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

[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..

[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.