Are the 1986 Celtics the most overrated team

[Niquesports]

This post isnt a knock of how Great a team they were but many times people post that the 86 Celtics are the Greatest Team of all time. I question if they are even the best Celtic team ever.There was a team in that same era that was much more sucessful than they were and dont get half the credit The Showtime Lakers. ITs hard for me to rank a team as a All TIme Great if they dont repeat thats the sign of a Great team. Now true maybe they might have had a Great year but All Time Great team they dont even make the Top 5 this is just more of the Larry Legend Hype Top 5 player of all time yes but by far the GOAT Hype Player

[magnax1]

The greatest all time teams to me would be
1-96 Bulls
2-72 Lakers
3-67 76ers
4-83 Sixers
5-86 celts
Though I don't think I've ever heard anybody say the 86 celtics are the best team ever...... thats pretty insane.
You said that the 80s lakers don't get as much credit as the 80's celts....... its basically the opposite.

[gotbacon23]

This post isnt a knock of how Great a team they were but many times people post that the 86 Celtics are the Greatest Team of all time. I question if they are even the best Celtic team ever.There was a team in that same era that was much more sucessful than they were and dont get half the credit The Showtime Lakers. ITs hard for me to rank a team as a All TIme Great if they dont repeat thats the sign of a Great team. Now true maybe they might have had a Great year but All Time Great team they dont even make the Top 5 this is just more of the Larry Legend Hype Top 5 player of all time yes but by far the GOAT Hype Player

well people are ranking a team as just being one individual season, so a repeat may be irrelevant. however, in 1987 they weren't the same team because bill walton was injured and kevin mchale played on a broken foot in the finals. that 86 team was one of the greatest ever, and had everyone been healthy in 87 they could have repeated

[1987_Lakers]

Lakers were more successful throughout the 80's, but If we are talking about a single season team, the '86 Celtics gotta be #1. This team had everything, Inside game, outside game, offense, defense, terrific on the boards, and probably the greatest ball movement in the history of the game, they had no weaknesses. Not to mention it featured 5 HOF players (I'm including DJ because he will get in soon) playing at a high level. I just don't see any team beating them in a 7 game series, the only team I see giving them some trouble in a 7 game series are the 1967 Sixers.

As for the most overrated team? I'll give it to the '96 Bulls. Most casual fans consider this the GOAT team because of their 72-10 record and MJ. People look at the Bulls dominance/stats when they are debating against another all-time great team instead of going by matchups. However I think most knowledgeable fans think the '86 Celtics were better than the '96 Bulls, I've even seen some die hard intelligent MJ / Bulls fans admit this. With that said I still think the '96 Bulls are a top 5 team of all time, but they are not #1.

[1987_Lakers]

The greatest all time teams to me would be
1-96 Bulls
2-69 Lakers
3-67 76ers
4-83 Sixers
5-86 celts
Though I don't think I've ever heard anybody say the 86 celtics are the best team ever...... thats pretty insane.
You said that the 80s lakers don't get as much credit as the 80's celts....... its basically the opposite.

Why the '69 Lakers at #2? They didn't even win the championship that year. BTW, many people consider the '86 Celtics at the best team ever....it's not pretty insane.

[Niquesports]

well people are ranking a team as just being one individual season, so a repeat may be irrelevant. however, in 1987 they weren't the same team because bill walton was injured and kevin mchale played on a broken foot in the finals. that 86 team was one of the greatest ever, and had everyone been healthy in 87 they could have repeated


They got killed by the 87 Lakers all season long Walton was a very good 6th man but not a difference maker Boston had no answer for Magic no answer for Worth and no answer for Kareem the 87 Lakers had a better backcourt just as good frount court and better bench than the 86 Celtics if we want to talk injuries well the Lakers would have 8 titles in that era

[Niquesports]

The greatest all time teams to me would be
1-96 Bulls
2-69 Lakers
3-67 76ers
4-83 Sixers
5-86 celts
Though I don't think I've ever heard anybody say the 86 celtics are the best team ever...... thats pretty insane.
You said that the 80s lakers don't get as much credit as the 80's celts....... its basically the opposite.


This is insane that you do not have one of Russ Celtics team listed or the 69 win 71-72 Lakers but looking at your list its just more hype for Larry Legend to put him over Magic on paper cause on the floor Magic destroys Larry

[1987_Lakers]

They got killed by the 87 Lakers all season long Walton was a very good 6th man but not a difference maker Boston had no answer for Magic no answer for Worth and no answer for Kareem the 87 Lakers had a better backcourt just as good frount court and better bench than the 86 Celtics if we want to talk injuries well the Lakers would have 8 titles in that era

Do you have any idea how banged up the Celtics were when they reached the '87 Finals? McHale had broken his navicular bone in his right foot. Robert Parish, Danny Ainge and Bird were nursing a catalogue of injuries as well. And Bill Walton (freak stationary bike accident), Scott Wedman (heel) and Jerry Sichting (persistent virus). Their whole roster was basically playing injured and they still managed to take the Lakers to 6 games.

[magnax1]

Why the '69 Lakers at #2? They didn't even win the championship that year. BTW, many people consider the '86 Celtics at the best team ever....it's not pretty insane.
:oldlol: oops. I ment 72 lakers... I was thinking 69 because they won 69 games. Anyway, there is a reason why there is only 1 team to ever win 70 games, because they were the greatest team ever and had the greatest guy to close out a game with ever.

[1987_Lakers]

As for the most overrated team? I'll give it to the '96 Bulls. Most casual fans consider this the GOAT team because of their 72-10 record and MJ. People look at the Bulls dominance/stats when they are debating against another all-time great team instead of going by matchups.




there is a reason why there is only 1 team to ever win 70 games, because they were the greatest team ever and had the greatest guy to close out a game with ever.

See what I mean.

[barkleynash]

If not for terrible luck with the passing of Len Bias at the conclusion of the 86 season, the celts would have been the team of the 80's. The lakers won titles in 87 and 88. My guess is the celts would have won both years and for sure one.

I know people hate, ifs, just thought I would mention this as it often goes overlooked and is one of the biggest question marks in league history. what could have been.
I just imagine this roster.

we don't have to trade Ainge. We keep the starting 5. dj, ainge, bird, mchale, parish, Add Bias, and still have reggie lewis. those would be the greatest 7 players ever assembled. totally interchangeable.

[chitownsfinest]

As a Bulls fan, not only do I think the 87 Lakers are better then the 86 Celtics, but I also think they are the greatest team EVER.

AC Green was more developed and Mycal Thomson was added giving them a dominant frontcourt that could match with the 86 Celtics. The lack of any frontcourt help for KAJ in 86 killed LA against Hou, but that problem was now solved by a better AC and Mycal Thompson. James Worthy was playing like a man possessed in the 87 playoffs and no one could stop getting to the baseline in 87. He has mastered a sick turnaround J that could rival MJ's turnaround J and shot an insane 59% in the playoffs. Magic developed a consistent jumper and post game in 87 that made him unaffordable. The only time the Celtics came close to stopping him in the 87 finals was when DJ shut him out for a half in game 6, but Magic took over in the second half. You also have Cooper coming off that bench as well and he could run the fast break when Magic was out. In game 2, he had like 7-8 assists in the second quarter with Magic on the bench.

That team was unstoppable on the fast break. Magic, Scott, and Worthy were all at their athletic peaks that season and could not be stopped rushing down the court. KAJ was still good at outlet passes. It would take an unreal transition D to stop them. For example, in the first two games of the Lakers-Celts series in 87, they had nearly 30 shots made in the fast break of Celtic makes. You had to get back to position quickly to stop them. Yes, the 87 Celtic team was banged up (even though I feel KC should have used Sam Vincent and Darren Daye more in that series), but does the 86 team being out there make a difference defensively? The 80s Celtics were never an athletic team and the 86 Celtics were no different. It would take an athletic team with a dominant full court press and transtion D to slow them down on the break. The only all time great team that had that was the 92 Bulls, who I feel could maybe beat the 87 Lakers in a series.

[purple32gold]

the word "overrated" is starting to become very overrated on these boards. why is it that everything and everyone is constantly being called overrated. not sure how a team who wins a NBA title can be overrated. baffles the mind.

[chitownsfinest]

Do you have any idea how banged up the Celtics were when they reached the '87 Finals? McHale had broken his navicular bone in his right foot. Robert Parish, Danny Ainge and Bird were nursing a catalogue of injuries as well. And Bill Walton (freak stationary bike accident), Scott Wedman (heel) and Jerry Sichting (persistent virus). Their whole roster was basically playing injured and they still managed to take the Lakers to 6 games.
Looking at the series spread doesn't quite show the whole picture tbh. LA basicall blew out the Celtics in the first two games (game 2 would have been worse if not for the Celts scoring like 38 in the third Q). In game 3, LA was kicking the Celtics ass after the first Q but DJ and Birk went ape sh!t in the second and scored like 12 baskets. DJ continued to torch the Lakers and hit like 10 straight baskets. Greg Kite also had a valiant effort and had like 9 boards off the bench (his super-scrub moment). One thing to note is James Worthy was like 6-16 in this game after torching them in the first two games. They needed to limit James to win the game. In game 4, Celtics choked the game and blew like a 8 point lead late in the 4th before Magic's famous hook. LA was toying with Boston in game 6 and led by like 19 at one point in the 4th. Three of their wins were basically blow outs.

Also, the 86 Celtics were taken to 6 games by the 86 Rockets despite Ralph Ssmpson having a weak series. Why can't that be used against that team?

[iamgine]

It's reasonable to say 86 Celtics as the GOAT team, there's no Tiger Woods in the NBA.

[highwhey]

Yes, yes they are. 1986 Celtics>>>NBA, that's how good they are(according to the majority in ISH)

[1987_Lakers]

Looking at the series spread doesn't quite show the whole picture tbh. LA basicall blew out the Celtics in the first two games (game 2 would have been worse if not for the Celts scoring like 38 in the third Q). In game 3, LA was kicking the Celtics ass after the first Q but DJ and Birk went ape sh!t in the second and scored like 12 baskets. DJ continued to torch the Lakers and hit like 10 straight baskets. Greg Kite also had a valiant effort and had like 9 boards off the bench (his super-scrub moment). One thing to note is James Worthy was like 6-16 in this game after torching them in the first two games. They needed to limit James to win the game. In game 4, Celtics choked the game and blew like a 8 point lead late in the 4th before Magic's famous hook. LA was toying with Boston in game 6 and led by like 19 at one point in the 4th. Three of their wins were basically blow outs.

I know all of this. I have all 6 games on DVD. the First 2 games were blowouts. Celtics won a close game 3. Lakers won a close game 4. Celtics blew out the Lakers in game 5. And in Game 6 the Celtics led the Lakers at halftime, but the Lakers totally outplayed them in the second half.


Also, the 86 Celtics were taken to 6 games by the 86 Rockets despite Ralph Ssmpson having a weak series. Why can't that be used against that team?

Both the '86 Celtics & '87 Lakers took their opponent to 6 games, but I think the Celtics had a more dominant performance in the Finals against a healthy team compared to the Lakers who had a less dominant performance against an injured team. Both teams were great though, I have the '86 Celtics & '87 Lakers in my top 3 team all-time list.

[Niquesports]

Looking at the series spread doesn't quite show the whole picture tbh. LA basicall blew out the Celtics in the first two games (game 2 would have been worse if not for the Celts scoring like 38 in the third Q). In game 3, LA was kicking the Celtics ass after the first Q but DJ and Birk went ape sh!t in the second and scored like 12 baskets. DJ continued to torch the Lakers and hit like 10 straight baskets. Greg Kite also had a valiant effort and had like 9 boards off the bench (his super-scrub moment). One thing to note is James Worthy was like 6-16 in this game after torching them in the first two games. They needed to limit James to win the game. In game 4, Celtics choked the game and blew like a 8 point lead late in the 4th before Magic's famous hook. LA was toying with Boston in game 6 and led by like 19 at one point in the 4th. Three of their wins were basically blow outs.

Also, the 86 Celtics were taken to 6 games by the 86 Rockets despite Ralph Ssmpson having a weak series. Why can't that be used against that team?

Great post its funny when talking about the 86 Celtics people are always talking about injuries the next years but never give the Lakers any credit for the years there players were injured. IF the guy suited up and played I dont want to hear about he was hurt Isiah played on one foot and killed the lakers it was injuries that hurt the Celtics The lakers were just a better team

[chitownsfinest]

Both the '86 Celtics & '87 Lakers took their opponent to 6 games, but I think the Celtics had a more dominant performance in the Finals against a healthy team compared to the Lakers who had a less dominant performance against an injured team. Both teams were great though, I have the '86 Celtics & '87 Lakers in my top 3 team all-time list.
I still think the 87 Celtics were a nice team despite the injuries. Bird came off one of his finest series ever against the Piston, DJ played great that series and was hitting his J, Parrish's main problem were foul trouble, and Ainge was still efficient in the series despite having to guard a peaked Magic for most of the series and helped put game 5 away with 4 threes. McHale was banged up that series but his game was based on skill and not athleticism, meaning injuries would not affect his game as much. He still put up 20/9 on 59% shooting in that series and played like a warrior throughout. The bench was useless and Walton was finished at that point but I feel KC did not use Sam Vincent and Darren Daye enough in that series. Also, that same 87 Celts team beat the stacked Bucks and Pistons, not an easy feat by any means.

The 87 Lakers won their finals games by an average margin of 11.5 points. The 86 Celts won by an average margin of 13.5 points against a weaker opponent. I'd say their domination was relatively equal. Ralph Sampson underachieved that series and shot 44% and the Rockets were missing John Lucas (an important player who was the facilitator of the Rockets) in the 86 series but the Celts were still pushed to 6 games. That is just as worse as the 87 Lakers being pushed to 6 by a banged up Celtics team.

I have the 87 Lakers as my GOAT team. The 83 Sixers, 92 Bulls, 86 Celts, and 67 Sixers (no order) as the rest of my top 5.

[Niquesports]

I know all of this. I have all 6 games on DVD. the First 2 games were blowouts. Celtics won a close game 3. Lakers won a close game 4. Celtics blew out the Lakers in game 5. And in Game 6 the Celtics led the Lakers at halftime, but the Lakers totally outplayed them in the second half.



Both the '86 Celtics & '87 Lakers took their opponent to 6 games, but I think the Celtics had a more dominant performance in the Finals against a healthy team compared to the Lakers who had a less dominant performance against an injured team. Both teams were great though, I have the '86 Celtics & '87 Lakers in my top 3 team all-time list.


THe Cletics beat a Houston team that no one can name 5 players not named Hakeem or Sampson how is that dominant. And why wasnt the lakers in that finals could it be injuries? No question the 86 Celtics were a great team but how anyone rates them above the Showtime Lakers I just dont see it.

[1987_Lakers]

THe Cletics beat a Houston team that no one can name 5 players not named Hakeem or Sampson how is that dominant. And why wasnt the lakers in that finals could it be injuries? No question the 86 Celtics were a great team but how anyone rates them above the Showtime Lakers I just dont see it.

The Rockets in '86 had a great team, they beat a healthy Lakers team in the WCF in 5 games (no key laker was injured). Rockets had 2 dominant big men in the frontline in Hakeem and Ralph, the team also featured Lewis Lloyd, All NBA Defender Rodney McCray etc. After the '86 season, many were saying how the Rockets were the future of the NBA, of course it never happened because of injuries to Ralph Sampson and drug abuse on that team.

If we are talking about who was the better team throughout the 80's...It would be the Lakers. If we are talking about a single season team....give me the '86 Celtics. Just my opinion.

[Big#50]

:oldlol: oops. I ment 72 lakers... I was thinking 69 because they won 69 games. Anyway, there is a reason why there is only 1 team to ever win 70 games, because they were the greatest team ever and had the greatest guy to close out a game with ever.
2000 Lakers, 2004 Pistons and 2005 Spurs all beat the 96 Bulls.

[Niquesports]

The Rockets in '86 had a great team, they beat a healthy Lakers team in the WCF in 5 games (no key laker was injured). Rockets had 2 dominant big men in the frontline in Hakeem and Ralph, the team also featured Lewis Lloyd, All NBA Defender Rodney McCray etc. After the '86 season, many were saying how the Rockets were the future of the NBA, of course it never happened because of injuries to Ralph Sampson and drug abuse on that team.

If we are talking about who was the better team throughout the 80's...It would be the Lakers. If we are talking about a single season team....give me the '86 Celtics. Just my opinion.


I can respect your opinion and I dont think it a crazy one. IMO THe 87 Lakers were the greatest single season team The difference maker to me is that THe Celtics lack of speed and athletism is what makes the difference They had no answer for Worthy and couldnt stop the lakers fastbreak. On the other hand the lakers had Cooper and AC Green as well as Thompson to match up with Bostons front court as well as a still efective Jabbar and Magic and Scott >>> DJ and Anige. TO me its like Ali vs Frazier the fight goes down to the end but Ali wins and the 87 Lakers are Ali.

