Why Do People Put MJ ahead of Wilt

[catch24]

More crap that has nothing to do with whats being discussed. We've already seen this information. You've cut and pasted it on this board ad nauseam.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...4&postcount=11
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...=200099&page=5
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...=190701&page=5
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=222675

Your past jobs are of no value or substance. I can see why you prefer spamming though. An alternative would shred any ounce of credibility you had left.

[OldSchoolBBall]

I just take excepttion to the assumption that the bulls were the worse offense in the last 30 years.

I didn't say they had the worst offense in the last 30 years, I said that Jordan won with less offensive help in '91-'93 and '98 than any championship team of the last 30 years save for 1 or 2 of them. The Bulls had as great an OFFENSE as they did largely because of Jordan's offensive brilliance, the way Pippen and the role players fit their roles, and the Triangle, not because they had a ton of offensive TALENT/ABILITY/PRODUCTION. They didn't. There's a difference between those two statements.

[Fatal9]

Chamberlain was "traded" to the Lakers after that 67-68 season...again, for THREE players, two of whom were quality players (more on that in a second.) Not only did Wilt have to replace those players ppg and rpg numbers from the season before, but LA also lost HOFer Gail Goodrich in the expansion draft. Overall, Wilt replaced 42 ppg and 18 rpg worth of production.

What the phuck kind of logic is this? Have you ever watched basketball? You really think adding up the traded players stat totals is what the new player has to "replace"?

LeBron got replaced by Sessions, Gee, Samuels and Eygenga this season...all of whom combined averaged 35/14/8 this year, how could the Cavs lose so many games when replacing LeBron with that sort of production. Herp Derp, great logic and understanding of the game

There's a reason he wasn't even a serious MVP Candidate. He goes over to a team and seemingly fixes the one weakness they had all decade (no legit centers) but improves the team by only 3 games (and that's with West playing 10 more games) while the actual SRS of the team declined when he joined the team and won exactly one more game in the playoffs. GOAT impact

Lead team to 31 wins in statistical prime while playing every game. Lead team to the worst record in the league before getting traded for scrubs, and then have basically no impact on the W-L record of the team you joined (Sixers 20-20 or something before trade, finished 40-40). Teammates talk about how glad they are that you got traded and all. I can definitely see all these things happening to MJ . We're not even discussing the post season, or taking into account clutch performances/scoring or intangibles, where MJ takes a shyt all over Wilt. Comparing Wilt with MJ (literally...the anti-Wilt) is an insult to MJ.

[jlauber]

Continuing...

Wilt suffered a devastating knee injury early in the 69-70 season (BTW, in those first nine games, Wilt was leading the NBA in scoring at 32.2 ppg.) This was the same injury that shelved Baylor for over a full year, and in fact, dramatically affect his offense afterwards. Yet, despite even the most optomistic medical opinion of Wilt missing the rest of the season, Chamberlain came back WAY AHEAD of schedule (even though he was nowhere near 100%.) And then Chamberlain "the choker" led his team back from a 3-1 series deficit to a 4-3 win over the Suns in the first round of the playoffs. Then, in the Finals, and basically on one leg, he averaged 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and shot .625. In an "elimination game" six, he posted a 45 point, 20-27, 27 rebound game. In the game seven loss (the famous Reed game...of 4 points and 3 rebounds), Chamberlain was the ONLY Laker to play well, with a 21 point, 24 rebound, 10-16 game...but since LA lost to the heavily-favored 60-22 Knicks, it was WILT's fault. Yep...Reed playing like a statue with his leg injury (suffered in game five, with the series tied, 2-2, and his team down by 10 points at the time)...and Chamberlain only four months removed from major knee surgery, and hanging a typical 20-20 game in the process...and Reed was hailed as the hero, and Chamberlain once again was tagged as a "choker" and a "loser."

In the 70-71 season, Baylor is injured in the second game of the season, and misses the remainder, including the playoffs. West is injured in the last fourth of the season, and he too, missed the post-season. Somehow, Chamberlain gets that team to a 48-34 record, and even into the WCF's, where despite playing a prime Kareem to a statistical draw, his Lakers lose that series, 4-1. Chamberlain was outscored by Kareem in that series, per game, 25-22, but he outrebounded him, per game, 19-17, and outshot him, .489 to .481. Think about that, too, a well-past his prime Wilt, playing on a surgically repaired knee, battling a PRIME Kareem to a draw. Once again, how great was Wilt's DEFENSE? Kareem averaged 31.7 ppg on .577 shooting against the NBA in the regular season. Against Wilt in the '71 WCF's... 25 ppg on .481 shooting.

Before the start of the 71-72 season, virtually no one gave the Lakers a chance in hell of winning the title. The reigning champion Bucks, fresh off of that 66-16 season, and with a young roster, was a unanimous pre-season selection to win it all. The Lakers were an old, injury-plagued team, that had all five starters over the age of 30. Their new coach, Bill Sharman, coaxed Baylor into retirement after game number nine...and, using a blistering fast-break, led by Wilt's defense, rebounding, and outlet passes...went on a 33 game winning streak...en route to a 69-13 season, which is STILL a Laker team record. In the playoffs, by all accounts, he outplayed a PRIME Kareem, holding him to .457 shooting (and only .414 in the last four games), including blocking 15+ sky-hooks in that series... in leading LA to a 4-2 series win. In the clinching game six win, Chamberlain played a spectacular 4th quarter, in leading LA back from a 10 point deficit, and he finished with 22 points, 24 rebounds, and shot 8-12.

And, in the Finals, Chamberlain, playing with TWO badly injured wrists, puts up a 24 point, 10-14, 29 rebound, 9 block clinching game five performance, in leading the Lakers to their first ever title in LA, and in the process, he won the Finals MVP.

In his LAST season, at age 36, all Chamberlain did was once again LEAD the NBA in rebounding, was voted first-team all-defense (for the second straight season), and set a FG% mark of .727 that will probably never be broken. He also led the Lakers to a 60-22 mark, and yet another trip to the Finals, where his injury-wracked Lakers lose four close games to the Knicks and their SIX HOFers. In his LAST post-season, covering 17 games, he averaged 22.5 rpg (in a league that averaged 51.6 rpg), AND, in his very LAST game, he scored 23 points, with 21 rebounds.

That was Chamberlain's career in a relatively quick run-down. The man STILL holds some 130 records, and in many cases, he also holds the next mark, as well. And MANY of those records woill never be broken, either.

For those that rip Wilt's "decline" in his post-seasons...

How many other NBA players, in the HISTORY of the game, had ENTIRE post-seasons of 37-23, 35-27, 33-26, and 35-25? Or even entire post-seasons like 29-27, or 28-30? How many other players had even one 50-30 game in the playoffs (Wilt had TWO, with games of 56-35, and 50-35...with the latter against Russell.) He had FOUR 40-30 games, just against Russell alone. He had playoff series of 37 ppg, 37 ppg, and 39 ppg. He had multiple 30+ ppg series, with FOUR against Russell alone (including a 30-31 seven game series average.) How many other NBA players had a QUAD DOUBLE game in the post-season, especially one like this... 24-32-13-12. Chamberlain even had TWO TRIPLE-DOUBLE playoff series ( one of them a 22-32-10 series...against Russell.)

Chamberlain gets ripped...

and yet how about Jordan? MJ joined a 27-55 team in his rookie season. True, he led them to a 38-44 record in that season...BUT, Chamberlain took a 32-40 team to a 49-26 record in HIS rookie season. MJ only plays 18 games in the following season...and his team only drops to 30-52. In the next season, he puts up a 37.1 ppg season, and his team goes 40-42. Chamberlain was a "stats-padder" with his 50 ppg season on a 49-31 team, but MJ is a hero in his 37 ppg season, on a 40-42 team.

Everyone knows about MJ's six rings. Here again, how good were those rosters? They were good enough to go 55-27 WITHOUT him in his first retirement...a drop of two games. Chamberlain gets slapped by some here, when his former Sixer team "only" dropped from 62-20 to 55-27, BUT, Philly acquired THREE players in that deal. When MJ retired, the Bulls didn't get anything in return. MJ is replaced by Kukoc and Pete Myers, and they drop two games (and then lose a close game seven to the Knicks, who would lose a close game seven to eventual champion Rockets.) AND, let's face it...when they added Rodman (as well as having Kukoc and Kerr) in the second "three-peat", those were LOADED rosters.

MJ's teams went 1-9 in his first ten playoff games. Hell, his team's were LOSERS in his first three seasons. It wasn't until Pippen and Grant arrived that MJ played on a winning team or even win a playoff series.

