Michael Jordan WON a championship by himself. Many are just Ignorant about it on ISH

[Heavincent]

I disagree with the OP.

I'm actually kinda embarrassed, since he's normally on point.

Having said that..

The overrating of Pip continues (to be fair, it is to counter the underrating of Pip).

The OP would've been correct if he stated that nobody's won a ring with less help. That can actually be debatable that can go either way. But MJ does have the distinction to have won with the worst front court of all time. No true dominant big man or all star front court.

[97 bulls]

Giving them fits is different than dominating a la Shaq. Shaq wasn't even a great defensive beast, but teams still didn't challenge him when he was in the paint.

Hell the pacers with the Davis in the front court were better.

The bulls did enough to sneak by, let us not pretend the opponents were getting the clamps put on them and that teams were scrambling to double luc or grant.

So the Pacers is the only team you feel that was better than the Bulls where the frontcourt is concerned?

[DatAsh]

How did Jordan manage to rack up all those assists by himself?

[guy]

*
Its post like this that I vehemently disagree with. Jordan didnt teach Jackson and Winter their coaching philosophy. In fact, he tried to fight it at first. Jackson had to beg him to get Paxson the ball cuz he was open. He didnt teach Pax how to shoot. He didnt teach Cartwright and Grant how to defend the post. He didnt give Pippen his talent and work ethic. We're talking about huge reasons as to why the Bulls won.

Wow man, I didn't mean he raised them as children and was the first to put a basketball in their hand.

As I said, role players don't matter much. There's not much of a difference between their actual abilities. The greater the superstars they're supporting though, the easier it makes on them.

I've said multiple times now that that Jordan helping develop Pippen wouldn't have mattered much if Pippen didn't have the potential and work ethic in the first place. You keep glossing over that and like I said, taking what I said to the extreme.

Phil and Tex's coaching philosophy doesn't matter much if Jordan doesn't eventually buy in the first place. Shit, even when fighting it they still made it to game 7 of the ECF.

Like I said, he had a hand in almost every major contributing factor to their success, as in heightening the expectations of the organizations, helping in the development of Pippen, making things easier on his average role player teammates, buying into Phil's philosophy despite his lack of experience, helping the organization feel comfortable bringing in Rodman, etc. Thats not saying something extreme like he taught John Paxson how to shoot like you to think.

Jordans biggest influence on the Bulls was the confidence hed give to to his teammates and coach in knowing that they had the best player in the world on their side.

Yes. And that is HUGE yet you seem to downplay it. Ask John Starks, Charles Oakley, Pat Riley, Dan Majerle, Kevin Johnson, Paul Westphal, Terry Porter, Jerome Kersey, Rick Adelman, John Stockton, Jeff Hornacek, and Jerry Sloan if they felt anywhere near as confident cause I doubt it.

And if you really believe what you said right there, you're not really disagreeing with me.

Again whats doubtful about it? They didnt even have the same mindset. They really didnt even have the same skillset. The way they approached the game was in stark contrast of each other. Pippen didnt try to be Jordan the year he retired. He ran the Bulls in his own way.

They didn't have the same skillset? They both did pretty much everything except Jordan was a significantly better scorer. When Pippen was playing his absolute best, people would say it was like watching two Jordans out there. Throw in the many people, including Pippen himself, that say Jordan was huge in his development and Pippen probably wouldn't be as good as he was without him, and I think its highly doubtful that he would've been the same player. That doesn't mean he wouldn't have been good, just not as great as he was.

Because they were nowhere near contending. Unlike when Pippen and Grant came. You knew they had something going because they were going deep into the playoffs at a young age.

This is the type of stupid comments I'm talking about They weren't making it deep in the playoffs cause of Pippen and Grant. They were making it deep in the playoffs mainly cause Jordan was a better, more mature, and experienced player and leader that was at or near his peak. As a result they were doing better in the RS and got to avoid tougher competition in earlier rounds and they were just a better team overall. Thats mainly why they were making it deep, not cause Pippen and Grant were these hugely impactful players that soon like they were later on. Its not far-fetched at all that if it was 86 Woolridge and Oakley in their place that it would've been any different.

I don't think Oakley in Grant's place makes a difference. In fact, I think Oakley was a little better. Woolridge in Pippen's place of course makes a difference. If he doesn't clean up his act like he didn't, I highly doubt they can win it all. But if he does, they still wouldn't be as good with him instead of Pippen, but its not far-fetched that they could've won it all. That trio would've still been one of the best trios in the league in the early 90s.

No. And I see your point. My point is that were not talking about an avg three point shooter. PAX and Kerr were lights out and clutch. Korver missed alot of wide open threes.

So what exactly are you saying? You do think that if it was Korver in their place that they would've won less then 6 titles? Cause thats laughable.

I gotta admit I got a chuckle out of this paragraph. However. Kukoc was much better than you give him credit for. And what was wrong with the Europen players back then? You do remember why they began to allow NBA players to start playing in the Olympics right? Because European teams started kicking our ass. Kukoc was more than capable of being a starter on an NBA team. Hell he avg 19/7/5 in his lone opportunity to be the man in the NBA. Some or even more most American players would kill to havd a statline like that for a season. Another classic example of you feeling what happened didnt really happen.

All I'm saying is technically thats what the 6th man means. I think he was better clearly then the 146th best player in the league and capable of starting.

Umm, European players weren't doing shit to the NBA in the 90s.

You don't seem to understand that stats on the absolute worst team in the league doesn't really mean much. Of course his numbers were going to go up. When the Bulls lost Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman, they lost about 50 ppg/25 rpg/10 apg. Of course when they don't end up getting anyone better, that next best player is going to make up a big chunk of that, but it doesn't really say much when you are the absolute worst team in the league. Its one thing if he was putting up superstar numbers, or if he was putting up those numbers on a good team. But he wasn't. It doesn't say much. Tell me someone who put up those type of numbers on the worst team in the league and still made the ASG?

[Roundball_Rock]

It is hilarious how one of the 5 greatest players of all-time actually is overrated. Just see this thread and the one claiming Jordan could be a solid player at age 50.

But MJ does have the distinction to have won with the worst front court of all time. No true dominant big man or all star front court.

That is ridiculous. Jordan always had great forwards--when he was winning.

Jordan made Pippen a top 5 draft pick; Jordan is the reason Chicago traded for Pippen. Please. Only Jordan fans utter such nonsense. If Jordan is so great at player development why has he been a joke as a GM/owner? Why doesn't he "mint" another HOFer? He hasn't because he can't.

People act as if Doug Collins didn't exist. Collins went out of his way to develop Pippen and Grant. You know, being the coach...Sure Jordan helped Pippen (and as Jordan himself noted, Pippen helped make Jordan better) but that happens all the time with teammates. Only in Jordan's case is it hyped to a ridiculous degree, but that seems to be the case with all things Jordan.

Fact 2:In 1991, Scottie Pippen was NOT even good enough to secure all-star 2nd team spot. let alone becoming all-star starter from the East in 1991.

Fact: After the 1991 season Pippen was part of first four players picked for the Dream Team.

Fact: Pippen posted near triple double stats in the 1991 NBA Finals. He averaged 21/9/7/2/1.

The real question is why so many absurdities surround Jordan. It only happens with him and Wilt. If Jordan is the "clear GOAT" why not let him stand on his record? It should suffice. Why the need for all these myths to prop him up?

[97 bulls]

Wow man, I didn't mean he raised them as children and was the first to put a basketball in their hand.

As I said, role players don't matter much. There's not much of a difference between their actual abilities. The greater the superstars they're supporting though, the easier it makes on them.

I've said multiple times now that that Jordan helping develop Pippen wouldn't have mattered much if Pippen didn't have the potential and work ethic in the first place. You keep glossing over that and like I said, taking what I said to the extreme.

Phil and Tex's coaching philosophy doesn't matter much if Jordan doesn't eventually buy in the first place. Shit, even when fighting it they still made it to game 7 of the ECF.

Like I said, he had a hand in almost every major contributing factor to their success, as in heightening the expectations of the organizations, helping in the development of Pippen, making things easier on his average role player teammates, buying into Phil's philosophy despite his lack of experience, helping the organization feel comfortable bringing in Rodman, etc. Thats not saying something extreme like he taught John Paxson how to shoot like you to think.



