What if the Bulls traded Jordan in 1988?

[guy]

Your whole argument is based on obscure stats of what happens when the player isn't even on the floor. Ironic.



You mean Michael Jordan? His biggest impact happened after 95 and 01??? The same guy that retired in 93 amongst the chorus that he was the greatest ever (or at least in the discussion)? Are we talking about the same person?



No...there's more context than what you are reading in Sam Smith's book. In fact, there are 10 books that hype the positive affects MJ had on the team to every one that highlights a negative.

There's a ton of evidence that goes against what you're saying. From 89 - 93 he averaged more assists than Scottie Pippen did. You're going to have to find a way to dispute how he was selfish despite that evidence. And if assists don't matter, then it shouldnt' matter for anyone. You can't get assists without passing the ball.

Was he selfish because he wanted the offense to go through him? Then so was Magic Johnson. Was he selfish because he thought the best way for the team to win was for him to shoot the ball? Well, having a higher fg%, a better work ethic, a more insatiable lust to win and nerves of steel would convince a young player with that much talent that might be the best option. Was he selfish because he didn't embrace the triangle at first? Well, neither did Scottie Pippen.

Do you know that no championship team was ever built around a guard before Jordan? Do you realize that Chicago had to go against conventional wisdom because they didn't have a reliable big man? Do you know that Chicago was a perpetual losing franchise before Jordan got there? Have you read any quotes of how the team had a losing attitude and had players that did not like/want to compete? Do you know how hard it is to turn a franchise completely around? Around a GUARD?

Don't you think a losing franchise that had never won anything would take some time to figure out how to win going against conventional wisdom (i.e. building around a guard)? The Lakers had won titles before Kareem got there. Maybe not the year or two before, but there were members of the organization that were there that knew how to win. The Celtics had won before Bird. The only championship team that also had to go against conventional wisdom and build a champion from scratch is the Detroit Pistons. And it took them from 1982 (when Isiah was drafted) to 1989 to finally get their ring.

This slow progress should not be put all on Jordan's shoulders when he was so productive on the court. He and the team from the top down had to learn how to win together. That takes time. Pippen did not come in at the beginning of the process and didn't really make much of a contribution for a couple of years. You can't compare anyone to MJ's situation because there's no one else that was in MJ's situation.

That's what we mean when we say you don't understand the context. As great as youtube and espnclassic is, you can't get everything from watching that. You can't just look at the win/loss record before and after a star's absence to determine impact. And to understand it better, you have to go beyond reading one book meant to make money off displaying negative aspects of his personality. There's much more to it than that.

Notice how all the guys you mention are big guys down low? Bird, Kareem, David Robinson, etc? That's because that is how the NBA used to be won. Until Jordan. Kobe, Lebron, DWade all have MORE impact on their teams (in absence, by your logic) because of what MJ did with the Bulls. At least they have a blueprint for how to build around a perimeter-oriented player. That's not IMPACT?

Great post

[guy]

I know I said this discussion is over but just to clarify......

That is the point. That is the reason I brought him up. There are different expectations for a second-tier, top 20-25 all-time great like KG and a top-tier great like MJ. I could have used other examples to make the same point.

Yes you brought up KG, and for no apparent reason at all, which is what I was saying. No one was equating what KG did in 04 to what Jordan did in 89 except for you. They weren't equal situations. KG had a good supporting cast, Jordan didn't. When a great player ("second-tier" as you put it) like KG has a good enough supporting cast like the 04 Wolves you can expect them to make at least the conference Finals. Jordan's expectations with a supporting cast that good is that they win a title. But instead, Jordan had the 89 Bulls, and since he's a "top-tier" great (GOAT candidate), the expectations are that in certain years he can impact them enough to make the conference Finals with that team, which he did do (In a weak year for the East like 07, you can probably expect them to go the Finals just like Lebron did with the Cavs, which is why I said that situation is more comparable). No one was equating what both did except for you. No one was saying that we should have equal expectations for both of them.

I admitted my BS. Can you admit yours?

1) You're implying he was not legit top 5, that he needed injuries to move into the top 5. What was he in your view? Top 7? Top 8?
2) What about 91-93' and 98'? Top 10?

How's it bs?

94 - top 5, only Hakeem and Robinson were better IMO.
95 - top 5, only Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Malone were better IMO.
96 - top 5, only Jordan, Hakeem, Robinson, Malone were better IMO. But if Shaq was healthy, he'd be in there, and I'd take Pippen out of the top 5.
97 - top 5, only Jordan, Malone, Hakeem, and arguably Hill were better. If Shaq was healthy he'd be in there taking Hill or Pippen's spot. I could give Robinson that Shaq label as well, but he missed pretty much the whole season, so thats a bit unfair.

91 - top 10, Jordan, Magic, Robinson, Barkley, Drexler, Malone, KJ, Ewing, and arguably Stockton are better. Hakeem when healthy might bump him or Stockton off.
92 - top 10, Jordan, Drexler, Robinson, Ewing, Hakeem, Barkley, Malone are better.
93 - top 10, Jordan, Barkley, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, and Malone were better.
98 - Not top 10. Sorry, hard to put a guy that missed almost half the season in the top 10. Jordan, Malone, Shaq, Robinson, Duncan, Payton, Hill, Miller, Kidd, Hardaway were better. If Pippen doesn't miss nearly half the season, he's clearly better then Miller, Hardaway, and Kidd, and probably better then Payton and Hill.

Its not like I put a bunch of nobodies ahead of him, like Steve Smith or Mookie Blaylock like trolls do. For the most part, the main reason he's not such a sure-fire top 5 player is cause of Jordan + all the great centers that played in this era. He's ahead of alot of the players that I mentioned in certain years. He surpasses Drexler after 92, Barkley and Ewing after 93, he's ahead of Shaq until 95, etc.

[Roundball_Rock]

Why were the Blazers thinking about giving the Rockets the #2 pick AND Drexler for Sampson? That would have made them look three times worse than they did for passing up MJ for Bowie.

Yeah it would look even worse. They almost did it for two reasons (Houston in the end turned it down) because they believed they needed a franchise center and more importantly Sampson was very highly rated at the time. He was considered the next dominant big man, another Kareem or Walton. Drexler was a 9 ppg scorer as a rookie so he wasn't Clyde as we later knew him so on paper at the time it made some sense. Of course Drexler became a superstar, injuries ruined Sampson, and Jordan ended up being the majority GOAT!

I see your point, guy, and as I said to DR I was placing too much emphasis on the "direct impact" angle anyway.

94 - top 5, only Hakeem and Robinson were better IMO.
95 - top 5, only Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Malone were better IMO.
96 - top 5, only Jordan, Hakeem, Robinson, Malone were better IMO. But if Shaq was healthy, he'd be in there, and I'd take Pippen out of the top 5.
97 - top 5, only Jordan, Malone, Hakeem, and arguably Hill were better. If Shaq was healthy he'd be in there taking Hill or Pippen's spot. I could give Robinson that Shaq label as well, but he missed pretty much the whole season, so thats a bit unfair.

91 - top 10, Jordan, Magic, Robinson, Barkley, Drexler, Malone, KJ, Ewing, and arguably Stockton are better. Hakeem when healthy might bump him or Stockton off.
92 - top 10, Jordan, Drexler, Robinson, Ewing, Hakeem, Barkley, Malone are better.
93 - top 10, Jordan, Barkley, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, and Malone were better.
98 - Not top 10. Sorry, hard to put a guy that missed almost half the season in the top 10. Jordan, Malone, Shaq, Robinson, Duncan, Payton, Hill, Miller, Kidd, Hardaway were better. If Pippen doesn't miss nearly half the season, he's clearly better then Miller, Hardaway, and Kidd, and probably better then Payton and Hill.

Its not like I put a bunch of nobodies ahead of him, like Steve Smith or Mookie Blaylock like trolls do. For the most part, the main reason he's not such a sure-fire top 5 player is cause of Jordan + all the great centers that played in this era. He's ahead of alot of the players that I mentioned in certain years. He surpasses Drexler after 92, Barkley and Ewing after 93, he's ahead of Shaq until 95, etc.

I agree. It is difficult to compare the value of a perimeter player to that of a big man, especially a center because they do different things, especially since in Pippen's case his job was to pass-first, score-second so he wasn't scoring 25 ppg.

I pretty much agree with your rankings, although I have always believed Hill was overrated during that time. Pippen was similar to him offensively but far superior defensively so I considered Pip the best SF until 98'. I think a lot of the Hill hype was because he and Penny were the chosen successors to Jordan as the faces of the league.

From your rankings if you limit it to perimeter players he does really well: 4/5, 3, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2/3, 2/3-4 if healthy. This was in a great era for centers (Mourning and Mutumbo too and even someone like Smits or Seikley was no slouch). Imagine if MJ and Pippen were born 10-15 years later and were playing on today's perimeter-oriented league!

Yeah when I said top 10 in 98' I meant talent-wise.

[guy]

Yeah it would look even worse. They almost did it for two reasons (Houston in the end turned it down) because they believed they needed a franchise center and more importantly Sampson was very highly rated at the time. He was considered the next dominant big man, another Kareem or Walton. Drexler was a 9 ppg scorer as a rookie so he wasn't Clyde as we later knew him so on paper at the time it made some sense. Of course Drexler became a superstar, injuries ruined Sampson, and Jordan ended up being the majority GOAT!

I see your point, guy, and as I said to DR I was placing too much emphasis on the "direct impact" angle anyway.



I agree. It is difficult to compare the value of a perimeter player to that of a big man, especially a center because they do different things, especially since in Pippen's case his job was to pass-first, score-second so he wasn't scoring 25 ppg.

I pretty much agree with your rankings, although I have always believed Hill was overrated during that time. Pippen was similar to him offensively but far superior defensively so I considered Pip the best SF until 98'. I think a lot of the Hill hype was because he and Penny were the chosen successors to Jordan as the faces of the league.

From your rankings if you limit it to perimeter players he does really well: 4/5, 3, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2/3, 2/3-4 if healthy. This was in a great era for centers (Mourning and Mutumbo too and even someone like Smits or Seikley was no slouch). Imagine if MJ and Pippen were born 10-15 years later and were playing on today's perimeter-oriented league!

Yeah when I said top 10 in 98' I meant talent-wise.

Cool. I just wanted to bump this topic to tell you that you should really read the Book of Basketball by Bill Simmons. He has a great chapter in there talking about the "motivation" of teams, specifically championship teams (its the chapter about the greatest teams around pg 600). It doesn't specifically mention the 93 and 94 Bulls, but I think after reading that, you should get a great idea of how huge of an impact the motivation of a team is. Taking motivation into account, it shows that team record may significantly understate or overstate what a team is capable of.