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

[cobbler]

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a little read for ya...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...ba-player-ever

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

[Killakobe81]

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

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

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

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

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

[baseline bum]

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

[BigTex342006]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Killakobe81]

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

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

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

[Killakobe81]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[baseline bum]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[baseline bum]

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

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

[DMC]

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

[cobbler]

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

I disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[scanry]

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

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

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

[DMC]

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

[BigTex342006]

I disagree.


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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

[cobbler]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a great day.

[TE]

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

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

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

Here is a little read for ya...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...ba-player-ever

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

you're citing a ing bleacherreport article.

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

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

[cobbler]

you're citing a ing bleacherreport article.

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

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

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

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

Queue the obligatoy got references.

[TE]

queue the "i made a re ed homer take and you can't refute me properly"

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

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

It's bleacherreport. Shut the up.

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

Really? crofl

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

So I guess during the next 3 to 15 years Bird, Magic, Kareem, and god MJ himself etc are going to be from a talentless era. What a moron.

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

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

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

[cobbler]

queue the "i made a re ed homer take and you can't refute me properly"

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

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

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

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

It's bleacherreport. Shut the up.

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

Really? crofl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TE]

wow, keep em coming

[cobbler]

wow, keep em coming

BRILLIANT!!!

Yet another well composed and in depth counterpoint argument.

Impressive!

Have a good night.

[DMX7]

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

115-30 vs Los Angeles Clippers (lolz)

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

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

Clip Show

[Killakobe81]

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



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



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

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

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

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

[Killakobe81]

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

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

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

[BigTex342006]

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

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

[baseline bum]

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