Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wings are not playing off the ball nowadays. Versatiliy, are players like Ray Allen,and Richard Hamilton. They could consistently play off the ball, and handle the rock and finish inside.
You had somewhat of a point till you mentioned Rip Hamilton. Ray Allen does have an ability to handle the rock, drive, and perform point duties.....in his prime. Rip Hamilton? No, not even in his Pistons heyday. And, you of course realize that small forwards are included in the 'wings' category, yeah? Durant, Melo, Pierce can all play off the ball. Kobe has played off the ball depending on what the Lakers are running offensively, Ginobli, Wade has learned how to with Lebron on-board, heck Lebron has learned off the ball movement himself. There are several players who've showcased versatility as you've described it above.
This current era has ushered in the creation of the "zero guard" in that a. most players don't know how to efficiently run an offense/are mainly looking to score, or b. cannot play off the ball or shoot. 3's are inclusive to this group as well.
A. Shooting guards are supposed to be looking to score, not run an offense. That's what the point guard is there for. You spent an entire post talking about the traditional role of the 'off' guard which had nothing to do with running an offense.
Mind you many of today's point guards are also their team's best scorer, so there is a need to balance scoring and facilitating. Contrary to your claim above, many of today's guards have the versatility to play multiple positions, speaking to their versatility. The best shooting guards today, Kobe, Wade, Harden are all capable of running an offense if the occasion calls for it. Rose and Westbrook are their team's primary playmakers, but also have the ability to take on a shooting guard role and concentrate more on scoring. Oh wait, shouldn't speak too much to scoring, should I? Because scoring the ball is a trivial matter, even though the object of the game is to outscore your opponent.
B. What is your point in saying this? The entire premise of your argument has been belittling Jordan and the impact he had on the shooting guard position. Last I checked, Jordan was a great off the ball player, a great mid-range shooter, a great catch and shoot threat, all attributes you spoke of earlier as skills players had 'before' Jordan came around. So how is it MJ's fault that, asides from Kobe, many of today's guards didn't take those fundamentals from his game since he's such a major influence? MJ had all the attributes, all the fundamentals, on top of the flash. Most of the big-name shooting guards of the past decade took certain attributes from MJ's game, but none of them put it all together like he did.
Russell's won on the college level, professional level, and also has been a successful coach.
Jordan won on the college level and professional level, based on his personality and his post-playing days he likely wouldn't make a good coach. But, what does coaching have to do with who was the 'better player'? Nothing at all. And, on this topic of 'better', how do you compare a 60's center and a 90s shooting guard? Note in this conversation, you're the only one trying to make a point that one guy is 'better' than the other. I at least have the sense to realize that two players separated by 40 years and playing two different positions are a pretty difficult thing to compare.
And this is what I mean in regards to Jordan's "greatness", with this fixation on stats and scoring.
What fixation on stats or scoring? I made one reference to Russell's shooting percentage, and suddenly I'm fixated? And, why is scoring the ball such a dirty concept to you? You're about the only person I've seen use someone's prolific scoring ability as if it's a negative. And you continue to ignore that MJ was also a great defensive player, and more than capable as a passer. If anything, YOU'RE the one fixated on scoring because I've never made any claims that Jordan is better than Russell due to scoring. Again, I've made no such claim that he was better period, nor will I. It's an impossible argument.
Offense is not all about scoring, and percentages of course were generally lower in his day.
Really? So there's some other point to offense, than to score? Enlighten us. Yes percentages were generally lower, but for someone of Russell's stature, his shooting percentages were bad for an interior player. He simply was a marginal offensive player, there's no point in attempting to spin that just to make a point.
And are you saying that because Russell played with the amount of HOF's that he did, that he should be penalized for it?
It's not a point to penalize him but if your team is stacked with HOF quality talent, moreso than your competition,then you really have no reason not to win multiple championships. For Jordan's 6 championships, can you really say the Bulls were far and away more talented than the rest of the league? Not really. The Trailblazers from top to bottom were more talented, the Suns were, the Sonics were, even the Jazz were( or at least as talented top to bottom). Even in the their own conference, were they far and away more talented than the Knicks?
And this is what I mean in regards to Jordan's "greatness", with this fixation on stats and scoring. Offense is not all about scoring, and percentages of course were generally lower in his day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Black
Prior to Jordan, it was more about making the right play, nowadays scoring heavily outweighs the other basketball fundamentals, which is evidenced by people thinking Dirk is somehow comparable to Garnett as a player, or Nash somehow comparable to Kidd, etc.
XXX - Scoring is down in the current era (mid/late 90s to today) and is lower than the 70s and 80s. In the 70s and 80s, a majority, sometimes all teams averaged 100 pts or more per game. Some of them 110+.
Today, only a handful do that per year. Source: basketball-reference.com
Scoring is an integral part of the game. And MJ's best attribute is his ability to score.
MJ was the best offensive threat in an era where you needed to score points plain and simple (and in any era for that matter)
XXX - MJ's "last shot" against Russell didn't happen if MJ didn't steal the ball from Karl Malone. The Bulls are down and the Jazz have the ball. He wanted the ball, he got it, he took it down the court and he made the winning shot. TOTAL CONTROL OF THE GAME.
He was one of the best pass lane thiefs, on ball defenders and ball hawks ever to play the game. He is top 3 all time steals not just because he played good passing lanes, but because he wanted the ball more.
XXX - MJ is not fixated on stats and scoring. He is fixated on WINNING. Do I really have to reference any highlights? He wasn't the 1st option just because he can make nice shots here and there, but because he could score when it mattered. Do you take away Reggie Miller's greatness because he was a scorer? NO. Because he scored when it mattered. In the playoffs when team scores go down, the one thing you need is someone who can put points on the board no matter what. That wasn't always Scottie, definitely not Horace Grant or Ron Harper.
XXX - Stats? Yes, he had those.
Offensive achievements/landmarks? Yes.
Defensive achievements? 9 All Defensive 1st team, 1 defensive player of the year, 3 time steals leader. 100 blocks 200 steals 2 seasons in a row.
I cannot believe there is any debate here. There has yet to be anyone else better in the NBA than MJ. Including Russell or Wilt. LeBron will not surpass him. Whoever will be the greatest above Jordan is not yet known or not yet in the argument.
You think he's remarked as the greatest because of his scoring? If that was so, then Karl Malone should be in that argument too because he's above Jordan in all time points and is one of the most consistent scorers in history. Karl is definitely not the greatest. I have respect for him and in my opinion one of the greats, but not the greatest.
There is no greater winner and winning attitude in the history of the NBA than MJ and that's why he's the greatest.
Interesting comments. But I don't think wing players and post players can be accurately compared. Its just apples to oranges. I shake my head when I hear someone swear that Jordan was a better player than Wilt, Russell or Jabbar. Post players impact the game differently.
Greg,
The Bulls were the most talented team of their era. Scottie Pippen was one of the best wing defenders of all time. He was also an offensive ace who could play four positions. Horace Grant was one of the best power forwards of his era, especially on the defensive end. Dennis Rodman is one of the best post defenders ever. Kerr was one of the best three point shooters by percentage in league history.
The Bulls were the most talented team of their era. Scottie Pippen was one of the best wing defenders of all time. He was also an offensive ace who could play four positions. Horace Grant was one of the best power forwards of his era, especially on the defensive end. Dennis Rodman is one of the best post defenders ever. Kerr was one of the best three point shooters by percentage in league history.
I don't think they were. In the first 3 peat, you had Jordan and Pippen. Grant being one of the best power forwards of his era is a stretch, he was a good defensive forward, solid rebounder, and a garbage scorer( he had a little nifty 15 foot jumpshot that he could hit routinely off Jordan double teams). If you're saying he was one of the best in his era, you're effectively throwing him in the same boat as guys like Karl Malone, Barkley, Kemp and he was several tiers under that level. The rest of the roster were marginally talented role players like Paxson, B.J Armstrong, Stacey King, Bill Cartwright, etc. The 90's Blazers with Drexler, Porter,Buck Williams, Jerome Kersey,Danny Ainge, Kevin Duckworth, Cliff Robinson were a more talented overall unit. The Knicks had Ewing, Starks, Oakley, Mark Jackson, Xavier Mcdaniel, Gerald Wilkins. The Suns had Barkley, Majerle, Kevin Johnson, Dumas. Once you get past the fact that Jordan was the best player, the Bulls had no other distinct advantages over their primary competition in the early 90's.
In the second 3peat, you had an older but still lethal Jordan, prime Pippen, a defensive and rebounding specialist in Rodman, Kukoc, and more role players like Kerr, Jason Caffey, Bill Wennington, Dickey Simpkins, Jud Buechler, etc. Those guys scare absolutely no-one. The Sonics with Kemp, Payton, Schrempf( spelling),Hawkins, Perkins weren't any less talented as a unit. The Jazz with Malone, Stockton, Hornacek, Shandon Anderson, again if not as talented there certainly was no huge talent gap. The Magic, with young Shaq, Penny pre-injury, Dennis Scott, Grant, Nick Anderson, definitely no less talented.
Now, in reference to my point about the 60's Celtics, for example they had EIGHT hall of famers on the 1962 squad: Russell,Cousy,Sam Jones, K.C Jones, John Havlicek, Tom Heinsohn, Frank Ramsay,Clyde Lovellette.In fact here's a breakdown of the Celtic Hall of famers, and you will see how concentrated the talent was on that squad during their 11 titles in 13 years streak:
BY FAR, they had the greatest concentration of talent relative within their era. The Bulls were nowhere near as superior talent-wise relative to their competition in the 90's.
Interesting comments. But I don't think wing players and post players can be accurately compared. Its just apples to oranges. I shake my head when I hear someone swear that Jordan was a better player than Wilt, Russell or Jabbar. Post players impact the game differently.
Greg,
The Bulls were the most talented team of their era. Scottie Pippen was one of the best wing defenders of all time. He was also an offensive ace who could play four positions. Horace Grant was one of the best power forwards of his era, especially on the defensive end. Dennis Rodman is one of the best post defenders ever. Kerr was one of the best three point shooters by percentage in league history.
Yes they impact the game differently. But this isn't football. There are 5 players on the court. They play both sides of the ball. To simplify it, the game comes down to defending the ball and scoring points.
Jordan in his position was similarly successful on defense as Russell or Wilt were at their position. No one is saying Jordan is going to lock down the paint. But a stop is a stop, and Jordan was good.
But in terms of scoring, Jordan was the best, plain and simple. He wasn't just breaking down defenders left and right, he was also backing down in the post and driving to the lane with dunks and layups amidst PFs and Centers.
He had some great team mates, but Horace Grant is not a top scoring option, even in 94, Horace was 3rd scorer. All those players could defend and Steve Kerr was a role player 3 point shooter, not a scoring option. Every single one of those Bulls teams, if you replace MJ with a Joe Schmoe shooting guard or even a player of Pippen's caliber, you have a team that is eliminated almost every year by the Pacers or Knicks.
you have a team that is eliminated almost every year by the Pacers or Knicks.
Good point about the Pacers, they had some good teams too but I neglected to mention them above( sorry Pacer fans ). In the late 90's Miller, Smits, Mark Jackson, with Jalen Rose,Derrick Mckey, the Davis Boys off the bench, that was a quality team( and lets not forget that team took the Bulls to 7 games in 1998 ECFs).
You know, you're not making quoting you any easier, with your writing within my own posts.
- I was including 3's as far as talking about the zero guard.
-Shooting guards are supposed to be able to play off the ball and shoot. And your Rip Hamilton comment tells me you didn't see him play in his prime. His handles weren't the tightest, but he could still drive it and finish, even posting up smaller guards from here to there, as did Shuttlesworth. Not so sure about The Truth, as from what I remember seeing of him in his prime, he's mostly ball-dominant and high to mid-post dominant, not really predicating much of his game from off-ball movement consistently, could be wrong though.
-Jordan has not won as much on the college and professional levels as Russell though.
-Great you mention Westbrick, the perfect example of what I'm speaking of. He cannot effectively run the offense down there in Oklahoma; I've watched Eric Maynor run a much smoother offense than Westbrick. And Westbrick cannot shoot or play off the ball
-Not saying you're the one saying Jordan's better due to his scoring, but as you know, that's the general consensus.
- So a) why bring up Russell's HOF teammates then if he isn't to be punished by it? And b) what should Russell have shot from the field, and how much should he have scored?
XXX - Scoring is down in the current era (mid/late 90s to today) and is lower than the 70s and 80s. In the 70s and 80s, a majority, sometimes all teams averaged 100 pts or more per game. Some of them 110+.
Today, only a handful do that per year. Source: basketball-reference.com
Scoring is an integral part of the game. And MJ's best attribute is his ability to score.
MJ was the best offensive threat in an era where you needed to score points plain and simple (and in any era for that matter)
XXX - MJ's "last shot" against Russell didn't happen if MJ didn't steal the ball from Karl Malone. The Bulls are down and the Jazz have the ball. He wanted the ball, he got it, he took it down the court and he made the winning shot. TOTAL CONTROL OF THE GAME.
He was one of the best pass lane thiefs, on ball defenders and ball hawks ever to play the game. He is top 3 all time steals not just because he played good passing lanes, but because he wanted the ball more.
XXX - MJ is not fixated on stats and scoring. He is fixated on WINNING. Do I really have to reference any highlights? He wasn't the 1st option just because he can make nice shots here and there, but because he could score when it mattered. Do you take away 1. Reggie Miller's greatness because he was a scorer? NO. Because he scored when it mattered. In the playoffs when team scores go down, the one thing you need is someone who can put points on the board no matter what. That wasn't always Scottie, definitely not Horace Grant or Ron Harper.
XXX - Stats? Yes, he had those.
Offensive achievements/landmarks? Yes.
Defensive achievements? 9 All Defensive 1st team, 1 defensive player of the year, 3 time steals leader. 100 blocks 200 steals 2 seasons in a row.
I cannot believe there is any debate here. 3.There has yet to be anyone else better in the NBA than MJ. Including Russell or Wilt. LeBron will not surpass him. Whoever will be the greatest above Jordan is not yet known or not yet in the argument.
You think he's remarked as the greatest because of his scoring? If that was so, then Karl Malone should be in that argument too because he's above Jordan in all time points and is one of the most consistent scorers in history. Karl is definitely not the greatest. I have respect for him and in my opinion one of the greats, but not the greatest. 2. There is no greaterwinner and winning attitude in the history of the NBA than MJ and that's why he's the greatest.
1. Yes he did. Reggie lost to better teams. BTW this thread is not to debate Reggie, I just mentioned him to point out that scoring in the important moments is what matters and that's what MJ excelled in. Scoring when it matters.
2. My personal opinion from watching him play most of my life. Also general consensus among all people who watch NBA or cover NBA.
3. My personal opinion from watching him play most of my life. Also general consensus among all people who watch NBA or cover NBA.
1. Yes he did. Reggie lost to better teams. BTW this thread is not to debate Reggie, I just mentioned him to point out that scoring in the important moments is what matters and that's what MJ excelled in. Scoring when it matters.
2. My personal opinion from watching him play most of my life. Also general consensus among all people who watch NBA or cover NBA.
3. My personal opinion from watching him play most of my life. Also general consensus among all people who watch NBA or cover NBA.
1) Reggie came up short in the clutch more often than he came through, that's a fact. You should look into that, you'd most definitely find it on the first page of google. If not, I'll post a link later debunking this myth when I get the chance, no problem.
2) & 3) I respect your opinion, but are we really going the ad populum route here?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). In the late 90's Miller, Smits, Mark Jackson, with Jalen Rose,Derrick Mckey, the Davis Boys off the bench, that was a quality team( and lets not forget that team took the Bulls to 7 games in 1998 ECFs).
