1994 Bulls vs 2011 Bulls in 7 game series

[97Bulls]

But then what does that have to do with ANYTHING? As I said before, its fact that Michael Jordan won 6 titles and each year he also won the scoring title. So what merit does an incorrect perception have?

It has merit in the debate cuz that was what people were saying about jordan BEFORE he won in 91.

 

[Kush77]

its not just a coincidence jordan is one of the few players to lead the league in scoring AND win a title..its a testament to how good of a player he is

btw lebron led the league in scoring in 2008 not kobe

Yeah, I was wrong on that. I changed it.

2007 and 2008.

I know. I'm not disagreeing with you. Jordan proved how great he was leading a team to a title while winning scoring titles.

I think the though was silly in the first place. But this was the thought in the 1980s. No one really thinks that now because Jordan proved it can be done.

 

[Rush]

From earlier in the thread, if this turns into a "you're an idiot" "no you're the idiot" I'm closing it.

That's all. Carry on.

 

[Kush77]

From earlier in the thread, if this turns into a "you're an idiot" "no you're the idiot" I'm closing it.

That's all. Carry on.

You're an idiot Rush for even wanting to close this thread :bow:

 

[Kush77]

I want this thread to go until the lockout ends.

 

[97Bulls]

Yeah, I was wrong on that. I changed it.

2007 and 2008.

I know. I'm not disagreeing with you. Jordan proved how great he was leading a team to a title while winning scoring titles.

I think the though was silly in the first place. But this was the thought in the 1980s. No one really thinks that now because Jordan proved it can be done.

I wouldn't say it was silly. Going back to the 60s, the greatest scorers never won or rarely.

60s
Wilt routinely got his ass handed to him by russel and the celtics. Even when he won with the sixers in 68, he didn't lead his team in scoring.

70s
Kareem was always getting put out. And ofeten loosing to teams worse than his own

80s
Jordan.

And he was a guard. That was another supposed strike against him. And he obviously dispelled all these stero types. But they were prevalent.

 

[Kush77]

The whole concept is stupid, though. Most great teams have a superstar player who is going to be at or near the top of the scoring list. Just because a guy like Kobe or Shaq wins a title but comes in #2 or #3 in league scoring doesn't make it ok to conclude "there is a negative correlation between having a top scorer and winning the title".

I remember when Emmitt Smith won a Super Bowl he became the first RB to lead the NFL in rushing yards and also win the Super Bowl in the same year. So, was that coincidence, or did it "prove" that having an awesome RB wasn't conducive to winning?

I agree. I'm not really disagreeing with anyone.

I was just pointing out that there was that silly idea, prior to 1991.

 

[Rush]

You're an idiot Rush for even wanting to close this thread :bow:

There were some reported posts for off-topic "you're the idiot" type posts earlier in the thread. It was several pages back.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

No it doesn't. It was construed as selfish. And winning had to be done through the team.

how does it not...

jordan led the league in scoring..many people think he's a ballhog,selfish,etc. brings on the perception that he cant win a title

he proves them wrong and does

winning is done through a team..but its not like jordan just sat there while his teammates won the championship for him..i mean HE WAS the league leading scoring on a playoff team

my point is jordan is a winner, despite leading the league in scoring many times, which is often a contrasting correlation to championships the nba.

jordan was not a dominique or even a george gervin without or before pippen(i mean that he was better not worse)

 

[Kush77]

There were some reported posts for off-topic "you're the idiot" type posts earlier in the thread. It was several pages back.

Oh yes, way back on page 74? Or was it in the 50s? ha ha ha

 

[97Bulls]

The whole concept is stupid, though. Most great teams have a superstar player who is going to be at or near the top of the scoring list. Just because a guy like Kobe or Shaq wins a title but comes in #2 or #3 in league scoring doesn't make it ok to conclude "there is a negative correlation between having a top scorer and winning the title".

I remember when Emmitt Smith won a Super Bowl he became the first RB to lead the NFL in rushing yards and also win the Super Bowl in the same year. So, was that coincidence, or did it "prove" that having an awesome RB wasn't conducive to winning?

How is it stupid? It never happend going back over 30 years. And a lot of the time. Those scorers were on some good teams.

 

[FirstTimer]

It has merit in the debate cuz that was what people were saying about jordan BEFORE he won in 91.

Based on what? Wilkins leading the league in scoring once and not winning it? George Gervin not winning it when he was on Spurs teams that weren't good enough to win it?

People saying that prior to 1991, even without the benefit are/were Special person.

What person actually thought Jordan scoring less with the players he had around him prior to Pippen, Grant. etc's emergence would make the Bulls a better team and give them a better chance to win a title?

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

FT is that you in your picture?

because if it is you look like john krasinki

 

[Kush77]

How is it stupid? It never happend going back over 30 years. And a lot of the time. Those scorers were on some good teams.

I do think the idea is stupid (that a scoring champ can't win a title).

It's just coincidence that it happened that way over the years. I don't think it makes the people with that viewpoint correct. Because Jordan proved them wrong 6 times. And Shaq did in 2000.

I agree with 97Bulls that the perception was there in the 80s. and I agree with Rory that the idea is stupid.

What other topic can we spin this thread off to?

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

bottom line is..even without pippen jordan was/is still siginificantly better than dominique or george gervin

and jordan is a winner

 

[FirstTimer]

60s
Wilt routinely got his ass handed to him by russel and the celtics. Even when he won with the sixers in 68, he didn't lead his team in scoring.

Because the Celtics were a better team. Do yourself a favor and look up what Wilt averaged against Russell. Russell didn't hand Wilt's ass to him. The Celtics had a better team.



---------------

We are talking about scoring titles sometimes being decided by narrow edges. We are really going to be meatheaded enough to think that because David Robinson won the scoring title by half a point over Shaq in 1994 that it was then somehow inherently more difficult for the Spurs as a team to win a title?

WUT!?!?

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

Is that you in your picture?

because if it is you look like Samuel L. Jackson




THIS CANNOT BE HAPPENING!!

yes...i will kill you

 

[Rush]

Then you are in a race with SunBiz1.

I'm selling info on Rory at 3 dollars per sentence.

 

[Kush77]

bottom line is..even without pippen jordan was/is still siginificantly better than dominique or george gervin

and jordan is a winner

Oh God yeah, I would hope winning defensive player of the year (while also winning the scoring title) in 1988 proved that.

 

[FirstTimer]

FT is that you in your picture?

because if it is you look like john krasinki

:wacko: