Would Kareem had won all those chips in place of MJ?

[Axe]

Nah.youre like bron. Compensating his lack of skills through statpadding. Just like you compensating your lack of IQ through wall of texts. But at the end of the day, you have kareem over jordan coz of pippen when kareem has magic. Thats all we need to know about your IQ.

Notice how the guy actually gets butthurt and emotional when i called him a kaj stan. Having to resort with 3ball-like style narratives to boost his post count, i feel very sorry for him.

[HoopsNY]

Jordan's record shows he joins bad teams and they stay bad. There was zero improvement on the Bulls from 85' to 87'.

This is why most people on this thread aren't taking you seriously. You find ways to criticize other great players without taking into account several factors.

1) Are you considering that Chicago went from a 27 win team to a 38 win team in his rookie season?

2) The second season he missed almost all of the entire season. When Jordan returns he's put on a minutes restriction. For the first 7 games, he was limited to no more than 22 minutes a game, with the majority of those games averaging between 13-19 minutes a game. Their record? 1-6. When the team allows him to play more minutes, the team goes 5-3. You don't see a trend here? What kind of half baked analysis is this?

3) Are you even factoring in the strength of conference? Who were the biggest opponents for Kareem's Bucks and Lakers after '71? The Lakers won 69 games that one season, but no powerhouse teams like the mid 80s Celtics, Sixers, Bucks, or Pistons. Even the Hawks were an excellent team. The Eastern Conference was stacked.

Then magically as soon as the roster gets improved with lottery picks and Cartwright (an "all-star", right?) and better coaching the wins start increasing.

You can't be serious. Pippen and Grant were rookies, bench warmers, who averaged 7 ppg each. You could literally replace them with nearly anyone else and receive similar production. You amount the Bulls' rise from 40 wins to 50 wins to the addition of two bench warming rookies who averaged 7 ppg each and not the the league's MVP award winner, steals title winner, scoring title winner, and Defensive Player of the Year? Even a child can see how unfair you're being. Your hatred is blinding and it's really sad that you can't see this.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

His role was to dominate on defense and rebound (AKA the Russell role). So his focus in that series was completely defending KAJ, while KAJ had to do everything.

So basically Kareem didn't have to work on defense. By your own words, Wilt's role was on defense.

That's a great argument. You HELPED make my point

BTW tell us how that worked out for Mutombo when defending Shaq. Or Mourning and the litany of centers who abused him.

Dankok and I are the only ones talking about him as a Laker minus Magic (also mentioned his time in Milwaukee without Oscar--completely ignored by MJ stans). All we are getting from MJ stans is "he didn't win those four years, therefore he is a fraud." Some deep analysis (while completely dodging MJ's own record on bad teams)

Kareem "fans" talking about...Kareem? Well damn. Might as well debate whose softball reaches home plate lol. You're hurling excuses left and right, but why don't you do that with Jordan? Why is he held to an unrealistic standard, if like Kareem, he is also a GOAT candidate.

Be consistent.

Mischaracterization--I said they were not great defenders.

Who do you think faced more all-D defenders or HOF players at their positions in the playoffs? I have not looked it up but I think it is pretty obvious what the answers would be and it wouldn't be close. Yet, what is the point of going through the exercise? The MJ crowd will say we can't use HOF, we can't use all-D, we can't use all-NBA. It is just whatever I feel like it. So 35 year old Gail Goodrich is awesome but 24 year old Pippen is, meh.

That's a mischaracterization in and of itself.

Provide evidence. Be it with BPM, RAPM or anything objective. Data is available for these players by the way, so lets hear it.

Far as comp goes, Jordan faced more HOFers. But this is a team sport so lets use SRS. A better measure than anything you and I can just...say.

https://www.basketball-reference.com....fcgi?id=V4hH2



The 90s have more teams in Top 20 SRS than the 70s do.

So far all you've done here is throw out baseless claims. When you're ready for an objective debate, let me know.

[HoopsNY]

Only one of them was a strong defender (Dumars) and MJ last faced him in 1991. He faced Drexler and Miller once. The guys he faced multiple times were underwhelming to say the least. Look at his most iconic shots: over Craig Ehlo and Byron Russell twice. Look at this "tough" defense:

He faced Dumars in 4 series. He faced Drexler once, Miller once, he also faced Ron Harper, Gary Payton, Dan Majerle, and a Knicks squad that was a dominant defensive team three times.

