Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > NBA Forum

NBA Forum NBA Message Board - NBA Fan Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-23-2011, 07:16 AM   #31
gengiskhan
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,521
Lightbulb Re: If Michael Jordan played for the Nuggets or Hornets he'd have no titles... then what?

ISH has probably the biggest morons of all.

When Michael Jordan Joined the Chicago Bulls, francise had NO championships.

When MJ retired from Bulls, franchise had 6 Championships.


Had Michael Jordan joined Hornets or Nuggets or Kings etc etc, those franchises would've had atleast 3 champions before MJ retired perminantly.


Now

When Kobe joined Lakers, that franchise had 11 Rings & with Shaq had 14 rings. If Kobe joined Hornets in 1997, that franchise would have had ZERO championships for sure.
gengiskhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2011, 07:52 AM   #32
madmax
Decent college freshman
 
madmax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,487
Default Re: If Michael Jordan played for the Nuggets or Hornets he'd have no titles... then what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gengiskhan
ISH has probably the biggest morons of all.

When Michael Jordan Joined the Chicago Bulls, francise had NO championships.

When MJ retired from Bulls, franchise had 6 Championships.


Had Michael Jordan joined Hornets or Nuggets or Kings etc etc, those franchises would've had atleast 3 champions before MJ retired perminantly.


Now

When Kobe joined Lakers, that franchise had 11 Rings & with Shaq had 14 rings. If Kobe joined Hornets in 1997, that franchise would have had ZERO championships for sure.

what makes you believe that His Airness would lead Hornets or Kings to a single championship? Didn't it take maturing of Pippen into a superstar and GOAT coach to start winning for him? Other than his impressive individual numbers he was winning jack shit team accomplishments wise. So once again you are full of crap by implying that one player would magically make a shit team the best team in the league somehow...sorry, it doesn't work that way in basketball and never did
madmax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2011, 07:58 AM   #33
DMAVS41
NBA Legend and Hall of Famer
 
DMAVS41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 29,276
Default Re: If Michael Jordan played for the Nuggets or Hornets he'd have no titles... then what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by madmax
what makes you believe that His Airness would lead Hornets or Kings to a single championship? Didn't it take maturing of Pippen into a superstar and GOAT coach to start winning for him? Other than his impressive individual numbers he was winning jack shit team accomplishments wise. So once again you are full of crap by implying that one player would magically make a shit team the best team in the league somehow...sorry, it doesn't work that way in basketball and never did

Just take the rosters that Iverson had throughout his career. How many titles does MJ win? 1 maybe? I'm not even sure he wins more than 1.

And MJ is my favorite player. The idea that these players magically would get more talent is absurd.

So sick of hearing this crap. Rings are over-rated when comparing players. They definitely matter, but not as much as the actual level of play of these players.

We know Jordan is better than Drexler regardless of rings. Drexler could have 5 rings and Jordan could have 1 and I'd rank MJ over Drexler and it wouldn't be close.

We know Dirk is better than Gasol. Pau could have 10 rings and I'd rank him lower than Dirk.

There are too many variables that go into winning a title for it to be even remotely attributed to 1 player. How many titles have guys like kerr/horry/fisher alone impacted in the last 20 years?

Teams win. Sometimes players deserve a lot of credit and how they play while winning should matter a lot......but these players don't magically transform into champions over night or something.

If the Heat win this year, is it more about Lebron or his help?
If the Mavs win this year, is is more about Dirk of his help?

Both players have played better before.
DMAVS41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2011, 08:27 AM   #34
Lucifer
Banned
 
Lucifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 949
Default Re: If Michael Jordan played for the Nuggets or Hornets he'd have no titles... then what?

Then insidehoops wouldn't exaggerate how great he was. Most of you guys think he can make a blindfolded, back against the basket half court buzzer beater any day of the week.
Lucifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2011, 08:57 AM   #35
Rake2204
NBA Superstar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 14,002
Default Re: If Michael Jordan played for the Nuggets or Hornets he'd have no titles... then what?

I very much agree with the overall premise explained by the original poster. There's some details I may not agree with, but by and large, I have always been at least a little baffled when someone claims a player is better than another because his team won more championships. Well I guess I'm not baffled when that argument is made as I can understand how someone may come to such a conclusion, but I do not believe it holds much weight regardless.

It is my feeling that Michael Jordan, for example, would not be able to lead a starting lineup of Mike Iuzzolino, himself, Doug Smith, Terry Davis and Donald Hodge ('93 Mavericks) to a championship. And in truth, if he had rosters like that his whole career and somehow managed to inexplicably lead them to the postseason (where those wretched teams would lose in the first round) I'm betting there'd be all sorts of people ready to label Jordan as someone who just didn't have what it took.

I feel in many cases the NBA's greatest players play or played for some of the NBA's greatest teams and I don't find that to be a coincidence. However, I don't find one to always yield the other (not all great players win championships and not all championship teams house the game's greatest players).

I think you could look at each team as having a hypothetical championship gas tank. When that tank is full, it's prime for a title. I think there are a number of ways to fill up this tank. For instance, I think a superstar could fill up that championship tank, let's say, 50% of the way, with a supporting star chipping in 30% and a real solid core making up the last 20%. I'm picturing Kobe, Pau and company. Conversely, MJ on that Mavericks team, I'd see Jordan filling up 50 to 60% of that championship tank, but the rest of his team would account for, perhaps, 10% total, leaving his team well short of championship aspirations. Yet another example could be the 2004 Detroit Pistons, maybe splitting the dues 20, 20, 20, 20, 10, and 10 (Ben, Rip, Chaunce, Sheed, Tay and bench).

A great player can surely be the biggest reason a team wins a championship. But on that same hand, winning a championship does not make a player great.

Last edited by Rake2204 : 05-23-2011 at 09:00 AM.
Rake2204 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2011, 09:00 AM   #36
Lebron23
2nd Greatest Player
 
Lebron23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Land of 6 NBA titles
Posts: 53,843
Default Re: If Michael Jordan played for the Nuggets or Hornets he'd have no titles... then what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rake2204
I very much agree with the overall premise explained by the original poster. There's some details I may not agree with, but by and large, I have always been at least a little baffled when someone claims a player is better than another because his team won more championships. Well I guess I'm not baffled when that argument is made as I can understand how someone may come to such a conclusion, but I do not believe it holds much weight regardless.

It is my feeling that Michael Jordan, for example, would not be able to lead a starting lineup of Mike Iuzzolino, himself, Doug Smith, Terry Davis and Donald Hodge ('93 Mavericks) to a championship. And in truth, if he had rosters like that his whole career and somehow managed to inexplicably lead them to the postseason (where those wretched teams would lose in the first round) I'm betting there'd be all sorts of people ready to label Jordan as someone who just didn't have what it took.

I feel in many cases the NBA's greatest players play or played for some of the NBA's greatest teams and I don't find that to be a coincidence. However, I don't find one to always yield the other (not all great players win championships and not all championship teams house the game's greatest players).

I think you could look at each team having a hypothetical championship gas tank. When that tank is full, it's prime for a title. I think there are a number of ways to fill up this tank. For instance, I think a superstar could fill up that championship tank , let's say, 50% of the way, with a supporting star chipping in 30% and a real solid core making up the last 20%. I'm picturing Kobe, Pau and company. Conversely, MJ on that Mavericks team, I'd see Jordan filling up 50 to 60% of that championship tank, but the rest of his team would account for, perhaps, 10% total, leaving his team well short of championship aspirations. Yet another example could be the 2004 Detroit Pistons, maybe splitting the dues 20, 20, 20, 20, 10, and 10 (Ben, Rip, Chaunce, Sheed, Tay and bench).

A great player can surely be the biggest reason a team wins a championship. But on that same hand, winning a championship does not make a player great.


Good Post.

Lebron23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2011, 10:31 AM   #37
FKAri
5-time NBA All-Star
 
FKAri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 11,033
Default Re: If Michael Jordan played for the Nuggets or Hornets he'd have no titles... then what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FourthTenor
Kobe's skillset and basketball ability doesnt change a LICK whether Pau gets traded their or not. But because Pau just HAPPENED to be traded there it ended up affecting how you compare Kobe to other basketball players? That's senseless. It's dumb. It's garbage.

I completely agree. That right there is a great example that exposes the flaw in how we rate/rank players.

