Reply With Quote
zero
Anyone know?
zero
1975-1976
Says "Michael Jordan"38-44 in 84-85 and 40-42 in 86-87. Lucky that the overall Eastern Conference was weak enough for losing teams teams to get a playoff spot.
To answer the question- Kareem(2x), Wilt, Kobe, and Hakeem
KEYWORD all time great, kobe isnt a GOAT so how does he fit into this thread?Says "Michael Jordan"
To answer the question- Kareem(2x), Wilt, Kobe, and Hakeem
if we talkin about scrubs missing the playoffs then he fits that bill
keywords being "PRIME" and "ALL TIME GREAT"Says "Michael Jordan"
To answer the question- Kareem(2x), Wilt, Kobe, and Hakeem
Player of the decade isnt an alltime great now?
86-87 Jordan who averaged 37 ppg is not in his prime now?
Jordan wasn't in his prime until 1991. That year, he averaged 31.1 ppg 6.4 reb 8.4 ast 2.4 stls 1.4 blks and shot 52% from the field and 38% from 3 for the entire playoffs. He had his highest career playoffs PER with 32.0 and he had a TS% of 60 + he had his career high in WS/48 with .333(who else has done this, except for 09 Lebron?)
Check his playoff numbers from as early as '86. Lol at a players peak ppg season not being part of his prime. Still remains the highest ppg season since Wilt, only player who came close was 06 Kobe, even then he was still more than a point ppg average behind.
Being a Kirby fan I didn't expect you to look at anything but PPG. MJ was at his best in the early 90s, when he was the most complete player we've ever seen. He didn't have the 3pt shot in the 80s and his shooting form wasn't as solid. He was at his best when Phil came along and introduced the triangle. That was the key to their success. The whole system was built on MJ's skillset.
The 80s Bulls teams weren't exactly contenders, it was MJ surrounded by role players, good enough to be a 2nd round exit. MJ had to do more in order for his team to win games. When Phil came along and the team improved with age(especially with the development of Scottie) the Bulls got a lot better, and so did MJ. Give me another guard that has averaged 31.5 ppg on 53,9% shooting(Kirby's best was 46,9%
Willing your team to championships at a high efficiency is what I consider prime. MJ dominated the playoffs from 90-93.
31.2 pts 6.6 reb 11.4 ast 55,8% FG 50% 3PT 2.8 stl 1.4 blk in the 91 Finals was the best MJ ever was, with 93 being pretty close, when he averaged 41 ppg 8.5 reb on 50% shooting in the Finals.
I'd also argue that prime Kirby was 01-03. He had his most efficient statistical years and he was at his best on the defensive end. Inflated raw offensive numbers don't indicate prime, they indicate that a player had a team and had the green light to jack 25+ shots a game...While winning barely 50% of the games.
Not sure if you can consider him a top 10 player all time or even an all-time great. If a player is believed to be an all-time great by most and he wasn't able to carry his team to the playoffs, then I think that that player must automatically be dropped off from any all-time great conversation. Heck, to even compared him to the best player ever is just plain absurd, an insult if you may ask me.
^Goat
The "You Know Who" = Lil Bow Wow
There was a player of the decade? Who was it, who chose it?
The 86-87 Bulls missed the playoffs?
Well, there are exceptions though, like what Kareem went through with that stupid playoff format, where he led teams that finished in top 4 or 5 in the conference, but was dropped off because of divisions. I mean, the Lakers had a better record than every single team in the midwest division, but was dropped out because they finished 4th in the pacific division. That's entirely different than missing the playoffs as an 11th seed, finishing a full 11 games behind the 8th seed of the same conference, or 8 games behind the 8th seed of the other conference.
The premise of this thread is fatally flawed when exceptions have to be dawn on the fly.
I agree, can't have exceptions running rampant. My standpoint is more to defend one of the greatest player of all time, and most definitely the greatest Laker of all time, KAJ. Sure he missed two playoffs in his prime, but that was strictly due to some wacky division crap rather than not finishing with a respectable record.
To say he is the greatest Laker of all time is to take away from Magic Johnson. He was the greatest Forward while Magic was the greatest Guard. Without one, the other becomes weaker and Shaq transcends them as a result. They were both the greatest Lakers as their contributions were as equivalent as possible.
I saw forward in the sense of back court and front court, I realize his position is center.
If a player is in their prime and misses the POs, then...sadly...he is not an all time great.
While I see you want to take a knock at Kobe Bryant, Kareem had missed the playoffs during what many consider his prime.
Magic was great, but I would place KAJ just a notch higher. And shaq doesn't transcend neither. Shaq is at a notch lower still, despite his more dominant prime.
Who was the best center that went up against Shaq during their 3-peat years?
This is hindsight, if there was no Magic Johnson, Kareem would not be seen in the same way. Without Kareem, Magic would be mentioned in the same breath as John Stockton.
I agree to a degree, but I have always said that players should be evaluated individually with no team accomplishments factored in. It's difficult to do, but there are obvious cases that could be eliminated. Kareem, just based on the numbers he put up, his dominance on offense, and his diverse skill set would have been at the top of the list regardless, Magic would be the same.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
