More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

More impressive: Jordan's 6 or Russell's 11?

1) Jordan
8
38%
2) Russell
13
61%
 
Total votes : 21

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Weezy on Sun Mar 02, 2014 2:06 pm

11 rings in 13 seasons is more impressive to me. Nobody will ever match that, it's a ridiculous number, it's the craziest championship number in all of sports. 6 is great, but it's not more impressive, Kareem also has 6. Magic has 5 and nine Finals appearance, and he had his career cut short, he's only one off. Kobe has 5 and 7 finals appearances, he's only one off and he gets discredited all the time, so 6 shouldn't be this crazy impressive, unreachable number. This doesn't mean Jordan isn't the better player, I just find 11 rings to be the more impressive thing, we'll never see it again.
User avatar
Weezy
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 50881
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:14 am
Location: Anaheim, CA

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Juronimo on Sun Mar 02, 2014 2:16 pm

Weezy wrote:11 rings in 13 seasons is more impressive to me. Nobody will ever match that, it's a ridiculous number, it's the craziest championship number in all of sports. 6 is great, but it's not more impressive, Kareem also has 6. Magic has 5 and nine Finals appearance, and he had his career cut short, he's only one off. Kobe has 5 and 7 finals appearances, he's only one off and he gets discredited all the time, so 6 shouldn't be this crazy impressive, unreachable number. This doesn't mean Jordan isn't the better player, I just find 11 rings to be the more impressive thing, we'll never see it again.


word
Image

Ferguson, we hear you.
RIP Mike Brown.
User avatar
Juronimo

 
Posts: 6598
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Fist in the air on a quest for justice

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby 432J on Sun Mar 02, 2014 2:28 pm

11 is more impressive simply because it's more than 6 but keep in mind that russell played in a much weaker era

jordan's 6 is almost just as impressive due to the fact that he won all 6 in the modern era. much tougher competition and way harder to win a title
Image
User avatar
432J

 
Posts: 4794
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Sherbrooke, Quebec

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Rooscooter on Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:13 pm

432J wrote:11 is more impressive simply because it's more than 6 but keep in mind that russell played in a much weaker era

jordan's 6 is almost just as impressive due to the fact that he won all 6 in the modern era. much tougher competition and way harder to win a title


Weaker era? The 90's were the weakest era on average that I have ever seen. One super team and a few good ones..... that's it. Expansion and rule changes weakened the 90's considerably compared to the 80's

The dramatically fewer number of teams made the 60's a tougher decade. The number of HOF players playing in the 60's is nearly that of the 90's..... with 20 fewer teams.

It seems you are comparing eras to each other rather than the talent playing at a given time.

As for 11 in 13..... That's nearly impossible for a College team to do down at the Y..... That run is probably the most impressive run by a pro sports team up there with the 1920's Yankee's

Now for the question posed in the thread.... it's a moot point actually. Comparing individual players by team accomplishments is like comparing Buick's to Grapefruits.... Russell doesn't win squat without the rest of the team, coach and philosophy..... Neither does Jordan...... neither does Magic or Kobe or whoever. It's a mix of the right things at the right time. One of the best players I've every seen play was Pete Maravich and he was constantly on crap teams with weak coaching and never got far in the playoffs.... not his fault and it doesn't make him a worse player than James Worthy who is probably the most overrated "top 50 players" of all time. Hell..... Worthy wasn't even as good as the two picked directly after him when the dust settled..... just right place right time.
"If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

“The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded." Dwight Eisenhower

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it" Thomas Sowell
User avatar
Rooscooter

 
Posts: 23048
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Chandler AZ and Andalué

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby TIME on Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:26 pm

Rooscooter wrote:
432J wrote:11 is more impressive simply because it's more than 6 but keep in mind that russell played in a much weaker era

jordan's 6 is almost just as impressive due to the fact that he won all 6 in the modern era. much tougher competition and way harder to win a title


Weaker era? The 90's were the weakest era on average that I have ever seen. One super team and a few good ones..... that's it. Expansion and rule changes weakened the 90's considerably compared to the 80's

The dramatically fewer number of teams made the 60's a tougher decade. The number of HOF players playing in the 60's is nearly that of the 90's..... with 20 fewer teams.



Agree completely. The 90s were the weakest decade for the NBA in terms of quality teams with the possible exception of the 50s. I don't want to diminish Jordan, but he really had little in the way of competition to deal with in those years. I'd rate the NBA decades this way in terms of team strength.

1. 80s
2. 60s
3. 2000s
4. 70s
5. 90s
I'm lost in the fog of denial!
User avatar
TIME
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9446
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:06 am

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Rooscooter on Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:49 pm

^^Didn't know much about the 50's but remembered the end of the 60's and saw the rest...... and your ranking is exactly what I would do as well.

For the players and rings.... I just don't see it relevant as many/most others do. Teams play defense and Teams win championships. Looking at individuals in evaluating either leads to some pretty big jumps in conclusions IMHO. It's great for Sports Center and Agents but in reality you need star players but without a well balanced team around them it's not going anywhere.
Last edited by Rooscooter on Mon Mar 03, 2014 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

“The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded." Dwight Eisenhower

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it" Thomas Sowell
User avatar
Rooscooter

 
Posts: 23048
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Chandler AZ and Andalué

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby puffyusaf#2 on Sun Mar 02, 2014 6:23 pm

Like I said on the other page MJ gets a lot of passes while others are dismissed. Russell's era was weak yet MJ carried a team of scrubs (apparently) to 6 rings. It is amazing Kobe gets deminished for having Shaq (although shaq never gets slammed for having Kobe..weird) yet MJ's teammates are hardly mentioned in his greatness.
For what it's worth, the Lakers also clinched the Pacific Division, an achievement Bryant dismissed by saying "We don't hang divisions." No, only the big NBA championship banners are considered wall-worthy for the Lakers.
User avatar
puffyusaf#2

 
Posts: 30700
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:15 pm
Location: Chasing the dream to an Oscar

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby TIME on Sun Mar 02, 2014 7:00 pm

At the extreme risk of sounding like a complete homer I would even say that to me the Lakers' 80s run was as impressive as Russell's and more impressive than Jordan's. The 80s had 4 stacked, dominant teams in the Lakers, Cetics, Sixers, and Pistons and several other very solid teams. The Lakers won 5 and were so close on two other. They had 84 in their pocket until Magic melted down and I still think they threepeat if Magic and Byron didn't both pull their hammy just before the Finals started.
I'm lost in the fog of denial!
User avatar
TIME
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9446
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:06 am

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Rooscooter on Sun Mar 02, 2014 7:15 pm

TIME wrote:At the extreme risk of sounding like a complete homer I would even say that to me the Lakers' 80s run was as impressive as Russell's and more impressive than Jordan's. The 80s had 4 stacked, dominant teams in the Lakers, Cetics, Sixers, and Pistons and several other very solid teams. The Lakers won 5 and were so close on two other. They had 84 in their pocket until Magic melted down and I still think they threepeat if Magic and Byron didn't both pull their hammy just before the Finals started.


Crap.... there goes my evening.... 84 again... :bang: Magic melted down but Worthy is the one I'll never forgive.... never... NEVER throw an inbounds pass under your own hoop.... That combined with his blunders a half dozen other times have made me cringe at this name.... not healthy I know but with me none the less after 30 years.... You should have heard me in 84...
"If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

“The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded." Dwight Eisenhower

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it" Thomas Sowell
User avatar
Rooscooter

 
Posts: 23048
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Chandler AZ and Andalué

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:58 am

puffyusaf#2 wrote:This really isn't a question at all. Russell's team dominated a 13 year span of the NBA. It doesn't matter if there were less teams or not he simply was a catalyst to 11 Championships in 13 years. All things being equal that is what it is. MJ's 6 is better than Kobe's 5 who is better than Tim Duncans 4 which is better than Lebron's 2. The numbers are the numbers when you are talking about star players who lead a team to the Championship. I say that because guys like Robert Horry has 7 and Dfish has 5 and while they are great role players there ring count is not in a discussion of this type.

Another thing I think the younger me-first generation seem to forget while knocking other peoples accomplishments to hype MJ's is that MJ had a stacked team. If we knock Russell for lack of competition then MJ must be knocked for having an amazing team to include, imo, one of the most underrated players in the NBA in Scottie Pippen. This really isn't a question to me.


You say role players like Horry's and Fish's ring counts don't hold as much weight as Kobe's, Duncan's and LeBron's. And that is mostly true but it's also true that Kobe got 3 of his rings as second fiddle and Duncan played some of a second fiddle role in one of their championships. There is absolutely, positively and unequivocally no doubt as to who "the man" was when MJ got his 6 rings. The entire burden of the world was on him. As good as Pip was, he never had the game to carry an offense on his back. His talents were perfectly suited to complement an alpha dog like MJ.

You also compare MJ's, Kobe's, Duncan's and LeBron's rings at face value and I don't think you can for the reasons I mentioned above. You have to see what role they played in for each respective championship. That matters. That's why Kobe's 2 rings as "the man" is much more impressive to me than him winning 3 as second fiddle. He carried those Laker teams in 2009-10. The burden was on him. Defenses focused primarily on him and he still came through. That's why I laugh when people say MJ has 6 and Kobe has 5 as if the gap was that close. While on face value it's true but if you dig deeper, MJ's 6 rings is much more impressive than Kobe's 5. At least for me.

And MJ's teams weren't stacked. It was him, Pip and Grant in the first run and him, Pip and Rodman in the second run. Everyone else were solid role players. They were superstar heavy like a lot of champions but not stacked from 1-8.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:20 am

John3:16 wrote:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Hmmmm....

I dunno. California public school education fails me again.

And others, it appears.


Face value. Layman's thinking.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:33 am

What was I thinking. This is a Laker site. Kobe is God and considered MJ's arch rival so of course he is not going to get his just due while poor Kobe gets no credit.

Now people are bashing the era MJ played in? And at the same time don't say anything about the level of comp of the 60's? :man10: Wow. The NBA was at the peak of its popularity during MJ's run and the talent pool was so much greater than even 15 years earlier. You had scouts now looking for talent all over the world and that just wasn't the case before. So the addition of two more teams did little to dilute the immense international talent pool that was growing. Basketball was starting to become an international game.

I mean let's break down who MJ beat:

1991 - Showtime Lakers - Yeah, not prime Lakers and they weren't supposed to get by Portland but still Magic, Worthy, Scott and Green. He beat the guy who said MJ couldn't become because Magic won and MJ didn't.

1992 - Portland - One of the most stacked teams in history imo that never won a ring. Prime Drexler, Porter, Kersey, Williams, Duckworth, etc. That was a heck of a team. They made 2 finals appearances, both losing to all time great teams in Pistons and Bulls.

1993 - Phoenix - Another incredibly talented team. Barkley, KJ, Majerle, Hornaceck, etc.

1996 - Seattle - Another stacked team with Payton, Kemp, Schremf, etc.

1997 - 98 - Utah - Wow, talk about a well coached team. Reminds me of the Popovich teams. So disciplined and rarely hurt themselves. Two of the best ever in Malone and Stockton.

And along the way, MJ took down Shaq/Penny, the very tough NY Knicks, Isiah's Pistons, etc. Yeah, he played in a joke of an era. :man10:
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby puffyusaf#2 on Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:50 am

Lets Go Lakers wrote:
You say role players like Horry's and Fish's ring counts don't hold as much weight as Kobe's, Duncan's and LeBron's. And that is mostly true but it's also true that Kobe got 3 of his rings as second fiddle and Duncan played some of a second fiddle role in one of their championships. There is absolutely, positively and unequivocally no doubt as to who "the man" was when MJ got his 6 rings. The entire burden of the world was on him. As good as Pip was, he never had the game to carry an offense on his back. His talents were perfectly suited to complement an alpha dog like MJ.

OK if you say so. Scottie Pippen is one of the most underratted players to play the game because of the media love for MJ. Scottie defended the teams best player, not MIKE. Scottie could score at will just like Mike. In fact, Scottie carried the Bulls to another high 50 win season without MJ. Yes MJ was the clear cut alpha dog on the team and his talents are not to be ignored but to deminish Scottie because it sounds right is plain uninformed and stupid. As for Kobe being the second fiddle is just as crazy. I expect that from one of the ESPN fans but not a fan that "allegedly" watched the Lakers play during those years. Shaq was dominant but so was Kobe. Shaq didn't carry the team in the 4th Kobe did more often than not. We don't beat the Blazers or the Kings if Kobe isn't the man he was on the floor. Shaq gets the MJ treatment and Kobe gets the Pipp treatment to some of the uninformed fans. Also "burden of the world" is such a bad statement I won't even discuss it past mentioning that it is a bad statement.

You also compare MJ's, Kobe's, Duncan's and LeBron's rings at face value and I don't think you can for the reasons I mentioned above. You have to see what role they played in for each respective championship. That matters. That's why Kobe's 2 rings as "the man" is much more impressive to me than him winning 3 as second fiddle. He carried those Laker teams in 2009-10. The burden was on him. Defenses focused primarily on him and he still came through. That's why I laugh when people say MJ has 6 and Kobe has 5 as if the gap was that close. While on face value it's true but if you dig deeper, MJ's 6 rings is much more impressive than Kobe's 5. At least for me.

This is strictly your criteria to fit your opinion. You can laugh that Kobe's 5 is nowhere near MJ's 6 but you would be wrong, again. If you want to take "roles" in respect to the rings then you must also take into consideration "competition" in respects to the rings. The 90's is one of the weakest times in the history of the league. Take that into consideration then MJ's Bulls are nothing more than fortunate in a weak league just Miami's run to titles in the East. So if the competition was weak how can MJ's rings be better than not only Russells, but Kobe (who's came against great competition), Duncans (see: Kobe), Magic/Kap and Bird? All those guys won rings against greater competetion all around the board than MJ did. Should we forget that?

And MJ's teams weren't stacked. It was him, Pip and Grant in the first run and him, Pip and Rodman in the second run. Everyone else were solid role players. They were superstar heavy like a lot of champions but not stacked from 1-8.
[/quote][/quote]
Again, selectivity only works if others want to jump on the wagon with you. MJ's teams were stacked with players that 1. knew their rolls. 2. Had the game to play at the best level and 3. Complimented everyone else. MJ had a guy as talented as he was on the floor every game who was actually the better defender. MJ had some of the NBA's best 3point shooters on his team and the greatest rebounder to EVER play the game. Yup, not stacked but damn close.
For what it's worth, the Lakers also clinched the Pacific Division, an achievement Bryant dismissed by saying "We don't hang divisions." No, only the big NBA championship banners are considered wall-worthy for the Lakers.
User avatar
puffyusaf#2

 
Posts: 30700
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:15 pm
Location: Chasing the dream to an Oscar

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:12 am

puffyusaf#2 wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:
You say role players like Horry's and Fish's ring counts don't hold as much weight as Kobe's, Duncan's and LeBron's. And that is mostly true but it's also true that Kobe got 3 of his rings as second fiddle and Duncan played some of a second fiddle role in one of their championships. There is absolutely, positively and unequivocally no doubt as to who "the man" was when MJ got his 6 rings. The entire burden of the world was on him. As good as Pip was, he never had the game to carry an offense on his back. His talents were perfectly suited to complement an alpha dog like MJ.

OK if you say so. Scottie Pippen is one of the most underratted players to play the game because of the media love for MJ. Scottie defended the teams best player, not MIKE. Scottie could score at will just like Mike. In fact, Scottie carried the Bulls to another high 50 win season without MJ. Yes MJ was the clear cut alpha dog on the team and his talents are not to be ignored but to deminish Scottie because it sounds right is plain uninformed and stupid. As for Kobe being the second fiddle is just as crazy. I expect that from one of the ESPN fans but not a fan that "allegedly" watched the Lakers play during those years. Shaq was dominant but so was Kobe. Shaq didn't carry the team in the 4th Kobe did more often than not. We don't beat the Blazers or the Kings if Kobe isn't the man he was on the floor. Shaq gets the MJ treatment and Kobe gets the Pipp treatment to some of the uninformed fans. Also "burden of the world" is such a bad statement I won't even discuss it past mentioning that it is a bad statement.

You also compare MJ's, Kobe's, Duncan's and LeBron's rings at face value and I don't think you can for the reasons I mentioned above. You have to see what role they played in for each respective championship. That matters. That's why Kobe's 2 rings as "the man" is much more impressive to me than him winning 3 as second fiddle. He carried those Laker teams in 2009-10. The burden was on him. Defenses focused primarily on him and he still came through. That's why I laugh when people say MJ has 6 and Kobe has 5 as if the gap was that close. While on face value it's true but if you dig deeper, MJ's 6 rings is much more impressive than Kobe's 5. At least for me.

This is strictly your criteria to fit your opinion. You can laugh that Kobe's 5 is nowhere near MJ's 6 but you would be wrong, again. If you want to take "roles" in respect to the rings then you must also take into consideration "competition" in respects to the rings. The 90's is one of the weakest times in the history of the league. Take that into consideration then MJ's Bulls are nothing more than fortunate in a weak league just Miami's run to titles in the East. So if the competition was weak how can MJ's rings be better than not only Russells, but Kobe (who's came against great competition), Duncans (see: Kobe), Magic/Kap and Bird? All those guys won rings against greater competetion all around the board than MJ did. Should we forget that?

