In a SEAL team (yes, I'm talking about the elite forces), if the team leader is also the team's best medic, best explosives expert, best communications expert, best sniper, best fighter, best decision maker (well obviously), best tracker, and the best surveillance man, how do you feel about the competency of his other team members?
1) Wilt played with and against tons of other, great basketball players 2) Wilt dominated 3) Wilt may have only dominated because he was bigger, stronger, faster and better than the other players, BUT THAT'S THE POINT!! You can't say Wilt was only so good because he was so physically domating, and then discount his prowess because of that fact. Perhaps his most amazing stat of all time is that he average over 48 minutes per game one season. That's right, he average more minutes per game than there exists in a game. So he played basically ever minute, including overtimes. By that logic, Jordan himself gets discounted seriously. Was there any more athletic player in the league in his prime? Was there any small forward in NBA history who was as athletically superior in every aspect as Jordan was? He had size, strength, agility, speed, amazing jumping ability, supreme lateral quickness, etc., etc. By the same argument, if Barry Bonds passes up Hank Aaron for HR's, it won't necessarily make him the best HR hitter ever. For that matter, Hank Aaron probably isn't the best HR hitter either, though he was really really good for a really really long time. At the end of the day, it is somewhat subjective. On my list, Wilt is #1, MJ #2.
You're logic is enormously flawed...how the hell could you make an opinion based on that analogy? The answer could as easily be (i) that they're great, HOF type team members but the leader is the greatest ever, as (ii) man, those guys must suck. OTOH, if you look at some of the other impressive, HOF players Wilt played with and against, you'd notice it is an impressive list.
Yes I agree that a center could possibly lead the league in assists if the team's strategy dictates so. But it's a different thing if the assist-leading center is also the leader in points and rebounds. Something could be not right with the league in general.
Um...that argument only supports the fact that Wilt was clearly the best player on his team. That doesn't say anything else about the rest of the league. Bottom line is, Wilt was a beast. He was 7'1" 275 lbs, a high-jump champion, and a former track and field star with amazing endurance. He averaged 46 minutes a game for his entire career. I've used this analogy several times. Yes, he was bigger than everyone else around him, but he wasn't a giant among midgets. The average center back then was 6'10" 230 lbs. His relative size was equivalent to that of Shaq's today. Has Shaq ever come close to being able to score like Wilt? Has Shaq ever averaged nearly as many rebounds as Wilt? Does Shaq even come close to having the endurace that Wilt had? I don't care what era you place him in. Someone with Wilt's capabilities will be a great player (and arguably THE greatest individual player) in any era.
You can't compare Jordan to Wilt. Jordan was the best wing player of his era but to say there is no argument that he was the GOAT is naive. There are plenty of great players that accomplished just as much as he did. I could argue that Jordan didn't win his championships until all the really great wing players were past their primes. Bird (Bad Back) Magic (messed up ankle during finals, old, HIV) Zeke (old)
There's no reason why a player shouldn't be able to be one of the league leaders in several categories. It's very, very hard to do, but to immediately conclude that there's something "wrong with the league" based solely on the fact that this happened is questionable at best. It's just as safe a conclusion, probably moreso in fact, to say that Wilt was simply an extraordinary player.
