Thinking Basketball says Jordan's 1st three-peat casts were 1st Round caliber

He says Jordan's cast was in the 75th percentile during the 1st three-peat, which is still worse than 25% of casts (1 in 4 teams), [u]or all 2nd Round teams[/u]...

i.e. there are seven 2nd Round teams not including the Bulls, which is 25% of the league, and Jordan's cast was worse than all of them.. The 2nd three-peat casts performed even worse, according to Thinking Basketball..

[Url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RqGDLV-do9c&t=12m00s][U]Here's[/U][/Url] the YouTube of him saying 75th percentile for the 91-93' casts... (0 percentile for the 88-90' casts btw, so the worst in the league).

[QUOTE]This guy was exposed as a fraud and debunked for pretending that he had play-by-play data from the 80's

A confirmed fraud and another "I never played" nerd that only cottoned on to basketball when the 3-point revolution and Curry era began - three-pointers attracted a lot of casual nerds that don't appreciate real basketball.. They just love seeing threes (baby-brained).

I didn't watch the video and would never waste my time[/QUOTE]

3ball's post in the last thread that brought up Thinking Basketball :lol

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15016019]3ball's post in the last thread that brought up Thinking Basketball :lol[/QUOTE]


The point is that even for the Jordan haters and fraudsters, the champion Bulls had a 1st Round or even lottery cast

Think about how dumb and blind Thinking Basketball must be by [I]trying[/I] to hate on MJ, but end up saying he has a 1st Round cast.. it's pretty dumb

just realize hes comparing these casts to other full teams. Hes not taking ewing off the knicks and comparing the bulls without jordan to the knicks without ewing, hes comparing the bulls without jordan to the knicks with ewing.

[QUOTE=3ba11;15016020]The point is[/QUOTE]


I think the REAL point here is that you found out he was a supposed Jordan "hater" and that you DO actually watch the videos because of it :lol

This is not making you come off very well.

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15016023]I think the REAL point here is that you found out he was a supposed Jordan "hater" and that you DO actually watch the videos because of it :lol

This is not making you come off very well.[/QUOTE]


^^^ that's pretty baby-brained

The reality is that we've exposed this fraud in numerous ways at this point

Jordan's championship teams were always good teams. Especially the '96 Bulls. The thing is though, that Jordan always equalled or exceeded the expectations with his teams. Lebron, on the other hand, has made a career out of underachieving with only a few exceptions. I mean, he even led a super team to the lottery.

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15016019]3ball's post in the last thread that brought up Thinking Basketball :lol[/QUOTE]

:oldlol:

[QUOTE=Full Court;15016026]

Jordan's championship teams were always good teams.


[/quote]


Most champions are good teams (chemistry), but we're talking about the Bulls' ROSTER (talent), which was bad.

The Bulls were the only contender that lacked a 3rd scorer (or a 4th)... They actually had among the least scoring help in the entire league, while they had worse defenses than most contenders, such as 5 of 6 opponents in the ECF and Finals of the 1st three-peat (91' Pistons, 91' Lakers, 92' Knicks, 92' Blazers, 93' Knicks).

3ball will spend the next 30 years trying to convince people Jordan's supporting cast that won 55 games without him, had an All-NBA sidekick and the GOAT coach wasn't good. Like Durant with the Warriors, he won those titles against all odds.

[QUOTE=3ba11;15016024]^^^ that's pretty baby-brained

The reality is that we've exposed this fraud in numerous ways at this point[/QUOTE]

Again, you're watching his videos still :lol

Wasting your time watching videos on YouTube you disagree with so you can "expose" them. Take a step back and think here. This doesn't make you look as cool as you think it does...

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15016039]Again, you're watching his videos still :lol

Wasting your time watching videos on YouTube you disagree with so you can "expose" them. Take a step back and think here. This doesn't make you look as cool as you think it does...[/QUOTE]

We may actually be lucky the OP can vent his mental illness on ISH.

I fear the real world would have actual negative consequences if OP's keyboard was taken away from him...

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15016036]3ball will spend the next 30 years trying to convince people Jordan's supporting cast that won 55 games without him, had an All-NBA sidekick and the GOAT coach wasn't good. Like Durant with the Warriors, he won those titles against all odds.[/QUOTE]


The fact that everyone uses the coach as part of the Bulls' cast shows how weak the actual players and roster was.. Only MJ's roster was so weak that people pretend a coach was a player... And they pretend a 1st time nobody coach was infact the goat coach in 1991, in addition to being a player and out there getting buckets.. smh.. lol...

All the stats show that MJ completely carried a lottery cast, and this includes the stats of Jordan haters (Thinking Basketball).. Furthermore, it isn't logical to think that the goat chemistry team would crater immediately, but the 94' Bulls were 2nd Round losers and nowhere near the goat dynasty that they were with MJ.. [I]This goat record of him 3-peating and then retiring, and then returning to 3-peat again is the most clear-cut example of impact that the game has ever seen.[/I]

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT;15016022]just realize hes comparing these casts to other full teams. Hes not taking ewing off the knicks and comparing the bulls without jordan to the knicks without ewing, hes comparing the bulls without jordan to the knicks with ewing.[/QUOTE]

Also, love how this is just being glossed over :lol

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15016045]Also, love how this is just being glossed over :lol[/QUOTE]


because it's bs

you guys just say anything and then someone else pretends that it's something and acts like "ooohhh.. he gotcha"... but it's nonsense... the problem is that you think that any response counts as a viable response.. but that isn't how it works...

For example, I might say something akin to "gravity exists"... and someone will respond with something akin to "I don't know about that because my birthday balloons always go into the sky"... and then you'll come out the woodwork and say "oooohhh... he gotcha"..

but no viable response was given... :confusedshrug:... just like no viable response has been given to the OP of this thread.

[QUOTE=3ba11;15016047]because it's bs

you guys just say anything and then someone else pretends that it's something and acts like "ooohhh.. he gotcha"... but it's nonsense... the problem is that you think that any response counts as a viable response.. but that isn't how it works...

For example, I might say something akin to "gravity exists"... and someone will respond with something akin to "I don't know about that because my birthday balloons always go into the sky"... and then you'll come out the woodwork and say "oooohhh... he gotcha"..

but no viable response was given... :confusedshrug:... just like no viable response has been given to the OP of this thread.[/QUOTE]

Lol what the fvck are you talking about :lol

[QUOTE=3ba11;15016047]because it's bs

you guys just say anything and then someone else pretends that it's something and acts like "ooohhh.. he gotcha"... but it's nonsense... the problem is that you think that any response counts as a viable response.. but that isn't how it works...

For example, I might say something akin to "gravity exists"... and someone will respond with something akin to "I don't know about that because my birthday balloons always go into the sky"... and then you'll come out the woodwork and say "oooohhh... he gotcha"..

but no viable response was given... :confusedshrug:... just like no viable response has been given to the OP of this thread.[/QUOTE]

Wtf:biggums:

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15016050]Lol what the fvck are you talking about :lol[/QUOTE]


What nbagoat said isn't true

But again, the entire analysis is nonsense because it portends to have play-by-play data that doesn't exist... The video is for new fans that don't even know about play-by-play data and will just take his word for it.

But even with the bs data, Jordan's cast is still 1st round caliber or lottery, aka worse than at least 25% of casts, so that's at least 7 teams or all 2nd Round opponents

[QUOTE=3ba11;15016053]What nbagoat said isn't true

But again, the entire analysis is nonsense because it portends to have play-by-play data that doesn't exist... The video is for new fans that don't even know about play-by-play data and will just take his word for it.

But even with the bs data, Jordan's cast is still 1st round caliber or lottery, aka worse than at least 25% of casts, so that's at least 7 teams or all 2nd Round opponents[/QUOTE]

****1st round caliber with their best player. How many teams from Jordan's era can remove the best player and be better than that?

[QUOTE=3ba11;15016053]What nbagoat said isn't true

But again, the entire analysis is nonsense because it portends to have play-by-play data that doesn't exist... The video is for new fans that don't even know about play-by-play data and will just take his word for it.

But even with the bs data, Jordan's cast is still 1st round caliber or lottery, aka worse than at least 25% of casts, so that's at least 7 teams or all 2nd Round opponents[/QUOTE]

Huh? Wasn’t he talking about the supporting casts scoring vs all other teams? They were in the 75th percentile of NBA teams in those minutes. Not 75th percentile of teams without their best player.

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15016059]Huh? Wasn’t he talking about the supporting casts scoring vs all other teams? They were in the 75th percentile of NBA teams in those minutes. [B]Not 75th percentile of teams without their best player[/B].[/QUOTE]


I'm sure that you've taken a standardized test like the SAT, ACT, GRE, GMAT, LSAT or something... Accordingly, when they say you scored in the 75th percentile, that means you scored better than 75 percent OF OTHER TEST-TAKERS.

So when Thinking Basketball says "Jordan's supporting cast went from the 0th percentile to the 75th percentile", it means that Jordan's cast went from being better than 0 percent OF OTHER CASTS (0th percentile) to being better than 75 percent OF OTHER CASTS (75th percentile).. He literally says that the Bulls' cast "went into the top 75% of [I][I]supporting[/I][/I] players".

And again, that's worse than all 2nd round opponents (7 teams or 25% of league)... So that's a 1st Round cast.. And that was the PEAK - the casts were only 37th percentile from 90-92' and didn't reach 75th until the 91-93', so Jordan won with lottery casts.

