Do you guys finally understand about 3-peat chemistry

[3ball]

If the Spurs had won the championship in 2013, 2014 and 2015, they could win 55 this year quite easily without Kawhi (or Duncan), even though many guys are past their prime... Imagine if everyone WAS in their prime.

Ditto on the Warriors - if they won the championship in this year and next year to achieve a 3-peat, they would win 55 easily in 2018 if Curry retired.

But ultimately, the regular season is exhibition season compared to the playoffs - so the Warriors/Spurs would still lose in the playoffs, probably the 2nd Round, just like the Bulls did.

The Bulls were an ordinary 2nd Round team without Jordan, and a 3-peat dynasty with him - those are the facts.. If we wanted to verify Jordan's 3-peat to 2nd Round impact, we'd ask him to comeback and 3-peat again, while winning MVP's the whole way.... Done and Done.

Can you guys now see that I was right?

[Smoke117]

1-9

[3ball]

1-9
You have yet to point out which series during 1-9 that MJ was expected to win

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

Repeats are hard. Spurs have never done it. Three peats are even harder.

Wow. Earth shattering news.....

[Duffy Pratt]

Lakers didn't win 55, or the equivalent percentage after the Mikan three peat nor after the Kobe Shaq three peat, nor did the Bulls after the second Jordan one. Not a three peat but the Celtics didn't even make 500 after Russell retired.

So a) the evidence doesn't substantiate what you are saying, and b) the sample size is way too small to draw any conclusion.

[Jameerthefear]

1-9

[3ball]

nor after the Kobe Shaq three peat


You have your facts wrong.. Shaq's Lakers weren't 3-peat champions heading into 2005 season - they were destroyed in 2004 Finals and lost in 2nd Round in 2003.

Also, they lost half their team in 2005 - it wasn't just Shaq - it was Karl Malone, Gary Payton, Derek Fisher, Rick Fox, and others... So you're DEAD WRONG and you shouldn't make things up just to disagree with me.

I'm not going to bother look up Mikan and Russell, but I'm sure their circumstances were different too (i.e. not 3-peat champs and/or lost half their team).. And obviously, the 1999 Bulls lost Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman, not just Jordan.

[nba_55]

Bro get help! There's something missing in your life otherwise you wouldn't waste so much time writting the same thing over and over again each day.

[LAZERUSS]

Obviously Jordan knew he couldn't win four in a row, either, so he quit instead. And when he came back to a roster that won 55 games, and were a seriou title contender without him, he STILL couldn't win. So what happened next? The Bulls added yet ANOTHER HOFer (to replace an ELITE PF in Grant), and boom...three more titles. Amazing isn't it. Jordan needed the most STACKED rosters, in a decade of POS title contenders, to have two three-peats.

Of course, had the '94 Bulls just added a merely good SG, instead of D-Leaguer Pete Myers, and they would have waltzed to their fourth straight title (and withOUT Jordan.)

[ShawkFactory]

1-9

[kurple]

1-9?

[ShawkFactory]

1-9?
Yea, 1-9

[LAZERUSS]

1-9

I find it fascinating that MJ went 1-9 with obviously mediocre rosters, and yet won six rings, with what 3ball would contend were POS teammates. Why couldn't Jordan win rings from '85 thru '90, with what 3ball contends were basically the same rosters? Hell, he barely won a game, much less a series.

Furthermore, his scoring numbers in the post-season were higher in the decade of the 80's (and 89-90 when he again didn't win shit), than they were in the 90's, when he was winning his rings.

What that tells me is pretty obvious....the decade of the 90's must have had, BY FAR, the WORST competition in NBA history. There is just no other reasonable explanation. And basically, you could take ANY great from the 80's, and put him in place of MJ on those Bulls teams in the 90's, and romp to six titles.

Of course, '94 tells us all we need to know, doesn't it? The 55-27 Bulls, with PETE MYERS, nearly won a title.

[3ball]

.
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



JERRY KRAUSE, Bulls GM:


“Would Pippen have been great someplace else?

Michael absolutely killed Scottie in practice every day for his first two years. Mike just tore Pip up. He made Pip learn how to compete and forced him into playing hard. Had there not been someone to challenge Scottie like that, I’m not sure what would’ve happened to him... No, Michael made him a man.

Michael made him a man and Doug [Collins] did a great job with him in his first year. And he - Collins - had Michael to beat on him for a year every day in practice and Michael beat him to death."

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nba/news/story?id=5453558

.

[LAZERUSS]

Two can play this game...

[QUOTE]REALITY.

You haven't destroyed anything you pathetic POS. I just hate to waste my time constantly blowing up your falsehoods.

But, here we go again. MJ couldn't win shit until Pippen and Grant showed up. Those two showed HIM how to win, as they would do long after him, as well. Born winners, both of them.

And, Jordan still couldn't win shit until those two ELEVATED their games in the '91 post-season against the Pistons and Lakers, both of whom were just complete SHELLS. The Pistons dropped from a 59 win team that had romped to a title the year before...to a 50-32 injury-plagued team with a Thomas who was not only worthless in this post-season, but would be the very next post-season. They went the limit against a 43 win team in the first round, and struggled in the second round. With Pippen easily the second best player in the ECF;'s, and with Grant just PUMMELING Rodman, the Bulls swept a crumbling Piston team that would barely be a .500 team the next year, and a losing team the year after that.

Then, with Pippen being the third best player in the Finals, and with Grant hanging his typical unfathomable domination of a worthless Perkins...and with a fading magic, nowhere near the mid-80's Magic who was FAR more dominant against the '87 Celtics, in both the regular season, and post-season, than a peak scoring MJ had been...and with a crippled Worthy on the downside of his career, and in fact, basically done by this point (and a shell after Magic retired following this season)...they beat a crumbling Laker team that would be a .500 team without Magic (and yet the Bulls were .667 without MJ.)

The '94 season is all we need to know. Here were the Bulls, scrambling to replace MJ with PETE MYERS (who would average 6 ppg in the ECSF's)...going 55-27. Which was amazing in itself, BUT, Pippen and Grant missed a WHOPPING 22 combined games. This was EASILY a 60+ win team. Hell, put Joe Dumars on this team in place of MYERS, and they would have 65-70!

Then, in the ECSF's, they were ONE PLAY away from winning game five in NY, and with their easy win in game six, they would have played a Pacers team that they had waxed 4-1 during the regular season. This was CLEARLY no "ordinary" second round team. Hell, had Pippen and Grant not missed a MASSIVE number of games, they would have won 60+, and had HCA. Which would have been HUGE. They went 3-0 against the 56-26 Knicks in the ECSF's on their home court. With HCA, an easy series win. And again, they had wiped out the Pacers in the regular season, so that was a given in the ECF's.

So, they would have faced the 58-24 Rockets in the Finals. The same Rockets team that barely beat those 56-26 Knicks in a game seven (and were outscored in the series.) With HCA, a likely Bulls title.


BUT, it gets even worse for the Jordanites. Grant jumped ship to the Magic, where he IMMEDIATELY improved that team, from 50-32 to 57-25 (and then 60-22 the next year.) Meanwhile, Pippen was now single-handedly carrying a bunch of quality role players, to a 34-31 record (and an 8-2 record in their last ten games BTW.) All of this without BOTH Jordan and Grant.

Think about that...MJ never had a winning record without Pippen and an ELITE PF (Grant/Rodman.) And yet Pippen was single-handedly carrying this team on a 43-44 win pace.

So, MJ realized that he could steal a ring, so he suddenly came back. Rusty? The man hung a 55 point game in his FIFTH game back. If anything, he was the healthiest, and most refreshed player in the entire NBA.

With Jordan, the Bulls went 13-4...a 62 win pace...or the best record in the league...which should have made them a prohibitive favorite in the post-season. However, don't get too excited about that 13-4 record. Keep in mind that with Grant the year before, the Bulls went 48-22, or a 12-5 pace in those 17 games.

Ok, with Jordan playing well in the playoffs, and in fact, just as well as he had in his '93 post-season run, the Bulls STILL lost in the ECSF's, 4-2, to a team that would get SWEPT by a 47-35 team in the Finals.

There was simply NO comparison between the play of the '94 and '95 Bulls in the post-season. The '94 team was an eyelash away from beating a team that would lose a game seven in the Finals by four points. The '95 team was easily beaten in the ECSF's, and in a series in which GRANT was the best player on the floor, by a team that would get SWEPT by a 47 win team in the Finals.

So, the Bulls ownership realized...hey, we have ZERO chance of winning another ring without an ELITE PF. Clearly, Jordan's impact was less than what Grant's had been the year before with the SAME roster.

So, they ADDED HOFer Rodman, who was just a beast defensively, and a three-time rebound champ. He wasn't the efficient scorer that Grant had been, but then again, there wasn't anyone else in the league that was, either. BTW, Grant was leading the league AND post-season in ORtgs multiple times in the 90's, CLEARLY this man was an ELITE player whose contributions far exceeded his 14-10 playoff runs. Rodman was no Grant offensively, but, he was just as dominant defensively, and would be from '96 thru '98. An even swap.

Now, the Bulls had Rodman replacing Grant, on a 55+ win roster...and then added JORDAN. Damn!

Of course, the rest was history. In a watered down league, with very few teams having even two good-to-great players, and most with only one...the Bulls won three more titles.

And they were able to win them with Jordan shooting .455, .427, and even .415 in those Finals (including a horrific 5-19 in a clinching win.) And had Karl put Payton on Jordan in game one, instead of game four, who knows if they would have even won that series, despite being an overwhelming favorite? Payton completely shut MJ down in the last three games.

And before Goofball tries to deny it...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...96-nba-finals/

Quote:
Not to pick at old scab, Seattle residents, but you have to wonder how Seattle would

[3ball]

Furthermore, his scoring numbers in the post-season were higher in the decade of the 80's than they were in the 90's, when he was winning his rings.


That would indicate the 90's were tougher, not weaker dumbass - I've destroyed all your arguments so many times now, that you're backwards and arguing my points for me.

Btw, Jordan's playoffs and Finals performance/stats is the best ever BY FAR - let me know if you want me to post them.

Furthermore, Jordan averaged at least 10 ppg more than Pippen in every playoff series of their careers (except two when MJ averaged 7 ppg and 5 ppg more) - no one in history did that much more than their 2nd option.





It wasn't until Jordan had rosters that could seriously challenge for a title WITHOUT him


The Bulls were a 2nd Round team without Jordan, and were one play away from being down 0-3 on the brink of being swept (Kukoc's walk-off miracle in Game 3 saved them).

A 2nd Round team is nowhere near "seriously challenge for a title"...

You're literally the only person on earth who says this.

If you want to start posting your overly-long, played-out, falsehoods and bullshit, I have my copy pastes ready to go, since I've thoroughly destroyed all your nonsense for 3 straight threads now (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=395898&page=5)... more and more severely each time.





It wasn't until Jordan had rosters that could win 55+ games WITHOUT him


That's nothing - they were 3-peat champions with 3-peat know-how and execution on both sides of the ball..

If the Spurs had won the championship in 2013, 2014 and 2015, they could win 55 this year quite easily without Kawhi (or Duncan), even though many guys are past their prime... Imagine if everyone WAS in their prime.

Ditto on the Warriors - if they won the championship in this year and next year to achieve a 3-peat, they would win 55 easily in 2018 if Curry retired.

But ultimately, the regular season is exhibition season compared to the playoffs - so the Warriors/Spurs would still lose in the playoffs, probably the 2nd Round, just like the Bulls did.

The Bulls were an ordinary 2nd Round team without Jordan, and a 3-peat dynasty with him - those are the facts.. If we wanted to verify Jordan's 3-peat to 2nd Round impact, we'd ask him to comeback and 3-peat again, while winning MVP's the whole way.... Done and Done.

[3ball]

.
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



JERRY KRAUSE, Bulls GM:

[indent][I]

[KiiiiNG]

Got his father killed, quit basketball, team won 60 games without him, was a miserable failure in minor league baseball.

^ Ruined his chance at GOAT status

[3ball]

Got his father killed, quit basketball, team won 60 games without him, was a miserable failure in minor league baseball.

^ Ruined his chance at GOAT status
Anytime you post something that doesn't state a single factual thing and is just jokes and bs - you demonstrate that whatever I'm saying is right.

Even the baseball thing - he hadn't played baseball since he was 15, and hit .202 in double AA, cold turkey... That isn't a miserable failure.

Various managers, including WS champion Terry Francona, thought he could've made the majors after a few more years.

[navy]

1-9

Wilt > Jordan

[sdot_thadon]

You mean to tell me, a team good enough to three peat should be good enough to win 55 without its best player? Well you don't say, flaming idiot. It says he had a damn good team around him above all else and that they could even excel without him in the equation.

[3ball]

It says he had a damn good team around him above all else and that they could even excel without him in the equation.


3-peat chemistry, not talent - after MJ and Pippen, the Bulls' talent was among the worst in the league.





You mean to tell me, a team good enough to three peat should be good enough to win 55 without its best player?


Lebron's teams could never do it because they don't win based on chemistry - they win based on talent collusion.

Lebron will never be on a team with great chemistry and passing like the Spurs, Warriors, or 90's Bulls - those optimal systems don't allow Lebron's ball-dominance, and unfortunately for Lebron, that's the only way he knows how to play..

His ball-dominance takes over EVERY team he's ever been on.. Can you imagine Lebron infecting the Warriors, Spurs or Bulls 70-win teamwork with his Lebron-ball??... I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
.

[sdot_thadon]

I'm not even sure you understand what chemistry means bro. When you lose your best player or add new players, the chemistry changes. In 96 they had to rebuild new chemistry, hence part of the reason for the breakfast club and things of that nature. Having the talent makes it way easier though.

[sdot_thadon]

Oh and the whole retard segment about the playfinishers. Bro, watch some games. Elite playmakers as supposed to create play finishers, that's the whole point. You take the most obvious things and act as if they are grand discoveries once you get a lame brained idea of how to warp them in your mind. Cut it out.:biggums:

[3ball]

I'm not even sure you understand what chemistry means bro. When you lose your best player or add new players, the chemistry changes. In 96 they had to rebuild new chemistry, hence part of the reason for the breakfast club and things of that nature. Having the talent makes it way easier though.


The core was always there and never changed - the only guys that changed were interchangeable role players who all played less than 20 mpg and averaged less than 6 ppg.

Otoh, Lebron is a chemistry-killer regardless of team or supporting cast - the stats prove it - he achieves his stats by significantly reducing the APG and PPG of teammates - this is statistical fact (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11709582&postcount=17).

Not only does Lebron reduce teammates' APG, but he increases their assisted rate, proving he turns teammates from playmakers into play-finishers..

Naturally, his teammates' basic play-finishing roles no longer succeed against the best teams in the playoffs, which explains their consistent underperformance in the Finals or other playoff losses - the story is always how Lebron's teammates underperformed against the best teams, leading to TEAM underperformance (losing as the favorite in 2009 ECF, 2010 ECSF, and 2011 Finals, or when it's 50/50 - 2014 Finals) (http://www.nj.com/knicks/index.ssf/2014/06/nba_finals_2014_experts_predict_whether_the_heat_o r_spurs_will_come_out_on_top_in_the_finals_rematch .html).

Now the question is WHY SPECIFICALLY does Lebron turn teammates into play-finishers?.. The reason is twofold (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12056301&postcount=60).
.

[LAZERUSS]

Lebron is a chemistry-killer - the stats prove it - he achieves his stats by significantly reducing the APG and PPG of teammates - this is statistical fact (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11709582&postcount=17).

Not only does Lebron reduce teammates' APG, but he increases their assisted rate, proving he turns teammates from playmakers into play-finishers..

Naturally, his teammates' basic play-finishing roles no longer succeed against the best teams in the playoffs, which explains their consistent underperformance in the Finals or other playoff losses - the story is always how Lebron's teammates underperformed against the best teams, leading to TEAM underperformance (losing as the favorite in 2009 ECF, 2010 ECSF, and 2011 Finals, or when it's 50/50 - 2014 Finals) (http://www.nj.com/knicks/index.ssf/2014/06/nba_finals_2014_experts_predict_whether_the_heat_o r_spurs_will_come_out_on_top_in_the_finals_rematch .html).

Now the question is WHY SPECIFICALLY does Lebron turn teammates into play-finishers?.. The reason is twofold (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12056301&postcount=60).

:roll: :roll: :roll:

FACTS my friend. FACTS.

Lebron joined a team with a POS center who could only get his team to a 17-65 record before him...and IMMEDIATELY DOUBLED their win total. BTW, MJ couldn't improve a 27 win team by more than 11 games in his rookie season. And it would take him FOUR years before they had winning team (thanks to PIPPEN and GRANT.)

Meanwhile within a couple of years Lebron drags that same POS roster to their first ever Finals. In a couple of more seasons he is taking basically a last place roster to all-time records of 66-16 and then 61-21 (BTW, even with a 38-9-9 series he can't lead those clowns to a series win.)

So, a disgusted Lebron leaves that pathetic roster, and guess what...they IMMEDIATELY fall off the cliff to a 19-63 record.

Ok, now Lebron joins a 47 win Heat team that had been first round cannon fodder, and IMMEDIATELY leads them to a 58-24 record, and the first of FOUR straight Finals. And after deferring to Wade in '11, he is asked to take command of that roster, and dominates in the next two post-seasons, and wins FMVPs in both. In fact, he takes them to a team record of 66-16. Even with ZERO help in his last season there, he STILL gets them to the Finals, but alas, with a broken down Wade, and the always worthless Bosh, they are beaten by a much better team. Oh, and before some idiot suggests that Wade was of any consequence...the Heat went 47-18 in the games he missed.

So a sick and disgusted Lebron leaves that POS team. He is replaced by Deng and Whiteside...and guess what...they can only go 37-45 and miss the playoffs.

Now, Lebron joins a team that had gone 33-49 the year before, and IMMEDIATELY takes them to a 53-29 record. Not only that, but just how good of a roster were they? They could only go 3-10 in Lebron's absence, and then with Lebron... 50-19!

Then Lebron drags that injury-riddled roster to the Finals. Not only that, but his team is now without his two next best players...and facing an all-time great team in the 67-15 Warriors. The same Warrior team that just waxed the brutal Western Conference teams en route to the Finals.

Guess what, Lebron SINGLE-HANDEDLY guides that vastlky over-matched roster, with his next best player being the buffoon JR Smith, to TWO wins, and then TWO narrow losses. In a series in which he put up a 36-13-12 run.

Yep...Lebron is a "chemistry killer" alright.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Now let us all await Goofball's next reply with the same rehashed nonsense that never addresses any of the above, and the same gifs that provide ZERO insight.

[Duffy Pratt]

I do not have my facts wrong. There have been 5 3peat teams in NBA. You said that a 3peat team that loses its best player will still easily win 55.

The 55 Lakers lost Mikan and no one else. They went 40-32. If they played an 82 game schedule, and won the remaining ten games, they would have had 50 wins, not 55. On their pace, they would have finished with 46 wins.

The Celtics teams first lost to the sixers in 67, with the core intact, and having won 60 games. When they lost Russell, they also lost Sam Jones, so I will agree that that doesn't count.

94 Bulls won 55 games without Jordan. 98 Bulls lost the whole team and doesn't count.

The 2003 Lakers is the other team that drives the nail into the coffin of your argument. With their repeat chemistry, they went 50-32. This, despite having their entire core. Shaquille, Kobe, fisher, fox, and Horry. If a team with 3peat chemistry will easily win 55 games even without their best player, then a team with the 3peat chemistry that keeps its entire core together will also easily win 55. These Lakers didn't.

So, we can safely conclude from the Mikan and 03 Laker examples that 3peat chemistry has not guaranteed 55 wins. Moreover, the sample size for what you are arguing for, if you exclude these two teams, is one. And it's silly to try to draw solid conclusions like you are from a sample of one.

[AirBonner]

3-peat chemistry, not talent - after MJ and Pippen, the Bulls' talent was among the worst in the league.



Lebron's teams could never do it because they don't win based on chemistry - they win based on talent collusion.

Lebron will never be on a team with great chemistry and passing like the Spurs, Warriors, or 90's Bulls - those optimal systems don't allow Lebron's ball-dominance, and unfortunately for Lebron, that's the only way he knows how to play..

His ball-dominance takes over EVERY team he's ever been on.. Can you imagine Lebron infecting the Warriors, Spurs or Bulls 70-win teamwork with his Lebron-ball??... I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
.
Stupidest thing I have ever heard. :biggums:

[LAZERUSS]

Zydrunas was a 2-time all-star in 2003 and 2005 - that means he was a top 12 player in the conference - nonetheless, Lebron missed the playoffs his first two seasons, despite playing with a 2-time all-star.

Otoh, MJ never missed the playoffs even though he never had a top 12 player in the conference/allstar until 1990.. And the minute MJ got that 1 all-star, he went 6/6.

Meanwhile Lebron missed the playoffs twice with an allstar, and only went 2/4 despite 2 all-stars in Miami.



In the weakest conference of all-time, and he had the worst Finals performance ever.. 22 ppg on 35%... the worst of all time..

And that wasn't even his worst Finals performance!!!... See his 2011 shrinkage.. Worst of all time



Exactly - because his style prevents teammates from playing well alongside him - so it doesn't matter what stats he puts up if he's destroying his teammates play - specifically, he turned his teammates into play-finishers and their predictable play-finishing roles no longer succeed against the best teams in the playoffs..

This is statistical fact - he reduces his teammates APG, while increasing their assisted rate - that means he turns them from playmakers into play-finishers.

His teammates predictable play-finishing roles explains why they underperform against the best teams in the playoffs - he simply doesn't elevate teammates - the stats prove it (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11718080&postcount=76).



More lies - at the start of the 2011 season, the Cavs were missing Shaq, Delonte and Zydrunas, who averaged a combined 30 ppg in 2010 - this was exactly 30% of the team's points.

But keep disregarding the 30 ppg of these guys, and only pay attention to Lebron's 30 ppg.. :rolleyes: .. And later in the season, Varejao and Mo Williams went down and missed 50 games each..

Overall, the 2011 Cavs lost 2 starters (Shaq, Mo Williams) and 3 other key players (Varejao, Delonte, Zydrunas) - these guys scored a combined 52 ppg, which is more than half the Cavs points.



What a joke - the Heat added Lebron AND superstar Bosh, and they only improved 11 wins?... Jordan did that by himself in his rookie year... In 2002, he improved the Wizards team 18 wins.


.
You're bragging about 2 FMVP's???... Jordan has 6 dumbass.

And Lebron didn't dominate by Jordan's standards - not even close - Lebron's 2012 and 2013 playoff stats would be the worst of Jordan's playoff career...

Lebron only averaged 25-27 ppg on 49% in 2012/2013 - Jordan's version of "domination" was 35-38 ppg during various championship runs.

Furthermore, Lebron only scored 18, 17, and 18 points in the first 3 games of the 2013 Finals - Jordan's FINALS LOW was 22 points... For the entire 2013 Finals, Lebron only averaged 25 ppg on 44.8%, which would be the worst PLAYOFF SERIES of MJ's career, let alone Finals.



Wade's 2014 stats were 19/5/5 on 55%... Bosh's were 16/7 on 51%... That's a ton of help.



Lebron still had 10-time all-star Bosh as his #2, so who cares - that's how stacked the Heat were and that's what collusion does for you...

Also, it's a well-documented statistical fact that the Heat were better when Lebron and Wade were NOT on the floor together.. Lebron's ball-dominance clashed with Wade's.. So when Wade missed games, it wasn't the kind of detriment that it would be for other #1 options, who foster better chemistry and therefore have a BETTER team when both guys are playing..

But as the stats prove over and over again, Lebron does NOT elevate his teammates - he reduces them and only wins a ring if sufficient colluded talent is there to overcome the team attrition he imposes.



The 2014 Heat were a 1st or 2nd Round Western Conference team AT BEST, who fell to lottery in 2015 due to Wade/Bosh injury.



More lies - the Cavs added 26/13 all-nba Kevin Love, whose stats Lebron immediately cut in half to 16/9.. Again, Lebron doesn't elevate teammates and achieves his stats by reducing the stats of others.. This is statistical fact.



If Lebron had shot 50% instead of a WOAT 39%, and if he played good defense so Iggy wasn't better than Curry, the Cavs win 2 more games and win the series...

That's what Jordan would've done, especially since Lebron didn't get doubled teamed the entire Finals.. Furthermore, MJ won with less help in 1998:

Injured Pippen averaged 15 ppg on 41%, which is less than Mosgov's 14/8 on 55%.. Rodman wasn't even a starter and averaged 4/8, which is destroyed by than Tristan Thompson's 10/13...

Rodman's massive deficit to Tristan was only partially offset by Kukoc's 15 ppg on 50% > JR Smith's 12 ppg on 31%... Meanwhile, Harper and Kerr's 4-5 ppg on 35% is equal to what Delly and Iman did (6-8 ppg on 28%).



Quit lying - it's common knowledge that Lebron's 2009 and 2010 rosters were very deep and we have clear statistical proof:

Lebron's supporting cast added enough help on top of his 28/8/7/49 to win 66 games in 2009 - that's a super-ton of help.. Otoh, MJ's supporting cast only added enough help to his 33/8/8/54 to win 47 games in 1989.. There's only 2 possible reasons for Lebron winning 19 more games with equal or lesser stats: worse competition or better supporting cast.

If you think that all 19 wins were due to worse competition (and not better supporting cast), then consider how much better that makes MJ's playoff stats look, since they came against far better competition... Lebron's 35/9/7/51/1.6 stl playoff averages in 2009 are invalidated compared to MJ's nearly identical 35/7/7/51/2.5 stl playoff averages in 1989, due to facing vastly inferior competition..

Of course, the other alternative is that Lebron's supporting cast was better, in addition to the aforementioned weaker comp.. This is obviously true - Lebron's supporting cast included an all-star and a slew of higher-producing veterans, a stark contrast from MJ's young, lower-producing cast.. MJ's 1989 Bulls and the "Jordan Rules" he faced (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIY_4vIxGEE&t=22m52s) were simply more of a 1-man team.. Therefore, the gap in RS records was due to a combination of BOTH competition level and supporting cast.


:roll: :roll: :roll:

When Lebron takes those pure shit rosters with broken down and worthless players, and they under-perform in the playoffs...it is Lebrons's fault.

When Jordan takes HOFers to the Finals,...he ELEVATED their play. When they play poorly, which according to you was most every series...then it was because they were pure trash.

It seems Lebron taking pure shit and last place rosters to the Finals was because he surrounding help carried him.

When MJ takes HOFers and stars, who dominate in their post-seasons, which they did quite often...well it was because of MJ. When MJ's numbers crumbled, as they did in his last three-peat Finals, and they still somehow won, despite Pippen being a WOAT, and Rodman a part-timer, well Jordan's defense won those series. After all, he held down a Hawkins who averaged 12 ppg in the playoffs.

Amazing. The reality was, Lebron needed his woefully shitty supporting casts to step, and they seldom, if at all, did.

Jordan's supporting casts were crushing the crumbling Bad Boys and the declining and injury-plagued Lakers, and well, it was because of Jordan.

Without MJ, the Bulls FLOURISHED.

Without Lebron, EVERY team he played for...just NOSE-DIVED.

Yep...it all makes perfect sense now.

Hopefully you can provide us with new insight with your same rehashed posts again (which never address anything BTW.) Oh, and don't forget those lovely gifs, which provide us with SINGLE PLAYS that are supposed to summarize entire post-seasons.

[3ball]

I do not have my facts wrong. There have been 5 3peat teams in NBA. You said that a 3peat team that loses its best player will still easily win 55.

The 55 Lakers lost Mikan and no one else. They went 40-32. If they played an 82 game schedule, and won the remaining ten games, they would have had 50 wins, not 55. On their pace, they would have finished with 46 wins.


you're fool - the 1954 championship Lakers won 46 games - so they didn't even win 55 with Mikan..

if a team isn't good enough to win 55 WITH their best player, why would they win 55 without?.. seriously, please don't be dumb on this and make me explain myself further - it couldn't be more clear in the OP and my responses...

You're just being thick-headed because you'd love to prove me wrong - but you can't.






The 2003 Lakers is the other team that drives the nail into the coffin of your argument. With their repeat chemistry, they went 50-32. This, despite having their entire core. Shaquille, Kobe, fisher, fox, and Horry. If a team with 3peat chemistry will easily win 55 games even without their best player, then a team with the 3peat chemistry that keeps its entire core together will also easily win 55. These Lakers didn't.


Are you stupid?... This is the same thing as the 54' Lakers from previous response above.

If the Lakers weren't a good enough team to win 55 WITH Shaq, why would they win more than that without?... You're blaming MJ because the Lakers weren't a 55-win team WITH Shaq?

Again, you're being dumb as ****

Don't blame MJ for Shaq and Kobe feud that prevented them from winning more games together.





So, we can safely conclude from the Mikan and 03 Laker examples that 3peat chemistry has not guaranteed 55 wins.


Of course not dumbass - if the teams weren't good enough to win 55 WITH their whole team, then why would they win 55 without the best player?.. Neither Laker team (Mikan's or Shaq's) won 55 games WITH those guys, so of course they wouldn't win 55 without... dumbass

Wow you're dumb - you just want to disagree with me and prove me wrong, but you can't, so it's forcing you to say/think DUMB things that make no sense.





Moreover, the sample size for what you are arguing for, if you exclude these two teams, is one. And it's silly to try to draw solid conclusions like you are from a sample of one.


So again, if the Spurs had won the championship in 2013, 2014 and 2015, they could win 55 this year quite easily without Kawhi (or Duncan), even though many guys are past their prime... Imagine if everyone WAS in their prime.

Ditto on the Warriors - if they won the championship in this year and next year to achieve a 3-peat, they would win 55 easily in 2018 if Curry retired.

But ultimately, the regular season is exhibition season compared to the playoffs - so the Warriors/Spurs would still lose in the playoffs, probably the 2nd Round, just like the Bulls did.

The Bulls were an ordinary 2nd Round team without Jordan, and a 3-peat dynasty with him - those are the facts.. If we wanted to verify Jordan's 3-peat to 2nd Round impact, we'd ask him to comeback and 3-peat again, while winning MVP's the whole way.... Done and Done.

[3ball]

Stupidest thing I have ever heard. :biggums:


That's because you're ignorant as **** and know nothing about the game - I have to teach you everything

The list below shows every Bulls player that played more than 10 mpg in 1993 (excluding MJ)


.....................PPG.......MPG

Pippen............18.6...... 38.6
Grant.............13.2....... 35.6
Armstrong.......12.3.......30.4
Cartwright........5.6....... 19.9
S Williams........5.9........19.3
Paxson............ 4.2........17.5
R McCray......... 3.5........15.9
S King............. 5.4....... 13.9
W Perdue......... 4.7........13.9
T Tucker.......... 5.2........13.2
D Walker......... 2.6........13.1


The 1993 supporting cast only had 3 guys (Pippen/Grant/Armstrong) that played more than 20 mpg and averaged more than 6 ppg - the #4 thru #12 guys all played LESS than 20 mpg and averaged less than 6 ppg..

The Bulls relied on a mix of interchangeable stiffs who barely played and barely scored for the #4 thru #12 spots.. There isn't a single team in the league where the #4 thru #12 players are anywhere near this bad.

So what - you thought I just make this shit up like Lazeruss does?... Nah dawg... My shit is based on FACTS - get used to it and I won't have to chew you out for stupidity.

[LAZERUSS]

REALITY:

Jordan had, BY FAR, the greatest supporting casts in the very watered down 90's. That decade was so bad that Hakeem won a title with scrubs, by outplaying Ewing and his scrubs in a seven game series.

We know that without Jordan, the Bulls were a 55+ win team, that were one play away from the beating a Knicks team that was a mere four points away from winning the title...all accomplished with Pete Myers averaging 6 ppg in that series.

Now, let's remove Hakeem, Shaq, Drexler, Ewing, Payton, Robinson, K Malone, and every other team's best player in each season of the decade of the 90's. and how many rings do those Bulls teams win? Probably at least six.

[Cocaine80s]

1-9

[Duffy Pratt]

I was just using the parameters you set up.

You said a team with 3peat chemistry would easily win 55 games. The 2003 Lakers had 3peat chemistry, and they lost no-one. Their players were in their primes. This means the 3peat chemistry didn't get them the 55 wins you say it would. Or are you saying that if Shaq had left that team after the 3peat, they would have gotten to 55?

Of course they were not good enough to get to 55 wins that year, and the 3peat chemistry had nothing to do with it. Conversely, the 94 Bulls were good enough to get to 55 wins, and they weren't riding simply on 3peat chemistry.

If Golden State wins this year, and next, and then Curry leaves, will they get to 55 in the following year? No-one knows. And it's likely will not find out.

[Segatti]

1-9

[RepMe]

If the Spurs had won the championship in 2013, 2014 and 2015, they could win 55 this year quite easily without Kawhi (or Duncan), even though many guys are past their prime... Imagine if everyone WAS in their prime.

Ditto on the Warriors - if they won the championship in this year and next year to achieve a 3-peat, they would win 55 easily in 2018 if Curry retired.

But ultimately, the regular season is exhibition season compared to the playoffs - so the Warriors/Spurs would still lose in the playoffs, probably the 2nd Round, just like the Bulls did.

The Bulls were an ordinary 2nd Round team without Jordan, and a 3-peat dynasty with him - those are the facts.. If we wanted to verify Jordan's 3-peat to 2nd Round impact, we'd ask him to comeback and 3-peat again, while winning MVP's the whole way.... Done and Done.

Can you guys now see that I was right?
Why are you so desperate?

[3ball]

Why are you so desperate?
I'm stating obvious realities - why are you so desperate to deny the obvious?.. What are you scared of?

The Warriors and Spurs exceptional chemistry might allow them to win 55 this year without their top player, let alone after 3 straight championship with everyone in their prime.

Regarding the 90's Bulls - they required MJ to lead the league in scoring every year and be the best scorer the league's ever seen for their 6 rings.. He had the biggest gaps between him and his #2 option in the modern era.

Therefore when MJ retired, the Bulls didn't win 55 because they had talented scorers - their success HAD to be based on chemistry by sheer process of elimination (since it wasn't talent).

And the gap between 3-peat and 2nd Round turned out to be OFFENSE - the Bulls were 4th, 7th, and 4th in defense during the first 3-peat, and 6th in 1994... But their offense fell off a cliff - it went from #1 all time for a 3-year period (116, 115, 113) to 14th in the league... Yikes

Teams have a finite amount of energy to expend on both ends - shifts in performance and effort on one side normally take away from the other side - but not with MJ - he's the goat two-way player according to Popovich - his presence enables a two-way team.. Take this L

[3ball]

Conversely, the 94 Bulls were good enough to get to 55 wins, and they weren't riding simply on 3peat chemistry.


They were clearly riding on chemistry because the Bulls required MJ to lead the league in scoring every year and be the best scorer the league's ever seen for their 6 rings.. He had the biggest gaps between him and his #2 option in the modern era.

Therefore when MJ retired, the Bulls didn't win 55 because they had talented scorers - their success HAD to be based on chemistry by sheer process of elimination (since it wasn't talent).

And the gap between 3-peat and 2nd Round turned out to be OFFENSE - the Bulls were 4th, 7th, and 4th in defense during the first 3-peat, and 6th in 1994... But their offense fell off a cliff - it went from #1 all time for a 3-year period (116, 115, 113) to 14th in the league... Yikes

Teams have a finite amount of energy to expend on both ends - shifts in performance and effort on one side normally take away from the other side - but not with MJ - he's the goat two-way player according to Popovich (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11875095&postcount=46) - his presence enables a two-way team.. Take this L





Of course the Lakers were not good enough to get to 55 wins that year, and the 3peat chemistry had nothing to do with it.


