Was MJ really that much better than Kareem??

[mastermind]

if you only read things that confirm your confirmation bias that's intellectually dishonest.

the nerve of you to type this, yet cite a source called "Nobody Touches Jordan."

Thats why I made the Breitbart analogy. You so biased that you cant see whats in front of you.

 

[mastermind]

Then there's all the young draft picks that never panned out too. Very well written

and not to speak for you, but I feel you talking about the Pennys, Grant Hills, Derrick Colemans, Kenny Andersons.

There were other highly touted guys who just ended up as busts like Billy Owens.

A lot of the 80s superstars played into the mid to late 90s because the talent level declined.

 

[GSR]

1991-98 was one of the least competitive eras in league history. The rest of the east sucked and the western conference champion was always clearly food for the bulls. If it were competitive, then they would have met another team that was actually great on multiple occasions and lost to them at some point. The showtime lakers, the bad boys, Bird's Celtics, and Julius Erving and the 76ers all faced each other multiple times in the playoffs and won titles at the expense of each other. At the end of that era, the bulls and pistons met 4 years straight in the playoffs, with Detroit winning three times before the bulls eventually dethroned them. The Shaq and Kobe Lakers met Tim Duncan and the spurs 5 times between the 1999-2004 playoffs, with it going just 3-2 in the lakers favor. The KG/Pierce/Allen Celtics faced the lakers twice, with each team winning a title. The heat faced the spurs twice with each team winning a title. The cavaliers and warriors have both clinched a title on the other team's floor. That's what competition looks like. If your opponents are great and you face them multiple times in the playoffs while each team is near or at it's apex, history shows that neither team will come out with an unblemished record.

so that's how you measure what determines a "competitive era"


no it couldn't at all be that the Bulls were just that good....no it was their lack of competition lmao



your entire post is garbage juice.

 

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

so that's how you measure what determines a "competitive era"


no it couldn't at all be that the Bulls were just that good....no it was their lack of competition lmao



your entire post is garbage juice.

You do realize that it's contradictory to argue that the era was competitive even with the bulls standing head and shoulders above their contemporaries right? That's like arguing the mid 1940's to mid 1960's was competitive in MLB even though the Yankees won ten championships from 1947-1962. Same way the western conference wasn't competitive in the 1980's given that one team represented the west in the finals 9 different times from 1980-1991.

 

[bxrfan]

You do realize that it's contradictory to argue that the era was competitive even with the bulls standing head and shoulders above their contemporaries right? That's like arguing the mid 1940's to mid 1960's was competitive in MLB even though the Yankees won ten championships from 1947-1962. Same way the western conference wasn't competitive in the 1980's given that one team represented the west in the finals 9 different times from 1980-1991.

It's no use arguing with guys like that breh, they have MJ and the Bulls as this unstoppable juggernaut that had an answer for any team in history

 

[GSR]

You do realize that it's contradictory to argue that the era was competitive even with the bulls standing head and shoulders above their contemporaries right? That's like arguing the mid 1940's to mid 1960's was competitive in MLB even though the Yankees won ten championships from 1947-1962. Same way the western conference wasn't competitive in the 1980's given that one team represented the west in the finals 9 different times from 1980-1991.

We fundamentally disagree.

your way of determining level of competition drastically differs from mine.

i simply look at the teams and the levels of talent they had; how well their players performed; field goal percentages.

the way i see it the 90s was one of the most competitive eras in terms of league wide talent.

 

[mastermind]

the way i see it the 90s was one of the most competitive eras in terms of league wide talent.

how can you make this statement?

 

[Jplaya2023]

why do you keep calling him CAP? ​

Cap shot for captain one his nicknames, like magic used to be called buck earlier in his career as a nickname

 

[Jplaya2023]

so that's how you measure what determines a "competitive era"


no it couldn't at all be that the Bulls were just that good....no it was their lack of competition lmao



your entire post is garbage juice.

dont waste your time, duke said 1991-1998 yeah the nba was super great in 1999 and 2000. It's all MJ slander and hate. If you never lose that means your comp sucked. Nikkas cant accept greatness

 

[GSR]

how can you make this statement?

1. i just did

2. it's the fukkin truth. the only people who say otherwise are the ones tired of hearing MJ's name.

 

[Lord_Chief_Rocka]

1991-98 was one of the least competitive eras in league history. The rest of the east sucked and the western conference champion was always clearly food for the bulls. If it were competitive, then they would have met another team that was actually great on multiple occasions and lost to them at some point. The showtime lakers, the bad boys, Bird's Celtics, and Julius Erving and the 76ers all faced each other multiple times in the playoffs and won titles at the expense of each other. At the end of that era, the bulls and pistons met 4 years straight in the playoffs, with Detroit winning three times before the bulls eventually dethroned them. The Shaq and Kobe Lakers met Tim Duncan and the spurs 5 times between the 1999-2004 playoffs, with it going just 3-2 in the lakers favor. The KG/Pierce/Allen Celtics faced the lakers twice, with each team winning a title. The heat faced the spurs twice with each team winning a title. The cavaliers and warriors have both clinched a title on the other team's floor. That's what competition looks like. If your opponents are great and you face them multiple times in the playoffs while each team is near or at it's apex, history shows that neither team will come out with an unblemished record.

If the East sucked in the 90's what is now

 

[iceberg_is_on_fire]

This move is probably the most emulated singular thing in sports history.

Pretty as fukk still looking at it.

 

[ILLMMORTAL]

Aye cuz,y'all know good and damn well that u ain't never seen nothing like Jordan before or after him,and don't bring up Kolby because he wasn't no Jordan! Stop it my nikkaz!

 

[YoungMoneyCashMoneyBoy]

Actually, the Bulls won 55 games after MJ retired and they were within a horrible call by Hue Hollins of going back to the NBA finals



If any other GOAT candidate retired and his team won two fewer games, people would constantly point to that

Not sure about that. Plenty of people who were still in their dad's nut sack when kareem was playing, yet claim he is GOAT never bring up the lakers record after he retired.

Lakers record:
1988-1989(kareem's last year): 57-25
1989-1990: 63-19

 

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

Not sure about that. Plenty of people who were still in their dad's nut sack when kareem was playing, yet claim he is GOAT never bring up the lakers record after he retired.

Lakers record:
1988-1989(kareem's last year): 57-25
1989-1990: 63-19

Kareem was 42 and playing 23 minutes a night by his final season. Man played 20 years.