The Reason why The Bulls won 72 games

[LakersForlife]

they were playing in the EAST Lmao. imagine GSW in the East they would go 82-0:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[Marchesk]

The East from 1995/96

[Young X]

Because they're the GOAT team. :confusedshrug:

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

they were playing in the EAST Lmao. imagine GSW in the East they would go 82-0:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

At least they aren't drawing like ur profile pic.
Anime sucks

[Gileraracer]

I found the real reason

http://content.nike.com/content/dam/one-nike/en_us/Jordan/Jordan/FP-Jordan-Melo-Contentgrid-Family-700x460-img01.jpg.transform/default/image.jpg

[HenryGarfunkle]

I found the real reason

http://content.nike.com/content/dam/one-nike/en_us/Jordan/Jordan/FP-Jordan-Melo-Contentgrid-Family-700x460-img01.jpg.transform/default/image.jpg
:roll:

good one :lol

Baldan :roll:

[nathanjizzle]

the **** does that matter?40 percent of regular season games are against the west.

[LakersForlife]

At least they aren't drawing like ur profile pic.
Anime sucks
EAST :hammerhead: Curry > MJ.

[jstern]

OP must be 12 years old.

[DonDadda59]

The 80s-90s East was nothing like the dumpster fire East that you see today. '96-'97 alone had 6 50-win teams (including 2 60 win squads).

Not even remotely in the same ballpark as the LEast that Bron and his handpicked super teams feast on today.

[NBAplayoffs2001]

The 80s-90s East was nothing like the dumpster fire East that you see today. '96-'97 alone had 6 50-win teams (including 2 60 win squads).

Not even remotely in the same ballpark as the LEast that Bron and his handpicked super teams feast on today.

Yeah, OP you clearly know nothing. In the 90s, it was very arguable that the East was stronger than the West by a good amount. 80s West was pretty weak outside of Houston, Portland, and Los Angeles.

[sd3035]

http://www.athletepromotions.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Scottie-Pippen.jpg

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

EAST :hammerhead: Curry > MJ.

When people who like watching drawing **** each other try to talk about sports.

[catch24]

The mid-to-late 90s was a watered down product, IMO.

Expansion, injuries, etc. Just ugly basketball all-around

On the flipside, the late 80s-to-early 90s was one of the greatest eras ever. You had superstars galore.

[ArbitraryWater]

The mid-to-late 90s was a watered down product, IMO.

Expansion, injuries, etc. Just ugly basketball all-around

On the flipside, the late 80s-to-early 90s was one of the greatest eras ever. You had superstars galore.

'87-'93 is the bomb juice.

[sdot_thadon]

There were 3 50 wins in the east that year, expansion happened but I think it had the most to do with just outright having a far better team than the rest of the league. Mj, scottie, worm. Pjax. Next.

[SamuraiSWISH]

East was the superior conference from the late 80s through the entirety of the 90s. So WTF are you smoking? Either way, the core of that Bulls squad also fielded teams that won 69, 67, 62, and 61 games.

[sdot_thadon]

East was the superior conference from the late 80s through the entirety of the 90s. So WTF are you smoking? Either way, the core of that Bulls squad also fielded teams that won 69, 67, 62, and 61 games.
80's I'll give you but the 90's west was tougher than the east.

[3ball]

East was better in the 80's I'll give you but the 90's west was tougher than the east.



Well, wait a minute - let's see - you had Hakeem/Drexler's Rockets, Robinson/Duncan/Popovich Spurs, Shaq's 90's Lakers were his most talented teams ever, Gary Payton/Kemp/Schrempf big 3 in Seattle, among other teams.. And the Utah Jazz were the best of the bunch - actually, the Jazz and the Sonics destroyed all these teams - they were the best of this powerful lot.

And I guess that's the value of WINNING the championship, and beating these teams despite coming from a weaker conference, like you claim MJ did in the 90's East - by still winning the ring and beating the best of the West, it proves his Bulls would've still made the Finals if they had been in the stronger conference instead..

It's amazing how MJ's career contrasts so sharply with Lebron's in every way, since Lebron ISN'T able to beat the stronger conference, barring miracle - look at Lebron's 2014 Heat - their Finals performance proved what their regular season record proved - they would've barely even MADE the playoffs in the West.. They were a 1st or 2nd Round playoff team at best in the West, so when they fell to lottery in 2015, it was barely any drop-off at all, especially considering Wade/Bosh were out much of the year.. Contrast this minimal impact by Lebron, to MJ's enormous impact in 1994, when the Bulls fell from 3-peat dynasty to ordinary 2nd Round exit team.

[sdot_thadon]

Well, wait a minute - let's see - you had Hakeem/Drexler's Rockets, Robinson/Duncan/Popovich Spurs, Shaq's 90's Lakers were his most talented teams ever, Gary Payton/Kemp/Schrempf big 3 in Seattle, among other teams.. And the Utah Jazz were the best of the bunch - actually, the Jazz and the Sonics destroyed all these teams - they were the best of this powerful lot.

And I guess that's the value of WINNING the championship, and beating these teams despite coming from a weaker conference, like you claim MJ did in the 90's East - by still winning the ring and beating the best of the West, it proves his Bulls would've still made the Finals if they had been in the stronger conference instead..

It's amazing how MJ's career contrasts so sharply with Lebron's in every way, since Lebron ISN'T able to beat the stronger conference, barring miracle - look at Lebron's 2014 Heat - their Finals performance proved what their regular season record proved - they would've barely even MADE the playoffs in the West.. They were a 1st or 2nd Round playoff team at best in the West, so when they fell to lottery in 2015, it was barely any drop-off at all, especially considering Wade/Bosh were out much of the year.. Contrast this minimal impact by Lebron, to MJ's enormous impact in 1994, when the Bulls fell from 3-peat dynasty to ordinary 2nd Round exit team.
Clown shoes.

[3ball]

Clown shoes.
too much sense for you to handle, i know

[sdot_thadon]

too much sense for you to handle, i know
Not at all, your mind is just too warped to waste energy on sometimes. You already debunked your own post by the halfway point, the west was better. Period.

[3ball]

the west was better. Period.


That's fine - the East was still very strong, much stronger than today, as evidenced by how many great teams and 50+ win teams MJ had to defeat compared to Lebron.

And the strong West in the 90's shows the value of WINNING the championship coming from the East like MJ did.. By still winning the ring and beating the best of the West, it proves his Bulls would've still made the Finals if they had been in the stronger conference instead..

It's amazing how MJ's career contrasts so sharply with Lebron's in every way, since Lebron isn't able to beat the stronger West, barring miracle.. Just look at Lebron's 2014 Heat - their Finals performance proved what their paltry 53 wins in regular season already proved - they would've barely even MADE the playoffs if they were in the West..

The 2014 Heat were a 1st or 2nd Round playoff team in the West, so when they fell to lottery in 2015, it was barely any drop-off at all, especially considering Wade/Bosh were out much of the year.. Contrast this minimal impact by Lebron, to MJ's enormous impact in 1994, when the Bulls fell from 3-peat dynasty to ordinary 2nd Round exit team.
.

[DMAVS41]

The reason?

Jordan, Phil, and a great team combined with a pretty weak league imo...lots of reasons.

[Sarcastic]

The reason?

Jordan, Phil, and a great team combined with a pretty weak league imo...lots of reasons.

Pretty weak league? Are you on meth?

[dhsilv]

Pretty weak league? Are you on meth?

The 96 year was weak. They league had just expanded. Now it is possible it was top heavy....

[sdot_thadon]

The league only looked weak because of how much better the bulls were than the rest of the league in relation.

[HenryGarfunkle]

The league only looked weak because of how much better the bulls were than the rest of the league in relation.
insanely stacked team

they won a shit ton of games without Baldan I mean Jordan

around 60 actually, which is the highest number of wins in history for a team without their best player for a season

[3ball]

The reason?

Jordan, Phil, and a great team combined with a pretty weak league imo...lots of reasons




Compare the competition Bulls faced in 1996 Playoffs to the Heat's comp in 2013:


1st Round
Miami Heat: Alonzo, Tim Hardaway, Pat Riley.. 41-41
Milwaukee: Monta Ellis, Brandon Jennings....... 38-44

2nd Round
New York: Ewing, Mason, Starks, Oakley.. 47-35
Chicago..: Deng, Noah, Boozer, Nate Rob.. 45-37

Eastern Finals
Orlando: Penny Hardaway, Shaquille.. 60-22
Indiana: Paul George, Roy Hibbert..... 49-32

Finals
Sonics: Kemp, Payton, Schrempf.. 64-18
Spurs.: Duncan, Parker, Kawhi..... 58-24

[sdot_thadon]

Compare the competition Bulls faced in 1996 Playoffs to the Heat's comp in 2013:


1st Round
Miami Heat: Alonzo, Tim Hardaway, Pat Riley.. 41-41
Milwaukee: Monta Ellis, Brandon Jennings....... 38-44

2nd Round
New York: Ewing, Mason, Starks, Oakley.. 47-35
Chicago..: Deng, Noah, Boozer, Nate Rob.. 45-37

Eastern Finals
Orlando: Penny Hardaway, Shaquille.. 60-22
Indiana: Paul George, Roy Hibbert..... 49-32

Finals
Sonics: Kemp, Payton, Schrempf.. 64-18
Spurs.: Duncan, Parker, Kawhi..... 58-24
Then compare their records and see the correlation. The heat weren't that much better than their relative competition like the Bulls were.

[Hey Yo]

Well, wait a minute - let's see - you had Hakeem/Drexler's Rockets, Robinson/Duncan/Popovich Spurs, Shaq's 90's Lakers were his most talented teams ever, Gary Payton/Kemp/Schrempf big 3 in Seattle, among other teams.. And the Utah Jazz were the best of the bunch - actually, the Jazz and the Sonics destroyed all these teams - they were the best of this powerful lot.

And I guess that's the value of WINNING the championship, and beating these teams despite coming from a weaker conference, like you claim MJ did in the 90's East - by still winning the ring and beating the best of the West, it proves his Bulls would've still made the Finals if they had been in the stronger conference instead..

It's amazing how MJ's career contrasts so sharply with Lebron's in every way, since Lebron ISN'T able to beat the stronger conference, barring miracle - look at Lebron's 2014 Heat - their Finals performance proved what their regular season record proved - they would've barely even MADE the playoffs in the West.. They were a 1st or 2nd Round playoff team at best in the West, so when they fell to lottery in 2015, it was barely any drop-off at all, especially considering Wade/Bosh were out much of the year.. Contrast this minimal impact by Lebron, to MJ's enormous impact in 1994, when the Bulls fell from 3-peat dynasty to ordinary 2nd Round exit team.
I wouldn't call it a miracle but OKC was heavily favored after just steamrolling through the West in route to their Finals appearance.

Then LeBron and the Heat got that backdoor sweep for LeBron's first of B2B Finals MVP's.

[3ball]

Compare the competition Bulls faced in 1996 Playoffs to the Heat's comp in 2013:


1st Round
Miami Heat: Alonzo, Tim Hardaway, Pat Riley.. 41-41
Milwaukee: Monta Ellis, Brandon Jennings....... 38-44

2nd Round
New York: Ewing, Mason, Starks, Oakley.. 47-35
Chicago..: Deng, Noah, Boozer, Nate Rob.. 45-37

Eastern Finals
Orlando: Penny Hardaway, Shaquille.. 60-22
Indiana: Paul George, Roy Hibbert..... 49-32

Finals
Sonics: Kemp, Payton, Schrempf.. 64-18
Spurs.: Duncan, Parker, Kawhi..... 58-24


Then compare their records and see the correlation. The heat weren't that much better than their relative competition like the Bulls were.
The point was that the Bulls faced better competition...

i.e.. Shaq/Penny > Hibbert/George... Payton/Kemp/Schrempf > Parker/Duncan/Kawhi

plus their 1st and 2nd Round opponents, all shown above

[3ball]

I wouldn't call it a miracle but OKC was heavily favored after just steamrolling through the West in route to their Finals appearance.


So you're saying 1/6.. :cheers:

[Hey Yo]

So you're saying 1/6.. :cheers:
No....your ruined ass did. :oldlol:

2012 and 2013 LeBron >>>>> MJ.

2014 and 2015 LeBron >>>>> MJ

[feyki]

At least they aren't drawing like ur profile pic.
Anime sucks

Anime is great , if you're watch slam dunk ; but Kuroko sucks .

[dhsilv]

Compare the competition Bulls faced in 1996 Playoffs to the Heat's comp in 2013:


1st Round
Miami Heat: Alonzo, Tim Hardaway, Pat Riley.. 41-41
Milwaukee: Monta Ellis, Brandon Jennings....... 38-44

2nd Round
New York: Ewing, Mason, Starks, Oakley.. 47-35
Chicago..: Deng, Noah, Boozer, Nate Rob.. 45-37

Eastern Finals
Orlando: Penny Hardaway, Shaquille.. 60-22
Indiana: Paul George, Roy Hibbert..... 49-32

Finals
Sonics: Kemp, Payton, Schrempf.. 64-18
Spurs.: Duncan, Parker, Kawhi..... 58-24

This is no way shape or form an argument against the league being weak and inflating regular reason wins. It's actually about as dumb a post as you've ever made.

Do you read, think, and then post or do you just copy and paste as fast as you can and avoid even reading? Seriously....what is wrong with you?

[deja vu]

So they played all their 82 games in the East? :facepalm

[Sarcastic]

They had the second best SRS of all time, which adjusts for opponent winning percentage. There should be no diminishing of their accomplishments due to some misguided thought that they played in a weak conference.

[dhsilv]

They had the second best SRS of all time, which adjusts for opponent winning percentage. There should be no diminishing of their accomplishments due to some misguided thought that they played in a weak conference.

League not conference.

Oh god...you guys are going to make me work now.

[magnax1]

The point was that the Bulls faced better competition...

i.e.. Shaq/Penny > Hibbert/George... Payton/Kemp/Schrempf > Parker/Duncan/Kawhi

plus their 1st and 2nd Round opponents, all shown above
Ill agree Shaq/Penny>
But Payton and crew? I don't see how they're clearly better, let alone better at all. The Spurs have a proven championship pedigree, where the Sonics more or less had a track record of underachieving, and could barely beat a Jazz team that had a huge deficit at the center spot that they tried to fill by playing by playing 6-8 Antoine Carr and Malone at the center spot for the majority of the game.

Overall Chicago's competition was more impressive (though honestly not as tough as the next two years)

[Angel Face]

GOAT team and East back then was a bloodbath compared to what it is now.

[diamenz]

boy, threads like these really seperate the men from the boys, don't they.

speaking about men vs boys = 80/90's vs today.

[kennethgriffin]

the east was good when mj played


hense jordan being 2nd all time to kobe in 50+ win teams beatin in the playoffs


http://i.imgur.com/GTrgFmP.jpg

[dubeta]

the east was good when mj played


hense jordan being 2nd all time to kobe in 50+ win teams beatin in the playoffs


http://i.imgur.com/GTrgFmP.jpg

50 win teams beaten without their best 2 teammates?


Kobe without Pau and Shaq


LeBron without Wade and Bosh


Jordan without Pippen and Rodman




What is it??

[G0ATbe]

They were the most stacked team of all time in one of the weakest eras of all time. I'm surprised they didnt win more quite honestly.

[DMAVS41]

Compare the competition Bulls faced in 1996 Playoffs to the Heat's comp in 2013:


1st Round
Miami Heat: Alonzo, Tim Hardaway, Pat Riley.. 41-41
Milwaukee: Monta Ellis, Brandon Jennings....... 38-44

2nd Round
New York: Ewing, Mason, Starks, Oakley.. 47-35
Chicago..: Deng, Noah, Boozer, Nate Rob.. 45-37

Eastern Finals
Orlando: Penny Hardaway, Shaquille.. 60-22
Indiana: Paul George, Roy Hibbert..... 49-32

Finals
Sonics: Kemp, Payton, Schrempf.. 64-18
Spurs.: Duncan, Parker, Kawhi..... 58-24


You probably weren't around in 96 I'm guessing. The league was kind of "meh" that regular season.

Doesn't mean there weren't some really good teams, but it was a bit watered down.

Kerr has talked about this before actually.

Doesn't take away from what Jordan and the Bulls did, but it needs to be mentioned.

Have no idea why you bring up the 13 East in the playoffs....I've been repeatedly talking about how big of a joke that conference was.

[DMAVS41]

Pretty weak league? Are you on meth?

Nope.

Just alive and watching basketball in 96 and it was pretty obvious that there were a lot of free wins in the league that year during the regular season.

And by a lot I mean like maybe 2 or 3 extra wins based on league strength. Which is a lot when talking about the difference between winning 70 or not.

Doesn't take away from the accomplishment though...

[ballinhun8]

It was not that watered down as many would believe.

Two teams added with a bunch of players that there respective teams didn't protect.

For gods sake Chicago lost one of its games that year to the expansion Raptors so at least you know 68/69 of the wins came against the rest of the league and weren't free.


They won that many games because they were hungry. MJ was done losing in the playoffs. Hadn't lost a series since the 90 ECF and he felt what it was like to lose again and he made it a mission that season to not lose. And they barely did.

[DMAVS41]

It was not that watered down as many would believe.

Two teams added with a bunch of players that there respective teams didn't protect.

For gods sake Chicago lost one of its games that year to the expansion Raptors so at least you know 68/69 of the wins came against the rest of the league and weren't free.


They won that many games because they were hungry. MJ was done losing in the playoffs. Hadn't lost a series since the 90 ECF and he felt what it was like to lose again and he made it a mission that season to not lose. And they barely did.

I didn't say the rest of the wins were free. I said there were more free wins in that league imo.

And I said by more...I'm talking about 2 to 3....and that matters a lot when going for 70 plus wins.

At some point in the NBA season...any team, no matter how good, is going to lose some games. There is a ceiling to this stuff.

Could the 2015 Warriors have won 70 back in 96? Yes...I think they probably would have.

However, that doesn't mean they are on par with the Bulls. That isn't how it works.

The margins here are like a handful of games at most.

We honestly think the 07 Mavs in the regular season were on par with the 15 Warriors? Of course not...and there are a variety of reasons for why...including that the league was not in 07 overall...

[dhsilv]

They were the most stacked team of all time in one of the weakest eras of all time. I'm surprised they didnt win more quite honestly.

Most taked ever? 60's celtics? Wilt, Baylor and West on the lakers? Magic, Kareem, Worth and just that army on the 80's lakers? The 80's Celtics?

My god....they weren't even close to the most stacked team ever. Likely not even close to the top 10.

[dhsilv]

It was not that watered down as many would believe.

Two teams added with a bunch of players that there respective teams didn't protect.

For gods sake Chicago lost one of its games that year to the expansion Raptors so at least you know 68/69 of the wins came against the rest of the league and weren't free.


They won that many games because they were hungry. MJ was done losing in the playoffs. Hadn't lost a series since the 90 ECF and he felt what it was like to lose again and he made it a mission that season to not lose. And they barely did.

You understand that all those players were taking from other NBA teams? Meaning the whole league had to add players to their rosters, right? Like you get that essentially 24 new nba players who weren't in the league otherwise had to be added?

[SamuraiSWISH]

Free wins? One of the Bulls losses came against the expansion Raptors. Bulls saw every teams best night in and night out. Players who hadn't had a chance to play Jordan yet were amped.

