# This will burn some people.



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

http://airjudden2.tripod.com/jordan/index.htm

Make your blood boil?


----------



## ltrain99 (Apr 27, 2003)

It's not even that hwe says that, it's jsut that his arguements are so weak. he needs to say who was better and why, with decent proo, how does a picture with rings prove anything. You need to go much deeper than numbers to prove soemthign like that. You need to compare game and dissect what these guys did.There are a few players that you can argue were better, but this guy can't even do so. Can a mod delete my 1st post, it won't let me do so for some reason.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ltrain99</b>!
> It's not even that hwe says that, it's jsut that his arguements are so weak. he needs to say who was better and why, with decent proo, how does a picture with rings prove anything. You need to go much deeper than numbers to prove soemthign like that. You need to compare game and dissect what these guys did.There are a few players that you can argue were better, but this guy can't even do so. Can a mod delete my 1st post, it won't let me do so for some reason.


I deleted your blank post. Glad to help.

I think he does make some pretty strong arguments. He did say who was better and why. Russell, because he got more rings. Wilt because he was good for quadruple doubles. Robertson because he averaged a triple-double for his first 5 seasons in the league. And so on.

What is true is that Jordan is the most famous NBA player to ever play. Magic and Bird and Dr. J would be up there with him, as would Kareem, Russell, and Wilt.

Jerry West put up numbers quite like Jordan's. Better in some respects.

The argument about Jordan not making his teammates better is a pretty good one, too. In fact, the Wizards are a good example of how he didn't elevate his teammates even to playoff status. Pippen, on the other hand, has a better record, especially in recent years with Portland.

What's bothersome about that site is that it's pure flame bait, designed to piss off jordan fans.

;-)


----------



## ltrain99 (Apr 27, 2003)

Yeah he makes pretty good black and white arguements, but IMO that is not at allw hat makes a player great. Basketball (or anyother sport) is watching a palyer and what they do, facts do not make any1 great. Watching what Jordan's remarkable did against other players and comparing that to the skill of any1 else is what the arguement should be. I'm not even saying he was the greatest, because soem others did the same things with skill on the court as he did, I jus thtink that if you're gonna compare, you need the compare their actual play on the court, not the numbers or accolades and awards they have earned.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

Like ltrain99 says, it's not so much what he says- it's that the guys arguments are pretty weak. If I ever wanted to, I'm pretty sure I could make him look stupid. :devil: 

Dr.J better than MJ? Lol, gimme a break.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

It's a poor looking site which just proves that everyone has a voice on the net, no matter how much of a joke they are. It's alright to have that opinion, but don't back it up in such a weak way.

EDIT: "Joke" is a stronger word that I meant to use; I still don't think it's a great site, but it's not as if he didn't do some homework for it.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i happened to agree with alot of what was said because i've always believed wilt was the greatest of all time in basketball 

but it is what it is an anti jordan site


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

At least he didn't make the argument this one guy on the World Crossing Celtics board used to make all the time that Andew Toney was better than MJ :laugh:


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I'm burning, I'm burning.......

Well, actually, no.

This guy would probably be a 4 star poster on these boards. 3 stars in terms of content. 5 stars in terms of effort.

Can't say his opinion of MJ holds too much weight with me.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

The guy is obviously extremely biased against Jordan; i mean, did you bothered to check is other site "Exposure of Jordan Foolishness"? It´s a riot!

But i found perplexing information in the site.
I´ve read somewhere else, and the guy also states that in his first rookie game Wilt had a triple double with *seventeen* blocks. Is that true?
And what about the statement that Wilt is the lone player who ever had a *20+pts, 20+rbds AND 20 assists (!) game?* WOW!

About Jordan, could anyone confirm (link, please!) that he was elected The Greatest North America Athlete by ESPN? Over Carl Lewis, Babe Ruth, Ali??????????


----------



## Lope31 (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> But i found perplexing information in the site.
> I´ve read somewhere else, and the guy also states that in his first rookie game Wilt had a triple double with *seventeen* blocks. Is that true?
> And what about the statement that Wilt is the lone player who ever had a *20+pts, 20+rbds AND 20 assists (!) game?* WOW!


That's is absurd! Both of those stats. Whoa!


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> But i found perplexing information in the site.
> I´ve read somewhere else, and the guy also states that in his first rookie game Wilt had a triple double with *seventeen* blocks. Is that true?
> And what about the statement that Wilt is the lone player who ever had a *20+pts, 20+rbds AND 20 assists (!) game?* WOW!


I don't know about the first one, but I am pretty certain that the second is true.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

The site is actually a really good read.

Jordan dominated his sport, though. Period.

You just had to watch him play to believe it. The guy was an extremely athletic 6'6" guard, but not more athletic than a lot of guys that are in the league today. I'd say that in pure athleticism, a guy like Steve Francis is probably as athletic for his height. Ricky Davis is a great example of, in a purely physical way, a poor man's Jordan.

But Jordan's greatness came from the fact that it didn't matter what the other team would bring, whether it was the Glove, the self-proclaimed Jordan-stoppers (Bryon Russell), double or triple-teams, press defenses, whatever. It never mattered, because Jordan could make it happen, and make it happen WELL.

There's not a player like that in the NBA today. If you bring a triple team to Tracy McGrady, he will have an off-night. Allen Iverson has had more than his share of nights where a tight defender could shut him down (Tyronn Lue, even?!).

Jordan just didn't have it. He could be vomiting and sick and double teamed, and still put up 38 points to win the game.

In a lot of the respects of exterior hype, like how he was awesome at EVERYTHING besides basketball, I think the site makes a good point. I think it makes a pretty strong argument for Babe Didrickson-Zaharus... very educational.

It IS an anti-Jordan site, and that tends to be emotional, but not totally disrespectable.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> But Jordan's greatness came from the fact that it didn't matter what the other team would bring, whether it was the Glove, the self-proclaimed Jordan-stoppers (Bryon Russell), double or triple-teams, press defenses, whatever. It never mattered, because Jordan could make it happen, and make it happen WELL.
> 
> There's not a player like that in the NBA today. If you bring a triple team to Tracy McGrady, he will have an off-night. Allen Iverson has had more than his share of nights where a tight defender could shut him down (Tyronn Lue, even?!).


Just wandering... In Jordan's days i´m pretty sure that triple-teaming a SG in the perimeter would lend to an illegal defense call, wouldn´t it?

IMO, Jordan mostly faced one-on-one coverage (Joe Dumars, Craig Ehlo, etc.). Only when he was driving the lane would the help defender step up, because zone defenses were not allowed...

Or am i wrong?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> The site is actually a really good read.
> 
> Jordan dominated his sport, though. Period.
> ...


i have to disagree Mj had off nights like anyone else due to defensive pressure ,but you had to apply so much the rest of the team would kill you to stop jordan 

how do you triple team joradn with pippen on the floor ?

or with paxson/b.j./ kerr spotting up ?

do you then give up layups to longley or cartwright grant or even rodman ?

if you shoot enough you will have off nights and mj definitely shot enough


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

I have to say that I didnt agree with the site, but it's not as if the site is crap. The person took time to research and find stats, use his/her brain, so I dont think you guys should be blasting the person. I think the person, however, needs to realize the difference between "best" and "most dominant" or "most important." IMO, Kobe (just watch some of his incredible shots go in), Duncan, or KG are the best in the game right now. Maybe T-Mac. MOst dominant is obviously Shaq. Why? Cos he's huge, has good hands and footwork, as well as touch. Most important to a team? Probably KG or Duncan. Saying that Wilt is probably the best because he was the most dominant of his time is not fair. Shaq is arguably as dominant as Wilt was, except defenses have improved over the years and now Shaq faces more strategies and teamwork against him. In addition to that, I believe that if the Bulls had MJ in '94, they would've won a ring. In '95, they didnt have Grant. Granted, MJ was back and he was "supposed to take them back to the championship." But here's where the comparison of today's game and back then when's game is flawed. Today's game doesnt rely on one player as much. Today's game is MUCH more of a team game than ever was before. However, the fact that Wilt's record is not shattered is a solid point. The argument that MJ's Wiz didnt make the playoffs is not (see above --> today more of a team game). 

Anyways, that's my 2 cents, sry for teh lack of paragraphs...in a rush


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Jordan won 6 titles while leading his team, there is no other player that is arguably better than him with that many except for Bill Russell.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> Just wandering... In Jordan's days i´m pretty sure that triple-teaming a SG in the perimeter would lend to an illegal defense call, wouldn´t it?
> ...


Yes, that's for the most part wrong.

As long as the offensive player has the ball, the defense can collapse on him. All 5 defenders if they want.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, that's for the most part wrong.
> ...


I believe that can happen today, as the zone defense is now allowed.
I´m pretty sure that couldn´t happen befor without an illegal defense call being made.

Are you saying that, in the day, once Magic, Bird or Ol´Baldy got the ball, THE OTHER TEAMS 5 PLAYERS COULD JUST CROWD HIM? I don´t think so...


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

I don't think that website is a joke at all. It makes some pretty good arguments, and I for one was convinced by its argument that Bill Russell was better than Jordan.

One thing is for sure: its argument that to say Jordan is the best ATHLETE ever is a complete joke, is definitely true. Athletes like Jim Thorpe, Michael Johnson, Pete Sampras (to name just a few) were way more dominant than Jordan ever was.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

Read my post.  Best does not equal most dominant. But then again, I agree that the web site is NOT a joke. Has some nice points.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

Well I disagree, I think best does equal most dominant, and I think at this stage in their careers Duncan is more dominant than Shaq, but whatever. The whole point of the website is, if you think that that is a bad criterion for who is the best player, you have to propose your OWN criterion for what is better. You can't just say, your measuring stick is flawed so I'm right and you're wrong, Jordan is the best after all. Your post is basically just a hodgepodge of opinions and you never say exactly how we're supposed to know who the best player is.


