Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="FfldCntyFan, post: 5036233, member: 71"] Who would I put over MJ? Well to answer that question I will need a bit of context. Basketball is a team sport but if you are speaking just two players, mano a mano, in a game of one on one, placing each player at where he was at a similar age, 25, 28, 30, well, I don’t see Jordan as the best under those conditions. I know he would never stop Wilt and he would need to shoot only 20+ footers hope to hit all of them to stay even (he wouldn’t). He would have a very difficult time scoring from anywhere on the court playing one on one against Bill Russell and would not be able to stop him from in close. Basketball however is a team sport (as I stated earlier) so what would be needed to know is who are the other four players (assuming those four, plus MJ would be better than those four plus anyone else). If the four selected players didn’t have a point guard, there are players I would put ahead of MJ and the same would be said if there was no center. MJ would be my choice is a wing was the missing piece but I could see an argument for Oscar. I could also understand (but not agree with) an argument for Lebron. My resistance to MJ being without question the best ever is primarily due to the fact that anything that happened more than a few years before he played in the NBA is dismissed, which eliminates quite a bit of exceptional basketball players. They bring up MJ’s rings as evidence yet Russell’s rings don’t seem to count. Additionally, the idea that every time he was eliminated was before they made it to the finals somehow makes it a better career baffles me. There was a time when the Bulls were in the west. If for some reason, the configuration of the playoffs at that time was such that the years the Pistons knocked off the Bulls on their way to back-to-back titles, if that matchup was is the finals, instead of the semifinals, how would that have been a lesser accomplishment for the Bulls or MJ? My first question on MJ (when compared in general to some who can be viewed as all-time greats) is why did it take until he was 28 before he was able to win his first NBA title? There were quite a few players who landed on non-descript teams and within a couple of years led the to the promised land. Kareem did it his second year (I will address the state of basketball during that period if necessary but there were quite a few tremendous teams in those days, teams that if they were placed in today’s game with the three point shot and rules for free flow of offense, would be dominant). Magic won it all as a rookie and Bird did the same in his second year. I image that the competition they played against in years they didn’t win and the quality of his teammates would be the excuse. Somehow, the level of competition someone plays with and against is viewed differently when addressing MJ than with anyone else. I will also add the impact of the referees using a different set of standards for MJ than whoever was opposite him. Pal pointed out Shaq getting called for a foul for looking at him. I vividly remember a playoff game where MJ went to give Gerald Wilkins a little shove to make enough room to rive by him, Wilkins didn‘t budge, MJ points to the ref and yells something then the ref calls a foul on Wilkins. Actually attempting to guard him was against the rules quite often. Again, I view MJ as one of the very few best to ever have played. If someone views that as an insult to MJ, all I can say is that person needs to open his eyes a little. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach