A legit Jordan complaint
Simon S.C. Cushing
the joke in Roy's post, he is making fun of his constant Shaq-fawning by crit-
icising the exact same treatment that Jordan gets from the press. Ignorant
newbies will no doubt misunderstand him and attack him for his apparent sour
grapes (you know, Shaq being ignored now that the NBA has a real superstar to
hype) - but we hardened r.s.b.p'ers know better! You big kidder, you!
Roy Navarre
Jordan is a great player. One of the top 5 of all time probably.
However, how much of his rep is actually due to his b-ball skillz
and how much to the media empire/hype machine that revolves around
him? The man is good, but the man is also surrounded by sycophants.
If Jordan makes a cool dippsy doo move the typical journalist will
crap himself and fawn all over the move. If another player (read
not-the-jordan) makes the _identical_ move he might get a 10th of
the praise Jordan gets--if that.
Next, many of us thought Chicago was MJ. That he alone carried them
to three titles. The year he quit we all saw that wasnt the case. I
would say that many of us were surprised at how well Chicago did
without him. That performance showed that Chicago had a great team and
that Jordan's contribution was only one spoke on the wheel and not the
entire car.
Because of his rep, Jordan gets away with taking a ton of shots.
Almost any other player taking so many shots would be ridiculed as
a ballhog. Jordan's big accomplishment was that he built up his
reputation enough that _he_ could get away with being such a ballhog.
Any other player would be benched. Normalize a few of the NBA's
better players stats. Take their shooting % and apply it to the
number of shots Jordan takes. You will find that each of them will
lead the NBA in scoring.
Finally, Chicago did win 3 in a row. Thats a hell of an
accomplishment. Mitigating this however, is the fact that the NBA
was very weak at that time. I'd have to say that the Lakers or
Celtics of the early 80s would have destroyed that Chicago team.
Pinhead
Vijay Ramanujan
nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu writes:
> Next, many of us thought Chicago was MJ. That he alone carried them
> to three titles. The year he quit we all saw that wasnt the case. I
>would say that many of us were surprised at how well Chicago did
>without him. That performance showed that Chicago had a great team and
>that Jordan's contribution was only one spoke on the wheel and not the
>entire car.
Chicago played NY to a dead heat. New York played Houston to a dead heat.
All three were pretty much on the same level.
And how many people think that Houston team would have had even a slim
chance of beating the Jordan Bulls in a seven game series?
The non-Jordan Bulls were competetive for one year in a league where
there was no team even close to the level of the last seven championship
teams (Chicago*3, Detroit*2,LA*2).
Vijay R.
Air Judden
>In article <3lhtr5$k...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Roy Navarre) writes:
>>
>>Jordan is a great player. One of the top 5 of all time probably.
>Probably in the top 5? PROBABLY? It is the *vast* majority consensus that
>he is the best to ever have played the game. Even if you don't rate him #1,
>he's certainly guaranteed to be in the top 5. It's difficult to give
>you much credibility with your "legit Jordan complaint" when you start out
>this way. You may not like him or the hype, but at least be honest about it.
Sorry, but I agree with Pinhead on this one. His point is made
EXACTLY right here. Just HOW is Michael Jordan the greatest player of all
time? What are you basing it on? The word of sportswriters who wet their
pants when he switched hands in mid air in the 91 finals? Dr. J probably
yawned at that, since his move in 80 blew that away!
These are the finest players to ever play the game (in no particular
order):
1) Wilt Chamberlain-- 7 consecutive scoring titles. The 3 greatest scoring
seasons in history. The greatest offensive machine to ever play. The greatest
rebounder to ever play. Perhaps the greatest shot blocker (in numbers) to
ever play. The greatest passing center, perhaps (the only one to ever lead
the league in assists). 100 pt game, 50 ppg season, 27 rpg season...nuff
said. Oh yeah, 2 rings and a WHOLE bunch of runner-ups to those Boston
teams. 5 MVP's, 2 rings.
2) Bill Russell -- yeah, he didn't score, but he didn't have to. Put him
in Wilt's situation and he'd score 30 a night. Hands down, the
GREATEST defensive player to ever play. The finest shot blocker (in
technique, and perhaps numbers) ever. The 2nd greatest rebounder. His
defense changed the game as we know it. The ultimate winner (although he did
play on loaded teams, he was the straw that stirred the drink). 4 MVP's,
11 rings.
3) Oscar Robertson -- the most complete player to ever play the game. You
wanna talk about Michael's achievements? His 30 ppg years? Yawn!
Big O scored 30 and along with that posted double digit assists and double
digit, or near double digit rebounds. If he chose to be flashy like MJ,
he probably would be unanimously considered the greatest guard ever, but
instead, he was the ultimate in mastering the fundamentals, he did the most
difficult things, with the least flash and least effort--that's how good his
fundamentals were. 1 MVP, 1 ring (those things happen when you play with
Wilt and Russell).
4) Kareem Abdul-Jabbaar. The mixture of Wilt and Russell. Never put up
the numbers of Wilt or the rings of Russell, but had a nice
mix of them. 5 MVP's in his first 6 years--not bad. Take away Kareem, and
Magic would be just another good point guard (like KJ and Stockton). 6 MVP's,
6 rings.
5) Michael Jordan
So you tell me how Michael is the consensus greatest player ever? The only
way would be on the opinions of idiot sportswriters or idiot fans who think
the NBA started when Magic, Larry, and Dr. J chose up teams one Saturday
afternoon at the YMCA in 1980.
>real.
>The trick is, can they shoot as much as Jordon does/did and *still* maintain
>that shooting percentage? History says no. The majority of the FG % leaders
>*don't* lead in scoring and vice versa. Only great players like Shaq (leading
>both categories) who get most of their points off of dunks can. And you can only
>set-up so many dunks in a game for Shaq (and Orlando tries! as they should) while
>you can take jump shots until the cows come home.
One of those players who Jordan is so much better than, did better
than MJ and Shaq. When Wilt Chamberlain won 7 straight scoring titles, he
lead the league in fg% 4 times and finished 2nd 2 times. And guess what? He
wasn't a dunk-only guy. He had a jumpshot, a fingeroll, and a fallaway that
he lived off of!
Roy makes a good point. In 1990, Ricky Pierce averaged less than 29
minutes per game, and averaged 23 ppg (and shot .510). Give him Jordan minutes
and that is 31 ppg.
Using Wennington is weak. Roy is saying if you give any of the stars
that many shots, then they'd hit 30 ppg as well, because, they weren't
many points behind--just look at how close the Mailman was all those years.
Now...don't even try to bring up Wilt. If MJ or anyone else, could
average 50 ppg AND shoot over 50% in the process, or finish 2nd in the league
in fg%, then you could make a point...otherwise, you just can't compare 2nd
rate scores to the cream of the crop!
Judden
Bing D. Su
|>
|> Almost any other player taking so many shots would be ridiculed as
|> a ballhog. Jordan's big accomplishment was that he built up his
|> reputation enough that _he_ could get away with being such a ballhog.
|> Any other player would be benched. Normalize a few of the NBA's
|> better players stats. Take their shooting % and apply it to the
|> number of shots Jordan takes. You will find that each of them will
|> lead the NBA in scoring.
Pinhead, do you understand b-ball at all or not ?
You are saying:
1) if will purdue takes that many shots he will lead the league
in scoring. ( %centage currently at 50% (?).)
2) if Reggie Miller decides to take 25 shots every nite, he will
be the scoring leader too.
3) If a player shoots better than 50% from perimeter and has
taken 20 shots alreaday in a game, he should be benched.
What a fool you are making out of yourself? What happened to
the coaching law of 'give the ball to the player who is hot'?
Remember, many of Jordan's shots are buzzer-beaters, shot-clock
beaters, difficult fallaways, etc., especially those that came when
his team was struggling to score. This makes Jordan's career 51%
shooting all the more admirable.
Now study the game first before making shitty, asanine comments.
BDS
Brett Barksdale
>
>Jordan is a great player. One of the top 5 of all time probably.
Probably in the top 5? PROBABLY? It is the *vast* majority consensus that
he is the best to ever have played the game. Even if you don't rate him #1,
he's certainly guaranteed to be in the top 5. It's difficult to give
you much credibility with your "legit Jordan complaint" when you start out
this way. You may not like him or the hype, but at least be honest about it.
>However, how much of his rep is actually due to his b-ball skillz
>and how much to the media empire/hype machine that revolves around
>him? The man is good, but the man is also surrounded by sycophants.
>If Jordan makes a cool dippsy doo move the typical journalist will
>crap himself and fawn all over the move. If another player (read
>not-the-jordan) makes the _identical_ move he might get a 10th of
>the praise Jordan gets--if that.
Absolutely. It's the "Jordan-hype" and I agree with you. However, make
no mistake: MJ *earned* the hype. He is one of the so very few superstars
who actually lives up to his hype. But, yeah, sportswriters *do* cream their
jeans on moves that he does that are routine around the league - more so
during his comeback.
> Next, many of us thought Chicago was MJ. That he alone carried them
> to three titles. The year he quit we all saw that wasnt the case. I
>would say that many of us were surprised at how well Chicago did
>without him. That performance showed that Chicago had a great team and
>that Jordan's contribution was only one spoke on the wheel and not the
>entire car.
No, many of us know full-well that it's a *team* game and no one man can
win it all by themselves. MJ had an *excellent* team around him including
someone (Pippen) who could have a team built around *him*. But calling Jordon
"one spoke on the wheel" is absurd. However, that team without Michael,while
playing very well in their own right, didn't make it back to the Finals, much
less win it all again.
> Because of his rep, Jordan gets away with taking a ton of shots.
> Almost any other player taking so many shots would be ridiculed as
>a ballhog. Jordan's big accomplishment was that he built up his
>reputation enough that _he_ could get away with being such a ballhog.
To some extent. There are a *lot* of "ballhogs" in the NBA.
>Any other player would be benched. Normalize a few of the NBA's
Bullsh*t. Any other player who put up 37 shots AND HIT 57% OF THEM (as in
the NY game) would receive great praise as well. Not the cream-your-pants
response Jordan gets, but they would *hardly* be benched.
>better players stats. Take their shooting % and apply it to the
>number of shots Jordan takes. You will find that each of them will
>lead the NBA in scoring.
Sure. And when Bill Wennington goes 1/1 for the Bulls, you'll argue that
he could shoot as many times as Jordan and lead the league in scoring. Get
real.
The trick is, can they shoot as much as Jordon does/did and *still* maintain
that shooting percentage? History says no. The majority of the FG % leaders
*don't* lead in scoring and vice versa. Only great players like Shaq (leading
both categories) who get most of their points off of dunks can. And you can only
set-up so many dunks in a game for Shaq (and Orlando tries! as they should) while
you can take jump shots until the cows come home.
> Finally, Chicago did win 3 in a row. Thats a hell of an
> accomplishment. Mitigating this however, is the fact that the NBA
> was very weak at that time. I'd have to say that the Lakers or
> Celtics of the early 80s would have destroyed that Chicago team.
>
Perhaps - perhaps not. It doesn't really matter either way to this discussion.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Just waiting for the nuts..."
Brett Barksdale br...@porky.oce.orst.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rjs
|>
|> Jordan is a great player. One of the top 5 of all time probably.
|> and how much to the media empire/hype machine that revolves around
|> him? The man is good, but the man is also surrounded by sycophants.
|> If Jordan makes a cool dippsy doo move the typical journalist will
|> crap himself and fawn all over the move. If another player (read
|> not-the-jordan) makes the _identical_ move he might get a 10th of
|> the praise Jordan gets--if that.
|> to three titles. The year he quit we all saw that wasnt the case. I
|> would say that many of us were surprised at how well Chicago did
|> without him. That performance showed that Chicago had a great team and
|> that Jordan's contribution was only one spoke on the wheel and not the
|> entire car.
|> Almost any other player taking so many shots would be ridiculed as
|> a ballhog. Jordan's big accomplishment was that he built up his
|> reputation enough that _he_ could get away with being such a ballhog.
|> number of shots Jordan takes. You will find that each of them will
|> lead the NBA in scoring.
|> accomplishment. Mitigating this however, is the fact that the NBA
|> was very weak at that time. I'd have to say that the Lakers or
|> Celtics of the early 80s would have destroyed that Chicago team.
|>
You are too funny.....you almost had me when you said this was a
"legit" post.
Roy Navarre
>In article <3lhtr5$k...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Roy Navarre) writes:
>>Jordan is a great player. One of the top 5 of all time probably.
>he is the best to ever have played the game. Even if you don't rate him #1,
>he's certainly guaranteed to be in the top 5. It's difficult to give
>you much credibility with your "legit Jordan complaint" when you start out
I beg to differ.
Just of the top of my head, here are 5 potential best of all time
players--and I'm not even sure they would be my final 5 picks.
1. Wilt 'can I get a 20001?' Chamberlain (my pick for best of all
time)
2. Magic
3. Bird.
4. Russell
5. Dr. J.
Who ya gonna kick off that list to make room for Jordan? I'm not
saying that Jordan wouldnt knock one of these players off the list,
but he sure in the hell wouldnt knock them off without an argument.
Right now we are seeing the Jordan Bandwagon Juggernaut. A huge amount
of hype surrounds Jordan, in part because of his skills, in part
because Jordan worshipping is chic, and partly because Jordan is
charismatic. So what if he is popular right now? This is the same
climate in which it is not ok for Yale to start a series on western
civilization unless its to denigrate the West. This is the climate
in which multicultural political correctness mania roolz the media
and kollege campuses. Lets wait 10 years and see where Jordan shakes
out. Lets let the hype die down and lets get to the point where we
evaluate him solely for his basketball skills, not his charisma.
I suspect many of the rabid 'Jordan is better than sex crowd' are
young and have no recollection that the NBA existed before 1985, to
say nothing about the NBA stars of the 50s,60s and 70s.
Pinhead
Bing D. Su
|> br...@oce.orst.edu (Brett Barksdale) writes:
|>
|> >In article <3lhtr5$k...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Roy Navarre) writes:
|> >>
|> >>Jordan is a great player. One of the top 5 of all time probably.
|>
|> >Probably in the top 5? PROBABLY? It is the *vast* majority consensus that
|> >he is the best to ever have played the game. Even if you don't rate him #1,
|> >he's certainly guaranteed to be in the top 5. It's difficult to give
|> >you much credibility with your "legit Jordan complaint" when you start out
|> >this way. You may not like him or the hype, but at least be honest about it.
|>
|>
|> Sorry, but I agree with Pinhead on this one. His point is made
|> EXACTLY right here. Just HOW is Michael Jordan the greatest player of all
|> time? What are you basing it on? The word of sportswriters who wet their
|> pants when he switched hands in mid air in the 91 finals? Dr. J probably
|> yawned at that, since his move in 80 blew that away!
|>
|> These are the finest players to ever play the game (in no particular
|> order):
rest of the bullshit deleted..
|>
Now you used the words like 'greatest shooting performance, greatest
passer' in your bullshit. Just what the hell did you base them
upon?
Here is the stats for MJ: 7 consecutive scoring titles, 3 MVPs,
7 straight NBA 1st teamer, 6 straight NBA defense 1st teamer,
3 finals MVP, 3 rings.
What's more than stats: He inpired the whole generation of young
players with his moves, his attitude, his grace, more so than
his brilliant skills.
" Back in college, I dreamed of being Jordan someday and *always*
rooted for the Bulls to win."
--- Penny Hardaway
Do not live in denial, you stupid.
BDS
Cyrus J. Lee
bs...@sparc20-1.unixlab.Virginia.EDU (Bing D. Su) wrote:
>
> rest of the bullshit deleted..
>
> |>
>
>
> Now you used the words like 'greatest shooting performance, greatest
> passer' in your bullshit. Just what the hell did you base them
> upon?
Try to get a clue. The "bullshit" you deleted supports his arguments.
> 1) Wilt Chamberlain-- 7 consecutive scoring titles. The 3 greatest scoring
> seasons in history. The greatest offensive machine to ever play. The
greatest
> rebounder to ever play. Perhaps the greatest shot blocker (in numbers) to
> ever play. The greatest passing center, perhaps (the only one to ever lead
> the league in assists). 100 pt game, 50 ppg season, 27 rpg season...nuff
> said. Oh yeah, 2 rings and a WHOLE bunch of runner-ups to those Boston
> teams. 5 MVP's, 2 rings.
Chamberlain is the greatest offensive player to have ever played. In
Chamberlain's third year in the league, he scored 100 in a single game,
posted a 50.4 scoring averaged, registered 45 games of 50 points or more,
scored 50 in seven consecutive games (also in five straight and six
straight on two other occassions), topped 4,000 points for the only time
in history, and registered 63 games of 40 plus points. Double the totals
of Jordan's very best year and you would have an equal contest. As a
rebounder, he holds the NBA record of a 22.9 RPG career average.
> 2) Bill Russell -- yeah, he didn't score, but he didn't have to. Put him
> in Wilt's situation and he'd score 30 a night. Hands down, the
> GREATEST defensive player to ever play. The finest shot blocker (in
> technique, and perhaps numbers) ever. The 2nd greatest rebounder. His
> defense changed the game as we know it. The ultimate winner (although he did
> play on loaded teams, he was the straw that stirred the drink). 4 MVP's,
> 11 rings.
Well, when Russell played, blocked shots weren't an official statistic nor
kept in the records books. But those who did see him acknowledge him as
the greatest shot blocker ever and the greatest defensive player ever
invented. And his 22.6 career RPG isn't too shabby either. And he won the
MVP five times ('58, '61, '62, '63, '65), not four.
> 3) Oscar Robertson -- the most complete player to ever play the game. You
> wanna talk about Michael's achievements? His 30 ppg years? Yawn!
> Big O scored 30 and along with that posted double digit assists and double
> digit, or near double digit rebounds. If he chose to be flashy like MJ,
> he probably would be unanimously considered the greatest guard ever, but
> instead, he was the ultimate in mastering the fundamentals, he did the most
> difficult things, with the least flash and least effort--that's how good his
> fundamentals were. 1 MVP, 1 ring (those things happen when you play with
> Wilt and Russell).
Big O is probably the greatest all-around player ever. In 1962, he
averaged 30.8 ppg, 12.5 rpg, and 11.4 apg. In '61, he averaged 30.5 ppg,
10.1 rpg, and 9.7 apg; in '63, he averaged 28.3 ppg, 10.4 rpg, 9.5 apg; in
'64, he averaged 31.4 ppg, 9.9 rpg, and 11.0 apg, and in '65 he averaged
30.4 ppg, 9.0 rpg, and 11.5 apg. Do some math and that five year average
is 30.3 ppg, 10.4 rpg, and 10.6 apg. Big O didn't dominate the league by
ranking first as a scorer, since his era had too many competitors, such as
Chamberlain, Baylor, West, Bellamy and Barry--immortals not for a moment
to be confused with Wilkins, Robinson, Malone, and English, who were
Jordan's competition for scoring leader. However, there are two areas
which Jordan has clearly been superior to Robertson: defense and in
winning two more championships. Also, I'd have to say that while Jordan's
a spectacular player, this doesn't mean he doesn't have sound
fundamentals. Indeed, he is one of the most fundamentally sounds players,
and that's one of his great strengths, IMO.
> Here is the stats for MJ: 7 consecutive scoring titles, 3 MVPs,
> 7 straight NBA 1st teamer, 6 straight NBA defense 1st teamer,
> 3 finals MVP, 3 rings.
Definitely one of the all time greats. But clearly the best to ever play
the game?????
> What's more than stats: He inpired the whole generation of young
> players with his moves, his attitude, his grace, more so than
> his brilliant skills.
>
> " Back in college, I dreamed of being Jordan someday and *always*
> rooted for the Bulls to win."
> --- Penny Hardaway
That's nice, but who did Jordan and his generation of players dream of
being? I'll give you a hint. His first name begins with a J, and his
last name ends with a G.
> Do not live in denial, you stupid.
And don't live in complete ignorance of historical perspective and stats
to back it up.
jones sean patrick
only right one sentence on him. Anyone can right a paragraph about a
player they like to make them look good. A lot was left out of Mike's
accomplishments. I could only right one sentence on Wilt, but that would
be straying away from the actuals (sounds familiar huh?!?). And 2) Do you
really thing Wilt and the gang's compitetion (opposing defender(s)) was
anything close to those against Mike. How about defensive sets specially
made to stop Mike. You think they had that back then. Wilt could score
at will because he was a man among boys. At Wilt's best he would easily
dominant this league. But also, with the centers of today he wouldn't
average nothing close to his real average. Well, maybe the Philly, Miami
nights. But Mike scores at will because he's that much better than the best.
Question: do you know the average height of centers in Wilt's era???
U49...@uicvm.uic.edu
>
>Jordan is a great player. One of the top 5 of all time probably.
You have the correct nickname, for your "legit" post shows it.
Obviously not seeing Jordan on a regular basis, it's easy to see how one can be
flawed in their assessment of The Jordan.
You refer to a dipsy-doo made by Jordan as opposed to another player. That's
just the point. Jordan can make the dipsy-doo that over 90% of the NBA players
can't make. There is also the intangibles that Jordan possesses. When Scottie
and Horace came to the Bulls in 1987 they were raw and very tentative. Under
Jordan's pressure and relentless drive to win a championship they came into
their own. There was some truth to the book "The Jordan Rules". The dude does
not like to lose and does not like to be around players that don't "put out".
Case in point: Jordan was very outspoken about the Bulls getting Rodney McCray
from the Rockets. When he got here however, Jordan found out that McCray had
more than just a groin problem. The guy had no work ethic to speak of and MJ
rode his ass in practice, but to no avail. You saw how far on the bench he was
You talk about him being a ballhog, but his rep let's him get away with it.
The man has a career average of 5.4 assists per game. For a shooting guard of
his stature, that's damn good. Sure he has a tendency to shoot the ball when
a pass would be better, but he also has a career field goal percentage of 51%.
If there was ever a player whose presence made a team better, then Michael is
that player!
Finally there is no way you can say that the Lakers team of the 80's or the
Celts would have "destroyed" the Championship Bulls. Each series would have
been tough and maybe they go the full seven. I however think the Bulls would
have won because their defense was a bit better than both of those teams.
And besides to win 3 championships in a row in any decade is a monumental feat.
These are the nineties and a good many of the teams could "hang" with the teams
of yesteryear.
It's called "Bigger, Stronger, Faster"!
Chuck Anderson
Chicago Bulls Fan
Barry Daniels
|>
|> Jordan is a great player. One of the top 5 of all time probably.
|> However, how much of his rep is actually due to his b-ball skillz
|> and how much to the media empire/hype machine that revolves around
|> him? The man is good, but the man is also surrounded by sycophants.
|> If Jordan makes a cool dippsy doo move the typical journalist will
|> crap himself and fawn all over the move. If another player (read
|> not-the-jordan) makes the _identical_ move he might get a 10th of
|> the praise Jordan gets--if that.
This is an interesting point and a very true phenomena, how the media can
influence the masses, but I don't think it applies to MJ. His skills make him
without a peer.
I do, however, feel this does apply to Julius Erving. His "legend" was built when
the ABA finally had a "true" star who could put the fans in the stands and allow
the league to compete with the NBA. Because of this, the media built a legend
around him that survived until his NBA retirement. Erving was a good ballplayer,
but not all that he was made out to be.
Barry
Joshua E Konstadt
jones sean patrick <sp-j...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Two things: 1) Sure Jordan's accomplishments will look minimal if you
>only right one sentence on him. Anyone can right a paragraph about a
>player they like to make them look good. A lot was left out of Mike's
>accomplishments. I could only right one sentence on Wilt
I'm not really sure you could _write_ one sentence.
Joshua Konstadt :: This message is provided "as is" without
je...@columbia.edu :: respect to warranties, implied or expressed.
Eric Bin
>br...@oce.orst.edu (Brett Barksdale) writes:
>>In article <3lhtr5$k...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Roy Navarre) writes:
>>>
>>>Jordan is a great player. One of the top 5 of all time probably.
>>Probably in the top 5? PROBABLY? It is the *vast* majority consensus that
>>he is the best to ever have played the game. Even if you don't rate him #1,
>>he's certainly guaranteed to be in the top 5. It's difficult to give
>>you much credibility with your "legit Jordan complaint" when you start out
>>this way. You may not like him or the hype, but at least be honest about it.
> Sorry, but I agree with Pinhead on this one. His point is made
>EXACTLY right here. Just HOW is Michael Jordan the greatest player of all
>time? What are you basing it on? The word of sportswriters who wet their
>pants when he switched hands in mid air in the 91 finals? Dr. J probably
>yawned at that, since his move in 80 blew that away!
>
> These are the finest players to ever play the game (in no particular
>order):
Oh gee, this isn't your opinion is it?
>1) Wilt Chamberlain-- 7 consecutive scoring titles. The 3 greatest scoring
>seasons in history. The greatest offensive machine to ever play. The greatest
>rebounder to ever play. Perhaps the greatest shot blocker (in numbers) to
>ever play. The greatest passing center, perhaps (the only one to ever lead
>the league in assists). 100 pt game, 50 ppg season, 27 rpg season...nuff
>said. Oh yeah, 2 rings and a WHOLE bunch of runner-ups to those Boston
>teams. 5 MVP's, 2 rings.
>2) Bill Russell -- yeah, he didn't score, but he didn't have to. Put him
> in Wilt's situation and he'd score 30 a night. Hands down, the
>GREATEST defensive player to ever play. The finest shot blocker (in
>technique, and perhaps numbers) ever. The 2nd greatest rebounder. His
>defense changed the game as we know it. The ultimate winner (although he did
>play on loaded teams, he was the straw that stirred the drink). 4 MVP's,
>11 rings.
>3) Oscar Robertson -- the most complete player to ever play the game. You
> wanna talk about Michael's achievements? His 30 ppg years? Yawn!
>Big O scored 30 and along with that posted double digit assists and double
>digit, or near double digit rebounds. If he chose to be flashy like MJ,
>he probably would be unanimously considered the greatest guard ever, but
>instead, he was the ultimate in mastering the fundamentals, he did the most
>difficult things, with the least flash and least effort--that's how good his
>fundamentals were. 1 MVP, 1 ring (those things happen when you play with
>Wilt and Russell).
No way the Big O is ahead of MJ. Even people who have seen both play
in their prime say MJ is better. Why? D. MJ can play D far better
than the Big O. That's the Big diff.
>4) Kareem Abdul-Jabbaar. The mixture of Wilt and Russell. Never put up
> the numbers of Wilt or the rings of Russell, but had a nice
>mix of them. 5 MVP's in his first 6 years--not bad. Take away Kareem, and
>Magic would be just another good point guard (like KJ and Stockton). 6 MVP's,
>6 rings.
Take away Magic and Kareem would be another good center.
>5) Michael Jordan
>So you tell me how Michael is the consensus greatest player ever? The only
>way would be on the opinions of idiot sportswriters or idiot fans who think
>the NBA started when Magic, Larry, and Dr. J chose up teams one Saturday
>afternoon at the YMCA in 1980.
>>real.
>>The trick is, can they shoot as much as Jordon does/did and *still* maintain
>>that shooting percentage? History says no. The majority of the FG % leaders
>>*don't* lead in scoring and vice versa. Only great players like Shaq (leading
>>both categories) who get most of their points off of dunks can. And you can only
>>set-up so many dunks in a game for Shaq (and Orlando tries! as they should) while
>>you can take jump shots until the cows come home.
> One of those players who Jordan is so much better than, did better
>than MJ and Shaq. When Wilt Chamberlain won 7 straight scoring titles, he
>lead the league in fg% 4 times and finished 2nd 2 times. And guess what? He
>wasn't a dunk-only guy. He had a jumpshot, a fingeroll, and a fallaway that
>he lived off of!
Golly, Wilt was only 10 feet away from the hoop when he shot the
fallaway and the J. How far is MJ when he shoots the J and the
fallaway? 15-20 feet. This will hurt your fg%
> Roy makes a good point. In 1990, Ricky Pierce averaged less than 29
>minutes per game, and averaged 23 ppg (and shot .510). Give him Jordan minutes
>and that is 31 ppg.
> Using Wennington is weak. Roy is saying if you give any of the stars
>that many shots, then they'd hit 30 ppg as well, because, they weren't
>many points behind--just look at how close the Mailman was all those years.
> Now...don't even try to bring up Wilt. If MJ or anyone else, could
>average 50 ppg AND shoot over 50% in the process, or finish 2nd in the league
>in fg%, then you could make a point...otherwise, you just can't compare 2nd
>rate scores to the cream of the crop!
>Judden
I'd like to see MJ and Wilt go one on one.
Eric Bin
eb...@sfu.ca
Alan Dail
:In article <3lhtr5$k...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>, nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Roy
Navarre) writes:
:|>
:|> Jordan is a great player. One of the top 5 of all time probably.
:|> However, how much of his rep is actually due to his b-ball skillz
:|> and how much to the media empire/hype machine that revolves around
:|> him? The man is good, but the man is also surrounded by sycophants.
:|> If Jordan makes a cool dippsy doo move the typical journalist will
:|> crap himself and fawn all over the move. If another player (read
:|> not-the-jordan) makes the _identical_ move he might get a 10th of
:|> the praise Jordan gets--if that.
:
:This is an interesting point and a very true phenomena, how the media can
:influence the masses, but I don't think it applies to MJ. His skills make him
:without a peer.
:
:I do, however, feel this does apply to Julius Erving. His "legend" was
built when
:the ABA finally had a "true" star who could put the fans in the stands
and allow
:the league to compete with the NBA. Because of this, the media built a legend
:around him that survived until his NBA retirement. Erving was a good
ballplayer,
:but not all that he was made out to be.
:
You apparently never saw Dr J in the ABA. As great as he was in his NBA
days, he was even better in the ABA. By the time he got to the NBA, his
knees had tendonitis that slowed him down some. Despite this, he still
had a spectacular NBA carrer. Check out the May 17, 1976 issue of Sports
Illustated if you can find it anywhere.
Alan
--
Quote of the year: "I'm Back" - Michael Jordan - March 18, 1995
+Alan Dail - Developer--+--/-\--+-"The journey is the reward" - S.Jobs--+
|804/867-7202 | \_/ | "The best way to predict the future |
|AppleLink: AlanDail | j-+-{ | is to invent it" - Alan Kay |
|Internet ad...@infi.net| -|- | "Hate is not a family value" - Anon |
+-----------------------+---V---+"Race,in the space I mark Human"-Prince+
Alan Dail
:judd...@ksu.ksu.edu (Air Judden) writes:
:
:>4) Kareem Abdul-Jabbaar. The mixture of Wilt and Russell. Never put up
:> the numbers of Wilt or the rings of Russell, but had a nice
:>mix of them. 5 MVP's in his first 6 years--not bad. Take away Kareem, and
:>Magic would be just another good point guard (like KJ and Stockton). 6 MVP's,
:>6 rings.
:
:Take away Magic and Kareem would be another good center.
Those 5 MVPs in his first 6 years were before Magic was on his team. It
took magic before Kareem starting winning championships though.
David Deisley
: Brett Barksdale <br...@oce.orst.edu> wrote:
: >In article <3lhtr5$k...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Roy Navarre) writes:
: >>Jordan is a great player. One of the top 5 of all time probably.
: >he is the best to ever have played the game. Even if you don't rate him #1,
: >he's certainly guaranteed to be in the top 5. It's difficult to give
: >you much credibility with your "legit Jordan complaint" when you start out
: I beg to differ.
: Just of the top of my head, here are 5 potential best of all time
: players--and I'm not even sure they would be my final 5 picks.
: 1. Wilt 'can I get a 20001?' Chamberlain (my pick for best of all
: time)
: 2. Magic
: 3. Bird.
: 4. Russell
: 5. Dr. J.
: Who ya gonna kick off that list to make room for Jordan? I'm not
: saying that Jordan wouldnt knock one of these players off the list,
: but he sure in the hell wouldnt knock them off without an argument.
Knock Erving off; he never had a consistent outside shot (12-16 feet -
I wouldn't expect him to be taking 20 footers). How great
was his position defense? He had long arms, he blocked some
shots, but could he shut down his man for the entire game?
I don't remember seeing him do it.
David Deisley
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
| |
| |
| no parking |
| |
| |
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Air Judden
>|>
>|> >In article <3lhtr5$k...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Roy Na
varre) writes:
>|> >>
>|> >>Jordan is a great player. One of the top 5 of all time probably.
>|>
>|> >Probably in the top 5? PROBABLY? It is the *vast* majority consensus that
>|> >he is the best to ever have played the game. Even if you don't rate him #1,
>|> >he's certainly guaranteed to be in the top 5. It's difficult to give
>|> >you much credibility with your "legit Jordan complaint" when you start out
>|> >this way. You may not like him or the hype, but at least be honest about it
.
>|>
>|>
>|> Sorry, but I agree with Pinhead on this one. His point is made
>|> EXACTLY right here. Just HOW is Michael Jordan the greatest player of all
>|> time? What are you basing it on? The word of sportswriters who wet their
>|> pants when he switched hands in mid air in the 91 finals? Dr. J probably
>|> yawned at that, since his move in 80 blew that away!
>|>
>|> These are the finest players to ever play the game (in no particular
>|> order):
> rest of the bullshit deleted..
>|>
>Now you used the words like 'greatest shooting performance, greatest
>passer' in your bullshit. Just what the hell did you base them
>upon?
facts...a pretty good thing to base them on...read on a learn
>Here is the stats for MJ: 7 consecutive scoring titles, 3 MVPs,
>7 straight NBA 1st teamer, 6 straight NBA defense 1st teamer,
>3 finals MVP, 3 rings.
THIS is what I base it upon....read em and weep!
1) Chamerlain: 7 consecutive scoring titles. 5 MVP's, (defensive player
of the year and all NBA teams weren't kept back then). Let Jordan
match this:
Most Points in a game: 100
Highest season scoring average: 50 ppg
2nd highest scoring average in history: 30 (note: Had he retired
after 9 seasons, like MJ, he'd be #1)
2nd most points in a career: (It took Kareem more years to break this)
3 Highest fg%'s in a season: .727 .683 and .649
----I would qulaify this for greatest scorer...comprende?
Most Rebounds in a game: 55
Highest season rebound average: 27 rpg
Most career rebounds: 23,924
---this pretty much qualifies the guy as the greatest rebounder ever...agree?
Most assists in a season by a center: 705
Only center to lead the league in assists.
Not sure, but maybe most career assists by a center...if not, he's
up there on the list.
---Found any centers who averaged 8.6 assists per game? Has MJ ever done this?
Played on the 2 winningest teams in history: 1972 Lakers (69-13)
1967 Sixers (68-13)
2 championships--and a whole lot of runner-ups to the greatest dynasty
in history, the Celtics.
---Need I say more?
>What's more than stats: He inpired the whole generation of young
>players with his moves, his attitude, his grace, more so than
>his brilliant skills.
>" Back in college, I dreamed of being Jordan someday and *always*
>rooted for the Bulls to win."
> --- Penny Hardaway
Yawwwwnnnn....if Wilt doesn't inspire, it's because NOBODY can ever
*DREAM* of doing what Wilt did. There has never been, and still isn't a
player who has combined Wilt's strength (the strongest man to ever play the
game), his speed (a former champion in the 440), and his leaping ability
(48" verticle), and his size 7'0"-7'2", 275-300 (depends on your source for
height and depends on the year for his weight). Nobody will ever come close
to the 100 point game. That was done over 30 years ago, and nobody has even
come close. MJ had his chance against Westhead's sorry Denver team. He had
plenty of chances when he was a 1-man team. Rodman get's 30 rebounds and rsbp
goes crazy--so what? Wilt averaged 27 in his rookie season! I only wish that
blocked shots were kept back then, so that we could see how far ahead he and
Russell were ahead of the pack (Earl Strom said each had about 8-10 a night).
I haven't seen anybody have a 40 rebound game in the last 10 years, let alone
55 (which Wilt had against Russell).
You want to talk about influencing the game? Who cares what Penny
Hardaway thinks? (that overrated Magic-wanna-be). Wilt rewrote the rulebook.
If it weren't for Wilt, the lane would be smaller, free throw shooters could
enter the lane before the ball hit the rim, and you could inbound the ball
over the backboard. Wilt and George Mikan rewrote the rulebook. What's MJ
done?
Since it's apparent that your knowledge of basketball history probably
doesn't go past Larry Bird, you probaby aren't familiar with Connie Hawkins
or Elgin Baylor--but these guys were doing the acrobatic thing long before
Dr. J and MJ--who do you think inspired them?
>Do not live in denial, you stupid.
Still want to compare Michael to the greatest player in history? I
take it I've made my point CRYSTAL clear. I'll stop there. I'm not going
to bring up Oscar Robertson's season in which he AVERAGED a triple double.
I'm not going to bring up Kareem's 5 MVP's in his first 6 seasons. I'm not
going to talk about how Russell changed the face of the game with defense,
or how he has so many rings that he could give 1 to each of Jordan's teammates,
so they could see what one looks like (since they aren't going to get one
this year). Still want to talk about stupid? If you read anything beyond
a Wheaties box, you'd probably know some of this stuff.
Judden
educating the ignorant masses about the REAL men
Air Judden
>judd...@ksu.ksu.edu (Air Judden) writes:
>>br...@oce.orst.edu (Brett Barksdale) writes:
>>>In article <3lhtr5$k...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Roy Nava
rre) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Jordan is a great player. One of the top 5 of all time probably.
>>
>> These are the finest players to ever play the game (in no particular
>>order):
>Oh gee, this isn't your opinion is it?
Yep...and I back it up and show that MJ doesn't clearly dominate over
this bunch. Note: I left Bird and Magic off the list...you could also make
arguments for these 2 as well. I listed 5 because that was Pinhead's number.
>No way the Big O is ahead of MJ. Even people who have seen both play
>in their prime say MJ is better. Why? D. MJ can play D far better
>than the Big O. That's the Big diff.
Who'd you talk to? Jerry Krause? Walt Frazier put Big O over MJ...he
said O was THE toughest guard to stop. O had size on MJ and while MJ did have
better defense (consider that O had to pace himself since he clocked in more
minutes, also), O had the passing and rebounding on MJ.
>Take away Magic and Kareem would be another good center.
You're flaunting ignorance here, buddy. When Magic was in high school,
Kareem was busy winning 5 MVP's. Oh yeah, he also had a ring. How many did
Magic win without Kareem? The 2 were vital to the Lakers championships, but
Kareem has won without Magic, and don't forget it. BTW, do you know who was
PG on Kareem's first Championship? Hint: He's on the list, and Walt Frazier
ranked him ahead of MJ. If that's not enough, he's the triple-double guy
from Cincinnati.
>> One of those players who Jordan is so much better than, did better
>>than MJ and Shaq. When Wilt Chamberlain won 7 straight scoring titles, he
>>lead the league in fg% 4 times and finished 2nd 2 times. And guess what? He
>>wasn't a dunk-only guy. He had a jumpshot, a fingeroll, and a fallaway that
>>he lived off of!
>Golly, Wilt was only 10 feet away from the hoop when he shot the
>fallaway and the J. How far is MJ when he shoots the J and the
>fallaway? 15-20 feet. This will hurt your fg%
Golly...and when MJ was young and had no jumper, and was driving to
the hoop and dunking...how far away was that? Closer than Wilt's fadeaways
in the early days...oh, and Wilt was also a jump shooter in his early days.
>I'd like to see MJ and Wilt go one on one.
I bet you would...Wilt is 58 years old. Put them in their prime and
it would be a joke. Did you see Kareem and Dr. J play? Same thing...you
can't stop a monster in the paint from dunking on the little guy. Wilt went
against 4 guys by himself in the KU-UNC title game of 1957...and still scored,
what? 28? I don't think a 6'6" 195 lb guard would make him shudder. And if
MJ thought about dunking....uh...not, a good idea--ask Gus Johnson what
happened when he tried to dunk on Wilt (he got his shoulder dislocated by the
force of Wilt's rejection). Connie Hawkins said it best: Don't make the
dipper angry.
Judden
Alan Dail
dav...@hobbes.swdc.stratus.com (David Deisley) wrote:
:Knock Erving off; he never had a consistent outside shot (12-16 feet -
:I wouldn't expect him to be taking 20 footers). How great
:was his position defense? He had long arms, he blocked some
:shots, but could he shut down his man for the entire game?
:I don't remember seeing him do it.
:
Julius was consistantly on the NBA all defensive team.
Roy Navarre
>Pinhead, do you understand b-ball at all or not ?
You know, thats a good question....
>What a fool you are making out of yourself? What happened to
>the coaching law of 'give the ball to the player who is hot'?
What happened to being part of a team?
>his team was struggling to score. This makes Jordan's career 51%
>shooting all the more admirable.
Gee, I say the guy is probably one of the 5 best of All-time and you
have a coniption. Que pasa?
>Now study the game first before making shitty, asanine comments.
If I ever make an 'asanine' comment I'm sure you will be the first
to know.
Yours in
Pinheadedness
Roy Navarre
>*DREAM* of doing what Wilt did. There has never been, and still isn't a
>player who has combined Wilt's strength (the strongest man to ever play the
>game), his speed (a former champion in the 440), and his leaping ability
Well, gotta disagree here. You know I think WIlt is the best of all
time (well ahead of Jordan), but I'm skeptical about his strength.
We know one of his muscles has extraordinary strength... But I
remember you posting earlier that he could bench press over 500
pounds. I'm skeptical! I have to put that in the myth category unless
you can find some proof. Hell, even I can't bench 500. :-)
I'm also skeptical about Wilt being a champion in the 440. Grade
school champion? What kind of champion?
Pinhead
ps, I ever tell you about the time I saw Shaq walk on water?
P. Ialamanna
>Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>>*DREAM* of doing what Wilt did. There has never been, and still isn't a
>>player who has combined Wilt's strength (the strongest man to ever play the
>>game), his speed (a former champion in the 440), and his leaping ability
>Well, gotta disagree here. You know I think WIlt is the best of all
>time (well ahead of Jordan), but I'm skeptical about his strength.
>We know one of his muscles has extraordinary strength... But I
>remember you posting earlier that he could bench press over 500
>pounds. I'm skeptical! I have to put that in the myth category unless
>you can find some proof. Hell, even I can't bench 500. :-)
>I'm also skeptical about Wilt being a champion in the 440. Grade
>school champion? What kind of champion?
>Pinhead
>ps, I ever tell you about the time I saw Shaq walk on water?
Anyone know who is currently the strongest player in the NBA?
How much does Shaq bench? Mason? Malone?
--
Thanx for the comeback, MJ "Men will lie on their backs, talking about the
P. Ialamanna, aka Pman fall of man, and never make an effort to get up"
pa5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu - Henry David Thoreau
Marc Reid (EC)
>In article <ebin.79...@sfu.ca>, eb...@malibu.sfu.ca (Eric Bin) wrote:
>
>:judd...@ksu.ksu.edu (Air Judden) writes:
>:
>:> the numbers of Wilt or the rings of Russell, but had a nice
>:>mix of them. 5 MVP's in his first 6 years--not bad. Take away Kareem, and
>:>Magic would be just another good point guard (like KJ and Stockton). 6 MVP's,
>:>6 rings.
>:
>:Take away Magic and Kareem would be another good center.
>
>took magic before Kareem starting winning championships though.
>
>
>--
>Quote of the year: "I'm Back" - Michael Jordan - March 18, 1995
>+Alan Dail - Developer--+--/-\--+-"The journey is the reward" - S.Jobs--+
>|804/867-7202 | \_/ | "The best way to predict the future |
>|AppleLink: AlanDail | j-+-{ | is to invent it" - Alan Kay |
>|Internet ad...@infi.net| -|- | "Hate is not a family value" - Anon |
>+-----------------------+---V---+"Race,in the space I mark Human"-Prince+
Actually, Kareem did win one championship with Bucs in 71(?).
Marc
Air Judden
>In article <3lhtr5$k...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>, nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Roy Navarre) says:
>>
>Finally there is no way you can say that the Lakers team of the 80's or the
>Celts would have "destroyed" the Championship Bulls. Each series would have
>been tough and maybe they go the full seven. I however think the Bulls would
>have won because their defense was a bit better than both of those teams.
Better Defense? Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
Get Real!
Kevin McHale and Dennis Johnson are 2 of the finest defensive players
in the history of basketball! Chief was a defensive stud and Larry Bird made
a few all-defensive teams. I don't puch much stock in those, but he was a
VERY smart defender. Walton off the bench was a defensive giant. The only
weak link on the team was Danny Ainge...and he wasn't a cardboard cutout.
Sorry...MJ is a stud defender, same with Pippen. Grant is great for
today, but he is no McHale. Paxson is a sieve. Cartwright I like, but I'd
take the Chief over him on the defensive end.
And I'll bring up another team to spank MJ's...the 1983 Sixers.
Moses, Bobby Jones, and Maurice Cheeks...I believe this made up 3/5 of the
all defensive teams that year. Cheeks and Jones are also 2 of the finest
defensive players in history. Moses was MVP and a dominant rebounder...and
the other 2 players? How about Andrew Toney and ummmm...ummmm... what is HIS
name.... oh, yeah. Dr. J.
Judden
Air Judden
>nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Roy Navarre) writes:
>>Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>>>*DREAM* of doing what Wilt did. There has never been, and still isn't a
>>>player who has combined Wilt's strength (the strongest man to ever play the
>>>game), his speed (a former champion in the 440), and his leaping ability
>>Well, gotta disagree here. You know I think WIlt is the best of all
>>time (well ahead of Jordan), but I'm skeptical about his strength.
>>We know one of his muscles has extraordinary strength... But I
>>remember you posting earlier that he could bench press over 500
>>pounds. I'm skeptical! I have to put that in the myth category unless
>>you can find some proof. Hell, even I can't bench 500. :-)
>>I'm also skeptical about Wilt being a champion in the 440. Grade
>>school champion? What kind of champion?
I talked to my roommated about Wilt's strength. He's the one who
told me about it. He's a strength coach for the K-State football team. I
said 500 lbs? He said, "not that wild...I benched 450 my soph year".
Wilt developed a weight training program when he was young. He was
way ahead of his time.
Johnny Kerr said he once made Wilt mad. Wilt dunked the ball so hard
that it broke Kerr's toe. Dang! Another said, Wilt once dunked so hard, it
came back up through the rim. I earlier mentioned when Wilt dislocated Gus
Johnson's shoulder when he blocked his feeble attempt at a power dunk (Gus
was no sissy...he was the 1960's version of Charles Barkley). Luke Jackson
(6'10", 275), who many said may have been the 2nd strongest man to play
(behind Wilt) arm wrestled Wilt...Wilt slammed his arm down. Then Wilt lowered
his arm 45 degrees and said "Ready?" Jackson grunted, and Wilt slammed his
arm down again. Wilt was so strong, that he was afraid he'd hurt people.
That's why the incidents are so few and far between. When Clyde Lovellete
tried throwing elbows at Wilt, Wilt did lose his cool and knocked out
Clyde. Oh....the arm wrestling story wasn't myth...Billy Cunningham was
telling the story (teammate to Wilt and Luke).
Good enough Roy?
Judden
Air Judden
>In article <ebin.79...@sfu.ca>, eb...@malibu.sfu.ca (Eric Bin) wrote:
>:judd...@ksu.ksu.edu (Air Judden) writes:
>:
>:
>:Take away Magic and Kareem would be another good center.
>Those 5 MVPs in his first 6 years were before Magic was on his team. It
>took magic before Kareem starting winning championships though.
WRONG! Kareem won it his 2nd year, when Magic was, what--12 years
old? Check it out...1971 Milwaukee Bucks
Judden
Barry Daniels
|> In article <4185....@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM>,
|> dav...@hobbes.swdc.stratus.com (David Deisley) wrote:
|>
|> :Knock Erving off; he never had a consistent outside shot (12-16 feet -
|> :I wouldn't expect him to be taking 20 footers). How great
|> :was his position defense? He had long arms, he blocked some
|> :shots, but could he shut down his man for the entire game?
|> :I don't remember seeing him do it.
|> :
|> Julius was consistantly on the NBA all defensive team.
|>
|> Alan
I don't ever recall him being on the Defensive team. Can you substantiate that?
If he was, it wasn't consistently.
Barry
Rahul Sekhar
>I have a great deal of respect for Jordan and his Championship teams with the
>Bulls but there is no way that none of those teams would have beat the 84-85
>Lakers. There is just no way. The Lakers would have brought in Michael
>Cooper and he would'nt have stopped Jordan but he would have altered his game
>enough for the rest of the Bulls to be effective.
This has been tried again and again. The simple fact is that in the playoffs,
MJ elevates his game. No oe has really altered his game enough to make him
less effective in the playoffs. Coop was a great defender, but I don't think
he could have done it.
I think the Lakers would
>have trouble against Pippen, but then again, Pippen gets intimidated by
>physical play, and the Lakers would have put A. C. on him. Worthy in his day
>would school Horace Grant on the base line. He would have been to quick for
>him. The Bulls would have put MJ on Magic but Magic would'nt score he just be
>giving the ball to the right people off the transition game.
Pippen used to be intimidated by Physical play, but not in the last few years.
He played fery well against the Knicks in their last championship. This was
true against the Pistons before the Bulls won, but not really during their
reign. Also, while AC might have guarded Pip, that would have left Worthy to
try and box out Horace who would clean up on the offensive glass. On D, MJ &
Pip would have guarded Magic & Worthy(remember Pip on Magic in 91?). Two of
the best defenders in the game. I would rate the Pip/Jordan v. Magic/Worthy
matchups in the Bulls favor when compared to the AC/Pip and Scott/Jordan
matchup on offense. Grant could guard AC no problem. On D, I think BJ could
stay with Scott. That would also be a wash.
>And then the
>real nail in the coffin (sp?) Kareem vs. Cartwright. If Kareem could go out
>and play the Chief tough and average over 20 points a game, I don't think he
>will have trouble with Bill Cartwright and his 9 points a game.
OK, Bill wouldn't score much, but he never did(w/ the Bulls). He was there
because he was one of the best post defenders. He used to routinely shut down
Ewing(before he got too old) and play decently against the other top centers.
The guys who gave him problems were the more mobile guys like Hakeem who would
take him outside and drive or shoot. Kareem would win this matchup, but I
don't hink he would be a dominating scorer.
> The bottom
>line is the Bulls have the best player but the Lakers had the best team. On a
>correction to the beginning part of my statement I meant he would alter
>Jordan's game enought for the rest of the Bulls to be more ineffective. This
>is just my opinion, not just because I am a Lakers fan, but because what I
>said makes sense. To bad we will never now the truth. GO LAKERS!
>Joe
>
I agree that the Lakers had the better team, but not by as much as you seem to
say. I also think that the Bulls would have been a better defensive
team(Jordan/Pip/Grant were all better than any of the Lakers starters) and I
think that given th chance, MJ would be able to pul out a few things and Pip
would also have been able to do some stuff. My guess, Lakers in 6 or 7.
Would ahve been a VERY good matchup.
>INET: n1...@pnet16.navy.mil
Alan Dail
wrote:
:ad...@infi.net (Alan Dail) writes:
:
:>In article <ebin.79...@sfu.ca>, eb...@malibu.sfu.ca (Eric Bin) wrote:
:
:>:judd...@ksu.ksu.edu (Air Judden) writes:
:>:
:>:
:>:Take away Magic and Kareem would be another good center.
:
:>Those 5 MVPs in his first 6 years were before Magic was on his team. It
:>took magic before Kareem starting winning championships though.
:
:
: WRONG! Kareem won it his 2nd year, when Magic was, what--12 years
:old? Check it out...1971 Milwaukee Bucks
:
I wasn't saying he didn't win any titles before Magic, just that he didn't
start winning a lot of titles. In fact, my whole post was defending
Kareem as being a great play by pointing out he won the MVP so many times
before he got Magic as a teammate. Magic benifited greatly in his assist
numbers by having Kareem in the middle. In contrast, Jordan's assist
numbers suffer greatly because of the stiffs he always has at center. I
saw one of them have an air ball on a dunk a couple of games ago when
Jordan got them the ball. I don't remember which one as they all play
like clones of each other.
ALan
Mark Yasuda
Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>>In article <3lk6c0$9...@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu>, judd...@ksu.ksu.edu (Air Judden) writ
>es:
>
>
>1) Chamerlain: 7 consecutive scoring titles. 5 MVP's, (defensive player
> of the year and all NBA teams weren't kept back then). Let Jordan
> match this:
Make that 4 MVP's (regular season) -- or are you including his playoff MVP?
Russell had 5.
>
> Most Points in a game: 100
> Highest season scoring average: 50 ppg
Wilt had second, third, sixth too (44.8, 38.4, 37.6), Baylor had 4th (38.3),
Jordan 5th (37.1).
> 2nd highest scoring average in history: 30 (note: Had he retired
> after 9 seasons, like MJ, he'd be #1)
> 2nd most points in a career: (It took Kareem more years to break this)
> 3 Highest fg%'s in a season: .727 .683 and .649
Nope -- just the two highest. Artis Gilmore shot .670 and .652. Of course,
until 1980-81, Wilt had the three highest.
>
>----I would qulaify this for greatest scorer...comprende?
>
>
> Most Rebounds in a game: 55
> Highest season rebound average: 27 rpg
(27.2)
> Most career rebounds: 23,924
>
>---this pretty much qualifies the guy as the greatest rebounder ever...agree?
One could still put up a good argument for Russell, though I give the
edge to Wilt.
>
> Most assists in a season by a center: 705
(702) You don't have to inflate Wilt's stats. :) Incidentally, assists
were harder to come by back then (different criterion).
> Only center to lead the league in assists.
> Not sure, but maybe most career assists by a center...if not, he's
> up there on the list.
>
>---Found any centers who averaged 8.6 assists per game? Has MJ ever done this?
>
>
> Played on the 2 winningest teams in history: 1972 Lakers (69-13)
> 1967 Sixers (68-13)
> 2 championships--and a whole lot of runner-ups to the greatest dynasty
> in history, the Celtics.
>---Need I say more?
>
>
> Yawwwwnnnn....if Wilt doesn't inspire, it's because NOBODY can ever
>*DREAM* of doing what Wilt did. There has never been, and still isn't a
>player who has combined Wilt's strength (the strongest man to ever play the
>game), his speed (a former champion in the 440), and his leaping ability
>(48" verticle), and his size 7'0"-7'2", 275-300 (depends on your source for
It was over 40" but what's your source for 48"?
>height and depends on the year for his weight). Nobody will ever come close
>to the 100 point game. That was done over 30 years ago, and nobody has even
>come close. MJ had his chance against Westhead's sorry Denver team. He had
>plenty of chances when he was a 1-man team. Rodman get's 30 rebounds and rsbp
>goes crazy--so what? Wilt averaged 27 in his rookie season! I only wish that
>blocked shots were kept back then, so that we could see how far ahead he and
>Russell were ahead of the pack (Earl Strom said each had about 8-10 a night).
>I haven't seen anybody have a 40 rebound game in the last 10 years, let alone
>55 (which Wilt had against Russell).
>
> You want to talk about influencing the game? Who cares what Penny
>Hardaway thinks? (that overrated Magic-wanna-be). Wilt rewrote the rulebook.
>If it weren't for Wilt, the lane would be smaller, free throw shooters could
>enter the lane before the ball hit the rim, and you could inbound the ball
>over the backboard. Wilt and George Mikan rewrote the rulebook. What's MJ
>done?
>
>I'm not going to bring up Kareem's 5 MVP's in his first 6 seasons. I'm not
Kareem got his 5th regular season MVP in his 8th season. He got his 4th MVP
in his 7th season, so if you're including his '71 playoff MVP you're still
off.
>going to talk about how Russell changed the face of the game with defense,
>or how he has so many rings that he could give 1 to each of Jordan's teammates,
>so they could see what one looks like (since they aren't going to get one
>this year). Still want to talk about stupid? If you read anything beyond
>a Wheaties box, you'd probably know some of this stuff.
>
>Judden
>educating the ignorant masses about the REAL men
>
If you're going to educate, you better check your facts first.
- Mark
Roy Navarre
<bunch of anecdotal evidence deleted.>
>Good enough Roy?
You all that proof?
Pinhead
Wesley Nurse
: In article <3lhtr5$k...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>, nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Roy Navarre) says:
: >
: >number of shots Jordan takes. You will find that each of them will
: >lead the NBA in scoring.
: > Finally, Chicago did win 3 in a row. Thats a hell of an
: > accomplishment. Mitigating this however, is the fact that the NBA
: > was very weak at that time. I'd have to say that the Lakers or
: > Celtics of the early 80s would have destroyed that Chicago team.
Didn't we already have this stupid argument a million times???..
And who was strong when the Lakers and Celtics played??.. who??.
Name any other dominant team from the supposedly super strong 80's?.
I'm willing to bet you can't. At least the Bulls had the Knicks (who would
have destroyed the Lakers of any decade on defense) and the bad boys
Pistons who could score with any team of any decade.. If you forgot.
Joe Dumars and Isiah Tomas was considered the best backcourt in history.
So give the argument a break.. the Bulls defeated legit teams and Jordan
could beat any team from any decade.. It doesn't matter.. great players
always perform regardless of the decade. Geez.. this argument is so stale..
give it a rest you pinhead!!!!.
: >Pinhead
Rahul Sekhar
numbers he had in today's NBA. The players are much bigger and stronger than
then. He would be one of the best today(Probably the best center in the game),
but I don't see the 50PPG or 27RPG or FG% going against the great centers of
today.
I still think MJ's the greatest ever, with Wilt a close second.(But I am biased
being a Chicagoan and I can see how you could put Wilt #1)
Rahul
Air Judden
>In article <3lv2qs$2...@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu>,
>Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <3lk6c0$9...@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu>, judd...@ksu.ksu.edu (Air Judden) writ
>>es:
>>
>> 3 Highest fg%'s in a season: .727 .683 and .649
>Nope -- just the two highest. Artis Gilmore shot .670 and .652. Of course,
>until 1980-81, Wilt had the three highest.
I was reading "A view from the bench" (Red Holtzman, 1979) when I
saw that.
>One could still put up a good argument for Russell, though I give the
>edge to Wilt.
I know what you mean, Russell was a clutch rebounder. But none of
the pantywaist today could ever match them.
>>
>> Most assists in a season by a center: 705
>(702) You don't have to inflate Wilt's stats. :) Incidentally, assists
>were harder to come by back then (different criterion).
The eyes get blury at 2:00 A.M.
As for the different criterion...please inform the uneducated masses.
They just won't seem to listen. :)
>> Yawwwwnnnn....if Wilt doesn't inspire, it's because NOBODY can ever
>>*DREAM* of doing what Wilt did. There has never been, and still isn't a
>>player who has combined Wilt's strength (the strongest man to ever play the
>>game), his speed (a former champion in the 440), and his leaping ability
>>(48" verticle), and his size 7'0"-7'2", 275-300 (depends on your source for
>It was over 40" but what's your source for 48"?
Can't remember...I've read too much about the guy, to go digging...I
think it was one of the 20,000 women. :)
>>55 (which Wilt had against Russell).
>>
>> You want to talk about influencing the game? Who cares what Penny
>>Hardaway thinks? (that overrated Magic-wanna-be). Wilt rewrote the rulebook.
>>If it weren't for Wilt, the lane would be smaller, free throw shooters could
>>enter the lane before the ball hit the rim, and you could inbound the ball
>>over the backboard. Wilt and George Mikan rewrote the rulebook. What's MJ
>>done?
>>
>>I'm not going to bring up Kareem's 5 MVP's in his first 6 seasons. I'm not
>Kareem got his 5th regular season MVP in his 8th season. He got his 4th MVP
>in his 7th season, so if you're including his '71 playoff MVP you're still
>off.
I screwed up the 1980 one. As for the other, I was remembering when
Kareem said he deserved the MVP of (74?) over Cowens. It's been about 4
months since I read his book...You get the point though...the man dominated
from the start and kept it up through 8 years. (He may have won more if
players voted it through the 70's).
>>Judden
>>educating the ignorant masses about the REAL men
>>
>If you're going to educate, you better check your facts first.
I still haven't seen any of the MJ-jockriders provining their man to
best the Dipper. But join in, fellow educator and show those who know so
little about hoops history!
Judden
Matt Mitchell
>I'm also skeptical about Wilt being a champion in the 440. Grade
>school champion? What kind of champion?
NCAA Champion.
Matt Mitchell |\| |_ _ _______________
mm...@ro.cc.rochester.edu | | | \| || _____ _ _|
\_/| \ || ___/ | | _\ \
| ||_||____/ |_||____/
\_\
Mark Yasuda
Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>
> I still haven't seen any of the MJ-jockriders provining their man to
>best the Dipper. But join in, fellow educator and show those who know so
>little about hoops history!
>
>Judden
I'll be glad to contribute, "Air", but you seem to be doing a pretty good
job of educating as it is. There's so much traffic on this group that I
only read it every now and then. But I'll try to add some historical
perspective if I notice the players of bygone eras are being ignored in
relevant threads. There is a rather myopic tendency on the parts of many
people here that could be overcome if they'd just read some bios and check
out an NBA guide. Sigh. Oh well, keep up the good work!
- Mark
ung...@civen.civil.wits.ac.za
Judden) writes:>From: judd...@ksu.ksu.edu (Air Judden)
>Subject: Re: A legit Jordan complaint
>Date: 10 Apr 1995 18:03:18 -0500
>mya...@netcom.com (Mark Yasuda) writes:
>>In article <3lv2qs$2...@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu>,
>>Air Judden <judd...@ksu.ksu.edu> wrote:
>>>>In article <3lk6c0$9...@nbc.ksu.ksu.edu>, judd...@ksu.ksu.edu (Air Judden) writ
>>>es:
>>>
>>> 3 Highest fg%'s in a season: .727 .683 and .649
>>Nope -- just the two highest. Artis Gilmore shot .670 and .652. Of course,
>>until 1980-81, Wilt had the three highest.
> I was reading "A view from the bench" (Red Holtzman, 1979) when I
>saw that.
>>One could still put up a good argument for Russell, though I give the
>>edge to Wilt.
> I know what you mean, Russell was a clutch rebounder. But none of
>the pantywaist today could ever match them.
>>>
>>> Most assists in a season by a center: 705
>>(702) You don't have to inflate Wilt's stats. :) Incidentally, assists
>>were harder to come by back then (different criterion).
> The eyes get blury at 2:00 A.M.
> As for the different criterion...please inform the uneducated masses.
>They just won't seem to listen. :)
>
>>> Yawwwwnnnn....if Wilt doesn't inspire, it's because NOBODY can ever
>>>*DREAM* of doing what Wilt did. There has never been, and still isn't a
>>>player who has combined Wilt's strength (the strongest man to ever play the
>>>game), his speed (a former champion in the 440), and his leaping ability
>>>(48" verticle), and his size 7'0"-7'2", 275-300 (depends on your source for
>>It was over 40" but what's your source for 48"?
> Can't remember...I've read too much about the guy, to go digging...I
>think it was one of the 20,000 women. :)
>>>55 (which Wilt had against Russell).
>>>
>>> You want to talk about influencing the game? Who cares what Penny
>>>Hardaway thinks? (that overrated Magic-wanna-be). Wilt rewrote the rulebook.
>>>If it weren't for Wilt, the lane would be smaller, free throw shooters could
>>>enter the lane before the ball hit the rim, and you could inbound the ball
>>>over the backboard. Wilt and George Mikan rewrote the rulebook. What's MJ
>>>done?
>>>
>>>I'm not going to bring up Kareem's 5 MVP's in his first 6 seasons. I'm not
>>Kareem got his 5th regular season MVP in his 8th season. He got his 4th MVP
>>in his 7th season, so if you're including his '71 playoff MVP you're still
>>off.
> I screwed up the 1980 one. As for the other, I was remembering when
>Kareem said he deserved the MVP of (74?) over Cowens. It's been about 4
>months since I read his book...You get the point though...the man dominated
>from the start and kept it up through 8 years. (He may have won more if
>players voted it through the 70's).
>>>Judden
>>>educating the ignorant masses about the REAL men
>>>
>>If you're going to educate, you better check your facts first.
> I still haven't seen any of the MJ-jockriders provining their man to
>best the Dipper. But join in, fellow educator and show those who know so
>little about hoops history!
>Judden
Does anyone knows how high Jordan jumps.
Craig Bowden
Is this worth touching??? Let's just make some observations and see where it
takes us. First observation, the Bulls have the misfortune (or is it fortune?) to
reach championship caliber after Kareem retires and the Lakers start breaking
down...Bird goes through injury after injury and the Celts hit the decline...
Detroit has won two in a row and start tearing their team apart...and the league
expands thus dilluting star caliber density per team around the league. Chicago
beats a Laker team in the finals that couldn't hold a candle to their Kareem
years; Chicago beats stagefright Portland; Chicago beats no-D Phoenix. The next
year, MJ retires and w/o him or a center and offcasts previously found on other
people's end of benches - they barely miss making the finals (bad call ref).
Points: the Lakers and the Celtics had atleast eachother to go through in the
80's; they also had tough 76er teams that gave way later to a developing Bad Boy
team in Detroit that eventually made it to the top as they learned to 'play the
playoff half-court' game at money time; these teams all hit the skids by the time
the Bulls finally made the grade; the ability of the league to rebuild
super-teams went into a lull as the league expanded and thus, again, weaker
competition. If anyone can't see how bad the league had dropped by last year when
that Bull team with nobody but Pippen did that well...wow.
The mention of the Knicks above is a joke right? Detroit would have killed them
and Detroit was playing third fiddle to the Lakers and Celtics. You mention
Detroit as one of the teams the Bulls did overcome - yes they did, when they had
started dismantling it and Zeke and others reached retirement age - not exactly
the same Bad Boy team.
The argument isn't stale...it doesn't exist.
--
Craig Bowden
Chevron Information Technology Co.
1300 South Beach Blvd.
La Habra, CA 90631
p...@natasha.lahabra.chevron.com
Profs:HOVMB(pcb)
Voice:(310)694-7959
The Garden of Arcane Delights
>In article <3m8loo$j...@mojo.eng.umd.edu>, exor...@glue.umd.edu (Wesley Nurse) writes:
>|> U49...@uicvm.uic.edu wrote:
>|> : In article <3lhtr5$k...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>, nava...@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Roy Navarre) says:
>|> Didn't we already have this stupid argument a million times???..
>|> And who was strong when the Lakers and Celtics played??.. who??.
>|> Name any other dominant team from the supposedly super strong 80's?.
>Is this worth touching??? Let's just make some observations and see where it
>takes us. First observation, the Bulls have the misfortune (or is it fortune?) to
Yes, let's. See below.
>reach championship caliber after Kareem retires and the Lakers start breaking
>down...Bird goes through injury after injury and the Celts hit the decline...
>Detroit has won two in a row and start tearing their team apart...and the league
>expands thus dilluting star caliber density per team around the league. Chicago
>beats a Laker team in the finals that couldn't hold a candle to their Kareem
>years; Chicago beats stagefright Portland; Chicago beats no-D Phoenix. The next
>year, MJ retires and w/o him or a center and offcasts previously found on other
>people's end of benches - they barely miss making the finals (bad call ref).
LA walks over such monsters as uh, ..., er, ah..., hmmmmmm.
>Points: the Lakers and the Celtics had atleast eachother to go through in the
>80's; they also had tough 76er teams that gave way later to a developing Bad Boy
Nope. The Lakers had essentially NO competition throughout their championship
runs, until they got to the finals.
>team in Detroit that eventually made it to the top as they learned to 'play the
>playoff half-court' game at money time; these teams all hit the skids by the time
>the Bulls finally made the grade; the ability of the league to rebuild
>super-teams went into a lull as the league expanded and thus, again, weaker
>competition. If anyone can't see how bad the league had dropped by last year when
>that Bull team with nobody but Pippen did that well...wow.
Let's not forget the luck of both the Celts, but especially the Lakers.
A continually contending Philly team gets torn up by age to Dr J, injuries to
Toney, trades by H Katz, and so on. Milwaukee gets the chronic "underacheiver"
label.
The Lakers are aided by the decline of the Celts, when the Celts' first-round
pick dies, and the Celt's back-up center (and only real fore-court depth) goes
down with a broken foot. Then, a western team with the potential to challenge
them goes down with drug problems to the back-court, and injuries to the fore-
court, not to mention a trade FOR Joe Barry "I'don't" Care-l.
Something else to consider: the Lakers were greatly aided by a very weak west.
Throughout the Lakers' run, only *3* Western conference teams won as many as 55
games in a season; Seattle in 79-80, Phoenix in 80-81, Dallas in 86-87. In 1984,
NOBODY from the West won 55 games, INCLUDING the Lakers. From the years ending
in 89 to 94, the West has produced 2, 5, 4, 3, 3, and 4 55+ teams. The East has
held pretty steady at 2 - 3 teams from 1980 on. (In 84 and 88, only one team
came in at 55+).
Say what you want about Chicago, but they DID beat 2 teams in the playoffs that
had won 60+ games in the regular season; LA only FACED 2 teams in the same play-
offs with 60+ wins once, and lost 4-1 in the championship series in that one.
Chicago beat 2 55+ winners every year they won but the first: and then they beat
the defending champs and a 55+ winner.
If you define a "super-team" as one that can win 55 games in a season, then the
league has INCREASED the number of such teams. If you define "super-team" as
one that loses to the Celts or Lakers in the playoffs, then yeah, the number of
such teams has declined.
The Lakers and Celts of the 80s were great teams, but face it, guy, they didn't
have any competition.
Mike
David Starr
>Nope. The Lakers had essentially NO competition throughout their championship
>runs, until they got to the finals.
>> A BUNCH OF STUFF DELETED!<<<<
>The Lakers and Celts of the 80s were great teams, but face it, guy, they
>didn't have any competition.
What are you talking about? The Lakers and Celtics had competition... each
other. You mean to tell me that the Bird, McHale, Ainge... Celts would lose
to the Grant, Pippen, Jordan Bulls? I don't think so. What about the Kareem,
Worthy, Magic... Lakers? My point is, each of these teams did have a
tremendous amount of competition. I've said it before and I'll say it again.
If the Lakers were playing (in their prime) right now, or 3 years ago when
Chicago "primed", then Jordan would still be ring-less... unless he was traded
to LA.
DAVE
Wesley Nurse
LA, you have not been paying attention. What he is saying is that during the
regular season and throughout the playoffs, the lakers and celtics had
no real competition.. how could you call an era as strong when only there
are only two teams good enough to compete for the title???.. Who did the
lakers beat before meeting the Celtics???.. And yes, Celtics of Bird,
Mchale and Ainge would lose big to to Grant, Pippen and Jordan.
No one could stop Jordan, Pippen would have easily been able to stop Bird
and if he couldn't, match him in versatility and scoring, passing and rebounding
and Grant would kill ainge in any century. What the hell are you talking
about??. I think there are a fare amount of people who think the Bulls
could have beaten a super slow team like the celtics and there are those
who think they could not. The Bulls are to my mind, one of the most
athletic and best defensive teams by far in a decade (i'm talking about
the 1990-1993 Bulls teams). Can you imagine Mchale keeping up with Grant??.
The Celtics would have a definite advantage at center but that's it.
Sentimentality doesn't translate very well.. just because we are
a little nostalgic about the 80's doesn't make it the best era in
basketball. What the 80's had was bird and magic.. what the 90's have
is Jordan, Pippen, O'Neal, Hardaway, Barkely, Malone, I could go on
but i bore you. The 80's had two great stars and other very good players
the nineties have many great players. To me, I like the 90's far better,
If you prefer the 80's fine!!! but don't tell me the Bulls could not
have competed with the Celtics of the 80's. The 80's celts aren't even the best
team of all time.. and right now, the Bulls of 1993 are considered one of the
best of all times.. yeah, I'd say we would have killed the celts.
Now the lakers .... their speed would have defintely been a problem.
The Bulls might have actually had a hard time matching up with them.
: DAVE
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
The Garden of Arcane Delights <mi...@medicus.com> wrote:
>LA walks over such monsters as uh, ..., er, ah..., hmmmmmm.
monsters are bigger than the DumbTeam and the Suns...
>Nope. The Lakers had essentially NO competition throughout their championship
>runs, until they got to the finals.
Well, they got fierce competition in the finals, unlike the Bulls.
>The Lakers are aided by the decline of the Celts, when the Celts' first-round
>pick dies, and the Celt's back-up center (and only real fore-court depth) goes
>down with a broken foot.
Well, since that team still won 59 games in 1987, isn't it better than
the DumbTeam with an living first-round pick (Robert Pack)?
>Throughout the Lakers' run, only *3* Western conference teams won as many as 55
>games in a season; Seattle in 79-80, Phoenix in 80-81, Dallas in 86-87.
LIE, Phoenix won 55 games in 79-80, and lost to the Lakers 4-1 in the
playoffs.
>From the years ending
>in 89 to 94, the West has produced 2, 5, 4, 3, 3, and 4 55+ teams.
Well, what does that have to do with the Bulls? Did the Bulls play in
the Western Conference playoffs?
>Say what you want about Chicago, but they DID beat 2 teams in the
>playoffs that had won 60+ games in the regular season; LA only FACED
>2 teams in the same play-offs with 60+ wins once, and lost 4-1 in the
>championship series in that one.
>
>Chicago beat 2 55+ winners every year they won but the first: and then they
>beat the defending champs and a 55+ winner.
Well, you may message any numbers to make your point, but with me
monitoring you here, you are very stupid....
Magic Lakers Jordan Bulls
beat 60+ W teams
in championship years 1 2
beat 60+ W teams 2 2
in all years
beat 55+ W teams
in championship years 6 5
beat 55+ W teams 8 6
in all years
times beating 3 55+ W teams
to win a championship 1 0
times beating 2 55+ W teams
to win a championship 1 2
beat defending champs 3 1
to win championship
beat next-year champs 3 0
to win championship
>If you define a "super-team" as one that can win 55 games in a season, then the
>league has INCREASED the number of such teams.
Well, then the Lakers beat 3 super teams to win a title in 1980, the Bulls
never did that.
>The Lakers and Celts of the 80s were great teams, but face it, guy, they didn't
>have any competition.
Face it, Dumbo, you think you can get away with your cheap stunt?
--
Edward Lor
l...@mtdcc.ATT.COM
AT&T Bell Labs
Jack Perry
Garden of Arcane Delights) writes:
|> didn't
|> have any competition.
|>
Mike, Mike, Mike --
Were you actually watching NBA basketball from 1980-1986?
Were you also old enough to have an attention span?
I'm serious, this is not meant as a put-down.
The 76-ers of this era were a *great* team. Besides winning
one championship, they gave the Lakers a serious run in two others.
If they had not played in the era of two of the greatest teams
ever assembled, they could easily have achieved a 3-peat.
With Doc, Bobby Jones, Mo Cheeks, Andrew Toney, Caldwell Jones,
Doug Collins, and later Moses, this was an awesome team, especially
defensively. Don't you remember Moses' prediction of fo', fo' and fo'
for the 1983 playoffs, which turned out to be fo', fi', and fo'
as they lost only one game and swept the Lakers?
The Boston-Philly playoff series were wars, and some of the
most delightful basketball viewing in this Celtics' fan's
25-year viewing history. Even the regular season games were
awesome competition. Larry Bird has said many times that
the Sixers were their greatest rivalry, not the Lakers, because
they played so many more games, the teams were so even, and they
truly hated each other.
We Easterners knocked the Lakers of this era because they had little
competition in the West, although the Rockets got past them to the
finals twice and were not chopped liver. In the East, the playoffs
were very competitive and our teams reached the finals only after
surviving brutal, physical series, not just with the Sixers, but the
Bucks, Bullets, and later the developing Pistons. Western fans hated
the Eastern style (still do) but no one can say that there was
NO COMPETITION. That's absurd.
All these "greatest ever" arguments require that you actually
witnessed these eras. Statistics are not the *definition* of
greatness, they are the *remnants* of greatness. The greatness was
on the court, not in the papers or even the highlight films.
Jack
Aubrey S. Powell
>Nope. The Lakers had essentially NO competition throughout their championship
>runs, until they got to the finals.
Somehow the Lakers won nine consecutive division titles in the
days when Phoenix was winning fifty games on a consistent basis.
>Let's not forget the luck of both the Celts, but especially the Lakers.
Yes, let us not forget James Worthy breaking his leg at the end
of the 1982-83 regular season. Let us not forget Byron Scott
going down to injury before the '89 Finals started and Earvin
going down early in Game 2. Neither one played the remainder of
the series.
>A continually contending Philly team gets torn up by age
Thank you for just explaining what happened to Detroit in order
for Chicago to hurdle over them and become the dominant team in
the East.
>Say what you want about Chicago, but they DID beat 2 teams in the playoffs that
>had won 60+ games in the regular season; LA only FACED 2 teams in the same play-
>offs with 60+ wins once, and lost 4-1 in the championship series in that one.
>Chicago beat 2 55+ winners every year they won but the first: and then they beat
>the defending champs and a 55+ winner.
Also, during Chicago's first title run the team they beat in
the Eastern Finals (Detroit) had an identical record to the
team L.A. beat in the first round (Houston). That's not to
mention L.A. took out the Portland, who had the NBA's best
record that year, in six games. L.A.'s road to the '91 Finals was
infinitely more difficult than Chicago's.
>The Lakers and Celts of the 80s were great teams, but face it, guy, they didn't
>have any competition.
They also didn't have the luxury of beating up on Orlando,
Miami, Minnesota and Charlotte ever year. Argue in vain until
you're blue in the face but the '80s Laker and Celtic teams
would have crushed Chicago.
-Scott
Shadowlands
In article <1995Apr19....@medicus.com> mi...@medicus.com (Shadowlands) writes:
>In article <1995Apr18.2...@medicus.com> mi...@medicus.com (The Garden of Arcane Delights) writes:
Probably the most impressive Laker championship team of that era was the first
one; they went 12-4 against teams that had won 55, 56, and 59 regular season
games. Not bad. Considering only the last 3 rounds, the Celts best performance
was probably the 86 team, beating teams that won 50, 57, and 51 games, going
12-3 against them (overall 15-3; 1st round opponent won 30 games.) For the
Bulls, the 93 team went 12-4 against oppenents who won 54, 60, and 62 games
(15-4 overall, 1st round opponent won 43 games.) Since best of 3, 4, 4, 4
format was adopted, only the Pistons (twice), the Bulls (once) and the Rockets
have faced and beaten only teams with winning regular-season records. The
Lakers' toughest 1st-round oppenent won 37 games, the Celts' 35, the Pistons'
42, the Bulls' 43, the Rockets' 47.
So, let the flame-festing begin.
Mike
Shadowlands
>Nope. The Lakers had essentially NO competition throughout their championship
>runs, until they got to the finals.
>Something else to consider: the Lakers were greatly aided by a very weak west.
>Throughout the Lakers' run, only *3* Western conference teams won as many as 55
^
Make that 4; Phoenix also won 55 in 1979-80. Phoenix was the only non-Laker team
from the west to put together back-to-back 55 win seasons.
>games in a season; Seattle in 79-80, Phoenix in 80-81, Dallas in 86-87. In 1984,
>NOBODY from the West won 55 games, INCLUDING the Lakers. From the years ending
>in 89 to 94, the West has produced 2, 5, 4, 3, 3, and 4 55+ teams. The East has
>held pretty steady at 2 - 3 teams from 1980 on. (In 84 and 88, only one team
>came in at 55+).
>Say what you want about Chicago, but they DID beat 2 teams in the playoffs that
>had won 60+ games in the regular season; LA only FACED 2 teams in the same play-
>offs with 60+ wins once, and lost 4-1 in the championship series in that one.
>Chicago beat 2 55+ winners every year they won but the first: and then they beat
>the defending champs and a 55+ winner.
>
>If you define a "super-team" as one that can win 55 games in a season, then the
>league has INCREASED the number of such teams. If you define "super-team" as
>one that loses to the Celts or Lakers in the playoffs, then yeah, the number of
>such teams has declined.
>
>The Lakers and Celts of the 80s were great teams, but face it, guy, they didn't
>have any competition.
Further comparisons; throughout their championship runs, the Bulls and Celts
had season-highs of 67 wins, the Lakers 65 (several times.) During their best
3 year periods, the Bulls won 185 games (91-93), the Lakers 189 (87-89), the
Celts 192. In those respective playoff years, the Bulls went 45-13 (3 champion-
ships), the Lakers 41-16 (2), the Celts 43-19 (2).
Considering the level of competition, and the playoff records, I think you
can make a very good case for the Bulls being one of the all-time great teams
of any era.
Below is a list of years, champs, # teams in each conference with 60+, 55+, or
50+ wins. Note the Laker/Celtics run began (in the Bird/Johnson era) in 1979-80
and ended in 1987-88, so far as the championship teams are concerned. It's
interesting to note that the East remained relatively constant, in terms of
number of teams in each of the first 2 categories/year, while the west had a
sudden increase in the late 80s. Also note that the east generally had more
good teams throughout the 80s, but the west seems to have them now. Pre Magic/
Bird years included for comparison purposes.
Year Champ E W(60+) E W(55+) E W(50+)
93-94 Hou 0 1 3 4 4 6
92-93 Chi 1 1 2 3 3 4
91-92 Chi 1 0 2 3 4 4
90-91 Chi 1 1 2 4 3 6
99-90 Det 0 1 2 4 4 5
88-89 Det 1 0 2 2 4 3
End of Laker/Celt championship teams above.
87-88 LA 0 1 1 1 4 4
86-87 LA 0 1 2 2 4 2
85-86 Bos 1 1 2 1 4 2
84-85 LA 1 1 3 1 3 2
83-84 Bos 1 0 1 0 3 1
82-83 Phi 1 0 2 1 3 3
81-82 LA 1 0 3 1 3 2
80-81 Bos 3 0 3 1 4 3
79-80 LA 1 1 2 3 3 3
Magic/Bird era starts above.
78-79 Sea 0 0 0 0 1 2
77-78 Was 0 0 1 1 2 1
76-77 Por 0 0 0 0 1 2
75-76 Bos 1 0 1 1 1 1
Mike
David Starr
>LA, you have not been paying attention. What he is saying is that during the
>regular season and throughout the playoffs, the lakers and celtics had
>no real competition.. how could you call an era as strong when only there
>are only two teams good enough to compete for the title???.. Who did the
>lakers beat before meeting the Celtics???..
Well, they did beat Philadelphia twice, before beating the Celtics. The 76ers
were certainly some decent competition.
>And yes, Celtics of Bird,
>Mchale and Ainge would lose big to to Grant, Pippen and Jordan.
>No one could stop Jordan, Pippen would have easily been able to stop Bird
>and if he couldn't, match him in versatility and scoring, passing and rebounding
>and Grant would kill ainge in any century. What the hell are you talking
>about??.
First of all, I must explain that I am not a Celtic fan, but here I am
defending them. I don't agree with you. Didn't Danny Ainge play shooting
guard? Therefore, he'd be playing Jordan. Obviously, there's a huge mismatch
there. However, Larry Bird against Scottie Pippen or even Michael Jordan. I
think the Celtics would have successfully controlled the tempo of the games,
besides they'd have the advantage because of the old floor on the Boston
Garden.
> I think there are a fare amount of people who think the Bulls
>could have beaten a super slow team like the celtics and there are those
>who think they could not.
I completely agree. There are a lot of people out there who think the Bulls
could have beaten a super slow team like the celtics... they probably also
believe in UFO's and have seen Elvis in shopping centers all over the country.
>The Bulls are to my mind, one of the most
>athletic and best defensive teams by far in a decade (i'm talking about
>the 1990-1993 Bulls teams). Can you imagine Mchale keeping up with Grant??.
Please remember that the Lakers of the 80s were also a "run and gun" team, as
you point out in your post. However, the Celtics still had control of those
guys in much of the playoffs.
>The Celtics would have a definite advantage at center but that's it.
>Sentimentality doesn't translate very well.. just because we are
>a little nostalgic about the 80's doesn't make it the best era in
>basketball. What the 80's had was bird and magic.. what the 90's have
>is Jordan, Pippen, O'Neal, Hardaway, Barkely, Malone, I could go on
>but i bore you. The 80's had two great stars and other very good players
I think the 90's players are a bunch of hype. Obviously there is a lot of
talent out there. You've named some players. However, the media, and a lof
of fans, are frantically searching for replacements to the players mentioned
before (Bird, Magic, Dr. J, Kareem, etc.) Yes, you are correct. Those days
are over, but let's not try to "replace" those players. In my mind, I don't
know if they can ever be replaced. It doesn't mean I don't enjoy 90's
basketball. I do. I go to a lot of games.
>the nineties have many great players. To me, I like the 90's far better,
>If you prefer the 80's fine!!! but don't tell me the Bulls could not
>have competed with the Celtics of the 80's. The 80's celts aren't even the best
>team of all time.. and right now, the Bulls of 1993 are considered one of the
>best of all times.. yeah, I'd say we would have killed the celts.
Looking back on those series' against the Lakers and Celtics, I just find that
hard to believe.
>Now the lakers .... their speed would have defintely been a problem.
>The Bulls might have actually had a hard time matching up with them.
Yes, I agree with you there. The Bulls WOULDN'T have matched up with them.
I wonder how Michael Jordan would play with Michael Cooper guarding him? Just
a thought.
DAVE
D. Gerasimatos
You know why the Lakers' opponents in the first round had losing records?
Well, I don't... but I'll speculate that playing the Lakers so many times
had something to do with it. I don't know whether or not that's true,
but my point is that win totals alone don't speak volumes about the
quality of competition faced.
Dimitrios
Prabhakar Vangala
>
>What are you talking about? The Lakers and Celtics had competition... each
>other. You mean to tell me that the Bird, McHale, Ainge... Celts would lose
>to the Grant, Pippen, Jordan Bulls? I don't think so. What about the Kareem,
>Worthy, Magic... Lakers? My point is, each of these teams did have a
>tremendous amount of competition. I've said it before and I'll say it again.
>If the Lakers were playing (in their prime) right now, or 3 years ago when
>Chicago "primed", then Jordan would still be ring-less... unless he was traded
>to LA.
Okay, that's UR opinion. Here's mine. Bird, McHale, Parish etc.. are nowhere
compared to the PrimeTime Bulls of the championship season. Especially, on
the defensive side. I actually think that the Knicks of the last 3-4 years
would frustrate and beat the Celtics of the championship seasons.
The Lakers( in their prime) OTOH would give a tough fight to the Bulls but
would not beat them, I believe.
Thanks
--
-Prabhakar
/) (\
/ ) ( \
Steve Halter
>lakers beat before meeting the Celtics???.. And yes, Celtics of Bird,
>Mchale and Ainge would lose big to to Grant, Pippen and Jordan.
>No one could stop Jordan, Pippen would have easily been able to stop Bird
>and if he couldn't, match him in versatility and scoring, passing and rebounding
Please. I don't think anyone in their right mind would consider Pippen a
superior player to Larry Bird. There are three - Bird, Magic, and Jordan -
and there are the rest. I don't think the Bulls would be able to hang with the
Celts. Competetive? Of course - win, doubtful.
>who think they could not. The Bulls are to my mind, one of the most
>athletic and best defensive teams by far in a decade (i'm talking about
>the 1990-1993 Bulls teams). Can you imagine Mchale keeping up with Grant??.
I can see McHale flat out schooling Horace Grant in the low post. You were
at least making respectable comments up to here. Kevin McHale was one of
the greatest low-post players EVER. Horace is a quality PF - no question. But
he would be no match for McHale.
>The Celtics would have a definite advantage at center but that's it.
They would have had an advantage everywhere except off-guard.
>Sentimentality doesn't translate very well.. just because we are
>a little nostalgic about the 80's doesn't make it the best era in
>basketball. What the 80's had was bird and magic.. what the 90's have
>is Jordan, Pippen, O'Neal, Hardaway, Barkely, Malone, I could go on
>but i bore you. The 80's had two great stars and other very good players
Huh? Let's recap - when did Jordan come in? '84. Barkley - '85. Malone - not sure
but I think he was '86(?). Just because you can't remember the great
players of the 80's - like Magic, Bird, Jordan, Worthy, Dr. J, Kareem,
Moses...
>If you prefer the 80's fine!!! but don't tell me the Bulls could not
>have competed with the Celtics of the 80's. The 80's celts aren't even the best
>team of all time.. and right now, the Bulls of 1993 are considered one of the
>best of all times.. yeah, I'd say we would have killed the celts.
I really think that most people would consider the Celtics of the 80's one of
the great teams of all times. I think most people would consider the Bulls
of the early 90s one of the great teams. But it seems to me that the Celtics
would probably be able to handle the Bulls a majority of the time.
>Now the lakers .... their speed would have defintely been a problem.
>The Bulls might have actually had a hard time matching up with them.
Forget the "might". There is no question that they would. But I think we have
already had that discussion.
steve
sha...@ucsd.edu
Prabhakar Vangala
>They also didn't have the luxury of beating up on Orlando,
>Miami, Minnesota and Charlotte ever year. Argue in vain until
>you're blue in the face but the '80s Laker and Celtic teams
>would have crushed Chicago.
And suddenly U wake up. Yeah, only in anyone's dreams could the 80s LAL
and BC teams could beat the championship season Bulls.
rjs
|>
|> >The Lakers and Celts of the 80s were great teams, but face it, guy, they didn't
|> >have any competition.
|>
|> Miami, Minnesota and Charlotte ever year. Argue in vain until
|> you're blue in the face but the '80s Laker and Celtic teams
|> would have crushed Chicago.
|>
trying to argue who was better. However, you can make an
argument that the Lakers were better than the Celtics since they
beat the Celtics in 2 out 3 finals. The lakers also won 5 titles
vs 3 for the celtics.
And btw, the Bulls still may win couple of more rings before MJ
retires.
Bradley T Wells
R. S. Statsinger
This thread is ancient and stupid.
Anyone who argues that the 3 in a row Bulls could have beaten the
80's Lakers or Celtics in a championship series is obviously too
young to have ever seen those teams. Arguments about competition
as currently structured are useless, since a team which won 55 games
in 1987 had to be a MUCH better team than a team which won 55 games
in 1991 or 92. The combination of retirements and expansion drafts
has thinned out the talent base of the league over the last 4-5 years,
resulting in two rather pathetic contestants playing for the
championship last year.
Who will win this year? Who knows? IMHO it's wide open; also
IMHO, Jordan *also* felt that it was wide open - that's why he's
back.
R.S.
--
rst...@interbase.borland.com \ I hack for Borland. I speak for myself
Any similarities between what I say \ ....and for my Evil Twin
and what I mean are purely coincidental \ "I drank WHAT??" - Socrates
Todd Lehner
wrote:
> In article <3n3k7q$k...@cabell.vcu.edu>, ajp...@cabell.vcu.edu (Aubrey S. Powell) writes:
> |>
> |> >The Lakers and Celts of the 80s were great teams, but face it, guy, they didn't
> |> >have any competition.
> |>
> |> They also didn't have the luxury of beating up on Orlando,
> |> Miami, Minnesota and Charlotte ever year. Argue in vain until
> |> you're blue in the face but the '80s Laker and Celtic teams
> |> would have crushed Chicago.
> |>
> You cant prove it one way or the other.....so everyone quit
> trying to argue who was better. However, you can make an
> argument that the Lakers were better than the Celtics since they
> beat the Celtics in 2 out 3 finals.
that's not a fair argument because the strongest Celtics team of the 80's
was the 86 team, a year the Lakers lost to the Rockets in the Western
Conference Finals. Most likely, that Celtics team would have tied the
record at 2-2.
The lakers also won 5 titles
> vs 3 for the celtics.
that's also not a good argument because the Lakers had a far easier time
getting to the finals than the Celts each year. The Lakers had little
competition in the West while in the early 80's the Celts had to battle the
Sixers each year and in the late 80's the Pistons, both teams who beat the
Lakers in at least one championship. In the 80's, the Celts won 3 titles
in 5 chances while the Lakers won 5 titles in 8(I think) chances. That's
60% vs. 63%. I'd say that's pretty even considering that the East was more
competitive.
wwhite
Vangala) wrote:
> --
>
> -Prabhakar
> /) (\
> / ) ( \
Let's get serious. How many potential hall of famers do you see on the
Knicks of last year? Not very many. In fact, I only see one - Ewing.
Now lets go back to the Jolly Green Giants. Do you actually think that
Anthony Mason could even hope to contain, much less stop Kevin Mchale in
his prime? Are you out of your skull??? Let us not even bring up the
issue of who is going to take Bird. I can't even believe that any student
of the game would not realize how absolutely incredible the '86 Celtics
were on both sides of the floor. They were easily the best defensive team
in the league. They would have swarmed the careless Knicks. Besides, the
Celtics dissected the opposition with precision passing. They were a
cohesive UNIT, and easily the greatest basketball team that I have ever
seen, bar none. The Knicks are just a group of players, and have
absolutely no chemistry or team mentality. I dare you to name one N.Y.
Knick that is even 1/8 as hard working and dedicated to the game as Larry
Bird. The ultimate deciding factor is that it didn't matter who they went
to, the Celtics knew how to win, and the Knicks don't. If you don't
believe it, just take a glance at the ceiling of the Boston Garden. I
think that the Knicks have a little more open spce in their rafters. I
rest my case.
-Celticdiehard
rjs
|> In article <3n5f4p$k...@lace.Colorado.EDU>, ja...@satan.hell.org (rjs)
|> wrote:
|> > You cant prove it one way or the other.....so everyone quit
|> > trying to argue who was better. However, you can make an
|> > argument that the Lakers were better than the Celtics since they
|> > beat the Celtics in 2 out 3 finals.
|>
|> that's not a fair argument because the strongest Celtics team of the 80's
|> was the 86 team, a year the Lakers lost to the Rockets in the Western
|> Conference Finals. Most likely, that Celtics team would have tied the
|> record at 2-2.
Umm....no....thats not how it works. I could just as well say
that the lakers could've beaten the Celtics team in 80,82,88.
But the Celtics failed to make those finals. However you chew it,
the Lakers come out ahead.
|>
|> The lakers also won 5 titles
|> > vs 3 for the celtics.
|>
|> that's also not a good argument because the Lakers had a far easier time
|> getting to the finals than the Celts each year. The Lakers had little
|> competition in the West while in the early 80's the Celts had to battle the
|> Sixers each year and in the late 80's the Pistons, both teams who beat the
|> Lakers in at least one championship. In the 80's, the Celts won 3 titles
|> in 5 chances while the Lakers won 5 titles in 8(I think) chances. That's
|> 60% vs. 63%. I'd say that's pretty even considering that the East was more
|> competitive.
|>
Ummm....think again. Had the Celts won 1 title in 1 chance(%100),
would they have been far better than the Lakers(%63) who won 5 titles?
No....of course not. Thats "not a good argument". Let me put it
this way which might be easier to understand......the Lakers beat
those teams that beat the Celtics. Has nothing to do with the
Lakers being in an easier conference. Yes, they went to more
finals because the conference was weaker. But they were the best
in 5 seasons vs 3 for Boston. YOu go by the number of titles they
won, not by the number of times they went to the finals. Hopefully,
that was understandable.
Wesley Nurse
[deleted]
: >If you define a "super-team" as one that can win 55 games in a season, then the
: >league has INCREASED the number of such teams.
: Well, then the Lakers beat 3 super teams to win a title in 1980, the Bulls
: never did that.
: >The Lakers and Celts of the 80s were great teams, but face it, guy, they didn't
: >have any competition.
: Face it, Dumbo, you think you can get away with your cheap stunt?
Hmm, Edward, you were kidding right.. The joke is the Bulls never beat
a team with exactly 55 wins right???.. because the Phoenix suns won more
than 55 games in 93, the Blazers in 92 and the Lakers in 91. Of course,
since you claim the Bulls beat no super teams, then perhaps the lakers
were not a super team and were just as average as all other Bulls finals
opponents. Imagine that.. the Lakers not a super team.. That certainly
opened my eyes. Did you think, dumbo, that you could get away with a
post like this.
: --
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
Wesley Nurse <exor...@glue.umd.edu> wrote:
>: >If you define a "super-team" as one that can win 55 games in a season, then the
>: >league has INCREASED the number of such teams.
>: Well, then the Lakers beat 3 super teams to win a title in 1980, the Bulls
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
>: never did that.
>: >The Lakers and Celts of the 80s were great teams, but face it, guy, they didn't
>: >have any competition.
>: Face it, Dumbo, you think you can get away with your cheap stunt?
>Hmm, Edward, you were kidding right.. The joke is the Bulls never beat
>a team with exactly 55 wins right???..
Wrong. Winning 63 games => can win 55 games.
>because the Phoenix suns won more than 55 games in 93, the Blazers in
>92 and the Lakers in 91.
Nope, the Lakers beat 3 "super" teams, teams that **CAN** win 55 game by
Fess' definition, to win the title in one year. In 1980, the Lakers
beat Phoenix (55W), Seattle (56W), Philly (59W), a feat the Bulls never
accomplished.
>since you claim the Bulls beat no super teams,
Read again. I claimed that the Bulls never beat ***THREE*** super teams
to win ***A*** title.
>then perhaps the lakers
>were not a super team and were just as average as all other Bulls finals
>opponents. Imagine that.. the Lakers not a super team.. That certainly
>opened my eyes. Did you think, dumbo, that you could get away with a
>post like this.
Why would I want to get away with a post like this? I wouldn't imagine
a dumbo who couldn't even read and imagine a strawman argument...
Ward R Drennan
>In article <1995Apr24.1...@medicus.com> mi...@medicus.com (On the Beach) writes:
>
>>>>>A BUNCH OF STUFF DELETED<<<<
>
>>>you're blue in the face but the '80s Laker and Celtic teams
>>>would have crushed Chicago.
>
>
>This statement proves how naive you are. When the Lakers played the Bulls in
>the finals, it was not the same team as was referred to in previous posts.
>The Laker era that we are speaking of is the Kareem, Magic, Cooper, Worthy,
>Scott, McAdoo, Kupchak, Green, Wilkes, etc. The Bulls team did beat a Laker
>team without Cooper, Rambis, Kareem, McAdoo, and Wilkes (and more). Look at
>the players missing there, Kareem against Bill Cartwright???? I wonder how
>Jordan's performance would've been w/ Michael Cooper (All-Defensive first team
>5 years, Defensive Player of the year once).
>
>I think it would've been a different story. Don't you agree?
>
>DAVE
>
Irrelevant
Sustained
Jordan, Pippen, Grant, Paxon, et al. won 3 titles. Those
names are just as impressive.
Jordan + Pippen + Grant (92) >= Old Kareem + Magic + Worthy (87 or so)
>= Bird + McHale + Parrish (87 or so) >= Miller + Smits + Davis (95) :) :)
>=? Ewing + Starks + Oakley (95) <= Robinson + Rodman + ?? (95) <=>??
O'Neal + Hardaway + Grant (again) 95 << Dream Team III= Robinson +
Jordan + Magic et al.
--
Ward Drennan
Indiana University
Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences
On the Beach
>In article <1995Apr18.2...@medicus.com>, mi...@medicus.com (The
>Garden of Arcane Delights) writes:
>|> didn't
>|> have any competition.
>Mike, Mike, Mike --
>Were you actually watching NBA basketball from 1980-1986?
Yep, lived in LA and watched showtime the whole time, Mr Perry.
>Were you also old enough to have an attention span?
>I'm serious, this is not meant as a put-down.
I'm serious, and this IS meant as a putdown;
You weren't paying attention.
>The 76-ers of this era were a *great* team. Besides winning
>one championship, they gave the Lakers a serious run in two others.
They lost in 6, twice. They lost to Portland, in 6, after leading 2-0.
>If they had not played in the era of two of the greatest teams
>ever assembled, they could easily have achieved a 3-peat.
Mr Perry, WRT to attention span (and yes, I was a 6er and Rocket fan then),
do YOU remember the year following that, when the 76ers lost in the first
round? To NEW JERSEY? AT HOME? AFTER Dr J said "It's over"?
Sorry, no "3-peat" there.
Oh, and AFTER that championship, the most playoff games they won was 8.
>With Doc, Bobby Jones, Mo Cheeks, Andrew Toney, Caldwell Jones,
>Doug Collins, and later Moses, this was an awesome team, especially
>defensively. Don't you remember Moses' prediction of fo', fo' and fo'
>for the 1983 playoffs, which turned out to be fo', fi', and fo'
>as they lost only one game and swept the Lakers?
Yes, Mr Perry, I remember that series (you know, the one the Lakers' fans
whine "But we didn't have Worthy")
However, you have mistaken the quote: Moses was asked "What will it take for
the 6ers to win this year?" and THEN he said "Four, four, and four".
>The Boston-Philly playoff series were wars, and some of the
>most delightful basketball viewing in this Celtics' fan's
...
>they played so many more games, the teams were so even, and they
>truly hated each other.
Fascinating, but irrelevant; after that Philly team won it's ring, it won
52, 58, 45, 36, etc, games. They went deep south, and Katz tore the team
apart.
>We Easterners knocked the Lakers of this era because they had little
>competition in the West, although the Rockets got past them to the
>finals twice and were not chopped liver. In the East, the playoffs
Actually, the first Rockets team WAS chopped liver, plus Moses.
>Bucks, Bullets, and later the developing Pistons. Western fans hated
>the Eastern style (still do) but no one can say that there was
>NO COMPETITION. That's absurd.
Nope; once the Pistons developed into a team that could win 50 games in a
given year, the Celts were gone. They beat the Pistons when that team won
52 games (86-87), and never made it to the finals after that. Once the
Pistons BECAME competition, the Celts never won a title.
>All these "greatest ever" arguments require that you actually
>witnessed these eras. Statistics are not the *definition* of
I was there; saw all the Laker games, Mr Perry.
>greatness, they are the *remnants* of greatness. The greatness was
>on the court, not in the papers or even the highlight films.
They seem to exist in your mind; so be it, but your attention span seems to
be quite short, and your memory limited.
Mike
DISCLAIMER - These opoi^H^H "damn", ^H, [esc :q :qq !q "shit!" :Q! "Whaddya
mean, Not an editor command?" :wq! ^C^C^C !STOP ^bye ^quit :quit! !halt ...
^w^q :!w :wq! ^D :qq!! ^STOP [HALT! HALT!!! "Why's it doing this?" :stopit!
:wwqq!! ^Z ^L ^ESC STOP :bye bye bye! "Hey, what's this red button d..."
On the Beach
>mi...@medicus.com (The Garden of Arcane Delights) writes:
Must be a Laker fan.
>>Nope. The Lakers had essentially NO competition throughout their championship
>>runs, until they got to the finals.
>Somehow the Lakers won nine consecutive division titles in the
>days when Phoenix was winning fifty games on a consistent basis.
"Consistant"?
No, the Suns won 55, 57, 46, 53, 41, 36, 32, 36, and 28 games during the Lakers'
championship run.
>>Let's not forget the luck of both the Celts, but especially the Lakers.
>Yes, let us not forget James Worthy breaking his leg at the end
>of the 1982-83 regular season. Let us not forget Byron Scott
Yes, the same Worthy that would next year throw the ball away in Boston.
>going down to injury before the '89 Finals started and Earvin
>going down early in Game 2. Neither one played the remainder of
>the series.
And this after losing both regular season games to Detroit.
>>A continually contending Philly team gets torn up by age
>Thank you for just explaining what happened to Detroit in order
>for Chicago to hurdle over them and become the dominant team in
>the East.
Or what happened to the Celts, in order for the Lakers to beat them in the
rubber game of the championship series.
>>Say what you want about Chicago, but they DID beat 2 teams in the playoffs that
>>had won 60+ games in the regular season; LA only FACED 2 teams in the same play-
>>offs with 60+ wins once, and lost 4-1 in the championship series in that one.
>>Chicago beat 2 55+ winners every year they won but the first: and then they beat
>>the defending champs and a 55+ winner.
>Also, during Chicago's first title run the team they beat in
>the Eastern Finals (Detroit) had an identical record to the
>team L.A. beat in the first round (Houston). That's not to
You are wrong; Detroit's record was 50-32, Houston's was 52-30.
>mention L.A. took out the Portland, who had the NBA's best
After losing the previous year to Portland, despite having the NBA's best
record, yes?
>record that year, in six games. L.A.'s road to the '91 Finals was
>infinitely more difficult than Chicago's.
And they lost, didn't they?
>>The Lakers and Celts of the 80s were great teams, but face it, guy, they didn't
>>have any competition.
>They also didn't have the luxury of beating up on Orlando,
>Miami, Minnesota and Charlotte ever year. Argue in vain until
Orlanda and Minnesota were in the Lakers conference when the Bulls started their
run (the previous year, both Minnesota and Charlotte were also in the Lakers'
conference.) By the time the Bulls started their run, however, Miami and
Charlotte were still better than Denver and as good as Sacramento.
>you're blue in the face but the '80s Laker and Celtic teams
>would have crushed Chicago.
Well, the Lakers faced the Bulls; how'd they do?
(But hey! Maybe the Lakers aren't good competition)
Mike
David Starr
>>>>A BUNCH OF STUFF DELETED<<<<
>>you're blue in the face but the '80s Laker and Celtic teams
>>would have crushed Chicago.
>Well, the Lakers faced the Bulls; how'd they do?
This statement proves how naive you are. When the Lakers played the Bulls in
David Starr
David Starr
Justin Poe
>From: dms...@uci.edu (David Starr)
>Subject: Re: Bulls Run vs Lakers/Celts
>Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 14:02:52
>This statement proves how naive you are. When the Lakers played the Bulls in
>the finals, it was not the same team as was referred to in previous posts.
>The Laker era that we are speaking of is the Kareem, Magic, Cooper, Worthy,
>Scott, McAdoo, Kupchak, Green, Wilkes, etc. The Bulls team did beat a Laker
>team without Cooper, Rambis, Kareem, McAdoo, and Wilkes (and more). Look at
>the players missing there, Kareem against Bill Cartwright???? I wonder how
>Jordan's performance would've been w/ Michael Cooper (All-Defensive first team
>5 years, Defensive Player of the year once).
>I think it would've been a different story. Don't you agree?
>DAVE
Certainly against the first Bulls championship team, but what about the 92
Bulls. I bet they could give the above Lakers team a run for their money.
Cooper would not and could not stop Jordan. No one ever has. BTW, Jordan
won defensive player of the year and made like 5 or 6 consecutive first team
defense. And Pippen isn't a bad defensive player either. Avg. over 2.5
steals a game. I'm not saying the Bulls would win hands down, but they
certainly would hold their own.
Justin
On the Beach
For a given season, perhaps. Still, we're looking at some pretty decent sized
runs; in the Lakers' case, from 80 - 88, for the Celts, 81 - 86, and for the
Bulls, a shorter, but more instense and perhaps unfinished 91 - 93. And since
teams had to face the Bulls (and the Bulls DID win more games in a year than
the Lakers did) the same logic applies to them.
The major point of the whole thing, though, is to point out that the Lakers
and Celts really didn't have the depth of competition that people are
"remembering" now. When the East and West started putting out several good
teams those dynasties ended, "good" being defined as capable of winning the
championship; since the Magic/Bird era began, NO team without at LEAST 55
regular season wins won the NBA championship. In fact, only the Rockets (twice)
and Lakers (once) even MADE it to the finals without winning 55+ games.
All three were excellent teams, but the fact of the matter is that competition
is tougher now than it's ever been. This puts the Bulls' run, IMO, in as impres-
sive a light as the Celts/Lakers run. Those former could have an off-year and
STILL get good position for the playoffs, and have an excellent chance at going
to the finals.
Mike
On the Beach
>
>>Nope. The Lakers had essentially NO competition throughout their championship
>>runs, until they got to the finals.
>
>>The Lakers and Celts of the 80s were great teams, but face it, guy, they
>>didn't have any competition.
>
>other.
In other words, pretty much a set-up 'til they got to the finals, yes?
Thanks, Mr Starr, that's what I said.
> You mean to tell me that the Bird, McHale, Ainge... Celts would lose
>to the Grant, Pippen, Jordan Bulls? I don't think so. What about the Kareem,
>Worthy, Magic... Lakers? My point is, each of these teams did have a
>tremendous amount of competition. I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Actually, you just said they had EACH OTHER as competition; when they faced
each other, one or the other would have to win, yes?
>If the Lakers were playing (in their prime) right now, or 3 years ago when
>Chicago "primed", then Jordan would still be ring-less... unless he was traded
>to LA.
YAWN! You'll have to do better than that; the Lakers went out 4-1 against
Chicago. They had their chance, they blew it. Yes, I think the 80s Lakers
were better than the team that lost to Chicago, but only by about a game in
a best-of-seven. That would've given the Lakers an extra win, but that's it.
And remember, even when the Lakers played a badly out-manned Celtics team, the
Celts managed to snake 2 from them. When they played an inexperienced Pistons
teams, it went 7, and even then the Pistons came within a turnover of taking
the 7th game.
Mike
Corwyn Newman
Hear, Hear! I don't wanna take sides in this overall Bulls-Celtics-Lakers
debate, but I have to say to all the Laker fans who are all orgasmic over
Coop's defense --yes, he was great, but he couldn't stop Jordan either!
You people have forgotten that Jordan **WAS** in the league when the Lakers
and Celtics were winning their titles, and
yes, he ROUTINELY scorched BOTH teams with high scoring games.
He just did not have even a decent supporting cast in those days.
Chew on that.
--
NewMan "Oh no, I've said too much... I haven't said enough..."
cne...@nwu.edu --J. Michael Stipe
David Starr
>>>>>>A BUNCH OF STUFF DELETED<<<<
>>
>>>>you're blue in the face but the '80s Laker and Celtic teams
>>>>would have crushed Chicago.
>>
>>>Well, the Lakers faced the Bulls; how'd they do?
>>
>>This statement proves how naive you are. When the Lakers played the Bulls in
>>the finals, it was not the same team as was referred to in previous posts.
>>The Laker era that we are speaking of is the Kareem, Magic, Cooper, Worthy,
>>Scott, McAdoo, Kupchak, Green, Wilkes, etc. The Bulls team did beat a Laker
>>team without Cooper, Rambis, Kareem, McAdoo, and Wilkes (and more). Look at
>>the players missing there, Kareem against Bill Cartwright???? I wonder how
>>Jordan's performance would've been w/ Michael Cooper (All-Defensive first team
>>5 years, Defensive Player of the year once).
>>
>>I think it would've been a different story. Don't you agree?
>>
>>DAVE
>>
>Irrelevant
>Sustained
>Jordan, Pippen, Grant, Paxon, et al. won 3 titles. Those
>names are just as impressive.
If you're getting into a title match, the Lakers won 5. Last time I checked,
5 was more than 3.
>Jordan + Pippen + Grant (92) >= Old Kareem + Magic + Worthy (87 or so)
These aren't correct matchups. Kareem (who averaged 22.6 points throughout
the playoffs) against Bill Cartwright. Magic against BJ Armstrong. Pippen
against Worthy. Michael Cooper against Jordan. Who is left to guard Jamal
Wilkes, Byron Scott and Bob McAdoo (who had an average of over 50 points
between them in playoff games)? There is no comparison.
DAVE
David Starr
>>Well, they did beat Philadelphia twice, before beating the Celtics. The 76ers
>>were certainly some decent competition.
>Already mentioned, but the 76ers were decent competition until they won their
>championship; then they went downhill fast, losing to NJ in the first round
>the next year and only once made it back to the conference finals once.
You are absolutely correct. The 76ers did go downhill fast. However, they
were pretty good, before that... In other words, the Lakers did have some
competition in the 80s (1980 & 1982) prior to 1983, when they won.
>>First of all, I must explain that I am not a Celtic fan, but here I am
>>defending them. I don't agree with you. Didn't Danny Ainge play shooting
>>guard? Therefore, he'd be playing Jordan. Obviously, there's a huge mismatch
>>there. However, Larry Bird against Scottie Pippen or even Michael Jordan. I
>>think the Celtics would have successfully controlled the tempo of the games,
>>besides they'd have the advantage because of the old floor on the Boston
>>Garden.
>Didn't help them against the Lakers twice.
You bring up a good point. However, the point I was making was in 1985 when
Boston beat the Lakers by 34 points (tied for the worst defeat in LA Laker
playoff history). I must agree w/ you, though because LA went on to win that
year, and did win 2 out of 3.
>>>>STUFF DELETED<<<<
>>Yes, I agree with you there. The Bulls WOULDN'T have matched up with them.
>>I wonder how Michael Jordan would play with Michael Cooper guarding him? Just
>>a thought.
>They would have had a big problem with Kareem, but otherwise they match up
>well.
I disagree. BJ Armstrong against Magic Johnson? If you put Jordan on Magic,
who's going to guard Byron Scott? Who'd guard Bob McAdoo? Jamal Wilkes?
Each of those players averaged between 15 - 20 points per game in the
playoffs. The Lakers were deep. I don't think the Bulls are deep enough to
match up well at all.
DAVE
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
On the Beach <mi...@medicus.com> wrote:
>>Yes, let us not forget James Worthy breaking his leg at the end
>>of the 1982-83 regular season. Let us not forget Byron Scott
>Yes, the same Worthy that would next year throw the ball away in Boston.
shooting .638 in the finals. You know, there is no leprecian in the
Spectrum.
You watched every game in L.A.? must be lying ....
>And this after losing both regular season games to Detroit.
Yes, like the Celtics losing both regular season games in the 1984
regular season?
You know, DumbFess, every point you make is true, yet you look like
a cheap lawyer in court. You point hides a lot of facts, and inconsistent...
>>Also, during Chicago's first title run the team they beat in
>>the Eastern Finals (Detroit) had an identical record to the
>>team L.A. beat in the first round (Houston). That's not to
>You are wrong; Detroit's record was 50-32, Houston's was 52-30.
Yes, he's wrong. Your records are correct. By then why didn't you
go on on the strength of competition? specifically, strength of
opponent in the first round and conference finals?
Is it your wimp-out on strength of opponents now?
>>mention L.A. took out the Portland, who had the NBA's best
>After losing the previous year to Portland, despite having the NBA's best
>record, yes?
Lie. When did the 1990 Lakers lose to Portland in the playoffs? You
care to tell us the scores?
>>record that year, in six games. L.A.'s road to the '91 Finals was
>>infinitely more difficult than Chicago's.
>And they lost, didn't they?
Oh, so now W/L in the finals is one that counts? So the Lakers won
5 finals and the Bulls won only 3. Now what are you whining about?
>Well, the Lakers faced the Bulls; how'd they do?
Well, when the Lakers were Showtime, how'd they do? Now don't tell us
your years in L.A. really mean Los Altos...
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
Ward R Drennan <wdre...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>Jordan, Pippen, Grant, Paxon, et al. won 3 titles. Those
>names are just as impressive.
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
>the players missing there, Kareem against Bill Cartwright???? I wonder how
>Jordan's performance would've been w/ Michael Cooper (All-Defensive first team
>5 years, Defensive Player of the year once).
>
>I think it would've been a different story. Don't you agree?
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
>>one championship, they gave the Lakers a serious run in two others.
>They lost in 6, twice. They lost to Portland, in 6, after leading 2-0.
>Points: the Lakers and the Celtics had atleast eachother to go through in the
>80's; they also had tough 76er teams that gave way later to a developing Bad Boy
Nope. The Lakers had essentially NO competition throughout their championship
runs, until they got to the finals.
Well, so the 76ers were the Lakers' competition in the era, your
mentioning of their 3 losses in the finals are at best misleading, at
worst trying to imply that they are not a *great* team.
>>If they had not played in the era of two of the greatest teams
>>ever assembled, they could easily have achieved a 3-peat.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Mr Perry, WRT to attention span (and yes, I was a 6er and Rocket fan then),
>do YOU remember the year following that, when the 76ers lost in the first
>round? To NEW JERSEY? AT HOME? AFTER Dr J said "It's over"?
>
>Sorry, no "3-peat" there.
Dumbo, WRT to attention span, let's see. Does 3-peat has to be 82/83/84?
can't be 81/82/83? or 80/81/82? Geez, since they couldn't win in 84,
thus they couldn't 3-peat.... More DumbFess logic....
>However, you have mistaken the quote: Moses was asked "What will it take for
>the 6ers to win this year?" and THEN he said "Four, four, and four".
Nope, 'fo, fo, fo' was the quote he made.
>I was there; saw all the Laker games, Mr Perry.
I doubt it...
>They seem to exist in your mind; so be it, but your attention span seems to
>be quite short, and your memory limited.
But he still has more common sense than you do. Plus he is more consistent
and honest in his arguments...
David Starr
>>Certainly against the first Bulls championship team, but what about the 92
>>Bulls. I bet they could give the above Lakers team a run for their money.
>>Cooper would not and could not stop Jordan. No one ever has. BTW, Jordan
That's just something we'll never know. I remember hearing similar boasts
made by Boston Fans regarding Larry Bird. Cooper stopped Larry Bird. We can
never know because the Lakers of those days never played the Bulls (Jordan was
a rookie) in the playoffs.
>>won defensive player of the year and made like 5 or 6 consecutive first team
>>defense. And Pippen isn't a bad defensive player either. Avg. over 2.5
>>steals a game. I'm not saying the Bulls would win hands down, but they
>>certainly would hold their own.
Yeah, Jordan and Pippen can play defense. I'm waiting to hear who'd stop the
rest of the Lakers... Kareem, McAdoo, Wilkes, Scott, etc. Or would you have
Jordan and Pippen play all 48 minutes of the 4 games?
>Hear, Hear! I don't wanna take sides in this overall Bulls-Celtics-Lakers
>debate, but I have to say to all the Laker fans who are all orgasmic over
>Coop's defense --yes, he was great, but he couldn't stop Jordan either!
They never played against each other in the playoffs. In fact, if they ever
played against each other, it would've been in Jordan's rookie year, during
the regular season.
>You people have forgotten that Jordan **WAS** in the league when the Lakers
>and Celtics were winning their titles, and
>yes, he ROUTINELY scorched BOTH teams with high scoring games.
Oh really? Well, seeing as how the Bulls never made it to the finals to play
the Lakers until 1991 (when all but a few of the Lakers had left the team),
how can you say he "ROUTINELY scorched BOTH teams?"
>He just did not have even a decent supporting cast in those days.
Besides Pippen, who else is your "supporting cast?" Paxton? Armstrong? Oh,
I know, Bill Cartwright.
DAVE
Todd Lehner
wrote:
> In article <3niche$r...@news.acns.nwu.edu> cne...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Corwyn Newman) writes:
>
> >>Certainly against the first Bulls championship team, but what about the 92
> >>Bulls. I bet they could give the above Lakers team a run for their money.
> >>Cooper would not and could not stop Jordan. No one ever has. BTW, Jordan
>
> That's just something we'll never know. I remember hearing similar boasts
> made by Boston Fans regarding Larry Bird. Cooper stopped Larry Bird. We can
> never know because the Lakers of those days never played the Bulls (Jordan was
> a rookie) in the playoffs.
are you sure Cooper stopped Bird? what's your definition of stopped?
anyone have old box scores? I just don't seem to remember it that way
>
> >>won defensive player of the year and made like 5 or 6 consecutive first team
> >>defense. And Pippen isn't a bad defensive player either. Avg. over 2.5
> >>steals a game. I'm not saying the Bulls would win hands down, but they
> >>certainly would hold their own.
>
> Yeah, Jordan and Pippen can play defense. I'm waiting to hear who'd stop the
> rest of the Lakers... Kareem, McAdoo, Wilkes, Scott, etc. Or would you have
> Jordan and Pippen play all 48 minutes of the 4 games?
once again, you lump players together that really didn't play together.
There were many great Lakers teams. Only the early ones had McAdoo and
Wilkes in key roles. Only the later ones had Worthy(84 on - he was injured
in 83) and Scott.
You also continuously omit Grant from the Bulls roster. Cartwright was a
solid defensive center. He would have played well against Kareem. He
wouldn't win the matchup, but wouldn't get embarrassed either.
> >Hear, Hear! I don't wanna take sides in this overall Bulls-Celtics-Lakers
> >debate, but I have to say to all the Laker fans who are all orgasmic over
> >Coop's defense --yes, he was great, but he couldn't stop Jordan either!
>
> They never played against each other in the playoffs. In fact, if they ever
> played against each other, it would've been in Jordan's rookie year, during
> the regular season.
>
> >You people have forgotten that Jordan **WAS** in the league when the Lakers
> >and Celtics were winning their titles, and
>
> >yes, he ROUTINELY scorched BOTH teams with high scoring games.
>
> Oh really? Well, seeing as how the Bulls never made it to the finals to play
> the Lakers until 1991 (when all but a few of the Lakers had left the team),
> how can you say he "ROUTINELY scorched BOTH teams?"
He scorched both teams, as well as everyone else in the league, from 1984
to present. His team wasn't good until 91, but Jordan was.
>
> >He just did not have even a decent supporting cast in those days.
>
> Besides Pippen, who else is your "supporting cast?" Paxton? Armstrong? Oh,
> I know, Bill Cartwright.
What do you have against Horace Grant? Besides that, we're talking about
Michael Jordan. How much of a supporting cast did he need? Well we found
out. He needed an excellent small forward, and very good power forward, a
guard who could shoot open outside shots, and a center who played solid
defense. He also needed a good coach. The Bulls didn't start winning
until Jackson replaced Collins.
Todd
Todd Lehner
[stuff deleted]
> I disagree. BJ Armstrong against Magic Johnson? If you put Jordan on Magic,
> who's going to guard Byron Scott? Who'd guard Bob McAdoo? Jamal Wilkes?
> Each of those players averaged between 15 - 20 points per game in the
> playoffs. The Lakers were deep. I don't think the Bulls are deep enough to
> match up well at all.
You've mentioned McAdoo and Wilkes a few times, but they only played key
roles in the Lakers first two championships. By 1985, Worthy, Rambis, Mike
McGee and Michael Cooper got most of the minutes at the forward spots.
Maurice Lucas and and A.C. Green joined the team after that. Besides, even
if we do consider them, wouldn't Horace Grant guard them.
here's how I think the Bulls would look on defense
Magic - Jordan
Scott - BJ
Worthy - Pippen
Wilkes, McAdoo, Green, etc. - Grant
Kareem - Cartwright
but, if the Lakers use this lineup, Cooper's on the bench
who attempts to guard Michael?
to get Cooper in the game, either Byron or the power forward has to come
out
either way, the Lakers lose points or rebounds. Cooper was an excellent
outside shooter, but didn't score anywhere near as effectively as Byron
Scott
Karellia
>
>>LA, you have not been paying attention. What he is saying is that during the
>>regular season and throughout the playoffs, the lakers and celtics had
>>no real competition.. how could you call an era as strong when only there
>>are only two teams good enough to compete for the title???.. Who did the
>>lakers beat before meeting the Celtics???..
>Well, they did beat Philadelphia twice, before beating the Celtics. The 76ers
>were certainly some decent competition.
Already mentioned, but the 76ers were decent competition until they won their
championship; then they went downhill fast, losing to NJ in the first round
the next year and only once made it back to the conference finals once.
>>And yes, Celtics of Bird,
>>Mchale and Ainge would lose big to to Grant, Pippen and Jordan.
>>No one could stop Jordan, Pippen would have easily been able to stop Bird
>>and if he couldn't, match him in versatility and scoring, passing and rebounding
>>and Grant would kill ainge in any century. What the hell are you talking
>>about??.
>First of all, I must explain that I am not a Celtic fan, but here I am
>defending them. I don't agree with you. Didn't Danny Ainge play shooting
>guard? Therefore, he'd be playing Jordan. Obviously, there's a huge mismatch
>there. However, Larry Bird against Scottie Pippen or even Michael Jordan. I
>think the Celtics would have successfully controlled the tempo of the games,
>besides they'd have the advantage because of the old floor on the Boston
>Garden.
Didn't help them against the Lakers twice.
>> I think there are a fare amount of people who think the Bulls
>>could have beaten a super slow team like the celtics and there are those
>>who think they could not.
>I completely agree. There are a lot of people out there who think the Bulls
>could have beaten a super slow team like the celtics... they probably also
>believe in UFO's and have seen Elvis in shopping centers all over the country.
Or, they point out that the Lakers managed to beat the Celts twice, because
the Celts were "superslow".
>>The Bulls are to my mind, one of the most
>>athletic and best defensive teams by far in a decade (i'm talking about
>>the 1990-1993 Bulls teams). Can you imagine Mchale keeping up with Grant??.
>Please remember that the Lakers of the 80s were also a "run and gun" team, as
>you point out in your post. However, the Celtics still had control of those
>guys in much of the playoffs.
They lost 2 out of 3.
>>is Jordan, Pippen, O'Neal, Hardaway, Barkely, Malone, I could go on
>>but i bore you. The 80's had two great stars and other very good players
>I think the 90's players are a bunch of hype. Obviously there is a lot of
So were the 80s.
Hype is the nature of sports.
>talent out there. You've named some players. However, the media, and a lof
>of fans, are frantically searching for replacements to the players mentioned
>before (Bird, Magic, Dr. J, Kareem, etc.) Yes, you are correct. Those days
I think they found Jordan already.
>>best of all times.. yeah, I'd say we would have killed the celts.
>
>Looking back on those series' against the Lakers and Celtics, I just find that
>hard to believe.
>
>>Now the lakers .... their speed would have defintely been a problem.
>>The Bulls might have actually had a hard time matching up with them.
>
>Yes, I agree with you there. The Bulls WOULDN'T have matched up with them.
>I wonder how Michael Jordan would play with Michael Cooper guarding him? Just
>a thought.
They would have had a big problem with Kareem, but otherwise they match up
well.
Mike
Bradley T Wells
Here's something that nobody has considered yet: the officiating.
If the refs from the 80's were used, the Lakers would crush the Bulls.
If the refs from the 90's were used, it would be a close series.
Back in the 80's, there was no favortism given to one team.
Do you think the Bulls would have won 3 titles if the officiating
didn't drastically change?
Karellia
>ENOUGH ALREADY!!!
We're saying things Mr Statsinger doesn't want to hear.
>Anyone who argues that the 3 in a row Bulls could have beaten the
>80's Lakers or Celtics in a championship series is obviously too
>young to have ever seen those teams. Arguments about competition
Hmm, well as the original poster, all I said was that the Bulls HAVE to be
considered as in the same category as the 80s Lakers/Celts; Lakers/Celts fans
have been trying to covince everyone that their teams would have LOST outright
to the Bulls, but I don't think that's what they've been trying to do. (Oh,
and I DID watch the Lakers of the 80s; I entered grad school in LA in 78.)
See below about "talent dilution", and number of 55+ teams prior to the Magic/
Bird era.
>as currently structured are useless, since a team which won 55 games
>in 1987 had to be a MUCH better team than a team which won 55 games
>in 1991 or 92. The combination of retirements and expansion drafts
>has thinned out the talent base of the league over the last 4-5 years,
>resulting in two rather pathetic contestants playing for the
>championship last year.
I see; so, talent was extremely thin in the 60s, and early 70s, when the Celts
and a few other teams managed to win 55 and 60 games fairly routinely, then the
talent pool must've exploded in the mid-and-late 70s, when fewer teams reached
the 55+ level. Finally, the talent pool got diluted when Magic and Bird
entered the leauge, as we are assured this is what leads to the 55+ teams'
proliferation.
Here's a list back to the 69-70 season.
Year Champ E W(60+) E W(55+) E W(50+) # teams
93-94 Hou 0 1 3 4 4 6 27
92-93 Chi 1 1 2 3 3 4 "
91-92 Chi 1 0 2 3 4 4 "
90-91 Chi 1 1 2 4 3 6 "
99-90 Det 0 1 2 4 4 5 " (Min, Orl)
88-89 Det 1 0 2 2 4 3 25 (Mia, Cha)
End of Laker/Celt championship teams above.
87-88 LA 0 1 1 1 4 4 23
86-87 LA 0 1 2 2 4 2 "
85-86 Bos 1 1 2 1 4 2 "
84-85 LA 1 1 3 1 3 2 "
83-84 Bos 1 0 1 0 3 1 "
82-83 Phi 1 0 2 1 3 3 "
81-82 LA 1 0 3 1 3 2 "
80-81 Bos 3 0 3 1 4 3 " (Dal)
79-80 LA 1 1 2 3 3 3 22
Magic/Bird era starts above.
78-79 Sea 0 0 0 0 1 2 "
77-78 Was 0 0 1 1 2 1 "
76-77 Por 0 0 0 0 1 2 "
75-76 Bos 1 0 1 1 1 1 18 (Den, Ind, NJ, SA)
74-75 GS 2 0 2 0 2 0
73-74 Bos 0 0 1 1 1 1
72-73 NY 1 2 2 2 3 3
71-72 LA 0 2 1 3 1 4
70-71 Mil 0 1 0 1 1 2
69-70 NY 1 0 2 0 3 0
Using the Statsinger "55 wins means less talent" method, it LOOKS like the
"talent pool" started dropping when Magic and Bird joined the league; after all,
there WAS a sudden increase in the number of teams winning 55 games that year.
In fact, there were as many 55+ teams in the 9 year Laker/Celtic run (19) in theEAST as there were in the entire LEAGUE in the *10* year period prior to that.
Throw in the 11 from the west in the Laker/Celt period, and this really looks
like "talent dilution", if Mr Statsinger is to give credence to his own theory.
Still, I believe Mr Statsinger was trying to explain that the it was the BULLS
that were taking advantage of some sort of talent dilution, not the Celts/Lakers
of the 80s.
Would Mr Statsinger care to elaborate for the benefit of those of us who take
him too literally?
Mike
Todd Lehner
> In article <tlehner-25...@hrsb734.resnet.upenn.edu> tle...@sas.upenn.edu (Todd Lehner) writes:
>
> >> That's just something we'll never know. I remember hearing similar boasts
> >> made by Boston Fans regarding Larry Bird. Cooper stopped Larry Bird. We can
> >> never know because the Lakers of those days never played the Bulls (Jordan was
> >> a rookie) in the playoffs.
>
> >are you sure Cooper stopped Bird? what's your definition of stopped?
> >anyone have old box scores? I just don't seem to remember it that way
>
> >> Yeah, Jordan and Pippen can play defense. I'm waiting to hear who'd stop
> >>the rest of the Lakers... Kareem, McAdoo, Wilkes, Scott, etc. Or would
> >>you have Jordan and Pippen play all 48 minutes of the 4 games?
>
> >once again, you lump players together that really didn't play together.
>
> Actually, the roster for the 85 Lakers (the team that this post is referring
> to) consisted of the following players...
>
> Kareem, Cooper, Magic, Kupchak, Earl Jones, Ronnie Lester, Bob McAdoo, McGee,
> Chuck Nevitt, Rambis, Scott, Spriggs, Wilkes, and Worthy (I believe in that
> year James averaged a little over 20 points a game in the playoffs).
McAdoo and Wilkes may have been on the roster, but did they score the 15-20
points per game you talked about? They might have, but I'm pretty sure
Rambis started and played a fair amount of minutes. I just don't remember
either Wilkes or McAdoo being important members of that team.
> >There were many great Lakers teams. Only the early ones had McAdoo and
> >Wilkes in key roles. Only the later ones had Worthy(84 on - he was injured
> >in 83) and Scott.
> >You also continuously omit Grant from the Bulls roster. Cartwright was a
> >solid defensive center. He would have played well against Kareem. He
> >wouldn't win the matchup, but wouldn't get embarrassed either.
>
> I disagree. I remember several games from that year, and have seen a few
> tapes recently. Even in his mid-thirties, Kareem dominated nearly every
> center that year... including Robert Parish.
I'd guess Kareem scored about 22 ppg that year. He was still an excellent
center and the Bulls would expect him to get his twenty, but no more. In
85, the Lakers were still Kareem's team. Magic was starting to become the
main man, but I think it was still Kareem. If Cartwright could hold Kareem
to his average, the Bulls would be happy.
> >He scorched both teams, as well as everyone else in the league, from 1984
> >to present. His team wasn't good until 91, but Jordan was.
>
> How can you make that claim, when Jordan never played these Lakers in the
> playoffs? They played in regular season twice, and I don't have access to
> those #s. If anyone has them, I'd like to see how well he did in those
> games... or was he injured then? I'm curious to know.
Jordan scorched every team in the league every year in his career. He
averaged 28.2 ppg in 85 as a rookie. It's possible that he scored less in
the Laker games. A year later, he poured in 63 against a Celtic team that
won 67, a feat the Lakers never accomplished in the 80's :-)
>
> >> >He just did not have even a decent supporting cast in those days.
> >>
> >> Besides Pippen, who else is your "supporting cast?" Paxton? Armstrong? Oh,
> >> I know, Bill Cartwright.
>
> >What do you have against Horace Grant? Besides that, we're talking about
> >Michael Jordan. How much of a supporting cast did he need? Well we found
> >out. He needed an excellent small forward, and very good power forward, a
> >guard who could shoot open outside shots, and a center who played solid
> >defense. He also needed a good coach. The Bulls didn't start winning
> >until Jackson replaced Collins.
>
> I think Horace Grant is a solid player. I overlooked him in my previous post.
> However, I don't think neither he nor Bill Cartwright had the talent to
> compete against the Lakers in the mid 80s. Although it would've been fun to
> see Grant and Rambis fighting for rebounds.
Todd
David Starr
>> That's just something we'll never know. I remember hearing similar boasts
>> made by Boston Fans regarding Larry Bird. Cooper stopped Larry Bird. We can
>> never know because the Lakers of those days never played the Bulls (Jordan was
>> a rookie) in the playoffs.
>are you sure Cooper stopped Bird? what's your definition of stopped?
>anyone have old box scores? I just don't seem to remember it that way
>> Yeah, Jordan and Pippen can play defense. I'm waiting to hear who'd stop
>>the rest of the Lakers... Kareem, McAdoo, Wilkes, Scott, etc. Or would
>>you have Jordan and Pippen play all 48 minutes of the 4 games?
>once again, you lump players together that really didn't play together.
Actually, the roster for the 85 Lakers (the team that this post is referring
to) consisted of the following players...
Kareem, Cooper, Magic, Kupchak, Earl Jones, Ronnie Lester, Bob McAdoo, McGee,
Chuck Nevitt, Rambis, Scott, Spriggs, Wilkes, and Worthy (I believe in that
year James averaged a little over 20 points a game in the playoffs).
>There were many great Lakers teams. Only the early ones had McAdoo and
>Wilkes in key roles. Only the later ones had Worthy(84 on - he was injured
>in 83) and Scott.
>You also continuously omit Grant from the Bulls roster. Cartwright was a
>solid defensive center. He would have played well against Kareem. He
>wouldn't win the matchup, but wouldn't get embarrassed either.
I disagree. I remember several games from that year, and have seen a few
tapes recently. Even in his mid-thirties, Kareem dominated nearly every
center that year... including Robert Parish.
>He scorched both teams, as well as everyone else in the league, from 1984
>to present. His team wasn't good until 91, but Jordan was.
How can you make that claim, when Jordan never played these Lakers in the
playoffs? They played in regular season twice, and I don't have access to
those #s. If anyone has them, I'd like to see how well he did in those
games... or was he injured then? I'm curious to know.
>> >He just did not have even a decent supporting cast in those days.
>>
>> Besides Pippen, who else is your "supporting cast?" Paxton? Armstrong? Oh,
>> I know, Bill Cartwright.
>What do you have against Horace Grant? Besides that, we're talking about
>Michael Jordan. How much of a supporting cast did he need? Well we found
>out. He needed an excellent small forward, and very good power forward, a
>guard who could shoot open outside shots, and a center who played solid
>defense. He also needed a good coach. The Bulls didn't start winning
>until Jackson replaced Collins.
I think Horace Grant is a solid player. I overlooked him in my previous post.
However, I don't think neither he nor Bill Cartwright had the talent to
compete against the Lakers in the mid 80s. Although it would've been fun to
see Grant and Rambis fighting for rebounds.
DAVE
David Starr
>You've mentioned McAdoo and Wilkes a few times, but they only played key
>roles in the Lakers first two championships. By 1985, Worthy, Rambis, Mike
>McGee and Michael Cooper got most of the minutes at the forward spots.
>Maurice Lucas and and A.C. Green joined the team after that. Besides, even
>if we do consider them, wouldn't Horace Grant guard them.
>here's how I think the Bulls would look on defense
>Magic - Jordan
Jordan is definitely Chicago's defensive player (he's Chicago's everything
player) but I think Magic would have given him a good game.
>Scott - BJ
BJ Armstrong would have a tough time of guarding Scott. When Cooper came in,
he'd tear it up as well. Remember, Michael Cooper does hold the Laker record
for # of 3 point baskets in a playoff game. He was often considered for the
outside shot as well.
>Worthy - Pippen
This is a good matchup. Even though James was only in his second year in
1985, he seemed experienced. I think back then, he could have taken Pippen.
Although, it would've been a good matchup.
>Wilkes, McAdoo, Green, etc. - Grant
That's an awful lot to ask Horace Grant. Each of these players add their own
aspect to the game... Wilkes with the awkard shot, Green with the muscle
underneath, and McAdoo, just cause he's Bob McAdoo. I don't see Horace
matching up well with McAdoo or Wilkes very well (he'd compete w/ Green, but I
think AC would have prevailed).
>Kareem - Cartwright
There is no matchup here. Kareem Abdul Jabbar did have a great season that
year, on pace to break the record for most points scored by any player... No,
Bill Cartwright would've had a little hard time w/ this one...
>but, if the Lakers use this lineup, Cooper's on the bench
>who attempts to guard Michael?
>to get Cooper in the game, either Byron or the power forward has to come
>out
>either way, the Lakers lose points or rebounds. Cooper was an excellent
>outside shooter, but didn't score anywhere near as effectively as Byron
>Scott
The Lakers would probably keep Cooper in the game. I don't think they'd lose
much on offense because, generally when Kareem was in the game, he was
their first option for offense (especially if Cartwright is guarding him).
DAVE
Karellia
>In article i...@mojo.eng.umd.edu, exor...@glue.umd.edu (Wesley Nurse) writes:
>>lakers beat before meeting the Celtics???.. And yes, Celtics of Bird,
>>Mchale and Ainge would lose big to to Grant, Pippen and Jordan.
>>No one could stop Jordan, Pippen would have easily been able to stop Bird
>>and if he couldn't, match him in versatility and scoring, passing and rebounding
>Please. I don't think anyone in their right mind would consider Pippen a
>superior player to Larry Bird. There are three - Bird, Magic, and Jordan -
>and there are the rest. I don't think the Bulls would be able to hang with the
>Celts. Competetive? Of course - win, doubtful.
The Bulls WERE a lot more active and quicker with than the Celts. I believe
the Lakers managed to take advantage of that.
And the Celts' fate was sealed when Len Bias died; they didn't have any
forecourt depth after that, and teams wore them out.
>>who think they could not. The Bulls are to my mind, one of the most
>>athletic and best defensive teams by far in a decade (i'm talking about
>>the 1990-1993 Bulls teams). Can you imagine Mchale keeping up with Grant??.
>I can see McHale flat out schooling Horace Grant in the low post. You were
Yeah, but I can't see him following Grant up and down the court for 4-7 games.
>>The Celtics would have a definite advantage at center but that's it.
>They would have had an advantage everywhere except off-guard.
They SHOULD have had advantages over the Lakers everywhere except point guard
and the center was a wash (Kareem was old, and about even with Parish.) Lost
2 out of 3, though.
>>Sentimentality doesn't translate very well.. just because we are
>>a little nostalgic about the 80's doesn't make it the best era in
>>basketball. What the 80's had was bird and magic.. what the 90's have
>>is Jordan, Pippen, O'Neal, Hardaway, Barkely, Malone, I could go on
>>but i bore you. The 80's had two great stars and other very good players
>Huh? Let's recap - when did Jordan come in? '84. Barkley - '85. Malone - not sure
>but I think he was '86(?). Just because you can't remember the great
>players of the 80's - like Magic, Bird, Jordan, Worthy, Dr. J, Kareem,
>Moses...
J was great, but definitely on the downside of his career. Kareem's best years
were the 70s, but he was very productive in the 80s.
>>If you prefer the 80's fine!!! but don't tell me the Bulls could not
>>have competed with the Celtics of the 80's. The 80's celts aren't even the best
>>team of all time.. and right now, the Bulls of 1993 are considered one of the
>>best of all times.. yeah, I'd say we would have killed the celts.
>I really think that most people would consider the Celtics of the 80's one of
>the great teams of all times. I think most people would consider the Bulls
>of the early 90s one of the great teams. But it seems to me that the Celtics
>would probably be able to handle the Bulls a majority of the time.
That's why we're having the argument.
>>Now the lakers .... their speed would have defintely been a problem.