Yes. And that is HUGE yet you seem to downplay it. Ask John Starks, Charles Oakley, Pat Riley, Dan Majerle, Kevin Johnson, Paul Westphal, Terry Porter, Jerome Kersey, Rick Adelman, John Stockton, Jeff Hornacek, and Jerry Sloan if they felt anywhere near as confident cause I doubt it.

And if you really believe what you said right there, you're not really disagreeing with me.




They didn't have the same skillset? They both did pretty much everything except Jordan was a significantly better scorer. When Pippen was playing his absolute best, people would say it was like watching two Jordans out there. Throw in the many people, including Pippen himself, that say Jordan was huge in his development and Pippen probably wouldn't be as good as he was without him, and I think its highly doubtful that he would've been the same player. That doesn't mean he wouldn't have been good, just not as great as he was.



This is the type of stupid comments I'm talking about They weren't making it deep in the playoffs cause of Pippen and Grant. They were making it deep in the playoffs mainly cause Jordan was a better, more mature, and experienced player and leader that was at or near his peak. As a result they were doing better in the RS and got to avoid tougher competition in earlier rounds and they were just a better team overall. Thats mainly why they were making it deep, not cause Pippen and Grant were these hugely impactful players that soon like they were later on. Its not far-fetched at all that if it was 86 Woolridge and Oakley in their place that it would've been any different.

I don't think Oakley in Grant's place makes a difference. In fact, I think Oakley was a little better. Woolridge in Pippen's place of course makes a difference. If he doesn't clean up his act like he didn't, I highly doubt they can win it all. But if he does, they still wouldn't be as good with him instead of Pippen, but its not far-fetched that they could've won it all. That trio would've still been one of the best trios in the league in the early 90s.



So what exactly are you saying? You do think that if it was Korver in their place that they would've won less then 6 titles? Cause thats laughable.



All I'm saying is technically thats what the 6th man means. I think he was better clearly then the 146th best player in the league and capable of starting.

Umm, European players weren't doing shit to the NBA in the 90s.

You don't seem to understand that stats on the absolute worst team in the league doesn't really mean much. Of course his numbers were going to go up. When the Bulls lost Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman, they lost about 50 ppg/25 rpg/10 apg. Of course when they don't end up getting anyone better, that next best player is going to make up a big chunk of that, but it doesn't really say much when you are the absolute worst team in the league. Its one thing if he was putting up superstar numbers, or if he was putting up those numbers on a good team. But he wasn't. It doesn't say much. Tell me someone who put up those type of numbers on the worst team in the league and still made the ASG?

All Im saying is the Bulls had great players outside of Jordan. The notion that these players were what they were because of Jordan is idiotic. Especially when they were successful without him.

As far as Kukoc, he did hover around 13/4/4 in a limited role for a championship team as a third option. His per 36 min numbers were 17/5/5 on those same championship teams. Id say his stats in 99 were legit. And woulve been better had he had better players around him. But Im sure the facts dont matter cuz according to you, what we saw isnt really what we saw

As far as role players impact. I see it like this. If youre gonna get blame for losses, you should get credit for wins. For instance, take prime Jordan and put him on those mid 80s squads. Do they win championships? If not why not?

Why does Jordan get a pass but the role players get held accountable for losing to the Pistons in the late 80s if role players dont matter?

[La Frescobaldi]

http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1991.htm

G1
CHICAGO MN FG-FGA FT-FTA 0R DR RB AS PF ST TO BL PTS
Pippen 41 7-19 5-7 2 5 7 5 5 1 3 0 19
Grant 40 3-8 0-0 3 7 10 1 1 2 1 0 6
Cartwright 34 3-8 0-0 0 4 4 2 4 0 0 1 6
Paxson 30 3-7 0-0 1 3 4 2 2 2 0 0 6
Jordan 40 14-24 7-9 2 6 8 12 5 3 4 0 36
Levingston 20 1-2 0-0 1 1 2 1 0 2 1 1 2
Hodges 13 2-5 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4
Perdue 12 2-2 2-2 0 4 4 0 2 0 0 1 6
Team
TOTALS 35-75 14-18 9 30 45 23 19 10 10 3 91

Is this the same team ?

G2
CHICAGO MN FG-FGA FT-FTA 0R DR RB AS PF ST TO BL PTS
Pippen 44 8-16 4-4 1 4 5 10 4 1 5 0 20
Grant 40 10-13 0-0 3 2 5 1 1 2 1 0 20
Cartwright 24 6-9 0-0 1 4 5 1 1 2 2 0 12
Paxson 25 8-8 0-0 0 0 0 6 2 1 0 0 16
Jordan 36 15-18 3-4 1 6 7 13 4 2 4 1 33
Levingston 22 0-2 0-0 0 1 1 2 4 2 0 0 0
Williams 15 1-1 0-0 1 2 3 0 2 0 0 0 2
Hodges 11 1-6 0-0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2
Perdue 11 1-3 0-0 3 4 7 1 0 0 1 0 2
Armstrong 7 0-2 0-0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
King 3 0-3 0-0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
Hopson 2 0-0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Team
TOTALS 50-81 7-8 11 25 45 35 20 10 14 1 107

[97 bulls]

The real question is why so many absurdities surround Jordan. It only happens with him and Wilt. If Jordan is the "clear GOAT" why not let him stand on his record? It should suffice. Why the need for all these myths to prop him up?

Exactly. You dont see any other fan of a player go out of their way to attack their favorite players teammates. You dont see Bird fans attacking Mchale, Parrish, and Co. Or Magic fans going after Worthy and Jabaar. Its just dumb

[guy]

All Im saying is the Bulls had great players outside of Jordan. The notion that these players were what they were because of Jordan is idiotic. Especially when they were successful without him.

They had 2 great players outside of Jordan, Pippen, who Jordan was instrumental in his development, and Rodman, who Jordan was instrumental in his arrival, and Rodman was only there for half the championship. Everyone else was basically average in that they were very replaceable. Its funny that you keep arguing with me about this when the Bulls ACTUALLY DID replace everyone outside of Jordan and Pippen.

The notion that these players were what they were 100% because of Jordan isn't something that I said. But go ahead and keep on overexaggerating what I said.

And go ahead and keep thinking to your self that when a team plays without their superstar they are playing as if that superstar never existed on their team in the first place.

As far as Kukoc, he did hover around 13/4/4 in a limited role for a championship team as a third option. His per 36 min numbers were 17/5/5 on those same championship teams. Id say his stats in 99 were legit. And woulve been better had he had better players around him. But Im sure the facts dont matter cuz according to you, what we saw isnt really what we saw

What is this BULLSHIT of me saying what we saw isn't really what we saw? Did I say he didn't put up those numbers? All I did was the point out the context surrounding it. Do stats just dictate everything and context doesn't matter? You're acting like he did what James Harden is doing this year. No, its not even close to that.

As far as role players impact. I see it like this. If youre gonna get blame for losses, you should get credit for wins. For instance, take prime Jordan and put him on those mid 80s squads. Do they win championships? If not why not?

Why does Jordan get a pass but the role players get held accountable for losing to the Pistons in the late 80s if role players dont matter?

Probably not cause his teammates weren't as good. When did I ever say they were as good? They'd be better then they were though.

This isn't about credit. We're not talking about credit because superstars and role players aren't held accountable to the same extent. There's obviously more expected of the superstar. If the Bulls lost a game and Michael Jordan and John Paxson both had only 8 points, I wouldn't say both players deserve equal blame.

From the beginning, all I've said was its stupid to compare two superstars' teams and come to the conclusion that the one that had the better teams must've just been luckier then the other. Its incredibly stupid. It ignores the the fact there is a ripple effect. To ignore this is incredibly simple-minded.

[gengiskhan]

I disagree with the OP.

I'm actually kinda embarrassed, since he's normally on point.

Having said that..

The overrating of Pip continues (to be fair, it is to counter the underrating of Pip).

The OP would've been correct if he stated that nobody's won a ring with less help. That can actually be debatable that can go either way. But MJ does have the distinction to have won with the worst front court of all time. No true dominant big man or all star front court.

Bro

I wanted to make a STATEMENT!

In 1991, MJ won his "FIRST" ring without all-star great Pippen because frankly, pippen had ZERO offensive resposibilty hence as a primary ball handler , MJ had the 11.4 APG.