Sure it did - if they didn't have 3-peat chemistry, they wouldn't have even won the 50 games they won.

So yeah, 3-peat chemistry had a lot to do with it - for you to disregard chemistry and say it had NOTHING to do with it, shows how little you understand the game.

It's likely that you're one of those guys that doesn't believe in anything that isn't statistical - so for you, there's no such thing as momentum (higher levels of optimism, confidence, adrenaline), and certainly not chemistry, no way that exists... :rolleyes:

You stat bots should stop watching basketball... You're wasting your time - you'll always be surprised by the results and outcomes because you don't really have a clue what's going on out there.





If Golden State wins this year, and next, and then Curry leaves, will they get to 55 in the following year? No-one knows. And it's likely will not find out.


If this Warriors team wins 3 in a row and everyone is still in their prime and healthy, it's a safe bet that they win 55 without Curry in 2018 (assuming they were good enough to win 55 WITH Curry, which it appears they are).

But again, the autistic logic is to say "well, we can't PROVE that, so let's never make such an assumption or projection".. But the smart way is to indeed make that projection, because it's logical and intuitive based on everything we know (although in your case, you obviously don't know).

[97 bulls]

Why even make these comparisons 3ball? It's inarguable (if that's even a word). The fact is no team has been in the exact same situations as another. Meaning playing against the exact same team with health that's exactly the same, under rules that are exactly the same, vs the competition that exactly the same etc. Under your scenario, it's impossible to gauge. And that's what you want. Because it can't be argued.

We've listed teams with VERY SIMILAR CIRCUNSTANCES. But not very similar results.

Truth be told, the 94 Bulls and 93 Bulls are very different. And your response was to say that the only players that matter are the top three after the best player (again, your assessment ). I've mentioned plenty of teams with a core group (top 3) won multiple championships together. Nothing is good for you.

[Duffy Pratt]

I am not a stat only guy and the only stat total I have mentioned here is win totals, because it strikes me as relevant in a conversation about whether teams that have won three championships in a row will win 55 games in the fourth year.

I don't discount the idea of chemistry, but your notion of 3peat chemistry being somehow different has only one example to back it up, so it's forced and I have strong doubts that it exists. The Laker team I talked about suffered because of bad chemistry between Shaq and Kobe. Their 3peat chemistry didn't lead to them winning 55 games. Rather, the strain between them hurt the team that year and in the years to follow. So, chemistry I buy. But your idea of 3peat chemistry exists only to serve the only point you ever want to make, and is otherwise useless.

[3ball]

The CLIFFS to this response is the first response below - the two responses after that are overkill




I don't discount the idea of chemistry, but your notion of 3peat chemistry being somehow different has only one example to back it up, so it's forced and I have strong doubts that it exists.


This is what I'm talking about - even in the face of obvious logic to the contrary (that chemistry improves over time), you don't believe in the idea of 3-peat chemistry because you only see 1 example of it..

That means you're basing your opinion on stats (empirical evidence) and not the obvious intuitive logic staring you in the face that chemistry improves over time - if chemistry exists, then 3-peat chemistry exists.

Again - chemistry improves over time, so if you concede that chemistry itself exists, then you should find it intuitive that 3-peat chemistry exists, and not give a shit that there's only 1 example of it... 3-peats are once-in-a-generation things - not even that really - they've only happened twice in 50 years.

So if you base all your opinions on stats and empirical evidence, you'll never be able to predict what will happen, and you'll always be surprised by outcomes - what a sad way to live life.





The Laker team I talked about suffered because of bad chemistry between Shaq and Kobe. Their 3peat chemistry didn't lead to them winning 55 games. Rather, the strain between them hurt the team that year and in the years to follow. So, chemistry I buy. But your idea of 3peat chemistry exists only to serve the only point you ever want to make, and is otherwise useless.


See, your logic concludes that chemistry DOESN'T improve over time - you believe in chemistry, but not 3-peat chemistry, which defies the entire concept of chemistry - chemistry is based on players spending TIME playing with each other.. Obviously, the more time a team spends together winning rings, the greater chemistry they will have.

The Kobe/Shaq feud not withstanding, a team that won 3 championships in a row will have better chemistry than a team that won 1 championship, or 2 championships (assuming the same core players and coach).. It isn't rocket science.

And again - even without the knowledge that the core spent 3 straight regular seasons and championship playoff runs playing together, we know the 1994 Bulls achieved based on chemistry because every Bulls championship required MJ to lead the league in scoring and be the best scorer ever.. He had the biggest gaps between him and his #2 option in the modern era.

Therefore when MJ retired, the Bulls didn't win 55 because they had talented scorers - their success HAD to be based on chemistry by sheer process of elimination (since it wasn't talent)... Again, this is intuitive logic that makes all the sense in the world - so you shouldn't perceive it as mumbo jumbo that you have to disagree with because it came from 3ball.





I am not a stat only guy and the only stat total I have mentioned here is win totals, because it strikes me as relevant in a conversation about whether teams that have won three championships in a row will win 55 games in the fourth year.


Actually, your Shaq/Kobe Laker example from 2002 proves the regular season records mean nothing - considering the Lakers 3-peated that year, they were obviously much better than their 50-win total suggested.. They were clearly a 60+ win team that feuded and screwed around with overconfidence in the regular season.

They knew they could turn it on when needed - and they did, barely - Kobe and Shaq put their differences aside sufficiently in the playoffs to beat the 58-win Spurs and squeak by the 61-win Kings - this gave them the league's 2nd three-peat in 40 years.

In the Bulls case, they didn't have those selfish issues in 1993 and were able to win a few more games (57).. But the complacency and mental fatigue was still there.. The Bulls had already won the chip twice, and knew they could turn it on when needed - so their 57 wins was also not indicative of their true capability.. Accordingly, they too defeated teams with better records in the playoffs (60-win Knicks and 62-win Suns).
.

[LAZERUSS]

The CLIFFS to this response is the first response below - the two responses after that are overkill


This is what I'm talking about - even in the face of obvious logic to the contrary (that chemistry improves over time), you don't believe in the idea of 3-peat chemistry because you only see 1 example of it..

That means you're basing your opinion on stats (empirical evidence) and not the obvious intuitive logic staring you in the face that chemistry improves over time - if chemistry exists, then 3-peat chemistry exists.

Again - chemistry improves over time, so if you concede that chemistry itself exists, then you should find it intuitive that 3-peat chemistry exists, and not give a shit that there's only 1 example of it... 3-peats are once-in-a-generation things - not even that really - they've only happened twice in 50 years.

So if you base all your opinions on stats and empirical evidence, you'll never be able to predict what will happen, and you'll always be surprised by outcomes - what a sad way to live life.



See, your logic concludes that chemistry DOESN'T improve over time - you believe in chemistry, but not 3-peat chemistry, which defies the entire concept of chemistry - chemistry is based on players spending TIME playing with each other.. Obviously, the more time a team spends together winning rings, the greater chemistry they will have.

The Kobe/Shaq feud not withstanding, a team that won 3 championships in a row will have better chemistry than a team that won 1 championship, or 2 championships (assuming the same core players and coach).. It isn't rocket science.

And again - even without the knowledge that the core spent 3 straight regular seasons and championship playoff runs playing together, we know the 1994 Bulls achieved based on chemistry because every Bulls championship required MJ to lead the league in scoring and be the best scorer ever.. He had the biggest gaps between him and his #2 option in the modern era.

Therefore when MJ retired, the Bulls didn't win 55 because they had talented scorers - their success HAD to be based on chemistry by sheer process of elimination (since it wasn't talent)... Again, this is intuitive logic that makes all the sense in the world - so you shouldn't perceive it as mumbo jumbo that you have to disagree with because it came from 3ball.



Actually, your Shaq/Kobe Laker example from 2002 proves the regular season records mean nothing - considering the Lakers 3-peated that year, they were obviously much better than their 50-win total suggested.. They were clearly a 60+ win team that feuded and screwed around with overconfidence in the regular season.

They knew they could turn it on when needed - and they did, barely - Kobe and Shaq put their differences aside sufficiently in the playoffs to beat the 58-win Spurs and squeak by the 61-win Kings - this gave them the league's 2nd three-peat in 40 years.

In the Bulls case, they didn't have those selfish issues in 1993 and were able to win a few more games (57).. But the complacency and mental fatigue was still there.. The Bulls had already won the chip twice, and knew they could turn it on when needed - so their 57 wins was also not indicative of their true capability.. Accordingly, they too defeated teams with better records in the playoffs (60-win Knicks and 62-win Suns).
.

Are you still bringing this NONSENSE to this RIDICULOUS topic?

Geez, you and I both KNOW that Lebron will be in the HOF, and is already a Top-10 player of all-time.

Move on to something else for once.

[3ball]

Are you still bringing this NONSENSE to this RIDICULOUS topic?

Geez, you and I both KNOW that Lebron will be in the HOF, and is already a Top-10 player of all-time.

Move on to something else for once.
Don't try to jump in and muddy the waters.. Duffy Pratt and I were having a good discussion and coming around to some good conclusions about the game.

He's a grown up and can read the post for himself, without haters jumping in and... well, hating... and proving how rent free I am.. You're just annoyed because I countered all your points in your own thread titled "Pop" (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=396301&page=5).

And our discussion doesn't mention Lebron and has nothing to do with him.

[97 bulls]

Don't try to jump in and muddy the waters.. Duffy Pratt and I were having a good discussion and coming around to some good conclusions about the game.

He's a grown up and can read the post for himself, without haters jumping in and... well, hating... and proving how rent free I am.. You're just annoyed because I countered all your points in your own thread titled "Pop" (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=396301&page=5).

And our discussion doesn't mention Lebron and has nothing to do with him.
I'd like to know what your definition of team chemistry is 3ball.

[3ball]

I'd like to know what your definition of team chemistry is 3ball.



DEFINITION OF CHEMISTRY: When the core players that get material minutes and have material production WIN together for an extended period, thus developing a know-how and ability to execute that can only come with time playing together.

For example, look at the 1993 Bulls' supporting cast below - it shows every Bulls player that played more than 10 mpg (excluding MJ):


.....................PPG.......MPG

Pippen............18.6...... 38.6
Grant.............13.2....... 35.6
Armstrong.......12.3.......30.4
Cartwright........5.6....... 19.9
S Williams........5.9........19.3
Paxson............ 4.2........17.5
R McCray......... 3.5........15.9
S King............. 5.4....... 13.9
W Perdue......... 4.7........13.9
T Tucker.......... 5.2........13.2
D Walker......... 2.6........13.1


The 1993 supporting cast only had 3 guys (Pippen/Grant/Armstrong) that played more than 20 mpg and averaged more than 6 ppg - these were the only guys affecting chemistry.. Everyone else was an interchangeable stiff that played LESS than 20 mpg and scored LESS than 6 ppg.

Marginal bench players who barely play or score (such as spot-up shooters Paxson/Tucker, or bangers King/Williams) are interchangeable - they can be substituted for each other seamlessly and interchangeably without affecting chemistry - if they affected chemistry, there would be no reason for an untalented bench player like them to get any playing time.. Part of their basic role is to facilitate chemistry and not rock the boat.

Accordingly, the only members of the 1993 supporting cast that affected chemistry and were NOT interchangeable stiffs were Pippen/Armstrong/Grant - these were the only guys that played more than 20 MPG and averaged more than 6 ppg..

The other 8 guys on the list above were interchangeable stiffs - this why the Bulls retained their chemistry in 1994 despite turnover of 5-6 players.. All the turnover was among the marginal, interchangeable bench players - the only guys that affected chemistry (Pippen, Grant, Armstrong) were still there.

Does that help 97 Bulls?
.

[97 bulls]

DEFINITION OF CHEMISTRY: When the core players that get material minutes and have material production WIN together for an extended period, thus developing a know-how and ability to execute that can only come with time playing together.

For example, look at the 1993 Bulls' supporting cast below - it shows every Bulls player that played more than 10 mpg (excluding MJ):


.....................PPG.......MPG

Pippen............18.6...... 38.6
Grant.............13.2....... 35.6
Armstrong.......12.3.......30.4
Cartwright........5.6....... 19.9
S Williams........5.9........19.3
Paxson............ 4.2........17.5
R McCray......... 3.5........15.9
S King............. 5.4....... 13.9
W Perdue......... 4.7........13.9
T Tucker.......... 5.2........13.2
D Walker......... 2.6........13.1


The 1993 supporting cast only had 3 guys (Pippen/Grant/Armstrong) that played more than 20 mpg and averaged more than 6 ppg - these were the only guys affecting chemistry.. Everyone else was an interchangeable stiff that played LESS than 20 mpg and scored LESS than 6 ppg.

Marginal bench players who barely play or score (such as spot-up shooters Paxson/Tucker, or bangers King/Williams) are interchangeable - they can be substituted for each other seamlessly and interchangeably without affecting chemistry - if they affected chemistry, there would be no reason for an untalented bench player like them to get any playing time.. Part of their basic role is to facilitate chemistry and not rock the boat.

Accordingly, the only members of the 1993 supporting cast that affected chemistry and were NOT interchangeable stiffs were Pippen/Armstrong/Grant - these were the only guys that played more than 20 MPG and averaged more than 6 ppg..

The other 8 guys on the list above were interchangeable stiffs - this why the Bulls retained their chemistry in 1994 despite turnover of 5-6 players.. All the turnover was among the marginal, interchangeable bench players - the only guys that affected chemistry (Pippen, Grant, Armstrong) were still there.

Does that help 97 Bulls?
Yes it does. Just to reiterate your definition:


DEFINITION OF CHEMISTRY: When the core players that get material minutes and have material production WIN together for an extended period

So if this is the case based on your logic or definition, and you already said that Jordan's teammates were the worse of any all time great, then how do you explain the Celtics with M hale, Parish, and Ainge. Or the Lakers with Scott, Worthy, and Green, or the Heat with Bosh, Wade, and Chalmers. All these core players won multiple championships together. And by your assertion were inherently better than the Bulls. AND they actually replaced their best player with quality unlike the Bulls. And mind you. These teams were no where near as successful as the Bulls. Even though by your definition, they had championship chemistry, we're more talented, and replaced their best player with another good player.

My question to you is.....what gives?

[97 bulls]

Btw 97 Bulls,*

It's clear by looking at the Bulls' roster (above), that they had possibly the worst talent in the league after MJ and Scottie.. The supporting cast only had 3 guys that averaged more than 20 MPG and 6 ppg.. That means the #4 thru 12 players averaged LESS than 20 mpg and 6 ppg, which was worst in the league -*no other team's #4 thru #12 players were that bad.*

The Bulls' horrible talent after MJ and Scottie is why the team needed MJ to be scoring champ every single year, including scoring at least 10 ppg more than Scottie for every playoff series of their careers, while*stillleading the team in passing (MJ led Bulls in assist %*for both 3-peats) - no one in history had to do anywhere NEAR this much..*

Seriously - show me a player who had to score 10 ppg more than their 2nd option for every series of their careers, AND lead the team in passing.. I'll wait.

****

You can't look at it in a vacuum like that. What about the defensive side of the ball? Rebounds? Jordan wasn't the best at everything. His assist percentage was high because he dominated the ball. And the Bulls ran the offense through him.

[3ball]

Yes it does. Just to reiterate your definition:

So if this is the case based on your logic or definition, and you already said that Jordan's teammates were the worse of any all time great, then how do you explain the Celtics with M hale, Parish, and Ainge. Or the Lakers with Scott, Worthy, and Green, or the Heat with Bosh, Wade, and Chalmers. All these core players won multiple championships together. And by your assertion were inherently better than the Bulls. AND they actually replaced their best player with quality unlike the Bulls. And mind you. These teams were no where near as successful as the Bulls. Even though by your definition, they had championship chemistry, we're more talented, and replaced their best player with another good player.

My question to you is..... what gives?


Michael Jordan, the GOAT, didn't need as good a supporting cast.

That's my ENTIRE point that you can't get through your head:

Show me a player whose team needed him to be scoring champ every single year, including scoring at least 10 ppg more than his 2nd option for every playoff series of their career, while still leading the team in passing (MJ led Bulls in assist % for both 3-peats (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11713121&postcount=49)) - no one in history had to do anywhere NEAR this much..

I didn't even mention the goat defense.. Seriously - show me a player who had to score 10 ppg more than their 2nd option for every series of their careers, AND lead the team in passing.. I'll wait..

THAT'S what gives.
.

[97 bulls]

Michael Jordan, the GOAT, didn't need as good a supporting cast.

That's my ENTIRE point that you can't get through your head:

Show me a player whose team needed him to be scoring champ every single year, including scoring at least 10 ppg more than his 2nd option for every playoff series of their career, while still leading the team in passing (MJ led Bulls in assist % for both 3-peats (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11713121&postcount=49)) - no one in history had to do anywhere NEAR this much..

Seriously - show me a player who had to score 10 ppg more than their 2nd option for every series of their careers, AND lead the team in passing.. I'll wait..

THAT'S what gives.
Michael Jordan? ??? That's your answer? Come on. This is why you and people like you get responses like 1-9. Or what the Bulls did without him. He was far and away the Bulls best player, but he wasn't their only player .

[3ball]

Michael Jordan? ??? That's your answer? Come on. This is why you and people like you get responses like 1-9. Or what the Bulls did without him. He was far and away the Bulls best player, but he wasn't their only player .


Who said he was their "only" player?...

I said he won with a "lesser supporting cast" and displayed the stats that PROVE it.. If a guy had to DO MORE to win - then he had a lesser supporting cast.

Do I need to re-post Jordan's roster for you (already posted above)??... It's clear as day - after MJ and Scottie, the Bulls' talent was among the worst in the league.. Specifically, the supporting cast only had 3 guys that averaged more than 20 minutes and 6 ppg - the #4 thru #12 guys averaged LESS than 20 minutes and 6 ppg - no other team's #4 thru #12 guys were anywhere NEAR that bad.

The Bulls' horrible talent after MJ and Scottie is why the team needed MJ to be scoring champ every single year, including scoring at least 10 ppg more than Scottie for every playoff series of their careers, while still leading the team in passing (MJ led Bulls in assist % for both 3-peats (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11713121&postcount=49)) - no one in history had to do anywhere NEAR this much

[97 bulls]

Who said he was their "only" player?...

I said he won with a "lesser supporting cast" and displayed the stats that PROVE it.. If a guy had to DO MORE to win - then he had a lesser supporting cast.

Do I need to re-post Jordan's roster for you (already posted above)??... It's clear as day - after MJ and Scottie, the Bulls' talent was among the worst in the league.. Specifically, the supporting cast only had 3 guys that averaged more than 20 minutes and 6 ppg - the #4 thru #12 guys averaged LESS than 20 minutes and 6 ppg - no other team's #4 thru #12 guys were anywhere NEAR that bad.

The Bulls' horrible talent after MJ and Scottie is why the team needed MJ to be scoring champ every single year, including scoring at least 10 ppg more than Scottie for every playoff series of their careers, while still leading the team in passing (MJ led Bulls in assist % for both 3-peats (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11713121&postcount=49)) - no one in history had to do anywhere NEAR this much
But that lesser supporting cast, did much better than the other teams you are comparing them too. This is a fact. Why can't you just acknowledge that the BULLS had a damn good team outside of Jordan.

For all your talk about PPG margin and assists percentage, it still does not equal to what I got....the results. Wins trump everything. That's why the game or better yet any game is played. To win. Most of the other teams that meet your criteria and that you say are better weren't even close to the success the Bulls had when Jordan left. And mind you, these teams met your criteria. Maybe you need to change your views.

[LAZERUSS]

But that lesser supporting cast, did much better than the other teams you are comparing them too. This is a fact. Why can't you just acknowledge that the BULLS had a damn good team outside of Jordan.

For all your talk about PPG margin and assists percentage, it still does not equal to what I got....the results. Wins trump everything. That's why the game or better yet any game is played. To win. Most of the other teams that meet your criteria and that you say are better weren't even close to the success the Bulls had when Jordan left. And mind you, these teams met your criteria. Maybe you need to change your views.

You are wasting your time.

It was damaging enough that Pippen and Grant proved that they were a serious title contender without Jordan, but then the next yeart, after Grant jumped ship (and as always, immediately improved his next team dramatically), that Pippen single-handedly carried that cast of role players to a 34-31 record. Hell, MJ never had a winning record without Pippen. And he needed Pippen, and two ELITE dominating PF's, as well as that cast of quality role players, to win his rings.

Again...the most stacked rosters in the league in the watered down 90's.

All FACTS and all REALITY.

[97 bulls]

You are wasting your time.

It was damaging enough that Pippen and Grant proved that they were a serious title contender without Jordan, but then the next yeart, after Grant jumped ship (and as always, immediately improved his next team dramatically), that Pippen single-handedly carried that cast of role players to a 34-31 record. Hell, MJ never had a winning record without Pippen. And he needed Pippen, and two ELITE dominating PF's, as well as that cast of quality role players, to win his rings.

Again...the most stacked rosters in the league in the watered down 90's.

All FACTS and all REALITY.
I agree wth everything you stated except for the watered down part. The Bulls won 55 games without Jordan BEFORE EXPANSION. I dont think its unrealistic to draw the conclusion that with Jordan, an upgrade in Rodman, and Toni Kukoc with some experience would've been able to net another 15 games.

[dhsilv]

I agree wth everything you stated except for the watered down part. The Bulls won 55 games without Jordan BEFORE EXPANSION. I dont think its unrealistic to draw the conclusion that with Jordan, an upgrade in Rodman, and Toni Kukoc with some experience would've been able to net another 15 games.

League expanded in 89. The 96 additional expansion was a tipping point, but the league was watered down compared to say the bird and magic dominant years. Or in other words you can't compare their "help" to the bulls.

Without looking while there were some good players, the early 90's imo were some rather weak draft classes to add to this. They were horrible but I don't think they were offsetting the talent flowing out.

*just glanced, the 89 class was deep and pretty solid actually. The next two years not so much.

[LAZERUSS]

How great an IMPACT did GRANT have in his career? He (along with Pippen, of course) IMMEDIATELY elevated the Bulls from a 40-42 team unable to win a playoff game...to a 50-32 record...and into the ECSF's.

His Bulls teams would continue to improve and as he played better, they won more.

MJ left the Bulls after the 92-93 season, and in game's Grant played the next season, they went 48-22 (55-27 overall.) He was a key factor in the '94 playoff run, as well, and they were ONE PLAY away from beating a 56-26 Knick team that would lose a game seven by four points in the Finals, to the Rockets.

Grant bolted for the Magic after that season, the Magic improved from 50-32 record, and first round cannon-fodder, to a 57-25 team that would make the Finals. Oh, and he absolutely SHELLED Jordan's Bulls in the ECSF's with a dominating 18-11 .647 series. Hell, the '94 Bulls were a better team, with Grant, than they were the same exact roster the next season, sans Grant, but now with Jordan. IMPACT.

The next season, Shaq missed the first 20 games...and all Grant did was to lead the Magic to a 15-5 record in his absence (and overall, in the games that Grant played... a 50-13 record...and a 10-9 record without him.)

And Grant was on his way to yet another brilliant post-season in '96, as well. Going into the ECF's and against the Bulls, and Dennis Rodman, he had averaged a staggering 17-8 .656. However, he was injured in the middle of the first game of that series, and missed the rest of it. Guess what, Rodman was free to shut down Shaq, and without an ELITE PF, the Magic were swept.

Shaq bolted for the Lakers the very next year, and without him, Grant then led the Magic to a 45-37 record.

And the next season, when Penny was injured and could only go for 19 games...Grant led them to a 41-41 record. Think about that...without BOTH Shaq and Penny...and a 41-41 record.

The next year...a strike year... 33-17.

The next year he headed for Seattle, a team that had gone 25-25 the year before...and IMMEDIATELY led them to a 45-37 record.

Even late in his career, he joined the Lakers, and with him, they stormed to a 15-1 playoff record en route to yet another ring for Grant.


Certainly one of the most IMPACTFUL players of his era.

[Euroleague]

Do you finally understand that we all know this is how you feel about Jordan?

https://media1.giphy.com/media/UgWPeCVuVLdWE/200.gif

[97 bulls]

League expanded in 89. The 96 additional expansion was a tipping point, but the league was watered down compared to say the bird and magic dominant years. Or in other words you can't compare their "help" to the bulls.

Without looking while there were some good players, the early 90's imo were some rather weak draft classes to add to this. They were horrible but I don't think they were offsetting the talent flowing out.

*just glanced, the 89 class was deep and pretty solid actually. The next two years not so much.
The league also expanded in 88 and I forget what year the Mavs joined the league. I also feel the league due to Magic, Bird and Jordan attracted more athletic talent so it evened out.

I alway felt like the bridge between the great 80s teams and the 90's Bulls was the Pistons. Looking at how the Celtics, Lakers and Bulls played them, I'd be hard pressed to put so much stock in the 90's being weak due to expansion.

[LAZERUSS]

Had Grant not joined the Magic, Shaq's departure after the '96 season would have been far worse for Orlando.

We saw what happened to other teams when they lost their best player. Take a look at the Spurs. In '96 with Robinson, they went 59-23. He was injured in '96-97, and played six games. Guess what? 20-62. BTW, that was the best thing that ever happened to that organization. They drafted Duncan, and the rest was history.

Again, we saw how well the Bulls performed without MJ... 55-27. And again, he QUIT. He wasn't traded. So, the Bulls had to scramble to replace him with...Pete Myers.

Now, let's remove the best player from every other team that entire decade, and how do think Hakeem's Rockets do? Or Ewing's Knicks? Guys like Barkley, Shaq, K Malone, and Robinson.

The REALITY was, most successful teams in the watered down 90's had ONE great player, and perhaps TWO. No more than that. Hell, Jordan was winning his rings with more HOFers on his rosters.

And again, Hakeem won a title with a team of scrubs, by beating Ewing's Knicks, and his team of scrubs. Look at the '99 Knicks. They didn't even have their best player, Ewing, in the post-season, and they made it to the Finals (where of course, they were destroyed by the Duncan-DRob combo.)

Just pure trash teams the entire decade.

The bottom line...Jordan's Bulls were NOT beating great teams. They were beating merely good teams. And even without MJ, the Bulls were still good enough to go 55-27 and contend for a title.

[dhsilv]

How great an IMPACT did GRANT have in his career? He (along with Pippen, of course) IMMEDIATELY elevated the Bulls from a 40-42 team unable to win a playoff game...to a 50-32 record...and into the ECSF's.

His Bulls teams would continue to improve and as he played better, they won more.

MJ left the Bulls after the 92-93 season, and in game's Grant played the next season, they went 48-22 (55-27 overall.) He was a key factor in the '94 playoff run, as well, and they were ONE PLAY away from beating a 56-26 Knick team that would lose a game seven by four points in the Finals, to the Rockets.

Grant bolted for the Magic after that season, the Magic improved from 50-32 record, and first round cannon-fodder, to a 57-25 team that would make the Finals. Oh, and he absolutely SHELLED Jordan's Bulls in the ECSF's with a dominating 18-11 .647 series. Hell, the '94 Bulls were a better team, with Grant, than they were the same exact roster the next season, sans Grant, but now with Jordan. IMPACT.

The next season, Shaq missed the first 20 games...and all Grant did was to lead the Magic to a 15-5 record in his absence (and overall, in the games that Grant played... a 50-13 record...and a 10-9 record without him.)

And Grant was on his way to yet another brilliant post-season in '96, as well. Going into the ECF's and against the Bulls, and Dennis Rodman, he had averaged a staggering 17-8 .656. However, he was injured in the middle of the first game of that series, and missed the rest of it. Guess what, Rodman was free to shut down Shaq, and without an ELITE PF, the Magic were swept.

Shaq bolted for the Lakers the very next year, and without him, Grant then led the Magic to a 45-37 record.

And the next season, when Penny was injured and could only go for 19 games...Grant led them to a 41-41 record. Think about that...without BOTH Shaq and Penny...and a 41-41 record.

The next year...a strike year... 33-17.

The next year he headed for Seattle, a team that had gone 25-25 the year before...and IMMEDIATELY led them to a 45-37 record.

Even late in his career, he joined the Lakers, and with him, they stormed to a 15-1 playoff record en route to yet another ring for Grant.


Certainly one of the most IMPACTFUL players of his era.

In defense of sanity, the magic had other offensive weapons. Grant did need to have players who could take the load offensively as that was not his game, but he was clearly a high impact player.

That said the guy does rank top 50 in WS and VORP career. He's far from just some replacement level defender.

[LAZERUSS]

Lebron the "Chemistry Killer"

Comes to a 17-65 team, immediately and dramatically improves them. Takes a last place roster to their first ever Finals. Takes those same crappy rosters to records of 66-16 (an all-time team record BTW), and 61-21.

Leaves the Cavs...and guess what... a 19-63 season for Cleveland.

Damn, if only he had left well enough alone. The fans were used to 17 win teams. And the players were too, They enjoyed not having to play extra games late in the season.

Thank god he left.


Lebron goes to a Miami team that a prime Wade had carried to a 47-35 record, and a first round playoff loss.

The Heat IMMEDIATELY improve from 47 wins to 58, and then a trip all the way to the Finals.

Then in the next three seasons, they have an all-time team record season of 66-16, go to three more Finals (FOUR STRAIGHT)...winning two of them behind the FMVP. BTW, in the games that a now declining Wade miss...they go 47-18.

Of course, none of this sits well with career POS loser Bosh. You can see him getting more-and-more steamed as each season goes by. In fact, he explodes to the point of trying to sabotage the '14 Finals. Let's an old Duncan just crush him, and then when Spo puts him on the perimeter he gleefully watches as the Spurs player drain three-after-three.

The "chemistry-killer' thankfully leaves, and once again, all is well in Miami. They add players like Deng and Whiteside, but with Bosh's career losing, and "can't do" attitude, even they succumb to his losing ways, and the team free falls all the way down to a 37-45 record. And again, thankfully, the players don't have to go thru the ordeal of a wasted post-season.


BUT...POOR Cleveland. Just when everything was back to normal, and the Cavs were once again going 33-49, Lebron comes riding in again, and destroys their chemistry. It does speak volumes though, that when he played, they went 50-19, and in the games he missed, they were back to the chemisty-loving 3-10 record.

Then the Chemistry-killer had the audacity to carry those worn out players all the way to the Finals. They are so tired from playing the additional games, that they start dropping like flies. By the time they get to the Finals, Lebron's best teammates are gone. Then the chemistry-killer drags them thru two extra games by single-handly winning two games. The bastard damn near won two more. Luckily players like JR Smith, another career loser, and Shumpert do all they can to lose those last two games. Heaven forbid, we might have to play a seventh game, when we could be out looking for under-aged dates.

Now this Lebron jerk is likely to take them to yet another Finals. But as we can see from the play of his surrounding teammates...they aren't standing for it. In fact, they can't stand this "chemistry-killer." They long for the good ole days...players like Love and Bosh...who could put up meaningless 20 point games in blowout losses. All while always happily missing the extra post-season games.

[LAZERUSS]

In defense of sanity, the magic had other offensive weapons. Grant did need to have players who could take the load offensively as that was not his game, but he was clearly a high impact player.

That said the guy does rank top 50 in WS and VORP career. He's far from just some replacement level defender.
I agree 100% with what you said.

Unfortunately, Goofball will tell you Grant was a worthless, easily-replaceable, coat-tail rider.

Oh, and he will also tell you that Pippen was a WOAT.


Lebron made his teammates worse, all while DRAMATICALLY raising their win totals, and always carrying them to the Finals,...even injury-ravaged, and talentless teams. See, when Lebron arrived the TEAMS improved, but he made the players much worse. So bad, that when he left, they would go 19-63 or with talented rosters adding other key players, to only 37-45. That was the Chemistry-killing Lebron.

Meanwhile, Jordan had the unique ability to make his teammates better, by making them worse players. Players who were so bad, that they could go on to 55+ win seasons, and seriously make a run for the title. They learned how to win games by being worse players. Now, that was the gift of Jordan.

[97 bulls]

This seems to be the prevailing theme amongst many people that frequent this forum. Stats are more important than results. And I can't understand why this is. Players have different styoes. What's most important is impact. Steve Kerr obviously wasn't a guy that could get you 20 a game. But his jumpshot had to be respected. Thus making Jordan's job easier. I remember a funny gif where Jordan is in the post and David Wesley comes over to double team him, he (Jordan ) fakes like he's gonna kick it back out to Kerr and Wesley takes off in a hurry to get back to him. Thus freeing up Jordan to work. That's Kerr impact.

Dennis Rodman may only score 2 pts. But if he's grabbing 18 boards and making like miserable for the oppositions, bigs then he's having an impact on the game look at the 96 finals. Rodman dominated that Championship.

[dhsilv]

This seems to be the prevailing theme amongst many people that frequent this forum. Stats are more important than results. And I can't understand why this is. Players have different styoes. What's most important is impact. Steve Kerr obviously wasn't a guy that could get you 20 a game. But his jumpshot had to be respected. Thus making Jordan's job easier. I remember a funny gif where Jordan is in the post and David Wesley comes over to double team him, he (Jordan ) fakes like he's gonna kick it back out to Kerr and Wesley takes off in a hurry to get back to him. Thus freeing up Jordan to work. That's Kerr impact.

Dennis Rodman may only score 2 pts. But if he's grabbing 18 boards and making like miserable for the oppositions, bigs then he's having an impact on the game look at the 96 finals. Rodman dominated that Championship.

Stats from that era didn't capture that stuff, but with current data we really can get that data and put it into stats and measure it. Point being those who get upset with stats are wrong to do so. Those who just blindly throw them around, well that's wrong too.

The biggest issue are people who COMPLETELY misuse stats, which is what goofball will do and why I have him on ignore. At least this way I just see others responding to him and dont' have to read anything he says to me or that isn't worth quoting (most of what he posts).

[3ball]

Lebron joined a team with Zydrunas Illgauskas, who could only get his team to a 17-65 record before him...and IMMEDIATELY DOUBLED their win total.


Zydrunas was a 2-time all-star in 2003 and 2005 - that means he was a top 12 player in the conference - nonetheless, Lebron missed the playoffs his first two seasons, despite playing with a 2-time all-star.

Otoh, MJ never missed the playoffs even though he never had a top 12 player in the conference/allstar until 1990.. And the minute MJ got that 1 all-star, he went 6/6.

Meanwhile Lebron missed the playoffs twice with an allstar, and only went 2/4 despite 2 all-stars in Miami.





Meanwhile within a couple of years Lebron drags the Cavs to 2007 Finals.


In the weakest conference of all-time, and he had the worst Finals performance ever.. 22 ppg on 35%... the worst of all time..

And that wasn't even his worst Finals performance!!!... See his 2011 shrinkage.. Worst of all time

Furthermore, his stats during the 2007 playoffs and finals would be the WORST of MJ's playoff career, once again proving that Lebron had more help than MJ ever had.. MJ simply had to do FAR more to make the finals - 25 ppg would NEVER have gotten it done for MJ, but it did for Lebron.





Lebron leaves Cleveland after 2010, and guess what...they IMMEDIATELY fall off the cliff to a 19-63 record.


More lies - at the start of the 2011 season, the Cavs were missing Shaq, Delonte and Zydrunas, who averaged a combined 30 ppg in 2010 - this was exactly 30% of the team's points.

But keep disregarding the 30 ppg of these guys, and only pay attention to Lebron's 30 ppg.. :rolleyes: .. And later in the season, Varejao and Mo Williams went down and missed 50 games each..

Overall, the 2011 Cavs lost 2 starters (Shaq, Mo Williams) and 3 other key players (Varejao, Delonte, Zydrunas) - these guys scored a combined 52 ppg, which is more than half the Cavs points.





Ok, now Lebron joins a 47 win Heat team, and IMMEDIATELY leads them to a 58-24 record, and the first of FOUR straight Finals.


What a joke - the Heat added Lebron AND superstar Bosh, and they only improved 11 wins?

Jordan did that by himself in his rookie year... In 2002, he improved the Wizards team 18 wins.





And after deferring to Wade in '11, he is asked to take command of that roster, and dominates in the next two post-seasons, and wins FMVPs in both


You're bragging about 2 FMVP's???... Jordan has 6 dumbass.

And Lebron didn't dominate by Jordan's standards - not even close - Lebron's 2012 playoff stats would be among the worst of Jordan's playoff career... His 2013 playoff stats would be THE worst of Jordan's career.

Lebron only averaged 25-27 ppg on 49% in 2012/2013 - Jordan's version of "domination" was 35-38 ppg during various championship runs.

Furthermore, Lebron only scored 18, 17, and 18 points in the first 3 games of the 2013 Finals - Jordan's FINALS LOW was 22 points... For the entire 2013 Finals, Lebron only averaged 25 ppg on 44.8%, which would be the worst PLAYOFF SERIES of MJ's career, let alone Finals.





Even with ZERO help in his last season there, he STILL gets them to the Finals, but alas, with a broken down Wade, and the always worthless Bosh, they are beaten by a much better team.


Wade's 2014 stats were 19/5/5 on 55%... Bosh's were 16/7 on 51%... That's a ton of help.

Wade's stats during 2011-2014 playoffs were 20/5/4 on 48% - that's far better than Pippen's 17/7/5 on 40% during 1996-1998 playoffs.





So a sick and disgusted Lebron leaves that POS team. He is replaced by Deng and Whiteside...and guess what...they can only go 37-45 and miss the playoffs.


The 2014 Heat were a 1st or 2nd Round Western Conference team AT BEST, who fell to lottery in 2015 due to Wade/Bosh injury.





Now, Lebron joins a team that had gone 33-49 the year before, and IMMEDIATELY takes them to a 53-29 record.


More lies - the Cavs added 26/13 all-nba Kevin Love, whose stats Lebron immediately cut in half to 16/9..

Again, Lebron doesn't elevate teammates and achieves his stats by reducing the stats of others.. This is statistical fact.





Guess what, Lebron SINGLE-HANDEDLY guides that vastly over-matched roster, with his next best player being the buffoon JR Smith, to TWO wins, and then TWO narrow losses. In a series in which he put up a 36-13-8 run.


If Lebron had shot 50% instead of a WOAT 39%, and if he played good defense so Iggy wasn't better than Curry, then the Cavs win 2 more games and win the series...

That's what Jordan would've done, especially since Lebron didn't get doubled teamed the entire Finals.. Furthermore, MJ won with less help in 1998:

Injured Pippen averaged 15 ppg on 41%, which is less than Mosgov's 14/8 on 55%.. Rodman wasn't even a starter and averaged 4/8, which is destroyed by than Tristan Thompson's 10/13...

Rodman's massive deficit to Tristan was only partially offset by Kukoc's 15 ppg on 50% > JR Smith's 12 ppg on 31%... Meanwhile, Harper and Kerr's 4-5 ppg on 35% is equal to what Delly and Iman did (6-8 ppg on 28%).

The reason MJ won the 1998 Finals but Lebron lost 2015, is because MJ didn't let Byron Russell get FMVP, or Stockton for that matter, who MJ guarded a lot.. Furthermore, MJ scored a higher proportion of his team's points while on the floor:


Percentage of team points scored while player was on floor


.....................Finals.. Finals 4th

JORDAN 1998.... 43.6 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 49.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)

LEBRON 2015.... 40.0...... 44.5 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/2544/stats/usage/?Season=2014-15&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)





even with a 38-9-9 series he can't lead those clowns to a series win.)


Exactly - because his style prevents teammates from playing well alongside him - so it doesn't matter what stats he puts up if he's destroying his teammates play.

Specifically, he turned his teammates into play-finishers and their predictable play-finishing roles no longer succeed against the best teams in the playoffs.. Mo Williams shot 37% against the Magic - they knew where his play-finishing ass would be at all times and shut him down easily.

Btw, Lebron's penchant for turning teammates into play-finishers is statistical fact - he reduces his teammates APG, while increasing their assisted rate - that means he turns them from playmakers into play-finishers.. He did this to Wade, Bosh, Love, Mo Williams, and Kyrie - just look at their lower APG and higher assisted rate alongside Lebron.

His teammates predictable play-finishing roles explains why they underperform against the best teams in the playoffs - he simply doesn't elevate teammates - the stats prove it (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11718080&postcount=76).





the Heat went 47-18 in the games Wade missed over the years.


Lebron still had 10-time all-star Bosh as his #2, so who cares - that's how stacked the Heat were and that's what collusion does for you...

Also, it's a well-documented statistical fact that the Heat were better when Lebron and Wade were NOT on the floor together.. Lebron's ball-dominance clashed with Wade's.. So when Wade missed games, it wasn't a detriment that it would be for other #1 options, who foster better chemistry and therefore have a BETTER team when both guys are playing..

The stats prove over and over again that Lebron does NOT elevate his teammates - he reduces them and only wins a ring if he has sufficient colluded talent to overcome the team attrition he imposes.





In Cleveland the first time around, he took basically a last place
roster to all-time records of 66-16 and then 61-21 in 2009 and 2010


Quit lying - it's common knowledge that Lebron's 2009 and 2010 rosters were very deep and we have clear statistical proof:

Lebron's supporting cast added enough help on top of his 28/8/7/49 to win 66 games in 2009 - that's a super-ton of help.. Otoh, MJ's supporting cast only added enough help to his 33/8/8/54 to win 47 games in 1989.. There's only 2 possible reasons for Lebron winning 19 more games with equal or lesser stats: worse competition or better supporting cast.

If you think that all 19 wins were due to worse competition (and not better supporting cast), then consider how much better that makes MJ's playoff stats look, since they came against far better competition... Lebron's 35/9/7/51/1.6 stl playoff averages in 2009 are invalidated compared to MJ's nearly identical 35/7/7/51/2.5 stl playoff averages in 1989, due to facing vastly inferior competition..

Of course, the other alternative is that Lebron's supporting cast was better, in addition to the aforementioned weaker comp.. This is obviously true - Lebron's supporting cast included an all-star and a slew of higher-producing veterans, a stark contrast from MJ's young, lower-producing cast.. MJ's 1989 Bulls and the "Jordan Rules" he faced (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIY_4vIxGEE&t=22m52s) were simply more of a 1-man team.. Therefore, the gap in RS records was due to a combination of BOTH competition level and supporting cast.
.

[3ball]

.
Took care of Laz in previous post, now 97 Bulls... :rolleyes:





But that lesser supporting cast, did much better than the other teams you are comparing them too. This is a fact.


It isn't a fact - it's false - if MJ's supporting cast helped him as much as the supporting cast of Magic, Bird, Lebron, Kobe, or Duncan, then MJ wouldn't have to score way more than all those guys, while still leading his team in passing.

Again, MJ had a lesser supporting cast than all these guys, whether you match their stats up player for player, or just look at how much more MJ had to do...

After Pippen, MJ's supporting talent was among the worst in the league.. His #4 thru #12 guys all averaged less than 20 minutes and 6 ppg - there wasn't a team in the league whose #4 thru #12 guys were this bad.





For all your talk about PPG margin and assists percentage, it still does not equal to what I got....the results. Wins trump everything.

That's why the game or better yet any game is played. To win. Most of the other teams that meet your criteria and that you say are better weren't even close to the success the Bulls had when Jordan left. And mind you, these teams met your criteria. Maybe you need to change your views.


NONE of them do - you're flat-out lying - the Heat were destroyed by record amount in 2014 Finals, which exposed them as a 1st of 2nd Round Western Conference playoff team AT BEST, with everyone past their prime and broken down - this is a far cry from being DEFENDING 3-peat champions with everyone in their prime..

Are you telling me that 1st of 2nd Round team with everyone broken down, is equal to defending 3-peat champs with everyone in their prime?... That gap is massive.

Shaq's Lakers were also destroyed in the 2004 Finals, and were a 2nd Round team in 2003 - so again, this is nowhere NEAR being 3-peat champs.

So which team are you talking about that was 3-peat champs with everyone in their prime?... Tell me which one, or stfu with your bullshit and ignoring of the stats and facts... It's ridiculous - you have zero case, but keep spouting the same disproven bullshit.

[97 bulls]

.
It isn't a fact - it's false - if MJ's supporting cast helped him as much as the supporting cast of Magic, Bird, Lebron, Kobe, or Duncan, then MJ wouldn't have to score way more than all those guys, while still leading his team in passing.
Comprehension skills bro. I referring to how well these teams performed WITHOUT their best player.


Again, MJ had a lesser supporting cast than all these guys, whether you match their stats up player for player, or just look at how much more MJ had to do...
Damn the stats. Look at the results. The Bulls performed better.


After Pippen, MJ's supporting talent was among the worst in the league.. His #4 thru #12 guys all averaged less than 20 minutes and 6 ppg - there wasn't a team in the league whose #4 thru #12 guys were this bad.
Players 4-12 were excellent defenders. And some were excellent rebounders and or jumpshooters.



NONE of them do - you're flat-out lying - the Heat were destroyed by record amount in 2014 Finals, which exposed them as a 1st of 2nd Round Western Conference playoff team AT BEST, with everyone past their prime and broken down - this is a far cry from being DEFENDING 3-peat champions with everyone in their prime..
What the **** are you talking about???? I'm talking about these team without their best player. What's more, is that your talking about a team that actually made the Finals being no more than a 1st or 2nd round team because if how badly they were beaten in the Finals? If this is the case, then surely, you feel the 94 Bulls were a championship caliber team in spite of losing in the second round because they lost in seven games to a Knicks team that lost in seven to the eventual champion Rockets.



Are you telling me that 1st of 2nd Round team with everyone broken down, is equal to defending 3-peat champs with everyone in their prime?... That gap is massive.
Who was broken down? Wade? He was on a downward spiral when they were winning. Bosh wasn't old and Chalmers wasn't old. He'll they're not old now. And again, you said that only the best three matter.




So which team are you talking about that was 3-peat champs with everyone in their prime?... Tell me which one, or stfu with your bullshit and ignoring of the stats and facts... It's ridiculous - you have zero case, but keep spouting the same disproven bullshit.
Which teams are you talking about that are threepeat champs in their prime? You're the one making the assertion. Like I stated in an earlier post. No team has been in the EXACT same situation as the Bulls. So why try to make the comparison?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

3-peat chemistry lol

Has more to do with staying healthy than anything. A team that can repeat as champs has pretty good chem, lets be real.

[dhsilv]

Comprehension skills bro. I referring to how well these teams performed WITHOUT their best player.


Damn the stats. Look at the results. The Bulls performed better.

Due dipshit will never be able to look past scoring and understand there is more to basketball. He doesn't understand the game enough to discuss it at any level.

[dhsilv]

3-peat chemistry lol

Has more to do with staying healthy than anything. A team that can repeat as champs has pretty good chem, lets be real.

Honestly just being healthy is a fluke after a 3 peat...something missed in this as well.

[LAZERUSS]

Due dipshit will never be able to look past scoring and understand there is more to basketball. He doesn't understand the game enough to discuss it at any level.

The Disciple Ron was telling the story of Jesus stopping at a small city to heal the sick.

One-by-one they came forth.

A blind man came up. "Open your eyes and you shall see." The blind man opened his eyes, and to his amazement, he could see.

Next, a crippled man was wheeled up. "Stand up and you shall walk." The man slowly pulled himself up, and the crowd cheered as he walked.

Finally the crowd pushed up the village idiot. Sadly Jesus looked at the man and said, "You can't fix stupid."

[Duffy Pratt]

.

Shaq's Lakers were also destroyed in the 2004 Finals, and were a 2nd Round team in 2003 - so again, this is nowhere NEAR being 3-peat champs.

So which team are you talking about that was 3-peat champs with everyone in their prime?...

At the beginning of the 2002-2003 season, Shaq's lakers were 3-peat champs. They had won the last three years. All of their core returned. They were all in their prime. Their numbers basically stayed the same, or went up, if you look at scoring. But they won only 50 games, and lost in the second round.

You seem to conclude that this shows they were not 3-peat champs, which is simply false. Rather, the conclusion to draw from this is that being a 3-peat champs is no guarantee of winning 55 games the following year, even if you do not lose your best player.

[3ball]

I don't discount the idea of chemistry, but your notion of 3peat chemistry being somehow different has only one example to back it up, so it's forced and I have strong doubts that it exists.


This is what I'm talking about - even in the face of obvious logic to the contrary (that chemistry improves over time), you don't believe in the idea of 3-peat chemistry because you only see 1 example of it..

That means you're basing your opinion on stats (empirical evidence) and not the obvious intuitive logic staring you in the face that chemistry improves over time - if chemistry exists, then 3-peat chemistry exists.

Again - chemistry improves over time, so if you concede that chemistry itself exists, then you should find it intuitive that 3-peat chemistry exists, and not give a shit that there's only 1 example of it... 3-peats are once-in-a-generation things - not even that really - they've only happened twice in 50 years.

So if you base all your opinions on stats and empirical evidence, you'll never be able to predict what will happen, and you'll always be surprised by outcomes - what a sad way to live life.

[bdreason]

It gets harder to repeat every year. This is the narrative I've heard from every player who has ever been asked the question. The idea that chemistry just continues to improve indefinitely is incredibly naive.

[3ball]

The Laker team I talked about suffered because of bad chemistry between Shaq and Kobe. Their 3peat chemistry didn't lead to them winning 55 games. Rather, the strain between them hurt the team that year and in the years to follow. So, chemistry I buy. But your idea of 3peat chemistry exists only to serve the only point you ever want to make, and is otherwise useless.


See, your logic concludes that chemistry DOESN'T improve over time - you believe in chemistry, but not 3-peat chemistry, which defies the entire concept of chemistry - chemistry is based on players spending TIME playing with each other.. Obviously, the more time a team spends together winning rings, the greater chemistry they will have.

The Kobe/Shaq feud not withstanding, a team that won 3 championships in a row will have better chemistry than a team that won 1 championship, or 2 championships (assuming the same core players and coach).. It isn't rocket science.

And again - even without the knowledge that the core spent 3 straight regular seasons and championship playoff runs playing together, we know the 1994 Bulls achieved based on chemistry because every Bulls championship required MJ to lead the league in scoring and be the best scorer ever.. He had the biggest gaps between him and his #2 option in the modern era.

Therefore when MJ retired, the Bulls didn't win 55 because they had talented scorers - their success HAD to be based on chemistry by sheer process of elimination (since it wasn't talent)... Again, this is intuitive logic that makes all the sense in the world - so you shouldn't perceive it as mumbo jumbo that you have to disagree with because it came from 3ball.

[3ball]

It gets harder to repeat every year. This is the narrative I've heard from every player who has ever been asked the question. The idea that chemistry just continues to improve indefinitely is incredibly naive.
What basketball team have you ever played for?

How would you have ANY CLUE what chemistry is?

You're just talking shit out of your ass

Chemistry improves over time - this is a fact - that's the basis of what chemistry is - players spending TIME playing together.

Does chemistry improve as much in the 99th year to the 100th year, as it does from the 2nd to the 3rd?... Of course not (there surely are diminishing returns), but we aren't talking about 100 years, or "indefinitely" like you said - we're talking about 2-4 year period, where hell yeah chemistry can continue improving a lot in that span - where's bill russell so he can settle this.

[3ball]

At the beginning of the 2002-2003 season, Shaq's lakers were 3-peat champs. They had won the last three years. All of their core returned. They were all in their prime. Their numbers basically stayed the same, or went up, if you look at scoring. But they won only 50 games, and lost in the second round.


your Shaq/Kobe Laker example from 2002 proves the regular season records mean nothing - considering the Lakers 3-peated that year, they were obviously much better than their 50-win total suggested.. They were clearly a 60+ win team that feuded and screwed around with overconfidence in the regular season.

They knew they could turn it on when needed - and they did, barely - Kobe and Shaq put their differences aside sufficiently in the playoffs to beat the 58-win Spurs and squeak by the 61-win Kings - this gave them the league's 2nd three-peat in 40 years.

In the Bulls case, they didn't have those selfish issues in 1993 and were able to win a few more games (57).. But the complacency and mental fatigue was still there.. The Bulls had already won the chip twice, and knew they could turn it on when needed - so their 57 wins was also not indicative of their true capability.. Accordingly, they too defeated teams with better records in the playoffs (60-win Knicks and 62-win Suns).
.

[Jameerthefear]

Zydrunas was a 2-time all-star in 2003 and 2005 - that means he was a top 12 player in the conference - nonetheless, Lebron missed the playof
.
Why in the **** do you keep saying this? Are you retarded?

[3ball]

It gets harder to repeat every year. This is the narrative I've heard from every player who has ever been asked the question. The idea that chemistry just continues to improve indefinitely is incredibly naive.
What basketball team have you ever played for?

How would you have ANY CLUE what chemistry is?

You're just talking shit out of your ass

Chemistry improves over time - this is a fact - that's the basis of what chemistry is - players spending TIME playing together.

Does chemistry improve as much in the 99th year to the 100th year, as it does from the 2nd to the 3rd?... Of course not (there surely are diminishing returns), but we aren't talking about 100 years, or "indefinitely" like you said - we're talking about 2-4 year period, where hell yeah chemistry can continue improving a lot in that span - where's bill russell so he can settle this.

[3ball]

Why in the **** do you keep saying this? Are you retarded?
Why wouldn't I say that Zydrunas was a top 12 player in his conference - that's generally what all-star means - or it could mean he was a top 2-3 player at his position in the conference.

either way.

Jordan never had a top 2-3 player at their position in the conference (all-star) until 1990.. And as soon as he got just 1, he went 6/6

But Lebron missed the playoffs twice despite having a top 3 player at their position in the conference (a shot-blocking CENTER and good offensive post player no less, so an important position)

and he only went 2/4 despite having TWO all-stars in Miami... none of this compares to the goat... sorry... but keep hoping and wishing..

you guys are amazing - lebron's stats from his BEST PLAYOFF RUNS (2012 and 2013) would rank near the bottom (2012) or AT the bottom (2013) of Jordan's playoff career... I invite you to check out Jordan's playoff stats year-by-year... keep dreaming guys and avoiding the facts staring you in the face..

[Duffy Pratt]

your Shaq/Kobe Laker example from 2002 proves the regular season records mean nothing - considering the Lakers 3-peated that year, they were obviously much better than their 50-win total suggested.. They were clearly a 60+ win team that feuded and screwed around with overconfidence in the regular season.

They knew they could turn it on when needed - and they did, barely - Kobe and Shaq put their differences aside sufficiently in the playoffs to beat the 58-win Spurs and squeak by the 61-win Kings - this gave them the league's 2nd three-peat in 40 years.

In the Bulls case, they didn't have those selfish issues in 1993 and were able to win a few more games (57).. But the complacency and mental fatigue was still there.. The Bulls had already won the chip twice, and knew they could turn it on when needed - so their 57 wins was also not indicative of their true capability.. Accordingly, they too defeated teams with better records in the playoffs (60-win Knicks and 62-win Suns).
.

The third year of the 3peat they won 58 games. The next year they dropped to 50.

[KiiiiNG]

Why in the **** do you keep saying this? Are you retarded?
:roll: :roll:

3ball lives such a sad life. Imagine how badly MJ would scold this guy for doing what he does on here.

Even MJ himself would rip him to shreds just like all of ISH does. He loves the negative attention man. Sad sad existence.

[Jameerthefear]

:roll: :roll:

3ball lives such a sad life. Imagine how badly MJ would scold this guy for doing what he does on here.

Even MJ himself would rip him to shreds just like all of ISH does. He loves the negative attention man. Sad sad existence.
Quite frankly... I just feel sorry for the guy at this point :oldlol:
How many times am I going to have to shit on him before he stops?

[3ball]

The third year of the 3peat they won 58 games. The next year they dropped to 50.
In that case, their core was completely shaken up - they added 2 starters, Payton and Malone - who were superstars, and who had to mesh with Shaq and Kobe... obviously, that didn't happen to the extent needed.

And you never answered my post about your misunderstanding of chemistry:

chemistry is based on players spending time playing together - therefore chemistry improves over time - so if you believe in chemistry itself, why not 3-peat chemistry?


(btw, next time write more clearly)

[KiiiiNG]

Quite frankly... I just feel sorry for the guy at this point :oldlol:
How many times am I going to have to shit on him before he stops?
That's the thing... he likes being shit on. That's the only explanation for the fact he's on here everyday to be the whipping boy of the forum. He's an incredibly bored loser with nothing to do but troll about MJ.

I'd crack this dude over the skull with a hammer if I could, to put him out of his own misery. His poor parents.

[Lebron23]

1-9

[3ball]

.
Meltdowns by so many responders itt (of which there are many)

there isn't a single poster in this thread who I haven't responded to comprehensively and cut down whatever ignorant point they wanted to make.

otoh, most posters in here haven't responded to 50-80% of the facts and points I've made itt... i.e. see my last responses to duffy pratt, lazeruss, bdreason, etc, etc, etc


https://media.giphy.com/media/qaFduOMYKkmwE/giphy.gif

[KiiiiNG]

Meltdowns by so many responders itt (of which there are many)

there isn't a single poster in this thread who I haven't responded to comprehensively and cut down whatever ignorant point they wanted to make.

otoh, most posters in here haven't responded to 50-80% of the facts and points I've made itt... i.e. see my last responses to duffy pratt, lazeruss, bdreason, etc, etc, etc
Shut up you dimwitted retard. Crawl back into your rat and feces infested cage. Ya god damn degenerate recluse.



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CK1D2J4zwiA/UfogEBHk6aI/AAAAAAAAEtE/leGsjFVanHY/s1600/bb_04.gif

[3ball]

Shut up you dimwitted retard. Crawl back into your rat and feces infested cage. Ya god damn degenerate recluse.



^^^ Meltdown - I got your panties in a bunch, so I win - this is why guys like Duffy, Laz and bsreason don't want to **** with me


https://media.giphy.com/media/czQQ755whVaV2/giphy.gif

[KiiiiNG]

^^^ Meltdown - I got your panties in a bunch, so I win - this is why guys like Duffy, Laz and bsreason don't want to **** with me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5QGkOGZubQ

[Duffy Pratt]

In that case, their core was completely shaken up - they added 2 starters, Payton and Malone - who were superstars, and who had to mesh with Shaq and Kobe... obviously, that didn't happen to the extent needed.

And you never answered my post about your misunderstanding of chemistry:

chemistry is based on players spending time playing together - therefore chemistry improves over time - so if you believe in chemistry itself, why not 3-peat chemistry?


(btw, next time write more clearly)

01-02 They won 58 games and completed the threepeat.

02-03 They had the same core, won 50 games and got knocked out in the second round.

03-04 They added Malone and Payton, lost Horry, won 56 games and got eliminated in the finals. Looks like shaking up the core improved things, but like you said, not enough.

The reason I don't believe in your idea of 3peat chemistry, is because I don't think chemistry necessarily improves with time. With time and the right combination of players, it can. But there is much more that goes into it. It can develop over time. It can also be nearly instantaneous, as when Walton joined the Celtics, or Maurice Lucas went to the Trailblazers. And it can also be poisoned by bad relationships, as with Shaq and Kobe. So while chemistry generally will improve with time and winning, it does not have to.

Another example is the 1996 Rockets. Hakeem didn't like the way Cassell played even though they had won two championships together and Cassell was just coming into his prime. Internal tensions destroyed whatever chemistry they had, and even though they had the same core, they were no longer championship caliber. Egos got in the way and the chemistry was gone.

[3ball]

The reason I don't believe in your idea of 3peat chemistry, is because I don't think chemistry necessarily improves with time. With time and the right combination of players, it can. But there is much more that goes into it. It can develop over time. It can also be nearly instantaneous, as when Walton joined the Celtics, or Maurice Lucas went to the Trailblazers. And it can also be poisoned by bad relationships, as with Shaq and Kobe. So while chemistry generally will improve with time and winning, it does not have to.


The bolded statements above are contradictory - clearly, you believe 3-peat chemistry is POSSIBLE, because you said "chemistry generally improves with time and winning..."

So if you think it's POSSIBLE, then the statement "I don't believe in your concept of 3-peat chemistry" is a misstatement of how you feel.

You simply don't want to agree with ME that it's possible - instead, you prefer to disagree with me, and then concede the possibility of 3-peat chemistry YOURSELF later - that's what you did above.. :confusedshrug:

But on to more important things..





I don't think chemistry necessarily improves with time. With time and the right combination of players, it can. But there is much more that goes into it. It can develop over time. It can also be nearly instantaneous, as when Walton joined the Celtics, or Maurice Lucas went to the Trailblazers. And it can also be poisoned by bad relationships, as with Shaq and Kobe.

Another example is the 1996 Rockets. Hakeem didn't like the way Cassell played even though they had won two championships together and Cassell was just coming into his prime. Internal tensions destroyed whatever chemistry they had, and even though they had the same core, they were no longer championship caliber. Egos got in the way and the chemistry was gone. So while chemistry generally will improve with time and winning, it does not have to.


The bolded red above is correct - chemistry improves with time and winning - however, notice how I left out the "generally improves" and just said "improves".

In the examples you cited (Lakers and Rockets), both teams stopped winning, so their chemistry was broken due to feuds, ego, whatever..

Certainly, if those teams had continued winning championships (the Lakers their 4th, and the Rockets their 3rd), then their chemistry would've been improved once again in those years, particularly because it gets harder and harder to win each successive chip.

But the these issues aren't that important - my next post gets to the heart of the thread..

[aj1987]

Why do you keep deleting and reposting your retarded post?

[3ball]

01-02 Lakers won 58 games and completed the threepeat.

02-03 Lakers had the same core, won 50 games and got knocked out in the second round.

03-04 They added Malone and Payton, lost Horry, won 56 games and got eliminated in the finals. Looks like shaking up the core improved things, but like you said, not enough.


I realized how your Lakers example makes my point - let's say Shaq retires after the 2002 season, and the remaining core players are healthy and in their prime (with a chip on their shoulder to prove they can make it without the self-proclaimed Most Dominant Ever - MDE)..

Now if Kobe leads that team to 55 wins in 2003, no one is going to say he had a stacked squad like young fans say about the 1994 Bulls... Fox, Fisher, and Horry don't represent talent - if you win 55 with those guys, it's due to chemistry.. It's the same thing when Pippen won 55 with Grant, BJ and Longley - they won 55 based on chemistry, not talent.

We can also verify that the 1994 Bulls had marginal talented based on stats that demonstrate the larger load MJ carried.. The data below shows 34-35 year old Jordan scored a much higher proportion of his team's points while on the floor than Shaq or Kobe, especially in the 4th... (Shaq got twice the rebounds and blocks, but MJ had twice the assists and steals - so those categories cancel out and we're left with scoring).

The stats below are undeniable - Shaq/Kobe clearly shared the duties more than MJ/Pippen did.. MJ had to do more, due to a lesser cast.. The data is clear, just like I've been saying all along.. And keep in mind - we're comparing 34-35 year old MJ to prime Shaq, and MJ's 2nd three-peat teams were supposed to be MORE "stacked" (:rolleyes:) than the 1st three-peat teams from his prime:


................Percentage of team points scored while player was on floor


.........................RS.....RS 4th.... PO....PO 4th....Finals.. Finals 4th


JORDAN 1997... 36.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 40.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 37.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 46.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 40.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 50.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)
JORDAN 1998... 36.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 42.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 39.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 48.8 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 43.6 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 49.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)


SHAQ 2000....... 35.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 38.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 34.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 39.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 38.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 43.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
SHAQ 2001....... 33.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 38.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 33.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 34.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 35.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 26.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
SHAQ 2002....... 33.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 35.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 33.5 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 25.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 38.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 28.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)


PIPPEN 1997.... 24.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 22.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 24.6 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 25.6 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 25.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 26.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
PIPPEN 1998.... 24.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 19.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 21.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 15.8 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 22.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 14.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)


KOBE 2000....... 27.5 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 29.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 26.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 27.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 19.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 15.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
KOBE 2001....... 32.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 34.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 31.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 37.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 25.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 23.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
KOBE 2002....... 30.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 31.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 29.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 34.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 27.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 32.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)
.

[3ball]

Why do you keep deleting and reposting your retarded post?
I give answers to complicated questions - the answers are often hard to explain and need a lot of revision to properly get my point across and for the reader to follow without skipping.

I'm often not satisfied with the way I explain it so I revise and repost..

But I think the last post officially explains why the 1994 Bulls succeeded based on 3-peat chemistry (or just chemistry, if you don't like the word 3-peat), rather than talent.
.

[aj1987]

I provide ANSWERS to complicated questions.

Real answers usually require nuance and detail - they aren't simple - accordingly, the answers are often hard to explain and need a lot of revision for the reader to follow without skipping or to get my point across.

I'm often not satisfied with the way I explain it so I revise and repost..

But I think the last post definitively explains why the 1994 Bulls succeeded based on 3-peat chemistry (or just chemistry, if you don't like the word 3-peat), rather than talent.
You didn't change shit. You just wanted to bump the thread.

Also, there's no such thing as 3peat chemistry. Stop making up retarded shit. If a is good enough to repeat, they have very good chemistry.

[3ball]

You didn't change shit. You just wanted to bump the thread.

Also, there's no such thing as 3peat chemistry. Stop making up retarded shit. If a is good enough to repeat, they have very good chemistry.
You're talking semantics - the bottom line is that the 1994 Bulls didn't win based on talent - they won based on chemistry developed from 3 straight championships.

let's say Shaq retires after the 2002 season, and the remaining core players are healthy and in their prime (with a chip on their shoulder to prove they can make it without the self-proclaimed Most Dominant Ever - MDE)..

Now if Kobe leads that team to 55 wins in 2003, no one is going to say he had a stacked squad like young fans say about the 1994 Bulls... Fox, Fisher, and Horry don't represent talent - if you win 55 with those guys, it's due to chemistry.. It's the same thing when Pippen won 55 with Grant, BJ and Longley - they won 55 based on chemistry, not talent.

[aj1987]

You're talking semantics - the bottom line is that the 1994 Bulls didn't win based on talent - they won based on chemistry developed from 3 straight championships.

let's say Shaq retires after the 2002 season, and the remaining core players are healthy and in their prime (with a chip on their shoulder to prove they can make it without the self-proclaimed Most Dominant Ever - MDE)..

Now if Kobe leads that team to 55 wins in 2003, no one is going to say he had a stacked squad like young fans say about the 1994 Bulls... Fox, Fisher, and Horry don't represent talent - if you win 55 with those guys, it's due to chemistry.. It's the same thing when Pippen won 55 with Grant, BJ and Longley - they won 55 based on chemistry, not talent.
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[3ball]

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm
Btw, we can verify that the 1994 Bulls had marginal talented based on stats that demonstrate the larger load MJ carried.. The data below shows 34-35 year old Jordan scored a much higher proportion of his team's points while on the floor than Shaq or Kobe, especially in the 4th... (Shaq got twice the rebounds and blocks, but MJ had twice the assists and steals - so those categories cancel out and we're left with scoring).

The stats below are undeniable - Shaq/Kobe clearly SHARED the duties more than MJ/Pippen did.. MJ had to do more, due to a lesser cast.. The data is clear, just like I've been saying all along.. And keep in mind - we're comparing 34-35 year old MJ to prime Shaq, and MJ's 2nd three-peat teams were supposed to be MORE "stacked" (:rolleyes:) than the 1st three-peat teams from his prime:


................Percentage of team points scored while player was on floor


.........................RS.....RS 4th.... PO....PO 4th....Finals.. Finals 4th


JORDAN 1997... 36.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 40.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 37.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 46.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 40.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 50.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)
JORDAN 1998... 36.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 42.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 39.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 48.8 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 43.6 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 49.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)


SHAQ 2000....... 35.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 38.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 34.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 39.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 38.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 43.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
SHAQ 2001....... 33.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 38.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 33.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 34.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 35.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 26.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
SHAQ 2002....... 33.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 35.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 33.5 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 25.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 38.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 28.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)


PIPPEN 1997.... 24.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 22.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 24.6 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 25.6 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 25.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 26.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
PIPPEN 1998.... 24.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 19.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 21.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 15.8 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 22.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 14.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)


KOBE 2000....... 27.5 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 29.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 26.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 27.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 19.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 15.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
KOBE 2001....... 32.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 34.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 31.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 37.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 25.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 23.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
KOBE 2002....... 30.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 31.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 29.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 34.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 27.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 32.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)

[aj1987]

Btw, we can verify that the 1994 Bulls had marginal talented based on stats that demonstrate the larger load MJ carried.. The data below shows 34-35 year old Jordan scored a much higher proportion of his team's points while on the floor than Shaq or Kobe, especially in the 4th... (Shaq got twice the rebounds and blocks, but MJ had twice the assists and steals - so those categories cancel out and we're left with scoring).

The stats below are undeniable - Shaq/Kobe clearly SHARED the duties more than MJ/Pippen did.. MJ had to do more, due to a lesser cast.. The data is clear, just like I've been saying all along.. And keep in mind - we're comparing 34-35 year old MJ to prime Shaq, and MJ's 2nd three-peat teams were supposed to be MORE "stacked" (:rolleyes:) than the 1st three-peat teams from his prime:


................Percentage of team points scored while player was on floor


.........................RS.....RS 4th.... PO....PO 4th....Finals.. Finals 4th


JORDAN 1997... 36.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 40.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 37.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 46.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 40.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 50.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)
JORDAN 1998... 36.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 42.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 39.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 48.8 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 43.6 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 49.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)


SHAQ 2000....... 35.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 38.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 34.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 39.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 38.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 43.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
SHAQ 2001....... 33.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 38.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 33.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 34.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 35.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 26.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
SHAQ 2002....... 33.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 35.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 33.5 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 25.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 38.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 28.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)


PIPPEN 1997.... 24.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 22.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 24.6 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 25.6 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 25.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 26.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
PIPPEN 1998.... 24.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 19.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 21.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 15.8 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 22.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 14.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)


KOBE 2000....... 27.5 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 29.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 26.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 27.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 19.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 15.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
KOBE 2001....... 32.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 34.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 31.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 37.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 25.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 23.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
KOBE 2002....... 30.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 31.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 29.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 34.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 27.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 32.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)

What are you even trying to prove? That the '94 Bulls were not a talented team and only won because of "chemistry"? That team has 3 All-Stars, 2 All-Def players, 1 DPOY and MVP candidate.

[sdot_thadon]

3peat chemistry, the latest made up narrative by bozo the clown. Too bad your posting chemistry couldn't improve after 20,000 of them. Chemistry changes any time major moving pieces are changed around, period. So the 94 bulls had to find their own chemistry, which on the whole had them nearly as good as they were with the best player on the planet. Again apparently Mjs teammates weren't so bad at all.....

[3ball]

What are you even trying to prove?


Those stats prove that MJ carried a larger load than Shaq or Kobe.. It's pretty obvious to anyone that can read.





That the '94 Bulls were not a talented team and only won because of "chemistry"? That team has 3 All-Stars, 2 All-Def players, 1 DPOY and MVP candidate.


They had 2 all-stars, and everyone laughed that BJ Armstrong had made the team - kind of like when Kyle Korver made it.

And when a team wins 55 games with a supporting cast of Grant, BJ and Longley, the 55 wins wasn't based on talent - it was based on chemistry.

