Scottie Pippen said Jordan can score 100 points in a game in today's NBA

The 1990-91 Denver Nuggets allowed more than 130 points per game (they also scored about 120 points per game, but whatever, not the point here). Just for fun, Jordan's games against that team:

11.24.1990 -- Bulls W, 151-145 -- 14-for-24, 0-for-0 3FGA, 10-for-10 FTA, 38 points, 7 rebounds, 12 assists, 3 steals
03.18.1991 -- Bulls W, 121-108 -- 11-for-19, 2-for-3 3FGA, 7-for-7 FTA, 31 points, 6 rebounds, 2 assists

Jordan averaged 31.5 points, 6.0 rebounds, 5.5 assists and 2.7 steals that season. He also shot 53.9 percent. So while all of his numbers (save steals) were above average against that Nuggets team with a porous defense, they were not markedly so.

Could Jordan in his prime average 40 today? Perhaps. Bryant proved how hard it is to come close to that when he reeled off that great stretch in 2006 and still didn't average even 36. Could Jordan score 100? He would have to be going for it from the opening tip, play all 48 and never stop.

 

One guy scored 100 in the history of the league. One.

Jordan wouldn't score 100 in today's or any day's NBA. That's laughable. And by the way, Jordan in the 80's didn't have the jumper of Jordan in the 90's, and Jordan in the 90's wasn't murder of the dribble and at the rim like Jordan in the 80's.

He scored what he scored. And to speculate is silly. 100 is one of those records that will never be broken. Nobody plays 48 minutes anymore, and the NBA is way to ego driven today for someone to allow their teammate the 50-65 shots over a 45 minute period that it would take to even come close to that.

Jordan score 100 in a game?

Whatever

 

Yeah. I like how you claim "common sense" while you live in a fantasy world where someone who first retired almost 18 years ago would somehow drop into another era and put up 100.

Last I checked, though, even at 22, Jordan was several inches shorter than Chamberlain.

Anyway, I see that someone before me has used actual numbers to dispel your idea. And now that you have tried to play the "common sense" card, I'll skip over your ideas from now on. Good try on your part to throw out a blanket defense for some silly conclusions, though.

 

For pumping up scoring totals, the 3-pointer is overrated. The highest average per game in a season is 9.71 by Phoenix in 2004, and that's for a whole team. The 3-point shot is a lower-percentage shot to boot, while Wilt's buckets were all high-percentage inside shots. Check the record book and Wilt's name is all over it for this reason.

 

Not true. Jordan could've easily done it if he'd played under the same circumstances under which Wilt did it in 1962, against those same comically porous, unsophisticated and unathletic 1962 defenses, with his teammates spending the entire second half focused on no other goal as Wilt's reportedly were in that farce of a game in Hershey for which no actual film footage exists.

and, fwiw, I believe Kobe could've also. And probably a few other modern era players. I used to hold much revererence for Wilt's 100 pt game and insane early 60s stats, until I actually watched extended footage of games from that era. Holy frickin lord was the game ever different back then. Holy frickin lord were athletes and defenses ever soft and primitive compared to today's variety. And it was SO goddamn much easier to pile up stats in that run n gun pop every five seconds style they played in 62 that, imo, it's silly to even compare stats compiled then vs. now as if both were playing the same game.

Not a chance in hell Wilt could re-produce his crazy stats from that era in the modern era. And I can't even begin to imagine what Jordan or Kobe could've done back then.

 

Umm, I never once said Jordan could put up 100 today. And, in fact, I don't believe he could. I merely said he'd score more under today's rules, but VERY unlikely ever anything close to 100 unless all conditions aligned absurdly perfectly for one extraordinary night.

I was merely pointing out the sheer batshit no-common-sense silliness of someone on a journalism board completely missing Pippen's point and apparently thinking he was talking about the overweight old man that is Jordan today.

 

I waded back through the silliness and found your earlier statement:

His high game was 63 69. Quite a bit more would be what, 90? (I changed this. As Stoney pointed out, the high game total was six points off.)

Rather than continue to respond to another of your inflammatory questions, I'll point out that other people have used actual numbers to make some points. You might be well-served to study those techniques and then to try to emulate them.

 

There you go again, dropping people into other eras. You probably should put a hold on your "common sense" platform while you do this.

 

Stoney,

I agree with you to a point. Of course the Jordan of HIS ERA would've been able to don a time machine and score 100 in the 50's or 60's.

But guess what? If Jordan had lived in THAT ERA, he would've been the athletic equivalent of every other dude in that era.

That's what makes this argument so silly. The athletes of even today are way more athletic than Jordan faced in the 90's. If Clyde Drexler had played now, he would MAYBE be Joe Johnson. Back then he was the second best shooting guard in the league.

Was Jordan more physically gifted and better athletically than LeBron?

Back then, Jordan was torching Gerald Wilkins and Craig Ehlo. Now, he would be facing Wade, and Kobe, and Johnson, and Ray Allen, and Ginobli, all of whom would've been superstars in the 90's.

He would've had to play much MORE defense, cause those guys were capable. Back then, Jordan had to deal with Dumars, who couldn't beat him off the dribble. Wade would go at his neck.

It's stupid, in my opinion, to think Jordan would've scored 100 in this era. He didn't even do it in his own era.

 

Wrong.

Jordan's high game was 69. Still waiting for you to post anything that is factually correct.

As for "what quite a bit more" would be, I don't know, that's an entirely subjective and unknowable determination for which I'm quite willing to admit that I'm ill-equipped to answer. And, once again, your daft little noggin seems unable to comprehend that I fell on the probably NOT side of the "whether Jordan could've scored 100 today" debate.

You got called out for saying something dumb without thinking it through. No big deal, happens to most of us at some point, better to admit it and move on than this nonsense.

 

1. I'm not one for grammar or spelling on a message board but it is Pippen not Pippin. There are quite a few posts with Pippin.

2. Jordan wouldn't be able to score 100 today. In his day he was an athletic freak and pretty much all alone in it. Some guys could run for a year or two with him. A young Barkley was able to. But the people capable of matching up with his speed, agility and size where pretty much non-existent back then. Today there are quite a few people who are just as athletically gifted. He is the reason for it. He created a generation of people who wanted to be him. The Kobe's, Lebron's, Wade's ... etc. wanted to be like Mike.

Jordan would still be dominant. He did after all average 21-6-5 at the age of 38 and 39 on a horrid Wizards team. He just wouldn't be able to hit 100. To hit 100 you have to be 8 inches taller and considerably stronger thus allowing you to lay it in over and over again which is exactly what Wilt did.