"Jordan wasn't my competition, we dominated them" - Isiah Thomas

[iamgine]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABxKgK2jUmw

Is he just salty or is he right?

[Uncle Drew]

He is on the money. Dad Killer wasn't able to beat them until they collectively got too old.

[SATAN]

So many people here turned on IT after a certain episode of The Last Dump :lol

He's either great at lying or what people always said about MJ's pettiness is real

[Nikola_]

Pippin meltdown away from being 2-2 all time in PO lmao

[ImKobe]

He is on the money. Dad Killer wasn't able to beat them until they collectively got too old.

Dumars 27
Zeke 29
Rodman 29
Laimbeer 33

too old my ass. Their best players were right in the heart of their primes. Zeke had a terrible Playoff run & is trying to re-write history. they didn't lose in 6-7, they got SWEPT.

[Akeem34TheDream]

Dumars 27
Zeke 29
Rodman 29
Laimbeer 33

too old my ass. Their best players were right in the heart of their primes. Zeke had a terrible Playoff run & is trying to re-write history. they didn't lose in 6-7, they got SWEPT.Maybe they peaked young. Or they were solved by other teams. Becauce they just weren't as good in '91. They won 50 games weren't great in the playoffs before playing the Bulls. And players used to peak younger back then.

[Roundball_Rock]

If they were in their primes what did they do after that since they were "in the heart of their primes"?

Fact check on Detroit:

They won 63 in 89' and 59 in 90'. They were down to 50 in 91'. Then 48 (first round loss), 40 (missed playoffs) and then 20 in Zeke's final season. Heart of their primes, right? It looks like something happened starting in 1991...

You said it yourself: they got swept by a team they beat 4-1, 4-2, 4-3 in the previous three playoffs. The trend was the Bulls gaining 1 game each year so 91' should have been 3-4. Suddenly 0-4?

[sportjames23]

dumars 27
zeke 29
rodman 29
laimbeer 33

too old my ass. Their best players were right in the heart of their primes. Zeke had a terrible playoff run & is trying to re-write history. They didn't lose in 6-7, they got swept.


:cheers:

[iamgine]

Dumars 27
Zeke 29
Rodman 29
Laimbeer 33

too old my ass. Their best players were right in the heart of their primes. Zeke had a terrible Playoff run & is trying to re-write history. they didn't lose in 6-7, they got SWEPT.

Isiah said in the interview he had what he described as career ending wrist injury.

[Roundball_Rock]

Isiah said in the interview he had what he described as career ending wrist injury.

He acts like the Pistons did anything after the 91' season. They did nothing as a team. Dumars had several good years in his prime as did Rodman (who was traded to San Antonio for the 94' season) but Laimbeer, V. Johnson, Aguirre did nothing in their careers because they were shells of themselves. Thomas remained an all-star but was not a superstar anymore. Zeke did not make a single all-NBA team in the 90's, for instance.

[RogueBorg]

The trend was the Bulls gaining 1 game each year so 91' should have been 3-4. Suddenly 0-4?

That's some scientific analysis right there :facepalm

[Phoenix]

Always a good time hearing about how fortunate Chicago was to beat an 'old and injured' Pistons team. Never mind that Detroit beat Boston in 88 when all the key players were over 30, or beating the Lakers in 89 with an injured Magic, no Scott, and 42 year old Kareem dropping 12/5.

Newsflash: look at those 89 and 90 playoffs and see who their toughest opponent was. Chicago beating Detroit was always an eventuality, just as Detroit beating Boston and the Lakers for the same 'age and injury' reasons that oddly only gets held against the 91 Bulls. Age and injuries to the 91 Pistons was the difference between them getting swept and losing in 6.

[Roundball_Rock]

Chicago beating Detroit was always an eventuality, just as Detroit beating Boston and the Lakers for the same 'age and injury' reasons that oddly only gets held against the 91 Bulls. Age and injuries to the 91 Pistons was the difference between them getting swept and losing in 6.

The main reason it is contested because Detroit's best player were still young in Isiah, Dumars, and Rodman. So you have people like the guy earlier in the thread post their ages. The other reason is they were the 2x defending champs so people wonder how a team could fall off that much, especially given their ages.

Their performances against the Bulls suggested the Bulls would win in 91'--but 4-3 (since the Bulls gained 1 game per year), not 4-0. After that the Pistons were never heard from again.

[sportjames23]

Always a good time hearing about how fortunate Chicago was to beat an 'old and injured' Pistons team. Never mind that Detroit beat Boston in 88 when all the key players were over 30, or beating the Lakers in 89 with an injured Magic, no Scott, and 42 year old Kareem dropping 12/5.

Newsflash: look at those 89 and 90 playoffs and see who their toughest opponent was. Chicago beating Detroit was always an eventuality, just as Detroit beating Boston and the Lakers for the same 'age and injury' reasons that oddly only gets held against the 91 Bulls. Age and injuries to the 91 Pistons was the difference between them getting swept and losing in 6.

https://i.ibb.co/hDw16b8/EA595999-C6-A4-463-D-B6-D9-1-CCEEBDE776-F.jpg

[Da_Realist]

Isiah Thomas: I thought we were a good enough team to at least make the series (91 ECF) a little bit more competitive but we didn't.

So he didn't think they were too old at the time.

[Phoenix]

The main reason it is contested because Detroit's best player were still young in Isiah, Dumars, and Rodman. So you have people like the guy earlier in the thread post their ages. The other reason is they were the 2x defending champs so people wonder how a team could fall off that much, especially given their ages.

Their performances against the Bulls suggested the Bulls would win in 91'--but 4-3 (since the Bulls gained 1 game per year), not 4-0. After that the Pistons were never heard from again.

I'm not suggesting the 91 team were as good as before. Clearly they weren't, and after 91 were never a threat again. It just comes off hypocritical to me for some people to undermine Chicago winning against an older Detroit when the Pistons did the same thing to Boston and LA. Those were far from the peak Celtic and Laker squads of 2-3 years earlier. It was a young lion beating the older lion rite of passage that is ages old in sports. Just seems to be laid on extra thick when it comes to the 91 Bulls.

I'm of the opinion that if Detroit were as good as they were in 90 they would have lost in 6 instead of a sweep. The Bulls were coming. They had the best player on the floor in MJ the entire time. By 91 they also had the second best player on the floor in Scottie. Pip got alot better between 90 and 91. Grant got better. MJ had another year of seasoning. That situation to me was always a question of when moreso than if. Detroit 'getting old' was mainly the difference between them getting swept and losing in a competitive 6 game series. I don't even think it goes 7 but even if it did, that's simple semantics.

[ArbitraryWater]

I'm not suggesting the 91 team were as good as before. Clearly they weren't, and after 91 were never a threat again. It just comes off hypocritical to me for some people to undermine Chicago winning against an older Detroit when the Pistons did the same thing to Boston and LA. Those were far from the peak Celtic and Laker squads of 2-3 years earlier. It was a young lion beating the older lion rite of passage that is ages old in sports. Just seems to be laid on extra thick when it comes to the 91 Bulls.

I'm of the opinion that if Detroit were as good as they were in 90 they would have lost in 6 instead of a sweep. The Bulls were coming. They had the best player on the floor in MJ the entire time. By 91 they also had the second best player on the floor in Scottie. Pip got alot better between 90 and 91. Grant got better. MJ had another year or seasoning. That situation to me was always a question of when moreso than if. Detroit 'getting old' was mainly the difference between them getting swept and losing in a competitive 6 game series. I don't even think it goes 7 but even if it did, that's simple semantics.

except the 87 pistons already had the 87 celtics on the brink of elimination, screwed themselves up with the inbound play. and then in 88 of course pretty much beat the lakers who got bailed out.

