Jordan's help. Wow.

[QUOTE=Bankaii]

Both Wade and Irving's stats are just as good as the year before.

[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="2"][B]Lebron significantly lowers the APG and assist % of Wade/Kyrie and all his teammates:[/B][/SIZE][/COLOR]


[COLOR="Green"]Wade apg and assist % before Lebron (04'-10'):[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] [url=http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/wadedw01.html#2004-2010-sum:per_game]6.6[/url], [url=http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/wadedw01.html#2004-2010-sum:advanced]34.8%[/url] [/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]Wade apg and assist % with[COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR] Lebron (11'-14'):[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] [url=http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/wadedw01.html#2011-2014-sum:per_game]4.7[/url], [url=http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/wadedw01.html#2011-2014-sum:advanced]25.5%[/url] [/COLOR]

[COLOR="Green"]Irving apg and assist % before Lebron (12'-14'):[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] [url=http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/i/irvinky01.html#2012-2014-sum:per_game]5.8[/url], [url=http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/i/irvinky01.html#2012-2014-sum:advanced]33.2[/url][/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]Irving apg and assist % with[COLOR="White"].....[/COLOR] Lebron (2015):[COLOR="White"]..[/COLOR] 5.2, 25.0%[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Green"]Bosh apg and assist % before Lebron (04'-10'):[COLOR="White"]..[/COLOR] 2.2, 10.5%[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]Bosh apg and assist % with[COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR] Lebron (11'-14'):[COLOR="White"]..[/COLOR] [url=http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/boshch01.html#2011-2014-sum:per_game]1.6[/url], [COLOR="White"].[/COLOR][url=http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/boshch01.html#2011-2014-sum:advanced]8.0%[/url] [/COLOR]

[COLOR="Green"]Kevin Love apg and assist % in MIN:[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] 2.5, 13.0%[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]Kevin Love apg and assist % in CLE:[COLOR="White"]..[/COLOR] 2.2, 10.7%[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Green"]Mo Williams apg and assist % before Lebron:[COLOR="White"]..[/COLOR] 6.3, 30.0%[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]Mo Williams apg and assist % with[COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR] Lebron:[COLOR="White"]..[/COLOR] 4.1, 20.1%[/COLOR]

[B]FYI...
[/B]
[COLOR="Green"]Pippen apg and assist % with[COLOR="White"]..[/COLOR] Jordan 91'-93':[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] [url=http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/pippesc01.html#1991-1993-sum:per_game]6.5[/url], [url=http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/pippesc01.html#1991-1993-sum:advanced]24.5[/url][/COLOR]
[COLOR="Red"]Pippen apg and assist % w/out Jordan 94'-95':[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] [url=http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/pippesc01.html#1994-1995-sum:per_game]5.4[/url], [url=http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/pippesc01.html#1994-1995-sum:advanced]23.7[/url][/COLOR]
[COLOR="Green"]Pippen apg and assist % with[COLOR="White"]..[/COLOR] Jordan 96'-98':[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR] [url=http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/pippesc01.html#1996-1998-sum:per_game]5.8[/url], [url=http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/pippesc01.html#1996-1998-sum:advanced]25.1[/url][/COLOR]


[QUOTE=Bankaii]

Lebron actually helps his teammates get much easier shots, as seen by the increase in efficiency.

[/QUOTE]
[I]Lebron not only reduces the APG of teammates, he increases their assisted rate, which proves he turns teammates from playmakers into play-finishers.[/I]

With less guys playmaking, the team's offensive sophistication is reduced and the team is more predictable.. [COLOR="Navy"]Look at ALL FOUR of Lebron's Finals losses[/COLOR] - his teams lost 3 straight games to finish the series each time, in blowout fashion.. The opponent figured out easy Lebron-ball, and then it's blowout-city.. With less guys playmaking, Lebron-ball isn't sophisticated enough to counteradjust, so it's just blowout city.

This is what happens in every Finals Lebron has lost - and it will happen again this year, when his team is trounced by the Warriors or Spurs, again - I predict the Cavs lose the last 3 games, which would be the FIFTH Finals that happened to Lebron... 2/7 vs. 6/6... yikes


[QUOTE=Bankaii]

Because Lebron is the best playmaker, he is usually the one that handles the ball the most.

This leads to players to not have as many opportunities as they would have being the 1st or 2nd option on shit teams.

[/QUOTE]
The Heat had all-nba Wade and perennial all-star Bosh - there's ZERO rationale for Lebron to monopolize the playmaking while playing with those guys.

But he did anyway, because that's how all of Lebron teams play - it's called Lebron-ball.. With Lebron reducing the APG and playmaking of Wade/Bosh (turning them into play-finishers instead), the Heat's team was never as good as they should've been.. That's why they only went 2/4 with all that talent.
.

You can put adam morrison on that roster replacing MJ and win rings

[QUOTE=Bankaii]

through the first 30 games of the season, in which everyone on the Cavs was healthy, they were still [B]29th[/B] in the league in ORTG.

[/quote]
At the start of the 2011 season, the Cavs were missing Shaq, Delonte and Zydrunas, [I][COLOR="Navy"]who averaged a combined [B]30 ppg[/B] in 2010 - this was exactly 30% of the team's points[/COLOR][/I].

But keep disregarding the 30 ppg of these guys, and only pay attention to Lebron's 30 ppg.. :rolleyes: .. And later in the season, Varejao and Mo Williams went down and missed 50 games each..

Overall, the Cavs lost 2 starters (Shaq, Mo Williams) and 3 other key players (Varejao, Delonte, Zydrunas) - [I][COLOR="Navy"]these guys scored a combined 52 ppg, which is more than half the Cavs points[/COLOR][/I].


[quote=Bankaii]

even after the additions of lottery picks like Kyrie, TT, Waiters, Bennett, and additions like Deng, Hawes, etc the Cavs have have only cracked the top 20 in league ORTG once since Lebron left (they were 19th).

[/QUOTE]
Deng only played 40 games for the Cavs before he was traded again.

But let me get this straight - you think a team consisting of Kyrie, Waiters, TT, Hawes and Bennett should have a top 20 ORtg?

That's a bad team with bad or non-offensive players outside of Kyrie... I would EXPECT a Kyrie-led team with zero supporting cast to be a bad offensive team...

But if you gave Kyrie players like Shaq, Antawn Jamison, Mo Williams, Delonte West and Zydrunas, then I'd expect Kyrie's team to have a solid offense.


[QUOTE=Bankaii]

When Lebron returned to the Cavs, their offense was back in the top 4 for two straight years now.

[/QUOTE]
Do I have to state the obvious???... The Cavs added 26/13 Kevin Love, who was 2nd Team All-NBA.

Also, having a top 4 offense doesn't compare to MJ - MJ's teams had the highest ORtg's OF ALL TIME.

Lebron's top 4 offense doesn't compare to the goat offense.. That's a pretty big gap.


[QUOTE=Bankaii]

Also, why don't you address how the Heat haven't even come close to returning to their offensive production in 2014 (5th best ORTG) in neither 2015 nor 16 (21st ORTG) despite loading up with talent to replace Bron and being healthy this year?

[/QUOTE]
It's easier to make definitive statements about Lebron's offensive impact on the Heat, since Lebron was the only change..

But you simply can't do that for his Cavs teams, since they lost literally half their team, which amounted to losing 52 ppg OUTSIDE of Lebron's scoring.

Certainly, Lebron's offensive impact on the Heat is much easier to quantify... But the Heat's offense was still only 5th best in the league with him.. Having a 5th best offense doesn't compare to MJ - MJ's teams had the highest ORtg's of ALL TIME.

Lebron's 5th-best offense in the league doesn't compare to [I]the goat[/I] offense.. That's a pretty big gap.. :applause:


[QUOTE=Bankaii]

[B]Show me stats where Jordan took an equal amount of shots to Lebron, Kobe, etc and still scored more. [/B]

[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:

Lebron took 27 fga in 2015 playoffs, but only averaged 30 ppg.

