Was Chicago Bull's 96-98 3-peat team even any good?

[TheCorporation]

I'm trying to recreate MJ's 3-peat Bulls with today's players as thought I did as best as I could. Could LeBron 3-peat with a team that was similar?

Scottie Pippen = Paul George, both terrific wing defenders and rebounders, can also put up 21 ppg (although Pippen's efficiency is better than PG, but close enough)

Dennis Rodman = Joakim Noah (Both terrific rebounders/defenders. Those glue guy hustle players that work their ass off.)

Toni Kukoc = Jamal Crawford (Both 6th man of the year winners)

Kukoc: 16-5-5 on 50%
Crawford: 19-3-2 on 42%

Close enough

Steve Kerr = Kyle Korver

Kerr: 8 ppg each of the 3 seasons, shooting 53%, 52%, 46% (Christ)
Korver: 8 ppg for 3 seasons, shooting 54%, 42%, 44% *Close

Longley = Nene

Longey: Averaged 10 ppg and 6 rpg during the 3-peat, another solid addition
Nene: Averaged 14-6 on similar efficiency

Ron Harper = ?

Harper: Averaged 20 ppg in his 5 years with the Clippers, then went to the Bulls and averaged 8 ppg and 3 rpg.

So for Harper, find me a guy who averaged 20 ppg over 5 straight season and then went to play for Jordan lol

So far we have:

Random Ron Harper person that averages 20 ppg for the last 5 years and then comes to a team that already has:

LeBron James
Paul George
Joakim Noah
Jamal Crawford
Kyle Korver
Nene Hilario


With Phil Jackson as the head coach, do you think this team would 3-peat? lol...Looks like Jordan's Bulls were a pretty good team, no?

[9512]

Your Ron Harper should be kobe. A washed up shooting guard.

[stalkerforlife]

I'm trying to recreate MJ's 3-peat Bulls with today's players as thought I did as best as I could. Could LeBron 3-peat with a team that was similar?

Scottie Pippen = Paul George, both terrific wing defenders and rebounders, can also put up 21 ppg (although Pippen's efficiency is better than PG, but close enough)

Dennis Rodman = Joakim Noah (Both terrific rebounders/defenders. Those glue guy hustle players that work their ass off.)

Toni Kukoc = Jamal Crawford (Both 6th man of the year winners)

Kukoc: 16-5-5 on 50%
Crawford: 19-3-2 on 42%

Close enough

Steve Kerr = Kyle Korver

Kerr: 8 ppg each of the 3 seasons, shooting 53%, 52%, 46% (Christ)
Korver: 8 ppg for 3 seasons, shooting 54%, 42%, 44% *Close

Longley = Nene

Longey: Averaged 10 ppg and 6 rpg during the 3-peat, another solid addition
Nene: Averaged 14-6 on similar efficiency

Ron Harper = ?

Harper: Averaged 20 ppg in his 5 years with the Clippers, then went to the Bulls and averaged 8 ppg and 3 rpg.

So for Harper, find me a guy who averaged 20 ppg over 5 straight season and then went to play for Jordan lol

So far we have:

Random Ron Harper person that averages 20 ppg for the last 5 years and then comes to a team that already has:

LeBron James
Paul George
Joakim Noah
Jamal Crawford
Kyle Korver
Nene Hilario


With Phil Jackson as the head coach, do you think this team would 3-peat? lol...Looks like Jordan's Bulls were a pretty good team, no?

:facepalm

[navy]

Literally every 90s player you listed was better than the today's player.

[Droid101]

bran stans getting shot down by other bran stans. This summer meltdown will be amazing.

[TheCorporation]

:facepalm

What? If you have something to say, please say it. Get your point across, I don't speak face palm or mind read too well.

Is that not a fair comparison? Am I undervaluing Pippen?


Literally every 90s player you listed was better than the today's player.

I know, but I tried my best to find similar comparisons. Makes you really put things into perspective and realize how special MJ's Bulls were.


bran stans getting shot down by other bran stans. This summer meltdown will be amazing.

Not sure if you read the thread and the responses, or just always like to randomly hate in my threads. What is wrong with the comparisons I made? Are they really that far off?

[Legends66NBA7]

OP, Ron Harper = Lance Stephenson/Wesley Matthews

I'd go with Lance since he was coming into the league as a PG. Harper moved to PG for the Bulls, but his main priority was to play defense. Infact, you could try George Hill as well here too. Matthews can handle well enough, but first thing is first... the PG for the Bulls is defense first, pass to your version of Jordan.

[Collie]

Take the 2014 Spurs, remove the big 3 and replace them with 08-10 Kobe, Paul George with better passing and Noah. That's probably a good approximation of the late 90's Bulls. They weren't just good because they had good players, they dismantled the league the way the Spurs smashed the Heat. They were, in essence, a perfect team.

[Marchesk]

Am I undervaluing Pippen?

A little. He is top 50 all-time. PG isn't a bad comparison as the type of player, but George is no Pippen.

[dubeta]

That team was amazing, had everything, shooters, rebounders, defenders, great offensive system, GOAT coach.

Heck MJ could chuck all he wanted to and he still would get carried to championships year after year

[Marchesk]

That team was amazing, had everything, shooters, rebounders, defenders, great offensive system, GOAT coach.

The Jazz were a pretty damn good team, taking them to 6 games twice.

[TheCorporation]

A little. He is top 50 all-time. PG isn't a bad comparison as the type of player, but George is no Pippen.

True, I was just trying to find who is the best fit to "match" Pippen and I don't think we can find anyone more accurate than PG. Long, athletic 3 that can still score 20 ppg and grab rebounds and defend very well.

[TheCorporation]

They were, in essence, a perfect team.

I agree, I've told people before they don't realize how special this team was. 1996 Bulls going 72-10 ?! WTF lol They just had everything, and on top of all those great players they had Michael Jeffrey Jordan and Phil Jackson. Crazy good. :bowdown:

Crazy to put that team into perspective in 2014 and realize how crazy good they were.

[stalkerforlife]

Pippen = Bron. That's a far better comparison.

[TheCorporation]

Pippen = Bron. That's a far better comparison.

Pippen = 0 Finals MVPs
Pippen = 0 MVPs
Pippen = 0 Scoring Titles
Pippen = Averaged 30 ppg 0 times

Bron = 2 Finals MVPs
Bron = 4 MVPs
Bron = 1 Scoring Title
Bron = Averaged 30 ppg 3 times

Failed math, eh bud?

Pippen's peak: 22-9-6 on 49%

Bron's peak: 30-9-7 on 50%

Do some more research before you post again, thanks bud. There is a lot out there, knowledge is power. I suggest nba.com; wikipedia; espn; bleacher report, etc. Good luck to you my new friend to the NBA :cheers:

[dubeta]

Pippen = Bron. That's a far better comparison.

Bran > MJ > Pippen > Perkins > Towel boy > rapists > kobe

[TheCorporation]

Bran > MJ > Pippen > Perkins > Towel boy > rapists > kobe

:lol

I just assumed stalkerforlife is new to basketball, still learning about the game and it's history. I spared him since it's obvious he is still very much new to the game we love, know as NBA basketball. He is a 2014 and all.

[stalkerforlife]

Pippen = 0 Finals MVPs
Pippen = 0 MVPs
Pippen = 0 Scoring Titles
Pippen = Averaged 30 ppg 0 times

Bron = 2 Finals MVPs
Bron = 4 MVPs
Bron = 1 Scoring Title
Bron = Averaged 30 ppg 3 times

Failed math, eh bud?

Pippen's peak: 22-9-6 on 49%

Bron's peak: 30-9-7 on 50%

Do some more research before you post again, thanks bud. There is a lot out there, knowledge is power. I suggest nba.com; wikipedia; espn; bleacher report, etc. Good luck to you my new friend to the NBA :cheers:

6/6 > 2/5

In case you didn't get the memo, Bron's stats have been proven to be a farce. Padded stats and disappearing acts that include cramps and shitting your pants in the finals don't impress true basketball gurus, bub.

[dubeta]

6/6 > 2/5

In case you didn't get the memo, Bron's stats have been proven to be a farce. Padded stats and disappearing acts that include cramps and shitting your pants in the finals don't impress true basketball gurus, bub.

But Kobe's 6/24 is supposed to wow us? :roll:

[stalkerforlife]

But Kobe's 6/24 is supposed to wow us? :roll:

Absolutely. One of the best defenses of all time and Kobe, like an alpha, kept pushing and grinding through a bad shooting night. 10 points down the stretch to seal it.

Alpha ish.

[TheCorporation]

6/6 > 2/5

In case you didn't get the memo, Bron's stats have been proven to be a farce. Padded stats and disappearing acts that include cramps and shitting your pants in the finals don't impress true basketball gurus, bub.

I see, you ARE new to the game. Well, like I said, you should read more about this guy named LeBron James. He was drafted right out of highschool, #1 overall. He has achieved many things no other player has. Where to begin? Well, you should just start researching. Try using:

www.google.com

That's a good start for beginners. :cheers:

Oh, and welcome to the forums Mr. 2014, there is a lot you can learn here.

[SamuraiSWISH]

OP is hideously dumb. The 2011 - 2014 Heat already were built like the '96 - '98 Bulls. Only difference is 3/3 as opposed to 2/4. MJ never choked as bad as LeBron in 2011, and when Pippen's body gave out him in '97, or especially '98 as it did on Wade the past two years? MJ, unlike LeBron played beyond his normal averages to compensate. That's the difference between great, and GOAT.

[TheCorporation]

OP is hideously dumb. The 2011 - 2014 Heat already were built like the '96 - '98 Bulls. Only difference is 3/3 as opposed to 2/4. MJ never choked as bad as LeBron in 2011, and when Pippen's body gave out him in '97, or especially '98 as it did on Wade the past two years? MJ, unlike LeBron played beyond his normal averages to compensate. That's the difference between great, and GOAT.

:lol :lol Samurai, I love it! I was waiting for a post from you. I was wondering how moronic it would be, and you sure delivered!

2014 Heat were built like 96-98 Bulls

Best shit I've read in a long while. Your MJ/Bulls homerism knows no bounds.

[dubeta]

OP is hideously dumb. The 2011 - 2014 Heat already were built like the '96 - '98 Bulls. Only difference is 3/3 as opposed to 2/4. MJ never choked as bad as LeBron in 2011, and when Pippen's body gave out him in '97, or especially '98 as it did on Wade the past two years? MJ, unlike LeBron played beyond his normal averages to compensate. That's the difference between great, and GOAT.

LOL i didnt know Bosh could rebound like Rodman. and Eric Spolstra was as good as Phil Jackson?? :roll:

And Scottie Pippen was much better than current Wade, like a different tier

Face it LeBron's supporting cast is much inferior than Jordans, it was comparable to Jordan's early years supporting cast. Difference is LeBron gets to the finals while Jordan was getting bounced out the first round and crying on the bus.

[SamuraiSWISH]

LOL i didnt know Bosh could rebound like Rodman.
Bosh's production offensively, is much like Rodman's capabilities defensively. They're both hideously weak on the opposite side of the ball


and Eric Spolstra was as good as Phil Jackson??
No argument there. He did have help from Riley though.


And Scottie Pippen was much better than current Wade, like a different tier
Than 2014 Wade? 2011 Wade is better than ANY version of Pippen. And 2012, and 2013 Finals Wade is on par with Pippen. Scottie was hobbled in both the last two championship runs in that second three peat.


Face it LeBron's supporting cast is much inferior than Jordans, it was comparable to Jordan's early years supporting cast.
2014, or during the entire tenure? You can't be this dumb.

Let' be real, the Heat from 2011 - 2013 are as stacked as '96 - '98 Bulls, but even more so given the total lack of competition within their own conference which was devoid of quality players, and teams. Mostly due to LeBron and co. cowardly stacking of the decks.

Weakest routes to the Finals of ALL TIME.


Difference is LeBron gets to the finals while Jordan was getting bounced out the first round and crying on the bus.
Wait, what? LeBron was busy going Casper status in the Finals, and/or not raising his game ... letting 4th options, or 6th men bust his ass on national television.

:oldlol:

[tpols]

I dont get it.. prime MJ wins at least 3 titles in the past 4 years with this Heat team. They wouldve crushed Dallas under his will.. same with thunder iso brick ball.. and spurs at worst wouldve been a split. MJ wouldve torched pop's defense like kobe used to but even more. MJ > Bran.

[NumberSix]

I dont get it.. prime MJ wins at least 3 titles in the past 4 years with this Heat team. They wouldve crushed Dallas under his will.. same with thunder iso brick ball.. and spurs at worst wouldve been a split. MJ wouldve torched pop's defense like kobe used to but even more. MJ > Bran.
It's Jordan doe. Either he would have won all 4 finals, or lost in the 1st round all 4 years.

[yeaaaman]

Ok, I'm not sure whats going on here, or meant to be going on. What is the sake of the comparison?

Is it to show how stacked Jordan's teams were to try and make him look worse/Lebron better? Is it to show that Lebron's teams were just as good in order to make him look worse?

All I know is that the other year people are talking about this Heat team being one of the greatest of all time and now this is a horrible team and Lebron has 0 help. I need to know what's going on :confusedshrug:

[yeaaaman]

It's Jordan doe. Either he would have won all 4 finals, or lost in the 1st round all 4 years.

Not coming out of this eastern conference :oldlol:

[Dr. Cheesesteak]

Longley = Nene

:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

[sportjames23]

bran stans getting shot down by other bran stans. This summer meltdown will be amazing.

They turning on each other. :oldlol:

[sportjames23]

A little. He is top 50 all-time. PG isn't a bad comparison as the type of player, but George is no Pippen.

Man, I remember at the beginning of the season, nikkas here were saying that George had the potential to be greater than Pippen.

That talk went away by mid season. :oldlol:

[Legends66NBA7]

Man, I remember at the beginning of the season, nikkas here were saying that George had the potential to be greater than Pippen.

That talk went away by mid season. :oldlol:

Went away ? He potentially could. People will always get caught up in the moment in the ups and downs of a player.

George is only 24 years old and has been the Pacers best player for 2 straight seasons now. Give the kid more time to develop and add to his career. Then we can come back and visit the discussion.

[sportjames23]

Went away ? He potentially could. People will always get caught up in the moment in the ups and downs of a player.

George is only 24 years old and has been the Pacers best player for 2 straight seasons now. Give the kid more time to develop and add to his career. Then we can come back and visit the discussion.


Ain't gonna happen, bruh.

[lakerstekkenn]

But Kobe's 6/24 is supposed to wow us? :roll:

:no: No one will ever be perfect in the Finals, or playoffs oh wait Jordan was
Jordan had a career Finals low 5 of 19 shooting oh and he did have five turnovers 2. In the 1996 closer against Seattle He was rather Kobeish in this one

When the Bulls lost to Portland in game four of the 1992 Finals he was kind of off, but his teammates were to blame on a higher level. Jordan contributed with 32 points, but only made 11 of 26 shots from the field. He was a perfect 8 for 8 from the line but only hit 2 of 6 three

[hitmanyr2k]

Went away ? He potentially could. People will always get caught up in the moment in the ups and downs of a player.

George is only 24 years old and has been the Pacers best player for 2 straight seasons now. Give the kid more time to develop and add to his career. Then we can come back and visit the discussion.

Paul George plays a lot like 2nd 3peat Pippen where his game is primarily long jumpers and threes. He's athletic as hell but an average slasher at best which reflects in his low free throw average. In this age of the NBA where it's so easy to get to the foul line PG really needs to work on getting to the rim more often and stop launching so many jumpers which leads to his inefficiency. And like I said earlier in the year George's playmaking ability is awful and that's the main aspect of his game that needs a lot of work. Pippen's ability to run an offense would have come in handy when you think of Indiana's point guard woes this year and last year.

[ILLsmak]

some of your comparisons are pretty off. Longley was way worse than Nene. Same with Kerr vs Korver.

I think Ron Harper was kind of like Livingston at that point except he could hit a 3 occasionally.

-Smak

[Reggie43]

Harper = Shaun Livingston
Longley = Bogut

[BoutPractice]

Toni Kukoc as Jamal Crawford? :wtf:

[TheMan]

That team was amazing, had everything, shooters, rebounders, defenders, great offensive system, GOAT coach.

Heck MJ could chuck all he wanted to and he still would get carried to championships year after year
2/5

Stay mad fakkit

[deja vu]

LOL at Pippen = Paul George and Rodman = Noah :roll:

[TheMan]

It's Jordan doe. Either he would have won all 4 finals, or lost in the 1st round all 4 years.
Now you reaching. Just who would beat a MJ led Heat these last four years in a crap EC :oldlol:

[NumberSix]

Now you reaching. Just who would beat a MJ led Heat these last four years in a crap EC :oldlol:
The Bulls.

[Iceman#44]

Pippen = 0 Finals MVPs
Pippen = 0 MVPs
Pippen = 0 Scoring Titles
Pippen = Averaged 30 ppg 0 times

Bron = 2 Finals MVPs
Bron = 4 MVPs
Bron = 1 Scoring Title
Bron = Averaged 30 ppg 3 times

Failed math, eh bud?

Pippen's peak: 22-9-6 on 49%

Bron's peak: 30-9-7 on 50%

Do some more research before you post again, thanks bud. There is a lot out there, knowledge is power. I suggest nba.com; wikipedia; espn; bleacher report, etc. Good luck to you my new friend to the NBA :cheers: Lebron averaged 30 TWO times, not Three. Do some more research before you post again

[HylianNightmare]

Not coming out of this eastern conference :oldlol:


Jordan would've killed this eastern conference

[NBAplayoffs2001]

I'm trying to recreate MJ's 3-peat Bulls with today's players as thought I did as best as I could. Could LeBron 3-peat with a team that was similar?