[Roundball_Rock]

So basically Kareem didn't have to work on defense. By your own words, Wilt's role was on defense.

Not quite. KAJ was his team's defensive anchor but it is true he did not have to expend high energy on his individual match up. Unfortunately, we don't have blocks info for back then.

BTW tell us how that worked out for Mutombo when defending Shaq. Or Mourning and the litany of centers who abused him.

Let's find out.

KAJ versus Wilt in 71' and 72' playoffs: 25/17/4 on 48%, 34/18/5 on 46%.
Wilt versus KAJ in the 71' and 72' playoffs: 22/19/2 on 49%, 11/19/3 on 45%.

Shaq versus Mutumbo in 01': 33/16/5 on 57%
Mutumbo versus Shaq in 01': 17/12/0 on 60%

What struck me is how KAJ managed the same efficiency on much less volume. This is Wilt we are talking about, who shot a league leading 65% in 72' (73% the next year). What did MJ do against comparable caliber defenders (basically Payton for 3 games and Moncrief for a first round loss)?

Not sure how Mourning is relevant. He was a perennial 20/10 guy in his prime, not a defensive specialist.

Kareem "fans" talking about...Kareem?

Specious. It was MJ fans who brought up those years--but suddenly don't want to talk about them when the facts showed up...

Simply claiming something doesn't work here.

We have seen plenty of that: the 76'-79' Lakers were awesome, based on fluff while the Bulls that won championships were average. It seems literally everybody had help except poor Mike.

Far as comp goes, Jordan faced more HOFers.

This is frankly a shocking statement. It is pretty obvious KAJ did but this is revealing. You must not have any idea of who he played against.

this is a team sport so lets use SRS.

Correct, it is a team sport. SRS is a solid measure--but you have to compare the team's SRS to the other team...as you note, it is a team sport. The funny thing about "60 win teams" and "50 win teams" is the win totals of the other teams are conveniently always omitted. It is obvious why.

The 90s have more teams in Top 20 SRS than the 70s do.

Hoping I didn't click on the link? Here are the top teams in SRS:

1) 71' Bucks (KAJ) 2) 96' Bulls (MJ) 3) 72' Lakers ("over the hill" Wilt) 4) 17' Warriors 5) 97' Bulls (MJ) 6) 72' Bucks (KAJ) 7) 20' Bucks 8) 16' Warriors 9) 16' Spurs 10) 92' Bulls

What he didn't tell you is those "90's teams" happen to be the Bulls time and again (which is why you will never see their SRS relative to the opposing team ever posted, at least not by them). The one exception is the 94' Sonics--who lost in the first round.

[HoopsNY]

He faced Dumars in 4 series. He faced Drexler once, Miller once, he also faced Ron Harper, Gary Payton, Dan Majerle, and a Knicks squad that was a dominant defensive team three times.

And I'm not sure, but I believe MJ faced off against the great Alvin Robertson as well.

[Roundball_Rock]

Just comparing HOF comp using their first three finals runs. MJ faces an extra team since they added an extra round by then.

1991 (4 rounds): Ewing, Barkley, Dumars, Zeke, Rodman, Magic, Worthy, Divac (international)
1992 (4 rounds): Ewing, Drexler
1993 (4 rounds): Wilkins, Ewing, Barkley

1971 (3 rounds): Lucas, Thurmond, Wilt, West, Baylor, Goodrich, Unseld, Monroe, G. Johnson
1974 (3 rounds): West, Hawkins, Goodrich, Walker, Havlicek, Cowens, White, Westphal
1980 (3 rounds): Westphal, D. Johnson, Sikma, Erving, Cheeks, Jones

So MJ has an extra round but still has much less HOF competition.

The most HOF players KAJ faced in the finals was 5; the most MJ faced was 3, and you need Divac (a 1x all-star) to get you there.
The least HOF players KAJ faced in the finals was 3; the least MJ faced was 1 (three times, AKA half his finals).

MJ had more HOF in every finals he was in, except 91', and he had more HOF in every ECF, except 91'. What a luxury! More HOF in every playoff series from 1992-1998.

Meanwhile KAJ was facing 2-3 HOF in the first round at times while MJ was getting 0-1 in the ECF and 1 in half his finals.

"6-0!"

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Not quite. KAJ was his team's defensive anchor but it is true he did not have to expend high energy on his individual match up. Unfortunately, we don't have blocks info for back then.