Otoh, MJ averaged 33.5 ppg for his playoff career, on only 25 fga... And anytime MJ took 26+ fga in playoffs, he averaged 35+ ppg.. He also averaged 37 ppg in 1987 regular season on 27 fga... Take these L's (again).

Lebron and Kobe need MORE shots to match Jordan's scoring... And why is that?.. BECAUSE THEIR EFFICIENCY IS WORSE - here's their efficiency measures in the playoffs:

[I]JORDAN[/I]: 48.7 fg.. 56.8 ts.. 118 ORtg
[I]LEBRON[/I]: 47.1 fg.. 56.5 ts.. 114 ORtg
[I]KOBE[/I]:[COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR] 44.8 fg.. 54.1 ts.. 110 ORtg


[QUOTE=Bankaii]

JORDAN SCORED MORE POINTS BECAUSE HE SHOT MORE [B][COLOR="Red"]ON BETTER EFFICIENCY.[/COLOR][/B]

[/QUOTE]
There... fixed.

You can't knock a player for having better efficiency... If Lebron and Kobe could have better efficiency - they would... But they can't, even though they take less shots.

MJ scores 20% more than Lebron, on better efficiency... What else would you want MJ to do?... Score less, on less efficiency?... Your perception of this situation couldn't be dumber.


[QUOTE=Bankaii]

Volume scoring [B][COLOR="Red"]doesn't equal better scorer[/COLOR][/B].

[/QUOTE]
So wait - you think Lebron is a better scorer than Jordan?... Is that what you're saying?

It's clear that you don't really think he's the goat - you just say he's the goat because you know you'll look ridiculous if you say otherwise.

Basically, you're a massive ***** who's too afraid to say what he really thinks.. You belong in the Lebron camp, that's for certain.


[QUOTE=Bankaii]

Phil didn't give Pippen or Grant freedom under the triangle, which is why their stats didn't change significantly. Pippen could easily score 25 a game, if not under a system.

[/QUOTE]
You're lying here - Phil would never restrict Pippen or hold him down, especially if he was capable of 25+ ppg, as you claim he was..

Pippen was #1 option in 1994, but instead of averaging 33 ppg like MJ did under the same system, he averaged 22 ppg, which is the same as he did alongside MJ.

So your narrative about how the "system" held Pippen down is bullshit.. Pippen simply wasn't capable of averaging more than 21-22 ppg.. This was proven in 1994.


[QUOTE=Bankaii]

if Jordan doesn't exist the Bulls would still have made it to the 2nd round and 55 wins in 1994.

[/QUOTE]
Ridiculous.. I'll explain it this way - in 1989, the Bulls won 47 games - the cutoff to make the playoffs was 45 games.. So without MJ's 33/8/8 on 54%, the Bulls miss the playoffs and are a lottery team heading into the 1990 season - surely you concede that this is true..

But WITH Jordan, they made it to ECF and went 6 games with the Bad Boys..

So going into the 1990 season WITH Jordan, the Bulls were ECF veterans and 1 season away from beginning their 3-peat, as opposed to being a lottery team WITHOUT Jordan..

If they were a lottery team without MJ going into the 1990 season (instead of contenders for the championship), there's no way they win 55 games by 1994.


[QUOTE=Bankaii]

The 1996 and 1998 Playoffs Pippen had higher assist percentage than jordan

[/QUOTE]

[SIZE="3"][I]You proved my point - 4 out of the 6 championship runs, Jordan had the higher assist percentage - overall, here were their assist percentages:[/I][/SIZE]


[B]Playoff assist % during first 3-peat (1991-1993):
[/B]
Jordan: 31.1%
Pippen: 23.3%

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html#1991-1993-sum:playoffs_advanced[/url]
[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/pippesc01.html#1991-1993-sum:playoffs_advanced[/url]


[B]Assist Percentage during 2nd three-peat (1996-1998):
[/B]
Jordan: 22.3%
Pippen: 22.0%

