Why does the criteria for greatness change with the 90s, Jordan, Pippen and Bulls?

[97 bulls]

Before I start I must state this fact. The best argument for Jordan, Pippen, the Bulls and the 90s is that all of the aforementioned are the benchmark in which the NBA is measured. Both past, present, and future. Teams, the league, and players. At any given time, no less than a quarter of the threads here are centered around these 4 topics. If a sub-forum was made just for MJ, Pip, The Bulls and the 90s, the main basketball forum would be DEAD.

The logic most of the posters here use is far too inconsistent.

Why does Jordan have to win with no great players around him? No other alltime great that has won has ever had to do that. The fact is that Jordan won literally every year he was supposed to. And the years he lost were to 2 dynasties in the Celtics and Pistons, and a Milwaukee Bucks team that had the 3rd best record for all the 80s. Jordan not beating a team with scrubs is all that Jordan didnt accomplish. And nobody ever felt he shouldve beat those teams. Anyone utilizing this argument is trolling.

Why is it that the only way for Pippen to have credibility is for him to have led a team to championship while scoring 30+ppg in the one year that he had the opportunity. Oh and in order for it to be credible, he can't have any other greats on his team. Why cant he get the same breaks that guys like Wade, Nowitzki, Worthy, McHale, and Bryant got? If they had a bad series and they were hurt, its excused, if they were young, its excused, if they were old, its excused if they didnt have what's perceived as sufficient help, its excused. And many of you guys feel these players are better than Pip. These guys had bad series, they lost to teams, they had business losing to, they choked both games and in series. But yet they're held to a lower standard. Why?

The Bulls beat great teams. Plain and simple. The great teams of the future weren't good enough to play them. The Spurs lost to the Jazz, so did the Shaq Kobe Lakers. The Spurs and Lakers were Young? That didnt matter in 88, 89, and 90 with the Bull lost. They beat the Showtime Lakers in 91 and the Bad Boy Pistons. They werent old, yes the Lakers didnt have Kareem and Cooper, but again, that shouldn't matter right? It didn't matter in 86 when Jordan didnt have Pip and Grant or Rodman. Truth be told. The Lakers, Celtics, and Pistons all played a versions of each other. Not their best team. Key players were hurt, or missing.


The 90s was a weak decade? Why because of expansion? The league picked up 4 teams in 88 and 89, and neither the Lakers or the Pistons could even get close to 70 wins. Super Teams? The 97 Lakers had 4 Allstars. The 97 Rockets had 3 Hall of Famers and good support pieces. They were old? They were still putting up great stats like Lebron James is. In an era that was much harder to score and get stats. Not to mention the 08 Celtics werent spring chickens. Theres no way to quantify what's weak and whats not weak. Even the worse NBA player would run circles around any of us. Many of those 90s teams would have more fringe Hofers if they bested the Bulls. Hell the Milawakee Bucks of the 80s had the 3rd best record in the NBA and they had one fringe Hofer. And finding talent is such a crap shoot. Think of Anthony Bennet and Kwame Brown.

I could go on and on. But I've ranted enough.

[1987_Lakers]

Regarding the first part of your post, all this BS started when people got on Kobe for never winning as the best player on his team (00-02), prior to this I don't think I ever saw consistent nitpicking on a player's career. Kobe was at the time the league's best player, he played for the most popular franchise, and people discussing basketball on forums was getting popular.

And yes, the 90's were weak. From 1988 to 1995 the NBA went from 23 to 29 teams, and you had no international players like you do today. It's logical to say the teams weren't as strong as they were in the 80's. Relative to their era, the bulls were stacked. Put them in 1984-1988 or 2012-2019 and they wouldn't be as successful.

[8Ball]

The 80s were stacked full of all time great teams battling each other. The Celtics and Magic won 8/10 championships during the 80s.

Same with the 2000s with the Lakers and Spurs winning 9/12 championships during 99-2010.

The 2010s had the greatest team of all time Warriors between 2015-2019 + Spurs during first half of 2010s + LeBron.


And the 90s East had good teams. But they were about as good as the 2010's eastern teams.


LeBron's championships are simply more impressive than the teams Jordan beat in the finals.

[Micku]

The Bulls beat great teams. Plain and simple. The great teams of the future weren't good enough to play them. The Spurs lost to the Jazz, so did the Shaq Kobe Lakers. The Spurs and Lakers were Young? That didnt matter in 88, 89, and 90 with the Bull lost. They beat the Showtime Lakers in 91 and the Bad Boy Pistons. They werent old, yes the Lakers didnt have Kareem and Cooper, but again, that shouldn't matter right? It didn't matter in 86 when Jordan didnt have Pip and Grant or Rodman. Truth be told. The Lakers, Celtics, and Pistons all played a versions of each other. Not their best team. Key players were hurt, or missing.



That's the thing that get me. The Pistons weren't old, not the core. Like Joe Dumars IT, and Rodman was like 27-29. They were only a couple of years older than MJ and the crew. You can argue Vinnie Johnson or something. But they don't make the same argument about MJ when they were older in 96 in the second peat.

[Axe]

Regarding the first part of your post, all this BS started when people got on Kobe for never winning as the best player on his team (00-02), prior to this I don't think I ever saw consistent nitpicking on a player's career. Kobe was at the time the league's best player, he played for the most popular franchise, and people discussing basketball on forums was getting popular.

And yes, the 90's were weak. From 1988 to 1995 the NBA went from 23 to 29 teams, and you had no international players like you do today. It's logical to say the teams weren't as strong as they were in the 80's. Relative to their era, the bulls were stacked. Put them in 1984-1988 or 2012-2019 and they wouldn't be as successful.
It's like saying the 60s were also weak as well because they had fewer series and byes for top-seeded teams; thus, easier path to the finals and that there were only less than 20 teams during that time. But that's essentially why the boston celtics had 11 rings in 13 years, right?

[8Ball]

It's like saying the 60s were also weak as well because they had fewer series and byes for top-seeded teams; thus, easier path to the finals and that there were only less than 20 teams during that time. But that's essentially why the boston celtics had 11 rings in 13 years, right?

The 60s were weak because there were way too many white guys that wouldn't sniff an NBA roster today athletically.

Wilt Chamberlin isn't scoring 50ppg in any year after 1970.

[97 bulls]

The 80s were stacked full of all time great teams battling each other. The Celtics and Magic won 8/10 championships during the 80s.

Same with the 2000s with the Lakers and Spurs winning 9/12 championships during 99-2010.

The 2010s had the greatest team of all time Warriors between 2015-2019 + Spurs during first half of 2010s + LeBron.


And the 90s East had good teams. But they were about as good as the 2010's eastern teams.


LeBron's championships are simply more impressive than the teams Jordan beat in the finals.

Again, how are you quantifying your assessment? Two teams dominating the league for over a decade isnt an indication of a league full of great teams.

[97 bulls]

That's the thing that get me. The Pistons weren't old, not the core. Like Joe Dumars IT, and Rodman was like 27-29. They were only a couple of years older than MJ and the crew. You can argue Vinnie Johnson or something. But they don't make the same argument about MJ when they were older in 96 in the second peat.

That Pistins team was actually in their prime. Or at least their core. Laimbeer and Mahorn were thugs.

I can poke holes in every team that ever won the Finals.

[SouBeachTalents]

The Bulls are definitely not winning 6 rings in any decade since the merger outside the 90's

[8Ball]

Again, how are you quantifying your assessment? Two teams dominating the league for over a decade isnt an indication of a league full of great teams.

You will always have a bunch of bad teams. How stacked an era is quantified by how many stacked teams are in that era.

The 80s had 3 all time top 5 players, Bird, Magic, Kareem all duking it out on all time great teams. The Lakers with Magic made 9 finals. The Celtics with Bird made 5 finals. Sprinkle in Detroit Pistons in there with 76ers as well.

The 2000s had Kobe, Shaq, Duncan on great teams. Lakers made 5 finals during that time and Spurs made 4 finals during that time.

2010s had LeBron, Spurs and Warriors in terms of stackness. LeBron made 8 finals in the 2010s. Warriors made 5 straight finals in 2010s. Spurs made 2 finals in 2010s.

We just don't see the same level of stackness in the 90s. Jordan's teams were all time great. But there were no other team that can be considered as stacked. Meanwhile the other decades like 80s 00's and 2010s had at least 2 stacked all time teams.

For example. There was no all time great team in west during the 90s.

[97 bulls]

You will always have a bunch of bad teams. How stacked an era is quantified by how many stacked teams are in that era.

The 80s had 3 all time top 5 players, Bird, Magic, Kareem all duking it out on all time great teams. The Lakers with Magic made 9 finals. The Celtics with Bird made 5 finals. Sprinkle in Detroit Pistons in there with 76ers as well.

The 2000s had Kobe, Shaq, Duncan on great teams.

We just don't see the same level of stackness in the 90s.

Again. Your argument centers around the Bulls having to lose to be considered more relevant. If the Spurs never beat the Lakers then the Lakers are worse? How does that begin to make sense?

[8Ball]

Again. Your argument centers around the Bulls having to lose to be considered more relevant. If the Spurs never beat the Lakers then the Lakers are worse? How does that begin to make sense?

Sorry I edited my post without seeing this. But I believe I explained my thinking in the edits.

[1987_Lakers]

Again. Your argument centers around the Bulls having to lose to be considered more relevant. If the Spurs never beat the Lakers then the Lakers are worse? How does that begin to make sense?

The thing is no team in the 90's really separated themselves. Spurs were winning championships in 2005 & 2007 when the Lakers were irrelevant. Knicks failed to win a championship with no MJ in the league, Lakers & Blazers were pretty much irrelevant after '92. The Suns lost in back to back years to Houston in '94 & '95. The Sonics besides '96 always under performed in the playoffs. The Jazz were a very good Finals opponent, but are they as good as the showtime Lakers, 2013 & '14 Spurs, or the 15-19 Warriors? No.

That's not to say the top tier teams were bad, they were actually solid teams, just not as good as the top tier teams from the 80's or the 10's.

[HoopsNY]

And yes, the 90's were weak. From 1988 to 1995 the NBA went from 23 to 29 teams, and you had no international players like you do today. It's logical to say the teams weren't as strong as they were in the 80's. Relative to their era, the bulls were stacked. Put them in 1984-1988 or 2012-2019 and they wouldn't be as successful.

That doesn't answer the OP, though. Btw great post 97 Bulls.

He clearly mentioned that 4 expansion teams were added between 88'-95', yet no team nearly touched 70 wins.....except Chicago. So what happened? Was the rest of the league incapable of winning 65-70 games, but magically Chicago did?

They had no international players, except guys like Mutombo, Ewing, Smits, Petrovic, Kukoc, Sabonis, Hakeem, Mychal Thompson, Ilgauskas, Dino Radja, Seikaly, etc? How does that work? Or do people have a sudden case of amnesia?

Even if you don't include Ewing and Hakeem because they played college here, these guys didn't just start playing basketball IN college.

Another thing to consider is that percentage-wise, how many players have been effective in the NBA that have been drafted post 1998 from the international pool vs prior to 98'? We tend to look at the Dirks, Manus, Giannis, Lukas of the world, but why not the Diops, Darkos, Tskitishvilis, and Pavolics of the same pool? Just as there have been many affective international players, there have been even more ineffective ones as well.

In addition, MJ haters are always looking at the international pool the same way they do the expansion. That is to say - if there wasn't expansion, then every team except Chicago would get an additional superstar, all-star, or solid role player. And likewise, every team except Chicago would land a great international player (even though they somehow landed Kukoc as a championship team? :confusedshrug:

The arguments simply don't add up.

[97 bulls]

Sorry I edited my post without seeing this. But I believe I explained my thinking in the edits.

Ok. So if Karl Malone with his 2 MVPs and other accolades, beats the Bulls in 97 and 98, hed be ranked higher than Bird. Jabaar was an old man for most of the 80s.

We have to apply context here. Otherwise, Shaq and Duncan who both played in the 90s should be acknowledged.

And that's another thing. Isnt Shaq a top 10 player? He played 8 years in the 90s.

[HoopsNY]

The 80s were stacked full of all time great teams battling each other. The Celtics and Magic won 8/10 championships during the 80s.

Same with the 2000s with the Lakers and Spurs winning 9/12 championships during 99-2010.

The 2010s had the greatest team of all time Warriors between 2015-2019 + Spurs during first half of 2010s + LeBron.


And the 90s East had good teams. But they were about as good as the 2010's eastern teams.


LeBron's championships are simply more impressive than the teams Jordan beat in the finals.

Really? So the 2010s Raptors, Pacers, Celtics, and Hawks were better than the Magic, Pacers, Pistons, Heat, and Knicks? You can't be serious.

[1987_Lakers]

He clearly mentioned that 4 expansion teams were added between 88'-95', yet no team nearly touched 70 wins.....except Chicago. So what happened? Was the rest of the league incapable of winning 65-70 games, but magically Chicago did?

They had no international players, except guys like Mutombo, Ewing, Smits, Petrovic, Kukoc, Sabonis, Hakeem, Mychal Thompson, Ilgauskas, Dino Radja, Seikaly, etc? How does that work? Or do people have a sudden case of amnesia?

Even if you don't include Ewing and Hakeem because they played college here, these guys didn't just start playing basketball IN college.

Another thing to consider is that percentage-wise, how many players have been effective in the NBA that have been drafted post 1998 from the international pool vs prior to 98'? We tend to look at the Dirks, Manus, Giannis, Lukas of the world, but why not the Diops, Darkos, Tskitishvilis, and Pavolics of the same pool? Just as there have been many affective international players, there have been even more ineffective ones as well.

In addition, MJ haters are always looking at the international pool the same way they do the expansion. That is to say - if there wasn't expansion, then every team except Chicago would get an additional superstar, all-star, or solid role player. And likewise, every team except Chicago would land a great international player (even though they somehow landed Kukoc as a championship team? :confusedshrug:

The arguments simply don't add up.

That's easy. The elite teams weren't as good as they once were due to expansion, there was more parity in the 90's compared to the 80's but there wasn't as many dominant teams. And winning 70 games is incredibly rare to do, winning that many games in any era is extremely impressive so props to the Bulls for pulling that off.

And lmao at listing guys who played college in America as international players, that's how you know the international pool wasn't as good as it is today. You have international superstars in the NBA today like Giannis & Luka.

[97 bulls]

That doesn't answer the OP, though. Btw great post 97 Bulls.

He clearly mentioned that 4 expansion teams were added between 88'-95', yet no team nearly touched 70 wins.....except Chicago. So what happened? Was the rest of the league incapable of winning 65-70 games, but magically Chicago did?

They had no international players, except guys like Mutombo, Ewing, Smits, Petrovic, Kukoc, Sabonis, Hakeem, Mychal Thompson, Ilgauskas, Dino Radja, Seikaly, etc? How does that work? Or do people have a sudden case of amnesia?

Even if you don't include Ewing and Hakeem because they played college here, these guys didn't just start playing basketball IN college.

Another thing to consider is that percentage-wise, how many players have been effective in the NBA that have been drafted post 1998 from the international pool vs prior to 98'? We tend to look at the Dirks, Manus, Giannis, Lukas of the world, but why not the Diops, Darkos, Tskitishvilis, and Pavolics of the same pool? Just as there have been many affective international players, there have been even more ineffective ones as well.

In addition, MJ haters are always looking at the international pool the same way they do the expansion. That is to say - if there wasn't expansion, then every team except Chicago would get an additional superstar, all-star, or solid role player. And likewise, every team except Chicago would land a great international player (even though they somehow landed Kukoc as a championship team? :confusedshrug:

The arguments simply don't add up.

My point exactly. Again how do you quantify the true effect of Luka and Giannis? They never played against the teams of the 90s

[HoopsNY]

That's easy. The elite teams weren't as good as they once were due to expansion, there was more parity in the 90's compared to the 80's but there wasn't as many dominant teams. And winning 70 games is incredibly rare to do, winning that many games in any era is extremely impressive so props to the Bulls for pulling that off.

And lmao at listing guys who played college in America as international players, that's how you know the international pool wasn't as good as it is today. You have international superstars in the NBA today like Giannis & Luka.

Which I acknowledged, but again, these players didn't start learning the game in college here. Furthermore, your argument still presupposes that if more international players were drafted back then, that Chicago wouldn't have any of them. It's the same line of argumentation with expansion. But you will never admit that.

Simply answer this, if more international players were drafted during the 90s, does Chicago have access to them? Just look at some great international talent and where they were selected in the draft. After all, they drafted Toni Kukoc, take a guess where they got him in the draft (hint: not in the 1st round).

Giannis: 15th pick
Manu: 57th pick
Parker: 28th pick
Gobert: 27th pick
Jokic: 11th pick
Vucevic: 16th pick
Bogdonavic: 31st pick
Capela: 25th pick
Schroeder: 17th pick
Dragic: 45th pick
Ibaka: 24th pick

I could go on, but you get the point. So again, tell me, Chicago doesn't get a crack at international players, too?

[1987_Lakers]

Which I acknowledged, but again, these players didn't start learning the game in college here. Furthermore, your argument still presupposes that if more international players were drafted back then, that Chicago wouldn't have any of them. It's the same line of argumentation with expansion. But you will never admit that. Btw, Steve Nash was also drafted in 1996.

Simply answer this, if more international players were drafted during the 90s, does Chicago have access to them? Just look at some great international talent and where they were selected in the draft. After all, they drafted Toni Kukoc, take a guess where they got him in the draft (hint: not in the 1st round).

Giannis: 15th pick
Manu: 57th pick
Parker: 28th pick
Gobert: 27th pick
Jokic: 11th pick
Vucevic: 16th pick
Boddonavic: 31st pick
Capela: 25th pick

I could go on, but you get the point. So again, tell me, Chicago doesn't get a crack at international players, too?

You are coming off as very defensive in this post. My original point is that the higher quality of international players in today's NBA makes the talent pool better compared to the 90's. It really had nothing to do with the Bulls, but just the NBA in general.

[HoopsNY]

It's truly amazing the logic that floats on this forum. Chicago conveniently gets excluded from all the players that played for expansion teams. Everyone else will unquestionably get Shaq, KG, AbdurRahim, Penny, Seikaly, LJ, etc.

They will never make any trades. They will never sign any free agents. They will never even draft the role players on those teams or who ended up on those teams. Chicago will not even retain BJ Armstrong, an all-star PG.

Not only that, but the NBA will increase a pool of international talent drastically, but forfeit all of Chicago's draft picks. So they can get no one like Manu, Parker, Dragic, or Gorbert. Chicago will also be banned from trading up in a draft.

The level of hatred for MJ clouds judgement with people who never even saw MJ play.

[HoopsNY]

You are coming off as very defensive in this post. My original point is that the higher quality of international players in today's NBA makes the talent pool better compared to the 90's. It really had nothing to do with the Bulls, but just the NBA in general.

How am I coming off defensive? Just admit that you have no answer to my point. What does talent pool mean? You act as if any of these guys, with the exception of maybe Giannis and Gobert, are offensive and or defensive juggernauts, to the point that they would take away from MJs ability on the floor.

This couldn't be further from the truth. And it certainly doesn't mean it stops Chicago from winning. They had an elite front office, coaching staff, and team. Adding quality players via "non-expansion" and international players as well would only continue that.

So again, who's stopping MJ? Is it the NBA? Do the Bulls not have a chance at players if there is no expansion and if there is a larger international pool?

I think you're one of the more intelligent posters on this forum. But for the life of me, I can't understand your hatred for MJ.

[1987_Lakers]

He clearly mentioned that 4 expansion teams were added between 88'-95',

They actually added 6 teams.


How am I coming off defensive? Just admit that you have no answer to my point. What does talent pool mean? You act as if any of these guys, with the exception of maybe Giannis and Gobert, are offensive and or defensive juggernauts, to the point that they would take away from MJs ability on the floor.

This couldn't be further from the truth. And it certainly doesn't mean it stops Chicago from winning. They had an elite front office, coaching staff, and team. Adding quality players via "non-expansion" and international players as well would only continue that.

So again, who's stopping MJ? Is it the NBA? Do the Bulls not have a chance at players if there is no expansion and if there is a larger international pool?

I think you're one of the more intelligent posters on this forum. But for the life of me, I can't understand your hatred for MJ.
Are you ok?

[97 bulls]

That's easy. The elite teams weren't as good as they once were due to expansion, there was more parity in the 90's compared to the 80's but there wasn't as many dominant teams. And winning 70 games is incredibly rare to do, winning that many games in any era is extremely impressive so props to the Bulls for pulling that off.

And lmao at listing guys who played college in America as international players, that's how you know the international pool wasn't as good as it is today. You have international superstars in the NBA today like Giannis & Luka.

Hoops qualified Olajuwan and Mutombo.

And again, why didnt the mighty Pistons or Lakers get close to 70 wins when they had expansion? They were two of these elite teams you're talking about. They had expansion as well. In a less tha a 10 year span, the NBA brought in 5 new teams in Minnesota, Dallas, Miami, Orlando, and Charlotte.

Why didnt that expansion inflate these teams win totals?

[1987_Lakers]

How am I coming off defensive? Just admit that you have no answer to my point. What does talent pool mean? You act as if any of these guys, with the exception of maybe Giannis and Gobert, are offensive and or defensive juggernauts, to the point that they would take away from MJs ability on the floor.

This couldn't be further from the truth. And it certainly doesn't mean it stops Chicago from winning. They had an elite front office, coaching staff, and team. Adding quality players via "non-expansion" and international players as well would only continue that.

So again, who's stopping MJ? Is it the NBA? Do the Bulls not have a chance at players if there is no expansion and if there is a larger international pool?

Again, I said nothing about MJ in my previous post and here you are defending him, get a grip dude. :oldlol:


I think you're one of the more intelligent posters on this forum. But for the life of me, I can't understand your hatred for MJ.

You can blame your boy 3ball for ruining Jordan's legacy on this forum.

[HoopsNY]

They actually added 6 teams.

When did you start watching basketball? The league added 4 teams between 1988-95. In the 1995-96 season, they added 2 more. 97 Bulls hit it on the nail. If 4 teams were first added, why didn't teams see their win totals increase significantly?

In 1987-88, the Lakers won 62 games. The following season, 2 teams were added, they won 57 games.

In 1988-89, the Pistons won 63 games. The following season, 2 teams were added, they won 59 games.

You're talking about 70 wins....these teams couldn't even reach 60.


Are you ok?

I'm doing just fine. Are you ok? I'm still waiting for some actual responses other than the consistent deflections and ignoring that my posts usually get on this forum from MJ haters. :lol

[HoopsNY]

Again, I said nothing about MJ in my previous post and here you are defending him, get a grip dude. :oldlol:



You can blame your boy 3ball for ruining Jordan's legacy on this forum.

But you see, I refute what 3ball says sometimes. But that doesn't cloud my judgement. Why does it cloud yours?

[97 bulls]

How am I coming off defensive? Just admit that you have no answer to my point. What does talent pool mean? You act as if any of these guys, with the exception of maybe Giannis and Gobert, are offensive and or defensive juggernauts, to the point that they would take away from MJs ability on the floor.

This couldn't be further from the truth. And it certainly doesn't mean it stops Chicago from winning. They had an elite front office, coaching staff, and team. Adding quality players via "non-expansion" and international players as well would only continue that.

So again, who's stopping MJ? Is it the NBA? Do the Bulls not have a chance at players if there is no expansion and if there is a larger international pool?

I think you're one of the more intelligent posters on this forum. But for the life of me, I can't understand your hatred for MJ.

And mind you. The Bulls won 67 games in 92. Playing in league with the same amount of teams that the Lakers did. It's just not adding up.

And "talent pool" is not an exact science. Teams spend 100s of hours and 100s of 1000s of dollars trying to draft the best player and still get it wrong.

Theres not one draft that wouldn't be DRASTICALLY CHANGED if it was to be redone based on hindsight.

[1987_Lakers]

Hoops qualified Olajuwan and Mutombo.

And again, why didnt the mighty Pistons or Lakers get close to 70 wins when they had expansion? They were two of these elite teams you're talking about. They had expansion as well. In a less tha a 10 year span, the NBA brought in 5 new teams in Minnesota, Dallas, Miami, Orlando, and Charlotte.

Why didnt that expansion inflate these teams win totals?

Not that I believe the Celtics or Lakers would win 70 games if you added expansions teams in the early 80's but you do realize that the league added expansion teams in the '89 season right? Kareem was a 10 ppg player by that point.

[97 bulls]

They actually added 6 teams.


Are you ok?

I believe there was 4 in 88 and 89. The other two didnt come until 96

[1987_Lakers]

But you see, I refute what 3ball says sometimes. But that doesn't cloud my judgement. Why does it cloud yours?

I haven't said one bad thing about MJ in this thread and you just told me "I can't understand your hatred for MJ"

The one with the cloud judgement is you my friend.

[HoopsNY]

Not that I believe the Celtics or Lakers would win 70 games if you added expansions teams in the early 80's but you do realize that the league added expansion teams in the '89 season right? Kareem was a 10 ppg player by that point.

Kareem was 40 years old and played 29 minutes averaging 14.6 PPG in the '88 season. You're acting as if Kareem was 29 years old dropping 30/15.

[1987_Lakers]

I believe there was 4 in 88 and 89. The other two didnt come until 96


From 1988 to 1995 the NBA went from 23 to 29 teams.

That's my original post he was quoting. That is 6 teams.

[HoopsNY]

I haven't said one bad thing about MJ in this thread and you just told me "I can't understand your hatred for MJ"

The one with the cloud judgement is you my friend.

Now now now, don't be deceitful like some other posters on this forum. I've seen your comments on other threads. You do anything to diminish from MJ's legacy. My comment with regards to that is due to your other comments, collectively. Anyway, it's clear you have no fitting answers. Have a good night.

[1987_Lakers]

Kareem was 40 years old and played 29 minutes averaging 14.6 PPG in the '88 season. You're acting as if Kareem was 29 years old dropping 30/15.

He was dropping 25 ppg in the '85 Finals, some believe that was the Lakers best team from the 80's. You don't see a difference between 22-25 ppg and 10 ppg? :oldlol:

[97 bulls]

Not that I believe the Celtics or Lakers would win 70 games if you added expansions teams in the early 80's but you do realize that the league added expansion teams in the '89 season right? Kareem was a 10 ppg player by that point.

Jabaar was an old man even in the back to back teams.

What about the Pistons? I always tell people that the Pistons were the tie that binds the Bulls to those great 80s teams.

They had the Celtics beat in 87 before a bone headed play by Thomas. Most believe they beat the Lakers in 88 and the refs bailed the Lakers out. And Thomas playing on that sprained ankle. And they beat the Lakers in 89.

The Bulls MOLLYWOMPED the Pistons 91. All of those guys were in their prime. And they beat the Lakers in 91 4-1. If those 80s teams were so talented, why wasn't the Bulls/Pistons series even a little competitive?

[97 bulls]

That's my original post he was quoting. That is 6 teams.

They didnt have expansion in 95. It was 96.

[1987_Lakers]

Now now now, don't be deceitful like some other posters on this forum. I've seen your comments on other threads. You do anything to diminish from MJ's legacy. My comment with regards to that is due to your other comments, collectively. Anyway, it's clear you have no fitting answers. Have a good night.

True, but I do that mostly in 3ball's shitty threads. You shouldn't take this place too seriously, 90% of these threads are just troll threads. If you want serious basketball discussion, go to realgm.

[1987_Lakers]

They didnt have expansion in 95. It was 96.

1995-96 season, technically, the NBA added 2 more in 1995.

[97 bulls]

He was dropping 25 ppg in the '85 Finals, some believe that was the Lakers best team from the 80's. You don't see a difference between 22-25 ppg and 10 ppg? :oldlol:

It's called a fluke. Why didnt he do it during the season?

[Axe]

The Bulls MOLLYWOMPED the Pistons 91. All of those guys were in their prime. And they beat the Lakers in 91 4-1. If those 80s teams were so talented, why wasn't the Bulls/Pistons series even a little competitive?
Is it true that a part of that was mj complaining to the refs about the bad boys pistons' plays, using the mj rules to double team him or something like that? Which led to the implementation of the flagrant foul in the early 90s i believe. The pistons didn't recover anymore after that.

[1987_Lakers]

Jabaar was an old man even in the back to back teams.

What about the Pistons? I always tell people that the Pistons were the tie that binds the Bulls to those great 80s teams.

They had the Celtics beat in 87 before a bone headed play by Thomas. Most believe they beat the Lakers in 88 and the refs bailed the Lakers out. And Thomas playing on that sprained ankle. And they beat the Lakers in 89.

The Bulls MOLLYWOMPED the Pistons 91. All of those guys were in their prime. And they beat the Lakers in 91 4-1. If those 80s teams were so talented, why wasn't the Bulls/Pistons series even a little competitive?

Are we going to ignore the fact that McHale played with a broken foot in '87 or how Bill Walton didn't even play? And again, the '88 Lakers were not the best showtime team.

[1987_Lakers]

It's called a fluke. Why didnt he do it during the season?

The very next year in '86 he averaged 23 on 60 TS% and made All-NBA First team over Hakeem. Fluke my ass.

[97 bulls]

Are we going to ignore the fact that McHale played with a broken foot in '87 or how Bill Walton didn't even play? And again, the '88 Lakers were not the best showtime team.

And see that's my point. We can go back and forth with who wasnt there, who was hurt etc. There hasnt been one Finals where bother teams were 100% healthy and having all players in their primes. Why is this logic only applied when discussing the Bulls?

[97 bulls]

Is it true that a part of that was mj complaining to the refs about the bad boys pistons' plays, using the mj rules to double team him or something like that? Which led to the implementation of the flagrant foul in the early 90s i believe. The pistons didn't recover anymore after that.
Are you talking about when Jordan said the Pistons were bad for basketball? I believe he said that after game 3. The series was all but over. But they were still doing the thug shit. Even in 91. The Bulls were just better.

[1987_Lakers]

And see that's my point. We can go back and forth with who wasnt there, who was hurt etc. There hasnt been one Finals where bother teams were 100% healthy and having all players in their primes. Why is this logic only applied when discussing the Bulls?

Sure you can, the Lakers & Celtics were for the most part healthy in '84 & '85. I don't understand what you are trying to say in your 2nd sentence though, I never hear opponent injuries being used against the Bulls. Maybe in '96 vs Orlando when Grant went down, but people don't bring it up constantly.

[Axe]

Are you talking about when Jordan said the Pistons were bad for basketball? I believe he said that after game 3. The series was all but over. But they were still doing the thug shit. Even in 91. The Bulls were just better.
Yes i think. During the '90 ecf, they were able to push the pistons to seven games. So people could see that they've tried, at least. They just didn't have the hca because they had a lower seed than the pistons during the same season. Then the tide changed in the following season in which the flagrant foul was also implemented in the league for the very first time.

[HoopsNY]

He was dropping 25 ppg in the '85 Finals, some believe that was the Lakers best team from the 80's. You don't see a difference between 22-25 ppg and 10 ppg? :oldlol:

Unbelievable. He brings up the '85 finals, but not the '88 finals where Kareem averaged 13 PPG on 41%.

[97 bulls]

Sure you can, the Lakers & Celtics were for the most part healthy in '84 & '85. I don't understand what you are trying to say in your 2nd sentence though, I never hear opponent injuries being used against the Bulls. Maybe in '96 vs Orlando when Grant went down, but people don't bring it up constantly.

Jamal Wilkes missed thr 84 Finals. The Celtics beat the Lakers in 7 if I remember correctly. And Bird hurt his hand in 85 in that Bar fight. The Lakers won that series. There isnt one series where a key player wasnt injured or missing or too old or too young. The Bulls beat a version of the Showtime Lakers like the Celtics and Pistons did.

People knock the Bulls beating the Lakers because Jabaar wasnt there. Even though they got PLENTY of production from Perkins and Divac.

[HoopsNY]

We looked at the late 80s, let's look at what expansion did in 1995-96 when we compare the elite teams from the previous year:

1994-95 Win Totals

Phoenix: 59 wins
Utah: 60 wins
Orlando:57 wins
New York: 55 wins
San Antonio: 62

1995-96 Win Totals

Phoenix: 41 wins
Utah: 55 wins
Orlando: 60 wins
New York: 47 wins
San Antonio: 59 wins

All of this while Chicago actually lost PG Bj Armstrong. None of these teams sniffed elite win totals. #TheHateIsReal

:confusedshrug:

[97 bulls]

We looked at the late 80s, let's look at what expansion did in 1995-96 when we compare the elite teams from the previous year:

1994-95 Win Totals

Phoenix: 59 wins
Utah: 60 wins
Orlando:57 wins
New York: 55 wins
San Antonio: 62

1995-96 Win Totals

Phoenix: 41 wins
Utah: 55 wins
Orlando: 60 wins
New York: 47 wins
San Antonio: 59 wins

All of this while Chicago actually lost PG Bj Armstrong. None of these teams sniffed elite win totals. #TheHateIsReal

:confusedshrug:

Mic drop. The expansion argument should never be used again.

[HoopsNY]

Jamal Wilkes missed thr 84 Finals. The Celtics beat the Lakers in 7 if I remember correctly. And Bird hurt his hand in 85 in that Bar fight. The Lakers won that series. There isnt one series where a key player wasnt injured or missing or too old or too young. The Bulls beat a version of the Showtime Lakers like the Celtics and Pistons did.

People knock the Bulls beating the Lakers because Jabaar wasnt there. Even though they got PLENTY of production from Perkins and Divac.

It's not even a point worth mentioning. We're not talking about '85 Kareem. We're looking at Kareem three years later. A 40 year old washed up center who is not going to elevate that Lakers team to 65+ wins.

[1987_Lakers]

Jamal Wilkes missed thr 84 Finals. The Celtics beat the Lakers in 7 if I remember correctly. And Bird hurt his hand in 85 in that Bar fight. The Lakers won that series. There isnt one series where a key player wasnt injured or missing or too old or too young. The Bulls beat a version of the Showtime Lakers like the Celtics and Pistons did.

People knock the Bulls beating the Lakers because Jabaar wasnt there. Even though they got PLENTY of production from Perkins and Divac.

No he didn't, Wilkes played in the '84 Finals, but by that point the up and coming James Worthy took all his minutes, by '85 Wilkes was pretty much a bench warmer on the team.

I agree they got plenty of production from Perkins and Divac, but a mid 80's Kareem is still an upgrade at the center spot. Lakers were also without Michael Cooper & Pat Riley in '91, those 2 were huge pieces to the 80's Lakers. Despite all that I believe the Bulls in their prime would beat the Showtime Lakers, but the point remains that there were more elite teams during the 80's.

[Micku]

No he didn't, Wilkes played in the '84 Finals, but by that point the up and coming James Worthy took all his minutes, by '85 Wilkes was pretty much a bench warmer on the team.

I agree they got plenty of production from Perkins and Divac, but a mid 80's Kareem is still an upgrade at the center spot. Lakers were also without Michael Cooper & Pat Riley in '91, those 2 were huge pieces to the 80's Lakers. Despite all that I believe the Bulls in their prime would beat the Showtime Lakers, but the point remains that there were more elite teams during the 80's.

Wait, you do? Which Bulls? And which Lakers?

I think it could go either way depending on which Bulls

[1987_Lakers]

Wait, you do? Which Bulls? And which Lakers?

I think it could go either way depending on which Bulls

Sure it can go either way, but I can see the '96 Bulls elite offensive rebounding and defense slow down the Lakers fast break, they match up really well defensively. I give the '85 team a better shot to beat the Bulls because Kareem was still a legit scorer that year. I have no doubt Byron Scott would shit the bed, he always did in big games, I'm not worried about Magic, Kareem, & Worthy producing offensively, but Magic & Kareem can be liabilities on defense, Lakers lack rim protection, Scott is too small & Cooper is too skinny for MJ. I feel as a team, the Bulls have less weaknesses.

[97 bulls]

No he didn't, Wilkes played in the '84 Finals, but by that point the up and coming James Worthy took all his minutes, by '85 Wilkes was pretty much a bench warmer on the team.

I agree they got plenty of production from Perkins and Divac, but a mid 80's Kareem is still an upgrade at the center spot. Lakers were also without Michael Cooper & Pat Riley in '91, those 2 were huge pieces to the 80's Lakers. Despite all that I believe the Bulls in their prime would beat the Showtime Lakers, but the point remains that there were more elite teams during the 80's.

You're right. 84 was the Tragic Johnson series. But that 84 Lakers team wasnt an Alltime great. And they really should have beat the Celtics.

[Micku]

Sure it can go either way, but I can see the '96 Bulls elite offensive rebounding and defense slow down the Lakers fast break, they match up really well defensively. I give the '85 team a better shot to beat the Bulls because Kareem was still a legit scorer that year. I have no doubt Byron Scott would shit the bed, he always did in big games, I'm not worried about Magic, Kareem, & Worthy producing offensively, but Magic & Kareem can be liabilities on defense, Lakers lack rim protection, Scott is too small & Cooper is too skinny for MJ. I feel as a team, the Bulls have less weaknesses.

I would have to rewatch the games, but Cooper could handle Larry Bird. Probably the best dude to defend him. Chase him off of screens and I think guarded him in the post, but I don't remember very well. But if he could handle Bird in the post, then he could handle MJ in terms of strength. Like I said, I don't remember very well. Cooper could steer him to the help or that the Celts spacing wasn't as good as the Bulls. Not that I don't think MJ couldn't torch him like he normally do everyone else.

[Phoenix]

Wait, you do? Which Bulls? And which Lakers?

I think it could go either way depending on which Bulls

I don't think the 91 and 98 Bulls beat any of the Lakers teams, maybe a slight chance for 88 because Kareem wasn't a primary scorer at that point and 89 due to injuries and Kareem with one foot out the door. But any version of the Lakers with Kareem as a scoring weapon is going to give them problems. I think the 92 and 93 versions with peak MJ, Pip and Grant all in their athletic primes but also battle tested pose the greatest threat to any of the Laker squads. 96/97 versions are tough as well. All in all if you took the 90 Bulls and dropped them into 1980 and keep the same core, I think they win 3 titles. Not only do they have to worry about the Lakers in the finals but those Philly and Celtic squads just to get out of the east. I do think the prime Bulls beat those Piston squads in tough 6/7 game series, considering the 90 Bulls took them to 7.

[light]

The fact is that Jordan won literally every year he was supposed to.

That's kind of the problem. Unlike LeBron, MJ never defied the odds and won when he wasn't supposed to. He only won when he had everything going for him and all of the advantages. When he was at a disadvantage he lost every single time.

[8Ball]

If there was another dominant team in the west in the 90s they would make the finals more than 2x. A dynasty type team makes the finals at least 3+ times.

Only Bulls were the dynasty in the 90s. Even in the East there were no other team that would ever be considered dynasty level. Knicks and Pacers don't even come close.

None of the western teams in the 90s are as good as 80s Lakers and celtics. Ditto 2000 Spurs and Lakers. 2010s Heat Cavs Warriors Spurs.

[Baller789]

That's kind of the problem. Unlike LeBron, MJ never defied the odds and won when he wasn't supposed to. He only won when he had everything going for him and all of the advantages. When he was at a disadvantage he lost every single time.

Yeah. But Lebron lost when he was supposed to win.

Hence 4 of 10.

[97 bulls]

If there was another dominant team in the west in the 90s they would make the finals more than 2x. A dynasty type team makes the finals at least 3+ times.

Only Bulls were the dynasty in the 90s. Even in the East there were no other team that would ever be considered dynasty level. Knicks and Pacers don't even come close.

None of the western teams in the 90s are as good as 80s Lakers and celtics. Ditto 2000 Spurs and Lakers. 2010s Heat Cavs Warriors Spurs.

Again how do you know its not because the Bulls were just far superior. As i stated in my original post, the 90s had super teams. They had a team that had 4 Allstars. They were good enough. Maybe the 90s decade was tougher. Tim Duncan Spurs played 2 years in the 90a. Why didnt his teams get to the Championship? And the 90s had the Showtime Lakers and Bad Boy Pistons.

[97 bulls]

That's kind of the problem. Unlike LeBron, MJ never defied the odds and won when he wasn't supposed to. He only won when he had everything going for him and all of the advantages. When he was at a disadvantage he lost every single time.

The Jazz were favored in 98.

[Shooter]

Yeah. But Lebron lost when he was supposed to win.

Hence 4 of 10.

Wrong :lol

Back to your ghetto apetment shoebox, ash boi

[8Ball]

Again how do you know its not because the Bulls were just far superior. As i stated in my original post, the 90s had super teams. They had a team that had 4 Allstars. They were good enough. Maybe the 90s decade was tougher. Tim Duncan Spurs played 2 years in the 90a. Why didnt his teams get to the Championship? And the 90s had the Showtime Lakers and Bad Boy Pistons.

Which super team in the 90s besides the Bulls can compare to:

80s Lakers
80s Celtics
2000s Spurs 2010s early Spurs
2000s Lakers
2010s Heat and Cavs
2015-2019 Warriors

In terms of just stacked talent at that time of play?

The Bulls didn't stop teams from emerging in the western conference. Bulls didn't play in the West so Bulls cannot decide who gets to the make the finals there.

Shaq had a good Orlando team but only for 2 years (he did beat Jordan's bulls in 1995 which everyone wants to wilfully ignore) before he bolted to the Lakers with a rookie 18 year old Kobe. Kobe didn't make an all-nba team until 1999 so you can't even say Lakers in the 90s were a superteam.

Tim Duncan won in 1999. Bulls were gone by then. Tim Duncan's Rookie season was 1998. You don't want to give Duncan a break for being a rookie in 98?

[Shooter]

Most of the hate comes from retaliation to the dumb commmets made by coach/3ball and their 20 alts. But anyway, OP is legit so here is a response.

MJ has the 6 > 4 but it's not only about the count. Otherwise Russell has 11 (GOAT) and Hakeem only 2 (TRASH). So ranking is not solely based on ring count.

The thing is, none of MJ's rings are spectacular, he faced weakish Finals teams while also having a talent advantage every time.

What was the best Finals team MJ ever beat? LeBron also massacred many of MJ's playoff records because MJ was inconsistent, only making 6 Finals in 15 years. Kobe made 7 in 14.

[MadDog]

When you demolish the comp like Jordan did everybody else is just fighting for second place. Sorta like LeBron and his fans (see above). Checkout the threads about Jordan "needing" PIppen to get out of the first round. Yeah Jordan "needed" all of Pippen's 10 points just so that his 45 would stick :oldlol: Meanwhile LeBron runs to Miami and teams with the best player in the world along with another Top 10 player. All for a championship they STILL lost. Maybe Wade needed LeBron not to play like a bench warmer :confusedshrug:

[Shooter]

When you demolish the comp like Jordan did everybody else is just fighting for second place. Sorta like LeBron and his fans (see above). Checkout the threads about Jordan "needing" PIppen to get out of the first round. Yeah Jordan "needed" all of Pippen's 10 points just so that his 45 would stick :oldlol: Meanwhile LeBron runs to Miami and joins arguably the best player in the world along with another Top 10 player. All for a championship they still lost. Maybe Wade needed LeBron not to play like a role player :confusedshrug:

So then why didnt he ever get out of the 1st round before or after Pippen?

Oh because he did need Pippen? Got it :lol

Idiot

[8Ball]

The entire Pippen debacle is a back and forth hot potato being thrown around.


- Jordan's side wants to diminish LeBron for joining with other good players.

- LeBron's side points out LeBron played with absolute garbage on the Cavs so he deserves to play with talent.

- Jordan trolls point out Jordan didn't play with any talent and did everything himself. Jordan "built" Pippen and other nonsense arguments. 3ball has 1000 threads shitting on Pippen.

- LeBron's side points out what Pippen accomplished without Jordan and what Jordan did without Pippen.

Rinse Repeat.

The only side being inconsistent are Jordan trolls:

- Making the finals is not an accomplishment.
- Only LeBron is not allowed to play with talent.

My favourite:

- "LeBron only won 4"

97 Bulls, I don't consider you a Jordan troll that is why you are getting honest responses from me.

[Shooter]

The entire Pippen debacle is a back and forth hot potato being thrown around.


- Jordan's side wants to diminish LeBron for joining with other good players.

- LeBron's side points out LeBron played with absolute garbage on the Cavs so he deserves to play with talent.

- Jordan trolls point out Jordan didn't play with any talent and did everything himself. Jordan "built" Pippen and other nonsense arguments. 3ball has 1000 threads shitting on Pippen.

- LeBron's side points out what Pippen accomplished without Jordan and what Jordan did without Pippen.

Rinse Repeat.

The only side being inconsistent are Jordan trolls:

- Making the finals is not an accomplishment.
- Only LeBron is not allowed to play with talent.

My favourite:

- "LeBron only won 4"

97 Bulls, I don't consider you a Jordan troll that is why you are getting honest responses from me.

+1

[MadDog]

So then why didnt he ever get out of the 1st round before or after Pippen?

Oh because he did need Pippen? Got it :lol

Idiot

Jordan needed Pippen just to be a role player. Wade needed LeBron to not be outplayed by Jason Terry. :confusedshrug: Great observation, chief.

[3ball]

You're comparing pippen to guys like Dirk and Kobe?

They had maybe 1 or 2 bad series.. pippen many bad series and was bad in the playoffs every year of his career

[1987_Lakers]

You're comparing pippen to guys like Dirk and Kobe?

They had maybe 1 or 2 bad series.. pippen many bad series and was bad in the playoffs every year of his career

No Pip, no Chip.

[3ball]

Most of the hate comes from retaliation to the dumb commmets made by coach/3ball and their 20 alts. But anyway, OP is legit so here is a response.

MJ has the 6 > 4 but it's not only about the count. Otherwise Russell has 11 (GOAT) and Hakeem only 2 (TRASH). So ranking is not solely based on ring count.

The thing is, none of MJ's rings are spectacular, he faced weakish Finals teams while also having a talent advantage every time.

What was the best Finals team MJ ever beat? LeBron also massacred many of MJ's playoff records because MJ was inconsistent, only making 6 Finals in 15 years. Kobe made 7 in 14.

Jordan had a talent deficit in every series and his cast was outscored in every series

Jordan had goat stats because his cast was all-time weak

[97 bulls]

Which super team in the 90s besides the Bulls can compare to:

80s Lakers
80s Celtics
2000s Spurs 2010s early Spurs
2000s Lakers
2010s Heat and Cavs
2015-2019 Warriors

In terms of just stacked talent at that time of play?

The Bulls didn't stop teams from emerging in the western conference. Bulls didn't play in the West so Bulls cannot decide who gets to the make the finals there.

Shaq had a good Orlando team but only for 2 years (he did beat Jordan's bulls in 1995 which everyone wants to wilfully ignore) before he bolted to the Lakers with a rookie 18 year old Kobe. Kobe didn't make an all-nba team until 1999 so you can't even say Lakers in the 90s were a superteam.

Tim Duncan won in 1999. Bulls were gone by then. Tim Duncan's Rookie season was 1998. You don't want to give Duncan a break for being a rookie in 98?

Again, Jordan's Bulls BEAT Magics Lakers. And they Beat Thomas Pistons. And nobody believes that 91 was the Bulls best team. Do they have to beat Dynasties teams every year?

The Jazz beat the Houston Rockets in 97. That team had 3 hofers. And they beat the Lakers who had 4 Allstars.

As far as Duncan, I agree with you. But that's applying CONTEXT to the situation. If the same context cant be utilized with the Bulls then why use it for anybody or any team?

[3ball]

Again, Jordan's Bulls BEAT Magics Lakers. And they Beat Thomas Pistons. And nobody believes that 91 was the Bulls best team. Do they have to beat Dynasties teams every year?

The Jazz beat the Houston Rockets in 97. That team had 3 hofers. And they beat the Lakers who had 4 Allstars.

As far as Duncan, I agree with you. But that's applying CONTEXT to the situation. If the same context cant be utilized with the Bulls then why use it for anybody or any team?

You're comparing pippen to guys like Dirk and Kobe?

They had maybe 1 or 2 bad series.. pippen many bad series and was bad in the playoffs every year of his career

* 19 on 42% in 6 Finals

* 17 on 41% for 96-98' Playoffs

* 12 on 42% against 88-90' Pistons

* 16 on 40% in 2 Finals, 4 ECF, and 1 ECSF (seven game war)

[97 bulls]

Jordan had a talent deficit in every series and his cast was outscored in every series

Jordan had goat stats because his cast was all-time weak

And thus the argument that they were a 55 win team without him. Those are facts bro. You're arguing with yourself. You cant say that the Bulls talent deficient during their championships runs in the 90s then say they had no talent in the 80s. Again if talent wasnt necessary for Jordan to win, why didnt he win earler?

[3ball]

And thus the argument that they were a 55 win team without him. Those are facts bro. You're arguing with yourself. You cant say that the Bulls talent deficient during their championships runs in the 90s then say they had no talent in the 80s. Again if talent wasnt necessary for Jordan to win, why didnt he win earler?

Their 2nd option in 94' was a rebounder (Horace)

So they didn't win off talent.. they won off superior strategy/3-peat brand

Pippen had:


* 19 on 42% in 6 Finals

* 17 on 41% for 96-98' Playoffs

* 12 on 42% against 88-90' Pistons

* 16 on 40% in 2 Finals, 4 ECF, and 1 ECSF (seven game war)


yet you're comparing him to kobe and dirk

[97 bulls]

You're comparing pippen to guys like Dirk and Kobe?

They had maybe 1 or 2 bad series.. pippen many bad series and was bad in the playoffs every year of his career

* 19 on 42% in 6 Finals

* 17 on 41% for 96-98' Playoffs

* 12 on 42% against 88-90' Pistons

* 16 on 40% in 2 Finals, 4 ECF, and 1 ECSF (seven game war)

He played hurt in a lot of those Finals 3ball. Injuries have that kind of effect. Not to mention Pips prime came in an era that was defensive minded and has a low pace. The fact is he was still very impactful. The Bulls won because they had more talent.

[97 bulls]

Their 2nd option in 94' was a rebounder (Horace)

So they didn't win off talent.. they won off superior strategy/3-peat brand

Pippen had:


* 19 on 42% in 6 Finals

* 17 on 41% for 96-98' Playoffs

* 12 on 42% against 88-90' Pistons

* 16 on 40% in 2 Finals, 4 ECF, and 1 ECSF (seven game war)


yet you're comparing him to kobe and dirk

That 2nd option was Jordan 3rd option. Please dont try to sell me on that dumbass 3pt strategy BS.

The 94 Bulls weren't the same team as the 3pt 91-93 teams.

[Shooter]

Their 2nd option in 94' was a rebounder (Horace)

So they didn't win off talent.. they won off superior strategy/3-peat brand

Pippen had:


* 19 on 42% in 6 Finals

* 17 on 41% for 96-98' Playoffs

* 12 on 42% against 88-90' Pistons

* 16 on 40% in 2 Finals, 4 ECF, and 1 ECSF (seven game war)


yet you're comparing him to kobe and dirk

There he goes with PPGz again, Still haven't learned have you?

https://i.postimg.cc/y8ZDM6h0/pipSavedJordan.png

[3ball]

He played hurt in a lot of those Finals 3ball. Injuries have that kind of effect. Not to mention Pips prime came in an era that was defensive minded and has a low pace. The fact is he was still very impactful. The Bulls won because they had more talent.

You're a fool if you think the 92' blazers didn't have FAR more talent then the bulls, or the 91' Lakers... Or the 96' Sonics and 93' Suns .. only Utah was as talent-starved as the bulls

Bulls had less talent then any ECF or Finals opponent, which is why mj had to achieve goat stats and scoring titles to win.. only MJ needed to do that because his cast was so weak

[97 bulls]

The entire Pippen debacle is a back and forth hot potato being thrown around.


- Jordan's side wants to diminish LeBron for joining with other good players.

- LeBron's side points out LeBron played with absolute garbage on the Cavs so he deserves to play with talent.

- Jordan trolls point out Jordan didn't play with any talent and did everything himself. Jordan "built" Pippen and other nonsense arguments. 3ball has 1000 threads shitting on Pippen.

- LeBron's side points out what Pippen accomplished without Jordan and what Jordan did without Pippen.

Rinse Repeat.

The only side being inconsistent are Jordan trolls:

- Making the finals is not an accomplishment.
- Only LeBron is not allowed to play with talent.

My favourite:

- "LeBron only won 4"

97 Bulls, I don't consider you a Jordan troll that is why you are getting honest responses from me.

Thanks bro. I feel your pain with 3ball. Hes a lost cause lol. Sometimes I think hes a Lebron fan in disguise. Because his arguments help James more than anything.

Like the league that Jordan played in was weak.

[3ball]

There he goes with PPGz again, Still haven't learned have you?

https://i.postimg.cc/y8ZDM6h0/pipSavedJordan.png

^^^ that's the goat load

Only Jordan had to nearly double his sidekick's production while matching him in assists and defense

Lebron gets equal-scoring partners and equal rebounding and steals/blocks partners... He doesn't carry any category like Jordan does the most important category (scoring)

[Shooter]

You're a fool if you think the 92' blazers didn't have FAR more talent then the bulls, or the 91' Lakers... Or the 96' Sonics and 93' Suns .. only Utah was as talent-starved as the bulls

Bulls had less talent then any ECF or Finals opponent, which is why mj had to achieve goat stats and scoring titles to win.. only MJ needed to do that because his cast was so weak

Pippen outscored 5 of 6 #2 options in the Finals :lol And he did it with better rebounding, passing, and defensive. What are you saying?

[Shooter]

Pippen outscored 5 of 6 #2 options in the Finals :lol And he did it with better rebounding, passing, and defensive. What are you saying?

I've literally thought this is as well. There is a word/name for it where you try so hard to prop up a competitor knowing they will get shit on harder and in turn you make your guy look better. For example, any Kawhi or Kobe stan at this point is ASKING to get pooped on harder whereas if they had just shut up we would let them exist with less scrutiny. Essentially 3ball has brought MORE scrutiny to MJ for bashing LeBron.

[3ball]

Thanks bro. I feel your pain with 3ball. Hes a lost cause lol. Sometimes I think hes a Lebron fan in disguise. Because his arguments help James more than anything.

Like the league that Jordan played in was weak.

No you guys are just liars and deniers

Only MJ had to win Finals and beat top teams with poor scoring and efficiency from a sidekick

Only MJ won Finals with 15 on 34% from a sidekick

Or 15 on 41%

Or 6 rings with 19 on 42% from a sidekick

Only MJ had to win with that crap and completely carry his team's scoring load to win

Only MJ had to do that

You guys are just liars and deniers

NO ONE said the bulls were stacked in the 90's... NO ONE.. the bulls were viewed as a 1-man team and every statistical measure proves that

[97 bulls]

You're a fool if you think the 92' blazers didn't have FAR more talent then the bulls, or the 91' Lakers... Or the 96' Sonics and 93' Suns .. only Utah was as talent-starved as the bulls

Bulls had less talent then any ECF or Finals opponent, which is why mj had to achieve goat stats and scoring titles to win.. only MJ needed to do that because his cast was so weak

And you're just a flat out fool.

The Bulls had an MVP caliber player in Pippen. Those are the facts. Very few players can finish top 3 in MVP voting one season and top 2 in DPOY the next. All while leading his team in every major category, run the offense, and be the defensive anchor.

[97 bulls]

^^^ that's the goat load

Only Jordan had to nearly double his sidekick's production while matching him in assists and defense

Lebron gets equal-scoring partners and equal rebounding and steals/blocks partners... He doesn't carry any category like Jordan does the most important category (scoring)

He took nearly double the shots duh.

[97 bulls]

No you guys are just liars and deniers

Only MJ had to win Finals and beat top teams with poor scoring and efficiency from a sidekick

Only MJ won Finals with 15 on 34% from a sidekick

Or 15 on 41%

Or 6 rings with 19 on 42% from a sidekick

Only MJ had to win with that crap and completely carry his team's scoring load to win

Only MJ had to do that

You guys are just liars and deniers

NO ONE said the bulls were stacked in the 90's... NO ONE.. the bulls were viewed as a 1-man team and every statistical measure proves that

I'm not denying that. Nobody is. You're denying Pips overall impact.

[3ball]

I'm not denying that. Nobody is. You're denying Pips overall impact.

Wtf are you talking about

AD is a better defender than pippen, but if he scored like Pippen, the Lakers would've lost in the 1st round to Dame Dollar

That's a fact

So get off the defense/impact crap... It's overrated fluff bullshit and means nothing and you can't even articulate what you're talking about

Defense is a team effort and as long as the player doesn't PREVENT a good team defense, then defense doesn't matter in comparing players.. Kyrie and curry were on #1 defenses

[Micku]

The Jazz were favored in 98.

The Lakers were favor to win in 91 and of course Bulls run in 89.

However in comparison to LeBron tho, it is rather moot. LeBron has more examples where he was the underdog and those teams shouldn't have gotten far, but LBJ dragged them there.



Shaq had a good Orlando team but only for 2 years (he did beat Jordan's bulls in 1995 which everyone wants to wilfully ignore) before he bolted to the Lakers with a rookie 18 year old Kobe. Kobe didn't make an all-nba team until 1999 so you can't even say Lakers in the 90s were a superteam.

Tim Duncan won in 1999. Bulls were gone by then. Tim Duncan's Rookie season was 1998. You don't want to give Duncan a break for being a rookie in 98?

I disagree on the Lakers point. They were expected to make the finals in 98. They had the most talented team in the league at that point too. They had a very good starting up, a good bench, and four all-stars. Their problem was that come in playoff time, they folded except for Shaq against the Jazz or the Spurs. They couldn't beat them because of the coaching I think. But in terms of talent, they are probably the most talented team in the 90s.

Instead of beating the Jazz, the Bulls would've beat Shaq, Kobe, Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel, Horry, Fox, Fisher, Campbell.

Magic was insanely talented too. Portland in the early 90s was too. I always think they were more talented than the Bulls, but not the better team. The Bulls played better as a team and maximize their talent better than anyone in the league, but not necessary that they were more talented than some of other teams top to bottom. But this is a year by year basis. And not to say that they aren't a talented team of course. They were top 2-3 depending on the year I would say.

Like the GSW in the early 90s had like 3 ppl over 20 ppg. Chris Mullin, Mitch Richmond, and Tim Hardaway. They could never get it done.

However compared to the 80s talent, I think ppl have a point that they were lacking.

97Bulls do have a point in that we change the criteria on it and criticism. We say the Pistons were old when the Bulls beat them, but they weren't. Barely older than the Bulls. And when the Bulls were older in 96 or 97, we don't hear this talk.

They beat a talented team with Portland.
They beat Knicks several times.
They beat a great Suns team.
The Bulls were shown to be a good team without MJ. Phil Jackson and Tex Winter showed their coaching prowess, Pippen showed what he could do.
They beat a great Sonics team and very talented Magic team, who went the finals prior.
A a great Jazz team, which gets disrepected.

But this is all relative to the era. Like I could totally understand of ppl argue that 80s had better talent. I think so too. But that was specific to that era. In a similar way of the 10s when superteams were being formed. They are all a product of that era. The 00s is the one I don't think so. Like imo, the Kings 02 was like the best team to not win a finals. They were only that good in that one year. One thing you could say is that the 90s didn't have dynasties other than the Bulls and Rockets. But they had good teams.

But if you are saying that you don't think those bulls would win 6 titles in the 80s, 00s or 10s, then that's something different. We would never know. I don't think so either, but they would play differently since the play styles and rules were different. At first glance you would say those Laker, Celts, 76ers teams would have more talent so therefore they are more likely to win. But who really knows. It's just who would you place your bet on.

[3ball]

The Lakers were favor to win in 91 and of course Bulls run in 89.

However in comparison to LeBron tho, it is rather moot. LeBron has more examples where he was the underdog and those teams shouldn't have gotten far, but LBJ dragged them there.



lebron's Cavs were initially favored in the 15' and 16' preseason - they were considered the better collection of talent.. Kyrie was all-star MVP in 14', while Klay was a 1st time all-star in 15'

So you're letting lebron off-the-hook for failing to have a juggernaut like curry did despite having more talent.. bron-ball simply isn't a dominant offense and lebron deserves blame for generating underdogs with superior talent

And the 07' Cavs were 50-win, 2 seed that beat a 53-win, 1 seed.. it was hardly an upset.. Iverson, Kidd and Dwight won with 1-star teams too

Ditto 2018 - he was supposed to make the Finals because he had the best sidekick in a 1-star conference

You guys simply conflate lebron's exploits in a 1-star conference with Jordan's exploits in the super-team 80's East... The reality is that only lebron's super-teams from 11-17' interrupted the trend of 1-star teams winning the East (09' Dwight skips to 18' Lebron and 20' Butler)

[1987_Lakers]

lebron's Cavs were initially favored in the 15' and 16' preseason - they were considered the better collection of talent.. Kyrie was all-star MVP in 14', while Klay was a 1st time all-star in 15'

So you're letting lebron off-the-hook for failing to have a juggernaut like curry did despite having more talent.. bron-ball simply isn't a dominant offense and lebron deserves blame for generating underdogs with superior talent

And the 07' Cavs were 50-win, 2 seed that beat a 53-win, 1 seed.. it was hardly an upset.. Iverson, Kidd and Dwight won with 1-star teams too

Ditto 2018 - he was supposed to make the Finals because he had the best sidekick in a 1-star conference

You guys simply conflate lebron's exploits in a 1-star conference with Jordan's exploits in the super-team 80's East... The reality is that only lebron's super-teams from 11-17' interrupted the trend of 1-star teams winning the East (09' Dwight skips to 18' Lebron and 20' Butler)

This is why no one takes you serious, to not call 2018 a carry job is a joke. LeBron made the Finals that year despite his teammates being trash, Love averaged 15 on 39% on atrocious defense during the playoffs.

I also find it funny how people say LeBron held Kevin Love back, but what exactly has Love done since LeBron left? He is basically putting up the same numbers when he played with LeBron.

[97 bulls]

Wtf are you talking about

AD is a better defender than pippen, but if he scored like Pippen, the Lakers would've lost in the 1st round to Dame Dollar

That's a fact

So get off the defense/impact crap... It's overrated fluff bullshit and means nothing and you can't even articulate what you're talking about

Defense is a team effort and as long as the player doesn't PREVENT a good team defense, then defense doesn't matter in comparing players.. Kyrie and curry were on #1 defenses

AD is a better shot blocker. And he doesnt run the offense like Pippen did. Pip covered a lot of ground on defense.

[97 bulls]

The Lakers were favor to win in 91 and of course Bulls run in 89.

However in comparison to LeBron tho, it is rather moot. LeBron has more examples where he was the underdog and those teams shouldn't have gotten far, but LBJ dragged them there.



I disagree on the Lakers point. They were expected to make the finals in 98. They had the most talented team in the league at that point too. They had a very good starting up, a good bench, and four all-stars. Their problem was that come in playoff time, they folded except for Shaq against the Jazz or the Spurs. They couldn't beat them because of the coaching I think. But in terms of talent, they are probably the most talented team in the 90s.

Instead of beating the Jazz, the Bulls would've beat Shaq, Kobe, Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel, Horry, Fox, Fisher, Campbell.

Magic was insanely talented too. Portland in the early 90s was too. I always think they were more talented than the Bulls, but not the better team. The Bulls played better as a team and maximize their talent better than anyone in the league, but not necessary that they were more talented than some of other teams top to bottom. But this is a year by year basis. And not to say that they aren't a talented team of course. They were top 2-3 depending on the year I would say.

Like the GSW in the early 90s had like 3 ppl over 20 ppg. Chris Mullin, Mitch Richmond, and Tim Hardaway. They could never get it done.

However compared to the 80s talent, I think ppl have a point that they were lacking.

97Bulls do have a point in that we change the criteria on it and criticism. We say the Pistons were old when the Bulls beat them, but they weren't. Barely older than the Bulls. And when the Bulls were older in 96 or 97, we don't hear this talk.

They beat a talented team with Portland.
They beat Knicks several times.
They beat a great Suns team.
The Bulls were shown to be a good team without MJ. Phil Jackson and Tex Winter showed their coaching prowess, Pippen showed what he could do.
They beat a great Sonics team and very talented Magic team, who went the finals prior.
A a great Jazz team, which gets disrepected.

But this is all relative to the era. Like I could totally understand of ppl argue that 80s had better talent. I think so too. But that was specific to that era. In a similar way of the 10s when superteams were being formed. They are all a product of that era. The 00s is the one I don't think so. Like imo, the Kings 02 was like the best team to not win a finals. They were only that good in that one year. One thing you could say is that the 90s didn't have dynasties other than the Bulls and Rockets. But they had good teams.

But if you are saying that you don't think those bulls would win 6 titles in the 80s, 00s or 10s, then that's something different. We would never know. I don't think so either, but they would play differently since the play styles and rules were different. At first glance you would say those Laker, Celts, 76ers teams would have more talent so therefore they are more likely to win. But who really knows. It's just who would you place your bet on.

There will never be an answer because these teams cant play each other.

But as I stated earlier. And time after time, if 80s talent was better than 90s. The Pistons and Lakers shouldn't have lost to the Bulls the way they did. Birds Celtics werent even good enough to get past the Knicks. Otherwise they wouldve that work from the Bulls as well.

I keep referring to the tie that binds. The Bulls Knicks and Jazz were probably the 3 most consistent teams in thr 90s. The Jazz held off the Spurs and Lakers in the 90s. The Knicks held off the Celtics in the early 90s. The Bulls beat both of them. If you're gonna start trying to quantify teams based on age, injuries, who was there and who wasnt. Then you're gonna have to do that for the pre and post 90s teams as well.

I just dont think that a just because argument works here. Just because you favor a team or era over another doesnt make it better.

[Micku]

There will never be an answer because these teams cant play each other.

But as I stated earlier. And time after time, if 80s talent was better than 90s. The Pistons and Lakers shouldn't have lost to the Bulls the way they did. Birds Celtics werent even good enough to get past the Knicks. Otherwise they wouldve that work from the Bulls as well.

I keep referring to the tie that binds. The Bulls Knicks and Jazz were probably the 3 most consistent teams in thr 90s. The Jazz held off the Spurs and Lakers in the 90s. The Knicks held off the Celtics in the early 90s. The Bulls beat both of them. If you're gonna start trying to quantify teams based on age, injuries, who was there and who wasnt. Then you're gonna have to do that for the pre and post 90s teams as well.

I just dont think that a just because argument works here. Just because you favor a team or era over another doesnt make it better.

I personally think your team could have the better talent, but not the better team. Like the current thing with Heat vs Celts. The Celts I believe have the better talent top down. But they weren't the better team this year. They lose to the Heat because they were outcoached, the Heat played harder and smarter. They took advantage of different defensive strategies and exploit them.

Portland in 92 I think have better than Bulls of 92, top down. While the Bulls did have MJ and Pippen. They had six players capable of going to double figures. The Bulls did not have that. I mean you have MJ, Pippen and Grant. But the other guys? Not as talented. As I said before, I think the coaching maximize the Bulls talent to work the best as a unit. I think it sacrificed some stats like MJ (he could play PG) and Pippen in some way, but it worked for the best as a team. Same thing with the Spurs 99 or the Jazz in 98. They beat the Lakers. The aren't as talented as the Lakers, but they beat them because they played better as a team

Same thing with the Clippres in the mid 10s when they were trading back and forward series with Memphis. The clips were more talented than Memphis, but Memphis played as a collective unit and matched up well.

[Micku]

This is why no one takes you serious, to not call 2018 a carry job is a joke. LeBron made the Finals that year despite his teammates being trash, Love averaged 15 on 39% on atrocious defense during the playoffs.

I also find it funny how people say LeBron held Kevin Love back, but what exactly has Love done since LeBron left? He is basically putting up the same numbers when he played with LeBron.

Initially I thought K.Love just didn't fit well with LeBron or sacrificed for the team. Like he does things that stats don't really say, in a similar way Bosh did for the Heat. He lost weight and played more of a spot up role. But when Kyrie left and K.Love was still like that, that was it for me. Plus his offensive numbers weren't great. He was good rebounder and passer, but he wasn't efficient enough in volume while he was on the Cavs. He did his job in creating space for LeBron to do his thing, but I expected him contribute more in numbers too when Kyrie was out. As you said, putting up the same numbers after LeBron left? And he isn't THAT old and I don't think he has any injuries that mess up his play like D-Wade did.

In 2015, I think the Cavs were expected to go to the finals. But Kyrie and Love got hurt. It was amazing what LeBron did afterwards. And at the time, nobody really expected or respected GSW. But in 2018, that was a straight up carry job. You can argue that they got lucky that the Celtics didn't have Kyrie, but the Cavs shouldn't suppose to be in that position anyway.

[3ball]

AD is a better shot blocker. And he doesnt run the offense like Pippen did. Pip covered a lot of ground on defense.

Pippen averaged 5 APG and didn't run any offense

The triangle didn't have a PG role

So you're just making shit up

Bottom line - AD is a better defender than pippen, so your defense argument holds no water.. people only mention defense with pippen because he sucks offensively.. no one ever mentioned Hakeem's defense, or AD's or MJ's.. only pippen's defense gets mentioned because he sucks

[And1AllDay]

Wtf are you talking about

AD is a better defender than pippen, but if he scored like Pippen, the Lakers would've lost in the 1st round to Dame Dollar

That's a fact

So get off the defense/impact crap... It's overrated fluff bullshit and means nothing and you can't even articulate what you're talking about

Defense is a team effort and as long as the player doesn't PREVENT a good team defense, then defense doesn't matter in comparing players.. Kyrie and curry were on #1 defenses

dumb :oldlol:

you cant take pippen stats but then compare them against bran opponents

everyone knows the bran opponents are tougher so it doesnt make sense

compare pippen stats to pippen opponents

how are you just now learning this after 29k posts?

[And1AllDay]

Pippen averaged 5 APG and didn't run any offense

The triangle didn't have a PG role

So you're just making shit up

Bottom line - AD is a better defender than pippen, so your defense argument holds no water.. people only mention defense with pippen because he sucks offensively.. no one ever mentioned Hakeem's defense, or AD's or MJ's.. only pippen's defense gets mentioned because he sucks

tsk tsk tsk

https://i.postimg.cc/k4RZypFv/FB-IMG-1525375107033.jpg

and this is why people pile on mike and question him for top 3

[sdot_thadon]

Good post and good points Op, however you were here for it so you should know what happened....We did it. The Mj generation of fans started banging on Kobe Bryant's career and nitpicking in a way no other player had faced because he flew too close to the sun. Once that option was open some of us carried it on to Lebron and the young fans did the same in kind in respect to Mj and his career. It's incredibly difficult to have a level headed debate while holding 2 subjects to completely different standards, which is what we as Jordan fans did for a long time. Some still do to this day. It's toxic and in some cases a mind numbingly stupid tit for tat battle. I don't think alot of the points presented matter much as they are just a retaliatory statement against something equally as stupid. I do not believe Mj and the 90s belong on some special pedestal in nba history away the rest of the eras. Apply the same nuance to his career as we do all the rest and he's still likely the goat or pretty close.

[8Ball]

Thanks bro. I feel your pain with 3ball. Hes a lost cause lol. Sometimes I think hes a Lebron fan in disguise. Because his arguments help James more than anything.

Like the league that Jordan played in was weak.

This is why 3ball is a liar and not arguing with you in good faith (did he ever?).

Pippen's PPG is always critiqued, yet when you look up Reggie Miller PPG in the 1998 first round and ECF, Reggie Miller averaged 17-2-2 on 41% shooting. But 3ball hails Reggie Miller as an assassin, while Pippen is a bum.

Who were the 2nd options in the 90s that outplayed Pippen? None.

[And1AllDay]

if pippen was terrible piece of shit #2 option (according to 3ball) but he was the best #2 option in the 90s then


what. does. that. say. about. your. era.

?

[8Ball]

Good post and good points Op, however you were here for it so you should know what happened....We did it. The Mj generation of fans started banging on Kobe Bryant's career and nitpicking in a way no other player had faced because he flew too close to the sun. Once that option was open some of us carried it on to Lebron and the young fans did the same in kind in respect to Mj and his career. It's incredibly difficult to have a level headed debate while holding 2 subjects to completely different standards, which is what we as Jordan fans did for a long time. Some still do to this day. It's toxic and in some cases a mind numbingly stupid tit for tat battle. I don't think alot of the points presented matter much as they are just a retaliatory statement against something equally as stupid. I do not believe Mj and the 90s belong on some special pedestal in nba history away the rest of the eras. Apply the same nuance to his career as we do all the rest and he's still likely the goat or pretty close.

Its is nearly impossible to tear down LeBron and be good faith consistent.

If you want to have an intelligent comparison between the two, then the argument is never ending and LeBron hasn't stopped. Jordan may have the peak argument but LeBron longevity is something Jordan didn't achieve.

This LeBron Jordan argument has reached its never ending debate point. If LeBron hits 6 rings though it will be over.


If you want to have a braindead level 3ball argument, we can fling poop at him all day everytime he barfs all over the place. Its fun but low brow to throw poop at such a retard.

[dankok8]

tsk tsk tsk

https://i.postimg.cc/k4RZypFv/FB-IMG-1525375107033.jpg

and this is why people pile on mike and question him for top 3

You mean Pippen put up 20 more assists while Jordan put up 1576 more points. :oldlol:

[And1AllDay]

You mean Pippen put up 20 more assists while Jordan put up 1576 more points. :oldlol:

taking 10 more shot per game :oldlol:

[3ball]

taking 10 more shot per game :oldlol:

Pippen averaged 15 on 34% in the 96' Finals

but you want him taking MORE shots??.. :whatever:


17 on 41% for the entire 96-98' Finals, but he should get more looks????.. :whatever:


45% TS in 93' Finals with worse playoff stats than 14' Wade, but he should shoot MORE?... , :whatever:


Pippen averaged 16 on 40% in 2 Finals, 4 ECF, and a 7-game ECSF.. but you want him shooting MORE?... :whatever:

[dankok8]

taking 10 more shot per game :oldlol:

That's why we have a ton of players in NBA history averaging 33.4 ppg. :facepalm

[And1AllDay]

That's why we have a ton of players in NBA history averaging 33.4 ppg. :facepalm

against who? :oldlol: john starks ? cool :oldlol:

[MadDog]

:oldlol: @ LeBron fans. Proving time and again why they're the WORST fanbase in all of sports. Equating Pippen's impact with Jordan's shows their pure desperation. Got to fight for those second place scraps!

[And1AllDay]

:oldlol: @ LeBron fans. They prove time and again why they're the WORST fanbase in all of sports. Equating Pippen with Jordan's impact shows the pure desperation. Got to fight for those second place scraps!

name me a better 2nd option in the 90s

you cant

https://i.postimg.cc/G2RL7RML/dance_pablo.gif

[sdot_thadon]

Its is nearly impossible to tear down LeBron and be good faith consistent.

If you want to have an intelligent comparison between the two, then the argument is never ending and LeBron hasn't stopped. Jordan may have the peak argument but LeBron longevity is something Jordan didn't achieve. It's not so much as impossible to tear down Lebron. It's easy if you want to bend lines enough, the thing is it's just as possible to do so with any great if you're willing. Funny tho through MJ's rise no one had the desire to do so in such detail as we have with every one who's come after. It just wasn't a thing to nitpick greatness in such a fickle way.


This LeBron Jordan argument has reached its never ending debate point. If LeBron hits 6 rings though it will be over.
It still shouldn't be even if he reaches 6 out of respect to MJ's greatness, but the way his frantic fanbase has framed it; they pretty much have to lay down their shields at that point.


If you want to have a braindead level 3ball argument, we can fling poop at him all day everytime he barfs all over the place. Its fun but low brow to throw poop at such a retard.
I get it, Its one of my guilty pleasures from time to time otherwise I wouldn't be on Ish now would i? And I've always been a Mj fan, yet he's done more to convince me Lebron may be the Goat than anything else...

[MadDog]

name me a better 2nd option in the 90s

you cant

Drexler, Stockton, Penny and Tim Hardaway as #2s had MULTIPLE years better than Pippen. :confusedshrug: Learn the game, rookie.

[sdot_thadon]

Drexler, Stockton, Penny and Tim Hardaway as #2s had MULTIPLE years better than Pippen. :confusedshrug: Learn the game, rookie.

Note those years, vet. I'm curious which of those guys managed all nba 1st team and all d 1st team in the same seasons as 2nd option.

[3ball]

It's not so much as impossible to tear down Lebron. It's easy if you want to bend lines enough, the thing is it's just as possible to do so with any great if you're willing. Funny tho through MJ's rise no one had the desire to do so in such detail as we have with every one who's come after. It just wasn't a thing to nitpick greatness in such a fickle way.


It still shouldn't be even if he reaches 6 out of respect to MJ's greatness, but the way his frantic fanbase has framed it; they pretty much have to lay down their shields at that point.



Lebron needs more than 6 rings because he needs 6 as the clear-cut best player

So he probably won't get 6 as the best player, since many people think AD was already the best this year on both ends and have the stats and clutch moments to prove it

And when we're counting rings, longevity HURTS lebron.. 6 in 20 < 6 in 15

Then there's MVP's...

There's also the everyday standard that both guys had.. on defense, Jordan's standard was top 5 dpoy every year and 1st team defense.. lebron's standard is no all-defense in 7 years.. offensively, Jordan's standard is #1 scorer, while lebron's is 10-15









I get it, Its one of my guilty pleasures from time to time otherwise I wouldn't be on Ish now would i? And I've always been a Mj fan, yet he's done more to convince me Lebron may be the Goat than anything else...



lol I introduced you guys to ball domination

occasionally, guys still mistake it for usage lol

[And1AllDay]

im a 2020 account.

rookie :oldlol:

https://i.postimg.cc/ZRmVPZZN/ROOKIE-2020-lol.png

pipe down when the goats are speaking

[And1AllDay]

Lebron needs more than 6 rings because he needs 6 as the clear-cut best player

So he probably won't get 6 as the best player, since many people think AD was already the best this year on both ends and have the stats and clutch moments to prove it

And when we're counting rings, longevity HURTS lebron.. 6 in 20 < 6 in 15

Then there's MVP's...

There's also the everyday standard that both guys had.. on defense, Jordan's standard was top 5 dpoy every year and 1st team defense.. lebron's standard is no all-defense in 7 years.. offensively, Jordan's standard is #1 scorer, while lebron's is 10-15







lol I introduced you guys to ball domination

occasionally, guys still mistake it for usage lol

all this time i thought you were a bran hater but your really a mike hater

you bring all this smoke to mike to secretly prop up bran. using longevity against kareem and bran :oldlol: just makes us thinkin about mikes lack of consistent play and makes us reallze he wasnt cut out for mentally tough battles

clever work but i finally figured it out :cheers:

[3ball]

all this time i thought you were a bran hater but your really a mike hater

you bring all this smoke to mike to secretly prop up bran. using longevity against kareem and bran :oldlol: just makes us thinkin about mikes lack of consistent play and makes us reallze he wasnt cut out for mentally tough battles

clever work but i finally figured it out :cheers:
MJ was #1 scorer and 1st team defense from 88-98'

So he was Wilt-like on offense and peak-Kawhi on defense..... for 10+ years, aka goat peak longevity

Lebron was maybe #10 scorer and no all-defense in the last 7 years, so nothing compared to Mike's standard

[MadDog]

Note those years, vet. I'm curious which of those guys managed all nba 1st team and all d 1st team in the same seasons as 2nd option.

You don't REALLY think that makes you a "better" player, right? Otherwise you're saying AD>LeBron in 2020 (1st team All-NBA/All-Def) :confusedshrug:

[And1AllDay]

MJ was #1 scorer and 1st team defense from 88-98'

So he was Wilt-like on offense and peak-Kawhi on defense..... for 10+ years, aka goat peak longevity

Lebron was maybe #10 scorer and no all-defense in the last 7 years, so nothing compared to Mike's standard

mike led his team in finals scoring 6 times bran did it 9


next question

[3ball]

mike led his team in finals scoring 6 times bran did it 9


next question

But was it a shared load, aka how many points did he average above his sidekick?

And what was the peak capability of lebron's sidekicks in the playoffs vs Pippen?

[sdot_thadon]

You don't REALLY think that makes you a "better" player, right? Otherwise you're saying AD>LeBron in 2020 (1st team All-NBA/All-Def) :confusedshrug:

I'm pretty sure its commonly used to say Mj > Lebron, so are we being consistent or are we moving goalposts? And honestly if you need that to inform you in the 1st place you weren't old enough to know. There was no 2nd option better than Scottie in the 90s. Maybe a guy like Penny had a better offensive year but overall nah.

[3ball]

I'm pretty sure its commonly used to say Mj > Lebron, so are we being consistent or are we moving goalposts?


No, all-nba isn't needed and is never a primary or even secondary argument


Primary arguments:

* ring count in 3-pointer basketball/modern era as the best player

* #1 production rate all-time, aka BPM, PER, WS/48, VORP seasons, PPG

* unprecedented 2-way accolades - 9 seasons of 1st team all-defense and scoring champ (a new goat standard for 2-way play)

[And1AllDay]

But was it a shared load, aka how many points did he average above his sidekick?

And what was the peak capability of lebron's sidekicks in the playoffs vs Pippen?

wanna talk about a carry? pip over mike

https://i.postimg.cc/y8ZDM6h0/pipSavedJordan.png

as for the second comment, what was mikes opponent peak capability? :oldlol:

[3ball]

wanna talk about a carry? pip over mike

https://i.postimg.cc/y8ZDM6h0/pipSavedJordan.png

as for the second comment, what was mikes opponent peak capability? :oldlol:

Lebron's teammates average about the same rebounds, points, steals (shared load)

Whereas MJ carried the primary category (scoring) and shared the other categories like lebron (teammates averaging about the same)

[And1AllDay]

Lebron's teammates average about the same rebounds, points, steals (shared load)

Whereas MJ carried the primary category (scoring) and shared the other categories like lebron (teammates averaging about the same)

why do you keep mentioning scoring like you forget the basics

bran has most game winners
bran has most points
bran has most 30 pt games
bran has led most teams in finals scoring 9x vs mikey 6x

its over :oldlol:

[3ball]

why do you keep mentioning scoring like you forget the basics

bran has most game winners
bran has most points
bran has most 30 pt games
bran has led most teams in finals scoring 9x vs mikey 6x

its over :oldlol:

Bran has lower frequency of game winners and is 0-8 in the Finals vs 4-8 for mj

[And1AllDay]

Bran has lower frequency of game winners and is 0-8 in the Finals vs 4-8 for mj

mike has lower freqeuncy of making finals and getting out of the 1st round :oldlol: stop it with that talk boi :oldlol:

[3ball]

mike has lower freqeuncy of making finals and getting out of the 1st round :oldlol: stop it with that talk boi :oldlol:

Lebron would have 4 Finals appearances out West so his frequency is lower

That's why winning the Finals matters, otherwise your appearance was conference-dependant

[And1AllDay]

Lebron would have 4 Finals appearances out West so his frequency is lower

That's why winning the Finals matters, otherwise your appearance was conference-dependant

im not going to rewrite history and look dumb like you :oldlol:

i just use facts

[3ball]

im not going to rewrite history and look dumb like you :oldlol:

i just use facts

I also use facts:

lebron beat the west 4 times

MJ beat the West 6 times

:dancin:

[MadDog]

I'm pretty sure its commonly used to say Mj > Lebron, so are we being consistent or are we moving goalposts? And honestly if you need that to inform you in the 1st place you weren't old enough to know. There was no 2nd option better than Scottie in the 90s. Maybe a guy like Penny had a better offensive year but overall nah.

And yet, you're the ONLY poster here using "1st teams" as a core argument. Gonna stick with that and accept AD>LeBron, or run like you're doing now? :confusedshrug: Penny has multiple advanced stats in his favor fyi. Ones that track impact too.

[And1AllDay]

And yet, you're the ONLY poster here using "1st teams" as a core argument. Gonna stick with that and accept AD>LeBron, or run like you're doing now? :confusedshrug: Penny has multiple advanced stats in his favor fyi. Ones that track impact too.

mikes teammates made 15 all nba and all defense selections
brans teammates made 7

next

[MadDog]

mikes teammates made 15 all nba and all defense selections
brans teammates made 7

next

LeBron was outplayed by Jason Terry and lost a ring with Peak Wade. :no: Nuff said, rookie.

[Mauzah]

I would say 1st 3 peat Pippen was the best 2nd option in the league and for the 2nd 3 peat he was still good but a combination of being flat out off/injured made others just as comparable.

Also teams of the 90's were exactly that. TEAMS. Individuals stats this and that. Players played to win. Period.

[Axe]

The discussions in this thread were civilized until 3ball and his dups came. Sad, sad lol.

[HoopsNY]

Pippen outscored 5 of 6 #2 options in the Finals :lol And he did it with better rebounding, passing, and defensive. What are you saying?

And LeBron's #2 outscored the competition's #2 in 3 of 4 finals victories. So what?

[3ball]

And LeBron's #2 outscored the competition's #2 in 3 of 4 finals victories. So what?

His #2 outplayed their #1 in the 16' Finals and 13' Finals

And his #2 and #3 options would be the best 1st options in the East from 11-18'

[Gus Hemmingway]

His #2 outplayed their #1 in the 16' Finals and 13' Finals

And his #2 and #3 options would be the best 1st options in the East from 11-18'

2018 K Love would be the best 1st option? :oldlol:

[3ball]

2018 K Love would be the best 1st option? :oldlol:

I meant 11-17', but even 18' Love would be a top 1st option

[sdot_thadon]

And yet, you're the ONLY poster here using "1st teams" as a core argument. Gonna stick with that and accept AD>LeBron, or run like you're doing now? :confusedshrug: Penny has multiple advanced stats in his favor fyi. Ones that track impact too.

Nah, Penny was my 2nd favorite wing in the 90s over Scottie because he was more entertaining to me. But would I take him over Scottie? Hell no, we all know what happened to Penny and if you know anything about anything Penny was a 2nd option for 2 whole years in the 90s because his no.1 left. So again Scottie was THE 2nd option of the 90s bar none. Penny had 2 years. Scottie had 9. Clyde in Houston was a shell of Prime Clyde. Nobody in life ever said Stockton> Pippen until these corny ass debates began during Lebron's prime.

Do better.

[sdot_thadon]

Lebron needs more than 6 rings because he needs 6 as the clear-cut best player

So he probably won't get 6 as the best player, since many people think AD was already the best this year on both ends and have the stats and clutch moments to prove it

And when we're counting rings, longevity HURTS lebron.. 6 in 20 < 6 in 15

When in the hell has longevity ever "hurt" anyone? I told you about smoking that shit 3ball. Longevity is just like every other subjective piece of a goat debate bro. How can longevity over Mj hurt Lebron, when that same longevity was used as the reason Bird and Magic were below Mj all time, or the reason a guy like Walton isn't respected more amongst all time bigs? Can't have it both ways. To be able to be a top 3 player in the game still in your 17th season is an amazing feat, let alone to lead and win a championship club in that 17th season. There's no "hurt" in that, besides your **** cavity of course.....






lol I introduced you guys to ball domination

occasionally, guys still mistake it for usage lol
You introduced us to comedy. The joke is old now tho.

[And1AllDay]

im a 2020 account

:oldlol:

[Phoenix]

When in the hell has longevity ever "hurt" anyone? I told you about smoking that shit 3ball. Longevity is just like every other subjective piece of a goat debate bro. How can longevity over Mj hurt Lebron, when that same longevity was used as the reason Bird and Magic were below Mj all time, or the reason a guy like Walton isn't respected more amongst all time bigs? Can't have it both ways. To be able to be a top 3 player in the game still in your 17th season is an amazing feat, let alone to lead and win a championship club in that 17th season. There's no "hurt" in that, besides your **** cavity of course.....






He doesn't look at it from the standpoint that in 2020 this is a completely different generation of stars and he's still MVP caliber. Hell since 2003 it's been a few generations of stars. By now guys like Giannis, Harden, KD *should* have firmly taken over the league. And yet Lebron endures.

[scuzzy]

The excuse that older generations and players would have easily adapt to current league if given the chance

Meanwhile the same people claiming this also find it unfathomable current players would be able adapt to older "gritty" style. Like Kelly Olynyk and Draymond Green wouldn't be clotheslining people if not for an auto 5 game sus/200k fine.

Yah it would be real hard to adapt to Mark Price hand checking from the savvy ball handlers of todays league

[HoopsNY]

The excuse that older generations and players would have easily adapt to current league if given the chance

Meanwhile the same people claiming this also find it unfathomable current players would be able adapt to older "gritty" style. Like Kelly Olynyk and Draymond Green wouldn't be clotheslining people if not for an auto 5 game sus/200k fine.

Yah it would be real hard to adapt to Mark Price hand checking from the savvy ball handlers of todays league

That's a good point. I think both generations would adapt. However, offensive numbers would probably still fall depending on which years you're focusing on.

[MadDog]

Nah, Penny was my 2nd favorite wing in the 90s over Scottie because he was more entertaining to me. But would I take him over Scottie? Hell no, we all know what happened to Penny and if you know anything about anything Penny was a 2nd option for 2 whole years in the 90s because his no.1 left. So again Scottie was THE 2nd option of the 90s bar none. Penny had 2 years. Scottie had 9. Clyde in Houston was a shell of Prime Clyde. Nobody in life ever said Stockton> Pippen until these corny ass debates began during Lebron's prime.

Do better.

Penny was one of your favorite players? Cool. Then you should know he had a season where he bested Pippen individually. Per possession, per game and cumulatively. Bringing up what he did in his LIMITED time with Shaq is irrelevant. Shaq wasn't better than Jordan and Orlando wasn't better than Chicago. Apples and bowling balls. Perception and narrative carry too much weight in these discussions. I go by what the data and my eyes tell me. Drexler in the 95 playoffs and early 90s Stockton had BETTER performances as a #2 than Pippen.


Do better

You haven't done anything to sway the debate :confusedshrug:

[dankok8]

I meant 11-17', but even 18' Love would be a top 1st option

That's actually a good point. I don't think Oladipo, Lowry or 19 year old Jayson Tatum were really much better than Kevin Love. In 2016 and 2017 Lebron had Kyrie who was the 2nd best player in the conference.

[3ball]

He doesn't look at it from the standpoint that in 2020 this is a completely different generation of stars and he's still MVP caliber. Hell since 2003 it's been a few generations of stars. By now guys like Giannis, Harden, KD *should* have firmly taken over the league. And yet Lebron endures.

When is the last time lebron was MVP or all-defense

Now stfu

Jordan was MVP-caliber from 88-98'.. lebron was MVP-caliber from 09-13'

[3ball]

When in the hell has longevity ever "hurt" anyone? I told you about smoking that shit 3ball. Longevity is just like every other subjective piece of a goat debate bro. How can longevity over Mj hurt Lebron, when that same longevity was used as the reason Bird and Magic were below Mj all time, or the reason a guy like Walton isn't respected more amongst all time bigs? Can't have it both ways. To be able to be a top 3 player in the game still in your 17th season is an amazing feat, let alone to lead and win a championship club in that 17th season. There's no "hurt" in that, besides your **** cavity of course.....



Longevity hurts lebron because 4/17 is less dominant than 6/15..

If lebron gets to 6 rings, he'll need 5 extra seasons and many more team-hops - how does that NOT hurt him compared to MJ?

:kobe:






You introduced us to comedy. The joke is old now tho.





I know that I destroy you because I don't pretend you're a joke - I just refute your points directly.. no need to act dismissive like you (after you wrote me an essay, aka you're fake)

Ultimately, I taught you a lot - remember how dumb you were on defensive 3 seconds???... :facepalm:... your comments on that look idiotic now.. you were a fool about basketball until I educated you on legal paint-camping and ball-dominance vs ball movement

[sdot_thadon]

Penny was one of your favorite players? Cool. Then you should know he had a season where he bested Pippen individually. Per possession, per game and cumulatively. Bringing up what he did in his LIMITED time with Shaq is irrelevant. Shaq wasn't better than Jordan and Orlando wasn't better than Chicago. Apples and bowling balls. Perception and narrative carry too much weight in these discussions. I go by what the data and my eyes tell me. Drexler in the 95 playoffs and early 90s Stockton had BETTER performances as a #2 than Pippen.



You haven't done anything to sway the debate :confusedshrug:

So wait, we're talking Penny as a 1st option in a discussion about Scottie vs. other 2nd options?:kobe: Think you lost the plot fella. I'm a Houstonian and I was alive and present for the 95 run. Clyde was good for us, but not better than Scottie and this is a guy who brought my city a chip I'm talking about here. If you were alive in the 90s....tell me how many people were checking for Stockton in the 90s? Because I still can't believe this wave of "90s fans" that are trying to tell us about all these 100s of guys that were better than Pippen then. That was never the case as it unfolded live.

[sdot_thadon]

Longevity hurts lebron because 4/17 is less dominant than 6/15..

If lebron gets to 6 rings, he'll need 5 extra seasons and many more team-hops - how does that NOT hurt him compared to MJ?

:kobe:

You've got a super linear outlook on things and it's pretty boring. Longevity and dominance imo are 2 different conversations but if you want to combine them I'm pretty sure longevity helps Lebron by still being an Mvp candidate in year 17 and winning a chip vs. Missing the playoffs and having to be gifted a starting spot in the allstar game in year 15.




I know that I destroy you because I don't pretend you're a joke - I just refute your points directly.. no need to act dismissive like you (after you wrote me an essay, aka you're fake)

Ultimately, I taught you a lot - remember how dumb you were on defensive 3 seconds???... :facepalm:... your comments on that look idiotic now.. you were a fool about basketball until I educated you on legal paint-camping and ball-dominance vs ball movement

In all the 1000s of posts you've made the only thing you've destroyed....is your credibility. And maybe MJ's ironclad goat argument. It's like you're playing for the other team bro. And no I honestly can't say I've ever learned anything from you brother. You stats are usually incorrect, your rounding skills are atrocious and you make things up to suit your view of the day. No thanks.

[MadDog]

So wait, we're talking Penny as a 1st option in a discussion about Scottie vs. other 2nd options?:kobe: Think you lost the plot fella. I'm a Houstonian and I was alive and present for the 95 run. Clyde was good for us, but not better than Scottie and this is a guy who brought my city a chip I'm talking about here. If you were alive in the 90s....tell me how many people were checking for Stockton in the 90s? Because I still can't believe this wave of "90s fans" that are trying to tell us about all these 100s of guys that were better than Pippen then. That was never the case as it unfolded live.

You are definitely confused. I'm referring to Penny's play as a #2. Don't know what you're talking about or why you are bringing up "1st option". Let me help you out though. In the regular-season, Drexler had roughly equal winshares, player efficiency and a better offensive box score. In the postseason, Drexler had better winshares, player efficiency and value over replacement. Basically, Clyde had more impact with certain numbers in his favor, yet you don't think he has an argument. If anything you don't have one for Pippen. :confusedshrug:

[Vragrant]

One of the craziest stats I've seen is that the Bulls won every year in the 90's where MJ played a full season.

[3ball]

You've got a super linear outlook on things and it's pretty boring. Longevity and dominance imo are 2 different conversations but if you want to combine them I'm pretty sure longevity helps Lebron by still being an Mvp candidate in year 17 and winning a chip vs. Missing the playoffs and having to be gifted a starting spot in the allstar game in year 15.




Jordan was top 5 DPOY from 88-98', while lebron hasn't been all-defense in 7 years

So Jordan was MVP and DPOY-caliber for 11 years (88-98'), versus 4 years for Lebron (09-13')

Jordan's everyday standard (MVP and DPOY) was simply much higher than lebron's, and he did it for longer (11 years vs 4)





In all the 1000s of posts you've made the only thing you've destroyed....is your credibility. And maybe MJ's ironclad goat argument. It's like you're playing for the other team bro. And no I honestly can't say I've ever learned anything from you brother. You stats are usually incorrect, your rounding skills are atrocious and you make things up to suit your view of the day. No thanks.

MJ's goat argument is having the most "best player" rings in 3-pointer basketball, by far... and having the #1 production rate (stats) of all time..

So it doesn't take a genius to know what MJ's goat argument is, let alone an expert like me

Btw, another primary argument is that MJ's everyday standard was much higher,, aka #1 scorer and 1st team defense is a much higher standard than lebron's #10 scorer and no all-defense

[Phoenix]

When is the last time lebron was MVP or all-defense

Now stfu

Jordan was MVP-caliber from 88-98'.. lebron was MVP-caliber from 09-13'

When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?

Now shut the fukk up. You're coming apart at the seams and making MJ look worse in the process. ISH is going to be complicit in you killing yourself at this rate.

[3ball]

When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?

Now shut the fukk up. You're coming apart at the seams and making MJ look worse in the process.



there's a big gap between 1st place and 2nd place, and Lebron hasn't won MVP in 7 years - he only won it for a 4 year period from 09-13'

Otoh, Jordan won MVP throughout an 11-year period because he was top 5 DPOY every year too.. (88-98')

So Jordan's standard was MVP and DPOY-caliber for 11 years, versus 4 for lebron (09-13').. lebron stopped being MVP-caliber the exact year that he stopped being all-defense (14')

Btw, I'll never think I hurt jordan's case because I deal in facts, and lebron is nowhere near Jordan.. Lebron's skillset gets beat by superior brand/strategy (ball movement), aka Mavs/Spurs/Warriors - lebron has a lottery record against these guys in the championship lol

[Phoenix]

there's a big gap between 1st place and 2nd place, and Lebron hasn't won MVP in 7 years - he only won it for a 4 year period from 09-13'

Otoh, Jordan won MVP throughout an 11-year period because he was top 5 DPOY every year too.. (88-98')

So Jordan's standard was MVP and DPOY-caliber for 11 years, versus 4 for lebron (09-13').. lebron stopped being MVP-caliber the exact year that he stopped being all-defense (14')

Btw, I'll never think I hurt jordan's case because I deal in facts, and lebron is nowhere near Jordan.. Lebron's skillset gets beat by superior brand/strategy (ball movement), aka Mavs/Spurs/Warriors - lebron has a lottery record against these guys in the championship lol

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one.

[8Ball]

3ball copy paste answers from a spreadsheet.

You should give him same courtesy. Copy paste the answers.

[Phoenix]

3ball copy paste answers from a spreadsheet.

You should give him same courtesy. Copy paste the answers.

Already got my above post copy/pasted for the occassion.

[3ball]

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one.

You're championing length of dominance, and I'm championing DEGREE of dominance, which is a much bigger driver for winning

A team wins more with an MVP winner and DPOY-candidate than a #2 MVP and no defense

[MadDog]

This 17th season "oh so dominant" argument for LeBron is weak. At the same age, Jordan won an MVP, was 1st team All-NBA, All-Def, and led his team in playoff scoring/impact. AD, not LeBron, led LA in playoff scoring, defense, winshares and impact

https://i.postimg.cc/Hx7RRMvW/gghaga.png

AD's Net Rating and On/Off were better than LeBron's. All postseason :confusedshrug:

[Phoenix]

You're championing length of dominance, and I'm championing DEGREE of dominance, which is a much bigger driver for winning

A team wins more with an MVP winner and DPOY-candidate than a #2 MVP and no defense

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one.



At your convenience.....

[3ball]

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one.



At your convenience.....

You're praising 2nd place when MJ won the MVP at 35

35-year old MVP winner and DPOY candidate > 35-year old 2nd place and no defense

So who cares about the 17th year nothing-argument because lebron's level of dominance is much less

(so he wins less.. longevity only makes him look desperate, especially longevity at a lower level of dominance.. no one will go for it in the end because the stats tell the story of MJ's carry-jobs)

[Phoenix]

You're praising 2nd place when MJ won the MVP at 35

35-year old MVP winner and DPOY candidate > 35-year old 2nd place and no defense

So who cares about the 17th year nothing-argument because lebron's level of dominance is much less (so he wins less.. longevity only makes him look desperate)

I'm not praising anything. I asked a question and with each post you merely show you're unwilling to answer it. I don't give a fukk what Lebron did this year, doesn't affect my life in the least. I'm asking you if anyone else in year 17 did this:

Finals MVP
All NBA first team
2nd in MVP voting

Name and year.

[3ball]

I'm not praising anything. I asked a question and with each post you merely show you're unwilling to answer it. I don't give a fukk what Lebron did this year, doesn't affect my life in the least. I'm asking you if anyone else in year 17 did this:

Finals MVP
All NBA first team
2nd in MVP voting

Name and year.

Who cares about your question when mine is greater?

Name the 35-year olds that actually won MVP, Finals MVP, DPOY candidate and scoring champ?

So how does the bullshit you listed for lebron compare? The stuff you listed is inferior to Jordan's accomplishment so who cares about what you asked?

You citing sone inferior shit (#2 and shit) isn't a counter to Jordan's superior accomplishment

[Phoenix]

Who cares about your question when mine is greater?

Name the 35-year olds that won MVP, Finals MVP, DPOY candidate and scoring champ?

So how does the bullshit you listed for lebron compare? The stuff you listed is inferior to Jordan's accomplishment so who cares about what you asked?


"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one.

[3ball]

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one.

Jordan was #1

Who cares about #2

Like, if Giannis won the title this year at 35... That was Jordan

[Phoenix]

Jordan was #1

Who cares about #2

Like, if Giannis won the title this year at 35... That was Jordan

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one

[3ball]

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one

when did a 35-year old actually WIN all the awards and win a 1-man championship?

lol at you praising a lower level of dominance

[Phoenix]

when did a 35-year old actually WIN all the awards and win a 1-man championship?

lol at you praising a lower level of dominance

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one

[3ball]

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one

when did a 35-year old actually WIN all the awards and win a 1-man championship?

lol at you praising a lower level of dominance

[Phoenix]

when did a 35-year old actually WIN all the awards and win a 1-man championship?

lol at you praising a lower level of dominance

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one

[3ball]

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one

And I'm repeating my question that you never answered

when did a 35-year old actually WIN all the awards and win a 1-man championship?

You're asking who got 2nd place, and I'm asking who won 1st

[Phoenix]

And I'm repeating my question that you never answered

when did a 35-year old actually WIN all the awards and win a 1-man championship?

You're asking who got 2nd place, and I'm asking who won 1st

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one

[sdot_thadon]

You are definitely confused. I'm referring to Penny's play as a #2. Don't know what you're talking about or why you are bringing up "1st option". Let me help you out though. In the regular-season, Drexler had roughly equal winshares, player efficiency and a better offensive box score. In the postseason, Drexler had better winshares, player efficiency and value over replacement. Basically, Clyde had more impact with certain numbers in his favor, yet you don't think he has an argument. If anything you don't have one for Pippen. :confusedshrug:

So lemme get this straight, Clyde had a case for 34 games as a 2nd option plus a postseason run. One of the guys swept all NBA 1st teams, one made 3rd team all NBA and not considered for all defense. Same for Penny, wasn't considered for all defense either. Both are better scorers than Scottie easily and did pretty good as 1st options. Scottie's impact has always been all around, if you're not looking at defense you shouldn't even waste your time speaking on Pippen.

[3ball]

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one

you never answered

when did a 35-year old actually WIN all the awards and win a 1-man championship?

You're asking who got 2nd place, and I'm asking who won 1st

[Phoenix]

you never answered

when did a 35-year old actually WIN all the awards and win a 1-man championship?

You're asking who got 2nd place, and I'm asking who won 1st

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one

[sdot_thadon]

Jordan was top 5 DPOY from 88-98', while lebron hasn't been all-defense in 7 years

So Jordan was MVP and DPOY-caliber for 11 years (88-98'), versus 4 years for Lebron (09-13')

Jordan's everyday standard (MVP and DPOY) was simply much higher than lebron's, and he did it for longer (11 years vs 4)




MJ's goat argument is having the most "best player" rings in 3-pointer basketball, by far... and having the #1 production rate (stats) of all time..

So it doesn't take a genius to know what MJ's goat argument is, let alone an expert like me

Btw, another primary argument is that MJ's everyday standard was much higher,, aka #1 scorer and 1st team defense is a much higher standard than lebron's #10 scorer and no all-defense

Nice. Abandoned your entire argument. White flag accepted.

[sdot_thadon]

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one

:applause:

[3ball]

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one
^^^ inferior to winning the MVP and the title

And scoring title and dpoy candidate

MJ was better at 35... Period.. carry on

You're praising lebron for special rules that allowed him to go from HS to pros

[Phoenix]

^^^ inferior to winning the MVP and the title

And scoring title and dpoy candidate

MJ was better at 35... Period.. carry on

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one

[3ball]

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one

What MJ did was better so why ask a meaningless question

When did a 35-year old win MVP and the title

[Phoenix]

What MJ did was better so why ask a meaningless question

When did a 35-year old win MVP and the title

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one

[3ball]

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one
When did a 35-year old win MVP and the title

And everything else

Your guy wasn't even all-defense or top 10 scoring lol

[Phoenix]

When did a 35-year old win MVP and the title

And everything else

Your guy wasn't even all-defense or top 10 scoring lol

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one

[sdot_thadon]

3bot has malfunctioned. His programming wasn't designed for this line of questioning. Send in an error report to improve your experience.

[3ball]

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one

Only lebron won the title and placed 2nd in MVP at 35

But only MJ won the MVP and title at 35, so MJ was the better player

Lebron was also #15 in scoring with no defense, while MJ was scoring champ and dpoy candidate.. so MJ was much better

[Phoenix]

Only lebron won the title and placed 2nd in MVP at 35

But only MJ won the MVP and title at 35, so MJ was the better player

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one

[3ball]

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one

Only lebron won the title and placed 2nd in MVP at 35

But only MJ won the MVP and title at 35, so MJ was the better player

Lebron was also #15 in scoring with no defense, while MJ was scoring champ and dpoy candidate.. so MJ was much better

[Phoenix]

Only lebron won the title and placed 2nd in MVP at 35

But only MJ won the MVP and title at 35, so MJ was the better player

Lebron was also #15 in scoring with no defense, while MJ was scoring champ and dpoy candidate.. so MJ was much better

"When was the last time a year 17 player was first team All-NBA, finals MVP and 2nd in MVP voting?"

I'm repeating the question, since you failed to answer it the first time. Let me address it in point form to help you along:

When was the last time a player in year 17 was:

- finals mvp
- 2nd in MVP voting
- first team all-nba

This requires one of two replies: the player and year it happened, or no-one

[MadDog]

So lemme get this straight, Clyde had a case for 34 games as a 2nd option plus a postseason run. One of the guys swept all NBA 1st teams, one made 3rd team all NBA and not considered for all defense. Same for Penny, wasn't considered for all defense either. Both are better scorers than Scottie easily and did pretty good as 1st options. Scottie's impact has always been all around, if you're not looking at defense you shouldn't even waste your time speaking on Pippen.

Just so we're clear, you're saying that because Drexler ONLY played 34 games, and a full playoff run, he wasn't a second option? If that is your take, then what do you think about Pippen missing more than HALF the season in 1998? Was he not a second option either? :confusedshrug: The 2-way play is a dumb argument because it undersells the overall impact of a player. Take for example Magic. A great conductor and HIGH impact on one end although not the other. That mean Isiah Thomas, Gary Payton or Jason Kidd better players? Of course not.

You're overrating Pippen's defensive impact. With the exception of a season or two, Pippen never effected that end like a bigman. That and you are stuck on All-Team selections. If you want to stick with that, then AD>LeBron in 2020.

[Manny98]

3bot has malfunctioned. His programming wasn't designed for this line of questioning. Send in an error report to improve your experience.

:roll:

[HoopsNY]

This 17th season "oh so dominant" argument for LeBron is weak. At the same age, Jordan won an MVP, was 1st team All-NBA, All-Def, and led his team in playoff scoring/impact. AD, not LeBron, led LA in playoff scoring, defense, winshares and impact

https://i.postimg.cc/Hx7RRMvW/gghaga.png

AD's Net Rating and On/Off were better than LeBron's. All postseason :confusedshrug:

How much stock do you put in that, though? Danny Green is above LeBron in that and he was trash this postseason, particularly in the NBA finals. On/Off ratings don't say much IMO.

[sdot_thadon]

Just so we're clear, you're saying that because Drexler ONLY played 34 games, and a full playoff run, he wasn't a second option? If that is your take, then what do you think about Pippen missing more than HALF the season in 1998? Was he not a second option either? :confusedshrug: The 2-way play is a dumb argument because it undersells the overall impact of a player. Take for example Magic. A great conductor and HIGH impact on one end although not the other. That mean Isiah Thomas, Gary Payton or Jason Kidd better players? Of course not.
Funny because I didn't say anything even resembling that nonsense you just typed. Strictly from a comparison perspective I'm reminding you that Clyde's season with "similar" numbers came in a sample size of 34 games plus postseason, while Scottie's was the whole load plus a postseason and making both 1st teams to boot. At no point did I state less game made him invalid for 2nd option. Just stating that he had a very small sample size in comparison and that also counts for something.


You're overrating Pippen's defensive impact. With the exception of a season or two, Pippen never effected that end like a bigman. That and you are stuck on All-Team selections. If you want to stick with that, then AD>LeBron in 2020.

I don't believe I'm overrating Pippen's impact at all. I'm simply stating he was the best 2nd option of the 90s. That was never a debate until some doofuses needed something ridiculous to downplay/boost another guy. If you feel someone else was show me a more decorated 2nd option in that time frame, then take your ass to the books and see just how many 2nd options EVER did it like Scottie. There aren't many. The Ad parallel you seem keen on drawing is cool and all if Lebron didn't actually finish 2nd in Mvp voting and win Fmvp, which unfortunately for you he did....so that's kind of dead in the water and I'd drop that one if I were you.

[3ball]

Funny because I didn't say anything even resembling that nonsense you just typed. Strictly from a comparison perspective I'm reminding you that Clyde's season with "similar" numbers came in a sample size of 34 games plus postseason, while Scottie's was the whole load plus a postseason and making both 1st teams to boot. At no point did I state less game made him invalid for 2nd option. Just stating that he had a very small sample size in comparison and that also counts for something.



I don't believe I'm overrating Pippen's impact at all. I'm simply stating he was the best 2nd option of the 90s. That was never a debate until some doofuses needed something ridiculous to downplay/boost another guy. If you feel someone else was show me a more decorated 2nd option in that time frame, then take your ass to the books and see just how many 2nd options EVER did it like Scottie. There aren't many. The Ad parallel you seem keen on drawing is cool and all if Lebron didn't actually finish 2nd in Mvp voting and win Fmvp, which unfortunately for you he did....so that's kind of dead in the water and I'd drop that one if I were you.

Pippen got automatic all-nba for winning rings as MJ's sidekick, but his stats and performance aren't worthy.. the media gets in a habit, like giving Kobe all-defense every year

Pippen's peak playoff performance is worse than any other star in the 90's

[MadDog]

Funny because I didn't say anything even resembling that nonsense you just typed. Strictly from a comparison perspective I'm reminding you that Clyde's season with "similar" numbers came in a sample size of 34 games plus postseason, while Scottie's was the whole load plus a postseason and making both 1st teams to boot. At no point did I state less game made him invalid for 2nd option. Just stating that he had a very small sample size in comparison and that also counts for something.

I don't believe I'm overrating Pippen's impact at all. I'm simply stating he was the best 2nd option of the 90s. That was never a debate until some doofuses needed something ridiculous to downplay/boost another guy. If you feel someone else was show me a more decorated 2nd option in that time frame, then take your ass to the books and see just how many 2nd options EVER did it like Scottie. There aren't many.

Pointing out that Clyde played 34 games is no different than saying Pippen "ONLY" played half the season in 1998. It means nothing. We hear song and dance about Pippen's defense in those playoffs, and especially in the finals. Nobody takes that away from him. Just like nobody takes away from Drexler being exceptional in 95'. These arbitrary standards you're creating are laughable. :oldlol:

I can respect that Pippen played really good defense, and was an elite wing in that regard. But, going as far to use THAT then claim nobody else has an argument is weak. Stockton, Drexler, and Penny as #2s had a number of seasons where they were better. The numbers and impact stats simply corroborate that. You using All-Team selections and perception tells me nothing. That stuff is used as a footnote after the main course :confusedshrug:


The Ad parallel you seem keen on drawing is cool and all if Lebron didn't actually finish 2nd in Mvp voting and win Fmvp, which unfortunately for you he did....so that's kind of dead in the water and I'd drop that one if I were you.

You're changing the parameters though. After "All-Team" selections were a swing and a miss, you moved goalposts, and are now looking to strike out with this "point".

[MadDog]

How much stock do you put in that, though? Danny Green is above LeBron in that and he was trash this postseason, particularly in the NBA finals. On/Off ratings don't say much IMO.

A lot. It certainly isn't the end all be all, but just like ALL stats, there are outliers. Roles/minutes/games should be taken into account. AD/LeBron get the majority of action for LA so it isn't a coincidence they are at the top here.

[HoopsNY]

A lot. It certainly isn't the end all be all, but just like ALL stats, there are outliers. Roles/minutes/games should be taken into account. AD/LeBron get the majority of action for LA so it isn't a coincidence they are at the top here.

Dunno; it's hard for me to rely on a stat like that. I watched a lot of the Lakers' games and at least offensively, LeBron was the more impactful player. Defensively is where AD takes the cake and is not given anywhere near the credit he deserves. Just look at how he guarded Jimmy Butler in the finals.

[3ball]

.
Adding up the SRS of opponents during championship runs (the highest SRS total = toughest run)


https://i.makeagif.com/media/11-02-2020/ObKNnr.gif

[HoopsNY]

3ball derailed what was otherwise a great thread. smh

[TheCorporation]

This is the list, good luck to all participants

https://i.postimg.cc/YCPNL5zf/7491-goat.png

[97 bulls]

3ball derailed what was otherwise a great thread. smh

That's why I stopped responding. Too much troll nonsense...

[HoopsNY]

That's why I stopped responding. Too much troll nonsense...

Yea man. Good thread nonetheless. You made some salient points that I believe debunked a lot of myths.

[TheCorporation]

.
Adding up the SRS of opponents during championship runs (the highest SRS total = toughest run)


https://i.makeagif.com/media/11-02-2020/ObKNnr.gif

This is all we need

https://i.postimg.cc/bvHQVZjL/TOP-OF-THE-TOP.png

[light]

It changed because with LeBron we saw that there was another way to be even better.

We forgave MJ for the fact that he needed Pippen and Jackson, because Magic needed Kareem and Riley and so on. Typically a great player also needed a hall of fame caliber head coach to win with regularity, so that was okay.

But it's different with LeBron.

In other words, LeBron created a new standard at a much higher level where specific people are not even necessary.

Jordan literally refused to play unless he had Pippen and Jackson next to him. Jordan would rather retire than play without his key guys. LeBron laughs at that.

#builtdifferent

[kawhileonard2]

It changed because with LeBron we saw that there was another way to be even better.

We forgave MJ for the fact that he needed Pippen and Jackson, because Magic needed Kareem and Riley and so on. Typically a great player also needed a hall of fame caliber head coach to win with regularity, so that was okay.

But it's different with LeBron.

In other words, LeBron created a new standard at a much higher level where specific people are not even necessary.

Jordan literally refused to play unless he had Pippen and Jackson next to him. Jordan would rather retire than play without his key guys. LeBron laughs at that.

#builtdifferent

Lebron jumps from team to team joining stars.

First it was Carlos Boozer and Big Z, then it was Ben Wallace and then Shaq and Jamison and then Wade, Bosh, Ray Allen and then Kyrie, Love and then AD, Rondo and Dwight. Despite all of that only 4 titles. :(

[TheCorporation]

It changed because with LeBron we saw that there was another way to be even better.

We forgave MJ for the fact that he needed Pippen and Jackson, because Magic needed Kareem and Riley and so on. Typically a great player also needed a hall of fame caliber head coach to win with regularity, so that was okay.

But it's different with LeBron.

In other words, LeBron created a new standard at a much higher level where specific people are not even necessary.

Jordan literally refused to play unless he had Pippen and Jackson next to him. Jordan would rather retire than play without his key guys. LeBron laughs at that.

#builtdifferent

#BronBuiltDifferent

[RoundMoundOfReb]

It changed because with LeBron we saw that there was another way to be even better.

We forgave MJ for the fact that he needed Pippen and Jackson, because Magic needed Kareem and Riley and so on. Typically a great player also needed a hall of fame caliber head coach to win with regularity, so that was okay.

But it's different with LeBron.

In other words, LeBron created a new standard at a much higher level where specific people are not even necessary.

Jordan literally refused to play unless he had Pippen and Jackson next to him. Jordan would rather retire than play without his key guys. LeBron laughs at that.

#builtdifferent

+1

[8Ball]

It changed because with LeBron we saw that there was another way to be even better.

We forgave MJ for the fact that he needed Pippen and Jackson, because Magic needed Kareem and Riley and so on. Typically a great player also needed a hall of fame caliber head coach to win with regularity, so that was okay.

But it's different with LeBron.

In other words, LeBron created a new standard at a much higher level where specific people are not even necessary.

Jordan literally refused to play unless he had Pippen and Jackson next to him. Jordan would rather retire than play without his key guys. LeBron laughs at that.

#builtdifferent

True. LeBron joined the Cavs and the Lakers, which had a bunch of players that had no idea how to win and were scrapping the lottery every year.

[Phoenix]

3bot has malfunctioned. His programming wasn't designed for this line of questioning. Send in an error report to improve your experience.

:oldlol:

[MadDog]

Dunno; it's hard for me to rely on a stat like that. I watched a lot of the Lakers' games and at least offensively, LeBron was the more impactful player. Defensively is where AD takes the cake and is not given anywhere near the credit he deserves. Just look at how he guarded Jimmy Butler in the finals.

Well, On/Off and Net Rating takes defense into account. Assuming you are applying context (lineups, roles, minutes played etc), we see the difference in how the team performed with the player on vs. off the court. AD's defensive edge is underrated but not if you look under the hood.

[3ball]

It changed because with LeBron we saw that there was another way to be even better.

We forgave MJ for the fact that he needed Pippen and Jackson, because Magic needed Kareem and Riley and so on. Typically a great player also needed a hall of fame caliber head coach to win with regularity, so that was okay.

But it's different with LeBron.

In other words, LeBron created a new standard at a much higher level where specific people are not even necessary.

Jordan literally refused to play unless he had Pippen and Jackson next to him. Jordan would rather retire than play without his key guys. LeBron laughs at that.

#builtdifferent



A guy that wins MVP and DPOY doesn't need anything but enough supporting talent - 88' Jordan just needed to switch teams and play with Wade or Bosh-level players, like Lebron did

The coach was irrelevant - the bulls almost made the 89' Finals as a low seed without Phil, while pippen got 10 on 40% - so they only needed a better-producing sidekick to make Doug Collins a champion.. those losses to the Pistons don't occur if pippen plays better (12 on 42% vs 88-90' Pistons).

Ultimately, MJ was a goat candidate when they won in 90-91', while Phil was the 1st time, nobody coach.. so MJ made Phil, not the other way around..

Specifically, the triangle put role players in optimal spots but still needed a bailout on 20% of possessions - so it was nothing offense for 50 years until MJ got a hold of it, or his clone (Kobe) - Phil and his funky triangle never won anything without the goat bailout artists (MJ or his clone)

Carry on