Bill James, Baseball Abstract.
Bill James, Baseball Abstract.
Yes- he absolutely is the best team player in basketball history
more grist for the mill....
Compare the Bulls teams of 92-93 and 93-94. Jordan played in 92-3 but not 93-4. Of course they won the title w/ Jordan, and lost without, but the the difference is not quite as dramatic as might be expected. They won 57 with Jordan, and 55 without. Even though Jordan's replacement, Pete Myers, avged only 7.9 pts/game.
The Bulls took a bigger drop to 47 wins in the 2nd Jordanless yr, after Horace Grant left to join Shaq in Orlando.
1992-1993:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1993.html
57-25, Finished 1st in NBA Central Division
Playoffs:
Won NBA Finals (4-2) versus Phoenix Suns
Won NBA Eastern Conference Finals (4-2) versus New York Knickerbockers
Won NBA Eastern Conference Semifinals (4-0) versus Cleveland Cavaliers
Won NBA Eastern Conference First Round (3-0) versus Atlanta Hawks
1993-1994(Jordanless):
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1994.html
55-27, Finished 2nd in NBA Central Division (Schedule and Results)
Playoffs:
Lost NBA Eastern Conference Semifinals (4-3) versus New York Knickerbockers
Won NBA Eastern Conference First Round (3-0) versus Cleveland Cavaliers
I've never understood why people say that Jordan didn't have a great supporting cast. That was true early in his career, but for his prime, Jordan had not only the best coach of all time, but the best front office in the league. Every signing fit perfectly into the team, which is far more important than individual accolades.
Of course, Pippen was a top-25 all timer and a great team player. But I guess they did have to slum it with a 6'11" 2-guard coming off the bench and winning Sixth Man of the Year. Or 20ppg scorer Ron Harper taking a reserved role. Or the best rebounder of all time. Or the best three point shooter in NBA history. And as someone has already pointed out, the Bulls were still an outstanding team without Jordan while he served his gambling suspension i.e. tried his hand at baseball.
1. Jordan - Beatles
2. Bird & Magic - Stones
After that it starts getting pretty jammed up by opinions.
The 1961-62 season was an aberration. It was also the 3rd straight season of expansion.
a journalist wrote:
chikin wrote:Sounds like a description of Jordan.... except Jordan did put up the huge numbers.
Not as big as Oscar Robertson or Wilt -- who is actually the greatest.
The Big O AVERAGED a triple-double one season. People go nuts now when someone does it once.
Wilt rewrote every record he wanted -- and probably shagged your momma.
Pippen is not top 25 all time. he was nothing until Jordan wore him out. And after Jordan, he was a whiny, little punk. Top 50, yes. You are suggesting he was better than....Jordan, Bird, Magic, Jabbar, Russell, Isaiah, Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson, Duncan, Barkley, Karl Malone, Stockton, Chamberlain, West, Robertson, Maravich, Wilkins, Lebron, Shaq, Dr. J, Kobe, Moses Malone, Walton, Havlicek, Barkley
dean moriarty wrote:
I've never understood why people say that Jordan didn't have a great supporting cast. That was true early in his career, but for his prime, Jordan had not only the best coach of all time, but the best front office in the league. Every signing fit perfectly into the team, which is far more important than individual accolades.
Of course, Pippen was a top-25 all timer and a great team player. But I guess they did have to slum it with a 6'11" 2-guard coming off the bench and winning Sixth Man of the Year. Or 20ppg scorer Ron Harper taking a reserved role. Or the best rebounder of all time. Or the best three point shooter in NBA history. And as someone has already pointed out, the Bulls were still an outstanding team without Jordan while he served his gambling suspension i.e. tried his hand at baseball.
pippen may not a top 25 guy, but he was better than havlicek, wilkins, and maravich. you have barkley twice.
dr. dremo wrote:
Listen, the conversation about the greatest basketball player ever begins and ends with Wilt Chamberlain.
He averaged 30.1 and 22.9 rebounds per game - for his career.
He averaged 50 ppg one year. He averaged more than 27 rebounds a game twice.
He NEVER fouled out of a game, averaging nearly 46 minutes a game for his career. He led the NBA in assists from the center position one year, averaging 4.4 assists for his career from the center position.
People talk about how Bill Russell had Chamberlain's number. Nonsense, he actually played better against Russell, averaging 30 ppg and 28 rpg for his career against Russell.
He was so good and so dominant that they had to change the rules because of him. They widened the lane. They banned offensive goal-tending (legal still in international play).
How about this: prior to Wilt when shooting a free throw you could jump from the free throw line and as long as your shot went in before you hit the floor, it counted. There was only 1 problem with Wilt: he could DUNK from the free throw line without a running start. So they banned that too. Don't believe me? Look it up.
All these other players mentioned - Bird, Jordan, Magic, etc. They were great. But there was, and will only ever be, 1 Wilt. The best.
No one can dispute this.
Other poster mentioned his prowess in track.
He also played pro volleyball. Was offered millions to box. And, I believe, was drafted by the NASL, the US pro soccer league at the time.
Probably could have been the best tight end ever in the NFL.
All that, and if you've read any books about him, he lived in constant fear that he would hurt an opposing player due to his strength. That's why he invented the finger roll.
When David Robinson joined the Spurs, there was a huge turnaround because of him. When Tim Duncan joined the Spurs there was a huge turnaround because Robinson and Duncan were playing. Robinson had been out quite a bit the previous year.
Don't forget that Dennis Rodman was not only the greatest rebounder for his size but he was also the best lockdown all around defender in the league. Those Bulls teams were great in part because their talents complemented each other. Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman/Grant were all great in the transition game, got lots of steals and rebounds, and were great finishers (not Rodman), so that they would destroy teams on the break and get a lot of easy baskets. Pippen was a big time shooter when the Bulls needed it in close games. He would bury teams with threes. And Jordan made that team what it was in the half court offense with the isolation game. You have to watch the NBA to rate players, because it is a team game, unlike baseball.
The speed of the game is so much faster now than Bird in his prime wouldn't even make it on a college team nowadays.
It is much more physical game now and Bird would be a boy among men.
Imagine if they kept track of blocks and steals. For a guy who averaged about 40pts, 25rbs, and 3asts during his first five years there is no reason not to believe he blocked 10+ shots per game and grabbed a bunch of steals per game during that span.
I'm sure we would have some quadruple doubles to his name and probably a quintuple double or two.
Side note, Wilt has the only 20 point, 20 rebound, 20 assist triple double in NBA history (Feb 2, 1968, 25 points, 22 rebounds, and 21 assists.
[quote]dr. dremo wrote:
Triple doubles? Well, he once had 9 triple doubles...IN A ROW. He got 41 rebounds in an NBA Finals game - against Bill Russell.
quote]
I'd rank Pippen above quite a few of those names. And speaking from the perspective of Michael Jordan, I'd much rather have Pippen on my team than:
Maravich (took way too many shots)
Wilkins (Pippen was just better)
Dr. J (same)
Karl Malone (easiest choice, worst elite player in the clutch of all time)
David Robinson (think his lack of passion during games would drive MJ nuts)
Barkley (ponderous with the ball, erratic)
Walton (always hurt)
And probably:
Stockton (didn't really need a PG in their system)
Kobe (just because Kobe and MJ would have a hard time playing together)
Havlicek (more athletic)
Isaiah (because Isaiah was a 24/7 douche to MJ)
Pippen was a beast, and the rest of MJ's supporting cast was very, very good. Jordan wouldn't have a few titles if it weren't for the sharpshooting of two future NBA GM's...
Maravich doesn't really belong on any all-time greatest list. The guy never turned any team into a winner, either in college or the pros.
3PT% FT% REB Ast SPG BPG PPG .326 .704 6.4 5.2 2.0 0.8 16.1In what area was he a beast? With that career stat line, it's a wonder Pippen is in the Hall. Biggest mooch of all time. His mediocrity was glossed over and covered up by Jordan's greatness. Every one of those you chose him over have better career stats than Pip. There are 50+ guys who played in the league with those credentials.By the way, I am a diehard Bad Boys Pistons fan and I still think Jordan is head and shoulders above all others. Pippen was AWFUL.
dean moriarty wrote:
I'd rank Pippen above quite a few of those names. And speaking from the perspective of Michael Jordan, I'd much rather have Pippen on my team than:
Maravich (took way too many shots)
Wilkins (Pippen was just better)
Dr. J (same)
Karl Malone (easiest choice, worst elite player in the clutch of all time)
David Robinson (think his lack of passion during games would drive MJ nuts)
Barkley (ponderous with the ball, erratic)
Walton (always hurt)
And probably:
Stockton (didn't really need a PG in their system)
Kobe (just because Kobe and MJ would have a hard time playing together)
Havlicek (more athletic)
Isaiah (because Isaiah was a 24/7 douche to MJ)
Pippen was a beast, and the rest of MJ's supporting cast was very, very good. Jordan wouldn't have a few titles if it weren't for the sharpshooting of two future NBA GM's...
Are we talking about your fantasy basketball team or actual basketball? Scottie is one of the greatest ever. Stats don't mean everything, and even saying that, his averages went down after he left the Bulls. He was a 20pts, 7 rebounds, 6 assists, 2-3 steals and a block every night guy for the Bulls, as a second option, and he shot close to 50% from the floor. Not bad for your fantasy team. You can criticize him for jacking too many threes later in his career when he was hobbling around for the Blazers, fine, but he was a top-25 all time player.
This post sums up Scottie better than I can:
http://thepaintedarea.blogspot.com/2010/08/i-loved-watching-scottie-pippen-play.html
When referring to Jordan's poor supporting cast it was meant to focus in on the early years. Obviously having Pippen,Rodman/Grant made an impact. However, in the 97, 98 years the Bulls definietly had a less than stellar bench other than Kukoc. And had Longley as a starting center. Longley wasn't horrible but he certainly wasn't much above average. Ron Harper was past his prime. Rodman didn't score. It worked out fine of course but you have to give the bulk of the credit to Jordan.
Pippen was unusually quick for a guy his size--he was quite a bit bigger than Jordan. This made him great defensively more than anything. When the Bulls were having problems controlling a pg, in particular magic and stockton, they would have Pippen defend. LBJ is the only other SF I know of to do that. MJ could have done it too of course, but given the choice the Bulls opted for Pippen in that role.
Jordan was allegedly jealous of Pippen cuz Pippen was hung like a horse.
Flagpole wrote: No. Michael Jordan is still the gold standard. Yes Bird did some things better than Jordan, but overall, Jordan is the best ever.
Michael Jordan was one of the most prolific offensive players ever, and certainly the most well-marketed and over-hyped player ever. But the gold standard? Give me a break.
Jabbar, Magic and Bird were ALL more complete players than Jordan. A little research could probably turn up at least five more guys that were better than Jordan. And aside from a lack of championship rings, Lebron James is already a better all-around player than Jordan ever was.
Oh, and speaking of rings, spare me the "6 rings" argument. If rings mean anything, then I guess Bill Russell was the best ever.
Face it, people who put Jordan on a pedestal are nothing more than automatons who believe what everyone else tells them they should believe.