Also, Pippen's MVP value was boosted by the same weak supporting cast I'm talking about.. But he wasn't a better player than Ewing, Robinson, Shaq, Barkely, Malone, Hakeem and more.
.

[KobesFinger]

You may have already answered but when talking about the 94 Bulls, why do you use the 97 and 98 Bulls as examples?

[3ball]

Chemistry changes any time major moving pieces are changed around


Major pieces didn't move around - the Bulls returned every member of their 1993 supporting cast that averaged over 20 minutes and 6 ppg.

The only pieces that moved were interchangeable stiffs that averaged LESS than 20 minutes and 6 ppg.





had them nearly as good as they were with the best player on the planet.


So 2nd Round is "nearly as good" as 3-peat dynasty?

That's the dumbest thing I'll read all day

[3ball]

You may have already answered but when talking about the 94 Bulls, why do you use the 97 and 98 Bulls as examples?
NBA.com's data doesn't go back further than 1997.

It works fine anyway, because the point of showing the proportion of team points scored by MJ and Shaq was to show that MJ scored a far higher proportion of his team's points, especially in the 4th...

And we're talking about 34-35 year old MJ compared to PRIME Shaq - literally Shaq's best seasons, and old MJ still carried far bigger load - the numbers speak for themselves.

Also, not only was 1997 and 1998 not MJ's prime, but those teams were supposed to be more "stacked" (:rolleyes:) than his 1st three-peat teams from his prime.
.

[aj1987]

Those stats prove that MJ carried a larger load than Shaq or Kobe.. It's pretty obvious to anyone that can read.
The **** does that have to do with your BS "3peat chemistry"?


They had 2 all-stars, and everyone laughed that BJ Armstrong had made the team.
Doesn't matter. He was an All-Star.


And when a team wins 55 games with a supporting cast of Grant, BJ and Longley, the 55 wins wasn't based on talent - it was based on chemistry.
DPOY level defender in Pippen, who was also an elite offensive player. All-Def team member, 15/11 Horace Grant. That's not talent? Not to mention Kerr, Kukoc, BJ, etc..


Also, Pippen's MVP value was boosted by the same weak supporting cast I'm talking about.. But he wasn't a better player than Ewing, Robinson, Shaq, Barkely, Malone, Hakeem and more.
.
Doesn't change the FACT that he was the best player on a 55 win team and was an MVP candidate. Also, he was arguably better than Barkley, if you take defense into account.

[sdot_thadon]

Major pieces didn't move around - the Bulls returned every member of their 1993 supporting cast that averaged over 20 minutes and 6 ppg.

The only pieces that moved were interchangeable stiffs that averaged LESS than 20 minutes and 6 ppg.



So 2nd Round is "nearly as good" as 3-peat dynasty?

That's the dumbest thing I'll read all day
Yeah because removing a guy that utilizes 35% and 38% of the teams possessions in the regular season and playoffs respectively doesn't constitute as a major chemistry change. :facepalm

Also they were a 55 win team without him, which means they were nearly as good (2 wins worse) without him. How near is up for discussion. And please the stupidest thing you read all day is constantly refreshed every time you post moron.

[3ball]

The **** does MJ's proportion of points scored have to do with your BS "3peat chemistry"?


Since the Bulls required MJ to score the highest proportion of points ever, we know the 1994 Bulls didn't win 55 games because they had talented scorers - accordingly, we can conclude the 55 games was due to chemistry (specifically, 3-peat chemistry).





Doesn't matter. BJ was still an All-Star.


So was Kyle Korver, which people similarly laughed at...

But at least Korver did something that has value in today's game - 3-point shooting - BJ didn't even do that..

He only made the team because everyone was surprised at how well the Bulls were doing.





DPOY level defender in Pippen, who was also an elite offensive player.


You keep counting the #1 option, Pippen - any #1 option that wins 55 games with Grant, BJ and Longley as their supporting cast didn't win those games based on talent.

And Pippen wasn't a top 20 scorer in the league - he only averaged 22 ppg even though he only shared the ball with 15 ppg play-finisher Grant, who barely shot the ball.

All these guys were better scorers:


Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Barkley, Malone, Dominique, Ewing, Derrick Coleman, Kevin Johnson, Clyde Drexler, Kemp, Daughtery, Mashburn, Webber, Penny, Mullin, Payton, Alonzo Mourning, Mashburn, Stockton, and morr






All-Def team member, 15/11 Horace Grant. That's not talent? Not to mention Kerr, Kukoc, BJ, etc..


Horace Grant was an ordinary play-finisher and simple dunker.. Literally half the teams in the league had a PF with similar or better production, and many of these guys were 3rd, 4th or 5th options, not 2nd options like Horace:


Kevin Willis, Derrick Coleman, Dennis Rodman, Clarence Weatherspoon, Danny Manning, Charles Barkely, Karl Malone, Shawn Kemp, Otis Thorpe, Tom Gugliotta, AC Green, Larry Johnson, Laphonso Ellis, Christian Laettner, Terry Mills, Charles Oakley, Dale Davis, Olden Polynice, and more..





Not to mention Kerr, Kukoc, BJ, etc..


First of all - two of the guys you mentioned weren't on MJ's first 3-peat teams (Kerr, Kukoc).

But more importantly EVERY TEAM IN THE LEAGUE had guys like Kerr (7 ppg spot-up shooter off the bench).... BJ Armstrong (14 ppg role player, mostly a spot-up shooter)... and Kukoc (a forward averaging 10 ppg on 43% off the bench).

EVERY TEAM has these types of ordinary role players - so why give extra props to ordinary players that every team has - it only makes my point that their supporting cast was weak.





Doesn't change the FACT that he was the best player on a 55 win team and was an MVP candidate. Also, he was arguably better than Barkley, if you take defense into account.


Pippen wasn't a top 5 first option.. Grant wasn't a top 10 second option, probably not even top 15.. BJ wasn't a top 15 third option.

Everyone else was a basic stiff that barely played and barely scored...

So again, the 1994 Bulls didn't win 55 games based on talent - they won because their core (the only guys from the 1993 supporting cast who averaged 20+ minutes and 6+ ppg) had 3-peat chemistry, execution, and know-how.
.

[aj1987]

I suck MJ's dick.
There's literally no point discussing basketball with you. You're so blinded by MJ's ***, you can't even see clearly. If you were even a slight bit rational, you'd see how sad your life is and how wrong you are.

[97 bulls]

There's literally no point discussing basketball with you. You're so blinded by MJ's ***, you can't even see clearly. If you were even a slight bit rational, you'd see how sad your life is and how wrong you are.
Lol

[97 bulls]

Since the Bulls required MJ to score the highest proportion of points ever, we know the 1994 Bulls didn't win 55 games because they had talented scorers - accordingly, we can conclude the 55 games was due to chemistry (specifically, 3-peat chemistry).



So was Kyle Korver, which people similarly laughed at...

But at least Korver did something that has value in today's game - 3-point shooting - BJ didn't even do that..

He only made the team because everyone was surprised at how well the Bulls were doing.



You keep counting the #1 option, Pippen - any #1 option that wins 55 games with Grant, BJ and Longley as their supporting cast didn't win those games based on talent.

And Pippen wasn't a top 20 scorer in the league - he only averaged 22 ppg even though he only shared the ball with 15 ppg play-finisher Grant, who barely shot the ball.

All these guys were better scorers:


Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Barkley, Malone, Dominique, Ewing, Derrick Coleman, Kevin Johnson, Clyde Drexler, Kemp, Daughtery, Mashburn, Webber, Penny, Mullin, Payton, Alonzo Mourning, Mashburn, Stockton, and morr




Horace Grant was an ordinary play-finisher and simple dunker.. Literally half the teams in the league had a PF with similar or better production, and many of these guys were 3rd, 4th or 5th options, not 2nd options like Horace:


Kevin Willis, Derrick Coleman, Dennis Rodman, Clarence Weatherspoon, Danny Manning, Charles Barkely, Karl Malone, Shawn Kemp, Otis Thorpe, Tom Gugliotta, AC Green, Larry Johnson, Laphonso Ellis, Christian Laettner, Terry Mills, Charles Oakley, Dale Davis, Olden Polynice, and more..



First of all - two of the guys you mentioned weren't on MJ's first 3-peat teams (Kerr, Kukoc).

But more importantly EVERY TEAM IN THE LEAGUE had guys like Kerr (7 ppg spot-up shooter off the bench).... BJ Armstrong (14 ppg role player, mostly a spot-up shooter)... and Kukoc (a forward averaging 10 ppg on 43% off the bench).

EVERY TEAM has these types of ordinary role players - so why give extra props to ordinary players that every team has - it only makes my point that their supporting cast was weak.



Pippen wasn't a top 5 first option.. Grant wasn't a top 10 second option, probably not even top 15.. BJ wasn't a top 15 third option.

Everyone else was a basic stiff that barely played and barely scored...

So again, the 1994 Bulls didn't win 55 games based on talent - they won because their core (the only guys from the 1993 supporting cast who averaged 20+ minutes and 6+ ppg) had 3-peat chemistry, execution, and know-how.
.
But how many of the guys you listed as being better scorers than Grant, we're also better defensively? As well as rebounder both offensively and defensively.

The same goes for Pippen. You're totally dismissing his strengths as a whole. Bill Russell wasn't much of a scorer. How do you feel about him? Tim Duncan didn't set the world on fire offensively. Neither did Magic Johnson. And Magic played in and up tempo offense. Even more, Magic and Pippen skillset as far as scoring is very similar.

[choppermagic]

Like others have said, three peats are super hard.

Let's just boil it down to the more basic question... in the modern era of NBA, does your team have Phil Jackson as coach? If no, then I wouldn't bet on a three peat :)

[3ball]

Also they were a 55 win team without him, which means they were nearly as good (2 wins worse) without him.


So the 66-win Cavs were better than the 65-win Lakers in 2009?.. The 61-win Cavs were better than the 57-win Lakers in 2010?

The regular season is exhibition compared to the playoffs..

Maybe one day you'll learn that the playoffs shows how good a team is.. The fact that you haven't learned this already proves your incompetence.





Yeah because removing a guy that utilizes 35% and 38% of the teams possessions in the regular season and playoffs respectively doesn't constitute as a major chemistry change.


Everyone had the same production without Jordan as they had with Jordan - they played the same way and made the same plays within the triangle.

But the possessions MJ used was the difference between a 2nd Round team and 3-peat dynasty.

That massive gap was due to offense (the defense was ranked the same) - without MJ's possessions in 1994, the Bulls were 14th in ORtg (2nd Round team).. With MJ, they had the highest ORtg's of all time (3-peat dynasty and arguably the best team ever).
.

[STATUTORY]

what can't lebron ever have the kind of chemstry with his teammates the way you are talking about?

is there something fundamentally deficient about the way he plays?

no agenda

[imnew09]

They dont. Only fans who truly understand the 3-peat chemistry are Lakers and Bulls fans.

Fk the Celtics

[3ball]

But how many of the guys you listed as being better scorers than Grant, we're also better defensively? As well as rebounder both offensively and defensively.

The same goes for Pippen. You're totally dismissing his strengths as a whole. Bill Russell wasn't much of a scorer. How do you feel about him? Tim Duncan didn't set the world on fire offensively.


Defense didn't account for the difference between the 3-peat teams and 1994 team - the Bulls were 4th, 7th, and 4th in defense during the first 3-peat, and 6th in 1994...

So the difference was only due to OFFENSE, which fell off a cliff in 1994 - it went from #1 all time (116, 115, 113) to 14th in the league... Yikes

Teams have a finite amount of energy to expend on both ends - shifts in performance and effort on one side normally take away from the other side - but not with MJ - he's the goat two-way player according to Popovich (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11875095&postcount=46) - his presence enables a two-way team.

So basically, imagine Kawhi Leonard with the capability to score 10-15 ppg more, and you have MJ... And Kawhi is ALREADY better than Lebron.. Can you start to see how great MJ was?
.

[livinglegend]

:rolleyes:

[livinglegend]

MJ's record without Pippen starting, 1985-1989

38-44, lost 1-3 in the first round.
9-9, swept in the first round.
40-42, swept in the first round.
50-32, tied 2-2 in the first round after blowing a 2-0 lead. (Pippen starts Game 5, beasts, Bulls win and finally get out the first round with MJ)
13-12.

Pippen becomes a starter for the final 2/3 of 89' and the Bulls win 9 of 11 and go on a 32-15 roll after starting 13-12...and never looked back...

[livinglegend]

Phil Jackson on Scottie Pippen as a leader

[97 bulls]

So the 66-win Cavs were better than the 65-win Lakers in 2009?.. The 61-win Cavs were better than the 57-win Lakers in 2010?

The regular season is exhibition compared to the playoffs..

Maybe one day you'll learn that the playoffs shows how good a team is.. The fact that you haven't learned this already proves your incompetence.



Everyone had the same production without Jordan as they had with Jordan - they played the same way and made the same plays within the triangle.

But the possessions MJ used was the difference between a 2nd Round team and 3-peat dynasty.

That massive gap was due to offense - without MJ's possessions in 1994, the Bulls were 14th in ORtg (2nd Round team).. With MJ, they had the highest ORtg's of all time (3-peat dynasty and arguably the best team ever).
Nobody is arguing what they didn't do. We're talking about what they did. And what they did wasn't a fluke. They were on pace to win roughly 44 games in 95. By then only two players remained that were on the first threepeat team. Pip and Armstrong. I see no reason why adding a player of Horace Grants caliber like Kevin Willis, and one more defensive minded big like Scott Williams wouldn't have resulted in another mid 50 win season. At some point you have to open your eyes

[Showtime80']

I've always enjoyed debating as well as reading your takes on the sport 97' Bulls but like most diehard Bulls fans you have fallen victim to overrating Scottie Pippen!!!

First of all NEVER compare the defensive impact of a great defensive center to a great defensive wing, NEVER!!! A great defensive center like Olajuwon, Russell, Robinson, Moses hell even Dwight Howard in 2009 alter EVERYTHING the opposing teams does on the offensive end to a level that no SF or SG could ever do. You can surround those players with 4 other defensively mediocre players and their teams can still have an overall solid defense because those guys are the ultimate last barrier that clean up everybody else's mess.

Pippen along with Jordan became a great defensive force when they played with EACH other and Horace Grant along with Bill Cartwright re-enforced the back line. All of a sudden the Bulls could unleash Pippen and Jordan on the perimeter and still be confident if they got beat to the paint.

Give Jordan and Pippen INDIVIDUALLY the pathetic teams guys like Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson or Moses early on and they don't win 50 games let alone reach the NBA Finals or win a Title.

On the offensive end Pippen was NEVER as versatile or as feared as a scorer as Barkley or Magic for God's sake. Magic is probably the most unselfish player in the history of basketball, played with some of the greatest and most talented rosters of all time and still managed to average 20 ppg sacrificing a lot of his offense for the good of the team. He could've been a 25ppg+ scorer in HIS SLEEP!!!. The attention Magic got on defense even with the talented teams the Lakers had was ALWAYS more than Pippen ever received.

Pippen's peak as a MAIN SCORER or as a secondary player was in the low 20's ppg, NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS!!! If Pippen were truly as potent an offensive weapon as people claim to be he would've been a 25ppg scorer even with Jordan on his team (As Kobe was with Shaq) as he was the ONLY other true go to offensive weapon the Bulls had during those early years.

There is a reason Jordan averaged 30+ ppg with those Bulls teams for them to even be competitive, HE NEEDED TOO!!! Had Pippen been the true great offensive weapon revisionist Bulls fans say he was, Michael WOULDN'T HAVE NEEDED TO AVERAGE 30PPG!!!

[aquaadverse]

3ball officially on ignore. And I don't ignore many people. His blatant MJ deep throating, plus his monotonous cut and paste shit drove me off. Seriously dude, get a life.

[97 bulls]

Defense didn't account for the difference between the 3-peat teams and 1994 team - the Bulls were 4th, 7th, and 4th in defense during the first 3-peat, and 6th in 1994...

So the difference was only due to OFFENSE, which fell off a cliff in 1994 - it went from #1 all time (116, 115, 113) to 14th in the league... Yikes

Teams have a finite amount of energy to expend on both ends - shifts in performance and effort on one side normally take away from the other side - but not with MJ - he's the goat two-way player according to Popovich (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11875095&postcount=46) - his presence enables a two-way team.

So basically, imagine Kawhi Leonard with the capability to score 10-15 ppg more, and you have MJ... And Kawhi is ALREADY better than Lebron.. Can you start to see how great MJ was?
.
Then you must not feel Jordan was a great defender. You see how your trolling has backed you into a corner? The 94 Bulls fell back on their strength DEFENSE!!!!!. That's were they stepped their games up. You keep alluding to their offense. That doesn't tell the whole story.

Then Pippen ratcheted up his defense even more in 95 which kept them afloat

[3ball]

There's literally no point discussing basketball with you. You're so blinded by MJ's ***, you can't even see clearly. If you were even a slight bit rational, you'd see how sad your life is and how wrong you are.
If I'm so irrational, answer me this question:


If MJ didn't have a weaker supporting cast than Magic, Bird, Lebron, Shaq, and Kobe, then why MJ have to score a far higher proportion of his team's points than all those guys (by far), and still lead his team in passing?

Don't tell me defense - nearly every championship team is a great defensive team - that aspect is a wash on nearly every championship team..

So if that's your argument against a player - that he had a supporting cast which played good team defense - you lose the argument... MJ simply DID MORE than anyone he's compared to - this is statistical fact - and since his team required him to do more to win, he had a weaker supporting cast.
.

[97 bulls]

I've always enjoyed debating as well as reading your takes on the sport 97' Bulls but like most diehard Bulls fans you have fallen victim to overrating Scottie Pippen!!!

First of all NEVER compare the defensive impact of a great defensive center to a great defensive wing, NEVER!!! A great defensive center like Olajuwon, Russell, Robinson, Moses hell even Dwight Howard in 2009 alter EVERYTHING the opposing teams does on the offensive end to a level that no SF or SG could ever do. You can surround those players with 4 other defensively mediocre players and their teams can still have an overall solid defense because those guys are the ultimate last barrier that clean up everybody else's mess.

Pippen along with Jordan became a great defensive force when they played with EACH other and Horace Grant along with Bill Cartwright re-enforced the back line. All of a sudden the Bulls could unleash Pippen and Jordan on the perimeter and still be confident if they got beat to the paint.

Give Jordan and Pippen INDIVIDUALLY the pathetic teams guys like Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson or Moses early on and they don't win 50 games let alone reach the NBA Finals or win a Title.

On the offensive end Pippen was NEVER as versatile or as feared as a scorer as Barkley or Magic for God's sake. Magic is probably the most unselfish player in the history of basketball, played with some of the greatest and most talented rosters of all time and still managed to average 20 ppg sacrificing a lot of his offense for the good of the team. He could've been a 25ppg+ scorer in HIS SLEEP!!!. The attention Magic got on defense even with the talented teams the Lakers had was ALWAYS more than Pippen ever received.

Pippen's peak as a MAIN SCORER or as a secondary player was in the low 20's ppg, NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS!!! If Pippen were truly as potent an offensive weapon as people claim to be he would've been a 25ppg scorer even with Jordan on his team (As Kobe was with Shaq) as he was the ONLY other true go to offensive weapon the Bulls had during those early years.

There is a reason Jordan averaged 30+ ppg with those Bulls teams for them to even be competitive, HE NEEDED TOO!!! Had Pippen been the true great offensive weapon revisionist Bulls fans say he was, Michael WOULDN'T HAVE NEEDED TO AVERAGE 30PPG!!!
I appreciate the kind words bro. I enjoy our back and forth as well.

I call it like I see it. Let talk about defense. You said Pippen defense can't be on the level of a centers right? How do you explain 95???? They were second in team defense. And fifth in pts scored against. Pippen led the league in defensive rating and steals, again well against aged a block. Look at Living Legend s post. Phil Jackson said he was the Bulls defensive anchor and leader. And who was he playing g with? Ron Harper was a good defender. But it fell way off after that. Armstrong? Kukoc? Myers? And a combination of guys like Larry Krystkwiak and Coron Blount? Will Perdue? The guy Jordan punched in the face and said he was soft???? What more do you want? It was a travesty that he didn't win DPOY that year.


As far as his offense, I stand by what I said. What did Magic do that Pippen couldn't as far as scoring? He was as much better FT shooter. Pip was as better fisher at the rim. And 3pt shooter. Both were very good in the post and had suspect jumpshots. Pippen was also far more athletic

[97 bulls]

[QUOTE=livinglegend]Phil Jackson on Scottie Pippen as a leader

[Duffy Pratt]

The short answer to your question about the 3peat Lakers if Shaq had left: they would have won even fewer games than the 50 they won with him. Fox, Fisher, and Horry weren't good enough. The converse is clearly true about the 94 Bulls, Pippen Grant and Armstrong, with the arrival of Kucok and Kerr, were good enough to get to 55 wins.

I disagree that you can look at the scoring stats on any team and make a final determination about talent. The 70 Knicks had Cazzie Russell as a sixth man, Mike Riordan as a defensive role player, and Don May as a benchwarmer. Russell averaged 11 points a game, Riordan averaged 8, and May averaged 3 in only 6 minutes per game. These guys were among "the stiffs" on that team, and all three of them were in fact replaced and the team kept its chemistry.

May was traded to Buffalo where the very next year he averaged 20 points per game. Riordan went to Baltimore the year after that, averaged 18 points per game, was seventh in the league in field goal percentage, and was second team all defense. Cazzie Russell went to Golden State where he averaged 21 points per game and was an all star. Just because guys are not scoring in one situation doesn't mean they can't score.

Another possible explanation for the 94 Bulls is that, while their talent decreased, their chemistry improved. It's more fun playing in a system where you are allowed to shoot. The narrative might be that Jordan needed to score so much because of his ego. And Jackson assembled a team that could work and thrive with that ego. That doesn't mean that Pippen and Grant sucked because of their stats. Rather, they accommodated their games for the better of the team. Then, when Jordan left, they adjusted their games, their scoring went up, but they had lost too much to put them over the top. They were still damned good on their own.

[LAZERUSS]

Phil Jackson on Scottie Pippen as a leader


“On the Bulls, Scottie was probably the player most liked by others. He mingled. He brought out the best in players and communicated the best. Leadership, real leadership is one of his strengths.

“Everybody says Michael [Jordan] was a great leader. He led by example, by rebuke, by harsh words. Scottie’s leadership was equally dominant, but [his was] a leadership of patting on the back, of support.”

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/pippen...re_031112.html

Quote:
"It is interesting and revealing that teammates, opponents and coaches consistently praise Pippen. Phil Jackson, his coach with the six-time champion Chicago Bulls, declares, 'Scottie was our team leader. He was the guy that directed our offense and he was the guy that took on a lot of big challenges defensively...the year that Michael retired, Scottie I think was the most valuable player in the league.'

http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/...asketball.html

Quote:
We fans have our memories of Pippen the player, the dramatic dunks and the big games. The rings. But Jackson thinks of Pippen the defensive leader.

Scottie was our voice on defense. He had, as you can tell, a tremendous voice. He has a deep resonating voice that could be heard on the court. And he also had the ability to talk to his teammates, and send them and direct them. But we had to trap Stockton when he got over half court, and try to get the ball out of his hands. And he had to come from the farthest place on the court to trap with either Steve Kerr if he was guarding Stockton, or Ronnie Harper if he was guarding Stockton, so we could get the ball out of his hands. And then he had to get back to the other side of the court once Stockton got the ball out of his hands. I can remember him calling and directing the team during those situations. Those are the things that made Scottie not only a great player, but also a great team leader that was so important to our basketball club…

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...d-his-defense/

Quote:
“He was always a very good person on and off the court. He understood his teammates and he helped them out. That was a major development in Scottie’s career.”

Quote:
“His greatest strength was his knowledge of how things worked on the defensive end of the floor,” he said. “Scottie was the voice of our team—figuratively and literally, as he did a lot of the talking and kept our team on the same page. When he wasn’t at the top of the key harassing a guard as a special assignment, he was on the backside of our defense talking his teammates through different situations, whether it was a double team, trap or some other important aspect. Because of that, he was very vital to the run that we made.”

http://www.nba.com/bulls/history/pip...on_100730.html

Quote:
“It was a learning moment in his life,” Jackson wrote. “He came back as a leader of teams for another decade.”

Quote:
“Our quarterback on defense was Scottie Pippen. ‘Go get him, Luc,’ he’d yell to center Luc Longley. ‘Bring some help.’ All I needed to do was whistle, and Scottie would know instinctively how our defense should react. On the occasions when I signaled a player toward the bench to ask why he suddenly changed his defensive position, the standard reply was: ‘Scottie sent me.’ Which is why, when I met Dr. Buss in Hawaii last May, Scottie was my first choice among the prospective free agents.” (excerpted from The Last Season).

Quote:
d it was because of that experience that Scottie was able to empathize with everyone else in ways that Michael never could. Michael Jordan led the Bulls by example, but Phil Jackson always said that Pippen was the team’s vocal leader in the locker room and on the court.

http://arjun-allthingssports.blogspo...tshell_27.html

Charley Rosen

I will include quotes from Rosen because Rosen's source obviously is Jackson.

Quote:
When Jackson took over from Collins in 1989, the triangle offense was installed and history was in the offing. Jackson felt so comfortable with Pippen's understanding and instincts on the defensive end that he frequently deferred to Scottie's judgment. Oftentimes when Jackson would question why an otherwise intelligent player zigged in a particular defensive sequence instead of executing the required zag, the player would simply say, "Scottie told me to do it." And the coach was satisfied.

In fact, all of the Bulls were somewhat afraid of Michael Jordan (who would ferociously bark at them whenever they made the slightest mistake in positioning or timing). For solace and advice, the players instead turned to Scottie. Throughout the dynasty, it was Pippen who was the team's on-court leader.

Quote:
On many occasions, Phil Jackson would question a player about why he had not adhered to the pre-game script by failing to double a designated scorer or "half" a defensive rotation. The player's response would usually be, "Scottie told me to do something different."

PJ would then shrug, nod and say, "Okay."

Also, since MJ was extremely harsh on teammates who made mistakes, it was Pippen whom his teammates sought out to soothe their bruised egos.

To civilians, Pippen was irresponsible, aloof and occasionally semi-antagonistic. But to his peers, he was always accessible and well-liked.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/9...ron%27s-flaws?

Quote:
While Pippen was usually aloof with civilians, he was the player that the other Bulls turned to for advice and solace. (They were all much too afraid of MJ's caustic and insulting remedies for their comparatively inferior talent.) Moreover, it was Pippen who orchestrated the Bulls' stingy defense — making on-the-spot adjustments, and instructing his teammates (including MJ) when to double, when to rotate, when to sag, when to go over and when to go under screens.

On the defensive end of Chicago's six championships, Pippen was Phil Jackson's surrogate coach-on-the-court.

Quote:
Still, Pippen proved his bona fides during the 1993-94 season when MJ was trying to hit curve balls. That’s when Pippen orchestrated the triangle offense to perfection and Chicago was denied a chance to win another championship by Hue Hollins making one of the worst calls in NBA history.


Great post.

And I posted this earlier, but let's line those two up together...


How great an IMPACT did GRANT have in his career? He (along with Pippen, of course) IMMEDIATELY elevated the Bulls from a 40-42 team unable to win a playoff game...to a 50-32 record...and into the ECSF's.

His Bulls teams would continue to improve and as he played better, they won more.

MJ left the Bulls after the 92-93 season, and in game's Grant played the next season, they went 48-22 (55-27 overall.) He was a key factor in the '94 playoff run, as well, and they were ONE PLAY away from beating a 56-26 Knick team that would lose a game seven by four points in the Finals, to the Rockets.

Grant bolted for the Magic after that season, the Magic improved from 50-32 record, and first round cannon-fodder, to a 57-25 team that would make the Finals. Oh, and he absolutely SHELLED Jordan's Bulls in the ECSF's with a dominating 18-11 .647 series. Hell, the '94 Bulls were a better team, with Grant, than they were the same exact roster the next season, sans Grant, but now with Jordan. IMPACT.

The next season, Shaq missed the first 20 games...and all Grant did was to lead the Magic to a 15-5 record in his absence (and overall, in the games that Grant played... a 50-13 record...and a 10-9 record without him.)

And Grant was on his way to yet another brilliant post-season in '96, as well. Going into the ECF's and against the Bulls, and Dennis Rodman, he had averaged a staggering 17-8 .656. However, he was injured in the middle of the first game of that series, and missed the rest of it. Guess what, Rodman was free to shut down Shaq, and without an ELITE PF, the Magic were swept.

Shaq bolted for the Lakers the very next year, and without him, Grant then led the Magic to a 45-37 record.

And the next season, when Penny was injured and could only go for 19 games...Grant led them to a 41-41 record. Think about that...without BOTH Shaq and Penny...and a 41-41 record.

The next year...a strike year... 33-17.

The next year he headed for Seattle, a team that had gone 25-25 the year before...and IMMEDIATELY led them to a 45-37 record.

Even late in his career, he joined the Lakers, and with him, they stormed to a 15-1 playoff record en route to yet another ring for Grant.


Certainly one of the most IMPACTFUL players of his era.
Pippen and Grant...two of the most IMPACTFUL players in the 90's.

[Showtime80']

Here we go with the athleticism card again! Scottie was more athletic than Bird, Dantley, King and English as well, was never the offensive player those guys were. Heck Dwight Howard is probably top 5 center in terms of athleticism and still is one of the most limited offensive centers of ALL TIME!

Pippen NEVER had an ample array of moves like most dominant scorers do, he was a great finisher on the break or talking slower players off the dribble one on one on the weak side or nailing open jumpers but could NEVER dissect defenses the way Magic could, he never had a defense on the run and scrambling like Magic did on the fast break. Magic was a more efficient post player as well just by being bigger and craftier overall then Scottie ever was.

Magic became a better 3 point shooter as his career went along reaching 38% in 1990 and Pippen only shot above 35% from 3 in 96 and 97 when the line was moved in!

Pippen WAS NOT A DOMINANT OFFENSIVE PLAYER!!! Never was with MJ, was not one without him. One of the best true secondary complimentary player ever but never in the league of Bird, Magic, Jordan, Olajuwon or Moses. No GM in the league would've traded any of those guys for Pip in their primes.

Hell Scottie's behind was almost shipped out to Seattle for Shawn Kemp before the 1996 season, think about that for a second!

[ShawkFactory]

[QUOTE=livinglegend]Phil Jackson on Scottie Pippen as a leader

[LAZERUSS]

Here we go with the athleticism card again! Scottie was more athletic than Bird, Dantley, King and English as well, was never the offensive player those guys were. Heck Dwight Howard is probably top 5 center in terms of athleticism and still is one of the most limited offensive centers of ALL TIME!

Pippen NEVER had an ample array of moves like most dominant scorers do, he was a great finisher on the break or talking slower players off the dribble one on one on the weak side or nailing open jumpers but could NEVER dissect defenses the way Magic could, he never had a defense on the run and scrambling like Magic did on the fast break. Magic was a more efficient post player as well just by being bigger and craftier overall then Scottie ever was.

Magic became a better 3 point shooter as his career went along reaching 38% in 1990 and Pippen only shot above 35% from 3 in 96 and 97 when the line was moved in!

Pippen WAS NOT A DOMINANT OFFENSIVE PLAYER!!! Never was with MJ, was not one without him. One of the best true secondary complimentary player ever but never in the league of Bird, Magic, Jordan, Olajuwon or Moses. No GM in the league would've traded any of those guys for Pip in their primes.

Hell Scottie's behind was almost shipped out to Seattle for Shawn Kemp before the 1996 season, think about that for a second!

The thing is...Pippen didn't have to be a great offensive player in the 90's. And Goofball ignores that fact as well. He continually brings up Magic's and Bird's help...but those guys played in the 80's, with teams, and against teams, stacked with HOFers.

Jordan's 90's Bulls never faced a great team. Not ONE. Hell, Hakeem won a title in '94 with a bunch of scrubs, and he did so, by barely beating Ewing and his POS roster. MY god, the '99 Knicks went 27-23, and without their best player for the entire playoffs, made it all the way to the Finals.

Look at Robinson. Best thing that ever happened to San Antonio was when he missed almost the entire season in 97. The year before, with a healthy D-Rob, the Spurs went 59-23. The next year without him...20-62.

The 90's Bulls, without Jordan, were easily as stacked as any other team in the entire decade. And, as I have before, take away the Hakeem's, D-Rob's, Shaq's, K Malones, Ewings, Barkley's, et. al, from every other team in the league in the decade of the 90's...and the Bulls roster, sans MJ...would have waltzed to at least six titles.

[Showtime80']

That is a very good point Lazeruss and I've argued a bunch of times with 97'Bulls about it, you didn't need to have as great and deep of team in the 90's to win a title as you needed in the 80's, that's a fact!

But you know what? You also didn't need a lot of talent in the early 2000's to win a title either and that didn't prevent Kobe from EXPLODING as an offensive player alongside Shaq.

Of course if you removed every other superstar from their teams like Robinson, Shaq, Karl Malone, Barkley, Drexler, Kemp and Ewing and the Bulls still had Scottie they would've had a chance to win a few titles but that just shows that ALL OF THOSE guys were better and more impactful players than he was!

Without Pip, I still think Mike would've gotten a few titles maybe two or three during the 90's with any serviceable SF but the better question would be:

How many titles do the Bulls win in the 90's without MJ and who the hell replaces him in that lineup and have the impact offensively that he had!?!?!

[LAZERUSS]

That is a very good point Lazeruss and I've argued a bunch of times with 97'Bulls about it, you didn't need to have as great and deep of team in the 90's to win a title as you needed in the 80's, that's a fact!

But you know what? You also didn't need a lot of talent in the early 2000's to win a title either and that didn't prevent Kobe from EXPLODING as an offensive player alongside Shaq.

Of course if you removed every other superstar from their teams like Robinson, Shaq, Karl Malone, Barkley, Drexler, Kemp and Ewing and the Bulls still had Scottie they would've had a chance to win a few titles but that just shows that ALL OF THOSE guys were better and more impactful players than he was!

Without Pip, I still think Mike would've gotten a few titles maybe two or three during the 90's with any serviceable SF but the better question would be:

How many titles do the Bulls win in the 90's without MJ and who the hell replaces him in that lineup and have the impact offensively that he had!?!?!

Goofball will tell you that the Bulls NEEDED his scoring to win those rings.

Yet, the '94 Bulls came within ONE PLAY of beating the Knicks...who would go on to lose a game seven by four points, to the Rockets in the Finals...all with PETE MYERS and his 6 ppg in that series.

The REALITY was, the Bulls could have added any reasonably decent SG to that roster, and likely won a title.

Jordan didn't NEED to score. He WANTED to score.

[livinglegend]

Goofball will tell you that the Bulls NEEDED his scoring to win those rings.

Yet, the '94 Bulls came within ONE PLAY of beating the Knicks...who would go on to lose a game seven by four points, to the Rockets in the Finals...all with PETE MYERS and his 6 ppg in that series.

The REALITY was, the Bulls could have added any reasonably decent SG to that roster, and likely won a title.

Jordan didn't NEED to score. He WANTED to score.
:oldlol:

[Showtime80']

Lazeruss please!

Look at the insane playoff numbers and performances Jordan had to put up in ALL of the Bulls playoff runs and the Bulls still had a tough time winning titles in 1992, 93 and 98. You'd have to replace him with an Hakeem, Bird or Magic clutch level alpha dog to even come close to those stats and results.

