If MJ had a go-to teammate that could dominate, he would've scored less (easier load)

[3ba11]

He would've averaged 27/8/9 and had an easier load than his 34/6/6 playoff averages

This idea that Jordan had to average 34 and therefore it was good that he had no scoring help or a weak-scoring sidekick is absurd and really dumb

People are literally saying that Jordan somehow had MORE help by having no scoring help.. it makes no sense

[GrayGoat]

A go to player like Orlando Woolridge?

[Axe]

1-9

[John8204]

How many Scoring titles did George Gervin manage...and how did they get along with MJ. Jerry Stackhouse averages 29 PPG before toxic Jordan got his claws into him.

[3ba11]

.
Thread Cliffs

Making Jordan average 4-5 more points than everyone in playoff history doesn't make Pippen good - it makes him bad

[light]

He would've averaged 27/8/9 and had an easier load than his 34/6/6 playoff averages

This idea that Jordan had to average 34 and therefore it was good that he had no scoring help or a weak-scoring sidekick is absurd and really dumb

People are literally saying that Jordan somehow had MORE help by having no scoring help.. it makes no sense

You don't understand Jordan at all. He wanted to score 30-32-34 points for no other reason besides vanity. He would not have tolerated any teammate taking that away from him and would've had them traded. He would not even tolerate a coach taking that away from him. Even when it was explained to him that the triangle was intended to get him to score less he still found a way to keep scoring 30, and described to Phil Jackson how - "all I need to do is score 8 points a quarter to keep winning the scoring title, nobody else in the league is going to do that" - the points alone being that important to him, even over winning. It was a constant obstacle for his coaching staffs.

[3ba11]

You don't understand Jordan at all. He wanted to score 30-32-34 points for no other reason besides vanity. He would not have tolerated any teammate taking that away from him and would've had them traded. He would not even tolerate a coach taking that away from him. Even when it was explained to him that the triangle was intended to get him to score less he still found a way to keep scoring 30, and described to Phil Jackson how - "all I need to do is score 8 points a quarter to keep winning the scoring title, nobody else in the league is going to do that" - the points alone being that important to him, even over winning. It was a constant obstacle for his coaching staffs.


Jordan wouldn't trade Kareem, Shaq, or McHale, etc - that's absurd - he wants to win and win every year

And the point is that Pippen isn't GOOD for making Jordan average 5 more points than everyone in playoff history..

That's the opposite of a perfect sidekick - the sidekick is the 2nd SCORING option - they're supposed to score and not make the 1st option dominate more than anyone ever has, or face maximum defensive attention (carry scoring load)

And your thinking is misguided - when Pippen achieved his peak combination of ppg and apg in 1992 (21.0 and 7.0), Jordan still had to average 36 in the Finals to win.. So everyone was at capacity, which means that Jordan averaged 36 because he had little or no scoring help..

And Phil didn't think MJ would be scoring champ because the triangle didn't let players dribble - so Phil simply underestimated Jordan, which was standard for Phil - Phil didn't think Jordan could three-peat once, let alone twice, and he didn't think Jordan could be scoring champ in the triangle.. wrong, wrong, and wrong again.. GOAT gonna GOAT

[GrayGoat]

.
Thread Cliffs

Making Jordan average 4-5 more points than everyone in playoff history doesn't make Pippen good - it makes him bad
3 reply’s and we shut this shit down

[97 bulls]

Jordan wouldn't trade Kareem, Shaq, or McHale, etc - that's absurd - he wants to win and win every year

And the point is that Pippen isn't GOOD for making Jordan average 5 more points than everyone in playoff history..

That's the opposite of a perfect sidekick - the sidekick is the 2nd SCORING option - they're supposed to score and not make the 1st option dominate more than anyone ever has, or face maximum defensive attention (carry scoring load)

And your thinking is misguided - when Pippen achieved his peak combination of ppg and apg in 1992 (21.0 and 7.0), Jordan still had to average 36 in the Finals to win.. So everyone was at capacity, which means that Jordan averaged 36 because he had little or no scoring help..

And Phil didn't think MJ would be scoring champ because the triangle didn't let players dribble - so Phil simply underestimated Jordan, which was standard for Phil - Phil didn't think Jordan could three-peat once, let alone twice, and he didn't think Jordan could be scoring champ in the triangle.. wrong, wrong, and wrong again.. GOAT gonna GOAT

Lol. You were literally shown Jordan's own words as to why he scored over 30. HE WANTED TO. The Bulls were just talented enough to overcome his own vanity. You're a troll.

[97 bulls]

You don't understand Jordan at all. He wanted to score 30-32-34 points for no other reason besides vanity. He would not have tolerated any teammate taking that away from him and would've had them traded. He would not even tolerate a coach taking that away from him. Even when it was explained to him that the triangle was intended to get him to score less he still found a way to keep scoring 30, and described to Phil Jackson how - "all I need to do is score 8 points a quarter to keep winning the scoring title, nobody else in the league is going to do that" - the points alone being that important to him, even over winning. It was a constant obstacle for his coaching staffs.

Great post. Jordan is literally saying why he scored 30 a night. And it had nothing to do with his teammates.

I remember an interview where he said he wanted to show that he could prove a guard could lead the league in scoring while winning a championship.

[3ba11]

Lol. You were literally shown Jordan's own words as to why he scored over 30. HE WANTED TO. The Bulls were just talented enough to overcome his own vanity. You're a troll.


Every player in history tracks their stats especially Lebron.

They don't do it for vanity - they do it because they're professionals that need to keep track for a variety of strategic reasons- it's like a professional poker player being aware of his stack size.. But you're obviously a bum fish that plays without knowing your stack ratios and strategic implications.. you think like an AMATEUR

If Jordan averages 25 alongside Pippen, the Bulls lose nearly every series - they wouldn't win shit

Jordan knew that his team needed about 32 ppg out of him, so he made sure that he provided it.. Many times the team needed 40 and he would figure out how to provide it.

If Lebron or other guys could dominate and average 32 - they would... But only Jordan could, so the GM didn't have to surround him with as much help

[97 bulls]

Every player in history tracks their stats especially Lebron.

They don't do it for vanity - they do it because they're professionals that need to keep track for a variety of strategic reasons- it's like a professional poker player being aware of his stack size.. But you're obviously a bum fish that plays without knowing your stack ratios and strategic implications.. you think like an AMATEUR

If Jordan averages 25 alongside Pippen, the Bulls lose nearly every series - they wouldn't win shit

Jordan knew that his team needed about 32 ppg out of him, so he made sure that he provided it.. Many times the team needed 40 and he would figure out how to provide it.

If Lebron or other guys could dominate and average 32 - they would... But only Jordan could, so the GM didn't have to surround him with as much help

Bro. Jordan said that all he needed to do was to score 8 a quarter to get the scoring title. His scoring 30 had nothing to do with the Bulls winning. And 94 proves that. They obviously didn't need Jordan to score 30 a night. Give the Bulls a guy that's capable of scoring an efficient 20-25 ppg with good defense, and they still win the championship.

[nayte]

Great post. Jordan is literally saying why he scored 30 a night. And it had nothing to do with his teammates.

I remember an interview where he said he wanted to show that he could prove a guard could lead the league in scoring while winning a championship.

This is facts as far as I know.he wanted to win while leading the league in scoring.

[97 bulls]

Here's an article where Carmello Anthony said Jordan told him the same thing. His scoring prowess has nothing to do with winning. He WANTED to win the scoring title.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thesportsrush.com/nba-news-michael-jordan-said-break-down-7-points-a-quarter-carmelo-anthony-recalls-the-scoring-advice-bulls-legend-gave-him-en-route-to-a-near-30ppg-season/%3famp

[nayte]

Ehh he wanted to win but while winning the scoring title .nothing wrong with forging your own path.
Your making it out more then it is.imo

[Kblaze8855]

You don't understand Jordan at all. He wanted to score 30-32-34 points for no other reason besides vanity. He would not have tolerated any teammate taking that away from him and would've had them traded. He would not even tolerate a coach taking that away from him. Even when it was explained to him that the triangle was intended to get him to score less he still found a way to keep scoring 30, and described to Phil Jackson how - "all I need to do is score 8 points a quarter to keep winning the scoring title, nobody else in the league is going to do that" - the points alone being that important to him, even over winning. It was a constant obstacle for his coaching staffs.

He didn’t care about it more than winning but yes…he obviously set out to score about 32 every game and he’s said so many times. He was motivated by scoring titles and scoring the most. Just how it is:



. I'm not really into stats, either, except if they can help maintain the drive for me. For instance, scoring championships. Sure, I know what it takes to win one. I can average 32 points a game and know I'll win. Eight points a quarter. Three baskets, two free throws. It's as easy as that. I'm down four, I get can 12 the next quarter. But I don't let anything like that take away from what the team is trying to do. I can sense my points. I can tell early when it's going to be a big night or average or when it's just not clicking.
If it came down to me needing a basket to win the scoring title, I would only take it if the team was where it needed to be. I would never go to Phil and say, "I want to do this." Like Nykesha Sales and that basket they gave her so she could get the record (https://www.foxsports.com/college-basketball/story/uconn-huskies-villanova-wildcats-nykesha-sales-geno-auriemma-022916), I would take the opposite approach. If some team gave me an open lane for a layup for the scoring title, I'd pass the ball. I wouldn't want it. Things like that happen to me a lot in the fourth quarter. Phil puts me in to give me an opportunity to get my scoring up, but if the game's decided, I look to do other things..

[97 bulls]

Ehh he wanted to win but while winning the scoring title .nothing wrong with forging your own path.
Your making it out more then it is.imo

I don't have a problem with it because they won. And he was efficient while doing it. But these clowns constantly come on here and act as if Jordan had to score 30 because the Bulls offense was so bad. That's flat out not true.

[FilmyCogTurner]

Let's not forget that Jordan also pulled it off. Scoring titles and championships. Job well done.

[97 bulls]

Let's not forget that Jordan also pulled it off. Scoring titles and championships. Job well done.

Bro. That's not the point. 3ball is saying Jordan did it out of necessity. Jordan himself said he did it because he wanted to.

So let stop saying Pippen was a bad 2nd scoring option, and that the Bulls couldn't score outside of Jordan. Jordan himself is saying why he took so many shots.

The Bulls were just talented enough to contribute in multiple ways to get Championship results.

[FilmyCogTurner]

Bro. That's not the point. 3ball is saying Jordan did it out of necessity. Jordan himself said he did it because he wanted to.

So let stop saying Pippen was a bad 2nd scoring option, and that the Bulls couldn't score outside of Jordan. Jordan himself is saying why he took so many shots.

The Bulls were just talented enough to contribute in multiple ways to get Championship results.

Why cannot it not be both? Jordan could have pushed for scoring titles while also the team needed him to carry the offensive load. It's not like he was chasing some obscure stat. Scoring wins you ball games, simple and Jordan was the best at that.

Please explain..

[sdot_thadon]

Why cannot it not be both? Jordan could have pushed for scoring titles while also the team needed him to carry the offensive load. It's not like he was chasing some obscure stat. Scoring wins you ball games, simple and Jordan was the best at that.

Please explain..

Probably because of the quotes just a few posts above yours. Also it's been documented that he was upset when they wanted to implement the triangle because he wouldn't win the scoring title. Meanwhile the coaching staff felt the triangle would let other guys get more involved, Mj didn't like the concept. I mean you're talking about a guy who when he was scored on wanted to immediately come back and shoot on the other end. Mj isn't some new player we just discovered lol.

[FilmyCogTurner]

Probably because of the quotes just a few posts above yours. Also it's been documented that he was upset when they wanted to implement the triangle because he wouldn't win the scoring title. Meanwhile the coaching staff felt the triangle would let other guys get more involved, Mj didn't like the concept. I mean you're talking about a guy who when he was scored on wanted to immediately come back and shoot on the other end. Mj isn't some new player we just discovered lol.

I understand all of this.

Teams, especially the ones looking to dominate the upper echelon of the league are going to have disagreements and conflict. You're not telling me anything new. What you fail to realize is that Jordan made it work and I watched the second 3 peat as close as anyone. The Bulls needed every point from whoever could give it.

Did a spectacular dunk from Randy Brown every once and a while give you the false sense of belief that this bench player needs to be featured more?

Like I mentioned earlier, MJ was not chasing some obscure stat. He was the team offense and they needed that scoring from him. Those games in the late 90's were a dogfight and many of us wondered how the hell are the Bulls going to win the game, even with the GOAT.

[97 bulls]

Why cannot it not be both? Jordan could have pushed for scoring titles while also the team needed him to carry the offensive load. It's not like he was chasing some obscure stat. Scoring wins you ball games, simple and Jordan was the best at that.

Please explain..

I'll give you an example. In the 4th quarter of the 93 NBA Finals, it's touted that MJ scored all but I beleive 5 of the Bulls points. What not acknowledged is that he TOOK all but 2 shots in that quarter. Many players get disinterested when they're not involved offensively. But the Bulls stayed the course defensively and won the game and the Championship.

So are you saying we should disparage his teammates because they didn't score? It's not like they all had the same amount of FGAs and they missed theirs and Jordan made his. And I'm not knocking MJ. Why fix something thar aint broke? They couldn't stop him. All I'm saying is that's a testament to his ability, not his teammates lack of ability.

Again, we saw that in 94. When the Bulls replaced Jordan with Pete Myers and they were still in Championship contention. I say that because the Knicks needed 7 games and a bad call to beat the Bulls. And the Knicks then took the eventual Champion Rockets to 7 games. And they may have won if John Starks doesn't shoot 3-17 in that game 7.

Let's not act as if had the Bulls not had good solid SG like Kendall Gill to replace MJ, they don't win the Championship. The fact is they didn't need MJ to score 30 a night to win. He wanted to. And his teammates contributed in different way to impact the game.

[FilmyCogTurner]

I'll give you an example. In the 4th quarter of the 93 NBA Finals, it's touted that MJ scored all but I beleive 5 of the Bulls points. What not acknowledged is that he TOOK all but 2 shots in that quarter. Many players get disinterested when they're not involved offensively. But the Bulls stayed the course defensively and won the game and the Championship.

So are you saying we should disparage his teammates because they didn't score? It's not like they all had the same amount of FGAs and they missed theirs and Jordan made his. And I'm not knocking MJ. Why fix something thar aint broke? They couldn't stop him. All I'm saying is that's a testament to his ability, not his teammates lack of ability.

Again, we saw that in 94. When the Bulls replaced Jordan with Pete Myers and they were still in Championship contention. I say that because the Knicks needed 7 games and a bad call to beat the Bulls. And the Knicks then took the eventual Champion Rockets to 7 games. And they may have won if John Starks doesn't shoot 3-17 in that game 7.

Let's not act as if had the Bulls not had good solid SG like Kendall Gill to replace MJ, they don't win the Championship. The fact is they didn't need MJ to score 30 a night to win. He wanted to. And his teammates contributed in different way to impact the game.

I watch plenty of classic hoops so I will make watching the second half of that game a priority to see if Jordan negatively impacted the game. To be honest I randomly started watching game 1 of the 1993 finals the other day so I'm already in that mode.

One player dominating the ball can be a detriment to the team. I don't disagree with you there however sometimes that is what is needed for the team to have the best chance at winning and lot of the time the role players know and realize this as well. It's the playoffs and as any sane person knows the stats go completely out of the window. Season averages whatever, this is is where you win games and cement your team as the best team in the league.

And I do not agree about 1994 and it's one of my most favorite seasons ever but that team was not fit for title contention. They did not have a closer and as the playoff competition got stiffer I'm sure you would eventually realized this. Kudos to Kukoc for all the bailout game winners that season but that was not sustainable at all by any means and Pip was not the guy either no matter what he thought of himself. Any level headed Bulls fan knows that shit is off the backboard clean wide right and if you don't know this you do not deserve to ring it up!

[3ba11]

Do you guys actually think that the top scorers like MJ, Kobe, Harden, or Durant are supposed to go out there like it's a pick-up game and find out how much they had after the game?

:yaohappy:

these guys are PROFESSIONALS!!

A guy like 2005 Kobe or 2019 Harden understands that they have a massive scoring burden - they need to know if they're on pace to meet that burden, or if they started out too fast and need to let teammates get going, etc, etc, etc.

Any top producer should have a good idea how much they have AND their teammates throughout the game.

So Jordan's meticulousness should be commended.. Imagine that - Jordan is out there calculating while everyone else is out there willy-nilly.. But seriously, all top producers calculate in some way because it's part of game management and knowing what's going on.. Jordan knew that he had no scoring help, so he needed to keep track of his burden and whether he was on pace to meet it..

Again, this is standard for PROFESSIONALS, yet you guys are assuming they think like regular
joe's at the YMCA.. The act of "projecting" is a horrible trap and you guys should certainly stop it in this case because you look like fools - pros don't think like YMCA guys.

Anyone that played with superstars understands that they have a special relationship with the coaches that no one else on the team has - they discuss things like "we might need a big game from you tonight if your teammates come out tentative against the raucous away crowd"... I literally overheard Coach Shakey Rodriguez say this to Raja Bell pregame when we played Northern Arizona at their place.. It's common for coaches to say something like "take over this quarter"..

Accordingly, Jordan had a method of saying "8 per quarter", which helped him keep track of whether he was on pace to fulfill his burden, or whether he needed to slow it down.. He taught this technique to Melo and others, who say it helps and it's a quick way to know whether you're lagging or going too fast.

So this idea that players are supposed to play willy-nilly and find out after the game what they had is just ignorance from guys that never played organized basketball themselves and certainly never played WITH SUPERSTARS (who have special relationship and inside convos with the coaches that no one else has).. So Jordan and other top producers MUST keep track of whether they're on pace to meet their burden and where teammates are at as well.

Btw, Jordan is the goat scorer so he gets asked about this topic in a way that no one else does - that's the only reason we have these quotes from Jordan and YMCA bums simply misinterpret it.

But nobody ever asks whether Jordan is keeping track of which teammates are involved and which guys aren't - I'm sure he kept track because it's a professional, winning tactic and part of game management.

[97 bulls]

Do you guys actually think that the top scorers like MJ, Kobe, Harden, or Durant are supposed to go out there like it's a pick-up game and find out how much they had after the game?

:yaohappy:

these guys are PROFESSIONALS!!

A guy like 2005 Kobe or 2019 Harden understands that they have a massive scoring burden - they need to know if they're on pace to meet that burden, or if they started out too fast and need to let teammates get going, etc, etc, etc.

Any top producer should have a good idea how much they have AND their teammates throughout the game.

So Jordan's meticulousness should be commended.. Imagine that - Jordan is out there calculating while everyone else is out there willy-nilly.. But seriously, all top producers calculate in some way because it's part of game management and knowing what's going on.. Jordan knew that he had no scoring help, so he needed to keep track of his burden and whether he was on pace to meet it..

Again, this is standard for PROFESSIONALS, yet you guys are assuming they think like regular
joe's at the YMCA.. The act of "projecting" is a horrible trap and you guys should certainly stop it in this case because you look like fools - pros don't think like YMCA guys.

Anyone that played with superstars understands that they have a special relationship with the coaches that no one else on the team has - they discuss things like "we might need a big game from you tonight if your teammates come out tentative against the raucous away crowd"... I literally overheard Coach Shakey Rodriguez say this to Raja Bell pregame when we played Northern Arizona at their place.. It's common for coaches to say something like "take over this quarter"..

Accordingly, Jordan had a method of saying "8 per quarter", which helped him keep track of whether he was on pace to fulfill his burden, or whether he needed to slow it down.. He taught this technique to Melo and others, who say it helps and it's a quick way to know whether you're lagging or going too fast.

So this idea that players are supposed to play willy-nilly and find out after the game what they had is just ignorance from guys that never played organized basketball themselves and certainly never played WITH SUPERSTARS (who have special relationship and inside convos with the coaches that no one else has).. So Jordan and other top producers MUST keep track of whether they're on pace to meet their burden and where teammates are at as well.

Btw, Jordan is the goat scorer so he gets asked about this topic in a way that no one else does - that's the only reason we have these quotes from Jordan and YMCA bums simply misinterpret it.

But nobody ever asks whether Jordan is keeping track of which teammates are involved and which guys aren't - I'm sure he kept track because it's a professional, winning tactic and part of game management.

All that drivel still doesn't undo the fact that you're a troll. Jordan said he WANTED TO LEAD THE LEAGUE IN SCORING!!!!!! Stop trying to make it seem as if he took all those shots because he had bad teammates. Now you want to argue want Jordan himself said.

[97 bulls]

I watch plenty of classic hoops so I will make watching the second half of that game a priority to see if Jordan negatively impacted the game. To be honest I randomly started watching game 1 of the 1993 finals the other day so I'm already in that mode.

One player dominating the ball can be a detriment to the team. I don't disagree with you there however sometimes that is what is needed for the team to have the best chance at winning and lot of the time the role players know and realize this as well. It's the playoffs and as any sane person knows the stats go completely out of the window. Season averages whatever, this is is where you win games and cement your team as the best team in the league.

And I do not agree about 1994 and it's one of my most favorite seasons ever but that team was not fit for title contention. They did not have a closer and as the playoff competition got stiffer I'm sure you would eventually realized this. Kudos to Kukoc for all the bailout game winners that season but that was not sustainable at all by any means and Pip was not the guy either no matter what he thought of himself. Any level headed Bulls fan knows that shit is off the backboard clean wide right and if you don't know this you do not deserve to ring it up!

I'm not saying Jordan taking those shots was a bad thing. I even stated that if it ain't broke don't fix it. My point of contention is this notion that Jordan took all those shots because his teammates were bad offensive players. Jordan himself said why he took all those shots. He wanted to lead the league in scoring.


And you are following the same rabbit hole. The 94 Bulls didn't have a closer. No, they didn't have enough help. Why this isn't understood is beyond me. Keep in my that Jordan's third guy (Horace Grant) was Pippens number 2.

And there were times that Jordan didn't have it, or the opposition was really focusing on him, and his teammates stepped up.

91 Paxson
92 game 6 Pippen
93 ECF Pippen
96 NBA Finals Rodman.

These are the standouts. There were many times when Jordan's teammates stepped up.

[FilmyCogTurner]

I'm not saying Jordan taking those shots was a bad thing. I even stated that if it ain't broke don't fix it. My point of contention is this notion that Jordan took all those shots because his teammates were bad offensive players. Jordan himself said why he took all those shots. He wanted to lead the league in scoring.


And you are following the same rabbit hole. The 94 Bulls didn't have a closer. No, they didn't have enough help. Why this isn't understood is beyond me. Keep in my that Jordan's third guy (Horace Grant) was Pippens number 2.

And there were times that Jordan didn't have it, or the opposition was really focusing on him, and his teammates stepped up.

91 Paxson
92 game 6 Pippen
93 ECF Pippen
96 NBA Finals Rodman.

These are the standouts. There were many times when Jordan's teammates stepped up.

You're still not getting it. Jordan can have capable offensive players around him while the team still needing a monsterous offensive output from him. Also, you seem to think hitting 30 PPG in November is the same as hitting 30 PPG in June and if you can't understand that I am not sure what I am doing here.

Do you think in the final three minutes of a finals game Jordan or anyone for that matter is gunning for stats? Seriously? Sometimes a single player dominating the ball is the right choice even with capable role players around him. Sometimes that one make is all that's needed to shift the defense to the star player so the others can contribute with big shots like Paxson or Kerr. Did you play any basketball at all as a kid or did you just parade around enjoying the championships?

And you list all these standout performances from other teammates. Well of course ****ing of course that is BASKETBALL and why it is played 5 on 5 and you also forgot Kukoc's game 7 against the Pacers in 1997.

[97 bulls]

You're still not getting it. Jordan can have capable offensive players around him while the team still needing a monsterous offensive output from him. Also, you seem to think hitting 30 PPG in November is the same as hitting 30 PPG in June and if you can't understand that I am not sure what I am doing here.

Do you think in the final three minutes of a finals game Jordan or anyone for that matter is gunning for stats? Seriously? Sometimes a single player dominating the ball is the right choice even with capable role players around him. Sometimes that one make is all that's needed to shift the defense to the star player so the others can contribute with big shots like Paxson or Kerr. Did you play any basketball at all as a kid or did you just parade around enjoying the championships?

And you list all these standout performances from other teammates. Well of course ****ing of course that is BASKETBALL and why it is played 5 on 5 and you also forgot Kukoc's game 7 against the Pacers in 1997.

I totally get it lol. That's why I've said (for a third time now) if the opposition can't stop you, why change. I have absolutely no problem with Jordan's offensive exploits. He's the GOAT as far as I'm concerned.

But I take exception to this notion that he had to score 30 a night because he had bad teammates offensively.

You yourself are parroting that sentiment when you say the 94 Bulls didn't win because they had no closer. Yes they did, they had Pip. They lost MJ and weren't able to replace him competently. Understand, Pippen took Jordan's role, everyone else stayed in their spot. Grant was number 3 with MJ, he should've stayed the number 3 to Pip.

[FilmyCogTurner]

I totally get it lol. That's why I've said (for a third time now) if the opposition can't stop you, why change. I have absolutely no problem with Jordan's offensive exploits. He's the GOAT as far as I'm concerned.

But I take exception to this notion that he had to score 30 a night because he had bad teammates offensively.

You yourself are parroting that sentiment when you say the 94 Bulls didn't win because they had no closer. Yes they did, they had Pip. They lost MJ and weren't able to replace him competently. Understand, Pippen took Jordan's role, everyone else stayed in their spot. Grant was number 3 with MJ, he should've stayed the number 3 to Pip.

And the point I'm trying to make is that you can have good teammates offensively while still needing a huge scoring output from your star player.

1994 is great and all but that team was only going to go so far. Having Jordan still producing huge numbers while playing within the triangle is a credit to his ability as a player and also the reason why Chicago was able to dominate the 90's like they did.

Were there other players on the team that you felt deserved more touches? BJ Armstrong your uncle?

[ShawkFactory]

And the point I'm trying to make is that you can have good teammates offensively while still needing a huge scoring output from your star player.

1994 is great and all but that team was only going to go so far. Having Jordan still producing huge numbers while playing within the triangle is a credit to his ability as a player and also the reason why Chicago was able to dominate the 90's like they did.

Were there other players on the team that you felt deserved more touches? BJ Armstrong your uncle?

This is ALWAYS the case when you remove the best player off of a team. The fact that the “supporting cast” got as far as they did proves that they were good.

[FilmyCogTurner]

This is ALWAYS the case when you remove the best player off of a team. The fact that the “supporting cast” got as far as they did proves that they were good.

Show me where I said that the Bulls did not have good players around Jordan.

[97 bulls]

And the point I'm trying to make is that you can have good teammates offensively while still needing a huge scoring output from your star player.

Think about what 3ball is saying. Hes saying that the only reason Jordan averaged 30+ppg a night, is because his teammates were bad on offense. Do you agree or disagree with his assertion?


1994 is great and all but that team was only going to go so far. Having Jordan still producing huge numbers while playing within the triangle is a credit to his ability as a player and also the reason why Chicago was able to dominate the 90's like they did.

Were there other players on the team that you felt deserved more touches? BJ Armstrong your uncle?

I don't see how this is going over your head. Ok, let's come at it from another perspective. Here's the Bulls starting 5 during their first 3 championships

Armstrong-C
Jordan-A+
Cartwright--C
Pippen-A
Grant-B-

Then in 94, this happens

Armstrong C
Myers D-
Cartwright C
Grant B-
Pippen A

That's a huge drop. And the Bulls still almost got it done. Based on the outcome, they needed a competent replacement for Jordan. The 94 Bulls seems to be the only example where Jordanites feel that an increase in talent wouldn't have an effect on the outcome of the Bulls season. It's not rocket science, better talent yields better results. It's not a matter of the team stepping up. If it were that simple, then the Bulls never needed Jordan to begin with. Which solidifies my argument. If they almost won with a guy giving you 7 pts a night. And he replaced the guy giving you 30-35. Is it really out of the realm of possibility that a guy that would give you 18-20 wouldn't have been enough to put them over the top?

It's as if people feel that Jordan's loss was insignificant on one hand, but on the other, the Bulls were only good because of MJ. Which is it?

[3ba11]

Jordan said he WANTED TO LEAD THE LEAGUE IN SCORING!!!!!!





A lot of guys say that, but Jordan wasn't going to lead the league in scoring if his team didn't need it..

No one would do that... That's absurd..

If Jordan had a bunch of go-to scorers and elite-producing teammates, then he wouldn't score as much like in the Olympics or all-star games.. He wanted to win and he was a high IQ, low turnover player that knew how to grow teammates and foster great chemistry. he literally proved this with 6 chips and 2 three-peats.

So you don't know what you're talking about.






Stop trying to make it seem as if he took all those shots because he had bad teammates





Pippen's peak ppg + apg was 21.0 and 7.0 in 1992, yet Jordan still needed to lead the league in scoring and average 36 in the Finals.

So teammates played to capacity alongside Jordan, which confirms that his goat scoring was needed.

And if teammates were capable of stepping up and doing more, we would've seen it for 1 of the titles, but we never did - Jordan had to completely carry the scoring load for every title run and every series...

Or we would've seen it in 94', but Pippen's scoring only reached 22 and Horace 15 - the same as their highs alongside Jordan.

You can't argue anything in this thread if you can't address the fact that teammates played to capacity alongside Jordan, so he needed to score that much.. period.. 2+2 = 4.






Stop trying to make it seem as if he took all those shots because he had bad teammates





Pippen had low scoring, efficiency and wasn't a go-to player, while everyone else on the team was a low-producing role player.

That's among the worst scoring help ever, yet the Bulls had goat offenses because Jordan carried the team offensively.

[97 bulls]

A lot of guys say that, but Jordan wasn't going to lead the league in scoring if his team didn't need it..

No one would do that... That's absurd.

Lol. Bro. That's what he said. Take that up with him. He wanted to lead the league in scoring. He said it himself.

[3ba11]

Lol. Bro. That's what he said. Take that up with him. He wanted to lead the league in scoring. He said it himself.


A lot of guys want to be scoring champ - Jordan had the alpha to say it and then do it 10 times in a row..

But he wasn't going to lead the league in scoring if his team didn't need it..

No one would do that... That's absurd..

If Jordan had Shaq, Curry, AD or another elite producer, he wouldn't need to average 5 more than everyone in playoffs history.. It's simple

If he had a bunch of go-to scorers and elite-producing teammates, then he wouldn't score as much like in the Olympics or all-star games.. He would "settle" for 30/7/9 or something.. It's actually amazing that he averaged 6 apg considering his horrible scoring help ... And he averaged more assists than Lebron for the first 9 years of their playoff careers (85-93' vs 06-14') until Curry's pace and space era made offense easier for everyone.

[FilmyCogTurner]

Think about what 3ball is saying. Hes saying that the only reason Jordan averaged 30+ppg a night, is because his teammates were bad on offense. Do you agree or disagree with his assertion?

Disagree.


I don't see how this is going over your head. Ok, let's come at it from another perspective. Here's the Bulls starting 5 during their first 3 championships

Armstrong-C
Jordan-A+
Cartwright--C
Pippen-A
Grant-B-

Then in 94, this happens

Armstrong C
Myers D-
Cartwright C
Grant B-
Pippen A

That's a huge drop. And the Bulls still almost got it done. Based on the outcome, they needed a competent replacement for Jordan. The 94 Bulls seems to be the only example where Jordanites feel that an increase in talent wouldn't have an effect on the outcome of the Bulls season. It's not rocket science, better talent yields better results. It's not a matter of the team stepping up. If it were that simple, then the Bulls never needed Jordan to begin with. Which solidifies my argument. If they almost won with a guy giving you 7 pts a night. And he replaced the guy giving you 30-35. Is it really out of the realm of possibility that a guy that would give you 18-20 wouldn't have been enough to put them over the top?

It's as if people feel that Jordan's loss was insignificant on one hand, but on the other, the Bulls were only good because of MJ. Which is it?

Conference semi-finals is almost getting it done now? Lets all congratulate the almost champions 2014-2015 Washington Wizards while we're at it.

Look, I appreciate what you're saying. Add player X and the team improves but we do not know if that unknown player is enough to get to the finals or even reach the conference finals. Playoff success is hard to come by, look at the teams presently. You have to have the personnel in place to compete for titles. This is nothing shocking but deep playoff runs just don't happen because you're wearing an NBA jersey. It's really ****ing hard to have any success and to say add player so and so in replacement of the best ever do it is a fun hypothetical but in the end foolish.

How many players faced the same physicality that MJ faced against the Pistons/Knicks? Thing is say you put someone like Drexler in Jordans place.. would those teams come at Clyde like they came at Jordan? No, of course not. He wouldn't warrant the same level of "special attention" as what Jordan faced and he would just be another great player in a playoff series.

[3ba11]

I just realized that Jordan's scoring might increase alongside another elite producer like AD or Kareem because he might find more opportunities with them attracting defensive attention.. His scoring instinct and skill is so great that he would fit into a more open format like water and average 35, especially since he'll still be relied upon in the clutch... He would get 35, while Kareem gets 28 and everyone ELSE takes a haircut

[sdot_thadon]

I understand all of this.

Teams, especially the ones looking to dominate the upper echelon of the league are going to have disagreements and conflict. You're not telling me anything new. What you fail to realize is that Jordan made it work and I watched the second 3 peat as close as anyone. The Bulls needed every point from whoever could give it.

Did a spectacular dunk from Randy Brown every once and a while give you the false sense of belief that this bench player needs to be featured more?

Like I mentioned earlier, MJ was not chasing some obscure stat. He was the team offense and they needed that scoring from him. Those games in the late 90's were a dogfight and many of us wondered how the hell are the Bulls going to win the game, even with the GOAT.
More like Mj AND the Bulls made it work. They didn't win a thing until several things occurred including Phil and the triangle being in place as well as Horace and Scottie's emergence as players. In the 2nd 3peat? Even more supporting help. More playmaking alongside Pippens with Toni, An outstanding complete defensive lineup. Rebounding and intangibles from Dennis. I feel Ron Harper has become severely underrated as the years pass, guys fail to realize he was a step below an Allstar as a player and led his own squads. Mj absolutely didn't have to score as much as he did, it's just who he was and was willing to be. And no Randy Brown shouldn't be featured more than Mj, but usually championship level squads spread the wealth when they have the horses to do so.

[97 bulls]

Disagree.



Conference semi-finals is almost getting it done now? Lets all congratulate the almost champions 2014-2015 Washington Wizards while we're at it.


Again. Refer back to my easier post. The Knicks lost to the Rockets in 7 games. Even a mediocre game 7 by Starks gets the Knicks a chip. The Bulls lost to the Knicks in 7 games. They should've won in 6 if it wasn't for a bad call by Hue Hollins. The Knicks needed 7 games to best the Pacers. So in essence, 1 game separated the Bulls, Knicks, Pacers, and Rockets. It wasn't as if the Knicks beat the Bulls 4-1. Thats all I'm saying.



Look, I appreciate what you're saying. Add player X and the team improves but we do not know if that unknown player is enough to get to the finals or even reach the conference finals. Playoff success is hard to come by, look at the teams presently. You have to have the personnel in place to compete for titles. This is nothing shocking but deep playoff runs just don't happen because you're wearing an NBA jersey. It's really ****ing hard to have any success and to say add player so and so in replacement of the best ever do it is a fun hypothetical but in the end foolish.

How many players faced the same physicality that MJ faced against the Pistons/Knicks? Thing is say you put someone like Drexler in Jordans place.. would those teams come at Clyde like they came at Jordan? No, of course not. He wouldn't warrant the same level of "special attention" as what Jordan faced and he would just be another great player in a playoff series.

We don't know what would've happened. I'm just using deductive reasoning. It's not far fetched to conclude that the Bulls win a championship with a better replacement for MJ. Or at least i dont believe its far fetched. Based on how things played out.

[97 bulls]

Exactly

[Axe]

More like Mj AND the Bulls made it work. They didn't win a thing until several things occurred including Phil and the triangle being in place as well as Horace and Scottie's emergence as players. In the 2nd 3peat? Even more supporting help. More playmaking alongside Pippens with Toni, An outstanding complete defensive lineup. Rebounding and intangibles from Dennis. I feel Ron Harper has become severely underrated as the years pass, guys fail to realize he was a step below an Allstar as a player and led his own squads. Mj absolutely didn't have to score as much as he did, it's just who he was and was willing to be. And no Randy Brown shouldn't be featured more than Mj, but usually championship level squads spread the wealth when they have the horses to do so.
Those who believed that jordan was the sole reason for the bulls' success are delusional casuals. They were a great team and heads-n-shoulders above in the era they dominated.

[97 bulls]

More like Mj AND the Bulls made it work. They didn't win a thing until several things occurred including Phil and the triangle being in place as well as Horace and Scottie's emergence as players. In the 2nd 3peat? Even more supporting help. More playmaking alongside Pippens with Toni, An outstanding complete defensive lineup. Rebounding and intangibles from Dennis. I feel Ron Harper has become severely underrated as the years pass, guys fail to realize he was a step below an Allstar as a player and led his own squads. Mj absolutely didn't have to score as much as he did, it's just who he was and was willing to be. And no Randy Brown shouldn't be featured more than Mj, but usually championship level squads spread the wealth when they have the horses to do so.

Exactly!!!

[97 bulls]

Those who believed that jordan was the sole reason for the bulls' success are delusional casuals. They were a great team and heads-n-shoulders above in the era they dominated.

Spot on!!!

[3ba11]

:facepalm:

[3ba11]

.
https://i.ibb.co/qBBHvB1/chrome-d-EXe-R4x-E8t.jpg


^^^ Guys that couldn't handle their burden

(Only Pippen is a 2nd option/higher volume)





More like Mj AND the Bulls made it work. They didn't win a thing until several things occurred including Phil and the triangle being in place as well as Horace and Scottie's emergence as players. In the 2nd 3peat? Even more supporting help. More playmaking alongside Pippens with Toni, An outstanding complete defensive lineup. Rebounding and intangibles from Dennis. I feel Ron Harper has become severely underrated as the years pass, guys fail to realize he was a step below an Allstar as a player and led his own squads. Mj absolutely didn't have to score as much as he did, it's just who he was and was willing to be. And no Randy Brown shouldn't be featured more than Mj, but usually championship level squads spread the wealth when they have the horses to do so.


^^^ You don't realize how ridiculous that sounds to anyone that actually watched those games.

Everyone knew that Harper was a historic injury player and washed up at 7 ppg before MJ returned in 95'.. People would comment on how creaky he looked, despite the occasional low-flying jam.

And no one expected anyone other than Jordan to take over a series and dominate.. If other guys were capable of dominating a series, we would've seen it in one of the series or Finals... But we never did - only Jordan achieved elite stats, or was game-planned for (https://i.makeagif.com/media/3-27-2022/qrDm8n.gif), or was double-teamed (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4UF6Xx3F2Lo&t=01m54s).

Ultimately, we know for a fact that Jordan's scoring was needed because teammates played near capacity alongside him and Pippen's poor efficiency confirms that he couldn't handle the load..

Pippen shot 45.9 true shooting in a Finals where both teams had identical PPG and ORTG (93' Finals) - so Pippen was already overstretched beyond his capacity and couldn't step up if MJ decided to average 37 instead of 41..

Pippen shot 42% in 6 Finals and 41% for the entire 2nd three-peat playoffs - Jordan was getting everything he could out of Pippen..

Notice how Pippen is the only 2nd option on the efficiency list above, so only Jordan won with high volumes of worst-ever efficiency from a teammate..

[sdot_thadon]

.
https://i.ibb.co/qBBHvB1/chrome-d-EXe-R4x-E8t.jpg


^^^ Guys that couldn't handle their burden

(Only Pippen is a 2nd option/higher volume)







^^^ You don't realize how ridiculous that sounds to anyone that actually watched those games.

Everyone knew that Harper was a historic injury player and washed up at 7 ppg before MJ returned in 95'.. People would comment on how creaky he looked, despite the occasional low-flying jam.

And no one expected anyone other than Jordan to take over a series and dominate.. If other guys were capable of dominating a series, we would've seen it in one of the series or Finals... But we never did - only Jordan achieved elite stats, or was game-planned for (https://i.makeagif.com/media/3-27-2022/qrDm8n.gif), or was double-teamed (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4UF6Xx3F2Lo&t=01m54s).

Ultimately, we know for a fact that Jordan's scoring was needed because teammates played near capacity alongside him and Pippen's poor efficiency confirms that he couldn't handle the load..

Pippen shot 45.9 true shooting in a Finals where both teams had identical PPG and ORTG (93' Finals) - so Pippen was already overstretched beyond his capacity and couldn't step up if MJ decided to average 37 instead of 41..

Pippen shot 42% in 6 Finals and 41% for the entire 2nd three-peat playoffs - Jordan was getting everything he could out of Pippen..

Notice how Pippen is the only 2nd option on the efficiency list above, so only Jordan won with high volumes of worst-ever efficiency from a teammate..

You don't have any idea about Ron Harper on the Bulls do you? He averaged 20 the season before Chicago. He struggled with the triangle like so many do and Phil don't got time for you if you can't play his system as we all know. Ron took on a new role, and was pretty great on defense for those teams as 30 somethings sg taking on point guards most nights. He was perfectly capable of getting buckets more than he did in Chicago, he took a role to win, and he did, 5 rings in total.

[3ba11]

You don't have any idea about Ron Harper on the Bulls do you? He averaged 20 the season before Chicago. He struggled with the triangle like so many do and Phil don't got time for you if you can't play his system as we all know. Ron took on a new role, and was pretty great on defense for those teams as 30 somethings sg taking on point guards most nights. He was perfectly capable of getting buckets more than he did in Chicago, he took a role to win, and he did, 5 rings in total.


Ron was a bum in 95' and everyone knew it - it wasn't anything that anyone would ever dream of debating.

I'm trying to help you out if you ever talk to someone from Chicago.

And you ignored everything else that I wrote because it's obvious you guys are wrong - Pippen's worst-ever efficiency confirms that he couldn't handle additional burden, while teammates generally played to capacity alongside Jordan.. So Jordan's scoring was needed - many series were wars with a lot of struggling efficiency

[97 bulls]

Ron was a bum in 95' and everyone knew it - it wasn't anything that anyone would ever dream of debating.

I'm trying to help you out if you ever talk to someone from Chicago.

And you ignored everything else that I wrote because it's obvious you guys are wrong - Pippen's worst-ever efficiency confirms that he couldn't handle additional burden, while teammates generally played to capacity alongside Jordan.. So Jordan's scoring was needed - many series were wars with a lot of struggling efficiency

Ron Harper was not a bum. He took a lesser role for the good of the team. The dude was a 20ppg scorer most of his career.

Pippen played 96 and 98 injured. And still contrited

[kawhileonard2]

You don't have any idea about Ron Harper on the Bulls do you? He averaged 20 the season before Chicago. He struggled with the triangle like so many do and Phil don't got time for you if you can't play his system as we all know. Ron took on a new role, and was pretty great on defense for those teams as 30 somethings sg taking on point guards most nights. He was perfectly capable of getting buckets more than he did in Chicago, he took a role to win, and he did, 5 rings in total.

Westbrook was a stud before ever playing with Lebron.

[sdot_thadon]

Ron was a bum in 95' and everyone knew it - it wasn't anything that anyone would ever dream of debating.

I'm trying to help you out if you ever talk to someone from Chicago.

And you ignored everything else that I wrote because it's obvious you guys are wrong - Pippen's worst-ever efficiency confirms that he couldn't handle additional burden, while teammates generally played to capacity alongside Jordan.. So Jordan's scoring was needed - many series were wars with a lot of struggling efficiency

Who would need to talk to anyone from Chicago 2nd 3peat Bulls were the most covered team ever up to that point in time and the majority of their games were on TV if you had wgn...

Harper was not a bum. And no one responds to your Pippen points because they are that stupid, like below scrapping the bottom of the barrel trolling. You've been slapped all over ish the last few days, I admire your resilience but your takes still stink bro.

[97 bulls]

Who would need to talk to anyone from Chicago 2nd 3peat Bulls were the most covered team ever up to that point in time and the majority of their games were on TV if you had wgn...

Harper was not a bum. And no one responds to your Pippen points because they are that stupid, like below scrapping the bottom of the barrel trolling. You've been slapped all over ish the last few days, I admire your resilience but your takes still stink bro.

He's the only one I know that will argue a quote from a player as if he never said what he said. Jordan literally said he wanted to lead the league in scoring. And 3ball flat out dismissed it. Doesn't mean that three weren't games where the Bulls just didn't have it and Jordan's will got then through it. But he got bailed out as well.

And now, Ron Harper is a bum? SMDH. Why? Because he didn't sabotage the teams success by trying to go out and score to appease some troll on thr internet some 20 years later? GTFOH

[HoopsNY]

I'm going through each season to see how MJ's teammates did when he attempted 15 or fewer FGA (ended up using a few seasons with less than 16 or 20 FGA):

1991: 12 games | Only 2 players had games with more than 22 points (Paxson 26, Pippen 28). Grant was mostly between 6-17 points.

1992: 8 games | Pippen had two 23 point games, a 27 and 29 point game, BJ had a 16 and 18 pt game, Grant was again between 6-17 points.

*1993: 8 games | More of the same

*1995: 6 games | Pippen had one 29 point game, Kukoc had 20, 16, and 19 point games

1996: 6 games | Pippen had a 30, 27, and 22 pt game, the rest were pretty bad; rest of the cast was more of the same, 10-16 pt performances.

**1997: 8 games | Pippen had a 26 point game, Kukoc an 18 point game, 24 point game, Longley had two 16 point games

1998: 8 games | Pippen had a 29 point game , Kukoc had a 21 and 19 point game, Longley a 21 and 16 point game

Chicago's records during this time:

1991: 11-1 (faced 5 playoff teams, rest were terrible)
1992: 8-0 (faced 4 playoff teams, 4 terrible teams)
1993: 8-0 (faced 1 playoff team)
1995: 6-0 (faced 4 playoff teams, but two of them were against the 36 win Celtics)
1996: 21-1 when MJ took less than 20 FGA
1997: 7-1 (All playoff teams with the exception of one)
1998: 8-0 (2 of the 8 teams were playoff teams)

A further look with MJ's FGA using 20 more or less FGA:

'91 >20 FGA: 42-20
'91 <20 FGA: 19-1

'92 >20 FGA: 43-13
'92 <20 FGA: 24-0

'93 >20 FGA: 48-22
'93 <20 FGA: 8-0

'95 >20 FGA: 7-4
'95 <20 FGA: 6-0

'96 >20 FGA: 51-9
'96 <20 FGA: 21-1

'97 >20 FGA: 49-11
'97 <20 FGA: 21-2

'98 >20 FGA: 45-17
'98 <20 FGA: 17-3

MJ '91-'98 >20 FGA: 285-96 (.748%)
MJ '91-'98 <20 FGA: 116-7 (.945%)

My take: Jordan was a ball hog. Chicago would have done better in the regular season with him shooting less. I mean got damn...they won 95% of their games when MJ shot the ball 19 or fewer times. These numbers are utterly staggering. Chicago might have had a couple 80 win seasons if Jordan used his teammates the way LeBron uses his.

At the same time, Chicago's cast wasn't producing the way that people are thinking. Judging from the samples where MJ generally shot less than 15 (and some less than 20) FGA a game, guys like Pippen, Grant, and Kukoc weren't blowing up the box score.

So both are true. Chicago's cast wasn't great offensively, but at the same time, MJ didn't maximize the talents and abilities of his teammates. I feel Kukoc could have been used more, as well as Paxon, Armstrong, and Longley. i don't think Pippen would have done more. 1994 and 1995 pretty much proved that.






*1993 and 1995 I used fewer than 20 FGA since the data sample was small with 15 or fewer FGA.

*1997 I used 16 FGA or fewer cause it was only three games with 15 or fewer, but I got lazy and didn't wanna use all less than 20 since it was 22 games in total lol

[HoopsNY]

Added to the above...

Pippen >20 FGA '91-'93: 17-18 (26.4 PPG)

Pippen >20 FGA '94-'95: 16-17 (27.7 PPG)

Pippen >20 FGA: '96-'98: 26-3 (28.6 PPG)

Make of this what you will, but from 1991-95, Pippen put up 27 PPG but Chicago finished just 33-35 when he did. Then from 1996-98, Chicago dominated where he put up almost 29 PPG. To be fair, Chicago was winning almost every game those years (1996-98). Chicago went 172-31 in the games Pippen played those years, an .847%.

[97 bulls]

I'm going through each season to see how MJ's teammates did when he attempted 15 or fewer FGA (ended up using a few seasons with less than 16 or 20 FGA):

1991: 12 games | Only 2 players had games with more than 22 points (Paxson 26, Pippen 28). Grant was mostly between 6-17 points.

1992: 8 games | Pippen had two 23 point games, a 27 and 29 point game, BJ had a 16 and 18 pt game, Grant was again between 6-17 points.

*1993: 8 games | More of the same

*1995: 6 games | Pippen had one 29 point game, Kukoc had 20, 16, and 19 point games

1996: 6 games | Pippen had a 30, 27, and 22 pt game, the rest were pretty bad; rest of the cast was more of the same, 10-16 pt performances.

**1997: 8 games | Pippen had a 26 point game, Kukoc an 18 point game, 24 point game, Longley had two 16 point games

1998: 8 games | Pippen had a 29 point game , Kukoc had a 21 and 19 point game, Longley a 21 and 16 point game

Chicago's records during this time:

1991: 11-1 (faced 5 playoff teams, rest were terrible)
1992: 8-0 (faced 4 playoff teams, 4 terrible teams)
1993: 8-0 (faced 1 playoff team)
1995: 6-0 (faced 4 playoff teams, but two of them were against the 36 win Celtics)
1996: 21-1 when MJ took less than 20 FGA
1997: 7-1 (All playoff teams with the exception of one)
1998: 8-0 (2 of the 8 teams were playoff teams)

A further look with MJ's FGA using 20 more or less FGA:

'91 >20 FGA: 42-20
'91 <20 FGA: 19-1

'92 >20 FGA: 43-13
'92 <20 FGA: 24-0

'93 >20 FGA: 48-22
'93 <20 FGA: 8-0

'95 >20 FGA: 7-4
'95 <20 FGA: 6-0

'96 >20 FGA: 51-9
'96 <20 FGA: 21-1

'97 >20 FGA: 49-11
'97 <20 FGA: 21-2

'98 >20 FGA: 45-17
'98 <20 FGA: 17-3

MJ '91-'98 >20 FGA: 285-96 (.748%)
MJ '91-'98 <20 FGA: 116-7 (.945%)

My take: Jordan was a ball hog. Chicago would have done better in the regular season with him shooting less. I mean got damn...they won 95% of their games when MJ shot the ball 19 or fewer times. These numbers are utterly staggering. Chicago might have had a couple 80 win seasons if Jordan used his teammates the way LeBron uses his.

At the same time, Chicago's cast wasn't producing the way that people are thinking. Judging from the samples where MJ generally shot less than 15 (and some less than 20) FGA a game, guys like Pippen, Grant, and Kukoc weren't blowing up the box score.

So both are true. Chicago's cast wasn't great offensively, but at the same time, MJ didn't maximize the talents and abilities of his teammates. I feel Kukoc could have been used more, as well as Paxon, Armstrong, and Longley. i don't think Pippen would have done more. 1994 and 1995 pretty much proved that.






*1993 and 1995 I used fewer than 20 FGA since the data sample was small with 15 or fewer FGA.

*1997 I used 16 FGA or fewer cause it was only three games with 15 or fewer, but I got lazy and didn't wanna use all less than 20 since it was 22 games in total lol

Wow. This post is a thing of beauty. Awesome post.

And yes. Outside Jordan, the Bulls didn't have guys that were gonna light it up. Even Pippen wasnt a world beater when it comes to scoring the ball. He was very good, but thats at his best. That's why I've always maintained that impact is much more important than Stats.

[HoopsNY]

Wow. This post is a thing of beauty. Awesome post.

And yes. Outside Jordan, the Bulls didn't have guys that were gonna light it up. Even Pippen wasnt a world beater when it comes to scoring the ball. He was very good, but thats at his best. That's why I've always maintained that impact is much more important than Stats.

Insomnia is a biatch. But it's a Friday night for us married with children folk. I figured, hey, why not let me look at this 'ish up. ISH can thank me later (or never).

3ball is gonna be fuming now. I wonder how he's gonna get out of this one knowing his idol actually took away from even greater success.

[HoopsNY]

Hey 97, it gets even better....here's the playoff numbers...

MJ '91-'98 w/20+ FGA: 77-29 (.726%) | 33.8 PPG

MJ '91-'98 w/-20 FGA: 18-2 (.900%) | 25.4 PPG

Oh 3balllll....where are youuuuu......dumbass :lol

[97 bulls]

Hey 97, it gets even better....here's the playoff numbers...

MJ '91-'98 w/20+ FGA: 77-29 (.726%) | 33.8 PPG

MJ '91-'98 w/-20 FGA: 18-2 (.900%) | 25.4 PPG

Oh 3balllll....where are youuuuu......dumbass :lol

Lol. He won't show up here any more. You closed this thread down bro.

[RRR3]

I'm going through each season to see how MJ's teammates did when he attempted 15 or fewer FGA (ended up using a few seasons with less than 16 or 20 FGA):

1991: 12 games | Only 2 players had games with more than 22 points (Paxson 26, Pippen 28). Grant was mostly between 6-17 points.

1992: 8 games | Pippen had two 23 point games, a 27 and 29 point game, BJ had a 16 and 18 pt game, Grant was again between 6-17 points.

*1993: 8 games | More of the same

*1995: 6 games | Pippen had one 29 point game, Kukoc had 20, 16, and 19 point games

1996: 6 games | Pippen had a 30, 27, and 22 pt game, the rest were pretty bad; rest of the cast was more of the same, 10-16 pt performances.

**1997: 8 games | Pippen had a 26 point game, Kukoc an 18 point game, 24 point game, Longley had two 16 point games

1998: 8 games | Pippen had a 29 point game , Kukoc had a 21 and 19 point game, Longley a 21 and 16 point game

Chicago's records during this time:

1991: 11-1 (faced 5 playoff teams, rest were terrible)
1992: 8-0 (faced 4 playoff teams, 4 terrible teams)
1993: 8-0 (faced 1 playoff team)
1995: 6-0 (faced 4 playoff teams, but two of them were against the 36 win Celtics)
1996: 21-1 when MJ took less than 20 FGA
1997: 7-1 (All playoff teams with the exception of one)
1998: 8-0 (2 of the 8 teams were playoff teams)

A further look with MJ's FGA using 20 more or less FGA:

'91 >20 FGA: 42-20
'91 <20 FGA: 19-1

'92 >20 FGA: 43-13
'92 <20 FGA: 24-0

'93 >20 FGA: 48-22
'93 <20 FGA: 8-0

'95 >20 FGA: 7-4
'95 <20 FGA: 6-0

'96 >20 FGA: 51-9
'96 <20 FGA: 21-1

'97 >20 FGA: 49-11
'97 <20 FGA: 21-2

'98 >20 FGA: 45-17
'98 <20 FGA: 17-3

MJ '91-'98 >20 FGA: 285-96 (.748%)
MJ '91-'98 <20 FGA: 116-7 (.945%)

My take: Jordan was a ball hog. Chicago would have done better in the regular season with him shooting less. I mean got damn...they won 95% of their games when MJ shot the ball 19 or fewer times. These numbers are utterly staggering. Chicago might have had a couple 80 win seasons if Jordan used his teammates the way LeBron uses his.

At the same time, Chicago's cast wasn't producing the way that people are thinking. Judging from the samples where MJ generally shot less than 15 (and some less than 20) FGA a game, guys like Pippen, Grant, and Kukoc weren't blowing up the box score.

So both are true. Chicago's cast wasn't great offensively, but at the same time, MJ didn't maximize the talents and abilities of his teammates. I feel Kukoc could have been used more, as well as Paxon, Armstrong, and Longley. i don't think Pippen would have done more. 1994 and 1995 pretty much proved that.






*1993 and 1995 I used fewer than 20 FGA since the data sample was small with 15 or fewer FGA.

*1997 I used 16 FGA or fewer cause it was only three games with 15 or fewer, but I got lazy and didn't wanna use all less than 20 since it was 22 games in total lol
I’m legitimately not sure 80 wins is possible without an absolutely comically lopsided edge in talent due to simple variance. Still very interesting data, thanks for posting. Despite what 3ball will think it doesn’t take away from MJ’a GOAT case, it’s literally just interesting info. 3ball will respond with an essay on why LeBron is the worst player ever like he usually does when he’s faced with something he can’t actually argue with.

[sdot_thadon]

I'm going through each season to see how MJ's teammates did when he attempted 15 or fewer FGA (ended up using a few seasons with less than 16 or 20 FGA):

1991: 12 games | Only 2 players had games with more than 22 points (Paxson 26, Pippen 28). Grant was mostly between 6-17 points.

1992: 8 games | Pippen had two 23 point games, a 27 and 29 point game, BJ had a 16 and 18 pt game, Grant was again between 6-17 points.

*1993: 8 games | More of the same

*1995: 6 games | Pippen had one 29 point game, Kukoc had 20, 16, and 19 point games

1996: 6 games | Pippen had a 30, 27, and 22 pt game, the rest were pretty bad; rest of the cast was more of the same, 10-16 pt performances.

**1997: 8 games | Pippen had a 26 point game, Kukoc an 18 point game, 24 point game, Longley had two 16 point games

1998: 8 games | Pippen had a 29 point game , Kukoc had a 21 and 19 point game, Longley a 21 and 16 point game

Chicago's records during this time:

1991: 11-1 (faced 5 playoff teams, rest were terrible)
1992: 8-0 (faced 4 playoff teams, 4 terrible teams)
1993: 8-0 (faced 1 playoff team)
1995: 6-0 (faced 4 playoff teams, but two of them were against the 36 win Celtics)
1996: 21-1 when MJ took less than 20 FGA
1997: 7-1 (All playoff teams with the exception of one)
1998: 8-0 (2 of the 8 teams were playoff teams)

A further look with MJ's FGA using 20 more or less FGA:

'91 >20 FGA: 42-20
'91 <20 FGA: 19-1

'92 >20 FGA: 43-13
'92 <20 FGA: 24-0

'93 >20 FGA: 48-22
'93 <20 FGA: 8-0

'95 >20 FGA: 7-4
'95 <20 FGA: 6-0

'96 >20 FGA: 51-9
'96 <20 FGA: 21-1

'97 >20 FGA: 49-11
'97 <20 FGA: 21-2

'98 >20 FGA: 45-17
'98 <20 FGA: 17-3

MJ '91-'98 >20 FGA: 285-96 (.748%)
MJ '91-'98 <20 FGA: 116-7 (.945%)

My take: Jordan was a ball hog. Chicago would have done better in the regular season with him shooting less. I mean got damn...they won 95% of their games when MJ shot the ball 19 or fewer times. These numbers are utterly staggering. Chicago might have had a couple 80 win seasons if Jordan used his teammates the way LeBron uses his.

At the same time, Chicago's cast wasn't producing the way that people are thinking. Judging from the samples where MJ generally shot less than 15 (and some less than 20) FGA a game, guys like Pippen, Grant, and Kukoc weren't blowing up the box score.

So both are true. Chicago's cast wasn't great offensively, but at the same time, MJ didn't maximize the talents and abilities of his teammates. I feel Kukoc could have been used more, as well as Paxon, Armstrong, and Longley. i don't think Pippen would have done more. 1994 and 1995 pretty much proved that.






*1993 and 1995 I used fewer than 20 FGA since the data sample was small with 15 or fewer FGA.

*1997 I used 16 FGA or fewer cause it was only three games with 15 or fewer, but I got lazy and didn't wanna use all less than 20 since it was 22 games in total lol

Well, Ho-ly shit if you didn't prove a few hunches far beyond what i thought. Good stuff man, married folk friday is a thing i can confirm that. He's gonna abandon ship on this one.

[HoopsNY]

I’m legitimately not sure 80 wins is possible without an absolutely comically lopsided edge in talent due to simple variance. Still very interesting data, thanks for posting. Despite what 3ball will think it doesn’t take away from MJ’a GOAT case, it’s literally just interesting info. 3ball will respond with an essay on why LeBron is the worst player ever like he usually does when he’s faced with something he can’t actually argue with.

Yea, a bit of hyperbole on my part there. But I'm guessing if they were able to win an average of 66 wins in the two three-peats, then it's very likely they average maybe 70-71 wins if MJ shoots less and distributes more. He was certainly capable of it as evidenced by the first three-peat, especially in the finals.

[HoopsNY]

Well, Ho-ly shit if you didn't prove a few hunches far beyond what i thought. Good stuff man, married folk friday is a thing i can confirm that. He's gonna abandon ship on this one.

Thanks brody. There just isn't any other way of explaining. Chicago's success is far exceeding when MJ shot the ball less. Now I do admit that there are several other factors to consider. Maybe his teammates were off those games? We'd have to go in and see how his teammates did in comparison to him during that time.

Intuition tells me that his teammates were no better or worse when he shot the ball more. It's just what he did. The sample is also immense, spanning about 500 games, so there has to be some credence to it.

3ball always acts like MJ had to shoot that many times....maybe he did, maybe he didn't. The fact remains is that Chicago was almost unbeatable when he shot less. So even if his teammates couldn't give him "25-30 PPG", then it doesn't matter. Chicago had a better winning formula despite that.

[RRR3]

Thanks brody. There just isn't any other way of explaining. Chicago's success is far exceeding when MJ shot the ball less. Now I do admit that there are several other factors to consider. Maybe his teammates were off those games? We'd have to go in and see how his teammates did in comparison to him during that time.

Intuition tells me that his teammates were no better or worse when he shot the ball more. It's just what he did. The sample is also immense, spanning about 500 games, so there has to be some credence to it.

3ball always acts like MJ had to shoot that many times....maybe he did, maybe he didn't. The fact remains is that Chicago was almost unbeatable when he shot less. So even if his teammates couldn't give him "25-30 PPG", then it doesn't matter. Chicago had a better winning formula despite that.
He thinks players suck if they don’t score 20 PPG. Hence why he dismisses Horace Grant as a scrub. Hell he recently said Al Horford was a bum which is absurd.

[Phoenix]

I'm going through each season to see how MJ's teammates did when he attempted 15 or fewer FGA (ended up using a few seasons with less than 16 or 20 FGA):

1991: 12 games | Only 2 players had games with more than 22 points (Paxson 26, Pippen 28). Grant was mostly between 6-17 points.

1992: 8 games | Pippen had two 23 point games, a 27 and 29 point game, BJ had a 16 and 18 pt game, Grant was again between 6-17 points.

*1993: 8 games | More of the same

*1995: 6 games | Pippen had one 29 point game, Kukoc had 20, 16, and 19 point games

1996: 6 games | Pippen had a 30, 27, and 22 pt game, the rest were pretty bad; rest of the cast was more of the same, 10-16 pt performances.

**1997: 8 games | Pippen had a 26 point game, Kukoc an 18 point game, 24 point game, Longley had two 16 point games

1998: 8 games | Pippen had a 29 point game , Kukoc had a 21 and 19 point game, Longley a 21 and 16 point game

Chicago's records during this time:

1991: 11-1 (faced 5 playoff teams, rest were terrible)
1992: 8-0 (faced 4 playoff teams, 4 terrible teams)
1993: 8-0 (faced 1 playoff team)
1995: 6-0 (faced 4 playoff teams, but two of them were against the 36 win Celtics)
1996: 21-1 when MJ took less than 20 FGA
1997: 7-1 (All playoff teams with the exception of one)
1998: 8-0 (2 of the 8 teams were playoff teams)

A further look with MJ's FGA using 20 more or less FGA:

'91 >20 FGA: 42-20
'91 <20 FGA: 19-1

'92 >20 FGA: 43-13
'92 <20 FGA: 24-0

'93 >20 FGA: 48-22
'93 <20 FGA: 8-0

'95 >20 FGA: 7-4
'95 <20 FGA: 6-0

'96 >20 FGA: 51-9
'96 <20 FGA: 21-1

'97 >20 FGA: 49-11
'97 <20 FGA: 21-2

'98 >20 FGA: 45-17
'98 <20 FGA: 17-3

MJ '91-'98 >20 FGA: 285-96 (.748%)
MJ '91-'98 <20 FGA: 116-7 (.945%)

My take: Jordan was a ball hog. Chicago would have done better in the regular season with him shooting less. I mean got damn...they won 95% of their games when MJ shot the ball 19 or fewer times. These numbers are utterly staggering. Chicago might have had a couple 80 win seasons if Jordan used his teammates the way LeBron uses his.

At the same time, Chicago's cast wasn't producing the way that people are thinking. Judging from the samples where MJ generally shot less than 15 (and some less than 20) FGA a game, guys like Pippen, Grant, and Kukoc weren't blowing up the box score.

So both are true. Chicago's cast wasn't great offensively, but at the same time, MJ didn't maximize the talents and abilities of his teammates. I feel Kukoc could have been used more, as well as Paxon, Armstrong, and Longley. i don't think Pippen would have done more. 1994 and 1995 pretty much proved that.






*1993 and 1995 I used fewer than 20 FGA since the data sample was small with 15 or fewer FGA.

*1997 I used 16 FGA or fewer cause it was only three games with 15 or fewer, but I got lazy and didn't wanna use all less than 20 since it was 22 games in total lol

Great post, and far more effort than this topic( and the thread creator specifically) deserves. Your 80 win take is a bit over the top but its not hard to extrapolate that they'd have crossed the 70 win line in 92 and been north of 75 wins in 96 and 97.

[FilmyCogTurner]

Harper was severely diminished by the time he arrived in Chicago the same way that Penny in Phoenix was not the same Penny as in Orlando and that's not a diss towards Harp he was always locked in on D and contributed offensively in his selective ways. If Harper had more to give we would have seen way more scoring outbursts based off sheer talent alone but he was not the same player he was in LA, not even close. Look at 98 with Pip refusing surgery. If Harper is as good as you guys seem to think he would have been utilized as 2A or 2B next to Rodman. It didn't happen and the Bulls would have taken scoring from the popcorn vendor if he could provide it.

You guys forget basketball is not played through the stat sheet. It tells you a lot but in no way does it give you the full story.

[HoopsNY]

Great post, and far more effort than this topic( and the thread creator specifically) deserves. Your 80 win take is a bit over the top but its not hard to extrapolate that they'd have crossed the 70 win line in 92 and been north of 75 wins in 96 and 97.

Yea, I admit that the 80 win mark is exaggerated, but it drove home the point. Chicago won 95% of their games when MJ shot the ball less than 20 times a game. They did similar in the postseason (90%). It's obvious that this cast made up of guys like Pippen, Kukoc, Rodman, Grant, Armstrong, and Paxson was so potent that most guys would have won in his place.

[97 bulls]

Harper was severely diminished by the time he arrived in Chicago the same way that Penny in Phoenix was not the same Penny as in Orlando and that's not a diss towards Harp he was always locked in on D and contributed offensively in his selective ways. If Harper had more to give we would have seen way more scoring outbursts based off sheer talent alone but he was not the same player he was in LA, not even close. Look at 98 with Pip refusing surgery. If Harper is as good as you guys seem to think he would have been utilized as 2A or 2B next to Rodman. It didn't happen and the Bulls would have taken scoring from the popcorn vendor if he could provide it.

You guys forget basketball is not played through the stat sheet. It tells you a lot but in no way does it give you the full story.

Harper wasn't "severely" diminished when he joined the Bulls. His role changed. The year before he joined the Bulls, he was a 20ppg scorer. But he was more of a focal point on offense in LA, and the Clippers didn't run the same offense as the Bulls.

[RRR3]

Yea, I admit that the 80 win mark is exaggerated, but it drove home the point. Chicago won 95% of their games when MJ shot the ball less than 20 times a game. They did similar in the postseason (90%). It's obvious that this cast made up of guys like Pippen, Kukoc, Rodman, Grant, Armstrong, and Paxson was so potent that most guys would have won in his place.
Only MJ could have won on the Bulls. Pippen’s weak, trash jump-shooting no skill style required a deadly iso scorer to carry the load. Otoh, LeBron is the worst player ever and was carried by Wade, Kyrie and AD because he lacks elite jump shooting skill.

[FilmyCogTurner]

Harper wasn't "severely" diminished when he joined the Bulls. His role changed. The year before he joined the Bulls, he was a 20ppg scorer. But he was more of a focal point on offense in LA, and the Clippers didn't run the same offense as the Bulls.

Yes he was. Compared to the athletic scorer he was before the knee injury and coupled with already have 10 years in the league meant it was time to change his role and reduce it.

Some players are out of the league period due to injuries but he was able to make it work as a 4-5th type option.

[3ba11]

I'm going through each season to see how MJ's teammates did when he attempted 15 or fewer FGA (ended up using a few seasons with less than 16 or 20 FGA):

1991: 12 games | Only 2 players had games with more than 22 points (Paxson 26, Pippen 28). Grant was mostly between 6-17 points.

1992: 8 games | Pippen had two 23 point games, a 27 and 29 point game, BJ had a 16 and 18 pt game, Grant was again between 6-17 points.

*1993: 8 games | More of the same

*1995: 6 games | Pippen had one 29 point game, Kukoc had 20, 16, and 19 point games

1996: 6 games | Pippen had a 30, 27, and 22 pt game, the rest were pretty bad; rest of the cast was more of the same, 10-16 pt performances.

**1997: 8 games | Pippen had a 26 point game, Kukoc an 18 point game, 24 point game, Longley had two 16 point games

1998: 8 games | Pippen had a 29 point game , Kukoc had a 21 and 19 point game, Longley a 21 and 16 point game

Chicago's records during this time:

1991: 11-1 (faced 5 playoff teams, rest were terrible)
1992: 8-0 (faced 4 playoff teams, 4 terrible teams)
1993: 8-0 (faced 1 playoff team)
1995: 6-0 (faced 4 playoff teams, but two of them were against the 36 win Celtics)
1996: 21-1 when MJ took less than 20 FGA
1997: 7-1 (All playoff teams with the exception of one)
1998: 8-0 (2 of the 8 teams were playoff teams)

A further look with MJ's FGA using 20 more or less FGA:

'91 >20 FGA: 42-20
'91 <20 FGA: 19-1

'92 >20 FGA: 43-13
'92 <20 FGA: 24-0

'93 >20 FGA: 48-22
'93 <20 FGA: 8-0

'95 >20 FGA: 7-4
'95 <20 FGA: 6-0

'96 >20 FGA: 51-9
'96 <20 FGA: 21-1

'97 >20 FGA: 49-11
'97 <20 FGA: 21-2

'98 >20 FGA: 45-17
'98 <20 FGA: 17-3

MJ '91-'98 >20 FGA: 285-96 (.748%)
MJ '91-'98 <20 FGA: 116-7 (.945%)

My take: Jordan was a ball hog. Chicago would have done better in the regular season with him shooting less. I mean got damn...they won 95% of their games when MJ shot the ball 19 or fewer times. These numbers are utterly staggering. Chicago might have had a couple 80 win seasons if Jordan used his teammates the way LeBron uses his.

At the same time, Chicago's cast wasn't producing the way that people are thinking. Judging from the samples where MJ generally shot less than 15 (and some less than 20) FGA a game, guys like Pippen, Grant, and Kukoc weren't blowing up the box score.

So both are true. Chicago's cast wasn't great offensively, but at the same time, MJ didn't maximize the talents and abilities of his teammates. I feel Kukoc could have been used more, as well as Paxon, Armstrong, and Longley. i don't think Pippen would have done more. 1994 and 1995 pretty much proved that.






*1993 and 1995 I used fewer than 20 FGA since the data sample was small with 15 or fewer FGA.

*1997 I used 16 FGA or fewer cause it was only three games with 15 or fewer, but I got lazy and didn't wanna use all less than 20 since it was 22 games in total lol


Yes MJ was a smart player that shot less when teammates had it going and he was literally unbeatable with this caliber of help that everyone else in the league enjoys.

The rest of the time (the vast majority), MJ had to shoot unprecedented amounts and still had a pretty impressive record despite the goat carry-job volume

So your data makes my point - Jordan could shoot less with teammates that stepped up and was virtually unbeatable with this kind of real help that didn't require him to shoot goat amounts.

Btw, everyone played to within 90% of their career highs (capacity) alongside Jordan - this fact (the cast playing to capacity) along with Pippen's worst-ever efficiency confirms that the cast couldn't handle a bigger burden, in addition to zero cast members stepping up to a dominant level in any series (0/37)

[dankok8]

Yea, I admit that the 80 win mark is exaggerated, but it drove home the point. Chicago won 95% of their games when MJ shot the ball less than 20 times a game. They did similar in the postseason (90%). It's obvious that this cast made up of guys like Pippen, Kukoc, Rodman, Grant, Armstrong, and Paxson was so potent that most guys would have won in his place.

It's a really interesting finding.

There could be more to the story. A lot of those games could have been blowout wins and since MJ generally shot much more in the 4th quarter, that could have been the reason why he tended to shoot less in wins. Because it wasn't needed.

I think it's hard to say if the Bulls would have been better or worse if MJ shot less. If he shot less, he would have also attracted fewer defensive attention which would have instead been focused on his teammates which could drive their shooting percentages down. I don't know. Basketball isn't played in a vacuum.

[3ba11]

If he shot less, he would have also attracted fewer defensive attention which would have instead been focused on his teammates which could drive their shooting percentages down. I don't know. Basketball isn't played in a vacuum.


In the 93' Finals, the Bulls and Suns averaged exactly 106.7 ppg and 113.0 ORTG, while Pippen shot 46% true shooting - so who should shoot more over Jordan???

It can't be Pippen because his efficiency is already worst-ever... So you're saying that Paxson or Horace should take shots from Jordan?

Lebron fans have just made up a bunch of nonsensical stuff and this one takes the cake (that Jordan could've shot less and still won, or that Jordan was scoring champ because he shot the most or "wanted to", not needed to)

[RRR3]

HoopsNY is a LeBron fan now. 3ball is dumber than a lamppost.

[97 bulls]

It's a really interesting finding.

There could be more to the story. A lot of those games could have been blowout wins and since MJ generally shot much more in the 4th quarter, that could have been the reason why he tended to shoot less in wins. Because it wasn't needed.

I think it's hard to say if the Bulls would have been better or worse if MJ shot less. If he shot less, he would have also attracted fewer defensive attention which would have instead been focused on his teammates which could drive their shooting percentages down. I don't know. Basketball isn't played in a vacuum.

You have a point, but let's not forget that without MJ, the Bulls won 55 games. And that's with Pippen missing 10 games in which they went 4-6. So the Bulls were just that good.

The information Hoops put out combined with the Bulls 94 season shows that they didn't need MJ to score 30 a night to dominate. Hell even the 95 season without Grant and Mj and the Bulls were still won 52% of their games.

[SouBeachTalents]

I'm going through each season to see how MJ's teammates did when he attempted 15 or fewer FGA (ended up using a few seasons with less than 16 or 20 FGA):

1991: 12 games | Only 2 players had games with more than 22 points (Paxson 26, Pippen 28). Grant was mostly between 6-17 points.

1992: 8 games | Pippen had two 23 point games, a 27 and 29 point game, BJ had a 16 and 18 pt game, Grant was again between 6-17 points.

*1993: 8 games | More of the same

*1995: 6 games | Pippen had one 29 point game, Kukoc had 20, 16, and 19 point games

1996: 6 games | Pippen had a 30, 27, and 22 pt game, the rest were pretty bad; rest of the cast was more of the same, 10-16 pt performances.

**1997: 8 games | Pippen had a 26 point game, Kukoc an 18 point game, 24 point game, Longley had two 16 point games

1998: 8 games | Pippen had a 29 point game , Kukoc had a 21 and 19 point game, Longley a 21 and 16 point game

Chicago's records during this time:

1991: 11-1 (faced 5 playoff teams, rest were terrible)
1992: 8-0 (faced 4 playoff teams, 4 terrible teams)
1993: 8-0 (faced 1 playoff team)
1995: 6-0 (faced 4 playoff teams, but two of them were against the 36 win Celtics)
1996: 21-1 when MJ took less than 20 FGA
1997: 7-1 (All playoff teams with the exception of one)
1998: 8-0 (2 of the 8 teams were playoff teams)

A further look with MJ's FGA using 20 more or less FGA:

'91 >20 FGA: 42-20
'91 <20 FGA: 19-1

'92 >20 FGA: 43-13
'92 <20 FGA: 24-0

'93 >20 FGA: 48-22
'93 <20 FGA: 8-0

'95 >20 FGA: 7-4
'95 <20 FGA: 6-0

'96 >20 FGA: 51-9
'96 <20 FGA: 21-1

'97 >20 FGA: 49-11
'97 <20 FGA: 21-2

'98 >20 FGA: 45-17
'98 <20 FGA: 17-3

MJ '91-'98 >20 FGA: 285-96 (.748%)
MJ '91-'98 <20 FGA: 116-7 (.945%)

My take: Jordan was a ball hog. Chicago would have done better in the regular season with him shooting less. I mean got damn...they won 95% of their games when MJ shot the ball 19 or fewer times. These numbers are utterly staggering. Chicago might have had a couple 80 win seasons if Jordan used his teammates the way LeBron uses his.

At the same time, Chicago's cast wasn't producing the way that people are thinking. Judging from the samples where MJ generally shot less than 15 (and some less than 20) FGA a game, guys like Pippen, Grant, and Kukoc weren't blowing up the box score.

So both are true. Chicago's cast wasn't great offensively, but at the same time, MJ didn't maximize the talents and abilities of his teammates. I feel Kukoc could have been used more, as well as Paxon, Armstrong, and Longley. i don't think Pippen would have done more. 1994 and 1995 pretty much proved that.






*1993 and 1995 I used fewer than 20 FGA since the data sample was small with 15 or fewer FGA.

*1997 I used 16 FGA or fewer cause it was only three games with 15 or fewer, but I got lazy and didn't wanna use all less than 20 since it was 22 games in total lol

Added to the above...

Pippen >20 FGA '91-'93: 17-18 (26.4 PPG)

Pippen >20 FGA '94-'95: 16-17 (27.7 PPG)

Pippen >20 FGA: '96-'98: 26-3 (28.6 PPG)

Make of this what you will, but from 1991-95, Pippen put up 27 PPG but Chicago finished just 33-35 when he did. Then from 1996-98, Chicago dominated where he put up almost 29 PPG. To be fair, Chicago was winning almost every game those years (1996-98). Chicago went 172-31 in the games Pippen played those years, an .847%.

Hey 97, it gets even better....here's the playoff numbers...

MJ '91-'98 w/20+ FGA: 77-29 (.726%) | 33.8 PPG

MJ '91-'98 w/-20 FGA: 18-2 (.900%) | 25.4 PPG

Oh 3balllll....where are youuuuu......dumbass :lol
Jesus Christ. You just rendered OP's lifework meaningless :lol

[StrongLurk]

OP is just so soft..like the softest a person can be. Soft incarnate.

[97 bulls]

Jesus Christ. You just rendered OP's lifework meaningless :lol

Yeah, that's arguably the greatest ether I've ever seen.

[HoopsNY]

It's a really interesting finding.

There could be more to the story. A lot of those games could have been blowout wins and since MJ generally shot much more in the 4th quarter, that could have been the reason why he tended to shoot less in wins. Because it wasn't needed.

I think it's hard to say if the Bulls would have been better or worse if MJ shot less. If he shot less, he would have also attracted fewer defensive attention which would have instead been focused on his teammates which could drive their shooting percentages down. I don't know. Basketball isn't played in a vacuum.

I'd have to take a look, but the sample is so large that it has to account for such games. I think Chicago does do better if MJ doesn't shoot >20 FGA per game. But what does that result in anyway? They won 6 titles in 7 years. I don't think they win if he shoots less in 1995.

[HoopsNY]

Yes MJ was a smart player that shot less when teammates had it going and he was literally unbeatable with this caliber of help that everyone else in the league enjoys.

The rest of the time (the vast majority), MJ had to shoot unprecedented amounts and still had a pretty impressive record despite the goat carry-job volume

So your data makes my point - Jordan could shoot less with teammates that stepped up and was virtually unbeatable with this kind of real help that didn't require him to shoot goat amounts.

Btw, everyone played to within 90% of their career highs (capacity) alongside Jordan - this fact (the cast playing to capacity) along with Pippen's worst-ever efficiency confirms that the cast couldn't handle a bigger burden, in addition to zero cast members stepping up to a dominant level in any series (0/37)

Really? That's what you got from this? A team that goes 116-7 (a near perfect record) when MJ shot less didn't need him to shoot as much as he did. That's just a statistical fact, and there simply is no way around it.

There's no reason why Pippen couldn't average 22-23 PPG from '91-'93. There's no reason why Kukoc couldn't average 18 PPG from '96-'98. Grant could have averaged 15-16 PPG as well. The inhibitor? MJ.

[HoopsNY]

HoopsNY is a LeBron fan now. 3ball is dumber than a lamppost.

I was always a LeBron fan. He's literally a top 5 player of all-time on an individual peak/prime level, and a top 2 player considering careers. Criticizing LeBron, MJ, or any other ATG doesn't mean you're a hater.

[RRR3]

I was always a LeBron fan. He's literally a top 5 player of all-time on an individual peak/prime level, and a top 2 player considering careers. Criticizing LeBron, MJ, or any other ATG doesn't mean you're a hater.
Well you’re not a fan in the sense 3ball meant it though. He is trying to paint you as a LeBron troll, which is what he does to anyone who disagrees with him even when it’s someone who doesn’t like LeBron (he’s so annoying even people who don’t like LeBron will tell him to shut up)

[SouBeachTalents]

I was always a LeBron fan. He's literally a top 5 player of all-time on an individual peak/prime level, and a top 2 player considering careers. Criticizing LeBron, MJ, or any other ATG doesn't mean you're a hater.
I'm curious, which of these guys doesn't make your top 5 peaks. LeBron & Jordan are there, which of these bigs is the odd man out; Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem, Wilt. Personally, I have a hell of a time leaving one of these guys out.

[sdot_thadon]

I was always a LeBron fan. He's literally a top 5 player of all-time on an individual peak/prime level, and a top 2 player considering careers. Criticizing LeBron, MJ, or any other ATG doesn't mean you're a hater.

In a guy like 3ball's mind its impossible to be a fan of both guys apparently. But hes been the boards personal piñata for some time now, I believe he's a glutton for punishment.

[sdot_thadon]

Yes he was. Compared to the athletic scorer he was before the knee injury and coupled with already have 10 years in the league meant it was time to change his role and reduce it.

Some players are out of the league period due to injuries but he was able to make it work as a 4-5th type option.

Nah buddy, bs narrative that's unnecessary. He injured his knee in 1990, the 4 seasons following the injury he put up:

1991: 19.6ppg
1992: 18.2ppg
1993: 18.0ppg
1994: 20.1ppg

Then all of a sudden in 95 he only takes 6 fga a game. He was needed to fit into a role he had never filled, and he struggled just as we've seen several other 1st options be unable to take diminished roles and be successful.

[Phoenix]

In a guy like 3ball's mind its impossible to be a fan of both guys apparently. But hes been the boards personal piñata for some time now, I believe he's a glutton for punishment.

I like MJ, Lebron and Kobe, at different levels. Most of this board can't fathom that concept.

[97 bulls]

Nah buddy, bs narrative that's unnecessary. He injured his knee in 1990, the 4 seasons following the injury he put up:

1991: 19.6ppg
1992: 18.2ppg
1993: 18.0ppg
1994: 20.1ppg

Then all of a sudden in 95 he only takes 6 fga a game. He was needed to fit into a role he had never filled, and he struggled just as we've seen several other 1st options be unable to take diminished roles and be successful.

Exactly. I don't see why people don't get this.

[FilmyCogTurner]

Nah buddy, bs narrative that's unnecessary. He injured his knee in 1990, the 4 seasons following the injury he put up:

1991: 19.6ppg
1992: 18.2ppg
1993: 18.0ppg
1994: 20.1ppg

Then all of a sudden in 95 he only takes 6 fga a game. He was needed to fit into a role he had never filled, and he struggled just as we've seen several other 1st options be unable to take diminished roles and be successful.

You see those numbers ticking upwards? That also accounts for age also. Sure, Harper probably more to give in Chicago but by not as much as you claim. He had 10 years in the league already on a pretty serious knee injury, a modification to his game was needed.

And I would say those numbers would be slightly inflated from having an ultimate green light on the Clippers the same way Ron Mercer saw his scoring averages increase while play for Chicago.

[sdot_thadon]

You see those numbers ticking upwards? That also accounts for age also. Sure, Harper probably more to give in Chicago but by not as much as you claim. He had 10 years in the league already on a pretty serious knee injury, a modification to his game was needed.

And I would say those numbers would be slightly inflated from having an ultimate green light on the Clippers the same way Ron Mercer saw his scoring averages increase while play for Chicago.

I mean you have the numbers in your face, I'm not sure how else for you to get the point. His numbers were inflated by an "ultimate green light" where his fga hovered in pippens territory as Mjs 2nd option aside from one year where he got 19 a game.. Ha, ultimate green light tho. More like an 11 shots per game reduction in his opportunities because that's how Phil saw it. Phil had a habit of telling guys you're here to do this, don't worry about the other stuff. I'm sure there's probably a quote out there somewhere about Ron.


“I didn’t complain last year,” Harper said in 1996, according to the Chicago Tribune. “I just knew I had to learn a lot. I know I’ve grown since last season. My attitude has changed. I know some players in this league probably couldn’t change the way they used to do things. I just wanted to be part of a championship team.”


A trade to the Los Angeles Clippers and knee surgery changed Harper's career, even though two years ago he still averaged 20 points.Signed as a big-bucks free agent by the Bulls last season, he had the most frustrating experience as a pro, struggling with a new system and style of play.

[FilmyCogTurner]

I mean you have the numbers in your face, I'm not sure how else for you to get the point. His numbers were inflated by an "ultimate green light" where his fga hovered in pippens territory as Mjs 2nd option aside from one year where he got 19 a game.. Ha, ultimate green light tho. More like an 11 shots per game reduction in his opportunities because that's how Phil saw it. Phil had a habit of telling guys you're here to do this, don't worry about the other stuff. I'm sure there's probably a quote out there somewhere about Ron.

I also have the games right in front of my face.

And I would have to say that Phil Jackson and Winters got it right that Harper would have to reduce his role in order to be truly effective on the team. Maybe not a 5th option type but as a 2nd or 3rd he wasn't that guy either.

[sdot_thadon]

I also have the games right in front of my face.

And I would have to say that Phil Jackson and Winters got it right that Harper would have to reduce his role in order to be truly effective on the team. Maybe not a 5th option type but as a 2nd or 3rd he wasn't that guy either.

If we're just going to ignore common sense I guess it is what it is. You have the numbers, you have the 1st hand accounts from some people who followed the team in real time. And lastly media quotes from the actual time frame it went down. If you still feel you got a better view if it despite all of that, more power to you. Just confirms something I figured was the case all along.

[3ba11]

Jesus Christ. You just rendered OP's lifework meaningless :lol


He made my point

He showed exactly how many games Jordan's teammates gave him viable help that didn't require Jordan to shoot goat amounts - Jordan was unbeatable the rare times he got this help, and was still phenomenal when carrying the load (the vast majority)

Jordan had to shoot goat amounts because he had horrible teammates

[1987_Lakers]

I'm going through each season to see how MJ's teammates did when he attempted 15 or fewer FGA (ended up using a few seasons with less than 16 or 20 FGA):

1991: 12 games | Only 2 players had games with more than 22 points (Paxson 26, Pippen 28). Grant was mostly between 6-17 points.

1992: 8 games | Pippen had two 23 point games, a 27 and 29 point game, BJ had a 16 and 18 pt game, Grant was again between 6-17 points.

*1993: 8 games | More of the same

*1995: 6 games | Pippen had one 29 point game, Kukoc had 20, 16, and 19 point games

1996: 6 games | Pippen had a 30, 27, and 22 pt game, the rest were pretty bad; rest of the cast was more of the same, 10-16 pt performances.

**1997: 8 games | Pippen had a 26 point game, Kukoc an 18 point game, 24 point game, Longley had two 16 point games

1998: 8 games | Pippen had a 29 point game , Kukoc had a 21 and 19 point game, Longley a 21 and 16 point game

Chicago's records during this time:

1991: 11-1 (faced 5 playoff teams, rest were terrible)
1992: 8-0 (faced 4 playoff teams, 4 terrible teams)
1993: 8-0 (faced 1 playoff team)
1995: 6-0 (faced 4 playoff teams, but two of them were against the 36 win Celtics)
1996: 21-1 when MJ took less than 20 FGA
1997: 7-1 (All playoff teams with the exception of one)
1998: 8-0 (2 of the 8 teams were playoff teams)

A further look with MJ's FGA using 20 more or less FGA:

'91 >20 FGA: 42-20
'91 <20 FGA: 19-1

'92 >20 FGA: 43-13
'92 <20 FGA: 24-0

'93 >20 FGA: 48-22
'93 <20 FGA: 8-0

'95 >20 FGA: 7-4
'95 <20 FGA: 6-0

'96 >20 FGA: 51-9
'96 <20 FGA: 21-1

'97 >20 FGA: 49-11
'97 <20 FGA: 21-2

'98 >20 FGA: 45-17
'98 <20 FGA: 17-3

MJ '91-'98 >20 FGA: 285-96 (.748%)
MJ '91-'98 <20 FGA: 116-7 (.945%)

My take: Jordan was a ball hog. Chicago would have done better in the regular season with him shooting less. I mean got damn...they won 95% of their games when MJ shot the ball 19 or fewer times. These numbers are utterly staggering. Chicago might have had a couple 80 win seasons if Jordan used his teammates the way LeBron uses his.

At the same time, Chicago's cast wasn't producing the way that people are thinking. Judging from the samples where MJ generally shot less than 15 (and some less than 20) FGA a game, guys like Pippen, Grant, and Kukoc weren't blowing up the box score.

So both are true. Chicago's cast wasn't great offensively, but at the same time, MJ didn't maximize the talents and abilities of his teammates. I feel Kukoc could have been used more, as well as Paxon, Armstrong, and Longley. i don't think Pippen would have done more. 1994 and 1995 pretty much proved that.






*1993 and 1995 I used fewer than 20 FGA since the data sample was small with 15 or fewer FGA.

*1997 I used 16 FGA or fewer cause it was only three games with 15 or fewer, but I got lazy and didn't wanna use all less than 20 since it was 22 games in total lol

3ball destroyed with this post.

[3ba11]

3ball destroyed with this post.



No, I responded

HoopsNY destroyed himself

And now you're insecure and copy pasting how often the Bulls cast sucked (the vast majority).. Whenever they didn't suck (rarely), Jordan was unbeatable

[3ba11]

Anything else guys or is it now even more clear how GOAT MJ is

[1987_Lakers]

No, I responded

HoopsNY destroyed himself

And now you're insecure and copy pasting how often the Bulls cast sucked (the vast majority).. Whenever they didn't suck (rarely), Jordan was unbeatable

Sorry bro, your response was weak. Eveyone here already acknowledged HoopsNY destroyed you, you are making yourself look very insecure at the moment.

Thanks to HoopsNY and videos from "Thinking basketball" recently, it is now confirmed MJ didn't win his titles on a "carry job" like you once believed.

You have been defeated.

[3ba11]

Sorry bro, your response was weak. Eveyone here already acknowledged HoopsNY destroyed you, you are making yourself look very insecure at the moment.

Thanks to HoopsNY and videos from "Thinking basketball" recently, it is now confirmed MJ didn't win his titles on a "carry job" like you once believed.

You have been defeated.


Anyone that responded thinking that HoopsNY did anything other than show how ridiculously-often Jordan had garbage help and had to shoot a lot - and had phenomenal records carrying this goat load - is dumb about this topic and likely basketball in general

He proved that Jordan won 6 chips by carrying goat loads, and was unbeatable the rare times he got regular help from teammates

But carry on.. I like ragdolling you guys

[1987_Lakers]

Anyone that responded thinking that HoopsNY did anything other than show how ridiculously-often Jordan had garbage help and had to shoot a lot - and had phenomenal records carrying this goat load - is dumb about this topic and likely basketball in general

He proved that Jordan won 6 chips by carrying goat loads, and was unbeatable the rare times he got regular help from teammates

But carry on.. I like ragdolling you guys

He proved the Bulls won more when he didn't ball hog.

Carry on.

[3ba11]

He proved the Bulls won more when he didn't ball hog.

Carry on.


He showed that his teammates rarely gave him help, so he had to shoot a lot and won 6 rings with no help - we know this is correct because the math adds up - teammates played to statistical capacity alongside him and didn't go bananas without him

And of course, the rare times Jordan got regular help and didn't have to shoot as much, he was unbeatable

[1987_Lakers]

He showed that his teammates rarely gave him help, so he had to shoot a lot and won 6 rings with no help - we know this is correct because the math adds up - teammates played to statistical capacity alongside him and didn't go bananas without him

And of course, the rare times Jordan got regular help and didn't have to shoot as much, he was unbeatable

Rarely gave him help yet they won 55 games without him. :yaohappy:

[3ba11]

Rarely gave him help yet they won 55 games without him. :yaohappy:


Due to brand of ball.. Brand of ball (strategy, chemistry) wins without talent

the Bulls won 55 with a low-efficiency, zero-clutch player at #1 option and a rebounder at 2nd option.. But they had 3-peat brand of ball (good brand and know-how takes time)...

Of course it was just a one-off where the Bulls played harder than everyone.. the REAL bulls without MJ were borderline lottery in 95' before MJ returned.. So Pippen destroyed a 3-peat dynasty in less than 18 months

[1987_Lakers]

Hey 97, it gets even better....here's the playoff numbers...

MJ '91-'98 w/20+ FGA: 77-29 (.726%) | 33.8 PPG

MJ '91-'98 w/-20 FGA: 18-2 (.900%) | 25.4 PPG

Oh 3balllll....where are youuuuu......dumbass :lol

I missed this one.

:yaohappy:

Bulls replaced MJ with Oubre and still played at a high level.

[3ba11]

I missed this one.

:yaohappy:

Bulls replaced MJ with Oubre and still played at a high level.


Wow, Jordan had to completely carry the team 73% of the time and was still 77-29, while going 18-2 the few times that his teammates allowed him to shoot under 20 times

Y'all dumb as shit but that's why I come on here

[1987_Lakers]

Wow, Jordan had to completely carry the team 73% of the time and was still 77-29, while going 18-2 the few times that his teammates allowed him to shoot under 20 times

Y'all dumb as shit but that's why I come on here
Meltdown.

Truth hurts.

:yaohappy:

[3ba11]

Meltdown.

Truth hurts.

:yaohappy:


but you are though

How long did HoopsNY do that research to show that MJ had good teammates, when the data shows how bad they were the vast majority of the time?

And how great MJ was at carry-jobs? (still had great records without teammate help)

Yet you guys come on here and think he posted something.. or you're pretending which is even worse. . So I'm just calling a spade a spade I'm afraid

[1987_Lakers]

but you are though

How long did HoopsNY do that research to show that MJ had good teammates, when the data shows how bad they were the vast majority of the time?

And how great MJ was at carry-jobs? (still had great records without teammate help)

Yet you guys come on here and think he posted something.. or you're pretending which is even worse. . So I'm just calling a spade a spade I'm afraid

Sorry bro, "thinking basketball" and HoopsNY came with facts and you came back with the same copy and paste posts you have been posting for years.


You lose.

[3ba11]

Sorry bro, "thinking basketball" and HoopsNY came with facts and you came back with the same copy and paste posts you have been posting for years.


You lose.


No copy and paste

This lie confirms your insecurity

I refuted both frauds and thoroughly disproved their assertions that MJ won because of good teammates.. He clearly didn't because Jordan had to carry them in every series and about 80% of games (if HoopsNY's stats are accurate)..

Meanwhile, Jordan's best casts from 91-93' were only 7th best in the league (75th percentile), while Lebron and Shaq needed stacked super-team and preseason favorite to win..

And Jordan's 2nd three-peat casts were horrible - the video didn't specify the percentile but none of the casts outscored opponents without MJ while absolutely killing opponents with him by goat amounts)

I can keep killing you all day

[FilmyCogTurner]

If we're just going to ignore common sense I guess it is what it is. You have the numbers, you have the 1st hand accounts from some people who followed the team in real time. And lastly media quotes from the actual time frame it went down. If you still feel you got a better view if it despite all of that, more power to you. Just confirms something I figured was the case all along.

Common sense is looking at a 7 PPG scorer and rendering that player as exactly that. A 7 points per game scorer.

And obviously the Bulls coaching staff felt the same way otherwise they would have utilized Harper with more touches.

You act as if he was some type of Manu Ginobili level type player that was forced into the last option of the Chicago starting five. Sacrifices would have to be made when joining a title contender from the bottom of the league barrel Clippers. No shit.

[sdot_thadon]

Common sense is looking at a 7 PPG scorer and rendering that player as exactly that. A 7 points per game scorer.

And obviously the Bulls coaching staff felt the same way otherwise they would have utilized Harper with more touches.

You act as if he was some type of Manu Ginobili level type player that was forced into the last option of the Chicago starting five. Sacrifices would have to be made when joining a title contender from the bottom of the league barrel Clippers. No shit.

Hate to say it, but I suppose you had to be there to understand...looking at numbers only 20 something years later when all the background info is readily available is silly.

[sdot_thadon]

No copy and paste

This lie confirms your insecurity

I refuted both frauds and thoroughly disproved their assertions that MJ won because of good teammates.. He clearly didn't because Jordan had to carry them in every series and about 80% of games (if HoopsNY's stats are accurate)..

Meanwhile, Jordan's best casts from 91-93' were only 7th best in the league (75th percentile), while Lebron and Shaq needed stacked super-team and preseason favorite to win..

And Jordan's 2nd three-peat casts were horrible - the video didn't specify the percentile but none of the casts outscored opponents without MJ while absolutely killing opponents with him by goat amounts)

I can keep killing you all day

Fantasy land. This is one of the absolute worst beatings I've seen you take in a thread, I mean holy busted pinata batman. I'm sure you've taken many more given your quantity over quality posting technique. But this is among the worst I've seen. Just stop while you're behind posting more won't hide the L we'll just keep requoting it.

[3ba11]

Fantasy land. This is one of the absolute worst beatings I've seen you take in a thread, I mean holy busted pinata batman. I'm sure you've taken many more given your quantity over quality posting technique. But this is among the worst I've seen. Just stop while you're behind posting more won't hide the L we'll just keep requoting it.


Your sound dumb and your refusal to answer the points I made reveals the truth

I refuted your points and you can't refute mine

Standard procedure

Another 3ball victory..

/Thread.

[sdot_thadon]

Your sound dumb and your refusal to answer the points I made reveals the truth

I refuted your points and you can't refute mine

Standard procedure

Another 3ball victory..

/Thread.

You never refute anything my man, it's your M.O. all you do is move the goalposts and claim you've won. Kinda silly way for an adult to operate don't ya think. Especially, considering the degree you've been annihilated the last few days. Lol sheesh

[3ba11]

You never refute anything my man, it's your M.O. all you do is move the goalposts and claim you've won. Kinda silly way for an adult to operate don't ya think. Especially, considering the degree you've been annihilated the last few days. Lol sheesh


It's all there - I refuted everything point by point and you stopped responding and resorted to deflections and bullshit

It's clear as day.. so if you aren't going to refute anything I say and I refuted everything you said.. then it's over... I win (3ball)

[sdot_thadon]

It's all there - I refuted everything point by point and you stopped responding and resorted to deflections and bullshit

It's clear as day.. so if you aren't going to refute anything I say and I refuted everything you said.. then it's over... I win (3ball)

No man, claiming numbers are fake because you don't understand them isn't refuting anything. It's just losing and being in denial over it.

[RRR3]

HoopsNY hit Snivelball with an absolute haymaker and he's still staggering around dazed :yaohappy:

[3ba11]

No man, claiming numbers are fake because you don't understand them isn't refuting anything. It's just losing and being in denial over it.


The numbers are fake until he proves that they're real

Show a source... Show your work

Otherwise the numbers are pie in the sky

And even if they're real, they show MJ is goat by three-peating with the 7th best cast in the league (75rh percentile) from 91-93'... Most winning casts are the best in the league like Lebron's super-teams and preseason favorites or Shaq's.

The 2nd three-peat casts are even worse but the video doesn't show those percentiles because it makes MJ look too good..

And the video shows that Jordan made the ECF with 0 percentile casts and raised 0 percentile casts to viable, while everyone else was gifted super-teams and never had to build anything

So you're just a liar because you were defeated.. you can't respond to any of this!!!

And the primary stat used in the video favors ball-centric players with a bad brand of ball that lowers teammate capacity.. You guys can't refute this - it's a garbage stat that penalizes players that are good enough to dominate within a good brand of ball that elevates teammate and yields good teams!!.. again, you have no answers except to deflect

[3ba11]

HoopsNY hit Snivelball with an absolute haymaker and he's still staggering around dazed :yaohappy:


HoopsNY is on the run because he wasted a bunch of time showing how bad Jordan's cast was and how much Jordan had to carry them

Other stars took less than 20 shots for entire seasons because they had good teammates, while Jordan rarely got to take less than 20 shots because his teammates sucked

It's funny how HoopsNY data ahows that MJ was unbeatable when he has enough help to take 20 ahots... So be could win with less shots, yet you guys said he couldn't

[RRR3]

HoopsNY is on the run because he wasted a bunch of time showing how bad Jordan's cast was and how much Jordan had to carry them
Literally everyone is laughing at how bad Hoops ethered you :oldlol:

You're sobbing rn

[sdot_thadon]

The numbers are fake until he proves that they're real

Show a source... Show your work

Otherwise the numbers are pie in the sky

And even if they're real, they show MJ is goat by three-peating with the 7th best cast in the league (75rh percentile) from 91-93'... Most winning casts are the best in the league like Lebron's super-teams and preseason favorites or Shaq's.

The 2nd three-peat casts are even worse but the video doesn't show those percentiles because it makes MJ look too good..

And the video shows that Jordan made the ECF with 0 percentile casts and raised 0 percentile casts to viable, while everyone else was gifted super-teams and never had to build anything

So you're just a liar because you were defeated.. you can't respond to any of this!!!

And the primary stat used in the video favors ball-centric players with a bad brand of ball that lowers teammate capacity.. You guys can't refute this - it's a garbage stat that penalizes players that are good enough to dominate within a good brand of ball that elevates teammate and yields good teams!!.. again, you have no answers except to deflect

After all this abuse you still think that stat means 75th percentile for the season the video clearly said they didn't have data for. How can you be so dense? Running from the truth doesn't make it any less true. It's the 75th percentile of teams since they started tracking the data. Quit playing stupid bro. And if you want to claim HoopsNY numbers are false, shit what's stopping you from doing the work and proving it? That's what guys do to you all the time. You don't have the track record to criticize anyone's stat work in case you didn't know.

Oh and a pro tip

It's all there - I refuted everything point by point and you stopped responding and resorted to deflections and bullshit

It's clear as day.. so if you aren't going to refute anything I say and I refuted everything you said.. then it's over... I win (3ball)
I stop responding seriously to you the moment you go on the intellectually dishonest bs you do when you can't win a debate. Keep your arguments legit and people will respond seriously.

[sdot_thadon]

HoopsNY hit Snivelball with an absolute haymaker and he's still staggering around dazed :yaohappy:

Killed a whole go to argument for him. I got one for Scottie pippen too

[3ba11]

Literally everyone is laughing at how bad Hoops ethered you :oldlol:

You're sobbing rn


He proved that MJ carried the biggest load ever

I'm laughing at how dumb you guys are - you're obviously uneducated

I literally destroyed him by getting him to make my point

His data makes my point that MJ carried the biggest load ever and the few times that he didn't, he was absolutely able to score less (thread title) - he was nearly unbeatable when he got the help needed so that he didn't have to shoot so much

So carry on being dumb and thinking HoopsNY posted good data - the data confirms Jordan's goat load and ability to score less if he has help

[RRR3]

https://media4.giphy.com/media/RkJJUjoyLOLLbtVg5e/giphy.gif?cid=790b76110f4e1073a8cdd48fb0eef640a9ce 735d5e76cd68&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g
:roll:

[sdot_thadon]

:roll:

Yup

[3ba11]

:roll:


Wow you guys are lunatics

Lose a debate badly and then clown around and pretend you won

Carry on but everything was refuted while you can't refute that MJ had to take 20+ shots for 80% of his games because his teammates sucked

[SouBeachTalents]

Geez, those Hoops posts really have OP reeling :(

He's now coming to terms with the fact that his decade long crusade has all been for naught.

https://c.tenor.com/nS6u1XiQ1DgAAAAd/buzz-lightyear-toy-story.gif

[3ba11]

Geez, those Hoops posts really have OP reeling :(

He's now coming to terms with the fact that his decade long crusade has all been for naught.

https://c.tenor.com/nS6u1XiQ1DgAAAAd/buzz-lightyear-toy-story.gif


Hoops ran because his argument was defeated and his numbers confirm MJ's goat load

[RRR3]

https://media4.giphy.com/media/3oEjI9T0ixjZCFwi8U/giphy.gif?cid=790b7611d7361341286b713a248cbf1e37fe 1eb18ea2e5d2&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g
:yaohappy:

[3ba11]

Honestly, HoopsNY post might be the dumbest ever

He confirmed that MJ had the goat load and is goat at carry-jobs

MJ was basically too good - so good that you have to lie about his teammates and pretend that Pippen could've averaged more than 22 (he couldn't) or Paxson could average more than 14 (he couldn't)

MJ carried the shit out of these bums

[SouBeachTalents]

https://j.gifs.com/P1BEAW.gif
:(

[ShawkFactory]

:oldlol:

[sdot_thadon]

https://i.postimg.cc/pXqJbKBh/giphy.gif

3ball ain't ever asking for his bike back :oldlol:

[3ba11]

:oldlol:


Thread Cliffs:

We can't beat 3ball

[SouBeachTalents]

https://c.tenor.com/C4IaF16J6-YAAAAC/toy-story-pixar.gif
:(

[3ba11]

.
3ball: If Jordan had better teammates, he would've scored less

HoopsNY: The few times that Jordan had decent help, he did infact score less and could infact win that way.. Unfortunately, his teammates rarely provided this help, so he had to shoot a lot most games and was goat at these carry-jobs


But I guess most people don't understand basketball and are really really super dumb about it

[sdot_thadon]

Thread cliffs: somebody help op

https://i.postimg.cc/gkVknK7j/Throw-The-Towel.gif

[3ba11]

Thread cliffs: somebody help op

https://i.postimg.cc/gkVknK7j/Throw-The-Towel.gif


Nope you guys are just too dumb or in denial or pretending

HoopsNY's numbers show that MJ had to carry the biggest burden by far, while his teammates rarely provide enough help to prevent him from taking 20 shots

Again, your guys are just too dumb to see.. so keep posting gif of yourself getting knocked out

[Phoenix]

Nope you guys are just too dumb or in denial or pretending

HoopsNY's numbers show that MJ had to carry the biggest burden by far, while his teammates rarely provide enough help to prevent him from taking 20 shots

Again, your guys are just too dumb to see.. so keep posting gif of yourself getting knocked out

MJ '91-'98 >20 FGA: 285-96 (.748%)
MJ '91-'98 <20 FGA: 116-7 (.945%)

According to the above, MJ has 381 games of >20 shots and 123 games of <20 shots. I'll save you the trouble of pulling out your phone calculator, that's 32%. 32% is hardly a 'rare' or insignificant percentage with the sample sizes being discussed.

[sdot_thadon]

MJ '91-'98 >20 FGA: 285-96 (.748%)
MJ '91-'98 <20 FGA: 116-7 (.945%)

According to the above, MJ has 381 games of >20 shots and 123 games of <20 shots. I'll save you the trouble of pulling out your phone calculator, that's 32%. 32% is hardly a 'rare' or insignificant percentage with the sample sizes being discussed.

The onslaught continues. James Naismith called in an air strike on OP or what?

[3ba11]

MJ '91-'98 >20 FGA: 285-96 (.748%)
MJ '91-'98 <20 FGA: 116-7 (.945%)

According to the above, MJ has 381 games of >20 shots and 123 games of <20 shots. I'll save you the trouble of pulling out your phone calculator, that's 32%. 32% is hardly a 'rare' or insignificant percentage with the sample sizes being discussed.


I hate to correct your math but it's 24%, not 32%

123 games represents 24% of total games

123/(123 + 381) = 24%

So only 24% of the time did teammates provide enough help so that MJ could take less than 20 shots.. Meanwhile, other stars take less than 20 shots for entire seasons or careers, yet they don't win 90% of their games like MJ did when he had this kind of standard help... Otherwise, MJ had mostly trash help, hence the goat shot burden for 76% of games (far more if we include non-championship years)

[Phoenix]

I hate to correct your math but it's 24%, not 32%

123 games represents 24% of total games

123/(123 + 381) = 24%

So only 24% of the time did teammates provide enough help so that MJ could take less than 20 shots.. Meanwhile, other stars take less than 20 shots for entire seasons or careers, yet they don't win 90% of their games like MJ did when he had this kind of standard help... Otherwise, MJ had mostly trash help, hence the goat shot burden for 76% of games (far more if we include non-championship years)

Fair enough, long day but guess what? 24% isn't an insignificant total either so that point remains. That basically means 1 out of every 4 games MJ took less than 20 shots and the Bulls record on those occassions speaks for itself. The percentage could be 50% and you wouldn't acknowledge it.

As for your second paragraph, Hoops put the work in to get those stats. Back up your claim with a similar level of work. That would mean you'd have to actually do something other than copy and paste.

[3ba11]

Fair enough, long day but guess what? 24% isn't an insignificant total either so that point remains. That basically means 1 out of every 4 games MJ took less than 20 shots and the Bulls record on those occassions speaks for itself. The percentage could be 50% and you wouldn't acknowledge it.

As for your second paragraph, Hoops put the work in to get those stats. Back up your claim with a similar level of work. That would mean you'd have to actually do something other than copy and paste.


Hoops did the work

He showed that Jordan's Bulls would win 78-80 games every year if Jordan had the kind of help that everyone else had that allows them to shoot less than 20 times per game for entire seasons and careers

The only reason Jordan didn't win 80 games per year is that he frequently had to completely carry the load with more than 20 shots in 76% of games

So Hoops proved that MJ is goat.by confirming that he's unbeatable with the help that everyone else gets (less than 20 shots per game) and is the absolute goat at carry-jobs (great win percentage with over 20 shots)

[Phoenix]

Hoops did the work

He showed that Jordan's Bulls would win 78-80 games every year if Jordan had the kind of help that everyone else had that allows them to shoot less than 20 times per game for entire seasons and careers

The only reason Jordan didn't win 80 games per year is that he frequently had to completely carry the load with more than 20 shots in 76% of games

Hoops showed that MJ is goat.

He did the work for MJ, not for your claim that 'Meanwhile, other stars take less than 20 shots for entire seasons or careers, yet they don't win 90% of their games like MJ'. That's your claim, now lets see the receipts for it.

1 out of 4 games is neither rare or insignificant. You wiggling about like a fish caught on a hook trying to argue otherwise makes you look stupid......well more stupid.

[RRR3]

Snivelly is getting massacred :roll: :roll: :roll:


How much punishment can one man take?

[3ba11]

He did the work for MJ, not for your claim that 'Meanwhile, other stars take less than 20 shots for entire seasons or careers, yet they don't win 90% of their games like MJ. That's your claim, now lets see the receipts for it.





Lebron and others barely win 50 games when they take less than 20 shots per game for the whole season - see Lebron's 2017 season where he had enough help to take 18.2 shots but only won 53 games.

Otoh, Jordan was unbeatable when he had enough help to take less than 20 shots - he only had this for 24% of games, but based on his win percentage in those games, we can conclude that he would win about 80 games a year if he had that help all year like Lebron and others do.

Again, Hoops numbers prove MJ was unbeatable when he had enough help to take less than 20 shots and was the best at carry-jobs too (spectacular record with 20+ shots per game)

[RRR3]

PunchDrunkBall still wobbling around :oldlol: HoopsNY ended his career lmaoo

[3ba11]

.
Recent summary of HoopsNY's data that shows Jordan is GOAT


Jordan won 94.5% of games when he had enough help to take less than 20 shots - this win percentage would give him 78 wins a year if he could average less than 20 shots all year.. Unfortunately, Jordan rarely had enough help to take less than 20 shots, so most games were carry-jobs where his record was still an impressive 74.8% (goat at carry-jobs)

[3ba11]

PunchDrunkBall still wobbling around :oldlol: HoopsNY ended his career lmaoo


Again, Hoops data shows that MJ is goat

If you don't want to accept it that's fine..

[RRR3]

https://c.tenor.com/erE2iSF-ERwAAAAM/drunk-door.gif
:roll: :roll: :oldlol:

[Phoenix]

Lebron and others barely win 50 games when they take less than 20 shots per game for the whole season - see Lebron's 2017 season where he had enough help to take 18.2 shots but only won 53 games.

Otoh, Jordan was unbeatable when he had enough help to take less than 20 shots - he only had this for 24% of games, but based on his win percentage in those games, we can conclude that he would win about 80 games a year if he had that help all year like Lebron and others do.

Again, Hoops numbers prove MJ was unbeatable when he had enough help to take less than 20 shots and was the best at carry-jobs too (spectacular record with 20+ shots per game)

Lebron also won 61 games taking 20 shots in 2010 with Mo Williams as his 2nd option averaging 16ppg on 44%. You crucify Scottie for 'only' averaging 19-21 alongside MJ between 91-98.

The worst season record for the Bulls between 91-98 was 1993, which incidentally coincided with the most shots per game for MJ( 26) over that period. Combine that with a 90%+ win percentage over 120 games of him taking less than 20 shots a night, and we can make some other conclusions as well.

[GrayGoat]

How does a team without a 2nd go-to player win 55 games without their best player?

[Phoenix]

.
Recent summary of HoopsNY's data that shows Jordan is GOAT


Jordan won 94.5% of games when he had enough help to take less than 20 shots - this win percentage would give him 78 wins a year if he could average less than 20 shots all year.. Unfortunately, Jordan rarely had enough help to take less than 20 shots, so most games were carry-jobs where his record was still an impressive 74.8% (goat at carry-jobs)

So you're saying that he did, in fact, have enough help. Tells me that the Bulls could have withstood many more games of him not taking 20 shots and they'd still have an overwhelmingly positive W/L record.

[RRR3]

Lebron also won 61 games taking 20 shots in 2010 with Mo Williams as his 2nd option averaging 16ppg on 44%. You crucify Scottie for 'only' averaging 19-21 alongside MJ between 91-98.

The worst season record for the Bulls between 91-98 was 1993, which incidentally coincided with the most shots per game( 26) over that period. Combine that with a 90%+ win percentage over 120 games of him taking less than 20 shots a night, and we can make some other conclusions as well.
Christ :oldlol: This is an all time brutal beatdown, 3ball will have CTE after this thread.

[SouBeachTalents]

So you're saying that he did, in fact, have enough help. Tells me that the Bulls could have withstood many more games of him not taking 20 shots and they'd still have an overwhelmingly positive W/L record.
They won 55 games with him taking 0 shots a game.

[Phoenix]

They won 55 games with him taking 0 shots a game.

:lebronamazed:

[97 bulls]

Hoops did the work

He showed that Jordan's Bulls would win 78-80 games every year if Jordan had the kind of help that everyone else had that allows them to shoot less than 20 times per game for entire seasons and careers

The only reason Jordan didn't win 80 games per year is that he frequently had to completely carry the load with more than 20 shots in 76% of games

So Hoops proved that MJ is goat.by confirming that he's unbeatable with the help that everyone else gets (less than 20 shots per game) and is the absolute goat at carry-jobs (great win percentage with over 20 shots)

The facts show that he did have the help. But he wanted to win the scoring crown, so he set out to score at least 8 points a quarter. MJ himself said it. The Bulls would've been even better had he not set out to lead the league in scoring every year. And kept his scoring output to be more organic.

[RRR3]

They won 55 games with him taking 0 shots a game.
https://c.tenor.com/TSQ1Won4EToAAAAC/simpsons-shocked.gif

[3ba11]

The facts show that he did have the help. But he wanted to win the scoring crown, so he set out to score at least 8 points a quarter. MJ himself said it. The Bulls would've been even better had he not set out to lead the league in scoring every year. And kept his scoring output to be more organic.


Nope

everyone played to capacity alongside Jordan - they didn't average more without him or just 1 point more

So only 24% of the time could they provide to enough help so MJ could take less than 20 shots

That's worst-ever... Literally.

[sdot_thadon]

Nope

everyone played to capacity alongside Jordan - they didn't average more without him or just 1 point more

So only 24% of the time could they provide to enough help so MJ could take less than 20 shots

That's worst-ever... Literally.

What a nightmare this must be for you, you can't decide which way to go. HoopsNY made you stfu about Mjs scoring load being necessary. They were even better with him taking less shots, and at the same time those extra attempts also took away from his teammates being able to score. You wanna make up a corny name for ball hogging? His Shot dominant style prevents his teammates from having an organic amount of scoring opportunities unlike Bron-ball which allows his 2nd options more scoring opportunities.

[3ba11]

Lebron also won 61 games taking 20 shots in 2010





That's nowhere near Jordan's 95% win rate when he takes 20 shots or less

HoopsNY's stats show that he would win 78-80 games if he had enough help to take 20 shots or less all year, while Lebron barely wins 50 or 60






with Mo Williams as his 2nd option averaging 16ppg on 44%.





Weakest conference ever - confirmed by Dwight Howard winning it

Dirk carried a weaker cast to 67 wins in the West

Furthermore - in 2009, Mo's scoring, efficiency, PER, BPM, VORP and WS/48 destroy 90' Pippen, while the Cavs had the #3 defense compared to #19 for the Bulls... So Lebron started out with a better cast on both sides of the ball, yet Jordan still beat him to titles.. Jordan won the next year in 91', while Lebron lost again in 10' despite adding Jamison/Shaq to the league favorite.

Btw, Mo averaged 18 on 38% in the 09' ECF, but Lebron couldn't win with it, while Jordan beat top 5 SRS teams with garbage from Pippen all the time.





You crucify Scottie for 'only' averaging 19-21 alongside MJ between 91-98.





That's the low end of scoring for winning sidekicks and he had worst-ever efficiency, clutch and low peak capability (no game-planning required.. system player)

[1987_Lakers]

I was gone for a few hours but coming back to see these last couple of pages was very humorous to say the least.

You could tell 3ball is really flustered right now. :lol

[Phoenix]

So only 24% of the time could they provide to enough help so MJ could take less than 20 shots



So you're advocating for the other Bulls to score more so that he could score less, which wouldn't actually help his GOAT case since things like number of scoring titles and PPG average are key bullet points in his resume.

[GrayGoat]

3ball appears to be shook

[97 bulls]

Nope

everyone played to capacity alongside Jordan - they didn't average more without him or just 1 point more

So only 24% of the time could they provide to enough help so MJ could take less than 20 shots

That's worst-ever... Literally.

No sir. According to MJ, they were only able to do that 24% of the time because MJ wanted to lead the league in scoring.

[Phoenix]

That's nowhere near Jordan's 95% win rate when he takes 20 shots or less

HoopsNY's stats show that he would win 78-80 games if he had enough help to take 20 shots or less all year, while Lebron barely wins 50 or 60






Weakest conference ever - confirmed by Dwight Howard winning it

Dirk carried a weaker cast to 67 wins in the West

Furthermore - in 2009, Mo's scoring, efficiency, PER, BPM, VORP and WS/48 destroy 90' Pippen, while the Cavs had the #3 defense compared to #19 for the Bulls... So Lebron started out with a better cast on both sides of the ball, yet Jordan still beat him to titles.. Jordan won the next year in 91', while Lebron lost again in 10' despite adding Jamison/Shaq to the league favorite.

Btw, Mo averaged 18 on 38% in the 09' ECF, but Lebron couldn't win with it, while Jordan beat top 5 SRS teams with garbage from Pippen all the time.





That's the low end of scoring for winning sidekicks and he had worst-ever efficiency, clutch and low peak capability (no game-planning required.. system player)

Hoops stats show that Jordan was the one keeping the Bulls from winning 75 games or more those seasons. You look at the years where the Bulls flirted with 70( 92, 97) or crossed 70(96), and the stats show a high statistical likelihood that a few more <20 shot night from MJ would have upped the win title north of 75 in a few cases.

The year I referenced Lebron winning 61 with Mo dropping 16ppg/44% was 2010, and the Celtics won the east that year, not Dwight/Magic. Get your years straight.

The 'low end scorer' Pippen outscored the 2nd option in numerous playoff series as has been routinely pointed out. This was the 90s, you didn't need a 2nd option dropping 25ppg to win a title. The two years the Rockets won were with Otis Thorpe dropping 14ppg( 94), Drexler dropping 21(95) and Robinson dropping 16(99).

The same metrics you used to say 09 Mo was better than 90 Pippen also means that 09 Lebron was better than 89 MJ,because Lebron has better numbers in everything you listed. Be careful.

[3ba11]

What a nightmare this must be for you, you can't decide which way to go.





I'm happy and enjoying myself because HoopsNY did work that proved MJ was goat

this is work that I would've invratably done at some point myself

So I thank him for furthering the lock that MJ has on goat status






HoopsNY made you stfu about Mjs scoring load being necessary. They were even better with him taking less shots





HoopsNY made my point

You guys are just in denial and floundering

MJ's win rate was 80-wins a year (95%) when he took less than 20 shots, except Jordan only got enough help to do this 24% of the time..

The rest of the time he had carry-jobs, where his record was still spectacular but obviously not as good as when he had legitimate help.

Otoh, Lebron and everyone else barely wins 50 or 60 games when they take 20 shots or less, while Jordan's win rate was 80... :bowdown:

That feeling you have is you getting ragdolled again and again itt






those extra attempts also took away from his teammates being able to score.





Nope

they didn't take away from teammates because teammates played to capacity alongside him - they scored the same or 1 point less than their highs alongside Jordan.

So you're just lying - teammates played at capacity or close, which is why the whole argument that Jordan could've won with less shots was proven false years ago - teammates played to capacity, so that's the end of it.





.

[97 bulls]

I'm happy and enjoying myself because HoopsNY did work that proved MJ was goat

this is work that I would've invratably done at some point myself

So I thank him for furthering the lock that MJ has on goat status






HoopsNY made my point

You guys are just in denial and floundering

MJ's win rate was 80-wins a year (95%) when he took less than 20 shots, except Jordan only got enough help to do this 24% of the time..

The rest of the time he had carry-jobs, where his record was still spectacular but obviously not as good as when he had legitimate help.

Otoh, Lebron and everyone else barely wins 50 or 60 games when they take 20 shots or less, while Jordan's win rate was 80... :bowdown:

That feeling you have is you getting ragdolled again and again itt






Nope

they didn't take away from teammates because teammates played to capacity alongside him - they scored the same or 1 point less than their highs alongside Jordan.

So you're just lying - teammates played at capacity or close, which is why the whole argument that Jordan could've won with less shots was proven false years ago - teammates played to capacity, so that's the end of it.





.

Bro. There's a huge problem with your theory. JORDAN HIMSELF STATED HE WANTED TO LEAGUE THE LEAGUE IN SCORING!!!! That's what he set out to do. By him saying that, it shows that his scoring output was intentional. He didn't let the game dictate how many shots he took. He just took them. Thats why Phil Jackson had to change the offense. And had to plead with Jordan to pass the ball so their offense isn't one dimensional.

[3ba11]

Hoops stats show that Jordan was the one keeping the Bulls from winning 75 games or more those seasons.





Jordan's win rate was 80-wins a year (95%) when he took less than 20 shots, except Jordan only got enough help to do this 24% of the time.

The rest of the time he had carry-jobs, where his record was still spectacular, but obviously not as good as when he had legitimate help.

Otoh, Lebron and everyone else barely wins 50 or 60 games when they take 20 shots or less, while Jordan's win rate was 80...

so jordan is clearly FAR superior and HoopsNY proved it.






The year I referenced Lebron winning 61 with Mo dropping 16ppg/44% was 2010, and the Celtics won the east that year, not Dwight/Magic. Get your years straight.





So you omitted the 2nd option Jamison, which means you were lying - Mo was 3rd option behind Jamison

Ultimately, Dwight won the 09' East and Lebron was the heavily-favored 1 seed in 10' - so 1-star teams were enough to win the conference, which means that Lebron's super-teams were massive overkill.






This was the 90s, you didn't need a 2nd option dropping 25ppg to win a title. The two years the Rockets won were with Otis Thorpe dropping 14ppg( 94), Drexler dropping 21(95) and Robinson dropping 16(99).





Most opponents had scorers at 3rd and 4th option like the 96' Magic, 92' Blazers, 93' Suns, 96' Sonics, 91' Lakers and many more (like the Cavs) - this is why MJ had to average 33.5 in the playoffs, while no one else in history reached 30

In addition to lacking scorers at 3rd option, Pippen is the only 2nd option on this chart (https://i.ibb.co/qBBHvB1/chrome-d-EXe-R4x-E8t.jpg), so only MJ won with large volumes of low efficiency from a teammate:. :confusedshrug:.

Pippen had the worst efficiency, clutch and peak capability of any notable 90's sidekick (no game-planning required.. not on scouting report (https://i.makeagif.com/media/3-27-2022/qrDm8n.gif))






The 'low end scorer' Pippen outscored the 2nd option in numerous playoff series as has been routinely pointed out.





Every above-average sidekick outscores opposing sidekicks the majority of series, but only Pippen did it with worst-ever efficiency, worst-ever clutch and low peak capability (no game-planning required.. not on scouting report)






The same metrics you used to say 09 Mo was better than 90 Pippen also means that 09 Lebron was better than 89 MJ,because Lebron has better numbers in everything you listed. Be careful.





2nd options don't dictate brand of ball, so a sheer statistical comparison is valid

Otoh, the skillset of 1st options dictates brand of ball, chemistry and teammate development, so a straight statistical comparison isn't valid.

Fortunately, Jordan wins everything - stats, winning, brand of ball, teammate development, teammates playing to capacity, clutch.... did I mention winning?

[Phoenix]

1)Jordan's win rate was 80-wins a year (95%) when he took less than 20 shots, except Jordan only got enough help to do this 24% of the time.

2)The rest of the time he had carry-jobs, where his record was still spectacular, but obviously not as good as when he had legitimate help.

Otoh, Lebron and everyone else barely wins 50 or 60 games when they take 20 shots or less, while Jordan's win rate was 80...

so jordan is clearly FAR superior and HoopsNY proved it.






3)So you omitted the 2nd option Jamison, which means you were lying - Mo was 3rd option behind Jamison

Ultimately, Dwight won the 09' East and Lebron was the heavily-favored 1 seed in 10' - so 1-star teams were enough to win the conference, which means that Lebron's super-teams were massive overkill.






4)Most opponents had scorers at 3rd and 4th option like the 96' Magic, 92' Blazers, 93' Suns, 96' Sonics, 91' Lakers and many more (like the Cavs) - this is why MJ had to average 33.5 in the playoffs, while no one else in history reached 30

In addition to lacking scorers at 3rd option, Pippen is the only 2nd option on this chart (https://i.ibb.co/qBBHvB1/chrome-d-EXe-R4x-E8t.jpg), so only MJ won with large volumes of low efficiency from a teammate:. :confusedshrug:.

Pippen had the worst efficiency, clutch and peak capability of any notable 90's sidekick (no game-planning required.. not on scouting report (https://i.makeagif.com/media/3-27-2022/qrDm8n.gif))






Every above-average sidekick outscores opposing sidekicks the majority of series, but only Pippen did it with worst-ever efficiency, worst-ever clutch and low peak capability (no game-planning required.. not on scouting report)






5) 2nd options don't dictate brand of ball, so a sheer statistical comparison is valid

Otoh, the skillset of 1st options dictates brand of ball, chemistry and teammate development, so a straight statistical comparison isn't valid.

Fortunately, Jordan wins everything - stats, winning, brand of ball, teammate development, teammates playing to capacity, clutch.... did I mention winning?

1)Hoops stats show that Jordan was the one keeping the Bulls from winning 75 games or more those seasons. You look at the years where the Bulls flirted with 70( 92, 97) or crossed 70(96), and the stats show a high statistical likelihood that a few more <20 shot night from MJ would have upped the win title north of 75 in a few cases.

2) So he did end up with legitimate help. Because you have thousands of posts saying MJ has WOAT supporting casts. Legit help, or WOAT support? You can't seem to make up your mind which way you want to go.

3) I omitted nothing. In 2010 Mo Williams averaged 15.8 in 69 games, Jamison averaged the exact same in 23 games. So how was Jamison the 2nd option averaging the same amount of points while playing 1/3 of the games?

Yup, another no effort victory for Phoenix, and more lying from 3ball. A walk in the park.

4) The 'third scorer' on the 96 Magic when they played in the playoffs was Nick Anderson dropping 8ppg on 31% shooting. 4th was Dennis Scott with 7ppg. The third scorer on the Bulls was Rodman at 12, Harper and Kerr at 9. The 7th scorer on the Bulls was Kukoc averaging 7.

In 1992 finals, Pippen at 2nd option averaged 4 more points than Porter. Yes, the Blazers from scorers 3 to 6 outplayed the Bulls so MJ outdueling Drexler by the margins he did was the main difference. But nobody is disputing MJs performance that series so what's your point? Ditto for 93 vs Phoenix.

In 96 finals, Jordan was the best player for half the series but his overall scoring output wasn't the biggest difference over 6 games. Hell he wasn't even the highest scorer in the deciding game, Detlef was. Fortunately MJ's 'shitty' cast overcame his 5/19. There's a reason Dennis Rodman gets major props for how dominant on the boards he was and the role he played in the series outcome.

In 91 Scottie averaged more points at 2nd option than anyone on the Lakers, Worthy, Magic, Perkins, whomever. And the Bulls offense was more than competently cushioned by Horace dropping 15ppg and Paxson 13ppg as scorers # 3 and 4. MJ literally had to be told to pass the fukking ball to Paxson who was open and ended up with 20 points in the clincher. Scottie led the team in scoring the same game (32), rebounding(13), and equaled MJ's steals count(5). Not bad for 'shitty' help when they're given the chance to rise to the occasion.


5)This is a hilarious bullshit non-reply to what I said. We compare first option against first option data all the time, yourself included except when it leads to inconvenient truths. Lebron as first option in 2009 had higher advanced metrics compared to 89 MJ, and your reply is your usual flailing about like a fish out of water.

[sdot_thadon]

In 96 finals, Jordan was the best player for half the series but his overall scoring output wasn't the biggest difference over 6 games. Hell he wasn't even the highest scorer in the deciding game, Detlef was. Fortunately MJ's 'shitty' cast overcame his 5/19. There's a reason Dennis Rodman gets major props for how dominant on the boards he was and the role he played in the series outcome.

5)This is a hilarious bullshit non-reply to what I said. We compare first option against first option data all the time, yourself included except when it leads to inconvenient truths. Lebron as first option in 2009 had higher advanced metrics compared to 89 MJ, and your reply is your usual flailing about like a fish out of water.

Good stuff. Just wanted to chime in on the 96 finals, a little more Insight that isn't discussed here. I was told recently Ron Harper was a bum for the Bulls, in the finals he was assigned to guard Payton. Out played him in games 1 and 2, again Harper, the Bulls 700th option basically outplayed Seattle's 1st or 2nd option in the 1st 2 games of the finals.....Harper only plays 1 minute in game 3 due to a knee injury, which the Bulls still win, but Payton puts up 19 and 9 after only managing 13 and 3, and 13 ans 6 the previous 2 games with Harper checking him. Hobbled Harper plays only 13 min in game 4 and 1 minute in game 5. Payton puts up 21 and 11, then 23 and 6 against the bulls....other...defender. Harper plays 38 minutes somehow in the closeout game and Payton still puts up 19 and 7 on 70%.

So in games 1 and 2 Harper held him to 13 and 5 on 38%

The 4 games following Harper's knee injury: 21 and 8 on 48%

May have been a sweep had Harper not been injured....but Mj had no help.

Oh and 5)?:oldlol:

Here's a bonus read

CHICAGO - For much of the season, he was the Forgotten Bull, for reasons he will admit are plainly obvious.

"I don't dress up like Dennis (Rodman) or lead the league in scoring like Michael (Jordan)," Chicago's Ron Harper said. "It seems like everybody on this team has a book deal. Everybody. I think Jack Haley is signing one next week.

"I'm just me, a basketball player. No schtick. No gimmick. I play ball and nowadays you have to do more than that to get noticed or get a shoe commercial."

Harper is the fifth Beatle who missed his chance at fame early in his NBA career.

He doesn't fit into the mold of many of his star-studded teammates and was never quite as appreciated as he is now. After a 3-0 lead in the best-of-seven NBA Finals, Chicago lost consecutive games and the cause may be traced to Harper.

Impending problems

Ten days ago, a sore knee limited him to one minute of playing time in Game 3. The Bulls won 108-86, but Chicago Coach Phil Jackson sensed impending trouble with Harper out of the lineup.

"We're just a little bit thinner when Ron Harper is not in there," Jackson said afterward. "We lose one man in our rotation and everybody moves up. . . . Ron does so many things for us, we have to find someone who can match his defensive output."

Jackson is still searching.

Without Harper, whose primary responsibility was to defend Sonic guard Gary Payton, the Bulls have struggled in the past two games to slow Seattle's offense.

The Sonics scored 107 points in Game 4 and 89 in Game 5. Payton finished with 21 and 23 points, respectively, which is a far cry from his 13 points on six-for-17 shooting in the series opener.

"I think Ron Harper was effective in Games 1 and 2. . . . He's a veteran, he knows how to do things," Payton said. "They might miss him a lot. He's been in the rotation. He's been starting. Now they don't have all that rotation."

Without Harper, the Bulls are defending Payton with Jordan, which tires him late in the game. For brief stints, reserve Randy Brown is assigned to Payton, but he's unable to guard Payton in the low post.

Ideal Payton matchup

At 6 feet 6, Harper is the ideal matchup for Chicago. He is big enough to keep the 6-4 Payton out of the lane and quick enough to keep pace with him on the perimeter.

However, the injury "cuts down my side-to-side movement," Harper said. "I couldn't keep up with him right now, not for long minutes, anyway."

Toni Kukoc, the NBA's sixth man of the year, starts in place of Harper, which moves Scottie Pippen from small forward to shooting guard, where he must defend Seattle's Hersey Hawkins.

"He's running me through a lot of screens and picks and it's difficult to keep up with him when you're not used to something like that," Pippen said of Hawkins. "We're having to play out of position right now. . . . I'm more comfortable at small forward."

Pippen, Jordan and Rodman were each voted to the first team all-defensive team, yet Harper may be the most important player when defending the Sonics.

"He gives us a lift defensively as well as offensively," Jordan said. "Without him, that means we have to play a little bit more - Scottie and myself - myself on Gary Payton . . . and we have to utilize a bigger guy on guarding Hawkins.

Said Jackson: "Ron gives us a big defender and he gives us a player who plays without the ball."
The bolded sections are interesting comments when you have a 1st team all defensive guy taking Harper's assignment.

[Phoenix]

Good stuff. Just wanted to chime in on the 96 finals, a little more Insight that isn't discussed here. I was told recently Ron Harper was a bum for the Bulls, in the finals he was assigned to guard Payton. Out played him in games 1 and 2, again Harper, the Bulls 700th option basically outplayed Seattle's 1st or 2nd option in the 1st 2 games of the finals.....Harper only plays 1 minute in game 3 due to a knee injury, which the Bulls still win, but Payton puts up 19 and 9 after only managing 13 and 3, and 13 ans 6 the previous 2 games with Harper checking him. Hobbled Harper plays only 13 min in game 4 and 1 minute in game 5. Payton puts up 21 and 11, then 23 and 6 against the bulls....other...defender. Harper plays 38 minutes somehow in the closeout game and Payton still puts up 19 and 7 on 70%.

So in games 1 and 2 Harper held him to 13 and 5 on 38%

The 4 games following Harper's knee injury: 21 and 8 on 48%

May have been a sweep had Harper not been injured....but Mj had no help.

Oh and 5)?:oldlol:

Here's a bonus read

The bolded sections are interesting comments when you have a 1st team all defensive guy taking Harper's assignment.

Interesting, I've been thinking about going back and watching some of these older series. May have to add the 96 finals to the list.

[3ba11]

1)Hoops stats show that Jordan was the one keeping the Bulls from winning 75 games or more those seasons.





Legitimately stopped reading and claiming victory

Maybe I'll respond later for kicks

[AirBonner]

Legitimately stopped reading and claiming victory

Maybe I'll respond later for kicks

It’s the historical record. Deal with it.

[97 bulls]

Legitimately stopped reading and claiming victory

Maybe I'll respond later for kicks

Still boils down to this one fact. Instead of you speculating on why Jordan scored 30. Why not take his words as law. That's what I'm gonna do. He took that many shots because he wanted to lead the league in scoring. Point blank, period. That's what he said. Leave it at that.

[3ba11]

a few more <20 shot night from MJ would have upped the win title north of 75 in a few cases.





Teammates didn't allow Jordan to shoot less - they didn't play well enough.. Jordan had to carry the load and HoopNY's ' data shows exactly how often based on a 20 FGA threshold

And if shooting less wins 75 games, why hasn't anyone done it?... Lebron and Magic barely win 50 or 60 games by shooting less than 20 times, while Jordan's win rate is 80 wins (95% win rate) when he has their help (shoots less than 20 times)..

People always wonder how MJ would do with Kareem or Kobe or Wade and we'll never know.. But we know that whenever MJ got enough help to shoot less than 20 times, he was literally unbeatable.. So our instinct is correct - MJ would be unbeatable with overkill help like Kareem, Wade or the super-team help that Magic and Lebron had..






2) So he did end up with legitimate help.





No because HoopsNY's data showed how often Jordan had to take more than 20 shots - it was about 75-80% of games - that's more than anyone in history and reflects a lack of go-to teammates that only MJ had to overcome, as Kenny Smith explains here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4UF6Xx3F2Lo&t=01m54s






Because you have thousands of posts saying MJ has WOAT supporting casts. Legit help, or WOAT support?

You can't seem to make up your mind





If I have thousands of posts saying the Bulls casts was trash, then I obviously have my mind made up.. they're trash.... :hammerhead:






3) I omitted nothing. In 2010 Mo Williams averaged 15.8 in 69 games, Jamison averaged the exact same in 23 games.





It's because we're not 9 years old like you, so we were alive and watched the games - Jamison was a 22/9 stud before joining the Cavs and everyone knew he would be 2nd option..

Everyone knew that Mo didn't have Jamison's resume or pedigree, so it was disappointing to see Jamison become one of the first casualties of Lebron-ball's skillset (Luka-ball AAU simpleton offense for the low IQ unsophisticated player)






4) The 'third scorer' on the 96 Magic when they played in the playoffs was Nick Anderson dropping 8ppg on 31% shooting.





Jordan locked down Nick Anderson and held nearly every opposing SG to horrible stats.. It's standard for MJ.

Otoh, Pippen let Penny go off, which is why he wasn't assigned as the primary defender on Drexler, Magic Isiah or Payton...






In 1992 finals, Pippen at 2nd option averaged 4 more points than Porter.





Porter carried the Blazers to the Finals with 26/4/8 on 53% threes (6 attempts).. He was literally Damian Lillard on the 90' and 92' Finals runs.

KJ played even better in the 90', 94, and 95' playoffs when he upset Magic and dominated Hakeem twice... Meanwhile, Worthy or Stockton have legendary tales of playoff domination..

So every 90's sidekick was infact a go-to 1b that dominated and achieved elite stats EXCEPT Pippen, who was just a hustler/transition player, system player, and statistically carried in virtually every series..






In 1992 finals, Pippen at 2nd option averaged 4 more points than Porter.





The reality is that MJ helped to lock down Porter, while KJ and Worthy were hurt - otherwise, Pippen would've been destroyed..

Regardless, Pippen's peak capability was only about 20 ppg, so he never dominate anyone and this low peak meant that he didn't require game-planning (wasn't on scouting report)






Yes, the Blazers from scorers 3 to 6 outplayed the Bulls so MJ outdueling Drexler by the margins he did was the main difference. But nobody is disputing MJs performance that series so what's your point? Ditto for 93 vs Phoenix.





You guys are saying that the Bulls could've won more if Jordan shot less, which is preposterous and demonstrates how thoroughly you've been defeated in the argument about Jordan in general..

In the 93' Finals, the Suns and Bulls both averaged exactly 106.7 ppg and 113.0 ortg, while Pippen shot 46% true shooting (woat-caliber).. Since Pippen can't handle more shots, are you guys saying that Grant or Paxson should be taking some of Jordan's shots??... See how ridiculous it is?.. The Bulls had no go-to players except Jordan (woat offensive help)






In 96 finals, Jordan was the best player for half the series but his overall scoring output wasn't the biggest difference over 6 games. Hell he wasn't even the highest scorer in the deciding game, Detlef was.





Jordan is always the best when it matters - he got his team a 3-0 lead and then shut it down.

But Pippen shot 34%, so he can't get more shots

And Rodman obviously can't get more shots

So the Bulls are completely f*cked if Jordan doesn't average several more points than anyone in the series and nearly double the average of anyone on his team.






MJ literally had to be told to pass the fukking ball to Paxson





It's so obvious when fans the media never played the game... :facepalm:

Every player in the history of basketball has been told "this guy will be open", or "pass the ball here", or "this is the play - find so-and-so"

It's called X's and O's.. aka coaching

A few articles point out that it was just regular coaching, but the mainstream media saw the opportunity to play into their erroneous ballhog narrative... One wrong take after another.

The reality is that Jordan was averaging 11 apg in the series long before the passes to Paxson .. Jordan had already found Paxson a million times in the series already.

It was just regular coaching.. X's and O's.... Jordan already knew how to pass - he averaged more assists than Lebron for the first 9 years of their playoff careers before Curry's pace and space era made offense easier for everyone.






5)This is a hilarious bullshit non-reply to what I said. We compare first option against first option data all the time, yourself included except when it leads to inconvenient truths. Lebron as first option in 2009 had higher advanced metrics compared to 89 MJ, and your reply is your usual flailing about like a fish out of water.


The difference in brand of ball between 89' Jordan and 09' Lebron showed in the playoffs

Lebron lost as a historic favorite, while Jordan led one of the biggest upset carry-jobs ever.. Jordan carried much a weaker cast over better teams than Dwight's garbage Magic.

So not all 40 ppg are the same... Brand of ball matters.






Lebron as first option in 2009 had higher advanced metrics compared to 89 MJ, and your reply is your usual flailing about like a fish out of water.





Phil wouldn't be able to run the triangle with Lebron and would get fired like Blatt, who wanted to run similar concepts.

So the 1st option dictates brand of ball, teammate fits and chemistry... Luka and Lebron cannot run ball movement brands that yield high team assists - they're too ball-dominant..

So Jordan's skillset was simply better at brand of ball, chemistry and teammate development - that's why he never lost as the favorite.. He never had better on-paper talent but lost to better brand of ball.

[SouBeachTalents]

Teammates didn't allow Jordan to shoot less - they didn't play well enough.. Jordan had to carry the load and HoopNY's ' data shows exactly how often based on a 20 FGA threshold

And if shooting less wins 75 games, why hasn't anyone done it?... Lebron and Magic barely win 50 or 60 games by shooting less than 20 times, while Jordan's win rate is 80-wins when he has their help.

People always wonder how MJ would do with Kareem or Kobe or Wade and we'll never know.. But we do know that whenever MJ got enough help to shoot less than 20 times, he was literally unbeatable.. So our instinct is correct - MJ would be unbeatable with overkill help and teammates like Kareem, Wade or the super-team help that Magic and Lebron had..






No because HoopsNY's data showed how often Jordan had to take more than 20 shots - it was about 75-80% of games - that's more than anyone in history and reflects a lack of go-to teammates that only MJ had to overcome, as Kenny Smith explains here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4UF6Xx3F2Lo&t=01m54s






If I have thousands of posts saying the Bulls casts was trash, then I obviously have my mind made up.. they're trash.... :hammerhead:






It's because we're not 9 years old like you, so we were alive and watched the games - Jamison was a 22/9 stud before joining the Cavs and everyone knew he would be 2nd option..

Everyone knew that Mo didn't have Jamison's resume or pedigree, so it was disappointing to see Jamison become one of the first casualties of Lebron-ball's skillset (Luka-ball AAU simpleton offense for the low IQ unsophisticated player)






Jordan locked down Nick Anderson and held nearly every opposing SG to horrible stats.. It's standard for MJ.

Otoh, Pippen let Penny go off, which is why he wasn't assigned as the primary defender on Drexler, Magic Isiah or Payton...






Porter carried the Blazers to the Finals with 26/4/8 on 53% threes (6 attempts).. He was literally Damian Lillard on the 90' and 92' Finals runs.

KJ played even better in the 90', 94, and 95' playoffs when he upset Magic and dominated Hakeem twice... Meanwhile, Worthy or Stockton have legendary tales of playoff domination..

So every 90's sidekick was infact a go-to 1b that dominated and achieved elite stats EXCEPT Pippen, who was just a hustler/transition player, system player, and statistically carried in virtually every series..






The reality is that MJ helped to lock down Porter, while KJ and Worthy were hurt - otherwise, Pippen would've been destroyed..

Regardless, Pippen's peak capability was only about 20 ppg, so he never dominate anyone and this low peak meant that he didn't require game-planning (wasn't on scouting report)






You guys are saying that the Bulls could've won more if Jordan shot less, which is preposterous and demonstrates how thoroughly you've been defeated in the argument about Jordan in general..

In the 93' Finals, the Suns and Bulls both averaged exactly 106.7 ppg and 113.0 ortg, while Pippen shot 46% true shooting (woat-caliber).. Since Pippen can't handle more shots, are you guys saying that Grant or Paxson should be taking some of Jordan's shots??... See how ridiculous it is?.. The Bulls had no go-to players except Jordan (woat offensive help)






Jordan is always the best when it matters - he got his team a 3-0 lead and then shut it down.

But Pippen shot 34%, so he can't get more shots

And Rodman obviously can't get more shots

So the Bulls are completely f*cked if Jordan doesn't average several more points than anyone in the series and nearly double the average of anyone on his team.






It's so obvious when fans the media never played the game... :facepalm:

Every player in the history of basketball has been told "this guy will be open", or "pass the ball here", or "this is the play - find so-and-so"

It's called X's and O's.. aka coaching

A few articles point out that it was just regular coaching, but the mainstream media saw the opportunity to play into their erroneous ballhog narrative... One wrong take after another.

The reality is that Jordan was averaging 11 apg in the series long before the passes to Paxson .. Jordan had already found Paxson a million times in the series already.

It was just regular coaching.. X's and O's.... Jordan already knew how to pass - he averaged more assists than Lebron for the first 9 years of their playoff careers before Curry's pace and space era made offense easier for everyone.






The difference in brand of ball between 89' Jordan and 09' Lebron showed in the playoffs

Lebron lost as a historic favorite, while Jordan led one of the biggest upset carry-jobs ever.. Jordan carried much a weaker cast over better teams than Dwight's garbage Magic.

So not all 40 ppg are the same... Brand of ball matters.






Phil wouldn't be able to run the triangle with Lebron and would get fired like Blatt, who wanted to run similar concepts.

So the 1st option dictates brand of ball, teammate fits and chemistry... Luka and Lebron cannot run ball movement brands that yield high team assists - they're too ball-dominant..

So Jordan's skillset was simply better at brand of ball, chemistry and teammate development - that's why he never lost as the favorite.. He never had better on-paper talent but lost to better brand of ball.
Holy shit :roll:

https://y.yarn.co/c3d2800f-300c-4e6c-8285-a21eb29ebe13_text.gif

[Round Mound]

Jordan always had the green light to shoot as much as he wanted to. Pippen did the dirty job plus was the best creator of offense and on team d he was the best aswell. That's how i saw it. I was alive and watched the nba from 91 to 98.

[Baller789]

Jordan always had the green light to shoot as much as he wanted to. Pippen did the dirty job plus was the best creator of offense and on team d he was the best aswell. That's how i saw it. I was alive and watched the nba from 91 to 98.

I wouldnt say Pip was the best creator. But he certainly was the primary playmaker.

[StrongLurk]

How does OP have the energy to do the same song and dance every day for over a decade? Especially about an athlete who doesn't know OP exists. Shit is so bizarre.

[HoopsNY]

Hoops ran because his argument was defeated and his numbers confirm MJ's goat load

Hoops didn't run anywhere. He went away with family to Cape Cod to enjoy the summer. You need help. Your addiction to not only this forum, but also proving that MJ is free of criticism and transcended every other ATG's limitations is disturbing.

[FilmyCogTurner]

I would say Jordan was the primary playmaker while Pip was the primary initiator of the triangle offense. Pip was better suited to setting the table for everyone else while Jordan was better suited attacking the defense and generating offense for either himself or the team.

These stats are interesting but its extremely disingenuous to think basketball is played this simply. If you watch those classic games, which I do and apologies to 97_Bulls I haven't gotten around to the 93 finals yet I do not see Jordan breaking the offense for his own personal glory. The Bulls needed that offensive output from him and I'm not saying the cast was trash like 3ball. I think the pieces they had were solid but I also think the teams they went up against had their own strengths and advantages over the Bulls as well.

and let's not forget we are talking about the best scorer the game has ever seen who in the end pulled off what he set out to do... championships an scoring titles and he did it the right way.

[HoopsNY]

.
Recent summary of HoopsNY's data that shows Jordan is GOAT


Jordan won 94.5% of games when he had enough help to take less than 20 shots - this win percentage would give him 78 wins a year if he could average less than 20 shots all year.. Unfortunately, Jordan rarely had enough help to take less than 20 shots, so most games were carry-jobs where his record was still an impressive 74.8% (goat at carry-jobs)

That's not the point. What people have a problem with is this belief had to take 20+FGA per game. The data doesn't reflect that. What we find is that when he shot less, Chicago did a lot better, to a near flawless level.

This of course doesn't mean his cast was putting up elite numbers. However, it showed that guys like Pippen, Kukoc, Armstrong, Grant, etc could put up slightly higher averages if given the opportunity. The problem? They weren't given the opportunity.

To insist that they weren't capable of doing more is disingenuous. It's literally not true.

[RRR3]

Hoops, you wanna know something hilarious? 3ball got exposed as actually being a Kobe stan (he has slipped up a few times and said stuff like “Kobe would score 60 on MJ” or “I’m ok with Kobe being ranked GOAT”). He only obsesses over Jordan because he hates LeBron and he knows MJ is the one guy he can use to make LeBron look bad.

[HoopsNY]

Hoops did the work

He showed that Jordan's Bulls would win 78-80 games every year if Jordan had the kind of help that everyone else had that allows them to shoot less than 20 times per game for entire seasons and careers

The only reason Jordan didn't win 80 games per year is that he frequently had to completely carry the load with more than 20 shots in 76% of games

So Hoops proved that MJ is goat.by confirming that he's unbeatable with the help that everyone else gets (less than 20 shots per game) and is the absolute goat at carry-jobs (great win percentage with over 20 shots)

Okay, so let's go through the data and see Chicago's record in non-blowout situations (less than 15 points either winning or losing) with MJ shooting fewer than 20 times per game. The data is still between 1991-98.

1991: 7-1
1992: 10-0
1993: 3-0
1995: 1-0
1996: 3-1
1997: 6-1
1998: 7-2

Total: 37-5 (.880%)

How about the playoffs?

1991: 4-0
1992: Zero games with less than 20 FGA in non-blowout situations
1993: Zero games with less than 20 FGA in non-blowout situations
1995: 0-1
1996: 1-0
1997: 1-0
1998: 1-0

Total: 7-1 (.875%)

The data kind of supports what dankok was saying, that many of the games probably came in blowout situations, which is true. However, the data also indicates that Chicago still won in non-blowout situations at an extremely high clip (72 win pace).

So no, the data does not prove what it is that you're claiming at all.

[HoopsNY]

Lebron and others barely win 50 games when they take less than 20 shots per game for the whole season - see Lebron's 2017 season where he had enough help to take 18.2 shots but only won 53 games.

Otoh, Jordan was unbeatable when he had enough help to take less than 20 shots - he only had this for 24% of games, but based on his win percentage in those games, we can conclude that he would win about 80 games a year if he had that help all year like Lebron and others do.

Again, Hoops numbers prove MJ was unbeatable when he had enough help to take less than 20 shots and was the best at carry-jobs too (spectacular record with 20+ shots per game)

Actually, LeBron is no different.

LeBron '06-'22: <20 FGA | 428-165, (.722%)
LeBron '06-'22: >20 FGA | 317-187 (.629%)

This isn't some phenomenon btw. The data is the same for MJ, LeBron, Kobe, KD, etc. Why? Because basketball is a team sport. It's far more dependent on many factors coinciding than just one player dominating. There's a reason why Wilt wasn't as successful as Russell, for example.

[HoopsNY]

Hoops, you wanna know something hilarious? 3ball got exposed as actually being a Kobe stan (he has slipped up a few times and said stuff like “Kobe would score 60 on MJ” or “I’m ok with Kobe being ranked GOAT”). He only obsesses over Jordan because he hates LeBron and he knows MJ is the one guy he can use to make LeBron look bad.

Yea, I've witnessed that. That being said, at least he tries to engage with data and his opponents. LeBron stans on this forum are many (or maybe they're a bunch of alts), and can't reason with anything. But yea, 3ball is truly one of a kind.

[3ba11]

Thanks Hoops for showing how bad MJ's cast was and how often he had to shoot a lot

Everyone else like Lebron got to shoot less than 20 times for entire seasons, yet they barely won 50-60 games.. Otoh, MJ's win rate was 80 wins per year (unbeatable) when his teammates provided sufficient help for him to shoot 20 times or less..

The problem is that they could only provide this help for 24% of games and not entire seasons like Lebron and everyone else enjoys.

But your data shows that MJ was literally unbeatable when he had the kind of help that everyone else had and could shoot regular amounts - we've always wondered what Jordan would've done with Kareem or teammates that allow him to shoot regular amounts, and now we know - he would be literally unbeatable and win 78-80 games a year (95%)

Thanks for providing this data and I will be referencing it frequently to demonstrate with clear-cut numbers how great Jordan's burden was (by FAR the goat burden)

[RRR3]

Yea, I've witnessed that. That being said, at least he tries to engage with data and his opponents. LeBron stans on this forum are many (or maybe they're a bunch of alts), and can't reason with anything. But yea, 3ball is truly one of a kind.
His data is frequently made up or misrepresneted though. There is one LeBron stan with a ton of alts but there are definitely others but the main guy has a bunch of accounts for sure.

[FilmyCogTurner]

97 Bulls I have the 4th quarter of G5 1993 finals on right now.

Bulls down 7. Jordan on the bench. Pip looking to create offense and has back to back turnovers.

Jordan back in the ball game and the Bulls are running the triangle. Jordan bucket in the post.
Jordan pass to Pip tough shot, miss. Jordan miss, rebound Pip bucket. Jordan miss. Jordan bucket. Four Bulls players outside of MJ with shot attempts.

I stopped keeping track but I'm watching this game and yes Jordan is gunning but the Bulls are down and time is dwindling. The shots Jordan took looked to be more out of necessity, the looks simply weren't there for his teammates. The Suns smelt blood and had full momentum of the game. Chicago got beat and I see nothing wrong with this game. Putting the ball in your best players hands is nothing shocking and as it turns out Michael Jordan is human after all and can't lead a comeback whenever he feels like.

Sure Jordan had a desire to lead the league in scoring and fortunately for him scoring and winning the game are intertwined. If there is any hidden agenda here it is somehow discrediting the most potent offensive player in league history but no for some reason you guys seem to think Bill Cartwright needs more touches in the post.

[RRR3]

Actually, LeBron is no different.

LeBron '06-'22: <20 FGA | 428-165, (.722%)
LeBron '06-'22: >20 FGA | 317-187 (.629%)

This isn't some phenomenon btw. The data is the same for MJ, LeBron, Kobe, KD, etc. Why? Because basketball is a team sport. It's far more dependent on many factors coinciding than just one player dominating. There's a reason why Wilt wasn't as successful as Russell, for example.
Guarantee he doesn't rate Russell highly lol

[97 bulls]

Actually, LeBron is no different.

LeBron '06-'22: <20 FGA | 428-165, (.722%)
LeBron '06-'22: >20 FGA | 317-187 (.629%)

This isn't some phenomenon btw. The data is the same for MJ, LeBron, Kobe, KD, etc. Why? Because basketball is a team sport. It's far more dependent on many factors coinciding than just one player dominating. There's a reason why Wilt wasn't as successful as Russell, for example.

Slow Clap.

I've been saying this all along. I'm almost 50. There was a time when we compared teams when debating. Now it's players solely. So much that posters on here literally don't say the Lakers are playing tbr Bucs. They say, Lebron is playing against Giannis. And the kicker is that the knly time teammates are brought up, is to levy blame. It's really weird. And I only see this in Basketball forums.

[RogueBorg]

but no for some reason you guys seem to think Bill Cartwright needs more touches in the post.

Exactly. For some reason the clueless around here think Jordan shooting less while Paxson, Grant, Cartwright, King, Williams, McCray, Perdue shooting more is somehow better. That's how you end up 4-6 and not 6-0.

[RRR3]

Horrendous look to be agreeing with snivelball. Yikes RogueMoron and Baller78IQ at it again.

[3ba11]

97 Bulls I have the 4th quarter of G5 1993 finals on right now.

Bulls down 7. Jordan on the bench. Pip looking to create offense and has back to back turnovers.

Jordan back in the ball game and the Bulls are running the triangle. Jordan bucket in the post.
Jordan pass to Pip tough shot, miss. Jordan miss, rebound Pip bucket. Jordan miss. Jordan bucket. Four Bulls players outside of MJ with shot attempts.

I stopped keeping track but I'm watching this game and yes Jordan is gunning but the Bulls are down and time is dwindling. The shots Jordan took looked to be more out of necessity, the looks simply weren't there for his teammates. The Suns smelt blood and had full momentum of the game. Chicago got beat and I see nothing wrong with this game. Putting the ball in your best players hands is nothing shocking and as it turns out Michael Jordan is human after all and can't lead a comeback whenever he feels like.

Sure Jordan had a desire to lead the league in scoring and fortunately for him and basketball overall scoring the ball is how you win the ball game. If there is any hidden agenda here it is somehow discrediting the most potent offensive player in league history but no for some reason you guys seem to think Bill Cartwright needs more touches in the post.

The team is sticking to the triangle but Phoenix simply has Chicago beat.


1993 Finals

Suns..... 106.7 ppg... 113.0 ortg
Bulls..... 106.7 ppg... 113.0 ortg


Hoops' contention is that the Bulls would've won 8-9 titles and 80 games a year if Jordan shot less.

The problem is that Pippen shot 46% true shooting in the 93' Finals, so he can't handle a bigger burden, which means that Paxson and Grant are supposed to take shots from Jordan, according to HoopsNY.. That's absurd, especially since they were at their limits like Pippen - everyone was near their career highs (capacity) in that series and none of these guys are scorers - Horace is a rebounder and Paxson a spot-up shooter, so the idea that they should take burden away from Jordan is dumb.. Plain and simple.

It isn't just the 93' Finals that Pippen's efficiency was poor - Pippen averaged 17 on 41% for the entire 96-98' Playoffs, including 2 runs of the worst efficiency that anyone ever had (ESPN data here (https://i.ibb.co/qBBHvB1/chrome-d-EXe-R4x-E8t.jpg)).

Poor efficiency and teammates playing to capacity prove that the Bulls' cast was playing their appropriate role and couldn't handle more shots.. This math means that HoopsNY's data simply shows how often MJ had to carry the load based on a 20 FGA threshold..

Unlike Lebron or Magic, Jordan didn't have any closet 20-25 ppg guys at 3rd and 4th option that were forced to play lesser roles like Love, Bosh, Jamison, Hughes, Ingram, Westbrook, Worthy, Scott, McAdoo, Wilkes and many more.. Jordan just had role players and hustle players that were already at capacity.

[ShawkFactory]

Exactly. For some reason the clueless around here think Jordan shooting less while Paxson, Grant, Cartwright, King, Williams, McCray, Perdue shooting more is somehow better. That's how you end up 4-6 and not 6-0.

That's not really what he is saying.

[3ba11]

That's not really what he is saying.


He showed how often Jordan had to carry the load and couldn't get enough help to have a normal shot volume

This is the kind of thing that makes it clear we have a bunch of poorly-educated people on this forum

[ShawkFactory]

He showed how often Jordan had to carry the load and couldn't get enough help to have a normal shot volume

This is the kind of thing that makes it clear we have a bunch of poorly-educated people on this forum

He didn't do that either.

[97 bulls]

97 Bulls I have the 4th quarter of G5 1993 finals on right now.

Bulls down 7. Jordan on the bench. Pip looking to create offense and has back to back turnovers.

Jordan back in the ball game and the Bulls are running the triangle. Jordan bucket in the post.
Jordan pass to Pip tough shot, miss. Jordan miss, rebound Pip bucket. Jordan miss. Jordan bucket. Four Bulls players outside of MJ with shot attempts.

I stopped keeping track but I'm watching this game and yes Jordan is gunning but the Bulls are down and time is dwindling. The shots Jordan took looked to be more out of necessity, the looks simply weren't there for his teammates. The Suns smelt blood and had full momentum of the game. Chicago got beat and I see nothing wrong with this game. Putting the ball in your best players hands is nothing shocking and as it turns out Michael Jordan is human after all and can't lead a comeback whenever he feels like.

Sure Jordan had a desire to lead the league in scoring and fortunately for him 3qascoring and winning the game are intertwined. If there is any hidden agenda here it is somehow discrediting the most potent offensive player in league history but no for some reason you guys seem to think Bill Cartwright needs more touches in the post.

Lol. It'd no hidden agenda. Or even a bad thing. That's not my point. I said earlier. If the opposition can't stop you, why change. Jordan is the greatest offensive threat the league has seen.

I disagree with this notion that Jordan had to score 30+ for the Bulls to win. And that he did it because the Bulls were bad scorers outside of MJ.

The facts don't bare it out.

First and foremost, Jordan himself said he wanted to lead the league in scoring. That's what he set out to do. That should end it right there. But Hoops eloquently showed the Bulls record when MJ didn't take more than 20 shots a game. And they were better. The coaches told him he took too many shots. They changed the offense to get his teammates more involved. And we saw how successful they were without him in 94. Even more so without a solid replacement at the least.

All signs point to Jordan having a great team around him.

[3ba11]

He didn't do that either.


He showed that Jordan had to take more than 20 shots in 75-80% of games

That's the goat load

the roster shows that he had weak scoring help - no one was underperforming their scoring role like say, Bosh, Love, Hughes, Jamison, Westbrook, Ingram and many more

Your argument is that teammates played below capacity but they didn't - that's Lebron's teammates - you guys are projecting and it's pathetic

[sdot_thadon]

He showed that Jordan had to take more than 20 shots in 75-80% of games

That's the goat load

the roster shows that he had weak scoring help - no one was underperforming their scoring role like say, Bosh, Love, Hughes, Jamison, Westbrook, Ingram and many more

Your argument is that teammates played below capacity but they didn't - that's Lebron's teammates - you guys are projecting and it's pathetic

He didn't show that either, you're just delusional. He showed that Mj didn't have to score as much as he did to succeed. It was a desire and honestly he'd have continued to shoot even more and lose more had it not been forced on him by Phil and Tex. They deserve a ton of credit for creating the environment a player like Mj needed to win.

[HoopsNY]

Exactly. For some reason the clueless around here think Jordan shooting less while Paxson, Grant, Cartwright, King, Williams, McCray, Perdue shooting more is somehow better. That's how you end up 4-6 and not 6-0.

It still resulted in 6/6 titles. So how much better could it have been? Nobody really knows. Intuition tells me Chicago improves in the regular season and is much more dominant in the playoffs. However, that's not the main issue at play here.

What is being discussed is the supposed need for MJ to dominate. What the data indicates is that there was no need to begin with. That theory isn't substantiated by evidence.

Even when the games were close, Chicago posted a 37-5 record, a 72 win pace. In the playoffs, they posted similar. Granted, the sample size is small given the span of 7 seasons, but all in all, here's what we have:

1- Chicago faired better (not worse) when MJ limited his FGA, giving teammates an opportunity to build synergy within the offense, which undoubtedly throws defenses off as it requires more man to man coverage.

2- Chicago was dominant in the playoffs as well when MJ shot the ball less. This again relieves pressure and puts more pressure on the defense, keeping them on their toes.

3- The data provided accounts for all situations: blowouts, non-blowout situations, playoffs, regular season, and mostly <15-20 FGA.

4- Chicago won 55 games in 1994 with Pippen missing 10 games. Otherwise, they win 60 games with both Pippen and Grant on the court.

There's just no way around this. Chicago was such a great franchise during the 90s at every level. They had a great front office, great offense, great defense, great role players, and great coaching staff. A team that can get you 30 points from your #1 option, 22-23 points from your #2, and 16 points from your #3 or #4 is going to dominate.

Shaq and Kobe led the Lakers to 67 wins and a title in 2000. Having Glen Rice in the mix certainly helped. It spread the floor and teams couldn't just leave a guy like Rice open. His role was akin to someone like a BJ Armstrong who, in 1993, for example, led the league in 3 point shooting at a 45% clip.

We saw something similar with Miami in 2013 winning 66 games. A lot is made of LeBron/Bosh/Wade (much like a Shaq/Kobe/Rice or an MJ/Pippen/Grant or Kukoc, but what about having the following trio:

Battier - 43% 3pt
Allen - 41% 3pt
Chalmers - 41% 3pt

Look at the Warriors and what they were able to do with a playmaker like Green, scorer like Curry, and shooter like Klay, not to mention great bench players like Livingston and Iguodala.

I remember the '95 Rockets raining on the Magic. It wasn't just Hakeem. Yes, Hakeem was dominant, but look at the contributions that Elie, Cassell, and Horry gave.

Horry: 18 PPG on 57% TS%
Elie: 16 PPG on 78% TS%
Cassell: 14 PPG on 63% TS%

So much was and is made of Hakeem in the '95 finals, yet look at Mario Elie for crying out loud. When was the last time you saw his scoring and efficiency numbers from that series?

I could go on, but you get the point. These are NBA stars and starters, let alone bench guys. If you involve them in an offense, they're going to produce most of the time. If you let them sit around and do nothing, offenses can become stagnant and reliant on one guy. Chicago still won, yea, but that doesn't mean the rest of guys weren't capable, which is what 3ball tries to argue. It's just not true.

[FilmyCogTurner]

Lol. It'd no hidden agenda. Or even a bad thing. That's not my point. I said earlier. If the opposition can't stop you, why change. Jordan is the greatest offensive threat the league has seen.

I disagree with this notion that Jordan had to score 30+ for the Bulls to win. And that he did it because the Bulls were bad scorers outside of MJ.

The facts don't bare it out.

First and foremost, Jordan himself said he wanted to lead the league in scoring. That's what he set out to do. That should end it right there. But Hoops eloquently showed the Bulls record when MJ didn't take more than 20 shots a game. And they were better. The coaches told him he took too many shots. They changed the offense to get his teammates more involved. And we saw how successful they were without him in 94. Even more so without a solid replacement at the least.

All signs point to Jordan having a great team around him.

And I disagree with the notion that Jordan had bad teammates.

I think the Bulls supporting cast was solid and yet the team still needed a high offensive output from MJ. You realize both can be true at the same time, right?

You should try pulling up a classic game yourself and scrutinize how exactly the team is generating their shots while also reading what the defense is giving Chicago because that is also a huge contributing factor to what type of shots the team is forced to take. I watch those old games and I see the Bulls running their offensive and again it's no surprise who receives the lions share of the shot attempts and in most cases its because the defense has shutdown all other opportunities and even if they didn't Jordan is still the most capable scorer of all time where the latitudes of what are an "acceptable" shot is vastly different than mostly everyone else who has ever touched a basketball.

[HoopsNY]

1993 Finals

Suns..... 106.7 ppg... 113.0 ortg
Bulls..... 106.7 ppg... 113.0 ortg


Hoops' contention is that the Bulls would've won 8-9 titles and 80 games a year if Jordan shot less.

The problem is that Pippen shot 46% true shooting in the 93' Finals, so he can't handle a bigger burden, which means that Paxson and Grant are supposed to take shots from Jordan, according to HoopsNY.. That's absurd, especially since they were at their limits like Pippen - everyone was near their career highs (capacity) in that series and none of these guys are scorers - Horace is a rebounder and Paxson a spot-up shooter, so the idea that they should take burden away from Jordan is dumb.. Plain and simple.

It isn't just the 93' Finals that Pippen's efficiency was poor - Pippen averaged 17 on 41% for the entire 96-98' Playoffs, including 2 runs of the worst efficiency that anyone ever had (ESPN data here (https://i.ibb.co/qBBHvB1/chrome-d-EXe-R4x-E8t.jpg)).

Poor efficiency and teammates playing to capacity prove that the Bulls' cast was playing their appropriate role and couldn't handle more shots.. This math means that HoopsNY's data simply shows how often MJ had to carry the load based on a 20 FGA threshold..

Unlike Lebron or Magic, Jordan didn't have any closet 20-25 ppg guys at 3rd and 4th option that were forced to play lesser roles like Love, Bosh, Jamison, Hughes, Ingram, Westbrook, Worthy, Scott, McAdoo, Wilkes and many more.. Jordan just had role players and hustle players that were already at capacity.

I never brought up the '93 finals specifically. But if you want to go there, then look at the following:

'93 FS Armstrong: 61% TS%
'93 FS Grant: 55% TS%
'93 FS Paxson: 83% TS%

Hell, Trent Tucker shot 7-10 (70%) in that series. Look at the efficiency numbers if you don't believe me:

'93 MJ: .508 % FGs, .400% 3pt

'93 CHI Cast: .469% FGs, .500% 3pt

I don't know about you, but a cast that shoots 47% from the field and 50% from three point range is not horrendous on anyone's scale. Do you really want me to go into the data of some other casts in the finals and show you? Actually, let's look at Phoenix's cast's FGs and 3s in the finals while we're at it.

'93 Barkley: .476% FGs, .250% 3pt

'92 PHO Cast: .465% FGs, .462 3pt

Would you look at that? Chicago's cast shot the ball slightly better than Phoenix. Even if you want to say that the difference is minimal, then the point that you're making isn't substantiated. Clearly Chicago's cast was shooting the ball well. Who hit the game winner in game 6? It was Paxson.

Literally none of the data supports anything that you're saying. Not one piece of it.

[ShawkFactory]

He showed that Jordan had to take more than 20 shots in 75-80% of games

That's the goat load

the roster shows that he had weak scoring help - no one was underperforming their scoring role like say, Bosh, Love, Hughes, Jamison, Westbrook, Ingram and many more

Your argument is that teammates played below capacity but they didn't - that's Lebron's teammates - you guys are projecting and it's pathetic

No, he didn't.

[HoopsNY]

He showed that Jordan had to take more than 20 shots in 75-80% of games

That's the goat load

the roster shows that he had weak scoring help - no one was underperforming their scoring role like say, Bosh, Love, Hughes, Jamison, Westbrook, Ingram and many more

Your argument is that teammates played below capacity but they didn't - that's Lebron's teammates - you guys are projecting and it's pathetic

Had to? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Chicago was dominating at a higher rate when MJ shot the ball less than 20 times a game. In fact, even in non-blowout situations, Chicago still dominated at a higher rate.

No one is projecting anything. We're just looking at it from an unbiased perspective.

Bro, this is me you're talking about. I have MJ as the GOAT. I have zero reason to say these things that you're claiming. If I'm as biased as you say I am, I wouldn't put MJ as the GOAT.

It's like when I did my comparison using overlapping samples (2008-2012) for Kobe and LeBron since it was the most leveled set of data that we had, and it coincided with both player's peak/primes. I was ridiculed and insulted for it by LeBron fans (RRR3 ahem).

Meanwhile, I have LeBron > Kobe. You literally can't make this sh!t up. I try to be as objective I can and have no stake in the game. Who cares who is the GOAT at the end of the day? It's just basketball.

Live life bro. Take care of your family, enjoy the world. We live in the greatest country in the world. There's much more to life than trying to prove MJ is the #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9th GOAT, where everyone else occupies slots 10-75.

[HoopsNY]

He didn't show that either, you're just delusional. He showed that Mj didn't have to score as much as he did to succeed. It was a desire and honestly he'd have continued to shoot even more and lose more had it not been forced on him by Phil and Tex. They deserve a ton of credit for creating the environment a player like Mj needed to win.

Agree with this 100%. The Chicago front office and coaching staff gets little to no credit when people talk about the Bulls successes. If not for Phil, Tex, etc, then I'm very doubtful that Chicago goes three-peats twice.

[97 bulls]

And I disagree with the notion that Jordan had bad teammates.

I think the Bulls supporting cast was solid and yet the team still needed a high offensive output from MJ. You realize both can be true at the same time, right?

You should try pulling up a classic game yourself and scrutinize how exactly the team is generating their shots while also reading what the defense is giving Chicago because that is also a huge contributing factor to what type of shots the team is forced to take. I watch those old games and I see the Bulls running their offensive and again it's no surprise who receives the lions share of the shot attempts and in most cases its because the defense has shutdown all other opportunities and even if they didn't Jordan is still the most capable scorer of all time where the latitudes of what are an "acceptable" shot is vastly different than mostly everyone else who has ever touched a basketball.
Again, the facts do bare that out. At least not to the tune if 30+ a game. I think Jordan could've scored 26-27 ppg and the Bulls still would've been successful. Probably even more successful.

[sdot_thadon]

Agree with this 100%. The Chicago front office and coaching staff gets little to no credit when people talk about the Bulls successes. If not for Phil, Tex, etc, then I'm very doubtful that Chicago goes three-peats twice.

Everything has devolved into trying to prove players won chips alone. Mj had Scottie freaking Pippen, who as a youngster I never thought was anywhere near a trash player. Tons of guys where I played sought to emulate a guy like Scottie rather than the unrealistic Mj lol. And crazy thing was the guys that "played like scottie" were gonna get picked up during runs everytime. Nostalgia aside it's just crazy we have a culture of tearing down players now. Sure we have to recognize injuries and past prime versions of guys but sheesh. Hell even the guys we say won with the least help ever on closer inspection had solid teammates around them as well. Most notably 94 & 95 Rockets. And 2011 Mavs. Alot of people who didn't know the team's well enough assume they weren't good squads.

[3ba11]

Had to? How did you arrive at that conclusion that Jordan had to shoot that much?





Because Jordan's teammates played to capacity alongside him.

Your ultimate contention is that they didn't but the stats prove that they did

Your contention is that Pippen was infact a 25 ppg guy, and Paxson was infact a 17 ppg guy, and Grant was infact a 20 ppg player

They weren't and everyone knew this back then and now (except for a certain subculture of Lebron fans).

Everyone knew that Paxson was a spot-up shooter that should average about 10 ppg, while Grant was a 10/10 guy with a peak of 15.... And that's what they did alongside MJ..

Similarly, everyone knew Pippen's peak was about 20-22 ppg - this is what he did alongside Jordan, although his efficiency suggests that he usually couldn't handle this load.

None of cast was a secret superstar and sacrificing in a lesser role than they deserved like Love, Bosh, Jamison, Hughes, Ingram, Westbrook and many more.. These guys were high-producers with all-star resumes that were forced to lesser roles in Lebron-ball (low team assists, low ball movement, bad fits & chemistry, zero young player development).. Otoh, everyone played to capacity alongside Jordan because his brand was high ball movement, high team assists, great chemistry and teammate growth - that's the historical record.






Chicago was dominating at a higher rate when MJ shot the ball less than 20 times a game.





Those are the games that teammates played above their normal capability like games where Pippen had 26 points or Paxson had 18.

^^^ That's normal help for most guys like Lebron or Magic and they win about 50-60 games a year with it... But Jordan wins 78-80 games (95% win rate according to your data) - he's basically unbeatable with this kind of help..

The problem is that Jordan didn't get this help for entire seasons like Magic or Lebron - Jordan's sidekicks never averaged 25 in any season and his 3rd options never averaged 18.. His help was far less, so he had to carry the load with 20+ shots in about 80% of games (goat load).. Obviously, his carry-job record was goat but still not enough to win 80 games.

Ultimately, you seem to think that basketball is a fixed game where Jordan will automatically take a pre-determined amount of shots - that's false - teams adjust based on how guys are playing.. If BJ hits a couple shots and it looks like he might get him a 20-piece, teammates (including Jordan) will look for him.. That's just a simple example but you get the point.

[97 bulls]

Because Jordan's teammates played to capacity alongside him.

Your ultimate contention is that they didn't but the stats prove that they did

Your contention is that Pippen was infact a 25 ppg guy, and Paxson was infact a 17 ppg guy, and Grant was infact a 20 ppg player

They weren't and everyone knew this back then and now (except for a certain subculture of Lebron fans).

Everyone knew that Paxson was a spot-up shooter that should average about 10 ppg, while Grant was a 10/10 guy with a peak of 15.... And that's what they did alongside MJ..

Similarly, everyone knew Pippen's peak was about 20-22 ppg - this is what he did alongside Jordan, although his efficiency suggests that he usually couldn't handle this load.

None of cast was a secret superstar and sacrificing in a lesser role than they deserved like Love, Bosh, Jamison, Hughes, Ingram, Westbrook and many more.. These guys were high-producers with all-star resumes that were forced to lesser roles in Lebron-ball (low team assists, low ball movement, bad fits & chemistry, zero young player development).. Otoh, everyone played to capacity alongside Jordan because his brand was high ball movement, high team assists, great chemistry and teammate growth - that's the historical record.






Those are the games that teammates played above their normal capability like games where Pippen had 26 points or Paxson had 18.

^^^ That's normal help for most guys like Lebron or Magic and they win about 50-60 games a year with it... But Jordan wins 78-80 games (95% win rate according to your data) - he's basically unbeatable with this kind of help..

The problem is that Jordan didn't get this help for entire seasons like Magic or Lebron - Jordan's sidekicks never averaged 25 in any season and his 3rd options never averaged 18.. His help was far less, so he had to carry the load with 20+ shots in about 80% of games (goat load).. Obviously, his carry-job record was goat but still not enough to win 80 games.

Ultimately, you seem to think that basketball is a fixed game where Jordan will automatically take a pre-determined amount of shots - that's false - teams adjust based on how guys are playing.. If BJ hits a couple shots and it looks like he might get him a 20-piece, teammates (including Jordan) will look for him.. That's just a simple example but you get the point.

Bro. Jordan himself plainly stated that he took that many shots because he wanted to. He wanted to lead the league in scoring.

Why do you want people to take your assessment over what Michael Jordan actually stated?

[Phoenix]

Teammates didn't allow Jordan to shoot less - they didn't play well enough.. Jordan had to carry the load and HoopNY's ' data shows exactly how often based on a 20 FGA threshold

And if shooting less wins 75 games, why hasn't anyone done it?... Lebron and Magic barely win 50 or 60 games by shooting less than 20 times, while Jordan's win rate is 80 wins (95% win rate) when he has their help (shoots less than 20 times)..

People always wonder how MJ would do with Kareem or Kobe or Wade and we'll never know.. But we know that whenever MJ got enough help to shoot less than 20 times, he was literally unbeatable.. So our instinct is correct - MJ would be unbeatable with overkill help like Kareem, Wade or the super-team help that Magic and Lebron had..






No because HoopsNY's data showed how often Jordan had to take more than 20 shots - it was about 75-80% of games - that's more than anyone in history and reflects a lack of go-to teammates that only MJ had to overcome, as Kenny Smith explains here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4UF6Xx3F2Lo&t=01m54s






If I have thousands of posts saying the Bulls casts was trash, then I obviously have my mind made up.. they're trash.... :hammerhead:






It's because we're not 9 years old like you, so we were alive and watched the games - Jamison was a 22/9 stud before joining the Cavs and everyone knew he would be 2nd option..

Everyone knew that Mo didn't have Jamison's resume or pedigree, so it was disappointing to see Jamison become one of the first casualties of Lebron-ball's skillset (Luka-ball AAU simpleton offense for the low IQ unsophisticated player)






Jordan locked down Nick Anderson and held nearly every opposing SG to horrible stats.. It's standard for MJ.

Otoh, Pippen let Penny go off, which is why he wasn't assigned as the primary defender on Drexler, Magic Isiah or Payton...






Porter carried the Blazers to the Finals with 26/4/8 on 53% threes (6 attempts).. He was literally Damian Lillard on the 90' and 92' Finals runs.

KJ played even better in the 90', 94, and 95' playoffs when he upset Magic and dominated Hakeem twice... Meanwhile, Worthy or Stockton have legendary tales of playoff domination..

So every 90's sidekick was infact a go-to 1b that dominated and achieved elite stats EXCEPT Pippen, who was just a hustler/transition player, system player, and statistically carried in virtually every series..






The reality is that MJ helped to lock down Porter, while KJ and Worthy were hurt - otherwise, Pippen would've been destroyed..

Regardless, Pippen's peak capability was only about 20 ppg, so he never dominate anyone and this low peak meant that he didn't require game-planning (wasn't on scouting report)






You guys are saying that the Bulls could've won more if Jordan shot less, which is preposterous and demonstrates how thoroughly you've been defeated in the argument about Jordan in general..

In the 93' Finals, the Suns and Bulls both averaged exactly 106.7 ppg and 113.0 ortg, while Pippen shot 46% true shooting (woat-caliber).. Since Pippen can't handle more shots, are you guys saying that Grant or Paxson should be taking some of Jordan's shots??... See how ridiculous it is?.. The Bulls had no go-to players except Jordan (woat offensive help)






Jordan is always the best when it matters - he got his team a 3-0 lead and then shut it down.

But Pippen shot 34%, so he can't get more shots

And Rodman obviously can't get more shots

So the Bulls are completely f*cked if Jordan doesn't average several more points than anyone in the series and nearly double the average of anyone on his team.






It's so obvious when fans the media never played the game... :facepalm:

Every player in the history of basketball has been told "this guy will be open", or "pass the ball here", or "this is the play - find so-and-so"

It's called X's and O's.. aka coaching

A few articles point out that it was just regular coaching, but the mainstream media saw the opportunity to play into their erroneous ballhog narrative... One wrong take after another.

The reality is that Jordan was averaging 11 apg in the series long before the passes to Paxson .. Jordan had already found Paxson a million times in the series already.

It was just regular coaching.. X's and O's.... Jordan already knew how to pass - he averaged more assists than Lebron for the first 9 years of their playoff careers before Curry's pace and space era made offense easier for everyone.






The difference in brand of ball between 89' Jordan and 09' Lebron showed in the playoffs

Lebron lost as a historic favorite, while Jordan led one of the biggest upset carry-jobs ever.. Jordan carried much a weaker cast over better teams than Dwight's garbage Magic.

So not all 40 ppg are the same... Brand of ball matters.






Phil wouldn't be able to run the triangle with Lebron and would get fired like Blatt, who wanted to run similar concepts.

So the 1st option dictates brand of ball, teammate fits and chemistry... Luka and Lebron cannot run ball movement brands that yield high team assists - they're too ball-dominant..

So Jordan's skillset was simply better at brand of ball, chemistry and teammate development - that's why he never lost as the favorite.. He never had better on-paper talent but lost to better brand of ball.

I got this dude writing documents. I didn't read by the way, I entertain your bullshit on the occasions I'm passing through here and bored. You've spent the past few days reeling from Hoops post and having a psychotic breakdown at how badly every single person you've engaged here has destroyed you( nothing new under the sun). You've been utterly skull-raped.

[Phoenix]

Slow Clap.

I've been saying this all along. I'm almost 50. There was a time when we compared teams when debating. Now it's players solely. So much that posters on here literally don't say the Lakers are playing tbr Bucs. They say, Lebron is playing against Giannis. And the kicker is that the knly time teammates are brought up, is to levy blame. It's really weird. And I only see this in Basketball forums.

This is true, but I wonder how much the league takes culpability for pushing individuals over teams. Even when you had Magic playing Bird the overall picture of it being 'Lakers vs Celtics' wasn't tossed in the background.

[RRR3]

I got this dude writing documents. I didn't read by the way, I entertain your bullshit on the occasions I'm passing through here and bored. You've spent the past few days reeling from Hoops post and having a psychotic breakdown at how badly every single person you've engaged here has destroyed you( nothing new under the sun). You've been utterly skull-raped.
He’s used to just me and you bullying him. Hoops and others joining in ruined him :(

[97 bulls]

This is true, but I wonder how much the league takes culpability for pushing individuals over teams. Even when you had Magic playing Bird the overall picture of it being 'Lakers vs Celtics' wasn't tossed in the background.

The league has plenty of culpability. And I can't say it's not working. The NBA has never been more popular.

But on a forum full of basketball "purists"? I expect more.

It seemed to really get started in 91 when "Magic vs Michael" was marketed. But it's gone totally haywire to the rest of the team being ignored, to fans flat out diminishing their contributions in order to prop up the player.

[97 bulls]

He’s used to just me and you bullying him. Hoops and others joining in ruined him :(

And you guys were doing an awesome job lol.

[HoopsNY]

Because Jordan's teammates played to capacity alongside him.

Your ultimate contention is that they didn't but the stats prove that they did

Your contention is that Pippen was infact a 25 ppg guy, and Paxson was infact a 17 ppg guy, and Grant was infact a 20 ppg player

They weren't and everyone knew this back then and now (except for a certain subculture of Lebron fans).

Nowhere did I claim that Pippen was a 25 PPG guy, or Paxson 17, or Grant 20. Re-read what I actually said.


Those are the games that teammates played above their normal capability like games where Pippen had 26 points or Paxson had 18

Not really. The data showed Pippen putting up 22-28 PPG, Armstrong around 16, same with Grant, and Kukoc around 17-18. These are numbers typically higher that what they would produce with MJ.


^^^ That's normal help for most guys like Lebron or Magic and they win about 50-60 games a year with it... But Jordan wins 78-80 games (95% win rate according to your data) - he's basically unbeatable with this kind of help..

Yea, I didn't say otherwise, though. The contention was that other guys couldn't score more. They could.


The problem is that Jordan didn't get this help for entire seasons like Magic or Lebron - Jordan's sidekicks never averaged 25 in any season and his 3rd options never averaged 18.. His help was far less, so he had to carry the load with 20+ shots in about 80% of games (goat load).. Obviously, his carry-job record was goat but still not enough to win 80 games.

How could they help anymore than they did with MJ monopolizing 20-25 FGA a game? There's only so many shots to go around.

But notice you completely ignored what I said here...


I never brought up the '93 finals specifically. But if you want to go there, then look at the following:

'93 FS Armstrong: 61% TS%
'93 FS Grant: 55% TS%
'93 FS Paxson: 83% TS%

Hell, Trent Tucker shot 7-10 (70%) in that series. Look at the efficiency numbers if you don't believe me:

'93 MJ: .508 % FGs, .400% 3pt

'93 CHI Cast: .469% FGs, .500% 3pt

I don't know about you, but a cast that shoots 47% from the field and 50% from three point range is not horrendous on anyone's scale. Do you really want me to go into the data of some other casts in the finals and show you? Actually, let's look at Phoenix's cast's FGs and 3s in the finals while we're at it.

'93 Barkley: .476% FGs, .250% 3pt

'92 PHO Cast: .465% FGs, .462 3pt

Would you look at that? Chicago's cast shot the ball slightly better than Phoenix. Even if you want to say that the difference is minimal, then the point that you're making isn't substantiated. Clearly Chicago's cast was shooting the ball well. Who hit the game winner in game 6? It was Paxson.

[RRR3]

Nowhere did I claim that Pippen was a 25 PPG guy, or Paxson 17, or Grant 20. Re-read what I actually said.



Not really. The data showed Pippen putting up 22-28 PPG, Armstrong around 16, same with Grant, and Kukoc around 17-18. These are numbers typically higher that what they would produce with MJ.



Yea, I didn't say otherwise, though. The contention was that other guys couldn't score more. They could.



How could they help anymore than they did with MJ monopolizing 20-25 FGA a game? There's only so many shots to go around.

But notice you completely ignored what I said here...
I swear he just argues to argue. Arguably most of the people who engage him have Jordan as the GOAT (Phoenix, you, SouBeach, me). Although he probably thinks SouBeach and I think LeBron is the GOAT :lol. I have LeBron #2 if you’re curious which is obviously way too high for 3ball

[Phoenix]

I swear he just argues to argue. Arguably most of the people who engage him have Jordan as the GOAT (Phoenix, you, SouBeach, me). Although he probably thinks SouBeach and I think LeBron is the GOAT :lol. I have LeBron #2 if you’re curious which is obviously way too high for 3ball

I've actually reached a point of not really having a defined 'GOAT'. I just think its too arbitrary and subjective and the conversation is so worn now that every possible point and argument has been made about it. I find the discussion on it pretty boring now. MJ is my favorite player, but I'm not maniacally obsessed with defending his legacy ( as some anonymous poster on a forum) and there's a danger of being so caught in the past that you can't appreciate what's in front of you and you end up needlessly hating and tearing down other greats. I don't really care if someone has Lebron, or Kareem, or Russell etc etc as their GOAT based on whatever criteria they're going by, but this board is long past the point of where you can hope to have any decent conversation on the topic. It's just a lot of 'gotcha' memes, context-less arguing points and cheerleading, good for a laugh at the absurdity of it all.

[SouBeachTalents]

I've actually reached a point of not really having a defined 'GOAT'. I just think its too arbitrary and subjective and the conversation is so worn now that every possible point and argument has been made about it. I find the discussion on it pretty boring now. MJ is my favorite player, but I'm not maniacally obsessed with defending his legacy ( as some anonymous poster on a forum) and don't really care if someone has Lebron, or Kareem, or Russell etc etc as their GOAT based on whatever criteria they're going by.
Yeah, for me personally, Jordan/LeBron/Kareem are in the GOAT tier, if FORCED to rank them they'd probably go in that order. If we're talking peak, throw Wilt/Shaq/Hakeem into the mix.

[Phoenix]

Yeah, for me personally, Jordan/LeBron/Kareem are in the GOAT tier, if FORCED to rank them they'd probably go in that order. If we're talking peak, throw Wilt/Shaq/Hakeem into the mix.

That's what I do, a tiered system. The players you mention are my first tier as well but I have Russell in there. All of them present interesting cases with some combination of statistical dominance, individual and team accolades.

[3ba11]

The data showed Pippen putting up 22-28 PPG when MJ took less than 20 FGA... Armstrong around 16, same with Grant





Pippen wasn't a 22-28 ppg player - he was an 18-22 ppg player and 14 outside the triangle.

So your data simply shows how rarely Pippen was able to be a 22-28 ppg player, thus allowing MJ to take less than 20 shots.

Again, Pippen's peak was 22 in 1994 (14 outside the triangle and dynasty chemistry that he grew up in)...

however, you know who WAS a 22-28 ppg player or better???... Kareem, AD, Wade, Kyrie, Love and Bosh - Lebron and Magic only won 50-60 games with this level of help, while MJ's win rate was 80 games (based on your data)..

Are we done here?

All that research you did simply shows how rarely Jordan got help and how he was unbeatable when he did... And his record is also the best by far at carry-jobs (+20 FGA).

Btw, Grant and Armstrong aren't 16 ppg guys either just like Pippen isn't 22-28.

[97 bulls]

Pippen wasn't a 22-28 ppg player - he was an 18-22 ppg player and 14 outside the triangle.

So your data simply shows how rarely Pippen was able to be a 22-28 ppg player, thus allowing MJ to take less than 20 shots.

Again, Pippen's peak was 22 in 1994 (14 outside the triangle and dynasty chemistry that he grew up in)...

however, you know who WAS a 22-28 ppg player or better???... Kareem, AD, Wade, Kyrie, Love and Bosh - Lebron and Magic only won 50-60 games with this level of help, while MJ's win rate was 80 games (based on your data)..

Are we done here?

All that research you did simply shows how rarely Jordan got help and how he was unbeatable when he did... And his record is also the best by far at carry-jobs (+20 FGA).

Btw, Grant and Armstrong aren't 16 ppg guys either just like Pippen isn't 22-28.

No sir. The Trump card is always gonna be that Jordan himself said he averaged 30+ because he wanted to. It's what he set out to do. We don't know what Pippens max would've been because Pippen is on record saying he didn't trt to go out and score 25+ppg.

[3ba11]

No sir. The Trump card is always gonna be that Jordan himself said he averaged 30+ because he wanted to. It's what he set out to do. We don't know what Pippens max would've been because Pippen is on record saying he didn't trt to go out and score 25+ppg.


A weak argument that I pay no mind and no one thinks is strong

Otoh, HoopsNY posted the actual numbers... Pippen was able to play over his head 24% of the time (22-28 ppg), which allowed MJ to shoot less than 20 times

So MJ would shoot less when teammates had it going - that's what any high IQ player does... It's called basketball.. And when he did score, it was sufficiently off-ball to maintain good chemistry and fits.. This is also high IQ

And unlike MJ, guys like Lebron and Magic actually had teammates that averaged 22-28 and more, yet they only won 50-60 games a year - whereas Jordan's win rate was 80 (95%) when he had their help

[FilmyCogTurner]

3ball belongs in the insane asylum but he's correct in this case.

[FilmyCogTurner]

No sir. The Trump card is always gonna be that Jordan himself said he averaged 30+ because he wanted to. It's what he set out to do. We don't know what Pippens max would've been because Pippen is on record saying he didn't trt to go out and score 25+ppg.

Jordan could still set out to accomplish his goal of 30 PPG and come by it naturally through the natural flow of the game, you realize this right? Watch some classic hoops. Jordan is for the most part playing beautiful basketball within the Chicago offense.

[97 bulls]

A weak argument that I pay no mind and no one thinks is strong

Otoh, HoopsNY posted the actual numbers... Pippen was able to play over his head 24% of the time (22-28 ppg), which allowed MJ to shoot less than 20 times

So MJ would shoot less when teammates had it going - that's what any high IQ player does... It's called basketball.. And when he did score, it was sufficiently off-ball to maintain good chemistry and fits.. This is also high IQ

And unlike MJ, guys like Lebron and Magic actually had teammates that averaged 22-28 and more, yet they only won 50-60 games a year - whereas Jordan's win rate was 80 (95%) when he had their help

Bro. He's not gonna shoot less regardless because he wanted to score over 30 a game. How are you missing this?

[97 bulls]

Jordan could still set out to accomplish his goal of 30 PPG and come by it naturally through the natural flow of the game, you realize this right? Watch some classic hoops. Jordan is for the most part playing beautiful basketball within the Chicago offense.

Lol. I'm 48 years old. I remember those games.

I just went back and watched game 6 of the 93 NBA Finals. My overall point stands. Jordan scored all but 3 of the Bulls points in the 4th, but he took almost all of the shots. And by my count, he was 4-11. Pippen took 2 shots, and I believe Cartwright took one. It was their defense that carried them through.

For the life of me, I don't see why we're speculating here when the man (Jordan) actually stated that he wanted to score 30 a night. SMH. Why am I supposed to believe what a troll like 3ball says over what Jordan himself said?

You implying that the Bulls needed Jordan to score 30 a night to win (cuz that's exactly what you're doing in a passive aggressive way), is totally contrary to what the data shows. Especially when 94 and even 95 are factored in.

Whats great is that he did it efficiently and effectively in that the Bulls were Uber successful.

[HoopsNY]

Lol. I'm 48 years old. I remember those games.

I just went back and watched game 6 of the 93 NBA Finals. My overall point stands. Jordan scored all but 3 of the Bulls points in the 4th, but he took almost all of the shots. And by my count, he was 4-11. Pippen took 2 shots, and I believe Cartwright took one. It was their defense that carried them through.

For the life of me, I don't see why we're speculating here when the man (Jordan) actually stated that he wanted to score 30 a night. SMH. Why am I supposed to believe what a troll like 3ball says over what Jordan himself said?

You implying that the Bulls needed Jordan to score 30 a night to win (cuz that's exactly what you're doing in a passive aggressive way), is totally contrary to what the data shows. Especially when 94 and even 95 are factored in.

Whats great is that he did it efficiently and effectively in that the Bulls were Uber successful.

Yep. 1994 is especially glaring because both Pippen and Grant missed time, but when they were on the court together, they had a 60 game win pace. Basically, Chicago was the best team in the league without MJ.

Now I will say this, 1994 gets a bit overrated because it doesn't account for the fact that '94 was the peak year for Pippen, Grant, and Armstrong (they were all All-Stars). I think that's a credit to MJ, not a detriment.

As much as we can say that MJ didn't need to shoot as many times as he did, he was still a great leader whose on and off the court leadership proved beneficial to his teammates, at least in the Chicago years. He was also an incredible floor raiser, and probably the best floor raiser of all-time.

But the original point still stands. Chicago was one of the best teams in the league in '94 without MJ, and still a playoff team without MJ and Grant in '95. That's pretty remarkable when you think about it, because Chicago was 6th in the East before MJ returned.

[FilmyCogTurner]

Lol. I'm 48 years old. I remember those games.

I just went back and watched game 6 of the 93 NBA Finals. My overall point stands. Jordan scored all but 3 of the Bulls points in the 4th, but he took almost all of the shots. And by my count, he was 4-11. Pippen took 2 shots, and I believe Cartwright took one. It was their defense that carried them through.

For the life of me, I don't see why we're speculating here when the man (Jordan) actually stated that he wanted to score 30 a night. SMH. Why am I supposed to believe what a troll like 3ball says over what Jordan himself said?

You implying that the Bulls needed Jordan to score 30 a night to win (cuz that's exactly what you're doing in a passive aggressive way), is totally contrary to what the data shows. Especially when 94 and even 95 are factored in.

Whats great is that he did it efficiently and effectively in that the Bulls were Uber successful.

Goddamn 97 Bulls now you are forcing me into watching game 6 now also.

What should have Chicago done differently in the 4th?

And I don't see how I am being passive aggressive. We're online, no reason not to say what is exactly on my mind.

[Vino24]

MJ had a “go-to team” let alone a go -to scorer

[97 bulls]

Lol. I'm 48 years old. I remember those games.

I just went back and watched game 6 of the 93 NBA Finals. My overall point stands. Jordan scored all but 3 of the Bulls points in the 4th, but he took almost all of the shots. And by my count, he was 4-11. Pippen took 2 shots, and I believe Cartwright took one. It was their defense that carried them through.

For the life of me, I don't see why we're speculating here when the man (Jordan) actually stated that he wanted to score 30 a night. SMH. Why am I supposed to believe what a troll like 3ball says over what Jordan himself said?

You implying that the Bulls needed Jordan to score 30 a night to win (cuz that's exactly what you're doing in a passive aggressive way), is totally contrary to what the data shows. Especially when 94 and even 95 are factored in.

Whats great is that he did it efficiently and effectively in that the Bulls were Uber successful.


Goddamn 97 Bulls now you are forcing me into watching game 6 now also.

What should have Chicago done differently in the 4th?

And I don't see how I am being passive aggressive. We're online, no reason not to say what is exactly on my mind.

That was the game I was talking about that you said you watched. 93 Finals game 6. What game did you watch?


What should the Bulls have dome different in 93? Nothing. They won.

I referenced that 4th quarter because it's used to undermine Jordan's teammates. The "Jordan scored all but 3 of the Bulls points in the 4th" narrative. That's true. But he took most of the shots.

It's become apparent that posters try to come off as unbiased to make their point more acceptable. You say you don't agree with 3ball, but then imply that the Bulls needed MJ to score all those points. Just admit that you don't think the Bulls were good enough scorers.

[FilmyCogTurner]

That was the game I was talking about that you said you watched. 93 Finals game 6. What game did you watch?


What should the Bulls have dome different in 93? Nothing. They won.

I referenced that 4th quarter because it's used to undermine Jordan's teammates. The "Jordan scored all but 3 of the Bulls points in the 4th" narrative. That's true. But he took most of the shots.

It's become apparent that posters try to come off as unbiased to make their point more acceptable. You say you don't agree with 3ball, but then imply that the Bulls needed MJ to score all those points. Just admit that you don't think the Bulls were good enough scorers.

Why would I admit that when I don't feel that way.

Skimmed through game 6 (watched game 5 initially, figured you were talking about a loss).

From what I saw the Bulls did need Jordans scoring in the 4th. Phoenix was closing in and it was down to a four point game several times.

10 minutes into the 4th I saw Pip with brick. Cartwright stuffed. Pip miss. Jordan back to back buckets. Both sides thinking Jordan had the hot hand. Horrendous miss by MJ then a series of make one miss one for the most part by Jordan. Paxson three is on the horizon next I know that.

Nowhere have I said the Bulls supporting cast was trash. I do feel opposing teams had their share of advantages over the Bulls in many ways which made for a good series and not some 17 Warriors beat down that some of you guys like to allude to.

[97 bulls]

Why would I admit that when I don't feel that way.

Skimmed through game 6 (watched game 5 initially, figured you were talking about a loss).

From what I saw the Bulls did need Jordans scoring in the 4th. Phoenix was closing in and it was down to a four point game several times.

10 minutes into the 4th I saw Pip with brick. Cartwright stuffed. Pip miss. Jordan back to back buckets. Both sides thinking Jordan had the hot hand. Horrendous miss by MJ then a series of make one miss one for the most part by Jordan. Paxson three is on the horizon next I know that.

Nowhere have I said the Bulls supporting cast was trash. I do feel opposing teams had their share of advantages over the Bulls in many ways which made for a good series and not some 17 Warriors beat down that some of you guys like to allude to.

Lol. Passive aggressive. The bold is a soft way to say the Bulls weren't that good outside of MJ. They were bad, but other teams had better. The difference was Jordan.

Am I right?

Even though we've seen the results of every dynasty of the modern era and how the faired without their best player. The Celtics lost Bird in 89, they were 42-40. The Lakere lost Magic in 92, they barely made the playoffs, the Heat were trash when James left. Hell Toni Kukoc did better than Draymond Green did when they both had the chance to run their team.

The only team I've ever seen be successful without their best player is the Bulls. Why do people question their validity outside of MJ?

[light]

MJ had a go-to teammate that dominated 1994.

Scottie Pippen is the only player in history to average at least 22 points, 8.7 rebounds, 5.6 assists and 2.9 steals in the same season.

The rate at which Pippen got steals in 1994 was absurd.

Check the Per 100 Possession stats for players meeting a similar threshold:

https://i.ibb.co/SfhTzB4/Screen-Shot-2022-08-18-at-8-46-19-PM.png

[aceman]

He would've averaged 27/8/9 and had an easier load than his 34/6/6 playoff averages

This idea that Jordan had to average 34 and therefore it was good that he had no scoring help or a weak-scoring sidekick is absurd and really dumb

People are literally saying that Jordan somehow had MORE help by having no scoring help.. it makes no sense

Sure. Old mj was taking more shots per game than rip Hamilton & Jerry Stackhouse

[FilmyCogTurner]

Lol. Passive aggressive. The bold is a soft way to say the Bulls weren't that good outside of MJ. They were bad, but other teams had better. The difference was Jordan.

Am I right?

Even though we've seen the results of every dynasty of the modern era and how the faired without their best player. The Celtics lost Bird in 89, they were 42-40. The Lakere lost Magic in 92, they barely made the playoffs, the Heat were trash when James left. Hell Toni Kukoc did better than Draymond Green did when they both had the chance to run their team.

The only team I've ever seen be successful without their best player is the Bulls. Why do people question their validity outside of MJ?

No, sir. I do not feel they were bad teammates. Pippen is one of the an all-time #2 options. In both 3 peats you had Horace/Rodman as excellent 3rds. Paxson/BJ and Kukoc next in line and any one of those players could boost scoring.

I think one of the main problems for the team was toughness. Jordan was more than fine by himself and Pip eventually developed his own level of toughness but the rest of the guys were lacking into that department compared to other teams. Not that they didn't want to compete in that way but it was their physical makeup that prevented it. Except for Grant who had the body but to put things simply was a giant ***** on the court.

94 is a great season and when I became a huge fan of the NBA. Pippen was my favorite player right out of the gates. You replace Jordan and this team could be competing for top position in their conference based off their championship pedigree/talent but titles are a different story. What if Jordan came back and came back to the Knicks? Sure, Pip has been a hell of a #2 but what does Ewing look like as a second option next to Jordan. That one two punch could have been even more potent.

[8Ball]

I remember 3ball putting more heart into his arguments. He seems to have given up when destroyed this badly.


3ball don't believe jordan the goat any longer.

[outofstomach]

Teammates didn't allow Jordan to shoot less - they didn't play well enough.. Jordan had to carry the load and HoopNY's ' data shows exactly how often based on a 20 FGA threshold

And if shooting less wins 75 games, why hasn't anyone done it?... Lebron and Magic barely win 50 or 60 games by shooting less than 20 times, while Jordan's win rate is 80 wins (95% win rate) when he has their help (shoots less than 20 times)..

People always wonder how MJ would do with Kareem or Kobe or Wade and we'll never know.. But we know that whenever MJ got enough help to shoot less than 20 times, he was literally unbeatable.. So our instinct is correct - MJ would be unbeatable with overkill help like Kareem, Wade or the super-team help that Magic and Lebron had..






No because HoopsNY's data showed how often Jordan had to take more than 20 shots - it was about 75-80% of games - that's more than anyone in history and reflects a lack of go-to teammates that only MJ had to overcome, as Kenny Smith explains here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4UF6Xx3F2Lo&t=01m54s






If I have thousands of posts saying the Bulls casts was trash, then I obviously have my mind made up.. they're trash.... :hammerhead:






It's because we're not 9 years old like you, so we were alive and watched the games - Jamison was a 22/9 stud before joining the Cavs and everyone knew he would be 2nd option..

Everyone knew that Mo didn't have Jamison's resume or pedigree, so it was disappointing to see Jamison become one of the first casualties of Lebron-ball's skillset (Luka-ball AAU simpleton offense for the low IQ unsophisticated player)






Jordan locked down Nick Anderson and held nearly every opposing SG to horrible stats.. It's standard for MJ.

Otoh, Pippen let Penny go off, which is why he wasn't assigned as the primary defender on Drexler, Magic Isiah or Payton...






Porter carried the Blazers to the Finals with 26/4/8 on 53% threes (6 attempts).. He was literally Damian Lillard on the 90' and 92' Finals runs.

KJ played even better in the 90', 94, and 95' playoffs when he upset Magic and dominated Hakeem twice... Meanwhile, Worthy or Stockton have legendary tales of playoff domination..

So every 90's sidekick was infact a go-to 1b that dominated and achieved elite stats EXCEPT Pippen, who was just a hustler/transition player, system player, and statistically carried in virtually every series..






The reality is that MJ helped to lock down Porter, while KJ and Worthy were hurt - otherwise, Pippen would've been destroyed..

Regardless, Pippen's peak capability was only about 20 ppg, so he never dominate anyone and this low peak meant that he didn't require game-planning (wasn't on scouting report)






You guys are saying that the Bulls could've won more if Jordan shot less, which is preposterous and demonstrates how thoroughly you've been defeated in the argument about Jordan in general..

In the 93' Finals, the Suns and Bulls both averaged exactly 106.7 ppg and 113.0 ortg, while Pippen shot 46% true shooting (woat-caliber).. Since Pippen can't handle more shots, are you guys saying that Grant or Paxson should be taking some of Jordan's shots??... See how ridiculous it is?.. The Bulls had no go-to players except Jordan (woat offensive help)






Jordan is always the best when it matters - he got his team a 3-0 lead and then shut it down.

But Pippen shot 34%, so he can't get more shots

And Rodman obviously can't get more shots

So the Bulls are completely f*cked if Jordan doesn't average several more points than anyone in the series and nearly double the average of anyone on his team.






It's so obvious when fans the media never played the game... :facepalm:

Every player in the history of basketball has been told "this guy will be open", or "pass the ball here", or "this is the play - find so-and-so"

It's called X's and O's.. aka coaching

A few articles point out that it was just regular coaching, but the mainstream media saw the opportunity to play into their erroneous ballhog narrative... One wrong take after another.

The reality is that Jordan was averaging 11 apg in the series long before the passes to Paxson .. Jordan had already found Paxson a million times in the series already.

It was just regular coaching.. X's and O's.... Jordan already knew how to pass - he averaged more assists than Lebron for the first 9 years of their playoff careers before Curry's pace and space era made offense easier for everyone.






The difference in brand of ball between 89' Jordan and 09' Lebron showed in the playoffs

Lebron lost as a historic favorite, while Jordan led one of the biggest upset carry-jobs ever.. Jordan carried much a weaker cast over better teams than Dwight's garbage Magic.

So not all 40 ppg are the same... Brand of ball matters.






Phil wouldn't be able to run the triangle with Lebron and would get fired like Blatt, who wanted to run similar concepts.

So the 1st option dictates brand of ball, teammate fits and chemistry... Luka and Lebron cannot run ball movement brands that yield high team assists - they're too ball-dominant..

So Jordan's skillset was simply better at brand of ball, chemistry and teammate development - that's why he never lost as the favorite.. He never had better on-paper talent but lost to better brand of ball.
hol-y shit :lol

[AlternativeAcc.]

Sheeesh, 3ball got obliterated out of this thread like a fukking cannonball.

[3ba11]

In games where Jordan shot less than 20 times, Pippen scored 22-28 ppg... But Pippen wasn't a 22-28 ppg player - he was an 18-22 ppg player and 14 outside the triangle.

So your data simply shows how rarely Pippen dropped a 22-28, thus allowing MJ to take less than 20 shots.

however, you know who WAS a 22-28 ppg player or better???... Kareem, AD, Wade, Kyrie, Love and Bosh - Lebron and Magic only won 50-60 games with this level of help, while MJ's win rate was 80 games (based on your data)..

Are we done here?

All that research you did simply shows how rarely Jordan got help and how he was unbeatable when he did... And his record is also the best by far at carry-jobs (+20 FGA).

Btw, Grant and Armstrong aren't 16 ppg guys either just like Pippen isn't 22-28.


Hoops ran again from this one

[3ba11]

Bro. He's not gonna shoot less regardless because he wanted to score over 30 a game. How are you missing this?


but jordan DID shoot less when his teammates had it going - our data confirms this - he shot less than 20 times in 24% of games and Pippen averaged 22-28 in these games (way over his head)

So Jordan shot less when teammates had it going.

HoopsNY and my data show this.. (I'm co-owning the data because I inspired him to prove MJ's goat burden... And he did with clear-cut numbers.. HoopsNY and 3ball on the same team.. He was basically trolling you guys and it worked!!.. :applause:)

[3ba11]

3ball belongs in the insane asylum but he's correct in this case.


Thanks

Another objective person itt

[97 bulls]

but jordan DID shoot less when his teammates had it going - our data confirms this - he shot less than 20 times in 24% of games and Pippen averaged 22-28 in these games (way over his head)

So Jordan shot less when teammates had it going.

HoopsNY and my data show this.. (I'm co-owning the data because I inspired him to prove MJ's goat burden... And he did with clear-cut numbers.. HoopsNY and 3ball on the same team.. He was basically trolling you guys and it worked!!.. :applause:)

Lol. You don't have to score 30+ literally every game to average 30 for the season bro. SMH. If Jordan shot less, he wouldn't have met his goal which was to lead the league in scoring.

[HoopsNY]

Hoops ran again from this one

I didn't run from anything. You're intentionally misconstruing what it is that I'm saying. Bj and Grant could have developed into better scorers if MJ was more focused on that. The same with Pippen. In the '94 season, BJ and Grant both averaged 15 PPG, and Pippen 22 PPG.

It's not unreasonable to think if MJ was more of a facilitator from '88 onward that Grant, Bj, and Pippen all develop into better scorers with MJ's tutelage, potentially turning Pippen into a consistent 22-23 PPG scorer and BJ and Grant into 16 PPG scorers earlier on in their careers.

Secondly, the data shows that most of the games where MJ took less shots were games that Chicago was blowing out their opponents. However, the data also shows Chicago was 37-5 in non-blowout situations. That's a 72 win pace.

Even when the data is controlled for non-blowout situations, Chicago was still better by a significant margin. There's no denying this data. You're literally the ONLY one on this entire forum who rejects it or misinterprets it.

[97 bulls]

but jordan DID shoot less when his teammates had it going - our data confirms this - he shot less than 20 times in 24% of games and Pippen averaged 22-28 in these games (way over his head)

So Jordan shot less when teammates had it going.

HoopsNY and my data show this.. (I'm co-owning the data because I inspired him to prove MJ's goat burden... And he did with clear-cut numbers.. HoopsNY and 3ball on the same team.. He was basically trolling you guys and it worked!!.. :applause:)

Bro. It doesn't matter if Jordan set out to lead the league in scoring. So any "burden" that Jordan had was one thar he didn't need but that he wanted to do because he wanted to lead the league in scoring. Again, for like the 10th time. He said it himself. He scored 30 a night because he wanted to lead the league in scoring.

[3ba11]

I didn't run from anything. You're intentionally misconstruing what it is that I'm saying. Bj and Grant could have developed into better scorers if MJ was more focused on that. The same with Pippen. In the '94 season, BJ and Grant both averaged 15 PPG, and Pippen 22 PPG.





So I defeated your argument because now the argument fails unless Pippen, Grant and BJ "should've developed into better scorers if MJ was more focused on that".... <------ that's your quote - if it isn't true, your argument fails

And it isn't true because jordan WAS focused on that.. Pippen, Grant and BJ grew by leaps and bounds every year alongside MJ - they grew from single-digit rookies to 95% of their capacity (career high) within 4 years .

They grew this way because MJ played off-ball and had great assist numbers, including 35/6/6 in 88' and 34/8/8 in 89'.. This included a 25-game stretch at point guard (30/9/11) where the press said he was already a better PG than Stockton and Magic (here).. Furthermore, Jordan averaged more assists than Lebron for the first 9 years of their playoff careers (85-93' vs 06-14') until Curry's pace and space era made offense easier for everyone..

In contrast to MJ having great teammate development, Lebron's skillset never developed a single young player into a viable producer.. So you have it exactly opposite - your arguments about teammate development apply to Lebron's skillset.. He imposes spot-up roles that stall young players, thereby needing ready-made stars to win.. He simply lacks the teammate development, fits, and brand of ball to win organically and therefore must be a talent-basee winner (team-hopper,.. all-star team strategy)... So I guess you're wrong..






Secondly, the data shows that most of the games where MJ took less shots were games that Chicago was blowing out their opponents. However, the data also shows Chicago was 37-5 in non-blowout situations. That's a 72 win pace.

Even when the data is controlled for non-blowout situations, Chicago was still better by a significant margin.





Control the data for whatever you want - Jordan shot less when teammates played above their capacity, aka 22-28 ppg for Pippen

and no, MJ didn't need to develop them into better scorers because he was already developing them better and faster than anyone ever grew low-producing rookies.. MJ is the only guy that had to develop low-producing rookies into viable producers.

Lebron' was actually gifted a bunch of high-producers (Hughes, Jamison) and ready-made stars (Bosh, Love) but destroyed them.






There's no denying this data. You're literally the ONLY one on this entire forum who rejects it or misinterprets it.





I just did and others itt have agreed with me

[FilmyCogTurner]

That is why the triangle offense was implemented in the first place - to allow the others to get involved. Jordan still being able to lead the league in scoring within that offense was simply a testament to his abilities of a basketball player.

[ShawkFactory]

That is why the triangle offense was implemented in the first place - to allow the others to get involved. Jordan still being able to lead the league in scoring within that offense was simply a testament to his abilities of a basketball player.

True that. The funniest part of all of this is that no one has ever actually questioned Michael Jordan’s abilities as a basketball player.

He’s the consensus, borderline unanimous, GOAT. This almost seems counterproductive.

[3ba11]

Jordan still being able to lead the league in scoring within that offense





The point is that guys like Luka, Lebron or Harden can't play in a ball movement offense like the 90's Bulls or the recent Spurs and Warriors - aka dynasty-ball.

Since the ball-dominator skillset can't play dynasty basketball, they're inferior to guys that can like Curry and MJ - the goat 3-point and 2-point jumpshooters, respectively.






Jordan still being able to lead the league in scoring





Domination from stars like Curry or MJ is what makes these ball movement, dynasty systems the effective strategy that they were - without their goat ability to dominate within these systems, the systems are nothing.
.





That is why the triangle offense was implemented in the first place - to allow the others to get involved.





The bolded above articulates the issue incorrectly - that verbage makes it seem like Jordan couldn't pass, or was playing suboptimally, or that he had great teammates who were being held down.

None of that is true

Jordan was infact growing his teammates but none of them were go-to players or elite producers, so they required a top brand of ball to illicit impactful production out of them..

This is similar to the Curry Warriors, who only had 1 go-to player and numerous cast members like Draymond or Wiggins that needed Curry and the system to be impactful winners.

Ultimately, the Bulls' cast were all losers outside the triangle.. It was a dynasty offense like the Warriors or Spurs but it wouldn't work with Luka, Lebron, Harden or any ball-dominator... It only won with MJ or Kobe, who didn't have to dominate the ball (aka coachable).

[97 bulls]

The point is that guys like Luka, Lebron or Harden can't play in a ball movement offense like the 90's Bulls or the recent Spurs and Warriors - aka dynasty-ball.

Since the ball-dominator skillset can't play dynasty basketball, they're inferior to guys that can like Curry and MJ - the goat 3-point and 2-point jumpshooters, respectively.






Domination from stars like Curry or MJ is what makes these ball movement, dynasty systems the effective strategy that they were - without their goat ability to dominate within these systems, the systems are nothing.
.





The bolded above articulates the issue incorrectly - that verbage makes it seem like Jordan couldn't pass, or was playing suboptimally, or that he had great teammates who were being held down.

None of that is true

Jordan was infact growing his teammates but none of them were go-to players or elite producers, so they required a top brand of ball to illicit impactful production out of them..

This is similar to the Curry Warriors, who only had 1 go-to player and numerous cast members like Draymond or Wiggins that needed Curry and the system to be impactful winners.

Ultimately, the Bulls' cast were all losers outside the triangle.. It was a dynasty offense like the Warriors or Spurs but it wouldn't work with Luka, Lebron, Harden or any ball-dominator... It only won with MJ or Kobe, who didn't have to dominate the ball (aka coachable).

Again, why all the speculation? Jordan plainly stated why he took so many shots. He wanted to leas the league in scoring. It had nothing to do with his teammates. His teammates allowed him to do it and figured out other ways to contribute.

[FilmyCogTurner]

The point is that guys like Luka, Lebron or Harden can't play in a ball movement offense like the 90's Bulls or the recent Spurs and Warriors - aka dynasty-ball.

Since the ball-dominator skillset can't play dynasty basketball, they're inferior to guys that can like Curry and MJ - the goat 3-point and 2-point jumpshooters, respectively.






Domination from stars like Curry or MJ is what makes these ball movement, dynasty systems the effective strategy that they were - without their goat ability to dominate within these systems, the systems are nothing.
.





The bolded above articulates the issue incorrectly - that verbage makes it seem like Jordan couldn't pass, or was playing suboptimally, or that he had great teammates who were being held down.

None of that is true

Jordan was infact growing his teammates but none of them were go-to players or elite producers, so they required a top brand of ball to illicit impactful production out of them..

This is similar to the Curry Warriors, who only had 1 go-to player and numerous cast members like Draymond or Wiggins that needed Curry and the system to be impactful winners.

Ultimately, the Bulls' cast were all losers outside the triangle.. It was a dynasty offense like the Warriors or Spurs but it wouldn't work with Luka, Lebron, Harden or any ball-dominator... It only won with MJ or Kobe, who didn't have to dominate the ball (aka coachable).

I don't see how you're telling me anything new. A star powered dynamic offense is always going to be better than a one dimensional star powered offense. Simple, really and again I don't think the players outside Jordan were trash. I will concede the 2nd 3 peat was a heavy load for Jordan but in the first 3 peat Pip was an excellent 2nd option. Horace and Rodman both great 3rd guys and and what made the rest of the guys work so well is that they thankfully BOUGHT into the triangle offense. A lot of credit goes to the gifted star player Jordan that could spearhead such an endeavor while putting more trust into his squad mates who did deliver despite what you have to say.

[Round Mound]

Again, why all the speculation? Jordan plainly stated why he took so many shots. He wanted to leas the league in scoring. It had nothing to do with his teammates. His teammates allowed him to do it and figured out other ways to contribute.

This