Michael Jordan

[Clinton]

Another good game for MJ. He had 25 points, 6 assists and 5 boards in 42 minutes in a 89-74 win over the Nuggies.

[Andrew]

At his current pace, MJ will pass Chamberlain as the third leading scorer in NBA history in his next game (@ New Orleans). He needs at least 14 points pass, 13 points to tie. If he scores 12 or less, then the milestone would come against Chicago.

[Clinton]

Hopefully he only scores 12 then. I doubt it though.

[Andrew]

While it would be an interesting footnote if he achieved the milestone in Chicago (MJ vs former team angle), against the Hornets if they were still in Charlotte (MJ in home state of North Carolina angle) or the Warriors, 76ers or Lakers (Wilt's teams), it won't be any less of an achievement if it comes against New Orleans.

[Clinton]

it won't be any less of an achievement if it comes against New Orleans.

No, and I'd say it will. Otherwise it's going to come in a Wizards loss.

[EGarrett]

Exactly, especially when someone signs up with a different username and email address, and blank profile every time. It makes it a little harder to screen, as plenty of people who want to contribute meaningful posts wait to fill in their profiles, or do not wish to fill in unnecessary details.

If there was a one-week or so waiting period that would cut down on that. Most trolls have an attention span of about 10 minutes...

[Cudacke]

By the way, a couple of triple double and 30+ point in the first few game of the season while the team lost like a lottery team made Kobe "next to perfect"? Jordan had done that in 88-89 season and their team made to the third round of playoff. What kind of word should be applied to this kind of perfermance? perfect?

Kobe's performances at the beginning of the season were more than just a couple 30 game performances. Look it up...

The triangle offense needs two excellent players to work correctly, and the Lakers only had one. The triangle also needs solid outside shooting, and the Lakers outside shots weren't falling. The offense was built around a center, not a guard, so the offensive sets were off. If the offense had been built around Kobe, the Laker's record would have been different. But you guys don't think about anything like that...

That's exactly why he should have played around the team but not have the team played around him because that's not a team that's build around him. The fact was a lot of time not even kobe's teammate knew what he wanted to do on the court. That's one of the reason why the lakers was lack in flow. But certainly some people couldn't see that through Kobe's trible doubles.

Again, This was what Big Answer posted:
"Can these two guys score more than 30 points avg. on a whole season ???
And make their team better...I doubt it......"
your post may give a reason why you think Kobe and TMAC can make their team better.
Your post may give a reason why you think Kobe and TMAC might average 30+ in a season.
But, not 30+ AND make the team better.

But if they do both things together...it's answering the question. Just because I used different sentences for each one doesn't mean I'm not answering the question in full. I don't think I should have to write like a middle school student in slang filled posts with random punctuation to get my point accross, do you?

That's what difference between "or" and "and" comes in to play. Of course, you can break the question into pieces. It so basic that all engineers know that. However, after you answer them you have to put them back to answer the question as a whole. What you answered was
"Kobe and TMAC might be able to average 30+ in a season one day. "
"Kobe and TMAC are making their team better now."
But, big answer's question was can they do both bogeter. That's totally different.

um.. take a look at the first few game of lakers in the season, and you are telling me kobe is making his team better.

Well, yeah. Without Kobe, the Lakers go 0-20. So...yeah, he makes them better. Without him, they wouldn't have won a single game.

What?
Why suddenly Kobe is exclude?
Of course, without kobe the lakers can only be worse but it doen't mean kobe was making the team better when he was include.

Jordan scored 40 and his team won the championship.
His teammate all were happy and saying how incredible he was.
However, in your oppinion, this didn't proof Jordan made his team better.
But, your reason for Kobe making his team better is because he had trible double for a few time while his team lost like a lottery team.

