Hakeem Olajuwon should have won 3 MVP awards in a row!

Michael Jordan.

[/thread]

 

no, not really. not at all.

1994-95
in the year David Robinson won, Michael Jordan only played 17 games and his team didn't even reach the Eastern Conference Finals. they were eliminated by the Orlando Magic.

1993-94
He played zero games.

1992-93 Charles Barkley won the award.

Michael Jordan had nothing to do with anything.

[/99]

 

Quite possibly the most IGNORANT thing I have read this morning


and I browse clutchfans quite regularly

 

My thoughts exactly. Pretty annoying to see posts like that. I hate when people do not know what they are talking about and just post for the sake of posting. Get your facts straight then post, this is a reacurring theme with posters here not just IMF

 

Nostraclutchness wrote in the year 1999

"beware-eth the fake fan, for he is the anti-clutch"

 

Hakeem Olajuwon's sole MVP award and 2 titles alone make the case for why judging greatness by a litmus test of accolades + team success is utter stupidity.

 

Ring-counting is another near meaningless way of measuring GOAT.

 

I bet Lebron can win 3 MVP in a row without ever winning a championship. I think Hakeem was always underrated.

 

I agree its not everything, but basketball is measured upon success... and winning titles is a part of it to be considered GOAT type of player. That also measures leadership

GOAT-type players:
Jordan, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, West, Magic, Bird, Olajuwon, Shaq, Duncan, Oscar Robertson, Kobe, Baylor, Havlicek, Baylor, Moses Malone, Julius Erving, Clyde Drexler, Isaiah Thomas, Joe Dumars.

These players are the ones that I consider Greatest of all time type of players...I know I maybe missing a few players from the 50's and 70's, but I don't know enough about basketball from that era to give an opinion on them, but my guesses would be Rick Barry, Walt Frazier, Earl the Pearl, Bob Lanier, Elvin Hayes, Sam Jones, Bob Pettit, and Willis Reed but those are just guesses off the top of my head.


The ones that just miss for me is Barkley, Karl Malone, Drob , Pippen, Ewing, Jason Kidd, and Dirk Nowitzki

The guys on the 1st list all won titles and won as 1st options or atleast made multiple trips to the Finals as a 1st option (Drexler, Baylor, and Erving)



So you have to acknowledge that there is something that seperates The GOAT's from Barkley, Malone, Ewing, Drob, Kidd, AI, and Pippen.

For some on the GOAT's, talent was abundant on their teams, such as Russel, Havlicek, Magic, Bird, Kareem, West, Baylor, Wilt, Shaq, Kobe...they rarely had a team without talent around them.

But Dream, Duncan, Jordan, Moses, Oscar, Julius, and Clyde were able to lead not so talented teams to overrachieve...if Lebron wins a title, he'll definetly join this category.

Malone, Barkley, and Ewing overrachieved with talent around them, simply by getting to the Finals...without talent, they couldn't get past the 2nd round and even then.

Malone and Kidd gets some slack since they led their teams to the Finals twice, but Barkley and Ewing only led their teams once. Pippen gets some slack as well, since he was an intregal part of 6 title teams, but he unfortunately, he could never lead them there.


Then there are guys who get lucky and get a ring because all the pieces fall into place...Paul Pierce and Dwayne Wade type of players. They did not do much in the previous post seasons before their title seasons, but when they got 2 other future HOF's with him, the team took off and they won. Thats why he's a tier lower than the 2nd list.

Allen Iverson fits this as well in 2001...didn't do much as far as success before or after 2001...basically a fluke in my opinion. Getting to the Finals once is a fluke...getting there more than once= great leadership, IMO.

Then you have guys who were talented, but little to no playoff success...Tmac, Cwebb, George Gervin, Alex English, Carmello Anthony, Steve Nash, Mitch Richmond, Dominique Wilkins, etc. As of right now, Lebron, Dwade,


I think rings have to be the fine line between GOAT or 2nd tier, which still isn't bad at all. Also, if you look at the GOAT list, all of those players have gotten to the Finals multiple times as the leader of their team (except Kobe, but he couldn't help that Shaq was his teammate, similar to Pippen and Jordan, but Kobe's been greater for longer).

I would say Barkley and Malone are the closest to being in the GOAT, because of longevity, and they are both top 3 in their position all time. Malone is a little closer for having 1 more Finals appearance though.

Ewing is close as well, but not as close as Barkley and Malone...he barely cracks top 10 centers all time and was the 4th best center in his own era...plus he was horrible late in games similar to Malone.

Drob individually is much better than Ewing, but he was only able to perform that well for 7-8 years, where as Ewing had 10-12 years of great play, and Ewing led his team to a Finals, and Drob, despite not having to play Jordan in his conference, was only close to making the Finals once in those 7 years, and got embarrassed by a GOAT-type player in Olajuwon. Even with Jordan around, Ewing's teams always gave Jordan and his team a fight to make it to the Finals.

Thats why I rank Drob lower than Ewing. Robinson made Ewing and Malone look like Larry Bird in the clutch when he was the main option in San Antonio.

Kidd is close in my book as well, but people will say that the East was a cake walk in the early 2000's, and it was, so the Finals appearances arent as impressive...but he didn't have much to work with either, so it can go either way.

Had Pippen been great for 10-12 years instead of 7-8, then I would put him in the GOAT list, but his back injuries prevented that. Similar to Kobe...couldn't help that he was on the same team with the best player in the game at the moment.

Dirk and Nash are both MVP winners, but both had A LOT of talent on their teams and still couldn't get to the Finals (Nash) or choke miserably when he got to the Finals (Dirk).

Conclusion:
IMO, you can get to the Finals once, and that was impressive, but it could've been a fluke...especailly if you didn't win (Barkley, AI, Dirk,).

if you have little playoff success before you win a title, and have little playoff success post title, then that is just right coach, right players and right timing (Dwade, Pierce)

But if you can lead your team to the Finals multiple times, and in one of those tries, actually win a title, then that shows that you are a great leader, no way is that a fluke or just perfect timing and perfect set of players.

The one player that contradicts this is Karl Malone, since he made 2 finals appearances and he lost to the same team, the Bulls dynasty led by Jordan and Pippen...so I have to give him some slack...he lost twice to one of the greatest team of the 90's.


But I still give more value to the multiple Finals trips WITH A RING, over multiple finals trips and no ring and especially over a single finals trip ring or no ring.

GOAT's always manage to get to the Finals more than once and win atleast 1 time (Drexler, Erving)

 

"Robert Horry status, here I come!"

 

Damn, lighten up... it was just a joke.

 

Brawl brought out the issue of race relations (black players and white fans). When you watched CNN and they showed the video footage all you saw were black players running into the stand throwing hay-makers and white fans.

Then towards the end of video you see the white fans throwing all types of items (food , drink, etc) as they run for their safety.

Its no coincidence the next 3 MVP's go to white players (undeserved IMO). The NBA had to appease their white fans ($$$) and calm things down. In addition, its not often that white players emerge to be MVP candidates.


Kobe's incident happened two years before and the affair was valid (no rape occurred though) . Plus the image of him "kicking Shaq out of LA". Kobe then wasn't a prime MVP candidate image wise.

 

well, everybody knew Artest was a headcase. same with Stephen jackson to a much lesser degree.

Steve Nash I feel earned his 1st MVP in 2005. Shaq had a big impact on Miami, but his #'s dropped off a lot from the previous season.

The only player I felt that had a chance against Nash was Tim Duncan, but he had an average year by his standards.

The next season, I feel Kobe's stats were too good, especially on offense. They gave Nash the award for the same reason Magic got it in 1990...they both lost their big man and the team "overrachieved". However, their systems were built to succeed with or without a big man scoring down low.

But the NBA admitted their mistake and gave Kobe his MVP in 2008 (even though CP3 had a better season and bigger impact)

As far as the race issue...I think you are completely off on that. Don't believe everything the media tells you...there's A LOT of BS out there.

I agree there hasn't been many white MVP winners, but its not because of race they didn't win...there were just some of the Greatest of all time type of players in the league when there were very good white players around.

Larry Bird won 3 straight MVP's from 1984-1986. Dave Cowens and Bill Walton each had one, and in the early days, Pettit and Cousy had 3 between them.

If Bill Russell and Wilt didn't win 8 MVP's between them, Jerry West would've had multiple rings...he only led the Lakers to the Finals 8 times. But Wilt changed the game and Russell was the NBA's greatest winner, the ultimate team player.

In the 80's, Bird had to compete with Kareem, Dr. J, Moses, Magic, and Jordan for MVP's, and still had the most that decade.

In the 90's, Jordan simply dominated and had 5 MVP's and should've had 6. When he wasn't there, Olajuwon, the 2nd best player of the 90's got one and the Admiral got one (both deserving).

Plus the best white player in the 90's was probably John Stockton, and he wasn't an MVP type of player...on his own team, he was the MVP, but not the NBA.

Mullin could score like an MVP, but he only had a couple of great MVP type seasons at best. Gugliotta was a good scorer, but not MVP material either...plus he was on mediocre teams. Mark Price peaked the same time Jordan did.

So in all honesty, the NBA didn't have any white players that were MVP candidates in the 90's. It just didn't happen for whatever reason.

The 2000's brought a lot of international talent, thanks to the Spurs and Mavericks who started it, and the Rockets with Yao.

But Steve Nash deserved his 1st MVP, small debate for Duncan or Shaq, but Nash had the better season and the better regular season team.

Also, Dirk Nowitzki isn't an "anglo-american"...he was born and brought up in Germany, so I don't know how that would please "white-AMERICA" if a German won...

besides he was the best player on a 67 win team that had a 2 winning streaks of 16 and 17 games, and went 67-11 after losing the 1st 4 games of the season.

Duncan had another average season, and the NBA figured out that Nash's stats and team won because of the system more than his actual play. Plus 2 playoff exits without reaching the Finals didn't help either...no way the NBA gives him 3 MVP's without him getting to the Finals atleast once.

I hate bringing the race card to things, especially in sports, because sometimes it is just very ignorant.

Also, Charles Barkley won an MVP, and he was always controversial,
Jordan won MVPs when he allegedly had gambling issues,
Magic came back after getting HIV and won the All star game MVP,
Hakeem was known as a hot head before 93, and won an MVP in 94,
Kareem won 6 MVPs even though he wasn't media friendly, same with Russell.

Russell and Chamberlain won 8 MVP's in the 60's, BEFORE equal rights over Jerry West.

So I don't think Kobe's rape accusation had anything to do with him not winning the MVP, since it was 2 years after the fact, and he was found innocent.

The NBA did get stricter on taunting, alcohol being served after a certain point in the game, and the dress code, but they didn't change how they picked their MVP's...they just happen to screw up every once in awhile in that department.

 

Your focus is too broad . Lets just focus Kobe issue and Nash.

Nash did not deserve any of his MVP awards. If had to get one it would be the 05 year and I am just being nice. The NBA gave him that award( keyword:gave).

To say the NBA did not have an issue with race after the brawl you've got to be kidding yourself. The NBA has the most contrast between fans and players. It really does not make sense to go into the dynamics of the issue.

 

Furthermore , the opionions people had of Artest and Stephen J. went all out the window after the Brawl. Grand scale of the event made the opened the news broadcasts!!! Normally during sports fights they save them for the sports section and rarely talk about them, only visuals. This made front page news. Players in stands knocking out fans!!! Players punching (and connecting) fans on the court.


What was the point of bring up HOF's and they're issues? Magic was fan voting anyway plus he was always a good guy. All of the above is petty and trivial for the most part. Esp compared to Kobe's public and emotional apology to his wife add to the fact that he went to trial for RAPE (white chick nonetheless)!! He faced serious jail time.

 

hey ubigred,

do you remember when Magic dropped the news? I do. it was a different time and era, you had to be there to understand the shock.

 

I agree, Nash only deserved the 1st MVP in 2005, but who was better than him in 2005?

His #'s weren't great, but he was the leader of the Suns, no doubt about that at all. Without him, Amare doesn't average 26 ppg, and Marion doesn't average 19 ppg with them winning 62 games.

The previous season Amare averaged 20 ppg on 47% shooting with Marbury, but with Nash he averaged 26 ppg on 56% shooting...this was before he had a jump shot. Marion also shot better with Nash, and Qrich had his only decent season with Nash.

Shaq averaged 22 ppg, 10 rpg, and 2 bpg, but he was just 2 years removed from 27 ppg, 11 rpg, and 3 bp. He had to be held at a higher standard...plus Dwade was the leader of the team.

Duncan had a 20 ppg, 11 rpg, and 2.5 bpg. His team also had a worse record by a few games, and he only played 66 games...no way he could be the MVP.

After that you have AI, who avereged 30 ppg, 8 apg, and 2.4 spg, but only shot 42 %...Nash shot 45% from 3's and his team won 19 more games.

I agree Kobe should've gotten the MVP in 2006, no doubt about it. I feel the NBA gave Nash this MVP, after he earned the MVP in 2005

 

Yea there was shock and it was seen as a death sentence at the time. So then came mercy.

Kobe had the shock plus he was already seen as a "min-villian" for being douche in and out of the locker room. Then he had to go to trial for rape not having too much sex, but for sexual assault. Whole different scenario buddy.

 

I would of gave it to Duncan but a case could be made for Shaq. You throw out alot of numbers , but you along with Nash forget that there are 2 sides to the court. You have to play defense. That is why Shaq and Duncan are multiple champions and steve nash doesn't even know what the finals looks like. I never feel that one -way players should be applauded over 2 way players . What is even worse that Nash and the Suns did not even respect the concept of Defense, didn't even try. He would just basically hope you would miss the shot and take off running .