In 41 years of 3-pointer basketball, only......

[3ball]

.
18 of the 41 rings were won without super-teams


2019
2015
2011
2010
2009
2004
2003
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989



10 of the 41 rings were won with true 2nd options that never achieved elite 1st option stats or FMVP



Klay
Rip Hamilton
Jason Terry
Pippen
Gasol
Horry



CONCLUSION: Since winning without super-teams and with true 2nd options are more rare, Jordan's 3-peats are the goat accomplishment in 3-pointer history.

[hateraid]

Seriously, your ability to find the most obtuse stats are amazing. But good lord, get a life.

[3ball]

Seriously, your ability to find the most obtuse stats are amazing. But good lord, get a life.


It's simple historical record:

super-team rings and 1b rings are the easiest and most common, whereas winning without super-teams and with true 2nd options is more rare, so Jordan's 3-peats are the goat accomplishment in 3-pointer history.

[mehyaM24]

the 96 bulls were the only team that year with 3 all-leaguers. no other team fielded that kind of talent, which means chicago was a superteam.

fix your op bud.

[3ball]

the 96 bulls were the only team that year with 3 all-leaguers. no other team fielded that kind of talent, which means chicago was a superteam.

fix your op bud.


Super-team is 3 offensive stars, so all-defense isn't a super-team requirement and the term super-team didn't start until 2011

[mehyaM24]

All-defense isn't a super-team requirement and the term super-team didn't start until 2011

sure it is.

its considered "all-league" and no team in 96 had 3 all-leaguers. chicago was the ONLY one - which makes them a superteam.

[8Ball]

In 41 years of 3 point basketball, here are the Top 9 Truths about Jordan:

1) 6 rings is too much, so jordan's teammates must've been AMAZING with different stars taking over and winning games each night - the bulls were a super-team - that's why they won

2) Jordan just scored, while other guys did the passing, rebounding and defending

3) When the Bulls were losing to the dynasty Pistons, it was Jordan's fault because he hadn't learned to play unselfishly.. It wasn't because his cast was worse than the 05' Cavs on both sides of the ball.

4) Krause was a genius that always succeeded with or without Jordan and built a cast that fit perfectly with Jordan.. It wasn't a cast of role players that forced Jordan to have the goat production rate and win a completely unprecedented way (scoring champ carry-job).

5) Rodman was highly-coveted in 95' and wasn't considered a crazy problem child or abnormal non-scorer. (already 2 time champion)

6) Pippen was treated like a star - he wasn't ignored or not held accountable - everyone closely tracked his performance like they would any star and destroyed him whenever he wet the bed... And he wasn't blindly given accolades due to winning spotlight

7) Jordan was 1-9 without Pippen.

8) Jerry Krause was a genius that built the Chicago Bulls Dynasty. He was mean to Jordan and made Jordan quit in 1998.

9) Pippen won 55 games in 1994 without Jordan.

[ShawkFactory]

Bullshit

Let's go ahead and say the 96 Bulls weren't a super team. Sure...whatever.

Every single team that won a title in the 90s (literally on your list) was a non super team.

It's not some hugely impressive feat to win as a non-super team...in a league with no super teams.

The actual accomplishments are the non-super teams that beat super teams. '03 Spurs, '04 Pistons, '11 Mavs, MAYBE '10 Lakers. And I suppose the '19 Raptors but we all know why they won.

[ImKobe]

Conclusion: MJ and Kobe are the two GOATs of the modern/3-PT era.

[Bronbron23]

.
18 of the 41 rings were won without super-teams


2019
2015
2011
2010
2009
2004
2003
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989



10 of the 41 rings were won with true 2nd options that never achieved elite 1st option stats or FMVP



Klay
Rip Hamilton
Jason Terry
Pippen
Gasol
Horry



CONCLUSION: Since winning without super-teams and with true 2nd options are more rare, Jordan's 3-peats are the goat accomplishment in 3-pointer history.

You don't consider the 72 win bulls team a superteam? Pip and especially rod weren't amazing offensively but in a slowed down physical defensive era there defensive impact was huge.

[Im so nba'd out]

.
18 of the 41 rings were won without super-teams
1998
1997
1996

you are a joke...

[ImKobe]

You don't consider the 72 win bulls team a superteam? Pip and especially rod weren't amazing offensively but in a slowed down physical defensive era there defensive impact was huge.

They had one of the GOAT offenses with only one elite offensive player in Jordan. The '96 Bulls had the 4th highest ORTG all-time after the '96 season (17th now, welcome to the modern era). They were 14th and 10th in the league on offense the two years prior without him. So no, they were not a superteam. They didn't have multiple elite scorers nor a deep roster.

Also, they won that year with MJ averaging 30.7 to Pippen's 16.9 ppg in the Playoffs (15.7 ppg on 34.3%FG in the Finals) that year. Superteam my ass.

[ShawkFactory]

They had one of the GOAT offenses with only one elite offensive player in Jordan. The '96 Bulls had the 4th highest ORTG all-time after the '96 season (17th now, welcome to the modern era). They were 14th and 10th in the league on offense the two years prior without him. So no, they were not a superteam. They didn't have multiple elite scorers nor a deep roster.

Also, they won that year with MJ averaging 30.7 to Pippen's 16.9 ppg in the Playoffs (15.7 ppg on 34.3%FG in the Finals) that year. Superteam my ass.

I know part of this is due to the overall team success, but the 96 bulls had 4 of the top 10 WS/48 leaders in the entire league. A guy coming off the bench was 6th..

Nobody talks much about Kukoc for some reason. He is a ridiculously underrated player. Actually had the highest ORTg on the team in 96.

I've seen probably half of their finals games from the second 3 peat and it seemed like every time he touched the ball something good happened.

[hateraid]

They had one of the GOAT offenses with only one elite offensive player in Jordan. The '96 Bulls had the 4th highest ORTG all-time after the '96 season (17th now, welcome to the modern era). They were 14th and 10th in the league on offense the two years prior without him. So no, they were not a superteam. They didn't have multiple elite scorers nor a deep roster.

Also, they won that year with MJ averaging 30.7 to Pippen's 16.9 ppg in the Playoffs (15.7 ppg on 34.3%FG in the Finals) that year. Superteam my ass.

Nonsense. A superteam can consist of all nba teamers. Just like adding (healthy) Drummond to Lakers makes them an elite 3.

[FKAri]

3ball, what's the end game here?

[ImKobe]

I know part of this is due to the overall team success, but the 96 bulls had 4 of the top 10 WS/48 leaders in the entire league. A guy coming off the bench was 6th..

Nobody talks much about Kukoc for some reason. He is a ridiculously underrated player. Actually had the highest ORTg on the team in 96.

I've seen probably half of their finals games from the second 3 peat and it seemed like every time he touched the ball something good happened.

He really is underrated, a lot of people overlook him joining the Bulls after Jordan's first retirement and say that the Bulls won 55 games just with MJ retiring, nope. There's a reason why Phil trusted him over Scottie in the crunch time of a pivotal playoff game, even as a rookie. He had a great all-around game, he was kind of wasted on the Bulls in terms of PT, could have done better on a worse team in a bigger role, he had to wait until age 30 to do that when they completely blew the team up.

Having said that, it still doesn't make them a superteam, unless you consider all those Spurs' championship teams superteams as well.


Nonsense. A superteam can consist of all nba teamers. Just like adding (healthy) Drummond to Lakers makes them an elite 3.


What? Drummond put up big numbers on bad teams, he doesn't make them an elite 3 lol. He's a starter-level player but not a great one in this era and is unplayable on offense in crunch time due to his FT shooting, he's a slight upgrade over Dwight Howard from last season..

[ShawkFactory]

He really is underrated, a lot of people overlook him joining the Bulls after Jordan's first retirement and say that the Bulls won 55 games just with MJ retiring, nope. There's a reason why Phil trusted him over Scottie in the crunch time of a pivotal playoff game, even as a rookie. He had a great all-around game, he was kind of wasted on the Bulls in terms of PT, could have done better on a worse team in a bigger role, he had to wait until age 30 to do that when they completely blew the team up.

Having said that, it still doesn't make them a superteam, unless you consider all those Spurs' championship teams superteams as well.




What? Drummond put up big numbers on bad teams, he doesn't make them an elite 3 lol. He's a starter-level player but not a great one in this era and is unplayable on offense in crunch time due to his FT shooting, he's a slight upgrade over Dwight Howard from last season..

It's all relative. In the late 90s no one had what the Bulls had. A guy like Kukoc off the bench..

Going over the teams that year, if you take Jordan and every other #1 player off of their respective teams in 1996 (or 97 for that matter), the Bulls are the best/most talented team, and I don't think it's really all that close. The only team you could even remotely argue would be the sonics.

Does that make them a super team? Depends on whether or not you want to cherry-pick the criteria. The Lakers are a super team relative to the 96 Bulls, but not to the Nets or Clippers. Knowing that, would a Lakers title then automatically be less impressive?

[ImKobe]

It's all relative. In the late 90s no one had what the Bulls had. A guy like Kukoc off the bench..

Going over the teams that year, if you take Jordan and every other #1 player off of their respective teams in 1996 (or 97 for that matter), the Bulls are the best/most talented team, and I don't think it's really all that close. The only team you could even remotely argue would be the sonics.

Does that make them a super team? Depends on whether or not you want to cherry-pick the criteria. The Lakers are a super team relative to the 96 Bulls, but not to the Nets or Clippers.

I've always thought that to be a superteam you'd either need 3 all-star/elite players or a ridiculously deep roster with at least two elite players. Like, the '93 suns had 7 guys averaging 11+ ppg with peak Barkley and still a prime KJ, but no one really called them a superteam.

[ShawkFactory]

I've always thought that to be a superteam you'd either need 3 all-star/elite players or a ridiculously deep roster with at least two elite players. Like, the '93 suns had 7 guys averaging 11+ ppg with peak Barkley and still a prime KJ, but no one really called them a superteam.

They were certainly fitting to be labeled a super team. Chambers and Ceballos were both not 3 years removed/away from scoring 25 a game and being all stars themselves.

They were self-admittedly horrible defensively though. Obviously always an achilles heel unless the team is so stacked offensively to where it doesn't even matter, like the mid-to-late 80s Lakers and what the Nets will be if everyone is healthy.

Even if the criteria is 'x' amount of stars, with 'y' amount of guys scoring 'z', there are other things to consider. If you're a star player and your supporting cast is significantly better than everyone else's...that has to count for something doesn't it? Even if it isn't labeled as a "superteam".

[Ainosterhaspie]

Seriously, your ability to find the most obtuse stats are amazing. But good lord, get a life.

This should read "...your ability to make up obtuse stats...." in this case since "super team" is a completely arbitrary concept.

[Bronbron23]

They had one of the GOAT offenses with only one elite offensive player in Jordan. The '96 Bulls had the 4th highest ORTG all-time after the '96 season (17th now, welcome to the modern era). They were 14th and 10th in the league on offense the two years prior without him. So no, they were not a superteam. They didn't have multiple elite scorers nor a deep roster.

Also, they won that year with MJ averaging 30.7 to Pippen's 16.9 ppg in the Playoffs (15.7 ppg on 34.3%FG in the Finals) that year. Superteam my ass.

What about defense? Mj, pip and rod are probably the best defensive trio ever. Offense is only half the game

[SouBeachTalents]

OP literally making the same exact thread he did before, fcking loser :lol

[light]

Eh. Not only was MJ aided by a watered down league in the expansion era (1988 to 2004) but he also benefited from a closer three point line from 1994 to 1997.

Several asterisks are required for MJ's rings.

[3ball]

Eh. Not only was MJ aided by a watered down league in the expansion era (1988 to 2004) but he also benefited from a closer three point line from 1994 to 1997.

Several asterisks are required for MJ's rings.


The "watered down" league meant that Jordan's own cast was watered down - he didn't have stacked squads like the 80's champions

Expansion spread the talent around evenly in the 90's so a super-team wasn't required to win anymore like the 80's.

Once a super-team wasn't required to win anymore, the best player was going to start winning regardless of cast.

And we already know that the 90' Bulls nearly won the title with a weaker cast than the 05' Cavs - the bulls had the #19 defense and less offense from the sidekick (less scoring, efficiency, PER, WS/48).. Otoh, Lebron needed a much better team than the 05' Cavs to be title-worthy

[mehyaM24]

The "watered down" league meant that Jordan's own cast was watered down - he didn't have stacked squads like the 80's champions

Expansion spread the talent around evenly in the 90's so a super-team wasn't required to win anymore like the 80's.

Once a super-team wasn't required to win anymore, the best player was going to start winning regardless of cast.

And we already know that the 90' Bulls nearly won the title with a weaker cast than the 05' Cavs - the bulls had the #19 defense and less offense from the sidekick (less scoring, efficiency, PER, WS/48)

yes they 90s WERE watered down. we know that because the 96 bulls were the ONLY team with 3 all-leaguers. nobody else that year could compete hence them winning 72 games. heck, they would've won MORE games the following year (69-13) but rodman only played in 55 of them. so you're right saying the talent pool wasn't even - but that's mainly because it was all in chicago.

[3ball]

yes they 90s WERE watered down. we know that because the 96 bulls were the ONLY team with 3 all-leaguers. nobody else that year could compete hence them winning 72 games. heck, they would've won MORE games the following year (69-13) but rodman only played in 55 of them. so you're right saying the talent pool wasn't even - but that's mainly because it was all in chicago.


Rodman averaged 4/8 in the 97' Playoffs and wasn't the starter in the 98' Playoffs - he was 36 years old and comparable to 2010 Shaq

It's a testament to Jordan's greatness that he achieved goat offenses despite playing with Rodman and Pippen

[Axe]

The "watered down" league meant that Jordan's own cast was watered down - he didn't have stacked squads like the 80's champions

Expansion spread the talent around evenly in the 90's so a super-team wasn't required to win anymore like the 80's.

Once a super-team wasn't required to win anymore, the best player was going to start winning regardless of cast.

And we already know that the 90' Bulls nearly won the title with a weaker cast than the 05' Cavs - the bulls had the #19 defense and less offense from the sidekick (less scoring, efficiency, PER, WS/48).. Otoh, Lebron needed a much better team than the 05' Cavs to be title-worthy
Yet in 1992, the bulls were the only team to win at least 60 games in the regular season. They looked very good on paper compared to other teams back in the day.

[mehyaM24]

Rodman averaged 4/8 in the 97' Playoffs and wasn't the starter in the 98' Playoffs

97 & 98 rodman wasn't the beast he was in 96 (the third head of the chicago snake--or "superteam"). still a great rebounder and decent defensively in spots.

[TheCorporation]

https://i.postimg.cc/0Q5DKdBS/MJ-shooketh.png

[3ball]

97 & 98 rodman wasn't the beast he was in 96 (the third head of the chicago snake--or "superteam"). still a great rebounder and decent defensively in spots.


We can agree to disagree on rodman because your logic would still give Jordan 5 rings without a super-team or 1b, aka the most rings with the best ring quality

[mehyaM24]

We can agree to disagree on rodman because your logic would still give Jordan 5 rings without a super-team or 1b, aka the most rings with the best ring quality

fair enough. being reasonable suggests you backed off from the "96 = non superteam" claim. which would negate a few of the threads you made. anyway.. 5 rings in the weak 90s (your words) wouldn't be anything to brag about, right? how would two "non superteams" equal a quality ring?

[bison]

Jordan is the GOAT. More than stats and accolades, he as international cultural icon. Basketball personified. End of.

[3ball]

.
According to NBA.com, the Bulls were considered underdogs heading into the 91' Finals



the Bulls were considered big underdogs to the Lakers in the Finals and the vast majority of media "experts" predicted an easy Lakers' victory.

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/top-20-moments-1990-91-season.html/

[3ball]

Yet in 1992, the bulls were the only team to win at least 60 games in the regular season. They looked very good on paper compared to other teams back in the day.


In the 91' Finals, Vlade and Perkins both averaged 17/9, which outplayed Grant and approached the Pippen/Worthy level.. So the Bulls' cast was outmatched and considered the underdog by many, including nba.com (see previous post).

the Sonics had 3 all-nba players in 95' and a legit big 3 that each outplayed Pippen in the 96' Finals, while the 93' Suns had an all-star at 3rd option that destroyed Grant (while the 4th option Dumas outplayed Grant too).

The 92' Blazers had a better defense than the Bulls, while the veteran trio of Porter, Duckworth and Williams were 2x all-stars and superior offensively to Pippen, Grant, and Paxson (only pippen had all-star experience)

But the best player on the Blazers' cast was Jerome Kersey - he was frequently a 20 ppg scorer that was 1st option in the Western Playoff run to the 90' Finals.. Finally, Cliff Robinson was another athletic wing and all-star - the blazers were considered "stacked"...

[mehyaM24]

fair enough. being reasonable suggests you backed off from the "96 = non superteam" claim. which would negate a few of the threads you made. anyway.. 5 rings in the weak 90s (your words) wouldn't be anything to brag about, right? how would two "non superteams" equal a quality ring?

3ball? :confusedshrug:

[3ball]

fair enough. being reasonable suggests you backed off from the "96 = non superteam" claim. which would negate a few of the threads you made. anyway.. 5 rings in the weak 90s (your words) wouldn't be anything to brag about, right? how would two "non superteams" equal a quality ring?


You disagree with the historical record on Rodman and that's fine because even 5 rings without a super-team or 1b is much better than everyone else

[mehyaM24]

You disagree with the historical record on Rodman and that's fine because even 5 rings without a super-team or 1b is much better than everyone else

rodman led the league in rebounding that year, was top 15 in MVP shares & made 1st team all-defense. making the big 3 & forming a superteam in 96 IS what happened.

you never answered the questions i asked you, either. 5 rings in the weak 90s (your words) wouldn't be anything to brag about, right? how would two "non superteams" equal a quality ring?

[Axe]

In the 91' Finals, Vlade and Perkins both averaged 17/9, which outplayed Grant and approached the Pippen/Worthy level.. So the Bulls' cast was outmatched and considered the underdog by many, including nba.com (see previous post).

the Sonics had 3 all-nba players in 95' and a legit big 3 that each outplayed Pippen in the 96' Finals, while the 93' Suns had an all-star at 3rd option that destroyed Grant (while the 4th option Dumas outplayed Grant too).

The 92' Blazers had a better defense than the Bulls, while the veteran trio of Porter, Duckworth and Williams were 2x all-stars and superior offensively to Pippen, Grant, and Paxson (only pippen had all-star experience)

But the best player on the Blazers' cast was Jerome Kersey - he was frequently a 20 ppg scorer that was 1st option in the Western Playoff run to the 90' Finals.. Finally, Cliff Robinson was another athletic wing and all-star - the blazers were considered "stacked"...
:blah

[Spurs m8]

The 2014 spurs were not a super team lol

Duncan was nearly 40, Kawhi was a role player and Tony and Manu were hardly top 10 players

[3ball]

The 2014 spurs were not a super team lol

Duncan was nearly 40, Kawhi was a role player and Tony and Manu were hardly top 10 players


Oh shit.. forgot about that.. the list might have an error or 2, but the bottom line is that only Jordan has a bunch of rings without super-teams or 1b's

[sdot_thadon]

So basically when you set aside head scratching bias by op here it seems like in the last 41 years "superteam" vs non super team rings fall fairly close to being a 50/50 proposition. Which amounts to yet another aimless thread.

Oh and that said if you consider the 2013 heat a super team but not the 96 Bulls you don't even deserve one serious reply here. If you think the 2016 cavs are a super team but Mj didn't play on a single super team, again you don't deserve anything but troll replies here.

Lost on you is the fact that in the 90s almost no teams had 2 allstars and multiple all nba players together let alone 2 1st teamers on offense and defense....maybe you should rethink your grading curve.

[sdot_thadon]

10 of the 41 rings were won with true 2nd options that never achieved elite 1st option stats or FMVP



Klay
Rip Hamilton
Jason Terry
Pippen
Gasol
Horry



CONCLUSION: Since winning without super-teams and with true 2nd options are more rare, Jordan's 3-peats are the goat accomplishment in 3-pointer history.

So of the 10 titles won with "true 2nd option rings"....how many of those were won without an all nba 1st team level teammate?