Bad Boys had 3x all-stars like Aguirre/Laimbeer or DPOY Rodman > Horace

[3ba11]

During the 1st three-peat, the 3rd options on every contender was a 3x all-star like Nance, Majerle, Buck Williams, Aguirre or they were HOF like Vlade.

The 3rd thru and 6th options on the 92' Knicks (X-Man, Mason, Mark Jackson, Oakley) were 1x all-stars and equal or better than Horace.. Ditto the Lakers (Byron Scott, Vlade, AC Green, Perkins)..

So every contender during the 1st three-peat had a far superior roster to the Bulls based on them having 3rd, 4th and even 5th or 6th options that were better than Horace..

And during the 2nd three-peat, the 3rd options on many contenders were All-NBA like Schrempf, Mason or Mashburn, while the Bulls played 4 on 5 offensively.

[1987_Lakers]

Peja owns you.

[ShawkFactory]

During the 1st three-peat, the 3rd options on every contender was a 3x all-star like Nance, Majerle, Buck Williams, Aguirre or they were HOF like Vlade.

The 3rd thru and 6th options on the 92' Knicks (X-Man, Mason, Mark Jackson, Oakley) were 1x all-stars and equal or better than Horace.. Ditto the Lakers (Byron Scott, Vlade, AC Green, Perkins)..

So every contender during the 1st three-peat had a far superior roster to the Bulls based on them having 3rd, 4th and even 5th or 6th options that were better than Horace..

And during the 2nd three-peat, the 3rd options on many contenders were All-NBA like Schrempf, Mason or Mashburn, while the Bulls played 4 on 5 offensively.

Was it because of that DPOY guy you mentioned in the thread title?

[SATAN]

No Pippen, No Chippin'

[3ba11]

Was it because of that DPOY guy you mentioned in the thread title?


Even if Rodman was a dud, what's your response to Aguirre and Laimbeer, or the Knicks and Lakers having 6 players EACH that are equal or better than Horace?

What about Nance, Majerle, or Buck Williams?... The bulls roster from 3rd thru 12th option were simply TRASH compared to other teams... These are massive deficits in talent that the Bulls offset with MJ and superior chemistry and brand on both ends of the floor.

And Rodman was a 25-year old rookie, so the Pistons got prime Rodman that averaged double-figures and good efficiency, while the Bulls got fossil Rodman that wasn't even an all-defender and averaged 3/8 on 35% for the entire 97' Playoffs (wasn't the starter in 98' PO)

[Axe]

1-9

[SouBeachTalents]

Even if Rodman was a dud, what's your response to Aguirre and Laimbeer, or the Knicks and Lakers having 6 players EACH that are equal or better than Horace?

What about Nance, Majerle, or Buck Williams?... The bulls roster from 3rd thru 12th option were simply TRASH compared to other teams... These are massive deficits in talent that the Bulls offset with MJ and superior chemistry and brand on both ends of the floor.

And Rodman was a 25-year old rookie, so the Pistons got prime Rodman that averaged double-figures and good efficiency, while the Bulls got fossil Rodman that wasn't even an all-defender and averaged 3/8 on 35% for the entire 97' Playoffs (wasn't the starter in 98' PO)
So 3-12 were TRASH and Pippen was Jeff Green, yet they still won 55 games without Jordan. Very intradesting.

Now go fetch me your copy and paste about the ‘94 Bulls bitch.

[tpols]

X-man if it weren't for basketball definitely would've been an elite goon. On some kick in the door or long kiss goodnight shit.


https://youtu.be/7bluk086A2U

[Hey Yo]

Laimbeer nor Aguirre were All-Stars the years the Bulls faced them in the postseason.


OP's a confirmed habitual liar

[97 bulls]

So 3-12 were TRASH and Pippen was Jeff Green, yet they still won 55 games without Jordan. Very intradesting.

Now go fetch me your copy and paste about the ‘94 Bulls bitch.

3ball doesn't know what he's talking about. Rodman was the main reason the Bulls won the Championship vs the Sonics in 96. And he was if nothing else the best rebounder in the league. And still a great defender.

Kukoc was one of if not the best 6th man in the league.

Kerr is the most accurate 3pt shooter to date.


Grant played an integral role on the 1st 3pt on defense and was a very good rebounder. And he was an important part of the Bulls full court press defense.

Armstrong led the league in 3pt shooting. We saw what Paxson did to the Lakers.


To say the Bulls didn't have great pieces around MJ is crazy.

[tpols]

You cant touch me.
Try to rush me.
Slugs go touchy touchy.
You're bleeding lovely... with your spirit above me.
Or beneath me.
Your whole life you lived sneaky, now you rest eternally sleepy...


Hardest verse in rap history.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Ok, great; which of them outplayed Grant and Pippen when the Bulls came into championship form?


Pippen, ‘91 ECF: 22/8/5, 3 steals 2 blocks on 56% TS (would be 2nd highest among Pistons starters), 20.2 GSC (higher than anyone on the Pistons), 116 ortg/102 drtg

Grant, ‘91 ECF: 14/8/2 on 71% TS (higher than any Pistons starter), 13.2 GSC (would be 2nd highest on the Pistons), 145 ortg, 112 drtg


Aguirre, ‘91 ECF: 17/3/1 on 55 TS%, 9.4 GSC, 108 ortg, 121 drtg

Laimbeer, ‘91 ECF: 7/6/1 on 53 TS%, 4.5 GSC, 99 ortg, 121 drtg

Rodman, ‘91 ECF: 5/8/1 on 50% TS, 5.0 GSC, 98 ortg, 114 drtg (though, just like with Pippen and Grant, box score stats undervalue his defence).




….these guys aren’t pitting all-star selections against each other on the court, dummy.

The pre-‘91 Pistons had a better supporting cast.

The ‘91 Pistons, the ones the Bulls beat, did not. Johnson is the only one that showed up in that series for them.


Which specific statement uttered here is false? Quote the exact one, and advise me exactly how it’s wrong, without resorting to rabbit-trails or irrelevancies.

[3ba11]

Ok, great; which of them outplayed Grant and Pippen when the Bulls came into championship form?


Pippen, ‘91 ECF: 22/8/5, 3 steals 2 blocks on 56% TS (would be 2nd highest among Pistons starters), 20.2 GSC (higher than anyone on the Pistons), 116 ortg/102 drtg

Grant, ‘91 ECF: 14/8/2 on 71% TS (higher than any Pistons starter), 13.2 GSC (would be 2nd highest on the Pistons), 145 ortg, 112 drtg


Aguirre, ‘91 ECF: 17/3/1 on 55 TS%, 9.4 GSC, 108 ortg, 121 drtg

Laimbeer, ‘91 ECF: 7/6/1 on 53 TS%, 4.5 GSC, 99 ortg, 121 drtg

Rodman, ‘91 ECF: 5/8/1 on 50% TS, 5.0 GSC, 98 ortg, 114 drtg (though, just like with Pippen and Grant, box score stats undervalue his defence).




….these guys aren’t pitting all-star selections against each other on the court, dummy.

The pre-‘91 Pistons had a better supporting cast.

The ‘91 Pistons, the ones the Bulls beat, did not. Johnson is the only one that showed up in that series for them.


Which specific statement uttered here is false? Quote the exact one, and advise me exactly how it’s wrong, without resorting to rabbit-trails or irrelevancies.


During the 1st three-peat, the 3rd options on contenders were 3x all-stars and 3x all-defenders like Nance, Majerle or Buck Williams - these guys were far superior to Horace and every contender had 5 or 6 guys with all-star resumes or elite production that were superior to Horace as explained in the OP..

So the rosters of contenders were demonstrably far superior and the Bulls roster was EXTREMELY THIN compared to any other decent team.. Your stats above about the Bulls destroying the Bad Boys doesn't respond to this or the OP.

Btw, MJ stayed with his team and persevered against a dynasty that was 27-29 years old in 1991 (Isiah/Dumars/Rodman), while Lebron ran away from fossils that were 32-34 in 2010 (KG, Pierce, Allen).. Now go ahead and write a wall of text that has nothing to do with anything, per your standard.

[Hey Yo]

During the 1st three-peat, the 3rd options on contenders were 3x all-stars and 3x all-defenders like Nance, Majerle or Buck Williams - these guys were far superior to Horace and every contender had 5 or 6 guys with all-star resumes or elite production that were superior to Horace as explained in the OP..

So the rosters of contenders were demonstrably far superior and the Bulls roster was EXTREMELY THIN compared to any other decent team.. Your stats above about the Bulls destroying the Bad Boys doesn't respond to this or the OP.

Btw, MJ stayed with his team and persevered against a dynasty that was 27-29 years old in 1991 (Isiah/Dumars/Rodman), while Lebron ran away from fossils that were 32-34 in 2010 (KG, Pierce, Allen).. Now go ahead and write a wall of text that has nothing to do with anything, per your standard.
If Detroit is considered a dynasty to you, then so should LeBron's Heat.

[3ba11]

If Detroit is considered a dynasty to you, then so should LeBron's Heat.


The bar for a dynasty was raised after MJ's Bulls...

And there's a level of dominance required - the Heat were always underdogs and a needy, shaky team, while the Bad Boys were clearly the dominant juggernauts of the time period and seemingly infallible.

ultimately, bron fans should be concerned that lebron doesn't seem to be capable of having a consistent winner or favorite with ANY lineup... yikes... I wonder why.. oh wait.. we know why - it's the weaker brand of ball produced by his skillset of abnormal ball-domination (imposing spot-up roles, aka crap chemistry/strategy)

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

During the 1st three-peat, the 3rd options on contenders were 3x all-stars and 3x all-defenders like Nance, Majerle or Buck Williams - these guys were far superior to Horace and every contender had 5 or 6 guys with all-star resumes or elite production that were superior to Horace as explained in the OP..

So the rosters of contenders were demonstrably far superior and the Bulls roster was EXTREMELY THIN compared to any other decent team.. Your stats above about the Bulls destroying the Bad Boys doesn't respond to this or the OP.

Btw, MJ stayed with his team and persevered against a dynasty that was 27-29 years old in 1991 (Isiah/Dumars/Rodman), while Lebron ran away from fossils that were 32-34 in 2010 (KG, Pierce, Allen).. Now go ahead and write a wall of text that has nothing to do with anything, per your standard.


Yes, that was a great response to the person in your head.


Now, which claim did I get incorrect?


Ok, great; which of them outplayed Grant and Pippen when the Bulls came into championship form?


Pippen, ‘91 ECF: 22/8/5, 3 steals 2 blocks on 56% TS (would be 2nd highest among Pistons starters), 20.2 GSC (higher than anyone on the Pistons), 116 ortg/102 drtg

Grant, ‘91 ECF: 14/8/2 on 71% TS (higher than any Pistons starter), 13.2 GSC (would be 2nd highest on the Pistons), 145 ortg, 112 drtg


Aguirre, ‘91 ECF: 17/3/1 on 55 TS%, 9.4 GSC, 108 ortg, 121 drtg

Laimbeer, ‘91 ECF: 7/6/1 on 53 TS%, 4.5 GSC, 99 ortg, 121 drtg

Rodman, ‘91 ECF: 5/8/1 on 50% TS, 5.0 GSC, 98 ortg, 114 drtg (though, just like with Pippen and Grant, box score stats undervalue his defence).




….these guys aren’t pitting all-star selections against each other on the court, dummy.

The pre-‘91 Pistons had a better supporting cast.

The ‘91 Pistons, the ones the Bulls beat, did not. Johnson is the only one that showed up in that series for them.


Which specific statement uttered here is false? Quote the exact one, and advise me exactly how it’s wrong, without resorting to rabbit-trails or irrelevancies.

Any examples? Specifics?

[3ba11]

Yes, that was a great response to the person in your head.





Your response wasn't a response to the OP, so it doesn't get a response

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Your response wasn't a response to the OP, so it doesn't get a response


Your central thesis is that the Pistons (among others) had a better supporting cast.

To a point, that is correct, as I’ve long maintained Jordan had a mediocre cast until about ‘91.

However, in the year they actually beat them, the Bulls cast was superior.

Do you dispute this?

Yes? No? Maybe?

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Your response wasn't a response to the OP, so it doesn't get a response

Ah.

So you don’t disagree that Jordan had a much better cast in the year they won.

[3ba11]

However, in the year they actually beat them, the Bulls cast was superior.





Dumars was all-defense and All-NBA in 1991 and considered much better than Pippen at the time, who wasn't an all-star.. Dumars had MVP shares in 91'

And Rodman was easily better than Horace in 91'... So was Laimbeer or at least it's really close.

And Aguirre, Edwards, Johnson and Salley were rich man's versions of the bums that the Bulls had after MJ/Pip/Horace

So you're wrong as usual.. The Bulls had a garbage team that MJ carried to titles.. The cast of the championship Bulls' were worse than any decent team - see the OP for detail

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Dumars was all-defense and All-NBA in 1991 and considered much better than Pippen at the time, who wasn't an all-star.. Dumars had MVP shares in 91'

And Rodman was easily better than Horace in 91'... So was Laimbeer or at least it's really close.

And Aguirre, Edwards, Johnson and Salley were rich man's versions of the bums that the Bulls had after MJ/Pip/Horace

So you're wrong as usual.. The Bulls had a garbage team that MJ carried to titles.. The cast of the championship Bulls' were worse than any decent team - see the OP for detail


In other words: by means of bean-counting, the Pistons were better.

By how they actually played in the games against one another…the Bulls cast outperformed them by leaps and bounds.

Yes? No? Maybe?

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Ok, great; which of them outplayed Grant and Pippen when the Bulls came into championship form?


Pippen, ‘91 ECF: 22/8/5, 3 steals 2 blocks on 56% TS (would be 2nd highest among Pistons starters), 20.2 GSC (higher than anyone on the Pistons), 116 ortg/102 drtg

Grant, ‘91 ECF: 14/8/2 on 71% TS (higher than any Pistons starter), 13.2 GSC (would be 2nd highest on the Pistons), 145 ortg, 112 drtg


Aguirre, ‘91 ECF: 17/3/1 on 55 TS%, 9.4 GSC, 108 ortg, 121 drtg

Laimbeer, ‘91 ECF: 7/6/1 on 53 TS%, 4.5 GSC, 99 ortg, 121 drtg

Rodman, ‘91 ECF: 5/8/1 on 50% TS, 5.0 GSC, 98 ortg, 114 drtg (though, just like with Pippen and Grant, box score stats undervalue his defence).




….these guys aren’t pitting all-star selections against each other on the court, dummy.

The pre-‘91 Pistons had a better supporting cast.

The ‘91 Pistons, the ones the Bulls beat, did not. Johnson is the only one that showed up in that series for them.


Which specific statement uttered here is false? Quote the exact one, and advise me exactly how it’s wrong, without resorting to rabbit-trails or irrelevancies.


^your lack of a response to a single point will go down as a concession.

Sucks to be you today.

[3ba11]

^your lack of a response to a single point will go down as a concession.

Sucks to be you today.


You never responded to the fact that the Pistons' roster was far superior in 1991 - dumars was equal or better than Pippen, while Laimbeer, Aguirre, and Rodman were 3x all-stars or DPOY that destroy Grant.

Jordan was finally able to beat them in 1991 with far less talent

Lebron never beat a team with such a talent deficit and MJ did this as a STANDARD - every decent team had a far superior roster as the OP shows - the Bulls were a THIN team with few really good players, yet MJ went 6/6 with that crap, aka GOAT by far (not remotely close)

[SouBeachTalents]

You never responded to the fact that the Pistons' roster was far superior in 1991 - dumars was equal or better than Pippen, while Laimbeer, Aguirre, and Rodman were 3x all-stars or DPOY that destroy Grant.

Jordan was finally able to beat them in 1991 with far less talent

Lebron never beat a team with such a talent deficit and MJ did this as a STANDARD - every decent team had a far superior roster as the OP shows - the Bulls were a THIN team with few really good players, yet MJ went 6/6 with that crap, aka GOAT by far (not remotely close)
I love how the 55 win season will forever debunk this lie you've tried to propagate for 10 years :lol

[Hey Yo]

The bar for a dynasty was raised after MJ's Bulls...

And there's a level of dominance required - the Heat were always underdogs and a needy, shaky team, while the Bad Boys were clearly the dominant juggernauts of the time period and seemingly infallible.

ultimately, bron fans should be concerned that lebron doesn't seem to be capable of having a consistent winner or favorite with ANY lineup... yikes... I wonder why.. oh wait.. we know why - it's the weaker brand of ball produced by his skillset of abnormal ball-domination (imposing spot-up roles, aka crap chemistry/strategy)

You're full of shit. The only reason you call Detroit a dynasty is due to MJ getting his ass handed to him by a team with 1 All-star.

You're the only one who considers winning B2B titles to be a dynasty. Take another L and move on, chico.

[3ba11]

You're full of shit. The only reason you call Detroit a dynasty is due to MJ getting his ass handed to him by a team with 1 All-star.

You're the only one who considers winning B2B titles to be a dynasty. Take another L and move on, chico.



the Heat were always underdogs and a needy, shaky team, while the Bad Boys were clearly the dominant juggernauts of the time period and seemingly infallible.

night and day... an organic juggernaut and perennial favorite versus a manufactured roster and perennial underdog

ultimately, bron fans should be concerned that lebron doesn't seem to be capable of having a consistent winner or favorite with ANY lineup... yikes... I wonder why.. oh wait.. we know why - it's the weaker brand of ball produced by his skillset of abnormal ball-domination (imposing spot-up roles, aka crap chemistry/strategy)

[3ba11]

I love how the 55 win season will forever debunk this lie you've tried to propagate for 10 years :lol


Were the 94' Bulls a real 55-win team that could win 55 every year?.. And could Pippen develop a 55-win team from scratch?

No and no... So it was just a one-off from 3-peating the prior year.

The period without MJ exposed the team as a borderline .500 after the one-off honeymoon year of no expectation and placebo effect (pursuing 4-peat).. Prime Pippen is capable of growing a team to borderline .500 and that was the true caliber of that team.

[SouBeachTalents]

Were the 94' Bulls a real 55-win team that could win 55 every year?.. And could Pippen develop a 55-win team from scratch?

No and no... So it was just a one-off from 3-peating the prior year.

The period without MJ exposed the team as a borderline .500 after the one-off honeymoon year of no expectation and placebo effect (pursuing 4-peat).. Prime Pippen is capable of growing a team to borderline .500 and that was the true caliber of that team.
Without Jordan Pippen won 55 games, would've won nearly 60 had he not missed 10 games, then won at a 43 win pace without Jordan the following season. And this is with a supporting cast you claim is absolute garbage. So you give prime Pippen a legitimate team, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't be winning nearly 50 games every year.

If just coming off a 3peat ensures a great follow up season, please explain why the '99 Bulls were such a catastrophe. Why didn't they prosper from the placebo effect the '94 squad did? I want to see if you actually address this.

[Hey Yo]

the Heat were always underdogs and a needy, shaky team, while the Bad Boys were clearly the dominant juggernauts of the time period and seemingly infallible.

night and day... an organic juggernaut and perennial favorite versus a manufactured roster and perennial underdog

ultimately, bron fans should be concerned that lebron doesn't seem to be capable of having a consistent winner or favorite with ANY lineup... yikes... I wonder why.. oh wait.. we know why - it's the weaker brand of ball produced by his skillset of abnormal ball-domination (imposing spot-up roles, aka crap chemistry/strategy)

Why only 2 titles for those so-called 'dominant juggernauts?

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

You never responded to the fact that the Pistons' roster was far superior in 1991 -


The Pistons cast had more accolades, yes.

Now…which one actually played better in the series?

The Pistons cast, or the Bulls cast?

Any ideas?



dumars was equal or better than Pippen,


Pippen, ‘91 ECF: 22/8/5, 3 steals 2 blocks on 56% TS (would be 2nd highest among Pistons starters), 20.2 GSC (higher than anyone on the Pistons), 116 ortg/102 drtg

Dumars, ‘91 ECF: 13/2/3 1.5 steals 0.3 blocks on 45% TS, 7.1 GSC, 103 ortg/125 drtg



Who played better?

Pippen? Dumars? Not sure?

Any answer will do.



while Laimbeer, Aguirre, and Rodman were 3x all-stars or DPOY that destroy Grant.


Grant, ‘91 ECF: 14/8/2 on 71% TS (higher than any Pistons starter), 13.2 GSC (would be 2nd highest on the Pistons), 145 ortg, 112 drtg


Aguirre, ‘91 ECF: 17/3/1 on 55 TS%, 9.4 GSC, 108 ortg, 121 drtg

Laimbeer, ‘91 ECF: 7/6/1 on 53 TS%, 4.5 GSC, 99 ortg, 121 drtg

Rodman, ‘91 ECF: 5/8/1 on 50% TS, 5.0 GSC, 98 ortg, 114 drtg (though, just like with Pippen and Grant, box score stats undervalue his defence).


Of the four, who played the best?

Grant, Rodman, Aguirre or Laimbeer?

[Axe]

Were the 94' Bulls a real 55-win team that could win 55 every year?.. And could Pippen develop a 55-win team from scratch?

No and no... So it was just a one-off from 3-peating the prior year.

The period without MJ exposed the team as a borderline .500 after the one-off honeymoon year of no expectation and placebo effect (pursuing 4-peat).. Prime Pippen is capable of growing a team to borderline .500 and that was the true caliber of that team.
1-9

[tpols]

If Detroit is considered a dynasty to you, then so should LeBron's Heat.

If the old Spurs and mavs took the Heat to task and humiliated them I can't even imagine what the prime Pistons would do to them. It's just a terrible matchup for Miami. Rodman and Lambier and Mahorn the paint is closed. Wade and Bron would be running into brick walls.

[3ba11]

So you give prime Pippen a legitimate team




Pippen can't be the 1st option for any team except inheriting a 3-peat dynasty and quickly driving it into the ground.

And a "legitimate team" like you said?.. He could never be the 1st option on any team, let alone a legitimate team..

And why does Pippen need to be "given" a team?.. Oh wait that's easy - it's because he was never a franchise player or elite producer that could build a contender from scratch

[SouBeachTalents]

If just coming off a 3peat ensures a great follow up season, please explain why the '99 Bulls were such a catastrophe. Why didn't they prosper from the placebo effect the '94 squad did? I want to see if you actually address this.
Looks like the answer is no, so predictable too :lol

[1987_Lakers]

If the old Spurs and mavs took the Heat to task and humiliated them I can't even imagine what the prime Pistons would do to them. It's just a terrible matchup for Miami. Rodman and Lambier and Mahorn the paint is closed. Wade and Bron would be running into brick walls.

It's not like any of those guys were elite rim protectors. Rodman was like 200 pounds with the Pistons. Mahorn would be unplayable in today's era. Hell, LeBron weighed more than Laimbeer.

[3ba11]

Looks like the answer is no, so predictable too :lol


the 99' team lost it's 3 best players - bad comparison and a demonstration of losing the argument

[3ba11]

It's not like any of those guys were elite rim protectors. Rodman was like 200 pounds with the Pistons. Mahorn would be unplayable in today's era. Hell, LeBron weighed more than Laimbeer.


it isn't about the shot-blocking - it's about a packed paint that Lebron wouldn't be able to penetrate AT ALL - he would need to shoot over packed paints with elite mid-range just like every other great scorer back then - if his mid-range wasn't elite, then he can't shoot over packed paints to be a great scorer back then.. period... this is obviously quite likely, since mid-range touch is lebron's biggest weakness.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

During the 1st three-peat, the 3rd options on contenders were 3x all-stars and 3x all-defenders like Nance, Majerle or Buck Williams - these guys were far superior to Horace and every contender had 5 or 6 guys with all-star resumes or elite production that were superior to Horace as explained in the OP..

So the rosters of contenders were demonstrably far superior and the Bulls roster was EXTREMELY THIN compared to any other decent team.. Your stats above about the Bulls destroying the Bad Boys doesn't respond to this or the OP.

Btw, MJ stayed with his team and persevered against a dynasty that was 27-29 years old in 1991 (Isiah/Dumars/Rodman), while Lebron ran away from fossils that were 32-34 in 2010 (KG, Pierce, Allen).. Now go ahead and write a wall of text that has nothing to do with anything, per your standard.




....i take the non-answer to mean that you agree the Bulls supporting cast played better in 1991.

Yes, Dumars, Laimbeer and Rodman had more career accomplishments in 1991.

The Bulls cast, however, played better on the actual court where the actual games took place.

Yes? No? Maybe?

Agree? Disagree?

If you disagree, why?

[1987_Lakers]

it isn't about the shot-blocking - it's about a packed paint that Lebron wouldn't be able to penetrate AT ALL - he would need to shoot over packed paints with elite mid-range just like every other great scorer back then - if his mid-range wasn't elite, then he can't be a great scorer back then.. period... this is obviously quite likely, since mid-range touch is lebron's biggest weakness.

LeBron averaged 29/7/5 against a Pacers team that had the #1 defense and had 7 foot 2 Hibbert, 6 foot 9 West, & Paul George.

[3ba11]

LeBron averaged 29/7/5 against a Pacers team that had the #1 defense and had 7 foot 2 Hibbert, 6 foot 9 West, & Paul George.


Did you just compare the Hibbert Pacers to a goat-level dynasty?

Were the Pacers favored to 3-peat heading into the season?

Btw, Lebron only averaged 22.8 in 2014 ECF vs Pacers, and he needed an equal-scoring partner to attract equal defensive attention (Wade averaged 20) - so Lebron rarely defeats max defensive attention (rarely carries scoring load vs top team in victory and NEVER in the Finals)

[1987_Lakers]

You also disregard the fact that a "packed paint" defense wouldn't work against LeBron if he has shooters around him, tpols mentions how the Pistons would beat the '13 Heat because of a "packed paint". Ok, let the paint be clogged with a bunch of players while Ray Allen, Shane Battier, Chalmers, Miller etc shoot open 3s all game and see what happens.

[tpols]

It's not like any of those guys were elite rim protectors. Rodman was like 200 pounds with the Pistons. Mahorn would be unplayable in today's era. Hell, LeBron weighed more than Laimbeer.

Bro cmon that was a goon squad no layup rule having lineup. Was easily tougher than old Duncan, boris diaw and Tiago splitter or Dirk and Tyson Chandler.

If a guy like haslem could play big minutes mahorn could easily do so as well. Mahorn was actually better than haslem, a bigger tougher goon. And haslem couldn't do anything on offense.

[1987_Lakers]

Did you just compare the Hibbert Pacers to a goat-level dynasty?

You yourself said back in 2013 that those Pacers teams were as good as the 90's Knicks. Your words, not mine.

[1987_Lakers]

Bro cmon that was a goon squad no layup rule having lineup.

They are somewhat overrated defensively the way people talk about them. They never had the #1 defense in the league, but people see them as this all-time great defense because they were physical. The 90's Knicks defense was superior, as was the '08 Celtics. Hell, the '96 Bulls defense was better.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

LeBron averaged 29/7/5 against a Pacers team that had the #1 defense and had 7 foot 2 Hibbert, 6 foot 9 West, & Paul George.



While his unfair help averaged 13/5/3.

Wade: 15/5/4 50% TS

Bosh: 11/4/1 on 50% TS


Stacked when they play well, LBJ-ball casualties when they don't.

[tpols]

LeBron averaged 29/7/5 against a Pacers team that had the #1 defense and had 7 foot 2 Hibbert, 6 foot 9 West, & Paul George.

Comparing stiff ass Roy Hibbert and David west to the defensive trio of lambier, rodman and mahorn is an insult to basketball itself. Rodman didn't need to be heavy to lock guys up. Shaq had 50+ lbs on him in the 90s and Rodman wasn't giving up ground.

Detroit frontcourt is simply a huge counter to Wade and lebrons games. They'd have a better chance beating showtime Lakers who didn't have a goon squad like that in the paint and things would be more free flowing.

[1987_Lakers]

Comparing stiff ass Roy Hibbert and David west to the defensive trio of lambier, rodman and mahorn is an insult to basketball itself. Rodman didn't need to be heavy to lock guys up. Shaq had 50+ lbs on him in the 90s and Rodman wasn't giving up ground. Detroit frontcourt is simply a huge counter to Wade and lebrons games. They'd have a better chance beating showtime Lakers who didn't have a goon squad like that in the paint and things would be more free flowing.

'89 Pistons DRTG: 104.7
League Average: 107.8
Net rating: +3.1

^^^Hardly a historic defense.

'13 Pacers DRTG: 99.8
League average: 105.9
Net rating: +6.1

Pacers defense was better.

[tpols]

'89 Pistons DRTG: 104.7
League Average: 107.8
Net rating: +3.1

^^^Hardly a historic defense.

'13 Pacers DRTG: 99.8
League average: 105.9
Net rating: +6.1

Pacers defense was better.

Playoffs are a different beast.

It's actually incredible that you're trying to say the 2013 Pacers were a better or tougher defense than the bad boy Pistons.

Literally nobody remotely basketball literate would agree with that. The Pacers were a pretender while Detroit was a multiple time champion.

[1987_Lakers]

Playoffs are a different beast.

It's actually incredible that you're trying to say the 2013 Pacers were a better defense than the bad boy Pistons. Literally nobody remotely basketball literate would agree with that.

Most wouldn't agree because they have been brainwashed by media and older fans who hype up that defense because of their play style and popularity. That defense also gets remembered more because they played against MJ and won a couple of rings.

But basic facts tell you they were far from an all-time great defense.

[SouBeachTalents]

Comparing stiff ass Roy Hibbert and David west to the defensive trio of lambier, rodman and mahorn is an insult to basketball itself. Rodman didn't need to be heavy to lock guys up. Shaq had 50+ lbs on him in the 90s and Rodman wasn't giving up ground.

Detroit frontcourt is simply a huge counter to Wade and lebrons games. They'd have a better chance beating showtime Lakers who didn't have a goon squad like that in the paint and things would be more free flowing.
Says the guy who compares the current Lakers to the KD Warriors :lol Bro has absolutely no shame.

[tpols]

Most wouldn't agree because they have been brainwashed by media and older fans who hype up that defense because of their play style and popularity. That defense also gets remembered more because they played against MJ and won a couple of rings.

But basic facts tell you they were far from an all-time great defense.

They were a dominant title winning team specifically known for their defense and toughness. That was their calling card, there was no brainwashing about it. That was the reality. This is one of the more absurd things you've ever typed.

[3ba11]

While his unfair help averaged 13/5/3.

Wade: 15/5/4 50% TS

Bosh: 11/4/1 on 50% TS


Stacked when they play well, LBJ-ball casualties when they don't.


Lebron only averaged 22.8 in the 2014 ECF against the Pacers, and he needed an equal-scoring partner to attract equal defensive attention (Wade averaged 20) - so Lebron rarely defeats max defensive attention (he rarely carries scoring load vs top team and NEVER in the Finals)

And were the Pacers favored to 3-peat heading into the season like the 91' Pistons?.. You guys are super-desperate right now to find a winning argument but there are none because Lebron's inferiority is engrained in the historical record.. A simple reciting of the historical record demonstrates his inferiority

[1987_Lakers]

I will say the Pistons defense got better in the postseason, but their competition to a title in '89 was historically weak. Swept the Celtics & Lakers without Bird & Magic and beat a one man show in Chicago whose offense was in the middle of the pact.

They were known for their defense and it was good, but it wasn't historically great, I just showed that with facts. What have you showed tpols other than opinions?

[1987_Lakers]

Comparing stiff ass Roy Hibbert.

Hibbert in his prime was one of the premier rim protectors in the league. More impactful defender than Laimbeer. Many people felt he was robbed of a DPOY in 2014. Don't give me that shit.

[3ba11]

I will say the Pistons defense got better in the postseason, but their competition to a title in '89 was historically weak. Swept the Celtics & Lakers without Bird & Magic and beat a one man show in Chicago whose offense was in the middle of the pact.





Pistons beat Bird in 88' and basically beat the 88' Lakers but a bad call in Game 7 stopped it.. (pistons also beat Bird in 87'... basically)

So the Pistons were considered a great dynasty because they played the best comp ever to a stalemate and then toppled them to win their own 2 titles

And forget the Pistons DRTG because their defense changed an entire era and ushered in an entire DECADE of lower drtg's and a defensive decade in the 90's..... and citing DRTG from prior eras has never worked when evaluating the top defenses of all-time - the eras are different and DRTG doesn't capture that

[1987_Lakers]

'90 Pistons DRTG: 103.5
League Average DRTG: 108.1
Net rating: +4.6

:YAWN:

[1987_Lakers]

Pistons beat Bird in 88' and basically beat the 88' Lakers but a bad call in Game 7 stopped it.. (pistons also beat Bird in 87'... basically)

They were never a #1 ranked defense. Even in '87 & '88. It's crazy to me how people often bring them up as one of the greatest defenses ever when they were never the #1 ranked defense during their run. :oldlol:

[Hey Yo]

Pistons beat Bird in 88' and basically beat the 88' Lakers but a bad call in Game 7 stopped it. (pistons also beat Bird in 87'... basically)

So the Pistons were considered a great dynasty because they played the best comp ever to a stalemate and then toppled them to win their own 2 titles

And forget the Pistons DRTG because their defense changed an entire era and ushered in an entire DECADE of lower drtg's and a defensive decade in the 90's..... and citing DRTG from prior eras has never worked when evaluating the top defenses of all-time - the eras are different and DRTG doesn't capture that
Just like the same scenario with the 94 Bulls? You concede that they basically beat the NYK if not for a bad call in game 7?

At least now we know you agree that Scottie basically led the 94 Bulls to the ECF.

[1987_Lakers]

and citing DRTG from prior eras has never worked when evaluating the top defenses of all-time - the eras are different and DRTG doesn't capture that

I'm using their DRTG and comparing it to the league average at the time. Even in doing that, the Pistons "historic defense" comes off as kinda weak.

[3ba11]

They were never a #1 ranked defense. Even in '87 & '88. It's crazy to me how people often bring them up as one of the greatest defenses ever when they were never the #1 ranked defense during their run. :oldlol:


The DRTG stats don't reflect how the Pistons were changing how defense was played.

The Celtics and Lakers had much more talent than the Pistons but the Pistons offset the talent gap with defense - they bent the rules of physicality, paint-camping and defensive positioning - this showed up in the 4th quarter and clutch-time where the Pistons would strangle opponents.

The Pistons' defense changed the game into a slower-paced slugfest that we saw in the 90's.. DRTG and ORTG numbers don't capture that.. It's similar to the 18' Warriors who only had 113.6 ORTG but probably the best offense ever - this is similar to the Bad Boys but on the defensive side.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Lebron only averaged 22.8 in the 2014 ECF against the Pacers, and he needed an equal-scoring partner to attract equal defensive attention (Wade averaged 20) - so Lebron rarely defeats max defensive attention (he rarely carries scoring load vs top team and NEVER in the Finals)


So your response to a point I made was to branch off into some unrelated topic?

Yes, I have long-acknowledged that Wade was good help in '13 or '14. Just not unfair or stacked help. He played well in the '14 ECF. He played poorly in the '13 ECF. He was a mixed bag. Neither a bum nor unfair help.

Can you point to where I ever said otherwise, intimated he played poorly in the '14 ECF, or called him a bad player in this years?

Specifics? Quotes?







And were the Pacers favored to 3-peat heading into the season like the 91' Pistons?..


Nope.

Were the 50 win Pistons favoured going into their showdown with the Bulls?

Did it end up mattering on the actual court, where the actual Bulls cast outplayed the actual Pistons cast?

Yes? No? Maybe?



You guys are super-desperate right now to find a winning argument but there are none because Lebron's inferiority is engrained in the historical record.. A simple reciting of the historical record demonstrates his inferiority

Quotes? Examples of me arguing LeBron was the better player?

[3ba11]

Yes, I have long-acknowledged that Wade was good help in '13 or '14.





Wade wasn't the only guy on the team.. There were other franchise players in addition to Wade.

Anyone that teams up with 2 other franchise players has an unfair cast, especially if they take the top 3 first options in the conference and put them on 1 team - that's the definition of diluting the conference and consolidating power on 1 team - stacking the deck.. It's like jokic teaming up with curry and luka

People forget that the 2010 Celtics were already fossils and underdogs, so the conference was going to be wide open for the next decade with Lebron, Derozan, Bosh, Wade and Paul George battling for conference supremacy... But Lebron just teamed up with everyone instead.. Again, that's unfair.

[3ba11]

Nope.

Were the 50 win Pistons favoured going into their showdown with the Bulls?

Did it end up mattering on the actual court, where the actual Bulls cast outplayed the actual Pistons cast?

Yes? No? Maybe?





In 1991, Rodman was better than Horace and Dumars was better than Pippen.

Laimbeer was also equal or better than Horace

The Pistons also had better team defense and better supporting role players and bench

This is all fact - the Bulls had less talent, so they won by developing a superior brand of ball - that's how ALL the dynasties were knocked off back then - superior brand of ball would usurp the prior brand..

Specifically, the Pistons used a superior physical brand to beat the Lakers and the Bulls developed a superior finesse brand to beat the Pistons' physicality.. And you should understand that superior brands make previous brands OBSOLETE - the pistons were never contenders again after MJ developed a superior brand and way to beat the Pistons' superior talent, defense and depth

carry on tho.. i'm enjoying the ground and pound of your skull itt

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Wade wasn't the only guy on the team..


...how was LeBron's supporting cast in the '13 ECF and the '14 ECF?

Both good? Both bad? One bad/one good?

Open to a full appraisal here.



There were other franchise players in addition to Wade.


Bosh was a "franchise player" on a mid-40's team, who averaged 21/9/3 in two mid playoff runs, where he provided little off-ball or defensive value.

Good player. Good team.

Not historically stacked.




Anyone that teams up with 2 other franchise players has an unfair cast, especially if they take the top 3 first options in the conference and put them on 1 team - that's the definition of diluting the conference and consolidating power on 1 team - stacking the deck.. It's like jokic teaming up with curry and luka

People forget that the 2010 Celtics were already fossils and underdogs, so the conference was going to be wide open for the next decade with Lebron, Derozan, Bosh, Wade and Paul George battling for conference supremacy... But Lebron just teamed up with everyone instead.. Again, that's unfair.