Of course they were happy! They got NBA Championship Rings. It's not proof he made his team better, that's something that you can't really prove. You kind of can with assists and rebounds, but generally that's with encouragement and trusting them. If Jordan's scoring 40 points, how much trust does that show in the rest of his teammates? The triple doubles show that Kobe's rebounding, passing, and scoring. He's trying to get his teammates involved. I'm not saying Jordan didn't, but that championship was a while ago, and I don't remember it, and I doubt you really remember it all that well if you're still in college. Scoring 40 points doesn't necessarily make your team better.

The wining point was made by Paxson in the Bulls-Suns series.
That would clearly show how much Jordan's teammate were trusted.
That also showed how much his teammate believed in themself and their team when Jordan was scoring all the other points in the forth quarter.

Of course, I know scoring 40 points doesn't necessarily make the team better. That's why kobe's trible double doesn't necessarily mean he is making his team better. Since it is a problem now specific on the old Bulls and the Shaq less lakers in the begining of the season, generalization is not working here and shouldn't be used too.

Was Jordan's def. bad in that Bulls-Suns series?
Did he score 40 points and gave up as many?
Didn't Jordan Box out the man he should have?
What's the point of saying something that was not true?
Where was the poor def. of Jordan?
The Bulls-Suns series was not in the first few years of Jordan's career

I asked you those questions. Answer them, prove me wrong. And I was wrong about the first few years thing, my bad.

Since these are really question I asked you, I would let you think about it more. However, I do provide you some data about them.

1. The Bulls won their thired championship in that series.
2. One of the sun's player, Ainge, Danny, said Jordan was the only player that he can though out that had no weakness.
3. Jordan was on the All-NBA Defensive First Team that year.

If all these are going to make you think that Jordan's def was bad in the Suns-Bulls series, Jordan gave up as many point as he scored, and Jordan didn't box out his man. Well, that's fine. I don't care.

I am sorry to make mistake of using the wrong tense in my post.
However, if you did read my post carefully, you would know I mean the past Jordan, and I never said the Jordan now is as good as he was.

I'm not a mind reader. Thanks for the clarification, but as for the reading your post carefully, I did. You never said anything about the current Jordan, whether you thought he was great or not, so how could I know who you were talking about? Most other Jordan fans in this post think that the MJ of today is the MJ of yesterday, so why would I think you're any different?

Clearly it is not my problem. I never said Jordan is going to score 30+ this season, win the MVP, or play Kobe like a puppy dog on the court. All the stats taht I used were not Jordan's current stats; however, you rather ignore these facts, and choose to generalize me as one of the most Jordan fans that you think. What can I say?

o, I am in college. But, saddly your English doesn't seem much better than a person who speak English as a second language for only 6 years, and you are a feature English teacher. I do agree you are much better in throwing "words" in paragraphs, but as a level of writting in context, I will leave the seventh grade for you.

Number one, my English is much better than yours.

If that's what you think, you can keep it. It's a free country, I am fine with it.
If you want to say that's a truth, then prove it.
If my English being so bad has any thing to do with Kobe or TMAC 's ability of average 30+ in a season AND make his team better, we can certainly continue on this topic.
If I being a Jordan's fan has any thing to do with the credibility of the Jordan's stats or what he has done in the past, you should certainly suggest the Moderators to put a "no Jordan's fun" sign in the subject of this "Michael Jordan" thread.

[Andrew]

If there was a one-week or so waiting period that would cut down on that. Most trolls have an attention span of about 10 minutes...

That's true except for a few overly bored/persistant ones. I'm reluctant to have a waiting time (I try to handle applications as they come, while I'm taking care of file submissions which I also have delivered to my inbox) because that punishes people who intend to make a positive contribution.

[EGarrett]

That's true except for a few overly bored/persistant ones. I'm reluctant to have a waiting time (I try to handle applications as they come, while I'm taking care of file submissions which I also have delivered to my inbox) because that punishes people who intend to make a positive contribution.

I completely understand. It's your site, after all.