Yes, MJ played brilliantly in the post-season. But how come no one mentions his flops? Everyone remembers his 61 point game in the '87 playoffs (in a loss BTW.) BUT, how about his other two games of that sweeping series loss? He averaged 23 ppg on, get this, on .326 shooting. In his first playoff series he shot .436. And how about his last three Finals, when he shot .455, .427, and even .415?

Basketball is a TEAM game. Chamberlain DOMINATED his peers like no other player in HISTORY, even in the POST-SEASON (here again, give me a list of players with who had ONE post-season of 29.3, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, on .518 shooting (in leagues that shot about .435 on average) with 7-8 bpg. And yet, that was what Chamberlain AVERAGED in his first EIGHT post-seasons...COMBINED. He took several crappy rosters to even the Finals (in '64), and had two other putrid rosters come within a total of three points, in two game sevens, of knocking off the greatest dynasty in major professional team sports history. And when he was given quality rosters, that were healthy, they OVERWHELMED the league en route to dominating titles...and in against HOF-laden teams like the '67 Celtics and their SIX HOFers, and the '72 Knicks and their FIVE HOFers (and then lost to the '73 Knicks and their SIX HOFers the very next season.) Once again, he battled a HOF center in TWO-THIRDS of his 160 post-season games. He also faced the greatest dynasty in professional sports history, in TEN of his 14 seasons. And then he had to battle the 60-22 '70 Knicks (on one leg), and the 66-16 '71 Bucks (wthout BOTH West and Baylor.) And, as I alluded to earlier, the '73 Knicks (who had SIX HOFers, and who also beat the 68-14 Celtics in the ECF's.)

Was Jordan the G.O.A.T? Well, he certainly is ONE of those that has a case...along with Russell, Magic, Kareem, and yes, Chamberlain. There has never been an individual in any major professional team sport who dominated the sport with his dominance. The RECORD BOOK says so.

[N0Skillz]

Continuing...

Wilt suffered a devastating knee injury early in the 69-70 season (BTW, in those first nine games, Wilt was leading the NBA in scoring at 32.2 ppg.) This was the same injury that shelved Baylor for over a full year, and in fact, dramatically affect his offense afterwards. Yet, despite even the most optomistic medical opinion of Wilt missing the rest of the season, Chamberlain came back WAY AHEAD of schedule (even though he was nowhere near 100%.) And then Chamberlain "the choker" led his team back from a 3-1 series deficit to a 4-3 win over the Suns in the first round of the playoffs. Then, in the Finals, and basically on one leg, he averaged 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and shot .625. In an "elimination game" six, he posted a 45 point, 20-27, 27 rebound game. In the game seven loss (the famous Reed game...of 4 points and 3 rebounds), Chamberlain was the ONLY Laker to play well, with a 21 point, 24 rebound, 10-16 game...but since LA lost to the heavily-favored 60-22 Knicks, it was WILT's fault. Yep...Reed playing like a statue with his leg injury (suffered in game five, with the series tied, 2-2, and his team down by 10 points at the time)...and Chamberlain only four months removed from major knee surgery, and hanging a typical 20-20 game in the process...and Reed was hailed as the hero, and Chamberlain once again was tagged as a "choker" and a "loser."

In the 70-71 season, Baylor is injured in the second game of the season, and misses the remainder, including the playoffs. West is injured in the last fourth of the season, and he too, missed the post-season. Somehow, Chamberlain gets that team to a 48-34 record, and even into the WCF's, where despite playing a prime Kareem to a statistical draw, his Lakers lose that series, 4-1. Chamberlain was outscored by Kareem in that series, per game, 25-22, but he outrebounded him, per game, 19-17, and outshot him, .489 to .481. Think about that, too, a well-past his prime Wilt, playing on a surgically repaired knee, battling a PRIME Kareem to a draw. Once again, how great was Wilt's DEFENSE? Kareem averaged 31.7 ppg on .577 shooting against the NBA in the regular season. Against Wilt in the '71 WCF's... 25 ppg on .481 shooting.