All addressed: the '11 Heat were top-heavy, but had little depth. The '12 Heat had the best marriage of depth and starpower.

The '13 Heat were the deepest, but Wade had declined by then and was no longer an all-NBA player.

The '14 Heat were the oldest and worst-rebounding team in the league, and cratered to 30th in assists after LeBron left. Wade and Bosh were still good, even then. Just not unfair help.

All of this amounts to a team that had the more talented cast in '11, an equal or slightly less talented supporting cast in '12, an equal cast in '13 and a worse one in '14.

Which specific statement was incorrect?

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

In 1991, Rodman was better than Horace and Dumars was better than Pippen.



He certainly had more career accomplishments, yes.

How did they each play in the series against each other?

Can you answer that one?

Yes? No? Maybe?




Laimbeer was also equal or better than Horace


Yes, he had also accomplished more by then, as a veteran on two championship-winning teams.

How did their play compare?



The Pistons also had better team defense and better supporting role players and bench


How did the cast and role players perform in the '91 ECF?

Worse than the Bulls? Better? Equal?



carry on tho.. i'm enjoying the ground and pound of your skull itt

Easy chief. Dollars-to-donuts that you've never been in a fight in your life, much less competed in multiple combat sports. Best you can do is chirp people online.

Carry on, I'll be here.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Anywho, here were the respective stats of the players you mentioned in your OP, in the '91 ECF:


Ok, great; which of them outplayed Grant and Pippen when the Bulls came into championship form?


Pippen, ‘91 ECF: 22/8/5, 3 steals 2 blocks on 56% TS (would be 2nd highest among Pistons starters), 20.2 GSC (higher than anyone on the Pistons), 116 ortg/102 drtg

Grant, ‘91 ECF: 14/8/2 on 71% TS (higher than any Pistons starter), 13.2 GSC (would be 2nd highest on the Pistons), 145 ortg, 112 drtg


Aguirre, ‘91 ECF: 17/3/1 on 55 TS%, 9.4 GSC, 108 ortg, 121 drtg

Laimbeer, ‘91 ECF: 7/6/1 on 53 TS%, 4.5 GSC, 99 ortg, 121 drtg

Rodman, ‘91 ECF: 5/8/1 on 50% TS, 5.0 GSC, 98 ortg, 114 drtg (though, just like with Pippen and Grant, box score stats undervalue his defence).




….these guys aren’t pitting all-star selections against each other on the court, dummy.

The pre-‘91 Pistons had a better supporting cast.

The ‘91 Pistons, the ones the Bulls beat, did not. Johnson is the only one that showed up in that series for them.


Which specific statement uttered here is false? Quote the exact one, and advise me exactly how it’s wrong, without resorting to rabbit-trails or irrelevancies.


Which cast played better in that series?

The Bulls?

The Pistons?

Equal?

Unsure?

[tpols]

I'm using their DRTG and comparing it to the league average at the time. Even in doing that, the Pistons "historic defense" comes off as kinda weak.

The bad boy Pistons are in the discussion of GOAT playoff defenses. Your stats encompass none of that. Look it up any way you want... They're in every conversation and it wasn't a joke or "brain washing". Thats... what they did. It was basically a fight.

I forgot to mention John Salley who was a big time shotblocker as well. Bad boy Pistons were one of the toughest teams you'd ever see trying to drive the paint in NBA history and just in general. It's amazing to see somebody argue against this.

[3ba11]

how was LeBron's supporting cast in the '13 ECF and the '14 ECF?





They were good but not nearly as good as they would've been if they hadn't been reduced to spot-up roles by Lebron's skillset of abnormal ball-dominance for his size/position.. But they were still outstanding because Lebron only needed 22.8 ppg to win the 14' East and ECF.

Ultimately, Lebron starts at forward but then becomes a 2nd point guard on the floor .. These 2 PG lineups give teammates less hold-time and assists than 1 PG lineups, so the TEAM can't grow into high assist teams and struggles on the championship level

The point is to make your cast play well, and Jordan's skillset did that much better than Lebron's because Jordan's off-ball skillset had better teammate fits, development and allowed better strategic capacity/coaching.. He didn't reduce anyone to spot-up shooter and destroy their game like Lebron's skillset does.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

They were good but not nearly as good as they would've been if they hadn't been reduced to spot-up roles by


Good in which ones?

'13 ECF?

'14 ECF?

Both?

If so, are Bosh and Wade's anemic combined 26/8/5 on 50% TS wholly attributable to LeBron-ball? Not at all due to their own underperformance?

And if they didn't underperform, would they be "unfair help"?

Basically, is there anything they could've done that didn't harm LeBron's historical standing?


Play poorly ('13 ECF) > LeBron's fault > hurts LeBron

Play well ('14 ECF) > Unfair > hurts LeBron

Play very well ('12 second round; Bosh was hurt and out for much of it, but lets include this one) > Unfair > hurts LeBron


Everything is LeBron's doing, and they have no autonomy, even after he leaves.



Lebron's skillset of abnormal ball-dominance for his size/position.. But they were still outstanding because Lebron only needed 22.8 ppg to win the 14' East and ECF.

Ultimately, Lebron starts at forward but then becomes a 2nd point guard on the floor .. These 2 PG lineups give teammates less hold-time and assists than 1 PG lineups, so the TEAM can't grow into high assist teams and struggles on the championship level

The point is to make your cast play well, and Jordan's skillset did that much better than Lebron's because Jordan's off-ball skillset had better teammate fits, development and allowed better strategic capacity/coaching.. He didn't reduce anyone to spot-up shooter and destroy their game like Lebron's skillset does.

All addressed.

I was contributing to a discussion about the '13 ECF. You are talking in generalities and non sequiturs.

Feel free to respond to specific points I am making.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

PS:


Which supporting cast played better in the '91 ECF?


This one:


Ok, great; which of them outplayed Grant and Pippen when the Bulls came into championship form?


Pippen, ‘91 ECF: 22/8/5, 3 steals 2 blocks on 56% TS (would be 2nd highest among Pistons starters), 20.2 GSC (higher than anyone on the Pistons), 116 ortg/102 drtg

Grant, ‘91 ECF: 14/8/2 on 71% TS (higher than any Pistons starter), 13.2 GSC (would be 2nd highest on the Pistons), 145 ortg, 112 drtg



...or this one:



Aguirre, ‘91 ECF: 17/3/1 on 55 TS%, 9.4 GSC, 108 ortg, 121 drtg

Laimbeer, ‘91 ECF: 7/6/1 on 53 TS%, 4.5 GSC, 99 ortg, 121 drtg

Rodman, ‘91 ECF: 5/8/1 on 50% TS, 5.0 GSC, 98 ortg, 114 drtg (though, just like with Pippen and Grant, box score stats undervalue his defence).

?


In your judgment, which of the two played better in these games?

[3ba11]

PS:


Which supporting cast played better in the '91 ECF?





The bulls finally developed the superior chemistry and brand of ball needed to beat the Pistons' superior talent

Dumars was better than Pippen in 1991 and Rodman was better than Horace (probably laimbeer too).. The pistons also had better team defense and far better depth

So the Bulls were vastly overmatched but won by developing a superior brand of ball and chemistry...

this is something Lebron can't do (develop chemistry and win with it) - the only way Lebron can win is more help (talent-based winner.... all-star team strategy), so he never really learned how to WIN (chemistry, organic) - he only learned to team-hop (talent-based winning.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

The bulls finally developed the superior chemistry and brand of ball needed to beat the Pistons' superior talent


So no amount of statistical or visual disparity could've overriden your subjective evaluations, even as you touted the '91 Pistons as red-hot favourites going into the year?

Or, put more simply: is that a "yes" to the Bulls supporting cast playing better? Or a "no"?




Dumars was better than Pippen in 1991 and Rodman was better than Horace (probably laimbeer too).. The pistons also had better team defense and far better depth


And here is how their advantages manifested in a series between the two:

Aguirre, ‘91 ECF: 17/3/1 on 55 TS%, 9.4 GSC, 108 ortg, 121 drtg

Laimbeer, ‘91 ECF: 7/6/1 on 53 TS%, 4.5 GSC, 99 ortg, 121 drtg

Rodman, ‘91 ECF: 5/8/1 on 50% TS, 5.0 GSC, 98 ortg, 114 drtg (though, just like with Pippen and Grant, box score stats undervalue his defence).


Did Jordan guard all of them?



So the Bulls were vastly overmatched but won by developing a superior brand of ball and chemistry...


Indeed. Vastly overmatched by a 50 win team, that came back the following year healthy and won 48 games.

Quite the powerhouse.

[3ba11]

So no amount of statistical or visual disparity could've overriden your subjective evaluations, even as you touted the '91 Pistons as red-hot favourites going into the year?

Or, put more simply: is that a "yes" to the Bulls supporting cast playing better? Or a "no"?




And here is how their advantages manifested in a series between the two:

Aguirre, ‘91 ECF: 17/3/1 on 55 TS%, 9.4 GSC, 108 ortg, 121 drtg

Laimbeer, ‘91 ECF: 7/6/1 on 53 TS%, 4.5 GSC, 99 ortg, 121 drtg

Rodman, ‘91 ECF: 5/8/1 on 50% TS, 5.0 GSC, 98 ortg, 114 drtg (though, just like with Pippen and Grant, box score stats undervalue his defence).


Did Jordan guard all of them?



Indeed. Vastly overmatched by a 50 win team, that came back the following year healthy and won 48 games.

Quite the powerhouse.


It's always clear who is winning the argument when one of the parties devolves into a kindergartener that needs basic things explained.

But here goes.

Pistons had greater talent but the Bulls finally developed the chemistry that allowed their team to play better and win in 1991.

Makes sense?... Chemistry and brand of ball allows role players to play better - the Bulls finally developed enough of these things in 91' to play better basketball than the superior talent of the Pistons.

And yeah, the way it worked before guys started teaming up is that teams would develop superior brand of ball to win that made previous brands OBSOLETE - so the pistons' physical brand beat the superior talent of the Lakers, while the Bulls developed a ball movement and finesse brand to make the Pistons' physical brand obsolete in 92' and going forward.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

It's always clear who is winning the argument when one of the parties devolves into a kindergartener that needs basic things explained.


Yes: explain to me, like a kindergartener, which team played better in the frequently-mentioned series.



Pistons had greater talent but the Bulls finally developed the chemistry that allowed their team to play better and win in 1991.


How did this talent serve them in their underwhelming regular season, or the following year, when they came back healthy and won 48 games?

How did it serve them when "4 on 5" (your words) Rodman averaged 5 points a game? Or when Laimbeer averaged 7? Or when Dumars couldn't buy a bucket?

Whateva happened there?

Totally fine with simple explanations. Did the Bulls' vaunted chemistry cause them to not be able to find the broad side of a barn? Is none of it due to the Bulls cast simply being better?

Absolutely fine with simple answers. Your answers are not simple, or relevant, or clarifying. They are equal parts false and obfuscatory.



Makes sense?... Chemistry and brand of ball allows role players to play better - the Bulls finally developed enough of these things in 91' to play better basketball than the superior talent of the Pistons.


So this can be boiled down to:

The Bulls supporting cast played better than the Pistons supporting cast.

Thus negating the gap in accomplishments or accolades, especially given the experience gap.

Thanks.



And yeah, the way it worked before guys started teaming up is that teams would develop superior brand of ball to win that made previous brands OBSOLETE - so the pistons' physical brand beat the superior talent of the Lakers, while the Bulls developed a ball movement and finesse brand to make the Pistons' physical brand obsolete in 92' and going forward.

Interesting.

So the Bulls brand of basketball is why the Pistons went 48-29 against non-Bulls opponents in '91 and 47-30 in '92 with a healthy roster?

Very interesting.

[3ba11]

Yes: explain to me, like a kindergartener, which team played better in the frequently-mentioned series.

How did this talent serve them in their underwhelming regular season, or the following year, when they came back healthy and won 48 games?





The pistons developed a physical brand to beat the superior talent of the Lakers, while the bulls developed a ball movement and finesse brand that made the Pistons' brand obsolete..

Once the blueprint was out, the Pistons were no longer contenders.. again, I must explain basic things because you're losing the argument and playing dumb.

In previous eras, teams won by developing the best brand of ball, but then someone comes along and makes that brand obsolete... this contrasts with recent years where brand of ball is shit and teams win by just assembling the best talent - the talent-based winning of recent years is inferior brand that would get destroyed by the organic chemistry of prior eras.





How did it serve them when "4 on 5" (your words) Rodman averaged 5 points a game? Or when Laimbeer averaged 7? Or when Dumars couldn't buy a bucket?

Or when Dumars couldn't buy a bucket?





That's what happens when one team has developed the better brand of basketball - the better brand wears out the opponent defensively, so they have less capacity for offense - see the OP - that's what Denver did to the superior talent of the Lakers

Jordan also locked down Dumars.. With Jordan locking down their best scorer, it was harder for role players to get open, so they wet the bed too.






Is none of it due to the Bulls cast simply being better?





The Bulls cast was clearly much worse than the Pistons in 1991

Horace was inferior to Rodman or Laimbeer, while Pippen was worse than Dumars in 91 - the Pistons also had better defense and depth.

The bulls were completely overmatched on paper, but they had taken 3 years to develop better chemistry and strategy to overcome the talent gap.

So you can keep repeating the same shit but the facts won't change - detroit had a FAR superior czst across the board (better roster and defense from the 2 thru 12 spots), but the bulls overcame them by developing superior brand of ball and chemistry.






So this can be boiled down to:



\The Bulls supporting cast used superior chemistry and brand of ball to beat the Pistons superior talent.

[Baller234]

I am a Jordan guy for life, but I have to interject.

By '91, Pippen was at least as good as Dumars if not better. He didn't have the championship experience yet but he was way more talented on the offensive end.

Horace Grant wasn't the singular defensive superstar that Rodman was, but everyone on that Bulls team played defense. He was long and he wasn't afraid to get physical. Offensively it's not even close, Horace was way better.

Granted, the rest of the team was mostly middle of the road role players. Paxson was a great kick out guy but nobody else was really a standout role player. They didn't have the depth that other championship dynasties before them had.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

The pistons developed a physical brand to beat the superior talent of the Lakers, while the bulls developed a ball movement and finesse brand that made the Pistons' brand obsolete..

Once the blueprint was out, the Pistons were no longer contenders..



So...the entire league figured them out, not just the Bulls...but you still...elevate...the Bulls for beating them?

Again, interesting.



again, I must explain basic things because you're losing the argument and playing dumb.



Right. Pippen and Grant vastly outplaying their match-ups, regardless of the gap in longevity-related accolades, is something I need to play dumb about.

These stat lines are due in no part to the Bulls having a better supporting cast, and playing better basketball, even with Jordan's role and guidance factored in. No, Jordan willed their team to reduce the following players you mentioned to the below stat lines:


Aguirre, ‘91 ECF: 17/3/1 on 55 TS%, 9.4 GSC, 108 ortg, 121 drtg

Laimbeer, ‘91 ECF: 7/6/1 on 53 TS%, 4.5 GSC, 99 ortg, 121 drtg

Rodman, ‘91 ECF: 5/8/1 on 50% TS, 5.0 GSC, 98 ortg, 114 drtg (though, just like with Pippen and Grant, box score stats undervalue his defence).


...while also willing his teammates to these:


Pippen, ‘91 ECF: 22/8/5, 3 steals 2 blocks on 56% TS (would be 2nd highest among Pistons starters), 20.2 GSC (higher than anyone on the Pistons), 116 ortg/102 drtg

Grant, ‘91 ECF: 14/8/2 on 71% TS (higher than any Pistons starter), 13.2 GSC (would be 2nd highest on the Pistons), 145 ortg, 112 drtg


Even though, in your words, the blueprint was already out on the Pistons, and presumably many good teams would've beaten them handily.



In previous eras, teams won by developing the best brand of ball, but then someone comes along and makes that brand obsolete... this contrasts with recent years where brand of ball is shit and teams win by just assembling the best talent - the talent-based winning of recent years is inferior brand that would get destroyed by the organic chemistry of prior eras.


This responds to which point I made?


That's what happens when one team has developed the better brand of basketball - the better brand wears out the opponent defensively, so they have less capacity for offense - see the OP - that's what Denver did to the superior talent of the Lakers


...but the whole league figured out the Pistons.

So, it wasn't that impressive to beat them, then?

I know I'm being cheeky, by design. But these are the logical endpoints of the statements you are making, LOL.



Jordan also locked down Dumars.. With Jordan locking down their best scorer, it was harder for role players to get open, so they wet the bed too.


I thought individual defence was secondary to team defence?

Now Jordan's individual defence is credited with leading to a chain reaction which craters their entire starting lineup?

Interesting.






The Bulls cast was clearly vastly inferior


Because the Pistons out-performed them in previous years?



Horace was inferior to Rodman or Laimbeer,


How did each of them play? Any word on this?

Rodman was supposed to be "4 on 5" offensively.


while Pippen was worse than Dumars in 91 - the Pistons also had better defense and depth.


How did Pippen play in that series, compared to Dumars?

Pippen, ‘91 ECF: 22/8/5, 3 steals 2 blocks on 56% TS (would be 2nd highest among Pistons starters), 20.2 GSC (higher than anyone on the Pistons), 116 ortg/102 drtg

Dumars, '91 ECF: 13/2/3 on 45 TS%, 7.1 GSC, 103 ortg, 125 ortg

...how much of that gap is down to Jordan's individual defence, a factor you constantly deride as close to irrelevant?

Some? Most?


The bulls were completely overmatched on paper, but they had taken 3 years to develop better chemistry and strategy to overcome the talent gap.


How did the Pistons do, on paper, against the rest of the league in '91 and '92?


If the league figured them out, why would that make the Bulls beating them more impressive?



....and, very importantly, why is it not notable that they were the 2nd oldest team in the league, at an aveage age of 30.4, or older than the '14 Spurs, a team you called "fossils"?



So you can keep repeating the same shit but the facts won't change -


Sure, and you will keep failing to address it, while I address your repeats.


detroit had a FAR superior czst across the board (better roster and defense from the 2 thru 12 spots), but the bulls overcame them by developing superior brand of ball and chemistry.


Once more: the Bulls are why they were the 2nd oldest team in the league and a high-40's-to-low-50's win team.

All of it is due to Jordan's leadership and development of players. None of it is due in any part to the Bulls supporting cast members, or the Pistons. It can all be whittled down to one person and his singular role, even when it flies in the face of all available evidence and conflicts with our most basic intuitions.


\The Bulls supporting cast used superior chemistry and brand of ball to beat the Pistons superior talent.[/QUOTE]

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

I am a Jordan guy for life, but I have to interject.

By '91, Pippen was at least as good as Dumars if not better. He didn't have the championship experience yet but he was way more talented on the offensive end.

Horace Grant wasn't the singular defensive superstar that Rodman was, but everyone on that Bulls team played defense. He was long and he wasn't afraid to get physical. Offensively it's not even close, Horace was way better.

Granted, the rest of the team was mostly middle of the road role players. Paxson was a great kick out guy but nobody else was really a standout role player. They didn't have the depth that other championship dynasties before them had.


Though we differ on some of the finer details, your open-mindedness is commendable.

[3ba11]

I am a Jordan guy for life, but I have to interject.

By '91, Pippen was at least as good as Dumars if not better. He didn't have the championship experience yet but he was way more talented on the offensive end.





Pippen wasn't capable of 27 ppg and FMVP like Dumars did and Dumars was All-NBA in 1991 while Pippen wasn't even an all-star - Dumars was also the more accomplished defender and champion while Pippen had proven exactly nothing by 1991.

Meanwhile Rodman and Laimbeer were superior to Horace and the Pistons had superior defense and depth as well.. The Bulls were always completely overmatched talent-wise but they finally developed sufficient chemistry and brand of ball to overcome the talent deficit.

And Pippen was never an elite scorer with a low peak capability of 20 ppg via system points and nothing outside the system that he grew up in (14 ppg in 89' or 99').. He had the worst efficiency ever for a playoff run of 15 games and 35 MPG (3-point era) - he did this twice in 96' and 98' - so he was a historic bricklayer and lane-clogger in the halfcourt and mostly garnered reputation for being an athlete/dunker/transition guy.

[3ba11]

So...the entire league figured them out, not just the Bulls...but you still...elevate...the Bulls for beating them?

Again, interesting.





The Bulls were the first team to crack the Pistons' code via superior brand of ball - once that happened, everyone knew how to beat the Pistons (half court ball movement).. The Pistons still won about 50 games give-or-take, but they were no longer a dominant team even though Rodman and Dumars were entering their primes.






Right. Pippen and Grant vastly outplaying their match-ups, regardless of the gap in longevity-related accolades, is something I need to play dumb about.





Rodman was DPOY in 91' and was considered far superior to Horace, so the accolade wasn't longevity-related.. Rodman was simply considered much better than Horace, and so was Laimbeer.

Meanwhile, Dumars was All-NBA in 91', while Pippen wasn't even an all-star, so once again the superior accolade wasn't due to longevity.

The Pistons simply had much better players from the 2 thru 12 spots but the Bulls had finally developed sufficient brand of ball and chemistry to overcome the massive talent deficit.

And Grant almost never outplayed his matchup when the Bulls won - look at his Finals from 91-93' - he's the weak link destroyed because he was just a defender while every other 3rd option was a multiple-time all-star or HOF'er.

[Axe]

Op getting ethered again in his own thread. Lmao.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

The Bulls were the first team to crack the Pistons' code via superior brand of ball - once that happened, everyone knew how to beat the Pistons (half court ball movement)..


Yeah, this sounds like the most fanciful just-so story I've ever heard LOL.

Had absolutely nothing to do with them being the 2nd oldest team in the league. No, the Bulls' had some vague blueprint that filtered down to other teams.


The Pistons still won about 50 games give-or-take, but they were no longer a dominant team even though Rodman and Dumars were entering their primes.


That did not happen. The Pistons got thinner and he played more, took more shots. He made his last all-star and all-defensive team two years later.




Rodman was DPOY in 91' and was considered far superior to Horace, so the accolade wasn't longevity-related..


And how did Rodman play, as compared with Grant in the series?

Grant, ‘91 ECF: 14/8/2 on 71% TS (higher than any Pistons starter), 13.2 GSC (would be 2nd highest on the Pistons), 145 ortg, 112 drtg

v.

Rodman, ‘91 ECF: 5/8/1 on 50% TS, 5.0 GSC, 98 ortg, 114 drtg (though, just like with Pippen and Grant, box score stats undervalue his defence).



Rodman was simply considered much better than Horace, and so was Laimbeer.


How did Laimbeer play in that series?

How was he defended by the Bulls front-court?

What does his reputation have to do with him putting up a hearty 7/6?


Meanwhile, Dumars was All-NBA in 91', while Pippen wasn't even an all-star, so once again the superior accolade wasn't due to longevity.


...and Pippen was an all-star the previous year. Were they equal that year, even tho Dumars was clearly superior in 89-90?

How did each of them play in the '91 ECF?

Who played better in the series? Why?



And Grant almost never outplayed his matchup when the Bulls won - look at his Finals from 91-93' - he's the weak link destroyed because he was just a defender while every other 3rd option was a multiple-time all-star or HOF'er.

Addressed. The Bulls front court, of which Grant was an integral part in the first part of the 90's, caused opposing teams front court starts to underperform constantly. See here:




Outside of '20, there's a negligible difference in terms of blocks/rim protection, and the proof is in the pudding. Why don't you let me know how other teams with elite front courts performed against the Bulls? A few notable ones :

'91 Knicks: Ewing - 17/10 on 40% shooting
'91 Sixers: Barkley - 26/10 on 64% (no one can accuse me of cherry-picking lol).
'92 Knicks: Ewing - 22/11 on 48%
'92 Cavs: Daugherty - 18/10 on 47%, Nance 17/10 on 46%
'93 Cavs: Daugherty - 16/10 on 56%, Nance 17/6 on 62%
'93 Knicks: Ewing - 26/11 on 53%
'93 Suns: Barkley - 27/13 on 48%
'96 Heat: Mourning - 18/6 on 49%
'96 Knicks: Ewing - 23/11 on 47%
'96 Magic: Shaq - 27/11 on 64%
'96 Sonics: Kemp - 23/11 on 55%
'97 Heat: Mourning - 15/10 on 47% (already discussed)
'97 Jazz: Malone - 24/10 on 44%
'98 Jazz: Malone - 25/11 on 50%

16 stat-lines over 14 series. And no, I didn't gloss over the less convenient ones.

While some acquitted themselves quite well, none of them roasted the Bulls enough to indicate they were weak up front defensively. The majority performed below their season average, especially on a per-minute basis, even Barkley in '91 (28/10 on 37 mpg in the regular season, 26/10 on 41 mpg in that series).

Now, this is surface-level/3ball-level analysis that I wouldn't pass off as definitive. But if you're going to moan about their front court D being so underwhelming, let's at least see SOME receipts before probing this any further.

[3ba11]

Yeah, this sounds like the most fanciful just-so story I've ever heard LOL.

Had absolutely nothing to do with them being the 2nd oldest team in the league. No, the Bulls' had some vague blueprint that filtered down to other teams.





Being the 2nd oldest team isn't a good argument - tons of old teams win titles especially with prime cores like the Isiah/Dumars/Rodman, who were 27-29 years old..

So it's just another losing argument by you.

MJ beat a prime core of 27-29 year olds that were pursuing a 3-peat, while Lebron ran from fossils that were 32-34 and coming off early playoff exit the prior year.






