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

[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.