Before the start of the 71-72 season, virtually no one gave the Lakers a chance in hell of winning the title. The reigning champion Bucks, fresh off of that 66-16 season, and with a young roster, was a unanimous pre-season selection to win it all. The Lakers were an old, injury-plagued team, that had all five starters over the age of 30. Their new coach, Bill Sharman, coaxed Baylor into retirement after game number nine...and, using a blistering fast-break, led by Wilt's defense, rebounding, and outlet passes...went on a 33 game winning streak...en route to a 69-13 season, which is STILL a Laker team record. In the playoffs, by all accounts, he outplayed a PRIME Kareem, holding him to .457 shooting (and only .414 in the last four games), including blocking 15+ sky-hooks in that series... in leading LA to a 4-2 series win. In the clinching game six win, Chamberlain played a spectacular 4th quarter, in leading LA back from a 10 point deficit, and he finished with 22 points, 24 rebounds, and shot 8-12.

And, in the Finals, Chamberlain, playing with TWO badly injured wrists, puts up a 24 point, 10-14, 29 rebound, 9 block clinching game five performance, in leading the Lakers to their first ever title in LA, and in the process, he won the Finals MVP.

In his LAST season, at age 36, all Chamberlain did was once again LEAD the NBA in rebounding, was voted first-team all-defense (for the second straight season), and set a FG% mark of .727 that will probably never be broken. He also led the Lakers to a 60-22 mark, and yet another trip to the Finals, where his injury-wracked Lakers lose four close games to the Knicks and their SIX HOFers. In his LAST post-season, covering 17 games, he averaged 22.5 rpg (in a league that averaged 51.6 rpg), AND, in his very LAST game, he scored 23 points, with 21 rebounds.

That was Chamberlain's career in a relatively quick run-down. The man STILL holds some 130 records, and in many cases, he also holds the next mark, as well. And MANY of those records woill never be broken, either.

For those that rip Wilt's "decline" in his post-seasons...

How many other NBA players, in the HISTORY of the game, had ENTIRE post-seasons of 37-23, 35-27, 33-26, and 35-25? Or even entire post-seasons like 29-27, or 28-30? How many other players had even one 50-30 game in the playoffs (Wilt had TWO, with games of 56-35, and 50-35...with the latter against Russell.) He had FOUR 40-30 games, just against Russell alone. He had playoff series of 37 ppg, 37 ppg, and 39 ppg. He had multiple 30+ ppg series, with FOUR against Russell alone (including a 30-31 seven game series average.) How many other NBA players had a QUAD DOUBLE game in the post-season, especially one like this... 24-32-13-12. Chamberlain even had TWO TRIPLE-DOUBLE playoff series ( one of them a 22-32-10 series...against Russell.)

Chamberlain gets ripped...

and yet how about Jordan? MJ joined a 27-55 team in his rookie season. True, he led them to a 38-44 record in that season...BUT, Chamberlain took a 32-40 team to a 49-26 record in HIS rookie season. MJ only plays 18 games in the following season...and his team only drops to 30-52. In the next season, he puts up a 37.1 ppg season, and his team goes 40-42. Chamberlain was a "stats-padder" with his 50 ppg season on a 49-31 team, but MJ is a hero in his 37 ppg season, on a 40-42 team.

Everyone knows about MJ's six rings. Here again, how good were those rosters? They were good enough to go 55-27 WITHOUT him in his first retirement...a drop of two games. Chamberlain gets slapped by some here, when his former Sixer team "only" dropped from 62-20 to 55-27, BUT, Philly acquired THREE players in that deal. When MJ retired, the Bulls didn't get anything in return. MJ is replaced by Kukoc and Pete Myers, and they drop two games (and then lose a close game seven to the Knicks, who would lose a close game seven to eventual champion Rockets.) AND, let's face it...when they added Rodman (as well as having Kukoc and Kerr) in the second "three-peat", those were LOADED rosters.

MJ's teams went 1-9 in his first ten playoff games. Hell, his team's were LOSERS in his first three seasons. It wasn't until Pippen and Grant arrived that MJ played on a winning team or even win a playoff series.

Yes, MJ played brilliantly in the post-season. But how come no one mentions his flops? Everyone remembers his 61 point game in the '87 playoffs (in a loss BTW.) BUT, how about his other two games of that sweeping series loss? He averaged 23 ppg on, get this, on .326 shooting. In his first playoff series he shot .436. And how about his last three Finals, when he shot .455, .427, and even .415?

