Michael Jordan

[Andrew]

Might see an increase in scoring from MJ then. I believe he needs to average over 20ppg to maintain a career average of 30+. Just more miscellaneous, useless stats facts.

[Clinton]

It will also mean he takes over Wilt in career scoring quicker. Only a few more games.

[EGarrett]

Shane said:

...MJ is probably the greatest player I've ever seen;

Ever? But aren't you arguing that since we don't know the future there can be no ever? Thus by your own logic you will probably see a better player within your own lifetime. You're making the same mistake that you're chiding other people for making... Well...we'll just pretend you didn't say that...

Best player ever? Please. Great player for a decade, but nothing more. Best guard of the 90's, by far. Best player of the 90's? Debateable, but probable.

Didn't you just say that Jordan was probably the greatest player you've ever seen? Not best guard, not a great player for the decade...but the best *player* you'd ever seen?

I'm assuming you've seen the great player's of the 90's (otherwise you shouldn't be attempting to judge Jordan against anything)...and you say Jordan was better than all of them (being probably the greatest player you've ever seen)...then later you completely switch tones and say he might not have even been the best player of the 90's. Which is it? I'm not even sure what your own opinion is...

No, I meant the current discussion, you know, the one where you chimed in and basically called me a moron.

I don't always like the arguments people make...and I don't always think people make sense. I don't expect you or anyone else to always like what I have to say either. It's not as though I cursed you out or called you names...I just don't like your argument. This is the internet...you need thicker skin then that...

You don't think Jordan's talent level will be eclipsed?

I'm talking about whether Michael Jordan is the best player the game has seen to this point...and whether or not the players we see now...Kobe Bryant and Tracy McGrady...will be as good as he was. Why would I waste my time arguing about players no one has seen in a future that no one can predict?

Wildly inaccurate? What have I said that is innaccurate? I've never said anything 'wildly inaccurate.'

I said "people" were making wildly inaccurate statements. I thought I saw someone asserting that Jordan was good because he had a ridiculous advantage in athleticism similar to Wilt Chamberlain's size and athleticism advantage when he played. That, to me, is wildly inaccurate. If you didn't say that then I wasn't talking about you. If no one said that then I apologize for misunderstanding a statement when I was skimming the post. But I joined the discussion because I thought I saw something that was wildly inaccurate.

You claim you know the history of the NBA, yet you say that the league is more competitive now than in the Golden Era of the league...

...I can't say much about Elgin Baylor, as I don't really know much about him...

I've seen footage of Oscar and Wilt and so on, but I've never seen more than clips.

Honestly, how much do you really know about the Golden Era of the League? Remember, no one ever misses a shot in those highlight reels...

Kobe will get his own team with an offense built around him and you'll be eating your words when you see how special of a player he'll become.

He's a special player already. So is Tracy. Will they be new Michael Jordans? Probably not. Just like Yao Ming is and will be a special player. Will he get to the level of another Wilt Chamberlain or another Shaq? Probably not.

Considering you were around 8 or 9 years old when Jordan was at his absolute prime you probably don't realize how good he was. That's completely understandable. Just don't assume you know more than people who did watch him. And don't be so quick to dismiss the opinions of those basketball players and old guys in the media who've seen everyone...

You act like you're an infallible God when it comes to the game of basketball, and I think you're far, far from that.

If it comes across that I think I'm right when I discuss my side of a topic...it's because I do. Why would I join a discussion if I didn't think I was right?

The media's obsession with young athletic players who dunk has turned the NBA into a joke.

Some people say that because they really feel that way...and other people say that because they think it's just good to think the opposite of what the majority of people do. I hope you really do feel that way. And assuming you do, honestly, how would you know? Have you seen the NBA any other way?

The media has always been obsessed with showmanship. In the 'golden era' of basketball as you call it...the league was obsessed with guys like Bob Cousy. He would just take the ball for the last 30 seconds of blowout games and do tricks with it. Then there was Pete Maravich and Earl Monroe...who would do fancy passes or tricky spin moves all day. It was horrible sportsmanship but the fans and the reporters ate it up just like they eat up dunks today.

But don't assume because the media shows a guy doing something that that's the only thing the NBA is about. NBA players are in the business of winning basketball games...and substance always wins out over style. As long as that's true there will be fundamentals in basketball...because it's the best way to win. The media can't change that, so Jordan really didn't ruin things any more than Cousy or Maravich did. He was a great player on top of his talent...and great players are what win.