Scottie Pippen = Paul George, both terrific wing defenders and rebounders, can also put up 21 ppg (although Pippen's efficiency is better than PG, but close enough)

Dennis Rodman = Joakim Noah (Both terrific rebounders/defenders. Those glue guy hustle players that work their ass off.)

Toni Kukoc = Jamal Crawford (Both 6th man of the year winners)

Kukoc: 16-5-5 on 50%
Crawford: 19-3-2 on 42%

Close enough

Steve Kerr = Kyle Korver

Kerr: 8 ppg each of the 3 seasons, shooting 53%, 52%, 46% (Christ)
Korver: 8 ppg for 3 seasons, shooting 54%, 42%, 44% *Close

Longley = Nene

Longey: Averaged 10 ppg and 6 rpg during the 3-peat, another solid addition
Nene: Averaged 14-6 on similar efficiency

Ron Harper = ?

Harper: Averaged 20 ppg in his 5 years with the Clippers, then went to the Bulls and averaged 8 ppg and 3 rpg.

So for Harper, find me a guy who averaged 20 ppg over 5 straight season and then went to play for Jordan lol

So far we have:

Random Ron Harper person that averages 20 ppg for the last 5 years and then comes to a team that already has:

LeBron James
Paul George
Joakim Noah
Jamal Crawford
Kyle Korver
Nene Hilario


With Phil Jackson as the head coach, do you think this team would 3-peat? lol...Looks like Jordan's Bulls were a pretty good team, no?

Better question: did you actually watch them or are you basing this off of youtube videos? :coleman:

[Roundball_Rock]

"Pippen was hobbled" is misleading. It is true he was banged up but he still managed to put up 20/8 in the 97' Finals, including taking over in the third quarter for the Bulls in Game 1, on a day when it was unclear whether he would even play until tip-off. In 98' he dominated defensively in the ECF and when the Bulls took a 3-1 lead in the Finals. Only in the final two games, especially Game 6, did he become hobbled (in Game 5 he shot poorly but still had 11 assists and 11 rebounds--and it was Kukoc, not Jordan who stepped up in that game, although MJ had a legendary Game 6).

We actually saw the Bulls without Pippen for half a season. The result? The 98' Bulls with MJ, without Pippen were on par with the 94' Bulls with Pippen, without MJ. (The one difference is the 98' team declined from 69 wins the previous year to a 56 win pace while the 94' team fell from 57 wins to 55 wins--although it had a 58 win pace when Pippen played and a 63 win pace with both Pippen and Grant)

[OldSchoolBBall]

lol @ acting like Harper was a 20 ppg player by '96-'98. :oldlol: Disingenuous much? Guys who can average 20 ppg don't shoot 43% while averaging 7 ppg. His injuries made him a shell of the player he was in LA.

[OldSchoolBBall]

(The one difference is the 98' team declined from 69 wins the previous year to a 56 win pace while the 94' team fell from 57 wins to 55 wins--although it had a 58 win pace when Pippen played and a 63 win pace with both Pippen and Grant)

The other difference - which you conveniently didn't mention - was that the entire team was 4 years older, and MJ, the star, was 35 years old as compared to Pippen being 28 in 1994. A 28 year old Jordan easily has that team on a 60+ win pace considering that the 35 year old version had them on a 56 win pace.

[MrC1991]

bran stans getting shot down by other bran stans. This summer meltdown will be amazing.

QFT.

[Roundball_Rock]

The other difference - which you conveniently didn't mention - was that the entire team was 4 years older

Entire team? The only players from the 94' team who were on the 98' team were Pippen, Kukoc, Kerr, Longley, and Wennington. Pippen is not relevant to this comparison. Wennington was a 10 mpg player in 98'. Kukoc was a rookie in 94' but was 29 and in his prime in 98'. Longley also was 29 in 98' (the best years for a NBA player usually are ages 27-30). Kerr went from 28 to 32 but that didn't impact him much since he was a shooter. If anything, age helped the 98' players because Kukoc and Longley were in their prime in 98', not in 94'.

Yeah MJ was 35 in 98' so we are not talking about prime MJ, although MJ was MVP that year and had won MVP in two of the previous three years, with many observers thinking he got robbed in 97'.

One reason for the 98' decline, in addition to the obvious fact of losing an elite player, was that without Pippen his teammates' shooting percentages declined across the board.

Anyway, my point was to counter the "MJ carried the Bulls all by himself" implication. We in fact got a real life sample of that team without Pippen and the team remained a contender, along with Indiana and Miami in the East, but was no longer dominant (simpler to the 94' Bulls in those regards).

[Fork]

This team was more stacked than all of Lebron's Heat teams

[OldSchoolBBall]

Entire team? The only players from the 94' team who were on the 98' team were Pippen, Kukoc, Kerr, Longley, and Wennington. Pippen is not relevant to this comparison. Wennington was a 10 mpg player in 98'. Kukoc was a rookie in 94' but was 29 and in his prime in 98'. Longley also was 29 in 98' (the best years for a NBA player usually are ages 27-30). Kerr went from 28 to 32 but that didn't impact him much since he was a shooter. If anything, age helped the 98' players because Kukoc and Longley were in their prime in 98', not in 94'.

Yeah MJ was 35 in 98' so we are not talking about prime MJ, although MJ was MVP that year and had won MVP in two of the previous three years, with many observers thinking he got robbed in 97'.


The average age of Chicago's top 6 mpg players in '98 (excluding Pippen) was 33. The average age of the top 6 mpg players in '94 was 27.5. Try again. Yeah, I'm sure that makes no difference at all. :facepalm

[juju151111]

Entire team? The only players from the 94' team who were on the 98' team were Pippen, Kukoc, Kerr, Longley, and Wennington. Pippen is not relevant to this comparison. Wennington was a 10 mpg player in 98'. Kukoc was a rookie in 94' but was 29 and in his prime in 98'. Longley also was 29 in 98' (the best years for a NBA player usually are ages 27-30). Kerr went from 28 to 32 but that didn't impact him much since he was a shooter. If anything, age helped the 98' players because Kukoc and Longley were in their prime in 98', not in 94'.

Yeah MJ was 35 in 98' so we are not talking about prime MJ, although MJ was MVP that year and had won MVP in two of the previous three years, with many observers thinking he got robbed in 97'.

One reason for the 98' decline, in addition to the obvious fact of losing an elite player, was that without Pippen his teammates' shooting percentages declined across the board.

Anyway, my point was to counter the "MJ carried the Bulls all by himself" implication. We in fact got a real life sample of that team without Pippen and the team remained a contender, along with Indiana and Miami in the East, but was no longer dominant (simpler to the 94' Bulls in those regards).
Wtf are you talking about? The bulls were old has **** in 98 and was full with injuries. Shit Mj was 35 and played the entire year with a crack knuckle.

[beastee]

The way these Bron stans join in to try and support each other is so cute. Its like AA except for whiny bitches in their mom's basement.

The 93-96 Bulls showed absolute flashes of dominance...but they were not unbeatable. MJ's will and desire put them over the top and his team followed him, a true leader.

The 2011-2014 Heat showed flashes of dominance (27 wins in a row), and should have been unbeatable 3 of 4 years. But Lebron deferred too much in 2011 and showed his true colors. If not for a miracle Ray Allen three they would be 1-3 in the finals on a team with 3 all-stars, 2 all-star starters and the best players in their position (arguably).

All this occured in a watered down East where the best team was too injured (DRose) and the Pacers were considered the true threat. The Pacers.

I know most of you never actually watched the Bulls since you were too young, but to try and discredit MJ as often as possible it shows you are as insecure about Lebron as he is.

[Roundball_Rock]

The average age of Chicago's top 6 mpg players in '98 (excluding Pippen) was 33. The average age of the top 6 mpg players in '94 was 27.5. Try again. Yeah, I'm sure that makes no difference at all. :facepalm

That is different than "the team was 4 years older," which implies an aging, consistent core. Yeah, the 98' team as a group was older than the 94' team--so was the 97' team that won 69 games but slipped to a 56 win pace without Pippen.

Anyway, the point is to refute the implication, made in comparison to Lebron losing, that MJ "willed" the Bulls to the title in 97' and 98', not to compare the two teams.


MJ's will and desire put them over the top and his team followed him, a true leader.

:lol at the non-stop mythology. MJ was not even liked by his teammates for much of his career.

[andgar923]

At least Kobe stans were creative and at times funny.

The shit I've been seeing from Bron stans is embarrassing and pathetic.

This thread is idiotic.

[juju151111]

That is different than "the team was 4 years older," which implies an aging, consistent core. Yeah, the 98' team as a group was older than the 94' team--so was the 97' team that won 69 games but slipped to a 56 win pace without Pippen.

Anyway, the point is to refute the implication, made in comparison to Lebron losing, that MJ "willed" the Bulls to the title in 97' and 98', not to compare the two teams.



:lol at the non-stop mythology. MJ was not even liked by his teammates for much of his career.
Mj did will his team to a chip in 98. Pippen wasn't doing shit for the last two games of the finals. Mj made all the plays. Pippen was gimped. Also Mj was 35 with a crack knuckle and still led the team to a 56 pace

[guy]

Not saying the comparison is or isn't valid, but Noah > Rodman. Compare Noah to Bulls Rodman and they're comparable defenders, Rodman a better rebounder, but Noah is a significantly better scorer and passer and leader in general. The comparison may still be valid because on this team maybe Noah's scoring and passing isn't really needed. Just saying that Noah is better.

[deja vu]

Rodman was definitely a better defender than Noah. Not even close.

[DonDadda59]

At least Kobe stans were creative and at times funny.

The shit I've been seeing from Bron stans is embarrassing and pathetic.

This thread is idiotic.

I'm saying... if it had been Bean who just lost in the finals and was preparing to potentially abandon his team yet again, his stans would be here right now making videos about how he had lost because he had to go up against the Monstars and their impenetrable super advanced defense. :oldlol:

But dudes are here now talking about 'stacked' teams from the 90s?


Harper: Averaged 20 ppg in his 5 years with the Clippers, then went to the Bulls and averaged 8 ppg and 3 rpg.

So for Harper, find me a guy who averaged 20 ppg over 5 straight season and then went to play for Jordan lol

Yes, let's conveniently overlook the fact that Miami's bench this season featured:

Rashard Lewis (22 PPG/7 RPG peak)

Michael Beasley (#2 overall pick, 19 PPG 6 RPG in '10-'11)

Ray Allen (Arguably the GOAT shooter, 9 straight seasons as a 20 PPG scorer)

James Jones (career 40% 3 pt shooter)

Hell, the '04-'05 Sonics led by the dynamic duo of Ray (24/4/4 38% from 3) and Rashard (21/6 40% from 3) won 52 games and made it to the second round of the WC playoffs where they lost in 6 to the eventual champion Spurs. That's one more win than the Bron led Heat got against a championship Spurs squad this year :oldlol:

These dudes were only good enough to play a relative handful of minutes on the ultra stacked Heat doe.

See, I just pulled an OP there. Try it, it's a lot easier than it looks.

[beastee]

:lol at the non-stop mythology. MJ was not even liked by his teammates for much of his career.

Who said you need to be liked to be a leader. His teammates were afraid of letting him down. Lebron on the other hand, wets the bed more than a 8 year old drinking mountain dew.

[guy]

Rodman was definitely a better defender than Noah. Not even close.

In chicago? Not really. They're comparable.

[Finger Roll]

Luc Longley had a 7.5 inch freaking vertical. Why are you comparing him to Nene. This thread is god awful.

[Roundball_Rock]

So for Harper, find me a guy who averaged 20 ppg over 5 straight season and then went to play for Jordan lol

Sorry, I missed this. Harper's scoring dipped in 1995--before Jordan. I saw someone post about Harper being signed to pair with Jordan a few weeks earlier. That is a misconception. Harper was not signed to play with Jordan. He was signed to replace Jordan (to the extent that a GOAT caliber player can be "replaced"). The Bulls went from 33 ppg from MJ at SG in 93' to 5 ppg with Pete Myers, a D-Leaguer who had spent 1992 and 1993 playing in Italy. While Pippen ranked 8th in the league in scoring in 1994 and was 3rd among perimeter players, their next highest scorers were Horace Grant at 15 ppg and B.J. Armstrong at 14 ppg. Their lack of a consistent second scorer was exposed in the playoffs. Harper was signed to remedy that weakness. Harper was a 20 ppg the previous year on the Clippers but never regained that form and reinvented himself as a defensive specialist.


Who said you need to be liked to be a leader. His teammates were afraid of letting him down.

People act as if MJ was their boss. MJ was their co-worker. MJ did have leadership but it was, as Jackson has noted, one of rebuke and of example. However, that would not have worked if Pippen did not also exist as a leader. His leadership was the more traditional kind--the kind you would like to have from a co-worker of yours. Pippen offered encouragement, support, advice and also worked to help struggling players on the court, i.e. if a player was cold he would work things to get them a good shot and back into the groove. In tandem, they offered great leadership with Bill Wennington saying Pip was like mom and MJ like dad. MJ's style in isolation, though, would not work effectively.

I was harsh like MJ earlier in my career and that approach did not work, especially if you lacked command and control over a particular individual (i.e. MJ lacked supervisory power over his teammates). When I adopted the Pippen approach of becoming a mentor to junior colleagues that paid dividends.

[Roundball_Rock]

Ether to that Scottie Pippen fangirl.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

:oldlol: it was classic Loki/OSB: facts, but conveniently selected facts accompanied by a hyperbolic "MJ would win 75 games or average 42/9/8 on 68% in X scenario" statement. He acted as if the same core aged by 1998. Moreover, he conveniently used "top 6" so he could count a rookie Kukoc. The average age of Chicago's 94' starters was 30, versus 32 for 98' (counting Kukoc as the starting SF). Finally, in 98' Pippen was replaced by a peak Kukoc; MJ was replaced by a D-Leaguer. Kukoc's stats were deflated by him having limited minutes due to never being a full-time starter until 1999, but per 36 minutes he was a 17-18 ppg, 6 rpg, 5-6 apg guy in his prime. That is not exactly Pete Myers' 5/2/2 career average.

[TheCorporation]

LOL at Pippen = Paul George and Rodman = Noah :roll:

So you're saying MJ's team was even MORE stacked than:

LBJ
Paul George
Noah
Crawford
Nene
Korver

Got it...I think you're getting my point...Finally.


Toni Kukoc as Jamal Crawford? :wtf:

6th man winners...

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Jamal Crawford = Toni Kukoc? complete different players
Paul George = Pippen?

This may be THE worst non-intentional trolling I've seen...and thats saying a lot when reading this forums content.. :oldlol:

[AnaheimLakers24]

op is a lame brain fgt with no life or no puss.y getting skills.


your man crush is 2 for 5 in the nba finals :lol

[Roundball_Rock]

The difference is not between their top 3 players. The difference is coaching and depth. The Bulls had a very good bench with Kukoc and Kerr leading that group. Kukoc, as noted earlier, had his stats deflated due to never being a starter until 1999 but he was a 18/6/5-6 player per 36 minutes. The Bulls had Jackson and the Heat Spo, who failed to make any meaningful adjustments in this Finals. He was exposed as out of his league.

[Da_Realist]

The Bulls were competitors. Win or lose, whoever played the Bulls would have a huge fight on their hands. No way would they go out getting blown out in 4 of 5 games. I consider the 86 Celtics the best of my time yet I don't think they'd beat Chicago by 15 four out of five games.

[Da_Realist]

You wouldn't see MJ bulls getting massacred or blown out in consecutive games on their home court. You wouldn't see MJ getting locked up, shook, or intimidated by someone at his very position. A 4th option on the opposing team.

People make comparisons looking at talent or box scores. MJ was a fierce competitor on top of all that. And the Bulls embodied their best player's qualities. Supremely talented and hyper competitive. Always wanted to prove something. Treated practices like playoff games. He wasn't trying to be friends with everybody. Compete or get lost. You ended up with a team that would rather die bleeding on the floor than concede the title. We didn't see that with Miami this year. Stop the comparisons.

And by the way, does anyone think he would consider leaving after getting spanked like that? He would definitely look forward to the rubber match. See late 80's/early 90's Pistons and mid 90's Magic.

[Hands of Iron]

People act as if MJ was their boss. MJ was their co-worker. MJ did have leadership but it was, as Jackson has noted, one of rebuke and of example. However, that would not have worked if Pippen did not also exist as a leader. His leadership was the more traditional kind--the kind you would like to have from a co-worker of yours. Pippen offered encouragement, support, advice and also worked to help struggling players on the court, i.e. if a player was cold he would work things to get them a good shot and back into the groove. In tandem, they offered great leadership with Bill Wennington saying Pip was like mom and MJ like dad. MJ's style in isolation, though, would not work effectively.

I was harsh like MJ earlier in my career and that approach did not work, especially if you lacked command and control over a particular individual (i.e. MJ lacked supervisory power over his teammates). When I adopted the Pippen approach of becoming a mentor to junior colleagues that paid dividends.

I'm truly not going for some sort of thread hijack here or making a veiled argument (I'd come a lot more direct if I felt like it), but I've always found Robert Parish's comments on Jordan as a leader incredibly amusing, maybe because I would've paid good money to see him try and bust Michael's ass.

"What set Larry apart from Magic and Jordan was he wasn't an in-your-face leader like they were," Parish said. "He had too much respect for us. If you weren't having a good night, he was more inclined to encourage you, or not say anything at all.

"But Magic and Jordan would jump all over you."

In one of his first practices with the Bulls, Parish botched one of the plays and was amused to find Jordan jawing at him just inches from his face.

"I told him, 'I'm not as enamored with you as these other guys. I've got some rings too,' " Parish recalled. "At that point he told me, 'I'm going to kick your ass.' I took one step closer and said, 'No, you really aren't.' After that he didn't bother me."