Pippen fans always love to bring up 1994 as a bench mark for why Pip would've won titles without Michael but that year had more to do with the greatness of Phil Jackson, Horace Grant having a contract year and his best season ever and the addition of Tony Kukoc. They would've been a middle of the road team had they kept that same squad without Jordan for the rest of the decade, winning 40 to 45 games and battling the Hawks, Cavs, Pistons and

Little known fact is that Scottie's FG% was a paltry 42% in the playoffs from 1994 to 1998 while Jordan was still efficient at 46%.Not to mention the 1998 season where Scottie only played 44 games (had his worst playoff performance since 1990!) and Michael still lead a decrepit Bulls team to 62 wins and the title while also winning MVP in process!

Scottie was all time great COMPLIMENTARY player, would've NEVER won the title as an MAIN PLAYER on a team, that was not his makeup.

[LAZERUSS]

Lazeruss please!

Look at the insane playoff numbers and performances Jordan had to put up in ALL of the Bulls playoff runs and the Bulls still had a tough time winning titles in 1992, 93 and 98. You'd have to replace him with an Hakeem, Bird or Magic clutch level alpha dog to even come close to those stats and results.

Pippen fans always love to bring up 1994 as a bench mark for why Pip would've won titles without Michael but that year had more to do with the greatness of Phil Jackson, Horace Grant having a contract year and his best season ever and the addition of Tony Kukoc. They would've been a middle of the road team had they kept that same squad without Jordan for the rest of the decade, winning 40 to 45 games and battling the Hawks, Cavs, Pistons and

Little known fact is that Scottie's FG% was a paltry 42% in the playoffs from 1994 to 1998 while Jordan was still efficient at 46%.Not to mention the 1998 season where Scottie only played 44 games (had his worst playoff performance since 1990!) and Michael still lead a decrepit Bulls team to 62 wins and the title while also winning MVP in process!

Scottie was all time great COMPLIMENTARY player, would've NEVER won the title as an MAIN PLAYER on a team, that was not his makeup.

Well, what was interesting was that MJ came back to that same EXACT '94 roster...except he replaced Grant...and he couldn't improve them...at all. In fact, they performed worse in the ECSF's than they did the year before.

So he won his first three rings with Pippen/Grant...couldn't win shit without an ELITE PF...then had to have HOFer Rodman to win his last three.

But Goofball will tell you his supporting casts were worthless.

We saw what he did with poor rosters...NOTHING. He went 1-9, and even the one win was by two points (in a series in which he was badly outplayed by Sidney Mongrief.) Then he went 0-6 against the Celtics. And in those three series clinching blowout defeats, he shot 6-16, 8-18, and 9-35.

Anyone suggesting that Jordan didn't have a TON of help...and again, in a very weak decade...is deluding themselves.

[97 bulls]

Here we go with the athleticism card again! Scottie was more athletic than Bird, Dantley, King and English as well, was never the offensive player those guys were. Heck Dwight Howard is probably top 5 center in terms of athleticism and still is one of the most limited offensive centers of ALL TIME!

Right. So what's the point? You do realize that some players use athleticism to score right?


Pippen NEVER had an ample array of moves like most dominant scorers do, he was a great finisher on the break or talking slower players off the dribble one on one on the weak side or nailing open jumpers but could NEVER dissect defenses the way Magic could, he never had a defense on the run and scrambling like Magic did on the fast break. Magic was a more efficient post player as well just by being bigger and craftier overall then Scottie ever was.
Dude. I'm talking about their ability to actually put the ball in the basket. Not passing etc. They were about the same.


Magic became a better 3 point shooter as his career went along reaching 38% in 1990 and Pippen only shot above 35% from 3 in 96 and 97 when the line was moved in!
So Pippen was was a better 3pt shooter. Neither was great. Move on.


Pippen WAS NOT A DOMINANT OFFENSIVE PLAYER!!! Never was with MJ, was not one without him.
Again. For emphasis. I'm referring to scoring. Not offense. Magic was a much more domination offensive player than Pippen.


One of the best true secondary complimentary player ever but never in the league of Bird, Magic, Jordan, Olajuwon or Moses. No GM in the league would've traded any of those guys for Pip in their primes.
But they'd be looking for a Pippen to play next to these guys.


Hell Scottie's behind was almost shipped out to Seattle for Shawn Kemp before the 1996 season, think about that for a second!
Lol. Kemp was one of the best PFs in the game at the time. And if memory serves me. The trade rumor was Kemp and Hersey Hawkins for Pippen.

[97 bulls]

I take exception and vehemently disagree with the bashing of the Bulls competition. The 80s Lakers and Celtics played each other three times during the decade. What about the rest of their championships? How many great players were on the Sixers before Malone showed up? One in Dr. J. And he was surrounded by a bunch of very good players. What about the Bucks? The team that had the third best record that decade. How many great players did they have? Again. ONE!!!!.

How about the Rockets? Again. ONE great player. The only other team worth mentioning was the Pistons. And the Bulls lost to them in 7 games and them mollywhomped the the next year.

The Bulls didn't dominate the 90's because they faced lackluster competition, they dominated because they were the best.

[Showtime80']

97 Bulls the Sixers of the late 70's early 80's would've been remembered as a top 5 semi dynasty if it weren't for the Lakers! They would've won 3 titles in 4 years! From 1980 to 1982 they had guys like Dr J, Maurice Cheeks, Bobby Jones and Andrew Toney who made MULTIPLE ALL STAR teams backed up by guys like Darryl Dawkins, Caldwell JOnes and Lionel Hollins! They just ran into Magic and Bird!

The 80's Bucks had guys like Sydney Moncrief, Marques Johnson, Jack Sickma, Paul Pressey and Terry Cummings, ALL ALL-STARS!!! They had the bad luck of playing in the east with the Celtics and Sixers!

What dynasty did the Bulls prevent from forming?!?!? The Blazers, Suns and choker Sonics NEVER made the Finals after they lost to the Bulls which meant they're run was over. ALL of the teams the Lakers beat in the Finals won titles after the Lakers beat them in the 80's.

The 96 to 98 Utah Jazz were the only true test for the Bulls and again they were lead by two SECOND TIER 80's stars in Malone and Stockton in their mid 30's with worse teams than what they had from 1988 to 1992!

Again Hakeem WON A TITLE in 1994 with the thinnest roster a titles winning team has had in HISTORY! Probably have to go back to the 78 Bullets and 79 Sonics to find a worse champion.

Just for sh!ts and giggles he repeated AGAIN in 1995 just by adding past his prime Drexler to the mix.

Neither the 94 or 95 Rockets are winning titles in the 80's just as the NO WESTERN finals teams from the 90's are beating the 80's Lakers in a 7 game series.

[La Frescobaldi]

97 Bulls the Sixers of the late 70's early 80's would've been remembered as a top 5 semi dynasty if it weren't for the Lakers! They would've won 3 titles in 4 years! From 1980 to 1982 they had guys like Dr J, Maurice Cheeks, Bobby Jones and Andrew Toney who made MULTIPLE ALL STAR teams backed up by guys like Darryl Dawkins, Caldwell JOnes and Lionel Hollins! They just ran into Magic and Bird!

The 80's Bucks had guys like Sydney Moncrief, Marques Johnson, Jack Sickma, Paul Pressey and Terry Cummings, ALL ALL-STARS!!! They had the bad luck of playing in the east with the Celtics and Sixers!

What dynasty did the Bulls prevent from forming?!?!? The Blazers, Suns and choker Sonics NEVER made the Finals after they lost to the Bulls which meant they're run was over. ALL of the teams the Lakers beat in the Finals won titles after the Lakers beat them in the 80's.

The 96 to 98 Utah Jazz were the only true test for the Bulls and again they were lead by two SECOND TIER 80's stars in Malone and Stockton in their mid 30's with worse teams than what they had from 1988 to 1992!

Again Hakeem WON A TITLE in 1994 with the thinnest roster a titles winning team has had in HISTORY! Probably have to go back to the 78 Bullets and 79 Sonics to find a worse champion.

Just for sh!ts and giggles he repeated AGAIN in 1995 just by adding past his prime Drexler to the mix.

Neither the 94 or 95 Rockets are winning titles in the 80's just as the NO WESTERN finals teams from the 90's are beating the 80's Lakers in a 7 game series.


been saying this for 20 years couldn't possibly agree more.

[97 bulls]

97 Bulls the Sixers of the late 70's early 80's would've been remembered as a top 5 semi dynasty if it weren't for the Lakers! They would've won 3 titles in 4 years! From 1980 to 1982 they had guys like Dr J, Maurice Cheeks, Bobby Jones and Andrew Toney who made MULTIPLE ALL STAR teams backed up by guys like Darryl Dawkins, Caldwell JOnes and Lionel Hollins! They just ran into Magic and Bird!

The 80's Bucks had guys like Sydney Moncrief, Marques Johnson, Jack Sickma, Paul Pressey and Terry Cummings, ALL ALL-STARS!!! They had the bad luck of playing in the east with the Celtics and Sixers!

What dynasty did the Bulls prevent from forming?!?!? The Blazers, Suns and choker Sonics NEVER made the Finals after they lost to the Bulls which meant they're run was over. ALL of the teams the Lakers beat in the Finals won titles after the Lakers beat them in the 80's.

The 96 to 98 Utah Jazz were the only true test for the Bulls and again they were lead by two SECOND TIER 80's stars in Malone and Stockton in their mid 30's with worse teams than what they had from 1988 to 1992!

Again Hakeem WON A TITLE in 1994 with the thinnest roster a titles winning team has had in HISTORY! Probably have to go back to the 78 Bullets and 79 Sonics to find a worse champion.

Just for sh!ts and giggles he repeated AGAIN in 1995 just by adding past his prime Drexler to the mix.

Neither the 94 or 95 Rockets are winning titles in the 80's just as the NO WESTERN finals teams from the 90's are beating the 80's Lakers in a 7 game series.
We can go back and forth all day as to how many good players teams had. The Knicks had Ewing, Mcdaniel, Oakley, and Jackson. How many titles did the Bulls keep them from? Funny how you call Karl Malone and John Stockton "second tier " stars. Malone retired as the greatest PF in history, Stockton is arguably top 3-5. Even the Sonics and Magic. Who knows what would've happened to those two teams had the won a title in 96.

And the one thing I do feel the 90's prevented. Players being able to go to more all star games because it was harder to make it in the 90s.

You just don't have an argument that I couldn't throw right back in your face.

[3ball]

.
................Percentage of team points scored while player was on floor


.........................RS.....RS 4th.... PO....PO 4th....Finals.. Finals 4th


JORDAN 1997... 36.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 40.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 37.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 46.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 40.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 50.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)
JORDAN 1998... 36.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 42.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 39.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 48.8 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 43.6 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 49.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)


SHAQ 2000....... 35.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 38.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 34.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 39.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 38.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 43.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
SHAQ 2001....... 33.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 38.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 33.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 34.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 35.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 26.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
SHAQ 2002....... 33.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 35.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 33.5 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 25.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 38.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 28.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)


PIPPEN 1997.... 24.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 22.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 24.6 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 25.6 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 25.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 26.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
PIPPEN 1998.... 24.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 19.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 21.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 15.8 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 22.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 14.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)


KOBE 2000....... 27.5 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 29.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 26.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 27.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 19.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 15.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
KOBE 2001....... 32.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 34.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 31.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 37.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 25.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 23.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
KOBE 2002....... 30.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 31.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 29.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 34.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 27.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 32.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)

KOBE 2008....... 31.8 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2007-08&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 36.8 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2007-08&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 33.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2007-08&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 41.5 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2007-08&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 30.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2007-08&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 32.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2007-08&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)

LEBRON 2009.... 35.0..... 39.3..... 41.5..... 42.4
LEBRON 2010.... 34.6..... 44.4..... 32.6..... 40.3
LEBRON 2011.... 32.0..... 32.8..... 28.1..... 30.7...... 21.4...... 14.8 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/2544/stats/usage/?Season=2010-11&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)
LEBRON 2012.... 34.2..... 33.8..... 34.5..... 34.9...... 30.0...... 33.3
LEBRON 2013.... 32.1..... 32.1..... 30.6..... 36.0...... 29.3...... 39.1
LEBRON 2014.... 33.1..... 38.2..... 35.3..... 32.1...... 39.6...... 29.5
LEBRON 2015.... 30.1..... 38.9..... 35.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/2544/stats/usage/?Season=2014-15&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 42.4...... 40.0...... 44.5 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/2544/stats/usage/?Season=2014-15&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)
LEBRON 2016.... 32.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/2544/stats/usage/?Season=2015-16&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 40.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/2544/stats/usage/?Season=2015-16&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)


As you can see, 34-35 year old MJ scored a much higher proportion of his team's points while on the floor than everyone, including PRIME SHAQ.. (Shaq got twice the reb & blk, but MJ got twice the apg & spg, so we're left with pts).

And Jordan's 1997/1998 teams were supposed to be more "stacked" (:rolleyes:) than the first 3-peat teams from his prime - so just imagine if we had the stats from MJ's prime - he probably scored 60-70% of his team's points while on the floor... ****ing GOAT
.

[97 bulls]

Neither the 94 or 95 Rockets are winning titles in the 80's just as the NO WESTERN finals teams from the 90's are beating the 80's Lakers in a 7 game series.
I forgot to respond to this. The 90's Rockets were better than the 86 team that beat the Lakers then lost to the Celtics in six. That Rocket team didn't have a bunch of great players. Truth be told, the only difference is that the Bulls lost Jordan.

[LAZERUSS]

I take exception and vehemently disagree with the bashing of the Bulls competition. The 80s Lakers and Celtics played each other three times during the decade. What about the rest of their championships? How many great players were on the Sixers before Malone showed up? One in Dr. J. And he was surrounded by a bunch of very good players. What about the Bucks? The team that had the third best record that decade. How many great players did they have? Again. ONE!!!!.

How about the Rockets? Again. ONE great player. The only other team worth mentioning was the Pistons. And the Bulls lost to them in 7 games and them mollywhomped the the next year.

The Bulls didn't dominate the 90's because they faced lackluster competition, they dominated because they were the best.

Other than the stacked Bulls, give me a list of teams in the 90's that would have beaten the '80 Lakers, the '82 Lakers, the '83 Sixers, either the '84 Celtics or the '84 Lakers, the '85 Lakers, the '86 Celtics, the '87 Lakers, the '88 Lakers, the '89 Pistons, and the '90 Pistons.

And I doubt there was any other team in the 90's (aside from the Bulls) that would have beaten the Sixers from '80-'82, the Celtics in '81, '85, '87, and the Pistons in '88.

Again, I will give the '91, '96, and '97 Bulls there respect. Those three teams would have been competitive with the best of the 80's. But their competition was a joke.

And please don't mention the '91 50-32 Pistons who were an injury-recked, crumbling team that barely beat a 43-39 team in the first round, and then would drop to 48-34 the next year, and lose in the first round. Isiah Thomas was finished after '90.

Same thing with the '91 Lakers. Magic was already on the decline (I would have loved to have seen a PRIME Magic, circa '87, who had averaged 35 ppg on a .556 FG% against Boston in the regular season, and then hung a 26-8-13 .541 Finals on them, up against a '91 MJ.) Worthy was a broken down shell. Byron Scott never recovered from his injury in the '89 WCF's. Player-for-player, just pathetic players that Magic carried to a shocking upset of the heavily-favored 63-19 Blazers. BTW, that tells me just how good those Blazer teams were. They would have been swept by a mid-80's Lakers team.

[3ball]

The narrative might be that Jordan needed to score so much because of his ego (not because the Bulls needed him to).

That doesn't mean that Pippen and Grant sucked because of their stats.


This has been proven clearly false - if the Bulls didn't need Jordan to score that much, then Pippen and Grant's stats would've increased when Jordan left in 1994 - but they didn't - they were the same as their highs alongside Jordan - they were already playing to capacity alongside Jordan:

PIPPEN 1992: 21.0/7.1/7.0 on 50.6%
PIPPEN 1994: 22.0/8.7/5.6 on 49.1%

GRANT 1992: 14/10
GRANT 1993: 15/11

They were already playing to capacity alongside Jordan, which proves the Bulls needed Jordan to be the GOAT scorer (by far (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082298&postcount=141)) to be 6-peat champions... So eliminate that ignorant notion from your brain that Jordan didn't need to score that much because it's a gross misperception of what was actually happening.





The short answer to your question about the 3peat Lakers if Shaq had left: they would have won even fewer games than the 50 they won with him. Fox, Fisher, and Horry weren't good enough. The converse is clearly true about the 94 Bulls, Pippen Grant and Armstrong, with the arrival of Kucok and Kerr, were good enough to get to 55 wins.


It's a ridiculous notion to think these guys could've won 55 in ANY year, and not ONLY after they 3-peated.

When Pippen wins 55 games with Grant, BJ, Kukoc, and Kerr as his supporting cast, it isn't due to talent - it's due to chemistry.

Those guys do NOT represent good talent - Grant wasn't a top ten 2nd option... BJ wasn't a top ten 3rd option... And bench players like Kerr (7 ppg spot up shooter) and Kukoc (10 ppg on 43%) are players that EVERY TEAM HAS - so they shouldn't be given any more props than say, Chalmers and Dellavadova get.
.

[LAZERUSS]

I forgot to respond to this. The 90's Rockets were better than the 86 team that beat the Lakers then lost to the Celtics in six. That Rocket team didn't have a bunch of great players. Truth be told, the only difference is that the Bulls lost Jordan.

Hell no they weren't. They didn't have SAMPSON...who was the one guarding a 39 year old Kareem in that series (after KAJ had just annihilated Hakeem in their regular season H2H's.) Of course, the Lakers then added Muchel Thompson the very next season, and if they had played the twin towers again, they would have obliterated them. They destroyed the Bird-McHale-Parish trio in the Finals.

[LAZERUSS]

This has been proven clearly false - if the Bulls didn't need Jordan to score that much, then Pippen and Grant's stats would've increased when Jordan left in 1994 - but they didn't - they were the same as their highs alongside Jordan - they were already playing to capacity alongside Jordan:

PIPPEN 1992: 21.0/7.1/7.0 on 50.6%
PIPPEN 1994: 22.0/8.7/5.6 on 49.1%

GRANT 1992: 14/10
GRANT 1993: 15/11

They were already playing to capacity alongside Jordan, which proves the Bulls needed Jordan to be the GOAT scorer (by far (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082298&postcount=141)) to be 6-peat champions... So eliminate that ignorant notion from your brain that Jordan didn't need to score that much - it's truly ignorant and a gross misperception of what was actually happening.



It's a ridiculous notion to think these guys could've won 55 in ANY year, and not ONLY after they 3-peated.

When Pippen wins 55 games with Grant, BJ, Kukoc, and Kerr as his supporting cast, it isn't due to talent - it's due to chemistry.

Those guys do NOT represent good talent - Grant wasn't a top ten 2nd option... BJ wasn't a top ten 3rd option... And bench players like Kerr (7 ppg spot up shooter) and Kukoc (10 ppg on 43%) are players that EVERY TEAM HAS - so they shouldn't be given any more props than say, Chalmers and Dellavadova get.
.

It was due to talent, and the lack thereof on every other team in the 90's. Put Joe Dumars on the 90's Bulls, and they would have won six titles, too. ZERO talent in the rest of the league.

[LAZERUSS]

I forgot to respond to this. The 90's Rockets were better than the 86 team that beat the Lakers then lost to the Celtics in six. That Rocket team didn't have a bunch of great players. Truth be told, the only difference is that the Bulls lost Jordan.

This is the best way to explain the 90's...

David Robinson joined a 21-61 team, and immediately made them a 56-26 team. Robinson's Spurs went 59-23 in '96. He was injured for almost all of '97, and they went 20-62.

ONE player made that much of a difference ..across the league.

Same impact that Lebron had on his teams in the last decade. Immediately made every team he joined a title contender, and immediately every team he left just fell off the cliff.

[3ball]

It was due to talent, and the lack thereof on every other team in the 90's. Put Joe Dumars on the 90's Bulls, and they would have won six titles, too. ZERO talent in the rest of the league.
^^^^^ I rest my case that you're a troll and non-factual poster..

It's kind of amazing that your posts are much longer than mine are on average - you put more effort into them than I do - except yours are for the sole purpose of trolling and stating non-factual things to rile people up, whereas mine are to actually make a point..

In other words, your massive effort and 10k character posts are a waste of time and serve no purpose, whereas at least mine are making factual points.

[Inferno]

You've got to be a pretty bad MJ stan to make people want to shit on him :biggums:

[3ball]

This is the best way to explain the 90's...

David Robinson joined a 21-61 team, and immediately made them a 56-26 team. Robinson's Spurs went 59-23 in '96. He was injured for almost all of '97, and they went 20-62.

ONE player made that much of a difference ..across the league.

Same impact that Lebron had on his teams in the last decade. Immediately made every team he joined a title contender, and immediately every team he left just fell off the cliff.
That's exactly what Bird did in 1980

[97 bulls]

This has been proven clearly false - if the Bulls didn't need Jordan to score that much, then Pippen and Grant's stats would've increased when Jordan left in 1994 - but they didn't - they were the same as their highs alongside Jordan - they were already playing to capacity alongside Jordan:
I answered this already. The league as a whole took less shots. And their defense was ramped up. So if there's less opportunity but your still producing at the sake rate, that's still an increase relatively.

[LAZERUSS]

^^^^^ I rest my case that you're a troll and non-factual poster..

It's kind of amazing that your posts are much longer than mine are on average - you put more effort into them than I do - except yours are for the sole purpose of trolling and stating non-factual things to rile people up, whereas mine are to actually make a point..

In other words, your massive effort and 10k character posts are a waste of time and serve no purpose, whereas at least mine are making factual points.

More evidence...

the injury-riddled and 55-27 '94 Bulls, with PETE MYERS averaging 6 ppg, were ONE PLAY AWAY from beating a Knick team in the ECSF's (and outscored them in that series BTW) that were beaten in the seventh game of the Finals by four points (and outscored them BTW.)

That's all we needed to know. MJ replaced by PETE MYERS, and they nearly win the title.

[97 bulls]

It was due to talent, and the lack thereof on every other team in the 90's. Put Joe Dumars on the 90's Bulls, and they would have won six titles, too. ZERO talent in the rest of the league.
Six? Nooooo. Maybe three. 92, 96, and 97. And they wouldn't have been as dominant. And this is assuming everything plays out like it did with Jordan.

[97 bulls]

That's exactly what Bird did in 1980
Very true

[3ball]

You've got to be a pretty bad MJ stan to make people want to shit on him :biggums:



If facts that prove MJ was the most dominant player ever (shown below) makes people want to shit on him, that's awesome because it means people are just dumb haters:


................Percentage of team points scored while player was on floor


.........................RS.....RS 4th.... PO....PO 4th....Finals.. Finals 4th


JORDAN 1997... 36.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 40.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 37.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 46.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 40.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 50.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)
JORDAN 1998... 36.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 42.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 39.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 48.8 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 43.6 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 49.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)


SHAQ 2000....... 35.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 38.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 34.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 39.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 38.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 43.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
SHAQ 2001....... 33.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 38.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 33.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 34.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 35.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 26.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
SHAQ 2002....... 33.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 35.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 33.5 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 25.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 38.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 28.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)


PIPPEN 1997.... 24.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 22.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 24.6 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 25.6 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 25.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 26.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
PIPPEN 1998.... 24.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 19.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 21.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 15.8 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 22.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 14.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/937/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)


KOBE 2000....... 27.5 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 29.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 26.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 27.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 19.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 15.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
KOBE 2001....... 32.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 34.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 31.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 37.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 25.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 23.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
KOBE 2002....... 30.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 31.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 29.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 34.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 27.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 32.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)

KOBE 2008....... 31.8 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2007-08&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 36.8 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2007-08&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 33.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2007-08&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 41.5 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2007-08&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 30.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2007-08&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 32.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2007-08&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)

LEBRON 2009.... 35.0..... 39.3..... 41.5..... 42.4
LEBRON 2010.... 34.6..... 44.4..... 32.6..... 40.3
LEBRON 2011.... 32.0..... 32.8..... 28.1..... 30.7...... 21.4...... 14.8 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/2544/stats/usage/?Season=2010-11&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)
LEBRON 2012.... 34.2..... 33.8..... 34.5..... 34.9...... 30.0...... 33.3
LEBRON 2013.... 32.1..... 32.1..... 30.6..... 36.0...... 29.3...... 39.1
LEBRON 2014.... 33.1..... 38.2..... 35.3..... 32.1...... 39.6...... 29.5
LEBRON 2015.... 30.1..... 38.9..... 35.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/2544/stats/usage/?Season=2014-15&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 42.4...... 40.0...... 44.5 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/2544/stats/usage/?Season=2014-15&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)


As you can see, 34-35 year old MJ scored a much higher proportion of his team's points while on the floor than everyone, including PRIME SHAQ.. (Shaq got twice the reb & blk, but MJ got twice the apg & spg, so we're left with pts).

And Jordan's 1997/1998 teams were supposed to be more "stacked" (:rolleyes:) than the first 3-peat teams from his prime - so just imagine if we had the stats from MJ's prime - he probably scored 60-70% of his team's points while on the floor... ****ing GOAT
.

[LAZERUSS]

Six? Nooooo. Maybe three. 92, 96, and 97. And they wouldn't have been as dominant. And this is assuming everything plays out like it did with Jordan.

Even if I were to agree...that is still saying something. In any case, as you and I both know...the '94 team didn't have an MJ, and really didn't get a chance to replace him. And they were still a legitimate title-contending team...without him.

And they were at least good enough, without BOTH MJ and Grant, to go 43-39 in '95 (actually 34-31, and 8-2 in their last 10 games.)

Think about that. Had they added Rodman, and say, Jim Jackson from that year...how do think the '95 post-season would have played out?

[97 bulls]

Even if I were to agree...that is still saying something. In any case, as you and I both know...the '94 team didn't have an MJ, and really didn't get a chance to replace him. And they were still a legitimate title-contending team...without him.

And they were at least good enough, without BOTH MJ and Grant, to go 43-39 in '95 (actually 34-31, and 8-2 in their last 10 games.)

Think about that. Had they added Rodman, and say, Jim Jackson from that year...how do think the '95 post-season would have played out?
I can't say they definitely win a championship. But they'd be right up there with everyone else. They'd be my favorite .

[3ball]

I answered this already. The league as a whole took less shots. And their defense was ramped up. So if there's less opportunity but your still producing at the sake rate, that's still an increase relatively.


That's total BS - the Bulls took 4.6 more shots per game in 1992 than 1994, which is immaterial and obviously due to MJ's presence:


In 1994, MJ's absence meant there were 25.7 more shots to go around per game - yet Pippen and Grant stats were the same as their highs alongside Jordan.. So your wishful theory is completely debunked


So I'll reiterate the facts again so you can properly perceive what was ACTUALLY happening, rather than make up your own truth:


Pippen and Grant's highs alongside Jordan were the same as their 1994 stats - so they were already playing to capacity alongside Jordan, which proves the Bulls needed Jordan to be the GOAT scorer (by far (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082298&postcount=141)) to be 6-peat champions.

[KiiiiNG]

I come home from a hard days work to see 3ball still online, regurgitating the same trolling nonsense.

:rolleyes:

Your mom sucks man. Can't believe she puts up with you and let's you live a life where you do nothing but post another mans basketball stats. **** her.

[3ball]

I come home from a hard days work to see 3ball still online, regurgitating the same trolling nonsense.

:rolleyes:

Your mom sucks man. Can't believe she puts up with you and let's you live a life where you do nothing but post another mans basketball stats. **** her.
I own my own home and don't have to work a regular job.

You'll never reach that level - you probably get up everyday and put that noose around your neck before heading to work to hump some crappy job, so stay losing

In the meantime, I'll keep causing you to meltdown (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12080724&postcount=88) with facts that crush your favorite players and ignorant notions about the game.

[KiiiiNG]

I own my own home
No you don't.


In the meantime, I'll keep causing you to meltdown (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12080724&postcount=88) with facts that crush your favorite players and ignorant notions about the game.
Nobody cares, you're not Michael Jordan. You didn't go 1-9 without Pippen. You didn't get your father killed over gambling debts. You didn't watch your team win 60 games without you while you stunk it up in minor league baseball. You didn't become the worst GM in sports history.

You just post about him, non-stop, every single day, while your mom pays for all your utilities because you don't work and you never leave the house. You're a ****ing loser, and you will be forever..... and ever ... and ever.

:lol

The end.

[Duffy Pratt]

[B]
PIPPEN 1992: 21.0/7.1/7.0 on 50.6%
PIPPEN 1994: 22.0/8.7/5.6 on 49.1%

GRANT 1992: 14/10
GRANT 1993: 15/11


.

Nice cherry picking on the stats. If you want to compare, then just compare 93 and 94.

Pippen was 18.6/7.7/6.3 in 93. In 94, 22/8.5/5.6
Grant was 13.3/9.3/2.6 in 93. In 94 15.1/11/3.4
Armstrong was 12.3/1.8/4 in 93. In 94 14.8/2.1/3.9

That's 7.8 points per game from these guys. Scott Williams average went from 5.9 to 7.6. They also added Kerr, Kucok, Longley and Wennington, who averaged 8.6, 10.9, 7.6, and 7.1 respectively. All played more than 18 minutes per game and probably had something to do with the team's chemistry, even if you think of them as being cannon fodder role players. Moreover, their contribution was 14.3 greater than the four next players on the 93 Bulls. Add that to the 7.8 above, and you are at 23.8 points per game difference, with a much more balanced attack.

On top of that, this team gave up fewer points per game than the 93 Bulls. The 93 Bulls gave up 98.9 points per game, while the 94 Bulls gave up 94.9 points per game. 4 points per game less, and they did this while losing the best defensive guard in the league. That required much more energy expenditure, which cut into their offense.

Sorry, but Laz is right on this. Put Dumars or Drexler on this team and they win the championship. Hell, they probably could have won the championship that year with any decent shooting guard.

[3ball]

No you don't.

Nobody cares, you're not Michael Jordan. You didn't go 1-9 without Pippen. You didn't get your father killed over gambling debts. You didn't watch your team win 60 games without you while you stunk it up in minor league baseball. You didn't become the worst GM in sports history.

You just post about him, non-stop, every single day, while your mom pays for all your utilities because you don't work and you never leave the house. You're a ****ing loser, and you will be forever..... and ever ... and ever.

:lol

The end.


Believe what you want - I just put the facts out there.

Apparently I cause you to meltdown, which proves you're an insecure loser who feels threatened by me

[La Frescobaldi]

Nice cherry picking on the stats. If you want to compare, then just compare 93 and 94.

Pippen was 18.6/7.7/6.3 in 93. In 94, 22/8.5/5.6
Grant was 13.3/9.3/2.6 in 93. In 94 15.1/11/3.4
Armstrong was 12.3/1.8/4 in 93. In 94 14.8/2.1/3.9

That's 7.8 points per game from these guys. Scott Williams average went from 5.9 to 7.6. They also added Kerr, Kucok, Longley and Wennington, who averaged 8.6, 10.9, 7.6, and 7.1 respectively. All played more than 18 minutes per game and probably had something to do with the team's chemistry, even if you think of them as being cannon fodder role players. Moreover, their contribution was 14.3 greater than the four next players on the 93 Bulls. Add that to the 7.8 above, and you are at 23.8 points per game difference, with a much more balanced attack.

On top of that, this team gave up fewer points per game than the 93 Bulls. The 93 Bulls gave up 98.9 points per game, while the 94 Bulls gave up 94.9 points per game. 4 points per game less, and they did this while losing the best defensive guard in the league. That required much more energy expenditure, which cut into their offense.

Sorry, but Laz is right on this. Put Dumars or Drexler on this team and they win the championship. Hell, they probably could have won the championship that year with any decent shooting guard.

Wait.



So all those guys got better when Jordan left.

And I thought he was supposed to make all of them better.

[97 bulls]

That's total BS - the Bulls took 4.6 more shots per game in 1992 than 1994, which is immaterial and obviously due to MJ's presence:


In 1994, MJ's absence meant there were 25.7 more shots to go around per game - yet Pippen and Grant stats were the same as their highs alongside Jordan.. So your wishful theory is completely debunked


So I'll reiterate the facts again so you can properly perceive what was ACTUALLY happening, rather than make up your own truth:


Pippen and Grant's highs alongside Jordan were the same as their 1994 stats - so they were already playing to capacity alongside Jordan, which proves the Bulls needed Jordan to be the GOAT scorer (by far (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082298&postcount=141)) to be 6-peat champions.
Then please explain how the Bulls could loose Jordan's 32 ppg, but only drop 8 ppg as a team.

Again. As a whole TEAMS in the NBA were shooting less. On avg 5 on each side. If the Bulls are gaming roughly 5 less shots and their opponents are doing the same, that's 20 ppg right there. And that's not counting fouls and three point FGs.

[3ball]

Nice cherry picking on the stats. If you want to compare, then just compare 93 and 94.

Pippen was 18.6/7.7/6.3 in 93. In 94, 22/8.5/5.6
Grant was 13.3/9.3/2.6 in 93. In 94 15.1/11/3.4
Armstrong was 12.3/1.8/4 in 93. In 94 14.8/2.1/3.9

That's 7.8 points per game from these guys.


Without Jordan in 1994, Pippen/Grant/Armstrong had an extra 25.7 shots per game and 35% usage to spread around - yet their stats barely improved (they played at 87-95% capacity in 1993 vs. 1994)..

And of course, their stats didn't improve AT ALL from their HIGHS alongside Jordan in 1992 (which is the more relevant metric).

But seriously - that's your argument?... That the Bulls didn't need Jordan to score that much to win?... That's like saying the Lakers didn't need Magic to score that much, or assist that much... Or Lebron, or Shaq or any player in history

It's one of the most nonsensical arguments against Jordan on any hoops forum - it doesn't hold up, especially considering Pippen and Grant's stats didn't improve despite having an extra 26 shots per game and 35% usage to spread around.





They also added Kerr, Kucok, Longley and Wennington, who averaged 8.6, 10.9, 7.6, and 7.1 respectively. Their contribution was 14.3 greater than the four next players on the 93 Bulls. Add that to the 7.8 increase from Pippen, Grant and Armstrong, and you are at 23.8 points per game difference, with a much more balanced attack.


So let's see:

32.6 ppg from Jordan minus 23.8 ppg from the stiffs you mentioned - that leaves nearly 10 ppg that Pippen and Grant could've increased their averages by, yet their averages remained the same.

Nice try, but your math still doesn't add up.. As you can see, Jordan was too dominant.





Sorry, but Laz is right on this. Put Dumars or Drexler on this team and they win the championship. Hell, they probably could have won the championship that year with any decent shooting guard.


Drexler, Dumars or "any decent shooting guard" doesn't improve a team by 3 series wins.. That's just ridiculous.

For those guys to improve the team that much, they'd need to increase their averages by 10 or 15 ppg respectively, with better defense and lead the team in passing - LIKE MJ DID... So keep dreaming.

That Bulls team was lucky to beat the Cavs' in the 1st Round, whose 3 best players were injured and didn't play (their entire frontcourt - all-star Daughtery, all-star Nance, and Hot Rod Williams' 14.8 and 1.7 blk).. Yet each game was a single-digit affair...

Considering the way the Cavs lost in 1989 and 1993, a healthy Cavs' steam would've been chomping at the bit to exact some revenge against the Bulls.
.

[3ball]

Then please explain how the Bulls could loose Jordan's 32 ppg, but only drop 8 ppg as a team.



8 ppg is a super-ton - most games are decided by less.

Moreover, the Bulls ORtg declined from #1 all-time during their 3-peat (116, 115, 113), to 14th in the league.

That's a catastrophic drop-off, and it explains why they fell from 3-peat dynasty and one of the best teams ever, to ordinary 2nd Round team.

And this type of GOAT impact from Jordan wasn't just on 2nd Round teams - it was on lottery teams too:

In 1989, the 47-win Bulls would've missed the 45-win playoff cut without Jordan's 33/8/8/54.. So heading into the 1990 season, they would've been lottery, instead of ECF veterans and 1 season away from starting their first 3-peat..

Let that sink in.. MJ drove that team towards championship status with his GOAT impact and drive - plain and simple.

[3ball]

Wait.

So all those guys got better when Jordan left.


Not at all - Pippen and Grant's highs alongside Jordan in 1992 were EQUAL to their 1994 stats:

PIPPEN 1992: 21.0/7.1/7.0 on 50.6%
PIPPEN 1994: 22.0/8.7/5.6 on 49.1%

GRANT 1992: 14/10
GRANT 1993: 15/11


And in 1993, Pippen and Grant played at 87-95% capacity vs. their stats in 1994.. Their stats barely improved in 1994, despite having an extra 26 shots per game and 35% usage to work with..

And the remaining players on the team didn't make up the 33 ppg gap that MJ left - as the Duffy Pratt just showed, there was still at least a 10 ppg gap.

So again - Pippen and Grant played at capacity alongside Jordan, which proves the Bulls needed all of MJ's scoring - they needed him to be the GOAT scorer, by far (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082298&postcount=141).

And obviously - the whole idea that the Bulls didn't need MJ to score that much to win is ridiculous.. That's like saying the Lakers didn't need Magic to score that much, or assist that much... Or Lebron, or Shaq or any player in history - it's a DUMB argument, plain and simple.
.

[3ball]

http://img.pandawhale.com/post-40544-Brad-Pitt-is-there-no-one-else-Dkiy.gif

[3ball]

http://img.pandawhale.com/post-40544-Brad-Pitt-is-there-no-one-else-Dkiy.gif


http://media0.giphy.com/media/149R89yoMrIFgI/giphy.gif

[Dr Hawk]

3ball :bowdown: :bowdown:

[livinglegend]

No you don't.


Nobody cares, you're not Michael Jordan. You didn't go 1-9 without Pippen. You didn't get your father killed over gambling debts. You didn't watch your team win 60 games without you while you stunk it up in minor league baseball. You didn't become the worst GM in sports history.

You just post about him, non-stop, every single day, while your mom pays for all your utilities because you don't work and you never leave the house. You're a ****ing loser, and you will be forever..... and ever ... and ever.

:lol

The end.
:oldlol:
He is probably the biggest loser in this forum.

[LAZERUSS]

MJ's record without Pippen starting, 1985-1989

38-44, lost 1-3 in the first round.
9-9, swept in the first round.
40-42, swept in the first round.
50-32, tied 2-2 in the first round after blowing a 2-0 lead. (Pippen starts Game 5, beasts, Bulls win and finally get out the first round with MJ)
13-12.

Pippen becomes a starter for the final 2/3 of 89' and the Bulls win 9 of 11 and go on a 32-15 roll after starting 13-12...and never looked back...

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[3ball]

I have the argument that shuts down the "the Bulls didn't need jordan to score as much" BS

[LAZERUSS]

Wait.



So all those guys got better when Jordan left.

And I thought he was supposed to make all of them better.

You must have missed my post on this topic...


Unfortunately, Goofball will tell you Grant was a worthless, easily-replaceable, coat-tail rider.

Oh, and he will also tell you that Pippen was a WOAT.


Lebron made his teammates worse, all while DRAMATICALLY raising their win totals, and always carrying them to the Finals,...even injury-ravaged, and talentless teams. See, when Lebron arrived the TEAMS improved, but he made the players much worse. So bad, that when he left, they would go 19-63 or with talented rosters adding other key players, to only 37-45. That was the Chemistry-killing Lebron.

Meanwhile, Jordan had the unique ability to make his teammates better, by making them worse players. Players who were so bad, that they could go on to 55+ win seasons, and seriously make a run for the title. They learned how to win games by being worse players. Now, that was the gift of Jordan.

Now that should be clear as the water in the sewer...

[3ball]

Btw, guys like Love, Bosh and Wade only played to 60-80% capacity alongside Lebron.. So that means Lebron's teams didn't need him to score so much, right guys?... :rolleyes:

That's why the argument doesn't work against Jordan - Pippen and Grant played to 85-90% capacity alongside Jordan in 1993 (vs. their 1994 stats) and 100% capacity in 1992.

So the argument works much better vs. Lebron than Jordan..

But it's a dumb argument to begin with because it can be used against virtually every player in history - arguments that can be used against EVERYBODY, aren't arguments - but that's how turned around I have all you guys thinking in your desperation to prove me wrong about how GOAT Jordan was.. It's pathetic..

[LAZERUSS]

Two can play this non-stop (and nonsensical) copy-and-paste game...


Lebron the "Chemistry Killer"

Comes to a 17-65 team, immediately and dramatically improves them. Takes a last place roster to their first ever Finals. Takes those same crappy rosters to records of 66-16 (an all-time team record BTW), and 61-21.

Leaves the Cavs...and guess what... a 19-63 season for Cleveland.

Damn, if only he had left well enough alone. The fans were used to 17 win teams. And the players were too, They enjoyed not having to play extra games late in the season.

Thank god he left.


Lebron goes to a Miami team that a prime Wade had carried to a 47-35 record, and a first round playoff loss.

The Heat IMMEDIATELY improve from 47 wins to 58, and then a trip all the way to the Finals.

Then in the next three seasons, they have an all-time team record season of 66-16, go to three more Finals (FOUR STRAIGHT)...winning two of them behind the FMVP. BTW, in the games that a now declining Wade miss...they go 47-18.

Of course, none of this sits well with career POS loser Bosh. You can see him getting more-and-more steamed as each season goes by. In fact, he explodes to the point of trying to sabotage the '14 Finals. Let's an old Duncan just crush him, and then when Spo puts him on the perimeter he gleefully watches as the Spurs player drain three-after-three.

The "chemistry-killer' thankfully leaves, and once again, all is well in Miami. They add players like Deng and Whiteside, but with Bosh's career losing, and "can't do" attitude, even they succumb to his losing ways, and the team free falls all the way down to a 37-45 record. And again, thankfully, the players don't have to go thru the ordeal of a wasted post-season.


BUT...POOR Cleveland. Just when everything was back to normal, and the Cavs were once again going 33-49, Lebron comes riding in again, and destroys their chemistry. It does speak volumes though, that when he played, they went 50-19, and in the games he missed, they were back to the chemisty-loving 3-10 record.

Then the Chemistry-killer had the audacity to carry those worn out players all the way to the Finals. They are so tired from playing the additional games, that they start dropping like flies. By the time they get to the Finals, Lebron's best teammates are gone. Then the chemistry-killer drags them thru two extra games by single-handly winning two games. The bastard damn near won two more. Luckily players like JR Smith, another career loser, and Shumpert do all they can to lose those last two games. Heaven forbid, we might have to play a seventh game, when we could be out looking for under-aged dates.

Now this Lebron jerk is likely to take them to yet another Finals. But as we can see from the play of his surrounding teammates...they aren't standing for it. In fact, they can't stand this "chemistry-killer." They long for the good ole days...players like Love and Bosh...who could put up meaningless 20 point games in blowout losses. All while always happily missing the extra post-season games.

[Round Mound]

Had Grant not joined the Magic, Shaq's departure after the '96 season would have been far worse for Orlando.

We saw what happened to other teams when they lost their best player. Take a look at the Spurs. In '96 with Robinson, they went 59-23. He was injured in '96-97, and played six games. Guess what? 20-62. BTW, that was the best thing that ever happened to that organization. They drafted Duncan, and the rest was history.

Again, we saw how well the Bulls performed without MJ... 55-27. And again, he QUIT. He wasn't traded. So, the Bulls had to scramble to replace him with...Pete Myers.

Now, let's remove the best player from every other team that entire decade, and how do think Hakeem's Rockets do? Or Ewing's Knicks? Guys like Barkley, Shaq, K Malone, and Robinson.

The REALITY was, most successful teams in the watered down 90's had ONE great player, and perhaps TWO. No more than that. Hell, Jordan was winning his rings with more HOFers on his rosters.

And again, Hakeem won a title with a team of scrubs, by beating Ewing's Knicks, and his team of scrubs. Look at the '99 Knicks. They didn't even have their best player, Ewing, in the post-season, and they made it to the Finals (where of course, they were destroyed by the Duncan-DRob combo.)

Just pure trash teams the entire decade.

The bottom line...Jordan's Bulls were NOT beating great teams. They were beating merely good teams. And even without MJ, the Bulls were still good enough to go 55-27 and contend for a title.

:applause: Jordan stans had a 2nd fiddle that was 4th in PER the season MJ left. What pathetic squad they had right? :rolleyes:

[Duffy Pratt]

So let's see:

32.6 ppg from Jordan minus 23.8 ppg from the stiffs you mentioned - that leaves nearly 10 ppg that Pippen and Grant could've increased their averages by, yet their averages remained the same.

Nice try, but your math still doesn't add up..
.

Speaking of math not adding up, 32.6 minus 23.8 is 8.8 which is not "nearly 10 ppg". Now add to that the 4 ppg advantage that this squad was giving them on defense, and you are at 4.8 ppg difference. Actually, with the entire squad, their ppg differential dropped from 6.3 to 3.1, a 3.2 ppg differential. That was without the best defensive guard in the league, and with a POS to replace him. So yeah, put Dumars on that team and you very likely would make up the difference.

And since you like to twist your statistics. When Jordan left, Pippins scoring went up 18%, Grants 15%, and Armstrong's 20%. You say that's not significant, I think it is. Also, you accused me of being a stats only guy, but the only thing that matters to you is who carried the biggest stat load. That's all you keep coming back to. Personally, I don't see carrying the biggest stat load as a good thing. My model has always been the teams that have great balance, and for lack of a better word, chemistry. The 70 Knicks are the model against which I measure other teams, and yes, that's just the old timer in me. But I prefer a team where guys are not scoring or padding their stats for the sake of their own egos.

[3ball]

:rolleyes:

[3ball]

Two can play this non-stop (and nonsensical) copy-and-paste game...
I don't care about your posts Lazeruss - I've destroyed every single argument you've ever made and I responded to every single point in your last post earlier itt right here:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12080052&postcount=64


I only care about getting responses from Duffy Pratt, Frescobaldi, and 97 Bulls, who think that MJ didn't need to score as much for the Bulls to win.

That argument is sheer dumbness, since Lebron reduced his teammates' stats a super-ton (many prominent teammates only played to 70% capacity or less next to him), so the argument works much better against him.

Otoh, Pippen and Grant played to 85-90% capacity alongside Jordan in 1993 (vs. their 1994 stats) and 100% capacity in 1992.

But the whole "he didn't need to score that much" argument is a dumb argument to begin with because it can be used against virtually every player in history.. Arguments that can be used against EVERYBODY, aren't arguments...

But that's how turned around I have you guys thinking in your desperation to prove me wrong about how GOAT Jordan was.

[LAZERUSS]

:applause: Jordan stans had a 2nd fiddle that was 4th in PER the season MJ left. What pathetic squad they had right? :rolleyes:

Yeah... players like Grant were ordinary and easily replaceable...


How great an IMPACT did GRANT have in his career? He (along with Pippen, of course) IMMEDIATELY elevated the Bulls from a 40-42 team unable to win a playoff game...to a 50-32 record...and into the ECSF's.

His Bulls teams would continue to improve and as he played better, they won more.

MJ left the Bulls after the 92-93 season, and in game's Grant played the next season, they went 48-22 (55-27 overall.) He was a key factor in the '94 playoff run, as well, and they were ONE PLAY away from beating a 56-26 Knick team that would lose a game seven by four points in the Finals, to the Rockets.

Grant bolted for the Magic after that season, the Magic improved from 50-32 record, and first round cannon-fodder, to a 57-25 team that would make the Finals. Oh, and he absolutely SHELLED Jordan's Bulls in the ECSF's with a dominating 18-11 .647 series. Hell, the '94 Bulls were a better team, with Grant, than they were the same exact roster the next season, sans Grant, but now with Jordan. IMPACT.

The next season, Shaq missed the first 20 games...and all Grant did was to lead the Magic to a 15-5 record in his absence (and overall, in the games that Grant played... a 50-13 record...and a 10-9 record without him.)

And Grant was on his way to yet another brilliant post-season in '96, as well. Going into the ECF's and against the Bulls, and Dennis Rodman, he had averaged a staggering 17-8 .656. However, he was injured in the middle of the first game of that series, and missed the rest of it. Guess what, Rodman was free to shut down Shaq, and without an ELITE PF, the Magic were swept.

Shaq bolted for the Lakers the very next year, and without him, Grant then led the Magic to a 45-37 record.

And the next season, when Penny was injured and could only go for 19 games...Grant led them to a 41-41 record. Think about that...without BOTH Shaq and Penny...and a 41-41 record.

The next year...a strike year... 33-17.

The next year he headed for Seattle, a team that had gone 25-25 the year before...and IMMEDIATELY led them to a 45-37 record.

Even late in his career, he joined the Lakers, and with him, they stormed to a 15-1 playoff record en route to yet another ring for Grant.


Certainly one of the most IMPACTFUL players of his era.

Grant was a master WINNER...his ENTIRE career.

Now, let's let queueball explain why Chris "No can do" Bosh's resume was completely the OPPOSITE his ENTIRE career.

Grant was a winner everywhere he went, even without Jordan. Time-and-again.

Bosh has been a HUGE CAREER LOSER without Lebron. And a worthless POS with him.

The "10-time All-star"...:roll: :roll: :roll:

[3ball]

Speaking of math not adding up, 32.6 minus 23.8 is 8.8 which is not "nearly 10 ppg". Now add to that the 4 ppg advantage that this squad was giving them on defense, and you are at 4.8 ppg difference. Actually, with the entire squad, their ppg differential dropped from 6.3 to 3.1, a 3.2 ppg differential. That was without the best defensive guard in the league, and with a POS to replace him. So yeah, put Dumars on that team and you very likely would make up the difference.
Your argument is that Jordan didn't need to score as much for the Bulls to win.

My counter was that Pippen/Grant played to capacity next to Jordan, proving that the Bulls needed all of Jordan's points.

Your counter-counter was that they DIDN'T play to capacity next to him, and you posted stats showing they played to 85-90% capacity in 1993 (vs. their 1994 stats).

My counter-counter-counter is that the argument is ridiculous to begin with, since Lebron's teammates play to 70% of capacity next to him, so the argument works FAR better against him...

I also said that the entire argument is dumb to begin with, because saying a player didn't need to do as much can be used against ANY player in history, and therefore isn't an argument at all.. It's poppycock.
.

[LAZERUSS]

More IMPACT from the "replaceable" GRANT...

In his post-seasons, from '90-91 thru '95-96...his ORtgs were...

'91: 130 (LED the NBA)
'92: 127
'93: 127
'94: 126
'95: 123 (oh, and 136 against MJ's Bulls...in a 4-2 stomping)
'96: 142 (LED the NBA)

Interesting that all of that corresponds with a.) the Bulls first-3peat, b.) '94, without MJ, c.) crushes the Bulls in the '95; and d.) leads the NBA again , BUT, he was injured in game one of the ECF's against MJ's Bulls, who then put Rodman on Shaq whenever they needed to contain him...and swept the Grant-less Magic.

TRUE IMPACT!!!

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[3ball]

.
................Percentage of team points scored while player was on floor


.........................RS.....RS 4th.... PO....PO 4th....Finals.. Finals 4th


JORDAN 1997... 36.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 40.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 37.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 46.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 40.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 50.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4) <--- links to nba.com data
JORDAN 1998... 36.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 42.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 39.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 48.8 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 43.6 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 49.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/893/stats/usage/?Season=1997-98&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)

CURRY 2015..... 29.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/201939/stats/usage/?Season=2014-15&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 36.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/201939/stats/usage/?Season=2014-15&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 33.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/201939/stats/usage/?Season=2014-15&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 36.6 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/201939/stats/usage/?Season=2014-15&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 29.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/201939/stats/usage/?Season=2014-15&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 40.6 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/201939/stats/usage/?Season=2014-15&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
CURRY 2016..... 35.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/201939/stats/usage/)..... 41.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/201939/stats/usage/?Season=2015-16&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)

SHAQ 2000....... 35.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 38.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 34.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 39.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 38.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 43.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
SHAQ 2001....... 33.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 38.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 33.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 34.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 35.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 26.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
SHAQ 2002....... 33.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 35.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 33.5 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 25.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 38.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 28.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/406/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)

KOBE 2000....... 27.5 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 29.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 26.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 27.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 19.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 15.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=1999-00&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
KOBE 2001....... 32.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 34.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 31.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 37.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 25.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 23.7 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4&Period=4)
KOBE 2002....... 30.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 31.3 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 29.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 34.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 27.2 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 32.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2001-02&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)

KOBE 2008....... 31.8 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2007-08&SeasonType=Regular%20Season)..... 36.8 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2007-08&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4)..... 33.9 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2007-08&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 41.5 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2007-08&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4)...... 30.4 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2007-08&SeasonType=Playoffs&PORound=4)...... 32.1 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/977/stats/usage/?Season=2007-08&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)

LEBRON 2009... 35.0..... 39.3..... 41.5..... 42.4
LEBRON 2010... 34.6..... 44.4..... 32.6..... 40.3
LEBRON 2011... 32.0..... 32.8..... 28.1..... 30.7...... 21.4...... 14.8 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/2544/stats/usage/?Season=2010-11&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)
LEBRON 2012... 34.2..... 33.8..... 34.5..... 34.9...... 30.0...... 33.3
LEBRON 2013... 32.1..... 32.1..... 30.6..... 36.0...... 29.3...... 39.1
LEBRON 2014... 33.1..... 38.2..... 35.3..... 32.1...... 39.6...... 29.5
LEBRON 2015... 30.1..... 38.9..... 35.0 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/2544/stats/usage/?Season=2014-15&SeasonType=Playoffs)..... 42.4...... 40.0...... 44.5 (http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/2544/stats/usage/?Season=2014-15&SeasonType=Playoffs&Period=4&PORound=4)


As you can see, 34-35 year old MJ scored a much higher proportion of his team's points while on the floor than everyone, including PRIME SHAQ and especially in the 4th quarter.. (Shaq got twice the reb & blk, but MJ got twice the apg & spg, so we're left with pts).

Just imagine if we had the stats from MJ's prime - he probably scored 60-70% of his team's points while on the floor.
.

[LAZERUSS]

Chris "can't do" Bosh...

Remove "the chemistry-killer" from his resume, and we have this...

'04: 33-49 no playoffs
'05: 33-49 no playoffs
'06: 27-55 no playoffs
'07: 47-35, lose in the firs round 4-2 to the 41-41 Nets
'08: 41-41 lose in the first round 4-1
'09: 33-49
'10: 40-42

from '11 thru '14 played with Lebron and contributed nothing.

jump to '15: 37-45 missed the playoffs, on a team with Wade, Whiteside, and Deng.

currently 23-21 on a team with Wade, Whiteside, and Deng.

Comparing this clown to a true winner in Grant...:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Round Mound]

More IMPACT from the "replaceable" GRANT...

In his post-seasons, from '90-91 thru '95-96...his ORtgs were...

'91: 130 (LED the NBA)
'92: 127
'93: 127
'94: 126
'95: 123 (oh, and 136 against MJ's Bulls...in a 4-2 stomping)
'96: 142 (LED the NBA)

Interesting that all of that corresponds with a.) the Bulls first-3peat, b.) '94, without MJ, c.) crushes the Bulls in the '95; and d.) leads the NBA again , BUT, he was injured in game one of the ECF's against MJ's Bulls, who then put Rodman on Shaq whenever they needed to contain him...and swept the Grant-less Magic.

TRUE IMPACT!!!

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

:applause:

[97 bulls]

8 ppg is a super-ton - most games are decided by less.

8 ppg is a ton. So is 32 lol.


Moreover, the Bulls ORtg declined from #1 all-time during their 3-peat (116, 115, 113), to 14th in the league.
Hey. I never said Jordan loss didn't effect the team. I thought the discussion centered around the other players ppg.


That's a catastrophic drop-off, and it explains why they fell from 3-peat dynasty and one of the best teams ever, to ordinary 2nd Round team.
This has never been an argument. I mean you are really arguing with yourself here. Our argument has always been the success they had an you ignoring it.


And this type of GOAT impact from Jordan wasn't just on 2nd Round teams - it was on lottery teams too:

In 1989, the 47-win Bulls would've missed the 45-win playoff cut without Jordan's 33/8/8/54.. So heading into the 1990 season, they would've been lottery, instead of ECF veterans and 1 season away from starting their first 3-peat..

Let that sink in.. MJ drove that team towards championship status with his GOAT impact and drive - plain and simple.
Again you're arguing with yourself here bro.

[3ball]

.
This was the consensus about Pippen:



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:


"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



JERRY KRAUSE, Bulls GM:

[indent][I]

[LAZERUSS]

I haven't ignored it - it's addressed in the frieking OP, where I attributed it to 3-peat chemistry, not the marginal talent the team had.. You seem to have forgotten the point of the entire thread.

But ultimately, you guys can't get past the statistical proof - MJ had to score more than anyone BY FAR, which proves he had the least help (and the supporting cast of nearly every championship team plays great defense, so that's a wash when comparing the cast of championship teams)

The only response you have is to say that MJ didn't NEED to score so much for the Bulls to win - of course, this is pure nonsense, since Jordan's teammates played to far greater capacity alongside him than Lebron's teammates play next to him - so your argument works far better vs. Lebron than Jordan.

And the argument is ridiculous to begin with, since you could say ANY player in history didn't need to do as much.. An argument that can be used against every player isn't an argument... It's poppycock.

Poopycock.

What was PROVEN, was that the Bulls needed a few more ppg from a SG, instead of the 6 ppg that PETE MYERS gave them in their seven game series defeat by the Knicks (and were ONE PLAY away beating them)...the same NY team that would lose a game seven by four points to the Rockets in the Finals.

[Duffy Pratt]

Your argument is that Jordan didn't need to score as much for the Bulls to win.

My counter was that Pippen/Grant played to capacity next to Jordan, proving that the Bulls needed all of Jordan's points.


.

My argument is that the Bulls proved that they were damned good without Jordan, and that they could have won in 94 if they had had a decent shooting guard who could defend. They were that good. They were also a different team with the addition of Kerr, Kukoc, Longley, and Wennington. So whatever chemistry they had, it was substantially different from the chemistry they had with Jordan. They were a different team that played differently, and they were good, but not as good as they had been with Jordan.

For what its worth, they probably did have to have all of that scoring from Jordan. That's the workable system that Jackson came up with, and he's smarter about basketball than I am. But that doesn't mean that they needed Jordan, as opposed to another good shooting guard, to win in 94. As Laz has pointed out, they were one shot away from beating the Knicks and going to the finals. If they had gotten a good shooting guard, and (big if), if they had developed chemistry with the new shooting guard, they might have gone over the top again.

You are simply desperate to make it seem like everyone around Jordan sucked. They didn't. As I recall, that year I was not surprised that the Bulls did as well as they did without Jordan, even though Kukoc was a bit of a disappointment given the hype around him.

[LAZERUSS]

My argument is that the Bulls proved that they were damned good without Jordan, and that they could have won in 94 if they had had a decent shooting guard who could defend. They were that good. They were also a different team with the addition of Kerr, Kukoc, Longley, and Wennington. So whatever chemistry they had, it was substantially different from the chemistry they had with Jordan. They were a different team that played differently, and they were good, but not as good as they had been with Jordan.

For what its worth, they probably did have to have all of that scoring from Jordan. That's the workable system that Jackson came up with, and he's smarter about basketball than I am. But that doesn't mean that they needed Jordan, as opposed to another good shooting guard, to win in 94. As Laz has pointed out, they were one shot away from beating the Knicks and going to the finals. If they had gotten a good shooting guard, and (big if), if they had developed chemistry with the new shooting guard, they might have gone over the top again.

You are simply desperate to make it seem like everyone around Jordan sucked. They didn't. As I recall, that year I was not surprised that the Bulls did as well as they did without Jordan, even though Kukoc was a bit of a disappointment given the hype around him.


You and I, and virtually every rational poster on this board would agree with the bolded.

That is all that needs to be said.

Jordan had excellent supporting casts in his six title runs.

When he had poor rosters, he went 1-9.

He won as expected...and lost as expected. Nothing wrong with that, but he certainly wasn't winning rings by himself.

[3ball]

For what its worth, they probably did need all that scoring from Jordan. That's the workable system that Jackson came up with, and he's smarter about basketball than I am.


:roll:

So after I point out that the entire "Jordan didn't need to score as much" argument could be used against ANY player, and that Jordan's teammates played to far greater capacity alongside him than Lebron's teammates play next to him (thus making the argument work better against Lebron than Jordan) - only then are you forced to concede that the Bulls needed Jordan to score that much and your argument was ridiculous.

So that ends the argument - the Bulls needed him to score more than anyone ever (by far (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185)), while still leading his team in passing (MJ led Bulls in assist % for for both 3-peats (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11713121&postcount=49)) - this is more than anyone else had to produce to win rings, which means he had the weakest supporting cast... the stats don't lie... 2+2 = 4 regardless of whether you admit it or not.

(don't bother bring up team defense - the supporting cast of nearly every championship team plays great defense, so that's a wash when comparing the cast of championship teams).. Take this L





But that doesn't mean that they needed Jordan, as opposed to another good shooting guard, to win in 94.


So you concede that they needed Jordan's scoring to win championships in 1991-1993 and 1996-1998, but not in 1994, when they lost in the 2nd Round?..

Somehow, 1994 was different than the other 6 years, so a different SG who scored 10-15 ppg less would turn a 2nd Round team into champions?

:roll: ^^^^^^ That makes no sense.... :confusedshrug: ... :yaohappy:





You are simply desperate to make it seem like everyone around Jordan sucked. They didn't.


I never said everyone sucked around him - that's your own insecurity talking - all I've EVER said is that Jordan had WEAKER supporting talent than many teams that didn't win the ring, and any team that did.

This is proven by the stats - for the Bulls to win their rings, they needed MJ to score more than anyone else ever has (by far (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185)), while also needing him to lead the team in passing (MJ led the Bulls in assist % for for both 3-peats (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11713121&postcount=49)) - he simply did more than anyone else had to do, which means he had the weaker supporting cast.. the stats don't lie... 2+2 = 4 regardless of whether you admit it or not.

(don't bother bring up team defense - the supporting cast of nearly every championship team plays great defense, so that's a wash when comparing the cast of championship teams)
.

[Duffy Pratt]

So let me get this straight. You aren't saying that his supporting cast sucked. Rather, you are just saying they are the worst ever of any championship squad.

Also, you keep insisting that I made arguments I never made. Please stop.

If you took Hakeem off of the 95 Rockets, they wouldn't be a .500 team. The Bulls without Jordan won 55 games. But your argument, if we are going to distort each others arguments, appears to be.

A) We know that the Bulls core in 94 were a bunch of no-talents.
B) Thus, the reason they won 55 games can only be attributed to 3-peat chemistry.
C) The reason they had that 3-peat chemistry is because Jordan carried them singlehandedly on his back.
D) Therefore, Jordan is actually mostly responsible for their having won 55 games in 94.
E) That is the Jordan effect.

I admit that with Jordan, the team needed him to score. Without him, they upped their defense, and their own scoring and were not as good, but they were still a fine team. With another strong shooting guard in his place, they would have made different adjustments and have perhaps done better and even won the championship. Just because they did win with Jordan scoring that much, that does not mean its the only way that they could have won.

I think the Spurs prove pretty well that its possible for the same guys to win in different ways under different circumstances.

I have said nothing at all about the 96-98 Bulls, and you have no idea what I think about them. I've also said nothing about LeBron.

Dismissing defense is absolutely absurd. Defense wins championships. Its why Russell was so great. Its what made my 70 Knicks so special. It's what was peculiarly special about the Bulls runs. And finally, after accusing me of being a stats only guy, you now go on and on about how stats don't lie and 2+2=4. The mind boggles...

[LAZERUSS]

So let me get this straight. You aren't saying that his supporting cast sucked. Rather, you are just saying they are the worst ever of any championship squad.

Also, you keep insisting that I made arguments I never made. Please stop.

If you took Hakeem off of the 95 Rockets, they wouldn't be a .500 team. The Bulls without Jordan won 55 games. But your argument, if we are going to distort each others arguments, appears to be.

A) We know that the Bulls core in 94 were a bunch of no-talents.
B) Thus, the reason they won 55 games can only be attributed to 3-peat chemistry.
C) The reason they had that 3-peat chemistry is because Jordan carried them singlehandedly on his back.
D) Therefore, Jordan is actually mostly responsible for their having won 55 games in 94.
E) That is the Jordan effect.

I admit that with Jordan, the team needed him to score. Without him, they upped their defense, and their own scoring and were not as good, but they were still a fine team. With another strong shooting guard in his place, they would have made different adjustments and have perhaps done better and even won the championship. Just because they did win with Jordan scoring that much, that does not mean its the only way that they could have won.

I think the Spurs prove pretty well that its possible for the same guys to win in different ways under different circumstances.

I have said nothing at all about the 96-98 Bulls, and you have no idea what I think about them. I've also said nothing about LeBron.

Dismissing defense is absolutely absurd. Defense wins championships. Its why Russell was so great. Its what made my 70 Knicks so special. It's what was peculiarly special about the Bulls runs. And finally, after accusing me of being a stats only guy, you now go on and on about how stats don't lie and 2+2=4. The mind boggles...

You got it. Except for E. It was not the Jordan Effect, but rather the "Goofball Effect."

Jordan made his teammates better by making them much worse.

2-2= 4

[3ball]

So let me get this straight. You aren't saying that his supporting cast sucked. Rather, you are just saying they are the worst ever of any championship squad.



The Bulls had the 6th best record in the league in 1994, but none of their options were 6th best:


1st options > Pippen in 1994:

Hakeem
Shaq
Ewing
Robinson
Barkley
Malone
Alonzo (22/10 and 3.0 blk)


2nd Options better Grant in 1994:

payton
kj
stockton
daughtery (17/10)
kevin willis (19/11)
Kenny Anderson (19/10 and 2 stl)
Blaylock (15/10 and 2.6 stl)
penny (16/4/7 and 2.3 stl
drexler (all-star cliff robinson averaged more fga and ppg)
webber (all-star sprewell averaged more fga and ppg)

Plus these guys stats were equal or better: thorpe, hot rod, rik smits, larry johnson, gugliotta, jamal mashburn, Oakley



3rd options > BJ Armstrong

Rod Strickland (17/9 and 1.8 stl)
Ceballos (19/7)
Starks (19/6)
Terry Mills (17/8)
Chris Mullin (17/6/5)
Rex Chapman (18 ppg on 50%)
Detlef Schrempf
Laphonso Ellis (15/9)
Jeff Hornacek (17 ppg and 6 apg)
Dan Majerle (17 ppg)
Dell Curry (16 ppg)
Nick Anderson (16/6)
Rony Seikaly (15/10)
Vin Baker (14/8)

And many more - too many to count... As you can see, the Bulls' 6th best record wasn't due to 6th best talent - it was due to chemistry, specifically 3-peat know-how (triangle) and 3-peat chemistry executed by the only 3 members of the 1993 supporting cast that averaged over 20 minutes and 6 ppg in 1993 (Pippen/Grant/Armstrong).
.

[3ball]

I admit that with Jordan, the team needed him to score.

Without him, they upped their defense

their own scoring and were not as good, but they were still a fine team.


The Bulls' DRtg in 1994 (6th) wasn't any better relative to the league than the first 3-peat (7th, 4th, 7th).

Accordingly, the massive decline from 3-peat dynasty to 2nd Round team was due entirely to offense - their ORtg cratered from #1 all-time to 14th in the league due to the absence of MJ's goat offense.

Furthermore, Pippen/Grant played at 100% capacity alongside him in 1992 (vs. their 1994 stats) and 85-90% capacity in 1993 - since his teammates were already playing AT or near capacity alongside him, all of Jordan's GOAT offense was required for the Bulls to win.

So you're wrong - the Bulls could NOT have won any other way - they needed MJ to score more than anyone else ever has (by far (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185)), while also needing him to lead the team in passing (MJ led the Bulls in assist % for for both 3-peats (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11713121&postcount=49)).

He simply did more than anyone else had to do, which means he had the weaker supporting cast.. the stats don't lie... 2+2 = 4 regardless of whether you admit it or not.





Just because they did win with Jordan scoring that much, that does not mean its the only way that they could have won.


Wait a minute - you said:


"For what its worth, they probably did need all that scoring from Jordan. That's the workable system that Jackson came up with, and he's smarter about basketball than I am."

You can't make the above statement and then turn around and say the Bulls might have been able to win another way and DIDN'T need Jordan's scoring for the 6 championships.. You would be blatantly going back on what you said.

And again, it's amazing you don't see your own desperation in even MAKING such an argument, when that's an argument you could make about ANY player to say his supporting cast was better than their stats indicated:


"Shaq didn't need to score that much, so his supporting cast was actually better than their stats indicated.. Lebron didn't need to score that much, so his supporting cast was actually better than their stats indicated... The Lakers didn't need all those assists from Magic, or his scoring, so his supporting cast was actually better than their stats indicated... etc, etc, etc."

It's ridiculous... And let's look at Lebron - Jordan's teammates played to greater capacity alongside him than Lebron's teammates play next to him, thus making the "Player X didn't need score as much for his team to win" argument work better against Lebron than Jordan.

So are you going to say the same thing about Lebron?... Are you going to say his team was stacked because he didn't really need to score that much?... It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.





With another strong shooting guard in his place, they would have made different adjustments and have perhaps done better and even won the championship.


Again - you've conceded that the Bulls needed MJ to score all those points.

More importantly, we've established how dumb it is for anyone to even USE that argument, since you could say that about virtually any player to say their supporting cast was better than their stats indicated (i.e. "Shaq and Lebron didn't need to score that much, so his supporting cast was actually better than the stats they put up"

We've established how dumb this argument is.

The Bulls needed MJ to score like he did for all 6 championships - accordingly, it's sheer dumbness and denial to think a SG that averaged 10-15 ppg less than MJ (like all SG's in 1994), could take a 2nd Round team and win the championship - it's ABSURD.





To exclude defense is absurd


Again, the 1994 Bulls' defense wasn't any better relative to the league than the first 3-peat - so defense isn't what caused the drop-off from 3-peat champion to 2nd Round... It was their offense that fell of a cliff and caused the massive decline from 3-peat champ to 2nd Round team - of course, the offensive decline was due to the absence of MJ's goat offense.

And when comparing the supporting casts of championships teams, the defense is wash, because nearly all championship teams have very good defenses... Not that this even matters - it was widely known AT THE TIME (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgJhzj4W9M&t=35m00s) that MJ was the team's best defender (contrary to young fans' revisionist history).
.

[Duffy Pratt]

They gave up 4 fewer points per game. That is upping their defense. Again you are trying to twist basic stats.

Now, I said that they needed Jordan to score as he did. Here's what I meant. With Jordan on the team, they needed a system that would work well for that team. Jordan needed to be the top dog, the top scorer in the league, and without that, he would have been unhappy. So Jackson came up with a way to make Jordan happy, score a ton, and still have championship caliber. So, with Jordan on the team, they needed him to score a ton of points.

But, if you put another strong guard on the team and Jackson might have come up with another way to balance the scoring loads. It would then have been a different team, with different chemistry. With what he had, he still managed to get the team to 55 wins and to a hairs breadth of th finals. With a stronger shooting guard, they might have gone further, and with more balanced scoring. Why is that so hard to understand?

