2014 NBA Playoffs

[Xist2inspire]

I'm actually of the opinion that there is no GOAT player, because of the many different types of players there are. MJ never scored 100 like Wilt, Wilt never filled the stat sheet like Magic, Magic wasn't a dominating rebounding and defensive force like Russell, and so on and so on. It's why I cringe when people compare LeBron to MJ, because it's painfully obvious that LeBron's in a class with Magic/Oscar Robertson, not MJ. So judge him based on that, not against a player who he shares almost nothing with.

[Lights Out]

Michael Jordan was an amazing basketball player, one of the best ever. That being said, he is definitely overrated.

This is just being a revisionist.

No, what's revisionist is the image of Jordan sold by the media as a basketball god who won every championship 1-on-5, had no help on his roster, never choked in the playoffs and took and made every game-winning shot. This untrue portrayal of him has stifled legitimate basketball discussion. It ruined the league for years after he retired by creating a generation of wannabe Jordans such as Kobe, Iverson, etc. who thought that hogging the ball and chucking could make them "be like Mike" without learning to trust their teammates like Jordan eventually did. Worst of all, it's led to every superstar being held to a ridiculous standard of having to exceed the media's mythical version of Jordan and then being ripped to shreds when they don't.

TalkToChuck is right. Jordan was a great player, but the myth and the hype has FAR outgrown the man himself, and it's become tiresome.

[rams80]

There are certainly things that Jordan will never be surpassed in, although those are "intangibles" such as "takes the most sadistic joy in vanquishing his foes" and a hypercompetitive nature that comes with that sadistic glee. Indeed, that's the biggest difference between LeBron and Jordan. Jordan has a slightly higher will to win. Granted he's more of a sociopath because of it, so I'm not exactly sure this is a positive.

[Lights Out]

There are certainly things that Jordan will never be surpassed in, although those are "intangibles" such as "takes the most sadistic joy in vanquishing his foes" and a hypercompetitive nature that comes with that sadistic glee. Indeed, that's the biggest difference between LeBron and Jordan. Jordan has a slightly higher will to win. Granted he's more of a sociopath because of it, so I'm not exactly sure this is a positive.

"Will to win" is one of those unquantifiable cliches that shouldn't have a place in any serious debate. You don't win rings in this league unwillingly, and you also don't have to be an :censored: to be a winner despite the media trying to make it sound that way. Magic, Duncan, and LeBron are winners and legends without being psychopaths.

[DnBronc]

Michael Jordan was an amazing basketball player, one of the best ever. That being said, he is definitely overrated.

This is just being a revisionist.

He is most certainly overrated. Mostly because of his mass popularity. And It is blasphemy to simply suggest that he isn't the best player in NBA history (as evidenced by this thread), even though it is a perfectly legitimate discussion to have.

Jordan was a great player, but like Xist said, him and the Bulls are praised and worshipped to no end, when there are better teams and players. Jordan is definitely one of the top 3 players in history, but is he the best ever like everyone claims? No.

Good points. All I know about the 90's Bulls is this: They are lucky that Arvydas Sabonis wasn't healthy in the early-90's. That is one reason why he didn't come over to Portland until 1995. They had given up on him by 1990. He played in Spain because the chairman of the team he played on found a way to pay him. He also didn't want to go rogue like Marciluonis did, because he didn't want to be banned from coming back to Lithuania.

If the Blazers get a healthy Arvydas in 1990, the Bulls get their butts whooped. Portland won 63 games in 91 without him.

[CubsFanBudMan]

The reason why I said what I said is because people always use the "6!" argument to put the Bulls and Jordan on a GOAT pedestal, while forgetting that even with using that argument, the Bulls are clearly second best to Russell and the Celtics. I love MJ and those Bulls, and he and the team are among the very best, but the amount of hyperbole and incessant praise surrounding their legacy is sickening sometimes, as well as diminishing the accomplishments of others to make them look better. I've seen it time after time in discussions, every time the Bulls/MJ come up, the discussion generally takes on the feeling of "The Bulls/MJ are the best, 6 titles, end of story." Again, not to bash anyone's preference, but still. They're not the end-all, be-all, they can be questioned. It can, and should, go beyond just looking at 6.

Can we at least say that though the Jordan Bulls were arguably the better dynasty, depending on what you prefer, the Spurs are clearly the better franchise?

Michael Jordan was an amazing basketball player, one of the best ever. That being said, he is definitely overrated.

This is just being a revisionist.

He is most certainly overrated. Mostly because of his mass popularity. And It is blasphemy to simply suggest that he isn't the best player in NBA history (as evidenced by this thread), even though it is a perfectly legitimate discussion to have.

Jordan was a great player, but like Xist said, him and the Bulls are praised and worshipped to no end, when there are better teams and players. Jordan is definitely one of the top 3 players in history, but is he the best ever like everyone claims? No.

I don't think this thread is evidence of that at all. This has been a Spurs vs. Bulls discussion. Someone said they preferred the Spurs' current run to the '90s Bulls. A few agreed. That's fine. I stated why I didn't. And I find it hard to believe that given the choice the fans wouldn't prefer the extra titles. Xist brought up the Russell Celtics. I never said the '90s Bulls were the GOAT, just better than today's Spurs in my mind. Xist also said the Spurs are the better franchise. I tend to agree, but let's not get George Gervin involved just yet. Let's see once Pop is done. The Bulls front office clearly overrated their role in the success. Those teams were great. The franchise, not so much. Tim Floyd.

I referenced the LeBron comparisons, as his career is not yet over, so his career should not yet be compared to Jordan. Or Russell. Or Magic. Or Bird. Or Robertson. Or whoever you want. That's all. I understand the "Jordan is overrated" viewpoint, but as time passes people want so badly to make Harold Miner or Grant Hill or Kobe Bryant or LeBron James the next one that they overrate them and dismiss the greats of the past. And then use fuzzy math to convince the masses. "Look at what each accomplished by age X" etc., even when one went to college. Better to look to the past if you want to trump Jordan. I won't stop you.

Now, if you want me to name a single-season GOAT, I will: 1995-96 72-10 Bulls. Even the best teams have 10 losses by the All-Star Game even though somebody in the media always says the record is going to fall "this year." (It won't.) But that's the only GOAT I'll claim in this thread.

[PhantomDreamer]

I think the 1995-96 72-10 Bulls was at best, the 3rd best Bulls team.

Now back to this year's playoffs, the Pacers blew another lead and game.

[rams80]

I think the 1995-96 72-10 Bulls was at best, the 3rd best Bulls team.

....

....

What.

[PhantomDreamer]

I'd take both the '91 and '92 Bulls over the '96 team.

[DnBronc]

I'd take both the '91 and '92 Bulls over the '96 team.

The 1991 and 92 Bulls teams were overrated. They weren't even the best team those years on paper. Portland was.

There were people at the time who didn't think the Bulls were that great. The day after they beat the Suns in 93, one of the ESPN commentators said that some people think of the Bulls as "two players and a bunch of stiffs".

That team won because of Phil Jackson and MJ.

They were similar to the 00-02 Lakers. Jackson was the main reason those teams won. They had more talent in 1998 around Shaq and Kobe, but were schooled by the overachieving Jazz in the WCF.

[Unocal]

Finals competition should be taken into consideration with this Spurs/Bulls debate.

There's a difference in playing the '03 Nets or '07 Cavs as compared to, say, the '93 Suns or the '96 Sonics

I think the Spurs 4 finals wins could have used a better echelon of opponents- maybe if they play Miami in '05 or the Pistons don't choke in '07, those series are a lot better. 2003 and 2007 were as bad as the NBA Finals can be in the eyes.

[The Six]

You can't take competition into consideration because you can't control who your opponent is. It's not the Spurs' fault the East was pathetic.

[PhantomDreamer]

I'd take both the '91 and '92 Bulls over the '96 team.

The 1991 and 92 Bulls teams were overrated. They weren't even the best team those years on paper. Portland was.

There were people at the time who didn't think the Bulls were that great. The day after they beat the Suns in 93, one of the ESPN commentators said that some people think of the Bulls as "two players and a bunch of stiffs".

That team won because of Phil Jackson and MJ.

They were similar to the 00-02 Lakers. Jackson was the main reason those teams won. They had more talent in 1998 around Shaq and Kobe, but were schooled by the overachieving Jazz in the WCF.

The Jordan-less Bulls of 1993-94 went 55-27 and were a Hue Hollins call away from advancing to their 6th straight Eastern Conference Finals where they would face a Pacers team they defeated 3 of 4 games during the regular season. Good chance they would have played the Rockets in the Finals.

[PhantomDreamer]

Ibaka will play tonight for the Thunder.

[IceCap]

Michael Jordan was an amazing basketball player, one of the best ever. That being said, he is definitely overrated.

This is just being a revisionist.

No, what's revisionist is the image of Jordan sold by the media as a basketball god who won every championship 1-on-5, had no help on his roster, never choked in the playoffs and took and made every game-winning shot. This untrue portrayal of him has stifled legitimate basketball discussion. It ruined the league for years after he retired by creating a generation of wannabe Jordans such as Kobe, Iverson, etc. who thought that hogging the ball and chucking could make them "be like Mike" without learning to trust their teammates like Jordan eventually did. Worst of all, it's led to every superstar being held to a ridiculous standard of having to exceed the media's mythical version of Jordan and then being ripped to shreds when they don't.

TalkToChuck is right. Jordan was a great player, but the myth and the hype has FAR outgrown the man himself, and it's become tiresome.

Look dude, you want to knock Jordan down a peg so you can put James up on a pedestal. That's what it comes down to. It's not his fault that a generation of players with less talent them him tried to emulate his playing style. And to lump Kobe in with those "wannabe Jordans"?

Jordan's detractors talk about his legacy making discussion impossible. I'd say your clear James and Clippers biases are making things impossible. You can't be argued with because your only goals in any discussion involving Jordan or Bryant is to tear Jordan down to build up James or trash the legacy of one of the Lakers' greatest players.

There are certainly things that Jordan will never be surpassed in, although those are "intangibles" such as "takes the most sadistic joy in vanquishing his foes" and a hypercompetitive nature that comes with that sadistic glee. Indeed, that's the biggest difference between LeBron and Jordan. Jordan has a slightly higher will to win. Granted he's more of a sociopath because of it, so I'm not exactly sure this is a positive.

It makes Jordan a sociopath, but it also makes him the better player. Jordan wouldn't want to be friends with and play with Wade and Bosh. Jordan would want to beat them down because he knew he was the better player. I'd rather see competitiveness return to the NBA rather then watch a bunch of guys across a few teams who are all friends. I mean it's pro sports. If there's one place to go to see sociopathic athletic competition this should be it.

Jordan was a great player, but like Xist said, him and the Bulls are praised and worshipped to no end, when there are better teams and players.

If that were true they probably would have went 6-0 in championship appearances too.

[Xist2inspire]

I'd rather see competitiveness return to the NBA rather then watch a bunch of guys across a few teams who are all friends. I mean it's pro sports. If there's one place to go to see sociopathic athletic competition this should be it.

This has always disturbed me, even when I played sports. Who says you have to be a borderline psychopath to be competitive? I've seen people get bashed for helping up an opponent who's taken a bad spill. Since when did it become okay to disregard common human courtesy for the sake of a game? Because that's all it is, a game. Period. Russell and Wilt had a great rivalry, but respected each other and were friends. I'd like to see more competitiveness return to the league too, but if it means that this type of thinking will become more prevalent, to hell with it.

Back to the playoffs, the Thunder seem a lot more confident and relaxed, no doubt because of Serge and homecourt. This should be a good one.

[Drew22]

Serge seems okay.

[IceCap]

I'd rather see competitiveness return to the NBA rather then watch a bunch of guys across a few teams who are all friends. I mean it's pro sports. If there's one place to go to see sociopathic athletic competition this should be it.

This has always disturbed me, even when I played sports. Who says you have to be a borderline psychopath to be competitive? I've seen people get bashed for helping up an opponent who's taken a bad spill.

That's not what I'm talking about at all. Helping a guy off up the court, field, or ice is one thing. I'm saying that the "big four," the NBA especially, has become so drab because everyone is everyone else's bff. I'd like to see guys playing the best ball they can play because they want to win. And yeah, maybe dislike the guy on the other team. Not a bunch of guys on two teams high five each other after a game and go out on the town afterwards. For all the crap Kevin Garnett got for that "Honey Nut Cheerios" remark it was, at the very least, entertaining. At least he cared enough to try and psyche out an opponent.

Since when did it become okay to disregard common human courtesy for the sake of a game? Because that's all it is, a game. Period.

It's more then that, actually. It's become big business, for better or for worse. That means you have millions of dollars invested, from season ticket packages to player salaries, to tv deals, to advertising agreements and luxury box contracts. How much does a thirty second ad cost during the Super Bowl?

So yeah. It's a bit more then a game. It's high priced entertainment too. And if I'm an owner paying a player millions? I'd want to know he's playing at the best of his abilities and that he has the competitive edge needed to justify his pay cheque.

Russell and Wilt had a great rivalry, but respected each other and were friends. I'd like to see more competitiveness return to the league too, but if it means that this type of thinking will become more prevalent, to hell with it.

Oh hell. It's not like Michael Jordan was waiting in the parking lot to shoot Karl Malone or anything. He just had an intensity on the court that made it clear that he wanted to win because he thought he was the best. I don't see the problem with wanting more of that in the league. Or leagues.

[Xist2inspire]

Ah, I see what you mean now, Ice Cap. I guess it's just my personality, but I never saw all that as necessary to win, nor necessary to enjoy watching. If you're good enough, you don't need all that extra stuff. No need to actively dislike the opponent, no need to hype yourself up, no need to psyche someone out. All that never defined competitive spirit to me, that's a weakness, not a strength. Just go out, have fun, play as hard as you possibly can, and win. No BS, no extra nonsense. Just have fun, play hard, and win.

Maybe that attitude is why I gradually grew to appreciate the Spurs so much. I'm more concerned about the low level of play, influx of underprepared talent, and general all-around stupidity of players, coaches, and executives alike than I am about the perceived "lack of competitiveness."

[Xist2inspire]

Jeepers. I still find it hard to believe, even knowing how key matching up becomes in the playoffs, that Serge Ibaka makes this much of a difference for the Thunder. But, if the Thunder were gonna get a game, it would be this one. We'll see what happens Game 4.