Did Jordan play in a watered down era ?

[discoduck]

If you ask me, i think that the most important thing to consider when asked "who's the best basketball player" is what he has achieved during his time. we cant compare players from different era's this is just because basketball is a growing sport. almost every year we expect basketball to evolve. For me what makes michael jordan the best to have ever played the sport is the mere fact that he was years ahead of his colleagues. Yes you are right that kobe, lebron, wade have so much more tricks up their sleeves but how do they compare to what jordan has done?

 

[discoduck]

If you ask me, i think that the most important thing to consider when asked "who's the best basketball player" is what he has achieved during his time. we cant compare players from different era's this is just because basketball is a growing sport. almost every year we expect basketball to evolve. For me what makes michael jordan the best to have ever played the sport is the mere fact that he was years ahead of his colleagues. Yes you are right that kobe, lebron, wade have so much more tricks up their sleeves but how do they compare to what jordan has done?

 

[lowprop23]

Originally Posted by mauriciogarcia

CLEARLY OP IS 13 YEARS OLD

YUP

 

[lowprop23]

Originally Posted by mauriciogarcia

CLEARLY OP IS 13 YEARS OLD

YUP

 

[dmbrhs]

Joining the party late here, but the second three peat has some glaring issues. First off, each of those seasons there were three teams that finished with 60+ wins. You know how many times that's happened in the modern era (when Magic and Bird entered the league)? Five. Three of them were '96, '97, '98. The other two are 1981 (Bird's first championship) and '09 (Lebron on the Cavs, stacked Lakers, and stacked Celtics). Look at every season since Magic and Bird entered the league. Sometimes two teams would get 60, but there was a certain level of competitiveness that kept teams from reaching that 60-win level. The league was insanely diluted in the second three peat, and the Bulls were just stacked (best player ever, best perimeter defensive combo G-SF ever, best rebounder in Rodman, 6th Man of the Year, 3-pt shooter in Kerr, etc.) against the weakened competition. In '96, the Sonics won 64 games. Good enough to be the #1 overall in most seasons, and they finished 8 games behind. The Magic had 60 wins that year. Those are ridiculous win totals for a single season.

Overall, the fact Jordan never faced a dominant center in the Finals (and even the Eastern playoffs...cue the Ewing apologists) is kind of convenient. After the league added four teams in '88 and '89, they ripped off their first run, which lined up with the '80s teams crumbling with age/retirement.

I'm not saying it's not impressive, I'm just saying it needs a little more scrutiny.

 

[dmbrhs]

Joining the party late here, but the second three peat has some glaring issues. First off, each of those seasons there were three teams that finished with 60+ wins. You know how many times that's happened in the modern era (when Magic and Bird entered the league)? Five. Three of them were '96, '97, '98. The other two are 1981 (Bird's first championship) and '09 (Lebron on the Cavs, stacked Lakers, and stacked Celtics). Look at every season since Magic and Bird entered the league. Sometimes two teams would get 60, but there was a certain level of competitiveness that kept teams from reaching that 60-win level. The league was insanely diluted in the second three peat, and the Bulls were just stacked (best player ever, best perimeter defensive combo G-SF ever, best rebounder in Rodman, 6th Man of the Year, 3-pt shooter in Kerr, etc.) against the weakened competition. In '96, the Sonics won 64 games. Good enough to be the #1 overall in most seasons, and they finished 8 games behind. The Magic had 60 wins that year. Those are ridiculous win totals for a single season.

Overall, the fact Jordan never faced a dominant center in the Finals (and even the Eastern playoffs...cue the Ewing apologists) is kind of convenient. After the league added four teams in '88 and '89, they ripped off their first run, which lined up with the '80s teams crumbling with age/retirement.

I'm not saying it's not impressive, I'm just saying it needs a little more scrutiny.

 

[captainspaulding]

Watered down ?

90s style of basketball was more hard body the fouls allowed in those days would get you teched,crucified, and suspended in todays game

Defense was way more intense and loaded with shot blockers- Robinson, Hakim, Mutombo, Zo, Pat.... compared to present day D.Howard, and ???????

There were teams that woould have lebron/wade shook- Knicks, GP/Kemps Sonics, the Heat even the Pacers squad with rose/miller/smits

Flopping / acting / the Vlade- didnt happen = more integrity and respect for the game

oh yeah NBA Live 95 >>>>>

 

[captainspaulding]

Watered down ?

90s style of basketball was more hard body the fouls allowed in those days would get you teched,crucified, and suspended in todays game

Defense was way more intense and loaded with shot blockers- Robinson, Hakim, Mutombo, Zo, Pat.... compared to present day D.Howard, and ???????

There were teams that woould have lebron/wade shook- Knicks, GP/Kemps Sonics, the Heat even the Pacers squad with rose/miller/smits

Flopping / acting / the Vlade- didnt happen = more integrity and respect for the game

oh yeah NBA Live 95 >>>>>

 

[kb8 3qwick]

at people mentioning the Knicks when Ewing really never even had a 2nd good player around him. It was Ewing and a whole bunch of CBA or over the hill players and they were the Bulls biggest threat.

 

[kb8 3qwick]

at people mentioning the Knicks when Ewing really never even had a 2nd good player around him. It was Ewing and a whole bunch of CBA or over the hill players and they were the Bulls biggest threat.

 

[captainspaulding]

^ knicks were loaded with defensive minded goons . Oakley Mason Harper . Also Starks and Doc were a problem back then. They would absolutely torture present day teams with their physical jail D .

Yall need to go check youtube and just look at how intense the games were from tipoff till this day you can sense the hunger each team had to WIN and that "every play is important style they played will never return

Jordan is GOAT he succeeded in a thirsty era no matter the talent. players nowdays are nonchalant / looking for the easy way out.

 

[captainspaulding]

^ knicks were loaded with defensive minded goons . Oakley Mason Harper . Also Starks and Doc were a problem back then. They would absolutely torture present day teams with their physical jail D .

Yall need to go check youtube and just look at how intense the games were from tipoff till this day you can sense the hunger each team had to WIN and that "every play is important style they played will never return

Jordan is GOAT he succeeded in a thirsty era no matter the talent. players nowdays are nonchalant / looking for the easy way out.

 

[cedric ceballos 1995 lakers]

i got a serious question because it seems like anyone who thinks the 90's wasn't a great era is a "Laker Kobe Stan" in niketalks eyes and is trying to take the great michael jordans name in vein.

How many titles do you think Michael Jordan and the Bulls would've won had they been in their prime in the 1980's at the same time the Celtics, 76ers, and Pistons were in the east and the Lakers in the west? Of course they'd win titles but how many do you think they would win compared to the 6 they won in the 90's.

aside from a Laker team coached by mike dunleavy that was missing byron scott and james worthy almost the entire series, none of the teams they beat in the 90's ever won anything. I'll say with a straight face that the 97 and 98 jazz are probably the best team ever to not win a title. dudes were loaded, well coached and had they been a year or 2 younger would've won a title after mike retired after 98.

it doesn't take away from the bulls because 6 rings is 6 rings however you look at it, but they wouldn't have won as many in the 1980's and there's no arguing that.

 

[cedric ceballos 1995 lakers]

i got a serious question because it seems like anyone who thinks the 90's wasn't a great era is a "Laker Kobe Stan" in niketalks eyes and is trying to take the great michael jordans name in vein.

How many titles do you think Michael Jordan and the Bulls would've won had they been in their prime in the 1980's at the same time the Celtics, 76ers, and Pistons were in the east and the Lakers in the west? Of course they'd win titles but how many do you think they would win compared to the 6 they won in the 90's.

aside from a Laker team coached by mike dunleavy that was missing byron scott and james worthy almost the entire series, none of the teams they beat in the 90's ever won anything. I'll say with a straight face that the 97 and 98 jazz are probably the best team ever to not win a title. dudes were loaded, well coached and had they been a year or 2 younger would've won a title after mike retired after 98.

it doesn't take away from the bulls because 6 rings is 6 rings however you look at it, but they wouldn't have won as many in the 1980's and there's no arguing that.

 

[xsalvioutlawx]

All I have to say is, Scottie Pippen was underrated. Some people fail to realize how good he really was and how much he actually ment to the Bulls.

A little off topic, but that's all I want to put in.

 

[xsalvioutlawx]

All I have to say is, Scottie Pippen was underrated. Some people fail to realize how good he really was and how much he actually ment to the Bulls.

A little off topic, but that's all I want to put in.

 

[blazerfan]

Originally Posted by Cedric Ceballos 1995 Lakers

it doesn't take away from the bulls because 6 rings is 6 rings however you look at it, but they wouldn't have won as many in the 1980's and there's no arguing that.

 

  Laker Fans.

 

[blazerfan]

Originally Posted by Cedric Ceballos 1995 Lakers

it doesn't take away from the bulls because 6 rings is 6 rings however you look at it, but they wouldn't have won as many in the 1980's and there's no arguing that.

 

  Laker Fans.

 

[cedric ceballos 1995 lakers]

Originally Posted by BlazerFan

Originally Posted by Cedric Ceballos 1995 Lakers

it doesn't take away from the bulls because 6 rings is 6 rings however you look at it, but they wouldn't have won as many in the 1980's and there's no arguing that.

 

  Laker Fans.

Blazer Fans

    if their not bitter, their unintelligent. either way their a niketalk punchline

 

[cedric ceballos 1995 lakers]

Originally Posted by BlazerFan

Originally Posted by Cedric Ceballos 1995 Lakers

it doesn't take away from the bulls because 6 rings is 6 rings however you look at it, but they wouldn't have won as many in the 1980's and there's no arguing that.

 

  Laker Fans.

Blazer Fans

    if their not bitter, their unintelligent. either way their a niketalk punchline

 

[blazerfan]

The 86 Bulls and young Mike were swept by Boston losing by 4, 9, & 11 respectively. Why don't you go look at who young Mike was working with compared to when they won their titles. So this "they wouldn't have won 6 and it's not debatable" crap is utter garbage. It's two different eras making it all completely debatable.

*Sips*

 

[blazerfan]

The 86 Bulls and young Mike were swept by Boston losing by 4, 9, & 11 respectively. Why don't you go look at who young Mike was working with compared to when they won their titles. So this "they wouldn't have won 6 and it's not debatable" crap is utter garbage. It's two different eras making it all completely debatable.

*Sips*

 

[teamcharisma69]

This was the greatest challenge Sparta had to offer? What a shame.

 

[teamcharisma69]

This was the greatest challenge Sparta had to offer? What a shame.

 

[lightweight champion]

C'mon dude don't act like my man Dave Corzine wasn't a force! Jordan also had Kyle Macy and John Paxson as his backcourt mates, of course they should've defeated Boston!