All-Time Best Player

What about the 92-93 Suns team that featured Charles Barkley's best season and an oustanding core of shooters and role players. Not to mention one of the most underrated point guards in NBA history in Kevin Johnson. That team won 62 games and would have won a championship in any season in the 80s, however they were beaten by guess who.

That reminds me, Danny AInge was comming off the bench for the Suns (and the Blazers before that), but was a starter for the Celtics. Does that mean the 90's were a tougher era (using your flawed Michael Cooper example)?

What about the 92-93 Suns team that featured Charles Barkley's best season and an oustanding core of shooters and role players. Not to mention one of the most underrated point guards in NBA history in Kevin Johnson. That team won 62 games and would have won a championship in any season in the 80s, however they were beaten by guess who.

That reminds me, Danny AInge was comming off the bench for the Suns (and the Blazers before that), but was a starter for the Celtics. Does that mean the 90's were a tougher era (using your flawed Michael Cooper example)?

Good point. Jeffs can't use the 'past his prime' excuse here because he put up the same numbers on Phoenix and Portland that he did in Boston.

That's completely a terrible argument. Terry Porter was better than Ainge, and Kevin Johnson easily was. Ainge started half of the 1992-93 season because KJ was injured. The Celtics didn't have a better guard to go to. (And Ainge was never that good to begin with.)

Do you feel the same way with Wilts, Kareems and Russells MVP awards?

Well, yeah, but I'm an extremist. A fair person would point out they had one key difference, all but one of their MVPs (Kareem's last) were given to them by their fellow players, not the media.

But Pippen was there during Jordans prime. So was Jackson. When MJ left the first time, Pippen was given the opportunity Jordan never was: to suceed without Mike when he (pippen) was still at his best. Pippen joined in 87, so Jordan had 3 years without him to start his career, and 2 at the end when he was a wizard.

That's not a detriment to Scottie at all, or Jackson as a coach. But Jordan was the engine to the Bulls, his value was much higher then the 2 games implied by JFS.

I wasn't arguing that it wasn't, simply that championships are won by teams, not individual players. Having the best player in the league (Jordan), the best (or one of the best) player at his position (Pippen) and a great coach (Jackson) certainly allows for more flaws in the remainder of the team and still be good. As the Lakers recently proved for a few years before it finally caught up to them.

When Russel retired, the Celtics went from 48 wins to 34. But was Russel measured on regular season wins or Championships?

They also lost Sam Jones and losing Russell meant they lost their defense. (90.1 pts per 100 poss against in 1969, 99.4 pts per 100 against in 1970...their offense actually jumped three points! They actually fell from a 55 win team to a 36 win team.)

That's completely a terrible argument. Terry Porter was better than Ainge, and Kevin Johnson easily was. Ainge started half of the 1992-93 season because KJ was injured. The Celtics didn't have a better guard to go to. (And Ainge was never that good to begin with.)

Of course its a bad line of thinking. I cant speak for indy, but im assuming he's on the same page as me: we were just giving a similar example of how his bench player arguement is flawed.

I wasn't arguing that it wasn't, simply that championships are won by teams, not individual players. Having the best player in the league (Jordan), the best (or one of the best) player at his position (Pippen) and a great coach (Jackson) certainly allows for more flaws in the remainder of the team and still be good. As the Lakers recently proved for a few years before it finally caught up to them.

I agree to a poin that its the team that wins a championship, but individual players also win. Russel's greatness is defined by winning 11 rings. Magic's is defined by winning as a rookie. Shaq's greatness is defined by winning 4 rings. It doesnt mean their teamates also didnt win either, but it doesnt detract from the leaders of the ballclubs either that it was actually the team that won the championship.

They also lost Sam Jones and losing Russell meant they lost their defense. (90.1 pts per 100 poss against in 1969, 99.4 pts per 100 against in 1970...their offense actually jumped three points! They actually fell from a 55 win team to a 36 win team.)

Ah not those projected stats again. They went from 48 wins to 34.

That's completely a terrible argument. Terry Porter was better than Ainge, and Kevin Johnson easily was. Ainge started half of the 1992-93 season because KJ was injured. The Celtics didn't have a better guard to go to. (And Ainge was never that good to begin with.)

Of course its a bad line of thinking. I cant speak for indy, but im assuming he's on the same page as me: we were just giving a similar example of how his bench player arguement is flawed.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say.

Ah not those projected stats again. They went from 48 wins to 34.

From +5.6 ppg, to -1.9 ppg. 7.5ppg difference.

Due to luck and circumstances not under control of the teams their records may be diffferent. But point differential displays the true strength of the team over the course of the season. (See: every season ever.)

Last edited by benji on Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

But 48 wins to 34 is a 14 game turnaround, not 19. Point difference doesnt equal wins/losses.

The only problem is most of these 6 guys you refer to are nowhere near the standard you wish to compare them to.

Oh, so now it has turned into from Jordan being the best to nobody else being close? Talk about biased!

I keep hearing Jordan being compared to Bird, Magic, Big O, Wilt, Russell, ect. But what you fail to realize is in their eras he would still be king, ask Magic and Bird. Turn MJ loose in the 60's? I don't even gotta explain that one, do I?

Jordan played on the court with Bird, Magic and Kareem. An old Kareem still played good on the same court as Jordan. An old Wilt still managed 18 rebounds a game on the same court as young Kareem. There you go - a simple connect the dots proving you completely wrong.

And we also have recent examples of 40 year old John Stockton (who played against Kareem, etc.) still able to hang on the court just a few years ago against these supposed greater players of today.

You can rack up big numbers against weaker competition, and in a league with nearly twice as many possesions per game as well

Nowhere near twice as many possesions, but you've already shown you have little regard for facts. So when Oscar is playing a 4 team eastern conference, with 2 of the top 5 players ever on those teams - that is weaker competition?

Team success? lets count the rings shall we?

OK, Bill Russell is the greatest ever.

So you're regurgatating points taken from a site that feels Jordans greatness was just about popularity?

Way to once again twist the truth. Maybe you didn't look at the whole site, but it clearly looks at all major criteria and clearly explains how others beat Jordan out.

The facts are firm. To say Jordan is far above others is to be childish and deny reality. You can continue to spin facts and twist arguments into all directions, but reality cannot be changed.

Can one make a logical argument for Jordan be the best ever? Yes, of course. But to get angry and say there is no possible argument for others being the best is downright obnoxious.

Jordan played on the court with Bird, Magic and Kareem. An old Kareem still played good on the same court as Jordan. An old Wilt still managed 18 rebounds a game on the same court as young Kareem. There you go - a simple connect the dots proving you completely wrong.

The point I'm making is not who played on the court with whom. What was said is MJ would be as dominant in those eras as he was this era. He was the first of his kind, or type of player should we say. I am by no means denying any other legend of their fame, just clarifying that he is the king of the legends. Russell, greatest defensive player ever, no doubt, but the game is alien now compared to the moves he saw back then. Another point against Russell is he doesn't have the total package, meaning offensive dominance. The argument of Bird and Magic can be understood because they did so many this well, but unless my memory serves me wrong they never won defensive player of the year. Wilt is the only true debate, he dominated in many statistical areas. He was bigger and stronger than virtually all the others C's back then, aka Shaq. But do you really believe he was stronger than everyone else to ever play? If we plugged Shaq in Wilt's 60's/70's shoes we would get the same numbers.

Quote:

The only problem is most of these 6 guys you refer to are nowhere near the standard you wish to compare them to.


Oh, so now it has turned into from Jordan being the best to nobody else being close? Talk about biased!

The keyword is underlined.

Way to once again twist the truth. Maybe you didn't look at the whole site, but it clearly looks at all major criteria and clearly explains how others beat Jordan out.

Biased is this "site" you posted alink to. I read the whole thing, he had some points, but he missed a few as well. Too much hate to properly present his case. Probably Craig Ehlo's my space page.

Shaq played against a lot of the same guys that older Kareem was able to be competitive with. Shaq would have had to deal with Russell guarding him once every 8 games.

