I’m not hyping up Lebron either tbh, I just appreciate great playersQuote:
Originally Posted by FrostKing
Printable View
I’m not hyping up Lebron either tbh, I just appreciate great playersQuote:
Originally Posted by FrostKing
Not a slam but I believe you are regarded as the current Lebron hype man. I respect because I recognize your uphill battleQuote:
Originally Posted by lefty
Off topic -- but as a bulls fan, were you salty when MJ played for the Wizards?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostKing
thisQuote:
Originally Posted by lefty
At the time I didn't like it but fortunately Wizards felt like an expansion team. In hindsight I should have cherished the ability to see him play one last time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
I can recall fans thinking that Wizard Jordan would tarnish Bull Jordan's legacy. Do you feel like it had any negative effect on his legacy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostKing
I thought so as well. Well for a number of reasons his time with Wizards is mostly forgotten. He put up good numbers for his age so maybe that is overwhelmingly why vast majority of people consider his jumper in Game6 his final appearance. What if the Wizards qualified for playoffs and were swept. Or what if he had 1 last moment in the Playoffs while wearing Wizard uniform. But then people would have that image in their minds. I am willing to bet a significant portion of young generation doesn't even know he played for WizQuote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
I think it's a safe assumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostKing
what time is it?
game time woo?
Nrgegy
This doc :wow
Love how everyone is letting their hair down and keeping it 100Quote:
Originally Posted by 140
Probably my least favorite of the episodes. Jordan really came off overly arrogant in these episodes. I get about the mentality and all that but it’s a little much for me. Gary Payton obviously played him well and of course he dismisses that as bullshit. Basically says the only reason he didn’t play well for two games is he was thinking about Father’s Day. Whatever Mike. You’re not infallible.
Mark Jackson has been reading spurstalk and has successfully refuted lefty. Starts at 1:15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moaNWY_NQxM&t=1337s
:lol I expected better than that
Travis Best in this era of zero rim protection = 20ppg 8apg and 10x NBA all star :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by lefty
Stephen A Smith argues this documentary makes Pippen look negatively
Let's see Travis Best against zone D and superior athletes/defensive schemes and constant mismatchesQuote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
The same Travis Best who, in a crucial game 4 of the 2000 Finals, couldn't beat Shaq 1 on 1 on a mismatch at the end regulation, costing his team a win :lol
Dirbble dribble dribble brick :lol
If he had 2 brain cells SAS would have noticed it makes everybody but Jordan look badQuote:
Originally Posted by FrostKing
Shaq was a 90s rim protector. You are helping OPs argumentQuote:
Originally Posted by lefty
This is an MJ fluff propaganda piece plain and simple. Disgusting.c I noycotmot.Quote:
Originally Posted by lefty
Rodman looks good. Same with Jud :kingQuote:
Originally Posted by lefty
THe play I'm referring to was happening on the perimeter, Best should have beaten himQuote:
Originally Posted by FrostKing
So I'm not helping his argument at all
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostKing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
you both literally get stupider by the dayQuote:
Originally Posted by FrostKing
How does it make Phil look? Uninvolved hippie on the sidelines as Jordan runs the show? Or genuis who carefully managed monster egos?Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostKing
Hey Neo. Sounds as though you are having another pleasant day :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
as must you, to be so absent minded to not understand that travis best had such little skill that he couldnt beat shaq in a one-on-one situation for a bucket, yet you think he would actually be a better player in the modern game where guards who can't beat a slow lumbering big man are pretty much phased out of PT on any decent teamQuote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
Doubt Travis would be any worse than Trae Young, whom is an All Star in today's gameQuote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
So the most dominant and athletic center in NBA history is now a slow lumbering big man :lol I've heard it all nowQuote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
trae young would average 60 in mikes dayQuote:
Originally Posted by FrostKing
yes, being offensively dominant has so much to do with your on-ball defense on a point guard. your brilliance overwhelms meQuote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
he was not the most athletic center in nba history, and by around 2000 he picked up a lot of weight and was nowhere nearly as mobile as he was earlier in his career
although that was irrelevant at this point. the fact that you stood by frosts post that shaq was a 90s rim protector having anything whatsoever to do with his ability to guard on the perimeter shows how retarded you actually are
You're the wise guy claiming MVP Shaq, best shape of his life was a lumbering oaf :lol yeah, you're right, he was no more athletic than Mark Eaton right? Seriously, in 2000 he could collapse inside and stop many people. You probably don't remember this cause you are so in love with today's centers, you know 6'3 PJ Tucker and Draymond. Such impressive wingspans there. How do today's player's possibly score on those guysQuote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
beyond ridiculous. He's not even Mahmoud Abdul Rauf quality. :lol Now you're just trollingQuote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
completely untrue :lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
didnt say that at all but i supposed i see how you could completely misunderstand the point, considering you completely misunderstood leftys very obvious pointQuote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
never said anything remotely close to that at all. why so butthurt?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
many people may include a mediocre player like travis best, but no one elite like CP3 or Steph, who you pretty much compared him two by alleging that he would average 20/8 and 10-allstars in today's league.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
hm did i ever defend todays centers at any point? man youre seriously butthurt :lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
probably the same way a guy like mitch richmond was able to do it on 90s centers for yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
Shaq was most definitely in the best shape of his life. He said so himself...Phil said the same. His defense that year was incredible and he was voted, almost unanimous MVP. He could hang with perimeter players on switches as he was mobile enough to do so. And everyone had hesitations driving on him as they knew they would be sore in the morning. Not sure which Shaq you guys were watching but 2000 version was a damn beast
Other old school players who could be 20 ppg scorers
In this inflated stats, Trae Young era:
Sedale Threatt
Kenny Smith
Derrick McKey
Dan Majerle
Terry Mills
Antoine Walker would probably average 30 in this era :lol
jj barea would average 35 in the 80s. dude took elbows to the ribs and clotheslines to the face. big men? pfft nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
Glen Rice would be a 30 point scorer in this era.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
Toni Kukoc after Episode 9 will also look really good in this series.
If you notice in the clips, he's taking tip off for Chicago
Episodes 7 & 8
Pippen confused everyone with his - it was the wrong decision but I would do it again response to the 94 Playoff game
Baseball, ya without the MLB Strike MJ probably doesn't return til 1996 and isn't as dominant. I do believe MJ would have cracked the White Sox pro team.
Felt they did a quality job covering his fathers murder. But it was finished a little hazy? The warping allows the story to touch on uncomfortable topics and transition.
Michael's emotional defense to the price of winning. This is sport. Reminded me of an Olympian that competes for love of nation/blood. Most emotional episode.
Easily...Quote:
Originally Posted by daslicer
Damn, I miss the NBA on NBC. Their whole presentation was A++++
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostKing
I don't think Pippen understood the significance of the docuseries. This was an opportunity to repair his image and he squandered it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostKing
Yes. He seems taken back by the questions. I bet all the Krause content made him shell up. He looks stiff and slow. Shoulda poured a drink and chatted on his living eulogyQuote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
:lol by the way, that “way to go Craig (Sager)” in the opening of episode 7
Come on man. Horace Grant was a solid defender, rebounder, and can shoot from midrange well. He can finish somewhat around the basket, had decent hands. He was a decent passer as well. he had a decent run in Orlando as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostKing
He's like a more athletic, less physical/crazy Charles Oakley.
Must have missed it, when did you address how the league went from having 5 top ten scorers being post players to having 8 overnight?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
I said that? Talk about a strawman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
Shaq scored more too, so did Fisher and FoxQuote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
[QUOTE=Neo.;10139777]hm where was anything like that even remotely hinted? if i recall, YOU were the one who claimed that rices scoring was replaced by fox and fisher. i provided proof that kobe handled some of it as well. but at no time did i claim that people playing the same position picked up the scoring slack. would you like to provide proof of anyone on the team who picked up the slack more than kobe did?
What? Didn't you came up with Kobe picked up that scoring? if that's not your argument, I am not sure what your argument is then.
Ummm ... I can't find another year like that? You want to find another year that did?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
And they all decided to make that scoring jump at the same year?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
And when did I ever say perimeter players can't? It's just that it's easier with rule changes because the rules were specifically changed to boost scoring, with perimeter scoring being the main focus. It wasn't even a secret, the league talked openly about having to change the rules because scoring was terrible. They changed it, scoring went up, the teams had to adapt defensive schemes to deal with it. Players like Jaren Jackson became useless overnight because they can no longer hand-check.
Yes, and scoring went down the following year because zone defense came into play. So does rule change have or does not have impact on perimeter players scoring? Do they only impact perimeter players scoring when it makes it tougher for perimeter players, but suggesting that they make it easier is sheer stupidity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
I am not exactly sure how you came to that conclusion. Payton had a significant impact on Jordan on the largest stage in the Finals. Pippen did that to Magic, Rodman and Dumars did it to Jordan in the playoffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
Yes, handchecking benefits slow guys, they benefit quick guys too. How would it not benefit a quick guy when they have another weapon at their disposal?
Check the rule changes after the 98-99 season:
No contact with either hands or forearms by defenders except in the frontcourt below the free throw line extended in which case the defender may use his forearm only.
Neither the offensive player nor the defender will be allowed to dislodge or displace a player who has legallyobtained a position.
Defender may not use his forearm, shoulder, hip or hand to reroute or hold-up an offensive player going from point A to Point B or one who is attempting to come around a legal screen set by another offensive player.
Slowing or impeding the progress of the screener by grabbing, clutching, holding “chucking” or “wrapping up” is prohibited.
How can this have no impact on perimeter defense, or at least a minor one? The league designed this to boost scoring.
Not a perimeter player doesn't mean a low post player.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
If you want to argue Garnett isn't a low post player, he sure as hell wasn't a perimeter player.
i dont think either of us addressed the league going from having 5 top ten post scorers increasing to 8 overnight. but i do recall i showed that there was a big drop from the 95-96 season to the 96-97 season, where it went from 8 to 4. a much bigger drop than the 5 to 3/2 argument in 99-00 to 00-01 that you presented.Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
you said the "the rule changes enabled that". you did not say "the rule changes amongst other factors enabled that" or anything remotely close to that. so based off your quote, yes that is what you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
actually, shaq scored a full point less per game. id tell you to do your research, but throughout our entire discussion, its abundantly clear that you don't, and prefer to just make things up to support your crappy arguments, in hopes someone doesnt call you out for your garbageQuote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
i said he picked up some of it. i never said he picked it all up. in fact i very clearly claimed that fisher and fox also were other players who picked up the scoring. do you even read before you post this crap?Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
i cant even find a single year that fits your claim, since i also proved that there werent 6-7 perimeter players who had a dramatic scoring increase. your claims showed there was 4 with large increases, a few others with minor increases, and one whom you claimed had a dramatic increase, actually had a decrease. great proof :toastQuote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
if you take a greater number of shots per game, then simple logic says that theres a high chance you will have a scoring output increase. all those guys did. whether it was their choice, or the coaches choice, or someone elses choice, i cannot say. but what i can say, is they all took more shots, which resulted in more points.Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
i dont disagree. i never did disagree. i just dont feel its the primary reason, and the only reason this discussion went on is because im tired of your usual shtick of posting lies and making up trash to back your weak arguments up. just admit you were wrong on some points and move on.Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
its not like he was a particularly useful player to begin with. but im sure some of it also had to do with the fact that he was heading into his mid 30s when they made the rule. but no, it was solely "because they can no longer hand-check".Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
never said that at all. again, ive said the whole time that i dont disagree that removing hand checking helped to some degree. i dont think it did much to help elite scorers, since sometimes handchecking defenders can actually be an advantage since it often leads to poor defensive footwork and balance, as well as the fact that any elite scorer never had problems dealing with hand-checking to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
so it was purely handchecking that impacted those guys? so basically you are saying that other guys werent already handchecking them to begin with. so if only a few select players are handchecking, then why would it be some major league-wide defensive nuke that handchecking was more enforced, as you seem to suggest?Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
or maybe... just maybe... could it be that those guys were elite defenders who had exceptional athleticism, strength, balance and footwork that allowed them to match up better with these elite offensive players?
never said it wasnt beneficial. just that it wasnt much benefit for guarding guys like mike, nique, penny, kobe, clyde, and other elite perimeter scorers. they simply found ways to score, and often would use handchecking to their benefit by swiping at the handcheck to negate it and put the defender in poor defensive position.Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
never said it wasnt. just that its not the sole, or even primary reason why there are a lot of skilled perimeter scorers in the league today.Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
plus as lefty has brought out several times, handchecking had been banned a lot longer before, but eventually wasnt really enforced. in fact, back in 76-77, a rule change declared that handchecking would be allowed to an extent, as long as players didn't impede their opponents progress (which honestly seems to make handchecking kind of useless, since the whole point of it is to impede their progress), then it was banned in 78-79, and that's how the rule stood for years. obviously enforcement of the rule subsided over time, but then they began to enforce it more again in 94-95, gave more clarification in 00-01, more clarification in 04-05, and now that offense went back up, everyone is pretty much handchecking all over again, just not as blatantly. instead of putting hands on a player before they make their move, they wait until the drive starts, then if they make contact with each other, you can see any decent defender is using their hand to hold, grab and impede the opponents progress. maybe instead of just pointing at rule changes, watch the games, and you will see plenty of handchecking being done. for example, watch luka and you will see just how much he gets grabbed and handchecked since hes not as quick as other elite scorers, but has plenty of tricks on how to beat it.
oh okay, so basically you have no way to refute the lies and made up claims you gave, except to argue "KG isn't a perimeter player :cry :cry :cry"Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
thanks for playing.
You mean the year when Shaq was not qualified because he didn't play enough games, Robinson got hurt, and Barkley started to miss significant games? The only one who really didn't have any major injury impacts but had a big drop off in points was Mourning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
The same couldn't be said of 99-00 to 00-01.
You do know it is possible to do something without an agent to enable, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
My mistake, wrong year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
So Kobe picked up 6 points, while the others didn't increase by as much? How do you figure?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
Oh wow, really, only 4 with large increases? I can see that absolutely positively blew my entire point out of the water.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
Of course, and why would perimeter players get a larger percentage of the shots? Because the rules made it much easier to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
Simple logic also says that if a defender cannot physically grab and hold you, it's easier for you to score, and as such, smart teams will exploit that with good perimeter scorers.
So wait, you didn't agree it being the primary reason meant that my arguments are lies? What was the primary reason then? Was it that players wanted to be like Mike like you mentioned a few post ago?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
Do you know what solely means? You seem to have a penchant of picking one point, extrapolate, disprove that extrapolation and claim victory. It is amusing to say the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
You were saying something about posting lies and backing up the crap or something like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
Pippen, one of the best perimeter defenders, seems to agree with me: https://www.basketballnetwork.net/pi...ed-basketball/
But then you will go on and on about how it is arguable Pippen can be considered one of the greatest perimeter players of all time.
You really need help understanding when you should extrapolate and talk about purely, enablement, only, primary and such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
It's also comical because in the last post, you said "lets not act like elite defenders like payton, pippen or rodman ever successfully shut down elite scoring wings like jordan, dominique, penny, kobe, clyde. maybe frustrate them for a game or a quarter, but that was about the extent of it. they all ultimately got ate up just like any other defender.", but then now, it's about how they were exceptional athletes. Or are you going to talk about what "Shut down" means?
Backup? Would love to see someone say that they loved being hand-checked because they can put the defender out of position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
We will disagree on this. I see handchecking's demise helping perimeter players, and as such, teams put heavy emphasis in developing perimeter players, where every seasons in the past had around 5 of the top 10 scorers being low post players (in general) where it is mostly 2 or 3 players in today's league.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
Does your world only live in black and white? Of course handchecking lives on to some degree, it's impossible to call every call. But without handchecking as a primary defensive tool, perimeter scoring took off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
Point is, if you can't tell the difference between a Shaq, KG and Kobe in their offensive plays, there is no point in arguing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
If you do, apply that to your post, and retype it.
I feel like I never hear anyone propose the most likely reason Michael Jordan retired in 1993 to play baseball.
Someone made a bet with him that he couldn't make the Major Leagues.
Take away the star calls, Jordan is a 43 FG% guy on a lower volume of shots.
this is going to be my last reply to this.
well if you actually read my post, you would have seen i addressed the shaq aspect and added him to the numberQuote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
we have no idea what robinson would have scored, but we do know he was on the downhill of his career at that point. barkley was too, even more so. thats some major picking and choosing. not a shocker though, you do have a history of it.
ah i get it. so injury is an acceptable excuse for a decrease in post scorers. but an actual decrease in post scorers (in that many of the previously dominant post scorers had retired or gotten old and less effective, and werent replaced with new ones because recent drafts had more wing talent than low post talent), isn't an acceptable excuse?Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
mind. blown.
neat.Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
lmao no it wasnt a "wrong year" mistake. it was you making crap up. if you simply looked at the stat, which any retard with a computer is capable of doing, then you would have seen. but no, you as usual, like to make stuff up to fit your agenda, hoping no one calls you out on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
hm idk maybe because kobe is a better scorer than they were, so he picked up more of the scoring slack than the others? at this point youre literally just asking questions to hang on to god knows what, must be some weird pride or something you haveQuote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
well when you claimed it was 6-7, 4 is easily less.Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
especially when compared to the other year i pointed out, in 96-97, where i already mentioned three perimeter players with significant increases in scoring. lets find a few more, shall we?
doug christie had an increase of 7ppg. anthony peeler had an increase of 4.8ppg. eddie jones had an increase of 4.4ppg. david wesley had an increase of 4.5ppg. amongst others. so now there are actually more cases in 96-97 of perimeter scoring average increases, than 00-01.
granted, we could go back and forth doing this until we check the averages of every player (and im not about to do that, but if you are butthurt enough to do so, be my guest). point is, 00-01 was not the ONLY year with a large number of perimeter players having noticeable scoring increases, as you seem to suggest.
technically, by rule they were never allowed to do that to begin with. refs would just occasionally allow players to get away with it. oh wait, kind of like they do today.Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
no, the lies were the bits of "proof" you gave, much of which turned out to be incorrect. such as there never having been a year with such a drop off of low post scorers in the top 10 ppg scorers, or that ray allen had a significant scoring increase in 00-01, or that shaq increased his scoring output after glen rice left, or that there was never a year that had a massive number of perimeter players with significant scoring increases.Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
i feel the primary reason was that more talented perimeter players started being drafted, while there was a noticeable decrease in the amount of talented low post scorers.
lol not even addressing the point. but i guess in your world, jaren jackson is a high quality NBA player, whos career ended because he couldnt hand check anymore, when hundreds of other basketball players continued to be effective without the handcheck.Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
idk why you keep going back to this point that ive repeatedly agreed about, that handchecking did have an overall effect on the league, and that it helped promote an increase in perimeter scoring.Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
i dont agree with the notion that many have that handchecking would suddenly make elite modern scorers ineffective, or that MJ would average 45 in todays league because theres no handchecking.
i dont agree that handchecking is the single biggest reason for perimeter play being a more focal point of offenses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
you tell me. did they shut down MJ? or did they simply make him work harder, perhaps resulting in the occasional bad game?Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
lmao talk about a strawmanQuote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
anyone who has played a lick of organized basketball knows that is a basic fundamental taught to players on how to deal with handchecking.
fair enough. i obviously cant change your mind, nor can you change mine. i just wanted you to see that you posted a lot of lies and made up stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
neat.Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
point is, quit posting lies and making stuff up. if you just personally dont care for a different style of basketball, so be it. if you personally think that handchecking is the biggest reason for perimeter scoring to increase, so be it. just dont make up lies to back up your argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
im done with this. post whatever replies you want, its going nowhere anyways, and ive said what i wanted to say. i really dont care to argue anymore with someone who is so incredibly insecure that he resorts to lying and making things up just to back up a personal opinion.
Probably cos that's not the most likely reason, Sadbert.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Why The Last Dance shouldn’t influence the GOAT debate
“The Last Dance” disqualified itself as viable evidence in the GOAT debate around the 59-minute mark of Episode 1. That’s when credits began to roll, and the first three names of executive producers flashed onto your TV screen. There was Mike Tollin, who originally pitched the project. And there were Curtis Polk and Estee Portnoy – business partner and manager/spokeswoman, respectively, to one Michael Jordan.
What they and countless others have made is in many ways a masterpiece. It’s driving unprecedented ratings and quenching sports thirsts. It’s enjoyable. It’s captivating. It’s nostalgia-inducing for some. It’s educational for others.
It becomes problematic, though, when Jordan’s people frame it as something more. David Falk, Jordan’s longtime agent, did just that this week. “If you are not legally blind and you watch this 10 hours and don't realize this is the greatest player of all time,” he told ESPN’s Scott Van Pelt, “you should probably start watching roller derby."
Falk isn’t the first person to hold up the documentary as proof of MJ’s GOAT status. He certainly won’t be the last. Millions of people share his opinion. And 10 hours of vintage footage and emotional interviews are confirmation bias’ dream.
But Falk isn’t helping. He’s actually feeding an unpopular-but-not-unsubstantiated view of “The Last Dance” as Jordan propaganda. It’s a view supported by the doc’s tendency to rely overwhelmingly on Jordan’s version of events – and, of course, by those credits, too.
It’s why the past four Sundays aren’t proof of anything. Jordan might be the GOAT. But not because he, his business associates and a team of talented storytellers tell us he is.
Falk made the GOAT pitch for his friend as an indirect response to a question about why , and why now . What pushed Jordan, a famously private figure in retirement, to agree to unseal the behind-the-scenes footage? And why, after two decades of refusing similar approaches, did he decide to participate in a groundbreaking documentary now?
Perhaps it’s relevant that Jordan made that decision literally while LeBron James and the Cavaliers were parading their Larry O’Brien trophy through the streets of Cleveland in 2016. :wow
And perhaps that’s why Falk, after rambling for a bit, brought up the LeBron comparisons, and transitioned into his line about blind people and roller derbies.
Van Pelt began the conversation with a wide-open question. In that answer, too, Falk quickly arrived at a statement about “what really made Michael Jordan the incredible GOAT of all time.”
So why did Jordan agree to “The Last Dance”? We’ll probably never get a full explanation. But we’d be naive to think legacy wasn’t on his mind. We’d also be naive to ignore that his company, Jump 23, is an (unlisted) partner on the project. And that his business associates, and specifically the woman in charge of managing his public image, are executive producers. Perhaps they care a bit about how that legacy is crafted.
And perhaps that’s why the entire story revolves around Jordan’s perspective, occasionally to a fault. Perhaps it’s why, when the narrative arrives at his flaws, it leaves with Jordan turning the media’s coverage of them into motivation. Perhaps it’s why, when attention turns to Scottie Pippen’s flaws, Pippen – one of the best players of his generation, a beloved teammate, and an absolutely essential part of the three-peats – rarely gets the same narrative-driving privilege.
“The Last Dance” is wonderful entertainment. It just isn’t journalism. Which is absolutely fine … as long as we don’t view it as that.
Falk said on ESPN that Jordan “wanted to see the story told.” What he really got was a chance to tell it. Which, well … if LeBron’s production company spent multiple years working on a 10-hour documentary that showed why he is the GOAT, would you believe that one too?
This is not a column about the GOAT debate. It’s a column about not letting an inherently biased retelling of one contestant’s career settle the debate.
“The Last Dance” allows millions of us to see, hear, feel Michael Jordan like we never have before. Its brilliance is the look in his eyes when he senses disrespect; the tears that well and the emotions that surface; the heartfelt monologue that closed Episode 7.
It’s a unique look at, as Falk said, “his mind.” And “his approach, his concentration, his devotion – unparalleled.”
It’s also a subjective look at one slice of basketball history. It’s a useful perspective. But given whose perspective it is, don’t let it be a definitive one.
https://sports.yahoo.com/why-the-las...021715190.html
^translation...all the titles, money and fame in the world can't mask your insecurities. It's like the stories about him bullying teammates. Bullies bully people because shaming someone allows them to stay at a place where they can't be opposed...because being opposed would expose the false confidence they cloak themselves with.
ThisQuote:
Originally Posted by benefactor
Bill Cartwright proved this for us.Quote:
Originally Posted by benefactor
And missed the other 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
And the year after he came back, significantly hobbled, and still finished 10th in the league in scoring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
I am sure being injured and not being able to play should be considered an excuse for not having players in the top ten.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
That said, it's clear that post players are cyclical, as there are just a smaller number of 7 footers in the world, and them being good in basketball is just wildly cyclical. That said, it's been a 20 year streak with no low post impact players, where players as skilled and dominant as Anthony Davis, KAT, Jokic, Embiid aren't having overwhelmingly positive impact to their team's success, at least not the degree of the post day plays, and that is largely due to the changing game play styles of today vs. 20 years ago, which was driven by changes in perimeter defensive rules that allows easier and more effective perimeter scoring.
Apparently you don't, nor do you have the ability to admit to error.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
Hey, don't believe me, I mis-read the year and read the numbers in 99-00.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
And he picked up on those open jumpers Rice was getting?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
Stackhouse - 6.2 ppgQuote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
Kobe - 6 ppg
Iverson - 2.7 ppg
Ray Allen - -0.1ppg
Pierce - 5.8 ppg
marbury - 1.7 ppg
T-Mac - 11.4 (yes, it was mostly because he had a largely different role)
Carter - 1.9 ppg
So I count 7. I am not even counting Rip Hamilton, Peja, and Steve Francis because they clearly were growing as perimeter scorers.
If you want to go that route, I can count Rip, Peja, Francis, even Miller who was clearly on the downward of his career had a minor uptick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
No it wasn't, it was the year with the greatest number though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
And yet that year was the year the league heavily clamped down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
Man, hard to find somebody as sensitive as you. I admit I misread the Shaq year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
And I agree with that as well. The reason is that the rules were changed such that low post players are less effective as before, and as such the emphasis is put on perimeter skill development.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
Do you have a habit of extrapolating and argue another point to claim victory, you know, like strawman? It seems to be your only move.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
Did I say that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
And that is where we disagree. I believe it made perimeter scoring much more effective, 3s easier to launch, and allowed an entirely different type of effective offense (3s based) that wasn't viable 20 years ago. As such, heavier and heavier emphasis moves towards perimeter skills development.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
27.3ppg on 41.5% shooting for an entire series? I would say that is shut down. Jordan's numbers were also significantly impacted vs. the Pistons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
So at first you are saying players can put others at a disadvantage when they were handchecked, and now it is about how to deal with?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
Any organized ball would teach you how to deal with double teams too, I am sure double teams have no impact no the offensive player.
You have issues, really, major issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
Because that is true?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
When did I say I don't care for a different style? And what lies? I have backed up my points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
I would say insecure people would just lob personal insults all day and make mountains out of molehills.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo.
Did you use to write for Seinfeld?
Was Ron Harper a D-bag? First I have heard of this.
Jason Caffey: Ron Harper? I hate that guy, he was so insecure
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...ed-nba-history
HahahQuote:
Originally Posted by benefactor
This is male sports. At the highest level. Beyond $$$, the biggest driving factor for these guys is to not be emasculated
Bulls bench - Longley, Kerr and Buechler
Stiff white guys, right? Plumbers and grocery baggers. Instead of running them off the team, Jordan invested his time into molding them into winners. It took hard parenting. And these players responded in key moments late in series when MJ/Pippen were out of gas.
Lebron usually had superior benches. But without a father figure to teach him how to lead, he was left spending his time creating cool handshakes. And that is those he didn't run off or abandon for greener pastures
.
Harper was definitely the most urban on the teamQuote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
I don't think it's a coincidence he picks DWade, a final's MVP, to team up with and attempt to win his first. Notice he didn't even give Chicago and D-rose a serious look in FA as they were not proven winners.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostKing
I'm trying to picture Jordan bailing on the Bulls after losing to the Pistons again in 89-90....subsequently teaming up with the Pistons or Celtics to learn how to win and be mentored by a winner. I just can't wrap my brain around that because he was such an alpha-male.
Funny how Dad Killer needed all-stars Harper, Rodman, Pippen, Kukoc and all-time 3 shooter Kerr while past prime GOAT PG Stockton was leading his team past all of them if not for Karl Malone's choking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
Harper was a shell of his former self by the tine he joined Chicago. And Rodman was becoming a washout in 98. He wasn't even starting in the 98 playoffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
But yeah, Chicago was better than Utah both those Final years. Krause deserves props for assembling an excellent roster.
Standard Jordan fanboy myth narrative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
Ron Harper averaged 19 ppg the season before ring chasing in Chicago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_qUoOBBlA0&t=136sQuote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
He came to Chicago when Jordan was whiffing at curveballs. So plenty of scoring opportunities that year. How did he do in 94-95? I'll wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
96 Rodman>>>>>98 Rodman which is what I referencedQuote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...-chicago-bulls
Once again Pippen was more a 1b than a 2.
Pacers would have defeated the Jazz in 1998. But would have been a hell of a series
That Pacer team never gets talked about it. They were highly underrated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostKing
Great point. Wade was non-negotiable to Lebron.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
I do not think Michael's father would have allowed him to quit on Chicago. Why would MJ anyway, he was already arguably the best player in the League. You don't tuck tail and run
This is an important part: I think MJ enjoyed beating his rivals (and embarrassing them) more than he did winning and all the social hoopla that comes with that. Lebron is the opposite he loves the media shows and parties that come from winning.
I know what you referenced. Just :lol'ing that you think he fell off the cliff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
He came to Chicago to sacrifice stats and be a role player, not an all star.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
He was 37 years old in 98 and coming off the bench.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
And still pulling down 15 boards a game like a beast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
Yeah, if Lebron somehow doesn't win in Miami, which seemed impossible considering it was the most talented team in in the league, would have been interesting to see if he ever even makes the Cleveland return. My guess is he just keeps forming super teams all over the place until he finally gets one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostKing
Defense fell off in the 2nd half of the season. Not saying he sucked or anything but the dip was noticeable. Spent a lot of time in foul trouble. fouled out of 2 ECF games in 1998 and in foul trouble vs Utah the entire series.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
Also,
Rebound average in the 1996 finals vs Seattle - 14.4
Rebound average in the 1998 Finals vs Utah - 8.3
He's still basically doing that so thats a safe assumption tbh. I mean even when he went back to Cleveland it was never really about Cleveland but just about forming a new super team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
Still salty about Jordan's dominance after all these years :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
rodman pistons>rodman bulls>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>rodman spurs = rodman mavs/lakers etc whatever team he played at the end of his career...
Had no idea Leonardo DiCaprio was at that game 6.
Well...back to watching clips of old games on YouTube now.
Excellent docuseries. 5 stars.
Always suspected food poisoning and not the flu. I think the same happened to the Lakers in Sacramento.
Lebron can take solace now, in knowing that catching Jordan was never even a option for anyone, realistically. He's probably irate after watching this trying to get Pelinka to get him 5 more all stars so he can win a few more and try and wiggle his way back into the conversation :lol :lol
They should have opened a criminal investigation into the food poisoning if that’s really what it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirks_Finale
Rusty was one of Tim Duncan’s teammates at Wake Forest and a rookie on the 1998 Chicago Bulls.
Decent doc. I'm gonna miss looking into those baby yellow eyes.
:lol at the Utah State A&M Community College Astrology Club
Not necessaryQuote:
Originally Posted by DMX7
Jordan beat the same pizza delivery boys in both Finals
"Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen eliminated the most 60-Win teams in the postseason in NBA History"
Seven teams :lobt:
Episode 9. I understand this was "Kerr's episode" but not one single clip of Kukoc scoring his 21 points in Game 7? Toni was 1 point short of Reggie for the games 2nd highest scorer
I also think they should have shown Michael's failed drive in Game 6 with Bob Costa's famous "The Bulls and Pacers are going to the limit!" to even more set the moment. It was shown for a few seconds in the background of a Sportscenter clip
But there was a-lot packed into this episode.