Michael Jordan 86-90 vs 95-98?

[War Machine]

That is a tough question. I think his prime was when he won his first couple of titles. In the beginning, Jordan was a straight killing machine, you couldn't stop him, however as he got older and matured a bit, his clutch really started to kick in, and that's when he really became a powerhouse.

[97 bulls]

Lol you guys trying to differentiate between one person 5 years apart. As was said by another poster. A player doesn't change much athletically barring injury. I wouldn't even say he was worse in his early years. He just didn't have the team to support him. And doug collins didn't use him right.

[SwooshReturns]

A player doesn't change much athletically barring injury. I wouldn't even say he was worse in his early2000s years. He just didn't have the team to support him.

I know you can't be this dumb. That was a subliminal push for Jordan's supporting cast, no? Or you're really considering MJ of the 2002 and 2003 season at 39 and 40 years old is a measuring stick of his value as a player compared to the different versions MJ 1.0 or MJ 2.0 of his career? Give me a break.

MJ wasn't even 75% of the player he was from '95 - '95 in 2002, and 2003.

Come on, that just straight ridiculous.

And over the course of a long career, even without injury, athleticism certainly fluctuates.

Just look at the difference of 2010 LeBron to 2011 LeBron to 2012 LeBron (he's improved athletically from where he was in 2011, but still not as athletic as 2010)

[97 bulls]

Why do you guys stop at a season? Why not pick his best/peak/prime/absolute, month, or week, or game. Or whatever other nonsense you guys want to throw in.

Not that it would even matter, but jordan said in an interview during the 96 season that he had lost about 5% of his athletcism. And during the 93 finals game 5, jordan said he was fatigued. Or during the 92 finals, jordan was pulled by jackson due to fatigue. And im sure you guys don't remember that jordan had to be talked into joining the dreamteam cuz he needed time to recoupe for the uppcomming season. But im sure none of this stuff matters. You guys would argue with jordan himself by saying, but michael, you avg 33 pts in 91.

[97 bulls]

I know you can't be this dumb. That was a subliminal push for Jordan's supporting cast, no? Or you're really considering MJ of the 2002 and 2003 season at 39 and 40 years old is a measuring stick of his value as a player compared to the different versions MJ 1.0 or MJ 2.0 of his career? Give me a break.

MJ wasn't even 75% of the player he was from '95 - '95 in 2002, and 2003.

Come on, that just straight ridiculous.

And over the course of a long career, even without injury, athleticism certainly fluctuates.

Just look at the difference of 2010 LeBron to 2011 LeBron to 2012 LeBron (he's improved athletically from where he was in 2011, but still not as athletic as 2010)

Actually, that was a huge typo. I meant just his early years 80s

[97 bulls]

I know you can't be this dumb. That was a subliminal push for Jordan's supporting cast, no? Or you're really considering MJ of the 2002 and 2003 season at 39 and 40 years old is a measuring stick of his value as a player compared to the different versions MJ 1.0 or MJ 2.0 of his career? Give me a break.

MJ wasn't even 75% of the player he was from '95 - '95 in 2002, and 2003.

Come on, that just straight ridiculous.

And over the course of a long career, even without injury, athleticism certainly fluctuates.

Just look at the difference of 2010 LeBron to 2011 LeBron to 2012 LeBron (he's improved athletically from where he was in 2011, but still not as athletic as 2010)

Fluctuate is a great term to use. I've believed that no version of jordan was infinatly better than the others barring 02 and 03.

[SwooshReturns]

Actually, that was a huge typo. I meant just his early years 80s

I can tell you have NEVER been an athlete if you don't feel athleticism can fluctuate through a player's life.

I played ball growing up, still play pick up to this day ... and I can ASSURE you I felt differences both in strengths and weaknesses athletically at different stages of my life.

18

22

24

and now 26, starting to feel a lot different and notice significant body changes.

[SwooshReturns]

Fluctuate is a great term to use. I've believed that no version of jordan was infinatly better than the others barring 02 and 03.

And you'd most certainly be wrong. But you're no Jordan expert, and you love to prop up players he played with to absurd levels. Stick to being a 1997 Bulls expert.

Leave the Jordan evaluations to the big boys who know their stuff.

Like: myself, OldSchoolbball, Da_Realist, catch24, Fatal9 and the like ...

[Round Mound]

88-93 = absolute Michael Jordan peak.

This

[eliteballer]

No way in hell pre 88 Jordan is better than 95-97 Jordan

[NumberSix]

Not really, he's gauging ascension MJ v.s. declining MJ ... and the answer is easily declining MJ. Better player overall, hands down.

If you think 2nd 3peat MJ was anywhere near 87-90 MJ, there's absolutely nothing you can say to convince me that you actually watched Jordan back then. It's a ridiculous comparison. Reading about him and watching highlight clips isn't good enough. If you didn't actually watch these games, you just don't get it.

[SwooshReturns]

If you think 2nd 3peat MJ was anywhere near 87-90 MJ, there's absolutely nothing you can say to convince me that you actually watched Jordan back then. It's a ridiculous comparison. Reading about him and watching highlight clips isn't good enough. If you didn't actually watch these games, you just don't get it.

From an individual perspective, I agree with you. But it's a team game, right? 2nd 3 peat Jordan's skill set and intangibles, as well as IQ set him apart from '85 - '89 Jordan. Better team player, by far. He can get his without disrupting an offense to go into ISO ball. '90 - '93 MJ is a different comparison entirely, as I said the best version of a player I have ever seen.

[TheBigVeto]

86-90 and its not even close

This.
The 95-98 Jordan relied too much on the ref's help.

[andgar923]

I think the reason people put so much stock on 95-98 MJ is because he won. But that's mostly because his team was better, not necessarily MJ.

if you gave MJ an equal caliber of teammates in 86-90, he might win a title or two during that span. No team could stop 'him'.

The difference between Kobe, Wade and Bron is that unlike them, MJ often didn't lose because he didn't perform, but because his team did. MJ would murder teams on his own, but he didn't have the help to beat them in a series. Give him better teammates, and he more than likely wins more than half of his series during that span.

Teams would concentrate on stopping MJ and only him. He was their 1st, 2nd and 3rd option and he still manages to put up huge numbers and at times make it look easy.

Mj's jumper may have been better in 95-98 (not as much as some make it seem), but he was killling people with his speed and overall athleticism.

[eliteballer]

I think the reason people put so much stock on 95-98 MJ is because he won. But that's mostly because his team was better, not necessarily MJ.

if you gave MJ an equal caliber of teammates in 86-90, he might win a title or two during that span. No team could stop 'him'.

The difference between Kobe, Wade and Bron is that unlike them, MJ often didn't lose because he didn't perform, but because his team did. MJ would murder teams on his own, but he didn't have the help to beat them in a series. Give him better teammates, and he more than likely wins more than half of his series during that span.

Teams would concentrate on stopping MJ and only him. He was their 1st, 2nd and 3rd option and he still manages to put up huge numbers and at times make it look easy.

Mj's jumper may have been better in 95-98 (not as much as some make it seem), but he was killling people with his speed and overall athleticism.

LOL.....he played like trash against the pistons, knicks, sonics, and heat in plenty of series