----------



## Sportarium (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> thing is for sure: its argument that to say Jordan is the best ATHLETE ever is a complete joke, is definitely true. Athletes like Jim Thorpe, Michael Johnson, Pete Sampras (to name just a few) were way more dominant than Jordan ever was.


Pete more athletic than MJ? That pretty much speaks for itself, I'll let someone else have at ya.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sportarium</b>!
> 
> 
> Pete more athletic than MJ? That pretty much speaks for itself, I'll let someone else have at ya.


That's some hefty analysis there.

Sampras = 14 major championships, dominated his sport for like 10 years. Jordan doesn't come close.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> That's some hefty analysis there.
> ...


But as an athlete, which includes jumping running endurance quickness speed strength...I doubt pete is a better athlete than jordan. More dominant perhaps, but not more athletic.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

See this is exactly what the guy who made that website is talking about, and from the way this thread is gone I can see that he's exactly right. Someone says Jordan is the best athlete ever because he was the most dominant, and then you say there are so many other athletes who were more dominant (Bill Russell, Pete Sampras). But then they say, well, Jordan was stronger or faster or had more endurance than those guys, and then you say that there are a bunch of guys who were stronger and faster and more athletic than Jordan (Jim Thorpe, Michael Johnson). Well, then they come up with another reason Jordan was better than those guys. They're always shifting the measuring stick so that Jordan will win. What a joke.

If the Jordan-lovers want to be taken seriously they need to stop splitting hairs and come up with a reason why he IS the best athlete ever, or even the best basketball player ever. Until they do I will believe that Jordan was an amazing athlete who dominated his sport for a few years, just like many other amazing players who were even more athletic, or were even more dominant, or who dominated for even longer (if not all 3).


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

jordan domintated for more than just a few years, jordan was dominating from the day he stepped foot onto an nba floor averaging 28 ppg as a rookie and ended up with the highest career scoring average ever. he won 10 scoring titles and 6 championships. you may say that doesnt come close to petes 14 majors but in tennis you get 4 majors a year while there is only 1 nba championship in a year and in jordan last 6 full seasons he won ever championship there was. Jordan kept many greats from ever winning a title such as Ewing, barkley, stockton and malone. its not like sampras prevented aggassi from ever winning a major.

Im not saying jordan was the best or most dominating athlete but as a basketball player hes one of the top and isnt just some guy who dominated his sport for a few years.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> See this is exactly what the guy who made that website is talking about, and from the way this thread is gone I can see that he's exactly right. Someone says Jordan is the best athlete ever because he was the most dominant, and then you say there are so many other athletes who were more dominant (Bill Russell, Pete Sampras). But then they say, well, Jordan was stronger or faster or had more endurance than those guys, and then you say that there are a bunch of guys who were stronger and faster and more athletic than Jordan (Jim Thorpe, Michael Johnson). Well, then they come up with another reason Jordan was better than those guys. They're always shifting the measuring stick so that Jordan will win. What a joke.
> 
> If the Jordan-lovers want to be taken seriously they need to stop splitting hairs and come up with a reason why he IS the best athlete ever, or even the best basketball player ever. Until they do I will believe that Jordan was an amazing athlete who dominated his sport for a few years, just like many other amazing players who were even more athletic, or were even more dominant, or who dominated for even longer (if not all 3).


Wrong. The problem is the site is trying to put every person who thinks Jordan is the greatest player ever into the same category. Not every person who thinks Jordan is the GOAT believes he was the greatest athlete ever physically. 

Not all "Jordan-lovers" have the same opinion on why Jordan was the greatest, and so when one says "Its because hes a great athlete due to his dominance" and the other says "Its because of his competitive nature" that doesnt mean one of them has to be wrong. Jordan did dominate, some people draw a similarity between athleticism and dominance and some dont. But that doesnt mean the people who do all think the same way. 

I hope you see what I'm saying. Stop trying to categorize every "Jordan-lover" into one opinion...people have different reasons why players are great. 

I never said I think he was the greatest because of his athleticism, I just stated hes more athletic than Sampras from a physical standpoint. But someone who thinks Jordan is the GOAT might say Sampras is more athletic based on the fact he may have been more dominant than Jordan in his sport. 

I hate when people stereotype, thats his problem. He thinks every Jordan fan thinks the exact same way and has the exact same reasoning for everything.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> If the Jordan-lovers want to be taken seriously they need to stop splitting hairs and come up with a reason why he IS the best athlete ever, or even the best basketball player ever.


How about what I stated before you tried to attack Bulls fans. 



> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Jordan won 6 titles while leading his team, there is no other player that is arguably better than him with that many except for Bill Russell.


Okay, then you could argue that Russell had a better supporting cast and Jordan was the better player. But if you do that you can argue that Magic Johnson played against better competition and won almost as many. I mean theres too many things to consider if your going to try and cement a player as "The best ever"...

It just so happens a lot of people including myself think its Jordan. Why do people have a hard time accepting that? Jordans accomplishments back his status up very nicely. 

although it always can be argued, I think when people are making sites trying to convince others that Jordans not the best ever, that pretty much means hes claimed the status. But people can argue it to the death, and theres no right or wrong answer because its an opinion.


----------



## likitsakos (Aug 30, 2003)

What do you mean it didn't matter what the other teams brought?

Detroit ( Dumars and Isiah ) routinely made Jordan look like a paralized monkey. Jordan won only 30 something games as a rookie. His third season he was still at a losing record.

He may have been the most dominating in the 90s after all great teams fell apart and NBA started going down the toilet talent wise, but he was just one of the guys in the 80s.

Definitely not the greatest. I don't want to speculate about Wilt, Oscar or Russel because I wasn't around watching the NBA back then, but I was around in the 80s and Jordan was basically a selfish but good to pretty good player. Not on par with Magic or Bird. Hell I'll take McHale over him ( 26 + per game at 60+% shooting a couple of his best years ).

Jordan was the very first player whose marketing far exceeded his true worth and talent as a ballplayer and the first who started getting way too much help from the refs, this has only gotten worse and today with guys like Shaq and Kobe it's completely out of hand.

Most Jordan fans do not think at all. They just believe what the media tells them.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>likitsakos</b>!
> Most Jordan fans do not think at all. They just believe what the media tells them.


I'm glad you put "most" in that sentence.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

That site has always been interesting-- unfortunately as has already been pointed out, it's amateurish in layout and design, and is obviously authored by someone who seems to have a pre-conceived hatred of Jordan for whatever reason-- two things which detract from the facts presented.

There are very specific reasons, in my opinion, why Jordan is held in such high regard (perhaps unjustifiably, perhaps not).
MJ is the most recent basketball player to dominate his sport, therefore his accomplishments are the freshest in people's memories. Also, there is a segment of the population who has never even seen play many of the other great players to whom MJ is compared (Wilt, Dr. J., Kareem, West, Russell, etc.)
He was a "flashy" player who was one of the all-time great dunkers. People like to watch such flashy players over so-called "boring" players (like Tim Duncan)-- even if the boring players are equally effective as basketball players-- therefore the flashy player is often held in higher regard.
MJ was arguably the first NBA player whose play was so widely visible to so many people. ESPN, cable coverage, even network coverage of the playoffs was never greater than it was for Jordan. People forget that the NBA Finals wasn't even shown live on network TV until the early 1980's (think about that for a second).
MJ was arguably the first athlete to be "commercialized" to the extent that is common today. The combination of on-court excellence and off-court exposure made him much more of a house-hold name than his predecessors.
MJ has charisma oozing from just about every orafice of his body. This, combined with the previous two points, was an extremely impressionable combination.
MJ had "the perfect career" in that he was able to put up amazing individual numbers when his team wasn't any good, and then in many respects had the good fortune to be surrounded by players talented enough to enable him to win 6 championships on top of it. So he has the combination of great individual stats as well as championships. I've made the argument before: what if Jerry Krause had been a bumbling idiot and kept Olden Polynice instead of trading for Scottie Pippen? Drafted Joe Wolf instead of Horace Grant? Kept Keith Lee instead of trading for Charles Oakley? Kept Kyle Macy instead of signing John Paxson? Kept Oakley instead of trading for Bill Cartwright? Drafted Carl Herrera instead of Toni Kukoc? Kept Will Perdue instead of trading for Dennis Rodman? Kept Doug Collins as coach instead of replacing him with Phil Jackson (the guy who convinced Jordan to share the ball), etc.??? What if MJ had not had the talent surrounding him to win any championships? What would his legacy then be?


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

Did most people consider Jordan the greatest ever after his first retirement in 1993? i dont remember because I was only 9 or 10 when he first retired, all i remember is people saying he was the best player in the nba.

I ask this because I think alot of the talk of him being the best ever came about after taking a year and 3/4ths off and just 5 games in he gets 55 points, the team is disapointed and loses in the 2nd round to orlando who looks like they are going to be the next dynasty but MJ comes back with a vengeance and wins another mvp and leads the bulls to the best record of all time and sweeps that same orlando team. He was 33 at the time of that championship and for most players they are either just passed their prime or at the end of it and jordan was making a return to basketball and winning mvp's and championships.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> How about what I stated before you tried to attack Bulls fans.


Oh for Pete's sake. I wasn't attacking anyone, let alone Bulls fans. I'm kind of a Bulls fan myself. I wasn't even attacking Jordan-lovers, just saying that the arguments so far that they've advanced have been insufficient and based on shifting criteria.

Talk about not being able to accept things -- so many people on this board seem to dislike when others come on their team's board and disagree with their fans. I guess people want to just agree with each other all day long and not have any real discussion of anything. But I'm not about to stick to the Pacers board and just talk about how Jamaal Tinsley is the next Gary Payton, Jonathan Bender is a future all-star, and Scot Pollard will be as good as Brad Miller since he's playing in the East. It's better to keep it real.

Sheesh.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I think the argument, "X is not the greatest player" is a pretty reasonable, and easy, one to make. There's no real way to conclusively prove a player was the greatest ever, with the possible exception of Wayne Gretzky in hockey.

Jordan may very well not have been the greatest player ever. What he was one of the few greatest players ever who played a high-flying, exciting game, won a lot, spoke well for an athlete, was mass marketed by Nike beyond the imaginations of any athlete or entertainer up to that point, and had a flair for the dramatic.

Put all those things together and you get a popular conception of the greatest ever. He looks it, acts it and throws in great moments. He may not actually *be* it, but he was, at least, a great showman who also got the credibility that winning grants.

Wilt Chamberlain put up much more disgusting statistics. Of course, he was also one of the few seven footers in a league that had an average height of 6' even. Today, the average height is 6'6''-6'7''. What would Shaquille O'Neal do to a league that had an average height of Allen Iverson? Could Chamberlain reproduce what he did then in today's game, with longer and more athletic players and more sophisticated defensive schemes?

There are many players who were great. What they produced is very dependant on era, team circumstances, etc. And popularity has always been a major factor in who is lauded and who is not. Popularity does not always go in direct correlation with talent.

Wilt Chamberlain (Absolutely dominated the competition. Statistically in another world in terms of scoring, rebounding and blocking shots)
Larry Bird (A great all-around player who may have been the best long-range shooting superstar of all-time)
Michael Jordan (Another possessor of one of the greatest all-around games and also quite possibly the most unstoppable scorer ever among perimeter players)
Magic Johnson (One of the greatest all-around players, the greatest passer of all-time and the best facilitator of team offense on the fastbreak)
Julius Ervin (A high-flying scorer who could do things to score that possibly even Jordan couldn't)
Jerry West (A pure scorer with a great passing game; one of the most complete offensive gaurds ever)
Bill Russell (Perhaps the greatest front-court defenders ever, he and Pippen could vye for best team defender, and one of the great rebounders and team leaders)
Hakeem Olajuwon (In his prime, quite possibly the most unstoppable scorers, especially for a big man)
Oscar Robertson (May have possessed the greatest all-around game of all-time and a fearsome scorer)
Karl Malone (One of the greatest pure scorers of all-time, likely the greatest power forward ever)
John Stockton (Perhaps the best facilitator of half-court team offense and a good defender)
Isaiah Thomas (One of the great scorers, greatest floor generals and excellent defender)
Scottie Pippen (Perhaps the greatest perimeter defender ever, one of the greatest all-around players ever)

And more could be added...

You can't go wrong with a lot of players. Clearly, some have better claims than others, but its hard to know exactly how much. What would older players have done today? Put Pippen in the 1950s, what damage would he have done? Or even put Pippen as the first option on a team from his rookie year. If Jerry West hadn't been stymied in one championship series after another by Russell, would he be better regarded?

There's really no way to authoratatively say who the greatest player ever was. Some were more entertaining, some put up better statistics, some excelled at lesser-noticed but equally important parts of the game (like defense).


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh for Pete's sake. I wasn't attacking anyone, let alone Bulls fans. I'm kind of a Bulls fan myself. I wasn't even attacking Jordan-lovers, just saying that the arguments so far that they've advanced have been insufficient and based on shifting criteria.
> ...


Alright. But its not the fault of Bulls fans that they may have different reasons why Jordan was the greatest. That was my point, and it seemed like you expected all Bulls fans to believe the exact same thing after that whole Bulls fans claim Jordan is the greatest athlete because of dominance, then going in circles thing. It goes in circles because not all Bulls fans think Jordan was the greatest athlete physically, and some do, and some think he is the greatest athlete because of his dominance etc. Thats why it goes in circles. 

I agree that other posters should be able to come in and post their opinions.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

ArtestFan, in my eyes, most dominant, most valuable, and best are commonly confused in the world of sports. In addition, I agree with some points in the site, but I was only pointing out that I do not believe that most dominant equals best. I'm sorry, but I dont have all that much time to post long analysis on the web site (no one would read them anyways :no. I dont have an opinion as of yet, as I have not had the properly think about it. But I did point out that I believed that the fact that Wilt's records have not been broken is a good argument that Wilt > MJ. By merely stating my opinion that best does not equal most dominant, I am not shooting down the person's entire site or leading into my own opinion.

Sorry that whole thing was not aimed at ArtestFan only the first sentence (basically I'm not taking a shot at you ). But the response was built off of his response to my previous post :yes:. Just if it was not clear...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

There are two truths that need to be made known in this thread.

<B>First truth.</B>

Jordan was not the most famous athlete ever. He did reach a level of fame that few people in the world do. 

But there was Babe Ruth, who was every bit as famous as Jordan in his day, and world-wide, too. 

Joe DiMaggio also reached an equal level of fame as Jordan -- in fact, he's so famous, at the age of 70-something, he did a Mr. Coffee commercial and for no other reason than he was the GREAT Joe DiMaggio, people knew him as Mr. Coffee. At any age, the guy's fame was clear. And he married Marilyn Monroe, who was just as famous.

I'm talking about the kind of fame where you can't walk down the street without being mobbed by fans. Like the Beatles, or Elvis. Or Lindbergh.

Wilt never reached that level. Jerry West didn't either. In fact, none of those guys did. 

But fame doesn't mean "greatest." Or does it? I think so.

<B>Second truth.</B>

Jordan is the greatest by ACCLAIMATION. When they take polls of coaches and sportswriters who saw all the greats play, they choose Jordan. That's enough of a case on his behalf. But there is more.

It is about the championships over an extended period. His rings alone define him as the second most prolific champion in NBA history. Maybe the case can be made that he didn't make his teammates better if you look at their individual stats. The bottom line is they won when he was on the team and at his peak playing form. In this very real sense, he elevated his team to championships, something few players ever achieved, and certainly only a handful of the old celtics enjoyed his kind of success.

He was NBA finals MVP in all six championship seasons.

He was the best scorer, but all of his stats were good, and he was ACCLAIMED as the league's top defender, and a member of the All-Defensive first team nine times. This differentiates him from Russell, who was the only other guy in the NBA that can make those claims. Russell was just an OK scorer (night in and night out).

Jordan did everything in the game of basketball as good as anyone else and better than anyone else his size. In fact, his post game was as good as anyone's, his dunking ability was second to none, his outside shot was as picture perfect as West's, etc., etc., etc.

I dare anyone to find a player aside from Wilt who scored 37.1PPG in a season. Or who led the league in scoring as many times as Jordan did while being the best defender in the league during those same seasons. Or who at age 40 was still as good as most players who played the same position.

Check out my next post.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

<LI> Five-time NBA MVP
<LI> Ten-time All-NBA First Team selection
<LI> Six NBA championships
<LI> Six NBA Finals MVPs
<LI> 1987-88 defensive player of the year
<LI> NBA All-defensive first team selection nine times.
<LI> Ranked first in the NBA all-time in career scoring average
<LI> Ranked second in steals
<LI> Most seasons leading the NBA in scoring (10)
<LI> Shares NBA record with Wilt for most consecutive years leading the NBA in scoring (7)
<LI> NBA record for most consecutive games scoring in double figures (842 - that's over 10 straight years!)
<LI> Led the NBA in steals 3 times
<LI> NBA finals record for highest series scoring average (41.0 PPG in 1993)
<LI> NBA playoffs record for most points in a game with 63
<LI> 13-time NBA All-star, started 13 times. He missed one due to injury. Named all-star MVP three times.

And numerous other NBA records.


----------



## likitsakos (Aug 30, 2003)

You forgot the most important statistic.

ZERO championships while real players were still in the game.

It's one thing to win 6 championships in the 90s, and quite another to win even one in the 80s. 7 years of trying Jordan never made it even to the finals during the 80s.

HE never beat LA, Boston or Detroit while they were healthy. Even though he had 7 years to try, 3 of those with Pippen , Grant, Paxon, basically the team the won the first three, but only after injuries and back surgeries to Bird, McHale and Isiah.

That's the difference. Magic and Bird didn't have to wait for anybody to get injured or retire so they could win. Jordan had to wait. Great player, but not the greatest.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Wilt didn't win a championship until his 9th season. Jordan did it in his 7th. Basketball isn't a one-man game, thus a guy's teammates need to be considered. Wilt won with guys named West and Baylor and Greer, Walker and Cunningham. Jordan didn't win until the Bulls drafted or acquired quality talent to man the other positions (Cartwright, Pippen, Grant, .

Magic joined a team that featured two guys (still in their prime) who were instrumental players on previous NBA champions: Wilkes (Warriors) and Kareem (Bucks). They also had one of the better PFs of the time in Spencer Haywood and a terrifc PG who put up 18 PPG and 9 APG on .542% FG shooting (Nixon). The Lakers won 53, 45, and 47 games in the three seasons prior to Magic joining. They improved by 13 wins by adding Magic.

