Are Larry Bird & LeBron James better team players than Michael Jordan?

[1987_Lakers]

Bird
- Celtics record the year before Bird joined: 29-59
- Celtics the year Bird joined the NBA: 61-22
- Celtics in 1988: Eastern Conference Finals appearance
- Celtics in 1989 without Bird: 42-40. First Round Exit
- 8 ECF appearances in Bird's first 9 years in the NBA

LeBron
- Reached the 2007 Finals with one of the worst supporting casts in the NBA
- Cavs in 2009: 66-16 with Mo Williams as the #2 guy. ECF appearance
- Cavs record in 2010: 61-21 with no player averaging 16+ points excluding LeBron.
- Cavs record in 2011 when LeBron left: 19-63. 19-39 with Mo Williams.
- Heat record when LeBron left in 2015 before Dragic joined: 23-30.
- 6 Eastern Conference Finals appearances in the last 6 years

Jordan
- Bulls record in 1984 the year before Jordan joined: 27-55
- Bulls record in Jordan's rookie year where he averaged 28|6|6|2: 38-44
- Bulls record the year Jordan retired in 1994: 55-27


:confusedshrug: :confusedshrug: :confusedshrug:

[AnaheimLakers24]

6> 5> 2*
Kobe > bron

[SouBeachTalents]

In terms of impact on W-L record, Shaq should be mentioned as well

1992 Magic: 21-61
1993 Magic: 41-41

1996 Magic: 60-22, ECF appearance
1997 Magic: 45-37, 1st round exit

2004 Lakers: 56-26, NBA Finals
2005 Lakers: 34-48

[IncarceratedBob]

Michael Jordan mastered all aspects of the game, his perfect finals record says it all. Nobody is better than Jordan at anything regarding bball

[Jacks3]

Jordan: 6
Bird: 3
LBJ: 2

[DatAsh]

No need to make the team distinction really. Basketball is a team game, the better team player is the better player.

[hahaitme]

6> 5> 2*
Kobe > bron

http://i.imgur.com/50MR3za.jpg

[ThePhantomCreep]

Shouldn't there be an asterisk next to those feeble LeBron accomplishments? Something like:

2007 Finals*
66-16 record**
61-21 record***
6 straight ECFS ****

* played in unbelievably shitty EC
** won nothing with HCA
***again won nothing with HCA
****check your facts

[tpols]

Probably.. but neither are closing on a good team like jordan. Birds close but not Jordan level. Lebron closing ain't close at all.

[guy]

Bad argument. Always has been. Yet its constantly used here.

[Marchesk]

What was Russell's impact?

[J Shuttlesworth]

http://i.imgur.com/sMoyUsE.jpg

[LeBird]

Is this even a discussion? Jordan is nowhere near the team player either were. The impact both Lebron and Bird had on their teams, before and after, is striking. Jordan's? Not really. Jordan didn't have great intangibles that translated into a higher team ceiling; but credit to him he had tangibles that were arguably the greatest ever.

[Nikola_]

team play == AST/G :facepalm

[COnDEMnED]

http://i.imgur.com/sMoyUsE.jpg
Where is Ray Allen's mug pasted over one of Bronz chips?

[Roundball_Rock]

What was Russell's impact?

They were a mid-pack team before he joined and instantly became a dynasty--winning in his first year. After he retired they went from a dynasty that was the reigning champion to missing the playoffs. Fortunately for Boston, they sucked so much they were able to draft Dave Cowens and become a top team again quickly in the 70's (they still had Hondo).


In terms of impact on W-L record, Shaq should be mentioned as well

1992 Magic: 21-61
1993 Magic: 41-41

1996 Magic: 60-22, ECF appearance
1997 Magic: 45-37, 1st round exit

2004 Lakers: 56-26, NBA Finals
2005 Lakers: 34-48

:applause:

Miami also was nowhere to be seen after Shaq ceased to be an all-star player. Even from 2005-2007 whenever he was hurt Miami was a 0.500 or so team--just like LA went 24-29 without Shaq from 2000-2004 (Shaq without Kobe or Wade managed to keep LA an MIA afloat, though). Shaq is the most underrated top 10 all-time player.

KAJ should be mentioned as well. He took a 27 win expansion team to 56 wins and the conference finals as a rookie. The record is mixed regarding his trade but that is because LA had to give up an all-star, a 16/11 center and the #2 and #5 picks so it was not a straight up trade. MIL gained a lot of value, which is what KAJ wanted (versus leaving as a free agent) and LA had to largely gut its roster. Good examples though are KAJ having the 75' Bucks at 35-30--but they were only 3-14 without him. That is the difference between a 45 win team and a 14 win team. A similar story happened in 78'. LA went 7-13 without KAJ but was 38-24 with him. That is the difference between 50 wins and 29 wins.

Magic too. When he retired the Lakers went from 58 wins and the Finals to 43 wins and the first round.

What is interesting is Russell, Wilt, KAJ, Bird, Shaq, Magic, LeBron, Hakeem, Duncan (special case, though, since SA got Robinson back) all immediately had huge impacts on their teams and took them to the next level. They did not need many years of team building around them by a great GM to incrementally get there.

All that said, to be fair MJ later in his career had that kind of impact too after Phil, Scottie and Tex taught him how to play team ball. The 95' Bulls were 34-31 without him but 13-4 with MJ. He had a similar impact on the Wizards. Still, the record shows things are more complex than "GOAT gonna GOAT" or "6>X, Y, Z". If MJ was not taught how to play winning basketball by Phil, Tex and Scottie and if he did not have a great GM who gradually built--and then constantly retooled--a championship team around him he would not have had the team success he had. The stars aligned for him and yet all we hear is simplistic numerology whenever he is compared to other players who were not in as favorable a situation.

The question is why? It is fascinating to look at the "with and without" records for Jordan, Kobe and Wade. That suggests something specific to the SG position.

[Real Men Wear Green]

If you insist on analyzing players in this extremely flawed way that ignores the rest of the roster why don't you include the Bulls' record after MJ's second retirement? 13-37, a 46% drop in win percentage to go from Champions to the lottery.

[hateraid]

If you insist on analyzing players in this extremely flawed way that ignores the rest of the roster why don't you include the Bulls' record after MJ's second retirement? 13-37, a 46% drop in win percentage to go from Champions to the lottery.
It isn't a good example though. They their top 3 players and their coach giving a poor indicator. The first retirement is a more clear indicator

[Real Men Wear Green]

It isn't a good example though. They their top 3 players and their coach giving a poor indicator. The first retirement is a more clear indicator
This year's Heat have Wade missing 1 out of every 3 games. Even when he plays Wade has a clear decline in productivity. That's a major difference from a Bull's team that still has 50 greatest Scottie Pippen in his prime. The major flaw with this way of analyzing impact is that it completely fails to take into account who is left behind.

[pauk]

Yes, they were better team players, a bit more unselfish.... but like MJ said, "There is no 'i' in team but there is in win".... MJ was more selfish offensively compared to them, but it was not detrimental, especially not after 1990...

MJ was more like Kobe/Westbrook (mindset wise, offensively), just a super agressive score-first mindset, agressive like hell with the shots, just didnt give a damn (even when the shots aint falling), but.... actually better, actually hit most of his shots....

[Roundball_Rock]

Yes, they were better team players, a bit more unselfish.... but like MJ said, "There is no 'i' in team but there is in win".... MJ was more selfish offensively compared to them, but it was not detrimental, especially not after 1990...

Correct but it was less detrimental because 1) he became more of a team player 2) Chicago instituted a novel offense, the triangle, whose purpose was to force more ball movement 3) Chicago installed another player, Pippen, as the team's primary ballhandler/playmaker. So it was a combination of MJ becoming less selfish thanks to Jackson, Winter and Pippen but also of deliberate changes designed to force him to be less selfish. There was never a need to teach other top 10 all-time players, excepting Wilt, how to play team ball and how to not be selfish. There was no need to design an offense to get the ball out of Bird's hands, for example.


This year's Heat have Wade missing 1 out of every 3 games. Even when he plays Wade has a clear decline in productivity.

True but he did the same last year and the team still won 54 games and his production this year is similar to his 14' production. He is past his prime and not as good as he was even in 2013 but 2015 Wade is basically the same as 2014 Wade. Yet the Heat went from 54 wins to a 35 win type team.

[nba_55]

This year's Heat have Wade missing 1 out of every 3 games. Even when he plays Wade has a clear decline in productivity. That's a major difference from a Bull's team that still has 50 greatest Scottie Pippen in his prime. The major flaw with this way of analyzing impact is that it completely fails to take into account who is left behind.

Yeah, and let's ignore that Wade has been missing games every year since 2012.

[Dro]

yay another thread for the Jordan haters/stans to argue.....nice...

[Real Men Wear Green]

True but he did the same last year and the team still won 54 games and his production this year is similar to his 14' production. He is past his prime and not as good as he was even in 2013 but 2015 Wade is basically the same as 2014 Wade. Yet the Heat went from 54 wins to a 35 win type team.

Yeah, and let's ignore that Wade has been missing games every year since 2012.
And the point is that the Heat fell off more severely because prime Pippen and the rest of the Bulls' cast is a better unit than what James left behind in Miami, a broken-down Wade that has deteriorated to the point that Bosh was the franchise player until he got hurt. James could lead most teams to 50+ wins. Judging guys like him and Jordan by how hard the team falls off isn't logical because that's really just an indicator of how good a job management did of surrounding the star with talent and rebuilding in the star's absence. The Heat have been destroyed by injuries. That doesn't prove a thing regarding MJ vs James.

