The Last Dance

[S.R.]

I mean they documentary went out of its way to make sure it had every mis step Pip made. The migrane, the trade requests, waiting to get surgery, sitting down for the last shot.
M.J didnt have to include all those moments but he did, he carefully crafted his story to shine a positive light on him im sure he could have done the same for pip.

I don't know, Pip is also just a different guy who was much more transparent and open in his interviews. Did he deny anything they showed on screen? He supported the whole storyline with his own Q&A. MJ, being MJ, still denies almost any personal weakness. Whatever, he's MJ.

These guys are who they are, as much in this documentary as they were on and off the court in the 90's.

But yeah, The Last Dance is definitely not a Bulls docu-series, it's an MJ docu-series. But isn't that also sort of the point? There were talented people involved in the Bulls dynasty but MJ's ego is absolutely right at the same time - none of it happens without him. None of it. Pippen, Jackson, Rodman, Grant, Kukoc, Krause were all eminently more replaceable than MJ. A dozen guys could fill their roles and MJ could win chips. But in the 90's, there was only one MJ.

[KeonClark]

so Horace and Pip are pissed. lol when you are pissing everybody off maybe it's time to look inward. But that's "GOAT tings" i guess

MJ is in the billionaires club. He couldn't care less

[planetmars]

lol. Sorry, PM. That cheap shot wasn't directed at you, brotha.

To your point ..... talent is relative. I mean, shouldn't the fact that there are "less talented Americans" today be irrefutable proof that the global talent pool and level of competition is higher today than anything Jordan faced back then? Fact is, there are more talented Americans than ever before, but even with all that talent, they can't achieve the same level of success as old school Americans. This would apply to Jordan too... but somehow doesn't? It's just a simple logic and math argument, that's backed up by the eye test and results.

But why is that a fact? Who said it is? Most of the guys coming into the NBA go to college for at most 1 year. Are they properly trained before they become professionals? How much time did they spend crafting their skills? Is the G-league a better training regiment than the NCAA. Does the NCAA now a days even care to teach guys how to play the right way?

What I'm saying is that the talent is about the same both at the high level and at the low level. There are stiffs in each generation. There are elite players in both. Baby Shaq was just as dominant as Giannis is now.

I am absolutely in agreement that the guys entering into the NBA now have way more advantages then the guys in Jordan's era. And that's the evolution of science, technology, diet, etc. But even then, I would take David Robinson over Joel Embiid. Or Charles Barkley over Anthony Davis. I just think MJ had it as hard as Lebron in terms of the guys he faced whether or not Lebron had to face more international talent.

[KeonClark]

But why is that a fact? Who said it is? Most of the guys coming into the NBA go to college for at most 1 year. Are they properly trained before they become professionals? How much time did they spend crafting their skills? Is the G-league a better training regiment than the NCAA. Does the NCAA now a days even care to teach guys how to play the right way?

What I'm saying is that the talent is about the same both at the high level and at the low level. There are stiffs in each generation. There are elite players in both. Baby Shaq was just as dominant as Giannis is now.

I am absolutely in agreement that the guys entering into the NBA now have way more advantages then the guys in Jordan's era. And that's the evolution of science, technology, diet, etc. But even then, I would take David Robinson over Joel Embiid. Or Charles Barkley over Anthony Davis. I just think MJ had it as hard as Lebron in terms of the guys he faced whether or not Lebron had to face more international talent.

So where is the arbitrary line in the sand for when talent depth "gets good"?

[Sonny]

Somehow Paul Pierce has gotten involved in this whole MJ/LeBron debate. I love this documentary so much.

[Apollo]

MJ is in the billionaires club. He couldn't care less

Maybe but if that were true why would he care about anything about the past?

[planetmars]

So where is the arbitrary line in the sand for when talent depth "gets good"?

It's tough.. but I think that line does exist. You would think with more nutrition, diet, knowledge, etc.. that we'd see better talent in the league from guys ranked 150-450. But we also see that they get hardly any schooling. Most are 1 and done's. A lot get drafted based on athletic ability and not basketball skills. It's hard to compare eras because of that.

And its looking like the NBA is going to go back to drafting out of high school again. So it just dilutes the game even more so.

Hopefully teams start mimicking Masai who likes to draft older kids (outside of Bruno). But until we start seeing more and more guys coming in that are actual able to play right away, then I'm not sure we'll see that line move much despite the advantages that a lot of the kids get.

[G__Deane]

Somehow Paul Pierce has gotten involved in this whole MJ/LeBron debate. I love this documentary so much.

Paul Pierce owns one of the most punchable faces in the history of basketball. That sneering twerp is one of the few just-can't-stand-players of the modern era

[Sonny]

My top 10:

MJ
LeBron
Bird
Magic
Duncan
Wilt
Russell
Kareem
Olajuwon
Kobe

So Duncan is the best big man in the history of the game? better than Shaq, Kareem, Wilt, Russell?

I love Duncan but......

[Apollo]

They cover some reasons why some guys didn't get as much screen time.

[Apollo]

So Duncan is the best big man in the history of the game? better than Shaq, Kareem, Wilt, Russell?

I love Duncan but......

No way TD in his prime is better than Shaq in his prime.

[The Great One]

So Duncan is the best big man in the history of the game? better than Shaq, Kareem, Wilt, Russell?

I love Duncan but......

Yes. Duncan is the greatest big man in the history of the game.

There are franchise players and then there are transformative players. Hakeem, Kobe, Shaq, Dirk etc..these are all franchise players. MJ, LeBron, Bird, Magic and Duncan are all transformative players. When you have one of those players then your team has a chance to be a dynasty. Bulls were a dynasty with Jordan, Bird Celtics, Magic Lakers, Duncan Spurs. LeBron was never a part of a dynasty team but he made the Finals 8 straight times. That will never happen again.

But back to Duncan, Spurs won 50+ games in all but one of Tim Duncan's 19 seasons. That one season was the 1999 lockout, they went 37-13 that year and won it all. EASILY the greatest big man in the history game.

[Sonny]

Bro Shaq was the most dominant big in the history of the game. He was a straight up beast with the Magic and Lakers. I agree with Apollo, prime Shaq > Duncan.

[The Great One]

Who won more championships? who won more MVP's? the answer is Tim Duncan. And Duncan never got to play with an all time, all time great player like Kobe or Wade. The best player that he's played with in SA was Ginobili. He had Robinson early in his career but Robinson was already washed up when Duncan arrived.

Shaq couldn't even win a championship in Orlando; Duncan on the other hand completely changed the Spurs franchise since he arrived. He's the complete definition of a transformative player.

[golden]

But why is that a fact? Who said it is? Most of the guys coming into the NBA go to college for at most 1 year. Are they properly trained before they become professionals? How much time did they spend crafting their skills? Is the G-league a better training regiment than the NCAA. Does the NCAA now a days even care to teach guys how to play the right way?

What I'm saying is that the talent is about the same both at the high level and at the low level. There are stiffs in each generation. There are elite players in both. Baby Shaq was just as dominant as Giannis is now.

I am absolutely in agreement that the guys entering into the NBA now have way more advantages then the guys in Jordan's era. And that's the evolution of science, technology, diet, etc. But even then, I would take David Robinson over Joel Embiid. Or Charles Barkley over Anthony Davis. I just think MJ had it as hard as Lebron in terms of the guys he faced whether or not Lebron had to face more international talent.

C'mon, man. Just look at the talent evolution of big men alone. They are exponentially more talented than they used to be - Americans and non-Americans. I remember getting excited about the potential of Pops Mensah Bonsu. People are conveniently starting to ignore facts.... for what? Just to put the legacy of Jordan completely out of reach by deliberately denigrating all Eras and players before and after him, while not holding MJ to the same standard? That's just turning a blind eye to facts.