57 win Bulls - MJ = 55 win Bulls .... 61 win Cavs - LeBron = 19 win Cavs

[Dray n Klay]

Explain...

[SwayDizzle]

dray n klay n klay n dray

[GreatHILL]

bulls had good players - MJ Cavs have trash players - Bron

[bluechox2]

whats there to explain in bullshit opinion

[Dray n Klay]

bulls had good players - MJ Cavs have trash players - Bron


So LeBron was able to win 61 games with trash players, while MJ could only win 57 games with good players? :biggums:

[FreezingTsmoove]

So LeBron was able to win 61 games with trash players, while MJ could only win 57 games with good players? :biggums:

:lol

[3ball]

Explain...


Any team can win 55 games in the garbage regular season if they have 3-peat chemistry among the players and 3-peat know-how within the organization.

Otoh, when Lebron left the Cavs at the end of 2010, they weren't 3-peat champs.. They were only a 2nd Round team and they didn't just lose Lebron - they lost Shaq, Mo Williams, Zydrunas, Delonte, and Varejao, which totaled 50 ppg, or half the team's scoring.

Similarly, the Heat weren't 3-peat champions in 2014 - they were blown away by record margin in the Finals and were the equivalent of a 1st Round Western Conference team that fell to lottery in 2015 due to Wade/Bosh injuries

[Smoke117]

Of course...draynklay was only banned momentarily...how ****ing stupid do the Admins have to be to think this moron will ever offer anything to a basketball board? They obviously don't give a **** if this lackwit or his kin is still allowed to destroy this board. It's hilarious how you make these ****ing "only make threads for legit basketball discussion" or w/e when you continually unban these ****ing retards. What a ****ing joke this board is.

[AirBonner]

Any team can win 55 games in the garbage regular season if they have 3-peat chemistry among the players and 3-peat know-how within the organization.

Otoh, when Lebron left the Cavs at the end of 2010, they weren't 3-peat champs.. They were only a 2nd Round team and they didn't just lose Lebron - they lost Shaq, Mo Williams, Zydrunas, Delonte, and Varejao, which totaled 50 ppg, or half the team's scoring.

Similarly, the Heat weren't 3-peat champions in 2014 - they were blown away by record margin in the Finals and were the equivalent of a 1st Round Western Conference team that fell to lottery in 2015 due to Wade/Bosh injuries
Is 3 peat chemistry a stat? Can you measure it? :biggums:

[3ball]

Is 3 peat chemistry a stat? Can you measure it? :biggums:
If you believe that everything must be measurable by a stat, than I guess we aren't smart enough to measure 3-peat chemistry yet, just like we aren't smart enough to measure "impact" very accurately yet.

But that's only if you believe everything must be measurable by a stat.

I'd venture to say that some things are intangible and not measurable by a stat, such as a fearless, competitive fire that rubs off on the rest of the team.

[LostCause]

Starting to agree with Smoke...

[NBAGOAT]

61 win Bulls-MJ =21 win Bulls if we ignore context like u. Honestly however, it's impressive that the srs dropoff is even comparable even though the Bulls kept like 2 guys (15.82 to 15.05)

[3ball]

61 win Bulls-MJ =21 win Bulls if we ignore context like u. Honestly however, it's impressive that the srs dropoff is even comparable even though the Bulls kept like 2 guys (15.82 to 15.05)
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 (during the 3-peat) to 14th in the league in 1994.

[Dray n Klay]

Is 3 peat chemistry a stat? Can you measure it? :biggums:


Got'em :lol

[Nilocon165]

Cavs stay winning

[Hey Yo]

Any team can win 55 games in the garbage regular season if they have 3-peat chemistry among the players and 3-peat know-how within the organization.

Otoh, when Lebron left the Cavs at the end of 2010, they weren't 3-peat champs.. They were only a 2nd Round team and they didn't just lose Lebron - they lost Shaq, Mo Williams, Zydrunas, Delonte, and Varejao, which totaled 50 ppg, or half the team's scoring.

Similarly, the Heat weren't 3-peat champions in 2014 - they were blown away by record margin in the Finals and were the equivalent of a 1st Round Western Conference team that fell to lottery in 2015 due to Wade/Bosh injuries
This is so dumb. You make it sound as if those 5 players, nor their scoring were never replaced at all. As if they were outstanding players that were a huge loss.

Mo Williams played 56 games when he got traded and the Cavs had won only 10 to date. Varejao played 37 when he got injured and the Cavs had only won 8 to that date.

West's and Z's combined 16PPG was replaced. Shaq only played 53gms and ended up avg. 12ppg.

Shaq and Z each played 1 more season and retired. West played 2 and was out of the league and Mo played with 5 different teams before landing back in Cleveland.

The 5 players you mentioned were replaceable....James was not. That's why they only won 19 games.

[3ball]

Cavs stay winning


We know for a fact that the 1994 Bulls won due to chemistry and not talent, because the team had very little talent.. :confusedshrug:

Pippen wasn't a top 5 first option (shaq, robinson, hakeem, malone, barkley, ewing, zo), while Grant and Armstrong weren't top 10 second and third options, maybe not even top 15.

So clearly, the Bulls didn't win 55 games based on talent.. And their lack of talent is why Jordan was required to DO MORE for his first 3 rings than Lebron did for his 3 rings - specifically, the combined playoff stats (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12606202&postcount=1) for Jordan's first 3 rings (91, 92, 93') show 25% more PPG and equal assists to Lebron's 3 rings (12, 13, 16'), on a per possession basis.

[Nilocon165]

We know for a fact that the 1994 Bulls won due to chemistry and not talent, because the team had very little talent.. :confusedshrug:

Pippen wasn't a top 5 first option (shaq, robinson, hakeem, malone, barkley, ewing, zo), while Grant and Armstrong weren't top 10 second and third options, maybe not even top 15.

So clearly, the Bulls didn't win 55 games based on talent.. And their lack of talent is why Jordan was required to DO MORE for his first 3 rings than Lebron did for his 3 rings - specifically, the combined playoff stats (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12606202&postcount=1) for Jordan's first 3 rings (91, 92, 93') show 25% more PPG and equal assists to Lebron's 3 rings (12, 13, 16'), on a per possession basis.
Cavs stay winning

[3ball]

Cavs stay winning


When Lebron left the Cavs at the end of 2010, they weren't 3-peat champs like the 93' Bulls were.. They were only a 2nd Round team and they didn't just lose Lebron - they lost Shaq, Mo Williams, Zydrunas, Delonte, and Varejao, which totaled 50 ppg, or half the team's scoring.

Similarly, the Heat weren't 3-peat champions in 2014 - they were blown away by record margin in the Finals and were the equivalent of a 1st Round Western Conference team that fell to lottery in 2015 due to Wade/Bosh injuries

[Nilocon165]

When Lebron left the Cavs at the end of 2010, they weren't 3-peat champs like the 93' Bulls were.. They were only a 2nd Round team and they didn't just lose Lebron - they lost Shaq, Mo Williams, Zydrunas, Delonte, and Varejao, which totaled 50 ppg, or half the team's scoring.

Similarly, the Heat weren't 3-peat champions in 2014 - they were blown away by record margin in the Finals and were the equivalent of a 1st Round Western Conference team that fell to lottery in 2015 due to Wade/Bosh injuries
Cavs stay winning

[3ball]

Is 3 peat chemistry a stat? Can you measure it? :biggums:


Is there a stat to measure just CHEMISTRY?.. Nope, yet we know for a fact that it exists and is one of the most important aspects of the game.

So yeah, 3-peat chemistry is a real thing... It's just really rare, because teams rarely 3-peat and still have the top players returning, in their prime, and clicking chemistry-wise going into the 4th season.

Think about it this way - if the current Cavs won 3 straight rings and then Lebron retired in 2019 with everyone still in their prime and healthy, Love, Kyrie and company would win 55 games with EASE.. Similarly, if Heat had 3-peated in 2014 with Wade and Bosh being the 2011 versions of themselves (in their primes and healthy), the Heat would've won 55 games easily in 2015.

[GrapeApe]

You have to compare the full context of the drop-offs, not just regular season wins. The Bulls went from 3 straight championships to a second round exit. That is a HUGE difference. Jordan was the difference between solid team and dynasty. The Cavs went from a second round exit to being in the lottery. A big difference, sure, but rather inconsequential in the big picture.

I'd argue that the drop-off from 3-peat to second round round exit is far greater than the drop-off from second round exit to lottery.

[ArbitraryWater]

You have to compare the full context of the drop-offs, not just regular season wins. The Bulls went from 3 straight championships to a second round exit. That is a HUGE difference. Jordan was the difference between solid team and dynasty. The Cavs went from a second round exit to being in the lottery. A big difference, sure, but rather inconsequential in the big picture.

I'd argue that the drop-off from 3-peat to second round round exit is far greater than the drop-off from second round exit to lottery.

You talk about context yet you ignore the fact that the Bulls were a bad call away from the ECF, and likely the finals? :oldlol:

Like, this post is one of the dumbest you've ever made, making a 42 game difference is "far worse" than a 2 game difference? Youve gone full retard.

[GrapeApe]

You talk about context yet you ignore the fact that the Bulls were a bad call away from the ECF, and likely the finals? :oldlol:

Like, this post is one of the dumbest you've ever made, making a 42 game difference is "far worse" than a 2 game difference? Youve gone full retard.

First of all, the '94 Bulls weren't a bad call away from the ECF. It wasn't even a close-out game. That call is easily one of the most overblown things in NBA history. They lost in the second round, period. Just like the 2010 Cavs.

Second of all, I don't give a shit about regular season wins. The Bulls went from being a dynasty to being nothing more than a solid playoff team. That's an enormous drop-off.

[ArbitraryWater]

First of all, the '94 Bulls weren't a bad call away from the ECF. It wasn't even a close-out game. That call is easily one of the most overblown things in NBA history. They lost in the second round, period. Just like the 2010 Cavs.

Second of all, I don't give a shit about regular season wins. The Bulls went from being a dynasty to being nothing more than a solid playoff team. That's an enormous drop-off.

"It wasnt EVEN a closeout game" no shit, thats why you said it wasnt the call away from the ECF, no reason to add 'even' to make things sound worse than they are :oldlol:

Its a call on a 3pter that would have given them a 3-2 lead otherwise with game 6 at home... so yeah, pretty much the ECF, given that they owned the Pacers, the finals.

Huge difference.

But you think the drop off is greater, opposed to being the second best team in the conference and losing to a finals team in 6 games and going to a 19 win season with the longest losing streak in NBA history?

Best call yourself the joker from now on.

[egokiller]

Cavs stay winning

Your dad thought the Cavs were winning back when he was watching Mark Price and Brad Daugherty and then something sick happened.....

Jordan destroyed Ehlo.

OP is a moron that can't understand that when 5 guys leave a team at the same time, it's a different team.

[Dray n Klay]

egokiller = Straight_Ballin

[GrapeApe]

"It wasnt EVEN a closeout game" no shit, thats why you said it wasnt the call away from the ECF, no reason to add 'even' to make things sound worse than they are :oldlol:

Its a call on a 3pter that would have given them a 3-2 lead otherwise with game 6 at home... so yeah, pretty much the ECF, given that they owned the Pacers, the finals.

Huge difference.

But you think the drop off is greater, opposed to being the second best team in the conference and losing to a finals team in 6 games and going to a 19 win season with the longest losing streak in NBA history?

Best call yourself the joker from now on.

You're the one who brought up the '94 ECSF, and you're the one one talking about if, but, would've, could've, and should've. The Bulls lost, end of story.

And yes, going from a 3-peat dynasty to a second round playoff team is a significant drop. I never said it was definitively worse than the Cavs' drop-off from '10 to '11, just that it could be argued. The '94 Bulls have become one of the most overrated teams of all time.

[Dray n Klay]

You're the one who brought up the '94 ECSF, and you're the one one talking about if, but, would've, could've, and should've. The Bulls lost, end of story.

And yes, going from a 3-peat dynasty to a second round playoff team is a significant drop. I never said it was definitively worse than the Cavs' drop-off from '10 to '11, just that it could be argued. The '94 Bulls have become one of the most overrated teams of all time.

How about the 4-straight Finals Heat (2011 - 2014) going straight to the lottery without LeBron :confusedshrug:


A 4-Finals dynasty dropping to the lottery is worse than a 3-peat dynasty falling to the 2nd round :confusedshrug:



This is before we get into the fact that the Heat retooled with stars like Whiteside, Dragic, Deng, while the Bulls replaced MJ with a D-league player.





The difference is drastic

[ArbitraryWater]

You're the one who brought up the '94 ECSF, and you're the one one talking about if, but, would've, could've, and should've. The Bulls lost, end of story.

And yes, going from a 3-peat dynasty to a second round playoff team is a significant drop. I never said it was definitively worse than the Cavs' drop-off from '10 to '11, just that it could be argued. The '94 Bulls have become one of the most overrated teams of all time.


I'd argue that the drop-off from 3-peat to second round round exit is far greater than the drop-off from second round exit to lottery.

lol

Pure, unadulterated crap. The Bulls dropped 2 rounds (and thats putting it nicely for you, again, a bad call from the finals), compared to 42 games... you're reaching. Another salty Miami fan.

[Milbuck]

The difference between a championship and being within one game of the conference finals (and being robbed, at that) is not even remotely close to the difference between going from #1 in your conference to literally dead last.

The Spurs just two years ago from went from one of the most dominant championship runs to losing in the first round, with pretty much the exact same main rotation.

In 2014:
Duncan
Kawhi
Parker
Diaw
Ginobili
Green
Splitter
Belinelli
Mills

In 2015:
Kawhi
Duncan
Parker
Green
Diaw
Ginobili
Belinelli
Splitter
Joseph
Baynes
Mills


So let's see here....the Bulls without MJ had a lesser playoff drop off than the Spurs did running the exact same group of players :oldlol:

[3ball]

So let's see here....the Bulls without MJ had a lesser playoff drop off than the Spurs did running the exact same group of players :oldlol:


:kobe:

The Spurs have always been one-off champs that lost the next season - that's the definition of one-off champs: they aren't as dominant and lose the next season.

Otoh, Jordan's presence didn't just make the Bulls one-off champs like the Spurs were - his presence turned them into undefeatable, 6-peat champs.. From 1991 to 1998, the Bulls never lost a playoff series when Jordan was present for a full season, but they fell to a 2nd Round team without him.

Furthermore, not only were the 2014 Spurs one-off champs, but their veteran big 3 were on the severe decline heading into 2015.. Otoh, the 94' bulls were 3-peat champs and everyone was in their prime.

Finally, the Spurs occasionally had early round exits, but they were a legit championship-level team with legit championship talent, so they would always recover by making or winning the Finals in subsequent years.. Otoh, the Bulls without Jordan didn't have championship-level talent and weren't going to recover from the 2nd Round loss to make the Finals in future years - they were PERMANENTLY a 2nd Round team or worse without Jordan, after being a 3-peat dynasty with him.

[Milbuck]

:kobe:

The Spurs have always been one-off champs that lost the next season - that's the definition of one-off champs: they aren't as dominant and lose the next season.

Otoh, Jordan's presence didn't just make the Bulls one-off champs like the Spurs were - his presence turned them into undefeatable, 6-peat champs.. From 1991 to 1998, the Bulls never lost a playoff series when Jordan was present for a full season, but they fell to a 2nd Round team without him.

Furthermore, not only were the 2014 Spurs one-off champs, but their veteran big 3 were on the severe decline heading into 2015.. Otoh, the 94' bulls were 3-peat champs and everyone was in their prime.

Finally, the Spurs occasionally had early round exits, but they were a legit championship-level team with legit championship talent, so they would always recover by making or winning the Finals in subsequent years.. Otoh, the Bulls without Jordan weren't going to recover from the 2nd Round loss and make the Finals in future years - they were PERMANENTLY a 2nd Round team or worse without Jordan, after being a 3-peat dynasty with him.
aka

Lebron less Cavs = 42 game RS dropoff, 1st seed to last in conference
Jordan less Bulls = 2 game RS dropoff, champions to within one game of the conference finals

:oldlol:

[NBAGOAT]

You're the one who brought up the '94 ECSF, and you're the one one talking about if, but, would've, could've, and should've. The Bulls lost, end of story.

And yes, going from a 3-peat dynasty to a second round playoff team is a significant drop. I never said it was definitively worse than the Cavs' drop-off from '10 to '11, just that it could be argued. The '94 Bulls have become one of the most overrated teams of all time.

no it cant be. why not view it this way. the bulls went from the best team in the league to like a top 5 team. the cavs went from like a top 5 team to 30th. even if the bulls won 75 games and swept the knicks/suns(which they didn't), the Cavs would still have a bigger dropoff because going from contender to 2nd worst record in league is huge. ofc there's other context but tht's for another discussion. Millbuck's spurs example is a great example of which round you finish not being everything

[LostCause]

How about the 4-straight Finals Heat (2011 - 2014) going straight to the lottery without LeBron :confusedshrug:

This is before we get into the fact that the Heat retooled with stars like Whiteside, Dragic, Deng, while the Bulls replaced MJ with a D-league player.

These guys they retooled with didn't even play most of the season together, some not even for the Heat
2014
Bosh - 44 games
Dragic - 26 games
Wade- 62 games
Whiteside - 48 games (Started 32, literally WAS a D-League player)

When they did, they reached the 2nd round of the playoffs (Last season)

Honestly don't see why you were unbanned. Just more of the same willfully ignorant nonsense :no:

[DaHeezy]

lol

Pure, unadulterated crap. The Bulls dropped 2 rounds (and thats putting it nicely for you, again, a bad call from the finals), compared to 42 games... you're reaching. Another salty Miami fan.

Jordaneers can never see that logic. In no sport in any league would a Championship team lose its best player and still be a playoff contender be worse than a team that had a 40+ lose swing.

[DaHeezy]

It's hilarious that guys like 3ball and GrapeApe can't accept a flaw in their idols armor. What's clear to the rest of the sane world will never be accepted by delusional fans

[3ball]

Jordan-less Bulls = 2 game RS dropoff, champions to within one game of the conference finals


It seems that you aren't aware of history, so I'll inform you - the Bulls were half-assing the 1993 regular season to ensure they had enough to 3-peat in the playoffs.. This was evident in the playoffs, when the 57-win Bulls defeated two teams with better records and HCA (60+ win Knicks and Suns).

And again - the 94' Bulls aren't like the Spurs - the Spurs were a legit championship-level team with legit championship talent, so they could always recover from playoff losses by making or winning the Finals in subsequent years.

Otoh, the Bulls without Jordan didn't have championship talent and weren't going to recover from the 2nd Round loss to make the Finals in future years - they were PERMANENTLY a 2nd Round team or worse without Jordan, after being an undefeatable, 3-peat dynasty with him.
.

[LostCause]

For what it's worth, Delonte West and Varejao were pretty impactful players for that Cavs team by pretty much all the advanced metrics and especially on/off stats

Ignoring the fact that Chicago also ran a system that wasn't entirely dependant on one player dominating the possessions making it much easier to integrate talent is dumb. Kukoc, Kerr and Wennington fit perfectly for the Bulls, and Kukoc was a stud. The championship experience argument is real. However once they lost another impactful player (Grant) the following season Chicago was barely holding on to a .500 record before Jordan returned

Obviously, a 40-win dropoff in the RS is worse than a 2-win dropoff in the RS (Going from 3 straight championships to losing to an opponent you always beat in the 2nd round is a monumental difference that can't be understated, either), but the comparison doesn't matter as it's apples to oranges.

Fact is, Lebron leaving teams will naturally be more impactful because he controls more of the teams production, so when he's gone people have to do more because he was pretty much doing it all, whether he truly had to or not. This both helps and hurts, though. This is why Jordan has better success with high quality teammates whereas Lebron has better success with worse teammates.

[3ball]

It's hilarious that guys like 3ball and GrapeApe can't accept a flaw in their idols armor. What's clear to the rest of the sane world will never be accepted by delusional fans


The Bulls' 55 wins without Jordan isn't a flaw in his armor because it shows what he built - it shows the level of teamwork and chemistry that can be developed when a player doesn't team-hop.

And we know for a fact that the 94' Bulls won based on chemistry and not talent - every Bulls championship team required MJ to lead the league in scoring and be the greatest scorer ever.. So when the Bulls made the 2nd Round in 1994, it wasn't because they had a bunch of talented scorers - it was because of the 3-peat caliber of execution, strategy, and mental ability accumulated from 3-peating with MJ..

Indeed, the Bulls had to 3-peat with MJ first, before they could make the 2nd Round without him.

[AirBonner]

The Bulls' 55 wins without Jordan isn't a flaw in his armor because it shows what he built - it shows the level of teamwork and chemistry that can be developed when a player doesn't team-hop.

And we know for a fact that the 94' Bulls won based on chemistry and not talent - every Bulls championship team required MJ to lead the league in scoring and be the greatest scorer ever.. So when the Bulls made the 2nd Round in 1994, it wasn't because they had a bunch of talented scorers - it was because of the 3-peat caliber of execution, strategy, and mental ability accumulated from 3-peating with MJ..

Indeed, the Bulls had to 3-peat with MJ first, before they could make the 2nd Round without him.
:biggums: They were going to be good with or without Jordan. Jordan didn't "make them" Jackson made them. :no:

[3ball]

This is why Jordan has better success with high quality teammates whereas Lebron has better success with worse teammates.


At which part of Lebron's career did he have worse teammates than Jordan?

Young Jordan's 2nd options of Woolridge, Oakley and 2nd year Pippen (14/6/3) weren't top 4 players at their position in the conference (all-stars), whereas Lebron's 2nd options of Big Z and Mo Williams WERE all-stars, and therefore better relative to their competition than Jordan's cast.

Jordan's weaker cast is shown by the stats - his 33/8/8 yielded 47 wins for the 1989 Bulls, whereas Lebron's 28/8/7 yielded 66 wins in for the 2009 Cavs.. The 19 win gap can't be due ONLY to a weaker conference (https://usatthebiglead.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/lebron-hate.jpg?w=1000) - it must be due to a weaker supporting cast as well.. Jordan's weaker cast also explains why he was required to DO MORE thru 31 years old, including 30% (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12616538&postcount=71) more PPG in the playoffs with equal assists.

[Milbuck]

Funny how we need paragraphs upon paragraphs upon paragraphs to make excuses for why the Bulls were still really damn good without Jordan, but there's only one thing we have to say to explain Lebron's impact:

With Lebron = 61 wins, 1st seed. Without Lebron = 19 wins, dead last :oldlol:

[AirBonner]

Funny how we need paragraphs upon paragraphs upon paragraphs to make excuses for why the Bulls were still really damn good without Jordan, but there's only one thing we have to say to explain Lebron's impact:

With Lebron = 61 wins, 1st seed. Without Lebron = 19 wins, dead last :oldlol:
Ordan and Ilt stans share this defect. It is to distract you from the original topic in the hopes that you will die by the time you finish reading it.

[3ball]

With Lebron = 61 wins, 1st seed. Without Lebron = 19 wins, dead last :oldlol:


The 2011 Cavs didn't just lose Lebron - they lost Mo Williams, Shaq, Varejao, Delonte and Zydrunas, who averaged 50 ppg, or half the teams points and most of their chemistry.

This massive loss of talent and chemistry explains their regular season drop-off.

But the regular season is garbage and meaningless anyway.. In the playoffs, Lebron's Cavs fell from 2nd Round to lottery, whereas the 93' Bulls fell from 3-peat dynasty to permanent, 2nd Round team (or worse - see the record in 1995 or 1998 without Jordan).. Are you seriously saying that falling from 3-peat dynasty to permanent 2nd Round team isn't a far bigger drop-off?

[jstern]

They over achieved, and as many of the Bulls players have said, that was the best Bulls team minus Jordan out of that Bulls dynasty. If they had Jordan there's no way they wouldn't have 3 peated.

Then they weren't that good the following year, and then won 72 games with older Jordan in full force.

[NBAGOAT]

i mentioned this already but the Cavs had the 2nd biggest srs dropoff of all time. 1 was the 99 Bulls who lost way more than the Cavs and that's not arguable. they literally kept 2 important guys, Harper and kukoc.

[3ball]

They over achieved, and as many of the Bulls players have said, that was the best Bulls team minus Jordan out of that Bulls dynasty. If they had Jordan there's not way they wouldn't have 3 peated.

Then they weren't that good the following year, and then won 72 games with older Jordan in full force.
Really?

You mean that without Jordan's 36/7/8 on 53% and 2.8 tov in 1991-1993 Finals (the best stats ever), the Bulls wouldn't have 3-peated?

The fact that Jordan was required to register the best stats ever to achieve his first 3-peat proves that he had the less help than Lebron, who's stats required to win his 3 rings don't (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=418432) compare.

[3ball]

i mentioned this already but the Cavs had the 2nd biggest srs dropoff of all time.


That's what happens when you lose your TOP SIX GUYS (Mo Williams, Varejao, Shaq, Delonte, Zydrunas = 50 ppg and tons of chemistry..... plus Lebron's 30 ppg... that's the top 6 guys)

But we already know that the 2010 Cavs weren't nearly as good as their record in the soft-ass regular season indicated, since they lost convincingly in the 2nd Round as a big favorite against an old team past their prime.

This contrasts with the Bulls in 1993, who were undefeated in the playoffs for 3 straight years (3-peat), before losing in the 2nd Round without MJ in 1994.

[ArbitraryWater]

The difference between a championship and being within one game of the conference finals (and being robbed, at that) is not even remotely close to the difference between going from #1 in your conference to literally dead last.

The Spurs just two years ago from went from one of the most dominant championship runs to losing in the first round, with pretty much the exact same main rotation.

In 2014:
Duncan
Kawhi
Parker
Diaw
Ginobili
Green
Splitter
Belinelli
Mills

In 2015:
Kawhi
Duncan
Parker
Green
Diaw
Ginobili
Belinelli
Splitter
Joseph
Baynes
Mills


So let's see here....the Bulls without MJ had a lesser playoff drop off than the Spurs did running the exact same group of players :oldlol:

boom

tell that to this fakkit (if you didnt already)


You have to compare the full context of the drop-offs, not just regular season wins. The Bulls went from 3 straight championships to a second round exit. That is a HUGE difference. Jordan was the difference between solid team and dynasty. The Cavs went from a second round exit to being in the lottery. A big difference, sure, but rather inconsequential in the big picture.

I'd argue that the drop-off from 3-peat to second round round exit is far greater than the drop-off from second round exit to lottery.


First of all, the '94 Bulls weren't a bad call away from the ECF. It wasn't even a close-out game. That call is easily one of the most overblown things in NBA history. They lost in the second round, period. Just like the 2010 Cavs.

Second of all, I don't give a shit about regular season wins. The Bulls went from being a dynasty to being nothing more than a solid playoff team. That's an enormous drop-off.

[3ball]

The difference between a championship and being within one game of the conference finals (and being robbed, at that) is not even remotely close to the difference between going from #1 in your conference to literally dead last.

The Spurs just two years ago from went from one of the most dominant championship runs to losing in the first round, with pretty much the exact same main rotation.

In 2014:
Duncan
Kawhi
Parker
Diaw
Ginobili
Green
Splitter
Belinelli
Mills

In 2015:
Kawhi
Duncan
Parker
Green
Diaw
Ginobili
Belinelli
Splitter
Joseph
Baynes
Mills


So let's see here....the Bulls without MJ had a lesser playoff drop off than the Spurs did running the exact same group of players :oldlol:


:kobe: ... Comparing the 14' Spurs to the 93' Bulls is apples and oranges.

The Spurs have always been one-off champs that lost the next season - that's the definition of one-off champs: they aren't as dominant and lose the next season.

Otoh, Jordan's presence didn't just make the Bulls one-off champs like the Spurs were - his presence turned them into undefeatable, 6-peat champs.. From 1991 to 1998, the Bulls never lost a playoff series when Jordan was present for a full season, but they fell to a 2nd Round team without him in 1994 - this proves his goat impact.

Furthermore, not only were the 2014 Spurs one-off champs, but their veteran big 3 were on the severe decline heading into 2015.. Otoh, the 94' bulls were 3-peat champs and everyone was in their prime.

Finally, the Spurs occasionally had early round exits, but they were a legit championship-level team with legit championship talent, so they would always recover by making or winning the Finals in subsequent years.. Otoh, the Bulls without Jordan didn't have championship-level talent and weren't going to recover from the 2nd Round loss to make the Finals in future years - they were PERMANENTLY a 2nd Round team or worse without Jordan, after being a 3-peat dynasty with him.

[Da_Realist]

Funny how we need paragraphs upon paragraphs upon paragraphs to make excuses for why the Bulls were still really damn good without Jordan, but there's only one thing we have to say to explain Lebron's impact:

With Lebron = 61 wins, 1st seed. Without Lebron = 19 wins, dead last :oldlol:

It takes effort to build an intelligent argument based on context. Not so much just to type numbers.

[Hey Yo]

That's what happens when you lose your TOP SIX GUYS (Mo Williams, Varejao, Shaq, Delonte, Zydrunas = 50 ppg and tons of chemistry..... plus Lebron's 30 ppg... that's the top 6 guys)
Mo Williams played 56 games when he got traded and the Cavs had won only 10gms to date. Varejao played 37gms when he got injured and the Cavs had only won 8gms to that date.

Delonte' West's and Z's combined 16PPG was replaced. Shaq only played 53gms in 2010 and avg. 12ppg. His points were replaced.

Take the L on your dumb ass theory.

[3ball]

Mo Williams played 56 games when he got traded and the Cavs had won only 10gms to date. Varejao played 37gms when he got injured and the Cavs had only won 8gms to that date.

Delonte' West's and Z's combined 16PPG was replaced. Shaq only played 53gms in 2010 and avg. 12ppg. His points were replaced.

Take the L on your dumb ass theory.
Your numbers are wrong - Mo Williams only played 36 games, and Varejao only played 31 games.. Shaq, Zydrunas and Delonte were also gone.. That's 5 guys that averaged 50 ppg, or half the team's points.. Those are the facts.

Then they lost Lebron's 30 ppg - so anytime a team loses THEIR TOP 6 GUYS (80 ppg), that team's chemistry is GONE, regardless of replacements.. So it's no surprise that they were in last place considering they lost their top 6 guys, which represented 80% of the scoring.. :confusedshrug:

[jstern]

Really?

You mean that without Jordan's 36/7/8 on 53% and 2.8 tov in 1991-1993 Finals (the best stats ever), the Bulls wouldn't have 3-peated?

The fact that Jordan was required to register the best stats ever to achieve his first 3-peat proves that he had the less help than Lebron, who's stats required to win his 3 rings don't (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=418432) compare.

You misread my post. I'm arguing for Jordan.

[Milbuck]

It takes effort to build an intelligent argument based on context. Not so much just to type numbers.
We're talking literally a 40 game difference in the drop-offs between their respective teams after they left. Any argument trying to argue for the 2 game drop-off vs the 42 game one sure as hell isn't intelligent.

[3ball]

Any argument trying to argue for the 2 game drop-off vs the 42 game one sure as hell isn't intelligent.


By the same logic, any argument trying to argue for Lebron's 3 rings and fmvp's thru 13 seasons versus Jordan's 6, sure as hell isn't intelligent.

But regarding your comparison of the 2011 Cavs vs. 1994 Bulls - your facts are wrong.. The Cavs didn't just lose Lebron - they lost their top 6 players.

Any team that loses their top 6 guys is expected to lose all their chemistry and go from 1st to last, so don't play dumb and act like those Cavs just lost Lebron - that's a flat-out lie.

The 5 guys they lost after Lebron averaged 50 ppg, or half the team's points (Mo Williams, Shaq, Varejao, Delonte, Zydrunas).. Ultimately, the Cavs were a 2nd Round team that lost their top 6 guys, whereas the Bulls were 3-peat champs that retained their top players.

[Da_Realist]

We're talking literally a 40 game difference in the drop-offs between their respective teams after they left. Any argument trying to argue for the 2 game drop-off vs the 42 game one sure as hell isn't intelligent.

Context always matters. Take MJ off the 50 win 1988 Bulls. Do they win 48 games the next year without him? Even an idiot would admit they wouldn't win half that amount. Was MJ more valuable in 1988 than he was in 1993 even though an idiot would tell you he was a far better player?

No, you need context to discern the difference. Like how the 1988 Bulls relied on MJ to do everything. By 1993, not only was MJ a better player, Chicago was a better team that had championship experience, another top flight player, the best offense in the league and the best coaching staff in the league. When MJ retired they had a burning desire to prove they were more than just Jordannaires. Add new players that fit into the system and you still have a well-oiled machine even though they weren't as good. Plenty of teams with less have won 55 games.

As it's been said, regular season wins aren't a true barometer of how good a team is. The record for wins is now 73. Lebron led his team to just 7 games less. 66 wins is more than the Showtime Lakers ever won in a season. Looking at the numbers alone, you would think they were one of the best teams of all time. Yet the Cavs didn't even get out of the East. And they didn't lose to a super team. Why? Because everyone watching knew they accumulated wins in a weak conference and they weren't as good as the win total suggested. Context always matters.

[Dragonyeuw]

Context always matters. Take MJ off the 50 win 1988 Bulls. Do they win 48 games the next year without him? Even an idiot would admit they wouldn't win half that amount. Was MJ more valuable in 1988 than he was in 1993 even though an idiot would tell you he was a far better player?

No, you need context to discern the difference. Like how the 1988 Bulls relied on MJ to do everything. By 1993, not only was MJ a better player, Chicago was a better team that had championship experience, another top flight player, the best offense in the league and the best coaching staff in the league. When MJ retired they had a burning desire to prove they were more than just Jordannaires. Add new players that fit into the system and you still have a well-oiled machine even though they weren't as good. Plenty of teams with less have won 55 games.

As it's been said, regular season wins aren't a true barometer of how good a team is. The record for wins is now 73. Lebron led his team to just 7 games less. 66 wins is more than the Showtime Lakers ever won in a season. Looking at the numbers alone, you would think they were one of the best teams of all time. Yet the Cavs didn't even get out of the East. And they didn't lose to a super team. Why? Because everyone watching knew they accumulated wins in a weak conference and they weren't as good as the win total suggested. Context always matters.

Regular season record more than ever really doesn't mean a whole lot. There's too many cases of teams that overachieved in the regular season and didn't have a similar level of playoff success. There's a lot of ab and flow during the RS, teams may coast at one point or another to conserve over the long haul. You don't have the luxury of not going all out in the playoffs however, EVERY game gets you one step closer to victory or defeat.

Like you said, it's like trying to argue that the 66 win 2009 Cavs were 'almost' as good as the 67 win 1986 Celtics. Hell, I don't think the 96 Bulls are the best version of that team. I'd take the 92 versions of Jordan and Pippen, Rodman has the edge on the boards against Grant but Horace at least isn't an offensive liability and was more than able as a defender/rebounder, and the role players asides from Kukoc are pretty much a wash.

[egokiller]

Any team that loses their top 6 guys is expected to lose all their chemistry and go from 1st to last, so don't play dumb and act like those Cavs just lost Lebron - that's a flat-out lie.

The 5 guys they lost after Lebron averaged 50 ppg, or half the team's points (Mo Williams, Shaq, Varejao, Delonte, Zydrunas).. Ultimately, the Cavs were a 2nd Round team that lost their top 6 guys, whereas the Bulls were 3-peat champs that retained their top players.

Don't worry, the same village idiots will be saying the same narrative 3 moths from now about how Lebron is better than MJ because when Lebron left the cavs they did much worse than when MJ left the bulls, even though it was far more than Lebron that left. :roll:

This is how pathetic these Lebron / MJ comparisons have become. Lebron stans now have to resort to trying to paint a false picture that Lebron was the only one who left, and then they get destroyed once it's mentioned that the Cavs lost their top 6 players, and not just Lebron.

[Dray n Klay]

I can't believe Straight_Ballin was so psychologically ruined about LeBrons ring after calling for 2/7, that he had had to make up a story about how he is from Cleveland, and create a fake photobucket account just to act like he was celebrating. :roll:




LeBron literally caused the poor fellow to create an alternate identity, as well as create a new account (egokiller) to save himself from embarrassment :lol




Sad thing is he dude is 37 years old with no future, can't believe he had to resort to these tactics just to act like he isn't a loser on an online forum.

[egokiller]

So now we are going to say that I'm this Straight_Ballin guy? Let's see, so far I've been told that I am an alt of:

Warriorfan
3ball
Nilocon165
ClipperRevival
Straight_Ballin

and many others. I don't feel like going back and posting the links. I'm not an alt of any of these guys but I see that you are a joke of a poster that has been banned from this site on multiple occasions. Are you that much of a loser that you didn't get the hint after the first few bans that you are a horrible poster? You can't effectively argue any points, so you just accuse the posters that you are arguing with as being alts of someone else while using this Dray n Klay account which is obviously an alt to begin with.

:roll:

[Dray n Klay]

Dude, think about this for a second:



You're 37 years old and you still need to lie about being a Cavs fan and create a fake photobucket account just to try and show you're not a loser. You changed your entire identity and still had to change accounts after we exposed you.



You can try and hide it but everyone here knows how pathetic you are.




Yes you ARE Straight_Ballin and are too ashamed to admit it. Did we all bully you too much to the point you are too psychologically ruined to admit you are indeed the 37 year old loser that acts like he's from Ohio? :oldlol: :banana:

[egokiller]

I'm not sure where you are coming up with this garbage but you lack the intelligence to even understand that a team that loses it's best 6 players isn't the same team the next year. If you did, you would have never made this thread. It's pointless conversing with someone that can't understand basic concepts.

:roll:

[eeeeeebro]

its called tanking...

[AirBonner]

I can't believe Straight_Ballin was so psychologically ruined about LeBrons ring after calling for 2/7, that he had had to make up a story about how he is from Cleveland, and create a fake photobucket account just to act like he was celebrating. :roll:




LeBron literally caused the poor fellow to create an alternate identity, as well as create a new account (egokiller) to save himself from embarrassment :lol




Sad thing is he dude is 37 years old with no future, can't believe he had to resort to these tactics just to act like he isn't a loser on an online forum.
Wow. That is pathetic. :roll:

[Fudge]

OP is an ISH LEGEND. Period.

[Dray n Klay]

OP is an ISH LEGEND. Period.

You're back!


:banana: :hammertime: :hammertime:


Now we just need to free the brodie InsanityKills



#FreeGus

[Paul George 24]

Bulls Healthy,cavs Ain't..............

[97 bulls]

If the Bulls sole reason for their success in 94 was Jordan, how do you explain 95? The only leftovers from the 3 peat was Pippen and Armstrong. They were on pace to win roughly 44 games before Jordan came back. You don't think a Horace Grant caliber player nets them ten wins? Blows the whole 3peat chemistry nonsense out of the water

Their success in 94 was based on a combination of things mainly talent.

[3ball]

They were on pace to win roughly 44 games before Jordan came back. You don't think a Horace Grant caliber player nets them ten wins? Blows the whole 3peat chemistry nonsense out of the water


You think Horace was worth 10 games?... Lebron and Bosh TOGETHER were barely worth 10 games for the Heat in 2011.

I'm not saying Horace wasn't worth SOMETHING.. On that depleted team, the play-finishing Horace had become the 2nd option, which shows you how little talent they had - and obviously, anytime a team loses their 2nd best player, it will hurt their record somewhat.. But Horace wasn't worth no 10 wins.. Below, I explain why the Bulls fell off in 95'
.

[3ball]

They were on pace to win roughly 44 games before Jordan came back. You don't think a Horace Grant caliber player nets them ten wins? Blows the whole 3peat chemistry nonsense out of the water


You think Horace was worth 10 games?... Lebron and Bosh TOGETHER were barely worth 10 games for the Heat in 2011.

I'm not saying Horace wasn't worth SOMETHING.. On that depleted team, the play-finishing Horace had become the 2nd option, which shows you how little talent they had - and obviously, anytime a team loses their 2nd best player, it will hurt their record somewhat.. But Horace wasn't worth no 10 wins.. There are obvious, OTHER reasons why the Bulls dropped of in 1995, explained below.






how do you explain 95?



The main reason the Bulls dropped off in 1995 is that reality set in during the 94' playoffs and burst their bubble - it was no longer this cumbaya, happy time where everyone banded together to prove they were good without MJ.. They were no longer saying "We're still 3-peat champs.. We'll show that we're great without MJ"... By 1995, that ship had sailed.

Indeed, after never losing in the playoffs for 3 straight years WITH Jordan, their first year WITHOUT Jordan resulted in a 2nd Round loss.. So the difference was obvious, and now the goal that banded everyone together the year before (proving themselves) WAS GONE.

[Paul George 24]

If the Bulls sole reason for their success in 94 was Jordan, how do you explain 95? The only leftovers from the 3 peat was Pippen and Armstrong. They were on pace to win roughly 44 games before Jordan came back. You don't think a Horace Grant caliber player nets them ten wins? Blows the whole 3peat chemistry nonsense out of the water

Their success in 94 was based on a combination of things mainly talent.
1995 JUST PROVED HOW OVERRATED PIPPEN ACTUALLY ............

[97 bulls]

You think Horace was worth 10 games?... Lebron and Bosh TOGETHER were barely worth 10 games for the Heat in 2011.

I'm not saying Horace wasn't worth SOMETHING.. On that depleted team, the play-finishing Horace had become the 2nd option, which shows you how little talent they had - and obviously, anytime a team loses their 2nd best player, it will hurt their record somewhat.. But Horace wasn't worth no 10 wins.. There are obvious, OTHER reasons why the Bulls dropped of in 1995, explained below.



The main reason the Bulls dropped off in 1995 is that reality set in during the 94' playoffs and burst their bubble - it was no longer this cumbaya, happy time where everyone banded together to prove they were good without MJ.. They were no longer saying "We're still 3-peat champs.. We'll show that we're great without MJ"... By 1995, that ship had sailed.
Grant was good for 7 games in Orlando. There is no exact science to this. And again (this being the reason I stay away from brick heads like you), your whole argument as to how the Bulls were able to be so successful in 94 was that they had championship experience and player next to Jordan. Well, Kerr, Kukoc, Longley, Wennington, Harper, and Myers, had never played with Jordan. So your argument is done. They had a lot of talent.



Indeed, after never losing in the playoffs for 3 straight years WITH Jordan, their first year WITHOUT Jordan resulted in a 2nd Round loss.. So the difference was obvious, and now the goal that banded everyone together the year before (proving themselves) WAS GONE.
THEY WERE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT TEAM!!!!!! HOW OR WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO ACKNOWLEDGE? ?????? The only holdovers were Armstrong and Pippen. Just give them credit. The talent hadn't changed much Longley replaced old Cartwright, Kerr replaced Paxson, Wennington replaced Scott Williams. Along with Harper, Kukoc, and Myers.

[97 bulls]

1995 JUST PROVED HOW OVERRATED PIPPEN ACTUALLY ............
Don't see how 95 proves Pip was overrated. His defensive impact alone was on pad with Mutombo and Olajuwan. He led his team in every major category. He was their go to guy and defensive anchor. In fact, that was the greatest defensive season by a perimeter player ever in my opinion.

[Smoke117]

1995 JUST PROVED HOW OVERRATED PIPPEN ACTUALLY ............

Yeah...the greatest defensive season ever by a perimeter player proved how overrated Pippen was. :facepalm People forget that players were coming in and out of the line up in the early months of that 95 season. When Jordan came back they had won 8 out of their last 10 and were starting to get it together as a whole. The only reason this team was even over .500 though is Scottie Pippen. I'm not sure what people expected him to do...he lost the greatest player of all time and a 15/10 PF who was one of the best defenders at his position. What were the replacements? Pete Myers, a washed up Ron Harper, Toni Kukoc, and Will Perdue. Scottie ended up having to match up vs PF's since Kukoc was a horrendous defensive player and they were completely devoid of ANYTHING at PF with Horace Grant and Scott Williams (who was a valuable bench player) gone. It was Scottie, a bunch of stiff centers, kukoc, armstrong, Kerr, Harper (the one other good defensive player) and a bunch of scrubs...and he had them at 2nd in defense...that's impressive considering Kukoc and Armstrong played the 2nd and 3rd most minutes and were by far two of the worst defensive players on the team.

[SouBeachTalents]

People in this thread are trying to argue a 2 win drop off was more significant than a 42 win drop off :oldlol:

[Paul George 24]

Yeah...the greatest defensive season ever by a perimeter player proved how overrated Pippen was. :facepalm People forget that players were coming in and out of the line up in the early months of that 95 season. When Jordan came back they had won 8 out of their last 10 and were starting to get it together as a whole. The only reason this team was even over .500 though is Scottie Pippen. I'm not sure what people expected him to do...he lost the greatest player of all time and a 15/10 PF who was one of the best defenders at his position. What were the replacements? Pete Myers, a washed up Ron Harper, Toni Kukoc, and Will Perdue. Scottie ended up having to match up vs PF's since Kukoc was a horrendous defensive player and they were completely devoid of ANYTHING at PF with Horace Grant and Scott Williams (who was a valuable bench player) gone. It was Scottie, a bunch of stiff centers, kukoc, armstrong, Harper, kerr (the one good defensive player) and a bunch of scrubs...and he had them at 2nd in defense...that's impressive considering Kukoc and Armstrong played the 2nd and 3rd most minutes and were by far two of the worst defensive players on the team.
PIPPEN ALMOST MISS PLAYOFFS IF NOT JORDAN COMEBACK:lol
JORDAN LEDS HIS TEAM 21 WINS 6 LOSE WHEN PIPPEN INJURIED IN 1998 ( AND HE ONLY GOT KUKOC & RODMAN )

AND 1994 BULLS AGGAINST2ND RD KNICKS PIPPEN IN THOSE 7 GAMES ONLY 3 GAME ABOVE 40FG%,AND HE CHOKED IN THE LAST 2 GAMES

[97 bulls]

PIPPEN ALMOST MISS PLAYOFFS IF NOT JORDAN COMEBACK:lol
JORDAN LEDS HIS TEAM 21 WINS 6 LOSE WHEN PIPPEN INJURIED IN 1998 ( AND HE ONLY GOT KUKOC & RODMAN )
How did they almost miss the playoffs? They were a fifth seed when Jordan returned if I remember correct.


AND 1994 BULLS AGGAINST2ND RD KNICKS PIPPEN IN THOSE 7 GAMES ONLY 3 GAME ABOVE 40FG%,AND HE CHOKED IN THE LAST 2 GAMES
What does this have to do with 95 and their overall record? And so he had a couple bad games. It happens. Damn.

[LAZERUSS]

I get a kick out of the Jordanites take on the '94 Bulls.

Here was REALITY.

First of all, the '93 Bulls were on the decline. They slipped from a 67-15, and a dominating title, to a 57-25 team. In the post-season, they fell behind the 60-22 Knicks, 2-0, before rallying back to win the last four. Interesting, too, was that the key game in that series, was game five, in which they eked out a 97-94 win. Then, in the Finals, they were a John Paxson 3pt shot and a Horace Grant block from playing a game seven on the Suns home floor.

How about '94? Jordan QUIT. He didn't get traded for players, but QUIT. The Bulls scrambled to replace him, and ultimately, it was the legendary Pete Myers who took his spot in the starting lineup.

The '94 Bulls went 55-27, BUT, that was VERY deceptive. Pippen and Grant missed a combined 22 games. How big was that? The Bulls would surely have won 60+ games had the two been even reasonably healthy. Think about this... the Knicks went 56-26, and the Rockets went 58-24. Had those two not been injury-riddled, the Bulls would most assuredly have had HCA in the post-season.

As it was Chicago lost a close seven game series to the Knicks who had HCA. But, just like the previous season playoff series against NY, the series was decided in game five. Unfortunately for the Bulls, they lost that game by one point on a HORRIFIC call (just a blatant disgraceful call that was NEVER called in that era.) The Bulls romped to an easy win in game six. Had the officials not handed game five to the Knicks, the Bulls would have won the series in game six. Incidently, they outscored NY in that series. Furthermore, Jordan's "replacement", Pete Myers...averaged 7.6 ppg in that series.

BTW, the Bulls went 5-0 on their home floor in the '94 playoffs.

Had Chicago not been ROBBED in that game five, they would have went on to face a Pacers team in the ECF's...the same team that they blew out 4-1 in the regular season.

As it was, the Knicks put away the Pacers, and then lost a close game seven on the road to the Rockets in the Finals...in a series in which they outplayed and outscored Houston.

Again...REALITY. As anyone with any mental capacity at all can see...the '94 Bulls were NOT "an ordinary second round playoff loser." They were a blown call away from likely getting to the Finals. Furthermore, had they not lost their two best players for 22 games, they would have had HCA in the post-season. And given the fact that NY needed that HCA to edge them out, and then that same Knicks team lost a close game seven on the road in the Finals...the REALITY was, the '94 Bulls were indeed a CHAMPIONSHIP caliber team.

Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

Two of the several post-season black-eyes that Jordan incurred involved the '94 AND the '95 Bulls.

As we have already read...the '94 Bulls were a serious TITLE-CONTENDER...SANS Jordan! Hell, they were essentially a 60+ win team had they even been reasonably healthy, instead of the injury-decimated 55 win team that wound up with.

Of course, the Jordanites will point out the '95 Bulls record when he returned. Yes, they "only" went 34-31 in his absence, BUT, those fanboys will ignore the fact that they were not only playing without Jordan, BUT, they had lost Horace Grant, as well. So, Pippen essentially carried an MJ and Grant-less team to a 34-31 record. How did MJ do before Pippen and Grant arrived? His best season without them, was 40-42.

Furthermore, the Bulls were on an eight-game winning streak before MJ suddenly decided to chase another ring.

The MJ-lovers will then claim that he was "rusty" in his comeback. Sure he was. All he could do was put up a 55 point game in his fifth game back. The REALITY was that Jordan was the HEALTHIEST and FRESHEST player in the entire post-season.

And now, with MJ, the Bulls went 13-4 in their last 17 games. BUT, think about this...the Bulls went 48-22 in the games that Grant played in in the '94 season. So, had GRANT returned to the Bulls in their last 17 games in '95, instead of MJ, they likely would have put up a 12-5 record. Or ONE game less than with Jordan.

Then what happened in the '95 ECSF's? The Bulls were beaten, 4-2 (unlike 4-3 in '94.) So, evidently, with Jordan joining the SAME roster that Grant had left, they were actually a WORSE team in the '95 post-season.

BTW, most intelligent observers claimed that it was GRANT who was the real ECSF MVP. He wiped the floor with the Bulls frontline.

So, Bulls ownership looked at the '95 roster and realized that they had no hope of winning a title in '96. They immediately signed HOFer Dennis Rodman, and the rest was history.

Jordan not only replaced Grant, who along with Pippen, had guided the Bulls to a 55-27 injury-riddled record in his absence. They now added a HOFer to that same roster!

The REALITY was...Jordan was playing alongside the most stacked rosters in the watered-down 90's. Rosters that were capable of contending for a title without him.

And let's carry this even further. Again, Jordan QUIT after '93. He was not traded. So, the Bulls didn't get ANYTHING for his loss. Now, let's do the same to EVERY other team in the league in the 90's. Take away Ewing from the Knicks and not replace him at all. Same with Robinson on the Spurs; Karl Malone on the Jazz; Barkley on the Suns; Shaq from the Magic; and Hakeem from the Rockets. How many titles would the Bulls have won in that decade under those circumstances? I would argue that they likely would have won just as many as they did with MJ, and possibly more ('94 and '95 for sure.)

In any case, the Bulls were a title contender withOUT Jordan.

[Bigsmoke]

The bulls had Phil Jackson and a player that can be a #1 option and the bulls added toni.


The Cavs didnt. That's doesn't mean Lebron is better.

[LostCause]

I typically figured you knew what you were talking about and were objective with your walls of text Laz, but now I see that's not the case. Not going to respond to all of that, just a few points


Had Chicago not been ROBBED in that game five, they would have went on to face a Pacers team in the ECF's...the same team that they blew out 4-1 in the regular season.

This really doesn't matter, playoffs are a different beast and this has been shown almost every year


Again...REALITY. As anyone with any mental capacity at all can see...the '94 Bulls were NOT "an ordinary second round playoff loser." They were a blown call away from likely getting to the Finals. Furthermore, had they not lost their two best players for 22 games, they would have had HCA in the post-season. And given the fact that NY needed that HCA to edge them out, and then that same Knicks team lost a close game seven on the road in the Finals...the REALITY was, the '94 Bulls were indeed a CHAMPIONSHIP caliber team.


The reality was that the Bulls came up short. Citing HCA doesn't alter this fact, and is nothing more than speculation


As we have already read...the '94 Bulls were a serious TITLE-CONTENDER...SANS Jordan! Hell, they were essentially a 60+ win team had they even been reasonably healthy, instead of the injury-decimated 55 win team that wound up with.

It's dishonest to call them an "injury-decimated" team. No one would label a team as such whos 2 best players play 72 and 70 games between them (With BJ playing 82, Kerr 82 and Kukoc 75), but since you did that anyway, I'll do something similar below


Of course, the Jordanites will point out the '95 Bulls record when he returned. Yes, they "only" went 34-31 in his absence, BUT, those fanboys will ignore the fact that they were not only playing without Jordan, BUT, they had lost Horace Grant, as well. So, Pippen essentially carried an MJ and Grant-less team to a 34-31 record. How did MJ do before Pippen and Grant arrived? His best season without them, was 40-42.

This is a ridiculous point for the fact that you're dealing with 2 totally different times, and MJ was hardly a seasoned vet before Pippen/Grant arrived.

You're intentionally disregarding the impact the players that were attained in 94 had on the team, which is interesting seeing as one of these players WON the game for them against NY in the playoffs because their best player had a fit

Using the same principles you do here, I can go ahead and cite the 98 season where Jordan and Rodman (Who only started 66 games that year and missed 2 of them) led the Bulls to a .684 winning percentage without Pippen, which translates to a 56-win pace. This team was even more injury-decimated than the 94 Bulls, as Kerr would only play in 50 games, Longley 58 and Kukoc 74


Furthermore, the Bulls were on an eight-game winning streak before MJ suddenly decided to chase another ring.

The Bulls didnt have ANY 8-game winning streaks in the 95 season, most they had was 6, and this was AFTER Jordan returned


The MJ-lovers will then claim that he was "rusty" in his comeback. Sure he was. All he could do was put up a 55 point game in his fifth game back. The REALITY was that Jordan was the HEALTHIEST and FRESHEST player in the entire post-season.

He was rusty. Dropping 55 doesn't mean anything. He dropped 60 at 39 years of age, does that mean he was as good as he was in his prime or? He averaged 27 on 41%. The lowest FG% of his career and excluding his injured season and his Wizards years, his lowest PPG. He was at 40% on 2P shots, which is the lowest of his CAREER period, 11% lower than it was in 93 and 10% lower than it would be the NEXT season AND the one after that.If the dude plays better his last season before and better AFTER, its pretty damn obvious his game wasn't nearly as sharp as it usually is. We refer to that phenomenon as being rusty

Don't need to be an "MJ-lover" to see this. Objective evidence supports it, so you just need to have a bit of common sense



Then what happened in the '95 ECSF's? The Bulls were beaten, 4-2 (unlike 4-3 in '94.) So, evidently, with Jordan joining the SAME roster that Grant had left, they were actually a WORSE team in the '95 post-season.

.....You're better than posting this sort of nonsense, Laz. This was not a rematch of the last season +Jordan / -Grant


So, Bulls ownership looked at the '95 roster and realized that they had no hope of winning a title in '96. They immediately signed HOFer Dennis Rodman, and the rest was history.

They attained Rodman because their frontline was incredibly thin and weak. Essentially they got him to challenge Shaq. This is what's known as a smart move, not one out of desperation as you're clearly trying to paint it. Show a team that doesn't look to shore up a clear weakness


Jordan not only replaced Grant, who along with Pippen, had guided the Bulls to a 55-27 injury-riddled record in his absence. They now added a HOFer to that same roster!

BJ Armstrong was an All-Star in 94, and Kukoc came in and played amazingly well that season also. So did Kerr and Wennington. Let's keep pretending that only Jordan was lost and nothing else was gained in 94, though. Being short-sighted is in, apparently


And let's carry this even further. Again, Jordan QUIT after '93. He was not traded. So, the Bulls didn't get ANYTHING for his loss. Now, let's do the same to EVERY other team in the league in the 90's. Take away Ewing from the Knicks and not replace him at all. Same with Robinson on the Spurs; Karl Malone on the Jazz; Barkley on the Suns; Shaq from the Magic; and Hakeem from the Rockets. How many titles would the Bulls have won in that decade under those circumstances? I would argue that they likely would have won just as many as they did with MJ, and possibly more ('94 and '95 for sure.)
Your point here loses value when you take into account the actual additions that WERE made by the Bulls after Jordan left


In any case, the Bulls were a title contender withOUT Jordan.

They were about as serious a contender as the Clippers have been recently, and that was only for 1 season. They weren't a threat to anyone in 95

[LAZERUSS]

I typically figured you knew what you were talking about and were objective with your walls of text Laz, but now I see that's not the case. Not going to respond to all of that, just a few points



This really doesn't matter, playoffs are a different beast and this has been shown almost every year



The reality was that the Bulls came up short. Citing HCA doesn't alter this fact, and is nothing more than speculation



It's dishonest to call them an "injury-decimated" team. No one would label a team as such whos 2 best players play 72 and 70 games between them (With BJ playing 82, Kerr 82 and Kukoc 75), but since you did that anyway, I'll do something similar below



This is a ridiculous point for the fact that you're dealing with 2 totally different times, and MJ was hardly a seasoned vet before Pippen/Grant arrived.

You're intentionally disregarding the impact the players that were attained in 94 had on the team, which is interesting seeing as one of these players WON the game for them against NY in the playoffs because their best player had a fit

Using the same principles you do here, I can go ahead and cite the 98 season where Jordan and Rodman (Who only started 66 games that year and missed 2 of them) led the Bulls to a .684 winning percentage without Pippen, which translates to a 56-win pace. This team was even more injury-decimated than the 94 Bulls, as Kerr would only play in 50 games, Longley 58 and Kukoc 74



The Bulls didnt have ANY 8-game winning streaks in the 95 season, most they had was 6, and this was AFTER Jordan returned



He was rusty. Dropping 55 doesn't mean anything. He dropped 60 at 39 years of age, does that mean he was as good as he was in his prime or? He averaged 27 on 41%. The lowest FG% of his career and excluding his injured season and his Wizards years, his lowest PPG. He was at 40% on 2P shots, which is the lowest of his CAREER period, 11% lower than it was in 93 and 10% lower than it would be the NEXT season AND the one after that.If the dude plays better his last season before and better AFTER, its pretty damn obvious his game wasn't nearly as sharp as it usually is. We refer to that phenomenon as being rusty

Don't need to be an "MJ-lover" to see this. Objective evidence supports it, so you just need to have a bit of common sense




.....You're better than posting this sort of nonsense, Laz. This was not a rematch of the last season +Jordan / -Grant



They attained Rodman because their frontline was incredibly thin and weak. Essentially they got him to challenge Shaq. This is what's known as a smart move, not one out of desperation as you're clearly trying to paint it. Show a team that doesn't look to shore up a clear weakness



BJ Armstrong was an All-Star in 94, and Kukoc came in and played amazingly well that season also. So did Kerr and Wennington. Let's keep pretending that only Jordan was lost and nothing else was gained in 94, though. Being short-sighted is in, apparently


Your point here loses value when you take into account the actual additions that WERE made by the Bulls after Jordan left



They were about as serious a contender as the Clippers have been recently, and that was only for 1 season. They weren't a threat to anyone in 95

Look, you really haven't refuted anything I posted. And I could go piece-by-piece and counter your arguments...but here was REALITY.

The '94 Bulls were as good as any team in the league...all without Jordan. That is a FACT. They were a blown call away from playing a team that they had owned in the regular season in the ECF's. And the team that was handed the series win in the ECSF's went on to lose a close game seven on the road in the Finals (in a series in which they outplayed and outscored the Rockets.) They were certainly NOT "an ordinary second round loser." Sorry, but this was a TITLE-CONTENDING team.

Then, Jordan rejoined the SAME roster in the last 17 games of the '95 season, sans Grant, and couldn't do any better than what the '94 Bulls had accomplished withOUT him.

Were they as great as the championship teams that won with Jordan? No. BUT, they were a true 55-60 win team without him, and capable of challenging for a title.

[Smoke117]

The Bulls would have definitely beat the Pacers...that was a perfect match up for them. Like I've said before...the Bulls, Knicks, and Rockets were all similar teams in terms of style and how good they were.

[LAZERUSS]

The Bulls would have definitely beat the Pacers...that was a perfect match up for them. Like I've said before...the Bulls, Knicks, and Rockets were all similar teams in terms of style and how good they were.

THIS.

Sorry, but Jordan didn't win shit in his career until he had the best supporting casts in the watered-down 90's. Take a look at the '90 and '91 Bulls. The '90 Bulls lost in the ECF's because Pippen and Grant were no more than average. The '91 team blew out both the declining Bad Boys and then the declining and injury plagued Lakers because Pippen and Grant were HUGE in those two series.

The rest of his career he was playing alongside rosters that were capable of challenging for a title...withOUT him.

[LostCause]

Look, you really haven't refuted anything I posted. And I could go piece-by-piece and counter your arguments

Really now? Let's keep it simple then. Refute this:
http://image.prntscr.com/image/b76d671f1a454988a53d3306f04c0cc3.png

or stop the bullshit, because you're starting to sound really dumb

[97 bulls]

Really now? Let's keep it simple then. Refute this:
http://image.prntscr.com/image/b76d671f1a454988a53d3306f04c0cc3.png

or stop the bullshit, because you're starting to sound really dumb
You're arguing semantics bro. If I were to say Hitler was a bad guy because of what he did in the 50s, (which is wrong), but it doesn't override the overall premise. Do you disagree with the overall premise?

[LostCause]

You're arguing semantics bro. If I were to say Hitler was a bad guy because of what he did in the 50s, (which is wrong), but it doesn't override the overall premise. Do you disagree with the overall premise?

Not the case. These words:

"Look, you really haven't refuted anything I posted. And I could go piece-by-piece and counter your arguments"

Contextualize what you quoted. It's very clear what's said here, silly to suggest dismissing a counter-argument (Post #84) on the basis that you can counter everything said (Post #85), then cry semantics when that's shown false.

If yal wanna argue the points I made against Laz already, that post is there, feel free (#84). Quote that, I was simply accepting his challenge. He said he could and I invite him to do so (#88)

His overall point is nonsensical

[97 bulls]

Not the case. These words:

"Look, you really haven't refuted anything I posted. And I could go piece-by-piece and counter your arguments"

Contextualize what you quoted. It's very clear what's said here, silly to suggest dismissing a counter-argument (Post #84) on the basis that you can counter everything said (Post #85), then cry semantics when that's shown false.

If yal wanna argue the points I made against Laz already, that post is there, feel free (#84). Quote that, I was simply accepting his challenge. He said he could and I invite him to do so (#88)

His overall point is nonsensical
What'd nonsense about it?

[LAZERUSS]

Really now? Let's keep it simple then. Refute this:
http://image.prntscr.com/image/b76d671f1a454988a53d3306f04c0cc3.png

or stop the bullshit, because you're starting to sound really dumb

Wow! You really nailed me, didn't you?

Ok, they went 8-2 in their TEN games before MJ came back. And not only that, and INCLUDING those two losses, they had a PPG Differential of.... get this... +12.0 ppg! They were DOMINATING teams before the ring-chasing Jordan decided to jump on that yacht.

Then, while they were going 13-4 WITH Jordan, they had a PPG differential of only +6.9 in those 17 games. And again, using Grant's 48-22 record in the '94 season, ...had it been GRANT that came back to play those last 17 games, the Bulls likely would have gone no worse than 12-5 in them.

And, one more time... a peak scoring Jordan could only take a Pippen-Grant-less team to a 40-42 record, and a first round blowout loss in the playoffs to a declining Celtics team that would get gouched by the Pistons in the ECF's. Here was Pippen, without BOTH Jordan and Grant...and taking a roster full of role players to a 34-31 record. And again, even that was deceptive...as they were on a ROLL before Jordan returned.

And once again, before anyone makes the claim that MJ's returned to a 34-31 team...he did, but it was NOT nearly the same team that had gone an injury-riddled 55-27 without him, and were a blown call away from making it to the ECF's, where they would have faced a team that they owned during the regular season.

FURTHERMORE, aside from GRANT, whom MJ replaced in that '95 season, the roster was nearly IDENTICAL to what Pippen and Grant had taken to that injury-riddled 55-27 record, and were cheated out of a six game series win in the ECSF's. And MJ couldn't even take them as far. They were dispatched 4-2 in the ECSF's.

And just how "rusty" was Jordan after playing 17 regular season games. In his '93 post-season run, he averaged 35.1 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 6.0 apg, 2.1 spg, 0.9 bpg, 2.4 tov, shot a .475 FG%, had a .502 eFG%, and had a .553 TS%. In his '95 post-season run, he averaged 31.5 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 2.3 spg, 1.3 bpg, 4.1 tov, and he shot a .484 FG%, had a .506 eFG%, and a .556 TS%. At WORST, a SLIGHT decline.

BUT, wait. What happened to the '96 MJ in the post-season, when he would supposedly have been nowhere near as "rusty?" 30.7 ppg, 4.9 rpg, 4.1 apg, 1.8 spg, 0.3 bpg, 2.3 tov, and on a .459 FG%, a .490 eFG%, and with a .564 TS% (no doubt bolstered by the shortened 3 pt line.) A CLEAR DECLINE. Oh, and BTW, thankfully for Jordan, the Sonics coach only had Payton defending him in the last three games of the '96 Finals, or his numbers would have been even worse.

So, PLEASE, don't EVER bring up this "rusty" nonsense again. The man was the HEALTHIEST, and most REFRESHED player in the entire league going into the '95 playoffs.

BUT, it gets even better. The NY team that the Bulls should have beaten in the '94 ECSF's, then took care of the Pacers in the ECF's, and then lost a game seven, on the road, to the 58-24 Rockets, by a four points.

Compare that with what the Magic team did in the '95 Finals. They were SWEPT by the 47-35 Rockets in the Finals.


What does all of the above tell us? That MJ could just get up an QUIT on his team, and leave them to scramble to find role players to replace him with...and a drop from a 57-25 record (and a team that struggled against both the Knicks and Suns in the playoffs and Finals) ...all the way down to a 55-27 team withOUT him. And while the '93 Bulls won a the key game five against the Knicks by three points, en route to winning that series in six games...the '94 Bulls were CHEATED in their key game five against that SAME NY team, and lost by one point. They romped in game six, so yes, they should have repeated what Jprdan's '93 Bulls did against that SAME Knick team.

But not only all of that...how do the Jordanites explain the '95 post-season? Nearly the SAME roster that the '94 Bulls had....with the exception being that Jordan replaced Grant...and yet, played WORSE in the post-season. Oh, and BTW, it was GRANT who destroyed them in the '95 ECSF's.

No matter how you look at it...BOTH '94 and '95 were black-eyes to Jordan's career. They were a truly elite team that went an injury-riddled 55-27 in his absence. And then , that same roster was no better with Jordan replacing Grant.

They then had to ADD a HOFer to that SAME roster, with the only exception being MJ instead of Grant. Or basically adding a HOF PF to what should have been a 60+ win team without BOTH Jordan and Rodman.

The REALITY was...Jordan was winning his six rings with the most stacked supporting casts in the decade of the 90's.

And none of YOUR "nonsense" will disprove it. And again, just remove Ewing from the '94 Knicks; and Hakeem from the Rockets; and basically replace them both with a couple of role players, and just how far do the '94 Bulls go? I think we BOTH know the answer to that one.

[LostCause]

Wow! You really nailed me, didn't you?

Is 8-2 now the same as an 8-game winning streak or?


Ok, they went 8-2.. They were DOMINATING teams before the ring-chasing Jordan decided to jump on.

Funny. MJ didn't "decide" to come back the same day he played. He wanted to only return for POs, Phil wanted 20 games. They settled on 17. It was clear to the team up to 2 weeks before his return (Mar.18) that he was coming. Those 2 weeks = for 7 games

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2389936-im-back-untold-tales-of-michael-jordans-1st-return-to-the-nba-20-years-ago


Then, while they were going 13-4 WITH Jordan..
http://image.prntscr.com/image/84f5b039d3074bc3ae0cf23510e80733.png
This isn't relevant because Jordans play declined, and he was still meshing with a mostly new team.


And, one more time... a peak scoring Jordan could only take a Pippen-Grant-less team to a 40-42 record, and a first round blowout loss in the playoffs to a declining Celtics team that would get gouched by the Pistons in the ECF's.

http://image.prntscr.com/image/b3d1d762e795436481ea7b484326b613.png
Jordan was leading a Pippen/Grant-less team to 56 wins

Also, "gouched"? DET lost to BOS and BOS went to the Finals. They were the defending champs and DET succeeded them the next season in the Finals wining 2/3 trips there. Terrible point


And once again, before anyone makes the claim that MJ's returned to a 34-31 team...he did

Lol


FURTHERMORE, aside from GRANT, whom MJ replaced in that '95 season, the roster was nearly IDENTICAL to what Pippen and Grant had taken to that injury-riddled 55-27 record

Both eliminated in ECSF by eventual EC Champs. NY didn't even make the ECF in 95, they lost to IND, who you think the Bulls would've beaten. Interesting


And just how "rusty" was Jordan after playing 17 regular season games. .... At WORST, a SLIGHT decline.

Show me what other ATG a 4ppg, 2apg, +2 TOVpg difference is considered a "slight" decline. Jordan coming back when he did affected more than just his production. The team was different than he left and he didn't have a full camp to work with. You see the results of this all the time when stars are brought into teams

Also, he was much more deferential than in years past. He knew what he had around him and used it more often (ie, Kukoc's usage rate was in league with Scottie's)


BUT, wait. What happened to the '96 MJ in the post-season,

See above. You're referencing dude declining but denying he declined?


So, PLEASE, don't EVER bring up this "rusty" nonsense

You seem to think you disproved the notion that Jordan was rusty, you didnt
http://image.prntscr.com/image/84f5b039d3074bc3ae0cf23510e80733.png

He was better in the playoffs, but that doesn't mean he wasn't rusty. See what a full season of training camp did the following season? 72-10


BUT, it gets even better. The NY team that the Bulls..

Not particularly relevant. How these teams performed says nothing about CHI. Pure speculation and teams change from year to year (ie, Knicks lost to IND the nxt year, who ORL beat. Why? You don't acknowledge these things. so why would I? They didn't even make the ECF)


and a drop from a 57-25 record ...They romped in game six, so yes, they should have repeated what Jprdan's '93 Bulls did against that SAME Knick team.

No, they weren't. As for "scrambling", the Bulls were already thinking of replacing Pippen with Kukoc for years (and Pippen was very upset about this, so was Jordan) so they knew what they had and how good it was, and Toni was very good


But not only all of that...how do the Jordanites explain the '95 post-season? ...and yet, played WORSE in the post-season. Oh, and BTW, it was GRANT who destroyed them in the '95 ECSF's.

They didn't play worse, they actually played better. Their offense was much improved compared to the Knicks series, they also rebounded better and defended at about the same level. Big difference is the difference between opponents. Orlando was a scoring beast that season (Led league in ORtg @ 115)

This while the Bulls' leading rebounders were Pippen, Kukoc and Jordan, matched up against the huge frontline of ORL which included SHAQ. You might have heard of him. Most dominant of all time?


No matter how you look at it...BOTH '94 and '95 were black-eyes to Jordan's career. .

How is 94 a black eye to Jordan when he didn't even play? Lol, who does this? 95 can be considered one, out of context, because he lost in the 2nd round, but in context dude jumped in near the end of the season so expectations should been tempered

If you consider 94 a black eye to Jordan because his team wasn't complete shit without him, your agenda is as obvious as it is silly


They then had to ADD a HOFer to that SAME roster, with the only exception being MJ instead of Grant. Or basically adding a HOF PF to what should have been a 60+ win team without BOTH Jordan and Rodman.


The **** did the bolded come from? You high?

Your whole argument is based around hypotheticals but you only consider them when they support you. "Grant/Pippen should've won 60 but blah injury riddled". Cool. You mentioning the fact the next year some of the biggest contributors on the 94 team missed a ton of games when you're trying to detract from Jordan? Nah

You also stated they added Rodman to a 60-win team without him/MJ... Forgotting your earlier speculation about that being possible with Grant (Cartwright was also on the team, btw, so was BJ Armstrong... you know, guy who made the AS Team?)

Ridiculous


The REALITY was...Jordan was winning his six rings with the most stacked supporting casts in the decade of the 90's

And none of YOUR "nonsense" will disprove it. And again, just remove Ewing from...and just how far do the '94 Bulls go? I think we BOTH know the answer to that one.

IDRC if the Bulls were stacked or not, so not sure why you're making that point as i never claimed otherwise. They were, the organization did a good job. They weren't always the most stacked team of the 90s though, that idea's pretty ridiculous

[LAZERUSS]

Is 8-2 now the same as an 8-game winning streak or?

I already said it was 8-2. Good enough. They were playing better basketball in those 10 games before the ring-chaser arrived, than they would in the next 17 games with him.


This isn't relevant because Jordans play declined, and he was still meshing with a mostly new team.

Yep...dropping 55 points in his 5th game back was rusty alright. Players do it all the time.


ordan was leading a Pippen/Grant-less team to 56 wins

No he didn't. Rodman was a Grant's replacement, and averaged 15.0 rpg in his 80 games. He's in the HOF for a reason.

Again, Jordan never had a winning record without Pippen-Grant, Pippen-Rodman. He ALWAYS had at least TWO other ELITE performers (in Grant's case, just look up his career IMPACT with the teams he would play for.)


Also, "gouched"? DET lost to BOS and BOS went to the Finals. They were the defending champs and DET succeeded them the next season in the Finals wining 2/3 trips there. Terrible point

You're right. The Lakers crushed the Celtics in that Finals. And by the next season Boston was basically done. Blown out by Detroit in a series in which Bird shot .351.

Doesn't disprove my point. Jordan went 1-9 in his playoffs before the arrival of Pippen and Grant. And never had a winning record without another dominant HOFer for an extended period of time.


And once again, before anyone makes the claim that MJ's returned to a 34-31 team...he did

The '95 Bulls did NOT have Horace Grant. They were basically Pippen and bunch of career role players. Going 34-31 with that cast was an amazing achievement. They had some exceptional role players to be sure, but without Grant, they were a merely a good team that was obviously playing better than their 34-31 overall record (as evidenced by their dominating 8-2 run before Jordan's arrival.) And again, the '94 Bulls went an injury-riddled 55-27 withOUT Jordan.

BTW, the 56-26 Knicks two best players on the '94 team, Ewing and Oakley...missed a combined 3 games. The two best players on the 58-24 Rockets, Hakeem and Thorpe...missed a combined 2 games. How about the 55-27 Spurs...with Robinson and Rodman...a combined 5 games. The 63-19 Sonics with Payton and Kemp...a combined 3 games. The 50-32 Magic with Shaq and Hardaway...1 game. Sure, you can find other teams that lost their key players to injuries for extended stretches, but aside from the teams I mentioned were the best in the league. Now, how about the 55-27 Bulls? Pippen and Grant missed...get this... a combined 22 games! Hell, without Pippen the Bulls went 4-6 (and 51-21 with him.) Then, in the games Grant missed, Pippen was carrying them to a 7-5 record. Had Pippen and Grant missed a couple of games each...and this was easily a 60+ win team. Plain-and-simple.

The bottom line...the '94 Bulls were as good as any team in the league. And they PROVED it. Without HCA, they were a rotten call away from going to the ECF's, where they would faced a Pacer team that they owned during the regular season. As it was, the Knicks beat them, and then lost a close game seven on the road to the Rockets. BTW, the Bulls went 5-0 on their home floor in that post-season. Again, had Pippen and Grant not missed an inordinate amount of games, they would have had HCA throughout their playoff run.


Both eliminated in ECSF by eventual EC Champs. NY didn't even make the ECF in 95, they lost to IND, who you think the Bulls would've beaten. Interesting

Yet, the '94 Bulls lost a game seven, in a series in which they were robbed in game five, while the '95 Bulls were eliminated 4-2. And speaking of the Knicks...MJ's '93 Bulls eked out a game five win, in a series in which they won, 4-2. Had the refs not handed game five to the '94 Knicks, the Bulls romp in game six would have given them an identical 4-2 series win.


Show me what other ATG a 4ppg, 2apg, +2 TOVpg difference is considered a "slight" decline. Jordan coming back when he did affected more than just his production. The team was different than he left and he didn't have a full camp to work with. You see the results of this all the time when stars are brought into teams

Also, he was much more deferential than in years past. He knew what he had around him and used it more often (ie, Kukoc's usage rate was in league with Scottie's)


Overall...a slight decline across the board. And then an even bigger drop in his '96 run. And don't give me 72-10. That Bulls team also had the constant, Pippen, and now Rodman, instead of Grant. Remember the '94 Bulls, with just Pippen and Grant...and going an injury-decimated 55-27 (or easily a 60+ win if healthy?) Replacing Grant with MJ, and then ADDING Rodman to what was easily a 60+ win team with just Pippen and Grant...and yes, anyone could see the '96 Bulls going 72-10.


How is 94 a black eye to Jordan when he didn't even play? Lol, who does this? 95 can be considered one, out of context, because he lost in the 2nd round, but in context dude jumped in near the end of the season so expectations should been tempered

If you consider 94 a black eye to Jordan because his team wasn't complete shit without him, your agenda is as obvious as it is silly

'94 was a black-eye from the standpoint, that an injury-riddled Bulls team, basically scrambling to replace MJ with role players, including a Pete Myers who would average 7.6 ppg in the ECSF's...went 55-27, and were an eyelash away from going to the ECF's, where they would have faced a team that they dominated. And given the Knicks close game seven loss on the road in the Finals (in a series in which they outplayed and outscored Houston)...it clearly shows that Jordan was playing alongside the most stacked rosters in the entire decade of the 90's. Rosters that were as good as any other teams in the league...withOUT him.

Jordan put them over the top. Good for him. But he wasn't doing that with rosters pre-Pippen and Grant. The man couldn't even carry teams to winning records.

Agenda? An agenda would be those clowns that claim that the '94 Bulls were an "ordinary second round playoff loser." The '95 Bulls were closer to that label. Again...the '94 Bulls were an ELITE team, that was as good as any other team in the league...including the champion Rockets.

[Da_Realist]

Is 8-2 now the same as an 8-game winning streak or?



Funny. MJ didn't "decide" to come back the same day he played. He wanted to only return for POs, Phil wanted 20 games. They settled on 17. It was clear to the team up to 2 weeks before his return (Mar.18) that he was coming. Those 2 weeks = for 7 games

[url]http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2389936-im-back-untold-tales-of-michael-jordans-1st-return-to-the-nba-20-years-ago

Thanks for posting this article. It shows the arrogance MJ had with the game and his place in it. He surveyed the field and determined he could just show up for the playoffs and dominate like usual. This is one of those cases where failure leads to success. He embarrassed himself because it was obvious he wasn't like he was before. Getting pushed aside in 95 gave MJ the challenge he was looking for. Players whispering what Nick Anderson said out loud ("He's not the same") provided the fire without which the Bulls would not have won 72 games the next season. The 95-96 season was a big "F you" from MJ to the league.

[LostCause]

I already said it was 8-2. Good enough. They were playing better basketball in those 10 games before the ring-chaser arrived, than they would in the next 17 games with him.

I'll say this one more time: Jordans numbers for that season weren't as good as they were before and were worse than they would be after, thus that season is an outlier. Integrating him into the offense also took time. I'm sure you know the game is more complicated than just addition and subtraction, so stop playing ignorant

Also, here's an idea: The Bulls played their best basketball in the 2 weeks leading up to Jordan returning? Did you also know this is when his own teammates admitted he started practicing more and practices became more intense/productive? Seems the Jordan effect is more profound than you realize

Lastly, those 17 games included 2 6-game winning streaks, 12-2 to close out the season. so no, pretty sure they played better after he got there as well anyway. Dishonest reporting fam


Yep...dropping 55 points in his 5th game back was rusty alright. Players do it all the time.

http://image.prntscr.com/image/84f5b039d3074bc3ae0cf23510e80733.png
You have 0 counter to this argument so you're sticking to dropping 55? Oh ok. Objective evidence shows Jordans regular season performance that year was an outlier. I don't need to say anything else about it


No he didn't. Rodman was a Grant's replacement, and averaged 15.0 rpg in his 80 games. He's in the HOF for a reason.

Again, Jordan never had a winning record without Pippen-Grant, Pippen-Rodman. He ALWAYS had at least TWO other ELITE performers (in Grant's case, just look up his career IMPACT with the teams he would play for.)

Lol, Rodman was a Grant replacement, but Rodman isn't Grant. So Jordan, without Pippen-Grant (Which is your original statement, stop trying to save face) had the team on a 56-win pace
http://image.prntscr.com/image/b3d1d762e795436481ea7b484326b613.png

WITH an injury-riddled team that a 36-year old RODMAN didn't even start on. Stop the bullshit Laz, you don't get the move the goalposts arbitrarily. You're championing Pippen/Grants record with a relatively healthy and deep Bulls team against Jordans when he was playing with John Paxson and Dave Corzine as his 3rd/4th best players. What exactly do you think you're proving here fam? That Jordan with shitty teammates can't get to 50 wins while Pippen with All-Star/Great teammates can?


You're right. The Lakers crushed the Celtics in that Finals..
Doesn't disprove my point. Jordan went 1-9 in his playoffs before the arrival of Pippen and Grant. .

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1988-nba-eastern-conference-first-round-cavaliers-vs-bulls.html

Pippen/Grant were rookies. Jordan only played 3 seasons prior (1 of them he was directed not to due to injury), so you're still talking about a relative newbie. I'd love for you to make a case that Pippen/Grant were the reasons Chicago won Cleveland series. They provided depth, they weren't difference-makers

As for your point, it does disprove it, as you're referencing him losing to a team that went to the Finals that year and were defending champs. A team with a 40-42 record and no notable player outside Jordan/Oakley losing to ATG Celtics teams. It's ironic you're stretching this far given how you tend to excuse Wilt at damn near every turn

How about this exercise since you like speculation. Replace Pippen in 88 with Kukoc in 94, throw Kerr, Meyers and BJ from 94 in the mix as well and replace Grant with Scott Williams from 94. Do the 88 Bulls still beat the Cavs without Pippen/Grant? Shit given how Pippen performed in the NEXT series against DET this team would fare far better than they did WITH Pippen/Grant. Know why? Since apparently you're unable to comprehend this, it's because the team was better


The '95 Bulls did NOT have Horace Grant.....And again, the '94 Bulls went an injury-riddled 55-27 withOUT Jordan.

Cool, and Jordan took an even more injury-riddled team to a 56-win pace withOUT Pippen and Grant, as proven


BTW, the 56-26 Knicks two best players on the '94 ....

Speculative, as this also depends on the opponent. Games can go either way. I wouldn't trust your predictions about a teams record 20 years ago any more than I would today


The bottom line...the '94 Bulls were as good as any..

Not entertaining anymore speculative nonsense but get this: Fact is, they weren't good enough to win, and even if they BEAT NY, their performance in any other round is nothing more than speculation, they very well could've been swept by Indiana (Don't know why you keep referencing what they did in the SEASON, we see time/time again that hardly matters in the playoffs)



Yet, the '94 Bulls lost a game seven, in a series in which they were robbed in game five, while the '95 Bulls were eliminated 4-2. ..


Prove to me the 94 Knicks were better than the 95 Magic then, otherwise the Bulls losing to them sooner isn't worse. Going by this graphic
http://i0.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/paine-datalab-lebron-cast-2.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1

Shaq's team was much better than those Knicks AND the Rockets they lost to in the Finals, they just got outplayed

I don't care much for all the speculation/excuse making you're doing



Overall...a slight decline across the board. And then an even bigger drop in his '96 run. And don't give me 72-10. That Bulls team also had the constant, Pippen, and now Rodman, instead of Grant. Remember the '94 Bulls, with just Pippen and Grant...and going an injury-decimated 55-27 (or easily a 60+ win if healthy?) Replacing Grant with MJ, and then ADDING Rodman to what was easily a 60+ win team with just Pippen and Grant...and yes, anyone could see the '96 Bulls going 72-10.

Or, adding Pippen to what became 2 years later a 56-win team without him. Speculatively, if the team wasn't so injury decimated in 98, they could've won 60+ without Pippen with just Jordan and Rodman and role players. So yeah, adding Pippen, 72 makes sense right?

'
94 was a black-eye from the standpoint, that an injury-riddled...

Again, you'd have to be ridiculous to consider a season he DIDN'T EVEN PLAY some sort of detriment. Stop that nonsense

Jordan put them over the top. Good for him. But he wasn't doing that with rosters pre-Pippen and Grant. The man couldn't even carry teams to winning records.

Can you provide evidence Pippen/Grant were doing that with the same rosters Jordan had in that time period? You can't, you can't provide evidence anyone was carrying those teams because there is none

What we do know, however, is that Jordan had an injury-riddled team on a 56-win pace withOUT Pippen/Grant in 98, his last season on the edge of his prime. Speculatively 60+ if his teammates didnt miss so many games. Sounds like a winning record to me


Agenda? An agenda would be those clowns that claim that the '94 Bulls were an "ordinary second round playoff loser." The '95 Bulls were closer to that label. Again...the '94 Bulls were an ELITE team, that was as good as any other team in the league...including the champion Rockets.

Apparently not, as they didn't make it out of the second round, just like that 95 team you referenced

[LAZERUSS]

I'll say this one more time: Jordans numbers for that season weren't as good as they were before and were worse than they would be after, thus that season is an outlier. Integrating him into the offense also took time. I'm sure you know the game is more complicated than just addition and subtraction, so stop playing ignorant

Also, here's an idea: The Bulls played their best basketball in the 2 weeks leading up to Jordan returning? Did you also know this is when his own teammates admitted he started practicing more and practices became more intense/productive? Seems the Jordan effect is more profound than you realize

Lastly, those 17 games included 2 6-game winning streaks, 12-2 to close out the season. so no, pretty sure they played better after he got there as well anyway. Dishonest reporting fam

I already blew this argument out of the water. In the 10 games the Bulls played before the ring-chaser arrived, they went 8-2, and just destroyed their opposition by a +12.0 ppg differential. Jordan's 17 game return had a +6.9. No question the Bulls were playing better without him.


You have 0 counter to this argument so you're sticking to dropping 55? Oh ok. Objective evidence shows Jordans regular season performance that year was an outlier. I don't need to say anything else about it


I am sticking to the argument. MJ had 17 games in which to get playoff ready, and by his 5th game he was pouring in 55 points. Again, he was the HEALTHIEST, and FRESHEST player in the entire NBA going into the post-season. And his POST-SEASON numbers supported it. Pretty much identical to both his '93, and '96 runs. And yet his impact was even less in that post-season than what Grant had given the Bulls the year before.


Lol, Rodman was a Grant replacement, but Rodman isn't Grant. So Jordan, without Pippen-Grant (Which is your original statement, stop trying to save face) had the team on a 56-win pace

Rodman isn't Grant? Look, I Grant deserves to be in the HOF. I would take him over Chris "Can't Do" Bosh in a heartbeat. But to merely suggest that a HOF Rodman, playing 36 mpg, and running away with every rebound category in the league in '98 was no Grant is purely ridiculous. Not to mention that he was still an elite defender. Those Bulls teams weren't just MJ on the defensive end. They had guys like Pippen, Grant, Rodman, Harper, and others.

So, NO, MJ was NOT on a 56 win pace "without Pippen and Grant." His team went 62-20 with Pippen playing 44 games (and going 36-8 in them, or a 67 win pace...geez, makes you wonder just who was really more valuable doesn't it?), and RODMAN.

And yet I have morons make the claim that the '95 Bulls were only 34-31 before Jordan arrived, and 13-4 with him. They conveniently ignore the fact that Pippen was SINGLE-HANDEDLY carrying that team. No GRANT. You know, the GRANT who along with Pippen, and despite both being injured an inordinate amount of games in '94, STILL had a 55-27 record.

Again, what were MJ's records before Pippen and Grant arrived? A loser. And a horrific record in the post-season.


WITH an injury-riddled team that a 36-year old RODMAN didn't even start on. Stop the bullshit Laz, you don't get the move the goalposts arbitrarily. You're championing Pippen/Grants record with a relatively healthy and deep Bulls team against Jordans when he was playing with John Paxson and Dave Corzine as his 3rd/4th best players. What exactly do you think you're proving here fam? That Jordan with shitty teammates can't get to 50 wins while Pippen with All-Star/Great teammates can?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Rodman didn't start on? Other than 66 of the 80 games he played...and running away with the rebounding title. And relatively healthy and deep Bulls team? You mean the '94 Bulls that had their two best players miss a combined 22 games? And STILL went 55-27? YOU stop the bullshit.

[LAZERUSS]

Pippen/Grant were rookies. Jordan only played 3 seasons prior (1 of them he was directed not to due to injury), so you're still talking about a relative newbie. I'd love for you to make a case that Pippen/Grant were the reasons Chicago won Cleveland series. They provided depth, they weren't difference-makers


Sorry, but Pippen, Grant, and OAKLEY were difference makers. Just because MJ was takling virtually all the shots doesn't mean that those three weren't supplying a TON of help (especially on the glass.)

Of course MJ's numbers declined considerably in the next round, and with much more help from his teammates...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1988-nba-eastern-conference-semifinals-bulls-vs-pistons.html

And that is another HUGE point here. MJ struggled mightily against the Bad Boys from '88-90. It wasn't until the Pistons (and Lakers) were just crumbling shells in '91 that he finally put up equal regular season numbers. Oh, and guess what also happened in the '91 post-season? PIPPEN and GRANT were HUGE in the Pistons and Lakers series.

Which again proves my point. From '91 on, Jordan was playing with EASILY the most stacked rosters in the NBA. The 90's Bulls were capable of 55+ wins, withOUT Jordan. And the '94 Bulls PROVED it. They were as good as the Knicks and Rockets...plain-and-simple. All without Jordan.


How about this exercise since you like speculation. Replace Pippen in 88 with Kukoc in 94, throw Kerr, Meyers and BJ from 94 in the mix as well and replace Grant with Scott Williams from 94. Do the 88 Bulls still beat the Cavs without Pippen/Grant? Shit given how Pippen performed in the NEXT series against DET this team would fare far better than they did WITH Pippen/Grant. Know why? Since apparently you're unable to comprehend this, it's because the team was better

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Pure speculation.

And both performed better than Kukoc did in his playoff run.

But, you want speculation? How about we remove Ewing and Hakeem from their teams in '94, and force them to replace them with role players that season. Players like Pete Myers with his 7.6 ppg contribution in Jordan's absence in the ECSF's? Do you HONESTLY believe that the Bulls wouldn't have waltzed to a title?


Cool, and Jordan took an even more injury-riddled team to a 56-win pace withOUT Pippen and Grant, as proven


Talk about speculation. And NO, not proven. First of all, he had the game's most dominnat rebounder for 80 of them. And while they went 26-12 without Pippen (and a stgaggering 36-8 WITH him), how do you know that they would have won 56 games without Pippen for a full season. We do KNOW what Pippen and Grant were able to accomplish, even missing a ton of games between them, without Jordan for a FULL season.

With Rodman, perhaps a 56 win pace. So what? Without him...well, we will never know. But I seriously doubt they get anywhere near 50 wins, and perhaps no more than a .500 team. Rodman, like Grant, had a HUGE IMPACT at every stop in his career. In any case, we can see the HUGE difference that Pippen made. But again...Jordan + RODMAN, and the the good supporting players...compared to Pippen, withOUT Grant, and good role players, going 34-31. And even that 34-31 was deceptive, since they were jelling in the last 10 games of that (going 8-2 and just annihilating their opposition.)


Not entertaining anymore speculative nonsense but get this: Fact is, they weren't good enough to win, and even if they BEAT NY, their performance in any other round is nothing more than speculation, they very well could've been swept by Indiana (Don't know why you keep referencing what they did in the SEASON, we see time/time again that hardly matters in the playoffs)


Prove to me the 94 Knicks were better than the 95 Magic then, otherwise the Bulls losing to them sooner isn't worse. Going by this graphic


Shaq's team was much better than those Knicks AND the Rockets they lost to in the Finals, they just got outplayed


Easy. The '94 Bulls, without HCA (and had they been reasonably healthy they would have had HCA), were a blown call away from beating a 56-26 Knicks team, that beat the Pacers in the next round (you know, the same Pacer team that the Bulls had romped over in the regular season), and then that same Knicks team lost a close game seven, on the road, to the 58-24 Rockets in the Finals. In a series in which they outscored them (BTW, the Bulls outscored the Knicks in their seven game playoff series.)

The next year, the 57-25 Magic, with Horace Grant just crushing the Bulls, romped over Jordan's Bulls. And then were swept by the 47-35 Rockets in the Finals. Furthermore, the '94 Knicks had the second best SRS in the league. The '95 Magic had the third. And yet you are trying to make a case that a 57-25 team was MUCH better than a 56-26 team?

No speculation at all. You can show me all the nonsense you want, but those are the facts.


Or, adding Pippen to what became 2 years later a 56-win team without him. Speculatively, if the team wasn't so injury decimated in 98, they could've won 60+ without Pippen with just Jordan and Rodman and role players. So yeah, adding Pippen, 72 makes sense right?

I love how you rip my "speculation", and yet you make this ridiculous comment. First of all, the '98 Bulls did NOT go 56-26 without Pippen. They went 26-12 without him. The '94 Bulls went 55-27 (with Pippen and Grant missing a staggering number of games) without Jordan. That is a FACT. In fact, they went 36-8 with Pippen. If you want to speculate...hell, remove Jordan from that team, give Pippen a healthy season, and they likely win 60 games.


Again, you'd have to be ridiculous to consider a season he DIDN'T EVEN PLAY some sort of detriment. Stop that nonsense

A season in which an injury-riddled team, that scrambled to replace MJ with a couple of role players, and went 55-27 without him. And were a blown call away from getting to the ECF's where they likely would have shredded a Pacers team that they crushed during the regular season. And given that the Knicks lost a game seven to the champion Rockets, on the road, and by a mere four points...

and keep in mind that the '93 Bulls went 57-25, edged the Knicks in the playoffs, and needed a Paxson three, and a Grant block to avoid a game seven on the road in the Finals...

I certainly don't see this so-called "MASSIVE DECLINE from a three-peat champion to a second round loser" trash that the jordanites like to perpetuate. CONTEXT my friend. CONTEXT. You want an "ordinary second round loser?" Look no further than MJ's '95 Bulls.

AND then....taking almost the SAME EXACT roster, except replacing Grant with Jordan, and essentially playing WORSE in the next post-season.

Sorry but the facts are the facts. Jordan's supporting casts in the 90's were easily the most stacked in the league. So stacked that they were the near equal of any team in the league without him.

[LeBird]

If you think Jordan was anywhere near as impactful as Lebron, you're delusional. Unfortunately, there's a lot of delusional people who grew up on Mcdonalds, Nike and Space Jam.

[3ball]

THE 94' BULLS WERE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT TEAM!!!!!!


:whatever:


No they weren't.. The 94' Bulls returned the only guys from 93' that averaged more than 6 ppg and 20 minutes per game: Pippen, Grant, Armstrong (yeah, that's how thin the 1st three-peat teams were)

Every other player that didn't return to the 94' team were guys that averaged LESS than 6 ppg and 20 minutes - they were all replaceable, commodity-type players, namely bangers inside and stand-still floor spreaders.
.

[3ball]

Unfortunately, there's a lot of delusional people who grew up on Mcdonalds, Nike and Space Jam.


Thru 13 seasons, MJ has twice the rings and FMVP's as Lebron.

And his rings required more production - the combined playoff stats for his first 3 rings show 30% more PPG with equal assists to Lebron's 3 rings (seen here (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12606202&postcount=1)), and their total playoff stats thru 31 years old shows the same thing (seen here (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12623503&postcount=44)).

So you shouldn't bash McDonalds or Nike, or Space Jam - they're relics from a superior era of basketball with more individually unique skill, rather than today's gimmicky, commodotized efforts to shoot 3-pointers, and the robots that shoot them..

Essentially, stats and computers are taking much of the human element and individually-unique style out ALL sports and games.. Now the only plays being run are designed to get 3-pointers, which means many skills aren't used anymore, even though they represent a SUPERIOR skill level needed to play in a game without the arbitrary 3 pointer.
.

[LostCause]

I already blew this argument..

You didn't. Avg wins of teams they beat during pre-MJ streak was 33. Lost to teams with more than 45 wins (NY, LAL)

Post-MJ? Avg wins was 39. 35 was lowest seeded PO team. They beat NY 2x, and 2 other 45+ win teams. So they had a higher point diff against non-playoff teams and weaker comp? No shit



I am sticking to the argument. ..

http://image.prntscr.com/image/84f5b039d3074bc3ae0cf23510e80733.png



Rodman isn't Grant? ..

Rodman ISN'T Grant. GTFO suggesting cuz Rodman was good it invalidates anything. You're telling me what 2 players did in MJ's (1 man) absence. Yet when neither of those 2 played & Jordan was STILL winning, you move the goalposts to try to invalidate Jordans success with other teammates. Just stop

Jordan was on a 56-win pace w/o Pippen/Grant. Period

So, NO, MJ was NOT on a 56 win pace "without Pippen and Grant.".

He was. Rodman ISN'T Grant, period


And yet I have ..were only 34-31 before Jordan arrived, and 13-4 with him.....Pippen was SINGLE-HANDEDLY carrying that team...

Pip wasn't. Kukoc? 16/6/5 on 50% pre-MJ. Same dude PJ trusted over Pip to beat NY when he was a ROOK. Yup, him. Oh and that AllStar PG & an ATG shooter


Again, what were MJ's records before Pippen..

Idk what you're going for, but being willfully ignorant to context to make ridiculous claims make you look bad. Before Grant/Pip, MJ spent at most 2 full years in NBA. A more matured (& declining) MJ leading the injury-decimated Bulls to 56-win pace counters whatever point you're going for


Rodman didn't...You mean the '94 Bulls that had their two best players miss a combined 22 games?...stop the bullshit.

Pippen/Grant missed abt 10 each, outside them almost NONE of their key rotation players missed much. Ones who did? King & 36 yr old Cartwright. Neither were effective

98 Bulls? 4 of their key rotation guys missed significant time. Kerr, Pippen, Longley & Caffey, each over 20games. You tell me which team was "injury-decimated"


Sorry, but Pippen, Grant, and OAKLEY were difference makers..

Telling me Pippen/Grant were proves nothing. Show me. They didn't do shit a couple solid rotation guys couldnt.

I didn't mention Oakley, but nice strawman


Of course MJ's numbers declined considerably in the next round, and with much more help from his teammates...

I wonder why (http://ballislife.com/4-3-88-michael-jordan-scores-59-21-27fg-vs-the-bad-boy-pistons/)

Context


MJ struggled mightily against the Bad Boys from '88-90. It wasn't until the Pistons (and Lakers) were just crumbling shells in '91 that he finally put up equal regular season numbers. Oh, and guess what also happened in the '91 post-season? PIPPEN and GRANT were HUGE in the Pistons and Lakers series.


Right, 2-time defending champs were crumbling shells :roll: Despite Dumars, Thomas & Rodman all being under 30 & the avg age of their Top 8 players being 30

2nd 3-Peat Bulls must've been ancient dust by that logic, with Pip, MJ and Rodman all over 30 & avg age of THEIR Top 8 being 30 in 96, 32 by 98.

As for Pippen/Grant coming up big against DET, its by design, genius. They knew it & DET knew it
"I expect the Jordan rules to go into effect. But it's up to Scottie (Pippen), Horace (Grant) and these other guys to earn the respect that Detroit is taking away from them by saying only one man on this team is worth guarding," Jordan said.

"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" - Bill Laimbeer

You're not dense enough to try and use those series against Jordan, are you? Don't put yourself in company with DraynKlay


And the '94 Bulls PROVED it. They were as good as the Knicks and Rockets...plain-and-simple. All without Jordan.

The 94 Bulls' record against NY/HOU, incl playoffs:

Knicks: 4W, 7L = .363
Rockets: 1W, 1L = .500

Bulls' record against NY/HOU w/MJ, since 92 (Riley coaching) for NY and since 1993 (Rudy) for HOU

Knicks: 24W, 12L = .666
Rockets: 3W, 3L = .500

Evidence suggests they weren't as good as NY/HOU w/o MJ. They had a losing record to NY, split against HOU, & we KNOW HOU switched gears in POs their championship years.


Pure speculation.

Your entire argument is based around speculation, but now it's a problem and u want none of it? Lol


And both performed better than..

But, you want speculation? How about we..

Wrong. Complete my exercise http://image.prntscr.com/image/6d50a3b9414c46f5831b9d23f54bd084.png

And I'll get back to you on yours


Talk about speculation. And NO, not proven...

It was, they were on pace for 56 based on their winning percentage w/o him


With Rodman, perhaps a 56 win pace. So what? Without him..

Not relevant, Rodman =/= Pippen/Grant so drop that. I didn't see you mentioning the impact of role players prior to my bringing up Jordan doing what he did with Rodman. Real smooth

As for the 34-31 being deceptive, you're right. Before they got a stretch of playing considerably bad teams (Non-playoff) they were 26-29


Easy. The '94 Bulls, without HCA (and had they been reasonably healthy they would have had HCA), were a blown call away from beating a 56-26 Knicks team....but those are the facts.


Bolded is speculation. SRS is legit though. However ignoring teams change on a year-by-year basis is silly. NY lost to IND in 95, which if using Laz logic gives credence to IND beating CHI in 94, too, had they faced them. The Magic beat those Pacers

That an go on and on. Fact is, CHI didn't beat NY in 94 and also lost to ORL in 95. Talking about how many games it took to argue one team better or worse is dumb

Grant wrecked the Bulls, but he was as open as he was by design, btw
"What do you want us to do, double-team Horace?".."We're not going to double-team Horace, are we? " - Before Gm 6. Horace made the shots he should've due to defense focusing elsewhere. Sound familiar?


I love how you rip my "speculation"......First of all, the '98 Bulls did NOT go 56-26.......(with Pippen and Grant missing a staggering number of games..

They were on pace to win 56, is that hard to understand?

"Staggering # of games" though, lol

Yeah, I'm ripping your specu, but since thats the entirity of your argument, I figured why not. Your reaction to its hypocritical, though



A season in which an ....And were a.......they likely would......And given that the Knicks....
All these "would'ves" "could'ves" to replace things that weren't. Here's what was. Those 90s Bulls teams with MJ won 3 straight chips, twice. MJ leaves they get bounced in ECSF. He returns in 95 they get bounced again, before running off their 2nd 3-peat. It's that simple. No If's, ands or what-ifs.

It's a fact MJ wasn't himself in 95. Whether decline or rust (Definitely rust during RS), but the playoffs he played well statistically. However, Nick Anderson defended him:

"Number 23, he could just blow right by you! Number 45, he revs up, but doesn't really take off."

Put an end to that argument, too

[LAZERUSS]

You didn't. Avg wins of teams they beat during pre-MJ streak was 33. Lost to teams with more than 45 wins (NY, LAL)

Post-MJ? Avg wins was 39. 35 was lowest seeded PO team. They beat NY 2x, and 2 other 45+ win teams. So they had a higher point diff against non-playoff teams and weaker comp? No shit

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Consistently routing teams by 20+ points in that "weak" run. Gotta love it. The Bulls were 8-2 and SLAUGHTERING their competition before the ring chaser returned. And even then, he led them to an immediate loss. Yes, let's minimize going 8-2 and outscoring your opponents by +12.0 ppg in that span. Of course you will try to find anything at all to show that the Bulls played better basketball after MJ arrived. They didn't. They were on a DOMINANT roll before he came back. And it would be pure SPECULATION to claim that they would not have continued to blow out those next 17 opponents. If we are going to "speculate"...I say that they would have went 17-0 withOUT Jordan in those 17 games.

The bottom line...going 8-2 is a better "pace" than going 13-4. So again, they were playing better basketball, the 10 games prior to MJ's return, than they would afterwards. Which is what I claimed. Quit trying to "move the goal-posts."

BUT, not only that, your argument is FLAWED because of PIPPEN. PIPPEN was playing in those 17 games, as well. To claim that it was JORDAN beating those teams was pure lunacy. PIPPEN. PIPPEN.


Rodman ISN'T Grant. GTFO suggesting cuz Rodman was good it invalidates anything. You're telling me what 2 players did in MJ's (1 man) absence. Yet when neither of those 2 played & Jordan was STILL winning, you move the goalposts to try to invalidate Jordans success with other teammates. Just stop

Jordan was on a 56-win pace w/o Pippen/Grant. Period

Again, truly laughable.

You're absolutely right. Rodman was no Grant. He was a GREATER player than Grant. HOFer RODMAN, who unquestionably was a greater player than Grant (who should, and who will be, in the HOF someday) is NOT "moving the goalposts."

And again, we witnessed RODMAN's immediate IMPACT in '96. The Bulls went from a team that had an 19-9 record with BOTH Jordan and Pippen (and again, no GRANT), to a team that went 85-13. CLEARLY it was RODMAN who made the '96 Bulls a MUCH better team.

And this "56 win pace" nonsense. A 38 game sample. Furthermore, instead of GRANT, he now had RODMAN. But you also dodged my other point. The Bulls went 26-12 without Pippen. And they went 36-8 WITH Pippen. If we are going to use your RIDICULOUS speculation... then I would claim that had Jordan missed those 38 games, and Pippen (with RODMAN) had been healthy, a 31-7 record.

Here is what we KNOW. Pippen, playing with Grant, and both missing a TON of games, went 55-27...withOUT Jordan. Now, a fully healthy Jordan, with a fully healthy Rodman, and using your limited 38 game sample...a "pace of 56-26."

Proves my point, yet again. Jordan had no more impact than Pippen.

And we do KNOW this, as well. Without Pippen/Grant, and Pippen/RODMAN...Jordan never won shit.

[LAZERUSS]

Idk what you're going for, but being willfully ignorant to context to make ridiculous claims make you look bad. Before Grant/Pip, MJ spent at most 2 full years in NBA. A more matured (& declining) MJ leading the injury-decimated Bulls to 56-win pace counters whatever point you're going for

Same RIDICULOUS argument I just destroyed.

Please, try not to waste my time here with the same moronic comments.


Pip wasn't. Kukoc? 16/6/5 on 50% pre-MJ. Same dude PJ trusted over Pip to beat NY when he was a ROOK. Yup, him. Oh and that AllStar PG & an ATG shooter

The same Kukoc who contributed 9 ppg in the playoffs in the Bulls '94 season. You know, the one you said could replace both Grant and Pippen in '88. GTFO.

BTW, I guess Paxson was the man the Bulls trusted to win the 93 Finals, when Grant passed HIM the ball and he nailed the winning 3pter (followed by a Grant game-saving block.)

Kukoc, Armstrong, and Kerr were all career role players. Granted, Kukoc was a quality 6th man, but let's get real here, the man started one-third of his games in his career. And that includes playing on pure crap Bucks teams.


Idk what you're going for, but being willfully ignorant to context to make ridiculous claims make you look bad. Before Grant/Pip, MJ spent at most 2 full years in NBA. A more matured (& declining) MJ leading the injury-decimated Bulls to 56-win pace counters whatever point you're going for


Same shit...already blown up. Again, you're wasting my time. RODMAN was even greater than Grant. And only a desperate fool would make any other claim. Again, Jordan didn't win shit without Pippen/Grant, and Pippen/Rodman. And won exactly two playoff games in his career without Pippen. Pippen won 19 without MJ, including six in '94 (and was robbed of another in that series.)


Pippen/Grant missed abt 10 each, outside them almost NONE of their key rotation players missed much. Ones who did? King & 36 yr old Cartwright. Neither were effective

98 Bulls? 4 of their key rotation guys missed significant time. Kerr, Pippen, Longley & Caffey, each over 20games. You tell me which team was "injury-decimated"

Again laughable. Of those three, only Kerr was any good. And in that season he averaged 7.5 ppg in his 22 mpg. That Bulls roster had 17 different players, and guys like Wennington and Kleine were certainly interchangeable with career bum like Longley.

Furthermore, Longley and Wennington were just as interchangeable on the '94 team.

And again, RODMAN played 80 games in '96. BUT, Grant only played in 72 in '94. And while Jordan had Pippen for 44 games in '98, Pippen had Jordan for ZERO games in '94.

Bottom line, MJ and Rodman, were no more dominant than Pippen and Grant. And likely less so, since we only have a 38 game sample to go by.

[LAZERUSS]

Telling me Pippen/Grant were proves nothing. Show me. They didn't do shit a couple solid rotation guys couldnt.

I didn't mention Oakley, but nice strawman

Pippen and Grant combined for 20 ppg, 12 rpg, and on a .520 eFG% in their playoff run in '88. To go along with their exceptional defense. And yes, I mentioned Oakley, who put up a 10-12 playoff run, which was down from his 20-15 in the previous season's sweeping first round loss.

And yet, you call complete role players like Kerr, Caffey and Longley as "rotational guys." Yep, those three combined to averaged 13-6 on a .490 in the '98 playoffs.

It was no coincidence that the Bulls went from 40-42 team, to a 50-32 team when two of the most impactful players of their era arrived. And it was also no coincidence that those two picked up the slack in the '89 season after losing Oakley. However, their record declined from 50-32 down to 47-35. Why? Because in the games that Pippen missed, they only went 4-5.


Right, 2-time defending champs were crumbling shells Despite Dumars, Thomas & Rodman all being under 30 & the avg age of their Top 8 players being 30

2nd 3-Peat Bulls must've been ancient dust by that logic, with Pip, MJ and Rodman all over 30 & avg age of THEIR Top 8 being 30 in 96, 32 by 98.

The '91 Pistons were SHELLS. They went from a 59-23 team, that waltzed to a 15-5 record in the post-season en route to a title, down to a 50-32 that barely beat out the 43-39 Hawks in the first round. And Isiah Thomas was injured that season, and was never the same. He was awful in the '91 playoffs, and was never again a factor in the post-season. In '92 the Pistons fell to 48-34 and were beaten in the first round. After that,...pure shit.

The reality was, they were done after the '90 season.


The 94 Bulls' record against NY/HOU, incl playoffs:

Knicks: 4W, 7L = .363
Rockets: 1W, 1L = .500

Bulls' record against NY/HOU w/MJ, since 92 (Riley coaching) for NY and since 1993 (Rudy) for HOU

Knicks: 24W, 12L = .666
Rockets: 3W, 3L = .500


Gotta love this one.

The '94 Bulls went 4-7 against the Knicks, but we all know that they were robbed in game five. So, let's make that a much more realistic, 5-6. And you could make an argument that since they won game six, they would never have lost game seven. BTW, in those 11 games, the Knicks outscored the '94 Bulls by a combined 23 points.

Their record against the Rockets...1-1, and the ppg differential was a grand total of Houston by one point. BUT, it gets even better...PIPPEN did NOT play in the loss. So, I would argue that they actually went 1-0 against the Rockets.

Ok, now what is interesting here is that you didn't bring up Jordan's records against the Knicks and Rockets in just his '93 season. Talk about "moving the goalposts."

Why all of a sudden some random shit?

Well, here it was.

Against the '93 Knicks:

Regular season and playoff combined:

5-5. AND, the Knicks outscored the Bulls by a +8.

How about the Rockets in '93?

0-2 and were outscored by... +25!


Oh, and then what really blows a hole in your theory: You forgot to mention that PIPPEN and GRANT were on the '93 team, as well.

So, again, the '94 Bulls were the EQUAL of BOTH the Knicks and Rockets. And did so with just Pippen and Grant, while the '93 Bulls were LESS than the Knicks and the Rockets, and with Jordan ADDED into the mix. Granted, they barely won a title in '93...again with MJ, Pippen, and Grant together, but their '94 team was certainly as good as the Knicks (if you admit that they were robbed in game five), and proved they were the equal of the Rockets...with just Pippen and Grant.


Your entire argument is based around speculation, but now it's a problem and u want none of it? Lol

My entire argument has been that Jordan played with most stacked rosters in the 90's. And there is no speculation at all. They went an injury-riddled 55-27 withOUT him in '94, and were a blown call away from reaching the ECF's (where they would have faced a team that they had owned.) That is REALITY.

The speculation, which is actually a very logical assumption...give the '94 Bulls a healthy roster, instead of having their two best players miss a whopping 22 games, and what kind of a record do they wind up? 60+ is VERY reasonable. THEN, and this was a FACT, they went 5-0 at home in the playoffs that season. Had they had HCA, and given that we KNOW they went 3-0 against the Knicks at home...well, they probably wouldn't have even needed that highway robbery that they were given in game five.

Oh, and then let's add in this FACT. Jordan's replacement, the D-Leaguer Pete Myers, averaged 6.6 ppg in that Knicks series. AND, in that game five one point robbery game...he contributed all of 5 points on 2-7 shooting. The '94 Bulls certainly didn't need Jordan's 30 point games to win that series. They just needed Myers to average 10. But he couldn't even do that.

And, given the FACTS that the Knicks then went on to beat the Pacers in the Finals, and then lost a close game seven on the road against the Rockets in the Finals...well, need I say more?

And more speculation. Something you never answered. Let's replace Ewing and Hakeem with no more than a couple of role players on each of those '94 rosters. Does anyone in their right mind believe that those two teams would have beaten the Bulls????

In any case, you can't refute what actually happened. The injury-decimated '94 Bulls went 55-27, and were robbed in the ECSF's. The bottom line...they were at the very least, a championship contender. Hell, the Bulls went 55-27, the Knicks went 56-26, and the Rockets went 58-24. Oh, and the Bulls had their two best players miss FAR more games than the Knicks and the Rockets.

Nor can you refute what happened the very next year. Jordan returned, to very nearly the EXACT SAME roster that the Bulls had in '94...sans Grant...played up to the same level in that post-season as he would in his '93 and '96 title runs...and the Bulls were WORSE in that post-season.

Those are the FACTS.

Now show me something that doesn't prove that the the '94 Bulls went an injury-riddled 55-27 withOUT Jordan.

As for the two three-peats...well we KNOW that Jordan couldn't win a title without an ELITE PF...that was proven in his '95 return. So, yes, having the GOAT perimeter defender, and 20+ ppg scorer in Pippen, and then adding IMPACTFUL to HOF-LEVEL players like Grant and Rodman...and yes, two three-peats.

No question, and by far, the best supporting casts in the 90's. Most teams in the 90's had no more than one superstar, and the best teams didn't have more than two. And here the Bulls with THREE of them, along with two other quality starters, plus the deepest benches that were filled with excellent role players, and a HOF coach.

No shit that they had two three-peats.

[Bigsmoke]

The Bulls would have definitely beat the Pacers...that was a perfect match up for them. Like I've said before...the Bulls, Knicks, and Rockets were all similar teams in terms of style and how good they were.

The rockets would have destroyed the bulls in the Finals.


And I'm not sure that the bulls would get past the the pacers either. who checking Smith?

[Smoke117]

The rockets would have destroyed the bulls in the Finals.


And I'm not sure that the bulls would get past the the pacers either. who checking Smith?

No they wouldn't have...the Bulls, Rockets, and Knicks were all tough defensive teams that were average offensively...none had the fire power to make quick work of the others. The Rockets would certainly not have "destroyed" the bulls.

And you mean Smits? He wasn't good enough that somebody needed to "check" him. Besides, Scottie's help defense always made it hell on post players...I still remember Shaq whining about him during the WCF in 2000. Like Laz had said...the Bulls beat the pacers 4-1 in the regular season and were just a plain better team.

[Bigsmoke]

No they wouldn't have...the Bulls, Rockets, and Knicks were all tough defensive teams that were average offensively...none had the fire power to make quick work of the others. The Rockets would certainly not have "destroyed" the bulls.

And you mean Smits? He wasn't good enough that somebody needed to "check" him. Besides, Scottie's help defense always made it hell on post players...I still remember Shaq whining about him during the WCF in 2000. Like Laz had said...the Bulls beat the pacers 4-1 in the regular season and were just a plain better team.

The bulls struggled against the Rockets in the regular season when they had Jordan active.

Not only Hakeem >>> Pippen but the rockets had a better roster

[Smoke117]

The bulls struggled against the Rockets in the regular season when they had Jordan active.

Not only Hakeem >>> Pippen but the rockets had a better roster

That doesn't mean a whole lot when you only play two games a season. Besides this season they went 1-1...and the game the Rockets won Pippen didn't even play. They would have been hard fought defensive games just like the games vs the Knicks were.

[Bigsmoke]

That doesn't mean a whole lot when you only play two games a season. Besides this season they went 1-1...and the game the Rockets won Pippen didn't even play. They would have been hard fought defensive games just like the games vs the Knicks were.

Having Patrick Ewing Charles Oakley and Anthony Mason pushing people around is different from having Bill Cartwright, Toni Kokuc, and Horace Grant doing it. No?

The knicks had the team to beat the rockets but failed because of Ewing getting his ass smoked and john starks choking. That's not the bulls case what's so ever. The rockets still gonna have the best playing on the court if they played the bulls and Hakeem would have field day against that front court.

[DaHeezy]

Funny how LostCause refutes Laz's sample size examples yet uses sample sizes to try and claim Jordan would be a great 3 point shooter. I also find it funny he thinks speculation trumps facts pointed out by Laz.

Anyways, keep killing it Laz.

[LostCause]

I find it hilarious Heezy's still on my dick in an entirely different thread but I digress, clearly he's feeling some type of way

[DaHeezy]

I find it hilarious Heezy's still on my dick in an entirely different thread but I digress, clearly he's feeling some type of way

That's right, switch focus since Laz is killing ya.

[LostCause]

Consistently routing...
The bottom line...going 8-2 is a better..

Record during that run against teams w/ 45+ wins = 0-2. So it's clear they were beating on bad teams. That's apples/oranges to what they did w/MJ, when they consistently beat 50+ win teams (4-2 against 45+ w/teams, one of them the Pacers loss MJ's 1st game back where he was clearly out of rhythm)

Try again. No one cares about padding against inferior comp


BUT, not only that, your argument is FLAWED because of PIPPEN. PIPPEN was playing.

Strawman. Nvr claimed Pippen wasn't there. You're the only one on that dumb shit. Fact is they went 13-4 w/Jordan


You're absolutely right. Rodman was no Grant..

Look, fam. I'll say this one more time. I dont care what Rodman did or how good a rebounder he was. That's NOT relevant. What's relevant is that it directly refutes your claim that Jordan didn't win without Pippen or Grant. Got it? Good. Stop moving the goalposts.


And this "56 win pace" nonsense. A 38 game sample

And they had a 56 win pace in that sample, genius. Not repeating this point again either, this is getting tedious and repetitive


The Bulls went 26-12 without Pippen. And they went 36-8 WITH Pippen. If we are going to use your RIDICULOUS speculation... then I would claim that had Jordan missed those 38 games, and Pippen (with RODMAN) had been healthy, a 31-7 record.

I didn't dodge it, it's just pointless. Thats with Pippen, Jordan and Rodman, so attempting to extrapolate anything from that is a waste because you can't discount EITHER of the 3's contributions, but apparently you think you can so go ahead and make yourself look stupid trying. Feel free

Here is what we KNOW. Pippen, playing with Grant, and both missing a TON of games, went 55-27...withOUT Jordan. Now, a fully healthy Jordan, with a fully healthy Rodman, and using your limited 38 game sample...a "pace of 56-26."

Proves my point, yet again. Jordan had no more impact than Pippen.


And we do KNOW this, as well. Without Pippen/Grant, and Pippen/RODMAN...Jordan never won shit.

Funny how originally you only said Pippen/Grant, but then after being proven wrong as Jordan won without them now you want to include Rodman in that too. That's nice

Exactly what point do you believe you're detracting from by listing Jordans 3 best teammates who he played with most of his career and saying he didn't win without them? Inform me, Laz. I'll wait


Same RIDICULOUS argument I just destroyed

Didn't destroy anything. Moving the goalposts is a veiled form of concession. If you think you destroyed my argument by moving the goalposts then maybe you need a refresher on how these things work, but keep patting yourself on the back if that helps


The same Kukoc who contributed 9 ppg in the playoffs in the Bulls '94 season. You know, the one you said could replace both Grant and Pippen in '88. GTFO.

Another strawman. You must really like them. Quote me where I said the bolded or GTFO

Also the argument was about the reg.season success, was it not? Kukoc was great the whole year except for the NYK series


BTW, I guess Paxson was the man the Bulls trusted to win the 93 Finals, when Grant passed HIM the ball and he nailed the winning 3pter (followed by a Grant game-saving block.)

Wrong. Difference is PJ drew up the play for Kukoc in 94, in 93 the play was intended for MJ. He just wasn't open so improv and Grants lack of confidence led to Paxson getting it

Do your damn research next time (http://articles.philly.com/1993-06-21/sports/25971199_1_pippen-and-grant-john-paxson-suns-coach-paul-westphal)


Kukoc, Armstrong, and Kerr were all career role players. Granted, Kukoc was a quality 6th man, but let's get real here, the man started one-third of his games in his career. And that includes playing on pure crap Bucks teams.

Kukoc was great in Bulls system. So were Armstrong and Kerr. BJ was an All-Star and Kukoc was in the running for 6th man of the year many times. You like advanced stats. How about looking at his offensive impact on those Bulls teams. Kerr's one of the best shooters of all time, don't need to stress the importance of him

From the 98 Finals
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-06-09/sports/9806090284_1_dennis-rodman-bulls-toni-kukoc

The Big Three on the Bulls is Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen and Toni Kukoc.

When Kukoc doesn't play well, the Bulls lose, as they did in Game 1, when Kukoc was 4 for 12 for nine points.

In Game 2, Kukoc had 13 points and nine rebounds, and in Game 3 he had 16 points and six rebounds.

When Kukoc plays well, the Bulls are almost unbeatable in the playoffs. Kukoc is the matchup no one can figure. He's even playing defense much better. Have you heard much from Bryon Russell with Kukoc on him the last two games?

"We feel like, in this series especially, they don't have an answer for Toni, and we want the ball in his hands because he cannot only create offense," said Pippen, "but he can break this team down and give opportunities to other guys."


Like I said, do your damn research next time


Same shit...already blown up. Again, you're wasting my time. RODMAN was even greater than Grant. And only a desperate fool would make any other claim. Again, Jordan didn't win shit without Pippen/Grant, and Pippen/Rodman.


I guess you don't realize how you're the only retard here continuously comparing Grant to Rodman. I haven't compared them, don't care to. It's not relevant. What's relevant is that you claimed Jordan didn't win w/o Pippen or Grant. That was proven wrong. Now it's Jordan didn't win w/o Pippen, Grant or Rodman

You moved the goalposts. Unfornately that's just not gonna happen on my watch so I'll continue to remind you what your original position was. I'm not wasting time on this anymore beyond this point, anything further will be responded to with screenshots. Got it? Good. I don't want to hear next you say Jordan never won without Pippen/Grant/Rodman or Kukoc either


Again laughable. Of those three, only Kerr was any good. And in that season he averaged 7.5 ppg in his 22 mpg. That Bulls roster had 17 different players, and guys like Wennington and Kleine were certainly interchangeable with career bum like Longley.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-06-10/sports/9706100072_1_dennis-rodman-bulls-nba-finals
That's interesting because it was Longley the Bulls trusted in the 97 Finals as Rodman completley shit the bed. Longley's numbers didnt blow anyone away but you're kidding yourself trying to imply he was hot garbage


And again, RODMAN played 80 games in '96. BUT, Grant only played in 72 in '94. And while Jordan had Pippen for 44 games in '98, Pippen had Jordan for ZERO games in '94.

Weren't even counting Pippen being with the team, you're the only one doing that pointlessly.

As for games played, as proven, among the key rotation players the 98 Bulls had more missed games than the 94 Bulls

[LostCause]

Pippen and Grant combined...

Here's the exercise you keep ignoring
http://image.prntscr.com/image/6d50a3b9414c46f5831b9d23f54bd084.png

So lets bring in Kukoc, Kerr, BJ, Myers and Williams from 94. BJ alone gave you 15/2/4/1 on .505 efg%. Kukoc gave you 11/4/3 on .453 efg%. Neither of these dudes are big men. If you replace more players in 88 with players from 94 you get an overall boost to the teams production. Maybe Jordan wouldn't have had to average 45 points per game and the Pistons wouldn't have dedicated their entire defense to stopping Jordan as they did



It was no coincidence that the Bulls went from 40-42 team, to a 50-32 team when two of the most impactful players of their era arrived..

Teams are liquid. You probably don't know what that means, but I'll just say that there's a lot more than just addition/subtration that goes into team success. What's funny is that Corzine and Oakley were both more impactful during the 88 season than Pippen/Grant were, so for the Bulls' 4th and 5th best players to be making the impact you're talking about supports my earlier point - they provided greater quality of depth that season


The '91 Pistons were SHELLS...

The reality was, they were done after the '90 season.

Yeah let's pretend this is because they were old and crumbling and had NOTHING to do with roster moves that would occur the following seasons. Whats funny is that Zeke came back in 92 and had a season almost identical to the ones in 89 and 90, when they won the chips

He avgd 15/11 against ATL in the 1st round in 91, then had his minutes reduced significantly and only started 2 games against BOS which brought his postseason numbers down. Against CHI he started again and put up 17/5/6


The '94 Bulls went 4-7 against the Knicks..So, let's make that a much more realistic, 5-6.

Why would we do that? What's realistic is they went 4-7, because that's what actually happened. Capisce? I don't see you saying shit about games Jordan lost due to questionable officiating so save all that speculative nonsense


Why all of a sudden some random shit?

:biggums: Random when it was abundantly clear I was comparing their respective careers with the championship Bulls teams? Not sure how you missed it when I flat out said it


Against the '93 Knicks:

Regular season and playoff combined:

5-5. AND, the Knicks outscored the Bulls by a +8.

How about the Rockets in '93?

0-2 and were outscored by... +25!

So, again, the '94 Bulls were the EQUAL of BOTH the Knicks and Rockets...while the '93 Bulls were LESS than the Knicks and the Rockets..

Since when does 4-7 = 5-5? You literally JUST said that in 94 they were 4-7, at best 5-6 if you like to revise history, yet that's equal while 5-5 is less? The ****, fam? This with a WORSE bunch of rotation players than the Bulls would have in 94

As for HOU, they did go 0-2. So altogether:

93 Bulls vs NY/HOU - 5-7
94 Bulls vs NY/HOU - 5-8

Guess which one is worse?


Granted, they barely won a title in '93...again with MJ, Pippen, and Grant together.. and proved they were the equal of the Rockets...with just Pippen and Grant.


In the regular season. Orlando also swept HOU in the season in 95. Guess how that worked for them in the Finals. I'll wait



]My entire argument has been that Jordan played with most stacked rosters in the 90's[/B]. .

I only dispute the bolded, as his teams weren't nearly always the most stacked


The speculation, which is actually a very logical assumption...give the '94 Bulls a healthy roster...well, they probably wouldn't have even needed that highway robbery that they were given in game five.

How can there be NO speculation and then you speculate? FTR, I never said 60 wasn't unreasonable, but I disagree entirely with the point about the Knicks series, as you can't prove they would've won the series otherwise


Oh, and then let's add in this FACT. Jordan's replacement...They just needed Myers to average 10.

If you're going to speculate like this then you can similarly say the Knicks could've won by MORE if x player shot better


And, given the FACTS that the Knicks then went on to beat the Pacers in the Finals, and then lost a close game seven on the road against the Rockets in the Finals...well, need I say more?

Just more speculation, what the Knicks could do =/= what the Bulls would've done. Completely different personnel and strengths/weaknesses


Does anyone in their right mind believe that those two teams would have beaten the Bulls????

Of course not, those teams didn't have a 2nd star like Pippen


...they were at the very least, a championship contender.

They are at MOST a contender.


Nor can you refute what happened the very next year. Jordan returned...and the Bulls were WORSE in that post-season.

Because they were matched up with the MDE and a budding superstar PG and refused to double team Grant who killed them by Jordans own admission. Losing to ORL as they did doesn't make them worse

They were lacking size. How exactly do you beat the MDE with a very talented roster without size to slow him down? He's the MDE for a reason, and the attention given to him opened up other players like Grant to dominate

Context matters. While Rodman was brought in, that doesn't prove someone like Rodman was necessary.



As for the two three-peats...well we KNOW that Jordan couldn't win a title without an ELITE PF...that was proven in his '95 return..

Again, just because Rodman was brought in to give them interior defense/size doesn't mean someone like Rodman was necessary. A lesser player who played physical defense/rebounded well could've sufficed, in fact that's exactly what the opinion was due to Rodmans play:

"But the Bulls thought they couldn't win without Rodman.

They since have proved dramatically they can.

They did so consistently in the regular season during Rodman's first two years here, when he missed 45 games.

Then they proved it against the Jazz last season. Always in foul trouble, and with technical fouls almost every game, Rodman averaged 2.3 points and 7.7 rebounds in 27 minutes a game then.

Four times in the six games, Rodman had seven or fewer rebounds.

And what's he doing this series?

Three points and nine rebounds in Game 1.

Zero points and 10 rebounds in Game 2.

Two points and six rebounds in Game 3.

This can't be replaced?

Defense on Malone?

C'mon. All Rodman is doing is staying in front of Malone, with help coming from different directions.

Joe Kleine could have done that, and a lot better with his size."
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-06-09/sports/9806090284_1_dennis-rodman-bulls-toni-kukoc



No question, and by far, the best supporting casts in the 90's..And here the Bulls with THREE of them..

Yet it wasn't uncommon during this time to believe that Rodman was dragging the team down, as I just showed. In fact people in CHICAGO itself looked at their Big 3 as Jordan, Pippen and Kukoc, in 97 and 98

[LAZERUSS]

Funny how originally you only said Pippen/Grant, but then after being proven wrong as Jordan won without them now you want to include Rodman in that too. That's nice

Exactly what point do you believe you're detracting from by listing Jordans 3 best teammates who he played with most of his career and saying he didn't win without them? Inform me, Laz. I'll wait

and then this comment:


Look, fam. I'll say this one more time. I dont care what Rodman did or how good a rebounder he was. That's NOT relevant. What's relevant is that it directly refutes your claim that Jordan didn't win without Pippen or Grant. Got it? Good. Stop moving the goalposts.

Here was MY original post:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12630775&postcount=82



Of course, the Jordanites will point out the '95 Bulls record when he returned. Yes, they "only" went 34-31 in his absence, BUT, those fanboys will ignore the fact that they were not only playing without Jordan, BUT, they had lost Horace Grant, as well. So, Pippen essentially carried an MJ and Grant-less team to a 34-31 record. How did MJ do before Pippen and Grant arrived? His best season without them, was 40-42.

SO, I NEVER claimed that Jordan didn't win without Pippen and Grant. I DID say he didn't win BEFORE Pippen and Grant.

Furthermore, his best record BEFORE Pippen and Grant was 40-42. And here was Pippen going 34-31 without BOTH Jordan and Grant. Oh, and no RODMAN on that '94 roster, either. Unlike the '98 Bulls.

Obviously replacing Grant with Rodman is not the same thing as not having Rodman at all. In any case, we all know that Rodman had a HUGE IMPACT everywhere he went. I would fully expect a combo of Jordan and Rodman, along with the best role players in the game, to be able to somewhat off-set the loss of Pippen for a small sample of games. And again, put Rodman on the '95 Bulls, and I would SPECULATE, that with his IMPACT, that the Bulls would have had close to 50 wins at the 65 game mark, when Jordan rushed in to try and grab another ring. Of course, I would also have expected Jordan to come back much sooner had Rodman been on that '95 roster from the outset of that season.