Good point about Jordan winning defensive player of the year.

Shaq played against a lot of the same guys that older Kareem was able to be competitive with. Shaq would have had to deal with Russell guarding him once every 8 games.

While this is true, you don't believe Shaq would have held his own against Russell? Wilt did and Big boy may have more moves than Wilt did.

Oh, so now it has turned into from Jordan being the best to nobody else being close? Talk about biased!

Talk about being a retrad. I said that you differences in standards are no where near the same. Not that Jordan is completely unchallenged at the top.

Jordan played on the court with Bird, Magic and Kareem. An old Kareem still played good on the same court as Jordan. An old Wilt still managed 18 rebounds a game on the same court as young Kareem. There you go - a simple connect the dots proving you completely wrong.

Kareem was in the NBA for close to 20 years, the game changed alot. Thats like trying to compare moses malone to yao ming, becuase a young jordan played against malone, and a young yao (lol) played against an older jordan.

And we also have recent examples of 40 year old John Stockton (who played against Kareem, etc.) still able to hang on the court just a few years ago against these supposed greater players of today.

What is your point exactly?

Nowhere near twice as many possesions, but you've already shown you have little regard for facts.

In 1962, teams averaged 108 shots per game. In 2002, the average was 81. 27 shots on both ends is 54 more shot attempts for blocking, rebounding and scoring.

So when Oscar is playing a 4 team eastern conference, with 2 of the top 5 players ever on those teams - that is weaker competition?

Wilt being top 5 is open for debate. How many times did Oscar win those big games against Wilt and Russel?

OK, Bill Russell is the greatest ever.

I wouldn't argue Russell being considered the best.

Way to once again twist the truth. Maybe you didn't look at the whole site, but it clearly looks at all major criteria and clearly explains how others beat Jordan out.

Lol, you're such a loser. Look at you're own posting style and quotes before criticising others.

The facts are firm. To say Jordan is far above others is to be childish and deny reality. You can continue to spin facts and twist arguments into all directions, but reality cannot be changed.

Can one make a logical argument for Jordan be the best ever? Yes, of course. But to get angry and say there is no possible argument for others being the best is downright obnoxious.

I'm not angry, I'm just disapointed that you havent really presented an arguement thats worth really breaking down. It's full of contradictions and double standards.

Talk about being a retrad. I said that you differences in standards are no where near the same. Not that Jordan is completely unchallenged at the top.

I was responding to someone else's quotes there.

Kareem was in the NBA for close to 20 years, the game changed alot.

Yes and he was able to remain a good enough player to play 30 minutes a game up to age 40. If the level of play had advanced so much in Jordan's time then Kareem would not still have been able to play.

Thats like trying to compare moses malone to yao ming, becuase a young jordan played against malone, and a young yao (lol) played against an older jordan.

If someone said Yao was better than Moses because of the current level of play being far more advanced, this would be a perfect example. The Stockton example is just another one showing that the league does not evolve every year to the degree that some people think it does.

In 1962, teams averaged 108 shots per game. In 2002, the average was 81. 27 shots on both ends is 54 more shot attempts for blocking, rebounding and scoring.

That would be 25% more and it is interesting that you choose 2002. I guess Jordan was also the best player in 2002.

Reduce Oscar's 1962 stats by 25% and you get:
9.4 rebounds, 8.6 assists, 23.1 points
Not too shabby.

The Big O :

That would be 25% more and it is interesting that you choose 2002. I guess Jordan was also the best player in 2002.

Reduce Oscar's 1962 stats by 25% and you get:
9.4 rebounds, 8.6 assists, 23.1 points
Not too shabby.

So 40 year old Mj had: 22.9, 5.7, 5.2. pretty great for an over the hill SG. By this logic lets add 25% to Mj's stats:
28.6 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 6.5 apg...at 40. 62 was Big O's 2nd year, 24-25 years old maybe.

If you want to look at longevity numbers then Kareem is the man with 18 all star games in 20 years played, and almost 6,000 more points scored than Jordan.

