Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 207
  1. #31
    It is what it is TheMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    18,563

    Default Re: Why Do People Put MJ ahead of Wilt

    Quote Originally Posted by yeaaaman
    Forget the team game part, this is about MJ not being able to beat the Celtics or the Pistons. If he were to be GOAT he would need to have won a title every year he played for the Bulls. That would probably be sufficient
    Well, the Bulls did eventually sweep the Pistons in the ECF the year they won their first title so I don't know what you mean that MJ didn't beat the Pistons.

  2. #32
    3-time NBA All-Star
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    9,904

    Default Re: Why Do People Put MJ ahead of Wilt

    Quote Originally Posted by colts19
    People say Wilt put up empty stats then list the empty stats MJ put up to try to prove his greatness. I guess MJ fans can have it both ways.
    Great post.

    I have always found it fascinating that MJ was "heroic" when he was scoring 40 ppg against the Celtics in the '85-86 playoffs, in a series in which his TEAM was SWEPT. Granted, the Bulls were a 30-52 team, and they were beaten by a 67-15 Boston team that had FIVE HOFers, BUT, those same posters rip Chamberlain here, when he took pure crap rosters to game seven one and two point losses against Boston teams that had SEVEN and SIX HOFers. Not only that, Chamberlain took a miserable last-place roster that had gone 31-49 in 62-63, to a 48-32 record in 63-64, and to the Finals, where they lost 4-1 to Russell's Celtics, who had EIGHT HOFers (and two of those losses were in the last few seconds), all while statistically dominating Russell in the process.

    When did MJ win rings? When he was surrounded by teammates that could go 55-27 WITHOUT him, in watered-down leagues in which he seldom faced rosters with more than TWO HOFers.

    In Chamberlain's 62-63 season, his TEAM was so bad that they didn't even make the playoffs (they went 31-49...and yet MJ's 30-52 team did make the playoffs.) The "anti-Wilt" clan will claim that was an example of Wilt's "empty" stats. Now, all Chamberlain did that season was LEAD the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories (and had categories like blocked shots, offensive and defensive rebounding, rebounding percentages, etc., existed, he would have probably led in even more)...including leading the league in scoring by a staggering 10.8 ppg (44.8 ppg to runner-up Baylor's 34.0 ppg); rebounding, at 24.3 rpg; and setting a then-record FG% mark of .528. He also LED the NBA in WIN-SHARES (and by a large margin) with 20.9...meaning he was directly responsible for 67% of his team's wins. AND, he set a PER mark of 31.8 which STILL stands. He also played 47.6 MPG that year, and in NINE H2H meetings against Russell, he outrebounded him, and outscored him by a 38-14 ppg margin. Yes, that TEAM had a losing record, but it was deceptive. They lost 35 games by single digits, and they only had a -2.1 ppg differential. How bad was that roster? Aside from Chamberlain, they collectively shot .412...which was WAY below the WORST team in the league (.427 .)

    And, here again, Chamberlain took that same pathetic cast of clowns to a 48-32 record the very next season, and a trip to the Finals.

    Now, using that 62-63 season as an example....when Wilt LED the league in scoring, rebounding, and set a FG% record...how about his 65-66 season, when he also LED the league in scoring, rebounding, and set a then-record FG% mark...when he led his TEAM to the BEST record in the league. What changed? It certainly wasn't Wilt. He played virtually the same way.

    And the same can be said about MJ. In his early years he gunned his way to scoring titles, on relatively poor rosters. And in the 90's, he also gunned his way to scoring titles...BUT, his TEAM's won six rings. What changed?

    I have no problem with those that claim MJ as the G.O.A.T...BUT, to say that he was the G.O.A.T because he won six rings, while Wilt was a "stats-padder" who couldn't beat Russell is a joke. Those same posters diminish Russell's accomplishments BECAUSE he played on HOF-laden rosters, and then slap Chamberlain BECAUSE he couldn't beat Russell's TEAMs (although, it must be noted, Chamberlain not only "beat" Russell's TEAM in '67, his TEAM CRUSHED Boston that season.)

    And let's get real here. How poorly did Chamberlain play in his post-seasons? He had FOUR entire 30+ ppg - 25 rpg post-seasons. He had EIGHT 20-20 post-seasons. He had FOUR entire post-seasons of 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg, 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg. He had MULTIPLE 30+ ppg post-season series, including THREE of 37 ppg, 37 ppg, and even 39 ppg. He also had FOUR post-season series against Russell, in which he averaged 30+ ppg, including one in which he averaged 30 ppg AND 31 rpg. He had FOUR 50+ point games, including two "elimination" games of 56-35 and 50-35 (the latter against Russell BTW.) He also had SEVERAL 40-30 games (FOUR against Russell alone), as well as a 45-27 "elimination" game against the Knicks in the '70 Finals (on 20-27 shooting), and on ONE leg. He had TWO TRIPLE-DOUBLE playoff series (including one against Russell.) He had a QUAD-DOUBLE game of 24-32-13-12 (again, against Russell.) He had a 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11 apg, .612 playoff series against the Royals, as well as the only 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history, when he averaged 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and shot .625 from the field against the Knicks in '70.

    Wilt was seldom outscored or outshot in his 29 post-season series, and in most cases, he absolutely crushed his opposing center in those categories. AND, he was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of those 29 post-season series (in fact he was seldom outrebounded in any GAMES in those series.)

    As for regular season accomplishments...there was WILT...and then there was everyone else...and they were on the other side of the Grand Canyon. Chamberlain STILL holds some 130 NBA records, and in many of them, it is by a MILE. In fact, he is the "next" guy in many of them, as well.

    Were those "empty" records? Well, if you can call TWELVE winning seasons, in his 14 season career; with SIX Conference winners; SIX division winners; TWELVE trips to the Conference Finals; SIX trips to the Finals; FOUR teams with 60+ wins; FOUR teams with the BEST record in the league; TWO teams that went 68-13 and 69-13; and TWO dominating Title teams...as "empty", then yes, I guess they were "empty stats." But no more empty than NINE of MJ's seasons (FIVE of which were on losing teams)...which were the years in which his TEAM's did not win a title.

  3. #33
    ............ D-Wade316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    In your <3
    Posts
    4,303

    Default Re: Why Do People Put MJ ahead of Wilt

    Quote Originally Posted by jlauber
    Great post.

    I have always found it fascinating that MJ was "heroic" when he was scoring 40 ppg against the Celtics in the '85-86 playoffs, in a series in which his TEAM was SWEPT. Granted, the Bulls were a 30-52 team, and they were beaten by a 67-15 Boston team that had FIVE HOFers, BUT, those same posters rip Chamberlain here, when he took pure crap rosters to game seven one and two point losses against Boston teams that had SEVEN and SIX HOFers. Not only that, Chamberlain took a miserable last-place roster that had gone 31-49 in 62-63, to a 48-32 record in 63-64, and to the Finals, where they lost 4-1 to Russell's Celtics, who had EIGHT HOFers (and two of those losses were in the last few seconds), all while statistically dominating Russell in the process.

    When did MJ win rings? When he was surrounded by teammates that could go 55-27 WITHOUT him, in watered-down leagues in which he seldom faced rosters with more than TWO HOFers.

    In Chamberlain's 62-63 season, his TEAM was so bad that they didn't even make the playoffs (they went 31-49...and yet MJ's 30-52 team did make the playoffs.) The "anti-Wilt" clan will claim that was an example of Wilt's "empty" stats. Now, all Chamberlain did that season was LEAD the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories (and had categories like blocked shots, offensive and defensive rebounding, rebounding percentages, etc., existed, he would have probably led in even more)...including leading the league in scoring by a staggering 10.8 ppg (44.8 ppg to runner-up Baylor's 34.0 ppg); rebounding, at 24.3 rpg; and setting a then-record FG% mark of .528. He also LED the NBA in WIN-SHARES (and by a large margin) with 20.9...meaning he was directly responsible for 67% of his team's wins. AND, he set a PER mark of 31.8 which STILL stands. He also played 47.6 MPG that year, and in NINE H2H meetings against Russell, he outrebounded him, and outscored him by a 38-14 ppg margin. Yes, that TEAM had a losing record, but it was deceptive. They lost 35 games by single digits, and they only had a -2.1 ppg differential. How bad was that roster? Aside from Chamberlain, they collectively shot .412...which was WAY below the WORST team in the league (.427 .)

    And, here again, Chamberlain took that same pathetic cast of clowns to a 48-32 record the very next season, and a trip to the Finals.

    Now, using that 62-63 season as an example....when Wilt LED the league in scoring, rebounding, and set a FG% record...how about his 65-66 season, when he also LED the league in scoring, rebounding, and set a then-record FG% mark...when he led his TEAM to the BEST record in the league. What changed? It certainly wasn't Wilt. He played virtually the same way.

    And the same can be said about MJ. In his early years he gunned his way to scoring titles, on relatively poor rosters. And in the 90's, he also gunned his way to scoring titles...BUT, his TEAM's won six rings. What changed?

    I have no problem with those that claim MJ as the G.O.A.T...BUT, to say that he was the G.O.A.T because he won six rings, while Wilt was a "stats-padder" who couldn't beat Russell is a joke. Those same posters diminish Russell's accomplishments BECAUSE he played on HOF-laden rosters, and then slap Chamberlain BECAUSE he couldn't beat Russell's TEAMs (although, it must be noted, Chamberlain not only "beat" Russell's TEAM in '67, his TEAM CRUSHED Boston that season.)

    And let's get real here. How poorly did Chamberlain play in his post-seasons? He had FOUR entire 30+ ppg - 25 rpg post-seasons. He had EIGHT 20-20 post-seasons. He had FOUR entire post-seasons of 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg, 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg. He had MULTIPLE 30+ ppg post-season series, including THREE of 37 ppg, 37 ppg, and even 39 ppg. He also had FOUR post-season series against Russell, in which he averaged 30+ ppg, including one in which he averaged 30 ppg AND 31 rpg. He had FOUR 50+ point games, including two "elimination" games of 56-35 and 50-35 (the latter against Russell BTW.) He also had SEVERAL 40-30 games (FOUR against Russell alone), as well as a 45-27 "elimination" game against the Knicks in the '70 Finals (on 20-27 shooting), and on ONE leg. He had TWO TRIPLE-DOUBLE playoff series (including one against Russell.) He had a QUAD-DOUBLE game of 24-32-13-12 (again, against Russell.) He had a 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11 apg, .612 playoff series against the Royals, as well as the only 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history, when he averaged 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and shot .625 from the field against the Knicks in '70.

    Wilt was seldom outscored or outshot in his 29 post-season series, and in most cases, he absolutely crushed his opposing center in those categories. AND, he was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of those 29 post-season series (in fact he was seldom outrebounded in any GAMES in those series.)

    As for regular season accomplishments...there was WILT...and then there was everyone else...and they were on the other side of the Grand Canyon. Chamberlain STILL holds some 130 NBA records, and in many of them, it is by a MILE. In fact, he is the "next" guy in many of them, as well.

    Were those "empty" records? Well, if you can call TWELVE winning seasons, in his 14 season career; with SIX Conference winners; SIX division winners; TWELVE trips to the Conference Finals; SIX trips to the Finals; FOUR teams with 60+ wins; FOUR teams with the BEST record in the league; TWO teams that went 68-13 and 69-13; and TWO dominating Title teams...as "empty", then yes, I guess they were "empty stats." But no more empty than NINE of MJ's seasons (FIVE of which were on losing teams)...which were the years in which his TEAM's did not win a title.
    jlauber destroying Kobe, Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem stans

  4. #34
    Scott Hastings Fan G.O.A.T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    5,379

    Default Re: Why Do People Put MJ ahead of Wilt

    Quote Originally Posted by TheMan
    One more thing, Russell should never be considered #1 because he was never the Celtics best offensive player, his teams were stacked with All Stars and he was basically a defensive center.I'm not trying to lessen what Russell did but I think Shaq was a better player than Russell.
    What bothers me is that everything you assume you know about Russell is probably wrong.

    Like saying he was never the best offensive player on the Celtics, or that his teams were stacked with all-stars or that he was basically a defensive center. All of those statements make me 100% certain you don't know what your talking about.

  5. #35
    ............ D-Wade316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    In your <3
    Posts
    4,303

    Default Re: Why Do People Put MJ ahead of Wilt

    Quote Originally Posted by G.O.A.T
    What bothers me is that everything you assume you know about Russell is probably wrong.

    Like saying he was never the best offensive player on the Celtics, or that his teams were stacked with all-stars or that he was basically a defensive center. All of those statements make me 100% certain you don't know what your talking about.
    You don't need to pretend that he might be wrong. Take a stance.

  6. #36
    Good college starter EricForman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,993

    Default Re: Why Do People Put MJ ahead of Wilt

    Quote Originally Posted by L.Kizzle
    Wait, didn't Wilt put up godly number too? And he always lost to the eventual champs the Celtics right ...

    Jordan vs Wilt comes down to stuff that can't be found in stats, and it gives room for the Wilt-guys to defend Wilt to death. But the fact is, many, many players/coaches/media people have gone on record pointing out how Wilt shrank from big moments or didn't put as much effort into "winning" as he could, while Jordan had the EXACT OPPOSITE reputation among peers/historians/analysts/coaches/GMs

    The anti-Jordan guys will always argue that EVERYONE saying the above things are just Jordan-homers or jealous haters of Wilt, but whatever, if they wanna go against like, almost OVERWHEMING opinion from individuals of multiple eras, that's fine.

    To this day, the overwhelming narrative, AMONG NBA INSIDERS, is: "you never bet against Jordan, his drive to just kill you is insane" and "Wilt just shyed away from big moments, he didn't take it when it was there".



    Again, it's not, 8 NBA insiders saying this. More like 80.
    Last edited by EricForman; 08-13-2011 at 01:02 PM.

  7. #37
    Good college starter EricForman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,993

    Default Re: Why Do People Put MJ ahead of Wilt

    Quote Originally Posted by colts19
    People say Wilt put up empty stats then list the empty stats MJ put up to try to prove his greatness. I guess MJ fans can have it both ways.

    The talent gap between Jordan's Bulls and the teams he lost to in the mid 80s was much wider than Wilt's cast vs, say, Russell's cast.

    Please stop trolling, Jordan had a below average cast until 1990 or so.

  8. #38
    5-time NBA All-Star
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    11,120

    Default Re: Why Do People Put MJ ahead of Wilt

    Quote Originally Posted by jlauber
    Great post.

    I have always found it fascinating that MJ was "heroic" when he was scoring 40 ppg against the Celtics in the '85-86 playoffs, in a series in which his TEAM was SWEPT. Granted, the Bulls were a 30-52 team, and they were beaten by a 67-15 Boston team that had FIVE HOFers, BUT, those same posters rip Chamberlain here, when he took pure crap rosters to game seven one and two point losses against Boston teams that had SEVEN and SIX HOFers. Not only that, Chamberlain took a miserable last-place roster that had gone 31-49 in 62-63, to a 48-32 record in 63-64, and to the Finals, where they lost 4-1 to Russell's Celtics, who had EIGHT HOFers (and two of those losses were in the last few seconds), all while statistically dominating Russell in the process.

    When did MJ win rings? When he was surrounded by teammates that could go 55-27 WITHOUT him, in watered-down leagues in which he seldom faced rosters with more than TWO HOFers.

    In Chamberlain's 62-63 season, his TEAM was so bad that they didn't even make the playoffs (they went 31-49...and yet MJ's 30-52 team did make the playoffs.) The "anti-Wilt" clan will claim that was an example of Wilt's "empty" stats. Now, all Chamberlain did that season was LEAD the NBA in FIFTEEN of their 22 statistical categories (and had categories like blocked shots, offensive and defensive rebounding, rebounding percentages, etc., existed, he would have probably led in even more)...including leading the league in scoring by a staggering 10.8 ppg (44.8 ppg to runner-up Baylor's 34.0 ppg); rebounding, at 24.3 rpg; and setting a then-record FG% mark of .528. He also LED the NBA in WIN-SHARES (and by a large margin) with 20.9...meaning he was directly responsible for 67% of his team's wins. AND, he set a PER mark of 31.8 which STILL stands. He also played 47.6 MPG that year, and in NINE H2H meetings against Russell, he outrebounded him, and outscored him by a 38-14 ppg margin. Yes, that TEAM had a losing record, but it was deceptive. They lost 35 games by single digits, and they only had a -2.1 ppg differential. How bad was that roster? Aside from Chamberlain, they collectively shot .412...which was WAY below the WORST team in the league (.427 .)

    And, here again, Chamberlain took that same pathetic cast of clowns to a 48-32 record the very next season, and a trip to the Finals.

    Now, using that 62-63 season as an example....when Wilt LED the league in scoring, rebounding, and set a FG% record...how about his 65-66 season, when he also LED the league in scoring, rebounding, and set a then-record FG% mark...when he led his TEAM to the BEST record in the league. What changed? It certainly wasn't Wilt. He played virtually the same way.

    And the same can be said about MJ. In his early years he gunned his way to scoring titles, on relatively poor rosters. And in the 90's, he also gunned his way to scoring titles...BUT, his TEAM's won six rings. What changed?

    I have no problem with those that claim MJ as the G.O.A.T...BUT, to say that he was the G.O.A.T because he won six rings, while Wilt was a "stats-padder" who couldn't beat Russell is a joke. Those same posters diminish Russell's accomplishments BECAUSE he played on HOF-laden rosters, and then slap Chamberlain BECAUSE he couldn't beat Russell's TEAMs (although, it must be noted, Chamberlain not only "beat" Russell's TEAM in '67, his TEAM CRUSHED Boston that season.)

    And let's get real here. How poorly did Chamberlain play in his post-seasons? He had FOUR entire 30+ ppg - 25 rpg post-seasons. He had EIGHT 20-20 post-seasons. He had FOUR entire post-seasons of 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg, 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg. He had MULTIPLE 30+ ppg post-season series, including THREE of 37 ppg, 37 ppg, and even 39 ppg. He also had FOUR post-season series against Russell, in which he averaged 30+ ppg, including one in which he averaged 30 ppg AND 31 rpg. He had FOUR 50+ point games, including two "elimination" games of 56-35 and 50-35 (the latter against Russell BTW.) He also had SEVERAL 40-30 games (FOUR against Russell alone), as well as a 45-27 "elimination" game against the Knicks in the '70 Finals (on 20-27 shooting), and on ONE leg. He had TWO TRIPLE-DOUBLE playoff series (including one against Russell.) He had a QUAD-DOUBLE game of 24-32-13-12 (again, against Russell.) He had a 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11 apg, .612 playoff series against the Royals, as well as the only 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history, when he averaged 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and shot .625 from the field against the Knicks in '70.

    Wilt was seldom outscored or outshot in his 29 post-season series, and in most cases, he absolutely crushed his opposing center in those categories. AND, he was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of those 29 post-season series (in fact he was seldom outrebounded in any GAMES in those series.)

    As for regular season accomplishments...there was WILT...and then there was everyone else...and they were on the other side of the Grand Canyon. Chamberlain STILL holds some 130 NBA records, and in many of them, it is by a MILE. In fact, he is the "next" guy in many of them, as well.

    Were those "empty" records? Well, if you can call TWELVE winning seasons, in his 14 season career; with SIX Conference winners; SIX division winners; TWELVE trips to the Conference Finals; SIX trips to the Finals; FOUR teams with 60+ wins; FOUR teams with the BEST record in the league; TWO teams that went 68-13 and 69-13; and TWO dominating Title teams...as "empty", then yes, I guess they were "empty stats." But no more empty than NINE of MJ's seasons (FIVE of which were on losing teams)...which were the years in which his TEAM's did not win a title.
    LOL, do you find new stuff every week? Great post as usual!

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,375

    Default Re: Why Do People Put MJ ahead of Wilt

    Because the game got more popular and much better in the 80's. As great as Jordan was, he owes a lot to Bird and Magic for popularizing the sport.

    And like EricForman said, you can only go by stats for Wilt. I mean, the 100-point game wasn't even on TV.

  10. #40
    NBA rookie of the year Kurosawa0's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    6,341

    Default Re: Why Do People Put MJ ahead of Wilt

    I have Wilt at #6 all time.

    1. MJ
    2. Russell
    3. Kareem
    4. Magic
    5. Larry
    6. Wilt
    7. Kobe
    8. Duncan
    9. Shaq
    10. Hakeem

  11. #41
    3-time NBA All-Star
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    9,904

    Default Re: Why Do People Put MJ ahead of Wilt

    Quote Originally Posted by EricForman
    Jordan vs Wilt comes down to stuff that can't be found in stats, and it gives room for the Wilt-guys to defend Wilt to death. But the fact is, many, many players/coaches/media people have gone on record pointing out how Wilt shrank from big moments or didn't put as much effort into "winning" as he could, while Jordan had the EXACT OPPOSITE reputation among peers/historians/analysts/coaches/GMs

    The anti-Jordan guys will always argue that EVERYONE saying the above things are just Jordan-homers or jealous haters of Wilt, but whatever, if they wanna go against like, almost OVERWHEMING opinion from individuals of multiple eras, that's fine.

    To this day, the overwhelming narrative, AMONG NBA INSIDERS, is: "you never bet against Jordan, his drive to just kill you is insane" and "Wilt just shyed away from big moments, he didn't take it when it was there".

    Again, it's not, 8 NBA insiders saying this. More like 80.

    Yep...just SOME of Wilt's "elimination" games in his post-season career, like...

    a 50-35 game (against Russell); a 56-35 game (in a game five win in a best-of-five playoff series), a 27-38 game; a 30-32, 80% game; a 46-34 game; a 29-36-13-7, 63% game; an 18-27, 88% game; a 45-27, 74% game; a 21-24, 63% game; a 22-24, 67% game; a 24-29-9, 71% game; and his very LAST "elimination" game, of 23-21, 63%.

    Once again, FOUR entire post-seasons of 30+ ppg - 25 rpg; SIX entire post-seasons of 28 ppg - 25 rpg; a 30-31 series (against Russell), FOUR 50+ point playoff games; Thirteen post-seasons...and THIRTEEN of at least 20.2 rpg (including EIGHT of 24.7+, and two of 29.1 and 30.2.) 29 playoff series...and NEVER outrebounded in ANY of them. Multiple 30+ ppg series, including THREE of 37, 37, and 39 ppg. The ONLY 20-20 .600 Finals in NBA history (23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and .625 from the field.) TWO TRIPLE-DOUBLE playoff series (and one against Russell, which included a QUAD-DOUBLE game of 24-32-13-12.) And a playoff series of 28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, and on .612 shooting.

    That was the Wilt who "shyed away" in the post-season...

  12. #42
    High School Varsity 6th Man
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    745

    Default Re: Why Do People Put MJ ahead of Wilt

    Quote Originally Posted by EricForman
    The talent gap between Jordan's Bulls and the teams he lost to in the mid 80s was much wider than Wilt's cast vs, say, Russell's cast.

    Please stop trolling, Jordan had a below average cast until 1990 or so.
    Not trolling dude, you maybe right about the talent gap. Wilt did however make it close most of Jordans series were not close.

    I give Jordan credit as one of the greatest if not the greatest non center of all time. I just get tired of people saying other players stats are empty but all of Jordan's stats are GOD like. Jordan was the only reason the Bulls won titles but it wasn't Jordan's fault that they didn't win titles or have a winning record. When Bird went to a losing Celtics team his first year and had the biggest turnaround in history, he didn't have any prime HOF players on that team, he did it because he was a better all around player than Jordan was when he came into the league. If you had put Jordan on that Celtics team they never would have had that turnaround because Jordan wasn't that complete a player his first year.

  13. #43
    Bricking Jumpers
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    130

    Default Re: Why Do People Put MJ ahead of Wilt

    Bird doesn't take a backseat to Jordan in terms of impact, anyway. Jordan was a better scorer and man defender. Larry was a superior shooter, rebounder, passer/playmaker and no less clutch. His fundamentals, court vision, leadership qualities and basketball iq don't take a backseat either.
    Last edited by TAC602; 08-13-2011 at 05:27 PM.

  14. #44
    NBA Superstar 97 bulls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    14,917

    Default Re: Why Do People Put MJ ahead of Wilt

    Quote Originally Posted by TAC602
    Bird doesn't take a backseat to Jordan in terms of impact, anyway. Jordan was a better scorer and man defender. Larry was a superior shooter, rebounder, passer/playmaker and no less clutch. His fundamentals, court vision, leadership qualities and basketball iq don't take a backseat either.
    Are you talking about pre 90s jordan? Or the jorddan that lost in the 80s? Cuz 90s jordan was just as good a jumpshooter as bird. Rebounding bird might have him statistically, but when you consider that jordan as a guard avg 6-7 rebounds to birds 7-9 as a SF, I think they similar.

    The notion that larry bird took a sub 500 team to to championsip contention isn't totally true either. They aquired about 3 more players too.

  15. #45
    Bricking Jumpers
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    130

    Default Re: Why Do People Put MJ ahead of Wilt

    ,
    Quote Originally Posted by 97 bulls
    Are you talking about pre 90s jordan? Or the jorddan that lost in the 80s? Cuz 90s jordan was just as good a jumpshooter as bird. Rebounding bird might have him statistically, but when you consider that jordan as a guard avg 6-7 rebounds to birds 7-9 as a SF, I think they similar.

    The notion that larry bird took a sub 500 team to to championsip contention isn't totally true either. They aquired about 3 more players too.
    Over their careers as a whole, Bird was a better shooter. Impact, I don't put into context by position because the outcome a game doesn't care that one player is inclined to have a bigger impact in a certain area: he simply does. His career average was 10+ too.

    The point was actually a disagreement to the myth that Jordan had leaps and bounds more impact on the floor than other TIER 1 all-time players. When you're that high up on the food chain, the difference is minimal at best. You of all people know this. He's an SG? That only further illustrates the point. There are no titles without Pippen's contributions and there certainly isn't a 2nd threepeat in the cards without the addition of Rodman, simply one of the greatest defenders and rebounders ever, bar none. We already saw Chicago without a legitimate PF in 1995. Jordan is widely considered the GOAT because his impact was phenomenal (never claimed otherwise) and he accomplished more in terms of team success, parlaying itself unto those all valuable Finals MVPs. As an individual, his best wasn't far greater than a Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Olajuwon, et al. at their own.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •