Discussing the 1994 Bulls Team

[dubeta]

Would you say MJs teammates overachieved in 1994 (55 wins, one bad call from the championship/4-peating), or did they play to their capacity?






If they overacheived, What does that say about Jordan's negative sub-optimal impact on their team?





If they played to their capacity, then why does adding Jordan on top of that team lead to only 2 more wins (57 vs 55 wins?) What does that say about Jordans impact?






Which one are you picking?

[GIF REACTION]

I pick both.

[AnaheimLakers24]

6/6

[3ball]

The Bulls had the same roster back in 1989 as they had in 1994.. But they couldn't have won 55 games in 1989.. So obviously, the journey towards having 55-win capability was an accumulative one... The accumulation of once-in-a-generation 3-peat chemistry, execution, and strategy enabled the Bulls to win 55 games in 1994.

The accumulative dynamic is also evident by evaluating the sheer talent on the team in 1994 - like all of MJ's teams, the team had very little talent in 1994, other than Pippen.. Kukoc was a Harrison Barnes-level player with worse defense.. The team's lack of talented scorers is why the Bulls needed MJ to lead the league in scoring for all of their 6 championships.. So again, the 55 wins wasn't due to having a bunch of talented scorers, it was due to the very rare, 3-peat caliber of team chemistry, execution and strategy that was accumulated by 3-peating with MJ.

Of course, none of this means 2 bird shits when the competition increases in the playoffs - in the playoffs, you need more than just teamwork to win... You need PLAYERS that can produce, which is what MJ provided... That's why when the 1994 playoffs measured the Bulls TRUE ability without MJ, they were only an ordinary 2nd round exit team, which is a goat drop-off from not 1, not 2, but a three-peat with MJ.. Fortunately, MJ came back and validated his 2nd Round to 3-peat impact by returning the Bulls to 3-peat glory, beginning in his first full season back.. How many guys take 2 years off and return as the best with 3-peat and 3 FMVP's.... Only the goat has those kind of stories.

[atljonesbro]

Wow as a life long MJ fan I've never thought of it that way... I think he may have just dropped out my top 10 :(

[dubeta]

Wow as a life long MJ fan I've never thought of it that way... I think he may have just dropped out my top 10 :(

He's probably still a top 3 SG all time just because of hype/espn propaganda, but yea this hurts him.

[f0und]

they overachieved for one season. every year theres a team or two that does it. last year it was atlanta. overachieving teams will make some noise, disrupt the balance of power, make teams take notice that they're dangerous. but in the end, 99% of the time, they dont win the title, or even make the finals.

that 94 bulls team was solid. nothing special but they were rock solid. they werent loaded with talent but they had veterans, championships experience, good coaching. now give this veteran team a HUGE chip on their shoulder in trying to show what they are without the GOAT, and you have a team ripe for overachieving.

one bad call away from 4 peating? GTFO here. it was one play in game 6(i think, or maybe it was game 5) of the second round. you're gonna need a *hit ton more things to happen than just one call that far away from the title. thats like saying dwade's rookie heat team were just inches away from winning the title in 04. they took the nba best pacers to 6 games in the second round. but nobody in their right mind could possibly think they had a chance at the title. they just overachieved.

[ClipperRevival]

The Bulls had the same roster back in 1989 as they had in 1994.. But they couldn't have won 55 games in 1989.. So obviously, the journey towards having 55-win capability was an accumulative one... The accumulation of once-in-a-generation 3-peat chemistry, execution, and strategy enabled the Bulls to win 55 games in 1994.

The accumulative dynamic is also evident by evaluating the sheer talent on the team in 1994 - like all of MJ's teams, the team had very little talent in 1994, other than Pippen.. Kukoc was a Harrison Barnes-level player with worse defense.. The team's lack of talented scorers is why the Bulls needed MJ to lead the league in scoring for all of their 6 championships.. So again, the 55 wins wasn't due to having a bunch of talented scorers, it was due to the very rare, 3-peat caliber of team chemistry, execution and strategy that was accumulated by 3-peating with MJ.

Of course, none of this means 2 bird shits when the competition increases in the playoffs - in the playoffs, you need more than just teamwork to win... You need PLAYERS that can produce, which is what MJ provided... That's why when the 1994 playoffs measured the Bulls TRUE ability without MJ, they were only an ordinary 2nd round exit team, which is a goat drop-off from not 1, not 2, but a three-peat with MJ.. Fortunately, MJ came back and validated his 2nd Round to 3-peat impact by returning the Bulls to 3-peat glory, beginning in his first full season back.. How many guys take 2 years off and return as the best with 3-peat and 3 FMVP's.... Only the goat has those kind of stories.

Kukoc was a big addition in 1993-94 and a big reason why they maintained a 55 win season. But yeah, there is a HUGE difference between a 2nd round exit team and a team that can win it all quite comfortably. MJ was the guy who made them a 2nd round team to a 3 peat champion.

[GIF REACTION]

Lebron was the difference between the Heat going back2back and 4 straight finals, to not making the playoffs

Even though he was replaced with 3 all-star level players in Deng, Dragic and Whiteside

[Dragonyeuw]

If they overacheived, What does that say about Jordan's negative sub-optimal impact on their team?




