Would Miami losing to either the Spurs or Thunder give them more credibility?

[97 bulls]

For as long as I've been on this forum. The biggest knock against the 90s Bulls has been this notion that their competition is bad because the teams they played never beat them (just typing it makes no sense). Will the same be said about the Heat if they win?

[MavsSuperFan]

For as long as I've been on this forum. The biggest knock against the 90s Bulls has been this notion that their competition is bad because the teams they played never beat them (just typing it makes no sense). Will the same be said about the Heat if they win?
No and nobody seriously discredits the bulls. they are just trolling you.

[poido123]

:facepalm


You're going to get flamed on this thread man. Miami gain more credibility by losing?

You make some good posts, threads on the other hand...

[1987_Lakers]

90's Bulls Finals opponents were just awful

91 - Lakers: Past their prime, no Kareem, Riley, & Cooper
92 - Blazers: Talented team that had no basketball IQ
93 - Suns: Where was their defensive presence?
96 - Sonics: They were the Clippers of their era
97 - Jazz: Stockton & Malone were old
98 - Jazz: See above

Just trolling

[16X]

I kinda see what you're saying OP. The Heat already lost (to the Mavs), and that showed us that Bran and Wade were not as great of a fit as we thought they'd be, and that winning was not going to be as easy as we thought it would be for them. This loss, while still a big negative, did make me respect the Heat's title wins against the Thunder and Spurs more than I might have had they dominated the Mavs their first year together.

[97 bulls]

:facepalm


You're going to get flamed on this thread man. Miami gain more credibility by losing?

You make some good posts, threads on the other hand...
Im not trying to troll. What im doing is showing how ridiculous it is to penalize a team for never losing.

[poido123]

90's Bulls Finals opponents were just awful

91 - Lakers: Past their prime, no Kareem, Riley, & Cooper
92 - Blazers: Talented team that had no basketball IQ
93 - Suns: Where was their defensive presence?
96 - Sonics: They were the Clippers of their era
97 - Jazz: Stockton & Malone were old
98 - Jazz: See above

Just trolling


You could find a flaw in any losing team if you look hard enough :oldlol:

Damn white text got me :lol:

[Marlo_Stanfield]

finals competetion for bulls was disgustingly bad
but Heat should win of course.
everyone already knows they are playing alltime great competition the finals each year because everyone is bragging about how stacked the east is

[poido123]

finals competetion for bulls was disgustingly bad
but Heat should win of course.
everyone already knows they are playing alltime great competition the finals each year because everyone is bragging about how stacked the east is


You know what's disgustingly bad?

You and Arbitrary water have posted over 7000 posts since January :oldlol:

[poido123]

Im not trying to troll. What im doing is showing how ridiculous it is to penalize a team for never losing.


I know you aren't.

They always go to the Orlando series as a reference point and get shot down every time :oldlol:

[TheMarkMadsen]

90's Bulls Finals opponents were just awful

91 - Lakers: Past their prime, no Kareem, Riley, & Cooper
92 - Blazers: Talented team that had no basketball IQ
93 - Suns: Where was their defensive presence?
96 - Sonics: They were the Clippers of their era
97 - Jazz: Stockton & Malone were old
98 - Jazz: See above

Just trolling


:roll: :roll: :facepalm

edit: oh

[Marlo_Stanfield]

You know what's disgustingly bad?

You and Arbitrary water have posted over 7000 posts since January :oldlol:
still better than you who is yet to make his first good post even tho already posted 80000 times:lol :lol :applause:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

They cant control who they're playing, so no, they aren't penalized...

Putting into perspective their road to the finals...or "competition" is a diffrent thing all together.

[Milbuck]

I think that happened in the Finals last season. No one can reasonably say there's weak competition when we consider how close they cut it last year. Bitter people will complain about their dominance...but if you look at closely, they're really not as dominant as they seem. They lost in 2011. In 2012 when they were down 3-2 in Boston they needed a legendary performance from Lebron to win it, and were tied going into the 4th quarter of game 7. We all know what happened last season, when they were literally one missed shot (or lost rebound) from losing in 6 games. This season is no guarantee as well, because the Spurs are as dangerous as ever. If just a few things went differently, this Heat team could still be ringless. Of course they're a terrific team and were able to prevent those things from happening, but you gotta look at how close they were.

They really aren't on this god-tier compared to other teams. OKC on a good day is on their level, San Antonio is obviously on their level, even the Clippers could push them to 7 games. And even if you don't consider 2-3 other contenders enough, we can't blame Miami. They didn't injure Derrick Rose. They didn't force the Pacers to **** up their own chemistry. They didn't tell James Harden to be content with sucking ass. They don't need to lose this year to gain credibility. The results will always be remembered, but the context is key. And the context is that they've scraped by.

[LongLiveTheKing]

Well Heat lost to the Mavs sooooo?

[JohnFreeman]

https://scontent-b-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/10415651_500251726774612_2973986980373613468_n.jpg

[Mr. Jabbar]

Brans asterisks are undeniable regardless of win/lose

[LeBird]

For as long as I've been on this forum. The biggest knock against the 90s Bulls has been this notion that their competition is bad because the teams they played never beat them (just typing it makes no sense). Will the same be said about the Heat if they win?

This is the stupidest post regarding this topic and just illustrates a misunderstanding of the arguments put forth to you.

The reason is not simply that others didn't beat them; but that the team composition of their opposition was never as good as theirs and the opposition had better players/team both prior and post the Bulls dominance in the 90s.

None of the contenders to their crown had a sustained excellence and the only team that really came close were better a decade prior in which they were basically irrelevant in terms of title talk (Jazz). In other words; if the one team that did challenge the Bulls was a team that was better 10 years before and couldn't sniff a title; what does that say about their competition?

[TheMan]

That makes no sense. Using that logic, Russell's Celtics are the worst champions in NBA history:facepalm

[97 bulls]

This is the stupidest post regarding this topic and just illustrates a misunderstanding of the arguments put forth to you.

The reason is not simply that others didn't beat them; but that the team composition of their opposition was never as good as theirs and the opposition had better players/team both prior and post the Bulls dominance in the 90s.

None of the contenders to their crown had a sustained excellence and the only team that really came close were better a decade prior in which they were basically irrelevant in terms of title talk (Jazz). In other words; if the one team that did challenge the Bulls was a team that was better 10 years before and couldn't sniff a title; what does that say about their competition?
But what metric are you making this claim? It's nothing but ambiguous analysis. What is typical of a championship caliber team? It's basically this:

Two players playing at a hall of fame level, and two or three other good players after them. Surrounded by good role players. And mind you thats what NORMALLY is the case. There are exceptions. Not all hall of famers are equal.

Sure the Celtics had five hofers on their team. But Dennis Johnson would be a weaker one. And Walton was not playing at a hall of fame level. So really, thats three hofers. Three and a half. Hell Mchale and Parish werent even first ballot hall of famers. Only Bird

The Jazz for instance had two hofers playing at a hall of fame level. And they are considered in the upper echelon of the hall of fame. As well as a hall of fame coach in Jerry Sloan. Then some very good role players.

But for some reason, they could only be credible if they played in the 80s. Thats nonsense

[LeBird]

But what metric are you making this claim? It's nothing but ambiguous analysis. What is typical of a championship caliber team? It's basically this:

Two players playing at a hall of fame level, and two or three other good players after them. Surrounded by good role players. And mind you thats what NORMALLY is the case. There are exceptions. Not all hall of famers are equal.

Sure the Celtics had five hofers on their team. But Dennis Johnson would be a weaker one. And Walton was not playing at a hall of fame level. So really, thats three hofers. Three and a half. Hell Mchale and Parish werent even first ballot hall of famers. Only Bird

The Jazz for instance had two hofers playing at a hall of fame level. And they are considered in the upper echelon of the hall of fame. As well as a hall of fame coach in Jerry Sloan. Then some very good role players.

But for some reason, they could only be credible if they played in the 80s. Thats nonsense

So you're smart enough to distinguish what is normally the case, but blind enough to miss the point.

Yes, those Jazz would be what would normally considered an average strength team when you compare the list of consistent title contenders in stronger eras. And yet they were the strongest the Bulls faced in their era of dominance. What more, those HOF players on the Jazz were better 10 years prior to the Bulls era.

If that doesn't say it all it doesn't say enough.

[97 bulls]

So you're smart enough to distinguish what is normally the case, but blind enough to miss the point.

Yes, those Jazz would be what would normally considered an average strength team when you compare the list of consistent title contenders in stronger eras. And yet they were the strongest the Bulls faced in their era of dominance. What more, those HOF players on the Jazz were better 10 years prior to the Bulls era.

If that doesn't say it all it doesn't say enough.
And again heres where you always miss the point. What are you basing your assesment on? Stats? As I stated in another conversation with you, you cant go solely by stats when comparing eras. The teams of the late 90s took roughly 700 LESS shots than teams of the 80s. Definitely not their record. The Jazz won 64 and 62 games. Hall of famers? The Jazz have two playing at a hall of fame level and (counting the coach Jerry Sloan). The Lakers (the team that beat the Celtics twice) always only had two hofers playing at a high level. Maguc and Jabbar in the early 80s, and Magic and Worthy in the late 80s. Three counting Riley.

So to sum it up, you don't have a legitimate case past your agenda.

[1987_Lakers]

Sure the Celtics had five hofers on their team. But Dennis Johnson would be a weaker one. And Walton was not playing at a hall of fame level. So really, thats three hofers. Three and a half. Hell Mchale and Parish werent even first ballot hall of famers. Only Bird

The Jazz for instance had two hofers playing at a hall of fame level. And they are considered in the upper echelon of the hall of fame. As well as a hall of fame coach in Jerry Sloan. Then some very good role players.

Don't get it twisted, the Celtics were stacked, their 5th/6th best player in Ainge was an All-Star just 2 years later. D. Johnson & Parish were All-Star caliber, Bird & McHale were superstars, Walton won 6th man of the year in '86. To compare that Utah team to Boston in terms of talent is ludicrous.

[1987_Lakers]

The Jazz have two playing at a hall of fame level and (counting the coach Jerry Sloan). The Lakers (the team that beat the Celtics twice) always only had two hofers playing at a high level. Maguc and Jabbar in the early 80s, and Magic and Worthy in the late 80s. Three counting Riley.

So to sum it up, you don't have a legitimate case past your agenda.

Again, from a team standpoint Lakers had much more talent. Utah was pretty underwhelming in talent once you got past Malone & Stockton.

[Kiddlovesnets]

Losing to Spurs of course, the Spurs are the better team and should win anyway. Losing to the Thunder would be disastrous for Lebron's legacy.

[Adam Silver]

I would have helped the Thunder a ton, so Heat would have more excuse for losing to them.

[97 bulls]

Don't get it twisted, the Celtics were stacked, their 5th/6th best player in Ainge was an All-Star just 2 years later. D. Johnson & Parish were All-Star caliber, Bird & McHale were superstars, Walton won 6th man of the year in '86. To compare that Utah team to Boston in terms of talent is ludicrous.
The Celtics were stacked. They had five players that made the All-Star team at some point in their careers as you said. The Jazz had three and a hall of fame coach. Saying that, I wasn't saying or trying to imply that they were on the same level or better than the Celtics. Or the Lakers.



But I dont see any difference between the Jazz and the Houston Rockets or Milwaukee Bucks or pre Malone Sixers. In fact, I believe the Jazz and other Bulls opponents were much better teams

[guy]

This is the stupidest post regarding this topic and just illustrates a misunderstanding of the arguments put forth to you.

The reason is not simply that others didn't beat them; but that the team composition of their opposition was never as good as theirs and the opposition had better players/team both prior and post the Bulls dominance in the 90s.

None of the contenders to their crown had a sustained excellence and the only team that really came close were better a decade prior in which they were basically irrelevant in terms of title talk (Jazz). In other words; if the one team that did challenge the Bulls was a team that was better 10 years before and couldn't sniff a title; what does that say about their competition?

How many times does it need to be said that "sustained excellence" is irrelevant when it comes to judging the quality of the league? Its all relative to each other. If you put the 10 greatest teams ever in the same decade, there probably wouldn't be any "sustained excellence." That clearly doesn't make the league weak. Same logic would apply here.

And what exactly makes the 88 Jazz better then the 98 Jazz? You realize the 80s had below .500 teams making the Finals right:oldlol: ?

Do people really think the Thunder are a great team? They are probably the sloppiest great team I've ever seen with basically no structure or discipline. There success is almost totally attributed to talent alone. The 97 and 98 Jazz would easily beat them. In fact, the Thunder are basically the late 90s Lakers, who suffered from much of the same thing and they got destroyed by those Jazz. Oh and those Jazz also made quick work of a very talented Duncan/Popovich led Spurs team as well.

[guy]

There's nothing Miami could do to give them more credibility. Just like there's nothing the Bulls could've done to give them more credibility. People just need to accept the fact that the only seasons in NBA history that ever mattered was 1983-1988. We really shouldn't be discussing anything else.