mysticOscar wrote:I dont have much qualms with what you have posted. You have your opinions and it all seems reasonable enough.
Thank you and respect. You seem reasonable enough yourself. And you're asking good questions...
mysticOscar wrote:>how much credit do we give to Jordan, his playstyle, his drive, his competitive nature in cultivating Pippen, Grant and the rest of the Bulls?
I mean i know Jordans on/off court style wasnt for everyone (turned some players off)...but for the people that did resonate with MJ....do we give him credit? Much like Steve Jobs and Apple...how much credit do we give him? Was it just fortunate circumstances for Jobs? Jordan?.
I wish I had something smart to say about Jobs but all I know is the movie they made about him... ...So I'll stick to basketball... Jordan's playstyle? Superior to LeBron's anyway. Why? A few things but primarily that Jordan has that killer midrange game whereas LeBron's jumper is just alright. I know LeBron is more of a slasher/facilitator, so it's a different approach, I still think Jordan is more effective because while LeBron labors to always get into the paint or playmake like an oversized PG, Jordan can simply get "easy" buckets (or buckets he makes look easy because he put so much practice into his shooting game) in those mid range sweet spots... That's my interpretation anyway, I'm sure somebody will now tell me "but LeBron plays the team game!" or something like that. If LeBron could score like Jordan and average those assists, then he really would be the GOAT. But he can't...
And Jordan's commitment, intensity, drive, competitive nature, whatever you wanna call it, it set the tone for the Bulls culture during the 90's... I think MJ does deserve credit for helping cultivate Pippen, Grant and crew. I think MJ's leadership deserves a lot of credit. MJ was no nonsense out there... but not like a... brooding, overly serious no nonsense either. Just the right focus, with a bit of passion for the game evident at all times. I really think that's one of the most admirable things about him actually, part of why he's the GOAT, he had such a mature demeanor and quietly magnetic persona. He had "it."
mysticOscar wrote:> You mention on your previous post that replacing Jordan with a top 12 player and they would have still achieve 3-4 rings (based on a year sample where the team overshot there SRS). With the tragectory of team wins that Jordan had from his 1st yr to Pippens rookie and 2nd year (considering Jordan was injured for most of his 2nd year).....if we replace Pippen and even also Grant.....how many rings would Jordan have got still? Was Pippen and Grant really that irreplaceable?
Complicated question.
So part 1: Grant and Pippen were both replaceable in theory. In reality, I don't know who would have replaced them? (Who did you have in mind to replace them?) But I guess what you're saying is, Grant was just a role player and Pippen may have been great, a Hall of Famer, but he wasn't like Drexler great... or like if you had Gary Payton as a sidekick or something like that. Those guys would be irreplaceable to how much success you had and Bulls would have even more success in that scenario, if that's even possible...
So part 2: Or, are you asking what happens if Jordan is left alone without a Pippen? I think Jordan is *worth* at least three rings... just all by himself... but in cruel reality would have only got 1 or 2 by himself. One for sure in 1991. (His series with Pistons and Lakers would have just taken longer to wrap up.) And maybe another one (a one-man upset of Sonics maybe) somewhere along the way... and the Suns series would be a close toss up based on how Jordan was able to perform at that time... But anyway, 2 or 3... but deserving of 3 or 4. ...I think 4 rings (or 4 Finals MVPs) is enough to have an argument that you're the GOAT. If Jordan and Pippen had only won, say, 4 rings, I'd still say Jordan is the GOAT... But Jordan and Pippen won another two titles for overkill purposes and more importantly, Jordan was still winning MVPs at that older age. So a guy like LeBron's got a lot to live up to these next few years...
Part 3: I expect the GOAT, with sufficient enough help, to be able to get about 4 rings / Finals MVPs. Why 4? Because you gotta have more than 3 Finals MVPs to separate yourself from the pack. (Currently there is a 4 way tie for 3 Finals MVPs.) So... with superior help (say Jordan had Barkley or the Mailman on his team), I expect more than 4 in that situation, I'd expect 6 rings. (And again, at least 4 Finals MVPs... But 6 rings, if you're the GOAT and have superior help for 6-10 years.) But Jordan had a less-than-upper-tier great player for his sidekick and he still got 6 anyway! It's the kind of thing that makes you go hmm... now how did that happen?
And then we come two conclusions... 1) It's because he's the GOAT. (Although I kinda think you can just tell this from watching enough of him.) And conclusion 2) This thread with its argument that Jordan never played a team that could truly challenge him. ...Both statements can be true at the same time...
mysticOscar wrote:>if a player you see was a GOAT player (as you admitted)...does it then become a surprise that he managed to get 6 rings?
