Posts by Maria Nelson12

darkpilot9 said:Scottie Pippen was an incredible player, but he just stays in the shadows even now. I mean, Kobe managed to grab rings without Shaquille O'Neal, so it makes you wonder if Michael Jordan could have actually pulled it off without Pippen.

I mean, obviously not, at least not until Pippen joined the squad.

Carl Mendoza4 said:I mean, there’s really no point talking to you since you view everything through stats. You just end up creating this weird circular logic loop—claiming they played better without Jordan because their numbers were higher (even though the numbers were higher because they had to carry the load without him).

First off, I wasn't even the one who brought up the stats; you guys just demanded I provide at least one actual argument. So fine, here’s as much as you can handle. Secondly, how else am I supposed to look at it if not through the data? And thirdly, if you think you're so smart, go ahead and try to debunk my points. ☕

Carl Mendoza4 said:there's just this one "subtle" little detail though. without Jordan, they've got zero titles. with him, it's six.

Yeah, without Scottie Pippen 0 titles, but with him, it's six. ☕

rowdytinker3 said:Good grief, what an absolute pile of garbage. You honestly have no clue what you're talking about. A good basketball player? Please.🤣
If you think he's just a decent basketball player, then who exactly do you consider to be a phenomenal one, I guess?

Second thing—Chicago in Washington, D.C.? The guy came out of retirement and now you're seriously expecting him to go grab a ring with that group of losers from the old Wizards roster when he's already 40? I guess it's possible, maybe, but I doubt it.🤣 And that’s exactly why he’s overrated, I guess.🤣

Listen, man, you're being dense. Just go back and actually read what I wrote. I’m not even the one claiming this—it was just those journalists pumping out all that garbage about how he’s going to win everything, every single time, no matter who he's playing against. They kind of stepped in it, I guess.

rowdytinker3 said:Oh sure, because Scottie Pippen was obviously the sole reason for all those Chicago Bulls titles.🙏
I mean, maybe if Scottie Pippen had just swiped the ball right out of Karl Malone's hands during Game 6 of those '98 Finals, crushed Bill Russell's spirit, and then sunk the game-winner at the buzzer, things would have gone differently. I guess.

So, what? Does it really say it was just Scottie Pippen? I mean, when Steve Kerr hits a three like that, who's really doing the heavy lifting? I guess you have to wonder if Michael Jordan would’ve even grabbed a ring back then without Toni Kukoč stepping up and playing the game of his life against the Utah Jazz. Maybe.

rowdytinker3 said:Just one example here. I don't really get how people claim Karl Malone had it harder than Michael Jordan. If anything, he had two real shots at taking him down, only to get unlucky with a bad bounce. I guess it all comes down to having Scottie Pippen by his side. Jordan actually had some serious firepower around him. You had guys like Buechler, Steve Kerr, John Wennington, Bill Longley, Rodney Harper, Dennis Rodman, and even Toni Kukoč... basically a roster full of Hall of Famers.🤣:

That’s exactly the point, though. I mean, it felt like everyone was basically just playing for him.

rowdytinker3 said:Imagine if Shaquille O'Neal actually grabbed every single rebound... I mean, what if he did?🤣

I mean, maybe I was being a little manipulative and not the smartest there, my bad. You could've probably finished the rest of that sentence by pointing out he didn't pass them along to Kobe Bryant like Dennis Rodman and Michael Jordan would've. And honestly, was Dennis Rodman ever dropping 25 points a game like Shaquille O'Neal? Probably not.

rowdytinker3 said:I mean, I’m telling you right now, if Chicago played Bill Russell one-on-one, he’d absolutely smoke him. No contest.☕

🤦 What an idiot. We're over here actually talking about basketball, and he's stuck on some 1-1 tie. Why did I even bother showing up... honestly, can't even blame myself at this point. 🙂

darkjackal70 said:I mean, comparing him to Bill Russell is basically like comparing apples to oranges... trying to weigh the NBA from 50 or 60 years ago against how Basketball was played in the 90s is just ridiculous. I guess everyone pretty much agrees Michael Jordan is the greatest player to ever step onto a court, but there’s always going to be some random guy out there who just happens to dislike him and decides to act all high and mighty about it... kind of like you are...

😂 It’s honestly hilarious when some smart-aleck kid like you shows up acting all aggressive, thinking you’ve mastered every basketball book ever written and probably rule the local park courts, so you feel the need to lecture everyone. Just chill out, kid... you'll get there when you grow up. 🙂

frozentiger6 said:I bet you're one of those Utah Jazz or Seattle SuperSonics fans that Jordan absolutely lived in the heads of back in the nineties, Jason Fisher78. 😛

Nah. I used to pull for the Los Angeles Lakers back before Vlade Divac showed up. Then I switched over to their biggest rivals, the Boston Celtics, mostly because they had that whole white, Catholic, Irish, old-school vibe going on. After that, I pretty much just stopped following the NBA altogether because, honestly, I just couldn't be bothered anymore.

Carl Mendoza4 said:yeah, Tim Longley was absolute world-class stuff...

but I guess what sets him apart from some clownish one-man show types like Wilt is that he actually knew how to lead and squeeze everything out of guys—whether it was an elite talent like Scottie Pippen (though, let's be real, Pippen probably couldn't carry the Chicago Bulls by himself either) or just random Longley-type players who happened to end up on the roster.
you can't really put that in a box with stats, or you just end up looking like a joke.

That’s just not true, and honestly, you can back that up with numbers. Pippen played his best ball when Jordan wasn't even around. Back in '94, he was averaging 22 points, 8.7 rebounds, and 5.6 assists. When else did he ever hit those kinds of marks? Then in '95, he became only the second player in history to lead his squad in points, boards, assists, blocks, and steals. So, yeah, he was at his peak precisely when Jordan was out, which kind of kills the argument that Jordan was the one pushing him.

As for Longley? He was a mediocre player both when he arrived and when he left. I don't see how Jordan improved him at all. We're talking about a center who averaged maybe 5 rebounds and 7 points for his career. Like, seriously, what is there to say about Jordan improving him?

I mean, look at Steve Kerr. You know when he had his best season? It was right when he joined the Chicago Bulls in '94. That was the year Jordan was sidelined. So how does that work if Jordan wasn't the catalyst? Plus, Kerr was already a top-tier shooter back in the '89-90 season playing for the Cleveland Cavaliers. He was just as good before he ever shared the floor with Jordan. Jordan obviously didn't make him better.

And Dennis Rodman established himself as the premier defensive force back in 1990 and 1991 with the Detroit Pistons, way before he teamed up with Jordan. If anything, it was Rodman joining Chicago that pushed them toward those three titles. He's the one who elevated the situation for Jordan, not the other way around.

Et cetera. ☕

Ryan Vaughn7 said:I think you're exaggerating a bit. I don't recall any American media outlet being so clueless as to claim Jordan could just win a ring entirely on his own. Especially considering he didn't pick up anything during those first, what, six or seven seasons? Besides, even Bill Russell wasn't out there playing solo. He had Bob Cousy or John Havlicek by his side. And if I recall correctly, those guys are generally ranked higher in NBA history than Scottie Pippen.

They were saying all that stuff back then; it’s just that we can't verify it now because the internet didn't really exist to archive everything. Honestly, though, I feel like the media back home was even worse about it than the American press. My point is, there are definitely players out there with better stats than Jordan who arguably had a bigger impact on their teams. But even they aren't enough to secure a title unless they have actual quality teammates around them. So, I guess I'm disputing both the idea that he was basically a one-man show carrying everyone to titles and the notion that he's the greatest of all time. In my opinion, and looking at the stats, he just isn't.

darkwolf61 said:Yeah, he's massively overrated. I honestly don't get what people see in him.

It’s not even fans, really—it's just the media. It's that whole Michael Jordan syndrome, I guess. ☕

Chris Ortiz said:hahhah, I don't know how you even managed to cram those first two legends in the same sentence as that trio🤣

Roger Federer, Michael Schumacher, Messi, Kobe Bryant, Mike Tyson, Barry Bonds

Roger Federer and Michael Schumacher? I mean, Federer is probably the most dominant tennis player ever, and tennis is an individual sport. Same goes for Schumacher. Sure, it depends on the car and the crew, but he actually knew how to pull off decent results even with a total junker like a Benetton. Honestly, I guess the whole of Formula 1 is just one big overrated mess. ☕

Jack Murphy5 said:How could he possibly be overrated? Explain it to those of us who aren't following.

Nice. Americans always need their all-American hero, I guess. Back when the NBA was expanding, someone just decided he was going to be that guy, and it worked. I’m not saying he wasn't a good player, but his god-tier status was mostly a marketing masterpiece rather than pure talent. He had this incredible PR machine that kicked off with those gold chains at the dunk contest and just kept rolling. The media treated every little move he made like some superhuman feat, even though plenty of other players were doing the exact same stuff—they just weren't under a microscope. Then there was all that hype about how he'd win a title anywhere he went, which we saw play out in Washington, D.C. If he didn't have that massive clout—the kind of authority he was handed before he even proved he was better than average, unlike everyone else—he probably would've ended up winning nothing. He likely would've just been one of those solid, above-average guys who couldn't win anything because of bad teammates, stuck in the same tier as Dominique Wilkins, Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing, or Clyde Drexler.

You see how the media operates whenever Jordan left. They were desperate to manufacture a successor—someone slightly less than Jordan, obviously—which led to that whole string of "Baby Jordans" until they finally landed on Kobe Bryant, who ran into a bit of a statistical hurdle called Shaquille O'Neal. Just imagine if Shaq had played more like Dennis Rodman, grabbing every board and feeding Kobe. Not to mention that Kerrov gimmick or that legendary game against the Utah Jazz. Without those guys, there wouldn't be any rings or half as much fame. Once Kobe became too much of a liability for the narrative, they swapped him out for LeBron James and so on. I'm not saying Kobe isn't great, but the media definitely plays a role.

I'd honestly love to know what makes Jordan better than someone like Bill Russell.

Carl Mendoza4 said:cool. and despite being an absolute physical freak of nature, I guess Wilt Chamberlain only managed to snag two rings. so basically:

Michael Jordan's "clutch factor" >>>>>> Wilt Chamberlain's "clutch factor"

Michael Jordan >>>>>> Wilt Chamberlain

Nah, it’s more like Michael Jordan's teammates >>>>>> Wilt Chamberlain's teammates.

rowdytinker3 said:Oh, please. Give me a break. Jordan retires and suddenly everyone wants to blame them for losing those rings after getting absolutely robbed in the Eastern Conference semifinals. I guess that's just how people want to look at it, maybe. 🤦
If grandma had a dick, she’d be a dude, I guess.

That’s probably a huge reason why they dropped the ball on the title, I guess. But honestly, that isn't even the point.
The whole point is what actually matters for the roster. I mean, obviously Michael Jordan was huge—those guys probably wouldn't have grabbed six rings without him—but even he couldn't just carry a squad to titles if the supporting cast wasn't there. If you look at how those teams fell apart the season after losing their best player, it really shows who actually moved the needle for the group. He might have been the main character in the media's eyes, but clearly, that's not the full story.

rowdytinker3 said:So, I guess you're saying your guy Bill Russell, unlike Michael Jordan, was basically out there playing one-on-five most of the time?

Nah. That’s just how it looks to the Jordan fanboys.

darkpilot9 said:Yeah, I mean, I honestly think Jordan wouldn't have grabbed a single ring without Scottie Pippen.

What are you even talking about? How many rings did Pippen win without Jordan? Zero. How many did Jordan grab without Pippen? Zero.

Jordan played five seasons without Pippen, and I guess they were all losers. He missed the playoffs twice during that stretch, and when you look at his record in the games he actually played in the postseason without Pippen, it’s like 1-9.

As for Pippen, he only lost one playoff series without Jordan, and that was just his final season when he was basically washed up and too old to move.

So, I suppose it makes sense why Jordan kept insisting he wasn't playing without Pippen; if he'd known Pippen was going to get totally wrecked back in '97, maybe he wouldn't have come back until he was fully healed.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:I get the feeling you're just cherry-picking the stats that fit your narrative, and honestly, statistics are pretty easy to twist if you try hard enough. It would probably be fair to mention that Jordan didn't even show up until game 63 of that season, especially since he hadn't touched a basketball in like a year and a half.

I guess I'm just pushing back against this media myth that Jordan can just walk onto the court and fix everything instantly. It clearly doesn't work like that. If they had won the championship that year, what would the headlines look like? Probably something like: Nothing happened until game 63, then Jordan returns after an eighteen-month hiatus and leads the Chicago Bulls to a title. So, maybe he isn't quite the miracle worker everyone claims.

Ryan Vaughn7 said:They didn't exactly have a better record without him in '94 either. The reality is they won the title the year before, but they didn't that year... You call it a robbery? Fine. But why do you think they "probably" would've cleared the Indiana Pacers? The Pacers were actually a damn good team that year with Reggie Miller playing out of his mind, and even the New York Knicks barely scraped by them 4-3 after being down 2-3. Plus, they still would've had to deal with the Houston Rockets on their way to the ring, who ended up taking it anyway. To me, that all feels like a bit of a "what-if" fantasy.

Maybe they wouldn't have won it all, but maybe they would have if it wasn't for the officiating. My point is, it's not like they were obviously missing him on the floor, even though people kept saying he was the whole team. It seems more like they missed Horace Grant, or just someone equally solid on defense. As for Jordan, maybe the only thing he was missing was the refs favoring him. They definitely weren't calling fouls on him the way they did for Scottie Pippen. Heck, they might have even called a foul on him when he was the one committing it.

darkpilot9 said:See, there you go. You're quoting an article that’s basically just a collection of stats. So now Bill Russell is suddenly beyond reproach? I guess we're just assuming he played in some easier era or whatever.

And what about Wilt Chamberlain? I mean, the guy led the league in assists, field goal percentage, and rebounds like 29 different times. How many times did Michael Jordan lead the league in those specific categories? Zero. Exactly zero. And if someone didn't mess up the math by trying to sneak steals into the equation—not that steals or blocks were even tracked back in Wilt Chamberlain's day, since they only started counting them after he retired—well, the numbers don't lie. Jordan has 10 scoring titles, while Chamberlain 7, and keep in mind Chamberlain had something like 119 games where he dropped over 50 points, whereas Jordan had 30. But then again, when did the NBA even start implementing the three-pointer? ☕

rowdytinker3 said:it's all right there in the stats.

Here’s the reality of the situation:

Michael Jordan showed up in Chicago in 1984. That year, they didn't do anything. A year later? Still nothing. The third year rolls around, and once again, absolutely nothing happens. So, for those first three seasons, I guess you could say Jordan didn't really move the needle for the Bulls at all. They weren't even hitting a .500 winning percentage by the end of any given season. But then, maybe because the roster finally started looking decent, guys like Horace Grant and Scottie Pippen join the mix, and suddenly things start moving. They break that 50% win mark and make it to the Eastern Conference semifinals. It was just a slow build, filling out the roster, and eventually, they end up with three titles. Then Jordan takes a breather, and the team manages to stay competitive—finishing only two wins shy of the previous year before losing a ring on a blown call. When he comes back, though, the season is actually worse than before because they lost Grant in the process. So, basically, Jordan can't just drag a squad to the top without some serious help. Once Dennis Rodman fills that specific hole in the lineup and becomes the league's premier rebounder, they grab another three rings. After he moves to a mediocre Washington, D.C. team, they go nowhere. So, this whole media narrative about him being the sole reason for the wins, or that he brings a championship wherever he lands, is pretty much just a myth.

It seems pretty obvious to me that he's an incredible scorer who wouldn't have come close to that many rings if the front office hadn't eventually built a supporting cast and found the right coach. You probably can't leave Phil Jackson out of that equation either.

Let's keep this moving. When Michael Jordan came back in '95, the squad was missing both Horace Grant and Dennis Rodman. Grant had moved on to Orlando, and wouldn't you know it, the Bulls, led by Jordan, ended up dropping to the second round against Orlando, losing 4-2. So yeah, they were out 4-2. I guess some nitpickers might argue that they actually performed better the year before without Jordan, since they went out 4-3 back then.
If people kept insisting that they desperately needed Jordan and would have snagged the title in '94 if he hadn't left, how does it make sense that they somehow did worse once he actually returned? Maybe the real secret sauce was Horace Grant's defensive grit rather than just Jordan's all-around game... ☕At least until they brought in someone even more impactful than Grant—Dennis Rodman.

rowdytinker3 said:Also, I guess it’d be fair to mention that Bill Russell’s comfort zone involved an 8-team league and two playoff rounds. That’s a pretty big detail to leave out if you actually know what you're talking about.

If there were more teams, I mean, what kind of stats would even be left in Russell's favor?

rowdytinker3 said:Whatever it is you're trying to prove... look, I'm not claiming Michael Jordan is the greatest ever; honestly, I think trying to pick one GOAT is impossible. There are just a few guys where you can legitimately say "he's the best," and Michael Jordan is definitely in that circle, along with Larry Bird and Magic Johnson and stuff. It's mostly subjective, really. But you can't seriously call him overrated.

Maybe he's media-overrated. Like, they highlighted things he did that other guys were doing just as well, they just didn't get the same hype. Ever watch NBA Countdown or whatever they call it now? He was always top tier for dunks, even when someone else's tenth attempt was clearly better than his. Speaking of dunks, let's not forget that 1988 robbery. Dominique Wilkins was dunking way better, but Michael Jordan took the win because the All-Star Game was in Chicago and they needed to turn him into some media deity. He scored 50 points because he dunked from the free-throw line, not because he was actually better. Then in 1990, Scottie Pippen basically pulled the same stunt, but since he stayed behind the line, he only got 46. Funny how that works. Not that Michael Jordan was the first guy to dunk like that anyway, so that isn't even a valid reason for those 50 points.

Regarding the rest of the teams, I guess we should look at how people explain things like the fact that the Chicago Bulls had a 57 - 25 performance : conference finals year in 1993 with Michael Jordan, but then in 1994, without him, they went 55-27? Phil Jackson predicted they'd drop about 15 wins. And when Jordan left, you had Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, and B. J. Armstrong making the All-Star Game. I mean, how does that even happen when he's gone?

Let's just take a quick look at what happened to other squads one year after their superstars walked out the door:

1969 Boston Celtics and Bill Russell
When Bill Russell was playing
regular season 48-34
Result: Championship won

The year after he left:
regular season: 34-48 -
Win difference -14
Result: missed the playoffs

1973 Los Angeles Lakers and Wilt Chamberlain
When Bill Russell was playing
regular season 60-22
Result: NBA Finals

The year after he left:
regular season: 47-35 -
Win difference -13
Result: lost in the first round of the playoffs

1974 Milwaukee Bucks and Oscar Robertson
When Oscar Robertson was playing:
regular season 59-23
Result: NBA Finals

The year after he left:
regular season: 38-44 -
Win difference -21
Result: missed the playoffs

1988 Boston Celtics and Larry Bird
When Larry Bird was playing:
regular season 57-25
Result: conference finals

The year after he left:
regular season: 42-40 -
Win difference -15
Result: lost in the first round of the playoffs 3-0

1991 Los Angeles Lakers and Magic Johnson
When Magic Johnson was playing:
regular season 57-25
Result: NBA Finals

The year after he left:
regular season: 43-39
Win difference -15
Result: lost in the first round of the playoffs 3-1

1993 Chicago Bulls and Michael Jordan
When Michael Jordan was playing:
regular season 57-25
Result: Championship won

The year after he left:
regular season: 55-27
Win difference -2
Result: lost in the second round of the playoffs 4-3

With the Bulls in '94, you kind of have to mention how they actually exited. Scottie Pippen got hit with this totally phantom foul on Hubert Davis, who ended up sinking the winning free throws. People pretty much call that one of the biggest officiating robberies in NBA history. If the Bulls had actually moved on, they probably would've taken down Indiana in the Finals.