1-9 without scottie pippen. Yikes.

[QUOTE=Axe;15016087]1-9 without scottie pippen. Yikes.[/QUOTE]

9-0

with or without Pippen.

[QUOTE=3ba11;15016081]I'm sure that you've taken a standardized test like the SAT, ACT, GRE, GMAT, LSAT or something... Accordingly, when they say you scored in the 75th percentile, that means you scored better than 75 percent OF OTHER TEST-TAKERS.

So when Thinking Basketball says "Jordan's supporting cast went from the 0th percentile to the 75th percentile", it means that Jordan's cast went from being better than 0 percent OF OTHER CASTS (0th percentile) to being better than 75 percent OF OTHER CASTS (75th percentile).. He literally says that the Bulls' cast "went into the top 75% of [I][I]supporting[/I][/I] players".

And again, that's worse than all 2nd round opponents (7 teams or 25% of league)... So that's a 1st Round cast.. And that was the PEAK - the casts were only 37th percentile from 90-92' and didn't reach 75th until the 91-93', so Jordan won with lottery casts.[/QUOTE]

Well yea..when you add Michael Jordan to a second round playoff team they’ll probably then be the best team :lol

[QUOTE=Axe;15016087]1-9 without scottie pippen. Yikes.[/QUOTE]


haters were always going to say "1 for something without so-and-so" because MJ is the only player in history that was good enough to be unbeatable with the 1st all-star that he received and never need another one... Meanwhile, everyone else in history needed many all-stars because they were never unbeatable with just 1 like MJ.

oh, and 6 titles with a 1st Round or lottery cast.. yikes

.
Thread Cliffs


"Thinking Basketball" says that Jordan's 1st three-peat casts were 1st Round caliber, since they were only in the 75th percentile and therefore worse than 25% of casts, or all 2nd Round opponents (7 of 28 teams).

Not even a single playoff appearance after finally leaving the bulls for the second time. :ohwell:

[QUOTE=Axe;15016102]Not even a single playoff appearance after finally leaving the bulls for the second time. :ohwell:[/QUOTE]


^^^ no all-star teammate, yet his team still won with him on the floor both years at 39 and 40, and he was a massive positive overall with 19 more wins (18 to 37).

Otoh, 40-year Lebron was a massive negative all year and the only negative on his team or in the All-NBA media/meaningless selections.. Lebron was a negative because he lacks the fundamentals and quick-iso bag to score off-screens and while the ball moves, so his chemistry/teammate performance is always bad - this has been exacerbated at his older age.

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT;15016022]just realize hes comparing these casts to other full teams. Hes not taking ewing off the knicks and comparing the bulls without jordan to the knicks without ewing, hes comparing the bulls without jordan to the knicks with ewing.[/QUOTE]

3ball didn't know how to respond to this. :lol

Thread cliffs: MJ had a stacked cast

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15016131]3ball didn't know how to respond to this. :lol

Thread cliffs: MJ had a stacked cast[/QUOTE]


Since you guys don't know what percentile means, I'll just repeat the facts for anyone educated that does know, with the link in the OP to the video itself:


[Indent]"Thinking Basketball" says that Jordan's 1st three-peat casts were 1st Round caliber, since they were in the 75th percentile and therefore worse than 25% of casts, or all 2nd Round opponents (7 of 28 teams).[/Indent]


This tracks with the historical record that the 1st three-peat bulls had the least scoring help and rim protection in the league, and worse defenses than 5 of 6 Finals and ECF opponents.

[QUOTE=3ba11;15016122]:blah[/quote]
Doug collins sucked as wizards coach. Also, jordan was a terrible gm in washington and a pathetic team owner at charlotte. His weird obsession and general preference for athletes hailing from north carolina is shit as well. He used to be a gambling addict who got his dad killed before too.

The 94 Bulls says they were a team that lost in game 7 of the second round to the Eastern Conference champs.

But “Thinking Basketball” says they are a first round team? Maybe they should stop thinking so much and take a look at what actually happened. Seems to me that they were a second round team without Jordan, and on the border of a third round team.

Would the Knicks get that far without Ewing? The Rockets without Dream? Portland without Clyde?

Can you give an example of a team that went deep into the playoffs (Conference Finals or Finals) while a first team NBA player was out for the entire run?

[QUOTE=3ba11;15016047]because it's bs

you guys just say anything and then someone else pretends that it's something and acts like "ooohhh.. he gotcha"... but it's nonsense... the problem is that you think that any response counts as a viable response.. but that isn't how it works...

For example, I might say something akin to "gravity exists"... and someone will respond with something akin to "I don't know about that because my birthday balloons always go into the sky"... and then you'll come out the woodwork and say "oooohhh... he gotcha"..

but no viable response was given... :confusedshrug:... just like no viable response has been given to the OP of this thread.[/QUOTE]

no theres irrefutable evidence for this. the 75th percentile is based on the bulls being almost a +2 with him off the court. a +2 team is a 47 win team and a 47 win team is a 75 percentile team. Not exact but in 1992, 10/27 teams had a +2 net rtg or better. from 90-92 jordan had a 37 percentile cast with a -4 net rtg ish. 7/27 teams in 1992 had worse than a -4 net rtg. 7/27=26% roughly. The percentiles are in line at least with the 92 season. nice pointless deflection however. if thinking basketball adjusted by taking out every star player he wouldve said in video but thats too much work.

[QUOTE=3ba11;15016053]What nbagoat said isn't true

But again, the entire analysis is nonsense because it portends to have play-by-play data that doesn't exist... The video is for new fans that don't even know about play-by-play data and will just take his word for it.

But even with the bs data, Jordan's cast is still 1st round caliber or lottery, aka worse than at least 25% of casts, so that's at least 7 teams or all 2nd Round opponents[/QUOTE]

thinking basketball says he watched thousands of hours of footage. The tracking isnt available correct nbut he did his very own. i mean if you really want to claim this about supporting casts i can ask him on twitter right now and we'll see what he says :lol

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15016036]3ball will spend the next 30 years trying to convince people Jordan's supporting cast that won 55 games without him, had an All-NBA sidekick and the GOAT coach wasn't good. Like Durant with the Warriors, he won those titles against all odds.[/QUOTE]

Did the '93 Bulls have Kukoc and Kerr? What was their ORTG & NetRtg in '93 compared to without him and with adding 2 players in '94?

[QUOTE=ImKobe;15016153]Did the '93 Bulls have Kukoc and Kerr? What was their ORTG & NetRtg in '93 compared to without him and with adding 2 players in '94?[/QUOTE]

Why are Kerr and Kukoc only great in 94, but then for some strange reason they suck from 96-98? I mean the argument that says the Pippen shouldve been able to win in 94 with a rookie Kukoc and Steve Kerr, but then Jordan somehow won in spite of those two players is weird logic.

[QUOTE=Duffy Pratt;15016149]The 94 Bulls says they were a team that lost in game 7 of the second round to the Eastern Conference champs.

But “Thinking Basketball” says they are a first round team? Maybe they should stop thinking so much and take a look at what actually happened. Seems to me that they were a second round team without Jordan, and on the border of a third round team.

Would the Knicks get that far without Ewing? The Rockets without Dream? Portland without Clyde?

Can you give an example of a team that went deep into the playoffs (Conference Finals or Finals) while a first team NBA player was out for the entire run?[/QUOTE]

I've been saying this for the longest. These Jordanites spend so much time trying to make the argument that Jordans teammates sucked without him. But for some strange reason, his team faired the best when he wasn't there compared to other all time great when they left their team.

[b]1993 NBA Finals, Game 6, Phoenix, Arizona [/b]

4th Quarter.

9 pts of the total 12 pts scored by BULLS were by GOAT.

Jordanaires choked, TO after TO, bricked every shot and FT took except GOAT.

1993 BULLS still Won after scoring the lower 4th quarter score in NBA Finals history ever.

[QUOTE=97 bulls;15016158]Why are Kerr and Kukoc only great in 94, but then for some strange reason they suck from 96-98? I mean the argument that says the Pippen shouldve been able to win in 94 with a rookie Kukoc and Steve Kerr, but then Jordan somehow won in spite of those two players is weird logic.[/QUOTE]

Bulls with MJ - Dynasty. Bulls without MJ - good enough to make the Playoffs and maybe even win a series or two depending on the bracket, but nothing special.

As far as dynasties go, Jordan's help was not the best, and of course a core that's able to 3-peat should be at least half-decent without their best player if they keep all the other pieces intact and add solid rotation players to fill out the team, doesn't mean they were special.

[QUOTE=Duffy Pratt;15016149]The 94 Bulls says they were a team that lost in game 7 of the second round to the Eastern Conference champs.

But “Thinking Basketball” says they are a first round team? Maybe they should stop thinking so much and take a look at what actually happened. Seems to me that they were a second round team without Jordan, and on the border of a third round team.

Would the Knicks get that far without Ewing? The Rockets without Dream? Portland without Clyde?

Can you give an example of a team that went deep into the playoffs (Conference Finals or Finals) while a first team NBA player was out for the entire run?[/QUOTE]

Knicks went to the 2nd round without Ewing in '98 and to the Finals in '99.

Portland went 21 - 12 without Drexler in '93. Magic had a 20 - 8 record without Shaq in '96. Suns were 25 - 9 without Kevin Johnson in '93. Other teams were good too..