Remove Every Team's Best Player in the 90's...

[LAZERUSS]

I get a kick out of the Jordanites who constantly put down his supporting casts in the 90's.

Let's do this...

Remove EVERY team's BEST PLAYER from their respective rosters in the 90's...

Excluding the '94 Bulls, who went 55-27 without their's...

and who wins the rings each year?

[Rose'sACL]

bulls win 3 titles instead of 6.

[LAZERUSS]

bulls win 3 titles instead of 6.

Who beats them?

Again...you have to remove their BEST PLAYER...except on the '94 Bulls...who, again, went 55-27 without their's.

[LAZERUSS]

Let me give you a couple of quick examples...

How did the Lakers do after Magic retired?

How about the Magic before and after Shaq?

How would the Jazz have fared without Malone?

How about the Rockets without Hakeem?

The Knicks without Ewing?

[Rose'sACL]

Let me give you a couple of quick examples...

How did the Lakers do after Magic retired?

How about the Magic before and after Shaq?

How would the Jazz have fared without Malone?

How about the Rockets without Hakeem?

The Knicks without Ewing?
Very good question. Bulls might have won 6 titles. i can confidently say that they would have won 3 at least.

[LAZERUSS]

Very good question. Bulls might have won 6 titles. i can confidently say that they would have won 3 at least.

I'm not really arguing...but that does tell me exactly what I already knew...

MJ's supporting casts were likely the best in the league.

[LAZERUSS]

And how would Ron Harper have done without MJ from '95 on? He was a 20 ppg scorer just the year before he signed on with Chicago in the '94-95 season.

Harper, Pippen, Kukoc, Kerr, Rodman, and host of role players?

[DonDadda59]

This coming from the biggest Wilt Bunyan mythologist? :lol

The Sixers won 55 the season after he left to join a 52 win Lakers team that had just lost in the finals to Boston... to lead them to 55 wins and a loss in the finals to Boston :roll:


MJ's supporting casts were likely the best in the league

They weren't even the best in the Eastern Conference. Orlando won 60 games with Shaq playing in only 54. After he left they managed to win 45 and get to the playoffs with Penny and Horace dealing with injuries.

[Heavincent]

They weren't even the best in the Eastern Conference. Orlando won 60 games with Shaq playing in only 54. After he left they managed to win 45 and get to the playoffs with Penny and Horace dealing with injuries.

And the Bulls won 55 games without Jordan :confusedshrug:

[DonDadda59]

And the Bulls won 55 games without Jordan :confusedshrug:

Everyone was relatively healthy and they added some key players whereas the Magic's best player Penny only played in 59 games. Bulls went 34-31 the next season after Horace Grant left (he was the second option on the Bulls, became the 4th option on the Magic... but the Bulls were more stacked :lol ).

Jordan's first full season back, all they did was set the all time win mark with 72 wins and went on another 3-peat run.

[3ball]

Excluding the '94 Bulls, who went 55-27 without their's...


Why doesn't anyone bring up that no other team that lazeruss wants us to evaluate was coming off a 3-peat?

Are people that clueless about basketball that they can't even see the FACTS - the Bulls only won 55 games and made the 2nd Round AFTER they had developed a 3-peat caliber of execution, strategy and teamwork from 3-peating with MJ.

How is it people don't see that coming off a 3-peat with everyone still in their prime and a chip on their shoulder will allow a supporting cast to play extremely well, especially in the regular season?

How is it that I'm the only one responding with this very valid argument?

Also, the playoff reality is that the Bulls were a only a 2nd Round team.

MJ had to lead those Bulls to a 3-peat FIRST, before they could make the 2nd Round without him.

Of course, before MJ led them to a 3-peat, the Bulls were lottery without MJ - like in 1989, when the 47-win Bulls would've missed the 42-win playoff cut without MJ's 33/8/8..

Where was his supporting cast then???.. Oh wait, I know - they hadn't developed anywhere NEAR a 3-peat caliber of strategy, execution and teamwork!!!!

[TheMan]

The Magic without Shaq were deep, take Miller away from the Pacers and they still had Chris Mullin, Derrick McKey, Rik Smitts, Mark Jackson. Take Payton away from he Sonics, they still throw Kemp, Hawkins, Shrempf and Perkins at you, the Suns can go KJ, Majerle, Ainge, Dumas...

[Rose'sACL]

Why doesn't anyone bring up that no other team that lazeruss wants us to evaluate was coming off a 3-peat?

Are people that clueless about basketball that they can't even see the FACTS - the Bulls only won 55 games and made the 2nd Round AFTER they had developed a 3-peat caliber of execution, strategy and teamwork from 3-peating with MJ.

How is it people don't see that coming off a 3-peat with everyone still in their prime and a chip on their shoulder will allow a supporting cast to play extremely well, especially in the regular season?

How is it that I'm the only one responding with this very valid argument?

Also, the playoff reality is that the Bulls were a only a 2nd Round team.

MJ had to lead those Bulls to a 3-peat FIRST, before they could make the 2nd Round without him.

Of course, before MJ led them to a 3-peat, the Bulls were lottery without MJ - like in 1989, when the 47-win Bulls would've missed the 42-win playoff cut without MJ's 33/8/8..

Where was his supporting cast then???.. Oh wait, I know - they hadn't developed anywhere NEAR a 3-peat caliber of strategy, execution and teamwork!!!!
The bolded part is so true.

It was all about phil jackson's coaching. Pippen and Jordan were great players but not as good as those 6 rings might indicate.

[iamgine]

Well the 90s Bulls minus Jordan indeed had one of the best if not the best supporting casts in the league and one of the GOAT coach with Pippen likely winning MVP every season if every team's best players were removed.

Having said that...it doesn't take away anything from Jordan, cause we all saw that his level of play was up there on the GOAT tier. If you want to say that with a lesser supporting cast the Bulls would likely win less championships then...that's reasonable.

[Pointguard]

They weren't even the best in the Eastern Conference. Orlando won 60 games with Shaq playing in only 54. After he left they managed to win 45 and get to the playoffs with Penny and Horace dealing with injuries.

Orlando would have froze. Chicago would have keyed on Penny and its all over from there.

[DonDadda59]

The Magic without Shaq were deep, take Miller away from the Pacers and they still had Chris Mullin, Derrick McKey, Rik Smitts, Mark Jackson. Take Payton away from he Sonics, they still throw Kemp, Hawkins, Shrempf and Perkins at you, the Suns can go KJ, Majerle, Ainge, Dumas...

Yeah the Suns were stacked to the rafters. 53 win team and a second round berth in '92 the season before Charles Bark got there, with Jeff Hornacek as their leading scorer. :applause:

[Smoke117]

And how would Ron Harper have done without MJ from '95 on? He was a 20 ppg scorer just the year before he signed on with Chicago in the '94-95 season.

Harper, Pippen, Kukoc, Kerr, Rodman, and host of role players?

Harper was averaging 20 points on 18 shots for the Clippers who played with fastest pace in the league and were going nowhere. (meaning he was allowed to do whatever he pleased) Ron Harper played 77 regular season games in 95...Jordan played 17. He wasn't doing anything of note without Jordan there. The fact of the matter is he had a hard time learning the triangle offense and just wasn't that good anymore anyway. When you can only manage 20 points on 18 shots and play for the team with the highest pace that is going nowhere (27 wins)...you are not a star player anymore.

[3ball]

The bolded part is so true.


Honesty itt





It was all about phil jackson's coaching. Pippen and Jordan were great players but not as good as those 6 rings might indicate.


Based on empirical evidence, the triangle requires a top 5 post player to win championships with it - Shaq, MJ or Pau/Kobe.

Without that, zero rings.

[LAZERUSS]

This coming from the biggest Wilt Bunyan mythologist? :lol

The Sixers won 55 the season after he left to join a 52 win Lakers team that had just lost in the finals to Boston... to lead them to 55 wins and a loss in the finals to Boston :roll:



They weren't even the best in the Eastern Conference. Orlando won 60 games with Shaq playing in only 54. After he left they managed to win 45 and get to the playoffs with Penny and Horace dealing with injuries.


The Lakers TRADED THREE players, two of whom combined for 30-15 in '68 to get Wilt. Who, BTW, not only had to replace those players, but Goodrich and his 13 ppg, as well, who was lost in the expansion draft...and basically replaced by a career backup in Johnny Egan. Chamberlain basically replaced 42 ppg and 18 rpg.

BTW, the Sixers were ROUTED in the FIRST ROUND, 4-1 in '69...and the ppg differential was 10+ ppg (which INCLUDED their lone win.)

Meanwhile, the Lakers went 55-27 with West missing 21 games (and going 12-9 in them), and Baylor missing six games (and going 5-1 in those)...AND, lost a game seven by TWO points, with Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes.

[3ball]

The playoff reality is that the Bulls were a 3-peat dynasty with MJ, and only a 2nd Round team without him.

MJ had to lead those Bulls to a 3-peat FIRST, before they could make the 2nd Round without him.

Of course, before MJ led them to a 3-peat, the Bulls were lottery without MJ - like in 1989, when the 47-win Bulls would've missed the 42-win playoff cut without MJ's 33/8/8..

Where was his supporting cast then???.. Oh wait, I know - they hadn't developed anywhere NEAR a 3-peat caliber of strategy, execution and teamwork!!!!

[DonDadda59]

The Lakers TRADED THREE players, two of whom combined for 30-15 in '68 to get Wilt. Who, BTW, not only had to replace those players, but Goodrich and his 13 ppg, as well, who was lost in the expansion draft...and basically replaced by a career backup in Johnny Egan. Chamberlain basically replaced 42 ppg and 18 rpg.

BTW, the Sixers were ROUTED in the FIRST ROUND, 4-1 in '69...and the ppg differential was 10+ ppg (which INCLUDED their lone win.)

Meanwhile, the Lakers went 55-27 with West missing 21 games (and going 12-9 in them), and Baylor missing six games (and going 5-1 in those)...AND, lost a game seven by TWO points, with Wilt on the bench in the last five minutes.

So in the end, the '68 Lakers won 52 games and lost to the Celtics in the finals without Wilt... with Wilt in '69 they won 55 games and lost in the finals to the Celtics (Not even taking into account the Sixers winning 55 the season after Stilt left)?

Sheeeeit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_IXzU-lnLU)

[LAZERUSS]

So in the end, the '68 Lakers won 52 games and lost to the Celtics in the finals without Wilt... with Wilt in '69 they won 55 games and lost in the finals to the Celtics (Not even taking into account the Sixers winning 55 the season after Stilt left)?

Sheeeeit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_IXzU-lnLU)

The '68 Lakers were beaten 4-2 in the Finals, and were never in the clinching game six loss.

The '68 Sixers with this assortment of injuries...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328011&postcount=14

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328006&postcount=13

lost a game seven by four points to the Celtic team that would romp over the Lakers in the Finals. The same Celtics team that a healthy Sixer squad in '67 nearly SWEPT (and then murdered them in the clinching game five.)


BTW, the '69 Sixers, with Wilt's "replacements" averaging a 36-20 .510 series....were DESTROYED by Boston in the FIRST ROUND.

[DonDadda59]

The '68 Lakers were beaten 4-2 in the Finals, and were never in the clinching game six loss.

The '68 Sixers with this assortment of injuries...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328011&postcount=14

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328006&postcount=13

lost a game seven by four points to the Celtic team that would romp over the Lakers in the Finals. The same Celtics team that a healthy Sixer squad in '67 nearly SWEPT (and then murdered them in the clinching game five.)


BTW, the '69 Sixers, with Wilt's "replacements" averaging a 36-20 .510 series....were DESTROYED by Boston in the FIRST ROUND.

Ok, so if I'm following what you're saying... you're saying that Wilt 'Dippy' Chamberlain joined a team that had just made the finals without him the season before he got there and he only managed to go 1/4 with them in the finals to close out his career? :biggums:

You gonna do a thread like this for the 60s/70s? I think I have my answer for that one. :yaohappy:

[kennethgriffin]

Bulls probly end up winning 7 rings instead of 6 cause by 94 theyed have been used to jordan not being there and played even better than their 55 win team

[3ball]

Bulls probly end up winning 7 rings instead of 6 cause by 94 theyed have been used to jordan not being there and played even better than their 55 win team
One thing we know for sure - when the Bulls went from 2nd Round back to 3-peat, they needed the following stats from MJ in the 1996-1998 playoffs:

31.4 ppg on 46%...... >>> Kobe's 29.8 ppg on 46% in 2008-2010 playoffs

(these were the years where Kobe won championship as 1st option)


35-year old MJ was better than Kobe ever was.. :confusedshrug:
.