# I know everyone's gonna say Michael Jordan but...



## ufm19 (Jun 7, 2004)

10 Best Players of All-Time (in order)


I'm somewhat too lazy to use deep references and explain my thought process so i will skip ahead to the rankings.

1. Wilt Chamberlain 
2. Michael Jordan
3. Oscar Robertson
4. Shaquille O'Neal
5. Bill Russell
6. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
7. Magic Johnson
8. Larry Bird
9. Elgin Baylor
10. Bob Cousy


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ufm19</b>!
> 10 Best Players of All-Time (in order)
> 
> 
> ...


Non-active top ten players of all time:
1) Jordan
2) Chamberlin
3) Robertson
4) Russell
5) Magic
6) Bird
7) Kareem
8) Hakeem
9) West
10) M. Malone


----------



## Robert23 (Dec 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ufm19</b>!
> 10 Best Players of All-Time (in order)
> 
> 
> ...


1. Michael Jordan
2. Bill Russell
3. Wilt Chamberlain 
4. Magic Johnson
5. Shaquille O'Neal
6. Larry Bird 
7. Oscar Robertson 
8. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
9. Elgin Baylor
10. Bob Cousy


----------



## ivo_krka (Jan 29, 2004)

1. Jordan
2. Wilt
3. Russell
4. Alcindor
5. Magic
6. Bird
7. Shaq
8. Robertson
9. West
10. Akeem


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ufm19</b>!
> 10 Best Players of All-Time (in order)
> 
> 
> ...


Jordan leads Chamberlain in: PPG, APG, SPG, FT%, Rings, MVPs.

Chamberlain leads Jordan in RPG, BPG, FG% (so does Samuel Dalembert ROFL....Wilt is incapable of leading Jordan in any category that Brad Miller couldn't lead him in ROFL)

7-3 Jordan wins. 

Jordan = significant time with 1 hall of famer, 6 rings

Wilt = significant time with 7 hall of famers, 2 rings

Wilt = choked in 2 NBA Finals game 7s when being guarded by players 3-5 inches shorter than him.

Do I need to rip your pathetic idol up any further. I have plenty more ammo where that came from. 

Wilt = best at collecting REGULAR SEASON stats against mediocre competition....that's it.


----------



## ufm19 (Jun 7, 2004)

Wilt averaged 50 ppg in a year.

At the end of his career he didn't care about scoring; it is misleading to call Jordan a better scorer. Wilt also led the league in assists, rebounding, scoring, FG%, and rebounding, and maybe would've in blocks if they had this stat. MJ led the league in points and thats about it, and even there Wilt averaged more than MJ's season high five times. He was a much better scorer.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ufm19</b>!
> Wilt averaged 50 ppg in a year.
> 
> At the end of his career he didn't care about scoring; it is misleading to call Jordan a better scorer. Wilt also led the league in assists, rebounding, scoring, FG%, and rebounding, and maybe would've in blocks if they had this stat. MJ led the league in points and thats about it, and even there Wilt averaged more than MJ's season high five times. He was a much better scorer.


Jordan led the league in SPG nearly his entire career. He's the all-time leader in PPG AND SPG. 

Wilt's career FG% -- 54.0% ROFL. LMFAO. He's a center and he only has a career FG% 4% higher than Jordan...a GUARD. 

I agree with you.....Wilt is the greatest assembler of statistics in meaningless games that ever lived.

He averaged 50 PPG. Name the best three centers besides Wilt in the NBA that year. (Wait till he answers guys......if he even knows.......this will be hilarious)


----------



## Lance Fabrie (Jun 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> Name the best three centers besides Wilt in the NBA that year.


Herb Doogle, Marty Lawrence, and Lester Johnson.


----------



## Vermillion (Mar 23, 2004)

Non-active:

1.Michael Jordan
2.Wilt Chamberlain
3.Oscar Robertson
4.Bill Russell
5.Larry Bird
6.Kareem Abdul-Jabbaar
7.Magic Johnson
8.Jerry West
9.Hakeem Olajuwon
10.Elgin Baylor


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> Wilt's career FG% -- 54.0% ROFL. LMFAO. He's a center and he only has a career FG% 4% higher than Jordan...a GUARD.


wilt played in an era of significantly lower fg%'s than jordan did. era adjusted, the disparity is greater.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

*Re: Re: I know everyone's gonna say Michael Jordan but...*



> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Do I need to rip your pathetic idol up any further. I have plenty more ammo where that came from.


i'd rank jordan #1, but i certainly recognize that wilt has his supporters, and some good arguments on his side as well. pathetic idol? you can do better than that when discussing unarguably one of the greatest players ever.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: I know everyone's gonna say Michael Jordan but...*

Counting active players who's stories are done or near done:

1) Michael Jordan
2) Wilt Chamberlin
3) Oscar Robertson
4) Kareem Abdul Jabbar
5) Hakeem Olajuwon
6) Shaquille O'Neal
7) Magic Johnson
8) Larry Bird
9) Bill Russell
10) Karl Malone


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Lance Fabrie</b>!
> 
> Herb Doogle, Marty Lawrence, and Lester Johnson.


Exactly!


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> wilt played in an era of significantly lower fg%'s than jordan did. era adjusted, the disparity is greater.


Then adjust backwards for height differential, and Wilt...being Shaq's size should have shot a higher percentage....disparity probably ends up being lower.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: I know everyone's gonna say Michael Jordan but...*



> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> i'd rank jordan #1, but i certainly recognize that wilt has his supporters, and some good arguments on his side as well. pathetic idol? you can do better than that when discussing unarguably one of the greatest players ever.


One of the greatest "regular season" players ever.


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: I know everyone's gonna say Michael Jordan but...*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Counting active players who's stories are done or near done:
> 
> 1) Michael Jordan
> ...


Yes i agree completely Minstrel


----------



## ganaconda (Apr 16, 2003)

Where do you see that Wilt was only a regular season player?

http://basketballreference.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=CHAMBWI01 

Wilt played against a much less diluted NBA then now. There were only 9 teams in the entire NBA, thus much less players were able to make it. The three best centers other than Wilt during his 50 ppg season were Bill Russell, Walt Bellamy, and Johny Kerr. All were great players and there were many better that played throughout Wilt's career including Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Spencer Haywood, Nate Thurmond, and Willis Reed. Please refrain from talking about subjects that you are not well informed about.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

x


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ganaconda</b>!
> Where do you see that Wilt was only a regular season player?
> 
> http://basketballreference.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=CHAMBWI01
> ...


Red Kerr = 6'9" 230
Bill Russell = 6'10" 235
Spencer Haywood = 6'9" 225

Wow wonder what Shaq would do if he went up against a player the size of a 22 year old Horace Grant every game LOL.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

That would be like every player who ever guarded Jordan averaging out to the size of Mark Price.......


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Wow, what would Shaq's stats be, lol, if Wilt got 50 would Shaq get like 60-70??


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> Wow, what would Shaq's stats be, lol, if Wilt got 50 would Shaq get like 60-70??


As much as it's weird to say......

Yes lol.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

My list:

Jordan
Abdul Jabbar
Russell
O'neal
Bird
Magic
Chamberlain
Oscar
Olajuwon
Pettit


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

Wilt Chamberlain is one of the best centers to ever live. There is nothing wrong if someone ranks him above Jordan. However, there is plenty wrong for someone to start bashing and baiting him and calling Wilt "his pathetic idol". Oh, and size doesn't matter. When you're 6'9-6'10 in the league back then, you've still got a ton of skill. Like Jameer Nelson said at the draft, "If you're going to say a player is better than me, say it because he's better than me, not because he's bigger than me." Oh and don't forget Bill Russel was also an excellent center and had insane hops. His height was a non-factor because of his defensive skill and his vertical. Wilt also scored 100 points in a game. I don't care how tall the player is; scoring 100 points shows how good you are. Ah, and let's not forget that every time the Lakers got to the Finals, they were _beat by the Celtics dynasty_, which was like every team getting beat by the Bulls dynasty in the 90's with Jordan. Bill Russel had what? 11 rings right (correct me if I'm wrong)? There's a reason for that. When Wilt got to the Lakers, they put him in the system not just to score (they had Jerry West, Gail Goodrich and other HOFers on that team), but just to play the middle on defense and serve more purposes on offense than just scoring (although he did score plenty while on the Lakers). I think Jordan is the best of all time, so I'm not arguing against that, but trying to detract from Wilt Chamberlain the way you are is absolutely ridiculous.

Man, all he did was list Wilt as the #1 player of all time, which is completely fine and understandable since this is an opinionated thing anyway, then you bait the hell out of him and call Wilt "his pathetic idol". At what point did he say Wilt was his idol in the first place? All he did was put him #1.

Rawse, where's that quote I had in my sig about Wilt around this time last year that you said? I need you to say it now.


----------



## gdog (Aug 24, 2003)

i respect having the balls to go against conventional thinking.
it is hard to compare generations, but wilt definitely is the greatest force ever in the nba, and it would be interesting to see him playing today. he was like a bigger kg, which is mind-blowing.


----------



## "Matt!" (Jul 24, 2002)

Sorry guys, height differential does matter when you're talking about centers. Bill Russelll's "crazy verticle" gets negated by a collegate high jumper. 

If I recall correctly, didn't Wilt average more points in the era with NO offensive goaltending?


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>UKfan4Life</b>!
> Wilt Chamberlain is one of the best centers to ever live. There is nothing wrong if someone ranks him above Jordan. However, there is plenty wrong for someone to start bashing and baiting him and calling Wilt "his pathetic idol". Oh, and size doesn't matter. When you're 6'9-6'10 in the league back then, you've still got a ton of skill. Like Jameer Nelson said at the draft, "If you're going to say a player is better than me, say it because he's better than me, not because he's bigger than me."


But today's players......the one's who faced Jordan and Shaq were not only bigger and stronger......they also had the same skills. It's not necessarily the give and take you make it out to be. Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson, etc. while bigger, were no less skilled than the centers of Wilt's day. 



> Oh and don't forget Bill Russel was also an excellent center and had insane hops. His height was a non-factor because of his defensive skill and his vertical.


Yes but David Robinson for example had the same defensive skill and vertical, but is 7'1" and not 6'10". Russell is really no bigger, nor better defensively than Dennis Rodman.



> Wilt also scored 100 points in a game. I don't care how tall the player is; scoring 100 points shows how good you are.


Wrong. Name one player that played on the team Wilt scored 100 on? Hell....name the team! You could feed me the ball down low against a guy who is 5'4" and ill score 100 too. Jordan scored 69 points against Cleveland in the regular season in a meaningless game....being guarded by Ron Harper and then doubled and tripled. So what. It was a meaningless game against a mediocre opponent.



> Ah, and let's not forget that every time the Lakers got to the Finals, they were _beat by the Celtics dynasty_, which was like every team getting beat by the Bulls dynasty in the 90's with Jordan. Bill Russel had what? 11 rings right (correct me if I'm wrong)? There's a reason for that. When Wilt got to the Lakers, they put him in the system not just to score (they had Jerry West, Gail Goodrich and other HOFers on that team), but just to play the middle on defense and serve more purposes on offense than just scoring (although he did score plenty while on the Lakers). I think Jordan is the best of all time, so I'm not arguing against that, but trying to detract from Wilt Chamberlain the way you are is absolutely ridiculous.


The Lakers met Russell's Celtics with Wilt on the Lakers ONCE in the finals. Please.....if you're gonna argue Wilt....know the facts. There was no "every time" for Wilt's Lakers v. Russell's Celtics.....they met once. Russell was 36, injured half the year, and the Celtics didn't even have home court in the first round of the playoffs. Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn were all gone, and it was Russell's last series in the NBA. Most people in Boston had written the Celtics off. Auerbach was gone as well. The Lakers were HEAVILY favored and Boston won in seven on Don Nelson's 15 straight bounce and back into the rim shot. Russell was injured and hobbling on his last legs....so don't give me this athleticism stuff. I have the game tape....dude could barely get off the ground for pre-game layups. 

Also.....Chamberlain appeared in 3 NBA finals with the Lakers.....losing two of them. The other loss came in 1970 on the famous Willis Reed injury. 6'8" Dave Debusschere guarded Wilt nearly all of game 7 and the "heavily favored" Lakers....choked again. Wilt also played with Hal Greer, George McInnis, and Chet Walker in Philly and he could only win one there two. Russell did have 11 rings, and guess what? Nobody he played with was as good as Wilt's TWO best teammates Jerry West and Elgin Baylor. 



> Man, all he did was list Wilt as the #1 player of all time, which is completely fine and understandable since this is an opinionated thing anyway, then you bait the hell out of him and call Wilt "his pathetic idol". At what point did he say Wilt was his idol in the first place? All he did was put him #1.
> 
> Rawse, where's that quote I had in my sig about Wilt around this time last year that you said? I need you to say it now.


Wasn't trying to bait him....but from this day forth....saying Wilt is better than Jordan will be met with the facts about the almost mythical Wilt. Wilt was a great great player.....but some of the hazy thoughts on HOW great he was are gross exhaggerations. The pathetic idol thing may have been too harsh lol, but that was directed at Wilt, not the poster.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

don't bother guys, LB won't accept the fact that people have their own opinions. IMO, Jordan is/was the best ever, but not by that wide of a margin. To see you have Wilt 7th on your list is inexusable IMO. How do you say he went up against nobodys his entire career while puttin 50 per game and then come right around and say Russel and Kareem (his peers) are better than him. Lets just forget the bazillion points he scored, but the man is by far the best rebounder of all-time. Wilt didn't go the that many finals, because he had the misfortune to play mostly in the East during the Celts reign. But he clearly had great competition.

Here are the SIX HoF centers who Wilt had to play against in 1969:
Nate Thurmond 
Willis Reed
Bill Russell
Elvin Hayes
Wes Unseld
Walt Bellamy

In addition, he had to face Zelmo Beatty (21p, 11 rb),Bob Rule (24p, 11rb), Connie Dierking (16 p, 9rb).

In a much smaller league, he had to play half of his games against future Hall of Famers.

Wilt's career regular season Board average is an incredible 22.9 - but his Playoff average is an even more incredible 24.5....He had playoff years of over 30 rebounds per game, another of 29.1 - the same year he handed out 9 assists per game in the Playoffs. Hell people said he couldnt pass so he proved them wrong and led the entire league in assists one year. Too bad blocks didnt count back then.

In 1966 for example, maybe the weakest center in the league was arugably Detroits Joe Strawder, who was 6'10, 240, and put up 8.6pts and 10.4 boards that year (and 9.9pts 10.1 boards the following year). He ended his career as with a 9.9 career rebound average....an equivalent performance in 2004 might have got him the roster spot over "all star" Nazr Mohammed.......

The other two "weak" centers that year were Jim Barnes with 12.4pts/10.3 rebs, and Leroy Ellis with 12.2pts and 9.2 rebs...

And what is still more impressive to me is the quality of the BACKUP centers in the league at that time...Mel Counts put up 8.4/6.4 as Russells backup. '66 was that year I referenced that The Knicks had Willis Reed, Walter Bellamy and Lenny Chappell in the post.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBruins</b>!
> don't bother guys, LB won't accept the fact that people have their own opinions. IMO, Jordan is/was the best ever, but not by that wide of a margin. To see you have Wilt 7th on your list is inexusable IMO. How do you say he went up against nobodys his entire career while puttin 50 per game and then come right around and say Russel and Kareem (his peers) are better than him. Lets just forget the bazillion points he scored, but the man is by far the best rebounder of all-time. Wilt didn't go the that many finals, because he had the misfortune to play mostly in the East during the Celts reign. But he clearly had great competition.
> 
> Here are the SIX HoF centers who Wilt had to play against in 1969:
> ...


I put the heights in....Im tired.....I'll further expose this post tomorrow.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Wasnt Bill Russell named the greatest player of all time by the NBA when the NBA had its 30th anniversary or whatever? 

If thats the case, then I think Wilts numbers have indeed boosted him higher than he deserves to be, since the majority of the people who actually saw them play chose Russell and not Wilt.

Its hard for me to judge players who I never saw, so in my lifetime, the best players I've seen are: 

1. Michael Jordan
2. Hakeem Olajuwon
3. Larry Bird
4. Magic Johnson
5. Shaquille O'Neal
6. Tim Duncan
7. Karl Malone
8. Kevin Garnett
9. Charles Barkley
10. Scottie Pippen


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> But today's players......the one's who faced Jordan and Shaq were not only bigger and stronger......they also had the same skills. It's not necessarily the give and take you make it out to be. Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson, etc. while bigger, were no less skilled than the centers of Wilt's day.
> ...



One question, how tall are you, 5'4"? lol, good height, I can post you up anytime.


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but David Robinson for example had the same defensive skill and vertical, but is 7'1" and not 6'10". Russell is really no bigger, nor better defensively than Dennis Rodman.


I'm not disagreeing, but like a lot of people can rightfully say in these kinds of arguments, how can you say he was only as good as Dennis Rodman defensively when they were generations apart?




> Wrong. Name one player that played on the team Wilt scored 100 on? Hell....name the team! You could feed me the ball down low against a guy who is 5'4" and ill score 100 too. Jordan scored 69 points against Cleveland in the regular season in a meaningless game....being guarded by Ron Harper and then doubled and tripled. So what. It was a meaningless game against a mediocre opponent.


The point isn't that it was a meaningless game. The point is that he was and still is the only player to score 100 because he was the only good player on his team. It's just as impressive that he scored 100 points with the time that he had to do it in a game, which, even if it is the same length as today's game, is still quite impressive.




> The Lakers met Russell's Celtics with Wilt on the Lakers ONCE in the finals. Please.....if you're gonna argue Wilt....know the facts. There was no "every time" for Wilt's Lakers v. Russell's Celtics.....they met once. Russell was 36, injured half the year, and the Celtics didn't even have home court in the first round of the playoffs. Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn were all gone, and it was Russell's last series in the NBA. Most people in Boston had written the Celtics off. Auerbach was gone as well. The Lakers were HEAVILY favored and Boston won in seven on Don Nelson's 15 straight bounce and back into the rim shot. Russell was injured and hobbling on his last legs....so don't give me this athleticism stuff. I have the game tape....dude could barely get off the ground for pre-game layups.


I'm glad you have the game tape. Do you have NBA TV? They show tons of these games about every day, especially in the offseason. After seeing plenty of Lakers vs. Celtics games on NBA TV, I was under the impression these were all finals games, not just regular season games. So, in one of these regular season games, Jerry West went for a base-line jumper. Bill Russel attempted to block it (he didn't succeed). When they replayed it in slow-mo, you could clearly see Bill Russel's hand was almost level with the top of the backboard. 



> Also.....Chamberlain appeared in 3 NBA finals with the Lakers.....losing two of them. The other loss came in 1970 on the famous Willis Reed injury. 6'8" Dave Debusschere guarded Wilt nearly all of game 7 and the "heavily favored" Lakers....choked again. Wilt also played with Hal Greer, George McInnis, and Chet Walker in Philly and he could only win one there two. Russell did have 11 rings, and guess what? Nobody he played with was as good as Wilt's TWO best teammates Jerry West and Elgin Baylor.


Well there is such thing as upsets. I won't argue that nobody who played with Bill Russel was as good as Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, because I can't say I disagree with that really, but the rings speak for themselves. Also, Elgin Baylor never even got to play on that great '72 lakers team that one the title because of a career-ending injury. That team won 32 or 33 straight games and Wilt was a huge reason why. Imagine what they could've done had Elgin Baylor not had to retire because of his injury. 





> Wasn't trying to bait him....but from this day forth....saying Wilt is better than Jordan will be met with the facts about the almost mythical Wilt. Wilt was a great great player.....but some of the hazy thoughts on HOW great he was are gross exhaggerations. The pathetic idol thing may have been too harsh lol, but that was directed at Wilt, not the poster.


Well now I can see where you're coming from at least with this, and I still disagree with it, but you give a logical argument. I was only trying to defend Wilt as a player, not as the #1 of all time. Like I said, I also think Jordan is the greatest of all time.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

After reading this thread, i *almost* hesitated in joining in, but as sure as *Portugal is winning the Euro 2004*, i can back this up:

1- Wilt - The record breaker. Now his 100-points game may be a fluke, but what about setting the rebounds in a game record against Bill Russell?

2- Magic - The One Who Made Everyone Around Him Better. I think that says it all.

3- Michael Jordan. 

4- Larry Bird - The blueprint for anything a basketball player should aspire to excell at.

5- Bill Rusell - can´t argue against the rings and the Russ´s pivotal part in earning them.

6- Kareem. Not by his longevity (sp?) but because what he achieved and how he dominated for two decades...

7- Oscar. Brilliant all-around player.

8- West. Amazing scorer and passer. Lead-melting (sp?), infectious drive to win.

9- Shaq. Dominated from day one in his career.

10- Hakeem.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> After reading this thread, i *almost* hesitated in joining in, but as sure as *Portugal is winning the Euro 2004*, i can back this up:
> 
> 1- Wilt - The record breaker. Now his 100-points game may be a fluke, but what about setting the rebounds in a game record against Bill Russell?
> ...


Jordan. The greatest ever. Slammed Magic. Has more rings.

Wilt -- Biggest big-game choker ever

Magic -- Lost to Jordan in the NBA finals. Michael has more rings and more MVPs. Did he make players better, or did he just have better players? I'm pretty sure James Worthy was a can't miss prospect before he ever got to the Lakers. Also pretty sure that Kareem was a 6 time NBA MVP by the end of Magic's rookie year. 

I'm looking at Jordan's teammates and I'm not seeing any who won NCAA Tournament MVP before playing on Jordan's Bulls. I'm also not seeing anyone that played with Jordan who won 5 MVP awards before ever playing with Jordan. Pretty ironic don't you think.

"The Tragic Man made everyone around him better." No....lol....he had better players around him that made him look better. 

Also Jordan had one hall of famer when he faced Magic, who had one hall of famer, in the NBA finals in 1991. Jordan won. Worthy and Scott sat out game 5 cause they knew it was over. The series was well over before Worthy ever missed a game. 

LOL nothing, not even the most uninformed, 13 year old Kobe fan, is worse than someone who thinks Magic is the second best player ever.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>UKfan4Life</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not disagreeing, but like a lot of people can rightfully say in these kinds of arguments, how can you say he was only as good as Dennis Rodman defensively when they were generations apart?


Pretty nice. Way to respond to my knockout punch of "these centers were bigger AND more skilled." Typical dodger you went for a haggle on the Dennis Rodman point lol. Way to dodge THE MAIN POINT. 



> The point isn't that it was a meaningless game. The point is that he was and still is the only player to score 100 because he was the only good player on his team. It's just as impressive that he scored 100 points with the time that he had to do it in a game, which, even if it is the same length as today's game, is still quite impressive.


Scoring 100 points in a game with ZERO talent on the other team is about as far away from big time "best ever" basketball as it gets. The argument that that brings him any closer to being the greatest is like saying Marciano should get points because he killed a boxer in the ring, when that boxer probably couldn't knock me out.



> I'm glad you have the game tape. Do you have NBA TV? They show tons of these games about every day, especially in the offseason. After seeing plenty of Lakers vs. Celtics games on NBA TV, I was under the impression these were all finals games, not just regular season games. So, in one of these regular season games, Jerry West went for a base-line jumper. Bill Russel attempted to block it (he didn't succeed). When they replayed it in slow-mo, you could clearly see Bill Russel's hand was almost level with the top of the backboard.


Yes......but was WILT on that Laker team? Because while Russell was a very good athlete for most of his career.....he was only a cracked shell of his former self by the time WILT joined the Lakers. You mention Russell and you mention West.....but unless that is the 1969 finals, IN WHICH I CAN ASSURE YOU HE DIDNT JUMP THAT HIGH, Wilt is not part of the story. 



> Well there is such thing as upsets. I won't argue that nobody who played with Bill Russel was as good as Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, because I can't say I disagree with that really, but the rings speak for themselves. Also, Elgin Baylor never even got to play on that great '72 lakers team that one the title because of a career-ending injury. That team won 32 or 33 straight games and Wilt was a huge reason why. Imagine what they could've done had Elgin Baylor not had to retire because of his injury.


Wilt HAD Baylor in 69 and 70 and lost. Jordan......didn't get upset. That's the difference. 



> Well now I can see where you're coming from at least with this, and I still disagree with it, but you give a logical argument. I was only trying to defend Wilt as a player, not as the #1 of all time. Like I said, I also think Jordan is the greatest of all time.


I appreciate it. I'm also not saying Wilt sucks, but you do have to agree that a lot of people on these sites take a look at the record book, without evaluating the entire career of Chamberlain, and they make him out to be much better than he was. Truth is......you have to admit that nobody around here ever brings up the damaging evidence on Wilt that I have brought up here, because nobody takes the time to really examine it.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> Jordan. The greatest ever. Slammed Magic. Has more rings.


So, still in denial, i see...
"Slammed Magic"? After how many years in the league? Maybe KJ "slammed Magic" too...



> Wilt -- Biggest big-game choker ever


Are you sure it´s not Jerry West? 



> Magic -- Lost to Jordan in the NBA finals. Michael has more rings and more MVPs. Did he make players better, or did he just have better players? I'm pretty sure James Worthy was a can't miss prospect before he ever got to the Lakers. Also pretty sure that Kareem was a 6 time NBA MVP by the end of Magic's rookie year.


Maybe that´s the reason the Bulls were amassing titles during Jordan´s first *seven* years...



> I'm looking at Jordan's teammates and I'm not seeing any who won NCAA Tournament MVP before playing on Jordan's Bulls. I'm also not seeing anyone that played with Jordan who won 5 MVP awards before ever playing with Jordan. Pretty ironic don't you think.


No i don´t think.
Any doubts about Magic´s hability should be directed to watching the 1980's Finals sixth (and last) game...



> "The Tragic Man made everyone around him better." No....lol....he had better players around him that made him look better.


That´s true... Byron Scott, A.C. Green, Mychal Thompson, Sam Perkins and Michael Cooper are. indeed, HOF material... 



> Also Jordan had one hall of famer when he faced Magic, who had one hall of famer, in the NBA finals in 1991. Jordan won. Worthy and Scott sat out game 5 cause they knew it was over. The series was well over before Worthy ever missed a game.


Soo... forgetting the fact thar Worthy was injured during that series, are you? How convenient...
And. off course, in that series, how many HOF Magic had by his side? Maybe the rookies T.Smith and E. Campbell, who started in the ladt game...



> LOL nothing, not even the most uninformed, 13 year old Kobe fan, is worse than someone who thinks Magic is the second best player ever.


I´ll stand by this... Chicago (and Ol'Baldy) won *nothing* while Bird and Isiah were physically fit... Then they won *once* when they faced the Worthy-less Lakers...

A Great feat, indeed...


----------



## UKfan4Life (Mar 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Pretty nice. Way to respond to my knockout punch of "these centers were bigger AND more skilled." Typical dodger you went for a haggle on the Dennis Rodman point lol. Way to dodge THE MAIN POINT.


Not dodging. You just brought up a very good point. I don't see where I can disagree with you except for the Dennis Rodman part, which why I only responded to that part.





> Scoring 100 points in a game with ZERO talent on the other team is about as far away from big time "best ever" basketball as it gets. The argument that that brings him any closer to being the greatest is like saying Marciano should get points because he killed a boxer in the ring, when that boxer probably couldn't knock me out.


The point is he scored 100 points. How come nobody else managed to score 100 points against that team? That's not really the point, though. The point is he managed to score 100. That's the bottom line, don't degrade from it.





> Yes......but was WILT on that Laker team? Because while Russell was a very good athlete for most of his career.....he was only a cracked shell of his former self by the time WILT joined the Lakers. You mention Russell and you mention West.....but unless that is the 1969 finals, IN WHICH I CAN ASSURE YOU HE DIDNT JUMP THAT HIGH, Wilt is not part of the story.


I can't even remember. It was last July I saw this. My dad called me in the room because he was enjoying it so much. About 10 minutes later I saw Bill Russell try to block Jerry West and I will never forget how incredibly high he jumped. It was "jaw-on-the-floor" incredible.





> Wilt HAD Baylor in 69 and 70 and lost. Jordan......didn't get upset. That's the difference.


What's left to say? Jordan didn't get upset and Wilt did, yeah, but then again, Jordan was the greatest ever.


----------



## Sánchez AF (Aug 10, 2003)

Jordan is and Always be THE number one and Shaq is not the #4


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> So, still in denial, i see...
> ...


Jordan didn't have anybody on his team. Can you name me one player, besides Hakeem Olajuwon in 1994, to lead a team without any other future hall of famers to a ring? No you can't. Magic didn't win because he could take the average team and make them better than Jordan. Magic won because he came onto a team that already had Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. That's why he won his first year, and that's why Jordan won his 7th year. Jordan's seventh year was the first year that someone on his team was able to play as well as Worthy, let alone Jabblunt.



> No i don´t think.
> 
> Any doubts about Magic´s hability should be directed to watching the 1980's Finals sixth (and last) game...
> 
> ...


Yes without Jabblunt in game 6 of the 1980 NBA Finals Magic Johnson went off on Darryl Dawkins and Caldwell Jones. ROFLMFAO. Oh yeah.....Michael Jordan couldn't bust out for a performance like that if *Caldwell Jones* was guarding him. Jones was actually shorter than Johnson LOL. So if Jordan played "center" and the other team countered with Jeff Hornacek you don't think MJ could throw down? You watch too many Laker commercials.

Finally Jordan didn't win because he didn't have anybody on his team. Period. If he gets a 24 year old Scottie and Horace on his team his rookie year.....then the Bulls are coming out of the East by 88, maybe even 87. And what is this "when Bird and Isiah were in good shape".....?? There were in their EARLY 30s. Whose fault is it that they were both DONE by 33 years old? MJ was winning rings and MVPs at 35


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>UKfan4Life</b>!
> 
> 
> Not dodging. You just brought up a very good point. I don't see where I can disagree with you except for the Dennis Rodman part, which why I only responded to that part.






> The point is he scored 100 points. How come nobody else managed to score 100 points against that team? That's not really the point, though. The point is he managed to score 100. That's the bottom line, don't degrade from it.


Yeah but im just saying...MJ scored 69 against a FAR superior team, but you'll never hear me bring it up because it just doesn't do much for greatness.....maybe in a novelty way.

[qupteI can't even remember. It was last July I saw this. My dad called me in the room because he was enjoying it so much. About 10 minutes later I saw Bill Russell try to block Jerry West and I will never forget how incredibly high he jumped. It was "jaw-on-the-floor" incredible.[/quote]

Yeah I know......Jordan's head often was above the rim on dunks when he was in his early 20s. That means if he just had reached up to his apex with his arms, they would have gone over the backboard by a few inches. Russell was a phenominal athlete.....but Wilt's only Laker appearance against Russell came when Russell was 36 and ready to retire.



> What's left to say? Jordan didn't get upset and Wilt did, yeah, but then again, Jordan was the greatest ever.


My point was......greatest ever and 4th greatest ever can be by such slim margins its remarkable. Consider that the difference between the best golfers in the world and your local amateur hacks is less than one shot a hole. Does Wilt getting upset bad twice in game 7s mean he isn't great? No. It just means he wasn't the greatest. It's ONE of the many pieces of evidence anyway.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 1- Wilt - The record breaker. Now his 100-points game may be a fluke, but what about setting the rebounds in a game record against Bill Russell?


Setting aside # of championships, there still is the issue of Wilt being a 50% FT shooter. The greatest of all time?

I am not old enough to have seen Wilt but we see how much trouble this causes Shaq - ala the Hack a Shaq.

A Wilt Supporter has to make the case why this is such a blemish and problem for Shaq but not for Wilt.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

so LB, youre using the fact that Magic lost in the finals to the Bulls as a way of discrediting his greatness? You have to be joking. The lakers did win that 1st game and to this day i belive if we were healthy we would have taken that series. Its too bad we werent healthy though because it would've been one of those classic series' IMO.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> I put the heights in....Im tired.....I'll further expose this post tomorrow.


so what about the heights? most of those guys were 6'10 or more and ALL of them would be EASY all-stars in the league now where there are no centers.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBruins</b>!
> 
> 
> so what about the heights? most of those guys were 6'10 or more and ALL of them would be EASY all-stars in the league now where there are no centers.


Figure of speech/lack of sense of humor -- Edit


Shaquille O'neal 7'2"
Yao Ming 7'5"
Brad Miller 7'
Tim Duncan 7'
Zydrunas Ilgauskas 7'3"

Several of the POWER FORWARDS in today's NBA are both bigger AND more athletic than the people on your list.

Wes Unseld.....ROFL, dude was 6'7" LMAO


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBruins</b>!
> so LB, youre using the fact that Magic lost in the finals to the Bulls as a way of discrediting his greatness? You have to be joking. The lakers did win that 1st game and to this day i belive if we were healthy we would have taken that series. Its too bad we werent healthy though because it would've been one of those classic series' IMO.


No...not to discredit his greatness. But when comparing MAGIC AND MICHAEL absolutely it's a factor. Believe what you want. You weren't taking anything. 

First of all........you weren't healthy. Your fault. The REALITY of the 1991 Lakers is that Worthy and Scott were not healthy. So part of the team that they were was the reality that maybe they needed better conditioning regimens. Paxson and Cartwright's knees were both pretty much shot by that point in their careers anyway, so I don't know how that makes you any different. A healthy Byron Scott and James Worthy was going to slow or stop the offensive attack of MJ (What did you in more than anything) how?


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Setting aside # of championships, there still is the issue of Wilt being a 50% FT shooter. The greatest of all time?
> ...


Also consider that 7'1" Bill Cartwright would easily be one of the three most imposing physical defensive forces Wilt ever faced were he back in Wilt's day, because of his length


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> Jordan didn't have anybody on his team.


Maybe that´s the reason Ol'Baldy (one of the most notorious ballhogs of all time) kept losing, and losing, and losing...

And all this while putting up amazing stats...

So if you knock Wilt for being a stat-padder and not winning enough, shouldn´t you apply the same criteria to His Hairless's first years in the league? 



> Can you name me one player, besides Hakeem Olajuwon in 1994, to lead a team without any other future hall of famers to a ring?


Sure: Rick Barry, Bill Walton and Isiah Thomas (just from the top of my head...) 



> No you can't.


See above.



> Magic didn't win because he could take the average team and make them better than Jordan. Magic won because he came onto a team that already had Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. That's why he won his first year, and that's why Jordan won his 7th year.


I said that Magic could make EVERYONE around him bette. Don´t you think having the greatest point guard ever in your team was one of the reasons Jabbar could extend his career and scoring prowess?
And all questions about this aspect of Magic´s game should be directed to Tom Chambers after winning ASG MVP... 



> Jordan's seventh year was the first year that someone on his team was able to play as well as Worthy, let alone Jabblunt.


No one in the Bulls championship teams was ever able to play as well as Worthy...



> Yes without Jabblunt in game 6 of the 1980 NBA Finals Magic Johnson went off on Darryl Dawkins and Caldwell Jones. ROFLMFAO. Oh yeah.....Michael Jordan couldn't bust out for a performance like that if *Caldwell Jones* was guarding him. Jones was actually shorter than Johnson LOL.


You can roll on the floor as often as you want (though i consider that practic to be a little odd...), but i just came to a conclusion: you have never played basketball.
Because, if you had, you would know that you can´t instantly pick a PG (regardless his height) and make him a Center in a couple of days... When you play in the paint you must change your entire offensive arsenal. And defending post players is way diffrent from staying in the perimeter... 

Yet, Magic mastered that in an uncanny way. AND IN THE FREAKING NBA FINALS.
AND AS A FREAKUNG ROOKIE.



> So if Jordan played "center" and the other team countered with Jeff Hornacek you don't think MJ could throw down?


Now you´re seeming desperate.
Hint: It´s very difficult for a post player to get an isolation on offense. Try that through 48 minutes...

But i will play along... But instead of Horny, make Jordan score in the post against Chuck. Better yet, make Jordan defend Chuck in the post. He would be obbliterated... 



> You watch too many Laker commercials.


No i don´t. But i would love to have on tape that 6th game of the 80 Finals. We could even see it together so i could bring the crow...



> Finally Jordan didn't win because he didn't have anybody on his team. Period.


Yes, that´s the usual excuse.



> And what is this "when Bird and Isiah were in good shape".....?? There were in their EARLY 30s. Whose fault is it that they were both DONE by 33 years old? MJ was winning rings and MVPs at 35


Bottom line: Jordan´s Bulls could never overcome an healthy Boston and Detroit.
When they did won, what were the Eastern powerhouses? New York´s All-Star-center-and-a-bunch-of-scrubs?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Setting aside # of championships, there still is the issue of Wilt being a 50% FT shooter. The greatest of all time?
> 
> I am not old enough to have seen Wilt but we see how much trouble this causes Shaq - ala the Hack a Shaq.
> ...


True that was the main flaw in Wilt´s game. But that alone can´t take away his greatness. Are you aware that Wilt (a stat-padder to many) once lead the league in assists? As a center?

There´s always gonna be that kncock on Wilt (and Shaq), but so what?
If any of those could put up .800FT%, do you have any doubt their stats would be even more astonishing?

Would then remain any doubt in who was #1?


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> Maybe that´s the reason Ol'Baldy (one of the most notorious ballhogs of all time) kept losing, and losing, and losing...
> 
> And all this while putting up amazing stats...
> ...


I can feel your hatred for MJ lol. It's not a mocking.....the way I mock Kobe or Wilt or Tragic.....it's a true hatred as if he permeates your dreams lol. Good.....this is the best I can desire of a Jordan hater.

No actually it's not uniform......because Jordan lost with NO ONE on his team. Wilt lost two finals he should have won with Jerry West and Elgin Baylor on his team. For your formula to be uniform MJ would have had to put up the gaudy stats on a losing team, like he did, and then when he got Pippen he would have had to lose not only several conference finals (Wilt lost several series to the Celtics when he was in the east playing with players like Hal Greer, George McInnis and Chet Walker, all hall of famers) but then Jordan would have had to lose finals that he was favored in. 

Also it's funny you call Jordan a ballhog. Was he a ballhog in 1989 when he not only scored 32 PPG on 53.8% FG (Wilt's career FG% is 54% LMAO; so your idol at least managed to average a better career average than MJ's career high in PPG by .2% LOL) and *8 APG*? 

Also Jordan was not such the loser Laker fans sometimes try to make him out to be. He didn't have anybody and lost to GREAT GREAT players. Was he supposed to beat Bird, McHale, Parrish, Johnson, and Walton by himself? He didn't have Pippen OR Grant yet. Are you saying that if you subbed Magic or Kobe for him they could pull off the same feat? No you wouldn't say that, because any peaceful non-biased observer on this board would light you up.



> Sure: Rick Barry, Bill Walton and Isiah Thomas (just from the top of my head...)


Joe Dumars? Maurice Lucas? Too lazy to see if Lucas, a borderline case, has actually been inducted into the hall of fame, BUT the point being.....who did Jordan have before Pippen that was as good as Mo Lucas or Joe D? 

Ahhhh Rick Barry. That you may win. Did they beat anyone as good as the 1986 Celtics or 1988 Pistons that year? 



> I said that Magic could make EVERYONE around him bette. Don´t you think having the greatest point guard ever in your team was one of the reasons Jabbar could extend his career and scoring prowess?
> And all questions about this aspect of Magic´s game should be directed to Tom Chambers after winning ASG MVP...


Oscar Robertson showed that it wasn't hard to look real good when you had Kareem on your team. Oscar was one of the greatest, but Kareem made him look that much better.



> No one in the Bulls championship teams was ever able to play as well as Worthy...


Scottie Pippen was a better player than James Worthy.



> You can roll on the floor as often as you want (though i consider that practic to be a little odd...), but i just came to a conclusion: you have never played basketball.
> Because, if you had, you would know that you can´t instantly pick a PG (regardless his height) and make him a Center in a couple of days... When you play in the paint you must change your entire offensive arsenal. And defending post players is way diffrent from staying in the perimeter...


Caldwell Jones was smaller than Magic....that's what you're missing. It would be like asking Jordan to play center with Mitch Richmond on him. Who cares? Well Laker fans who buy the hype that's who.



> Yet, Magic mastered that in an uncanny way. AND IN THE FREAKING NBA FINALS.
> AND AS A FREAKUNG ROOKIE.


See above.



> Now you´re seeming desperate.
> Hint: It´s very difficult for a post player to get an isolation on offense. Try that through 48 minutes...
> 
> But i will play along... But instead of Horny, make Jordan score in the post against Chuck. Better yet, make Jordan defend Chuck in the post. He would be obbliterated...


But Chuck is BIGGER than Jordan. Caldwell Jones wasn't Bigger than Magic. 



> No i don´t. But i would love to have on tape that 6th game of the 80 Finals. We could even see it together so i could bring the crow...


I've seen it. Magic had a great game. But it was no different than MANY of the great games Jordan, Bird, West, etc had.....he had CALDWELL JONES on him. I'm failing to see why I should be impressed above and beyond saying "he had a great game."



> Yes, that´s the usual excuse.


No it's not the usual excuse....it's a fact. Jordan didn't have Pippen he lost. He had a young Pippen who was very raw, he lost. Pippen finally started to play like....Pippen.....he won. 



> Bottom line: Jordan´s Bulls could never overcome an healthy Boston and Detroit.
> When they did won, what were the Eastern powerhouses? New York´s All-Star-center-and-a-bunch-of-scrubs?


I've NEVER heard anyone claim that the 1990 Pistons were not healthy. So you are saying that they went from utter dominance in June 1990 to being riddled with injury and old and tired in 1991? LMAO....they were completely healthy and in their peak in 1991. Isiah wasn't done until 1994. And he didn't really even start to decline rapidly until being elbowed by Karl Malone in 1992 following Isiah's comments about John Stockton. That play was funny man. He basically elbows Isiah on purpose (an elbow that caused Isiah to miss months) and then looks at the "Bad Boys" like "What? Do something?" But by then they were done.....Jordan and Pippen had taken their manhood with a sweep.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

as a note, the avg height and weight in '64 was 6'6, 211 lbs. the avg height and weight in '93 was 6'7, 217, at least according to the association for professional basketball research

link 

certainly the weight has increased since then by a fair amount. of note however, is that as the weight increased, those same players who were scrawny in the '80s became bulked up in the '90s simply because the training was different. it wasn't solely because there was a new superrace joining the league. most of the stars adapted to the new training advantages.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I've NEVER heard anyone claim that the 1990 Pistons were not healthy. So you are saying that they went from utter dominance in June 1990 to being riddled with injury and old and tired in 1991? LMAO....they were completely healthy and in their peak in 1991. Isiah wasn't done until 1994. And he didn't really even start to decline rapidly until being elbowed by Karl Malone in 1992 following Isiah's comments about John Stockton. That play was funny man. He basically elbows Isiah on purpose (an elbow that caused Isiah to miss months) and then looks at the "Bad Boys" like "What? Do something?" But by then they were done.....Jordan and Pippen had taken their manhood with a sweep.


the pistons were a 50 win team in '91. they certainly weren't the same dominant team they were the prior 2 years.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

10 Best Players of All-Time (in order)

Jordan
Russell
Magic
Wilt
Kareem
Bird
Big O
Dr. J
Baylor
West


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> the pistons were a 50 win team in '91. they certainly weren't the same dominant team they were the prior 2 years.


Let's just forget all this "It's Jordan's fault that Isiah and Bird couldn't stay in their prime past 31 years old" stuff for a second. It was a SWEEP. A SWEEP or routes.....it wasn't even close.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> as a note, the avg height and weight in '64 was 6'6, 211 lbs. the avg height and weight in '93 was 6'7, 217, at least according to the association for professional basketball research
> 
> link
> ...


But we aren't talking about the entire league......we're talking about the players WILT faced. What does the height of PF, SF, SG and PG have to do with that?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Let's just forget all this "It's Jordan's fault that Isiah and Bird couldn't stay in their prime past 31 years old" stuff for a second. It was a SWEEP. A SWEEP or routes.....it wasn't even close.


the bulls flew by the pistons, no doubt. they were much better in '91. but that doesn't mean the pistons were just as good as they were in '90. 

as for the celtics, or bird, they weren't near the team (and bird wasn't the player) they were in '87.

no, it's not jordan's fault. it's just the way it was.

it's not a major point, unless the argument is that the bulls crushed these teams at their best.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> the bulls flew by the pistons, no doubt. they were much better in '91. but that doesn't mean the pistons were just as good as they were in '90.
> ...


Yeah but come on......the assertion by Paulo, at least in implication is that Jordan beat a hobbling Pistons team that sucked.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> I can feel your hatred for MJ lol. It's not a mocking.....the way I mock Kobe or Wilt or Tragic.....it's a true hatred as if he permeates your dreams lol. Good.....this is the best I can desire of a Jordan hater.


You´re wrong, for i don´t "hate" Michael Jordan.
I think he was a great, great player.
In fact, i put him as high as #3 in my All-Time list...

What i can´t stand is all the hype, BS and misticism created around the image of Michael Jordan the player.

I firmly believe he wasn´t the player media made him appear to be.
On the other hand, Jordan had the opportunity to excell and amass titles in an era, IMO, of more diluted talent than, for example, Bird and Magic.

So a rookie putting up 42 points, 15 boards, seven assists and three steals in the NBA Finals, while playing out of position, doesn´t faze you, right?
Well, that´s your prerrogative.

What i try to put in perspective is the context when Jordan dominated the NBA. And believe me, that wasn´t the 80's kind of teams...

And i didn´t say that "Jordan beat a hobbling Pistons team that sucked". What i said is that THE BULLS won (and in sweep fashion) against a team that, in their championship year were 59-23 and 3-0 / 4-1 / 4-3 (Bulls) in the playoffs and 4-1 in the Finals to a team that was, the following year, 50-32, 3-2 to the Hawks, 4-2 to a crippled Celtics team that (if i recall correctly) saw Bird play half the games and McHale half-healthy and then lost to the Bulls.

The same team that had his franchise player lose half the season because of injuries...

From then on, the Bulls never had to face a prime Celtics or Pistons team again.

That´s all.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> You´re wrong, for i don´t "hate" Michael Jordan.
> ...


But this is just terrible reasoning. 

Yes Jordan beat teams with less hall of famers than the one's defeated by Bird, Magic, etc. He also PLAYED with less hall of famers than Bird, Magic etc. Jordan's only constant hall of fame teammate (he played with Gervin in 85 and 86 when George was past done) was Scottie Pippen. Bird had Mchale, Parrish, Johnson, and Walton. Magic had Worthy, Kareem and McAdoo. Jordan didn't have four hall of fame teammates or three hall of fame teammates with one of them, Kareem, being one of the best five players ever. Jordan won rings against teams with just as many hall of famers as him. 

Hall of Famers:
Bulls -- Jordan, Pippen

Teams Bulls beat -- 
Utah -- Malone, Stockton
Indiana -- Mullin, Miller
Utah -- Malone, Stockton
Seattle -- Payton, AND while Kemp nose-dived you could certainly say he was well on his way to being a hall of famer. He certainly played like one in 1996
Portland -- Drexler, Williams (though he'll make it into the "BASKETBALL hall of fame" partly for his college play, he'll still be there, and was a damn good pro)
Cleveland -- Nance, Price
Los Angeles -- Johnson, Worthy
Detroit -- Thomas, Dumars

How is that any different than having 2 hall of famer, or 3 or 4, and beating a team with 2, 3 or 4? Yes.....there was this *phenomenon* called "expansion". That means that EVERY TEAM will have on average less hall of famers on it. Jordan's opponents had less, and HE HAD LESS. 

Are you gonna tell me that Jordan, Worthy and Abdul-Jabbar wouldn't have won 5 rings? Or that Jordan, Mchale, Parrish, Johnson and Walton couldn't have won 3 rings?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> What i can´t stand is all the hype, BS and misticism created around the image of Michael Jordan the player.
> 
> I firmly believe he wasn´t the player media made him appear to be.


Both Bird and Magic have repeatedly said that MJ is the greatest of all time. No media spin there.

Magic is a great player, but I would have to go with Magic's opinion over yours.


----------



## ufm19 (Jun 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> But today's players......the one's who faced Jordan and Shaq were not only bigger and stronger......they also had the same skills. It's not necessarily the give and take you make it out to be. Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson, etc. while bigger, were no less skilled than the centers of Wilt's day.
> ...


ok i've been silent for a long time

first off i would have to say that i don't like chamberlain. at all. he's one of my brother's favorite players and my brother always tried to convince me that he was the best player ever while in my youth i responded with the typical "MJ is better" stuff that everyone uses. MJ's hype has been so overblown it's not even funny. You say that Wilt averaged 50 a game because he was a stat-padder. Yet sometimes people blamed him for not passing enough. Also, perenially his Sixers teams in the 1960s took the Celtics to Game 7 IN BOSTON GARDEN and everyime they lost in the Eastern Conference Finals. This was the greatest dynasty in sports history we're talking about. You can't say the Celtics had nobody- they had Bob Cousy, Sam Jones and Bob Sharman, all HoF and many think Cousy was better than West, Jones better than Arizin. and Sharman better than Billy Cunningham. Your constant argument that Wilt faced awful competition is ignorant. The best argument you can use against him is that scoring numbers were much higher back then, but 13% of his games were against Bill Russell, the greatest defensive player ever. There were nine teams and he faced Russell, Abdul-Jabbar (albeit it that was at the end of his career), Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy all the time. Name other quality SGs that covered MJ in the early 1990s- Joe Dumars? Clyde Drexler? Wilt also led the league in assists one year something MJ NEVER CAME CLOSE TO DOING. And MJ is not the alltime leader in steals, where did you get that? He's third in steals per game, with 2.37, far below Gary Payton (more than 2.7) and Michael Ray Richardson (2.63) and second alltime in total steals below John Stockton. In the 1990s all the great players had been washed out, notably the guards. There were better centers in teh 1960s than guards in the 1990s. Think of the best players of the era and a lot of them were big men- Olajuwon, Malone, Robinson, Ewing, Shaq. Stockton was never a outstanding player just one who played a long time and garnered longevity stats. Wilt averaged more than MJ's 35 career high five times. They probably would've won the 1969 Game 7 if coach van Breda Kolff was jealous of Wilt and took him out in the last few minutes while Wilt tried to reenter the game after an injury heroically. Chamberlain also had a torn tendo he was still recovering from in the 1970 NBA Finals; however he scored 45 points and 27 rebounds in Game 6 when you say he could do nothing. Everyone tends to remember his days with the Lakers; well his time with the Sixers was much better. He has 5 of the seven highest single season totals. He has 122 50-point games; MJ has 37 the most of anyone else. He has 32 60-point games, more than ANYONE ELSE COMBINED in the history of the league. This has happened only 20 other times and MJ was responsible for four of those times. Wilt has 6 70-point games while three people have one (MJ is not one of them) and the most anyone else has scored is 73; he had 100. You ignore this by saying he played against worse competition when MJ played guards just as bad and diluted by expansion. Wilt had 9 teams, MJ had 29. There were so many sub-par 2-guards in the league in the 1990s and MJ had teh virtue of having one of the best defenders ever on his team. As for the height advantage, does it hurt that Wilt was bigger? Noone calls Shaq worse because he is stronger, that just makes him better. In Wilt's rookie season he averaged 37.6 points per game shattering the old record by Bob Pettit which was 29.2 He broke the record by 30 percent in his first year. It's as if a rookie came up this year and broke Barry Bond's record not by hitting 74 but by hitting 97. That was in his rookie year when he had more than MJ would ever have. If centers were so short why didn't anyone else put up these numbers? He had at least 30 points in a game 65 straight games. He had 50 points 45 times in 1962- more than any one else for their career. You can't just say he's a scorer because he averaged 22.9 rebounds per game, the only person in that stratosphere is Bill Russell. He averaged 27.2 rebounds in a season and has 6 of the top 7 rebounding years. He had 40 rebounds 14 times while only 3 other players have reached that once. He once had 21 assists in a game; was that because he was bigger? Insiders say he averaged at least 8 blocks per game. Newspaper accounts from many of the games talk about him blocking 10 or 12 shots. His biggest flaw was his free throw shooting- but it was about the same as Bill Russell's, you don't hear people state that weakness in Russ. You ask for other players who won titles without HoF caliber players? HOW ABOUT BEN WALLACE! No hall of fame players on this year's Pistons, not even close. You can't use your dumb "but the competition was bad" excuse because they played against Shaq and Kobe. Wilt was on two of the greatest teams ever ('67 Sixers and '72 Lakers) but they had to combat the Celtics in the 1960s and the Knicks great teams of the '70s. You can't say it was easy; ooh MJ had to compete with the great Knicks teams of the early 1990s! When he had great players around him but also had top-tier competition and was still in his prime, 1989 and 1990, he lost both times, including a Game 7 where he went 2-for-7 down the stretch. By the way, who is Shaq playing against? A Ben Wallace much shorter than him yet he still puts up normal numbers. Wilt would've won more titles but his guards put up clinkers in the Finals. Billy Cunningham was also hurt in the 1968 Finals. And you call him a choke artist because he "only" won two titles against the greatest dynasty ever and his guards did awful in three Game 7s in three straight years against three great teams. Well, is Dr. J, Moses Malone, Karl Malone, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Rick Barry, Charles Barkley, Nate Thurmond, Andrew Toney, Oscar Robertson choke artists? They all won less than Chamberlain's 2 titles. Hakeem won 2 titles and he's considered the best big-game big man ever. By the way Wilt had Darrell Imhoff guarding him in his 100-point game. This is opinion, but you can't just say stuff that isn't true while bashing Wilt and glorifying MJ like every other person does. The league and Nike did so much for MJ it's not even funny. He was looked at as a hero but they ignored his gambling problem, the fact that he always missed the pre-allstar game banquets and Nike used advertising to beat the image into kids heads that MJ was the greatest to ever play. MJ also always allowed his Finals opponents back into it; he was up 3-1 on the Jazz in '98 but allowed them to win one game and come extremely close to winning another. He was up 2-0 on the Suns but let Phoenix win two of three games in Chicago. He was up 3-0 on Seattle but allowed Payton to outplay him and lose the next two games in 1996. He also lost the 1995 second round series to Orlando. Teams had to cover Pippen as well as Jordan so Jordan was not all by himself in the 1990s whereas people like Tracy McGrady and Bernard King have always had to do all the work. I don't care if you say MJ Is the best player ever but when you say Wilt faced nobody yet place Bill Russell and Kareem ahead of him that's just ignorant, same way if you ignore MJ's shortcomings yet exaggerate Wilt's.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Both Bird and Magic have repeatedly said that MJ is the greatest of all time. No media spin there.
> 
> Magic is a great player, but I would have to go with Magic's opinion over yours.


They must change their minds frequently, though, for they´ve said inumerous times (including the introduction in the Hall last year or couple of years) that each one thought *the other *was the best.

Bird, as i can recall, once said Jordan played like God (after dropping 60+ points on the Celtics)... but nothing more.

Can you provide a link, please?


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

1) Wilt
2) Jordan
2a) Magic
4) Bird
5) Hakeem
6) Shaq
7) Russell
8) Duncan
9) Isiah Thomas


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

jordan
russell
wilt
kareem
bird/magic
magic/bird
shaq
oscar
hakeem
west

i see magic and bird as almost impossible to distinguish.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> No...not to discredit his greatness. But when comparing MAGIC AND MICHAEL absolutely it's a factor. Believe what you want. You weren't taking anything.
> ...


uhh, you do realize that with worthy and scott being hurt we were losing like 35 points between the two of them. Stoppin Jordan was not necessary.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> EDIT- Please stop accusing people of being on drugs. Also don't insult an entire city and its residents. We are getting tired of asking you to be civil with people that don't share your opinion
> ...


i forgot you can never be civil. Did you even read my post? And you actually insult other people! Oh the ironing is delicious. I didnt say players werent tall today, thats great that you named 5 tall players, congratulations. Do you want to argue that there are better centers today? Please, oh please lets make that argument!


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

oh and if Ben Wallace, the most intimidating player in the NBA today and world Champion, is any taller than 6'8, i'll tear my own *** up. Barkely was a midget at Pf and dominated. Baylor was insane for his size. Size hardly matters.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> But this is just terrible reasoning.
> ...


Interesting...
I say Michael had it easier (WAY EASIER) than Bird and Magic due to the talent-depleted era he played (as in no great teams, not as in no great players), and still you give me argumentts to back up my reasoning...

In the 80's, a team with 2 HOF in their prime wouldn´t get the job done. That´s the reason teams like the Lakers couldn´t win without guys like McAdoo (well past his prime), Nixon, Scott, A.C.Green, etc.
The same with the Celtics: Bird and McHale needed guys like Parish, past their prime D.J., Walton, Archibald, etc...
Even the Sixers, with Dr. J, Cheeks, Toney and bobby Jones had to wait till Mo came aboard...

That shows how tough it was to win the title, back then...
And back-to-back titles? Almost unheard of till the late 80's Lakers managed it.

That´s to show how tough it was...

Chicago was a superstar, an HOF, a great role-player and a bunch of scrubs. That combination wouldn´t win a title in the 80's...

In fact, picture today´s NBA. Don´t you think a team with a prime Bird and McHale, Magic and Kareem, Dr. J and Mo, wouldn´t be one of the top favourites to win it all, if surrounded by average role-players?

Granted they wouldn´t be a shoe-in, but those teams would stand high in the rankings, i bet.

Guess what? In the 80's, that wasn´t good enough! Magic´s Lakers went to 9 NBA Finals and lost 4. Sure those Lakers team were stacked, but how did they lose? to superior teams...

When i look upon the teams Chicago beat, there´s almost always a 2-player team, like the ones you posted: StocktontoMalone, Payton/Kemp, etc.

Guess what? Not only their bench was practically non-existent, it gives me a hard time even remembering the rest of the starters...
Greg Ostertag? Craig Ehlo? Blue Edwards? Vern Fleming? Ughhh. 

Now i ask of you: are you willing to admit that, back in the 80's, it took a whole lot more than 2 HOF to win the title?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ufm19</b>!
> 
> ok i've been silent for a long time


Then speak, and you shall be listened to...



> first off i would have to say that i don't like chamberlain. at all.


That´s perfectly fine, by me...



> he's one of my brother's favorite players and my brother always tried to convince me that he was the best player ever while in my youth i responded with the typical "MJ is better" stuff that everyone uses.


Only natural to say that (when you´re a kid...)




> MJ's hype has been so overblown it's not even funny.


True.



> You say that Wilt averaged 50 a game because he was a stat-padder. Yet sometimes people blamed him for not passing enough. Also, perenially his Sixers teams in the 1960s took the Celtics to Game 7 IN BOSTON GARDEN and everyime they lost in the Eastern Conference Finals. This was the greatest dynasty in sports history we're talking about. You can't say the Celtics had nobody- they had Bob Cousy, Sam Jones and Bob Sharman, all HoF and many think Cousy was better than West, Jones better than Arizin. and Sharman better than Billy Cunningham.


Also true.



> Your constant argument that Wilt faced awful competition is ignorant. The best argument you can use against him is that scoring numbers were much higher back then, but 13% of his games were against Bill Russell, the greatest defensive player ever. There were nine teams and he faced Russell, Abdul-Jabbar (albeit it that was at the end of his career), Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy all the time.


True.



> Name other quality SGs that covered MJ in the early 1990s- Joe Dumars? Clyde Drexler?


That about sums it up, unless one´s willing to gloat Reggie Miller and Craig Ehlo´s astonishing defensive habilities...



> Wilt also led the league in assists one year something MJ NEVER CAME CLOSE TO DOING.


Something that will never happen again.



> And MJ is not the alltime leader in steals, where did you get that? He's third in steals per game, with 2.37, far below Gary Payton (more than 2.7) and Michael Ray Richardson (2.63) and second alltime in total steals below John Stockton.


True.



> In the 1990s all the great players had been washed out, notably the guards.


Sad, but true...




> Wilt has 6 70-point games while three people have one (MJ is not one of them) and the most anyone else has scored is 73; he had 100.


No greater offensive force has been born... 



> You ignore this by saying he played against worse competition when MJ played guards just as bad and diluted by expansion. Wilt had 9 teams, MJ had 29. There were so many sub-par 2-guards in the league in the 1990s and MJ had teh virtue of having one of the best defenders ever on his team.


Yeah, i also thought LB was reaching, here... 



> As for the height advantage, does it hurt that Wilt was bigger? Noone calls Shaq worse because he is stronger, that just makes him better. In Wilt's rookie season he averaged 37.6 points per game shattering the old record by Bob Pettit which was 29.2 He broke the record by 30 percent in his first year. It's as if a rookie came up this year and broke Barry Bond's record not by hitting 74 but by hitting 97. That was in his rookie year when he had more than MJ would ever have. If centers were so short why didn't anyone else put up these numbers? He had at least 30 points in a game 65 straight games. He had 50 points 45 times in 1962- more than any one else for their career. You can't just say he's a scorer because he averaged 22.9 rebounds per game, the only person in that stratosphere is Bill Russell. He averaged 27.2 rebounds in a season and has 6 of the top 7 rebounding years. He had 40 rebounds 14 times while only 3 other players have reached that once. He once had 21 assists in a game; was that because he was bigger? Insiders say he averaged at least 8 blocks per game. Newspaper accounts from many of the games talk about him blocking 10 or 12 shots. His biggest flaw was his free throw shooting- but it was about the same as Bill Russell's, you don't hear people state that weakness in Russ.


I wish i could write this good... 



> You ask for other players who won titles without HoF caliber players? HOW ABOUT BEN WALLACE! No hall of fame players on this year's Pistons, not even close. You can't use your dumb "but the competition was bad" excuse because they played against Shaq and Kobe. Wilt was on two of the greatest teams ever ('67 Sixers and '72 Lakers) but they had to combat the Celtics in the 1960s and the Knicks great teams of the '70s. You can't say it was easy;


The more i think about it, the more i believe you would have to be in denial to say things like this...



> ooh MJ had to compete with the great Knicks teams of the early 1990s!


The great what? 
Let´s see... there was P-Ew, Oakley, i believe, and... and... and... i can´t remeber... Gerald Wilkins?



> When he had great players around him but also had top-tier competition and was still in his prime, 1989 and 1990, he lost both times, including a Game 7 where he went 2-for-7 down the stretch. By the way, who is Shaq playing against? A Ben Wallace much shorter than him yet he still puts up normal numbers. Wilt would've won more titles but his guards put up clinkers in the Finals. Billy Cunningham was also hurt in the 1968 Finals. And you call him a choke artist because he "only" won two titles against the greatest dynasty ever and his guards did awful in three Game 7s in three straight years against three great teams.


True. 



> Well, is Dr. J, Moses Malone, Karl Malone, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Rick Barry, Charles Barkley, Nate Thurmond, Andrew Toney, Oscar Robertson choke artists?


Some would say they are. Forget it, not some, only LB... 



> This is opinion, but you can't just say stuff that isn't true while bashing Wilt and glorifying MJ like every other person does. The league and Nike did so much for MJ it's not even funny. He was looked at as a hero but they ignored his gambling problem, the fact that he always missed the pre-allstar game banquets and Nike used advertising to beat the image into kids heads that MJ was the greatest to ever play.


Unfortunately true.




> Teams had to cover Pippen as well as Jordan so Jordan was not all by himself in the 1990s whereas people like Tracy McGrady and Bernard King have always had to do all the work. I don't care if you say MJ Is the best player ever but when you say Wilt faced nobody yet place Bill Russell and Kareem ahead of him that's just ignorant, same way if you ignore MJ's shortcomings yet exaggerate Wilt's.


Just 4 words: God damned fine post! :greatjob:


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Wasnt Bill Russell named the greatest player of all time on the NBAs 30th anniversary? Those people voting would obviously know more than we do, since their memory of Wilt/Russell was fresh. If Wilt truly is undoubtedly the greatest player of all time, then why was Russell given that title around 1980 I believe it was? 

But yeah you're right, anyone who thinks Jordan is the greatest ever must be crazy and brainwashed by Nike and the NBA. Thats the only possible way for "Jordan haters" to justify why so many people see Jordan as the best ever. Yet, if you think Magic or Wilt are the best, you're okay and its all opinion. Seems like a double standard to me.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> But yeah you're right, anyone who thinks Jordan is the greatest ever must be crazy and brainwashed by Nike and the NBA. Thats the only possible way for "Jordan haters" to justify why so many people see Jordan as the best ever. Yet, if you think Magic or Wilt are the best, you're okay and its all opinion. Seems like a double standard to me.


Look, John, it´s all subjective opinion, here.
I may believe Wilt´s the GOAT. You may believe it´s Jordan. Some people may believe it was Oscar.

So what?

This has happened zillions of times. No "_____ (insert players name here) hating", as far as i´m concerned.

After all, i always believed Pele was the undisputed greatest soccer player ever. But some say it was Maradona. So what? "Pele haters"? Off course not.

After all, if we all agreed in everything, what would become of BBB.Net?


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> Look, John, it´s all subjective opinion, here.
> I may believe Wilt´s the GOAT. You may believe it´s Jordan. Some people may believe it was Oscar.
> 
> ...


Thats fine, but its insulting to assume that anyone who thinks Jordan is the greatest must be brainwashed or influenced by the media and Nike. Thats a way of trying to make someones opinion that Jordan is the greatest less legitimate. 

The NBA has been played for 50+ years, thats way too many seasons and way too many great players for everyone to agree on one. You could make a case for atleast 5 players being the greatest. 

As for the "haters" bit, Lakers fans pull that more than any other fanbase about Kobe and their team in general, so I wouldnt go there.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> Interesting...
> I say Michael had it easier (WAY EASIER) than Bird and Magic due to the talent-depleted era he played (as in no great teams, not as in no great players), and still you give me argumentts to back up my reasoning...


You fail to understand his argument. He's saying that while the Bulls' opponents may not have been as talented as the Lakers' opponents, the Bulls were never as talented, top to bottom, first man to twelfth man, as the Lakers.

In the '80s, superteams could be assembled. So while the Lakers had to play loaded Celtic or Pistons teams, the Lakers, themselves, were loaded.

In many seasons, the Bulls were not loaded, nor did they play loaded teams. So, the accomplishments of Jordan and Pippen were just as impressive as those of Magic and Abdul-Jabbar. Jordan and Pippen didn't have Worthy and Nixon and Cooper and Thompson. They had lesser players like Grant and Paxson and Cartwright.

So, the "less-loaded" aspect of the '90s NBA cut *both* ways. It meant the Bulls played less loaded teams but it also meant the Bulls were less loaded.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> Interesting...
> ...


You are arguing my argument for me. 

Yes Magic played against better teams than Jordan did. Magic also played ON better teams than Jordan. Who had more hall of famers on his team than Magic in the 80s? The answer is Larry Bird who had 3 or 4 to Magic's 2 or 3. And Bird *did not have a top 5 all-time player on his team like Kareem*. So we'll say the only player who played on a team AS GOOD as Magic's Laker team was Bird. What other team from the 1980s even had 3 total hall of famers? The 83 Sixers? They swept LA. The 1980 Sixers had more than 2 hall of famers total? LA won in 1988 vs. the Pistons who had two hall of famers. That leaves three rings over the 1982 Sixers and the 85 and 87 Celtics. So we'll say that Magic won two rings over a team that was even AS GOOD as his Lakers. The Celtics were not better aggregately than Magic's Lakers. 

Now as for Jordan......

He played the 1991 Pistons and won. NOW you're thinking, "ok, same team".....but unlike Magic's Lakers, Jordan's Bulls only had 2 hall of famers, JUST LIKE THE PISTONS. 

And after Thomas and Dumars you had.....

Rodman
Laimbeer
Johnson
Agguire

Legends? No. Hall of Famers? No. Nobodies, like the one's you claimed lined MJ's opponents? No.

How about the Cleveland teams MJ beat 3 times. The 1989 team had not only Larry Nance and Mark Price.....BUT

Ron Harper
Brad Daugherty

Neither sucked. They were both VERY good players. So when you say Craig Ehlo.......it leaves me wondering. First, because Craig Ehlo was their SF.....sure he guarded Jordan on "the shot" but he was usually the help defender on Jordan. So when you see MJ abusing Ehlo......it's because he already passed up Ron Harper or Gerald Wilkins so bad that they aren't even in the screen.

1993 New York Knicks

Sure they only had one hall of famer, but Doc Rivers could be considered borderline.....That team also had Anthony Mason, Charles Oakley, Derek Harper and John Starks.....none of whom sucked, at least not at that time. 

1992 Portland Trailblazers

After Drexler and Williams there was Jerome Kersey, Cliff Robinson, Terry Porter. That team didn't suck either. In fact....they beat Magic's Lakers in 1990. Were Worthy and Scott hurt then?

1996 Seattle Supersonics

After Payton and Kemp you had Frank Brickowski....lol jk. Hersey Hawkins, Nate McMillan and Detlef Schrempf did not suck at all. 

1997 and 1998 Utah Jazz

Jeff Hornacek sucked? Remember this is the same Jazz team that swept Kobe and Shaq in 1998. Del Harris nothing.....to sweep Kobe and Shaq you have to be DAMN GOOD. 

1996 Orlando Magic

Shaq was in his dunking and bulldozing prime. We ALL know that Penny Hardaway was on his way to a hall of fame career before the knee injury. It's like playing Grant Hill before he broke his leg.....we'd all agree Grant was a hall of fame caliber player before that. Horace Grant, Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott did NOT suck. 

1993 Phoenix Suns

After Barkley and Johnson you had Dan Majerle (who had a GREAT year) and Frank Johnson. Neither sucked. Richard Dumas was WELL on his way to being a good player, and played well that entire year......before he ran into this thing called crack lol. 

Jordan beat teams with equal strength.......so did Bird and so did Magic. Because first of all.....both the Lakers and Celtics were above everyone else in the league as teams. So the only way to argue that Magic beat better teams than the one he played for was to say that Bird didn't. Because one side of that sentence can't be true without the other and vice versa. 

So either the Lakers were better than the Celtics and the win was no more admirable than Jordan beating the 1993 Knicks, OR they were equal and my theory holds true that just like Jordan Magic beat teams of equal strength, OR the Celtics were better than the Lakers and the Lakers pulled out two upsets.


----------



## ufm19 (Jun 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> You are arguing my argument for me.
> ...


What? I don't understand your final three paragraphs

and i was being sarcastic when i talked about the great early 1990s Knicks team. The point is those teams were good teams but not as good as the 1980s Lakers and Celtics. My point is not that MJ is reduced for winning but that you guys talk about how he scored against tougher competition than Wilt but the individual talent at guard was depleted in the early 1990s especially. You don't judge a team based on how many Hall of Famers; that would doom this year's Pistons. I never said Hornacek sucked, is he on par with say Dennis Rodman as the third best player? You seem to be arguing the wrong argument- I never said MJ is worse because his teams played worse competition I said that you constantly say Wilt had no one to play against in the '60s and I am merely showing you that you are completely wrong especially compared to 1990s guards. Your contradicting yourself.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Jordan led the league in SPG nearly his entire career. He's the all-time leader in PPG AND SPG.
> ...


Nine teams that year and these are the top ones, not counting Wilt. 

Russell: 19 ppg, 24 rpg, 5 assistspg

Johnny Kerr: 16 ppg, 15 rpg, 3apg

Bob Petit: 31.1 ppg, 19 rpg, 4apg

Walt Bellamy: 31.6 ppg, 19 rpg, 2.7apg


----------



## ufm19 (Jun 7, 2004)

yea that mj alltime steals leader stat was idiotic

lb don't make up stuff


and now you are going nowhere with your argument and i didn't say mj fans were brainwashed i just said he has been widely recognized as the best player ever and everynoe says that, the NBA and Nike beats this image into every fan's head.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> jordan
> russell
> wilt
> ...


My list would be like this - with the exception of the order of them.

Russell would be #1 and Hakeem would be higher than Wilt.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

well i argued all my points earlier, and LB clearly cant cut it in this thread. So let me finally say my rough top 10.

1 - MJ
2 - Wilt
3 - Russell
4 - Magic
5 - Oscar
6 - Bird
7 - Kareem
8 - Hakeem
9 - West
10 - Shaq


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBruins</b>!
> well i argued all my points earlier, and LB clearly cant cut it in this thread. So let me finally say my rough top 10.
> 
> 1 - MJ
> ...


Oh im cutting it just fine.....one thing....where's Kobe lol?


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

Hey my bad on the 1st all time in steals per game. He's fourth and only one player in front of him is really that great.....Gary Payton. 

Also.....I'd love to respond to your long post.....if you want to break it down into paragraphs or some coherent organized though. If not......I will get to it tomorrow, and prove your arguments wrong.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ufm19</b>!
> yea that mj alltime steals leader stat was *idiotic*
> 
> lb don't make up stuff
> ...


Bait?

Mods....please no double standards....this place is better than Realgm.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh im cutting it just fine.....one thing....where's Kobe lol?


Kobe is too young to be anywhere NEAR a top 10 all time list.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Bait?
> ...


I like this post and this poster. Yoo, may I know your race? White? Black? I like this poster.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

LB26matrixns,

I think it is wrong for you to automatically eliminate anyone from being considered the "best ever" who played prior to 1980.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> LB26matrixns,
> 
> I think it is wrong for you to automatically eliminate anyone from being considered the "best ever" who played prior to 1980.


Not at all.....If Russell had won like he did, with maybe a few less hall of famers, and slightly better offense......I think we're talking serious contention.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> You are arguing my argument for me.
> ...


Are you ruling out the double-threepeat Chicago Bulls from the list of greatest teams ever?
It sure sounds like it... [/QUOTE]



> Who had more hall of famers on his team than Magic in the 80s? The answer is Larry Bird who had 3 or 4 to Magic's 2 or 3. And Bird *did not have a top 5 all-time player on his team like Kareem*.


We should agree Kareem was NOT his top-5 all.time self in 85 and beyond, don´t you agree (turning 37 years old in 85...) 




> So we'll say the only player who played on a team AS GOOD as Magic's Laker team was Bird. What other team from the 1980s even had 3 total hall of famers? The 83 Sixers? They swept LA. The 1980 Sixers had more than 2 hall of famers total? LA won in 1988 vs. the Pistons who had two hall of famers. That leaves three rings over the 1982 Sixers and the 85 and 87 Celtics. So we'll say that Magic won two rings over a team that was even AS GOOD as his Lakers. The Celtics were not better aggregately than Magic's Lakers.


Are you discounting the fact that Magic made 9 trips to the Finals?
And what about the West competition back then?
You know, Magic´s Lakers didn´t only played in the Finals... they had to *get* there.
And to do that they faced (and defeated) great teams... 



> Now as for Jordan......
> 
> He played the 1991 Pistons and won. NOW you're thinking, "ok, same team".....but unlike Magic's Lakers, Jordan's Bulls only had 2 hall of famers, JUST LIKE THE PISTONS.
> 
> ...


The Pistons had a weak season in 90-91 and went roller-coasting downhill from there on...
Scrappy, never-say-die team? Yes.
Great team (post 1990-91)? No.



> How about the Cleveland teams MJ beat 3 times. The 1989 team had not only Larry Nance and Mark Price.....BUT
> 
> Ron Harper
> Brad Daugherty
> ...


Harper (who was a great player pre-injury) only played in Cleveland for 3 years, and till 88-89.
Price got severely injured in 90-91, and
suffered a little the following years.
Brad was oft-injured.
As to who was defending Jordan, you got me there: John Battle? Gerald Wallace? Lol.
The Cavs were a good, finesse team. Their stronger player was Nance, who i liked a lot, but they were no match for the Bulls frontcourt players and, off course, never had a SG and SF who could match-up to Ol´Baldy and Pipsqueak...



> 1993 New York Knicks
> 
> Sure they only had one hall of famer, but Doc Rivers could be considered borderline.....


No, he couldn´t.



> That team also had Anthony Mason, Charles Oakley, Derek Harper and John Starks.....none of whom sucked, at least not at that time.


Except for Harper (who was way past his prime), neither of those 3 could shoot (about Starks, see NBA Finals against Houston).
Again, no SG or SF worthy speaking of... well, maybe X-Man (also way past his prime) for one year... 



> 1992 Portland Trailblazers
> 
> After Drexler and Williams there was Jerome Kersey, Cliff Robinson, Terry Porter. That team didn't suck either. In fact....they beat Magic's Lakers in 1990. Were Worthy and Scott hurt then?


No, they didn´t suck.
But they are often regarded as an underachieving team.
They didn´t beat the Lakers in 1990. Phoenix did.
They were, however, beaten by the Lakers in 1991 with homecourt advantage...
But they were a great team, i´ll give you that...



> 1996 Seattle Supersonics
> 
> After Payton and Kemp you had Frank Brickowski....lol jk. Hersey Hawkins, Nate McMillan and Detlef Schrempf did not suck at all.


No bench what-so-ever.
No experience.
No go-to guy and diffrence-maker.
That will cost you in a NBA Final.



> 1997 and 1998 Utah Jazz
> 
> Jeff Hornacek sucked? Remember this is the same Jazz team that swept Kobe and Shaq in 1998. Del Harris nothing.....to sweep Kobe and Shaq you have to be DAMN GOOD.


No bench.
Hole in the middle (as in GIGANTIC HOLE). 



> 1996 Orlando Magic
> 
> Shaq was in his dunking and bulldozing prime. We ALL know that Penny Hardaway was on his way to a hall of fame career before the knee injury. It's like playing Grant Hill before he broke his leg.....we'd all agree Grant was a hall of fame caliber player before that. Horace Grant, Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott did NOT suck.


Inexperienced.
A lot. 



> 1993 Phoenix Suns
> 
> After Barkley and Johnson you had Dan Majerle (who had a GREAT year) and Frank Johnson. Neither sucked. Richard Dumas was WELL on his way to being a good player, and played well that entire year......before he ran into this thing called crack lol.


Frank Who?
I easily concede that was a great team... 



> Jordan beat teams with equal strength.......so did Bird and so did Magic. Because first of all.....both the Lakers and Celtics were above everyone else in the league as teams. So the only way to argue that Magic beat better teams than the one he played for was to say that Bird didn't. Because one side of that sentence can't be true without the other and vice versa.
> 
> So either the Lakers were better than the Celtics and the win was no more admirable than Jordan beating the 1993 Knicks, OR they were equal and my theory holds true that just like Jordan Magic beat teams of equal strength, OR the Celtics were better than the Lakers and the Lakers pulled out two upsets.


So, you want to reduce this debate about playing in the Finals, heh?

Should i put up every great team in the NBA during Magic´s Lakers dominance?
Now what was Chicago´s competition during the regular season (even playoffs) when they dominated?


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> Are you ruling out the double-threepeat Chicago Bulls from the list of greatest teams ever?
> It sure sounds like it...


No.....rather obvious that I spoke in the context of the team OUTSIDE of the players we were arguing. Bird played with more talent than MJ, BUT MJ's so much better than Bird that not only does he end up being better than Bird, but the Bulls end up being better than Boston.



> We should agree Kareem was NOT his top-5 all.time self in 85 and beyond, don´t you agree (turning 37 years old in 85...)


Yes.....he may have been older, but he was still a top 5 player. His skyhook never went away. It was something that didn't become ineffective with age.

In 1985, Magic's third ring year, Abdul-Jabbar averaged 22 PPG on 59.9% FG. In 1987, the year of Magic's fourth ring, Kareem averaged only 17.5 BUT still on 56.4% FG. Finally he averaged 14.6 PPG in 1988 still shooting 53.2% from the field. Most people would take 1985 Abdul Jabbar over Pippen in any season. You can't win this argument. Yes.....Michael Jordan beat teams with less talent.......he also had 11 teammates comprised of less talent. It's the reality of having more teams....which the NBA did when Jordan's Bulls were done being built, than when Bird and Magic came into ready-made situations in 1980. 



> Are you discounting the fact that Magic made 9 trips to the Finals?
> And what about the West competition back then?
> You know, Magic´s Lakers didn´t only played in the Finals... they had to *get* there.
> And to do that they faced (and defeated) great teams...


Like who? What team with 3 or 4 hall of famers did Magic beat in the west?? 



> The Pistons had a weak season in 90-91 and went roller-coasting downhill from there on...
> Scrappy, never-say-die team? Yes.
> Great team (post 1990-91)? No.


Yeah you said post 1991....well Jordan played them IN 1991.....so I would say you just conceded that point by your own language.



> Harper (who was a great player pre-injury) only played in Cleveland for 3 years, and till 88-89.
> Price got severely injured in 90-91, and
> suffered a little the following years.
> Brad was oft-injured.
> ...


Yes because Jordan and Pippen were too good. Nobody besides Boston (Bird) in the history of the NBA ever did have a SG or SF who could match up with Jordan and Pippen. LOL so funny how Gerald Wallace sucks, but Kobe fans try to make a CBA journeyman like Bruce Bowen out to be this great defender. Price played more than 74 games in 1992 and 1993......Jordan didn't face Price in 1991. 



> No, he couldn´t.


Your opinion. Way to back it up with some sort of evidence. 



> Except for Harper (who was way past his prime), neither of those 3 could shoot (about Starks, see NBA Finals against Houston).
> Again, no SG or SF worthy speaking of... well, maybe X-Man (also way past his prime) for one year...


They all had good years that year. LMAO didn't Derek Harper appear in games during the Lakers recent title run? But he was past his prime in 1993?



> No, they didn´t suck.
> But they are often regarded as an underachieving team.
> They didn´t beat the Lakers in 1990. Phoenix did.
> They were, however, beaten by the Lakers in 1991 with homecourt advantage...
> But they were a great team, i´ll give you that...


Take my lumps on that...should have used the terminology "advanced further than the Lakers"



> No bench what-so-ever.
> No experience.
> No go-to guy and diffrence-maker.
> That will cost you in a NBA Final.


Gary Payton wasn't a difference maker in 1996? ROFL have you completely lost it. Shawn Kemp absolutely was a go to guy in 1996.....that was until he found the crack rock.



> No bench.
> Hole in the middle (as in GIGANTIC HOLE).


Ehhhh and what do you call Luc Longley? See what I mean....you are a phenomenal piece of work. "Jordan can't be called legit with that HUGE advantage Luc Longley had over Greg Ostertag. They both sucked... 



> Inexperienced.
> A lot.


Grant was inexperienced? He had huge experience right there, AND what Orlando lost in experience they gained in youthful athleticism. Not to mention.....

*THAT TEAM HAD JUST GONE TO THE NBA FINALS THE YEAR BEFORE!!!!!!* Yeah cause all the time players play in the NBA finals and then they're like...ahhh that wasn't really a learning experience. 



> Frank Who?
> I easily concede that was a great team...


 



> So, you want to reduce this debate about playing in the Finals, heh?
> 
> Should i put up every great team in the NBA during Magic´s Lakers dominance?
> Now what was Chicago´s competition during the regular season (even playoffs) when they dominated?


What team can you put up that has as many hall of famers as Magic's Lakers besides the Celtics, and of course the 1983 Sixers that swept you? The point was......I provided an array of teams with as many hall of famers as MJ's Bulls. Were there tons of teams with 3 and 4 hall of famers back in the 80s.........OR WERE MAGIC AND BIRD LUCKY ENOUGH TO PLAY ON THE ONLY TWO MAINSTAYS IN THAT CATEGORY


----------



## ufm19 (Jun 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 
> 
> I like this post and this poster. Yoo, may I know your race? White? Black? I like this poster.


are you talking about me? if so i am white

sorry to disappoint you in any way

lb i am not involved in your little "mj's teams were worse" debate but you said you would argue against my long post. please do i want to see what you have cooked up. I easily concede that MJ was better than Magic and Bird but I find Wilt to be a better player. Again, read my post. Don't really understand what you are trying to prove here.


----------



## ufm19 (Jun 7, 2004)

ok now i understand

you say bird and magic only won 3 and 5 titles while those were the only two great teams maybe that's because THEY TRADED TITLES EACH YEAR! it's not like Bird and Magic constantly lost to lesser teams each year; the LAkers lost to the Rockets twice in the 1980s and made the Finals 9 out of 12 years. Hard to do better than that, especially when all four of their Finals losses were to great, great teams (1983 Sixers, 1984 Celtics, 1989 Pistons, and 1991 Bulls) even though they were swept twice. Are you saying that those Bulls should've been easy and the fact that Magic was upset by a worse team hurts his status, yet Michael is better because he made a team with worse talent better? that makes no sense because that seems like what you are trying to say.


----------



## ufm19 (Jun 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> Hey my bad on the 1st all time in steals per game. He's fourth and only one player in front of him is really that great.....Gary Payton.


does this make MJ better? Does it make him better that bad players are ahead of him on the alltime steals list? Seems more like this stat is not as important as you are making it out to be. Once again, you contradict yourself. You make him seem amazing for being the best in steals ever, then when you find out he's not you say "oh the people ahead of him suck it doesn't really matter"



> Also.....I'd love to respond to your long post.....if you want to break it down into paragraphs or some coherent organized though. If not......I will get to it tomorrow, and prove your arguments wrong.


oh my post is organized enough

you just have to read it *insert insults here*


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ufm19</b>!
> ok now i understand
> 
> you say bird and magic only won 3 and 5 titles while those were the only two great teams maybe that's because THEY TRADED TITLES EACH YEAR! it's not like Bird and Magic constantly lost to lesser teams each year; the LAkers lost to the Rockets twice in the 1980s and made the Finals 9 out of 12 years. Hard to do better than that, especially when all four of their Finals losses were to great, great teams (1983 Sixers, 1984 Celtics, 1989 Pistons, and 1991 Bulls) even though they were swept twice. Are you saying that those Bulls should've been easy and the fact that Magic was upset by a worse team hurts his status, yet Michael is better because he made a team with worse talent better? that makes no sense because that seems like what you are trying to say.


Just like Jordan......Bird and Magic beat teams of equal greatness, aside from Jordan, Bird and Magic


----------



## ufm19 (Jun 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Just like Jordan......Bird and Magic beat teams of equal greatness, aside from Jordan, Bird and Magic


this is not my argument

yes MJ is better than both of them but not by an otherworldly amount. There are 8 players all whom a case could be made for being the best player ever after that there is a dropoff: Wilt, MJ, Shaq, Kareem, Bill Russell, Magic, Bird, and Oscar Robertson. It's pretty much moving that list 

answer my long post you still haven't done it


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ufm19</b>!
> 
> 
> this is not my argument
> ...


Oh I definitely agree. What is so weird about your long post is I agree with half of it. Jordan is NOT the best by leaps and bounds.....by the sheer nature of the sport nobody could be. Jordan is the best and better than Wilt, and although I rated Wilt seventh......yes....you're right. The top 8 is PRETTY CLOSE.

I think you have the wrong Jordan fan. First of all, I think the media doesn't even highlight the proper parts of his career. What do they show you when they show you Jordan? His crazy dunks over Dominique or the entire Blazers, or that move where he went inside, outside around back and underneath on the Nets? No. They show you some stupid *** jumper or that dumb *** changing hands move. The media doesn't know anything about anything.....at least not the ones who give you the hype. Yeah your Frank Deford types....they know a lot, which is why I give the postseason awards respect. But the guys who sit there and guzzle about MJ half the time don't even know that much about MJ's career. They watched the playoffs in the 1990s and they think that's his whole career.

So is Jordan better than Bird? Yes. Better than Wilt? Yes. Twice as good or something crazy like that? No. You'll never have a great player be THAT much better than another great player.


----------



## ufm19 (Jun 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh I definitely agree. What is so weird about your long post is I agree with half of it. Jordan is NOT the best by leaps and bounds.....by the sheer nature of the sport nobody could be. Jordan is the best and better than Wilt, and although I rated Wilt seventh......yes....you're right. The top 8 is PRETTY CLOSE.
> ...


that's not what i mean

what about the stuff about wilt, about how his competition at center was about the same as MJs at guard? How Wilt's scoring feats destroy MJ's? read that part then we talk


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ufm19</b>!
> 
> 
> that's not what i mean
> ...


The discrepency was NOT the same. MJ played against Reggie Miller, Clyde Drexler, Paul Pressey, Gerald Wilkins, Ron Harper, Steve Smith, Mitch Richmond, Nick Anderson, Rolando Blackmon, Drazen Petrovic, Adrian Dantley, Alex English, etc. Care to show me that many players 1" shorter than Wilt from Wilt's day? Besides Kareem who was even 7'? Nate Thurmond = 6'11", Walt Bellamy = 6'11".

Also......Wilt's REGULAR SEASON scoring feets do destroy MJ's, but one...go back to his competition and you'll see why......two:

*MJ won 4 more rings, and played with 6 less hall of famers*.

You mistake the point of this......the point is not "Wilt sucks, his achievements are meaningless."

The point is......Wilt is often made out to be this mythical figure JUST LIKE MJ. I'm willing to concede that the media has no idea WTF they're talking about when it comes to MJ (aside from your Frank DeFord types), but people try to mystify Wilt too....when a few things should be known so that the average fan can take Wilt's achievements in their proper context:

54% FG% -- Consider that McHale shot 55.4% 

52.2 Playoff FG% -- Consider that Eddy Curry's regular season FG% is higher than that LOL. 

22 PPG in the playoffs -- Where was Wilt's legendary scoring when the games counted?

Horrendous FT%

2 Rings -- Played with 7 hall of famers (Arizin, Greer, McGinnis, Walker, West, Baylor, Goodrich), which means his teams often had as MUCH ammo as Russell did. Remember....Russell didn't have all 8 hall of famers at once..by the time Havlicek was coming up, Heinsohn, Cousy and Sharman were done.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> They must change their minds frequently, though, for they´ve said inumerous times (including the introduction in the Hall last year or couple of years) that each one thought *the other *was the best.
> ...


Bird and Magic said it on the ESPN show with Lebron and Melo. The same show where Bird said he was offended when white guys guarded him.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> The discrepency was NOT the same. MJ played against Reggie Miller, Clyde Drexler, Paul Pressey, Gerald Wilkins, Ron Harper, Steve Smith, Mitch Richmond, Nick Anderson, Rolando Blackmon, Drazen Petrovic, Adrian Dantley, Alex English, etc. Care to show me that many players 1" shorter than Wilt from Wilt's day? Besides Kareem who was even 7'? Nate Thurmond = 6'11", Walt Bellamy = 6'11".
> ...


the teams mj was beating - how many hall-of-famers did they have?

the teams wilt was playing - how many hall-of-famers? 

also - wilt was bigger and stronger than his competition. so is shaq. so would wilt be no matter when he played. wilt was a freak - not for his time, but for any time.

again, i'd go with mj, but wilt was awesome, for any time. he had some team failures that keep him below, imo.


----------



## ufm19 (Jun 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> The discrepency was NOT the same. MJ played against Reggie Miller, Clyde Drexler, Paul Pressey, Gerald Wilkins, Ron Harper, Steve Smith, Mitch Richmond, Nick Anderson, Rolando Blackmon, Drazen Petrovic, Adrian Dantley, Alex English, etc. Care to show me that many players 1" shorter than Wilt from Wilt's day? Besides Kareem who was even 7'? Nate Thurmond = 6'11", Walt Bellamy = 6'11".
> ...


Wilt played with an old Arizin, an old Greer when he was the Sixers. HE played with an old West, an old Baylor, and an old Goodrich when he was with the Lakers. Also, like I said, Cousy, Jones, and Sharman were all better than Arizin, Greer, and Cunningham. Wilt's coaches made him pass the ball to his guards who constantly missed it in the playoffs.


----------



## ufm19 (Jun 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> The discrepency was NOT the same. MJ played against Reggie Miller, Clyde Drexler, Paul Pressey, Gerald Wilkins, Ron Harper, Steve Smith, Mitch Richmond, Nick Anderson, Rolando Blackmon, Drazen Petrovic, Adrian Dantley, Alex English, etc. Care to show me that many players 1" shorter than Wilt from Wilt's day? Besides Kareem who was even 7'? Nate Thurmond = 6'11", Walt Bellamy = 6'11".
> ...


Wilt played with an old Arizin, an old Greer when he was the Sixers. HE played with an old West, an old Baylor, and an old Goodrich when he was with the Lakers. Also, like I said, Cousy, Jones, and Sharman were all better than Arizin, Greer, and Cunningham. Wilt's coaches made him pass the ball to his guards who constantly missed it in the playoffs. 

By the way who is Paul Presser? The thing is HALF OF WILT'S GAMES WERE AGAINST HOF CENTERS! Kareem, Russell, Walt Bellamy, Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond: Six centers on the 8 teams Wilt had to play. The fact that Wilt put up 50 per game without making a bunch of free throws might actually add to his greatness. He was a world class high jumper as well. The only time Wilt should've won the title against Russell was 1969 but it was then that coach van breda Kolff didn't put in Wilt for the last few minutes and the Lakers squandered a lead. At the most 2 or 3 of the people you mentioned will be in the Hall of Fame, that's 1/14th of the games MJ played. Over half of Wilt's games were against Hall of Fame players. You can't say MJ's competition was much harder; there wasn't as many centers because there were a third as much teams yet there were much more Hall of Fame centers.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> the teams mj was beating - how many hall-of-famers did they have?
> ...


The teams MJ was beating had as many hall of famers as his Bulls. The teams Wilt was losing too had as many. Like I said....Wilt had West and Baylor on 69 and he loses to Boston when Boston has only Havlicek and Sam Jones. West and Baylor aren't WAY better than Havlicek and Sam Jones?


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ufm19</b>!
> 
> 
> Wilt played with an old Arizin, an *old Greer (I guess 29 is old now?)* when he was the Sixers. HE played with an old West, an old Baylor, and an *old Goodrich (27 is old?)* when he was with the Lakers. Also, like I said, Cousy, Jones, and Sharman were all better than Arizin, Greer, and Cunningham. Wilt's coaches made him pass the ball to his guards who constantly missed it in the playoffs.


You make some of the most ridiculous claims I've ever read

Gail Goodrich was 27 years old when he joined Wilt on the Lakers in 1979

http://www.nba.com/history/players/goodrich_summary.html

Hal Greer was 29 when he joined Wilt

http://www.nba.com/history/players/greer_summary.html

Baylor was 34 when Wilt joined him. Jordan was winning rings and MVPs at 34.

Jerry West was 30 when Wilt joined West. Pippen was 30, 31 and 32 during the Bulls last three peat. 

Cousy was 31 in Chamberlain's rookie year. Sharman was 33 during Wilt's rookie year. Both were washed up by the time Chamberlain was beginning to contend. How can you take your own argument seriously, when I am showing you that if anyone was old....it was Chamberlain's OPPONENTS! Russell and Sam Jones were 36 when the 69 Celtics beat a 32 year old Chamberlain and a 30 year old West in the Finals in the Finals.

Way to bring up Cunningham.....

Now we're talking.

Hall of fame teammates

Chamberlain 8 -- Greer, Arizin, Cunningham, Walker, McGinnis, West, Baylor, Goodrich
Russell 7 -- Cousy, Sharman, Havlicek, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Nelson, Heinsohn
Jordan 2 -- Pippen, Gervin

Rings
Russell 11
Jordan 6 
Chamberlain 2

L O L


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ufm19</b>!
> 
> 
> Wilt played with an old Arizin, an old Greer when he was the Sixers. HE played with an old West, an old Baylor, and an old Goodrich when he was with the Lakers. Also, like I said, Cousy, Jones, and Sharman were all better than Arizin, Greer, and Cunningham. Wilt's coaches made him pass the ball to his guards who constantly missed it in the playoffs.
> ...


Hall of famers that were on average 3 inches shorter and 50 pounds lighter. I've already shown you.......only Kareem would be center nowadays, or at least in Jordan's day as the last two years have seen the center position go funky. Point was......who did Jordan play that was more than an inch shorter than him? Dennis Johnson and Joe Dumars? They were 6'4" and the ONLY 6'4" guards I can remember guarding Jordan for season after season. Both are hall of famers and were perrenial members of the all defensive team. 

Also you named 5 centers and then said "6 centers of the 8 teams Wilt played against"......also Wilt played against Kareem for what? Three years?

Jordan played against way more than 2 hall of famers, or players you can argue will be hall of famers. Among them

Kobe Bryant 
Tracy McGrady
Reggie Miller
Mitch Richmond
Joe Dumars
Dennis Johnson
Clyde Drexler
Adrian Dantley
Alex English
Drazen Petrovic
Paul Pierce
Vince Carter
Ron Artest
Bernard King
Jeff Malone


Pressey was a two-time All Defensive First team player and was 6'7". 

But like I said....please don't skew things. Playing Kareem for three seasons is about as stupid as putting McGrady in Jordan's "players faced" category, which I'm happy to do if you want to put Kareem in there.

Also when all is said and done....

wilt = 2 rings
LOL


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

LB, i find it somewhat interesting the same old sorry *** excuse you put up to Jordan...

It´s always like: well, Jordan couldn´t win in the 80's because he had no help. He was a one man-show, etc., etc...

Then you somehow disregard the fact that there were players who did managed to win it all without any help from HOF players, like Barry and Walton...

Still, you give them players no value what-so-ever.

Then, you say something like: yeah, the teams Bulls faced weren´t at par with the teams of the 80´s... but Jordan´s teams weren´t that good, either...

Well, considering the fact that Michael Jordan would never be considered one of the greatest players in history without having won 6 rings, would you be corageous enough to say something like: "Yeah, the Bulls teams couldn´t compare with the great teams from the past, but still they ruled the opposition and i don´t care if the opposition was any good comparing to the great teams from the past"?
Because that´s what you seem to be doing...


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> You make some of the most ridiculous claims I've ever read
> ...


Look at the CAREER stats of :

KC Jones, PG. 7PPG, with 4 apg! Zero times all nba, o times mvp, 5011 total career points and only 2908 assists lifetime. 

One has to wonder why he is in the HOF???

Heinsohn: 12,194 total points, 5749 total rebounds= 18.6 ppg & 8.8 rpg. He was ROY over Russell. 

Don Nelson: journeyman for the Lakers, then the Celtics. 10.3 ppg, with 4.9 rpg, no all star games, no nothing. HOF?

Now why do you think the above 4 are in the HOF? Gaudy stats? NO.......gaudy awards? NO!

Bill Russell is WHY they are in the HOF, because he got them many rings.

You can argue all day and all night, but they are NOT HOF players like their teammates, Sharman, Cousy, and Havlicek.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>TheRifleman</b>!
> 
> 
> Look at the CAREER stats of :
> ...


Even better for my argument. If you take that stance you could therefore argue that when Wilt faced the Celtics.....he really never faced more than 3 HOFers. Russell, Cousy, Sharman, and then Russell and Havlicek.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> LB, i find it somewhat interesting the same old sorry *** excuse you put up to Jordan...
> 
> It´s always like: well, Jordan couldn´t win in the 80's because he had no help. He was a one man-show, etc., etc...
> ...


Walton had Maurice Lucas.

Barry beat who? I know the late 70s were generally considered to be the "dark ages" of the NBA, prior to the resurrection of the league by Bird and Magic. 

Two more things. The two examples I now know of of a player winning a ring alone are Barry and Olajuwon. Both won 1 RING alone, and both played in the league when there was generally little competition. I mean what was the 1994 NBA without Jordan's Bulls? The Supersonics and Jazz had yet to hit their stride, and teams like the Blazers, Suns, Celtics and Pistons were either on life support or doner than done. The 1975 NBA?? Who did Barry beat? That's one ring each and NEITHER player had to face the likes of the 80s Pistons or 80s Celtics let alone both.

Also.....Jordan DID win. It's not like he never won. As soon as he was facing teams with as few hall of famers as he himself had.....he won (Pippen was not considered a hall of fame caliber player, or even a player with a hall of fame future until 1992, maybe even 1992). 

So yes I find it fairly easy to examine the record and then to dismiss your weak argument.


----------



## ufm19 (Jun 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> You make some of the most ridiculous claims I've ever read
> ...


Wilt's Sixers didn't challenge the Celtics in the early '60s. I'm talking about when Wilt went up against Russell in the late 1960s. You say Heinsohn and them were HOFs because of Russell; you can make the same argument about Arizin and Greer. The extensive coverage of Wilt led to easy opportunites for them and put them on a national showcase. You don't just judge teams on HOFs; by your theory the 2004 Lakers were better than any of the Bulls or Showtime teams. The Celtics were unquestionably the greatest dynasty ever. Back then 29 meant a player was past his prime and had a few years left, not like now.

There's a huge difference between adding McGrady, Bryant, and Abdul Jabbar. Wilt won a title while beating Abdul-Jabbar. He faced him for 4 years and they played around 27 times. You think MJ played T-Mac in his final stint more than 8 times? I don't think so. Kobe was a bench warmer when MJ was on the Bulls and rarely played until 1999 so you can't count him either. Kareem won two MVPs in that span and was robbed of another; there's a HUGE difference. I wouldn't call Mitch Richmond a great, great player. Same with more of the players you mentioned.


----------



## ufm19 (Jun 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> You make some of the most ridiculous claims I've ever read
> ...


Wilt's Sixers didn't challenge the Celtics in the early '60s. I'm talking about when Wilt went up against Russell in the late 1960s. You say Heinsohn and them were HOFs because of Russell; you can make the same argument about Arizin and Greer. The extensive coverage of Wilt led to easy opportunites for them and put them on a national showcase. You don't just judge teams on HOFs; by your theory the 2004 Lakers were better than any of the Bulls or Showtime teams. The Celtics were unquestionably the greatest dynasty ever. Back then 29 meant a player was past his prime and had a few years left, not like now.

There's a huge difference between adding McGrady, Bryant, and Abdul Jabbar. Wilt won a title while beating Abdul-Jabbar. He faced him for 4 years and they played around 27 times. You think MJ played T-Mac in his final stint more than 8 times? I don't think so. Kobe was a bench warmer when MJ was on the Bulls and rarely played until 1999 so you can't count him either. Kareem won two MVPs in that span and was robbed of another; there's a HUGE difference. I wouldn't call Mitch Richmond a great, great player. Same with more of the players you mentioned.


----------



## ufm19 (Jun 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> You make some of the most ridiculous claims I've ever read
> ...


Wilt's Sixers didn't challenge the Celtics in the early '60s. I'm talking about when Wilt went up against Russell in the late 1960s. You say Heinsohn and them were HOFs because of Russell; you can make the same argument about Arizin and Greer. The extensive coverage of Wilt led to easy opportunites for them and put them on a national showcase. You don't just judge teams on HOFs; by your theory the 2004 Lakers were better than any of the Bulls or Showtime teams. The Celtics were unquestionably the greatest dynasty ever. Back then 29 meant a player was past his prime and had a few years left, not like now.

There's a huge difference between adding McGrady, Bryant, Carter, Artest, Pierce, and Abdul Jabbar. Wilt won a title while beating Abdul-Jabbar. He faced him for 4 years and they played around 27 times. You think MJ played T-Mac in his final stint more than 8 times? I don't think so. Kobe was a bench warmer when MJ was on the Bulls and rarely played until 1999 so you can't count him either. Kareem won two MVPs in that span and was robbed of another; there's a HUGE difference. I wouldn't call Drazen Petroiv, Mitch Richmond a great, great player. Same with more of the players you mentioned. Half of those people either played with MJ in his final Wizards stint and a few more weren't that good.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ufm19</b>!
> 
> 
> Wilt's Sixers didn't challenge the Celtics in the early '60s. I'm talking about when Wilt went up against Russell in the late 1960s. You say Heinsohn and them were HOFs because of Russell; you can make the same argument about Arizin and Greer. The extensive coverage of Wilt led to easy opportunites for them and put them on a national showcase. You don't just judge teams on HOFs; by your theory the 2004 Lakers were better than any of the Bulls or Showtime teams. The Celtics were unquestionably the greatest dynasty ever. Back then 29 meant a player was past his prime and had a few years left, not like now.


I didn't say that....another poster did. I merely raised the counter-argument. Also.....Arizin was already a hall of famer upon Wilt coming into the league! Jesus Christ.....Greer was well on his way. Wilt didn't "make" hall of famers. West, Baylor, McGinnis, Walker.......these guys were ready made hall of famers when Wilt joined them also.

Wrong AGAIN. 29 did not mean that. You are wishing it meant that. Sam Jones and Russell were winning rings at 36. Baylor was around 6 years past his 29th birthday. How was 29 older today than it is back then? Aside from torn ACLs.....the body was the same then than it is now. Russell and EVEN WILT proved this, by playing into their late 30s. 

There's a huge difference between adding McGrady, Bryant, and Abdul Jabbar. Wilt won a title while beating Abdul-Jabbar. He faced him for 4 years and they played around 27 times. You think MJ played T-Mac in his final stint more than 8 times? I don't think so. Kobe was a bench warmer when MJ was on the Bulls and rarely played until 1999 so you can't count him either. Kareem won two MVPs in that span and was robbed of another; there's a HUGE difference. I wouldn't call Mitch Richmond a great, great player. Same with more of the players you mentioned. [/QUOTE]

You said 2-3 hall of famers. Jordan played against Bryant....for 5 years.....period, AND won 3 rings during the five years he was in the league with Bryant. If Bryant doesn't get swept in 1998 Jordan faces and destroys him. Also....unlike Jordan/Bryant.....Abdul Jabbar routinely handed Wilt his ***.


----------



## ganaconda (Apr 16, 2003)

I don't think there is any reason to continue to argue with LB. Everytime someone argues a very rational thought with him, he cooks up something completely irrational and contradictory and then goes on dissing the person arguing with him. He obviously is a closed-minded person or isn't very intelligent. Simply the way LB seems to not be able to give Wilt credit for any of his accomplishments in itself shows me that this argument no matter how good it looks for Wilt will not change LB's mind on the subject. I personally have attempted to learn everything there is to know about Wilt Chamberlain and am a huge fan of basketball. Some of LB's comments sound completely ignorant and from someone that is trying to quickly come up with some half-*** research simply to rebutt what his opposer is saying. If he only was open-minded to being wrong, maybe he would actually give the other side of the argument a chance and possibly learn something new. Just because more than half the world hates the U.S. doesn't mean that its right. The same goes with M.J. We all know that he was a great basketball player. No doubt one of the best of all time. This does not mean though that because the majority of people believe that Michael was the greatest of all time that it is true.


----------



## ganaconda (Apr 16, 2003)

http://wiltfan.tripod.com/

This website, although from a somewhat biased pov, gives many interesting facts about Wilt and gives a pretty strong argument as to why Wilt should be looked at as the greatest basketball player of all time. The maker of the site went to a rival college to Wilt's, so he has no reason to like him other than becoming a fan of the way he plays basketball.


----------



## PhatDaddy3100 (Jun 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ufm19</b>!
> 10 Best Players of All-Time (in order)
> 
> 
> ...



AHhh someone else who agrees with me that JOrdan is not the best of all time and Wilt is the greatest. Heres mine

1a. Wilt chamberlain
1b. Oscar Robertson
2. Bill Russell
3. Michael Jordan
4. Magic Johnson
5. Jerry West
6. Larry Bird
7. Kareem Abdul Jabarr
8. Hakeem Olojuwon
9. Isiah Thomas
10. Bob Cousy


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ganaconda</b>!
> I don't think there is any reason to continue to argue with LB. Everytime someone argues a very rational thought with him, he cooks up something completely irrational and contradictory and then goes on dissing the person arguing with him. He obviously is a closed-minded person or isn't very intelligent. Simply the way LB seems to not be able to give Wilt credit for any of his accomplishments in itself shows me that this argument no matter how good it looks for Wilt will not change LB's mind on the subject. I personally have attempted to learn everything there is to know about Wilt Chamberlain and am a huge fan of basketball. Some of LB's comments sound completely ignorant and from someone that is trying to quickly come up with some half-*** research simply to rebutt what his opposer is saying. If he only was open-minded to being wrong, maybe he would actually give the other side of the argument a chance and possibly learn something new. Just because more than half the world hates the U.S. doesn't mean that its right. The same goes with M.J. We all know that he was a great basketball player. No doubt one of the best of all time. This does not mean though that because the majority of people believe that Michael was the greatest of all time that it is true.


Actually I don't see the need to make it personal. I feel attacked by your post which was 95% about what you don't like about me. I've already been insulted on this board ten times more than I have insulted any other. Show me where I call someone a name. The best you'll find are drug references in the interest of humor.

My research is actually well thought out. It goes as follows (since I'm so unintelligent I'll show it to you legal outline style, so that maybe you can appreciate how dumb a juris doctor student is....

I. Jordan is better than Wilt
A. Concern A -- Wilt's scoring achievements shatter Jordan's
1. Response -- Wilt's REGULAR SEASON scoring achievement, which came before he ever won a title shatter Jordan's. 
a. *Comparison* -- Career playoff statistics

Wilt Chamberlain
22.5 PPG 52.2% FG

Michael Jordan
33.4 PPG 48.7% FG

b. Apex conclusions of letter A -- 
(1) Jordan averaged a higher career PPG in the regular season despite playing more years than Chamberlain
(2) Although Wilt's scored more points in a game, and averaged a higher average over a season, Jordan's PPG rise during the playoffs, while Wilt's falls dramatically

B. Wilt's competition -- Aside from Kareem, who handled Wilt, Wilt's competition was on average about 6'10" 240, and even with Kareem not much bigger. The average Wilt opponent was the size of a medium sized PF today. While the centers are bigger today, or in Jordan's day, they are/were not necessarily less skilled!
1. This further erodes Wilt's regular season stats
2. Wilt's playoff stats need no erosion, as they are rather pedestrian in terms of "greatest ever" arguments
3. Jordan's competition was made up mostly of guards between 6'5" and 6'7" with the 6'4" Dennis Johnson and Joe Dumars being the only two shorter guards to consistently guard Jordan over the course of seasons in anything amounting to any of MJ's serious performances. 
4. If you ranked both Jordan's defenders from tallest to shortest AND Wilt's defenders from tallest to shortest, by the time you got down to the 6'6" defenders of Jordan, you'd be down to guys who were 6'9" that were guarding Wilt
5. Apex Conclusion:
a. When you control for eras, regular season numbers of Wilt's would likely go down, while Jordan's averages would go up if he played in Wilt's day.

C. Jordan won more rings, with less hall of famers against equally controlled competition. Jordan's teams had two hall of famers (he and Pippen), and they'd beat teams with two hall of famers (Stockton and Malone), winning rings over 5 NBA Finals opponents that had just as many hall of famers as the Bulls.
1. Wilt on the other hand sometimes had an equal amount or more hall of famers on his team than Russell had (see 66 and 68), including better second fiddles than Russell's second fiddle (West and Baylor > Cousy and Havlicek) and only won 2 rings, despite having five hall of famers in Philly and three in Los Angeles.
2. Wilt lost as many NBA Finals as he won. Both loses were in game 7s where his team was heavily favored.
a. Example -- 1970 NBA Finals --

Best three players on the Knicks that actually functioned during game 7 (Reed was gone after the first few minutes):

1. Frazier
2. Debusschere
3. Bradley

Best three Lakers:
1. Wilt
2. West
3. Baylor

Jordan simply doesn't lose this game. For you to beat Jordan you had to have more hall of famers on your team than he had, and your second best player had to be better than his second best player. 

Wilt obviously could lose when the other team had less hall of famers (The Lakers in 1970 also had Goodrich, giving them one more hall of famer than the Knicks), and with second and third players that were far worse than Wilt's.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

That is an analysis.......your post was a personal attack with merely your own opinion, backed up by someone else's website of which you make no analysis at all


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

*Re: Re: I know everyone's gonna say Michael Jordan but...*



> Originally posted by <b>PhatDaddy3100</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Robertson = 1 ring, played with Kareem in his PRIME
Jordan = 6 rings, played with Pippen

But then again.....like Wilt.....Robertson had a mythical REGULAR SEASON....didn't he?


----------



## ufm19 (Jun 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> I didn't say that....another poster did. I merely raised the counter-argument. Also.....Arizin was already a hall of famer upon Wilt coming into the league! Jesus Christ.....Greer was well on his way. Wilt didn't "make" hall of famers. West, Baylor, McGinnis, Walker.......these guys were ready made hall of famers when Wilt joined them also.
> ...


You said 2-3 hall of famers. Jordan played against Bryant....for 5 years.....period, AND won 3 rings during the five years he was in the league with Bryant. If Bryant doesn't get swept in 1998 Jordan faces and destroys him. Also....unlike Jordan/Bryant.....Abdul Jabbar routinely handed Wilt his ***. [/QUOTE]

you still have not directly answered my question and btw i screwed up my post.

Half of the people you put on your list were ones Jordan played for 2 years. No he did NOT play Bryant for 5 years he played him in '96-97, 97-98, 01-02, and 02-03, and he was a starter for two of those years. VC, Paul Pierce, T-Mac only really played during the Wizards stint (T-Mac was buried on the bench during Jordan's last year as a Bull). Drazen Petrovic was a decent player at best, Mitch Richmond was a good player, MJ only faced a couple of those players for more than 4 or 5 years of his career. Wilt faced Russell, Bellamy, and Thurmond for the majority of his career, Reed for half of it, and Kareem for the last 4 years when he won two MVPs, unlike ANY of the people you mentioned. Wilt faced him 27 more times and won 14 times to Kareem's 13. Wilt had Baylor for 3 seasons, when his knee was screwed up after 1966 and he wasn't the same player. West was aging by that time and would only play for about 4 or 5 more seasons. They had already made themselves some of the best players ever. However Wilt still managed to be considered one of the two or three best players in the league over his last few years. Wilt actually stopped playing at 35, in 1973.

That's my point. Three straight years Wilt lost Game 7s in the Finals. If you actually read about the games instead of assuming stuff you will find that most of the time this was due to other things than his failure. In 1968 Cunningham was hurt for the Finals and didn't play. Still the Sixers went up 3-1but Chamberlain hurt his knee in GAme 4 yet tried to hide it from the coach. Russell blocked a couple of his shots and pushed him farther away from the basket. Boston blew them out by 18 in Game 5, won by 8 in GAme 6 when Matt Guokas put up a clinker (1-for-9, 3 points). Then came Game 7. This is known for only one thinhg: Wilt took one shot in the second half. He said he played the way he did and on alla year. He had 34 rebounds and Boston guarded him with half their team. Russell was behind him and KC Jones and Sam Jones wre collapsing on him. His teammates were WIDE OPEN for easy shots but Greet went 8 for 25 and Gokas 2 for 10. While he should've definitely shot more, his guards gave the series away. That's why its deceiving to simply say he should've won titles because he had more hall of fame players; that's where your insight goes awry.
Now lets go to 1969, the year he finally should've beaten Russell. Chamberlain and Baylor were botgh best on the low blocks so they combated each other and got in each other's way. This contributed to their demise. LA took the first two games and Boston took the third one. This is where his supporting cast choked again. Baylor went 4 for 18 and West went 1 for 14 in the fourth quarter. 1 FOR 14 WITH A CHANCE TO TAKE A 3-0 LEAD! The series eventually went to seven. In the third quarter the Lakers missed 15 straight shots and trailed by 17. They rallied. With five minutes left LA trailed by nine points. Wilt had 18 and 27. He banged his knee and was force to come out of the game- yes, forced by his coach. A minute later, Wilt signaled to the coach van Bredy Kolff that he was ready to go back in. The coach figured he could win without Wilt- determined to prove he was boss. The LAkers were coming back with MEl Counts at center. Kolff humiliated Chamberlain and cost his team a chance at an NBA championship. In 1969 there was no ESPN, no internet, no media circus. Now that would be right up with the title as the biggest news. The coach didn't want Wilt to be a hero because they had a bad relationship. Wilt didn't even say the coach was wrong after the game so you can't call him a crybaby like Pippen, who refused to go into the game because a play wasn't called for him. 
1970 is harder to defend. He tore his tendon that year but came back in the playoffs yet was still b othered. He was up against MVP center Willis Reed. In the fifth game Willis got a hip injury but LA couldn't capitalize. wilt was double-covered by DeBuschhere (while shorter considered maybe the best defensive forward ever) and Dave Stallworth. In the 6th game Wilt DOMINATED scoring 45 and getting 2y7 rebounds as LA won. Reed brought Madison Square Garden- a home court for New York- down when he came out. This was the only Game 7 when you can say that Wilt choked. He scored 21 points on 10-for-16 shooting but missed 10 of 11 free throws. However, West had one of his worst games ever. Wilt Frazier killed him, scoring 36 points and having 19 assists in one of the greatest Game 7s ever. He also stole it from West five or six times. Wilt wasn't the same physically at this point and NY was one of the best defensive teams ever. 
Is Shaq playing against other Shaqs? Wilt was playing against four or five others in his class but nobody could stay with him. By the way i forgot about Zelmo Beatty when listing the centers who played against him. Your #1 argument against Wilt is "he played shorter people!" Does it hurt him that he was taller? Does it hurt Shaq that he's wider? If a 10 foot player comes into the league today and averages 100 points a game do you say MJ is better just because the 10 foot player playes much shorter people? Name five starting centers today who are above 7'2, Wilt's height. The height is only a bit larger now. Also Shaq doesnt' play against any concentrated talent. Wilt won 2 titles, sure, he should've won maybe one or two more but you can't dismiss him by throwing amounts of Hall of FAme players on his team at me. The Knicks in 1970 were one of the greatest teams ever, they had Frazier, Reed, and DeBuscherre, one of the greatest trios ever (almost as good as Wilt, West, and Baylor in terms of individual talent but the difference is they could coexist perfectly and they were all in their prime). Wilt also never fouiled out. Wilt led the league in assists, the only center ever to do so something MJ, a guard, has never come CLOSE to doing; is that because he played people a couple inches shorter? Because that seems like your only leverage. By the way, I already did the math. If you substitue Wilt's 50 point average into today's era, which is more lowscoring than MJ's, he would still have 44 points per game that year. If you sub it into the 1987 season, MJ's highest scoring year, he would average 46.6. I did this by taking the amount of points per game and subbing in the percentages of points Wilt had out of the 1962 total. So he would still be light years ahead of anyone else. I'm not saying Wilt was no matter what the best player ever no questions asked, but you are leaving no room for any opinion, not being open minded and letting yourself hear suggestions, just repeating the same stubborn belief over and over again. And yes, I do think MJ was a bit ahead of Oscar but once again you place 75% of your emphasis on titles. Oscar had about 5 years when he contended and this was at the VERY end of his career when he was in his mid to late 30s and much less effective. In the early and mid 1960s he was on an awful team but had some of the best seasons of all time including the triple double years and two years when he came awfully close to doing that (one year he averaged 9.9 rebounds). His rebounding numbers for a point guard were equal to an average center's rebounding numbers today, just through the roof. He could do it all and was asked to do it all, unlike MJ, who just had to concentrate on scoring. Wilt also had to crash the boards constantly. MJ was never relied on to be a playmaker or rebounder, just a scorer.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

just some other stuff to add:
1 - Rings only measure greatness to a certain extent
2 - Jordans championship teams were very good teams, dont make the disparity argument because it doesnt fly like you want it to.
3 - Why do you constantly argue that size makes the player. It is nowhere near true. Just because players are stronger and taller today, as you would expect it, does not make them better players. The NBA today is terrible compared to the past. Even the NBA in the mid 90s was not as good as it was before. There were many sensational and incredible players in Wilts days. Guys who would dominate even now even if they're smaller than current NBAers (and not all of them are, many centers were at least 6'10 back then.) Wilt being so much greater than everyone else proved his dominance. His #s are unarguably the best ever. And he did have great competition, thats why didnt win as many titles! Its like you're making the arguement on both sides. The guy sucks because his competition was weaker. The guy sucks because he couldnt win titles due to the fact he didnt have the best team.
4 - Lastly, watching the lakers dynasty DVD reminded me how great the 80s were. The 80s lakers, celtics, sixers, pistons, rockets, mavs, etc. would of each dominated the NBA in the late 90s. Just so many great teams that its hard to believe how great the Lakers were in order to win those 5 titles.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

There is no way Oscar Robertson was better than Magic Johson.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

ufm19, you have no logic for your picks. I doubt you ever saw Wilt play.



Jordan is #1 obviously.

As for Wilt at 2. I will say this. Hakeem would smoke him like a pipe.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Pressey was a two-time All Defensive First team player and was 6'7".


first off, he was 6'5 not 6'7. And he was a guard, are you saying he is short for a guard. The guy got 2 steals and a block per game for those years. That seems like a gooddefender to me but you cant really tell from stats. But ive seen him play, he was a good defender.

SCRATCH THAT. I havent been on the board in days and came into the middle of the thread. Read it wrong.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> you still have not directly answered my question and btw i screwed up my post.
> 
> Half of the people you put on your list were ones Jordan played for 2 years. No he did NOT play Bryant for 5 years he played him in '96-97, 97-98, 01-02, and 02-03, and he was a starter for two of those years. VC, Paul Pierce, T-Mac only really played during the Wizards stint (T-Mac was buried on the bench during Jordan's last year as a Bull). Drazen Petrovic was a decent player at best, Mitch Richmond was a good player, MJ only faced a couple of those players for more than 4 or 5 years of his career. Wilt faced Russell, Bellamy, and Thurmond for the majority of his career, Reed for half of it, and Kareem for the last 4 years when he won two MVPs, unlike ANY of the people you mentioned. Wilt faced him 27 more times and won 14 times to Kareem's 13. Wilt had Baylor for 3 seasons, when his knee was screwed up after 1966 and he wasn't the same player. West was aging by that time and would only play for about 4 or 5 more seasons. They had already made themselves some of the best players ever. However Wilt still managed to be considered one of the two or three best players in the league over his last few years. Wilt actually stopped playing at 35, in 1973.


Drazen Petrovic can be found on the NBA legends section of NBA.com's history page. He was more than a decent player. 

Steve Smith, Ron Harper, Mitch Richmond, Reggie Miller, Clyde Drexler, and Joe Dumars absolutely did play more than half of MJ's career. Please stop making up blatant lies like "Goodrich was old when he played with Wilt."

Jerry West was not old when he joined Wilt period. Like I said if anything Wilt's competition was old.



> That's my point. Three straight years Wilt lost Game 7s in the Finals. If you actually read about the games instead of assuming stuff you will find that most of the time this was due to other things than his failure. In 1968 Cunningham was hurt for the Finals and didn't play. Still the Sixers went up 3-1but Chamberlain hurt his knee in GAme 4 yet tried to hide it from the coach. Russell blocked a couple of his shots and pushed him farther away from the basket. Boston blew them out by 18 in Game 5, won by 8 in GAme 6 when Matt Guokas put up a clinker (1-for-9, 3 points). Then came Game 7. This is known for only one thinhg: Wilt took one shot in the second half. He said he played the way he did and on alla year. He had 34 rebounds and Boston guarded him with half their team. Russell was behind him and KC Jones and Sam Jones wre collapsing on him. His teammates were WIDE OPEN for easy shots but Greet went 8 for 25 and Gokas 2 for 10. While he should've definitely shot more, his guards gave the series away. That's why its deceiving to simply say he should've won titles because he had more hall of fame players; that's where your insight goes awry.
> Now lets go to 1969, the year he finally should've beaten Russell. Chamberlain and Baylor were botgh best on the low blocks so they combated each other and got in each other's way. This contributed to their demise. LA took the first two games and Boston took the third one. This is where his supporting cast choked again. Baylor went 4 for 18 and West went 1 for 14 in the fourth quarter. 1 FOR 14 WITH A CHANCE TO TAKE A 3-0 LEAD! The series eventually went to seven. In the third quarter the Lakers missed 15 straight shots and trailed by 17. They rallied. With five minutes left LA trailed by nine points. Wilt had 18 and 27. He banged his knee and was force to come out of the game- yes, forced by his coach. A minute later, Wilt signaled to the coach van Bredy Kolff that he was ready to go back in. The coach figured he could win without Wilt- determined to prove he was boss. The LAkers were coming back with MEl Counts at center. Kolff humiliated Chamberlain and cost his team a chance at an NBA championship. In 1969 there was no ESPN, no internet, no media circus. Now that would be right up with the title as the biggest news. The coach didn't want Wilt to be a hero because they had a bad relationship. Wilt didn't even say the coach was wrong after the game so you can't call him a crybaby like Pippen, who refused to go into the game because a play wasn't called for him.
> 1970 is harder to defend. He tore his tendon that year but came back in the playoffs yet was still b othered. He was up against MVP center Willis Reed. In the fifth game Willis got a hip injury but LA couldn't capitalize. wilt was double-covered by DeBuschhere (while shorter considered maybe the best defensive forward ever) and Dave Stallworth. In the 6th game Wilt DOMINATED scoring 45 and getting 2y7 rebounds as LA won. Reed brought Madison Square Garden- a home court for New York- down when he came out. This was the only Game 7 when you can say that Wilt choked. He scored 21 points on 10-for-16 shooting but missed 10 of 11 free throws. However, West had one of his worst games ever. Wilt Frazier killed him, scoring 36 points and having 19 assists in one of the greatest Game 7s ever. He also stole it from West five or six times. Wilt wasn't the same physically at this point and NY was one of the best defensive teams ever.


The point is....excuses or no excuses, if you have more talent than MJ, play less or comparable talent to that of your own team, you win 2 rings and he wins 6......excuses or no excuses, he's better. Wilt was the leader of that team, his job is to get it done. IF he doesn't get it done does it mean he should be hanged? No.....it means he was a great player, just not the best. 



> Is Shaq playing against other Shaqs? Wilt was playing against four or five others in his class but nobody could stay with him. By the way i forgot about Zelmo Beatty when listing the centers who played against him. Your #1 argument against Wilt is "he played shorter people!" Does it hurt him that he was taller? Does it hurt Shaq that he's wider? If a 10 foot player comes into the league today and averages 100 points a game do you say MJ is better just because the 10 foot player playes much shorter people? Name five starting centers today who are above 7'2, Wilt's height. The height is only a bit larger now. Also Shaq doesnt' play against any concentrated talent. Wilt won 2 titles, sure, he should've won maybe one or two more but you can't dismiss him by throwing amounts of Hall of FAme players on his team at me. The Knicks in 1970 were one of the greatest teams ever, they had Frazier, Reed, and DeBuscherre, one of the greatest trios ever (almost as good as Wilt, West, and Baylor in terms of individual talent but the difference is they could coexist perfectly and they were all in their prime). Wilt also never fouiled out. Wilt led the league in assists, the only center ever to do so something MJ, a guard, has never come CLOSE to doing; is that because he played people a couple inches shorter? Because that seems like your only leverage. By the way, I already did the math. If you substitue Wilt's 50 point average into today's era, which is more lowscoring than MJ's, he would still have 44 points per game that year. If you sub it into the 1987 season, MJ's highest scoring year, he would average 46.6. I did this by taking the amount of points per game and subbing in the percentages of points Wilt had out of the 1962 total. So he would still be light years ahead of anyone else. I'm not saying Wilt was no matter what the best player ever no questions asked, but you are leaving no room for any opinion, not being open minded and letting yourself hear suggestions, just repeating the same stubborn belief over and over again. And yes, I do think MJ was a bit ahead of Oscar but once again you place 75% of your emphasis on titles. Oscar had about 5 years when he contended and this was at the VERY end of his career when he was in his mid to late 30s and much less effective. In the early and mid 1960s he was on an awful team but had some of the best seasons of all time including the triple double years and two years when he came awfully close to doing that (one year he averaged 9.9 rebounds). His rebounding numbers for a point guard were equal to an average center's rebounding numbers today, just through the roof. He could do it all and was asked to do it all, unlike MJ, who just had to concentrate on scoring. Wilt also had to crash the boards constantly. MJ was never relied on to be a playmaker or rebounder, just a scorer.


Let's go through this really quick.

Eddy Curry is the closest physically to the two of them and Shaq's faced Eddy. So you'll laugh and say "eddy sucks"....thats the point. Eddy is still at his young age a second tier center and look how big he is. David Robinson was 7'1" 250, Ewing 7' 260, Olajuwon 7' 260. Yao Ming is 7'5" 303. 

Wilt is listed at 7'1". Stop making things up. Robinson is Wilt's height and Yao is much bigger. But this isn't about Wilt's height. Nice attempted spin. This is about the height of Wilt's competition. The only argument is....if Wilt faces Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing, Curry, Ming (all 7' except for Curry who is 285) Wilt's regular season numbers go down too. We all saw that when he was in the playoffs (i.e. best of the best) his numbers were pedestrian in terms of a best ever argument.

I will bring hall of famers on Wilt's team up all I want. It is absolutely relevant. You don't want to hear it because it is an argument that others aren't smart enough to craft and to guide through all the possible contentions and it pisses you off.

MJ rebounded very well for a SG. To say MJ was just a scorer just shows what a joke your arguments are. Reggie Miller is just a scorer. Mitch Richmond is just a scorer.

Did you know that in MJ's games at PG in the 1980s he averaged 32 11 and 10 (he never played a whole season at PG). Which would explain his 1989 season of 32 points 8 rebounds and 8 assists. Now Oscar may have averaged over 10 rebounds and 10 assists, but did he also score 32 PPG? No. And even after that.....we're talking REGULAR SEASON. What did Oscar do in the playoffs. He won 1 ring. And he also played with JERRY LUCAS...whom he ran out of Cincinnati. With Jerry Lucas and Kareem Abdul Jabbar at different times on his team.....MJ would have gotten more than one ring.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>bballlife</b>!
> ufm19, you have no logic for your picks. I doubt you ever saw Wilt play.
> 
> 
> ...


EXACTLY.

UFM surely you'll provide me with evidence that you have in fact sat in front of a TV and watched a live Wilt Chamberlain game telecast right?


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> EXACTLY.
> ...


No, maybe he didn't - but I did.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> EXACTLY.
> ...


but thats not the point. The point is that 99.9% of all people on this board cannot answer yes to that question. Therein lies the problem. You can find out all you want from old tapes or stats, and those things tell you that Wilt is one of the best players of all time. But unless you see him play live, you cant make that leap. His #s and reputation and old tapes ive seen tell me he's #2. But i havent seen him live and so i could never put him above MJ. But to also say that Wilt shouldnt belong by the top of the list is a big mistake.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Drazen Petrovic can be found on the NBA legends section of NBA.com's history page. He was more than a decent player.
> ...


Excuse me, LB... but you just can´t knock Wilt´s competiton and pu up these examples of MJ competition...

Only Reggie Miller and Clyde Drexler could be considered HOF material, IMO.
Smith, Reggie, Harper and Richmond were never known for their defense, so how could they measure up to Jordan?
If this is Jordan´s competition at SG, hell, he really had it going his way.

In fact, i wonder what would happened if Jordan played against AI, T-Mac, Kobe and Cartes (even Pierce) in their primes... Hmmmm. 



> Did you know that in MJ's games at PG in the 1980s he averaged 32 11 and 10 (he never played a whole season at PG). Which would explain his 1989 season of 32 points 8 rebounds and 8 assists. Now Oscar may have averaged over 10 rebounds and 10 assists, but did he also score 32 PPG?


If you´d care to look at Oscar´s stats from 60-61 to 66-67, maybe you would be more enlightened...
In fact, Oscar´s first five seasons in the league blows away any statistical season from Michael Jordan...

BTW, do you know why MJ wasn´t put on the PG spot more often?


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBruins</b>!
> 
> 
> but thats not the point. The point is that 99.9% of all people on this board cannot answer yes to that question. Therein lies the problem. You can find out all you want from old tapes or stats, and those things tell you that Wilt is one of the best players of all time. But unless you see him play live, you cant make that leap. His #s and reputation and old tapes ive seen tell me he's #2. But i havent seen him live and so i could never put him above MJ. But to also say that Wilt shouldnt belong by the top of the list is a big mistake.


Exactly that proves the point further. If you've even seen tape of Wilt what is it? Tape of him playing the Royals in the 65 regular season? No it's tape of Wilt in the playoffs. And that would be like judging MJ based on NBA's Greatest Games.


----------



## "Matt!" (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> In fact, i wonder what would happened if Jordan played against AI, T-Mac, Kobe and Cartes (even Pierce) in their primes... Hmmmm.


He put up 20 ppg as a 40 year old with no knees or athleticism.

I think he could've done pretty well for himself as a 25 year old with a fresh body and off-the-charts athleticism.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Matt85163</b>!
> 
> 
> He put up 20 ppg as a 40 year old with no knees or athleticism.
> ...


Yes Paulo......all you have to do is look at MJ at age 41 vs. Pierce, McGrady, Kobe and Iverson and you'll see all you need to know. In fact....

2002-03 FG %
Michael Jordan 44.5%
Kobe Bryant 45.1%
Tracy McGrady 45.7%

Pop quiz
Which one of the previous players was 41 years old, and which two were 25 and 24?


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

Also isn't that funny about SOME Laker fans Matt. In a debate over Kobe v. Jordan they CANT WAIT to tell you that the average guard in Jordan's day was 6'1", white, with a 5'10" wingspan and no athleticism. This when in fact the only two guards to be under 6'5" and consistently guard Jordan over seasons were Dennis Johnson and Joe Dumars, both 6'4" and both hall of famers and perennial all defensive team members. 

But try to use that same argument in Jordan vs. Wilt, and they go apesh*t. All the sudden size doesn't matter and its completely irrelevant that 6'7" Wes Unseld was not only shorter BUT not necessarily more skilled than the 7th best center Shaq ever faced. Yes.....Dave Cowens was not only 6'10" BUT also less fundamentally sound than Hakeem the dream. Patrick Ewing was not only an inch taller and 25 pounds heavier than Walt Bellamy, BUT also every bit as fundamentally sound.

But all of that is irrelevant....it only can come into play in Kobe v. MJ. Who cares that the phenomenon is 4 times more accentuated in Jordan v. Wilt.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

I watched the games Jordan played against the youngesters 2 yeasr back.

1) Jordan had no problem defending T-mac, infact Jordan shut T-mac off in one game where it was telecasted nationally until Wiz put someone else on T-Mac because Jordan was hurt or something during the game.

2) Jordan did have problems guarding Carter if Carter got the step on him. And Carter beated him on second hops or something, but that's just because Jordan didnt have no legs against a 25 years old Carter back then. 

3) Pierce, I dont know why fans think so high of him, sorry I wont disgust scrubs like him here.

4) Kobe, Jordan I meant Collins didnt want to put Jordan on him, because Jordan didnt have the lateral quickness that he once was. I think Kobe could score on Jordan at age 41 because Kobe is so good at changing directions with the ball. That's where you need quickness rather than speed.

5) Can anyone describle detailedly how Jordan scored in his 40th and 41 years old? Can anyone even challenge me here? I can write an essay of how Jordan could score points but didnt have the impact that separate himself from the other 25 points scorer....


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> Excuse me, LB... but you just can´t knock Wilt´s competiton and pu up these examples of MJ competition...
> ...


LOL so defensive minded players only matter for Jordan? Because if you take away the hall of famers that were great players but not necessarily defensive minded from the group that Wilt faced you lose.......Kareem Abdul Jabbar!! 

Alex English isn't a hall of famer?? LMFAO!!

Joe Dumars isn't a hall of famer? Dennis Johnson? Bernard King?

Isn't it funny that these guys aren't really that good, but Kobe fans couldn't wait to jump up and down in 2002 when the Lakers beat the Spurs because of Kobe's spectacular performances on the 6'3" Antonio Daniels? 

Joe Dumars is better as a complete basketball player than any player Kobe has ever played. 

He didn't have it going his way. Jordan was as good as he was because he earned it. Not because the entire NBA just happened to suck long enough for Jordan to get in and get out. I mean I really believe that is the fantasy of some of you Laker fans. Like the league started sucking the day Jordan came along, but AS SOON AS KOBE joined the NBA.....the level of play in the league just skyrocketed. 

You don't think that a 25 year old Jordan could **** all over Vince Carter? Who is Vince Carter? He's a highlight reel that plays no defense and isn't really a quality basketball player above and beyond his own era. Vince Carter and Paul Pierce?? Please. 




> If you´d care to look at Oscar´s stats from 60-61 to 66-67, maybe you would be more enlightened...
> In fact, Oscar´s first five seasons in the league blows away any statistical season from Michael Jordan...
> 
> BTW, do you know why MJ wasn´t put on the PG spot more often?


Yeah first.....Oscar is a loser. He had Jerry Lucas and then Kareem and won 1 ring. How do you run Jerry Lucas out of town?? Jerry Lucas had the talent to average 40 PPG back then if he wanted to, but all he wanted to do was rebound and play D. And you run him out of town.

Second.....you love pointing out MJ's competition (of which none was shorter than 6'5" except for Dumars and Johnson). WHO the F did Oscar Robertson go against at PG? Name me the 3-5 best PGs Oscar ever faced. Hal Greer?! A great player no doubt, but nowhere near as big as Oscar Robertson. What was the average PG back then? 6'1" 180? And Oscar was 6'5" 220. There you go.....wow I wonder why he rebounded so well. Probably the same reason I could rebound all day over my little brother. 

Anyone who thinks Oscar Robertson is better than Magic Johnson or would have been even close to Magic were he swapped with Magic on the Lakers has serious issues.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

Sorry to tell you LB, you place WAYYYY too much important once rings. They're not very important at all when judging a player because there are many factors involved when winning a ring and in some eras its much easier to do. Oh and you're saying Shaqs 7th best center blah blah, Shaq played against a healthy Hakeem for only a couple years. He played against a healthy Robinson for only a couple years. Shaq didnt start winning titles and truly dominate the league until those guys were wayyy over the hill.


----------



## bender (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> Also isn't that funny about SOME Laker fans Matt. In a debate over Kobe v. Jordan they CANT WAIT to tell you that the average guard in Jordan's day was 6'1", white, with a 5'10" wingspan and no athleticism. This when in fact the only two guards to be under 6'5" and consistently guard Jordan over seasons were Dennis Johnson and Joe Dumars, both 6'4" and both hall of famers and perennial all defensive team members.


What about Byron Scott (6'3), John Starks (6'3) and Jeff Hornacek (6'3)? I'm not trying to prove your point wrong, but during the 80s the NBA standard for SGs was in fact about 6'4. Jordan reset the standards. During the 90s almost every team had a 6'6 SG.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

I love these idiots who go Rings are more important, when comparing players, and then turn around and say no rings aren't important latter on.

Let's check out these arguments
-first wilt isn't as good as jordan because he has less rings
-second russell isn't as good as Jordan because he had more HOF teammates
-then wilt had more HOF teammates so that's why he was better and he faced teams IE celtics that had HOF that really weren't worthy at all of being in the HOF
-Next step, ignore that team being the Celtics and ignore russell's effect on making the celtics better then they really were
-Say Wilt didn't score as well in playoffs
-say those guys, Wilt and Russell had more HOF teammates, ignore the league was small back then, so the teams would obviously have more HOF concentrated per team
-Ignore Russell defended him, who is regarded as the premier defensive bigman ever, because that would give credit to Russell. Just leave it at Wilt didn't do as good.
-say jordan made pippen, even though pippen almost took a jordan less bulls to the finals (if not for bad calls), ignore pippen is a top player of his generation, the best SF of his generation, and one of the best perimeter defenders ever, Jordan made him that of course


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>KennethTo</b>!
> I love these idiots who go Rings are more important, when comparing players, and then turn around and say no rings aren't important latter on.
> 
> Let's check out these arguments
> ...


Mods is referring to me as "these idiots" really kosher? 

Moving onto your arguments.....the unaltered versions of your arguments were proven rather successfully. Russell was 6'10". Shaq's famous quote on Russel...."could he guard me? No.....too small. That's it....he was too small. A player that small could never guard me."

Also......The 1994 Bulls lost in the EASTERN CONFERENCE SEMIFINALS!! The Knicks went on to play the Pacers and then the Rockets. So I guess that we can start talking about the great achievements of Dwayne Wade already right? Since he took his team to the second round?


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>bender</b>!
> 
> What about Byron Scott (6'3), John Starks (6'3) and Jeff Hornacek (6'3)? I'm not trying to prove your point wrong, but during the 80s the NBA standard for SGs was in fact about 6'4. Jordan reset the standards. During the 90s almost every team had a 6'6 SG.


The average starting SG in the NBA last year was 6'4.9"....if you want me to take the time to tediously prove it....I will.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Mods is referring to me as "these idiots" really kosher?
> ...


you can if you want. The Bulls took the Knicks to a hard nosed 7 game series. Had they won that game they'd probably be in the finals because the pacers didnt have a great team. The Bulls only lost 2 more games than they did the previous year with Michael. I'm not making the argument that Pippen made Jordan. But Scottie was one of the best SFs in NBA history. People also forget though that in 93-94 with MJ out, the Bulls had just acquired Kukoc and Kerr, giving them better supporting players than they had the previous year. Someone could correct me if im mistaken but Indiana also took the Knicks to 7 games that year right? Well anyway, their team still wasnt as good as Chicagos was. Smits was a terrible rebounder his entire career, they basically had 1 very good player and that was of course Reggie. The best thing they had going for them was that they were an efficient and well-shooting team that maximized their abilities. And with Larry Brown as head coach, you had one of the finest in the business.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> Yeah first.....Oscar is a loser.


LB, you *know* i´ll never agree with your all-time ranking, although you *sometimes* bring out some interesting arguments...

But this one? Oscar is a *loser*? Good grief... The guy had an amazing College career, Olympic gold medalist and is in anyone´s worth of credibility all-time top 10...

Is it the lack of rings (again) criteria?
Well, guess what... Jordan was a *loser* during his first 6 years in the league... and that´s quite some time.
If i´m correct, he didn´t won even a Division title...
So, aplying your logic, almost half of Jordan´s career was a waste, wasn´t it?

And why do you keep bringing up players that had their prime years while Jordan kept losing? Because King (F), English (F) and D.J where well past their prime/had retired when Jordan won it´s first ring (thus ending his 
*loser* tag)...

So no one could guard him, heh? Well, who could guard Bird, Magic, English, Dantley, King, etc., etc? Don´t you think Larry Bird could easily average around 30ppg if he wanted it? 
But "just give Larry the ball and get the **** out of the way" wouldn´t cut it with the Celtics, would it? What would MacHale, Parish and the others say if Larry ball-hogged? (sp?)

And bringing up Jordan at 40 really cracks me up... Wasn´t he a *loser* playing for the Wizards, then? Didn´t he alienate teammates (including Stackhouse, the teams best player) and coaches because of wanting to have the spotlight on him? Didn´t he get the boot because he was getting that franchise nowhere? Didn´t he refuse to be a bench player and demand the coach so start him? Yeah, that´s a real winner, allright...

DaBruins made me think of another interesting circunstance:
Chicago with Jordan minus Pippen = 0
Chicago with Jordan and Pippen = 6 rings
Chicago with Pippen minus Jordan = ECS´s game 7, only 2 losses more than in the previous season... 
Hmmm...


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBruins</b>!
> 
> 
> you can if you want. The Bulls took the Knicks to a hard nosed 7 game series. Had they won that game they'd probably be in the finals because the pacers didnt have a great team. The Bulls only lost 2 more games than they did the previous year with Michael. I'm not making the argument that Pippen made Jordan. But Scottie was one of the best SFs in NBA history. People also forget though that in 93-94 with MJ out, the Bulls had just acquired Kukoc and Kerr, giving them better supporting players than they had the previous year. Someone could correct me if im mistaken but Indiana also took the Knicks to 7 games that year right? Well anyway, their team still wasnt as good as Chicagos was. Smits was a terrible rebounder his entire career, they basically had 1 very good player and that was of course Reggie. The best thing they had going for them was that they were an efficient and well-shooting team that maximized their abilities. And with Larry Brown as head coach, you had one of the finest in the business.


Yes but you must agree that people who hate Jordan will catapult Pippen when it serves their argument. Get a Jordan v. Wilt/Kobe debate going and Pippen is a legend.....but I guarantee you if we made a secret PM wager and I started posting that Pippen was easily better than McHale, Havlicek, West, Abdul-Jabbar (Magic's second fiddler for 3-4 of his 5 rings), etc......the same people outside of you of course (since I'd be making a secret PM bet with you) who hold Pippen up in Jordan v. Wilt would be going off on me. YOU KNOW THAT too. I remember first getting here and reading a SF all-time list where Pippen was barely in 6-10 range on most people's lists, and some were putting players who weren't even SFs on the list just to down Pippen. Also....the Bulls probably beat Detroit in 88 or 89 if Pippen isn't COMPLETELY mentally taking out of his game.

Also....what people never seem to talk about when the Bulls lost only 2 less games with Jordan going out is that they lost Jordan and gained Toni Kukoc. Combine that with the fact that the dropoff in the league from 93 to 94 was substantial. Isiah's last good year was 93, Bird was gone by 94 and the Trailblazers pretty much stopped being a factor. The league was considerably stronger in 94. Don't forget either that Horace Grant had talent. He was significantly better when he could have the ego boost of being the man, which Scottie allowed him to be. Add that BJ took over for Paxson, giving the Bulls more athleticism. I realize you aren't making that stupid Airjudden.com argument, but please consider all that.

Also let me compliment you. Much easier to respond with this tone.

.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> LB, you *know* i´ll never agree with your all-time ranking, although you *sometimes* bring out some interesting arguments...
> ...


Jordan had a player like Jerry Lucas and ran him out of town? Really? That's what made Oscar a loser. Jordan and Jerry Lucas probably challenge Boston and Detroit pretty hard.

Also your Jordan/Pippen arguments lack merit. Did I ever once say that Jordan, by himself, was good enough to beat teams like the 80s Pistons and Celtics? No!! Because he wasn't. No one was....not Wilt, not Russell....no one.

Yes Jordan needed Pippen.....outside incredibly weak years like 1994 and 1975 no one can win a ring alone. Look at the two players who did win one....Barry and Olajuwon. Who did they play in 1975 and 1994? Olajuwon was the only hall of famer on his team, and beat a team with only one hall of famer. Who did the 1975 Warriors beat?

And like I said with 1994.....

1. As Jordan left, Kukoc came in
2. Grant thrived as the number one option on offense
3. Armstrong replaced Paxson
4. The league was considerably better in 1993 than 1994

Then in 1995 Pippen was I believe 31-34 after losing Grant and ADDING RON HARPER, and Jordan came back and led the team to a 14-3 finish.

As for your arguments about "what did Jordan ever do without Pippen".....

What did Magic ever do without Kareem? He excited the playoffs in 1989-91 despite STILL having a hall of famer on his team. Jordan had a very young Pippen in 89-91 and won 1 ring. Yes I know...."well if Magic had TWO hall of famers to Jordan's ONE hall of famer, it would have been different." Yeah no ****....it should be different. 

Is the point to down Magic? Certainly not, as I believe Magic is MUCH better than Oscar and a much better WINNER than Wilt. It's just to say that great players can be great and they still won't win alone.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes but you must agree that people who hate Jordan will catapult Pippen when it serves their argument. Get a Jordan v. Wilt/Kobe debate going and Pippen is a legend.....but I guarantee you if we made a secret PM wager and I started posting that Pippen was easily better than McHale, Havlicek, West, Abdul-Jabbar (Magic's second fiddler for 3-4 of his 5 rings), etc......the same people outside of you of course (since I'd be making a secret PM bet with you) who hold Pippen up in Jordan v. Wilt would be going off on me. YOU KNOW THAT too. I remember first getting here and reading a SF all-time list where Pippen was barely in 6-10 range on most people's lists, and some were putting players who weren't even SFs on the list just to down Pippen. Also....the Bulls probably beat Detroit in 88 or 89 if Pippen isn't COMPLETELY mentally taking out of his game.
> ...


that is what i said:

"People also forget though that in 93-94 with MJ out, the Bulls had just acquired Kukoc and Kerr, giving them better supporting players than they had the previous year"


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Jordan had a player like Jerry Lucas and ran him out of town? Really? That's what made Oscar a loser. Jordan and Jerry Lucas probably challenge Boston and Detroit pretty hard.
> ...


how did Armstrong replace Paxson in 93-94? BJ was playing more minutes than Paxson for 2 or 3 years before that.

What did Magic ever do without Kareem? Oh well all he did was start in the NBA finals at CENTER and score 42 points and grab 17 rebounds (those #s could be off, just getting them off memory). And because Magic is a winner, we won that game.c

Maybe you could fill me in on the details because i didnt exactly read a transcript of what when on between Lucas and the big O. But its not like Jordan didnt have his enemies either. The guy kept Isiah Thomas off of the Dream Team. Isiah was a monster and playing with 100% heart and had finished winning back to back titles a couple years earlier. How do you keep a guy like that from getting the opportunity to play on the Dream Team? Oh i guess freezing out MJ in an all-star game might have pissed him off, but he holds sour grapes for way too long. MJ is also very demanding of his players. Guys on the Wizards despised him, not that they know whats good for them but its still worth a mention


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBruins</b>!
> 
> 
> how did Armstrong replace Paxson in 93-94? BJ was playing more minutes than Paxson for 2 or 3 years before that.


from 91-93 Paxson was the starter. In 94 it was Armstrong....what's so hard to understand about that.



> What did Magic ever do without Kareem? Oh well all he did was start in the NBA finals at CENTER and score 42 points and grab 17 rebounds (those #s could be off, just getting them off memory). And because Magic is a winner, we won that game.


He beat a team with 1 hall of famer and Caldwell Jones was the opposing center. Pippen was a gimp for game 6 of the 1998 Finals and the Bulls won. 



> Maybe you could fill me in on the details because i didnt exactly read a transcript of what when on between Lucas and the big O. But its not like Jordan didnt have his enemies either. The guy kept Isiah Thomas off of the Dream Team. Isiah was a monster and playing with 100% heart and had finished winning back to back titles a couple years earlier. How do you keep a guy like that from getting the opportunity to play on the Dream Team? Oh i guess freezing out MJ in an all-star game might have pissed him off, but he holds sour grapes for way too long. MJ is also very demanding of his players. Guys on the Wizards despised him, not that they know whats good for them but its still worth a mention


So you think keeping AN OPPOSING PLAYER off the dream team is anything like running a future hall of famer and top 50 player OFF YOUR OWN TEAM. I fail to see the similarity. Yes Jordan had enemies. Jordan played with two hall of famers......Pippen and Gervin. I don't think he ran either of them off his OWN TEAM only to see them win rings elsewhere (Lucas was on the 1973 Knicks).

That argument is pathetic at best. Did keeping Isiah off the 92 dream team cost Jordan any rings? No. Did running Lucas out of town cost Oscar Robertson rings? Hard to tell, but I'd say his chances would have been markedly better. Did a bunch of losers on the Wizards not liking Jordan cost Jordan a ring? No.

Just try to draw parallel arguments. If your best argument is "Jordan is an A-hole off the court" you could have kept that. I don't care if the guys goes around in rags taking craps on old ladies crossing the street. I'm arguing MJ on the floor. One thing you'll never see me do is get involved with players off the floor lives, because it has ZERO to do with their greatness on the hardwood.

Also......Isiah had many enemies. Or did you not remember him trying to take his Dream Team snub out on John Stockton only to have a Karl Malone elbow put Zeke out for about 40 games in 1992-93? Isiah was only about what? 33 years old? That pretty much ended his career. Do we need to go into Adrian Dantley, a hall of famer, telling the media that he didn't like Isiah and they could print that? Isn't it funny that no Piston retaliated against Karl Malone?


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBruins</b>!
> 
> 
> how did Armstrong replace Paxson in 93-94? BJ was playing more minutes than Paxson for 2 or 3 years before that.
> ...


John Paxson played more minutes than BJ Armstrong in 1991 and 1992.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

91-92 they played even minutes. 92-93 BJ doubled Paxsons minutes. 93-94 Paxson was practically gone. I dont want to hear any pathetic Gervin references, he was on the Bulls for one year, his very last and then decided to retire. Gervin was barely the 5th best player on that team.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

oh and lucas played with the big O for more than half of his career. I wouldn't exactly call that running lucas out of town. BTW Lucas also went to the Warriors who had like the worst record in the league with him and other very good players like Thurmond (who yes, was a legit 6'11 center). His 2nd year there, the warriors were still only a .500 team. Finally he was out of there and went to the Knicks who had all the talent to win the title with or without him.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> Jordan had a player like Jerry Lucas and ran him out of town? Really? That's what made Oscar a loser.


Where did you get that information, again?
Because in Nba.com´s Lucas profile it´s stated that it was the coach´s (Cousy) decision to let him go.
Also, people in cincinatty acused him of "poor work habits and being out of shape", acusations that Jerry agreed to some extent... 



> Jordan and Jerry Lucas probably challenge Boston and Detroit pretty hard.


So now players of th 60´s/70´s are good, heh?
Being that Lucas main force was rebounding (where we was a monster), what was his competition, then?



> Also your Jordan/Pippen arguments lack merit. Did I ever once say that Jordan, by himself, was good enough to beat teams like the 80s Pistons and Celtics? No!! Because he wasn't. No one was....not Wilt, not Russell....no one.


Correct. You didn´t say it, because it wouldn´t be true. Like saying that Jordan *and * Pippen could beat those teams...



> Yes Jordan needed Pippen.....outside incredibly weak years like 1994 and 1975 no one can win a ring alone. Look at the two players who did win one....Barry and Olajuwon. Who did they play in 1975 and 1994? Olajuwon was the only hall of famer on his team, and beat a team with only one hall of famer. Who did the 1975 Warriors beat?


Your "a-team-needs-at-least-2-HOF-to-win-the-ring" theory fails to explain also this year´s Detroit success...



> And like I said with 1994.....
> 
> 1. As Jordan left, Kukoc came in


Was he ever in an All Star? Can´t really remember...



> 2. Grant thrived as the number one option on offense


Grant wasn´t #1 in offense. Pippen was.



> 4. The league was considerably better in 1993 than 1994


Why?



> As for your arguments about "what did Jordan ever do without Pippen".....


That´s not my argument. I just put up facts (quoting DaBruins)



> What did Magic ever do without Kareem?


Oh, nothing... Just earning League MVP in 89-90 and winning 63 games with All Mighty Mychal Thompson at Center... And getting to the Finals the next year..

I also notice that you conveniently don´t mention that, in 88-89 (Jabbar´s last season) Magic won the MVP award . Yeah, Jabbar was of tremendous help, there: 10ppg, 4.5rpg, *and 22.9mpg* 

BTW, wouldn´t you call Magic a *loser* for getting his coach axed?
Because that´s what Magic did with Westhead...

BTW, how would you explain the Lakers descent from a 58-24-and-a-trip-to-the-Finals season to a 43-39-made-it-to-the-playoffs-in-the-last-game-of-the-season?
IMHO, that´s a * lot * different than a -2 wins after Jordan´s (first) retirement...


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> Where did you get that information, again?
> ...


Watch Lucas' sportscentury 



> So now players of th 60´s/70´s are good, heh?
> Being that Lucas main force was rebounding (where we was a monster), what was his competition, then?


Better than anyone Jordan had pre-1991 Pippen? By far.



> Correct. You didn´t say it, because it wouldn´t be true. Like saying that Jordan *and * Pippen could beat those teams...


The 1992 Bulls could absolutely beat those teams. Because Jordan had as much help as Bird? No. Because he was so great that he could take less help and win....yes. Remember with Pippen still wet behind the ears and hardly the superstar he was in 1992 the Bulls....went 6 games with Detroit in 1989, seven in 1990 and swept Detroit in 1991. The 1992 team was the best team they ever had so......you figure it out



> Your "a-team-needs-at-least-2-HOF-to-win-the-ring" theory fails to explain also this year´s Detroit success...


Joe Dumars?



> Was he ever in an All Star? Can´t really remember...


No but its one factor. I can show you 5-8 games where, if you sub Kukoc for Rodney McCray, the Bulls lose games they won.



> Grant wasn´t #1 in offense. Pippen was.


Pippen was the point guard. Grant was the number 1 option. However without Jordan, Pippen finished a lot more fast breaks, thus the scoring desparity.



> Why?


Ehhhh lets see. Portland imploded. 93 was Isiah's last year as a starter, and McHale's last year in Boston.



> Oh, nothing... Just earning League MVP in 89-90 and winning 63 games with All Mighty Mychal Thompson at Center... And getting to the Finals the next year..


Jordan won an MVP and DPOY in 1988 with Pippen as an ineffectual non-starter rookie. Also....Worthy was on the 89-90 team......just like Jordan, Magic had ONE hall of fame teammate. Jordan had Pippen and won 67 games in 1992.



> I also notice that you conveniently don´t mention that, in 88-89 (Jabbar´s last season) Magic won the MVP award . Yeah, Jabbar was of tremendous help, there: 10ppg, 4.5rpg, *and 22.9mpg*


Worthy. One hall of famer.....just like Jordan. Actually with a crippled Jabblunt that makes at least 1.25 hall of famers. 



> BTW, wouldn´t you call Magic a *loser* for getting his coach axed?
> Because that´s what Magic did with Westhead...


Magic had 5 rings and ran his coach. At the time Oscar had 0 rings and ran a future hofer and top 50 player. LOSER.



> BTW, how would you explain the Lakers descent from a 58-24-and-a-trip-to-the-Finals season to a 43-39-made-it-to-the-playoffs-in-the-last-game-of-the-season?
> IMHO, that´s a * lot * different than a -2 wins after Jordan´s (first) retirement...


Easy......

1. Worthy wasn't as good as Pippen. Yeah he was a hall of famer, but he was a hall of fame SCORER. Helps when you lose a player like Jordan and Magic to have the best player you KEEP be the guy who runs the point for you on offense and does it all on defense. 

2. Worthy only played 54 games. Hmmmm. If the Lakers just go 10-18 without Worthy (which would have made their best player Divac?), then they have to go 33-21 with Worthy to be 43-39 for example. I mean had Scottie missed 28 games in 1994 do you really think the Bulls win 55? Doubt it.

3. The League DID NOT experience a large dropoff from 1991 to 1992.

4. The Lakers second best player after Worthy WAS NOT as good as Horace Grant who *was an all star in 1994*.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

so then if pippen was better than worthy, by your standards, it was much easier for Jordan to win rings than it was for Magic to win his last mvp and those last titles. I mean sure we had worthy, but Scottie is better than Worthy. And Grant was an all-star so he was better than anyone else we had.

And in 92, Scottie was getting 21 points, 8 rebounds, 7 assists per game and was a great defensive player. I'd call that a superstar. But i doubt that Bulls team would win more than 1 title in the 80s.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBruins</b>!
> so then if pippen was better than worthy, by your standards, it was much easier for Jordan to win rings than it was for Magic to win his last mvp and those last titles. I mean sure we had worthy, but Scottie is better than Worthy. And Grant was an all-star so he was better than anyone else we had.


Wrong. I knew you'd try that.......Magic had Worthy in 1989-90.....the comparison was Magic without Kareem v. Jordan without Pippen. Magic without Kareem still had Worthy. Jordan without Pippen had no one. 

Grant never had an all star season while playing with Jordan.



> And in 92, Scottie was getting 21 points, 8 rebounds, 7 assists per game and was a great defensive player. I'd call that a superstar. But i doubt that Bulls team would win more than 1 title in the 80s.


So your assertion boils down to......"Jordan and Pippen's Bulls were built at a time when less hall of famers were on each team".....yes I know that. 

But don't count out Chicago. The 1990 Bulls put in 1980 probably add another top player due to fewer teams in the league and probably win more like 6-7 rings. Because remember in this scenario you'd put them into the league so that their prime would coincide with the prime of Isiah and Bird, etc. Which is a lot different than a very young Jordan with no Pippen or Grant playing Bird and Isiah in their primes. 

So start the 1990 Bulls off in 1980....Boston added McHale post 1980. LA added Worthy post 1980. Stands to reason that you could have seen a player like perhaps Dennis Johnson, Mo Cheeks or Andrew Toney added to the Bulls....and that's being generous.

So you stick the 1990 Bulls in 1980 and you let them build and grow and you probably see them win 6 rings.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> Watch Lucas' sportscentury


What does it say? Can´t get that on TV. Gimme a quick sum, if you may... 



> Better than anyone Jordan had pre-1991 Pippen? By far.


This doesn´t explain your double-standardism (sp?)



> The 1992 Bulls could absolutely beat those teams.


Yeah, right...



> Because Jordan had as much help as Bird? No. Because he was so great that he could take less help and win....yes.


Doesn´t seem like a logical explanation, to me...
Exactly "how great" was Jordan that he could defeat an *healthy* Bird/McHale/Parish frontcourt?



> Remember with Pippen still wet behind the ears and hardly the superstar he was in 1992 the Bulls....went 6 games with Detroit in 1989, seven in 1990 and swept Detroit in 1991.


We´ve discuss this already. 



> The 1992 team was the best team they ever had so......you figure it out


I sure as hell hope you´re not talking about Detroit´s team in 1992...
Darrell Walker instead of The Microwave?
A beaten down Isiah, Laimbeer (wasn´t that the year he volunteered to go to the bench?) and Aguirre?
A 48-34 team? I don´t think so...



> Joe Dumars?


Dumars is the team´s GM. I don´t think he played a minute in *this years´* Detroit Pistons...



> No but its one factor. I can show you 5-8 games where, if you sub Kukoc for Rodney McCray, the Bulls lose games they won.


You seem a little desperate, now...



> Pippen was the point guard. Grant was the number 1 option. However without Jordan, Pippen finished a lot more fast breaks, thus the scoring desparity.


That´s not true and you know it. Grant as the primary offense option? LOL...



> Ehhhh lets see. Portland imploded. 93 was Isiah's last year as a starter, and McHale's last year in Boston.


Yeah, right... Boston was finished years before that... right about the same time Larry´s back gave up on him...
That Pistons team sucKed big time.
Please, don´t make things up as you go along...



> Jordan won an MVP and DPOY in 1988 with Pippen as an ineffectual non-starter rookie.


Yeah, leading the Bulls to a 50-32 record, almost being beaten by the Cavs in the first round and getting a beating by the Pistons...

Magic lead his team to the title, even out-rebouning (as a PG!!!!) your precious Jabbar.
Bird, on the other hand, averaged 29.9ppg, 9.3rpg and 6.1apg while shooting over .520FG%...

Yes, sir. Michael did deserve that MVP... 



> Also....Worthy was on the 89-90 team......just like Jordan, Magic had ONE hall of fame teammate. Jordan had Pippen and won 67 games in 1992.
> 
> 
> 
> Worthy. One hall of famer.....just like Jordan. Actually with a crippled Jabblunt that makes at least 1.25 hall of famers.


That´s the thing about Magic... he made all his teammates better. Don´t pretend to not know that the mid-80's team would go *nowhere* without the Magic man...



> Magic had 5 rings and ran his coach. At the time Oscar had 0 rings and ran a future hofer and top 50 player. LOSER.


Wrong (again).
Magic had *one* ring before he got Westhead fired... 



> Easy......
> 
> 1. Worthy wasn't as good as Pippen. Yeah he was a hall of famer, but he was a hall of fame SCORER. Helps when you lose a player like Jordan and Magic to have the best player you KEEP be the guy who runs the point for you on offense and does it all on defense.


The more you give Pippen credit for the Bulls accomplishments, the more you take it away from Jordan, IMO... 



> 2. Worthy only played 54 games. Hmmmm. If the Lakers just go 10-18 without Worthy (which would have made their best player Divac?), then they have to go 33-21 with Worthy to be 43-39 for example. I mean had Scottie missed 28 games in 1994 do you really think the Bulls win 55? Doubt it.


Divac only played 36 games.
Hmmm...
The Lakers got out-scored, out-rebounded, out-assisted, and had a poorer FG% right after Magic left... You figure it out... Who was lacking?



> 3. The League DID NOT experience a large dropoff from 1991 to 1992.


???? What ????



> 4. The Lakers second best player after Worthy WAS NOT as good as Horace Grant who *was an all star in 1994*.


Guess who prevented him (and BJ ARmstrong) to be an all-star and you´ll come to the conclusion that, unlike Magic, Jordan didn´t make his teammates better...

Give it up, LB, you´re not gonna win this...


----------



## PhatDaddy3100 (Jun 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: I know everyone's gonna say Michael Jordan but...*



> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Robertson = 1 ring, played with Kareem in his PRIME
> ...


If I remember correctly, Oscar only got to play one or two seasons with Kareem. And Wilt didnt have a mythical regular season, he had a mythical career. HE averaged something like 30, 20, and 5 for his career. No one dominated the game like Wilt did. Oscar is better htan Jordan because he was a all around bettter player. OScar could score and defend just as well as jordan but could pass and rebound better.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Wrong. I knew you'd try that.......Magic had Worthy in 1989-90.....the comparison was Magic without Kareem v. Jordan without Pippen. Magic without Kareem still had Worthy. Jordan without Pippen had no one.
> ...


my assertion was not that there were less HoFers on each team in the 90s. There obviously was because there were more teams but that wasnt my point. You said Pippen was not yet a superstar, and by saying that, tried to point out that it was even harder for MJ to do what he did because he didnt have a 2nd superstar. The point i proved was that he did in Scottie. And you said yourself Grant was an all-star without MJ, so obviously he was another very good player. And BJ had some very nice years as well. 

If bulls win even 3 rings in the 80s in your scenario, i'd call it a miracle. You said 6 or 7. Well they would have to get past Boston, Philly, and Detroit which would have been a murderers row. And if they made it to the finals after that, it would most likely be LA or Houston. They would NOT, and try to find me a respected person who agrees with you, win 6 to 7 rings in the 80s, regardless of who they added.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> What does it say? Can´t get that on TV. Gimme a quick sum, if you may...


Several reputable sources talk about how Oscar basically ran Lucas



> This doesn´t explain your double-standardism (sp?)


You said "oh, now the players of the 60s and 70s are so good. First remember that Lucas physically was one of the most talented players of that era.....probably right there after Wilt and Russell. He just didn't seek the spotlight. Now....is that better than a rookie Charles Oakley or Orlando Woolridge? By leaps and bounds.



> Yeah, right...


Nice argument.



> Doesn´t seem like a logical explanation, to me...
> Exactly "how great" was Jordan that he could defeat an *healthy* Bird/McHale/Parish frontcourt?


Well for example.....Jordan, with literally NO ONE on his team in 1986, 23 years old, and coming off a season long leg injury.......scored 63 points on Boston and took them to overtime in one of the games of the Boston sweep. That's Jordan, in his second year, all alone, taking five hall of famers to overtime. No Pippen, no Grant, no Cartwright or Paxson. Now.....athletically speaking.....Grant and Pippen are probably better matchups on Bird and McHale than ANYTHING they saw in the 80s, both extremely long and athletic, both very sound defenders. Bird in fact, never saw a full-time defender his whole career as good as Pippen. Add to that the fact that as good as DJ was.....he wasn't stopping Jordan. The difference between Pippen on Bird and Johnson on Jordan is that Bird is gonna get his on a single team, whereas Jordan would get his on a double and triple. Jordan was a force for his whole playoff career similar to what you saw of Shaq in 2000.......no one player had a chance.

As for Parrish, Cartwright was a VERY good defensive center.



> We´ve discuss this already.


Sounding like someone who is fighting a losing battle. 



> I sure as hell hope you´re not talking about Detroit´s team in 1992...
> Darrell Walker instead of The Microwave?
> A beaten down Isiah, Laimbeer (wasn´t that the year he volunteered to go to the bench?) and Aguirre?
> A 48-34 team? I don´t think so...


No I'm talking about the 1992 Bulls. Try to keep up. Why would I be talking about the 1992 Bulls in the above paragraph and then just randomly switch to the very pedestrian 1992 Pistons.



> Dumars is the team´s GM. I don´t think he played a minute in *this years´* Detroit Pistons...


Ahhhh misread that. Honestly I think you'll see as many as four potential hall of famers on this years Pistons. Pretty weird to try to tell me that players who are 26 and 27 like Billups or Hamilton won't be hall of famers. They have a decent shot. I would argue that Rasheed Wallace and Ben Wallace, both 29 and with 7-8 years ahead of them probably WILL be hall of famers. When Detroit wins a couple more championships come back and talk to me.



> You seem a little desperate, now...


Not desparate. That is a very logical argument. A Toni Kukoc is worth at least 8-12 wins, but DEFINITELY 5-8 wins without even discussing it. He won sixth man of the year in 1996 and I don't really see what an Antwaan Jamison brings that Toni didn't at the time.



> That´s not true and you know it. Grant as the primary offense option? LOL...


Don't tell me its not true......I watched every game. Pippen ran the point and the primary objective was to get Grant offense. Why do you think he was an ALL STAR in 1995. Pippen got most of his points on fast breaks, or coming in for a long rebound and finishing, or perhaps throwing it up with the shot clock was running out. Coming down the court and setting it up...the play was for Grant.



> Yeah, right... Boston was finished years before that... right about the same time Larry´s back gave up on him...
> That Pistons team sucKed big time.
> Please, don´t make things up as you go along...


The Pistons and Celtics WERE EVEN WORSE in 1994. At least in 1993 they put up a fight. I don't know how you can argue Kevin McHale going to Minnesota as not being a good thing if you're playing Boston. 

In fact.....you mention Cleveland......they were very good in 1993 and they sucked in 1994. There's another team.



> Yeah, leading the Bulls to a 50-32 record, almost being beaten by the Cavs in the first round and getting a beating by the Pistons
> 
> Magic lead his team to the title, even out-rebouning (as a PG!!!!) your precious Jabbar.
> Bird, on the other hand, averaged 29.9ppg, 9.3rpg and 6.1apg while shooting over .520FG%...
> ...


Magic had Worthy in his prime and an old Jabbar. Jordan had a rookie Scottie Pippen. Switch them and Jordan easily would lead Worthy and Jabblunt to a ring.

Larry Bird 1988
29.9 PPG *9.3 RPG 6.1 APG* 1.64 SPG 0.75 BPG 52.7% FG *91.6%FT*

Michael Jordan 1988
*35.0 PPG* 5.5 RPG 5.9 APG *3.16 SPG 1.6 BPG 53.5% FG* 84.1%FT

Wow looks like Jordan wins 4 stats and Bird wins 3. Way to check your facts before arrogantly posting with your chest stuck out.



> That´s the thing about Magic... he made all his teammates better. Don´t pretend to not know that the mid-80's team would go *nowhere* without the Magic man...


Did he make his teammates better, or did he just have better teammates than Jordan, Bird and Isiah. The latter.



> Wrong (again).
> Magic had *one* ring before he got Westhead fired...


Ah you were speaking of the 88 LAkers and you never switched gears and said 81 or whatever. But Magic went on to win 5 rings......Robertson didnt. 



> The more you give Pippen credit for the Bulls accomplishments, the more you take it away from Jordan, IMO...


Not at all. In your fantasy world you see it that way, but while Pippen was better than Worthy (not A LOT better than Worthy) he was never as good as pre-1986 Abdul Jabbar or Mchale. 



> Divac only played 36 games.
> Hmmm...
> The Lakers got out-scored, out-rebounded, out-assisted, and had a poorer FG% right after Magic left... You figure it out... Who was lacking?


LOL sounds like not only Magic but WORTHY AND DIVAC. Am I missing something? Did Pippen play 54 games in 1994 (Worthy) and Grant 36 games (Divac). Yes if the Bulls play 1994 without Jordan and HALF of 1994 without Pippen and Grant.....they probably only win 43 games. Maybe less.



> ???? What ????


It didn't. Just as Magic was leaving LA.....the Blazers got better, the Cavaliers got better, the Knicks got A LOT better. There were teams there that were quality that took the place of the Lakers. Isiah played 78 games and Boston was still on life support.



> Guess who prevented him (and BJ ARmstrong) to be an all-star and you´ll come to the conclusion that, unlike Magic, Jordan didn´t make his teammates better...
> 
> Give it up, LB, you´re not gonna win this...


LOL I'm routing this. You haven't come up with one point in this whole thread that I didn't have an argument for. BJ Armstrong didn't go to the All-star game in Charlotte. Grant was not an all star in Orlando.

Who did Magic make an All-star that wasn't already gonna BE an all star. Worthy was 1981 NCAA tournament MVP and Kareem showed up in LA with 5 MVPs. Oh yes....I can clearly see that Grant was as good as Worthy before he got to Chicago and Jordan messed everything up.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: I know everyone's gonna say Michael Jordan but...*



> Originally posted by <b>PhatDaddy3100</b>!
> 
> 
> If I remember correctly, Oscar only got to play one or two seasons with Kareem. And Wilt didnt have a mythical regular season, he had a mythical career. HE averaged something like 30, 20, and 5 for his career. No one dominated the game like Wilt did. Oscar is better htan Jordan because he was a all around bettter player. OScar could score and defend just as well as jordan but could pass and rebound better.


Wilt had a mythical REGULAR SEASON career.

If Oscar was better....how come like 2 people in this whole thread say he is? Do you know something we all don't know?

Jordan averaged 4.4 more PPG despite playing to be 41, which is five years older than Oscar was when he retired. There are no stats on SPG and BPG, but *the ALL DEFENSIVE team was around for the last SIX years of Oscar's career (starting when Oscar was a ripe old 28 years old) and he was never named to a first or second team.

Jordan on the other hand was named to a record 9 Defensive first teams and won DPOY in 1988.*

So saying Oscar was a better defender than Jordan or a better scorer is your own unfounded opinion, which is pretty much all that Jordan haters are about. 

Jordan also played with half the hall of famers Oscar played with and won 5 more rings!! LOL. Where was Oscar in the playoffs??

*Oh that's right......just like Chamberlain....Oscar's playoff PPG was 22.2, dropping dramatically while Jordan's rose to 33 PPG*


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBruins</b>!
> 
> 
> my assertion was not that there were less HoFers on each team in the 90s. There obviously was because there were more teams but that wasnt my point. You said Pippen was not yet a superstar, and by saying that, tried to point out that it was even harder for MJ to do what he did because he didnt have a 2nd superstar. The point i proved was that he did in Scottie. And you said yourself Grant was an all-star without MJ, so obviously he was another very good player. And BJ had some very nice years as well.


Scottie was not a superstar in 1991 and Jordan still won. In fact Pippen was not an all star in 1991. Grant had ONE all star season without Jordan.....please don't act like he was there any more than Joe Barry Carroll. BJ was a good role player at best. He went to Charlotte and hardly busted a grape. My point earlier was that by 1993 Pax was a gimp (until game 6 of the finals baby!!), but it took until 94 for BJ to start.



> If bulls win even 3 rings in the 80s in your scenario, i'd call it a miracle. You said 6 or 7. Well they would have to get past Boston, Philly, and Detroit which would have been a murderers row. And if they made it to the finals after that, it would most likely be LA or Houston. They would NOT, and try to find me a respected person who agrees with you, win 6 to 7 rings in the 80s, regardless of who they added.


Yes they would. I personally think they'd beat all those teams. No one will ever argue to me that any of those teams had one player who could even come close to guarding Jordan, whereas Pippen on Bird, Erving or Magic is as good of a defensive matchup as those three see in their whole careers. Grant on Worthy or Parrish is a better matchup than those two see outside or Rodman and LaimBALLS. Cartwright on Abdul Jabbar is better than anything anyone but Boston three at Kareem because of his length. Cartwright showed vs. Ewing that he was a very good defensive center by sometimes completely taking Pat out of his game. Do Pippen, Grant and Cartwright go off on offense in one on one matchups? No. Does Jordan start to take two and three men to the hole eventually leaving wide open dunks for Grant and Pippen? Yes. 

Besides......Detroit wasn't even a factor in the early to mid 80s. They sprung in about 86. Philly without Moses sucked ***. I'll say this.....put the 1990 Bulls in 1980...watch them add a Mo Cheeks or a Ralph Sampson along the way and they meet LA in the Finals every year from 1980 until 1991 with both teams probably walking with 5 or 6 rings.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

yet again, huge disagreement. Hell, add Sampson AND Mo Cheeks and the lakers would still get at least 4 rings in the 80s (just to be clear, the bulls wouldnt get the other 6). But we can just stop this whole thread right here, did i see that above post correctly? Did you just say that Magic doesnt make his teammates better? Alright, time to shut this thread down.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Not much time.
Quick refutal:



> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> Ahhhh misread that. Honestly I think you'll see as many as four potential hall of famers on this years Pistons. Pretty weird to try to tell me that players who are 26 and 27 like Billups or Hamilton won't be hall of famers. They have a decent shot. I would argue that Rasheed Wallace and Ben Wallace, both 29 and with 7-8 years ahead of them probably WILL be hall of famers. When Detroit wins a couple more championships come back and talk to me.


Obviously, i don´t agree. Besides Ben Wallace, i don´t see anyone in the Pistons roster that has played in a superstar level, let alone HOF level.
In the regular season noone scored more than 17ppg or 5apg... those are NOT HOF numbers...

Now you can argue that they can improve in the future, and i won´t disagree, but i don´t see Rip (one-dimentional player) scoring in the high 20´s or Billups becoming more of a distributer...

Besides, my point is that the *current* Pistons squad (being Wallace questionable) has no one playing like a future HOF...



> Larry Bird 1988
> 29.9 PPG *9.3 RPG 6.1 APG* 1.64 SPG 0.75 BPG 52.7% FG *91.6%FT*
> 
> Michael Jordan 1988
> ...


If you think that it ain´t an amazing feat putting those kinds of numbers in a team with McHale, Parish and DJ, you are deluded...
That Celtics team had 5 +12ppg players, 3 guys rebounding over 8rpg (and Bird, a SF, was the teams leader) and 3 guys over 6apg...

That Bulls team had Jordan, Oakley (not a good scorer but great rebounder) and... heh... who´s this Corzine fella?
Don´t you think that did *inflate* Jordan´s numbers? Not having to share the ball? (Bird out-assisted MJ, who had the ball in his hands alllll the time...)

If you think you can compare that season´s stats favourably to Jordan, i think i´m wasting our time...



> Did he make his teammates better, or did he just have better teammates than Jordan, Bird and Isiah. The latter.


That´s a borderline heresy, there.



> Who did Magic make an All-star that wasn't already gonna BE an all star. Worthy was 1981 NCAA tournament MVP and Kareem showed up in LA with 5 MVPs. Oh yes....I can clearly see that Grant was as good as Worthy before he got to Chicago and Jordan messed everything up.


Byron Scott? (unidimentional player: a scorer)
A.C.Green? (a guy who couldn´t create his own shot and all he did was rebound)

Look, dude, when a guy is the ALL-TIME LEADER IN ASSISITS PER GAME, who the hell is putting the ball in the basket? And who is getting them the ball?


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBruins</b>!
> yet again, huge disagreement. Hell, add Sampson AND Mo Cheeks and the lakers would still get at least 4 rings in the 80s (just to be clear, the bulls wouldnt get the other 6). But we can just stop this whole thread right here, did i see that above post correctly? Did you just say that Magic doesnt make his teammates better? Alright, time to shut this thread down.


Oh Magic makes his teammates better.....no moreso than Bird and Jordan. The difference? Kareem and Worthy came to Magic better than Pippen and Grant came to Jordan or McHale and Parrish came to Bird.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> Not much time.
> Quick refutal:
> 
> ...


Well sometimes guys become hall of famers just by winning. Go back and look at Bill Sharman's numbers. He's hailed as Boston's sharpshooter and he shot 45%. The guy wasn't known for much else. Bill Bradley? Dave Debusschere? Debusschere averaged 17.1 PPG and 11 RPG on 43% FG. Rasheed Wallace falls short in rebounds averaging only 6.9 but shoots 49% for his career and averages 16.9 PPG. 

The Pistons are of the same breed. They give up stats because there are enough very good players on the team that they respect each other enough to let numbers go.....very much like the 1970 Knickerbockers. Hall of fame isn't always about numbers......sometimes a guy who is instrumental in a team WINNING can make it.....and I expect the Pistons to win plenty.

Robert Parrish only averaged 14.9 and 9.1. But he helped better players be better than even we thought they could be......which is EXACTLY what Billups did this year. Hell....Chauncey has more NBA Finals MVPs than A LOT of hall of famers already.



> If you think that it ain´t an amazing feat putting those kinds of numbers in a team with McHale, Parish and DJ, you are deluded...
> That Celtics team had 5 +12ppg players, 3 guys rebounding over 8rpg (and Bird, a SF, was the teams leader) and 3 guys over 6apg...
> 
> That Bulls team had Jordan, Oakley (not a good scorer but great rebounder) and... heh... who´s this Corzine fella?
> ...


There is absolutely an equalizer. Field goal percentage. Who cares that Bird shot a few times less (notice i said a few, not a lot)......Jordan shot a higher FG%.....which lets you know that his Field goal shooting was more efficient.

Also look at two of the stats Jordan had BIG leads in. SPG and BPG. Those stats go down when you have better teammates? LOL Bird had Parish and perrenial all defensive team members Dennis Johnson and Kevin McHale. That means he could take more gambles for steals and blocks, because if he missed he didn't have Dave frickin Corzine behind him. 

Funny you're willing to argue that we should give Bird a pass because he had better teammates when it comes to stats, but that argument is invalid when it comes to winning titles. 



> That´s a borderline heresy, there.


Yes you're right. The sentence should have read....

Did he make his teammates better at a greater level than Jordan, Bird and Isiah, or did he just have better teammates than Jordan, Bird and Isiah. I'd argue Isiah made his teammates better than Magic did. He took one VERY borderline hall of famer in Dumars and a bunch of scrappers to two rings. Hmmmm....what's easier? Making Abdul Jabbar and Worthy better or making Dumars and Laimballs better?



> Byron Scott? (unidimentional player: a scorer)
> A.C.Green? (a guy who couldn´t create his own shot and all he did was rebound)
> 
> Look, dude, when a guy is the ALL-TIME LEADER IN ASSISITS PER GAME, who the hell is putting the ball in the basket? And who is getting them the ball?


So let me get this straight. You want to argue that if anyone playing with Jordan ever makes an all star team.....Jordan had just as much talent as the next guy and that talent MADE Jordan who he is, at least partially. BUT if anyone playing with Magic makes an all-star team........it's because Magic made him who he was.

Here's the bottom line. Magic came into the 1991 finals with Worthy, and LIKE you said......two all stars in Scott and Green. Jordan brought only one player, Pippen, who had ever been to an all star game (1990 was Pippen's only appearance to that time....and the Bulls rolled the Lakers. Wasn't even close. Cartwright and Paxson were very hobbled and the Bulls steamrolled. Don't forget Sam Perkins and Vlade Divac......both are about as good as Horace Grant at that time....probably better. Before you start...Worthy and Scott sat one game.....the clincher. Also.....the Bulls had NO BENCH. Who was their bench? BJ Armstrong, Cliff Levingston, Stacey King, and Scott Williams? Only Levingston was not a young pup at the time. Who of those four was as good as AC Green OR Elden Campbell? No one. 

Now I KNOW what you're thinking. 

How was Magic supposed to beat Jordan and Pippen with a hobbled Worthy?

Well how was Jordan supposed to beat Bird with no Pippen or Grant and Isiah with a VERY young Pippen and Grant? Scottie Pippen in 1988 and 1989 wasn't the player that an injured James Worthy was when he was HEALTHY. Even then, because of Jordan the Bulls were VERY competitive with Detroit. As soon as Scottie in his words "grew up, stopped whining to the officials, and just played basketball" it wasn't even close. They tore through the Pistons like it was nothing. 

Want me to send you a poster of Dumars trying to draw a charge and Jordan damn near jumping over his shoulder for a dunk (he scraped Dumars shoulder with his knee)?

In fact....what was that whole 1991 Eastern Finals? It was Jordan drawing Pistons to him and kicking to open Bulls for easy shots.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBruins</b>!
> yet again, huge disagreement. Hell, add Sampson AND Mo Cheeks and the lakers would still get at least 4 rings in the 80s (just to be clear, the bulls wouldnt get the other 6). But we can just stop this whole thread right here, did i see that above post correctly? Did you just say that Magic doesnt make his teammates better? Alright, time to shut this thread down.


Your opinion. This is the part we can never settle.....its strictly opinion based. Now...how about this one.....

Jordan
Pippen
Kareem 

v.

Magic
Worthy
Kareem

Just proving a point...give Jordan close to as much talent as his main opponent (Magic in this case) and he wins every time.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: I know everyone's gonna say Michael Jordan but...*



> Originally posted by <b>PhatDaddy3100</b>!
> Oscar is better htan Jordan because he was a all around bettter player. OScar could score and defend just as well as jordan but could pass and rebound better.


It amuses me everytime someone decides to make an arguement for any player being better than Jordan. Mike was easily the best all around player of all time, no question! Oscar was just as good of a scorer? He didn't win the amount of scoring titles MJ did.... As good of a defender? Did make as many 1st team all defensive teams as MJ did.... Jordan was an excellent assist man/playmaker. If you judge them off numbers alone, I'll give it to O. However, Jordan role on all of his team was not that of an Oscar Robertson. Either way, look at the overall sucess of each players career. Jordan dominated the 90's era of basketball. He dominated as a scoring title champ nearly every year, his team won the league title nearly every year, he was in the running for defensive player of the year every year, he was an allstar every year, he was the MVP nearly every year, he was everything! 

Oscar Robertson was a great great player... one of the greatest of all time, but he didn't overall do everything the way Jordan dominated overall in every aspect of the game!


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Your opinion. This is the part we can never settle.....its strictly opinion based. Now...how about this one.....
> ...


In my opinion Michael Jordan did have as much talent as his opponent(Magic) during eaches respective title runs. I can't get enough of those who continue to underestimate the likes of Scottie Pippen, and Dennis Rodman. News Flash people, these two players are arguably the two greatest defenders of all time. Easily 2 of the top 5! Jordan, Pippen, Rodman would have to be as talented a trio as Magic, Worthy, and Kareem. Just take a moment and look at what the Bulls trio accomplished. They were the Kings of the NBA during the 90's,_(even when Rodman played for the Spurs in the early 90's and Pistion in the late 80's those team did nothing but win.)_ They won a NBA record 72 games in one season, that's incredible! They were all NBA selections every year! How can anyone argue this Bulls 3, is not as talented a group of players... as any three player you have every seen assemble throughout NBA history? :whoknows:


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> In my opinion Michael Jordan did have as much talent as his opponent(Magic) during eaches respective title runs. I can't get enough of those who continue to underestimate the likes of Scottie Pippen, and Dennis Rodman. News Flash people, these two players are arguably the two greatest defenders of all time. Easily 2 of the top 5! Jordan, Pippen, Rodman would have to be as talented a trio as Magic, Worthy, and Kareem. Just take a moment and look at what the Bulls trio accomplished. They were the Kings of the NBA during the 90's,_(even when Rodman played for the Spurs in the early 90's and Pistion in the late 80's those team did nothing but win.)_ They won a NBA record 72 games in one season, that's incredible! They were all NBA selections every year! How can anyone argue this Bulls 3, is not as talented a group of players... as any three player you have every seen assemble throughout NBA history? :whoknows:


Yes IV *When you add Jordan* they are just as talented. But as far as Paulo's argument......Pippen and Grant/Rodman WERE NOT as good as Kareem and Worthy.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Anyone arguing that Oscar is better than Jordan, needs to get off the computer and go seek help.

Jordan blows him off the charts in every category, including playing against far superior competition. 

If they were playing one on one, both in prime, oscar wouldn’t be able to get a jumper off.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bballlife</b>!
> 
> If they were playing one on one, both in prime, oscar wouldn’t be able to get a jumper off.


doing a bit of a disservice to one of the great players ever. not just great for his era, a great, ahead of his time, superstar.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Your opinion. This is the part we can never settle.....its strictly opinion based. Now...how about this one.....
> ...


Ill take Magic, Worty, and Kareem. Youre take on Magic is really off. No one was better at making their teammates better than Magic. He made Scott an all-star for crying out loud. He made Coop a better scorer than he would ever normally be. Wilkes, who averaged 17 for his career, had many years in LA where he would be scoring 21. AC Green only averaged double figuers twice with any other team. But on the Lakers he did it 6 times while averaging 9 boards. Why do you fault some players for playing with better players? We never know how the chemistry would work if you place Jordan or Isiah on the 80s lakers and take out Magic. IMO, they would be worse off. Magic was the best for that team and IMO Magic is the best PLAYER the NBA has ever seen. He isnt the best scorer (that was MJ), he isnt the best shooter (that was Bird), but IMO he was the best player.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBruins</b>!
> 
> 
> Ill take Magic, Worty, and Kareem. Youre take on Magic is really off. No one was better at making their teammates better than Magic. He made Scott an all-star for crying out loud. He made Coop a better scorer than he would ever normally be. Wilkes, who averaged 17 for his career, had many years in LA where he would be scoring 21. AC Green only averaged double figuers twice with any other team. But on the Lakers he did it 6 times while averaging 9 boards. Why do you fault some players for playing with better players? We never know how the chemistry would work if you place Jordan or Isiah on the 80s lakers and take out Magic. IMO, they would be worse off. Magic was the best for that team and IMO Magic is the best PLAYER the NBA has ever seen. He isnt the best scorer (that was MJ), he isnt the best shooter (that was Bird), but IMO he was the best player.


Jordan is better than Magic all day all night. So now you're shifting to Green, Cooper, Wilkes, etc. Magic didn't make players around him any better than Jordan did. He had two guys that were gonna be hall of fame legends WITH or WITHOUT Magic Johnson in James Worthy and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Now you're talking about guys who come after Magic, Kareem and Worthy......well gee, when you have those three in place it gets kinda easy for an AC Green (who was never in his PRIME anywhere else!) or a Jamaal Wilkes (who was also well on his way to being a very good player before he ever met Magic Johnson).

To argue that Magic made players better than Jordan is a typical LA-centric argument. It's not true. How do you explain Jordan taking a player from Central Arkansas under his wing and the world getting Scottie Pippen? The second best SF ever. Have you ever seen Pippen as a rookie? He was about as smooth handling the rock as Tyson Chandler if you told Tyson to break someone down off the dribble. Look at his rookie numbers.....he was garbage. The guy didn't even play for his college team until his junior year.

Now you want to talk about MAKING HIS TEAMMATES BETTER? How do you think Scottie got so good?

*The Breakfast Club*

Jordan would have Pippen come to his house every morning and he'd work with him for 4, 5 hours a day. He'd run Scottie through all the drills he went through at UNC and would hound and harass Pippen in one on one games. Rumor is by the end of the first year of working with Jordan....Scottie could dribble without looking down LOL. 

So don't give me this magic makes everyone better than anyone else stuff. Jordan took Scottie Pippen and turned him into a player between Worthy and Kareem. Was Scottie NCAA Tournament MVP when MJ got him like Worthy was?? NO! He was a gangly SF from Central Arkansas. 

How about Horace Grant?? He was MJ's favorite to ride all offseason and in every practice. They said Horace was a "scorer, who'd never guard anyone in the league." By the time MJ was done with him Horace was not only on the second defensive team several times, but became known as being a hardworking, blue collar guy. 

Then of course there is getting Kareem and Worthy and continuing to do what those two were doing before Magic EVER PLAYED WITH THEM.....winning championships. Ok and?

1991 NBA Finals player rankings (4-1 Bulls win)

1. Jordan v. Johnson
2. Pippen v. Worthy
3. Grant v. Perkins
4. Paxson v. Scott
5. Cartwright v. Divac
6. Armstrong v. Green
7. Levingston v. Campbell

As you can see.....by the fifth best player on each team Magic had a clear advantage. AND LOST!!


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> But as far as Paulo's argument......Pippen and Grant/Rodman WERE NOT as good as Kareem and Worthy.


What was that argument you claim as mine?

It´s curious, LB... You just won´t admit Magic was the best at getting the best out of other players...

Well, i guess someone (Havlicek?) once said something like "I made a living out of Bob Cousy"... And Houdini didn´t post Magic´s astounding career APG, did he?
Yet, i guess Hondo knows nothing about playing with a great point guard...

Chambers once said he won the ASG because of Magic... still, that doesn´t count...

In the 90-91 Finals last game Magic had 10 assists in the first quarter alone. Remember that the Lakers started two rookies named Tony Smith and Elden Campbell... A little diffrent than throwing the ball to Kareem Abdull-Jabbar, isn´t it?
Still, i supose that was a fluke, too...

Who was throwing the ball to a 50 year old center?
Who taught Divac how to pass from the low-post?

i could go on and on, but still you wouldn´t concede it, would you?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> What was that argument you claim as mine?
> ...


Clearly, Magic would have to run a team better than MJ to even be considered NEARLY as good b/c MJ was clearly better as an individual than Magic.

MJ's shot was better, he could get the line at will, his D was Worlds-better, etc. etc, etc.

So let's look at this'Making others better'

The Lakers were loaded with good players b/f Magic got there.



> Despite the early ouster, the pieces were beginning to settle into place for the Lakers. During the 1978-79 season the team got a sneak preview of the future with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Jamaal Wilkes, and Norm Nixon all turning in fine performances. The club posted a 47-35 record, then fell to the SuperSonics in the semifinal round of the playoffs.


http://www.nba.com/lakers/history/lakers_history_new.html#21


So if you look at the teammates that MJ won with compared to whom Magic won with, it's far from clear whom took a lesser team farther. Personally, I would have to go with MJ.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Jordan is better than Magic all day all night. So now you're shifting to Green, Cooper, Wilkes, etc. Magic didn't make players around him any better than Jordan did. He had two guys that were gonna be hall of fame legends WITH or WITHOUT Magic Johnson in James Worthy and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Now you're talking about guys who come after Magic, Kareem and Worthy......well gee, when you have those three in place it gets kinda easy for an AC Green (who was never in his PRIME anywhere else!) or a Jamaal Wilkes (who was also well on his way to being a very good player before he ever met Magic Johnson).
> ...


one word, WRONG. Your opinion is only your own, so dont give it anymore credit than that. MJ himself will tell you Magic was better at making those around him better. And MJ isn't being humble about it either. Get over 1991 already. You always twist things to make it look like its in your favor. How convenient you dont say that Worthy and Scott were both hurt in that series. And at that age Magic wasnt exactly a pure scorer so he couldnt will his teams to victory all by himself like he did more than a decade earlier with Kareem out and him having to play center in the NBA finals and get 40+ and 15+. Oh and this was all before we had Worthy. So no other HoFers for you to harp on.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> So if you look at the teammates that MJ won with compared to whom Magic won with, it's far from clear whom took a lesser team farther. Personally, I would have to go with MJ.


but in an era where the competition had less talent around them as well. none of the bulls competitors had a second star as good as pippen, imo. none of mj's main contemporaries in the bulls title years (hakeem, ewing, barkley, robinson, malone) had a second star as good (although stockton arguably was though).

they both had talent around them that helped them to be successful. with the right pieces around them, they shined.

btw, in my mind, bird and magic were incredibly difficult to distinguish between as far as who was better. any discussion with magic in it should have bird right there as well, imo.


----------



## 33 (Nov 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> but in an era where the competition had less talent around them as well. none of the bulls competitors had a second star as good as pippen, imo. none of mj's main contemporaries in the bulls title years (hakeem, ewing, barkley, robinson, malone) had a second star as good (although stockton arguably was though).
> ...


Barkley had KJ and Thunder Dan. Malone had statistically the greatest point guard of all-time in Stockton. Robinson had another all-star on his team in Sean Elliot. The only one out of the people you named that was the only force on his team was Hakeem. 

Your thread is full of lame excuses of why the bulls were successful. Pippen was the second man in Chi-town, but he was still the best SF in the NBA in his prime.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>33</b>!
> 
> 
> Barkley had KJ and Thunder Dan. Malone had statistically the greatest point guard of all-time in Stockton. Robinson had another all-star on his team in Sean Elliot. The only one out of the people you named that was the only force on his team was Hakeem.
> ...


i'm not making excuses as to why they were successful. they were successful because they were the best, lead by the best player. that's not an excuse, it's the truth.

i said none of jordan's contemporaries had a second star as good as pippen. do you dispute that (sean elliott???)?


----------



## 33 (Nov 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> i'm not making excuses as to why they were successful. they were successful because they were the best, lead by the best player. that's not an excuse, it's the truth.
> ...


My bad, I misunderstood your point. I agree with what you are saying.....


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Clearly, Magic would have to run a team better than MJ to even be considered NEARLY as good b/c MJ was clearly better as an individual than Magic.


Thank you. At least ONE Bulls fan will concede to this...



> The Lakers were loaded with good players b/f Magic got there.
> 
> http://www.nba.com/lakers/history/lakers_history_new.html#21
> 
> So if you look at the teammates that MJ won with compared to whom Magic won with, it's far from clear whom took a lesser team farther. Personally, I would have to go with MJ.


Wow!  A 47-35 team! Bring out the champagne!...

Off course that same Laker team won 13 more games and the title *the year * Magic came along...
BTW, do you know that Magic´s Lakers never won fewer than *54* games a season?

Yeah, it sure seems the Lakers were a stacked team before Magic...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> Wow!  A 47-35 team! Bring out the champagne!...
> 
> Off course that same Laker team won 13 more games and the title *the year * Magic came along...
> ...


Bird had just as impressive a rookie season as Magic.

+23 wins and Rookie of the Year over magic.

Bird and Magic are great, but they are no MJ.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Bird had just as impressive a rookie season as Magic.
> ...


I believe it was a +33 games, and from the cellar all the way to the ECF his first year(against the Doctor "J" led 6ers).

Those were a couple of IMPACT players from the get-go.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

1. Michael Jordan
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Larry Bird
4. Bill Russell
5. Oscar Robertson
6. Shaq
7. Magic Johnson
8. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
9. John Stockton
10. Jerry West


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

well from reading these boards lately, i'm going to go ahead and say that Magic is very underrated.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> doing a bit of a disservice to one of the great players ever. not just great for his era, a great, ahead of his time, superstar.


No disservice to big O. I just don't think he is on the same level as MJ.

Don't get me wrong, Oscar was a great all around player, put up amazing numbers in the 60's, and did a lot for the league. I have great respect for what he accomplished.


----------



## Grant_Hill (Jun 16, 2004)

1. Michael Jordan
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Jerry West
4. Larry Bird
5. Magic Johnson
6. Oscar Robertson
7. Bill Russell
8. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
9. Shaquille O'Neal
10. Elgin Baylor


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

1. Wilt
2. Oscar
3. Jordan
4. Bird
5. Magic
6. Kareem
7. Hakeem
8. Russell
9. West
10. Stockton


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBruins</b>!
> well from reading these boards lately, i'm going to go ahead and say that Magic is very underrated.


Seems like he gets tremendous respect.

Magic only dominated on one side of the ball and he is up for consideration as the greatest of all time.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

yes and bird only dominated one side of the ball but he is higher on all of these recent lists. Surely Bird is an all-time great, but i still think Magic was better.


----------



## ufm19 (Jun 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Drazen Petrovic can be found on the NBA legends section of NBA.com's history page. He was more than a decent player.
> ...


HAHAHA! I laugh.

Oscar didn't score 32 PPG that year huh? Well I think 31 ppg is really close. He averaged 30.8 points per game that year, not much of a difference from 32. As for your other arguments, I have never heard that stat that you just mentioned, and tell me you have seen a live telecast of Wilt playing? I have watched over 40 of Wilt's games full non-stop, the majority in the playoffs so don't tell me I haven't done my homework. MJ would've gotten more than one ring? With one other good player in the 1960s and an awful supporting cast? In the early 70s Oscar's career averages were kille because he was bothered with injuries. How is Wilt supposed to step up when he isn't in the game in 1969? Whoever said you keep contradicting yourself is right? MJ is obvious #1? How so? Can that person givem e reason? How would Hakeem dominate? And as that one smart person said, all you keep saying is that height makes the player. I think we would all agree that Charles Barkley, 6'4, is much, much better than Manute Bol, a player more than a foot past his size. MJ played each of these people maybe 4 times a season. 13% of Wilt's games came against the greatest defensive player ever, Bill Russell. Wilt would score 45 points but his team would lose and people would say Russell outplayed him. Btw on the Celtics you forgot JOHN HAVLICEK, who is definitely a better version of Scottie Pippen. Wilt had to play Russell, Cousy, and Havlicek, which were the greatest trio in NBA history, plus KC Jones, Sam Jones, Paul Sharman, and Tommy Heinsohn, that's 7 hall of famers. Did Wilt have 7 hall of famers? Were Arizin, Cunningham and Greer even CLOSE to as good as Cousy or Havlicek? And in the early 1970s Wilt was no longer used as a scorer by the Lakers but as a rebounder who would pass the ball to his guards. He played within the system, he wasn't a hueg ballhog like MJ always was. Except on the rare night he had 100 he never jacked up shots down the stretch to up his points total. Notice how every single year MJ went to the Finals in the 1990s he had a more talented team with better players. 1991? MJ was better than a getting-old Magic. Pippen was MUCH better than anyone the Lakers would throw, maybe James Worthy or a hurt Byron Scott, who went 0 for 8 in 42 minutes in Game 3 by the way. There was no one else on the Lakers roster who was good enough to match up with MJ, Pippen, Horace Grant (one of the most underrated players ever), and even John Paxson did great in the Finals. 1992? Blazers had Clyde, a much worse version of MJ. Both MJ and Pippen were better than Drexler. Who else on the Blazers could even come close to being as good as MJ or Pippen, or even Horace for that matter. 1993? The Suns had a better record and had Charles Barkley who WAS A BETTER PLAYER IN 1993 THAN MJ NO QUESTIONS ASKED! They also didn't have one more hall of famer or even great player. Kevin Johnson? Very nice player for a couple of years, not even close to being as good as MJ or Pippen. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Majerle? NOT EVEN CLOSE. Never an All-Star. Who else was a great player? 1996? The Sonics had GP and Shawn Kemp. Kemp was one of the best players in 1996, I'll give you that. But still MJ and Pippen were both better than either one of that great combo AND they had Dennis Rodman, a much better rebounder than any of them. Yet MJ almost threw away the series by making Games 4 and 5 a personal contest with Gary Payton and got outplayed. 1997 and 1998? For those two years Malone and MJ were about on par but Pippen is better t han Stockton, definitely. AND past that who do the Jazz have? The Bulls still had Rodman, remember. And of course the ever-overlooked Kukoc. Every one of those years MJ's team was better. He never beat better competition! He always had the virtue of having a better supporting cast than any of the stars who went against him. So stop using all of MJ's titles as your main leverage. Wilt only won 2 titles playing against for the most part superior competition? Well MJ won his titles playing against worse competition.


----------



## Football Fanatic (Jun 8, 2003)

jordan is number one


----------



## ufm19 (Jun 7, 2004)

half of your statements have been made up lb.

magic forced westhead out after 5 titles? Try one title and after his rookie year. Riley was made head coach in 1980. Does that make him a loser? Oscar was basically MJ's equal as a scorer, maybe a bit worse, when you consider that he was the point man, who's first job is to distribute the ball. Talk about height all you want but he averaged over 10 rebounds per game a couple years for a point guard, which far dwarf MJ's numbers. Yes, I do think he is better than Magic. Oscar sucks because he forced out Jerry Lucas? 1) Nowadays not many people would rank Lucas in the Top 50 2) He hardly "forced him out" of course they would say that when talking about him in sportscentury and 3) many old-timers who have actually SEEN these guys play say Oscar is a better allaround player. I am beginning to forget all the dumb stuff you said! Ok first you say the reason why the Lakers were still good in the early '90s after Kareem is that Worthy was there. Then you say that the reason the '94 Bulls were better than the '92 Lakers was because Pippen was much better than Worthy. First you say Worthy is as good as any MJ teammate then you say he's much worse. And 1994 was much worse than 1993? How so? The Sonics hadn't hit their peak? They went 63-19, the league's best record! The Spurs were a lot better in 1994 with Dennis Rodman, the Magic had come from a losing season to being one of the best teams in the league in 1994 yet still lost in the first round, the Rockets were better than in 1993, the Suns were basically the same team, the Bulls were just two games worse despite losing what you call by far the greatest player ever (TWO GAMES! Michael Jordan is worth two wins as a basketball player?), the Blazers were still a contending playoff team; hardly an afterthought, the Knicks were at their peak and better than the 1993 version, the Pacers were better than the 1993 version, and the only team that did much worse in 1994 was the Pistons who gave Dennis Rodman to the Spurs (basically). 1994, despite losing "the best player ever hands down", was at least as good as 1993. The Bulls were almost the same team without MJ as they were with him. And I hate hte Lakers so don't call me a Lakesr fan. I know MJ destroys Kobe. And for gods sakes will you stop counting teams as how many Hall of Famers? Your 2 hall of famers makes a title team theory has been proven wrong. The 2004 Pistons had zero hall of famers yet you say "they had joe dumars." i really think he posted good numbers this past year don't you? 0 minutes per game. That's right, he's the GM. Nice try, don't give me the "I mixed them up with the Bad Boys" excuse. Kareem in 1989 was an average player. Worthy's career numbers? 17 points per game, 5 rebounds and 3 assists. You can say he was carried by Magic just like you said Heinsohn was carried by Russell. So basically you have told me: 1) Magic is just as much of a loser as Oscar according to your theory BUT he's a lot better than Oscar because he's not a loser (nice contradiction 2) Magic is not as good as MJ because he had James Worthy BUT the reason why the Bulls without MJ were much better than the Lakers without Magic was because Pippen was much better than Worthy 3) Lucas is a great great player in the 1960s because he was an amazing rebounder in that era BUT Wilt was a much better rebounder and twice the scorer Lucas was but he's not good because he played against bad competition 4) Kareem is not as good as Pippen BUT Oscar had Kareem and MJ only had Pippen so he should've won more titles 5) Wilt played against bad competition BUT Bill Russell, the greatest winner and defensive player ever, is much better than Wilt even though he played against him 6) Wilt should've stepped up and scrap the offense, not listen to the coach and take over BUT he was a selfish player who shot too much 7) Hakeem who won his two titles in what you call an awful era is a winner while Wilt won his two titles in one of the greatest eras ever but he's a loser 8) Wilt had more Hall of Famers than the Celtics (which he didn't, not ever) and even if he had less Michael Jordan beat teams of greater talent (which he didn't do once) BUT MJ's teams were so good they could do great without him BUT MJ was the reason why they won all those titles 9) MJ couldn't beat those great 1980s teams by himself BUT Wilt is expected to beat the great Celtics teams with less talent and since he didn't he's a loser 10) Shaq played against better competition in Robinson and Hakeem because they were bigger even though when they were in their 30s they were still outplaying a young Shaq and he couldn't turn the tables until they were in their late 30s in 1999 and after and couldn't do much BUT Wilt played against worse opponents that were smaller EVEN THOUGH he played them and dominated in their prime and there is so many more contradictions but someone else said a lot of them. MJ takes contests too personally. When he's facing another star he tries to beat them, not to have the Bulls beat the team. Bird could have easily scored 30 points per game with the Celtics but he shared the ball, won, and kept everyone happy. MJ had a good enough team that they mad ethe playoffs in 1986 when he was out for all but 18 games but he still has an awful supporting cast when, in his best season and much better than he did the previous two years they improve by 10 wins than the previous season without him. Gervin played with him essentially in 1985 so dont' even think of using him. and you don't call Rodman a HOF? I do. MJ, when facing Bird or Magic, said "I am better and I'm gonna prove it" so he kept shooting and basically did what we all bash Kobe for doing in these Finals EXCEPT WORSE! His team kept losing and he kept shooting his team out of ballgames, despite his heavy scoring total. In the late 1990s he used an array of illegal moves to ward off defenders like when he pushed Byron Russell to give him an open shot in Game 6 of '98. Everyone praises that shot as one of the best moments in NBA history. Yet it never should've happened because MJ cheated and got star treatment from the refs. His career numbers would be lower if he wasn't treated better than anyone else in history. He always used that pushoff move for fadeaways and jumped on opponents backs for rebounds. I have never seen Wilt LIVE, you say? Well I have watched more than 40 games of him and my dad was a sportswriter in Philly in the 1960s before moving to Detroit in 1979. He used to be on good terms with Wilt and talk to him. He had season tickets to all those 1960s Philly games with Wilt. He worked the NBA beat. He has always been an NBA insider for 40 years and his list of greatest players ever?

1. Wilt
2. Oscar
3. Kareem
4. Michael Jordan
5. Bill Russell
6. Jerry West
7. Larry Bird
8. Magic Johnson
9. Shaquille O'Neal
10. Bob Cousy
11. Elgin Baylor
12. Julius Erving

I don't agree with many of these picks but I have asked the father for his opinion many times.


----------



## ufm19 (Jun 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Well sometimes guys become hall of famers just by winning. Go back and look at Bill Sharman's numbers. He's hailed as Boston's sharpshooter and he shot 45%. The guy wasn't known for much else. Bill Bradley? Dave Debusschere? Debusschere averaged 17.1 PPG and 11 RPG on 43% FG. Rasheed Wallace falls short in rebounds averaging only 6.9 but shoots 49% for his career and averages 16.9 PPG.
> ...


you made plenty of good points but some stuff here is retarded. In 1989 and 1990 Pippen was the second leading scorer on the Bulls. Can you honestly say the Bulls second best player is better than a hobbled Worthy? Yes, I know MJ is better than Magic I never said he wasn't. And you help MJ by saying he was so great that he managed to GET SWEPT BY A GREAT TEAM. Isn't it amazing that he actually got into overtime before going 0-4 down the stretch in overtime and his team losing? He didn't help his team win, did he? Even in 1990 Game 7 he shot the ball way too much down teh stretch. Don't tell me I'm misinformed, I was at this game. I was at everyone of the playoff games where MJ played the Pistons EVER. In that Game 7 i vividly remember him missing three straight three pointers with his team still in the game and Joe Dumars scoring three straight baskets. Yes, MJ could be contained by someone: Joe Dumars, the MJ stopper. Michael Jordan also had the virtue of having the best defender of the 1990s play on his team. How amazing do you think Wilt would have done if he had Bill Russell on his team in the 1960s instead of, say, Arizin or Greer? Jordan never faced the best defensive player, or at least best perimeter player, in the league once Pippen passed Dumars in the early to mid 1990s. How can you be so sure Worthy would be a HOF? He put up decent numbers. Magic carried him, just like Russell carried Heinsohn. I have already posted Worthy's numbers, which were worse than Heinsohn's. Many NCAA tourney MVPs have busted. In fact, the majority of them have never amounted to anything in the NBA. Worthy was arguably a better college player than MJ. Does that mean he was going to be a better player? How does it help MJ that he got swept by one of the best teams ever? You keep saying that MJ was so great because he lost to amazing teams with no help; does it make him better that his team got destroyed? it doesn't make Paul Pierce a great player that he managed to get swept by the Celtics. No, the Bulls would come away with 2 or 3 titles, tops. You really think they beat the Celtics, Sixers (for early 80s) and Pistons (late 80s) every year, then be able to beat the Lakers a lot of times? You really think the Lakers teams were a lot better than the Pistons or Celtics teams, or even the early 1980s Sixers teams? Well, they weren't go to my Best Team Ever? thread for info.


----------