No, it doesn't surprise me but here's why it doesn't: Like I said above, they had no team that was their equal. That's why it doesn't surprise me. If they did face a team to rival them in the 90's... and they still got 6... then that would be truly surprising. I would stand in awe of that accomplishment. And I'm not saying Jordan wasn't capable of it, I just don't find it likely. If there was really a team of comparable talent, Bulls probably would have lost at least one ring to them. And it would prove nothing about Jordan, but it would prove the Bulls weren't invincible... That all teams win ring totals relative to their competition's talent levels.
mysticOscar wrote: >Every great player who didnt win a ring will have an excuse (legitimate or not)...but where do we draw the line? I mean im sure i can come up with a line of legitimate excuses and unfortunate circumstances why i didnt make it to the NBA and became a GOAT at this sport (exxagerated example i know). But where is that line? Do we just use excuses for the players that didnt quite cross the line? And not give any credit to Jordan for achieving it?
I agree it's not an exact science. I hear your concerns. What you see as "excuses" though, I see more as simply providing context... as is only fair when assessing a player overall... Here's where I draw the line with LeBron: Context for 2015 is he was left shouldering all the burden against a great team. That's a year he gets a pass, benefit of the doubt. Doesn't mean he gets a "would-be championship" or anything like that. No, he still lost and that's that. But in evaluating him individually as a player, I don't hold the lack of a championship that year against him. Whereas I *do* in 2011 and 2014 because those were winnable series if he performs at a level of greatness in 2011 and a level of all-time greatness in 2014... I also think 2009 he could have at least made it to the Finals if he has a Jordan-like 43 ppg playoff series. But he came up a bit short. So I hold him accountable for those tough losses, too. But if he's playing on a roster hit hard by injuries and it's a roster that a year wasn't even in the playoffs? Then yeah, that Finals he was outmatched... I don't think the line is arbitrary, if that's what you feel, there's some reasoning behind it. So that's how we draw the line... we make our arguments and may the best argument win... and if you disagree with anything I just said there, that's fine (and ah well I tried)...
Looking at other players, for additional examples, Barkley and Malone no rings, to me they're both worth 1 ring at least, Malone maybe even 2... but it didn't happen, just too much competition in their time... Patrick Ewing, probably deserves a ring whole career considered (game 7s vs. Olajuwon and MJ)... Steve Nash, Dominique Wilkins, neither of those guys even made it to the Finals, but I'd say both are worth a ring. But it's arguable. But I'd say they're both a bit better than their trips to the Finals would suggest... Reggie Miller, more difficult case, but I'd be generous and say yeah throw him one too, because he played with the "heart of a champion"... Pretty much if you were a great player or ever came close to winning, I assume you were capable of winning a ring. But didn't because... "the NBA -- where circumstances happen." And it's up to us fans to be able to properly rank players not only based on rings but also on those circumstances. (However, it'll obviously be easier to make a case for a player who does have rings.)
As for not giving any credit to Jordan for his achievements... Hey man, I said he's the GOAT what more do ya want?... Is there some weird Jordan worshiping religion where it's a sin to even suggest that rings aren't the full picture? If so, that's the kinda attitude us other posters are talking about -- Jordan worship actually making it so we can't even discuss what happened and why. Look, I just try to be fair. So to be fair to Jordan now... I said another top 12 player in their prime with Pippen & company, versus the competition of the 90's era, they likely would get multiple rings. I'm not sure if I exaggerated or not when I said they could get as many as 4... but, I feel like it would definitely be possible. 6, however, I'd imagine that's too much... Only Jordan could do that while working with merely Pippen, Grant/Rodman and other role players... I think that's a big part, maybe even the biggest part, of what makes him the GOAT. How instrumental he was to that Bulls squad. And to me, what I just said there, that's giving full credit.
Ps. The "94 team could have made Finals, so there Jordan overrated argument." It's only after three years of championship experience and Jordan and Jackson molding that team into a perennial contender. But I hear what they're saying, the team Jordan came back to was just waiting for him to step in and win them a few more rings, they could do it all but close the deal... Yeah I agree, so, when the closer comes back, they go 72-10, are at that time the greatest team ever. Makes sense to me. He takes him from potential Finalist to most dominant team ever seen at that time. That's the transformation level. And next two years they experience some burn out, so that's why they can't quite repeat the 72-10 feat, but do win a lot still and repeat the rings. None of that is possible without Jordan. Without Jordan, the later Bulls would just be a competitive team near the finish line, not a true contender. Now, if the argument is compare that with LeBron's rosters without him... There you may be onto something. But I would also counter, it says something too that LeBron (and coach) wasn't able to whip these rosters into winning ways, even without him... That they instead just collapsed in 2014, while he was still there even.
