Throwback game Barkley vs MJ

[Jameerthefear]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=905OVyW_-Vo&feature=youtu.be

Barkley with 34/20/8
MJ with 49/5/5

Box score
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199005110PHI.html

Philly went on to win.

[SpaceJam2]

Two legends battling it out :bowdown:

[3ball]

This was the period where MJ was experimenting a little bit with 3-pointers and shot 37.0% in the 90-93 playoffs on 2.6 attempts....

He shot 42.7% in the 91-93 Finals on 3.3 attempts

As a sidenote, the 90' Pistons were stacked to the brim with every starter being a 3x all-star or all-nba except Rodman.. the bulls had a ridiculously thin roster by comparison, yet almost beat the Pistons in 1990 - they would've won if pippen didn't have the migraine game with 1-10 and 2 pts.

Furthermore, the Pistons needed 7 tough games to beat those bulls and 5 easy games to beat the blazers in the Finals, so the bulls would've beaten the blazers in the Finals if pippen didn't choke in game 7 of ecf

Btw, here's an idea of how good those Pistons were - the 90' Suns were stacked and upset Magic's 1-seeded all-star team, but then got beat by the stacked blazers in WCF (who made the Finals with Drexler getting 18 ppg as 3rd option).... But then those stacked blazers got demolished by the Pistons!! Those pistons were special and beat the celtics/lakers dynasties - and yet MJ with Chris Middleton, I mean Pippen almost beat them in 1990 (would've won if not for migraine)

[AussieSteve]

Crazy that this is how great Barkley had to play to beat those Bulls. I mean Jordan was obviously phenomenal, but there's no doubt Barkley was the dominant player on the court in that game. 10 offensive boards. Put the Bulls' entire front court in foul trouble. 34 points on only 18 fga. And would easily have had 10+ assists if his teammates could make a spoon fed bucket at the rim.

Just watching those highlights... look at the losers that Barkley was playing with, continually missing open layups after Barkley breaks down the defense and spoon feeds them under the basket.

[AussieSteve]

Here are some epic playoff performances by Barkley that were not enough to get a win against the Bulls because Jordan's team mates outperformed Barkley's.


1990 ECSF

Game 1
Barkley: 30pts on 21 fga, 20reb (9orb), 4ast, 2stl, 2blk, 3tov

Jordan: 39 points on 30fga. Rest of Bulls: 25/58 = 43fg%. Rest of 76ers: 20 / 58 = 34fg%

This game is just open brick after open brick by Barkley's team mates, after he creates space by drawing the double.


1991 ECSF

Game 1
34pts on 13 fga, 11reb (5orb), 2ast, 1stl, 0blk, 0tov

Jordan: 29 points on 15fga. Rest of Bulls: 32 / 59 = 54%fg. Rest of 76ers: 18 / 62 = 29%fg

This game was arguably Barkley's all time best playoff performance through 3 quarters, but the rest of his team were so bad that they were down by 20 at that stage, so he sat out the entire 4th.


Game 5
Barkley: 30pts on 20fga, 8reb (1orb), 7ast, 2stl, 1blk, 1tov

Jordan: 38 points on 31fga. Rest of Bulls: 27/54 = 50fg%. Rest of 76ers: 24 / 56 = 43fg%


1993 finals

Game 2
Barkley: 42pts on 26 fga, 13reb (6orb), 4ast, 1stl, 1blk, 2tov

Jordan: 42 points on 36fga. Rest of Bulls: 27/53 = 51fg%. Rest of 76ers: 27 / 62 = 44fg%


Game 4
Barkley: 32pts on 19 fga, 12reb (3orb), 10ast, 3stl, 1blk, 1tov

Jordan: 55 points on 37fga. Rest of Bulls: 23/46 = 50fg%. Rest of 76ers: 28 / 60 = 47fg%


I know that Jordan was great in all of these games too. But in all of these 5 bulls wins, Jordan got more help than Barkley, and that was ultimately the difference. Give Barkley a guard of Pippen's calibre, who can find the open man more often, or hit the open shot more regularly than Hawkins or 93 KJ (who was pretty trash), and he probably wins at least 3 or 4 out of these 5 games, if not all of them... And probably has multiple rings between 1990 and 1993.

[3ball]

Crazy that this is how great Barkley had to play to beat those Bulls. I mean Jordan was obviously phenomenal, but there's no doubt Barkley was the dominant player on the court in that game. 10 offensive boards. Put the Bulls' entire front court in foul trouble. 34 points on only 18 fga. And would easily have had 10+ assists if his teammates could make a spoon fed bucket at the rim.

Just watching those highlights... look at the losers that Barkley was playing with, continually missing open layups after Barkley breaks down the defense and spoon feeds them under the basket.
Stats in that series:

M Jordan - 43.2.... 6.6.. 7.4.. 54.8 fg.. 31 FGA
C Barkley - 23.8.. 17.0.. 5.0.. 53.2 fg.. 15 FGA


MJ with 16 more shots per game and 21 more points per game - MJ clearly did more

[TheCorporation]

Here are some epic playoff performances by Barkley that were not enough to get a win against the Bulls because Jordan's team mates outperformed Barkley's.


1990 ECSF

Game 1
Barkley: 30pts on 21 fga, 20reb (9orb), 4ast, 2stl, 2blk, 3tov

Jordan: 39 points on 30fga. Rest of Bulls: 25/58 = 43fg%. Rest of 76ers: 20 / 58 = 34fg%

This game is just open brick after open brick by Barkley's team mates, after he creates space by drawing the double.


1991 ECSF

Game 1
34pts on 13 fga, 11reb (5orb), 2ast, 1stl, 0blk, 0tov

Jordan: 29 points on 15fga. Rest of Bulls: 32 / 59 = 54%fg. Rest of 76ers: 18 / 62 = 29%fg

This game was arguably Barkley's all time best playoff performance through 3 quarters, but the rest of his team were so bad that they were down by 20 at that stage, so he sat out the entire 4th.


Game 5
Barkley: 30pts on 20fga, 8reb (1orb), 7ast, 2stl, 1blk, 1tov

Jordan: 38 points on 31fga. Rest of Bulls: 27/54 = 50fg%. Rest of 76ers: 24 / 56 = 43fg%


1993 finals

Game 2
Barkley: 42pts on 26 fga, 13reb (6orb), 4ast, 1stl, 1blk, 2tov

Jordan: 42 points on 36fga. Rest of Bulls: 27/53 = 51fg%. Rest of 76ers: 27 / 62 = 44fg%


Game 4
Barkley: 32pts on 19 fga, 12reb (3orb), 10ast, 3stl, 1blk, 1tov

Jordan: 55 points on 37fga. Rest of Bulls: 23/46 = 50fg%. Rest of 76ers: 28 / 60 = 47fg%


I know that Jordan was great in all of these games too. But in all of these 5 bulls wins, Jordan got more help than Barkley, and that was ultimately the difference. Give Barkley a guard of Pippen's calibre, who can find the open man more often, or hit the open shot more regularly than Hawkins or 93 KJ (who was pretty trash), and he probably wins at least 3 or 4 out of these 5 games, if not all of them... And probably has multiple rings between 1990 and 1993.

:eek: :eek:

[AussieSteve]

Stats in that series:

M Jordan - 43.2.... 6.6.. 7.4.. 55 fg.. 31 FGA
C Barkley - 24.3.. 17.4.. 5.0.. 52 fg.. 15 FGA


MJ with 16 more shots per game and 21 more points per game - MJ clearly did more

Over the series Jordan was clearly the best player. I'm not disputing that. But in this game Barkley was the dominant player.

Its also worth noting that MJ put up literally more than double the shots over the series as Barkley. Which he could do partly because Hawkins was completely incapable of challenging him. Hersey did better in 91, but in the 1990 series, he was basically a traffic cone.

Meanwhile Barkley was routinely doubled by Pippen and Grant. Very different scenario. Which is why his shot attempts were down and assists up vs the RS. And you cannot underrate his 17 rebounds a game, including 7 offensive.

Barkley did fade in the last couple of games in that series, but the Bulls we better than the 76ers top to bottom, so it would not have mattered regardless.

[3ball]

:eek: :eek:



1990 ECSF


https://cdn1.imggmi.com/uploads/2019/4/23/a85530cf30d1a7dad78821cb2907b698-full.jpg


Barkley's teammates clearly out-produced MJ's, which is why MJ had to average 21 ppg more than Barkley and 2.5 more assists with 4 more spg

[3ball]

Over the series Jordan was clearly the best player. I'm not disputing that. But in this game Barkley was the dominant player.

Its also worth noting that MJ put up literally more than double the shots over the series as Barkley. Which he could do partly because Hawkins was completely incapable of challenging him. Hersey did better in 91, but in the 1990 series, he was basically a traffic cone.

Meanwhile Barkley was routinely doubled by Pippen and Grant. Very different scenario. Which is why his shot attempts were down and assists up vs the RS. And you cannot underrate his 17 rebounds a game, including 7 offensive.

Barkley did fade in the last couple of games in that series, but the Bulls we better than the 76ers top to bottom, so it would not have mattered regardless.
Are you guys dense ot something?... MJ shot better than Barkley in both FG and TS

So Barkley shot 16 times at 52%, but why not shoot 30 times at that same efficiency??.. why not DO MORE??.. that's what MJ did - he shot more at the same efficiency, therefore DOING MORE

More shot attempts are never a detriment if the efficiency is equal or better.. MJ's far greater shot attempts at better efficiency means he did more than Barkley... points > rebounds.... And shot attempts usually take more energy than rebounds

And MJ was most double-teamed player in history.. he stated that's why he perfected the fadeaway, so he could get his shot off before the double came... Barkley didn't have to do that.. I know you guys think Shaq was doubled more, but he actually wasn't, and it's provable

[SpaceJam2]

Are you guys dense ot something?... MJ shot better than Barkley in both FG and TS

So Barkley shot 16 times at 52%, but why not shoot 30 times at that same efficiency??.. why not DO MORE??.. that's what MJ did - he shot more at the same efficiency, therefore DOING MORE

So dumb

MJ only shot 41% in the 96 Finals, why not do more?
MJ only grabbed 4 rpg in the 98 Finals, why not do more?
MJ only has 2 apg in the 98 Finals, why not do more?

[LostCause]

So dumb

MJ only shot 41% in the 96 Finals, why not do more?
MJ only grabbed 4 rpg in the 98 Finals, why not do more?
MJ only has 2 apg in the 98 Finals, why not do more?

What

[AussieSteve]

Are you guys dense ot something?... MJ shot better than Barkley in both FG and TS

So Barkley shot 16 times at 52%, but why not shoot 30 times at that same efficiency??.. why not DO MORE??.. that's what MJ did - he shot more at the same efficiency, therefore DOING MORE

More shot attempts are never a detriment if the efficiency is equal or better.. MJ's far greater shot attempts at better efficiency means he did more than Barkley... points > rebounds.... And shot attempts usually take more energy than rebounds

And MJ was most double-teamed player in history.. he stated that's why he perfected the fadeaway, so he could get his shot off before the double came... Barkley didn't have to do that.. I know you guys think Shaq was doubled more, but he actually wasn't, and it's provable

Barkley was doubled on basically every single possession during his peak Philly years. When he wasn't, he got to the rim pretty much whenever he wanted.

And yes, MJ put up a lot more shots on the similar efficiency. But vs Hersey is not the same as vs a Pippen / Horace double. Better production does not always equal higher level of play. Favorable circumstance may also contribute.

Why did MJ average 39.3ppg against Barkley in the playoffs but only 32.9ppg against all other teams over the same period? Barkley's back courts were trash defensively.

[AussieSteve]

1990 ECSF


https://cdn1.imggmi.com/uploads/2019/4/23/a85530cf30d1a7dad78821cb2907b698-full.jpg


Barkley's teammates clearly out-produced MJ's, which is why MJ had to average 21 ppg more than Barkley and 2.5 more assists with 4 more spg

Jordan's team mates

165 rebounds
94 assists
33 steals
14 blocks
42 turnovers
49.4%fg

Barkley's team mates

108 rebounds
95 assists
21 steals
17 blocks
85 turnovers
47.7%fg

who's team mates performed better?

[SpaceJam2]

Jordan's team mates

165 rebounds
94 assists
33 steals
14 blocks
42 turnovers
49.4%fg

Barkley's team mates

108 rebounds
95 assists
21 steals
17 blocks
85 turnovers
47.7%fg

who's team mates performed better?

Yikes :eek:

[3ball]

Barkley was doubled on basically every single possession during his peak Philly years. When he wasn't, he got to the rim pretty much whenever he wanted.


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/9-24-2015/QvXF8J.gif


During the Bulls-Pistons series, the Pistons' 4th quarter policy was to double-team MJ every single time he touched the ball.. Here's an examle from Game 6 of 1989 ECF, starting at the 9 minute mark (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4W_0I82B18&t=1h21m11s) - MJ is double-teamed 10 of 13 times he touched the ball to finish out the game.. The 3 times he didn't get doubled were because he shot the ball immediately - here's all 10 double-teams shown in gifs:


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11703590&postcount=88



Here's a video of MJ against Atlanta - he's double-teamed 12 of 13 possessions from the 6:40 mark to the 8:40 mark - the consecutive double-teams are shown in rapid succession:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLDGm8pV6uU&t=6m40s



The youtube channel "Nobody Touches Jordan" did a video of Payton guarding MJ in Game 4 of 1996 Finals (link here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgFWyLRNsGk)) - MJ was doubled exactly 10 of the 20 times he caught the ball with Payton guarding - all 10 double-teams are shown if gifs here:


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11792377&postcount=161



Here's the New York Times on Jordan, 1987:


"Last season, Jordan had to overcome the harrassment of zone traps and double-triple teaming to average 37.1 points a game."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s9_GKFNL9E&t=0m49s



Even on the post, MJ was double-teamed equally - here's a Shaq post video that shows him being doubled 33 of 62 times he caught the ball on the post (53%) compared to 52 of 103 in the MJ post video (50%).


SHAQ'S POST MOVES: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVxZs7dwCO8
MJ'S POST MOVES: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfSftZvpHJg


However, MJ got doubled all over the court, not just on the post - MJ's danger from anywhere on the court resulted in teams often doubling him 10+ possessions in a row, as various videos in the OP showed.. This type of every-possession double teams for 10 consecutive possessions never happened for Shaq, not even in the 2000 Finals.



By comparison, Lebron was doubled-teamed a TOTAL of 18 times in the entire Finals... So in comparison to MJ getting double-teamed 12 times in a single quarter, Lebron was doubled 3 times per game.


"Curry’s ability to guard one-on-one allowed the Warriors’ wing defenders to double-team LeBron James effectively. When James was double-teamed, the Cavaliers scored 5 points on 2-of-18 shooting (11 percent)".

http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/106718/iguodala-heads-all-playoff-defensive-team






And yes, MJ put up a lot more shots on the similar efficiency. But vs Hersey is not the same as vs a Pippen / Horace double. Better production does not always equal higher level of play. Favorable circumstance may also contribute.


Pippen got a lot of offense from the attention paid to the goat scorer

And Horace was an ordinary role player - equal to Gminski, especially in 1990 (horace's 3rd season)

The facts are that the Philly cast played much better than the bulls, so MJ had to score 21 ppg more than Barkley, with 2.5 more apg and 4 more spg... A wipeout






Why did MJ average 39.3ppg against Barkley in the playoffs but only 32.9ppg against all other teams over the same period? Barkley's back courts were trash defensively.


Majerle was 2-time all-defense and 3-time all-star - the consumate 3-and-D player

You say a lot of ignorant, clearly erroneous shit

[Round Mound]

Sucks that Barkley's peak and prime years where the same as MJ's and partly so Pippen's.

[3ball]

Sucks that Barkley's peak and prime years where the same as MJ's and partly so Pippen's.
Pippen wasn't in his prime in 1990 and Barkley's cast significantly out-produced the bulls cast that year in the playoffs

But MJ scored 21 more ppg than Barkley so the bulls won despite the cast getting out-produced

In 1990, no one was talking about Pippen the way you guys do now.. it's sheer revisionist history.. His offense was often average or worse and the bulls won every ring as a "1-man show" on offense

[AussieSteve]

...

various irrelevant copy pastes from other threads.

...



3ball. Read the below stats from the 1990 ECSF between the Bulls and 76ers.

Jordan's team mates

165 rebounds
94 assists
33 steals
14 blocks
42 turnovers
49.4%fg

Barkley's team mates

108 rebounds
95 assists
21 steals
17 blocks
85 turnovers
47.7%fg

Now. Who's team mates performed better, Jordan's or Barkley's?

space for answer:_______________________________


Now, tell me which is tougher to score on... The single coverage by Hersey Hawkins (which MJ most commonly faced during this series) or a double team that always included either Pippen or Horace (which Barkley usually faced)

space for answer:_______________________________

[AussieSteve]

Dude I'm not responding to a biased post that leaves the most important stat off the list

MJ had to do way more than Barkley to win that series and was the more double-teamed player.. the stats and video speak for themselves

Your refusal to respond is a response in itself.

Admitting that Barkley had a MUCH tougher defensive mach up than jordan in that series and that Jordan had the better team is not tantamount to denying he is the GOAT.

He is the GOAT.

But he also was blessed to never face the 2nd best player of his era on a level playing in terms of team help.

[3ball]

3ball. Read the below stats from the 1990 ECSF between the Bulls and 76ers.

Jordan's team mates

165 rebounds
94 assists
33 steals
14 blocks
42 turnovers
49.4%fg

Barkley's team mates

108 rebounds
95 assists
21 steals
17 blocks
85 turnovers
47.7%fg

Now. Who's team mates performed better, Jordan's or Barkley's?

space for answer:______barkley_________________________


Now, tell me which is tougher to score on... The single coverage by Hersey Hawkins (which MJ most commonly faced during this series) or a double team that always included either Pippen or Horace (which Barkley usually faced)

space for answer:____mj was doubled much more____
MJ averaged 4 spg, so he alone accounts for the gap in steals..

The only other gap is rebounding and scoring, where Barkley and MJ personally made up for their team's deficit in those areas.. there's a gap in turnovers but Hersey Hawkins led the sixers with 4.2 per game (mj's man) and Barkley was also at 4 per game

So MJ had to do way more than Barkley to win that series and was the more double-teamed player.. the stats and video speak for themselves

[Uncle Drew]

3ball getting owned in this thread. Big oof.

[TheCorporation]

3ball getting owned in this thread. Big oof.

What's new :lol He tries to bite off more than he can chew.

MJ is Consensus top 10, let's just leave it at that.

[Round Mound]

3ball. Read the below stats from the 1990 ECSF between the Bulls and 76ers.

Jordan's team mates

165 rebounds
94 assists
33 steals
14 blocks
42 turnovers
49.4%fg

Barkley's team mates

108 rebounds
95 assists
21 steals
17 blocks
85 turnovers
47.7%fg

Now. Who's team mates performed better, Jordan's or Barkley's?

space for answer:_______________________________


Now, tell me which is tougher to score on... The single coverage by Hersey Hawkins (which MJ most commonly faced during this series) or a double team that always included either Pippen or Horace (which Barkley usually faced)

space for answer:_______________________________

:applause:

[TheCorporation]

3ball. Read the below stats from the 1990 ECSF between the Bulls and 76ers.

Jordan's team mates

165 rebounds
94 assists
33 steals
14 blocks
42 turnovers
49.4%fg

Barkley's team mates

108 rebounds
95 assists
21 steals
17 blocks
85 turnovers
47.7%fg

Now. Who's team mates performed better, Jordan's or Barkley's?

space for answer:_______________________________


Now, tell me which is tougher to score on... The single coverage by Hersey Hawkins (which MJ most commonly faced during this series) or a double team that always included either Pippen or Horace (which Barkley usually faced)

space for answer:_______________________________

:applause:

[Rico2016]

3ball. Read the below stats from the 1990 ECSF between the Bulls and 76ers.

Jordan's team mates

165 rebounds
94 assists
33 steals
14 blocks
42 turnovers
49.4%fg

Barkley's team mates

108 rebounds
95 assists
21 steals
17 blocks
85 turnovers
47.7%fg

Now. Who's team mates performed better, Jordan's or Barkley's?

space for answer:_______________________________


Now, tell me which is tougher to score on... The single coverage by Hersey Hawkins (which MJ most commonly faced during this series) or a double team that always included either Pippen or Horace (which Barkley usually faced)

space for answer:_______________________________


:applause:

[3ball]

Your refusal to respond is a response in itself.

Admitting that Barkley had a MUCH tougher defensive mach up than jordan in that series and that Jordan had the better team is not tantamount to denying he is the GOAT.

He is the GOAT.

But he also was blessed to never face the 2nd best player of his era on a level playing in terms of team help.

I responded to your post.. The only gaps on your list were:



- the rebounding deficit of the Philly cast (Barkley made up for it)

- the scoring deficit of the bulls cast (MJ made up for it)

- the steals deficit of philly (due to jordan's 4 per game)

- the excessive turnovers of philly (MJ forced Hersey into 4.2 per game to lead philly, and Barkley was also a 4 per game)


And MJ was the more double-teamed player in that series and any series

Stats in that series:

M Jordan - 43.2.... 6.6.. 7.4.. 55 fg
C Barkley - 23.8.. 17.4.. 5.0.. 52 fg


MJ with 21 more points per game, 2.5 more assists and 4 more spg - MJ clearly did more because his cast was weaker
.

[Round Mound]

I responded to your post.. The only gaps on your list were:



- the rebounding deficit of the Philly cast (Barkley made up for it)

- the scoring deficit of the bulls cast (MJ made up for it)

- the steals deficit of philly (due to jordan's 4 per game)

- the excessive turnovers of philly (MJ forced Hersey into 4.2 per game to lead philly, and Barkley was also a 4 per game)


And MJ was the more double-teamed player in that series and any series

Stats in that series:

M Jordan - 43.2.... 6.6.. 7.4.. 55 fg
C Barkley - 23.8.. 17.4.. 5.0.. 52 fg


MJ with 21 more points per game, 2.5 more assists and 4 more spg - MJ clearly did more because his cast was weaker
.

Pippen or Grant > Any Defender the Sixeres had.

[3ball]

Pippen or Grant > Any Defender the Sixeres had.
And yet the Philly cast drastically outscored the Bulls' cast, and only lost because MJ scored 21 more than Barkley

Again, no one talked about Pippen or Grant back then like you guys talk about them now. It's sheer revisionist history

[AussieSteve]

I responded to your post.. The only gaps on your list were:



- the rebounding deficit of the Philly cast (Barkley made up for it)

- the scoring deficit of the bulls cast (MJ made up for it)

- the steals deficit of philly (due to jordan's 4 per game)

- the excessive turnovers of philly (MJ forced Hersey into 4.2 per game to lead philly, and Barkley was also a 4 per game)


And MJ was the more double-teamed player in that series and any series

Stats in that series:

M Jordan - 43.2.... 6.6.. 7.4.. 55 fg
C Barkley - 23.8.. 17.4.. 5.0.. 52 fg


MJ with 21 more points per game, 2.5 more assists and 4 more spg - MJ clearly did more because his cast was weaker
.


So Jordan was personally responsible for his teammates shooting a higher %?

Jordan was personally responsible for his teammates (excluding himself) grabbing 33 steals compared to Barkley's grabbing only 21.

Jordan was personally responsible for Barkley's teammates commiting 85 turnovers compared to 42 by his own teammates.

And Jordan's higher scoring production was exclusively due to his superior skills and nothing to do with his defensive matchups?

Is this what you are saying?

[3ball]

So Jordan was personally responsible for his teammates shooting a higher %?

Jordan was personally responsible for his teammates (excluding himself) grabbing 33 steals compared to Barkley's grabbing only 21.

Jordan was personally responsible for Barkley's teammates commiting 85 turnovers compared to 42 by his own teammates.

And Jordan's higher scoring production was exclusively due to his superior skills and nothing to do with his defensive matchups?

Is this what you are saying?
Like I just told Round Mound

the Philly cast drastically outscored the Bulls' cast, and only lost because MJ scored 21 more than Barkley - you forget that there's only 1 stat on the scoreboard - scoring

Again, no one talked about Pippen or Grant back then like you guys talk about them now. It's sheer revisionist history

[Round Mound]

And yet the Philly cast drastically outscored the Bulls' cast, and only lost because MJ scored 21 more than Barkley

Again, no one talked about Pippen or Grant back then like you guys talk about them now. It's sheer revisionist history

Ok you win Pippen and Grant where average defenders and not better than the frontline the Sixers had. :confusedshrug:

[TheCorporation]

So Jordan was personally responsible for his teammates shooting a higher %?

Jordan was personally responsible for his teammates (excluding himself) grabbing 33 steals compared to Barkley's grabbing only 21.

Jordan was personally responsible for Barkley's teammates commiting 85 turnovers compared to 42 by his own teammates.

And Jordan's higher scoring production was exclusively due to his superior skills and nothing to do with his defensive matchups?

Is this what you are saying?

:eek: :eek:

[TheCorporation]

Ok you win Pippen and Grant where average defenders and not better than the frontline the Sixers had. :confusedshrug:

:lol :lol

[Round Mound]

:lol :lol

3-ball will do whatever it takes to put down MJ's teamates :confusedshrug:

[Smoke117]

Ok you win Pippen and Grant where average defenders and not better than the frontline the Sixers had. :confusedshrug:

He's impossible to take seriously. You're a Chuck stan, but you at least can reason. This clown 3ball has Jordan's head so far up his ass that he's incapable of giving anyone else on the Bulls any due. He thinks guys like Jae Crowder, Shumpert, Mcgee, Larry Hughes, Ilgauskas, Chandler, and Tristan Thompson = Pippen defensively...doesn't that say it all? I've said it before and I'll say it again...I don't understand why anyone still engages with him anymore. It's impossible to have any kind of real basketball discussion with him. His obsessive and extreme bias makes it pointless. He's been going on like this for years. We've all heard it all before by now. He doesn't say anything new.

[TheCorporation]

3-ball will do whatever it takes to put down MJ's teamates :confusedshrug:

He literally said Pippen and Shumpert was a defensive wash :lol

And completely forgot about Rodman magically :lol

Oh 3ball..what a joke of a forum poster you've become

[3ball]

Ok you win Pippen and Grant where average defenders and not better than the frontline the Sixers had. :confusedshrug:
I'm saying they didn't play good defense because the sixers cast drastically outscored the bulls cast

The only way the sixers can lose when their cast outscores the opponent's is if their #1 option gets outscored.... :confusedshrug:.. and that's what happened - MJ scored 21 more than Barkley

And Barkley only took 16 shots despite great efficiency - so they weren't locking him up either..

Ultimately, everyone on the sixers got off but they lost because MJ scored so much... Barkley should've been more aggressive because he needed to come closer to matching MJ - he can't get outscored by 21 and expect to win

[AussieSteve]

Like I just told Round Mound

the Philly cast drastically outscored the Bulls' cast, and only lost because MJ scored 21 more than Barkley - you forget that there's only 1 stat on the scoreboard - scoring

Again, no one talked about Pippen or Grant back then like you guys talk about them now. It's sheer revisionist history

Why do you always avoid directly answering my questions?

[TheCorporation]

He's impossible to take seriously. You're a Chuck stan, but you at least can reason. This clown 3ball has Jordan's head so far up his ass that he's incapable of giving anyone else on the Bulls any due. He thinks a guy like Jae Crowder = Pippen defensively...doesn't that say it all?

:oldlol: :roll: :roll:

Perfectly said.

[3ball]

Why do you always avoid directly answering my questions?
None of you guys answer my questions or directly respond to my posts.. just pure deflections and betaness

Otoh, I directly responded to your post by making a superceding point that nullified yours.. go back and re-read our exchange

[Smoke117]

None of you guys answer my questions or directly respond to my posts.. just pure deflections and betaness

Otoh, I directly responded to your post by making a superceding point that nullified yours.. go back and re-read our exchange

Everything you say is basically obsessive nonsense. It's impossible to respond to anything you say when it's all Jordan on a pedestal bullshit. Your hero worship makes you incapable of seeing anything with any type of reason or logic. Everything you post is just to raise Jordan up while pushing other players down.

[AussieSteve]

I'm saying they didn't play good defense because the sixers cast drastically outscored the bulls cast

The only way the sixers can lose when their cast outscores the opponent's is if their #1 option gets outscored.... :confusedshrug:.. and that's what happened - MJ scored 21 more than Barkley

And Barkley only took 16 shots despite great efficiency - so they weren't locking him up either..

Ultimately, everyone on the sixers got off but they lost because MJ scored so much... Barkley should've been more aggressive because he needed to come closer to matching MJ - he can't get outscored by 21 and expect to win

When one player puts up 31.5 shots a game, of course all his team mates score less. Doesn't mean they are worse... there's only so many possessions to go around.

He didn't 'need' to score more. He chose to score more.

MJ scoring on hersey hawkins single coverage was most often the best option for the bulls. The 76ers game plan was usually to have Barkley draw the double and kick it out to find the open man. Which he usually did, but his team mates often bricked their shots.

Furthermore... Jordan's teammates gave him 9 extra possessions a game to score from compared to Barkley's, through all the extra turnovers they forced.

[3ball]

Everything you say is basically obsessive nonsense. It's impossible to respond to anything you say when it's all Jordan on a pedestal bullshit. Your hero worship makes you incapable of seeing anything with any type of reason or logic. Everything you post is just to raise Jordan up while pushing other players down.
I made a simple point that you guys can't refute:

The only way the sixers can lose when their cast outscores the opponent's is if their #1 option gets outscored....:confusedshrug: .. and that's what happened - MJ scored 21 more than Barkley..

Barkley should've been more aggressive because he needed to come closer to matching MJ - he can't get outscored by 21 and expect to win

Ultimately, there's only 1 stat on the scoreboard - scoring.

And how are you guys still overvaluing other categories for #1 options? Haven't Lillard and durant proven that goat scoring and decent assists > triple-double or double-double crap??

[3ball]

When one player puts up 31.5 shots a game, of course all his team mates score less. Doesn't mean they are worse... there's only so many possessions to go around.

He didn't 'need' to score more. He chose to score more.

MJ scoring on hersey hawkins single coverage was most often the best option for the bulls. The 76ers game plan was usually to have Barkley draw the double and kick it out to find the open man. Which he usually did, but his team mates often bricked their shots.

Furthermore... Jordan's teammates gave him 9 extra possessions a game to score from compared to Barkley's, through all the extra turnovers they forced.


Pippen's 20 ppg was actually above his normal capacity in 1990 - and 20 was near his capacity his entire career.. he can't get much more and never has

Pippen always ranged between 15-22 ppg and MJ always scored much more than that.. So the bulls needed MJ to score because everyone was at their normal averages - those averages represented weak offensive help, so MJ had to score goat amounts

Teammates played to capacity next to MJ, and the stats show that .. but this capacity still required a 1 man show from MJ - the stats speak for themselves

Brw, Barkley's teammates were playing to capacity too and actually crushing it - it was Barkley that had a huge deficit to MJ and needed to elevate to MJ's level to win... It's like, "well what's Barkley supposed to do? Average 40???".... Yup .. MJ had to.. :confusedshrug:
.

[AussieSteve]

I made a simple point that you guys can't refute:

The only way the sixers can lose when their cast outscores the opponent's is if their #1 option gets outscored....:confusedshrug: .. and that's what happened - MJ scored 21 more than Barkley..

Barkley should've been more aggressive because he needed to come closer to matching MJ - he can't get outscored by 21 and expect to win

Ultimately, there's only 1 stat on the scoreboard - scoring.

And how are you guys still overvaluing other categories for #1 options? Haven't Lillard and durant proven that goat scoring and decent assists > triple-double or double-double crap??

I can refute this.

Jordan put up 31.5 shots a game. That's why no one on his team scored much outside of Pippen. There physically aren't enough possessions for everyone to scored when one player has that high a usage.

Again. He didn't 'need' to shoot that much, he chose to because it was the best option for the team to have him shooting over hersey as the go-to play. And he did it brilliantly. And it worked perfectly because it was very well executed.



I could make a similar argument about Barkley and rebounds. He grabbed more than double the rebounds of any other player in that series. He had more OFFENSIVE rebounds than any other player had TOTAL rebounds, except Horace Grant who averaged 7.8rpg (vs Barkley's 7.0orpg).

The only way the Bulls could win with Barkley giving the 76ers so many more possessions off the glass is if: a. the Bulls overwhelmingly outrebounded the rest of the 76ers; b. the Bulls shot at a higher percentage; or c. The Bulls forced way more turnovers. In actual fact, all three of these things occurred, even outside of Jordan's contribution. So the Bulls won. And clearly would have still won if both Jordan and Barkley were removed from the series.

[AussieSteve]

The clear evidence that Jordan's cast was far superior to Barkley's in 1990 is the fact that Barkley won the SN MVP and also polled the most first place votes in the official MVP (almost double Jordan), despite having inferior stats and couple less wins than Jordan. It was an acknowledgement that the 76ers had no right winning 53 games and would have been lottery without Chuck.

If voters thought Jordan's cast was comparable, he would clearly have polled more votes, because he had the advantage in both stats and wins.

[AussieSteve]

The clear evidence that Jordan's cast was far superior to Barkley's in 1990 is the fact that Barkley won the SN MVP and also polled the most first place votes in the official MVP (almost double Jordan), despite having inferior stats and couple less wins than Jordan. It was an acknowledgement that the 76ers had no right winning 53 games and would have been lottery without Chuck.

If voters thought Jordan's cast was comparable, he would clearly have polled more votes, because he had the advantage in both stats and wins.

And by extension we also know that Jordan's cast was even more superior to Barkley's in 1991, because Jordan's got better in 91, while Barkley's got worse.

[Kblaze8855]

3ball is Kenny on Kobe level obsessed. You know this. Its literally asking the cookie monster about cookies vs _____. It doesnt matter what ____ is or the context of the question. He picks cookies. You cant act surprised after at least 5 years of it.

[3ball]

Pippen's 20 ppg was actually above his normal capacity in 1990 - and 20 was near his capacity his entire career.. he can't get much more and never has

Pippen always ranged between 15-22 ppg and MJ always scored much more than that.. So the bulls needed MJ to score because everyone was at their normal averages - those averages represented weak offensive help, so MJ had to score goat amounts

Teammates played to capacity next to MJ, and the stats show that .. but this capacity still required a 1 man show from MJ - the stats speak for themselves

Brw, Barkley's teammates were playing to capacity too and actually crushing it - it was Barkley that had a huge deficit to MJ and needed to elevate to MJ's level to win... It's like, "well what's Barkley supposed to do? Average 40???".... Yup .. MJ had to.. :confusedshrug:
.
No response to this post?