they did as good of a job of just turning up better than waiting out their time

[Phoenix]

except the 87 pistons already had the 87 celtics on the brink of elimination, screwed themselves up with the inbound play. and then in 88 of course pretty much beat the lakers who got bailed out.

they did as good of a job of just turning up better than waiting out their time

The 87 series is just how it goes. Bird made a good play and the rest is history. Not the first or last time a team has had victory snatched away like that. End of the day they didnt break through that year. The 88 Lakers weren't as good as the prior year or a couple seasons back when Kareem was a bigger force than he was in 88 or 89. So there is some timing. Detroit didnt play the absolute best of those Celtic and Laker teams just as the 91 Bulls didnt get the peak Pistons squad.

Chicago didnt wait it out. They took the Pistons to 7 in 1990 and we know what happened with Scottie. They turned up better in 91. Not their fault that Isiah wasnt fully healthy in 91 and with that said, people talk about the Pistons that year like they won 40 games and got destroyed in the first round. They still got to the conference finals and lost to a younger, hungrier and healthier team. If Detroit had somehow gotten past Chicago in 91 it's even money with them and the Lakers. I'm even inclined to say Detroit had a slight edge in that hypothetical.

[Da_Realist]

I do think there are a number of reasons why Detroit fell off in the 90's, looking from the outside. Their 3 skilled positions and the bulk of their points came from guys that were 6'3" and below (Isiah, Joe D and Vinnie J). Quickness was a weapon but eventually they lost half a step and were easier to defend. Isiah didn't have Magic's 6'9 frame and bulk to rely on and be able to change his game. As those guys slowed, the other guys didn't have the offensive skill to pick up the slack.

They had gone to 5 straight ECF and lost a lot of wear and tear. The Pistons style wore down their opponents but also wore them down. They grinded out 5 point wins. They didn't have the athleticism (at the skill positions) to score and win easier. They needed to be disciplined and focused and precise every play.

I read in a book a quote from an anonymous Piston that admitted Detroit always had problems with the Knicks dating back to the late 80's. They're size and style of play bothered them. In 89, the Knicks swept the Pistons in the regular season. In 90, the Pistons swept the Knicks. In 91, the Knicks won 3 out of 4 and in 92, they split their regular season meetings. Then of course, the Knicks beat the Pistons in the playoffs that year. I think the Knicks were a little bigger and a little stronger and had Ewing in the middle which made it more difficult for Detroit to score. In the playoff loss to the Knicks, the Pistons never scored 90 points and that includes an OT game.

The Pistons sort of imploded with Isiah being left off the Dream Team. When Jack McCloskey learned Isiah wouldn't be selected, he resigned from the selection committee but Daly decided to coach the team anyway. This led to friction with the front office but also his star player who felt betrayed. Daly said the chemistry on the team in 92 was shot especially between he and Isiah. Daly left for New Jersey after that year.

There are probably a million other reasons why their time was done shortly after their reign on top. It's more complicated than just "they got old". Just like with the Bulls in 98.

[Da_Realist]

The 87 series is just how it goes. Bird made a good play and the rest is history. Not the first or last time a team has had victory snatched away like that.

Chicago didnt wait it out. They took the Pistons to 7 in 1990 and we know what happened with Scottie. They turned up better in 91. Not their fault that Isiah wasnt fully healthy in 91 and with that said, people talk about the Pistons that year like they won 40 games and got destroyed in the first round. They still got to the conference finals and lost to a younger, hungrier and healthier team. If Detroit had somehow gotten past Chicago in 91 it's even money with them and the Lakers. I'm even inclined to say Detroit had a slight edge in that hypothetical.

In 91 Detroit beat a really good 56 win Celtics team that was one of the better teams in the league.

[Phoenix]

In 91 Detroit beat a really good 56 win Celtics team that was one of the better teams in the league.

Exactly. I think Chicago was the only team in the east in 91 that were going to stop Detroit from a 4th straight finals run.

[97 bulls]

I think the Pistons biggest issue was that teams adopted their defense first mentality. That had been what set them apart in the late 80s.

As far as their rivalry with the Bulls, the Bullls were better than them in 90. Pips migraine happened.

Theres no other excuse for 91 other than the Bulls were just flat out a better team. None of those games were really as close as the score said. I never got the feeling the Bulls were ever in any trouble during that series.

[Roundball_Rock]

I'm not suggesting the 91 team were as good as before. Clearly they weren't, and after 91 were never a threat again. It just comes off hypocritical to me for some people to undermine Chicago winning against an older Detroit when the Pistons did the same thing to Boston and LA. Those were far from the peak Celtic and Laker squads of 2-3 years earlier. It was a young lion beating the older lion rite of passage that is ages old in sports

That is true but most of the time I hear people talking about the Pistons "getting old" it is in the context of the Bulls having no real rival during their run (not undermining the win in and of itself) with the Pistons, Celtics, Lakers all declining due to age, injuries while the 2000's era Spurs and Lakers did not emerge until 99' when the Bulls had been broken up.

That is the difference in the cycle you describe. When the Sixers aged they were replaced by Boston in the East in the 80's. When Boston declined Detroit replaced them. The Lakers remained a constant throughout all this time.

When the 2000's Lakers declined the Heat emerged in the first half of the 2010's and in the second half it was the Warriors. The Spurs remained strong the entire century until recent, being a contender as recently as 2017.

So the context is people pointing out the favorable circumstances the Bulls fell into with their key players' primes happening to coincide with the fall of all the top teams of the 80's. Why does this come up? We keep hearing the importance of a specific # of rings and a specific finals record. The counter is if they had tougher competition instead of 6 rings and "6-0" maybe it is 4 and 4-2 or something. It is only contested because of the big push to trumpet that team success against every other top 10 all-time legend, none who had the luxury of facing 0 great teams during their team's run like MJ did.

[iamgine]

Always a good time hearing about how fortunate Chicago was to beat an 'old and injured' Pistons team. Never mind that Detroit beat Boston in 88 when all the key players were over 30, or beating the Lakers in 89 with an injured Magic, no Scott, and 42 year old Kareem dropping 12/5.

Newsflash: look at those 89 and 90 playoffs and see who their toughest opponent was. Chicago beating Detroit was always an eventuality, just as Detroit beating Boston and the Lakers for the same 'age and injury' reasons that oddly only gets held against the 91 Bulls. Age and injuries to the 91 Pistons was the difference between them getting swept and losing in 6.
That's actually what Isiah said in the interview.

[Phoenix]

That is true but most of the time I hear people talking about the Pistons "getting old" it is in the context of the Bulls having no real rival during their run (not undermining the win in and of itself) with the Pistons, Celtics, Lakers all declining due to age, injuries while the 2000's era Spurs and Lakers did not emerge until 99' when the Bulls had been broken up.

That is the difference in the cycle you describe. When the Sixers aged they were replaced by Boston in the East in the 80's. When Boston declined Detroit replaced them. The Lakers remained a constant throughout all this time.

When the 2000's Lakers declined the Heat emerged in the first half of the 2010's and in the second half it was the Warriors. The Spurs remained strong the entire century until recent, being a contender as recently as 2017.

So the context is people pointing out the favorable circumstances the Bulls fell into with their key players' primes happening to coincide with the fall of all the top teams of the 80's. Why does this come up? We keep hearing the importance of a specific # of rings and a specific finals record. The counter is if they had tougher competition instead of 6 rings and "6-0" maybe it is 4 and 4-2 or something. It is only contested because of the big push to trumpet that team success against every other top 10 all-time legend, none who had the luxury of facing 0 great teams during their team's run like MJ did.

I'm a proponent of teams and players not being penalized for the era they came in ( not saying you are). Wilt isnt dropping 100 points in 1990. The Russell Celtics aren't winning 11 titles in the 2000/2010s. The Bulls arent winning 6 titles in the 80s. Historically great teams and players rarely overlap to a degree where we can fairly judge. We can really only measure them against the competition and standards of their era.

Unfortunately alot of these arguments just have people parroting specific talking points but all of these things require context and a degree of intellectual honesty to discuss properly.

[guy]

Always a good time hearing about how fortunate Chicago was to beat an 'old and injured' Pistons team. Never mind that Detroit beat Boston in 88 when all the key players were over 30, or beating the Lakers in 89 with an injured Magic, no Scott, and 42 year old Kareem dropping 12/5.

Newsflash: look at those 89 and 90 playoffs and see who their toughest opponent was. Chicago beating Detroit was always an eventuality, just as Detroit beating Boston and the Lakers for the same 'age and injury' reasons that oddly only gets held against the 91 Bulls. Age and injuries to the 91 Pistons was the difference between them getting swept and losing in 6.

This quote is the equivalent of Paul Pierce saying "Lebron wasn't my competition, we dominated them". Jordan, Bird, Magic weren't really Isiah's competition cause no one mistaking him for being better then any of those guys at any point. His team, sure, but not him.

This stuff happens in one form or another pretty often but for whatever reason it is only pointed for the Bulls, and we just ignore that they got better as well. The 90s Jazz had to wait till Hakeem and the Rockets got old to get past them. Then the Shaq/Kobe Lakers had to wait till the Jazz got old - and they never had to beat them, what it looks like if you just ignore that those guys got better and a new coach is they just basically waited for them to get out of the way completely. The Spurs had to wait till Shaq got older and the team was starting to implode to beat them again. Lebron not only had to wait to till the Celtics and Spurs got old to beat them, he had to leave his team to join up with better players to do it - you can also say he had to wait till Kobe and Dirk got old as well.

Fact is we rarely actually see two historically great teams face each other at the top of their games. One of them is usually on the rise or on the decline. The mid-80s (not the entire 80s, more like half of them) are not the norm, but people act like it is. You can really make excuses for almost every championship i.e. aging, inexperience, injuries, etc.

[999Guy]

I think the Pistons biggest issue was that teams adopted their defense first mentality. That had been what set them apart in the late 80s.

As far as their rivalry with the Bulls, the Bullls were better than them in 90. Pips migraine happened.

Theres no other excuse for 91 other than the Bulls were just flat out a better team. None of those games were really as close as the score said. I never got the feeling the Bulls were ever in any trouble during that series.
Interesting tidbit. They were one of the only defensive minded teams eh?

Why does Isiah, basically a one-way lead guard, get so much credit for defensive titles? Why the hell is he better than Billups all-time then?

[Roundball_Rock]

I'm a proponent of teams and players not being penalized for the era they came in ( not saying you are). Wilt isnt dropping 100 points in 1990. The Russell Celtics aren't winning 11 titles in the 2000/2010s. The Bulls arent winning 6 titles in the 80s. Historically great teams and players rarely overlap to a degree where we can fairly judge. We can really only measure them against the competition and standards of their era.

I agree on the substance. Great players will be great in any era (we have evidence of this from players overlapping eras). I also don't think people should blindly be judged by ring counting since so many factors go into that beyond a player's control.

However, many fans simply go around counting titles and finals records so when you have people all over social media saying 6>3 and 6-0>3-6 24/7 as well as media personalities, there inevitably will be a push back. That it is Jordan proponents doing this is why his teams and opponents wind up under the microscope. (It is funny, I didn't hear any of them say Kobe>MJ if he got to 6 or 7 rings back when Kobe looked like he might win as many or more :lol )

One of the responses to this from the MJ side is to invoke the ages of the Pistons.

[PoutinPippin]

He is on the money. Dad Killer wasn't able to beat them until they collectively got too old.

1991 Pistons:

Zeke - 29 years old
Dumars - 27 years old
Rodman - 29 years old

Clearly you’re a Le Racist Three 6 Mafia Stan, so for comparison sake

2013 Spurs:

Duncan - 36 years old
Ginobili - 35 years old
Parker - 30 years old
Leonard - 21 years old

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Thoughts, idiot?

[guy]

So the context is people pointing out the favorable circumstances the Bulls fell into with their key players' primes happening to coincide with the fall of all the top teams of the 80's. Why does this come up? We keep hearing the importance of a specific # of rings and a specific finals record. The counter is if they had tougher competition instead of 6 rings and "6-0" maybe it is 4 and 4-2 or something. It is only contested because of the big push to trumpet that team success against every other top 10 all-time legend, none who had the luxury of facing 0 great teams during their team's run like MJ did.

The Bulls could've also just been worse and not had tougher competition and because they're worse, they beat the Knicks in 92 and the Jazz in 97 only to lose to those teams the following years as both go on to win titles those seasons (or vice versa). At that point, you wouldn't call those teams not great, just like we rarely ever hear any other championship team labeled that way. Somehow the Bulls being worse would've elevated them because it elevates their competition. Thats a pretty flawed logic.

[Roundball_Rock]

1991 Pistons:

Zeke - 29 years old
Dumars - 27 years old
Rodman - 29 years old

Clearly you’re a Le Racist Three 6 Mafia Stan, so for comparison sake

2013 Spurs:

Duncan - 36 years old
Ginobili - 35 years old
Parker - 30 years old
Leonard - 21 years old

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Thoughts, idiot?

Case in point. The Spurs came back and had the best record in the NBA and won the championship in 2014. They won 55, 67, and 61 from 2015-2017. Compare that to the Pistons losing in the first round in 92' as a 48 win team and then winning 40 and 42 in Isiah's final two seasons.

Age doe.

[PoutinPippin]

Case in point. The Spurs came back and had the best record in the NBA and won the championship in 2014. They won 55, 67, and 61 from 2015-2017. Compare that to the Pistons losing in the first round in 92' as a 48 win team and then winning 40 and 42 in Isiah's final two seasons.

Age doe.
What are you talking about kiddo? I didn’t bring up the age. The guy I am replying to did. The classless zoomer LeBron Stan.

All I’m pointing out is that the Pistons were much younger in their core. So, the facts say they weren’t old. Or past their prime. In fact they were still in it.

The 2013 and 2014 Spurs were vastly older. And totally out of their prime. Which LeBron barely beat One year. And then the next year got curb stomped with his brains beaten in ...

Forcing him to run yet again with his tail between his legs to a new franchise to make a new super team. Like the coward he is.

By what these Zoomer LeBron Stans would call plumbers. Old, non-black, skillful but not super athletes. That run a system. And move the ball. Much like say, the Utah jazz of the late 90s.

Athleticism and age doesn’t dictate how good a basketball player or team is. Look at how the late 90s athletic teams like the Lakers got worked by a much older less athletic jazz team. Or how team USA has lost in various Olympic or international competitions getting worked by extremely less athletic plumber teams. This past summer as prime example.

The Pistons record the following year isn’t indicative of their quality in 1991. Teams change, roster moves, motivation levels all change. The spurs ran a better system, retooled the roster, and their new best player was emerging at 22 years old in Kawhi Leonard. A better shooting Scottie Quittin.

What point are you even trying to make?! Is life that bad in quarantine for you without a woman DMAVS?

Triggered by anything and everything Jordan related? Argumentative with idiotic arguing points, for literally no reason?

Maybe you can reevaluate your life after this and get yourself a woman to calm you down.

[dbugz]

Paul Pierce is lebrons greatest rival.

Thomas > Pierce

[Turbo Slayer]

Cool Thomas.

[Docs Orders]

:cry:


:cry:


:cry:

:yaohappy:



https://media.giphy.com/media/GV3aYiEP8qbao/giphy.gif