Had Gasol never come over (though people forget the emergence of Bynum was almost just as much of a factor to their success), had Kobe stayed with the Lakers, never won a ring again, then retired with 3 rings, Kobe's "legacy" would be completely different. People would say how he isn't a winner, a bad teammate, couldn't win without Shaq, etc. Rings barely matter in comparing players.
FKAri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2011, 10:31 AM   #38
G.O.A.T
Scott Hastings Fan
 
G.O.A.T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 5,592
Default Re: If Michael Jordan played for the Nuggets or Hornets he'd have no titles... then what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMAVS41
The problem with some of those players is that you can't ignore the circumstances they were in.

Of course. But what happens is people remember things differently once a team wins a Championship.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DMAVS41
Shaq and Kobe played together for 8 years.

Kareem and Magic won 5 titles together

So just right there 4 of your 11 best players of all time played significant time together.

And predictably their teams won nearly as many titles as not.

That's a good point. But it's not like having two super-stars is a guaranteed title. West and Baylor played a decade together, no titles. Oscar and Kareem four years, one title. Doc and Moses, four years, one title.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMAVS41
Not to mention the loaded rosters of Russell's and Bird's celtics.

Yes those were good rosters, but without Bird and Russell, they aren't championship rosters. The other guys were expendable or replaceable. After all, Russell's entire roster changed from the time he won his first title to the time he won his last.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMAVS41
Its a combination of everything. Some players have been much more fortunate than others. You have to account for that. You really think Hakeem only has two titles if he played 8 years with Kobe and a few years with Wade? Of course not.

To plays devils advocate, how many titles would Jordan have won if he was paired with Ralph Sampson for his first four years? We don't know if playing with Kobe or Wade was going to guarantee any more titles. Shaq teamed up with Wade or Kobe for 10 prime years and won titles. How do we know Hakeem would win more than two? Prime Shaq was certainly more dominant than Hakeem relative to his peers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMAVS41
And if you put MJ on the teams that Allen Iverson had he probably has 1 title at most.

Wait, why? This is where this way of thinking losses me. Iverson, not nearly the two-way impact player Jordan was, had that team in contention in at least 3-4 years. Plus there is no telling which players they can sign with Jordan on board.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DMAVS41
Take Lebron his first 7 years. You really think thats a fair comparison to Kobe's first 7 years in terms of ability to win?

They were in different situations. Kobe was a late lottery pick in a supporting role for his first 5+ years. LeBron was a #1 pick and a franchise guy from the start. While Kobe's team was likely to win more, LeBron had a much better chance to rack up big stats and individual awards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMAVS41
Its all about circumstances and how you do given those circumstances. Which is why after 2 or 3 titles people will rank Lebron over Kobe.

Which makes sense when you put everything i context. No one is saying that players should be ranked by the number of titles they've won.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMAVS41
We all know the truth. All of the players you mentioned had all time great help. Really the only guys that didn't were Duncan and Hakeem. All of those other players were definitely great, but were fortunate enough to play on some of the most loaded teams of all time.

Sometimes people don't admit or understand the whole truth. All of those guys had good teams, yes. But it's not like they had unbeatable teams. Birds Celtics had to go against Magic's Lakers and Doc's Sixers. Later the 9-deep Bad Boys invaded the era.

Russell's Celtics played against the Baylor/West led Lakers, Pettit's Hawks and their three hall-of-famers in their prime frontline with a hall of fame point guard as well (Martin, than Wilkins), Wilt and the 76ers, who too were loaded, more so than Boston by the time Wilt got there and even beat the Lakers with Wilt, West and Baylor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMAVS41
Its not random. The best teams usually win in the NBA.

And the best teams usually have the best player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMAVS41
Jordan didn't get magically better in year 7. Hakeem didn't get magically better in year 10. Shaq didn't get magically better in year 8. Their teams all improved around them.

I'll look into it, but I'm pretty sure those teams made no major personal changes from the year before they won those titles. What I believe happens is through experience and maturation, the great players, who already have the talent to win, learn how to win.

As a current example. I don't think anyone thought the Mavs had a great supporting cast when the playoffs started, but if they win it all, people might talk about how great a team they had 10-15 years from now.
G.O.A.T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2011, 10:34 AM   #39
Rnbizzle
Banned
 
Rnbizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,690
Default Re: If Michael Jordan played for the Nuggets or Hornets he'd have no titles... then what?