A couple of expansion teams is no different than having terrible teams at the bottom of any conference in every season. There are usually a few. In today's East half the conference is atrocious. And there was just one new team per conference. No big deal. Overstated and hyperbole.

1996 NBA:

Chicago 72-10
Seattle 64-18
Orlando 60-22

San Antonio 59-23
Utah 55-27
Lakers 53-29 (didn't realize how good they were in 1996)
Indiana 52-30

That's a weak NBA?!

3x teams won over 60 games.

1997 NBA was even better ... top heavy like '96 with 3x 60+ win teams ... and a littany of mid to high 50+ win teams

Chicago 69-13
Utah 64-18
Miami 61-21

New York 57-25
Seattle 57-25
Houston 57-25
Atlanta 56-26
Lakers 56-26
Detroit 54-28
Charlotte 54-28

[ArbitraryWater]

Those wins cant be compared to wins today though, different environment.. today is better top to bottom than the mid-late 1990's.

the West was definitely > East in the 1990's. Rather easily, too.

[ballinhun8]

You understand that all those players were taking from other NBA teams? Meaning the whole league had to add players to their rosters, right? Like you get that essentially 24 new nba players who weren't in the league otherwise had to be added?


You mean like rookies? Who probably make up more than half that number since teams would rather pay a second pick money than the league minimum for a vet.

[ballinhun8]

Those wins cant be compared to wins today though, different environment.. today is better top to bottom than the mid-late 1990's.

the West was definitely > East in the 1990's. Rather easily, too.


No. It wasn't. Where are you getting this from?? The East was better than the West in every aspect in the 90s.

And thr leavue better now top to bottom? It is not. You have teams not even trying to win like philly and Brooklyn and just teams led by youngsters who are not a threat to win even a playoff seed.

[Soundwave]

Bulls wrecked the West that season too ... that's the problem with this theory, lol.

They were something like 24-3 against the West, which is a pace for 73 wins.

Even the Finals which is overblown, they walked all over Seattle to a 3-0 lead and were never in danger of seriously losing.

They were 2-0 against Houston, Utah, and the Lakers too. Seattle and Phoenix managed to beat them once in the regular season.

[dhsilv]

You mean like rookies? Who probably make up more than half that number since teams would rather pay a second pick money than the league minimum for a vet.

I have no real way of figuring out who was added due to talent or just there were 24 net nba roster spot open because the league had 2 more teams. The total needed players increased by 7% over night, that either means the league had talent it wasn't able to use (possible) or they had to add guys who are of lesser talent. Now maybe all this means is that stars played more minutes and coaches used their bench less?

Hard to say. Injuries are also a factor. If you hav ea year of low injuries that's good and maybe the talent pool drop wasn't as big. I've been playing with this a bit today. Hard to really tell what is meaningful and what is just a picture making my case even if it's wrong.

Edit

Average nba player age from 90-95 was either 27.1 or 27.2 each of those years. 96 is went up to 27.5 and kept going for a few years. Finally returning the 27.2 range in 2003. So based on that I'd guess more vets hung around a bit longer/past their prime. Robert Parrish welcome to the 96 bulls :)

[juju151111]

I didn't say the rest of the wins were free. I said there were more free wins in that league imo.

And I said by more...I'm talking about 2 to 3....and that matters a lot when going for 70 plus wins.

At some point in the NBA season...any team, no matter how good, is going to lose some games. There is a ceiling to this stuff.

Could the 2015 Warriors have won 70 back in 96? Yes...I think they probably would have.

However, that doesn't mean they are on par with the Bulls. That isn't how it works.

The margins here are like a handful of games at most.

We honestly think the 07 Mavs in the regular season were on par with the 15 Warriors? Of course not...and there are a variety of reasons for why...including that the league was not in 07 overall...
One of the expansion teams beat the Bulls that year and why did the Bulls basically continued it the next two years with 69 wins and 62 wins with all kinds of disfunction. Pippen injured,Rodman acting wild and regressing and everyone getting older. No The Warriors isn't winning 72 games.

[DMAVS41]

One of the expansion teams beat the Bulls that year and why did the Bulls basically continued it the next two years with 69 wins and 62 wins with all kinds of disfunction. Pippen injured,Rodman acting wild and regressing and everyone getting older. No The Warriors isn't winning 72 games.

I didn't say the Warriors would win 72. I said I think they would have won 70...if they had really pushed for it...if they played in place of the Bulls in 96.

I don't think you guys realize how hard it is to win 2 more games when you already have 70 wins.

It's not the same thing as winning 53 and 55...once you get to a certain level...it's simply harder.

[3ball]

You understand that all those players were taking from other NBA teams? Meaning the whole league had to add players to their rosters, right? Like you get that essentially 24 new nba players who weren't in the league otherwise had to be added?
So are you going to give the early 90's Bulls and other pre-expansion teams MORE credit for winning rings in less-diluted league with less teams?

Or are you going to try to have it both ways, by discrediting supposed "expansion" years AND pre-expansion years?

This type of bias is why you've never refuted any of the statistical facts I've informed you of (i.e. Lebron can't shoot well at high volume.. Lebron achieves his stats by lowering teammates stats).

[dhsilv]

Free wins? One of the Bulls losses came against the expansion Raptors. Bulls saw every teams best night in and night out. Players who hadn't had a chance to play Jordan yet were amped.

A couple of expansion teams is no different than having terrible teams at the bottom of any conference in every season. There are usually a few. In today's East half the conference is atrocious. And there was just one new team per conference. No big deal. Overstated and hyperbole.

1996 NBA:

Chicago 72-10
Seattle 64-18
Orlando 60-22

San Antonio 59-23
Utah 55-27
Lakers 53-29 (didn't realize how good they were in 1996)
Indiana 52-30

That's a weak NBA?!

3x teams won over 60 games.

1997 NBA was even better ... top heavy like '96 with 3x 60+ win teams ... and a littany of mid to high 50+ win teams

Chicago 69-13
Utah 64-18
Miami 61-21

New York 57-25
Seattle 57-25
Houston 57-25
Atlanta 56-26
Lakers 56-26
Detroit 54-28
Charlotte 54-28

A top heavy league means a week bottom which would provide inflated wins and create more rest due to blow outs.

Records are always going to look about the same as the nba will always have a 500 record.

[poido123]

They had a great team and coach, lead by the best player who ever lived?


72 game won by that team is to be expected, not shocking.

[dhsilv]

So are you going to give the early 90's Bulls and other pre-expansion teams MORE credit for winning rings in less-diluted league with less teams?

Or are you going to try to have it both ways, by discrediting supposed "expansion" years AND pre-expansion years?

This type of bias is why you've never refuted any of the statistical facts I've informed you of (i.e. Lebron can't shoot well at high volume.. Lebron achieves his stats by lowering teammates stats).

You have never posted a statistical fact. You cite some simple numbers and then try to draw conclusions on them. You're not running t tests and providing confidence intervals or providing a standard deviation. Do you know what statistics is?

As for pre expansion....that's a tricky one. The league went from 23 teams in 88 to 27 in 90. So there was never a bull's title pre expansion, but I'd hope you knew this was going to be the answer so I'm wondering. Why did you post your question?

Oh and yes I do think the first bulls run was better than the second one.

[sdot_thadon]

So are you going to give the early 90's Bulls and other pre-expansion teams MORE credit for winning rings in less-diluted league with less teams?

Or are you going to try to have it both ways, by discrediting supposed "expansion" years AND pre-expansion years?

This type of bias is why you've never refuted any of the statistical facts I've informed you of (i.e. Lebron can't shoot well at high volume.. Lebron achieves his stats by lowering teammates stats).
Not really, but if one wanted to nit pick in the way you often do:

1) we know the early 90's bulls avoid the bloodbath the east was just a few years previous.


2) late 90s bulls were flat out better than all the other teams. They added the goat and goat rebounder to a 55 win squad. The spurs were a 55 win team last year........ It is what it is.
being a 3ball discussion I don't need to use conventional logic

MJ was the goat, but you're crazy if you can't see his career had the perfect set of circumstances to achieve what he did. Everything fell into place.

[julizaver]

they were playing in the EAST Lmao. imagine GSW in the East they would go 82-0:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

The Bulls won 72 games, because they were one of the greatest team ever. Plain and simple. They could have won even more if they doesn't slow down at the the season already preparing for the post season. And yes at the time there was that sence that the great Lakers, Celtics, Pistons were missing, and that the 80s were the Golden Era, and subsequently NBA became weakier. But this in no way shall made us diminishing Bulls achievement - Rockets, Jazz, Sonics, Suns, Knicks, Spurs, Orlando were quite a teams also. And any of that list would beat the handycaped Cavs team that reach the Finals this year.

[julizaver]

I didn't say the Warriors would win 72. I said I think they would have won 70...if they had really pushed for it...if they played in place of the Bulls in 96.

I don't think you guys realize how hard it is to win 2 more games when you already have 70 wins.

It's not the same thing as winning 53 and 55...once you get to a certain level...it's simply harder.

Warriors are a good team - no doubt, but had Cavs been healthy (even with Irving only) I am not sure what the outcome of this years Finals would be.
This year Warriors would be no match for 1996 Bulls team. I just can't see how they would play their small ball vs MJ, Pippen, Rodman line of defense.

[Sarcastic]

League not conference.

Oh god...you guys are going to make me work now.

And SRS accounts for that too.

[DonDadda59]

Those wins cant be compared to wins today though, different environment.. today is better top to bottom than the mid-late 1990's.

the West was definitely > East in the 1990's. Rather easily, too.

Why do people spew garbage nonsense on this forum and think no one will call them out on it? :biggums:

Your hero LeBron is doing all his damage in BY FAR the worst conference the NBA has ever seen. This is a fact:

https://nbcprobasketballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/image3.png

The NBA in the 90s was overall far stronger than it is now. The 90s saw the most parity league-wide/between the conferences and the West was not better than the East in the 90s, especially during the second threepeat ... what the f*ck are you talking about?

Notice that the only time in the last 15 years that the East actually had a winning record, Bron couldn't get his 60-win team out of the second round. Probably just a coincidence though.

Also notice that the one time in the 90s the East was anything like the East is now, Jordan was playing baseball for a living. Dat impact. :bowdown:

[G0ATbe]

Jordan gets far too much credit for the bulls' success, it's laughable. Teenagerbe was making Jordan his bitch regularly for christs sake:lol . The guy wasn't that good.

[fpliii]

And SRS accounts for that too.
Uh, no. It doesn't.

[Gileraracer]

50 win teams beaten without their best 2 teammates?

Kobe without Pau and Shaq

LeBron without Wade and Bosh

Jordan without Pippen and Rodman

What is it??

Make up the silliest stats in order to make Lebron look good is ESPNs job, not yours.

[DonDadda59]

Jordan gets far too much credit for the bulls' success, it's laughable. Teenagerbe was making Jordan his bitch regularly for christs sake:lol . The guy wasn't that good.

Nice troll attempt but you want to talk about getting too much credit for a team's success... Teenagerbe's teams won 60 games with him riding the bench and won championships with him putting up present day Kobe's numbers. :roll:

Even in this thread, you had a Beaner giving Kobe credit for beating 50-win teams in the playoffs, when a good chunk of those were during the time he rode the bench and was fetching Shaq's gatorade. I've never seen a player get so much credit for another player's actual accomplishments.

[3ball]

dhsliv has interesting thought process... erroneous ones, but interesting still
.

[sportjames23]

Jordan Fam puttin nikkas in their place. :cheers:

[Sarcastic]

Uh, no. It doesn't.


SRS measures margin of victory and strength of schedule, so yes it does.

[ballinhun8]

Not really, but if one wanted to nit pick in the way you often do:

1) we know the early 90's bulls avoid the bloodbath the east was just a few years previous.


2) late 90s bulls were flat out better than all the other teams. They added the goat and goat rebounder to a 55 win squad. The spurs were a 55 win team last year........ It is what it is.
being a 3ball discussion I don't need to use conventional logic

MJ was the goat, but you're crazy if you can't see his career had the perfect set of circumstances to achieve what he did. Everything fell into place.

1) how did they avoid that bloodbath exactly?? They had virtually the same core for their playoff losses to Detroit. If anything it helped them turn into the dynasty they became. Losing and gaining toughness got them those ships. Losing to Larry helped Mike.

2) 55 win squad?? That was the 93/94 squad. The one you're talking about was a meddling 34-31 squad until MJ rejoined. 13-4 to finish the season and aa first round victory. Rest is history.

[gcvbcat]

Had my years wrong

[3ball]

As for pre expansion....that's a tricky one. The league went from 23 teams in 88 to 27 in 90. So there was never a bull's title pre expansion


This proves you're very biased - expansion happened before the 90's... Expansion has been happening ever since the first 8 teams were introduced back in 1949 or whenever it was.. Kobe, Lebron, Wade - you name it - they didn't win any rings pre-expansion either.

So again, are you going to give the Bulls credit for winning rings in a less diluted league that had less teams??

Of course you won't - you're trying to have it both ways by discrediting rings won in a 30-team league AND a smaller league... It makes ZERO sense and means you're wrong, but carry on.. The bias is amusing.. Like a stubborn 3rd grader.





You have never posted a statistical fact.


I posted statistical facts for Wade, Kyrie, Mo Williams, Love and Bosh - their APG and assist % declined significantly alongside Lebron.. PPG too... These are statistical facts..

And while their APG declined, their assisted rate increased, which proves Lebron turned these guys from playmakers into play-finishers - again, this is statistical fact.

Also, it's statistical fact that Lebron's efficiency is poor at the additional midrange and isolations required of high volume shooting... The 2015 playoffs were Lebron's first high volume playoffs, and he shot like pure dogshit.... Again, these are all statistical facts.

[fpliii]

SRS measures margin of victory and strength of schedule, so yes it does.
If you don't know what you're talking about, no need to hide it. You said to someone earlier in the thread:


League not conference.

Oh god...you guys are going to make me work now.

There is no adjustment in SRS that accounts for year-to-year differences in league quality.

[Sarcastic]

If you don't know what you're talking about, no need to hide it. You said to someone earlier in the thread:



There is no adjustment in SRS that accounts for year-to-year differences in league quality.

That's purely subjective. There is no way to measure a person's biases in what they believe to be an inferior league. All we can do is measure the schedule they played against and how they performed.

Go build a time machine, then we can really see what's a weak era and what's not.

[Sarcastic]

The 1971 Bucks have the highest SRS of all time.
It's a fair statement to say their 66 wins was more impressive than the Bulls 72 wins.

It is not a fair statement to say the Warriors 67 wins was more impressive than the Bulls, since they not only had fewer wins but they also had a lower SRS.

[fpliii]

That's purely subjective. There is no way to measure a person's biases in what they believe to be an inferior league. All we can do is measure the schedule they played against and how they performed.

Go build a time machine, then we can really see what's a weak era and what's not.
I didn't make any claims about the strength of the league. You claimed SRS makes that adjustment.

The 1971 Bucks have the highest SRS of all time.
It's a fair statement to say their 66 wins was more impressive than the Bulls 72 wins.

It is not a fair statement to say the Warriors 67 wins was more impressive than the Bulls, since they not only had fewer wins but they also had a lower SRS.
Wins are prone to noise. Point differential (upon which SRS is based) is a superior measure - but again, it's not something you can compare in different years, it will only tell you how a team played *relative to* the league in that season. Look at the Hawks last year. Lowest SRS of all time for a 60 win team.

I don't have any issue with someone picking the 71 Bucks, 15 Warriors, or 96 Bulls. Again, I just responded to your claim that SRS adjusts for league quality in different years.

Sorry if I came off like a dick BTW, but SRS is something anybody can calculate, so I don't like seeing misinformation being spread.

[Sarcastic]

The argument is that the Bulls played a weak schedule due to getting to play expansion teams. SRS accounts for their strength of schedule, so playing such a weak schedule would bring their SRS down. They in fact have the second highest SRS of all time.

The Bulls also played and beat 2 60 win teams in the playoffs. The Warriors played none.

[Derka]

Sup with all the threads attacking the 72-win Bulls team around here recently?

Do you losers get together and decide to just launch troll tirades or something?

[3ball]

Sup with all the threads attacking the 72-win Bulls team around here recently?

Do you losers get together and decide to just launch troll tirades or something?
They weren't there to watch MJ dominate as it happened.

So they have no clue what it was like and they don't want to believe it was so great like everyone says it was... It's pathetic.

[ballinhun8]

They weren't there to watch MJ dominate as it happened.

So they have no clue what it was like and they don't want to believe it was so great like everyone says it was... It's pathetic.


:applause: :applause: :applause:

[97 bulls]

For the life of me, I can't seem to figure out how one would even quantify what a weak era is. I mean even with the diluted talent theory. I read a post where someone said the NBA added 24 players in the mid 90s. From a numbers standpoint thats about 5% (rough estimate) increase. Now factor in that more great athletes played baseketball due to a growth in popularity and the influx of European players and that more than makes up for the 5% player increase.

Again I just cant see how the strength of a league can be quantified. When people say the 80s west was bad, it was because most of those teams had subpar/substandard records. When people say the Centers today arent as good as they were in the 90s, its because they dont dominate as they once did.

The Bulls beat great teams during everyone of their runs. The biggest argument against them (the Bulls) is that they won. I've been following sports for 30 years. The Bulls are the only team that i can think off that get penalized for winning. Give guys like Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, John Stockton, and a plethora of other players at the time, a couple of rings and the exact same accolades and stats, and theyd easily be comsidered top 10 and 20 type players.

[MiseryCityTexas]

they were playing in the EAST Lmao. imagine GSW in the East they would go 82-0:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:


The eastern conference was just as strong as the western conference during the mid 90s.

[dhsilv]

This proves you're very biased - expansion happened before the 90's... Expansion has been happening ever since the first 8 teams were introduced back in 1949 or whenever it was.. Kobe, Lebron, Wade - you name it - they didn't win any rings pre-expansion either.

So again, are you going to give the Bulls credit for winning rings in a less diluted league that had less teams??

Of course you won't - you're trying to have it both ways by discrediting rings won in a 30-team league AND a smaller league... It makes ZERO sense and means you're wrong, but carry on.. The bias is amusing.. Like a stubborn 3rd grader.



I posted statistical facts for Wade, Kyrie, Mo Williams, Love and Bosh - their APG and assist % declined significantly alongside Lebron.. PPG too... These are statistical facts..

And while their APG declined, their assisted rate increased, which proves Lebron turned these guys from playmakers into play-finishers - again, this is statistical fact.

Also, it's statistical fact that Lebron's efficiency is poor at the additional midrange and isolations required of high volume shooting... The 2015 playoffs were Lebron's first high volume playoffs, and he shot like pure dogshit.... Again, these are all statistical facts.

My statements were clearly about what happens shortly after expansion. As the population grows and the size of interested parties in basketball grows, the league will increasingly be able to sustain more teams. I have never stated anything beyond that I believe today the league is extremely strong which given the team size is imo more impressive and that 96 was an expansion year and that the talent was diluted that year as a result.

I am in no way discrediting anyone or anything. It made winning 72 games easier, but that does not discredit it. You seem to think I have some skin in the game if you will. I don't care if the 96 bulls are agreed on as the greatest team ever or just a great team. That is meaningless to me. The 96 bulls will always be my favorite team. Just like MJ is always going to be by far my favorite player. That doesn't mean I wouldn't tell you if someone was better than him. I don't have or see a need to put down another player to heighten those I enjoy playing more.

As for your stats. You showed anecdotal data. You didn't show in hard terms that lebron was the difference. You didn't use on off stats to show that he was the cause by himself. You didn't discuss other variables. You showed correlation at best, but not causality.

Your "stats" are like a sentence fragment. You showed something but you didn't really spend the time or energy to actually make an argument as to what the data actually is telling us. You also again didn't use complete enough data to draw anything conclusively. You basically posted something with some numbers where you wanted to get people to fight with you over it.

As I have said and will keep saying. The measure of a player is their value to their team's point differential. Everything else is meaningless unless it can be used to back into that figure. This is way RAPM or RPM or BPM are all working towards and are creating some of the best data sets we have. You however refuse to spend the time to understand how those stats work, understand their strengths and weakness and how to apply them meaningfully to an argument. As a result you're incapable of really discussing basketball stats at a high level. Add in you constantly bring everything back to Jordan even when he's not even in the discussion that it makes you hard to take seriously.

[MiseryCityTexas]

For the life of me, I can't seem to figure out how one would even quantify what a weak era is. I mean even with the diluted talent theory. I read a post where someone said the NBA added 24 players in the mid 90s. From a numbers standpoint thats about 5% (rough estimate) increase. Now factor in that more great athletes played baseketball due to a growth in popularity and the influx of European players and that more than makes up for the 5% player increase.

Again I just cant see how the strength of a league can be quantified. When people say the 80s west was bad, it was because most of those teams had subpar/substandard records. When people say the Centers today arent as good as they were in the 90s, its because they dont dominate as they once did.

The Bulls beat great teams during everyone of their runs. The biggest argument against them (the Bulls) is that they won. I've been following sports for 30 years. The Bulls are the only team that i can think off that get penalized for winning. Give guys like Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, John Stockton, and a plethora of other players at the time, a couple of rings and the exact same accolades and stats, and theyd easily be comsidered top 10 and 20 type players.

Them mid 90s 2 time championship Rockets teams disagree with you.

[dhsilv]

If you don't know what you're talking about, no need to hide it. You said to someone earlier in the thread:



There is no adjustment in SRS that accounts for year-to-year differences in league quality.

This is correct. The tricky part is that expansion is done so effectively by taking talent from all teams that it is hard to see gaps widening generally as well between bands.

We see league PER dropping and some dropping in shooting percentages but defense and how rules are called changes so often. Injuries are such a huge factor. It's actually really difficult to show good data here without using what I suspect is just data that happens to agree with me, which is never acceptable. So for now I don't have a good visual to explain it.

I mean logically it's hard to argue with increasing the players by 7% is going to reduce average talent if done so in a single year, unless the population of potential basketball players also grows at that rate. As that seems impossible to believe, my view that the talent had to be reduced seems pretty valid.

The counter argument and I do see some data to agree with this, is that in 95 the talent was very high and the league was able to support the growth.

[97 bulls]

Them mid 90s 2 time championship Rockets teams disagree with you.
How are they penalized for winning

[dhsilv]

The argument is that the Bulls played a weak schedule due to getting to play expansion teams. SRS accounts for their strength of schedule, so playing such a weak schedule would bring their SRS down. They in fact have the second highest SRS of all time.

The Bulls also played and beat 2 60 win teams in the playoffs. The Warriors played none.

NO!

The argument has NOTHING to do with playing expansion teams. It has to do with the total number of players in the league growing over night by 7%. While the expansion teams were not strong teams, ALL teams who lost players due to the expansion drafts were reduced in depth. The argument is that the average team took a small hit which is what happens.

[dhsilv]

How are they penalized for winning

How are the bulls?

There's near universal love and praise for the 90's bulls. MJ is unquestionably considered the greatest of all time. Jackson is seen as among the best coaches ever. Pippen is considered one of the all time great wing defenders. There is nothing but CRAZY love for those teams.

The only "negative" that you'll ever hear is that the 72 wins was not AS impressive as it sounds on paper. That's not an attack or a penalty of any kind what so ever. You've got some serious and I mean serious issues if that's in your head an insult.

[MiseryCityTexas]

How are they penalized for winning


Many feel they didn't deserve to win them two chips, Just like many people claim the Bulls wouldn't have won they first championship if the Pistons were a 100% healthy, and Worthy and Byron Scott were healthy. Obviously many people back in the day felt that The Rockets wouldn't have won shit if Jordan wouldn't have retired, and they probably wouldn't even have made it to the finals if the Rockets played against the Seattle Supsersonics in the play-offs.

[MiseryCityTexas]

People claimed Jordan played in a weak era in the 90s, but damned near swept a Washington Bullets team that had Prime Chris Webber, prime Juwon Howard, and prime Rod Strickland. That Washington Bullets team could've easily taken a prime Shaq and Kobe Lakers team to 7 games in a play-off series.

[97 bulls]

How are the bulls?

There's near universal love and praise for the 90's bulls. MJ is unquestionably considered the greatest of all time. Jackson is seen as among the best coaches ever. Pippen is considered one of the all time great wing defenders. There is nothing but CRAZY love for those teams.

The only "negative" that you'll ever hear is that the 72 wins was not AS impressive as it sounds on paper. That's not an attack or a penalty of any kind what so ever. You've got some serious and I mean serious issues if that's in your head an insult.
Thats a HUGE negative dont you think??? I mean that's what seperates pro league championships from college high school european and whatever other championship you can name. The pros are supposed to be the best. And i dont know where youve been but the con Bulls side always says that the teams the Bulls beat were overrated. Thus undermining their success.

And i gotta agree with 3ball here. How can Jordan be the greatest of all time, Jackson and Pippen also be condsidered some of the greatest but the success they had not be comsidered great?

You seem to be the one with the issues.

[97 bulls]

People claimed Jordan played in a weak era in the 90s, but damned near swept a Washington Bullets team that had Prime Chris Webber, prime Juwon Howard, and prime Rod Strickland. That Washington Bullets team could've easily taken a prime Shaq and Kobe Lakers team to 7 games in a play-off series.
Dman near??? They swept them.

[Sarcastic]

NO!

The argument has NOTHING to do with playing expansion teams. It has to do with the total number of players in the league growing over night by 7%. While the expansion teams were not strong teams, ALL teams who lost players due to the expansion drafts were reduced in depth. The argument is that the average team took a small hit which is what happens.


Here's the thing, whatever perceived weakness that you feel are hurting other teams depth, is ALSO AFFECTING THE BULLS!

Unless you think the Bulls were immune to this weakening of rosters for some reason.

[dhsilv]

Thats a HUGE negative dont you think??? I mean that's what seperates pro league championships from college high school european and whatever other championship you can name. The pros are supposed to be the best. And i dont know where youve been but the con Bulls side always says that the teams the Bulls beat were overrated. Thus undermining their success.

And i gotta agree with 3ball here. How can Jordan be the greatest of all time, Jackson and Pippen also be condsidered some of the greatest but the success they had not be comsidered great?

You seem to be the one with the issues.

I left the door open that the 96 bulls are not the best team of all time. Given I don't think it is even the best Bulls team, I'd hardly consider that a knock on ANY of them.

Again you seem defensive for no reason here. 3ball is insane so I won't bother with him. He struggles with even simple stuff.

[97 bulls]

This is correct. The tricky part is that expansion is done so effectively by taking talent from all teams that it is hard to see gaps widening generally as well between bands.

We see league PER dropping and some dropping in shooting percentages but defense and how rules are called changes so often. Injuries are such a huge factor. It's actually really difficult to show good data here without using what I suspect is just data that happens to agree with me, which is never acceptable. So for now I don't have a good visual to explain it.

I mean logically it's hard to argue with increasing the players by 7% is going to reduce average talent if done so in a single year, unless the population of potential basketball players also grows at that rate. As that seems impossible to believe, my view that the talent had to be reduced seems pretty valid.

The counter argument and I do see some data to agree with this, is that in 95 the talent was very high and the league was able to support the growth.
So how does the influx of European talent get accounted for? European players were being taken until the late 80s.

[97 bulls]

I left the door open that the 96 bulls are not the best team of all time. Given I don't think it is even the best Bulls team, I'd hardly consider that a knock on ANY of them.

Again you seem defensive for no reason here. 3ball is insane so I won't bother with him. He struggles with even simple stuff.
Lol. Im defensive??? Wow.

Im hardly being defensive i just disagree with you.

[97 bulls]

Here's the thing, whatever perceived weakness that you feel are hurting other teams depth, is ALSO AFFECTING THE BULLS!

Unless you think the Bulls were immune to this weakening of rosters for some reason.
Again. How can one quantify how weak the depth of the NBA in the 90s was???? Teams still went 7 to 8 players deep. I mean. A poster brought up the 97 Bullets with Webber Howard and Strickland. That team won 44 games in 97.

[Sarcastic]

Again. How can one quantify how weak the depth of the NBA in the 90s was???? Teams still went 7 to 8 players deep.

You can't do it objectively. All you can do is say "LOL weak era cuz Canada joined".

[dhsilv]

Here's the thing, whatever perceived weakness that you feel are hurting other teams depth, is ALSO AFFECTING THE BULLS!

Unless you think the Bulls were immune to this weakening of rosters for some reason.

This is true. However the bulls were a top heavy team and they had all time absurdly great top heavy guys.

Just to give an idea the bulls top 3 guys played the 13th most minutes in the nba as a 3 man unit that year while scoring the most points. Their top 5 were 12 in minutes and 4th in points. It was a very top heavy team. As a result expansion was not as big a deal to them. And lets be honest their top 2 were/are easily in any discussion of a best one two ever.

When we are talking about winning 72 games and winning all those little games where we see shockers. Well, having a bit less depth everywhere helps a lot imo.

[97 bulls]

You can't do it objectively. All you can do is say "LOL weak era cuz Canada joined".
Lol. Exactly. Thats why its an argument for them. And their only argument. Cuz it cant be proven either way.

[Sarcastic]

And in 1996 you didn't have teams tanking year after year like the Sixers always do. Last years Knicks Wolves Sixers and probably Lakers were as bad as the awful teams in 1996.

[dhsilv]

So how does the influx of European talent get accounted for? European players were being taken until the late 80s.

I think that's a HUGE part of why the NBA was able to expand and why today we're every bit as strong as any era other than MAYBE the 80's.

I'm purely talking about single year JUMPS in teams. The overall trend between pay and expanded markets has greatly increased the talent pool.

[dhsilv]

Lol. Im defensive??? Wow.

Im hardly being defensive i just disagree with you.

So I'm realizing I might be lumping you in with 3ball and not really giving you the respect you deserve. So let me back track.

I believe the 96-98 bulls are among the best teams to ever play the game. I believe they beat quality teams in the playoffs and should be seen as among the best teams ever.

I think the first 3 peat group however was better.

I think the nba overall talent (not top talent) was a bit weak during both runs if we're comparing to say the 80's due to from 1988-1996 the nba going from 23 to 29 teams. I feel the talent growth in that era was GREAT however a 26% increase in players is massive.

I think by 95 the nba had actually gotten back a good bit of talent but the expansion in 96 pushed it back down a bit.

I don't believe people generally are critical of the 96 bulls. Due to the HUGE love for that team, there are some who want to attack them. I am not doing that. I'm just stating that I feel they had an easier path to 72 than some others. My only statement so far is that I think the first three peat was better and that the 72 was helped by expansion.

So what exactly do you disagree with and why?

[dhsilv]

And in 1996 you didn't have teams tanking year after year like the Sixers always do. Last years Knicks Wolves Sixers and probably Lakers were as bad as the awful teams in 1996.

Honestly think I'd take last years 76ers against the 96 ones...I'll give you Clarence Weatherspoon would be the best player on either team, but after that....

Oh and the griz in 96?

[97 bulls]

I think that's a HUGE part of why the NBA was able to expand and why today we're every bit as strong as any era other than MAYBE the 80's.

I'm purely talking about single year JUMPS in teams. The overall trend between pay and expanded markets has greatly increased the talent pool.
Lol. Bro. You just cant reasonably make this kind of assesment. I mean. The league changes every year.

The best way to tell whether the Bulls winning 72 fluke is how they did before and after. In my opinion, the Bulls from 94 to 98 were basically the same team

The Bulls won 55 gsmes in 94. How many do they win if Jordan were there? This was pre expansion.

The Bulls were on pace to win 44 games in 95. How many do they win with Jordan and Rodman there?

We know about 96

Then they win 69 with Rodman missing half the season

Then 62 with Pippen missing half the seaon.

What more do you want????

[juju151111]

So I'm realizing I might be lumping you in with 3ball and not really giving you the respect you deserve. So let me back track.

I believe the 96-98 bulls are among the best teams to ever play the game. I believe they beat quality teams in the playoffs and should be seen as among the best teams ever.

I think the first 3 peat group however was better.

I think the nba overall talent (not top talent) was a bit weak during both runs if we're comparing to say the 80's due to from 1988-1996 the nba going from 23 to 29 teams. I feel the talent growth in that era was GREAT however a 26% increase in players is massive.

I think by 95 the nba had actually gotten back a good bit of talent but the expansion in 96 pushed it back down a bit.

I don't believe people generally are critical of the 96 bulls. Due to the HUGE love for that team, there are some who want to attack them. I am not doing that. I'm just stating that I feel they had an easier path to 72 than some others. My only statement so far is that I think the first three peat was better and that the 72 was helped by expansion.

So what exactly do you disagree with and why?
Which one of the first 3 peat you think is better. Also they almost did it again in 97 and in 98 is more absurd. Pippen missed half the season and Rodman regressed and was distracted but still won 62 games. 72 wasn't no fluke

[dhsilv]

Lol. Bro. You just cant reasonably make this kind of assesment. I mean. The league changes every year.

The best way to tell whether the Bulls winning 72 fluke is how they did before and after. In my opinion, the Bulls from 94 to 98 were basically the same team

The Bulls won 55 gsmes in 94. How many do they win if Jordan were there? This was pre expansion.

The Bulls were on pace to win 44 games in 95. How many do they win with Jordan and Rodman there?

We know about 96

Then they win 69 with Rodman missing half the season

Then 62 with Pippen missing half the seaon.

What more do you want????

Additional wins beyond a point are exponentially more difficult. Agree or disagree?

[97 bulls]

So I'm realizing I might be lumping you in with 3ball and not really giving you the respect you deserve. So let me back track.

I believe the 96-98 bulls are among the best teams to ever play the game. I believe they beat quality teams in the playoffs and should be seen as among the best teams ever.

I think the first 3 peat group however was better.

I think the nba overall talent (not top talent) was a bit weak during both runs if we're comparing to say the 80's due to from 1988-1996 the nba going from 23 to 29 teams. I feel the talent growth in that era was GREAT however a 26% increase in players is massive.

I think by 95 the nba had actually gotten back a good bit of talent but the expansion in 96 pushed it back down a bit.

I don't believe people generally are critical of the 96 bulls. Due to the HUGE love for that team, there are some who want to attack them. I am not doing that. I'm just stating that I feel they had an easier path to 72 than some others. My only statement so far is that I think the first three peat was better and that the 72 was helped by expansion.

So what exactly do you disagree with and why?
I disagree with your assesment that the league was weaker. Cuz like i said. It cant be proven logistically. And ive given plenty of evidence to refute you claims

1. The atheltic talent began to favor basketball over other sports. Therefore increasing the talent pool.

2. The influx of Europan talent took spots from American players. Thus making it harder to get in the NBA.

3. The population of the US has grown when comparing the 80s to the 90s thus making it even harder to get into the NBA.

4. What you're saying isnt an exact science. Teams miss on talent all the time. To say that the NBA is worse because of the 12th man choice is utterly ridiculous. We have guys that werent even drafted that i would take over some first picks in the draft.

5. Bridging. If the league in the early 90s was so much worse than the 80s, why didnt the Celtics and Pistons maintain some sort of domiance. They were first round fodder by 93 for the Pistons and even earlier for the Celtics. Look at San Antonio is doing today with that old team. Or the Bulls in the late 90s.

I just dont see how anyone can say the 90s was a weak era. It was different. Maybe you have a certain preference. But that doesn't make it worse.

[dhsilv]

Which one of the first 3 peat you think is better. Also they almost did it again in 97 and in 98 is more absurd. Pippen missed half the season and Rodman regressed and was distracted but still won 62 games. 72 wasn't no fluke

I would say going from 70 to 72 wins is what 50% more difficult? 60%?

As for the bulls the first title 90-91. Sure the record wasn't up there but they started the year 0-3 and through 20 were 12-8. They went 49-13 the rest of the way and only lost 2 games in the playoffs.

[97 bulls]

Additional wins beyond a point are exponentially more difficult. Agree or disagree?
Absolutely. But over a 5 year run? FIVE YEAR YEARS????? FIVE?? Most fans that remember that era feel the Bulls intentionally didnt win 70 in 97 so they didnt have to play both the Knicks and Heat. Theyd play each other.

And while its true that wins get harder as the total count goes up, 72, 69, and 62 with your second best player missing half the season??? I think you're splitting hairs. I mean with a healthy Pippen in 98. The Bulls easily win 68. Easily. The record of 69 win stood for 30 years before the Bulls won 70. Over the course of history, how many teams won even won 68? Like 4??? If that. Come on.

[dhsilv]

I disagree with your assesment that the league was weaker. Cuz like i said. It cant be proven logistically. And ive given plenty of evidence to refute you claims

1. The atheltic talent began to favor basketball over other sports. Therefore increasing the talent pool.

2. The influx of Europan talent took spots from American players. Thus making it harder to get in the NBA.

3. The population of the US has grown when comparing the 80s to the 90s thus making it even harder to get into the NBA.

4. What you're saying isnt an exact science. Teams miss on talent all the time. To say that the NBA is worse because of the 12th man choice is utterly ridiculous. We have guys that werent even drafted that i would take over some first picks in the draft.

5. Bridging. If the league in the early 90s was so much worse than the 80s, why didnt the Celtics and Pistons maintain some sort of domiance. They were first round fodder by 93 for the Pistons and even earlier for the Celtics. Look at San Antonio is doing today with that old team. Or the Bulls in the late 90s.

I just dont see how anyone can say the 90s was a weak era. It was different. Maybe you have a certain preference. But that doesn't make it worse.

Man so many points here.

1. The 90's were not a weak era. It was not as strong as the 80's due to a 26% increase in teams from the end of 88 till the start of 96. That period was NOT long enough to grow talent at the levels you mentioned. This does not make the 90's weak however. There were weaker times (post ABA for example). There have been times when just players retired and new draft picks were meh. Early 2000's.
2. 96 however was right after expansion and imo it did make it easier for a super team to get additional wins due to having more games they blew teams out in and less depth. This does not mean winning the title was easier. Just getting 72 wins or wins above 65 which seems to be where each additional win because absurdly more difficult.

[dhsilv]

Absolutely. But over a 5 year run? FIVE YEAR YEARS????? FIVE?? Most fans that remember that era feel the Bulls intentionally didnt win 70 in 97 so they didnt have to play both the Knicks and Heat. Theyd play each other.

And while its true that wins get harder as the total count goes up, 72, 69, and 62 with your second best player missing half the season??? I think you're splitting hairs. I mean with a healthy Pippen in 98. The Bulls easily win 68. Easily. The record of 69 win stood for 30 years before the Bulls won 70. Over the course of history, how many teams won even won 68? Like 4??? If that. Come on.

Those bulls teams were really freaking good. We don't disagree there man!

[97 bulls]

I would say going from 70 to 72 wins is what 50% more difficult? 60%?

As for the bulls the first title 90-91. Sure the record wasn't up there but they started the year 0-3 and through 20 were 12-8. They went 49-13 the rest of the way and only lost 2 games in the playoffs.
50%???? Nah. Not that much

[Queen Sansa]

97 Bulls: I've always thought the 92 Bulls has an argument as the better team over the 96 team. Am i crazy? Or is absolute peak Jordan/peak Pippen/ Peak Grant not enough against the 96 team's depth?

[dhsilv]

50%???? Nah. Not that much

From 70 to 72?

Actually I wonder

How many games that year were under 5, the quote un quote coin flip?

We could do some simple math to see the odds just as a hypothetical (we agree the bulls in a close game with mj are a bit more than a coin flip but it would be fun). I'm a bit busy (despite posting here) to gather this right now but I'll do it later if you don't.

[dhsilv]

97 Bulls: I've always thought the 92 Bulls has an argument as the better team over the 96 team. I'm i crazy?

92 won 67 games and had a 10+ point differential, but they kinda had to work in the playoffs. 91 was more or less on cruise control.

I guess it depends on how you look at that. To me 91 was just amazing. Better playoff record than 96 and they finally beat the pistons. So maybe that biases my love of that team.

[97 bulls]

97 Bulls: I've always thought the 92 Bulls has an argument as the better team over the 96 team. I'm i crazy? Or is absolute peak Jordan/peak Pippen/ Peak Grant not enough against the 96 team's depth?
I wouldn't argue. I feel the second threepeat is better due to depth. The 94 Bulls resembled the second threepeat team more than the first. And what they did without Jordan impressed me. Simply because no otner team has been able to do anything similar.

The best team in my opinion was the 97 team. Jordan looked more like the first threepeat Jordan. Pippen was still in his prime Rodman dominated the boards Kukoc Kerr. But the had a very good big in Brian Williams/Bisen Dele who was avgd 16/9 as a starter the following and previous years.

[97 bulls]

From 70 to 72?

Actually I wonder

How many games that year were under 5, the quote un quote coin flip?

We could do some simple math to see the odds just as a hypothetical (we agree the bulls in a close game with mj are a bit more than a coin flip but it would be fun). I'm a bit busy (despite posting here) to gather this right now but I'll do it later if you don't.
Id have to check. But I think they tanked the last two games in 97. And Im sure that with Williams for a whole season, theyd win 74.

[magnax1]

97 Bulls: I've always thought the 92 Bulls has an argument as the better team over the 96 team. Am i crazy? Or is absolute peak Jordan/peak Pippen/ Peak Grant not enough against the 96 team's depth?
Well, people really underestimate how huge of an addition rodman was. He was, by far, the best rebounder of all time, and a top 10 defender of all time (albeit he was aging at that point) It was a really big difference over Grant, who was good, but not a star or anything.
Really, you had upgrades at every position except SG, and it's not like Jordan wasn't the best player in the league still. Pippen gained a lot when Jordan left, and was a lot smarter player in 96 than 92, and more complete offensively. They upgraded their shooters, by quite a big margin, they added Ron Harper at PG which was big on defense and meant they could switch a ton of positions since everyone from 1-4 was at least 6'5 and athletic, and they added kukoc who was the third option they never really had before.
The first threepeat team was a very good team made great on the back of the greatest player ever. If you look against some of their competition their roster doesn't look particularly impressive comparatively without Jordan. That certainly isn't true of the second threepeat.

[97 bulls]

Well, people really underestimate how huge of an addition rodman was. He was, by far, the best rebounder of all time, and a top 10 defender of all time (albeit he was aging at that point) It was a really big difference over Grant, who was good, but not a star or anything.
Really, you had upgrades at every position except SG, and it's not like Jordan wasn't the best player in the league still. Pippen gained a lot when Jordan left, and was a lot smarter player in 96 than 92, and more complete offensively. They upgraded their shooters, by quite a big margin, they added Ron Harper at PG which was big on defense and meant they could switch a ton of positions since everyone from 1-4 was at least 6'5 and athletic, and they added kukoc who was the third option they never really had before.
The first threepeat team was a very good team made great on the back of the greatest player ever. If you look against some of their competition their roster doesn't look particularly impressive comparatively without Jordan. That certainly isn't true of the second threepeat.
I agree.

[houston]

Yea they dominated a weak era of basketball mainly the wing department.

[97 bulls]

Not to beat a dead horse here. But the NBA added 5 teams over a 6 year period in 76 and 80. Why aren't the 80s considered a weak era?

[houston]

Not to beat a dead horse here. But the NBA added 5 teams over a 6 year period in 76 and 80. Why aren't the 80s considered a weak era?


Cause those squads were loaded in the 80's. You had MVP's contributing as role players on championship teams. No team had less than 3 all-stars playing on them rosters.


The late 70's was weak era too that one of the reason they merge with ABA cause they was affecting the NBA talent pool plus they wanted Dr.J and that wing talent in the ABA. NBA started to change you see the game became faster pace and increase scoring even though it was no defense era. Hell they took three point line from ABA. The league with J/Bird/Magic made money. That one of the reasons players in the 90's was getting big money contracts.

90's was weak cause two wings dominated the whole era and people trying to make it seem those great bigs had a chance with their weak wing talent. I laugh when people talk about how great 90's knicks were:oldlol:

[Sarcastic]

Honestly think I'd take last years 76ers against the 96 ones...I'll give you Clarence Weatherspoon would be the best player on either team, but after that....

Oh and the griz in 96?

Last years Knicks was as bad as any team that I have ever seen. They should have been a 14 win team, but Derek Fisher sucks so much, that he actually won 3 games down the stretch that they easily would have lost if the other team actually cared.

[LeBird]

They won 72 games because the league was much weaker and they had comparatively a much stronger team than the others.

There were arguably (probably) 3 better teams in the 80s: Celtics, Lakers and Sixers.

[Koresh]

They weren't there to watch MJ dominate as it happened.

So they have no clue what it was like and they don't want to believe it was so great like everyone says it was... It's pathetic.

You weren't there either, f****t. YouTube doesn't count.

[3ball]

some misinformation itt

[3ball]

You weren't there either, f****t. YouTube doesn't count.
i was fully grown for MJ's rings.. i saw them first hand... i know the supporting casts were NOT talented... including the 2nd three-peat.. the first 3-peat was more talented than the 2nd tbh - they had prime MJ and Scottie... and they actually had center that wasn't total garbage defensively.

[3ball]

They won 72 games because they had comparatively a much stronger team than the others.


.............Bulls PPG in 1996:


................ RS.......... PO

Jordan...... 30.4........ 30.7
Pippen...... 19.1........ 16.9
Kukoc....... 13.1........ 10.8
Longley...... 9.1.......... 8.4
Harper....... 7.4.......... 8.8
Rodman..... 5.5.......... 7.5
S Kerr........ 8.4......... 6.8
Wenngton... 5.3.......... 3.0


For such a "stacked" team, the cupboard was actually pretty bare - after MJ, Scottie and Kukoc, everyone else is a single-digit, low PPG play-finisher.

The problem with this thread is that no one has mentioned how MJ and Scottie had the experience of 3 rings and had thoroughly mastered the best offense available at the time (triangle) - with MJ and Scottie's experience, the team worked like a well-oiled machine.. For the role players, having MJ and Scottie was like having the best mentors in the world show you the proprietary, best way to do things.. Furthermore, the ORGANIZATION knew how to win a championship - so that was another advantage.

If you don't consider MJ, Scottie, and the organization's championship experience AT ALL, then you'll attribute the 72 wins to talent more then you should.. And that's exactly what happens - but in reality, the Bulls had a 7-man roster and virtually all players were single-digit play-finishers except MJ, Pippen and Kukoc (as shown above)..

Numerous teams had more talent than the Bulls.. And the first 3-peat was more talented than the 2nd - they had prime MJ and Scottie... and they actually had a center that wasn't total garbage defensively.. But during the 2nd three-peat, they had EXPERIENCE and total hoops mastery.. The superior experience makes up for the fact that the 2nd three-peat roster DOES NOT look like a 72 win team on paper (see the roster above).
.

[GIF REACTION]

The 1996-1997 69 win Bulls had a loaded team

Michael Jordan was 2nd in the league in RAPM: 5.84
Pippen was 6th with a RAPM of: 5.44
Kukoc was 16th with a RAPM of: 4.20
Ron Harper was 18th with a RAPM of: 4.01
Rodman was 31st with a RAPM of: 3.23

[Kiddlovesnets]

You forgot to realize that back in the 90s the West and East were about even, and in the 80s the East was stronger than the West.
:rolleyes:

[julizaver]

You forgot to realize that back in the 90s the West and East were about even, and in the 80s the East was stronger than the West.
:rolleyes:

The most intense or let say the toughest opponent of the Bulls in the period 1991-1996 were the Knicks.

[sdot_thadon]

.............Bulls PPG in 1996:


................ RS.......... PO

Jordan...... 30.4........ 30.7
Pippen...... 19.1........ 16.9
Kukoc....... 13.1........ 10.8
Longley...... 9.1.......... 8.4
Harper....... 7.4.......... 8.8
Rodman..... 5.5.......... 7.5
S Kerr........ 8.4......... 6.8
Wenngton... 5.3.......... 3.0


For such a "stacked" team, the cupboard was actually pretty bare - after MJ, Scottie and Kukoc, everyone else is a single-digit, low PPG play-finisher.

The problem with this thread is that no one has mentioned how MJ and Scottie had the experience of 3 rings and had thoroughly mastered the best offense available at the time (triangle) - with MJ and Scottie's experience, the team worked like a well-oiled machine.. For the role players, having MJ and Scottie was like having the best mentors in the world show you the proprietary, best way to do things.. Furthermore, the ORGANIZATION knew how to win a championship - so that was another advantage.

If you don't consider MJ, Scottie, and the organization's championship experience AT ALL, then you'll attribute the 72 wins to talent more then you should.. And that's exactly what happens - but in reality, the Bulls had a 7-man roster and virtually all players were single-digit play-finishers except MJ, Pippen and Kukoc (as shown above)..

Numerous teams had more talent than the Bulls.. And the first 3-peat was more talented than the 2nd - they had prime MJ and Scottie... and they actually had a center that wasn't total garbage defensively.. But during the 2nd three-peat, they had EXPERIENCE and total hoops mastery.. The superior experience makes up for the fact that the 2nd three-peat roster DOES NOT look like a 72 win team on paper (see the roster above).
.
Cmon dude, they were a deep team with the best 2 perimeter players in the game together plus the best rebounder. Disciplined veterans that bought in. The starting lineup had good defenders at every position aside from center and even then Longley was serviceable in his role. They had alot of versatility and were probably the 1st great small ball team, with their finishing lineup. Every metric on team value has them at or very near the top. They were that much better than the teams they faced. Even if you want to say the east was strong during the 2nd 3peat......the Bulls were that much better.

[dhsilv]

Well, people really underestimate how huge of an addition rodman was. He was, by far, the best rebounder of all time, and a top 10 defender of all time (albeit he was aging at that point) It was a really big difference over Grant, who was good, but not a star or anything.
Really, you had upgrades at every position except SG, and it's not like Jordan wasn't the best player in the league still. Pippen gained a lot when Jordan left, and was a lot smarter player in 96 than 92, and more complete offensively. They upgraded their shooters, by quite a big margin, they added Ron Harper at PG which was big on defense and meant they could switch a ton of positions since everyone from 1-4 was at least 6'5 and athletic, and they added kukoc who was the third option they never really had before.
The first threepeat team was a very good team made great on the back of the greatest player ever. If you look against some of their competition their roster doesn't look particularly impressive comparatively without Jordan. That certainly isn't true of the second threepeat.

Completely disagree with the Rodman and Grant statements. MJ was also just better during that first run. Guys like Shaq, Malone, and Robinson had numbers and cases to be made for being at MJ's level during that second 3 peat. During the first one, just nobody was even remotely in the discussion. Like you seriously could only argue for say a Magic on his name and reputation, but you couldn't show any data to back it up.

The second run did have some strengths and there's a case for Pippen being better though he was pretty consistent for 5 of the 6 titles.

[dhsilv]

Not to beat a dead horse here. But the NBA added 5 teams over a 6 year period in 76 and 80. Why aren't the 80s considered a weak era?

The top teams from the 80's are generally seen as teams later in the decade (time to recover) such as the 86 celtics and 87 lakers. I think history somewhat has dismissed the 83 76ers at least in part due to some of this.

Also the 80's were top heavy. You don't go a day here not hearing about how weak the west was in the 80's.

And more importantly is anyone actually saying the whole 90's were weak?

[dhsilv]

i was fully grown for MJ's rings.. i saw them first hand... i know the supporting casts were NOT talented... including the 2nd three-peat.. the first 3-peat was more talented than the 2nd tbh - they had prime MJ and Scottie... and they actually had center that wasn't total garbage defensively.

Assuming that means you were 18 in 91. That'd put you in your early 40's?

Given your rather loose usage of numbers, what field do you work in?

[dhsilv]

The 1996-1997 69 win Bulls had a loaded team

Michael Jordan was 2nd in the league in RAPM: 5.84
Pippen was 6th with a RAPM of: 5.44
Kukoc was 16th with a RAPM of: 4.20
Ron Harper was 18th with a RAPM of: 4.01
Rodman was 31st with a RAPM of: 3.23

Was that prior informed or single season RAPM? I'm asking more because I'm kinda surprised to see MJ not first. Robinson the leader in RAPM then?

Also do you know how many games were used in that model? I know most 90's stats are based on incomplete game history.

[90sgoat]

The second 3-peat Bulls were a good TEAM and imo a significantly better cast than the first 3 peat.

People don't realize just how thin the first 3 peat was. That team had Pippen and MJ, everyone else was completely replaceable. Cartwright was the definition of a stiff and one of the worst centers in the league. Armstrong was a Mario Chalmers level player, never did anything later on. Paxson was a Dellevadova. Grant was a league average power forward, nothing more nothing less. The rest of the team I am willing to bet people can't name a single name.

The second 3 peat team was expertly put together. Yet, none of the so called great role players did much after that. Rodman retired, Kukoc did get injured but didn't shoot well as a first option, Harper stuck around not doing much, Pippen couldn't win with massively stacked teams. Longley did what again?

No, it was clearly Phil and Jordan who made that team great. They all bought into the system and played it to perfection. They were a GREAT defensive team on the perimeter and played very much the swarming defense of like Lebron's Miami Heat at their best.

If you actually watched the team, which few autist stat nerds did, then you'd realize that ball movement and fast breaks allowed for role players to look better than they were. Not taking away from someone like Rodman, but people ignore that he was atrocious on offense, a literal non threat. Bulls played an obvious 4 on 5 on offense each and every game.

That team was an extremely well constructed team but it wasn't the most stacked team of all time, not even close. It was a Spurs like team who just happened to have the GOAT at the same time.

[DonDadda59]

The second 3-peat Bulls were a good TEAM and imo a significantly better cast than the first 3 peat.

People don't realize just how thin the first 3 peat was. That team had Pippen and MJ, everyone else was completely replaceable. Cartwright was the definition of a stiff and one of the worst centers in the league. Armstrong was a Mario Chalmers level player, never did anything later on. Paxson was a Dellevadova. Grant was a league average power forward, nothing more nothing less. The rest of the team I am willing to bet people can't name a single name.

The second 3 peat team was expertly put together. Yet, none of the so called great role players did much after that. Rodman retired, Kukoc did get injured but didn't shoot well as a first option, Harper stuck around not doing much, Pippen couldn't win with massively stacked teams. Longley did what again?

No, it was clearly Phil and Jordan who made that team great. They all bought into the system and played it to perfection. They were a GREAT defensive team on the perimeter and played very much the swarming defense of like Lebron's Miami Heat at their best.

If you actually watched the team, which few autist stat nerds did, then you'd realize that ball movement and fast breaks allowed for role players to look better than they were. Not taking away from someone like Rodman, but people ignore that he was atrocious on offense, a literal non threat. Bulls played an obvious 4 on 5 on offense each and every game.

That team was an extremely well constructed team but it wasn't the most stacked team of all time, not even close. It was a Spurs like team who just happened to have the GOAT at the same time.

Yup. The first threepeat team wasn't very deep, their bench was garbage. When Jordan retired in '93, they retooled nicely and had guys like Kukoc (6MOY), Kerr (one of the best 3-pt shooters ever), and even Jason Caffey in their second unit. The early 90s team was younger and their top guys were in their primes but the team was thin on overall talent. The later championship years feature past prime versions of Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman but the pieces around the stars were better all around.

[97 bulls]

.............Bulls PPG in 1996:


................ RS.......... PO

Jordan...... 30.4........ 30.7
Pippen...... 19.1........ 16.9
Kukoc....... 13.1........ 10.8
Longley...... 9.1.......... 8.4
Harper....... 7.4.......... 8.8
Rodman..... 5.5.......... 7.5
S Kerr........ 8.4......... 6.8
Wenngton... 5.3.......... 3.0


For such a "stacked" team, the cupboard was actually pretty bare - after MJ, Scottie and Kukoc, everyone else is a single-digit, low PPG play-finisher.

The problem with this thread is that no one has mentioned how MJ and Scottie had the experience of 3 rings and had thoroughly mastered the best offense available at the time (triangle) - with MJ and Scottie's experience, the team worked like a well-oiled machine.. For the role players, having MJ and Scottie was like having the best mentors in the world show you the proprietary, best way to do things.. Furthermore, the ORGANIZATION knew how to win a championship - so that was another advantage.

If you don't consider MJ, Scottie, and the organization's championship experience AT ALL, then you'll attribute the 72 wins to talent more then you should.. And that's exactly what happens - but in reality, the Bulls had a 7-man roster and virtually all players were single-digit play-finishers except MJ, Pippen and Kukoc (as shown above)..

Numerous teams had more talent than the Bulls.. And the first 3-peat was more talented than the 2nd - they had prime MJ and Scottie... and they actually had a center that wasn't total garbage defensively.. But during the 2nd three-peat, they had EXPERIENCE and total hoops mastery.. The superior experience makes up for the fact that the 2nd three-peat roster DOES NOT look like a 72 win team on paper (see the roster above).
.
This is because Jordan took such a high percentage of the teams FGs. Besides trying to equatena teams depth by looking at scoring is decieving. The best way to measure depth is wins. Look at 94 and 95. The Bulls are the only team that could have two of their best players taken away and still be competetive. And by taken away. I mean not have a suitable replacement.

[GIF REACTION]

Was that prior informed or single season RAPM? I'm asking more because I'm kinda surprised to see MJ not first. Robinson the leader in RAPM then?

Also do you know how many games were used in that model? I know most 90's stats are based on incomplete game history.

pretty sure the RAPM for the 96-97 season Fpliii gave me are NPI

[ShawkFactory]

According to a figure that 3ball used to claim that Jordan's supporting cast during the first 3peat was weaker than Lebrons with the Heat, the 1996 Bulls were the greatest supporting cast to a super star since the metric began. Which was the late 80s I believe.

Double standies and switched logic baby. All in the name of agendas.

[sdot_thadon]

According to a figure that 3ball used to claim that Jordan's supporting cast during the first 3peat was weaker than Lebrons with the Heat, the 1996 Bulls were the greatest supporting cast to a super star since the metric began. Which was the late 80s I believe.

Double standies and switched logic baby. All in the name of agendas.
Boom

[90sgoat]

According to a figure that 3ball used to claim that Jordan's supporting cast during the first 3peat was weaker than Lebrons with the Heat, the 1996 Bulls were the greatest supporting cast to a super star since the metric began. Which was the late 80s I believe.

Double standies and switched logic baby. All in the name of agendas.

Stat nerds should go to RealGM. I can't believe people are not able to make an argument without poorly using stats that they don't really understand.

[ShawkFactory]

Stat nerds should go to RealGM. I can't believe people are not able to make an argument without poorly using stats that they don't really understand.
He tried going to realGM apparently

[90sgoat]

He tried going to realGM apparently

Nope, 3Ball uses stats the way they're supposed to be used as a supplement to eye test and bball knowledge. He knows what he sees and then he uses stats to shut you up.

Unlike stat nerds like that dhilv poster and others who look at stats and think they can tell what was going on.

[ShawkFactory]

Nope, 3Ball uses stats the way they're supposed to be used as a supplement to eye test and bball knowledge. He knows what he sees and then he uses stats to shut you up.

Unlike stat nerds like that dhilv poster and others who look at stats and think they can tell what was going on.
:lol

So him using a figure with very little supplementary information to make a point in one thread and then going against something that figure states in another seems logical to you? :roll:

I don't even care about the point he's trying to make or the specific stats he's using. At all. Just be consistent with your logic and your evidence.

This argument, and the one previously stating that Mikes supporting casts were worse than Lebrons, are both completely invalid.

[3ball]

The later championship years feature past prime versions of Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman but the pieces around the stars were better all around.


^^^^ This isn't true.

Are you aware that Phil Jackson thinks the 1st three-peat Bulls are better???.. When I said earlier that they were better because of a prime MJ/Scottie and Cartwright - I GOT THAT FROM PHIL... I will post the interview where he talked about this later when I have time to find it.. In the meantime:

Grant > 1997, 1998 Rodman

Cartwright > Longley

Paxson and Armstrong > Kerr, Harper

1st three-peat MJ/Scottie were much greater than 2nd three-peat MJ/Scottie (this is biggest factor)

The only advantage 2nd three-peat had was Kukoc.

[3ball]

.............Bulls PPG in 1996:


................ RS.......... PO

Jordan...... 30.4........ 30.7
Pippen...... 19.1........ 16.9
Kukoc....... 13.1........ 10.8
Longley...... 9.1.......... 8.4
Harper....... 7.4.......... 8.8
Rodman..... 5.5.......... 7.5
S Kerr........ 8.4......... 6.8
Wenngton... 5.3.......... 3.0


Anyone that looks at this roster and says "Yup, that looks like a 72-win roster" is a damn lie... This roster is NOT talented - so how did they win 72 games?

They had some of the very best chemistry OF ALL TIME - the chemistry was enabled by a superior system along with MJ/Scottie's mastery of the system and their championship experience - almost ANY role player could've fit into the system and performed well.

So it's simply incorrect for people to look back on stiffs like Caffey, Longley, Kerr, etc., and claim these guys were legit reasons for the 72 wins.. The 72 wins was due to the SYSTEM, and MJ/Scottie executing the system to 3-peat-caliber perfection.. Again, tons of other role players could've fit in the same way.

Kerr was actually cut by Orlando before the Bulls picked him up.. The only reason he lasted in the NBA was because the Bulls and Spurs had championship systems that could effectively use and plug-in his 1-dimensional, stand-still floor-spreading into the system.

[dhsilv]

I use stats to shut up 3ball when he makes them up on the fly...

Stats are useless without knowing the game and context....I don't post meaningless crap because I hope it supports me

[dhsilv]

Grant was an all NBA defensive player. While not rodman, he was among the best in the game. Offensively he was an average to good starter. Net net be is a hell of a lot better than average.

I will agree guys like Paxton, Purdue and Hodges where just average guys, but they are a nice group of average complements.

Hi of course was an overrated all star the year mj left so lets not down ply him that much.

And as said mj was a freaking god those years...

[sdot_thadon]

Nope, 3Ball uses stats very selectively and routinely omits data that doesn't suit his agenda from the same source . He makes shit up. He sees what he wants and won't stfu.


Fixed.

[DMAVS41]

.............Bulls PPG in 1996:


................ RS.......... PO

Jordan...... 30.4........ 30.7
Pippen...... 19.1........ 16.9
Kukoc....... 13.1........ 10.8
Longley...... 9.1.......... 8.4
Harper....... 7.4.......... 8.8
Rodman..... 5.5.......... 7.5
S Kerr........ 8.4......... 6.8
Wenngton... 5.3.......... 3.0


Anyone that looks at this roster and says "Yup, that looks like a 72-win roster" is a damn lie... This roster is NOT talented - so how did they win 72 games?

They had some of the very best chemistry OF ALL TIME - the chemistry was enabled by a superior system along with MJ/Scottie's mastery of the system and their championship experience - almost ANY role player could've fit into the system and performed well.

So it's simply incorrect for people to look back on stiffs like Caffey, Longley, Kerr, etc., and claim these guys were legit reasons for the 72 wins.. The 72 wins was due to the SYSTEM, and MJ/Scottie executing the system to 3-peat-caliber perfection.. Again, tons of other role players could've fit in the same way.

Kerr was actually cut by Orlando before the Bulls picked him up.. The only reason he lasted in the NBA was because the Bulls and Spurs had championship systems that could effectively use and plug-in his 1-dimensional, stand-still floor-spreading into the system.

This seems like a straw man though...who is saying they were a lock to win 72 because they had a loaded roster?

I think there were many reasons. MJ being easily the biggest. Kerr often talks about how there were like 5 to 10 games that season that most teams would have just lost, but MJ just wouldn't let them lose.

MJ probably added 5 extra wins to that team even over other all time great players at their peaks like Lebron or Duncan or Shaq...etc.

I think the chemistry of that team was also a big reason...they fit well together and could dominate on both ends. The two teams did it a different way, but how they could take over games on either end is very similar to what the Warriors did last year and have continued this year.

Phil was a great coach.

Pippen seems to get slightly under-rated here that season...he was amazing and might have been about as good as anybody else in the league.

I also think the role players were good to great...with Rodman, even though he missed some games, really making a huge impact.

And, in my opinion, the league was probably 2 to 3 wins easier in 96 than it was on average. Nothing huge, but I think there were just a couple more "free wins" in the schedule than there had been in the past due to a variety of circumstances.

But, clearly, MJ was the driving force on that team and I don't think any other player in history gets that team to more than 67 wins in place of MJ.

[3ball]

I don't think any other player in history gets that team to more than 67 wins in place of MJ.


^^^^ This demonstrates your bias very clearly... Let me explain.

The Bulls only had 3 guys in double-figures, as shown above.. So they had a super-ton of replaceable role players - how hard is it to find someone to average 7 ppg?

Yet despite the many replaceable role players, the only player you considered replacing was the LEAST replaceable player on the team and the widely considered goat for god sakes...

That's just ridiculous bias - you're looking for anything to diminish the player with the greatest stats and accolades of all time... the goat.

[DMAVS41]

Everyone - all young fans - they weren't there to see how insane the chemistry was, so they figure the Bulls won 72 games based on a stacked roster.. They literally look at Longley and say, "well, as starting center on 72-win team, he must've been pretty good"... LOL... The Bulls only had 3 players in double-figures.. Everyone else was a 3-8 ppg play-finisher and very replaceable...

So the Bulls didn't win based on talent - many teams had more talent.. They won because they had some of the best chemistry OF ALL TIME - the chemistry was enabled by a superior system along with MJ/Scottie's mastery of the system and championship experience - almost ANY role player could've fit into the system and performed well.

Kerr was actually cut by Orlando before the Bulls picked him up.. The only reason he lasted in the NBA was because the Bulls and Spurs had optimal, championship systems that could actually use his him - they could effectively plug-in his 1-dimensional, stand-still floor-spreading into the system.



^^^^ This demonstrates your bias very clearly... Let me explain.

The Bulls only had 3 guys in double-figures, as shown above.. So they had a super-ton of replaceable role players - how hard is it to find someone to average 7 ppg?

Yet despite the many replaceable role players, the only player you considered replacing was the LEAST replaceable player on the team and the widely considered goat for god sakes...

That's just ridiculous bias - you're looking for anything to diminish the player with the greatest stats and accolades of all time... the goat.



What? I'm knocking MJ when I say no other player in history could even win 67 in place of him? Saying he's at least 5 wins better than any player in history is not an insult.

Are you high?

You also severely under-rate the rest of the team. Pippen was an elite player...absolutely elite on a par with pretty much anyone else back in 96...Robinson and Malone were probably a little better, but not by a ton. And even more...he's the perfect team guy for that chemistry you speak of.

[3ball]

What? I'm knocking MJ when I say no other player in history could even win 67 in place of him?

Are you high?



I must've misinterpreted that part of your post.. The first part of my post was the relavant part:





Everyone - all young fans think the 96' Bulls were stacked with talent - they weren't there to see how insane the chemistry was, so they figure the Bulls won 72 games based on a stacked roster.. They literally look at Longley and say, "well, he was starting center on 72-win team, so he must've been pretty good"... LOL... The Bulls only had 3 players in double-figures.. Everyone else was a 3-8 ppg play-finisher and very replaceable...

So the Bulls didn't win based on talent - many teams had more talent.. They won because they had some of the best chemistry OF ALL TIME - the chemistry was enabled by a superior system along with MJ/Scottie's mastery of the system and championship experience - almost ANY role player could've fit into the system and performed well.

Kerr was actually cut by Orlando before the Bulls picked him up.. The only reason he lasted in the NBA was because the Bulls and Spurs had optimal, championship systems that could actually use him - they could effectively plug-in his 1-dimensional, stand-still floor-spreading into the system.

[DMAVS41]

I must've misinterpreted that part of your post.. The first part of my post was the relavant part:

Well, they are wrong...but you are as well.

That team, outside of MJ, is simply better than you are letting on.

You had good role players, a force in Rodman, the GOAT coach (or at least one of the best ever), and a top 5 player, imo, in Pippen.

Yes, I completely agree that chemistry played a large role and MJ was the main cause of that and the wins, but other great players would have gotten that team to a ton of wins.

You put two top 5 players on the same team with Phil coaching and good role players and you are getting a ton of wins. Especially in an expansion era...

You just aren't getting 72...

[3ball]

:lol
.

[3ball]

.
Expansion team records in 1996:


Orlando Magic 60-22

Miami Heat 42-40

Charlotte Hornets 41-41

Minnesota Timberwolves 25-57

Toronto Raptors 21-61

Vancouver Grizzlies 15-67



Bottom 6 records in 2015:


New York Knicks 17-65

Philadelphia 76'ers 18-64

Minnesota Timberwolves 21-61

Los Angeles Lakers 21-61

Orlando Magic 25-57

Sacramento Kings 29-51


The top 450 players in the world made the NBA in the 90's (30 teams and 15 players per team), and the top 450 players make the NBA today... There's no difference.. How is it different?

Now if there were LESS players in today's league, then it would be tougher - a 300-player league means only the top 300 in the world make the league - so 150 players from today's league would get cut in a 300-player league (the 80's).. The Bulls won their rings in a league that had less players, so they won their rings in a less diluted league.

Also, expansion happened before the 90's... Expansion has happened ever since the first 8 teams were introduced back in 1949.. Kobe, Lebron, Wade - you name it - they all won rings in the expansion era.. They won in a 30-team (fully-expanded) league.

New fans can't have it both ways - so which championships should be discounted??... Should we discount the rings achieved in a smaller league with less teams (the Bulls 1st three-peat), or the ones achieved in a fully-expanded 30-team league where weaker players make the league (Bulls 2nd three-peat and every ring since)?

[3ball]

Yes, I completely agree that chemistry played a large role and MJ was the main cause of that and the wins, but other great players would have gotten that team to a ton of wins.


You claim to give proper credit to chemistry, "replace MJ" concept DOESN'T consider chemistry... If someone replaced Jordan, chemistry would fall off a cliff... Jordan 3-peated with the Bulls, while the replacement only gets a training camp.

That's why the whole "replace MJ in 1994 with Kobe" argument doesn't work... The only way they have a 3-peat caliber chemistry in 1994, is if Kobe was able to 3-peat from 1991-1993... But he couldn't, because that required 34/7/7 on 51% in the playoffs, which Kobe isn't capable of.





If you put two top 5 players on the same team


Pippen wasn't a top 5 player... He was worse than Robinson, Ewing, Stockton, Malone, Shaq, Hakeem, and more.





If you put two top 5 players on the same team with Phil coaching and good role players - you're getting a ton of wins.


If this and if that isn't worth mentioning, since you can say that about ANYONE who has won a championship.. For example - if you team-hop to play with the best SG and PF in the league - you should go 4/4.. See how easy that was?

You can say that about anyone's supporting cast.. Duncan has THREE top 20 teammates... Kobe had uber-prime Shaq and Phil.. Wade had Shaq, Riley, Zo, and more.

Otoh, MJ won championships with less talent than anyone he's compared to - unlike most players who rely on great supporting talent to win, MJ relied on fostering optimal chemistry to win instead.. His weaker supporting talent is proven by the stats - his stats are the best, proving he was required to do more than anyone else to win.
.

[dhsilv]

This seems like a straw man though...who is saying they were a lock to win 72 because they had a loaded roster?

I think there were many reasons. MJ being easily the biggest. Kerr often talks about how there were like 5 to 10 games that season that most teams would have just lost, but MJ just wouldn't let them lose.

MJ probably added 5 extra wins to that team even over other all time great players at their peaks like Lebron or Duncan or Shaq...etc.

I think the chemistry of that team was also a big reason...they fit well together and could dominate on both ends. The two teams did it a different way, but how they could take over games on either end is very similar to what the Warriors did last year and have continued this year.

Phil was a great coach.

Pippen seems to get slightly under-rated here that season...he was amazing and might have been about as good as anybody else in the league.

I also think the role players were good to great...with Rodman, even though he missed some games, really making a huge impact.

And, in my opinion, the league was probably 2 to 3 wins easier in 96 than it was on average. Nothing huge, but I think there were just a couple more "free wins" in the schedule than there had been in the past due to a variety of circumstances.

But, clearly, MJ was the driving force on that team and I don't think any other player in history gets that team to more than 67 wins in place of MJ.

This is spot on!

Though Toni needs a bit more love. He was great that year, about as good a 6th man as you'll find.

[dhsilv]

Everyone - all young fans - they weren't there to see how insane the chemistry was, so they figure the Bulls won 72 games based on a stacked roster.. They literally look at Longley and say, "well, as starting center on 72-win team, he must've been pretty good"... LOL... The Bulls only had 3 players in double-figures.. Everyone else was a 3-8 ppg play-finisher and very replaceable...

So the Bulls didn't win based on talent - many teams had more talent.. They won because they had some of the best chemistry OF ALL TIME - the chemistry was enabled by a superior system along with MJ/Scottie's mastery of the system and championship experience - almost ANY role player could've fit into the system and performed well.

Kerr was actually cut by Orlando before the Bulls picked him up.. The only reason he lasted in the NBA was because the Bulls and Spurs had optimal, championship systems that could actually use his him - they could effectively plug-in his 1-dimensional, stand-still floor-spreading into the system.



^^^^ This demonstrates your bias very clearly... Let me explain.

The Bulls only had 3 guys in double-figures, as shown above.. So they had a super-ton of replaceable role players - how hard is it to find someone to average 7 ppg?

Yet despite the many replaceable role players, the only player you considered replacing was the LEAST replaceable player on the team and the widely considered goat for god sakes...

That's just ridiculous bias - you're looking for anything to diminish the player with the greatest stats and accolades of all time... the goat.


I ask with a bit of fear, but what teams in 96 had significantly better talent?

I'd listen to the sonics perhaps if we're ignoring the best player gap here which is huge. The magic has some better scoring role players, but not defensively. Maybe I give stockton and malone too much credit but I was never impressed with their role players. Not impressed with the role players on the spurs really either. Robinson was a beast that year. The lakers were deep but no stars (unless magic's cameo counts).

[dhsilv]

Pippen wasn't a top 5 player... He was worse than Robinson, Ewing, Stockton, Malone, Shaq, Hakeem, and more.

.

Say what?

Robinson yes he was better. Malone yes. Maybe Penny was better. But stockton? Unless you're a massive winshare lover I can't see the argument for that one! Even dream really wasn't up to his higher standards though he's right there with Pippen. Oh and Ewing? Seriously? That guy is seriously the most over rated player other than Miller from the 90's. He was good but no way I'm taking him over Pippen. Not in 96.

So I'd put Pippen in the 5-6 slot with dream that year.

[97 bulls]

If this and if that isn't worth mentioning, since you can say that about ANYONE who has won a championship.. For example - if you team-hop to play with the best SG and PF in the league - you should go 4/4.. See how easy that was?

You can say that about anyone's supporting cast.. Duncan has THREE top 20 teammates... Kobe had uber-prime Shaq and Phil.. Wade had Shaq, Riley, Zo, and more.

Otoh, MJ won championships with less talent than anyone he's compared to - unlike most players who rely on great supporting talent to win, MJ relied on fostering optimal chemistry to win instead.. His weaker supporting talent is proven by the stats - his stats are the best, proving he was required to do more than anyone else to win.

You always post this nonsense. Then, when you get called out on it. You tuck tail and go into another thread saying the same B.S..

Please... I beg you. Don't run this time. Answer my questions. Let's have a dialogue.

If Michael Jordans teammates were so bad relative to other teams. Why is it that no other team has been able to come even remotely close to the success the Bulls had without him?

I understand that you allude to the Bulls Championship pedigree. But all the other teams had championship experience as well. And they actually replaced the best player quality.

Also acknowledge that the 94 Bulls and 93 Bulls were not the exact team minus Jordan. Toni Kukoc, Pete Myers, Luc Longley, Bill Wennigton, and Steve Kerr were not on the first three peat team. Mind you thats five players FIVE. On a 15 man roster. And then even thats not true cuz you can only suit 12 a night.

Then answer the roles John Paxson and Bill Cartwright played in 94. Considering that they were old.

These facts totally slap your theory dead in the face. Please address them

[DMAVS41]

You claim to give proper credit to chemistry, "replace MJ" concept DOESN'T consider chemistry... If someone replaced Jordan, chemistry would fall off a cliff... Jordan 3-peated with the Bulls, while the replacement only gets a training camp.

That's why the whole "replace MJ in 1994 with Kobe" argument doesn't work... The only way they have a 3-peat caliber chemistry in 1994, is if Kobe was able to 3-peat from 1991-1993... But he couldn't, because that required 34/7/7 on 51% in the playoffs, which Kobe isn't capable of.



Pippen wasn't a top 5 player... He was worse than Robinson, Ewing, Stockton, Malone, Shaq, Hakeem, and more.



If this and if that isn't worth mentioning, since you can say that about ANYONE who has won a championship.. For example - if you team-hop to play with the best SG and PF in the league - you should go 4/4.. See how easy that was?

You can say that about anyone's supporting cast.. Duncan has THREE top 20 teammates... Kobe had uber-prime Shaq and Phil.. Wade had Shaq, Riley, Zo, and more.

Otoh, MJ won championships with less talent than anyone he's compared to - unlike most players who rely on great supporting talent to win, MJ relied on fostering optimal chemistry to win instead.. His weaker supporting talent is proven by the stats - his stats are the best, proving he was required to do more than anyone else to win.
.

Is english not your language? I ask because I can't be any clearer.

I have repeatedly said that MJ probably added 5 wins on top of what any player in NBA history would have added to that team.

How on earth is that evidence of me not giving credit to chemistry? As good as MJ was, he's not 5 wins better than some of the best players of all time at their peaks in a vacuum...but, imo, he was on that team for the very reasons you and I agree on.

Pippen was better than Ewing and Stockton in 96. He definitely has a case for top 5 player. That was my point...you are under-rating him...he was an elite player and a perfect type of player to have next to a superstar.

I have MJ as the GOAT...so all your constant "dick riding" on MJ serves no purpose for me.

[97 bulls]

I ask with a bit of fear, but what teams in 96 had significantly better talent?

I'd listen to the sonics perhaps if we're ignoring the best player gap here which is huge. The magic has some better scoring role players, but not defensively. Maybe I give stockton and malone too much credit but I was never impressed with their role players. Not impressed with the role players on the spurs really either. Robinson was a beast that year. The lakers were deep but no stars (unless magic's cameo counts).
There was no team with more talent much less significant. 3ball has an agenda. Which we all do. But he lies to push his.

The mid 90s Bulls today without Jordan would be like the Grizzlies the past few years. Mid 50 to possibly 60 win team and at best make noise to the Conference Finals.

Better yet if I were to compare the Bulls core players and who theyd be today

Pippen= Lebron James today. Only because I think James has declined a bit especially on D
Rodman= Tristan Thompson. A richmans version
Kerr= Kyle Korver
Harper= Andre Iguodala
Longley= Roy Hibbert
Kukoc=Jamal Crawford

That team easily wins 50+ games a year. The talent was there

[dhsilv]

There was no team with more talent much less significant. 3ball has an agenda. Which we all do. But he lies to push his.

The mid 90s Bulls today without Jordan would be like the Grizzlies the past few years. Mid 50 to possibly 60 win team and at best make noise to the Conference Finals.

Better yet if I were to compare the Bulls core players and who theyd be today

Pippen= Lebron James today. Only because I think James has declined a bit especially on D
Rodman= Tristan Thompson. A richmans version
Kerr= Kyle Korver
Harper= Andre Iguodala
Longley= Roy Hibbert
Kukoc=Jamal Crawford

That team easily wins 50+ games a year. The talent was there

OK dude, wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too high. I get what you're doing so I won't try and pick this apart, but come on. Korver is Kerr? lol, sorry I get what you're going for but you went too high.

Kerr for example is a bit of a poor man's Reddick, not Korver.

[1987_Lakers]

Pippen= Lebron James today. Only because I think James has declined a bit especially on D
Rodman= Tristan Thompson. A richmans version
Kerr= Kyle Korver
Harper= Andre Iguodala
Longley= Roy Hibbert
Kukoc=Jamal Crawford

97 bulls at it again.:roll:

Pippen = Kawhi Leonard (with playmaking)
Kerr = Jose Calderon
Harper = Shaun Livingston
Longley = Mason Plumlee

[catch24]

Ron Harper = Andre Iguodala? LMFAO

The 96 Bulls were better than everyone else. I remember seeing something posted here that "measured" impact, and from top-to-bottom, Chicago had the most of anyone else in the 90s.

Pippen's defense was so good he led the team in xRAPM (pretty much the same thing as RPM)...which is utterly insane.

[97 bulls]

OK dude, wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too high. I get what you're doing so I won't try and pick this apart, but come on. Korver is Kerr? lol, sorry I get what you're going for but you went too high.

Kerr for example is a bit of a poor man's Reddick, not Korver.
Lol a poor mans Redick ???? When Kerr retired, he had the record for highest 3pt FG for a career and season.

What do you disagree with

[90sgoat]

I ask with a bit of fear, but what teams in 96 had significantly better talent?

I'd listen to the sonics perhaps if we're ignoring the best player gap here which is huge. The magic has some better scoring role players, but not defensively. Maybe I give stockton and malone too much credit but I was never impressed with their role players. Not impressed with the role players on the spurs really either. Robinson was a beast that year. The lakers were deep but no stars (unless magic's cameo counts).



Sonics had far superior role players outside their big 2 (Payton/Kemp), they had Hershey Hawkins, Sam Perkins, Detlef Schrempf, Nate McMillan are you kidding me?

Schrempf was an all star and a damn legend, having a 19ppg season the year before. Schrempf was basically a mini-scottie in his own right. Hershey Hawkins was a legit shooting guard scoring 15+ ppg and had several 20+ seasons on lesser teams. Sam Perkins was a very skilled, very cerebral, finals experienced, 3 point contestant stretch 4. Nate McMillan provided tough d and leadership off the bench.

Again, what the f... are you on about, if you think they are even comparable.

Magic that year had (Shaq/Penny), Nick Anderson, Dennis Scott, Horace Grant. The Horace Grant you claim to be such a great player.

None of the Bulls role players did anything after that run outside Kukoc. The entire argument is basically on 4ppg Dennis Rodman. People so conviniently ignore that Rodman was a complete non factor on one end of the floor and would literally pass up open layups. That means 4 on 5 every single play every season. Does it register? Those rebounds came at a premium which was playing 4 on 5 each and every play.

You're not fooling anyone, you don't know these players outside stats,

[90sgoat]

Lol a poor mans Redick ???? When Kerr retired, he had the record for highest 3pt FG for a career and season.

What do you disagree with

And yet he couldn't play a lick of defense, couldn't drive or dribble to save his life and couldn't playmake.

Again, like with Rodman, this is an extremely specialized role player who could only exist on such a team where MJ and Scottie did so much. Kerr is basically that mormon dude who can't get any play.

[catch24]

And yet he couldn't play a lick of defense, couldn't drive or dribble to save his life and couldn't playmake.

Again, like with Rodman, this is an extremely specialized role player who could only exist on such a team where MJ and Scottie did so much. Kerr is basically that mormon dude who can't get any play.

Kerr has one of the greatest 3PT percentages in history, and Rodman circa 1996-1998 has the greatest rebounding percentage of all-time.

Put the crack pipe down.

[90sgoat]

Kerr has one of the greatest 3PT percentages in history, and Rodman circa 1996-1998 has the greatest rebounding percentage of all-time.

Put the crack pipe down.

At the cost of what?

You autist nerds are impossible.

Rodman was booted out of the Spurs and retired after trying to fit in with Lakers and Dallas. Rodman was a rebounder and only that. Do you understand this? Rodman did one thing and one thing only. Didn't playmake, didn't score. A completely one dimensional player. He is a better Tristan Thompson with WORSE offense.

Same with Kerr, on a regular team he wouldn't see playing time due to his glaring weaknesses outside ANYTHING but hitting open 3s and open long 2s. Thats ALL he could and did.

Only a team with MJ and Pippen carrying such a massive load could have such players.

[juju151111]

There was no team with more talent much less significant. 3ball has an agenda. Which we all do. But he lies to push his.

The mid 90s Bulls today without Jordan would be like the Grizzlies the past few years. Mid 50 to possibly 60 win team and at best make noise to the Conference Finals.

Better yet if I were to compare the Bulls core players and who theyd be today

Pippen= Lebron James today. Only because I think James has declined a bit especially on D
Rodman= Tristan Thompson. A richmans version
Kerr= Kyle Korver
Harper= Andre Iguodala
Longley= Roy Hibbert
Kukoc=Jamal Crawford

That team easily wins 50+ games a year. The talent was there
Pippen isn't lebron even now.:roll:

[1987_Lakers]

At the cost of what?

You autist nerds are impossible.

Rodman was booted out of the Spurs and retired after trying to fit in with Lakers and Dallas. Rodman was a rebounder and only that. Do you understand this? Rodman did one thing and one thing only. Didn't playmake, didn't score. A completely one dimensional player. He is a better Tristan Thompson with WORSE offense.

Same with Kerr, on a regular team he wouldn't see playing time due to his glaring weaknesses outside ANYTHING but hitting open 3s and open long 2s. Thats ALL he could and did.

Only a team with MJ and Pippen carrying such a massive load could have such players.

I see what you're saying. Rodman was pretty one dimensional at that point, but in the one area he was good at which was rebounding he was IMO the best to ever do it. He was a big liability on offense and he wasn't the versatile defender he was in Detroit.

Kerr? I understand he is one of the most accurate 3 point shooters ever, but come on...on a team that doesn't have a superstar he is a bench warmer, he got so many open looks because of MJ. Remember when Steve Novak led the NBA in 3 point% not too long ago? Where is he now?:oldlol:

[97 bulls]

At the cost of what?

You autist nerds are impossible.

Rodman was booted out of the Spurs and retired after trying to fit in with Lakers and Dallas.
Rodman was an old man when he got to LA. He was scapegoated in San Antonio.


Rodman was a rebounder and only that. Do you understand this? Rodman did one thing and one thing only. Didn't playmake, didn't score. A completely one dimensional player. He is a better Tristan Thompson with WORSE offense.
What about his defense? And offensive rebounding


Same with Kerr, on a regular team he wouldn't see playing time due to his glaring weaknesses outside ANYTHING but hitting open 3s and open long 2s. Thats ALL he could and did.
Didn't Kerr help San Antonio win a title in 99?

Only a team with MJ and Pippen carrying such a massive load could have such players.[/QUOTE]

[97 bulls]

And yet he couldn't play a lick of defense, couldn't drive or dribble to save his life and couldn't playmake.

Neither can Korver.


Again, like with Rodman, this is an extremely specialized role player who could only exist on such a team where MJ and Scottie did so much. Kerr is basically that mormon dude who can't get any play.
At the most elementary, basketball is broken down in three facets. Offense, Defense, and Rebounding. Rodman is one of the greatest at two.

[catch24]

Rodman was booted out of the Spurs and retired after trying to fit in with Lakers and Dallas. Rodman was a rebounder and only that. Do you understand this? Rodman did one thing and one thing only. Didn't playmake, didn't score. A completely one dimensional player. He is a better Tristan Thompson with WORSE offense.

And before that, Rodman was a defensive monster/rebounder with Detroit.

Before Pippen was drafted in 1988 and the Bulls won championships in the 90s, Jordan was 1-9 in the playoffs.

What does one have to do with the other? Fact is, Dennis Rodman was statistically the greatest rebounder of that era (and was STILL a pretty damn good defender), while Kerr was one of the most accurate 3PT shooters ever.

Then you had Pippen who was the playmaker for the Bulls...along with their defensive ace out on the perimeter.

They were absolutely loaded.

...Now against some of the dynasty 80s teams? You may have a point. I don't see them beating the '87 Lakers or '86 Celtics. Chicago was great for their time though. Just look at all the data out there available. They were head-and-shoulders above everybody else.

I won't quote the beginning of your post. Its just you freaking out over the hard-hitting numbers :oldlol:

[90sgoat]

You all still miss the point.

The second 3 peat team was a TEAM, each player buying into a very particular role and that is the only reason it worked. Without MJ that team doesn't come close to even 60 wins.

There is such a massive lack of scoring and playmaking outside MJ and Pippen. Yes, Pippen did well, but without MJ he is getting doubled and won't be able to run the goat 1-2, Pip-MJ fastbreaks. Then who lifts that? Harper? Kerr? Kukoc?.

That team would implode without the only guy who could shoot such a high volume at such a high percentage to allow role players like Rodman and Kerr.

That is one good point 3Ball has been trying to make. Rodman only can be that player and still be effective, because he doesn't have to do ANYTHING on offense, because MJ literally carries an all time great scoring load. MJ scores enough for 2!

[catch24]

...Jordan was 1-9 in the playoffs without Pippen. Please spare us the Herculean mythology crap.

One man isn't accountable for 72 wins, you fool.

[97 bulls]

You all still miss the point.

The second 3 peat team was a TEAM, each player buying into a very particular role and that is the only reason it worked. Without MJ that team doesn't come close to even 60 wins.

There is such a massive lack of scoring and playmaking outside MJ and Pippen. Yes, Pippen did well, but without MJ he is getting doubled and won't be able to run the goat 1-2, Pip-MJ fastbreaks. Then who lifts that? Harper? Kerr? Kukoc?.

That team would implode without the only guy who could shoot such a high volume at such a high percentage to allow role players like Rodman and Kerr.

That is one good point 3Ball has been trying to make. Rodman only can be that player and still be effective, because he doesn't have to do ANYTHING on offense, because MJ literally carries an all time great scoring load. MJ scores enough for 2!
How do you explain 1994?

[dhsilv]

Lol a poor mans Redick ???? When Kerr retired, he had the record for highest 3pt FG for a career and season.

What do you disagree with

You compared him to Korver, who he is a better passer, rebounder, defender, off ball player, oh and contest shot shooter. I'm of course under selling him...and yea and he's 6'7 and has length on the defensive end.

Redick is a NICE complement for Kerr. Who I think is a nice roll player, but he's not all star like Korver.

[Rocketswin2013]

You all still miss the point.

The second 3 peat team was a TEAM, each player buying into a very particular role and that is the only reason it worked. Without MJ that team doesn't come close to even 60 wins.

There is such a massive lack of scoring and playmaking outside MJ and Pippen. Yes, Pippen did well, but without MJ he is getting doubled and won't be able to run the goat 1-2, Pip-MJ fastbreaks. Then who lifts that? Harper? Kerr? Kukoc?.

That team would implode without the only guy who could shoot such a high volume at such a high percentage to allow role players like Rodman and Kerr.

That is one good point 3Ball has been trying to make. Rodman only can be that player and still be effective, because he doesn't have to do ANYTHING on offense, because MJ literally carries an all time great scoring load. MJ scores enough for 2!
Implode? If healthy, the second three-peat Bulls would be around 55 or 56 wins each year from that span.

[dhsilv]

Sonics had far superior role players outside their big 2 (Payton/Kemp), they had Hershey Hawkins, Sam Perkins, Detlef Schrempf, Nate McMillan are you kidding me?

Schrempf was an all star and a damn legend, having a 19ppg season the year before. Schrempf was basically a mini-scottie in his own right. Hershey Hawkins was a legit shooting guard scoring 15+ ppg and had several 20+ seasons on lesser teams. Sam Perkins was a very skilled, very cerebral, finals experienced, 3 point contestant stretch 4. Nate McMillan provided tough d and leadership off the bench.

Again, what the f... are you on about, if you think they are even comparable.

Magic that year had (Shaq/Penny), Nick Anderson, Dennis Scott, Horace Grant. The Horace Grant you claim to be such a great player.

None of the Bulls role players did anything after that run outside Kukoc. The entire argument is basically on 4ppg Dennis Rodman. People so conviniently ignore that Rodman was a complete non factor on one end of the floor and would literally pass up open layups. That means 4 on 5 every single play every season. Does it register? Those rebounds came at a premium which was playing 4 on 5 each and every play.

You're not fooling anyone, you don't know these players outside stats,

We can start on what you mean outside of stats? Do you think I didn't see these teams play? I mean even if I'm 20....you can download games. So what is your point on this?

I'll be glad to discuss who I am. Shoot me a PM and we can have a phone call. If you want. I'd rather not get too personal on here but if you want details we can get a good bit of that out of the way.

Schrempf is much more comparable to Toni with better hands and defense. Hawkens is no better than Harper...did you look at what Harper did pre bulls? He became a defensive only guy on the bulls, but had they wanted he he could score. FYI I said I'd agree the sonics are better even if I somewhat diagree. It was my way of saying "yeah that's fair" but you attacked me on it? Really? I agree nobody on the bulls was Nate level once you factor in minutes. That was a solid SOLID team. You mention the magic...but again said they were in the discussion. Both teams have the issue how do you define it....if we ignore top 2? I mean yeah offensively the magic are better. Defensively? That's pretty close man.

Players peak in the nba, so trying to say a guy didn't do anything after a 3 year run. Harper was a 20 a game guy before the bulls. He won two titles after. Rodman was a 2 time defensive player of the year and that was his last run. Pippen was NEVER physically the same but he had a pretty good run after the bulls. Kerr won a title with the spurs and had about the same role. Seems like these were quality guys to me.

[hitmanyr2k]

At the cost of what?

You autist nerds are impossible.

Rodman was booted out of the Spurs and retired after trying to fit in with Lakers and Dallas. Rodman was a rebounder and only that. Do you understand this? Rodman did one thing and one thing only. Didn't playmake, didn't score. A completely one dimensional player. He is a better Tristan Thompson with WORSE offense.

Same with Kerr, on a regular team he wouldn't see playing time due to his glaring weaknesses outside ANYTHING but hitting open 3s and open long 2s. Thats ALL he could and did.

Only a team with MJ and Pippen carrying such a massive load could have such players.

Rodman was a very good passer in the triangle and when he got a rebound he was a great outlet passer and often got Chicago's break started. I could easily make a 5 minute highlight reel of Rodman's outlet passes getting the Bulls players easy buckets.

[guy]

It's so ridiculously stupid how people actually think the whole 1-9 record is actually relevant :oldlol:

[97 bulls]

It's so ridiculously stupid how people actually think the whole 1-9 record is actually relevant :oldlol:
The only way it becomes relevant is when Jordan homers try to say he was a one man show. That he won thise Championships with minimal support. That he could've won with any run of the mill avg SF and PF cuz that what he had.

I can't stress this enough. A lot of the gripes Jordan fans have were created by themselves.

[3ball]

I have repeatedly said that MJ probably added 5 wins on top of what any player in NBA history would have added to that team.


superior stats and a 3-peat level of chemistry (compared to zero chemistry) is worth a lot more than 5 wins.

but you'll never understand that.. because you don't understand the game... you rely on stats to inform you of the game - accordingly, qualitative things like chemistry have no meaning to you, or not nearly enough.





Pippen was better than Ewing and Stockton in 96. He definitely has a case for top 5 player.


I'm underrating him???... None of you guys even saw him play.. Again, you know nothing about the game if you think Pippen was equal to Ewing or Stockton in 1996, or ANY year.

Stockton is a top 5 all-time point guard and the all-time assists and steals leader.. In 1996, Stockton averaged 15/4/11 on 54%... Pippen was 19/6/6 on 46%.. Stockton's stats were better than Pippen's virtually every year of their respective careers... 11 APG was a down year for Stockton.

Also, Pippen wasn't in his prime during the 2nd three-peat - he averaged 17/7/5 on 40.8% in the 1996-1998 playoffs, which is a big decline from the first 3-peat of 20/8/6 on 48%.. Also, Grant Hill and Penny were easily better as well.

[3ball]

The only way it becomes relevant is when Jordan homers try to say he was a one man show.


No one says MJ was a one-man show.. But he was MORE of a 1-man show than anyone he's compared to.. He 3-peated with just 1 HOF in Pippen, which is less than:

Magic's Kareem/Worthy

Bird's McHale/Parish/DJ

Lebron's Wade/Bosh/Allen

Duncan's Parker/Ginobili/Kawhi

Kobe's Shaq


Since MJ was MORE of a 1-man show than anyone else, it's human nature to use hyperbole and just say he was a 1-man show.. You shouldn't get your panties in a bunch about it.. :confusedshrug:





(1-9) becomes relevant because Jordan fans create it



1-9 is for dumb people only - here's MJ and Lebron's 1st Round opponents from early career


Bucks. 1985: 59-23... #2 defense.. Division Champs
Celtics 1986: 67-15... #1 defense.. World Champs
Celtics 1987: 59-23... #9 defense.. Eastern Conference Champs
__________________________________________________ ____________
Combined Record: 185-61... 0.752.. some of the best teams ever


Wizards 2006: 42-40... #22 defense
Wizards 2007: 41-41... #28 defense
Wizards 2008: 43-39... #24 defense
__________________________________________________ ____________
Combined Record: 126-120... 0.512... some of the worst playoff teams ever

[HenryGarfunkle]

but you'll never understand that.. because you don't understand the game... you rely on stats to inform you of the game

.......

(Here's my argument using stats ONLY!)

Stockton is a top 5 all-time point guard and the all-time assists and steals leader.. In 1996, Stockton averaged 15/4/11 on 54%... Pippen was 19/6/6 on 46%.. Stockton's stats were better than Pippen's virtually every year of their respective careers... 11 APG was a down year for Stockton.

Also, Pippen wasn't in his prime during the 2nd three-peat - he averaged 17/7/5 on 40.8% in the 1996-1998 playoffs, which is a big decline from the first 3-peat of 20/8/6 on 48%.. Also, Grant Hill and Penny were easily better as well.

Your autism is hilarious man. :oldlol:

[3ball]

Your autism is hilarious man. :oldlol:
I used stats after complaining that he doesn't understand qualitative arguments.

Your dumbness is hilarious man. :oldlol:

[ClipperRevival]

No one says MJ was a one-man show.. But he was MORE of a 1-man show than anyone he's compared to.. He 3-peated with just 1 HOF in Pippen, which is less than:

Magic's Kareem/Worthy

Bird's McHale/Parish/DJ

Lebron's Wade/Bosh/Allen

Duncan's Parker/Ginobili/Kawhi

Kobe's Shaq


Since MJ was MORE of a 1-man show than anyone else, it's human nature to use hyperbole and just say he was a 1-man show.. You shouldn't get your panties in a bunch about it.. :confusedshrug:




1-9 is for dumb people only - here's MJ and Lebron's 1st Round opponents from early career


Bucks. 1985: 59-23... #2 defense.. Division Champs
Celtics 1986: 67-15... #1 defense.. World Champs
Celtics 1987: 59-23... #9 defense.. Eastern Conference Champs
__________________________________________________ ____________
Combined Record: 185-61... 0.752.. some of the best teams ever


Wizards 2006: 42-40... #22 defense
Wizards 2007: 41-41... #28 defense
Wizards 2008: 43-39... #24 defense
__________________________________________________ ____________
Combined Record: 126-120... 0.512... some of the worst playoff teams ever

Gives you a perspective on why MJ didn't win when he started off. He was facing great teams. No one player can beat a great team.

Post his numbers for those 3 series. GOAT being the GOAT, I am sure it's not too shabby.

[GIF REACTION]

Gives you a perspective on why MJ didn't win when he started off. He was facing great teams. No one player can beat a great team.

Post his numbers for those 3 series. GOAT being the GOAT, I am sure it's not too shabby.
Excuses

[ClipperRevival]

Lol. MJ playoffs from 1985-1987.

35.5 PPG
27.4 PER
6.9 RPG
6.3 APG
2.4 SPG
1.5 BPG

[97 bulls]

superior stats and a 3-peat level of chemistry (compared to zero chemistry) is worth a lot more than 5 wins.

but you'll never understand that.. because you don't understand the game... you rely on stats to inform you of the game - accordingly, qualitative things like chemistry have no meaning to you, or not nearly enough.



I'm underrating him???... None of you guys even saw him play.. Again, you know nothing about the game if you think Pippen was equal to Ewing or Stockton in 1996, or ANY year.

Stockton is a top 5 all-time point guard and the all-time assists and steals leader.. In 1996, Stockton averaged 15/4/11 on 54%... Pippen was 19/6/6 on 46%.. Stockton's stats were better than Pippen's virtually every year of their respective careers... 11 APG was a down year for Stockton.

Also, Pippen wasn't in his prime during the 2nd three-peat - he averaged 17/7/5 on 40.8% in the 1996-1998 playoffs, which is a big decline from the first 3-peat of 20/8/6 on 48%.. Also, Grant Hill and Penny were easily better as well.
Pippens problem wasnt thag he wasnt in his prime. The man was just burnt out and battling inuries. I cant think of another player that played as many games over a ten year strecth like Pip. Especially when you factor in that he played in two Olympics.

[97 bulls]

Gives you a perspective on why MJ didn't win when he started off. He was facing great teams. No one player can beat a great team.

Post his numbers for those 3 series. GOAT being the GOAT, I am sure it's not too shabby.
MJ didnt win or even be competitive because of teo reasons. His teams werent godd enough. And he was a ball hog. He tried to beat teams by himself. Nothing more nothing less.

[ClipperRevival]

MJ didnt win or even be competitive because of teo reasons. His teams werent godd enough. And he was a ball hog. He tried to beat teams by himself. Nothing more nothing less.

:facepalm Why do you even have a pic of MJ? You clearly hate the guy and idolize Pippen.

[sportjames23]

they were playing in the EAST Lmao. imagine GSW in the East they would go 82-0:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:


OP is a loser and a bitch.

This is why the Bulls won 72 games:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab1MWkWT320

[sportjames23]

:facepalm Why do you even have a pic of MJ? You clearly hate the guy and idolize Pippen.


Surprised 97 Bulls isn't all up in this thread:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=389280

[97 bulls]

:facepalm Why do you even have a pic of MJ? You clearly hate the guy and idolize Pippen.
How do you figure???

[97 bulls]

Surprised 97 Bulls isn't all up in this thread:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=389280
Imsaw the thread. Its not worth commenting. I do feel Leonard could end up being better but that he has a long way to go

[sportjames23]

Imsaw the thread. Its not worth commenting. I do feel Leonard could end up being better but that he has a long way to go


Personally, I'm not seeing Leonard passing Scottie. Can't see him being better than one of the 50 Greatest Players of All Time.

[delmar]

http://www.athletepromotions.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Scottie-Pippen.jpg

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[dhsilv]

OP is a loser and a bitch.

This is why the Bulls won 72 games:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab1MWkWT320

Great video. A great display of just amazing teamwork on the break.

[sportjames23]

Great video. A great display of just amazing teamwork on the break.


Notice how this vid didn't have that many MJ highlights. The second three-peat Bulls really were a great team. Not saying they would have won without MJ, but for the most part he didn't have to carry the load as nowhere nearly as much as he had to when he first joined the Bulls or even during the first three-peat.

[dhsilv]

Notice how this vid didn't have that many MJ highlights. The second three-peat Bulls really were a great team. Not saying they would have won without MJ, but for the most part he didn't have to carry the load as nowhere nearly as much as he had to when he first joined the Bulls or even during the first three-peat.

I don't disagree that the bulls had talent around jordan. I think Rodman was great, but offensively he was a net negative and required others pick it up. Pippen had to take on a bigger ball handling role with BJ armstrong gone and harper in his place, a defensive gain but not an offensive one.

Just glancing at usage rates, it shows pretty much what I expected. MJ's usage rate was pretty consistent and for the 6 titles runs, but MJ's usage was higher during the second 3 peat outside of 93 which was his highest rate of the 6.

And just for fun his % of points scored for the bulls.

Year % of Bulls Points
1991 28.6%
1992 26.7%
1993 29.5%
1996 28.9%
1997 28.7%
1998 29.7%

[DMAVS41]

superior stats and a 3-peat level of chemistry (compared to zero chemistry) is worth a lot more than 5 wins.

but you'll never understand that.. because you don't understand the game... you rely on stats to inform you of the game - accordingly, qualitative things like chemistry have no meaning to you, or not nearly enough.



I'm underrating him???... None of you guys even saw him play.. Again, you know nothing about the game if you think Pippen was equal to Ewing or Stockton in 1996, or ANY year.

Stockton is a top 5 all-time point guard and the all-time assists and steals leader.. In 1996, Stockton averaged 15/4/11 on 54%... Pippen was 19/6/6 on 46%.. Stockton's stats were better than Pippen's virtually every year of their respective careers... 11 APG was a down year for Stockton.

Also, Pippen wasn't in his prime during the 2nd three-peat - he averaged 17/7/5 on 40.8% in the 1996-1998 playoffs, which is a big decline from the first 3-peat of 20/8/6 on 48%.. Also, Grant Hill and Penny were easily better as well.

You say I rely on stats and then you just post a bunch of stats.

This isn't about 97 or 98...it's about 96.

And yes...you under-rate Pippen. He was a monster...he was elite defensively and pretty much the perfect player to put next to a superstar as he was willing to do all the dirty work and he could still get you 20 a game.

Like I said...I think Robinson and Malone were better, but honestly not by a lot...Stockton and Ewing were great players, but I think Pippen was better in 96.

This is not a controversial opinion for anyone that watched games back then...you bringing up stats in 98 when Pippen has hurt is just silly.

Do I think it's stupid to take Ewing or Stock over Pippen? Nah, but to act like they were on a different level is just a display of ignorance...simple as that.

[3ball]

http://www.athletepromotions.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Scottie-Pippen.jpg



Here's the consensus on Pippen:



Bill Laimbeer:


"The Jordan Rules were to just stop him, because no one else could beat you on that ballclub"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2v0LOhjsJs&t=1m22s




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




Shaquille O'Neal:


"You did okay, but MJ did most of the work"

"Remember I WAS BATMAN YOU WAS ROBIN , I was PUFFY YOU WAS MASE"

"See what happens when Michael Jordan ain't protecting you, you lose a 17 pt lead in the fourth quarter." (referring to 2000 WCF Game 7)




Chuck Daly:


"It doesn't entail me playing you necessarily... it's our 5.... playing... you."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gCMWuCdsGQ&t=27m41s





Chuck Daly:


"We knew how dangerous he was and we knew going into the playoffs that we had to do something special.. So we most definitely devised what we called "the Jordan Rules""

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIY_4vIxGEE&t=22m49s




Phil Jackson:


"Don't leave Michael all alone here. It's not TIME yet."

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

This was Phil Jackson during a huddle in the 1991 NBA Finals, showing how the everyday game plan was to leave Michael alone and let him do everything down the stretch of games.




Reporter Pat O'Brien in 1989, confirming that Chuck Daly's championship defense was about stopping ONE MAN via the "Jordan Rules":


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2v0LOhjsJs&t=3m27s




Dumars and Isiah:


"Isiah said he sat out by the water for 4-5 hours (thinking about MJ)".

"Dumars and i were on the phone for hours, talking about 23 in red."

"Isiah called me at 3 in the morning and said 'I think i finally figured out a way to stop MJ"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqC74bv46Z8&t=1h05m33s

This was Dumars' and Isiah's reaction to the Bulls taking 2-1 series lead in 1989 ECF after MJ hit GW over Rodman.. The last quote is from assistant coach Brendan Malone, who said that Isiah called at 3 am to talk about stopping MJ.



Horace Grant:


"If it wasn't for MJ, I don't think I'd be sitting here right now. I mean, would've had a decent career, but for a leader like that to lead you to 3 championships..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_aYOQVWSCY&t=14m44s


Scottie Pippen:


"It was the pressure. As the pressure grew, the pounding grew. I wasn't able to answer the bell."

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

This was Pippen in the Bad Boys documentary ADMITTING he the pressure caused him to disappear in 1990 ECF Game 7 - this cost the Bulls a trip to the Finals and the ring - (Bulls would've beaten Blazers - Blazers only took Pistons 6, while Bulls took then 7.


WOAT Support from 2nd Option:

1988 ECSF:.. 9 ppg on 42%
1989 ECF:... 10 ppg on 40%
1996 Finals: 15 ppg on 34%
1998 Finals: 15 ppg on 41%

His biggest choke was Game 7 of 1990 ECF, which cost the Bulls their first championship - they would've beaten the Blazers in the Finals since the Pistons beat the Blazers in 6, but needed 7 and Pippen choke to beat Bulls.
.

[3ball]

Like I said...I think Robinson and Malone were better, but honestly not by a lot...Stockton and Ewing were great players, but I think Pippen was better in 96.


See the previous post for the consensus on Pippen...

Btw, Payton was better than Pippen too... So that's Payton, Hill, Penny, Hakeem, Shaq, Malone, Ewing, Robinson and Stockton were all better than Pippen in 1996.

I would argue many other were better, as would Isiah Thomas, Bill Laimbeer, the entire Piston team, Shaq, and many others, as shown above.
.

[DoctorP]

Payton, Hill, Penny, Hakeem, Shaq, Malone, Ewing, Robinson and Stockton

Only the bold were better than Pip in 96. Dig it. (Hill is borderline)

[kennethgriffin]

it was the absolute pinnacle of the expansion era

the bulls had the 1st, 2nd and 3rd best defensive players in the world

the bulls had the mvp of the nba and best player in the world

the bulls had a top 25 all time legend as their 2nd best player

the bulls had the greatest rebounder of all time

the bulls had statistically one of the greatest shooters of all time at point guard

the bulls had one of if not the best 6th man in the nba in toni kukoc

the bulls had former 20ppg scorer ron harper

the bulls had the 2nd best coach of all time ( when he actually called time outs and got off his a** )

jordan had the leagues players sucking his c*ck

jordan had the leagues referees sucking his c*ck







this... is the reason behind 72 wins. rightfully so

[97 bulls]

Here's the consensus on Pippen:



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




Shaquille O'Neal:

"You did okay, but MJ did most of the work"

"Remember I WAS BATMAN YOU WAS ROBIN , I was PUFFY YOU WAS MASE"

"See what happens when Michael Jordan ain't protecting you, you lose a 17 pt lead in the fourth quarter." (referring to 2000 WCF Game 7)



Bill Laimbeer:


"The Jordan Rules were to just stop him, because no one else could beat you on that ballclub"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2v0LOhjsJs&t=1m22s




Chuck Daly:


"It doesn't entail me playing you necessarily... it's our 5.... playing... you."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gCMWuCdsGQ&t=27m41s




Chuck Daly:


"We knew how dangerous he was and we knew going into the playoffs that we had to do something special.. So we most definitely devised what we called "the Jordan Rules""

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIY_4vIxGEE&t=22m49s



Phil Jackson:


"Don't leave Michael all alone here. It's not TIME yet."

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

This was Phil Jackson during a huddle in the 1991 NBA Finals, showing how the everyday game plan was to leave Michael alone and let him do everything down the stretch of games.




Reporter Pat O'Brien in 1989, confirming that Chuck Daly's championship defense was about stopping ONE MAN via the "Jordan Rules":


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2v0LOhjsJs&t=3m27s




Dumars and Isiah:


"Isiah said he sat out by the water for 4-5 hours (thinking about MJ)".

"Dumars and i were on the phone for hours, talking about 23 in red."

"Isiah called me at 3 in the morning and said 'I think i finally figured out a way to stop MJ"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqC74bv46Z8&t=1h05m33s

This was Dumars' and Isiah's reaction to the Bulls taking 2-1 series lead in 1989 ECF after MJ hit GW over Rodman.. The last quote is from assistant coach Brendan Malone, who said that Isiah called at 3 am to talk about stopping MJ.



Horace Grant:


"If it wasn't for MJ, I don't think I'd be sitting here right now. I mean, would've had a decent career, but for a leader like that to lead you to 3 championships..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_aYOQVWSCY&t=14m44s


Scottie Pippen:


"It was the pressure. As the pressure grew, the pounding grew. I wasn't able to answer the bell."

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

This was Pippen in the Bad Boys documentary ADMITTING he the pressure caused him to disappear in 1990 ECF Game 7 - this cost the Bulls a trip to the Finals and the ring - (Bulls would've beaten Blazers - Blazers only took Pistons 6, while Bulls took then 7.


WOAT Support from 2nd Option:

1988 ECSF:.. 9 ppg on 42%
1989 ECF:... 10 ppg on 40%
1996 Finals: 15 ppg on 34%
1998 Finals: 15 ppg on 41%

His biggest choke was Game 7 of 1990 ECF, which cost the Bulls their first championship - they would've beaten the Blazers in the Finals since the Pistons beat the Blazers in 6, but needed 7 and Pippen choke to beat Bulls.
.
Its posts like these that make people continue to bring up Michael Jordans record without Pippen.

Not to mention that just about every quote he had....was made or alluded to Pippen in 89 and 90.

This is why you were banned from RealGM

[3ball]

Payton, Hill, Penny, Hakeem, Shaq, Malone, Ewing, Robinson and Stockton

Only the bold were better than Pip in 96. Dig it. (Hill is borderline)
Pippen averaged 17/7/5 on 40.8% during the 1996-1998 playoffs - if you think that's a top 5 player, then you're a biased, delusional fool.

Payton and Ewing were better on both sides of the ball.

But Pippen gets more props because he won all the rings.. However, if they won 3 rings with MJ instead of Pippen, you'd be saying Payton and Ewing was WAY better than Pippen.. You're just being results-oriented.. That's the first sign of a new, young, dumb fan.

[97 bulls]

Hey 3ball...I sure would like to get a response to post 171

[3ball]

The only way it becomes relevant is when Jordan homers try to say he was a one man show.


No one says MJ was a one-man show.. But he was MORE of a 1-man show than anyone he's compared to.. He 3-peated with just 1 HOF in Pippen, which is less than:

Magic's Kareem/Worthy

Bird's McHale/Parish/DJ

Lebron's Wade/Bosh/Allen

Duncan's Parker/Ginobili/Kawhi

Kobe's Shaq


Since MJ was MORE of a 1-man show than anyone else, it's human nature to use hyperbole and just say he was a 1-man show.. You shouldn't get your panties in a bunch about it.. :confusedshrug:





(1-9) becomes relevant because Jordan fans create it



1-9 is for dumb people only - here's MJ and Lebron's 1st Round opponents from early career


Bucks. 1985: 59-23... #2 defense.. Division Champs
Celtics 1986: 67-15... #1 defense.. World Champs
Celtics 1987: 59-23... #9 defense.. Eastern Conference Champs
__________________________________________________ ____________
Combined Record: 185-61... 0.752.. some of the best teams ever


Wizards 2006: 42-40... #22 defense
Wizards 2007: 41-41... #28 defense
Wizards 2008: 43-39... #24 defense
__________________________________________________ ____________
Combined Record: 126-120... 0.512... some of the worst playoff teams ever

[97 bulls]

Pippen averaged 17/7/5 on 40.8% during the 1996-1998 playoffs - if you think that's a top 5 player, then you're a biased, delusional fool.

Payton and Ewing were better on both sides of the ball.

But Pippen gets more props because he won all the rings.. However, if they won 3 rings with MJ instead of Pippen, you'd be saying Payton and Ewing was WAY better than Pippen.. You're just being results-oriented.. That's the first sign of a new, young, dumb fan.
Was he hurt in 96 and 98?

[3ball]

:lol

[3ball]

[B]it was the absolute pinnacle of the expansion era


.
Expansion team records in 1996:


Orlando Magic 60-22

Miami Heat 42-40

Charlotte Hornets 41-41

Minnesota Timberwolves 25-57

Toronto Raptors 21-61

Vancouver Grizzlies 15-67



Bottom 6 records in 2015:


New York Knicks 17-65

Philadelphia 76'ers 18-64

Minnesota Timberwolves 21-61

Los Angeles Lakers 21-61

Orlando Magic 25-57

Sacramento Kings 29-51


The top 450 players in the world made the NBA in the mid-late 90's (30 teams and 15 players per team), and the top 450 players make the NBA today... There's no difference.. How is it different?

Now if there were LESS players in today's league, then it would be tougher - a 300-player league means only the top 300 in the world make the league - so 150 players from today's league would get cut in a 300-player league (the 80's).. The Bulls won their rings in a league that had less players, so they won their rings in a less diluted league.

Also, expansion happened before the 90's... Expansion has happened ever since the first 8 teams were introduced back in 1949.. Kobe, Lebron, Wade - you name it - they all won rings in the expansion era.. They won in a 30-team (fully-expanded) league.

New fans can't have it both ways - so which championships should be discounted??... Should we discount the rings achieved in a smaller league with less teams (the Bulls 1st three-peat), or the ones achieved in a fully-expanded 30-team league where weaker players make the league (Bulls 2nd three-peat and every ring since)?
.

[3ball]

Was he hurt in 96 and 98?
If you think he was hurt, then he isn't a top player, and MJ must carry an even GREATER load.

But he wasn't hurt because he played 77 games in 1996 and every playoff game... This loser averaged 15 ppg on 34% in the Finals - that's the worst ever.

Again, Pippen averaged 17/7/5 on 40.8% during the 1996-1998 playoffs - if you think that's a top 5 player, then you're a biased, delusional fool... Payton and Ewing were better on both sides of the ball.

But Pippen gets more props because he won all the rings.. However, if Payton or Ewing won 3 rings with MJ instead of Pippen, you'd be saying they were WAY better than Pippen.. So you're just being results-oriented.. That's the first sign of a new, young, dumb fan..

[97 bulls]

No one says MJ was a one-man show.. But he was MORE of a 1-man show than anyone he's compared to.. He 3-peated with just 1 HOF in Pippen, which is less than:

Magic's Kareem/Worthy

Bird's McHale/Parish/DJ

Lebron's Wade/Bosh/Allen

Duncan's Parker/Ginobili/Kawhi

Kobe's Shaq


Since MJ was MORE of a 1-man show than anyone else, it's human nature to use hyperbole and just say he was a 1-man show.. You shouldn't get your panties in a bunch about it.. :confusedshrug:

Jordan had Pippen, Rodman, and Jackson and Winter. And Kukoc will get in eventually.



1-9 is for dumb people only - here's MJ and Lebron's 1st Round opponents from early career


Bucks. 1985: 59-23... #2 defense.. Division Champs
Celtics 1986: 67-15... #1 defense.. World Champs
Celtics 1987: 59-23... #9 defense.. Eastern Conference Champs
__________________________________________________ ____________
Combined Record: 185-61... 0.752.. some of the best teams ever


Wizards 2006: 42-40... #22 defense
Wizards 2007: 41-41... #28 defense
Wizards 2008: 43-39... #24 defense
__________________________________________________ ____________
Combined Record: 126-120... 0.512... some of the worst playoff teams ever
What the hell does Lebron James have to do with this???? Was he even born when Jordan was playinh in the mid 80s????

[3ball]

Jordan had Pippen, Rodman, and Jackson and Winter. And Kukoc will get in eventually.


MJ's supporting cast was so weak, that you must add his coaches.. MJ is the only player in history where his haters include coaches when naming his supporting cast.

But Magic had Pat Riley... Lebron has Blatt and Spolestra.. Duncan has Popovich... Kobe had Phil... Bird had KC Jones.. They're all great coaches that played the best brand of basketball allowed by the personnel they had.

In MJ's case, he achieved goat stats within the triangle without diminishing the stats of teammates.. With teammates playing to capacity alongside MJ's goat stats, the TEAM played to capacity, and never underachieved (lost to a team with equal or greater talent... This is a stark contrast from Lebron, who lowers the PPG and APG of teammates, so the team can't play to capacity and underachieves (2009, 2011, 2014).
.

[3ball]

Here's the consensus on Pippen:



Bill Laimbeer:


"The Jordan Rules were to just stop him, because no one else could beat you on that ballclub"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2v0LOhjsJs&t=1m22s




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




Shaquille O'Neal:


"You did okay, but MJ did most of the work"

"Remember I WAS BATMAN YOU WAS ROBIN , I was PUFFY YOU WAS MASE"

"See what happens when Michael Jordan ain't protecting you, you lose a 17 pt lead in the fourth quarter." (referring to 2000 WCF Game 7)




Chuck Daly:


"It doesn't entail me playing you necessarily... it's our 5.... playing... you."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gCMWuCdsGQ&t=27m41s





Chuck Daly:


"We knew how dangerous he was and we knew going into the playoffs that we had to do something special.. So we most definitely devised what we called "the Jordan Rules""

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIY_4vIxGEE&t=22m49s




Phil Jackson:


"Don't leave Michael all alone here. It's not TIME yet."

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

This was Phil Jackson during a huddle in the 1991 NBA Finals, showing how the everyday game plan was to leave Michael alone and let him do everything down the stretch of games.




Reporter Pat O'Brien in 1989, confirming that Chuck Daly's championship defense was about stopping ONE MAN via the "Jordan Rules":


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2v0LOhjsJs&t=3m27s




Dumars and Isiah:


"Isiah said he sat out by the water for 4-5 hours (thinking about MJ)".

"Dumars and i were on the phone for hours, talking about 23 in red."

"Isiah called me at 3 in the morning and said 'I think i finally figured out a way to stop MJ"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqC74bv46Z8&t=1h05m33s

This was Dumars' and Isiah's reaction to the Bulls taking 2-1 series lead in 1989 ECF after MJ hit GW over Rodman.. The last quote is from assistant coach Brendan Malone, who said that Isiah called at 3 am to talk about stopping MJ.



Horace Grant:


"If it wasn't for MJ, I don't think I'd be sitting here right now. I mean, would've had a decent career, but for a leader like that to lead you to 3 championships..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_aYOQVWSCY&t=14m44s


Scottie Pippen:


"It was the pressure. As the pressure grew, the pounding grew. I wasn't able to answer the bell."

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

This was Pippen in the Bad Boys documentary ADMITTING he the pressure caused him to disappear in 1990 ECF Game 7 - this cost the Bulls a trip to the Finals and the ring - (Bulls would've beaten Blazers - Blazers only took Pistons 6, while Bulls took then 7.


WOAT Support from 2nd Option:

1988 ECSF:.. 9 ppg on 42%
1989 ECF:... 10 ppg on 40%
1996 Finals: 15 ppg on 34%
1998 Finals: 15 ppg on 41%

His biggest choke was Game 7 of 1990 ECF, which cost the Bulls their first championship - they would've beaten the Blazers in the Finals since the Pistons beat the Blazers in 6, but needed 7 and Pippen choke to beat Bulls.




This is why you were banned from RealGM


That's what happens over there when you post facts and quotes from actual players and coaches

[97 bulls]

If you think he was hurt, then he isn't a top player, and MJ must carry an even GREATER load.
That's not what I asked you. I asked you if he was was hurt yes or no. And the reason I asked is because you are attempting to create the narrative that Pippen is overrated. Thats why you keep posting quotes from 1989.

And lets not forget the defensive side of the ball. Pippen was the Bulls best defender and impacted their run tremendously during the second three-peat. And lets not forget Rodmans contributions.

Truth be told, they all carried each other at some point during that run. Rodman carried Jirdan and Pippen in 96, Jordan and Pippen had a strong 97. Pippen had a great showing before he got hurt in 98 and Rodman dominated Malone. You saw the video.


But he wasn't hurt because he played 77 games in 1996 and every playoff game... This loser averaged 15 ppg on 34% in the Finals - that's the worst ever.

He was hurt in the 96 Finals. And I think he was just overall fatigued.


But Pippen gets more props because he won all the rings.. However, if Payton or Ewing won 3 rings with MJ instead of Pippen, you'd be saying they were WAY better than Pippen.. So you're just being results-oriented.. That's the first sign of a new, young, dumb fan..
You can say this about any player. Take away Jordan's rings and he Dominique Wilkins. And yes I am results-oriented. Why are you against results?????

[3ball]

a lot of misinformation itt

[97 bulls]

MJ's supporting cast was so weak, that you must add his coaches.. MJ is the only player in history where his haters include coaches when naming his supporting cast.
He wasn't winning anything before those coaches showed up. So I absolutely gonna add them. Why did they make the hall of fame???


But Magic had Pat Riley... Lebron has Blatt and Spolestra.. Duncan has Popovich... Kobe had Phil... Bird had KC Jones.. They're all great coaches that played the best brand of basketball allowed by the personnel they had.

Jones isnt in the hall of fame as a coach. The Lakers won a championship bedore Riley got there. I.don't know if Spo can safely walked the streets of Miami. What has Blatt done??? And Popvich took over the Spurs in a shady way. Fireing Hill after he got Duncan. The only coach on Jacksons level is Red Aeurbach


In MJ's case, he achieved goat stats within the triangle without diminishing the stats of teammates.. With teammates playing to capacity alongside MJ's goat stats, the TEAM played to capacity
.

No. Jackson and Winter implemented an offense that would keep Jordan.from hogging the ball.

[3ball]

Rodman carried MJ in 1996.

You can say this about any player. Take away Jordan's rings and he Dominique Wilkins. And yes I am results-oriented. Why are you against results?????


Rodman averaged 4 ppg - he never "carried" anyone.. Instead, MJ's goat offense fostered optimal chemistry, which allowed the Bulls have the highest team ORtg of all time in 1996, despite playing 4 on 5 offensively with Rodman.. Rodman was a huge net negative offensively and MJ carried him.

Btw, regarding Dominique - the fact that you think Dominique = MJ shows that you hate MJ and don't think he's the GOAT..

But let's examine the gap between a zero-ring MJ and Dominique - is Dominique the NBA's all-time leader in PPG, PER and win shares?.. Did Dominique average 34/6/6 on 49% for his career in playoffs?

The gap between Dominique and MJ is huge - just look at 1987 - Dominique tied his career high that year at 30 ppg... But MJ averaged 37 ppg on better efficiency.

[97 bulls]

That's what happens over there when you post facts and quotes from actual players and coaches
Lol. You think you're the only one with facts???? And even more? Your facts are skewed. You twist them. Why?

Funny thing is you know youre getting your ass kicked because you keep avoiding my questions

[catch24]

MJ's supporting cast was so weak, that you must add his coaches.. MJ is the only player in history where his haters include coaches when naming his supporting cast.

But Magic had Pat Riley... Lebron has Blatt and Spolestra.. Duncan has Popovich... Kobe had Phil... Bird had KC Jones.. They're all great coaches that played the best brand of basketball allowed by the personnel they had.

In MJ's case, he achieved goat stats within the triangle without diminishing the stats of teammates.. With teammates playing to capacity alongside MJ's goat stats, the TEAM played to capacity, and never underachieved (lost to a team with equal or greater talent... This is a stark contrast from Lebron, who lowers the PPG and APG of teammates, so the team can't play to capacity and underachieves (2009, 2011, 2014).
.

lol

Only in your world do those coaches NOT get mentioned. I hope for your sake that this is ALL an elaborate troll.

[ShawkFactory]

This dude mentions Allen as a part of Lebron's championships but doesn't mention Rodman for Jordan's. Like....holy shit people :lol

How does his shit last 230 posts.

[97 bulls]

Rodman averaged 4 ppg - he never "carried" anyone.. Instead, MJ's goat offense fostered optimal chemistry, which allowed the Bulls have the highest team ORtg of all time in 1996, despite playing 4 on 5 offensively with Rodman.. Rodman was a huge net negative offensively and MJ carried him.

Rodman shut down the reigning MVP in Karl Malone in 98. I posted the videos. Do you wanna see it again?

George Karl said won two games by himself in 96. How do you explain that away???

Btw, regarding Dominique - the fact that you think Dominique = MJ shows that you hate MJ and don't think he's the GOAT..
So now you're twisting my quotes. Show me where I stated Wilkins was as good as Jordan.

[3ball]

Rodman averaged 3 ppg and 7 rpg in entire 1997 Playoffs and 1998 Finals.

MJ carried the whole team - just look at the PPG averages of everyone on the team... It's MJ at 31 ppg... then Pippen at 16.9... then Kukoc at 10.1.... then everyone else below 8 ppg... MJ scored 30% of his teams points as a standard - that's the largest load of all time easily.

[3ball]

Rodman averaged 3 ppg and 7 rpg in entire 1997 Playoffs and 1998 Finals.

MJ carried the whole team - just look at the PPG averages of everyone on the team... It's MJ at 31 ppg... then Pippen at 16.9... then Kukoc at 10.1.... then everyone else below 8 ppg... MJ scored 30% of his teams points as a standard - that's the largest load of all time easily.
^^^ cold hard facts

[3ball]

He wasn't anything before those coaches showed up.


MJ was scoring leader, MVP, and DPOY in 1988 before Phil got there - so MJ was literally the best player in the league pre-Phil.. Jordan's 1988 season is the best individual season of all time..

The truth is that MJ didn't win until he got some HELP... But again, that help was less than anyone else had among the guys MJ is compared to.. Do you realize that the instant MJ got just 1 all-star, he went 6/6?

Compare that to Lebron who missed the playoffs twice despite having Zydrunas, a 2-time all-star.. In Miami, Lebron had TWO all-stars, but only went 2/4.





Jackson and Winter implemented an offense that would keep Jordan.from hogging the ball.


Right - and MJ achieved goat stats within that offense without diminishing the stats of teammates.. With teammates playing to capacity alongside MJ's goat stats, the TEAM played to capacity and never underachieved (lost to a team with equal or less talent).

Otoh, Lebron lowers the PPG and APG of teammates, so the team can't play to capacity and underachieves (2009, 2011, 2014).
.

[ShawkFactory]

Rodman averaged 3 ppg and 7 rpg in entire 1997 Playoffs and 1998 Finals.

MJ carried the whole team - just look at the PPG averages of everyone on the team... It's MJ at 31 ppg... then Pippen at 16.9... then Kukoc at 10.1.... then everyone else below 8 ppg... MJ scored 30% of his teams points as a standard - that's the largest load of all time easily.

Unbelievable blatant lies aside...how did a thread about the 96 season turn into the 97 playoffs and the 98 finals???

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/tmnt/images/2/2f/I'm_melting.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130815010411

[3ball]

Unbelievable blatant lies aside...how did a thread about the 96 season turn into the 97 playoffs and the 98 finals???

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/tmnt/images/2/2f/I'm_melting.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130815010411
My bad - 4 ppg and 8 rpg

you guys are dumb as hell... you don't even know that quibbling about whether it was 3 ppg or 4 ppg means YOU LOSE THE ARGUMENT

[Hey Yo]

Rodman averaged 3 ppg and 7 rpg in entire 1997 Playoffs and 1998 Finals.

MJ carried the whole team - just look at the PPG averages of everyone on the team... It's MJ at 31 ppg... then Pippen at 16.9... then Kukoc at 10.1.... then everyone else below 8 ppg... MJ scored 30% of his teams points as a standard - that's the largest load of all time easily.
See the load LeBron was carrying in the 2015 Finals and who he was playing with.

[GIF REACTION]

3ball what was in MJ's special drink

[97 bulls]

The truth is that MJ didn't win until he got some HELP... But again, that help was less than anyone who he's compared to.. Do you realize that the instant MJ got just 1 all-star, he went 6/6?

You're about facts right???? The fact is the Bulls were more succesful without their best player than any other team. I already know your response. Please answer post 171


Wrong - MJ was the best player in the league before Phil in 1988 - he was scoring leader, MVP, and DPOY - it's the best individual season of all time.. So you're wrong about MJ not being anything before he got Phil.
I meant to say MJ wasn't winning anything until Jackson got there.

[3ball]

.
.............Bulls PPG in 1996:


................ RS.......... PO

Jordan...... 30.4........ 30.7
Pippen...... 19.1........ 16.9
Kukoc....... 13.1........ 10.8
Longley...... 9.1.......... 8.4
Harper....... 7.4.......... 8.8
Rodman..... 5.5.......... 7.5
S Kerr........ 8.4......... 6.8
Wenngton... 5.3.......... 3.0


^^^^ This roster doesn't have 72-win talent.. Numerous teams had more talent.

This roster won because they had some of the best chemistry OF ALL TIME - the chemistry was enabled by a superior system along with MJ/Scottie's mastery of the system and championship experience - almost ANY role player could've fit into the system and performed well.

Kerr was actually cut by Orlando before the Bulls picked him up.. The only reason he lasted in the NBA was because the Bulls and Spurs had optimal, championship systems that could actually use his him - they could effectively plug-in his 1-dimensional, stand-still floor-spreading into the system.

Young fans weren't there to see how insane the chemistry was, so they figure the Bulls won 72 games based on a stacked roster.. They look at Longley and say, "well, he must've been pretty good to be starting center on 72 win team"... LOL... The Bulls only had 3 players in double-figures.. Everyone else was a 3-8 ppg play-finisher and very replaceable.

[97 bulls]

.
.............Bulls PPG in 1996:


................ RS.......... PO

Jordan...... 30.4........ 30.7
Pippen...... 19.1........ 16.9
Kukoc....... 13.1........ 10.8
Longley...... 9.1.......... 8.4
Harper....... 7.4.......... 8.8
Rodman..... 5.5.......... 7.5
S Kerr........ 8.4......... 6.8
Wenngton... 5.3.......... 3.0


^^^^ This roster doesn't have 72-win talent.. Numerous teams had more talent.

This roster won because they had some of the best chemistry OF ALL TIME - the chemistry was enabled by a superior system along with MJ/Scottie's mastery of the system and championship experience - almost ANY role player could've fit into the system and performed well.

Kerr was actually cut by Orlando before the Bulls picked him up.. The only reason he lasted in the NBA was because the Bulls and Spurs had optimal, championship systems that could actually use his him - they could effectively plug-in his 1-dimensional, stand-still floor-spreading into the system.

Young fans weren't there to see how insane the chemistry was, so they figure the Bulls won 72 games based on a stacked roster.. They look at Longley and say, "well, he must've been pretty good to be starting center on 72 win team"... LOL... The Bulls only had 3 players in double-figures.. Everyone else was a 3-8 ppg play-finisher and very replaceable.
Why wont you respond to post 171????

[97 bulls]

https://youtu.be/EglLZwE_frI
https://youtu.be/NWwI1_8WEco
https://youtu.be/eC0B-9Ma-8M
https://youtu.be/LksCGBWXWds

Just for a refresher. Heres how Rodman impacted the 98 Finals. Shutting down Karl Malone in 4 of 6 games

[ShawkFactory]

My bad - 4 ppg and 8 rpg

you guys are dumb as hell... you don't even know that quibbling about whether it was 3 ppg or 4 ppg means YOU LOSE THE ARGUMENT
It could be that...or it could be me viewing somebody with no leg to stand on trying so obviously hard to compensate with exaggerated numbers. And further...compensate for something that had literally nothing to do with the thread. My dawg!

PS...8 and 14 with a couple assists in 96. 5 and a half offensive rebounds per game. Puts what Tristan Thompson did in last years playoffs to shame. Not that that means anything to you, given that you don't watch basketball anymore :lol

[97 bulls]

As you evaluate this series, Dennis Rodman won two basketball games for them," said Sonics coach George Karl. "I think Dennis Rodman is the reason they are successful."