980
Gervin/Gilmore Spurs
Hakeem/Sampson Rockets
Stockton/Malone Jazz
Drexler Blazers
Blackman/Aguirre Mavs who were just as good as those Bucks
Early 80's Suns who fielded 50+ win teams year after year

Then they had to play all those other teams in the Finals..

Good point. Still from top to bottom the West wasnt very good. I just dont feel they rsn out of gas. The core of that team didnt have the miles on them after Magic. Just like the core of the Bulls after Pippen

[La Frescobaldi]

No. You brought it up. Ghengis stated that Jordan was a better leader because he led his team to a better finals record than Magic. You then replied with that same drivel about how Jordan's Bulls in the 80s couldn't beat the Celtics (cuz thats what youre getting at). As if that was a fair assesment. Logical people know the Bulls in the mid 80s werent any good. Which again shows your agenda. How can you on one hand knock the Bulls for not beating the Celtics in 86 and 87 when he didnt have sufficient help because Pippen, Grant, Cartwright, Jackson etc werent there, But then knock their beating the Lakers because Kareem and Coop werent there? You dont see how hypocritical that is? You cant even go a sentence without contradicting yourself.

OK. Since you are fairly intelligent poster on this website (although dreadful as far as agenda) I'll try and get you to have SOME kind of understanding about a different point of view. Although as daRegul8er often comments, it seems that trying to do this is truly a broken reed.

It has nothing to do with the fact that Jordan got beat over and over in the 80s. His teams were poor.

I don't think that Jordan's 1991 (or 98 either) Bulls team could have beaten the Showtime Lakers of the early 80s.
Nor could they have beaten the 1983 Sixers.
Nor could they have beaten the 89 Pistons.
Nor could they have beaten the Celtics of at least a couple years in through there, '86 being only the most obvious.

In my opinion, Mike was 6-0 because he didn't play ANY TEAM OF THAT QUALITY IN THE FINALS. Is that plain enough?

[JellyBean]

Magic Johnson without a doubt. No if, ands, or buts.

[DatAsh]

In my opinion, Mike was 6-0 because he didn't play ANY TEAM OF THAT QUALITY IN THE FINALS. Is that plain enough?

**Edit, I read that wrong

[97 bulls]

OK. Since you are fairly intelligent poster on this website (although dreadful as far as agenda) I'll try and get you to have SOME kind of understanding about a different point of view. Although as daRegul8er often comments, it seems that trying to do this is truly a broken reed.

It has nothing to do with the fact that Jordan got beat over and over in the 80s. His teams were poor.

I don't think that Jordan's 1991 (or 98 either) Bulls team could have beaten the Showtime Lakers of the early 80s.
Nor could they have beaten the 1983 Sixers.
Nor could they have beaten the 89 Pistons.
Nor could they have beaten the Celtics of at least a couple years in through there, '86 being only the most obvious.

In my opinion, Mike was 6-0 because he didn't play ANY TEAM OF THAT QUALITY IN THE FINALS. Is that plain enough?

Thats fair. I disagree obviously but its fair as its your opinion. My only reply to this has always been..... The 87 Lakers, the 86 Celtics, the 83 Sixers, and the 89 Pistons, NEVER PLAYED EACH OTHER. They played a variation of their best team. Just like the Bulls did vs the Lakers and Pistons. Talk to a Celtics fan about them losing to the Lakers in 87 and theyll say the Celtics were hurt (Walton and Mchale). The Sixers fans say the Lakers beat them in 80 cuz they didnt have Moses Malone. The Lakers team the Celtics beat werent all time greats. The Pistons beat the Lakers without Magic and Scott. The Lakers were well on their way to losing to the Pistons before Thomas went down with that sprained ankle. Why hold the Bulls to a different standard? They beat a variation of the Lakers and Pistons. And that 91 team was by no means their best team. Again for emphasis, why hold the Bulls to a standard you dont hold the other teams to?

[OldSchoolBBall]

OK. Since you are fairly intelligent poster on this website (although dreadful as far as agenda) I'll try and get you to have SOME kind of understanding about a different point of view. Although as daRegul8er often comments, it seems that trying to do this is truly a broken reed.

It has nothing to do with the fact that Jordan got beat over and over in the 80s. His teams were poor.

I don't think that Jordan's 1991 (or 98 either) Bulls team could have beaten the Showtime Lakers of the early 80s.
Nor could they have beaten the 1983 Sixers.
Nor could they have beaten the 89 Pistons.
Nor could they have beaten the Celtics of at least a couple years in through there, '86 being only the most obvious.

In my opinion, Mike was 6-0 because he didn't play ANY TEAM OF THAT QUALITY IN THE FINALS. Is that plain enough?

Jordan's first three-peat Bulls would have DESTROYED the '89 or '90 Pistons. Get real - Jordan almost beat those teams practically singlehandedly. Now you're giving him '091-'93 Pippen/Grant et al.?

[La Frescobaldi]

Jordan's first three-peat Bulls would have DESTROYED the '89 or '90 Pistons. Get real - Jordan almost beat those teams practically singlehandedly. Now you're giving him '091-'93 Pippen/Grant et al.?

maybe they would have; I don't think the '91 team would have.