Basketball is a TEAM game. Chamberlain DOMINATED his peers like no other player in HISTORY, even in the POST-SEASON (here again, give me a list of players with who had ONE post-season of 29.3, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg, on .518 shooting (in leagues that shot about .435 on average) with 7-8 bpg. And yet, that was what Chamberlain AVERAGED in his first EIGHT post-seasons...COMBINED. He took several crappy rosters to even the Finals (in '64), and had two other putrid rosters come within a total of three points, in two game sevens, of knocking off the greatest dynasty in major professional team sports history. And when he was given quality rosters, that were healthy, they OVERWHELMED the league en route to dominating titles...and in against HOF-laden teams like the '67 Celtics and their SIX HOFers, and the '72 Knicks and their FIVE HOFers (and then lost to the '73 Knicks and their SIX HOFers the very next season.) Once again, he battled a HOF center in TWO-THIRDS of his 160 post-season games. He also faced the greatest dynasty in professional sports history, in TEN of his 14 seasons. And then he had to battle the 60-22 '70 Knicks (on one leg), and the 66-16 '71 Bucks (wthout BOTH West and Baylor.) And, as I alluded to earlier, the '73 Knicks (who had SIX HOFers, and who also beat the 68-14 Celtics in the ECF's.)

Was Jordan the G.O.A.T? Well, he certainly is ONE of those that has a case...along with Russell, Magic, Kareem, and yes, Chamberlain. There has never been an individual in any major professional team sport who dominated the sport with his dominance. The RECORD BOOK says so.

I think thats a knockout

[97 bulls]

Jordan never averaged 30 shots per game and the he averaged 22-26 FGA per game during the 3-peats.
if I said 30 shots per as an average, my mistake. I meant he had a lot of games where he took 30 shots.


First of all, Jordan's great efficiency has just as much to do with his great ability to get to the rim as it does with his great jumpshooting.
True

Second of all, even if Jordan is a streaky shooter, he was just as likely to start off a game going 9-14 as he is 6-14 (going back to your previous example), while ending the game with the same efficiency on his remaining shots, so your point about rhythm when it comes to Jordan doesn't hold much weight.
Sure it does. A typical jordan game went like this... 1st 10pt 2nd 3pts 8pts 4th 12pts

Anyway, if Jordan is regulated to shooting 10-15 shots per game instead of 20-25, he's not just going to play his regular game and shoot 6-14 and then all of a sudden stop shooting in the middle of the 3rd quarter. If he was only to shoot that many shots, he would space it out through 4 quarters meaning he would pick his shots more carefully meaning he would take a greater percentage of easier shots. Seriously, if Jordan only shot that much, you might've seen 57%-60% seasons in his prime .
quite possible. I'm not really comparing pippen to jordan offensivly I'm comparing pippen to your typical 25 ppg scorer.


Worst offense in the last 30 years? I'm pretty sure he was only talking about championship teams, which is a small sample. And I believe he was only talking about these championship teams w/o there star player. If thats the case, its not a stretch at all to say they were the worst or one of the worst.
I know what he meant. I still disagree. Cuz your comparing them to teams that played in a high scoring era. And after that, short of the celtics, how many teams were really that much better offensively than the bulls? Gasol, odom, and bynum? Hamiton, prince and wallace? Ginobli parker and and old robinson? Bryant fox and fisher? Drexler, smith horry? And aside from bryant and shaq the teams I named didn't have a player as ball dominant as jordan.

And you have a point about the 80s, but even then no one in their right mind would take a half-court offense of Pippen/Rodman/Kukoc/etc. over Kareem/Worthy/Scott/etc or McHale/Parish/DJ/Ainge/etc.

Again, same concept. Put pippen, kukoc and longley in the 80s and their ppg probably look like 24 for pippen, 16 for kukoc and 12 for longley. Add their ppg up and it comes out to 52 pts. And that's taking for granted that they don't play in an uptempo offense, and shared the ball with a player like jordan which the other players you mentioned did have to do. On the 87 lakers, kareem avg 18, worth 20 and scott 17 that's 55 pts. The celtics players typical ppg was roughly 22 for mchale, 18 for parrish and 16 for DJ. That's 56 pts

Well when you have arguably the greatest offensive player ever, its not a surprise. No one's saying the Bulls weren't an elite offensive team, just that without Jordan they were not close to that.



Okay, but the thing is Jordan DID shoulder much of the load defensively. Pippen didn't shoulder anywhere near as much of a load defensively as Jordan did offensively. Jordan wasn't someone like Dominique Wilkins who didn't much outside of score and especially didn't play any defense. He wasn't someone like Kobe Bryant, who's lived off his defensive reputation while conserving alot of energy on that end. Jordan took a slightly lesser or equal load defensively as Pippen except for 98 arguably.