Then Jordan = Allen Iverson. You know I'm right.
Rnbizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2011, 03:24 PM   #40
Soundwave
NBA lottery pick
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,487
Default Re: If Michael Jordan played for the Nuggets or Hornets he'd have no titles... then what?

Actually I do think the Hornets or Nuggets would've won a title with Jordan eventually unless the GM/front office was totally incompetent.

Maybe not 6 titles, but get Jordan a solid no.2 option and a decent enough supporting cast around that and he would've won some titles.

Jordan + Zo + Larry Johnson would've been awesome, even superior to the Bulls in some ways.

Last edited by Soundwave : 05-23-2011 at 03:40 PM.
Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2011, 03:30 PM   #41
TheMan
Repping mis Mexicanas!
 
TheMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: amongst wackos
Posts: 11,741
Default Re: If Michael Jordan played for the Nuggets or Hornets he'd have no titles... then what?

I didn't know the Bulls as an organization were a powerhouse before MJ got drafted?How many did they win before he got there and how many have they won since he retired?

Retarded thread/
TheMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2011, 03:40 PM   #42
LBJFTW
Duncan > Lebron
 
LBJFTW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,696
Default Re: If Michael Jordan played for the Nuggets or Hornets he'd have no titles... then what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FourthTenor
Championship teams are always far more about the team than any one player. Look at the Bulls records during Jordan's retirement. Still a very good team. And if it had been Pippen who retired for two years, they would almost assuredly have not won a title during those years as was the case when Jordan was out.

A couple years ago I remember the Lakers started the season without Pau Gasol and were like 15-2, and then had a mid-season stretch without Kobe and went somethin like 5-1 but won the title. Every championship team is LOADED. Ok? Period.

So tell me, if Jordan had been drafted to a crap franchise who never surrounded him with talent, then what? Say he doesnt win titles. Is he suddenly not in the conversation with Magic and Bird and Kareem and Shaq etc.? Even if he possessed all the same skills, same work ethic, same stats, same intensity etc. but never reached the summit because there were always better TEAMS in the way of his TEAM?

It is an indisputable fact that TEAMS win championships, yet practically every
brainless fool on this site applies the "Tony Korheiser Method of Anti-Analysis" and just bleet the word "rings" any time someone asks them to make a comparison. Kornheiser doesnt even watch sports any more, so he has no arguments to make. He has absolutely nothing to contribute to a discussion. So every single argument just comes down to "rings" because thats something you can just quickly quantify and if someone disputes it just say "you play to win the game" and basically make a stubborn ass of yourself while sticking to your guns.

That seems to be what people here do. I rarely see comparisons of players in terms of their games and skills and whatnot, but rather just a listing of what their teams did or didnt do?

Yeah, guess what? This is another thread where I'm calling 99% of you retarded. Enjoy.



Your sense of logic is laughable at best. By your logic, no two players should ever be compared two each other in any category because of all the other "team" variables involved, and only teams themselves should be compared to each other. What are you going to say next? That we should fire all sport analysts and statisticians that compile individual player data since it might be used as a reference point to make a comparison between two players?
LBJFTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2011, 03:46 PM   #43
DC Zephyrs
I rule the local playground
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 523
Default Re: If Michael Jordan played for the Nuggets or Hornets he'd have no titles... then what?

It's not like Chicago was this great, storied franchise before MJ got there...
DC Zephyrs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2011, 03:48 PM   #44
DMAVS41
NBA Legend and Hall of Famer
 
DMAVS41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 29,276
Default Re: If Michael Jordan played for the Nuggets or Hornets he'd have no titles... then what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by G.O.A.T
Of course. But what happens is people remember things differently once a team wins a Championship.




And predictably their teams won nearly as many titles as not.

That's a good point. But it's not like having two super-stars is a guaranteed title. West and Baylor played a decade together, no titles. Oscar and Kareem four years, one title. Doc and Moses, four years, one title.



Yes those were good rosters, but without Bird and Russell, they aren't championship rosters. The other guys were expendable or replaceable. After all, Russell's entire roster changed from the time he won his first title to the time he won his last.