[Roundball_Rock]

And the point is that the Heat fell off more severely because prime Pippen and the rest of the Bulls' cast is a better unit than what James left behind in Miami, a broken-down Wade that has deteriorated to the point that Bosh was the franchise player until he got hurt.

Fair point that the Bulls were more stacked than the Heat but only once in NBA history has a team lost a GOAT-caliber player and remained a contender and that was the 1994 Bulls. To the OP's point, why was MJ's team the one exception? Boston without Russell, Boston without Bird, L.A. without Magic, L.A. without Wilt, Milwaukee without Oscar, Orlando without Shaq, L.A. without Shaq Cleveland without LeBron, Miami without LeBron, and so on all, without exception, collapsed without their GOAT-caliber player--and did so despite having NBA-caliber players replacing said GOAT-caliber player. These teams were at best 0.500 and first round fodder--and in some cases were out of the playoffs altogether. The Bulls replaced Jordan with a D-Leaguer, not a Deng or Rony Seiklay or Reggie Lewis.

The fact is the Bulls actually declined worse (55 win team to a 45 win team which meant a decline from #3 to #6 in the East versus a decline from #2 to #3) after they lost Horace Grant than after losing MJ. They could not replace at all Grant's rebounding and interior defense while they managed to offset some, although not all, of MJ's lost scoring among several players.

Keep in mind Phil Jackson himself reviewed the history of GOAT-caliber players entering the season and forecast to the team that the Bulls winning 42 games was the best-case scenario. Instead they nearly won the #1 seed (lost it by 2 games, due to Pippen and Grant missing a combined 23 games and Cartwright missing half the season). No one predicted the Bulls would make the playoffs. Most people had them at 30-35 wins. In contrast, many people expected the 15' Heat to be a 4th-5th place team in the East. All this talk about "they had Pippen" is retrospective. At the time, people assumed even with 28 year old Pippen the team would be in the lottery--including Phil Jackson.

The thing about Miami is all this is happening despite a solid replacement for LeBron and the emergence of Whiteside. Imagine the Heat without Whiteside. Would they even win 30 games?

[iamgine]

Question is phrased wrongly. It should be "Were Larry Bird & LeBron James more of a team players than Michael Jordan?" Then the answer is probably yes. But then again, I think Steve Kerr was also more of a team player than Michael Jordan.

Saying "better" made it seem like this quality made a player better for the team which isn't always true.

[ThePhantomCreep]

I have a better metric.

Number of lost series with HCA/being favored
Jordan - 0
Bird and LeBron - :lol

[34-24 Footwork]

Willing to entertain someone's argument about Bird being better than Jordan. He faced better teams and had more success in a tougher era. Just being real. On a more stacked team, granted.

LeBron? We gotta be honest. LeBron jumped through hoops in the weakest easter conference of all time to win rings.

[DatAsh]

The fact is the Bulls actually declined worse (55 win team to a 45 win team which meant a decline from #3 to #6 in the East versus a decline from #2 to #3) after they lost Horace Grant than after losing MJ. They could not replace at all Grant's rebounding and interior defense while they managed to offset some, although not all, of MJ's lost scoring among several players.


I agree with this point. It's more about a team's ability to fill the holes left by a player than anything.

93 to 94 and 94 to 95 were different situations though. 93 Bulls were coming off back to back championships. Regular season drive is almost certainly a factor there. For a team trying to beat the 93 Bulls in the playoffs, it's probably more like trying to beat a 67 win team than it is a 57 win team. 94 Bulls had something to prove in the regular season. 94 to 95 was the opposite situation, as they had already proved themselves the previous year. We'd be remiss not to consider human psychology.

Jordan and Grant were probably both worth about 10 wins or so(Grant a little less, Jordan a little more); Pippen would have most likely been worth 15 or 20 had he also left.

[Milbuck]

MJ was more like Kobe/Westbrook (mindset wise, offensively), just a super agressive score-first mindset, agressive like hell with the shots, just didnt give a damn (even when the shots aint falling), but.... actually better, actually hit most of his shots....
This isn't true. MJ was fully capable of understanding when his shots weren't falling, and was able and willing to contribute in a ton of other ways (defense, rebounding, playmaking, etc). He wasn't just some relentless gunner at all times. To me it's one of the biggest separators between him and Kobe, he was a more complete player in that he didn't just have the all-around game (Kobe did), but he was much more willing to use it when needed.

[guy]

Fair point that the Bulls were more stacked than the Heat but only once in NBA history has a team lost a GOAT-caliber player and remained a contender and that was the 1994 Bulls. To the OP's point, why was MJ's team the one exception? Boston without Russell, Boston without Bird, L.A. without Magic, L.A. without Wilt, Milwaukee without Oscar, Orlando without Shaq, L.A. without Shaq Cleveland without LeBron, Miami without LeBron, and so on all, without exception, collapsed without their GOAT-caliber player--and did so despite having NBA-caliber players replacing said GOAT-caliber player. These teams were at best 0.500 and first round fodder--and in some cases were out of the playoffs altogether. The Bulls replaced Jordan with a D-Leaguer, not a Deng or Rony Seiklay or Reggie Lewis.

This guy at it again :oldlol:

How about we ask a few other questions. Are each of those situations the same? When has something like when Jordan left the Bulls in 94 actually happened? I'm talking about a GOAT-caliber player leaving the defending champions with the rest of the championship core basically in their prime i.e. relatively young, experienced, and healthy, with the same coach and a ton of motivation. Cause none of those other situations are the same as that. Bird didn't get injured in 1985. Magic didn't retire in 1988. But if you have a good example, I'd love to hear it.



The fact is the Bulls actually declined worse (55 win team to a 45 win team which meant a decline from #3 to #6 in the East versus a decline from #2 to #3) after they lost Horace Grant than after losing MJ. They could not replace at all Grant's rebounding and interior defense while they managed to offset some, although not all, of MJ's lost scoring among several players.

Terrible logic. The decline probably had more to do with the Bulls probably not taking that season as seriously since no one was expecting Pippen to even be around. They weren't really playing for much.

Either way, let me change the scenario for better illustration. Jordan leaves before the 94 season and there win total only goes down by 2. Now lets say instead of Grant leaving before the 95 season for nothing, its Pippen instead that leaves for nothing and Jordan never comes back. That Bulls team with Grant and Kukoc as the best players probably doesn't win more than 30 games. And then you would probably say "OMG Jordan only had a 2 game impact and Pippen had a 25 game impact WTF!!!! IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT :hammerhead:." Except that's incredibly stupid logic. Lets say instead of Pippen leaving for nothing, Jordan was back on the team for the whole season and the core is Jordan/Grant/Kukoc/BJ etc. That team probably wins high 50s/low 60 games. But according to you, the Bulls would win like 32 games :oldlol:

The reason for this is because the Bulls still felt like they were playing for something when Jordan left, because Pippen was still around. If they had lost Jordan and then Pippen, that team flounders and is much less motivated. But that motivation wouldn't have gone anywhere if you had replaced Pippen with Jordan.

[hateraid]

This year's Heat have Wade missing 1 out of every 3 games. Even when he plays Wade has a clear decline in productivity. That's a major difference from a Bull's team that still has 50 greatest Scottie Pippen in his prime. The major flaw with this way of analyzing impact is that it completely fails to take into account who is left behind.

During Jordan's second retirement Pippen left the Bulls. So did Rodman, Kerr, and Phil Jackson. So it really isn't a clear indicator of Jordan's impact. the first retirement essentially replaced Jordan with Pete Myers and the Bulls were able to sustain a winning record, be a playoff threat, and Pippen was in the running for MVP. That is a much clearer indication

[guy]

If you insist on analyzing players in this extremely flawed way that ignores the rest of the roster why don't you include the Bulls' record after MJ's second retirement? 13-37, a 46% drop in win percentage to go from Champions to the lottery.

Not just that, but so many other things such as coaching, motivations, etc.

Seriously we just had a team this year that had a huddle going "1, 2, 3, 6 weeks!" There's probably at least 10 superstars in the league today you could insert into that team next year and they would win 20 more games. But season-to-season comparison and what they do with and without superstar X measures impact. :oldlol:

In the end these "how does the team perform with and without the superstar" comparisons to measure the strength of the supporting cast and how much impact the superstar has is almost irrelevant because how they play without the superstar has very little to do with how they play with the superstar. The dynamics and complementary aspects are just completely different.

[Young X]

Dwight Howard led a team with Nelson, Turkoglu, and Lewis to the finals and ECF. Orlando went from 37-29 with Dwight to 20-62 without him.

I guess he's a better team player than Jordan too? Or maybe there are other factors involved that you're leaving out?

Jordan led his TEAM to 6 rings and the 2 best records in NBA history.

[guy]

Jordan led his TEAM to 6 rings and the 2 best records in NBA history.

Doesn't mean anything. We didn't really know if Jordan was an impactful player until 2002 when 38 year old Jordan improved the Wizards by almost 20 games. :oldlol:

[riseagainst]

This guy at it again :oldlol:

How about we ask a few other questions. Are each of those situations the same? When has something like when Jordan left the Bulls in 94 actually happened? I'm talking about a GOAT-caliber player leaving the defending champions with the rest of the championship core basically in their prime i.e. relatively young, experienced, and healthy, with the same coach and a ton of motivation. Cause none of those other situations are the same as that. Bird didn't get injured in 1985. Magic didn't retire in 1988. But if you have a good example, I'd love to hear it.



Terrible logic. The decline probably had more to do with the Bulls probably not taking that season as seriously since no one was expecting Pippen to even be around. They weren't really playing for much.