[Wall St. Peon]

Ever? But aren't you arguing that since we don't know the future there can be no ever? Thus by your own logic you will probably see a better player within your own lifetime. You're making the same mistake that you're chiding other people for making... Well...we'll just pretend you didn't say that...

I'm 20 years old. I didn't get into basketball until around 1993-94. I missed Bird and the rest and caught a few other greats on the tale end of their careers. From then on the league was in a youth movement and obsessed with Jordan and the 'next' Jordan. The statement "I have ever seen" means that he is the best player that I've ever seen. I haven't seen any of the past greats play full games, so I can't make any other true judgement on them. I just know they were wonderful fundamental players who had flash, but only used it in blowout games, when the outcome was decided. My dad's almost 60 and stopped watching the NBA after Jordan retired the first time. He played basketball in high school and was a good guard in his own right (he didn't tell me that, my uncle's did, and he wasn't around). He KNOWS how to play the game, and he doesn't like the fact, as I don't like the fact, that players aren't fundamentally sound anymore, and if they are, they're 'boring.' As it is though, Jordan was the best player I've seen to this point in time. My opinion will probably change, but up till now, I can't say anything else.

Didn't you just say that Jordan was probably the greatest player you've ever seen? Not best guard, not a great player for the decade...but the best *player* you'd ever seen?

Yeah, but I figured you were intelligent enough to figure out that I:

A. Haven't been around for the entire history of basketball
B. Haven't seen every player play
C. Like Jordan, and I am biased. But I'm far from being so biased as to say he's the 'greatest ever to play the game.' That's a statement that goes on for eternity. My statement was simply an opinion from lack of exposure to other players who may have been better, but I don't know because I haven't seen them.

I'm assuming you've seen the great player's of the 90's (otherwise you shouldn't be attempting to judge Jordan against anything)...and you say Jordan was better than all of them (being probably the greatest player you've ever seen)...then later you completely switch tones and say he might not have even been the best player of the 90's. Which is it? I'm not even sure what your own opinion is...

I shouldn't be attempting to judge Jordan? Why? Because you said so? I said Jordan was the greatest player that I, meaning MY personal experience of watching basketball. However, I KNOW that many players of the past were also great, but since I haven't seen them play I can't form a subjective opinion, and since the media wasn't as large a part of the sport as it is today, those players didn't have the exposure as Jordan did. They didn't have the endorsements, the shoes, and so on. If they had those things and been on an equal commercial level, then we'd be having that debate about them as well and not passing them off as 'past' greats. How many of the players from the 60's and 70's have YOU seen play? I doubt you're much over 30, if that...

I don't always like the arguments people make...and I don't always think people make sense. I don't expect you or anyone else to always like what I have to say either. It's not as though I cursed you out or called you names...I just don't like your argument. This is the internet...you need thicker skin then that...

I've said it many times plain as day: "Jordan's talent will be eclipsed and this is who I think can and probably will do it." You didn't curse me out and call me names, but you definately implied that with your comments about my statements being wildly inaccurate and what not...look where you said that, you quoted me, so you were definately talking to me. I don't like your argument as I'm not even sure what it is. You say I'm dumb for not saying Jordan is the greatest and for wanting to give past players respect, and then giving reasons and players that can surpass Jordan's talent, charisma, and charm. I don't expect everyone to like what I say either, but I know if I say anything negative about Jordan - if I said I didn't like his shoes, for instance - I'd be bashed. Jordan is a God to far too many so-called basketball fans who know nothing of fundamentals and only see his great stats. They say he makes his teammates better? How, by punching them, cussing them out in practice? Getting the coach fired? Pushing off - obviously - so he can have a picture perfect game winner? I'm sorry, but I have a problem with a player that does that, and that's my reasons for not liking him. I don't like him, but I never said he wasn't a great player. He is probably the greatest player that I'VE ever seen, but I hope to see him surpassed so people shut up about him. He isn't the greatest ever, simple as that.

I'm talking about whether Michael Jordan is the best player the game has seen to this point...and whether or not the players we see now...Kobe Bryant and Tracy McGrady...will be as good as he was. Why would I waste my time arguing about players no one has seen in a future that no one can predict?

No, people are saying 'greatest of all time,' which is impossible. They say 'no one will be better than him,' which is also impossible. You aren't even discussing Kobe Bryant and Tracy McGrady, you're talking about how wildly inaccurate I am and how I don't make sense and what not. If you're going to participate in the discussion, participate in the damned discussion and don't chime in with know-it-all-statements that annoy the people within the discussion. You've never said what you just did, about Jordan being the greatest player the game has ever seen, you've said the greatest ever. Be specific, and don't start in with me on semantics. You talk about the proper form of debate, why don't you start to use it?

I said "people" were making wildly inaccurate statements. I thought I saw someone asserting that Jordan was good because he had a ridiculous advantage in athleticism similar to Wilt Chamberlain's size and athleticism advantage when he played. That, to me, is wildly inaccurate. If you didn't say that then I wasn't talking about you. If no one said that then I apologize for misunderstanding a statement when I was skimming the post. But I joined the discussion because I thought I saw something that was wildly inaccurate.

You were talking to me when I said Jordan was more athletic than most guards of the game. Most GUARDS. Then you give me Clyde, a guard, and then two forwards. Everyone's saying Jordan was too athletic and quick to guard, and I'm agreeing with that. The people who usually guarded Jordan were guards or forward/guards, like Bryan Russell. Rarely were they pure forwards, as he was much too quick for them. But he was quicker than most players, more athletic than most players, and therefore, he was more athletic and had an advantage. Most guards of today are just as quick as Jordan, if not quicker, in his prime. A lot of forwards are as well. Now, who's wildly inaccurate in their statements?

Honestly, how much do you really know about the Golden Era of the League? Remember, no one ever misses a shot in those highlight reels...

I know that they wanted to win, as opposed to geting thier own shoe and a huge pay day. I know they wanted to win, as opposed to making the highlight reels on Sportscenter. I know they wanted to win, and they showed that by using fundamentals over flash - even though they could do anything Jason Williams and Michael Jordan could do with the ball. You think because I'm 20 I don't know how basketball is played? I love watching Stockton and Malone and Duncan and any other fundamentally sound player. I KNOW how to play basketball. If you know how to play basketball, and everyone says that the former greats were as fundamentally sound as can be, then I can make the assumption that the game then was MUCH better than the game today. If you think I'm making statements based on highlight reels, you definately aren't as intelligent as you seemed....

He's a special player already. So is Tracy. Will they be new Michael Jordans? Probably not. Just like Yao Ming is and will be a special player. Will he get to the level of another Wilt Chamberlain or another Shaq? Probably not.

Great opinion, now support it. I supported mine, support yours. This is a discussion here, discuss something.

Considering you were around 8 or 9 years old when Jordan was at his absolute prime you probably don't realize how good he was. That's completely understandable. Just don't assume you know more than people who did watch him. And don't be so quick to dismiss the opinions of those basketball players and old guys in the media who've seen everyone...

Where was I dismissing him? You don't think the 'old guys in the media' aren't biased? They get paid by a television station that wants to talk about Michael Jordan because stuff like that gets good ratings. Therefore, they'll say positive things about Jordan because it pays to do so. The TV station helps the NBA, who endorse Jordan fully, and so on and so on. If you think the media is unbiased, you're naive.

If it comes across that I think I'm right when I discuss my side of a topic...it's because I do. Why would I join a discussion if I didn't think I was right?

You may think you're right, but you're not discussing anything. You're saying 'you're too young to know what you're talking about, you're wrong, your opinions don't make sense, blah blah etc." You're not discussing anything. Discussions aren't about whether someone's right or wrong, they're about discussing things for enjoyment, for debate. Opinions are neither right nor wrong; they can be supported and proven as invalid opinions, but you've done nothing of the sort in this discussion. Again, I thought you were more intelligent than that...I guess I was wrong, again.

Some people say that because they really feel that way...and other people say that because they think it's just good to think the opposite of what the majority of people do. I hope you really do feel that way. And assuming you do, honestly, how would you know? Have you seen the NBA any other way?

No, I haven't seen the NBA any other way and that's whay it bothers me. I like a good dunk as much as the next guy, but a dunk is still two points no matter how fancy it is. You think I'm going against the grain to be a rebel? So what you're saying is that I should conform to society and not have my own opinions? Boy, you're brilliant...

The media has always been obsessed with showmanship. In the 'golden era' of basketball as you call it...the league was obsessed with guys like Bob Cousy. He would just take the ball for the last 30 seconds of blowout games and do tricks with it. Then there was Pete Maravich and Earl Monroe...who would do fancy passes or tricky spin moves all day. It was horrible sportsmanship but the fans and the reporters ate it up just like they eat up dunks today.

Well, Bob Cousy did it at the end of blowout games, and you named two other players. There's always hot dogs in every sport, no matter what. It can't be helped. So why wouldn't there have been those players then? I never said it was a game without exciting passes, I said it was fundamentally sound. You named three players that were hot dogs. Big whoop. How many players are like that in the NBA today? Hmm...all of them, except a few.