To plays devils advocate, how many titles would Jordan have won if he was paired with Ralph Sampson for his first four years? We don't know if playing with Kobe or Wade was going to guarantee any more titles. Shaq teamed up with Wade or Kobe for 10 prime years and won titles. How do we know Hakeem would win more than two? Prime Shaq was certainly more dominant than Hakeem relative to his peers.



Wait, why? This is where this way of thinking losses me. Iverson, not nearly the two-way impact player Jordan was, had that team in contention in at least 3-4 years. Plus there is no telling which players they can sign with Jordan on board.




They were in different situations. Kobe was a late lottery pick in a supporting role for his first 5+ years. LeBron was a #1 pick and a franchise guy from the start. While Kobe's team was likely to win more, LeBron had a much better chance to rack up big stats and individual awards.



Which makes sense when you put everything i context. No one is saying that players should be ranked by the number of titles they've won.



Sometimes people don't admit or understand the whole truth. All of those guys had good teams, yes. But it's not like they had unbeatable teams. Birds Celtics had to go against Magic's Lakers and Doc's Sixers. Later the 9-deep Bad Boys invaded the era.

Russell's Celtics played against the Baylor/West led Lakers, Pettit's Hawks and their three hall-of-famers in their prime frontline with a hall of fame point guard as well (Martin, than Wilkins), Wilt and the 76ers, who too were loaded, more so than Boston by the time Wilt got there and even beat the Lakers with Wilt, West and Baylor.



And the best teams usually have the best player.



I'll look into it, but I'm pretty sure those teams made no major personal changes from the year before they won those titles. What I believe happens is through experience and maturation, the great players, who already have the talent to win, learn how to win.

As a current example. I don't think anyone thought the Mavs had a great supporting cast when the playoffs started, but if they win it all, people might talk about how great a team they had 10-15 years from now.


We are pretty much in total agreement.

We disagree on a few things of course, but thats normal.

I'm not discounting any titles and there is definitely something to be said for taking advantage of an opportunity for sure.......

But we need to tap the breaks on giving some players too much credit

As far as the Jordan and Iverson comparison. Do you really think MJ beats the Shaq/Kobe Lakers in 01? I mean, i have him as the GOAT, but that would have been remarkable.

Sometimes great players that are actually the best players get screwed with poor teams. Lebron and KG are good examples. Wade is a good example. Those guys were absolutely as good as anyone in the league for a number of years but simply played on poor teams.

If the Mavs win it this year it will be looked at as one of the improbable titles of all time. Dirk will be right up there with Hakeem/Duncan/Barry if he keeps up his level of play for carrying a team to a title.

History will not change that. Just like it hasn't for Barry in 75, Hakeem in 94, or Duncan in 03.

Basically it boils down to what these players do with the chances they are given to win. There is a pattern to pretty much every title team in NBA history. You pretty much always need two hall of fame type players playing at an elite level. There are some exceptions like the titles above, but its pretty much consistent year in year out.

My point is that if the Heat were to win a title this year it would not make Lebron or Wade better players. It would just mean they have a better team. Same with Dirk. Dirk is playing his standard great playoff basketball...nothing has changed for him. Its his team that is different.

So we pretty much agree overall, but titles are a bit over-rated....always have been and always will be when comparing players.
DMAVS41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2011, 03:54 PM   #45
Soundwave
NBA lottery pick
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,487
Default Re: If Michael Jordan played for the Nuggets or Hornets he'd have no titles... then what?

I never really thought the Bulls were ever that stacked. The Lakers of the 80s and the Celtics of the 80s were stacked. The 80s Pistons were deeper too. The Bulls were one great player, one very good player, and a bunch of supporting pieces outside of that.

The Bulls bench was always average, probably below average at times. They never had really any offensively powerful front courts (Luc Longley a starter? Bill Cartwright?).

Pippen was a very good no.2, but offensively there were times where he would go silent too.

Last edited by Soundwave : 05-23-2011 at 03:57 PM.
Soundwave is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:


Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:11 AM.






NBA BASKETBALL FORUM KEY LINKS:

NBA Basketball

NBA Rumors

Basketball Blog

NBA Videos

Search Site

FOLLOW US
Twitter
Facebook
Instagram
YouTube
















Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy