19 Jul 10
Originally posted by sh76MJ is a "LOOK AT ME" type of guy.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5391478&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines
"There's no way, with hindsight, I would've ever called up Larry, called up Magic and said, 'Hey, look, let's get together and play on one team,' "
I knew MJ, I watched MJ and Lebron, you're no MJ.
LeBron is 25 years old and the teams he has played on have done much better in the playoffs than the teams MJ played on up to when he was the same age. MJ didn't win a Championship until he was 28 in fact. In truth, Jordan was and is vastly overrated; he did not have the immediate impact on his team that the more well-rounded Larry and Magic did.
19 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderMJ didn't win a Championship until he was 28 in fact.
MJ is a "LOOK AT ME" type of guy.
LeBron is 25 years old and the teams he has played on have done much better in the playoffs than the teams MJ played on up to when he was the same age. MJ didn't win a Championship until he was 28 in fact. In truth, Jordan was and is vastly overrated; he did not have the immediate impact on his team that the more well-rounded Larry and Magic did.
Yes, but thereafter, we won a title in every season in which he played a full season until he had 6. Bird was a better pure shooter and Magic a better passer, but no one had the whole package that MJ did.
Jordan hit virtually every clutch late game shot en route to 6 titles. Pippen was no Kareem and the Pippen/Kukoc/Grant were no McHale/Parrish/DJ.
I don't see how one could fairly call MJ overrated.
19 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderI would agree only to a point. Jordan did not have the surrounding talent that Larry and Magic came into either. I believe that if Larry or Magic had been the only player of note on their respective teams, they may have had similar fates.
MJ is a "LOOK AT ME" type of guy.
LeBron is 25 years old and the teams he has played on have done much better in the playoffs than the teams MJ played on up to when he was the same age. MJ didn't win a Championship until he was 28 in fact. In truth, Jordan was and is vastly overrated; he did not have the immediate impact on his team that the more well-rounded Larry and Magic did.
However, with talent around them, no one who knows basketball would take Larry or Magic in their prime over Jordan. I loved watching all 3 of them play and all of them had the never say die attitude and the will to get the job done whatever it took. One on one, Jordan beats both players hands down.
19 Jul 10
Originally posted by sh76MJ's "whole package" was inferior to both. Both were better rebounders and passers; both were better 3-point and free throw shooters. MJ scored more because he shot more.
[b]MJ didn't win a Championship until he was 28 in fact.
Yes, but thereafter, we won a title in every season in which he played a full season until he had 6. Bird was a better pure shooter and Magic a better passer, but no one had the whole package that MJ did.
Jordan hit virtually every clutch late game shot en route to 6 titles. Pippen was no Karee ...[text shortened]... /Kukoc/Grant were no McHale/Parrish/DJ.
I don't see how one could fairly call MJ overrated.[/b]
Jordan was somewhat lucky that by the early 90's the quality of the league had decreased. Magic and Bird would have won more titles (and they had 8 between them) if they hadn't had to compete against each other in their prime.
19 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by shortcircuitBe serious.
I would agree only to a point. Jordan did not have the surrounding talent that Larry and Magic came into either. I believe that if Larry or Magic had been the only player of note on their respective teams, they may have had similar fates.
However, with talent around them, no one who knows basketball would take Larry or Magic in their prime over Jorda ...[text shortened]... the will to get the job done whatever it took. One on one, Jordan beats both players hands down.
Magic Johnson in his rookie year and the tender age of 20 was inserted at Center in Game 6 of the NBA Championships due to an injury to Jabbar, a position he had never started at before in the NBA. He puts down 42 points, grabs 15 rebounds and hands out 7 assists to lead the Lakers to the title. As a 20 year old rookie playing out of position.
MJ hands down? Don't make me laugh.
19 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderI had to look at that first sentence again to make sure you typed MJ and not LeBron. LeBron is the biggest "LOOK AT ME" player in the NBA.
MJ is a "LOOK AT ME" type of guy.
LeBron is 25 years old and the teams he has played on have done much better in the playoffs than the teams MJ played on up to when he was the same age. MJ didn't win a Championship until he was 28 in fact. In truth, Jordan was and is vastly overrated; he did not have the immediate impact on his team that the more well-rounded Larry and Magic did.
You're comparing LeBron in his prime now (such as it is) versus MJ in his early years, which obviously was not his prime. Let's see in eight years if LeBron has 5 rings and is at the top of his game (such as it is), or if he's a nobody, a never-been, a washout. I know where my money is on this one.
20 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, obviously you know something that all of the remainder of the the knowledgeable basketball world do not. That is why MJ is regarded as 'the best that ever played".
Be serious.
Magic Johnson in his rookie year and the tender age of 20 was inserted at Center in Game 6 of the NBA Championships due to an injury to Jabbar, a position he had never started at before in the NBA. He puts down 42 points, grabs 15 rebounds and hands out 7 assists to lead the Lakers to the title. As a 20 year old rookie playing out of position.
MJ hands down? Don't make me laugh.
You can argue until you are blue in the face, but Larry couldn't out jump or out shoot MJ. Magic couldn't cover MJ. I am not saying that Magic and Larry were not great players...they were...MJ was the best.
If you want to go with the greatest pure shooter of all time, none of the three gets my vote. Pete Maravich was unequaled as a pure shooter.
20 Jul 10
Originally posted by no1marauderDo you remember the year MJ averaged a triple double through a 14-game stretch? Here is a hint: the year prior he won the Defensive Player of the Year award. Talk about an inferior "total-package." lol...
MJ's "whole package" was inferior to both. Both were better rebounders and passers; both were better 3-point and free throw shooters. MJ scored more because he shot more.
20 Jul 10
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeA triple double through 14 whole games? Oscar Robertson averaged a triple double for an entire season in 1961-62 and missed doing it again in 1963-64 by 7 rebounds. Defensive Player of the Year is a popularity contest; MJ wasn't anything special as a one on one defender.
Do you remember the year MJ averaged a triple double through a 14-game stretch? Here is a hint: the year prior he won the Defensive Player of the Year award. Talk about an inferior "total-package." lol...
Let's go to the stats: Jordan averaged 6.2 rebounds a game, Magic averaged 7.2 and the nonjumping Bird grabbed 10.0 per game. MJ is behind both of them in assists; Jordan 5.3, Bird 6.3, Magic 11.0. He couldn't shoot free throws as good as either despite all the practice he got whenever anybody breathed too close to him; MJ .835, Magic .848, Bird .886. His FG pct is well behind Magic's .497 to .520 and a fraction above Larry's .496 but 10% of Bird's shots were 3 pointers while only 7% of MJ's were. Of course, Larry was a much better 3 point shooter: .376 over his career compared to MJ's .327 (Magic wasn't as good at .303 being particularly poor early in his career so I stand corrected there).
So statistically there is no argument that MJ was better than Bird and little evidence he was better than Magic. Of course, he scored more per game but that was a function of how much he shot not of any great accuracy in his shooting. People growing up in the 90's were inundated with the MJ hype and have incorporated it into their mindsets, but there is no way Jordan was the "best ever" even if we omit the great players of the 60's who's numbers dwarf his like the Big O's.
People can yell insults all they want, but the stats don't lie.
20 Jul 10
Originally posted by SuzianneLeBron is not yet in his prime, in my opinion.
I had to look at that first sentence again to make sure you typed MJ and not LeBron. LeBron is the biggest "LOOK AT ME" player in the NBA.
You're comparing LeBron in his prime now (such as it is) versus MJ in his early years, which obviously was not his prime. Let's see in eight years if LeBron has 5 rings and is at the top of his game (such as it is), or if he's a nobody, a never-been, a washout. I know where my money is on this one.
20 Jul 10
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderStats don't lie, but they can be selectively quoted.
but the stats don't lie.
You left out the most important stat of all: points, in which MJ drawfed Bird and double dwarfed Magic.
You cavalierly dismiss the points edge by asserting that MJ "shot more" and rely on scoring percentage stats. But the converse could also be said: that his shooting % was lower because he shot more. Obviously, if you pass up the marginal shot and take only your better shots, you're going to hit a higher percentage of them.
As for the "league was better" argument, I don't buy it. You can only play the teams that are out there against you and can only be judged by that; anything else is speculation. You don't know if the league was really better in the mid 80s than the early-mid 90s. Maybe Magic and Bird and Isaiah and co. were better because the league average player was worse. There's no way to prove that any one era was worse than any other.