But don't assume because the media shows a guy doing something that that's the only thing the NBA is about. NBA players are in the business of winning basketball games...and substance always wins out over style. As long as that's true there will be fundamentals in basketball...because it's the best way to win. The media can't change that, so Jordan really didn't ruin things any more than Cousy or Maravich did. He was a great player on top of his talent...and great players are what win.

No, NBA players nowadays are in the business of making as much money as they can and being as famous as possible and living lavishly. They could care less if they win. If they cared about winning, they'd sign smaller contracts so free agents would be able to sign on their teams. The franchises are about winning games, not the players. The franchises want to win because if they win, people will come to games, and, therefore, they make money. Oh, substance doesn't win over style if every player is about style; in that case, everyone will be equal and would just have to defend against the dunk and the three pointer.

Oh yeah, that makes me think of something else. You don't really think Jordan came back for the love of the game, do you? He did it to fill seats for the team that he owns part of. He did it to attract free agents to play with Michael Jordan, and he did it to break some more records. You could say in the end he wants to win, but not as a player, he wants to win as an owner wants to win - and in the end it's all for the same reason: money.

[scubilete]

Whoaaaaa!!!!!!!!!

Next Friday Jan. 24, On Cablevision-PPV We can Finally see the Movie Like Mike

[Wall St. Peon]

Next Friday Jan. 24, On Cablevision-PPV We can Finally see the Movie Like Mike

You act like being able to see a little bow wow movie is a good thing...

[scubilete]

Actually, I just want to watch the movie, not that Lil what wow. Maybe u saw it, is it bored?, lol. I just love sports movies, no matter who's acting there and Since Like Mike has something to do with MJ, just wanted to express some excitement, lol.

[Cudacke]

OK, let's look and see how stupid you were for making this post...

oh.. now it starts. name calling ro mark making game?
stupid?
nice nice that's all a future English teacher can come up with.

He asked if they could, he was asking for my opinion, which I gave. I think they can. I never said they did, and I never stated it as a fact. Champ said Jordan 'can,' and in this context meaning it's a definate thing; why? Because Jordan has limited time to do so, and it's impossible. Jordan averaging a triple double is impossible because this is his last season (supposedly), and, since he hasn't averaged a triple double for the first half of the season, it's an impossibility. That would be LOGIC...

McGrady and Kobe are barely under 30 points a game, they have many years (barring injury) left in the league, and it's very possible that they COULD (as in, maybe) average over 30 points per game. Am I out of context? No. Are you daft? Do you know what 'in context' means? I answered his question, therefore it was in context.

First, he, Big Answer, did not quote anyone and didn't say he was asking your opinion so your assumption was not true. Too bad, even if what you said after the assumption might be right, it woun't make any point worth taking.

Second, because McGrady and Kobe barely under 30 points so it's very possible of making 30 average in the future. It is right. It's possible. However, until they did it. They simply "cannot" do it. The fact is there is quite a lot of people might have the possibility to average 30 points, but until they do they cannot. They have to proof first, and close is close but not a proof of whether one can or not.

Third, what Big Answer was really trying to ask was:
"Can these two guys score more than 30 points avg. on a whole season ???
And make their team better...I doubt it......"
Clearly you didn't read my last post, otherwise you would knew it.
Please don't when you try to reply to other people at least read the meaning first.

By the way, he really used the word "can" not "COULD".
"can" does mean differently depending on the use of the word.
Are you sure Big Answer meant to say "possibility" ??
Or it is one of your nice "assumption" ?

Ps: For the "daft" and "in context" mark making game, I will leave it for the great LOGICAL "feature English" teacher himself. I am quiet busy watching movies.

He said he doubts they can, I said they could. My opinion, it is a discussion, opinions tend to be 'spoken,' and I did back up my statement with why I thought they could. Proof? How do I prove my opinion to an imbecile who has no respect for other people's views? It's impossible. I backed up my opinion with reason, and you're ignoring that. This is debate, not a stat room. If I want stats, I'll go to a stat page.

If you knew how to read, the "next to perfect without Shaq" was in reference to the beginning of the season, you know, when Kobe was next to perfect without Shaq...all those triple doubles...30+ point games...but only a few wins because his teammates were cold...which is EXACTLY what I said. Oh, didn't Jordan do that the first year or two of his career? Lots of points, good games, not many wins? I'm saying this to show that it took Jordan a while to win....

