sons the Spurs have dominated everyone but the Lakers (all time head to head records)

[BRHornet45]

sons the stats and the facts don't lie. I only drop truth bombs with no bias whatsoever. I have to admit I didn't realize just how dominate the Spurs have been against other teams during the regular season. only a few teams even come close to the .500 mark....



43-36 vs Atlanta Hawks

41-38 vs Boston Celtics

60-19 vs Brooklyn/NJ Nets

13-2 vs Charlotte Bobcats

46-29 vs Chicago Bulls

52-29 vs Cleveland Cavaliers

88-64 vs Dallas Mavericks

99-62 vs Denver Nuggets

48-30 vs Detroit Pistons

95-50 vs Golden State Warriors

94-75 vs Houston Rockets

45-34 vs Indiana Pacers

72-74 vs Los Angeles Lakers (guaranteed fact the officials helped Lakers win at least 10 games)

115-30 vs Los Angeles Clippers (lolz)

51-16 vs Memphis Grizzlies

34-15 vs Miami Heat

39-36 vs Milwaukee Bucks (wow surprisingly close)

69-25 vs Minnesota Timberwolves

45-20 vs New Orleans Hornets

45-34 vs New York Knicks

82-63 vs Oklahoma City Thunder

32-15 vs Orlando Magic

47-34 vs Philadelphia 76ers

75-72 vs Phoenix Suns

73-72 vs Portland Trail Blazers (wow another surprise)

99-54 vs Sacramento Kings

23-9 vs Toronto Raptors

90-73 vs Utah Jazz

49-30 vs Washington Wizards


http://nbauniverse.com/head_to_head/spurs_rivals.htm

[AussieFanKurt]

it certainly isn't going to change in favour of spurs this season

[VBM]

The damn Bucks having been killing SA ever since the Big Dog days

[Venti Quattro]

Lakers are 7-8 against the Bobcats :rollin :rollin :rollin

[sananspursfan21]

im sure those records have really been padded over the last decade or so

[lefty]

BRhornet


What's the Hornets' all-time record vs the NBA?

God bless

[irishock]

Suns are surprisingly close, Mavs are a surprise to suck (although that may be because of the 90's).

[scanry]

Suns are surprisingly close, Mavs are a surprise to suck (although that may be because of the 90's).

Barkley owned the Spurs in the 90's.

Spurs beat them (Lakers) good in the regular season. They returned the favor in the post season though.

[Wild Cobra Kai]

Not a huge surprise if you're a Spurs fan. SA is second in all time win percentage in NBA history.

[Andrew Bynum]

Spurs haven't done shit in over five years tbh, and even then they played the weakest WCF and Finals teams ever :lol

[baseline bum]

Spurs haven't done shit in over five years tbh, and even then they played the weakest WCF and Finals teams ever :lol

LOL '09 Nuggets and '04 TWolves with both PGs injured were such amazing foes.

[BanditHiro]

it certainly isn't going to change in favour of spurs this season

regular season is the spurs season

[whitemamba]

yay for regular season..

[Killakobe81]

No one can deny the Spurs are regular season and Finals bests (when they make it).

When I first started watching ball (rarly to mid 80's) even thoughthe Spurs were far from Finals contenders, the old Alamo or Hemisphere whatever the eff they called those old buildings... were murder to play in. Although they can ,(I know Lakers fans are self-entitled even more arrogant assholes) be some sanctimonous, classier and holier than though prickstheir fans have supported any decent team they have had. And I lived there for 3 years the spurs ARE San Antonio. Sure there are cowboys country and there are plenty of Saint fan refugees ...but the spurs are the fabric of that city. I agree the Duncan/Pop Spurs have inflated those numbers San Antonio was rarely an automatic w like the Clips used to be ...

[Sean Cagney]

The damn Bucks having been killing SA ever since the Big Dog days

They did for a while, since 03 though the Spurs have swept them in the regular season several times. I hated playin them though :rollin


Bucks no matter how bad though always seem to be a team that can split with you (Last year they won the only matchup lol).

[Kidd K]

I guess we should give props to the Bucks, Blazers, and Suns for being so legit.

Bucks is really surprising tbh. Suns and Blazers I can understand since they're usually pretty decent (at least they've had multiple excellent runs each), but the Bucks? Crazy. . .Spurs just need to step it up against them. Bucks haven't been very good very often. I literally can't think of a single really good Bucks team and I've been watching NBA since I was 5 in 1990.



72-74 vs Los Angeles Lakers (guaranteed fact the officials helped Lakers win at least 10 games)

Agreed, and that's literally "one game difference". Spurs win 1 of those 74 they lost and it would've been tied. Too bad the NBA is so blantant in helping their league-preferred teams defeat rivals. I watch all 4 major sports, and the NBA is the only one I feel that does it.

Oh well, it's not that big of a gap anyway, considering the Lakers' annual spending is roughly double what the Spurs' is after calculating for luxury tax.

[Killakobe81]

sons the stats and the facts don't lie. I only drop truth bombs with no bias whatsoever. I have to admit I didn't realize just how dominate the Spurs have been against other teams during the regular season. only a few teams even come close to the .500 mark....



43-36 vs Atlanta Hawks

41-38 vs Boston Celtics

60-19 vs Brooklyn/NJ Nets

13-2 vs Charlotte Bobcats

46-29 vs Chicago Bulls

52-29 vs Cleveland Cavaliers

88-64 vs Dallas Mavericks

99-62 vs Denver Nuggets

48-30 vs Detroit Pistons

95-50 vs Golden State Warriors

94-75 vs Houston Rockets

45-34 vs Indiana Pacers

72-74 vs Los Angeles Lakers (guaranteed fact the officials helped Lakers win at least 10 games)

115-30 vs Los Angeles Clippers (lolz)

51-16 vs Memphis Grizzlies

34-15 vs Miami Heat

39-36 vs Milwaukee Bucks (wow surprisingly close)

69-25 vs Minnesota Timberwolves

45-20 vs New Orleans Hornets

45-34 vs New York Knicks

82-63 vs Oklahoma City Thunder

32-15 vs Orlando Magic

47-34 vs Philadelphia 76ers

75-72 vs Phoenix Suns

73-72 vs Portland Trail Blazers (wow another surprise)

99-54 vs Sacramento Kings

23-9 vs Toronto Raptors

90-73 vs Utah Jazz

49-30 vs Washington Wizards


http://nbauniverse.com/head_to_head/spurs_rivals.htm

unbiased :rollin

Facts :lmao

truuf bombs :lol

[scanry]

Killa, BR is always money on them truth bombs. Can't hate BR on that.

Son when did your ban get lifted? I thought it was until the start of regular season.

[lefty]

BRhornet


What's the Hornets' all-time record vs the NBA?

God bless
BR


You havent answered yet

[cobbler]

When it counts.... not so close.

Playoffs:

Lakers 34 Spurs 18

[lefty]

playoffs:

Celtics : 43
Lakers : 31



:lol

[cobbler]

playoffs:

Celtics : 43
Lakers : 31



:lol

Yep! No doubt about it. Our nemesis. But I will take a .415% over a .349 any day.

Especially when we are about to tie and surpass them in the LOB category of which the Spurs have NO CHANCE of doing to the lakers in our lifetimes.

But good point. It's why we hate the Celtics almost as much as you guys hate the Lakers.

[lefty]

Yep! No doubt about it. Our nemesis. But I will take a .415% over a .349 any day.

Especially when we are about to tie and surpass them in the LOB category of which the Spurs have NO CHANCE of doing to the lakers in our lifetimes.

But good point. It's why we hate the Celtics almost as much as you guys hate the Lakers.
:depressed

[Killakobe81]

Killa, BR is always money on them truth bombs. Can't hate BR on that.

Son when did your ban get lifted? I thought it was until the start of regular season.

Ban? When was I banned?
Did I miss something?

[callo1]

Spurs haven't done shit in over five years tbh, and even then they played the weakest WCF and Finals teams ever :lol

Yeah, that 2001 Sixers team was sure an elite team. :rolleyes

[Fergie The Florists]

Those bums in SA know who daddy is.

[scanry]

Ban? When was I banned?
Did I miss something?

^ Was addressing to BR. He lost a bet in the Finals (i think to Mono or Harlem).

Nevermind, he welched when the Suns offered Gordan the max.

[Venti Quattro]

Yeah, that 2001 Sixers team was sure an elite team. :rolleyes

1999 Knicks
2003 Nets
2007 C:lolvs

Am I missing something here?

[scanry]

1999 Knicks
2003 Nets
2007 C:lolvs

Am I missing something here?

tbh those three teams would beat that 2001 Sixers team. Except the 2010 Celtics and the 2000 Pacers team, Lakers faced pretty shitty teams in the recent finals.

[tlongII]

Mis-leading thread title tbh as they certainly haven't dominated us.

[Kidd K]

When it counts.... not so close.

Playoffs:

Lakers 34 Spurs 18

Irrelevant stat, considering the Lakers have been in the NBA nearly twice as long as the Spurs. 65 seasons for LA, 37 for Spurs. So an extra 28 chances to get in and only 16 up. Spurs have 32 total playoff appearances and 18 series wins, which means a 56.25% chance of one per playoff appearance. Which means mathamatically they will have 15.75 more series wins in with an additional 28 playoff appearances. Barely even have to round that and it's 16. Oh whoops, exact same as LA.



1999 Knicks
2003 Nets
2007 C:lolvs

Am I missing something here?

Can't really cite the Nets since the Lakers beat the Nets for the title the year before. So go ahead and chalk up another bad team LA beat out for the title if you're listing them. Or that broke ass Celtics team they faced last time that barely won 50 games. Or the broke ass Magic team they beat that literally hasn't done shit at any point besides cakewalk through an injured east that year. So we're looking at 4 terrible teams LA beat vs three SA beat. Whoops? Using that same measuring stick, LA only beat one good team in the Finals during their last 5 title runs.

[TDMVPDPOY]

1999 Knicks
2003 Nets
2007 C:lolvs

Am I missing something here?
lol loafing over spurs finals opponents when lakers 3peat also face against trash east finals opponents

[cobbler]

Irrelevant stat, considering the Lakers have been in the NBA nearly twice as long as the Spurs. 65 seasons for LA, 37 for Spurs. So an extra 28 chances to get in and only 16 up. Spurs have 32 total playoff appearances and 18 series wins, which means a 56.25% chance of one per playoff appearance. Which means mathamatically they will have 15.75 more series wins in with an additional 28 playoff appearances. Barely even have to round that and it's 16. Oh whoops, exact same as LA.


Too funny. I beg to differ. It is a totally relevant stat. Those numbers are Head to Head matchups between the Lakers and Spurs in playoff games. They have played a total of 11 series which have included 52 games.

Games Won: Lakers 34 - Spurs 18
Series Won: Lakers 8 - Spurs 3

Oh by the way, if you would like to accurately state making the NBA playoffs and not just Lakers vs. Spurs head to head it’s the Lakers 59 out of 64 years for a .921 % and the Spurs 32 out of 36 years for .888 %.

Spin it any way you wish. It's relevant! :lol

Nice try.

[druggas]

When Duncan retires, watch the numbers come back in line.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Only skimmed the thread (pretty fucking boring, tbh), but STFU spurfan. The 2001 Lakers would sodomize any spurs team, slit your daughters' throats, and fuck them in their new holes.


Not even God could take that team down in a series.

[baseline bum]

Only skimmed the thread (pretty fucking boring, tbh), but STFU spurfan. The 2001 Lakers would sodomize any spurs team, slit your daughters' throats, and fuck them in their new holes.


Not even God could take that team down in a series.

I don't think God could take down the Bobcats tbh

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k175/holdenmckock/gwar.gif

[scanry]

Only skimmed the thread (pretty fucking boring, tbh), but STFU spurfan. The 2001 Lakers would sodomize any spurs team, slit your daughters' throats, and fuck them in their new holes.

Not even God could take that team down in a series.

Why God, Jordan Bulls would've tapped that a$$. Pick any team from their two 3 peats and i don't see the Lakers beating them.

[cobbler]

Why God, Jordan Bulls would've tapped that a$$. Pick any team from their two 3 peats and i don't see the Lakers beating them.

Jordans Bulls not doing shit against Magics Lakers or Isiah's Pistions until they aged and the league expansion aside.

[baseline bum]

Huh? Jordan disposed of Magic's Lakers in 5. Are you saying Magic was TOSB by age 31? When he was second in MVP voting and had a stacked supporting cast with James Worthy, Byron Scott, Vlade Divac, and Sam Perkins?

[scanry]

Jordans Bulls not doing shit against Magics Lakers or Isiah's Pistions until they aged and the league expansion aside.

Those were the days when Phil Jackson actually coached and you seriously think someone will stop MJ?

MJ swept Shaq when he was 33 years old, what makes you think he won't do it when he is 28-30?

This can a debated for ever, but only Laker fans would not back MJ on this one. He's the GOAT for a reason. :lol

[baseline bum]

LOL Isiah was too old at 30 despite destroying everyone else but Chicago (needed 7 to get through the GOAT) to win the title at age 29. :lol

[cobbler]

Huh? Jordan disposed of Magic's Lakers in 5. Are you saying Magic was TOSB by age 31? When he was second in MVP voting and had a stacked supporting cast with James Worthy, Byron Scott, Vlade Divac, and Sam Perkins?

Divac? Really? You mean Sam 1-13 game for Perkins? Where were Wothy and Scott in the deciding game 5? Oh yeah, on the bench injured leaving the Lakers to rely on Elden "I can't spell my name" Cambell. Magig was on the down swing and was the best Laker. That years Laker team was lucky to even make the finals. Jordan was in his prime. When Magic, Bird, and Isiah were in their primes the bulls sniffed squat.

[cobbler]

Those were the days when Phil Jackson actually coached and you seriously think someone will stop MJ?

MJ swept Shaq when he was 33 years old, what makes you think he won't do it when he is 28-30?

This can a debated for ever, but only Laker fans would not back MJ on this one. He's the GOAT for a reason. :lol

GOAT is an opinion. MJ is not the GOAT in mine. Not even top 3. There are all kinds of criteria that go into what forms ones opinion on who the GOAT is. It's all subjective.

[baseline bum]

downswing? :rollin

Magic was 31, 2nd in MVP voting, and had yet to seroconvert.

[FkLA]

The 99' Spurs are one of the most underrated teams of all-time tbh. I know people knock them cause it was a shortened season but they won 31 of their last 36 regular season games and went 15-2 in the playoffs. Theyd give the 01' Lakers a run for their money imo.

[baseline bum]

The 99' Spurs are one of the most underrated teams of all-time tbh. I know people knock them cause it was a shortened season but they won 31 of their last 36 regular season games and went 15-2 in the playoffs. Theyd give the 01' Lakers a run for their money imo.

Under 1999 rules I'd take the Spurs in that series. Under 2001 rules you'd have to choose LA.

[racm]

Under 1999 rules I'd take the Spurs in that series. Under 2001 rules you'd have to choose LA.

Do the 2001 rules include more application of Joey Crawford, by any chance...?

[scanry]

GOAT is an opinion. MJ is not the GOAT in mine. Not even top 3. There are all kinds of criteria that go into what forms ones opinion on who the GOAT is. It's all subjective.

Fair enough, but i don't see Shaq going through MJ to win a chip and i definitely don't see Kobe beating Michael in the post season. Whatever Kobe has, MJ was 30-40% more efficient and with much better defense.

The scary part about MJ is he accomplished that much with fairly average supporting cast.

Cob, you really think you can back the "Not even top 3" comment? I'd be hard-pressed to name even one player greater than MJ, much less three.

[cobbler]

Fair enough, but i don't see Shaq going through MJ to win a chip and i definitely don't see Kobe beating Michael in the post season. Whatever Kobe has, MJ was 30-40% more efficient and with much better defense.

The scary part about MJ is he accomplished that much with fairly average supporting cast.

Cob, you really think you can back the "Not even top 3" comment? I'd be hard-pressed to name even one player greater than MJ, much less three.

I think you can take the top 5-10 in any sport and make an argument for GOAT. And there are always the differences that come with the various positions in any sport. I really don't want to get in a debate about my choices because it has already been done hundreds of times over but I have Wilt, Oscar, and Kareem at 1,2, and 3. I have MJ and Magic tied at #4.

What's the criteria for GOAT? Championships? Stats? Dominance of eras? Making you teamates better? etc. One of my big considerations for who the best basketball player of all time is who would beat who in a one on one game. Yes I know its a team sport. All the considerations listed above aside, nobody would beat Wilt one on one. Nobody! Though many disagree, you can actually make an argument that he was the best of any player in any sport.

But again, you could argue the same form many others since there are so many variances in the criteria in what makes a GOAT and it's all just opinion in the end. It's why I put very little value on the trinket awards like MVP's, DPOY, ROY, all-star appearances etc.

[TE]

:lmao I'm pretty sure bigmen from the 1970's to the present could give Wilt a competitive game, and probably even win in a game of one on one.

You're argument is retarded and devoid of any account for the lack of talent in the era in consideration.

[cobbler]

:lmao I'm pretty sure bigmen from the 1970's to the present could give Wilt a competitive game, and probably even win in a game of one on one.

You're argument is retarded and devoid of any account for the lack of talent in the era in consideration.

The lack of talent argument has been addressed and refuted many times over. It's nothing short of ignorance. Also, do yourself a favor and do some research on Wilts athletic abilities not only in basketball but volleyball and track as well. Also look up stories of summer pickup games at UCLA with NBA players 10 years post retirement.

You just spout off typical internet forum drivel about lack of talent that has no basis in fact.

And yes, you can make arguments for other players being GOAT since its subjective opinion, you cannot honesty make the "lack of talent in the era". It just doesnt hold water.

Here is a little read for ya...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/130817-greatness-revisited-why-wilt-chamberlain-is-the-greatest-nba-player-ever

I'm guessing you probably never even saw him play. :lol

[Killakobe81]

Huh? Jordan disposed of Magic's Lakers in 5. Are you saying Magic was TOSB by age 31? When he was second in MVP voting and had a stacked supporting cast with James Worthy, Byron Scott, Vlade Divac, and Sam Perkins?

Stacked? ThoseLakers were not even the best team inthe West that year (1991?). Magic willed that team to a Finals via an upset over the Blazers (LOL) that had home court advantage.

MJ was a beast but the best overal TEAMS he faced in a Finals were the Suns (1st 3 peat) and Sonics (2nd one). Worthy Perkins & Scott were past their primes. Vlade was no where close to his ...that is arguably the weakest Lakers Finals team. (Though I hated the 2004 squad and the 2008 team got embarassed BOTH those teams beat the 1991 Lakers squad. Heck the 1999 Lakers that were swept by the Spurs might beat the 1991 Lakers with a better coach)

I would favor (slightly) 72 win Bulls (their best team by far) over the 2000 or 2001 Lakers. Kobe was very good but not at his peak and Shaq was a monster those 2 years but no way am I taking him over MJ supported by a prime Pippen and rejuvenated Rodman The next 2 years (Utah) and the first 3 peat for the Bulls the Lakers could probably beat those squads though ...

And the 2000-2001 Lakers would of beat all those teams the bulls faced too ... 2002 on the other hand not so sure about.

[baseline bum]

LOL @ Magic past his prime at age 31 and Worthy, Scott past theirs' at 29. Then two high quality centers in Perkins (29) and Divac (22) both in their primes. That's a legit supporting cast for Magic, so revisionist history of Jordan not facing anyone is ridiculous.

[BigTex342006]

I think you can take the top 5-10 in any sport and make an argument for GOAT. And there are always the differences that come with the various positions in any sport. I really don't want to get in a debate about my choices because it has already been done hundreds of times over but I have Wilt, Oscar, and Kareem at 1,2, and 3. I have MJ and Magic tied at #4.

What's the criteria for GOAT? Championships? Stats? Dominance of eras? Making you teamates better? etc. One of my big considerations for who the best basketball player of all time is who would beat who in a one on one game. Yes I know its a team sport. All the considerations listed above aside, nobody would beat Wilt one on one. Nobody! Though many disagree, you can actually make an argument that he was the best of any player in any sport.

But again, you could argue the same form many others since there are so many variances in the criteria in what makes a GOAT and it's all just opinion in the end. It's why I put very little value on the trinket awards like MVP's, DPOY, ROY, all-star appearances etc.

Very interesting. Your question, "what's the criteria for GOAT...?", lists several factors, and your boy can't really be considered for any of them save for the silly "one on one" criteria.

Championships? not even close here, as Wilt managed to win two, with the last one on a seriously stacked team in which he scored 15 pts a game, while he had a 19 pt per game team-mate and TWO 26 pt per game team-mates. In his absolute prime, when putting up sick, video game numbers, with the league consisting of 8 or 9 teams....Wilt couldn't will his team to a 'ship? Hell, 6 out of the 8 teams made the playoffs...win one game and you are in the finals... No wonder you don't use this as a basis of GOAT.

Stats? Wilt is like Karl Malone. Incredible regular season stats that didn't always translate to the post season, which is why they play the game in the first place. What does it matter how many points are scored or rebounds gathered if the team is always getting bounced from the playoffs? You play the game to win....you don't play for stats.

Dominance of Era's? Making team-mates better? These go hand in hand in applying them to Wilt. He dominated his era statistically, especially the first 6 or 7 years, but never seemed to make his team-mates better. The sport in which individual talent can effect team success like no other, again, Wilt couldn't carry his team to more than one championship during his prime?

People that knew Wilt and those that watched him understood that he cared a whole lot about his stats. Too much. He was also very proud of never fouling out of a basketball game ever. Considering the fact that he never came out of a game, almost for his career, is an amazing fact! Right? Look at it this way: How many times did Wilt have 5 fouls late in a game, or even 4 fouls earlier than he felt comfortable with....and an opponent is coming down the lane. You think Wilt put a road block at the rim and crushed the opponent in a classic "not in my house" kind of aggressive defensive stand? Not likely. That record probably hurt his defense more than people realize. It became an achilles heel. With the free-throw shooting of many bigs during that time period, sometimes you have to foul alot.

Finally one on one play? What kind of criteria is that? Basketball is not played in a vacuum. How you play within a system absolutely counts. Bill Russell knew this and played the system beautifully. He also didn't give two cents about records and stats beyond what the players and team and fans ultimately play the game and watch the game for....trying to win a championship. For the record, I have him in my top ten for sure, maybe top 5 or 6....but GOAT?? come on

[Killakobe81]

LOL @ Magic past his prime at age 31 and Worthy, Scott past theirs' at 29. Then two high quality centers in Perkins (29) and Divac (22) both in their primes. That's a legit supporting cast for Magic, so revisionist history of Jordan not facing anyone is ridiculous.

Bum I expect better. so age alone determines someone's prime? So was Penny or TMAC in their prime at 29? What about Vince? How about Grant Hill?
That is pretty silly. Perkins was a great center, in college. Big smooth was a decent player in the pros who did not even make an all-star team, IIRC. Divac was very good but not what he would be. And Worthy's best years were past him. Byron was close to his prime but his best year as a Laker was 85. You are talking about 1991.

And no one is revising history on MJ. Plenty of teams face stiffer competion getting to a title game, then roll in the championship. 90's Cowboys and 49ers. The 3 peat Lakers and the first 3 peat Bulls are great examples.

[Killakobe81]

LOL @ Magic past his prime at age 31 and Worthy, Scott past theirs' at 29. Then two high quality centers in Perkins (29) and Divac (22) both in their primes. That's a legit supporting cast for Magic, so revisionist history of Jordan not facing anyone is ridiculous.

1. How is calling MJ a beast and taking him over prime Shaq revisionist history?

2. Shaq was way past his prime by 31. So were plenty of other players. Earvin
was that good that he could so much past his prime ...

3. Magic found out he had HIV 4 months after those Finals but he wasnt past his prime?

4. I guess since centers are going extinct 6 9 undersized 3 point shooters qualify as high qulity centers nowadays.


BTW I loved that team. The upset over the Blazers mad ethat one of all-time favorite non-title teams. Only the 1983-1984 teams and the 1989 teams rank higher for me. But that is why I loved them. NO ONE thought we were gonna beat the Blazers that year. Ask the Blazers fans on here ...

But that team was not great. Magic (like I said) willed us to the finals and his MVP consideration (Fixed but I think someone else said that first, my bad) was well deserved. That team had no business in the Finals and MJ kicked our ass. Pippen pressured Magic and NO ONE else stepped up because Big Game James was pretty much past his prime.

[baseline bum]

Bum I expect better. so age alone determines someone's prime? So was Penny or TMAC in their prime at 29? What about Vince? How about Grant Hill?


You're talking about players who were constantly injured or with sour attitudes.



That is pretty silly. Perkins was a great center, in college. Big smooth was a decent player in the pros who did not even make an all-star team, IIRC. Divac was very good but not what he would be. And Worthy's best years were past him. Byron was close to his prime but his best year as a Laker was 85. You are talking about 1991.


I never said they were allstars; just that LA had two very good centers, which Perkins and Divac were. Also, LOL at Worthy being washed up the year he posted the highest scoring average of his career. Byron Scott was still a really good player in 91; how many jumpshooters can hit at a 48% clip? To act like that wasn't a really good supporting cast around Magic just to denigrate Jordan is ridiculous.



And no one is revising history on MJ. Plenty of teams face stiffer competion getting to a title game, then roll in the championship. 90's Cowboys and 49ers. The 3 peat Lakers and the first 3 peat Bulls are great examples.

The cripple is trying to downgrade Jordan as if destroying Magic was nothing and acting like Isiah was some scrub the year after winning his second title. I also disagree with your assessment of the Bulls three-peat: certainly the Pistons were a tougher matchup than LA in 91, but no way NY was better than the 92 Blazers and especially not the 93 Suns.

[baseline bum]

3. Magic found out he had HIV 4 months after those Finals but he wasnt past his prime?


Dude had HIV, not AIDS. You never took Bohman's class for the life science credit? :lol

[DMC]

Son your countrymen still don't know to get out when a hurricane hits. God bless.

[cobbler]

Very interesting. Your question, "what's the criteria for GOAT...?", lists several factors, and your boy can't really be considered for any of them save for the silly "one on one" criteria.
I disagree.


Championships? not even close here, as Wilt managed to win two, with the last one on a seriously stacked team in which he scored 15 pts a game, while he had a 19 pt per game team-mate and TWO 26 pt per game team-mates. In his absolute prime, when putting up sick, video game numbers, with the league consisting of 8 or 9 teams....Wilt couldn't will his team to a 'ship? Hell, 6 out of the 8 teams made the playoffs...win one game and you are in the finals... No wonder you don't use this as a basis of GOAT.
Championships are a factor. What makes championships? Organizations, players individual and team prowess, coaching, support staff, schedule, injuries, matchups, luck etc. If championships was THE determining factor then hands down Russell is the GOAT no? Though a great player was he as dominate as Wilt? Nope. Could it be that he played for a great organization and coach and was also surrounded by 8 HOF players and got a few lucky bounces along the way?


Stats? Wilt is like Karl Malone. Incredible regular season stats that didn't always translate to the post season, which is why they play the game in the first place. What does it matter how many points are scored or rebounds gathered if the team is always getting bounced from the playoffs? You play the game to win....you don't play for stats.
See above response about winning. Stats are also a factor no doubt. I think you would be hard pressed to find any player holding more records from a statistical standpoint than Wilt. In any sport! There are plenty of great players that are considered in the top 3 or 3 at their positions that had great statistical careers that simply didn’t win for the aforementioned reasons. I don’t think anyone can logically deny guys like Malone, West, Baylor, Oscar etc their greatness and place amongst the best who ever played at their positions.

For the very same reasons that some greats didn’t win you can use an opposite argument with MJ in that the league became a bit watered down with expansion and the Bulls had quite a few titles against less than legendary teams.


Dominance of Era's? Making team-mates better? These go hand in hand in applying them to Wilt. He dominated his era statistically, especially the first 6 or 7 years, but never seemed to make his team-mates better. The sport in which individual talent can effect team success like no other, again, Wilt couldn't carry his team to more than one championship during his prime?
There are sports where individual talent can actually improve your team much more than basketball. Hockey and soccer come to mind right off the bat where goalies can single handedly take you to the promised land. A hot pitcher in baseball increases a team’s odds drastically. Wilt was one of the best all-around players in the game ever. His scoring records are legendary. Rebounds? Blocked Shots? He led the league in assists from the center position for gosh sakes. If your team doesn’t get better with you on the court dominating in most the major categories I would look at the others rather than tossing the “he doesn’t make his teammates better on them. Maybe the teamates just weren't capable of being better? The same has been said so many times about MJ himself. Kobe gets that label a lot. It’s overused and often the result of others not having what it takes to step up.


People that knew Wilt and those that watched him understood that he cared a whole lot about his stats. Too much. He was also very proud of never fouling out of a basketball game ever. Considering the fact that he never came out of a game, almost for his career, is an amazing fact! Right? Look at it this way: How many times did Wilt have 5 fouls late in a game, or even 4 fouls earlier than he felt comfortable with....and an opponent is coming down the lane. You think Wilt put a road block at the rim and crushed the opponent in a classic "not in my house" kind of aggressive defensive stand? Not likely. That record probably hurt his defense more than people realize. It became an achilles heel. With the free-throw shooting of many bigs during that time period, sometimes you have to foul alot.
Agreed. He no doubt played soft some times to keep the record intact. He also had help from the refs in his later years as who wants to be the guy to call that 6th. This is of little consideration when considering his greatness. He achieved it even though these situations did happen.


Finally one on one play? What kind of criteria is that? Basketball is not played in a vacuum. How you play within a system absolutely counts. Bill Russell knew this and played the system beautifully. He also didn't give two cents about records and stats beyond what the players and team and fans ultimately play the game and watch the game for....trying to win a championship. For the record, I have him in my top ten for sure, maybe top 5 or 6....but GOAT?? come on
One on one may not count in the grand scheme of team success, championships, stats, making your team better. But for anyone who has ever played the game it most certainly is a factor on who the better player is. I am not just talking league games here. I’m talking practices, pickup games, off season activities which could include USA related activities. If you don’t think guys on the “Dream Team” went at each other individually at those practices then you don’t know basketball and or the psyche of the players. It is why, along with all the other contributing factors we have discussed that it has an effect on my personal opinion. Right or wrong, GOAT still a subjective opinion and in my opinion, based on decades of “in person” viewing, Wilt is the GOAT. Many knowledgeable persons agree. Many disagree. That is what subjectivity and opinions are all about. It's an endless debate.

[scanry]

But that team was not great. Magic (like I said) willed us to the finals and his MVP was well deserved. That team had no business in the Finals and MJ kicked our ass. Pippen pressured Magic and NO ONE else stepped up because Big Game James was pretty much past his prime.

Killa, Magic finished second. MJ won his second MVP that year.

Anyhow i don't see the 2000 - 2002 Lakers beating any of the Bulls 1st three peat teams. Jordan was scary good in his prime. People don't realize Jordan lost a step after his first retirement. His athleticism was all but gone, but he had a better team in his 2nd three peat.

[DMC]

None of that matters. The only thing that matters is what we do this season. Sentimental alcoholics will sit around toasting to the "good old days" but it's all about that next ring.

[BigTex342006]

I disagree.


Championships are a factor. What makes championships? Organizations, players individual and team prowess, coaching, support staff, schedule, injuries, matchups, luck etc. If championships was THE determining factor then hands down Russell is the GOAT no? Though a great player was he as dominate as Wilt? Nope. Could it be that he played for a great organization and coach and was also surrounded by 8 HOF players and got a few lucky bounces along the way?


See above response about winning. Stats are also a factor no doubt. I think you would be hard pressed to find any player holding more records from a statistical standpoint than Wilt. In any sport! There are plenty of great players that are considered in the top 3 or 3 at their positions that had great statistical careers that simply didn’t win for the aforementioned reasons. I don’t think anyone can logically deny guys like Malone, West, Baylor, Oscar etc their greatness and place amongst the best who ever played at their positions.

For the very same reasons that some greats didn’t win you can use an opposite argument with MJ in that the league became a bit watered down with expansion and the Bulls had quite a few titles against less than legendary teams.


There are sports where individual talent can actually improve your team much more than basketball. Hockey and soccer come to mind right off the bat where goalies can single handedly take you to the promised land. A hot pitcher in baseball increases a team’s odds drastically. Wilt was one of the best all-around players in the game ever. His scoring records are legendary. Rebounds? Blocked Shots? He led the league in assists from the center position for gosh sakes. If your team doesn’t get better with you on the court dominating in most the major categories I would look at the others rather than tossing the “he doesn’t make his teammates better on them. Maybe the teamates just weren't capable of being better? The same has been said so many times about MJ himself. Kobe gets that label a lot. It’s overused and often the result of others not having what it takes to step up.


Agreed. He no doubt played soft some times to keep the record intact. He also had help from the refs in his later years as who wants to be the guy to call that 6th. This is of little consideration when considering his greatness. He achieved it even though these situations did happen.


One on one may not count in the grand scheme of team success, championships, stats, making your team better. But for anyone who has ever played the game it most certainly is a factor on who the better player is. I am not just talking league games here. I’m talking practices, pickup games, off season activities which could include USA related activities. If you don’t think guys on the “Dream Team” went at each other individually at those practices then you don’t know basketball and or the psyche of the players. It is why, along with all the other contributing factors we have discussed that it has an effect on my personal opinion. Right or wrong, GOAT still a subjective opinion and in my opinion, based on decades of “in person” viewing, Wilt is the GOAT. Many knowledgeable persons agree. Many disagree. That is what subjectivity and opinions are all about. It's an endless debate.


A top quality goalie cannot effect a game as much as a top player on a 5 man team. A stud pitcher can absolutely effect a game.....but only every 4 or 5 games.

Do you how/why Wilt's assist number went so high for two seasons? He somehow made dishing the ball a selfish act.

You say many would agree with you, and many don't.... I would say very, very few would agree... When talking about the all time greatest, it is absolutely fair to count rings.

[cobbler]

A top quality goalie cannot effect a game as much as a top player on a 5 man team. A stud pitcher can absolutely effect a game.....but only every 4 or 5 games.

Do you how/why Wilt's assist number went so high for two seasons? He somehow made dishing the ball a selfish act.

You say many would agree with you, and many don't.... I would say very, very few would agree... When talking about the all time greatest, it is absolutely fair to count rings.

Then Russell is the GOAT since he has twice as many as MJ i guess.

And many do agree with me. Wilt is often in the conversations about the best of all time. Maybe not from the MTV generation but that is a whole other story.

And I couldn't disagree with you anymore about a goalie. A hot goalie in hockey can carry a team like no oher in ANY sport. It has happend many times. Way more so than a hot basketball player. It's not even close.

Have a great day.

[TE]

The lack of talent argument has been addressed and refuted many times over. It's nothing short of ignorance. Also, do yourself a favor and do some research on Wilts athletic abilities not only in basketball but volleyball and track as well. Also look up stories of summer pickup games at UCLA with NBA players 10 years post retirement.

You just spout off typical internet forum drivel about lack of talent that has no basis in fact.

And yes, you can make arguments for other players being GOAT since its subjective opinion, you cannot honesty make the "lack of talent in the era". It just doesnt hold water.

Here is a little read for ya...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/130817-greatness-revisited-why-wilt-chamberlain-is-the-greatest-nba-player-ever

I'm guessing you probably never even saw him play. :lol

:lmao you're citing a fucking bleacherreport article.

and while it's tough to get Wilt's dick out of your mouth, you're retarded crippled ass needs to understand it doesn't matter how try to spin this argument (lol it being an argument). The "lack of talent AND athletically competent players in an era" doesn't hold as much weight if the era of players being discussed are apart by say 10-20 years, kinda like this current era and the 90's. It is however, a different deal when the era's are 30-40 years apart. If you continue with this, you were either born a fucking retard or the underlying reason you are now a crippled is starting to fuck your shit up neurologically.

Go back to lakersground tbh. You pollute this forum with consistent stupidity and homerism.

[cobbler]

:lmao you're citing a fucking bleacherreport article.

and while it's tough to get Wilt's dick out of your mouth, you're retarded crippled ass needs to understand it doesn't matter how try to spin this argument (lol it being an argument). The "lack of talent AND athletically competent players in an era" doesn't hold as much weight if the era of players being discussed are apart by say 10-20 years, kinda like this current era and the 90's. It is however, a different deal when the era's are 30-40 years apart. If you continue with this, you were either born a fucking retard or the underlying reason you are now a crippled is starting to fuck your shit up neurologically.

Go back to lakersground tbh. You pollute this forum with consistent stupidity and homerism.

I dont care where the report generated from. You can get similar ones from many sources. So lack of talent in an era has a 20 year window. That is the most ignorant comment I have ever heard. So I guess during the next 3 to 15 years Bird, Magic, Kareem, and god MJ himself etc are going to be from a talentless era. What a moron.

What does me being a Laker homer have to do with any of this. Wilts Laker years were not his prime. I gave you my reasoning and instead of refuting it or the article with any facts you simply pull out the grade school retarded and crippled smack. Nothing says "I have nothing" more than that.

Queue the obligatoy faggot references. :lmao

[TE]

queue the "i made a retarded homer take and you can't refute me properly" :cry:cry

You're the stupidest poster on this site. This post and the subsequent ignorance displayed validates that claim. Keep talking to yourself, sitting down in that wheelchair.



I dont care where the report generated from. You can get similar ones from many sources.

It's bleacherreport. Shut the fuck up.


So lack of talent in an era has a 20 year window. That is the most ignorant comment I have ever heard.
Really? crofl

What are you going to claim next? Wilt would dominate players like Duncan or Hakeem in a game of one-on-one? Do you think Wilt would perform in this era similarly to how he did in his time? Please answer this question. I want you to verify that retarded homerism you so effortlessly put in each crippled post of yours.




So I guess during the next 3 to 15 years Bird, Magic, Kareem, and god MJ himself etc are going to be from a talentless era. What a moron.
Strawman. Plus, I never said that you stupid faggot. Have you considered how the game has developed from the time you could walk to now? You can't be this stupid.



What does me being a Laker homer have to do with any of this. Wilts Laker years were not his prime. I gave you my reasoning and instead of refuting it or the article with any facts you simply pull out the grade school retarded and crippled smack. Nothing says "I have nothing" more than that.

Laker fans are generally retarded. This site has it's few exceptions, you aren't one.

[cobbler]

queue the "i made a retarded homer take and you can't refute me properly" :cry:cry

You're the stupidest poster on this site. This post and the subsequent ignorance displayed validates that claim. Keep talking to yourself, sitting down in that wheelchair.

Me thinking Wilt is the GOAT has nothing to do with being a Laker homer. His best years were not as a Laker. Oscar is my #2. He is not a Laker.

Your references to any physical disability have nothing to do with the arguments presented no matter how much you think otherwise. They simlply just point out your immturity and ability to form a a valid counterpoint.

I'd be willing to put up my education, degrees, and professional career up against your intellectual endevors anytime.



It's bleacherreport. Shut the fuck up.

Brilliant! And yet you have not refuted a single comment in it. I won't hold my breath that you can either.



Really? crofl

What are you going to claim next? Wilt would dominate players like Duncan or Hakeem in a game of one-on-one? Do you think Wilt would perform in this era similarly to how he did in his time? Please answer this question. I want you to verify that retarded homerism you so effortlessly put in each crippled post of yours.

Yes, he would. He was a world class athlete in several sports. World class athletes transend eras. What most often makes world class athletes rise to the top is their work ethic and mental attitude. The difference in eras is training advancements, nutrition, and organizational improvements. The greats of eras past would certainly take advantage of them and been just as great today.




Strawman. Plus, I never said that you stupid faggot. Have you considered how the game has developed from the time you could walk to now? You can't be this stupid.

Thank you (in bold) for commenting and acting jus as I said you would.

"The "lack of talent AND athletically competent players in an era" doesn't hold as much weight if the era of players being discussed are apart by say 10-20 years, kinda like this current era and the 90's. It is however, a different deal when the era's are 30-40 years apart."

Did you not say that? Are you now backtracking? Magic and Birds prime were 27 years ago. Not 10-20 but much closer to 30. In 15 years it will be be well over 40 and will you be saying they Jabbar, Dr J, and MJ etc came from a talentless and unathetic era? Too funny.




Laker fans are generally retarded. This site has it's few exceptions, you aren't one.

Another generalization you cannot back up. You are good at name calling. You can certainlly toss out the gradeschool wit. But post a valid counterpoint. Not so much. :lmao

[TE]

:lmao :lmao :lmao

wow, keep em coming

[cobbler]

:lmao :lmao :lmao

wow, keep em coming

BRILLIANT!!!

Yet another well composed and in depth counterpoint argument.

Impressive!

Have a good night. :lol

[DMX7]

72-74 vs Los Angeles Lakers (guaranteed fact the officials helped Lakers win at least 10 games)

115-30 vs Los Angeles Clippers (lolz)

http://nbauniverse.com/head_to_head/spurs_rivals.htm

Son, truth -- except it's probably more like 20 to 25 games.

Clip Show :lol

[Killakobe81]

You're talking about players who were constantly injured or with sour attitudes.



I never said they were allstars; just that LA had two very good centers, which Perkins and Divac were. Also, LOL at Worthy being washed up the year he posted the highest scoring average of his career. Byron Scott was still a really good player in 91; how many jumpshooters can hit at a 48% clip? To act like that wasn't a really good supporting cast around Magic just to denigrate Jordan is ridiculous.



The cripple is trying to downgrade Jordan as if destroying Magic was nothing and acting like Isiah was some scrub the year after winning his second title. I also disagree with your assessment of the Bulls three-peat: certainly the Pistons were a tougher matchup than LA in 91, but no way NY was better than the 92 Blazers and especially not the 93 Suns.

1. So scoring is all that matters? Did you WATCH those finals? Worthy had a hard time dealing with Pippen (before they switched him on Magic) and Horace Grant. Granted those are both two good defenders but I saw Worthy dominate a Pistons team with a prime Rodman (young, Pistons Rodman was an amazing defender .... Bulls era Rodman was a great rebounder but vastly overrated and a flopper on defense) and a front line that included Mahorn and Salley. Worthy had a apretty good season no doubt but by the time the Finals rolled around he was not able to take that leap in the Finals he had two years prior when Magic and Scott went down with hamstrings.

2. I never have once denigrated Jordan, I have him listed as the GOAT of all players I have seen with my own eyes Magic is a close (relative) 2nd, Kobe 3rd and Duncan 4th and Lebron a fast rising 5th. It does not change the fact that Utah, and the 91 Lakers were not THAT impressive. It does not matter he beat up on the ferocious defense of the Knicks and Pistons etc to make those Finals.

3. You (or anyone here Laker fans included) can NOT tell ME Im wrong about the team I have watched for most of my 30+ years. I respect you, you can throw out any random bull shit stats but that 1991 Lakers team (which I enjoyed tremendously) but noone can tell me that was a great Finals team. Those Lakers should of lost to the Blazers that year and if not for a timely Perkins 3 that team gets swept in 4 by MJ's Bulls. Even those Jazz with Adam Keefe, Ostertag and Jeff Hornacek playing significant minutes did not almost get swept. That team over-achieved ...period. Saying that, is does nothing to "denigrate" MJ he beat the team that was waiting there. Does beating the shitty Nets "denigrate" Shaq, Kobe or Duncan?

[Killakobe81]

Bum also where I think our dispute is I think Magic took a good team and willed them to a great season that ended with the Finals that year. Magic was amazing ALl season. The problem MJ was even better and so was his team. Worthy may have been a better scorer but Pippen (even as young as he was then) had more impact on those Finals than Worthy. His ball pressure on Magic was the second biggest reason they back door swept us.

MJ obviously dominated Byron who was still very good but that 48% he shot was also heavily due to Magic getting him open looks. He never shot that well for us in a season where he played heavy minutes (I did not look this up but willing to bet on it)

Grant was better than our power forward (AC still IIRC)... our only advantage in that series was Magic who PJ neutralized by pressuring the bal out of his hands and those "very good centers" you spoke of. Like I said a good team but not even close to a great one.

[BigTex342006]

I shouldn't continue the hijacked response, but I have a hard time calling Wilt the best player of all freaking time, when he won one measley championship while being the best player. And that was mainly with 8, 9, or 10 team leagues. I understand it is a team sport, but if you are going to be the very, very best of any sport....you had better have some hardware to back up the personal accolades and statistics.

I am not the MTV generation by the way, as I was born in the 60's.... ( I remember life before MTV, and when music video's were something special that came on only on friday nights on one of the 3 channel's I grew up with...)

[baseline bum]

KK, I'm mostly arguing against the jackass who said Magic and Isiah weren't in their primes to try to denigrate Jordan. I'm not sure how a guy in a wheelchair can manage to fit his head so far up his ass.

[Latarian Milton]

real surprise the spurs hold winning records against 99% of the rest teams knowing what a shitty team it once was, especially in the 96-97 season when they intentionally tried to be as shitty as they could be

[cobbler]

KK, I'm mostly arguing against the jackass who said Magic and Isiah weren't in their primes to try to denigrate Jordan. I'm not sure how a guy in a wheelchair can manage to fit his head so far up his ass.

It was Magic’s 12th season and he retired due to HIV following the season. He was a stellar player and the only one on the Lakers that year that did shit. Worthy and Scott were on the bench. Kareem was gone. Riley was gone. The Lakers were lucky to get there period. Magic's prime was 79-89 and most specifically during his battle with Bird in the middle of that decade. I don't think anyone would consider 1991 as being in Magic’s Prime years. You can if it makes you feel better. It certainly doesn't upset me enough to resort to juvenile name calling as if that makes any difference.

It's the only time Jordan Beat the Lakers and the Lakers didn't sniff the finals for almost a decade. The Bulls won many of their titles against some weak competition in an expansion era. If you don’t agree then that is great for you. It’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. To each his own.

[baseline bum]

They humiliated the 2x defending champion Pistons and beat two of the best teams to not win a title, the 93 Suns and 96 Sonics. LOL yeah, Magic retired because of HIV, not because he was getting old and past his prime.

[cobbler]

Other than beating a Laker team on a 2 year downslide with a new coach and 2 starters injured the Bulls won their next 5 championships against 5 organizations with a grand total of 2 titles in their entire histories. And those came in the 70's.

The Bulls were a good team and deserved their LOB's no doubt. Did they beat a couple of former championship teams on the backside of their prime years along the way? You bet. However, any way you cut it the league was watered down due to expansion and the teams they beat for the titles were anything but legendary. Far from it. They had won nothing the decade prior, the decade during the Bulls reign, or anytime since.

LOL @ best teams to not win a title in an expansion weak ass leage.

[baseline bum]

Make up your fucking mind. :lol The Pistons team they swept was pretty legendary.

[baseline bum]

LOL @ Laker fan bitching about how easy Chicago's titles were when the rest of the Western Conference was complete shit for almost all of the 80s, thus giving them a bye to the Finals while the Celtics, Sixers, and Pistons were landing knock-out blows on each other in the EC playoffs.

[cobbler]

Make up your fucking mind. :lol The Pistons team they swept was pretty legendary.

Apparently you missed the comment about beating a couple championship teams on the decline along the way Ie. the Lakers (once) and the Pistons. The lengendary remark was clearly directed at the Finals matchups and you cannot refute it. Oh thats right, "the best teams to not win a title". Too funny!

And agreed, the west was pretty weak during many of the Laker championship years. I was talking about the Bulls though so I really don't see a correlation. Leave it to a Spurs fan to bring up the Lakers in a completely unrelated aspect to bolster his absurd contention that the Bulls had stiff competition. It's common knowledge that the league was weaker in the 90's. I know your MJ worship takes a bit of a hit in accepting that but it changes nothing. I think we have beat this topic to death. Enough is enough.

Good luck with your team this year. You going to come to our parade? :lol

[Killakobe81]

KK, I'm mostly arguing against the jackass who said Magic and Isiah weren't in their primes to try to denigrate Jordan. I'm not sure how a guy in a wheelchair can manage to fit his head so far up his ass.

I did not mean to get in the way of that ... I was just arguing that team was not very good. Look at the league overall very rarely did most champions have both a worthy adversary in the WCF/ECF AND and elite Finals opposition. Celtics probably had it the toughest in the early 80's when they had to deal with the sixers who were no only very good but potential us. Sixers did not stay elite for long. Lakers did not have elite Western opposition until the Mavs and Jazz improved towards the back-end of the 80's ...

[Killakobe81]

Cant agree wholly with Cobbler, but the 90's was pretty weak tbh. It doesnt take ANYTHING away from MJ. but 2000's and 80's shit on the 90's. this decade looks pretty weak too with all the super teams ...

and this by no means is indicative of the talent in the league ... the 90's had some great talent too, But some of those "weaker" Western Confernce 80's teams (sonics, Blazers Nuggs) would of shit on 85% of the NBA last year tbh ...

For example the Sonics with a prime: Xman, Dale Ellis, Nate McMillan and Tom chambers probably beats All west teams except the Spurs, Lakers and OKC. Maybe only Miami and Celts beat them in the East ...

And Im pretty sure the 86 Rockets beats every team in the NBA last year except maybe Miami but A young Hakeem with Sampson would of caused them fits.

80's NBA shits on pretty much every decade tbh ...

[baseline bum]

I love how a team is on the downswing because they lose. By wheelchair logic that means the Lakers never beat anyone either.

[hobbler]

Its simple no wear Lakers uni...no chance to be the GOAT. MJ was nice and all but his stats don't count unless either a) he played for the Lakers (in which case I would have broken my back falling through his skylight in my underwear while wearing purple and gold facepaint instead of Magic's) or b) he beat those Lakers teams which I feel were unbeatable...so again its not possible. I'd have a better chance of getting my T7 vertebra attached to my T8 vertebra again than Jordan would have of beating any of those Lakers team in the 1980s.

[cobbler]

I love how a team is on the downswing because they lose. By wheelchair logic that means the Lakers never beat anyone either.

Love all you want but the Lakers were in transition and nowhere near there championship level. Jabbar retired. They lost Riley and were in a coaching transition. The core was on the back end of their careers and two starters were injured. I said the Bulls deserved their championships but if you think that Laker team they beat in any way resembled the mid 80's team then you are delusional. It’s not even close.

The Lakers and the Celtics of that era went back and forth and exchanged LOB's. It was much more competitive in the 80's as opposed to the 90's and certainly you have heard this from many others much more brilliant than anyone who would be so infantile to use an argument such as "wheelchair logic"

[cobbler]

Its simple no wear Lakers uni...no chance to be the GOAT. MJ was nice and all but his stats don't count unless either a) he played for the Lakers (in which case I would have broken my back falling through his skylight in my underwear while wearing purple and gold facepaint instead of Magic's) or b) he beat those Lakers teams which I feel were unbeatable...so again its not possible. I'd have a better chance of getting my T7 vertebra attached to my T8 vertebra again than Jordan would have of beating any of those Lakers team in the 1980s.

Wrong yet again Hoboy. My reasoning for Wilt being the GOAT has nothing to do with the Lakers. His prime years were most definably not with the Lakers. Neither was Oscars who I have 2nd on my list. Go figure.

Personally, I think you can take what most lists conclude is the top 6 to 8 players of all time and make arguments for anyone of them to be GOAT. I don't have Russell in my top 5 but if your motivating criteria are LOB's he is #1hands down.

It’s all subjective opinions and nothing more. And you guys can toss all the juvenile grade school level wit you want as it changes absolutely nothing. Nothing says insecurity and weak of mind more. I absolutely love it!

[baseline bum]

But wheelchair logic also claims the 2x defending champion Pistons weren't shit because they didn't win. By wheelchair logic the 88 Finals didn't mean shit since the Pistons were before their prime, the 87 Finals were nothing because the Celtics got old, the 80 and 82 Finals can be disregarded since the Sixers had yet to hit their prime with no Malone, and so on.

[cobbler]

But wheelchair logic also claims the 2x defending champion Pistons weren't shit because they didn't win. By wheelchair logic the 88 Finals didn't mean shit since the Pistons were before their prime, the 87 Finals were nothing because the Celtics got old, the 80 and 82 Finals can be disregarded since the Sixers had yet to hit their prime with no Malone, and so on.

blah blah blah blah

I suppose if Jordan and the Bulls were so damn dominant they would have got past those Piston and Celtic teams that lost to the Lakers and actually won something in the 6 years he played in the 80's. I didn't say the 2 X defending pistons were shit. I said they were in decline. I believe Isiah even had wrist or hand surgery just prior to the 92 playoffs.

Again, you take a look at the 91 Laker team and the previous championship teams and make an argument on how they were comparable. Please do. You cannot and you know it.

All teams develop and all teams go through an eventual decline. The bulls were developing and could not hang with the Lakers, Celtics, and Pistons in the 80's. That is a fact. The Celtics and Lakers were mere shadows of their former great teams by 90-91. The Pistons while still more formidable were coming off a grueling 2 peat and Isah was injured.

Enough is enough. Have a great day. And seriously, come to our parade this year. It's going to be a blast! I'll buy you a beer!

[Latarian Milton]

the dominant MJ that was often referred to as the basketball god was not the one who played in the 1980s and got his ass kicked multiples times by celts and lakers imho. 90s jordan was the greatest basketball player the world has ever seen but it took him time to grow from a talented newbie into the god tbh.

take bron as another example, dude's been dubbed as the leagues best since his rookie year, he was a beast on court for them cavs in his early years but it was not until he joined miami did he become a real leader

[Latarian Milton]

the dominant MJ that was often referred to as the basketball god was not the one who played in the 1980s and got his ass kicked multiples times by celts and lakers imho. 90s jordan was the greatest basketball player the world has ever seen but it took him time to grow from a talented newbie into the god tbh.

take bron as another example, dude's been dubbed as the leagues best since his rookie year, he was a beast on court for them cavs in his early years but it was not until he joined miami did he become a real leader