A team isn't determined a super-team AFTER THE FACT just because they won many games

[3ball]

Super-teams are determined before the season starts because they're based on the talent and expectation - everyone knew the current Nets or Lebron's Heat were a super-team before the season started.. So super-teams aren't determined after the fact like everyone is doing now - people simply look at teams that did well in the regular season and slap the super-team label on them, without considering whether they exceeded expectation or have sufficient talent to be a super-team.

For example, the 88' and 89' Bulls were considered the biggest 1-man team in history, yet they had the exact same roster as the 3-peat Bulls - so those teams weren't super-teams and people mistakenly call them a super-team after the fact just because they won so much.

Similarly, Klay was a first-time all-star in 2015 and the Warriors surprised everyone - they simply weren't a super-team until KD got there.. And Dray kind of sucks and isn't an offensive star that could make up a "big 3".

So Lebron was the only super-team and he never beat a super-team - he literally hand-picked the pre-season favorite from 2011-2016.

[2ball]

Thread Cliffs:

The reason MJ won with so much less was because he leveraged his teammates' points better to put better pressure on the opponents defense and wear them down more - a confused/worn down defense is less likely to get hot offensively and MJ's ball movement style wore down defenses better than Lebron/Kyrie's "my turn your turn" approach.. heck, MJ won many series with Pippen getting 15 on 33-40%, including a couple Finals, while Lebron's "my-turn-your-turn" loses with 29 ppg from Kyrie.. clearly, mj's technique is more effective at leveraging teammates

[Pipes2.0]

Just stop it. Get some help.

[8Ball]

Thread Cliffs:

Jordan had the only super team in the 90s.

Jordan had the only super team in the 90s.

Jordan had the only super team in the 90s.

[Phoenix]

OP is the biggest Lebron fan on the board.

[Ainosterhaspie]

LMAO at "thread cliffs" when no one had cared to respond. Literally talking to himself at this point.

[Manny98]

LMAO at "thread cliffs" when no one had cared to respond. Literally talking to himself at this point.

:oldlol:

[KirbyPls]

The reverse should also be true. 55-60 plus win teams with multiple all-stars can't be retroactive garbage just because LeQuatro sweeps them.

Mid to late 2010s Hawks, Celtics, and Raptors went from "No way Cavs have enough" to "well, of course, East was shit," Lebron's path was so easy."

Ironically, Warriors mighty west opposition never gets downgraded after GSW rolled. Almost as if agendas and shifting goal posts replace consistent standards.

Anyway, LeQuatro.

[Axe]

1-9

[ImKobe]

The reverse should also be true. 55-60 plus win teams with multiple all-stars can't be retroactive garbage just because LeQuatro sweeps them.

Mid to late 2010s Hawks, Celtics, and Raptors went from "No way Cavs have enough" to "well, of course, East was shit," Lebron's path was so easy."

Ironically, Warriors mighty west opposition never gets downgraded after GSW rolled. Almost as if agendas and shifting goal posts replace consistent standards.

Anyway, LeQuatro.

The East was shit you dumb **** ..

[KirbyPls]

The East was shit you dumb **** ..

Excellent analysis. Thank you for the insight.

[TheCorporation]

OP is the biggest Lebron fan on the board.

100%. When considering the amount of attention he gives LeBron and the amount of hate he has brought upon MJ there is no other logical explanation.

[Walk on Water]

This is true. Lebron is the one that joins the superteams. Just because other teams did well, they get the label of being a super team. And that becomes the excuse and it's a no-lose situation for Lebron. Blame others when he loses, gets all the credit when he wins.

[TheCorporation]

This is true. Lebron is the one that joins the superteams. Just because other teams did well, they get the label of being a super team. And that becomes the excuse and it's a no-lose situation for Lebron. Blame others when he loses, gets all the credit when he wins.

LeBron IS the superteam. There is no team you can remove him from and they're still great.

Bulls lost MJ in 1994 and didn't skip a beat.

Homework assignment:
Show me how the teams have done once LeBron leaves or before he arrived. Thanks

[SATAN]

Everyone was saying the Bulls were the best team of all time back in the day. Trying to change the narrative doesn't help your case, Andrew.

[Walk on Water]

LeBron IS the superteam. There is no team you can remove him from and they're still great.

Bulls lost MJ in 1994 and didn't skip a beat.

Homework assignment:
Show me how the teams have done once LeBron leaves or before he arrived. Thanks


So what you're saying is Lebron cannot pass down his wisdom to his teams? Guess he's not a good teacher.

[Walk on Water]

Everyone was saying the Bulls were the best team of all time back in the day. Trying to change the narrative doesn't help your case, Andrew.


Because Jordan make them better.

[SATAN]

1-9

[ImKobe]

Excellent analysis. Thank you for the insight.

You really posted that bullshit about the Hawks, huh? How many All-NBA players they had? Kyle Korver made the all-star team as a 12 ppg scorer.

Look at the All-NBA teams from 2015-18. How many East players were All-NBA that weren't on the Cavs?

2015: Pau Gasol 2nd team, injured in the Cavs series
2016: Lowry and Drummond 3rd team
2017: Giannis & IT (Thomas was injured in the ECF) 2nd team, Butler, Wall & DeRozan 3rd team
2018: Giannis & DeRozan 2nd team, Oladipo 3rd team

So Lebron was the only top 5 player in the league who played out East, and had at least one other All-NBA caliber player on his team while the East had 1-3 other All-NBA players in total. If that's not piss-poor competition, I don't know what is.

[tpols]

The funniest thing to me is those fellas saying the 2014 spurs were that. A team with all aging veterans and no prime all stars. A totally starless team broke the Finals margin of victory. :lol

[Shooter]

LeBron IS the superteam. There is no team you can remove him from and they're still great.

Bulls lost MJ in 1994 and didn't skip a beat.

Homework assignment:
Show me how the teams have done once LeBron leaves or before he arrived. Thanks

[And1AllDay]

LeBron IS the superteam. There is no team you can remove him from and they're still great.

Bulls lost MJ in 1994 and didn't skip a beat.

Homework assignment:
Show me how the teams have done once LeBron leaves or before he arrived. Thanks

[8Ball]

Super-teams are determined before the season starts because they're based on the talent and expectation - everyone knew the current Nets or Lebron's Heat were a super-team before the season started.. So super-teams aren't determined after the fact like everyone is doing now - people simply look at teams that did well in the regular season and slap the super-team label on them, without considering whether they exceeded expectation or have sufficient talent to be a super-team.

For example, the 88' and 89' Bulls were considered the biggest 1-man team in history, yet they had the exact same roster as the 3-peat Bulls - so those teams weren't super-teams and people mistakenly call them a super-team after the fact just because they won so much.

Similarly, Klay was a first-time all-star in 2015 and the Warriors surprised everyone - they simply weren't a super-team until KD got there.. And Dray kind of sucks and isn't an offensive star that could make up a "big 3".

So Lebron was the only super-team and he never beat a super-team - he literally hand-picked the pre-season favorite from 2011-2016.

LeBron IS the superteam. There is no team you can remove him from and they're still great.

Bulls lost MJ in 1994 and didn't skip a beat.

Homework assignment:
Show me how the teams have done once LeBron leaves or before he arrived. Thanks

[HoopsNY]

You really posted that bullshit about the Hawks, huh? How many All-NBA players they had? Kyle Korver made the all-star team as a 12 ppg scorer.

Look at the All-NBA teams from 2015-18. How many East players were All-NBA that weren't on the Cavs?

2015: Pau Gasol 2nd team, injured in the Cavs series
2016: Lowry and Drummond 3rd team
2017: Giannis & IT (Thomas was injured in the ECF) 2nd team, Butler, Wall & DeRozan 3rd team
2018: Giannis & DeRozan 2nd team, Oladipo 3rd team

So Lebron was the only top 5 player in the league who played out East, and had at least one other All-NBA caliber player on his team while the East had 1-3 other All-NBA players in total. If that's not piss-poor competition, I don't know what is.

Yep. LeBron stans always want to discuss the finals as if there is no road to the finals. Apparently, the playoffs begin and end with the NBA finals.

MJ was out there facing all time great Celtics and Pistons teams in the playoffs, all of them ended up in the finals or winning the finals. That's constantly lost in the conversation.

[HoopsNY]

The funniest thing to me is those fellas saying the 2014 spurs were that. A team with all aging veterans and no prime all stars. A totally starless team broke the Finals margin of victory. :lol

Yep. We've heard it all. Apparently the Pistons in 1991 were old, despite their best players being under 30. Aguirre was 31. The oldest from that group was Laimbeer who was 33.

Manu was 35 in 2013, Duncan was 36, and Kawhi was 21 in just his second year. But Bran stans will never admit this because they're a pack of pathological liars.

[8Ball]

Yep. We've heard it all. Apparently the Pistons in 1991 were old, despite their best players being under 30. Aguirre was 31. The oldest from that group was Laimbeer who was 33.

Manu was 35 in 2013, Duncan was 36, and Kawhi was 21 in just his second year. But Bran stans will never admit this because they're a pack of pathological liars.

Spurs won 55 games in 2015
Won 67 games in 2016
Won 61 games in 2017

How did an old team win that may games after 2014?


What did Detroit pistons do after 1991? Nothing. Not even win 50 games.

HoopsNY is a casual basketball fan with little to zero knowledge about basketball.

[8Ball]

The funniest thing to me is those fellas saying the 2014 spurs were that. A team with all aging veterans and no prime all stars. A totally starless team broke the Finals margin of victory. :lol

Spurs won 55 games in 2015
Won 67 games in 2016
Won 61 games in 2017

How did an old team win that may games after 2014?

[HoopsNY]

Spurs won 55 games in 2015
Won 67 games in 2016
Won 61 games in 2017

How did an old team win that may games after 2014?


What did Detroit pistons do after 1991? Nothing. Not even win 50 games.

HoopsNY is a casual basketball fan with little to zero knowledge about basketball.

Nice try. As usual Bran stans think people don't watch the game.

San Antonio wasn't the same team in 2016. Bran stans want to ignore their additions, like Aldridge, and the growth of key guys like Kawhi and Danny Green. Kawhi was 24, Green 28, and Aldridge 30.

2016 Kawhi

All-NBA 1st Team
Defensive Player of the Year
2nd in MVP Voting
All-Defensive 1st Team
All Star

Aldridge came over in 2016 and was an All-Star and All-NBA 3rd team. Aldridge went from a 46% FG% with POR in 2015 to 51% with SA. I guess Aldridge didn't add to the Pop system? In addition, Danny Green finished with All-Defensive 2nd Team honors in 2017.

SA had a great bench with guys like West and Diaw, and still had the veteran presence of guys like Parker, Ginobili, and Duncan. That was a stacked team.

And this is all revisionist history. Once again, Bran stans try to evaluate the strength of a team in a given year by what happens years later with that team or players on that team. We saw it with OKC. They talk about OKC having future MVPs, as it that bears any relevance to 2012 whatsoever.

Now we're seeing it with the Spurs, as if 2016 Kawhi and 2013 Kawhi were the same players.

[ShawkFactory]

The funniest thing to me is those fellas saying the 2014 spurs were that. A team with all aging veterans and no prime all stars. A totally starless team broke the Finals margin of victory. :lol

And a totally starless team beat the 04 Lakers.

Sometimes it happens.

Although those Spurs won 62 games in that Wild West people tout. So acting like they weren’t anything is silly.

[8Ball]

Nice try. As usual Bran stans think people don't watch the game.

San Antonio wasn't the same team in 2016. Bran stans want to ignore their additions, like Aldridge, and the growth of key guys like Kawhi and Danny Green. Kawhi was 24, Green 28, and Aldridge 30.

2016 Kawhi

All-NBA 1st Team
Defensive Player of the Year
2nd in MVP Voting
All-Defensive 1st Team
All Star

Aldridge came over in 2016 and was an All-Star and All-NBA 3rd team. Aldridge went from a 46% FG% with POR in 2015 to 51% with SA. I guess Aldridge didn't add to the Pop system? In addition, Danny Green finished with All-Defensive 2nd Team honors in 2017.

SA had a great bench with guys like West and Diaw, and still had the veteran presence of guys like Parker, Ginobili, and Duncan. That was a stacked team.

And this is all revisionist history. Once again, Bran stans try to evaluate the strength of a team in a given year by what happens years later with that team or players on that team. We saw it with OKC. They talk about OKC having future MVPs, as it that bears any relevance to 2012 whatsoever.

Now we're seeing it with the Spurs, as if 2016 Kawhi and 2013 Kawhi were the same players.

I read all of that and still you have no answer for:

Spurs won 55 games in 2015
Won 67 games in 2016
Won 61 games in 2017

How did an old team win that many games after 2014? It means Spurs were balanced with young supporting talent, including a budding superstar Kawhi.

What did Detroit pistons do after 1991? Nothing. Not even win 50 games.

It means Detroit was an old ass team top to bottom talent wise in 1991 and on their last legs.

Spurs were not.

You're welcome.

[HoopsNY]

I read all of that and still you have no answer for:

Spurs won 55 games in 2015
Won 67 games in 2016
Won 61 games in 2017

How did an old team win that many games after 2014? It means Spurs were balanced with young supporting talent, including a budding superstar Kawhi.

What did Detroit pistons do after 1991? Nothing. Not even win 50 games.

It means Detroit was an old ass team top to bottom talent wise in 1991 and on their last legs.

Spurs were not.

You're welcome.

Are you that dense? What part of "Kawhi was a much better version of himself than in 2013" don't you understand?

2015 Kawhi

10th in MVP Voting
All-Defensive 1st Team
DPOY

Kawhi led the 2015 Spurs in scoring as well. He was easily their best player, just like in the 2014 finals. Not to mention, Danny Green was improving as a player as well. Green had a higher TS% than Kawhi and was greatly improving defensively, and he improved his scoring as well.

Kawhi led the team in BPM, VORP, and was 2nd in WS and WS/48.

The 1992 Pistons didn't have a Kawhi. If they did, maybe they would have won a few more games. The difference between 55 and 48 aren't monumental anyway.

Furthermore, the '91 Pistons weren't an "old ass team". This is hilarious. Heck, look at the 2014 Spurs:

Duncan- 37
Ginobili- 36
Parker- 31
Diaw- 31

Pistons '91

Rodman: 29
Dumars: 27
Thomas: 29
Aguirre: 31

Look at the Celtics from 2011:

Garnett - 34
Pierce - 33
Allen- 35
J. O'Neal - 32

Yet the Pistons keep getting labeled as "old"? These are desperate attempts to diminish great teams. The Pistons in 1991 won 50 games, but lost Isiah Thomas (their best player) to injury, of which he missed 34 games. Who cares what Detroit did after 1991 when Chicago didn't even face them then?

And I love how there's no acknowledgement that you were wrong about 2016 and 2017 in your follow up post.

[8Ball]

2011 Celtics were on their last legs. The following year 2012 was their last year of significance.
1991 Detroit were on their last legs. Went no where in 1992 regular season.

2014 Spurs were not. Won 55 games in 2015.

Another Anti-LeBron agenda corrected for the record.

[HoopsNY]

2011 Celtics were on their last legs. The following year 2012 was their last year of significance.
1991 Detroit were on their last legs. Went no where in 1992 regular season.

2014 Spurs were not. Won 55 games in 2015.

Another Anti-LeBron agenda corrected for the record.

Nonsense. The 2010 Celtics made the finals and lost. The 1990 Pistons made the finals and won.

The 2011 Celtics core was older than the 1991 Pistons.

You're a delusional Bran stan who consistently tries obfuscate the facts, then when gets proven wrong (like ignoring Kawhi, the 2016 pieces, the 2017 pieces, the 1991 ages, the ages of the Celtics and Spurs cores), you ramble on some other bombastic claim and get thumped all over again.

You keep going too. Honestly, it's impressive. I've conceded to other posters' arguments before on this forum, why can't you? Everyone is wrong sometimes.

[And1AllDay]

I read all of that and still you have no answer for:

Spurs won 55 games in 2015
Won 67 games in 2016
Won 61 games in 2017

How did an old team win that many games after 2014? It means Spurs were balanced with young supporting talent, including a budding superstar Kawhi.

What did Detroit pistons do after 1991? Nothing. Not even win 50 games.

It means Detroit was an old ass team top to bottom talent wise in 1991 and on their last legs.

Spurs were not.

You're welcome.

wrekt :oldlol: :oldlol:

[8Ball]

Nonsense. The 2010 Celtics made the finals and lost. The 1990 Pistons made the finals and won.

The 2011 Celtics core was older than the 1991 Pistons.

You're a delusional Bran stan who consistently tries obfuscate the facts, then when gets proven wrong (like ignoring Kawhi, the 2016 pieces, the 2017 pieces, the 1991 ages, the ages of the Celtics and Spurs cores), you ramble on some other bombastic claim and get thumped all over again.

You keep going too. Honestly, it's impressive. I've conceded to other posters' arguments before on this forum, why can't you? Everyone is wrong sometimes.

1991 Detroit were on their last legs. Went no where in 1992 regular season and lost in the 1st round. 1993 they won 40 games and that was it.

[HoopsNY]

1991 Detroit were on their last legs. Went no where in 1992 regular season and lost in the 1st round. 1993 they won 40 games and that was it.

Translation: I have no response for you, so I'm just going to repeat my incessant claims.

[Axe]

1991 Detroit were on their last legs. Went no where in 1992 regular season and lost in the 1st round. 1993 they won 40 games and that was it.
They really went downhill so fast after the 90s implementation of the flagrant foul.

[Hey Yo]

You really posted that bullshit about the Hawks, huh? How many All-NBA players they had? Kyle Korver made the all-star team as a 12 ppg scorer.

Look at the All-NBA teams from 2015-18. How many East players were All-NBA that weren't on the Cavs?

2015: Pau Gasol 2nd team, injured in the Cavs series
2016: Lowry and Drummond 3rd team
2017: Giannis & IT (Thomas was injured in the ECF) 2nd team, Butler, Wall & DeRozan 3rd team
2018: Giannis & DeRozan 2nd team, Oladipo 3rd team

So Lebron was the only top 5 player in the league who played out East, and had at least one other All-NBA caliber player on his team while the East had 1-3 other All-NBA players in total. If that's not piss-poor competition, I don't know what is.

Outside of LeBron, the 4yrs he was with the Cavs, he had 1 All-NBA teammate and that was Kyrie in 2015 (3rd team). Love didnt even make the All-star team until 2018.

[Hey Yo]

Yep. We've heard it all. Apparently the Pistons in 1991 were old, despite their best players being under 30. Aguirre was 31. The oldest from that group was Laimbeer who was 33.

Manu was 35 in 2013, Duncan was 36, and Kawhi was 21 in just his second year. But Bran stans will never admit this because they're a pack of pathological liars.

If the Spurs were so old, then how did they even get out of the blood bath West?

Either they were considered a really good team or the West was extremely overrated?

Which is it?

[light]

"Super team" is not an official designation. The term in fact has little meaning. It's just an opinion that can be a wrong in the moment but right in hindsight. For example, we know now that none of LeBron's Cavs teams were actually super teams. LeBron's Lakers teams are also not super teams.

Either way, the 1996 Bulls were more loaded than any team LeBron has been on.

[3ball]

, the 1996 Bulls were more loaded than any team LeBron has been on.





AD, Wade and Kyrie are better than Pippen, at least based on BPM, PER, and WS/48

so no

Lebron's 2nd and 3rd options were always better than Jordan's, at least since 2011

Infact, his 2009/2010 Cavs had better-ranked defenses and more scorers than the 1st three-peat Bulls.. That's why they were the league favorite both years

[HoopsNY]

If the Spurs were so old, then how did they even get out of the blood bath West?

Either they were considered a really good team or the West was extremely overrated?

Which is it?

That's precisely my point. The "old age" argument is dumb all together.

[8Ball]

Translation: I have no response for you, so I'm just going to repeat my incessant claims.

Translation: I have no response for 8ball, so I'm just going to repeat my incessant claims.

[Ainosterhaspie]

"Super team" is not an official designation. The term in fact has little meaning. It's just an opinion that can be a wrong in the moment but right in hindsight. For example, we know now that none of LeBron's Cavs teams were actually super teams. LeBron's Lakers teams are also not super teams.

Either way, the 1996 Bulls were more loaded than any team LeBron has been on.
Well said. And to add to this. The "super team" label is often based far more on name recognition than any sort of basketball understanding. Quality of role player depth, roster balance, coaching quality and other things that make the difference between wins and losses is often ignored.

One of the reasons the Warriors dominance steadily decreased was that they lost depth as role players were slowly replaced by less effective role players. It goes almost unoticed but changes things and makes wins harder to come by.

Additionally, what constitutes an actual super team changes depending on what the rest of the league looks like. An 80s superteam is different than a 90s one which is different than a late 2010s one.

And yes, sometimes people realize after the fact that what they thought was a superteam wasn't and what they thought wasn't, was. Speculation is always less valid than results.

[72-10]

Yes, a superteam is one that looks good on paper. It's mostly about their talent, and projected performance and chemistry among the teammates for that season. I think people who claim the Bulls were the only superteam of the 90s are delusional, first of all the Knicks were a superteam for the duration of the 90s or you're in denial, the '96 Sonics should be a superteam by anyone's standard, aren't the '93 Suns too loaded with talent, and of course the superteam Lakers, Celtics and Pistons were still there in the early 90s i.e. Vinnie Johnson was no clown.

By the way, the Bulls were only a superteam during the second threepeat, not the first threepeat.