LeBron, Jordan Teammates' Game Score Share Comparison (Each Finals) [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

Roundball_Rock

10-23-2020, 12:38 AM

Make of it what you will but here is a universal measure of "help", which is hotly debated as both sides claim the other guy had more help. This also is measured against what others did in the same context, not comparing numbers accrued 25 or 30 years apart in very different eras.

Game Scores: LeBron's Teammates

FINALS TEAM TEAMMATE %

2011 Miami 40%
2007 Cleveland 37%
2012 Miami 37%
2020 L.A. Lakers 36%
2013 Miami 36%
2016 Cleveland 33%
2017 Cleveland 30%
2015 Cleveland 28%
2018 Cleveland 27%
2014 Miami 26%

Game Scores: Jordan's Teammates

FINALS TEAM TEAMMATE %

1996 Chicago 40%
1998 Chicago 38%
1991 Chicago 38%
1992 Chicago 37%
1997 Chicago 33%
1993 Chicago 33%

Jordan's teammates averaged 36% of the total game score in the series during his six Finals appearances, as compared to an average of 33% for LeBron. https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/30100564/are-lebron-james-four-nba-titles-better-michael-jordan-six

It is interesting Jordan's teammates' lowest share is equal to the 16' Cavs, which is middle of the pack for LeBron's teammates.

What is "Game Score":

Game Score was created by John Hollinger to give a rough measure of a player's productivity for a single game. The scale is similar to that of points scored, (40 is an outstanding performance, 10 is an average performance, etc.).

dankok8

10-23-2020, 12:53 AM

Of course Jordan's winning Bulls teams will be better on average than all of Lebron's teams in the Finals including those that lost. That isn't really a revelation.

If you take the 4 years Lebron's teams won titles:

2012 Miami 37%
2013 Miami 36%
2016 Cleveland 33%
2020 Lakers 36%

Average: 35.5% (which is extremely close to Jordan's 36.5%)

Don't forget that Jordan had much more dominant runs. Apart from 1993 and maybe 1998, his teams were never pushed to the brink so he leveraged similar supporting casts to much more dominance. On the other hand, Lebron really sweated out his first three titles. That's an argument one can use against Lebron.

Note the Dallas series in 2011 and Spurs series in 2007. Lebron's teammates played well so even these metrics show he's the one who crapped the bed.

And1AllDay

10-23-2020, 12:56 AM

And1AllDay

10-23-2020, 12:58 AM

Don't forget that Jordan had much more dominant runs. Apart from 1993 and maybe 1998, his teams were never pushed to the brink so he leveraged similar supporting casts to much more dominance. On the other hand, Lebron really sweated out his first three titles. That's an argument one can use against Lebron.

Note the Dallas series in 2011 and Spurs series in 2007. Lebron's teammates played well so even these metrics show he's the one who crapped the bed.

let this sink in deep

brans finals opponents > mikes

brans finals opponent in 2012 (westbrook) as #2 option outscored all of mikes #1 option opponnents :oldlol:

and jimmy butler in 2020 out scored 5 of 6 mike #1 option opponents

its levels to this bruh. mikes competition was in the pee wee league compared to brans competition

your almost getting it

dankok8

10-23-2020, 12:59 AM

your half way there bruh :oldlol:

when stars get help they win, when they dont...they dont

almost full circle :oldlol: keep going your right there

I never blame Lebron for losing. I blame him for the 2007 and 2011 Finals because he should have played much better in those.

And1AllDay

10-23-2020, 01:00 AM

I never blame Lebron for losing. I blame him for the 2007 and 2011 Finals because he should have played much better in those.

2011 was wade and bran

2007 he was 22 years old and should have got his cheeks clapped in the 1st round like good ol mikey for the 1-9 first round sweep legacy saver :oldlol:

Roundball_Rock

10-23-2020, 01:01 AM

your half way there bruh :oldlol:

when stars get help they win, when they dont...they dont

Yup.

To me the consistency is what is most striking, which came up in another thread talking about teammates. The Bulls' worst was 33%. In 4 of 6 finals they were between 37-40%.

LeBron's teams' floor was 26% (and it was actually Miami, not the 07' or 18' Cavs). He had four teams at 30% or below. The variance was 26% to 40%.

If you play fantasy football you know what I'm talking about. There is something to be said for going to your league's Super Bowl and knowing you can rely on a certain level of production from your players, versus the feeling you have with boom or bust players (in which case you probably lost before the chip :lol ).

LAmbruh

10-23-2020, 01:02 AM

don't forget lower fg% and scoring is due to increased defense and violent physicality is being played!

3ball

10-23-2020, 01:02 AM

.

SB Nation analyzes the poor fit between Wade/Lebron

There's a reason Miami is struggling when lebron/wade are on the floor together.. The Spurs' defensive strategy throughout the playoffs has been simple: identify players who aren't good spot-up shooters and help mercilessly off them to cramp the space of penetrators.

Wade has been one of the players San Antonio identified as a poor spot-up shooter that can be helped off mercilessly. That has cramped LeBron's space when the two are in together. The inverse is also true: the Spurs are shrinking Wade's space by helping off LeBron.

However, when one of the two is out of the game in favor of additional perimeter shooting, there's nobody the Spurs can help off, giving LeBron and Wade more space to be themselves and attack San Antonio's air-tight schemes.

https://www.sbnation.com/2013/6/19/4444164/lebron-james-dwyane-wade-heat-spurs-nba-finals-game-6

TLDR: the Spurs forced Wade and Lebron to be spot-up shooters by leaving them open when the other guy drives.. otoh, Jordan was an elite spot-up shooter and off-ball player, so the Spurs couldn't employ their strategy and would lose.. otoh, the Spurs perfected their strategy in 14' and destroyed the Heat

^^^ so lebron reduces teammates - his skill restriction to ball-dominance doesn't fit with various player-types like Wade, Hughes, Ingram, Pippen

dankok8

10-23-2020, 01:03 AM

Yup.

To me the consistency is what is most striking, which came up in another thread talking about teammates. The Bulls' worst was 33%. In 4 of 6 finals they were between 37-40%.

LeBron's teams' floor was 26% (and it was actually Miami, not the 07' or 18' Cavs). He had four teams at 30% or below. The variance was 26% to 40%.

If you play fantasy football you know what I'm talking about. There is something to be said for going to your league's Super Bowl and knowing you can rely on a certain level of production from your players, versus the feeling you have with boom or bust players (in which case you probably lost before the chip :lol ).

What exactly is the argument though? Lebron dragged a bunch of weak teams to the finals... like in 2018. It's because the teams in the East were a joke. And they lost those finals which isn't a surprise and I never blame Lebron for losing to the Warriors in 2018.

dankok8

10-23-2020, 01:05 AM

2011 was wade and bran

2007 he was 22 years old and should have got his cheeks clapped in the 1st round like good ol mikey for the 1-9 first round sweep legacy saver :oldlol:

Mikey had to go through 5 HOFer Celtics teams whereas Lebron went through minnows. Hint: one of them had weak competition.

And1AllDay

10-23-2020, 01:06 AM

don't forget lower fg% and scoring is due to increased defense and violent physicality is being played!

+1

hella violent era

https://i.postimg.cc/8czvy5s8/mjera.png

https://i.postimg.cc/XNs0P7PG/4_fmvp.png

And1AllDay

10-23-2020, 01:07 AM

Mikey had to go through 5 HOFer Celtics teams whereas Lebron went through minnows. Hint: one of them had weak competition.

bran shoulda had his cheeks clapped mikey style with three 1st round exits i guess :confusedshrug:

3ball

10-23-2020, 01:11 AM

What exactly is the argument though? Lebron dragged a bunch of weak teams to the finals... like in 2018. It's because the teams in the East were a joke. And they lost those finals which isn't a surprise and I never blame Lebron for losing to the Warriors in 2018.

They're lauding pippen for outscoring an opposing 2nd option, but lebron's biggest win came with his 2nd option destroying their 1st option

They know that pippen was outscored or matched in 42% of playoff series, with most of those in the biggest series, aka 16 on 40% in 5 ECF, 2 Finals and a 7-game ECSF

he never dominated any matchup... There was always someone comparable to oppose him on the other side..

And1AllDay

10-23-2020, 01:13 AM

They're lauding pippen for outscoring an opposing 2nd option, but lebron's biggest win came with his 2nd option destroying their 1st option

They know that pippen was outscored or matched in 42% of playoff series, with most of those in the biggest series, aka 16 on 40% in 5 ECF, 2 Finals and a 7-game ECSF

he never dominated any matchup... There was always someone comparable to oppose him on the other side..

finals ppgz comparing #2 options
pippen vs opponent #2 option

1991 finals pip out scored #1 and #2 option on lakers by 14.3%
1992 finals pip out scored #2 option on blazers by 28.3%
1993 finals pip out scored #2 option on suns by 23.3%
1996 finals pip was outscored by #2 option on sonics by 14.6%
1997 finals pip out scored #2 option on jazz by 33.3%
1998 finals pip out scored #2 option on jazz by 46.7%

AND WE HAVENT EVEN TALKED DEFENSE, REBOUNDING, ASSIST, STEALS, BLKS, MY BOI

what have you done 3baLLLLLLLL?

3ball

10-23-2020, 01:14 AM

finals ppgz comparing #2 options
pippen vs opponent #2 option

1991 finals pip out scored #1 and #2 option on lakers by 14.3%
1992 finals pip out scored #2 option on blazers by 28.3%
1993 finals pip out scored #2 option on suns by 23.3%
1996 finals pip was outscored by #2 option on sonics by 14.6%
1997 finals pip out scored #2 option on jazz by 33.3%
1998 finals pip out scored #2 option on jazz by 46.7%

what have you done 3baLLLLLLLL?

pippen was outscored or matched in 42% of playoff series, with most of those in the biggest series, aka 16 on 40% in 5 ECF, 2 Finals and a 7-game ECSF

Lebron's #2 had to share with a star #3 so lebron had 2 pippen's sharing

Roundball_Rock

10-23-2020, 01:18 AM

Apart from 1993 and maybe 1998, his teams were never pushed to the brink so he leveraged similar supporting casts to much more dominance

This is a nice story but doesn't hold up. In 92', 93', 97', and 98' the Bulls came within a whisker of being forced to go to a Game 7. Not sure why you are extricating 93' and 98' randomly from the sample.

As to similar supporting casts, we are talking statistical production. There is no real way to capture defensive production in stats. The Bulls' had 3 all-time great defenders plus Harper (the guy who guarded Stockton) in the 1996-1998 period. Stats won't tell you that but the W-L column shows the 1991-1993 team won 61, 67, 57 while the 1996-1998 team won 72, 69, 62 (67 win pace with Pippen).

don't forget lower fg% and scoring is due to increased defense and violent physicality is being played

Yup, which they selectively invoke. :oldlol: Game score is based on what everyone did in a given game (so here we are getting the series averages) so everyone is in the same bucket as far as rules, pace, etc.

What exactly is the argument though? Lebron dragged a bunch of weak teams to the finals... like in 2018

The lowest team wasn't 2018. It wasn't 2007. It was the Heat...

It's because the teams in the East were a joke.

So we are to credit Kyrie Irving for outplaying the #1's on "joke" teams but not the Cavs for beating the same teams? :confusedshrug:

2015 Love was out for the final three rounds. Irving was out half the ECF and did little when he played. Was that LeBron "carrying" against joke competition? The Hawks had 4 all-stars (MJ never faced a team with 4 all-stars; LeBron has done it in 15' and 12'). The Bulls had Butler, Gasol, Rose, and Noah. If MJ fans are going to hype Price, Daughtery, Nance then surely Butler, Gasol, Rose, and Noah are legitimate competition.

07' is shaky as well. The Nets had Kidd and Carter, granted they were a .500 team but the Cavs themselves were a 50 win team so we aren't talking a massive difference. Even if we say the Nets sucked, the Pistons can't be described that way. The Pistons made the ECF every year from 2003-2008 and won a chip and made another finals in the middle of the run. The narrative is they were washed in 07'--but they had the second best record in the NBA, made the ECF, and played the Celtics tougher than the Lakers did the very next year.

Moreover, LeBron did it with getting nothing from an injured Hughes, his #2 option, in the ECF. Hughes was 7/3/2.

A lot of this is excuse making to diminish Jordan not being able to do the same and MJ has to be>LeBron in everything. Are we going to say MJ would have made a finals with Grant/Rodman out the ECSF/ECF and Pippen out half the ECF and ineffective in the other half? Or getting 7/3/2 from Pippen in an ECF?

We can say he would have, but we know the answer. We saw the Bulls without Grant/Rodman in 95'...

Mikey had to go through 5 HOFer Celtics teams whereas

Being the 8 seed has consequences. LeBron's teams are at a 50+ win level each year from 2006 on, except for 19' (they were 45-37 in 08' but that is because they went 0-7 w/out LeBron. They had a 50 win pace with him).

3ball

10-23-2020, 01:22 AM

GrayGoat

10-23-2020, 01:26 AM

And1AllDay

10-23-2020, 01:27 AM

Pippen is the only shitty player that people say is a star - no other 16/5 bricklayer is considered a star

No one with pippen's playoff performance or weak peak capability is considered a star

Only MJ elevated this bum and the 2-star format allowed 6/6

if pip was a bricklayer but was 3rd in mvp in 94 and the top 4 90s player then

WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT YOUR WHOLE ERA BRUH

wake tf up :oldlol:

guy

10-23-2020, 10:00 AM

HoopsNY

10-23-2020, 10:11 AM

Furthermore, if you take the top 6, the average is the same so I’m not sure what this is supposed to tell us. No one reasonable thinks Lebron should’ve won in all 10 Finals. More then 4? Yes.

Don't provide context to Bran stans. It doesn't work. You'll find they'll push their own arguments onto you and then try to force you to say that you're saying them.

It's kinda like the HOF argument. Does anyone say that MJ faced more HOF'ers in the playoffs/finals? Then you show them that if you actually compare the two in equal time frames (i.e, 15 seasons), MJ played in 37 playoff series while LeBron played in 45.

At that point, it just becomes a law of probabilities, especially when you factor in injuries that killed the chances of guys like KJ, Daughtery, Cummings, Penny, etc from making the Hall. But of course, that's MJ's fault, too.

Roundball_Rock

10-23-2020, 11:29 AM

if pip was a bricklayer but was 3rd in mvp in 94 and the top 4 90s player then

WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT YOUR WHOLE ERA BRUH

Think about their argument: MJ's era was so weak that a bum was getting MVP votes, all-NBA 1st teams, etc. The clear implication is the 90's had so few good players, voters quickly ran out and had to give votes to a scrub. Remember, these are rankings in given years. So if you believe this line of thinking, there must have been only 2, 3, or 4 good players and 0-1 good forwards in the 90's.

How did a scrub wind up ahead of prime Malone and prime Barkley multiple times in all-NBA voting (all forwards so were on the same ballot)? How are we to take MJ's "comp" seriously then if these are the "#1's" MJ faced in half his finals? :oldlol:

Also, compare it to their darling Irving who they tell us is this great superstar. In this era Irving is 2x all-NBA in 9 seasons, never made a first team, made one second team, has never gotten a MVP vote let alone be a MVP candidate (each voter has to pick 5 players; no one has ever picked Kyrie, and there are 100 or so voters each year...). How stacked must this era be then if a player so great is just another occasional all-NBA guy and a zero in MVP? Draymond Green has made as many all-NBA teams as Irving--and he was the 3rd/4th option on the other team, not the 2nd.

Furthermore, if you take the top 6, the average is the same so I’m not sure what this is supposed to tell us.

:coleman:

So if we take the top 60% for LeBron's teammates that=100% of MJ's teammates?

The info in the OP could be construed many different ways. One would be both had similar levels of help (which is notable since both sides say their guy had no help and the other guy was on stacked teams). Not surprisingly, no MJ or LeBron fan has read it that way.

Another way to read it is Jordan had the edge. Several MJ fans are noting all the winning teams here got 33%--which implies MJ got "help" sufficient to win each time while LeBron didn't about half the time. There is something to be said about consistency--a charge MJ fans level at his own teammates. Then we find his teammates were more consistent. :lol

You also can read it as MJ's teammates were better since MJ is the GOAT finals performer right? So getting 36% on a team with MJ is much harder to do than 33% on a team with LeBron.

For MJ fans to equate 33% assumes MJ and LeBron had equal caliber performances, which I have never seen MJ fans ever do before regarding the finals. :roll:

These players had different cores. Let's break them out.

Teammate Game Score Shares by Team "Era"

MJ Bulls 1991-1993: 38%, 37%, 33% average (36%)
MJ Bulls 1996-1998: 40%, 33%, 38% (average 37%)
LJ Cavs 2007: 37%
LJ Heat 2011-2014: 40%, 37%, 36%, 26% (average 35%)
LJ Cavs 2015-2018: 28%, 33%, 30%, 27% (average 29.5%)
LJ Lakers 2020: 36%

These mostly cut against MJ stans' narratives. The teams they denigrate as the least help--the second threepeat--had the most help by this metric, especially the 96' and 98' teams. The 2016 and 2017 Kyrie-based hype gets exploded as they were at 33% and 30% in those two finals. MJ never got anything close to 30%--his fans bitch about 40% :roll: . The Heat also average out behind either iteration of the Bulls.

2007 cuts against LeBron. That is a high share--which has more to do with LeBron than his teammates. Because LeBron was bad (by GOAT standards) that meant the share of his teammates grew since he didn't put up a big number. So his fans can legitimately note that was a historically weak finals "cast" but the elephant in the room is LeBron didn't do his part either. He didn't do what he did later in 15' and 18' back in 07'.

Game scores don't tell us anything about defense. We know the Bulls had all-time great defenses with all-time great defenders. The Lakers had AD, a DPOY caliber player. The Heat, Cavs didn't have these elements in their "casts." The real margin on the court would likely be higher in favor of the Bulls, 20' Lakers than what GS tells us on paper.