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html#1996-1998-sum:playoffs_advanced[/url]
[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/pippesc01.html#1996-1998-sum:playoffs_advanced[/url]


[size="3"][I] In addition to assisting more, MJ scored at least 10 ppg more than Pippen in virtually every playoff series except two, where he averaged 5 ppg and 8 ppg more... GOAT[/i][/size]


[QUOTE=Bankaii]

MJ had two teammates supporting him (Grant and Pippen) that were both better defenders

[/QUOTE]
You're trying to re-write history 20 years after the fact.. But AT THE TIME, it was common knowledge that MJ was the team's best defender:

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgJhzj4W9M&t=35m00s[/url]


At the time, no one thought Grant or Pippen was a better defender than MJ.. MJ has the most all-defensive selections EVER, and was also DPOY.. Otoh, you have [I]zero proof[/I] or basis for saying MJ was a worse defender, except your desperation to make MJ look worse..

But here's the reality - Pippen was a slower FORWARD - it's easily demonstrated that he couldn't stay in front of quick ballhandlers [url=http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11977764&postcount=29]in the exact same spots[/url] that MJ did.

Also, it's historical fact that Pippen let every decent wing in the league go off for huge games on him - 35, 40, and 50 point games were routine - whereas, MJ rarely ever gave up a big game to anyone.


[QUOTE=Bankaii]

The Spurs lost to the Clippers last year and the Clippers lost to the Rockets.
So , Rockets>Spurs, right dumbass?

[/QUOTE]
I think I see what some of the problem is.

A lot of guys don't realize that the 1994 Bulls weren't going to rebound from their 2nd Round defeat and win the championship next year - they were a 2ND ROUND TEAM PERMANENTLY without MJ, after being a 3-peat dynasty with him.. If we were measuring that gap with our arms, we must spread our arms very wide to demonstrate how big the gap is.

Otoh, 2014 Miami Heat were not a 3-peat dynasty - they played far worse than anyone the Spurs faced in the playoffs (Mavs, Blazers, OKC), and were actually beat worse than any team EVER... No one who watched the colossal embarrassment in the Finals thought the Heat could beat any of those Western Conference teams.

At the time of their record defeat in the Finals, they were a 1st or 2nd Round Western Conference playoff team, at best.. [I]Then Lebron left[/I]... :eek:

That's a lot different then the Bulls actually WINNING the 3-peat with everyone still in their prime and therefore actually BEING a 3-peat caliber team....... and then falling to permanent 2nd Round status (or worse) when MJ retired.
.

Derik fisher coaching with current elden campbel replacing MJ could win 6 rings with that roster though

[QUOTE=BigNBAfan]

Derik fisher coaching with current elden campbel replacing MJ could win 6 rings with that roster though

[/QUOTE]
It makes no sense to say "[I]kobe could've replaced MJ and won a 4th ring in 1994[/I]", when he couldn't average the 35/7/7 on 51%, or the 36/7/8 on 53% that the Bulls needed from MJ to three-peat in the first place?? (those were MJ's playoffs and Finals averages thru 1993)

Kobe's typical 25/5/5 on 45% wouldn't have come anywhere NEAR being enough to 3-peat... So if Kobe can't 3-peat in the first place, then it doesn't matter whether he could win a 4th straight ring with Jordan's ready-made, 3-peat Bulls.

Btw, if people think kobe or mitch richmond would win in 1994, then MJ would've 4-peated FOR SURE, and probably 9-peated.. That would make him the GOAT until the end of time.. As it is, he's 6/6, with a perfect career - he'll be the goat for our lifetimes, and probably forever tbh.. it's pretty impossible to have the career he had.
.

I mean robert horry could lead that bulls team to rings

[QUOTE=Bankaii]You say what about the other games, and conveniently leave out the 2 he did well in.
Game 3: 32/9/9 on 57%.
Game 4: 25/11/6 on 42%.[/QUOTE]

True he did play great in those Games.

[QUOTE]Game 1: You conveniently leave out his 10 rebounds and 9 assists/2 TO ratio.
Also the fact that of the 21 4th quarter points Lebron assisted/scored half og them and had the team's best DRTG.

Game 2: Assisted/scored 7 of the 13 4th quarter points.

Game 6: He also had 14 rebounds, 8 assists, 2 steals and 2 blocks and had the team's best DRTG. Gibson had a monster game though, that's what teammates are for. Is lebron supposed to be the leader in scoring, assists, reboundiing, and steals every game?[/QUOTE]

His rebounding was good & he was getting a lot of assists. He averaged .2 more rebounds than Big Z, and he's their primary scorer and playmaker so why wouldn't he lead them in assists, especially considering he dominates the ball so much?

DRTG? :oldlol:

[QUOTE]Also, using PPG is pretty invalid because the Pistons weren't an offensive team.[/QUOTE]

The Pistons were the 3rd best Offense that year.

[QUOTE]Lebron dropped 26/9/9/3 on 45% against arguably the GOAT defensive team and you're calling it an underperformance.:roll:\[/QUOTE]

I never said he unperformed. Just said he had help. BTW the Pistons didn't have Ben Wallace this year and were the 7th Best Defense (good but not Top 5 like they were the previous years). They weren't the GOAT defense anymore.

Lebron underperformed this series, I don't know what else you want me to say lol.

[QUOTE]Game 1: The game was over by the 3rd. Lol at "only by 9".[/QUOTE]

Through the 1st 3 quarters Bron had 8 points.

[QUOTE]Game 3: Dude scored 12 points in the 4th. I understand he missed the GT 3, but seriously his performance in crunch time was solid. Cavs only lost by 3 because he took over.[/QUOTE]

The Cavs headed into the quarter down by 5, Gooden & Pavlovic had 7 points to help keep the Cavs in it when the Spurs had open the lead up to about 6-7 points and Pavlovic hit another big 3 later in the Quarter. It wasn't only Bron.

[QUOTE]Game 4: Lebron only had 13 points in the 4th alone, including a clutch 3. The Spurs were just scoring on their end too.[/QUOTE]

A couple role players showed up in that Quarter too. BTW Bron shot 35% with 6 turnovers a game for that series, if he shoots 40% with 5 turnovers a game the Cavs could've been 2-2 heading into Game 5.

[QUOTE] Game 4: 13 assists and 6 rebounds. Assisted or scored 16 of the 20 4th quarter points.[/QUOTE]

True he played great in the 4th Quarter regardless of his shooting.

[QUOTE]Game 6: You forgot the 32/12/6 part lol. And the fact that Lebron either scored or assisted on every FG made in the 4th quarter:roll:[/QUOTE]

Shot 2/6 in the quarter with 3 Turnover.

[QUOTE]Game 7: Lol at a 45 point game on 48% being just "great. He also had 13 points in the 4th quarter and his team still lost.
Only one other Cav had double digit scoring. This is a prime example of what I meant. Lebron has a historic scoring game while also controlling the 4th but his support can't help him win.[/QUOTE]

He had a great game but you're completely ignoring him shooting 35% with 5 turnovers over the series. He also didn't shoot great in most of the 4th Quarters.

[QUOTE]Yea he choked that series. Closeout game of 29/19/10 along with incredible defense though.[/QUOTE]

He had his [URL= https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d-Mnfz6iB0]infamous quit game[/URL] and 9 Turnovers in Game 6.

[QUOTE]Yes abysmal help. In all these series you proved if lebron doesnt lead the team in all major categories while shooting above league average his team is guaranteed to lose.[/QUOTE]

Plenty of Games in those series were competitive even with Lebron playing like shit. If he even shot 40% with 5 turnovers a Game vs the Spurs the Cavs could've easily won a couple games.

Again, how many players have to lead their team in points, rebounds, and assists?

[QUOTE]You're pointing out series from a 22 year old Lebron having to carry teams again superior, stacked, defensive oriented teams. His FG% is going to be low due to the fact that he is sole offensive threat.[/QUOTE]

The '07 Pistons weren't stacked and the Cavs were the favorites in '10 vs the Celtics.

