2018 Celtics were a weaker team than the 89' Cavs or Knicks (that pre-title mj beat)

[QUOTE=tpols;14298695]They were a single game away from a 3peat in a loaded era. They went to game 7 with Showtime the year before they repeated, and even Pat Riley admitted the KAJ phantom foul cost them the '88 title. The Pistons were absolutely considered a dynasty back then. First thing that comes up when you search it.



They beat Magic, Bird, and Jordan. That's dynasty. Are you gonna ride with your boy M and say the 2018 Celtics were on par with them? Its amazing were even debating this.[/QUOTE]
No team in any sport has ever been considered a dynasty with only 2 titles. I agree they had huge calls go against them in '88, but after '90 they got swept by the Bulls and were legitimately never relevant again. And the Bird/Magic/Jordan talking point is so disingenuous. They beat Jordan 3 times as the substantial favorite, and the time they "beat" Magic he missed most of the series

[QUOTE=3ball;14298675]It's clear that:

89' Cavs > 18' Celtics

and it was [U]pre-title[/U] Jordan that beat those Cavs with no help and a rookie team, while lebron was a veteran champion with a veteran champion team when he beat the rookie Celtics[/QUOTE]

How do you figure he had no help when he had more scoring help and a better defensive roster? The Cavs cast against the Celtics was a worse defensive team and provided worse scoring support. You keep ignoring actual play and are just running with narratives that are clearly erroneous. It doesn't matter that the 88 or 89 Bulls were young, and the 18 Cavs were veterans. The Bulls support inarguably performed better than the Cavs support.

[QUOTE=Ainosterhaspie;14298720]How do you figure he had no help when he had more scoring help and a better defensive roster? The Cavs cast against the Celtics was a worse defensive team and provided worse scoring support. You keep ignoring actual play and are just running with narratives that are clearly erroneous. It doesn't matter that the 88 or 89 Bulls were young, and the 18 Cavs were veterans. The Bulls support inarguably performed better than the Cavs support.[/QUOTE]


18' Lebron easily makes the 05' Playoffs because he's about three times better than young lebron

Jordan was the same way - he improved throughout his bulls career - champion Jordan from 1991 probably beats the Pistons in 89' and 90' despite no help

[QUOTE=tpols;14298709]You need a new account bud. That comparison is going to follow you around everywhere because it destroys your credibility. Ive never ever compared JR Smith to Pippen so that's not gonna fly. From what I've seen the OP post, [B]he has only said that JR Smith at his best reached Pippens standard level of play, nothing more nothing less[/B]. You guys take that to mean JR Smith = Scottie Pippen because your dumb and couldn't properly comprehend his argument. Then again I'm posting with a guy who thinks the 80s pistons were worse than the 2018 celtics so I really shouldn't be expecting too much.[/QUOTE]

You really think that’s all that was said? :lol

He made that statement as a part of an argument. And you know exactly what that argument was.

Put two and two together.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;14298719]No team in any sport has ever been considered a dynasty with only 2 titles. I agree they had huge calls go against them in '88, but after '90 they got swept by the Bulls and were legitimately never relevant again. And the Bird/Magic/Jordan talking point is so disingenuous. They beat Jordan 3 times as the substantial favorite, and the time they "beat" Magic he missed most of the series[/QUOTE]

you're giving credence to their titles. and while i agree, 2 titles don't make a dynasty, neither does losing. up until 89, the pistons had never won a championship. so claiming jordan "lost to a dynasty" in 88 is gaslighting. no one at the time thought of them that way. how could they? detroit didn't win anything until the FOLLOWING year.

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;14298724]You really think that’s all that was said? :lol

He made that statement as a part of an argument. And you know exactly what that argument was.

Put two and two together.[/QUOTE]

plays the woe is me act. we all see through that facade lol

[QUOTE=tpols;14298529]Well they were... The Cavs had two all star talents in their primes with Mark Price and Brad Daugherty, and a young Ron Harper. The Knicks had Pat Ewing and Mark Jackson who were both all stars, along with Charles Oakley a 1st team defense type of guy.

The 2018 Celtics? :oldlol: They had ZERO all stars, and were being led by rookies and "scary" terry rozier. The Celtics started that year off with great promise because they had signed Gordon Hayward and Kyrie, but both succumbed to injury so they were left a shell and joke of a team. Brad Stevens coaching was the only reason they overachieved with the paltry talent they had out there. Both Giannis and Middleton averaged 25+ ppg against them that year in the first round and somehow lost with nobody on Boston even cracking 20. Team effort, but no star talent at the time.[/QUOTE]

This. I dont get the point of the thread.

A team led by Al Horford and a bunch of teenagers isnt better than those Cavs or Knicks

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;14298719]No team in any sport has ever been considered a dynasty with only 2 titles. I agree they had huge calls go against them in '88, but after 1990 they got swept by the Bulls and were literally never relevant again. And the Bird/Magic/Jordan talking point is so disingenuous. They beat Jordan 3 times as the substantial favorite, and the time they "beat" Magic he missed most of the series[/QUOTE]
I'm siding with tpols on this. They may not be a dynasty by the 3 straight titles definition, but then the middle 80s Lakers and late 2010s Warriors don't meet that criteria either and both were dynastic. More important though us the quality of the team, not whether the narrative driven title fits. By the important criteria, the late 80s Pistons were a dynastic level team.

[QUOTE=Ainosterhaspie;14298749]I'm siding with tpols on this. They may not be a dynasty by the 3 straight titles definition, but then the middle 80s Lakers and late 2010s Warriors don't meet that criteria either and both were dynastic. More important though us the quality of the team, not whether the narrative driven title fits. By the important criteria, the late 80s Pistons were a dynastic level team.[/QUOTE]
How would the Lakers & Warriors not meet dynasty criteria? The Warriors won 3 titles in 4 years and made 5 straight Finals, while the Lakers won 5 titles in 9 years. The Pistons run simply falls far below either of those. I'd consider the Big 3 Heat a dynastic level team, but I wouldn't consider them a dynasty either

[QUOTE=Hamtaro CP3KDKG;14298728]This. I dont get the point of the thread.

A team led by Al Horford and a bunch of teenagers isnt better than those Cavs or Knicks[/QUOTE]
The point of the thread is 3ball keeps making bad arguments, gets called on it, then doubles down with new thread pursuing the same basic train of thought that has already been dismantled.

The thread questioning how MJ would do with the 2018 Cavs had 3ball talking about the 2005 Cavs instead of the 2018 Cavs to argue 1990 Jordan would do as good or better as LeBron on that 2018 team. That line of reasoning had several glaring flaws. He got called on them, then made this thread as a continuation of that argument. Only now he's shifting to various other Bulls teams where his rationale still makes no sense and produces absurd results like "2018 Cavs = 1988 Pistons". Rather than abandoning this horrible argument, he keeps doubling down on it.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;14298753]How would the Lakers & Warriors not meet dynasty criteria? The Warriors won 3 titles in 4 years and made 5 straight Finals and the Lakers won 5 titles in 9 years. The Pistons run simply falls far below either of those. I'd consider the Big 3 Heat a dynastic level team, but I wouldn't consider them a dynasty either[/QUOTE]

Didn't win 3 straight though.

[QUOTE=Ainosterhaspie;14298756]Didn't win 3 straight though.[/QUOTE]
Lol c'mon, I've never heard of anyone mandating that. By that rationale the Brady/Belichick Pats wouldn't be considered a dynasty :lol

[QUOTE=Ainosterhaspie;14298755]The point of the thread is 3ball keeps making bad arguments, gets called on it, then doubles down with new thread pursuing the same basic train of thought that has already been dismantled.

The thread questioning how MJ would do with the 2018 Cavs had 3ball talking about the 2005 Cavs instead of the 2018 Cavs to argue 1990 Jordan would do as good or better as LeBron on that 2018 team. That line of reasoning had several glaring flaws. He got called on them, then made this thread as a continuation of that argument. Only now he's shifting to various other Bulls teams where his rationale still makes no sense and produces absurd results like "2018 Cavs = 1988 Pistons". Rather than abandoning this horrible argument, he keeps doubling down on it.[/QUOTE]


My arguments in the other thread showed that the production of the 90' Bulls' cast was superior to the 05' Cavs on both sides of the ball, and this thread shows that Jordan carried this lottery cast over teams that were superior to the 18' Celtics.

[I]Ultimately, Jordan's victories over superior opponents to the 18' Celtics despite having weaker casts than the 05' Cavs is strong evidence that he would cruise to the 18 Finals in Lebron's place.. Lebron had a veteran, champion cast and was a veteran champion himself.. Jordan would win chips every year in his shoes[/I]

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;14298763]Lol c'mon, I've never heard of anyone mandating that. By that rationale the Brady/Belichick Pats wouldn't be considered a dynasty :lol[/QUOTE]

The standard isn't exactly clear though. Is it three titles in a given time span? What is that time span? Can you be one with less than three titles? Like I said though, that's not even what really matter here. They ended two dynasties, delayed another and were just one game short of the three title threshold that would probably earn them the title. At that point it's semantics. They were dynasty quality if not a dynasty in name.

[QUOTE=Ainosterhaspie;14298774]The standard isn't exactly clear though. Is it three titles in a given time span? What is that time span? Can you be one with less than three titles? Like I said though, that's not even what really matter here. They ended two dynasties, delayed another and were just one game short of the three title threshold that would probably earn them the title. At that point it's semantics. They were dynasty quality if not a dynasty in name.[/QUOTE]


Ultimately, Jordan's victories over superior opponents to the 18' Celtics despite having weaker casts than the 05' Cavs is strong evidence that he would cruise to the 18 Finals in Lebron's place.. Lebron had a veteran, champion cast and was a veteran champion himself.. So Jordan would win chips every year in his shoes, especially since the lesser, pre-title versions of Jordan were already beating superior opponents with no help

And of course, only Jordan had carry-jobs against GOOD teams (top 5 SRS)

[QUOTE=3ball;14298773]My arguments in the other thread showed that the production of the 90' Bulls' cast was superior to the 05' Cavs on both sides of the ball, and this thread shows that Jordan carried this lottery cast over teams that were superior to the 18' Celtics.

[I]Ultimately, Jordan's victories over superior opponents to the 18' Celtics despite casts weaker than the 05' Cavs is strong evidence that he would cruise to the 18 Finals in Lebron's place[/I][/QUOTE]
And the 05 Cavs have precise nothing to do with the 18 Cavs. Any train of thought that relies on talking about them instead of the 18 Cavs which the thread is about is derailed before it begins its journey. How are you not comprehending that yet? You've got to recognize a shitty argument when it's been pointed out to you. Just because that argument sucks doesn't mean LeBron is GOAT over MJ. Stick to good arguments for MJ instead of absurd tortured reasoning like 05 Cavs > 90 Bulls therefore MJ would do better with 18 Cavs. The conclusion might be correct, but the rationale used to support it doesn't actually support it.

[QUOTE=Ainosterhaspie;14298774]The standard isn't exactly clear though. Is it three titles in a given time span? What is that time span? Can you be one with less than three titles? Like I said though, that's not even what really matter here. They ended two dynasties, delayed another and were just one game short of the three title threshold that would probably earn them the title. At that point it's semantics. They were dynasty quality if not a dynasty in name.[/QUOTE]
I think 3 is the absolute minimum needed to be considered dynasty status. The timeframe of that is certainly where things can become subjective and debatable, but I'd say if you win 3 with the majority of the same core of players, that should be good enough to be considered dynasty level.

I won't necessarily disagree with you that the Pistons were dynasty quality, I just felt like their titles came during a pretty fortunate transition that the league was going through. Bird injured his back and the Celtics were finished after '88, they knocked off the Lakers with Magic missing most of the series and Kareem being a total shell of himself, and with the possible exception of 1990, they beat a Bulls team that didn't remotely resemble the one that would go on to win all those titles, they didn't even have Phil Jackson for those first two matchups.

The fact they came so close to winning in '88 is a valid argument, but a lot of dynasty teams had extremely painful playoff defeats but went to win additional titles. The Pistons got destroyed in '91 and were never heard from again.

[QUOTE=Ainosterhaspie;14298780]

absurd tortured reasoning like 05 Cavs > 90 Bulls therefore MJ would do better with 18 Cavs. The conclusion might be correct, but the rationale used to support it doesn't actually support it.


[/QUOTE]


The 05' Cavs looked bad because Lebron wasn't great yet and barely won 40 games with the East all-star center.

18' Lebron was much better and wouldn't be lottery with that team, while 90' Jordan nearly won the title with a less productive cast on both sides of the ball.

People simply don't remember back to 89' or 90'... The bulls were considered the biggest 1-man team in history with special rules designed to stop the goat scoring champ... So don't be surprised that the 05' Cavs compare favorably to them.

Finally, Lebron was a veteran champion in 2018... So Jordan would win chips every year in his shoes since the lesser, pre-title versions of Jordan were already beating superior opponents with no help

And of course, only Jordan had carry-jobs against GOOD teams (top 5 SRS)