Overrated athletes?

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? ☕

Jason Fisher78 said:Let’s keep moving. When Michael Jordan came back in '95, the squad was missing both Horace Grant and Dennis Rodman. Grant had moved on to the Orlando Magic and, wouldn't you know it, the Chicago Bulls were led by Michael Jordan only to drop out in the second round against Orlando, losing 4-2. They were out. Now, the nitpickers might argue they actually had a better record the year prior without Michael because they went the distance at 4-3.
If people were claiming they missed Michael so much that they would have won the title in '94 if he hadn't left, how does it make sense that they performed worse after his return than they did without him? Maybe the real secret sauce was Horace Grant's defense rather than Michael's all-around game...☕ Not until Dennis Rodman showed up and proved to be even better than Grant.

I get the impression you're cherry-picking data here, and honestly, statistics are always open to interpretation. It would probably be fair to mention that Michael didn't return until the 63rd game of the season, after being away from a basketball for a year and a half.
And they didn't actually have a better run without him in '94. The fact is, they won the championship the year before, and they didn't that year. You call it a robbery? Fine. But why on earth do you think they "probably" would have cleared the Indiana Pacers? The Pacers were a powerhouse that year with Reggie Miller playing out of his mind, and even the New York Knicks barely scraped by them 4-3 after trailing 2-3. Besides, they still would have had to deal with the Houston Rockets on their way to a title—who ended up winning it all anyway. To me, that feels like a lot of "what-if" speculation.

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: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.

Jason Fisher78 said:Here’s the reality of the situation:

Michael Jordan arrived in Chicago in '84. They achieved absolutely nothing that year. A year later? Still nothing. Third year? Same story. So, for those first three seasons, Jordan didn't do a single damn thing to improve the Bulls' performance. They weren't even hitting a .500 winning percentage at the end of any of those years. But then, some actual talent like Horace Grant and Scottie Pippen join the roster, and suddenly, things move. They finally break the 50% mark and make it to the Eastern Conference semifinals. It was a slow build, filling out the roster, until they eventually snagged three titles. Then Jordan settles down, and the rest of the guys finish just two wins shy of a better record, losing a ring because of one robbed game. He comes back, and the season is actually worse than before because they lost Grant in the meantime. Basically, Jordan can't drag a team to a win without help. Then Dennis Rodman shows up to fill that missing hole, becomes the league's top rebounder for years, and boom—three more titles. After he leaves for that mediocre Washington Wizards team, they go right back to being nothing. All this media talk about how he carries teams, how he's the sole reason for the rings, and how wherever he lands, trophies follow? That's just pure mythology.

It's crystal clear: he's a great scorer who wouldn't have come close to those titles if the front office hadn't built him a real supporting cast and given him a coach. You can't leave Phil Jackson out of that equation either.

Oh, give me a break. You're saying Jordan "settles down" and that they lost the ring because of some bad call in the Eastern Conference semifinals? 🤦
If my grandmother had a penis, she'd be a man.

By the way, I assume your favorite, Bill Russell, was playing one-on-five unlike Michael Jordan?

Jason Fisher78 said:Think about Wilt Chamberlain for a second. He led the league in assists, field goal percentage, and rebounds a whopping 29 times. Now, how many times did Michael Jordan lead the league in those exact categories? Not once!

Fair point. And despite all that physical dominance, Wilt only managed to snag two championships. So, what does that actually tell us?

Michael Jordan's "IQ" >>>>>> Wilt Chamberlain's "IQ"

Michael Jordan >>>> Wilt Chamberlain

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.

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:Give me a break. Some random American is going to think Ivan Balic is some massive superstar. Honestly, you guys are talking nonsense.

Look, I don't give a damn what Americans think about anything, so why should I care what some average Joe in the States thinks about Ivan Balic? As long as Balic has made a name for himself in Europe, that's what matters. Let the Americans keep obsessing over those degenerate players in the NFL—half of them probably have a criminal record waiting for them. Don't get me wrong, I love the NFL, but seriously, who cares what the average American thinks?

Jason Fisher78 said:I’m really pushing back against this media narrative that Michael Jordan just shows up and wins a title immediately. It clearly wasn't like that.

I think you're exaggerating a bit. Honestly, no American media outlet was quite foolish enough to claim Michael Jordan could win a championship all by himself. Especially considering he didn't win anything during those first, what, six or seven seasons? Besides, even Bill Russell didn't play alone. He had Bob Cousy or John Havlicek by his side. And if I recall correctly, they are generally regarded as better players in NBA history than Scottie Pippen.

Jason Fisher78 said:No, he’s actually saying Jordan's teammates >>> Wilt Chamberlain's teammates.

Sure, Longley was a world-class talent🙄

What kind of nonsense are you even talking about? It’s honestly wild. First off, we just arrived at this brilliant conclusion that to be good at basketball, you need to have four other decent players around you. Wow. ☕
It's true, Jordan had great teammates in Scottie Pippen, Kerr, and an incredible coach—that’s a given. But what separates him from a thug like Wilt Chamberlain or those other "one-man show" clowns is his ability to lead. He knew how to squeeze the absolute maximum out of someone as talented as Scottie Pippen (though, let's be real, Pippen couldn't carry the Chicago Bulls on his own) and even out of guys like Longley who just happened to find themselves on the Bulls roster and played their part.
You can't really capture that through stats alone; if you try, you just end up looking ridiculous.

Jordan basically ignored the laws of physics; if anything, that’s what made him one of a kind.

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.

You’re definitely one of those Utah Jazz or Seattle SuperSonics fans, Jason Fisher78, who spent the entire nineties getting absolutely schooled by Jordan.😛

I might actually start believing this snowboarder soon, if he keeps this up.🙏🙏

The guy basically laid it all out on the table—just look at the facts.

And hey, why haven't I ever seen you hanging around the NBA threads, Jason Fisher78? You should really drop by once in a while.

Jason Fisher78 said:They claimed they did, it's just that we can't verify it now because there wasn't any online coverage back then.

How fitting for your red herring. ☕

Jason Fisher78 said:But honestly, our media was even worse than the American media.

Very relevant.

Jason Fisher78 said:The thing is, there are definitely players out there with better stats than Jordan who had an even bigger impact on their teams.

How much more? Like 20%? 50%?

Jason Fisher78 said:So, I'm disputing how overrated he is, specifically regarding the idea that he basically won titles all by himself.

The best part is that nobody here is actually claiming that, nor is Jordan himself; it's just a narrative you've constructed using non-existent or unverified sources.
I don't quite get why you're getting so worked up... Jordan was the best player and the absolute ruler of the league during the era of globalized broadcasts and that massive concentration of talent in the NBA. wtf? 🤷

frozentiger6 said:You know, Jason Fisher78, you definitely strike me as one of those Utah Jazz or Seattle SuperSonics fans who probably spent the entire nineties feeling completely intimidated by Jordan.😛

because that's exactly how it comes across.
It reminds me of this one buddy of mine who was such a huge Shawn Kemp fan he practically developed an ulcer just from the stress of watching NBA games.😁

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. ☕

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.

frozentiger6 said:Honestly, I don't give a damn what Americans think about anything, so why should I care what some random guy in the States thinks about Ivan Balic? It's enough that Balic has made a name for himself in Europe. Let the Americans keep obsessing over those thugs in the NFL—half of them probably have a criminal record anyway. Look, I’m not hating on the NFL, I actually love the sport, but seriously, who cares what your average American thinks?

Exactly. Same goes for how much the average American cares about what some random person back home thinks. For crying out loud, Babe Ruth played baseball, not football. Pretty sure we were talking about Babe Ruth.