RealGM

To start a franchise

Does the "big over small, except Jordan" rule apply here?

Kareem over Magic to start a franchise. In my opinion, every bit the offensive player that Magic is, and a defensive anchor to boot. Plus, you get 20 years out of him.

I'd go with Kareem. Centers I'd pick over Magic: Kareem, Hakeem, probably Wilt and Russel (never seen them play though), and maaaaaybe Shaq (franchise loyalty is an issue).

I'd pick Magic over other centers though.

Yes, big over small applies here...but no, Kareem is not Magic's equal on the offensive side of the court.

Yeah but IMO the difference on defense between Kareem and Magic is a bit more than the difference in offense

I'll take Kareem as well. Kareem has actually had teams that he had to build from the ground up so to speak. Magic always had a superstar on his team whether it was Kareem or Worthy.

JordansBulls wrote:I'll take Kareem as well. Kareem has actually had teams that he had to build from the ground up so to speak. Magic always had a superstar on his team whether it was Kareem or Worthy.

Worthy was never a superstar. His efficency collapsed the second Magic left town. He only made two All-NBA teams in his career.

Kareem. 38,317 points, a gazillion All-Defensive First Teams and hardware enough for Silicon Valley don't lie.

with either one, you get AT THE VERY LEAST (and this is expecting injuries, other great teams and superstars, and other factors going against them lol) one title. ill take magic though....he'd find a way..he was a winner the first time he got into the league...only guy i can think of who was that much of a winner right off the bat was bill russell. I think kareem was the greater player career-wise, but i'd pick magic for my team.

sp6r=underrated wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Worthy was never a superstar. His efficency collapsed the second Magic left town. He only made two All-NBA teams in his career.

And how do you expect him to make all NBA teams when Bird and Dr J are around?

Also yeah his efficiency went down after Magic left, but he was in his 30's anyway. And saying that Worthy was no superstar is like saying Pippen was no superstar. Look at what he did in 1999 with Houston?

Also if you are going to use age for Pippen then you gotta use it for Worthy. Afterall Worthy never got a chance to be the best player on the team in his prime.

Something else on how we know that Worthy was a superstar, go check his game 7 of the NBA Finals in 1988. The guy put up 36/16/10 in that game.

^is Robert Parish a superstar too?

JordansBulls wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
And how do you expect him to make all NBA teams when Bird and Dr J are around?

In 82/83 he got beat out by Buck Williams for the All-NBA team.
In 83/84 he got beat out by King and Dantley
In 84/85 he got beat out by Terry Cummings and Ralph Sampson
In 85/86 he got beat out by Alex English
In fairness to Worthy the competition in 86-87 -87/88 was brutal so I'll give him a pass.
In 88/89 he go beat out by Tom Chambers
In 89/90 while he made the third team he still finished behind Chambers

The players I listed above are very good players, but a superstar would be able to beat them out.

Since you bring Pippen into the picture.
In 93/94 and 94/95 he beat out Barkley and Kemp for first team honors, so you can't use the level of competition excuse.
Kemp and Barkley were much better than Tom Chambers ever was, and Pippen had a stretch were he was considered better. That's a superstar.

Scottie managed to make seven ALL-NBA teams (3 first, 2 2nd, 2 3rd), ten All NBA defensive teams (8 1st, 2 2nd) to Worthy's zero, and finish in the top ten in MVP voting 5 times which Worthy never did.

That's a massive difference in favor of Scottie.

JordansBulls wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Also yeah his efficiency went down after Magic left, but he was in his 30's anyway.

I know your a big believer in PER. Shouldn't a superstar at least have a PER above 20 in more than one season. Pippen did that on seven different occasions.

Pippen's average PER from 90/91 through 97/98 was 21.2 which is better than Worthy's peak season. In addition PER is mostly an offensive stat, Pippen blows away Worthy on defense.

JordansBulls wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
And saying that Worthy was no superstar is like saying Pippen was no superstar. Look at what he did in 1999 with Houston?
Also if you are going to use age for Pippen then you gotta use it for Worthy. Afterall Worthy never got a chance to be the best player on the team in his prime.

Magic left Worthy when Worthy was only 30, massive difference between that and Pippen joining Houston at 33. Let's compare what Pippen did at 28 and 29 playing without Jordan and what Worthy did without Magic at 30.
Pippen (PPG, RPG, APG, TS, PER)
93/94: 22.0, 8.7, 5.6, .554, 23.2
1ST Team ALL-NBA, 1ST TEAM ALL NBA DEFENSE (3rd Mvp Voting, beating out Shaq, Ewing, Malone, and Barkley) That's a superstar.
94/95: 21.4, 8.1, 5.2, .559, 22.6
1st Team ALL-NBA , 1st Team All-NBA Defense (7th MVP Voting
Worthy (PPG, RPG, APG, TS, PER)
91/92: 19.9, 5.6, 4.7, .490, 16.7

With no age difference of any value, Pippen proved he was a superstar, Worthy didn't.

