85 posts shown.
hollowtrucker77 said:Do you even understand the concept of "derailing a conversation"??
We all know the reasons why someone committed certain crimes; analyzing motives isn't really a political issue anymore.
The actual political question is whether the people responsible will ever answer for their crimes, and specifically what can be proven against them and how much.
Maybe I wouldn't even care if I hadn't stumbled upon that post about the waterfront protests before it got wiped. After seeing that, nothing else really matters much, I guess.
Sam Green73 said:Look, there’s no question here: we are talking about actual crimes.
Any attempt to justify those crimes or list mitigating circumstances is something that belongs in a courtroom, not here.
I have no interest in seeing people try to downplay or relativize these crimes, even if they happened six decades ago, on the subforum I moderate.
Real classy. Honestly, I’m just sitting here wondering why all those massive posts from the left wing trying to excuse the crimes haven't been nuked yet, and how it works out that basically everyone except Adler gets banned while the conservatives get the hammer.
hollowtrucker77 said:I’m standing right behind Resonatorov on this one.
There really isn't any reason to drag this whole thing out into a massive debate.
So, I guess if this whole discussion about the Manolić investigation and Boljkovac is centered on crimes committed sixty years ago, we aren't allowed to actually talk about the motivations behind those crimes because that would be "derailing"? I mean, if they didn't have some kind of reason for committing those crimes, they wouldn't have done them in the first place, and then there wouldn't even be a topic to discuss. That seems like a pretty valid way to expand the conversation.
But honestly, I think that's only being called derailing because I managed to prove something in my posts that directly contradicts what the other side is claiming. So apparently, proving facts is "derailing," and that's why certain posts get deleted just to hide the truth—whereas when Resonatorov and his buddy F10XX post stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject, it doesn't count as derailing and stays up:
I haven't seen any 'leftists' hanging out at the local boardwalks or beach bars.I mean, what does people gathering at the boardwalk or beach bars have to do with this investigation? Nothing, really. But hey, whatever helps them sleep at night...
So I was having this decent back-and-forth with F10XX, but then Resonator went ahead and nuked my posts. One of them was actually pretty important because I was laying out why people like me shouldn't be lumped in with the whole instability thing, basically pointing out how certain totalitarian regimes share similar patterns. Resonator just wiped it anyway with this note: "Please refrain from discussing the motivations behind crimes committed more than 60 years ago".
The whole thread is about the investigation into two individuals regarding crimes from 60 years ago, yet we aren't allowed to talk about the motives? Like, what am I supposed to write about then? Makes zero sense.
Honestly, I think the edge and Resonator should probably lose their mod privileges since they're clearly biased as hell.
wiredmason10 said:Back in '98, the NBA wasn't exactly a global melting pot yet.🙄
@Jason Fisher78/">@@Jason Fisher78
Since you're so keen on listing who you think the GOATs are, maybe check out these quotes:
Magic Johnson: "there's Michael Jordan and then There is The rest of US."
Larry Bird: "God disguised as Michael Jordan."
And here’s what Bill Russell had to say about him: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sport...rdan_6-15.html
It's pretty funny how they all seem to line up perfectly with the public consensus on Jordan, isn't it? Or do you honestly believe all three of them were just swallowed up by some massive marketing machine designed to turn an average player into a superhuman?
I guess there are two ways to look at it. Either they actually mean it, or they're basically stuck in a media cage where if they dared to name anyone else as the best, people would just accuse them of being jealous of Jordan. It's probably just easier to say his name and call it a day. That seems more likely to me. Anyway, let's move on from Jordan already. There are plenty of other overrated athletes we could talk about instead.
Paul Lopez6 said:Jason Fisher78, what do you think—was Michael Jordan ever harder on Scottie Pippen back in the day, or is Kobe Bryant being worse to Lamara now? 😁
I don't really know how Kobe is treating Lamara lately. I guess I haven't been following the NBA all that closely. But man, that Odom guy was driving me absolutely insane during the last World Cup in Turkey, at least until I read about him tragically losing his son. After that, I just felt for him, so I'm not gonna hold any grudges against him.
Carl Mendoza4 said:so, basically while I was gone, we’ve reached the point where people think Michael Jordan and Dennis Rodman deserve equal credit for that Bulls dynasty. brilliant.
I mean, what kind of conclusion are you supposed to draw from the fact that the Bulls couldn't grab a title until they finally got a decent center to step in for Horace Grant, like when they brought in Rodman?
Before Grant was there, they didn't win anything. Once Grant showed up, they snagged three titles. Then he leaves, and suddenly they aren't winning a thing again until Rodman arrives. Then, boom, another three titles, and Michael Jordan was playing for them pretty much the whole time.
I'm not saying they would've won a ring without Michael Jordan. Probably wouldn't have, maybe except for '94. But it seems pretty obvious to me that they just couldn't be champions with Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen if they didn't have a high-quality center backing them up.
Raymond Harris4 said:Jason Fisher78 seems pretty sharp based on his posts (I've seen your takes on politics too).
Anyway, you follow soccer much closer? Maybe we could chat about it sometime. 😁
Thanks for the compliment. If only you were a girl...😁.
Maybe we could. Especially on this thread, particularly when it comes to Dražen Boksic...😁
The_End said:So, in your opinion, who left a bigger impression on you, Senna or Prost?
😉
I guess I’m just sitting here overthinking it and I can't really give you a straight answer because whenever I think about them, Senna is the one stuck in my head. Maybe it's just because there's been so much more written about him over, say, the last 15 years, so his name just kind of echoes in my mind. Back then, I was watching the NBA way more than Formula 1. I mean, I was a total NBA fanatic in the eighties, but Formula 1 wasn't really my thing.
The thing with Senna is that he died while he was still at the absolute top of his game, which just leaves so much room for all those "what if" scenarios. How am I even supposed to compare him to Prost? He has fewer titles, sure, but he also had two fewer seasons. I don't know. They're pretty much equal 🤷.
dustypanther6 said:I mean, what kind of logic was he even using there?? He basically tried to claim that because Scottie Pippen’s shooting percentage was maybe 0.2% better in the seasons without Michael Jordan than when they played together, that somehow proves a point. Like, seriously, what kind of weak-ass argument is that??
Even if we're talking about a measly -0.2%, I guess you could argue that it technically refutes the idea that Jordan actually improved the players around him. Especially once you start looking at the rest of the roster and digging into the actual stats.
Paul Lopez6 said:Okay, but I don't see how that actually relates to downplaying his titles or any of his individual/team awards. Nothing there seems to exaggerate a sports personality.
I guess the issue is just how those achievements are framed. They make it look like he was somehow more deserving than everyone else, or even solely responsible for everything, when if you actually look at the stats, he was really just one link in the chain—no more vital than, say, Scottie Pippen or Dennis Rodman. Then there's the fact that he put up some insane individual numbers within that system. Obviously, without that structure, he wouldn't have had those accolades, except maybe for raw scoring stats. I mean, Dominique Wilkins was right on Jordan's heels in scoring for years. He even led the league one year, but he never got the ring because he could never get a decent roster around him.
So, here’s how CBS is promoting that DVD about it—and honestly, they're straight-up lying, even when it comes to Worthy (though I guess I'm just seeing the footage for the first time now that they've slapped it on the disc):
For the first time in a career that’s basically been in a league of its own, I guess you could say Michael Jordan was something else, though I don't know if anyone can really call him "great" without sounding like they're just repeating what everyone else says. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but he definitely had that certain something. I guess he just got thrown right into the deep end under all those bright lights. as he steered those Tar Heels to a narrow 63-62 win Just to grab that national championship, I guess. That legendary last-second shot. The Tar Heels managed to pull off the win against the Hoyas, even though they were staring down a future NBA legend like Patrick Ewing. It was one of those legendary matchups that also gave us the 1982 NCAA tournament Most Outstanding Player, the Hall of Famer James Worthy. People mostly remember it for Michael Jordan's buzzer-beater, I guess, but that whole legendary clash between two college heavyweights is also pretty much defined by that one wild pass from Georgetown.People always talk about Michael Jordan's Last second Shot, but honestly, this legendary clash between two college basketball giants is just as famous for that wild, errant pass from Georgetown's Fred Brown during their final possession of the game. So, basically, James Worthy just stepped in there and snatched that pass. ...just to lock in that win for the North Carolina Tar Heels!
I guess if you look back at that legendary showdown between two college basketball giants, people mostly obsess over Michael Jordan's last-second jumper. But honestly, that whole epic battle is just as much about that one wild, errant pass from Georgetown. It’s crazy how one mistake defines a moment, but I suppose that's just how these things go. In the title game against Georgetown in the Superdome, James Worthy was absolutely tearing it up with 28 points, and then Jordan hits that winner to let the Tar Heels sneak past the Hoyas. Just one of those classic pieces of history, I guess.
It clearly says right here that Jordan led the team to victory with a last-second bucket, which just isn't true. It also claims Worthy stepped up and stole the pass, but if you actually watch Ryan Vaughn7's footage, you can see he was just standing there waiting for the ball to be delivered to him.
And that’s basically how a myth gets built, I guess.
Unlike those big-name media houses that spend all their time spinning narratives, some random outlets actually try to write something realistic without trying to build up some massive myth around anyone.
With James Worthy playing as a junior and Michael Jordan just hitting his stride as a freshman, the Tar Heels absolutely tore through the ACC, snagged that top spot in the rankings, and finally pulled off their first NCAA championship in 25 years.
So, back in that title game against Georgetown at the Superdome, Worthy ended up dropping 28 points, and I guess Jordan hit that clutch winning jumper to help the Tar Heels edge out the Hoyas, 62–61. Worthy actually took home the tournament MVP honors, and he basically got handed the win when Georgetown's Fred Brown threw an errant pass in those final seconds to ice it.
I guess if you're looking for some deep dive on historical data or whatever, that link might have something for you, though I can't say I'm sure how much useful stuff is actually in there. It looks like a standard reference page, maybe? Just seems like one of those deep-cut info sites where you go when you're feeling particularly nerdy about certain statistics. Probably worth a look if you've got nothing better to do, I suppose.
Ryan Vaughn7 said:But honestly, that’s not really the point; you’re just cherry-picking stats to fit your narrative again. You conveniently left out the fact that back in the '82 season, Michael was just a freshman while Worthy was a senior. During that season, Jordan was averaging about 13.5 points and 4.4 rebounds, whereas Worthy was putting up 15.6 points and 6.3 rebounds. It wasn't even that big of a gap. Plus, Worthy actually had worse stats during his freshman year than Jordan did, and then Jordan ended up outperforming Worthy's senior numbers by the time he finished his own senior year.
At the end of the day, I don't get why you're making such a big deal out of ESPN naming Jordan as one of the most deserving players for that title. They didn't say he was *the* most deserving, just one of them. He dropped 16 points in the final—second only to Worthy—and he hit the game-winning shot. I mean, what else do you need to justify being called "one of the most deserving"?
It doesn't really matter who was a freshman or who had better stats at the start versus the end. What matters is how much the media tends to exaggerate a sports personality like Jordan. I'm not saying Worthy isn't a better player overall than Jordan, but I am saying that during that specific season, Worthy was the superior player, he was the one leading the team to victory, and he was the standout in the final, not Jordan.
What's controversial is how Worthy gets totally erased from the entire story. People act like it's all about Jordan being the leader and the guy who decided the game, which just isn't accurate. And ESPN isn't the only ones doing it, either.
Raymond Anderson4 said:I mean, how can anyone even try to argue whether Senna or Michael Schumacher was better when they haven't actually sat down and watched a single race of Senna's?
I guess statistics tell a story, but then again, there are some of us here who have actually watched Senna and Michael Schumacher, and even Michael Jordan, live.
So, to wrap this up (hopefully) regarding Michael Jordan, I’ve got one more stat to throw out there that pretty much dismantles the whole myth about him making his teammates better.
If you look at the nine players who were on the court with him in '93 versus how they played in '94 without him, the numbers speak for themselves. When they were playing alongside him, their field goal percentage was 48.2%. Once he was gone, that number actually bumped up to 48.6%. So, I guess we're supposed to believe Michael Jordan was the one elevating them?
Take two key guys from the Bulls era—Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant during that '92/'93 season with Michael Jordan:
Scottie Pippen: 18.6 PPG, 47.3% FG
Horace Grant: 13.2 PPG, 50.8% FG.
Now, look at Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant in the '93/'94 season without Michael Jordan:
Scottie Pippen: 22.0 PPG, 49.1% FG
Horace Grant: 15.1 PPG, 52.4% FG.
And people still claim he brought out the best in them. Yeah, right! 👍
Honestly, Michael Jordan didn't give a damn about his teammates. He basically admitted himself that his only real priority was being the guy who scores the most. You can't deny his competitiveness, but that was about it.
Besides, he was a total piece of work. I think there was a book—maybe something like *The Man Behind the Mask* or some exposé—that mentioned how he once took Steve Kerr's meal on a plane and told him he didn't deserve to eat. For years, the media painted him as this wholesome family man and a quintessential American role model, but the guy was cheating on his wife and hooking up with anyone in sight, which didn't really start hitting the headlines until later on.
dustypanther6 said:My best point is probably this: "Michael Jordan got 50 because he basically stepped over the line during his dunk instead of actually doing it from behind it." If you step over the line, the dunk doesn't count—kind of like a foul in long jump where you just bust. For God's sake.
I mean, why are you even surprised? To get a 50, the dunk really should have been entirely behind the free-throw line since it wasn't exactly revolutionary. The first guy to pull it off was Michael Jordan, but he had about half a sneaker in front of the line. Then you've got Scottie Pippen back in 1990 doing the same thing, but since he barely touched the line, he only got a 45🙄. Honestly, I think Scottie Pippen's dunk was actually the first legitimate one from the charity stripe. Plus, Dominique Wilkins getting 45 for his last dunk felt totally unearned, especially since he was leading by two points before that. No, it's not a conspiracy, and no, it's not an exaggeration...☕
I mean, if you look at how ESPN basically hand-waved Jordan's role in that 1982 NCAA Championship win, it’s pretty obvious what happened. It was just that specific era where Jordan was sitting on his media throne, so I guess everything he ever did had to be framed as legendary. The reality is, he didn't single-handedly carry them to that title like everyone claims. He wasn't even playing his best ball during those Final Fours, and honestly, he wasn't even one of the all-time greats in college. They just gave him all the credit to build the myth. Back in '82, James Worthy was actually the star at North Carolina. He made the All-American team, whereas Jordan didn't even make his conference's first team. Worthy was the guy leading the charge in scoring all season, through the Final Four, and especially in that championship game where he dropped 28 points. He was the Final Four MVP and the top player in the Eastern Conference. Plus, he's the one who stripped the ball from Georgetown's Fred Brown in the closing moments to seal that 63-62 win. Sure, Jordan hit the shot that put them up, but it wasn't some buzzer-beater; it was with 15 seconds left. And if Worthy hadn't shut down Brown—kind of like how Vrankovic blocked that monter in the EuroLeague Panathinaikos vs. Barcelona game in Paris back in '96 where it ended 67-66—the score probably would've swung the other way, maybe 62-64.
Anyway, nobody was talking about Worthy; the narrative was always that Jordan led the team to glory. Led them! right? After that, Worthy moved on to the NBA while Jordan stayed behind in the NCAA. How many titles did Jordan grab without Worthy? Zero. How many times did he even make a Final Four? Zero. And did Worthy make the Final Four without Jordan? Yeah, back in '81.
If that isn't massive exaggeration, I don't know what is. ☕
Ryan Vaughn7 said:Maybe we should switch up the protagonist of this whole saga? I mean, like what Isiah Thomas once implied—that if he weren't white, he’d probably just be some average ball player.
That’s basically what started Rodman claiming Bird was being forced into the spotlight, and then Isiah Thomas kept the momentum going. But honestly, that might not even be true. It actually isn't. I mean, considering how physically outmatched Larry Bird was compared to the elite Black athletes in the league, he was still playing right up there among the best. Just imagine if he actually had that kind of Black athleticism and verticality? Maybe he really would've been the greatest ever if he'd been Black.
rowdytinker3 said:So the whole argument boils down to those 50 points at the dunk contest in Chicago, right? When he scored 50 on a free-throw dunk and basically stepped over the line... just pure Media hype🙏🙏 I mean, honestly, if I’m being real here, he probably shouldn't have even gotten those 50 points—he only pulled it off because he was the home-court favorite.
Everyone knows that, and it's pretty much considered the biggest robbery in the history of dunk contests. I guess Jordan could dunk, sure, but Wilkins was better. In my opinion, Dominique Wilkins is easily the greatest dunker ever, and honestly, I’d even put Clyde "The Glyde" Drexler ahead of Jordan.
rowdytinker3 said:so how is it that Dennis Rodman didn't just carry Oscar Robertson to a title?
I mean, obviously, you can't just have anyone carry anyone else to a championship whenever they feel like it.
rowdytinker3 said:hey, you're entitled to your opinion. honestly, everyone except Jordan deserves credit for those 6 titles and that 82-10 season. especially Steve Kerr and Scottie Pippen. then maybe Dennis Rodman, and finally Jordan. and somewhere in there, Toni Kukoč.
The whole point is that they all reached those titles together by helping each other out, rather than the rest of them just riding Jordan's coattails. And when the chemistry in the three and four spots wasn't quite right—especially within Jackson's triangle offense where Jordan really flourished—the championships stopped coming. Just like how this group wouldn't have accomplished anything without Jordan, Jordan wouldn't have done much without them either. It's pretty simple, really. Which basically means Jordan isn't some kind of "one-man show."
rowdytinker3 said:Alright, then tell me, how many players actually rank higher than Jordan in the stats? We could just stick to the playoffs if we wanted, since the regular season is basically a joke anyway.
I guess the question is just framed wrong. Like, which specific stat? But fine, looking at it generally and not just the playoffs: Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, Magic Johnson, and in certain categories, even Larry Bird and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Personally, I think everyone on that list besides Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is better than Jordan.