What does it say that a 35 year old MJ led the Bulls to 62 wins with Pippen missing 35 games, a 34 year old Harper, 37 year old Rodman, and Kukoc?

How come everyone seems to forget that Bulls won 67 games in 92, and pretty much coasted thru 93 because of Jordan/Pippen playing the Olympics? Was the 93 team worse than 92? MJ was MJ, Pip was Pip, Grant and BJ were better in 93 than 92, yet they won 10 less games. The easy thing to do is fixate on record, while ignoring that getting eliminated in the second round of the playoffs and winning the NBA title are worlds apart. Even if they got past New York, they were no guarantee to beat Indiana and Hakeem would have crucified them if they made the finals.

[lil jahlil]

If they overacheived, What does that say about Jordan's negative sub-optimal impact on their team?








Winning championship after championship is sub-optimal impact? You are dumb.

[kshutts1]

The Bulls had the same roster back in 1989 as they had in 1994.. But they couldn't have won 55 games in 1989.. So obviously, the journey towards having 55-win capability was an accumulative one... The accumulation of once-in-a-generation 3-peat chemistry, execution, and strategy enabled the Bulls to win 55 games in 1994.
If you're going to copy/paste, at least fix typos/errors when I point them out.

This is the second thread, second time, in which I have to tell you that the rosters from 89 to 94 are closer to completely different than they are to the same.

Only 4 players remain from the 89 team to the 94 team. Even the coach changes.

[3ball]

If you're going to copy/paste, at least fix typos/errors when I point them out.

Only 4 players remain from the 89 team to the 94 team. Even the coach changes.


All the main guys - Pippen, Grant, Cartwright - the best players were all the same - but if you want to be a stickler, the use the 1990 roster - that roster is essentially identical to the 1994 roster, so the remaining copy/paste stands:

The Bulls had the same roster back in 1990 as they had in 1994.. But they couldn't have won 55 games without MJ in 1990.. So obviously, the journey towards having 55-win capability was an accumulative one... The accumulation of once-in-a-generation 3-peat chemistry, execution, and strategy enabled the Bulls to win 55 games in 1994.

The accumulative dynamic is also evident by evaluating the sheer talent on the team in 1994 - like all of MJ's teams, the team had very little talent in 1994, other than Pippen.. Kukoc was a Harrison Barnes-level player with worse defense.. The team's lack of talented scorers is why the Bulls needed MJ to lead the league in scoring for all of their 6 championships.. So again, the 55 wins wasn't due to having a bunch of talented scorers, it was due to the very rare, 3-peat caliber of team chemistry, execution and strategy that was accumulated by 3-peating with MJ.

Of course, none of this means 2 bird shits when the competition increases in the playoffs - in the playoffs, you need more than just teamwork to win... You need PLAYERS that can produce, which is what MJ provided... That's why when the 1994 playoffs measured the Bulls TRUE ability without MJ, they were only an ordinary 2nd round exit team, which is a goat drop-off from not 1, not 2, but a three-peat with MJ.. Fortunately, MJ came back and validated his 2nd Round to 3-peat impact by returning the Bulls to 3-peat glory, beginning in his first full season back.. How many guys take 2 years off and return as the best with 3-peat and 3 FMVP's.... Only the goat has those kind of stories.

[kshutts1]

When you say "identical" I do want to be a stickler. Don't use big words if you don't understand their meaning.

Fact is, from 89 to 94 the team was VASTLY different. So stop your stupid little argument. Move your goalposts some more. Cherry-pick your stats better. Do what you do best.

[3ball]

:facepalm

[3ball]

The Bulls had the same roster back in 1990 as they had in 1994.. But they couldn't have won 55 games without MJ in 1990.. So obviously, the journey towards having 55-win capability was an accumulative one... The accumulation of once-in-a-generation 3-peat chemistry, execution, and strategy enabled the Bulls to win 55 games in 1994.

The accumulative dynamic is also evident by evaluating the sheer talent on the team in 1994 - like all of MJ's teams, the team had very little talent in 1994, other than Pippen.. Kukoc was a Harrison Barnes-level player with worse defense.. The team's lack of talented scorers is why the Bulls needed MJ to lead the league in scoring for all of their 6 championships.. So again, the 55 wins wasn't due to having a bunch of talented scorers, it was due to the very rare, 3-peat caliber of team chemistry, execution and strategy that was accumulated by 3-peating with MJ.

Of course, none of this means 2 bird shits when the competition increases in the playoffs - in the playoffs, you need more than just teamwork to win... You need PLAYERS that can produce, which is what MJ provided... That's why when the 1994 playoffs measured the Bulls TRUE ability without MJ, they were only an ordinary 2nd round exit team, which is a goat drop-off from not 1, not 2, but a three-peat with MJ.. Fortunately, MJ came back and validated his 2nd Round to 3-peat impact by returning the Bulls to 3-peat glory, beginning in his first full season back.. How many guys take 2 years off and return as the best with 3-peat and 3 FMVP's.... Only the goat has those kind of stories.[/I]

[dubeta]

Why were the Bulls BETTER in 1994 without Jordan, than in the 1995 when they HAD Jordan??



They won 55 games in 1994, and with Jordan in 1995 they won 47



So the addition of Jordan actually made them worse



Here's the proof: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1995.html




So here are the Cliffs:


1993 - 57 wins WITH Jordan

1994- 55 wins WITHOUT Jordan (only 2 less wins)


1995- 47 wins WITH Jordan (they dropped off 8 whole games WHILE adding Jordan)







dat GOAT impact doe

[3ball]

When you say "identical" I do want to be a stickler. Don't use big words if you don't understand their meaning.

Fact is, from 89 to 94 the team was VASTLY different.


Fact is, the same argument applies to the 1990 roster, which WAS identical to 1994, so the point remains:

Since the 1990 roster couldn't have won 55 without MJ, so that proves journey towards having 55-win capability was an accumulative one, as described in post at top of page (#16).

[kshutts1]

Fact is, the same argument applies to the 1990 roster, which WAS identical to 1994, so the point remains:

Since the 1990 roster couldn't have won 55 without MJ, so that proves journey towards having 55-win capability was an accumulative one, as described in post at top of page (#16).
I count 7 similar players, on a roster size of about 15.

Edit for my spelling mistake

[3ball]

I could 7 similar players, on a roster size of about 15.


In addition to the rosters being largely the same in 1990 and 1994, the accumulative dynamic is also evident by evaluating the sheer talent on the team in 1994 - like all of MJ's teams, the team had very little talent in 1994, other than Pippen.. Kukoc was a Harrison Barnes-level player with worse defense..

The team's lack of talented scorers is why the Bulls needed MJ to lead the league in scoring for all of their 6 championships.. So again, the 55 wins wasn't due to having a bunch of talented scorers, it was due to the very rare, 3-peat caliber of team chemistry, execution and strategy that was accumulated by 3-peating with MJ.

Of course, none of this means 2 bird shits when the competition increases in the playoffs - in the playoffs, you need more than just teamwork to win... You need PLAYERS that can produce, which is what MJ provided... That's why when the 1994 playoffs measured the Bulls TRUE ability without MJ, they were only an ordinary 2nd round exit team, which is a goat drop-off from not 1, not 2, but a three-peat with MJ.. Fortunately, MJ came back and validated his 2nd Round to 3-peat impact by returning the Bulls to 3-peat glory, beginning in his first full season back.. How many guys take 2 years off and return as the best with 3-peat and 3 FMVP's.... Only the goat has those kind of stories.

[kshutts1]

In addition to the rosters being largely the same in 1990 and 1994, the accumulative dynamic is also evident by evaluating the sheer talent on the team in 1994 - like all of MJ's teams, the team had very little talent in 1994, other than Pippen.. Kukoc was a Harrison Barnes-level player with worse defense..

The team's lack of talented scorers is why the Bulls needed MJ to lead the league in scoring for all of their 6 championships.. So again, the 55 wins wasn't due to having a bunch of talented scorers, it was due to the very rare, 3-peat caliber of team chemistry, execution and strategy that was accumulated by 3-peating with MJ.

Of course, none of this means 2 bird shits when the competition increases in the playoffs - in the playoffs, you need more than just teamwork to win... You need PLAYERS that can produce, which is what MJ provided... That's why when the 1994 playoffs measured the Bulls TRUE ability without MJ, they were only an ordinary 2nd round exit team, which is a goat drop-off from not 1, not 2, but a three-peat with MJ.. Fortunately, MJ came back and validated his 2nd Round to 3-peat impact by returning the Bulls to 3-peat glory, beginning in his first full season back.. How many guys take 2 years off and return as the best with 3-peat and 3 FMVP's.... Only the goat has those kind of stories.
Now that you've conceded my initial point... there's nothing rare about a group of players that mesh well winning a lot of games in the RS. It happens all of the time. Almost literally every single year.

[3ball]

Now that you've conceded my initial point...


You conceded my point - the 1990 and 1994 rosters were nearly identical, and they were VIRTUALLY identical as far as the starters.

[kshutts1]

You conceded my point - the 1990 and 1994 rosters were nearly identical, and they were VIRTUALLY identical as far as the starters.
:facepalm I don't know why I continue to try.

[3ball]

Kukoc was a big addition in 1993-94 and a big reason why they maintained a 55 win season.

But yeah, there is a HUGE difference between a 2nd round exit team and a team that can win it all quite comfortably. MJ was the guy who made them a 2nd round team to a 3 peat champion.


This is the type of Jordan-hate bias I'm talking about - there isn't a 10 ppg, non-defending, bench player in history that you would consider a BIG FACTOR in a team winning 55 games, but that's what you just said about Kukoc..

This proves a you have a Jordan-hate/fatigue that makes you biased against him like you are here with Kukoc.. But what do you think was more important??... Kukoc, or the accumulation of 3-peat caliber execution and strategy?

Without the accumulation, Kukoc's addition doesn't mean anything, just like it didn't for all the massive losers he played on AFTER 1998.

[dubeta]

This is the type of Jordan-hate bias I'm talking about - there isn't a 10 ppg, non-defending, bench player in history that you would consider a BIG FACTOR in a team winning 55 games, but that's what you just said about Kukoc..

This proves a you have a Jordan-hate/fatigue that makes you biased against him like you are here with Kukoc.. But what do you think was more important??... Kukoc, or the accumulation of 3-peat caliber execution and strategy?

Without the accumulation, Kukoc's addition doesn't mean anything, just like it didn't for all the massive losers he played on AFTER 1998.


Bosh was a 10 Ppg non defense playing role player during the heat playoffs 2012-2014, yet you act like he was a key piece :confusedshrug:


Kukoc > Bosh

[Dragonyeuw]

Why were the Bulls BETTER in 1994 without Jordan, than in the 1995 when they HAD Jordan??



They won 55 games in 1994, and with Jordan in 1995 they won 47



So the addition of Jordan actually made them worse



Here's the proof: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1995.html




So here are the Cliffs:


1993 - 57 wins WITH Jordan

1994- 55 wins WITHOUT Jordan (only 2 less wins)


1995- 47 wins WITH Jordan (they dropped off 8 whole games WHILE adding Jordan)







dat GOAT impact doe

Why do the mods allow this dumb shit on this forum? It's not even good trolling...

[guy]

The 1994 Bulls deserve there own forum. They are arguably the most talked about team ever on this forum. :oldlol:

[3ball]

Kukoc > Bosh


:kobe: ... You wreak of desperation.. Bosh is 10-time all-star... No player has ever had a 10-time all-star as their 3rd option... except Lebron... It's not Bosh's fault that Lebron-ball cratered his stats.. :confusedshrug:

Lebron had access to a 10-time all-star, but Lebron decided to use him as a floor-spreader - fortunately, Bosh's game is so diverse and sophisticated, he was able to be a 40% 3-point shooter in the Lebron-ball system... This is a testament to the wild versatility of Bosh's game as a 10-time all-star.

But it's okay now - the stat-craterer is gone, so Bosh's stats have been restored, albiet with significant attrition, since he sacrificed his prime to collude and go 2/4 on a super-team.

[dubeta]

Bosh was a 10 Ppg non defense playing role player during the heat playoffs 2012-2014, yet you act like he was a key piece :confusedshrug:


Kukoc > Bosh


This post has 3ball like

http://static0.thesportsterimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/hunter-angr-anim.gif



Its alright, its hard to explain also, how was it possible that the Bulls 4th-5th best player, was better than the Heat's 3rd??


1995 playoffs

Kukoc 14 points 7 rebounds

2013 playoffs

Bosh 12 points 6 rebounds



Not only was Kukoc a better scorer, he was the better rebounder and playmaker as well. Bosh's skills mixed with a perimeter game


Its hard to conceptualize, but even Kukoc (Jordans bench player) was better than Bosh


Kukoc was better than Bosh, but this was already common knowledge

[3ball]

:facepalm

[dubeta]

Per 36 playoff stats


Kukoc (1994-1996)

14.7 points 7.3 rebounds



Overall its close stats wise. But Kukoc also had perimeter skills, facilitating the triangle offense.. His superior stats combined with his superior ability to run a offense made him better than Bosh


Again

Kukoc is better than Bosh, but this is common knowledge

[3ball]

Kukoc superior stats combined with his superior ability to run a offense made him better than Bosh


Here are Bosh and Kukoc's career stats:

Bosh:.. 19/9 on 50%
Kukoc: 12/4 on 45%

Bosh is 10-time all-star and Kukoc is 0-time all-star.

With that settled, do you want to compare each player's stats with and without MJ and Lebron?... i didn't think so.. Lebron cratered Bosh's, while Kukoc were the same alongside MJ.. So keep dreaming bud, you're real good at it

[dubeta]

Boshs stats constantly crater in the playoffs. With or without LeBron

Formula = Bosh's playoff ppg/ Bosh's regular season points per game X 100%


2007 - 77.4% of scoring

2012- 77% of scoring

2013- 75.6% of scoring

2014- 89.7% of scoring




Bosh has constantly had his stats crater in the playoffs, with or without LeBron. His regular season production simply cannot translate into the playoffs with tougher, more physical defense

[Young X]

The '94 Bulls are a perfect example of a team that overachieved. Yeah, they won 55 games but they weren't playing at a truly dominant level like the rest of the Bulls teams from the 90's.

Here's the SRS of the '90's Bulls...

'91: 8.57
'92: 10.07
'93: 6.19

'94: 2.87
'95: 4.32

'96: 11.80
'97: 10.70
'98: 7.24

The 3-peat Bulls teams played at all time great or even GOAT level while the '94 Bulls were basically like last season's Rockets/Grizzlies - a really good team but not a championship team.

[dubeta]

The '94 Bulls are a perfect example of a team that overachieved. Yeah, they won 55 games but they weren't playing at a truly dominant level like the rest of the Bulls teams from the 90's.

Here's the SRS of the '90's Bulls...

'91: 8.57
'92: 10.07
'93: 6.19

'94: 2.87
'95: 4.32

'96: 11.80
'97: 10.70
'98: 7.24

The 3-peat Bulls teams played at all time great or even GOAT level while the '94 Bulls were basically like last season's Rockets/Grizzlies - a really good team but not a championship team.

Why didnt the Miami Heat drop from a 4 Finals 2 rings team, to simply a Rockets/Grizzles team last year?



Why did they crater all the way to one of the worst teams in the league?

[3ball]

Why didnt the Miami Heat drop from a 4 Finals 2 rings team, to simply a Rockets/Grizzles team last year?

Why did they crater all the way to one of the worst teams in the league?


The Heat didn't fall from defending 3-peat champion in their prime, to 2nd round exit.

They were a weak, 53-win team that would've lost in the 2nd Round out West and ended up getting destroyed by record margin in the Finals - they fell from that status, to a team that missed the playoffs due to injury to their top 2 players.

Pretty big difference.
.

[G-train]

It shows the quality of the overall organisation.

[3ball]

It shows the quality of the overall organisation.


And part of that "quality" was the accumulation of a 3-peat caliber of strategy and execution over the years - the Bulls had the same roster back in 1990 as they had in 1994, but obviously, they couldn't have won 55 games without MJ in 1990.. Accordingly, the journey towards having 55-win capability was an accumulative one... The accumulation of once-in-a-generation 3-peat chemistry, execution, and strategy enabled the Bulls to win 55 games in 1994.

The accumulative dynamic is also evident by evaluating the sheer talent on the team in 1994 - like all of MJ's teams, the team had very little talent in 1994, other than Pippen.. Kukoc was a Harrison Barnes-level player with worse defense.. The team's lack of talented scorers is why the Bulls needed MJ to lead the league in scoring for all of their 6 championships.. So again, the 55 wins wasn't due to having a bunch of talented scorers, it was due to the very rare, 3-peat caliber of team chemistry, execution and strategy that was accumulated by 3-peating with MJ.

Of course, none of this means 2 bird shits when the competition increases in the playoffs - in the playoffs, you need more than just teamwork to win... You need PLAYERS that can produce, which is what MJ provided... That's why when the 1994 playoffs measured the Bulls TRUE ability without MJ, they were only an ordinary 2nd round exit team, which is a goat drop-off from not 1, not 2, but a three-peat with MJ.. Fortunately, MJ came back and validated his 2nd Round to 3-peat impact by returning the Bulls to 3-peat glory, beginning in his first full season back.. How many guys take 2 years off and return as the best with 3-peat and 3 FMVP's.... Only the goat has those kind of stories.[/I]

[97 bulls]

The '94 Bulls are a perfect example of a team that overachieved. Yeah, they won 55 games but they weren't playing at a truly dominant level like the rest of the Bulls teams from the 90's.

Here's the SRS of the '90's Bulls...

'91: 8.57
'92: 10.07
'93: 6.19

'94: 2.87
'95: 4.32

'96: 11.80
'97: 10.70
'98: 7.24

The 3-peat Bulls teams played at all time great or even GOAT level while the '94 Bulls were basically like last season's Rockets/Grizzlies - a really good team but not a championship team.
The Bulls lost Grant, King, and Williams and still were on a 44 win pace in 95. You dont think that if those key contributors stayed that they end up with roughly the same amount of wins as 94?

[Young X]

Why didnt the Miami Heat drop from a 4 Finals 2 rings team, to simply a Rockets/Grizzles team last year?



Why did they crater all the way to one of the worst teams in the league?First of all it's not the same situation. The '93 Bulls were an all time great team that dominated the postseason en route to a championship. The '14 Heat were a very good team that got to the finals largely due to the lack of competition they faced and eventually got bodied in historic fashion once they faced a team that was a real threat. 2 totally different levels we're talking about here.

2nd, Miami last season had no one on their team even close to being as good as Pippen or role players as good as Grant and Armstrong or a coach as great as Jackson. Plus they had to deal with facing a ridiculous number of injuries that the '94 Bulls didn't have to deal with.

[97 bulls]

And part of that "quality" was the accumulation of a 3-peat caliber of strategy and execution over the years - the Bulls had the same roster back in 1990 as they had in 1994, but obviously, they couldn't have won 55 games without MJ in 1990.. Accordingly, the journey towards having 55-win capability was an accumulative one... The accumulation of once-in-a-generation 3-peat chemistry, execution, and strategy enabled the Bulls to win 55 games in 1994.

The accumulative dynamic is also evident by evaluating the sheer talent on the team in 1994 - like all of MJ's teams, the team had very little talent in 1994, other than Pippen.. Kukoc was a Harrison Barnes-level player with worse defense.. The team's lack of talented scorers is why the Bulls needed MJ to lead the league in scoring for all of their 6 championships.. So again, the 55 wins wasn't due to having a bunch of talented scorers, it was due to the very rare, 3-peat caliber of team chemistry, execution and strategy that was accumulated by 3-peating with MJ.

Of course, none of this means 2 bird shits when the competition increases in the playoffs - in the playoffs, you need more than just teamwork to win... You need PLAYERS that can produce, which is what MJ provided... That's why when the 1994 playoffs measured the Bulls TRUE ability without MJ, they were only an ordinary 2nd round exit team, which is a goat drop-off from not 1, not 2, but a three-peat with MJ.. Fortunately, MJ came back and validated his 2nd Round to 3-peat impact by returning the Bulls to 3-peat glory, beginning in his first full season back.. How many guys take 2 years off and return as the best with 3-peat and 3 FMVP's.... Only the goat has those kind of stories.[/I]
They did not have the same roster from 90. Kukoc, Myers, Longley, werent on the 90 team. And most importantly they had Jordan in 90. How can you spend so much time on this forum shoving Michael Jordan down our throats and then omit his contributions on the 90 team?

[3ball]

They did not have the same roster from 90. Kukoc, Myers, Longley, werent on the 90 team. And most importantly they had Jordan in 90. How can you spend so much time on this forum shoving Michael Jordan down our throats and then omit his contributions on the 90 team?


Playing dumb I see... Sorry bud, you lose the dumbness contest.. sdot has that all wrapped up.

When you compare the 1990 and 1994 rosters, they are nearly identical, especially at the top - Pippen, Grant, Cartwright, Armstrong, Paxson - all the best players were the same, but obviously, they don't sniff 55 wins in 1990 like they did in 1994.. This proves the the journey towards having 55-win capability was an accumulative one... The accumulation of once-in-a-generation 3-peat chemistry, execution, and strategy enabled the Bulls to win 55 games in 1994.. (And it was enabled by once-in-a-lifetime GOAT playoff and Finals averages from MJ).

The accumulative dynamic is also evident by evaluating the sheer talent on the team in 1994 - like all of MJ's teams, the team had very little talent in 1994, other than Pippen.. Kukoc was a Harrison Barnes-level player with worse defense.. The team's lack of talented scorers is why the Bulls needed MJ to lead the league in scoring for all of their 6 championships.. So again, the 55 wins wasn't due to having a bunch of talented scorers, it was due to the very rare, 3-peat caliber of team chemistry, execution and strategy that was accumulated by 3-peating with MJ.

Of course, none of this means 2 bird shits when the competition increases in the playoffs - in the playoffs, you need more than just teamwork to win... You need PLAYERS that can produce, which is what MJ provided... That's why when the 1994 playoffs measured the Bulls TRUE ability without MJ, they were only an ordinary 2nd round exit team, which is a goat drop-off from not 1, not 2, but a three-peat with MJ.. Fortunately, MJ came back and validated his 2nd Round to 3-peat impact by returning the Bulls to 3-peat glory, beginning in his first full season back.. How many guys take 2 years off and return as the best with 3-peat and 3 FMVP's.... Only the goat has those kind of stories

[Young X]

The Bulls lost Grant, King, and Williams and still were on a 44 win pace in 95. You dont think that if those key contributors stayed that they end up with roughly the same amount of wins as 94?I don't see why not, but I don't know if they would've been a true championship level team. The Bulls without Jordan proved they could be a really, really good team but they needed him to elevate them to all time great level. They already had the role players, coaching, team defense but they needed someone to make them an elite offensive team which Jordan did.

[97 bulls]

Playing dumb I see... Sorry bud, you lose the dumbness contest.. sdot has that all wrapped up.

When you compare the 1990 and 1994 rosters, they are nearly identical, especially at the top - Pippen, Grant, Cartwright, Armstrong, Paxson - all the best players were the same, but obviously, they don't sniff 55 wins in 1990 like they did in 1994.. This proves the the journey towards having 55-win capability was an accumulative one... The accumulation of once-in-a-generation 3-peat chemistry, execution, and strategy enabled the Bulls to win 55 games in 1994.. (And it was enabled by once-in-a-lifetime GOAT playoff and Finals averages from MJ).

The accumulative dynamic is also evident by evaluating the sheer talent on the team in 1994 - like all of MJ's teams, the team had very little talent in 1994, other than Pippen.. Kukoc was a Harrison Barnes-level player with worse defense.. The team's lack of talented scorers is why the Bulls needed MJ to lead the league in scoring for all of their 6 championships.. So again, the 55 wins wasn't due to having a bunch of talented scorers, it was due to the very rare, 3-peat caliber of team chemistry, execution and strategy that was accumulated by 3-peating with MJ.

Of course, none of this means 2 bird shits when the competition increases in the playoffs - in the playoffs, you need more than just teamwork to win... You need PLAYERS that can produce, which is what MJ provided... That's why when the 1994 playoffs measured the Bulls TRUE ability without MJ, they were only an ordinary 2nd round exit team, which is a goat drop-off from not 1, not 2, but a three-peat with MJ.. Fortunately, MJ came back and validated his 2nd Round to 3-peat impact by returning the Bulls to 3-peat glory, beginning in his first full season back.. How many guys take 2 years off and return as the best with 3-peat and 3 FMVP's.... Only the goat has those kind of stories
Dude they werent the same team. 90 Pippen was nowhere near as good as 94. The same with Grant and Armstrong. In 94. Paxson barely played. Cartwright was old. It's no different than trying to say old Wizards Jordan is the same as he was on the Bulls. They werent the same team.

[97 bulls]

I don't see why not, but I don't know if they would've been a true championship level team. The Bulls without Jordan proved they could be a really, really good team but they needed him to elevate them to all time great level. They already had the role players, coaching, team defense but they needed someone to make them an elite offensive team which Jordan did.
I see your point. My only issue is that the people saying the Bulls 55 win season was a fluke. It obviously wasnt.

[3ball]

but they needed someone to make them an elite offensive team which Jordan did.


Without MJ's defense, they wouldn't have been an elite defensive team WITH Jordan.

People seem to think teams have unlimited energy - teams have a FINITE amount of energy to allocate to both ends.. If you expend more energy on offense, you lose something on defense... So if a single player vaults a team from middle of the back offensively, to GOAT offensive team, they would normally lose a TON on defense.

But not when you have the goat wing defender (if we're being honest and not being biased by MJ fatigue, then MJ is the unquestioned goat wing defender - it's hard for new fans to say now 20 years later because of MJ fatigue, so people look for ANYTHING to bring MJ down, but it was common knowledge at the time, even in the mainstream media (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgJhzj4W9M&t=35m00s)).

[Round Mound]

The reason why they lost only 2 games less? :confusedshrug: Simple: Pippen was 4th in PER that season (top 10 in Defensive Rating as Point-Forward aswell BTW) and The Best SF of the 90s (nothing new to non MJ fanboys). They also had Defensive All Teamer Horce Grant and added the versatile Tony Kukoc. Lets not forget who was also coach for that team. Jordan had great teamates 88 onwards compared to the other superstars...

[3ball]

Jordan had great teamates 88 onwards compared to the other superstars...[/B]


Pippen averaged 8/4 in 1988... Grant averaged 8/6.

In 1989, Pippen averaged 14/6/3 and Grant 12/9.

Those were MJ's 2nd and 3rd options in 1989, and it represents the worst supporting cast that Magic, Bird, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, or Lebron has ever had... Their 2nd and 3rd options were never this bad (except for Kobe's brief post-Shaq/pre-Gasol stretch).

Put all of MJ's best teammates alongside those of the aforementioned players, and it's not remotely close - those guys' played with FAR more talent than MJ ever did.

[Round Mound]

Pippen averaged 8/4 in 1988... Grant averaged 8/6.

In 1989, Pippen averaged 14/6/3 and Grant 12/9.

Those were MJ's 2nd and 3rd options in 1989, and it represents the worst supporting cast that Magic, Bird, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, or Lebron has ever had... Their 2nd and 3rd options were never this bad (except for Kobe's brief post-Shaq/pre-Gasol stretch).

Put all of MJ's best teammates alongside those of the aforementioned players, and it's not remotely close - those guys' played with FAR more talent than MJ ever did.

I mean in general as they grew onwards...Pippen and Grant (especially Pipp) where legit players by 1989-1990.

Jordan`s 2nd Option Was a Better Than Any Other Superstars During the 90s (i say this for those drafted in 84 and or close to that year not Shaq, Duncan or Kobe). Having Pippen was a blessing for MJ cause he was the only all star available that would sacrifice numbers and stats in order for things to work for the team concept. All defensive teamer Horace Grant was also valuable and later on Kukoc and Rodman. Jordan also had the best coach in the league btw.

Jordan was blessed with better teamates that those of his generation into the 90s superstars.

This doesnt change the fact that he was the best player of his generation.

[97 bulls]

The reason why they lost only 2 games less? :confusedshrug: Simple: Pippen was 4th in PER that season (top 10 in Defensive Rating as Point-Forward aswell BTW) and The Best SF of the 90s (nothing new to non MJ fanboys). They also had Defensive All Teamer Horce Grant and added the versatile Tony Kukoc. Lets not forget who was also coach for that team. Jordan had great teamates 88 onwards compared to the other superstars...
This exactly. This is all I've ever said. The Bulls proved they were a damn good team without Jordan. And one of the greatest ever with Jordan. Arguably the greatest ever both team and Dyanasty.

No other comparable team can boast what they did. The Celtics, Lakers (both Showtime and the Shaq/Kobe), Heat, failed miserably when theh lost their best player.

And it wasnt just Jordan. They maintained a high level when Pippen missed a long stint of games in 98. As well as Rodman in 97.

And the only team good enough to beat them was their management.

[3ball]

Jordan`s 2nd Option Was a Better Than Any Other Superstars During the 90s



Pippen was a worse 2nd option than Stockton and Penny.. and then Duncan in 1998.

Also, Grant was an 11/8 play-finisher who was a lesser player than say PJ Brown or EASILY Otis Thorpe (who was actually a 2nd option).. He was never an all-star or an all-defensive player on the Bulls.

And compare MJ's first 3-peat supporting cast to that of his supposed "peers": Pippen/Grant is less than Mchale/Parish/DJ... Kareem/Worthy... Wade/Bosh/Allen... Parker/Ginobili/Kawhi... Shaq....

MJ's inferior supporting cast is why MJ's 1st three-peat stats are so much better than all of his supposed "peers" - the better stats are because he had to do the most
.

[Smoke117]

lol.

[ShaqTwizzle]

Also, Grant was an 11/8 play-finisher who was a lesser player than say PJ Brown or EASILY Otis Thorpe (who was actually a 2nd option).. He was never an all-star or an all-defensive player on the Bulls.


I was looking back at the 95 playoffs when Orlando beat the Jordan led Bulls and Grant had a 4 game stretch in that series where he averaged 22 / 13.3 / 1.3 on 75%TS.
How many roleplayers can do that?
Grant was an excellent defender also.

I have seen you make disparaging remarks about Horace over the last week or so constantly saying he was just some mediocre or average roleplayer.
You overly diminish him. Probably to make Jordan look better.

Grant was a roleplayer but he was an excellent roleplayer.
Ok rant over.

[3ball]

I was looking back at the 95 playoffs when Orlando beat the Jordan led Bulls and Grant had a 4 game stretch where he averaged 22 / 13.3 / 1.3 on 75%TS.


How many roleplayers can do that?



A lot... If that was the best 4-game stretch of their entire 15-year career.

[Round Mound]

I was looking back at the 95 playoffs when Orlando beat the Jordan led Bulls and Grant had a 4 game stretch in that series where he averaged 22 / 13.3 / 1.3 on 75%TS.
How many roleplayers can do that?
Grant was an excellent defender also.

I have seen you make disparaging remarks about Horace over the last week or so constantly saying he was just some mediocre or average roleplayer and it is sad how you try and diminish him to support your pro-Jordan agenda (like he needs one).

Grant was a roleplayer but he was an excellent roleplayer.
Ok rant over.

:applause:

Lets not forget about Pippen the season Jordan left in 1993-94

22.0 PPG
49.1% FG
8.7 RPG
5.6 APG
2.9 SPG

* 4th in PER (Fourth Most Efficient Player in The World)
* 7th in DEFENSIVE RATING...I Say Not As a Big Man But as a PERIMETER POINT-FORWARD.

Pippen Was Also

Top 6 In Plus/Minus 7 Times in the 90s
And Twice 2nd Only to Defensive Monster: David Robinson in 93-94 and 94-95

Pippen WAS THE BEST 2ND OPTION OF THE WHOLE 90s DECADE!!!

I Was There To Watch Live So I Know How God Pippen Was!

Anyone Who Disagrees Is a Jordan Coksucker Fanboy or Insane. Period!

[Lebron23]

3ball getting raped and exposed in this thread.

[Smoke117]

:applause:

Lets not forget about Pippen the season Jordan left in 1993-94

22.0 PPG
49.1% FG
8.7 RPG
5.6 APG
2.9 SPG

* 4th in PER (Fourth Most Efficient Player in The World)
* 7th in DEFENSIVE RATING...I Say Not As a Big Man But as a PERIMETER POINT-FORWARD.

Pippen Was Also

Top 6 In Plus/Minus 7 Times in the 90s
And Twice 2nd Only to Defensive Monster: David Robinson in 93-94 and 94-95

Pippen WAS THE 2ND BEST 2ND OPTION OF THE WHOLE 90s DECADE!!!

I Was There To Watch Live So I Know How God Pippen Was!

Anyone Who Disagrees Is a Jordan Coksucker Fanboy or Insane. Period!


You make a lot of sense when it has nothing to do with Barkley.

[3ball]

Lets not forget about Pippen the season Jordan left in 1993-94

22.0 PPG
49.1% FG
8.7 RPG
5.6 APG
2.9 SPG

* 4th in PER (Fourth Most Efficient Player in The World)


Let's not forget 1992, where Pippen put up nearly identical stats, actually better: 21.0//7.7/7.1 on 50.6% - Pippen played to capacity alongside MJ's off-ball game - the stats prove that.. Also, Horace averaged 14/10 alongside MJ in 1992, and 15/11 without MJ in 1994, and Kukoc's stats barely changed too.

This is contrary to Lebron, who craters the stats of his teammates - Lebron gets his by reducing the stats of teammates - this is statistical FACT.

Btw - enough about Pippen - during the 1996-1998 playoffs he only averaged 17/7/5 on 40.8%, including 15 ppg on 34% during the 1996 Finals, and the same in the 1998 Finals - this the worst Finals performances ever for a 2nd option.

Pippen's playoff failures during the 2nd three-peat are in addition to a bevy of epic chokes, most notably the 1994 meltdown in Game 3 of ECSF.. His 10/7 on 42% in the 1989 ECF... And his so-called "migraines", which was code for 2 points on 1-10, in Game 7 of 1990 ECF - this cost the Bulls their first championship, based on the fact that the Pistons needed 7 to beat them, but only 6 to beat the Blazers.

[HighFlyer23]

3ball getting raped and exposed in this thread.

Like every other thread

[julizaver]

Let's not forget 1992, where Pippen put up nearly identical stats, actually better: 21.0//7.7/7.1 on 50.6% - Pippen played to capacity alongside MJ's off-ball game - the stats prove that.. Also, Horace averaged 14/10 alongside MJ in 1992, and 15/11 without MJ in 1994, and Kukoc's stats barely changed too.

This is contrary to Lebron, who craters the stats of his teammates - Lebron gets his by reducing the stats of teammates - this is statistical FACT.

Btw - enough about Pippen - during the 1996-1998 playoffs he only averaged 17/7/5 on 40.8%, including 15 ppg on 34% during the 1996 Finals, and the same in the 1998 Finals - this the worst Finals performances ever for a 2nd option.

Pippen's playoff failures during the 2nd three-peat are in addition to a bevy of epic chokes, most notably the 1994 meltdown in Game 3 of ECSF.. His 10/7 on 42% in the 1989 ECF... And his so-called "migraines", which was code for 2 points on 1-10, in Game 7 of 1990 ECF - this cost the Bulls their first championship, based on the fact that the Pistons needed 7 to beat them, but only 6 to beat the Blazers.

Man, there is no question in my mind that Jordan was the best player I have ever saw, but you went to extreems when downplaying his teamates, which I find a little bit unfair. MJ doesn't need that. But you compare Tony Kukoc with Harrison Barnes and making point of Scottie as the worst second option ever, constantly trashing him !?