If Jordan wasn't taking a larger load then most other championship superstars, who was? You can argue Hakeem and Duncan in 03 and maybe 99. Certainly not Bird or Magic who didn't take as much of a load offensively, and CLEARLY didn't defensively either. Not Shaq when he was arguably a liability at the end of games and leaned on the eventual 2nd greatest SG of all-time to close out games. Not Duncan in the other years when he depended alot offensively on Manu and Parker as he declined. Not Wade, Kobe, or Dirk who arguably did have the load offensively, but definitely not anywhere close defensively. Obviously not Isiah, Chauncey, or KG who all played on ensemble casts.




Its a forum. No one is degrading anyone. Just pointing out the arguable truth. No one has said Jordan won in spite of them.

Don't get me wrong. Jordan is the greatest. I'm just not gonna allow the jordan cult to spout a bunch of nonsense. At least not without a rebutal.

[97 bulls]

I didn't say they had the worst offense in the last 30 years, I said that Jordan won with less offensive help in '91-'93 and '98 than any championship team of the last 30 years save for 1 or 2 of them. The Bulls had as great an OFFENSE as they did largely because of Jordan's offensive brilliance, the way Pippen and the role players fit their roles, and the Triangle, not because they had a ton of offensive TALENT/ABILITY/PRODUCTION. They didn't. There's a difference between those two statements.

I know what you meant and I still disagree. Ojordan shouldered much of the load cuz that was his mentality. I'm glad he did do it. But based on 94 and 95, its obvious that it was a choice as opposed to he had to. Now granted, he had to on occasion. But that wasn't very often. If it was, the bulls would've basically been the smae as they were in the mid 80s.

[OldSchoolBBall]

I know what you meant and I still disagree. Ojordan shouldered much of the load cuz that was his mentality. I'm glad he did do it. But based on 94 and 95, its obvious that it was a choice as opposed to he had to.

No, looking at 1994 makes it even easier to see that he had to shoulder that load offensively, because despite their win total that year (which was due to a number of factors - by SRS, which correlates with actual W/L better than any other metric, the Bulls should have won 49-50 games that season; any games they won above this # were essentially luck), the Bulls' offense fell off a cliff:

1991: 114.6 ORtg (110.0 ppg/51.0% FG)
1992: 115.5 ORtg (109.9 ppg/50.8% FG)
1993: 112.9 ORtg (105.2 ppg/48.2% FG)
1994: 106.1 ORtg (98.0 ppg/47.6% FG)

Offensive numbers like that would have put the '94 Bulls in the bottom few teams in the league in '92 or '93. So yes, Jordan did have to carry that load, and it was the wisest course of action for him to do so, as his teammates could not generate good offense without him even with a sterling offensive system in place which mitigates defensive pressure. Without the triangle, the '94 Bulls, who had been running that system for years, would have been even worse off offensively.

[guy]

Sure it does. A typical jordan game went like this... 1st 10pt 2nd 3pts 8pts 4th 12pts

What's your point? Those are point totals not FG totals. Like I said, he was equally as likely to be hot the whole game as he was to be hot then cold or just cold the whole game. Rhythm didn't have much to do with it cause in the end its kind of wash. He wasn't on average significantly better in the 4th quarter as he was in the 1st quarter. And like I said, if he took less shots meaning he would pick better shots, his FG% would undoubtedly go up. And thats not just for Jordan, thats for all volume scorers.

I know what he meant. I still disagree. Cuz your comparing them to teams that played in a high scoring era. And after that, short of the celtics, how many teams were really that much better offensively than the bulls? Gasol, odom, and bynum? Hamiton, prince and wallace? Ginobli parker and and old robinson? Bryant fox and fisher? Drexler, smith horry? And aside from bryant and shaq the teams I named didn't have a player as ball dominant as jordan.

Jordan didn't have one reliable scoring teammate other then Pippen and even he was still shaky in comparison to others. And yes, all those teams you mentioned had overall better secondary scoring options then the Bulls except for maybe the Rockets. Its the main reason why Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, and Billups didn't need to score 30+ as much for them to win.

Like OSB said, Bulls didn't win cause they had these multiple scoring weapons. They won cause they arguably the greatest offensive player ever, arguably the greatest closer ever that was almost completely immune to pressure (moreso then arguably anyone in all of sports), an offensive system that everyone bought into, and arguably the greatest defense ever.