MadDog

10-23-2020, 11:34 AM

Who needs the "GameScore" when we know LeBron's played with two superstars and two perennial allstars. :oldlol: Four of them being franchise caliber players while LeBron was still in his prime. When competing for a tile, Jordan never had another teammate who BOTH outscored him and played better defense. LeBron's had 2 in AD and Wade :oldlol:

Roundball_Rock

10-23-2020, 11:45 AM

Who needs the "GameScore" when we know LeBron's played with two superstars and two perennial allstars. :oldlol:

Because that has been done before (it is interesting MJ fans call Bosh a superstar and then call first ballot HOF'ers "shitty"). We know MJ had more HOF on his teams; the other team had less in the finals. With LeBron it was the opposite--the comp had more HOF; LeBron's teams had less. All-NBA? Same story there.

Let's do all-NBA real quick to illustrate. Remove the best player.

1991: Worthy
1992: Pippen
1993: Pippen
1996: Pippen, Kemp
1997: Pippen, Stockton
1998: Pippen

6-3 edge for Jordan's teams. Jordan faced 0 all-NBA "cast" members in half his finals and he never faced multiple like LeBron did in 16', and 17'.

This doesn't even get to nuance, like Pippen being 1st team (2nd highest vote getter behind MJ)>Kemp being on the 2nd or Pippen being on the 2nd>Stockton being on the 3rd. Or third guys, where the Bulls had the edge. Rodman vs. Hornacek? Come on.

2007: 0
2011: Wade
2012: Wade, Westbrook
2013: Wade (counting Duncan as the best player this year)
2014: 0 (counting Parker as the best player this year)
2015: Irving (1 game), Klay (6 games)
2016: Klay, Green
2017: Curry, Green
2018: Curry
2020: Davis

4 for LeBron, 5 if you count Irving playing one game. The opposition had 7.

Not surprisingly, Jordan had more all-NBA on his team; the other guy had less all-NBA on his team.

HOF would tell us the same story. The Bulls faced Magic, Worthy, Drexler, Barkley, Payton, Malone, and Stockton. That is 7 total HOF'ers. LeBron faced 4 in 13', 14' alone.

guy

10-23-2020, 11:45 AM

Don't provide context to Bran stans. It doesn't work. You'll find they'll push their own arguments onto you and then try to force you to say that you're saying them.

It's kinda like the HOF argument. Does anyone say that MJ faced more HOF'ers in the playoffs/finals? Then you show them that if you actually compare the two in equal time frames (i.e, 15 seasons), MJ played in 37 playoff series while LeBron played in 45.

At that point, it just becomes a law of probabilities, especially when you factor in injuries that killed the chances of guys like KJ, Daughtery, Cummings, Penny, etc from making the Hall. But of course, that's MJ's fault, too.

I don't know how this helps their argument. If you're going strictly by game score, which we shouldn't but if we are, doesn't this say he should've won in 2007, which we largely give him a pass for, because he had way more help in 2007 and his performance was even worse than we all thought otherwise? :oldlol:

MadDog

10-23-2020, 11:53 AM

guy

10-23-2020, 12:18 PM

So if we take the top 60% for LeBron's teammates that=100% of MJ's teammates?

Unless the expectation is that Lebron should’ve gone 10-0 vs. Jordan’s 6-0, whats the issue?

If you’re going strictly by game score, the range in wins is 33% to 40%. Not surprisingly the two losses that were still within that range are the 2 worse performances measured by game score by either Jordan or Lebron, 2007 and 2011 for Lebron.

That’s not relevant? I think it makes sense that if we’re going strictly by this data maybe he deserves a pass for the 4 Finals below that 33% minimum, but not for any above that. So by that standard, he should have 6 titles, not 4.

These players had different cores. Let's break them out.

Teammate Game Score Shares by Team "Era"

MJ Bulls 1991-1993: 38%, 37%, 33% average (36%)
MJ Bulls 1996-1998: 40%, 33%, 38% (average 37%)
LJ Cavs 2007: 37%
LJ Heat 2011-2014: 40%, 37%, 36%, 26% (average 35%)
LJ Cavs 2015-2018: 28%, 33%, 30%, 27% (average 29.5%)
LJ Lakers 2020: 36%

What the f*** is this? :oldlol: What does Team “era” average have do with anything? So now after I’ve pointed out that the data doesn’t bare out to what you want, you’re trying to misconstrue it with some other bullshit observation? :oldlol: Anyone with a brain can see that the Heat average is dragged out by the last year, what does that have to do with the first 3 years? And even just by looking at singular years, most can conclude that he shouldn’t have won most of the 2nd Cavs era titles. Lumping them all together doesn’t tell me anything different.

I could care less about the other BS you wrote about other narratives. YOU presented this data. I’m not saying he should’ve definitely won in 2007, but this is your topic and the data you wanted to present. If you want to make the tired old argument that “Lebron had less help then Jordan” this clearly isn’t the data you should be using. :oldlol:

HoopsNY

10-23-2020, 12:22 PM

I don't know how this helps their argument. If you're going strictly by game score, which we shouldn't but if we are, doesn't this say he should've won in 2007, which we largely give him a pass for, because he had way more help in 2007 and his performance was even worse than we all thought otherwise? :oldlol:

You lost me. I was mainly discussing the HOF argument. Roundball mentioned it again just now, lol.

HOF would tell us the same story. The Bulls faced Magic, Worthy, Drexler, Barkley, Payton, Malone, and Stockton. That is 7 total HOF'ers. LeBron faced 4 in 13', 14' alone.

No context at all. Not to mention, he reached the finals in a plethora of years where the Eastern Conference was a cakewalk. The HOF argument is one of the biggest revisionist arguments I've heard in recent years.

3ball

10-23-2020, 12:35 PM

if pip was a bricklayer but was 3rd in mvp in 94 and the top 4 90s player then

WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT YOUR WHOLE ERA BRUH

wake tf up :oldlol:

Paul George was 3rd for MVP too

It means zero

MJ won 6 rings with a Paul George caliber player, except George had better stats than pippen

dankok8

10-23-2020, 12:42 PM

Because that has been done before (it is interesting MJ fans call Bosh a superstar and then call first ballot HOF'ers "shitty"). We know MJ had more HOF on his teams; the other team had less in the finals. With LeBron it was the opposite--the comp had more HOF; LeBron's teams had less. All-NBA? Same story there.

Let's do all-NBA real quick to illustrate. Remove the best player.

1991: Worthy
1992: Pippen
1993: Pippen
1996: Pippen, Kemp
1997: Pippen, Stockton
1998: Pippen

6-3 edge for Jordan's teams. Jordan faced 0 all-NBA "cast" members in half his finals and he never faced multiple like LeBron did in 16', and 17'.

This doesn't even get to nuance, like Pippen being 1st team (2nd highest vote getter behind MJ)>Kemp being on the 2nd or Pippen being on the 2nd>Stockton being on the 3rd. Or third guys, where the Bulls had the edge. Rodman vs. Hornacek? Come on.

2007: 0
2011: Wade
2012: Wade, Westbrook
2013: Wade (counting Duncan as the best player this year)
2014: 0 (counting Parker as the best player this year)
2015: Irving (1 game), Klay (6 games)
2016: Klay, Green
2017: Curry, Green
2018: Curry
2020: Davis

4 for LeBron, 5 if you count Irving playing one game. The opposition had 7.

Not surprisingly, Jordan had more all-NBA on his team; the other guy had less all-NBA on his team.

HOF would tell us the same story. The Bulls faced Magic, Worthy, Drexler, Barkley, Payton, Malone, and Stockton. That is 7 total HOF'ers. LeBron faced 4 in 13', 14' alone.

You realize that a lot of guys who make the HOF (not first ballot guys but the ones who eventually make it...) aren't actually any better in their primes than a lot of guys that don't make it? Players often get into the HOF because they had longer careers or won titles not because they weren't good enough. For example, if Phoenix wins the title over Chicago in 1993, Kevin Johnson definitely makes the HOF. Some of these guys aren't HOFers because MJ beat them not that MJ beat them because they are not HOFers. You don't seem to understand this. Kevin Johnson for instance had 7-8 straight seasons averaging around 20/10 and led two Suns team to the WCF before Barkley ever got there. Most reasonable people don't disqualify him as a player because he's not a HOFer or because he didn't make an All-NBA team in 1993 when he missed half of the regular season. KJ was definitely a star which your analysis misses.

In addition, you seem to disregard the point that All-Stars and All-NBA teams are regular season awards. When Kyrie misses half the season to injury then proceeds to play like a top 5 player in the playoffs, his lack of accolades that season obviously don't paint an accurate picture of who he is as a player yet you keep shoving it down our throats.

And your HOF analysis disregards form, age etc. Lebron in 2014 may have faced 4 HOFers but three of them were well past their primes (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili) and one didn't enter his prime (Kawhi). Meanwhile Lebron's team in 2014 also had 4 HOFers of which two (Lebron, Bosh) were definitely in their primes and two were out of their primes (Wade, Allen).

You're trying to capture everything with numbers which simply isn't possible. And try to be honest. Don't manipulate.

3ball

10-23-2020, 12:44 PM

Jordan's casts always scored less than the opponent's... Always... So he always had a worse cast

Roundball_Rock

10-23-2020, 12:55 PM

I don't know how this helps their argument.

Because everything isn't an "argument." Sometimes you post data to generate discussion on a discussion board. :lol Only MJ stans are up in arms even though LeBron stans could find things to bitch about the info in the OP too. That speaks to where the two fanbases are. :lol

Does anyone say that MJ faced more HOF'ers in the playoffs/finals? Then you show them that if you actually compare the two in equal time frames (i.e, 15 seasons), MJ played in 37 playoff series while LeBron played in 45.

Every post from this guy (not "guy") is the ISH version of the Chewbacca defense. :roll:

I actually forgot about Bosh The two "superstars" I referred to were AD and Wade. And the other 2 allstars were Love/Irving and now make that 3 with Bosh. The difference between Jordan having Pippen is pretty clear though. Pippen got drafted by Chicago and was a scrub-like player his first 2 or so years. LeBron joined "made" players like Wade (who was on his level if not better) and Bosh in 2010. Another apples and oranges comparison. Even moreso knowing that AD and Wade were probably better than LeBron himself.

This is representative of what MJ stans say: Jordan had a lot less help, LeBron had far more yet MJ did more with little because MJ>>>LeBron. That leads to a range of counter responses.

A consistent theme is MJ fans always pretend the Bulls played in a vacuum. There was no opposition, outside of tossing names out there (while never doing the same for LeBron's teams). LeBron fans are quick to point out who the competition was and how many HOF, how many all-NBA, etc. were on those teams and even are willing to compare those against what LeBron's teams had (unlike MJ stans). There is a "tell" in here.

Unless the expectation is that Lebron should’ve gone 10-0 vs. Jordan’s 6-0, whats the issue?

The argument for MJ often is 6-0 vs. 4-6 (the specific # doesn't matter: just that it is less than 50%) or 6 vs. 4 rings. As long as that happens, people are going to examine the team situations they were in and those of the competition. You said it yourself: basketball isn't 1 or 1 or 2 on 2 or 3 on 3.

If you’re going strictly by game score, the range in wins is 33% to 40%. Not surprisingly the two losses that were still within that range are the 2 worse performances measured by game score by either Jordan or Lebron, 2007 and 2011 for Lebron.

Which is relevant context. The table is teammate share of GS, so when the best player underperforms that leaves more of the pie for the rest. That happened different ways of course. In 07' LeBron was terrible for a player of his caliber, even if he was a 22 year old against a dynasty. It wasn't a case of his teammates stepping up. 11' was. LeBron arguably was even worse in 11' than 07' but Wade had a FMVP-caliber finals and Bosh was great too.

LeBron detractors would like you to believe the 11' finals are what LeBron got on his team consistently, not that they were outliers. Isn't part of being a "superstar" showing up in big series like the Finals and ECF? Does Bosh putting up 12/7 have more value than a random PF on the other team putting up 12/7 because Bosh has a big name?

That’s not relevant? I think it makes sense that if we’re going strictly by this data maybe he deserves a pass for the 4 Finals below that 33% minimum, but not for any above that. So by that standard, he should have 6 titles, not 4.

MJ stans could easily say 33% is the cut-off (using these 16 teams--we would need a broader data set to say that more confidently) and MJ went 6-0 and LeBron 4-2 in that scenario. They won't, though, because so much of their narrative is invested in LeBron being below .500 in the finals and "LeBron was on stacked teams" etc. If you say he didn't get support sufficient to win nearly half the time, the "stacked teams" argument is destroyed.

HoopsNY

10-23-2020, 12:55 PM

Unless the expectation is that Lebron should’ve gone 10-0 vs. Jordan’s 6-0, whats the issue?

If you’re going strictly by game score, the range in wins is 33% to 40%. Not surprisingly the two losses that were still within that range are the 2 worse performances measured by game score by either Jordan or Lebron, 2007 and 2011 for Lebron.

That’s not relevant? I think it makes sense that if we’re going strictly by this data maybe he deserves a pass for the 4 Finals below that 33% minimum, but not for any above that. So by that standard, he should have 6 titles, not 4.

What the f*** is this? :oldlol: What does Team “era” average have do with anything? So now after I’ve pointed out that the data doesn’t bare out to what you want, you’re trying to misconstrue it with some other bullshit observation? :oldlol: Anyone with a brain can see that the Heat average is dragged out by the last year, what does that have to do with the first 3 years? And even just by looking at singular years, most can conclude that he shouldn’t have won most of the 2nd Cavs era titles. Lumping them all together doesn’t tell me anything different.

I could care less about the other BS you wrote about other narratives. YOU presented this data. I’m not saying he should’ve definitely won in 2007, but this is your topic and the data you wanted to present. If you want to make the tired old argument that “Lebron had less help then Jordan” this clearly isn’t the data you should be using. :oldlol:

Bingo. This is what is typically done. Create an arbitrary set of rules, then when challenged, tell you that you can't do that and you MUST stick to my rules.

Lump the averages into a select group of years, then complain when being challenged.

You could make the argument that 6/10 "sidekicks" (ridiculous argument to begin with), are in LeBron's favor.

2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2020 all seem to be at least on par or better than the opposition.

Jordan's is 4 out of 6. You could make the case that Stockton's impact in 1997 was just as important as Pippen's. Pippen shot 5-17 in game 5, and 6-17 in game 6, with 8 total turnovers, thus only giving the nod to 3/6, but whatever.

What does any of this actually mean? I have no idea. It's literally splitting hairs. Both players had help.

The difference for me is that when the help was diminished somewhat or significant, MJ found a way to win. In LeBron's case, this isn't the case. Now was he "supposed" to win? Not necessarily. But I do think that MJ uplifts the team to better results than LeBron did in the following finals:

2007 - People forget that games 3 and 4 were decided by just 4 total points, and the Cavs essentially lost those games because of LeBron. I don't think MJ plays anywhere near that badly. Young MJ is likely putting up 30-35 a night on high efficiency, and is at least taking that series to 6 games.

2011 - No reason to beat this over the head

2014 - I don't think the Heat get slaughtered like this with MJ. The point differential was drastic, yes, but here are some things to consider.

In game 1, the Heat were actually up by 4 entering the fourth quarter. They got outscored by almost 20 in the 4th and LeBron went 1-3 with 2 points, no assists. I don't think this happens with MJ.

In game 4, the Heat entered the 4th being down by 8. LeBron scored 4 points and had 3 big turnovers in that quarter within about 3 minute span. I honestly don't think this happens with MJ either. One big variable that is often left out of the conversation is over the course of their careers, MJ was able to control the ball and limit turnovers better than LeBron.

2017 - I just don't think MJ loses this series 4-1. Harden took this same Warriors team to 7 games the following season in the WCF, losing without Chris Paul in games 6 and 7. I do believe Jordan's defensive impact would have allowed for them to win at least 2 games, and possibly even the series since his perimeter defense would have been crucial against Steph and Klay. LeBron was not an elite defender by 2017.

GrayGoat

10-23-2020, 12:55 PM

Jordan's casts always scored less than the opponent's... Always... So he always had a worse cast

Pippen almost always outscored the opponents 2nd option

Roundball_Rock

10-23-2020, 12:56 PM

What does Team “era” average have do with anything?

Different rosters, or in LeBron's case, literally different teams. What do the 2007 Cavs have to do with the 2020 Lakers? :lol The Bulls had the same core from 1991-1993 and then 1996-1998.

Anyone with a brain can see that the Heat average is dragged out by the last year, what does that have to do with the first 3 years?

It isn't aimed at "anyone with a brain." It is aimed at idiots like 3ball who will present the entire 2011-2014 Miami Heat as the same and Wade/Bosh in 11' as the same guys in 14. Thanks for pointing that out, though. See MJ stans, one of your own just said it.

Lumping them all together doesn’t tell me anything different.

It tells me the 2015-2018 Cavs were materially weaker than the 2011-2014 Heat or 2020 Lakers (if we are going to assume the stat is a good gauge, which is another question). Again, MJ stans want to present the 2015-2018 Cavs, or at least the 2015-2017 Cavs, as "stacked." (Notice a theme? MJ stans overreach and keep getting exposed. :lol )

YOU presented this data

If you want to make the tired old argument that “Lebron had less help then Jordan” this clearly isn’t the data you should be using

Duh, but that isn't what the OP was about. :facepalm It is right in the OP: the averages were 36% and 33%. Not Earth shattering, especially when it is obvious by the series-by-series numbers that 14', 15', 18' are dragging the average down for LJ.

Like I said, a sane fan base would simply say 6-0>4-2 but that isn't what we are seeing. :lol

Why are you bitching so much? You are the one who repeatedly says teams are more than 2 vs. 2 or 3 vs. 3. This compares the entire roster. What's the problem? You expected it to be 60% for LeBron and 15% for MJ or something? :lol What do you suggest we use to compare teams? We can't use their W-L records without them, apparently, per you. We can't use all-NBA or HOF because that only covers top of the roster talent. What are we supposed to use then? Or just eschew team results altogether and focus on MJ and LeBron themselves. MJ fans will surely stop talking about 6 rangz, right?