Not that Bird couldn't come off very cold and direct himself, but he pushed the right buttons and had unequivocal respect. One of the greatest examples of that was in the 1984 Finals after going down 2-1 when he said the Celtics played like a bunch of women and he openly questioned their heart to the media. No surprise that the following game featured some of the most enduring images and memories in the entire history of the rivalry: McHale's clothesline takedown of Rambis, Bird jawing with and getting in Kareem's face, Bird body bumping and knocking Michael Cooper over on an inbounds pass, Bird drilling the go-ahead jumper in OT. All in the same game. For his part - like Jordan in Game 7 against Indiana - he didn't shoot particularly well but came through when they needed it while giving his team an unmistakable shot in the arm that had a lasting effect for the duration of the series. 29 Points and 21 Boards ain't too bad though. The entire way it unfolded was just Alpha as ****. When Bird went down early in the 1988-89 season, the spirits were so low that McHale even openly admitted, "We can't win a championship without Larry and we all know it". Understatement of the Year: They finished 42-40 and got bounced in the first round despite Kevin, Robert, DJ and Reggie Lewis (filling in with 18.5 ppg) all playing virtually the entire year.

He'd probably be 5/5 if he hadn't crossed some of the greatest teams in NBA history.

[ArbitraryWater]

Toni Kukoc as Jamal Crawford? :wtf:

Crawford brings nothing when he doesnt score, and that happens, alot...

Kukoc > Crawford, and Taj = 2014 6th Man.

[ArbitraryWater]

LeBron = Bill Gates Scottie Pippen
Wade = Street Walker 80's Jordan

Bosh, Ray Allen, Chalmers, Norris, Birdman = Rodman, Kukoc, Harper, Kerr, Caffey

It's a wash. Only difference is the quality of the best players, the niche they play, their chemistry together, mental toughness and how their games mesh in a team setting.

Pippen was injured quite a bit in the 2nd three peat, much like Wade.

MJ, and Pippen were just clearly the superior defenders.

You don't think 1996-1998 MJ was a superior defender than 2011-2014 LeBron, do you?

[Roundball_Rock]

The Bulls were competitors. Win or lose, whoever played the Bulls would have a huge fight on their hands.

I agree. This is why I think the 72-10 mark will probably never be broken. There will be teams similar in talent but having that mental focus to play at such a high level every game is something we may never see again. That team lost consecutive games only once in 82 games. Look at what their margins after every regular season loss:

+19
+3
+27
-9
+4
+20
+19
+31
+13
+21

So they usually would get so pissed that they would come back so motivated that they would blow the other team out. :bowdown: Furthermore, what people forget is that they not only went 72-10 in 96' but followed that up with 69-13 in 97'. That is a 141-23 mark over two years.

:oldlol: you, and other MJ stans, were calling me a closet Kobe stan for years. Now I am a Lebron stan?


How could I forget: Mike Miller, Shane Battier, Ray Allen, Udonis Haslem, Chris Anderson, Norris Cole ... easily superior collectively than Randy Brown, Toni Kukoc, Jason Caffey, Bill Wennington, Jud Bucheler.

You left out Kerr. None of those players could produce what Kukoc could. The Heat bench has routinely fizzled in the "Big 3" era. The Bulls bench didn't.

You are a Bulls fan. Surely you recall the reason many Bulls fans thought CHI could beat MIA in 2011 was superior depth. The Heat are not a deep team, to a large extent of their own doing by putting so much money in three players. They easily could have used the money spent on Bosh to get 15/6 on other solid players.


Verbally, mentally LeBron had already quit. AGAIN. Just like in ECSF 2010, just like in 2011 NBA Finals.

Or MJ in the 1989 ECF...or Kobe in Game 7 a few years ago.


He GUARANTEED victory in post game press conference. Then used sheer force of will to make it happen. THAT'S what it takes to three peat. Extreme mental toughness.

Largely true. This is what gets MJ stans in trouble: they take great things MJ did and exaggerate them to mythical proportions. MJ did not win that Game 7 by himself...Simmons has frequently cited that game and how it went down.

MJ is the GOAT competitor. The guy wanted to win every time, all the time in anything--even Pac Man or ping pong. :bowdown: Who is arguing that LeBron even compares to MJ in that regard?


Buddy, where have you been? ISH misses your posts.


Agreed. DR is one of the best if not the best of the MJ fans here. :cheers:


When Bird went down early in the 1988-89 season, the spirits were so low that McHale even openly admitted, "We can't win a championship without Larry and we all know it". Understatement of the Year: They finished 42-40 and got bounced in the first round despite Kevin, Robert, DJ and Reggie Lewis (filling in with 18.5 ppg) all playing virtually the entire year.

Chicago did not collapse like that. They are the only team to lose a GOAT caliber player and still remain relevant the following year (if Pippen and Grant were as healthy as they were the year before the Bulls would have won 60+. They had a 63 win pace when both played). Yet it was all MJ? :lol

[ArbitraryWater]

2014 LeBron was garbage defensively. You realize this right? K. Leonard from game 3 through game 5 looked like a superstar. Straight STYLED on him.

Yes, I take '96, and '97 MJ over 2014 LeBron defensively. The other years LeBron was more impactful, not necessarily better. MJ's ability was still there. The difference was MJ could lean on Pippen / Harper and Rodman when necessary to conserve his energy for the much needed volume scoring.

Which was a bigger necessity for Chicago, and is more difficult to duplicate than showing effort defensively. Which can sometimes be masked by quality team defense. The same way LeBron recieved massive amounts of help defensively from Wade, Battier, Haslem, and Birdman from 2011 - 2013.

Of course 2011 - 2013 LeBron should be better defensively than Jordan from '96 - '98. And overall? He is. But you're comparing a 26 - 29 year old v.s. a 33 - 35 year old. What exactly are you trying to say? It's not as impressive as you're making it seem. MJ could still apply himself and lock people down. He also wasn't a lazy off ball defender the way Kobe has been the past several seasons.

Who was better defensively '96 - '98 Pippen v.s. 2011 - 2014 LeBron?

Were comparing 3 years to 4, Pippen wins because of Bron's garbage regular season defense...

But 1996-1998 vs 2011-2013 is a wash.

LeBron in 2011, even though 2012 and 2013 were the closest DPOY wise, was his best defensive season.. Extremely underrated. Built like Malone, still a force at helping out, but also man to man wise, incredibly strong and hard to back down.. BOTH have had famous contests where they completely locked down the opposite star...

I know it shouldn't be impressive, I was responding to you saying "Pippen and MJ were superior defensively", considering this is a threat about the 1996-1998 teams, I assumed you meant 1996-1998 MJ > 2011-2013 LeBron defensively..


I meant as a duo '96 - '98 MJ and Pippen were better defensively than 2011 - 2014 LeBron and Wade.

2011 - 2013 LeBron is better than '96 - '98 MJ defensively. As he should be, he's in his prime physically.

Prime MJ from '88 - '93 defensively takes a steaming dump on prime 2011 - 2013 LeBron.

:rolleyes:

I hope you didn't get fooled by the fact that LeBron wasn't able to handcheck while Jordan was, adjust please.

[mehyaM24]

they were good, but played in a WEAK era. the mid-to-late 90s was the most watered down era PER talent.

2000-2002 lakers, and 2012-2013 miami beat them handedly, imo

[Da_Realist]

He'd probably be 5/5 if he hadn't crossed some of the greatest teams in NBA history.

I loved everything about the East back then. We know about Boston. When Detroit overthrew them, they were championship ready. Came within a hair of knocking off the Lakers in their first Finals. When Chicago beat Detroit, they were ready to win titles. All the lessons they needed were learned in their own conference. Teams had to beat big brother to get to the Finals. LA ruled the West but the East took 12 out of 18 titles from 81-98. That's DOMINANCE.

Boston could have won more but they groomed Detroit. And Chicago owes Detroit for hardening them up enough to win six.

[Roundball_Rock]

hen Chicago beat Detroit, they were ready to win titles. All the lessons they needed were learned in their own conference. Teams had to beat big brother to get to the Finals.

Could we be seeing a similar thing today, i.e. with the Pacers and Heat? People forget that the Pacers gave the Heat trouble in 2012 and 2013, even though they were steamrolled this year. I personally don't think it will happen because Chicago will supplant the Pacers but it is possible if CHI does not get Carmelo and Rose is not Rose next year.

[Hands of Iron]

I loved everything about the East back then. We know about Boston. When Detroit overthrew them, they were championship ready. Came within a hair of knocking off the Lakers in their first Finals. When Chicago beat Detroit, they were ready to win titles. All the lessons they needed were learned in their own conference. Teams had to beat big brother to get to the Finals. LA ruled the West but the East took 12 out of 18 titles from 81-98. That's DOMINANCE.

Boston could have won more but they groomed Detroit. And Chicago owes Detroit for hardening them up enough to win six.

Da Realist (Poster on ISH).

I think Detroit was ready even before they overthrew the Celtics in 1988. They might have lost more handily to perhaps the GOAT Laker squad that year, but they pushed the Celtics to the brink in '87. McHale was hurt, Boston was just coming off a seven game series against Milwaukee prior to, and it was their fourth consecutive march to the Finals but the Pistons deserve credit for pushing so close. Had Bird not come up enormous over the last three games (36/10/7 on 57% FG/66% TS), it would've been over. Somehow those performances don't get mentioned nearly as much as what happened in the final championship series though. Amazing they even got to the dance.


Chicago did not collapse like that. They are the only team to lose a GOAT caliber player and still remain relevant the following year (if Pippen and Grant were as healthy as they were the year before the Bulls would have won 60+. They had a 63 win pace when both played). Yet it was all MJ? :lol

I just find it amusing that nobody has ever been able to explain why Boston couldn't manage better than that considering I've seen several people claim Bird had the most stacked supporting cast of all-time (usually with no mention of his comparable level of opposition to even things out). And believe me, I'm not shitting on those guys. McHale is probably a top five favorite player of all-time and I consider him obviously one of the absolutely most skilled low post players ever, I'm glad Larry had him. He was as healthy that year as he'd been over any of the previous four, you'd think he would've flourished more individually w/o Larry but his efficiency actually took a huge dip (still great, however) and his scoring volume increased none. Bird also wasn't replaced with a Pete Myers-caliber player, but Reggie Lewis. The Chief played all season.

:confusedshrug:

[97 bulls]

I just find it amusing that nobody has ever been able to explain why Boston couldn't manage better than that considering I've seen several people claim Bird had the most stacked supporting cast of all-time (usually with no mention of his comparable level of opposition to even things out). And believe me, I'm not shitting on those guys. McHale is probably a top five favorite player of all-time and I consider him obviously one of the absolutely most skilled low post players ever, I'm glad Larry had him. He was as healthy that year as he'd been over any of the previous four, you'd think he would've flourished more individually w/o Larry but his efficiency actually took a huge dip (still great, however) and his scoring volume increased none. Bird also wasn't replaced with a Pete Myers-caliber player, but Reggie Lewis. The Chief played all season.
I've been preaching this exact sentiment. For all the knucklehead Jordan fans and Bulls haters that make the claim that the Bulls were the best team, had no depth etc. They can never answer this question.

The best way to quantify depth is how well players play and how often a team wins with key players out. The Bulls proved it. What more do you want? And the Celtics not only had Reggie Lewis, but Brian Shaw replacing Bird.

[Calabis]

Da Realist (Poster on ISH).

I think Detroit was ready even before they overthrew the Celtics in 1988. They might have lost more handily to perhaps the GOAT Laker squad that year, but they pushed the Celtics to the brink in '87. McHale was hurt, Boston was just coming off a seven game series against Milwaukee prior to, and it was their fourth consecutive march to the Finals but the Pistons deserve credit for pushing so close. Had Bird not come up enormous over the last three games (36/10/7 on 57% FG/66% TS), it would've been over. Somehow those performances don't get mentioned nearly as much as what happened in the final championship series though. Amazing they even got to the dance.



I just find it amusing that nobody has ever been able to explain why Boston couldn't manage better than that considering I've seen several people claim Bird had the most stacked supporting cast of all-time (usually with no mention of his comparable level of opposition to even things out). And believe me, I'm not shitting on those guys. McHale is probably a top five favorite player of all-time and I consider him obviously one of the absolutely most skilled low post players ever, I'm glad Larry had him. He was as healthy that year as he'd been over any of the previous four, you'd think he would've flourished more individually w/o Larry but his efficiency actually took a huge dip (still great, however) and his scoring volume increased none. Bird also wasn't replaced with a Pete Myers-caliber player, but Reggie Lewis. The Chief played all season.

:confusedshrug:

Are you talking about 88-89? If so I will explain, if you are comparing it to the Bulls

[Calabis]

I've been preaching this exact sentiment. For all the knucklehead Jordan fans and Bulls haters that make the claim that the Bulls were the best team, had no depth etc. They can never answer this question.

The best way to quantify depth is how well players play and how often a team wins with key players out. The Bulls proved it. What more do you want? And the Celtics not only had Reggie Lewis, but Brian Shaw replacing Bird.

The Celtics were also well past their prime and on the downside. Mchale 31, Parrish 35, Johnson 34, Bird 32.....this wasn't Bird getting hurt in 87....this wasn't the same team in 81, that blew out Houston by 20 when he dropped 8 points in the finals. Acting like its the same situation is insane.

Comparing this team to the Bulls who were young and prime is kinda ridiculous. If Jordan stays they probably win the chip in 94.....the Bulls were well built and still fairly young. Pippen did a hell of a job keeping the ship together...the following year he was on the verge of missing the playoffs(which is far to often ignored). As for the Pete Myers crap. The Bulls added Kukoc, Kerr, Longley, and Armstrong moved into the starting role and played outstanding. These guys combined equal PPG as Jordan(stat wise) so the Bulls didn't lose 32 PPG, however they did lose the best offensive player in the game and a leader. For Pippen to carry the load the way he did, is what I credit him for.

[jzek]

'96 Bulls:

* nba title
* 72-10 record in the regular season
* 15-3 record in the playoffs
* all-star mvp, regular season mvp, and finals mvp in jordan
* phil jackson won coach of the year award
* kukoc won the 6th man award
* jordan's 30.4 ppg led the league (was 3rd in steals at 2.2)
* rodman's 14.9 rpg led the league
* jordan and pippen were named to the 1st team all nba team
* jordan, pippen, rodman were named to the 1st team all defensive team
* kerr was second in the league in 3 pt percentage

Yeah, they were pretty good.

[Hands of Iron]

I am not comparing it to the Bulls, nor am I insinuating Bird was a superior leader.They had very different styles, which was the point of the Parish quote originally. I do feel Bird's impact on the floor and ability to make players around him better was definitely on par with Jordan or just about anyone else for that matter. Jordan is one of the very few historically who you could take over an elite all-time big and probably really be no worse off in terms of impact and everything he gives you, intangibles included. Bird is another. He isn't the GOAT scorer nor did he possess the lateral movement to be a shutdown on the ball defender, but there were various other areas of the game that he excelled and made up for it with.

[knicksman]

its harder to add 10 wins on a 60 win team than 10 wins on a 30 win team. Just like its harder to score on clutch situations than during 1st quarters or when youre team is down 20+.

And the difference between jordan and lebron is that lebron might add 30 wins on a 15 win team while jordan only 20 but jordan can still add around 18 on a 50 win team while lebron can only manage 10. When you already have a team, jordan is a way to go because he can fit and provides the most difficult skill(tough shot scoring) that only few players can replace while lebron is better if you have no idea how to build a team. Brans skills are redundant when you have a stacked team while jordan isnt.

[Calabis]

I am not comparing it to the Bulls, nor am I insinuating Bird was a superior leader.They had very different styles, which was the point of the Parish quote originally. I do feel Bird's impact on the floor and ability to make players around him better was definitely on par with Jordan or just about anyone else for that matter. Jordan is one of the very few historically who you could take over an elite all-time big and probably really be no worse off in terms of impact and everything he gives you, intangibles included. Bird is another. He isn't the GOAT scorer nor did he possess the lateral movement to be a shutdown on the ball defender, but there were various other areas of the game that he excelled and made up for it with.

I would say better than MJ....not knocking Bird. Can't argue about anything you said...well done sir.

[TheCorporation]

When the chips are down, LeBron gives up. He's a front runner. A bully. He won't pick his team up and shoulder the come from behind burden.


You're so full of shit, it's not even funny. LeBron's 2012 Heat is the only team in NBA history to be down in 3-straight series and win a Championship...Do you remember his game 6 vs Boston, IN Boston? Do I need to dig up those stats for you? 45-15-5 on 75% I believe? Bron was down vs MVP Rose's Bulls before he lead his team to a dominant backdoor sweep. He also did the same vs KD's Thunder, dropped game one and then won 4 in a row. He also did the same vs the Pacers this year, dropped game one and then fired off 4 wins in 5 games, closing the Pacers out in 6. So full of shit with the "When the chips are down, LBJ gives up."

Couldn't be any further from the truth, bud.

[knicksman]

You're so full of shit, it's not even funny. LeBron's 2012 Heat is the only team in NBA history to be down in 3-straight series and win a Championship...Do you remember his game 6 vs Boston, IN Boston? Do I need to dig up those stats for you? 45-15-5 on 75% I believe? Bron was down vs MVP Rose's Bulls before he lead his team to a dominant backdoor sweep. He also did the same vs KD's Thunder, dropped game one and then won 4 in a row. He also did the same vs the Pacers this year, dropped game one and then fired off 4 wins in 5 games, closing the Pacers out in 6. So full of shit with the "When the chips are down, LBJ gives up."

Couldn't be any further from the truth, bud.

Of course it would be embarrassing for lebron to lose against those old celtics. But against a legit team, he gives up because he has idiot stans who would make excuses for him

[Roundball_Rock]

The Celtics were also well past their prime and on the downside. Mchale 31, Parrish 35, Johnson 34, Bird 32....

People don't compare the 89' Celtics to the 86' Celtics but to the 88' Celtics, which won 57 games and made the ECF. They fell to 42 wins and were swept in the first round in 89'. McHale put up 23/8, Parish 19/13, Lewis 19 ppg and Ainge 16 ppg. McHale and Parish were not exactly washed up.


Pippen did a hell of a job keeping the ship together...the following year he was on the verge of missing the playoffs(which is far to often ignored).

That is inaccurate. Grant left, which explained the decline. Had Grant stayed the Bulls would have been battling for the top seed again. Even without Grant the Bulls were battling for 5th place--not on the verge of missing the playoffs. It is interesting how MJ fans try to explain away 94' as a fluke by invoking 95' and ignoring the loss of Grant.

:lol at them being on the verge of missing the playoffs. Here is how how the teams that finished 3rd through 9th in the regular season stood before MJ returned:

IND 39-24
CHAR 39-25
CLE 36-27
CHI 34-31
ATL 31-32
BOS 25-39
MIL 24-41

They had a 10 game cushion over 9th place, were within 3 games of 5th and 6 games behind 3rd/the division lead and had won 8 of their last 10. People forget, that team closed the season 21-6 (with MJ back they got a morale boost and his production and closed 13-4). They weren't tearing it up but they were a mid-pack team, not a title contender but also not a doormat.


The Bulls added Kukoc, Kerr, Longley, and Armstrong moved into the starting role and played outstanding. These guys combined equal PPG as Jordan(stat wise) so the Bulls didn't lose 32 PPG

Armstrong became a starter, replacing Paxson, in 93', not 94'. They didn't replace MJ's scoring. They fell from 2nd in offensive efficiency to 14th. What kept them afloat was an improvement in defense. The reason they signed Harper following the season was to replace MJ' scoring, to the extent possible, and to give the Bulls a second 20 ppg scorer. It didn't work, but that was the idea because that was a sore need for them.


* jordan and pippen were named to the 1st team all nba team

They were 1-2 in all-NBA voting and MJ was also the unanimous MVP. Pippen placed 5th in MVP voting, narrowly behind 4th place Hakeem.


I do feel Bird's impact on the floor and ability to make players around him better was definitely on par with Jordan or just about anyone else for that matter.

The shooting percentage of pretty much every Celtic fell without Bird. The same thing happened to Laker players without Magic and incidentally also to Chicago players without Pippen in 98'.


but jordan can still add around 18 on a 50 win team while lebron can only manage 10.

Lebron's teams won 66 and 63 games without stacked talent?

[knicksman]

Lebron's teams won 66 and 63 games without stacked talent?

Those cle team were complete and thats what matters. A scorer or a pg is pretty useless playing with lebron and they have a defensive anchor plus shaq. Dirk too won 67 with comparable supporting casts. Its just that dirk make his teammates better. Hell the 2011 mavs went on a losing streak when he was out.

[knicksman]

at the end of the day, lebron was given better teammates and he failed. So stop the excuses already. 2008 celtics had far worse teammates and players yet they won right away and couldve 2 rings if not for the refs. What separates is lebron, a player who cant fit with other players.

[97 bulls]

The Celtics were also well past their prime and on the downside. Mchale 31, Parrish 35, Johnson 34, Bird 32.....this wasn't Bird getting hurt in 87....this wasn't the same team in 81, that blew out Houston by 20 when he dropped 8 points in the finals. Acting like its the same situation is insane.

Comparing this team to the Bulls who were young and prime is kinda ridiculous. If Jordan stays they probably win the chip in 94.....the Bulls were well built and still fairly young. Pippen did a hell of a job keeping the ship together...the following year he was on the verge of missing the playoffs(which is far to often ignored). As for the Pete Myers crap. The Bulls added Kukoc, Kerr, Longley, and Armstrong moved into the starting role and played outstanding. These guys combined equal PPG as Jordan(stat wise) so the Bulls didn't lose 32 PPG, however they did lose the best offensive player in the game and a leader. For Pippen to carry the load the way he did, is what I credit him for.
Statistically, they were putting up the same stats. They won 50+ games the next two seasons with Bird. So your point is moot.

And lets be honest. The 94 Bulls WERE NOT simply the 93 Bulls minus Jordan. Cartwright and Paxson were done. Scott Williams had an injury plagued season. Stacy King was traded. Kukoc, Kerr, Longley, and Wennigton were not on the 93 team.

[guy]

The best way to quantify depth is how well players play and how often a team wins with key players out. The Bulls proved it. What more do you want? And the Celtics not only had Reggie Lewis, but Brian Shaw replacing Bird.

No its not. In some cases it might be accurate in some cases its not, which is why its not a good way. Unfortunately, the NBA is a bit more complex then that and you can't just answer every question with simplistic bullshit like this.

[guy]

People don't compare the 89' Celtics to the 86' Celtics but to the 88' Celtics, which won 57 games and made the ECF. They fell to 42 wins and were swept in the first round in 89'. McHale put up 23/8, Parish 19/13, Lewis 19 ppg and Ainge 16 ppg. McHale and Parish were not exactly washed up.


Oh wow, great stats. What did you expect? For the Celtics' total statistical averages to literally go down 30 ppg/9 rpg/6 apg because of Bird's absence? :oldlol:

[97 bulls]

No its not. In some cases it might be accurate in some cases its not, which is why its not a good way. Unfortunately, the NBA is a bit more complex then that and you can't just answer every question with simplistic bullshit like this.
Lol. Its not? Key players leaving or going down to injury but the team still remains competitive is not an indication of depth? Do you even know what depth means?

[Hands of Iron]

I've been preaching this exact sentiment. For all the knucklehead Jordan fans and Bulls haters that make the claim that the Bulls were the best team, had no depth etc. They can never answer this question.

The best way to quantify depth is how well players play and how often a team wins with key players out. The Bulls proved it. What more do you want? And the Celtics not only had Reggie Lewis, but Brian Shaw replacing Bird.

A lot of Jordan fans are very mean to Scottie. Not nearly to the extent that the Kobe faithful are with Shaq (and that's beyond facepalm absurd) but I think you've really got to embrace him and acknowledge what he brought to the table. In regards to Bird, I couldn't ever imagine denigrating Kevin in a similar way and it would frankly feel really stupid considering his skills. You just couldn't pull that shit on anybody who knows anything. Parish? Well, a very good player to say the least.

Scottie was All-NBA 1st Team material at his best, his all-around game was one of the finest of the era, his ability to facilitate and play some of best perimeter defense of all-time (in an Iso league) was of ridiculous value to the Bulls and it took a pretty good deal of pressure off Michael, who still carried the bulk of the scoring load and played stellar defense himself. What they achieved together as a duo could probably never be matched by any two wing players in history.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/media/bulls/jordanpippen2_090910.jpg

[bigkingsfan]

They're lucky Shaq bolted out of Orlando.

[BrownEye007]

That team was amazing, had everything, shooters, rebounders, defenders, great offensive system, GOAT coach.

Heck MJ could chuck all he wanted to and he still would get carried to championships year after year
(Insert emoticon of LeBron's ***** getting sucked)

[guy]

Lol. Its not? Key players leaving or going down to injury but the team still remains competitive is not an indication of depth? Do you even know what depth means?


My point is the idea that if you take a superstar player off of a team then the bigger the drop-off in that team's success automatically means the more value that superstar player held and/or the worse the supporting cast was is so ridiculously dumb. It basically penalizes players who have great leadership and have a significant positive impact on the culture of their team. This isn't just about Jordan. Same issue has came up with other great leaders like Duncan and KG. While a poor leader like Dwight Howard gets all this credit when his team falls apart when he goes out injured.

And I'm not saying this is always the reason for one way or the other. Chris Paul for example has had both situations, where he went out for a long time and his team didn't play well and then another time he went out for a long time and his team did play well. And I would never call Magic or Bird poor leaders for what happened after they went out. I think anyone with a brain can clearly see that the biggest difference between what happened to the 89 Celtics and 92 Lakers vs the 94 Bulls is the former was basically at the end of their run anyway while the latter were still young, healthy, and motivated and would've still been in the middle of their run had their superstar not retired.

I just think this stupid argument is emphasized way too much and there's way more variables that have an effect on these situations but certain idiots continue to do this. Seriously, going by this logic, the season Jordan may have had the most impact on his team was the 2002 Wizards. Sounds incredibly stupid right?

[97 bulls]

My point is the idea that if you take a superstar player off of a team then the bigger the drop-off in that team's success automatically means the more value that superstar player held and/or the worse the supporting cast was is so ridiculously dumb. It basically penalizes players who have great leadership and have a significant positive impact on the culture of their team. This isn't just about Jordan. Same issue has came up with other great leaders like Duncan and KG. While a poor leader like Dwight Howard gets all this credit when his team falls apart when he goes out injured.

And I'm not saying this is always the reason for one way or the other. Chris Paul for example has had both situations, where he went out for a long time and his team didn't play well and then another time he went out for a long time and his team did play well. And I would never call Magic or Bird poor leaders for what happened after they went out. I think anyone with a brain can clearly see that the biggest difference between what happened to the 89 Celtics and 92 Lakers vs the 94 Bulls is the former was basically at the end of their run anyway while the latter were still young, healthy, and motivated and would've still been in the middle of their run had their superstar not retired.

I just think this stupid argument is emphasized way too much and there's way more variables that have an effect on these situations but certain idiots continue to do this. Seriously, going by this logic, the season Jordan may have had the most impact on his team was the 2002 Wizards. Sounds incredibly stupid right?
I do see your point. Understand this isnt a knock on Jordan. It's a testament to the team. Ive always maintaw that. I see it like this..... the 94 Bulls with Jordan is what we saw in 96. It would be similar to this past Pacer team Lebron James added. Thats my point.

[TheCorporation]

What they achieved together as a duo could probably never be matched by any two wing players in history.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/media/bulls/jordanpippen2_090910.jpg

They were also paired up since the beginning and had the full opportunity to play together throughout their entire peaks and have the GOAT coaching them. And, the great pieces that surrounded them.

What about if we paired up Wade and LeBron from 2004 to 2014? I'm not saying they'd win 6 chips, but...You never know.

PS: You guys really know your Jordan/Bulls stuff. I am going to have to go back and read through it all. But, you can't deny that MJ's bulls team was stacked and far better than Bron's Heat.

PSS: Repeat 3-peat...So OG.

[DonDadda59]

They were also paired up since the beginning and had the full opportunity to play together throughout their entire peaks and have the GOAT coaching them. And, the great pieces that surrounded them.

What about if we paired up Wade and LeBron from 2004 to 2014? I'm not saying they'd win 6 chips, but...You never know.

PS: You guys really know your Jordan/Bulls stuff. I am going to have to go back and read through it all. But, you can't deny that MJ's bulls team was stacked and far better than Bron's Heat.

PSS: Repeat 3-peat...So OG.

Yes, what if Bron had Wade 'since the beginning' like Jordan had Pippen? I can see that offseason meeting in my mind now:


GM: Lebron, thanks for coming. I understand you had some concerns about the roster.

Bron: I need more help.

GM: What do you mean? You know the guy who rode the bench all season and averaged just under 8 PPG?

Bron: You mean, DWade?

GM: Yup... you're welcome.

Bron: Huh?

GM: That's your help. The Robin to your Batman. Your championship second option for the next decade.

Bron: :lebroncry:

*Bron immediately books the first flight out of that city and 'The Decision' goes down earlier*

[TheCorporation]

Yes, what if Bron had Wade 'since the beginning' like Jordan had Pippen? I can see that offseason meeting in my mind now:


GM: Lebron, thanks for coming. I understand you had some concerns about the roster.

Bron: I need more help.

GM: What do you mean? You know the guy who rode the bench all season and averaged just under 8 PPG?

Bron: You mean, DWade?

GM: Yup... you're welcome.

Bron: Huh?

GM: That's your help. The Robin to your Batman. Your championship second option for the next decade.

Bron: :lebroncry:

*Bron immediately books the first flight out of that city and 'The Decision' goes down earlier*


Not funny. Get LeBron: Paul George, Nene, Crawford, Noah, Korver, etc. and then let's see what happens...

PS: Fun Fact Time For You: LeBron Raymone James actually stayed in Cleveland for 7 years.

So no, he wouldn't have the decision even earlier...

http://cdn.hark.com/images/000/006/085/6085/original.0

[SamuraiSWISH]

Yes, what if Bron had Wade 'since the beginning' like Jordan had Pippen? I can see that offseason meeting in my mind now:


GM: Lebron, thanks for coming. I understand you had some concerns about the roster.

Bron: I need more help.

GM: What do you mean? You know the guy who rode the bench all season and averaged just under 8 PPG?

Bron: You mean, DWade?

GM: Yup... you're welcome.

Bron: Huh?

GM: That's your help. The Robin to your Batman. Your championship second option for the next decade.

Bron: :lebroncry:

*Bron immediately books the first flight out of that city and 'The Decision' goes down earlier*:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Hands of Iron]

They were also paired up since the beginning and had the full opportunity to play together throughout their entire peaks and have the GOAT coaching them. And, the great pieces that surrounded them.

What about if we paired up Wade and LeBron from 2004 to 2014? I'm not saying they'd win 6 chips, but...You never know.

PS: You guys really know your Jordan/Bulls stuff. I am going to have to go back and read through it all. But, you can't deny that MJ's bulls team was stacked and far better than Bron's Heat.

PSS: Repeat 3-peat...So OG.

Read the Bird stuff sprinkled in the last few pages as well. :pimp:

MJ had plenty of help, particular the second 3-peat when he was on the slide as compared to his prime and the Bulls still barreled toward the record books. No way in hell do I believe the Bulls would've otherwise beaten a team like the '93 Suns with MJ shooting sub-42% from the floor as he did a couple times in '96 and '98. Then again, Roundball_Rock would be the first to point out the 1993 Eastern Conference Finals :oldlol: Though Jordan still dropped a monstrous 54-point game on them in that series and a triple double in another. A few people would disagree, but I'd say he didn't have the level of opposition of Bird and Magic (namely eachother) but he won, and won more with less help so it has a way of evening out. The mid-'80s Rockets could've been a true force to be reckoned with and they showed their class by spanking the Showtime Lakers in five games and engaged in a competitive series with the Celtics at their absolute zenith. Probably prevented Bird from being evened up H2H with Magic in the Finals. Unfortunately, Sampson blew out his knee the following season and their backcourt turned into an episode of The Wire as I told you when you were pointing out Hakeem's first round exits. Wise man once said he used up the majority of his physical prime trying to turn chicken shit into chicken salad.

Getting back to Jordan, he made his bones over the first 3-peat for me. It really was about him just going completely ballistic for the most part in ways we've never seen anybody do before or since aside from peak Shaq at least as far as Post-Merger NBA is concerned. He'd still arguably be the GOAT to me if he'd stayed retired after 1993. Absolutely ferocious and destructive monster of a two-way basketball player. The second 3-peat was just further enhancement of his case and really, putting almost everybody else out of reach. He was still the best player in basketball too, but his essence is and always will be '88-'93.

[SamuraiSWISH]

No way in hell do I believe the Bulls would've otherwise beaten a team like the '93 Suns with MJ shooting sub-42% from the floor as he did a couple times in '96 and '98.
They wouldn't. MJ had to put up 41 ppg to win against basically a more talented, deeper, stacked team. A prolific offensive squad. In the same season MJ led his team past the best offensive, and defensive team. Both won 60+ games. That's absurd, and that's major heavy lifting for Michael to book end that first three peat.

Let that sink in he had to score over 40 ppg to win the 1993 Finals against the Suns.

As for the 1993 series against the Knicks? MJ put up 32 ppg, 6 rpg, 7 apg on an atrocious 40% shooting. Granted, he had an injured shooting wrist, and he was facing an all-time great defense. His next best player, Pippen shot 38% on 23 ppg volume. So both of Chicago's best volume scorers put up atrocious shooting percentages.


A few people would disagree, but I'd say he didn't have the level of opposition of Bird and Magic (namely eachother) but he won
He didn't have that exclusive player rival, a player who pushed him totally on his level. Because he was so much better than his contemporaries on an individual level. Can't fault him for that. And he didn't see a perennial foe repeatedly in the Finals, can't knock him for that either. It's out of his control. But he faced PLENTY of quality competition.


and won more with less help so it has a way of evening out.
Co-sign.


Getting back to Jordan, he made his bones over the first 3-peat for me. It really was about him just going completely ballistic for the most part in ways we've never seen anybody do before or since
Straight legendary caliber stuff. And once again, agreed.


He'd still arguably be the GOAT to me if he'd stayed retired after 1993. Absolutely ferocious and destructive monster of a two-way basketball player. The second 3-peat was just further enhancement of his case and really, putting almost everybody else out of reach. He was still the best player in basketball too, but his essence is and always will be '88-'93.
:applause:

[Calabis]

Statistically, they were putting up the same stats. They won 50+ games the next two seasons with Bird. So your point is moot.

And lets be honest. The 94 Bulls WERE NOT simply the 93 Bulls minus Jordan. Cartwright and Paxson were done. Scott Williams had an injury plagued season. Stacy King was traded. Kukoc, Kerr, Longley, and Wennigton were not on the 93 team.

