- 7,918
- 6,300
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2005
Solidifying the idea that MJ is the GOAT is exactly what their opinion does.
Is it just the Jordan mystique that makes him the "undisputed" GOAT?
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by grittyman20,
- Start date
- 4,169
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2002
You can argue that Jordan won 6 titles in one of the weakest eras in NBA history. He played in the 90's...name me an era where there was only 1 great team? The 80's had the Lakers, Celtics, and the Pistons...2 teams that could be in the argument for the best ever. The 90's only had the Bulls. In the 2000's there were the Lakers and the Spurs. Can't speak on the 60's or 70's so I won't even speculate on that but of course there were the Lakers and Celtics winning titles in those eras.
And then there's the argument about the league having 30 teams which I'm sure diminishes the talent level, although no one can truly ever prove how much...so there is an argument against MJ.
- 4,169
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2002
You can argue that Jordan won 6 titles in one of the weakest eras in NBA history. He played in the 90's...name me an era where there was only 1 great team? The 80's had the Lakers, Celtics, and the Pistons...2 teams that could be in the argument for the best ever. The 90's only had the Bulls. In the 2000's there were the Lakers and the Spurs. Can't speak on the 60's or 70's so I won't even speculate on that but of course there were the Lakers and Celtics winning titles in those eras.
And then there's the argument about the league having 30 teams which I'm sure diminishes the talent level, although no one can truly ever prove how much...so there is an argument against MJ.
- 849
- 11
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2011
Certain guys just won't be marketed the same way regardless of their play on the court. LeBron for instance. He's not the best "looking" guy. Guys like MJ and Kobe are far more marketable just from a "look" perspective. MJ was the best player, but he was also very lucky on the marketing side. He had the best shoe line at the exact perfect time. Even something as simple as team colors played an important role. Seriously. Red, white & black just works. Ask Coca-Cola. Purple and yellow can't compete.
His game wasn't just effective, it looked good. Same with Kobe (for obvious reasons). LeBron is an effective, efficient player, but his game doesn't "look" as pretty. Sure, you can film commercials of him getting eye level with the rim with out needing to use special effects, but his in game playstyle just doesn't have the flashy look that marketing execs get wet for.
Even his name sounds good. It's already in our culture that if you're the best at something, you're the Michael Jordan of it. You'll never hear someone say they're the LeBron James of candle making or the Kareem Abdul Jabbar of lawn care products.
His game wasn't just effective, it looked good. Same with Kobe (for obvious reasons). LeBron is an effective, efficient player, but his game doesn't "look" as pretty. Sure, you can film commercials of him getting eye level with the rim with out needing to use special effects, but his in game playstyle just doesn't have the flashy look that marketing execs get wet for.
Even his name sounds good. It's already in our culture that if you're the best at something, you're the Michael Jordan of it. You'll never hear someone say they're the LeBron James of candle making or the Kareem Abdul Jabbar of lawn care products.
- 849
- 11
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2011
Certain guys just won't be marketed the same way regardless of their play on the court. LeBron for instance. He's not the best "looking" guy. Guys like MJ and Kobe are far more marketable just from a "look" perspective. MJ was the best player, but he was also very lucky on the marketing side. He had the best shoe line at the exact perfect time. Even something as simple as team colors played an important role. Seriously. Red, white & black just works. Ask Coca-Cola. Purple and yellow can't compete.
His game wasn't just effective, it looked good. Same with Kobe (for obvious reasons). LeBron is an effective, efficient player, but his game doesn't "look" as pretty. Sure, you can film commercials of him getting eye level with the rim with out needing to use special effects, but his in game playstyle just doesn't have the flashy look that marketing execs get wet for.
Even his name sounds good. It's already in our culture that if you're the best at something, you're the Michael Jordan of it. You'll never hear someone say they're the LeBron James of candle making or the Kareem Abdul Jabbar of lawn care products.
His game wasn't just effective, it looked good. Same with Kobe (for obvious reasons). LeBron is an effective, efficient player, but his game doesn't "look" as pretty. Sure, you can film commercials of him getting eye level with the rim with out needing to use special effects, but his in game playstyle just doesn't have the flashy look that marketing execs get wet for.
Even his name sounds good. It's already in our culture that if you're the best at something, you're the Michael Jordan of it. You'll never hear someone say they're the LeBron James of candle making or the Kareem Abdul Jabbar of lawn care products.
- 849
- 11
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2011
Certain guys just won't be marketed the same way regardless of their play on the court. LeBron for instance. He's not the best "looking" guy. Guys like MJ and Kobe are far more marketable just from a "look" perspective. MJ was the best player, but he was also very lucky on the marketing side. He had the best shoe line at the exact perfect time. Even something as simple as team colors played an important role. Seriously. Red, white & black just works. Ask Coca-Cola. Purple and yellow can't compete.
His game wasn't just effective, it looked good. Same with Kobe (for obvious reasons). LeBron is an effective, efficient player, but his game doesn't "look" as pretty. Sure, you can film commercials of him getting eye level with the rim with out needing to use special effects, but his in game playstyle just doesn't have the flashy look that marketing execs get wet for.
Even his name sounds good. It's already in our culture that if you're the best at something, you're the Michael Jordan of it. You'll never hear someone say they're the LeBron James of candle making or the Kareem Abdul Jabbar of lawn care products.
His game wasn't just effective, it looked good. Same with Kobe (for obvious reasons). LeBron is an effective, efficient player, but his game doesn't "look" as pretty. Sure, you can film commercials of him getting eye level with the rim with out needing to use special effects, but his in game playstyle just doesn't have the flashy look that marketing execs get wet for.
Even his name sounds good. It's already in our culture that if you're the best at something, you're the Michael Jordan of it. You'll never hear someone say they're the LeBron James of candle making or the Kareem Abdul Jabbar of lawn care products.
- 849
- 11
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2011
Certain guys just won't be marketed the same way regardless of their play on the court. LeBron for instance. He's not the best "looking" guy. Guys like MJ and Kobe are far more marketable just from a "look" perspective. MJ was the best player, but he was also very lucky on the marketing side. He had the best shoe line at the exact perfect time. Even something as simple as team colors played an important role. Seriously. Red, white & black just works. Ask Coca-Cola. Purple and yellow can't compete.
His game wasn't just effective, it looked good. Same with Kobe (for obvious reasons). LeBron is an effective, efficient player, but his game doesn't "look" as pretty. Sure, you can film commercials of him getting eye level with the rim with out needing to use special effects, but his in game playstyle just doesn't have the flashy look that marketing execs get wet for.
Even his name sounds good. It's already in our culture that if you're the best at something, you're the Michael Jordan of it. You'll never hear someone say they're the LeBron James of candle making or the Kareem Abdul Jabbar of lawn care products.
His game wasn't just effective, it looked good. Same with Kobe (for obvious reasons). LeBron is an effective, efficient player, but his game doesn't "look" as pretty. Sure, you can film commercials of him getting eye level with the rim with out needing to use special effects, but his in game playstyle just doesn't have the flashy look that marketing execs get wet for.
Even his name sounds good. It's already in our culture that if you're the best at something, you're the Michael Jordan of it. You'll never hear someone say they're the LeBron James of candle making or the Kareem Abdul Jabbar of lawn care products.
HankMoody wrote:
Can't use the if argument because MJ took almost two years off in the prime of his career ( he just averaged 40+ in the 93 finals). So that argument shouldn't be used... another two years after averaging 30 in 98.
I know the if game is slippery, but I brought it up for a reason. I wasn't asking for Magic to get an extra 3-4 years "as" Magic. Certainly he would start to decline, as we are seeing with Kobe.
And I did think of the 2 years of baseball, however, not the same thing.
MJ plays in 94 and 95, Maaaaaaybe they squeak both those out. I would say safely 94 coulda been a title, I dunno about 95. Not because Mike wasn't great, but because nobody is gonna go 5 years straight without bodies breakin down. Look at Scottie in 98. He was wearing down big time. Now go back and add a couple extra series/months on his body back in 94 and 95, how his body lookin? So while Mike may have gone 4-4 or maybe even 5-5 straight, it would have taken away from his game in 97-98. Not just him, but Scottie as well. Hell, maybe even Phil if you really want to split hairs. An extra month or two off probably did him some good in 94-95.
Magic what ifs, I only ask for 92 as an elite Magic, and the next 2-3 years as just solid Magic. Like I said, second or maybe third rounds, extra 12-15 playoff games, but not the 22-24 type deep runs anymore. 92 is the year that haunts me. The Lakers MO was get beat, adjust, come back the next year. They lost in 81, came back with a title in 82. Lost in 83 and 84, title in 85. Lost in 86, title in 87 and 88. They got swept out in 89, and Kareem had retired, so they were down in 90, but came back strong in 91, just came up short. They got beat because Phil put Pip on Magic, and no other Laker could handle the ball. Enter, Sedalle Threatt for the 92 season. He would have helped Magic off the ball or on the ball if Pip was used against Magic again. It would have freed them up more, and add another year to Divac's development, as well as Elden Campbell, they had a real good shot at coming back in 92 for a second go-rouund.
Do they win? Who knows? Maybe they don't, maybe they do. I'm just throwin out theories, but history showed us how things had gone for Magic, if he had one more elite year and a couple extra solid ones, he could have closed the gap on Mike. Hell, maybe Mike don't get bored and retire in 94, who knows how the dominoes fall? But Nov 91 changed the NBA for the worse no matter how you slice it. It robbed us of some historical work that coulda been done all around, not just one team or one guy.
*shrugs*
You asked for a legit argument, gave you all I got man.
HankMoody wrote:
Can't use the if argument because MJ took almost two years off in the prime of his career ( he just averaged 40+ in the 93 finals). So that argument shouldn't be used... another two years after averaging 30 in 98.
I know the if game is slippery, but I brought it up for a reason. I wasn't asking for Magic to get an extra 3-4 years "as" Magic. Certainly he would start to decline, as we are seeing with Kobe.
And I did think of the 2 years of baseball, however, not the same thing.
MJ plays in 94 and 95, Maaaaaaybe they squeak both those out. I would say safely 94 coulda been a title, I dunno about 95. Not because Mike wasn't great, but because nobody is gonna go 5 years straight without bodies breakin down. Look at Scottie in 98. He was wearing down big time. Now go back and add a couple extra series/months on his body back in 94 and 95, how his body lookin? So while Mike may have gone 4-4 or maybe even 5-5 straight, it would have taken away from his game in 97-98. Not just him, but Scottie as well. Hell, maybe even Phil if you really want to split hairs. An extra month or two off probably did him some good in 94-95.
Magic what ifs, I only ask for 92 as an elite Magic, and the next 2-3 years as just solid Magic. Like I said, second or maybe third rounds, extra 12-15 playoff games, but not the 22-24 type deep runs anymore. 92 is the year that haunts me. The Lakers MO was get beat, adjust, come back the next year. They lost in 81, came back with a title in 82. Lost in 83 and 84, title in 85. Lost in 86, title in 87 and 88. They got swept out in 89, and Kareem had retired, so they were down in 90, but came back strong in 91, just came up short. They got beat because Phil put Pip on Magic, and no other Laker could handle the ball. Enter, Sedalle Threatt for the 92 season. He would have helped Magic off the ball or on the ball if Pip was used against Magic again. It would have freed them up more, and add another year to Divac's development, as well as Elden Campbell, they had a real good shot at coming back in 92 for a second go-rouund.
Do they win? Who knows? Maybe they don't, maybe they do. I'm just throwin out theories, but history showed us how things had gone for Magic, if he had one more elite year and a couple extra solid ones, he could have closed the gap on Mike. Hell, maybe Mike don't get bored and retire in 94, who knows how the dominoes fall? But Nov 91 changed the NBA for the worse no matter how you slice it. It robbed us of some historical work that coulda been done all around, not just one team or one guy.
*shrugs*
You asked for a legit argument, gave you all I got man.
- 8,332
- 216
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2011
Yea man, I hear you but I don't agree. Jordan just wins every argument to me. The era thing is a tough one to dissect, IMO. Jordan put 63 up against the greatest team of the golden era, 85-86 Celtics (40-1 at home I think) and averaged 37 in 86-87 too. He was individually dominant then as well.
- 8,332
- 216
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2011
Yea man, I hear you but I don't agree. Jordan just wins every argument to me. The era thing is a tough one to dissect, IMO. Jordan put 63 up against the greatest team of the golden era, 85-86 Celtics (40-1 at home I think) and averaged 37 in 86-87 too. He was individually dominant then as well.
