All-Time Best Player

Stackhouse and Larry Hughes joined the Wizards that year also. The 1980-1981 Celtics did not have McHale, Parish or DJ. Rookie Bird took them from 29 to 62 wins. That is a clear example of the importance of one man on a team. Jordan never made a change that significant.

Jordan left the Bulls and they go from 57 wins to 55. Clear proof that Jordan was vastly overrated.

I have no idea why you want to work Magic's 36 year old with HIV comeback attempt in the debate.

Jordan is the most marketed athlete ever. The dunks, the tongue, the Nike ads, the smile, and on and on. People are brainwashed by this and fail to fairly compare him to others.

Oscar Robertson took a 19 win team and brought them up to 43 wins. Russell and the Celtics were winning all the championships during most of Oscar's years. I suppose you think the Cincinnati Royals would have won 6 championships if they had Jordan instead of Oscar. HAHA.

Stackhouse and Larry Hughes joined the Wizards that year also. The 1980-1981 Celtics did not have McHale, Parish or DJ. Rookie Bird took them from 29 to 62 wins. That is a clear example of the importance of one man on a team. Jordan never made a change that significant.

No he didnt:
http://www.dougstats.com/01-02/WashingtonWizards.html
Jordan took a team with Chris Whitney as their 3rd best player, and put them in the playoff picture with a 16 game turnaround at the age of 39. You might want to re read that.

Birds impact was significant, but Tim Duncans was better, does that make him the GOAT? Dont think so.

Jordan left the Bulls and they go from 57 wins to 55. Clear proof that Jordan was vastly overrated.

How about the real stat: They went from a 3 peat with MJ to falling flat on their faces in the second round without him. Of course you cant really compare that to oscar becuase it was rare for him to get to the second round of the playoffs. Oooh.

I have no idea why you want to work Magic's 36 year old with HIV comeback attempt in the debate. Rolling Eyes

Its the point that you can twist any little sidenote to a career (like Birds impresive rookie season, Magics less then dramatic return) in any direction.

Jordan is the most marketed athlete ever. The dunks, the tongue, the Nike ads, the smile, and on and on. People are brainwashed by this and fail to fairly compare him to others.

You call Jordan believers brainwashed, but you have yet to sustain any real point about Jordan being overhyped.

Oscar Robertson took a 19 win team and brought them up to 43 wins. Russell and the Celtics were winning all the championships during most of Oscar's years. I suppose you think the Cincinnati Royals would have won 6 championships if they had Jordan instead of Oscar. HAHA.

Lets have a look at Robertsons career in the playoffs

62, lost 3-1 to Detroit in the first round
63, lost to boston in the second round
64, lost to boston in the second round
65, lost to philly in the first round
66, lost to boston in the first round
67, lost to philly in the first round
68, did not make playoffs
69, did not make playoffs
70, did not make playoffs

Then in 70-71 he joined Milwaulkee. Guess what the drop off in wins was for Cincinnati? 3 games. Yeah, the Big O sure was great. Also, Boston stood in his way 3 years while he was in Cincinatti. 3 years. Thats the same amount of times his teams didnt even make the playoffs. So much for "boston standing in his way"

I suggest you come up with something valid or this arguement is over.

Then in 70-71 he joined Milwaulkee. Guess what the drop off in wins was for Cincinnati? 3 games. Yeah, the Big O sure was great. Also, Boston stood in his way 3 years while he was in Cincinatti. 3 years. Thats the same amount of times his teams didnt even make the playoffs. So much for "boston standing in his way"

That's good shit right there. However, the big O was great, but much like Wilt he was a superman among men in his day. Put MJ in the 60's and then guess how the record books might read.........

How about the real stat: They went from a 3 peat with MJ to falling flat on their faces in the second round without him. Of course you cant really compare that to oscar becuase it was rare for him to get to the second round of the playoffs. Oooh

As well as Chicago making another early exit from the playoffs to having the most winningest season in NBA history the following year with Mj returning full time.

Jordan is the most marketed athlete ever. The dunks, the tongue, the Nike ads, the smile, and on and on. People are brainwashed by this and fail to fairly compare him to others.

Being the greatest ever at what you do seems to have that kind of effect on the world around you. How can you fairly compare anyone with this dude, lets be real. Most complete game to this point. period.

The 1980-1981 Celtics did not have McHale, Parish or DJ. Rookie Bird took them from 29 to 62 wins. That is a clear example of the importance of one man on a team. Jordan never made a change that significant.

Bird actually arrived in 1979-1980 as a rookie. The Celts went 61-21, true enough. BUT, they had Cedric Maxwell (a staple during Boston titles), Dave Cowens(another semi great), Tiny Nate Archibald(ditto), & Pistol Pete(Come on now you gotta be joking). Oh yeah, that squad had 8 guys averaging double figures in scoring too. Hmmm..... misinformed you are. Bird was never a one man show, nor was Magic. That doesn't take away from their greatness, but doesn't add to it either.

Jefs, one thing you fail to address is that up to this point, the 90s are the toughest era the NBA has ever faced as far as competition. If you take the best Jazz, Pacers, Knicks, Suns and Rockets team's from the 90s and put them in previous eras, those teams would have been dynasties. MJ denied all of those team's rings (with the exception of Houston when he was retired).

If you look at how stiff the competition was in the 90s its unbelievable that there was a dynasty team that probably would have won 8 titles if Jordan hadn't decided to go and play professional baseball for 2 years.

T-Mac :D:D:D:D:D::D:D
well,i'd wish,but Mike is the best,just a tiny bit before magic and wilt...

Jordan took a team with Chris Whitney as their 3rd best player, and put them in the playoff picture with a 16 game turnaround at the age of 39. You might want to re read that.

Oh, so you are giving Jordan the credit for the wins in the year where he played 60 games and shot 41%.

Birds impact was significant, but Tim Duncans was better, does that make him the GOAT? Dont think so.

David Robinson was out most of that season before Duncan, then he played most of Duncan's rookie year.

How about the real stat: They went from a 3 peat with MJ to falling flat on their faces in the second round without him.

Yes, naturally adding an all star player to any second round team can make them a championship team.

Its the point that you can twist any little sidenote

Taking a 29 win team to 62 wins and then having them remain a top team for your career, that sure is a little sidenote.

Oscar had to deal with the likes of Russell's Celtics and Wilt's Sixers. There was 5 teams in the eastern conference during some of those years. Think of all the times he had to play them in a season. Talk about competition - having to play against arguably the 2 best players ever week after week.

Then in 70-71 he joined Milwaulkee. Guess what the drop off in wins was for Cincinnati? 3 games. Yeah, the Big O sure was great.

Haha, you forgot already about the Bulls big dropoff of 2 wins. Yeah, Mr. Hanes underwear sure was great. You also forgot to add that Cincinnati replaced Oscar with Hall of Famer Tiny Archibald. Who did the Bulls replace Jordan with again? Steve Kerr?

Jordan never made it past the first round without Pippen. Even with an all star like Oakley, Jordan couldn't do it. Not only that, but he NEVER HAD A WINNING RECORD in the nba without Pippen! The GOAT couldn't manage 42 wins?!? 20 year old Lebron managed to do it with similar teammates as Jordan had.

Jordan had rule changes made to benefit his game, Wilt had rule changes made to stop his dominance. Jordan was lucky enough to have one of the 50 greatest players ever as a teammate, one of the greatest rebounders and defensive players, one of the greatest coaches ever, on and on... The Bulls TEAM won the championships.

Bird actually arrived in 1979-1980 as a rookie. The Celts went 61-21, true enough. BUT, they had Cedric Maxwell (a staple during Boston titles), Dave Cowens(another semi great), Tiny Nate Archibald(ditto), & Pistol Pete(Come on now you gotta be joking). Oh yeah, that squad had 8 guys averaging double figures in scoring too.

Yeah, I meant 1979-1980. Those guys were also on the 78-79 team that had 29 wins, except Pistol Pete - but he wasn't a factor in 79-80 as he only played 26 games with 17 minutes per and then he retired. Cowens and Archibald were past their primes in Bird's rookie year. The 29 win Celtic team also had 8 players scoring double figures. Last year's Knicks had quite a few players averaging in double figures also.

the 90s are the toughest era the NBA has ever faced as far as competition. If you take the best Jazz, Pacers, Knicks, Suns and Rockets team's from the 90s and put them in previous eras, those teams would have been dynasties. MJ denied all of those team's rings (with the exception of Houston when he was retired).

That's the first I've heard that one. Numerous articles have been written by Bill Simmons and others talking about how diluted the NBA became after the 80s with all the expansion teams. More teams = less good players available for each team. People like Michael Cooper would be starters on most any NBA team today, but with the great Lakers 80s lineup he was a bench guy.

That's the first I've heard that one. Numerous articles have been written by Bill Simmons and others talking about how diluted the NBA became after the 80s with all the expansion teams. More teams = less good players available for each team. People like Michael Cooper would be starters on most any NBA team today, but with the great Lakers 80s lineup he was a bench guy.

Maybe I misworderd myself, but I don't think so. There were a lot of bad teams, you're correct. However, teams like the ones I listed before were as good as they got, and none of them ever got a ring. The league was very top heavy.

At the Michael Cooper reference. Anyone can take a 6th man from a team that played starters minutes and say something like that. Cooper wasn't even very good, so that's not even a good example of that.

Toni Kukoc is superior to Michael Cooper that's for damn sure.

I don't see how any of those teams are better than the great lineups in the 80s of the Lakers, Celtics, Sixers, Pistons or Rockets. Do you think Olajuwon would say Otis Thorpe was better than Ralph Sampson? Here is a quote from Bill Walton on 80s basketball : ""they played at a time when the competition was never better and the game was not yet contaminated by the ravages of expansion."

Michael Cooper was the Ron Artest of his time. Both top defensive guys, Artest is a better scorer, but Cooper was a better passer. Bird calls him the best defensive player to have ever guarded him.

I don't see how any of those teams are better than the great lineups in the 80s of the Lakers, Celtics, Sixers, Pistons or Rockets. Do you think Olajuwon would say Otis Thorpe was better than Ralph Sampson? Here is a quote from Bill Walton on 80s basketball : ""they played at a time when the competition was never better and the game was not yet contaminated by the ravages of expansion."

Well, Bill Walton is half correct. There was MORE competition, but not better competition. I've already explained that the league was more top heavy.

I don't know what you're trying to get at by saying Hakeem had a better frontcourt partner in the 80s then he did the 90s. Otis Thorpe was a very good complimentary player to Hakeem, but the backcourt for the Houston 90s teams was worlds ahead of the 80s team's and they had more depth.

Michael Cooper was the Ron Artest of his time. Both top defensive guys, Artest is a better scorer, but Cooper was a better passer. Bird calls him the best defensive player to have ever guarded him.

Ok, so what? Scottie Pippen, Michael Jordon, Gary Payton and Dennis Rodman were all as good if not better then Cooper.

I have no doubt Pippen and Jordan were better, Payton and Rodman are probably a level lower, they were different kinds of defenders.

Oh, so you are giving Jordan the credit for the wins in the year where he played 60 games and shot 41%.

How can you not? Also, "nice" way to elude the point of how you got the years wrong.

David Robinson was out most of that season before Duncan, then he played most of Duncan's rookie year.

Robinson immediately stood back for Duncan. Who was the nba first team member?

Yes, naturally adding an all star player to any second round team can make them a championship team.

Yeah just ask portland that when they added dale davis in the off season of 2000.

Taking a 29 win team to 62 wins and then having them remain a top team for your career, that sure is a little sidenote.

Duncan did the same thing. Jordan took longer to get to the top, but stayed there much longer then bird.

Oscar had to deal with the likes of Russell's Celtics and Wilt's Sixers. There was 5 teams in the eastern conference during some of those years. Think of all the times he had to play them in a season. Talk about competition - having to play against arguably the 2 best players ever week after week.

I dont care if Oscar had to deal with a trash can on seaseme street. The fact is he didnt get it done, and it was a regular occurance for his team to miss the playoffs. You can whinge about Jordan being athletic (lol like thats a bad thing) or being marketable, but he wasnt some David Beckham who didn't deleiver in the sport. Oscar did absolutely nothing in terms of winning until he was teamed up with Kareem. If you dare compare that to Jordan being with Pippen, well then you're an idiot. Kareem was absolutely unstopable, and was the man who virtually ended the Celtics auroa of invincability on their home court with that crazy sky hook at the end of game 6. Pippen was great in his role, but not until 1998 was he even compariable to Jordan in terms of their value to the bulls.

Haha, you forgot already about the Bulls big dropoff of 2 wins. Yeah, Mr. Hanes underwear sure was great. You also forgot to add that Cincinnati replaced Oscar with Hall of Famer Tiny Archibald. Who did the Bulls replace Jordan with again? Steve Kerr?

So oscar was that expendable he was replaced by a sub 6 foot player? Cincinatti actually wanted him to go? lol... yeah talk about value.

The bottom line, with Jordan, 6 championships. Without him, 0.

With Oscar in cincinatti, early playoff exit (if they make the playoffs of course). Without him, 3 less wins.

Strong arguement .

Jordan never made it past the first round without Pippen. Even with an all star like Oakley, Jordan couldn't do it. Not only that, but he NEVER HAD A WINNING RECORD in the nba without Pippen! The GOAT couldn't manage 42 wins?!? 20 year old Lebron managed to do it with similar teammates as Jordan had.

Becuase they played virtually their entire careers together?

Jordan had rule changes made to benefit his game, Wilt had rule changes made to stop his dominance. Jordan was lucky enough to have one of the 50 greatest players ever as a teammate, one of the greatest rebounders and defensive players, one of the greatest coaches ever, on and on... The Bulls TEAM won the championships.

Oh, well if we're going by that: George Mikan > Bill Russel.

And if you say the bulls teams won those rings, but then say "if bird was on a worse team then he was, he'd put 35 a night up", you contradict yourself in the highest form. But I guess thats needed in forming an arguement against Jordan as the best, you have to pick and choose double standards against him, and combine feats from 4 or 5 of the best to even bring a case forward.

Yeah, I meant 1979-1980. Those guys were also on the 78-79 team that had 29 wins, except Pistol Pete - but he wasn't a factor in 79-80 as he only played 26 games with 17 minutes per and then he retired. Cowens and Archibald were past their primes in Bird's rookie year. The 29 win Celtic team also had 8 players scoring double figures. Last year's Knicks had quite a few players averaging in double figures also.

Soft.

That's the first I've heard that one. Numerous articles have been written by Bill Simmons and others talking about how diluted the NBA became after the 80s with all the expansion teams. More teams = less good players available for each team. People like Michael Cooper would be starters on most any NBA team today, but with the great Lakers 80s lineup he was a bench guy.

You could say the exact same thing for Kukoc and BJ armstrong (except for 93 of course). Even last years miami team, you could say Alonzo would be starting on 20 teams in the league right now.

Well, Bill Walton is half correct. There was MORE competition, but not better competition. I've already explained that the league was more top heavy.

How in the world did you explain that the Jazz, Pacers, Knicks, Suns and Rockets team's from the 90s were better than the top teams from the 80s? All basketball experts disagree with you on that one.

I'll pick out a top 80s team at random - 1986 Sixers - Moses Malone, Dr. J., Charles Barkley, Mo Cheeks - that's 3 or 4 hall of famers right there.
They would have steamrolled over most 90s teams. How did they do in 1986? 54 wins and out in the east semis. The likes of the 90s Pacers would have had a dynasty over teams like that? Come on dude.

I don't know what you're trying to get at by saying Hakeem had a better frontcourt partner in the 80s then he did the 90s. Otis Thorpe was a very good complimentary player to Hakeem, but the backcourt for the Houston 90s teams was worlds ahead of the 80s team's and they had more depth.

You must not be very familiar with the better Houston teams of the 80s.

Ok, so what? Scottie Pippen, Michael Jordon, Gary Payton and Dennis Rodman were all as good if not better then Cooper.

You said Cooper was "no good", I was pointing out that is obviously far from the truth.

so according to Matthew :

-Oscar Robertson was a chump
-Oscar's competition was equal to Matthew's local league
-Bird's rookie performance is comparable to HIV Magic's comeback attempt
-David Robinson wasn't a major reason for the Spurs success
-people who don't think Jordan is the best ever also think he is the same as Dale Davis
-Hall of famer Tiny Archibald wasn't a quality replacement for Oscar because of his height

Jordan took longer to get to the top, but stayed there much longer then bird.

The Bulls finished 1st in their division in 6 of Jordan's seasons. The Celtics finished 1st in 10 of Bird's seasons, and Jordan played more years than Bird. Bird's Celtics were always top teams with winning records, unlike Jordan and some of his ultrasuck squads.

You seem to think that I'm debating whether or not Jordan is a top player. That is obvious to everyone. The point is that there are 6 or so guys that were at the same level. The facts speak for themselves.

Go to the following page for solid analysis using ever criteria available showing that Jordan was not the best ever:
http://www.angelfire.com/ks2/airjudden/jordan.htm

I'll pick out a top 80s team at random - 1986 Sixers - Moses Malone, Dr. J., Charles Barkley, Mo Cheeks - that's 3 or 4 hall of famers right there.
They would have steamrolled over most 90s teams. How did they do in 1986? 54 wins and out in the east semis. The likes of the 90s Pacers would have had a dynasty over teams like that? Come on dude.

Wow, what a definitative point. I'll also pick a team from "random", the 1998 houston rockets. 3 Hall of famers, Hakeem, Clyde and Barkley. How did they go? 8th seed and lost to Utah in the first round.

But an even better example is the team with the next years team, when they added Pippen. Another first round exit.

Yeah, no talent in the 90's whatsoever. All you need is 1 or 2 all stars and the championship is yours.

98 Rockets, 3 hall of famers past their prime and plagued with injuries.

It's a simple concept - more expansion teams spreads the talent out. Cut the teams back to the number they had in 1985 and each team becomes more likely to have better players. No Timberwolves gives each team a shot at having Garnett. No Raptors equals a better chance to have Chris Bosh, etc. What is the all star game? It is basically when the NBA shrinks down to 2 teams.

It's accepted fact that the quality of competition in the playoffs was far greater in the 80s than 90s. To say otherwise is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

The 86 Sixers were also past their prime. 3 years later, all but Barkley would be let go from Philly either retirement, fee agency or trades.

Also, you talk about soft teams in the 90's, but looking at that 86 season, how could a team with 30 wins (chicago without mj for 65 + games) make the playoffs? Even with all the expansion that has never happened since. Of course, you would never mention this, becuase it degrades the accomplishments of the Bird led Celtics... but its just as legitimate as your "points" about Jordan being dominant in the 90's.

The Rockets were way more past their prime. Moses and Cheeks continued to make all star teams and played another combined 17 years!

There were only 11 teams in the east in 1986. 30 wins giving you 8th place was enough to make it. The 1995 Celtics made the playoffs with 35 wins for 8th place out of 14 teams. I would argue that the 86 Bulls were better than the 95 Celtics, and also better than the 36 win 1997 Clippers that made the playoffs.

A healthy 86 Bulls team is better then the 95 Celtics or the 97 Clippers, I think the Bulls performance against the celtics in that first round proved that. But it also shows the actual value of a Michael Jordan. He turned a team that had no right to even be in the playoffs to a team challenged one of the greatest single season teams in league history, and gave them all they could handle, in the boston garden as well.

Go to the following page for solid analysis using ever criteria available showing that Jordan was not the best ever:
http://www.angelfire.com/ks2/airjudden/jordan.htm

wow, for you to even reference a hate page like this discredits you. Horrible sports journalism. This guy obviously has it in for MJ.

You seem to think that I'm debating whether or not Jordan is a top player. That is obvious to everyone. The point is that there are 6 or so guys that were at the same level. The facts speak for themselves.

The only problem is most of these 6 guys you refer to are nowhere near the standard you wish to compare them to.

As far as comparing the 80's and the 90's..... the current generation of players are different than the old guard. The league is far more athletic than it was in the 80's and the game is no longer the same. To the 80's credit, I feel skill at given positions and filing roles were done better in the 80's. Mid-range shooting was better, but the game evolved and became more exciting to watch in recent years. I keep hearing Jordan being compared to Bird, Magic, Big O, Wilt, Russell, ect. But what you fail to realize is in their eras he would still be king, ask Magic and Bird. Turn MJ loose in the 60's? I don't even gotta explain that one, do I?

so according to Matthew :

-Oscar Robertson was a chump
-Oscar's competition was equal to Matthew's local league
-Bird's rookie performance is comparable to HIV Magic's comeback attempt
-David Robinson wasn't a major reason for the Spurs success
-people who don't think Jordan is the best ever also think he is the same as Dale Davis
-Hall of famer Tiny Archibald wasn't a quality replacement for Oscar because of his height

Jordan took longer to get to the top, but stayed there much longer then bird.

The Bulls finished 1st in their division in 6 of Jordan's seasons. The Celtics finished 1st in 10 of Bird's seasons, and Jordan played more years than Bird. Bird's Celtics were always top teams with winning records, unlike Jordan and some of his ultrasuck squads.

You seem to think that I'm debating whether or not Jordan is a top player. That is obvious to everyone. The point is that there are 6 or so guys that were at the same level. The facts speak for themselves.

Go to the following page for solid analysis using ever criteria available showing that Jordan was not the best ever:
http://www.angelfire.com/ks2/airjudden/jordan.htm

Where the hell did this post come from? Lets break each of your points down one by one...

-Oscar Robertson was a chump

Chump compared to Jordan, Magic, Russel etc. I have him in my all time top 20, but he's not in the top echelon.

-Oscar's competition was equal to Matthew's local league

Obviously you missed my point. You can rack up big numbers against weaker competition, and in a league with nearly twice as many possesions per game as well, but that is not compariable to when a player delivers in against the very best, time and time again (the nba finals for example).

-Bird's rookie performance is comparable to HIV Magic's comeback attempt

I compared Magics comeback to Jordans 2nd comeback initially, then I said that one season can only be worth so much. Sure what bird did was impressive. However, it's not enough to put him ahead of Jordan on that one rookie season alone

-David Robinson wasn't a major reason for the Spurs success

I never said he didnt contribute. I said it was more Duncan then Robinson.

-people who don't think Jordan is the best ever also think he is the same as Dale Davis

You must be really desperate for points. I'm not going to repeat myself again just becuase you got served in this arguement.

The Bulls finished 1st in their division in 6 of Jordan's seasons. The Celtics finished 1st in 10 of Bird's seasons, and Jordan played more years than Bird. Bird's Celtics were always top teams with winning records, unlike Jordan and some of his ultrasuck squads.

Team success? lets count the rings shall we?

You seem to think that I'm debating whether or not Jordan is a top player. That is obvious to everyone. The point is that there are 6 or so guys that were at the same level. The facts speak for themselves.

Your "facts" are clear double standards, and you have to resort to compiling accomplishments from bird, wilt, russell, oscar to even mount an argument against jordan.

Go to the following page for solid analysis using ever criteria available showing that Jordan was not the best ever:
http://www.angelfire.com/ks2/airjudden/jordan.htm

So you're regurgatating points taken from a site that feels Jordans greatness was just about popularity?
Well I guess thats why he holds the career ppg record.

I guess thats why he went to the finals 6 times, winning each time and also winning the mvp each time he went.

I guess thats why he won 2 gold medals

I guess thats why he was a 5 time mvp winner

I guess thats he was on the all nba first team 10 times, and 2nd team 2 times.

I guess thats why he holds the highest ppg average in the nba finals series

I guess thats why he was the dpoy, and also led the league in scoring that same season

I guess thats why he was all defensive first team 9 times

I guess thats why he was a 3 time ASG mvp

Yeah, damn that popularity.


MARSHA MARSHA MARSHA

Last edited by Matthew on Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

So you're regurgatating points taken from a site that feels Jordans greatness was just about popularity?
Well I guess thats why he holds the career ppg record.

I guess thats why he went to the finals 6 times, winning each time and also winning the mvp each time he went.

I guess thats why he won 2 gold medals

I guess thats why he was a 5 time mvp winner

I guess thats he was on the all nba first team 10 times, and 2nd team 2 times.

I guess thats why he holds the highest ppg average in the nba finals series

I guess thats why he was the dpoy, and also led the league in scoring that same season

I guess thats why he was all defensive first team 9 times

I guess thats why he was a 3 time ASG mvp

Yeah, damn that popularity.

absolute truth. I'm guessing that the guy who wrote that page watched his hero get denied a ring by MJ?

Maybe he's a Cavs fan. Or a Knicks fan. Or a Miami fan. Or a Jazz fan. Or a Pacers fan. Or a Sonics fan. Or a Blazers fan. Or a Suns fan.

5 time mvp winner...all nba first team 10 times, and 2nd team 2 times...the dpoy...all defensive first team 9 times...3 time ASG mvp...popularity

Exactly an argument one could make. Are these not all awards based on popularity and opinion of random people? People who have openly voted for MVP based on who gave nicer interviews. Just subjective, not objective.

The bottom line, with Jordan, 6 championships. Without him, 0.

With Pippen, six championships. Without him, zero.
With Phil Jackson, six championships. Without him, zero.
With Jerry Krause, six championships. Without him, zero.

The best case in Jordan's favor is the statistical argument. And it's not random people's opinions (awards) or team accomplishments.

Take the stats, add the accurate context. Then you have your bonifide argument.

Exactly an argument one could make. Are these not all awards based on popularity and opinion of random people? People who have openly voted for MVP based on who gave nicer interviews. Just subjective, not objective.

Do you feel the same way with Wilts, Kareems and Russells MVP awards? I know the point you're making, especially with Nash winning back to back mvps recently. But I have no problem with Jordans MVP's; in fact I think he should have had 6: losing in 97 to malone was pretty bad.

With Pippen, six championships. Without him, zero.
With Phil Jackson, six championships. Without him, zero.
With Jerry Krause, six championships. Without him, zero.

But Pippen was there during Jordans prime. So was Jackson. When MJ left the first time, Pippen was given the opportunity Jordan never was: to suceed without Mike when he (pippen) was still at his best. Pippen joined in 87, so Jordan had 3 years without him to start his career, and 2 at the end when he was a wizard.

That's not a detriment to Scottie at all, or Jackson as a coach. But Jordan was the engine to the Bulls, his value was much higher then the 2 games implied by JFS.

Just to add to that point:
When Russel retired, the Celtics went from 48 wins to 34. But was Russel measured on regular season wins or Championships?

I'll pick out a top 80s team at random - 1986 Sixers - Moses Malone, Dr. J., Charles Barkley, Mo Cheeks - that's 3 or 4 hall of famers right there.
They would have steamrolled over most 90s teams. How did they do in 1986? 54 wins and out in the east semis. The likes of the 90s Pacers would have had a dynasty over teams like that? Come on dude.

Ok, I'll pick out one of the lesser Pacers teams as far as postseason success goes then. The 95-96 Pacers won 52 games with the second all time leader in assists, one of the best rebounders in the NBA, the best 3 point shooter in NBA history, a Center that stretched out defenses and scored 16-20 points a game consistently every night, one of the top defenders in the league. That team lost in the first round to the Atlanta Hawks.

What about the 92-93 Suns team that featured Charles Barkley's best season and an oustanding core of shooters and role players. Not to mention one of the most underrated point guards in NBA history in Kevin Johnson. That team won 62 games and would have won a championship in any season in the 80s, however they were beaten by guess who.

What about the 96-97 Heat that featured an outstanding 1-2-3 punch with Hardaway Mourning and Mashburn all having career years? Not to mention that they had leadership, outstanding defense and outstanding shooting. They got their asses handed to them by the Bulls in 5 games.

You keep bringing up great teams from the 80s as if people are trying to say that it was the dark era of basketball.

You must not be very familiar with the better Houston teams of the 80s.

I'm very familiar with them.

Ok, so what? Scottie Pippen, Michael Jordon, Gary Payton and Dennis Rodman were all as good if not better then Cooper.

You said Cooper was "no good", I was pointing out that is obviously far from the truth.[/quote]

I didn't say that, I just said he wasn't that good. He was a very solid defender, he was named to 8 or 9 all defensive teams and deservedly so. But one guy being used as a defensive specialist off the bench far from proves the dominance of an era.