>>The Bulls might have actually had a hard time matching up with them.
>
>Forget the "might". There is no question that they would. But I think we have
>already had that discussion.
Yeah, but the question wasn't about who matches up where; it's about whether
the Celts would have won 3 titles, the Lakers 5, and the Bulls 3 (in a row)
had they all hit their peak at the same time.
Mike
Craig Bowden
|> David Starr (dms...@uci.edu) wrote:
|> : In article <1995Apr18.2...@medicus.com> mi...@medicus.com (The Garden of Arcane Delights) writes:
|>
|> : >Nope. The Lakers had essentially NO competition throughout their championship
|> : >runs, until they got to the finals.
|>
|> : >The Lakers and Celts of the 80s were great teams, but face it, guy, they
|> : >didn't have any competition.
|> : What are you talking about? The Lakers and Celtics had competition... each
|> : Worthy, Magic... Lakers? My point is, each of these teams did have a
|> : tremendous amount of competition. I've said it before and I'll say it again.
|> : to LA.
|>
|> regular season and throughout the playoffs, the lakers and celtics had
|> no real competition.. how could you call an era as strong when only there
|> are only two teams good enough to compete for the title???
here. A league with less teams and less parity is where a couple super teams get
built which points to the Lakers and Celtics. As boring as it sounds, year after
year they were the teams to beat. Chicago didn't develop into a champion until
both these teams had faded and the league expanded creating dillution of
superstars per team and thus the loss of the super teams. The competition you
claim the Bulls had to fight looked like competition to them because they were
not on the same level of the Lakers or Celtics of the 80's - you answer that one
yourself. Parity and expansion killed the super teams until the talent base can
catch up.
.. Who did the
|> lakers beat before meeting the Celtics???.. And yes, Celtics of Bird,
|> Mchale and Ainge would lose big to to Grant, Pippen and Jordan.
|> No one could stop Jordan, Pippen would have easily been able to stop Bird
|> and if he couldn't, match him in versatility and scoring, passing and rebounding
|> could have beaten a super slow team like the celtics and there are those
|> athletic and best defensive teams by far in a decade (i'm talking about
|> the 1990-1993 Bulls teams). Can you imagine Mchale keeping up with Grant??.
that your argument has. McHale is one of the most versatile PF's to ever play the
game both offensively and defensivly and is headed rightfully so to the Hall of
Fame. Grant will not be in the HoF. Also, don't talk of Pippen being in the same
arena as Bird during Pippen's level at the time of these Bulls Championship
years. Pippen was MIA and a ball of potential waiting to happen who still (see
last year's Playoffs) has proved nothing in the playoffs. Back then he was even
more lost. Pippen has had a great year and this may be the year he steps up big
in the playoffs but we're not talking about the 1995 version of Pippen when you
talk about these Bulls teams in the past. Also, the Lakers were much quicker than
the Bulls (remember showtime?) and the Celtics managed to beat them...not bad for
a super slow team. Playoff games turn into grinding half-court affairs and the
teams that execute the best at crunch time win. You could watch the progress that
the Pistons and Bulls both made in the 80's as they both learned how to do this
to get by the aging Celtics and Lakers toward the end of the 80's and then the
Bulls past the Pistons. That's why last year's finals was so bad - both those
teams made it because there were no teams out there that could master this part
of the game. The Bulls got as far as they did with a very weak team because of
their ability to do this and if MJ had not retired, there's no doubt they would
have won their fourth straight and would now be looking at number five. Your
assertion is that they have competition, mine is that they have had none. The
last team to be considered formidible was the Pistons because they were good and
knew how to execute at crunch time, but that was a long time ago. The Bulls beat
the Lakers w/o half the talent of their great years/ beat a schizo stage-fright
Blazer team/ and a no-D Phoenix team. The Lakers/Celtics/Sixers/Pistons would
have all killed those teams. IMHO I think they all would have prevailed over the
Bulls but in a very well contested series again because they knew how to execute
in the half-court and they had MJ. Still, don't toot Pippen's horn during these
years - he was lost.
|> Sentimentality doesn't translate very well.. just because we are
|> a little nostalgic about the 80's doesn't make it the best era in
|> basketball. What the 80's had was bird and magic.. what the 90's have
|> is Jordan, Pippen, O'Neal, Hardaway, Barkely, Malone, I could go on
|> but i bore you. The 80's had two great stars and other very good players
|>
named Michael Jordon...who's team couldn't break through then; Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
a decent center on a decent team; Moses Malone, Julius Erving, same Stockton and
Malone as your 90's version (Karl has developed an outside shot though); Akeem
and Ralph tandom; Zeke and Dumars and gang; Barkely; 'Big Game' James Worthy in
his prime; Wilkens; Drexler; Alex English; Ewing; McHale; and others all
distributed across a league with less teams and thus the denser star ratio. If
you can't see it from watching it, you have to see it from the math of it.
|> the nineties have many great players. To me, I like the 90's far better,
|> If you prefer the 80's fine!!! but don't tell me the Bulls could not
|> have competed with the Celtics of the 80's. The 80's celts aren't even the best
|> team of all time.. and right now, the Bulls of 1993 are considered one of the
|> best of all times.. yeah, I'd say we would have killed the celts.
|> The Bulls might have actually had a hard time matching up with them.
the very Laker team you mention would give the Bulls problems.
|>
|>
|> : DAVE
There are some very good players in the 90's but you could see the difference of
a great super-star and a super-star when MJ walks on the court and suddenly the
Bulls very well may be on their way to a title just because of his presence.
Everyone knows he knows how to win and take over the game at crunch time. No one
else in the league has that mantel. Magic, Bird, and Zeke all could do it.
Barkley is close and Akeem is close (both starred in the 80's as well as MJ by
the way).
--
Craig Bowden
Chevron Information Technology Co.
1300 South Beach Blvd.
La Habra, CA 90631
p...@natasha.lahabra.chevron.com
Profs:HOVMB(pcb)
Voice:(310)694-7959
Prabhakar Vangala
Hey beat this!
Bird
McHale
Parish
Ainge
Even if U add cupid as the fifth guy to this team, this team is the
ugliest of all C'ship teams that I know of.
If U ask me though, the above team could be the ugliest team ever
that I know of.
(with no C'ship strings attached)
--
-Prabhakar
/) (\
/ ) ( \
David Wright
>
>Here's something that nobody has considered yet: the officiating.
>If the refs from the 80's were used, the Lakers would crush the Bulls.
>If the refs from the 90's were used, it would be a close series.
>
>Back in the 80's, there was no favortism given to one team.
>Do you think the Bulls would have won 3 titles if the officiating
>didn't drastically change?
>
Pistons in their first series? (appox. 120)
Anyway, the Bulls have always (championship era) been near the
bottom of the league in freethrow attempts. Check it and prove
me right.
Lastly,when the Bulls first meet the Lakers we heard all this
BS about how they couldn't beat them.
David Starr
>McAdoo and Wilkes may have been on the roster, but did they score the 15-20
>points per game you talked about? They might have, but I'm pretty sure
>Rambis started and played a fair amount of minutes. I just don't remember
>either Wilkes or McAdoo being important members of that team.
Although I don't have access to the numbers, I'm pretty sure both McAdoo and
Wilkes were used a lot that year (in the playoffs). I don't remember a lot of
the regular season, but McAdoo did play an important role on that team.
Worthy was in his second year and did contribute as well.
>I'd guess Kareem scored about 22 ppg that year. He was still an excellent
>center and the Bulls would expect him to get his twenty, but no more. In
>85, the Lakers were still Kareem's team. Magic was starting to become the
>main man, but I think it was still Kareem. If Cartwright could hold Kareem
>to his average, the Bulls would be happy.
I agree with you that the Bulls would be satisfied w/ Kareem's 22 points.
However, I don't think Cartwright could contain the sky hook. I know that
sounds "cliche-ish", but that shot gave every other center in the league fits.
I recall Wilt Chamberlain stating that he didn't know how to stop Alcindor
(at that time) and his sky hook.
>Jordan scorched every team in the league every year in his career. He
>averaged 28.2 ppg in 85 as a rookie. It's possible that he scored less in
>the Laker games. A year later, he poured in 63 against a Celtic team that
>won 67, a feat the Lakers never accomplished in the 80's :-)
I would like to find out the stats from those games if anyone has the #s.
Besides that, as I said before, everyone knows the playoffs are a different
story than the regular season. Because the Bulls were in the East, and Lakers
in the West, they never met in the playoffs, until 1991. Therefore, the claim
that Jordan "scorched" every team is false. You can't bring in regular
season, because this post has been talking about playoffs... the playoffs are
completely different than regular season. Yes, Jordan did score 63 points
against the Celtics. He didn't (and couldn't) against the Lakers, because
they never played in the playoffs.
DAVE
Corwyn Newman
>In article <3niche$r...@news.acns.nwu.edu> cne...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Corwyn Newman) writes:
>
>>>Certainly against the first Bulls championship team, but what about the 92
>>>Bulls. I bet they could give the above Lakers team a run for their money.
>>>Cooper would not and could not stop Jordan. No one ever has. BTW, Jordan
>
>made by Boston Fans regarding Larry Bird. Cooper stopped Larry Bird. We can
>never know because the Lakers of those days never played the Bulls (Jordan was
>a rookie) in the playoffs.
>
>>Hear, Hear! I don't wanna take sides in this overall Bulls-Celtics-Lakers
>>debate, but I have to say to all the Laker fans who are all orgasmic over
>>Coop's defense --yes, he was great, but he couldn't stop Jordan either!
>
>They never played against each other in the playoffs. In fact, if they ever
>played against each other, it would've been in Jordan's rookie year, during
>the regular season.
>
>>You people have forgotten that Jordan **WAS** in the league when the Lakers
>>and Celtics were winning their titles, and
>
>>yes, he ROUTINELY scorched BOTH teams with high scoring games.
>
>Oh really? Well, seeing as how the Bulls never made it to the finals to play
>the Lakers until 1991 (when all but a few of the Lakers had left the team),
>how can you say he "ROUTINELY scorched BOTH teams?"
>
Hello? Wake up. Michael Cooper was with the Lakers from the 1980-81 season
to the 1989-90 season. Jordan played in the NBA in 1984-85, was injured in
85-86, and then played thru til his retirement after 92-93.
In other words, Jordan and Coop matched up in 84-85, 86-87, 87-88, 88-89,
89-90. That's 5 seasons that they played against one another, and believe me
Jordan did not have any trouble scoring then either. If you'll recall, he led
the league in scoring from 86-87 thru 92-93, and his average didn't drop off
much against the Lakers either.
Cooper WAS a great defensive player... but no one has stopped Jordan to this
day... (other than Bobby Phils).
And as for the "but not in the playoffs" bit, you must be forgetting that
Jordan is EVEN TOUGHER in the playoffs. Are you aware that he has the highest
career scoring average of anyone, ever (34.7)? Even higher than his regular
season average (32.3). Jordan, along with Magic & Bird, is among the greatest
big game players ever. Remember, his 63-pt game did come in the playoffs
against the Celtics.
>>He just did not have even a decent supporting cast in those days.
>
>Besides Pippen, who else is your "supporting cast?" Paxton? Armstrong? Oh,
>I know, Bill Cartwright.
Knock, knock. Anybody home?
My point here is that Paxson Pippen Armstrong Grant Cartwright Scott Williams
et al, are better than Gene Banks, Dave Corzine, & Brad Sellers.
i.e., his supporting cast during the Laker-Celtic years was not even close to
his supporting cast during the 90s.
Basically, I'm saying that Jordan lit up both the Lakers and Celtics DURING
their championship reign, even without the other offensive threats to draw the
defense.
And that was before he even had a jump shot!
>
>DAVE
Robert Basic
: The ugliest team to have won a championship.
: Hey beat this!
: Bird
: McHale
: Parish
: Ainge
: Even if U add cupid as the fifth guy to this team, this team is the
: ugliest of all C'ship teams that I know of.
DJ, Dennis Johnson was the fifth guy. Not cupid, but DJ. BTW, I liked
the Celtics of the '80s. They had an incredible team. you don't win
three championships without having somewhat of a good team, right?
: If U ask me though, the above team could be the ugliest team ever
: that I know of.
: (with no C'ship strings attached)
: --
:
: -Prabhakar
: /) (\
: / ) ( \
Thanks,
Bob
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
Corwyn Newman <cne...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
>Hear, Hear! I don't wanna take sides in this overall Bulls-Celtics-Lakers
>debate, but I have to say to all the Laker fans who are all orgasmic over
>Coop's defense --yes, he was great, but he couldn't stop Jordan either!
>
>and Celtics were winning their titles, and
>yes, he ROUTINELY scorched BOTH teams with high scoring games.
Well, could Coop stop Jordan?
I had the Lakers 1986 and 1988 media guide, which gave the box scores
of the games in 1985 and 1987, the championship years. These are Jordan's
lines in those games
G FG FGA PCT F3 F3A PCT FT FTA PCT REB AST STL TRN BLK PTS AVG
1985 2 13 26 .500 0 2 .000 10 13 .769 8 11 1 7 1 36 18.0
1987 2 30 70 .429 0 1 .000 14 16 .875 12 8 6 5 3 74 37.0
The Bulls won a game in 1985, and got swept in 1987.
So how do you like Jordan's line in those 4 games? I don't find anything
stellar. Should Coop get some of the credit?
>Chew on that.
Like what, like Jordan's 18 ppg in 1985 or .429 FG pct in 1987?
Christopher Scott Campbell
new franchises. I think at one point Chiacgo was like
54-1 against the new franchises (Charlotte, Orlando,
Minnesota, Miami). How were the Lakers against say,
the new franchises in the early 80's? The Mavericks
are the only one that come to mind, and they were a
lot like the Magic, got the Conference Finals early in
their pitiful existence. The dispersing of talent can
not be overlooked. Quite honestly, I don't understand
the debate. The Lakers and Celtics were great teams,
while the Bulls had simply a superstar in Jordan. Yes,
Pippen is good, but Horace ain't no McHale. (I was
always more of a Celtics fan anyhow, in those days)
Christopher
--
Christopher Scott Campbell * Laurie got offended that I
csca...@tuba.aix.calpoly.edu * used the word "puke." But
* to me that's what her dinner
ArchE and Math * tasted like. -- Jack Handey
R. S. Statsinger
Who's "we"? Besides you, I mean?
|Hmm, well as the original poster, all I said was that the Bulls HAVE to be
|considered as in the same category as the 80s Lakers/Celts;
If that's all *you're* saying, I'm still listening. How are you
defining "in the same category as"? Is this qualitative or quantitative?
|Lakers/Celts fans
|have been trying to covince everyone that their teams would have LOST outright
|to the Bulls, but I don't think that's what they've been trying to do. (Oh,
|and I DID watch the Lakers of the 80s; I entered grad school in LA in 78.)
Congratulations on probably being even older than I am. If you are NOT
saying, "The 3peat Bulls would have definitely killed either the mid-80's
Celtics or mid 80's Lakers", then I don't see what we're arguing.
Now, the statement, "Lakers/Celts fans have been trying to convince....", etc,
is strange. I'm a Laker fan, and I've NEVER made the statement that my team
would have LOST outright to the Bulls. That's insane. If other Laker or
Celtic fans have been making that case, then my argument is with them,
not with you.
| [obfuscatory numbers omitted]
|
|Throw in the 11 from the west in the Laker/Celt period, and this really looks
|like "talent dilution", if Mr Statsinger is to give credence to his own theory.
|
|Still, I believe Mr Statsinger was trying to explain that the it was the BULLS
|that were taking advantage of some sort of talent dilution, not the Celts/Lakers
|of the 80s.
Exactly. You haven't said whether or not you agree with that. Since you seem to
have all the numbers at your disposal, let me thank you in advance for making
my argument for me. Just find a way to tweak the numbers such that they support
my POV; I have every confidence in you to do this.
Bob
--
rst...@interbase.borland.com \ I hack for Borland. I speak for myself
Any similarities between what I say \ ....and for my Evil Twin
and what I mean are purely coincidental \ "I drank WHAT??" - Socrates
45370H-E.LOR(MT5655)1240MT
Todd Lehner <tle...@sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>You've mentioned McAdoo and Wilkes a few times, but they only played key
>roles in the Lakers first two championships.
>By 1985, Worthy, Rambis, Mike
>McGee and Michael Cooper got most of the minutes at the forward spots.
>Maurice Lucas and and A.C. Green joined the team after that. Besides, even
>if we do consider them, wouldn't Horace Grant guard them.
I would rank the 5 Laker championship teams this way:
87 (franchise best record at 65-17, 15-3 in playoffs)
82 (unstoppable after Westhead was fired, won 9 straight in playoffs,
NBA record)
85 (62-20, 15-4 in playoffs, but Western Conference was weak, won
division by ~20 games)
80 (Kareem in his prime, but Magic was only a rookie)
88 (showed signs of slowing down. Struggled big time. Went 3-7 on
the road in the playoffs, worst among champs in Bird/Magic era).
Let's look at the 87 team:
Magic, Scott, Worthy, Green, Kareem, bench: Thompson, Coop, Rambis
the 82 team:
Magic, Nixon, Wilkes, Rambis, Kareem, bench: Coop, McAdoo, McGee
the 85 team:
Magic, Scott, Worthy, Rambis, Kareem, bench: Coop, McAdoo, McGee
OK, let's look at the matchups. Bulls vs
87 Lakers 82 Lakers 85 Lakers
1 Lakers big Lakers big Lakers big
2 Bulls big Bulls big Bulls big
3 Lakers small Bulls small Lakers small
4 Bulls small Bulls big Bulls small
5 Lakers big Lakers big Lakers big
6 Lakers big Lakers big Lakers small
Kevin W. Dolorico
: The ugliest team to have won a championship.
: Hey beat this!
: Bird
: McHale
: Parish
: Ainge
: Even if U add cupid as the fifth guy to this team, this team is the
: ugliest of all C'ship teams that I know of.
Well, simply add Dennis Johnson.
_____________________________________________________________________
Kevin Dolorico "...for the love of the game..."
kwd...@is2.nyu.edu
Tma...@j51.com -=NEW SIG & E-mail address=-
_____________________________________________________________________
Karellia
>In article <3n5f4p$k...@lace.Colorado.EDU>, ja...@satan.hell.org (rjs)
>wrote:
>
>> In article <3n3k7q$k...@cabell.vcu.edu>, ajp...@cabell.vcu.edu (Aubrey S. Powell) writes:
>> |>
>> |> >The Lakers and Celts of the 80s were great teams, but face it, guy, they didn't
>> |> >have any competition.
>> You cant prove it one way or the other.....so everyone quit
>> trying to argue who was better. However, you can make an
>> argument that the Lakers were better than the Celtics since they
>> beat the Celtics in 2 out 3 finals.
>that's not a fair argument because the strongest Celtics team of the 80's
>was the 86 team, a year the Lakers lost to the Rockets in the Western
>Conference Finals. Most likely, that Celtics team would have tied the
>record at 2-2.
It's certainly POSSIBLE, but remember the strongest team doesn't always win. I
thought the 83-84 Lakers were better than the Celts, but they lost in 7 (2
Celt victories came in OT), and the Lakers certainly threw some games away. And
the 84-85 Celts, I thought, were better than LA, but they lost.
>The lakers also won 5 titles
>> vs 3 for the celtics.
>that's also not a good argument because the Lakers had a far easier time
>getting to the finals than the Celts each year. The Lakers had little
>competition in the West while in the early 80's the Celts had to battle the
>Sixers each year and in the late 80's the Pistons, both teams who beat the
>Lakers in at least one championship. In the 80's, the Celts won 3 titles
>in 5 chances while the Lakers won 5 titles in 8(I think) chances. That's
>60% vs. 63%. I'd say that's pretty even considering that the East was more
>competitive.
Yeah, the East had the edge on the West every year in the 80s.
East-West differential for each year (year indicates the year the championship
series was played)
80 +6
81 +30
82 +20
83 +14
84 +20
85 +22
86 +18
87 +28
88 +26
89 +60
90 -32
91 -24
92 -2
93 +18
94 -24
Note the shift since 1990; the West is getting stronger. The East was stronger
throughout the 80s.
Mike
Aubrey S. Powell
Refresh my memory. In what Finals series in the 1980's did the
Lakers play Chicago?
-Scott