What I'm looking at has Jordan as 38 for when he put up those numbers.

Kareem at 38 = 23.4 pt, 6.1 reb, 3.5 ast, 1.6 blk
Karl Malone at 38 = 22.4 pt, 8.6 reb, 4.3 ast, 1.9 stl, .7 blk
John Stockton at 38 = 11.5 pt, 8.7 ast, 1.6 stl

No, I'm not saying Malone and Stockton are better than Jordan. I'm just trying to think of other players that did good at that age.

Average shot attempts per game in 88-89 was 90 per team.

Thats like 16.5% less shots than in 62.

Mj in 88-89 was: 32.5ppg, 8 rpg, 8 apg.

In theory 1962 Mj at 24-25 years old would have had:
37.8, 9.32, 9.32

62 Big O: 30.8, 12.5, 11.4

survey says............

Michael Jordan, close topic, thread over.

'nuf said.

While this is true, you don't believe Shaq would have held his own against Russell? Wilt did and Big boy may have more moves than Wilt did.

Shaq is not on the same level of Wilt in terms of post skill or moves. Shaq basically slowly backs in, usually shoulder rams his defender, and tosses up a lay-up or dunk. I've considered his "move" nothing but an offensive foul for years, i wonder why they started just calling it now.

Wilt had a wide array of moves, including a spinning 180 jump shot that he would bank off the very top of the backboard, the most unblockable shot in basketball, even more than the skyhook (which Wilt could block). Wilt also had a bizarre spinning jump backwards layup where he would Dream-shake one way and as the defender cheated in that direction Wilt would spin the other way and extend his arm backwards and lay a tear drop in. In transition there's no contest...Wilt was known for his unusually fast sprint speed, and often grabbed a few steals per game by intercepting passing lanes.

Maybe if the young Shaq was forced to learn some moves intead of just being allowed to shove his way to the basket he could have surpassed Wilt...but unfortunately the Shaq we have now isn't capable of scoring even 20 on Desagana Diop, and mainly relies on alley-oops and feeds from his guards.

I don't think I've ever seen Matthew agree with anyone on these boards, its funny to watch.

Interesting debate though fella's and for once this hasn't turned into a huge flame battle where nobody makes any points, bravo

Average shot attempts per game in 88-89 was 90 per team.

Thats like 16.5% less shots than in 62.

Mj in 88-89 was: 32.5ppg, 8 rpg, 8 apg.

In theory 1962 Mj at 24-25 years old would have had:
37.8, 9.32, 9.32

62 Big O: 30.8, 12.5, 11.4

survey says............

based solely on the stats you've just posted, survey says it's a tie....sure MJ has 7ppg more....however Big O has over 2apg more than MJ which converts to 4ppg....also another 3rpg than MJ....also, you haven't factored in the 3pt shot that wasn't around when the Big O played....sure MJ didn't shoot it that much or at that high a clip, but it probably attributed to 1-1.5ppg, which evens it out....

of course, this is based solely on the stats you've just provided, not my own personal opinions, as I tip my hat to MJ due to his ability to win, much like I tip my hat to Russell over Chamberlain....winning matters in the end, which is why guys like Magic & Bird are also seen at the top of their games at their respective positions....

based solely on the stats you've just posted, survey says it's a tie....

Almost, that's where Mj's will to win at the end of games come in. We all know Big O was great, averaged a triple double in 62, won a ring with Kareem and so fort. BUT we never heard about Big O taking over games and bringing his team back from down 20, hitting the game winning shots in the reg season, as well as the playoffs. 23 thrived in pressure situations, sure he didn't deliver on every opportunity, but he did more often than most players could dream of. Wilt scored 100 true enough, but at the end of the game Wilt couldn't save you because he was a horrible free throw shooter(think hack-a-shaq). And Russell made a huge turnover in the 64-65 finals, thats how we got the famous Hondo steal to seal the game. In the clutch Jordan stands above his GOAT peers(Big O, Wilt, and Russell) which might be the most important aspect as well.

....winning matters in the end

indeed.