1996 Chicago Bulls

[aj1987]

Is it the only team in history with 3 All-Defensive first team and 2 All-NBA first team players, the COY, and the 6th MOY?

[Angel Face]

Easily the greatest team of all time.

[Real14]

Easily the greatest team of all time.
I agree :applause:

[3ball]

The amazing thing about MJ was that he 3-peated from 1991-1993 without ANY of those things - no COY, no 6th man of year, and no other 1st-team All-NBA'ers in any of the 3 seasons.

Heck, Scottie Pippen wasn't even an All-Star in 1991 - this makes the 1991 Bulls one of the only teams EVER to win a ring with only 1 All-Star (MJ).. This is why MJ's playoff and Finals production had to be GOAT (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=369169) for him to win.

As for 1996, despite playing 4 on 5 offensively with Rodman's 3 PPG, the Bulls registered a 115.2 ORtg, which is the best of all time.. This was only possible because MJ's off-ball style didn't hinder his teammates production - when MJ came back for a full season in 1996, he literally just added his GOAT production on top of what was already there, without diminishing it at all... This is why he was able to turn an ordinary 2nd round exit team into the greatest team of all time - that's what happens when you add league-leading scoring right on top without diminishing anything that was already there.

It was imperative that the production of MJ's teammates REMAINED at a maximum level when MJ's 32 PPG got thrown back into the mix, because by ensuring his teammates' production stays at capacity, he ensured the TEAM'S production was at capacity, which prevents any possibility of underachievement - this is why MJ's team's never underperformed - his teams were always at maximum capacity because his style didn't hinder anyone...

Compare that to today's ball-dominators who are EXPECTED to diminish the production of teammates - no wonder their teams underachieve (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kC0u0aVdck)... :rolleyes:
.

[Smoke117]

The amazing thing about MJ was that he 3-peated from 1991-1993 without ANY of those things - no COY, no 6th man of year, and no other 1st-team All-NBA'ers in any of the 3 seasons.

Heck, Scottie Pippen wasn't even an All-Star in 1991 - this makes the 1991 Bulls one of the only teams EVER to win a ring with only 1 All-Star (MJ)..
.

God you're a ****ing cnut. The fact that Pippen was an all star in the 90 season, but better in 91 doesn't register with you does it? Scottie averaged 21.6ppg 8.9rpg 5.8apg 2.5spg 1.1bpg .504%fg while playing some of the best defense in the league in the 91 playoffs you dipshit. It was by far his best post season...but...but...he wasn't on the silly all star team. A "first option star" could only wish for production like that from his 2nd, you ****ing joke, you.

[3ball]

The 1991 Bulls are STILL one of the only teams to ever win a ring with only 1 All-Star - period - this is a fact.

As for 1990, Pippen didn't deserve it - he only averaged 16.5 PPG and he admitted he choked in the 1990 ECF and cost his team a trip to the Finals:

Scottie Pippen: "Maybe it was the pressure of the game. As the pressure grew, the pounding grew.. I wasn't myself out on the basketball court. I wasn't able to answer the bell."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqC74bv46Z8&t=1h22m15s


Bill Laimbeer: "We didn't even think about Scottie Pippen. It was Michael Jordan and the Jordannaires - and you can't win championships like that with only 1 player."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqC74bv46Z8&t=1h07m33s


But none of this matters - the FACT is that the 1991 Bulls are one of the only teams in history to win the championship with only 1 all-star.
.

[Smoke117]

Again, OP pointed out that the 1996 Bulls had the Coach of the Year, 6th Man of Year, and 1st Team All-NBA'er in Pippen.

But from 1991-1993, MJ three-peated without ANY of those things - no Coach of the Year, no 6th Man of Year, no 1st-Team All-NBA'ers, and yes, no all-stars in 1991 - the 1991 Bulls are one of the only teams in history to win the championship with only 1 all-star (MJ).

How did Jordan do this?.. He put up the greatest playoff and Finals stats of all time.
.


Instead of re-editing your little post 40 times, why don't you respond to my ENTIRE entry?

Edit: I see you deleted all of this to make completely new post...lmfao. You are a such a joke...but we already knew that. They can see the original here with a couple edit additions before you swept it aside, I suppose.

[TheMarkMadsen]

the most stacked team of all time without question

[sdot_thadon]

Is it the only team in history with 3 All-Defensive first team and 2 All-NBA first team players, the COY, and the 6th MOY?
:applause: :applause: :applause:
Don't know if that was intended, but you just made 3ball's brain pop.

[kamil]

the most stacked team of all time without question

And it didn't take collusion to do it.

[3ball]

God you're a ****ing cnut. The fact that Pippen was an all star in 90 season, but better in 91 doesn't register with you does it?


Obviously, teams can't win 1 on 5 - but as the previous post shows, MJ won his championships more by himself than any other player in history..

But again, the OP pointed out that the 1996 Bulls had Coach of the Year, 6th Man of Year, and 1st Team All-NBA'er in Pippen.

But from 1991-1993, MJ three-peated without ANY of those things - no Coach of the Year, no 6th Man of Year, no 1st-Team All-NBA'ers, and yes, no all-stars in 1991 - the 1991 Bulls are one of the only teams in history to win the championship with only 1 all-star (MJ).

How did Jordan do this?.. He put up the greatest playoff and Finals stats of all time.. :confusedshrug:

[TheMarkMadsen]

3ball stop being an insecure bitch we are talking about the 96 Bulls not the 91-93 bulls.. stop feeling the need to bring those teams up because your're scared to acknowledge the fact that the 96 bulls were the most stacked team of all time, either them or the 86 Celtics

[sdot_thadon]

Obviously, teams can't win 1 on 5 - but as the previous post shows, MJ won his championships more by himself than any other player in history..
So you think this is true? More so than Hakeem in 94?

[TheMarkMadsen]

Easily the greatest team of all time.

greatest regular season team of all time

best playoff team of all time = 01 Lakers


a 2 man team compared to the 96 bulls who had more than half of their starting line up on some type of all nba team and a 6 MOTY compared to the weak ass bench the 01 Lakers had..

hell Kobe and Shaq won with Horace Grant as their starting PF averaging 6/6

[3ball]

Scottie averaged 21.6ppg 8.9rpg 5.8apg 2.5spg 1.1bpg .504%fg while playing some of the best defense in the league in the 91 playoffs you dipshit. ****ing joke, you.


21.6 PPG is solid for a #2, but not beating the world, and like you said, that was his BEST EVER playoffs.. Horace got 13 PPGin 1991 playoffs as the #3... That's not much at all.

That's why MJ still had to put up GOAT numbers in 1991 playoffs: 31.1ppg, 6.4rpg, 8.4apg, 2.4spg, 1.4bpg, 52.6% FG

So 50% more points, 35% more assists, 30% more blocks, 25% less TO's (2.5 to Pippen's 3.2)

Show me ANY player who had better numbers on their way to winning the championship... I'll wait.

[3ball]

So you think this is true? More so than Hakeem in 94?
MJ did it 6 times

[TheMarkMadsen]

MJ did it 6 times

with Pippen averaging nearly a 20 point trip dub for 4/6 of those on all world defense :roll: :roll:

[3ball]

with Pippen averaging nearly a 20 point trip dub for 4/6 of those on all world defense :roll: :roll:
Pippen's best playoff performance was 21.6ppg, 8.9rpg, 5.8apg, 2.5spg, 1.1bpg, and .504%fg in 1991... so nowhere near a triple-double.

21.6 PPG is solid for a #2, but it's not beating the world... Horace got 13 PPG in 1991 playoffs as the #3... That's not much at all.

That's why MJ still had to put up GOAT numbers in 1991 playoffs: 31.1ppg, 6.4rpg, 8.4apg, 2.4spg, 1.4bpg, 52.6% FG

Show me ANY player who had better numbers on their way to winning the championship... I'll wait.

[3ball]

3ball stop being an insecure bitch we are talking about the 96 Bulls not the 91-93 bulls.. stop feeling the need to bring those teams up because your're scared to acknowledge the fact that the 96 bulls were the most stacked team of all time, either them or the 86 Celtics
As for 1996, despite playing 4 on 5 offensively with Rodman's 3 PPG, the Bulls registered a 115.2 ORtg, which is the best of all time.. This was only possible because MJ's off-ball style didn't hinder his teammates production - when MJ came back for a full season in 1996, he literally just added his GOAT production on top of what was already there, without diminishing it at all... This is why he was able to turn an ordinary 2nd round exit team into the greatest team of all time - that's what happens when you add league-leading scoring right on top without diminishing anything that was already there.

It was imperative that the production of MJ's teammates REMAINED at a maximum level when MJ's 32 PPG got thrown back into the mix, because by ensuring his teammates' production stays at capacity, he ensured the TEAM'S production was at capacity, which prevents any possibility of underachievement - this is why MJ's team's never underperformed - his teams were always at maximum capacity because his style didn't hinder anyone...

Compare that to today's ball-dominators who are EXPECTED to diminish the production of teammates - no wonder their teams underachieve (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kC0u0aVdck)... :rolleyes:

[Angel Face]

MJ = Best player in the league also the GOAT, Lockdown defender
Pip = Best SF of the 90s, Lock down defender
Rodman = GOAT rebounder, Lock down defender
Kerr = Highest 3p% of any player
Kukoc = Best International Player
Longley = Dumb as fk

Damn, Can't see any atg team beating the '96 Bulls

:bowdown:

[Smoke117]

21.6 PPG is solid for a #2, but not beating the world, and like you said, that was his BEST EVER playoffs.. Horace got 13 PPGin 1991 playoffs as the #3... That's not much at all.

That's why MJ still had to put up GOAT numbers in 1991 playoffs: 31.1ppg, 6.4rpg, 8.4apg, 2.4spg, 1.4bpg, 52.6% FG

So 50% more points, 35% more assists, 30% more blocks, 25% less TO's (2.5 to Pippen's 3.2)

Show me ANY player who had better numbers on their way to winning the championship... I'll wait.

You confuse me with these children here...you can't goad me. I said what I had to say and I'm done. These other fools might give you 8 or 9 pages of attention...so move on to them as it fits you, mate.

[aj1987]

This thread is about the 1996 Bulls, 3ball. The Bulls had 2 All-NBA and 3 All-Def in '93, 2 All-NBA and 2 All-Def in '92, and 1 All-NBA and 2 All-Def team members in '91, BTW.

'00 Shaq > '91 MJ.

[3ball]

.
Jordan 1996-1998 vs. Lebron 2013-2014 vs. Kobe 2008-2010... REGULAR SEASON

Jordan.. 29.6 PPG, 6.1 RPG, 4.0 APG, 2.2 TO, 48.2% FG, 22.9 FGA
Lebron.. 27.0 PPG, 7.5 RPG, 6.8 APG, 3.4 TO, 56.6% FG, 17.7 FGA
Kobe.... 27.4 PPG, 5.6 RPG, 5.1 APG, 3.0 TO, 46.1% FG, 21.0 FGA


Jordan 1996-1998 vs. Lebron 2013-2014 vs Kobe 2008-2010... PLAYOFFS:

Jordan.. 31.4 PPG, 6.0 RPG, 4.1 APG, 2.3 TO, 45.9% FG, 24.7 FGA
Lebron.. 26.5 PPG, 9.6 RPG, 5.6 APG, 3.1 TO, 49.3% FG, 20.1 FGA
Kobe.... 29.8 PPG, 5.7 RPG, 5.5 APG, 3.1 TO, 46.4% FG, 22.4 FGA


Jordan 1996-1998 vs. Lebron 2013-2014 vs. Kobe 2008-2010... FINALS

Jordan.. 31.1 PPG, 5.4 RPG, 4.0 APG, 2.0 TO, 43.4% FG, 24.7 FGA
Lebron.. 26.6 PPG, 7.8 RPG, 5.7 APG, 3.0 TO, 52.3% FG, 18.0 FGA
Kobe.... 29.2 PPG, 6.2 RPG, 5.1 APG, 3.7 TO, 41.3% FG, 23.8 FGA

Source: basketball-reference.com


At 33-35 years old, MJ was still better than prime Kobe and Lebron... :bowdown:

MJ wins in all the intangible areas - clutch and 4th quarter performance, teammate inspiration, and leadership

Obviously, if we compare prime vs. prime, it's no contest - MJ runs away with it easy.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

Easily the greatest team of all time.
http://warriorsworld.bayareaballllc1.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Celtics.jpg

[24-Inch_Chrome]

I bet that 2 year vacation spent playing baseball like a scrub really helped him down the road.

I love how the only thing you use to determine who was better was PPG...LeBron averaged more APG/RPG in every period you posted, and shot with higher efficiency, but it isn't better because MJ had a few more PPG.

[3ball]

I love how the only thing you use to determine who was better was PPG...LeBron averaged more APG/RPG in every period you posted, and shot with higher efficiency, but it isn't better because MJ had a few more PPG.


MJ averaged a full 5 PPG more in the playoffs and Finals.. that's material.

Also, lebron's assist advantage is offset by his higher TO's... that's why I included the TO's.

Finally, lebron's FG% advantage is due to his play-if-safe, stat-padding - that's why i included the FGA..

If Lebron was aggressive by shooting 22-24 times per game like Kobe and MJ, he would've been able to show the way and inspire his teammates to better performance like MJ and Kobe did - that's why with Kobe and MJ, the story was never about their teammates underperforming, while it ALWAYS is with Lebron.. Lebron only shot a paltry 17-18 times per game, so his teammates were left to fend for themselves and make up their own leadership and inspiration, since Lebron's look-out-for-myself, you're-on-your-own approach didn't inspire anything.
.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

I think I can safely say that one thing LeBron would definitely be better at than Jordan was baseball. There's no way he could be worse.

No one disputes that Jordan was a superior basketball player, your constant agenda/biased posts just turn people off of the subject. No one gives a shit about what you post because there's a constant slant to it.

[nzahir]

.
Jordan 1996-1998 vs. Lebron 2013-2014 vs. Kobe 2008-2010... REGULAR SEASON

Jordan.. 29.6 PPG, 6.1 RPG, 4.0 APG, 2.2 TO, 48.2% FG, 22.9 FGA
Lebron.. 27.0 PPG, 7.5 RPG, 6.8 APG, 3.4 TO, 56.6% FG, 17.7 FGA
Kobe.... 27.4 PPG, 5.6 RPG, 5.1 APG, 3.0 TO, 46.1% FG, 21.0 FGA


Jordan 1996-1998 vs. Lebron 2013-2014 vs Kobe 2008-2010... PLAYOFFS:

Jordan.. 31.4 PPG, 6.0 RPG, 4.1 APG, 2.3 TO, 45.9% FG, 24.7 FGA
Lebron.. 26.5 PPG, 9.6 RPG, 5.6 APG, 3.1 TO, 49.3% FG, 20.1 FGA
Kobe.... 29.8 PPG, 5.7 RPG, 5.5 APG, 3.1 TO, 46.4% FG, 22.4 FGA


Jordan 1996-1998 vs. Lebron 2013-2014 vs. Kobe 2008-2010... FINALS

Jordan.. 31.1 PPG, 5.4 RPG, 4.0 APG, 2.0 TO, 43.4% FG, 24.7 FGA
Lebron.. 26.6 PPG, 7.8 RPG, 5.7 APG, 3.0 TO, 52.3% FG, 18.0 FGA
Kobe.... 29.2 PPG, 6.2 RPG, 5.1 APG, 3.7 TO, 41.3% FG, 23.8 FGA

Source: basketball-reference.com


At 33-35 years old, MJ was still better than prime Kobe and Lebron... :bowdown:

MJ wins in all the intangible areas - clutch and 4th quarter performance, teammate inspiration, and leadership

Obviously, if we compare prime vs. prime, it's no contest - MJ runs away with it easy.
Lol lebron had the better numbers, check the rebounds and assits and fg%
You just ethered yourself :lol :lol :lol

[3ball]

Lol lebron had the better numbers, check the rebounds and assits and fg%
You just ethered yourself :lol :lol :lol


MJ averaged a full 5 PPG more in the playoffs and Finals.. that's material.

Also, Lebron's assist advantage is offset by his higher TO's... that's why I included the TO's.

Finally, lebron's FG% advantage is due to his play-if-safe, stat-padding - that's why i included the FGA..

If Lebron was aggressive by shooting 22-24 times per game like Kobe and MJ, he would've been able to show the way and inspire his teammates to better performance like MJ and Kobe did - that's why with Kobe and MJ, the story was never about their teammates underperforming, while it ALWAYS is with Lebron.. Lebron only shot a paltry 17-18 times per game, so his teammates were left to fend for themselves and make up their own leadership and inspiration - Lebron looking out for himself and employing a "you're-on-your-own-after-i get-my-28 PPG" approach didn't inspire anything.
.

[aj1987]

So, the Bulls were basically the most stacked team off all time? No wonder they won so much.

3ball staying delusional AF. :oldlol:

[24-Inch_Chrome]

MJ averaged a full 5 PPG more in the playoffs and Finals.. that's material.

Also, Lebron's assist advantage is offset by his higher TO's... that's why I included the TO's.

Finally, lebron's FG% advantage is due to his play-if-safe, stat-padding - that's why i included the FGA..

If Lebron was aggressive by shooting 22-24 times per game like Kobe and MJ, he would've been able to show the way and inspire his teammates to better performance like MJ and Kobe did - that's why with Kobe and MJ, the story was never about their teammates underperforming, while it ALWAYS is with Lebron.. Lebron only shot a paltry 17-18 times per game, so his teammates were left to fend for themselves and make up their own leadership and inspiration, since Lebron's look-out-for-myself, you're-on-your-own approach didn't inspire anything.

You literally just copy+pasted the same shit no one wanted to read the first time.

[nzahir]

MJ averaged a full 5 PPG more in the playoffs and Finals.. that's material.

Also, Lebron's assist advantage is offset by his higher TO's... that's why I included the TO's.

Finally, lebron's FG% advantage is due to his play-if-safe, stat-padding - that's why i included the FGA..

