|
|
Post by connors on Apr 15, 2020 14:57:55 GMT
Jordans second title run is a great advert for taking a sabbatical for a season.
Heal your body, rest your mind, rediscover your enthusiasm.
Lebron sort of did it whilst still sort of playing last season :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Solly on Apr 15, 2020 15:43:25 GMT
SamH - Jordan wouldn't join in on a Top Trumpers set for great NBA players because he'd want a solo set.
Can recall playing NBA Jam in the 90s - 'if its in the game, its in the game' was the boast. Ironic that it included all the players but Jordan.
Jordan is definitely the GOAT but it took him a time to bring his team-mates along with him, delaying the arrival of NBA rings.
|
|
|
|
Post by SamH on Apr 15, 2020 16:41:35 GMT
Yeah, I remember NBA live '97 and various later versions, you had "player 24" because they weren't allowed to feature him in the game or seemingly even use his number!
It did take the Bulls a while to overcome the pistons and Celtics but Mike was already amazing by then, those teams were just too good and loaded with veterans. I don't think that tarnishes his overall career though, but imagine if he'd started winning earlier than he did! That would be insanely ridiculous, there'd be absolutely no case to make for anyone else then.
|
|
|
|
Post by connors on Apr 15, 2020 18:05:43 GMT
I think the first Bulls teams he were on were weak and full of ageing players. He immediately made an impact personally and on the teams performances and results.
The Pistons and Celtics teams of that era were very strong. Multiple Allstar/All NBA calibre players in their prime. Even they struggled to contain him individually.
For sure the emergence of Pippen and Grant plus some savvy veteran signings helped but to suggest they were slow years for Jordan is nonsense!
I also don’t think he was a selfish player. A selfish person quite possibly but not so much a selfish player.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2020 18:23:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Solly on Apr 15, 2020 18:41:04 GMT
And so says ex-Bad Boy Bill Laimbeer!
Obviously he doesn't truly believe what he's said.
Bill is a great example of the sort of person who can't help but wind people up...
|
|
|
|
Post by connors on Apr 15, 2020 18:58:07 GMT
You have to credit Laimbeer for forging a successful career with little athletic ability other than his height. He was starting centre on some great teams.
He’s also full of **** 😉
|
|
|
|
Post by SamH on Apr 15, 2020 19:11:45 GMT
But also the reason he gave isn't that big a factor even if it's true. Is it true? LeBron didn't win a chip for 9 years and only then by joining a super team. It depends what Bills criteria is for winning and taking people with you. I'd agree he is friendlier than Jordan was - the stories of making Steve Kerr cry or taking Horace Grants dinner away saying he didn't deserve to eat after a poor game spring to mind. But that was the competitive side manifesting in an unpleasant manner, and again I don't believe LeBron has that competitive appetite, very few do. Kobe matched it and oh look, he was also an arse to his team mates. But that one criteria Bill mentions doesn't overcome the rings, the MVPs, the finals records etc.that MJ leads LeBron in.
|
|
|
|
Post by SamH on Apr 16, 2020 17:30:49 GMT
www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/29035071/why-michael-jordan-scoring-prowess-touchedI'm not usually a stats geek but this is really interesting. The article touches on how MJ transformed the game from one that traditionally was big man led (even Bird and Magic only won playing alongside dominant bigs) to a game that could be guard dominated. Look how he did it - midrange jumpers! It's fascinating to see that when we're so used to today's game, where it's now evolved into long range shooting. Big men are making a comeback but aren't as central to success as they were in the 80s, and the midrange shot is almost obsolete. It's interesting that there's no real hangover from the way Mike played the game and today's players are doing something else. Wouldn't you want to pattern your game on the best ever? Look at Harden for example - he can shoot from anywhere, so why doesn't he take more midrangers and garner a better hit rate? Does he not know how to get shots off from that range? Does he think the extra point he gets for a 3 makes up more for the missed shots than scoring more 2 pointers would add?
|
|
|
|
Post by connors on Apr 16, 2020 18:49:05 GMT
I think the last mid-range maestro was your favourite player Kobe.
One thing I noticed watching The Inbeata Bulls documentary is how many 3 v 2s were converted at the rim. Almost a lost art in the modern NBA. 3 v 2s nearly always end up with a corner 3. Even 2 v1s unless they can get a lob dunk.
Still times change and games move on. I prefer the game from the late 80s and 90s but some of that is just nostalgia.
|
|
|
|
Post by connors on Apr 16, 2020 18:58:40 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2020 19:22:12 GMT
It'll make a difference to College. But it's only 12-14 players.
I'd prefer a system where players did 2 years at college, were given 50k a year plus decent insurance which looked after them for life if needed and then went into the draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pedant on Apr 16, 2020 20:15:03 GMT
I like most of Sam's posts. He's got great NBA knowledge, provides well-reasoned arguments and seems to be a good egg. But he falls down in my eyes by not spacing out his posts. In fact, he hurts my eyes. Sam - have you not heard of paragraphs? You could be the Sam the Man but until you learn basic construction you are Sam the Might Have Been.
|
|
|
|
Post by SamH on Apr 17, 2020 18:14:41 GMT
You just don't get this kind of quality feedback until you open up for unregistered users.
I'm all for it!
Do keep this going ko25!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2020 19:23:03 GMT
It only took one likie  Seriously Sam, where are you these days? I believe you were in China last time we had a "normal " conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by connors on Apr 18, 2020 11:41:57 GMT
It'll make a difference to College. But it's only 12-14 players. I'd prefer a system where players did 2 years at college, were given 50k a year plus decent insurance which looked after them for life if needed and then went into the draft. I would just like them to relax the rules on the sponsorship etc. They get the scholarship and all they have to do is play ball in the main. However for the ones that can leverage some extra dough so what? im sure you are right, it’s not likely to end college hoops but I think the one and done nature now with all the best players has already diluted the quality. If you take more of the quality high school recruits out to play G leave, Aussie league etc....... I know you like college ball but I struggle to watch it. Too coach centric. Don’t like the different rules much either. Would prefer to see rules standardised across all “adult” hoops. |
|
|
|
Post by dandayr on Apr 18, 2020 21:52:02 GMT
So how does this work with regards the draft - if you start off in G-lge are you still eligible for a future draft or is it just like many other players in the g-lge you are hoping to be get a direct contract offer from a NBA side? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2020 21:23:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by SamH on May 12, 2020 21:00:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by SamH on May 12, 2020 22:11:19 GMT
I have issues with Chris Paul placing 14 spots higher on that list than Gary Payton but I am a Payton fanboy.
It's quite educational too reading about the old guys. I didn't know Wes Unseld won MVP as a rookie, for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by connors on May 14, 2020 12:33:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by SamH on May 14, 2020 16:54:47 GMT
I was pleased to see Duncan ahead of Bryant, that tells you the list has had some degree of proper analysis and reflection. Most people have them the wrong way round because of Kobe's pzazz and personality but Duncan won more MVPs and was more efficient.
Magic at 5 seems low. When LeBron won his chip in Cleveland I struggled with whether that moved him into 2nd all time ahead of Magic. I think I do have him 2nd but Magic very close 3rd. I'd have Kareem 4th, then Bird then Wilt, then Russell.
But everyone would have a slightly different order at the top, most would have those 7 in some order though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2020 17:13:35 GMT
I was pleased to see Duncan ahead of Bryant, that tells you the list has had some degree of proper analysis and reflection. Most people have them the wrong way round because of Kobe's pzazz and personality but Duncan won more MVPs and was more efficient. . Jeez. Let it go Sam. We know, you didnt like him. But he's dead, he can never make it up to you. |
|
|
|
Post by SamH on May 14, 2020 17:40:12 GMT
Because you know all about letting things go, yes?
|
|
|
|
Post by connors on May 14, 2020 19:52:39 GMT
I think it tough because they factor in rings. For me Barkley is a better player than 23! Wilt individually better than Russell but winning counts so that’s how it goes.
On Espn there was some
Dissent amount the pundits over some of the choices and in particular the drop of the superb Drexler
|
|
