[QUOTE=keep-itreal]Lebron was guarded by the best defenders in history like Kawhi, Andre Iguodala, Draymond Green.
Michael Jordan was guarded by......Jeff Hornacek:roll:[/QUOTE]
burnnnnnnnnn
Printable View
[QUOTE=keep-itreal]Lebron was guarded by the best defenders in history like Kawhi, Andre Iguodala, Draymond Green.
Michael Jordan was guarded by......Jeff Hornacek:roll:[/QUOTE]
burnnnnnnnnn
[QUOTE=superduper]Speaking of Hornacek, why does LeGOAT have his soul owned by this skinny dweeb?
[IMG]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/df/e9/b6/dfe9b6fb5e6c9b7337ce3de469ea9b78.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Bump
[QUOTE=TheCorporation]This has been my driving point for years. LeBron was battling against Paul George, Jimmy Butler, Draymond Green, Kawhi Leonard, Andrey Igoudala
Jordan was battling against Terry Porter, Jeff Hornacek, John ****ING Starks :lol[/QUOTE]
issa wrap
Imagine being so stupid as a basketball fan to think that Jeff horn was the jazz second option :facepalm
[QUOTE=TheCorporation]Why hasn't anyone answered my question? This is a bizarre site where people don't engage in discussion but feel free to attack others. I say, once more
[i]In the 1998 Finals the Utah Jazz #2 option was the amazing Jeff Hornacek, who put up an astounding 10.7 ppg as the team's #2 option.
We bag on DeMar because he always had to face the GOAT King James in the playoffs but what if DeMar was presented with an extremely favorable circumstance, such as playing against a team who's second option was pouring in a blistering 10.7 ppg? Could he too win a series, much like Jordan was able to?[/i][/QUOTE]
Anyone?
[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Imagine being so stupid as a basketball fan to think that Jeff horn was the jazz second option :facepalm[/QUOTE]
so the 2nd option was stockton who scored even less at 9.7 :oldlol:
nope
[QUOTE=RealSkipBayless]Anyone?[/QUOTE]
First off Jeff horn wasn't the jazz second option. In the 97 post season Stockton had more points and almost 3 times more assists. In 98 he had stock had same amount of points and double the assists. In the 97 finals in particular Stockton scored more points than horn and 4 times the amount of assists. In 98 horn did score 1 more point a game but again Stockton had almost 4 more assists a game.
So to you and any other idiot who thinks horn was actually the second option my question to yall is do you not count assists as offence? How dumb of a ball fan do u have to be to actually think this :facepalm
[QUOTE=And1AllDay]so the 2nd option was stockton who scored even less at 9.7 :oldlol:
nope[/QUOTE] so assists arnt offence all of a sudden?
[QUOTE=Bronbron23]so assists arnt offence all of a sudden?[/QUOTE]
So you wanna say the 2nd optoin scored 9.7 and make it even worse :oldlol:
[QUOTE=keep-itreal;13569981]Lebron was guarded by the best defenders in history like Kawhi, Andre Iguodala, Draymond Green.
Michael Jordan was guarded by......Jeff Hornacek:roll:[/QUOTE]
Guys?
Where's Roundball to tear apart this erroneous post? Never mind. He'll probably join in on the bashing. :lol
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14047143]Where's Roundball to tear apart this erroneous post? Never mind. He'll probably join in on the bashing. :lol[/QUOTE]
Tear apart what? Facts? :lol
I dont make shit up like you cupcake.
Team offense is all that matters. That Jazz team is ranked 68th all-time historically, not too shabby. Compare that to the Mavs in 2011 which are ranked at 247. Probably one of the worst offensive teams to ever make the Finals, much less win it all.
Them Jazz teams destroyed great WC teams in 97 & 98 and had the 2nd and 1st ranked offenses in those seasons.
1997 - 113.6 ORTG
1998 - 112.7 ORTG
2008 Celtics - 110.2 ORTG
2009 Magic - 109.2 ORTG
2010 Celtics - 107.7 ORTG
2011 Mavs - 109.7 ORTG
Of course DeMar couldn't win as the 2010's Karl Malone teamed up with other All Stars.
Would DeMar Derozen get outscored by Jason Terry in a 7 game series?
[QUOTE=ImKobe;14047406]Them Jazz teams destroyed great WC teams in 97 & 98 and had the 2nd and 1st ranked offenses in those seasons.
1997 - 113.6 ORTG
1998 - 112.7 ORTG
2008 Celtics - 110.2 ORTG
2009 Magic - 109.2 ORTG
2010 Celtics - 107.7 ORTG
2011 Mavs - 109.7 ORTG[/QUOTE]
Yes, with a #2 option being Jeff Hornacek
HENCE, 90s was a WEAK era.
Next
[QUOTE=TheCorporation;14047281]Tear apart what? Facts? :lol
I dont make shit up like you cupcake.[/QUOTE]
I'm really unsure as to why you're so triggered by me that you feel the need to have a go at me on every thread, lol.
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14047485]I'm really unsure as to why you're so triggered by me that you feel the need to have a go at me on every thread, lol.[/QUOTE]
Every thread :lol Don't flatter yourself sweetheart. How them Knicks doing? :lol
[QUOTE=goozeman;14047402][B]Team offense is all that matters. That Jazz team is ranked 68th all-time historically[/B], not too shabby. Compare that to the Mavs in 2011 which are ranked at 247. Probably one of the worst offensive teams to ever make the Finals, much less win it all.[/QUOTE]
That same Jazz team also historically put up the least amount of points in a Finals game in NBA history. Here what their historical offense achieved in game 3 of the 1998 Finals
Fewest points in a game since the introduction of the shot clock (the previous was 55, established this season by Indiana).
Fewest points in an NBA Finals game (previous was 71 by Syracuse against Fort Wayne in 1955; and Houston against Boston in 1981).
Fewest field goals in a game (21).
Fewest points in a half (23, second half).
It all added up to a 42-point Chicago win, the largest margin of victory in an NBA Finals game (the previous record was 35 points).
[QUOTE=Hey Yo;14047496]That same Jazz team also historically put up the least amount of points in a Finals game in NBA history. Here what their historical offense achieved in game 3 of the 1998 Finals
Fewest points in a game since the introduction of the shot clock (the previous was 55, established this season by Indiana).
Fewest points in an NBA Finals game (previous was 71 by Syracuse against Fort Wayne in 1955; and Houston against Boston in 1981).
Fewest field goals in a game (21).
Fewest points in a half (23, second half).
It all added up to a 42-point Chicago win, the largest margin of victory in an NBA Finals game (the previous record was 35 points).[/QUOTE]
Yeah but if you take away Malone's on-ball points because of his Stockton turnovers and the multiply Byron Russell pts by 3 for the.extra minutes Jeff Hornacek played and look at the 97 WCF Jazz are GOAT scoring team atually! -3ball math
[QUOTE]Where's Roundball to tear apart this erroneous post? [/QUOTE]
I was at Sheetz. :oldlol: I am not reading the entire thread. The OP presents a hypothetical. Yes, if the DeRozan Raptors faced a team whose 2nd and 3rd options score a combined 20 PPG the Raptors would win. Different eras, though. You could make the finals in the late 90's with an old Hornacek as your #2 scorer and Stockton scoring 9.7 as your second best player. Not every contender had a 20 PPG 2nd option in the 90's.
Do you disagree? There isn't much to say about the hypothetical since it is a lopsided scenario.
[QUOTE]'m really unsure as to why you're so triggered by me that you feel the need to have a go at me on every thread, lol.[/QUOTE]
Pot, meet kettle. You mention me in threads I am not even in. :lol
[QUOTE]That same Jazz team also historically put up the least amount of points in a Finals game in NBA history. Here what their historical offense achieved in game 3 of the 1998 Finals[/QUOTE]
Yup. Pippen wrecked their offense with help from Harper on Stockton, MJ on Hornacek, and of course Rodman on Malone. From the [I]New York Times[/I]:
[QUOTE][B]At Every Turn, Jazz Finds Pippen; The Bulls' Consummate Defender Picks Apart the Pick-and-Roll
[/B]
Pippen, a roving linebacker in high-tops, is using the finals to [B]reaffirm his position as the game's most complete and chaos-inspiring defensive player. [/B]On Sunday night, [B]he was largely responsible for the lowest scoring total in National Basketball Association history since the advent of the shot clock, when the Chicago Bulls pulverized the Jazz, 96-54[/B], to take a two-games-to-one lead in the four-of-seven-game series.
Pippen roamed the floor, spreading his 6-foot-7-inch angular body from player to player on the Jazz roster.[B] Twenty-six Utah turnovers and an unprecedented finals rout later, everyone wanted to know how one player could cause such disruption.[/B]
He has obliterated the criticism he once received for not being physical enough. [B]This post-season alone, he shut down Charlotte's Glen Rice in the second round and discombobulated the Pacers' offense in the Eastern Conference finals.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
:bowdown:
[URL="https://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/09/sports/nba-finals-every-turn-jazz-finds-pippen-bulls-consummate-defender-picks-apart.html"]https://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/09/sports/nba-finals-every-turn-jazz-finds-pippen-bulls-consummate-defender-picks-apart.html[/URL]
The Jazz's offenses consistently got worse in the playoffs because Malone and Stockton both shrunk a ton in the playoffs--and they got even worse on the finals stage. That's your two HOF players. Hard to overcome that. If they performed close to their RS levels in the PO, they would have multiple rings and would have rivaled Jordan/Pippen as a 90's duo. They didn't. Lucky for them, they can fall back on "Jordan" (who they faced twice--both in winnable series) as an excuse for perennially declining significantly in the playoffs.
What is this DeMar Derozan stuff? Do people really think MJ=Demar?
When you compare a player's numbers against the whole field of teams to playing the 2nd 3peat Bull's defense...? numbers are generally going to be worse for those players. that's just common sense.
[QUOTE=Hey Yo;14047496]That same Jazz team also historically put up the least amount of points in a Finals game in NBA history. Here what their historical offense achieved in game 3 of the 1998 Finals
Fewest points in a game since the introduction of the shot clock (the previous was 55, established this season by Indiana).
Fewest points in an NBA Finals game (previous was 71 by Syracuse against Fort Wayne in 1955; and Houston against Boston in 1981).
Fewest field goals in a game (21).
Fewest points in a half (23, second half).
It all added up to a 42-point Chicago win, the largest margin of victory in an NBA Finals game (the previous record was 35 points).[/QUOTE]
That's just a side effect of Sloan's pick-and-roll system going up a goat defensive team in Chicago. Chicago was equipped to shut down that offense perhaps better than any team in history.
[QUOTE=goozeman;14047532]That's just a side effect of Sloan's pick-and-roll system going up a goat defensive team in Chicago. Chicago was equipped to shut down that offense perhaps better than any team in history.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=tpols]When you compare a player's numbers against the whole field of teams to playing the 2nd 3peat Bull's defense...? [B]numbers are generally going to be worse for those players. that's just common sense[/B].[/QUOTE]
Your position on whether defenses impact playoff numbers changes daily. :lol
The problem with your posts, tpols and goozeman, is what about all the series the Malone/Stockton played against teams other than the Bulls? The narrative is this team dominated only to have the misfortune of going up against the arguable GOAT team. The problem is Malone/Stockton faced the Bulls in only two series. What happened in the others?
[QUOTE=jstern;13569319]I don't think so, unless Jason Terry was coming off the bench.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol::oldlol::pimp::facepalm
[QUOTE]Pot, meet kettle. You mention me in threads I am not even in. [/QUOTE]
Pay attention. That comment wasn't for you.
The Bulls are a convenient excuse for career long, perennial trends of large declines in the playoffs. We can look at Malone/Stockton before 1997 in the playoffs.
Malone RS 1988-1996: 28/11/3 59% TS
Malone PO 1988-1996: 28/12/3 54% TS
Stockton RS 1988-1996: 16/3/13 62% TS
Stockton PO 1988-1996: 15/3/12 56% TS
They lose 5% and 6% respectively in TS %.
We can look at the first three rounds of the WC too in 97' and 98'.
Malone 97' in the season: 27/10/5 60% TS
Malone 97' in the WC PO: 27/12/3 51% TS
Malone 98' in the season: 27/10/4 60% TS
Malone 98' in the WC PO: 27/11/3 53% TS
So Malone is -9% and -7%.
Stockton 97' in the season: 14/3/11 66% TS
Stockton 97' in the WC PO: 17/4/10 63% TS
Stockton 98' in the season: 12/3/9 63% TS
Stockton 98' in the WC PO: 12/3/7 58% TS
Stockton is -3% and the usual -5%.
In the finals it got even worse:
97' RS efficiency for Malone: 55.0% eFG, 60.0% TS
97' finals efficiency for Malone: 44.3% eFG, 48.5% TS
-11%.
98' RS efficiency for Malone: 53.1% eFG, 59.7% TS
98' finals efficiency for Malone: 50.4%, 55.3%
-5%.
97' RS efficiency for Stockton: 59.8% eFG, 65.6% TS
97' Finals efficiency for Stockton: 54.8% eFG, 61.3% TS
-5%.
98' RS efficiency for Stockton: 56.7% eFG, 62.8% TS
98' Finals efficiency for Stockton: 51.0% eFG, 53.9% TS
Yet again, -5%. :oldlol:
Malone's 98' decline is worse because his RS numbers are deflated by Stockton missing the first 18 games. Without Stockton he shot 52.3%; with Stockton 53.2%.
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14047143]Where's Roundball to tear apart this erroneous post? Never mind. He'll probably join in on the bashing. :lol[/QUOTE]
That sure seems to be about me. :lol
Both can be true, you know. Chicago had a goat defense ideal for shutting down the Jazz, and the Jazz struggled on offense in the playoffs. Sloan's system was like the option in college football. A good option team on occasion take down a much more talented opponent in the regular season because teams rarely practice for it. However, in the postseason with time to prepare, the more talented team will control the option no problem. Same with the Stockton-Malone pick and roll game. Night in and night out with short turn around and little time to prepare Malone and Stockton would wear teams out during the regular season. However, they would get figured out in a seven game series. Jerry Sloan was basically the Marc D'Antoni of that era. Jazz still win a ship if not for Chicago though, and those Jazz teams were championship caliber. Not everything is mutually exclusive.
[QUOTE]Both can be true, you know. Chicago had a goat defense ideal for shutting down the Jazz, and the Jazz struggled on offense in the playoffs. Sloan's system was like the option in college football. A good option team on occasion take down a much more talented opponent in the regular season because teams rarely practice for it. However, in the postseason with time to prepare, the more talented team will control the option no problem. Same with the Stockton-Malone pick and roll game. Night in and night out with short turn around and little time to prepare Malone and Stockton would wear teams out during the regular season. However, they would get figured out in a seven game series. Jerry Sloan was basically the Marc D'Antoni of that era. Jazz still win a ship if not for Chicago though, and those Jazz teams were championship caliber. Not everything is mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE]
True. Good analogies on the option in college and D'Antoni's offenses in the 2000's and 2010's.
The other issue is holes in their games showed in the PO in a way they wouldn't in the RS. Stockton simply couldn't score 20 PPG. A lot of Malone's easy dunks and layups in the RS turned into him flipping the ball in the PO.
I place more blame on Stockton than Malone. Part of the problem was those teams lacked a legitimate 2nd option to take pressure off of Malone. He had to carry a high burden of the offense and any superstar placed in that type of situation is set up to fail. Stockton probably was the lowest scoring second option on a contender of that era along with Starks. Some of it was a lack of the skills to score a lot but some of it was his tendency to cherry pick shots. Sometimes you have to take tough shots, especially in the PO.
Part of being great is adapting to meet hurdles. They never did.
They definitely were championship caliber. If the Bulls don't exist I suspect they get a split decision: they beat Miami but lose to Indiana. However, you can play that game in any era. If the Warriors don't exist the Rockets probably have 3 rings, for example. If the Spurs don't exist the SSOL Suns likely win 2 rings.
Stockton never had that scorers mentality. You have to wonder if Malone may have been better served by a healthy Mark Price. Price could run the PnR just fine but was a more deadly scorer than Stockton ever was. I recall those Bulls/Cavs matchups in the early 90s well enough to remember how much of a pain in the ass Mark Price was to deal with.
Why did the reigning champion and FMVP (should have been Gasol) Kobe got outplayed and swept by Jason Terry in 2011?
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14047759]The Bulls are a convenient excuse for career long, perennial trends of large declines in the playoffs. We can look at Malone/Stockton before 1997 in the playoffs.
Malone RS 1988-1996: 28/11/3 59% TS
Malone PO 1988-1996: 28/12/3 54% TS
Stockton RS 1988-1996: 16/3/13 62% TS
Stockton PO 1988-1996: 15/3/12 56% TS
They lose 5% and 6% respectively in TS %.
We can look at the first three rounds of the WC too in 97' and 98'.
Malone 97' in the season: 27/10/5 60% TS
Malone 97' in the WC PO: 27/12/3 51% TS
Malone 98' in the season: 27/10/4 60% TS
Malone 98' in the WC PO: 27/11/3 53% TS
So Malone is -9% and -7%.
Stockton 97' in the season: 14/3/11 66% TS
Stockton 97' in the WC PO: 17/4/10 63% TS
Stockton 98' in the season: 12/3/9 63% TS
Stockton 98' in the WC PO: 12/3/7 58% TS
Stockton is -3% and the usual -5%.
In the finals it got even worse:
97' RS efficiency for Malone: 55.0% eFG, 60.0% TS
97' finals efficiency for Malone: 44.3% eFG, 48.5% TS
-11%.
98' RS efficiency for Malone: 53.1% eFG, 59.7% TS
98' finals efficiency for Malone: 50.4%, 55.3%
-5%.
97' RS efficiency for Stockton: 59.8% eFG, 65.6% TS
97' Finals efficiency for Stockton: 54.8% eFG, 61.3% TS
-5%.
98' RS efficiency for Stockton: 56.7% eFG, 62.8% TS
98' Finals efficiency for Stockton: 51.0% eFG, 53.9% TS
Yet again, -5%. :oldlol:
Malone's 98' decline is worse because his RS numbers are deflated by Stockton missing the first 18 games. Without Stockton he shot 52.3%; with Stockton 53.2%.
[B]That sure seems to be about me[/B]. :lol[/QUOTE]
You responded to my comment where I told TheCorporation to stop following me around (his obsession is getting weird). So that wasn't aimed at you. lol
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14048298] I told TheCorporation to stop following me around (his obsession is getting weird). [/QUOTE]
You've arrived when the alts start following you around.
[QUOTE=Phoenix;14048303]You've arrived when the alts start following you around.[/QUOTE]
A 2010 "alt" you say? That's rich coming from a 2018 account, please try again.
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14048298]You responded to my comment where I told TheCorporation to stop following me around (his obsession is getting weird). So that wasn't aimed at you. lol[/QUOTE]
Imagine 'following someone around' in my own thread :lol
All I'm doing is roasting your false hero. My bad
[QUOTE=TheCorporation;13568161]In the 1998 Finals the Utah Jazz #2 option was the amazing Jeff Hornacek, who put up an astounding 10.7 ppg as the team's #2 option.
[img]https://i.postimg.cc/sfWPZtWD/jordan2.jpg[/img]
We bag on DeMar because he always had to face the GOAT King James in the playoffs but what if DeMar was presented with an extremely favorable circumstance, such as playing against a team who's second option was pouring in a blistering 10.7 ppg? Could he too win a series, much like Jordan was able to?[/QUOTE]
Can anyone these days just stay focused?
In 1994 the Bulls lost Jordan and snatched up Pete Myers. Assuming the Bulls grabbed DeMar DeRozan instead of Pete Myers, do they beat a team who's #2 option (Jazz) could not score 11 points per game?
[QUOTE=TheCorporation;14048311]A 2010 "alt" you say? That's rich coming from a 2018 account, please try again.[/QUOTE]
Ok fromdowntown/and1/whoeverelse. About a week to go before your next timeout cupcake.
[QUOTE=Phoenix;14048344]Ok fromdowntown/and1/whoeverelse. About a week to go before your next timeout cupcake.[/QUOTE]
A 2010 "alt" you say? That's rich coming from a 2018 account, please try again.
[QUOTE=Phoenix;14048129]Stockton never had that scorers mentality. You have to wonder if Malone may have been better served by a healthy Mark Price. Price could run the PnR just fine but was a more deadly scorer than Stockton ever was. I recall those Bulls/Cavs matchups in the early 90s well enough to remember how much of a pain in the ass Mark Price was to deal with.[/QUOTE]
Yeah nor the skill set to score 20 PPG. In theory I would say he would have been better with Price prime versus prime--but Stockton lasted a lot longer than Price. If they cash in with a chip with Price, then that trumps a few extra years of contending with Stockton.
People think Stockton propped up Malone's numbers but the limited data we have on that suggests that isn't the case. People talk about it like a Nash/Amare type situation.
[QUOTE=TheCorporation;14048367]A 2010 "alt" you say? That's rich coming from a 2018 account, please try again.[/QUOTE]
Ok fromdowntown/and1/whoeverelse. About a week to go before your next timeout cupcake.