If Lebron was aggressive by shooting 22-24 times per game like Kobe and MJ, he would've been able to show the way and inspire his teammates to better performance like MJ and Kobe did - that's why with Kobe and MJ, the story was never about their teammates underperforming, while it ALWAYS is with Lebron.. Lebron only shot a paltry 17-18 times per game, so his teammates were left to fend for themselves and make up their own leadership and inspiration - Lebron's look-out-for-myself, you're-on-your-own after i get my 28 PPG approach didn't inspire anything.
So i can use the same excuse for why mj didnt have many turnovers; since he wasnt making as many passes as lebron and not making as many assists. So he was playing it safe there.....ethered AGAIN!!! :lol :lol :lol
And lebron shot less because he was getting more assists. Damn man just accept this L

[3ball]

So, the Bulls were basically the most stacked team off all time? No wonder they won so much.

3ball staying delusional AF. :oldlol:
Actually, it's delusional to say a team is super-stacked when it's #1 option is required to put up goat stats to win the championship AND be more clutch than anyone's ever been.

MJ made more big plays down the stretch of games than anyone in history - it's not remotely close, and anyone that watched him knows this - here's phil jackson informing us that at some point in every game, the Bulls literally let MJ take over and do everything..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgJhzj4W9M&t=30m20s

you've never heard another coach say this about any player, as if it was understood that the team WOULD INDEED let Jordan do it all at some point, but... but... just not YET guys.. :roll:

[navy]

Damn. Gotta knock Jordan a few spots down on my all time list. It's no wonder Bill Walton proclaimed Kareem the GOAT.

Top 4 all time.

[3ball]

Damn. Gotta knock Jordan a few spots down on my all time list. It's no wonder Bill Walton proclaimed Kareem the GOAT.

Top 4 all time.
The 2nd three-peat MJ had better numbers than 2013-2014 Lebron (28-29 year old), which is remarkable because Lebron's approach was not to win, but to make his stats look good, while MJ only cared about winning.. :confusedshrug:

Heck, MJ got a 28 PER and was GOAT clutch in his last playoffs at 35 years old - let's see what Lebron does this year at 30.

[navy]

The 2nd three-peat MJ had better numbers than 2013-2014 Lebron (28-29 year old), which is remarkable because Lebron's approach was not to win, but to make his stats look good, while MJ only cared about winning.. :confusedshrug:

Heck, MJ got a 28 PER and was GOAT clutch in his last playoffs at 35 years old - let's see what Lebron does this year at 30.
lol, I didnt even mention Lebron. :lol

Dat free rent.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

2nd three-peat MJ's numbers were better than 2013-2014 Lebron's (28-29 year old), which is remarkable because Lebron's approach was not to win, but to make his stats look good.

Heck, MJ got a 28 PER and was GOAT clutch in his last playoffs at 35 years old - let's see what Lebron does this year at 30.

You're so full of shit. I'll guarantee that you've never played organized sports, or that if you did you were the fat kid who wasn't allowed to actually play outside of garbage time. Every athlete plays to win, saying that cost you whatever shred of credibility you had left. Please kill yourself you waste of oxygen.

[nzahir]

Damn 3ball you arent even replying to my last reply....no excuses thats why.
When did jordan ever lead his team in ppg, rebounds, and finals? Cuz I know someone who did...(Lebron, just to save you the trouble of looking)

[3ball]

lol, I didnt even mention Lebron. :lol

Dat free rent.
you got me there - i shouldn't be mentioning Lebron when discussing actual GOAT candidates.

He's never been all-world dominant in the playoffs with historic, superman-type performance that everyone remembers like Hakeem was in 1995, like Shaq was in 2000-2002, like Wade was in 2006 Finals, like Dirk was in 2011 playoffs, and like MJ was for every year of his playoff career.

[navy]

you got me there - i shouldn't be grouping Lebron with actual GOAT candidates.

He's never been all-world dominant in the playoffs with historic, superman-type performance that everyone remembers like Hakeem was in 1995, like Shaq was in 2000-2002, like Wade was in 2006 Finals, like Dirk was in 2011 playoffs, and like MJ was for every year of his playoff career.

So insecure. :lol

[24-Inch_Chrome]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to 3ball again."

Damn.

[3ball]

Damn 3ball you arent even replying to my last reply....no excuses thats why.
When did jordan ever lead his team in ppg, rebounds, and finals? Cuz I know someone who did...(Lebron, just to save you the trouble of looking)
It's easy to get rebounds when you're only averaging 24 PPG and 6 APG, like 30-year old Lebron thus far in his Finals career..

But when you are averaging 36 PPG and 8 APG in the Finals, as MJ did thru the age of 30 like Lebron is now - you can't be expected to do everything.

Do you realize that MJ averaged 50% more PPG in the Finals?.. That means Lebron has to play an entire extra half (1.5 games) to match 1 game of MJ's scoring.... AND Jordan averaged more assists, less turnovers, all on better efficiency... But you give a shit because Lebron averages 2 more rebounds?..
.

[aj1987]

Actually, it's delusional to say a team is super-stacked when it's #1 option is required to put up goat stats to win the championship AND be more clutch than anyone's ever been.

MJ made more big plays down the stretch of games than anyone in history - it's not remotely close, and anyone that watched him knows this - here's phil jackson informing us that at some point in every game, the Bulls literally let MJ take over and do everything..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgJhzj4W9M&t=30m20s

you've never heard another coach say this about any player, as if it was understood that the team WOULD INDEED let Jordan do it all at some point, but... but... just not YET guys.. :roll:
GOAT stats? :roll:

:oldlol: @ that "foul" @ 31:00.

Shaq had the GOAT stats in '00. You can bring up all the shit about his stats and stuff, but MJ had a TON of help and it's not close.

[LEFT4DEAD]

.
Jordan 1996-1998 vs. Lebron 2013-2014 vs. Kobe 2008-2010... REGULAR SEASON

Jordan.. 29.6 PPG, 6.1 RPG, 4.0 APG, 2.2 TO, 48.2% FG, 22.9 FGA
Lebron.. 27.0 PPG, 7.5 RPG, 6.8 APG, 3.4 TO, 56.6% FG, 17.7 FGA
Kobe.... 27.4 PPG, 5.6 RPG, 5.1 APG, 3.0 TO, 46.1% FG, 21.0 FGA


Jordan 1996-1998 vs. Lebron 2013-2014 vs Kobe 2008-2010... PLAYOFFS:

Jordan.. 31.4 PPG, 6.0 RPG, 4.1 APG, 2.3 TO, 45.9% FG, 24.7 FGA
Lebron.. 26.5 PPG, 9.6 RPG, 5.6 APG, 3.1 TO, 49.3% FG, 20.1 FGA
Kobe.... 29.8 PPG, 5.7 RPG, 5.5 APG, 3.1 TO, 46.4% FG, 22.4 FGA


Jordan 1996-1998 vs. Lebron 2013-2014 vs. Kobe 2008-2010... FINALS

Jordan.. 31.1 PPG, 5.4 RPG, 4.0 APG, 2.0 TO, 43.4% FG, 24.7 FGA
Lebron.. 26.6 PPG, 7.8 RPG, 5.7 APG, 3.0 TO, 52.3% FG, 18.0 FGA
Kobe.... 29.2 PPG, 6.2 RPG, 5.1 APG, 3.7 TO, 41.3% FG, 23.8 FGA

Source: basketball-reference.com


At 33-35 years old, MJ was still better than prime Kobe and Lebron... :bowdown:

MJ wins in all the intangible areas - clutch and 4th quarter performance, teammate inspiration, and leadership

Obviously, if we compare prime vs. prime, it's no contest - MJ runs away with it easy.
This guy is ethering himself??!! :biggums:
Why would you post something like this when its obvious that Lebron has better numbers than Jordan.
How ****ing stupid is that :wtf:

[RepMe]

Easily the greatest team of all time.

This.

[aj1987]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to 3ball again."

Damn.
Don't worry. I negged him for you.

[3ball]

Why would you post something like this when its obvious that Lebron has better numbers than Jordan.


Lebron's numbers obviously aren't better - the assists are offset by higher TO's.

The efficiency is offset by the lower shot attempts, which amounted to stat-padding because his team was destroyed by record margin..

if MJ only took 17 shots per game, his team would have been destroyed too - but hey, he would've shot 58%, so i'd be able to come on here and say he's GOAT.. :hammerhead:

31.4 PPG on 46% is better than 26.5 PPG on 49%.. those were 1996-1998 MJ and 2013-2014 Lebron's playoff averages.. :confusedshrug:

And that's without considering intangibles - clutch, 4th quarter performance, leadership, perseverance, mental toughness - MJ sweeps them all - he's GOAT at them all actually.
.

[DonDadda59]

Is it the only team in history with 3 All-Defensive first team and 2 All-NBA first team players, the COY, and the 6th MOY?

As far as I know, The '83 Sixers had all that minus COY (Don Nelson won with a 51-31 record, Billy Cunningham led Philly to 65-17).

Dr. J and Moses were first team all NBA. Moses, Bobby Jones, and Mo Cheeks were all NBA D 1st team. Jones won 6th man of the year.

[3ball]

Don't worry. I negged him for you.
if MJ only took 17 shots per game, his team would have been destroyed too - but hey, he would've shot 58%, so i'd be able to come on here and say he's GOAT.. :hammerhead:

31.4 PPG on 46% is better than 26.5 PPG on 49%.. those were MJ and Lebron's playoff averages for 1996-1998 and 2013-2014.. :confusedshrug:.. the assists are offset by higher TO's.

[nzahir]

It's easy to get rebounds when you're only averaging 24 PPG and 6 APG, like 30-year old Lebron thus far in his Finals career..

But when you are averaging 36 PPG and 8 APG in the Finals, as MJ did thru the age of 30 like Lebron is now - you can't be expected to do everything.

Do you realize that MJ averaged 50% more PPG in the Finals?.. That means Lebron has to play an entire extra half (1.5 games) to match 1 game of MJ's scoring.... AND Jordan averaged more assists, less turnovers, all on better efficiency... But you give a shit because Lebron averages 2 more rebounds?..
.
A few things;
1) We are talking about older mj and you just gave me young/prime mj stats. I didnt say lebron was better than mj in the finals overally but lebron overall compared to older jordan.
2) You are also including a 22 year old lebron and nobody thought those cavs, whose second option was an inefficient larry hughes, an old big z, and daniel gibson( who isnt even playing now), would win. Always help on lebron with bowen already guarding him and duncan in the paint.
And you sure those stats all correct; feeling like you added a bit to mj and took some off of lebron

[aj1987]

As far as I know, The '83 Sixers had all that minus COY (Don Nelson won with a 51-31 record, Billy Cunningham led Philly to 65-17).

Dr. J and Moses were first team all NBA. Moses, Bobby Jones, and Mo Cheeks were all NBA D 1st team. Jones won 6th man of the year.
:applause:


if MJ only took 17 shots per game, his team would have been destroyed too - but hey, he would've shot 58%, so i'd be able to come on here and say he's GOAT..

31.4 PPG on 46% is better than 26.5 PPG on 49%.. those were MJ and Lebron's playoff averages for 1996-1998 and 2013-2014.. .. the assists are offset by higher TO's.
Point me to one post of mine which says LeBron > MJ. Go ahead.

Once again, the Bulls = Stacked AF and Shaq had the GOAT stats in '00.

[Smoke117]

http://warriorsworld.bayareaballllc1.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Celtics.jpg

Fact. The 86 Celtics would put the 96 Bulls away in 6 at the most.

[3ball]

2) You are also including a 22 year old lebron and nobody thought those cavs, whose second option was an inefficient larry hughes, an old big z, and daniel gibson( who isnt even playing now), would win. Always help on lebron with bowen already guarding him and duncan in the paint.


Being 22 is no excuse - Tim Duncan won a championship and FMVP at that 22 years old in 1999, and it was only his 2nd NBA season.

Also, MJ broke the all-time playoff scoring record at 22 years old, against the league's #1 defense (Celtics) and one of the greatest teams of all time... Otoh, with Lebron, there's simply no excuse for any supposed great to average 20 PPG on 35% in any series, ever.. that's just pathetic..

I would direct you to this thread, which compares 22-year old MJ's performance against championship competition (1986 Celtics) to 22-year old Lebron's performance against championship competition (Spurs):

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=370800





And you sure those stats all correct; feeling like you added a bit to mj and took some off of lebron


I'd never do that.. Here are the sources for 1996-1998 MJ, 2008-2010 Kobe, and 2013-2014 Lebron:

MJ regular season: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html#1996-1998-sum:per_game
Lebron regular season: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jamesle01.html#2013-2014-sum:per_game
Kobe regular season: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html#2008-2010-sum:per_game

MJ playoffs: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html#1996-1998-sum:playoffs_per_game
Lebron playoffs: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jamesle01.html#2013-2014-sum:playoffs_per_game
Kobe playoffs: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01.html#2008-2010-sum:playoffs_per_game

I had to do the Finals averages by hand using the Finals Series Stats page for each Finals.. Here's the one for 2008, and then you just click "Next Season" for the 2009 Finals, and so on:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2008_finals.html#BOS-LAL
.

[J Shuttlesworth]

OP, I applaud you :applause:

I saw the first post and knew it would cause 3ball to lose his shit

[sportjames23]

Fact. The 86 Celtics would put the 96 Bulls away in 6 at the most.


The 86 Celtics had trouble with a second-year MJ coming off an injury that made him miss most of the season.

What do you think a veteran MJ with a great team backing him up would do to them?

Think before posting such idiocy. Don't become dubeta.

[3ball]

We are talking about older mj and you just gave me young/prime mj stats


Playoff Averages for Jordan 1996-1998 vs. Lebron 2013-2014 vs. Kobe 2008-2010:

Jordan.. 31.4 PPG / 45.9% FG
Lebron.. 26.5 PPG / 49.3% FG
Kobe.... 29.8 PPG / 46.4% FG

Source: basketball-reference.com


Since when is 5 PPG not material?.. Jordan's 31.4 on 46% is simply > Lebron's 26.5 on 49%.

and Lebron's assist advantage is nullified by higher turnovers - these are just the facts.. it's funny that people have no shame in trying matchup Lebron with MJ by using 33-35 year old MJ's stats, and still coming up short.

MJ's stats at 33-35 years old were better, especially when you consider the NBA played at a slower pace (90-92 pace compared to 94 today) and MJ sweeps all the intangibles such as clutch, 4th quarter performance, leadership, team mental toughness and perseverance.
.

[Smoke117]

The 86 Celtics had trouble with a second-year MJ coming off an injury that made him miss most of the season.

What do you think a veteran MJ with a great team backing him up would do to them?

Think before posting such idiocy. Don't become dubeta.

...right. The Celtics beat the Bulls: 123-104, 135-131, 122-104. Maybe take a peek in the mirror if you want to see a true idiot.

[poido123]

So, the Bulls were basically the most stacked team off all time? No wonder they won so much.

3ball staying delusional AF. :oldlol:



Thanks for being a piece of shit and starting another troll thread :applause:

[aj1987]

Thanks for being a piece of shit and starting another troll thread :applause:
Says the resident racist pedophile. Please go kill yourself.

[LeBird]

This guy is ethering himself??!! :biggums:
Why would you post something like this when its obvious that Lebron has better numbers than Jordan.
How ****ing stupid is that :wtf:

:lol :applause:

[LeBird]

The 86 Celtics had trouble with a second-year MJ coming off an injury that made him miss most of the season.

What do you think a veteran MJ with a great team backing him up would do to them?

Think before posting such idiocy. Don't become dubeta.

The 86 Celtics swept the Bulls 3-0. :lol

[3ball]

The 86 Celtics swept the Bulls 3-0. :lol


Who had more talent on their team, and who was the better basketball team - the 2007 San Antonio Spurs, or the 1986 Celtics?

Those are the two championship level teams that both MJ and Lebron played when they were 22 years old.

We know Lebron played the worst competition to ever GET to a Finals that year, so we'll excuse him for that - the performance against championship level competition is what matters anyway:

Jordan stats vs. 1986 Celtics (#1 ranked defense): 43.7 PPG, 50.1% FG, 58.4% TS
Lebron stats vs. 2007 Spurs (#2 ranked defense): 22.0 PPG, 35.6% FG, 42.6% TS
.

[Mr Feeny]

Who had more talent on their team, and who was the better basketball team - the 2007 San Antonio Spurs, or the 1986 Celtics?

Those are the two championship level teams that both MJ and Lebron played when they were 22 years old.

We know Lebron played the worst competition to ever GET to a Finals that year, so we'll excuse him for that - the performance against championship level competition is what matters anyway:

Jordan stats vs. 1986 Celtics (#1 ranked defense): 43.7 PPG, 50.1% FG, 58.4% TS
Lebron stats vs. 2007 Spurs (#2 ranked defense): 22.0 PPG, 35.6% FG, 42.6% TS
.

Lebron played against the Pistons in the ECF. How old are you?

[andgar923]

No other modern player would be as successful in the same situation.

It takes a certain type of leadership to lead and win the way they did. I can see some players from the past having as much success, but no modern players.

You guys think Rodman will respect or listen to anybody from today's era?

Team will implode and be full of issues.

[aj1987]

No other modern player would be as successful in the same situation.

It takes a certain type of leadership to lead and win the way they did. I can see some players from the past having as much success, but no modern players.

You guys think Rodman will respect or listen to anybody from today's era?

Team will implode and be full of issues.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

Jesus! The excuses that MJ stans come up with.

[Trollsmasher]

the most stacked team of all time

and it's not even close

would have won without their best player (Pippen) easily too

[andgar923]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Jesus! The excuses that MJ stans come up with.
What excuse?

That's you not understanding 'leadership'.

There are a ton of great players, but less leaders.

You can call it an excuse until your fingers fall from typing, but it doesn't change the fact that it takes great leadership to be as successful as them.

There have been other great teams in the past that weren't as successful.

[jzek]

Yeah, compare that team to ANY of LeBron's title-winning teams.

[jzek]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Jesus! The excuses that MJ stans come up with.

