Flashing the pan: "Jordan's" opponents the following year

[Roundball_Rock]

If you listen to Jordan fans you would think he faced a series of juggernauts in the playoffs--the "Bad Boy Pistons," "Barkley's Suns," "Stockton and Malone," and so on. So it is worth examining where these alleged juggernauts were the following season. Were they, like, say, the Spurs or Thunder of the modern era consistent contenders or were they flashes in the pan? I have limited this to the NBA Finals and ECF.

Note: the year listed is the year these respective teams made the Finals or ECF. The commentary underneath that is for the following season.

1991: Lakers, Pistons.

In 1992 the Pistons finished 5th in the East (48-34) and promptly lost in the first round. Detroit would not advance the past the first round until a decade later. The Lakers, due to Magic retiring, went 43-39, which gave them the 8th seed as they lost in the first round.

1992: Blazers, Cavaliers.

In 1993 the Blazers finished 4th in the West with a mark of 51-31. They also lost in the first round. Portland would not advance past the first round again until 1999. In 1993 the Cavaliers placed 3rd in the East, winning 54 games. However, they were swept in the second round by Chicago. Cleveland also was swept by Chicago without Jordan in 1994. That meant Cleveland went a stunning 2-11 against Chicago in the playoffs from 1992-1994. After 1993 the Cavs would not reach the second round again until 2006.

1993: Suns, Knicks.

In 1994 the Suns placed 3rd in the East with 56 wins and lost in the second round. The Knicks won 57 games, narrowly beating Chicago and Atlanta for the top seed in the East. They reached the Finals after tough 7 game series against Chicago and Indiana.

1996: Sonics, Magic.

The Sonics finished 2nd in the West in 1997 with 57 wins but lost in the second round. This was part of a bizarre trend where the Sonics won 55, 63, 57, 64, 57, and 61 games from 1993-1998 but reached the NBA Finals only once and the WCF only twice. In two years they actually lost in the first round, despite winning 63 and 57 games in those seasons.

The Orlando Magic collapsed after 1996 due to the departure of Shaq, even though they did manage to replace him with a 17/10 center. The Magic won 45 games, placing them 7th, and lost in the first round.

1997: Jazz, Heat.

The Heat won 55 games, giving them the #2 seed in the East and the third best record, but they promptly lost in the first round. They would repeat this scenario again in 1999 when they had the East's top seed but lost in the first round again.

The Jazz won 62 games in 1998, giving them the top seed in the West. They returned to the Finals.

1998: Jazz, Pacers.

In 1999 the Jazz were the #2 seed in the West but lost in 6 games in the second round. The Pacers were the #3 seed (there was a three-way tie for first) and lost in the ECF to the #8 seeded Knicks.

Summary

Finals: 5 opponents in 6 years.
ECF: 6 opponents in 6 years.

Lost in the first round the following year: Pistons, Lakers, Blazers, Magic, Heat.
Lost in the second round the following year: Cavs, Suns, Sonics, Jazz.
Lost in the ECF/WCF the following year: Pacers.
Lost in the Finals the following year: Knicks, Jazz.

So 42% of these teams did not get past the first round the following year. 75% lost in the first or second round. One team, the Pacers, got to the conference finals and lost. Only the Knicks and Jazz managed to reach the Finals.

Modern comparison

The above is quite odd compared to the current era. The Spurs have made consecutive NBA Finals and three consecutive conference finals. From 2003-2008 they made 3 Finals and 4 WCF's. The Pacers have made consecutive ECF's. The Celtics made 2 Finals and 3 ECF's from 2008-2012. The Thunder have made the WCF 3 times in 4 seasons. From 2008-2010 the Lakers made 3 Finals.

So how tough was "Jordan's" competition in the 90's if most of them ran out of gas the following year? :confusedshrug:

[KyrieTheFuture]

Do you mean flash in the pan? Which doesn't even really apply here

[IncarceratedBob]

lmao flashing the pan, what a freaking moran

[JT123]

Jordan stans desperately avoiding this thread. :oldlol:

[Black and White]

LeBron fans are going to be unbearable if he wins the chip this year, people forget about his meltdowns too easily, he is nowhere near Jordans level.

[atljonesbro]

Good stuff. If I didn't know any better the Jordan stans would have led me to believe every round of his playoff history he faced a team that would win 65 games in the current era.

[Roundball_Rock]

"Flash in the pan" relates to an individual occurrence. I went with "flashing" (yes "flashing the pan" is not commonly used) since there were indeed some teams who remained competitive the following year. You can't title it "flash in the pan" and then include the Jazz, Knicks or Pacers in it.

[Rose'sACL]

LeBron fans are going to be unbearable if he wins the chip this year, people forget about his meltdowns too easily, he is nowhere near Jordans level.
Just be thankful that Lakers or Knicks aren't winning titles.they are way worse when their team is winning plus I don't think heat are winning it this year but that would make this place even worse.

[Black and White]

Just be thankful that Lakers or Knicks aren't winning titles.they are way worse when their team is winning plus I don't think heat are winning it this year but that would make this place even worse.

Do people take the Knicks trolls seriously??? And I agree in regards to the Lakers fans, but there has definitely been an influx of LeStans making comparisions to MJ recently.

[Threethrows]

LeBron fans are going to be unbearable if he wins the chip this year, people forget about his meltdowns too easily, he is nowhere near Jordans level.

As if LeBron haters aren't just as bad. Irrational stupidity is annoying regardless of the point of view.

[knicksman]

bro your IQ got exposed so bad by making kareem GOAT. stop posting. Only idiots believe kareem is GOAT:lol

[Black and White]

As if LeBron haters aren't just as bad. Irrational stupidity is annoying regardless of the point of view.

The LeBron stans are worse when it comes to player comparisons, however yes, the haters are bad too.

[ArbitraryWater]

More of these great reads :applause:

[Rose'sACL]

Do people take the Knicks trolls seriously??? And I agree in regards to the Lakers fans, but there has definitely been an influx of LeStans making comparisions to MJ recently.
You don't take Knicks trolls seriously because there are very few coz their team has not been a constant contender in ages. As soon as Knicks have a team that can go to multiple ecfs and a few finals, all the basketball sites would be flooded with them.
I hate lebron stans who shit on Durant like he didn't deserve the MVP. I don't mind trolls who troll mj stans like dondadda who act like lebron is a 20-5-5 guy while mj was a 40-10-10 guy.
Jordan stans overrate him as much as lebron stans. Mj is the goat according to me and most others but stop trying to make him a god.

[Black and White]

You don't take Knicks trolls seriously because there are very few coz their team has not been a constant contender in ages. As soon as Knicks have a team that can go to multiple ecfs and a few finals, all the basketball sites would be flooded with them.
I hate lebron stans who shit on Durant like he didn't deserve the MVP. I don't mind trolls who troll mj stans like dondadda who act like lebron is a 20-5-5 guy while mj was a 40-10-10 guy.
Jordan stans overrate him as much as lebron stans. Mj is the goat according to me and most others but stop trying to make him a god.

I don't see him as a god and I don't see him as unreachable by any means, I just don't think LeBron has proven himself to be on that level yet, I see KAJ, Jordan and Russell as the three GOATS and there can be many debates about which one is better between them, but as long as its clear that LeBron isn't close to him then I'm cool with it.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

You're grasping at straws here. :oldlol:

Every year, Mike and his Bulls faced ELITE competition. Whether said teams competed the "following year"...is relevant how exactly?

[Roundball_Rock]

Every year, Mike and his Bulls faced ELITE competition. Whether said teams competed the "following year"...is relevant how exactly?

By definition any team that reaches the conference finals or NBA Finals was elite in that given season. However, if they lacked staying power that suggests they were flukes. Name me one other top 10 all-time player who faced so many one hit wonders...

[fpliii]

Just curious, can you do the same analysis for the year before their trip to the ECF/Finals? Maybe the same for some other players (just so we have a bigger pool to look at)?