Pippen was overcredited, overrated to undermine MJs supreme 1991 NBA Finals performance. 1991 pippen was never at 1992 Pippens level.

With even laughable front court. MJ won it on his own as 1991 Pistons got too old & too slow.

[97 bulls]

And go ahead and keep thinking to your self that when a team plays without their superstar they are playing as if that superstar never existed on their team in the first place.*

I think you put too much stock in Jordans spirit willing the Bulls to the season they had even though he wasnt there.

What is this BULLSHIT of me saying what we saw isn't really what we saw? Did I say he didn't put up those numbers? All I did was the point out the context surrounding it. Do stats just dictate everything and context doesn't matter? You're acting like he did what James Harden is doing this year. No, its not even close to that.*

Ok. But you also stated you feel he only put up those numbers because he was on a bad team. When his per 36min stats show that he was more than capable of being a 18/6/6 player. A championship team no less. Explain that away.

They had 2 great players outside of Jordan, Pippen, who Jordan was instrumental in his development, and Rodman, who Jordan was instrumental in his arrival, and Rodman*

Lol you still cant allow players to stand on their own merit.

Everyone else was basically average in that they were very replaceable. Its funny that you keep arguing with me about this when the Bulls ACTUALLY DID replace everyone outside of Jordan and Pippen.*

Lol I feel THEY ALL WERE REPLACEABLE. With a caveat that they wouldnt win as much or as many championships.

This isn't about credit. We're not talking about credit because superstars and role players aren't held accountable to the same extent. There's obviously more expected of the superstar. If the Bulls lost a game and Michael Jordan and John Paxson both had only 8 points, I wouldn't say both players deserve equal blame.*

Sure we are talking about credit. Heres the problem. And I stated this before. When a team wins a championship, the best player gets all the credit. When they lose, its cuz they didnt have enough help. Ive seen you post this very same sentiment. And its dumb. For instance, the 2011 Mavs. If I didnt watch that series, Id think Dirk played by himself. Hes held as a savior. Even though he really didnt shoot all that well in the finals. And all the Mavs shot light out throughout the earlier rounds. Not just Dirk. But countless time Ive read Dirks fans argue about hiw he didnt have any help or sufficient help during his career. That same idiotic rule is applied for Jordan. The Bulls win, He gets all the credit. They lose, its cuz his supporting cast wasnt good enough. Kobe Bryant fans are the same way.

From the beginning, all I've said was its stupid to compare two superstars' teams and come to the conclusion that the one that had the better teams must've just been luckier then the other. Its incredibly stupid. It ignores the the fact there is a ripple effect. To ignore this is incredibly simple-minded.

Then what is it then? If not luck of the draw? How often can a player handpick their roster?

[tmacattack33]

Interesting, i was unaware that pippen didn't even make the all-star team or an all-nba team that year.

[BlueandGold]

There's a fair amount of people who believe Jordan made Pippen into an all-star. I don't agree with the point in that extent but he definitely had a role in shaping Pippen's development. It's also quite amusing that unlike any pair of players who have won that many championships together Pippen never won a single FMVP and only 3 1st team all-nba rosters.

[97 bulls]

Bro

I wanted to make a STATEMENT!

In 1991, MJ won his "FIRST" ring without all-star great Pippen because frankly, pippen had ZERO offensive resposibilty hence as a primary ball handler , MJ had the 11.4 APG.

Pippen was overcredited, overrated to undermine MJs supreme 1991 NBA Finals performance. 1991 pippen was never at 1992 Pippens level.

With even laughable front court. MJ won it on his own as 1991 Pistons got too old & too slow.

You cant be this friggn dumb Ghengis. Pippen avgd almost a triple double. Grant avg 17/9. Paxson shot lightsout. How can you possibly take the stance?

If you feel the Pistons were old then you cant count.

[97 bulls]

There's a fair amount of people who believe Jordan made Pippen into an all-star. I don't agree with the point in that extent but he definitely had a role in shaping Pippen's development. It's also quite amusing that unlike any pair of players who have won that many championships together Pippen never won a single FMVP and only 3 1st team all-nba rosters.

He didnt deserve a FMVP. Maybe in 98. But his hurting his back really killed that. Rodman deserved the FMVP in 96