20 Jul 10
Originally posted by sh76If you're taking a marginal shot, you're not doing your job (unless the clock is about to hit zero). It's seems what you are implying is that Larry and Magic were smarter players. They were of course, but it's hardly to MJ's credit that he took more bad shots than Larry and Magic. BTW, what's your excuse for Jordan having a lower free throw shooting percentage; did he take some "marginal" free throws, too?
Stats don't lie, but they can be selectively quoted.
You left out the most important stat of all: points, in which MJ drawfed Bird and double dwarfed Magic.
You cavalierly dismiss the points edge by asserting that MJ "shot more" and rely on scoring percentage stats. But the converse could also be said: that his shooting % was lower [b]because he shot ...[text shortened]... ge player was worse. There's no way to prove that any one era was worse than any other.[/b]
All I can say is that I watched the games in the 80's and the MJ era in the 90's. The teams that the Bulls played would have been lucky to make the playoffs in the earlier era. Watching Kevin Duckworth square off against Luc Longley as a battle of big men in a NBA Championship is cringeworthy.
20 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderBut if your "marginal shot" is still something like 47% -- unless someone's wide open in the paint, it's still very likely to be a better shot than anyone else's "good shot".
If you're taking a marginal shot, you're not doing your job (unless the clock is about to hit zero). It's seems what you are implying is that Larry and Magic were smarter players. They were of course, but it's hardly to MJ's credit that he took more bad shots than Larry and Magic. BTW, what's your excuse for Jordan having a lower free throw shooting perc ...[text shortened]... off against Luc Longley as a battle of big men in a NBA Championship is cringeworthy.
20 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderJordon's popularity was more to do with his contract with Nike. They both needed each other at the time, and formed a great 'partnership' which elevated both parties to the top financialy speaking.
MJ is a "LOOK AT ME" type of guy.
LeBron is 25 years old and the teams he has played on have done much better in the playoffs than the teams MJ played on up to when he was the same age. MJ didn't win a Championship until he was 28 in fact. In truth, Jordan was and is vastly overrated; he did not have the immediate impact on his team that the more well-rounded Larry and Magic did.
20 Jul 10
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's seems what you are implying is that Larry and Magic were smarter players.
If you're taking a marginal shot, you're not doing your job (unless the clock is about to hit zero). It's seems what you are implying is that Larry and Magic were smarter players. They were of course, but it's hardly to MJ's credit that he took more bad shots than Larry and Magic. BTW, what's your excuse for Jordan having a lower free throw shooting perc off against Luc Longley as a battle of big men in a NBA Championship is cringeworthy.
No. I'm implying that when your alternatives are Kevin McHale, Dennis Johnson and Robert Parrish, it's smarter to take fewer shots than when your alternatives are Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant and Ron Harper. Say Bird takes his 20 best looks in a game. The rest he can dish to DJ and McHale. MJ takes his 20 best looks, but then takes 8 more marginal shots because he judges his next 8 marginal shots as better than Toni Kukoc jumpers.
BTW, what's your excuse for Jordan having a lower free throw shooting percentage
An excuse is not necessary. I didn't say Jordan was a better player in every category and I'm not diminishing Bird or Magic. All 3 were great players. I never saw a player dominate the big games like MJ.
20 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is all about championships baby. Mike won 6...two 3-peats. Larry nor Magic can say that.
A triple double through 14 whole games? Oscar Robertson averaged a triple double for an entire season in 1961-62 and missed doing it again in 1963-64 by 7 rebounds. Defensive Player of the Year is a popularity contest; MJ wasn't anything special as a one on one defender.
Let's go to the stats: Jordan averaged 6.2 rebounds a game, Magic ...[text shortened]... s.
People can yell insults all they want, but the stats don't lie.
They are already starting to say that Kobe is better than Magic was. Kobe has 5 championships.
Jordan's surrounding cast wasn't nearly as good as Bird's or Magic's...yet he won more championships.
20 Jul 10
Originally posted by shortcircuitRobert Horry won 7 championships -- so he's better than any of them.
It is all about championships baby. Mike won 6...two 3-peats. Larry nor Magic can say that.
They are already starting to say that Kobe is better than Magic was. Kobe has 5 championships.
Jordan's surrounding cast wasn't nearly as good as Bird's or Magic's...yet he won more championships.
20 Jul 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesRobert Horry was a member of 7 championship teams. he wasn't even a starter on most of them. There is quite a bit of difference between being lucky to be around and being the main thrust of the franchise. You know that too.
Robert Horry won 7 championships -- so he's better than any of them.
20 Jul 10
Originally posted by shortcircuitSurely you can't possibly be claiming that because Jordan was on teams that won more championships in a weaker era that he is a "better" player? That's a pretty simplistic argument even from you and hardly supports the "greatest ever" claim. Bill Russell was the centerpiece of a team that won 11 championships; by the "logic" you have asserted he must be the greatest ever.
It is all about championships baby. Mike won 6...two 3-peats. Larry nor Magic can say that.
They are already starting to say that Kobe is better than Magic was. Kobe has 5 championships.
Jordan's surrounding cast wasn't nearly as good as Bird's or Magic's...yet he won more championships.
20 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by shortcircuitBut the same general argument still applies even for the great players -- individuals do not win championships, teams win championships. There's this tendency to talk about about how Michael Jordan won 6 championships or Kobe Bryant won 5 -- as if people like Scottie Pippen, or Pau Gasol, or Phil Jackson are totally peripheral -- and the foolish idea that Kobe is better than Magic JUST because Kobe's teams won more titles.
Robert Horry was a member of 7 championship teams. he wasn't even a starter on most of them. There is quite a bit of difference between being lucky to be around and being the main thrust of the franchise. You know that too.
With all this glorification of the individual, it doesn't send a very good message to young basketball players about the value of team play.
20 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderMany people do argue that Bill Russell was the greatest player of all time.
Surely you can't possibly be claiming that because Jordan was on teams that won more championships in a weaker era that he is a "better" player? That's a pretty simplistic argument even from you and hardly supports the "greatest ever" claim. Bill Russell was the centerpiece of a team that won 11 championships; by the "logic" you have asserted he must be the greatest ever.
20 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderI see your point, but the truth is, you are speaking of two VERY DIFFERENT eras in basketball. This argument rages in every sport when the best are discussed from different eras.
Surely you can't possibly be claiming that because Jordan was on teams that won more championships in a weaker era that he is a "better" player? That's a pretty simplistic argument even from you and hardly supports the "greatest ever" claim. Bill Russell was the centerpiece of a team that won 11 championships; by the "logic" you have asserted he must be the greatest ever.
While Bill Russell was, arguably, the best player of his era, it is very unlikely that he would have been nearly as dominant if he were playing in today's game because of the the preponderance of talent in the game today versus in his era. While I have no means to prove this, I state it as my opinion. I do believe that MJ would have been dominant had he played in Russell's era however, if only because of the physical advancements. You did not see players playing above the rim and the aerial acrobatics that are components of today's game. The old game was more blue collar and plodding.
20 Jul 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesI agree that teams win championships, not individuals. I have stated this on many occasions. Figuring that all "dynasties" have had great coaching, I assume that component to be equal. The surrounding cast of players that Jordan had to play with, was not of the same caliber as the cast that Bird, or Magic or even Bill Russell played with. Scottie Pippen flourished BECAUSE of Micheal Jordan. Pippen foundered a bit when Jordan was not around. Pippen went to a loaded Houston Rockets team and could not deliver. The Bulls did not win in Jordan's absence, but immediately won 3 in a row upon his return. That was the very same cast of players Jordan played with (give or take a player move or two). The coach was the same as well. But it was Jordan's presence that caused that team to excel.
But the same general argument still applies even for the great players -- individuals do not win championships, teams win championships. There's this tendency to talk about about how Michael Jordan won 6 championships or Kobe Bryant won 5 -- as if people like Scottie Pippen, or Pau Gasol, or Phil Jackson are totally peripheral -- and the foolish idea tha ...[text shortened]... it doesn't send a very good message to young basketball players about the value of team play.
For this reason, in the toughest era of basketball because of the highest levels of talent and skills ever, Jordan proved to be the top player and the head of the class.
Agree or disagree, but the numbers don't lie.
20 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by shortcircuitPippen's Bulls team was a championship contender even without MJ. They were a bad Hugh Hollins call away from having home court in the conference finals without MJ in the first year after MJ's first retirement. To judge a player based solely on the performance of the team doesn't work. MJ was great because year in and year out, he did everything that he had to do in big spot after big spot. Nobody was better at hitting the clutch shot than MJ.
I agree that teams win championships, not individuals. I have stated this on many occasions. Figuring that all "dynasties" have had great coaching, I assume that component to be equal. The surrounding cast of players that Jordan had to play with, was not of the same caliber as the cast that Bird, or Magic or even Bill Russell played with. Scottie Pippen the top player and the head of the class.
Agree or disagree, but the numbers don't lie.