What would the 72-10 Bull's record look like playing this year?

I just checked the missed games of the core players of the Wilt led Sixer team that won a then record 68 games. Their core missed a total of [I][B]One[/B][/I] game. The 72 lakers that btoke the record with 69 wins? Their core missed 9.

The Bulls in 96? Their core miss 44. In 97? A whopping 70 plus. And thats mot counting Brian Williams only playing 9 games during the regular season

[QUOTE=Just2McFly]I know we are talking about Jordan when people are gushing over facts so inane like they only lost by 10+ once for the whole year. The team with the highest amount of victories in NBA History wasn't blown out much? :eek: Say it aint so.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Just2McFly]Ageism clearly present, once again.[/QUOTE]

Is this RaininTwos-PowerGlove-phoenix18 ?

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]Is this RaininTwos-PowerGlove-phoenix18 ?[/QUOTE]
Read my mind :oldlol:

[QUOTE=Money 23]Read my mind :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

Ive been thinking this for a while, since I know he is in Raptor threads and have not seen RaininTwos post for that period of time.

Man forget about MJ, let's talk about Pip. Scottie in today's league? DAMN!

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]Ive been thinking this for a while, since I know he is in Raptor threads and have not seen RaininTwos post for that period of time.[/QUOTE]
That too, but the age agenda thing makes it more than obvious.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]Teams back then didn't utilize the 3 point shot like they do today, so it didn't hurt the Bulls. Teams today use the 3 point shot more and are more efficient from there. Notice how the Bulls dropped to 32% from 3 point land when the league moved the 3 line back to it's original spot, Chicago would have been ranked near the bottom in that category if they played in 2012, They really didn't have any consistent 3 point shooters other than Kerr, Kukoc was OK from downtown.[/QUOTE]

I agree that the Bulls probably won't be as good as a 3pt shooting team as they were in with the shorten 3pt line.

I don't think teams who would shoot the 3 would hurt the bulls that much though. Despite the shorten 3pt line and the regular one back in 98, the Bulls were one of the top teams in the league at defending the 3. They also face the Indiana Pacers in 98, who shot at 39% from 3 along with one of the best shooters ever with Reggie Miller and Chris Mullen shot 44% from 3 that year. So, they are capable of defending it.

But, teams now shoot the 3 a bit more though. That's for sure. Even in the playoffs, teams shoot the 3 more than back then.

[QUOTE=scandisk_]Man forget about MJ, let's talk about Pip. Scottie in today's league? DAMN![/QUOTE]

Yeah, I touched on that in my previous post. He would be great for todays game.

[QUOTE=Money 23]That too, but the age agenda thing makes it more than obvious.[/QUOTE]

True, but there was also the "I know we are talking about Jordan when people are gushing over facts..." line. I notice him and Mr.Im so Rad do that a lot in Jordan related threads.

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]
True, but there was also the "I know we are talking about Jordan when people are gushing over facts..." line. I notice him and Mr.Im so Rad do that a lot in Jordan related threads.[/QUOTE]
Yup.

Still remember that "MJ Overrated" thread a few weeks back where he got clowned.

It's him RaininTwos never took any kind of sabbatical from these boards, and like RRR3 was one of those higher ups in post counts on a daily / weekly / monthly basis.

I don't believe he just disappeared or something.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Lol

How am I being a homer? What did I say that was far fetched? These guys had record setting seasons with key players missing large amounts of games. But im supposed to believe they dont win more if their core stays relatively injury free?

Ive asked this question three times now. What makes the league better now than then?[/QUOTE]
Dude you are FAR AND AWAY with ABSOLUTE EASE the biggest homer on this site. I'm not even joking at all it pisses me off every single time I see you post. You had the fu*king audacity once to say Scottie Pippen was better than LEBRON JAMES. You literally think every single player who played on that Bulls team is god's gift to earth. EVERY SINGLE THREAD about the Jordan Bulls is the ONLY threads you post in and you say something rediculously stupid at least once in all of them.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Lol

How am I being a homer? What did I say that was far fetched? These guys had record setting seasons with key players missing large amounts of games. But im supposed to believe they dont win more if their core stays relatively injury free?

[B]Ive asked this question three times now. What makes the league better now than then?[/B][/QUOTE]



Absolutely nothing.



Im sorry but the sample size some of these kids here have to work with, is pretty small.


I've been watching ball since 92'. The league didnt just get magically better, and more athletic over the course of the last 20 years. That's ridiculous.

[QUOTE=atljonesbro]Dude you are FAR AND AWAY with ABSOLUTE EASE the biggest homer on this site. I'm not even joking at all it pisses me off every single time I see you post. You had the fu*king audacity once to say Scottie Pippen was better than LEBRON JAMES. You literally think every single player who played on that Bulls team is god's gift to earth. EVERY SINGLE THREAD about the Jordan Bulls is the ONLY threads you post in and you say something rediculously stupid at least once in all of them.[/QUOTE]

Can you show me a link where he said Pippen was better than James ? Not that would surprise me or anything (I believe he has said Pippen is better than Magic, Bird, Kobe, Wade, and so on... Stockton is better pure point than Magic...), but I have never seen him type that out directly.

What agenda do I have this time? I'm waiting.

[QUOTE=oh the horror]Absolutely nothing.



Im sorry but the sample size some of these kids here have to work with, is pretty small.


I've been watching ball since 92'. The league didnt just get magically better, and more athletic over the course of the last 20 years. That's ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
The didn't get magically wore than either. I hate when idiots so "Oh ho ho if he were playing TODAY he'd average 97.43 ppg 16.72 rpg, and 45.77 APG." No that's not how it works, well maybe for ignorant people with the intelligence of a spider.

They would be 73-9 just the Lakers would.

Oh wait...

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]Can you show me a link where he said Pippen was better than James ? Not that would surprise me or anything (I believe he has said Pippen is better than Magic, Bird, Kobe, Wade, and so on... Stockton is better pure point than Magic...), but I have never seen him type that out directly.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=196830&page=3[/url] scroll down a little and you'll see it. Then proceded to see him defend Pippen to the DEATH :cheers:

[QUOTE=Just2McFly]What agenda do I have this time? I'm waiting.[/QUOTE]

Wait, so this is RaininTwos ?

I was curious, so I asked.

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]Wait, so this is RaininTwos ?

I was curious, so I asked.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's me.:D

Okay, cool. Did you just want to start over on a new account ?

atljonesbro - Thanks.

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]Okay, cool. Did you just want to start over on a new account ?

atljonesbro - Thanks.[/QUOTE]
I've been eyeing this username for over a year.

The 72-10 Bulls were the very definition of a team on a mission. Today's mental midgets are only going to get run over if they get in the way of that freight train.:rockon:

[QUOTE=fpliii]somewhere between 62-65 wins IMO[/QUOTE]

I got negged for this just now? :lol

[QUOTE=atljonesbro][url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=196830&page=3[/url] scroll down a little and you'll see it. Then proceded to see him defend Pippen to the DEATH :cheers:[/QUOTE]
That was three years ago. James is better than Pippen.

[QUOTE=atljonesbro]The didn't get magically wore than either. I hate when idiots so "Oh ho ho if he were playing TODAY he'd average 97.43 ppg 16.72 rpg, and 45.77 APG." No that's not how it works, well maybe for ignorant people with the intelligence of a spider.[/QUOTE]

Aspects of the game have most definitely gotten worse. Take the leagues best center, he has no post game :roll:

[QUOTE=Just2McFly]What agenda do I have this time? I'm waiting.[/QUOTE]

new > old

The same as it's always been, assuming you really are RaininTwos.

In all honestly it would be 68 games mininum wins.. that team was exactly what one poster said.. the perfect storm. they had the perfect amount of scoring, rebounding, defense and bench production. they were perfectly balanced offensively and defensively and MJ was pretty much like Deion Sanders in the 90s, he was good enough to be the difference in nearly every close game the bulls had that season.

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]Can you show me a link where he said Pippen was better than James ? Not that would surprise me or anything (I believe he has said Pippen is better than Magic, Bird, Kobe, Wade, and so on... Stockton is better pure point than Magic...), but I have never seen him type that out directly.[/QUOTE]
I actually said players on that level, as far as skill, theres not much difference. Only situations.

I said Magic and Pippen were similar as far as scoring skillset. Their ability to put the ball in the basket.

Ad far as Bird. I believe that was a conversation that began when someone asked who would win in a game of 1 on 1.

I feel Wade and Pippen are on the same level. Id even give a slight edge to Pip

[QUOTE=DatAsh]new > old

The same as it's always been, assuming you really are RaininTwos.[/QUOTE]
Say something of value.

[QUOTE=Just2McFly]Say something of value.[/QUOTE]

Why did you ask the question if the answer was of no value to you? Was it rhetorical?

[QUOTE=DatAsh]Why did you ask the question if the answer was of no value to you? Was it rhetorical?[/QUOTE]
I asked the question because people assumed that I had an agenda.

Your rumblings mean nothing. If my agenda was ever new>old, why would I predict the Bulls to win anywhere from 55-65 games?

You guys assume and pretend that you know it all and it's all meaningless. Your whole view of me is hollow with no facts to back it up. You have a couple posts here and there recently that you reach to say that I hate the old school, yet I have thousands upon thousands where I praise the greats of various generations.

If I wasn't so bored I wouldn't even respond.

[QUOTE=Just2McFly] If my agenda was ever new>old, why would I predict the Bulls to win anywhere from 55-65 games?
[/QUOTE]

In other words, you think they'd do considerably worse in this era than they did in their own. Hence, new > old.

Your agenda has been obvious for quite some time. It's not as obvious as it is with others on this site, but it's there. Do you deny it?

[QUOTE=DatAsh]In other words, you think they'd do considerably worse in this era than they did in their own. Hence, new > old.

Your agenda has been obvious for quite some time. It's not as obvious as it is with others on this site, but it's there. Do you deny it?[/QUOTE]
:facepalm

Yes I do think that they would considerably worse in this era. That has nothing do with new greater than old, you are reaching once again just like you always do.

I gave one line of reasoning which I mentioned the expansion era. I think that there are more competitive teams in existence now that would beat the Bulls in the regular season.

How that translates to being an agenda I will never know.

Funny thing is, I shouldn't even need that reasoning, the fact that everyone here is SO SURE they would make history again with such confidence is telling.

[QUOTE=Just2McFly]:facepalm
Yes I do think that they would considerably worse in this era. That has nothing do with new greater than old, you are reaching once again just like you always do.
[/QUOTE]

Do you think last years Bulls team was better than the 96' Bulls team?

[QUOTE=Just2McFly]:facepalm
I gave one line of reasoning which I mentioned the expansion era. I think that there are more competitive teams in existence now that would beat the Bulls in the regular season.

How that translates to being an agenda I will never know.
[/QUOTE]

There is some validity behind that reasoning. Had this been your only post on the matter, I'd have no reason to believe you were pushing any agenda. It's your consistency that gives it away; not any one post.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]I actually said players on that level, as far as skill, theres not much difference. Only situations.

I said Magic and Pippen were similar as far as scoring skillset. Their ability to put the ball in the basket.

Ad far as Bird. I believe that was a conversation that began when someone asked who would win in a game of 1 on 1.

I feel Wade and Pippen are on the same level. Id even give a slight edge to Pip[/QUOTE]

Eh, I don't have any problems with those analogies, bro. I probably read you wrong and if so, my bad.

:cheers:

[QUOTE=Just2McFly]:facepalm

Yes I do think that they would considerably worse in this era. That has nothing do with new greater than old, you are reaching once again just like you always do.

I gave one line of reasoning which I mentioned the expansion era. I think that there are more competitive teams in existence now that would beat the Bulls in the regular season.

How that translates to being an agenda I will never know.

Funny thing is, I shouldn't even need that reasoning, the fact that everyone here is SO SURE they would make history again with such confidence is telling.[/QUOTE]

While I disagree with your view on what the Bulls would do today (the expansion era being the reason why they would do worse of wins-losses wise), I don't think you have an agenda (if I implied that, it wasn't the case).

[QUOTE=DatAsh]Do think last years Bulls team was better than the 96' Bulls team?[/QUOTE]
Nope.

Was gonna respond to other part but I don't even care at this point. I'll let you guys have your nostalgic threads and take part in ones that deal with the present day completely.

Opinions with reasoning and a joke= agenda, now.:roll:

[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]While I disagree with your view on what the Bulls would do today (the expansion era being the reason why they would do worse of wins-losses wise), I don't think you have an agenda (if I implied that, it wasn't the case).[/QUOTE]

There is literally no way I could have had an agenda on MJ, that's why I am waiting for Money 23's answer. He remembers so much about but doesn't remember our PM's where I talked about being named after Mr. Jordan himself because my mom watched him against the Knicks at MSG before I was born.:lol

This shit is just comical now.

[QUOTE=Just2McFly]
Nope.
[/QUOTE]

Yet you think they'd win less games than last years Bulls?

[QUOTE]Was gonna respond to other part but I don't even care at this point. I'll let you guys have your nostalgic threads and take part in ones that deal with the present day completely.

Opinions with reasoning and a joke= agenda, now.:roll:[/QUOTE]

Like I said, it's not any one post that gives it away. It's the consistency, and it's somewhat subtle. You don't push it anywhere near as hard as some of these single player fanatics do, but you and I both know it's there.

[QUOTE=DatAsh]Yet you think they'd win less games than last years Bulls?



Like I said, it's not any one post that gives it away. It's the consistency, and it's somewhat subtle. You don't push it anywhere near as hard as some of these single player fanatics do, but you and I both know it's there.[/QUOTE]

Could I at least get a couch before you take your role as ISH's shrink so seriously?

You need to work on your math bro.

55-65 games at it's high end has a better win pct than the Bulls of last year. Nice try though.

[QUOTE=Just2McFly]Could I at least get a couch before you take your role as ISH's shrink so seriously?
[/QUOTE]
That actually made me laugh.


[QUOTE=Just2McFly]
You need to work on your math bro.

55-65 games at it's high end has a better win pct than the Bulls of last year. Nice try though.[/QUOTE]

You don't think I realized that? Saying you think they would win 55-65 games is equivalent to saying that you believe they could win any number of games within that range. Both last years Bulls and the previous years Bulls won the equivalent of 62 times - given an 82 game season. Seven of the eleven numbers within your range fall below that number. In other words, you think it's more likely that the 96' Bulls win less games than the 11' or 12' Bulls than vice versa.