Either way, let me change the scenario for better illustration. Jordan leaves before the 94 season and there win total only goes down by 2. Now lets say instead of Grant leaving before the 95 season for nothing, its Pippen instead that leaves for nothing and Jordan never comes back. That Bulls team with Grant and Kukoc as the best players probably doesn't win more than 30 games. And then you would probably say "OMG Jordan only had a 2 game impact and Pippen had a 25 game impact WTF!!!! IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT :hammerhead:." Except that's incredibly stupid logic. Lets say instead of Pippen leaving for nothing, Jordan was back on the team for the whole season and the core is Jordan/Grant/Kukoc/BJ etc. That team probably wins high 50s/low 60 games. But according to you, the Bulls would win like 32 games :oldlol:

The reason for this is because the Bulls still felt like they were playing for something when Jordan left, because Pippen was still around. If they had lost Jordan and then Pippen, that team flounders and is much less motivated. But that motivation wouldn't have gone anywhere if you had replaced Pippen with Jordan.


http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/kevin-garnett-reaction.gif

[Round Mound]

Yes. Cause they where also multipositional skilled players like that of Barkley and Magic too. They had skills that trascended their SF positions. Thats not a knock on Jordan though (the most dominant perimeter player ever).

[knicksman]

They were a mid-pack team before he joined and instantly became a dynasty--winning in his first year. After he retired they went from a dynasty that was the reigning champion to missing the playoffs. Fortunately for Boston, they sucked so much they were able to draft Dave Cowens and become a top team again quickly in the 70's (they still had Hondo).



:applause:

Miami also was nowhere to be seen after Shaq ceased to be an all-star player. Even from 2005-2007 whenever he was hurt Miami was a 0.500 or so team--just like LA went 24-29 without Shaq from 2000-2004 (Shaq without Kobe or Wade managed to keep LA an MIA afloat, though). Shaq is the most underrated top 10 all-time player.

KAJ should be mentioned as well. He took a 27 win expansion team to 56 wins and the conference finals as a rookie. The record is mixed regarding his trade but that is because LA had to give up an all-star, a 16/11 center and the #2 and #5 picks so it was not a straight up trade. MIL gained a lot of value, which is what KAJ wanted (versus leaving as a free agent) and LA had to largely gut its roster. Good examples though are KAJ having the 75' Bucks at 35-30--but they were only 3-14 without him. That is the difference between a 45 win team and a 14 win team. A similar story happened in 78'. LA went 7-13 without KAJ but was 38-24 with him. That is the difference between 50 wins and 29 wins.

Magic too. When he retired the Lakers went from 58 wins and the Finals to 43 wins and the first round.

What is interesting is Russell, Wilt, KAJ, Bird, Shaq, Magic, LeBron, Hakeem, Duncan (special case, though, since SA got Robinson back) all immediately had huge impacts on their teams and took them to the next level. They did not need many years of team building around them by a great GM to incrementally get there.

All that said, to be fair MJ later in his career had that kind of impact too after Phil, Scottie and Tex taught him how to play team ball. The 95' Bulls were 34-31 without him but 13-4 with MJ. He had a similar impact on the Wizards. Still, the record shows things are more complex than "GOAT gonna GOAT" or "6>X, Y, Z". If MJ was not taught how to play winning basketball by Phil, Tex and Scottie and if he did not have a great GM who gradually built--and then constantly retooled--a championship team around him he would not have had the team success he had. The stars aligned for him and yet all we hear is simplistic numerology whenever he is compared to other players who were not in as favorable a situation.

The question is why? It is fascinating to look at the "with and without" records for Jordan, Kobe and Wade. That suggests something specific to the SG position.


But still

bosh>>rodman
yet jordan/rodman improved the team from 45 to 72 compared to bosh/bran from 47 to 58. But nevermind, 2/5 just speaks for itself.

[OldSchoolBBall]

These fvcking Jordan haters cling to the 55 win 1994 shit like it's gospel. :oldlol:

[Smoke117]

These fvcking Jordan haters cling to the 55 win 1994 shit like it's gospel. :oldlol:

:yaohappy:

[97 bulls]

This guy at it again :oldlol:

How about we ask a few other questions. Are each of those situations the same? When has something like when Jordan left the Bulls in 94 actually happened? I'm talking about a GOAT-caliber player leaving the defending champions with the rest of the championship core basically in their prime i.e. relatively young, experienced, and healthy, with the same coach and a ton of motivation. Cause none of those other situations are the same as that. Bird didn't get injured in 1985. Magic didn't retire in 1988. But if you have a good example, I'd love to hear it.



Terrible logic. The decline probably had more to do with the Bulls probably not taking that season as seriously since no one was expecting Pippen to even be around. They weren't really playing for much.

Either way, let me change the scenario for better illustration. Jordan leaves before the 94 season and there win total only goes down by 2. Now lets say instead of Grant leaving before the 95 season for nothing, its Pippen instead that leaves for nothing and Jordan never comes back. That Bulls team with Grant and Kukoc as the best players probably doesn't win more than 30 games. And then you would probably say "OMG Jordan only had a 2 game impact and Pippen had a 25 game impact WTF!!!! IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT :hammerhead:." Except that's incredibly stupid logic. Lets say instead of Pippen leaving for nothing, Jordan was back on the team for the whole season and the core is Jordan/Grant/Kukoc/BJ etc. That team probably wins high 50s/low 60 games. But according to you, the Bulls would win like 32 games :oldlol:

The reason for this is because the Bulls still felt like they were playing for something when Jordan left, because Pippen was still around. If they had lost Jordan and then Pippen, that team flounders and is much less motivated. But that motivation wouldn't have gone anywhere if you had replaced Pippen with Jordan.
Heres the problem with your reasoning as I see it. What the Bulls did in 94 has less to do with Jordans impact and more to do with how good they were. Jordan fans keep trying to push the theme that the Bulls sucked outside of Jordan. This will always be the rebutal.

And for goodness sake stop saying they were the same team. They weren't. On paper it was close, but Paxson and Cartwight played sparingly. Williams was hurt, King was traded in the middle of the season, Tucker left, Longley, Kukoc, Kerr, Myers, and Wennigton were not there during the threepeat. (The first one). The 94 Bulls are closer related to the second threepeat team than the first.

[97 bulls]

The reason for this is because the Bulls still felt like they were playing for something when Jordan left, because Pippen was still around. If they had lost Jordan and then Pippen, that team flounders and is much less motivated. But that motivation wouldn't have gone anywhere if you had replaced Pippen with Jordan.

This is a cop out. So what your saying is that all the other teams tgat were in similar situations, Celtics, Lakers, Magic, Heat, Thunder, basically quit or wont motivated when they lost their best player? Why cant you just give the Bulls credit?

[guy]

Heres the problem with your reasoning as I see it. What the Bulls did in 94 has less to do with Jordans impact and more to do with how good they were. Jordan fans keep trying to push the theme that the Bulls sucked outside of Jordan. This will always be the rebutal.

And for goodness sake stop saying they were the same team. They weren't. On paper it was close, but Paxson and Cartwight played sparingly. Williams was hurt, King was traded in the middle of the season, Tucker left, Longley, Kukoc, Kerr, Myers, and Wennigton were not there during the threepeat. (The first one). The 94 Bulls are closer related to the second threepeat team than the first.

Well, that was kind of my point. It's not a meaningful way to measure a superstar's impact AT ALL.

Well I didn't say same team, I said same core, referring to Pippen, Grant, and BJ.

[97 bulls]

This year's Heat have Wade missing 1 out of every 3 games. Even when he plays Wade has a clear decline in productivity. That's a major difference from a Bull's team that still has 50 greatest Scottie Pippen in his prime. The major flaw with this way of analyzing impact is that it completely fails to take into account who is left behind.
But you dont read what we read. The Bulls dynasty that won 6 championships along with setting the wins record, the second best single season record in win, along with a 67 win season, won because of Jordan only.

[guy]

This is a cop out. So what your saying is that all the other teams tgat were in similar situations, Celtics, Lakers, Magic, Heat, Thunder, basically quit or wont motivated when they lost their best player? Why cant you just give the Bulls credit?

Quitting and losing motivation is not the same thing. Did you not hear about what the Denver Nuggets did recently? That type of stuff probably happens all the time in the NBA in varying degrees. You're incredibly delusional if you think teams keep the same level of motivation regardless of the situation.

How am I discrediting them? I didn't even say anything bad about them.

[knicksman]

why again a 2/5 player being compared to jordan?

[G0ATbe]

Bird is the better player period. In every aspect except athleticism. LeBald is a horrible team player, in fact he makes his teammates worse.

[97 bulls]

Well, that was kind of my point. It's not a meaningful way to measure a superstar's impact AT ALL.

Well I didn't say same team, I said same core, referring to Pippen, Grant, and BJ.
And my reply would be that Pippen, Grant, and Armstrong didnt win those games by themselves either. I cant give all the credit to those three. But I get your point.

[Roundball_Rock]

Heres the problem with your reasoning as I see it. What the Bulls did in 94 has less to do with Jordans impact and more to do with how good they were. Jordan fans keep trying to push the theme that the Bulls sucked outside of Jordan. This will always be the rebutal.

Exactly. It is MJ stans who constantly invoke "6 rings! 6 rings!" and engage in mindless numerology when MJ is compared to anyone other than Russell (in which case suddenly rings are no longer the be all end all). If MJ stans constantly invoke the issue of team success inevitably people will look at, well, the team to assess how much of an impact the other players on the team had on said team success. No player, even MJ, wins by himself. You can't act as if team success is the dispositive barometer of a player and then ignore the fact that different players were in different team situations. Only one top-level all-time great had a team that could lose him in his prime (and in this case it was MJ at his peak, not just in his prime) and still finish only 2 games out of the #1 seed the following year. Does that matter? "Could" it have happened in other cases? These questions are subjective but it is a historical fact that only one top-level all-time great had a team that proved it could do this.

