What does 94 Pippen do with Carmello Anthony instead of Pete Myers?

[ELITEpower23]

Is that an instachip?

[Duncan21formvp]

He takes the ball out of Pippen's hands by shooting, also he never played in an era with dominant bigs. He also would only be 10 years old.

[ELITEpower23]

He takes the ball out of Pippen's hands by shooting, also he never played in an era with dominant bigs. He also would only be a teenager.

In the 1994 ECSF the Bulls faced the Knicks. MJ left for Pete Myers and they nearly won that series off of the following Pete Myers numbers:

6-2-2

Imagine replacing Pete Jordan's 6-2-2 with a Carmello Anthony or Allen Iverson. I feel they would win the chip that year.

[Duncan21formvp]

In the 1994 ECSF the Bulls faced the Knicks. MJ left for Pete Myers and they nearly won that series off of the following Pete Myers numbers:

6-2-2

Imagine replacing Pete Jordan's 6-2-2 with a Carmello Anthony or Allen Iverson. I feel they would win the chip that year.

They not going to win with a 10 year old at SG get real.

[Overdrive]

Fit is a thing. They would not. You need an off-guard. Richmond, Reggie, Ray Allen or Klay would be the better choice. AI or Melo with Pippen? They might actually do worse.

[Reggie43]

Instachip and Melo in the same sentence doesnt really sound right.

[Smoke117]

Fit is a thing. They would not. You need an off-guard. Richmond, Reggie, Ray Allen or Klay would be the better choice. AI or Melo with Pippen? They might actually do worse.

They wouldn't even need guys that good to make the finals. The Bulls as they were had the Pacers number all season long. They just matched up very well against them. You give Pippen a Steve Smith and they would have definitely been in the finals and could have won it all.

[Duncan21formvp]

They wouldn't even need guys that good to make the finals. The Bulls as they were had the Pacers number all season long. They just matched up very well against them. You give Pippen a prime Steve Smith and they could have won it all.

Brooklyn won all 4 games vs Miami in 2014 and then lost in 5 in the playoffs against them.

[Smoke117]

Brooklyn won all 4 games vs Miami in 2014 and then lost in 5 in the playoffs against them.

That comparison doesn't work considering the Bulls were a much better team than the Nets were in relation to the season and league. The Heat were just playing down to their competitions level and coasting. In 94 the Bulls were the actual better team all season long regardless of the actual matchups. They were the one who won 55 games while the Pacers won 47.

[ELITEpower23]

Fit is a thing. They would not. You need an off-guard. Richmond, Reggie, Ray Allen or Klay would be the better choice. AI or Melo with Pippen? They might actually do worse.

Excuse me, but are you telling me that a happy-shooting, ball hogging scorer would not do well along side one Scottie Pippen?

[Roundball_Rock]

Excuse me, but are you telling me that a happy-shooting, ball hogging scorer would not do well along side one Scottie Pippen?

:lol He is a MJ stan alt.

Pippen and Carmelo both played SF--but Pippen showed, even past his prime, that he could be a full-time PG in Portland. They could make it work by having Pippen at PG, Carmelo at SF, Grant PF.


That comparison doesn't work considering the Bulls were a much better team than the Nets were in relation to the season and league. The Heat were just playing down to their competitions level and coasting. In 94 the Bulls were the actual better team all season long regardless of the actual matchups. They were the one who won 55 games while the Pacers won 47.

It is funny, they hype the Pacers and then say the Bulls without MJ sucked. It is a shame the brackets worked out the way they did. The Pacers wouldn't have beaten the Bulls or Knicks in that bracket but got a weakened Dominique-less Hawks in the other bracket (59 win pace with him, 53 win pace with Manning).

[aceman]

:lol He is a MJ stan alt.

Pippen and Carmelo both played SF--but Pippen showed, even past his prime, that he could be a full-time PG in Portland. They could make it work by having Pippen at PG, Carmelo at SF, Grant PF.



It is funny, they hype the Pacers and then say the Bulls without MJ sucked. It is a shame the brackets worked out the way they did. The Pacers wouldn't have beaten the Bulls or Knicks in that bracket but got a weakened Dominique-less Hawks in the other bracket (59 win pace with him, 53 win pace with Manning).

Too bad harper is not on this team - Pip & Harper could pick up best players @ 1, 2 & 3 and leave melo to track weakest perimiter scorer on other team

[Roundball_Rock]

Too bad harper is not on this team - Pip & Harper could pick up best players @ 1, 2 & 3 and leave melo to track weakest perimiter scorer on other team

Yup.

Carmelo with a strong defensive team is gold. That was the attraction in the Bulls trying to sign him in 2014. The Bulls' had a good defense but often would go cold for long periods. Carmelo would be able to generate his own offense and score during those times.

[Overdrive]

They wouldn't even need guys that good to make the finals. The Bulls as they were had the Pacers number all season long. They just matched up very well against them. You give Pippen a Steve Smith and they would have definitely been in the finals and could have won it all.

I think they would've easily beat the Pacers with their '94 roster. I don't think they would've beat the Rockets and I genuinly think the would've fared worse with Melo or AI against the Knicks. Of course Both are upgrades over Myers, but I think they would've clashed with Pippen throughout the season. Jackson's genius move was to take the ball out of Jordan's hands and now you insert guys into the team that pout if they don't get to dribble and iso the ball enough. As ego driven Jordan was he wasn't nearly the cancer that either guy was.


Excuse me, but are you telling me that a happy-shooting, ball hogging scorer would not do well along side one Scottie Pippen?

See my response to smoke. I think Pippen respectively the Bulls would have had more success with lesser players that fit their game plan better. Give them Michael Redd and they probably win 1994. Melo is a disruptive ball stopper. Jordan shot alot, but he didn't command as much time with the ball after PJ put him in his place. Melo didn't show a hint of coachability in his career.


:lol He is a MJ stan alt.

Pippen and Carmelo both played SF--but Pippen showed, even past his prime, that he could be a full-time PG in Portland. They could make it work by having Pippen at PG, Carmelo at SF, Grant PF.



It is funny, they hype the Pacers and then say the Bulls without MJ sucked. It is a shame the brackets worked out the way they did. The Pacers wouldn't have beaten the Bulls or Knicks in that bracket but got a weakened Dominique-less Hawks in the other bracket (59 win pace with him, 53 win pace with Manning).

I layed out some evidence that I'm not in the Malone thread, but I honestly could see you being 3ball's alt, arguing with yourself to generate reactions. Just like Millwad/jlauber back in the day.

[Roundball_Rock]

"Honesty" and you is an oxymoron.

[LAL]

"Honesty" and you is an oxymoron.

Roundball what are you doing, you're very unlikable here because of your dishonesty. Bruh..

[ELITEpower23]

What about 94 Pip with Rick Barry instead of Pete Myers?

[LAL]

What about 94 Pip with Rick Barry instead of Pete Myers?

How about scottie and your auntie. Go to bed. Dumbass questions.

[ELITEpower23]

How about scottie and your auntie. Go to bed. Dumbass questions.
Well hold on a minute now Sonny. Scottie Pippen did great thing with Pete Myers, a 6ppg producer. Imagine if he was able to trade Pete Myers for Rick Barry. You don't think they would win the chip?

[LAL]

Well hold on a minute now Sonny. Scottie Pippen did great thing with Pete Myers, a 6ppg producer. Imagine if he was able to trade Pete Myers for Rick Barry. You don't think they would win the chip?