[QUOTE=3ball]I think I see what some of the problem is.

A lot of guys don't realize that the 1994 Bulls weren't going to rebound from their 2nd Round defeat and win the championship next year - they were a 2ND ROUND TEAM PERMANENTLY without MJ, after being a 3-peat dynasty with him.. If we were measuring that gap with our arms, how big would it be...

Otoh, 2014 Miami Heat were [I]not[/I] a 3-peat dynasty - they played far worse than anyone the Spurs faced in the playoffs (Mavs, Blazers, OKC), and were actually beat worse than any team EVER... No one who watched the colossal embarrassment in the Finals thought the Heat could beat any of those Western Conference teams.

At the time of their record defeat in the Finals, they were a 1st or 2nd Round Western Conference playoff team, at best.. [I]Then Lebron left[/I]... :eek:

[B]That's a lot different then the Bulls actually WINNING the 3-peat with everyone still in their prime and therefore actually BEING a 3-peat caliber team, and then falling to permanent 2nd Round status (or worse) when MJ retired[/B].[/QUOTE]

Stop with this myth. I've kicked your ass time and time again and you keep repeating the same bullshit. The Bulls in '94 weren't the same team that had just 3peated. Cartwright and Paxson were on their last leg and barely played. Scott Williams was injured most of the year. New faces adjusting to their first year in the triangle offense had to play key roles. The only consistent key guys from that title team were Pippen, Horace and BJ. Never mind both Pippen and Horace Grant missed 10+ games that year nursing injuries and recoveing from surgeries due to the long playoff wars they had just gone through.

Just about all of the new faces on the Bulls were journeyman role players that came from losing franchises and barely had any playoff experience whatsoever. And maybe if Jordan hadn't made such a crap move of retiring 3 weeks before the season started the Bulls could have gotten better replacements than Pete Myers and Jo Jo English but they had to scramble to replace him with whatever they could find at the time. Pete Myers had no playoff experience whatsoever. Jo Jo English was a scrub that had never played a playoff game in his entire career. Kukoc had trouble adjusting to his first year, shot low percentages across the board and his defense was ridiculously bad. Bill Wennington had never played a playoff game in his entire career. Luc Longley came over over in a midseason trade, had to learn the triangle and once again never played a playoff game in his entire career. Only an idiot would say the '94 Bulls was a 3peat caliber team.

3bvall what the hell man.

Why you acting like the best the 94 Bulls could do was be a 2nd round team?
They pushed NYK to 7 games and could have very easily won that series if they had gotten an extra lucky bounce or two.
Then they would have faced Indiana who they beat in 4/5 reg-season games.

What if they beat NYK and then beat Indiana that year?
Even if they lost to Houston in 5 or 6... would you still feel the same about them only being a 2nd round team?

Yes they lost in the 2nd round but that doesn't mean that was the best they "could have" done.
That Knicks series was about as close as a series can get while still losing. One extra lucky bounce and they advance and then they probably beat Indiana who they slaughtered throughout the reg-season.

:biggums:

[QUOTE=To4]1986 Celtics or 1980s Lakers says Hi...

Too lazy to break down every player but some poster will do that for me[/QUOTE]

The league was less diluted then so each roster was stronger in absolute terms.

[QUOTE]"But doesn't Pippen deserve credit for the improved playoffs-seeding?"[/QUOTE]

Pippen was not a permanent starter (he started in the playoffs in 88'* but reverted to the bench the next year) until 1/3 the way through the 89' season. Moreover, Pippen missed 9 games altogether then. The Bulls went 47-35 overall that year. Without Pippen they were 4-5 (a 36 win pace). More revealingly, they went 24-11 when Pippen played 35+ minutes. I don't remember their exact record in the 56 games he started but it was markedly better than when he was on the bench. Chicago started that season 13-12--after Pippen became a starter they went on a big winning streak.

Maybe all of the above is just coincidental, though. :oldlol:

*The first round was best of 5 back then. Pippen started for the first time, had a huge game. Without that the Bulls would have lost in the first round for the fourth consecutive year.