That did not happen. The Pistons got thinner and he played more, took more shots. He made his last all-star and all-defensive team two years later.




Dumars and Rodman entered their prime around 91' and 92', yet the Pistons fell off because the Bulls had figured them out and the rest of the league followed. This is logical and backed up by historical events.






And how did Rodman play, as compared with Grant in the series?

Grant, ‘91 ECF: 14/8/2 on 71% TS (higher than any Pistons starter), 13.2 GSC (would be 2nd highest on the Pistons), 145 ortg, 112 drtg

v.

Rodman, ‘91 ECF: 5/8/1 on 50% TS, 5.0 GSC, 98 ortg, 114 drtg (though, just like with Pippen and Grant, box score stats undervalue his defence).

How did Laimbeer play in that series?

How was he defended by the Bulls front-court?

What does his reputation have to do with him putting up a hearty 7/6?





^^^ Exactly - you just listed 2 bigs from the Pistons and forgot to list Aguirre, Edwards, or Salley, aka the individual stats of role players mean nothing because the Pistons had 5 Horace's - Rodman, Laimbeer, Aguirre, Edwards, Salley

5 legit frontcourt players sharing the load, so that's a far superior roster that the Bulls overcame with chemistry






...and Pippen was an all-star the previous year. Were they equal that year, even tho Dumars was clearly superior in 89-90?

How did each of them play in the '91 ECF?

Who played better in the series? Why?





Opposing 2nd options in the 90's were nearly always guards that drastically underperformed against MJ such as Dumars, Starks, Price, Harper, Magic, Porter, KJ, Payton, Stockton, Penny, Tim Hardaway - these 2nd scoring options were backcourt players that underperformed against MJ, while Pippen was outplayed by his own position and opposing frontcourt players (in chronological order): Aguirre, X-Man, Dominique or Willis, Ewing, Larry Johnson, Juwan Howard, Penny, Detlef Schrempf, Rik Smits.

So again, the Pistons had a far superior roster by having 5 Horace's and a sidekick (Dumars) with higher peak capability than Pippen (27 ppg FMVP), but simply got locked down by MJ often.







the Bulls frontcourt which Grant was an integral part in the first part of the 90's, caused opposing teams front court starts to underperform constantly. See here:


If we average up the numbers you just posted for opposing bigs, it looks like they averaged about 23/10 on 50% - so your counter to the notion that the Bulls' bigs were bad is to point out that their production was doubled by opposing bigs and they were drastically outproduced in every series?

Who cares if the Bulls held Daughtery to 20 ppg when that's twice what Horace is getting?... The Bulls had arguably the worst bigs in the league and were destroyed in every series

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Being the 2nd oldest team isn't a good argument - tons of old teams win titles especially with prime cores like the Isiah/Dumars/Rodman, who were 27-29 years old..

So it's just another losing argument by you.


On its own? No, being the 2nd oldest team isn’t enough on its own.

Using anything as a trump card, as you attempt to do with entertaining frequency, has difficulty holding up to scrutiny.

But the fact that they fell off dramatically after ‘90 sure makes age a more plausible culprit than “duh league figures dem out”.

Laimbeer was a lumbering 33 year old coming into ‘90 and would regress to single digit points in the following year. He was four years removed from his last deserving All-Star game nod. Johnson was 34, in his second-to-last year (although arguably the lone player that showed up for them in the ECF, credit where due).

Isiah was a 30 year old quick 6 foot guard without an outside shot, coming off injury, nearing the end of his tether, and Edwards/Aguirre were long in the tooth and declining statistically as well.

Left are Rodman and Dumars. You’ve made it a point to state numerous times that you believe individual defence is overrated and that Rodman was close to useless offensively; what’s changed?

This was an old team, and their declining record reflected this. The league doesn’t just wholesale adjust to a perennial contender, unless age or drop in form swoop in. If that’s not the case…then the team, generally speaking, wasn’t that good to begin with.


(Also: stop trying to cheat them out of a year. Rodman, Isiah and Dumars were 30, 30 and 28 when the series started. Not “27-29”.)



MJ beat a prime core of 27-29 year olds that were pursuing a 3-peat, while Lebron ran from fossils that were 32-34 and coming off early playoff exit the prior year.


…Duncan at 38 was better than any damn big man on the Pistons, so you’re replacing “name-over-form” with “age-over-form”.

Much like some of the Pistons players he was experiencing a statistical decline with age, but the heights he fell off from were so high that even a diminished Duncan was as good or better than any version of Laimbeer, much less the one that averaged 11-9 in ‘91.

Am I wrong? Can you name a better one? Who was it?

And aside from Duncan, who averaged 16/9 on 57 TS% during that playoff run, where were the fossils? Ginobili? He was 5th in minutes on the team.

Leonard? 22, and performed better than anyone on the Pistons team.

Parker? 31, and was a deserving all-star that year.

Aside from that you’ve got Splitter, Belinelli, Mills, Green and Diaw that round out their rotation, ages 29/27/25/26/31.

Two players in their nine man playoff rotation were 32+, yet you call them “32-34 year old fossils”….meanwhile 9 of the 12 players on the Pistons were 30+…

…in sum: typical BS. You won’t include one of the best big-men in the league because he’s no longer an MVP candidate (and deservedly made the all-star team the next year) but an 11/9 + 7/6 (RS/PS) Laimbeer flies. LOL.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Dumars and Rodman entered their prime around 91' and 92', yet the Pistons fell off because the Bulls had figured them out and the rest of the league followed. This is logical and backed up by historical events.


Rodman, the man you insist was anemic offensively, was in his prime. Dumars was at the tail end of his, Thomas had passed his. The rest of the team was old.

Even before they failed to bounce back in 91-92, it was common knowledge that the Pistons were an aging and battle-worn team. The shit you’re peddling about the entire league somehow converging to figure them out even though there was no significant change to the meta between ‘90 and ‘92 is both disrespectful to that team and also laughably revisionist.

Here was the climate surrounding them in the immediate aftermath:

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1991-05-29-1991149108-story.html

And here:


https://www.deseret.com/1991/5/29/18923063/aging-pistons-find-it-s-time-to-retool-the-engine


Even Jackson himself was willing to take some shine off the win by pointing out what was obvious:


"Injuries took some of the resolve away from the Pistons," Bulls coach Phil Jackson said. "So they didn't have the defensive intensity they've had in the past. Joe Dumars is not the player he was last year."


^Theres the coach of the Chicago Bulls himself, confirming Dumars had an off series, and criticizing their lack of defensive intensity.

Did it sound like they were anything but on the downswing? Can you find similarly revealing sentiments about the entire league figuring them out, to counteract these?

It’s quite clearly something you cooked up.




^^^ Exactly - you just listed 2 bigs from the Pistons and forgot to list Aguirre, Edwards, or Salley, aka the individual stats of role players mean nothing because the Pistons had 5 Horace's - Rodman, Laimbeer, Aguirre, Edwards, Salley


I didn’t forget anything. I was responding to you mentioning Rodman and Laimbeer by asking you, simply, how they played in comparison to Grant. Seems topical and direct enough.

Aguirre’s statline was listed separately. Here it is again:

Aguirre, ‘91 ECF: 17/3/1 on 55 TS%, 9.4 GSC, 108 ortg, 121 drtg

But sure, let’s list Edwards’ and Salley’s contributions as well:

Edwards: 6/1 on 45% TS
Salley: 7/3 on 63% TS

To go along with Laimbeer’s and Rodman’s:

Laimbeer, ‘91 ECF: 7/6/1 on 53 TS%, 4.5 GSC, 99 ortg, 121 drtg

Rodman, ‘91 ECF: 5/8/1 on 50% TS, 5.0 GSC, 98 ortg, 114 drtg (though, just like with Pippen and Grant, box score stats undervalue his defence).


Yeah, what a platoon: a combined 24/16/2, 52 TS% in 86 minutes a game.

That amounts to 10/6.7 per 36 between the 4 of them, on 52% TS.

Absolutely brutal.

Cartwright/Grant alone averaged 24/13/3 on 65% TS…



5 legit frontcourt players sharing the load, so that's a far superior roster that the Bulls overcame with chemistry


Firstly, Aguirre was a 3 just like Pippen, and got outplayed BADLY:

Pippen, ‘91 ECF: 22/8/5, 3 steals 2 blocks on 56% TS (would be 2nd highest among Pistons starters), 20.2 GSC (higher than anyone on the Pistons), 116 ortg/102 drtg

Aguirre, ‘91 ECF: 17/3/1 on 55 TS%, 9.4 GSC, 108 ortg, 121 drtg

Secondly, the rest were already covered:

Grant/Cartwright alone were better than that four-man platoon.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Opposing 2nd options in the 90's were nearly always guards that drastically underperformed against MJ such as Dumars, Starks, Price, Harper, Magic, Porter, KJ, Payton, Stockton, Penny, Tim Hardaway -


Right off the jump we can already rule out Hardaway; Jordan himself credited HARPER for shutting down Hardaway in their ‘97 series.

The fact that Dumars got shut down can be attributed to:

a) Jordan bring a terrific perimeter defender
b) Dumars underperforming, something Jackson himself affirmed

…the rest is your typical gish-galloping wet dream. I don’t need to diminish Jordan to argue his cast was great or played well. Whatever conclusion you wish to draw about Jordan’s defensive exploits, I wouldn’t be assed to disagree with; he’s one of the best perimeter defenders ever. Still doesn’t fully let Dumars off the hook for having the worst series of his career.



these 2nd scoring options were backcourt players that underperformed against MJ, while Pippen was outplayed by his own position and opposing frontcourt players (in chronological order): Aguirre, X-Man, Dominique or Willis, Ewing, Larry Johnson, Juwan Howard, Penny, Detlef Schrempf, Rik Smits.


This is some of the most insane windmilling from you yet. You’re literally listing 5’s like Ewing, Smits and Willis here. Next-level gish-galloping, and goes without saying that it’ll be disregarded as such.

Aguirre outplayed Pippen in ‘90, and as I’ve said about a dozen times so far: I enthusiastically claim the Bulls had a mediocre supporting cast up until 1991.

In 1991, Pippen smoked Aguirre and cleared him by several paces:

Pippen, ‘91 ECF: 22/8/5, 3 steals 2 blocks on 56% TS (would be 2nd highest among Pistons starters), 20.2 GSC (higher than anyone on the Pistons), 116 ortg/102 drtg

Aguirre, ‘91 ECF: 17/3/1 on 55 TS%, 9.4 GSC, 108 ortg, 121 drtg

The ‘93 Wilkins match-up is basically tailor-made for nephews that obsessively scan BBRef without looking at context. Pippen did an excellent job on Nique in that series, no matter that he gunned his way to 37 on 31 shots in G2 or 29 on 26 in game 3. He was the only player on that team that stood a snowballs chance in hell of taking a game from the Bulls and quibbling about him hulking up shots at the expense of efficiency when they didn’t have the personnel to challenge the Bulls is something I thought I’d be likelier to find on Reddit.

Moving on: LJ most assuredly did not outplay Pippen in ‘95. 16/7/6/2 on 60 TS% > 21/6/3 on 55 TS% in a 3-1 romp. Counting stats are lower for Pip because they rested him in the blow outs; Johnson had a 43.2-37 edge in minutes.

Same goes for the Penny/Scott/Anderson triumvirate: none of the outplayed Pip in ‘95.

It was the combo of Shaq/Grant that got the Magic over the line (ironically, it was the one time an elite front court did the Bulls in…had to be the year where you claimed Longley et al made up for the loss of Grant and two other big men. LOL. Grant torched them in that series).

Pip actually kept them in the game in G6 and outperformed all of Penny/Scott/Anderson statistically over the course of the series.

Schempf over Pippen in ‘96? Since you’re insistent on bean-counting it should be noted that Pippen’s floor stats edged Schrempf’s: 8.2/5.3 edge advantage in rebounds, doubled his assists, 3 extra stocks a game and 13.4-9.9 gsc. More than makes up for the small scoring edge and TS% advantage.

But even that doesn’t tell the story of the finals, because Schrempf made up some of the deficit in much the way that the rest of the Sonics did: when the series was basically decided.

Much like Jordan, Pippen was excellent in the first 3 games to help them get a commanding lead: 18/8/5/3/2 on 40% but only 1 turnover per game (which is essentially like removing 7 of his misses, because an extra 6 turnovers over 3 games would amount to a more normal 3 per game, and is about statistically equivalent to 7 misses).

Schrempf was 16/5/3 in those 3 games, on 40%.

In the past you’ve let Jordan off the hook for getting most of the job done in the first 3…so why would that not apply in this match-up? Even without adjusting for context in that manner, Pippen out-played Schrempf.

So…even when cherry-picking Pippen’s worst series, he comes off just fine in the vast majority of them. And these are the ones you looked to single out.

Gruesome. Considering the man was the second best player in 3 of 6 finals (‘91, ‘92 and ‘97), I think he did pretty well for himself in the second season. Also smashed Pressey in ‘90, was better than the second option on the Sixers in the following round, outplayed ALL of his match-ups in ‘91 (all four rounds), 3 of 4 in ‘92 (X-Man, who played above himself, was a push..no more than that)…and so on. As with every player you take both their good and bad series into account.




So again, the Pistons had a far superior roster by having 5 Horace's


Aguirre plays absolutely nothing like Horace. He’s a 3, who got completely outplayed by Pippen.


The other four you’re cornered on. They combined for 24/16/2, 52 TS% on 86 minutes a game.

That amounts to 10/6.7 per 36 between the 4 of them, on 52% TS.


Just Cartwright/Grant by themselves outdid those four, averaging 24/13/3 on 65 TS%.

Half the players to get better production.

“5 Horace’s” indeed.




Mand a sidekick (Dumars) with higher peak capability than Pippen (27 ppg FMVP),


…so again irrelevant to how they actually played in the series, where Pippen was easily the second best player?



but simply got locked down by MJ often.


Quite the far cry from “individual defence is random”.

Sure, Jordan played great defence (and thanks for once again affirming the importance of individual D).

…but Dumars also played a horrible series, something Jackson himself went out of his way to point out.

It’s not one or the other.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

If we average up the numbers you just posted for opposing bigs, it looks like they averaged about 23/10 on 50% - so your counter to the notion that the Bulls' bigs were bad is to point out that their production was doubled by opposing bigs and they were drastically outproduced in every series?


Hey genius: I was limiting this sample to series’ against elite front courts….

…in which about 3/4ths underperformed their season averages, and that’s without the per-minute adjustment…while none of them torched the Bulls (aside from the one year you DO talk up their bigs: ‘95, LOL. Alas, I take it you realize I was confining it to championship runs).

No one ever said the Bulls had a historically great offensive front court. It wasn’t their job to post gaudy numbers. Just as it wasn’t Ben Wallace’s to outdo the opposing centre’s triple-slash line (which he rarely did).

It was their job to induce underwhelming offensive performances from their opposition. If they also happened to have Ewing or Barkley-like offensive production…that would be a truly unreasonable (read: stacked) amount of help.

As it stands, not a single one of these big men could out-do Howard in ‘09 against the Cavs, against a front court that you talk up like there’s no tomorrow.

Given that there are two sides to the ball in basketball, these are truly impressive showings.

But again, these are truisms that wouldn’t be questioned anywhere else, except in this hellscape….where it’s not enough for Jordan to have a generational Small Forward that outdid him in 20 of 24 non-scoring categories across six finals’, to go along with Grant/Kukoc/Armstrong/Rodman/Harper/Longley/Paxson/Kerr to round out an overall supporting cast that compares well in advanced metrics to EVERY single 3+ time winner.

No, they’re also expected to have a front-court which matches the best ones of the era offensively…when that very distinctly wasn’t their role…nor did the front office have that sort of roster construction given what they already had (a GOAT-level scorer).

Truly batty.

[RogueBorg]

Why only 2 titles for those so-called 'dominant juggernauts?

Those Pistons should have 3-peated. They had a 3-2 series lead when Isiah hurt his ankle in game 6. Pat Riley has admitted there was a phantom call at the end of that same game that sent Kareem to the line for two game-winning free throws. And then barely lost without IT in game 7 108-105.

Pat Riley Admits '88 Lakers Benefited from Phantom Foul vs. Detroit Pistons

MIAMI—It's been a rough decade for the Detroit Pistons.

This won't ease any of the pain.

Thursday, at his wide-ranging season-ending press conference, Miami Heat president Pat Riley slipped in a couple of admissions from back in his Los Angeles Lakers coaching days. "I personally choked away a game in '84 and Magic Johnson was called Tragic Magic and we were called the L.A. Fakers and sissies," Riley said, referring to Game 7 of the 1984 Finals against Boston.

He covered that to some degree in his 1993 book, The Winner Within. In that book, though, he spent less time on Game 6 of the 1988 NBA Finals, other than praising Pistons guard Isiah Thomas' miraculous one-ankle, 43-point performance and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's calm approach to two clinching free throws.

"Later, I asked Kareem what he had been thinking when he made those two shots,'" Riley wrote. "He said, 'I like to get paid.'"

Ah, but should Abdul-Jabbar have gotten the chance?

Pistons' fans have long felt cheated by what occurred on a possession that started with 27 seconds remaining and Detroit up 102-101. Byron Scott fed Abdul-Jabbar in the post, and the Lakers center recoiled into his classic sky hook. Pistons bruiser Bill Laimbeer didn't appear to touch him. The ball caromed off the rim. The whistle blew. A relieved Riley rubbed his face, touched his tie and fixed his suit jacket. Laimbeer stood for several seconds with his mouth agape about picking up his sixth foul.

Tommy Heinsohn, calling the game for CBS, said, "There was the foul, Laimbeer bumping his left shoulder."

That's what Abdul-Jabbar has long insisted.

The Pistons bungled the next possession, with Joe Dumars forcing a wild shot. And Riley's Lakers won Game 7 to take the 1988 championship, which the Pistons avenged in the following NBA Finals.

Well, actually, let Riley tell you, and note the word in bold below.

"In 1988, when we got Detroit and Kareem hit that phantom sky hook foul, he had to make the two free throws," Riley said Thursday. "He didn't choke. He did not choke on the free throws. He had to make them. He made them. And that led us to a seventh game and a win. But the next year, Detroit came back and swept us."

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2103545-pat-riley-admits-84-lakers-benefited-from-phantom-foul-vs-detroit-pistons

They're about as close as you can come to being a dynasty.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Two players in their nine man playoff rotation were 32+, yet you call them “32-34 year old fossils”….meanwhile 9 of the 12 players on the Pistons were 30+…


Correction: four (Diaw and Parker had just turned 32 before the finals), not two. Point remains, however. They were a younger team than the Pistons, and on the upswing or at least in remaining stable with their youngest and best player, Leonard, starting to come into his own.

[3ba11]

Lebron ran away from fossils that were 32-34 years old (KG/Pierce/Allen), while MJ stayed and persevered against a prime core that was 27-29 (Isiah/Dumars/Rodman).

And throughout the 1st three-peat, Horace Grant was massively-destroyed by opposing 3rd, 4th and 5th options like Vlade and Perkins (91' Finals), Kersey (92' Finals), Dumas and Majerle (93' Finals), Nance/Price/Wilkins (93' ECF), or the Knicks (X-Man, Starks, Mason, Smith) - these are 3rd thru 5th options that all destroyed Horace during the 1st three-peat, while other guys like Buck Williams, Duckworth, and Chambers were perennial all-stars and far superior to Horace (but their numbers were blunted in some years by being on stacked teams).

To summarize - Horace was a 1-time all-star while opposing 3rd options were All-NBA (Mason), or 3x all-stars (Nance, Majerle, Buck Williams).. So Horace compares to the 4th, 5th and 6th options on other teams that were 1x all-stars like X-Man, Oakley, Mark Jackson, Charles Smith, and Starks (Knicks), or Duckworth, Aingle, Cliff Robinson (Blazers), or Vlade, AC Green, Byron Scott (Lakers), or Rodman, Laimbeer (Pistons).. This shows how thin the Bulls' roster was because it's clear that every contender had 5-7 guys that were better than Horace.

Ultimately, the Bulls were extremely thin with Horace's 13/9 and Pippen's 20 system points being the peak capabilities of the entire cast, aka the Bulls only had 1 iso player, which is rare for ANY team, let alone a champion or dynasty.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Lebron ran away from fossils that were 32-34 years old (KG/Pierce/Allen), while MJ stayed and persevered against a prime core that was 27-29 (Isiah/Dumars/Rodman).

And throughout the 1st three-peat, Horace Grant was massively-destroyed by opposing 3rd, 4th and 5th options like Vlade and Perkins (91' Finals), Kersey (92' Finals), Dumas and Majerle (93' Finals), Nance/Price/Wilkins (93' ECF), or the Knicks (X-Man, Starks, Mason, Smith) - these are 3rd thru 5th options that all destroyed Horace during the 1st three-peat, while other guys like Buck Williams, Duckworth, and Chambers were perennial all-stars and far superior to Horace (but their numbers were blunted in some years by being on stacked teams).

To summarize - Horace was a 1-time all-star while opposing 3rd options were All-NBA (Mason), or 3x all-stars (Nance, Majerle, Buck Williams).. So Horace compares to the 4th, 5th and 6th options on other teams that were 1x all-stars like X-Man, Oakley, Mark Jackson, Charles Smith, and Starks (Knicks), or Duckworth, Aingle, Cliff Robinson (Blazers), or Vlade, AC Green, Byron Scott (Lakers), or Rodman, Laimbeer (Pistons).. This shows how thin the Bulls' roster was because it's clear that every contender had 5-7 guys that were better than Horace.

Ultimately, the Bulls were extremely thin with Horace's 13/9 and Pippen's 20 system points being the peak capabilities of the entire cast, aka the Bulls only had 1 iso player, which is rare for ANY team, let alone a champion or dynasty.

All of this screed is, naturally, irrelevant to a single specific point I made on the specific subject we were discussing.

The ‘91 Pistons supporting cast had more career accomplishments. The ‘91 Bulls cast played better.

Glad to keep going!

[RogueBorg]

Dumars was at the tail end of his

If you're talking about the '91 post-season Dumars was not at the tail end of his prime. He had just turned 28 and would go on to have an additional 4 really good years. Don't start making shit up.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

If you're talking about the '91 post-season Dumars was not at the tail end of his prime. He had just turned 28 and would go on to have an additional 4 really good years. Don't start making shit up.

Since we haven’t interacted before, I will try to give you a pass by assuming you hadn’t read the exchange in full.

Here is the comment I was responding to:



Dumars and Rodman entered their prime around 91' and 92',



Do you co-sign this?

In truth, Dumars ENTERED his prime in ‘88, not ‘91. His lower counting stats were a function of being on one of the deepest teams in the league. By (not before) ‘91 he had already authored his best ever playoff run, culminating in a FMVP in 1989.

…and, importantly, he was still IN his prime in ‘91. Never said otherwise. Just objected to someone else stating he had “entered” it, as a slippery way of trying to argue the team, as a whole, wasn’t old. See below:



On its own? No, being the 2nd oldest team isn’t enough on its own.

Using anything as a trump card, as you attempt to do with entertaining frequency, has difficulty holding up to scrutiny.

But the fact that they fell off dramatically after ‘90 sure makes age a more plausible culprit than “duh league figures dem out”.

Laimbeer was a lumbering 33 year old coming into ‘90 and would regress to single digit points in the following year. He was four years removed from his last deserving All-Star game nod. Johnson was 34, in his second-to-last year (although arguably the lone player that showed up for them in the ECF, credit where due).

Isiah was a 30 year old quick 6 foot guard without an outside shot, coming off injury, nearing the end of his tether, and Edwards/Aguirre were long in the tooth and declining statistically as well.

Left are Rodman and Dumars. You’ve made it a point to state numerous times that you believe individual defence is overrated and that Rodman was close to useless offensively; what’s changed?


^Bolded, especially, where I acknowledge 28 year old Dumars was in his prime.



But, he was closer to the end than the beginning and, in absolute terms, near the end (a whopping two years away from leaving it).

His last All-D team came two years later, at 30. After that he was given the green light for two more years, on a couple of ~25 win teams, and then predictably saw a reduction in volume after Hill arrived. His advanced stats and defence declined after the ‘93 season, and only rebounded after assuming a less high-usage role upon the arrival of Hill (where, in his prime, he was able to merge volume with decent rate stats, and on better defence). That he remained a good player is uncontroversial; many players (Duncan and Gino, among the ones discussed here) remain good after leaving their primes.

So, aside from some pedantic quibbling, I’m not sure how any of what I said is controversial.

TL;DR - by the ‘91 playoffs he was closer to the end of his prime than the beginning. This was not to diminish what he did in ‘91 (although Jackson himself opined that he was not the same player in that series), but to directly respond to the claim that he had just entered it.

[3ba11]

.

3rd, 4th, or 5th options vs Horace


Horace................... 1x all-star
Nance.................... 3x all-star

Horace................... 1x all-star
Majerle'.................. 3x all-star

Horace................... 1x all-star
Buck Williams......... 3x all-star
Duckworth.............. 2x all-star

Mason.................... All-NBA
X-Man.................... 1x all-star...
Oakley.................... 1x all-star
M Jackson............... 1x all-star

Vlade...................... HOF
AC Green................ 1x all-star
Byron Scott............. 0x all-star

Rodman...,,,,,,,,,,,,... 2x all-star
Laimbeer................. 4x all-star
Aguirre................... 3x all-star


* Majerle, Nance & Williams were 3x all-defense, while Mason, Oakley, X-Man & AC Green were 1x all-def


Horace was a 4th or 5th option on any decent team but 3rd option on the Bulls - this shows how thin the bulls' roster was compared to other teams.

Teams like the Blazers and Lakers had more all-stars or good players like Ainge, Cliff Robinson or Elden Campbell coming off the bench.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

.

3rd, 4th, or 5th options vs Horace


Horace................... 1x all-star
Nance.................... 3x all-star

Horace................... 1x all-star
Majerle'.................. 3x all-star

Horace................... 1x all-star
Buck Williams......... 3x all-star
Duckworth.............. 2x all-star

Mason.................... All-NBA
X-Man.................... 1x all-star...
Oakley.................... 1x all-star
M Jackson............... 1x all-star

Vlade...................... HOF
AC Green................ 1x all-star
Byron Scott............. 0x all-star

Rodman...,,,,,,,,,,,,... 2x all-star
Laimbeer................. 4x all-star
Aguirre................... 3x all-star


* Majerle, Nance & Williams were 3x all-defense, while Mason, Oakley, X-Man & AC Green were 1x all-def


Horace was a 4th or 5th option on any decent team but 3rd option on the Bulls - this shows how thin the bulls' roster was compared to other teams.

Teams like the Blazers and Lakers had more all-stars or good players like Ainge, Cliff Robinson or Elden Campbell coming off the bench.

None of this is relevant to any point I made, nor was it even intended as a response, it seems.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

For responses to specific points, which you have left alone, see below:

On its own? No, being the 2nd oldest team isn’t enough on its own.

Using anything as a trump card, as you attempt to do with entertaining frequency, has difficulty holding up to scrutiny.

But the fact that they fell off dramatically after ‘90 sure makes age a more plausible culprit than “duh league figures dem out”.

Laimbeer was a lumbering 33 year old coming into ‘90 and would regress to single digit points in the following year. He was four years removed from his last deserving All-Star game nod. Johnson was 34, in his second-to-last year (although arguably the lone player that showed up for them in the ECF, credit where due).

Isiah was a 30 year old quick 6 foot guard without an outside shot, coming off injury, nearing the end of his tether, and Edwards/Aguirre were long in the tooth and declining statistically as well.

Left are Rodman and Dumars. You’ve made it a point to state numerous times that you believe individual defence is overrated and that Rodman was close to useless offensively; what’s changed?

This was an old team, and their declining record reflected this. The league doesn’t just wholesale adjust to a perennial contender, unless age or drop in form swoop in. If that’s not the case…then the team, generally speaking, wasn’t that good to begin with.


(Also: stop trying to cheat them out of a year. Rodman, Isiah and Dumars were 30, 30 and 28 when the series started. Not “27-29”.)



…Duncan at 38 was better than any damn big man on the Pistons, so you’re replacing “name-over-form” with “age-over-form”.

Much like some of the Pistons players he was experiencing a statistical decline with age, but the heights he fell off from were so high that even a diminished Duncan was as good or better than any version of Laimbeer, much less the one that averaged 11-9 in ‘91.

Am I wrong? Can you name a better one? Who was it?

And aside from Duncan, who averaged 16/9 on 57 TS% during that playoff run, where were the fossils? Ginobili? He was 5th in minutes on the team.

Leonard? 22, and performed better than anyone on the Pistons team.

Parker? 31, and was a deserving all-star that year.

Aside from that you’ve got Splitter, Belinelli, Mills, Green and Diaw that round out their rotation, ages 29/27/25/26/31.

Two players in their nine man playoff rotation were 32+, yet you call them “32-34 year old fossils”….meanwhile 9 of the 12 players on the Pistons were 30+…

…in sum: typical BS. You won’t include one of the best big-men in the league because he’s no longer an MVP candidate (and deservedly made the all-star team the next year) but an 11/9 + 7/6 (RS/PS) Laimbeer flies. LOL.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

And here:


Rodman, the man you insist was anemic offensively, was in his prime. Dumars was at the tail end of his, Thomas had passed his. The rest of the team was old.

Even before they failed to bounce back in 91-92, it was common knowledge that the Pistons were an aging and battle-worn team. The shit you’re peddling about the entire league somehow converging to figure them out even though there was no significant change to the meta between ‘90 and ‘92 is both disrespectful to that team and also laughably revisionist.

Here was the climate surrounding them in the immediate aftermath:

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1991-05-29-1991149108-story.html

And here:


https://www.deseret.com/1991/5/29/18923063/aging-pistons-find-it-s-time-to-retool-the-engine


Even Jackson himself was willing to take some shine off the win by pointing out what was obvious:


"Injuries took some of the resolve away from the Pistons," Bulls coach Phil Jackson said. "So they didn't have the defensive intensity they've had in the past. Joe Dumars is not the player he was last year."


^Theres the coach of the Chicago Bulls himself, confirming Dumars had an off series, and criticizing their lack of defensive intensity.

Did it sound like they were anything but on the downswing? Can you find similarly revealing sentiments about the entire league figuring them out, to counteract these?

It’s quite clearly something you cooked up.




I didn’t forget anything. I was responding to you mentioning Rodman and Laimbeer by asking you, simply, how they played in comparison to Grant. Seems topical and direct enough.

Aguirre’s statline was listed separately. Here it is again:

Aguirre, ‘91 ECF: 17/3/1 on 55 TS%, 9.4 GSC, 108 ortg, 121 drtg

But sure, let’s list Edwards’ and Salley’s contributions as well:

Edwards: 6/1 on 45% TS
Salley: 7/3 on 63% TS

To go along with Laimbeer’s and Rodman’s:

Laimbeer, ‘91 ECF: 7/6/1 on 53 TS%, 4.5 GSC, 99 ortg, 121 drtg

Rodman, ‘91 ECF: 5/8/1 on 50% TS, 5.0 GSC, 98 ortg, 114 drtg (though, just like with Pippen and Grant, box score stats undervalue his defence).


Yeah, what a platoon: a combined 24/16/2, 52 TS% in 86 minutes a game.

That amounts to 10/6.7 per 36 between the 4 of them, on 52% TS.

Absolutely brutal.

Cartwright/Grant alone averaged 24/13/3 on 65% TS…



Firstly, Aguirre was a 3 just like Pippen, and got outplayed BADLY:

Pippen, ‘91 ECF: 22/8/5, 3 steals 2 blocks on 56% TS (would be 2nd highest among Pistons starters), 20.2 GSC (higher than anyone on the Pistons), 116 ortg/102 drtg

Aguirre, ‘91 ECF: 17/3/1 on 55 TS%, 9.4 GSC, 108 ortg, 121 drtg

Secondly, the rest were already covered:

Grant/Cartwright alone were better than that four-man platoon.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

And here:


Right off the jump we can already rule out Hardaway; Jordan himself credited HARPER for shutting down Hardaway in their ‘97 series.

The fact that Dumars got shut down can be attributed to:

a) Jordan bring a terrific perimeter defender
b) Dumars underperforming, something Jackson himself affirmed

…the rest is your typical gish-galloping wet dream. I don’t need to diminish Jordan to argue his cast was great or played well. Whatever conclusion you wish to draw about Jordan’s defensive exploits, I wouldn’t be assed to disagree with; he’s one of the best perimeter defenders ever. Still doesn’t fully let Dumars off the hook for having the worst series of his career.



This is some of the most insane windmilling from you yet. You’re literally listing 5’s like Ewing, Smits and Willis here. Next-level gish-galloping, and goes without saying that it’ll be disregarded as such.

Aguirre outplayed Pippen in ‘90, and as I’ve said about a dozen times so far: I enthusiastically claim the Bulls had a mediocre supporting cast up until 1991.

In 1991, Pippen smoked Aguirre and cleared him by several paces:

Pippen, ‘91 ECF: 22/8/5, 3 steals 2 blocks on 56% TS (would be 2nd highest among Pistons starters), 20.2 GSC (higher than anyone on the Pistons), 116 ortg/102 drtg

Aguirre, ‘91 ECF: 17/3/1 on 55 TS%, 9.4 GSC, 108 ortg, 121 drtg

The ‘93 Wilkins match-up is basically tailor-made for nephews that obsessively scan BBRef without looking at context. Pippen did an excellent job on Nique in that series, no matter that he gunned his way to 37 on 31 shots in G2 or 29 on 26 in game 3. He was the only player on that team that stood a snowballs chance in hell of taking a game from the Bulls and quibbling about him hulking up shots at the expense of efficiency when they didn’t have the personnel to challenge the Bulls is something I thought I’d be likelier to find on Reddit.

Moving on: LJ most assuredly did not outplay Pippen in ‘95. 16/7/6/2 on 60 TS% > 21/6/3 on 55 TS% in a 3-1 romp. Counting stats are lower for Pip because they rested him in the blow outs; Johnson had a 43.2-37 edge in minutes.

Same goes for the Penny/Scott/Anderson triumvirate: none of the outplayed Pip in ‘95.

It was the combo of Shaq/Grant that got the Magic over the line (ironically, it was the one time an elite front court did the Bulls in…had to be the year where you claimed Longley et al made up for the loss of Grant and two other big men. LOL. Grant torched them in that series).

Pip actually kept them in the game in G6 and outperformed all of Penny/Scott/Anderson statistically over the course of the series.

Schempf over Pippen in ‘96? Since you’re insistent on bean-counting it should be noted that Pippen’s floor stats edged Schrempf’s: 8.2/5.3 edge advantage in rebounds, doubled his assists, 3 extra stocks a game and 13.4-9.9 gsc. More than makes up for the small scoring edge and TS% advantage.

But even that doesn’t tell the story of the finals, because Schrempf made up some of the deficit in much the way that the rest of the Sonics did: when the series was basically decided.

Much like Jordan, Pippen was excellent in the first 3 games to help them get a commanding lead: 18/8/5/3/2 on 40% but only 1 turnover per game (which is essentially like removing 7 of his misses, because an extra 6 turnovers over 3 games would amount to a more normal 3 per game, and is about statistically equivalent to 7 misses).

Schrempf was 16/5/3 in those 3 games, on 40%.

In the past you’ve let Jordan off the hook for getting most of the job done in the first 3…so why would that not apply in this match-up? Even without adjusting for context in that manner, Pippen out-played Schrempf.

So…even when cherry-picking Pippen’s worst series, he comes off just fine in the vast majority of them. And these are the ones you looked to single out.

Gruesome. Considering the man was the second best player in 3 of 6 finals (‘91, ‘92 and ‘97), I think he did pretty well for himself in the second season. Also smashed Pressey in ‘90, was better than the second option on the Sixers in the following round, outplayed ALL of his match-ups in ‘91 (all four rounds), 3 of 4 in ‘92 (X-Man, who played above himself, was a push..no more than that)…and so on. As with every player you take both their good and bad series into account.




Aguirre plays absolutely nothing like Horace. He’s a 3, who got completely outplayed by Pippen.


The other four you’re cornered on. They combined for 24/16/2, 52 TS% on 86 minutes a game.

That amounts to 10/6.7 per 36 between the 4 of them, on 52% TS.


Just Cartwright/Grant by themselves outdid those four, averaging 24/13/3 on 65 TS%.

Half the players to get better production.

“5 Horace’s” indeed.




…so again irrelevant to how they actually played in the series, where Pippen was easily the second best player?



Quite the far cry from “individual defence is random”.

Sure, Jordan played great defence (and thanks for once again affirming the importance of individual D).

…but Dumars also played a horrible series, something Jackson himself went out of his way to point out.

It’s not one or the other.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

And here:


Hey genius: I was limiting this sample to series’ against elite front courts….

…in which about 3/4ths underperformed their season averages, and that’s without the per-minute adjustment…while none of them torched the Bulls (aside from the one year you DO talk up their bigs: ‘95, LOL. Alas, I take it you realize I was confining it to championship runs).

No one ever said the Bulls had a historically great offensive front court. It wasn’t their job to post gaudy numbers. Just as it wasn’t Ben Wallace’s to outdo the opposing centre’s triple-slash line (which he rarely did).

It was their job to induce underwhelming offensive performances from their opposition. If they also happened to have Ewing or Barkley-like offensive production…that would be a truly unreasonable (read: stacked) amount of help.

As it stands, not a single one of these big men could out-do Howard in ‘09 against the Cavs, against a front court that you talk up like there’s no tomorrow.

Given that there are two sides to the ball in basketball, these are truly impressive showings.

But again, these are truisms that wouldn’t be questioned anywhere else, except in this hellscape….where it’s not enough for Jordan to have a generational Small Forward that outdid him in 20 of 24 non-scoring categories across six finals’, to go along with Grant/Kukoc/Armstrong/Rodman/Harper/Longley/Paxson/Kerr to round out an overall supporting cast that compares well in advanced metrics to EVERY single 3+ time winner.

No, they’re also expected to have a front-court which matches the best ones of the era offensively…when that very distinctly wasn’t their role…nor did the front office have that sort of roster construction given what they already had (a GOAT-level scorer).

Truly batty.