Big Answer used the word "AND" not "OR"...
I'll leave it to you to check out the difference.
Reason might be able to explain why some one didn't do something.
However, it is not a proof that someone "can" do something.
What to back your opinion? Well, you do need proof.

It took Jordan several years to be a great winner, and it shows even such a great winner still struggle in his eailier year. However, it doesn't mean people who struggled is a greater winner too.

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?

I read it. Where's his statements backing up his opinion that Kobe Bryant and Tracy McGrady do not make their teams better and why he thinks they will not be able to score 30 points or more in the future? FUTURE. Key word here, which is implied with the word 'could.' I gave my reasons as to why McGrady makes his team better, and I gave my reasons for Kobe as well. Where's his reasons for why they aren't? And again, I'm very much in context...he asked a question, I answered it with my opinions and the reasons I have that opinion.

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.

Do you want my reasons for the questions? Jordan may have scored 40, but if the next highest scorer scored 5 points it shows that Jordan wasn't making his team better.

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.
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.

While I know that example is exagerated, hopefully you understand the reason. If a mediocre defender was guarding him, or a good defender who lacked the quickness to contain Jordan, that matters. It's like having Fred Hoigberg guarding Kobe Bryant...understand? Stop speaking in present tense about Jordan...he is no longer unstoppable. Jordan's poor defense does matter...if he scored 40 and the man who's guarding him scores 30, what's the real point? Or if the guy he's guarding scored 25 and dishes 10? Or if the guy he's guarding grabs offensive rebounds because Jordan isn't boxing out? It DOES matter. It doesn't matter if you score 40 points and give up just as many, be it through rebounds, points, assists, and so on...

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 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.

Knock off the context thing, it's annoying because you don't even know what that means.

Yes, it is annoying, and you started with it. Furthermore, at the same time, you were also the one who messed up the person who you were quoting.

ESL? 3.5? An A-? YOU got an A- in English? What grade are you, seventh grade?

No, 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.

[Cudacke]

Actually, I just want to watch the movie, not that Lil what wow. Maybe u saw it, is it bored?, lol. I just love sports movies, no matter who's acting there and Since Like Mike has something to do with MJ, just wanted to express some excitement, lol.

I think the movie itself is just ok.
If you are picky about movies, then it probably sucks.
The story is not special, and it really doesn't have any thing to do with MJ except the main character wants to be like Mike.
However, he appears to play ball pretty good, and his acting is also ok for a kid.
If possible, I would rather see him play in a real game lo.

[Wall St. Peon]

oh.. now it starts. name calling ro mark making game?
stupid?
nice nice that's all a future English teacher can come up with.

I didn't say "hey stupid," which would be name calling, I said "you were stupid" - an adjective. There's a difference.

First, he, Big Answer, did not quote anyone and didn't say he was asking your opinion so your assumption was not true. Too bad, even if what you said after the assumption might be right, it woun't make any point worth taking.

I never said he quoted anyone, and this is a discussion board so the assumption that an opinion is wanted when a question is asked. Why wouldn't it be a point worth taking? Because the answer might be against MJ, as opposed to for?

Second, because McGrady and Kobe barely under 30 points so it's very possible of making 30 average in the future. It is right. It's possible. However, until they did it. They simply "cannot" do it. The fact is there is quite a lot of people might have the possibility to average 30 points, but until they do they cannot. They have to proof first, and close is close but not a proof of whether one can or not.

Um, you're contradicting yourself. You said that it's possible and then said it's a fact that they cannot do that, when they quite possibly could - which is what do you said. They have the ability and they almost have 30 points per game. I think that's close enough to form such an opinion, no? Opinion's can't be proved; facts can. This entire post is about opinions, save for the actual stats posted.

Third, what Big Answer was really trying to ask was:
"Can these two guys score more than 30 points avg. on a whole season ???
And make their team better...I doubt it......"
Clearly you didn't read my last post, otherwise you would knew it.
Please don't when you try to reply to other people at least read the meaning first

Was he really? Thanks for clearing that up...I was soooo confused.

Didn't I answer both questions? Yes. So...I don't understand what you're trying to say here? You don't think I answered the questions correctly?

By the way, he really used the word "can" not "COULD".
"can" does mean differently depending on the use of the word.
Are you sure Big Answer meant to say "possibility" ??
Or it is one of your nice "assumption" ?

Yeah, I know it has a different meaning, but in common-use English it usually means the same thing. And yes, it is one of my assumptions. You have to assume a lot when people don't know how to debate...ie opinion-suport-argument-rebuttal.

Ps: For the "daft" and "in context" mark making game, I will leave it for the great LOGICAL "feature English" teacher himself. I am quiet busy watching movies.

What?

Big Answer used the word "AND" not "OR"...
I'll leave it to you to check out the difference.
Reason might be able to explain why some one didn't do something.
However, it is not a proof that someone "can" do something.
What to back your opinion? Well, you do need proof.

I never said he used 'and' or 'or.' I used 'or,' but that's only because of an unsurity that I didn't feel like looking up. You don't back up an opinion with proof; if an opinion had true proof, it would be a fact, no? Opinions can't be proved by facts, but they can be supported by facts. You guys don't understand this at all; opinions can't be proven, but they can be deemed logical based on facts .

It took Jordan several years to be a great winner, and it shows even such a great winner still struggle in his eailier year. However, it doesn't mean people who struggled is a greater winner too.

I never said anything of the sort. What's the relevance?

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...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Yes, it is annoying, and you started with it. Furthermore, at the same time, you were also the one who messed up the person who you were quoting.

Context has nothing to do with the actual person who you're quoting, it has to do with the actual text. I could have said a big pink elephant said such and such, and the answered correctly, even if it was actually you who asked the question. Understand yet?

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. Number two, I don't 'throw' words into a paragraph. You make it sound like writing is guesswork, and it's not. I'm very careful with my words; granted, I'm not as careful on the board because it'd annoy people if I wrote every post like a dissertation. Third and last, I don't write like a seventh grader. I didn't write like a seventh grader in seventh grade; my writing level was that of a college freshman, so you're grossly inaccurate.

[stilt]

I'm not as careful on the board because it'd annoy people if I wrote every post like a dissertation.

1. shut up geek.
2. if also annoys people that u have a gay pic

[Wall St. Peon]

1. shut up geek.
2. if also annoys people that u have a gay pic

1. I'm not a geek...you don't see me insulting random people on a message board, now do you? That's rather geeky...
2. I know it does, that's why it's still beside my name

[champ]

Jordan vs Sixers

25 points
8 rebounds
7 assists
5 steals
1 block

Jordan outplayed McGrady and Iverson in back-to-back games

[Andrew]

Another good game for MJ, though he picked up a couple of shooting fouls that let McKie score an easy four points. That's still a good stat line though.

[Stevan]

lack of support for MJ... kept up with the gameplay on yahoo hehe, and in the last quarter as the wiz made a run all I saw was "Basket Michael Jordan" and "Assist Michael Jordan"... (yes he had a few misses too)

[champ]

McGrady
31 points
6 rebounds
5 assists
2 steals
0 blocks
4 turnovers
vs
Jordan
32 points
8 assists
6 rebounds
2 steals
0 blocks
1 turnover

Iverson
26 points
2 rebounds
1 assist
0 steals
0 blocks
6 turnovers
vs
Jordan
25 points
8 rebounds
7 assists
5 steals
1 block
2 turnovers

[champ]

Even though the Wizards won't win as much with Stackhouse out for a month, I am glad he is out, as it makes the Wizards much more entertaining with MJ orchestrating everything.

[Andrew]

Yes, he matched up quite well with both T-Mac and AI. Hopefully he can keep up those performances, while winning at the same time.

[Wall St. Peon]

Hey Andrew, just wondering...

Doing anything about Stilt?

[Andrew]

Already taken care of earlier today.

[scubilete]

I am glad he is out, as it makes the Wizards much more entertaining with MJ orchestrating everything.

I thought u care about the Wiz champ, that's not a good point of view. I believe even Jordan would love to have Stack back so the team can get to the playoffs. You are right, Jordan is going to take charge there but what is so good about it if the Wiz are going to start losing games?, it doesn't make sense. At least to your fellow's (MJ) pocket, it doesn't.

[EGarrett]

As an aside...I long for the days when nobody could join no matter what you wanted. I applied for membership in November 99 I think and didn't get my official sign-in info til late January. In retrospect it kept out a lot of trolls...

[Wall St. Peon]

As an aside...I long for the days when nobody could join no matter what you wanted. I applied for membership in November 99 I think and didn't get my official sign-in info til late January. In retrospect it kept out a lot of trolls...

Definately.

[benji]

That's just cause of lazy Tim, Lutz and Brien

It's the same way now, Andrew has to approve all new users. And you don't know if they're going to cause trouble or not until after they post.

[Andrew]

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.