The only "metric" I see MJ fans consistently use is PPG--which is dumb since there is a lot more to the game than scoring. Case in point from the intellectual leader of ISH's MJ stans:

Jordan's casts always scored less than the opponent's... Always... So he always had a worse cast

If Jordan is taking 10% (or whatever the # is) more of his team's shots than the other team's #1 option, only an idiot would expect otherwise. Moreover, this idiocy assumes if MJ didn't exist the Bulls' scoring would decline by 30 PPG or whatever he averaged that year/series/etc. That is not how the real world works.

What is more revealing is the Bulls had a top 10 offense w/out Jordan. How many 90's teams could have done that? Or even teams today? This is what makes MJ stans cute. They have a team with the horses to be a top 10 offense and top 2 defense without him in one season, to nearly win the #1 seed in another, and Jordan fans will say he had little help. Meanwhile, the the guy whose teams go 37-45 or 4-23 without him--that is what truly stacked teams do!

3ball

10-23-2020, 01:01 PM

Different rosters, or in LeBron's case, literally different teams. What do the 2007 Cavs have to do with the 2020 Lakers? :lol The Bulls had the same core from 1991-1993 and then 1996-1998.

It isn't aimed at "anyone with a brain." It is aimed at idiots like 3ball who will present the entire 2011-2014 Miami Heat as the same and Wade/Bosh in 11' as the same guys in 14. Thanks for pointing that out, though. See MJ stans, one of your own just said it.

It tells me the 2015-2018 Cavs were materially weaker than the 2011-2014 Heat or 2020 Lakers (if we are going to assume the stat is a good gauge, which is another question). Again, MJ stans want to present the 2015-2018 Cavs, or at least the 2015-2017 Cavs, as "stacked." (Notice a theme? MJ stans overreach and keep getting exposed. :lol )

Duh, but that isn't what the OP was about. :facepalm It is right in the OP: the averages were 36% and 33%. Not Earth shattering, especially when it is obvious by the series-by-series numbers that 14', 15', 18' are dragging the average down for LJ.

Like I said, a sane fan base would simply say 6-0>4-2 but that isn't what we are seeing. :lol

Why are you bitching so much? You are the one who repeatedly says teams are more than 2 vs. 2 or 3 vs. 3. This compares the entire roster. What's the problem? You expected it to be 60% for LeBron and 15% for MJ or something? :lol

Lebron needed 2 stars to win... 2 pippen's... Or Kareem (AD)

Thats a lot more than MJ needed

And lebron never won Finals with poor sidekick performance, and never beat ANY good team with poor sidekick performance.. so he never had carry jobs against good teams - only MJ had to win with poor sidekick performance

You can't refute these facts... MJ won more with less (1 less star and poor sidekick performance)

RRR3

10-23-2020, 01:01 PM

I actually forgot about Bosh :oldlol: The two "superstars" I referred to were AD and Wade. And the other 2 allstars were Love/Irving and now make that 3 with Bosh. The difference between Jordan having Pippen is pretty clear though. Pippen got drafted by Chicago and was a scrub-like player his first 2 or so years. LeBron joined "made" players like Wade (who was on his level if not better) and Bosh in 2010. Another apples and oranges comparison. Even moreso knowing that AD and Wade were probably better than LeBron himself. :confusedshrug:
Literally no one thought Wade was better than LeBron. That’s why it was such a big deal when LeBron choked.

GrayGoat

10-23-2020, 01:02 PM

Lebron needed 2 stars to win... 2 pippen's... Or Kareem (AD)

Thats a lot more than MJ needed

And lebron never won Finals with poor sidekick performance, and never beat ANY good team with poor sidekick performance.. so he never had carry jobs against good teams - only MJ had to win with poor sidekick performance

You can't refute these facts... MJ won more with less (1 less star and poor sidekick performance)

MJ just needed 3 -all nba first teamers

3ball

10-23-2020, 01:03 PM

Literally no one thought Wade was better than LeBron. That’s why it was such a big deal when LeBron choked.

MJ won with 1 less star or an inferior star, and poor sidekick performance

Lebron needed 2 stars or a better star, and never won with poor sidekick performance

3ball

10-23-2020, 01:06 PM

MJ won with 1 less star or an inferior star, and poor sidekick performance

Lebron needed 2 stars or a better star, and never won with poor sidekick performance

No one

3ball

10-23-2020, 01:08 PM

Lebron needed 2 stars or a better star, and never won with poor sidekick performance

MJ won with 1 less star or an inferior star, and frequently won with poor sidekick performance

HoopsNY

10-23-2020, 01:09 PM

Every post from this guy (not "guy") is the ISH version of the Chewbacca defense. :roll

Is that supposed to be witty or something? At least post a meme like your fanboys.

Roundball_Rock

10-23-2020, 01:12 PM

Literally no one thought Wade was better than LeBron. That’s why it was such a big deal when LeBron choked.

As usual, they want it both ways. Blame LeBron for the loss but then say he was the sidekick to diminish him/elevate Wade. Per 1-9ball, Wade=Kobe and AD=Kareem. How long before Bosh becomes Duncan and Irving becomes Magic?

You can't refute these facts... MJ won more with less

1-9ball is a nutjob but he at least is open and honest about his lunacy, unlike others (even if he lies about specific facts).

Keep in mind according to Jordan stans themselves on ISH, the Bulls without Jordan had the best roster in the NBA or at least equal to the Knicks' roster and superior to other teams like the Rockets' (why do they say this? When their agenda is to attack Pippen for not winning the chip in 94'). Their statement, not mine. Here is the MJ stain narrative (HT to TheCorporation :cheers: ):

1991-1993 Bulls: "MJ had no help! His teammates sucked, MJ won by himself!"
1994 Bulls: "The Bulls were stacked! They should have won 65 and the chip! Pippen's 'cast' was that good!"
1995-1998 Bulls: "MJ had no help! His teammates sucked, MJ won by himself!"

As a reminder, here are the "casts" being referred to:.

1991-1993 Bulls: Pippen, Grant, Cartwright, Armstrong, Paxson, Williams
1994 Bulls: Grant, Cartwright, Armstrong, Kukoc, Kerr, Williams
1995-1998 Bulls: Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc, Longley, Harper, Kerr, (BJ for 95')

Per MJ stains, the 94' "cast" was the only one of these that was stacked. :lol

3ball

10-23-2020, 01:17 PM

As usual, they want it both ways. Blame LeBron for the loss but then say he was the sidekick to diminish him.

1-9ball is a nutjob but he at least is open and honest about his lunacy, unlike others (even if he lies about specific facts).

Keep in mind according to Jordan stans themselves on ISH, the Bulls without Jordan had the best roster in the NBA or at least equal to the Knicks' roster and superior to other teams like the Rockets' (why do they say this? When their agenda is to attack Pippen for not winning the chip in 94'). Their statement, not mine. Here is the MJ stain narrative (HT to TheCorporation :cheers: ):

1991-1993 Bulls: "MJ had no help! His teammates sucked, MJ won by himself!"
1994 Bulls: "The Bulls were stacked! They should have won 65 and the chip! Pippen's 'cast' was that good!"
1995-1998 Bulls: "MJ had no help! His teammates sucked, MJ won by himself!"

As a reminder, here are the "casts" being referred to:.

1991-1993 Bulls: Pippen, Grant, Cartwright, Armstrong, Paxson, Williams
1994 Bulls: Grant, Cartwright, Armstrong, Kukoc, Kerr, Williams
1995-1998 Bulls: Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc, Longley, Harper, Kerr, (BJ for 95')

Per MJ stains, the 94' "cast" was the only one of these that was stacked. :lol

Lebron needed 2 stars or a better star, and never won with poor sidekick performance

MJ won with 1 less star or an inferior star, and frequently won with poor sidekick performance

Roundball_Rock

10-23-2020, 01:19 PM

How did the Cavs do without Mark Price? That is a team MJ stans love to tout as a "great team." They were down their best player for 66 games with Daughtery, Nance in their primes. The results were...? Or hell, how about the Pacers losing their third best player? What happened the one year Jackson was gone for 2/3 the season? Prime Reggie "Curry" Miller there.

If the Cavs were stacked and they looked like the 19' Cavs without Price, then logically what does that make the Bulls' "cast"? :lol

The Lakers could go 1-81 without LeBron next year and MJ stains would still call them more stacked than the Bulls.

3ball

10-23-2020, 01:43 PM

Lebron needed an extra star to win, or a BETTER star, and never beat a good team with poor sidekick performance

guy

10-23-2020, 01:53 PM

Because everything isn't an "argument."

The guy that has made 50-100 threads that in the last 6 months directly or indirectly downplaying Jordan / uplifting Lebron isn’t making arguments? Okay. :rolleyes:

The argument for MJ often is 6-0 vs. 4-6 (the specific # doesn't matter: just that it is less than 50%) or 6 vs. 4 rings. As long as that happens, people are going to examine the team situations they were in and those of the competition. You said it yourself: basketball isn't 1 or 1 or 2 on 2 or 3 on 3.

So above 50% is not 10-0, but at least 6-4. Hmm, like I said seems like your data supports that argument. :oldlol:

Which is relevant context. The table is teammate share of GS, so when the best player underperforms that leaves more of the pie for the rest. That happened different ways of course. In 07' LeBron was terrible for a player of his caliber, even if he was a 22 year old against a dynasty. It wasn't a case of his teammates stepping up. 11' was. LeBron arguably was even worse in 11' than 07' but Wade had a FMVP-caliber finals and Bosh was great too.

You took total game score? Including the other team? The total GS is impacted by pace so it makes sense to use % like you did. But with that being the case, that also means if Lebron improved his game, the opponent’s game score is definitely going to get impacted. So he would cut into both, which means it may not be that much different.

LeBron detractors would like you to believe the 11' finals are what LeBron got on his team consistently, not that they were outliers.

Okay. Similar things can be said about Jordan.

MJ stans could easily say 33% is the cut-off (using these 16 teams--we would need a broader data set to say that more confidently) and MJ went 6-0 and LeBron 4-2 in that scenario. They won't, though, because so much of their narrative is invested in LeBron being below .500 in the finals and "LeBron was on stacked teams" etc. If you say he didn't get support sufficient to win nearly half the time, the "stacked teams" argument is destroyed.

If he was 6-0 in those finals then he would be 6-4 overall, which is above .500, so whats the difference? Its basically making the same point, just said differently.

Different rosters, or in LeBron's case, literally different teams. What do the 2007 Cavs have to do with the 2020 Lakers? The Bulls had the same core from 1991-1993 and then 1996-1998.
It isn't aimed at "anyone with a brain." It is aimed at idiots like 3ball who will present the entire 2011-2014 Miami Heat as the same and Wade/Bosh in 11' as the same guys in 14. Thanks for pointing that out, though. See MJ stans, one of your own just said it.

The OP said nothing about different rosters/different cores. All it did was look at the performance at hand. Now you noticed that your data doesn’t work, so yo’re trying to bring up other things? :oldlol: Feel free to bring up other things but this has nothing to do with game score so not sure why you are trying to connect these two.

It tells me the 2015-2018 Cavs were materially weaker than the 2011-2014 Heat or 2020 Lakers (if we are going to assume the stat is a good gauge, which is another question).

Sure, and it concludes that he should’v won 6 just like Jordan if we’re comparing it Jordan’s situation standard or just all 10 of the championships standard.

Duh, but that isn't what the OP was about. :facepalm It is right in the OP: the averages were 36% and 33%.

Like I said, a sane fan base would simply say 6-0>4-2 but that isn't what we are seeing.

Yes, 33% when you take into the account the 4 series where I am acknowledging the data supports he deserves a pass for.

Come on man. You’re not dumb. Most people give him a pass for 3-4 Finals. This data supports that, but not a pass for more than that. Now you’re just upset because you thought it would tell you something more excusable for Lebron, but sorry, it doesn’t. Take the L and move on.

If you want to dedicate your life to arguing with 3ball, go ahead. Most reasonable people don’t see it his way.

Why are you bitching so much?

You of all people want to talk about bitching? :oldlol:

Why would I have a problem with the data? Like all things, I don’t think it should be taken as the be all end all. However, it does support my belief based on watching games and paying attention to both careers that Lebron should also have 6 rings based on Jordan’s standard, although it gets to that conclusion differently.

Roundball_Rock

10-23-2020, 01:54 PM

He didn't answer because the Cavs were a 30 win pace team over 66 games without Price--with Daughtery, Nance playing the full season in their primes.

This is a team they point to as an example of a stacked 90's team with real stars, not bums like Pippen and Grant/Rodman (even though Pippen, Rodman are HOFers and Price, Daughtery, Nance are not) that MJ was stuck with. 24-42=stacked; 55-27=no help. :confusedshrug:

LeBron's comp without their best player: 73-9. :lol

guy

10-23-2020, 02:03 PM

Bingo. This is what is typically done. Create an arbitrary set of rules, then when challenged, tell you that you can't do that and you MUST stick to my rules.

Lump the averages into a select group of years, then complain when being challenged.

You could make the argument that 6/10 "sidekicks" (ridiculous argument to begin with), are in LeBron's favor.

2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2020 all seem to be at least on par or better than the opposition.

Jordan's is 4 out of 6. You could make the case that Stockton's impact in 1997 was just as important as Pippen's. Pippen shot 5-17 in game 5, and 6-17 in game 6, with 8 total turnovers, thus only giving the nod to 3/6, but whatever.

What does any of this actually mean? I have no idea. It's literally splitting hairs. Both players had help.

The difference for me is that when the help was diminished somewhat or significant, MJ found a way to win. In LeBron's case, this isn't the case. Now was he "supposed" to win? Not necessarily. But I do think that MJ uplifts the team to better results than LeBron did in the following finals:

2007 - People forget that games 3 and 4 were decided by just 4 total points, and the Cavs essentially lost those games because of LeBron. I don't think MJ plays anywhere near that badly. Young MJ is likely putting up 30-35 a night on high efficiency, and is at least taking that series to 6 games.

2011 - No reason to beat this over the head

2014 - I don't think the Heat get slaughtered like this with MJ. The point differential was drastic, yes, but here are some things to consider.

In game 1, the Heat were actually up by 4 entering the fourth quarter. They got outscored by almost 20 in the 4th and LeBron went 1-3 with 2 points, no assists. I don't think this happens with MJ.

In game 4, the Heat entered the 4th being down by 8. LeBron scored 4 points and had 3 big turnovers in that quarter within about 3 minute span. I honestly don't think this happens with MJ either. One big variable that is often left out of the conversation is over the course of their careers, MJ was able to control the ball and limit turnovers better than LeBron.

2017 - I just don't think MJ loses this series 4-1. Harden took this same Warriors team to 7 games the following season in the WCF, losing without Chris Paul in games 6 and 7. I do believe Jordan's defensive impact would have allowed for them to win at least 2 games, and possibly even the series since his perimeter defense would have been crucial against Steph and Klay. LeBron was not an elite defender by 2017.

Agree with all this for the most part :applause:

MadDog

10-23-2020, 02:43 PM

Literally no one thought Wade was better than LeBron. That's why it was such a big deal that LeBron choked.

Or maybe it was that LeBron choked with the best help. Remember, he claimed Miami would have "easy" rings. :confusedshrug:

As usual, they want it both ways. Blame LeBron for the loss but then say he was the sidekick to diminish him/elevate Wade.

Why can't it be both? LeBron did choke, while Wade throughtout the playoffs had better: scoring, defense and averaged a higher PER/WS48/BPM/VORP.

When did Jordan ever win with another teammate who outplayed him in the postseason? Heck, when did Jordan ever lose in that scenario? :oldlol:

Roundball_Rock

10-23-2020, 03:17 PM

So above 50% is not 10-0, but at least 6-4. Hmm, like I said seems like your data supports that argument.

Yeah, like I noted a few times, the OP could be construed favorably to MJ. MJ stans are up in arms anyway. :lol

You took total game score? Including the other team? The total GS is impacted by pace so it makes sense to use % like you did.

Oh, these weren't my #'s. It was from the ESPN article I linked. What he did was took total GS for the team and then subtracted MJ or LeBron and calculated what teammates accounted for. He didn't do the same for the opposition. That would be interesting to see.

They played in different eras, different pace, rules, etc. so anything that is comparing them to their eras is better than randomly comparing numbers. It is funny how often MJ stans do that to deflate the stats of MJ's teammates--it works the other too. If you adjusted for pace, pointed out efficiency was higher due to softer defenses, etc., that would boost MJ too.

If he was 6-0 in those finals then he would be 6-4 overall, which is above .500, so whats the difference?

You would think not much: in either scenario MJ is ahead but ever since 2014 LeBron being below .500 is an obsession of his detractors, whether it is 2-3 or 3-6 or 4-6. I'm waiting for him to finish 6-6 or something exactly at .500. :oldlol:

The OP said nothing about different rosters/different cores. All it did was look at the performance at hand. Now you noticed that your data doesn’t work, so yo’re trying to bring up other things?

It isn't my data. If I did it I would have broken it up by cores since those are different teams--with a particular focus on the Heat and 2015-2017 Cavs since those are the most debated. That AD was dominant isn't really debated. What Wade, Irving, Bosh, Love were is.

it concludes that he should’v won 6 just like Jordan if we’re comparing it Jordan’s situation standard or just all 10 of the championships standard.

Jordan is always going to have the edge no matter how you slice it because he came through consistently when he had the better team. Look at who is the highest for LeBron's: 11'.

Most people give him a pass for 3-4 Finals.

On the street or if you polled people at a NBA game? Sure, but not in these debates, whether you are talking ISH, Twitter, or commentators/analysts in the media. 6-0 vs. 4-6 comes up a lot.

You see it sometimes with Montana vs. Brady--4-0 vs 6-3, with "perfection" being argued for Montana. Just not as much because 4<6. If LeBron somehow gets to 7 then you may see that here, with MJ advocates saying 6-0>7-6.

Like all things, I don’t think it should be taken as the be all end all.

Yeah, it is a flawed measure. It is heavily influenced by TS % for instance, so Splitter putting up 3 PPG had a higher GS than Wade because Splitter was 75% or something and Wade 49% or something.

There is no perfect way to assess how strong a "supporting cast" is. To me the best way is simply seeing what happens if that player is removed from the equation, assuming the core of the team remains the same or filled with similar players (so the 11' Cavs or 99' Bulls tell us nothing). This doesn't require stats, analytics, etc. Just W-L on the court.