And ur point is moot since they won 51 games after those two season with Bird missing half the year and Mchale on the shelf...:confusedshrug:

Uhh hence the word added Kerr, Kukoc Langley....not just Myers

[97 bulls]

Read the Bird stuff sprinkled in the last few pages as well. :pimp:

MJ had plenty of help, particular the second 3-peat when he was on the slide as compared to his prime and the Bulls still barreled toward the record books. No way in hell do I believe the Bulls would've otherwise beaten a team like the '93 Suns with MJ shooting sub-42% from the floor as he did a couple times in '96 and '98. Then again, Roundball_Rock would be the first to point out the 1993 Eastern Conference Finals :oldlol: Though Jordan still dropped a monstrous 54-point game on them in that series and a triple double in another. A few people would disagree, but I'd say he didn't have the level of opposition of Bird and Magic (namely eachother) but he won, and won more with less help so it has a way of evening out. The mid-'80s Rockets could've been a true force to be reckoned with and they showed their class by spanking the Showtime Lakers in five games and engaged in a competitive series with the Celtics at their absolute zenith. Probably prevented Bird from being evened up H2H with Magic in the Finals. Unfortunately, Sampson blew out his knee the following season and their backcourt turned into an episode of The Wire as I told you when you were pointing out Hakeem's first round exits. Wise man once said he used up the majority of his physical prime trying to turn chicken shit into chicken salad.

Getting back to Jordan, he made his bones over the first 3-peat for me. It really was about him just going completely ballistic for the most part in ways we've never seen anybody do before or since aside from peak Shaq at least as far as Post-Merger NBA is concerned. He'd still arguably be the GOAT to me if he'd stayed retired after 1993. Absolutely ferocious and destructive monster of a two-way basketball player. The second 3-peat was just further enhancement of his case and really, putting almost everybody else out of reach. He was still the best player in basketball too, but his essence is and always will be '88-'93.
I still just don't understand this line of reasoning. Jordan's Bulls were a 55 win team without him. The Celtics struggled to stay above 500. And honestly wouldn't have been had it not been for the 8 wins they got vs expansion teams.

Magic and Bird faced each other three times. People act as they met up every year of the their careers.

[1987_Lakers]

The Bulls were competitors. Win or lose, whoever played the Bulls would have a huge fight on their hands. No way would they go out getting blown out in 4 of 5 games. I consider the 86 Celtics the best of my time yet I don't think they'd beat Chicago by 15 four out of five games.
:applause:

Unbiased MJ fan, I love it.

[Roundball_Rock]

Oh wow, great stats. What did you expect? For the Celtics' total statistical averages to literally go down 30 ppg/9 rpg/6 apg because of Bird's absence?

Their shooting percentages could have improved like when MJ left. :lol


As for the 1993 series against the Knicks? MJ put up 32 ppg, 6 rpg, 7 apg on an atrocious 40% shooting. Granted, he had an injured shooting wrist, and he was facing an all-time great defense. His next best player, Pippen shot 38% on 23 ppg volume. So both of Chicago's best volume scorers put up atrocious shooting percentages.

That is false. Pippen shot 51% and had 23/7/4/2/1 and numerous clutch moments. Pippen shot 83% and had 29 points in crucial Game 3--with CHI down 0-2 (MJ shot 17% that game but still took 18 shots)--and then closed out the Knicks in Game 6. Sports Illustrated called him the MVP of the series.

As to the 93' Finals, MJ had arguably the GOAT Finals performance in that series but it should be noted Pippen also had 21/9/8/2/1 and the Bulls were one shot away from a Game 7 in Phoenix. So yeah, MJ needed help to win. If Pippen performed like Wade did this year, Phoenix would win easily. Grant also chipped in 11/10. So he wasn't getting 15/4/3 from his superstar wing teammate and 14/5/1 from his PF.

On the Celtics winning 52, 56 and 51 games from 1990-1992, even an old, declining Bird's impact was evident then:

The 1990 Celtics were 5-2 without him, 47-28 with him.
The 1991 Celtics were 10-12 without him, 46-14 with him.
The 1992 Celtics were 20-17 without him, 31-14 with him.

Totals:

124-56 with him (69%, 57 win pace)
35-31 without him (53%, 43 win pace)

The numbers are better than they should be because the Celtics managed to do well without him when he was gone briefly. You see that often in sports. A true test requires a long sample size, such as 1991, 1992 and 1989. They went 42-40 in 89' after winning 57 games the year before.

[guy]

Their shooting percentages could have improved like when MJ left. :lol

.

48.2% in 93 vs 47.6% in 94? Not to mention scoring 7 more ppg.

[97 bulls]

And ur point is moot since they won 51 games after those two season with Bird missing half the year and Mchale on the shelf...:confusedshrug:

Uhh hence the word added Kerr, Kukoc Langley....not just Myers
But Bird did play. So whats your point? Remember. Im referring to the Celtics 89 season because Bird only played in 6 games.

[guy]

Funny how no one mentions that the 89 Celtics had a rookie coach.

[Roundball_Rock]

48.2% in 93 vs 47.6% in 94? Not to mention scoring 7 more ppg.


48.2% in 93 vs 47.6% in 94? Not to mention scoring 7 more ppg.

That includes MJ's 26 FGA and new players. The players who were on both teams (listing only players who played at least 10 mpg) shot better in 94'.

Pippen 47.3% to 49.1%
Grant 50.8% to 52.4%
Armstrong 49.9% to 47.6%
Cartwright 41.1% to 51.3%
Paxson 45.1% to 44.1%
Williams 46.6% to 48.3%
King 47.1% to 39.8% (as a Bull)

So Pippen, Grant, Cartwright--three starters--improved significantly. Paxson slipped 1%, Armstrong 2% and King got much worse. When you factor in how many shots these players took, since Paxson and King were playing 17 mpg and 13 mpg and Pippen, Grant were the leading scorers, this group collectively improved its output and efficiency.

The Celtics without Bird saw the exact opposite happen.


But Bird did play. So whats your point? Remember. Im referring to the Celtics 89 season because Bird only played in 6 games

What he didn't mention was the Celtics even during those years when old Bird missed games were a 43 win pace team; with him they were a 57 win pace team.


Funny how no one mentions that the 89 Celtics had a rookie coach.

That would be relevant if 89' was a fluke but subsequent years showed the same trend of 0.500-type basketball without Bird.

[guy]

That includes MJ's 26 FGA and new players. The players who were on both teams (listing only players who played at least 10 mpg) shot better in 94'.

Pippen 47.3% to 49.1%
Grant 50.8% to 52.4%
Armstrong 49.9% to 47.6%
Cartwright 41.1% to 51.3%
Paxson 45.1% to 44.1%
Williams 46.6% to 48.3%
King 47.1% to 39.8% (as a Bull)

So Pippen, Grant, Cartwright--three starters--improved significantly. Paxson slipped 1%, Armstrong 2% and King got much worse. When you factor in how many shots these players took, since Paxson and King were playing 17 mpg and 13 mpg and Pippen, Grant were the leading scorers, this group collectively improved its output and efficiency.

The Celtics without Bird saw the exact opposite happen.


This is relevant how? Why does this matter? But the team as a whole does not? Was the game only played with these select players?

[guy]

That would be relevant if 89' was a fluke but subsequent years showed the same trend of 0.500-type basketball without Bird.

The next guy they replaced him in those subsequent years was a rookie head coach too :oldlol:

[Roundball_Rock]

The next guy they replaced him in those subsequent years was a rookie head coach too :oldlol:

That is why in season comparisons are the best because you are comparing apples to apples (since teams will inevitably make some changes after every season). Those coaches were there both when Bird played and when he did not play. They weren't "rookies" both years. They had the same coach in 89' and 90' and then the same coach in 91' and 92'.


But the team as a whole does not?

MJ's production is not relevant when his impact on others' individual performance is being compared to Bird's. MJ "willed his teammates to be better"--and they improved without him. About half the team had the best season of their career that year!

[guy]

That is why in season comparisons are the best because you are comparing apples to apples (since teams will inevitably make some changes after every season). Those coaches were there both when Bird played and when he did not play. They weren't "rookies" both years. They had the same coach in 89' and 90' and then the same coach in 91' and 92'.



MJ's production is not relevant when his impact on others' individual performance is being compared to Bird's. MJ "willed his teammates to be better"--and they improved without him. About half the team had the best season of their career that year!

Look up those coaches. They ended up having shitty coaching careers in general. Highly doubtful they made that big of a jump in their sophomore year. And it's not a coincidence that it's usually bad coaches who lose the most when there star player is out.

Like I said, why does that matter when the team as a whole took a step back? And are you really attributing that all to the absence of Jordan? It's clear to anyone without an agenda I.e. Not you,, could see that 93 was a down year for the team. It's basically almost the exact same situation as what the Heat went through this past regular season.

[97 bulls]

Funny how no one mentions that the 89 Celtics had a rookie coach.
Chris Ford. Yes. That obviously hurt the team as well. But he was KC Jones assistant for quite a few years before taking over.

Im curious. Why are you so hellbent on diminishing the Bulls 94 season and so determined to defend the Celtics?

When it's the Bulls, we get statements like "they only won because they had a championship pedigree that Jordan gave them" or "they were only successful because they wanted to show they could win without Jordan."

But for the Celtics, we get excuse like "they were old", "Mchale was hurt", "they had a new coach", "Ainge wasn't there"

As a Bulls fan, why would you try to argue AGAINST what the Bulls accomplished?

[juju151111]

Pippen shooting % was better in 92 and so was Grant. They were going for a 3 peat in 93 and played in the Olympics. The 93 season wasn't great for them for a lot of reasons. I don't see you mentioning that Pippen shot 51% in 92 WITH MJ and Grant like 57%. Also stop comparing a 2nd round team like they some great shit. The 94 Bulls should be compared to the Great 2nd round teams of all-time:lol like the hawks from a few years ago. Also this shit about record Roundball keep saying is just BS. Regular season record is just how u manage Ur team and how good players are. You can get by in regular season. It depends on the coach which is another reason I tell people Phil Jackson is a great coach. Look at LeBron Cavs team they won 60+ games and have better records then the Heat, but what did they do. These past years Heat are way better and won less games.

Bulls in 92 WITH MJ
Scottie - 51%
Grant-57%
Paxton-52%
:lol

[guy]

Chris Ford. Yes. That obviously hurt the team as well. But he was KC Jones assistant for quite a few years before taking over.

Im curious. Why are you so hellbent on diminishing the Bulls 94 season and so determined to defend the Celtics?

When it's the Bulls, we get statements like "they only won because they had a championship pedigree that Jordan gave them" or "they were only successful because they wanted to show they could win without Jordan."

But for the Celtics, we get excuse like "they were old", "Mchale was hurt", "they had a new coach", "Ainge wasn't there"

As a Bulls fan, why would you try to argue AGAINST what the Bulls accomplished?

I'm not arguing against what they accomplished. Where did I say anything diminishing them? I'm just arguing that the 89 Celtics/94 Bulls comparison is not a good comparison at all because they're very different situations yet certain idiots here have been using this FOR YEARS.

And Jimmy Rodgers was the coach in 89. Ford took over in 91.

[ArbitraryWater]

Great thread :applause:

[riseagainst]

great thread, OP. this further proves that MJ was carrying them to wins.

:applause:

what a thread backfire
:lol

[Calabis]

I'm not arguing against what they accomplished. Where did I say anything diminishing them? I'm just arguing that the 89 Celtics/94 Bulls comparison is not a good comparison at all because they're very different situations yet certain idiots here have been using this FOR YEARS.

And Jimmy Rodgers was the coach in 89. Ford took over in 91.

:applause:

Somehow this translates to not giving Pippen credit:confusedshrug:

[Da_Realist]

Could we be seeing a similar thing today, i.e. with the Pacers and Heat? People forget that the Pacers gave the Heat trouble in 2012 and 2013, even though they were steamrolled this year. I personally don't think it will happen because Chicago will supplant the Pacers but it is possible if CHI does not get Carmelo and Rose is not Rose next year.

It's not comparable. The Pacers almost getting to the Finals just shows how weak the East is. They're knuckleheads with no mental fortitude at all. Indiana themselves didn't believe they could beat Miami this year. You could see it in their play.

I remember just before the 88 Finals, there was talk that LA caught a break because Boston lost and they would teach Detroit what "championship" ball was. James Worthy admitted as much in the Bad Boys special. I hated them but I knew they would surprise a lot of people. I saw them walk into Chicago and beat the Bulls like stepchildren in two straight games. And I saw them handle Boston in six games. Detroit went into LA and took Game 1 and led 3-2 after two straight beatdowns in Detroit. Nobody understood until the middle of the Finals that Detroit already knew how to play championship ball! They had to be championship ready to beat Boston. Fast forward three years, same thing with Chicago. All the talk leading into it was LA was more experienced, more championship caliber. Chicago were the rookies and would get shown the door. It took four games before people understood LA walked into a buzzsaw.

In both cases (Detroit, Chicago) you could sense them getting better and stronger mentally each year. Detroit should have beaten Boston in 87 but couldn't stare Bird in the face and take it from him. The next year, they had no problems in Boston Garden. And probably would have been a sweep if not for a bad call on a late McHale three to win it in Game 2. Chicago wasn't ready to take Game 7 in Detroit in 1990. They swept Detroit in 1991.

I don't sense the same thing with Indiana. They were the same team with the same flaws as last year. Boston forced Detroit to slow things down and grind it out on both ends. Detroit forced Chicago to develop an offense that utilized the whole team instead of just letting MJ do his thing. How did Indiana get better? There was no extra fire in their belly. No real focus. They were exposed as mental midgets with no game plan and no real desire to do what it takes to beat Miami. San Antonio is a much better example of a team using the pain of a loss to get better, physically and mentally against the same foe a year after.

[Smoke117]

As for the 1993 series against the Knicks? MJ put up 32 ppg, 6 rpg, 7 apg on an atrocious 40% shooting. Granted, he had an injured shooting wrist, and he was facing an all-time great defense. His next best player, Pippen shot 38% on 23 ppg volume. So both of Chicago's best volume scorers put up atrocious shooting percentages.

You are such a stupid c-nt. You can't even get statistics right about anyone not Jordan on the Bulls. You might actually be the biggest stan on this forum. This above is a perfect example of how you know NOTHING about the Bulls overall unless it has to do with Jordan.

[Legends66NBA7]

You are such a stupid c-nt. You can't even get statistics right about anyone not Jordan on the Bulls. You might actually be the biggest stan on this forum. This above is a perfect example of how you know NOTHING about the Bulls overall unless it has to do with Jordan.

Could have just mis-read Pippen's 3pt% for the fg%.

[SamuraiSWISH]

You are such a stupid c-nt. You can't even get statistics right about anyone not Jordan on the Bulls.
Obviously I cited the wrong stats, it wasn't intentional. Did someone get fired fromt he 7/11 today or something?

Anyway he shot 51% in 1993, I don't know how I got 38%, but he shot 40% as the number 1 option in 1994 on 22 ppg volume v.s. the Knicks. So oh well, confused the seasons. I've watched a lot of basketball, and attempted to remember a lot of stats.


You might actually be the biggest stan on this forum.
Says the Scottie Pippen / David Robinson groupie.

:oldlol:

[Smoke117]

Obviously I cited the wrong stats, it wasn't intentional. Did someone get fired fromt he 7/11 today or something?

Anyway he shot 51% in 1993, I don't know how I got 38%, but he shot 40% as the number 1 option in 1994 on 22 ppg volume v.s. the Knicks. So oh well, confused the seasons. I've watched a lot of basketball, and attempted to remember a lot of stats.


Says the Scottie Pippen / David Robinson groupie.

:oldlol:

...right because I have the need to comment in every single thread that has Pippens name in it...no, that's you ABOUT JORDAN. I rarely ever comment in any Pippen related threads as it's all been discussed before and is pointless. You might take the same approach when it comes to Jordan threads? You just reiterate the same shit over and over anyway.

[ArbitraryWater]

Could have just mis-read Pippen's 3pt% for the fg%.

Yea but that's a huge difference which you should notice... He isnt supposed to be one that doesnt know anything about the series and looks up stats to make up his mind.


What youre saying would mean he had no clue of what went down, went on BR, bought the 38% right away without double checking as if he didnt knew better, and posted it here.

[guy]

Guy seems to really hate the idea that Larry Bird had any impact on his teams. :lol It was anybody and anything except Bird.

Huh? He was the best player in the league for multiple years and led his team to multiple titles. Can you point out where I said he didn't have impact? Or where anything I said was wrong? Is NBA/basketball really as simple as RR's bullshit arguments?

[ArbitraryWater]

It's not comparable. The Pacers almost getting to the Finals just shows how weak the East is. They're knuckleheads with no mental fortitude at all. Indiana themselves didn't believe they could beat Miami this year. You could see it in their play.

I remember just before the 88 Finals, there was talk that LA caught a break because Boston lost and they would teach Detroit what "championship" ball was. James Worthy admitted as much in the Bad Boys special. I hated them but I knew they would surprise a lot of people. I saw them walk into Chicago and beat the Bulls like stepchildren in two straight games. And I saw them handle Boston in six games. Detroit went into LA and took Game 1 and led 3-2 after two straight beatdowns in Detroit. Nobody understood until the middle of the Finals that Detroit already knew how to play championship ball! They had to be championship ready to beat Boston. Fast forward three years, same thing with Chicago. All the talk leading into it was LA was more experienced, more championship caliber. Chicago were the rookies and would get shown the door. It took four games before people understood LA walked into a buzzsaw.

In both cases (Detroit, Chicago) you could sense them getting better and stronger mentally each year. Detroit should have beaten Boston in 87 but couldn't stare Bird in the face and take it from him. The next year, they had no problems in Boston Garden. And probably would have been a sweep if not for a bad call on a late McHale three to win it in Game 2. Chicago wasn't ready to take Game 7 in Detroit in 1990. They swept Detroit in 1991.

