No, I'm not spoofing those Kona posts, but I'm out of here. I'm fed up with the racism, etc. on so many threads here. Good luck all. I may be back, but I'm taking a break from it for a while at least. Thanks for a great debate here though, at least this one stayed positive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Too bad, Wendell Gee. You were my last good reason for sticking around.
Oh. Just 1 more thing and then I'm out. Malone and Stockton ARE absolutely 'ALL 1990s NBA' ballers.
The 2 teammates who played together for 12 seasons before making a Finals are on the all-decade team.
That's the 1990s NBA for you.
Perfect.
Bird's my favorite.
But there's no denying that the vast majority of basketball people agree that Michael Jordan is the all time best.
We'll just have to live with it.
Ok. I was snarky in my last post so my bad. I apologize. You in turn were snarky and condescending in this last post so we are even.
The 93-94 Bulls fielded a team of core guys in Pippen, Grant, Cartwright, Paxson and Armstrong that had played together for years. They played under one coach, Phil Jackson, and one system the entire time. It's called continuity. And it's continuity with a group of players used to winning with a coach that coaches winners. This is why they surprised everyone and won 55 games. Pete Myers is irrelevant.
You can't compare this situation in anyway with the teams Jordan had minus Pippen. Completely different situation. Jordan didn't get to jump on board to a team filled with a strong group of guys with a proven coach like Pete Myers got to do. He joined a lousy team, with a lousy coach and the Bulls made no other additions to the team that helped other than adding Jordan. They won around 30% more of there games and made the playoffs for the 1st time in 3 years anyway. Objectively and subjective we would call that an improvement. Jordan-less Bulls with Pippen also had a great coach and a very stong, cohesive supporting cast. The Pippen-less Bulls with Jordan in the early years had absolutely nothing going for them other then they just drafted Michael Jordan. Do you see the difference? Reverse the roles. If Pippen was the one added in 84-85, not Jordan, they don't win even 38 games and they certainly don't make the playoffs. Because Pippen ins't as big of an impact player as Jordan and Pippen's development is a direct result of the hours of work he put in practicing against Jordan for years. Without Jordan as a teammate, Pippen doesn't become the same player.
On the other hand. If Pippen leaves and Jordan stays in 93-94, the Bulls are still a leading contender for the title and will make it beyond the second round. Will they be champs? I would be more difficult, but not impossible.
But the 93-94 Bulls were not close to good enough to win the NBA title that year. For all there wins, they have nobody they can count on to pull out a win against strong adversity in a playoff series with regularity. Jordan can do that. Pippen can't. Pete Myers certainly can't. So instead they bow out after the second round.
From 90-98 64 teams made it to the 2nd round of the playoffs like the Bulls do in 93-94. Of those teams, 8 win NBA titles. Of those 8, 6 are the Chicago Bulls. Also, of those eight years, every time Michael Jordan suited up to play for the whole season, the team he is on wins and he is always the best player on that team. This goes beyond correlation. This is causality. From 90-98, Jordan=NBA championship. You can't say that about Larry Bird even during his "peak years". We can't even distinguish "peak years" for Jordan when he played for the Bulls because he was great the entire time. When he got a little older, he switched to shooting more jump shots and continued to excel. He reinvented his game to continue his, AND HIS TEAM'S, success. He NEVER just took shots to pad his stats as you suggested. He did it to win and the Bulls won. When they weren't as good his first few seasons, it's because there was no one for Jordan to look to for impactful help.
9-9 when he played in year 2 with Jordan you say. they finishied 22 games BELOW .500 without him. They were that bad...
Bird had a much different experience in his early years. He was actually drafted in 78-79 but didn't play that year for the Celtics. Knowing Bird was coming, the Celtics began adding pieces to accompany him. This includes Archibald and Maxwell. Archibald was already an accomplished player and Maxwell was rapidly progressing. Why didn't they win in 78-79? Could have been a dissatisfied so-called leader in McAdoo. Could have been the circus surrounding there owner and their GM. Perhaps McAdoo just didn't play well with Maxwell and Archibald. Doesn't matter. The Celtics were building for the future. When Bird came, he came with Henderson and Carr as well. The Celtices changed their team completely for Bird. He was not the only change or the only reason for the turn around at all. most important change? Definitely. Only change that mattered? Not at all.
Same with the Celtics recent turnaround. They stunk even when Pierce did play. Rondo doesn't need to be a starter to make an impact. He was turning heads already in 06-07. The point is, a team with a losing record is not devoid of relavent talent. KG and Ray Allen were added and they won the title. But KG and Allen weren't the only factor that enabled them to win. Pierce and Rondo, already on the team, were just as important. Likewise, the Celtics of 78-79 didn't do well. But key additions were made then that helped them turn the the team around in 79-80. Guys already on the team helped Bird in a big way. That is a big reason Bird lead the Celtics to 61 wins in 79-80. He had other quality players on the team. Players that would contribute in the championship team the next year. Players that had already seen a certain level success individually. It wasn't Bird with a bunch of Brian Scalabrine level players winning 61 games. No dressing needed. These are the facts. If only the Bulls had given Jordan more support in his early years...
It really doesn't matter what the starting lineups are. This year the Bulls have probably had a double digit variety of different lineups this season. Mostly due to injury. The team is still fundementally the same. 95-96 Bulls were almost the exact same team as the 94-95 Bulls. They only lost Armstrong, but they picked up Jordan. Jordan was the turnaround. Rodman excelled in a defensive capacity, which is important, but he really only helped out half of the time since his offense stunk. And of course he got tossed from many games and was suspended multiple times. No, the jump from 47 to 72 and from no tile to title was Jordan. The rest of the team was basically that exact same team. I lived through it as a Bulls fan. Anyone paying attention knew who made the biggest difference by a landslide.
Amount of regular season wins doesn't correlate to the relative "goodness" of one team to another team. Just because one team wins 57 games and one team wins 55 does not make necessarily make them relatively equal. The Detriot Lions won more regular season games then the SB champion NY Giants. Are those two teams of "little difference" to you. The Packers will tell you they are quite different. Only looking at the regular season results and giving lip service to the playoff results is one of the worst ways I've ever seen to compare the level of two teams. It's like reading a great book, then reading 75% of a second book, throwing the rest in the trash and deciding they are of similar quality. Then, someone points out the ending of the second book made no sense, and was drastically worse then the first book's ending. But you insist they are about equal value anyway. Wow...
They most certainly did blink an eye. 55 wins is good yet unremarkable. A chapionship is elite. A three peat is greatness. There is quite a bit of "eye blinking" when you go from greatness to just good in the eyes of a team, an organization and the fans. The playoffs are far more important. Bulls with Myers=good (though not due to him). Bulls with Jordan=greatness (due to him). You see how that is more than just a little different?
But why do I need the last word. I'll leave that to people like Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. It's already been posted frequently by others but mabye look it up again. They were quite clear on who they thought was the greatest. And I believe them...
People keep posting how both Bird and Magic said that MJ was the best. Both also said on occasion how good the other guy was. But they are also, to a certain extent, being polite. How would it look if either said, "The best? Yeah, that's me." Deep in their heart of hearts, both Magic and Bird probably know that if they had the option with a second to play of taking the last shot or giving it up to Michael, they'd put it up.
That said, Jordan WOULD answer, "Yes, I'm the best."
The question of Bird being GOAT is close to trolling, by every measure I can think of, the GOAT is clearly either Wilt or Jordan. Next would be, Magic, Robertson, Russell and Jabbar. I place Bird somewhere in that group with Shaq, West, Baylor, Olajuwon and Kobe.(Yes, Kobe...do your research before you discount him.) Please note that I am not a Kobe fan, but if he can win perhaps one more championship and put together another 3 years at his present level of play, it will be hard to not put him in the categoy with Wilt and Jordan. In 3 years, Kobe could own 'every' career scoring stat.
I can see LeBrone entering the discussion in about 5 years years if he manages to win a few championships.
Larry legend was certainly a great player, but I am sure he would not place himself ahead of players like Wilt, Jordan, Magic, Robertson and Russell.
Btw, there are certain player whose contributions transcend stats, such as Jerry West, Bob Cousy and Dr J, etc.
This might very well be the most ill informed, lack of truth filled post in the entire thread. If u think Larry and Magic would say what they said about MJ to be polite, you are talking out of your arse. Plus MJ never once spoke like u claim he would.
TrackCoach wrote:
(Yes, Kobe...do your research before you discount him.) Please note that I am not a Kobe fan, but if he can win perhaps one more championship and put together another 3 years at his present level of play, it will be hard to not put him in the categoy with Wilt and Jordan. In 3 years, Kobe could own 'every' career scoring stat...
I would politely suggest that you do your research before saying something as ridiculous as Kobe belonging in this group.
In 3 years, sure Kobe could own 'every' career scoring stat. Wanna bet whether he'll own most misses before he'll own most makes? Lots of folks can score by chucking. Kobe is one of these. Look at the percentages if you want to understand his real impact.
Lebron stands a better chance than Kobe to eventually be considered among the greats. He still needs to be The Man on several title winners but he's got a shot.
And please don't point to Kobe's 5 titles. He was certainly not The Man for the first 3 of these. So, unless you want to bring Robert Horry into the discussion, keep Kobe out of it.
If you want to talk about all time scoring, take note that Kevin Durant, barring injury will become the 2nd leading all time points leader by the time his career ends.
Kobe will easily be thought of as a top 10 player
1. Jordan
2. Wilt
3. Magic
4. Bird
5. Hakeem
6. Russell
7. Oscar
8. J West
9. Kobe
10.Shaq
Kareem does not make top 10
Why DOESN'T Kareem make the top ten? Why would you pick Hakeem over him?
TrackCoach wrote:
The question of Bird being GOAT is close to trolling
326 posts and this is the first reference to me trolling!?! Peeps of LR, you are slipping.
Yes, I really am the OP. I posed this question because I *LOVE* to tell my basketball fan friends how Larry is the greatest NBA player of all time with this huge grin on my face, knowing I am not being serious at all.
I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussion and some valid points and arguments have been made as to who is/isn't on the top 5 or even 10 list.
Why DOESN'T Kareem make the top ten? Why would you pick Hakeem over him?
__________________________________________________________
Hakeem was ustoppable offensively and one of the great defensive players of all time. He has the NBA record for total blocked shot.
Kareem played with an All-Star line up for much of his career. He accumuulated stats over a very long career, where he was surrounded by all stars.
I dont belive he was a top 3 center all time.
NBAFan wrote:
TrackCoach wrote:The question of Bird being GOAT is close to trolling
326 posts and this is the first reference to me trolling!?! Peeps of LR, you are slipping.
Yes, I really am the OP. I posed this question because I *LOVE* to tell my basketball fan friends how Larry is the greatest NBA player of all time with this huge grin on my face, knowing I am not being serious at all.
I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussion and some valid points and arguments have been made as to who is/isn't on the top 5 or even 10 list.
Was Bird ever best player in the league for a given year?
Nighthawk wrote:
Larry Bird joined a team that was 61-103 the 2 years prior to him arriving. They were 29-53 the year before Bird got there. The Celtics with Larry Bird as the lone change to the starting lineup improve by 32 wins (61-21) in his Rookie year (no Parish, no McHale, no DJ).
Jordan joined a 27-55 Bulls team and they improved by 11 wins Jordan's rookie year, going 38-44. The Bulls didn't have a winning season with Jordan until his 4th season. I'm not talking about winning a title or 60 games----I'm just asking for a winning record here.
Jordan leaves a 57-25 Bulls team after 1993. They replace him with Pete Myers in the starting linuep. In the 72 games that Pippen plays, the Bulls go 51-21 (55-27 overall). They also added Toni Kukoc's 10-11ppg off the bench and 1/2 season of Luc Longley. This fills THAT much of the void left by Jordan's absence? It wouldn't replace Magic or Bird. JMO.