[juju151111]

By definition any team that reaches the conference finals or NBA Finals was elite in that given season. However, if they lacked staying power that suggests they were flukes. Name me one other top 10 all-time player who faced so many one hit wonders...
None of that matters? How good were they the season MJ faced them. Doesn't matter what they did the other seasons.

[knicksman]

at the end of the day bran faced durant, westbrook, harden, aldridge, george, kemba walker:lol compared to hakeem, robinson, shaq, ewing, malone, magic, barkley.

[fpliii]

at the end of the day bran faced durant, westbrook, harden, aldridge, george, kemba walker:lol compared to hakeem, robinson, shaq, ewing, malone, magic, barkley.
Huh? When did either guy face the bolded in the ECF or Finals?

[Roundball_Rock]

Just curious, can you do the same analysis for the year before their trip to the ECF/Finals? Maybe the same for some other players (just so we have a bigger pool to look at)?

Regarding other players I will do that in the future, but suffice it to say is every other GOAT candidate had at least one legitimate rival team. Even those outside the GOAT level had rivals, except perhaps Hakeem. Duncan and Kobe had each other's teams and LeBron has had Duncan's team. They also had lesser consistent rivals, i.e. the Suns for the Spurs.

I can look at the teams listed in the year prior facing the Bulls in the ECF or Finals, though. This will be quick since I have to leave for a bit.

1990 Lakers:

Lost in the second round in 5 games despite having the league's best record. This, of course, was the first year post-Kareem...

1990 Pistons:

Won their second consecutive championship.

1991 Blazers:

Had the best record in the league but lost in the WCF.

1991 Cavs:

Missed the playoffs (Mark Price was injured most of the year).

1992 Suns:

4th in the West, lost in the WCSF. This was before they traded for Barkley, though.

1992 Knicks:

51 wins and the 4th seed, lost in the ECSF--but took the Bulls to 7 games.

1995 Sonics:

Won 57 games but lost in the first round.

1995 Magic:

57 wins (#1 in the East), lost in the Finals.

1996 Jazz:

55 wins (#3), lost in the WCF.

1996 Heat:

42 wins, 8th place, swept by the Bulls in the first round.

1997 Jazz:

See above.

1997 Pacers:

Missed the playoffs with 39 wins (10th).

1997 Jazz:

NBA finals.

Summary

Missed the playoffs: Pacers, Cavs.
Lost in first round: Sonics, Heat.
Lost in the second round: Suns, Knicks, Lakers.
Lost in the WCF/ECF: Blazers, Jazz.
Lost in the NBA finals: Jazz, Magic.
NBA champions: Pistons.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

None of that matters? How good were they the season MJ faced them. Doesn't matter what they did the other seasons.

Pretty much. OK they were flukes--and? That makes them less great the year they contended how?

[DonDadda59]

Flashing the pan? :oldlol:

But let's address your hypothesis here... Are you seriously telling me that a team led by a 38 year old who was drafted in 1997 whose team could never make it to consecutive finals (didn't even make it to consecutive WCFs until 07-08) is a sign that there's stronger competition now?

Really?

And that's just the West. Let's not even get into the Least. You know what, f*ck it let's get into it :lol



NBA East on Track to Be History's Worst Conference Ever (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1874708-nba-east-on-track-to-be-historys-worst-conference-ever)


"Since the NBA

[Roundball_Rock]

Pretty much. OK they were flukes--and? That makes them less great the year they contended how?

It doesn't. What it does, though, is give MJ a unique advantage over other GOAT candidates: the lack of a legitimate rival team during his title years. Imagine if Wilt did not have to face the Celtics or Kareem did not have to face the great Celtic teams of the early 70's and 80's. Even look at LeBron, he already has faced the Spurs 3 times in the Finals and has had the Pacers in consecutive seasons. He played the "Big 3" Celtics in 2008, 2010, 2012.

The "common" playoff opponents MJ had were teams like the Cavs and Knicks. The Knicks never beat the Bulls with MJ and barely beat the Bulls without him. The Cavs were owned by Chicago during the late 80's and 90's. Who else? The Pacers? The Pacers were contenders from 1994-2000 (outside of 1997) but only faced the Bulls once. Orlando? The Bulls went 1-1 against them. If you look prior to his title years you could add Detroit and Boston to the list--but MJ went 1-5 against those teams.

The 90's East had only one great team (Chicago) and several good teams (Knicks, Cavs, Pacers, Magic, Heat).

[juju151111]

It doesn't. What it does, though, is give MJ a unique advantage over other GOAT candidates: the lack of a legitimate rival team during his title years. Imagine if Wilt did not have to face the Celtics or Kareem did not have to face the great Celtic teams of the early 70's and 80's. Even look at LeBron, he already has faced the Spurs 3 times in the Finals and has had the Pacers in consecutive seasons. He played the "Big 3" Celtics in 2008, 2010, 2012.

The "common" playoff opponents MJ had were teams like the Cavs and Knicks. The Knicks never beat the Bulls with MJ and barely beat the Bulls without him. The Cavs were owned by Chicago during the late 80's and 90's. Who else? The Pacers? The Pacers were contenders from 1994-2000 (outside of 1997) but only faced the Bulls once. Orlando? The Bulls went 1-1 against them. If you look prior to his title years you could add Detroit and Boston to the list--but MJ went 1-5 against those teams.

The 90's East had only one great team (Chicago) and several good teams (Knicks, Cavs, Pacers, Magic, Heat).
Because Mj never lose with HCA or when he surpose to win . When he got a decent team he never loss. Only time is the baseball return season.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Don said it better than I could have. Address this post, RR.


Flashing the pan? :oldlol:

But let's address your hypothesis here... Are you seriously telling me that a team led by a 38 year old who was drafted in 1997 whose team could never make it to consecutive finals (didn't even make it to consecutive WCFs until 07-08) is a sign that there's stronger competition now?

Really?

And that's just the West. Let's not even get into the Least. You know what, f*ck it let's get into it :lol



NBA East on Track to Be History's Worst Conference Ever (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1874708-nba-east-on-track-to-be-historys-worst-conference-ever)


"Since the NBA’s major divisor became conferences, the 2014 East will go down as one of the worst of all-time," Feldman wrote. "The only remaining question is whether it will be the worst of all time."

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2017531-nbas-eastern-conference-might-not-be-worst-version-ever

Data Shows Historic Disparity Between NBA Conferences (http://nba.si.com/2013/12/05/historic-disparity-nba-conferences-eastern-western/)

LOL (http://nbcprobasketballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/image_thumb3.png?w=590&h=377) :oldlol:

***TL/DR Boiled Down- OP says the worst Eastern Conference on record and the AARP all stars led by a 38 year old making 3 consecutive WCFs and 2 finals when they couldn't make back to back finals or even WCFs in their primes = best competition.

Take a bow, Roundball :applause:
:cheers:

[Dengness9]

Roundball continuing to fight a war he will never win.


Poor guy:rolleyes:

But seriously, quit being all butt hurt MJ is the GOAT by making these shitty threads.

You look worse than the crowd youre going after.

The only people agreeing with you are 16 year old Lebron Stans.

[fpliii]

Roundball continuing to fight a war he will never win.


Poor guy:rolleyes:

But seriously, quit being all butt hurt MJ is the GOAT by making these shitty threads.

You look worse than the crowd youre going after.

The only people agreeing with you are 16 year old Lebron Stans.
It's not unreasonable to pick somebody else as (the GOAT centers have legitimate arguments), but MJ will always be a strong candidate.

[jstern]

I seriously don't get the point of this thread. It's as if the OP is 13 years old so didn't see any basketball back then, and is trying to argue about how good or bad the competition was based on the record of teams in different years, rather than the composition of the teams and how they play.

[diamenz]

http://gbcdecatur.org/files/ReachingFullPotential.jpg

[Soundwave]

The 98 Jazz like swept by then an experienced Shaq out of the playoffs and that Lakers team was pretty damn deep. Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel, Robert Horry, younger Kobe, Elden Campbell. That Lakers team would make the Finals this year if they were in the West IMO.