Those are you words though. Not quite as in you're backtracking or not "not quite" because you misspoke again?

Let's find out.

KAJ versus Wilt in 71' and 72' playoffs: 25/17/4 on 48%, 34/18/5 on 46%.
Wilt versus KAJ in the 71' and 72' playoffs: 22/19/2 on 49%, 11/19/3 on 45%.

Right. Shaq annihilated Mutombo. Not sure what that proves. Shooting 46% against a past prime Wilt...is something we're praising now?

Low standards, I guess.

Mourning was also renowned for his defense. For his entire career. Sure he could score, I never claimed otherwise. But his specialty was on defense, so don't revise history

Specious. It was MJ fans who brought up those years--but suddenly don't want to talk about them when the facts showed up...

But none of that changes the fact you've made excuses for Kareem that you'd be unwilling to do for Jordan.

Kareem's losses are contextual. While Jordan's mysteriously are not.

"B-b-but Scottie Pippen!"

This is frankly a shocking statement. It is pretty obvious KAJ did but this is revealing. You must not have any idea of who he played against.

Post the number of HOFers Jordan beat versus Kareem. :Confusedshrug:

I'll readily admit that I am wrong.

Correct, it is a team sport. SRS is a solid measure--but you have to compare the team's SRS to the other team...as you note, it is a team sport. The funny thing about "60 win teams" and "50 win teams" is the win totals of the other teams are conveniently always omitted. It is obvious why.

Its the best measure we have. Since you don't like win totals here is where we are at. Nothing dubious about it.

Hoping I didn't click on the link? Here are the top teams in SRS:

1) 71' Bucks (KAJ) 2) 96' Bulls (MJ) 3) 72' Lakers ("over the hill" Wilt 4) 17' Warriors 5) 97' Bulls (MJ) 6) 72' Bucks (KAJ) 7) 20' Bucks 8) 16' Warriors 9) 16' Spurs 10) 92' Bulls

Are you confused or something? They drew even in the Top 10 which is why I broadened the sample to 20.

5 beats 3 unless you're flat out denying elementary math.

[dankok8]

It's pretty telling that the one year in the 70's Kareem had a really good 2nd option in Oscar (1971), he ended up leading his team to the highest SRS of all time and a dominating title. And like the OP posted in another thread, Oscar was a really good player in 1971 but no longer in his prime.

And no Jordan didn't face more HOFers LMAO. Not that HOFers are the entire argument or anything like that but that's just blatantly false.

[Roundball_Rock]

It's pretty telling that the one year in the 70's Kareem had a really good 2nd option in Oscar (1971), he ended up leading his team to the highest SRS of all time and a dominating title.

Great points. KAJ had an all-NBA teammate once between 1970-1981 and look at the results that year.

The whole team success argument is bogus because KAJ didn't have the stacked teams MJ, LeBron and every other top legend had during their primes. To be fair, what else do they have to use against him? His individual record is impeccable and he had no major weakness in his game.

And no Jordan didn't face more HOFers LMAO. Not that HOFers are the entire argument or anything like that but that's just blatantly false

It is pretty obvious, so shocking he isn't aware or simply lying. KAJ played in a much tougher era for team talent among contenders. You had first round teams with 2-3 HOF then compared to finals teams with 1 for half of MJ's or 0 in the case of the 92' Cavs in the ECF.

Your statement Kuniva: "So basically Kareem didn't have to work on defense."

In fact he did as the defensive anchor, he just didn't have to do as much against his match up as he would otherwise have had to do. It is pretty straightforward.

Shooting 46% against a past prime Wilt...is something we're praising now?

It beats shooting 40% against John Starks, doesn't it? Wilt is an all-time great defender; Starks isn't.

his specialty was on defense

He wasn't a specialist. That is like saying MJ's "specialty was on scoring." Mutumbo was a defensive specialist, Rodman was, etc.

you've made excuses for Kareem that you'd be unwilling to do for Jordan.

The basis of this claim is...?

5 beats 3 unless you're flat out denying elementary math.

This is incredibly dumb: the 90's were a tough era because the Bulls towered so much over their (weak) competition.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Great points. KAJ had an all-NBA teammate once between 1970-1981 and look at the results that year. The whole team success argument is bogus but KAJ didn't have the stacked teams MJ, LeBron and every other top legend had during their primes. To be fair, what else do they have to use against him? His individual record is impeccable and he had no major weakness in his game.

Your statement Kuniva: "So basically Kareem didn't have to work on defense."

But his role was to play defense and rebound, as per your own words. If that's his role, what is Kareem defending exactly?

In fact he did as the defensive anchor, he just didn't have to do as much against his match up as he would otherwise have had to do. It is pretty straightforward.

That doesn't sound straight forward at all. Its sound like you're mincing words, and backtracking again.

It beats shooting 40% against John Starks, doesn't it? Wilt is an all-time great defender; Starks isn't.

But I'm not praising that series like you are doing here for Wilt.

He wasn't a specialist. That is like saying MJ's "specialty was on scoring." Mutumbo was a defensive specialist, Rodman was, etc.

Not at all. Mourning from the late 90s going into the 00s was noted more for his defense. Of course he could score, I haven't debated otherwise.

The basis of this claim is...?

How about just a few quotes above?

You posted Kareem's inefficient log vs Wilt, and are here acting like we should be impressed.

You then brought up the Knicks series to hammer Jordan. Yet the Knicks were and are STILL recognized as one of the best defensive teams. Ever.

This is incredibly dumb: the 90's were a tough era because the Bulls towered so much over their competition.

So now SRS is dumb? You just called it a great stat in your last post.

Are you OK bud?

[Turbo Slayer]

Hate to interrupt the 2 of you but what are you all arguing about?

[Axe]

Hate to interrupt the 2 of you but what are you all arguing about?

It's a kareem vs. mj debate here in some very specific scenarios

[Turbo Slayer]

It's a kareem vs. mj debate here in some very specific scenarios

Oh thanks!

[guy]

So you are saying the 90's Bulls would fare basically the same in any era. Here is the problem: they didn't dominate all those finals. They needed a 15 point fourth quarter comeback with the bench (plus Pippen) on the court to avoid a Game 7 against the Blazers, Paxson to avoid Game 7 against the Suns, Kerr to avoid a Game 7 in 97', and MJ over Russell to avoid a Game 7 in 98'. Replace those teams with more stacked teams in other eras.

Kerr’s shot was to avoid OT, not game 7. And even though its only 1 game, I think it’s a big difference to win in 6 vs win in 7. They didn’t just totally dominate, but they weren’t in much danger of losing the series.

You realize that these other dominant teams you’re referring didn’t always dominate every series they played in right? And I’m not just talking about the series they played against each other. I’m talking about against teams that weren’t as good as the Bulls and/or also not any better and maybe even worse then some of the “weak competition” the Bulls faced in the 90s. Lets look at the 80s Celtics and Lakers for example:

80s Celtics:
1981 - 6 games to beat the below .500 Rockets in the finals
1983 - Swept by the Bucks
1984 - 7 games to beat the Knicks (there 2nd best player was literally Bill Cartwright)
1987 - 7 games to beat the Bucks
1988 - 7 games to beat the Hawks
1990 - Lose 3-2 to the Knicks

80s Lakers:
1981 – Lose 2-1 to the below .500 Rockets
1986 – Lose 4-1 to the Rockets
1988 – 7 games to beat the Jazz
1988 – 7 games to beat the Mavs
1990 – Lose 4-1 to the Suns

And for both of them I’d bring up the early 80s Sixers pre-Moses that beat the Celtics twice and lost to them in 7 once and pushed the Lakers to 6 in the Finals in both 1980 and 1982. Those teams weren’t better then the Bulls. You can go through the roster and tell me why you think they could be.

And other than the 86 Rockets I brought up, its not like these teams had a bunch of big guys or so many elite players and that’s why they were able to match up with them. That’s not the case.

I’m not saying based on this the Bulls couldn’t still lose to the Celtics or Lakers (for all 3 teams I’m sure we can say they played down to their competition at times – its just human nature) and be just as successful as they were. Maybe they wouldn’t - I don’t’ believe that, but I don’t think anyone is crazy for thinking that. But there’s this assumption that its a foregone conclusion that they wouldn’t come close, which based on the above seems like an incredible overexaggeration.

Not because of 6 rings--few people credit him with 6. Some people only credit him with 2.

I don’t really see that. They may not hype up his 6 rings as much because clearly his contribution and responsibility on average was less than Jordan’s, but if he’s brought up in the media in these debates they don’t get into that detail.