Instead, you present the totally intuitive argument that, for example, if Reggie Lewis and Len Bias led the Celtics to a 3peat, and then one of them leaves, the remaining squad would easily win 55 games with their 3peat chemistry. Forget that it never has happened, It's completely obvious, and it therefore proves that that is what happened with the no talent Bulls.

I'm done with this. You truly are as unwilling to engage in a discussion, or to listen to what people actually say as everyone accuses you of being.

[Lebron23]

1-9

[3ball]

They gave up 4 fewer points per game. That is upping their defense. Again you are trying to twist basic stats.


The Bulls' DRtg in 1994 (6th) wasn't any better relative to the league than the first 3-peat (7th, 4th, 7th).. Accordingly, the massive decline from 3-peat dynasty to 2nd Round team was due entirely to offense - their ORtg cratered from #1 all-time to 14th in the league due to the absence of MJ's goat offense.

And when comparing the supporting casts of championships teams, the defense is wash, because nearly all championship teams have very good defenses... Not that this even matters - it was widely known AT THE TIME (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgJhzj4W9M&t=35m00s) that MJ was the team's best defender (contrary to young fans' revisionist history).





Jordan needed to be the top dog, the top scorer in the league, and without that, he would have been unhappy. So Jackson came up with a way to make Jordan happy, score a ton, and still have championship caliber. So, with Jordan on the team, they needed him to score a ton of points.

But, if you put another strong guard on the team instead of Jordan, Phil might've come up with another way to balance the scoring loads.


This is impossible because Pippen and Grant were already playing to 100% capacity in 1992 (vs. their 1994 stats) and at 85-90% capacity in 1993.

Since they were already playing at or near capacity alongside Jordan, there was no capacity to shift the scoring loads around - so we can say with certainty that Jordan's GOAT offense was the only way for the team to win.. And there's further proof of this:

The Bulls' DRtg in 1994 (6th) wasn't any better relative to the league than the first 3-peat (7th, 4th, 7th).. Accordingly, the massive decline from 3-peat dynasty to 2nd Round team was due entirely to offense - their ORtg cratered from #1 all-time to 14th in the league due to the absence of MJ's goat offense.

Remember, Phil Jackson achieved 6/6 perfection with MJ producing more than anyone ever has (by far (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185)), which proves that MJ carrying the heaviest load ever was the necessary formula for those teams to achieve.
.

[aj1987]

Duff, don't even bother. When you pointed out the drop in stats, the retard brought up the lack of shit WHILE playing with MJ. When it comes to LeBron, he completely forgets that and keeps yapping about how he "marginalizes" his teammates and stuff.

Dude is delusional AF and needs clinical help.

[Duffy Pratt]

The Bulls had the 6th best record in the league in 1994, but none of their options were 6th best:


1st options > Pippen in 1994:

Hakeem
Shaq
Ewing
Robinson
Barkley
Malone
Alonzo (22/10 and 3.0 blk)


2nd Options better Grant in 1994:

payton
kj
stockton
daughtery (17/10)
kevin willis (19/11)
Kenny Anderson (19/10 and 2 stl)
Blaylock (15/10 and 2.6 stl)
penny (16/4/7 and 2.3 stl
drexler (all-star cliff robinson averaged more fga and ppg)
webber (all-star sprewell averaged more fga and ppg)

Plus these guys stats were equal or better: thorpe, hot rod, rik smits, larry johnson, gugliotta, jamal mashburn, Oakley



3rd options > BJ Armstrong

Rod Strickland (17/9 and 1.8 stl)
Ceballos (19/7)
Starks (19/6)
Terry Mills (17/8)
Chris Mullin (17/6/5)
Rex Chapman (18 ppg on 50%)
Detlef Schrempf
Laphonso Ellis (15/9)
Jeff Hornacek (17 ppg and 6 apg)
Dan Majerle (17 ppg)
Dell Curry (16 ppg)
Nick Anderson (16/6)
Rony Seikaly (15/10)
Vin Baker (14/8)

And many more - too many to count... As you can see, the Bulls' 6th best record wasn't due to 6th best talent - it was due to chemistry, specifically 3-peat know-how (triangle) and 3-peat chemistry executed by the only 3 members of the 1993 supporting cast that averaged over 20 minutes and 6 ppg in 1993 (Pippen/Grant/Armstrong).
.

Ok I lied about being done, but after this one I am done.

I said the 1970 Knicks were my model for a team. There were 14 teams in the league that year. The Knocks first option was Reed, second option Frazier, and third was Barnett.

By your way of figuring, there were 12 first options better than Reed that year. Nine second options better than Frazier. And Twelve third options better than Barnett. Hence proving that that team was just a bunch of no talent scrubs. Or maybe defense really does matter?

Bye.

[LAZERUSS]

You know who needs clinical help?

All you guys - you guys ignore the stats staring you in the face showing that MJ produced more than anyone (by far) to win his rings.

And then you make up ridiculous excuses saying the Bulls could've won if MJ scored less - or the Bulls could've replaced him with a lesser guard and still won...

Seriously, how dumb are you guys - so now we can just replace Bird, Magic, Shaq or Lebron with lesser players and the coach will magically shift shit around to make it work?

What a joke... You guys are the ones in DENIAL and making up delusional shit, which are clinical issues - meanwhile, my posts are steeped in fact and reality.

With Lebron... 61-21.
Without Lebron... 19-63

With MJ... 57-25 and ONE PAXSON SHOT away from going to a game seven in Phoenix, and losing to a much less talented team in the Finals.
Without MJ... and an injury-riddled cast... 55-27

Oh, and they were ONE PLAY away from beating a Knicks team that was TWO PLAYS away from a title...all achieved with PETE MYERS and his 6 ppg average.

[CAstill]

People really love their almost arguments lol. Jordan is the only reason that team 3peated.....twice!

[3ball]

With Lebron... 61-21.
Without Lebron... 19-63


You mean without Shaq, Mo Williams, Varejao, Delonte West, and Zydrunas (over 50% of 2010 Cavs points)

Oh, and Lebron... Whew





With MJ... 57-25 and ONE PAXSON SHOT away from going to a game seven in Phoenix, and losing to a much less talented team in the Finals.
Without MJ... and an injury-riddled cast... 55-27

Oh, and they were ONE PLAY away from beating a Knicks team that was TWO PLAYS away from a title...all achieved with PETE MYERS and his 6 ppg average.


There are 2 facts which prove that Jordan's GOAT offense was the only way for the Bulls to win:

1) The Bulls' DRtg in 1994 (6th) wasn't any better relative to the league than the first 3-peat (7th, 4th, 7th).. Accordingly, the massive decline from 3-peat dynasty to 2nd Round team was due entirely to the absence of MJ's offense, which caused their ORtg to crater from #1 all-time to 14th in the league.

2) Pippen/Grant played at 100% capacity alongside MJ in 1992 (vs. their 1994 stats) and 85-90% capacity in 1993 - since his teammates were already playing AT or near capacity alongside him, all of Jordan's goat offense (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185) was required for the Bulls to win.

[3ball]

Jordan needed to be the top dog, the top scorer in the league, and without being scoring champ, Jordan would've been unhappy. So Jackson came up with a way to make Jordan happy, score a ton, and still have championship caliber. So, with Jordan on the team, they needed him to score a ton of points.


What a crock of bullshit..

Phil Jackson achieved 6/6 perfection with MJ producing more than anyone ever has (by far (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185)), which proves that MJ carrying the heaviest load ever was the necessary formula for those teams to achieve.

Phil wanted MJ to shoot because it resulted in 6/6.. 6/6 proves that was the best way to win for that team by far - and obviously, Phil and everyone knew it.





But, if you put another strong guard on the team instead of Jordan, Phil might've come up with another way to balance the scoring loads.


^^^ A complete farce - so anytime you want to argue that a team didn't really need the star player, you can say the bullshit that you just said above: "well, the Mavs could've won with with a lesser player in Dirk's place because Carlisle could've come up with other ways to balance the scoring loads."

What a bunch of bullshit.. You guys say I'm crazy, but I have you guys coming up with ridiculous excuses to explain why MJ's stats were so GOAT.. You never make up this kind of bullshit for any other player - only the GOAT - think about how dumb that is.





But, if you put another strong guard on the team instead of Jordan, Phil might've come up with another way to balance the scoring loads.


This straw man argument was already exposed above, but we can disprove it statistically too - Pippen and Grant were already playing at 100% capacity alongside Jordan in 1992 (relative to their 1994 stats) and 85-90% capacity in 1993, so they didn't have any additional capacity to take on more scoring that would come with Phil's re-balancing.

Since teammates were already playing to capacity alongside Jordan, we can say with certainty that Jordan's GOAT scoring was the only way for the team to win.. And I don't want to hear BS about how the remaining stiffs could've increased their scoring and made up the difference because that isn't what happened in 1994 - the Bulls' ORtg cratered from #1 all-time during the 3-peat, to #14 in the league... So the remaining stiffs didn't make up shit.

Btw, the Bulls' DRtg in 1994 (6th) wasn't any better relative to the league than the first 3-peat (7th, 4th, 7th).. Accordingly, the massive decline from 3-peat dynasty to 2nd Round team was due entirely to the absence of MJ's offense, which caused their ORtg to crater from #1 all-time to 14th in the league.. Take this L

[LAZERUSS]

What a crock of bullshit..

Phil Jackson achieved 6/6 perfection with MJ producing more than anyone ever has (by far (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185)), which proves that MJ carrying the heaviest load ever was the necessary formula for those teams to achieve.

Phil wanted MJ to shoot because it resulted in 6/6.. 6/6 proves that was the best way to win for that team by far - and obviously, Phil and everyone knew it.



^^^ A complete farce - so anytime you want to argue that a team didn't really need the star player, you can say the bullshit that you just said above: "well, the Mavs could've won with with a lesser player in Dirk's place because Carlisle could've come up with other ways to balance the scoring loads."

What a bunch of bullshit.. You guys say I'm crazy, but I have you guys coming up with ridiculous excuses to explain why MJ's stats were so GOAT.. You never make up this kind of bullshit for any other player - only the GOAT - think about how dumb that is.



This straw man argument was already exposed above, but we can disprove it statistically too - Pippen and Grant were already playing at 100% capacity alongside Jordan in 1992 (relative to their 1994 stats) and 85-90% capacity in 1993, so they didn't have any additional capacity to take on more scoring that would come with Phil's re-balancing.

Since teammates were already playing to capacity alongside Jordan, we can say with certainty that Jordan's GOAT scoring was the only way for the team to win.. And I don't want to hear BS about how the remaining stiffs could've increased their scoring and made up the difference because that isn't what happened in 1994 - the Bulls' ORtg cratered from #1 all-time during the 3-peat, to #14 in the league... So the remaining stiffs didn't make up shit.

Btw, the Bulls' DRtg in 1994 (6th) wasn't any better relative to the league than the first 3-peat (7th, 4th, 7th).. Accordingly, the massive decline from 3-peat dynasty to 2nd Round team was due entirely to the absence of MJ's offense, which caused their ORtg to crater from #1 all-time to 14th in the league.. Take this L

All of the above has been disproven,

All the bulls needed in 1994 was a SG to average slightly more than Pete Myers 6 ppg in the NY series. They then rout the Pacers in the next eround, and pummel the Rockets in the Finals.

'94 champs with a SG that scores 8 ppg.

Furthermore, had Pippen and Grant not missed a combined 22 games, they EASILY win 60+ and have HCA and win their series 3-0, 4-2, and probably easily beat the Rockets whom only had Hakeem. Grant would have neutralized him enough to allow the rest of the Bulls to win that series.

[3ball]

With Lebron... 61-21.
Without Lebron... 19-63


You mean without Shaq, Mo Williams, Varejao, Delonte West, and Zydrunas (over 50% of 2010 Cavs points)

Oh, and Lebron... Whew





With MJ... 57-25 and ONE PAXSON SHOT away from going to a game seven in Phoenix, and losing to a much less talented team in the Finals.
Without MJ... and an injury-riddled cast... 55-27

Oh, and they were ONE PLAY away from beating a Knicks team that was TWO PLAYS away from a title...all achieved with PETE MYERS and his 6 ppg average.


There are 2 facts which prove that Jordan's GOAT offense was the only way for the Bulls to win:

1) The Bulls' DRtg in 1994 (6th) wasn't any better relative to the league than the first 3-peat (7th, 4th, 7th).. Accordingly, the massive decline from 3-peat dynasty to 2nd Round team was due entirely to the absence of MJ's offense, which caused their ORtg to crater from #1 all-time to 14th in the league.

2) Pippen/Grant played at 100% capacity alongside MJ in 1992 (vs. their 1994 stats) and 85-90% capacity in 1993 - since his teammates were already playing AT or near capacity alongside him, all of Jordan's goat offense (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185) was required for the Bulls to win.

[sdot_thadon]

Yeah been trashed and disproven too many times already. Mj scored like he did because he wanted to. I'll say some rare cases it was necessary but there's tons of quotes about his desire for a certain amount of point per game.

[LAZERUSS]

Look 3ball. No one is arguing that Jordan wasn't a great player. But, the rational posters here acknowledge that he had a TON of help in his title runs. Only a complete idiot would try to discount an injury-riddled team that wins 55 games in his absence, and came within a phantom foul with 2 seconds left in game five, of winning the Knick series. And we all know that the Knicks almost won the Finals in game seven.

Secondly, no rational poster here has Lebron ranked ahead of MJ. BUT, no rational poster is going to continually try to discredit him, when he has taken rosters, that were complete losers before and after him, to five straight Finals, and was by far the most dominant player in the two title wins.

Just move on, ...please.

[BIG FURB]

Don't let your need to antagonize 3ball make you post things on the internet that will get you laughed at later on people, be sensible.

[LAZERUSS]

Don't let your need to antagonize 3ball make you post things on the internet that will get you laughed at later on people, be sensible.

I agree. See my post just before your's.

:cheers:

[3ball]

there's tons of quotes about his desire for a certain amount of point per game.


All players want to score - you'd know that if you knew anything about the game - when you watch basketball, you're like an animal watching something on TV - you have no clue what you're watching..

I remember how you used to post - everything was a quote - you never played, not even recreationally, which is why you have to read about the game to learn anything - everything you learned about the game, you had to read in a book, which is a joke.





Mj scored like he did because he wanted to.


And his team needed him to - Pippen and Grant were already playing at 100% capacity alongside Jordan in 1992 (relative to their 1994 stats) and 85-90% capacity in 1993.

Since teammates were already playing to capacity alongside Jordan, we can say with certainty that Jordan's GOAT scoring was the only way for the team to win the rings they won.. Phil went 6/6 with MJ scoring more than any player ever - I'm sure he'd agree that was the best way for that team to succeed... 6/6 don't lie.

Also, the Bulls' DRtg in 1994 (6th) wasn't any better relative to the league than the first 3-peat (7th, 4th, 7th).. Accordingly, the massive decline from 3-peat dynasty to 2nd Round team was due entirely to the absence of MJ's offense, which caused their ORtg to crater from #1 all-time to 14th in the league.. Take this L

[ClipperRevival]

With Lebron... 61-21.
Without Lebron... 19-63

With MJ... 57-25 and ONE PAXSON SHOT away from going to a game seven in Phoenix, and losing to a much less talented team in the Finals.
Without MJ... and an injury-riddled cast... 55-27

Oh, and they were ONE PLAY away from beating a Knicks team that was TWO PLAYS away from a title...all achieved with PETE MYERS and his 6 ppg average.

Jesus Christ man, you sound like a blithering idiot. I guess talking about "what if" scenarios with your man Ilt has gotten you to live in a "what if" world.

First off, the Suns had HCA in 1993 over the Bulls and they were a great, great team. Very talented and deeper than the Bulls. They needed MJ to average 41.0 ppg to win.

And how in the fu*k were the 1993-94 Bulls two plays away from a title? :roll: Jesus Christ you are an idiot. There is a huge different between a 2nd round exit team and a 3 peat dynastic team. But given the fact that you live in a "what if" world, I guess in your eyes, they aren't that far apart.

Man, you being a Ilt fan has made you lose all objectivity.

[LAZERUSS]

Jesus Christ man, you sound like a blithering idiot. I guess talking about "what if" scenarios with your man Ilt has gotten you to live in a "what if" world.

First off, the Suns had HCA in 1993 over the Bulls and they were a great, great team. Very talented and deeper than the Bulls. They needed MJ to average 41.0 ppg to win.

And how in the fu*k were the 1993-94 Bulls two plays away from a title? :roll: Jesus Christ you are an idiot. There is a huge different between a 2nd round exit team and a 3 peat dynastic team. But given the fact that you live in a "what if" world, I guess in your eyes, they aren't that far apart.

Man, you being a Ilt fan has made you lose all objectivity.

Chill out man. I was OBVIOUSLY being facetious. I just get so sick-and-tired of 3ball's constant disparaging of his teammates, and Lebron.

Jordan had a TON of help in all six of his rings, and Lebron has taken losing rosters to finals and titles.

And again, no rational poster has Lebron ranked ahead of MJ. But he is certainly a Top-10 player.

[ClipperRevival]

Chill out man. I was OBVIOUSLY being facetious. I just get so sick-and-tired of 3ball's constant disparaging of his teammates, and Lebron.

Jordan had a TON of help in all six of his rings, and Lebron has taken losing rosters to finals and titles.

And again, no rational poster has Lebron ranked ahead of MJ. But he is certainly a Top-10 player.

LOL. And you do the exact opposite, give MJ's teammates too much credit. Both of you guys are on the opposite end of the spectrum and could be more objective.

[sdot_thadon]

All players want to score - you'd know that if you knew anything about the game - when you watch basketball, you're like an animal watching something on TV - you have no clue what you're watching..

I remember how you used to post - everything was a quote - you never played, not even recreationally, which is why you have to read about the game to learn anything - everything you learned about the game, you had to read in a book, which is a joke.
Almost sounds like you're in tears typing this shit. You don't particularly know anything about me aside from my foot being constantly in your ass. I played, watched, read, ate, slept, and shit ball for quite a long time. You on the other hand are just now getting a grip on stats and want to tell all your "friends" about it. Your history is pretty clear and embarrassing everywhere you've posted. Stop making a fool of yourself.


Take this L
Seems like you've already taken them all, no thanks. :applause:

[Duffy Pratt]

And how in the fu*k were the 1993-94 Bulls two plays away from a title? :roll: J

Here's the end of game 5:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4WjOUXZr7Q

Here's one of the ref's in the game, and the head of NBA officiating, admitting that the call was BS:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1994-10-13/sports/9410130277_1_knicks-guard-hubert-davis-bulls-hue-hollins

[97 bulls]

I think what guys like 3ball miss is the whole dynamic of what makes an NBA team. And it's really very simple. You have your 1st option, 2nd option etc, shooters, rebounders, defenders, bigs etc. Guys that are big, guys that are bruisers, guys that are quick, you get the picture. What the Bulls had was top players at every role. And this goes far past scoring. Defense and rebounds are needed as well. During the Bulls run they had the best player, most versions player, best coach, best perimeter defenders, best sixthman, best shooter, hell even best catching staff.

This is what made them so dominant.

[aquaadverse]

Look 3ball. No one is arguing that Jordan wasn't a great player. But, the rational posters here acknowledge that he had a TON of help in his title runs. Only a complete idiot would try to discount an injury-riddled team that wins 55 games in his absence, and came within a phantom foul with 2 seconds left in game five, of winning the Knick series. And we all know that the Knicks almost won the Finals in game seven.

Secondly, no rational poster here has Lebron ranked ahead of MJ. BUT, no rational poster is going to continually try to discredit him, when he has taken rosters, that were complete losers before and after him, to five straight Finals, and was by far the most dominant player in the two title wins.

Just move on, ...please.
Nah, he won't. He'll cut and past forever.

[LAZERUSS]

I think what guys like 3ball miss is the whole dynamic of what makes an NBA team. And it's really very simple. You have your 1st option, 2nd option etc, shooters, rebounders, defenders, bigs etc. Guys that are big, guys that are bruisers, guys that are quick, you get the picture. What the Bulls had was top players at every role. And this goes far past scoring. Defense and rebounds are needed as well. During the Bulls run they had the best player, most versions player, best coach, best perimeter defenders, best sixthman, best shooter, hell even best catching staff.

This is what made them so dominant.

:cheers:

I was always impressed by BOTH their '94 and '95 teams (pre-MJ in '95.)
Think about it...their '94 team not only went 55-27, but Pippen and Grant missed a combined 22 games.

And no matter what anyone says, they were not an "ordinary" second round team. They were actually robbed of going to the ECF's, where they would have faced a team that they had beaten during the regular season.

And then after Grant bolted to the Magic in '95 (where he immediately made a huge impact in both '95 and '96), it was basically Pippen, and a talented role players (maybe Kukoc was more than a role player.) And here was Pippen, without BOTH Jordan and Grant, and carrying that roster to a 34-31 record (and 8-2 just before MJ came back.)

And I don't for a second believe in the "3-peat chemistry" theory, either. The '94 team had something like 4-5 new players...in addition to losing their best player from the year before. They had to create their own "chemistry."

Just look at last year's Warrior team. Aside from Curry, who would have claimed any of the other players as being more than good players? Now, everyone is singing the praises of not only Curry, but Green, Iggy, and Thompson. And with their other "role players", they seem to have the perfect blend of everything a team needs to be great.

In any case, the MJ-less Bulls teams were either very talented, or were, as you suggested, the perfect mix. And a team doesn't go an injury-plagued 55-27 after losing their best player without being an exceptional roster.

And while I would never make an honest claim that they didn't Jordan, I do feel that players like Pippen and Grant, and then Rodman, were definitely not "easily replaceable." These were players who perhaps made the whole greater than the sum.

:cheers:

[3ball]

LOL. And you do the exact opposite, give MJ's teammates too much credit. Both of you guys are on the opposite end of the spectrum and could be more objective.


Don't compare me to Lazeruss and say I'm like him - that isn't true and I can demonstrate it:

You just posted about the 1993 Finals and said MJ needed to score 41 ppg for the Bulls to win - that isn't ANY DIFFERENT than what I say (that Jordan needed to produce the most for his team to win, and I back it up with similarly irrefutable stats (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185) to your mention of MJ's 41 ppg).. Otoh, the response to that statement from Lazeruss, sdot_thadon and company would be "Jordan didn't need to score that much".

Now which stance is logical, accurate, and proven by stats (like your statement about MJ's 41 ppg and my posting of other stats (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185) showing the same thing), and which one is pure BS and made-up false narrative ("Jordan didn't need to score that much")... The BS is obviously the latter that says Jordan didn't need to score that much.

Of course, my response to the argument that Jordan didn't need to score as much is to post stats proving that he did, like stats showing how Pippen/Grant played AT 100% capacity (1992) or near capacity 85-90% (1993) alongside him, proving Jordan DID need to score that much...

Furthermore, the Bulls' DRtg in 1994 (6th) wasn't any better relative to the league than the first 3-peat (7th, 4th, 7th).. Accordingly, the massive decline from 3-peat dynasty to 2nd Round team was due entirely to the absence of MJ's offense, which caused their ORtg to crater from #1 all-time to 14th in the league.. How is this stuff refutable?... All I did was state a bunch of facts.

Finally, part of the reason you perceive me to be like Lazeruss, is because other posters have mischaracterized my arguments - they say "You said Jordan won 6 championships all by himself"... THAT ISN'T WHAT I SAID!!!!... I said Jordan had a weaker supporting talent than most championship teams, and this is proven by him having to produce MORE (such as 41 ppg) to win his rings... So again, don't compare me to Lazeruss - he makes up his own narrative (i.e. Horace was an elite PF and dominated, Paxson saved MJ in 1993 Finals), while I make reasonable statements (Jordan's supporting cast was weaker) and back it up with facts (stats showing Jordan had to do more (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185)).

[97 bulls]

Don't compare me to Lazeruss and say I'm like him - that isn't true and I can demonstrate it:

You just posted about the 1993 Finals and said MJ needed to score 41 ppg for the Bulls to win - that isn't ANY DIFFERENT than what I say (that Jordan needed to produce the most for his team to win, and I back it up with similarly irrefutable stats (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185) to your mention of MJ's 41 ppg).. Otoh, the response to that statement from Lazeruss, sdot_thadon and company would be "Jordan didn't need to score that much".

Now which stance is logical, accurate, and proven by stats (like your statement about MJ's 41 ppg and my posting of other stats (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185) showing the same thing), and which one is pure BS and made-up false narrative ("Jordan didn't need to score that much")... The BS is obviously the latter that says Jordan didn't need to score that much.

Of course, my response to the argument that Jordan didn't need to score as much is to post stats proving that he did, like stats showing how Pippen/Grant played AT 100% capacity (1992) or near capacity 85-90% (1993) alongside him, proving Jordan DID need to score that much...

Furthermore, the Bulls' DRtg in 1994 (6th) wasn't any better relative to the league than the first 3-peat (7th, 4th, 7th).. Accordingly, the massive decline from 3-peat dynasty to 2nd Round team was due entirely to the absence of MJ's offense, which caused their ORtg to crater from #1 all-time to 14th in the league.. How is this stuff refutable?... All I did was state a bunch of facts.

Finally, part of the reason you perceive me to be like Lazeruss, is because other posters have mischaracterized my arguments - they say "You said Jordan won 6 championships all by himself"... THAT ISN'T WHAT I SAID!!!!... I said Jordan had a weaker supporting talent than most championship teams, and this is proven by him having to produce MORE (such as 41 ppg) to win his rings... So again, don't compare me to Lazeruss - he makes up his own narrative (i.e. Horace was an elite PF and dominated, Paxson saved MJ in 1993 Finals), while I make reasonable statements (Jordan's supporting cast was weaker) and back it up with facts (stats showing Jordan had to do more (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185)).
3ball. No one is refuting the fact that Jordan leaving dropped the Bulls to a second round team. No one is refuting that the Bulls didn't miss and need Jordan. The difference is that fact that they were successful without Jordan, and you refuse to acknowledge it.

[97 bulls]

I took the liberty of looking up Pete Myers pts during the seven game series vs the Knicks:

G1 Bulls lost by 4 Myers scored 2 pts
G2 Bulls lost by 5 Myers scores 2 pts
G3 Bulls win by 6 Myers scored 6
G4 Bulls win by 12 Myers scores 6
G5 Bulls lost by 1 Myers scores 5 pts
G6 Bulls win by 14. Myers scores 10
G7 Bulls lost by 15 Myers scores 15.

3 of the Bulls losses were by 5 or less pts. And Myers (Jordan's replacement) managed to score a measly 3 ppg. That's damming evidence. There's no doubt that the Bulls 3nd up and probably even win the title with with a better SG.

[ClipperRevival]

Don't compare me to Lazeruss and say I'm like him - that isn't true and I can demonstrate it:

You just posted about the 1993 Finals and said MJ needed to score 41 ppg for the Bulls to win - that isn't ANY DIFFERENT than what I say (that Jordan needed to produce the most for his team to win, and I back it up with similarly irrefutable stats (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185) to your mention of MJ's 41 ppg).. Otoh, the response to that statement from Lazeruss, sdot_thadon and company would be "Jordan didn't need to score that much".

Now which stance is logical, accurate, and proven by stats (like your statement about MJ's 41 ppg and my posting of other stats (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185) showing the same thing), and which one is pure BS and made-up false narrative ("Jordan didn't need to score that much")... The BS is obviously the latter that says Jordan didn't need to score that much.

Of course, my response to the argument that Jordan didn't need to score as much is to post stats proving that he did, like stats showing how Pippen/Grant played AT 100% capacity (1992) or near capacity 85-90% (1993) alongside him, proving Jordan DID need to score that much...

Furthermore, the Bulls' DRtg in 1994 (6th) wasn't any better relative to the league than the first 3-peat (7th, 4th, 7th).. Accordingly, the massive decline from 3-peat dynasty to 2nd Round team was due entirely to the absence of MJ's offense, which caused their ORtg to crater from #1 all-time to 14th in the league.. How is this stuff refutable?... All I did was state a bunch of facts.

Finally, part of the reason you perceive me to be like Lazeruss, is because other posters have mischaracterized my arguments - they say "You said Jordan won 6 championships all by himself"... THAT ISN'T WHAT I SAID!!!!... I said Jordan had a weaker supporting talent than most championship teams, and this is proven by him having to produce MORE (such as 41 ppg) to win his rings... So again, don't compare me to Lazeruss - he makes up his own narrative (i.e. Horace was an elite PF and dominated, Paxson saved MJ in 1993 Finals), while I make reasonable statements (Jordan's supporting cast was weaker) and back it up with facts (stats showing Jordan had to do more (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185)).

I agree with most of what you say about MJ but you do degrade his supporting cast a bit too harshly. Yes, MJ is the GOAT and carried a historical load but no one wins alone. He needed some help and got it. But so did every other great who won rings. So no shame in admitting he had some help. Of course most people claiming MJ had a "stacked" roster probably never saw him play live or have agendas.

[3ball]

Pippen and Grant missed a combined 22 games.


If you want to assume the Bulls were 100% healthy, then you must assume the rest of the league is 100% healthy as well, so it's a wash.

For example, the Bulls would've lost in the 1st Round if Cleveland's best 3 players weren't injured (their entire frontcourt - all-star Daughtery, all-star Nance, and Hot Rod's 14/8 and 1.7 blk).

If these guys were healthy - bye-bye Bulls - the Cavs had far more talent and would've been chomping at the bit to get revenge for the way they lost in 1989 and 1993 (both times Jordan hit SERIES-WINNING shots at the buzzer).





the '94 team went 55-27


That was the 6th-best record in the league.

But we know the Bulls' 6th best record in 1994 wasn't due to 6th best talent - Horace Grant and BJ Armstrong were nowhere near top 6 among the league's second and third options, while Pippen wasn't top 6 among the league's first options (Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Malone, Barkley, Alonzo 22/10 and 3 blk, and more).

Their NON-top 6 talent proves their top 6 record was due to chemistry and know-how, specifically 3-peat chemistry and know-how from winning 3 straight championships.. Again, they didn't have anywhere near top 6 talent to support their top 6 record.





And no matter what anyone says, they were not an "ordinary" second round team. They were actually robbed of going to the ECF's


They weren't robbed - Pippen committed an actual foul that people blew out of proportion because everyone was cheering for the underdog - people were shocked the Bulls were still in the series, after a miracle shot saved them from going down 0-3 and breathed new life into the team.

Not surprisingly, the guy that gave the Bulls 2nd life was the main guy that WASN'T there in 1993 - Kukoc.





Just look at last year's Warrior team. Aside from Curry, who would have claimed any of the other players as being more than good players? Now, everyone is singing the praises of not only Curry, but Green, Iggy, and Thompson. And with their other "role players", they seem to have the perfect blend of everything a team needs to be great.


Yes - let's consider the Warriors - 55 wins would not be amazing for the Warrriors, Spurs, or ANY team that just won 3 championships and returned every player from the previous season that averaged over 20 minutes and 6 ppg..

Especially if they added a versatile, stretch 4 like Kukoc, who averaged double-figures, boosted their bench, and ultimately allowed them to save some face in the playoffs.

Of course, we've never seen a situation like the 1994 Bulls, where the star player retires after a 3-peat with everyone in their prime - so we'll probably never know - but maybe Curry will get injured in 2018 after the Warriors 3-peat and we'll find out.
.

[3ball]

Finally, part of the reason you perceive me to be like Lazeruss, is because other posters have mischaracterized my arguments - they say "You said Jordan won 6 championships all by himself"... THAT ISN'T WHAT I SAID!!!!... I said Jordan had a weaker supporting talent than most championship teams, and this is proven by him having to produce MORE (such as 41 ppg) to win his rings... So again, don't compare me to Lazeruss - he makes up his own narrative (i.e. Horace was an elite PF and dominated, Paxson saved MJ in 1993 Finals), while I make reasonable statements (Jordan's supporting cast was weaker) and back it up with facts (stats showing Jordan had to do more (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185)).




I agree with most of what you say about MJ but you do degrade his supporting cast a bit too harshly. Yes, MJ is the GOAT and carried a historical load but no one wins alone. He needed some help and got it. But so did every other great who won rings. So no shame in admitting he had some help. Of course most people claiming MJ had a "stacked" roster probably never saw him play live or have agendas.


You must not have read the last part of my post (re-posted above) because you just did what I complained all the other posters do - you claimed I said something different than what I actually said:

Posters always say "You said MJ had no help and did it all himself", when I have virtually NEVER said this - I never WOULD say this I'm knowledgeable and know that you can't win 1-on-5 (heck, I've tried that personally and it doesn't work, although that was me being a black hole).

The only thing I've EVER said is that MJ had weaker supporting talent, as proven by the biggest-ever load he carried.. But somehow this mere statement of fact rubs people the wrong way - so they mischaracterize what I said and turn it into "you're saying MJ did it all alone".. Again, I've virtually NEVER said that.... EVER... But he did have weaker supporting talent, as proven by the historical load he carried.

And I'll just post these facts again, because they tell the story of the 1994 Bulls perfectly: the Bulls' DRtg in 1994 (6th) wasn't any better relative to the league than the first 3-peat (7th, 4th, 7th).. Accordingly, the massive decline from 3-peat dynasty to 2nd Round team was due entirely to the absence of MJ's goat offense (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185), which caused their ORtg to crater from #1 all-time to 14th in the league.

[97 bulls]

I agree with most of what you say about MJ but you do degrade his supporting cast a bit too harshly. Yes, MJ is the GOAT and carried a historical load but no one wins alone. He needed some help and got it. But so did every other great who won rings. So no shame in admitting he had some help. Of course most people claiming MJ had a "stacked" roster probably never saw him play live or have agendas.
I think the term "stacked" needs to be more clearly defined. If stacked mean 6 or 7 guys that can get you 20 ppg if they were needed, that ain't the Bulls. If it means looking at their roles and how they rank compared to other players that have the same role on other teams? He'll yes they were stacked.

[97 bulls]

You must not have read the last part of my post (re-posted above) because you just did what I complained all the other posters do - you claimed I said something different than what I actually said:

Posters always say "You said MJ had no help and did it all himself", when I have virtually NEVER said this - I never WOULD say this I'm knowledgeable and know that you can't win 1-on-5 (heck, I've tried that personally and it doesn't work, although that was me being a black hole).

The only thing I've EVER said is that MJ had weaker supporting talent, as proven by the biggest-ever load he carried.. But somehow this mere statement of fact rubs people the wrong way - so they mischaracterize what I said and turn it into "you're saying MJ did it all alone".. Again, I've virtually NEVER said that.... EVER... But he did have weaker supporting talent, as proven by the historical load he carried.
Lol. Come on bro. You've referred to Jordan teammates as being "bums" and "scrubs". I think what you need is a better understanding of word definitions. Because when you say "Jordan carried the biggest load", I come away thinking that Jordan was his team's best scorer, defender, rebounder, shooter, etc. He scored so much because he wanted to and he could. That doesn't mean the Bulls "needed" him to score so much to win. You totally distort the word "chemistry". Three players can not make the chemistry for the whole team. Everyone needs to be able to work together.


And I'll just post these facts again, because they tell the story of the 1994 Bulls perfectly: the Bulls' DRtg in 1994 (6th) wasn't any better relative to the league than the first 3-peat (7th, 4th, 7th).. Accordingly, the massive decline from 3-peat dynasty to 2nd Round team was due entirely to the absence of MJ's goat offense (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185), which caused their ORtg to crater from #1 all-time to 14th in the league.
This hurts your argument far more than helps. Because in essence, the Bulls lost Jordan and didn't miss a beat defensively. And thus this is where they stepped their game up.