The problem is MJ fans are adamant what a team did w/out a player tells us nothing (for obvious reasons :oldlol: ) and we have limited samples. How often do #1's miss large chunks of the season? Retire in their prime? Change teams? Etc.

For MJ's era the ultimate comps would be if Malone or Ewing missed a full or nearly all the season (e.g., the best players on the Bulls' best comp). It never happened in their primes. What we have are Magic retiring, Shaq leaving, Price missing 66 games, Robinson missing 76 games. For LeBron's what do we have? LeBron leaving Miami, KD leaving OKC, Kawhi leaving SA and then Toronto, etc.

Let's face it, though. If Ewing missed all of 94' and the Bulls went 55-27 and the Knicks 27-55 you know full well MJ fans would be telling us forevermore the Knicks were a better "cast" than the Bulls and only MJ being the GOAT allowed those bums to overcome the "stacked" comp.

A lot of the MJ stuff is driven by this obsessions to paint him as winning with a poverty of help.

Roundball_Rock

10-23-2020, 03:19 PM

You could make the case that Stockton's impact in 1997 was just as important as Pippen's

:roll:

Name a game where Stockton was the best player on the court. I'll give you one for Pippen: Game 1. In Game 3, Pippen led the Bulls back into the game in the 4th quarter after being down 20 (Malone was the best player in that game, though) and outscored MJ for the scoring police. Pippen, not Stockton, was the one commanding double teams.

This guy obviously didn't watch the series. A recurring theme of NBC's coverage was the "Big 4" so they often put up graphics of the production of those 4 throughout the games (Rodman is a HOF'er too but it was defined as the 4 top 30 all-time guys). Stockton consistently brought up the rear. Pippen was closer to Malone (whether ahead or behind) than Stockton was to Pippen in those graphics.

Stockton, who MJ stans will not say a solitary word of criticism about, didn't have the capability to be the best player on a court with 5 HOF of that caliber on it--partly because he only took wide open shots (MJ stains ooh and ahh over his TS % not grasping how he played--any star could shot a high TS % if they took 8-10 shots that were wide open J's or layups, but legitimate superstars understand you need to diversify to be a scoring threat to keep defenses honest--like every other star PG of Stockton's era did--except him). He is top 30 all-time because he maintained an all-NBA caliber level for a long time but he didn't have the MVP caliber gear the others in the "Big 4" had.

It showed in those 12 games in 97' and 98'. I can't think of one in which Stockton was the best player. Pippen was in a couple, Malone a couple, Jordan in most of them. Can anyone name a single NBA finals game where Stockton was the best player on the floor?

This is why this will keep being debated. There is an obvious edge Jordan had in his sidekick versus the Jazz's but Pippen is brought down to Stockton's level--meanwhile LeBron's sidekicks are elevated, even when getting outplayed by non-HOF players in series.

MJ stans are comical. There is an easy legitimate answer if you are insecure about Pippen's elite play in the 97' finals: Kukoc. Most of the Bulls' scoring was MJ/Pippen because Kukoc was a non-factor that run (foot injury) and no one stepped up to fill that void.

Jordan fans can't say that, though. Have to pretend Stockton was equal in impact to Pippen in the series. :lol

Why can't it be both? LeBron did choke, while Wade throughtout the playoffs had better: scoring, defense and averaged a higher PER/WS48/BPM/VORP.

Because how often do you ever see sidekicks being blamed for a team losing?

MadDog

10-23-2020, 03:32 PM

Because how often do you ever see sidekicks being blamed for a team losing?

When his teams underperform, eBron's sidekick and teammates are ALWAYS blamed :confusedshrug: That narrative doesn't hold any weight. Not unless you think Wade is the reason for LeBron choking :oldlol:

Roundball_Rock

10-23-2020, 03:48 PM

Stockton was praised in this very thread and is revered by MJ stans (Kemp, Miller, Ewing, Stockton are particular fascinations of theirs--combined they have as many all-NBA 1st teams as Pippen, who sucks, alone does). He never gets attacked for going 0-2--Pippen somehow does for 6-0 (the implication being if there was a Stockton, Starks, Smits, Porter, KJ, Worthy, Dumars, Daughtery, etc. instead of Pippen "MJ" would have won more chips and/or by larger margins. I can see that. With Starks 72-10 would have been 80-2! :bowdown: ). Malone gets the blame for the finals losses. To the extent Stockton gets critiqued, you know which fan base rushes to his defense, right? I'm not talking Jazz fans. :lol

It is true the Jazz may have won if Malone played better but it is equally true the Jazz may have won if Stockton did (or Hornacek for that matter). Especially in 98'. 9.7 PPG doesn't cut it in an era where Jordan's fans say 20 PPG was terrible.

LAmbruh

10-23-2020, 03:59 PM

Roundball putting on a clinic :applause:

3ball

10-23-2020, 05:01 PM

Roundball putting on a clinic :applause:

If you think anyone reads his long drivel, you're dumber than he is

No one reads anything on this board unless it's a one-liner

The fact that he can't say things concisely shows that he doesn't have a high level understanding of what he's talking about

He can't say things concisely, like this:

Lebron needed an extra star to win, or a BETTER star, and never beat a good team with poor sidekick performance (never had a carry-job against a good team)

3ball

10-23-2020, 05:04 PM

Pippen almost always outscored the opponents 2nd option

He was matched or outscored 42% of the time

So no

Roundball_Rock

10-23-2020, 05:19 PM

Roundball putting on a clinic :applause:

:cheers:

He was matched or outscored 42% of the time

So no

This is more deception. Deception after deception after deception.

It is a joke this thread even has to be made but let's set the record straight. This is scoring only. Points generated via assists aren't factored in here, nor is defense or rebounding (Pippen, a SF, led his team in rebounding in 91', 94', 95' and tied Grant in 92'). Just PPG since that is the daily obsession. :lol If someone is in parentheses, they wre the first option.

1991 1R: Pippen 20, Vandweghe 17 (Ewing 17)
1991 ECSF: Pippen 23, Hawkins 20 (Barkley 26)
1991 ECF: Pippen 22, Dumars 13 (Isiah 17)
1991 Finals: Pippen 21, Worthy 19 (Magic 19)
1992 1R: Pippen 24, Seiklay 21 (Rice 19)
1992 ECSF: Pippen 16, McDaniel 19
1992 ECF: Pippen 20, Daughtery 18 (Price 19)
1992 Finals: Pippen 21, Porter 16 (Drexler 25)
1993 1R: Pippen 15, Willis 17
1993 ECSF: Pippen 18, Daughtery 17 (Price 14)
1993 ECF: Pippen 23, Starks 15 (Ewing 26)
1993 Finals: Pippen 21, Johnson 17
1996 1R: Pippen 20, Mourning 18 (Hardaway 18)
1996 ECSF: Pippen 16, Starks 13
1996 ECF: Pippen 19, Penny 26
1996 Finals: Pippen 16, Kemp 23
1997 1R: Pippen 17, Howard 19 (Webber 16)
1997 ECSF: Pippen 22, Laettner 16 (Smith 18)
1997 ECF: Pippen (injured) 17, Mourning 16; Pippen (healthy) 21
1997 Finals: Pippen 20, Stockton 15 (Malone 24)
1998 1R: Pippen 18, Kittles 16 (Van Horn* 13)
1998 ECSF: Pippen 18, Mason 13
1998 ECF: Pippen 17, Smits 16 (Miller 17)
1998 Finals: Pippen (injured) 16, Stockton 10; Pippen (healthy) 20

Series after series he outscores the other #2 option--in many of them he exceeds, matches or is close to the opposing #1 option. :pimp: Like I said, it is a joke this thread even has to be made but fun-house mirrors lead to up being down, down being up.

*Cassell injured for the playoffs.

In the finals, Pippen was 20+ 4 of 6 times and was at that level through 4 games before injuring his back in Game 5 in 98'. The other guys? They cleared 20+ PPG 1x out of 6 tries. Stockton couldn't even get to 10 PPG in one of them (you have to round up to get him there). Keep in mind MJ stans assail Pippen's scoring 24/7. If he sucked at scoring, how weak was MJ's comp? Look at this list and their scoring. :oldlol:

The funniest parts are Pippen basically misses all of Game 5 in the 5 game ECF and still outscores Mourning and that he is a shell of himself in the final games of the 98' Finals and still easily outscores Stockton.

Notice MJ stains talk about Pippen's scoring but not that of any of his counterparts from the same era? Is there some sort of problem there that needs to be concealed? Why don't you ever see them talking about how often Stockton, Starks, Smits, Daughtery, Porter, Elliott, etc. outscored the opposing #2 option?

You know the answer...

Gray GOAT

10-23-2020, 05:21 PM

Roundball providing excellent knowledge to this thread, thank you.

3ball

10-23-2020, 05:22 PM

:cheers:

This is more deception. Deception after deception after deception.

In the finals, Pippen was 20+ 4 of 6 times and was at that level through 4 games before injuring his back in Game 5 in 98'. The other guys? They cleared 20+ PPG 1x out of 6 tries. Stockton couldn't even get to 10 PPG in one of them (you have to round up to get him there). Keep in mind MJ stans assail Pippen's scoring 24/7. If he sucked at scoring, how weak was MJ's comp? Look at this list and their scoring. :oldlol:

Notice MJ stains talk about Pippen's scoring but not that of any of his counterparts from the same era? Is there some sort of problem there that needs to be concealed? Why don't you ever see them talking about how often Stockton, Starks, Smits, Daughtery, Porter, Elliott, etc. outscored the opposing #2 option?

You know the answer...

42% of all playoff series

33% during the championship years

Roundball_Rock

10-23-2020, 05:23 PM

Roundball providing excellent knowledge to this thread, thank you.

:cheers:

MadDog

10-23-2020, 05:43 PM

RRR3

10-23-2020, 05:49 PM

So are you going to hold LeBron accountable for 2011 or what? Regardless of whether he was a "sidekick" he cost Wade another FMVP. Since the topic is LeBron vs Jordan, though, when did another teammate of Jordan's outplay him in the postseason? And when did Jordan ever win/lose in that scenario? :oldlol:
You pretending Pippen never outplayed Jordan in a series doesn’t make it true, coach.

MadDog

10-23-2020, 05:54 PM

You pretending Pippen never outplayed Jordan in a series doesn’t make it true, coach.

I'm not talking about a "series", you misunderstood. The numbers show '11 Wade outperformed LeBron throughout the playoffs.

Roundball_Rock

10-23-2020, 06:02 PM

So are you going to hold LeBron accountable for 2011 or what?

I've said LeBron choked in 11' on ISH from the point he did it onward. I've never made an excuse for him. Yes, legends need to be held accountable when they underachieve--but you guys only do that with 2 small forwards. When a thread is posted to hold Stockton, Ewing, Miller, Malone, etc. to account or they are held accountable within threads? You know what MJ stans do: rush to defend them--and these are people with a lot longer list of "bad" series and moments than the 2 SFs who make you all so insecure. :lol

I posted a few threads using MJ stans' own logic on players not named Pippen or LeBron to see if they had any actual principles they would apply to those players. They never did. :(

You pretending Pippen never outplayed Jordan in a series doesn’t make it true, coach.

How many accounts is he going to create? :lol

guy

10-23-2020, 06:08 PM

Yeah, like I noted a few times, the OP could be construed favorably to MJ. MJ stans are up in arms anyway.

Who’s up in arms but you? You’re upset that people call out that Lebron is below .500 but then the data you presented shows that he should be 6-4 which is essentially saying the same thing . :lol

Oh, these weren't my #'s. It was from the ESPN article I linked. What he did was took total GS for the team and then subtracted MJ or LeBron and calculated what teammates accounted for. He didn't do the same for the opposition. That would be interesting to see.

It’s clearly for the entire game score, both teams included. There’s no way Jordan and Lebron’s game score shares were 60%-70% of their teams total.

They played in different eras, different pace, rules, etc. so anything that is comparing them to their eras is better than randomly comparing numbers. It is funny how often MJ stans do that to deflate the stats of MJ's teammates--it works the other too. If you adjusted for pace, pointed out efficiency was higher due to softer defenses, etc., that would boost MJ too.

I mention pace and acknowledge this is a good stat to use since it adjusts for that and the response is:

MJ Stans MJ Stans MJ Stans :rant :rant

On the street or if you polled people at a NBA game? Sure, but not in these debates, whether you are talking ISH, Twitter, or commentators/analysts in the media. 6-0 vs. 4-6 comes up a lot.

I’ve rarely ever heard anyone say Lebron should be 10-0 or won 7-8 finals even on this board so what the f*ck are you making up now?

The fact that he should at minimum have 1 more, possibly 2 more, is a pretty big blip for him when it comes to the debate with Jordan so it’s pointed out.

There is no perfect way to assess how strong a "supporting cast" is. To me the best way is simply seeing what happens if that player is removed from the equation, assuming the core of the team remains the same or filled with similar players (so the 11' Cavs or 99' Bulls tell us nothing). This doesn't require stats, analytics, etc. Just W-L on the court.

The problem is MJ fans are adamant what a team did w/out a player tells us nothing (for obvious reasons) and we have limited samples. How often do #1's miss large chunks of the season? Retire in their prime? Change teams? Etc.

It doesn’t say nothing but it doesn’t say a lot either because there’s a ton of noise in there and as you yourself said, there’s limited samples of comparable situations.

You really don’t see the huge flaws in these arguments? You really think it makes sense to apply the 94 Bulls (the most important team performance in NBA history according to some of you :lol) to the entire run of the 90s Bulls? Or the 89 Celtics to the entire run of 80s Celtics? Or the 92 Lakers to the entire run of the 80s/early 90s Lakers? Or the 2015 Heat to the run of the Big 3 Heat?

Or are you just being intentionally ignorant?

Stanley Kobrick

10-23-2020, 06:12 PM

Roundball_Rock dropping some good knowledge. high bbiq user

MadDog

10-23-2020, 06:18 PM

I've said LeBron choked in 11' on ISH from the point he did it onward. I've never made an excuse for him. Yes, legends need to be held accountable when they underachieve--but you guys only do that with 2 small forwards. When a thread is posted to hold Stockton, Ewing, Miller, Malone, etc. to account or they are held accountable within threads? You know what MJ stans do: rush to defend them--and these are people with a lot longer list of "bad" series and moments than the 2 SFs who make you all so insecure. :lol

Who is "you guys"? :confusedshrug: I have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm only speaking on Jordan/Pippen vs LeBron/Wade. Or the meat and potatoes of your OP. LeBron playing with someone like Prime Wade yet losing with him? Damning. Pairing up with AD and being out-scored/defended is also damning. Not on the surface although if you want to rate him "GOAT" that stuff matters. His flaws might look magnified but thank his fans for that :oldlol: Playing with loaded talent year after year doesn't make you a better player. Far from.

How many accounts is he going to create? :lol

What accounts? :oldlol:

3ball

10-23-2020, 06:19 PM

:cheers:

2nd leading scorers vs Pippen

89' 1st Round

Pippen....15.0 on 40%
Nance.... 19.4 on 55%

89' ECF

Pippen'...... 9.7 on 40%
Dumars... 17.6 on 40%

90' ECF

Pippen'..... 16.0 on 42%
Dumars.... 18.6 on 50%

92' ECSF

Pippen... 16.0 on 40%
X-man.... 18.6 on 50%

93' First Round

Pippen......... 15.3 on 39%

Willis............ 18.1 on 48%
Dominique... 30.0 on 44%

94' ECSF

Pippen... 21.7 on 41%
Ewing'.... 22.9 on 53%

95' ECSF

Pippen.......... 16.0 on 51%
L Johnson.... 20.8 on 47%

96' ECSF*

Pippen... 15.6 on 33%

Oakley.... 13.4 on 50%
Starks'.... 13.8 on 38%

96' ECF

Pippen... 18.5 on 45%
Penny''... 25.5 on 47%

96' Finals

Pippen... 15.7 on 34%
Kemp..... 23.3 on 50%

97' 1st Rd

Pippen'.... 16.7 on 39%
Howard... 18.7 on 46%

98' ECF*

Pippen..... 16.6 on 39%
Smits....... 16.3 on 55%

TLDR: Pippen was outscored in 10 of 33 playoff series from 89' to 98', or 30.1% of series..

This excludes his rookie year..

It also excludes the 98' ECF and 96' ECSF (asterisked above) where pippen had medieval efficiency and was clearly outplayed, despite scoring a few tenths higher.. When we include these series where his scoring was matched with far greater efficiency, it becomes clear that pippen was outplayed a lot more than just 30%

*** But if pippen is still outplaying the opposing 2nd option 60 to 70% of the time, then why did MJ have to score goat amounts? ***

It's because the Bulls had no 3rd option and they got destroyed at the 3rd and 4th spots, especially in the 91-93' Finals.. Guys like Vlade and Perkins were both getting 17/9 and destroying Horace in the 91' Finals.. or Kersey and Buck Williams in the 92' Finals... Or Dumas and Majerle in 93'... The 2nd three-peat was worse with Rodman..

Ultimately, the Bulls were a 1-man team offensively and Jordan won 6 carry-job rings - no one ever scored a higher proportion of his team's points

Roundball_Rock

10-23-2020, 07:39 PM

Roundball_Rock dropping some good knowledge. high bbiq user

:cheers:

It’s clearly for the entire game score, both teams included. There’s no way Jordan and Lebron’s game score shares were 60%-70% of their teams total.

Yeah, good catch. That makes it an even getter gauge, to the extent GS tells us something. It certainly is a better metric than simply looking at PPG. :lol

I’ve rarely ever heard anyone say Lebron should be 10-0 or won 7-8 finals even on this board

Good question. What do the "4-6" mafia think his teams' record should be. They never answer that. 4-6 mafia, care to comment?

It doesn’t say nothing but it doesn’t say a lot either because there’s a ton of noise in there and as you yourself said, there’s limited samples of comparable situations.

Have any better metric? The Jordan crowd seems to think the way to gauge team strength is by teammates' jersey sales or something. :oldlol: Bosh being a big name doesn't make his 12/7/1 any more valuable than David West or Carlos Boozer doing the same thing.

You really think it makes sense to apply the 94 Bulls (the most important team performance in NBA history according to some of you ) to the entire run of the 90s Bulls? Or the 89 Celtics to the entire run of 80s Celtics? Or the 92 Lakers to the entire run of the 80s/early 90s Lakers? Or the 2015 Heat to the run of the Big 3 Heat?

Jordan fans themselves are quick to point out the Bulls were 26-12 without Pippen in 98'--somehow that logic doesn't apply to a full season when it comes to MJ.

A lot of people think it makes sense, hence why "55 wins" is a common response to MJ fans' pleas of poverty of help. You guys just don't like it because it is inconvenient, even though you have an obvious answer: they were even better with Jordan. That isn't enough. MJ has to have won with scrubs.

2nd leading scorers vs Pippen

More deception. Let's go through the ways:

*He lists pre-prime years, like 89'.
*He lists a 1st option for 94' (Ewing), trying to tell you he was the 2nd option (Starks was).
*He doesn't grasp FG % is higher for post players who take closer shots, especially relative to perimeter players who take a high volume of threes.

The info was posted earlier. Anyone is free to check it out.

The real question: why are MJ stans afraid to do the same exercise for opposing teams' sidekicks' scoring? There obviously is something they want to conceal.

guy

10-23-2020, 08:01 PM

:cheers:
Good question. What do the "4-6" mafia think his teams' record should be. They never answer that. 4-6 mafia, care to comment?

You keep engaging with trolls if you want. Most reasonable people give him a 100% pass for 3-5 titles. You can do the math from there. I’ve given you my logic to why I think 6 is a reasonable expectation.

Have any better metric? The Jordan crowd seems to think the way to gauge team strength is by teammates' jersey sales or something. :oldlol: Bosh being a big name doesn't make his 12/7/1 any more valuable than David West or Carlos Boozer doing the same thing.

Does there need to be? How about watching games, paying attention to the league and seeing how teams evolve over time?

Like seriously, do you really think what happened in 1994 says a whole about 1991 or 1998? You really think the Bulls were that close to a 55 win team without Jordan in 1990? 1991? 1993? 1998? If you do, don’t bother watching games. Just stick to the numbers. :lol

Jordan fans themselves are quick to point out the Bulls were 26-12 without Pippen in 98'--somehow that logic doesn't apply to a full season when it comes to MJ.

I don’t care what “Jordan fans” say. Again I’ll repeat:

You really think it makes sense to apply the 94 Bulls (the most important team performance in NBA history according to some of you ) to the entire run of the 90s Bulls? Or the 89 Celtics to the entire run of 80s Celtics? Or the 92 Lakers to the entire run of the 80s/early 90s Lakers? Or the 2015 Heat to the run of the Big 3 Heat?

A lot of people think it makes sense, hence why "55 wins" is a common response to MJ fans' pleas of poverty of help. You guys just don't like it because it is inconvenient, even though you have an obvious answer: they were even better with Jordan. That isn't enough. MJ has to have won with scrubs.

I hear reasonable fans acknowledge it to point out Jordan had help and didn’t just play with scrubs like some trolls might say. I don’t hear reasonable fans thinking that’s something holds that much weight when defining their whole dynasty and how it evolved over time. I also don’t hear reasonable fans thinking that the Lakers going 42-40 without Magic in 92 has much bearing on Magic’s entire time with the Lakers. That’s mainly you and a bunch of trolls that never watched them play.

And1AllDay

10-23-2020, 08:11 PM

Paul George was 3rd for MVP too

It means zero

MJ won 6 rings with a Paul George caliber player, except George had better stats than pippen

against demar deorzans cool :oldlol:

And1AllDay

10-23-2020, 08:15 PM

aye whats mikes best ring again? :oldlol: need a good laugh

MadDog

10-23-2020, 08:26 PM

aye whats mikes best ring again? :oldlol: need a good laugh

The one Jordan wasn't outscored by his teammate :confusedshrug: Who are we kidding? That would mean ALL 6 > 2020 LeBron. Errr, I mean AD :oldlol:

FireDavidKahn

10-23-2020, 08:33 PM

Such a tough era.

Next time someone wants to use MVPs to justify 1 player over another just send them this graphic made by
@Bankmvp
, KD received 0 1st Place MVP votes, Bird won the MVP.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElDJw8YW0AAccjR?format=jpg&name=medium

And1AllDay

10-23-2020, 08:37 PM

The one Jordan wasn't outscored by his teammate :confusedshrug: Who are we kidding? That would mean ALL 6 > 2020 LeBron. Errr, I mean AD :oldlol:

you got 6

pick one :oldlol:

mikes best ring...ready go

Honor Boost

10-23-2020, 10:18 PM

you got 6

pick one :oldlol:

mikes best ring...ready go

1996 Sonics because he showed he could win 72 games and sustain that greatness going into the playoffs and Finals.

Roundball_Rock

10-24-2020, 10:53 AM

For a finals? Jordan's best ring was the 97' finals IMO. The Jazz came closest to beating the Bulls in any series and the 97' Jazz were stronger than the 98' Jazz. Both teams declined in 98' but you are never going to win a series in in any era (post-shot clock) when your second/third options score a combined 20 PPG.

For a run? 93'. Knicks had the Bulls on the ropes (the East offered no resistance in 97') and the Suns almost took them to 7. The Knicks in particular were up 2-0 and almost won Game 5 (the legendary "Charles Smith" ending https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRFKhpMKX0E ).

You keep engaging with trolls if you want. Most reasonable people give him a 100% pass for 3-5 titles.

Half of ESPN=trolls? :confusedshrug:

Does there need to be?

Yes, if fans are going to make team success the be all end all then we have to assess the strength of 1) the team that player was on 2) the competition.

I don't like the team success obsession but I am not going to pretend that isn't the sea in which the NBA world swims.

Let's cut the BS. We know if the Bulls became a lottery team, as everyone expected (Jackson told the team 42-40 would be a best case scenario, we would never heard the end of it. Jordan fans complain about years they (comfortably) won championships and say MJ didn't get enough help so you are telling me if that "help" went 33-49 without MJ that wouldn't be thrown in our faces 24/7? :oldlol:

dankok8

10-24-2020, 03:08 PM

All of Jordan's first threepeat rings are better than any of Lebron's IMO. And I'm not talking about competition because that's hard to quantify but just the level of play. 1991-1993 Jordan was practically invincible. He literally had no weaknesses and completely and utterly dominated. You'll be hard pressed to find individual games in those finals in which he wasn't the best player... GAMES... let alone an entire series like we saw prime Lebron get outplayed a few times.

Roundball_Rock

10-24-2020, 05:03 PM

You'll be hard pressed to find individual games in those finals in which he wasn't the best player... GAMES... let alone an entire series like we saw prime Lebron get outplayed a few times.

In the finals? Yeah, you would have to go to a few games here or there. Jordan was the best player in probably 80% of games.

The finals opponent isn't always the best opponent. In 93', the ECF was much tougher than the finals and the Knicks arguably were better than the Suns.

Sports Illustrated said Pippen was the MVP of the 93' ECF. I am sure you disagree, but the point is it must have been close for a pro-Jordan writer to reach that conclusion. Jordan shot 35% outside of his monster Game 4 in that series (the only game from the series the media talks about), so you can see why this wasn't the MJ we normally see. You don't erase a game from a series but when you are talking game-by-game then doing so may tell us something.

Jordan in games 1-3, 5-6: 27.8 PPG on 35%
Pippen in games 1-3, 5-6: 24.4 PPG on 55%

Outside of the 93' ECF? I agree with your basic point. MJ had a level of consistency of elite play that probably only KAJ can match.

For all the PPG talk from his fans, it is notable Pippen averaged 24.4 in those five games but scored only 13 when MJ had 54 on 46% usage.

HoopsNY

10-24-2020, 05:38 PM

dbugz

10-24-2020, 05:48 PM

MadDog

10-24-2020, 05:58 PM

It's hard to take this level of criticism seriously. What happened against Houston, San Antonio, and LAL?

Willis/Drexler (26.1 PPG)
Hornecek/Stockton: (23.6 PPG)

Robinson/Johnson: (33.6 PPG)
Hornecek/Stockton: (23.0 PPG)

Jones/Bryant: (25.0 PPG)
Hornecek/Stockton: (21.0 PPG)

Both the Lakers and Spurs got thumped with that kind of production. This is why it's hard to take the criticisms against Utah seriously when they were able to defeat what appeared to be superior teams (anyone at the time knew how good Utah was and didn't think this really), in pretty convincing fashion.

Saw your reply to my post in another thread, but you touched on it here. Stockton is the one really affected here. Like Magic the most important facet of Stockton's game was playmaking, so boiling everything down to what he scored wont paint an accurate picture. Without a shooting percentage, the "PPG" comp is misleading anyway.

HoopsNY

10-24-2020, 06:06 PM

Roundball_Rock

10-24-2020, 06:23 PM

Saw your reply to my post in another thread, but you touched on it here. Stockton is the one really affected here. Like Magic the most important facet of Stockton's game was playmaking, so boiling everything down to what he scored wont paint an accurate picture. Without a shooting percentage, the "PPG" comp is misleading anyway.

https://media.giphy.com/media/yGQA8r44a6bmg/giphy.gif

The irony is lost on you, isn't it? :lol He did more than score. His job was to pass first, not score first. Etc.

Jordan stans cannot levy a solitary criticism of anyone who played against MJ which is pathetic. No actual beliefs. Stockton was outplayed by Pippen twice--and you all say Pippen sucked in those series. The logical conclusion is...can you process it? If A sucks, and B played worse than A, that means...

Go watch some Stockton games. Only someone who never watched him play would think his shooting percentages tell us anything--he only shot when wide open or on layups (and then compare it to guy who was being double teamed--despite sucking at scoring, right?). Which opposing teams new--he wasn't a scoring threat they had to factor in. You know, like Ben Simmons from 3.

It is obvious few "Jordan fans" ever watched any of these players play.

Willis/Drexler (26.1 PPG)
Hornecek/Stockton: (23.6 PPG)

Robinson/Johnson: (33.6 PPG)
Hornecek/Stockton: (23.0 PPG)

Jones/Bryant: (25.0 PPG)
Hornecek/Stockton: (21.0 PPG)

And these very same people bitch about the scoring MJ was getting (e.g., 31 PPG in the 98' finals--which would be the second highest on this list--but this same guy was saying that was "bad help" in multiple threads). :roll:

They won against lesser teams with 21 PPG. Surprise surprise that didn't work against the best team.

If any of you actually watched the your hero play, you would know how close those games usually were. Stockton actually taking and making some contested shots instead of scrubs or an underperforming Hornacek shooting instead would have made a difference (assuming he made them).

You guys hype every other star PG of the era, right? KJ, Price, Hardaway, Penny were all viable scoring threats.

HoopsNY

10-24-2020, 06:49 PM

https://media.giphy.com/media/yGQA8r44a6bmg/giphy.gif

The irony is lost on you, isn't it? :lol He did more than score. His job was to pass first, not score first. Etc.

Jordan stans cannot levy a solitary criticism of anyone who played against MJ which is pathetic. No actual beliefs. Stockton was outplayed by Pippen twice--and you all say Pippen sucked in those series. The logical conclusion is...can you process it? If A sucks, and B played worse than A, that means...

Go watch some Stockton games. Only someone who never watched him play would think his shooting percentages tell us anything--he only shot when wide open or on layups (and then compare it to guy who was being double teamed--despite sucking at scoring, right?). Which opposing teams new--he wasn't a scoring threat they had to factor in. You know, like Ben Simmons from 3.

It is obvious few "Jordan fans" ever watched any of these players play.

And these very same people bitch about the scoring MJ was getting (e.g., 31 PPG in the 98' finals--which would be the second highest on this list--but this same guy was saying that was "bad help" in multiple threads). :roll:

They won against lesser teams with 21 PPG. Surprise surprise that didn't work against the best team.

If any of you actually watched the your hero play, you would know how close those games usually were. Stockton actually taking and making some contested shots instead of scrubs or an underperforming Hornacek shooting instead would have made a difference (assuming he made them).

You guys hype every other star PG of the era, right? KJ, Price, Hardaway, Penny were all viable scoring threats.

Sidestepping as usual. My direct response to the comment followed by the "Bulls fan's" evasion and red herrings. So typical of this guy yet somehow, I'm the hypocrite.

Keep in mind, I don't try to champion who faced better competition. I think the entire premise is silly. I don't make arguments that this one faced more or less HOF'ers. And I certainly don't think Pippen was trash. But Roundball here is the biggest Bran stan of them all, postulating himself as some kind of Bulls fan, lol.

dbugz

10-24-2020, 06:59 PM

HoopsNY

10-24-2020, 07:02 PM

MadDog

10-24-2020, 07:05 PM

The irony is lost on you, isn't it?

Jordan stans cannot levy a solitary criticism of anyone who played against MJ which is pathetic. No actual beliefs. Stockton was outplayed by Pippen twice--and you all say Pippen sucked in those series. The logical conclusion is...can you process it? If A sucks, and B played worse than A, that means...

Did Stockton have a single flaw in his game? If not, shouldn't he be top 10 all-time at minimum?

Go watch some Stockton games. Only someone who never watched him play would think his shooting percentages tell us anything--he only shot when wide open or on layups (and then compare it to guy who was being double teamed--despite sucking at scoring, right?). Which opposing teams new--he wasn't a scoring threat they had to factor in. You know, like Ben Simmons from 3.

“Go watch Stockton games”.

Then claims Stockton sucked because of his PPG. :oldlol: You keep repeating what “they say” and how “bad” their arguments are, yet you constantly use them. :confusedshrug: Who cares what Jordan stans say? Can you diagram a counterargument with your OWN parameters? Limiting what Stockton did in lieu of “PPG” says nothing about his in-game impact. Period. And once again, posting a players PPG means nothing without their efficiency.

But Roundball here is the biggest Bran stan of them all, postulating himself as some kind of Bulls fan, lol.

What a trainwreck. I keep hearing him talk about the "bad" arguments Jordan fans make (what Jordan fans? :oldlol:), yet uses them to make his point. How does that make sense?

Roundball_Rock

10-24-2020, 07:05 PM

MJ stains aren't on the level. They will switch on a dime from thread to thread (or even within threads), given what is "pro-MJ" agenda-wise in a given moment (e.g., with Stockton we have to look beyond scoring--name one thread where they ever say that about Pippen, Rodman, or Grant :oldlol: ). Zero underlying beliefs. :lol

Hopefully they go extinct next June.

Backpick's Scouting Report on Stockton

For young people who didn't watch Stockton play, here is a profile on him from BP (who watched these guys live and then tons of film on candidates for top 40 AT for his website profile and rankings--a lot more credible source than MJ stains who can't keep their stories straight) that captures what I am saying:

But Stockton’s regular season efficiency is deceptive. He wasn’t an unstoppable force like Shaq, nor did he gain an advantage with marksmanship like Reggie Miller or Steph Curry. Instead, his efficiency was fueled by conservatism — he shot well because he only took premium shots. Look at what happens to Stockton’s profile in the playoffs — it (literally) shrinks. Despite the selectivity, his efficiency fell off along with his scoring

Stockton’s inability to pressure opponents and create havoc in the lane significantly dampened his impact as an offensive dynamo. Great players don’t have to score, but their threat to score generates global impact. Stockton simply wasn’t capable of this: He scored over 30 points just 11 times in his 11-year prime (1.2 percent of games), and hoisted over 20 true shot attempts just 2.4 percent of the time. This pales in comparison to the great 3-point era point guards, who could call their own number if the defense didn’t respect their scoring enough.

As that chart hints at, the playoffs exposed these weaknesses in Stockton. In 87 postseason games against teams with a defensive rating under 105, Stockton averaged 13.5 points per 36 on 57 percent true shooting, down from 15.5 and 62 percent in the regular season against such competition. Perhaps most importantly, his Box Creation in those games was only around 5 per 100, more inline with the sampling from the scouting report and drastically below some of his regular season estimations. In other words, he wasn’t breaking down defenses the way his assist numbers would suggest.

https://backpicks.com/2018/01/25/backpicks-goat-25-john-stockton/

Don't let them fool you. :pimp:

tpols

10-24-2020, 07:05 PM

Right, so once again, Roundball gets to look at the intangibles a player like Rodman brings that doesn't include scoring, but others can't use the playmaking of Stockton.

The most ironic part about this is that I'm the hypocrite here. :lol

You're typing with a poster who thinks Westbrook is better than Dwayne Wade and David Robinson. A guy who thinks Bran and Kareem are better than MJ.

It's never worth going back and forth with that fella.

Roundball_Rock

10-24-2020, 07:23 PM

If a team doesn't have a second scoring threat--teams can focus even more on the #1 option. Ask Karl Malone, a big reason his efficiency collapsed in the PO. No one else to take the pressure off.

You're typing with a poster who thinks Westbrook is better than Dwayne Wade and David Robinson. A guy who thinks Bran and Kareem are better than MJ.

It's never worth going back and forth with that fella.

All lies. :lol The Robinson one is particularly laughable--I don't know if I have even mentioned the two in the same post, ever.

Roundball gets to look at the intangibles a player like Rodman brings that doesn't include scoring, but others can't use the playmaking of Stockton.

That is because people like you went around saying MJ had little/no help solely based on scoring. Do you have memory problems or are you just playing dumb? You were doing this just the other day--using the and 96' finals 98' finals as an example of MJ having little help. Maybe "variable help" will jog your faulty memory.

The value of using MJ stains' own logic against you is it 1) exposes how dumb it is (by your own admission--here) 2) how dishonest MJ stains are. Keep this thread in mind when you see the same people talking about MJ's teammates.

Just admit it. You guys want to go use PPG in a vacuum for MJ's teammates--nothing on the "comp's" numbers, nothing on the era--nothing about any facet of the game beyond PPG. Then when that info doesn't work on the "comp", you switch on a dime. Even laughably saying Stockton's "efficiency" means anything when he only took the easiest of shots. Look at the idiot the post above. Every post he makes defines players by PPG--until Stockton sucking at scoring comes up. :lol

Roundball_Rock

10-24-2020, 07:36 PM

Here is what Hoops said just the other day. :lol

This is why I say half of MJ's finals victories are just as impressive, if not more impressive, than literally all of LeBron's, simply because the sidekick production wasn't phenomenal. That has to count for something. Even if someone were to equate them (which would be ridiculous), it certainly doesn't diminish from MJ's finals performances.

Would have to take a deeper look, but again, how did Pippen perform in the finals as a whole? If HALF of the performances weren't as good as LeBron's 4 WINS, then why is there even a debate to begin with? I posted it up before in another post:

Lebron's 4 Wins
2012: 23/6/5 on 52% TS%, 16.4 GmSc
2013: 20/4/5 on 51% TS%, 14.9 GmSc
2016: 27/4/4 on 56% TS%, 19.1 GmSc
2020: 25/11/3 on 67% TS%, 22.8 GmSc

Now look at Pippen's production in the NBA finals in 1993, 1996, and 1998

1993: 21/9/8 on 46% TS%, 15.6 GmSc
1996: 16/8/5 on 43% TS%, 13.4 GmSc
1998: 16/7/5 on 50% TS%, 13.0 GmSc

There are 20 other examples but you get the point. Nothing on defense, intangibles (Pippen's return lifting the Bulls' offense slightly more than Stockton's return did for Utah in the same year--1998), etc. here, is there? The same guy is talking about MJ defending Kevin Johnson but then pretends Pippen didn't dominate the 98' finals defensively. To be fair, it isn't just him. It is MJ stains as a whole. They are robots. :oldlol:

21/9/8 sucks but Stockton was awesome in the finals. Malone would have 2 rings if he got 21/9/8.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?486357-Article-Seven-Main-Reasons-Why-Michael-Jordan-is-Better-Than-Lebron-James&p=14164346&viewfull=1#post14164346

HoopsNY

10-24-2020, 10:20 PM

Here is what Hoops said just the other day. :lol

There are 20 other examples but you get the point. Nothing on defense, intangibles (Pippen's return lifting the Bulls' offense slightly more than Stockton's return did for Utah in the same year--1998), etc. here, is there? The same guy is talking about MJ defending Kevin Johnson but then pretends Pippen didn't dominate the 98' finals defensively. To be fair, it isn't just him. It is MJ stains as a whole. They are robots. :oldlol:

21/9/8 sucks but Stockton was awesome in the finals. Malone would have 2 rings if he got 21/9/8.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?486357-Article-Seven-Main-Reasons-Why-Michael-Jordan-is-Better-Than-Lebron-James&p=14164346&viewfull=1#post14164346

Unbelievable. This moron wants to accuse me of things that others say, without realizing that those comments are in response to direct claims of what was being discussed.

He wants to act like Pippen's production in every single finals was phenomenal, when it wasn't, and that includes 1993.

He wants to mention Pippen's defense as if Pippen was an elite defender in every single series that Chicago played in, whereas he wasn't. Then he wants to gloat about Pippen's defense in the 1998 finals, while conveniently ignoring Stockton's.

Dumas' 1993 Finals: 15.8 PPG, 57% FGs, 58% TS%

Schrempf 1996 Finals: 16.3 PPG, 44%, 55% TS%

Now look Stockton's defensive assignments' exact offensive production through the playoffs, including the NBA finals.

Ron Harper 1998

1st Round: 9.3 PPG, 60% FGs, 67% TS
2nd Round: 4.0 PPG, 40% FGs, 40% TS%
3rd Round: 8.7 PPG, 50% FGs, 56% TS%
NBA Finals: 5.3 PPG, 36% FGs, 42% TS%

Steve Kerr 1998

1st Round: 5.3 PPG, 54% FGs, 60% TS%
2nd Round: 7.6 PPG, 50% FGs, 67% TS%
3rd Round: 3.7 PPG, 37% FGs, 59% TS%
NBA Finals: 3.8 PPG, 35% FGs, 53% TS%

So let me guess, Stockton, a 5x All-Defensive player, was horrible defensively in the finals while Pippen dominated? Unbelievable. This idiot thinks I didn't watch basketball back then or forgot what actually happened. Stockton was a great defensive player. Stockton held his opponents to poor efficiency numbers, and that just cannot be ignored.

And I'm not even here saying that Pippen played bad defensively. But just like you can't criticize MJ or LeBron on this forum, apparently you can't criticize Pippen, either.

dankok8

10-24-2020, 10:59 PM

I agree with your basic point. MJ had a level of consistency of elite play that probably only KAJ can match.

So then how is he not better than Lebron? I'm just trying to understand your thought process.

As for the 1993 ECF Jordan's numbers were staggering (32/6/7/2 on 52% TS but only 2 turnovers) considering the dominance of those Knicks defensively and that they literally threw the kitchen sink at Jordan. Hell they threw the entire kitchen at him. I recently watched some footage from that series and it was intense! Honestly it was an impressive performance maybe one of the best of his career considering how good that defense was. Seriously... I've seen you disrespect that Knicks team in your other posts. The depth and the defensive talent they had was legendary. I urge everyone here to watch that series. It's available on YT.

Bulls were down 0-2 and from Game 3 onwards MJ started passing the ball more and getting his teammates shots when he got blitzed with double and triple teams. Bulls won four straight to come back and win 4-2. Arguably as much as the 54-point Game 4 which admittedly is bonkers MJ was so impressive with his passing in the other Bulls wins. In Game 3, 5 and 6 collectively the man had 34 assists with just 8 turnovers. And he played defense like a man possessed.

As for being much tougher than the Finals I don't know about that. It was a contrast of styles. The Knicks series was an incredible defensive grind and the Suns series was a high-octane battle. I do think MJ felt like a hungry lion released from his cage when the Phoenix series started though.

Roundball_Rock

10-24-2020, 11:11 PM

So then how is he not better than Lebron? I'm just trying to understand your thought process.

He is. Where have you seen my say LeBron>MJ? :confusedshrug: I had LeBron 4th all-time until recently, moved him up to 3rd ahead of Wilt (I have KAJ 1st, MJ 2nd--with longevity being the tiebreaker since I consider them equal, flawless as players). I'm just against the BS MJ stans spew. The guy had a team capable of competing on par with the very Knicks team you are touting, both over 82 games in the RS and then 7 games in the playoffs, without MJ yet MJ had no help? :confusedshrug: I'm critical of them (more below) but there is nuance and consistency to it. I don't say they were great and then say the 94' Bulls sucked in the next thread. :oldlol:

considering the dominance of those Knicks defensively and that they literally threw the kitchen sink at Jordan. Hell they threw the entire kitchen at him. I recently watched some footage from that series and it was intense! Honestly it was an impressive performance maybe one of the best of his career considering how good that defense was. Seriously... I've seen you disrespect that Knicks team in your other posts. The depth and the defensive talent they had was legendary. I urge everyone here to watch that series. It's available on YT.

I always call them an all-time great defense--and as you know the defense was even better the following year. Yet MJ fans want to define Pippen's entire career by one PO series against that defense (while not crediting Pippen for being the only perimeter star to shoot over 50% in a series against that defense, which he did in 93' and no one else did during the Riley era). I don't recall you chiming in any of those many threads saying that defense was awesome, it is asinine to define an entire career by 7 games against the best version of that ATG defense. As you just noted, they stifled MJ himself. They were that good--on defense. They were always subpar offensively and that ultimately came back to haunt them as they lost a lot of close series during their run.

His ability to impact the game outside of scoring is one of the things that made him great. It is a shame a lot of his fans (not you but you have been here a long time so you know what I'm referencing), boil him down to PPG and boil down his teammates and LeBron's to teammates (but not John Stockton! Suddenly we have to look at global impact with Stockton! :lol ).

My point in bringing that series up is it is an example where Jordan wasn't at his normal level and Pippen was better in several games (and the series as a whole, per Sports Illustrated). This came up in another thread. 97' ECF is another "bad" series Jordan had (by his standards :oldlol: ). The examples are rare, though, and his floor is nowhere near 07' finals, 10' ECSF, or 11' finals like it was with LeBron.

dankok8

10-24-2020, 11:38 PM

He is. Where have you seen my say LeBron>MJ? :confusedshrug: I had LeBron 4th all-time until recently, moved him up to 3rd ahead of Wilt (I have KAJ 1st, MJ 2nd--with longevity being the tiebreaker since I consider them equal, flawless as players). I'm just against the BS MJ stans spew. The guy had a team capable of competing on par with the very Knicks team you are touting, both over 82 games in the RS and then 7 games in the playoffs, without MJ yet MJ had no help? :confusedshrug: I'm critical of them (more below) but there is nuance and consistency to it. I don't say they were great and then say the 94' Bulls sucked in the next thread. :oldlol:

I always call them an all-time great defense--and as you know the defense was even better the following year. Yet MJ fans want to define Pippen's entire career by one PO series against that defense (while not crediting Pippen for being the only perimeter star to shoot over 50% in a series against that defense, which he did in 93' and no one else did during the Riley era). I don't recall you chiming in any of those many threads saying that defense was awesome, it is asinine to define an entire career by 7 games against the best version of that ATG defense. As you just noted, they stifled MJ himself. They were that good--on defense. They were always subpar offensively and that ultimately came back to haunt them as they lost a lot of close series during their run.

His ability to impact the game outside of scoring is one of the things that made him great. It is a shame a lot of his fans (not you but you have been here a long time so you know what I'm referencing), boil him down to PPG and boil down his teammates and LeBron's to teammates (but not John Stockton! Suddenly we have to look at global impact with Stockton! :lol ).

My point in bringing that series up is it is an example where Jordan wasn't at his normal level and Pippen was better in several games (and the series as a whole, per Sports Illustrated). This came up in another thread. 97' ECF is another "bad" series Jordan had (by his standards :oldlol: ). The examples are rare, though, and his floor is nowhere near 07' finals, 10' ECSF, or 11' finals like it was with LeBron.

Fair enough. This is a post I mostly agree with. Lebron is #4 all time for me behind MJ/Russell/Kareem who you can arrange in just about any order and I won't dispute it.

I don't think I would say Pippen was better than Jordan in that series though. Jordan was 32/6/7/2 on 52 %TS with 2 turnovers and Pippen was 23/7/4 on 57 %TS with 4 turnovers. I don't see it especially considering how the defense was all over MJ. However, it was a really good series by Pippen.

Roundball_Rock

10-24-2020, 11:54 PM

dankok8

10-25-2020, 12:15 AM

Yeah, LeBron, Wilt, and Russell all have some flaws that MJ and KAJ do not. These are pretty minor--but when we are talking the 5 GOAT players small differences matter. I can see an argument for LeBron being a better offensive player (via his elite playmaking) but Jordan's edge on defense is clear. Jordan was simply much more skilled. It was harder to slow him down a la what happened with LeBron with Kawhi, Iggy. He was more consistent and reliable, hence why he has no legitimately bad series. Even the 93' ECF. His shot was off in most games but he found other ways to impact the game. He gets clowned for shooting 17% in Game 3 but I think he had a triple double that game (if he didn't he came awfully close to it).

At some point longevity swamps these type of differences but I'm not sure what they would be. LeBron was a MVP candidate in 2006 and in 2020. I don't know, if he still is at that level in 2023 or 2024 maybe then? I'll have to see how it unfolds but insane longevity is the only way I see LeBron becoming GOAT in my book.

The argument would be consistency and Pippen hitting many of the big shots (or blocking Charles Smith twice, although MJ and Grant were in on that play too), including the dagger to end the series in Game 6.

I'm not sure what the TS % and the other stats would be if you take out Game 4 but PPG and FG % become 24 on 55% for Pippen and 28 on 35% for MJ. At any rate, I wouldn't strongly dispute someone saying MJ.

You are a fair poster. I didn't even know you were a MJ fan until the last week or so. However, most of the tools in this thread would say MJ faced that great defense in 93' and then act like Pippen didn't face that same defense. Their presentation is that 94' ECSF would be what Pippen would do in every series forevermore as a #1 option (they never mention the Cavs series, for obvious reasons). That is ridiculous. It is no coincidence MJ's two worst series probably were the 93' and 97' ECF: both were against the #1 defense (some would bring up the 96' finals, which was the #2 defense--Bulls were the #1 defense. He wins FMVP and it is considered a "bad" series for him :bowdown: ).

A big thing for me is crediting Pippen and co. That squares with MJ being possible GOAT. That team went from a contender similar to the Knicks w/out MJ to an all-time great team with 72, 69, 67, etc. wins with MJ. That is fair. How much better do people think MJ would make them? They weren't going to go 80-2 with him. It is just BS for MJ fans to act like he had no help when the Bulls were on par with the Knicks, the Bulls' top rival in the 90's, w/out him no matter how you measure it: RS performance, head to head in a 7 game series, both teams have 1 MVP caliber player, both teams had 3 all-stars, both teams had a HOF coach, etc.

I'm not an MJ fan. It's just that I'm 33 years old and have watched basketball for 23 years now and been a student of the game watching a lot of footage of Russell, Wilt, Kareem etc. so these Lebron tards piss me off when they call the guy GOAT especially with 4 titles. That's just being ignorant about the history of the game. Since most comparisons are Lebron vs. MJ that's what I respond to but you'd see similar posts from me if it was Lebron vs. Kareem or Russell.

And yea you're right. The worst ignoramuses are the ones pretending like Michael Jordan was just a great scorer. He was an amazing all around player who reacted to the game. For instance after scoring 54 on the Knicks in that 1993 ECF he then went into the next game (the "Charles Smith Game" you mentioned) with the mindset of distributing the ball knowing they would double and triple him hard. He did that for the first 3 quarters just finding guys then when they started loosening up around him he went off on them in the last 14 minutes scoring 14 points. And that's just one example but you can see MJ was a basketball savant not just a scoring machine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wJ3HusQz6o

As for 1994...

The Bulls without MJ weren't contenders or on par with the Knicks. In 1994, Bulls were 55-27 but had only a 2.87 SRS which was 11th in the league and a net rating of +3.4 which was also 11th in the league. When was the last time a team ranked 11th in SRS and/or 11th in net rating won a title? Knicks had an SRS of 6.48 which was 2nd and a net rating of +7.5 which was also 2nd in the league. Just because the series went 7 games doesn't mean it was close. Knicks were comfortably better than the Jordan-less Bulls IMO.

Hawks pushed the Celtics to 7 games in 2008? Would you say they were almost as good as them? I say no. Teams can overachieve for a few games, matchups favor them, injuries happen...

Roundball_Rock

10-25-2020, 12:55 AM

Good points on MJ. Wow, I didn't realize you were 33. I thought you were much older. Good poster either way, even if we don't always agree. :cheers:

The Bulls without MJ weren't contenders or on par with the Knicks. In 1994, Bulls were 55-27 but had only a 2.87 SRS which was 11th in the league and a net rating of +3.4 which was also 11th in the league. When was the last time a team ranked 11th in SRS and/or 11th in net rating won a title? Knicks had an SRS of 6.48 which was 2nd and a net rating of +7.5 which was also 2nd in the league

That is with Pippen missing 10 games (not to mention Grant 12) and the Bulls struggling during that time frame. We have the info from Backpicks for the Pippen games:

Pippen’s non-Jordan seasons were particularly impressive because of the overall heights of the team. In ’94, the Bulls played at a 55-win pace when healthy (4.7 SRS). There was undoubtably malaise during the 1993 season after deep postseason runs and the Barcelona Olympics, so a direct comparison between ’93 and ’94 is apples-to-oranges. Still, the ’94 Bulls added Toni Kukoc and Luc Longley, replaced Jordan with a defensive-centric Pete Myers, and posted close-to-contending results. In 1995, with key cog Horace Grant lost to Orlando (and Ron Harper aboard), a healthy Bulls team still played at a 52-win pace (3.8 SRS) with an rORtg of +1.1 before Michael Jordan returned.

4.7 would be the 5th best in 94'. 52 win/3.8 SRS in 95' may not sound like much but that was 2nd best in the East behind Orlando. The Pacers' SRS was 3.35, Knicks' 2.87.

Interestingly, the "healthy Bulls" SRS in 94' and the 95' pre-MJ SRS were both on par with the Suns (the "great" team the Bulls faced in the 93' finals ; ) ) each season.

https://backpicks.com/2018/01/29/backpicks-goat-23-scottie-pippen/

Hawks pushed the Celtics to 7 games in 2008? Would you say they were almost as good as them?

Apples to oranges. The Bulls went into the final weekend with a shot at the #1 seed. People always point to them winning 55 and the Knicks 57 but the 82nd game was meaningless (the Knicks won to be 57-25 and the Bulls 55-27 instead of 56-26 each)--the top 3 seeds were set. What screwed the Bulls was looking past the lowly Celtics in the 81st game and losing in double OT. The Hawks were a 39-43 #8 seed. Moreover, the Hawks got crushed in their losses. Their wins were narrow and fluky. The Celtics were +12 in scoring differential; the Bulls actually outscored (very narrowly) the Knicks in the series. The Bulls were the only team to have a positive point differential against the 94' Knicks (yes, the Knicks outscored Houston).

Another thing MJ fans overlook is the Bulls had Game 5 won to take a 3-2 lead but got robbed by Hue Hollins on the final Knicks' possession. ESPN did a poll on the WOAT referee calls (all sports) in the late 2000's; that call was #5 or so. The Knicks had been defeated on merit with Game 6 in Chicago.

If we were talking about a random 7 game series, like the 13' Pacers we discussed earlier tonight, I would agree with you. The Pacers were a 49 win team with no player anywhere close to LeBron. That isn't what we are talking about with the Bulls. The Bulls battled the Knicks and Hawks for the #1 seed all season. If the NBA did MVP the way MLB does, Pippen, not Ewing, would have been "East MVP." Grant and Armstrong were all-stars as well, similar to Oakley and Starks on the Knicks.

There isn't really an available measure that shows the Knicks as being anything but on par with the Bulls.

Teams can overachieve for a few games, matchups favor them, injuries happen...

An interesting thing about the 94' Bulls is their 94' PO opponents were teams they faced in 93'--and 92'. So we can track over time. We know the Knicks played the Bulls close in 92', and 93'. If they had a match up advantage, that wouldn't be the case since the match up advantage plus MJ would crush the Knicks. If anything it was the other way around as the Knicks' style and defensive personnel allowed them to punch above their weight against the Bulls in 92' and 93' even with peak MJ.

Jordan fans give the Pacers a ton of praise--the Bulls played better against the Knicks (both series were close but the Bulls actually outscored the Knicks, the Bulls' offensive rating was something like 8 points higher than the Pacers') and the Bulls were a 55 win team and Indiana a 47 win team.

55 wins is what people remember but that was with Pippen missing 10 games (and being injured for 2 more to start the season) and Grant missing 12 (not to mention Cartwright missing half the season and Kukoc 7 games). In the 70 healthy Pippen games the Bulls had a 59 win pace and a 61 win pace with both Pippen and Grant (both had been iron men in preceding years--if that happened in 94' the Bulls almost certainly would have won the #1 seed).

dbugz

10-25-2020, 04:48 AM

Fair enough. This is a post I mostly agree with. Lebron is #4 all time for me behind MJ/Russell/Kareem who you can arrange in just about any order and I won't dispute it.

I don't think I would say Pippen was better than Jordan in that series though. Jordan was 32/6/7/2 on 52 %TS with 2 turnovers and Pippen was 23/7/4 on 57 %TS with 4 turnovers. I don't see it especially considering how the defense was all over MJ. However, it was a really good series by Pippen.

make this high basketball IQ dude an OP.

No BS analysis :bowdown:

MJ is the unanimous GOAT :bowdown:

dankok8

10-25-2020, 11:55 AM

Good points on MJ. Wow, I didn't realize you were 33. I thought you were much older. Good poster either way, even if we don't always agree. :cheers:

That is with Pippen missing 10 games (not to mention Grant 12) and the Bulls struggling during that time frame. We have the info from Backpicks for the Pippen games:

4.7 would be the 5th best in 94'. 52 win/3.8 SRS in 95' may not sound like much but that was 2nd best in the East behind Orlando. The Pacers' SRS was 3.35, Knicks' 2.87.

Interestingly, the "healthy Bulls" SRS in 94' and the 95' pre-MJ SRS were both on par with the Suns (the "great" team the Bulls faced in the 93' finals ; ) ) each season.

https://backpicks.com/2018/01/29/backpicks-goat-23-scottie-pippen/

Apples to oranges. The Bulls went into the final weekend with a shot at the #1 seed. People always point to them winning 55 and the Knicks 57 but the 82nd game was meaningless (the Knicks won to be 57-25 and the Bulls 55-27 instead of 56-26 each)--the top 3 seeds were set. What screwed the Bulls was looking past the lowly Celtics in the 81st game and losing in double OT. The Hawks were a 39-43 #8 seed. Moreover, the Hawks got crushed in their losses. Their wins were narrow and fluky. The Celtics were +12 in scoring differential; the Bulls actually outscored (very narrowly) the Knicks in the series. The Bulls were the only team to have a positive point differential against the 94' Knicks (yes, the Knicks outscored Houston).

Another thing MJ fans overlook is the Bulls had Game 5 won to take a 3-2 lead but got robbed by Hue Hollins on the final Knicks' possession. ESPN did a poll on the WOAT referee calls (all sports) in the late 2000's; that call was #5 or so. The Knicks had been defeated on merit with Game 6 in Chicago.

If we were talking about a random 7 game series, like the 13' Pacers we discussed earlier tonight, I would agree with you. The Pacers were a 49 win team with no player anywhere close to LeBron. That isn't what we are talking about with the Bulls. The Bulls battled the Knicks and Hawks for the #1 seed all season. If the NBA did MVP the way MLB does, Pippen, not Ewing, would have been "East MVP." Grant and Armstrong were all-stars as well, similar to Oakley and Starks on the Knicks.

There isn't really an available measure that shows the Knicks as being anything but on par with the Bulls.

An interesting thing about the 94' Bulls is their 94' PO opponents were teams they faced in 93'--and 92'. So we can track over time. We know the Knicks played the Bulls close in 92', and 93'. If they had a match up advantage, that wouldn't be the case since the match up advantage plus MJ would crush the Knicks. If anything it was the other way around as the Knicks' style and defensive personnel allowed them to punch above their weight against the Bulls in 92' and 93' even with peak MJ.

Jordan fans give the Pacers a ton of praise--the Bulls played better against the Knicks (both series were close but the Bulls actually outscored the Knicks, the Bulls' offensive rating was something like 8 points higher than the Pacers') and the Bulls were a 55 win team and Indiana a 47 win team.

55 wins is what people remember but that was with Pippen missing 10 games (and being injured for 2 more to start the season) and Grant missing 12 (not to mention Cartwright missing half the season and Kukoc 7 games). In the 70 healthy Pippen games the Bulls had a 59 win pace and a 61 win pace with both Pippen and Grant (both had been iron men in preceding years--if that happened in 94' the Bulls almost certainly would have won the #1 seed).

Good reasonable post. Problem is that these "healthy team" analyses also apply to other teams. Knicks also had a bunch of players in 1994 miss games so they could well have been a lot better when healthy as well. Pippen as good as he was... he was no higher than about the 7th best player in the league in 1994. Below Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Barkley and Malone off the top of my head. All those teams with those guys leading them would have been favorites against the Jordan-less Bulls IMO including probably the Sonics too. Horace Grant and BJ Armstrong were nice players but they weren't true All-Stars. Kind of how Mo Williams and Big Z weren't either. Just my take anyway.

Roundball_Rock

10-25-2020, 12:13 PM

Good reasonable post. Problem is that these "healthy team" analyses also apply to other teams. Knicks also had a bunch of players in 1994 miss games so they could well have been a lot better when healthy as well.

True. A difference is the health of their #1's. Pippen wasn't healthy until the 13th game (missed 10, was playing hurt for the first 2--Bulls 5-7 during that time). Moreover, we know what the Knicks' performance level was: 51, 60, 57, 55 wins during the Riley era. 57 was near their ceiling. If Pippen and Grant simply had the same health they did from 1990-1993, the Bulls almost certainly would have won the #1 seed.

Even if you argue the Knicks were better, which is a fair position, my point doesn't change much. The Bulls were close w/out MJ (can you seriously envision the reverse happening if it was Ewing out for 82 games?). If you asked people to pick the East champ the Knicks would be the most likely answer--but the Bulls would be next most likely. Atlanta didn't have a superstar and tailed off after traded Wilkins for Manning, Orlando and Indiana were 4/5 seeds--one with no experience and the other with no superstar. Indiana gets a lot of gas now but they were .500 at the all-star break.

Pippen as good as he was... he was no higher than about the 7th best player in the league in 1994. Below Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Barkley and Malone off the top of my head

Impossible to know for sure since the NBA doesn't issue annual best player rankings and we don't have stuff like The Ringer doing regular top 25 lists for back then. What we do know is Pippen, Barkley, Malone were on the same all-NBA "line" as forwards--and Pippen crushed them. For first team votes, Pippen got 94 (so nearly unanimous) while Malone was at 68 (meaning about 1/3 of the voters didn't have Malone on their first team). Barkley lagged further behind on the second team (Barkley was never ahead of Pippen after 93'). So clearly all-NBA voters thought Pippen was better than those two.

Wilbon wrote who his top 5 players were in 94' (at the time), but he didn't specify the order. He listed Pippen, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, and Shaq as his top 5 (he had Pippen as MVP). That is one guy but Wilbon's list is consistent with all-NBA voters thought about Pippen vs. Malone/Barkley. Pippen was ahead of them in MVP too, but all-NBA tells us more about how they were perceived as players since that doesn't entail narratives.

94' is the first year we have any form of advanced plus-minus data. Jordan fans would never admit it, but prime Pippen consistently ranked at or near the front of the group of players we just mentioned (plus Miller and Hill), during the 1994-1998 period in those.

Your list is reasonable, though. You basically listed all the superstars in 94' and just put Pippen at the end of the list. Don't be surprised if LeBron fans do the same 25 years later with AD, e.g., saying LeBron, Giannis, Luka, Harden, Kawhi were all better than AD in 20' and then adding KD, Curry to that list using the same logic. Really, once you get past the top 2-3 in a given year there isn't much separating 4th from 7th or 8th.

Horace Grant and BJ Armstrong were nice players but they weren't true All-Stars.

I can see it with BJ but Grant was legit. In any era there are going to be a cadre of good players who are good enough to make 1-2 all-star teams but not more than that and are never all-NBA candidates. Grant was in the bucket, just like guys like Oakley, Majerle, Porter, Hornacek, M. Jackson, Smits, Starks, etc. Of these players I just named, Jordan fans will praise each one of them when talking about how "stacked" their teams were--except Grant...see why I get annoyed with these games from Jordan's fans (not you, general comment)?

3ball

10-25-2020, 12:15 PM

Good reasonable post. Problem is that these "healthy team" analyses also apply to other teams. Knicks also had a bunch of players in 1994 miss games so they could well have been a lot better when healthy as well. Pippen as good as he was... he was no higher than about the 7th best player in the league in 1994. Below Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Barkley and Malone off the top of my head. All those teams with those guys leading them would have been favorites against the Jordan-less Bulls IMO including probably the Sonics too. Horace Grant and BJ Armstrong were nice players but they weren't true All-Stars. Kind of how Mo Williams and Big Z weren't either. Just my take anyway.

Only pippen's poor play caused loss to the 94' Knicks - everyone played great except pippen

If pippen's 21 on 40% took the Knicks 7 games, then Jordan's 33 on 50% would've easily won...

And the Knicks took the Rockets 7 games despite Ewing shooting 33%, so MJ would've beaten Hakeem easily.. it would be the easiest ring he ever won

Roundball_Rock

10-25-2020, 12:26 PM

1-9ball, would you, like your disciples, say the Bulls had a better "supporting cast" than the Knicks in 94'?

3ball

10-25-2020, 12:32 PM

1-9ball, would you, like your disciples, say the Bulls had a better "supporting cast" than the Knicks in 94'?

No but they employed far better strategy and chemistry

That's how you beat superior talent

The 94' Bulls almost beat the Knicks with pippen at 21 on 40%, so they win easily with Jordan's playoff averages (33.5 on 49%)...

Heck, they would've won with MJ getting 21 on 40% but without the 3 chokes that pippen had (sit-out game, dumb-foul game, bad game 7)

And of course, Ewing nearly beat Hakeem while shooting 33%, so MJ easily beats Hakeem

Every historical event shows that MJ didn't need pippen, aka the aforementioned 94' playoff projection with MJ instead of pippen, and the 89' playoff run (where MJ pushed the Pistons despite 10 on 40% from Pippen)... Or the 98' season without pippen, and Pippen's run in 99' without the triangle... Or 87' MJ averaging 37/5/5 after setting the playoff record in 86'

Roundball_Rock

10-25-2020, 12:37 PM

In other words, the Bulls' cast was better than the Knicks' cast on the court--then this same guy will dedicate his life to saying that same cast, with Pippen added to the "cast", was "no help" and MJ had to win 6 rings by himself.

Like I said, MJ stans are not on the level. They will say anything at any given moment no matter how inconsistent or hypocritical because they have no underlying beliefs other than MJ worship.

If the Knicks had the talent, they would not need to play like thugs as Phil Jackson noted (forgot his phrasing but that was his point, they couldn't win playing basketball and had to resort to thuggery).

3ball

10-25-2020, 12:42 PM

In other words, the Bulls' cast was better than the Knicks' cast on the court--then this same guy will dedicate his life to saying that same cast, with Pippen added to the "cast", was "no help" and MJ had to win 6 rings by himself.

Like I said, MJ stans are not on the level. They will say anything at any given moment no matter how inconsistent or hypocritical because they have no underlying beliefs other than MJ worship.

Anthony Mason was the Knicks' 6th option in 94

So their cast destroyed the Bulls, but the system kept the Bulls competitive despite the talent deficit and Pippen wetting the bed

Roundball_Rock

10-25-2020, 12:48 PM

MJ stains can't be taken seriously. :sleeping I'll wait until Dan responds.

3ball

10-25-2020, 12:56 PM

MJ stains can't be taken seriously. :sleeping I'll wait until Dan responds.

I tell you that the bulls cast was worse..

You respond by saying "In other words, the Bulls' cast was better than the Knicks' cast"

But I'm the one not being serious?.. :facepalm:...

What drugs are you on bud?

dankok8

10-25-2020, 05:26 PM

Roundball_Rock

10-25-2020, 05:41 PM

I don't see Pippen as being better than Barkley or Malone in 1994. He might have had a better season but that doesn't mean he was the better basketball player.

I see your point. The two are different cases. Pippen crushed Malone in voting in 94' and they were neck and neck in 95' and 96' (Malone ahead in 95', Pippen in 96'). That is a 3 year time frame, not a fluke year like George in 19' where he did nothing like it before or after. What the all-NBA voters are telling us is Pippen clearly had a better season in 94' and they were roughly equal the next two seasons. Malone is a guy MJ fans hype as 10 feet tall and Pippen was doing this compared to him in Malone's prime? Pippen must have been pretty good then.

Pippen was ahead of Barkley every year after 93'. In 92' both were second team but I suspect Pippen got more votes (down year for Barkley)--but I haven't seen those anywhere so I can't say for sure (I wish I still had access to the NYT!). When one player is consistently having better seasons at some point you have to conclude he was just a better player at that stage of their careers. Injuries started to pile up for Barkley after 93' and he wasn't the same. He contemplated retiring due to back problems before the 94' or 95' season (forget which one). That nuance is lost in the discussion. Barkley is presented as being the same Barkley his entire career because it would be inconvenient to admit Pippen surpassed him, including for part of Barkley's prime (if not his peak of course).

These make some sense. If Pippen is top 25ish all-time and those guys 18thish all-time, you can see how the former could surpass the latter or be equal or better than Malone at some points.

Pippen wasn't a go-to option offensively. In the playoffs, a team led by Pippen can be neutralized quite easily

He scored 22 PPG in 94', Barkley was at 23 PPG. I get your point, though. Malone, Barkley were more gifted scorers. That said, offense is more than scoring. Pippen was able to lead a top 10 offense without Jordan so that hints at some value. Ewing was a better scorer than Pippen but his lack of playmaking meant the Knicks' offenses were never good, except when he had Mark Jackson there which drives him the point.

Pippen himself had issues scoring against the Knicks, as MJ did the year before, but the Bulls' offense performed better against the Knicks--by far--than the Rockets, Pacers, or Nets did. Check the offensive ratings for those series. It is something like 108 CHI, 100 for IND and HOU, and 94 for NJ.

Overall, the Bulls ranked 5th in offense of the 16 playoff teams and 2nd of the 8 teams that advanced in the postseason.

You could make the same charge with Malone. After all, the Bulls embarrassed the Jazz offense (ironically led by Pippen). They went from 103 PPG and the #1 offense to 80 PPG in the finals. Talk about neutralization!

And Grant and BJ also can't pick up the scoring.

Individually, no, but that is where MJ retiring so late screwed them. They couldn't sign a second scorer to fill that void. Kendall Gill said if MJ retired earlier he would have signed with the Bulls. Pippen, Grant, BJ, Gill, Kukoc would have more then enough scoring.

Additions of Kukoc and Longley in the 1993 offseason shouldn't be underestimated either. Kukoc can add 3-4 wins... He was a good solid 3rd option that could also pass the ball and do little things that help you win games

True, but what I find odd is Kukoc and Longley get props for 94' but they don't exist in the narrative for 1995-1998 when both played much more important roles. :lol

Longley didn't get there until the all-star break and he was a backup to Cartwright in 94' and Perdue in 95'. People seem to assume he was there for all of 94' and that he was the starter. Not so.

Agree on Kukoc's value--the Bulls had a strong second unit thanks to him and Kerr. One quibble: Kukoc was the 4th option as a rookie. He became the 2nd in 95' before MJ returned and then was 3rd almost the entire time, with the exception of the first half of 98' and the end of the 98' finals.

Kukoc seemed to hit a wall in the second half of the RS and it carried over to the PO. He was 9/4/3. If they had 95' Kukoc they probably make the finals.

3ball

10-25-2020, 05:56 PM

3ball makes Jordan fans look bad. Real talk...

I don't see Pippen as being better than Barkley or Malone in 1994. He might have had a better season but that doesn't mean he was the better basketball player. Pippen wasn't a go-to option offensively. In the playoffs, a team led by Pippen can be neutralized quite easily. And Grant and BJ also can't pick up the scoring.

Of course only a fool would say that MJ had a bad supporting cast. Additions of Kukoc and Longley in the 1993 offseason shouldn't be underestimated either. Kukoc can add 3-4 wins... He was a good solid 3rd option that could also pass the ball and do little things that help you win games. And he hit a game-winner against the Knicks and Pippen was irate that Phil didn't let him take the shot.

No one in the 90's said the bulls had a "great" or "stacked" cast

Virtually no one

Only in recent years have guys like longley or kukoc been inflated as something more than role players...

Everyone was replaceable because everyone was infact replaced for the 2nd three-peat.. the only holdover was a guy that averaged 17 on 41% for the entire 2nd three-peat playoffs (96-98')..

so MJ could literally win with anyone.. pippen was just the low-producing bum that came along in a 2-star vs 2-star format, where anyone would've won alongside the goat

3BallSucks

10-26-2020, 12:34 AM

No one in the 90's said the bulls had a "great" or "stacked" cast

Virtually no one

Only in recent years have guys like longley or kukoc been inflated as something more than role players...

Everyone was replaceable because everyone was infact replaced for the 2nd three-peat.. the only holdover was a guy that averaged 17 on 41% for the entire 2nd three-peat playoffs (96-98')..

so MJ could literally win with anyone.. pippen was just the low-producing bum that came along in a 2-star vs 2-star format, where anyone would've won alongside the goat

https://i.postimg.cc/fWtwv8cK/LNDin-DFp-400x400.jpg

dankok8

10-26-2020, 12:53 PM

No one in the 90's said the bulls had a "great" or "stacked" cast

Virtually no one

Only in recent years have guys like longley or kukoc been inflated as something more than role players...

Everyone was replaceable because everyone was infact replaced for the 2nd three-peat.. the only holdover was a guy that averaged 17 on 41% for the entire 2nd three-peat playoffs (96-98')..

so MJ could literally win with anyone.. pippen was just the low-producing bum that came along in a 2-star vs 2-star format, where anyone would've won alongside the goat

They were role players but Kukoc was a very good role player/borderline all-star kind of like Hedo Turkoglu.

Calling Pippen a low-producing bum... WOW. You really do make Jordan fans look bad. You should stop that. When you say things like that, no one will take you seriously.

Roundball_Rock

10-26-2020, 01:01 PM

They were role players but Kukoc was a very good role player/borderline all-star kind of like Hedo Turkoglu.

Calling Pippen a low-producing bum... WOW. You really do make Jordan fans look bad. You should stop that. When you say things like that, no one will take you seriously.

Yeah, Kukoc was like Turkoglu or Odom. They were borderline all-star types who had that capability but just couldn't play at that level consistently like players in the tiers above them, which prevented them from being actual all-stars. Still, when those guys are your 3rd or 4th best players they are huge assets. They can swing a game or two in a series.

guy

10-26-2020, 01:42 PM

Half of ESPN=trolls? :confusedshrug:

I’ve never heard anyone on ESPN say he should be 10-0 in the Finals and they usually all give him passes for at least 3 of those finals appearances. Maybe you can find 1 or 2 that proves otherwise, but who cares? There are trolls in the media. And there are exceptions to the rule. In general, the media has overwhelmingly given him a pass for a number of Finals losses.

Yes, if fans are going to make team success the be all end all then we have to assess the strength of 1) the team that player was on 2) the competition.

I don't like the team success obsession but I am not going to pretend that isn't the sea in which the NBA world swims.

Let's cut the BS. We know if the Bulls became a lottery team, as everyone expected (Jackson told the team 42-40 would be a best case scenario, we would never heard the end of it. Jordan fans complain about years they (comfortably) won championships and say MJ didn't get enough help so you are telling me if that "help" went 33-49 without MJ that wouldn't be thrown in our faces 24/7? :oldlol:

If its thrown in your face or not, doesn’t mean its right.

So there has to be a metric? What do we need to watch games for then to asses these things? Even if there has to be metric, this is a stupid metric given all the noise in it.

You do realize that there are metrics that statisticians who do this for a career have came up with that specifically try to quantify how many wins a guy contributes right i.e. win shares? Jordan’s at the top of that list and that stat would tell you that the Bulls weren’t always a good supporting cast and evolved over time into being a great one.

And even though that supports my point, I still wouldn’t use it as some sort of gospel. There are a number of nuances i.e. chemistry, motivations, consistent lineups, team playing style etc. that come into play that just are not captured by stats. But I’d easily take those over this bullshit simplistic argument you’re using, especially when defining a team over an entire era vs 1 season.

Roundball_Rock

10-26-2020, 05:45 PM

Dan, we discussed SRS earlier and you (correctly) noted the "healthy" exercise could be done with other teams. Backpicks' has that info for the 90's Knicks as well as for the 90's Bulls. So we can compare how the Bulls' core did when healthy with MJ, without him in SRS and measure it against the same metric for the Knicks' core when healthy.

https://backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/91-to-98-Healthy-Bulls-SRS.png

https://backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Knicks-healthy-94-to-00.png

That reads like this for the years we have data for both teams (Ewing was injured for most of 98' so let's exclude that, plus he was not longer elite by then):

Bulls' SRS 1993-1997: 58, 55, 52, 70, 69.
Knicks' SRS 1993-1997: 59, 60, 49, 51, 50.

This isn't the picture we are always presented of the Knicks towering over the Jordan-less Bulls. The Knicks are a 60 win SRS team when healthy but the Bulls aren't far behind at a 55 win SRS in 94'. In the next season, the Bulls are ahead of the Knicks at a 52 win SRS pre-MJ (59 when MJ returned) and 49 for the Knicks.

That's an average SRS of 53.5 wins for the Bulls and 54.5 for the Knicks across that time frame. That is extremely close no matter how you slice it. Injuries are removed from the picture because he only looks at games when the core played.

I can still see an argument for saying the Knicks are better but all the available data, including SRS, has the Bulls extremely close, which speaks volumes since the Bulls were down their best player in 94' and then down their best and third best player in 95' (BP corrects for injuries, not departures). No way the Knicks perform that will without prime Ewing. As you can see, even without the 98' version of Ewing they saw their SRS fall to 41 despite adding Houston, LJ by then. Imagine their SRS if Ewing missed all of 93', 94', or 95'.

I’ve never heard anyone on ESPN say he should be 10-0 in the Finals and they usually all give him passes for at least 3 of those finals appearances

The core "principle" put forward is being undefeated in the finals. Under that theory, 6-0>15-1.

So there has to be a metric? What do we need to watch games for then to asses these things?

How do you watch a game and apportion how much each player had to do with the W? If so, what is your methodology? There is so much that goes into it that it would be impossible.

Jordan and the Bulls may be the ultimate example. Everybody assumed they would be a lottery team because MJ was basically the team.

You do realize that there are metrics that statisticians who do this for a career have came up with that specifically try to quantify how many wins a guy contributes right i.e. win shares?

Those are good but based on statistical formulas, not real world results. A player can in theory pile up stats for himself while not helping the team. Isn't that the big charge against Westbrook?

Jordan’s at the top of that list and that stat would tell you that the Bulls weren’t always a good supporting cast and evolved over time into being a great one

That is another example of the limits of that type of stat. If Jordan is gone, his stats don't evaporate. The lion's share of his stats are in reality redistributed among the other players sans him. When MJ was gone, did the Bulls' PPG fall by 33 PPG? It was more like 7 (incidentally the same decline sans Pippen in 98') which means about 80% of his scoring was redistributed elsewhere, the loss was the other 20%.

I am not sure why MJ fans contest this so hotly. It is absurd on its face to say a 72 win team was a one man team. What is the expectation? That if MJ wasn't there they would go from 72-10 to 42-40? MJ=30 wins? :lol If MJ wasn't there they probably finish in the 55-60 win range.

dankok8

10-26-2020, 05:54 PM

^ Good analysis!

My issue with this is sample size. How many games in a season were these cores healthy? Extrapolating form small sample sizes can give funky results. Especially since the strength of schedule can vary quite dramatically.

Either way that data shows the great value of Jordan quite clearly. His team is a 52-55 win team (93-94 and 94-95) without him and a 72-win team with him (95-96). It's much harder to raise a 50-win team to a 70-win team than a 30-win team to a 50-win team. I would argue raising a good team 10 wins is harder than raising a bad team 20 wins.

Roundball_Rock

10-27-2020, 11:12 AM

Yeah, Backpicks is awesome, even if I don't agree with Taylor on every single thing.

My issue with this is sample size. How many games in a season were these cores healthy? Extrapolating form small sample sizes can give funky results. Especially since the strength of schedule can vary quite dramatically.

I can check that when I get my device verification link to access the BP site. :oldlol: For the 94' Bulls it would be 61 RS games. For 95' Pippen/Kukoc/BJ were all healthy but I would have to see if he counts a fourth player as "core."

Either way that data shows the great value of Jordan quite clearly. His team is a 52-55 win team (93-94 and 94-95) without him and a 72-win team with him (95-96). It's much harder to raise a 50-win team to a 70-win team than a 30-win team to a 50-win team. I would argue raising a good team 10 wins is harder than raising a bad team 20 wins.

Agreed! Not only did he raise their SRS exponentially, he raised them to GOAT team levels. I never understand why MJ fans don't make this argument. The facts support it and no one buys the "MJ had no help" line. (One minor quibble, the 95' baseline is without either Grant/Rodman so their core strength if they had Rodman in 95' would probably be more like 57-58 than 52 since Rodman>Grant and 95' Kukoc was much better than rookie Kukoc, but I agree with your point.)

Backpick's Ben Taylor has written the same and it makes logical sense. It is easier to go from 20 wins to 40 than it is to go from 40 to 60 even though both are 20 win deltas. While LeBron is the greater floor raiser, Jordan is the greater ceiling accessor. If you are trying to win chips, ceiling is more important and this is a key reason I have MJ ahead of LeBron (if LeBron keeps churning out MVP level seasons at some point longevity swamps MJ but I don't see him at that point yet). My basic criteria is how well would my team do if I draft a player's career (removing team switches since that skews things for many players, including LeBron and Wilt) and he is my #1 pick. I think MJ would generate slightly more chips on a random team than LeBron due to the ceiling offsetting LeBron's longevity to date.

guy

10-27-2020, 11:58 AM

How do you watch a game and apportion how much each player had to do with the W? If so, what is your methodology? There is so much that goes into it that it would be impossible.

Its not something that’s necessarily supposed to be quantifiable. Watching the Bulls over a number of years, it was clear they evolved into a great supporting cast over time.
You don’t think there’s so much that goes into your methodology? Is 1994 really supposed to tell me a lot about 1991?

Jordan and the Bulls may be the ultimate example. Everybody assumed they would be a lottery team because MJ was basically the team.

Because in many of those years, especially the earlier years, they likely would’ve been. Like I said, 1 year doesn’t define the entire run.

Those are good but based on statistical formulas, not real world results. A player can in theory pile up stats for himself while not helping the team. Isn't that the big charge against Westbrook?

Win shares don’t work like that and Russell Westbrook does not fare well with this stat relative to some of his peers and/or the monster raw stats he puts up. A guy like Kyle Lowry, who isn’t the stat stuffer Westbrook is, is slightly lower but basically on par with him. Chauncey Billups who is basically the Kyle Lowry of his era is actually a little better then Westbrook. And Chris Paul, who is one of Westbrook’s main rivals of this era and doesn’t put up the historically ridiculous stats Westbrook does, crushes him in win shares.

That is another example of the limits of that type of stat. If Jordan is gone, his stats don't evaporate.

Again, win shares don’t work like that. They take the expected W-L based off differentials and divide up that win total by players. So it adds up to the predicted Ws not the actual # of Ws so if you just use that as the range, this is what the Bulls with and without Jordan look like based on win shares:
1985: 38-39 wins to 24-25 wins
1986: 30-31 wins to 28-30 wins
1987: 40-43 wins to 23-26 wins
1988: 50 wins to 29 wins
1989: 45-47 wins to 25-27 wins
1990: 50-55 wins to 31-36 wins
1991: 61-63 wins to 41-43 wins
1992: 66-67 wins to 48-49 wins
1993: 57-58 wins to 40-41 wins
1994: 50-55 wins to 50-55 wins (same)
1995: 47-54 wins to 45-52 wins
1996: 70-72 wins to 50-52 wins
1997: 68-69 wins to 50-51 wins
1998: 61-62 wins to 45-46 wins

This tells me something that reflects more of what I actually watched over a number of years in terms of the supporting cast – they go from a pretty crappy lottery team till 1991 where they are basically a .500 team, with a big leap in 92, and then come back down to earth in 1993, and then they are basically a high 40/low 50 win team through 97 with a peak in 94 (which makes sense given the combination of youth and experience).

The only thing to me that looks off is 95-hard for me to believe that that team’s ceiling was low 50s-and 98 because that assumes Pippen is also out for half the season so its very hard for me to believe that without Jordan and Pippen for that long that they still end up with mid 40s in wins – they probably don’t even win 10 games by the time Pippen comes back and at that point there mindset is completely different and they basically mail it in – this is a drawback of stats like because there’s no way to really quantify how different mindsets impact performance, which is also the case in your with vs without arguments.

I definitely acknowledge that there are limits to this stat like all stats, such as that competition mindset I mentioned – I especially think its limited when looking at the last 15-20 years where clearly teams have increasingly taken the regular season less seriously (there’s been instances where some teams literally barely practice) so its even harder in my opinion to compare this across eras. In the Bulls case, its also limited because clearly Jordan’s leadership and how he impacted the culture impacted his teammates as has been mentioned by basically everyone with first-hand accounts of those teams, but that type of stuff isn’t quantifiable through stats. I also actually think Pippen gets a bit undervalued here as well. I think its important to be aware of the dynamics of teams and take that together with the numbers like this before drawing concrete conclusions from it. Stats don't always tell why the numbers are what they are.

With that said, I still feel it’s a more accurate reflection then the “ZOMG the Bulls won 55 without Jordan” arguments that basically imply that they would’ve won about that much every year of the dynasty without Jordan and completely ignores the evolution of that team. It actually looks at the specific season itself instead of looking at a different season that is potentially multiple years before or after.

HoopsNY

10-27-2020, 12:31 PM

With that said, I still feel it’s a more accurate reflection then the “ZOMG the Bulls won 55 without Jordan” arguments that basically imply that they would’ve won about that much every year of the dynasty without Jordan and completely ignores the evolution of that team. It actually looks at the specific season itself instead of looking at a different season that is potentially multiple years before or after.

Bingo. It's one of the problem of eras. Different eras have different ways of achieving championship success. In today's game, players basically get together to form championship success and within one year, can achieve it.

The 90s saw a different style of play and evolution where teams drafted, players evolved, and teams grew together with a typical core set of talent.

Having said that, though, I still think Chicago is a playoff team without Jordan in every year except 1991 and 1998.

But what does that prove, really? All it tells me is that:

a) The Bulls had a great supporting cast
b) That MJ could lead his team to varying levels of success with or without Pippen.

So much is made from the Nick Wright wannabes on this forum about Jordan not having a .500 record "without Pippen," as if rookie Pippen and his 7 PPG was the ultimate reason for Chicago's 50 wins that season.

I mean, imagine trying to claim that rookie Kobe Bryant was the reason LA won 56 games in 1997. See how dumb that sounds?

It also completely overlooks the fact that MJ led Chicago to a 26-12 record (a 56 win pace) in 1998 without Pippen. So is the argument now that Chicago misses the playoffs in '98, too? And it's funny how that is never brought up.

Roundball_Rock

10-27-2020, 01:05 PM

Dan, I finally got into the site. :oldlol: For the 94' Bulls he has Pippen, Grant, Kukoc (BJ played the full season so he factored in by default). That is 71 total games, including 61 RS games. Their SRS during that time frame was 5.1, not 4.9, so the 4.9 he references in his Pippen profile presumably is for the 61 RS games. For the 95' team it is the Pippen games MJ didn't play in (so 63 games, with one early second quarter ejection in there).

For the 94' Knicks he has a couple that lead to the final result. One is 58 games (PO included) with all 25+ MPG players plus D. Harper in. The other is the same sans Harper, 54 games. For 95', it is the games Oakley played (he missed 32 games). Ewing played 79 games, Starks 80, Harper 80, Mason 77, Smith 76 so Oakley was the only one who missed major time.

So big samples for both years for each team. The Knicks were pretty consistent during that 1992-1997 run in SRS. They were at 60 in 94', close to it in 93' but 49-52 in 92', 95', 96', and 97'. The Bulls being at 55 and 52 w/out MJ more than stacks up against that.

Its not something that’s necessarily supposed to be quantifiable.

As long as people talk about "casts", which will be the case as long players are defined by team success, people will try to measure it in some way. Jersey sales or YouTube views aren't a good way to do it.

Because in many of those years, especially the earlier years, they likely would’ve been

:coleman:

So we keep hearing MJ had no help, that he was on teams that went 72-10, 69-13, 67-15, etc. and it was all him. They prove they are a good team without him and now we are hearing they would have been lottery bound if it happened to be other years? :lol Pure, baseless speculation but let's play the game since we are here to discuss. The Bulls won 61, 67 games in 91', 92' and 72 and 69 in 96', 97'. What do those numbers become sans MJ? 98' they would be screwed with no MJ all season and no Pippen for half of it.

Win shares don’t work like that and Russell Westbrook does not fare well with this stat relative to some of his peers and/or the monster raw stats he puts up. A guy like Kyle Lowry, who isn’t the stat stuffer Westbrook is, is slightly lower but basically on par with him

WS are tied to actual wins so players on better teams and/or healthier players will accumulate more WS.

WS is an attempt to allocate "share" of team wins so it by definition assumes if that player is removed those numbers turn to "zero" since there is no adjustment made for what happens in a scenario where that player is out and his production is parceled out among remaining players.

1993: 57-58 wins to 40-41 wins

This exposes the flaw in that metric. 40-41 wins is not what happened in reality. What you are listing is based on SRS, and that was discussed earlier. They went from a 59 win SRS in 93' to a 55 win SRS in 94' when healthy and 52 wins in 95' (despite losing Grant too) pre-MJ. When the Bulls were at 55, 52 the Knicks were at 60, 49 those same years. You can't diminish the Bulls and then always hype NY as great.

...

This assumes MJ is worth around 20 wins a year. It also assumes that without MJ a team with Pippen, Grant/Rodman, Kukoc, etc. would be a borderline playoff team. This in the same era where a team with Miller as its best player was a perennial contender? Your stat runs into reality of performance, unless you think Pippen/Rodman/Kukoc<Miller/Smits/Jackson.

With that said, I still feel it’s a more accurate reflection then the “ZOMG the Bulls won 55 without Jordan” arguments that basically imply that they would’ve won about that much every year of the dynasty without Jordan and completely ignores the evolution of that team. It actually looks at the specific season itself instead of looking at a different season that is potentially multiple years before or after.

I think most people understand Pippen, Grant were better in 94' than in 91' but you can put that into context. First, 55 wins was with injuries to those two. When they actually played the Bulls were on a 61 win pace. So how much worse were they in 91'? 20 games worse than 94'? If you say that, can you really say that about 92' vs. 94'?

The reason 55 wins stick out is 1) because of the claims MJ fans make about no help 2) it is so rare. We see injuries, departures, etc. all the time. What the Bulls did was rare, which is why the Raptors got so much credit this year. What is more typical is teams go to the lottery or at least .500. MJ fans have an easy answer: he took them to GOAT team levels but the narrative is MJ was taking 25-30 win teams to 72 wins, which is absurd and impossible (if MJ could do that, he would have done it before the 90's).

MJ fans tried to find counter examples. A "prime" example was the Thunder going from a 59 win pace with KD in 16' to 47 wins the next year. That's a high water mark. :lol