I guess you don't realize how you're the only retard here continuously comparing Grant to Rodman. I haven't compared them, don't care to. It's not relevant. What's relevant is that you claimed Jordan didn't win w/o Pippen or Grant. That was proven wrong. Now it's Jordan didn't win w/o Pippen, Grant or Rodman

Again, never made that claim. But yes, he certainly didn't win shit BEFORE they arrived. AND, Pippen DID have a winning record without BOTH Jordan and Grant.

Of course, replacing Grant with an even greater player AFTER Grant was gone is far better than not having Grant, at all. Doesn't make a bit of difference to my original argument.


As for games played, as proven, among the key rotation players the 98 Bulls had more missed games than the 94 Bulls

BUT, they had RODMAN for 80. HUGE difference. Grant and Pippen missing 22 games was far more impactful than losing easily replaceable players for small stretches.


So lets bring in Kukoc, Kerr, BJ, Myers and Williams from 94. BJ alone gave you 15/2/4/1 on .505 efg%. Kukoc gave you 11/4/3 on .453 efg%. Neither of these dudes are big men. If you replace more players in 88 with players from 94 you get an overall boost to the teams production. Maybe Jordan wouldn't have had to average 45 points per game and the Pistons wouldn't have dedicated their entire defense to stopping Jordan as they did

Oh, so replacing two ELITE players with a TON more of far lesser talented players and maybe Jordan wouldn't have to score 45 ppg. Not sure what your point is. He probably didn't have to score 45 ppg in '88, either. He chose to. I am not going to get it some argument over MJ's shot-jacking in the playoffs, but going by the Bulls play in '94 (and then again in '95) they likely didn't need Jordan taking nearly the all the shots to win.

Secondly, based on what we KNOW...that the '94 Bulls could go 55-27 and lost a seven game series in which MJ's replacement averaged 6.6 and scored 5 pts in the key game five one point loss...doesn't look like they needed MJ's 30+ ppg. They just needed a player who could give them 20. Hell, even 7!

And how about this...


http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199606160CHI.html

The Bulls win the title clinching game with MJ scoring 22 points on 5-19 shooting. Of course, Rodman's 19 rebounds were the difference in that game.

But, that is all speculation. What all of the above DOES show, is that the Bulls were a 55-27 team that was robbed in game five, with MJ's replacement contributing absolute shit, in a series in which they would lose in seven games.

[LAZERUSS]

Teams are liquid. You probably don't know what that means, but I'll just say that there's a lot more than just addition/subtration that goes into team success. What's funny is that Corzine and Oakley were both more impactful during the 88 season than Pippen/Grant were, so for the Bulls' 4th and 5th best players to be making the impact you're talking about supports my earlier point - they provided greater quality of depth that season

Doesn't show that at all. It PROVES MY point. The '87 Bulls, with an Oakley, and in MJ's highest scoring season, ...went 40-42. They then they added two players, one a HOFer and other of the most impactful players of his era...and went 50-32. And when Oakley left, they didn't lose anything. And, as those two were given more responsibility...well we saw it in the '91 post-season. They DESTROYED the washed up Pistons and the washed up Lakers. It was no coincidence that those two made the 40-42 Jordan-led Bulls in '87, into a 61-21 juggernaut in '91.

And, as proven, they could lose Jordan altogether, and replace him with nothing more than career role players...and still put a 55-27 injury-decimated season. And yes, a championship contender. They were robbed in a seven game series in which the winner of that tainted series would lose a game seven on the road by four points in the finals. Yes, a championship contender.


Yeah let's pretend this is because they were old and crumbling and had NOTHING to do with roster moves that would occur the following seasons. Whats funny is that Zeke came back in 92 and had a season almost identical to the ones in 89 and 90, when they won the chips

He avgd 15/11 against ATL in the 1st round in 91, then had his minutes reduced significantly and only started 2 games against BOS which brought his postseason numbers down. Against CHI he started again and put up 17/5/6

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Again, you didn't refute anything I claimed. The '90 Pistons went 59-23, and then went 15-5 in the playoffs en route to a title. The '91 Pistons went 50-32, and barely won in the first round. Thomas had been injured that season and he was a 13.5 ppg scorer on a .403 in the '91 playoffs, and would NEVER again be worth a shit in the POST-SEASON. The'92 season? 48-34, and a first round loss. After that...pure shit.

They were CLEARLY a SHELL of what they had been. Just like the '91 Lakers were.

[LAZERUSS]

Why would we do that? What's realistic is they went 4-7, because that's what actually happened. Capisce? I don't see you saying shit about games Jordan lost due to questionable officiating so save all that speculative nonsense

Look, we BOTH know that the '94 Bulls were ROBBED in the '94 ECSF's. Their "4-7" total record doesn't diminish that. In fact, they should haver WON that series because of that game. BUT, again, using the robbery game, and they would have been 5-6. AND, if they hadn't been blatantly robbed in game five, and with their romp at home in game six, they would never have played a game seven.


Random when it was abundantly clear I was comparing their respective careers with the championship Bulls teams? Not sure how you missed it when I flat out said it


RANDOM because you KNEW that the '93 Bulls, with Jordan, Pippen, and Grant, went 5-5 against the Knicks, and 0-2 against the Rockets (and were badly outscored in those two games). Which pretty much destroyed your point. You tried to sneak in some CAREER shit, based on favorable numbers.

Furthermore, the '94 Bulls not only went 1-1 against the Rockets, in their close loss, they didn't have PIPPEN!

So, let's recap shall we?

'93 Bulls, with MJ, Pippen, and Grant...

Overall record against the Knicks and Rockets... 5-7.

'94 Bulls, withOUT JOrdan...

A DECEPTIVE 5-8. Again...robbed in game five against the Knicks. AND, they lost a close game against the Rockets, withOUT Pippen.

And using cumulative ppg differentials... the '94 team had considerably more success than the '93 team did.

BUT, none of that refutes my original point. The '94 55-27 Bulls were the EQUAL of the 56-26 Knicks and the 58-24 Rockets. And nothing in your scrambling gibberish disproves it. They were an eyelash away from beating a Knicks team that was an eyelash away from beating the Rockets.


Since when does 4-7 = 5-5? You literally JUST said that in 94 they were 4-7, at best 5-6 if you like to revise history, yet that's equal while 5-5 is less? The ****, fam? This with a WORSE bunch of rotation players than the Bulls would have in 94

As for HOU, they did go 0-2. So altogether:

93 Bulls vs NY/HOU - 5-7
94 Bulls vs NY/HOU - 5-8

Guess which one is worse?

See above. Destroyed this nonsense. Your nit-picking makes you look like a fool.


How can there be NO speculation and then you speculate? FTR, I never said 60 wasn't unreasonable, but I disagree entirely with the point about the Knicks series, as you can't prove they would've won the series otherwise

Oh really? So if you agree that winning 60 games wasn't unreasonable, which would then have given them HCA the rest of the way (as the playoff played out)...and given the FACT that they went 5-0 at home in the playoffs...and given the FACT that they were ROBBED in game five of the ECSF's..."as you can't prove they would've won the series otherwise"...

You just plain don't want to concede the inevitable.


If you're going to speculate like this then you can similarly say the Knicks could've won by MORE if x player shot better

Not at all. Jordan's replacement, the D-Leaguer Pete Myers averaged 6.6 ppg in that series. In the game five robbery game, a one point robbery, Myers put up 5 points on 2-7 shooting. Nothing you claim disputes the SHIT that Myers was in the ECSF's. And as horrific as he was, had he hit just one more stinking shot in that game, and the Bulls would have been on to the ECF's.

There are no "ands-ifs-or buts" about it. The Bulls didn't need MJ's 30 ppg to win that series. They just needed someone better than the complete joke that was Pete Myers and his 6.6 ppg.


Of course not, those teams didn't have a 2nd star like Pippen

So, we finally agree. Here were the '94 Bulls, losing their best player, many of whom claim as the GOAT, scrambling to replace him with a couple of role players, and then going an injury-riddled 55-27...and barely losing to the Ewing-led Knicks, who would barely lose to the Hakeem-led Rockets in the Finals. We both agree then...the Bulls were a better team without Jordan, than the Knicks and Rockets were without Ewing and Hakeem.

Speaks VOLUMES about the talent of the '94 Bulls (and in reality the Bulls from '91 thru '98.) They could lose their best player, and replace him with role players, and still challenge for a title. I seriously doubt ANY other team in the decade of the 90's could have done the same.

[LAZERUSS]

Because they were matched up with the MDE and a budding superstar PG and refused to double team Grant who killed them by Jordans own admission. Losing to ORL as they did doesn't make them worse

They were lacking size. How exactly do you beat the MDE with a very talented roster without size to slow him down? He's the MDE for a reason, and the attention given to him opened up other players like Grant to dominate

Context matters. While Rodman was brought in, that doesn't prove someone like Rodman was necessary.

Grant is probably the most under-rated player in NBA history. EVERY team he joined became MUCH better. Year-after-year. Shaq missed the first 22 games of the '96 season...and the Magic STILL went 17-5 without him. Then, Grant was destroying teams in the '96 post-season, as well. He was on his way to his finest post-season when he went down with an injury in the first game of the '96 ECF's. The rest was history.

Oh, and the '95 Bulls had the 7-2 Longley. Remember him? The guy you claimed who was such a valuable rotational player in '98. Yep...he put up his usual 5-3 numbers in his usual 18 rpg. As well as the 7-0 Wennington. Now you are suggesting that they didn't have the SIZE to match up to the 4th greatest center of all-time?

BUT, the 6-8 Rodman could. Yes, RODMAN!

You may recall that the Bulls front-line was getting brutalized by Shaq. So what did they do? They put Rodman on him, and he completely neutralized him. Had they had Grant, and who knows who would been tasked with that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdZn8epqnKo

Oh, and BTW, this wasn't the only time, either...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89IQcTPHkRs




In any case, yes, the Bulls needed Rodman. You could make an argument that he was their best player in the '96 Finals (especially after Karl finally put Payton on Jordan in the last three games...and then MJ couldn't hit a shot to save his life.) There were even articles claiming that Rodman was their MVP in the first two games, as well.




Again, just because Rodman was brought in to give them interior defense/size doesn't mean someone like Rodman was necessary. A lesser player who played physical defense/rebounded well could've sufficed, in fact that's exactly what the opinion was due to Rodmans play:


Your quotes don't mean shit. Rodman was a HOFer, who led the NBA in every rebounding category in his three years with Jordan. And he was a defensive beast, as well. EVERYONE knew it.

You can try to minimize his post-season numbers all you want, but just like Grant...his IMPACT was FAR greater than his numbers.

In fact, the ENTIRE Bulls roster gave Jordan world-class defense, and smart play. There was a reason that they beat the much less talented Sonics in '96, despite Jordan's horrific shooting. They just plain OUTPLAYED them as a TEAM. Same thing in the '97 and '98 Finals. The Jazz scoring declined a staggering 16 and 21 ppg against the Bulls in those Finals. Was Jordan defending their entire team?

As for '98. Yes, Kukoc was a factor. I have never claimed otherwise. However, he was also never the player that Rodman was, either. To somehow suggest that is ridiculous. In any case, Kukoc was just another example of the surrounding talent that MJ had in his six title runs.


Yet it wasn't uncommon during this time to believe that Rodman was dragging the team down, as I just showed. In fact people in CHICAGO itself looked at their Big 3 as Jordan, Pippen and Kukoc, in 97 and 98

So Rodman leading the league in virtually every conceivable rebounding category, and many by huge margins...was "dragging the team down?"
And his contributions towards them outrebounding their opposition by the highest margin in the league "was dragging the team down?"

And then, having the highest TRB% in the '98 Finals "was dragging his team down?"


And before you criticize Rodman's play in the '97 post-season, tell us all about your boy Kukoc's play in that post-season. Furthermore, Karl Malone's offensive scoring and efficiency took a nose dive in the Finals. BTW, Rodman missed 27 games in the '97 regular season. The Bulls went 21-6 without him, a good record to be sure (just goes to show you the depth on that great roster)...and 48-7 with him. A HUGE difference. Think about that.... there essentially was a 27-1 difference (21-6 and then 27-1.)


Sorry, but you are making yourself look pretty pathetic now.

Rodman was a HOF player WITH Jordan. And talk about speculation. Here you claim:


Context matters. While Rodman was brought in, that doesn't prove someone like Rodman was necessary.

So, you are SPECULATING that the Bulls could have won those next three rings without Rodman. You mean the same Bulls roster, that Jordan joined at the end of '95, and took to an overall 19-9 record, and were no more than an "average second round playoff loser". And then when the Bulls brought in Rodman the next year, and they went 85-13 and a dominant world title...

You are full of SHIT.


And finally...one more time...

The Bulls from '91 thru '98 had, by far, the most talented rosters in the league. They could lose their best player...scramble to replace him with a couple pf role players...and go an injury-riddled 55-27 without him. And yes, were so stacked that they could still take a 56-26 Knicks team to the limit...in a series in which they were robbed in game five. The same Knicks team that would lose a game seven, on the road, and by a mere four points, to the champion Rockets.

THEN, MJ came back the very next season, and with essentially the SAME EXACT roster, sans GRANT, and his team actually fared WORSE in the post-season than the '94 team did.

They then ADDED the HOFer Rodman, and the rest was history. Rodman and Jordan replaced one player, Grant, on a team that had gone an injury-decimated 55-27, and were clearly a championship contender...and then went 72-10. No shit.

[ClipperRevival]

:roll:

Laz at it again. Taking out his Wilt frustrations on MJ.

[LAZERUSS]

Here is what we KNOW:

The '94 Bulls scrambled to replace Jordan with a couple of role players. In fact, his replacement STARTER, Pete Myers, averaged 7.6 ppg. They went an injury-decimated 55-27 (with Pippen and Grant missing a whopping 22 games between them), which was all the way down from their previous season of 57-25.

Then, they swept the Cavs in the first round (yes we KNOW that they did...nothing more needs to be said.)

Then, they lost a close seven game series to the 56-26 Knicks, which included the "robbery" game five loss by one point. They also outscored the Knicks in that series. Oh, and Jordan's replacement STARTER averaged ... get this... 6.6 ppg in that series. Furthermore, Mr. Myers put up a five point, on 2-7 shooting performance in that one point loss "robbery" game. We KNOW that.

We also KNOW that Chicago went 5-0 on their home court, and that they romped over the Knicks in game six of that series. Had the refs not handed NY game five, or had Myers hit one more stinkin' shot, and they would have won the series in six games. Oh, they also outscored the Knicks in the series. We KNOW that.

We also KNOW that the Knicks then went on to beat a Pacer team in the ECF's, that the Bulls had battered 4-1 during the regular season. We KNOW that.

Then, the Knicks then went on to lose a game seven in NY, by six points, in a series in which they outscored the Rockets. In fact, they were up 3-2, and lost game six by two points. We KNOW that.

So, that clearly shows me that the '94 Bulls, without Jordan, were every bit the EQUAL of the Knicks and the Rockets.


Then, we also KNOW this.

Jordan returned the very next season, to a Grant-less, Pippen-led Bulls team that was 34-31, and in fact, had gone 10 game stretch of 8-2, and just demolishing in their opposition in those ten games prior to the ring-chasers return. We KNOW that.

Then Jordan, played 17 regular season "tuneup" games, and was arguably the HEALTHIEST, and most REFRESHED player in the post-season. In FACT, he played at the same levels that he had in his '93 run, and in his '96 run the very next year.

The result? An overall 19-9 record, and a second round loss in which his team fared worse than the '94 Bulls had in their second round the previous season. We KNOW that.

And it wasn't until they then added HOF Rodman, that they would then go an 85-13 the next season, and a dominant world title. We KNOW that.

The reality was, Jordan didn't win shit until he had Pippen and Grant/Rodman (he couldn't win with just Pippen, either, and didn't fare any better than Pippen and Grant had fared without him.)

He needed, BY FAR, the most stacked supporting casts, along with a HOF coach, and in a very watered-down 90's, to win his six rings. We KNOW that. The proof... BOTH the '94 and '95 seasons. They went an injury-decimated 55-27 and lost a close second round playoff series without him.

He returned the next season, ...replaced Grant on the same identical roster, and couldn't get that same roster any further than Grant had the year before without him.

THAT is what we KNOW.


So there you have it. The jordanites and their "MJ 3-peated, left; the Bulls had a MASSIVE decline and became an ordinary second round loser; he returned and they 3-peated."

Or...

REALITY ...The '93 Bulls declined sharply from their title run in '92...even with Jordan, Pippen, and Grant. Jordan up and QUIT. The Bulls scrambled to replace MJ with role players, one a scrub who started. Then, the '94 Bulls went an in jury-decimated 55-27, and yes, if healthy, would have won 60+ games. All withOUT Jordan. They lost a close and controversial seven game series in the ECSF's, to a team that would take the Rockets to a close loss in game seven in the Finals. The same Rockets team that the '94 Bulls went 1-1 against, and in fact, in that close loss, they played withOUT Pippen.

Jordan came back in '95, to a team that had not only lost Jordan, but now Grant, as well. And yet Pippen still led them to a 34-31 record, and in fact, they were steamrolling teams in the 10 games prior to MJ's return. A fully healthy and refreshed Jordan had 17 tuneups, and then played the same as he did in his '93 and '96 title runs. The Bulls lost in the ECSF's, 4-2. Or no better than the '94 Bulls had gone with Pippen and Grant, and without him. In fact, they were not as competitive.

The Bulls realized they had no hope of a title without an ELITE PF, and signed HOFer Rodman. They then stormed to a 72-10 record, and then 15-3 in the playoffs. However, Jordan had a very subpar Finals, particularly after Karl put Payton on him following game three, and the were pushed to a game six, where they overcame Jordan's 5-19 shooting to win the clincher.


So, you can either believe the spin that the jordanites put on those three seasons, or you can draw your own conclusions from what ACTUALLY transpired.

[SamuraiSWISH]

The bulls struggled against the Rockets in the regular season when they had Jordan active.
Small sample size, it's just 2 games. 2011 Bulls thoroughly out played the Heat in the regular season, and that was in 4 games, yet got curb stomped in the playoffs.

If Jordan's Bulls could beat Ewing's Knicks, Mourning's Heat, or Shaq's Magic. Why would they have such a problem with Hakeem?

Particularly that 1994 team? Now, 1995 without a PF, and Houston adding a legit fellow superstar in Drexler to help Hakeem is a different story.

But the 1994 Bulls outside of Mike being gone was a significantly improved roster, with peak seasons from: Pippen, Grant, and Armstrong. There's no way if you throw in prime Jordan on that team, they lose to the Rockets who needed 7 games and a piss poor Starks performance to win.

:oldlol:

Not arguing that '94 Bulls w/o MJ was better than the Pacers or Rockets either. Because they very likely weren't.

[Smoke117]

Not arguing that '94 Bulls w/o MJ was better than the Pacers or Rockets either. Because they very likely weren't.

I know you don't want to believe the Bulls could do anything without your precious Jordan...but they were definitely better than the Pacers.