JordansBulls wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Something else on how we know that Worthy was a superstar, go check his game 7 of the NBA Finals in 1988. The guy put up 36/16/10 in that game.

One game does not a superstar make.

You love criteria. So here's some criteria for a superstar.

At least have a few years were your considered a top 10 player in the league. Worthy never did and that's why he wasn't a superstar, Pippen did and that's why he is.

Back to Magic he lead a team to a title in 87/88 and to the finals in 88/89 and 90/91 with a guy who peaked out as a third team All-NBA. He proved he didn't need another superstar. Stop with the revisionist history.

sp6r=underrated wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

In 82/83 he got beat out by Buck Williams for the All-NBA team.
In 83/84 he got beat out by King and Dantley
In 84/85 he got beat out by Terry Cummings and Ralph Sampson
In 85/86 he got beat out by Alex English
In fairness to Worthy the competition in 86-87 -87/88 was brutal so I'll give him a pass.
In 88/89 he go beat out by Tom Chambers
In 89/90 while he made the third team he still finished behind Chambers

The players I listed above are very good players, but a superstar would be able to beat them out.

Since you bring Pippen into the picture.
In 93/94 and 94/95 he beat out Barkley and Kemp for first team honors, so you can't use the level of competition excuse.
Kemp and Barkley were much better than Tom Chambers ever was, and Pippen had a stretch were he was considered better. That's a superstar.

Scottie managed to make seven ALL-NBA teams (3 first, 2 2nd, 2 3rd), ten All NBA defensive teams (8 1st, 2 2nd) to Worthy's zero, and finish in the top ten in MVP voting 5 times which Worthy never did.

That's a massive difference in favor of Scottie.

I understand where you are coming from and I am the type to use things that actually happened vs what could have happened so I acknowledge your point, but I am wondering are you trying to say guys like Buck Williams, Bernard King, Adrian Dantley, Alex English, Terry Cummings and Ralph Sampson were guys he should have beaten out? Do you think Pippen would have beaten them out in all honesty?

sp6r=underrated wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



One game does not a superstar make.

You love criteria. So here's some criteria for a superstar.

At least have a few years were your considered a top 10 player in the league. Worthy never did and that's why he wasn't a superstar, Pippen did and that's why he is.

Back to Magic he lead a team to a title in 87/88 and to the finals in 88/89 and 90/91 with a guy who peaked out as a third team All-NBA. He proved he didn't need another superstar. Stop with the revisionist history.

I agree that one game doesn't make a superstar per se, however a game 7 of the NBA Finals with a 36/16/10 statline does IMO. It's like Frazier Game 7 in 1970 of 36/19.
As far as the 1988 campaign yes it is true Magic led them to the finals but Worthy was the best player on the floor in that series.

JordansBulls wrote:I agree that one game doesn't make a superstar per se, however a game 7 of the NBA Finals with a 36/16/10 statline does IMO. It's like Frazier Game 7 in 1970 of 36/19.

On Frazier, thing is, he averaged 23.7 points on 62.8 percent shooting from the floor, 89.5 percent shooting from the line and 69.1 percent true shooting, 6.7 rebounds and 12.7 assists after Willis Reed went down with the injury, and had a team-high 21 points on 68.5 percent true shooting, seven rebounds and 12 assists the very game Reed went down to lead New York to a 107-100 win. Frazier picked up the team after Reed's injury and led them to victory, and the Game 7 was the culmination.

That season Frazier was also First Team All-NBA (over Oscar Robertson) and fourth in the MVP voting behind Reed, Jerry West, and Kareem, so he was clearly already a superstar even before that game.

JordansBulls wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I agree that one game doesn't make a superstar per se, however a game 7 of the NBA Finals with a 36/16/10 statline does IMO. It's like Frazier Game 7 in 1970 of 36/19.
As far as the 1988 campaign yes it is true Magic led them to the finals but Worthy was the best player on the floor in that series.

You lost me here. Agree with you in general on Worthy, but Frazier was a superstar.

Doctor MJ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



You lost me here. Agree with you in general on Worthy, but Frazier was a superstar.

You really think Worthy was a superstar. I understand its a vague term, but shouldn't a superstar be at least for one season a top ten player in the league. I know your a believer in MVP voting, shouldn't a superstar have at least one year ranking in the top 10 in MVP voting. If Worthy is a superstar what does the term even mean.

I think the term superstar is thrown around too liberally. But Pippen was better than Worthy, except in big games.

sp6r=underrated wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



You really think Worthy was a superstar. I understand its a vague term, but shouldn't a superstar be at least for one season a top ten player in the league. I know your a believer in MVP voting, shouldn't a superstar have at least one year ranking in the top 10 in MVP voting. If Worthy is a superstar what does the term even mean.

Guess I confused posters there. Frazier was a superstar, Worthy wasn't.