Magic left the Lakers after 1991. They were 58-24 with him. Same guys next year plus Sedale Threatt (I think)---and they're 43-39.
Bird misses 76 games for the 1989 Celtics. He was badly injured for the 6 he played before opting for season-ending surgery on both heels. Boston (WITH Parish, McHale, DJ, Ainge & Reggie Lewis all playing) can't win 1/2 their games before trading for frontcourt help (24-28).
The Lakers and Celtics plummet. The Bulls? Not so much. The Bulls didn't win the championship without Jordan. Well----they couldn't win 41 games WITH Jordan but no Pippen.
Remember, Bird went to a 29-53 team himself. That was 32-50 the year before that. Am I to believe that it was a 'quality' 61-103 team?
And all of those Celtics players that 'made it easier' on Bird-----they were 29-53 before he got there and a different crew was 24-28 when Bird got hurt in 1988-89. In 1991, they were 10-12 without him----46-14 with him, and that wasn't even THAT Larry Bird anymore.
Jordan's impact on winning games was NOTHING like that. MJ has 6 rings. It was the 90s. 7 years into his career before his 1st Finals appearance. I understand there is a difference of opinion regarding the level of play in the 90s-----but we all know this: None of the players who dominated the All-NBA teams in the 90s won A THING in the 80s, either. Just like Mike. A bunch of them played 4-5 years in the 80s and only Olajuwon ever made a Finals in the 80s (from that '85-'86 rookie era). I felt at the time (90s) that I was watching a cut below what I had just seen in the 80s. Still do. Championships in the 90s just aren't as impressive to me. The 90s NBA was a lot like the 80s Western Conference. One dominant team and a pack of substandard pretenders. No Celtics, Sixers, Pistons killing each other for the right to face the Lakers.
Look at the Jazz teams that Stockton and Malone (who are All-90s NBAers) were on in the 80s. They were teamed with Adrian Dantley and Darrell Griffith, Mark Eaton and Thurl Bailey, Ricky Green, Bob Hansen, John Drew... and they would win like 42, 44, 47 games in the 80s. Worse Jazz teams were winning 60+ games and going to the Finals in the 90s. And it took 12 years of playing together for Stockton and Malone to MAKE the Finals. And they are the cream of the crop of Jordan's competition in the 90s. 60 wins in the 90s were NOT like 60 wins in the 80s. JMO.
You could also mention that Bird kept Magic from winning more titles, and Magic kept Bird from winning more titles. If either were not in the league, the other would likely have won 3 or 4 more titles.
Larry Bird could create more shots than MJ. Just saying.
TrackCoach wrote:
The question of Bird being GOAT is close to trolling, by every measure I can think of, the GOAT is clearly either Wilt or Jordan. Next would be, Magic, Robertson, Russell and Jabbar. I place Bird somewhere in that group with Shaq, West, Baylor, Olajuwon and Kobe.(Yes, Kobe...do your research before you discount him.) Please note that I am not a Kobe fan, but if he can win perhaps one more championship and put together another 3 years at his present level of play, it will be hard to not put him in the categoy with Wilt and Jordan. In 3 years, Kobe could own 'every' career scoring stat.
I can see LeBrone entering the discussion in about 5 years years if he manages to win a few championships.
Larry legend was certainly a great player, but I am sure he would not place himself ahead of players like Wilt, Jordan, Magic, Robertson and Russell.
Btw, there are certain player whose contributions transcend stats, such as Jerry West, Bob Cousy and Dr J, etc.
Well, I am not old enough to have seen Wilt, Russell or Oscar play, but in my lifetime, I have been awed the most by the following players, in no particular order: Jordan, Bird, Magic, Shaq, Kobe, Julius, Hakeem and Kareem. Magic and Bird saved the league and transformed it. Dr. J was Jordan before Jordan was, and if Bird and Magic had been earlier in time, he would possibly be the guy every new player is compared to instead of Jordan.
Tony Parker wrote:
Why DOESN'T Kareem make the top ten? Why would you pick Hakeem over him?
__________________________________________________________
Hakeem was ustoppable offensively and one of the great defensive players of all time. He has the NBA record for total blocked shot.
Kareem played with an All-Star line up for much of his career. He accumuulated stats over a very long career, where he was surrounded by all stars.
I dont belive he was a top 3 center all time.
Even though Jabbar had incredible stats, his stats don't tell the whole story. KAJ was good in every phase, he blocked shots, defended, scored, rebounded and is second only to Wilt in assists and foul shooting. KAJ was incredibly consistent, even though he was once the NBA all-time scoring leader, he rarely had those 40+ games, he could get you 25 points against, the worst team in the league, the best team in the league, back-to-back games, playoffs, championships and he was a high percentage shooter. And, keep in mind that KAJ scored all of those points on teams full of scorers.
In comparing KAJ to Hakeem, KAJ was a pure center, he played within a system, with his with back towards the goal, whereas, Hakeem was almost like a forward and a freelancer at times looking for scoring opportunities. Hakeem was certainly a great player, but he had several flaws that actually cost Houston some opportunities.
Steve Martin wrote:
Dr. J was Jordan before Jordan was, and if Bird and Magic had been earlier in time, he would possibly be the guy every new player is compared to instead of Jordan.
It is true that the Doctor was Jordan before Jordan was. It is not true (and I know that you did not say this) that Dr. J was nearly as good as Jordan.
Aerial game - Dr. J was at least a match for Jordan. In my opinion, even better.
Jump shot - Jordan was one of the all time greats. Dr. J was mediocre at best.
Defense - Jordan was one of the all time greats. Dr. J was sometimes spectacular but overall only pretty good, not even near the top in his day.
Making Teammates Better - Jordan was one of the all time greats. Dr. J was nothing special.
Titles - Jordan was finals MVP 6 times (should have been 8). Dr. J was the second or third option on his team when they finally won the title riding Moses Malone.
This is not a knock on Dr. J. He was one of the players who had a huge impact on the game both from the perspective of bringing an unparalleled level of athleticism to the game as well as from a business perspective - he is pretty much the reason that the NBA merged with the ABA (you can't have the world's most spectacular player playing in the "minor league".) It is just that, well, Jordan was quite a bit better overall.
Tony Parker wrote:
Why DOESN'T Kareem make the top ten? Why would you pick Hakeem over him?
__________________________________________________________
Hakeem was ustoppable offensively and one of the great defensive players of all time. He has the NBA record for total blocked shot.
Kareem played with an All-Star line up for much of his career. He accumuulated stats over a very long career, where he was surrounded by all stars.
I dont belive he was a top 3 center all time.
Even though Jabbar had incredible stats, his stats don't tell the whole story. KAJ was good in every phase, he blocked shots, defended, scored, rebounded and is second only to Wilt among centers in assists and foul shooting. KAJ was incredibly consistent, even though he was once the NBA all-time scoring leader, he rarely had those 40+ games, he could get you 25 points against, the worst team in the league, the best team in the league, back-to-back games, playoffs, championships and he was a high percentage shooter. And, keep in mind that KAJ scored all of those points on teams full of scorers.
In comparing KAJ to Hakeem, KAJ was a pure center, he played within a system, with his with back towards the basket, whereas, Hakeem was almost like a forward and a freelancer at times looking for scoring opportunities. Except for perhaps Wilt and Jordan, KAJ is just about the only player were I can't think of anything he could have done better or differently. Hakeem was certainly a great player, but he had several flaws that actually cost Houston some opportunities. - We can debate where Jabbar fits in the top-10, but he is definitely in the top-10.
Btw, this is all coming from someone who was once a basketball nut during the 70s to mid-90s. Spent over a decade as a season ticket holder, had a family member and 2 friends who played in the NBA and I once had to 2 separate cable services so that I didn't miss any games.
Kareem won an NBA title with a Milwaukee Bucks squad that hardly had an All-Star lineup (except for Oscar Robertson, who was winding down his career). Rule changes were made to limit Kareem's overwhelming dominance. He's on a level very far above Hakeem.