[OldSchoolBBall]

lol @ bitter ass Laker fans who can't handle the fact that the '86 Celts were the best single season team of the 80's (followed by the '87 Lakers, '83 Sixers, and '85 Lakers in a virtual tie).

[Niquesports]

lol @ bitter ass Laker fans who can't handle the fact that the '86 Celts were the best single season team of the 80's (followed by the '87 Lakers and '83 Sixers in a virtual tie).


Whats funny is the fact people want to think someones bitter talking about an opinion but fact is the lakers repeated something the Celtics couldnt do thats the sign of a Great team backing up what you did the year before. SUre any team can have a good year but the sign of a true Champ is coming back the next year and doing it again. lol To even think the 86 Celtics were better than any Russell team. You silly point is like saying the Hakeem Rocktes were a better single season team than the Bulls

[OldSchoolBBall]

I said that they were the best single season team of the 80's, not all time, so I'm not sure why you're talking about Russell.

[Niquesports]

I said that they were the best single season team of the 80's, not all time, so I'm not sure why you're talking about Russell.


That wasnt really meant for you its for people that say the 86 team is the Greatest team ever. By the way 87 Lakers 83 Sixers and 82 Lakers all better than 86 Celtics

[OldSchoolBBall]

That wasnt really meant for you its for people that say the 86 team is the Greatest team ever. By the way 87 Lakers 83 Sixers and 82 Lakers all better than 86 Celtics

:oldlol:

[ElBronco]

I don't think repeating should have any relevance when judging the merits of a Team in any given year. Every year should essentially be judged on it's own legs irrespective of what happened the year before or after.

[OldSchoolBBall]

2000 Lakers, 2004 Pistons and 2005 Spurs all beat the 96 Bulls.

:oldlol:

The only team from this decade that has a chance to beat the '96 Bulls are the 2001 (not 2000) Lakers. LMAO @ your post.

[Niquesports]

I don't think repeating should have any relevance when judging the merits of a Team in any given year. Every year should essentially be judged on it's own legs irrespective of what happened the year before or after.


I agree to a point. The 86 Celtics didnt do anything really special its not like they won 69 or 72 games its not like they beat another all time great team in the finals or won 34 games in a row sometimes you have to take the whole year in and look at it. Many question the Rockets 2 ships because MJ was not 100% I dont rate the 83 Sixers as a top 5 team because they couldn't match there performance the next year. If you want to say a team had a great year thats fine but to rank them as a Great team you have to look at how they did over a course of more than just one year.

[magnax1]

2000 Lakers, 2004 Pistons and 2005 Spurs all beat the 96 Bulls.
:roll: :roll: :roll:
I love how you put the worst of the spurs 4 championship teams and an average championship team in the 04 pistons.
:applause:
Keep up the stupidity.

[Harison]

'86 Celtics are the GOAT team. It was extremely strong, stacked with talent and well balanced team who could beat pretty much any team in NBA history. '67 Sixers come close, after them -'72 Lakers and '96 Bulls.

Plenty of discussions on this thread:
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=901345&sid=91599ba59bf02ecd8ee8a998abf82474

[1987_Lakers]

'86 Celtics are the GOAT team. It was extremely strong, stacked with talent and well balanced team who could beat pretty much any team in NBA history. '67 Sixers come close, after them -'72 Lakers and '96 Bulls.

Plenty of discussions on this thread:
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=901345&sid=91599ba59bf02ecd8ee8a998abf82474

Hey I know you. I also post in realgm.

[Harison]

Hey I know you. I also post in realgm.
Nice, familiar face :cheers:

[97 bulls]

I agree to a point. The 86 Celtics didnt do anything really special its not like they won 69 or 72 games its not like they beat another all time great team in the finals or won 34 games in a row sometimes you have to take the whole year in and look at it. Many question the Rockets 2 ships because MJ was not 100% I dont rate the 83 Sixers as a top 5 team because they couldn't match there performance the next year. If you want to say a team had a great year thats fine but to rank them as a Great team you have to look at how they did over a course of more than just one year.
great post nique. its also hypocritical to dismiss the bulls accomplishments by saying they werent dominant. even though the 97 version was on a pace to outdo the 96 version until injuries hit them hard. and they still won the championship. 87 lakers is a joke poster.

[G.O.A.T]

This post isnt a knock of how Great a team they were but many times people post that the 86 Celtics are the Greatest Team of all time. I question if they are even the best Celtic team ever.There was a team in that same era that was much more sucessful than they were and dont get half the credit The Showtime Lakers. ITs hard for me to rank a team as a All TIme Great if they dont repeat thats the sign of a Great team. Now true maybe they might have had a Great year but All Time Great team they dont even make the Top 5 this is just more of the Larry Legend Hype Top 5 player of all time yes but by far the GOAT Hype Player

My argument is and always will be: If an argument can be made for something being the greatest of all-time, it is impossible for it to be overrated becasue #1 all-time is as high as you can be rated.

[Niquesports]

My argument is and always will be: If an argument can be made for something being the greatest of all-time, it is impossible for it to be overrated becasue #1 all-time is as high as you can be rated.


I respect your opinion as always but sometimes you have to look at the facts. If people went on and on and said the 67's 76ers were the best team of the 60's wouldn't you say hold up. Sure they had a great year they had a great team but the core of that team wasnt better than the Celtics. So I guess my point is if two great teams face up the better team may win more but the other team is gonna win at least once back to my comparison of boxing Frazier did beat Ali once.

[JohnnySic]

still think the 87 Celtics were a nice team despite the injuries
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
I guess people need "first hand" expereince; people simply cannot understand things before their time.

The '87 Celtics were a shadow of the '86 team. their 2 principle subs, Bill Walton and Scott Wedman, both missed essentially the whole season. They were left with nothing but scrubs on the bench. KC Jones was forced to run the starters into the ground, with lasting devastating effetcts.

- Bird developed his bad back that year
- McHale broke his foot and was never the same player
- Dennis Johnson was playing on a sprained ankle, and Robert Parish on 2 sprained ankles, by the Finals

As a Celtics fan, I'm amazed the Lakers did not sweep them, give the weight of all their problems.

[Niquesports]

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
I guess people need "first hand" expereince; people simply cannot understand things before their time.

The '87 Celtics were a shadow of the '86 team. their 2 principle subs, Bill Walton and Scott Wedman, both missed essentially the whole season. They were left with nothing but scrubs on the bench. KC Jones was forced to run the starters into the ground, with lasting devastating effetcts.

- Bird developed his bad back that year
- McHale broke his foot and was never the same player
- Dennis Johnson was playing on a sprained ankle, and Robert Parish on 2 sprained ankles, by the Finals

As a Celtics fan, I'm amazed the Lakers did not sweep them, give the weight of all their problems.

Jordan played a hellva of a game with the flu he had to almost be carried off the floor
Isiah could barley walk and stilled performed
Reed limped onto the floor when noone thought he could play.

ITs an old saying if you step on the floor there are no excuses.
At that point Walton wasnt gonna be much help anyway and Wedman was no match for Cooper so it wouldnt have made a difference its not like Wedman or Walton was gonna slow down Worthy

[JohnnySic]

At that point Walton wasnt gonna be much help anyway and Wedman was no match for Cooper so it wouldnt have made a difference its not like Wedman or Walton was gonna slow down Worthy
Clearly spoken like someone who never watched them play.

Walton gave the Celtics a whole new dimension as he could pass, robound, do it all. He spelled McHale and Parish and his presence meant that Greg Kite was relegated to 12th man. The equivalent of say Lamar Odom on the current Lakers.

Wedman was a shooter/scorer who could make shots from anywhere. Think Rip Hamilton. Only reason he didn't start was because of Larry Bird. Wedman filled in for the injured McHale for about 20 games and averaged close to 20 ppg.

You dont lose your 2 best subs and not see the effect.

[G.O.A.T]

I respect your opinion as always but sometimes you have to look at the facts. If people went on and on and said the 67's 76ers were the best team of the 60's wouldn't you say hold up. Sure they had a great year they had a great team but the core of that team wasnt better than the Celtics. So I guess my point is if two great teams face up the better team may win more but the other team is gonna win at least once back to my comparison of boxing Frazier did beat Ali once.

I think it's a very good point, but it's two different things really. The greatest team of all-time is either the 1990's Bulls or the 1960's Celtics because those cores won title after title after title like no one else has even come close to.

But the greatest single season is another thing. Using the palindrome champions (67 76ers) as an example, they were the only team on the decade to beat the Celtics in a series and did so 4-1. An exponentially greater accomplishment in a single series then any other of the decade. The also won a then record 68 games in the regular season. More then any Celtic team with Russell would.

The point is their greatness over a single season exceeded that of Boston's in any single season that decade. The greatest team of the decade is easily the Celtics, but the greatest season of the decade is probably the 1967 Philadelphia 76ers championship.

Likewise the Celtics of 1986 epitomize greatness isolated in a single season. The 1980's were the most competitive decade in NBA history in my opinion and that of many others. The Celtics and Lakers were the obvious elite teams, but the 76ers were still very strong in the early part of the decade as were the Rockets throughout the first half of the decade and the Pistons in the last half of the decade. Plus the emergence of individual stars like Jordan, Barkley, Drexler, King, Wilkins, Malone, Stockton, Hakeem and Ewing made it ultra-competitive every night. The '86 Celtics in perhaps the single most competitive season of the decade were the perfect storm. Winning a decade best 67 games and losing just three times in 18 playoff games are exceptional achievements. Also remember how healthy they were. None of the top eight missed more then 10 games due injury. Only McHale missed more then five. Bird and Walton played in 162 of 164 possible games. Bill Walton was healthy!
Having four hall-of fame front line players and another finals MVP in Dennis Johnson and the premier perimeter shooting guard of the 80's in Ainge in the backcourt is pretty exceptional and really unprecedented.

As always a pleasure talking hoops with you.

[Niquesports]

Clearly spoken like someone who never watched them play.

Walton gave the Celtics a whole new dimension as he could pass, robound, do it all. He spelled McHale and Parish and his presence meant that Greg Kite was relegated to 12th man. The equivalent of say Lamar Odom on the current Lakers.

Wedman was a shooter/scorer who could make shots from anywhere. Think Rip Hamilton. Only reason he didn't start was because of Larry Bird. Wedman filled in for the injured McHale for about 20 games and averaged close to 20 ppg.

You dont lose your 2 best subs and not see the effect.


Well sorry I did watch them play
maybe its you that only saw highlights

Hurt or healthy Wedman wasnt better or more effective than Cooper
and hurt or healthy Walton wasn't better than Thompson at that point in there career.SO I dont get your point.

[Niquesports]

I think it's a very good point, but it's two different things really. The greatest team of all-time is either the 1990's Bulls or the 1960's Celtics because those cores won title after title after title like no one else has even come close to.

But the greatest single season is another thing. Using the palindrome champions (67 76ers) as an example, they were the only team on the decade to beat the Celtics in a series and did so 4-1. An exponentially greater accomplishment in a single series then any other of the decade. The also won a then record 68 games in the regular season. More then any Celtic team with Russell would.

The point is their greatness over a single season exceeded that of Boston's in any single season that decade. The greatest team of the decade is easily the Celtics, but the greatest season of the decade is probably the 1967 Philadelphia 76ers championship.

Likewise the Celtics of 1986 epitomize greatness isolated in a single season. The 1980's were the most competitive decade in NBA history in my opinion and that of many others. The Celtics and Lakers were the obvious elite teams, but the 76ers were still very strong in the early part of the decade as were the Rockets throughout the first half of the decade and the Pistons in the last half of the decade. Plus the emergence of individual stars like Jordan, Barkley, Drexler, King, Wilkins, Malone, Stockton, Hakeem and Ewing made it ultra-competitive every night. The '86 Celtics in perhaps the single most competitive season of the decade were the perfect storm. Winning a decade best 67 games and losing just three times in 18 playoff games are exceptional achievements. Also remember how healthy they were. None of the top eight missed more then 10 games due injury. Only McHale missed more then five. Bird and Walton played in 162 of 164 possible games. Bill Walton was healthy!
Having four hall-of fame front line players and another finals MVP in Dennis Johnson and the premier perimeter shooting guard of the 80's in Ainge in the backcourt is pretty exceptional and really unprecedented.

As always a pleasure talking hoops with you.


Great post and if we want to look at it that way then I would have to say the 83 Sixers were the best team FO Fo Four . I think what makes me say the Boston team is overrated is the Walton factor. Many say they had 4 HOF and a should be in Dj but at that time Walton wasnt a HOF playing level he was just a very good back up big man.The way Philly went through the playoffs and then sweeping the lakers is much more impressive than Boston letting a Good but not Great Rockets team win 2 games

[Harison]

Jordan played a hellva of a game with the flu he had to almost be carried off the floor
Isiah could barley walk and stilled performed
Reed limped onto the floor when noone thought he could play.

ITs an old saying if you step on the floor there are no excuses.
At that point Walton wasnt gonna be much help anyway and Wedman was no match for Cooper so it wouldnt have made a difference its not like Wedman or Walton was gonna slow down Worthy
Are you really comparing flu game with someone who had BROKEN foot? Its admirable and impressive when someone overcomes minor obstacles (food poisoning, dislocated finger, flu, etc), but its entirely different when major injuries happen, and to more than one main player. You cant out-will that, regardless who you are.

[JohnnySic]

Well sorry I did watch them play
maybe its you that only saw highlights

Hurt or healthy Wedman wasnt better or more effective than Cooper
and hurt or healthy Walton wasn't better than Thompson at that point in there career.SO I dont get your point.
The point is pretty simple....no team loses 2 key cogs and stays the same. A 5 man team does not beat an 8-9 man team; in fact they did well to just hang with them. And the '87 Celtics were essentially a 5-man team. The '87 Celts were to the '86 Celts what the '07 Heat were to the '06 Heat, basically. The fact that the '87 C's still made the Finals notwithstanding.

And Wedman would score on Cooper; as good a defender that Cooper was, that's how good a scorer Wedman was.

[Niquesports]

The point is pretty simple....no team loses 2 key cogs and stays the same. A 5 man team doesnt not beat an 8-9 man team; in fact they did well to just hang with them. And the '87 Celtics were essentially a 5-man team. The '87 Celts were to the '86 Celts what the '07 Heat were to the '06 Heat, basically. The fact that the '87 C's still made the Finals notwithstanding.

And Wedman would score on Cooper; as good a defender that Cooper was, that's how good a scorer Wedman was.


Im sure Greg Kite would score also that has nothing to do with who would be more effective and productive in helping there team win I take Cooper

[JohnnySic]

Im sure Greg Kite would score also that has nothing to do with who would be more effective and productive in helping there team win I take Cooper

Greg Kite = DJ Mbenga. :lol C'mon

Micahel Cooper = Bruce Bowen without the 3-point shooting

[G.O.A.T]

Micahel Cooper = Bruce Bowen without the 3-point shooting

Huh?

Cooper was a three point specialist like Bowen.

[JohnnySic]

Huh?

Cooper was a three point specialist like Bowen.
Career 34%, good but not great. And it wasn't until the 2nd half of his career that he really started to chuck them.

[Niquesports]

Career 34%, good but not great. And it wasn't until the 2nd half of his career that he really started to chuck them.


Overall i still take Cooper over a healthy Wedman

[G.O.A.T]

Career 34%, good but not great. And it wasn't until the 2nd half of his career that he really started to chuck them.

My point was more that you would have had to look that up. Sometimes it's better to difer to those who know more about a subject then you. Cooper was one of the first three point specialists. No his numbers don't measure up today, but when he entered the league there was no 3-pt line. It was an adjustment period and even the best shooters took them in a lot lower volume during the 1980's. Remember if you were born before 1975 the three point line an afterthought.

[Raider007]

This post isnt a knock of how Great a team they were but many times people post that the 86 Celtics are the Greatest Team of all time. I question if they are even the best Celtic team ever.There was a team in that same era that was much more sucessful than they were and dont get half the credit The Showtime Lakers. ITs hard for me to rank a team as a All TIme Great if they dont repeat thats the sign of a Great team. Now true maybe they might have had a Great year but All Time Great team they dont even make the Top 5 this is just more of the Larry Legend Hype Top 5 player of all time yes but by far the GOAT Hype Player
I have not even seen the "86 Celtics" ever mentioned as the greatest team of all time. I sure it must have happened though since you think it. Not to be a laker homer, but 15-1 through the 2001 playoffs should be considered the most dominate team.

[1987_Lakers]

great post nique. its also hypocritical to dismiss the bulls accomplishments by saying they werent dominant. even though the 97 version was on a pace to outdo the 96 version until injuries hit them hard. and they still won the championship. 87 lakers is a joke poster.

This is coming from a guy who thinks Bird & Pippen would be a wash in a '86 Celtics vs '97 Bulls matchup.

[chitownsfinest]

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
I guess people need "first hand" expereince; people simply cannot understand things before their time.

The '87 Celtics were a shadow of the '86 team. their 2 principle subs, Bill Walton and Scott Wedman, both missed essentially the whole season. They were left with nothing but scrubs on the bench. KC Jones was forced to run the starters into the ground, with lasting devastating effetcts.

- Bird developed his bad back that year
- McHale broke his foot and was never the same player
- Dennis Johnson was playing on a sprained ankle, and Robert Parish on 2 sprained ankles, by the Finals

As a Celtics fan, I'm amazed the Lakers did not sweep them, give the weight of all their problems.
I have watched nearly every game in that series. They were not the 86 Celtics or even the 84-85 Celtics but they were still an effective team. That team beat two stacked teams in the Bucks and Pistons. They still had the veteran swagger they always had.

Yes, I mentioned in my post that the main part of the bench, Bill Walton, was finished beyond repair. I do think that KC Jones did misuse the bench a bit in the series though. Sam Vincent and Darren Daye could have made more of an impact if they were used more. Darren Daye played well in his garbage time minutes against LA in the first two games. He really wanted to be in there. The Celtics still had guys with energy off the bench. Super-scrub Greg Kite even acted like a game changer in game 3 when he came in for foul troubled Robert Parrish and crashed the boards.

McHale had a breakout season that yr and was in talks for the MVP at some points as well. Yes, he was banged up in the finals but his game was based more on skill meaning he could still play effectively in the finals. He averaged 20/8 on 59% efficiency and still managed to get his post moves in. His efforts in that yrs finals were truly amazing considering what he was playing through. I remember in game 2, he was limping at one point and came back in the second half and scored like 5 straight baskets.

Bid was coming off quite possibly his most amazing series ever against the Pistons where he dominated a strong dominated. He was still Larry Bird and wasn't quite hindered by injuries as people say. He still had dominant stretches like in game 1 where he hit like 9 shots in a row and game 3 where he had like 20 points in the half. The main reason for hi shooting low was Coopers amazing defense and James Worthy working him on the offensive end.

Parrish still averaged 17 ppg on 59% shooting in the series. His main problems in the series were foul trouble and getting outclassed by KAJ. He was virtually in foul trouble from games 3-5 and fouled out in game 6 with 7 left in the 4th. He was also outclased by KAJ. I remember in game 2, he had like 5 baskets on KAJ in the first but couldn't do sh!t for the rest of the game and only had like one basket. KAJ torched him the rest of the was as well. In game 6 when he fouled out, he got torched by KAJ for 13-18.

DJ still had an amazing series where he averaged like 21/9. He actually played above his ability and had like 3-4 stretches in the series where he made shot after shot and even locked down Magic for an entire half in game 6.

Anyways, my whole point in my other post was to respond to someone saying the 87 Celtics were banged up making what the 87 LAkers did to them seem worse then what the 86 Celtics did to the Rockets. They still had to play a difficult opponent that was still stronger then the 86 Rockets.

[97 bulls]

This is coming from a guy who thinks Bird & Pippen would be a wash in a '86 Celtics vs '97 Bulls matchup.
oh get off it. i already showed you and told you with strong facts that while id give bird the edge over pip its not that big of an edge. we compared the 2 head to head and it was basically a wash, with bird being 32 and pip being 23. and it only cuz of accomplishment (not talent) that put bird over pip. cuz the only think bird had over pip skillwise is a better jump shot. and pip was a far superior defender. im just realalistic. i dont see bird being able to average 28 ppg in the mid 90s NOT CUZ OF HIS TALENT but cuz of the way the games was played. and likewise i see pip being able to average about 25 ppg in the 80s cuz of the era. along with being the defender he was. thats about even to me. what puts bird over pip is the accomplishments. something pip never had a real chance of achieving cuz of playning behind jordan. i dont think thats so far fetched.

[Doctor K]

Where are the 60s Celtics in this conversation? They won 8 titles in a row, including knocking off some great legendary teams that are now forgotten. They had 3-4 HOFs all in their PRIMES playing at the same time. I don't think ANY other team can claim that. They also had arguably the GOAT coach.

I mean come on, they won 8 in a row, do people realize that kind of domination?

[Bigsmoke]

86 Celtics were top 5 in history... not overrated.

[1987_Lakers]

oh get off it. i already showed you and told you with strong facts that while id give bird the edge over pip its not that big of an edge. we compared the 2 head to head and it was basically a wash, with bird being 32 and pip being 23. and it only cuz of accomplishment (not talent) that put bird over pip. cuz the only think bird had over pip skillwise is a better jump shot. and pip was a far superior defender. im just realalistic. i dont see bird being able to average 28 ppg in the mid 90s NOT CUZ OF HIS TALENT but cuz of the way the games was played. and likewise i see pip being able to average about 25 ppg in the 80s cuz of the era. along with being the defender he was. thats about even to me. what puts bird over pip is the accomplishments. something pip never had a real chance of achieving cuz of playning behind jordan. i dont think thats so far fetched.

Now your giving Bird a "small edge" over Pippen when a couple of days ago you clearly said it would be a wash. Ok. And lol @ you saying the only skill Bird had over Pip was a better jumpshot. Bird was also a better passer, offensive player, rebounder, smarter etc.

[CB4GOATPF]

Are you kidding me?

If 86 Celtics are something that is Underrated because most of their players where white...and did not have the style appeals to most of basketball fans.

Anyone would prefer to watch the Badboy thugs, MJ`s-Pippen-Paxons Triangle Offense or Laker Showtime than watch the Slow White But.... Most Fundamentally Sound Halfcourt Game Passing & Shooting Team of All Time that this year could also Run Quite a Bit.

Larry Bird: playing the Best All Mature & All Around Basketball of his Career and Still Physically Peek at age 30

Kevin McHale at age 28 Total Game & Physical Peek

Parish still an All Star and at age 32 his last Peek Year.

DJ still among the Best PGs in the NBA ate age 31....

Walton although not even close to his healthy days was the Best Sixth Man in the NBA and still some what a Top Defending, Shot Blocking, Passing, Game Creating and Shooting C in the NBA. Per 36 minute still a 14 ppg (56% FG), 13 rpg, 3.8 pg and 2.5 bpg man.

Great Shooters like Prime Ainge, Jerry Sichting, Scott Wedman (ex All Star) and most underrated player of the 80s Celtics. and badboy Greg Kite.

Most People prefer dunks, hilights, crazy layps, fast breaks instead of Rich-Smart-High IQ & Fundamentally Sound Basketball with the Addition of Guts and Major Will to Win,

If you add to that the "white thing" the presence of okward looking players in a Fat Looking PG, a Hunchbacked C, slow-non leaping mullet country boy at SF, a nerdy looking polioed at PF and an ex hippie that can`t shut his mouth at C ofcourse you will never believe how good tha team was.

That Team owned the 85-86 Lakers both games in one in L.A with no McHale and it was Magic in his Prime, Worthy in his Prime, Kareem in better version than the 88-89-90 Kareem etc...

Celtics = Goat Team

Only Teams i Consider close to the level of that Team are

87 Lakers
83 Sixers

... a notch below

85 Lakers
87 Pistons (even though they did not win it)

...a notch below

96 Bulls....

Not to mention one of the things the Celtics had appart from all the rest mentioned was the "Chemistry" unmatched in any other team since 1986

[97 bulls]

Now your giving Bird a "small edge" over Pippen when a couple of days ago you clearly said it would be a wash. Ok. And lol @ you saying the only skill Bird had over Pip was a better jumpshot. Bird was also a better passer, offensive player, rebounder, smarter etc.
how was bird a better passer, rebounder, smarter etc????? i just dont see it. show me proof. or why you say that.

[97 bulls]

Are you kidding me?

If 86 Celtics are something that is Underrated because most of their players where white...and did not have the style appeals to most of basketball fans.

Anyone would prefer to watch the Badboy thugs, MJ`s-Pippen-Paxons Triangle Offense or Laker Showtime than watch the Slow White But.... Most Fundamentally Sound Halfcourt Game Passing & Shooting Team of All Time that this year could also Run Quite a Bit.

Larry Bird: playing the Best All Mature & All Around Basketball of his Career and Still Physically Peek at age 30

Kevin McHale at age 28 Total Game & Physical Peek

Parish still an All Star and at age 32 his last Peek Year.

DJ still among the Best PGs in the NBA ate age 31....

Walton although not even close to his healthy days was the Best Sixth Man in the NBA and still some what a Top Defending, Shot Blocking, Passing, Game Creating and Shooting C in the NBA. Per 36 minute still a 14 ppg (56% FG), 13 rpg, 3.8 pg and 2.5 bpg man.

Great Shooters like Prime Ainge, Jerry Sichting, Scott Wedman (ex All Star) and most underrated player of the 80s Celtics. and badboy Greg Kite.

Most People prefer dunks, hilights, crazy layps, fast breaks instead of Rich-Smart-High IQ & Fundamentally Sound Basketball with the Addition of Guts and Major Will to Win,

If you add to that the "white thing" the presence of okward looking players in a Fat Looking PG, a Hunchbacked C, slow-non leaping mullet country boy at SF, a nerdy looking polioed at PF and an ex hippie that can`t shut his mouth at C ofcourse you will never believe how good tha team was.

That Team owned the 85-86 Lakers both games in one in L.A with no McHale and it was Magic in his Prime, Worthy in his Prime, Kareem in better version than the 88-89-90 Kareem etc...

Celtics = Goat Team

Only Teams i Consider close to the level of that Team are

87 Lakers
83 Sixers

... a notch below

85 Lakers
87 Pistons (even though they did not win it)

...a notch below

96 Bulls....

Not to mention one of the things the Celtics had appart from all the rest mentioned was the "Chemistry" unmatched in any other team since 1986
how can a team that over a 3 year period with injuries like all the other great team of the past set record after record be ranked so low. wow this is an ignorant post.

[97 bulls]

and while were at it what with this fascination with scott friggin wedman???? ive seen posters knock rodman at 34 even though he was physically just as competant as any 25 year old. jordan at 33, magic at 31 but give props to scott wedman who was 34 and a shadow of his former self. who hadnt really been playn at an "all star" level for about six years prior. but yet he could score on michael cooper??????????? its just insane.:hammerhead: :hammerhead: :hammerhead: :hammerhead:

[OldSchoolBBall]

Did someone just ask how Bird was a better passer, rebounder, and smarter player than Pippen? Wow... :oldlol:

[97 bulls]

Did someone just ask how Bird was a better passer, rebounder, and smarter player than Pippen? Wow... :oldlol:
i did abd you obviously cant answer that either. wow

[O.J A 6'4Mamba]

nope celtics were legit how many teams could beat Jordan when Jordan went off for 50+ points not many.

[CB4GOATPF]

i did abd you obviously cant answer that either. wow

It really doesn`t need an answer...because just asking that...goes beyond brutality....:confusedshrug:

[JohnnySic]

who hadnt really been playn at an "all star" level for about six years prior. but yet he could score on michael cooper??????????? its just insane.
How about you look up Wedman's stats as a starter in '86 since clearly you never watched him play?

[Niquesports]

Are you kidding me?

If 86 Celtics are something that is Underrated because most of their players where white...and did not have the style appeals to most of basketball fans.

Anyone would prefer to watch the Badboy thugs, MJ`s-Pippen-Paxons Triangle Offense or Laker Showtime than watch the Slow White But.... Most Fundamentally Sound Halfcourt Game Passing & Shooting Team of All Time that this year could also Run Quite a Bit.

Larry Bird: playing the Best All Mature & All Around Basketball of his Career and Still Physically Peek at age 30

Kevin McHale at age 28 Total Game & Physical Peek

Parish still an All Star and at age 32 his last Peek Year.

DJ still among the Best PGs in the NBA ate age 31....

Walton although not even close to his healthy days was the Best Sixth Man in the NBA and still some what a Top Defending, Shot Blocking, Passing, Game Creating and Shooting C in the NBA. Per 36 minute still a 14 ppg (56% FG), 13 rpg, 3.8 pg and 2.5 bpg man.

Great Shooters like Prime Ainge, Jerry Sichting, Scott Wedman (ex All Star) and most underrated player of the 80s Celtics. and badboy Greg Kite.

Most People prefer dunks, hilights, crazy layps, fast breaks instead of Rich-Smart-High IQ & Fundamentally Sound Basketball with the Addition of Guts and Major Will to Win,

If you add to that the "white thing" the presence of okward looking players in a Fat Looking PG, a Hunchbacked C, slow-non leaping mullet country boy at SF, a nerdy looking polioed at PF and an ex hippie that can`t shut his mouth at C ofcourse you will never believe how good tha team was.

That Team owned the 85-86 Lakers both games in one in L.A with no McHale and it was Magic in his Prime, Worthy in his Prime, Kareem in better version than the 88-89-90 Kareem etc...

Celtics = Goat Team

Only Teams i Consider close to the level of that Team are

87 Lakers
83 Sixers

... a notch below

85 Lakers
87 Pistons (even though they did not win it)

...a notch below

96 Bulls....

Not to mention one of the things the Celtics had appart from all the rest mentioned was the "Chemistry" unmatched in any other team since 1986


Great hype for a Great team no do the same home wrok and write up for the 87 Lakers anyone of the 60's Celtics 67 Sixers 83 Sixers 71 Lakers and then you will see why the 86 Celtics at best are a top 10 team but not top 5 and its not because there white the other teams were just better.

[G.O.A.T]

how was bird a better passer, rebounder, smarter etc????? i just dont see it. show me proof. or why you say that.

How is Bird a better passer? Statistically he's better because he averaged more assists while playing a role that had him handling the ball a lot less. Aesthetically he's a better passer because his passing involved more creativity and a higher level of difficulty.

How is Bird a better rebounder? Statistically he's a better rebounder because averaged way more rebounds and had six consecutive double digit rebound averages something Pippen never touched. Pragmatically he's a better rebounder because despite being a much less gifted athlete Bird's instincts understanding of angles and effort made him the best rebounding small forward of his era.

How is he smarter? Can't prove this, it's an opinion really, but I can say confidently if a scout was evaluating both players without knowing who they are, all would describe Bird as a player with high basketball IQ and some would describe Pippen that way.

The simple answer to your question is you watch them play it's pretty obvious when you see them in action.

[Niquesports]

How is Bird a better passer? Statistically he's better because he averaged more assists while playing a role that had him handling the ball a lot less. Aesthetically he's a better passer because his passing involved more creativity and a higher level of difficulty.

How is Bird a better rebounder? Statistically he's a better rebounder because averaged way more rebounds and had six consecutive double digit rebound averages something Pippen never touched. Pragmatically he's a better rebounder because despite being a much less gifted athlete Bird's instincts understanding of angles and effort made him the best rebounding small forward of his era.

How is he smarter? Can't prove this, it's an opinion really, but I can say confidently if a scout was evaluating both players without knowing who they are, all would describe Bird as a player with high basketball IQ and some would describe Pippen that way.

The simple answer to your question is you watch them play it's pretty obvious when you see them in action.

Somethings are just crazy to me
Was Bird a better rebounder than Pip sure Im going overboard but its like saying is Shaq a better rebounder than Muggys the role on there team was different how can Pip get a rebound if he's 20ft from the basket defending a SG /PG/SF

Passing I think Bird is way overrated as a passer but he could see the floor and when teams committed to double him he made the pass to Mchale/parrish DJ ect..... sometimes with flair

Basketball IQ I always take this as a ?????? (let me not go there) But black players are always said to be athletic and gifted and white players are said to have High IQ smart fundemental hard working ect... IF I needed a player to go to battle with I would take Bird but his IQ wasnt any better than any other great He was a great basketball player as were all of them Showtime won 5 titles I dont care how much showtime they had defense wins titles ask the Suns and Mavs about this but never do the Magic lakers get credit for there Defense or "IQ"

[1987_Lakers]

how was bird a better passer, rebounder, smarter etc????? i just dont see it. show me proof. or why you say that.

:wtf: :roll:

[BallersTalk]

That '86 team was the best NBA team ever assembled. PERIOD.

[1987_Lakers]

How about you look up Wedman's stats as a starter in '86 since clearly you never watched him play?

He hasn't even seen the '86 Celtics play. In another thread, 97 bulls thought Greg Kite was apart of the '86 Celtics rotation.

[Rake2204]

How is Bird a better passer? Statistically he's better because he averaged more assists while playing a role that had him handling the ball a lot less. Aesthetically he's a better passer because his passing involved more creativity and a higher level of difficulty.

How is Bird a better rebounder? Statistically he's a better rebounder because averaged way more rebounds and had six consecutive double digit rebound averages something Pippen never touched. Pragmatically he's a better rebounder because despite being a much less gifted athlete Bird's instincts understanding of angles and effort made him the best rebounding small forward of his era.

How is he smarter? Can't prove this, it's an opinion really, but I can say confidently if a scout was evaluating both players without knowing who they are, all would describe Bird as a player with high basketball IQ and some would describe Pippen that way.

The simple answer to your question is you watch them play it's pretty obvious when you see them in action.
Well argued. Sometimes even if one finds the answer to anothers question to be painfully obvious, the answer must still be provided (much better than a "Pish? That question is so silly I refuse to answer it"). If I knew how to rep, I may have done it just now.

[97 bulls]

How is Bird a better passer? Statistically he's better because he averaged more assists while playing a role that had him handling the ball a lot less. Aesthetically he's a better passer because his passing involved more creativity and a higher level of difficulty.

How is Bird a better rebounder? Statistically he's a better rebounder because averaged way more rebounds and had six consecutive double digit rebound averages something Pippen never touched. Pragmatically he's a better rebounder because despite being a much less gifted athlete Bird's instincts understanding of angles and effort made him the best rebounding small forward of his era.

How is he smarter? Can't prove this, it's an opinion really, but I can say confidently if a scout was evaluating both players without knowing who they are, all would describe Bird as a player with high basketball IQ and some would describe Pippen that way.

The simple answer to your question is you watch them play it's pretty obvious when you see them in action.
lol im 35 bro. i watched both play too. i was more setting you guys up to prove a point. all you guys are using stats to support you opinion. stats are so skewed its rediculous. and you guys are so hypocritical that its just funny. what you guys are saying is the equvalant to me saying tht steve kerr is the best 3pt shooter of all time cuz he has the best 3pt% ever. now while statistically, that my be true it just not the case. john stockton is the alltime leader in assist and steals and i wouldnt even consider him if i was making an all time all defense team. and i belive magic johnson is the best passer ive ever seen.

now back to the pip/bird convo. for the same reasons i listed above i cant really say bird is a better rebounder than pip. why? cuz they played 2 different positions. lets look at pip first. pip was primarily a guy that played on the perimeter. at his peak he averaged about 7 rbds a game. thats amazing for someone that played the position he played. you also must include his era. hes getting those rebounds playing in an era full of great centers and pfs. not to mention teams in the 90s didnt put up as many shots as they did in the 80s. i see no reason pip wouldnt be getting 9 rbds per if he played in the 80s.

now bird. while its true that bird averaged more rbds than pip, the fact is that he shouldve. his first few years in the nba he was playing pf. and he played around the basket. if your being honest, bird as a pf was in his day was a solid rebounder. not great. when he moved to sf his rbds went down as well to about 8. and even though he started at sf, he still kind of hung around the basket. the sfs in the 80s were different from the sfs in pips day. guys like dantley and aguirre and worthy played closer to the basket which made it easier for bird to be in rebounding position. the 90s sfs like hill, mullin, hung around the perimeter. thus forcing pip to come out to guard them. now, if bird played in the 90s his rbds as a pf would be about 8-9 and as a sf about 6-7 once everything is factored in. which is the same as what pip averaged. you can apply the same logic in passing as well.

and i really dont see a difference it IQ ad knowledge of the game.

[97 bulls]

How about you look up Wedman's stats as a starter in '86 since clearly you never watched him play?
how bout you look at his stats for the whole year. 8pts on 47% in an inflated offensive era. im still trippin of you believing he would score on cooper. you stating that tells me all i need to know about you.

[97 bulls]

That '86 team was the best NBA team ever assembled. PERIOD.
they were the best team ever assembled in 86. period.

[JohnnySic]

how bout you look at his stats for the whole year. 8pts on 47% in an inflated offensive era. im still trippin of you believing he would score on cooper. you stating that tells me all i need to know about you.
Why wouldn't he score on Cooper? Cooper was a good defender, sure. Wedman was a good offensive talent; I already stated his numbers as a starter.

Per 36 minutes in '86:
4 Scott Wedman 33 79 19 1402 7.3 15.5 .473 0.4 1.2 .354 1.2 1.7 .662 1.7 3.2 4.9 rpg 2.1 1.0 0.6 1.4 3.3 16.3 ppg

Hardly over the hill. Wedman could have started for most teams; he didn't start on a stacked Celtics team. He would score on Cooper or anyone else. Why is that hard to believe? :confusedshrug:

Shane Battier is a great defender but guess what? He gets scored on. And Cooper was not as good a defender as Battier.

[CB4GOATPF]

lol im 35 bro. i watched both play too. i was more setting you guys up to prove a point. all you guys are using stats to support you opinion. stats are so skewed its rediculous. and you guys are so hypocritical that its just funny. what you guys are saying is the equvalant to me saying tht steve kerr is the best 3pt shooter of all time cuz he has the best 3pt% ever. now while statistically, that my be true it just not the case. john stockton is the alltime leader in assist and steals and i wouldnt even consider him if i was making an all time all defense team. and i belive magic johnson is the best passer ive ever seen.

now back to the pip/bird convo. for the same reasons i listed above i cant really say bird is a better rebounder than pip. why? cuz they played 2 different positions. lets look at pip first. pip was primarily a guy that played on the perimeter. at his peak he averaged about 7 rbds a game. thats amazing for someone that played the position he played. you also must include his era. hes getting those rebounds playing in an era full of great centers and pfs. not to mention teams in the 90s didnt put up as many shots as they did in the 80s. i see no reason pip wouldnt be getting 9 rbds per if he played in the 80s.

now bird. while its true that bird averaged more rbds than pip, the fact is that he shouldve. his first few years in the nba he was playing pf. and he played around the basket. if your being honest, bird as a pf was in his day was a solid rebounder. not great. when he moved to sf his rbds went down as well to about 8. and even though he started at sf, he still kind of hung around the basket. the sfs in the 80s were different from the sfs in pips day. guys like dantley and aguirre and worthy played closer to the basket which made it easier for bird to be in rebounding position. the 90s sfs like hill, mullin, hung around the perimeter. thus forcing pip to come out to guard them. now, if bird played in the 90s his rbds as a pf would be about 8-9 and as a sf about 6-7 once everything is factored in. which is the same as what pip averaged. you can apply the same logic in passing as well.

and i really dont see a difference it IQ ad knowledge of the game.

Larry Bird was a different type of player than Scottie. He wasn`t "Total Perimeter Oriented Player" Bird was a "Mid Range" and both "Inside and Perimeter Type Player".

Yes he was a Superior Rebounder and he actually had superior rebounding numbers at PF than at SF and that was against sometimes taller and usually stronger opponents.

Larry Bird did play for some of the 90s at ages 34 and 35 (passed his prime and with chronic back problems since the 1988-89 season): 1990-91 and 1991-92 seasons and these where his rebounding numbers:

1990-91: 8.5 RPG (38.0 MPG)
1990-91: 9.6 RPG (36.9 MPG)

9 RPG for both 90s seasons:

Between those two seaons the average is superior to Pippen`s whole RPG Avg Career :confusedshrug: while passed his prime and never the same again since the 87-88 season.

These where the characteristics that Pippen had over Bird

Superior Ball Handler
Superior Driver-Penetrator-Fast Break Finisher
Superior Athletic Capacity: Speed, Potence, Leap (Wingspam)
Superior Perimeter D

These where the characteristicas that Bird had over Pippen

Superior Offensive Skilled Player (+ ambidextrious)
Superior Shooter: Mid Range, Far Range, 3-Point Range
Superior FT Shooter
Superior Post Game
Superior B-Ball IQ
Superior Court Awareness & Vision
Superior Hand-Eye Coordination
Superior Rebounder
Superior Height
Superior Floor and Body Strength
Superior Passer
Superior Post D
Superior Clutch Player
Superior Will To Win & Competitiveness

*Similar Court Anticipation
*Similar Game Creation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are matchups between 6`9 1/2 Bird and Pippen 6`7 1/2 massive wingspam.

Although sometimes he had to battle for rebounds against 6`10 Horace Grant,6`8 3/4 Charles Oakley (260 lbs) and 7`1 Brad Sellers.

Bird (39.4 MPG): 25.9 PPG (50.3% FG), 8.3 RPG, 6.1 APG, 1.0 SPG, 0.6 BPG, 3.4 TOV PG, and 2.4 PFs PG

Pippen (31.5 MPG): 19.5 PPG, (53.0% FG), 4.9 RPG, 6.1 APG, 2.4 SPG, 0.7 BPG, 1.9 TOV PG and 3.2 PFs PG

Per 36 minutes it would look a bit closer but one must remember Bird only played 1 pure healthy season against Pippen whom was also a rookie:

*Bird was ages 31-to 35. Pretty Much 1 Year Still Prime & Peek (age 32 will not count because he was injured)

Pippen was ages 22-26: Pretty Much 2-3 Years Prime, Not Yet Peek

*For Most of Bird`s games against Pippen he was a shade of his former 1979-88 self.

Larry Bird ofcourse had to take the offensive load while Pippen was the game creator but got his points off the collapsing of Defenses on Jordan from the perimeter so he could get loose for open Mid Ranges and Drives.

They both where qual passers against each other with Pippen having an adge as a Point-Forward. Bird wasn`t really a pure Point Forward he was a total different brand of player:

His Game Style was that of a "SG with PG like Hands-Vision in Mid Range Game with a 6`9 1/2 body frame hustle player with technical rebounding boxing out tecniques".

What is incredible though is that Pippen playing only 31.5 MPG already had 3.2 PFs PG = That is exactly why for parts of the game Pippen had to sit down because he simply "Could not Guard Bird" and that job had to be taken by either Oakley, Grant or Sellers.

Scottie Pippen was once interviewed and asked

"Which Player was the Harders to Guard for You". He gave a simple answer: "Larry Bird"

[Rekindled]

jordan played arguably the best game of his career against this team and still couldnt win.

[97 bulls]

Larry Bird was a different type of player than Scottie. He wasn`t "Total Perimeter Oriented Player" Bird was a "Mid Range" and both "Inside and Perimeter Type Player".

Yes he was a Superior Rebounder and he actually had superior rebounding numbers at PF than at SF and that was against sometimes taller and usually stronger opponents.

Larry Bird did play for some of the 90s at ages 34 and 35 (passed his prime and with chronic back problems since the 1988-89 season): 1990-91 and 1991-92 seasons and these where his rebounding numbers:

1990-91: 8.5 RPG (38.0 MPG)
1990-91: 9.6 RPG (36.9 MPG)

9 RPG for both 90s seasons:

Between those two seaons the average is superior to Pippen`s whole RPG Avg Career :confusedshrug: while passed his prime and never the same again since the 87-88 season.

These where the characteristics that Pippen had over Bird

Superior Ball Handler
Superior Driver-Penetrator-Fast Break Finisher
Superior Athletic Capacity: Speed, Potence, Leap (Wingspam)
Superior Perimeter D

These where the characteristicas that Bird had over Pippen

Superior Offensive Skilled Player (+ ambidextrious)
Superior Shooter: Mid Range, Far Range, 3-Point Range
Superior FT Shooter
Superior Post Game
Superior B-Ball IQ
Superior Court Awareness & Vision
Superior Hand-Eye Coordination
Superior Rebounder
Superior Height
Superior Floor and Body Strength
Superior Passer
Superior Post D
Superior Clutch Player
Superior Will To Win & Competitiveness

*Similar Court Anticipation
*Similar Game Creation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are matchups between 6`9 1/2 Bird and Pippen 6`7 1/2 massive wingspam.

Although sometimes he had to battle for rebounds against 6`10 Horace Grant,6`8 3/4 Charles Oakley (260 lbs) and 7`1 Brad Sellers.

Bird (39.4 MPG): 25.9 PPG (50.3% FG), 8.3 RPG, 6.1 APG, 1.0 SPG, 0.6 BPG, 3.4 TOV PG, and 2.4 PFs PG

Pippen (31.5 MPG): 19.5 PPG, (53.0% FG), 4.9 RPG, 6.1 APG, 2.4 SPG, 0.7 BPG, 1.9 TOV PG and 3.2 PFs PG

Per 36 minutes it would look a bit closer but one must remember Bird only played 1 pure healthy season against Pippen whom was also a rookie:

*Bird was ages 31-to 35. Pretty Much 1 Year Still Prime & Peek (age 32 will not count because he was injured)

Pippen was ages 22-26: Pretty Much 2-3 Years Prime, Not Yet Peek

*For Most of Bird`s games against Pippen he was a shade of his former 1979-88 self.

Larry Bird ofcourse had to take the offensive load while Pippen was the game creator but got his points off the collapsing of Defenses on Jordan from the perimeter so he could get loose for open Mid Ranges and Drives.

They both where qual passers against each other with Pippen having an adge as a Point-Forward. Bird wasn`t really a pure Point Forward he was a total different brand of player:

His Game Style was that of a "SG with PG like Hands-Vision in Mid Range Game with a 6`9 1/2 body frame hustle player with technical rebounding boxing out tecniques".

What is incredible though is that Pippen playing only 31.5 MPG already had 3.2 PFs PG = That is exactly why for parts of the game Pippen had to sit down because he simply "Could not Guard Bird" and that job had to be taken by either Oakley, Grant or Sellers.

Scottie Pippen was once interviewed and asked

"Which Player was the Harders to Guard for You". He gave a simple answer: "Larry Bird"
scottie pippen said larry bird was his hardest defensive assignment ever. ive never heard of that. and to be honest find it hard to believe. but i think we agree that all things considered whwn they went up against each other it was a wash. and if pip got even minutes his stats would be higher. and the back problems excuse is irrelavant cuz bird was chucn mad shots and was still getting starters minutes. so let it go. he showed no signs of back problems until his last year. while pip was an unheralded unknown from central arkansas. and considering that its even more impressive. cuz he obviously had to earn the respect of the league unlike a top pick of birds caliber.

and everything else you typed is honestly just jibberish. other than birds shooting ability.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Passing I think Bird is way overrated as a passer

Yeah, he's only the best passing non-PG ever. Very overrated. :oldlol: Laker fans...

[CB4GOATPF]

scottie pippen said larry bird was his hardest defensive assignment ever. ive never heard of that. and to be honest find it hard to believe. but i think we agree that all things considered whwn they went up against each other it was a wash. and if pip got even minutes his stats would be higher. and the back problems excuse is irrelavant cuz bird was chucn mad shots and was still getting starters minutes. so let it go. he showed no signs of back problems until his last year. while pip was an unheralded unknown from central arkansas. and considering that its even more impressive. cuz he obviously had to earn the respect of the league unlike a top pick of birds caliber.

and everything else you typed is honestly just jibberish. other than birds shooting ability.

You must be black if you underrate the Bird the way you do...its ok....we understand :confusedshrug: but Bird was so much of a better player than Pippen that its not even debatable. :rolleyes: :oldlol:

He did say that I`ve heard it before...and Pippen could not contain Bird reason to why every 31 MPG Pip played he already had over 3 fouls so the Bulls had to put either Sellers, Grant or Oakley for parts of the game and Celtics most usually owned. :confusedshrug:

Here is what Bird dead back and passed his Physical Prime 32-34 year old Bird did to Pippen, Sellers and Grant:

1988

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdMjK-60H-k

Bird 44 Points

1989: Larry Bird hits game winning shot in Michael Jordan's and Scottie Pippen`s Faces:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoGmMx8Ejrw

27 Points and 8 of them in the 4th to School The Bulls again

1990: Bulls v Celtics (March 14, 1990)

MJ 36pts, 11asts, 6rebs,

Bird, 38pts, 11rebs, 9asts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAOx36A48wU

Celtics @ Bulls 1990-91: Early season thriller. Jordan 33/8/12.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y19q9478NUo&feature=PlayList&p=EC5E3DB460297F63&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199011060CHI.html

Bird 24 Points (68.8% FG), 11 Rebounds...1 PF

Pippen 23 Points, 5 Rebounds, 4 Assits and ofcourse 4 PFs...

1990-91 Bulls V Celtics: 2 O.T. Easter Day Game

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTqDdZz2dHM&feature=related

Bird 35 Points, 15 Rebounds, 9 Assits
Pippen 30 Points

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

Pippen never had an answer for one of Bird`s Most Underrated Aspects

POST GAME :confusedshrug:

[Big#50]

Pippen is the GOAT defender of all time and still could not stop Bird. 86 team is not overrated.

[Fatal9]

wow at the Bird-Pippen comparisons. I'm a Pippen fan and that's a bit much. Just as good a passer? Seriously?

[CB4GOATPF]

Pippen is the GOAT defender of all time and still could not stop Bird. 86 team is not overrated.

Pippen is the Best Perimeter Defender of All Time but

Bird is one of the Greatest Post Defending SFs of All Time :confusedshrug:

[Big#50]

Pippen is the Best Perimeter Defender of All Time but

Bird is one of the Greatest Post Defending SFs of All Time :confusedshrug:
Defense
Pippen>Bird by a wide margin
All around game
Bird>Pippen by a big margin

[CB4GOATPF]

Defense
Pippen>Bird by a wide margin
All around game
Bird>Pippen by a big margin

:no: More like this:

Pippen is the Greatest Perimeter Defender of All TIme hands down but..

Bird is One of the Greatest SF Defenders of All Time and Maybe the Best Post SF Defender of All Time

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/def_rtg_yearly.html

Yearly Leaders and Records for Defensive Rating

Season Lg Player DRtg

2008-09 NBA Dwight Howard 94.56

2007-08 NBA Kevin Garnett 93.85
2006-07 NBA Tim Duncan 94.45
2005-06 NBA Tim Duncan 94.41
2004-05 NBA Tim Duncan 93.17
2003-04 NBA Ben Wallace 87.48
2002-03 NBA Ben Wallace 89.99
2001-02 NBA Ben Wallace 92.89
2000-01 NBA Marcus Camby 90.56
1999-00 NBA David Robinson* 92.22
1998-99 NBA David Robinson* 87.94
1997-98 NBA David Robinson* 93.61
1996-97 NBA Alonzo Mourning 95.31
1995-96 NBA David Robinson* 96.45
1994-95 NBA Scottie Pippen 98.25
1993-94 NBA Patrick Ewing* 92.88
1992-93 NBA Patrick Ewing* 94.34
1991-92 NBA David Robinson* 94.38
1990-91 NBA Hakeem Olajuwon* 93.39
1989-90 NBA Hakeem Olajuwon* 93.43
1988-89 NBA Hakeem Olajuwon* 94.86
1987-88 NBA Hakeem Olajuwon* 98.05
1986-87 NBA Hakeem Olajuwon* 98.75
1985-86 NBA Bill Walton* 97.49
1984-85 NBA Mark Eaton 96.50
1983-84 NBA Alton Lister 98.63
1982-83 NBA Marvin Webster 95.72
1981-82 NBA Jack Sikma 97.23
1980-81 NBA Alvan Adams 96.24
1979-80 NBA Tree Rollins 95.90
1978-79 NBA Robert Parish* 94.37
1977-78 NBA Bill Walton* 89.50
1976-77 NBA Bobby Jones 89.91
1975-76 NBA George Johnson 89.81
ABA Julius Erving* 97.47

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/def_rtg_yearly_p.html

Yearly Playoffs Leaders and Records for Defensive Rating

Year Lg Player DRtg

2009 NBA Dwight Howard 98.35

2008 NBA Tim Duncan 98.51
2007 NBA Tyrus Thomas 92.52
2006 NBA Alonzo Mourning 95.13
2005 NBA Ben Wallace 93.48
2004 NBA Ben Wallace 83.91
2003 NBA Ben Wallace 90.51
2002 NBA Ben Wallace 86.38
2001 NBA David Robinson* 92.42
2000 NBA David Robinson* 84.01
1999 NBA David Robinson* 87.33
1998 NBA David Robinson* 93.42
1997 NBA Alonzo Mourning 94.64
1996 NBA Scottie Pippen 96.07
1995 NBA David Robinson* 97.53
1994 NBA Patrick Ewing* 94.34
1993 NBA Hakeem Olajuwon* 96.56
1992 NBA Dennis Rodman 99.35
1991 NBA Scottie Pippen 99.52
1990 NBA Bill Laimbeer 96.32
1989 NBA Dennis Rodman 99.38
1988 NBA Bill Laimbeer 99.51
1987 NBA Hakeem Olajuwon* 102.24
1986 NBA Bill Walton* 100.62
1985 NBA Ralph Sampson 97.16
1984 NBA Buck Williams 99.41
1983 NBA Dan Roundfield 93.00
1982 NBA Larry Bird* 94.21
1981 NBA Rich Kelley 91.33
1980 NBA Larry Bird* 95.93

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/pippesc01.html

Pippen Season

Defensive Rating

1990-91 NBA 101.7 (8)
1991-92 NBA 102.2 (8)
1993-94 NBA 96.9 (7)
1994-95 NBA 98.3 (1) :applause:
1995-96 NBA 100.7 (10)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/birdla01.html

Bird Season

Defensive Rating

1979-80 NBA 98.2 (6)
1981-82 NBA 99.4 (7)
1983-84 NBA 100.8 (2) :applause:
1984-85 NBA 102.8 (8)
1985-86 NBA 99.4 (4)

Dr J, Larry Bird and Scottie Pippen are the ONLY SFs Super Stars That had Lead the NBA in Defensive Rating Season & or Play-Offs (much harder to do when you are the Offensive Gun Load for your team (Dr J`s and Larry`s case) or incase of Scottie The Leading Game Creator at Point-Forward

Bird wasn`t a Great Perimeter Defender...infact he was slow to Defend that Way but his Post Defense and Man to Man Defense near the Rim Was Outsanding til about 1986 (age 30), even against bigger and sometimes taller PFs.

[1987_Lakers]

scottie pippen said larry bird was his hardest defensive assignment ever. ive never heard of that. and to be honest find it hard to believe. but i think we agree that all things considered whwn they went up against each other it was a wash. and if pip got even minutes his stats would be higher. and the back problems excuse is irrelavant cuz bird was chucn mad shots and was still getting starters minutes. so let it go. he showed no signs of back problems until his last year. while pip was an unheralded unknown from central arkansas. and considering that its even more impressive. cuz he obviously had to earn the respect of the league unlike a top pick of birds caliber.

and everything else you typed is honestly just jibberish. other than birds shooting ability.

Larry Bird vs Scottie Pippen - Head to Head - 1988-1992

Larry Bird - 25.9 PPG . 8.3 RPG . 6.1 APG . 50 FG% . 1.0 SPG . 87 FT%

Scottie Pippen - 19.5 PPG . 4.9 RPG . 53 FG% . 2.4 SPG . 75 FT%

How exactly is this a wash?

[97 bulls]

Larry Bird vs Scottie Pippen - Head to Head - 1988-1992

Larry Bird - 25.9 PPG . 8.3 RPG . 6.1 APG . 50 FG% . 1.0 SPG . 87 FT%

Scottie Pippen - 19.5 PPG . 4.9 RPG . 53 FG% . 2.4 SPG . 75 FT%

How exactly is this a wash?
its a wash cuz pip played almost 10 less minutes and in spite of that, he put up similar stats. and thats counting the fact that pip played behind jordan. and bird was the first option.

[97 bulls]

You must be black if you underrate the Bird the way you do...its ok....we understand :confusedshrug: but Bird was so much of a better player than Pippen that its not even debatable. :rolleyes: :oldlol:

He did say that I`ve heard it before...and Pippen could not contain Bird reason to why every 31 MPG Pip played he already had over 3 fouls so the Bulls had to put either Sellers, Grant or Oakley for parts of the game and Celtics most usually owned. :confusedshrug:

Here is what Bird dead back and passed his Physical Prime 32-34 year old Bird did to Pippen, Sellers and Grant:

1988

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdMjK-60H-k

Bird 44 Points

1989: Larry Bird hits game winning shot in Michael Jordan's and Scottie Pippen`s Faces:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoGmMx8Ejrw

27 Points and 8 of them in the 4th to School The Bulls again

1990: Bulls v Celtics (March 14, 1990)

MJ 36pts, 11asts, 6rebs,

Bird, 38pts, 11rebs, 9asts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAOx36A48wU

Celtics @ Bulls 1990-91: Early season thriller. Jordan 33/8/12.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y19q9478NUo&feature=PlayList&p=EC5E3DB460297F63&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199011060CHI.html

Bird 24 Points (68.8% FG), 11 Rebounds...1 PF

Pippen 23 Points, 5 Rebounds, 4 Assits and ofcourse 4 PFs...

1990-91 Bulls V Celtics: 2 O.T. Easter Day Game

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTqDdZz2dHM&feature=related

Bird 35 Points, 15 Rebounds, 9 Assits
Pippen 30 Points

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

Pippen never had an answer for one of Bird`s Most Underrated Aspects

POST GAME :confusedshrug:
why does this have to be a race issue? i resent the question. this isnt a black vs white issue. larry bird was a bad man. not to mention ive stated that john stockton was a better pg than magic johnson. this has nothing to do with race.

[97 bulls]

You must be black if you underrate the Bird the way you do...its ok....we understand :confusedshrug: but Bird was so much of a better player than Pippen that its not even debatable. :rolleyes: :oldlol:

He did say that I`ve heard it before...and Pippen could not contain Bird reason to why every 31 MPG Pip played he already had over 3 fouls so the Bulls had to put either Sellers, Grant or Oakley for parts of the game and Celtics most usually owned. :confusedshrug:

Here is what Bird dead back and passed his Physical Prime 32-34 year old Bird did to Pippen, Sellers and Grant:

1988

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdMjK-60H-k

Bird 44 Points

1989: Larry Bird hits game winning shot in Michael Jordan's and Scottie Pippen`s Faces:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoGmMx8Ejrw

27 Points and 8 of them in the 4th to School The Bulls again

1990: Bulls v Celtics (March 14, 1990)

MJ 36pts, 11asts, 6rebs,

Bird, 38pts, 11rebs, 9asts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAOx36A48wU

Celtics @ Bulls 1990-91: Early season thriller. Jordan 33/8/12.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y19q9478NUo&feature=PlayList&p=EC5E3DB460297F63&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199011060CHI.html

Bird 24 Points (68.8% FG), 11 Rebounds...1 PF

Pippen 23 Points, 5 Rebounds, 4 Assits and ofcourse 4 PFs...

1990-91 Bulls V Celtics: 2 O.T. Easter Day Game

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTqDdZz2dHM&feature=related

Bird 35 Points, 15 Rebounds, 9 Assits
Pippen 30 Points

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

Pippen never had an answer for one of Bird`s Most Underrated Aspects

POST GAME :confusedshrug:
watchn those clips showed that bird was doggn pip in the post. but alot of birds shots were off of screens. he really moved well of the ball. i think a stronger pip wouldve done better in the post.

[chitownsfinest]

To be fair, those clips didn't really occur during Pippen's defensive prime. Pip's defensive prime was from 93-97 when he became a lockdown man defender. Pip wasn't that great of a man defender in the early 90s.

[97 bulls]

To be fair, those clips didn't really occur during Pippen's defensive prime. Pip's defensive prime was from 93-97 when he became a lockdown man defender. Pip wasn't that great of a man defender in the early 90s.
thats true i meant a more mature pippen. not to mention pip was schooling bird too.

[MMM]

The 86 Celtics were probably one of the smartest teams ever assemble in sports history. I don't know how one could come to the conclusion that they are overrated it is not absurd at all to think they are the GOAT team. However, with how great the top 5 championship teams are I can see the argument for moving a couple of teams ahead of them but that doesn't prove that they are overrated at all. To the person who queston impressive feat did the 86 Celtics accomplish I will piont at going 40-1 on the road and the number of coaches/executives they have produced as impressive.

[97 bulls]

The 86 Celtics were probably one of the smartest teams ever assemble in sports history. I don't know how one could come to the conclusion that they are overrated it is not absurd at all to think they are the GOAT team. However, with how great the top 5 championship teams are I can see the argument for moving a couple of teams ahead of them but that doesn't prove that they are overrated at all. To the person who queston impressive feat did the 86 Celtics accomplish I will piont at going 40-1 on the road and the number of coaches/executives they have produced as impressive.
the 86 celtics are definately an alltime great. and not overrated. theyre just not better than the 96-97 bulls and 87 lakers or 83 sixers. id put them down as fourth.

[1987_Lakers]

To be fair, those clips didn't really occur during Pippen's defensive prime. Pip's defensive prime was from 93-97 when he became a lockdown man defender. Pip wasn't that great of a man defender in the early 90s.

And to be fair, those clips didn't occur during Larry Bird's peak either.

[1987_Lakers]

The 86 Celtics were probably one of the smartest teams ever assemble in sports history. I don't know how one could come to the conclusion that they are overrated it is not absurd at all to think they are the GOAT team. However, with how great the top 5 championship teams are I can see the argument for moving a couple of teams ahead of them but that doesn't prove that they are overrated at all. To the person who queston impressive feat did the 86 Celtics accomplish I will piont at going 40-1 on the road and the number of coaches/executives they have produced as impressive.

Exactly. And I think they would beat any team in a 7 game series. And they would have any easier time beating the '97 Bulls in a 7 game series more so than any all-time great team because of matchup problems.

[97 bulls]

And to be fair, those clips didn't occur during Larry Bird's peak either.
there was nothing about bird in those clips that showed any kind of back injury. that was prime bird.

[OldSchoolBBall]

there was nothing about bird in those clips that showed any kind of back injury. that was prime bird.

lol @ calling '90-'92 Bird "prime" Bird. :oldlol:

[1987_Lakers]

there was nothing about bird in those clips that showed any kind of back injury. that was prime bird.

Umm, no. Bird was in his absolute prime from 84-87, and after the '88 season, he wasn't the same. Bird played with back pain from '89 until the end of his career. Look it up. It wasn't a prime Bird.

[1987_Lakers]

lol @ calling '90-'92 Bird "prime" Bird. :oldlol:

Thank you. It's amazing what ridiculous things 97 Bulls states just to prove a point.

[chitownsfinest]

And to be fair, those clips didn't occur during Larry Bird's peak either.
I don't think for slightest that Pippen was better then LB nor was I implying it in my other post but let's look at it from another perspective:
Pippen and Bird matched up head to head from 87-88, and 89-90 to 91-92 (LB was injured in 89). Pippen was a rookie in 88 and came off the bench so we cannot use those stats in the head to head matchups meaning we should use the h2h stats from 89-90 to 91-92. They met 10 times in that period and the Bulls were 7-3 against Bos in that period.
Pippen averaged 23/6/8 in those meetings.
LB averaged 23/8/6
That seems fairly even to me. People seem to be acting like LB destroyed Pippen in their h2h meeting. You can make the claim that LB has banged up in the meetings but look at how they performed relative to ther season stats in that period:
SP averaged 18/7/6 in his 3 seasons
LB averaged 21/9/7 in his 3 seasons

Looking at this shows that LB still performed around his season averaged making the banged up back point moot. Pippen actually performed better then his averaged.

[chitownsfinest]

Exactly. And I think they would beat any team in a 7 game series. And they would have any easier time beating the '97 Bulls in a 7 game series more so than any all-time great team because of matchup problems.
I think it is unfair to penalize the 96/97 Bulls for not matching up properly to the 86 Celtics. If we look at it in that way, then the 83 Sixers, 85/87 Lakers, and 84/86 Celtics all sh!t on the Bulls. For one thing, those Bulls teams played in a period of expansion where teams weren't allowed to stack up on talent and talent was spread throughout the league. It was also the period when wide-spread free agency began. Teams could not stack up on talent like they could in the 80s due to more teams. It is for this reason that it is better to look at the Bulls relative to their league as it was a completely different era at that point.

[1987_Lakers]

I don't think for slightest that Pippen was better then LB nor was I implying it in my other post but let's look at it from another perspective:
Pippen and Bird matched up head to head from 87-88, and 89-90 to 91-92 (LB was injured in 89). Pippen was a rookie in 88 and came off the bench so we cannot use those stats in the head to head matchups meaning we should use the h2h stats from 89-90 to 91-92. They met 10 times in that period and the Bulls were 7-3 against Bos in that period.
Pippen averaged 23/6/8 in those meetings.
LB averaged 23/8/6
That seems fairly even to me. People seem to be acting like LB destroyed Pippen in their h2h meeting. You can make the claim that LB has banged up in the meetings but look at how they performed relative to ther season stats in that period:
SP averaged 18/7/6 in his 3 seasons
LB averaged 21/9/7 in his 3 seasons

Looking at this shows that LB still performed around his season averaged making the banged up back point moot. Pippen actually performed better then his averaged.

Fact is, it wasn't a prime Bird or a prime Pippen in those matchups. If a prime Larry Bird played a prime Scottie Pippen....Pippen would give him some trouble, sure, but Bird is an all-time great player and all-time great players have great games no matter who's guarding them. If a prime Bird played a prime Pippen in a 7 game series I guarantee you Bird would have the better series, it wouldn't be a wash like 97 bulls says it would.

[97 bulls]

I don't think for slightest that Pippen was better then LB nor was I implying it in my other post but let's look at it from another perspective:
Pippen and Bird matched up head to head from 87-88, and 89-90 to 91-92 (LB was injured in 89). Pippen was a rookie in 88 and came off the bench so we cannot use those stats in the head to head matchups meaning we should use the h2h stats from 89-90 to 91-92. They met 10 times in that period and the Bulls were 7-3 against Bos in that period.
Pippen averaged 23/6/8 in those meetings.
LB averaged 23/8/6
That seems fairly even to me. People seem to be acting like LB destroyed Pippen in their h2h meeting. You can make the claim that LB has banged up in the meetings but look at how they performed relative to ther season stats in that period:
SP averaged 18/7/6 in his 3 seasons
LB averaged 21/9/7 in his 3 seasons

Looking at this shows that LB still performed around his season averaged making the banged up back point moot. Pippen actually performed better then his averaged.
wow, i feel vindicated. it sounds sooooo much better from chitown. this post is in essence what ive been tryn to say for years now.

[97 bulls]

Fact is, it wasn't a prime Bird or a prime Pippen in those matchups. If a prime Larry Bird played a prime Scottie Pippen....Pippen would give him some trouble, sure, but Bird is an all-time great player and all-time great players have great games no matter who's guarding them. If a prime Bird played a prime Pippen in a 7 game series I guarantee you Bird would have the better series, it wouldn't be a wash like 97 bulls says it would.
lol hows that fact sandwhich treatn you 87? my point is proven. whether you like it or not bird and pip played to a stand still. and bird was 30 which is still a prime year for most athletes. while pip was just starting his.

[1987_Lakers]

I think it is unfair to penalize the 96/97 Bulls for not matching up properly to the 86 Celtics. If we look at it in that way, then the 83 Sixers, 85/87 Lakers, and 84/86 Celtics all sh!t on the Bulls. For one thing, those Bulls teams played in a period of expansion where teams weren't allowed to stack up on talent and talent was spread throughout the league. It was also the period when wide-spread free agency began. Teams could not stack up on talent like they could in the 80s due to more teams. It is for this reason that it is better to look at the Bulls relative to their league as it was a completely different era at that point.

'86 Celtics...yes. 1983 Sixers or 1987 Lakers....no

'83 Sixers vs '96 Bulls
C - Malone > Longley
PF - Iavaroni < Rodman
SF - Erving ? Pippen (Prime Pippen vs Old Erving....though one)
SG - Toney < MJ
PG - Cheeks > Harper

'87 Lakers vs '96 Bulls
C - Kareem > Longley
PF - Green < Rodman
SF - Worthy < Pippen
SG - Scott < MJ
PG - Magic > Harper

'86 Celtics vs '96 Bulls
C - Parish > Longley
PF - McHale > Rodman
SF - Bird > Pippen
SG - Ainge < MJ
PG - DJ > Harper

As you can see, the '96 Bulls matchup quite well with the '83 Sixers and '87 Lakers, but vs the '86 Celtics they matchup badly. Always go by matchups when comparing teams, always.

[1987_Lakers]

lol hows that fact sandwhich treatn you 87? my point is proven. whether you like it or not bird and pip played to a stand still. and bird was 30 which is still a prime year for most athletes. while pip was just starting his.

You know, sometimes I really question your basketball wisdom. BIRD WAS 33-35 YEARS OLD when he played pip to a stand still, not 30. You must really be an idiot if you think Bird was in his prime in his mid 30's. The sad thing is, you actually think he was in his prime because you want to make yourself believe it just to make a point.

[chitownsfinest]

Fact is, it wasn't a prime Bird or a prime Pippen in those matchups. If a prime Larry Bird played a prime Scottie Pippen....Pippen would give him some trouble, sure, but Bird is an all-time great player and all-time great players have great games no matter who's guarding them. If a prime Bird played a prime Pippen in a 7 game series I guarantee you Bird would have the better series, it wouldn't be a wash like 97 bulls says it would.
Yes I agree that Bird would outplay him but I feel people are selling Pip a bit short in this thread. They are acting like prime Pip would get destroyed. Fact is that LB did have 2 relatively volume series against a good defender in Cooper when he shot 45% in the 85 and 87 series against him. Also, the bad boy Pistons began to revolutionize defenses in the late 80s and even caused Bird to shoot in the 30s in 88 (he did torch a weaker Pistons teams a year earlier though). Fact is that this shows Bird could be worked with the proper defense on him. During the mid 90s, the game got slowed down and fg%'s decreased. Teams began to abuse hand-checking more and more like Pat Riley. If LB is playing in this era, he has to face more stronger defenses. The 96/97 Bulls had an amazing perimeter defense and were great at help defense/team defense. LB could play in the post but those Bulls teams had a tactic where they would double someone in the post and cause a quick turnover. Would Bird still get his? Yes but he would have to work much more and wouldn't be able to abuse the Bulls like he abused the Hawks.

[1987_Lakers]

Yes I agree that Bird would outplay him but I feel people are selling Pip a bit short in this thread. They are acting like prime Pip would get destroyed. Fact is that LB did have 2 relatively volume series against a good defender in Cooper when he shot 45% in the 85 and 87 series against him. Also, the bad boy Pistons began to revolutionize defenses in the late 80s and even caused Bird to shoot in the 30s in 88 (he did torch a weaker Pistons teams a year earlier though). Fact is that this shows Bird could be worked with the proper defense on him. During the mid 90s, the game got slowed down and fg%'s decreased. Teams began to abuse hand-checking more and more like Pat Riley. If LB is playing in this era, he has to face more stronger defenses. The 96/97 Bulls had an amazing perimeter defense and were great at help defense/team defense. LB could play in the post but those Bulls teams had a tactic where they would double someone in the post and cause a quick turnover. Would Bird still get his? Yes but he would have to work much more and wouldn't be able to abuse the Bulls like he abused the Hawks.

I am not selling Pip at all, I have mentioned many times that he would give Bird some trouble, but Bird would still outplay him, and I am glad we both agree on this.

[chitownsfinest]

'86 Celtics...yes. 1983 Sixers or 1987 Lakers....no

'83 Sixers vs '96 Bulls
C - Malone > Longley
PF - Iavaroni < Rodman
SF - Erving ? Pippen (Prime Pippen vs Old Erving....though one)
SG - Toney < MJ
PG - Cheeks > Harper

'87 Lakers vs '96 Bulls
C - Kareem > Longley
PF - Green < Rodman
SF - Worthy < Pippen
SG - Scott < MJ
PG - Magic > Harper

'86 Celtics vs '96 Bulls
C - Parish > Longley
PF - McHale > Rodman
SF - Bird > Pippen
SG - Ainge < MJ
PG - DJ > Harper

As you can see, the '96 Bulls matchup quite well with the '83 Sixers and '87 Lakers, but vs the '86 Celtics they matchup badly. Always go by matchups when comparing teams, always.
Still, if I look at this matchups the 83 Sixers and 87 Lakers (who I actually consider the GOAT team as I stated earlier in the thread) have huge front court advantages. For example, if I simply were to look at the matchups, I would assume the Lakers destroy the Bulls because they have two particular matchups they could abuse and destroy in KAJ/Longley and Magic/Harper. Granted, that does not tell the whole picture.

I feel matchups are better used when comparing teams from the same era. When I need to compare teams from the 80s, I would use matchups. However when I compare teams from the 80s and 90s or 00s and 60s, I would use dominance relevant to the league they played in. That's just my take on the subject.

[godofgods]

Wow, the racism in this thread is off the charts.

[97 bulls]

You know, sometimes I really question your basketball wisdom. BIRD WAS 33-35 YEARS OLD when he played pip to a stand still, not 30. You must really be an idiot if you think Bird was in his prime in his mid 30's. The sad thing is, you actually think he was in his prime because you want to make yourself believe it just to make a point.
sorry in his 30s. but i agree that neither was in their prime. and it was a stand still. i see no reason why both playing in their primes would be different.

[97 bulls]

Still, if I look at this matchups the 83 Sixers and 87 Lakers (who I actually consider the GOAT team as I stated earlier in the thread) have huge front court advantages. For example, if I simply were to look at the matchups, I would assume the Lakers destroy the Bulls because they have two particular matchups they could abuse and destroy in KAJ/Longley and Magic/Harper. Granted, that does not tell the whole picture.

I feel matchups are better used when comparing teams from the same era. When I need to compare teams from the 80s, I would use matchups. However when I compare teams from the 80s and 90s or 00s and 60s, I would use dominance relevant to the league they played in. That's just my take on the subject.
your starting to concern me chi. i really dont see the huge matchup advantages in the front court. can you please enlighten me?

[chitownsfinest]

your starting to concern me chi. i really dont see the huge matchup advantages in the front court. can you please enlighten me?
I'm saying looking at the matchup on paper would tell you the Bulls FO would get torched. Obviously this is farther from the truth as the Bulls still defended strong front courts in the second three peat despite the disadvantages and looking at matchups on paper does not cut it.

[97 bulls]

I think it is unfair to penalize the 96/97 Bulls for not matching up properly to the 86 Celtics. If we look at it in that way, then the 83 Sixers, 85/87 Lakers, and 84/86 Celtics all sh!t on the Bulls. For one thing, those Bulls teams played in a period of expansion where teams weren't allowed to stack up on talent and talent was spread throughout the league. It was also the period when wide-spread free agency began. Teams could not stack up on talent like they could in the 80s due to more teams. It is for this reason that it is better to look at the Bulls relative to their league as it was a completely different era at that point.
i also take exception to the teams werent "stacked" quote. the 90s team boasted just as much talent as any other decade. i dont see how the 87 lakers or 85 lakers are anymore stacked than the bulls. the 85 lakers had alot of bigname players but they were older. its not like mac and wilkes were still in their prime. nor was worthy. neither was the 87 lakers. kereem was a good center at this stage in his career. and i really dont think their bench was any good either. not to mention the west as a whole was icredibly weak.

[chitownsfinest]

i also take exception to the teams werent "stacked" quote. the 90s team boasted just as much talent as any other decade. i dont see how the 87 lakers or 85 lakers are anymore stacked than the bulls. the 85 lakers had alot of bigname players but they were older. its not like mac and wilkes were still in their prime. nor was worthy. neither was the 87 lakers. kereem was a good center at this stage in his career. and i really dont think their bench was any good either. not to mention the west as a whole was icredibly weak.
Once again I was talking about on paper matchups which people usually use to compare teams. In a actual game, it would obviously be a different story. On paper matchups would benefit 80s teams more due to the top teams in the 80s being able to stack up on more talent then 90s teams. However, the 90s talent was more evenly spread across the league due to free agency and expansion. Your last point about the west being weak in the 80s proves what I was saying.

[97 bulls]

and lets look at the 76ers front court. an older dr j vs prime pip. marc ivaroni vs rodman, and moses malone vs longley. now obviously longley wouldnt stop malone but when you consider that longley was playng against some of the best collection of centers ever i know hed make malone work the same way he did ewing, shaq, mourning, etc.

[97 bulls]

Once again I was talking about on paper matchups which people usually use to compare teams. In a actual game, it would obviously be a different story. On paper matchups would benefit 80s teams more due to the top teams in the 80s being able to stack up on more talent then 90s teams. However, the 90s talent was more evenly spread across the league due to free agency and expansion. Your last point about the west being weak in the 80s proves what I was saying.
but once again, who was stacked? after the lakers, and celtics? the rockets?

[chitownsfinest]

and lets look at the 76ers front court. an older dr j vs prime pip. marc ivaroni vs rodman, and moses malone vs longley. now obviously longley wouldnt stop malone but when you consider that longley was playng against some of the best collection of centers ever i know hed make malone work the same way he did ewing, shaq, mourning, etc.
On paper, it would seem that Moses would eat Longley for breakfast which was the point I was making. However, if we analyze the hypothetical from a in-game standpoint, the Bulls would be able to hold their own against their front court with their defensive strategies and strong post defense techniques they used to defeat stronger front courts in the second three peat. The Bulls defeated several teams that had strong front courts: 95 Hornets, 96 Sonics, 97 Heat, and 97 Hawks.

[97 bulls]

On paper, it would seem that Moses would eat Longley for breakfast which was the point I was making. However, if we analyze the hypothetical from a in-game standpoint, the Bulls would be able to hold their own against their front court with their defensive strategies and strong post defense techniques they used to defeat stronger front courts in the second three peat. The Bulls defeated several teams that had strong front courts: 95 Hornets, 96 Sonics, 97 Heat, and 97 Hawks.
i know you were using an on paper matchup. but you belive those teams were better. right?

[CB4GOATPF]

86 Celtics...yes. 1983 Sixers or 1987 Lakers....no

Some corrections...

'83 Sixers vs '96 Bulls

C - Malone > Longley
PF - Iavaroni < Rodman

SF - Erving > Pippen (Prime Pippen vs Old Erving....though one)

*Pippen would not be able to to Guard Erving, Who Was a Better at Everything than Pippen but Passing and Defense....1 on 1 Dr J would own and he had a great Mid Range Game too compared to Pippen...

SG - Toney < MJ (But Jordan would have to Work This Time...Kind of Like When He Was Guarding Reggie Miller, Andrew Was a Strong Dude with Great Mid Range Game Too)

PG - Cheeks < Harper

'87 Lakers vs '96 Bulls

C - Kareem > Longley

PF - Green = Rodman

*Green actually had some Offensive Game...Which Rodman Never Did

SF - Worthy < Pippen :no:

*Pippen would not have been able to guard Worthy in the Paint or in a Fast Break Situation.

SG - Scott < MJ
PG - Magic > Harper

'86 Celtics vs '96 Bulls

C - Parish > Longley
PF - McHale > Rodman
SF - Bird > Pippen
SG - Ainge < MJ

PG - DJ = Harper

[97 bulls]

86 Celtics...yes. 1983 Sixers or 1987 Lakers....no

Some corrections...

'83 Sixers vs '96 Bulls

C - Malone > Longley
PF - Iavaroni < Rodman

SF - Erving > Pippen (Prime Pippen vs Old Erving....though one)
*Pippen would not be able to to Guard Erving, Who Was a Better at Everything than Pippen but Passing and Defense....1 on 1 Dr J would own and he had a great Mid Range Game too...

SG - Toney < MJ (But Jordan would have to Work This Time...Kind of Like When He Was Guarding Reggie Miller, Andrew Was a Strong Dude with Great Mid Range Game Too)

PG - Cheeks < Harper

'87 Lakers vs '96 Bulls

C - Kareem > Longley

PF - Green = Rodman
Green actually had some Offensive Game...

SF - Worthy < Pippen :no:

Pippen would not have been able to guard Worthy in the Paint or in a Fast Break Situation.

SG - Scott < MJ
PG - Magic > Harper

'86 Celtics vs '96 Bulls

C - Parish > Longley
PF - McHale > Rodman
SF - Bird > Pippen
SG - Ainge < MJ

PG - DJ = Harper
lol you give alot of respect to harper.and how do you answer the lakers taking 2 of 3 finals and the pistons beating the celtics too? the celtics front lne was better than both of those teams.

[G.O.A.T]

scottie pippen said larry bird was his hardest defensive assignment ever. ive never heard of that. and to be honest find it hard to believe. but i think we agree that all things considered whwn they went up against each other it was a wash. and if pip got even minutes his stats would be higher. and the back problems excuse is irrelavant cuz bird was chucn mad shots and was still getting starters minutes. so let it go. he showed no signs of back problems until his last year. while pip was an unheralded unknown from central arkansas. and considering that its even more impressive. cuz he obviously had to earn the respect of the league unlike a top pick of birds caliber.

and everything else you typed is honestly just jibberish. other than birds shooting ability.

You are hopeless. And if you are in your 30's (which your not) stop saying bro, stop typing cuz, look into punctuation, grow up, stop calling Scottie Pippen Pip and stop ruining otherwise mostly good conversation with an ignorant desire to argue anything and everything.

[97 bulls]

You are hopeless. And if you are in your 30's (which your not) stop saying bro, stop typing cuz, look into punctuation, grow up, stop calling Scottie Pippen Pip and stop ruining otherwise mostly good conversation with an ignorant desire to argue anything and everything.
lol since when did you become my english teacher. i cant help that your a liar. and if you show me where pip said that then ill humbly apologize. until then lets just keep it basketball. u dont know me and i dont wanna know you.:cheers:

[G.O.A.T]

^ you're not even smart enough to know who your talking to.

[CB4GOATPF]

lol you give alot of respect to harper.and how do you answer the lakers taking 2 of 3 finals and the pistons beating the celtics too? the celtics front lne was better than both of those teams.

DJ would have a bit of trouble with Harpers Drives (talking about prime Harper)

Age and athletic capacity:

Even though Bird, Parish and McHale where Great Skilled, Fundamentally Sound, B-Ball IQed Players etc they where not Great Athletic Players and by 1987-88 they where passed age 30: them 3 (plus DJ). At that those ages most players that are not gifted athletically will suffer more (especially since they did not benefit from the weight training advances-vitamins etc of the 90s). Pistons where also Deeper Between 87-91.

[1987_Lakers]

You are hopeless. And if you are in your 30's (which your not) stop saying bro, stop typing cuz, look into punctuation, grow up, stop calling Scottie Pippen Pip and stop ruining otherwise mostly good conversation with an ignorant desire to argue anything and everything.

:applause:

I get so tired of arguing with 97 bulls because he has no idea what he's talking about. He simply talks out of his butt. I heard him say he would take Stockton over Magic, Rodman over McHale, & Bird and Pippen is a wash. He has a grudge against the 80's and he would say ANYTHING to make himself believe the '97 bulls were the greatest team ever, when in reality, they weren't even the best Bulls team ever, I'll take the '96 version instead.

[G.O.A.T]

:applause:

I get so tired of arguing with 97 bulls because he has no idea what he's talking about. He simply talks out of his butt. I heard him say he would take Stockton over Magic, Rodman over McHale, & Bird and Pippen is a wash. He has a grudge against the 80's and he would say ANYTHING to make himself believe the '97 bulls were the greatest team ever, when in reality, they weren't even the best Bulls team ever, I'll take the '96 version instead.

I just don't like people who can't understand the difference between opinions and facts and that a single stat or a collection of five or six supports an opinion, not proves it. And to the other extreme there are few things more annoying then debating with someone who when confronted with statistical evidence to potentially disprove theory theory, opinion or assumption play the "stats are meaningless" card. 97Bulls is miraculously both of these things. He is also a teenager clearly who thinks being 20 years older would give his opinions more credence. Ironic.

This forum is filled with kids who need to be moderated. The moderators here are awful, they are invisible and inept and it severely hurts the quality of the most active hoops forum I've come across.

[97 bulls]

:applause:

I get so tired of arguing with 97 bulls because he has no idea what he's talking about. He simply talks out of his butt. I heard him say he would take Stockton over Magic, Rodman over McHale, & Bird and Pippen is a wash. He has a grudge against the 80's and he would say ANYTHING to make himself believe the '97 bulls were the greatest team ever, when in reality, they weren't even the best Bulls team ever, I'll take the '96 version instead.
lol your funny. almost every thread you make or post in involves the 86 celtics or the 80s is better than the 90s or 00s. and yet you say im biased? ive always said you argue like a girl. you only hear what you want to hear. here are some statements ive made and your response:

the magic vs stockton debate,

i believe john stockton is a better PURE pg than magic. and for that reason id take him over magic for my alltime team.

your response to that. oh my god he just said stockton was better than magic

on the rodman vs mchale matchup.
i feel that kevin mchale due to his mediocre rebounding ability, would have a hard time containing rodman.
and that while mchale would get his, rodman would make him work for whatever he got.

your response, oh my god he believes rodman is better than mchale.

on the 80s vs 90s debate

ive stated that no era is more talented than another. just different styles. the watered down theory is completely weak, and each era had their strengths and weakness. in fact, i believe the 80s were more exciting.

somehow, you took from that that while im arguing for the 90s im saying the 80s was the best era ever.

on the pip vs bird debate,

while i give a slight egde to bird CAREER WISE, (solely cuz both players had different paths and bird accomplished more due to that). in a head to head matchup, i see bird having a harder time keeping pip from being able to do his thing as opposed to the other way. and in the head to head matchups, they basically played to a stand still. with us both acknowledgeing that neither was in their prime. im sorry but i call that a wash:confusedshrug:

you believe that im sayn that pip and bird are dead even which is true.

as far as the 96 and 97 bulls. 97 was deeper. 96 was relatively injury free, and won 72 games which nobody saw that coming. in 97 everybody knew what they were, they endured alot of injuries, lost rodman for 20 plus games due to suspension, and had williams for only 9 games. and williams at full strength is a definate upgrade over all the other bulls centers. and with all of these problems, they still won 69 games. 69 fricken games!!!!!!!!!!!. how many do they win with rodman only missing half those games and williams playn the whole season? more than 72 for sure.

i think everything i say is well thought out and unbiased. i cant help that you dont agree with it.

[97 bulls]

I just don't like people who can't understand the difference between opinions and facts and that a single stat or a collection of five or six supports an opinion, not proves it. And to the other extreme there are few things more annoying then debating with someone who when confronted with statistical evidence to potentially disprove theory theory, opinion or assumption play the "stats are meaningless" card. 97Bulls is miraculously both of these things. He is also a teenager clearly who thinks being 20 years older would give his opinions more credence. Ironic.

This forum is filled with kids who need to be moderated. The moderators here are awful, they are invisible and inept and it severely hurts the quality of the most active hoops forum I've come across.
dude why are you so offended? this is a forum for basketball fans. not an english and literature class. and obviously everything im sayn to you is sinking in cuz youre frustrated. and thats a clear sign that you know im right. when conversations like these are had, you know and i know that this is all just opinion. it just seems to me that you cant look at the big picture. thats all that i do. im just trying to train you to see things like that too.

and as far as my age, look at it like this. if i really am a teen, why would i be arguing for a team that played when i was a todler? i dont know very many 3 or 4 year olds that can remember watching the nba finals and remember enough to appreciate it. and most teenagers are stone kobe or lebron fans. now while i enjoy watching those guys play, they are not on jordans level. yu can check my post history and see that.

now id be willing to bet that you were an only child who was raised by a woman cuz you my friend pout when you dont get your way. i suggest counseling:cheers:

[1987_Lakers]

lol your funny. almost every thread you make or post in involves the 86 celtics or the 80s is better than the 90s or 00s. and yet you say im biased? ive always said you argue like a girl. you only hear what you want to hear. here are some statements ive made and your response:

the magic vs stockton debate,

i believe john stockton is a better PURE pg than magic. and for that reason id take him over magic for my alltime team.

your response to that. oh my god he just said stockton was better than magic

on the rodman vs mchale matchup.
i feel that kevin mchale due to his mediocre rebounding ability, would have a hard time containing rodman.
and that while mchale would get his, rodman would make him work for whatever he got.

Wow, so you would rather have Stockton than Magic? You are either an idiot who has no knowledge of the game what so ever or you have a grudge against the 80's. I think it's both. As for the McHale vs Rodman matchup, Rodman was 35 years old in '97, Rodman wasn't the same defender he was 7 years ago. By the late 90's although still a solid defender, Rodman was more of a rebounder. McHale in '86 was the most unstoppable offensive player in the NBA, it's common sense to realize McHale takes this matchup. And lol @ you giving Bird a "slight" edge over Pippen career wise, picking Rodman over McHale and saying Bird and Pippen is a wash just shows your bias towards the Bulls. Any knowledgeable / unbiased fan would take Bird over Pippen in a matchup and McHale over Rodman in a matchup.

Do I think the 80's were better than the 90's? Yes. But I don't go around saying I would rather have Adrian Dantley on my team than Pippen or Maurice Cheeks was better than Stockton. That is something you do.

Fact is you made yourself look real stupid in this thread by your responses, the best thing to do right now is just walk away.

[97 bulls]

Wow, so you would rather have Stockton than Magic? You are either an idiot who has no knowledge of the game what so ever or you have a grudge against the 80's. I think it's both. As for the McHale vs Rodman matchup, Rodman was 35 years old in '97, Rodman wasn't the same defender he was 7 years ago. By the late 90's although still a solid defender, Rodman was more of a rebounder. McHale in '86 was the most unstoppable offensive player in the NBA, it's common sense to realize McHale takes this matchup. And lol @ you giving Bird a "slight" edge over Pippen career wise, picking Rodman over McHale and saying Bird and Pippen is a wash just shows your bias towards the Bulls. Any knowledgeable / unbiased fan would take Bird over Pippen in a matchup and McHale over Rodman in a matchup.

Do I think the 80's were better than the 90's? Yes. But I don't go around saying I would rather have Adrian Dantley on my team than Pippen or Maurice Cheeks was better than Stockton. That is something you do.

Fact is you made yourself look real stupid in this thread by your responses, the best thing to do right now is just walk away.

lol you are incredible. i see that the way you argue basketball is the same way i did when i was 12. ok, lets look at it fom another perspective. its clear that the only reason you pick mchale over rodman is scoring ability. the fact is, that rodman doesnt have to outscore mchale to win his matchup. in a head to head matchup between the 2, i see rodman averaging like 8 pts 19 rbds, with about 7-8 being offensive due to mchales mediocre rebounding ability. and i see him forcing mchale into 3-4 TOs a game. i see mchale getting 24 pts 7 rbds. and shoot about 50%. now you might call that a win for mchale but as a coach id be pissed at mchale for allowing rodman to get so many boards. the fact is that rodman wasnt your average 35 year old. hed ride on a stationary bike inbetween his time in the game. he had amazing stamina. not to mention the rodman in 87 was about 210lbs, and defended the jordans and birds of the world (along with mchale) but more perimeter players. the rodman in 97 looked about 240. and all muscle. he exclusivley was a low post defender.

ive stated several times that i feel the top 5 teams that ive ever seen are

1.97 bulls
2.83 sixers
3.87 lakers
4.86 celtics
5.08 celtics

3 of the best teams ive seen came out of the 80s. i dont think thats biased.

youve already been owned on the whole bird vs pippen thing. if all the things chitown and i showed you dont change your mind, nothing will. but you clearly have the bias my friend.

[1987_Lakers]

lol you are incredible. i see that the way you argue basketball is the same way i did when i was 12.

I wouldn't be surprised if you were 12. Your grammar is awful.:oldlol:


i see rodman averaging like 8 pts 19 rbds, with about 7-8 being offensive due to mchales mediocre rebounding ability. and i see him forcing mchale into 3-4 TOs a game. i see mchale getting 24 pts 7 rbds. and shoot about 50%.

Rodman would average more like 5 PPG and 17-18 RPG, while McHale would average 23-25 PPG. 8-9 RPG . 55 FG%. If Rodman couldn't contain Shawn Kemp in the NBA Finals, how in the world is he going to contain McHale? And I think you are overacting by saying McHale's rebounding was mediocre. It's hard to average 10+ rpg when you have Robert Parish, Larry Bird, & Bill Walton on your team. Celtics win the McHale-Rodman matchup.


ive stated several times that i feel the top 5 teams that ive ever seen are

1.97 bulls
2.83 sixers
3.87 lakers
4.86 celtics
5.08 celtics

3 of the best teams ive seen came out of the 80s. i dont think thats biased.


You've never seen the '86 Celtics play, you thought Greg Kite was apart of the Celtics rotation.:oldlol:



youve already been owned on the whole bird vs pippen thing.

Really? Last time I checked you were arguing how Bird was "in his prime" when he played against Pippen and I showed you he wasn't, so really....you were the one who got owned. I'm still laughing at you for calling '90-'92 Bird a "Prime Bird".:oldlol:

[97 bulls]

I wouldn't be surprised if you were 12. Your grammar is awful.:oldlol:



Rodman would average more like 5 PPG and 17-18 RPG, while McHale would average 23-25 PPG. 8-9 RPG . 55 FG%. If Rodman couldn't contain Shawn Kemp in the NBA Finals, how in the world is he going to contain McHale? And I think you are overacting by saying McHale's rebounding was mediocre. It's hard to average 10+ rpg when you have Robert Parish, Larry Bird, & Bill Walton on your team. Celtics win the McHale-Rodman matchup.



You've never seen the '86 Celtics play, you thought Greg Kite was apart of the Celtics rotation.:oldlol:



Really? Last time I checked you were arguing how Bird was "in his prime" when he played Pippen and I showed you he wasn't, so really....you were the one who got owned. I'm still laughing at you for calling '90-'92 Bird a "Prime Bird".:oldlol:
lol i know your not tryn to expose someone. your a closet celtics fan disguised as laker fan. if you lived in la, youd get your ass kicked for doing something like that. in fact, if you lived in boston you get your ass kicked too.

and let the greg kite thing go. that was over 23 years ago. at least i knew he was on the team. and he did play in over 60 games. geez

as far as the rodman/mchale matchup, based on the figures you provided. rodman didnt stop mchale at doing what he does best and neither did mchale on rodman. and how do you feel mchale gets more rebounds going against rodman than he averaged in 86 anyway? talk about biased. your arguments are a joke.

[1987_Lakers]

as far as the rodman/mchale matchup, based on the figures you provided. rodman didnt stop mchale at doing what he does best and neither did mchale on rodman. and how do you feel mchale gets more rebounds going against rodman than he averaged in 86 anyway? talk about biased. your arguments are a joke.

How is grabbing 8-9 rebounds getting more rebounds than what McHale averaged? McHale averaged 8.1 RPG in '86. Are you really that dumb? If anything I should call you out for saying Rodman would average 8 PPG, how will Rodman average 8 PPG against an All-NBA defender in McHale when in the regular season...Rodman average 5 PPG. Stop being a hypocrite. And if neither are going to stop each other at what they do best....then McHale has the advantage in the matchup it's that simple. The only edge Rodman has over McHale is rebounding, McHale has a HUGE edge on offense, he's a better shot blocker, and he's an All-NBA defender just like Rodman.

[1987_Lakers]

Lol, I know you're not trying to expose someone. You're a closet celtics fan disguised as laker fan. If you lived in LA, you'd get your ass kicked for doing something like that. In fact, if you lived in Boston you would get your ass kicked too.

Fixed. My god, did you go to school?

[97 bulls]

Fixed. My god, did you go to school?
lol so your my secretary now? if so, i have some dry cleaning and few errands for you to run.

[1987_Lakers]

Lol, so you're my secretary now? If so, I have some dry cleaning and few errands for you to run.

Grammar still needs improvement, at least you put a comma after "so" though.

[97 bulls]

How is grabbing 8-9 rebounds getting more rebounds than what McHale averaged? McHale averaged 8.1 RPG in '86. Are you really that dumb? If anything I should call you out for saying Rodman would average 8 PPG, how will Rodman average 8 PPG against an All-NBA defender in McHale when in the regular season...Rodman average 5 PPG. Stop being a hypocrite. And if neither are going to stop each other at what they do best....then McHale has the advantage in the matchup it's that simple. The only edge Rodman has over McHale is rebounding, McHale has a HUGE edge on offense, he's a better shot blocker, and he's an All-NBA defender just like Rodman.
i think this is the best argument youve made. now, while your right, the bulls never needed rodman to score. so mchale being a good defender on rodman is worthless. rodman is not gonna post him up. hed get his points solely on putbacks. mchale cant double off him cuz the 18 rbs you said hed get becomes 22 to 23. with half of those being offensive. i just see rodman doin more to mchale than vice versa.

[97 bulls]

Grammar still needs improvement, at least you put a comma after "so" though.
thats what i have you for.

[1987_Lakers]

i think this is the best argument youve made. now, while your right, the bulls never needed rodman to score. so mchale being a good defender on rodman is worthless. rodman is not gonna post him up. hed get his points solely on putbacks. mchale cant double off him cuz the 18 rbs you said hed get becomes 22 to 23. with half of those being offensive. i just see rodman doin more to mchale than vice versa.

Well, the Bulls need someone else to score other than MJ and Pippen because they don't have enough weapons/size to match up with the Celtics.

[CB4GOATPF]

1987 Lakers remember the long writings i put a year before explaing the many reasons to these dummies why the 96 Bulls would have no change against the 86 Celtics?. Try to find them so this thread can be over as it was before.

Greets...

[97 bulls]

1987 Lakers remember the long writings i put a year before explaing the many reasons to these dummies why the 96 Bulls would have no change against the 86 Celtics?. Try to find them so this thread can be over as it was before.

Greets...
lol how can he do that? youve only been posting for a few months.

[97 bulls]

Well, the Bulls need someone else to score other than MJ and Pippen because they don't have enough weapons/size to match up with the Celtics.
bulls have plenty of firepower. and size is no problem see the lakers and sixers.

[1987_Lakers]

1987 Lakers remember the long writings i put a year before explaing the many reasons to these dummies why the 96 Bulls would have no change against the 86 Celtics?. Try to find them so this thread can be over as it was before.

Greets...

I think I found it...

Let me give notice to you that Celtics played with a Combo Guard-Line Up

Ainge was a Better Shooter than DJ but Could Pass with PG Abbilities too
DJ was a Pure PG, Smarter, Defensive Player and was a Clutch Shooter. Could Rebound Asoume at 6`5 too.

Celtics would use their Big Line Up:) to Kill the Bulls, Adding in Walton along Parish and McHale in the Frontline. So you have the following:

In their Prime:

C: PARISH (17-20 ppg, 55-60%FG, 9-11 RPG) v.s C: WILLIAMS (LONGLEY,WELL)

CHIEF Wins Easy!:rolleyes:

C-F: WALTON (Bulls Would have to Put in Another Center to Hold him from Rebounding and Scoring, And he Could Also Pass)

Walton would Win That Roll Player! Plus Could Rebound, Block Shots, Had Clutch Game and from that Spot Could CREATE ASSITS :)

PF: McHALE 6`10 (18-26 PPG, 60.4%Fg%, 8-9 RPG) vs PF: RODMAN/GRANT

McHale Not Only Wins, Schools!!!. Id Suggest The Bulls Put in CENTER to Guard McHales 6`10 ft Post Play and his 7`2ft Arm Lenght Post :rolleyes:

SG: BIRD 6`9 ft (3-Point Specialist, 29 PPG, 10 RPG, 6-8 ASPG) vs KUKOC/PIPPEN

Bird already Schooled Pippen a Better Defender than Kukoc at Age 33-35:rolleyes: PAST HIS PHYSICAL PIME and AFTER HIS BACK INJURY. Kukoc would Guard him Well in the Post due to Height but he Would Not Outrebound Him, Would Not Stop him from Scoring from A Far and Would Definetly Not Sop him from Getting PG ASSIT TYPE NUMBERS and Making His Team Better. Also If You have a 1979 to 1986 Bird. They you had a Much Faster Bird:oldlol:

PG: DJ (D Stopper, Assiter, Rebounder, Clutch Shooter) vs Jordan (SG/PG)

This is the only SPOT where the Bulls would win. But Jordan would be Slowed Down but DJs Witty Game and would have to Work if DJ Posted Him Up. DJ had a Fat Ass and was Great Rebounder for 6`5 ft. Jordan would win the 1 on 1 Game Obviously but he would Suffer in the Slow Front-Court Game with DJ. Then the Celtics would just Bring in DANNY AINGE to Make Jordan Run More and Danny would Get his Shots Off due to the Pick and Rolls designed by PARSIH, WALTON, McHALE and BIRD.

So here it is. If THE CELTICS BRING IN THEIR "TALL TEAM" (As They Did v.s The 1986 Rockets which had HAKEEM and SAMSON: Whom Beat a PRIME MAGIC, WORTHY, SCOTT, GREEN and KAREEM still scoring 23-26 PPG at a 53 TO 56% FG)...HOW CAN THE BULLS WIN? :rolleyes: :hammerhead:

CELTICS = DOMINATE 4 SPOTS

BULLS= DOMINATE 1 SPOT

1986 CELTICS and Their BIG LINE UP that Could Play BOTH FAST AND SLOW TEMPO would OWN the 1996 BULLS...EASY:confusedshrug:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=94592&page=14

[1987_Lakers]

bulls have plenty of firepower. and size is no problem see the lakers and sixers.

Against the Celtics, the Bulls don't have the firepower. The Celtics edge in talent / firepower is big, and don't even try to tell me the Bulls had more talent than the Celtics. And size does create a problem, the '83 Sixers and '87 Lakers do not create the matchup problems against the Bulls like the Celtics do.

[Doctor K]

Where are the 60s Celtics in this conversation? They won 8 titles in a row, including knocking off some great legendary teams that are now forgotten. They had 3-4 HOFs all in their PRIMES playing at the same time. I don't think ANY other team can claim that. They also had arguably the GOAT coach.

I mean come on, they won 8 in a row, do people realize that kind of domination?
Ignored? Come on, why aren't the 60s Celtics the GOAT Team? They had offense, they had defense, they had coaching, they had HOFs, they had Top 10 legends, they had it all.

[97 bulls]

Against the Celtics, the Bulls don't have the firepower. The Celtics edge in talent / firepower is big, and don't even try to tell me the Bulls had more talent than the Celtics. And size does create a problem, the '83 Sixers and '87 Lakers do not create the matchup problems against the Bulls like the Celtics do.
im all about being level. like i stated before if you were to factor in pace the celtics offense isnt that vast. this is roughly what the 97 bulls offensive stats would be if they played in the 80s.

jordan averaged 29 in 97, if you factor in pace relative to the 80s it would about 32. pip averaged about 20 in 97 that about equal to 23. kukoc was 13 which would go up to 16. harper about 10. and longley about 13. and williams and kerr would average about 10 to 11 in the 80s pace. so, lets compare

97 bulls top 4 scorers at 80s pace vs 86 celtics top 4.

jordan 32 bird 26
pip 23 mchale 21
kukoc 16 parrish 16
longley 12 dj 16

actually, when pace is factored in, the bulls have more firepower. and thats playing in a set offense. not an uptempo style.

not to mention i didnt even add a non rusty briam williams who at full strength is a much better scorer than longley. williams playing in the 80s averages about 18 ppg.

[97 bulls]

Ignored? Come on, why aren't the 60s Celtics the GOAT Team? They had offense, they had defense, they had coaching, they had HOFs, they had Top 10 legends, they had it all.
im sorry doc. but to me 60s just doesnt measure up to 80s 90s and 00s. the game is clearly more refined.

[1987_Lakers]

im all about being level. like i stated before if you were to factor in pace the celtics offense isnt that vast. this is roughly what the 97 bulls offensive stats would be if they played in the 80s.

jordan averaged 29 in 97, if you factor in pace relative to the 80s it would about 32. pip averaged about 20 in 97 that about equal to 23. kukoc was 13 which would go up to 16. harper about 10. and longley about 13. and williams and kerr would average about 10 to 11 in the 80s pace. so, lets compare

If you are going to factor in pace, then you might as well factor the shorten 3 point line the Bulls played with. From the '94-'95 season - '96-'97 season the NBA attempted to address decreased scoring by shortening the distance of the line to a uniform 22 feet around the basket (23 feet, 9 inches was the original distance). MJ and Pippen thrived with the short 3 point line.

3 point Field Goal Percentage:
1996 Jordan 42.6%
1996 Pippen 37.4%
1997 Jordan 37.4%
1997 Pippen 36.8 %
1998 Jordan 23.8%
1998 Pippen 31.8%

3 Point Field Goal Made:
1996 Jordan: 111
1996 Pippen : 150
1996 Jordan: 111
1997 Pippen: 156
1998 Jordan: 30
1998 Pippen: 61

When the 3 point line went back to it's original distance, scoring went down for MJ, Pippen, & the Bulls. The Bulls PPG as a team went down by 6-7 points. So really, the shorten 3 point line the Bulls played with and the Celtics fast pace they played almost even out. I stand by my point that the Celtics had more fire power.

[G.O.A.T]

As annoying as these long arguments can be, you get some really great stats from time to time. That Jordan\Pippen thrre point % variance is pretty crazy.

I wonder what other players benfitted greatly from the shorter line.

I remember Dream hitting a few, that's whn I knew it was too short.

[97 bulls]

If you are going to factor in pace, then you might as well factor the shorten 3 point line the Bulls played with. From the '94-'95 season - '96-'97 season the NBA attempted to address decreased scoring by shortening the distance of the line to a uniform 22 feet around the basket (23 feet, 9 inches was the original distance). MJ and Pippen thrived with the short 3 point line.

3 point Field Goal Percentage:
1996 Jordan 42.6%
1996 Pippen 37.4%
1997 Jordan 37.4%
1997 Pippen 36.8 %
1998 Jordan 23.8%
1998 Pippen 31.8%

3 Point Field Goal Made:
1996 Jordan: 111
1996 Pippen : 150
1996 Jordan: 111
1997 Pippen: 156
1998 Jordan: 30
1998 Pippen: 61

When the 3 point line went back to it's original distance, scoring went down for MJ, Pippen, & the Bulls. The Bulls PPG as a team went down by 6-7 points. So really, the shorten 3 point line the Bulls played with and the Celtics fast pace they played almost even out. I stand by my point that the Celtics had more fire power.
well if the 3 move helped so much why did the nba move it back? the answer is it didnt help. in fact it hurt the league even more. cuz too many players were shooting the 3 and overall ppg suffered as a result. not to mention jordan and pippen put up their respective averages before and after the 3pt rule changes. for example. pip averaged about 21 ppg during the 3 3pt shortened years. when it was moved back in 98 and he missed half the season due to injury, he scored 19 a game. i believe that a healthy pip could make up 1.5 pts easily. and if you think that the 3 is the only reason jordan hit 30 a game then i cant help you. do you agree with my response? if not why?

[97 bulls]

As annoying as these long arguments can be, you get some really great stats from time to time. That Jordan\Pippen thrre point % variance is pretty crazy.

I wonder what other players benfitted greatly from the shorter line.

I remember Dream hitting a few, that's whn I knew it was too short.
like i said in the other post, it hurt the players and scoring, more than it helped. thats why the nba moved it back. and after only three years too.

[97 bulls]

on a side note. through pips first 10 games of the 98 season, he shot 37% from the field and 23% from the 3. i use his first 10 games to show that he was rusty and that a healthy pippen obviously shoots a much better %. he got it up to a respectable 45 and 31 as he got back into playing shape.

[CB4GOATPF]

I think I found it...


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=94592&page=14

:applause: :cheers:

[Johnni Gade]

Maybe not GOAT, but close

[1987_Lakers]

well if the 3 move helped so much why did the nba move it back? the answer is it didnt help. in fact it hurt the league even more. cuz too many players were shooting the 3 and overall ppg suffered as a result. not to mention jordan and pippen put up their respective averages before and after the 3pt rule changes. for example. pip averaged about 21 ppg during the 3 3pt shortened years. when it was moved back in 98 and he missed half the season due to injury, he scored 19 a game. i believe that a healthy pip could make up 1.5 pts easily. and if you think that the 3 is the only reason jordan hit 30 a game then i cant help you. do you agree with my response? if not why?

The Chicago Bulls more than any other team benefited from the shorten 3 point line. The stats are right there. Chicago with the short 3 point line in '97 were #6 in the NBA in 3 point %, in '98 they were #25 in 3 point %. Bulls went from having the most PPG in '97 to having the #9 PPG in '98. Don't just look at the rest of the NBA and say how "short 3 point line hurt the league" and "overall PPG suffered as a result", look at the Bulls. And the stats clearly show the Bulls were a much more explosive team with the short 3 point line.

[97 bulls]

The Chicago Bulls more than any other team benefited from the shorten 3 point line. The stats are right there. Chicago with the short 3 point line in '97 were #6 in the NBA in 3 point %, in '98 they were #25 in 3 point %. Bulls went from having the most PPG in '97 to having the #9 PPG in '98. Don't just look at the rest of the NBA and say how "short 3 point line hurt the league" and "overall PPG suffered as a result", look at the Bulls. And the stats clearly show the Bulls were a much more explosive team with the short 3 point line.
so the fact that their second best scorer missed half the season had nothing to do with them droping in the rankings? come on 87 get real. and like i stated in a previous post, pip coming back after missing half the season had to be rusty. take out his first 10 games and he shot a respectable fg and 3pt fg % even with the line moved back.

and how can you excuse the 87 celtics losing to the lakers by saying they had "injuries" but then penalize the bulls. at least pip DID NOT PLAY for over 30 games. what a hypocrite.

[1987_Lakers]

so the fact that their second best scorer missed half the season had nothing to do with them droping in the rankings? come on 87 get real. and like i stated in a previous post, pip coming back after missing half the season had to be rusty. take out his first 10 games and he shot a respectable fg and 3pt fg % even with the line moved back.

and how can you excuse the 87 celtics losing to the lakers by saying they had "injuries" but then penalize the bulls. at least pip DID NOT PLAY for over 30 games. what a hypocrite.

Go look at the Bulls PPG in the '98 playoffs, the Bulls only averaged 93-95 PPG with a healthy Pippen, so my point still stands. And I find it funny how you're acting like Pippen was a decent 3 point shooter with the original 3 point line. Without the shorten 3 point line, Pippen was a 30% 3 point shooter as a Chicago Bull, now compare that to a 37% 3 point shooter with the short 3 point line. You get real. My point is MJ/Pippen & the Bulls benefited greatly from the shorten 3 point line, I like how you are arguing this even though all of the stats say I'm right.

And I wasn't making an excuse for the '87 Celtics losing to the Lakers in the Finals by saying they had injuries. I was just saying how well they played considering all of the injuries they had. Don't put words in my mouth.

[godofgods]

The hate against white people who excel in basketball is ridiculous. Too bad whiteys don't have Al Sharpton or Rev Jackson.

[97 bulls]

Go look at the Bulls PPG in the '98 playoffs, the Bulls only averaged 93-95 PPG with a healthy Pippen, so my point still stands. And I find it funny how you're acting like Pippen was a decent 3 point shooter with the original 3 point line. Without the shorten 3 point line, Pippen was a 30% 3 point shooter as a Chicago Bull, now compare that to a 37% 3 point shooter with the short 3 point line. You get real. My point is MJ/Pippen & the Bulls benefited greatly from the shorten 3 point line, I like how you are arguing this even though all of the stats say I'm right.

And I wasn't making an excuse for the '87 Celtics losing to the Lakers in the Finals by saying they had injuries. I was just saying how well they played considering all of the injuries they had. Don't put words in my mouth.
what stat shows your right. pippens overall performance did not suffer from the adjustment of the 3pt line. in 98 he averaged 19 ppg. thats about his career peak average. and that goes up if hes not injured for 30 plus games.

not to mention even if you want to say it hurt him which is in itself assinine, it only dropped 1 point, 1 measley point. from the previous year.

and now youre tryn to use the playoffs????????? the bulls were still top 5 in offense and thats with more games played. factor in that the 98 playoffs were more of a battle than a basketball game. not to mention the bulls won fruitcake. i fail to see the reasoning in this argument. what your doing now is reaching.

when a person starts to reach like your doing, it shows a sign that you know youve lost. just accept it. and move on to the next subject. or call goat or somebody to help you out. cuz youre not in my league.

[1987_Lakers]

what stat shows your right. pippens overall performance did not suffer from the adjustment of the 3pt line. in 98 he averaged 19 ppg. thats about his career peak average. and that goes up if hes not injured for 30 plus games.

not to mention even if you want to say it hurt him which is in itself assinine, it only dropped 1 point, 1 measley point. from the previous year.

and now youre tryn to use the playoffs????????? the bulls were still top 5 in offense and thats with more games played. factor in that the 98 playoffs were more of a battle than a basketball game. not to mention the bulls won fruitcake. i fail to see the reasoning in this argument. what your doing now is reaching.

when a person starts to reach like your doing, it shows a sign that you know youve lost. just accept it. and move on to the next subject. or call goat or somebody to help you out. cuz youre not in my league.

My god. It's like arguing with a little kid who won't face facts. The stats are right there that show the Bulls were a more explosive team with the shorten 3 point line, I also showed you the Bulls PPG went down when the league re-located the 3 point line (with Scottie or not). The Bulls were still a very good offensive team in '98, but my point is they weren't as explosive as they were in '96 or '97, yet you're still in denial. And you say I'm hard headed.

And when a person gloats like you just did in your last sentence, it shows it fills some kind of a void for them. I would think there would still be an Empty spot inside of them. Maybe it's insecurity.

[97 bulls]

My god. It's like arguing with a little kid who won't face facts. The stats are right there that show the Bulls were a more explosive team with the shorten 3 point line, I also showed you the Bulls PPG went down when the league re-located the 3 point line (with Scottie or not). The Bulls were still a very good offensive team in '98, but my point is they weren't as explosive as they were in '96 or '97, yet you're still in denial. And you say I'm hard headed.

And when a person gloats like you just did in your last sentence, it shows it fills some kind of a void for them. I would think there would still be an Empty spot inside of them. Maybe it's insecurity.
the bulls averaged 96 ppg in 98. im tryn to tell you that not having scottie the whole season hurt that. so i added and averaged up what the bulls ppg was when scottie came back. it was 99.6. thats a tie for 5th. and the difference between them and the second ranked offense was 1 point. also, the bulls ppg would be higher with a non rusty pippen. definately top 2.

so like i said before, the bulls still had a top ranked offense 3 or no 3.

[97 bulls]

The hate against white people who excel in basketball is ridiculous. Too bad whiteys don't have Al Sharpton or Rev Jackson.
im going to acknowledge a statement like this one time. because i know youre directing this statement to me. this whole discussion ive had with 87 is on basketball only. youve never read any statement from me that could be construed as being racist. and i resent the implication. the 86 celtics were a great team. and their race had nothing to do with it. and me feeling that another team is better and you replying with this garbage is no different than what nuts like al sharpton and jesse jackson do. so in essence you are like them.

[gengiskhan]

WTF?


1986 Celtics is the best team defensive team ever
1986 Celtics is the best offensive team ever arguably.

[Round Mound]

86 Celtics is the Best of All Time :facepalm