[QUOTE]And maybe if Jordan hadn't made such a crap move of retiring 3 weeks before the season started the Bulls could have gotten better replacements than Pete Myers and Jo Jo English but they had to scramble to replace him with whatever they could find at the time. Pete Myers had no playoff experience whatsoever. Jo Jo English was a scrub that had never played a playoff game in his entire career.[/QUOTE]

:applause:

MJ stans conveniently always neglect this. The Bulls nearly won the #1 seed replacing MJ with a D-Leaguer. Imagine if they had been able to get a legitimate SG. The Bulls had the worst starting SG in the league and still were contenders. What does that say?

The Heat replaced LeBron with Deng, an above average SF who was a former all-star. Look at how much they declined in 2015. Now imagine the Heat replacing LeBron with a D-League SF because all the free agents had been signed by October.

[QUOTE]That Knicks series was about as close as a series can get while still losing.[/QUOTE]

The Bulls actually outscored the Knicks during the series. The Knick wins came by 1, 4, 5, and 10. One of them featured a phantom foul on the final play, gifting the Knicks Game 5 and a 3-2 series lead. Everyone other than MJ stans agree that was one of the worst calls of all-time.

Moreover, it is incredibly stupid to look at one year's performance and assume that same level of performance would exist in every other year. There is always some variation in yearly performance. In the 90's the top East teams outside the Bulls were the Knicks, Cavs, Magic, and Pacers. All of these teams had ups and downs.

If the Bulls had the entire 90's without MJ they would have almost certainly had years where they would have advanced further than the second round. They were on par with the Knicks in 94' by every metric. Look at the 1992-1997 Knicks' variance: ECSF, ECF, Finals, ECSF. According to 3ball, because they made the ECSF in 92' they could not improve in future years because teams always achieve the same outcomes.

[QUOTE=hitmanyr2k]

The Bulls in '94 weren't the same team that had just 3peated. Cartwright and Paxson were on their last leg and barely played. Scott Williams was injured most of the year.

[/quote]
Cartwright and Paxson had the same minutes and production in 1993... Cartwright averaged 5.6 ppg in 19 minutes in both 1993 and 1994...

Paxson averaged 4.2 ppg in 17 minutes in 1993, which declined to 2.6 ppg and 13 minutes in 1994.. This isn't making any difference on that team, especially considering the Bulls replaced Paxson with Kerr, who averaged a career-high 8.6 ppg.

As for Scott Williams - he averaged 5.6 ppg in 1993, which was replaced by Wennington's 7.1 ppg.


[QUOTE=hitmanyr2k]

Kukoc had trouble adjusting to his first year, shot low percentages across the board and his defense was ridiculously bad.

[/QUOTE]
This is an utter LIE.

Kukoc averaged 11/4/3 in 24 minutes and was the Bulls biggest clutch player - he hit all 4 game-winners for the Bulls in 1994 season, including the walk-off winner that prevented the Bulls from going down 0-3 to the Knicks in 1994 ECSF.

The Bulls would've been swept if it wasn't for that miracle shot, described by Ernie Johnson in detail here (Ernie mentions how Kukoc hit all the GW's for the Bulls all year):

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7SbG-8Bvgk&t=0m10s[/url]


[QUOTE=hitmanyr2k]

Only an idiot would say the '94 Bulls was a 3peat caliber team.

[/QUOTE]
Can you read??.. I said the 1994 Bulls were a 2nd Round team without MJ, and they weren't going to rebound and win the championship next yeearr either - they were PERMANENTLY A 2ND ROUND TEAM (or worse) without MJ, after being a 3-peat dynasty with him.. If we were measuring that gap with our arms, how big would it be.

Otoh, 2014 Miami Heat were not a 3-peat dynasty - they played far worse than anyone the Spurs faced in the playoffs (Mavs, Blazers, OKC), and were actually beat worse than any team EVER... No one who watched the colossal embarrassment in the Finals thought the Heat could beat any of those Western Conference teams.

At the time of their record defeat in the Finals, they were a 1st or 2nd Round Western Conference playoff team, at best.. Then Lebron left...

That's a lot different then the Bulls actually WINNING the 3-peat with everyone still in their prime and therefore actually BEING a 3-peat caliber team......... and then falling to permanent 2nd Round status (or worse) when MJ retired.

[QUOTE=ShaqTwizzle]

Why you acting like the best the 94 Bulls could do was be a 2nd round team?
They pushed NYK to 7 games and could have very easily won that series if they had gotten an extra lucky bounce or two.

[/QUOTE]
How can you say "[I]if this, and if that[/I]", when the Bulls go down 0-3 if Kukoc doesn't save the entire series with his walk-off in Game 3?

That was a crazy game, where Pippen refused to enter the game on the last play because Phil drew it up for Toni instead.. Then Kukoc saved the day in a highly unlikely, completely unique situation.

The whole "[I]if this, if that[/I]" bullshit never works, and it definitely doesn't work here, considering the same logic can be used to say the Bulls should've been down 0-3..

Ernie Johnson describes Kukoc's miracle shot here, and the crazy situation surrounding it (Ernie mentions how Kukoc hit all the GW's for the Bulls all year):

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7SbG-8Bvgk&t=0m10s[/url]

What is most amusing about MJ stans vis-a-vis the 94' Bulls is the following claims MJ stans make:

*The 90's were an era of incredible competition.
*The 90's Knicks were the Bulls' toughest competition.
*The 90's Knicks were a great team.

Yet the 94' Bulls, who were equal to the 94' Knicks (the best iteration of those 90's Knicks!), by every available metric*, were an above average team. If the latter is true then it also cannot follow that the 90's Knicks were a great team--meaning MJ had no real competition. Which is it MJ stans? Were the 90's Knicks great or not? If the former, then it logically follows that the Bulls without MJ also were a top team. If they weren't, you are saying MJ won in a weak era.

The fact is the Bulls came within a whisker of beating the Bulls' top competition with a scrub at SG. That is like the Lakers nearly beating the Spurs with a D-League SG in place of Kobe or the Heat nearly beating the Pacers with a D-League SF. Can anyone envision that happening?

*Knicks: 57 wins, 1 superstar (4th in MVP voting), 3 all-stars, HOF coach. 4-3 versus Chicago in the ECSF.
*Bulls: 55 wins, 1 superstar (3rd in MVP voting), 3 all-stars, HOF coach. 3-4 versus the Knicks in the ECSF.

[QUOTE=3ball]How can you say "[I]if this, and if that[/I]", when the Bulls go down 0-3 if Kukoc doesn't save the entire series with his walk-off in Game 3?
[/QUOTE]

Sure that is true but even MJ relied on roleplayers to hit clutch gamewinning shots on occasion and coming back from an 0-2 hole isn't a huge deal or that rare.

Oh and Pippen had 25 / 7 / 5 on 59%TS in that G3 so obviously he was still the biggest reason they won that game.

In the end they took the Bulls too 7 games and three of their losses were by 5, 4 and 1 point.

I just want you to acknowledge the fact that they could have easily ended up winning that series and if they had they probably would have ended up making the Finals.

So saying they were at best a 2nd round exit is disingenuous and completely untrue certainly for that specific year if not others...

[QUOTE=ShaqTwizzle]I just want you to acknowledge the fact that they could have easily ended up winning that series and if they had they probably would have ended up making the Finals.

So saying they were at best a 2nd round exit is disingenuous and completely untrue certainly for that specific year if not others...[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

[QUOTE]How can you say "if this, and if that", when the Bulls go down 0-3 if Kukoc doesn't save the entire series with his walk-off in Game 3?[/QUOTE]

3ball always brings that up but ignores the Bulls narrowly lost Games 1 and 2. Yes, the Bulls came close to going down 0-3 but they also came close to being up 3-0! It was a close series in which the Bulls had fourth quarter leads in 6 of 7 games.