Again, same concept. Put pippen, kukoc and longley in the 80s and their ppg probably look like 24 for pippen, 16 for kukoc and 12 for longley. Add their ppg up and it comes out to 52 pts. And that's taking for granted that they don't play in an uptempo offense, and shared the ball with a player like jordan which the other players you mentioned did have to do. On the 87 lakers, kareem avg 18, worth 20 and scott 17 that's 55 pts. The celtics players typical ppg was roughly 22 for mchale, 18 for parrish and 16 for DJ. That's 56 pts

You're really overstating things. In the 80s, the most a team like the Bulls would score is like 10 points more assuming they play a pace more like the Celtics not the showtime Lakers or run and gun Nuggets. The 96 Bulls scored 105 ppg and the 86 Celtics scored 114 ppg for example. If this is the 96 team you're talking about, then you're saying Pippen would score 5 points more, Kukoc 3 points more, and Longley 3 points more. You're basically splitting the increase among 3 out of 12 players. More then likely, the increase is more like Jordan with 3+, Pippen with 2+, Kukoc with 1+, and the other 3-5+ is split among the role players.

Like I said, no in their right mind is taking a half court offense of Pippen/Kukoc/etc. over one that is played through Kareem or McHale and Parish. And even if you want to switch it up to the 80s, no way would Bird or Magic would've been better off with Pippen/Kukoc/Rodman then with Parish/McHale/DJ/Ainge or Kareem/Worthy/Scott/Cooper. I'd still take the 90s Bulls over the 80s Lakers and Celtics just cause of Jordan and the Bulls played much better defense, but that doesn't mean Jordan didn't take a larger load then those guys.

If Bird or Magic replaced Jordan on the 90s Bulls, they aren't as successful as Jordan was in the 90s or they were in the 80s on there teams, cause they have less offensive help around them and the Bulls take a significant step back defensively. I can't really say the same thing vice-versa though.

Don't get me wrong. Jordan is the greatest. I'm just not gonna allow the jordan cult to spout a bunch of nonsense. At least not without a rebutal.

Its really not a bunch of nonsense though and there's alot of logic to it. You can look at it as degrading or whatever, but its a basketball forum where the thing most posters do is make comparisons. There's always going to be one player or group that is looked at as less then the other.

[The Iron Fist]

Kobe didn't even led the 3-peat Lakers He also wasn't the target of Detroit's suffocating defense, Shaq was.

Howard let LA score 100+ throughout the series. There defense was nowhere to be seen on that series.

He choked, but thanks to his team, he won.

2000: Reggie Miller MVP contention
2001: Allen Iverson MVP Dikembe Motumbo DPOY
2002: Jason Kidd Runner Up MVP, most people felt Kidd was screwed over for that award.
2004: Ben Wallace Runner up DPOY
2008: Kevin Garnett DPOY, 3rd in MVP voting, Pierce FMVP, Allen Top 5 in 3pfg and ft%
2009: Howard DPOY, 4th MVP voting
2010: Boston Celtics, best starting 5 in the league with former MVP and DPOY, FMVP and 3 time 3pfg made winner.

So in reality, Jordan only faced an MVP or DPOY 3 times in the finals. Kobe on the other hand, faced 3 DPOY and one of those DPOY was also a teammate of the MVP for that season.

Doesn't make who Kobe was and who he played against any different.


So in reality, Jordan only faced an MVP or DPOY 3 times in the finals. Kobe on the other hand, faced 3 DPOY and one of those DPOY was also a teammate of the MVP for that season.

[97 bulls]

No, looking at 1994 makes it even easier to see that he had to shoulder that load offensively, because despite their win total that year (which was due to a number of factors - by SRS, which correlates with actual W/L better than any other metric, the Bulls should have won 49-50 games that season; any games they won above this # were essentially luck), the Bulls' offense fell off a cliff:

1991: 114.6 ORtg (110.0 ppg/51.0% FG)
1992: 115.5 ORtg (109.9 ppg/50.8% FG)
1993: 112.9 ORtg (105.2 ppg/48.2% FG)
1994: 106.1 ORtg (98.0 ppg/47.6% FG)

Offensive numbers like that would have put the '94 Bulls in the bottom few teams in the league in '92 or '93. So yes, Jordan did have to carry that load, and it was the wisest course of action for him to do so, as his teammates could not generate good offense without him even with a sterling offensive system in place which mitigates defensive pressure. Without the triangle, the '94 Bulls, who had been running that system for years, would have been even worse off offensively.

All teams are gonna fall offensively if their best offensive player leaves and is replaced by a player that wasn't good enough to stay in the nba.since you think the celtics are so great, why don't you go back and check what they did when larry bird hurt his back in 89. They dropped of considerably. And at least they had a solid replacement for bird in reggie lewis.

Or go check the vaunted lakers offense when magic retired. At least they replaced him with sedale threatt. Who was a solid PG.

Lol without the triangle. All the bulls improved their scoring when jordan left for that year.

[97 bulls]

What's your point? Those are point totals not FG totals. Like I said, he was equally as likely to be hot the whole game as he was to be hot then cold or just cold the whole game. Rhythm didn't have much to do with it cause in the end its kind of wash. He wasn't on average significantly better in the 4th quarter as he was in the 1st quarter. And like I said, if he took less shots meaning he would pick better shots, his FG% would undoubtedly go up. And thats not just for Jordan, thats for all volume scorers.
I don't even know why I'm debating this pippen routinely shot a solid % throughout his career with the bulls. Except for 96. And as I said all the players shot bad that finals not just pippen


Jordan didn't have one reliable scoring teammate other then Pippen and even he was still shaky in comparison to others. And yes, all those teams you mentioned had overall better secondary scoring options then the Bulls except for maybe the Rockets. Its the main reason why Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, and Billups didn't need to score 30+ as much for them to win.
really? Aside from kobe. Manu has never been a better scorer than pippen, rip hamilton? Gasol? Come on.

Like OSB said, Bulls didn't win cause they had these multiple scoring weapons. They won cause they arguably the greatest offensive player ever, arguably the greatest closer ever that was almost completely immune to pressure (moreso then arguably anyone in all of sports), an offensive system that everyone bought into, and arguably the greatest defense ever.
This is true. But their offense was by no means bad.


You're really overstating things. In the 80s, the most a team like the Bulls would score is like 10 points more assuming they play a pace more like the Celtics not the showtime Lakers or run and gun Nuggets. The 96 Bulls scored 105 ppg and the 86 Celtics scored 114 ppg for example. If this is the 96 team you're talking about, then you're saying Pippen would score 5 points more, Kukoc 3 points more, and Longley 3 points more. You're basically splitting the increase among 3 out of 12 players. More then likely, the increase is more like Jordan with 3+, Pippen with 2+, Kukoc with 1+, and the other 3-5+ is split among the role players.
The team would score about 15 pts more. But the players would have more shot attempts. Thus more pts. Its simple math. And you can't. Calculate this by adding up their avgs.

Like I said, no in their right mind is taking a half court offense of Pippen/Kukoc/etc. over one that is played through Kareem or McHale and Parish. And even if you want to switch it up to the 80s, no way would Bird or Magic would've been better off with Pippen/Kukoc/Rodman then with Parish/McHale/DJ/Ainge or Kareem/Worthy/Scott/Cooper. I'd still take the 90s Bulls over the 80s Lakers and Celtics just cause of Jordan and the Bulls played much better defense, but that doesn't mean Jordan didn't take a larger load then those guys.
I don't get this, the bulls style was different from the lakers and celtics. Magic wouldn't do as well cuz the bulls tyle was different as well as bird. And I never implied that jordan didn't shoulder the lions share of the offense. I said the bulls offense wasn't nearly as bad as you and osb are trying to make them out to be.

If Bird or Magic replaced Jordan on the 90s Bulls, they aren't as successful as Jordan was in the 90s or they were in the 80s on there teams, cause they have less offensive help around them and the Bulls take a significant step back defensively. I can't really say the same thing vice-versa though.
the bulls didn't win by outscoring their opposition they won by stangling the opposition offense. But they didd lead the legue in offense, scoring, in 96, were 3rd in 97 and 8th in 98. And they would've been higher had pippen not missed almost 40 games.


Its really not a bunch of nonsense though and there's alot of logic to it. You can look at it as degrading or whatever, but its a basketball forum where the thing most posters do is make comparisons. There's always going to be one player or group that is looked at as less then the other.

Its logical? Sure its logical in that if a team loses their best scorer and then replace him with a guy that scored almost 3 times less the offense is gonna suffer. But why hold that against the bulls? That holds true for any team. And it sure as hell doesn't mean the bulls offense was bad without jordan.