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

[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]

:oldlol:

[QUOTE=ImKobe;15016165]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..[/QUOTE]

Lakers record without Kobe from 2000-2004: 33-16

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15016168]Lakers record without Kobe from 2000-2004: 33-16[/QUOTE]

Lakers without Shaq from 2005-2010 - 3 Finals & 2 championships

Shaq & Gasol - tied for getting swept the most in NBA Playoffs history (6 times)

Shaq with Kobe - 3 rings
Shaq with Penny, Wade, Nash, Lebron & Celtics Big 3 - 1 ring

Gasol without Kobe in the WC Playoffs from 2002-13 - 0-16

[QUOTE=ImKobe;15016170]Lakers without Shaq from 2005-2010 - 3 Finals & 2 championships[/QUOTE]

Lakers won 34 games without Shaq in '05. Were getting bounced in the first round the next two years after that.

Along came Gasol.

Boy did he need him, especially after Kobe shit the bed vs Boston in game 7 in 2010.

[I]

Kobe's winning percentage was only 43.3% when playing without either Shaq or Gasol according to StatMuse. [/I]

[QUOTE=ImKobe;15016164]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, [B]doesn't mean they were special[/B].[/QUOTE]

What do you mean by special? As far as supporting casts go?

Yea you could certainly argue they were. I'm not sure I can name a championship team in history that wins said championship if you remove it's best player..

The 2017 Warriors are probably the closest. They could have made the finals without either KD or Curry probably but I don't think they beat the Cavs without both of them that year.

[QUOTE=ImKobe;15016165]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..[/QUOTE]

Ewing played the first two rounds, and 2 games in the conference finals in 99. They did win the first round in 98 without him. Then he came back to lose to the Pacers.

A good stretch in the regular season shows something, but not the same as losing a star before the playoffs and making a deep run anyway. That said, I imagine the sample size is extremely small. One that comes to mind is the Blazers without Walton — three straight first round exits.

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT;15016151]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]


It should also be noted that the 5-year stretches are cherry-picked to include years where Shaq and Lebron had equal-scoring partners or were outright 2nd-leading scorers, and therefore got a few extra minutes with the 2nd unit compared to a team-carrier like MJ... The video states that 2nd options like Pippen or David Robinson often led the 2nd unit, so 2nd options Lebron and Shaq were also getting a few extra minutes with the 2nd unit compared to a team-carrier like MJ.

Accordingly, the stretches aren't apples to apples based on this dynamic of 1st option carrier vs 2nd unit minutes, or the dynamic of using Jordan's best dynasty years but not comparing them to Lebron's most winning years (09-13')... The 5-year stretch from 2009 to 2013 is the proper stretch to compare to Jordan, but apparently Lebron's casts were playing well during this stretch and didn't make the cut to compare to Jordan.

But the [i]biggest[/i] factor is the small sample size of a playoff run and the resulting variance, such as Jordan's cast from 88' performing better than most of his title casts.. This type of variance from the tiny sample sizes makes the entire analysis meaningless.. In addition to the small sample, the playoff runs are [i]opponent-dependent[/i] (they aren't regular season numbers where everyone plays the same comp).. So the numbers are completely meaningless due to these 2 factors (small sample and opponent-dependent numbers)... Finally, the stretches selected include Jordan's baseball year, or years where he had bad teams and 0 percentile casts (compared to Shaq and Lebron's 5-year stretches of good teams)... For all these reasons, the numbers are a useless gauge of a player's impact..

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT;15016151]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]


By comparing and ranking the casts in percentile fashion, Thinking Basketball is claiming to have watched all of Jordan's playoff games AND all of his opponents (so he can rank the casts)... That's why the analysis is bs... There's no way that he did that.

[QUOTE=3ba11;15016193]By comparing and ranking the casts in percentile fashion, Thinking Basketball is claiming to have watched all of Jordan's playoff games AND all of his opponents (so he can rank the casts)... That's why the analysis is bs... There's no way that he did that.[/QUOTE]

He says he watched almost all of Jordan’s. It’s what 100 playoff games it’s not too much for one person. The ranking is purely statistical. Net rtg and you have a percentile rank with that number. You can argue about sample size but your other arguments are bs. Thinking basketball has written about Jordan during the regular season too, that has less of a sample size issue

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15016180]What do you mean by special? As far as supporting casts go?

Yea you could certainly argue they were. I'm not sure I can name a championship team in history that wins said championship if you remove it's best player..

The 2017 Warriors are probably the closest. They could have made the finals without either KD or Curry probably but I don't think they beat the Cavs without both of them that year.[/QUOTE]

Warriors probably yeah since they almost pulled it off in 2019, and that's with KD out and with Iguodala and Looney & others banged up. My point was that compared to other dynasties I don't think MJ's help was that special.

[QUOTE=Duffy Pratt;15016187]Ewing played the first two rounds, and 2 games in the conference finals in 99. They did win the first round in 98 without him. Then he came back to lose to the Pacers.

A good stretch in the regular season shows something, but not the same as losing a star before the playoffs and making a deep run anyway. That said, I imagine the sample size is extremely small. One that comes to mind is the Blazers without Walton — three straight first round exits.[/QUOTE]

Well, they did lose Ewing for the season before the Playoffs (they did have 4 months to figure it out as he got injured early) in '98 and beat a 55-win Miami team, winning two elimination games. I just hate that people downplay how good teams were in the 90s, there's so many examples of teams doing well despite losing one of their stars.

Shaq left the Magic in FA in '96 and they were 38 - 21 with Penny on the court the following year and took a 61-win Heat team to an elimination game despite Grant being out and despite Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott both being injured in that series.

[QUOTE=ImKobe;15016218]Warriors probably yeah since they almost pulled it off in 2019, and that's with KD out and with Iguodala and Looney & others banged up. [B]My point was that compared to other dynasties I don't think MJ's help was that special[/B].[/QUOTE]

I mean maybe not SPECIAL. But certainly on par.

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15016228]I mean maybe not SPECIAL. But certainly on par.[/QUOTE]

On par with 80s Lakers/Celtics or the 15-19 Warriors? You sure about that? It's arguably the worst supporting cast for any of the dynasties relative to their eras.

[QUOTE=ImKobe;15016231]On par with 80s Lakers/Celtics or the 15-19 Warriors? You sure about that? It's arguably the worst supporting cast for any of the dynasties relative to their eras.[/QUOTE]

Remove Magic or Bird from the Celtics or Lakers and they aren’t winning shit. They also had to deal with each other too so different circumstances. If one of them didn’t exist the other would probably have 6-7 rings.

But yea. Probably better offensively than the Bulls were but a different era at that and the entire Bulls squad was scrappy and could win games.

It’s close.

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;15016233]Remove Magic or Bird from the Celtics or Lakers and they aren’t winning shit. They also had to deal with each other too so different circumstances. If one of them didn’t exist the other would probably have 6-7 rings.

But yea. Probably better offensively than the Bulls were but a different era at that and the entire Bulls squad was scrappy and could win games.

It’s close.[/QUOTE]


It wasn't remotely close - from the horse's mouth:


[INDENT]Magic to Bob Costas during 93' Finals:

"take me off the Lakers and Michael off the Bulls and you would see what would happen - we would ANNIHILATE them"

[url]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N6og_pOVi2w&t=41s[/url][/indent]



Isiah to Bob Costas during 93' Finals broadcast:


[Indent]if you take me away and take Michael away, then our teams are much better"

[url]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N6og_pOVi2w&t=94s[/url][/indent]

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

The reality is that we've exposed this fraud in numerous ways at this point[/QUOTE]
Almost read the first line as braindead[url=https://i.ibb.co/LJtPyW7/IMG-20221213-081813.jpg].[/url]

[B][size=1]Like the obsessed homosexual who has narcissism problems below you.[/b][/size]

This is incredible. You guys are arguing something that we've actually seen. We actually saw the Lakers without Magic in 92, the Celtics without Bird in 89, and the Bulls without Jordan in 94. Keep in mind that the Lakers replaced Magic with Sedale Threat. A good quality PG. The Celtocs replaced Bird with Reggie Lewis and played in an expansion year. The Bulls replaced Jordan with frigging Pete Myers.

Its amazing that you guys hold scoring stats above a teams actual record. SMH

[QUOTE=97 bulls;15016333]This is incredible. You guys are arguing something that we've actually seen. We actually saw the Lakers without Magic in 92, the Celtics without Bird in 89, and the Bulls without Jordan in 94. Keep in mind that the Lakers replaced Magic with Sedale Threat. A good quality PG. The Celtocs replaced Bird with Reggie Lewis and played in an expansion year. The Bulls replaced Jordan with frigging Pete Myers.

Its amazing that you guys hold scoring stats above a teams actual record. SMH[/QUOTE]


That 80s Lakers team had THREE different Finals MVPs. They were still contending for championships before Magic retired due to his HIV diagnosis AFTER Kareem got too old. ROOKIE Magic closed out the Sixers on the road with a 42/15/7 performance (add on Wilkes' 37/10 in that same game as well) with MVP Kareem out due to injury. Never has a dynasty been as reliant on one player as the Bulls were. Jordan was never outplayed by his teammate for any series of his career. Bulls had great defensive role players and a solid #2 but not comparable to the Lakers having two top 10 players of all-time and great help around them.

The '92 team still made the Playoffs with Worthy missing 28 games and Divac missing 46 games.. They avoided getting swept by the Blazers in the Playoffs even though Worthy was out for the series. They made the Playoffs again the following year and took a 62-win Suns squad to an elimination game and lost in OT, they came close to beating a 62-win team that made the Finals that year, this is with a washed James Worthy who came off the bench in that series who retired after playing one more season.

[QUOTE=ImKobe;15016358]That 80s Lakers team had THREE different Finals MVPs. They were still contending for championships before Magic retired due to his HIV diagnosis AFTER Kareem got too old. ROOKIE Magic closed out the Sixers on the road with a 42/15/7 performance (add on Wilkes' 37/10 in that same game as well) with MVP Kareem out due to injury. Never has a dynasty been as reliant on one player as the Bulls were. Jordan was never outplayed by his teammate for any series of his career. Bulls had great defensive role players and a solid #2 but not comparable to the Lakers having two top 10 players of all-time and great help around them.

The '92 team still made the Playoffs with Worthy missing 28 games and Divac missing 46 games.. They avoided getting swept by the Blazers in the Playoffs even though Worthy was out for the series. They made the Playoffs again the following year and took a 62-win Suns squad to an elimination game and lost in OT, they came close to beating a 62-win team that made the Finals that year, this is with a washed James Worthy who came off the bench in that series who retired after playing one more season.[/QUOTE]

The Lakers were a 43 win team the year after Magic retired. I'm not talking about their team 7-8-9 years prior to that. Because there's someone many changes to the roster. Kareem was an old man by 87. And by 88? He was the 4th best player on the Lakers squad. And keep in mind that the Lakers actually got a quality PG to replace Magic in Sedale Threat. Worthy, Scott, Green, Divac were all there in 92. All 30 and younger. And they barely managed to stay above .500. And then lost in the first round of the playoffs 1-3. ��

The Pistons were a joke even with Thomas on the team. They were under .500 in 92-93. Even though they had Thomas (31), Dumars (29), Rodman (31 and the league leader in rebounds and the DPOY). Bill Laimbeer was 35, but his elbows were still hard I'm sure. For all this talk about how much better the 80s was as opposed to the 90s, you'd think that the Pistons could've at least been able to be good enough to stay above .500. Their core was still intact and weren't old.

The Celtics lost Larry Bird 3-4 games into the 89 season, and then proceeded to barely make the playoffs in an expansion year. Then got swept in the 1st round. Even though they got Reggie Lewis to replace Bird.

I say all this to say...if these teams were soooo much better than the Bulls, why didn't they fair better than the Bulls did? You guys are trying to make it seem as if the Celtics, Lakers, and Pistons were winning 50+ games with their best player missing, and it was the Bulls that struggled to win.

[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]
[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]

You 2 guys cooked this whole thread in 2 posts. :rockon:

[QUOTE=97 bulls;15016414]
I say all this to say...if these teams were soooo much better than the Bulls, why didn't they fair better than the Bulls did? You guys are trying to make it seem as if the Celtics, Lakers, and Pistons were winning 50+ games with their best player missing, and it was the Bulls that struggled to win.[/QUOTE]

You're comparing the Celtics and the Lakers at the end of their run to the Bulls in the middle of theirs.. I already told you why the teams were barely .500 level. They were not coming off a title run and they had injuries. When MJ retired the Bulls just won 3 straight and kept everyone and were healthy and added 3 more pieces and still they had a massive fall-off on offense and in net rating, from elite to mediocre. They were barely a Playoff team in '95 before Jordan returned. He led them to 3 more rings with his #2 and #3 being below-average in efficiency on offense, and averaging less points combined than Jordan did by himself with no one else coming close to averaging 10+ a game for those 3 runs.

When the Bulls won the title in '97 no one else besides Jordan or Pippen even averaged 10 a game for the Playoffs, not even 8 lol. They won with their 3rd option averaging 7.9 ppg on 36% shooting for the Playoffs. They were a good 3PT shooting team in the RS, terrible in the POs. Jordan was 10 rebounds and 2 blocks away from leading that team in every single category for that run.