Not MJ's fault the Magic got HIV or that Drexler couldn't will the Blazers back to the Finals.

I do know a Bulls squad with a 28/29-year-old Jordan on it would *demolish* last year's version of the Spurs with a 36/37 year old Duncan and ineffective Ginobli and an injured Parker in the Finals.

Bulls in 4 or 5, Heat needed 7 games and a miracle bail out from Ray Allen to get it done.

[Asukal]

By definition any team that reaches the conference finals or NBA Finals was elite in that given season. However, if they lacked staying power that suggests they were flukes. Name me one other top 10 all-time player who faced so many one hit wonders...

It also suggests that the league was very competitive with a lot of teams that can contend for the title every year. :rolleyes:

BS agenda detected... :rolleyes:

[Dragonyeuw]

It doesn't. What it does, though, is give MJ a unique advantage over other GOAT candidates: the lack of a legitimate rival team during his title years. Imagine if Wilt did not have to face the Celtics or Kareem did not have to face the great Celtic teams of the early 70's and 80's. Even look at LeBron, he already has faced the Spurs 3 times in the Finals and has had the Pacers in consecutive seasons. He played the "Big 3" Celtics in 2008, 2010, 2012.

The "common" playoff opponents MJ had were teams like the Cavs and Knicks. The Knicks never beat the Bulls with MJ and barely beat the Bulls without him. The Cavs were owned by Chicago during the late 80's and 90's. Who else? The Pacers? The Pacers were contenders from 1994-2000 (outside of 1997) but only faced the Bulls once. Orlando? The Bulls went 1-1 against them. If you look prior to his title years you could add Detroit and Boston to the list--but MJ went 1-5 against those teams.

The 90's East had only one great team (Chicago) and several good teams (Knicks, Cavs, Pacers, Magic, Heat).

How is that different from today? There is one great east team( Miami) and several good ones( Indiana,Chicago, Hawks, Nets) and the 'common' opponents being Indiana and Chicago. Indiana this year, after starting the year looking like a legit threat, ended it a mental trainwreck. Chicago had the makings of a true rival a few years ago, until the Rose injury and are now first/second round roadkill at best. The Celtics grew old and split up, Brooklyn taking on some of those old celtics and aren't a legit threat. Really, barring an earth-shattering trade or signing, the Heat's path to the finals is pretty clear for a few more years assuming they can continue to keep the team stacked with veteran help to compensate for Wade's decline. How competitive is that?

The 90's west fielded a few great teams( early 90s blazers,Suns, mid 90s Sonics, Spurs, rockets, jazz) all of which lost to the bulls in the finals( besides Houston and Spurs who would lose before getting to the finals).

Im not sure of your point. Each season needs to be weighed in its own context. A team not being competitive the following season after a great one, doesn't eliminate what they did the year that they were great. The Cavs and Knicks were legit teams, and would be in this era, who were decent playoff competition for a good 5 year period from the late 80s to early 90s. Thats not a fluke. The Pistons were at the end of their run when Chicago beat them, but lets not act like they were old. Isiah was 30, Dumars 28, Rodman 30 and so on. The Celtics had aged themselves out of being elite by the time Jordan had a good enough team around him, a fact that many anti Jordan conspirators conveniently omit when using the retarded logic that Jordan couldn't beat Bird.

During Jordan's reign, his teams took out a who's who list of 90s greats. Jordan's Bulls took out teams led by consensus top ten players( magic,shaq), players in the 10-20 range( malone, barkley) players in the 20-30 range( stockton, isiah, payton, ewing, drexler). And these players were pretty much at or close to their peak when he did it. It just so happens that Jordan didn't have a 'true' rival,because he was just that much better than everyone else at his peak. 90-93 Jordan was godlike. There wasn't a question of who was the best at that point. Thats not a knock against him, its a testament to his greatness. How many alltime greats has Lebron taken out on his way to a title that were at their peaks? He lost to 33 year old Dirk with a prime Wade on his team, beat an inexperienced Durant, and needed a miracle 3 from 38 year old Ray Allen to avoid losing to a 37 year old Duncan and having a 1-3 finals record. Kobe in the early 2000s took out a prime Duncan, of course he also had a top ten GOAT player in Shaq on his side. Whats the agenda here? Because of all the efforts I see to trivialize Jordan, this is one of the weirder arguments.

[outbreak]

Flashing the pan?

[JellyBean]

:facepalm

[guy]

Couldn't a counterargument be made for these other eras that the competition was so bad, which is why you saw the same teams at the top all the time???

This is such terrible logic. If you put 20 of the greatest teams ever in the same decade, good chance you see 20 different Finals teams. Same logic would apply here. If you think about it logically, the argument doesn't support one or the other.

[Dragonyeuw]

Couldn't a counterargument be made for these other eras that the competition was so bad, which is why you saw the same teams at the top all the time???

This is such terrible logic. If you put 20 of the greatest teams ever in the same decade, good chance you see 20 different Finals teams. Same logic would apply here. If you think about it logically, the argument doesn't support one or the other.

Pretty much. I mean look at the early 2000s. You had the Lakers and Spurs as the two powerhouses, and then you had teams like the Blazers and kings that were contenders for a few years but ultimately didn't get over the hump and spilt up. Were they flashes in the pan too? Dallas was good with Dirk/ nash/finley, then retooled and remained a solid team before finally breaking through in 2011.

The east had no team that ruled the decade on their side. The Nets made a few finals and lost, the Pistons won one and lost one, the Shaq-Wade Heat won a finals, then fizzled out leading to Shaq leaving, Cleveland snuck in one year and lost 3 times after causing Lebron to leave, Boston had a run near end of the decade, with Orlando sneaking in there in 2009. What happened to them afterwards?

In terms of individual rivalries, really how many have we had where the two best players went head to head? Wilt and Russell had each other, Magic and Bird had each other, otherwise how many times can you say 2 top ten GOAT had a direct rivalry of matching up against each other and/or directly competing for finals? Thats why the league is dying for Lebron and Durant to be the next epic rivalry, because its a rare thing. Why do you think the league was salivating at the prospect of a kobe-lebron finals 4-5 years ago? Its not often for the two best players to either be in the same position( thus setting up a natural rivalry) or playing opposite each other in different conferences and meeting up in the finals. Jordan didnt have any direct rivalries because he was far and away the best player at his peak. His rivalries were against teams like the Pistons, Knicks, and Cavs, not any one person in particular. But bear in mind, the 91 finals was hyped as magic vs michael, the meeting of the two best players. The past and present vs the future( at that time). Only thing is magic was at the tailend of his prime and retired after 91 for reasons known the world over.

I mean this is a truly retarded logic, what the OP is referring to is hardly unique to the Jordan era.

[Kiddlovesnets]

More like they are demoralized after getting beaten by the Bulls.

[[GR]]

MJ defeated the MVP or the 2nd place finisher in 5/6 Finals, and the one time he didn't, the Sonics had the best record in the West.

[LeBird]

You're grasping at straws here. :oldlol:

Every year, Mike and his Bulls faced ELITE competition. Whether said teams competed the "following year"...is relevant how exactly?


None of that matters? How good were they the season MJ faced them. Doesn't matter what they did the other seasons.

Dat stan logic.

If you're not a repeatedly good team, and are basically one season wonders, you're not elite.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Dat stan logic.

If you're not a repeatedly good team, and are basically one season wonders, you're not elite.

:biggums:

Cretins on here...damn

[guy]

Pretty much. I mean look at the early 2000s. You had the Lakers and Spurs as the two powerhouses, and then you had teams like the Blazers and kings that were contenders for a few years but ultimately didn't get over the hump and spilt up. Were they flashes in the pan too? Dallas was good with Dirk/ nash/finley, then retooled and remained a solid team before finally breaking through in 2011.