I don't sense the same thing with Indiana. They were the same team with the same flaws as last year. Boston forced Detroit to slow things down and grind it out on both ends. Detroit forced Chicago to develop an offense that utilized the whole team instead of just letting MJ do his thing. How did Indiana get better? There was no extra fire in their belly. No real focus. They were exposed as mental midgets with no game plan and no real desire to do what it takes to beat Miami. San Antonio is a much better example of a team using the pain of a loss to get better, physically and mentally against the same foe a year after.

What you don't mention is the 1991 Lakers not being nearly the same dominant side of the 1980's, even 1989..

Bird himself acknowledged that he couldn't imagine to see the early 1990's Celtics compete the way they did in the 1980's with the same team, as the 80's were more loaded throughout and the 90's more so the opposite. Same counts for the Lakers. The 90's versions are clearly inferior to the 80's versions.


None the less, I won't be one of those saying "Oh Jordan & Bulls needed to wait for the Celtics&Lakers to decline to start their reign"... No, all 3 had clear rides to greatness, once the 90's rolled around the Bulls peaked, while the Lakers and Celtics just looked to be at the end of their path.

So comparing either of the teams in head to head matchup makes no sense, as you never had the 2 at their full strength.

[SamuraiSWISH]

...right because I have the need to comment in every single thread that has Pippens name in it
I don't comment in every Jordan thread. It's clear you stay on my nuts, so you should know this...

This thread was about the '96 - '98 Bulls.


I rarely ever comment in any Pippen related threads as it's all been discussed before and is pointless.
:rolleyes:

Please, then why are you in this thread? Why does my post upset you so much? If it's all pointless, or been discussed before. Why are you here on ISH regardless? Move on.

No one will miss you. And your anger induced, expletive packed rants on Pippen, or David Robinson. Remove your tampon, grow up. Or hit anger management classes.


You might take the same approach when it comes to Jordan threads? You just reiterate the same shit over and over anyway.
ISH period reiterates the same stuff over, and over. We're all guilty of that. I'm talking about something I enjoy. What purpose do you have in caring about what I'm doing?

:oldlol:

[Hands of Iron]

Huh? He was the best player in the league for multiple years and led his team to multiple titles. Can you point out where I said he didn't have impact? Or where anything I said was wrong? Is NBA/basketball really as simple as RR's bullshit arguments?

http://www.gomotes.com/emoticon/skype/skype67.gif

[ArbitraryWater]

http://www.gomotes.com/emoticon/skype/skype67.gif

Enjoy reading your shit.. You effectively analyze them while using both stats & explanation imo, like with Larry.. others only use one of the 2, and go with weird ass analogies at times... On top, besides the Larry love, you seem to be unbiased as **** :cheers:

Mind fill us in about what makes LeBron so great? :D

[Da_Realist]

What you don't mention is the 1991 Lakers not being nearly the same dominant side of the 1980's, even 1989..

Bird himself acknowledged that he couldn't imagine to see the early 1990's Celtics compete the way they did in the 1980's with the same team, as the 80's were more loaded throughout and the 90's more so the opposite. Same counts for the Lakers. The 90's versions are clearly inferior to the 80's versions.


None the less, I won't be one of those saying "Oh Jordan & Bulls needed to wait for the Celtics&Lakers to decline to start their reign"... No, all 3 had clear rides to greatness, once the 90's rolled around the Bulls peaked, while the Lakers and Celtics just looked to be at the end of their path.

So comparing either of the teams in head to head matchup makes no sense, as you never had the 2 at their full strength.

That's not the point I'm making at all. Boston was a championship caliber team that knew all the tricks. Detroit had to get better, tougher, mentally stronger to beat them. Once they beat them, they knew all they needed to know to win titles. Fast forward a few years, Detroit replaced Boston as the championship level team. They did to Chicago what Boston did to them. It took three years but when they were ready, they were ready. As evidenced by six titles. Jordan admitted this at the end of the Bad Boys video.

"The team pushed us to a certain level. I don't think we would've won those six championships without getting over that hump in Detroit." -- Michael Jordan

My point was I'm impressed that the East bred champions for 2 decades. Boston/Philly battling it out. Then Detroit/Boston. Then Chicago/Detroit. And it should have been Orlando/Chicago but Shaq went west.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Could have just mis-read Pippen's 3pt% for the fg%.
That's all I did. Confused Pippen's horrendous '94 shooting series for '93 in the memory bank, and accidently used the 3pt FG%. It wasn't intentional, and it isn't from lack of knowledge about what happened. Simple mistake. Jesus some people here so quick to get on MY nuts. Of all people.

[1987_Lakers]

On the Celtics winning 52, 56 and 51 games from 1990-1992, even an old, declining Bird's impact was evident then:

The 1990 Celtics were 5-2 without him, 47-28 with him.
The 1991 Celtics were 10-12 without him, 46-14 with him.
The 1992 Celtics were 20-17 without him, 31-14 with him.

Totals:

124-56 with him (69%, 57 win pace)
35-31 without him (53%, 43 win pace)

Just shows you how Bird was the ultimate team player, even with a bad back and aging Bird still had a major impact on his team. Also factor in how rookie Bird took Boston from a lottery team to championship contenders in just one year.

[guy]

http://www.gomotes.com/emoticon/skype/skype67.gif

Thanks. I guess you couldn't answer any of that.

[97 bulls]

Just shows you how Bird was the ultimate team player, even with a bad back and aging Bird still had a major impact on his team. Also factor in how rookie Bird took Boston from a lottery team to championship contenders in just one year.
Or it shows that the Bulls without Jordan were better than the Celtics without Bird. Lest we forget that with Jordan, the 96-98 Bulls (which were basically the 94 Bulls with Jordan added) won three straight championships while winning 72, 69, and 62 (with Pippen missing half the season).

Its simple math.

[97 bulls]

One thing people fail to realize is that mid 80s Jordan was not better than the Jordan that won those championships. He was not a team player. He learned through trial and error.

Jordans impact was just as impressive as Bird and Magics if not more. Jordan took a tram capable of winning 55 games and improved them to 72. That's almost a 20 game improvement. And they won the championship.

Is even say that Bird and Magic were better players EARLY in their careers than Jordan was in his. But Jordan was more talented.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Or it shows that the Bulls without Jordan were better than the Celtics without Bird.
1st 3-Peat or 2nd 3-Peat?


Lest we forget that with Jordan, the 96-98 Bulls (which were basically the 94 Bulls with Jordan added) won three straight championships while winning 72, 69, and 62 (with Pippen missing half the season).

Its simple math.
Well yea, three championships, all-time great records are a monumental difference compared to winning 55 games, a pedestrian record every season a team reached and a 2nd round knock out.

[97 bulls]

1st 3-Peat or 2nd 3-Peat?


Well yea, three championships, all-time great records are a monumental difference compared to winning 55 games, a pedestrian record every season a team reached and a 2nd round knock out.
But its context that you continue to overlook. How many teams can lose their best player and be that successful? Better yet how many teams have?

The closest I can remember off the top of my head is the Bulls when Rose went down and even still they replaced him with Kirk Hinrich and Nate Robinson.

I just dont see why this isnt registering

[97 bulls]

I mean. You think the Heat would be that competitive without LeBron James? Or the Thunder minus Kevin Durant? And mind you, dont replace them with a quality player.

[KevinNYC]

The Celtics were also well past their prime and on the downside. Mchale 31, Parrish 35, Johnson 34, Bird 32.....this wasn't Bird getting hurt in 87....this wasn't the same team in 81, that blew out Houston by 20 when he dropped 8 points in the finals.

Of course Bird was a major reason his team won by 20 in that game (http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1981.htm) since he also had 10 assists, 13 rebounds, 5 steals and 2 blocks and played the most minutes by far. The Celtics won that game because of their defense and their fast break was working. I don't know why you even include that 81 team because it wasn't the same team as the mid-80's Celtics. It was McHale's rookie year and he only played 20 minutes a game.

Here's the guys who played the most in that game you mention.

Larry Bird
Cedric Maxwell
Chris Ford
Rick Robey
Tiny Archibald

I don't think this is anyone's version of a stacked team.

[SamuraiSWISH]

But its context that you continue to overlook. How many teams can lose their best player and be that successful? Better yet how many teams have?

The closest I can remember off the top of my head is the Bulls when Rose went down and even still they replaced him with Kirk Hinrich and Nate Robinson.

I just dont see why this isnt registering
No, you're overlooking the context. They overachieved for one season sans their best player. That's not some monumental feat.

A team with more fire power than the 1st three peat had, particularly with Kukoc. A team with years of championship experience, and a hunger to prove they weren't the "Jordanaires". For the most part they were underestimated that season. Winning 55 games, and losing in the 2nd round of the playoffs isn't a big deal.

As you said the 2013 Bulls, sans Rose ... hell in the playoffs sans Hinrich, and Deng won 47 games, lost in 2nd round. BIG DEAL.

This year's Heat, coasting, without Wade for much of the season won 54 games. Is that an accomplishment?

The 2014 collapsing, ghetto, retarded Pacers won 54 games without Hibbert playing himself for the vast majority of the 2nd half of the season. Then got spanked in the Conference Finals.

Is Paul George = Scottie Pippen?

:oldlol:

The '94 Bulls proved they were a good supporting cast, something we already knew coming off a 3 peat. In 1994 no championships were won. No records were broken. What is that season alone used to validate we didn't already know?

[97 bulls]

What is amazing is how posters continue to make the claim that the Lakers and Celtics had all thus depth, why didn't we see it? The Celtics werent old. Mchale was 31. Parish played at a high level for at least another four years. And neither were the Lakers. Sure they lost Cooper and Jabaar from the 80s team but Jabaar was a shell of himself when the Lalerz won back to back.

And lets not forget, 8 of the Celtics 42 wins came against expansion teams. Theyre probably a 35 win team without expansion. Hell the 99 Bulls were on pace to win 25 games if I remember correct. And their only holdovers from the 98 team was Kukoc, Randy Brown and Harper. No Phil Jackson, No Jordan, No Pippen, No Rodman, no Kerr, no Longley.

[NumberSix]

The Jordan mythology continues.

[Asukal]

The Jordan mythology continues.

2/5 :oldlol:

[1987_Lakers]

Or it shows that the Bulls without Jordan were better than the Celtics without Bird. Lest we forget that with Jordan, the 96-98 Bulls (which were basically the 94 Bulls with Jordan added) won three straight championships while winning 72, 69, and 62 (with Pippen missing half the season).

Its simple math.

Young MJ never turned around a team like rookie Bird.

[dubeta]

96-98 Bulls couldve won the chip without Jordan

[1987_Lakers]

And lets not forget, 8 of the Celtics 42 wins came against expansion teams. Theyre probably a 35 win team without expansion. .

5 of the Bulls 72 wins in '96 came against expansion teams. They're probably a 67 win team without expansion, hence the 70+ win season never existed.

[97 bulls]

No, you're overlooking the context. They overachieved for one season sans their best player. That's not some monumental feat.*
Again. How many teams that have been in similar positions have been aboe to fair better or even similar.


A team with more fire power than the 1st three peat had, particularly with Kukoc.
Toni Kukoc was a rookie in 94. He didnt speak english. He only avgd 10 ppg.


As you said the 2013 Bulls, sans Rose ... hell in the playoffs sans Hinrich, and Deng won 47 games, lost in 2nd round. BIG DEAL.
But they weren't "sans Rose". Like I said, they replaced him with Hinrich and Robinson. The 94 Bulls got Pete Myers to replace Jordan. Come on


This year's Heat, coasting, without Wade for much of the season won 54 games. Is that an accomplishment?
But they Had Wade. Thats the difference. Jordan didn't play one minute for the Bulls in 94


The 2014 collapsing, ghetto, retarded Pacers won 54 games without Hibbert playing himself for the vast majority of the 2nd half of the season. Then got spanked in the Conference Finals.
Earlier, I stated that the Pacers were the 94 Bulls. And that the 96 Bulls would be this past years Pacers with LeBron James added. And even still that team wouldn't be better than the Bulls.


Paul George = Scottie Pippen?*
Not now but he could be eventually.


The '94 Bulls proved they were a good supporting cast, something we already knew coming off a 3 peat. In 1994 no championships were won. No records were broken. What is that season alone used to validate we didn't already know?
Because far too often people like yourself dismiss the teammates that Jordan had. I personally am sick of it. What more is your extreme ignorance. The assumption that the Bulls weren't that good is ridiculous based on the facts. Its even more ignorant to say that the only way the Bulls 94 season couldve been considered a success is by them winning. Thats dumb. What they did was amazing. I for one was sure tgat theyd be a 500 team and first round fodder. Like the Celtics and Lakers.

[97 bulls]

Young MJ never turned around a team like rookie Bird.
Dude can you read? I said Bird and Magic were better basketball players at the beginning of their careers. Jordan was a better talent.

[1987_Lakers]

What is amazing is how posters continue to make the claim that the Lakers and Celtics had all thus depth, why didn't we see it? The Celtics werent old. Mchale was 31. Parish played at a high level for at least another four years. And neither were the Lakers. Sure they lost Cooper and Jabaar from the 80s team but Jabaar was a shell of himself when the Lalerz won back to back.

- Dennis Johnson was a shell of his former-self (He was usually the 3rd best Boston player in the postseason)

- Danny Ainge was gone

- Parish & McHale were weaker defensively

- Should tell you how valuable Bird was to the team

[1987_Lakers]

Dude can you read? I said Bird and Magic were better basketball players at the beginning of their careers. Jordan was a better talent.

That's far from the truth, young MJ was a better player than young Magic. Magic just had the talent around him and MJ took a little while to learn team ball.

[97 bulls]

- Dennis Johnson was a shell of his former-self (He was usually the 3rd best Boston player in the postseason)

- Danny Ainge was gone

- Parish & McHale were weaker defensively

- Should tell you how valuable Bird was to the team
Lol 42 wins bro?

[Asukal]

96-98 Bulls couldve won the chip without Jordan

2/5 U mad bro? :oldlol: :lol

[97 bulls]

5 of the Bulls 72 wins in '96 came against expansion teams. They're probably a 67 win team without expansion, hence the 70+ win season never existed.
Nope. The Bulls won 90% of their games vs non-expansion teams. They were 5-1 (84%) vs the expansion teams. So they had a BETTER RECORD VS THE NON EXPANSION TEAMS.

[juju151111]

Nope. The Bulls won 90% of their games vs non-expansion teams. They were 5-1 (84%) vs the expansion teams. So they had a BETTER RECORD VS THE NON EXPANSION TEAMS.
Exactly one of the expansion teams beat them. People got to realize that when you reach 62+ wins its more about Will and consistent team play. It's hard has he'll to win that much no matter who in the league.

[1987_Lakers]

Lol 42 wins bro?

The usual response when someone can't counter the argument.:oldlol:

[1987_Lakers]

Nope. The Bulls won 90% of their games vs non-expansion teams. They were 5-1 (84%) vs the expansion teams. So they had a BETTER RECORD VS THE NON EXPANSION TEAMS.

'86 Celtics - 19-2 vs 50+ win teams
'96 Bulls - 12-4 vs 50+ win teams


:oldlol:

[97 bulls]

'86 Celtics - 19-2 vs 50+ win teams
'96 Bulls - 12-4 vs 50+ win teams


:oldlol:
1996 Bulls 72-10

1986 Celtics 67-15

[juju151111]

1996 Bulls 72-10

1986 Celtics 67-15
:applause:

[1987_Lakers]

1996 Bulls 72-10

1986 Celtics 67-15

weak era

[97 bulls]

The usual response when someone can't counter the argument.:oldlol:
Really? My point is they were that bad? Come on.

[1987_Lakers]

Really? My point is they were that bad? Come on.

But with Bird in '86 they were the greatest ever.

[97 bulls]

weak era
Weak era? What great teams did the Celtics beat during the playoffs in 86? Their biggest competition was against a Bucks team that had an injured Sidney Moncrief.

Hell the team they beat in 81 Finals? Weren't even a 500 ball club.

[97 bulls]

But with Bird in '86 they were the greatest ever.
Sure After the 96/97 Bulls, 83 Sixers, 72 Lakers, and 87 Lakers.

[1987_Lakers]

Weak era? What great teams did the Celtics beat during the playoffs in 86? Their biggest competition was against a Bucks team that had an injured Sidney Moncrief.

Hell the team they beat in 81 Finals? Weren't even a 500 ball club.

What team did Chicago beat?

A Knicks team that was past its prime?
An Orlando team without Horace Grant?
A Sonics team who were the modern day Clippers?

[1987_Lakers]

Sure After the 96/97 Bulls, 83 Sixers, 72 Lakers, and 87 Lakers.

Parish - All-Star Center
McHale - Top 5 player, unstoppable on the block, world class defender
Bird - League's Best Player, MVP
Ainge - 15/5/5 type player, All-Star just 2 years later
DJ - All-Star player just the year before, clutch, All-NBA Defender
Walton - 6MOY. Arguably the greatest back up center ever.

Name a more talented team for a single year, you can't.

[juju151111]

Parish - All-Star Center
McHale - Top 5 player, unstoppable on the block, world class defender
Bird - League's Best Player, MVP
Ainge - 15/5/5 type player, All-Star just 2 years later
DJ - All-Star player just the year before, clutch, All-NBA Defender
Walton - 6MOY. Arguably the greatest back up center ever.

Name a more talented team for a single year, you can't.
The 96 Bulls 72-10 15-3 playoffs.

[97 bulls]

What team did Chicago beat?

A Knicks team that was past its prime?
An Orlando team without Horace Grant?
A Sonics team who were the modern day Clippers?
Lol Milwaukees best player was injured. Their BEST player. The 86 Bulls were a joke. Atlanta was solid. And the Rockets? Ralph Sampson was a cream puff. The twin towers? One of those towers was made out of twigs.

Don't ever attempt to use the "weak era" or injuries argument again. Cuz it doesn't help the Celtics

[Roundball_Rock]

As you said the 2013 Bulls, sans Rose ... hell in the playoffs sans Hinrich, and Deng won 47 games, lost in 2nd round. BIG DEAL.

:oldlol: at comparing the 2013 to the 1994 Bulls. As 97, noted Rose was replaced by two good players, not a D-League scrub. Put Hinrich and Robinson in place of Myers on the 94' Bulls and they make the Finals, at minimum...

The 94' Bulls won 55 games and were only 2 games out of the top seed (they actually entered the final game 1 game out but NY had the tiebreaker so both teams rested their starters and NY won). The 13' Bulls won 45 games and were 21 games behind the top seed and 9 in arrears of the #2 seed.

The 94' Bulls swept a 47 win Cavs team in the first round and took the eventual East champions to 7 games, in a series where they outscored the Knicks and the Knicks needed a ref to take a 3-2 lead. The 13' Bulls needed 7 games to squeak past a 49 win team and then were backdoor swept and not competitive against the eventual East/NBA champion.

The 94' Bulls had the East's top MVP candidate and East's best player; the 13' Bulls had Noah?

As 97 noted, name one other team which lost a GOAT candidate and remained that competitive (people forget the second best record in the NBA that year was 58 wins and the East's top record was 57 wins so 55 wins was right in the mix. 55 wins in 94' was not the same as 55 wins this year. The Bulls that year were on a 63 win pacewith both Pippen and Grant), let alone a team that lost a GOAT candidate and replaced him with nothing because that player waited until 2 days before training camp to retire. If MJ retired in June or July, the Bulls would have made it back to the Finals--but MJ was smart enough to recognize that be bad for business. :lol

:lol at the 2014 Pacers comparison. If Paul George quits in October, was replaced by a D-Leaguer and they performed that well you may have a point.

[1987_Lakers]

Lol Milwaukees best player was injured. Their BEST player. The 86 Bulls were a joke. Atlanta was solid. And the Rockets? Ralph Sampson was a cream puff. The twin towers? One of those towers was made out of twigs.

Don't ever attempt to use the "weak era" or injuries argument again. Cuz it doesn't help the Celtics

Those twin towers beat the Lakers at their peak in 5 games. Sampson was no joke. He was a 20/11 guy, an athletic 7 foot 4 player who could handle and pass the ball, very rare player and to dismiss that guy is a joke. This isn't Luc Longley we are talking about here.

[guy]

It's pretty hilarious that great players like Jordan and Bird have played over 1000 games leading their teams to championships and winning MVPs in the process but their "impact" is defined by certain dumbasses on here by less then a 100 games that they didn't even play in :oldlol:

[97 bulls]

Parish - All-Star Center
McHale - Top 5 player, unstoppable on the block, world class defender
Bird - League's Best Player, MVP
Ainge - 15/5/5 type player, All-Star just 2 years later
DJ - All-Star player just the year before, clutch, All-NBA Defender
Walton - 6MOY. Arguably the greatest back up center ever.

Name a more talented team for a single year, you can't.
The Bulls had two all NBA players

Three All NBA first team defense members

The Scoring Leader

The MVP (and another player that finished 5th)

The coach of the year

The league best rebounder

The all-time leader in 3pt FG%

And the sixth man of the year.

And unlike the Celtics. Thats what the Bulls did THAT YEAR.

[1987_Lakers]

The Bulls had two all NBA players

Three All NBA first team defense members

The Scoring Leader

The MVP (and another player that finished 5th)

The coach of the year

The league best rebounder

The all-time leader in 3pt FG%

And the sixth man of the year.

And unlike the Celtics. Thats what the Bulls did THAT YEAR.

MJ, Pippen, Rodman, & Kukoc i'll give you that, that's a very strong big 4.

But you have Luc Longley as your starting center, Ron Harper who was a liability on offense at that point of his career. Kerr was strictly a 3 point shooter very one dimensional.

Any team that has Luc Longley starting can't be in the conversation for most talented. Look at the rosters, Celtics were more talented in every position except the SG spot. This isn't debatable.

[97 bulls]

MJ, Pippen, Rodman, & Kukoc i'll give you that, that's a very strong big 4.

But you have Luc Longley as your starting center, Ron Harper who was a liability on offense at that point of his career. Kerr was strictly a 3 point shooter very one dimensional.

Any team that has Luc Longley starting can't be in the conversation for most talented. Look at the rosters, Celtics were more talented in every position except the SG spot. This isn't debatable.
Luc Longley doesn't need to outplay the opposing center. He didn't outplay Shaq, or Ewing, or Mourning, or Mutombo. All he has to do is hit open jumpers and be a big body in the middle.

And you cant rate teams based on whos better by position. This isn't a game of one on one. The Celtics were also arguably better than the Lakers by position 3-2. But the Lakers beat them two out of three times. And most Laker fans feel 84 was a fluke thank to the "Tragic Johnson" debacle.

And even by your logic. Id argue that when you factor coaching its 3-3 because I feel Dennis Rodman was a more impactful player than Mchale.

[pakostevens]

Pippen = 0 Finals MVPs
Pippen = 0 MVPs
Pippen = 0 Scoring Titles
Pippen = Averaged 30 ppg 0 times

Bron = 2 Finals MVPs
Bron = 4 MVPs
Bron = 1 Scoring Title
Bron = Averaged 30 ppg 3 times

Failed math, eh bud?

Pippen's peak: 22-9-6 on 49%

Bron's peak: 30-9-7 on 50%

Do some more research before you post again, thanks bud. There is a lot out there, knowledge is power. I suggest nba.com; wikipedia; espn; bleacher report, etc. Good luck to you my new friend to the NBA :cheers:

It has to be taken in the context of the league then and the league now and that he played with Jordan and didn't have to carry the team.

Kinda hard to get a finals MVP when you are playing in the finals on the same team as Jordan. If bron was playing on that bulls teams would he have also had the same mvp's 0 but he would have gotten 6 rings.

[1987_Lakers]

Luc Longley doesn't need to outplay the opposing center. He didn't outplay Shaq, or Ewing, or Mourning, or Mutombo. All he has to do is hit open jumpers and be a big body in the middle.

And you cant rate teams based on whos better by position. This isn't a game of one on one. The Celtics were also arguably better than the Lakers by position 3-2. But the Lakers beat them two out of three times. And most Laker fans feel 84 was a fluke thank to the "Tragic Johnson" debacle.

And even by your logic. Id argue that when you factor coaching its 3-3 because I feel Dennis Rodman was a more impactful player than Mchale.

What does that have to do with who was more talented? Longley was average at best, Shaq, Ewing, Morning etc didn't have the talent around them that Bird did in '86. That first part of your post is pretty irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that Longley wasn't very talented.

And why bring up coaching? I'm talking about pure team talent, not coaching, seems like you are reaching. Now '96 Rodman was more impactful than '86 McHale? Is that some sort of joke?:oldlol:

Not only did McHale make the All-Defensive Team in '86 but he was averaging 25 points a game on 58% shooting in the postseason, the guy also shut down Dominique Wilkins in the process. Your statement saying Rodman was more impactful than McHale just shows how bias/delusional you are.

[Hands of Iron]

It's pretty hilarious that great players like Jordan and Bird have played over 1000 games leading their teams to championships and winning MVPs in the process but their "impact" is defined by certain dumbasses on here by less then a 100 games that they didn't even play in :oldlol:

I wouldn't ever say it defined their impact, I just find stuff like this to be too striking to be coincidental.

1978-79: 29-53 [No Bird]
~ Bird Joins Celtics ~
1979-80: 61-21 [Conference Finals] [NBA ROY/All-NBA 1st]
1980-81: 62-20 [NBA Champions] [All-NBA 1st]
1981-82: 63-19 [Conference Finals] [All-NBA 1st]
1982-83: 56-26 [Conference Semi-Finals] [All-NBA 1st]
1983-84: 62-20 [NBA Champions] [NBA MVP/All-NBA 1st]
1984-85: 63-19 [NBA Finals] [NBA MVP/All-NBA 1st]
1985-86: 67-15 [NBA Champions] [NBA MVP/All-NBA 1st]
1986-87: 59-23 [NBA Finals] [All-NBA 1st]
1987-88: 57-25 [Conference Finals] [All-NBA 1st]
~ Lose Bird for Season to Injury ~
1988-89: 42-40 [First Round]

'90-92 Bird operating at a fraction of his prime abilities:

124-56 with him (69%, 57 win pace)
35-31 without him (53%, 43 win pace)

I have never used that to go and say Bird > Jordan either, only for discussing Bird alone. He's the guy with the most stacked teams of all-time and the "most overrated player ever", so yeah, it's very amusing to me admittedly. I highly doubt it wouldn't be mentioned quite often if the '94 Bulls had struggled to a .500 record.


And most Laker fans feel 84 was a fluke thank to the "Tragic Johnson" debacle.

They have no business to claim that. They flat out got outplayed. 1984 was a helluva lot more straight up than 1987 was. The Lakers were squaring off with 39-43 Seattle in the Conference Finals and 42-40 Golden State, 37-45 Denver prior to that, while Boston was in back-to-back seven game wars with Milwaukee and Detroit, on their fourth consecutive run and with McHale playing through the entire postseason on a fractured foot amongst numerous other, but probably less notable injuries to Parish, Walton, Wedman.

[Roundball_Rock]

It's pretty hilarious that great players like Jordan and Bird have played over 1000 games leading their teams to championships and winning MVPs in the process but their "impact" is defined by certain dumbasses on here by less then a 100 games that they didn't even play in

MJ stans always have trouble understanding the argument: it isn't that MJ was meaningless but rather that the Bulls even without him were a contender and when you add a GOAT caliber player to such a team the result is domination. People like KAJ in his prime, Wilt, Lebron and some others did not have that luxury. Certainly none of MJ's contemporaries did...These minor details are conveniently left out when comparing MJ to other GOAT caliber players in favor of simplistic 6>2 or 6>6 :oldlol: or 6>3 arguments (Russell's rings, of course, are simply not counted).


Any team that has Luc Longley starting can't be in the conversation for most talented. Look at the rosters, Celtics were more talented in every position except the SG spot. This isn't debatable.

I agree but the real question is relative talent. You can't compare a roster in a 22 team league with that in a 32 team league. When you look at it relative to other teams in the league in those respective years, their talent advantages are similar and CHI may actually have an edge. The Lakers were comparable to Boston. The closest team to the 96' Bulls in talent was the 96' Magic--but they were young, inexperienced outside of Grant so that limited their ability to challenge the Bulls. The 96' Sonics have a case as well, but outside of 96' that group chronically underachieved in the playoffs so their whole was less than the sum of their parts.


It has to be taken in the context of the league then and the league now and that he played with Jordan and didn't have to carry the team.

That is overblown. Pippen's numbers in 96' prior to getting tendonitis during the final portion of the season were identical to his 95' numbers, outside of a Rodman-induced drop in rebounding. Pippen averaged 21 ppg with MJ in 92', 19 in 93', 22 in 94' without MJ, 22 without MJ in 95' and 21 overall for the season, 21 in 96' when he was healthy and 19 overall, and 20 in 97'. In other words, his workload was pretty much the same with or without MJ. Perhaps the biggest difference was MJ was able to alleviate some of the defensive burden on Pippen on the perimeter.


I wouldn't ever say it defined their impact, I just find stuff like this to be too striking to be coincidental.

Exactly.


I highly doubt it wouldn't be mentioned quite often if the '94 Bulls had struggled to a .500 record.

Correct. MJ, the best player in the league, was replaced with a D-leaguer immediately before the season. Everyone assumed that meant the Bulls would not even make the playoffs. I believe Jackson projected 42 wins. Can you imagine LeBron retiring two days before training camp and the Heat replacing him with no one? Would anyone expect them to contend? Of course not. That was the situation in 94' but the Bulls proved they were underrated, particularly Pippen (who was the East's best player that year) but also Grant and some others. Krause said 94' was the year the triangle offense was run the most purely. That is no coincidence. Ultimately, talent usually carries the day in basketball but the Bulls maximized their chances by executing strong team ball.

Also, it is hypocritical for MJ fans to diminish what Pippen did without Jordan and then praise MJ for what he did without Pippen for half a season, which is what got MJ the MVP that year (Shaq probably was the best player at that point). The Bulls performed similarly in each case (56 win pace with MJ in 98' and a 58 win pace with Pippen in 94'), despite two major differences. One, Pippen was replaced by Kukoc, not a scrub. Two, they had the comfort of knowing Pippen would return later in the season. One reason for CHI's 98' decline was shooting percentages fell across the board without Pippen there as the primary facilitator/ballhandler. Also, keep in mind the 97' Bulls won 69 games and slipped to a 56 win pace while the 93' Bulls won 57 games and actually, when Pippen played, improved to a 58 win pace in those games (they were 4-6 without him--despite playing the softest stretch of the schedule during that period).

MJ fans will note that Pippen was 28 and MJ 34 in those years--but using that logic implies 94' Pippen would be the best or second best player in the league in 98'--and MJ fans are adamant that he simply was not that caliber of a player. Most MJ fans don't even view him as a top 5 player at any point. They seem to view him as a Carmelo Anthony or Deron Williams type, although I have seen a few compare him to Joe Johnson, Caron Butler and Paul Pierce. :lol

[Calabis]

Tired of hearing about the Bird turnaround his rookie season, when so many other factors were present. Include Bird to that turnaround his team should have played well.

Tiny missed a entire year with a leg injury, the next season he was traded to the Celtics, due to inactivity/injury, he came in out of shape and overweight, he also was playing for he first time in a year and rarely played more than half a game if that. The following year Birds arrival he was back in shape and played at an All Star level, hence his selection to the All Star game.

Cowens on being a player/coach, it was a struggle for Cowens. "I never had any coaching experience prior to that," he told HOOP magazine. "It was too much for me." yeah but u'r right coaching doesn't matter in the nba, and Fitch being the NBA Coach of the Year had no impact. Only time coaching matters is when its in regards to Jordan.

Also ML Carr, coming off the bench putting in work and being a stud defender helped.*

Maxwell with another year of NBA exp.

It was not the same team....it was a better team that added a stud in Bird.

[97 bulls]

I agree but the real question is relative talent. You can't compare a roster in a 22 team league with that in a 32 team league.
Id have to disagree Rock. Simply because the league as a whole had more quality players to pick from by the mid 90s as opposed to the 80s thanx to the influx of overseas players and overall increase in basketball popularity.

And it shows. People forget that the Bulls played both the Lakers and Pistons in 91. And basically swept them both. Then consider that the 96 Bulls had MORE talent than the 91 team. Again for emphasisi, the Bulls were 8-1 vs the Lakers and Pistons. If the 80s was really that much better than the 90s teams why could they not stay competitive? Based on the loguc given, one would have to assume that both the Lakers and Pistons should've at least taken the Bulls to seven games.

And before anyone responds with the pathetic "the Pistons were old" and the "Lakers didn't have Jabaar" nonsense. Be prepared to answer why theres any difference between those versions of the Lakers and Pistons and any versions of the teams beaten in the 80s. For example. The 1984 Finals has been discussed. Do we not remember that the Lakers didnt have Jamal Wlikes?

[KevinNYC]

And it shows. People forget that the Bulls played both the Lakers and Pistons in 91. And basically swept them both. Then consider that the 96 Bulls had MORE talent than the 91 team. Again for emphasisi, the Bulls were 8-1 vs the Lakers and Pistons. If the 80s was really that much better than the 90s teams why could they not stay competitive?

I think it was because it was the 90's.

Your argument only makes sense if time was standing still. Your argument doesn't saying anything about the competitiveness of the different eras., it just says something about teams getter older losing to teams that are still rising.

Put it this way, does anyone wonder why the 1990 Celtics weren't as dominant as the 1986 Celtics. 4 years is a long time in basketball.

The three guys on 91 bulls who played the most minutes were 25, 25, and 27. The ones on the 91 Pistons were 27, 29 and 33 and their best player was injured until right before the playoffs. The guys who played the most minutes on the Lakers were 29, 31, and 29.

[1987_Lakers]

I think it was because it was the 90's.

Your argument only makes sense if time was standing still. Your argument doesn't saying anything about the competitiveness of the different eras., it just says something about teams getter older losing to teams that are still rising.

Put it this way, does anyone wonder why the 1990 Celtics weren't as dominant as the 1986 Celtics. 4 years is a long time in basketball.

The three guys on 91 bulls who played the most minutes were 25, 25, and 27. The ones on the 91 Pistons were 27, 29 and 33 and their best player was injured until right before the playoffs. The guys who played the most minutes on the Lakers were 29, 31, and 29.

:oldlol:

97_bulls just doesn't understand, give him a break.

[97 bulls]

I think it was because it was the 90's.

Your argument only makes sense if time was standing still. Your argument doesn't saying anything about the competitiveness of the different eras., it just says something about teams getter older losing to teams that are still rising.

Put it this way, does anyone wonder why the 1990 Celtics weren't as dominant as the 1986 Celtics. 4 years is a long time in basketball.

The three guys on 91 bulls who played the most minutes were 25, 25, and 27. The ones on the 91 Pistons were 27, 29 and 33 and their best player was injured until right before the playoffs. The guys who played the most minutes on the Lakers were 29, 31, and 29.
Follow me Kevin.....if the argument against the 90s teams is that the 80s teams were better as a whole, then it should also make sense that the 80s wouldn't need to be as good in the 90s to give the Bulls a run for their money. Even beat them. The Pistons were swept. The Lakers fluke a game from them. Then they were swept. Including three straight wins at home. I remember Jordan saying after their game one loss that "the Lakers werent as good as we thought they would be." And this wasn't the Bulls best team.

So to summarize, if your argument is that the 90s was a weak era, then that logic would also mean that those series should been more competitive.

