RealGM

JordansBulls wrote:took an organization that never won anything prior to him to multiple titles?

Can I ask you what your obsession is with this? What is it that would make winning a title with the Jazz so much less impressive than winning it with the Wizards? Especially when talking about individual player.

I'll be honest: in my 32 years, I've seen some completely arbitrary and nonsensical arguments about a great many subjects, but this personal crusade of yours is certainly among the pantheon.

Kobe 62 Mavs 61 wrote:

JordansBulls wrote:took an organization that never won anything prior to him to multiple titles?

Can I ask you what your obsession is with this? What is it that would make winning a title with the Jazz so much less impressive than winning it with the Wizards? Especially when talking about individual player.

I'll be honest: in my 32 years, I've seen some completely arbitrary and nonsensical arguments about a great many subjects, but this personal crusade of yours is certainly among the pantheon.

Because it means that you have done something many other players have not. Like taking the Hawks to a championship. There is a reason why they have never won a title. Some franchises don't really expect to win but just making the playoff's is their goal. Unlike the Lakers who are disappointed when they lose in the second round.

You are essentially turning around a culture. Michael Jordan made the Bulls into a respected franchise, Tim Duncan did the same thing with San Antonio. If CP3 can take the Clippers to a championship it will be huge. But I still don't believe the Clippers will ever win.....

The Hawks have won a championship, though...

G35 wrote: Because it means that you have done something many other players have not. Like taking the Hawks to a championship. There is a reason why they have never won a title. Some franchises don't really expect to win but just making the playoff's is their goal. Unlike the Lakers who are disappointed when they lose in the second round.

You are essentially turning around a culture. Michael Jordan made the Bulls into a respected franchise, Tim Duncan did the same thing with San Antonio. If CP3 can take the Clippers to a championship it will be huge. But I still don't believe the Clippers will ever win.....

So if MJ went to a winning franchise, played the exact same way, it wouldn't have meant as much if he won?

Do you then you feel that Magic/Kobe (picking LA) their titles rank lower than MJ's or Isiah's?

To me it is more about the character of the star versus the franchise.

Kobe 62 Mavs 61 wrote:The Hawks have won a championship, though...

Yeah but that was wayyyyyyyyy back in 1958.

Unless MacGill is using character in a very general way (which he may be, and in fact probably is, but I can't be sure), for me it's not about 'character' so much as 'how good they were when they played'.

Critical thinking is seen as a good thing, right? Without sounding overly preachy or whatever that word is, the method of critical thinking, basically, is to break **** down to their components and then compare those components, to find out what actually matters and what doesn't. So let's use critical thinking:

#1- You used the Hawks as an example, but they have in fact won a championship, which makes me think that not even you, defending this, truly believe the argument as JB framed it. A 'franchise that has never won before' is not actually the important part of that.

#2- You talked about cultures of teams, winning vs losing, and I reiterate that I mentioned the Wizards and the Jazz. The Wizards have won in the past and the Jazz have not, but I don't think any basketball observer would posit that the Wizards have a culture of winning where the Jazz do not. If anything, it's the other way around. So I propose that's a second piece of evidence that JB's 'franchise that has never won before' is not actually important at all- certainly not as important as he's implying- and actually, as I mentioned, rather arbitrary.

#3- So now let's investigate winning cultures and losing cultures and how players can effect it. Well, I propose that the best- and possibly only, let's be honest- way that they can effect it is by playing well. Play well enough, for long enough and the team is going to be better and the culture can slowly change. I think that would be a strong piece of evidence to suggest- breaking down the argument into components, being critical thinkers- that the more important thing that just 'changing culture' would be simply playing well.

#4- Why? Because a player that plays very well for a significant period of time in a winning culture is being unfairly penalized for something totally outside of their control as opposed to a player that plays just as well in a losing culture over a period of time to change that culture. Why would we allow that as observers? And how could we possibly objectify that subjective narrative? McGrady got a Magic team to the playoffs that sucked, and Kobe won a championship with Shaq on the Lakers. Is McGrady suddenly better now? Or, because the Magic had already reached the Finals- albeit with an entirely different team- the 'culture' wasn't bad enough to counteract his bad team? How does any of that make sense anyway: just compared the players on how they play!

#5- I think the conclusion is that we can accept that the vast majority of what JB is saying is just narrative. It means nothing. It is literally meaningless for most of what people, when they try to judge and rate and compare basketball players, are trying to do. It's arbitrary and ultimately pointless; it's a distraction that should be discarded.

Kobe 62 Mavs 61 wrote:Unless MacGill is using character in a very general way (which he may be, and in fact probably is, but I can't be sure), for me it's not about 'character' so much as 'how good they were when they played'.

That is exactly what I am alluding to here. The fact that we had game changing stars in hindsight dictate where they were going to play at also means that we very well may have seen lesser franchises by overall title appeal step into the game.

I agree that it means nothing also which is why I referenced what I did. That is the luck of the lottery selections and I don't use Chicago never won as a means to inflate MJ's greatness.

G35 wrote:
Because it means that you have done something many other players have not. Like taking the Hawks to a championship. There is a reason why they have never won a title. Some franchises don't really expect to win but just making the playoff's is their goal. Unlike the Lakers who are disappointed when they lose in the second round.

You are essentially turning around a culture. Michael Jordan made the Bulls into a respected franchise, Tim Duncan did the same thing with San Antonio. If CP3 can take the Clippers to a championship it will be huge. But I still don't believe the Clippers will ever win.....

Spot on with this. This is very important when guys are close to the same level overall.

JordansBulls wrote:
Spot on with this. This is very important when guys are close to the same level overall.

JB man, come on now!

Do all players even have the same lottery odds of going to a franchise that has won nothing before? Then break it down further having game changing players in that draft when then win opportunity?