The east had no team that ruled the decade on their side. The Nets made a few finals and lost, the Pistons won one and lost one, the Shaq-Wade Heat won a finals, then fizzled out leading to Shaq leaving, Cleveland snuck in one year and lost 3 times after causing Lebron to leave, Boston had a run near end of the decade, with Orlando sneaking in there in 2009. What happened to them afterwards?

In terms of individual rivalries, really how many have we had where the two best players went head to head? Wilt and Russell had each other, Magic and Bird had each other, otherwise how many times can you say 2 top ten GOAT had a direct rivalry of matching up against each other and/or directly competing for finals? Thats why the league is dying for Lebron and Durant to be the next epic rivalry, because its a rare thing. Why do you think the league was salivating at the prospect of a kobe-lebron finals 4-5 years ago? Its not often for the two best players to either be in the same position( thus setting up a natural rivalry) or playing opposite each other in different conferences and meeting up in the finals. Jordan didnt have any direct rivalries because he was far and away the best player at his peak. His rivalries were against teams like the Pistons, Knicks, and Cavs, not any one person in particular. But bear in mind, the 91 finals was hyped as magic vs michael, the meeting of the two best players. The past and present vs the future( at that time). Only thing is magic was at the tailend of his prime and retired after 91 for reasons known the world over.

I mean this is a truly retarded logic, what the OP is referring to is hardly unique to the Jordan era.

It is really stupid logic and it surprises me that people actually think it holds any weight and they don't actually see how dumb it is.

For example, lets say hypothetically the Lakers, Suns, Sonics, and Jazz are all significantly worse teams then they were in the 90s. That would most likely mean that the Blazers would've made 3 straight Finals from 1990-1992, and the Rockets would've made 5 straight Finals from 1993-1997. Now, there's significant staying power in the West. The Bulls play the Blazers twice and the Rockets three times. Huge rivalries. But how is the competition actually better? The Blazers and Rockets didn't actually get better over the decade. They just became more successful because 4 other teams got significantly worse. Makes no sense.

Another example, lets say during the 80s that the Bucks, Knicks, and Hawks were all significantly better and were all pretty much on the level of the Celtics, 76ers, Pistons. Basically, no Eastern Conference team would make the finals more then once or twice. Now the Lakers are basically the Bulls of the 90s, and all those Eastern Conference powerhouses are their weak Finals opponents. Its supposed to be a weaker league even though no team actually got worse, 3 teams actually got significantly better.

I'm not saying same opponent every year or different opponent every opponent means the league is stronger or weaker. I'm saying it doesn't matter. It could be one way or the other. There's no way of actually determining because either situation is based on the teams' competition RELATIVE to each other.

[97 bulls]

I'm not really feeling this one Rock. It kinda resembles the idiotic line of reasoning that the only way the Bulls championships could be relevant is to actually lose.

The fact is the Bulls played the Knicks five times. 91, 92, 93, 94, and 96. I doubt very seriously that you will find any team of the 80s or 00s that has played each other more

And just off the top of my head I cant think if two many teams that have played each other more than three times in the finals. That being the Celtics vs Lakers. The Lakers played the Pistons twice, the Celtics played the Rockets twice, the Bulls played the Jazz twice.

[LeBird]

Couldn't a counterargument be made for these other eras that the competition was so bad, which is why you saw the same teams at the top all the time???

This is such terrible logic. If you put 20 of the greatest teams ever in the same decade, good chance you see 20 different Finals teams. Same logic would apply here. If you think about it logically, the argument doesn't support one or the other.

You would never get that scenario because the league never has that much talent at one time.

The irony is if you have half a brain you'll realize why expansion, and hence a dispersal of the talent, hurt so much during the 90s...all bar one team that kept its players (the Bulls).

The best teams of that era generally had 1 genuine ATG HOF and a very lesser player. The Knicks were Ewing and Starks. Indiana were ****ing led by Reggie Miller, who himself should be never really more than a Robin, not a Batman. The Sonics? Kemp has hype but he was a 15/10/2 kind of guy, Payton was scoring more although he was actually a good passing PG and was known for his defense - he was averaging 6-7 assists. The Suns had a legitimate ATG HOF player in Barkley, but his sidekick was Kevin Johnson whose best years were in the years prior to them challenging the Bulls in the late-80s-early-90s - the season they faced the Bulls his averages were 16/2/8. The Jazz had Stockton and Malone...who were better in the 80s. Orlando is the one team that could have truly troubled the Bulls if they had stayed intact, but like the OP mentions, that didn't last long.

You have to be a ****ing moron to argue that the 90s era was one where the talent was not only high but spread out. The hypothetical in the above doesn't apply.

[LeBird]

I'm not really feeling this one Rock. It kinda resembles the idiotic line of reasoning that the only way the Bulls championships could be relevant is to actually lose.


Are you high? The OP didn't look for a team that had won multiple championships to say that they were legitimate opposition as you've just suggested in the above. No one has to win shit and that means the Bulls could have won every year.

He put the bar far below that. He looked at teams that either made at least consecutive or multiple conference finals. That's how low the bar is, and look at how bad the teams stack up.

[guy]

You would never get that scenario because the league never has that much talent at one time.

The irony is if you have half a brain you'll realize why expansion, and hence a dispersal of the talent, hurt so much during the 90s...all bar one team that kept its players (the Bulls).

The best teams of that era generally had 1 genuine ATG HOF and a very lesser player. The Knicks were Ewing and Starks. Indiana were ****ing led by Reggie Miller, who himself should be never really more than a Robin, not a Batman. The Sonics? Kemp has hype but he was a 15/10/2 kind of guy, Payton was scoring more although he was actually a good passing PG and was known for his defense - he was averaging 6-7 assists. The Suns had a legitimate ATG HOF player in Barkley, but his sidekick was Kevin Johnson whose best years were in the years prior to them challenging the Bulls in the late-80s-early-90s - the season they faced the Bulls his averages were 16/2/8. The Jazz had Stockton and Malone...who were better in the 80s. Orlando is the one team that could have truly troubled the Bulls if they had stayed intact, but like the OP mentions, that didn't last long.

You have to be a ****ing moron to argue that the 90s era was one where the talent was not only high but spread out. The hypothetical in the above doesn't apply.

If you had half a brain maybe you can comprehend that I never said or implied that the 90s had 20 of the greatest teams ever, just that the same logic would apply in that you can't base the strength of the league on this "staying power" bullshit.

By the way, you do realize that the Bulls weren't a team that was just exempt from the effects of expansion right? Every other team may have been better then they were if it weren't for expansion, but so would the Bulls.

[DonDadda59]

The Suns had a legitimate ATG HOF player in Barkley, but his sidekick was Kevin Johnson whose best years were in the years prior to them challenging the Bulls in the late-80s-early-90s - the season they faced the Bulls his averages were 16/2/8. The Jazz had Stockton and Malone...who were better in the 80s.


And when were Duncan, Ginobli and Parker's best years? Definitely not now when they made 3 straight WCFs and 2 straight finals... led by the shell of Tim Duncan putting up 15/10 in limited minutes. That's the GOAT team doe. :lol

But Malone putting up 27/10/4 (54% FG) and winning MVP while leading his team to back to back finals from 97-98 (64, 62 win consecutively) = weak competition.

Take a seat with the OP.

[guy]

By definition any team that reaches the conference finals or NBA Finals was elite in that given season. However, if they lacked staying power that suggests they were flukes. Name me one other top 10 all-time player who faced so many one hit wonders...

What exactly is a f*cking fluke and how in the world is it actually a legit argument? :oldlol: Is it some magic trick that teams do from time to time?

[97 bulls]

You would never get that scenario because the league never has that much talent at one time.

The irony is if you have half a brain you'll realize why expansion, and hence a dispersal of the talent, hurt so much during the 90s...all bar one team that kept its players (the Bulls).

The best teams of that era generally had 1 genuine ATG HOF and a very lesser player. The Knicks were Ewing and Starks. Indiana were ****ing led by Reggie Miller, who himself should be never really more than a Robin, not a Batman. The Sonics? Kemp has hype but he was a 15/10/2 kind of guy, Payton was scoring more although he was actually a good passing PG and was known for his defense - he was averaging 6-7 assists. The Suns had a legitimate ATG HOF player in Barkley, but his sidekick was Kevin Johnson whose best years were in the years prior to them challenging the Bulls in the late-80s-early-90s - the season they faced the Bulls his averages were 16/2/8. The Jazz had Stockton and Malone...who were better in the 80s. Orlando is the one team that could have truly troubled the Bulls if they had stayed intact, but like the OP mentions, that didn't last long.

You have to be a ****ing moron to argue that the 90s era was one where the talent was not only high but spread out. The hypothetical in the above doesn't apply.
Again, stupid line of reasoning. The Celtics if the 80s never beat a team chalked with hofers. The Rockets had two in Malone and Murphy, the second time they played the Rockets, they again had two in Olajuwan and Sampson. Then the Lakers had three. And let's be real, Sampson made the hall based on his college career.

The Bulls beat the Lakers with two hall of famers, the Jazz had two, the Sonics would've had two if Kemp kept his head on straight. The Blazers may have had one but the had amazing depth, as did the Suns.

[97 bulls]

You would never get that scenario because the league never has that much talent at one time.

The irony is if you have half a brain you'll realize why expansion, and hence a dispersal of the talent, hurt so much during the 90s...all bar one team that kept its players (the Bulls).

The best teams of that era generally had 1 genuine ATG HOF and a very lesser player. The Knicks were Ewing and Starks. Indiana were ****ing led by Reggie Miller, who himself should be never really more than a Robin, not a Batman. The Sonics? Kemp has hype but he was a 15/10/2 kind of guy, Payton was scoring more although he was actually a good passing PG and was known for his defense - he was averaging 6-7 assists. The Suns had a legitimate ATG HOF player in Barkley, but his sidekick was Kevin Johnson whose best years were in the years prior to them challenging the Bulls in the late-80s-early-90s - the season they faced the Bulls his averages were 16/2/8. The Jazz had Stockton and Malone...who were better in the 80s. Orlando is the one team that could have truly troubled the Bulls if they had stayed intact, but like the OP mentions, that didn't last long.

You have to be a ****ing moron to argue that the 90s era was one where the talent was not only high but spread out. The hypothetical in the above doesn't apply.
Again, stupid line of reasoning. The Celtics if the 80s never beat a team chalked with hofers. The Rockets had two in Malone and Murphy, the second time they played the Rockets, they again had two in Olajuwan and Sampson. Then the Lakers had three. And let's be real, Sampson made the hall based on his college career.

The Bulls beat the Lakers with two hall of famers, the Jazz had two, the Sonics would've had two if Kemp kept his head on straight. The Blazers may have had one but the had amazing depth, as did the Suns.

[LeBird]

And when were Duncan, Ginobli and Parker's best years? Definitely not now when they made 3 straight WCFs and 2 straight finals... led by the shell of Tim Duncan putting up 15/10 in limited minutes. That's the GOAT team doe. :lol

But Malone putting up 27/10/4 (54% FG) and winning MVP while leading his team to back to back finals from 97-98 (64, 62 win consecutively) = weak competition.

Take a seat with the OP.

The difference is, if you actually read, is that while Spurs may no longer have a superstar 1 and 2, they are blessed with depth and great coaching. And unlike the Bulls' contemporaries, they're consistently excellent. Lest your dumbass forget, this is their 2nd finals in a row.


If you had half a brain maybe you can comprehend that I never said or implied that the 90s had 20 of the greatest teams ever, just that the same logic would apply in that you can't base the strength of the league on this "staying power" bullshit.

By the way, you do realize that the Bulls weren't a team that was just exempt from the effects of expansion right? Every other team may have been better then they were if it weren't for expansion, but so would the Bulls.

The insinuation of your very point is that there may be other variables to look at. That goes for every argument in human history. Literally no argument is all-inclusive of everything. So your objection is no objection at all.

Really the only true argument against the OP's point is if the league was so full of talent in every team that it would explain the variance in contenders. But we all know that was not the case.


Again, stupid line of reasoning. The Celtics if the 80s never beat a team chalked with hofers. The Rockets had two in Malone and Murphy, the second time they played the Rockets, they again had two in Olajuwan and Sampson. Then the Lakers had three. And let's be real, Sampson made the hall based on his college career.

The Bulls beat the Lakers with two hall of famers, the Jazz had two, the Sonics would've had two if Kemp kept his head on straight. The Blazers may have had one but the had amazing depth, as did the Suns.

Are you stupid? Were the Sixers not filled with HOFers? Were the Lakers not filled with HOFers? Were the Pistons not filled with HOFers? Those teams had multiple threats and for some even their bench players were better than star players in the 90s.

Like, really. :lol

[DonDadda59]

The difference is, if you actually read, is that while Spurs may no longer have a superstar 1 and 2, they are blessed with depth and great coaching. And unlike the Bulls' contemporaries, they're consistently excellent. Lest your dumbass forget, this is their 2nd finals in a row.


Sit your dumb ass down. You went through a list of teams the Bulls faced in the 90s pointing out that some of their key players weren't at their best. Yet I bring up the fact that the best players on the Spurs are old as shit and past their best while Malone was a 27/10/4 MVP who led his team to 62, 64 wins... now your argument is the Spurs have depth and good coaching.

So now Jerry Sloan isn't a great coach? Pat Riley isn't a great coach? George Karl?

As someone pointed out above, the Bulls faced a consistently great Knicks team led by the great Pat Riley. The one season Jordan was away was the one season the Knicks beat them, and they went to the finals. As noted above, the Jazz were consistently great during the second 3-peat, won 62 and 64 games, had the MVP and all time steals/assist leader and were coached by the great Jerry Sloan.

But please, don't let these facts get in the way of your bullshit agenda.

Do go on. :cheers:

[TheMan]

MJ living rent free in LeBirdbrain and Roundball Rock's heads :oldlol:

Every thread made to take a dig at Jordan, these two knuckleheads are there giving each other reach-arounds. Dudes, MJ retired more than a decade ago, just move on already. You losers talk about Jordan more than his worst stans :oldlol:

Case in point, list the last thread created by an MJ fan either glorifying MJ or dissing LeBron, you can't. Roundball Rock has made thread after thread the last month talking shit about Jordan, even critisizing him for shit he had no control over :oldlol: Makes you wonder if MJ fvcked his wife or something. Life must suck for you guys to hang on to so much bitterness after such a long time.

Stay salty:applause:

[DonDadda59]

MJ living rent free in LeBirdbrain and Roundball Rock's heads :oldlol:

Every thread made to take a dig at Jordan, these two knuckleheads are there giving each other reach-arounds. Dudes, MJ retired more than a decade ago, just move one already. You losers talk about Jordan more than his worst stans :oldlol:

Case in point, list the last thread created by an MJ fan either glorifying MJ or dissing LeBron, you can't. Roundball Rock has made thread after thread the last month talking shit about Jordan, even critisizing him for shit he had no control over :oldlol: Makes you wonder if MJ fvcked his wife or something. Life must suck for you guys to hang on to so much bitterness after such a long time.

Stay salty:applause:

It's strange ain't it? We're in the middle of the finals where the 'Michael Jordan of this era' is taking on the AARP all stars yet again... but all the threads and discussion are focused on a player who retired 12 years ago.

Strange times we live in indeed. :lol

[TheMan]

It's strange ain't it? We're in the middle of the finals where the 'Michael Jordan of this era' is taking on the AARP all stars yet again... but all the threads and discussion are focused on a player who retired 12 years ago.

Strange times we live in indeed. :lol
Yeah, I've had my battles with those two bitter dudes but I just basically ignore them now. Don't need that negative vibe. MJ is an all time great, yet those two delusional bran stans are in denial. Fvck them, they're garbage.

[97 bulls]

The difference is, if you actually read, is that while Spurs may no longer have a superstar 1 and 2, they are blessed with depth and great coaching. And unlike the Bulls' contemporaries, they're consistently excellent. Lest your dumbass forget, this is their 2nd finals in a row.