It's hard to tell. Could you stop posting for a week? We'll never know.

[Bronbron23]

Is that an instachip?

Nah its not akways as simple as adding another all star and thinking that will put you over the top. Carmelo isnt a winner. All your doing is taking the ball out of pips hands and putting into a much worse player.

[Turbo Slayer]

Here's the problem I have with other people thinking "Adding an all-star will automatically make a team a championship contender!!!" Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. You are talking about EVERYONE in NBA history that was selected to the ASG game at least once.

Does that mean Dick McGuire (ASG starter in 1956, 1950s) will automatically elevate a team today just because he is a ASG starter? Of course not because he only averaged 8.0 points in his career as a PG. Even considering the differences in era that's still terrible for a player back then.

This is part of a reason why I don't respect All-Star selections because how can we determine how good was that X player relative to his era? I respect All-NBA selections much more than ASG selections because All-NBA voting is more strict than ASG voting.

[HoopsNY]

Carmelo Anthony is a huge cancer to any team, let alone a team with such a structure as the 90s Bulls. I can't see him coexisting within a triangle-offense system and he's not a good defender anyway. If you put someone like a Mitch Richmond into that offense then you're talking championship contention (though I doubt they beat the Rockets).

[Roundball_Rock]

Isn't this a similar scenario to 2014 when the Bulls tried to sign Carmelo, though? A strong defensive team that needed another go-to scorer. The difference being prime Pippen>anything on the Bulls circa 2014 but other than that there are many similarities.

[Turbo Slayer]

Isn't this a similar scenario to 2014 when the Bulls tried to sign Carmelo, though? A strong defensive team that needed another go-to scorer. The difference being prime Pippen>anything on the Bulls circa 2014 but other than that there are many similarities. Bro, Carmelo Anthony does not make his teams better. His ugly ISO game leaves a lot to be desired.

I'm on the fence with Melo (love-hate relationship) but Melo does not make teams better. I never felt like Melo was making his teammates better.

[Roundball_Rock]

I generally agree. It was damning that Denver got better after ditching Carmelo. :lol The scenario where he could help IMO is a great defensive team that can mask his defensive deficiencies, a team with a strong system and culture that can prevent or limit his ball hogging, etc. Both the 90's Bulls and Thibs-era Bulls fit those descriptions. Maybe it wouldn't work but if there is any context where Carmelo could have team success it would be this type of scenario.

[bizil]

Melo DOES BEST when u have very good to great defense, rebounding, AND a top notch floor general on his team. He made the WCF with that blueprint. Scottie was the blueprint for today's modern point forward. And was hella versatile too. So for that squad, I would move Pip to the PG FLAT OUT! And Melo would give that team the alpha dog scoring punch THAT it needed as well. Plus have the GOAT coach in Phil Jackson pulling the strings as well. People love to hate on Melo! Instead of giving him props for being such a great scorer with one of the best scoring skillsets of all time, he gets bashed TOO MUCH for his weaknesses!

Melo makes that Bulls team better bottom line. Pip would be allowed to get his 20 PPG while being the #2 scorer on the Bulls. Which is THE BEST FIT for Pip's game. Billups was an All Star PG and an excellent floor general. He could put the pieces in place TO GET the best out of the squad. Pip would do the exact same thing PLUS was a better scorer AND defender than Billups.

Plus Melo and Horace could do cross matchups when it made sense. He could guard some of the SF's at times too. While Melo could guard the PF's at times. Denver did that back in the day with Melo and Kenyon Martin. I think Horace was a versatile enough defender to pull that off the way Kenyon did. I say they make the NBA Finals and lose to Houston. BUT MJ coming back to team with Pip and Melo would have gotten them past the Magic the following season. And got them a ring that season! MJ-Melo-Pip would have beat Dream and Drexler!!

[aceman]

Melo DOES BEST when u have very good to great defense, rebounding, AND a top notch floor general on his team. He made the WCF with that blueprint. Scottie was the blueprint for today's modern point forward. And was hella versatile too. So for that squad, I would move Pip to the PG FLAT OUT! And Melo would give that team the alpha dog scoring punch THAT it needed as well. Plus have the GOAT coach in Phil Jackson pulling the strings as well. People love to hate on Melo! Instead of giving him props for being such a great scorer with one of the best scoring skillsets of all time, he gets bashed TOO MUCH for his weaknesses!

Melo makes that Bulls team better bottom line. Pip would be allowed to get his 20 PPG while being the #2 scorer on the Bulls. Which is THE BEST FIT for Pip's game. Billups was an All Star PG and an excellent floor general. He could put the pieces in place TO GET the best out of the squad. Pip would do the exact same thing PLUS was a better scorer AND defender than Billups.

Plus Melo and Horace could do cross matchups when it made sense. He could guard some of the SF's at times too. While Melo could guard the PF's at times. Denver did that back in the day with Melo and Kenyon Martin. I think Horace was a versatile enough defender to pull that off the way Kenyon did. I say they make the NBA Finals and lose to Houston. BUT MJ coming back to team with Pip and Melo would have gotten them past the Magic the following season. And got them a ring that season! MJ-Melo-Pip would have beat Dream and Drexler!!

Pippen was point guard for bulls.
Melo would just slot into mj's role - he'd get ball in low post & look to score before double team or kick out to open shooters - 90s melo less selfish
Defensively melo takes weakest player he can match up with.
Positions irrelevant

[Overdrive]

"Honesty" and you is an oxymoron.

You're starting to get quite annoying. You leave out points I make to continue your "anti-MJ-stan"-crusade, while in my post I said the Bulls might've won with Michael Redd in '94. Tell me any MJ stan, scratch that, fan that would dare to say that.

You instantly shut down and didn't even bother to read my point why don't think the '94 Bulls wouldn't win with Melo.

[RRR3]

Roundball, you're getting paranoid. Overdrive is a legit poster. He's no alt and he's giving you his honest opinion. He's never been very high on Melo IIRC.

[Roundball_Rock]

Your credibility is shot with the faux "police commissioner of ISH" routine when you say not a word about the very thing you profess to decry--done by multiple posters for multiple pages. As you said, evidently, having Barkley 1988-1995 prime numbers is "cherry picking" (this shtick claimed to want 96' in there for some reason---despite by his own admission it wouldn't change anything since the numbers mirror 95'--but denounced the exclusion as evidence of "cherry picking" and 3ball-type deception) but Pippen 1996-1998 playoffs only (knowing full well why they isolate those 3 playoff years, and only for the playoffs)? Zilch. Nada. Nothing.

Instead you denounce the good faith effort to gather prime vs. prime data as egregious cherry picking, deceptive, etc. Says it all about what you are about.

[Whoah10115]

Carmelo makes them worse.

The Knicks played down to their competition.

Let's not forger Starks was an all-star but got hurt in the middle of the season. Began getting back his legs in the Finals, but he jacked up shots and the Knicks lost.

Knicks still had to play down to beat the Bulls in 7. So Ray Allen is what the Bulls would need, and then it'd be a real contest in the Finals.

[Roundball_Rock]

Here is how the numbers changed absent your supposed "cherry picking":

Barkley TS 88-95': 62.2% RS, 57.9% playoffs
Barkley TS 88-96': 61.8% RS, 57.8% playoffs

You got me there! Look at that data manipulation based on cutting his prime off in his case when he was no longer all-NBA 1st/2nd team. All that to manipulate that data 0.1% and 0.4%--because that materially changes things (unlike cherry picking the 3 worst years of a data set which creates a material change of negative 3%, openly for that purpose, because that is perfectly good faith, right?).

Where do I turn myself in for this egregious manipulation?

[bizil]

Pippen was point guard for bulls.
Melo would just slot into mj's role - he'd get ball in low post & look to score before double team or kick out to open shooters - 90s melo less selfish
Defensively melo takes weakest player he can match up with.
Positions irrelevant

U make some good points. But Pip was the Bulls POINT FORWARD! He wasn't their PG. Because he usually played with a PG (Paxson, BJ) and SG (MJ) on the court. So in that setup, Pip from the SF position SERVED as the point forward. Because he had point guard duties in terms of bringing up the rock often times to get the Bulls in the triangle. Or being a facilitator often times in the fast break. But since Pip was an explosive athlete in transition, Paxson or BJ was ALWAYS there on the floor to drop dimes to Pip so he could FINISH PLAYS too! With Melo, Pip would give up his SF slot to him. Pip would move into the backcourt and play with a more score first PG in BJ. BUT BJ wasn't an elite scorer OR passer. Pippen was pass first AND the best passer at the SF position in the league.

So it omakes sense to move Pip to ACTUAL PG, BJ at the SG, and Melo at the SF. Positions are irrelevant in a sense BECAUSE some players are so versatile or unique. So that can apply to Pippen. When it comes to a CP3 or Stockton, positions are HELLA RELEVANT! Because u don't want them playing ANY OTHER POSITION besides PG.

Or in Shaq or Wilt's case, u don't want them playing any other position besides center. When it's guys like Magic, Bird, Pippen, Lebron, KD,KG, etc., those guys are more positionless types of players. They can play 4 different positions and do many things!

[Reggie43]

Would Pippen tolerate Carmelo's ballhogging ways? That shit would have never happened because we all know Pippen was a better player who always tried to play the right way and Melo is the antithesis of that.

As the other poster said fit matters, Melo and AI make look good on paper but they are not really that good of a match in terms of winning basketball especially in the playoffs. Another is the Pippen, Barkley, Olajuwon pairing that was dubbed a superteam but blew up spectacularly because players were not wholeheartedly willing to sacrifice their game for one another thus creating tension.

[Smoke117]

Would Pippen tolerate Carmelo's ballhogging ways? That shit would have never happened because we all know Pippen was a better player who always tried to play the right way and Melo is the antithesis of that.

As the other poster said fit matters, Melo and AI make look good on paper but they are not really that good of a match in terms of winning basketball especially in the playoffs. Another is the Pippen, Barkley, Olajuwon pairing that was dubbed a superteam but blew up spectacularly because players were not wholeheartedly willing to sacrifice their game for one another thus creating tension.

Super team lol. Olajuwon and Barkley were well past their primes and in the twilight of their careers.

[Overdrive]

Your credibility is shot with the faux "police commissioner of ISH" routine when you say not a word about the very thing you profess to decry--done by multiple posters for multiple pages. As you said, evidently, having Barkley 1988-1995 prime numbers is "cherry picking" (this shtick claimed to want 96' in there for some reason---despite by his own admission it wouldn't change anything since the numbers mirror 95'--but denounced the exclusion as evidence of "cherry picking" and 3ball-type deception) but Pippen 1996-1998 playoffs only (knowing full well why they isolate those 3 playoff years, and only for the playoffs)? Zilch. Nada. Nothing.

Instead you denounce the good faith effort to gather prime vs. prime data as egregious cherry picking, deceptive, etc. Says it all about what you are about.

The reason why I adressed you is that I think you're a legit poster. 3ball isn't, 3ball is a retard with a savant syndrome manifesting in bringing forth arbitrary Jordan stats to highlight his bullshit. Why should I argue with him?

Of course the 4 games or something like that by Barkley won't tip the scale. But looking at it for each season he massively declined there. That's the thing. You're right that it was a career long trend for Malone and Stockton(while I objected the Stockton claim, there's an answer in that very thread), but alot of players decline in certain runs or even careerwise in the playoffs. Pippen, excluding injuries, isn't one of them. He always delivered one way or another. That's why 3ball only brings forth PPG on raw FG, because that helps his points, but again, why should I argue with him? He'll never conceide being deluded. He'll never say Pippen's defense and playmaking was important for the Bulls. It's always Jordan's burden or something like that*

*There's another post about that by me somewhere, where I said there's no first option in the history of the league ever that felt having to shoot more is a burden. Most of them have to be told to shoot less. That's why Pippen was the ideal running mate for Jordan. He was content putting up 20ppg, but doing everything else. If I was a starplayer(non PG) and had to choose a teammate it would be between him or Bill Russell, but 3ball acts like it's better to have a teammate that doesn't do much, but score, which actually takes something away from your game...which leads me back to Melo.

His nature is to have the ball for as much as possible to take ill advised post or face up isos on low efficiency. That's not a player I wish upon Scottie. He needs someone who does quick decisions, when he gets the ball.

I denounced your post, because all I ever hear from you is Jordan stan this, Jordan stan that. Maybe I interpreted your intention wrong, but as I said your paranoia is getting pretty annoying.

There are like 42372184375 Lebron stans/trolls(not talking about legit fans like RRR or AW) on here posting the same drivel all day, but you're hung up on the few MJ stans left.

You still didn't adress the core of my post.

[Reggie43]

Super team lol. Olajuwon and Barkley were well past their primes and in the twilight of their careers.

It was dubbed that at the time when people learned they would team up, I even had a poster of them coming from a magazine. Pippen was that highly valued coming off his six rings with the bulls.

* I even read a season preview in a magazine wherein it said something like

"Pacers and Houston probably makes the Finals with Pippen beating the Pacers again as 10 people watch"

all off memory so not really sure

[Smoke117]

It was dubbed that at the time when people learned they would team up, I even had a poster of them coming from a magazine. Pippen was that highly valued coming off his six rings with the bulls.

If they were actually in their primes they would have won quite easily regardless of fit.

[Roundball_Rock]

My beef was the attack on my credibility. I make a good faith effort to approximate primes and take the time to look at their resumes, not just post stats. There will never be 100% agreement since the NBA doesn't officially certify primes. Even with you, your disagreement was 1 year out of an 9 year time frame.


You're right that it was a career long trend for Malone and Stockton(while I objected the Stockton claim, there's an answer in that very thread)

I briefly considered doing it by career percentages on the theory were are assessing play under pressure and since we are comparing RS to PO, we are still comparing apples to apples in the sense of the same player each year. Ultimately, I thought it would not have credibility to do it that way, given how people would react, and there is some impact as players age and can't get easy buckets anymore. It would have been easier to simply do career numbers--much quicker. :lol


Pippen, excluding injuries, isn't one of them. He always delivered one way or another. That's why 3ball only brings forth PPG on raw FG, because that helps his points, but again, why should I argue with him?

The reason I respond to him at times is he often sets the tone for other MJ stans. His role is to push the "Overton window" so he will compare Pippen to Roberson and someone else will disagree but draw the line at Iggy. His BS about percentages, choking have become articles of faith among many posters. He had had some success among MJ fans and a handful of others. His/their problem is it is backfiring with everyone else.


*There's another post about that by me somewhere, where I said there's no first option in the history of the league ever that felt having to shoot more is a burden. Most of them have to be told to shoot less. That's why Pippen was the ideal running mate for Jordan. He was content putting up 20ppg, but doing everything else. If I was a starplayer(non PG) and had to choose a teammate it would be between him or Bill Russell, but 3ball acts like it's better to have a teammate that doesn't do much, but score, which actually takes something away from your game...which leads me back to Melo.

His nature is to have the ball for as much as possible to take ill advised post or face up isos on low efficiency. That's not a player I wish upon Scottie. He needs someone who does quick decisions, when he gets the ball.

Great points.


I denounced your post, because all I ever hear from you is Jordan stan this, Jordan stan that. Maybe I interpreted your intention wrong, but as I said your paranoia is getting pretty annoying.

I responded in the other thread. It isn't meant that 100% of those posters are--it doesn't matter if 70, 80, 85 percent of them are--and they are all echoing the same TP that are wildly out of the consensus.


There are like 42372184375 Lebron stans/trolls(not talking about legit fans like RRR or AW) on here posting the same drivel all day, but you're hung up on the few MJ stans left.

The difference between MJ stans and other stans is all are zealots but MJ stans are willing to deceive and even lie in a way I have never seen from another fan base--and I'm not talking basketball but other sports.

[Reggie43]

If they were actually in their primes they would have won quite easily regardless of fit.

Agreed

[Overdrive]

My beef was the attack on my credibility. I make a good faith effort to approximate primes and take the time to look at their resumes, not just post stats. There will never be 100% agreement since the NBA doesn't officially certify primes. Even with you, your disagreement was 1 year out of an 9 year time frame.


I didn't really check the other players, also Barkley is a bit of a bias case for me, some say he was already on the decline in '93, didn't see it live, but during the '99 lockout playoffs from '80 up until '98 were rerun and Barkley became less physical over time. Shaq is pretty similar. He declined during the '04 RS, but had a good finals series. Good '05 season, decent '06 season up to the CF, but was a decoy in the finals. As said in the other thread some player decline, statistically on a game to game basis. That's why I think checking stats for each season is pretty interesting, while they don't do much careerwise.



I briefly considered doing it by career percentages on the theory were are assessing play under pressure and since we are comparing RS to PO, we are still comparing apples to apples in the sense of the same player each year. Ultimately, I thought it would not have credibility to do it that way, given how people would react, and there is some impact as players age and can't get easy buckets anymore. It would have been easier to simply do career numbers--much quicker. :lol

I thought that rTS% point was pretty nice. I like putting things in context.



The reason I respond to him at times is he often sets the tone for other MJ stans. His role is to push the "Overton window" so he will compare Pippen to Roberson and someone else will disagree but draw the line at Iggy. His BS about percentages, choking have become articles of faith among many posters. He had had some success among MJ fans and a handful of others. His/their problem is it is backfiring with everyone else.

I think he's unbareable and not worth responding to, because there will never come anything constructive from his posts and if anyone genuinly sucks up his points(not to troll others) they're not worth talking to either.



Great points.


There's an exception. I think Lebron/Kyrie was the antithesis. Lebron is basically a GOAT level Pippen and Kyrie the quick decision shooter who doesn't do much else than scorer, but that worked out so, well. Still mad they broke up. Loved their '16 chip.



I responded in the other thread. It isn't meant that 100% of those posters are--it doesn't matter if 70, 80, 85 percent of them are--and they are all echoing the same TP that are wildly out of the consensus.



The difference between MJ stans and other stans is all are zealots but MJ stans are willing to deceive and even lie in a way I have never seen from another fan base--and I'm not talking basketball but other sports.

I got to disagree here. Most talk here is based on selfperpetuing bullshit like 3/9 or 1-9. The BS doesn't differ much.

[ELITEpower23]

Carmelo makes them worse.

The Knicks played down to their competition.

Let's not forger Starks was an all-star but got hurt in the middle of the season. Began getting back his legs in the Finals, but he jacked up shots and the Knicks lost.

Knicks still had to play down to beat the Bulls in 7. So Ray Allen is what the Bulls would need, and then it'd be a real contest in the Finals.

Worse how?? Just use the patented 3ball formula. Ppg to determine value.

Compare Pete Myers ppg and Carmello's ppg.

Also what about Klay Thompson instead of Pete Myers?

[Reggie43]

Lebrontard who is the premier Jordan hater on Ish with a ruse of liking Pippen is worried about his credibility :lol

[Whoah10115]

Worse how?? Just use the patented 3ball formula. Ppg to determine value.

Compare Pete Myers ppg and Carmello's ppg.

Also what about Klay Thompson instead of Pete Myers?

They'd likely beat the Knicks, who were hobbled. Don't think they beat Houston.

[ELITEpower23]

They'd likely beat the Knicks, who were hobbled. Don't think they beat Houston.

Oh you're kidding, the 94 Rockets had no scoring aside from Akeem. They would have no chance against the 94 bulls with Klay Thompson.

[3ball]

.
MJ needed 33% usage at 125 ortg to win in 1996

Melo's best is 31% usage and 116 ortg in 2009

So Melo isn't good enough

It's interesting because only the 96' and 91' rings show mj with human usage levels - so those are the only rings that others could win based on the srats alone..

but the 91' ring required a long 89' playoff run to set that up - only MJ could've won those series in 1989, so only MJ could win the 91 ring (only MJ beat top 5 SRS opponents with poor scoring and efficiency from sidekick, so only he could beat the #1 SRS Cavs in 89')

[Whoah10115]

Oh you're kidding, the 94 Rockets had no scoring aside from Akeem. They would have no chance against the 94 bulls with Klay Thompson.

Well they should have had no chance against the Knicks. But Patrick shot the ball poorly and 18.9PPG.

You don't think Pippen could have also struggled? Couldn't Thompson have struggled? Why do you assume that they wouldn't?

Not to mention, again, that plug and play isn't where it's at. Pippen was much better in 93/94 than he had eber been before, and so was Horace. Even BJ, tho he shouldn't have been an all-star.

Why do you think Armstrong would have been as good if you got another player to eat ahead of him? You're not just adding the difference from Klay's PPG to Myers' PPG. Or even just the defense.

And again, the Knicks went to 7 with a hobbled Starks, plus a Derek Harper that was still trying to fit in. Starks was better in the Finals, physically, and Harper overall. Riley really blew the offense, I think. Should have made adjustments and forced Ewing into the spotlight.

But Thompson isn't going to be himself in that Bulls offense..at least not a full version. And if you play that slow down style, Starks and Harper are gonna bash him around and he'll be limited, so the more I think of it the more I wonder if they do beat the Knicks.

If the offense isn't as slow it changes everything. But don't assume he's plugged in just plays. Sometimes the difference between winning and losing is more than just the two or three points you lose by..

Not always.

[ELITEpower23]

.
MJ needed 33% usage at 125 ortg to win in 1996

Melo's best is 31% usage and 116 ortg in 2009

So Melo isn't good enough

It's interesting because only the 96' and 91' rings show mj with human usage levels - so those are the only rings that others could win based on the srats alone..

but the 91' ring required a long 89' playoff run to set that up - only MJ could've won those series in 1989, so only MJ could win the 91 ring (only MJ beat top 5 SRS opponents with poor scoring and efficiency from sidekick, so only he could beat the #1 SRS Cavs in 89')

You male no sense. He 'needed' that? No. He wanted that
He was a ballhog.

If the 1994 Bulls got Klay Thompson instead of Pete Myers (MJ's replacement) they win in 1994. 100%

[trada7029]

You male no sense. He 'needed' that? No. He wanted that
He was a ballhog.

If the 1994 Bulls got Klay Thompson instead of Pete Myers (MJ's replacement) they win in 1994. 100%

I'm afraid that I'm must concur with 3ball here, and I'm not a fan of 3ball

But take a guy like lebron - he uses about 30% of possessions at a 116 ortg (points produced per possesssion).. but why not use 35% of possessions?? That's like 5 more possessions per game.. why not DO MORE... you're knocking MJ for doing more - using more possessions at better efficiency (35% of possessions at 118 ortg)

And why didn't lebron DO MORE??... it's because he can't - specifically, he lacks the jumpshooting skill required to play efficiently at high volume (high volume requires more jumpers).. the only time he had jordan-level usage and shot volume (2015), he shot like garbage.. so he generally opts to DO LESS, hence the lower career usage.

Using 5 less possessions per game easily explains losses like the game 1 or 3 of the 18' Finals, or 2-4 of the 07' Finals

[light]

94 Pippen would probably do him like he did Charles Barkley in 1999. Remember that feud?

Chuck and Melo have some similarities.

So just replace "Charles" with "Melo" in these Pippen quotes from 1999 and it would probably be the same thing:


I was shocked to see what type of player he was by spending half a season with him. I’m a guy that’s dedicated to winning, and I put out a lot of effort on the court. I expect that from my teammates, especially from a guy of his caliber.

You know, he’s not willing to go the distance. He doesn't show the desire to want to win.

[Melo] is definitely one of the guys that needs to show more leadership for this ball club to be successful, and he don’t show that to me. He feels that if he gets 10 rebounds and double-figure points, he’s done a good job. But that’s not what the game’s about. It’s about defending, being professional and coming to work every day.

I wouldn’t give [Carmelo Anthony] an apology at gunpoint. He can never expect an apology from me. If anything, he owes me an apology for coming to play with his fat butt.

[light]

I'm afraid that I'm must concur with 3ball here, and I'm not a fan of 3ball

But take a guy like lebron - he uses about 30% of possessions at a 116 ortg (points produced per possesssion).. but why not use 35% of possessions?? That's like 5 more possessions per game.. why not DO MORE... you're knocking MJ for doing more - using more possessions at better efficiency (35% of possessions at 118 ortg)

And why didn't lebron DO MORE??... it's because he can't - specifically, he lacks the jumpshooting skill required to play efficiently at high volume (high volume requires more jumpers).. the only time he had jordan-level usage and shot volume (2015), he shot like garbage.. so he generally opts to DO LESS, hence the lower career usage.

Using 5 less possessions per game easily explains losses like the game 1 or 3 of the 18' Finals, or 2-4 of the 07' Finals

I don’t know if you know this but in the analytics world if a player’s usage percentage is that high it means there’s a problem with the offense.

In fact, Phil Jackson’s goal was to reduce Jordan’s usage percentage as much as humanly possible from the 39% and 38% it was from 1986 and 1987 to something that they could actually win with.

So Jackson was able to reduce Jordan’s usage percentage to 32 and 31 range in the regular season - which is better for team success, obviously, and which also happens to be LeBron’s usage percentage.

If you notice, Jordan’s playoff usage percentage was most optimal in 1991 and in 1996. 32.7 and 32.9. LeBron-esque. 1991 was the year that MJ’s teammates praised him for finally being unselfish, and the year he finally got over the hump. And 1996 capped a dreamy 72-10 comeback season with a championship. Everyone was happy.

But 1992 and 1993 and 1997 and 1998 saw MJ revert back to his old habits and it also saw his team revert back to complaining about him ball-hogging, even to the point where Phil Jackson had to yell at Jordan to pass to open teammates in the Finals.

PJ: “Michael, who’s open!?”

MJ: “John.”

PJ: “Well pass him the ****ing ball you moron!”

(I’m paraphrasing there)

Pippen also had some choice words in those years.

In general, the higher Jordan’s usage percentage was, the worse off the health of his team was. The higher Jordan's usage percentage was, the more discontent there was on his team and with his coaching staff.

LeBron's high usage percentage from 2015 was also a sign of problems, obviously.

In short, LeBron’s naturally lower usage percentage is one of the reasons he’s considered a better player by so many people. It is closer to the ideal. It is what Phil Jackson was trying to get Jordan (and Kobe) to do for so many years.

Jordan's natural usage percentage would be something like 39%. Wonderful for individual scoring but a total disaster otherwise.

Phil Jackson, The Last Season, pg. 49:

”I would prefer that Kobe [and Jordan] step to the edge of the precipice, draw the requisite double-team, and then find the open man for a much better look. In almost every possession, an open shot is the highest percentage shot."

[Whoah10115]

I don't get how anyone is gonna call Jordan a ballhog, given how much he plays off the ball.

That's genuinely nuts. Especially comparing to almost ANY great player today.

[Roundball_Rock]

Super team lol. Olajuwon and Barkley were well past their primes and in the twilight of their careers.

:lol The same "super team" went 41-41 with Drexler in place of Pippen the year before and sucked again after Pippen left (Barkley got hurt after 20 games but they were 6-14 at that point).


I'm afraid that I'm must concur with 3ball here, and I'm not a fan of 3ball

You are 3ball. :roll:


You male no sense. He 'needed' that? No. He wanted that
He was a ballhog.

He "needed" that on the Dream Team and all-star teams to--had to carry all those scrubs! :bowdown:


That's why I think checking stats for each season is pretty interesting, while they don't do much careerwise.

You are going to get hit no matter what when you do that stuff. I did what you said since the stats were similar to 96' and included 97' and 98' for MJ, years where he was 2nd and 1st in MVP. MJ fans complained that they should be excluded. In the very same thread, LeBron fans complained and argued the opposite--for a broader definition that would include 17' and 18' for him (they wanted to get his playoff numbers into the sample).

We can always tweak numbers by a year or two and compare--but the fact is when you are talking 7, 8, 9 or 10 year samples a year here or there doesn't produce a drastic difference--unless it is a very high or very low year.

Re 94' Rockets, the 94' Bulls with Pete Myers at SG played the 94' Knicks to a draw who played the 94' Rockets to a draw. Basketball doesn't always work that way but people keep talking as if the 94' Rockets were on another tier than their opponents. They weren't. The Suns took them to 7 too. There was parity among 5-6 good teams (Bulls being one) in the NBA in 94' with MJ gone.

[HoopsNY]

I generally agree. It was damning that Denver got better after ditching Carmelo. :lol The scenario where he could help IMO is a great defensive team that can mask his defensive deficiencies, a team with a strong system and culture that can prevent or limit his ball hogging, etc. Both the 90's Bulls and Thibs-era Bulls fit those descriptions. Maybe it wouldn't work but if there is any context where Carmelo could have team success it would be this type of scenario.

The problem is team defensive dynamics don't often work that way when talking about help defense. Carmelo is bad in every way when it comes to defense and would have probably disrupted the Bulls' defensive abilities as well.

He's not the type of player to adjust into a system or take coaching. It's sad but every generation has players like him. They're solid individual players with specific skillsets (Westbrook, Iverson, Stackhouse, Arenas, Melo), but they don't offer anything other than effective playground basketball.

[BigShotBob]

The '94 Bull weren't championship contenders. Losing in the second round means that you're a treadmill team at best.

[Rico2016]

The '94 Bull weren't championship contenders. Losing in the second round means that you're a treadmill team at best.

The Chicago Bulls lost "the greatest player ever" in 1994 known as Michael Jordan at the SG position. Filled his shoes with 6 points per game Pete Myers. What if instead of shedding dead weight MJ for Pete Myers they picked up Klay Thompson. How many rings do they get?

[HoopsNY]

Would Pippen tolerate Carmelo's ballhogging ways? That shit would have never happened because we all know Pippen was a better player who always tried to play the right way and Melo is the antithesis of that.

As the other poster said fit matters, Melo and AI make look good on paper but they are not really that good of a match in terms of winning basketball especially in the playoffs. Another is the Pippen, Barkley, Olajuwon pairing that was dubbed a superteam but blew up spectacularly because players were not wholeheartedly willing to sacrifice their game for one another thus creating tension.

I don't think Phil would have. For one, how would he have faired in a system that is anti-ISO ball? Melo would have had to learn that system and last time I checked, learning and adapting wasn't his strong suit.

[HoopsNY]

I don't get how anyone is gonna call Jordan a ballhog, given how much he plays off the ball.

That's genuinely nuts. Especially comparing to almost ANY great player today.

It would be unfair to consider him a ball hog from 1989 onward. But from 1984-88? He definitely was ball dominant if not a ball hog.

I'm one of the few people you'll hear say that MJ underachieved. If MJ adapts more to a team system earlier on in his career, then players may have developed faster and or better, possibly resulting in better results come 1989 and 1990. But that's MJ's fault, really.

[Whoah10115]

The problem is team defensive dynamics don't often work that way when talking about help defense. Carmelo is bad in every way when it comes to defense and would have probably disrupted the Bulls' defensive abilities as well.

He's not the type of player to adjust into a system or take coaching. It's sad but every generation has players like him. They're solid individual players with specific skillsets (Westbrook, Iverson, Stackhouse, Arenas, Melo), but they don't offer anything other than effective playground basketball.

Wouldn't compare him to Arenas, as he made teams worse. Stackhouse wasn't even a special player.

Wouldn't compare to Westbrook either because he can drive a team. And Iverson, chucker or not, is a proper great player.

[Roundball_Rock]

The problem is team defensive dynamics don't often work that way when talking about help defense. Carmelo is bad in every way when it comes to defense and would have probably disrupted the Bulls' defensive abilities as well.

He's not the type of player to adjust into a system or take coaching. It's sad but every generation has players like him. They're solid individual players with specific skillsets (Westbrook, Iverson, Stackhouse, Arenas, Melo), but they don't offer anything other than effective playground basketball.

Good points. It is a shame, we never saw it put to the test. Imagine Rose, an emergent Butler, Carmelo with Noah (no Gasol under this scenario). Maybe Carmelo nukes the team chemistry and defense but maybe it works. That team was a shot away from a 3-1 lead over the Cavs with Gasol there instead of Carmelo (Carmelo the better talent but arguably Gasol was a better fit for the team).

[HoopsNY]

Wouldn't compare him to Arenas, as he made teams worse. Stackhouse wasn't even a special player.

Wouldn't compare to Westbrook either because he can drive a team. And Iverson, chucker or not, is a proper great player.

I wasn't trying to say they're all the same players in every sense of the word. Rather, they have stark similarities when it comes to being team cancers, focusing on ISO-ball, lacking leadership, etc. Melo is one of those guys who fits that script. AI was the best of them all, but he could have been much more. I mean, he kept talkin bout practice mayn.

[HoopsNY]

Good points. It is a shame, we never saw it put to the test. Imagine Rose, an emergent Butler, Carmelo with Noah (no Gasol under this scenario). Maybe Carmelo nukes the team chemistry and defense but maybe it works. That team was a shot away from a 3-1 lead over the Cavs with Gasol there instead of Carmelo (Carmelo the better talent but arguably Gasol was a better fit for the team).

Yea. That's something we can all imagine. But something tells me Melo would mess it up. I had a big debate with some friends who think Melo is one of the greatest players of all time (as in top 25). They're young (all under 28), and the excuses piled up.

For one, they claimed if you replaced Kobe with Melo in 2008 and 2009, then Melo is winning chips in both years. I vehemently disagreed. There were so many things that they overlooked, Kobe's defense being the biggest one. They also claimed he never played under a great coach (as if George Karl is chicken shit), and never had quality PGs (ahem, Andre Miller, Chauncey Billups, Russell Westbrook?).

I think this generation has fallen in love with ISO-ball since the era of the coaching and systems has slowly but surely disappeared.

[tpols]

he'd probably get pissy and sit out a play in the playoffs when melo got the nod for a last shot. (as he was a much better shooter/scorer)

[imdaman99]

I remember someone making a thread about if you replaced Myers with Derozan, the Bulls would have gone all the way and I refuted saying they prob get worse because Derozan becomes a net negative once he plays a tough defensive team in the playoffs. Of course that thread he heard similar responses.

Melo is definitely better than Derozan especially in the playoffs but he also is someone that does NOT mesh with any other stars. Pippen does, and the Bulls barely scraped by against the Knicks the year before with Jordan. I'm sorry but Melo is no Jordan. You can't just throw someone like Melo in a vacuum on a team with Pippen and assume Pippen would have the same impact as he did without him. Melo does not work well with stars, he's not that type. Pippen will get worse with him, especially if Melo puts up the share of shots he usually does.

[HoopsNY]

I remember someone making a thread about if you replaced Myers with Derozan, the Bulls would have gone all the way and I refuted saying they prob get worse because Derozan becomes a net negative once he plays a tough defensive team in the playoffs. Of course that thread he heard similar responses.

Melo is definitely better than Derozan especially in the playoffs but he also is someone that does NOT mesh with any other stars. Pippen does, and the Bulls barely scraped by against the Knicks the year before with Jordan. I'm sorry but Melo is no Jordan. You can't just throw someone like Melo in a vacuum on a team with Pippen and assume Pippen would have the same impact as he did without him. Melo does not work well with stars, he's not that type. Pippen will get worse with him, especially if Melo puts up the share of shots he usually does.

I remember you saying this and you were spot on. For one, the intangibles have to be factored in and they often get overlooked. Basketball isn't a plug and play and in this case, it's one of those examples that proves itself.

If it were a plug and play, then the Blazers would have won in 2000 and the Mavs would have won a title in the 2000s. Those were stacked teams and just adding stars to lineups doesn't automatically equate to success. No better example of this than the Miami Heat from 2010-2014.

[Turbo Slayer]

Melo is an interesting case. He's a good scorer but he doesn't bring anything to the table other than 1-dimensional scoring ability. He's not elite in any category whatsoever. He would at best add limited value to the Bulls.

[ImKobe]

Melo leads the Bulls to the Finals but they lose to the Rockets.

[Roundball_Rock]

If it were a plug and play, then the Blazers would have won in 2000 and the Mavs would have won a title in the 2000s. Those were stacked teams and just adding stars to lineups doesn't automatically equate to success.

The Blazers had a bunch of past their prime stars in addition to a young Rasheed yet they still almost beat peak Shaq and prime Kobe. That isn't a good example. If those players were two years younger the same team would easily win. Mavs likely win if they keep Nash. Heatles are a good example relative to on paper, add the 13' Lakers.

Generally, though, talent wins out. The cases of the 13' Lakers are less common than the KD Warriors or 96' Bulls (Rodman added--talk about a potential chemistry killer) where it works.


Yea. That's something we can all imagine. But something tells me Melo would mess it up. I had a big debate with some friends who think Melo is one of the greatest players of all time (as in top 25). They're young (all under 28), and the excuses piled up.

Perhaps but it would have been worth the risk.


For one, they claimed if you replaced Kobe with Melo in 2008 and 2009, then Melo is winning chips in both years. I vehemently disagreed. There were so many things that they overlooked, Kobe's defense being the biggest one.

One issue with the Kobe stuff is whenever he missed time his team's record basically didn't change. For example, in 2010 they went 6-3 without him--the same win rate as with him. So we hear he has this huge impact but his teams don't skip a beat without him. I suspect it is because the offense simply ran more efficiently with more ball movement with Kobe not there to consume 25 shots a game, good or bad.


I remember someone making a thread about if you replaced Myers with Derozan, the Bulls would have gone all the way and I refuted saying they prob get worse because Derozan becomes a net negative once he plays a tough defensive team in the playoffs

DeRozan: 21.9 playoff PPG for his career
Myers: 3.6 playoff PPG for his career
Carmelo: 24.5 playoff PPG for his career

22 PPG is a net negative compared to Pete Myers? :wtf:

The OP was a good Rorschach test. Pete Myers was arguably the worst starter in the NBA in 94'. If you replace him with an all-star, do they improve? The answer is obvious but 94' Bulls haters (and it is obvious why certain people would hate a random team from 26 years ago) can't bring themselves to say that.


Melo leads the Bulls

Speaking of 94' Bulls haters. :oldlol:

[ImKobe]

Speaking of 94' Bulls haters. :oldlol:

There's nothing to hate here. Melo's game is built for being a #1 option in that era. He'd get the most shots/touches and he would be the one closing games. He's nowhere near as good as Jordan so they'd come up short in the Finals.

[Roundball_Rock]

"Lead" implies best player, not leading scorer.

[Hey Yo]

Melo is an interesting case. He's a good scorer but he doesn't bring anything to the table other than 1-dimensional scoring ability. He's not elite in any category whatsoever. He would at best add limited value to the Bulls.
For a shooting guard, he was a pretty good rebounder for the majority of his career.

[HoopsNY]

The Blazers had a bunch of past their prime stars in addition to a young Rasheed yet they still almost beat peak Shaq and prime Kobe. That isn't a good example. If those players were two years younger the same team would easily win. Mavs likely win if they keep Nash. Heatles are a good example relative to on paper, add the 13' Lakers.

The point that I was trying to make is that if professional basketball was as formulaic as (insert player here) + (current players here) to = NBA finals appearance or title success, then there are a host of teams that should have done much better than they did.

That was just one example with the Blazers. Sure Scottie, Schrempf, and Sabonis were older. But Sheed was an all-star and 25, Stoudemire 26, Smith 30, Grant 27, Wells 23, and Anthony 32.

The following season they went after and got Dale Davis and Shawn Kemp to put bigger bodies down low to counter Shaq. It did nothing, really. In fact, it made them worse, lol.

Basically, there are a variety of factors at play when we talk about adding players, even if they're all-stars or quality players on paper.


One issue with the Kobe stuff is whenever he missed time his team's record basically didn't change. For example, in 2010 they went 6-3 without him--the same win rate as with him. So we hear he has this huge impact but his teams don't skip a beat without him. I suspect it is because the offense simply ran more efficiently with more ball movement with Kobe not there to consume 25 shots a game, good or bad.

You're right about that, but putting together deep playoff runs and managing playoff intensity, particular in the finals, is a different beast all together. When you throw in defensive schemes, it's even more crucial. I just don't think Carmelo was ever built like that, particularly on the defensive end.


The OP was a good Rorschach test. Pete Myers was arguably the worst starter in the NBA in 94'. If you replace him with an all-star, do they improve? The answer is obvious but 94' Bulls haters (and it is obvious why certain people would hate a random team from 26 years ago) can't bring themselves to say that.

I do think it depends on the all-star. Remember the Jim Jackson-Jamal Mashburn-Jason Kidd fiasco? Having stars work together isn't always easy and team cohesion is extremely important when trying to make a championship run.

[Roundball_Rock]

The point that I was trying to make is that if professional basketball was as formulaic as (insert player here) + (current players here) to = NBA finals appearance or title success, then there are a host of teams that should have done much better than they did.

True--although generally talent wins out. The OP is an extreme case, like the DeRozan thread: replace the worst starter in the NBA with a multiple all-star. Yet we have a litany of people saying the team would get worse. People don't realize how bad Myers was. There is a reason he wasn't going to be on a NBA roster if MJ didn't retire in October (if he retired earlier the Bulls would have signed a real replacement--it was perfect timing for Myers).


Sure Scottie, Schrempf, and Sabonis were older. But Sheed was an all-star and 25, Stoudemire 26, Smith 30, Grant 27, Wells 23, and Anthony 32.

Those guys were good--only Wallace was a star. Brian Grant, Bonzi Wells, Anthony were nothing to write home about.

Pippen, Schrempf, Sabonis declining more than makes up any growth a Wallace had between 23-25.


The following season they went after and got Dale Davis and Shawn Kemp to put bigger bodies down low to counter Shaq. It did nothing, really.

Kemp was 7/4/1 by that point in his career.

The 2000's Blazers were like the 2000 Redskins. Having Bruce Smith and Deion Sanders would be great--in their primes. Pippen, Kemp, Schrempf, Sabonis along with Wallace in their primes would be a super team.


I do think it depends on the all-star. Remember the Jim Jackson-Jamal Mashburn-Jason Kidd fiasco? Having stars work together isn't always easy and team cohesion is extremely important when trying to make a championship run.

It would be interesting to look at these cases and see what the "success" rate is--especially if broken down by playoff teams and bad teams. I suspect already good teams can absorb a star better than a team like the Mavericks. The Warriors, Raptors, Spurs (internal growth) all successfully did it. Miami had some issues. The 13' Lakers crashed and burned.

[Whoah10115]

The point that I was trying to make is that if professional basketball was as formulaic as (insert player here) + (current players here) to = NBA finals appearance or title success, then there are a host of teams that should have done much better than they did.

That was just one example with the Blazers. Sure Scottie, Schrempf, and Sabonis were older. But Sheed was an all-star and 25, Stoudemire 26, Smith 30, Grant 27, Wells 23, and Anthony 32.

The following season they went after and got Dale Davis and Shawn Kemp to put bigger bodies down low to counter Shaq. It did nothing, really. In fact, it made them worse, lol.

Basically, there are a variety of factors at play when we talk about adding players, even if they're all-stars or quality players on paper.



You're right about that, but putting together deep playoff runs and managing playoff intensity, particular in the finals, is a different beast all together. When you throw in defensive schemes, it's even more crucial. I just don't think Carmelo was ever built like that, particularly on the defensive end.



I do think it depends on the all-star. Remember the Jim Jackson-Jamal Mashburn-Jason Kidd fiasco? Having stars work together isn't always easy and team cohesion is extremely important when trying to make a championship run.

The things he says are remarkable. Claiming people hate a random team from 26 years ago, when he deliberately chooses to focus on that team to try and make some larger, non-existent point.

And he doesn't really care what you write. 3ball is cool, because he goes from saying Pippen is overrated to saying Roberson is a better player, and obsesses over the different players who would lead Jordan to a 3peat before his 3peat.

And he shouldn't be banned, but embraced as it's too ridiculous to not enjoy.

Roundball_Rock is the archetype for what dooms any message board.

[HoopsNY]

True--although generally talent wins out. The OP is an extreme case, like the DeRozan thread: replace the worst starter in the NBA with a multiple all-star. Yet we have a litany of people saying the team would get worse. People don't realize how bad Myers was. There is a reason he wasn't going to be on a NBA roster if MJ didn't retire in October (if he retired earlier the Bulls would have signed a real replacement--it was perfect timing for Myers).

I don't believe they would get worse. I just don't think they would necessarily get better. W/L is weird in that a team doesn't always live up to expectations and sometimes they even overachieve. The Bulls won 57 games in 1992-93, which to me was underachieving.

But to add on to my point about teams like the Blazers and Mavs, we also can see this with individual players. The 76ers added Wilt in 1965 and went 18-16, and ended up losing in the 2nd round of the playoffs.

The Rockets added Pippen in 1999 and it yielded no results, really. The main reason? Lack of cohesion between Pippen and Barkley.

The Lakers added Shaq and went from a 53 win team that got bounced in the 1st round to a 56 win team that got bounced in the 2nd round.

The Lakers added Glen Rice in 1999 and got bounced by the Spurs. I guess my point is that winning isn't formulaic using statistical variables. If that were the case, then we would see drastically different outcomes.

The Lakers also added Malone and Payton in 2003-04. Look how that turned out.


Kemp was 7/4/1 by that point in his career.

Kemp was an 18/9 player before Portland got him and the Pacers landed Dale Davis who was an all-star in 2000. The point was that, again, if this was as formulaic as some make it, then the moves Portland made would have yielded better results.

[RRR3]

If they can get Melo to buy into team ball, they'd have a great chance at the ring. If he doesn't, it wouldn't end well.

[HoopsNY]

Kemp was an 18/9 player before Portland got him and the Pacers landed Dale Davis who was an all-star in 2000. The point was that, again, if this was as formulaic as some make it, then the moves Portland made would have yielded better results.

Meant to say the Blazers also landed Dale Davis*

[HoopsNY]

If they can get Melo to buy into team ball, they'd have a great chance at the ring. If he doesn't, it wouldn't end well.

Melo is ball dominant and doesn't move well without it. He'd have to essentially change the fundamentals of his game in order to adapt, together with learning a new system. I don't believe he was ever capable of that.

[Roundball_Rock]

I don't believe they would get worse. I just don't think they would necessarily get better. W/L is weird in that a team doesn't always live up to expectations and sometimes they even overachieve.

Without Pippen they were terrible offensively, averaging only 87 PPG in those games (the worst scoring team in the league averaged 95). That shows their poor offense minus Pippen. Instead, replace Myers with Carmelo. A scrub with an all-time great scorer.


The Rockets added Pippen in 1999 and it yielded no results, really.

A past his prime Pippen but there was an impact. Keep in mind Drexler was on the 98' team so we are basically comparing Hakeem/Barkley with Pippen versus Drexler.

1998 Rockets: 41 wins with a -1.23 SRS (19th best SRS)
1999 Rockets: 51 win pace with a +1.39 SRS (14th best SRS)
2000 Rockets: 34-48 with a -0.57 SRS (19th best SRS)

Barkley got hurt early in the 00' season but they were only 6-14 at that point anyway.

A similar trend occurred with Portland.

2003 Blazers with Pippen: 41-23 (53 win pace)
2003 Blazers w/out Pippen: 9-9 (41 win pace)
2004 Blazers after Pippen: 41-41

So the 18 game sample was exactly what happened over a full season that next year.

Similar impacts. A 10-12 win improvement, both teams go to the lottery the next year.


The Lakers added Shaq and went from a 53 win team that got bounced in the 1st round to a 56 win team that got bounced in the 2nd round.

Shaq is GOAT-level team impact. They added Shaq but lost Ceballos and Divac. Plus Shaq missed 31 games.

1997 Lakers with Shaq: 38-13 (61 win pace)
1997 Lakers w/out Shaq: 18-8 (57 win pace)

So a small impact actually--but this is an outlier and you have Shaq coming in with two starters departing so other moving parts. Ceballos was 21 PPG in 96'. It isn't Shaq being added to the same core.


The Lakers added Glen Rice in 1999 and got bounced by the Spurs

They actually got worse. From 61 wins to a 51 win pace, from a +6.9 SRS to +2.7.


The Lakers also added Malone and Payton in 2003-04. Look how that turned out.

That was a net plus. They went from 50 wins, a SRS of +2.7 and the WCSF to 58 wins, a SRS of +4.4 and the finals. So they didn't live up to the hype but the team improved.


Kemp was an 18/9 player before Portland got him and the Pacers landed Dale Davis who was an all-star in 2000

Kemp did it on horrific efficiency but he in theory should have been fine as a #3 or #4 option. He went off the rails personally, getting fat and his season ended early with him going to drug rehab.


The point was that, again, if this was as formulaic as some make it, then the moves Portland made would have yielded better results.

Portland had the best record in the conference (42-18) before they traded for Rod Strickland but went into a tail spin after that (8-17). He was past his prime but he supports your theory.

Generally speaking, though, most of the cases mentioned here delivered improvements, even if not as much as expected. All the players were are talking about here were viable starters replacing viable starters. The OP talks about Pete Myers, who sucked.

[Smoke117]

Kemp was an 18/9 player before Portland got him and the Pacers landed Dale Davis who was an all-star in 2000. The point was that, again, if this was as formulaic as some make it, then the moves Portland made would have yielded better results.

lol Kemp was a huge fat ass who was allowed to do whatever he wanted that last season on the Cavs. Don't say he was averaging 18/9 like he had even half the impact he used to have. His efficiency was complete garbage compared to what it used to be as all his fat ass did was take jumpers and his defense was nonexistent. During that 2001 season the blazer players used to think he was going to die on the court. He'd eventually leave that season to go to rehab. Acting like it had anything to do with fit is hilariously disingenuous. Kemp was just done.

[Roundball_Rock]

People don't realize how bad Myers was. Watch the 95' season Christmas Day game. It is on YouTube and since it is a NBA Hardwood Classics game it is in HD. Myers just flat out throws the ball away three times. :lol

Myers was not even on a NBA roster in 92' and 93'. The Bulls were going to cut him after training camp in 94' until MJ bounced. 94' was his only year as a starter. He was out the NBA again in 97', came back for one year in 98'.

Myers career numbers: 5/2/2 on 48.3% TS
Myers 94' ("peak"): 8/2/3 50.7% TS ("replacing" 33/7/6)
Myers 88'-95' ("prime"): 5/2/2

People are talking like he was a legitimate starting SG.

Myers is a player who would be on your bench at the end of your rotation or off your roster altogether under normal circumstances. He averaged 16 MPG for his career, 18 MPG in his "prime." The Bulls gave him 25 in 94' and 18 in 95'.

Yet people think replacing a scrub like this with Carmelo or DeRozan wouldn't make a difference? Find me another 94' playoff team who had a starting player as bad or worse than Myers.

[Shooter]

In the 1994 ECSF the Bulls faced the Knicks. MJ left for Pete Myers and they nearly won that series off of the following Pete Myers numbers:

6-2-2

Imagine replacing Pete Jordan's 6-2-2 with a Carmelo Anthony or Allen Iverson. I feel they would win the chip that year.

That looks like a wrap to me