[SpaceJam2]

3ball is Kenny on Kobe level obsessed. You know this. Its literally asking the cookie monster about cookies vs _____. It doesnt matter what ____ is or the context of the question. He picks cookies. You cant act surprised after at least 5 years of it.

:eek: :eek:

Truuu

[3ball]

MJ had the weaker cast in 90' (produced a lot less) but MJ was just better (made up for it)

The stats tell us that - you guys are defying the facts with nonsense conjecture and ridiculousness

In 1991, MJ's cast was better but that's because the sixers had begun to crumble (in part because MJ waxed them in 90')

But 1993 was a repeat of 1990 - Barkley's cast produced much more, but mj made up for it again

Btw kblaze - MJ is the consensus goat - so most of the time, the argument will go his way.. it's supposed to.. you guys are in unbelievable denial by making arguments like "the bulls didn't need MJ to score that much", when pip was already getting his 20-point capacity and no one else was capable of more than 10-15

[SpaceJam2]

MJ had the weaker cast in 90' (produced a lot less) but MJ was just better (made up for it)

The stats tell us that - you guys are defying the facts with nonsense arguments.

In 1991, MJ's cast was better but that's because the sixers had begun to crumble (in part because MJ waxed them in 90')

But 1993 was a repeat of 1990 - Barkley's cast produced much more, but mj made up for it again

Btw kblaze - MJ is the consensus goat - so most of the time, the argument will go his way.. it's supposed to.. you guys are in unbelievable denial by making arguments like "the bus didn't need MJ to score that much", when pip was already getting his 20-point capacity andno one else was capable of more than 10-15

Jordan lost with an all star teammate (1990, 1995)

LeBron won without an all star (2016)

[3ball]

Jordan lost with an all star teammate (1990, 1995)

LeBron won without an all star (2016)
MJ lost with an all-star in 90' and 95'?????... :lebronamazed:

Hmmm... I wonder if lebron did that...

Did lebron ever lose with an all-star or two and how many years did he do it?

[andgar923]

Here are some epic playoff performances by Barkley that were not enough to get a win against the Bulls because Jordan's team mates outperformed Barkley's.


1990 ECSF

Game 1
Barkley: 30pts on 21 fga, 20reb (9orb), 4ast, 2stl, 2blk, 3tov

Jordan: 39 points on 30fga. Rest of Bulls: 25/58 = 43fg%. Rest of 76ers: 20 / 58 = 34fg%

This game is just open brick after open brick by Barkley's team mates, after he creates space by drawing the double.


1991 ECSF

Game 1
34pts on 13 fga, 11reb (5orb), 2ast, 1stl, 0blk, 0tov

Jordan: 29 points on 15fga. Rest of Bulls: 32 / 59 = 54%fg. Rest of 76ers: 18 / 62 = 29%fg

This game was arguably Barkley's all time best playoff performance through 3 quarters, but the rest of his team were so bad that they were down by 20 at that stage, so he sat out the entire 4th.


Game 5
Barkley: 30pts on 20fga, 8reb (1orb), 7ast, 2stl, 1blk, 1tov

Jordan: 38 points on 31fga. Rest of Bulls: 27/54 = 50fg%. Rest of 76ers: 24 / 56 = 43fg%


1993 finals

Game 2
Barkley: 42pts on 26 fga, 13reb (6orb), 4ast, 1stl, 1blk, 2tov

Jordan: 42 points on 36fga. Rest of Bulls: 27/53 = 51fg%. Rest of 76ers: 27 / 62 = 44fg%


Game 4
Barkley: 32pts on 19 fga, 12reb (3orb), 10ast, 3stl, 1blk, 1tov

Jordan: 55 points on 37fga. Rest of Bulls: 23/46 = 50fg%. Rest of 76ers: 28 / 60 = 47fg%


I know that Jordan was great in all of these games too. But in all of these 5 bulls wins, Jordan got more help than Barkley, and that was ultimately the difference. Give Barkley a guard of Pippen's calibre, who can find the open man more often, or hit the open shot more regularly than Hawkins or 93 KJ (who was pretty trash), and he probably wins at least 3 or 4 out of these 5 games, if not all of them... And probably has multiple rings between 1990 and 1993.

Very selective stat cherry picking.

You purposely ignore MJ

[3ball]

Very selective stat cherry picking.

You purposely ignore MJ’s defense and his assists.

But the main take away here is:

MJ made his teammates better, plain and simple.

MJ’s style of play also gave his teammates better opportunities and thus the overall higher efficiency.

Watch some of those games and you’ll see beautiful passes by MJ on many occasions. But his style set the tempo and flow of the game.

As great as Chuck was he was never a leader on MJ’s level.

And every time it came down to them making game winning plays, MJ came out on top when it mattered the most.
He cherry-picked certain games because the overall SERIES stats show that Barkley's cast easily outperformed MJ's in 90' and 93', but MJ made up for it by averaging 43 and 41 those years

They've been arguing against this basic math itt, and when they realize they're arguing against the clear-cut numbers, they say "well MJ didn't need to score that much - he scored that much because he chose to"... This is despite more math showing that teammates like pippen were at their normal capacity of 20 ppg, and others were at there capacity (so the bulls needed mj's offense to win)

[SpaceJam2]

[QUOTE=andgar923]Very selective stat cherry picking.

You purposely ignore MJ

[3ball]

So then was LeBron the GOAT leader in making his teams better because of 2016 run which elevated Kyrie to a level we had never seen him play at before or after that Finals run?
Kyrie was all-star MVP in 2014, right before lebron got there..

So he was already a star but the reality is that kyrie was just a 3rd year player by 2014 - nearly ALL players lose in their first few seasons (curry, lebron, MJ, durant, etc, etc).. so he was going to win eventually without Bron, like he is now

[SpaceJam2]

Kyrie was all-star MVP in 2014, right before lebron got there..

So he was already a star but the reality is that kyrie was just a 3rd year player by 2014 - nearly ALL players lose in their first few seasons (curry, lebron, MJ, durant, etc, etc).. so he was going to win eventually without Bron, like he is now

Uhh So then was LeBron the GOAT leader in making his teams better because of 2016 run which elevated Kyrie to a level we had never seen him play at before or after that Finals run?

[3ball]

:rolleyes:

[Smoke117]

3ball is Kenny on Kobe level obsessed. You know this. Its literally asking the cookie monster about cookies vs _____. It doesnt matter what ____ is or the context of the question. He picks cookies. You cant act surprised after at least 5 years of it.

Basically. That's why I don't get how some of these clowns can still have multiple page long arguments with him when it's been YEARS of this crap. I guess some people just want to argue about anything as it's clearly an exercise in futility trying to discuss anything basketball related with 3ball.

[3ball]

Uhh So then was LeBron the GOAT leader in making his teams better because of 2016 run which elevated Kyrie to a level we had never seen him play at before or after that Finals run?


Kyrie's presence as an equal scoring partner and the team's closer took the pressure of lebron and elevated lebron to heights we hadn't previously seen

Lebron led both teams in all categories, so that was the absolute peak of his westbrooking career.. kyrie handled enough of the scoring and clutch so lebron could focus on other things

So kyrie clearly elevated Lebron..

too bad MJ didn't have an equal scoring partner and closer to take all the pressure off and split the defensive attention.. instead, MJ had to score a goat amount over his 2nd option (10-20 more than pippen to win every Finals - a 1-man show on offense.. Also, MJ was the only all-time great to lead his team in scoring for every series of his career, and by an average margin of 15.4 ppg).

[3ball]

Basically. That's why I don't get how some of these clowns can still have page long arguments with him when it's been YEARS of this crap. I guess some people just want to argue about anything as it's clearly an exercise in futility trying to discuss anything basketball related with 3ball.
Dude, many of the posters are trying to argue that MJ isn't goat

They're obviously wrong, so why would I give an inch?

And when I've cornered them, why would I give an inch when they try to weasel out of their predicament by making foolish arguments like "MJ scored that much because he chose to - the bulls didn't need it"

Seriously, why would I ever agree with anything these ignoramuses say?.. I'm supposed to agree with fools like corporation or Rico? Really?

Otoh, my posts contain stats and facts, often well-researched and cited - you guys are just mad because it's the truth and you wished Le***** had such strong arguments on his behalf

MJ is goat so he's SUPPOSED to win these arguments, brah.. deal with it.. he will win any goat debate because he's goat.. why is he on a "pedestal"???? Because he's the goat!

[Smoke117]

Dude, many of the posters are trying to argue that MJ isn't goat

They're obviously wrong, so why would I give an inch?

And when I've cornered them, why would I give an inch when they try to weasel out of their predicament by making foolish arguments like "MJ scored that much because he chose to - the bulls didn't need it"

Seriously, why would I ever agree with anything these ignoramuses say?.. I'm supposed to agree with fools like corporation or Rico? Really?

Otoh, my posts contain stats and facts, often well-researched and cited - you guys are just mad because it's the truth and you wished Le***** had such strong arguments on his behalf

MJ is goat so he's SUPPOSED to win these arguments, brah.. deal with it.. he will win any goat debate because he's goat.. why is he on a "pedestal"???? Because he's the goat!

Stop trying to act like you are just sitting there defending Jordan when you have made hundreds of threads attacking LeBron and other players.

[3ball]

Stop trying to act like you are just sitting there defending Jordan when you have made hundreds of threads attacking LeBron and other players.
.
Short response:

I had to point out lebron's flaws because the media inflated his value

He was like an over-valued stock that crashed this year... An economic bubble that burst this year.. but I've been calling it for years

Everything I've ever said about him was proven this year...


Extended response:

Indeed, Lebron's dribble-heavy approach of turning teammates into spot-up shooters doesn't develop teammates/teams, nor does it compete well in the West or on the championship level - his skillset only wins with excess talent (2 ready-made stars) to offset the reduction in team development/brand of ball (low ball movement, low team assists)

It all fits together perfectly.. I've been spouting these narratives for several years and the stats and historical timeline all matchup perfectly:

We already know that lebron doesn't start at PG and plays PG from the forward position, essentially taking over much of the PG duties from the starting PG (Kyrie, Chalmers, Mo)... So Lebron's low-assist teams result from him being a 2nd player on the floor with PG time of possession, which reduced teammates' time and assists compared to their play in 1-point guard lineups.. indeed, every 2 pg lineup in the league has low team assists (Houston, Dallas).. this high ball-dominance/low ball movement style struggles to compete on the championship level regardless of cast (heat, cavs) or opponent (Dallas, Orlando, Spurs, Warriors)

Like, everything makes perfect sense!! Only now has the media had to consider a lot of this stuff on some level - you hear media people saying he needs to "evolve" his game and his ball-dominant style is now common knowledge but no longer revered like it once was

[TheCorporation]

Dude, many of the posters are trying to argue that MJ isn't goat

They're obviously wrong, so why would I give an inch?

And when I've cornered them, why would I give an inch when they try to weasel out of their predicament by making foolish arguments like "MJ scored that much because he chose to - the bulls didn't need it"

Seriously, why would I ever agree with anything these ignoramuses say?.. I'm supposed to agree with fools like corporation or Rico? Really?

Otoh, my posts contain stats and facts, often well-researched and cited - you guys are just mad because it's the truth and you wished Le***** had such strong arguments on his behalf

MJ is goat so he's SUPPOSED to win these arguments, brah.. deal with it.. he will win any goat debate because he's goat.. why is he on a "pedestal"???? Because he's the goat!

Facts? You never post facts. You mean facts like these?

LeBron outperformed at every level

https://i.postimg.cc/2jK62pMb/MJ-vs-LJ-post.jpg

And had less help

https://i.postimg.cc/8C4kvxLC/pip-an-mj-post.jpg

Faced tougher competition

https://i.postimg.cc/YqTvqcxK/net-efficiency.png

And broke records

https://i.postimg.cc/zGZCX733/leadscorers.jpg

And is the obvious GOAT

https://i.postimg.cc/9XNrQrGn/screen-shot-2018-05-21-at-11-42-59-am.jpg

Your move

[AussieSteve]

No response to this post?

Jordan's cast was clearly better than Barkley's... post 47 and 48 in this thread.

Jordan's cast clearly outperformed Barkley's in the series... post 19 and 46 in this thread

Please respond the above posts if I am wrong. You never really attempted to.

Jordan's teammates scoring less is due to increased usage by Jordan, not underperformance. This was game plan related, not performance related (post 43 and 46 in this thread). It's why Jordan averaged 12ppg less in the next series against Detroit. Him putting up 32 shots per game was not the optimum game plan because they didn't have a noob like Hersey Hawkins guarding him single coverage all game long.

[3ball]

Jordan's teammates scoring less is due to increased usage by Jordan, not underperformance. This was game plan related, not performance related (post 43 and 46 in this thread). It's why Jordan averaged 12ppg less in the next series against Detroit. Him putting up 32 shots per game was not the optimum game plan because they didn't have a noob like Hersey Hawkins guarding him single coverage all game long.
What part of teammates playing to capacity do you not understand?

MJ's teammates couldn't score more than they already were, so mj's scoring was needed

It's that simple

Now if pippen was getting 9 points like the 89' ecf, then you'd have a case that pippen could've scored more and MJ less.

But pippen averaged 20, which was above his normal 1990 production level and near his peak career level - Pippen's capacity has always been about 20 ppg and the most he ever averaged was 22

And Detroit always held MJ lower - they were simply a goat defensive team.. His lower production was expected against them - and since they "held" MJ to only 30 ppg, the bulls couldn't get away with the cast getting massively outscored like they did against nearly every other team in MJ's career

And why do you keep saying MJ had single-coverage? MJ never had single-coverage, especially back then





Jordan's cast was clearly better than Barkley's... post 47 and 48 in this thread.

Jordan's cast clearly outperformed Barkley's in the series... post 19 and 46 in this thread

Please respond the above posts if I am wrong. You never really attempted to.


I already did comprehensively, but I'll summarize again for you here:

Barkley's cast had a rebounding deficit that he made up for, and MJ made up the scoring deficit, which is far more important

The steals and turnover gap is due to the different defensive culture.. Pippen was still learning in 1990, while MJ was arguably the best defender in the game (dpoy level) - his defensive approach, leadership and culture versus Barkley's no-defense leadership/culture was the difference.. Night and day
.

[AussieSteve]

What part of teammates playing to capacity do you not understand?

MJ's teammates couldn't score more than they already were, so mj's scoring was needed

It's that simple

Now if pippen was getting 9 points like the 89' ecf, then you'd have a case that pippen could've scored more and MJ less.

But pippen averaged 20, which was above his normal 1990 production level and near his peak career level - Pippen's capacity has always been about 20 ppg and the most he ever averaged was 22

And Detroit always held MJ lower - they were simply a goat defensive team.. His lower production was expected against them - and since they "held" MJ to only 30 ppg, the bulls couldn't get away with the cast getting massively outscored like they did against nearly every other team in MJ's career

And why do you keep saying MJ had single-coverage? MJ never had single-coverage, especially back then



I already did comprehensively, but I'll summarize again for you here:

Barkley's cast had a rebounding deficit that he made up for, and MJ made up the scoring deficit, which is far more important

The steals and turnover gap is due to the different defensive culture.. Pippen was still learning in 1990, while MJ was arguably the best defender in the game (dpoy level) - his defensive approach, leadership and culture versus Barkley's no-defense leadership/culture was the difference.. Night and day
.


All right. So we're clear. You're saying that Barkley's cast was better and they also performed better during the 1990 ecsf. And this belief is based exclusively on the points per game that each scored. No other context is relevant.

Just one question... why did Barkley get a decisive MVP nod over Jordan that year if his cast was better? I mean Jordan had better stats and more wins.

[3ball]

https://i.postimg.cc/2jK62pMb/MJ-vs-LJ-post.jpg



Lebron won his 2013 ring with only 25 on 44.7%

that's worse than all of mj's Finals

Lebron averaged 16 on 39% thru 3 games, while his 23 on 43% was insufficient thru 6 games and needed Ray to force game 7.. he was also a net negative for the series and didn't close/hit the big shot

So his 2013 is worse than any of MJ's Finals....

And the stats from his last 3 Finals losses were westbrooking and resulted in record defeat






And broke records

https://i.postimg.cc/zGZCX733/leadscorers.jpg



Everyone knows that PPG is the real record:



Career PPG Playoffs

Jordan...... 33.5


Iverson..... 29.7
West......... 29.1
Lebron...... 28.9
Durant...... 28.8
Barry......... 27.3
Elgin......... 27.0
Gervin...... 26.5
Curry........ 26.0
Hakeem... 25.9


^^^ the gap between #1 and #2 is bigger than the gap between the #2 and #10... MJ was an exception as a scorer - no one is close





And is the obvious GOAT

https://i.postimg.cc/9XNrQrGn/screen-shot-2018-05-21-at-11-42-59-am.jpg[/U][/B]


The all-time leader in PPG, PER, and ws/48 won 6 rings with 6 FMVP's, and the most clutch shots in the championship by far...

No one can top that level of stats, winning, accolades and clutch

Sorry bud, but Lebron's time in the goat debate has ended... :confusedshrug: ... Just like Kobe's did..





And had less help

https://i.postimg.cc/8C4kvxLC/pip-an-mj-post.jpg


Your chart shows MJ carrying his 2nd option on offense in a way lebron never did, or anyone else in history, except for Wilt


17' Lebron - 26.4
17' K Irving - 25.2

15' Lebron - 25.3
15' K Irving - 21.7

16' Lebron - 25.3
16' K Irving - 19.6


In addition to lebron only averaging 1-5 more than Kyrie, he only averaged 1-7 more than Wade from 11-14', while MJ scored 10-28 more than pippen between 88-98', with more assists

Also, lebron had HOF's at 3rd option, while grant was a role player.. ultimately, MJ won 6 rings with 1 all-star teammate (6 appearances), while lebron needed 6 all-stars (15 appearances) to win only 3 rings..





Faced tougher competition

https://i.postimg.cc/YqTvqcxK/net-efficiency.png


From 2011-2017, the Spurs/Heat and Warriors/Cavs were the only super-teams in the league, so they had higher ratings by beating up on weaker teams than the parity of the 90's

It's harder to win with many teams having equal talent levels (90's parity) than being one of 2 big fish in the pond (today's game)

In the 90's west, 4-5 teams took turns having their banner year and losing to MJ in the Finals.. these teams all peaked just as high as the Spurs or Warriors, but simply didn't have a long tenure due to parity

furthermore, mj BEAT better teams - lebron never better b2b champs... He also beat 3 Finals teams to MJ's 6, while facing garbage comp in the East... Lebron beat half the 50-win teams as MJ, and didn't have to beat Finals teams to make the Finals like MJ beat Shaq's Magic, Ewing's Knicks, Reggie's Pacers
.(all Finals teams)
.

[BigShotBob]

What 3ball is saying that if MJ didn't score as much as he did then his teams wouldn't have had a chance.

Which....isn't a lie.

So what is everyone arguing about?

MJ scored a lot, got doubled, ran the triangle, his teammates made shots. It happens. But even when his teams didn't have the best night (game 3 iirc going off the top of my head) MJ alone can keep his team in it until they catch fire at the right time.

Watch the games not the box scores. Timely scoring is very important.

I'm going to start to refuse to engage in discussions with anyone that can't point to actual game footage to back up what the stats tell them.

[AussieSteve]

What 3ball is saying that if MJ didn't score as much as he did then his teams wouldn't have had a chance.

Which....isn't a lie.

So what is everyone arguing about?

MJ scored a lot, got doubled, ran the triangle, his teammates made shots. It happens. But even when his teams didn't have the best night (game 3 iirc going off the top of my head) MJ alone can keep his team in it until they catch fire at the right time.

Watch the games not the box scores. Timely scoring is very important.

I'm going to start to refuse to engage in discussions with anyone that can't point to actual game footage to back up what the stats tell them.


I've watched all the games in this series. The 76ers were thoroughly outclassed by the Bulls all over the court. The most decisive factors were... a. the Bulls harassing and oppressive defense, and b. the 76ers inability to hit open shots. It was the same the following year.



I am not in any way suggesting that MJ wasn't the GOAT or that had he played Barkley with an equal cast that he wouldn't still have won. Just trying to get 3ball to admit that Jordan's cast was indeed better. And that his 43ppg, while obviously exceptional, was partly circumstantial (regular single coverage by a bad defender)

I mean lets look at the facts. Remove MJ and Barkley from the stat sheet and the rest of the Bulls cast have:
- a higher eFG%
- a higher ORB%
- a higher DRB%
- a higher TRB%
- a higher STL%
- a higher BLK%
- a lower TOV%

What aspect of the game was Barkley's cast better at?

The 76ers did have a higher AST% than the Bulls, but this is due to the fact that they weren't as good at creating their own shots as Jordan's teammates and the fact that a high percentage of shots came from the open man after a Barkley double. Its actually further evidence that Jordan's cast was better.

Add the fact that Barkley was voted by the majority as the MVP that season, despite having fewer wins and worse stats than Jordan... a clear indication that his cast was considered worse than Jordan's

And 3ball thinks that circumstances don't come into the equation when looking at Jordan's scoring that series. He freely admits that the next series against Detroit, Jordan scored 11ppg less on 9% worse eFG% because of regular double teams by good defenders... I wonder if Barkley ever faced that? Oh, I know AGAINST THE BULLS FRONTCOURT WITH PIPPEN AND GRANT!!!

[SpaceJam2]

I've watched all the games in this series. The 76ers were thoroughly outclassed by the Bulls all over the court. The most decisive factors were... a. the Bulls harassing and oppressive defense, and b. the 76ers inability to hit open shots. It was the same the following year.



I am not in any way suggesting that MJ wasn't the GOAT or that had he played Barkley with an equal cast that he wouldn't still have won. Just trying to get 3ball to admit that Jordan's cast was indeed better. And that his 43ppg, while obviously exceptional, was partly circumstantial (regular single coverage by a bad defender)

I mean lets look at the facts. Remove MJ and Barkley from the stat sheet and the rest of the Bulls cast have:
- a higher eFG%
- a higher ORB%
- a higher DRB%
- a higher TRB%
- a higher STL%
- a higher BLK%
- a lower TOV%

What aspect of the game was Barkley's cast better at?

The 76ers did have a higher AST% than the Bulls, but this is due to the fact that they weren't as good at creating their own shots as Jordan's teammates and the fact that a high percentage of shots came from the open man after a Barkley double. Its actually further evidence that Jordan's cast was better.

Add the fact that Barkley was voted by the majority as the MVP that season, despite having fewer wins and worse stats than Jordan... a clear indication that his cast was considered worse than Jordan's

And 3ball thinks that circumstances don't come into the equation when looking at Jordan's scoring that series. He freely admits that the next series against Detroit, Jordan scored 11ppg less on 9% worse eFG% because of regular double teams by good defenders... I wonder if Barkley ever faced that? Oh, I know AGAINST THE BULLS FRONTCOURT WITH PIPPEN AND GRANT!!!


Uh oh...

[3ball]

I've watched all the games in this series. The 76ers were thoroughly outclassed by the Bulls all over the court. The most decisive factors were... a. the Bulls harassing and oppressive defense, and b. the 76ers inability to hit open shots. It was the same the following year.



I am not in any way suggesting that MJ wasn't the GOAT or that had he played Barkley with an equal cast that he wouldn't still have won. Just trying to get 3ball to admit that Jordan's cast was indeed better. And that his 43ppg, while obviously exceptional, was partly circumstantial (regular single coverage by a bad defender)

I mean lets look at the facts. Remove MJ and Barkley from the stat sheet and the rest of the Bulls cast have:
- a higher eFG%
- a higher ORB%
- a higher DRB%
- a higher TRB%
- a higher STL%
- a higher BLK%
- a lower TOV%

What aspect of the game was Barkley's cast better at?

The 76ers did have a higher AST% than the Bulls, but this is due to the fact that they weren't as good at creating their own shots as Jordan's teammates and the fact that a high percentage of shots came from the open man after a Barkley double. Its actually further evidence that Jordan's cast was better.

Add the fact that Barkley was voted by the majority as the MVP that season, despite having fewer wins and worse stats than Jordan... a clear indication that his cast was considered worse than Jordan's

And 3ball thinks that circumstances don't come into the equation when looking at Jordan's scoring that series. He freely admits that the next series against Detroit, Jordan scored 11ppg less on 9% worse eFG% because of regular double teams by good defenders... I wonder if Barkley ever faced that? Oh, I know AGAINST THE BULLS FRONTCOURT WITH PIPPEN AND GRANT!!!
All those stats you listed (oreb, turnovers etc) culminated in a 21-point deficit for MJ's cast versus Barkley's on the scoreboard (the only stat that matters)

MJ had to personally make this up by scoring 21 more than Barkley, while leading his team in apg, spg, and total defensive rebounds

And again, the steals and turnover gap is due to the different defensive culture.. Pippen was still learning in 1990, while MJ was arguably the best defender in the game (dpoy level) - his defensive approach, leadership and culture versus Barkley's no-defense leadership/culture was the difference.. Night and day
.

[AussieSteve]

All those stats you listed (oreb, turnovers etc) culminated in a 21-point deficit for MJ's cast versus Barkley's on the scoreboard (the only stat that matters)

MJ had to personally make this up by scoring 21 more than Barkley, while leading his team in apg, spg, and total defensive rebounds

And again, the steals and turnover gap is due to the different defensive culture.. Pippen was still learning in 1990, while MJ was arguably the best defender in the game (dpoy level) - his defensive approach, leadership and culture versus Barkley's no-defense leadership/culture was the difference.. Night and day
.

again. a copy paste response. :facepalm

so just to clarify (because you again evaded the specifics of my post) can you please just address this...


Remove MJ and Barkley from the stat sheet and the rest of the Bulls cast had:
- a higher eFG%
- a higher ORB%
- a higher DRB%
- a higher TRB%
- a higher STL%
- a higher BLK%
- a lower TOV%

What aspect of the game was Barkley's cast better at?

The 76ers did have a higher AST% than the Bulls, but this is due to the fact that they weren't as good at creating their own shots as Jordan's teammates and the fact that a high percentage of shots came from the open man after a Barkley double. Its actually further evidence that Jordan's cast was better.

and this...


Add the fact that Barkley was voted by the majority as the MVP that season, despite having fewer wins and worse stats than Jordan... a clear indication that his cast was considered worse than Jordan's

if Barkley's cast was better.


and also please acknowledge your inconsistency here in acknowledging the defense that Jordan faced against detroit, but not the defense that Barkley faced against the Bulls.


And 3ball thinks that circumstances don't come into the equation when looking at Jordan's scoring that series. He freely admits that the next series against Detroit, Jordan scored 11ppg less on 9% worse eFG% because of regular double teams by good defenders... I wonder if Barkley ever faced that? Oh, I know AGAINST THE BULLS FRONTCOURT WITH PIPPEN AND GRANT!!!


EDIT: And I have to call you out on something... Jordan's cast had an 11.6ppg deficit compared to Barkley's, not 21ppg. Again, this is clearly due primarily to lack of opportunity rather than inferior skill, with Jordan taking 32 shots a game.

[Smoke117]

All those stats you listed (oreb, turnovers etc) culminated in a 21-point deficit for MJ's cast versus Barkley's on the scoreboard (the only stat that matters)

MJ had to personally make this up by scoring 21 more than Barkley, while leading his team in apg, spg, and total defensive rebounds

And again, the steals and turnover gap is due to the different defensive culture.. Pippen was still learning in 1990, while MJ was arguably the best defender in the game (dpoy level) - his defensive approach, leadership and culture versus Barkley's no-defense leadership/culture was the difference.. Night and day
.

LMFAO. Hakeem Olajuwon was at his peak defensively in the 1990 season. Jordan nor any other perimeter player was ever close to that level of impact. Again, you are impossible to take seriously.

[BigShotBob]

Help me understand exactly what you're trying to say. Because to someone like 3ball your post can come off as disingenuous. Not bias, but omitting MJ's scoring impact and how it can completely change the complexion of a game.

You admit that if they had equal supporting casts that MJ would still win.

And I will go on record to say MJ's Bulls were better than the 76ers. Barkley wasn't on a very good team, this was well known at the time which was why there was a lot of speculation leading up to him getting traded and him making statements such as "I just need some more help" and "I can't wait to get out of here" before walking into the arena for a game.

Barkley was virtually a one-man show, but so was MJ. I think the triangle made all the difference though. And that is seen more so in 91' when they went on to win it all.

[SpaceJam2]

Facts? You never post facts. You mean facts like these?

LeBron outperformed at every level

https://i.postimg.cc/2jK62pMb/MJ-vs-LJ-post.jpg

And had less help

https://i.postimg.cc/8C4kvxLC/pip-an-mj-post.jpg

Faced tougher competition

https://i.postimg.cc/YqTvqcxK/net-efficiency.png

And broke records

https://i.postimg.cc/zGZCX733/leadscorers.jpg

And is the obvious GOAT

https://i.postimg.cc/9XNrQrGn/screen-shot-2018-05-21-at-11-42-59-am.jpg

Your move

Wow...

[AussieSteve]

Help me understand exactly what you're trying to say. Because to someone like 3ball your post can come off as disingenuous. Not bias, but omitting MJ's scoring impact and how it can completely change the complexion of a game.

You admit that if they had equal supporting casts that MJ would still win.

And I will go on record to say MJ's Bulls were better than the 76ers. Barkley wasn't on a very good team, this was well known at the time which was why there was a lot of speculation leading up to him getting traded and him making statements such as "I just need some more help" and "I can't wait to get out of here" before walking into the arena for a game.

Barkley was virtually a one-man show, but so was MJ. I think the triangle made all the difference though. And that is seen more so in 91' when they went on to win it all.


My overall argument with 3ball (and this goes back the 2nd options equal to Pippen thread from a couple of weeks ago also) is this...

Of all the players that had any claim to being BITW in the early 90s, even if it was a weak one, Jordan never faced any of them in the playoffs with an equal or better cast.

There were equivalent 2nd options to Pippen. There were better rosters than the Bulls'. But Jordan was never truly tested during his peak, the way that Magic and Bird were, the way that LeBron has been, by going up against the next best player in the world with an equal or better cast. (I'm talking Barkley, Hakeem, DRob who all had mostly trash casts in the early 90s)

In 1990 through 1993, when Barkley was at his absolute best, if he had a #2 on a level with Pippen, a coach like Phil and role players like the Bulls had, that would have been the ultimate test for Jordan. And I legitimately think that Barkley would have had a solid chance of winning.

It almost happened in 1993, but KJ was well down after missing half the season and Barkley had also suffered a knock to his shooting elbow and couldn't hit outside the paint.

[BigShotBob]

My overall argument with 3ball (and this goes back the 2nd options equal to Pippen thread from a couple of weeks ago also) is this...

Of all the players that had any claim to being BITW in the early 90s, even if it was a weak one, Jordan never faced any of them in the playoffs with an equal or better cast.

There were equivalent 2nd options to Pippen. There were better rosters than the Bulls'. But Jordan was never truly tested during his peak, the way that Magic and Bird were, the way that LeBron has been, by going up against the next best player in the world with an equal or better cast. (I'm talking Barkley, Hakeem, DRob who all had mostly trash casts in the early 90s)

In 1990 through 1993, when Barkley was at his absolute best, if he had a #2 on a level with Pippen, a coach like Phil and role players like the Bulls had, that would have been the ultimate test for Jordan. And I legitimately think that Barkley would have had a solid chance of winning.

It almost happened in 1993, but KJ was well down after missing half the season and Barkley had also suffered a knock to his shooting elbow and couldn't hit outside the paint.

No one was a bigger MJ hater than me. I actually used to love Pippen because he was such a bum half the time and in the early days he would hold MJ and the Bulls back. I had no idea why the Bulls drafted him when they could have drafted Mark Jackson. Could you imagine that duo?

With that being said in the early 90's the Bulls was virtually mostly MJ. Pippen peaked literally when MJ left and when MJ came back he was hobbled with injuries. So technically MJ never had a chance to play with a "peak" Pippen unless it was in spurts but you can probably say that about anybody.

But you don't consider Clyde and the Blazers being a good test? There were articles about Clyde being the second best player in the league at the time, which was technically true. But technically the best iteration of that Blazers team was either in 89'-90 or 90'-91. I forgot which.

Those Jazz teams in the late 90's were MJ's biggest test because he had no one to rely on. Pippen couldn't score or shoot to save his life and he was injured to hell and back, and Rodman wasn't going to go get you 20-10 games either so it was up to MJ even while being old and slightly hobbled himself to put his team on his back.

But if Barkley had such a good team and cast then maybe he wouldn't have lost to the Rockets in the mid 90's when MJ retired. It's not like he didn't have his chances. But even he admitted that he knew that he wouldn't make it back to the Finals after the 93' season.

[tpols]

In 1990 through 1993, when Barkley was at his absolute best, if he had a #2 on a level with Pippen, a coach like Phil and role players like the Bulls had, that would have been the ultimate test for Jordan. And I legitimately think that Barkley would have had a solid chance of winning.


Barkley joined a perennial 50+ win suns playoff team at his peak... which was better than what 94 pippen led after hed already been developed. He had plenty of help and couldnt muster 1 ring much less 6/6.

[Round Mound]

All right. So we're clear. You're saying that Barkley's cast was better and they also performed better during the 1990 ecsf. And this belief is based exclusively on the points per game that each scored. No other context is relevant.

Just one question... why did Barkley get a decisive MVP nod over Jordan that year if his cast was better? I mean Jordan had better stats and more wins.

:applause:

And Chuck got those votes when he was hated by the media (not like 1993 when he became more popular).

[LostCause]

Of all the players that had any claim to being BITW in the early 90s, even if it was a weak one, Jordan never faced any of them in the playoffs with an equal or better cast.

This rarely happens at any point though. Magic/Bird sure, but outside of those 2 I can

[3ball]

so just to clarify (because you again evaded the specifics of my post) can you please just address this...

- a higher eFG%
- a higher ORB%
- a higher DRB%
- a higher TRB%
- a higher STL%
- a higher BLK%
- a lower TOV%


What aspect of the game was Barkley's cast better at?



The Sixers cast led in:

Points
Assists
Blocks
FTA
FTM


That's equal to your list, and more actually due to the massive point gap in the series






Add the fact that Barkley was voted by the majority as the MVP that season, despite having fewer wins and worse stats than Jordan... a clear indication that his cast was considered worse than Jordan's


Your logic is backward that mj's MORE stats and MORE winning deserves LESS votes - that makes no sense

MJ's superior stats and winning meant he did a lot more than Barkley and deserved more votes, but voters mess up all the time - it's common knowledge that voters often had MJ fatigue and didn't let MJ win it every year, even though he deserved it





and also please acknowledge your inconsistency here in acknowledging the defense that Jordan faced against detroit, but not the defense that Barkley faced against the Bulls.


Barkley isn't capable of averaging 40 like MJ is

Barkley achieved near his season average in that series on great shooting.. those are numbers he gets against most opponents

otoh, MJ dropped 44 on the #1 defense in 86" and dropped 40 on the #2 defense in 89'.. he had 6 series of 40+ (only 3 other players did it once each - west and baylor in the 60's and king in 84')

[AussieSteve]

Barkley joined a perennial 50+ win suns playoff team at his peak... which was better than what 94 pippen led after hed already been developed. He had plenty of help and couldnt muster 1 ring much less 6/6.

He didn't just join a 50+ win team.

That team added barkley, but lost an all star who was also their leading scorer the previous year, and had KJ missing for half the season.

Pippen had more points on better efficiency, more rebounds, more assists, more steals and more blocks than KJ in the 93 finals, while being the best defender on the floor. He was an infinitely better player than KJ in that series.

[Smoke117]

He didn't just join a 50+ win team.

That team added barkley, but lost an all star who was also their leading scorer the previous year, and had KJ missing for half the season.

Pippen had more points on better efficiency, more rebounds, more assists, more steals and more blocks than KJ in the 93 finals, while being the best defender on the floor. He was an infinitely better player than KJ in that series.

See, this is what I'm talking about. Why are you continuing to argue with him? He's never going to go against Jordan in any way EVER. It doesn't matter if you are right. He is ALWAYS going to choose Jordan no matter what. He literally said Jordan was the best defensive player in the league in 1990. It's a lost cause trying to get him to see reason.

[3ball]

He didn't just join a 50+ win team.

That team added barkley, but lost an all star who was also their leading scorer the previous year, and had KJ missing for half the season.

Pippen had more points on better efficiency, more rebounds, more assists, more steals and more blocks than KJ in the 93 finals, while being the best defender on the floor. He was an infinitely better player than KJ in that series.
KJ was banged up in 93' but those Suns were absolutely a 55-win team that Barkley joined

KJ led the suns to 55 wins from 89-92', and beat Magic's 1-seeded Lakers in 90' to make the conference finals

That's better than pippen ever did and his stats were better than Pippen's ever were during that time

no pippen-led team could beat a 1-seeded Laker team - he couldn't even beat the Knicks and was horrible in that series - 21 on 40% with 3 chokes (the sit-out, the dumb foul, his game 7 disappearance)

KJ was better than Pippen but he didn't win 6 rings with MJ so he isn't recognized as such

[3ball]

See, this is what I'm talking about. Why are you continuing to argue with him? He's never going to go against Jordan in any way EVER. It doesn't matter if you are right. He is ALWAYS going to choose Jordan no matter what. He literally said Jordan was the best defensive player in the league in 1990. It's a lost cause trying to get him to see reason.
If you're going to blatantly change what I said, then you're rattled and should have a drink to calm down .. :lol:

I said MJ was arguably the best defender, and dpoy level.. Indeed, he was 5th in dpoy voting in 1990

Here's MJ's dpoy voting starting in 1987:



1987 - 8th
1988 - 1st
1989 - 5th
1990 - 5th
1991 - 7th
1992 - 5th
1993 - 2nd
1996 - 6th
1997 - 5th
1998 - 4th (35 yrs old)

[Smoke117]

If you're going to blatantly change what I said, then you're rattled and should have a drink to calm down

I said MJ was arguably the best defender, and dpoy level.. Indeed, he was 5th in dpoy voting in 1990

Here's MJ's dpoy voting starting in 1987:


1987 - 8th
1988 - 1st
1989 - 5th
1990 - 5th
1991 - 7th
1992 - 5th
1993 - 2nd
1996 - 6th
1997 - 5th
1998 - 4th (35 yrs old)

There is no argument that he was the best defensive player in the league. His impact wasn't even 1/10th of a peak Hakeem Olajuwon. (you know the greatest modern defensive of all time) I don't care where he finished in dpoy. The 10+ best defensive players in the league by impact would all be big men with 1 and 2 Hakeem and David Robinson WAY AHEAD of everyone else. If you think Jordan's impact defensively was in anyway close to theres then there really is no hope for you. Jordan shouldn't even have been the DPOY in 88. That should have Hakeem Olajuwon. There is not perimeter player who has ever actually deserved the DPOY award except maybe Kawhi.

[3ball]

There is no argument that he was the best defensive player in the league. His impact wasn't even 1/10th of a peak Hakeem Olajuwon. (you know the greatest modern defensive of all time) I don't care where he finished in dpoy. The 10+ best defensive players in the league by impact would all be big men with 1 and 2 Hakeem and David Robinson WAY AHEAD of everyone else. If you think Jordan's impact defensively was in anyway close to theres then there really is no hope for you. Jordan shouldn't even have been the DPOY in 88. That should have Hakeem Olajuwon. There is not perimeter player who has ever actually deserved the DPOY award except maybe Kawhi.
I agree that bigs generally have the biggest defensive impact but not always


Look at cp3... Every time he rejoins the rockets, their defensive rating becomes elite... Some players bring a competitiveness and intensity that teammates follow

apparently Lonzo has that impact on team defense too... And MJ had that effect - the defensive team that the bulls became started with mj's dpoy in 1988 showing Pippen the standard and culture that would exist going forward

If rookie pippen joined Barkley instead, he might've been a decent defender but nothing like the standard MJ set for him in Chicago

[AussieSteve]

The Sixers cast led in:

Points
Assists
Blocks
FTA
FTM


That's equal to your list, and more actually due to the massive point gap in the series



The bulls cast led in every single stat on a per-posession basis, and had better efficiency. They played at a higher level. This is manifestly obvious. It's also obvious by simply WATCHING THE GAMES.



Your logic is backward that mj's MORE stats and MORE winning deserves LESS votes - that makes no sense

MJ's superior stats and winning meant he did a lot more than Barkley and deserved more votes, but voters mess up all the time - it's common knowledge that voters often had MJ fatigue and didn't let MJ win it every year, even though he deserved it


You have my point completely backwards. IF Barkley had an equal or better cast to Jordan, then obviously jordan deserved more votes, having both better stats and more wins. BUT Barkley was effectively the consensus MVP that season, despite having worse stats and less wins. So obviously voters considered his support to be worse than Jordan's.

[Round Mound]

The bulls cast led in every single stat on a per-posession basis, and had better efficiency. They played at a higher level. This is manifestly obvious. It's also obvious by simply WATCHING THE GAMES.



You have my point completely backwards. IF Barkley had an equal or better cast to Jordan, then obviously jordan deserved more votes, having both better stats and more wins. BUT Barkley was effectively the consensus MVP that season, despite having worse stats and less wins. So obviously voters considered his support to be worse than Jordan's.

:applause:

[Smoke117]

KJ was banged up in 93' but those Suns were absolutely a 55-win team that Barkley joined

KJ led the suns to 55 wins from 89-92', and beat Magic's 1-seeded Lakers in 90' to make the conference finals

That's better than pippen ever did and his stats were better than Pippen's ever were during that time

no pippen-led team could beat a 1-seeded Laker team - he couldn't even beat the Knicks and was horrible in that series - 21 on 40% with 3 chokes (the sit-out, the dumb foul, his game 7 disappearance)

KJ was better than Pippen but he didn't win 6 rings with MJ so he isn't recognized as such

The 89-92 suns were some extremely talented teams...way more talented than the 94 bulls. Stop trying to act like Kevin Johnson carried those teams or something. He never had the impact of a 94 and 95 Pippen.

[3ball]

The bulls cast led in every single stat on a per-posession basis, and had better efficiency. They played at a higher level. This is manifestly obvious. It's also obvious by simply WATCHING THE GAMES.



You have my point completely backwards. IF Barkley had an equal or better cast to Jordan, then obviously jordan deserved more votes, having both better stats and more wins. BUT Barkley was effectively the consensus MVP that season, despite having worse stats and less wins. So obviously voters considered his support to be worse than Jordan's.
If Barkley had better stats, his team would've won more, hence the voters screwing up like they always do by voting for him over MJ.. again, your logic is backwards

And again, MJ had to do much more than Barkley to win that series - the stats show this

Btw, the sixers cast outscored the bulls' cast by 12 ppg.. so technically, MJ only had to outscore Barkley by 13 to win the series.... But again, pippen and everyone was playing to capacity, so MJ was the only guy that could run up the score, which he did by averaging 20 more than Barkley (hence the 8 ppg margin of victory)

[3ball]

The 89-92 suns were some extremely talented teams...way more talented than the 94 bulls. Stop trying to act like Kevin Johnson carried those teams or something. He never had the impact of a 94 and 95 Pippen.
The Suns were super-stacked

Which makes all my points

The Suns destroyed the Lakers' 1 seeded all-star team, but them got wiped out by the blazers, who were even MORE stacked!! Drexler averaged 18 ppg at 3rd option during the first 3 rounds to make the 90' Finals...

But then those stacked blazers got destroyed by the bad boys in the Finals!! So the bad boys were the most stacked, with 3x all-stars or all-nba at every starting spot in 1990, except Rodman.. And yet MJ's bulls with just pippen would've beaten the bad boys that year if not for pip's migraine in Game 7... (1-10, 2 pts).. :facepalm

MJ was carrying those bulls teams and nearly beating the bad boys - his 89' carry-job is goat imo, with his 90' job right behind it.... These tight battles with the champs were a far cry from lebron's big 3 super-teams getting swept so badly (record amount) that the team literally quits midway thru the closeout game.. like, stops playing... This happened on 14', 17' and 18'.

Btw, the 93' playoffs demonstrate the extreme parity in the 90's western conference - the stacked Sonics upset Hakeem's Rockets with Payton/Kemp/Schrempf getting 20+ and Nate McMillan and Derrick McKey forming one of the more athletic teams probably ever - but Barkley was sensational (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A64AXOaCqZE&t=0m30s) against them in the WCF and beat them in 7... The 90's West had 4-5 teams that took turns having their banner years and losing to MJ in the Finals - extreme parity - the best competitive environment - the current East could turn out like that tbh

[AussieSteve]

If Barkley had better stats, his team would've won more, hence the voters screwing up like they always do by voting for him over MJ.. again, your logic is backwards

And again, MJ had to do much more than Barkley to win that series - the stats show this

Btw, the sixers cast outscored the bulls' cast by 12 ppg.. so technically, MJ only had to outscore Barkley by 13 to win the series.... But again, pippen and everyone was playing to capacity, so MJ was the only guy that could run up the score, which he did by averaging 20 more than Barkley (hence the 8 ppg margin of victory)

3ball... the enlightened one.

His extensive analysis, which includes and is limited to...

points per game

... trumps all other advanced analytics and contemporary experts' opinion, that suggest Jordan had the better supporting cast.

[TheCorporation]

3ball... the enlightened one.

His extensive analysis, which includes and is limited to...

points per game

... trumps all other advanced analytics and contemporary experts' opinion, that suggest Jordan had the better supporting cast.

He really is quite the funny fellow.

[AussieSteve]

The 89-92 suns were some extremely talented teams...way more talented than the 94 bulls. Stop trying to act like Kevin Johnson carried those teams or something. He never had the impact of a 94 and 95 Pippen.

Why do people like to pretend that the 93 Suns were just the 89-92 Suns plus Barkley? Is it because it fits some kind of narrative that I'm not aware of?

For starters, KJ missed half the season in 93 and was totally out of sorts in the finals. Secondly, Horancek, their top scorer and all star in 92, was gone. Thirdly Chambers, their other all star during the period, was well and truely on the decline and was a complete defensive liability. He was good for scoring off the bench by the time Barkley got there.

That team without Barkley went 9-14 in 93 and 94, and 84-21 with him, prior to his back injury.

[AussieSteve]

If Barkley had better stats, his team would've won more, hence the voters screwing up

Statistically, Barkley actually had one of the most remarkable seasons ever in 1990. His offensive rating of 128 and true shooting of 66.1% are both pretty much off the charts for a player scoring 25+ ppg (At least they were prior to the 3pt explosion the last few years when Curry has bettered this ts%).

Imagine leading a team with Mike Gminski, Johnny Dawkins, Rick Mahorn and sophomore Hersey Hawkins as your other starters to an offense that is only a whisker behind the Showtime Lakers and second best in the league.

[3ball]

Why do people like to pretend that the 93 Suns were just the 89-92 Suns plus Barkley? Is it because it fits some kind of narrative that I'm not aware of?

For starters, KJ missed half the season in 93 and was totally out of sorts in the finals. Secondly, Horancek, their top scorer and all star in 92, was gone. Thirdly Chambers, their other all star during the period, was well and truely on the decline and was a complete defensive liability. He was good for scoring off the bench by the time Barkley got there.

That team without Barkley went 9-14 in 93 and 94, and 84-21 with him, prior to his back injury.
https://media.giphy.com/media/26h0pswrpjgYgMvBe/giphy.gif


The Suns added young star and super-athletic wing Richard Dumas (above) to replace Hornacek, and everyone said Dumas was the next Dominique or Pippen

So Barkley was basically given Hornacek's 55-win team + Dumas... And also 2 blocks per game Oliver Miller and several other pieces

Yet he still lost to the goat despite this ridiculously better cast..

In the 93' Finals, both teams played 9 guys and both teams averaged exactly 106.7 ppg and 113.0 ortg... To keep the series this close, MJ had to score 16 more than Barkley and Pippen scored 4 more than a banged-up KJ, while each of the remaining roster spots (3 thru 9) were outscored by a total of 20 ppg (the gap MJ/pip had over Barkley/KJ

MJ was just that much better than the great Barkley

[AussieSteve]

https://media.giphy.com/media/26h0pswrpjgYgMvBe/giphy.gif


The Suns added young star and super-athletic wing Richard Dumas (above) to replace Hornacek, and everyone said Dumas was the next Dominique or Pippen

So Barkley was basically given Hornacek's 55-win team + Dumas... And also 2 blocks per game Oliver Miller and several other pieces

Yet he still lost to the goat despite this ridiculously better cast..

In the 93' Finals, both teams played 9 guys and both teams averaged exactly 106.7 ppg and 113.0 ortg... To keep the series this close, MJ had to score 16 more than Barkley and Pippen scored 4 more than a banged-up KJ, while each of the remaining roster spots (3 thru 9) were outscored by a total of 20 ppg (the gap MJ/pip had over Barkley/KJ

MJ was just that much better than the great Barkley

Everyone was obviously wrong.

Also, imagine citing rookie Oliver Miller as evidence that a team is stacked.



I have a hypothetical question for you...

Which team would you say is likely the better one out of the following:

Team A: a team with 3 all stars (one of whom is top 3 in MVP voting) who wins 55 games and almost beats the east champs in the 2nd round.

Team B: a team with 3 all stars that wins 53 games and gets comfortably handled by the West champs in the 2nd round.

Probably pretty close? Maybe edge to Team A, if the above is all we have to go on.

Now, remove the leading scorer from team B, and also have their best player playing well below his best, having missed half the season through injury.


Which team are you going with? Full strength team A or team B with leading scorer out of action and best player out of form. Don't think too hard about it, the answer is pretty obvious.

[And1AllDay]

Everyone was obviously wrong.

Also, imaging citing rookie Oliver Miller as evidence that a team is stacked.



I have a hypothetical question for you...

Which team would you say is likely the better one out of the following:

Team A: a team with 3 all stars (one of whom is top 3 in MVP voting) who wins 55 games and almost beats the east champs in the 2nd round.

Team B: a team with 3 all stars that wins 53 games and gets comfortably handled by the West champs in the 2nd round.

Probably pretty close? Maybe edge to Team A, if the above is all we have to go on.

Now, remove the leading scorer from team B, and also have their best player playing well below his best, having missed half the season through injury.


Which team are you going with? Full strength team A or team B with leading scorer out of action and best player out of form. Don't think too hard about it, the answer is pretty obvious.
:eek:

[3ball]

Everyone was obviously wrong.

Also, imagine citing rookie Oliver Miller as evidence that a team is stacked.



I have a hypothetical question for you...

Which team would you say is likely the better one out of the following:

Team A: a team with 3 all stars (one of whom is top 3 in MVP voting) who wins 55 games and almost beats the east champs in the 2nd round.

Team B: a team with 3 all stars that wins 53 games and gets comfortably handled by the West champs in the 2nd round.

Probably pretty close? Maybe edge to Team A, if the above is all we have to go on.

Now, remove the leading scorer from team B, and also have their best player playing well below his best, having missed half the season through injury.


Which team are you going with? Full strength team A or team B with leading scorer out of action and best player out of form. Don't think too hard about it, the answer is pretty obvious.
Dude, Dumas was a beast but drugs took him down. It happens.. the suns still got a great year out of him in 93'

And the bulls didn't have 3 all-stars - they had 1 all-star in 93' and for all 6 rings, while the suns had 3 perennial all-stars plus Dumas.. You're just desperate now

You had a better case arguing the 90' casts.. the 93' Suns were completely stacked and this was common knowledge.. the 93' bulls only had 4 guys that played more than 20 minutes or averaged 6+ points.. the suns cast destroyed them as the Finals showed, but MJ made up most of the deficit so the bulls could win.. standard procedure.. that's why he's the goat

[AussieSteve]

Dude, Dumas was a beast but drugs took him down. It happens.. the suns still got a great year out of him in 93'

And the bulls didn't have 3 all-stars - they had 1 all-star in 93' and for all 6 rings, while the suns had 3 perennial all-stars plus Dumas.. You're just desperate now

You had a better case arguing the 90' casts.. the 93' Suns were completely stacked and this was common knowledge.. the 93' bulls only had 4 guys that played more than 20 minutes or averaged 6+ points.. the suns cast destroyed them as the Finals showed, but MJ made up most of the deficit so the bulls could win.. standard procedure.. that's why he's the goat

Well, we already established that MJ's 90 cast was better. As evidenced by basically ever stat as well as MVP results. This one isn't really even a debate, but you only seem to consider one single data point, ppg, and so refuse to see the blindingly obvious.

As for 93, perhaps you should answer the question in my previous post instead of ignoring it like you do all my other questions. And stop pretending that an All-Rookie 2nd teamer makes all the difference.

[Smoke117]

Well, we already established that MJ's 90 cast was better. As evidenced by basically ever stat as well as MVP results. This one isn't really even a debate, but you only seem to consider one single data point, ppg, and so refuse to see the blindingly obvious.

As for 93, perhaps you should answer the question in my previous post instead of ignoring it like you do all my other questions. And stop pretending that an All-Rookie 2nd teamer makes all the difference.

https://i.gifer.com/IeTF.gif

[AussieSteve]

Here's Phil Jackson a few days before the start of the 93 finals saying that Pippen is "playing as well as any player in the game right now."


Phil in 93 - "Pippen as good as anyone in the game" (https://youtube.com/watch?v=3nhJlA7qVeA&t=66m54s)

[Smoke117]

Here's Phil Jackson a few days before the start of the 93 finals saying that Pippen is "playing as well as any player in the game right now."


Phil in 93 - "Pippen as good as anyone in the game" (https://youtube.com/watch?v=3nhJlA7qVeA&t=66m54s)

Scottie was pretty easily the best player and MVP of their series vs the Knicks which they started 0-2. Besides Jordan's 54 explosion in game 4 he was mediocre in that series. Even with that game he shot 40% for the series. In the 5 games sans that game he shot .352% averaging 27.8ppg on 25.0 shots a game. Very Westbrick like.

[SpaceJam2]

Scottie was pretty easily the best player and MVP of their series vs the Knicks which they started 0-2. Besides Jordan's 54 explosion in game 4 he was mediocre in that series. Even with that game he shot 40% for the series. In the 5 games sans that game he shot .352% averaging 27.8ppg on 25.0 shots a game. Very Westbrick like.

:eek:

[brutalBBQ]

Scottie was pretty easily the best player and MVP of their series vs the Knicks which they started 0-2. Besides Jordan's 54 explosion in game 4 he was mediocre in that series. Even with that game he shot 40% for the series. In the 5 games sans that game he shot .352% averaging 27.8ppg on 25.0 shots a game. Very Westbrick like.
Pffft, still won though, still went on to win the chip.
47.5% fg and 35.1ppg throughout the Playoffs that season.
Westbrick this year is 36% fg and 22.8ppg , waved goodbye in the 1st round.
You cannot elaborate on how that is Westbrick. Comparing Jordan to a manlet, fashion parade transition gimmick.
You just embarrassed yourself, it's ok you'll be out of your highchair soon and then you can eat non pureed food

[3ball]

Well, we already established that MJ's 90 cast was better. As evidenced by basically ever stat as well as MVP results. This one isn't really even a debate, but you only seem to consider one single data point, ppg, and so refuse to see the blindingly obvious.

As for 93, perhaps you should answer the question in my previous post instead of ignoring it like you do all my other questions. And stop pretending that an All-Rookie 2nd teamer makes all the difference.

MJ's 90' cast was easily worse - a bunch of young pups against vets - MJ had to outscore Barkley by 21 to win

And I just destroyed your argument about the 93' cast - you said Barkley wasn't "added" to a 55-win team because they lost Hornacek, but you forgot that they added stud Dumas.. this clearly beat your argument - the suns were stacked and better than the bulls... if not for MJ's 41 ppg... :no: ... Just like 1990

And lol at posting a Phil Jackson quote to boost Pippen's fragile confidence.. he was garbage and anyone who watched at the time barely knew he was on the team... Don't take my word for it - I'll let Isiah and Magic ride on you:


During the 1993 Finals - Bob Costas asks Magic about the Bulls and his Lakers[/I]



MAGIC: "We had more weapons.... Get me in foul trouble, and get Michael in foul trouble, and take us both out, and you'd see what would happen - we would dominate them."


Then Costas turned to Isiah, who added to Magic's comments



ISIAH: "When you're talking about this Bulls team, you're only talking about Michael Jordan.... You can't really say that our team would've beaten him or the Lakeers would've beat him, because no one has figured out how to stop this guy.. Sure, if you take Michael away, and you take Magic away, and you take me away, yeah, then our teams are better, but the fact is, he's still there (he hasn't been taken away)."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6og_pOVi2w&t=0m16s



Later in the interview, Costas asked (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6og_pOVi2w&t=5m00s) Magic if he thought MJ was the best ever:


"I think so. I think he's not only the best basketball player, but probably the greatest athlete that has played any sport.. We can only dream of doing the things he can do, that being me and Isiah."