- 17,900
- 793
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
Originally Posted by abovelegit1
Wilt avergaed 30 and 23 for his career, and 29 and 29 against Russell. And according to NBA.com his scoring numbers against Russell went down significantly late in his career where he slowed down and deferred to his teammates more. I'm not sure how averaging 29 and 29, and just one less point and 6 more rebounds than his career numbers against the greatest defender of all time isn't dominating performance.Originally Posted by Seymore CAKE
Sure G. You're one who address everything and you never touched that until Legit came in with the stats. Don't Be That Guy G
@Above Legit History has shown that Bill has never been a big scorer, hell he's only averaged twice in his career. Everyone knows this were as wilt was the greatest scorer the league has ever seen according to KAJ. He averaged 50 for an entire season of basketball yet he scored 7x's in 147 games. Whereas he was getting 50+ regularly against everyone else his numbers were dropped by 20pts against Bill whereas Bills were relatively the same across the board. I'm sorry I don't see how that's dominating him
As far as what I meant by "Sonning" I meant he wasn't doing nearly what he was against the rest of the league when he played Bill... It just wasn't going down like that@ "only" seven 50 games. How many guys have had more than seven 50 point games their entire careers?
And if this argument is Wilt vs. Russell, than Bill's lack of scoring should be a knock against him. I think we can all agree that scoring is a massive part of the game.
Whoa lets back up for a second: In no way shape form or fashion am I insinuating that Bill is the better player between the two. My original thesis was that Wilt had merely 1 competitor and he didn't dominate him like he dominated the rest of the league who were no where close to his equal in terms of physicality or physical attributes. The closest person was Bill Russell who was 4 inches shorter and 60 pounds lighter.
The rest I'll address when I get to the crib.
- 17,900
- 793
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
Originally Posted by abovelegit1
Wilt avergaed 30 and 23 for his career, and 29 and 29 against Russell. And according to NBA.com his scoring numbers against Russell went down significantly late in his career where he slowed down and deferred to his teammates more. I'm not sure how averaging 29 and 29, and just one less point and 6 more rebounds than his career numbers against the greatest defender of all time isn't dominating performance.Originally Posted by Seymore CAKE
Sure G. You're one who address everything and you never touched that until Legit came in with the stats. Don't Be That Guy G
@Above Legit History has shown that Bill has never been a big scorer, hell he's only averaged twice in his career. Everyone knows this were as wilt was the greatest scorer the league has ever seen according to KAJ. He averaged 50 for an entire season of basketball yet he scored 7x's in 147 games. Whereas he was getting 50+ regularly against everyone else his numbers were dropped by 20pts against Bill whereas Bills were relatively the same across the board. I'm sorry I don't see how that's dominating him
As far as what I meant by "Sonning" I meant he wasn't doing nearly what he was against the rest of the league when he played Bill... It just wasn't going down like that@ "only" seven 50 games. How many guys have had more than seven 50 point games their entire careers?
And if this argument is Wilt vs. Russell, than Bill's lack of scoring should be a knock against him. I think we can all agree that scoring is a massive part of the game.
Whoa lets back up for a second: In no way shape form or fashion am I insinuating that Bill is the better player between the two. My original thesis was that Wilt had merely 1 competitor and he didn't dominate him like he dominated the rest of the league who were no where close to his equal in terms of physicality or physical attributes. The closest person was Bill Russell who was 4 inches shorter and 60 pounds lighter.
The rest I'll address when I get to the crib.
- 4,169
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2002
Once again, if there's a need for an explanation or to convince others that MJ is the GOAT then it's definitely disputable. That's the last thing I have to say in this thread, y'all have a good one though
- 4,169
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2002
Once again, if there's a need for an explanation or to convince others that MJ is the GOAT then it's definitely disputable. That's the last thing I have to say in this thread, y'all have a good one though
ben roethlisberger
Banned
- 2,676
- 1,334
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
%**% the accolades and his impact.. if you just actually watch the dude play, you would know that no one has been able to do the things he has done with a basketball.
ben roethlisberger
Banned
- 2,676
- 1,334
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
%**% the accolades and his impact.. if you just actually watch the dude play, you would know that no one has been able to do the things he has done with a basketball.
- 4,217
- 7,125
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
if you cant see it maybe you're blind
ill make my font bigger
theres at least one reply on every page in this thread saying that mike is considered the goat because of his fame,shoes,marketing etc.
do you read threads or just skim through'em?
- 4,217
- 7,125
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
if you cant see it maybe you're blind
ill make my font bigger
theres at least one reply on every page in this thread saying that mike is considered the goat because of his fame,shoes,marketing etc.
do you read threads or just skim through'em?
- 4,217
- 7,125
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
I know the if game is slippery, but I brought it up for a reason. I wasn't asking for Magic to get an extra 3-4 years "as" Magic. Certainly he would start to decline, as we are seeing with Kobe.
And I did think of the 2 years of baseball, however, not the same thing.
MJ plays in 94 and 95, Maaaaaaybe they squeak both those out. I would say safely 94 coulda been a title, I dunno about 95. Not because Mike wasn't great, but because nobody is gonna go 5 years straight without bodies breakin down. Look at Scottie in 98. He was wearing down big time. Now go back and add a couple extra series/months on his body back in 94 and 95, how his body lookin? So while Mike may have gone 4-4 or maybe even 5-5 straight, it would have taken away from his game in 97-98. Not just him, but Scottie as well. Hell, maybe even Phil if you really want to split hairs. An extra month or two off probably did him some good in 94-95.
Magic what ifs, I only ask for 92 as an elite Magic, and the next 2-3 years as just solid Magic. Like I said, second or maybe third rounds, extra 12-15 playoff games, but not the 22-24 type deep runs anymore. 92 is the year that haunts me. The Lakers MO was get beat, adjust, come back the next year. They lost in 81, came back with a title in 82. Lost in 83 and 84, title in 85. Lost in 86, title in 87 and 88. They got swept out in 89, and Kareem had retired, so they were down in 90, but came back strong in 91, just came up short. They got beat because Phil put Pip on Magic, and no other Laker could handle the ball. Enter, Sedalle Threatt for the 92 season. He would have helped Magic off the ball or on the ball if Pip was used against Magic again. It would have freed them up more, and add another year to Divac's development, as well as Elden Campbell, they had a real good shot at coming back in 92 for a second go-rouund.
Do they win? Who knows? Maybe they don't, maybe they do. I'm just throwin out theories, but history showed us how things had gone for Magic, if he had one more elite year and a couple extra solid ones, he could have closed the gap on Mike. Hell, maybe Mike don't get bored and retire in 94, who knows how the dominoes fall? But Nov 91 changed the NBA for the worse no matter how you slice it. It robbed us of some historical work that coulda been done all around, not just one team or one guy.
*shrugs*
You asked for a legit argument, gave you all I got man.
jordan still goes ape @(#* on that lakers defense
look at the numbers he put up against the knicks in '92
and the numbers he put on clyde drexler in '92
im not saying clyde was a great defender but he had to guard him on the other end which should have wore him down a lil right?
but it didnt.
sedale threat couldnt stop jordan. look what mike did to xavier mcdaniel,gerald wilkins,and john starks. it aint happenin
plus to top it off, the best team of all of mikes championship teams was the '92 team.
go do your research, they are always regarded as his best team. even over his 72 win team.
even if magic would have continued to play in 92 he wouldnt have closed any type of gap. he wasnt winning the mvp that year or a championship.
no matter how 92 unfolds, the lakers are done.
- 4,217
- 7,125
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
I know the if game is slippery, but I brought it up for a reason. I wasn't asking for Magic to get an extra 3-4 years "as" Magic. Certainly he would start to decline, as we are seeing with Kobe.
And I did think of the 2 years of baseball, however, not the same thing.
MJ plays in 94 and 95, Maaaaaaybe they squeak both those out. I would say safely 94 coulda been a title, I dunno about 95. Not because Mike wasn't great, but because nobody is gonna go 5 years straight without bodies breakin down. Look at Scottie in 98. He was wearing down big time. Now go back and add a couple extra series/months on his body back in 94 and 95, how his body lookin? So while Mike may have gone 4-4 or maybe even 5-5 straight, it would have taken away from his game in 97-98. Not just him, but Scottie as well. Hell, maybe even Phil if you really want to split hairs. An extra month or two off probably did him some good in 94-95.
Magic what ifs, I only ask for 92 as an elite Magic, and the next 2-3 years as just solid Magic. Like I said, second or maybe third rounds, extra 12-15 playoff games, but not the 22-24 type deep runs anymore. 92 is the year that haunts me. The Lakers MO was get beat, adjust, come back the next year. They lost in 81, came back with a title in 82. Lost in 83 and 84, title in 85. Lost in 86, title in 87 and 88. They got swept out in 89, and Kareem had retired, so they were down in 90, but came back strong in 91, just came up short. They got beat because Phil put Pip on Magic, and no other Laker could handle the ball. Enter, Sedalle Threatt for the 92 season. He would have helped Magic off the ball or on the ball if Pip was used against Magic again. It would have freed them up more, and add another year to Divac's development, as well as Elden Campbell, they had a real good shot at coming back in 92 for a second go-rouund.
Do they win? Who knows? Maybe they don't, maybe they do. I'm just throwin out theories, but history showed us how things had gone for Magic, if he had one more elite year and a couple extra solid ones, he could have closed the gap on Mike. Hell, maybe Mike don't get bored and retire in 94, who knows how the dominoes fall? But Nov 91 changed the NBA for the worse no matter how you slice it. It robbed us of some historical work that coulda been done all around, not just one team or one guy.
*shrugs*
You asked for a legit argument, gave you all I got man.
jordan still goes ape @(#* on that lakers defense
look at the numbers he put up against the knicks in '92
and the numbers he put on clyde drexler in '92
im not saying clyde was a great defender but he had to guard him on the other end which should have wore him down a lil right?
but it didnt.
sedale threat couldnt stop jordan. look what mike did to xavier mcdaniel,gerald wilkins,and john starks. it aint happenin
plus to top it off, the best team of all of mikes championship teams was the '92 team.
go do your research, they are always regarded as his best team. even over his 72 win team.
even if magic would have continued to play in 92 he wouldnt have closed any type of gap. he wasnt winning the mvp that year or a championship.
no matter how 92 unfolds, the lakers are done.
Originally Posted by Girl thats Jules
I know the if game is slippery, but I brought it up for a reason. I wasn't asking for Magic to get an extra 3-4 years "as" Magic. Certainly he would start to decline, as we are seeing with Kobe.
And I did think of the 2 years of baseball, however, not the same thing.
MJ plays in 94 and 95, Maaaaaaybe they squeak both those out. I would say safely 94 coulda been a title, I dunno about 95. Not because Mike wasn't great, but because nobody is gonna go 5 years straight without bodies breakin down. Look at Scottie in 98. He was wearing down big time. Now go back and add a couple extra series/months on his body back in 94 and 95, how his body lookin? So while Mike may have gone 4-4 or maybe even 5-5 straight, it would have taken away from his game in 97-98. Not just him, but Scottie as well. Hell, maybe even Phil if you really want to split hairs. An extra month or two off probably did him some good in 94-95.
Magic what ifs, I only ask for 92 as an elite Magic, and the next 2-3 years as just solid Magic. Like I said, second or maybe third rounds, extra 12-15 playoff games, but not the 22-24 type deep runs anymore. 92 is the year that haunts me. The Lakers MO was get beat, adjust, come back the next year. They lost in 81, came back with a title in 82. Lost in 83 and 84, title in 85. Lost in 86, title in 87 and 88. They got swept out in 89, and Kareem had retired, so they were down in 90, but came back strong in 91, just came up short. They got beat because Phil put Pip on Magic, and no other Laker could handle the ball. Enter, Sedalle Threatt for the 92 season. He would have helped Magic off the ball or on the ball if Pip was used against Magic again. It would have freed them up more, and add another year to Divac's development, as well as Elden Campbell, they had a real good shot at coming back in 92 for a second go-rouund.
Do they win? Who knows? Maybe they don't, maybe they do. I'm just throwin out theories, but history showed us how things had gone for Magic, if he had one more elite year and a couple extra solid ones, he could have closed the gap on Mike. Hell, maybe Mike don't get bored and retire in 94, who knows how the dominoes fall? But Nov 91 changed the NBA for the worse no matter how you slice it. It robbed us of some historical work that coulda been done all around, not just one team or one guy.