He has a good point though. Name another player who got Rodman in check?

[andgar923]

He has a good point though. Name another player who got Rodman in check?
Magic couldn't keep him in check.
Robinson couldn't keep him in check.
Shit, Cuban tried his hardest (I know, not a player) and failed.

I don't see anyone today keeping him in check.

What happens when Kobe throws a jab at him?

It's a joke to even fathom how he'd play with Bron.

Hell, Pip doesn't have a good track record of being a great teammate as it is.
And we know how he deals with pressure.

People can call me a Stan all they want, they simply don't understand leadership.

[LeBird]

Who had more talent on their team, and who was the better basketball team - the 2007 San Antonio Spurs, or the 1986 Celtics?
.

Were you wanking to a Jordan poster when reading the post?

He said Jordan's Bulls would have beaten the 86 Celtics because the crap Bulls (the 80s version) gave them enough trouble. When in reality, Jordan and the Bulls were getting their asses handed to them...it wasn't close at all.


He has a good point though. Name another player who got Rodman in check?

LOL @ Jordan keeping Rodman in check. He had a tough enough time fending off his other teammates that wanted to beat him up.

Without Phil the Bulls don't win a ring, and his work on Rodman was masterly.

[aj1987]

Magic couldn't keep him in check.
Robinson couldn't keep him in check.
Shit, Cuban tried his hardest (I know, not a player) and failed.

I don't see anyone today keeping him in check.

What happens when Kobe throws a jab at him?

It's a joke to even fathom how he'd play with Bron.

Hell, Pip doesn't have a good track record of being a great teammate as it is.
And we know how he deals with pressure.

People can call me a Stan all they want, they simply don't understand leadership.
You do know that he won 2 rings playing DPOY level defense 5 years before coming to the Bulls, right? Dude might be a head case, but he played winning basketball. He went bat shit crazy for a while before landing on the Bulls (and was still a bit crazy), but lets not act like it was MJ who kept him in line. Do you not remember him being suspended for a while during the '96 season?

[sdot_thadon]

So judging from the way this conversation is going, I guess the real question is this:

Were the 96 Bulls superstacked? Or was the era that weak that a team he single handedly carried to rings won so many accolades?:coleman:

[Rose'sACL]

phil was the biggest missing piece for the bulls. he made MJ into a good leader and turned MJ's bad qualities into good ones.
i don't have to provide you any proof just like MJ stans don't have to provide any proof how MJ was the one keeping rodman in check relatively.
Rodman had already played winning basketball before. he was also suspended for some time in '96 season.

[jlip]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z8mm3WUH7I#t=7m04s

[MiseryCityTexas]

Easily the greatest team of all time.

Not only that, but it was also one of the greatest NBA seasons of all time. Almost any team from that season could probably make the play-offs in today's era of basketball easily.

[97 bulls]

I don't see a way the Celtics could beat the Bulls. But I do see multiple advantages in the Bulls favor.

Defense. If the Bulls could stifle great PGs like Magic, Stockton, Hardaway, to name a few, that pressure defense would kill Ainge and Johnson.

Offense. That Celtic team had NO ONE that could handle Jordan in the post. NO ONE.

Rebounding. Rodman alone could almost rebound more than Mchale and Parish combined.

[Micku]

I don't see a way the Celtics could beat the Bulls. But I do see multiple advantages in the Bulls favor.

Defense. If the Bulls could stifle great PGs like Magic, Stockton, Hardaway, to name a few, that pressure defense would kill Ainge and Johnson.

Offense. That Celtic team had NO ONE that could handle Jordan in the post. NO ONE.

Rebounding. Rodman alone could almost rebound more than Mchale and Parish combined.

They have two advantages. Their bigs are one of their advantages, tho the Bulls have faced bigs before. The 96 playoffs is evidence of that. But the Celts may have the greatest frontline ever with Parish, Mchale, Bird, Walton there. The other advantage is that they have better all around offensive talent with Bird, Mchale and Parish. Ainge is sharp shooter and DJ could score 20 on you.

On your defense point, I would say the Bulls have the advantage. The Bulls have better perimeter and versatile defenders that could give Dennis Johnson and Ainge a hard time. But they also faced great all time defenders with Sidney Moncrief and Paul Pressey with the Bucks.

On your offense point, they don't have anybody that could stop Jordan. But which team does? They could try their best to slow him down. They would switch on him with DJ and Ainge, but you could only do so much. I doubt he'll do another 40 ppg game series against them like he did in 86 tho.

On the bulls problems, the Celtics got so much talent and so many options that they could go to. Everybody in the starting lineup apart from maybe Ainge, could create their own shot and create something. And they are also a great passing time. This makes it difficult to double team. Plus they were one of the best fast break team. They almost have no weakness to point out except for their lack of athleticism.

The rebounding battle would be interesting tho. While I do think Celts have more players that are elite with rebounding with Mchale, Parish, Bird, and Walton, the Bulls do have Rodman. Pippen is also a very good rebounder.

It could go either way. I do give the edge toward the Celts because they have the IQ and the talent to hang. The Bulls have the defense and MJ. It'll be cool to see Bird and MJ battle in the clutch with capable teams around them.

[3ball]

Who had more talent on their team, and who was the better basketball team - the 2007 San Antonio Spurs, or the 1986 Celtics?

Those are the two championship level teams that both MJ and Lebron played when they were 22 years old.

We know Lebron played the worst competition to ever GET to a Finals that year, so we'll excuse him for that - the performance against championship level competition is what matters anyway:

Jordan stats vs. 1986 Celtics (#1 ranked defense): 43.7 PPG, 50.1% FG, 58.4% TS
Lebron stats vs. 2007 Spurs (#2 ranked defense): 22.0 PPG, 35.6% FG, 42.6% TS




Lebron played against the Pistons in the ECF. How old are you?


No 4-time DPOY Ben Wallace in 2007 - that Piston team was garbage and Lebron only averaged 25 PPG on 45% against them - compare Lebron's 2007 playoff run to MJ's in 1989:

Jordan's Bulls were 47-25 and the 6 seed.
Lebron's Cavs were 50-32 and the 2 seed.


1st Round Jordan: CLE...(#3 seed, 57-25, #2 ranked defense... 40.0.. 6.0.. 8.1.. 59.8% TS.. 51.8% FG)
1st Round Lebron: WSH (#7 seed, 41-41, #28 ranked defense.. 27.0.. 8.5.. 7.5.. 54.9% TS.. 42.5% FG)

2nd Round Jordan: NYK (#2 seed, 52-30, #10 ranked defense... 35.5.. 9.5.. 8.3.. 64.6% TS.. 55.0% FG)
2nd Round Lebron: NJN (#6 seed, 41-41, #15 ranked defense... 24.7.. 7.3.. 8.5.. 53.7% TS.. 42.3% FG)

Conf. Finals Jordan: DET (#1 seed, 62-30, #3 ranked defense... 30.0.. 5.5.. 6.5.. 59.8% TS.. 46.0% FG)
Conf. Finals Lebron: DET (#1 seed, 53-29, #7 ranked defense... 25.7.. 9.1.. 8.5.. 53.7% TS.. 44.9% FG)


Is it a surprise that MJ's 1989 playoff run was so much better than Lebron's 2007?.. It shouldn't be - we know that thru the age of 30 (MJ's 1st three-peat), MJ averaged 35 PPG / 7 APG / 50.1% FG in the playoffs, compared to Lebron's current 28 PPG / 6 APG / 48.1% FG, and 36 PPG / 8 APG / 52.6% FG in the Finals compared to Lebron's 24 PPG / 6 APG / 46% FG.. (source: basketball-reference.com)

[97 bulls]

They have two advantages. Their bigs are one of their advantages, tho the Bulls have faced bigs before. The 96 playoffs is evidence of that. But the Celts may have the greatest frontline ever with Parish, Mchale, Bird, Walton there. The other advantage is that they have better all around offensive talent with Bird, Mchale and Parish. Ainge is sharp shooter and DJ could score 20 on you.
And the Celtics have no one that can guard Pip or Kukoc either. After DJ. And he can't defend everyone. I think you're a sensible poster. You don't think Kukoc and Pippens stats would look much better if they played in the 80s. In my opinion, they'd be roughly 23/24 for Pip and 17/18 for Kukoc. So lets stop acting like the only scorer the Bulls had was Jordan. Granted the Celts had more firepower, but you are drastically underrating the Bulls offense.


On your defense point, I would say the Bulls have the advantage. The Bulls have better perimeter and versatile defenders that could give Dennis Johnson and Ainge a hard time. But they also faced great all time defenders with Sidney Moncrief and Paul Pressey with the Bucks.
The Bulls definitely would have the Advantage. That goes without saying. And understand, while Moncrief and Pressey were great defenders, the Bulls not only had Jordan and Pippen, they had Rodman and Harper as well. Hell Longley wasn't a bad defender. Not to mention that many have Jordan, Pip, and Rodman in their top 10 all-time.


On your offense point, they don't have anybody that could stop Jordan. But which team does? They could try their best to slow him down. They would switch on him with DJ and Ainge, but you could only do so much.
It comes down to who would do a better job taking the other team out of their comfort zone as well as their opposition's best player. I like Pip on Bird better than DJ on Jordan.


I doubt he'll do another 40 ppg game series against them like he did in 86 tho.
He wouldn't have to. Hed have help. Plenty of it.



On the bulls problems, the Celtics got so much talent and so many options that they could go to. Everybody in the starting lineup apart from maybe Ainge, could create their own shot and create something.
And they'd be trying to do it on excellent defenders. The only one that I feel the Celtic could go to and expose is Parish on Longley. And yet and still, hes not a bad defender and the Celtics would have to get him the ball. Which comes back to my first post when I plainly stated that they'd have a hard time breaking the Bulls full court pressure defense and traps.


And they are also a great passing time. This makes it difficult to double team. Plus they were one of the best fast break team. They almost have no weakness to point out except for their lack of athleticism.
I pointed it out Mick. They dont have a true PG nor a guy good enough to consistently score in isolation. As well as lack of athleticism.


The rebounding battle would be interesting tho. While I do think Celts have more players that are elite with rebounding with Mchale, Parish, Bird, and Walton, the Bulls do have Rodman. Pippen is also a very good rebounder.
Again, comparing stats across eras. Put Rodman, Pippen, Jordan, and Longley in the 80s and their rebound numbers are gonna go up because theres gonna be more shots.


It could go either way. I do give the edge toward the Celts because they have the IQ and the talent to hang. The Bulls have the defense and MJ. It'll be cool to see Bird and MJ battle in the clutch with capable teams around them.
Neither has an IQ advantage. Come on. What makes you say the Celts have an IQ advantage over the Bulls? The Bulls won more games, Titles, and never beat themselves or lost as a favorite. Can you say the same for the Celtics?

[Micku]

And the Celtics have no one that can guard Pip or Kukoc either. After DJ. And he can't defend everyone. I think you're a sensible poster. You don't think Kukoc and Pippens stats would look much better if they played in the 80s. In my opinion, they'd be roughly 23/24 for Pip and 17/18 for Kukoc. So lets stop acting like the only scorer the Bulls had was Jordan. Granted the Celts had more firepower, but you are drastically underrating the Bulls offense.

Mchale could guard Pippen. And since this is around when Mchale was on his prime defensively, it would be pretty interesting. Mchale actually guarded better scorers than Pippen with Dominique Wilkins, Adrian Dantley, Alex English and etc. In the 1986 against the Hawks, Mchale limited Wilkins to 24 PPG on 40%. Before the Celts series, Wilkins went 34.3 ppg on 46.5% and was the leading scorer in the regular season with 30.3 on 47% shooting.

If Mchale could guard a guy who average 30 ppg and limit him to 24 ppg on 40% shooting, I'll be confident he could limit Pip on paper. Bird also wasn't that bad of defender either. Better with his help defense than his one on one tho.



The Bulls definitely would have the Advantage. That goes without saying. And understand, while Moncrief and Pressey were great defenders, the Bulls not only had Jordan and Pippen, they had Rodman and Harper as well. Hell Longley wasn't a bad defender. Not to mention that many have Jordan, Pip, and Rodman in their top 10 all-time.

It comes down to who would do a better job taking the other team out of their comfort zone as well as their opposition's best player. I like Pip on Bird better than DJ on Jordan.


I don't disagree. My point being is that the Celts have dealt with great defenders before, and they were able to bring it across the court regardless and was able to score. The Bulls have more versatile defenders to throw out them, but the Celts have so many options to go to. And they weren't bad defensively themselves. And I agree that whoever does a better job containing the other team might win. It could go either way.



And they'd be trying to do it on excellent defenders. The only one that I feel the Celtic could go to and expose is Parish on Longley. And yet and still, hes not a bad defender and the Celtics would have to get him the ball. Which comes back to my first post when I plainly stated that they'd have a hard time breaking the Bulls full court pressure defense and traps.

This is the interesting part. The Celts have a great passing team and they dealt with traps before. And they are so talented, that if you do trap them, you'll be in trouble. I do remember Phil Jackson saying they don't really like to double, especially in the post, but correct me if I'm wrong. I would assume this would be a better decision against whenever they give the ball to Bird, Mchale or Parish.




I pointed it out Mick. They dont have a true PG nor a guy good enough to consistently score in isolation. As well as lack of athleticism.


Yes they do in terms of a guy being able to score consistently in isolation. Bird, Mchale, Parish and even DJ. Bird used to complain that he hated when the coach would make him play iso with the guys, because he thought it was bad basketball with people standing around. I would have to find the article or video where he said that to show you. But there were times where they give the ball to Bird and get out of the way when it's clutch time. Bird iso guys like Dr. J, Rodman, Cooper, and Bobby Jones.

And you never want to Mchale to iso because he'll destroy guys in the post.


Again, comparing stats across eras. Put Rodman, Pippen, Jordan, and Longley in the 80s and their rebound numbers are gonna go up because theres gonna be more shots.

Well, that's kind'a true. The rebounding numbers will probably go down due to the lack of possessions and slower pacing. There are a few indications that we could for like TRB% and check that. You'll see guys like Barkley who'll rebound regardless of what pacing, and he tends to have a high TRB%. Same with Walton, Bird, and Parish.



Neither has an IQ advantage. Come on. What makes you say the Celts have an IQ advantage over the Bulls? The Bulls won more games, Titles, and never beat themselves or lost as a favorite. Can you say the same for the Celtics?

I think I was a bit unclear. Let me clarify. I said they have the IQ and talent to hang, and not necessary better in terms of IQ. I would give the edge because of their talent which I do think is better, and they have the IQ to hang with the Bulls IQ.

And with your question about can I say same thing about the Celts? No, I can't. The Bulls dominated their era more than the Celts dominated their era. But the keyword is era. Different teams, different players, different situation. It doesn't have any that much relevance in the topic of peak team a vs peak team b. It's like almost equivalent in saying Kareem is more successful than Wilt, so he was better. But peak vs peak, who was better?

[LeBird]

86 Celtics > 96 Bulls
87 Lakers > 96 Bulls

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

Not only that, but it was also one of the greatest NBA seasons of all time. Almost any team from that season could probably make the play-offs in today's era of basketball easily.
Youre an idiot who prolly never even watched ball in 96. Lmfao if u think any of those expansion teams make the playoffs now:facepalm :facepalm

[sportjames23]

86 Celtics > 96 Bulls
87 Lakers > 96 Bulls


I bet your dumbass thinks the 12 Heat > 96 Bulls, too. :rolleyes:

[SamuraiSWISH]

An extremely motivated team, energized by a re-focused and determined MJ. With a front line boosted by Dennis Rodman's defense. 72 wins, and 10 losses? GOAT team caliber stuff.

With like 3 or 4 of those losses coming less than 5 points. Every team got amped to play them, so they saw even the worst club's absolute best every night. They legitimately could've won 75 or 76 some odd games.

In the playoffs besides that fluke loss to the Knicks, then dismantling a stacked Magic team in the Conference Finals in a sweep, the Bulls basically went up 3-0 on the Sonics ... convincingly in game 3 on the road. That's with Jordan shooting poorly, and Pippen shooting poorly the entire series.

All things considering they were close to sweeping the playoffs as well. Not going to say they are the best team ever, but probably the most dominant ever. Then the next season they matched the previous best season record winning 69 games. A year where they lost 2 to 3 they shouldn't have as well, that came down to the wire.

1996 NBA had some great teams besides the Bulls too. It wasn't a cake walk the way some people make the late 90's to sound. 1998 and 1999? Maybe.

[3ball]

Not going to say they are the best team ever, but probably the most dominant ever. Then the next season they matched the previous best season record winning 69 games. A year where they lost 2 to 3 they shouldn't have as well, that came down to the wire.

1996 NBA had some great teams besides the Bulls too. 1998 and 1999? Maybe.


Remember, the 1998 Utah Jazz beat the most talent any team has ever beaten to make a Finals - they beat Hakeem's Rockets, swept Shaq's 4 all-star Lakers, and beat Duncan/Robinson/Popovich's 56-win Spurs in 5 games.

This is the most talent any team has ever defeated to make a Finals - and they beat Shaq and Hakeem in 1997 too.. Also, that's 3 pretty good teams right there: the Jazz that destroyed everyone, Shaq's most talented team ever, and Popovich's all-time tandem of Duncan/Robinson.

In the East, the Bulls barely beat a very good Indiana team that had been together forever and through all the wars - this is the same team that made the Finals in 2000.. So between the Bulls, Pacers, Spurs, Jazz, Lakers - that's 5 good teams... Additionally, Seattle had 3 all-stars in 1997 (Kemp, Payton, Schrempf) and won 61 games in 1998, but they got beat by Shaq's Lakers.. So that's at least 6 very good teams in 1998.
.

[Angel Face]

86 Celtics > 96 Bulls
87 Lakers > 96 Bulls

:oldlol:

Even the '97 and '92 Bulls can beat those teams.

[ILLsmak]

the most stacked team of all time without question

Relatively. They had some bad players. I watched every ****ing game of those dudes and was like LOSE, LOSE. I even have some of their games on VHS. I think I have their 70-ish games on VHS.

Best big three ever, though, in reference to capabilities and championship experience. That d... etc.

Luc Longley, Bill Wennington were bad. You'd watch them and it'd be like... man Gheorge Muresan gonna go ape shit tonight. I think Ron Harper went in, Toni Kukoc went in, they had some shooters like Stevie. Basically, if it was a video game and they had STAR, ALL-AROUND, GLUE GUY, SIXTH MAN... they would be top tier in all of those things. Then you have like Role player for Luc, Harper, and Kerr... the rest were absolute bench warming trash.

Of course, the Kobe/Shaq Lakers were built in that way, too. Slava Medvedenko, MARK MADSEN, etc... don'tnegmebro.

-Smak

[julizaver]

Is it the only team in history with 3 All-Defensive first team and 2 All-NBA first team players, the COY, and the 6th MOY?

They were ... just too good that year. The best Bulls team ever and arguably the best ever. Easily the best team in the 90s.

[plowking]

I never thought I'd live to see the day where there was a bigger c*nt on this forum than pauk when it comes to basketball discussion.

Congrats 3ball.

[mehyaM24]

Not only that, but it was also one of the greatest NBA seasons of all time. Almost any team from that season could probably make the play-offs in today's era of basketball easily.
jordan was a more skilled player than pippen, offensively, but pippen was the leader in-terms being the lead captain, playmaker, and defender. he anchored those second 3-peat teams with his defense alone (xRAPM suggests he impacted that end like a center).

jordan probably would have won at least a ring or 2 without pippen, but tpippen with another elite sg would have been a dynasty regardless - that's how much impact pippen brought to the game.

[TheMan]

So, the Bulls were basically the most stacked team off all time? No wonder they won so much.

3ball staying delusional AF. :oldlol:
:biggums:
You do realize the Bulls were two completly different teams between the 91-93 and the 96-98 versions, right?

[mehyaM24]

:biggums:
You do realize the Bulls were two completly different teams between the 91-93 and the 96-98 versions, right?
were you watching then?

chicago was stacked in the early 90s as well. pippen was the best perimeter defender & playmaker swingman in the 90s. horace grant & bj armstrong were allstars the minute jordan retired. stacked.

[juju151111]

were you watching then?

chicago was stacked in the early 90s as well. pippen was the best perimeter defender & playmaker swingman in the 90s. horace grant & bj armstrong were allstars the minute jordan retired. stacked.
Bj arm strong for good in 93 dumbass. Pippen was never the best defender during the first 3 peat or early career. Mj was voted the best defender by coaches even in 93. Go sit down dummy.

[mehyaM24]

By arm strong for good in 93 dumbass. Pollen was never the best defender during the first 3 peat or early career. Mj was voted the best defender by coaches even in 93. Go sit down dummy.
what is "by arm"? "pollen"???????

we aren't talking about your weird fetishes dude. this is a basketball discussion. keep it civil.

[aj1987]

:biggums:
You do realize the Bulls were two completly different teams between the 91-93 and the 96-98 versions, right?
This is why you need to read entire threads, people.

[game3524]

Were you wanking to a Jordan poster when reading the post?

He said Jordan's Bulls would have beaten the 86 Celtics because the crap Bulls (the 80s version) gave them enough trouble. When in reality, Jordan and the Bulls were getting their asses handed to them...it wasn't close at all.



LOL @ Jordan keeping Rodman in check. He had a tough enough time fending off his other teammates that wanted to beat him up.

Without Phil the Bulls don't win a ring, and his work on Rodman was masterly.

Yeah, MJ keeping Rodman in check is just another example of MJ romanticism that his stans love to do. Rodman has said that neither Jordan or Pippin really interacted with him during his time as a Bull.

The guy who kept him check was Phil, Jordan didn't do shit. Hell, Zeke did more for Rodman then MJ ever did.

[97 bulls]

Mchale could guard Pippen. And since this is around when Mchale was on his prime defensively, it would be pretty interesting. Mchale actually guarded better scorers than Pippen with Dominique Wilkins, Adrian Dantley, Alex English and etc. In the 1986 against the Hawks, Mchale limited Wilkins to 24 PPG on 40%. Before the Celts series, Wilkins went 34.3 ppg on 46.5% and was the leading scorer in the regular season with 30.3 on 47% shooting.

If Mchale could guard a guy who average 30 ppg and limit him to 24 ppg on 40% shooting, I'll be confident he could limit Pip on paper. Bird also wasn't that bad of defender either. Better with his help defense than his one on one tho.
Totally different styles of play. Mchale played off of Wilkins and dared him to make a jumpshot. The Bulls run an offense. Their main iso player was Jordan.



I don't disagree. My point being is that the Celts have dealt with great defenders before, and they were able to bring it across the court regardless and was able to score. The Bulls have more versatile defenders to throw out them, but the Celts have so many options to go to. And they weren't bad defensively themselves. And I agree that whoever does a better job containing the other team might win. It could go either way.
Teams don't trap and press like the Bulls did. Especially not for long stints in games. I've never seen a team be able to fluster great PGs with their defense the way the Bulls did. NEVER!!!!!!




This is the interesting part. The Celts have a great passing team and they dealt with traps before. And they are so talented, that if you do trap them, you'll be in trouble. I do remember Phil Jackson saying they don't really like to double, especially in the post, but correct me if I'm wrong. I would assume this would be a better decision against whenever they give the ball to Bird, Mchale or Parish.
But they've never encountered a pressing defense like the Bulls. NBA teams dont play that kind of defense. The Bulls would pressure you 94 feet, then once you do get the ball past half court, you had very little time to run plays. The Celtics needed to run their offense to be effective. And even more, if Ainge or Johnson are forced to have to pass the ball, theyre gonna be passing to Bird or Mchale. Out at halfcourt. Now theyve been taken out if their offense. Out of their comfort zone.




Yes they do in terms of a guy being able to score consistently in isolation. Bird, Mchale, Parish and even DJ. Bird used to complain that he hated when the coach would make him play iso with the guys, because he thought it was bad basketball with people standing around. I would have to find the article or video where he said that to show you. But there were times where they give the ball to Bird and get out of the way when it's clutch time. Bird iso guys like Dr. J, Rodman, Cooper, and Bobby Jones.
Right but as a Bulls fan, id be very comfortable with Bird having to break Harper, Rodman, or Pippen off the dribble at half court. Again the players you mention Jones, Coope etc didnt have outstanding defenders playing with them. Or not at the level the Bulls had.


And you never want to Mchale to iso because he'll destroy guys in the post.
Right. Except for the fact that hes gonna be under duress himself becaseu more than likely, hed be getting the ball out of the post, and when he finally gets it, theres gonna be 4-5 seconds on the clock. Hes not gonna have time to pump fake and do up and unders etc.



Well, that's kind'a true. The rebounding numbers will probably go down due to the lack of possessions and slower pacing. There are a few indications that we could for like TRB% and check that. You'll see guys like Barkley who'll rebound regardless of what pacing, and he tends to have a high TRB%. Same with Walton, Bird, and Parish.
Theres no probably to it. Theres not as many shots being taken, thus nit as many rebounds to be had.




I think I was a bit unclear. Let me clarify. I said they have the IQ and talent to hang, and not necessary better in terms of IQ. I would give the edge because of their talent which I do think is better, and they have the IQ to hang with the Bulls IQ.
Fair enough.

Just for emphasis. You understand that we are Essentially saying the same thing. Lets say the Celtics inbound the Ball off a Bulls make or FT. And the Bulls have their press set up with Pippen or Jordan spearheading. If Ainge tries to go ut alone, hes in trouble. I can see a few Charges, picked pockets, precious second dwindling off fhe shot clock. So then he does what you say hes gonna do, pass the ball. Now mind you hes being pressjred by a guy with long arms, great instincts and lightning quick. He tries to pass to DJ whose probably being guarded by either Harper, or Jordan. More than likely Jordan because the other option would be Bird. So lets say he passes to Bird cuz Harper is on him. Birds not usually the one handling the ball in this scenario. So hes probably gonna hold it and wait for Ainge which would incur a trap. Or hes gonna be forced to take Harper (an exceptional man defender with size) off the dribble at halfcourt. Or he can look to post up Mchale whos gonna be fighting with Rodman for position down low. Mind you they only have 24 seconds. Id take that type of matchup any day. And again, we have references. The Lakers, Pacers, Jazz, Magic, Bullets, all encountered that defense.

And you know why? Because they had the Advantage down low. And the Bulls were always able to minimize it. Whether it be Webber, or Shaq, or Smits or Malone, or Magics surgically passing because he can easily see over the defense, the Bulls weren't gonna let you waltz up the court and run through your progressions unimpeded.

[TheMan]

were you watching then?

chicago was stacked in the early 90s as well. pippen was the best perimeter defender & playmaker swingman in the 90s. horace grant & bj armstrong were allstars the minute jordan retired. stacked.
I watched the Bulls since the early 80's, albeit I was a kid when Reggie Theus was my first favorite Bull pre-Jordan era. Why is it so hard to grasp the notion that some of us were fortunate enough to watch MJ at his peak?

To the bolded, no, the first threepeat Bulls weren't stacked, if they were, name me their 6th man? The 91-93 Bulls had the GOAT at his prime/peak, a young and on his his way to being an established star in Pippen, a solid role player in Horace Grant but he was nowhere near an elite PF and a collection of good role players that did what they were supposed to do. And lol at BJ Armstrong being a legit All Star, I like me some BJ but did you actually watch him play? He was gritty as a defender but nowhere being actually good (quick PGs like KJ regularly took his lunch money), he wasn't a PG you can run your offense through, he rarely drove to the rim, he was basically a spot up shooter, a younger version of Paxson but without the wet jumper Pax had when he got in a groove...GTFOH :facepalm

[mehyaM24]

pippen/jordan/grant made up the TOP 10-15 in RAPM during the 1992 & 1993 seasons. nobody & i mean NOBODY had that kind of firepower in terms of impact.

grant in particular opened up the bulls' offense with great spacing (his bread & butter when it came to his offensive impact). efficient & steady scoring, excellent defense, excellent rebounding, solid passing, low turnovers, set good picks - played the p&r well on both ends. he was an allstar caliber player dating back to the 1992 season. pippen's greatness doesn't need another paragraph. what he provided on defense should be widely known.

to say they weren't stacked is revisionist history at its finest - it's why i asked if you actually saw them play.

[TheMan]

pippen/jordan/grant made up the TOP 10-15 in RAPM during the 1992 & 1993 seasons. nobody & i mean NOBODY had that kind of firepower in terms of impact.

grant in particular opened up the bulls' offense with great spacing (his bread & butter when it came to his offensive impact). efficient & steady scoring, excellent defense, excellent rebounding, solid passing, low turnovers, set good picks - played the p&r well on both ends. he was an allstar caliber player dating back to the 1992 season. pippen's greatness doesn't need another paragraph. what he provided on defense should be widely known.

to say they weren't stacked is revisionist history at its finest - it's why i asked if you actually saw them play.
Stacked to me is the early 80s 76ers, the 80s Celtics, Lakers and Pistons. The 08 Celtics, although aging, had 4 legit players. Like it or not, the 12 Heat were stacked, Bron easily the best player in the world, with a top 3-5 player and former FMVP Wade. Add to that a top 5 PF in Bosh and a HOF 3pt shooter in Ray Allen and you got a stacked squad. Obviously they had a glaring weakness in the bigs position that would've been a fatal weakness in the 80s, 90s and 00s but in today's perimeter era, the Heat showed you can win without having a dominant big.

We have different opinions on what stacked means.

edit; Ask Bulls fans who remember the first threepeat Bulls and they'll tell you that HoGrant's main role wasn't as a shooter/spacer, you're confusing his role on the Magic since Shaq was already occupying the low block. Grant had a nice jumper but his main role in the half court offense was to get ORs and putbacks, basically the same role Charles Oakley had before he was traded to NY.

[97 bulls]

Stacked to me is the early 80s 76ers, the 80s Celtics, Lakers and Pistons. The 08 Celtics, although aging, had 4 legit players. Like it or not, the 12 Heat were stacked, Bron easily the best player in the world, with a top 3-5 player and former FMVP Wade. Add to that a top 5 PF in Bosh and a HOF 3pt shooter in Ray Allen and you got a stacked squad. Obviously they had a glaring weakness in the bigs position that would've been a fatal weakness in the 80s, 90s and 00s but in today's perimeter era, the Heat showed you can win without having a dominant big.

We have different opinions on what stacked means.
Were the second three-peat Bulls "stacked" in your opinion?

[TheMan]

Were the second three-peat Bulls "stacked" in your opinion?
When healthy, you could say that. MJ, Pip and Rodman. 6th man Toni Kukoc (very underrated here), 3pt specialist Kerr, Brian Williams (or Bison Dele), Ron Harper. Problem was that Pippen was dealing with back issues throughout the second threepeat, Kerr would disappear in too many playoffs games or shoot horribly (I recently watched GM 6 of the 98 Finals where Pip missed half of the game and noticed Kerr didn't even attempt one shot). MJ, even well into his 30s, carried the heavy load offensively. If I could just break it down to really simple terms, the Bulls won many playoffs game with their D and MJ making enough shots, even when his shot wasn't there. Dennis was huge too, grabbing extra possessions for the Bulls and Toni chipping in to compensate for Pippen while he struggled with injuries.

I remember MJ doing way too much heavy lifting to say they were an all time stacked team, though.

[mehyaM24]

nah. grant was always praised for his spacing, especially in chicago (orlando grant was injured too often). his defense & rebounding were obviously EXTREMELY important - but comparing him to oakley who was nothing BUT a rebounder and imposer down low doesn't make sense.

btw, you think the 2012 & 2013 heat were stacked, but NOT the 96 & 97 bulls? LMK when you're ready to have a serious discussion.

[3ball]

Mehyta wrong as usual.
.

[3ball]

2012 & 2013 heat were stacked, but NOT the 96 & 97 bulls?


Lebron's 2012/2013 teams were more stacked than MJ's 1996/1997 teams because the raw production stats show that MJ had to produce more for his rings than Lebron:


PER 100 POSSESSION STATS: PLAYOFFS

96-97' Jordan: 42.1 PPG,. 8.8 RPG,. 6.0 APG, 3.2 TO, 49.1% FG, 122 ORtg, 33-34 yrs old
12-13' Lebron: 36.4 PPG, 11.7 RPG, 7.9 APG, 4.3 TO, 49.6% FG, 117 ORtg, 27-28 years old


Sources:

MJ stats: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html#1996-1997-sum:per_poss
Lebron stats: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jamesle01.html#2012-2013-sum:playoffs_per_poss


Obviously, for MJ's first 3-peat, his stats were FAR better than Lebron's, so we know those 1991-1993 Bulls didn't give MJ nearly the supporting cast Lebron enjoyed for his rings..
.

[juju151111]

When healthy, you could say that. MJ, Pip and Rodman. 6th man Toni Kukoc (very underrated here), 3pt specialist Kerr, Brian Williams (or Bison Dele), Ron Harper. Problem was that Pippen was dealing with back issues throughout the second threepeat, Kerr would disappear in too many playoffs games or shoot horribly (I recently watched GM 6 of the 98 Finals where Pip missed half of the game and noticed Kerr didn't even attempt one shot). MJ, even well into his 30s, carried the heavy load offensively. If I could just break it down to really simple terms, the Bulls won many playoffs game with their D and MJ making enough shots, even when his shot wasn't there. Dennis was huge too, grabbing extra possessions for the Bulls and Toni chipping in to compensate for Pippen while he struggled with injuries.

I remember MJ doing way too much heavy lifting to say they were an all time stacked team, though.
That was 98 through. The Bulls were on fumes by then. They were older and injured. Rodman was also disinterested all season. Not the same case for 96 team.

[97 bulls]

When healthy, you could say that. MJ, Pip and Rodman. 6th man Toni Kukoc (very underrated here), 3pt specialist Kerr, Brian Williams (or Bison Dele), Ron Harper. Problem was that Pippen was dealing with back issues throughout the second threepeat, Kerr would disappear in too many playoffs games or shoot horribly (I recently watched GM 6 of the 98 Finals where Pip missed half of the game and noticed Kerr didn't even attempt one shot). MJ, even well into his 30s, carried the heavy load offensively. If I could just break it down to really simple terms, the Bulls won many playoffs game with their D and MJ making enough shots, even when his shot wasn't there. Dennis was huge too, grabbing extra possessions for the Bulls and Toni chipping in to compensate for Pippen while he struggled with injuries.

I remember MJ doing way too much heavy lifting to say they were an all time stacked team, though.
I gotta disagree. Why would you want to penalize a team because theyre hurt and still win?That should be even more of a testament to their greatness.

Steve Kerr shot 46% on threes during the 98 playoffs. On like four attempts per game. That's damn impressive. So what if he didn't take a shot in a game. You know why? Because his man wouldn't leave him. Which opens things up for Jordan. You never considered that?

And for the life of me, can we please stop acting as if Jordan was forced to take so many shots? You know why he took so many? Because that was the type of player Jordan was.

Why did he take so many shots when he was with the dream team? Did he have to shoot twice as many shots as anyone else on the team?

[3ball]

Why did MJ take so many shots...? Did he have to shoot twice as many shots as anyone else on the team?


Pippen's max PPG capability was 22 PPG - that's what he did in 1994 when MJ was gone.

Alongside MJ, Pippen's PPG was 20-21 PPG... Grant and Kukoc's PPG was also barely changed with and without MJ - so yeah, MJ absolutely needed to shoot that much - the 1994 season proved it because all those guys averaged pretty much the same as they did with MJ.





Steve Kerr shot 46% on threes during the 98 playoffs... his man wouldn't leave him. Which opens things up for Jordan. You never considered that?


You're going to knock down Jordan because his team took 16.5 threes per game, when today's players benefit from 22 threes per game AND a further 3-point line which spreads the floor even more?.. Makes no sense.

[Hey Yo]

Pippen's max PPG capability was 22 PPG - that's what he did in 1994 when MJ was gone.

Alongside MJ, Pippen's PPG was 20-21 PPG... Grant and Kukoc's PPG was also barely changed with and without MJ - so yeah, MJ absolutely needed to shoot that much - the 1994 season proved it because all those guys averaged pretty much the same as they did with MJ.



You're going to knock down Jordan because his team took 16.5 threes per game, when today's players benefit from 22 threes per game AND a further 3-point line which spreads the floor even more?.. Makes no sense.
97 Bulls asks


Why did he take so many shots when he was with the dream team? Did he have to shoot twice as many shots as anyone else on the team?

3ball intentionally leaves off "the dream team" in 97Bulls quote and starts talking about Pippen and the 94 season.

ruined.

[Round Mound]

http://warriorsworld.bayareaballllc1.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Celtics.jpg

End Thread. :applause:

[3ball]

97 Bulls asks



3ball intentionally leaves off "the dream team" in 97Bulls quote and starts talking about Pippen and the 94 season.

ruined.
haha - i totally missed that part.. didn't even see it until you just posted it.

the point remains - MJ's GOAT stats were 100% needed on those Bulls teams, since none of those guys were capable of producing any more without MJ..

MJ's off-ball, quick-decision style allowed his teammates to play to capacity, which allowed the TEAM to play to capacity and never underachieve.. otoh, today's ball-dominators often prevent some teammates from playing to capacity, so their TEAMS don't play to capacity and routinely underachieve.. stay tuned for examples of this in the coming weeks.

[97 bulls]

Pippen's max PPG capability was 22 PPG - that's what he did in 1994 when MJ was gone.

Alongside MJ, Pippen's PPG was 20-21 PPG... Grant and Kukoc's PPG was also barely changed with and without MJ - so yeah, MJ absolutely needed to shoot that much - the 1994 season proved it because all those guys averaged pretty much the same as they did with MJ.

Just so we understand, youre the one bringing up 94. Saying that..... check the league FG attempts between 92 and 94. It went down drastically. But Pippens scoring went up as well as his FGA. Care to explain why? I mean his PPG went from 17 in 93 to 22 in 94. Thats not a huge jump?

And again, if the Bulls can win 55, take the EC Champs to seven games, and lose on a bad call to the eventual Eastern Conference champs who then lost in seven to the champions, I see no reason why another 20 ppg scorer wouldn't be sufficient. I mean one.could say there was literally a one game difference between the 94 Bulls and the Rockets.

But you still didn't answer the question, did Jordan need to take twice as many shots as anyone else on the dream team?


You're going to knock down Jordan because his team took 16.5 threes per game, when today's players benefit from 22 threes per game AND a further 3-point line which spreads the floor even more?.. Makes no sense.
What are you talking about?

[Micku]

Totally different styles of play. Mchale played off of Wilkins and dared him to make a jumpshot. The Bulls run an offense. Their main iso player was Jordan.

Wilkins tried variety of things actually, none of them worked efficiently. He tried beating him off the dribble, tried posting him up, tried facing him up, and tried to shoot over him. Nothing worked. The reason why is because Mchale had the footwork to keep up with a guy like Worthy and the length to bother centers. The Hawks had an offense, it was just shut down. The Celts defense was the best in the league that year.


But they've never encountered a pressing defense like the Bulls. NBA teams dont play that kind of defense. The Bulls would pressure you 94 feet, then once you do get the ball past half court, you had very little time to run plays. The Celtics needed to run their offense to be effective. And even more, if Ainge or Johnson are forced to have to pass the ball, theyre gonna be passing to Bird or Mchale. Out at halfcourt. Now theyve been taken out if their offense. Out of their comfort zone.

Eh...it's not like the Celts haven't dealt with a full court press before, but you're right that the Bulls were better than any team that year when it comes to defense and they played more full court press than any team that they faced that year. When they dealt with crazy defense hard press defense like that, they did pass it to Bird and he dribble to the ball to create. Usually they surprise them because of Bird passing/shooting skills. Mchale sometimes would be free and he is surprisingly good going full stream.

And one thing, the Celts seemingly adapt to a bunch of situations. They could out run more athletic teams like the Rockets and Hawks, or take it slow. Commentators even recommend those teams to take it slow because the Celts have too much talent in the fast break, but at the same time they have too much talent in the half court. You have to pick your poison.



Right but as a Bulls fan, id be very comfortable with Bird having to break Harper, Rodman, or Pippen off the dribble at half court. Again the players you mention Jones, Coope etc didnt have outstanding defenders playing with them. Or not at the level the Bulls had.

Bobby Jones? Yes, he did. He had Maurice Cheeks, who was consistently 1st in the defensive team in his day. Moses Malone. Dr. J was also solid defensively. And they also faced Rodman, Bill Liambeer, Joe Dumars. They faced Paul Pressey and Sidney Moncrief. Terry Cummings wasn't bad either even though he would probably disagree and he thought he was a better defender later on his career, and he was with the Bucks along with Moncreif and Pressey. As I said before, it's not like they haven't faced legendary defenders before. They faced them, and it didn't stop them.



Right. Except for the fact that hes gonna be under duress himself becaseu more than likely, hed be getting the ball out of the post, and when he finally gets it, theres gonna be 4-5 seconds on the clock. Hes not gonna have time to pump fake and do up and unders etc.

Haha. He has more moves than just that. He has a nice fadeaway, nice hook shot, and decent jumper. Even the commentators in the Rockets Finals against the Celts mentioned how Mchale was the best they seen in years of getting the shot off on the catch. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9NiWaGBNXw#t=1h23m18s)
Many coaches and players mention how difficult it was to guard him to point of being impossible.



Fair enough.

Just for emphasis. You understand that we are Essentially saying the same thing. Lets say the Celtics inbound the Ball off a Bulls make or FT. And the Bulls have their press set up with Pippen or Jordan spearheading. If Ainge tries to go ut alone, hes in trouble. I can see a few Charges, picked pockets, precious second dwindling off fhe shot clock. So then he does what you say hes gonna do, pass the ball. Now mind you hes being pressjred by a guy with long arms, great instincts and lightning quick. He tries to pass to DJ whose probably being guarded by either Harper, or Jordan. More than likely Jordan because the other option would be Bird. So lets say he passes to Bird cuz Harper is on him. Birds not usually the one handling the ball in this scenario. So hes probably gonna hold it and wait for Ainge which would incur a trap. Or hes gonna be forced to take Harper (an exceptional man defender with size) off the dribble at halfcourt. Or he can look to post up Mchale whos gonna be fighting with Rodman for position down low. Mind you they only have 24 seconds. Id take that type of matchup any day. And again, we have references. The Lakers, Pacers, Jazz, Magic, Bullets, all encountered that defense.

And you know why? Because they had the Advantage down low. And the Bulls were always able to minimize it. Whether it be Webber, or Shaq, or Smits or Malone, or Magics surgically passing because he can easily see over the defense, the Bulls weren't gonna let you waltz up the court and run through your progressions unimpeded.

We agree on Bulls advantages, but disagree on the Celts or the details in this situation. Like DJ or Ainge don't have to pass the ball unless they do double. Both are capable of bringing down the court to start the offense with pressure on them as they did it before. Even if they pass the ball to Bird, he wasn't like he would just stay there. There were times where he would walk the ball up and start the offense as well. The Bulls length would be a problem within the passing lane.

The Celts are good at taking care of the ball relative to their era tho. Doubling teaming the Celts isn't wise tho since they tend to punish with their passing skills. There were times where teams would try to trap the celts in full and half court and got punished hard for it. Parish and Mchale are great running big men, and Bird could run the floor decent enough to create something. Lets say if the Bulls do trap Ainge, one player is open. If they pass it to Bird, it's over. If they pass it Mchale in the open court (leave him open), it's over because he is capable of finishing. You have to pick your poison.

And the Bulls have faced against great front lines. While the bigs usually get their averages, they tend to stop everybody else. The problem with the Celts is that they have so many weapons to toss at you. Not only they have bigs, they have solid perimeter play. If they can't stop Parish and Mchale, they gott'a stop Bird somehow and that's easier said than done in 86. Ainge and DJ could make open shots and the bench you still have Wedman and Walton. They have the talent and players to adapt to different situations. They both have players to counter attack, and both are smart. This could go either or, but I would give the edge to the Celts due to the talent.

[3ball]

I mean Pippen's PPG went from 17 in 93 to 22 in 94. Thats not a huge jump?


You're numbers are inaccurate - here's Pippen's ACTUAL ppg beginning when he became a perennial/every year All-Star and All-NBA player:

1992: 21.0
1993: 18.6
1994: 22.0
1995: 21.4
1996: 19.4
1997: 20.2
1998: 19.1

Just looking at the numbers and not knowing anything else, you'd never think the highest scorer of all time and his 32 PPG was on the team, and then taken off the team.. The numbers barely change - MJ's style simply allowed teammates to play to capacity.. :confusedshrug:





I mean one could say there was literally a one game difference between the 94 Bulls and the Rockets.


They were a Pippen choke foul away from going up 3-2, but they were a Kukoc walk-off away from being down 3-0.. Btw, just think if Phil had succumbed to Pippen's demand and let him take the last shot instead of Kukoc - then the Bulls would've been swept - so all the hypothetical "if this, if that" stuff is useless.

Also, it's amazing how often Pippen choked - this series with the foul, then he sat out when Kukoc hit the game-winner, he disappeared in 1990 ECF costing the Bulls a trip to the Finals, and then he had abysmal Finals in 1996 and 1998.

But most importantly, the 1994 Bulls got eliminated in the 2nd round.. So they weren't 1 game from the Finals/Rockets.. To match what MJ did, the 1994 Bulls would've had to beat the Knicks first, then beat the Pacers, and THEN the beat the Rockets.. They did none of these things.. One game away, gimme a break.. :facepalm





But you still didn't answer the question, did Jordan need to take twice as many shots as anyone else on the dream team?


The best player takes the most shots... But look, the Dream Team was chalk-full of HOF's and alphas... Yet, they had no problem with MJ doing what he wanted - and btw, you really shouldn't be surprised anytime you find out MJ did alpha stuff that would be unfathomable and never happen for Lebron.. MJ was so much better, that he could take twice as many shots playing alongside Bird, Magic and the like, while Lebron takes a backseat to much lesser players.





What are you talking about?


You made a comment about how Kerr's 3-point shooting helped spread the floor for MJ - but today's game takes FAR more 3-pointers - virtually every player in the league enjoys a far more spaced court than MJ ever got.

[97 bulls]

Wilkins tried variety of things actually, none of them worked efficiently. He tried beating him off the dribble, tried posting him up, tried facing him up, and tried to shoot over him. Nothing worked. The reason why is because Mchale had the footwork to keep up with a guy like Worthy and the length to bother centers. The Hawks had an offense, it was just shut down. The Celts defense was the best in the league that year.
But everything you mentioned is conducive to Iso ball. Call for a pick or screen.



Eh...it's not like the Celts haven't dealt with a full court press before, but you're right that the Bulls were better than any team that year when it comes to defense and they played more full court press than any team that they faced that year. When they dealt with crazy defense hard press defense like that, they did pass it to Bird and he dribble to the ball to create. Usually they surprise them because of Bird passing/shooting skills. Mchale sometimes would be free and he is surprisingly good going full stream.
Dude. The Celtics NEVER encountered a team that pressed like that. NEVER!!!!&!!!


And one thing, the Celts seemingly adapt to a bunch of situations. They could out run more athletic teams like the Rockets and Hawks, or take it slow. Commentators even recommend those teams to take it slow because the Celts have too much talent in the fast break, but at the same time they have too much talent in the half court. You have to pick your poison.
So did the Bulls.





Bobby Jones? Yes, he did. He had Maurice Cheeks, who was consistently 1st in the defensive team in his day. Moses Malone. Dr. J was also solid defensively. And they also faced Rodman, Bill Liambeer, Joe Dumars. They faced Paul Pressey and Sidney Moncrief. Terry Cummings wasn't bad either even though he would probably disagree and he thought he was a better defender later on his career, and he was with the Bucks along with Moncreif and Pressey. As I said before, it's not like they haven't faced legendary defenders before. They faced them, and it didn't stop them.
Dude the Bulls have arguably 3 of the top ten defensive players ALL TIME. Picture three Bobby Jones like defenders.





Haha. He has more moves than just that. He has a nice fadeaway, nice hook shot, and decent jumper. Even the commentators in the Rockets Finals against the Celts mentioned how Mchale was the best they seen in years of getting the shot off on the catch. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9NiWaGBNXw#t=1h23m18s)
Would he be able to catch and and shoot at a rate high enough to win a series vs the Bulls? I don't think so.


Many coaches and players mention how difficult it was to guard him to point of being impossible.
But it becomes much easier when it has to be done under duress




We agree on Bulls advantages, but disagree on the Celts or the details in this situation. Like DJ or Ainge don't have to pass the ball unless they do double. Both are capable of bringing down the court to start the offense with pressure on them as they did it before. Even if they pass the ball to Bird, he wasn't like he would just stay there. There were times where he would walk the ball up and start the offense as well. The Bulls length would be a problem within the passing lane.

The Celts are good at taking care of the ball relative to their era tho. Doubling teaming the Celts isn't wise tho since they tend to punish with their passing skills. There were times where teams would try to trap the celts in full and half court and got punished hard for it. Parish and Mchale are great running big men, and Bird could run the floor decent enough to create something. Lets say if the Bulls do trap Ainge, one player is open. If they pass it to Bird, it's over. If they pass it Mchale in the open court (leave him open), it's over because he is capable of finishing. You have to pick your poison.

And the Bulls have faced against great front lines. While the bigs usually get their averages, they tend to stop everybody else. The problem with the Celts is that they have so many weapons to toss at you. Not only they have bigs, they have solid perimeter play. If they can't stop Parish and Mchale, they gott'a stop Bird somehow and that's easier said than done in 86. Ainge and DJ could make open shots and the bench you still have Wedman and Walton. They have the talent and players to adapt to different situations. They both have players to counter attack, and both are smart. This could go either or, but I would give the edge to the Celts due to the talent.
Again, youre missing my point. Magic, Mark Jackson, John Stockton, Rod Strickland, Penny Hardaway, were far better PGs than Ainge and Johnson, but somehow its gonna work for them?

And sure the Celtics had a better front line, but so did many teams the Bulls faced. Many had better front lines. There's only one ball. And the Celtics always had an advantage as far as their frontline. They had a frontline advantage vs the Lakers, and yet still lost 2 out of 3 times.

I also disagree that they had more talent. They had more offensive firepower, (and even thats not totally accurate) but the Bulls have the defense, athleticism, and an both were high IQ teams.

[LeBird]

I bet your dumbass thinks the 12 Heat > 96 Bulls, too. :rolleyes:

Nah, Wade and Bosh weren't the same during the Heat's ring years.

96 Bulls are an ATG great team; but I don't even think they'd be the 3rd best team in the 80s. Lakers, check. Celtics, check. The Sixers, check. Then it's probably them.


:oldlol:

Even the '97 and '92 Bulls can beat those teams.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/624/189/795.gif

[Mr Feeny]

Nah, Wade and Bosh weren't the same during the Heat's ring years.

96 Bulls are an ATG great team; but I don't even think they'd be the 3rd best team in the 80s. Lakers, check. Celtics, check. The Sixers, check. Then it's probably them.



http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/624/189/795.gif

Tbf if you think the 80's Sixers would beat the 96 Bulls, you're the "retard".

[Micku]

But everything you mentioned is conducive to Iso ball. Call for a pick or screen.

They ran picks too to get him open on the low block, to get him open in the corner or to cause a switch up. It didn't work. Nothing did in that series. He couldn't get by Mchale, and even if he did, the Celts would trap him or Parish or Walton would be waiting for him.


Dude. The Celtics NEVER encountered a team that pressed like that. NEVER!!!!&!!!
Yes and no. As I said before, they never faced a team like the Bulls who pressed consistently. But they have faced full court pressed before.

DJ getting pressured at full court:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9NiWaGBNXw#t=1h43m12s


They faced traps to get the ball out of Ainge or DJ hands before.

They dealt with stuff like that. Or doubling teaming Mchale in the post try to get hands out of DJ or Ainge hands. It wasn't new. And it's not like the Celts would stand around either. They knew when to cut, when to screen for an open man, and knew when to move. Were the Bulls better and more consistent than the teams that they faced on defense? Yes. Did the Celts faced something similar traps? Yes.


Dude the Bulls have arguably 3 of the top ten defensive players ALL TIME. Picture three Bobby Jones like defenders.

Depends on your top 10. I feel like it's better to rank in tiers than actual number rankings. I feel like it's a bit less subjective with actual tiers than to say that person is better than that person cause of eye test or rewards. In any case, my point is that the Celtics have faced against legendary defenders before.



Would he be able to catch and and shoot at a rate high enough to win a series vs the Bulls? I don't think so.

Of course not. There will be times he'll have ten seconds on the shot clock or more, so he wouldn't need to. Just like all the other frontlines that the Bulls faced. Like I said before, Mchale is arguably the best post player ever. Crazy efficient with so many moves and counter moves. He already face some of good defenders, and it didn't matter. And even if by some super rare chance he isn't feeling it, they could go to Parish, Bird or Walton.

It's unlikely they could stop Mchale. They didn't really stop any other bigs from getting theirs, but they made them work.


Again, youre missing my point. Magic, Mark Jackson, John Stockton, Rod Strickland, Penny Hardaway, were far better PGs than Ainge and Johnson, but somehow its gonna work for them?

It's because their offense isn't necessary dependent upon a singular person to start the offense unlike Penny, Mark Jackson, John Stockton, or Magic's team. DJ and Ainge weren't even their best playmaker, that was Bird. And Bird did start the offense a few times before. And even if you stop DJ, you pass it to Ainge or Bird, then they would start to do something. If you want to operate in the post, you could have Bird, Mchale, Parish or Walton. Mchale improved on his passing game that year. You can't leave Ainge or DJ open. You see options and the firepower they have? They have so many choices to go to. They were loaded and had so much versatility.

Granted, the Bulls defense versatility to combat that. So, it'll be interesting.


And sure the Celtics had a better front line, but so did many teams the Bulls faced. Many had better front lines. There's only one ball. And the Celtics always had an advantage as far as their frontline. They had a frontline advantage vs the Lakers, and yet still lost 2 out of 3 times.

And the team that knows that it's just one ball are the Celtics. They were the best passing team that year. They were getting hyped as being the best passing team ever at that time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFrRnWEt3Z4

70% of their FGs came off of passing in the playoffs.

Oh and you're right. they did lose the Lakers. Their frontline advantaged helped, but it wasn't enough. But the Lakers had Kareem who wasn't too shabby himself whenever he faced them. I wonder what's his averages against them in all the finals they faced each other against. Kareem always destroys them.


I also disagree that they had more talent. They had more offensive firepower, (and even thats not totally accurate) but the Bulls have the defense, athleticism, and an both were high IQ teams.

I would say position by position, they had more talent apart from the SG. In fact, almost every 1, 3, 4, 5 were pretty much all stars and HoFs around their prime or about to close out of their prime offensively and defensively. Overall more talented I would say. The Bulls still had Rodman, Pippen and Jordan still. So, we would agree to disagree.

They are a match to the Bulls. They have the bigs, they have the IQ, and they have the talent (which I think is better). The bulls have the defense versatility to match with them and athleticism and IQ. Plus they do have MJ. It would be fun to see MJ and Bird do battle in the clutch.

[LeBird]

Tbf if you think the 80's Sixers would beat the 96 Bulls, you're the "retard".

Many people think the 83 Sixers are the greatest team of the 80s. It was a 65-17 team, in that era, and only lost 1 game in the entire playoffs.

-Moses Malone
-Dr J
-Andrew Toney
-Maurice Cheeks
-Bobby Jones

It's one of the most stacked teams of all-time, in the most stacked conference of all time, in the most stacked era of all-time. You're a moron.

[Micku]

Tbf if you think the 80's Sixers would beat the 96 Bulls, you're the "retard".

Dude, the 83 Sixers was pretty good. They might give them a run for their money. I do think the 96 Bulls would win, but it would be a fun matchup. Moses vs Rodman fighting for the boards and the defensive battles would be fun.

[Mr Feeny]

Many people think the 83 Sixers are the greatest team of the 80s. It was a 65-17 team, in that era, and only lost 1 game in the entire playoffs.

-Moses Malone
-Dr J
-Andrew Toney
-Maurice Cheeks
-Bobby Jones

It's one of the most stacked teams of all-time, in the most stacked conference of all time, in the most stacked era of all-time. You're a moron.

More ad hominems and then calling other posters idiots. Great stuff here:applause: You're terrific in the art of debate:applause:

[Mr Feeny]

Dude, the 83 Sixers was pretty good. They might give them a run for their money. I do think the 96 Bulls would win, but it would be a fun matchup. Moses vs Rodman fighting for the boards and the defensive battles would be fun.

Agreed, as were the 80's Celtics and Lakers. The difference is, while many believe the 86 Celtics were the greatest team of all time, very few would agree with that poster's position and argue that the 83 Sixers would have beaten the 96 Bulls.

Rodman and Moses would battle for the boards but Rodman is the greatest rebounder of all time for my money, and was still on top of his game in 96.
Jordan and Pippen (especially defensively) were PESTS to play against, along with Harper. I just don't think many people would put their money on the Sixers beating those Bulls.
That 86 Celtics team has a much better chance on the other hand.

[Mr Feeny]

Dude, the 83 Sixers was pretty good. They might give them a run for their money. I do think the 96 Bulls would win, but it would be a fun matchup. Moses vs Rodman fighting for the boards and the defensive battles would be fun.

You're a decent enough poster to make a proper argument. LeBird just hit me with a neg and a "lol" to top it off as he does with anyone who disagrees with his minority view. Terrific poster, that guy. No wonder this board is suffused with clowns.

[aj1987]

Many people think the 83 Sixers are the greatest team of the 80s. It was a 65-17 team, in that era, and only lost 1 game in the entire playoffs.

-Moses Malone
-Dr J
-Andrew Toney
-Maurice Cheeks
-Bobby Jones

It's one of the most stacked teams of all-time, in the most stacked conference of all time, in the most stacked era of all-time. You're a moron.
Jordan, Rodman, and Pippen. Two of the greatest perimeter defenders. The GOAT scorer (**** off Lazerus). One of the GOAT defender and rebounder in Rodman. Then you have Kerr and Kukoc coming off the bench. Not to mention one of the GOAT coaches. I don't see the Sixers beating the Bulls.

[Showtime80']

What's the difference between the 80's Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, Sixers and the 90's Bulls? Only one of those teams needed one player to AVERAGE between 30 to 32 points just to be competitive, guess which one?

The 90's were weaker then the 80's. Take a look at who else won titles from 1991 to 1999 the Rockets with a one man team in 1994 and with an old Clyde Drexler in 1995, the 1999 Spurs were a little better but nowhere near as potent as the 80's teams.

In the 80's you needed superpowered teams to win tittles, in the 90's one man and two man teams like the Bulls, Knicks, Rockets, Jazz and Spurs basically dominated a weaker league! The 80's Celtics and Lakers bad guys like Kevin McHale, Bill Walton, Scott Wedmann, Bob McAddo, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Mychael Thompson etc... Coming off the BENCH! LOL at Steve Kerr, Judd Buechler and Tony Kukoc!

Put the same 80's super teams in the 90's East and they put up the same number of titles and wins as the Bulls!

[hitmanyr2k]

What's the difference between the 80's Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, Sixers and the 90's Bulls? Only one of those teams needed one player to AVERAGE between 30 to 32 points just to be competitive, guess which one?

The 90's were weaker then the 80's. Take a look at who else won titles from 1991 to 1999 the Rockets with a one man team in 1994 and with an old Clyde Drexler in 1995, the 1999 Spurs were a little better but nowhere near as potent as the 80's teams.

In the 80's you needed superpowered teams to win tittles, in the 90's one man and two man teams like the Bulls, Knicks, Rockets, Jazz and Spurs basically dominated a weaker league! The 80's Celtics and Lakers bad guys like Kevin McHale, Bill Walton, Scott Wedmann, Bob McAddo, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Mychael Thompson etc... Coming off the BENCH! LOL at Steve Kerr, Judd Buechler and Tony Kukoc!

Put the same 80's super teams in the 90's East and they put up the same number of titles and wins as the Bulls!

80's East was vastly superior to 80's West. The Lakers went to so many NBA Finals because they had a stacked team and the West had lesser competition. The 90's Bulls would absolutely FEAST on the finesse 80's West teams lol. 80's East would give them more of a challenge.

[julizaver]

What's the difference between the 80's Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, Sixers and the 90's Bulls? Only one of those teams needed one player to AVERAGE between 30 to 32 points just to be competitive, guess which one?

The 90's were weaker then the 80's. Take a look at who else won titles from 1991 to 1999 the Rockets with a one man team in 1994 and with an old Clyde Drexler in 1995, the 1999 Spurs were a little better but nowhere near as potent as the 80's teams.

In the 80's you needed superpowered teams to win tittles, in the 90's one man and two man teams like the Bulls, Knicks, Rockets, Jazz and Spurs basically dominated a weaker league! The 80's Celtics and Lakers bad guys like Kevin McHale, Bill Walton, Scott Wedmann, Bob McAddo, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Mychael Thompson etc... Coming off the BENCH! LOL at Steve Kerr, Judd Buechler and Tony Kukoc!

Put the same 80's super teams in the 90's East and they put up the same number of titles and wins as the Bulls!

Yes, probably - but put '96 Bulls in the 80s and they would stole 2-3 tittles also and I would guarantee you that it would tarnish Celtics/Bird legacy.

And I am not going to mention Tony Kukoc it the same breath as Judd Buechler and Steve Kerr - he was very talented offensive player and even won 6th man of the year award. And he was in his prime years - had he played in mediocre NBA team at the time he would be a 20 ppg, 5 apg, 5 rpg easy. A player like Ron Harper was a star in Clippers before joining Bulls. But playing alongside Pippen and Jordan is not easy for other perimeter players.

[97 bulls]

What's the difference between the 80's Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, Sixers and the 90's Bulls? Only one of those teams needed one player to AVERAGE between 30 to 32 points just to be competitive, guess which one?
Oh come on. The Sixers were done after 83. Done!!!!!! The Pistons werent a Power House until 88. And by then, the Celtics were done. The only true Power House team was the Lakers and they played in a terrible conference.



In the 80's you needed superpowered teams to win tittles, in the 90's one man and two man teams like the Bulls, Knicks, Rockets, Jazz and Spurs basically dominated a weaker league! The 80's Celtics and Lakers bad guys like Kevin McHale, Bill Walton, Scott Wedmann, Bob McAddo, James Worthy, Michael Cooper, Mychael Thompson etc... Coming off the BENCH! LOL at Steve Kerr, Judd Buechler and Tony Kukoc!
What? The Sonics had Payton, Kemp, Shrempf, Perkins, Hawkins. The Magic had Shaq, Hardaway, Grant, Anderson, and Scott. The Heat had Mourning, Hardaway, Marjle, Brown, and Pat Riley. The S The Bulls beat the Lakers and Pistons in 91. They beat some great teams. And you talk about Bill Walton in 86? Jason Caffey basically put up the same stats in 97 as he (Walton) did in 86.

[97 bulls]

Yes, probably - but put '96 Bulls in the 80s and they would stole 2-3 tittles also and I would guarantee you that it would tarnish Celtics/Bird legacy.

And I am not going to mention Tony Kukoc it the same breath as Judd Buechler and Steve Kerr - he was very talented offensive player and even won 6th man of the year award. And he was in his prime years - had he played in mediocre NBA team at the time he would be a 20 ppg, 5 apg, 5 rpg easy. A player like Ron Harper was a star in Clippers before joining Bulls. But playing alongside Pippen and Jordan is not easy for other perimeter players.
Exactly.

[MiseryCityTexas]

Dude, the 83 Sixers was pretty good. They might give them a run for their money. I do think the 96 Bulls would win, but it would be a fun matchup. Moses vs Rodman fighting for the boards and the defensive battles would be fun.

96 Jordan would destroy 83 Andrew Toney.

[MiseryCityTexas]

83 Sixers frontcourt has the Bulls beat though. No way in hell Luc Longley, Caffey, and Rodman is stopping Moses Malone.

[LeBird]

Agreed, as were the 80's Celtics and Lakers. The difference is, while many believe the 86 Celtics were the greatest team of all time, very few would agree with that poster's position and argue that the 83 Sixers would have beaten the 96 Bulls.

Rodman and Moses would battle for the boards but Rodman is the greatest rebounder of all time for my money, and was still on top of his game in 96.
Jordan and Pippen (especially defensively) were PESTS to play against, along with Harper. I just don't think many people would put their money on the Sixers beating those Bulls.
That 86 Celtics team has a much better chance on the other hand.

You're hilariously wrong. A lot of people consider the 83 Sixers even better than the 86 Celtics or 87 Lakers. So at best I'd consider it debatable.

And in my original post I said that I wasn't sure that the Bulls would even be the 3rd best team. For me, the 86 Celtics and 87 Lakers are clearly better, little to debate about; and it can be argued that the 83 Sixers are even better than the 96 Bulls.

The 96 Bulls were dominant in what became a watered-down league; but star-packed teams were the norm in the 80s and the 3 best are the aforementioned. 65 wins in the 80s > 72 wins in the 90s; and there is no comparison what the 83 Sixers had to go through in terms of quality in the playoffs compared to 96 Bulls.

What I called retarded was someone saying that the 92 and 97 Bulls better than the 86 Celtics. If you don't think that's stupid then you're pretty stupid AFAIC.


You're a decent enough poster to make a proper argument. LeBird just hit me with a neg and a "lol" to top it off as he does with anyone who disagrees with his minority view. Terrific poster, that guy. No wonder this board is suffused with clowns.

I negged you? Pretty sure I repped you for another post.

[LeBird]

96 Jordan would destroy 83 Andrew Toney.


83 Sixers frontcourt has the Bulls beat though. No way in hell Luc Longley, Caffey, and Rodman is stopping Moses Malone.


Toney was a 20/3/5/1 3rd option - NBA All-Star in his 3rd year. :lol He was a beast until his injuries cut his career short.

The Sixers were far more blessed. Back-to-Back MVP Moses (also Finals MVP) and a 24/7/4/2/2 Dr J as the 2nd option. Bobby Jones as an All-NBA Defensive first team. Maurice Cheeks as NBA All-Star and All-NBA Defensive first team. Not to mention, Moses was also All-NBA Defensive first team as well (yes, they had 3 All-NBA Defensive first team players).

They were as stacked as teams came in the most stacked conference in the most stacked era. The Bulls played in a watered-down era where even Dennis Rodman admitted they wouldn't have won as much in the 80s. That Sixers team only lost 1 game in the whole playoffs - that Bulls team still lost 5.

[97 bulls]

Toney was a 20/3/5/1 3rd option - NBA All-Star in his 3rd year. :lol He was a beast until his injuries cut his career short.

The Sixers were far more blessed. Back-to-Back MVP Moses (also Finals MVP) and a 24/7/4/2/2 Dr J as the 2nd option. Bobby Jones as an All-NBA Defensive first team. Maurice Cheeks as NBA All-Star and All-NBA Defensive first team. Not to mention, Moses was also All-NBA Defensive first team as well (yes, they had 3 All-NBA Defensive first team players).

They were as stacked as teams came in the most stacked conference in the most stacked era. The Bulls played in a watered-down era where even Dennis Rodman admitted they wouldn't have won as much in the 80s. That Sixers team only lost 1 game in the whole playoffs - that Bulls team still lost 5.
Lol. You guys cant be even slightly objective. And then lie. I've told you this before, that statement you said Rodman made....... you took it out if context. What he said was that even though the Bulls were winning a lot of games (mind you he made this comment in the early part of the 96 season) the 96 Bulls can't be compared to past greats BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT WON A CHAMPIONSHIP YET.

So then you go back to this "weak era" jive. Well answer this question. The 94 Bulls were able to win 55 games without their best player in Jordan playing in a league a league that had the same amount of teams as the mighty Celtics that only managed to win 42 games without theirs only 5 years earlier in 89. And let's put some backstory behind it. 89 was an expansion year. 8 of those 42 wins came against said expansion teams. Care to explain why?

And even if you feel the league was "weak" remember, the Bulls were winning games at a rate that had never been done before. From 92 to 97, the Bulls had season where they won 67, 72, and 69 games. But your assessment, how much better were the 80s teams? And mind you, other than 93 (a year in which the Bulls won 57 games and people said they coasted) the Bulls were always missing key players. How many wins do they get in 94 had Jordan not retired? Probably 68-70. How about in 95 when Jordan came back late and they lost their best big in Grant? 65-68? Or in 98 when Pippen missed half the season and yet they still win 62 games? Probably another 70.

Its not unreasonable to think that had the Bulls had their key players there, theyd probably won 70 games 3-4 times. And be in the high 60s in their other seasons.

[Mr Feeny]

I negged you? Pretty sure I repped you for another post.

Nope. You negged me. Put your name there, and added a "lol" just to punctuate your immaturity. And now you're lying about it. Great stuff. Carry on negging.

[97 bulls]

Nope. You negged me. Put your name there, and added a "lol" just to punctuate your immaturity. And now you're lying about it. Great stuff. Carry on negging.
I know I don't need to speak for LeBird, and I know he has the IQ of a stone when it comes to basketball (sorry LeBird), but he seems like a standup guy. We've had knock down drag outs over the Bulls and Celtics and hes never negged me.

[Showtime80']

Again if the 90's were so tough, how come the Rockets went back to back with lineups radically inferior to those of the 80's champions specially the 1994 team who's second best player was Vernon friggin Maxwell!?! The 1995 team won as damn 6th seed!!!

Please don't bring up one and two year wonders like the Magic and Heat and the Seattle Sonics who consistently choked away series to lower seeds in multiple times. The 80's Bucks had more stacked rosters and they were contending for about eight straight years being a thorn in the side of the decade powerhouses.

The 80's West might have been weaker overall in comparison to the East but not to the level people make it out to be. From 1979 to 1991 the West had 47% winning stat against the East, hell of a lot more respectable then the 42% the East has had against the West since 2003.

[97 bulls]

Again if the 90's were so tough, how come the Rockets went back to back with lineups radically inferior to those of the 80's champions specially the 1994 team who's second best player was Vernon friggin Maxwell!?! The 1995 team won as damn 6th seed!!!
The Lakers lost to teams they had no business losing to. Come on. And that 94 Rockets.team wasn't the first to win under a scenario of not having top tier talent. Wont be the last either. It happens. However, they did have a damn good teams. It wasnt Just Olajuwan and Maxwell. What about Thorpe? Horry? Smith? Cassell? Rudy T at the helm. They had a very good team. The next year they got Drexler. Im sure that if they had him the whole year, their record would've been much better.



Please don't bring up one and two year wonders like the Magic and Heat and the Seattle Sonics who consistently choked away series to lower seeds in multiple times. The 80's Bucks had more stacked rosters and they were contending for about eight straight years being a thorn in the side of the decade powerhouses.
Lol. So your idea of a competitive league is two teams beating the snot out the evryone else? Come on.


The 80's West might have been weaker overall in comparison to the East but not to the level people make it out to be. From 1979 to 1991 the West had 47% winning stat against the East, hell of a lot more respectable then the 42% the East has had against the West since 2003.
But were talking about the 90s vs the 80s.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Nope. You negged me. Put your name there, and added a "lol" just to punctuate your immaturity. And now you're lying about it. Great stuff. Carry on negging.

If there's a signature on a neg it's usually not from the user whose name appears.

[3ball]

Again if the 90's were so tough, how come the Rockets went back to back with lineups radically inferior to those of the 80's champions?


Because a massive historic anomaly happened when the GOAT retired at 30 years old, thus allowing the Rockets to win it all without having to play the championship-caliber MJ-Bulls.

But give Hakeem credit - he played as well as any big man has ever played in the playoffs by dominating Robinson and Ewing - when you have the most dominant center performance of all-time, it becomes possible to lead a team with a weak supporting cast..

The Rockets had no all-stars in 1994 (although Otis Thorpe was an all-star, but just not that particular year), similar to how Jordan had no other all-stars either in 1991 (which required MJ to have a GOAT performance too).
.

[julizaver]

I see that a discussion about '96 Bulls is becoming more of a discussion about 80s and 90s. My thoughs/memories are the following:

1) the mid to late 80s are considered the Golden Age of basketball for reason - NBA was stacked with stars, arguibly the most stacked era of basketball full with legends, established stars and new generation of talents. There was huge increase in popularity, tv coverage, money and so on. Just looked at the All-Star teams.

2)the 90s were also very stacked as the star players from mid to late 80s played deep into the 90s. There was also a new wave of good players in the early 90s drafts. Therefore even if the 80s were better than the 90s it was not by huge margin, and there is no big difference in the level of play.

3)In my opinion the '96 Bulls team is the best Bulls team ever and was superior to '93 team. And of course superior to '89 and '90 team that lost to back to back champions Pistons.

Conclusion: A team like '96 Bulls would win a tittle in any era.

[LeBird]

Nope. You negged me. Put your name there, and added a "lol" just to punctuate your immaturity. And now you're lying about it. Great stuff. Carry on negging.

If I did it was by accident. I was actually agreeing with you - link the post here for interest's sake. I don't neg anyone here.


I know I don't need to speak for LeBird, and I know he has the IQ of a stone when it comes to basketball (sorry LeBird), but he seems like a standup guy. We've had knock down drag outs over the Bulls and Celtics and hes never negged me.

Yeah, he's a clueless Pippen homer (sorry 97 Bulls) but he's right, I don't neg ;).


Lol. You guys cant be even slightly objective. And then lie. I've told you this before, that statement you said Rodman made....... you took it out if context. What he said was that even though the Bulls were winning a lot of games (mind you he made this comment in the early part of the 96 season) the 96 Bulls can't be compared to past greats BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT WON A CHAMPIONSHIP YET.

So then you go back to this "weak era" jive. Well answer this question. The 94 Bulls were able to win 55 games without their best player in Jordan playing in a league a league that had the same amount of teams as the mighty Celtics that only managed to win 42 games without theirs only 5 years earlier in 89. And let's put some backstory behind it. 89 was an expansion year. 8 of those 42 wins came against said expansion teams. Care to explain why?

And even if you feel the league was "weak" remember, the Bulls were winning games at a rate that had never been done before. From 92 to 97, the Bulls had season where they won 67, 72, and 69 games. But your assessment, how much better were the 80s teams? And mind you, other than 93 (a year in which the Bulls won 57 games and people said they coasted) the Bulls were always missing key players. How many wins do they get in 94 had Jordan not retired? Probably 68-70. How about in 95 when Jordan came back late and they lost their best big in Grant? 65-68? Or in 98 when Pippen missed half the season and yet they still win 62 games? Probably another 70.

Its not unreasonable to think that had the Bulls had their key players there, theyd probably won 70 games 3-4 times. And be in the high 60s in their other seasons.

Being stacked relative to your era - like the 90s Bulls, even when they lost Jordan - does not mean they were stacked to the same degree relative to the 80s. They weren't. They would have probably won a ring, maybe two; but it is debatable (IMO, to their detriment) whether they were better than the 83 Sixers. I place those Sixers 3rd, but it'd be dishonest to say they didn't have a decent argument for the best team in the 80s. So for the 96 Bulls to be inferior to them isn't particularly outrageous or insulting. The 80s >> the 90s.

P.S. what I remember is: "We could not have won 70 games playing against 1980's teams." - Rodman. Where is the context for that statement if it was otherwise?

[Lebron23]

My favorite player.

http://exnba.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/randy-brown.jpg

http://www.tradingcarddb.com/Images/Cards/Basketball/2462/2462-688713Fr.jpg

http://i.iplsc.com/randy-brown/0002LHWWMIRB89MD-C121.jpg

http://nishi.33.free.fr/Bulls/Brown,%20Randy%2095-2000.JPG

[97 bulls]

Yeah, he's a clueless Pippen homer (sorry 97 Bulls) but he's right, I don't neg ;).
Lol. No problem bro. :cheers:



Being stacked relative to your era - like the 90s Bulls, even when they lost Jordan - does not mean they were stacked to the same degree relative to the 80s. They weren't. They would have probably won a ring, maybe two; but it is debatable (IMO, to their detriment) whether they were better than the 83 Sixers. I place those Sixers 3rd, but it'd be dishonest to say they didn't have a decent argument for the best team in the 80s. So for the 96 Bulls to be inferior to them isn't particularly outrageous or insulting. The 80s >> the 90s.
It's my understanding that you feel that based on expansion in 96, the league became "watered down" and thus "diluted" the talent. Well the pre 96, the league had the same amount of teams, so that theory is blown to smithereens.


P.S. what I remember is: "We could not have won 70 games playing against 1980's teams." - Rodman. Where is the context for that statement if it was otherwise?
He never said such. I googled the quote and only found it used in the same context as you used it and whats more, from unreputable sources. The quote stems from people who said he said it.

[Mr Feeny]

If I did it was by accident. I was actually agreeing with you - link the post here for interest's sake. I don't neg anyone here.



Oh if that's the case, then I apologise. The posters on here do seem to have quite a bit of respect for you. I suspect that - as one of the posters mentioned above - someone put your name on his neg to stir the pot.

Cheers.

[Mr Feeny]

He never said such. I googled the quote and only found it used in the same context as you used it and whats more, from unreputable sources. The quote stems from people who said he said it.


I think he might have said it in his book. He did mention that he thought his 80's Detroit team was better than the 1996 Bulls. A bit of a stretch, but that's his opinion on it in any case.

[LeBird]

Lol. No problem bro. :cheers:

It's my understanding that you feel that based on expansion in 96, the league became "watered down" and thus "diluted" the talent. Well the pre 96, the league had the same amount of teams, so that theory is blown to smithereens.


He never said such. I googled the quote and only found it used in the same context as you used it and whats more, from unreputable sources. The quote stems from people who said he said it.

No, the expansion played a part in the general watering down; however the league in general fell in terms of quality. The 80s was a coming together of the best talent the NBA has ever seen.

The Jazz who were probably the Bulls' biggest competition in the 90s were, ironically, even better in the 80s.

As for the Rodman quote; I've heard it stated several times although I can't remember the source. I also recall him saying that Lebron would be average in the 80s or early 90s - a ridiculous opinion, but corroborates how he felt about those eras. You said the context was different; I was asking how so?

[Showtime80']

So basically what you're saying 97 Bulls is that the 90's Bulls beat the snot out of everyone else?!? At least in the 80's you had four teams that that would be considered in the top 10 greatest of all times! How many did the 90's have besides the Bulls?!? Adding to that teams like the Bucks, Rockets, Jazz, Suns, Sonics, Cavs, Spurs, Nuggets, Mavs etc... Check out some of the lineups those teams had in the early to late 80's and you would see better lineups than the 90's Blazers, Knicks, Sonics or Magic ever had!

[97 bulls]

No, the expansion played a part in the general watering down; however the league in general fell in terms of quality. The 80s was a coming together of the best talent the NBA has ever seen.
You have no way to quantify this assertion. So why say it. Seems like a cop out to me.


The Jazz who were probably the Bulls' biggest competition in the 90s were, ironically, even better in the 80s.
And they were beating teams far more talented than they were as well. The Jazz were sort of an anomaly because in my opinion, they won based on heart and they scrapped. Theyre a classic case of the it not being the size of the dog but the Heart.


As for the Rodman quote; I've heard it stated several times although I can't remember the source. I also recall him saying that Lebron would be average in the 80s or early 90s - a ridiculous opinion, but corroborates how he felt about those eras. You said the context was different; I was asking how so?
I've heard it stated several times as well. But its always a poster on a forum saying he said it. Never an actual quote from him.

But I will say this, Rodman says a lot of off the wall things. He also said Larry Bird was overrated. Do you agree with that? Id assume so seeing as how you hinge on Rodmans every word.

[97 bulls]

So basically what you're saying 97 Bulls is that the 90's Bulls beat the snot out of everyone else?!? At least in the 80's you had four teams that that would be considered in the top 10 greatest of all times! How many did the 90's have besides the Bulls?!? Adding to that teams like the Bucks, Rockets, Jazz, Suns, Sonics, Cavs, Spurs, Nuggets, Mavs etc... Check out some of the lineups those teams had in the early to late 80's and you would see better lineups than the 90's Blazers, Knicks, Sonics or Magic ever had!
Oh come on. Theres no real way to quantify that the teams you mentioned were better than the 90s teams. If thats the case anyone could say such. Im basing this off of records, CONTEXTUAL STATS, etc.

Case and point. The 97 Bullets had a starting five of Webber , Howard, Strickland, Chaney, and Muresan. And the best they could win was 44 games that year.

My point is even if you feel they were better, its not by enough to make the kind of determination youree trying to make.

[Showtime80']

The determination is that the 80's weren't just "two teams beating up on each other" or basically the 90's were just the Bulls beating up on an entire diluted league!

Again you need real STACKED teams in the 80's to win titles were as teams like the 90's Rockets, Knicks, Bulls and Jazz virtually dominated the league with 1 and 2 man teams because the league became weaker!

Not the Bulls fault though, the salary cap, expansion and basic decay in overall fundamentals virtually GUARANTEED that you were NEVER going to see teams like those of the 80's again. The 90's Bulls were a very good team just not as talented overall as those Lakers or Celtics and it would show in a 7 game series no matter how great Michael was

[97 bulls]

The determination is that the 80's weren't just "two teams beating up on each other" or basically the 90's were just the Bulls beating up on an entire diluted league!

What????? The Lakers made the Finals 8 out of ten years bro. Boston went 5/6 times. You're argument makes no sense. What does that say for their competition based on youre assesmemt? Whats more, is that what your saying is that it would've been better had the Bulls lost a championship or two. Which in all honesty wouldn't have been better because then you would've used that as your reason as to why they're not as good as the great 80s teams.



Again you need real STACKED teams in the 80's to win titles were as teams like the 90's Rockets, Knicks, Bulls and Jazz virtually dominated the league with 1 and 2 man teams because the league became weaker!
The Lakers dominated with what was basically two great players and 3/4 very good one. By 87, Kareem was no where near the player he was in the 70s and early 80s. 17 pts and 7 rebounds? Thats Rik Smits type numbers. In the 80s no less. By 87, Magic and Worthy became the Lakers two best players. In the early 80s, it was Jabbar and Johnson.



Not the Bulls fault though, the salary cap, expansion and basic decay in overall fundamentals virtually GUARANTEED that you were NEVER going to see teams like those of the 80's again. The 90's Bulls were a very good team just not as talented overall as those Lakers or Celtics and it would show in a 7 game series no matter how great Michael was
Lol incredible. The NBA has had a salry cap since the mid 80s. The Bulls lost to an expansion team in 96, and won 3 championships as well as 55 games without their best player pre expansion mid 90s. The League expanded in 88 and 89 as well, why didnt the Lakers even get close to 70 wins? And I could flip it around and say the NBA in the 90s was better because they actually emphasized defense.

[LeBird]

You have no way to quantify this assertion. So why say it. Seems like a cop out to me.

This is a disingenuous way to argue. Just because something is not numerically quantifiable doesn't mean it can't be judged. You'd be laughed out of any serious discussion about basketball if you think the 90s were tougher than the 80s.



And they were beating teams far more talented than they were as well. The Jazz were sort of an anomaly because in my opinion, they won based on heart and they scrapped. Theyre a classic case of the it not being the size of the dog but the Heart.


Er what? As Showtime has said; the 90s were a league where 1 or 2 superstar teams generally did well. These were the kind of teams that wouldn't have gotten a sniff in the 80s. The Jazz being a prime example - Stockton and Malone.


I've heard it stated several times as well. But its always a poster on a forum saying he said it. Never an actual quote from him.

But I will say this, Rodman says a lot of off the wall things. He also said Larry Bird was overrated. Do you agree with that? Id assume so seeing as how you hinge on Rodmans every word.

I think it's one thing when Rodman clearly says something out of jealousy - his comments re Bird and Lebron - and another thing when he is being realistic about his own team.

[Showtime80']

Jesus Christ 97' Bulls you really do seem to not know a lot about those 80's teams! The early 80's Lakers had 4 all-stars in Magic, Kareem, Nixon and Wilkes while being flanked by guys like Bob McAdoo off the bench, the 1983 Sixers had 4 all-stars in Dr J, Moses, Toney and Cheeks being supported by Bobby Jones, the Celtics had 5 all-stars in Bird, McHale, DJ, Parish and Archibald and the Pistons had 4 in Dumars, Rodman, Thomas and Laimbeer. These were not guys that made one lucky all-star game, these guys were PERENNIAL NBA ALL STARS!

How many all-star players did the Bulls have in their title years?!? How many did the Rockets have again!?! Again one man and two man teams abusing a weaker league.
Rodman
You say 17 and 7 for Kareem, that's absolutely frigging awesome for a guy had had become in a lot of games the third option on offense begind Magic and Worthy and even the fourth when Byron Scott became increasingly better.

There may have been a salary cap in the 80's but the explosion in salaries did't occur until the early 90's. You think teams in the 90's could afford those 80's lineups?!? Fat chance

[97 bulls]

This is a disingenuous way to argue. Just because something is not numerically quantifiable doesn't mean it can't be judged. You'd be laughed out of any serious discussion about basketball if you think the 90s were tougher than the 80s.
I don't believe the NBA is any better or worse at any point in time as a whole. Some teams are better but thats as far as it goes. You just can't make that kind of distinction. To much overlap.




Er what? As Showtime has said; the 90s were a league where 1 or 2 superstar teams generally did well. These were the kind of teams that wouldn't have gotten a sniff in the 80s. The Jazz being a prime example - Stockton and Malone.
The Jazz would be the only example. And as I said, they were scrappy. They had heart and determination. That's why they won so much. Not to mention they beat teams that were way more talented than they were. Talent isnt the end all be all when it comes to winning.

Whats more, is the Bulls absolutely destroyed the Pistons in 91. In a sweep. With all their players there and in their relative primes. So even if he did say such, the facts dont bare it out.



I think it's one thing when Rodman clearly says something out of jealousy - his comments re Bird and Lebron - and another thing when he is being realistic about his own team.
But he never said that. Please show me where he said such. If you google that quote what your gonna see is a bunch of posters like you saying he said that. Now Robert Parish (who was a Bull in 97 said something along thise lines). Jordan also said that the Bulls shouldn't be compared to other all-time great teams because they hadn't won yet. The whole mantra was "70 wins aint a thang without the ring".

[bond10]

Jesus Christ 97' Bulls you really do seem to not know a lot about those 80's teams! The early 80's Lakers had 4 all-stars in Magic, Kareem, Nixon and Wilkes while being flanked by guys like Bob McAdoo off the bench, the 1983 Sixers had 4 all-stars in Dr J, Moses, Toney and Cheeks being supported by Bobby Jones, the Celtics had 5 all-stars in Bird, McHale, DJ, Parish and Archibald and the Pistons had 4 in Dumars, Rodman, Thomas and Laimbeer. These were not guys that made one lucky all-star game, these guys were PERENNIAL NBA ALL STARS!

How many all-star players did the Bulls have in their title years?!? How many did the Rockets have again!?! Again one man and two man teams abusing a weaker league.
Rodman
You say 17 and 7 for Kareem, that's absolutely frigging awesome for a guy had had become in a lot of games the third option on offense begind Magic and Worthy and even the fourth when Byron Scott became increasingly better.

There may have been a salary cap in the 80's but the explosion in salaries did't occur until the early 90's. You think teams in the 90's could afford those 80's lineups?!? Fat chance

97 Bulls, try to learn something other than Pippen and Rodman.

[97 bulls]

Jesus Christ 97' Bulls you really do seem to not know a lot about those 80's teams! The early 80's Lakers had 4 all-stars in Magic, Kareem, Nixon and Wilkes while being flanked by guys like Bob McAdoo off the bench, the 1983 Sixers had 4 all-stars in Dr J, Moses, Toney and Cheeks being supported by Bobby Jones, the Celtics had 5 all-stars in Bird, McHale, DJ, Parish and Archibald and the Pistons had 4 in Dumars, Rodman, Thomas and Laimbeer. These were not guys that made one lucky all-star game, these guys were PERENNIAL NBA ALL STARS!

How many all-star players did the Bulls have in their title years?!? How many did the Rockets have again!?! Again one man and two man teams abusing a weaker league.
The Utah Jazz with their two allstars, beat the Lakers in 98 with their four allstars. Most people feel that the 97 Rockets, with Olajuwan, Barkley, and Drexler, were leaps and bounds better than the back to back teams and they didnt even make it to the Finals.



You say 17 and 7 for Kareem, that's absolutely frigging awesome for a guy had had become in a lot of games the third option on offense begind Magic and Worthy and even the fourth when Byron Scott became increasingly better.
Thats not the point. My point is that he was a shell of his former self. He was still good, but no where near what he was in the early 80s. The same for Mcadoo, Wilkes, etc. They were not the same players they were in the 70s. They were name players. Its no different than the Brooklyn Nets of last year when the had Joe Johnson, Pierce, Garnett, and Williams. Hell the 97 Bulls had Robert Parish. I guess I should include him in my argument as well huh?


There may have been a salary cap in the 80's but the explosion in salaries did't occur until the early 90's. You think teams in the 90's could afford those 80's lineups?!? Fat chance
The Lakers had four all stars in one year. The Rockets had Barkley, Okajuwan, Drexler, and Kevin Willis. Do you think about what you say before you post it?

[Showtime80']

Oh my, now I KNOW you don't know anything about 80's basketball! Jamaal Wilkes?!? A name player with the Lakers?!? Dude he put up the best numbers of his CAREER with the Lakers when he was in his mid 20's!!! Take a look at the fabled game 6 of the 1980 Finals, everybody talks about the Magic performance but Jamaal also had a monster game with 30+ while guarding Dr J! We're not talking gympy knees 30+ year old Ron Harper or almost 40 shot Robert Parish!

The difference between the 90's Lakers and Rockets all-star laden teams is that beside the fact that they didn't win sh!t is that they were together for just one or two years!!! Compare that to the 80's were some of those cores were together for 4, 5, 6 or 7 years and you see the difference!

Fact is the 90's without the Bulls become the 1970's but worst with a carrousel of one and two man teams taking turns winning the title and vanishing the next year.

Again the 90's can't hide the 94' Rockets, possibly the weakest championship lineup in the last 30+ years. A team like that doesn't win in the title in the 80's neither does the 95 version

[Showtime80']

The 80's Lakers prevented 3 teams from becoming dynasties, remove them and the Sixers haver there titles in four years, the Celtics have 5 in 7 years including a three-peat and the Pistons have their 3-peat in the late 80's.

What potential dynasty did the Bulls stop from happening in the 90's?!? That's right NO TEAM in that decade had that potential!

[97 bulls]

Oh my, now I KNOW you don't know anything about 80's basketball! Jamaal Wilkes?!? A name player with the Lakers?!? Dude he put up the best numbers of his CAREER with the Lakers when he was in his mid 20's!!! Take a look at the fabled game 6 of the 1980 Finals, everybody talks about the Magic performance but Jamaal also had a monster game with 30+ while guarding Dr J! We're not talking gympy knees 30+ year old Ron Harper or almost 40 shot Robert Parish!
Ohhhh ok. You're one of thise types of Laker fans. You want to combine every player the Lakers had in their championships and put them on one team. Ok I agree with you then the 96 Bulls were not better than the 80-88 Lakers combined.


T difference between the 90's Lakers and Rockets all-star laden teams is that beside the fact that they didn't win sh!t is that they were together for just one or two years!!! Compare that to the 80's were some of those cores were together for 4, 5, 6 or 7 years and you see the difference!
Lol. Ok. I honestly think youre reaching.


Fact is the 90's without the Bulls become the 1970's but worst with a carrousel of one and two man teams taking turns winning the title and vanishing the next year.
So what you're saying is the 90s teams were great, just not great for an extended period of time. Well when you compare the Bulls two Championship threepeats, the only constant was Jordan and Pippen. Their roaterw from the first threepeat was totally different.from the second.


Again the 90's can't hide the 94' Rockets, possibly the weakest championship lineup in the last 30+ years. A team like that doesn't win in the title in the 80's neither does the 95 version
Well they for sure would've beat the Lakers in 86 and 81.

[97 bulls]

The 80's Lakers prevented 3 teams from becoming dynasties, remove them and the Sixers haver there titles in four years, the Celtics have 5 in 7 years including a three-peat and the Pistons have their 3-peat in the late 80's.

What potential dynasty did the Bulls stop from happening in the 90's?!? That's right NO TEAM in that decade had that potential!
The Knicks, Jazz, and possibly the Magic had they stayed. And they ended TWO dyansties in one year when they beat the Lakers and Pistons 8-1.

[Showtime80']

The Pistons and Lakers run was over by that point, the Blazers should've beat the Lakers in 1991. The Bulls didn't prevent either team from achieving all time status.

The 94' could probably beat the 81 Lakers sure, the 86' Lakers team NO CHANCE! Even Hakeem admits that 1986 Rocket team was better than their two championship teams (there's a great ESPN article on that)

And I didn't combine ANY Lakers teams, the nucleus of the early 80's Lakers was Kareem, Magic, Wilkes and Nixon with Copper coming off the bench and McAdoo coming in 1981

The 96' Bulls aren't even in the same league with the 1984 Celtics or 1982 Lakers let alone their other better versions. You can compare the Bulls to the thinner champions of the one-two man era like the Duncan-Robinson Spurs, Hakeem's Rockets or Shaq-Kobe Lakers. The 80's lineups are out of their league.

Like I've always said, If the Bulls were so stacked Jordan wouldn't had to put up 32+ points a game for them to be competitive, the 80's champions didn't need that to win!

[97 bulls]

One more thing. I think where we disagree most is that for some reason, you feel that post 80s players are in just inherently inferior to the 80s. I say theres no fair justification for this past just saying cuz I said so. Now lets take for instance the Boston Celtics now. (The 2015 version) heres their starting five tonight vs the Cavs.

Brandon Bass
Evan Turner
Tyler Zeller
Marcus Smart
Avery Bradley

Solid players but on a championship team would or should be no better than your fourth and fifth players. Now lets look at the 97 Bullets

Chris Webber
Juwan Howard
Gheorghe Muresan
Calbert Chaney
Rod Strickland

There is a definite difference in talent there. I cant look at that team and say that because Webber didn't play in the 80s, he shouldn't be considered what he was. Or be looked at as less of a player?

Let's compare that Bullet team to the 86 Bucks.

Cummings
Pressey
Breaur
Moncrief
Hodges

You gonna tell me that Bucks team is that much more talented than the Bullets in 97?

[97 bulls]

The Pistons and Lakers run was over by that point, the Blazers should've beat the Lakers in 1991. The Bulls didn't prevent either team from achieving all time status.

The 94' could probably beat the 81 Lakers sure, the 86' Lakers team NO CHANCE! Even Hakeem admits that 1986 Rocket team was better than their two championship teams (there's a great ESPN article on that)

And I didn't combine ANY Lakers teams, the nucleus of the early 80's Lakers was Kareem, Magic, Wilkes and Nixon with Copper coming off the bench and McAdoo coming in 1981

The 96' Bulls aren't even in the same league with the 1984 Celtics or 1982 Lakers let alone their other better versions. You can compare the Bulls to the thinner champions of the one-two man era like the Duncan-Robinson Spurs, Hakeem's Rockets or Shaq-Kobe Lakers. The 80's lineups are out of their league.

Like I've always said, If the Bulls were so stacked Jordan wouldn't had to put up 32+ points a game for them to be competitive, the 80's champions didn't need that to win!
Ok but Wilkes, Mcadoo, etc werent on the back to back team. Worthy wasnt on the first championship squad, neither was Scott. Wilkes and Mcadoo were done by 85. Wilkes.retired the following year. And you've named all these players in your argument.

So please pick one team and stick with them. Don't jump from 80 to 87 to 85 to 82 back to 87. Pick one year please.

[Legends66NBA7]

Even Hakeem admits that 1986 Rocket team was better than their two championship teams (there's a great ESPN article on that)

Does anyone have link to this article ? Can't seem tto find it.

Would love to read it later, thanks.

[Micku]

Oh come on. The Sixers were done after 83. Done!!!!!! The Pistons werent a Power House until 88. And by then, the Celtics were done. The only true Power House team was the Lakers and they played in a terrible conference.



Depends what you mean by done. It's not like they weren't championship contender in 84 and 85. In 85, they swept the Bucks who had a 59 win record. They were still around top 10 in both defense and offense. In 84 they lost in the first round tho.

I would say after Moses Malone left, they were done. They were no longer top 10 in either category and didn't get 50 wins until 1990. They were at their best in 83 when they were top 5 in both categories and they were never that good since in their time together. Just because you don't go the Finals, it doesn't mean you weren't a championship contender. They were probably the 3rd best team after the Celtics and Lakers in 85. The Celts and Lakers were just that much better.

[97 bulls]

Depends what you mean by done. It's not like they weren't championship contender in 84 and 85. In 85, they swept the Bucks who had a 59 win record. They were still around top 10 in both defense and offense. In 84 they lost in the first round tho.

I would say after Moses Malone left, they were done. They were no longer top 10 in either category and didn't get 50 wins until 1990. They were at their best in 83 when they were top 5 in both categories and they were never that good since in their time together. Just because you don't go the Finals, it doesn't mean you weren't a championship contender. They were probably the 3rd best team after the Celtics and Lakers in 85. The Celts and Lakers were just that much better.
When I say done, I mean theyr were no longer 83 Sixers level. That seems to be the standard right? Even though the 91 Lakers still had a good record and deep playoff runs, they were done because they weren't as good as the 87 Lakers.

Like I keep saying, can we be a little consistent?

[Micku]

When I say done, I mean theyr were no longer 83 Sixers level. That seems to be the standard right? Even though the 91 Lakers still had a good record and deep playoff runs, they were done because they weren't as good as the 87 Lakers.

Like I keep saying, can we be a little consistent?

Fair enough. It just sounds that you didn't think they were any good after 83.

I don't know what you mean about the consistent tho. It seems ppl do agree that the 83 Sixers were at their peak as a team. After that they were still good, just not as good. Every team has that. Like ppl seem to generally accept that the Lakers 01 was at their peak as a team. Celts 86, and etc.

[LeBird]

I don't believe the NBA is any better or worse at any point in time as a whole. Some teams are better but thats as far as it goes. You just can't make that kind of distinction. To much overlap.

No, it's just convenient to your argument to pretend otherwise.



The Jazz would be the only example. And as I said, they were scrappy. They had heart and determination. That's why they won so much. Not to mention they beat teams that were way more talented than they were. Talent isnt the end all be all when it comes to winning.

Whats more, is the Bulls absolutely destroyed the Pistons in 91. In a sweep. With all their players there and in their relative primes. So even if he did say such, the facts dont bare it out.

The fact that the Jazz are the best example, and probably the only example, yet were weaker than what they were in the 80s is a damning indictment on the league. Throughout that Bulls dynastic run, they never had a consistent threat and in the 90s 2 players could lead you to consistent finals. Heck, that's not even enough anymore in today's league.



But he never said that. Please show me where he said such. If you google that quote what your gonna see is a bunch of posters like you saying he said that. Now Robert Parish (who was a Bull in 97 said something along thise lines). Jordan also said that the Bulls shouldn't be compared to other all-time great teams because they hadn't won yet. The whole mantra was "70 wins aint a thang without the ring".

It's a widely known quote - maybe it is wrong? I dunno, I guess the fact that most other players and pundits think so lend to that reasoning as well - as you've shown in the above.


The 80's Lakers prevented 3 teams from becoming dynasties, remove them and the Sixers haver there titles in four years, the Celtics have 5 in 7 years including a three-peat and the Pistons have their 3-peat in the late 80's.

What potential dynasty did the Bulls stop from happening in the 90's?!? That's right NO TEAM in that decade had that potential!

And it's that simple.

[3ball]

in the 90s, 2 players led the Bulls to consistent finals.


No player has ever been anywhere near as good as MJ in the playoffs or Finals - that's the only reason the Bulls were able to consistently make Finals with only 2 stars.

Until you show me someone who put up equal or better stats than what MJ did, your argument holds no water.. When a team has a player that plays better than anyone else ever has, you don't need as much supporting help to win championships.. It's intuitive.

Btw, the 90's Knicks would have made 5 Finals if the Bulls hadn't existed - notice how the Knicks snap-made the Finals each time MJ retired (94', 99'), while losing to them every other year.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Noticing the difference in dominance against simple first round opponents when comparing MJ led playoff teams to LeBron led playoff teams is absolutely staggering.

Jordan's teams never struggled, or lost a game in the first round the way James Miami or Cleveland teams have. Even with stacked casts relative to conference.

[navy]

Noticing the difference in dominance against simple first round opponents when comparing MJ led playoff teams to LeBron led playoff teams is absolutely staggering.

Jordan's teams never struggled, or lost a game in the first round the way James Miami or Cleveland teams have. Even with stacked casts relative to conference.
:biggums:

Im not sure what you are talking about, as for the first round
Lebron > Jordan

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2015/story/_/id/12704331/lebron-james-subjugates-first-round-foes-playoffs

[3ball]

:biggums:

Im not sure what you are talking about, as for the first round
Lebron > Jordan

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2015/story/_/id/12704331/lebron-james-subjugates-first-round-foes-playoffs

From your article:


In his 43 first-round playoff games, James has averaged 29.5 points, 8.7 rebounds and 6.8 assists while shooting 51 percent according to ESPN Stats & Information.

Jordan averaged 36.8 points, 6.2 rebounds and 5.8 assists in 46 career first-round games. In an era when efficiency wasn't nearly as closely watched, Jordan came out well there too; he averaged 52 percent on 26 shots per game and was a sizzling 85 percent on 11 free throws per game. That includes the 44 points Jordan scored in Game 5 of the 1989 first round, when he hit "The Shot" against the Cavs and finished that game 17-of-32 from the field.

There is little doubt that a big reason for James' first-round strength over the last decade is the relative weakness of the Eastern Conference during that time. Including the Celtics this year, over the last seven playoffs, James' first-round opponents have an average .498 winning percentage.
.

[3ball]

Noticing the difference in dominance against simple first round opponents when comparing MJ led playoff teams to LeBron led playoff teams is absolutely staggering.

Jordan's teams never struggled, or lost a game in the first round the way James Miami or Cleveland teams have. Even with stacked casts relative to conference.
There was an interesting thread a while back that compared how these guys performed against good teams and bad teams..

Obviously, MJ played far better against both than Lebron - but MJ absolutely destroyed bad teams, while Lebron's performance was only slighly better versus weaker teams.

This makes sense.. Lebron is not an exploitative, adjusting player - his game is the same every time.. He just plays his normal, default game no matter what, regardless of the defense or opponent..

Lebron is never going to see a weakness in a defense, and just decide to beat it like a drum the whole night and go off for a big game... He's never going to do this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hYHmK1GD6o&t=2m19s

Look how Lebron played against San Antonio in the 2014 Finals - Spurs played him straight up the entire series, yet he still only took 17 shots per game, just like the entire regular season - I mean, that's pretty dense.

[aj1987]

From your article:


In his 43 first-round playoff games, James has averaged 29.5 points, 8.7 rebounds and 6.8 assists while shooting 51 percent according to ESPN Stats & Information.

Jordan averaged 36.8 points, 6.2 rebounds and 5.8 assists in 46 career first-round games. In an era when efficiency wasn't nearly as closely watched, Jordan came out well there too; he averaged 52 percent on 26 shots per game and was a sizzling 85 percent on 11 free throws per game. That includes the 44 points Jordan scored in Game 5 of the 1989 first round, when he hit "The Shot" against the Cavs and finished that game 17-of-32 from the field.

There is little doubt that a big reason for James' first-round strength over the last decade is the relative weakness of the Eastern Conference during that time. Including the Celtics this year, over the last seven playoffs, James' first-round opponents have an average .498 winning percentage.
.
You do realize that it's because LeBron's teams almost always had a good record, right? That mean they play bottom seeds. Teams which have shitty records.

[LeBird]

No player has ever been anywhere near as good as MJ in the playoffs or Finals - that's the only reason the Bulls were able to consistently make Finals with only 2 stars.

Until you show me someone who put up equal or better stats than what MJ did, your argument holds no water.. When a team has a player that plays better than anyone else ever has, you don't need as much supporting help to win championships.. It's intuitive.

Btw, the 90's Knicks would have made 5 Finals if the Bulls hadn't existed - notice how the Knicks snap-made the Finals each time MJ retired (94', 99'), while losing to them every other year.

Are you on drugs now? Do you edit people's posts so you can argue with something that doesn't exist?

I said 2 players could lead you (meaning league at large) to consistent finals in the 90s. A la the Jazz - who didn't even have a player like Jordan and were better a decade prior and couldn't get to a finals in the 80s, yet did so in the 90s.

[97 bulls]

Fair enough. It just sounds that you didn't think they were any good after 83.

I don't know what you mean about the consistent tho. It seems ppl do agree that the 83 Sixers were at their peak as a team. After that they were still good, just not as good. Every team has that. Like ppl seem to generally accept that the Lakers 01 was at their peak as a team. Celts 86, and etc.
Right. Then why try ti use the argument that the Bulls never beat anyone of significance?

I've been saying this forver, the Celtics, Lakers, Sixers, and Pistons all beat versions of each other. The 87 Lakers never played the 83 Sixers. The 89 Pistons never played the 86 Celtics. The Bulls beat lesser version of the Lakers and Pistons just like everyone else.

Why is this so hard to grasp?????? This is what I mean by being consistent.

And I may add, a LESSER VERSION of the Bulls dynasty teams beat those Lakers and Pistons in dominant fashion.

[97 bulls]

No, it's just convenient to your argument to pretend otherwise.

Oh so now you know me better than I know myself.



The fact that the Jazz are the best example, and probably the only example, yet were weaker than what they were in the 80s is a damning indictment on the league. Throughout that Bulls dynastic run, they never had a consistent threat and in the 90s 2 players could lead you to consistent finals. Heck, that's not even enough anymore in today's league.
Way to totally disregard my post. I said the Jazz were a team full of scrappy vets that played well together. Even in their run, they beat teams that were much more talented than them on paper. Talent isn't everything. They dismantled a Laker team with four Allstars.




It's a widely known quote - maybe it is wrong? I dunno, I guess the fact that most other players and pundits think so lend to that reasoning as well - as you've shown in the above.
Look. You said he said it, I asked you to show proof. You can't. I said other posters like you keep saying he said it. Not any one else. Let it go.

[3ball]

You do realize that it's because LeBron's teams almost always had a good record, right? That mean they play bottom seeds. Teams which have shitty records.
:biggums:

uh, that's EXACTLY what happens when you're a top seed - you play the worst teams in the early rounds..

Lebron played the Wizards literally every year in the first round (3 times), while MJ played the 1986 and 1987 Celtics in the first round.

[3ball]

I said 2 players could lead you (meaning league at large) to consistent finals in the 90s.


The 1998 Jazz defeated the greatest collection of talent ever to reach the Finals:

They beat Hakeem Olajuwon Rockets, Popovich/Robinson/Duncan's 56-win Spurs, and Shaq's 4-all star Lakers (his most talented team ever).

The Utah Jazz owned Shaq - they swept him in both 1997 and 1998, when his teams were thoroughly stacked (beat Hakeem in 1997 again too).