I mean really?

JordansBulls wrote:

G35 wrote:
Because it means that you have done something many other players have not. Like taking the Hawks to a championship. There is a reason why they have never won a title. Some franchises don't really expect to win but just making the playoff's is their goal. Unlike the Lakers who are disappointed when they lose in the second round.

You are essentially turning around a culture. Michael Jordan made the Bulls into a respected franchise, Tim Duncan did the same thing with San Antonio. If CP3 can take the Clippers to a championship it will be huge. But I still don't believe the Clippers will ever win.....

Spot on with this. This is very important when guys are close to the same level overall.

Uhh, no it doesn't, and I just explained to you why. Critical thinking. Utilize it.

There's some sort of idea that Isaiah was some great scorer or that he was the clear cut best player and the one carrying the Pistons. Isaiah was definitely the leader on the Pistons and the most outspoken guy, but this idea that he was carrying these guys just has no basis. People just like stories so much more than they like the reality of what is actually happening,

i dont think its a competition anymore, dwade wins this

Wade's peak is so far beyond Isiah's that this isn't even a discussion to me. Wade's '06, '09, '10, and '11 seasons are well beyond anything Isiah was capable of.

og15 wrote:People just like stories so much more than they like the reality of what is actually happening,

Yep.

og15 wrote:There's some sort of idea that Isaiah was some great scorer or that he was the clear cut best player and the one carrying the Pistons. Isaiah was definitely the leader on the Pistons and the most outspoken guy, but this idea that he was carrying these guys just has no basis. People just like stories so much more than they like the reality of what is actually happening,

This. People need to base stuff on actual facts and stats instead of nostalgia.

Chosen01 wrote:

Geaux_Hawks wrote:Like I said, Wade would definitely still be a solid player, but consistently having to face tougher defenses would eventually get to him mentally. Not to mention being defended by better defenders and handchecked. He did pretty good for a rookie against the Pacers, but if it wasn't for those 2 games where he lived at the charity stripe, you would have thought he played like a rookie suppose to against such a defense. I think some forget Butler and Odom were good offensive players as well, that took defensive pressure off of Wade.

but consistently having to face tougher defenses would eventually get to him mentally.

And you know this how? Let's go by what we have and see that when healthy Wade has basically dismantled ELITE defenses his whole career outside of Chicago 2011. He did REALLY good for a rookie, 21pts 6apg on 47% shooting against a the a top 3 defensive team that was in the upper echelon of defenses for that DECADE ( a prime Ron Artest and Jermaine O'neal). If Wade could produce those numbers against one of the best defenses in the decade in his first season in a league that was still in the hand check era then that leads me to believe that even in his prime he'd still be a similar that he is today. And rightfully so, Wade is one of the best ball handlers at his position as well as one the strongest and athletic where he can still finish and maneuver his way through contact.


taking two games and saying "well if you take away these two games he has pedestrian numbers" is asinine, give credit where credit is due and stop hating. Which elite title contending team(which Heat weren't one at the time by the way) didn't have two other decent offensive options who could "take some pressure off of". Thats like saying well Magic/Bird had great offensive options as well that had pressure taken off them so let's discredit what they did.

Let's just agree that we don't know what Wade would have done then, because that is a very small sample size given against the Pacers. I could easily point out how bad he was against the Hornets, and no, I'm not trying to discredit Wade by any means. I even said he had a good series against the pacers. Just because I add in that he had some pressure relieved by others doesn't mean I'm discrediting him. By your logic, we might as well say Wade was guarded by Artest most of the game, blew by him, and finished over Jermaine O'neal because he obviously drew all the attention.

GAME TIME wrote:

Geaux_Hawks wrote:consistently having to face tougher defenses would eventually get to him mentally. Not to mention being defended by better defenders and handchecked. He did pretty good for a rookie against the Pacers, but if it wasn't for those 2 games where he lived at the charity stripe, you would have thought he played like a rookie suppose to against such a defense. I think some forget Butler and Odom were good offensive players as well, that took defensive pressure off of Wade.

I don't recall many great wing defenders in the 90s as there are today. 90s was known for having centers, but didn't have that many great wing defenders like in todays era. Wade would had flourished in that era. People always mention hand checking , like they still don't do handchecking in todays game. When was the last someone got called for a foul for handchecking. The 90s era called illegal defenses which made it easier for Jordan to score, without anyone able to play zone on Jordan's side, where he was able to have much more room to operate. I think Wade would be even better in the 90s without many great wing players and the rules they went by.

Rodman, Pippen, Moncrief, Dumars, Ron Harper, Starks, Payton, Alvin Robertson, Cooper, and Jordan would have easily kept Wade in check. Some of those guys won DPOY over all time great centers.

Zeke in fact was the best player on those Pistons teams. The team took on Zeke's mentality. Now, you do know the reason why the Pistons didn't 3peat don't you? Put it this way, the Pistons were up 3-2 against the Lakers in the Pistons first final appearance, and then Zeke sprained his ankle. The Pistons didn't win another game in the 99 Finals AFTER Zeke sprained his ankle. The better team was the Pistons. Yes, the Lakers had injuries the next championship series, but the best team had already been established before Zeke got hurt the previous year. (IMO).

I'm taking Zeke. Wade is fragile in today's game. He would be HURT during Zeke's era, a more aggressive era.

This is Wade and it's not that close. Thomas was a great emotional/spiritual leader of the Pistons but his actual impact on the game from an objective standpoint was way below Wade's. The difference in all the advanced numbers is too great to make up for with what Thomas brings. And I'm not some young "current player" fanboy. Been watching the NBA for forty years.

I'm pleasantly surprised how much Wade is dominating this poll. I thought for sure Isiah would win this debate.

Too many people voting that didn't see Isiah play in his prime.