And MJ's teams weren't stacked. It was him, Pip and Grant in the first run and him, Pip and Rodman in the second run. Everyone else were solid role players. They were superstar heavy like a lot of champions but not stacked from 1-8.
[/quote]

I'm sorry but the part in red made me laugh. Show me how he was able to get his just like MJ. Break down his game and how he was such a dominant offensive force? And show me were I discredited Pip in any fashion. All I said was that he was second fiddle and MJ was "the man". And that is 100% true. Pip is one of the most well rounded players ever. His athleticism and length made him a defensive maestro. The Lakers actually had early success against the Bulls in the 1991 Finals cause Magic was allowed to do his thing but once Pippen started to guard him from half court on, the series changed. Magic was bothered by Pip's defense.

Pip didn't do a darn thing when he left Chicago. Yeah, he was 33 and perhaps not in his prime but still young enough where he could make an impact. Jordan was 35 when he won his last ring. He took Houston nowhere as "the man" and when he was in Portland, he played in one of the most stacked teams ever imo to never win a ring and still couldn't get a chip. He never averaged more than 14.5 ppg after he left Chicago and he was given the reign as "the man". But that's just who he is, a great second fiddle who works best alongside a great alpha dog because he simply didn't have the offensive game to carry a team. He didn't have that alpha mentality. He was more of a sidekick who liked to get others involved. Heck, MJ at 40 was a better scorer with the Wizards than Pip near his prime.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Rooscooter on Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:18 am

Lets Go Lakers wrote:
John3:16 wrote:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Hmmmm....

I dunno. California public school education fails me again.

And others, it appears.


Face value. Layman's thinking.


At what point do we call a troll a troll...... He doesn't attempt a respectful exchange of ideas or points..... Just hyperbole, self ritious indignation all the while belittling people who actually lived and watched the game in eras he tears down with vague innuendo, cherry picked stats and just plane silly arguments.
Last edited by Rooscooter on Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

“The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded." Dwight Eisenhower

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it" Thomas Sowell
User avatar
Rooscooter

 
Posts: 23048
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Chandler AZ and Andalué

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby puffyusaf#2 on Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:57 pm

Lets Go Lakers wrote:
puffyusaf#2 wrote:
OK if you say so. Scottie Pippen is one of the most underratted players to play the game because of the media love for MJ. Scottie defended the teams best player, not MIKE. Scottie could score at will just like Mike.


I'm sorry but the part in red made me laugh. Show me how he was able to get his just like MJ. Break down his game and how he was such a dominant offensive force? And show me were I discredited Pip in any fashion. All I said was that he was second fiddle and MJ was "the man". And that is 100% true. Pip is one of the most well rounded players ever. His athleticism and length made him a defensive maestro. The Lakers actually had early success against the Bulls in the 1991 Finals cause Magic was allowed to do his thing but once Pippen started to guard him from half court on, the series changed. Magic was bothered by Pip's defense.

Pip didn't do a darn thing when he left Chicago. Yeah, he was 33 and perhaps not in his prime but still young enough where he could make an impact. Jordan was 35 when he won his last ring. He took Houston nowhere as "the man" and when he was in Portland, he played in one of the most stacked teams ever imo to never win a ring and still couldn't get a chip. He never averaged more than 14.5 ppg after he left Chicago and he was given the reign as "the man". But that's just who he is, a great second fiddle who works best alongside a great alpha dog because he simply didn't have the offensive game to carry a team. He didn't have that alpha mentality. He was more of a sidekick who liked to get others involved. Heck, MJ at 40 was a better scorer with the Wizards than Pip near his prime.


The fact that you laughed really shows me your lack of knowledge of Pipps game and his impact on the Bulls. Maybe he is a bonified #2 but that #2 was the best #2 to play the game. No I have never consider Kobe a #2 to Shaq's #1 before you go there. Now back to the point, what Scottie did with the other teams has absolutely no relevence to what he did with the Bulls. His game allowed MJ freedom to do what MJ had to do on the floor. Forget that Pippen averaged nearly 20pts a game, 7 rbs, 2 steals and 1 blk while shooting nearly 50% from the field during the Bulls Championship runs the biggest thing he did was let MJ gaurd secondary players so MJ could take over. To ignore that means you either are 1. Bias beyond discussion or 2. Know very little about the era past what ESPN/Sportsmedia has told you. Either way there really isn't much more to discuss especially when the original question was pretty much not even debatable to even the most illogical of posters.
For what it's worth, the Lakers also clinched the Pacific Division, an achievement Bryant dismissed by saying "We don't hang divisions." No, only the big NBA championship banners are considered wall-worthy for the Lakers.
User avatar
puffyusaf#2

 
Posts: 30700
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:15 pm
Location: Chasing the dream to an Oscar

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby charvin on Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:59 pm

In this context, to quote Kobe during his 2009 Finals interview with Magic "Shaq would've never won without me, and we wouldn't have won without Horry, Fisher, etc." MJ has a very good chance of not winning either (look at late 80's against Bad Boy Pistons) if not for Pippen, who puffy stated that he guarded the best player and left the offense primarily to MJ. Does that make it automatic that Pippen would be an offensive maestro? No. I meant it as an opinion that Jordan wouldn't be able to dominate as well offensively if he had to worry about the defense more than he did.

My opinion? Pippen was more of a sidekick/second fiddle role than Kobe was to Shaq. Kobe and Shaq, in my mind, are 1A and 1B, equals, to put it bluntly.

Why do I consider them equals? Because if we narrow it down to only PPG, Shaq and Kobe were well within +/- 5 of each other (and even closer) each year less the outcast year of 1999-2000. I don't know how you would define that as second fiddle if either player could be your primary option, give for the coach picking one over the other.
charvin

 
Posts: 541
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:53 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:42 pm

puffyusaf#2 wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:
puffyusaf#2 wrote:
OK if you say so. Scottie Pippen is one of the most underratted players to play the game because of the media love for MJ. Scottie defended the teams best player, not MIKE. Scottie could score at will just like Mike.


I'm sorry but the part in red made me laugh. Show me how he was able to get his just like MJ. Break down his game and how he was such a dominant offensive force? And show me were I discredited Pip in any fashion. All I said was that he was second fiddle and MJ was "the man". And that is 100% true. Pip is one of the most well rounded players ever. His athleticism and length made him a defensive maestro. The Lakers actually had early success against the Bulls in the 1991 Finals cause Magic was allowed to do his thing but once Pippen started to guard him from half court on, the series changed. Magic was bothered by Pip's defense.

Pip didn't do a darn thing when he left Chicago. Yeah, he was 33 and perhaps not in his prime but still young enough where he could make an impact. Jordan was 35 when he won his last ring. He took Houston nowhere as "the man" and when he was in Portland, he played in one of the most stacked teams ever imo to never win a ring and still couldn't get a chip. He never averaged more than 14.5 ppg after he left Chicago and he was given the reign as "the man". But that's just who he is, a great second fiddle who works best alongside a great alpha dog because he simply didn't have the offensive game to carry a team. He didn't have that alpha mentality. He was more of a sidekick who liked to get others involved. Heck, MJ at 40 was a better scorer with the Wizards than Pip near his prime.


The fact that you laughed really shows me your lack of knowledge of Pipps game and his impact on the Bulls. Maybe he is a bonified #2 but that #2 was the best #2 to play the game. No I have never consider Kobe a #2 to Shaq's #1 before you go there. Now back to the point, what Scottie did with the other teams has absolutely no relevence to what he did with the Bulls. His game allowed MJ freedom to do what MJ had to do on the floor. Forget that Pippen averaged nearly 20pts a game, 7 rbs, 2 steals and 1 blk while shooting nearly 50% from the field during the Bulls Championship runs the biggest thing he did was let MJ gaurd secondary players so MJ could take over. To ignore that means you either are 1. Bias beyond discussion or 2. Know very little about the era past what ESPN/Sportsmedia has told you. Either way there really isn't much more to discuss especially when the original question was pretty much not even debatable to even the most illogical of posters.


I didn't say the part in red, you did. I asked you to break down his game and how he was able to score as easily as MJ. So far, I haven't seen that.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby puffyusaf#2 on Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:14 pm

You LAUGHED at the part in red which is what I referenced. I know I said it and I responded that if you don't think Scottie could score as easily as MJ then you didn't watch plain and simple. There really isn't anything I can tell you since it is obvious your bias isn't based on actual knowledge of how the Bulls actually played.
For what it's worth, the Lakers also clinched the Pacific Division, an achievement Bryant dismissed by saying "We don't hang divisions." No, only the big NBA championship banners are considered wall-worthy for the Lakers.
User avatar
puffyusaf#2

 
Posts: 30700
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:15 pm
Location: Chasing the dream to an Oscar

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:49 pm

puffyusaf#2 wrote:You LAUGHED at the part in red which is what I referenced. I know I said it and I responded that if you don't think Scottie could score as easily as MJ then you didn't watch plain and simple. There really isn't anything I can tell you since it is obvious your bias isn't based on actual knowledge of how the Bulls actually played.


Do you even know who Michael Jeffrey Jordan is? In case you didn't, he is the all time leading scorer in history in both regular season and playoffs. They say Wilt might've been a better scorer and I would point to his 22ppg playoff avg while MJ took it to another level in the playoffs at about 33pg. I'm sorry but what you said is pretty ignorant.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby puffyusaf#2 on Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:01 pm

Lets Go Lakers wrote:
puffyusaf#2 wrote:You LAUGHED at the part in red which is what I referenced. I know I said it and I responded that if you don't think Scottie could score as easily as MJ then you didn't watch plain and simple. There really isn't anything I can tell you since it is obvious your bias isn't based on actual knowledge of how the Bulls actually played.


Do you even know who Michael Jeffrey Jordan is? In case you didn't, he is the all time leading scorer in history in both regular season and playoffs. They say Wilt might've been a better scorer and I would point to his 22ppg playoff avg while MJ took it to another level in the playoffs at about 33pg. I'm sorry but what you said is pretty ignorant.

ignorant? Some of the best posters on the board have said your post are full of holes and eventually you fall back to nothing but stats. It is obvious you have no idea about who Michael Jeffrey Jordan (Holy quote ESPN batman) played with or the value of his teammates. MJ was able to be MJ because of the guys he had around him. Pippin, Kerr, Rodman and the rest were a defensive juggernaut in a, lets say it again week decade, and allowed MIke the scorer go crazy on other teams. The BULLS, you know his team, was at the time an amazing defensive squad add to that Scottie and MJ both could take the ball off the rim and push it from coast to coast. I'll take my ignorance based in facts than yours based in wwhatever it is you have found on Wikipedia.
For what it's worth, the Lakers also clinched the Pacific Division, an achievement Bryant dismissed by saying "We don't hang divisions." No, only the big NBA championship banners are considered wall-worthy for the Lakers.
User avatar
puffyusaf#2

 
Posts: 30700
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:15 pm
Location: Chasing the dream to an Oscar

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Congo Cash on Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:45 am

Wow, way too much love on MJ, while insulting the rest of his team...

Kukoc could start on most teams and he had tons of solid roleplayers (Kerr, Paxson, Armstrong, Cartwright, Longley, etc.)... Did I even mention Pippen, Rodman, Grant and Phil freaking Jackson?

And yes, I find the 90s pretty bad...
- insert signature here -
User avatar
Congo Cash

 
Posts: 4533
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:58 am
Location: Philippines

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Magic Skywalker on Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:49 am

LetsGoLakers wrote:What was I thinking. This is a Laker site. Kobe is God and considered MJ's arch rival so of course he is not going to get his just due while poor Kobe gets no credit.


I was gonna say something more about the "debate", but I don't think this is really a debate anymore.

Just one thing: As a Lakers fan, I really don't care much about MJ's 6 rings. Sure, I love Kobe and it's a shame that everything he's done in his life comes with a "but Michael has...". I don't like it.... But I like even less.... MUCH less, the fact that every historical accomplishment by my team always comes with a "17>16"... I HATE that, I really HATE that, I HATE it to a level you certainly can't even begin to imagine (but I'm sure many posters here do understand me perfectly well). And that's because of Bill's 11 titles.

Things is... even though I hate it, I've yet to become such a bad loser, and just blame the eras as the reason the Celtics have more championships than the Lakers. I'm not going to take that away from them... not like that. I want the Lakers to take that away from them winning at least one more title.

I do feel the Lakers are the best team in NBA history, even if they're one title short (which I do admit is the most important category). We had a lot of chances in the 60s, and we blew them, while Boston took them all.

I'll be honest... I also don't know what were you thinking. This is a Laker site. How in the world would you think we would care more about 6 Bulls titles over 11 Celtics titles. I would gladly exchange the 6 MJ titles for the 11 Bill Russell's title if that means stripping 5 titles out of Boston... but that just isn't the reality.
@MagicSkywalker Basketamericano
User avatar
Magic Skywalker

 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:08 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby puffyusaf#2 on Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:16 am

Lets Go Lakers wrote:What was I thinking. This is a Laker site. Kobe is God and considered MJ's arch rival so of course he is not going to get his just due while poor Kobe gets no credit.

Now people are bashing the era MJ played in? And at the same time don't say anything about the level of comp of the 60's? :man10: Wow. The NBA was at the peak of its popularity during MJ's run and the talent pool was so much greater than even 15 years earlier. You had scouts now looking for talent all over the world and that just wasn't the case before. So the addition of two more teams did little to dilute the immense international talent pool that was growing. Basketball was starting to become an international game.

I mean let's break down who MJ beat:

1991 - Showtime Lakers - Yeah, not prime Lakers and they weren't supposed to get by Portland but still Magic, Worthy, Scott and Green. He beat the guy who said MJ couldn't become because Magic won and MJ didn't.

1992 - Portland - One of the most stacked teams in history imo that never won a ring. Prime Drexler, Porter, Kersey, Williams, Duckworth, etc. That was a heck of a team. They made 2 finals appearances, both losing to all time great teams in Pistons and Bulls.

1993 - Phoenix - Another incredibly talented team. Barkley, KJ, Majerle, Hornaceck, etc.

1996 - Seattle - Another stacked team with Payton, Kemp, Schremf, etc.

1997 - 98 - Utah - Wow, talk about a well coached team. Reminds me of the Popovich teams. So disciplined and rarely hurt themselves. Two of the best ever in Malone and Stockton.

And along the way, MJ took down Shaq/Penny, the very tough NY Knicks, Isiah's Pistons, etc. Yeah, he played in a joke of an era. :man10:

This is so stupid it hurts my soul. YOu just listed all the WESTERN CONFERENCE teams the Bulls beat. MJ didn't beat them by himself which was the point he had a stacked team. YOu see how hard it is to defend your point when you turn around and IMAGINE that MJ did it on his own. Why don't you go to your Wiki page and see what the stats of his teammates were in those series. You have failed to defend your point but instead go with the "OMG hehehehe its a Lakers board and Kobe is God" which is not only funny but a pathetic attempt at misdirection. No one is really talking about Kobe vs MJ in any way except the concept of value of rings attained. To ignore the era, the competition and the teammates is a selective stupidity of an uninformed mind. YOu keep proving that to be the case.
For what it's worth, the Lakers also clinched the Pacific Division, an achievement Bryant dismissed by saying "We don't hang divisions." No, only the big NBA championship banners are considered wall-worthy for the Lakers.
User avatar
puffyusaf#2

 
Posts: 30700
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:15 pm
Location: Chasing the dream to an Oscar

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:01 am

puffyusaf#2 wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:
puffyusaf#2 wrote:You LAUGHED at the part in red which is what I referenced. I know I said it and I responded that if you don't think Scottie could score as easily as MJ then you didn't watch plain and simple. There really isn't anything I can tell you since it is obvious your bias isn't based on actual knowledge of how the Bulls actually played.


Do you even know who Michael Jeffrey Jordan is? In case you didn't, he is the all time leading scorer in history in both regular season and playoffs. They say Wilt might've been a better scorer and I would point to his 22ppg playoff avg while MJ took it to another level in the playoffs at about 33pg. I'm sorry but what you said is pretty ignorant.

ignorant? Some of the best posters on the board have said your post are full of holes and eventually you fall back to nothing but stats. It is obvious you have no idea about who Michael Jeffrey Jordan (Holy quote ESPN batman) played with or the value of his teammates. MJ was able to be MJ because of the guys he had around him. Pippin, Kerr, Rodman and the rest were a defensive juggernaut in a, lets say it again week decade, and allowed MIke the scorer go crazy on other teams. The BULLS, you know his team, was at the time an amazing defensive squad add to that Scottie and MJ both could take the ball off the rim and push it from coast to coast. I'll take my ignorance based in facts than yours based in wwhatever it is you have found on Wikipedia.


"Steve Kerr" and "defense" in the same sentence? So you are on record saying that Pippen could score as easily as MJ and that Kerr was a defensive jaggernaut? I mean anyone with any common knowledge of basketball would know without a shadow of a doubt that both statements are 100% false. But hey, keep calling me ignorant, it's kind of amusing.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2877
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

PreviousNext

Return to NBA Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests

cron
Advertise Here | Privacy Policy | ©2008 Sculu Sports. Come Strong.