The Celtics and Bird are a bit more interesting. They went from Championship to 44 wins to 32 to 29 before Bird was drafted. But the Eastern Conference in those days was pretty bad -- the 76ers won 59 games behind Erving's 26.9PPG and Darryl Dawkins' 14.7. Only one other EC team was > .500. Also interesting to note is that the Celtics made a few moves to help them become better (besides drafting Bird): They traded for 17PPG scorer (for Utah) Pete Maravich and acquired 18.7 PPG scorer ML Carr (from Detroit). They also had Nate Archibald, who was recovering from serious injury in that 29 win season, and who was an outstanding player, when healthy (he contributed 14.1 PPG and 8.4 APG to the team Bird's first year).

Jordan joined a team that was a really bad team - one that won 34, 28, and 27 games in the three seasons before he was drafted. His teammates were guys like Quintin Dailey, Steve Johnson, and Dave Corzine. They did have Orlando Woolridge, who was a VERY one-dimensional player. The Bulls basically lost Reggie Theus and gained Jordan and improved by 11 wins.

When the Bulls won their first championship, there were 9 teams that won 50+ games. The Lakers won 58 games and still had Magic. The Celtics won 56 games and still had Bird (and McHale and Parrish and 18.7PPG scorer Reggie Lewis). When Magic and Bird joined the league, there were 6 teams that won 50+ games. I'd say the competition was just as tough.

There were lots of great players playing in the NBA, too. Barkley was a great PF. Detroit was two-time defending champs with Dumars, Thomas, Aguirre, Laimbeer, and Rodman. Atlanta had Wilkins and Moncrief and Moses Malone. San Antonio had David Robinson, Terry Cummings, and Sean Elliot. Utah had Malone (and Jeff Malone) and Stockton in their primes. The Rockets had Hakeem. Portland had Drexler and Terry Porter and Walter Davis and Danny Ainge. The Lakers had Magic and Worthy and Scott and Perkins and Divac. The Suns had KJ and Chambers and Hornacek and Xavier McDaniel and Majerle. All those were REALLY tough teams with great players.

BTW, the Bulls defeated the 58 win Lakers for their first championship. Worthy played 78 games/3000 minutes, Magic played 79 games/3000 minutes, Scott 82 games 2600 minutes, Perkins 73 games, 2500 minutes, Divac 82 games, 2300 minutes, A.C. Green 82 games 2200 minutes, etc. I'd say that was a healthy Lakers team.

Peace!


----------



## Philo (Feb 13, 2003)

Real players???As much as you don't believe it, the current group of NBA players would absolutely wipe the floor against a team of old time greats. We have developed as a species and we continue to do so.


----------



## Ryoga (Aug 31, 2002)

Some commets I've read in this thread are just foolish. 
Don't you really understand what kind of web site is that?
Did you read the fan fiction "The Ballhog Menace"?
The quiz?
His comments about jordon's restaurant (too prove that even jordon could do something good and that he wasn't biased...)?
The pictures of jordon and of the jordon-jockers?

That site is just meant to be funny, and it all started because AirJudden (or TheJudden) didn't like (nor I did/do) the way jordon was overhyped, what kind of calls the refs were giving him, and the way he was acclamated as the best all time... He's been sarcastic trying to reverse the logic, to prove how he was actually the WORST player all time. 

I still can't understand how someone could have taken seriously a site like that!

Bye bye from an EjF, "TheJudden is good and wise"....


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>likitsakos</b>!
> You forgot the most important statistic.
> 
> ZERO championships while real players were still in the game.


While there wasn't the dynamics of the same teams in the Finals year after year like the Lakers/Celtics rivalries of the 80's, each of the teams the Bulls faced in the finals were worthy competition:

Lakers: Magic/Worthy/Scott/Perkins/AC Green/Campbell/Divacs

Blazers: Drexler/Porter/Ducksworth/Ainge

Suns: Barkley/Ainge/ Thunder Dan/ KJ/ Chambers

Sonics: Kemp/Payton/Shrempf/Hawkins

Jazz: Sockton/Malone/Hornaceck/Carr/Russell


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

*Shame on DaBullz!*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> <LI> Five-time NBA MVP
> <LI> Ten-time All-NBA First Team selection
> <LI> Six NBA championships
> ...




Note to DaBullz: Actually using your brain to compile multiple lines of evidence is contrary to the logic being used on the site and in this thread and is thus unfair to the opposing parties involved. I was hoping to prove that MJ was the greatest of all time because he was really fast or could jump really high. However, a cheetah (OR a gazelle mind you) could both sprint 94 feet faster than MJ. Also, unfortunately for MJ, a flea can jump higher relative to its body size (Once again a gazelle's abilities come to mind.). I must therefore conclude that the greatest of all time is not MJ but either a cheetah or a flea with a special shout-out to gazelles for placing well ahead of MJ in both categories that I have chosen to try to define the greatest of all time.

For the record I believe MJ is the greatest basketball player of all time for many related, but separate reasons that taken wholly make a more convincing argument than can be made for anyone else. I believe Wilt was the most dominant player ever relative to his opponents. I believe Russel won the most championships (and I'm right). I believe Magic and Larry were the best team players of all time (now here's a topic for debate).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Frankly, I don't think there is a best player. It's a matter of opinion, and everyone has one of those. 

There's a strong case to be made for all the players mentioned on that site. And for Jordan.

Jordan was the best player on MY team. He gave me something that only the Bears have done in my lifetime - win a championship (twice). For that, he has my eternal gratitude.

I don't care if that other site looks amateurish. It's the content that counts.

It is not humorous. It is pure flame bait. On the other hand, it's designed to get the goat of homer bulls fans.

People ask me "who was the greatest QB of all time?" My answer is Steve Young. But there were so many other great ones, like Elway and Marino and Bradshaw and Staubach and Stabler and Favre. And Montana. It's in the eye of the beholder. I say Young because he had every tool, and I think Montana was the product of a system designed to expose none of his flaws (like ability to throw downfield). I point to the 2nd string QBs that had phenominal numbers for SF (like Kemp) who could never produce at the same level elsewhere. I'd also point out that making comebacks isn't a sign of a good quarterback - you should win so big there's no need to make a comeback. And so on.

Peace!


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

I agree you cant cement any one player as the greatest of all time, like I said early in this thread. 

But people who say Jordan couldnt a title until the 80s teams were gone should realize Jordans prime wasnt until the 90s, and he didnt have a solid team around him until the 90s. All the other so-called greats had other greats playing alongside of them. 

Jordan never beat Magic or Bird in their prime.
Magic and Bird never beat Jordan in his prime. 

Jordan did beat Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Ewing, Robinson, Shaq, Hakeem, etc. Thats not too much of a stepdown from Bird and Magic.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Jordan did beat Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Ewing, Robinson, Shaq, Hakeem, etc. Thats not too much of a stepdown from Bird and Magic.


Oh yes it is!


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

it seems like a step down because they couldn't defeat mj. that's a list of hall of famers there.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RoRo</b>!
> it seems like a step down because they couldn't defeat mj. that's a list of hall of famers there.


The vast majority of Bball lovers will telll you that Bird and Magic were 2 of the all-time Top-5 or 6 in the NBA.
But it wasn´t only them: the Celtics and Lakers were stacked, and so were the Pistons. How could Michael´s Bulls beat those teams?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

it should be noted that in magic's prime an olajuwon led team did beat the lakers (86) so lets come off the bird and magic were the alpha and the omega of bball and that the segment of players like olajuwon malone barkley and whoever were no where close

also the bulls defeated the piston in convincing fashion to start their champoinship run 

also is not excatly clear cut that magic and bird are in the top 5 or 6 ever 

there are wilt russell abdul-jabbar oscar robertson and that jordan guy that can be easily argued as better without much effort 

thats 5 right there especially when one considers that defense half the game and bird and magic were poor man to man defenders....which makes one think how effective each would have been without hall of fame centers backing them up?


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

That site doesn't make my blood boil much at all, because he's talking mostly about objective measures that don't translate. When you start trying to compare scoring statistics from 40 years ago to now, you immediately lose all credibility with me. Although, as a curiosity, you can get cute and use some statistical methods to get relative measures of how dominant a player was over his peers - those can be interesting. (As an easy example, comparing Babe Ruth to Mark McGwire one-to-one is silly for numerous reasons. But when Ruth first hit 54 home runs, second place was something like 19.) That kind of thing can provide some perspective. But generally, as a rule, numbers don't translate one-to-one across the decades.

And as far as the "best athlete," were Jim Thorpe and Babe Didrickson-Zaharias better "athletes" than Jordan? Um, yeah?! Easy! Nobody ever said Jordan was THE number-one most athletic person ever born. (I didn't, anyway.) Some decathlete probably would get that. Really, his body was good for few sports, one being basketball. But, all these terms like "greatest athlete" get confusing, as people have already pointed out - greatest-most valuable-best athlete-player... whatever. Jordan was the best I've seen at the game he played. Being great in some other sport might give someone some extra credit points, but really, why would anyone care whether Gretzky could bowl a strike? Did I really see the word "squash" on that website?