Orlando still had Penny without Shaq and crumbled.
L.A. still had Kobe without Shaq and crumbled.
Boston still had McHale, Parish and replaced Bird with Reggie Lewis and crumbled.
Miami still had Wade, Bosh and added Whiteside while replacing LeBron with Deng and still crumbled.

And so on. Every other time a team was put in that position it utterly collapsed. That speaks volumes about the relative superiority of the "supporting cast" MJ had around him. No one else had a cast battling for the #1 seed without him. :oldlol: Put prime KAJ, Wilt, LeBron or Shaq on those teams and they would have more rings too.

[guy]

Exactly. It is MJ stans who constantly invoke "6 rings! 6 rings!" and engage in mindless numerology when MJ is compared to anyone other than Russell (in which case suddenly rings are no longer the be all end all). If MJ stans constantly invoke the issue of team success inevitably people will look at, well, the team to assess how much of an impact the other players on the team had on said team success. No player, even MJ, wins by himself. You can't act as if team success is the dispositive barometer of a player and then ignore the fact that different players were in different team situations. Only one top-level all-time great had a team that could lose him in his prime (and in this case it was MJ at his peak, not just in his prime) and still finish only 2 games out of the #1 seed the following year. Does that matter? "Could" it have happened in other cases? These questions are subjective but it is a historical fact that only one top-level all-time great had a team that proved it could do this.

Orlando still had Penny without Shaq and crumbled.
L.A. still had Kobe without Shaq and crumbled.
Boston still had McHale, Parish and replaced Bird with Reggie Lewis and crumbled.
Miami still had Wade, Bosh and added Whiteside while replacing LeBron with Deng and still crumbled.

And so on. Every other time a team was put in that position it utterly collapsed. That speaks volumes about the relative superiority of the "supporting cast" MJ had around him. No one else had a cast battling for the #1 seed without him. :oldlol: Put prime KAJ, Wilt, LeBron or Shaq on those teams and they would have more rings too.

And it's a historical fact that there's really no situation that was comparable. Your dumbass just likes to oversimplify basketball into a math problem that actually means something, ignoring everything else in the process, because it serves your pathetic agenda. Keep fighting that good fight though RR :oldlol:

[Cali Syndicate]

Orlando still had Penny without Shaq and crumbled.
L.A. still had Kobe without Shaq and crumbled.
Boston still had McHale, Parish and replaced Bird with Reggie Lewis and crumbled.
Miami still had Wade, Bosh and added Whiteside while replacing LeBron with Deng and still crumbled.



First, Orlando didn't crumble. Feasible they win 50+ games had penny not missed 20+games. They even took a 60win heat team to a five game series.

None of the Lakers core returned, neither did the coach. New coach, new players, injured star....crumble crumble.

Boston, They crumbled because Reggie Lewis Died. They crumbled because everyone was old. The season following bird, they still did alright.

Miami crumbled. A bosh led team isn't going to be successful.

The 94 Bulls, the core remained. The core were all healthy and in their primes. They added solid rotational players. They just came off a 3-peat. How is this the same as the above?

[knicksman]

You can combine wilt and brans records and still wouldnt stand a chance against 6/6. 4/12? :coleman:

[Roundball_Rock]

The 94 Bulls, the core remained. The core were all healthy and in their primes.

That is a myth. If they were as healthy as they were in 93' they would have won the #1 seed and probably reached the Finals, given the importance of HCA in the Knicks series. Pippen missed 10 games, Grant 12 and Cartwright half the season. When Pippen and Grant played they were on a 63 win pace.


e. Feasible they win 50+ games had penny not missed 20+games. They even took a 60win heat team to a five game series.

Theoretically possible but it did not happen. Despite a great playoff performance from Penny they nonetheless were bounced in the first round.


None of the Lakers core returned, neither did the coach. New coach, new players, injured star....crumble crumble.


Worthy and co. were all back for 92' and went from 58 wins to 43 wins and the first round.

Edit: you meant the 2005 Lakers. Kobe was back and they got Odom and Butler for Shaq. They did not lose Shaq without getting any value in return.

The 2005' Lakers struggles was easy to see if you look at their 24-29 mark without Shaq from 2000-2004. They simply were not a good team without the MDE. I see your points regarding 2005 but we have a large sample size from 2000-2004 that exposed the team sans Shaq.

Look up Shaq's team's records without him from 1993-2007. You will consistently find a sharp drop-off when he got hurt, which he did nearly every year, usually for 10-15 games, hence only 1 MVP.


Boston, They crumbled because Reggie Lewis Died. They crumbled because everyone was old. The season following bird, they still did alright.