I just read that "anti-Jordan" site? Sorry guys...but I don't see how you can diss that site. All the dude did was post numbers and stats. Please show me where he said something that wasn't true (from a statistical point of view, since that's the least subjective that you can get). I completely forgot that the Bulls only lost 2 more games when MJ retired, and that they did better in the playoffs without him in 94 than with him in 95. The guys take on how Grant/Rodman affected the team was right on point as well. What impressed me more was his take on Pippen, which I'm sure no one here will agree with: "Scottie Pippen – The press love to sing long songs about Jordan made Pippen. However, their songs are missing a few verses. For example. Why did Pippen have his finest seasons without Jordan? In 1994, Pippen averaged 22 ppg, 8.7 rpg, and 5.6 apg. In 1995, Pippen became only the second player in history (Dave Cowens was the first) to lead his team in points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals. How could he do this without Jordan to make him better? Furthermore, when deciding to retire, Jordan said over and over that he would not play without Pippen. While recovering from foot "Why did [Scottie] Pippen have his finest seasons when Jordan was playing baseball?" surgery in December of 1997, Pippen said that he was not going to play with the Bulls when he was fully recovered. Jordan said that if he had known this, he would not have come back. Why? If Jordan makes everyone so much better, why not fill in Scott Burrell into Pippen’s position (or Toni Kukoc, for that matter), and make another Pippen? Answer: Jordan didn’t make Pippen. Pippen made Pippen. Without Jordan, he is still the dominating defensive player, and he continues to be a complete player. The typical Jordan fan will respond with "how many championships did Pippen win without Jordan?" The answer is zero. Likewise, how many championships did Jordan win without Pippen? Zero. Comparing these two players apart from each is very unfavorable for Jordan. Pippen had a better career record and a better post-season record than Jordan. Pippen's only losing season was his final year in the NBA, when he missed much of the season due to injury and was in a veteran leadership role for the young re-building Bulls. That was the only time in Pippen's career he had a losing record and the only time he missed the playoffs. Jordan played 5 seasons without Pippen. Out of those 5 seasons, he posted 5 losing records, missed the playoffs twice, and was 1-9 in the playoffs. Think about it: Jordan never had a winning record apart from Pippen. Pippen played on many playoff teams in Portland and Houston without Jordan. It makes you wonder who made who a better ball player, or at least who was the most valuable player to the win-loss column." I agree 100%. Pippen wasn't better than Jordan, but he was very good without him. More on Scottie's impact: "John Paxson – This is the guy that most Jordan fans bring up. Paxson was on the perfect team in Chicago (perhaps the only team he could get significant minutes with), but his career blossomed because of Scottie Pippen, not Jordan. Let me explain: Jordan could not play well with classic "drive-and-dish" style points. He disliked playing with Sam Vincent and Steve Colter for this very reason. The reason why was because they were in the lane too much, and Jordan wanted to be the one to drive to the basket. The logical choice would be to have Jordan play the point guard and have a spot-up shooter in the shooting guard slot. However, according to Phil Jackson, Jordan lacked the passing skills to play the point guard and he hogged the ball too much. No one really doubts Jackson's knowledge of the game. "Jordan lacked the skills to play point guard and didn't like playing with guards who played the classic point guard role. That means in order for Jordan to play with a spot-up shooter, one of the forwards would have to play the point. Guess who that was?" Because Jordan cannot co-exist with a typical point guard and can't play it himself, that means somebody else has to bring up the ball and be the point man. Guess who that was? Scottie Pippen. Pippen was a rare breed in that he was a forward who could handle point duties. That short list consists of Larry Bird, Paul Pressey, Grant Hill, and Pippen. In his book "Sacred Hoops", Jackson lauds Pippen for his ability to run the offense and figure out who is hot and cold and how many shots a player needs and how frequently to stay in his rhythm. These were things that Jordan could not do, because he only cared about his own shots. Because Pippen could play the point, that allowed Paxson to play alongside of Jordan, even though he lacked all point guard skills. This means that Jordan did not make Paxson a better player. Pippen did. If not for Pippen, Paxson couldn't have cracked the line-up. Just incase you doubt me, and you think you know more than Phil Jackson, ask yourself: how come Chicago with Jordan was the only team at that time NOT to have a point guard? Think about it. When Jordan retired, B.J. Armstrong played a classic point guard role and made his only all-star appearance. When Jordan came back from retirement, the Bulls let Armstrong go in the expansion draft and replaced him with Ron Harper, another 2-guard. Who else teamed up with Jordan in the back court? Craig Hodges, Steve Kerr, Randy Brown, and Jud Buechler. None of these guys could be confused with a point guard."
Regarding Wilt and his ridiculous stats, here's a post I made in another forum about a week ago. What if Wilt was drafted in 1992 instead of 1960. What kind of per game numbers might he have gotten? I'll just look at points, rebounds, and assists here. Firstly, these were his averages during his 14 year career: Code: Wilt Chamberlain MPG PPG RPG APG --------------------- 1960 46.4 37.6 27.0 2.3 1961 47.8 38.4 27.2 1.9 1962 48.5 50.4 25.7 2.4 1963 47.6 44.8 24.3 3.4 1964 46.1 36.9 22.3 5.0 1965 45.2 34.7 22.9 3.4 1966 47.3 33.5 24.6 5.2 1967 45.5 24.1 24.2 7.8 1968 46.8 24.3 23.8 8.6 1969 45.3 20.5 21.1 4.5 1970 42.1 27.3 18.4 4.1 1971 44.3 20.7 18.2 4.3 1972 42.3 14.8 19.2 4.0 1973 43.2 13.2 18.6 4.5 Pretty impressive. People often look at these numbers and are simply astonished. 50 points and 25 rebounds a game? Well, let's see how well Wilt's numbers hold up if he played in the same era as Shaquille O'neal. First, I'll assume he plays the same number of minutes per game as he did historically (which is being generous, by the way). And for each statitical category (points, rebounds, assists, etc.), I'll assume the ratio [stat per minute]/[league average stat per minute] is the same. So, if he scored at a rate of x% more than the league average in 1960, then he'll score x% above the league average in 1992. Let's compare his "per game" pts, reb, and assists to Shaquille O'neal in the same time period (1993-2006): Code: Wilt Chamberlain Shaquille O'neal MPG PPG RPG APG MPG PPG RPG APG --------------------- --------------------- 1993 46.4 34.3 15.8 2.6 37.9 23.4 13.9 1.9 1994 47.8 33.1 16.0 1.9 39.8 29.3 13.2 2.4 1995 48.5 42.9 14.9 2.3 37.0 29.3 11.4 2.7 1996 47.6 38.7 15.0 3.4 36.0 26.6 11.0 2.9 1997 46.1 32.1 13.9 5.2 38.1 26.2 12.5 3.1 1998 45.2 30.0 14.1 3.6 36.3 28.3 11.4 2.4 1999 47.3 26.4 14.9 4.7 34.8 26.3 10.7 2.3 2000 45.5 20.0 15.4 7.7 40.0 29.7 13.6 3.8 2001 46.8 19.7 15.2 8.1 39.5 28.7 12.7 3.7 2002 45.3 17.4 15.7 4.3 36.2 27.2 10.7 3.0 2003 42.1 22.2 14.7 3.5 37.8 27.5 11.1 3.1 2004 44.3 17.1 14.4 3.8 36.8 21.5 11.5 2.9 2005 42.3 13.0 15.6 3.5 34.1 22.9 10.4 2.7 2006 43.2 11.9 15.0 3.6 30.6 20.0 9.2 1.9 Wilt's numbers still look great, in comparison, but not quite as other-worldly as before. Realistically, it's hard to imagine that Wilt would have averaged over 45 minutes a game his whole career if he played in modern times. He probably wouldn't have been able to avoid foul trouble as easily, for one. And would playing against stiffer competition tire him out a bit more? Perhaps this is being somewhat unfair to Wilt ... maybe he could have averaged 40-42 minutes a game for his career, even in modern times. For comparison sake, let's suppose that Wilt played the same number of minutes per game as Shaq has during his career. Now how do they compare? Code: Wilt Chamberlain Shaquille O'neal MPG PPG RPG APG MPG PPG RPG APG --------------------- --------------------- 1993 37.9 28.0 12.9 2.1 37.9 23.4 13.9 1.9 1994 39.8 27.5 13.3 1.6 39.8 29.3 13.2 2.4 1995 37.0 32.7 11.4 1.8 37.0 29.3 11.4 2.7 1996 36.0 29.3 11.4 2.6 36.0 26.6 11.0 2.9 1997 38.1 26.5 11.5 4.3 38.1 26.2 12.5 3.1 1998 36.3 24.1 11.4 2.9 36.3 28.3 11.4 2.4 1999 34.8 19.4 11.0 3.5 34.8 26.3 10.7 2.3 2000 40.0 17.6 13.5 6.8 40.0 29.7 13.6 3.8 2001 39.5 16.6 12.9 6.9 39.5 28.7 12.7 3.7 2002 36.2 13.9 12.6 3.4 36.2 27.2 10.7 3.0 2003 37.8 20.0 13.2 3.2 37.8 27.5 11.1 3.1 2004 36.8 14.2 12.0 3.1 36.8 21.5 11.5 2.9 2005 34.1 10.5 12.6 2.9 34.1 22.9 10.4 2.7 2006 30.6 8.4 10.6 2.6 30.6 20.0 9.2 1.9 At this point, Shaq's numbers actually are starting to look better than Wilt's (per minute, anyways). Shaq never had the huge assist years Wilt had. Shaq's remained a go to scorer even near the end of his career, while Wilt's scoring dropped significantly. At the same time, Shaq's rebounding actually isn't that far behind Wilt's (surprisingly) ... though Chamberlain's rebounding in the latter half of his career was clearly superior.
That's just Phil Jackson's style. Did the Lakers ever have a true point guard running the show while Phil was coaching them?
i firmly believe that if jordan did not have his supporting cast, he would not have been great as he was. you can't deny that even in his first couple of seasons he didn't hit gold until he actually had a team. saying that he achieved alot is an understatment. if you ask someone who knows about basketball i can probably argue that they know of MJ. wilt can't be compared to jordan simply because of era's and position played. times changed and that was also after defence was actually played.. i think if hakeem had a better cast he would have been in contention with the top 3 players of all time.
MJ because his aura of greatness was bigger then Wilt, and that is saying alot. MJ willed his team to win, he was never satisfied until he got his way, his ego was probebly bigger then Wilt's ho count. Statwise, Wilt will always win that argument. To me, his stats tell me that aside from a few big men in his era, he pretty much beat up on on alot of overpowered PF/C. Too bad we don't have alot of videotape of him. But MJ always won his battles and conquered his demons for the most part. Wilt could never get over the Celtics and Bill Russell hump and I hold that against him. Sure his teams were always inferior, but so were MJ's team in his early years. But MJ was good at behind the scenes politics and Jerry Krause upgraded the team talent in part of MJ's constant jibes at him that he was alone against the Pistons battles. That was part of MJ's mystique, he used mind games and and his acid tongue to get his way, that was what made Pippen into a better player, MJ's "step up chump" attitude toward to him and to any other teammates. Wilt, to me when he was traded it told me that the team can't get over then hump with him, let's start over and let him try with another team. MJ has the best of both arguments, he was the best on an individual talentwise ala Wilt, and was the best at the team accomplishments ala Bill Russell. Sure Bill has more rings but MJ was just a more gifted and talented player. Sure Wilt has all the mind boggling stats but MJ won on a team level and his 6 rings against Wilt's 2 magnifies what MJ succeeded where Wilt came up short. MJ on the caveat that I don't have much on Wilt other then stats, word of mouth from people of his era, and some short clips of him playing. It says alot that Jerry West sided with MJ though.
Did you read what the writer wrote? Again, Jackson used a traditional point when Jordan was out (BJ Armstrong). So was it his style that season? When Jordan came back the PG duties went back to Pippen and Phil went back to another defender at the point (Harper, to allow MJ to hold the weakest swingman) and another shooter (Kerr). Kobe played the Pippen role in LA. Again folks, please read that entire site. I think the writer did a great job. Yes, he has a bone with MJ, but if you are gonna note what he wrote as garbage please explain why, because I think he did a great job with his arguments.
BJ Armstrong was a true point guard? Obviously because of his size he had to guard opposing PGs. But he was no more a true PG on offense than Ron Harper.
I'm not going to even read this thread, assuming the usual arguments fall into place, let me say this: From the outset of the shot clock era to the late 60s, the NBA game as we know it was about 130% as fast as the game we see today. Something like 20-30 more possessions per game, which allowed for more shot attempts, more points for a player, more rebounds for a player, and more assists for a player. So, remember, Jordan was averaging 37.1 points per game on a 1987 Bulls team that averaged a little under 96 possessions per game, while Wilt and Russ did their damage on teams that averaged 120-130 possessions per game. If you're going to bust out numbers in an argument like this, you might as well understand the whole story. And, let's face it -- was Wilt really a better ball-handler than Jordan? Shooter? Free-throw shooter? Team leader (ask Van Breda Koff)? Individual defender? If Jordan was 7-3 in 1960, playing 45 minutes a game against 6-8 centers and against teams with 120 possessions a game shooting 40 percent -- wouldn't he have gotten 25 rebounds a game? Put the bias aside. Has their ever been a better all-around player than Michael Jordan? And, really, when you say "best basketball player ever," isn't that what it's all about? The all-around player? Pointing to Wilt because he led the league in scoring (at his size) and rebounds (at his size) and assists (in a Triangle-like offense that saw the ball thru his hands every time down court, for one year) is like saying Dennis Eckersley is the best pitcher of all time because -- at some point in his career -- he was the dominant ERA guy, save guy, and strikeouts per inning guy. You can't pick and choose with stats. You have to go with the whole story. Jordan's the best. Sorry.
I'll give you that. But Scottie was still the "point" on that team. You could argue that he did more to make teammates better than Jordan did. The numbers don't show that Jordan made teammates better. He retired and they didn't miss a beat, teamwise or individually (only a 2 game dropoff, after replacing the "GOAT" with Pete Myers and a rookie Kukoc). Having your team only lose 2 more games doesn't do ya much good in the GOAT argument. How can you be the greatest and the team doesn't suffer when you leave? Going from the Finals to the 2nd round is not suffering. MJ was the difference between a good team and a championship team, but the Bulls did well when he was gone. When he came back they still lost until they got another stud PF.
What is this meant to prove? Jordan did not lack "passing skills", and I doubt very much Phil Jackson ever said such nonsense. Jordan was a gifted passer. He wasn't always a willing passer ... that much is true. A point guard must always have the mind set of getting others involved in scoring the ball ahead of themselves. It would be foolish to play Jordan in such a role, considering he's the greatest scorer in the history of the game (yes, I'm putting him ahead of Wilt). He is taking what's a common sense strategy on Phil Jackson's part and trying to spin it to degrade Jordan's abilities and value to the team. I get it; Jordan is overly praised and hyped by so many, and this person got sick of it. But it's ridiculous to say that Pippen was just as valuable or more so to those Bulls teams than Jordan. Pippen was a great player and borderline MVP at his peak, but he's not in the same class as Michael Jordan.
I'm Pippen's John the Baptist on this site, but his play in 1993-94 was simply a player coming into his prime, being able to touch the ball every time down court, and taking in strong perimeter seasons from BJ and Horace Grant. Those guys nailed shot after shot for the Bulls this year, and Pip played as good a season as I've ever seen anyone play on both sides of the court. How MJ could be accused of holding Pippen back or stunting his growth is moronic. Icehouse, I'm a huge Bulls fan and have tons of games on tape from the mid-80s on, and that guy's site is bollocks. His main argument seems to be taking on some imaginary, Jay Mariotti-type writer who doesn't know basketball and takes hold of a series of stupid stances, and the anti-Jordan guy spends his entire argument breaking down these already-moronic non-arguments. And to call BJ Armstrong a true point guard is stupid. He was a poor-man's Mike James who needed the ball less and turned the ball over less and shot the ball better from the corners. A 6-2 guard with a great stroke who was disabused of the notion of driving after his first two seasons once he realized that NBA players were quicker than him. EDIT: Steve Colter was borderline useless by the time he got to the Bulls, and Vincent was horrid in spite of his many starts. Without looking at their stats, I'm sure they both declined significantly after leaving the Bulls. They stunk. Vincent was only a Bull because Krause wanted to get rid of Sedale Threatt, and needed someone to sop up point guard minutes -- no matter how poorly. Colter sucked, horribly, with or without MJ on the court. Watch the games. Vincent may have played better with more minutes, but he was hurt by Collins' weird obsession with Rory Sparrow. He was just OK with or without MJ on the court.
But before doing so, you'd have to define what exactly you mean by "make teammates better." Jordan demanded far more attention from defenses than any other player on the floor. Doesn't that ease the defensive pressure on his teammates, and wouldn't that dynamic make them "better"? That argument isn't convincing at all, when you dig a little further. Pippen had a down year in 1993 (you want to blame that on Jordan?), and a career best year in 1994. B-R.com shows his win shares went from 25 to 35, despite playing almost 400 less minutes in the 1994 season. Pippen stepped it up big time, and he was able to hold the fort for that season. Also, you're looking at W-L total in comparing how good the teams did. I'd argue that's the wrong stat to look at ... instead you should compare per-possession point differential. From this, B-R.com derives an "Expected Wins" stat which is superior for determining how good the team really was. Let's compare: Code: W-L EW-EL 1990 55-27 50-32 1991* 61-21 63-19 1992* 67-15 66-16 1993* 57-25 58-24 1994 55-27 50-32 1995 47-35 54-28 1996* 72-10 70-12 1997* 69-13 68-14 1998* 62-20 61-21 What this says is that based on point-differential, the Bulls were somewhat lucky to win 57 games in 1993. The Bulls were on he bubble for making the playoffs when Jordan came back to the team in 1995. And it's silly to say they "still lost" when he was clearly rusty after being away from the game for a year and a half. Rodman was a great addition, but I'd wager that the Bulls would have won in 1996 without him. They, with Jordan leading the way, were that good.
