The Jordan myth ?

[lefty]

Dont get too excited, Laker fans


Jordan still s on Kobe

Found this page and thought it was interesting; I don't agree on averything, but it's a good debate starter

Michael Jordan - NOT the best ever!!!

The sister page to the Exposers of jordon's Foolishness Page

FastCounter by bcentral

Michael Jordan is one of the greatest basketball players in the history of the NBA. He is in the elite class of players who dominate the game. He had many great traits that I do not need to expound on.

However, with that said, he's not the best player in NBA history. Many media types, who are into hype and usually never seen anyone play from past eras, sing Jordan's praises and say he is the best ever - without question. If you do question it, I find that Jordan fanatics act like you've committed blaspheme.

I am here to step on toes, if need be. Jordan is not the best and this webpage explains why.

What I require from you is to explain what criteria you use for comparing two players. How do you compare Patrick Ewing vs. Hakeem Olajuwon? Isiah Thomas vs. John Stockton? Larry Bird vs. Magic Johnson? Wilt Chamberlain vs. Bill Russell? Allen Iverson vs. Vince Carter? Kevin Garnett vs. Shaq? If you have a consistent method for determining which 2 players are better, then I will prove to you that Jordan is not the best.

If you say, "Bill Russell is better than Wilt because he won more championships" then that means you believe Isiah Thomas is better than John Stockton (2 championships to none) . If you back peddle and say Stockton is better because he had better career numbers, then you have just exposed your duplicity. You have no method for comparing players. You just make up any excuse to pick a player you like, and your double-standard is a joke. I often find Celtics fans say Russell is better than Chamberlain because of championships, but at the same time, they will not admit Magic Johnson is better than Larry Bird, based on the same criteria. These people do not have educated opinions. They are just fans trying to hype their favorite players. If you are one of these people, go away. I only want to talk basketball with intelligent fans.

With that said, think about your criteria for comparing players. I list mine on this site. If you determine yours, you will see that Jordan is not the best. The only criteria that puts Jordan #1 is endorsements and popularity. If this is your criteria for comparing players, then please leave. I have no time to discuss basketball with Inside Stuff-watching fanboys.

This site is not a forum to argue about if Bill Russell is better than Magic Johnson or Oscar Robertson is better or worse than Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. I respect arguments comparing these guys. They are all elite players, on the same level of Jordan, and have a good argument for being the best player ever. What I DO know is that no player - not Wilt, Russell, Magic, Jordan, etc has an outright claim to being the best basketball player ever, and that is why this site serves only one purpose -- to prove that whatever you think about Michael Jordan's place in basketball history, it is NOT at the very top.

If you disagree, that is your choice, but please have a well-defined reason as to why Jordan is the best ever. As you will see, for Jordan, there is no standard. His claim to the best ever is based on popularity, media-hype, and endorsements, with a few weak arguments thrown in for good measure. This page will systematically tear down these popular weak arguments given for Jordan's supposed dominance, as well as expose the myths created by the media.

Did Jordan make those around him better?

To this, the answer is an emphatic "NO!"

One theory was that Jordan drew so much defensive attention that his teammates got to take wide open shots and benefited from Jordan. It sounds good on paper, but wasn't true in reality. Jordan played in 1993 and retired in 1994. Nine players played on these two teams, and these 9 players, as a whole, shot a higher percentage without Jordan than they did with Jordan, even though the defenses were focusing on them. This was not a fluke. this occurred over the course of 164 games. That is enough to determine a trend.

Furthermore, this was proven again in 2001, when Jordan joined Washington. Jordan missed a lot of games due to injury, and The Sporting News commented on their surprise that the Wizards shot better in games in which Jordan did not play. This is no surprise. This is a trend.

Why?

Guys like Oscar Robertson, Jason Kidd, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson all wanted their team to take the best shot each time down the floor. They had no problems passing the ball to a teammate who had a better shot. That is why their teammates shot such a higher percentage when they played with these guys. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar once said that Magic Johnson knows where your best shot is, even if you do not, and Magic throws the ball in such a way that if you hustle, you will find the ball in your hands for an easy shot that you didn't know was there. That is called "setting up a teammate."

In Jordan's case, he did not have this mentality. Jordan once said, "I thought of myself first, the team second. I always wanted my teams to be successful. But I wanted to be the main cause." He wanted to be the center of the spotlight. He was selfish to the core. He only wanted to win if it brought praise to him. In his mind, HE had the best shot most of the times down the floor. One time, Bill Cartwright chastised Jordan for not giving up the ball while he was double-teamed. Jordan responded with "but one of the two players was Fred Roberts!" It didn't matter if there was an open teammate, because Jordan thought taking a shot over two guys was better than somebody else taking an uncontested shot.

Doug Collins tried to put Jordan at the point guard in 1989. The idea was that Jordan was such a tremendous penetrator, that he could break down a defense and hit the open man or score. Jordan responded with 11 triple doubles in his first 13 games. However, he was often found going to the scorers' table to check to see how many rebounds or assists he needed to get a triple-double. He played for stats. Doug Collins later said, "Do you know who's the biggest obstacle to us running? Michael Jordan, that's who. He won't let go of the ball."

This selfishness resulted in players standing around and watching Jordan, or Jordan not passing to the open guy with the best shot. Without Jordan, the teams flowed into their offense and found the open man. That is why they consistently shoot better when Jordan doesn't play. Jordan simply does not make his teammates better.

Furthermore, I issued this challenge on Usenet: Name one player whose career was enhanced by Jordan. I never received a serious challenge. Let’s look at some of the candidates.

Scottie Pippen – The press love to sing long songs about Jordan made Pippen. However, their songs are missing a few verses. For example. Why did Pippen have his finest seasons without Jordan? In 1994, Pippen averaged 22 ppg, 8.7 rpg, and 5.6 apg. In 1995, Pippen became only the second player in history (Dave Cowens was the first) to lead his team in points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals. How could he do this without Jordan to make him better?
Furthermore, when deciding to retire, Jordan said over and over that he would not play without Pippen. While recovering from foot
"Why did [Scottie] Pippen have his finest seasons when Jordan was playing baseball?" surgery in December of 1997, Pippen said that he was not going to play with the Bulls when he was fully recovered. Jordan said that if he had known this, he would not have come back. Why? If Jordan makes everyone so much better, why not fill in Scott Burrell into Pippen’s position (or Toni Kukoc, for that matter), and make another Pippen? Answer: Jordan didn’t make Pippen. Pippen made Pippen. Without Jordan, he is still the dominating defensive player, and he continues to be a complete player. The typical Jordan fan will respond with "how many championships did Pippen win without Jordan?" The answer is zero. Likewise, how many championships did Jordan win without Pippen? Zero. Comparing these two players apart from each is very unfavorable for Jordan. Pippen had a better career record and a better post-season record than Jordan. Pippen's only losing season was his final year in the NBA, when he missed much of the season due to injury and was in a veteran leadership role for the young re-building Bulls. That was the only time in Pippen's career he had a losing record and the only time he missed the playoffs. Jordan played 5 seasons without Pippen. Out of those 5 seasons, he posted 5 losing records, missed the playoffs twice, and was 1-9 in the playoffs.
Think about it: Jordan never had a winning record apart from Pippen. Pippen played on many playoff teams in Portland and Houston without Jordan.
It makes you wonder who made who a better ball player, or at least who was the most valuable player to the win-loss column.


Dennis Rodman – Rodman had established himself LONG before playing with Jordan. His defensive reputation was made in Detroit, where he was voted the Defensive Player of the Year in 1990 and 91. His rebounding ability was established in Detroit, also, where he won the first of his seven consecutive rebounding les (4 without Jordan), and his reputation as a winner was established in Detroit, where he won two les – both times defeating Jordan’s Bulls.
"Rodman established his rebounding and winning ways in Detroit, when he beat Jordan twice on the way to the championship."

"If 7 points and 5 rebounds per game is your shining example ofJordan making someone better, than Jordan sucked at improving those around him."
Luc Longley – Put simply, Longley was a bad player before he joined the Bulls. He was a bad player when he played with the Bulls, and he was a bad player after he left the Bulls. Nobody has questioned Jason Kidd’s ability to improve his teammates, and even he hasn’t been able to coax out respectable play from Longley. If seven points and 5 rebounds is what you want out of your center, then Longley is your man, but you don’t need Jordan to get this out of him. If 7 points and 5 rebounds per game is your shining example of Jordan making someone better, than Jordan sucked at improving those around him. He improved Longley from a laughable joke to a mildly amusing joke. Wow!

John Paxson – This is the guy that most Jordan fans bring up. Paxson was on the perfect team in Chicago (perhaps the only team he could get significant minutes with), but his career blossomed because of Scottie Pippen, not Jordan. Let me explain: Jordan could not play well with classic "drive-and-dish" style points. He disliked playing with Sam Vincent and Steve Colter for this very reason. The reason why was because they were in the lane too much, and Jordan wanted to be the one to drive to the basket. The logical choice would be to have Jordan play the point guard and have a spot-up shooter in the shooting guard slot. However, according to Phil Jackson, Jordan lacked the passing skills to play the point guard and he hogged the ball too much. No one really doubts Jackson's knowledge of the game.

"Jordan lacked the skills to play point guard and didn't like playing with guards who played the classic point guard role. That means in order for Jordan to play with a spot-up shooter, one of the forwards would have to play the point. Guess who that was?" Because Jordan cannot co-exist with a typical point guard and can't play it himself, that means somebody else has to bring up the ball and be the point man. Guess who that was? Scottie Pippen. Pippen was a rare breed in that he was a forward who could handle point duties. That short list consists of Larry Bird, Paul Pressey, Grant Hill, and Pippen. In his book "Sacred Hoops", Jackson lauds Pippen for his ability to run the offense and figure out who is hot and cold and how many shots a player needs and how frequently to stay in his rhythm. These were things that Jordan could not do, because he only cared about his own shots.
Because Pippen could play the point, that allowed Paxson to play alongside of Jordan, even though he lacked all point guard skills. This means that Jordan did not make Paxson a better player. Pippen did. If not for Pippen, Paxson couldn't have cracked the line-up.
Just incase you doubt me, and you think you know more than Phil Jackson, ask yourself: how come Chicago with Jordan was the only team at that time NOT to have a point guard? Think about it. When Jordan retired, B.J. Armstrong played a classic point guard role and made his only all-star appearance. When Jordan came back from retirement, the Bulls let Armstrong go in the expansion draft and replaced him with Ron Harper, another 2-guard. Who else teamed up with Jordan in the back court? Craig Hodges, Steve Kerr, Randy Brown, and Jud Buechler. None of these guys could be confused with a point guard.

Steve Kerr – See John Paxson. This is the exact same case, as Kerr was a Paxson-clone. In 1993, the year before Jordan retired, Kerr was the 12th man on draft lottery-bound Orlando. The next year, he joined the Jordan-less Bulls and had his finest season ever. How could he do this if Jordan made him better? Furthermore, Kerr had established himself as one the top 3 point shooter in history and set a record for best 3 point shooting percentage (from 23'9") in a season (1989-90). Considering this, and how he filled in for Mark Price when Price was injured in Cleveland, I ask: what did Jordan do differently for his career? Kerr's game was exactly the same before he joined Chicago. When he joined Chicago, he had his best year, while Jordan was playing baseball,

"Like Paxson, Kerr blossomed because of Pippen's ability to play the point, allowing the Bulls to play 2 non-point guards. That is why Kerr had his finest seasons in Chicago when Jordan was playing baseball." and like Paxson, Kerr got more minutes because of Pippen's ability to play the point role, since Kerr was not a true point guard.

Washington Wizards – Then, there are the Wizards... if Jordan made those around him better, why couldn't he do this with Larry Hughes, Jerry Stackhouse, and ESPECIALLY Kwame Brown? You should know the answer by now.

1994 and 1995

Jordan's Teammates prove their worth

As part of the Jordan legend, he supposedly "willed teams to victory" and took marginal players on his shoulders, and through his 4th quarter heroics, he would help these average players win championships. This is not legend, it is myth. Jordan did have a lot of 4th quarter heroics. That is indisputable. However, his teammates were very good and that is why the Bulls won les. Wilt Chamberlain dominated far more than Jordan did, but Wilt proved that one man could not win a le. Only when he got teammates around him did he win les. The same is true of Jordan, only more so, since Jordan wasn't as dominating as Chamberlain, he needed even MORE help in order to win a le.

1994 and 1995 are key years during the Jordan years. These two years are central in proving that Jordan was not as valuable to his team as the his peers in the elite class of basketball players were to their teams. If he is not as valuable, how can he be the greatest player of all-time? These two seasons will debunk a series of Jordan-based myths:

1. Jordan carried the team to 6 championships
2. Jordan made those around him better
3. Jordan was the most valuable player ever.

Jordan retired in October of 1993. The critics predicted gloom and doom for the Bulls. (I was one of these critics). Some even declared that without Jordan, the Bulls wouldn't even make the playoffs. After all, Jordan supposedly carried those stiffs to three les, right? Because Jordan waited so late to retire, the Bulls were not able to pick up an adequate starter in free agency. They settled with Pete Myers from the CBA. They were set up to fail. Myers had a defensive reputation, but no where near that of Jordan, who had been named first-team all-defense 6 times and won the defensive player of the year award. Furthermore, Myeres hadn't even played in the NBA for the last two years, and he never averaged more than 5 points per game. How can you replace Jordan's 32 ppg and all-world defense with this guy? The Bulls were set up to fail. These predictions were also made - and all of them were reasonable assumptions, as you will see.

1. The Bulls would be a much worse team without Jordan. They would probably slip at least 15 games.
2. If Jordan would come back, the Bulls would automatically win the le.
3. Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant would probably score more points, but they would shoot much worse, as defenses focused on them.
4. The Bulls would shoot much worse without Jordan.

• Assumption 1: The Bulls would be a much worse team without Jordan. They would probably slip at least 15 games.

The first assumption was declared by nearly everybody. Even Bulls coach Phil Jackson predicted a 15-game slip in his autobiography, Sacred Hoops. He based this upon the retirement of superstars from the past. Replacing Jordan with Myers should have been detrimental. However, the Bulls only slipped 2 games: from 57-25 with Jordan in 1993 to 55-27 in 1994. How could this be? They should have fallen apart. The answer is that Jordan simply wasn't as instrumental in taking the Bulls to another level as thought. I'm not saying they could win a le without him. He did make them marginally better, but not significantly better. Look at Jordan's elite peers: if you replace Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or Bill Russell with a C.B.A. center, do you expect a 2-game drop? No way. If you replace Larry Bird, Oscar Robertson, or Magic Johnson with a C.B.A. player, do you expect a 2-game drop? Think again.
Why did Phil Jackson predict a 15-game drop? Because he knew the impact that elite players had on their teams. Look at the table below and ask yourself why Jordan's impact was so minimal?



Year before losing player Year after losing player Team Player Regular season Playoffs Regular Season Difference
(# of wins) Playoffs 1969 Celtics Bill Russell 48-34 Championship 34-48 -14 Missed playoffs 1973 Lakers Wilt
Chamberlain 60-22 NBA Finals 47-35 -13 Lost in first round
1-4 1974 Bucks Oscar
Robertson 59-23 NBA Finals 38-44 -21 Missed playoffs 1988 Celtics Larry Bird 57-25 Conference
Finals 42-40 -15 Lost in first round
0-3 1991 Lakers Magic
Johnson 58-24 NBA Finals 43-39 -15 Lost in first round
1-3 1993 Bulls Michael
Jordan 57-25 Championship 55-27 -2 Lost in 2nd round 3-4 To make matters worse, the Bulls lost in the 2nd round of the playoffs to the Knicks in 7 games. In Game 5, Scottie Pippen received one of the most unfavorable calls in playoff history by referee Hue Hollins when he was called for a foul on Knicks' rookie Hubert Davis, that allowed Davis to go to the line and win the game. If you are a real Bulls fan, you'll remember the call. I was cheering for the Knicks in that series, and even I admitted the Bulls got hosed. The Bulls should have won that series. I believe that would have defeated Indiana in the finals. They owned them in the regular season and the Knicks handled the Pacers. I don't think they had any chance of beating the Rockets in the finals without Jordan, but I do believe they could have got there without Jordan. It's all speculating, but it's not unreasonable speculation.

• Assumption 2: If Jordan would come back, the Bulls would automatically win the le.

This assumption were declared by those in 1995 who said, "the Bulls didn't win the le in 1994, did they?" While Jordan fans claim that he and he alone was single-handedly responsible for the le, they conveniently neglect 1995. Jordan did come back that season. However, the Bulls didn't have Horace Grant (and Dennis Rodman would not join until the next season). Without Grant, their rebounding and interior defense deficiencies were exposed by the Orlando Magic (Horace Grant's team, ironically), and the Bulls lost in the second round 2-4. As you can see in the table above, the previous year, without Jordan, they lost 3-4 in the 2nd round. Now if Jordan were single-handedly responsible for those les, why did they do even worse in the playoffs after he returned than they did the year before, when they didn't have him?
How was Orlando able to defeat the Bulls with Jordan in 1995? The answer lies with Horace Grant. He was the key to Johnny Bach's (Bulls assistant coach) "Doberman Defense", as it was called. The trapping defense the Bulls rode to three les. Grant could trap a player and he was quick enough to fall back and get the rebound. When Jordan retired, the Bulls continued playing their defense and Myers filled in Jordan's role. In 1995, Grant left for Orlando and Chicago was left without a strong interior defender and rebounder. The trapping defense also gone. Bach moved onto Charlotte and the Bulls didn't have a power forward that could make it work. ey Simpkins and Corie Blount were not acceptable alternatives. They soft underbelly was exposed, and as anybody knows, you can't win without defense and rebounding. Phil Jackson was so desperate that he even tried Toni Kukoc there, hoping to stretch the defense with Kukoc's shooting, and increase ball movement on offense, but it wasn't enough to overcome their defense and rebounding woes. Jordan did not fill this weakness, and Shaquille O'Neal and Horace Grant were able to expose Chicago and defeat them in the playoffs, and disprove Jordan's "mythical ability to elevate his team to championships."
Jordan fanatics claim he had court rust. Whatever. Jordan played 17 games that season. In 1986, Jordan played 18 games, coming off of a foot surgery. In the 1986 playoffs Jordan scored a playoff-record 63 points. Why was Jordan able to shake the court rust in 1986 and not in 1995? Answer: he shook his court rust. He dropped in the "double-nickel" (55 point game) on the defending eastern champs that season. If Jordan had court rust, he wouldn't be putting in 55 on John Starks. His game wasn't up to 100%, but it wasn't so far off as to make a difference in a championship and a defeat in the 2nd round of the playoffs.
Furthermore, Jordan fanatics claim the next year, he shook his supposed court rust and led the Bulls to 72 wins. These people are basketball illiterate. If this were true, why weren't the Bulls winning 72 games in 1991, 92, and 93? Jordan didn't have any court rust then. The reason the Bulls improved was because they filled their weakness with the best player in the NBA FOR that weakness: Dennis Rodman. They lacked rebounding from the power forward spot, so they brought on the greatest rebounding forward in history. They lacked interior defense, so they brought in a 2-time defensive player of the year in Rodman. He was the perfect fit. Grant was a very good player, and he and Jordan's 1992 Bulls won 67 games. But Rodman is better than Grant. Connect the dots. The reason that team improved so much was because of Rodman. Without Grant or Rodman, Jordan simply could not win a championship, because Jordan could not provide interior defense and rebounding. After all, the team really didn't miss him that badly when he retired.
I have asked Jordan fans to explain over and over why the Bulls only slipped 2 games when they replaced Jordan with Pete Myers. To this day, not a SINGLE ONE, has been able to offer an explanation. The answer is obvious, they just don't want to admit it. Jordan was a great individual player, but he was not as valuable of a TEAM player as those peers of his in the elite category of basketball players.

• Assumption 3: Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant would probably score more points, but they would shoot much worse, as defenses focused on them.

The third assumption was that Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant would probably score more points, but they would shoot much worse, as defenses focused on them. This appears to be a logical assumption. However, the logic is clearly seen when the hype is peeled away.

1992-93 (w/ Jordan) 1993-94 (w/o Jordan) Name PPG FG% PPG FG% Scottie Pippen 18.6 47.3 22.0 49.1 Horace Grant 13.2 50.8 15.1 52.4

• Assumption 4: The Bulls would shoot much worse without Jordan.

The fourth assumption is that the Bulls would shoot much worse without Jordan than with him. That is because conventional wisdom says that a player of Jordan’s ability requires extra defensive attention, and that creates open shots for teammates.
In addition to this, the shooting percentage of the league has declined every year since 1989, so it is only logical to assume that even with Jordan, the shooting percentage of the team would decline, and without him it would greatly decline, correct? Not surprisingly, the Bulls' opponents shot worse (fg% and PPG) in 1994 (no Jordan) than in 1993 (with Jordan). I doubt that Pete Myers was a better defender than Jordan, so this fact only further proves the trend that I just mentioned - teams shot worse each season.
Well, the Bulls, as an entire team, DID shoot worse. That is because Jordan’s field goal percentage was taken out, and his position was replaced by CBA journeyman Pete Myers, who was known for defense (in other words, a terrible shooter). Furthermore, Toni Kukoc was a poor shooting rookie in 1994 (.431 from the floor and .271 from 3-point range).
When you factor this out, you find that there were nine players who played with Jordan in 1993 and without him 1994, you see that they actually shot BETTER without Jordan (48.6%) than they did with him (48.2%). As I showed previously, this was also true of the top 2 scorers (Pippen and Grant). In contrast, the 1992 Lakers and the 1989 Celtics saw nearly everyone on the team fall in fg% and ppg, due to the absence of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, respectively. This difference may not seem like much, but remember, Jordan is SUPPOSED to make life easier for teammates, not harder. And the trend in the league was decreased fg% every year. How could this be?
The short answer is that players like Jordan (ballhogs) do not make those around them better. Jordan has always been more interested in scoring his points than in helping his team - he practically said so himself. If you wan want the long detailed answer, click here.
Let's look at those 3 myths again:

1. Jordan carried the team to 6 championships - As I showed, the Bulls did not suffer greatly when he retired. When he returned, they didn't even make the conference finals, until they replaced their power forward. Compared to Jordan's peers (the short list of the elite players in NBA history), Jordan was the least valuable to his team out of all of them. His impact was felt the least.
2. Jordan made those around him better - I proved this collectively by showing that the players who played with him shot better without him.
3. Jordan was the most valuable player ever - He simply did not affect the W-L column, or the playoff performance as greatly as the other players that I showed above. This is indisputable. Yes, Jordan has 6 championships, because he played on a very good team...a team that was good enough to win 55 games and go deep into the playoffs without him. I list 7 players (Jordan included), as the "elite" players. Out of these 7 players, guess which player has the most losing seasons in his career? Jordan. Guess which team didn't felt the least loss when he sat out for a season? Jordan's.

Let me point this out: Jordan joined a losing team in 1984. His first year, they remained a losing team. The next year, they were a losing team. The third year, they posted their 3rd consecutive losing season. During Jordan's first three years, he was not able to make the Bulls into a contender. He couldn't even get them above .500. This man has a legendary "will to win", but can't win? Then, the Bulls add Horace Grant and Scottie Pippen, the next year, and the Bulls put up a winning record and advance another round of the playoffs. The Bulls keep adding players and they keep winning more and more until they win 3 les. Jordan retires, and the Bulls only slip 2 games. He comes back the next year, and they do WORSE in the playoffs than they did the year before him. After the Bulls add Rodman and win 3 more les, they disband the team. Two years later, Jordan joins a losing Wizards team. Under Jordan, they remain a losing team both years and fail to make the playoffs each year. He retires again, and the Wizards continue losing the next year.

Do you see the trend? Jordan joins teams and they don't turn into contenders. They don't even get above .500, even during his second year there. When he leaves, they stay the same. If they are a good team, they continue winning games and if they are a losing team with Jordan, they continue losing games. Jordan doesn't "will" teams to a new level. His impact to the win column is minimal. How, then, can he be the most valuable player ever? I pointed out that over and over in his career that his teams don't go to a new level because of him. If you can't see this, then you are simply ignoring facts.

There can only be one conclusion from all of this: If he is not the most valuable player ever, then Michael Jordan is NOT the greatest basketball player ever.

Jordan's overrated defense

First of all, I am going to clear this up: young Michael Jordan (1985-1993) was one of the greatest defensive guards in history. He in on the short list of greatest defensive guards, along with Walt Frazier, Sidney Moncrief, K.C. Jones, and Joe Dumars. Jordan's only weakness was being posted up. Magic Johnson exploited this in games 1 and 2 of the 1991 Finals. After putting 3 fouls on Jordan in the first half of game 2, Phil Jackson opted to move Pippen over to guard Magic and put Jordan on James Worthy. Fortunately for Jordan and Jackson, Worthy was playing on a sprained ankle, which eliminated his dominance (he had 3 inches on Jordan, and he was the guy who dropped 42 points on Dennis Rodman in Game 7 of the 1988 finals).

Young Jordan was an exceptional ball defender and he was the very best player of his era at roaming the passing lanes.

There, it's out. He was a very good defender. I don't have any problems with his 1988 defensive player of the year award and his 6 first-team all defense awards up that point.

However, after that, he was a very overrated defender. He got old and lost a step and it showed. It happens to everybody, but Jordan's fans couldn't accept it. Let me give examples.

In 1995 and 96, Clyde Drexler and Anfernee Hardaway continued giving Jordan problems when they posted up on him. That is undertandable as they were bigger than Jordan. However, Jordan's lost a step on his quickness and in 1996, Pooh Richardson lit up Jordan...Pooh Richardson. Damon Stoudamire had his way with Jordan that year (Stoudamire's rookie season). While Stoudamire was very quick, Phil Jackson's answer to him spoke volumes about Jordan: Phil put Scottie Pippen on Stoudamire. Jordan was so slow that a 6'7" 225 lb FORWARD was Jackson's answer to a guard. Phil began opting to put Ron Harper on the other team's better offensive guard. Jordan fanatics claim this was "resting" Jordan for offense. No, this is called "rationalizing." Young Jordan guarded the other team's best guard AND lit up his opponents for 32+ PPG. Old Jordan simply could not guard the best guards any more (remember when he got caught in the switch with Allen Iverson the next year and how bad Iverson made him look?) .

What was truly sad was that Jordan continued making first team all-defense, but Ron Harper did not. Jordan wasn't even the best defensive guard on his own team any more. He didn't deserve those accolades.

Sour Grapes? Dream on. Undeserving Accolades aren't uncommon to Jordan. Remember the 2002 All-Star game? The fans vote and they DON'T want to see old Jordan. They don't name him a starter. If Jordan deserved it, the coaches, who pick the reserves, would name him a reserve. Instead, they too, pass on Jordan. Then, the media starts crying for Vince Carter to give up his starting job to Jordan and apply pressure until Carter gives in. The fans didn't want to see Jordan and the coaches knew he wasn't good enough, but he still makes it, because the media wants to see him.

Jordan - overrated in college

In 1998, I saw ESPN’s website had a profile of great performances in the NCAA tournament. They had players like Bill Bradley (Who scored a record 56 points in a Final Four game), Bill Walton (21 of 22 shooting the NCAA Championship), Danny Manning (36 points, 19 rebounds in the 1988 championship), and such. Listed in these great performances was Michael Jordan in 1982. What was Jordan’s amazing performance? Well, he had a whopping 16 points. Wow. He hit the shot that put North Carolina ahead with 15 seconds left. Buzzer beater? Nope.

Who was the star of the 1982 tournament? James Worthy was. He was the first-team All-American. Jordan wasn’t even all-conference. Worthy led the team in scoring for the season, the tournament, and even the championship game (28 points). Worthy was also the tournament MVP, and the East Region's Most Outstanding Player. After Jordan’s shot, Worthy stole the ball from Georgetown's Fred Brown to seal the victory. Where was Worthy on ESPN’s site? He was nowhere to be found. Instead Jordan makes it for one shot. Where was Keith Smart? Where was Scottie Thurman? They were also one-shot wonders.
This was yet ANOTHER example of how the media hypes Jordan to no end. In every way possible, Worthy led that team to the le, yet the history revisionists have tried to credit it to Jordan.
Well, since Jordan supposedly "led" Carolina to the le, how did he do for his remaining two seasons, without Worthy? Let’s look. In 1981, the year before Jordan supposedly led Carolina to the le, Sam Perkins, Al Wood and James Worthy led the Tar Heels to the National Championship game, where they lost to Isiah Thomas and the Indiana Hoosiers. That means they played in two consecutive championship games. Surely Jordan would "will his team to victory" and carry on this streak of championship game appearances, right? Wrong.
In 1982, after winning the le, James Worthy left for the NBA. Jordan would go on to win The Sporting News’ College Player of the Year during the next two seasons. His teams were very talented, as they boasted such players as Sam Perkins (#4 pick in the 1984 draft…right behind Jordan), Brad Daugherty (#1 in the 1986 draft) and Kenny Smith (#6 in the 1987 draft). The players were there and Jordan was there with his mythical "will to win". How many more championships did Carolina win during Jordan's career? None. How many final four appearances? None. Jordan choked, and when I say choke, I mean his teams failed to live up to their seed. Despite having a #1 and a #2 seed, Jordan's teams were defeated in the sweet 16 and the Elite Eight.
Some would argue that the NCAA tournament is upset-prone, but do upsets really apply to a talented team starring Michael Jordan? Jordan simply "refuses to lose". He "wills his team to victory" and all of the other hyped-up slogans the media attribute to Jordan. Where was it? Jordan left it in his other suit, I guess. Wilt Chamberlain was called a "loser" for losing to an undefeated team in the finals in triple-overtime, yet Jordan couldn't even lead a team to the Finals, let alone the Final Four -- and he's supposed to be the "best ever?" I think not. Funny how short Jordan comes up when you level the playing field and use the same standards to measure him that are used to measure everybody else.
Did Jordan have a great college career? Yes. Was he a winner? No. Did he have one of the all-time great NCAA tournament performances? Not even close! Is he one of the all-time great college players? No. Sports Illustrated wisely left Jordan off of their all-time college team. But then again, SI and Jordan haven’t been on speaking terms since 1995—so that makes them a little more truthful in their reporting.
This is just one of the many examples of how the media hype is exposed as a farce when the examined by the light of truth. Jordan was a good college player over-hyped by the revisionist media. He was an elite NBA player, falsely placed above all others by the same stupid media.

Jordan - the greatest athlete ever?

This one is a no-brainer. If he's not the greatest basketball player ever (as I have proven), then he sure as heck isn't the greatest athlete ever. ESPN claimed he was the greatest athlete of the twentieth century -- excuse me while I laugh -- but that just isn't the truth.

ESPN was as prone to hype and endorsements as most Jordan-supporters. After all, who supported Jordan's #1-ranked sports biography? Jordan's clothing company. Wow. Now, that's unbiased. I wonder how much money Nike pays them each year in advertising. ESPN's credibility has often been questioned, especially in college football, where they have been accused of slanting the public's view of strong teams or Heisman Trophy winners, in favor of players and games that their sister company, ABC, televises.

I've had folks write and claim these people are experts. Experts? Schapp pointed out that around 1950, a vote was taken for the greatest athlete of the first 50 years. Jim Thorpe was voted #1. However, in 1999, Thorpe was voted behind Babe Ruth (Ruth - #2 and Thorpe - #6). How many of these "experts" in 1999 saw either Thorpe or Ruth play? How can they be "experts", when the writers 50 years ago saw them both play? Answer: the 1999 writers follow hype, myth, and "legend."

Why would Jordan be considered the greatest athlete? Let's look at some criteria:

• Athleticism? Hardly! Jordan's not even possessing the most athleticism out of basketball players. He didn't compete in track (unlike Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain, who were champion track athletes, for instance). Carl Lewis, Jim Thorpe, Babe Didrickson-Zaharus, and Bo Jackson were all more athletic than Jordan.
• Winning? Sorry. Put Rocky Marciano, Yogi Berra, and Bill Russell ahead of Jordan.
• Dominated the most areas of his sport? Sorry. Try guys like Barry Bonds, Joe DiMaggio, Babe Ruth, Wilt Chamberlain, Jackie Joyner-Kersee, and Walter Payton ahead of Jordan.
• Broke the most records? Wilt Chamberlain and Wayne Gretsky are far, far ahead of Jordan.
• Impact on sport? Jackie Robinson. 'Nuff said.

What category puts Jordan at the top? Endorsement money. But in that case, Arnold Palmer, not Muhammad Ali, was #2. Furthermore, this proves ESPN list is hype-driven and would also prove Jordan isn't the greatest athlete, but rather that greatest advertising pitchman. Jordan didn't change the game of basketball. He didn't dominate the championships (6 in 8 years is chump change compared to Russell). I have challenged Jordan fans to give me a criteria for basing it. His combination of individual accomplishment, records, and championships are behind Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. So why is he #1? Because he is a pop-culture icon, not the greatest athlete. Just because ESPN says he's the best doesn't mean it, because nobody has yet to define why he's the best.

How about a comparison between Jordan and Babe Didrickson-Zaharus.

Track: Jordan has nothing to show, because Jordan's speed wasn't enough and his jumping ability was the product of Nike. Nike wants you to think different, but hype and commercials cannot stand up to the unbiased eye of a clock or a measuring tape, which is why he couldn't compete in the Olympic arena in these areas. I proved that his dunk contest championship in 1988 was a joke, and simply the product of hype, much like his athleticism is, in general.
Babe entered 8 out of 10 events in the National AAU track meet. Of those 8, she won 5 of them outright and tied for first in a 6th event. She won 2 gold medals in the Olympics, and lost the 3rd on a technicality. Because she was a pro golfer afterward, she was not allowed to compete in any more Olympic games, or who knows how many more she would have won?

Advantage: Babe


Baseball: Jordan was a miserable failure in MINOR LEAGUE baseball. He flirted with the Mendoza line (that means he barely hit .200). Sports Illustrated wrote an article about his inability to play baseball and the cover said "Bag it, Michael." Jordan got into such a snit, that he never talked to the magazine again. The analysis from baseball scouts on Jordan was that he was a rag-armed, weak-hitter trying to play a position that generally requires both. Jordan was a decent high school pitcher, but there's a difference between the men and the boys. What about Babe?
Babe PITCHED in several MAJOR LEAGUE exhibition games. Babe pitched against the big boys. Jordan sucked against the little boys.

Advantage: Babe.


Golf: Jordan likes to brag about his golfing prowess, but we see that he's simply a weekend hacker. He has as much chance at getting his [PGA] tour card as you and I do. Yeah, he golfs with Tiger Woods (and loses), but hey -- if I play soccer and get my @ss kicked by Pele, does that mean I'm a great soccer player? Jordan talks a big talk about joining the tour...and well, if his compe ive drive were as great as advertised (emphasis on ADVERTISED), then he'd already be on the tour. What about Babe?
Babe won 82 amateur and PROFESSIONAL tournaments, including majors. She came back after having been treated for cancer and WON another major. This dwarfs Jordan's little "flu game" in the 1997 NBA Finals (in which he never had the flu, but said he was "under the weather." That is, unless you believe that Jordan is such a modern miracle that he can completely conquer influenza in 2 days.)

Advantage: Do I need to say?


Basketball: OK, the Jordan fans are going to say that he's one of the all-time greats (though I've proven he's not the greatest). And he certainly would have an advantage here. But consider this: Babe was never able to prove herself on the professional ground, because the WNBA, nor the NBA, nor the NBL (National Basketball League), nor the BAA (Basketball Association of America - the latter 2 were predecessors to the NBA) existed when she played. We do have their college careers as a comparative measuring stick: Both played 3 years, and Jordan was a 2 time All-American, and Babe was a 3 time All-American. Perhaps she could have proven that she was the greatest woman basketball player ever if she had the stage to display it on.

Advantage: Jordan


Other sports: What does Jordan do? Nothing. What did Babe do? Babe won championships in billiards, cycling, shooting, speed skating, squash, swimming, and tennis.

Advantage: Babe.

Who is the greatest North American Athlete of the 20th century?

Advantage: Babe.

Whether or not you think she's #1, you have to admit that she's ahead of Jordan, yet ESPN only put her at #10. Probably because she didn't have her own brand of sneakers.

Jordan's unmerited hype, Dunk contest

Here is a shining example of Jordan using hype to achieve a goal that his abilities alone could not.

Note: this has nothing to do with Jordan's greatness. It only illustrates how people go out of their way to make him better than he was.

The 1988 dunk contest featured a classic duel between Michael Jordan (1985 winner) and Dominique Wilkins (1987 winner) in Chicago. On the last dunk, Jordan tried the free throw line dunk, but he stepped in front of the line. He received a "50" for this. Two years later, Scottie Pippen jumped from behind the free throw line and received a "46" for the same dunk. Surprised? You shouldn't be. What was the difference? Jordan is quite often given more credit than he deserves. You can say that I'm full of sour grapes, but consider the following analysis from fellow participant and 1986 winner, Anthony "Spud" Webb:

"...the finals came down to Jordan and 'Nique. Who won? Dominique won it by a mile. Who got the trophy? Michael Jordan, because the hometown judges were not about to give it to anybody else. 'Nique walked off the floor shaking his head, saying, 'Well this is Michael's town and his show. What are you gonna do?'" (Flying High by Spud Webb and Reid Slaughter, p. 204).

This style of hype is often used with Jordan. He is called the "best ever" by people who refuse to define their criteria, because Jordan will come up short. His awards are often called out, but when they are put into perspective, it is easy to see that it is simple hype, because using a common comparison will make Jordan come up short.

Recently, ESPN named their 50 greatest athletes of North America. Guess who was #1? Jordan the greatest athlete? He was a one sport athlete, and as this site proves, he wasn't even the best at that. He was a terrible baseball player, and an amateur-caliber golfer. Best ever? They refused to define their criteria. Why? Because many athletes were better than Jordan. Click here to read more about it

[lefty]

Who is better than Jordan?

Championships:

Who has more rings? Put your mouse over the picture and learn the answer.

Bill Russell -- Bill Russell is the greatest winner in the history of team sports. There is no comparing anyone to him. All the guy did was win. In college, Russell won 2 national championships in 3 seasons at the University of San Francisco. When Russell went there, they were a small-time program. They didn't even have a home gym. Under Russell, they won 55 games in a row, to go along with those 2 national championships. During his first championship, he teamed with future Celtic teammate K.C. Jones, but he won the second le without him, and was named the Final Four MVP. Russell went on to the 1956 Olympics and brought home the gold medal.
When he joined the Celtics, they had never won a championship. His first year, he led them to the championship. His next season, they made the NBA finals. Russell was injured in the finals, and they lost the finals. The next eight seasons, Russell won the championship. After this run, he was made player-coach. They lost the next season to Wilt Chamberlain's Sixers in the conference finals. Russell came back in his final two seasons and won two more championships and then he retired. In the first post-Russell season, the Celtics failed to make the playoffs.
In summary:

• Russell won 2 championships and had a 55-game winning streak in college
• Russell won an Olympic Gold Medal.
• In 13 seasons in the NBA, Russell won 11 championships.
• The 2 seasons Russell didn't win the championship, he made the NBA finals and the conference finals.
• He won 8 straight championships (an octo-peat)
  

Michael Jordan -- Jordan also played 3 seasons in college with the powerful North Carolina Tar Heels. UNC made the NCAA finals the year before Jordan joined. In Jordan's first season, they won the NCAA le. Unlike Russell, Jordan was not the star of his team. He was a supporting player. James Worthy was the All-American (not Jordan). Worthy was the ACC player of the year, the NCAA regional MVP, the Final 4 MVP and the leading scorer of the NCAA Championship game (28 pts to Jordan's 16). Jordan hit the shot to put UNC on top, and Worthy stole the ball to secure the victory. After that season, Worthy went to the NBA. With Jordan as the leader of the team (he was The Sporting News player of the year the next 2 seasons), Jordan's Tar Heels achieved a #1 and a #2 seed, but failed to live up to their seed, losing in the Sweet 16 and the Elite 8.
Like Russell, Jordan led the Olympic team to the gold medal (1984). Jordan joined a Bulls team, that like Russell's had never won a le. Before Jordan arrived, they were a losing team. In Jordan's first year, they were a losing team (38-44). They made the playoffs with a losing record, where they were defeated in the first round 3-1 by Milwaukee. The next year, Jordan's Bulls had a losing record (30-52), yet made the playoffs again, where they were defeated 3-0 in the first round by Larry Bird's Celtics. The next year, Jordan's Bulls posted their third consecutive losing season (40-42) and were once again swept in the first round of the playoffs against Bird's Celtics.
In his fourth season, Jordan's team finally won more games than they lost, and made it out the first round of the playoffs, where they were defeated by Isiah Thomas' Pistons 4-1. The next year, Jordan's Bulls finished 5th place in a 6-team division, but advanced another round in the playoffs, losing again to the Pistons 4-2. The next year, (Phil Jackson's first as head coach), the Bulls finished in 2nd place and lost in the conference finals 4-3.
After that, the Bulls finally got on top, winning 3 in a row. Jordan came back in 1995, but couldn't get them out of the second round of the playoffs, which is where they finished the year before without him. Afterward, the Bulls won 3 more les, before Jordan retired for the second time. Jordan came back 2 years later with the Washington Wizards, a losing team. Under Jordan's leadership, they posted the 4th and 5th losing seasons in Jordan's career and failed to make the playoffs both years.
In summary:

• Jordan won 1 championship in college, in a supporting role. He failed to make the final 4 in 2 seasons as the team leader of North Carolina.
• Jordan won an Olympic Gold Medal in 1984 and 1992.
• In 15 seasons in the NBA, Jordan won 6 championships.
• The 7 seasons Jordan didn't win the championship, he made the conference finals twice, the semi-finals twice, the first round 3 times, and no playoff appearance twice.
• He won 3 straight championships twice.

Final Analysis:

Bill Russell

Michael Jordan Number of Season Played in the NBA 13 15 Number of NBA championships 11 6 Number of conference championships 10 6 Number of times he failed to make the conference finals 0 7 Number of times he failed to make the playoffs 0 2 Number of losing records 0 5 Number of seasons playing college basketball 3 3 Number of Championships 2 1 Number of Final 4 appearances 2 1
When Bill Russell is brought up, you see Jordan fans go into ultra-panic mode. Jordan supposedly had a mythical ability to "will his teams to victory", but his achievements are paltry compared to Russell's. Jordan fans will say one (or more) of four things:
First, Russell had talented teammates and he was lucky. There is some truth to this. However, Jordan's teammates were very talented also. How else could they go from a 57-25 record in 1993 to 55-27 in 1994, when Jordan retired? Jordan was replaced with a CBA player, and his team slipped two games. Without Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, and B.J. Armstrong were all named to the all-star team. Without Bill Russell, the Celtics went from the NBA championship to not even making the playoffs. Furthermore, while Russell joined a team in 1956 that had Bill Sharmin, Bob Cousy, Tommy Heinsoln, and Frank Ramsey (all hall of famers), all of these players retired and Russell kept on winning championships. Without him, they never won a championship. Coincidence?
Second, Jordan fans will say without free agency and less teams, it was easier to dominate. This is absurd. Less teams make for a stronger league. It's simple math. If you cut the number of current NBA teams in half and had a draft of their players, the remaining teams would pick up players and cut the worst players on their teams. The result would be that each team would get better. This would strengthen the league. Furthermore, how many key players did the Bulls lose to free agency during the Jordan years? Answer: None. Horace Grant was the only significant loss and he left while Jordan was retired. This argument holds no water at all.
Third, Jordan fans like to claim that if Jordan had not retired, the Bulls would have won eight straight (ignoring that Jordan DID play in 1995 and couldn’t win the le), but if Russell had not sprained an ankle, Russell probably would have won 10 les in a row (and 12 in 13 seasons). Even woulda, coulda, shoulda arguments don't help in the Jordan vs. Russell argument.
Fourth, Jordan fans will say that Russell was not a great offensive player. In his best season, Russell averaged 18.9 ppg on 45% shooting. and 4.5 apg (this assists average is more than Jordan's 1996-98 average, and Russell was a center!). However, this point is moot. You clicked on this link because you compare players based on championships. You obviously think Magic Johnson is better than Larry Bird, even though Bird averaged more points. So what if Russell didn't score 20 ppg? If you want to argue that, then the lesson to be learned is that ballhogging is not the key to winning championships. Everybody with any basketball knowledge knows defense and rebounding wins championships and Russell is the greatest defensive player in history and the second greatest rebounder. If Jordan were more interested in winning than in scoring points, then he would have more championships.
You judge players based on championships. Therefore, you must conclude that Bill Russell is the greatest player in history - not Michael Jordan.
Thank you for playing.

Most MVPs and championships

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Bill Russell Michael Jordan College championships 3 1 1 NBA championships 6 11 6 MVPs 6 5 5 Note that based on this criteria (and you clicked this link because this is your criteria), that Jordan is no better than the THIRD best player in history. I make my point about Russell on a different section of this site. So to keep from repeating myself, I will argue why Kareem is better than Jordan, but I will list Russell on tables.
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar – Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, like Jordan, won six championships. However, he won more Most Valuable Player awards (six to five). Pretty open-and-shut. However, Jordan-supporters often say, "yeah, but where would he be with Magic Johnson?" This is a fair question. Similarly, I ask, "What did Jordan do without Scottie Pippen?"

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar without Magic (10 seasons) Bill Russell without Bob Cousy (6 seasons) Michael Jordan without Pippen (5 seasons) NBA championships 1 5 0 MVPs 5 1 0 NBA Finals 2 5 0 Best record in NBA* 3 2 0

(* Irrelevant, but good for grins)

The answer is that he did quite nicely without Magic...much better than Jordan did without Pippen. But to be fair, Jabbar played 10 seasons without Magic and Jordan only played 5 seasons without Pippen, so let's compare this for their first 3 seasons. Before we do, let's also put into context that Jabbar joined an expansion team that was in their 2nd year of existence and Jordan was on the Bulls, who had been around for nearly 20 years.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, first 3 years Bill Russell, first 3 years Michael Jordan, first 3 years NBA championships 1 2 0 MVPs 2 1 0 NBA Finals 1 3 0 Best record in NBA 1 3 0 Playoff record 23-12 23-9 1-9 Losing Records 0 0 3 Scoring les* 2 0 1

( * Irrelevant, but good for grins)

So you see, no matter how often Jordan fans whine and try to make up excuses and rationalizations, it all comes down to Kareem has more MVPs and rings than Michael Jordan.
Thank you for playing.

Putting Jordan's "greatness" into context

A Jordan fanatic will usually hype up Jordan's career scoring average, 5 MVPs, 6 rings, 6 playoff MVPs, his defensive player of the year award his 9 first-team all-defensive team honors.

It sounds quite impressive. Surely better than anybody else in history. That is, until you put this into context.

1. All-defensive teams: Jordan's supporters frequently refer to the number of times that Jordan made the All-defensive team. The All-defensive team wasn't created until 1969 - Bill Russell's final season, and yes, Russell did make it. Walt Frazier made the first seven teams (1969-75). It didn't exist during his first 2 seasons.
2. Playoff MVP: This award also wasn't created until 1969. When Bill Russell was the cornerstone of 11 championship teams, do you really doubt he wouldn't have won a whole lot of these? (Remember, Russell has just as many regular season MVPs as Jordan).
3. Steals and blocks: These stats weren't officially recorded until the 1974 seasons - Oscar Robertson's final season and the season after Wilt Chamberlain retired. Unofficial stats frequently had Walt Frazier making well over 5 steals, and in Wilt Chamberlain's first game, he unofficially had 17 blocks. Hall of fame official Earl Strohm said that he estimated, Wilt and Bill Russell averaged about 8 blocks per game in the many games that he worked.
4. Defensive Player of the Year. This award wasn't issued until the 1983 season. It's safe to say that Bill Russell would have won quite a few of these, and Wilt probably would have won in 1972 and 73.

I know it's speculation, but it's not unfounded speculation. If you put these awards at the beginning of the NBA, I believe Bill Russell would stack up to Jordan accordingly:

Bill Russell Michael Jordan Years played 13 15 Defensive Player of the year award 10 1 First team all-defense 10 9 Playoff MVPs 6 6 MVPs 5 5 Championships 11 6

The reason I say Russell would put up these numbers is as follows:

10 Defensive player of the year awards - Russell was the preeminent center in the league until Wilt Chamberlain came along, so the first 3 seasons are a given. Wilt won the MVP in his rookie season. For the next 3 seasons, Wilt put up the 3 highest scoring averages in history (38.4, 50.4, and 44.8 PPG), yet Russell won the MVP each season (averaging 16.9, 18.9, and 16.8 ppg). Russell won his other two MVPs averaging 16.6 and 14.1 PPG). Only Wes Unseld, the 1969 MVP, scored less in a MVP seasons than Russell in his 5 MVP seasons. THAT is how good Russell was at defense. I think it's safe to say that Wilt would have won defensive player of the year in 1967 and 1968. Just to be conservative, I will give Wilt another defensive player of the year nod.

10 times on the first team all-defense - If he is the defensive player of the year, it's safe to assume he is first team all-defense.

6 Playoff MVPs - I am being EXTREMELY conservative on this. Russell was a 5-time MVP whos numbers were BETTER in the playoffs than they were in the regular season. He holds the Finals records for most rebounds in a 4-game series (118...2nd place is 76 by Wes Unseld), a 5-game series (144), and a 7-game series (1969). To say that dominating player of an 11-time champion will only win the Playoff MVP 54% of the time is extremely generous.

5 Regular Season MVPs and 11 Championships - This is not speculation. This is fact.

Looking at this criteria, it is easy to see that Russell is Jordan's superior. If you think this speculation is incorrect, please e-mail me and tell me who would beat Russell. If not, then you can see that Jordan is not the best player to ever play.

Most dominating

Wilt Chamberlain Michael Jordan Regular Season Records 56 4 Number of scoring championships 7 10 Number of 50+ point games 119 30 Number of times led league in assists, fg%, minutes, and rebounds* 29 0

Who is the more dominating individual? (*Blocks and steals were not recorded until after Chamberlain retired)

Wilt Chamberlain – Chamberlain re-wrote the record books and dominated like no player before or since. His first year in the league, he set rebounding and scoring records that no OTHER player before or since has broken. Wilt set so many records and put up such outrageous numbers that they began to lose meaning. If LeBron James scores 50, it's headlines on ESPN. Wilt averaged 50 for an entire season. It was just another day at the office for him. Let's analyze Wilt's game:
Scoring: Wilt is simply the greatest scorer ever. Jordan fans will claim that because Jordan averages less than 0.5 points per game more for his career, this makes him better. However, they don't consider that Jordan didn't log in as many career minutes, nor as many minutes per game. When both men put their minds to scoring, it's not even close. Wilt once AVERAGED 50.4 ppg. Jordan's best season is 37.1 ppg - a number Wilt bested on 3 different occasions. Jordan never had a 70 point game. Wilt had 6 games with at least 70. Wilt's best game is 100 points. Wilt won 7 consecutive scoring les, which is the same number as Jordan's best streak. The only reason Wilt quit winning scoring les is because his coach asked him to pass off more (Wilt was already in the top 10 in the league in assists). Wilt gladly did and he and 3 of his teammates each put up over 18 ppg the next season, on their way to the le. Wilt has almost 80 more games with 50+ points than Jordan. Wilt also holds the record for most free throws made in a game (28), most field goals made in a game without a miss (18), most consecutive field goals without a miss (35), best field goal % in a season (nearly 73%), most times leading the league in fg% (9), most consecutive games with 40+ points scored (14),
He won seven scoring les, 11 rebounding les, and led the league in minutes played 8 times. He averaged over 45 minutes per game every game of his career. In 1967-68 he led the league in assists – something Jordan has never came close to doing. Chamberlain holds the records for points scored in a season and a game (100), rebounds in a game (55), season, and career., as well as minutes played in a season (he averaged 48.5 min/game in 1961-62), and field goal percentage in a season (72.7%).
Rebounding: Again, Wilt dominated the record books. Most rebounds in a game (55 - against Bill Russell). Best rebounding average in a season (27.2), and best career rebounding average (22.9), most seasons leading the league in rebounding (11). Detractors will claim the artificial numbers are because Wilt played a lot of minutes and there were more rebounds to be had than when, say, Dennis Rodman played. However, consider that Wilt played a lot of minutes because he was durable and had stamina. It's not his fault that other players lack his stamina. As far as available rebounds, this is true, but Wilt had to expend a lot of energy on the offensive end. A guy like Dennis Rodman was worthless on offense. He simply camped out and cherry-picked. He was never the focal point of offense. He wasn't even the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th option, and to use available rebounds means you are comparing players to their peers. Doing this still shows Wilt's greatness, as Rodman only led the league in rebounding 7 times - 4 less than Wilt.
Michael Jordan was a very good rebounder at guard, but Wilt was the very best rebounder in history. Jordan was not the greatest rebounding guard in history. Magic Johnson and Oscar Robertson are two that immediately stand out as better than Jordan. Even comparing the two players shows Wilt is better.
Passing: Jordan averaged less than 1 assists per game in his career than Wilt. This is paltry when you consider two things. First, Jordan, as a guard, handles the ball much more than Wilt. Since I was fair and compared their rebounding to their peers, rather than to each other (because a center SHOULD have more rebounds than a guard), it is only fair to compare assists to their peers. Wilts 4.4 puts him in elite company at center. He may very well be the best. Jordan's 5.3 is not outstanding for a guard. Please don't say, "But he's a shooting guard". When Jordan played point guard, in 1989, he only averaged 8.0 apg, so John Stockton, Oscar Robertson, and Magic Johnson do not feel threatened. Jordan's assists also went on a downward spiral after 1992.
The second point to consider is how an assists was credited in the 1960s and the 1980s. In the 1960s, if a player received the ball and took one dribble, the passer was NOT awarded an assist. Chet Walker cost Wilt countless assists, because he always took a dribble before laying it in. In the 1980s, the assists ruling was much looser. Along with "scorekeeper's discretion", this guideline was given: if a player receives a pass and makes a direct line to the basket, without altering his course due to a defender, then the passer receives an assists. This means, in theory, that Magic Johnson could inbound the ball to James Worthy, and if Worthy dribbled the length of the court, making a straight line and dunks the ball, then Magic should get an assists. I know it's an extreme case, but the point is, 1980s players received many assists than 1960s players did not. That is why assist averages were higher in the 1980s, even though they were scoring less points. With that in mind, if you normalize their numbers, you see that Wilt's assists were actually higher than Jordan's.
Furthermore, Wilt finished in the top 10 in the league in assists 3 times. In 1968, Wilt led the league in assists (before 1969, rebound, assist, and scoring leaders were determined by totals, rather than average). Wilt remains the only non-guard to ever lead the league in assists. Jordan finished in the top 10 in assists one time (#10 in 1989). Remembering that assists were awarded more generously in Jordan's era than in Wilt's, Jordan best season 8.0 is STILL less than Wilts (8.6).
Defense: This is actually the area that is a push. Both men are considered among the very best defensive players at his position. There really is no way of determining how each rate at their position. I believe Wilt is no better than #2 (Bill Russell is a clear-cut favorite), but after that, Wilt is in the same class with Nate Thurmond, Bill Walton, and Hakeem Olajuwon. Jordan, likewise, is in the top tier of his position, along with players such as Walt Frazier, K.C. Jones, Sidney Moncrief, and Joe Dumars.
Defensive player of the year was not created until 1980. It is safe to assume that Wilt would have won it in 1972 and possibly in 1973, but it's speculation, so it's really pointless. All-defensive teams were not created until 1969.
Final Analysis: Detractors try to attribute Wilt's dominance to height. This is absurd, because Kareem Abdul-Jabbar couldn’t equal these feats, despite being taller, and playing against Chamberlain for four seasons. If size mattered, then how come players like Shawn Bradley, Rik Smits, Ralph Sampson, Gheorghe Muresan, Mark Eaton, Yao Ming, or Dikembe Mutombo have never challenged these feats? Wilt had 3 inches on Russell. Ming enjoys almost 5" of height advantage over Shaq, but you don't see him scoring 60 or grabbing 55 rebounds against the Diesel. Furthermore, to use height as an excuse is to say that Jordan needs handicaps to look good. Why not spot him 2 strokes per hole if you golf with him? Furthermore, while they chalk up Chamberlain's rebounding dominance to his height advantage, they cannot explain why he led the league in assists, and Jordan could not.
In addition to re-writing the record books, Chamberlain re-wrote the rule book, as the league passed many rules to try to limit his dominance. Jordan, on the other hand, has been the beneficiary of rules passed to ENHANCE his scoring (hand checks, defined zones, 3-point shot, flagrant fouls).
Jordan-supporters know that Jordan’s feats cannot match up to Chamberlain's. That is why they always respond with lame excuses and a lot of "yeah buts." The fact is, Wilt Chamberlain was the most dominant player in history. Since you clicked here, your standard of comparing players is by overall dominance, so you can see that Jordan is not the best.
Thank you for playing.

Most Complete

Oscar Robertson Michael Jordan Years played 14 15 Number of times finished in the top 5 in scoring average 9 11 Number of times finished in the top 10 in rebounds 1 0 Number of times finished in the top 10 in assists 12 1 Number of times finished in the top 10 in free throw % 8 0 Number of times led the league in ppg 1 10 Number of times led the league in apg 7 0 Number of times led the league in ft% 2 0 Career Triple Doubles 181 30 Best season 30.8 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 11.4 apg
(1962) 32.5 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 8.0 apg
(1989) Oscar Robertson – Oscar Robertson was simply the most complete player in basketball history. In his first season as a pro, he averaged 30.5 ppg, 9.7 rpg, and 9.7 apg. (Jordan averaged 28.2, 6.5, and 5.9). Over the course of his first five seasons Robertson AVERAGED a triple-double. Triple-double games were not recorded when Robertson played. It was another day at the office for him. This perfectly illustrates the difference between Robertson and Jordan. The media made a big deal out of Jordan having the first (recorded) triple-double in All-Star history, just like they make a big deal out of Jason Kidd’s 7-or so triple-doubles he has each year. For Robertson, he didn’t need to have an extra assists to reach 10, to have that "triple-double," because it wasn’t a big deal. Back then, fans recognized greatness by one's play, and not because a guy has 10 assists, 10 rebounds, and 10 points. Furthermore, Robertson didn’t simply have triple-doubles of the Jason Kidd 10-10-10 variety. No, he had man-sized triple-doubles. His triple-doubles were on the order of 30-11-10. In 1962, he finished in the top 10 in rebounds, something Jordan never did, nor came close to doing. Robertson led the league in assists 5 out of his first 6 years, and finished in the top 10 11 out of his 13 years. The only times he missed was because injuries kept him from getting the minimum needed to qualify. Jordan never led the league in assists and only finished in the top 10 one time. In 1968, Oscar became the only player in history to lead the league in ppg, apg, and ft%.in the same season.
Defensively, when Robertson played, there was no defensive player of the year award, and the all-defensive team was introduced after he was out of his prime, but he had a reputation as a first-rate defender. There simply was no weakness to his game. He is far, far, more complete than Michael Jordan. The facts speak for themselves.

Inch-for-inch

To use the inch-for-inch comparison is to say, "I admit that Jordan is not the absolute best, and now I must devise a handicap system that works to his advantage." That alone is enough for me to say, "thank you for playing. You have just proven that Michael Jordan is not the best basketball player ever." But hey, why not prove that even THAT criteria is wrong. I mean, I could say that Bill Russell is better inch-for-inch. He has 13 rings and is 81 inches tall (or 6.2 inches per ring) and Jordan has 6 rings and is 78 inches tall (13 inches per ring). Or even use something really subjective, such as "Muggsy Bogues led the league in assist/turnover ration numerous times and is 15 inches shorter than Jordan). However, I think I will have even more fun disproving this silly criteria.

Oscar Robertson – Robertson was 2 inches shorter than Jordan, yet he did things Jordan can only dream of. During his college career, he so thoroughly dominated that he, unlike Jordan, is considered by every respectable source to be one of the five greatest college players in history.
In his first season as a pro, he averaged 30.5 ppg, 9.7 rpg, and 9.7 apg. (Jordan averaged 28.2, 6.5, and 5.9). Over the course of his first five seasons Robertson AVERAGED a triple-double. Triple-double games were not recorded when Robertson played. It was another day at the office for him. This perfectly illustrates the difference between Robertson and Jordan. The media made a big deal out of Jordan having the first (recorded) triple-double in All-Star history, just like they make a big deal out of Jason Kidd’s 7-or so triple-doubles he has each year. For Robertson, he didn’t need to have an extra assists to reach 10, to have that "triple-double," because it wasn’t a big deal. Back then, fans recognized greatness by one's play, and not because a guy has 10 assists, 10 rebounds, and 10 points. Furthermore, Robertson didn’t simply have triple-doubles of the Jason Kidd 10-10-10 variety. No, he had man-sized triple-doubles. His triple-doubles were on the order of 30-11-10. In 1962, he finished in the top 10 in rebounds, something Jordan never did, nor came close to doing. Robertson led the league in assists 5 out of his first 6 years, and finished in the top 10 11 out of his 13 years. The only times he missed was because injuries kept him from getting the minimum needed to qualify. Jordan never led the league in assists and only finished in the top 10 one time. In 1968, Oscar became the only player in history to lead the league in ppg, apg, and ft%.in the same season.
Jordan did not make those around him better. (click here to read why) Robertson did. Wayne Embry was an undersized (6’8" - nearly 300 pound) center (Think Oliver Miller body). Yet, in 6 seasons playing with Robertson, he was an all-star 5 times. He never made it before playing with Robertson and he never made it after playing with him. Adrian Smith was a spot-up shooter, similar to John Paxson and Steve Kerr. Yet, playing alongside Robertson not only got him an all-star appearance, but all-star MVP, thanks to Robertson setting out to get it for Smith. Robertson won 11 out of 12 all-star games, and to put it in context, the All-Star game was more than a goof-around exhibition. Players salaries were much lower (most players had summer jobs), and the money handed out to the winning all-star team was significant.
Robertson’s teams were often overmatched, losing often to Russell’s Celtics or Chamberlain’s teams, similar to Jordan losing to Larry Bird's Celtics and 3 out of 4 times to Isiah Thomas' Pistons. However, when Oscar went to Milwaukee, he turned a good team into one of the all-time great teams. During his 4 years there, they had the best record in the division 3 times (and in the other season, they won 63 games to LA’s record-setting 69), and made 2 trips to the NBA Finals, winning once. Not surprisingly, when he retired, the Bucks went from the NBA finals, to a losing record (from 59-23 to 38-44), and no playoff appearance. When Jordan retired in 1994, the Bulls went from 57-25 to 55-27 - a 2 game slip.
Summary

Oscar Robertson Michael Jordan Years played 14 15 Number of times finished in the top 5 in scoring average 9 11 Number of times finished in the top 10 in rebounds 1 0 Number of times finished in the top 10 in assists 12 1 Number of times finished in the top 10 in free throw % 8 0 Number of times led the league in ppg 1 10 Number of times led the league in apg 7 0 Number of times led the league in ft% 2 0 Career Triple Doubles 181 30 Best season 30.8 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 11.4 apg
(1962) 32.5 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 8.0 apg
(1989)
Oscar Robertson was 2 inches shorter than Jordan, yet was a more complete player. He was also more valuable to his team, as you saw how each team did without Robertson and and Jordan, respectively.
This is a weak criteria for judging greatness (seriously, is Iverson better than Jordan? He's 6 inches shorter!), however, this is your criteria (you clicked on this, so this must be your criteria), and using this criteria, I proved that Oscar Robertson is better than Michael Jordan.

Who is better than Jordan?

All of the above

This reason is pure bull, plain and simple. It is a desperate plea from a Jordan worshipper who realizes his goose is cooked. Here is why.

Let's compare Wilt Chamberlain to Jordan, for instance. Wilt has 56 NBA single-season records to Jordan's 4. Wilt nearly QUADRUPLED the number of 50 point games Jordan had in his career. Wilt led the league in assists, fg%, minutes and rebounds 29 times to Jordan's Zero. He owns 6 of the 9 70+ point games in history - Jordan has zero. He topped Jordan's best scoring season three times and Wilt's best scoring season is 13 ppg higher than Jordan's. Imagine Jordan leading the league in scoring at 33 ppg and the runner up having 20 ppg. Simply put, Wilt was in a class ahead of Jordan.

A Jordan fan will respond with, "Yeah, but Wilt only has 2 rings to Jordan's 6". Fine. That means stats mean very little and the much stronger emphasis is on championships. When one man so strongly overwhelms another in the area of statistical accomplishments, to say he is not better means stats are irrelevant. We are not talking about Kobe Bryant vs. Tracy McGrady or Charles Barkley vs. Karl Malone - guys with similar numbers. We are talking about a mismatch that rivals Shaq versus Greg Kite.

Therefore, to say Jordan is better is Wilt means stats and scoring are irrelevant. Since championships are the overwhelming factor, then we have to look at the man who prevented Wilt from winning more championships - Bill Russell. He has 11 championships to Jordan's 6. He has nearly TWICE the number of championships. Therefore, Bill Russell simply has to be better than Jordan. Let me repeat that - as impressive as Jordan's six les are, it simply pales in comparison to Russell. To win 6 championships, it took Michael Jordan 14 years and Bill Russell only 7 years. Jordan played 15 seasons to Russell's 13, yet Russell has FIVE more championships than Jordan. Jordan and Magic Johnson COMBINED have as many rings as Bill Russell. Jordan and Magic defined "winning" for an entire generation! Yet, it takes both of them together to match the dominance of Bill Russell!

A Jordan fan cannot say that Jordan was a better individual player than Russell. After all, Russell AVERAGED over 22 rebounds per game. He is acknowledged by most to be the greatest defensive player in the history of the game, and to go along with that, he finished in the top 10 in the league in assists FOUR times (Jordan only did this once). He added 15 ppg to go along with this superior passing, rebounding, and defense.

The only recourse for a Jordan worshipper is to discount Russell's superior defense, rebounding, passing, and his overwhelming dominance in championships -- discount all of it -- and say "Jordan scored more points". However, as I showed above, points are irrelevant. Wilt Chamberlain dominated Jordan in points, and most other categories, but this was all discounted because of championships. You simply cannot say that Jordan's extra scoring somehow makes up for a 5 ring deficit after you just discounted Wilt's OVERWHELMING dominance of Jordan in scoring on account of a 4 ring deficit. And face it: it has to come down to points and rings because Jordan's passing and rebounding are simply unimpressive and his defense - while exceptional - is not on a plane higher than Chamberlain and Russell.

Therefore, there is no way that Michael Jordan can be the greatest player in history.

[lefty]

How I rank them

I get asked frequently how I rank the all-time players. It is really irrelevant to this page, but to save myself plenty of e-mails in the future, here it is:

CRITERIA - I ask Jordan fans to give me the criteria for how they compare any two players. By doing so, you see that somebody is better than Jordan. With that in mind, here is how I judge players.

It requires speculation, but speculation based on presented facts. Championships are not the determining factor. If Rochester drafts Bill Russell, he doesn't win 11 championships. If the Bulls trade Scottie Pippen for Shawn Kemp and Ricky Pierce in 1995, Michael Jordan doesn't win 3 championships. Championships require front office genius, coaching smarts, luck with injuries, and a break or two.

My criteria is based on how complete a player is at his position and how he can blend his talents in with teammates. For instance, I look for a center who can play high post and low post. Can dominate on both ends of the floor and the kind of player you can run an offense through. I expect a guard to be able to play either point or shooting guard role. If you drew 11 random names out of a hat and chose a random coach, how good is the player in question able to work with this team? That is my criteria. Like I said, it requires speculation, but it also requires knowledge - something Jordan fanatics lack.

With that in mind, here I pick the 7 elite players in basketball in history. At this point, I am waiting to determine if Shaq is worthy of this group. Jerry West is on the next tier, so no, I did not forget him:

#1) Wilt Chamberlain

Strengths: He could dominate in any center role. He could be the focus of the offense, as he proved in his first 7 years. He could be a high post center that you could run your offense through, as he proved in 1967-68, and he could be the defensive dominator (the "Bill Russell" role) as he proved in 1972-73. He could score like no one in history. He could outmuscle and out jump any center in history. He is one of the two most athletic centers to play the game (Russell being the other). He was the greatest rebounder in history. He is on the short list of best defensive center, and when his role was to focus on that, he arguable did it better than anybody (Russell once said Wilt played his role better than he ever could). He finished in the top 10 in assists 3 times.

Weaknesses: He was a horrific free throw shooter (although he shot much better in clutch situations). He lacked an unhealthy compe ive streak that Jordan and Russell possessed, and he was too sensitive to criticism, not dunking more because he wanted to prove he just wasn't a tall freak.

Analysis: Wilt played for 7 coaches. He can play in a variety of roles with teammates. He showed he can blend his game and he always elevated his team to a new level. No man can win by himself, but sometimes, Wilt came as close as any man of disproving this. Read my criteria. If you put Wilt with 11 random players, they are going to do very well because he can blend in with a variety of teams.

#2) Oscar Robertson

Strengths: The most fundamentally sound player to every play the game. He did everything well. He scored, he rebounded (the only guard to finish in the top 10 in rebounds). He passed (led the league in assists 8 times). From 1962-66, he averaged 30 points, 10 reb, and 10 assts. In 1968, he became the only player in history to lead the league in scoring average, assists per game, and free throw percentage in the same season. He had no weakness and he thoroughly controlled the game. His size (6'5", 220 lbs) is huge in any era. When he joined the Royals, he improved them 14 games. When he joined Milwaukee, he improved them 10 games (from 56 to 66 wins). He possessed supreme leadership on and off the court, where he served as the president of the players union for over 10 years.

Weaknesses: He had a reputation for getting on teammates when they messed up on fundamentals (such as executing a pick and roll). Some will blame him for not winning more championships, but that was due to poor front office not putting players around him and playing in the era of the Celtics dynasty. He did play on 4 teams with losing records, and had some injury problems later in his career, which resulted in team losses, and could be attributed to his playing extended minutes.

Analysis: The reason Big O is #2 is that O does all things well, but Wilt dominates in so many fields at a level that nobody can approach, and Wilt could take a bad team farther into the playoffs.

#3) Larry Bird

Strengths: Excellent jump shot. Fundamentally sound player. Automatic at the free throw line. The greatest clutch player since Jerry West. Very good team defender (meaning he could play a zone and hide it). His first year, he improved the Celtics 32 games in the win-loss. When he missed 76 games in the 1989 season, Boston replaced him with Reggie Lewis (who was 2nd in most improved player voting), yet the Celtics slipped from 57 wins to 40, despite having Lewis, Kevin McHale, and Robert Parish on the roster.

Weaknesses: His lack of athleticism only affected one area: he wasn't a great on-the-ball defender. His hustle shortened his career and made him injury prone, but you don't condemn a player for diving for balls and sacrificing his body for the team.

Analysis: If you doubt his ability to improve a random group of players, look at what he did in college - he took a team of no-names to a near perfect season. His first year in the NBA, without McHale and Parish, he turned the Celtics from a 29-win joke to the best record in basketball. When he missed 1989, they fell apart without him. Oscar Robertson is ahead of him because he was more versatile and played better defense.

#4) Magic Johnson

Strengths: Unmatched size in a guard. He could see over a defense and post up a guard, creating a match-up nightmare. Probably the best, if not most exciting, point guard on the fast break. He can play a variety of roles. He was a supporting player to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar when he joined the team, and later became the focal point of the offense. He could play fast break and he could play slow-down, as he proved in 1991. He played every position as a rookie in the deciding game 6 of the finals and put up a game for the ages, winning the le without Jabbar.

Weaknesses: He never was the shooter and scorer that Bird was. He developed a respectable shot from the perimeter, but never the deadly jumper of Bird. His poor decisions off the court shortened his career, which ultimately hurt his team. He was a good, but not dominating defensive player.

Analysis: Bird and Magic is a comparison that will be debated forever. It is extremely hard to pick between the two. In the end, I go with Bird because of these reasons: Magic could play more positions, but Bird had the more well-rounded game. Each won championships with talented supporting teams, but Bird turned a bad Boston team around immediately. Magic joined a 47 win Lakers team and improved them 13 wins, which wasn't as drastic as Bird's 32 game improvement. Then, there was the feud with Paul Westhead in 1982 and the "Tragic Magic" choke in the 1984 finals. It's one thing to miss a shot, but he pulled a world-class choke in those finals. He made up for it with clutch performances, but comparing Bird and Magic is splitting hairs, and that was a big choke that gave Bird the le, that should have been Magic's.

#5) Michael Jordan

Strengths: Dominating scorer. No one was better at creating his own shot. He could attack the basket, pull up for the mid-range jump shot, or post up with a fade away. Legendary clutch plays in the age of prime time televised game were etched in cement. Before his 1993 retirement, he was probably the best defensive guard at roaming the passing lanes and one of the two best on-the-ball defenders at the guard position (I prefer Joe Dumars, but Jordan is at his level). He drew lots of defensive attention and had the ability to hit the open man. He had a rare, if unhealthy, compe ive streak, and he dominated 4th quarters line no one.

Weaknesses: He couldn't play with drive-and-dish point guards, which are on about 95% of the teams. He was too turnover-prone and selfish to play the point guard (according to two of his coaches). He couldn't turn the Bulls and Wizards around like others on this list turned their teams around. When he retired, his impact was less than than the others on this list. Even in college, his team only met their expectations when he played a supporting role. He was extremely selfish - fighting with coaches about his scoring role and teammates who believed his points were more important to him than les. He never proved his teams could be a big winner without the triangle offense, showing a limited ability to blend his game with different players and systems. If he plays on a team full of scorers, and he HAS to be leading scorer, how is that going to help his team win?

#6) Bill Russell

Strengths: Nobody won more than Russell. Winning requires a lot of favorable factors (as I showed at the top), but face it. When Russell was in college, they won 2 championships and 55 straight games, and he didn't play on a powerful team. His first year with the Celtics, they win the le. He won 11 les in 13 years. The two years he didn't win, they were in the finals (where he got injured) and the conference finals. When he retired, his team failed to make the playoffs. The man had impact! Other strengths: possibly the most athletic center to player the game. Very quick leaper. Excellent timing. Great speed. Not many centers, if any, could run the floor on the break, like Russell. He is regarded by everybody as the greatest defender in history. His timing and leaping made him the greatest shot blocker. Only he mastered the skill of blocking shots to teammates, creating 4 point swings for his team. He finished in the top 10 in assists four times, and finished #2 in career rebounds.

Weakness: Lacked much in the way of offensive moves. He did average almost 19 per game one season, but he still had a raw game. He was fortunate to play on teams that had great scorers. If not, would he be like a better version of Dikembe Mutombo, who didn't win any les and rarely made noise in the playoffs? He was also a bit small for a center (about 6'10", 220). No doubt he could beef up in todays game, and if Alonzo Morning can be a 6'10" center, then Russell could also, but would he be able to dominate against bigger men? I don't doubt he would excel in any era, but 11 championships and 5 MVPs? I doubt it. Remember my criteria. If he plays on a strong defensive team with little offense (such as Patrick Ewing's Knicks teams in the mid-90s), I don't think they will do that well because Russell couldn't pour in the points, like Ewing did. He needed help on offense.

#7) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Strengths: The greatest and most unstoppable move in history. Can you think of a big man who you'd rather throw it to at the end of the game when your team is down one point? He also had longevity. At 38 years old, he was the best center in the league and won the finals MVP. As a young player, he looked like the 2nd coming of Wilt Chamberlain. Very good defensive player. He could pass out of the double team and shot free throws better than Russell and Wilt (but don't confuse him with Bird).

Weaknesses: Kareem had to have a dominating point guard in order to succeed. In Milwaukee, he had Oscar Robertson. when Robertson retired, they went from the NBA finals to a losing record. The next year, Jabbar went to L.A, where he posted another losing record, playing with hall of fame guard Gail Goodrich. His Lakers underachieved, even though he played with Norm Nixon, until Magic Johnson joined the team and made them great. Jabbar was a major player on those teams, but without Magic, they aren't a contender. That is the biggest reason he is #7. If you draw names from a hat, what are the chances of getting Oscar or Magic? Anything less and Kareem's team will struggle. Furthermore, he was an underachieving rebounder when compared to guys like Wilt, Russell, Hakeem Olajuwon, and Nate Thurmond. Wilt led the league in rebounding at the age of 36. Kareem wasn't even the best on his own team at that age, averaging less than 8 per game.

There you have it. That's how I rank them. I am very consistent with my criteria. Each man has been analyzed and placed. That is irrelevant to this webpage, though. The point is to prove Jordan is not the best. This does not make me a Jordan-hater. I list him as the 5th greatest player in history. So before you send hateful e-mail and tell me that I should respect other opinions, remember - you are writing me. I'm not writing you. If you put Wilt #5, I don't care. Any one of these guys have a good argument for being the best. All I ask is that you tell your criteria for ranking players, and if you are consistent with your method, you will see that somebody probably beats Jordan with your measuring stick.

[lefty]

Oh yeah, the source, by the way

http://airjudden2.tripod.com/jordan/

[redzero]

Thank you copying the entire website. I guess simply linking to it would not be enough.

[lefty]

Thank you copying the entire website. I guess simply linking to it would not be enough.

The reason I didnt link the website is because the page is not well done

[pass1st]

Lol Wilt as the GOAT.

[lefty]

Lol Wilt as the GOAT.

He ed 20000 women

[pass1st]

Wonder how many bas kids he has

[mavs>spurs]

usually whenever you have to give a disclaimer multiple times that you're not butthurt or that you're definitely not a hater, you pretty much are.

[lefty]

usually whenever you have to give a disclaimer multiple times that you're not butthurt or that you're definitely not a hater, you pretty much are.

Not necessarily

There are so many MJ suckers outthere that any article criticizing Jordan is blasphemy to them, that'S why the author gave a disclaimer

[mavs>spurs]

it looked like haterism to me

[Giuseppe]

As much as I want Kobe to scale Mt. Jordan, I'm big enough to blanch at the thought of Pippen's father never squirting his ass out.

[lefty]

it looked like haterism to me

Haterism or not, he does have some interesting points

[mavsfan1000]

Jordan is the greatest. Simple as that. Haters will always hate though.

[lefty]

Jordan is the greatest 1 on 1 player ever

As for team impact

[mavs>spurs]

hard to argue with back to back 3 peats and what could have easily been an 8 peat if he didn't get bored and play baseball. dude came back after a 2 year absence and just continued kicking ass like it wasn't nothing.

[slick'81]

lol@finding another better then mike

[Trill Clinton]

whoever wrote all that is a lame.

[Red Hawk #21]

There are a lot of good points made but it's just way to long to read...

[Stalin]

descent troll job by the author

but there is a serious flaw, as there usually is

no one claims jordan was the best at every aspect of the game, he was the best finisher, he could deal with tremendous pressure and still gut out a win, 6 for 6 in the finals, with 6 finals mvps speaks for itself, with the game on the line who would you give the ball to instead of jordan? kareem? oscar? lol kobe? lol wilt? LOL russel(lol getting championships against 6' honkies, lol rich mans ben wallace)

yes you need a good team to win a championship, gee really? pippen might have had a good regular season in jordans absence, and made wcf, but he still predictably failed in the end, there is a fine line between victory and defeat, thats why most people crown jordan as the best ever because no one has that most imprtant intangible (balls of steel in the clutch), to the extent that he had, on top of all his other skills

[lefty]

hard to argue with back to back 3 peats and what could have easily been an 8 peat if he didn't get bored and play baseball. dude came back after a 2 year absence and just continued kicking ass like it wasn't nothing.

I'm pretty sure the Rockets would have kicked the Bulls' asses in 94 et 95

Heck, they would have beaten the Bulls in 93 if it wasnt for a very suspect call at the end of game 7 vs Seattle

[Giuseppe]

hard to argue with back to back 3 peats and what could have easily been an 8 peat if he didn't get bored and play baseball. dude came back after a 2 year absence and just continued kicking ass like it wasn't nothing.

MJ quit.

And he came back a little afore the 2 year absence you speak about. Daddy & Penny caught MJ tiptoein' thru the tulips & broke his ass.

[Giuseppe]

descent troll job by the author

but there is a serious flaw, as there usually is

no one claims jordan was the best at every aspect of the game, he was the best finisher, he could deal with tremendous pressure and still gut out a win, 6 for 6 in the finals, with 6 finals mvps speaks for itself, with the game on the line who would you give the ball to instead of jordan? kareem? oscar? lol kobe? lol wilt? LOL russel(lol getting championships against 6' honkies, lol rich mans ben wallace)

yes you need a good team to win a championship, gee really? pippen might have had a good regular season in jordans absence, and made wcf, but he still predictably failed in the end, there is a fine line between victory and defeat, thats why most people crown jordan as the best ever because no one has that most imprtant intangible (balls of steel in the clutch), to the extent that he had, on top of all his other skills

Though MJ did flail about for 7 longs years till Pippen got him straightened out.

[Stalin]

Though MJ did flail about for 7 longs years till Pippen got him straightened out.

serious question:

have you changed your diaper today?