*shrugs*
You asked for a legit argument, gave you all I got man.
look at the numbers he put up against the knicks in '92
and the numbers he put on clyde drexler in '92
im not saying clyde was a great defender but he had to guard him on the other end which should have wore him down a lil right?
but it didnt.
sedale threat couldnt stop jordan. look what mike did to xavier mcdaniel,gerald wilkins,and john starks. it aint happenin
plus to top it off, the best team of all of mikes championship teams was the '92 team.
go do your research, they are always regarded as his best team. even over his 72 win team.
even if magic would have continued to play in 92 he wouldnt have closed any type of gap. he wasnt winning the mvp that year or a championship.
no matter how 92 unfolds, the lakers are done.
Let the grown folks talk. Move along.
Originally Posted by Girl thats Jules
I know the if game is slippery, but I brought it up for a reason. I wasn't asking for Magic to get an extra 3-4 years "as" Magic. Certainly he would start to decline, as we are seeing with Kobe.
And I did think of the 2 years of baseball, however, not the same thing.
MJ plays in 94 and 95, Maaaaaaybe they squeak both those out. I would say safely 94 coulda been a title, I dunno about 95. Not because Mike wasn't great, but because nobody is gonna go 5 years straight without bodies breakin down. Look at Scottie in 98. He was wearing down big time. Now go back and add a couple extra series/months on his body back in 94 and 95, how his body lookin? So while Mike may have gone 4-4 or maybe even 5-5 straight, it would have taken away from his game in 97-98. Not just him, but Scottie as well. Hell, maybe even Phil if you really want to split hairs. An extra month or two off probably did him some good in 94-95.
Magic what ifs, I only ask for 92 as an elite Magic, and the next 2-3 years as just solid Magic. Like I said, second or maybe third rounds, extra 12-15 playoff games, but not the 22-24 type deep runs anymore. 92 is the year that haunts me. The Lakers MO was get beat, adjust, come back the next year. They lost in 81, came back with a title in 82. Lost in 83 and 84, title in 85. Lost in 86, title in 87 and 88. They got swept out in 89, and Kareem had retired, so they were down in 90, but came back strong in 91, just came up short. They got beat because Phil put Pip on Magic, and no other Laker could handle the ball. Enter, Sedalle Threatt for the 92 season. He would have helped Magic off the ball or on the ball if Pip was used against Magic again. It would have freed them up more, and add another year to Divac's development, as well as Elden Campbell, they had a real good shot at coming back in 92 for a second go-rouund.
Do they win? Who knows? Maybe they don't, maybe they do. I'm just throwin out theories, but history showed us how things had gone for Magic, if he had one more elite year and a couple extra solid ones, he could have closed the gap on Mike. Hell, maybe Mike don't get bored and retire in 94, who knows how the dominoes fall? But Nov 91 changed the NBA for the worse no matter how you slice it. It robbed us of some historical work that coulda been done all around, not just one team or one guy.
*shrugs*
You asked for a legit argument, gave you all I got man.
look at the numbers he put up against the knicks in '92
and the numbers he put on clyde drexler in '92
im not saying clyde was a great defender but he had to guard him on the other end which should have wore him down a lil right?
but it didnt.
sedale threat couldnt stop jordan. look what mike did to xavier mcdaniel,gerald wilkins,and john starks. it aint happenin
plus to top it off, the best team of all of mikes championship teams was the '92 team.
go do your research, they are always regarded as his best team. even over his 72 win team.
even if magic would have continued to play in 92 he wouldnt have closed any type of gap. he wasnt winning the mvp that year or a championship.
no matter how 92 unfolds, the lakers are done.
Let the grown folks talk. Move along.
- 1,811
- 240
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
The issue is that it's hard to crown guys like Wilt, Bill, Kareem the GOAT because big men need someone to get them the ball. For a guard to dominate a big mans games is a sign of special talent.
- 1,811
- 240
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
The issue is that it's hard to crown guys like Wilt, Bill, Kareem the GOAT because big men need someone to get them the ball. For a guard to dominate a big mans games is a sign of special talent.