Let me say though that I also used to post on the nbadraft.net forum where anyone could post instantly by just inputting a name and typing. It was also basically impossible to ban someone (they could get back by deleting their cookies). The board was full of useless junk and racist posts. It seems to me that the quicker people can post, the more likely they are to post something meaningless or inappropriate just for the quick fix of getting attention. My goal would always be to cut down on stuff like that and childish lying and bickering (i.e. the 'smallest player who can dunk' thread).

Of course, it's up to you. But if you ever want to make some changes in that vein, keep the waiting period idea in mind.

[Wall St. Peon]

That's exactly why he should have played around the team but not have the team played around him because that's not a team that's build around him.

You said prove your English is poor...alright. First sentence, run on sentence.

As for the comment, he's the the number two option on the team. If said team loses the number one option, Shaq, then wouldn't Kobe Bryant be the number one option? Yes, he would. Therefore, they will put the ball in his hands and depend on him to make big shots and plays. The team wasn't built around him, it was built around a center, and because of that his teammates had to adjust to the triangle offense without two dominant scoring threats. But you know all about the triangle, being the huge Jordan fan you are, so you already knew that...

The fact was a lot of time not even kobe's teammate knew what he wanted to do on the court.

Horrible sentence. Missing words that would make the sentence more coherrent, capitalization, and apparently Kobe only has one teammate...

It's a fact? Prove it. Prove that Kobe's teammates didn't know what he was going to do. They obviously knew enough of what he was doing, as he averaged over six assists a game, and probably could have averaged more if his teammates wouldn't brick open jumpers.

That's one of the reason why the lakers was lack in flow.

Horrendous. Should be "one of the reasons why the lakers WERE LACKING in flow (poor word choice, but it works)."

It is? I thought they lacked any sort of rhythm because of poor shooting and a lack of an inside presence. Boy, I guess I was waaaaay off, thanks for explaining that to me.

But certainly some people couldn't see that through Kobe's trible doubles.

"But certainly" is unneeded. "Some people couldn't see that through Kobe's triple doubles" is a complete sentence. When you put "But certainly" you're breaking a few grammar rules. While it is allowable to start a sentence with 'but,' it just doesn't work in this case and therefore is poor English. The certainly is completely unneeded.

Actually, I saw that through Kobe's triple doubles. You give Jordan's stats, and I give Kobe's stats. If you had seen Kobe play, you would have to agree with me. But, since you obviously haven't seen him play or are just too thick-headed to give him credit, it doesn't seem to matter.

That's what difference between "or" and "and" comes in to play.

What difference? You shouldn't start a sentence with 'that,' nor should you have 'that' in a sentence that isn't referencing anything. I don't know what you're talking about because "that" is referring to nothing. And if you're referring to my quote, it still doesn't make sense. I NEVER said 'or,' you did. What is your point?

Of course, you can break the question into pieces.

Good sentence.

It so basic that all engineers know that.

Engineers know how to write well, and they have to take many technical writing classes to get their degrees. Engineers are not poor writers. Oh, and you're missing 'is,' and you also ended a sentence in a preposition.

However, after you answer them you have to put them back to answer the question as a whole.

No, I don't. If sentences are grouped together to form a paragraph, those sentences have a common bond, therefore they should be taken together - not apart. Now, if you mean mentally, then you're correct, but I don't think that's what you mean. I could be wrong. *shrug* It doesn't really matter...

What you answered was
"Kobe and TMAC might be able to average 30+ in a season one day. "
"Kobe and TMAC are making their team better now."
But, big answer's question was can they do both bogeter. That's totally different.

I never said 'or,' now did I? As for your poor attempt to use semantics, here's my point, which is obvious: Kobe and TMac are making their team better now, and if they average over thirty points a game - which they are barely under at this point in time - they'll be making their team better by scoring more. According to you, scoring is everything, so by your flawed logic them scoring more points will be making their team better, so my response answered the question quite well.

What?

Read it again. I said 'what,' and if you missed it, read it again. Then, smash your face into the computer screen a few times...maybe you'll absorb it through osmosis.

Why suddenly Kobe is exclude?