[3ball]

The difference is that fact that they were successful without Jordan, and you refuse to acknowledge it.


I acknowledge their success, but I don't attribute their 6th-best record to 6th best talent, because they didn't HAVE 6th-best talent, or anywhere near.

Horace Grant and BJ Armstrong were nowhere near top 6 among the league's second and third options, while Pippen wasn't top 6 among the league's first options (Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Malone, Barkley, Alonzo 22/10 and 3 blk, and more).

Their NON-top 6 talent proves their top 6 record was due to chemistry and know-how, specifically 3-peat chemistry and know-how from winning 3 straight championships.. Again, they didn't have anywhere near top 6 talent to support their top 6 record.





I took the liberty of looking up Pete Myers pts during the seven game series vs the Knicks:

G1 Bulls lost by 4 Myers scored 2 pts
G2 Bulls lost by 5 Myers scores 2 pts
G3 Bulls win by 6 Myers scored 6
G4 Bulls win by 12 Myers scores 6
G5 Bulls lost by 1 Myers scores 5 pts
G6 Bulls win by 14. Myers scores 10
G7 Bulls lost by 15 Myers scores 15.

There's no doubt that the Bulls 3nd up and probably even win the title with with a better SG.



Sorry son - but they already had a better wing - THIS was Jordan's replacement who saved the Bulls from a sweep in the 2nd Round:


https://media.giphy.com/media/MA7tZFaSbhFZK/giphy.gif


Everyone forgets that the Bulls had ALREADY REPLACED Jordan with someone decent - they added a versatile, double-digit-scoring forward, who allowed them to save some face in the playoffs.

So all this talk of "the Bulls would've won championship with Joe Dumars"... The Bulls already had someone decent - Toni Kukoc... Furthermore, Dumars has NEVER had the impact to improve a team 3 series wins (ECSF, ECF, and Finals) - he's never had this impact, so it's pure BS to think he would for the Bulls...

Not only that, but it's intuitive - the Bulls needed MJ's goat scoring to win all 6 rings - so how the **** would they win in 1994 with a Dumars or Drexler, who literally average 10-15 ppg less with worse defense and less passing?... It's absurd.





3ball. No one is refuting the fact that Jordan leaving dropped the Bulls to a second round team.


You're damn right he's the reason they dropped from 3-peat dynasty to 2nd Rd.. GOAT impact... :applause: :bowdown:

Specifically, the Bulls' DRtg in 1994 (6th) wasn't any better relative to the league than the first 3-peat (7th, 4th, 7th).. Accordingly, the massive decline from 3-peat dynasty to 2nd Round team was due entirely to the absence of MJ's goat offense (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185), which caused their ORtg to crater from #1 all-time to 14th in the league.

And MJ had the goat impact on bad teams too - in 1989, the 47-win Bulls miss the 45-win playoff cut without MJ's 33/8/8/54... So heading into the 1990 season, they would've been lottery instead of ECF veterans and 1 season away from starting their first 3-peat... That demonstrates MJ's goat impact - he drove that team to improvement until they were ready to win it all.
.

[KiiiiNG]

Still online. :roll:

[dhsilv]

I agree with most of what you say about MJ but you do degrade his supporting cast a bit too harshly. Yes, MJ is the GOAT and carried a historical load but no one wins alone. He needed some help and got it. But so did every other great who won rings. So no shame in admitting he had some help. Of course most people claiming MJ had a "stacked" roster probably never saw him play live or have agendas.

I don't get why seeing a game live matters. You get a much better view on your TV, you get replay. Honestly, I don't get how you're more objective being in the arena watching.

[3ball]

Summary of 1994 Bulls: the Bulls' DRtg in 1994 (6th) wasn't any better relative to the league than the first 3-peat (7th, 4th, 7th).. Accordingly, the massive decline from 3-peat dynasty to 2nd Round team was due entirely to the absence of MJ's goat offense, which caused their ORtg to crater from #1 all-time to 14th in the league.




^^^^^ This hurts your argument far more than helps. Because in essence, the Bulls lost Jordan and didn't miss a beat defensively. And thus this is where they stepped their game up.


Not at all - teams have a finite amount of energy to expend on both ends - shifts in performance/effort on one side normally take away from the other side.. But even though the Bulls offense fell off a cliff and they focused more on defense, their defense didn't improve because they were missing their best defender (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgJhzj4W9M&t=35m00s).

Otoh, the presence of MJ gave the Bulls the highest ORtg's of all time.. But this GOAT improvement on offense didn't come at the expense of defense like it would for most teams.. His presence enabled a TWO-WAY team, which isn't surprising, since he's the goat two-way player according to Popovich (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11875095&postcount=46).

So imagine Kawhi Leonard (as Popovich references), with the capability of scoring 15 more ppg.. That's Jordan... That's the GOAT.





He scored so much because he wanted to and he could. That doesn't mean the Bulls "needed" him to score so much to win.


This was easily proven false a long time ago.

Pippen/Grant played to 100% capacity alongside Jordan in 1992 (compared to their 1994 stats) and 85-90% capacity in 1993 - so teammates were already playing to capacity alongside Jordan, which proves that Jordan's GOAT offense was the only way for the team to win rings.

Phil Jackson knows this - he went 6/6 with MJ producing more than any player ever (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185) - so he obviously felt that Jordan's goat offense was the best way for those teams to succeed... 6/6 don't lie.





You say "Jordan carried the biggest load", I come away thinking that Jordan was his team's best scorer, defender, rebounder, shooter, etc.


1) Team's best scorer - 34-35 year old MJ scored a higher proportion of his team's points than anyone EVER, including prime Shaq, Lebron, Kobe - you name it - see the amazing stats for yourself here (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185).

2) Team's best defender - Jordan was the team's best defender, as it was commonly known AT THE TIME (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgJhzj4W9M&t=35m00s) (before young fans' revisionist history).

3) Team's best passer - MJ led the Bulls in assist % for both 3-peats (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11713121&postcount=49).


This constitutes the biggest load anyone's ever carried BY FAR... :confusedshrug: .. :pimp:

[Duffy Pratt]

And MJ had the goat impact on bad teams too - in 1989, the 47-win Bulls miss the 45-win playoff cut without MJ's 33/8/8/54...
.

Seriously, goat impact on bad teams????

69 Bucks win 27 games. They get Lew Alcindor and win 56, going to ECF.
89 Spurs won 21 games. With Robinson they win 56, and go to second round.
79 Celtics won 29 games. With Bird they win 61 and go the the second round.

and

79 Lakers won 47 games and eliminated in second round (admittedly not bad), but add Magic and they win 60 games and the finals.

By contrast, the 84 Bulls won 27 games, and Jordan with his "goat impact" lifted them to 38 wins. Which isn't bad, but not in the same league with the impact of the guys I mentioned.

[97 bulls]

I acknowledge their success, but I don't attribute their 6th-best record to 6th best talent, because they didn't HAVE 6th-best talent, or anywhere near.
I disagree.


Horace Grant and BJ Armstrong were nowhere near top 6 among the league's second and third options, while Pippen wasn't top 6 among the league's first options (Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Malone, Barkley, Alonzo 22/10 and 3 blk, and more).
Dude. There is a tremendous difference between first option and who is the best/impactful player. Scottie Pippen impact was just as high as any other top guy.


Their NON-top 6 talent proves their top 6 record was due to chemistry and know-how, specifically 3-peat chemistry and know-how from winning 3 straight championships.. Again, they didn't have anywhere near top 6 talent to support their top 6 record.

How do you arrive at this arbitrate top six? There are 30 teams in the league. Top 6 even at two positions is damn good.




Sorry son - but they already had a better wing - THIS was Jordan's replacement who saved the Bulls from a sweep in the 2nd Round:


https://media.giphy.com/media/MA7tZFaSbhFZK/giphy.gif


Everyone forgets that the Bulls had ALREADY REPLACED Jordan with someone decent - they added a versatile, double-digit-scoring forward, who allowed them to save some face in the playoffs.
Lol Toni Kukoc? No. ROOKIE!!!!! Toni Kukoc was a suitable replacement?


So all this talk of "the Bulls would've won championship with Joe Dumars"... The Bulls already had someone decent - Toni Kukoc... Furthermore, Dumars has NEVER had the impact to improve a team 3 series wins (ECSF, ECF, and Finals) - he's never had this impact, so it's pure BS to think he would for the Bulls...
You're all over the place. You're on record as calling Kukoc a scrub, but he's a suitable replacement for Michael Jordan. You say that Jordan's teammates were scrubs and that he had the least help, but Joe Dumars is less impactful than Kukoc?



You're damn right he's the reason they dropped from 3-peat dynasty to 2nd Rd.. GOAT impact... :applause: :bowdown:

Specifically, the Bulls' DRtg in 1994 (6th) wasn't any better relative to the league than the first 3-peat (7th, 4th, 7th).. Accordingly, the massive decline from 3-peat dynasty to 2nd Round team was due entirely to the absence of MJ's goat offense (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185), which caused their ORtg to crater from #1 all-time to 14th in the league.
It wasn't better. But they MAINTAINED. It's the exact same argument your using. When Jordan left, the offense dipped. But the defense didn't. They picked up the slack defensively. You can't lose a defender like Jordan and not miss a beat and say that the team didn't ramp in up defensively.


And MJ had the goat impact on bad teams too - in 1989, the 47-win Bulls miss the 45-win playoff cut without MJ's 33/8/8/54... So heading into the 1990 season, they would've been lottery instead of ECF veterans and 1 season away from starting their first 3-peat... That demonstrates MJ's goat impact - he drove that team to improvement until they were ready to win it all.
.
So?

[LAZERUSS]

Seriously, goat impact on bad teams????

69 Bucks win 27 games. They get Lew Alcindor and win 56, going to ECF.
89 Spurs won 21 games. With Robinson they win 56, and go to second round.
79 Celtics won 29 games. With Bird they win 61 and go the the second round.

and

79 Lakers won 47 games and eliminated in second round (admittedly not bad), but add Magic and they win 60 games and the finals.

By contrast, the 84 Bulls won 27 games, and Jordan with his "goat impact" lifted them to 38 wins. Which isn't bad, but not in the same league with the impact of the guys I mentioned.

Not only that, but the '89 Bulls team that went 47-35, was coming off of a year in which they went 50-32. And, they would go 55-27 in '89-90. Virtually the same record each year.

Of course, each year after Pippen and Grant arrived, and showed Jordan how to play winning ball...the team basically improved. Those two performed better each year from ''88 thru '90 in the post-season, while MJ's numbers always declined against the Bad Boys. How did the Bulls FINALLY beat the Bad Boys in '91?

First of all, Isiah Thomas was injured that year, and would never again be a force (he was AWFUL in both his last two post-seasons.) In fact, the entire Detroit team just collapsed. They went from a 59-23 title team, to that 50-32 team that barely made it past the first round, and struggled in the second round. And then the next year they plummetted to a 48-34 team, and were beaten in the first round. The very next year...a losing record.

In any case, both the '91 Pistons and Lakers were just complete shells. Magic was older, slower, heavier, and NOWHERE NEAR the Magic who just OVERWHELMED the NBA at his peak. The rest of the Lakers? A broken down and rapidly declining Worthy, who was a shell in the post-season, and was a complete flop the very next year without Magic. In fact, his last great season came the year before, but his downward slide had already started before that. His efficiency was dropping like the Hindenburg, and by the '91 Finals, his career was done. He struggled for a couple of seasons, but was awful.

So, not only did the '91 Bulls beat two shells, they did it with PIPPEN and GRANT ELEVATING their games. While Jordan, as always, declined, even against the corpse of the Pistons, Pippen just crushed them in every facet of the game, while Grant murdered their front court. Both did the same in the Finals against a Worthy-Perkins on their death-beds. BTW, Grant shot .690 and .627 from the field in those two series, and would continue to be one of the most efficient offensive forces into the mid-90's, as well.

In fact, BOTH Grant and Pippen were pure winners their entire careers. Grant DRAMATICALLY improved EVERY team he joined BTW. By HUGE margins. His '95-96 season was a dominant season. Because of his brilliant play, the Magic went 15-5 in Shaq's absence, and not only that, they went 50-13 in the games in which Grant played (while going 40-14 in the games Shaq played.) And he was on his way to second staggering post-season in the '96 playoffs going into the ECF's. He had hung a 17-8 .656 nine games, but alas, was injured in his game one matchup with Rodman, and was done. Meanwhile, the Bulls were then able to put Rodman on Shaq in the key moments of the series, and as always, RODMAN's IMPACT was just amazing. BTW, Rodman's W-L record throughout his career was sensational. Another IMPACT WINNER.

And none of the numbers above demonstrate the tenacious DEFENSIVE qualities of those three players, either. All three were the brilliant defenders their entire careers. And Pippen is rightfully regarded as the GOAT perimeter defender in NBA history.

Again,...MJ had a TON of help from '88 on, and when that help really came into their own in '91...well, the rest was history. Their '94 season was proof of that. A 55 win team that was robbed in the ECSF's, and had they not lost 22 combined games from their two best players...easily a 60+ win team, that would have had HCA edge throughout the playoffs. And we know that that would have been HUGE. They went 5-0 on their home floor that post-season, and had a +9.0 ppg differential in those five games.

Of course, we saw Grant's IMPACT the very next season, as well. He bolted for Orlando, and as always, dramatically elevated that team, from a 50-32 team that was blown out in the first round, to a 57-25 team that reached the Finals.

Meanwhile, Pippen was the only superstar left from the '93 title team, having lost BOTH Jordan and Grant. And he carried that solid cast of role players to a 34-31 record before MJ decided to come back and steal another ring. Oh, and in the ten games before Jordan came bac... 8-2. They were on a roll, and might very well have won 50 games without him.

As it was MJ returned, fully rested, and completely healthy, and with him, the Bulls went 13-4 which was a .765 winning percentage, which was higher than any other team had that year. except for the Sonics, who played at a .768, but then were stunned in the first round.

But don't get too excited with that 13-4 record, either. Why? Because just the year before, and with Grant, the Bulls went 48-22, or a .686 clip. Which means that had he been playing in those last 17 games, the Bulls likely would have gone 12-5.

In any case, MJ played at essentially the same level as in his '93 title run, but alas, the Bulls didn't go any further than they had just the year before without him (and with Grant.) In fact, they were a much worse second round team. As we know, the '94 Bulls were completely robbed in the ECSF's, and were ONE PLAY away from beating the Knicks in six games (BTW, the '93 Bulls also beat them in six, and the year before that, in seven...with Jordan, as well as both Grant and Pippen.) As it was, they lost in a game seven, to that NY team that would lose a game seven by four points to the 58-24 Rockets in the Finals.

Meanwhile, MJ's '95 team was easily beaten, 4-2, by the Magic, and in a series in which the consensus was that GRANT was the best player in that series, with his dominating 18-11 .647 series. But, the Magic were then dumped by the 47-35 Rockets in the Finals.

The Bulls ownership knew that they had zero chance of winning a ring without a truly ELITE and DOMINATING PF, as they had had in Grant...so they went out and signed HOFer Rodman, and the rest was history. Rodman basically replaced Grant on a 55+ win team withOUT Jordan. MJ was now ADDED to a 55+ win team, and of course, with his supporting cast, they were able to overcome his horrific FG% shooting in his last three Finals, and win three more rings.

What a HUGE difference from the 40-42 Bulls team that was swept in the first round of the playoffs in his highest scoring season, and from the teams that steam-rolled to six rings with the most stacked rosters in the watered down 90's.

And one more time...Jordan's Bulls never beat a truly great team. They finally beat a shell of the once powerful Bad Boys, and then ran into a Laker team that had no business even getting to the Finals...but were willed there by a Magic in last season. Without Magic the next year...a .500 team. THAT was MAGIC's IMPACT. He could take rosters that were either vast under-achievers, and elevate them to champions, or rosters that were no better than ordinary, and go 57-22 and carry them to the Finals. And the best teams of the '90's were MUCH worse than the best teams of the 80's. Again, the Bulls went 55-27 withOUT Jordan. WithOUT MJ, they were still right there with the best teams in the league. And as we know, the best teams of the 90's were lucky to have two great players, and most only had one (just look at the two Finalists in '94... the Rockets and Knicks,... Hakeem with roles players, and Ewing with role players.) Seattle had Payton and then a very good Kemp. And the Jazz had Karl and Stocton, and role players.

[3ball]

69 Bucks win 27 games. They get Lew Alcindor and win 56, going to ECF.


They added other double-figure scorers besides Alcindor, and it took the addition of Oscar to win a ring.

Otoh, Jordan took a team that was lottery without him in 1989, and led that lottery roster to ECF... Then he won 3 CHAMPIONSHIPS with that same lottery roster in 1991-1993.

Again, that's the goat impact.. Lottery roster in 1989 - starting 3-peat by 1991 with same roster...

(and actually could've won championship in 1990 if not for Pippen's GOAT choke in Game 7 ECF - 2 points, 1-10.... the Pistons beat Blazers in 6 easy games, but needed 7 close games and Pip choke to beat Bulls - in other words, Bulls would've beaten Blazers - the ORtg gap between Pistons/Blazers was far bigger than the razor-thin gap between Pistons/Bulls.)





1989 Spurs won 21 games. With Robinson they win 56, and go to second round.


Robinson never won a championship with that Spurs roster, whereas MJ 3-peated with his lottery roster.





1979 Celtics won 29 games. With Bird they win 61 and go the the second round.


The 1980 Celtics added M.L Carr and Pete Maravich, who both averaged over 11 ppg... And for Bird to win CHAMPIONSHIP in 1981, he needed to add HOF's Robert Parish and Kevin McHale.

Otoh, Jordan took a lottery roster in 1989, and led them to ECF... Then he won 3 championships with that SAME 1989 lottery roster from 1991-1993 (and likely would've won in 1990 if not for Pippen's GOAT choke)

[LAZERUSS]

They added other double-figure scorers besides Alcindor, and it took the addition of Oscar to win a ring.

Otoh, Jordan took a team that was lottery without him in 1989, and led that lottery roster to ECF... Then he won 3 CHAMPIONSHIPS with that same lottery roster in 1991-1993.

Again, that's the goat impact.. Lottery roster in 1989 - starting 3-peat by 1991 with same roster...

(and actually could've won championship in 1990 if not for Pippen's GOAT choke in Game 7 ECF - 2 points, 1-10.... the Pistons beat Blazers in 6 easy games, but needed 7 close games and Pip choke to beat Bulls - in other words, Bulls would've beaten Blazers - the ORtg gap between Pistons/Blazers was far bigger than the razor-thin gap between Pistons/Bulls.)

:roll: :roll: :roll:

They added Dandridge. A very good player.

As for "lottery team"...:roll: :roll: :roll:

The Bulls went 50-32 just the year before you idiot.

The REALITY was...without WINNERS like Pippen and Grant...a career loser, that was taking his losing team down in flames in first round playoff games (and ALWAYS just PUKING all over the floor in the clinching blowout losses.)

BTW, while Piipen and Grant played poorly in game seven of the '90 ECF's, that was a blowout loss. Even if both had shot 50% (something even MJ couldn't do in that game) they still would have lost. Now, the real blame...MJ's AWFUL game two...when he gagged with a 5-16 performance in a nine point loss.

CONTEXT. Try using it.

[3ball]

I disagree - the Bulls' talent in 1994 was among the league's top 6, to match their top 6 record


^^^^ Ridiculous - the Bulls had the 6th best record in the league in 1994, but none of their options were 6th best:


1st options > Pippen in 1994:

Hakeem
Shaq
Ewing
Robinson
Barkley
Malone
Alonzo (22/10 and 3.0 blk)


2nd Options better Grant in 1994:

payton
kj
stockton
daughtery (17/10)
kevin willis (19/11)
Kenny Anderson (19/10 and 2 stl)
Blaylock (15/10 and 2.6 stl)
penny (16/4/7 and 2.3 stl
drexler (all-star cliff robinson averaged more fga and ppg)
webber (all-star sprewell averaged more fga and ppg)

Plus these guys stats were equal or better: thorpe, hot rod, rik smits, larry johnson, gugliotta, jamal mashburn, Oakley



3rd options > BJ Armstrong

Rod Strickland (17/9 and 1.8 stl)
Ceballos (19/7)
Starks (19/6)
Terry Mills (17/8)
Chris Mullin (17/6/5)
Rex Chapman (18 ppg on 50%)
Detlef Schrempf
Laphonso Ellis (15/9)
Jeff Hornacek (17 ppg and 6 apg)
Dan Majerle (17 ppg)
Dell Curry (16 ppg)
Nick Anderson (16/6)
Rony Seikaly (15/10)
Vin Baker (14/8)

And many more - too many to count... As you can see, the Bulls' 6th best record wasn't due to 6th best talent - it was due to chemistry, specifically 3-peat know-how (triangle) and 3-peat chemistry executed by the only 3 members of the 1993 supporting cast that averaged over 20 minutes and 6 ppg in 1993 (Pippen/Grant/Armstrong).

[LAZERUSS]

1st options > Pippen in 1994:

Hakeem
Shaq
Ewing
Robinson
Barkley
Malone
Alonzo (22/10 and 3.0 blk)


2nd Options better Grant in 1994:

payton
kj
stockton
daughtery (17/10)
kevin willis (19/11)
Kenny Anderson (19/10 and 2 stl)
Blaylock (15/10 and 2.6 stl)
penny (16/4/7 and 2.3 stl
drexler (all-star cliff robinson averaged more fga and ppg)
webber (all-star sprewell averaged more fga and ppg)

Plus these guys stats were equal or better: thorpe, hot rod, rik smits, larry johnson, gugliotta, jamal mashburn, Oakley

First of all, you seem to think SCORING is the ONLY aspect of the game. Perkins barely outscored Grant in the '91 Finals, but Grant outshot him by a .627 to .406 margin. Perkins HURT his team with his horrific shooting, Grant was SAVING his team, with his.

Secondly, Pippen was #3 in the MVP balloting in '94. Now whether you would take Shaq over him for a career, Pippen was more valuable in '94.

And finally...let's play this game, shall we?

Let's remove Shaq, Ewing, Robinson, Barkley, K Malone, Hakeem, and every other Tier-one guy from their teams that season, and just how well do the 55-27 injury-riddled Bulls ...that barely lost to Ewing's Knicks, that barely lost to Hakeem's Rockets, do in that post-season?

I think the answer is pretty obvious even for a dimwit. They CRUSH them.

My god, they barely lost to NY with PETE MYERS and his 6 ppg in that series. Give that Bulls team even an ORDINARY SG, and they romp over the Knicks, and given that the Knicks outplayed the Rockets in that seven game Finals, I would think they would have beaten the Rockets for the title. And again, remove Ewing and Hakeem... ???????

[jongib369]

LAZERUSS, 3ball

Can I get your assistance real quick when you have the timeover in the thread

How Steph Curry stacks up against the greats in Points Responsible For (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=12087910#post12087910)


I need stats of Wilt, Baylor,West, and Jordan that had a high amount of points/assists. Either single games, or stretches

[LAZERUSS]

LAZERUSS, 3ball

Can I get your assistance real quick when you have the timeover in the thread

How Steph Curry stacks up against the greats in Points Responsible For (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=12087910#post12087910)


I need stats of Wilt, Baylor,West, and Jordan that had a high amount of points/assists. Either single games, or stretches

Wilt didn't need to many assists in his 78 and 100 point games,

but how about this...he had a game against the Lakers (a team that he would never face in the post-season BTW), in which he scored 53 points (on 24-29 shooting), with 14 assists, and 32 rebounds.

[3ball]

Not only that, but the '89 Bulls team that went 47-35, was coming off of a year in which they went 50-32. And, they would go 55-27 in '89-90. Virtually the same record each year.


In 1989, the 47-win Bulls would've missed the 45-win playoff cut without MJ's 33/8/8/54... So heading into the 1990 season, they would've been a lottery team instead of ECF veterans and 1 season away from starting their first 3-peat.

So again - MJ took a LOTTERY ROSTER in 1989, and took them to ECF and 6 games with the champion Bad Boys - that's the same thing Lebron did this year, only MJ had to carry his lottery roster ALL YEAR, whereas Lebron had Love and Kyrie healthy the entire RS and through ECSF.





Magic's rapidly declining Showtime team had no business even getting to the Finals.

Magic was a shell, Worthy was a shell


The Lakers absolutely belonged in the Finals - they won 58 games in 1991 and were the 2-seed out West.. And Magic was runner-up for league MVP.. He averaged exactly 19/7/13 on 62% TS in both regular season and Finals.

Worthy was All-NBA in 1991 too - he was the Lakers' leading scorer in regular season (21 ppg on 49.2%) and Finals (19.3 ppg on 47%, while playing 41 MPG).

And the Lakers had far better personnel after Magic and Worthy:


.........................RS and Finals......................................RS and Finals

Sam Perkins........14/7 and 17/8 ...........Horace Grant.......13/8 and 15/8

Vlade Divac ........11/8 and 18/9............ John Paxson........ 9/2 and 13/2

AC Green............. 9/6 and 6/6.............. Cartwright.......... 9/5 and 9/6

Byron Scott......... 15/4 and 6/3............. Armstrong........... 9/3 and 2/1


Lakers clearly had better talent, but when you have MJ dominating the Finals like no one else ever has, (the GOAT destroying top 5 all-time player Magic Johnson on biggest stage), you don't need nearly as much help..





How did the Bulls beat Pistons in 1991?

First of all, Isiah Thomas was injured that year, and would never again be a force (he was AWFUL in both his last two post-seasons.) In fact, the entire Detroit team just collapsed. They went from a 59-23 title team, to that 50-32 team that barely made it past the first round


The Pistons weren't crumbling in 1991 - they still had a 104.6 DRtg, which was better than their DRtg in 1989 when they won the championship.. They also had 6 guys averaging over 11 ppg, compared to only 3 guys for the Bulls - the Pistons were still more talented and far deeper from top to bottom.

However, Isiah missed a lot of games in RS, so the Pistons only won 50 games - but he was healthy for the playoffs and the defense was the same as always - everyone was producing at the same levels as other seasons... But they simply weren't the better team in 1991... They weren't the better team in 1990 either, but Pippen's choke cost the Bulls in 1990 (2 points, 1-10 FG in Game 7).

[jongib369]

Wilt didn't need to many assists in his 78 and 100 point games,

but how about this...he had a game against the Lakers (a team that he would never face in the post-season BTW), in which he scored 53 points (on 24-29 shooting), with 14 assists, and 32 rebounds.
Matches Kobe with 81,

:applause:

[LAZERUSS]

This is just hilarious...


The 1980 Celtics added M.L Carr and Pete Maravich, who both averaged over 11 ppg... And for Bird to win CHAMPIONSHIP in 1981, he needed to add HOF's Robert Parish and Kevin McHale.

Otoh, Jordan took a lottery roster in 1989, and led them to ECF... Then he won 3 championships with that SAME 1989 lottery roster from 1991-1993 (and likely would've won in 1990 if not for Pippen's GOAT choke)

So Bird takes a team that went 29-53 to 61-21, and it was because of M.L Carr and an old Pistol, and their mediocre contributions...

but Jordan has a HOFer in Pippen, and another all-time great in Grant (who should be in the HOF...especially if Chris "Can't Do" Bosh is ever elected)...to a 40-42 team, that goes to 50-32, and they are worthless?

You are just too funny.

You brag up crappy players on other teams, and disparage great players that played with Jordan.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[3ball]

So Bird takes a team that went 29-53 to 61-21, and it was because of M.L Carr and an old Pistol, and their mediocre contributions...


You give more props to guys like Kerr, Longley and Grant, who were equal or worse ordinary role players that all teams have - but because they were on the Bulls, you act like these STANDARD role players are extra special... :rolleyes:

But more importantly, Bird didn't take a lottery roster and win a championship with that SAME lottery roster.. He needed to add HOF's Parish and McHale to win ring in 1981.

Otoh, Jordan DID take a lottery roster and win championships.. He took that 1989 lottery roster and won 3 championships with it.

In 1989, the 47-win Bulls would've missed the 45-win playoff cut without Jordan's 33/8/8/54.. So the 1989 Bulls WERE a lottery roster - Jordan took that same roster to 3 rings.
.

[LAZERUSS]

Let's see here...

In Jordan's greatest scoring season, he averaged 35 ppg on a .417 FG% against the crumbling '87 Celtics. In that same season, in his two regular season H2H's against Boston, a PEAK Magic just ANNIHILATED the healthy Celtics with an average of 35 ppg on a .556 FG%. Then, in the Finals, he averaged a 26-8-13 .541 .960, and could easily have hung 40 point games on them.

He certainly didn't need KAJ in that post-season...nor the next year when he destroyed the Bad Boys with a staggering 21-6-13 .550 .866 series.

THAT Magic would have just abused a '91 Jordan.

And Magic MADE his teammates much better.

Even you have admitted that Jordan's teammates played like shit alongside him.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[LAZERUSS]

You give more props to guys like Kerr, Longley and Grant, who were equal or worse ordinary role players that all teams have - but because they were on the Bulls, you act like these STANDARD role players are extra special... :rolleyes:

But more importantly, Bird didn't take a lottery roster and win a championship with that SAME lottery roster.. He needed to add HOF's Parish and McHale to win ring in 1981.

Otoh, Jordan DID take a lottery roster and win championships.. He took that 1989 lottery roster and won 3 championships with it.

In 1989, the 47-win Bulls would've missed the 45-win playoff cut without Jordan's 33/8/8/54.. So the 1989 Bulls WERE a lottery roster - Jordan took that same roster to 3 rings.
.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

A "lottery roster" that went 50-32 before that '89 season, and had HOFer Pippen and should be HOFer Grant.

You are funny...

A" LOTTERY" roster was the Bulls adding Jordan to a 27 win, and him barely improving them at all.

And furthermore...as we KNOW, Jordan needed stacked rosters, in a WATERED DOWN 90's...that were going 55-27 withOUT him, to win his six rings. In fact, they performed worse with MJ and without Grant...than with Grant and without JORDAN.

So, the Bulls HAD to ADD a HOFer (Rodman) to help overcome MJ's horrific shooting in his last three Finals, to win those last three rings.

[LAZERUSS]

So let me get this straight. You aren't saying that his supporting cast sucked. Rather, you are just saying they are the worst ever of any championship squad.

Also, you keep insisting that I made arguments I never made. Please stop.

If you took Hakeem off of the 95 Rockets, they wouldn't be a .500 team. The Bulls without Jordan won 55 games. But your argument, if we are going to distort each others arguments, appears to be.

A) We know that the Bulls core in 94 were a bunch of no-talents.
B) Thus, the reason they won 55 games can only be attributed to 3-peat chemistry.
C) The reason they had that 3-peat chemistry is because Jordan carried them singlehandedly on his back.
D) Therefore, Jordan is actually mostly responsible for their having won 55 games in 94.
E) That is the Jordan effect.

I admit that with Jordan, the team needed him to score. Without him, they upped their defense, and their own scoring and were not as good, but they were still a fine team. With another strong shooting guard in his place, they would have made different adjustments and have perhaps done better and even won the championship. Just because they did win with Jordan scoring that much, that does not mean its the only way that they could have won.

I think the Spurs prove pretty well that its possible for the same guys to win in different ways under different circumstances.

I have said nothing at all about the 96-98 Bulls, and you have no idea what I think about them. I've also said nothing about LeBron.

Dismissing defense is absolutely absurd. Defense wins championships. Its why Russell was so great. Its what made my 70 Knicks so special. It's what was peculiarly special about the Bulls runs. And finally, after accusing me of being a stats only guy, you now go on and on about how stats don't lie and 2+2=4. The mind boggles...

This...

The "Goofball Effect"

Goofball's math...

2 - 2 = 4.

[3ball]

the '91 Bulls beat Pistons and Lakers with PIPPEN and GRANT ELEVATING their games. While Jordan, as always, declined


This is one of the worst posts you've ever made.. It's common knowledge that MJ's 1991 playoff performance was THE BEST of his career, bar none.. In the Finals, MJ guarded Magic, while Magic got to rest by not guarding MJ.. Yet MJ still destroyed Magic, who was runner-up for MVP in 1991:


JORDAN 1991 FINALS: 31/7/11 on 56%
MAGIC.. 1991 FINALS: 19/7/13 on 43%

And I don't even know why you bring up Pippen.. MJ scored at least 10 ppg more than Pippen for every playoff series of their CAREERS - let that sink it - no other #1 option ever had to do that.





Their '94 season was proof - the Bulls won 55 without MJ


But we can't attribute their 6th-best record to 6th-best talent, because they didn't HAVE 6th-best talent, or anywhere near.

Horace Grant and BJ Armstrong were nowhere near top 6 among the league's second and third options (here's a list (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12087908&postcount=239) of all the guys who were better), while Pippen wasn't top 6 among the league's first options (Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Malone, Barkley, Alonzo 22/10 and 3 blk, and more).

Their non-top 6 talent proves their top 6 record was due to chemistry and know-how, specifically 3-peat chemistry and know-how from winning 3 straight championships.. Again, they didn't have anywhere near top 6 talent to support their top 6 record.





1994 Bulls were a 55 win team that was robbed in the ECSF's


That Pippen play was a foul - he fouled a 3-point shooter, a standard no-no, what quivering, choking fool - no wonder Phil didn't let his shaky hand take the last shot in Game 3.

Everyone knew it was a foul, but we all felt sorry for him, because he'd already had another GOAT choke in Game 3... Pippen played like a boy in that series with these two epic chokes.. And we all remember his GOAT choke in Game 7 of ECF - Pippen was the antithesis of the clutch Jordan.





Bulls won 55 in 1994 despite Pippen/Grant missing 21 games combined



Btw, the Bulls not only would'e been swept without the Kukoc miracle in Game 3, but they would've lost in the 1st Round if Cleveland's best 3 players weren't injured (their entire frontcourt - all-star Daughtery, all-star Nance, and Hot Rod's 14/8 and 1.7 blk).[/COLOR]

If these guys were healthy - bye-bye Bulls - the Cavs had far more talent and would've been chomping at the bit to get revenge for the way they lost in 1989 and 1993 (both times Jordan hit SERIES-WINNING shots at the buzzer)..

^^^^^ This kills your argument about Grant/Pippen missing combined 21 games - if we want to assume the Bulls were 100% healthy, then we have to assume the entire league is healthy, which means the Bulls lose in 1st Round.





The Bulls ownership knew that they had zero chance of winning a ring without a truly ELITE and DOMINATING PF, as they had had in Grant and Rodman.


This is factually incorrect - if a power forward isn't an all-star OR all-defense, then they aren't elite.. MJ won all 6 rings without an all-star PF, and 4 of the 6 years he didn't have an all-defense PF..

Grant was never an all-star alongside Jordan and only made ONE 2nd team all-defense in 1993.. He was an ordinary play-finisher - a simple dunker that averaged 11/8 during his years with MJ..

Rodman was 34-36 years old when he played with the Bulls and hadn't made an all-star game since 1992 - and Rodman was not on the all-defensive teams in 1997 or 1998.





MJ was now ADDED to a 55+ win team in 1995


Bullshit - Jordan was added to a 34-31 team that was actually much worse, but they started playing hard the last 10 games before he came back in anticipation of the GOAT'S return... :pimp:

We all remember Pippen pointing to his shoe - they knew he was coming back long before his first game back vs. Indiana.

Also, the stats tell the story of the 1994 Bulls compared to first 3-peat teams with Jordan:


The Bulls' DRtg in 1994 (6th) wasn't any better relative to the league than the first 3-peat (7th, 4th, 7th).. Accordingly, the massive decline from 3-peat dynasty to 2nd Round team was due entirely to the absence of MJ's goat offense (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12082990&postcount=185), which caused their ORtg to crater from #1 all-time to 14th in the league.