The insinuation of your very point is that there may be other variables to look at. That goes for every argument in human history. Literally no argument is all-inclusive of everything. So your objection is no objection at all.

Really the only true argument against the OP's point is if the league was so full of talent in every team that it would explain the variance in contenders. But we all know that was not the case.



Are you stupid? Were the Sixers not filled with HOFers? Were the Lakers not filled with HOFers? Were the Pistons not filled with HOFers? Those teams had multiple threats and for some even their bench players were better than star players in the 90s.

Like, really. :lol
The Celtics faced a multi hall of fame Sixer team one time. And that was in 85 when they had old ass Julius Erving, Charles Barkley in his rookie season, and Moses Malone. Every other time the Celtics faced the Sixers, the Sixers only had one Hofer in Erving. The Bucks didnt even have a hall of fame player.

The Celtics faced the Pistons and so did the Bulls. The Celtics beat the Lakers, so did the Bulls.

The more I actually take the time and look, the more I gotta say that the teams that the Celtics played in the East were good but overrated in a sense that mronic liars with ckear agendas want to make it seem as if the East teams of the 80s had 3-4 hall of famers each. The fact is they didn't.

[GimmeThat]

Dynasty: a family of rulers who rule over a country for a long period of time; also : the period of time when a particular dynasty is in power

[LeBird]

Do go on. :cheers:

IQ level on ISH is killing me :rolleyes:

Even putting that aside, how often were the Jazz challengers, errrrrr exactly.


MJ living rent free in LeBirdbrain and Roundball Rock's heads :oldlol:

Say's the person who is in every thread having a period when someone doubts the Bulls. You have almost 10 times as many posts as me too. Sad and salty.


The Celtics faced a multi hall of fame Sixer team one time. And that was in 85 when they had old ass Julius Erving, Charles Barkley in his rookie season, and Moses Malone. Every other time the Celtics faced the Sixers, the Sixers only had one Hofer in Erving. The Bucks didnt even have a hall of fame player.

Christ you're stupid. The Sixers didn't have an ATG side until Barkley was there?

When did the standard become having 3 ATG HOFers? The point was that in the 90s the Bulls didn't face a team that was stacked or consistent. But this point keeps passing your head.


The Celtics faced the Pistons and so did the Bulls. The Celtics beat the Lakers, so did the Bulls.


Yeh, its not like the Celtics faced them when they were actually all in their prime, uninjured and you know still playing (Kareem). Let's just forget that one. Being conveniently blind and withholding facts...tisk tisk. I can't take you seriously with these dumbass arguments. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the NBA should know this.


The more I actually take the time and look, the more I gotta say that the teams that the Celtics played in the East were good but overrated in a sense that mronic liars with ckear agendas want to make it seem as if the East teams of the 80s had 3-4 hall of famers each. The fact is they didn't.

You mean the more you have to look at the Bulls and see that they're competition was mostly average, the more you have to make excuses for your team. Yeh, I get it.

[Mr Feeny]

LeBird u sound shook tbh

[Knoe Itawl]

Haha, this idiot really tried to pretend that he meant to write "flashing the pan".

Here's Google results for "flashing the pan". Not a mention of this phrase to be found. In fact, the only listing for this term I could find is this simpleton's own thread. :oldlol:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Flashing+the+pan&oq=Flashing+the+pan&aqs=chrome..69i57.27587913j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

:confusedshrug:

[guy]

The insinuation of your very point is that there may be other variables to look at. That goes for every argument in human history. Literally no argument is all-inclusive of everything. So your objection is no objection at all.

Really the only true argument against the OP's point is if the league was so full of talent in every team that it would explain the variance in contenders. But we all know that was not the case.



Ummm, it's not like the variables I'm saying to look at are really ridiculous.

I'm not really arguing about the talent. If you want to say the talent wasn't that great go ahead. It's something I disagree with but I'm not arguing about. All I'm saying is the argument used is incredibly stupid and only a idiotic simpleton would actually use this argument and not see the flaw in its logic, which is what my examples exposed. It's simple math. It's simple logic.

[Roundball_Rock]

As someone pointed out above, the Bulls faced a consistently great Knicks team led by the great Pat Riley.

Consistently great? :oldlol: Let's pencil in 1992-1995 as the heyday of that version of the Knicks. They made the Finals in 99' and the ECF in 2000 but had a different cast of character by then.

1992: 51 wins (#4 seed) ECSF
1993: 60 wins (#1 seed), ECF
1994: 57 wins (#1 seed), Finals
1995: 55 wins (#3 seed), ECSF

This is greatness? Meanwhile, the Spurs have a top 3 record in the league every year for four years and are dismissed?

Citing the Knicks as prime competition is revealing: that Knicks team could barely beat the Bulls even without MJ. What kind of "great competition" is that when you add Jordan to the mix?

The argument that the 90's were ultra competitive due to the revolving door of contenders is interesting (how competitive can a decade be when one team wins 6 titles in 8 years?). However, under that logic the 70's were the greatest decade for competition...

[tmacattack33]

Haha, this idiot really tried to pretend that he meant to write "flashing the pan".

Here's Google results for "flashing the pan". Not a mention of this phrase to be found. In fact, the only listing for this term I could find is this simpleton's own thread. :oldlol:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Flashing+the+pan&oq=Flashing+the+pan&aqs=chrome..69i57.27587913j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

:confusedshrug:

Who cares bro. So many people say these stupid cliches and don't even know what they mean.

I bet you and most others couldn't even tell me where the saying came from and what exactly it is referring to without googling it.

[juju151111]

Consistently great? :oldlol: Let's pencil in 1992-1995 as the heyday of that version of the Knicks. They made the Finals in 99' and the ECF in 2000 but had a different cast of character by then.

1992: 51 wins (#4 seed) ECSF
1993: 60 wins (#1 seed), ECF
1994: 57 wins (#1 seed), Finals
1995: 55 wins (#3 seed), ECSF

This is greatness? Meanwhile, the Spurs have a top 3 record in the league every year for four years and are dismissed?

Citing the Knicks as prime competition is revealing: that Knicks team could barely beat the Bulls even without MJ. What kind of "great competition" is that when you add Jordan to the mix?

The argument that the 90's were ultra competitive due to the revolving door of contenders is interesting (how competitive can a decade be when one team wins 6 titles in 8 years?). However, under that logic the 70's were the greatest decade for competition...
The spurs has been losing with great record s since 08 Wats Ur point. None of this matters. The year j faced them is the only year that matters.

[TheMan]

IQ level on ISH is killing me :rolleyes:

Even putting that aside, how often were the Jazz challengers, errrrrr exactly.



Say's the person who is in every thread having a period when someone doubts the Bulls. You have almost 10 times as many posts as me too. Sad and salty.



Christ you're stupid. The Sixers didn't have an ATG side until Barkley was there?

When did the standard become having 3 ATG HOFers? The point was that in the 90s the Bulls didn't face a team that was stacked or consistent. But this point keeps passing your head.



Yeh, its not like the Celtics faced them when they were actually all in their prime, uninjured and you know still playing (Kareem). Let's just forget that one. Being conveniently blind and withholding facts...tisk tisk. I can't take you seriously with these dumbass arguments. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the NBA should know this.



You mean the more you have to look at the Bulls and see that they're competition was mostly average, the more you have to make excuses for your team. Yeh, I get it.
That's because I'm a Bulls fan and when I catch bitter jackasses like you spreading flat out lies, I'm gonna call them out on it.

Unlike you and Roundball Rock however, I don't go around talking shit about LeBron and other GOATs to prop up my favorite player. Every MJ thread, you and that other salty douchebag are there chirping away like pissed off ex girlfriends.


Still salty about MJ surpassing Bird, move on bruh, MJ is a GOAT whether you like it or not.

