I'm going to try and watch every Bulls playoff game from '90 to '98

[Carbine]

Magic controls the game with his passing, Michael doesn't control the game in that way. He wants to control the game with his scoring. His playmaking is still very good, no question about it. He just didn't have that ability to park his ass in the post and run his game from their when the drives and outside shot weren't falling quite yet at this stage of his career. I think he got quite a bit stronger in his years afterwards, especially 2nd 3peat.

This version of Magic could just bully you in the post and because of his great height and vision with the skill, could create open looks almost at will.

[Carbine]

I have a hard time thinking this was prime MJ.

He certainly may have been at his athletic peak at this point as far as explosion, but I think his skills the following year and '93 especially were better while still retaining 99 percent of the athletic ability.

[ThatCoolKid]

I have a hard time thinking this was prime MJ.

He certainly may have been at his athletic peak at this point as far as explosion, but I think his skills the following year and '93 especially were better while still retaining 99 percent of the athletic ability.

Well when you look at the objective data MJ just doesn't quite hold up to his Nike golden boy reputation.

[LostCause]

He had 33 and 13 the very next game...

Plus he had twelve 30+ points 10+ assists playoff games not including the 1991 Finals. He had fifteen total. Included in this total are three 40+ 10+ playoff games (none of them were in the 91 Finals). Just missing the cut were two Finals games where he posted 39 and 10+... and four more playoff games where he posted 40+ and 9 assists.

What was he going for, exactly? Lol

[Indian guy]

I have a hard time thinking this was prime MJ.

He certainly may have been at his athletic peak at this point as far as explosion, but I think his skills the following year and '93 especially were better while still retaining 99 percent of the athletic ability.

Your MJ analysis leaves a lot to be desired, to be honest. You barely dedicate a comment to some of his more dominant games during this run (ECS Games 3&5, ECF Game 2, Finals Game 2). Barely anything on his skill-set besides his triple threat ability early in the 1st round against NYK.

And 1991 MJ is not just prime MJ, it's peak MJ. His best blend of skill, athleticism and mentality. Definitely the version I would pick over any other going into a playoff series. His game becomes more jump shot-dependent after this season and by no means does he retain anywhere close to 99% of his athleticism by 1993. Maybe you were expecting to see more "skills"? More jumpers, more fadeaways, more fancy footwork....but he didn't need that as much in 1991. He was still a beast athletically.

If you are not that impressed by his 31/6/8/52% + dominant advanced statistics playoff run of 1991 - which was statistically his best of the 6 championship runs by far, then you are definitely gonna be less impressed by the following 5.

[tpols]

Your MJ analysis leaves a lot to be desired, to be honest. His skill-set was pretty much set by 1991. Maybe slightly better game management skills and footwork after this point, but nothing major. And by no means does he retain anywhere close to 99% of his athleticism by 1993. Nor is 1991 his peak athletic season. Those would be the late 80's. I do think 1991 is his best blend of skill, athleticism and mentality. Definitely the version I would pick over any other going into a playoff series. His game becomes more jump shot-dependent after this season. Maybe that's what you were hoping to see - more "skills"? More jumpers, more fadeaways, more fancy footwork....but he didn't need that as much in 1991.

If you are not that impressed by his 31/6/8/52% playoff run of 1991 - which was statistically his best of the 6 championship runs and hardly ever had an off night, then you are definitely gonna be less impressed by the following 5.

not only that but he put up 31/11/7 on 125 ORTG in the series he's watching while being the primary defender on magic.

that's absolutely ****ing ridiculous.

[Kblaze8855]

Something that popped in my head while watching this series, especially the Jordan/Magic battle is we always here about Magic and Jordan were equals on offense, but Jordan was a lockdown defender so he's just the better player.

On paper it makes sense. A lot of sense.

But in this player comparison, MJ's defense had no effect on Magic. He was still out there being Magic Johnson being defended by Jordan.

If Magics offense was so good that MJ's defense couldn't mitigate it at least somewhat, why does MJ's defense get brought up in this discussion when debating between the two as players?

Why I’ve been saying for years that on the same floor a lot of the things we use to break players up don’t matter and they end up roughly as effective. You should watch some athletic young magic games next. 91 Magic was still great but around 86 or so when he was still skinny and starting to score more by request of Riley?

That guy was ridiculous. There are better total players when you factor in defense but Magic at his best vs whoever at theirs.....they make about the same impact on a game. He just didn’t play a game many fans can appreciate. Magic scores like a 60s forward in the 90s.

[Da_Realist]

Your MJ analysis leaves a lot to be desired, to be honest. You barely dedicate a comment to some of his more dominant games during this run (ECS Games 3&5, ECF Game 2, Finals Game 2). Barely anything on his skill-set besides his triple threat ability early in the 1st round against NYK.

And 1991 MJ is not just prime MJ, it's peak MJ. His best blend of skill, athleticism and mentality. Definitely the version I would pick over any other going into a playoff series. His game becomes more jump shot-dependent after this season and by no means does he retain anywhere close to 99% of his athleticism by 1993. Maybe you were expecting to see more "skills"? More jumpers, more fadeaways, more fancy footwork....but he didn't need that as much in 1991. He was still a beast athletically.

If you are not that impressed by his 31/6/8/52% + dominant advanced statistics playoff run of 1991 - which was statistically his best of the 6 championship runs by far, then you are definitely gonna be less impressed by the following 5.

I agree with this. If anyone isn't that impressed with this year, they have Almighty-level expectations. This was easily MJ's best run, easily his most versatile in terms of his blend of skill and athleticism as well as what he provided to the team. Also, in my opinion, this was easily the most creative and artistic version of MJ. Especially from the 3rd game vs Detroit through the end of the 91 Finals.

Yet I still want to read his thoughts as he progresses through and gains more perspective over the years coming up.

[Carbine]

Your MJ analysis leaves a lot to be desired, to be honest. You barely dedicate a comment to some of his more dominant games during this run (ECS Games 3&5, ECF Game 2, Finals Game 2). Barely anything on his skill-set besides his triple threat ability early in the 1st round against NYK.

And 1991 MJ is not just prime MJ, it's peak MJ. His best blend of skill, athleticism and mentality. Definitely the version I would pick over any other going into a playoff series. His game becomes more jump shot-dependent after this season and by no means does he retain anywhere close to 99% of his athleticism by 1993. Maybe you were expecting to see more "skills"? More jumpers, more fadeaways, more fancy footwork....but he didn't need that as much in 1991. He was still a beast athletically.

If you are not that impressed by his 31/6/8/52% + dominant advanced statistics playoff run of 1991 - which was statistically his best of the 6 championship runs by far, then you are definitely gonna be less impressed by the following 5.

First of all I've been plenty fair to Jordan. I mentioned his fantastic game 2, but also gave credit to other payers as well in the same game. I specifically mentioned Jordan along with 3 other Bulls as to the reason why game 2 was a comfortable win.

[Carbine]

not only that but he put up 31/11/7 on 125 ORTG in the series he's watching while being the primary defender on magic.

that's absolutely ****ing ridiculous.

Being the primary defender on Magic would mean something if he actually made it tough for Magic. If he did what Iggy did to LeBron in the finals, sure that would be an amazing feat. That's not what happened in this series.

[tpols]

Being the primary defender on Magic would mean something if he actually made it tough for Magic. If he did what Iggy did to LeBron in the finals, sure that would be an amazing feat. That's not what happened in this series.

i dont think anybody can stop magic johnson... you're right his numbers are identical pretty much vs MJ or any of the other 3 teams he saw beforehand.

Still... offense alone... MJ was getting basically the same amount of assists as magic, but 30+ ppg on better efficiency to magic's 18 ppg.

How can we consider that equal?

[Kblaze8855]

Magic is a hard guy to judge such a thing on. Magic doesn’t tend to be shut down because you really have to double him to prevent scoring off his size, touch, and strength....but you can’t double him because he’s got the best court vision in history. And on the move he’s a freight train. Magic was a lot harder to stop than the sum of his perceived skills makes it seem. He spent so long playing guard while oversized and without great handles he was a master of protecting the ball and taking advantage when you overplayed.

He was just a handful. No one player stops Magic from being Magic. You just hope he has some mental errors.

[Carbine]

I agree with this. If anyone isn't that impressed with this year, they have Almighty-level expectations. This was easily MJ's best run, easily his most versatile in terms of his blend of skill and athleticism as well as what he provided to the team. Also, in my opinion, this was easily the most creative and artistic version of MJ. Especially from the 3rd game vs Detroit through the end of the 91 Finals.

Yet I still want to read his thoughts as he progresses through and gains more perspective over the years coming up.

Nowhere did I say I wasn't impressed. This run overall has been great for MJ but he has had some long stretches of ineffective play, missing clutch shots (also making them too) that honestly I can't put over any number of playoff runs I've seen over the last 20 years. It's in the category of some of the best I've seen, but Kawhi's for example is just as good as this one.

I remember '03 Duncan as well. Just as good, probably better. Shaq for sure. Lebron.... maybe 1 Kobe run. Hakeem has 2 of them. I wasn't around pre 90's runs but it's probably safe to assume Bird/Magic has a couple.

'91 Jordans in that group, but it blends in with the rest, it doesn't stand out.

[Carbine]

i dont think anybody can stop magic johnson... you're right his numbers are identical pretty much vs MJ or any of the other 3 teams he saw beforehand.

Still... offense alone... MJ was getting basically the same amount of assists as magic, but 30+ ppg on better efficiency to magic's 18 ppg.

How can we consider that equal?

I don't judge a player off box scores. Go watch the games for yourself, Magic's offensive impact went far beyond 18ppg. The most unstoppable move in this series is Magic post ups. They either get a great look and miss or score a mind boggling number of times off it.

[Da_Realist]

Nowhere did I say I wasn't impressed. This run overall has been great for MJ but he has had some long stretches of ineffective play, missing clutch shots (also making them too) that honestly I can't put over any number of playoff runs I've seen over the last 20 years. It's in the category of some of the best I've seen, but Kawhi's for example is just as good as this one.

I remember '03 Duncan as well. Just as good, probably better. Shaq for sure. Lebron.... maybe 1 Kobe run. Hakeem has 2 of them. I wasn't around pre 90's runs but it's probably safe to assume Bird/Magic has a couple.

'91 Jordans in that group, but it blends in with the rest, it doesn't stand out.

Ok. Your opinion is your opinion and this is what this thread is about, not my opinion. Still looking forward to further thoughts and analysis.