Excuse me? You meant to say "Why is Kobe suddenly excluded," right? Because what you wrote appears to be...well, actually, since English is your second language you probably just screwed up, so I'll give it to you. A latin-based language, I'm guessing...

I don't know how you don't understand this concept. If Kobe wasn't on the team at the beginning of the season, the Lakers would be worse than the Bulls. If Kobe is on the Lakers when they have no one else even close to his caliber, then him simply being on the team makes the team better. Understand?

Of course, without kobe the lakers can only be worse but it doen't mean kobe was making the team better when he was include.

Yes, it does mean he's making the team better if he's included. Oh, tense disagreement and incorrect punctuation...

The wining point was made by Paxson in the Bulls-Suns series.

I know...did I say Jordan made a game winner? No...

That would clearly show how much Jordan's teammate were trusted.

You should have combined the first sentence and the second sentence with a comma and said 'which' instead of 'that.' If you did that, the sentence would be more coherrent and grammatically correct.

Actually, Jordan was triple teamed and Paxson was wide open. The only reason he passed was because he couldn't get a shot off...

That also showed how much his teammate believed in themself and their team when Jordan was scoring all the other points in the forth quarter.

You used 'that' to start a sentence, tsk tsk...you should have started with 'it.' Also, it's 'themselves,' as 'themself' isn't even a word. Fourth...

How do you know they believed in themselves? Were you on the Bulls? Do you know all of them personally? And why would they have confidence if Jordan is shooting the ball all the time? I know if someone on my intramural team is shooting when they could pass - even if they're making them - I lose confidence myself, as I rarely touch the ball. So how do you KNOW that they believed in themselves? You aren't giving proof, you're simply stating an opinion that you have as fact. It may be a warranted opinion, but you're stating it an incorrect manner.

Of course, I know scoring 40 points doesn't necessarily make the team better. That's why kobe's trible double doesn't necessarily mean he is making his team better.

So why were you making a big deal about the 40 points?

Since it is a problem now specific on the old Bulls and the Shaq less lakers in the begining of the season, generalization is not working here and shouldn't be used too.

"Since it is a specific problem centered on the old Bulls and Shaq-less Lakers, generalization should not be used here."

Above is how the sentence should have been written to make sense. As it is, I don't really know what you're talking about; the "specific problem" (it isn't a problem, it's a debate) is whether or not Jordan will be surpassed in the future, and I say that the two most likely candidates are Kobe Bryant and Tracy McGrady. It isn't a problem, it's a debate, and I'm not generalizing anything.

Since these are really question I asked you, I would let you think about it more. However, I do provide you some data about them.

You haven't provided much of anything to me. Also, I asked the questions first, and you just regurgitated them back to me.

1. The Bulls won their thired championship in that series.

I know...

2. One of the sun's player, Ainge, Danny, said Jordan was the only player that he can though out that had no weakness

Yeah, one player said this...one opinion...Jordan's defense is overrated. His offense was great, but his defense was overrated because the referees let him get away with a lot of ticky-tack fouls that would be called on lesser players. Jordan was a great team defender, but his one on one was only above average. Pippen and Harper were the defensive stoppers of the team, no? Also, Jordan has a definite weakness: his ego.

3. Jordan was on the All-NBA Defensive First Team that year.

Weird...a hyped player on the All-Defensive team. Remember when Kobe Bryant was on the team over Eddie Jones a while ago? Eddie Jones was arguably a better defender, but Bryant was more popular, thus the selection to the team. You think the voting for these awards - you know, opions - aren't biased?

If all these are going to make you think that Jordan's def was bad in the Suns-Bulls series, Jordan gave up as many point as he scored, and Jordan didn't box out his man. Well, that's fine. I don't care.

You never told me how many points Jordan's man had, nor did you tell me how many rebounds he gave up because he was concerned about scoring. You proved nothing. You gave me a set of opinions, not facts. Yes, he won the Defensive Player of the Year award or whatever, but that's nothing more than the opinion of biased journalists.

Clearly it is not my problem.

What?

I never said Jordan is going to score 30+ this season, win the MVP, or play Kobe like a puppy dog on the court.

No, you didn't, and neither did I. However, you did say he could average a triple double.

All the stats taht I used were not Jordan's current stats;

I know, we were talking about 1993 which is obviously not current stats as this is the year 2003 - ten years later. I'm impressed with the proper use of the semi-colon, good job.

however, you rather ignore these facts, and choose to generalize me as one of the most Jordan fans that you think.

This makes no sense, but there are so many errors in your post I don't even care to mess with it anymore, and I'm not even counting spelling errors...

You ARE a Jordan fan, no? And you are basing your entire opinion on other people's opinions, right? You aren't forming your own opinions whatsoever or thinking for yourself. So Jordan won Defensive Player of the Year, big deal. So Danny Ainge said he has no weaknesses...big deal. If you watched him play and analyzed him, you found few flaws; however, to say he will not be surpassed by another player in the near future is just plain absurd. How about you think for yourself?

What can I say?

You can say whatever you want; you are allowed to say anything and everything on this board...

If that's what you think, you can keep it. It's a free country, I am fine with it.

Horrible sentences...

If you want to say that's a truth, then prove it.

I did.

If my English being so bad has any thing to do with Kobe or TMAC 's ability of average 30+ in a season AND make his team better, we can certainly continue on this topic.

No, but your poor English accounted for a misunderstanding of your words. Instead of clarifying it, you were a smartass. I was a smartass in return. You asked me to prove how poor your English was, and I did. Oh, you should have said 'their' and not 'his.' You really need to work on your agreement...

As for the TMac and Kobe comment, they can do both. I honestly don't know how you could have misunderstood my comment, as it was written clearly.

If I being a Jordan's fan has any thing to do with the credibility of the Jordan's stats or what he has done in the past, you should certainly suggest the Moderators to put a "no Jordan's fun" sign in the subject of this "Michael Jordan" thread.

I never discredited Jordan's stats, I discredited his greatness. I ASKED for more stats, but you didn't want to provide them. I never said there was anything wrong with being a Jordan fan, I just am annoyed at your naivity, stubborness, and inability to form your own opinion. Why should the mods say there's "No Jordan Fun" in this post? I'm having fun...

[Clinton]

Shit, those posts are so long I'm not gonna even bother to read them.

[scubilete]

Shit, those posts are so long I'm not gonna even bother to read them.

LMAO, they have been doing that for few weeks now.

i.e. the 'smallest player who can dunk' thread

If I could, I would delete that damn thread, lol. Most of them are giving their own sizes to say they are the smaller ones who can dunk.

Andrew, can you make a section Not wanted threads and move that one there?, lol, Please, I'm begging u.

[beau_boy04]

Michael Jordan managed to averaged more than 20 ppg in his final 2 seasons with the Wizards and at that age it made it more amazing.

[J@3]

Wtf? What persuaded you to resurrect a 2 year old thread?

[Drex]

I've seen many 1 year old resurrections, but not 2 years old

[Null17]

Michael Jordan managed to averaged more than 20 ppg in his final 2 seasons with the Wizards and at that age it made it more amazing.

and for someone who's had an account here for more than two years, you seem to be too stupid to follow the rules

[beau_boy04]

Null17, I think it's ridiculous when you decided to call me stupid, but no worries I won't insult you back because I have better things to do.

Thank you.

[Amphatoast]

lock again.... beau i think u need to start your jordan thread cuz these dead ones just ain't right

[Null17]

I won't insult you back because I have better things to do.

like resurrecting more Jordan threads?

[Bang]

Wtf? What persuaded you to resurrect a 2 year old thread?

I guess it's because Jordan is timeless...but yea..wtf???

[The GOAT]

...or because he DOESN'T have anything better to do...

[J-Smoove]

beauboy's a loser.