[guy]

Tired of hearing about the Bird turnaround his rookie season, when so many other factors were present. Include Bird to that turnaround his team should have played well.

Tiny missed a entire year with a leg injury, the next season he was traded to the Celtics, due to inactivity/injury, he came in out of shape and overweight, he also was playing for he first time in a year and rarely played more than half a game if that. The following year Birds arrival he was back in shape and played at an All Star level, hence his selection to the All Star game.

Cowens on being a player/coach, it was a struggle for Cowens. "I never had any coaching experience prior to that," he told HOOP magazine. "It was too much for me." yeah but u'r right coaching doesn't matter in the nba, and Fitch being the NBA Coach of the Year had no impact. Only time coaching matters is when its in regards to Jordan.

Also ML Carr, coming off the bench putting in work and being a stud defender helped.*

Maxwell with another year of NBA exp.

It was not the same team....it was a better team that added a stud in Bird.

:applause: wow just wow. Unfortunately, some idiots will completely ignore this.

[Hey Yo]

I agree, I've told people before they don't realize how special this team was. 1996 Bulls going 72-10 ?! WTF lol They just had everything, and on top of all those great players they had Michael Jeffrey Jordan and Phil Jackson. Crazy good. :bowdown:

Crazy to put that team into perspective in 2014 and realize how crazy good they were.
They had the easiest SOS in the league that year. Plus the NBA was in it's second year of experimenting with moving the 3pt line closer.

MJ was a career mid 20's 3pt shooter. That year with the line moved in he shot 43%. Kukoc shot 40% and Steve Kerr shot 52%.

Inflated record and stats due to SOS and new closer 3pt line.

[Roundball_Rock]

They won 69 games the following year with an average SOS. SOS is misleading. The best teams in any given year will tend to have the worst SOS in basketball because they depress the records of their more common opponents. As to three's, the entire league benefited from that change so it is not like the Bulls enjoyed a special advantage.

[Hey Yo]

They won 69 games the following year with an average SOS. SOS is misleading. The best teams in any given year will tend to have the worst SOS in basketball because they depress the records of their more common opponents. As to three's, the entire league benefited from that change so it is not like the Bulls enjoyed a special advantage.
Teams records though isn't he only thing that SOS takes into account. B2B games, road trips, afternoon games etc....that's all done with the scheduling before the season even starts.

Yes, all other teams benefited from the new 3pt line Some obviously more than others. The first year they moved it back (97-98 season) MJ was back to shooting 24% as the others I mentioned %'s dropped too.

I'm not trying to take away anything from the Bulls that year, they had a great team but the stats are a little mis-leading.

I'm sure other teams from past and present would love to have that 3yr opportunity before the line was moved back to it's original spot.

[juju151111]

They had the easiest SOS in the league that year. Plus the NBA was in it's second year of experimenting with moving the 3pt line closer.

MJ was a career mid 20's 3pt shooter. That year with the line moved in he shot 43%. Kukoc shot 40% and Steve Kerr shot 52%.

Inflated record and stats due to SOS and new closer 3pt line.
The whole league had a shorter 3 pt line and Mj had a crack knuckle at the start of the 98 season. Inflated record? They won 69 and then 62 with their second best player out half the season and old has ****.

[inclinerator]

https://i.imgur.com/1O3JB26.gif

[Roundball_Rock]

I'm sure other teams from past and present would love to have that 3yr opportunity before the line was moved back to it's original spot.

Did it benefit CHI more than other teams? The line was moved from 1995-1997 so let's look at CHI before and after the change, and the league.

1994

CHI: 35.4%, 4th best.
NBA: 33.3%.

1995

CHI: 37.3%, 8th best.
NBA: 35.9%.

1997

CHI: 37.3%, 6th.
NBA: 36.0%.

1998

CHI: 32.3%, 22nd.
NBA: 34.6%.

So the league improved from 33.3% to 35.9% when the shorter line was implemented and then fell from 36.0% to 34.6% when it was moved back. Chicago was a good three point shooting team before the change--and actually slid from 4th to 8th the first year the line was moved back. While they fell from 6th to 22nd in 98', the totality of evidence does not suggest they unusually benefited from the change. In 1998 their shooting declined from 2 point range as well, falling from 5th to 16th. A factor in this was Pippen missing half the season and the impact it had on his teammates. Furthermore, the Bulls did decline to 62 wins in 98' but that was because they were on a 56 win pace without Pippen. When he returned they were on a 66 win pace, only 3 games off their 69 wins in 97'. That small of a decline can be attributed to aging.

[juju151111]

Did it benefit CHI more than other teams? The line was moved from 1995-1997 so let's look at CHI before and after the change, and the league.

1994

CHI: 35.4%, 4th best.
NBA: 33.3%.

1995

CHI: 37.3%, 8th best.
NBA: 35.9%.

1997

CHI: 37.3%, 6th.
NBA: 36.0%.

1998

CHI: 32.3%, 22nd.
NBA: 34.6%.

So the league improved from 33.3% to 35.9% when the shorter line was implemented and then fell from 36.0% to 34.6% when it was moved back. Chicago was a good three point shooting team before the change--and actually slid from 4th to 8th the first year the line was moved back. While they fell from 6th to 22nd in 98', the totality of evidence does not suggest they unusually benefited from the change. In 1998 their shooting declined from 2 point range as well, falling from 5th to 16th. A factor in this was Pippen missing half the season and the impact it had on his teammates. Furthermore, the Bulls did decline to 62 wins in 98' but that was because they were on a 56 win pace without Pippen. When he returned they were on a 66 win pace, only 3 games off their 69 wins in 97'. That small of a decline can be attributed to aging.
Exactly I say the age didn't matter because they were so good. I see them winning 67-70 games in 98 with Pip playing in the first half. The Bulls were old and were putting up 62 win seasons with the 2nd best player injured half the season and the best player fighting a crack knuckle at 35.

[KevinNYC]

Follow me Kevin....

I don't follow you because you trying to say x is greater than y, without realizing that both x and y are not fixed values. They are changing values.

[guy]

MJ stans always have trouble understanding the argument: it isn't that MJ was meaningless but rather that the Bulls even without him were a contender and when you add a GOAT caliber player to such a team the result is domination. People like KAJ in his prime, Wilt, Lebron and some others did not have that luxury. Certainly none of MJ's contemporaries did...These minor details are conveniently left out when comparing MJ to other GOAT caliber players in favor of simplistic 6>2 or 6>6 :oldlol: or 6>3 arguments (Russell's rings, of course, are simply not counted).


You mean the same Wilt that couldn't lead a team to a title over the Celtics that had already gotten to the Finals four previous times during the decade without him? The same Lebron that had the biggest choking in history and couldn't lead a team to a title that had 2 other all-stars and one of which who had already led a team to a title beforehand and was still in his prime? A team for at least 2 or 3 of those years would've still been a top 2-3 team In the East without him? Who's conveniently leaving out details now?

The 94 Bulls were great. But the idea that that's how successful they would've been without Jordan every year from 91-98 is completely ridiculous. And the idea that the Celtics without Bird from about 81-88 would've been only as successful as the 89 Celtics is equally ridiculous. It completely ignores the tens of other factors that go into an NBA season. But hey, that's what you have specialized in doing for years now right?

[NumberSix]

https://i.imgur.com/1O3JB26.gif
Is that semens?

[97 bulls]

I don't follow you because you trying to say x is greater than y, without realizing that both x and y are not fixed values. They are changing values.
Off course. This is a hypothetical matchup. If you agree, what variable are you using to say that the 90s was a weaker era than the 80s.

I can even go so far as to say that there there is a fixed value. 87 Lakers feels the 86 Celtucs are better than the 97 Bulls. So now we have a bar. The problem is those two teams nver played each other. So what I do is find a common ground. Being teams they both played against. Being the Pistons and Lakers. Or versions of those dynasties. The Celtics beat the Lakers once in 84 and just like in 91, they were missing a key piece in Jamal Wilkes. The Celtics needed seven games and Magic choking as well as Worthy to beat them. The Bulls dispatched them in five. And the Bulls swept the Pistons. Another team the Celtics needed seven games and an uncharacteristic mistake by Isaiah Thomas.

Now if the argument is that those werent the Pistons or Lakers best team, fine. My reply is that 91 wasnt the Bulls best team.

[97 bulls]

The 94 Bulls were great. But the idea that that's how successful they would've been without Jordan every year from 91-98 is completely ridiculous.*
Unfortunately Guy, thats all we have to go on. Obviously it doesn't mean that because they won 55 games in 94 that they're guaranteed 55 wins every season. Like you said, theres so many variables. But it does say that they were a very good team. Something that Jordan fans try to say.

I only compare the 94 Bulls and 89 Celtics when people try to say that the Bulls weren't as stacked as they were outside of Jordan and Bird.

[SamuraiSWISH]

The 94 Bulls were great. But the idea that that's how successful they would've been without Jordan every year from 91-98 is completely ridiculous.
Nah man, 55 games, and a second round exit is apparently a "contender" to these Pippen stans ... and they clearly would've been a 55 win team year in, year out with Jordan. The greatest player of all-time. It's not like they overachieved that season due to circumstance or anything.

[Anaximandro1]

The Bulls crushed opponents with stifling defense and impeccable offensive execution. On top of that, they were an amazing offensive rebounding team.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3poTlQm01DQ/U66vXPj_1mI/AAAAAAAADHk/FFNO716iLpk/s1600/1.jpg


That said, 97-98 Bulls seemed vulnerable (Pippen missed a lot games). They probably survived because the 98 Jazz were a mediocre defensive team.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TbvQugCPBkk/U66vXPzci8I/AAAAAAAADHo/48rfuv8inEM/s1600/2.jpg

[ArbitraryWater]

Nah man, 55 games, and a second round exit is apparently a "contender" to these Pippen stans ... and they clearly would've been a 55 win team year in, year out with Jordan. The greatest player of all-time. It's not like they overachieved that season due to circumstance or anything.

Smh...

You do know if Hue Hollins doesn't make that horrible game 5 call the Bulls go to the Finals? Will you at least acknowledge that you sorry MJ stan?

[OldSchoolBBall]

Smh...

You do know if Hue Hollins doesn't make that horrible game 5 call the Bulls go to the Finals? Will you at least acknowledge that you sorry MJ stan?

Err, they would have been going to the ECF, not the Finals. And even that's not a given since they would have been up 3-2. A TON of teams have won series when they were down 3-2, so the Bulls winning was not a given even if that call is never made.

Hell, those Bulls were lucky that the Cavs, who they faced in the first round, were missing both Daugherty and Hot Rod Williams (30 pts/18 reb between them), as the Cavs spanked the Bulls 4-1 that season, with the one game Chicago won being because Price got hurt and only played 14 minutes (just 4 points on 1-4 FG in that time). They likely wouldn't have gotten out of the first round against a healthy Cavs team.

[guy]

Unfortunately Guy, thats all we have to go on. Obviously it doesn't mean that because they won 55 games in 94 that they're guaranteed 55 wins every season. Like you said, theres so many variables. But it does say that they were a very good team. Something that Jordan fans try to say.

I only compare the 94 Bulls and 89 Celtics when people try to say that the Bulls weren't as stacked as they were outside of Jordan and Bird.

Ah the classic "that's all we have to go on" which basically means there's no reason to use logical sense.

As I said, anyone comparing the 94 Bulls and 89 Celtics is making a stupid comparison.

[guy]

Err, they would have been going to the ECF, not the Finals. And even that's not a given since they would have been up 3-2. A TON of teams have won series when they were down 3-2, so the Bulls winning was not a given even if that call is never made..

People don't even realize that the Knicks were in the exact same situation the very next series vs the Pacers and they got out of it.

[Calabis]

Ah the classic "that's all we have to go on" which basically means there's no reason to use logical sense.

As I said, anyone comparing the 94 Bulls and 89 Celtics is making a stupid comparison.

Yet they keep forgetting the 34-31 in 95 prior to Jordan's return. They didn't win 50 games after a 13-4 run with him, yet 55 games is all we have to go on:oldlol:

Exactly:applause:

[SamuraiSWISH]

Smh...

You do know if Hue Hollins doesn't make that horrible game 5 call the Bulls go to the Finals? Will you at least acknowledge that you sorry MJ stan?
You don't even know what round they were playing.

:oldlol:

STFU you dumb young LeBron stan. The Bulls even with that piss poor Hue Hollins call had opportunity to win the series. Didn't happen. The series didn't hinge exclusively on a bad call.

[97 bulls]

Err, they would have been going to the ECF, not the Finals. And even that's not a given since they would have been up 3-2. A TON of teams have won series when they were down 3-2, so the Bulls winning was not a given even if that call is never made.

Hell, those Bulls were lucky that the Cavs, who they faced in the first round, were missing both Daugherty and Hot Rod Williams (30 pts/18 reb between them), as the Cavs spanked the Bulls 4-1 that season, with the one game Chicago won being because Price got hurt and only played 14 minutes (just 4 points on 1-4 FG in that time). They likely wouldn't have gotten out of the first round against a healthy Cavs team.
Funny. The Bulls are the only team that constantly gets penalized for playing injured teams. You can say that about every team thats won a title. They took the Knicks to seven games. And they were healthy.

[97 bulls]

Yet they keep forgetting the 34-31 in 95 prior to Jordan's return. They didn't win 50 games after a 13-4 run with him, yet 55 games is all we have to go on:oldlol:

Exactly:applause:
They lost Grant and Scott Williams. Damn. The Bulls were on pace ti win 44 games before Jordans return. You gonna tell me that with Grant and Scott Williams that they dont approach 55 wins again?

[Calabis]

They lost Grant and Scott Williams. Damn. The Bulls were on pace ti win 44 games before Jordans return. You gonna tell me that with Grant and Scott Williams that they dont approach 55 wins again?

The dude said 91-98.....and according to you they are winning 55 games every year without Jordan each of those years, because of one season(1994 is the measuring stick)....yet when they were on pace to win 44, now you want to factor in other things like no Grant or Williams. Can't have it both ways 97:confusedshrug:

[97 bulls]

The dude said 91-98.....and according to you they are winning 55 games every year without Jordan each of those years, because of one season(1994 is the measuring stick)....yet when they were on pace to win 44, now you want to factor in other things like no Grant or Williams. Can't have it both ways 97:confusedshrug:
What's so hard to understand Cali? They lost a key piece to that team. And again, never replaced him.

I never said that 94 was the end all to be all. My point has always been that the 90s Bulls were more than just Michael Jordan. How many times have I stated how impressive it was for them to lose Pippen for half the season and yet they still won at a high level. I don't feel it should be an indictment of Pip. The team had depth and great players.

[guy]

What's so hard to understand Cali? They lost a key piece to that team. And again, never replaced him.

I never said that 94 was the end all to be all. My point has always been that the 90s Bulls were more than just Michael Jordan. How many times have I stated how impressive it was for them to lose Pippen for half the season and yet they still won at a high level. I don't feel it should be an indictment of Pip. The team had depth and great players.

You don't think the 94 Bullls are the be all end all. But people like you for some reason keep comparing them to the 89 Celtics. How does that make sense? Are the 89 Celtics the be all end all? Or are they not?

[LA Lakers]

Was a team with Michael Jordan that 3peated any good? Oh man oh man... Am I in the Twilight Zone here?

[97 bulls]

:cheers:
You don't think the 94 Bullls are the be all end all. But people like you for some reason keep comparing them to the 89 Celtics. How does that make sense? Are the 89 Celtics the be all end all? Or are they not?
No. But I do think a whole season is long enough to decipher what you are. We're not talking about five games here.

It makes perfect sense. Two teams with championship pedigrees lose their best player. For a whole season.

And I bring it up to show that the Bulls truly had depth. Something Jordanaires and Bulls haters don't want to admit

[guy]

:cheers:
No. But I do think a whole season is long enough to decipher what you are. We're not talking about five games here.

It makes perfect sense. Two teams with championship pedigrees lose their best player. For a whole season.

And I bring it up to show that the Bulls truly had depth. Something Jordanaires and Bulls haters don't want to admit

So given that logic and your insistence to compare the two teams, what do you conclude about the 80s Celtics? That based on what happened in 89, they didn't have depth?

[97 bulls]

So given that logic and your insistence to compare the two teams, what do you conclude about the 80s Celtics? That based on what happened in 89, they didn't have depth?
No. My conclusion is that this is a team considered to have great depth and players. But the Bulls were seen as Jordan and some good players. Why weren't they as successful?

Let me ask you.... would you take Kevin Mchale over Scottie Pippen?

[Young X]

This thread can't be serious. They were a top 10 offense of all time and were a #1 defensive team with the GOAT, possibly the GOAT coach, GOAT rebounder, Prime Pippen, good role players, etc. They would've cooked this years Spurs team.

[guy]

No. My conclusion is that this is a team considered to have great depth and players. But the Bulls were seen as Jordan and some good players. Why weren't they as successful?

Let me ask you.... would you take Kevin Mchale over Scottie Pippen?

Scottie Pippen.

Well they weren't as successful for a number of reasons which wouldn't really apply to what the team was in previous seasons, which is why the comparison is kinda stupid.

[97 bulls]

Scottie Pippen.

Well they weren't as successful for a number of reasons which wouldn't really apply to what the team was in previous seasons, which is why the comparison is kinda stupid.
Then why make any comparison? Why rank players or teams? According to you, its stupid. How can we compare a player fairly, unless they've been put in the exact same situation?

How can you honestly take Pip over Mchale? Have they been put in the exact same situation?

How can you honestly say that Michael Jordan is better than Scottie Pippen? Did Pippen have damm near ten years with the best talent around him?

I bet if you were to ask just about any NBA player, theyd say that given the same opportunity, thed be able to lead a team to multiple championships.

All of the sudden, a comparison isnt favorabkee to you so now you wanna dismiss the whole concept?