I'm going to try not to wax poetic here, but I saw what Jordan did and I haven't seen it before or since. The closest thing I've seen is Larry Bird, but he was a good sight back of Jordan. In golf and tennis, the greats have runs where it doesn't matter what the opposition does - the old Tiger, especially - Jack too. Still, they're not Jordan, not every single night. The whole time he was with the Bulls, he never mailed it in, not once. He never had to tune out and recharge for a game. Every time he suited up, he had something to prove, every gray February evening he went out to do something great. He was a pissed off man, every night, and rarely smiled, and NEVER was satisfied. He made himself better, and there was nothing he couldn't do. He found every way to affect the outcome of a game in the littlest, smartest ways possible - like taking that swipe at the ball he always took when a 7-footer would go for a dunk - before the ball was raised, occasionally knocking it away, but never getting called for the cheap reach, because he did it in just the right plane so that he wouldn't catch an arm. You could never, ever turn off a game, because you never knew when he would go off and take over (except, that is, when you DID know.) He absolutely bent games to his will. Remember how he would force the ball to Cartwright early in games to make the defense sag and get his teammates involved, like an offensive coordinator going to the air before pounding his running back through the tackles? He would do whatever it took to win - on a floor filled with elite, sometimes all-time-great athletes, he could pick the time to expend his energy to maximum effect, and when he did, there was nothing the other team could do. The Bulls were coming back, simple as that - even when the other team had superior talent. He wasn't superhuman - he didn't have limitless energy. But he would contribute in ways large and small even when he was conserving his energy, and then he would simply write the script for the rest of the game the way he wanted it - one guy among ten! His teammates would follow gracefully, but it was MJ that wrote the epic histories of those games. He could get a shot no matter what you did, short of throwing the kitchen sink at him - and when you did, he'd hit Bill Wennington for a game winning dunk (and you all know what I'm talking about.)

He made everyone on the floor play his game. He knew every inch of it, and never, ever was lost on the floor. He did the great things better than anyone, and yet did the grunt things better than anyone. Sure, he created in ballhandling, in getting a shot off, in dunking - he recreated parts of the game. But who organized an offense better than him? Who created space better than him? 

When it comes down to it, he wrote the script every night. Not only did his team's play flow through him, but the other team's did too. 

And he never disappointed me, not once, in the whole time he was with the Bulls, even when his shot was off. He controlled the momentum of a game. He was above the mo. When things would slog down, it didn't affect him. I honestly don't know how. But in the third quarter, Mike is making a run, and it doesn't matter if you're Gary Payton or Clyde Drexler or Larry Bird or Magic Johnson, you're just going to have to hang on.

32 points a night doesn't capture what MJ did in Chicago. The 32 points doesn't translate to any other era. But the mastery of basketball, the mastery of the crowd and the mastery of the opponent - you just had to see it. The opposing crowd always knew it was going to happen - they were resigned to it. Have you seen the broad-angle photo of the shot in Utah? The crowd knew what was happening before the ball left his hand. Not Jordan! Anybody but him! crowds would plead. When have you ever seen crowds resigned to what the opponent was going to do to their team when it came down to it? They never booed their guys, even - they just shrugged and said, what are you going to do? Jordan does it to everybody.

And he did - he did it to everybody.

Sorry, you just had to see it every night. It had nothing to do with commercials. And as Gump said, that's all I have to say about that.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Philomath</b>!
> I'm going to try not to wax poetic here...


I don't know that you succeeded. 

It never ceases to amaze me the importance people place on winning when evaluating an individual's performance in a team sport. I'll tell you one thing-- Patrick Ewing never once mailed it in either (at least all the years he was with the Knicks), yet because he was not as fortunate as Jordan to be surrounded by teammates who were as good, and a coach who was as good, he is relegated to some sub-standard "loser" status. Don't get me wrong-- I'm not saying Ewing was as good a player as Jordan. But Jordan had a 7-year career before 1991 in which he never won anything more than Ewing did. It was only after Scottie Pippen developed into a top-50 player of all time, and Horace Grant developed into an All-Star caliber player, and Bill Cartwright was acquired to anchor the inside defense, and Phil Jackson was brought on to teach them all how to play together-- _then_ Jordan became a winner. Again, not saying Jordan wasn't a great player. I just get tired of the commonly held perception that the Bulls success was all MJ and the other players just "followed along gracefully." I don't understand why people are so quick to forget that the season after he retired, the Bulls plugged in Pete Myers-- Pete Myers!-- in place of the greatest player of all time and proceeded to win just 2 fewer games than the season before-- that is a truly amazing accomplishment!

As for questions you posed... according to Phil Jackson and Tex Winter, both Scottie Pippen and John Paxson organized an offense better than Jordan. Fact is, Jordan had little desire to play team basketball until Phil (thankfully) convinced him it was the only way he would ever win.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> it should be noted that in magic's prime an olajuwon led team did beat the lakers (86) so lets come off the bird and magic were the alpha and the omega of bball and that the segment of players like olajuwon malone barkley and whoever were no where close
> 
> also the bulls defeated the piston in convincing fashion to start their champoinship run
> ...


Point noted...
Just to clarify my posts:

Nor Magic´s Lakers nor Bird´s Celtics were unbeatable. I never said that and never will. I distinctly remember His Hairless´Bulls not winning his first title for, what, 6 or 7 years in the league... No team has ever been unbeatable (and the closest was Russell's Celtics)...

Malone, Olajuwon and Barkley were indeed GREAT players, and i would never argue otherwise. But a player can´t win championships: teams can. IMHO, Bird´s Celtics and Magic´s Lakers were way superior to those guy´s teams.

Not in the Top-5 or 6?
Could be... Wilt/Russell/Jordan/Magic/Bird almost ever get the nod (example: slam Magazine). You can (obviously) make a case for Oscar, (and that´s six), Kareem (seven) and maybe Jerry West. IMO, that would be all (at least for now...)
I think that ilustrates my point...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> Fact is, Jordan had little desire to play team basketball until Phil (thankfully) convinced him it was the only way he would ever win.


Kneepad, 

I understand what you are trying to say but you are overstating your case.

Jordan's desire was to win and he just did what he thought put him in the best position to win. 

Jordan played great team basketball at NC for Dean Smith and in the Olympics for Bobby Knight b/f he got to the Bulls. And when he finally played for a great coach in the NBA that stressed team ball, he got it done then, too.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> Point noted...
> ...


to me the lakers and the celts were simply the best of their era which was the 80s and its no big deal that MJ couldn't beat them with sidney green as his starting center because the rest of his team was not good and everyone knows it

as the bulls were the best of the 90s

and the lakers are basically ruling this decade thus far

its easy to say where one player goes in where and magazines are the worst front runners imaginable (eg. slam magazine)

for instance during magics career it can be easily argued that he was never as good as claimed (when he ended his career the 1st timeuite a few claiming him the best player of all time for many of the same reasons people claim it of MJ ,"he's such a great winner"and such)

how could a player be the best of all time when it wasn't ever clear he was the best player at any one stretch 

in the early parts of his career abdul jabbar was the man or moses malone,in the middle years it was bird and from 87 on alot were claiming it was jordan ,

at longest the biggest stretch when people could claim he was the best was when he won mvps back to back spanning 2 years in which afterward jordan was easily the best player in the game 

how can you be the best of all time when the best stretch you can claim of being the best player in your era is 2 years legitamitely ?

people can wax poetic about the great teams of the 80s all they want but they aren't exactly made to succeed today 

the celtics center weighed 230 lbs its hard to imagine he could do as well today at that weight considering there are shooting guards who weight more today and the forwards (bird and mchale were considered an imposing front line at an avg of 225 lbs)

the starting forwards for the lakers were both 6'9 225 in their heyday (green and worthy)

do you think they slow down the 7' 260 lbs pf tim duncan
6'11 230 rasheed wallace ,6'11 225 lbs garnett ,7'240 dirk nowitski or the 6'9 260 webber ?

that would be who they would have to guard today just to get to the playoffs 

and personally i'm skeptical they could do it well enough to get through the west today or in the 90s where they would have to guard karl malone in his prime, shawn kemp when he wasn't a balloon or charles barkley all of whom could pyhsically manhandle the laker forwards of the 80s


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> I understand what you are trying to say but you are overstating your case.
> 
> Jordan's desire was to win and he just did what he thought put him in the best position to win.


Perhaps I _am_ overstating-- not like that never happens in these forums.  I find it's hard to make any anti-Jordan comments without overstating.

If Jordan thought he could win playing 1 on 5, he was dead wrong. So much for the superior basketball IQ that Philomath waxed poetic about. That only came later after he matured and was coached by Phil and Tex.

And did he play great team ball at UNC? His freshman year, sure. He was a freshman playing with All-Americans James Worthy and Brad Daugherty. Dean Smith would have sat down any freshman who didn't show his just respect to guys like that.

But in his sophomore and junior years, when he became the focal point of the offense, he averaged 1.8 apg. Granted, assists aren't the only measure of team play. But for a guy who was the focal point of the offense as he was, I would expect a lot more assists for starters.

As for Bobby Knight, if he hadn't played team ball, he might not have even made the team (see Charles Barkley).


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> If Jordan thought he could win playing 1 on 5, he was dead wrong. So much for the superior basketball IQ that Philomath waxed poetic about. That only came later after he matured and was coached by Phil and Tex.


Glad that we agree that Jordan played team ball earlier in his career.

Jordan and the Bulls didn't win a championship until the team was ready. This took a.) replacing the entire roster b.) young guys like Pippen and Grant getting a few years of experiance at the pro level c.) changing the coaching staff a few times to get the right system in place, d.) the team had to play togther for awhile to gell and e.) Jordan had to adjust his game to get his teammates more involved.

So you are emphizing one point and ignoring 4 others that are just as important.

It's not like Jordan was on a championship caliber team and it took him 7 years for him to get his game right.

I would say that MJ damn near won every time that he was on a team that was good enough to win.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Glad that we agree that Jordan played team ball earlier in his career.


What'd I miss? We don't agree on this.



> Jordan and the Bulls didn't win a championship until the team was ready. This took a.) replacing the entire roster b.) young guys like Pippen and Grant getting a few years of experiance at the pro level c.) changing the coaching staff a few times to get the right system in place, d.) the team had to play togther for awhile to gell and e.) Jordan had to adjust his game to get his teammates more involved.
> 
> So you are emphizing one point and ignoring 4 others that are just as important.


Read the entire thread, my friend-- particularly post #53 in response to Philomath's post. I clearly stated more or less what you just did.

Jordan worshippers sometimes talk as if MJ's career started in 1991 instead of 1984. All I'm trying to point out is that MJ wasn't a winner (of championships) until he had the support around him. Therefore it does not follow that MJ won 6 championships all by himself and the other players on the team just went along for the ride. Yet that is a common perception out there.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> What'd I miss? We don't agree on this.


You indicated that MJ played team ball for Bobby Knight and Dean Smith at least at times. No? 

Why quibble over if MJ played teamball his entire career at NC. Interesting that you used MJ's low assist numbers at NC to try make a point. 

I'll let you try to explain why MJ's season high assist (8.0 apg) came 88-89 when, appearently, you would argue that MJ was at his peak of selfishness just before Phil Jackson became the head coach. 




> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> Jordan worshippers sometimes talk as if MJ's career started in 1991 instead of 1984. All I'm trying to point out is that MJ wasn't a winner (of championships) until he had the support around him.


Gee, it takes more than one player to win a championship. Stop the presses, my friend.  

Are you saying that players like Patrick Ewing never had support around them? How about Malone or Stockton? Kemp or Payton?

Again, MJ lead his team to a championship just about every time he had a shot. That is why he is great.

:yes:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> What'd I miss? We don't agree on this.
> 
> ...


in truth its been well documented that MJ was very obstinate to reducing his scoring load prior to his title years to the point that no pg who handled the ball could play with him because he demanded it all the time


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> in truth its been well documented that MJ was very obstinate to reducing his scoring load prior to his title years to the point that no pg who handled the ball could play with him because he demanded it all the time


Yea, Enis Whately, Steve Colter and Kyle Macy really tore it up once they left the Bulls.

MJ = :devil: MJ = :devil:


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> You indicated that MJ played team ball for Bobby Knight and Dean Smith at least at times. No?


At times, yes. OK, not worth arguing further about. 



> Why quibble over if MJ played teamball his entire career at NC. Interesting that you used MJ's low assist numbers at NC to try make a point.


I used MJ's low assist numbers at UNC because that's about all we have to go on (I have only vague first-hand recollection of seeing him play in college). But it's not like I was trying to mis-use stats to make a point. But I like to at least attempt to support claims I make with fact (statistical or otherwise). I could have just said "MJ wasn't a team player in college," and you could have said "yes he was," and where would that leave us? If you want to discount his low apg in college, that's cool.



> I'll let you try to explain why MJ's season high assist (8.0 apg) came 88-89 when, appearently, you would argue that MJ was at his peak of selfishness just before Phil Jackson became the head coach.


What's to explain? You make a good point. But it's also true that in that same season MJ took over twice as many shots as the next highest player on the team. And it's pretty well documented in the various books written about the Bulls that the other guys on the team were less than thrilled playing "Michaelball" (as Bill Cartwright called it).

A guy who has possession of the ball for 20 seconds of a team possession and then passes to a player who makes a shot is not playing team ball. Not saying MJ played to this extreme, but it illustrates how a player can average a high number of assists and still not be a good team player (of today's players, I might put Allen Iverson in this category).



> Gee, it takes more than one player to win a championship. Stop the presses, my friend.


I'm not saying you think that, Johnston-- I'm saying that it's a common perception out there. You hear it in the media all the time.



> Are you saying that players like Patrick Ewing never had support around them? How about Malone or Stockton? Kemp or Payton?


Those guys had some level of support in some years-- they all obviously reached the Finals, but none had enough to get past the Bulls. Ewing, to my knowledge, never played with another Top 50 player. In fact, I'm hard pressed to name the best supporting player he had during his run. Neither did Payton, athough he had Shawn Kemp before he puffed up. Stockton and Malone obviously had each other, and they reached the Finals twice and gave the Bulls a good run both times. Nothing to hang their heads about, IMO.



> Again, MJ lead his team to a championship just about every time he had a shot. That is why he is great.


This, too, is a good point which I won't dispute. MJ was a very clutch player who made a lot of big shots-- and big plays in general-- in his career. Again, I never argued MJ wasn't a great, great player. Just that he needed-- and got-- help in order to win like he did (a point on which I believe we agree).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

FWIW,

The season Jordan got his 8 APG, he played PG a lot of the time. He grumbled about it and absolutely did not want to play point. While he was playing point, he put up quite a few triple doubles. The comparisons to Magic were common.

I would think this is an indication he was selfish, in spite of his big APG numbers. He didn't want to do what the coach felt was best for the team.

I don't remember Jordan ever having the ball for 20 seconds of posessions. He either drove to the hole and scored (early in his career), or was frequently given the ball with 5 seconds left on the 24-second clock and forced to manufacture a shot while his teammates watched.

And there was a LOT of guys who'd stand around and watch Michael play, as if they were fans instead of players. He could create that kind of awe in his teammates.

Jordan did play great defense, which is an indication of selflessness. Defense is team play.

I do not think that there are any real "eras" in basketball that need to be taken into consideration when comparing players from different seasons. Wilt would be awesome in any era, and I do think if he were in his prime today, he could score 100 points in a game or average near 30 rebounds per game. Wilt played numerous games against Bill Russell. Russell is widely acclaimed for his defensive play. Wilt destroyed Russell in head-to-head matchups. There's no reason to think Wilt wouldn't do the same to Shaq or Ewing or Hakeem or Longley.

The real difference is in the number of teams. On one hand, in a league with 16 teams, the talent would be more concentrated (i.e. the best 16x15 players make the league). On the other hand, we recruit players at younger ages and have better technology (including college programs) for developing those players. Perhaps it's a wash.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> to me the lakers and the celts were simply the best of their era which was the 80s and its no big deal that MJ couldn't beat them with sidney green as his starting center because the rest of his team was not good and everyone knows it
> ...


Happygrinch, maybe it´s me but and don´t get the point in your post.

Magic WAS the beste basketball player in the 80's. I think that´s undisputed. Sports Illlustrated gave him the award. White Satan (aka Larry Joe Bird) also stated the same. He won 5 titles and got to the finals like 9 times... There can be no argument here, IMO.
In the beggining it was Kareem? My friend, i guess you never knew what happened in the Magic´s rookie year in the finals... check my sig., if you will...

Bird in an "imposing front lin"? He played SF!
Karl Malone "in his prime"????? Check his stats, dude! he was a devastating force in the 80's!!!
Tim duncan? Have you ever heard of Brad Daugherty? (not comparing the players achievments, just their frame and weight...)
Shawn Kemp? Give me Larry Nance any given time!

Do yo really remember the 80's NBA?????????


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> Happygrinch, maybe it´s me but and don´t get the point in your post.
> ...


if magic was better than kareem in his rookie year why was kareem mvp of the league instead of magic ,in fact magic didn't even win rookie of the year so i think maybe you are a little off on who was better 

and yeah karl malone had better stats in the 80s but he was clearly a better player in the 90s

have you seen the teams magic faced on the way to the finals in the 80s ....compare those to the teams bird faced on his way to the finals it was pretty obvious which team had the tougher road 

in the 80s larry joe bird also called michael jeffery jordan the best player he had ever seen ,plus called him "God in hightops" so i'm going to have discredit the great larry bird as a talent agent seeing as he gives such titles away pretty easily

if you are going to compare players strictly on height and weight maybe you should start a thread called "brad sellers= kevin Garnett"and see how well that turns out

tim duncan is a far better player than brad daugherty ever was and thats somewhat indisputable


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

All I have to say when it comes to comparrison of eras' is this.

Just look at the weak *** teams that have won titles post 1990:

94' and 95' Rockets-They reapeated
99 AND 03 Spurs
00 and 02 Lakers-They 3-peated

Now look at the lineups of the teams that won from 1980 to 1990! two words, NO CONTEST!!!!!!!!!!!! the weakest team was probably the 1981 Celtics and they would absolutely wipe the floor with the present champion.

The NBA champion is supposed to respresent the BEST of what the NBA has to offer and right now the best the NBA has to offer is the San Antonio Spurs??????? Who won with the weakest lineup in the last 25 + years? Gimme a break!!!

You also talk about athletisisim and defense being so much improved, again give me a break!!!! The Dallas Mavs are possibly the most un-athletic and softest team(at both ends) that I've seen in the last 25 years and yet they still won 60 games, were basically 2 wins away from winning a title, teams could only score 95 points against them(82 in the East) eventough they play a run n' gun game along with a zone defense. This my friend is the SECOND best team the present NBA had to offer. PATHETIC. 

Remember, the NBA in the 80's had 23 teams and NO CAP!!! wich basically meant that all-star caliber players were FORCED to play together on the same team. When expansion and the cap came around that all changed, every borderline all-star and their mother wanted to go to bad teams and be "The Man".

That's what you have today, a bunch of great players playing on sub par teams. Guys like Garnett, Duncan, Iverson, McGrady, Carter, Kidd etc how many of those guys play on a truly great team? NONE!!!!!!!!!

Im' gonna use the 1989 Lakers, probably their weakest of that era, as an example.They didn't even win the freakin championship:

Kareem
Thompson
Worthy
Green
Wooldridge
Campbell
Scott
Cooper
Magic

What team from the 1990's onward would even stand a chance against that powerhouse??? The best from the Bulls championship years(basically 92 and 96) would have their hands full with that squad. No other team from the 90's West or East or the present conferences could even stand in the same room with that team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

With Kareem, Wilkes, Dantley, Nixon, Sweet Lou Hudson, and (ABA Star) Ron Boone, the Lakers won 47 games. The first four guys averaged 17+ PPG, and Nixon was as about as good a PG as in the league, dishing out 9 APG. Wilkes was one of the top handful of defensive PF/SFs in the league, and Hudson was a star with Atlanta for years (along with Maravich). This was no slouch of a team that Magic joined.

They basically lost Dantley and Hudson and drafted Magic and improved by 13 wins. A 13-game improvement for a 47 win team is HUGE.

You are way off the mark in suggesting the West was somehow a weak conference. The Lakers had to beat the defending NBA champs (Sonics). When the lakers won in Magic's first season, they were the fourth Western Conference team to win the championship in six seasons. Six of the worst seven teams, record-wise, were in the East. In fact, only the Bulls with 31 wins had less than 38 wins in the West.

Magic is one of only two players I can think of who could play all 5 positions. Tony Kukoc is the other.

Magic won with a wide variety of players. They all were good players, of course, but I think this is evidence he really made his teammates better. And remember, Magic was an underclassman who joined the NBA early, and had a huge impact immediately.

Bird was as highly touted a draft pick as I can remember in my lifetime. Rick Barry was a superstar SF with similar skills, but he was a bit shorter. Never before, or so we were told, was there a 6'10" guy who could shoot the 3 like a guard, rebound like a PF, and pass like a PG. We were not dissappointed. He joined the 29 win Celtics and they won 61 games. A 22 game turnaround, which I think is less impressive than what Magic did; for the celtics there was nowhere to go but up, and for the Lakers, they were already near the top (7 games worse than the best record in the league).

If I have any one gripe with Magic and Bird, it is that they were terrible defensive players because they were playing out of position for their height and agility. To cover up for these deficiencies, the Lakers played a 1-2-2 zone on defense and the celtics a 2-3 zone. Blatantly, and the refs never called it. And it was boring to watch, as the NBA on TV was saturated with Lakers-Celtics games.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> All I have to say when it comes to comparrison of eras' is this.
> 
> Just look at the weak *** teams that have won titles post 1990:
> ...


First of all, I think the Bulls would mop up that Lakers team. In fact, the Pistons did - twice. The Lakers in their prime would have beat the Bulls, I believe. The Lakers had solid players at all positions, plus the best wing defender of his time in Michael Cooper. They simply had the defense to slow down the Bulls and the offense to outgun the Bulls.

Second, I wouldn't downplay how good the Rockets were. I liked Hakeem as much as I liked Kareem. Maybe he was even better. Drexler was one of the NBA's best 50 players. The Lakers could bost 3 of the top 50 (Kareem, Magic, Worthy). The Rockets did have to overcome the 62-20 Spurs, 60-22 Jazz, 59-23 Suns, and 57-25 Supersonics in the playoffs, too.

Third, the Rockets team with Hakeem, Barkley, Pippen, and Drexler had FOUR of the top 50 players in NBA history. That's something neither the Celtics nor the Lakers can claim. They didn't win, but they also didn't play together as a team long enough (or young enough).

Fourth, the Lakers team that threepeated should not be underestimated. The 2001 team that went 15-1 in the playoffs featured Kobe and Shaq (two top 50 players), plus Rick Fox (who started for the Celtics), Horace Grant (who started for championship Bulls), Rider (who started for Portland), Ron Harper (who started for the clips, cavs, and championship Bulls), Shaw (who started for the Celtics), and Horry (who started for the championship Rockets). That's a deep and talented team.

The previous team won 69 games with Kobe and Shaq, plus Rice (who was the best player on his team), Harper, Fox, Horry, Shaw, and A.C. Green (who started for your championship lakers in the 80s).


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

Yes A.C. definetely started for the Showtime Lakers, when he was in his 20's!!!!!! He was ancient in 2000 and that proves how weak that team was that he got a starting jop. 

Also the Lakers of the 21st century never won 69 games, the most was 67 in 2000. That supporting cast of the 2001 Lakers was also one of the weakest I've seen in the last 2 decades, and J.R. Rider was so horrible and disruptive he was left OUT of the playoff roster in 2001. By the way Kobe is NOT one of the 50 greatest players YET!

A little correction, Hakeem ,Pippen, Barkley and Drexler NEVER played on the same team! Hakeem, Drexler and Barkley played together from 1997 to 1998 and then Clyde retired and Pippen joined the team in 1999.

And by the way the 1985 Lakers definetely had 4 hall of famers in Kareem, Magic, Worthy and Bob McAdoo. They could have 5 when Jamaal Wilkkes eventually gets in.

The 1986 Celtics had 5 hall of famers in Bird, McHale, Parish, Walton and soon to be inducted Dennis Johnson.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> 
> 
> Im' gonna use the 1989 Lakers, probably their weakest of that era, as an example.They didn't even win the freakin championship:
> ...


what you call a power house i call amazingly weak for a final team(they were swept weren't they?)


worthy and magic were good and woolridge had a comback of sorts i remember but the rest of the team wasn't something that i would call dominant cooper was aging ,abdul jabbar should have retired the season before and was clearly in good bye mode

campbell i dont believe was in the nba yet,thompson and scott were servicable but they could not carry a team or be the kind of difference maker most claimed they were 

a.c. was what he was a good player but thats all half the nba boast a 4 that can what he did play d and get 8 rebs a game hardly someone who will crush you in a game or that an opposing team has to scheme for 

just 2 years later the bulls crushed the lakers in the finals and they still had magic and worthy ,scott perkins divac (elden campbell remember him?) a.c. green and despite what people say the lakers weren't old magic was 31 ,worthy was 30 and everyone else was in their 20s the center position was just as good with divac and perkins as it had been in 89 with abdul jabbar and thompson but it was manhandled just the same in the finals


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> Yes A.C. definetely started for the Showtime Lakers, when he was in his 20's!!!!!! He was ancient in 2000 and that proves how weak that team was that he got a starting jop.
> 
> Also the Lakers of the 21st century never won 69 games, the most was 67 in 2000. That supporting cast of the 2001 Lakers was also one of the weakest I've seen in the last 2 decades, and J.R. Rider was so horrible and disruptive he was left OUT of the playoff roster in 2001. By the way Kobe is NOT one of the 50 greatest players YET!
> ...


the terms hall of famer and top 50 have been thrown around to much 

how good was bob mcadoo in the 85 season? i mean honestly he was 35 and 7 years removed from his last allstar season(1978)

how good was wilkes in the 85 season? i bet not the player he was 5 years earlier or even 2...or 1 

its like claiming bill cartwright was the same player on the bulls in the 93 season that he was in his 1st few in the early 80s when he scored over 20 a game

so lets come off the revisionist tales of granduer can we?


----------



## likitsakos (Aug 30, 2003)

Hey Mr DaBullz? when exactly did Pistons mop up those Lakers?

They did mop up Jordan and the Bulls every year, but they never beat the Lakers.

the only time they beat them LA played without Magic and Scott.

There was no other time.

They did beat the Bulls every time until Isiah got injured. Only then Bulls beat them. Therefore Bulls are the ones who couldn't get past the Pistons and Pistons never beat the Lakers with Magic playing.

The year Bulls beat the Lakers is questionable too.

Looking at Magic's and Worthy's stats it shows that entire season they were down. Magic surely wasn't the same one who
led LA in the 80s and Worthy was the fastest sinking player of all time. This guy went from one of the best to nonexistant in a span of less than 2 years. Divac was too young, I wouldn't compare him back then to even a 40 year old Kareem or Thompson.

Others also say that 80s guys wouldn't be able to compete with Malone or Barkley in their prime. Helloooo!

Those guys were in their prime in the late 80s and got nowhere because Boston, La and Detroit was just too much.. Barkley entered the league in 84, Malone maybe a year Later, by 1990 they were already 28 or so. Prime years are 25-30 so it just goes to show that those players after their prime dominated the weaker 1990s players ( by Barkley's own admission, by 1993 he was already crying he was getting old. ).

Another idiotic remark: "80s centers wouldn't be able to handle guys like Shaq"

So you think Moses Malone , Parish or Kareem wouldn't be enough.

Pause for a second and try to remember . Who was the center on Utah Jazz team which beat Shaq, Eddie Jones, Kobe, Rice, Elden Campbel,etc.. . Not only beat but swept 4-0 and then 4-1 the following year, with some of the games being 20+ and 30 points for Utah. Who was the center????????????????

Still think Kareem or Moses wouldn't have been enough after that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>likitsakos</b>!
> Hey Mr DaBullz? when exactly did Pistons mop up those Lakers?


The 1988-89 Pistons SWEPT those very Lakers 4-0 in the NBA finals.

OK, so they didn't mop them up, they swept them away. Get out the BROOM!


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The 1988-89 Pistons SWEPT those very Lakers 4-0 in the NBA finals.
> ...


With the Lakers entire starting backcourt absent of course.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Magic played 2 games, and the Lakers lost both.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> if magic was better than kareem in his rookie year why was kareem mvp of the league instead of magic ,in fact magic didn't even win rookie of the year so i think maybe you are a little off on who was better
> ...


I guess Dabullz was eloquent enough about the "lack of quality in the West´s teams in the 80's...
By the way, the Lakers defeated the Blazers in Magic's last season without home-court advantage... the same team the Bulls defeated in the Finals. Well, if your knowledge of the 80's were to be considered accurate, that would also say that the Bulls should get no respect winning against a weak-*** team, or doesn´t your argument work both ways?
I could spend lots of time describing the great western teams the Lakers beat, like the suns, Spurs, Portland, Dallas, Denver, etc., but it obviously wouldn´t get through.

"and yeah karl malone had better stats in the 80s but he was clearly a better player in the 90s"? I don´t really know what to say about that "logic" (?)... maybe you should elaborate on that (or maybe Greg Ostertag brought the best in Malone... Mark Eaton? One of the greatest defensive forces in the NBA? Never heard of him...)

"in the 80s larry joe bird also called michael jeffery jordan the best player he had ever seen ,plus called him "God in hightops" so i'm going to have discredit the great larry bird as a talent agent seeing as he gives such titles away pretty easily"? 
Hah!
That´s what a little media bias would get tou... Bird said something like "God decided to play basketball and He turned into Michael Jordan"- he said that after Jordan´s explosion 63pts (or whatever) against the celtics in a playoff game (i think). 
That´s all Bird said.
Can you remeber who won the game???

and i never said Magic was better than Kareem in 79-80, Godamnit! I said Magic was the best player in the 80's!!!!
Without Kareem the Lakers wouldn´t have won tha year´s title. But guess what? Kareem was injured in the series last game (an away game), and the Lakers had to find someone to play center. guess who it was??
Guess who won Finals MVP???????

I rest my case...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I'm not disagreeing much with PauloCatarino.

But it is fair to say that there was a clear and obvious shift of power from the West to the East, starting with the Pistons. Detroit played strong and physical defense, particularly in the playoffs. The Western teams were built around finesse, and were not able to deal with being pushed, shoved, thrown to the floor, hard fouls, etc.

When the Bulls were winning their championships, the balance of power was strongly with the Eastern conference. The Bulls did have to beat the best teams in the NBA for the right to face a fairly weak West Conference team.

For example, the 96-97 season. Heat 61 wins, Knicks 57 wins, Hawks 56 wins, Hornets 54 wins, Pistons 54 wins. Bulls won 69. In the West, Jazz 64 wins, Rockets 57, Sonics 57, Lakers 56. That's 6 east teams and just 4 west. In the West, only Portland had a record over .500, so just 5 teams with > .500. In the East, there was Orlando, Washington, and Cleveland. That'd be 9 to 5.


----------



## Showtime84' (Oct 8, 2002)

"Detroit played strong and physical defense, particularly in the playoffs. The Western teams were built around finesse, and were not able to deal with being pushed, shoved, thrown to the floor, hard fouls, etc."

That's a wee bit twisted if I say so myself.

The Lakers were never bothered by the Pistons physical style, they went blow for blow, word for word and hard foul for hard foul with the Bad Boys in 1988.Those Finals were definetely played on Detroit's terms and Showtime adjusted just fine. The only reason that series went 7 games was the fact that Kareem was 41 freakin' years old, put even a 38 year old Captain in there and those Finals don't go past 5 games. The Pistons were young, hungry and deep, that's what bothered L.A. NOT their other antics.

You wanna know what team was not only bothered but also scared SH!TLESS of the Pistons style, try your Chicago Bulls bud!!!

I distinctly remember Scottie, Michael and then Phil going to the league offices every time the Pistons eliminated them to complain about their rough and physical style. 

David Stern and NBC finally granted them their wish when they put in the flagrant foul rule aka "The Bulls Protection Program" for the 1991 season. The commissioner was the one that nuttered the Pistons, NOT the Bulls. 

That's why I respect Bird and Magic so much, they could play ANY style of basketball and NEVER cry about it. They went up against the Bad Boys when they were at their BEST and WORST and didn't even flinch.

Jordan on the other hand needed the league to change the freakin rules before he could get past Detroit.Pippen still has migranes every time he sees Laimebeer or Mahorn coming towards him.

The Bulls, by their OWN admission were a finesse team, more finesse than even the Showtime Lakers and certainly more than the hard hats down in Boston.

So if there was a team that didn't adjust to that style, it was the Chicago Bulls. The league adjusted that style to fit THEM!!!

Very Lame!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Bulls were a physical team, too. Guys like Levingston and Salley and Rodman and Ed Nealy were on the Bulls to be physical. Bill Cartwright was known to throw around some sharp elbows.

Detroit wasn't the only physical team the Bulls had to deal with in the playoffs. The Knicks were particularly tough, as were the Magic when they had Shaq.

The flagrant foul rule was put in to protect players on all teams. What teams like Detroit and the Knicks did, in terms of "hard" or flagrant fouls had to be dealt with. There were no easy baskets inside. An open layup or dunk was met with a shove into the basket support or a punch in the face. That was a very new brand of basketball, meant to initimidate players from driving to the basket or otherwise getting easy shots.

Maybe the league was tired of seeing their top stars playing on severely sprained ankles (like Isiah did) in the playoffs.

The Bulls didn't shy away from the contact. To the contrary, Pippen was shoved into the basket support by Laimbeer in a play that is still shown fairly frequently on various TV programs. Jordan didn't change his game, either.

I'm not here making exuses for why the Bulls didn't win. If I wanted to play that game, the Bulls would have won 8 straight if Jordan didn't retire, and 10 (or more) straight if Krause didn't break the team up prematurely. And another the season before their first, if both Paxson and Pippen, starting SG and SF, could have played in game 7 against Detroit.


----------



## Laker4peat (Aug 30, 2003)

I gotta hand it to the guy who made that site. Jordans legend is all because of media hype. Hes a great player but every decade has had a great player who dominated but Mike is the player that gets called greatest ever. I hate that punk Jordan and still do. 

I dont blame the man for making an anti Jordan site. When you turn on tv and theyre all riding Jordans nuts to the fullest then you log on the internet and theres more nutsack man love for Jordan that makes Jordan haters out of any basketball fan.


----------



## Laker4peat (Aug 30, 2003)

Shaq is so underrated. He has all of the game and effect of Jordan but gets none of the love. Shaq doesnt pull media stunts like the 1 about playing with the flu. Man Mike was so weak he couldnt even stand up. That is hyperbole and bull**** to the fullest. He cant stand up but he can run up and down the court and still take 30 shots. Alright thats less believable then WWE. Give Jordan a medal for his overreacting to illness. 1st time I saw that I was like are you bloody kidding me??? Those that care go jump off a cliff. A ****ing FLU. I catch a flu every day. Alright every month. Then NBC turns into a mini series about his courage like he just beat AIDS and testicular cancer all rolled in 1. 

Thats why people hate Mike.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Laker4peat</b>!
> Shaq is so underrated. He has all of the game and effect of Jordan but gets none of the love.


Like Wilt once said: "Nobody loves Goliath"...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Laker4peat</b>!
> Shaq is so underrated. He has all of the game and effect of Jordan but gets none of the love.


I like Shaq and even feel like he has all of the game and effect of Jordan *when his fat *** is in shape and he is motivated*. Of course, he wasn't last year and the Lakers didn't win it all. 

If you are not at the peak of your game mentally at all times, then you are not the best.

End of story.


----------



## fsaucedo (May 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I like Shaq and even feel like he has all of the game and effect of Jordan *when his fat *** is in shape and he is motivated*. Of course, he wasn't last year and the Lakers didn't win it all.
> ...


I agree with you.


----------



## Laker4peat (Aug 30, 2003)

Right Shaqs will to win isnt up to Jordans standards but Jordans will to win was overrated as well. If he had so much will to win why did he retire to play baseball?? Then come back again when he had no chance to win anything with the Wizards. Jordan had a will alright. It was willing him to be wanted to be always in the spotlight. The guy cant take it if he isnt getting his nut sack ridden by people like Ahmad Rashad and everybody else on TV.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Laker4peat</b>!
> Right Shaqs will to win isnt up to Jordans standards but Jordans will to win was overrated as well. If he had so much will to win why did he retire to play baseball?? Then come back again when he had no chance to win anything with the Wizards. Jordan had a will alright. It was willing him to be wanted to be always in the spotlight. The guy cant take it if he isnt getting his nut sack ridden by people like Ahmad Rashad and everybody else on TV.


I agree with your comments about the flu game-- much of that was Michael mugging for the world-wide TV audience, and NBC and the rest of the media eating it up hook, line, and sinker. I'm not saying he didn't have a bug during that game-- but he was obviously not as sick as he and NBC made it seem. I also read somewhere that many teammates were toeing the line, as it were, when asked about MJ's performance in that game, but rolling their eyes at the same time.

However, I disagree strongly with your stance that Jordan's will to win was overrated. He, along with Bird, are two of the top athletes I have ever seen when it comes to will to win. Both men were/are ultra-competitive in all things basketball and otherwise. And both were tireless workers in the off-season-- even after both had already become the best player in the league. That says a great deal.


----------



## Laker4peat (Aug 30, 2003)

Yeah man you got a point there. Its hard to stay motivated when youre on top, **** its tough **** to stay motivated for something for a long time, period. Props to you for seeing through the Jordan flu crap. Most Bulls fans cant.


----------