[Take Your Lumps]

"Flash in the pan" relates to an individual occurrence. I went with "flashing" (yes "flashing the pan" is not commonly used) since there were indeed some teams who remained competitive the following year. You can't title it "flash in the pan" and then include the Jazz, Knicks or Pacers in it.

http://replygif.net/i/776.gif

[AirFederer]

News Flash: OP is an alltime fakkit

[LeBird]

Ummm, it's not like the variables I'm saying to look at are really ridiculous.

I'm not really arguing about the talent. If you want to say the talent wasn't that great go ahead. It's something I disagree with but I'm not arguing about. All I'm saying is the argument used is incredibly stupid and only a idiotic simpleton would actually use this argument and not see the flaw in its logic, which is what my examples exposed. It's simple math. It's simple logic.

It's not at all. Let's put 2 and 2 together:

a) the talent level in the teams around the league were at the lowest they've been in the last 30-40 years

b) aside from the Bulls, there was no consistent competitor against them.

Compare that to now, where even a supposedly stacked Miami Heat team has to go deep into series just to win, and when there are multiple consistent threats (at least the Spurs, OKC and Indiana) that are pushing every year.

The teams in the 90s as the OP pointed out disintegrated before they could even get used to playing with each other, let along building the hunger and tactical tools to beat the Bulls.

It's completely logical and makes sense, unless you don't know anything about the NBA over the last few decades and don't understand why the rationale matters.


That's because I'm a Bulls fan and when I catch bitter jackasses like you spreading flat out lies, I'm gonna call them out on it.

Unlike you and Roundball Rock however, I don't go around talking shit about LeBron and other GOATs to prop up my favorite player. Every MJ thread, you and that other salty douchebag are there chirping away like pissed off ex girlfriends.

Still salty about MJ surpassing Bird, move on bruh, MJ is a GOAT whether you like it or not.

WTF are you even talking about? You can't be that deluded :lol

I'm salty yet I've posted almost 1/10th of you and you're in every thread talking shit. I've not actually read you make an argument, you're just in every thread berating the person questioning Bulls/Jordan. And not just once or twice, like several times :lol. If you care enough to post, post something worth reading. If you see you have no real logical argument, then that's cause for you to self-reflect and see if your opinion is actually based on anything other than spin and hype.

Stupid, salty and sad. Bad combo bro.

[guy]

The argument that the 90's were ultra competitive due to the revolving door of contenders is interesting (how competitive can a decade be when one team wins 6 titles in 8 years?). However, under that logic the 70's were the greatest decade for competition...

So what exactly is the maximum amount of titles a team can win in a given amount of years for it to be considered competitive? So would it have been better if the Bulls lost one or two more times? And worse if they won one or two more times? Doesn't this pretty much make it impossible for a team to win all 10 titles in a decade without it being considered a weak league? By the way, I'm assuming you're equating competitiveness with strength, which is flawed logic anyway. And the Lakers in the 80s won 5 titles in 9 years. I guess that one more year and one less title is the difference between the most competitive decade in history and the least competitive decade in history :oldlol:

[LeBird]

So what exactly is the maximum amount of titles a team can win in a given amount of years for it to be considered competitive? So would it have been better if the Bulls lost one or two more times? And worse if they won one or two more times? Doesn't this pretty much make it impossible for a team to win all 10 titles in a decade without it being considered a weak league? By the way, I'm assuming you're equating competitiveness with strength, which is flawed logic anyway. And the Lakers in the 80s won 5 titles in 9 years. I guess that one more year and one less title is the difference between the most competitive decade in history and the least competitive decade in history.

I know the question is addressed to RR, but are you actually reading his posts?

Did he even mention that for there to be proper competition there had to be another winner other than the Bulls?

The bar is set so low that we're talking about a competitor going to multiple conference finals as achievements. :lol

[juju151111]

It's easier to score today for perimeter players Anyways

[juju151111]

I know the question is addressed to RR, but are you actually reading his posts?

Did he even mention that for there to be proper competition there had to be another winner other than the Bulls?

The bar is set so low that we're talking about a competitor going to multiple conference finals as achievements. :lol
So Russell should be criticized because he didn't let nobody beat him only in that season he was injured.:facepalm man sit y'all dumbaas down.

[DonDadda59]

Consistently great? :oldlol: Let's pencil in 1992-1995 as the heyday of that version of the Knicks. They made the Finals in 99' and the ECF in 2000 but had a different cast of character by then.

1992: 51 wins (#4 seed) ECSF
1993: 60 wins (#1 seed), ECF
1994: 57 wins (#1 seed), Finals
1995: 55 wins (#3 seed), ECSF

This is greatness? Meanwhile, the Spurs have a top 3 record in the league every year for four years and are dismissed?

Citing the Knicks as prime competition is revealing: that Knicks team could barely beat the Bulls even without MJ. What kind of "great competition" is that when you add Jordan to the mix?

The argument that the 90's were ultra competitive due to the revolving door of contenders is interesting (how competitive can a decade be when one team wins 6 titles in 8 years?). However, under that logic the 70's were the greatest decade for competition...

:rolleyes:

Who is the biggest threat to Miami in the East? We know that 3 franchise players all colluded to make their championship hunt as easy as possible and as a result, we're witnessing the worst Eastern Conference since the merger... literally... and that's a point you never addressed, conveniently.

The Pacers are a garbage squad featuring mental midgets and an 'all star' center who is far more likely to give you a 0/0 game than the 20/10/3 consistency of a prime Ewing. That's a max contract, all star calibre big man in this era... Roy f*cking Hibbert. :lol

The Spurs winning now is like the Bird Celtics being the best team in the league in '94 :lol

If we were to go back in time and build an NBA in the 90s similar to the league now, the '84 draft class would've all teamed up in '91 in Houston (Hakeem, Barkley, Jordan), the Rockets only semi viable threat would be the Spurs anchored by David Robinson- a 11 PPG/7 RPG all star and max contract player, the Celtics with a core of Parish, Bird, and Ainge would be a 60+ win team making the ECF 3 years in a row and the finals 2 years in a row... in '93 and '94. And the Western Conference would have the worst overall winning percentage in league History.

That would've been a hell of an era.











http://www.ladymoiraine.com/forum/gallery/28/4265-050912181440.gif

[97 bulls]

Yeh, its not like the Celtics faced them when they were actually all in their prime, uninjured and you know still playing (Kareem). Let's just forget that one. Being conveniently blind and withholding facts...tisk tisk. I can't take you seriously with these dumbass arguments. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the NBA should know this.
The Celtics never faced the Sixers with prime Malone, Erving, and Barkley. They didn't play the Sixers in 83. And every other year, the Sixers had one Hofer surrounded by very good players. Similar to Drexeler and the Blazers. And again, the teams of the 80s never faced each other with each player great player inury free, on the team, and everybody in their prime.


When did the standard become having 3 ATG HOFers? The point was that in the 90s the Bulls didn't face a team that was stacked or consistent. But this point keeps passing your head.
You set that standard. The Bulls played teams with more than one hall of famer plenty of times.

[TheMan]

So what exactly is the maximum amount of titles a team can win in a given amount of years for it to be considered competitive? So would it have been better if the Bulls lost one or two more times? And worse if they won one or two more times? Doesn't this pretty much make it impossible for a team to win all 10 titles in a decade without it being considered a weak league? By the way, I'm assuming you're equating competitiveness with strength, which is flawed logic anyway. And the Lakers in the 80s won 5 titles in 9 years. I guess that one more year and one less title is the difference between the most competitive decade in history and the least competitive decade in history :oldlol:
Ether

[D-FENS]

Did OP stop to consider that MJ broke these teams and that's the reason they wen't nowhere after getting their asses beat?

[guy]

It's not at all. Let's put 2 and 2 together:

a) the talent level in the teams around the league were at the lowest they've been in the last 30-40 years


Well I can't put that together with anything because its not necessarily true and there's no proof behind it, either factual or a reasonable basis. All there is is that that's what "some" people say.



b) aside from the Bulls, there was no consistent competitor against them.