When people talk about Bird they don't mean 93', the year after old Bird retired, but 89', the year where Bird played only 6 games (and after a year where Bird was runner-up MVP). The Celtics went from 57 wins and the Finals in 87' to 42 wins and first round fodder despite McHale, Parish still being there and Lewis, a great talent, replacing Bird.



Miami crumbled. A bosh led team isn't going to be successful.


That is with hindsight. Before the season most people had the Heat as a 4th-5th place team in the East with a shot at 50 wins with Bosh, Wade and a solid replacement at SF in Deng added to the same core that reached the Finals the previous year. This was obviously before the emergence of Whiteside. Instead the same crew that coasted--coasted--to 54 wins with LeBron has been fighting for its playoff life each night and will be lucky to win 35 games. Even before Bosh went down they were on a mid-30 win pace.

[Cali Syndicate]

That is a myth. If they were as healthy as they were in 93' they would have won the #1 seed and probably reached the Finals, given the importance of HCA in the Knicks series. Pippen missed 10 games, Grant 12 and Cartwright half the season. When Pippen and Grant played they were on a 63 win pace.



Theoretically possible but it did not happen. Despite a great playoff performance from Penny they nonetheless were bounced in the first round.



Worthy and co. were all back for 92' and went from 58 wins to 43 wins and the first round.

Edit: you meant the 2005 Lakers. Kobe was back and they got Odom and Butler for Shaq. They did not lose Shaq without getting any value in return.

The 2005' Lakers struggles was easy to see if you look at their 24-29 mark without Shaq from 2000-2004. They simply were not a good team without the MDE. I see your points regarding 2005 but we have a large sample size from 2000-2004 that exposed the team sans Shaq.

Look up Shaq's team's records without him from 1993-2007. You will consistently find a sharp drop-off when he got hurt, which he did nearly every year, usually for 10-15 games, hence only 1 MVP.



When people talk about Bird they don't mean 93', the year after old Bird retired, but 89', the year where Bird played only 6 games (and after a year where Bird was runner-up MVP). The Celtics went from 57 wins and the Finals in 87' to 42 wins and first round fodder despite McHale, Parish still being there and Lewis, a great talent, replacing Bird.



That is with hindsight. Before the season most people had the Heat as a 4th-5th place team in the East with a shot at 50 wins with Bosh, Wade and a solid replacement at SF in Deng added to the same core that reached the Finals the previous year. This was obviously before the emergence of Whiteside. Instead the same crew that coasted--coasted--to 54 wins with LeBron has been fighting for its playoff life each night and will be lucky to win 35 games. Even before Bosh went down they were on a mid-30 win pace.

Point still remains that the Bulls core stayed intact with pippen and grant, even Armstrong, in the midst of their primes and relatively healthy. You can't really say that with any other of those other examples.

With the 89 celtics, while Lewis was a solid replacement, he was basically still a rookie. And mcHale he was past his prime and definitely wasn't the same player he was. But even so, I'd say a developed Lewis in 89 and the celts are easily winning 50+ games. I reiterate, pippen, grant and bj all mid/late 20's in their primes. Celtics were aged by the time bird started missing games.

Lakers, odom and butler is not value compared to the MDE. Odom was potentially a good player. On the heat, he wasn't really considered good. Same with butler. Kobe was playing through injuries and two new coaches, I mean what else was supposed to happen though. Without Shaq and Phil, everyone saw a collapse.

With the heat, I also thought they'd be better. They are the only legit crumble from those you mentioned.

[Roundball_Rock]

With the 89 celtics, while Lewis was a solid replacement, he was basically still a rookie. And mcHale he was past his prime and definitely wasn't the same player he was.

Lewis put up 19 ppg and was in his second year. Compare that to Pete Myers. :oldlol:

McHale was past his prime but he was in 1988 too. We are talking about a year-over-year difference, not the 1986 Celtics versus the 1989 Celtics.


I'd say a developed Lewis in 89 and the celts are easily winning 50+ games.

McHale: 23/8
Parish: 19/13
Lewis: 19/5
Ainge: 16/3/5

How much more production would you need from them to go to 50+ wins???

[Cali Syndicate]

Lewis put up 19 ppg and was in his second year. Compare that to Pete Myers. :oldlol:

McHale was past his prime but he was in 1988 too. We are talking about a year-over-year difference, not the 1986 Celtics versus the 1989 Celtics.



McHale: 23/8
Parish: 19/13
Lewis: 19/5
Ainge: 16/3/5

How much more production would you need from them to go to 50+ wins???

Well, looking at the 90 season when they won 52, I'd say more than what you just posted. Ainge only played like half the season for the celtics in 89 too.

[Cali Syndicate]

But basically you're saying that they hardly missed a step without mj right? Barely a 2 game drop Off? And if pippen and grant didn't miss any games, they might have actually improved to 60wins at the pace they were winning ....an improvement. But The following season, the Bulls were a.500 team without grant right before mJ returns. So grant is a more impactful player than mj?