[QUOTE=ImKobe;15016638]You're comparing the Celtics and the Lakers at the end of their run to the Bulls in the middle of theirs.. I already told you why the teams were barely .500 level. They were not coming off a title run and they had injuries. When MJ retired the Bulls just won 3 straight and kept everyone and were healthy and added 3 more pieces and still they had a massive fall-off on offense and in net rating, from elite to mediocre. They were barely a Playoff team in '95 before Jordan returned. He led them to 3 more rings with his #2 and #3 being below-average in efficiency on offense, and averaging less points combined than Jordan did by himself with no one else coming close to averaging 10+ a game for those 3 runs.

When the Bulls won the title in '97 no one else besides Jordan or Pippen even averaged 10 a game for the Playoffs, not even 8 lol. They won with their 3rd option averaging 7.9 ppg on 36% shooting for the Playoffs. They were a good 3PT shooting team in the RS, terrible in the POs. Jordan was 10 rebounds and 2 blocks away from leading that team in every single category for that run.[/QUOTE]

The Lakers had just lost in the NBA Finals in 91. The Celtics made it to the ECF in 88. All teams had their key pieces that helped them win their titles on these teams.

And lets not forget that you feel that these teams were better than the Bulls. They fell off a cliff without their best players. The Bulls didnt.

Kukoc led the 94' Bulls in playoff BPM and was 2nd in WS/48 ahead of Pippen... So the new guy (not Jordan's cast) impacted the playoff differentials the most.. So the 94' season should not be considered Jordan's "cast".... Kukoc won 5 games by himself at the buzzer and was the only true scorer that the 90's Bulls had aside from Jordan, while the 94' Bulls also added rim protection and spacing that MJ never had... These guys weren't MJ's cast, so the numbers are meaningless.. It wasn't like 95' where we could look at the cast's performance before MJ returned and compare to the [i]same cast's[/i] performance after he returned..

[I]Btw, casts play better during title years[/I], so title years should be compared to title years, not record losses or upsets where the casts invariably wet the bed... Thinking Basketball (TB) compared 5-year periods of Jordan winning titles to Shaq and Lebron's casts getting upset (03', 04', 21') or losing by record amount (17', 18')... This discrepancy discredits the analysis, along with the opponent-specific nature of the results (facing the KD Warriors)...

Rather than compare title casts to upsets or record losses, Jordan's title years should be compared to Lebron's most winning seasons from 09-13', but apparently Lebron's cast during this period out-performed Jordan's (otherwise TB would've shown this comparison)... Accordingly, we know that Jordan's casts from winning teams performed worse than Lebron's winning teams from 09-13', while Jordan's casts from losing years like 89' or 90' also underperform Lebron's losing years (especially 1990, where MJ's cast appears to set the record for futility).

Finally, the analysis is completely put to bed by the variance of the short playoff runs, which produces wild results [I]as a standard[/I] - i.e. the casts of the Bulls' title teams were outplayed by their lottery cast in 88' - this type of stuff is completely standard, which buries the analysis, in addition to comparing winning casts to losing casts, or the opponent-dependent nature of playoff runs... And of course, it's fraudulent to claim that the reloaded team in 94' (that MJ never played with) was his "cast".. lol.. So there are many reasons to laugh at the simpleton and amateur analysis.

And do you believe that Thinking Basketball watched all the playoff games [u]for every team[/u] from 91-93' to say that the Bulls' cast was 75th percentile compared to other casts??... Since there's no way that he did this, the entire analysis is fraud, even though it says the Bulls' title casts were 1st Round caliber (worse than all 2nd Round opponents or 25% of league, aka 75th percentile).

Just watched the episode. I have to agree with him

Jordan and the Chicago Bulls have a a garbage competitions in the NBA finals

[QUOTE=Lebron23;15023183]Just watched the episode. I have to agree with him[/QUOTE]


Hopefully you're educated enough to understand what "percentile" means.

When he says that the Bulls' casts from 91-93' were 75th percentile, it means they were better than 75% of casts... But this means they're still worse than 25% of casts, or 7 or 28 teams - this is all 2nd Round opponents, aka 1st-round caliber cast.

Furthermore, Thinking Basketball uses playoff numbers, and Kukoc led the Bulls in BPM for the 94' Playoffs, so he had the biggest impact on differentials... The problem is that MJ never played with Kukoc during the 1st three-peat, so his 1st three-peat numbers can't be compared to the Bulls in 94'.. Since they're entirely different casts, they can't be compared at all.. The only way to compare them is to look at the cast's performance in 95' before MJ returned, and compare to the same cast when MJ was added to the lineup - that's the only way to make sure you're comparing identical casts.