Compare that to now, where even a supposedly stacked Miami Heat team has to go deep into series just to win, and when there are multiple consistent threats (at least the Spurs, OKC and Indiana) that are pushing every year.

The teams in the 90s as the OP pointed out disintegrated before they could even get used to playing with each other, let along building the hunger and tactical tools to beat the Bulls.


And if the Grizzlies, Clippers, Warriors, Blazers, etc were actually better teams, then the Spurs and OKC wouldn't be as successful and they wouldn't be viewed as these "consistent" threats. There would be greater teams overall in the league but now the competition is weaker. Right, makes total logical sense :rolleyes:

And did you seriously mention the Pacers as a consistent threat? :roll: That mentally soft, *****-whipped team would be lucky to make the 2nd round in the 90s. :oldlol: You really expect your argument to be taken seriously with that nonsense? GTFOH

And by the way, as talented as OKC is, they might be the most flawed "great" team I've ever seen. They literally are a team that basically gets by completely on talent. They are totally sloppy and have questionable leadership, yet only two teams, the Heat and Spurs, have been able to expose them for their flaws (and the Spurs have only been able to do that recently.) They would get picked apart by plenty of teams in the 90s.



It's completely logical and makes sense, unless you don't know anything about the NBA over the last few decades and don't understand why the rationale matters.


The last few decades as in the last 3 (80s-00s, too early to really judge this current decade overall)? So as decades, 3 is a huge sample size, and 2 of them dictate how the composition of a strong league should look like. Right, makes total logical sense.

[guy]

I know the question is addressed to RR, but are you actually reading his posts?

Are either of you reading my posts? Please explain this then smart guy.

For example, lets say hypothetically the Lakers, Suns, Sonics, and Jazz are all significantly worse teams then they were in the 90s. That would most likely mean that the Blazers would've made 3 straight Finals from 1990-1992, and the Rockets would've made 5 straight Finals from 1993-1997. Now, there's significant staying power in the West. The Bulls play the Blazers twice and the Rockets three times. Huge rivalries. But how is the competition actually better? The Blazers and Rockets didn't actually get better over the decade. They just became more successful because 4 other teams got significantly worse. Makes no sense.

Another example, lets say during the 80s that the Bucks, Knicks, and Hawks were all significantly better and were all pretty much on the level of the Celtics, 76ers, Pistons. Basically, no Eastern Conference team would make the finals more then once or twice. Now the Lakers are basically the Bulls of the 90s, and all those Eastern Conference powerhouses are their weak Finals opponents. Its supposed to be a weaker league even though no team actually got worse, 3 teams actually got significantly better.



The bar is set so low that we're talking about a competitor going to multiple conference finals as achievements. :lol

Right, like the current Indiana Pacers :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:



Did he even mention that for there to be proper competition there had to be another winner other than the Bulls?

Well he says that a decade can't really be that competitive if a team wins 6 out of 8 titles. How else could this not be the case without another winner in at least one of those 6 years? Cancel a season? Can there be a tie?

[97 bulls]

I know the question is addressed to RR, but are you actually reading his posts?

Did he even mention that for there to be proper competition there had to be another winner other than the Bulls?

The bar is set so low that we're talking about a competitor going to multiple conference finals as achievements. :lol
Then how can we quantitatively make a distinction between whats considered a great team and not? Records? The amount of hall of famers? All you will do is change the argument.

[97 bulls]

Another point that is rarely acknowledged is that free agency in the 90s was different from the 80s. Teams built themselves primarily through the draft in the 80s. Where as teams in the early 90s began. So in 80s, the same teams always stayed great. Where as in the 90s, thanks to FA, the great teams rotated.

[hateraid]

LeBird is owning. Probably the most logical poster in this thread

[mehyaM24]

LeBird is owning. Probably the most logical poster in this thread

no offense,but you need to get your eyes checked. im a big lebron fan, but roundball/lebird are getting pummeled in here.

yes jordan did face weak competition, but not for this reason. :oldlol:

[SamuraiSWISH]

I'm not really feeling this one Rock. It kinda resembles the idiotic line of reasoning that the only way the Bulls championships could be relevant is to actually lose.
Now, you've called me a Jordan Stan, Pippen hater and not a legitimate Bulls fan. Which couldn't be further from the truth.

No where do I diminish Pippen's accomplishment's in a team setting with the Bulls the way Roundball_Rock is attempting to do here.

So, what is he? A Pippen Stan? Do you agree with this clown? Does he have an agenda that couldn't be more obvious? He's getting torn to shreds in this thread. And can't even get his cliches correct, I.E. "flash in the pan" ... consistently trying to throw shade at his favorite team's greatest player? That isn't odd to you?

What does a fellow Pippen Stan have to say about these antics? Mind you, I'm a true Bulls fan. Followed them post MJ in the dark years from Eddie Robinson, to Ben Gordon, to current.

Pippen was the one who bolted on Chicago in 1999. Willingly. Couldn't wait to get out. Phil Jackson as well.

Meanwhile MJ was there standing up to management to keep both of them. He was being loyal to both his teammates, coach, and the city that grew up with him.

Pippen is a coward. That's why he needed the mental tenacity, heart, and will power of someone like MJ to drag him to championships. Dude did nothing with a straight SUPER stacked Blazers squad.

:facepalm

[97 bulls]

Now, you've called me a Jordan Stan, Pippen hater and not a legitimate Bulls fan. Which couldn't be further from the truth.

No where do I diminish Pippen's accomplishment's in a team setting with the Bulls the way Roundball_Rock is attempting to do here.

So, what is he? A Pippen Stan? Do you agree with this clown? Does he have an agenda that couldn't be more obvious? He's getting torn to shreds in this thread. And can't even get his cliches correct, I.E. "flash in the pan" ... consistently trying to throw shade at his favorite team's greatest player? That isn't odd to you?

What does a fellow Pippen Stan have to say about these antics? Mind you, I'm a true Bulls fan. Followed them post MJ in the dark years from Eddie Robinson, to Ben Gordon, to current.

Pippen was the one who bolted on Chicago in 1999. Willingly. Couldn't wait to get out. Phil Jackson as well.

Meanwhile MJ was there standing up to management to keep both of them. He was being loyal to both his teammates, coach, and the city that grew up with him.

Pippen is a coward. That's why he needed the mental tenacity, heart, and will power of someone like MJ to drag him to championships. Dude did nothing with a straight SUPER stacked Blazers squad.

:facepalm
I'm not a Pippen stan bro. Im a Bulls fans. In do not feel that we have to agree on every point. Which is why I disagree with Rock in this particular case. I've always argued for the team. Not Pippen. A large portion off our disagreements stem from the constant bombardment of hate Pippen receives.

Like in your post here. Why is Pippen a coward? Krause had been wanting to trade him for years. Krause told Jackson that after the year was up, he was breaking up the team. I believe the comment was something along the line of "I don't care if you go 82-0, the team is gone. Pip was a free agent. He was well within bis right to leave if he wanted to. Jordan abruptly retired in 93, is he a coward?

And again, Pippen was 34 years old with the Blazers. This is why I say your Jordan fan. Not a Bulls fan. Or maybe you are a Bulls fan but just hate Pippen to the point if distorting the truth and overrating Jordans role.

[Sarcastic]

Holy shit is OP obsessed with Jordan. Now going so far as to use the years that Jordan didn't play the team, as to why his competition was weak. :facepalm


Jordan is the GOAT, and the competition overall in the 1980s and 1990s was superior to the modern NBA. Roy Hibbert would be a bottom tier center if he played back then. I mean, poor Othella Harrington. If he came up now, he would be a God, and a perennial All Star.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

http://s15.postimg.org/k4s22m8nv/shutterstock_113264986_e1390908371677.jpg

[1987_Lakers]

Another point that is rarely acknowledged is that free agency in the 90s was different from the 80s. Teams built themselves primarily through the draft in the 80s. Where as teams in the early 90s began. So in 80s, the same teams always stayed great. Where as in the 90s, thanks to FA, the great teams rotated.

"Great?":oldlol: