All MJ myths busted (for reference)

.
[B]1) MJ would struggle because today's defenders can play halfway (zone)[/B]

Zone isn't allowed in the paint - defenders can't play halfway in the paint, due to the defensive 3 seconds rule.. To remain inside the 16 x 19 foot painted area, defenders must stay "within armslength" of their man (about 3 feet).. "Armslength" is the strictest defense possible outside of having the defender stand shoulder-to-shoulder with his man or something ridiculous like that.

Here's detail on the NBA's policy on paint defense (today's defensive 3 seconds rule compared to previous era's no-spacing and resulting legal paint-camping):

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11606624&postcount=406[/url]



[B]2) Today's defenders can flood from weakside to strongside[/B]

The strongside flood is only necessary when there are [I]actual defenders on the weakside to flood over[/I], which doesn't occur without today's weakside spacing.. In today's game, every team places multiple shooters behind the 3-point line on the weakside to draw defenders away from the strongside, thus spacing the entire halfcourt - weakside spacing is a staple of every team's offensive strategy today.

However, the 80's didn't have 3-point shooting to space the floor - weakside spacing didn't exist and defenders didn't need to occupy the weakside - all defenders remained on the strongside and/or in the paint, eliminating the need to flood.

Here's further detail on spacing and weakside spacing:

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11606684&postcount=408[/url]


Here's a comparison of strongside scenarios - with weakside spacing, and without:

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11606688&postcount=410[/url]



[B]3) Previous eras put guys behind the 3-point line to draw defenders out there[/B]

This never happened except maybe rare, one-off exceptions.. Understand that there was no spacing in the 80's - that's a fact - so there's no value in bringing up rare exceptions.. Rare exceptions of spacing don't CHANGE the fact that previous eras didn't have spacing, they PROVE it.

There simply isn't a counterargument to the claim that spacing makes today's game easier - obviously, it's not a valid counterargument to say "[I]well, the 80's were spaced too[/I]".


[SIZE="1"][B]Appendix of related counterarguments on this topic:[/B]

Here's the problem new fans have when comparing how hard it was to score in different eras - they assume that new defensive schemes in today's game make it harder to score than previous eras, [I]period[/I]... This view doesn't consider spacing at all, even though the presence of spacing impacts what defensive schemes are NEEDED to have an effective defense... For example, we know that today's weakside spacing necessitates strongside flooding... (this even [I]sounds[/I] as correct and intuitive as it actually is).

(btw, some people argue that the strongside flood came FIRST, and spacing was a response to combat the new flooding technique.. This makes no sense - not only have high volumes of 3-pointers been around for many years, but the strongside flood is only necessary when there are [I]actual defenders on the weakside to flood over[/I], which doesn't occur without weakside spacing)

If new defensive schemes made it harder to score, league-wide ORtg would plummet - but it hasn't - it's remained between 105-108 since the inception of the 3-point line, and it was at 108 as recently as 2011.. I've said it for years - if you put NBA-caliber players on a basketball court, they will play a certain caliber of defense that remains pretty consistent regardless of continuing regulatory changes and playing adjustments on both sides of the ball - this is why we don't see material changes in league-wide ORtg over the years.[/SIZE]



[B]4) Today's defensive tactics take away post play[/B]

[quote=dhsliv]

today's post efficiency has gone down

[/quote]
This is a massive misconception by the dumb media - but here's the reality - it's a mathematical fact that without 3-pointers, the efficiency of screen rolls/drive-and-kick plummets and becomes not worthwhile compared to post-ups.. This proves that the decline in post-ups is due to higher efficiency drive-and-kick made possible by 3-pointers, not defensive tactics.. In the absence of 3-pointers, no amount of defensive strategy could prevent post-ups from supplanting drive-and-kick.

Since post-ups, mid-range, off-ball and isolations were the only things left in the 80's without the 3-pointers needed to make drive-and-kick worthwhile, we can say with certainty that many of today's elite players would be lesser players back then - their 3-and-D skill sets exclude elite ability in any of the aforementioned areas.

Another way we know that post efficiency hasn't declined is because today's best post players still achieve [url=http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/post-up/?dir=1&PT=player&OD=offensive&sort=Time]elite PPP on the post[/url] (and they're inferior post players to previous eras).



[B]5) Today's defenders can double team the post before the ball gets there.[/B]

Doubling the post before the ball gets there is an extremely obvious move that leaves someone wide open - it prevents a post player from catching it, but that's only a consideration in today's game because the spacing gives players too much time and room to operate once they catch it... The spacing and further distance of help defenders makes today's post players too dangerous when they catch the ball.

Otoh, when there isn't spacing and help defense is much closer, a team is better off NOT compromising their defense by doubling early and leaving someone wide open.. The lack of spacing made previous eras better-equipped to handle a post player that has the ball.

Btw, when a post player is doubled without the ball in today's game, it's usually a halfway double, which is the same distance a help defender would be if there was no spacing...


[SIZE="1"][B]The big picture of post defense with and without spacing: [/B]

As you can see, spacing puts defenses in a "pick your poison" situation: allow a post player to catch the ball and have a ton of time/room to operate, or double early to prevent the catch and leave someone wide open?.. Otoh, defenses in previous eras didn't need to double early because the lack of spacing made them better equipped to handle a post player that has the ball.

Spacing puts defenses in a similar quandry regarding flooding - weakside spacing reduces the number of strongside defenders, so defenses must chose: allow the penetrator to face less strongside defenders by NOT flooding, or flood and leave someone open on the weakside?.. Again, defenses in previous eras didn't have to worry about flooding because without weakside spacing, defenders were already on the strongside.


[B]Common counterarguments on this topic:[/B]

People will counter by saying that doubling before the ball gets there reduces ACTUAL post scoring - this is meaningless because it doesn't reduce post scoring nearly as much as no-spacing and legal paint-camping... Remember, teams didn't shoot 3-pointers in the 80's - instead, coaches foolishly positioned players closer to the basket, which activated the league's legal paint-camping provision... Legal paint-camping reduces scoring in the paint more than ANY defensive tactic... It's amazing anyone could advocate for today's paint defense when defensive 3 seconds keeps the paint clear at all times, while previous eras had no spacing, which resulted in legal paint-camping.. It's pretty ridiculous.[/SIZE]


.
[B]6) Lebron is better at making bad teams good than MJ[/B]


We have clear proof that MJ's 1989 Bulls were more of a 1-man team than Lebron's 2009 and 2010 Cavs:

We've already established that Lebron's supporting cast added enough help on top of his 28/8/7/49 to win 66 games in 2009, while MJ's supporting cast only added enough help to his 33/8/8/54 to win 47 games in 1989.

[COLOR="Navy"]If you think that all 19 of the Cavs' higher win total was due to worse competition (and not better supporting cast)[/COLOR], then consider how much better that makes MJ's playoff stats look, since they came against far better competition... Lebron's 35/9/7/51/1.6 stl playoff averages in 2009 are invalidated compared to MJ's nearly identical 35/7/7/51/2.5 stl playoff averages in 1989, due to facing vastly inferior competition..

Of course, the other alternative is that Lebron's supporting cast was better, in addition to the aforementioned weaker comp.. This of course, must be true.. Lebron's supporting cast included an all-star and a slew of higher-producing veterans, a stark contrast from MJ's young cast.. MJ's 1989 Bulls and the "Jordan Rules" [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIY_4vIxGEE&t=22m52s]he faced[/url] were simply more of a 1-man team.. Therefore, the gap in RS records was due to a combination of BOTH competition level and supporting cast - the superior competition Jordan faced his 1-man show was underscored by the Bulls being a 6-seed, and severe underdog in every series, compared to the Cavs being the #1 seed and favorite to make the Finals.
.

Didn't read.

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/oULKMfx.gif[/IMG]

1-9, had to be carried by Pippen vs the Knicks in 93.

[QUOTE=20Four][URL="http://i.imgur.com/oULKMfx.gif"]http://i.imgur.com/oULKMfx.gif[/URL][/QUOTE]

Kyrie-esque

Mate...anyone who knows the game and/or were around in the 90s knows MJ was the best.

Calm down champ

You have Jordan's feces smeared all over your face, ph@ggot

6. Jordan won all of his championships by himself and never had a good teammate or coach

Didn't even come close to reading.

You're a weird dude. You've devoted your internet life to creating huge paragraphs defending a player who there is near universal agreement on/acclaim for. If anything, your constant hardcore stanning has actually created MJ haters here. So congratulations on failing.

Then again, I suspect you're secretly an MJ-hater and this was your goal all along, so maybe you succeeded?

[QUOTE=SpecialQue]You're a weird dude. You've devoted your internet life to creating huge paragraphs defending a player who there is near universal agreement on/acclaim for. If anything, your constant hardcore stanning has actually created MJ haters here. So congratulations on failing.

[B]Then again, I suspect you're secretly an MJ-hater and this was your goal all along, so maybe you succeeded?[/B][/QUOTE]

Whether this is true or not really doesn't matter...anybody who puts this much time into something so inconsequential just has massive issues, period.

The Luca Brasi of the Jordan Family. Loyal, Ruthless... [B]Relentless[/B]. :applause:

[IMG]http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a5/94/4f/a5944f47fcfb71ef38e1727e397d8d96.jpg[/IMG]

I imagine some of these posters deadset having deep NBA issues IRL hahaha

This forum has gotten really strange over the last few years.

.
[B]Previous era's paint-camping vs. today's flooding[/B]


Paint-camping is a more equitable way to defend the entire court.. If big men could still camp under the rim while out of "armslength" of their man, that would be preferable to today's flooding, which requires the big man to leave the rim unprotected and contest guards outside the paint - extra rotations are necessary since the weakside is left a man down.

But in previous eras, the lack of 3-point shooting kept offensive players closer to the paint, which allowed defenders to paint-camp when their man was in the paint or within 3 feet of either side (see [url=http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/Rules/Fouls.html]Rule 2b[/url] of Illegal Defense Guidelines).. Paint camping is a more equitable way to defend the court, since it doesn't leave the weakside a man down or require extra rotations, while protecting the rim better.

Ultimately, the difficulty of scoring hasn't changed over the eras - you either have extra rotations required by spacing and defensive 3 seconds (today's game), or the rotations aren't necessary because there's no spacing or defensive 3 seconds (previous eras).
.

[QUOTE=20Four]


[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/oULKMfx.gif[/IMG]


[/QUOTE]
great example - teams didn't shoot 3-pointers back then, so the weakside was never spaced, as your GIF shows.

4 defenders are on the strongside, with 1 more in the paint - so all 5 defenders are on the strongside and/or in the paint - no flood needed... standard procedure of course - see point #2 in the OP.
.



[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/8-30-2015/B_wITa.gif[/IMG]


[COLOR="Navy"]MJ's 1993 Finals was particularly impressive because he showed that very high volume (33 fga) at good efficiency [B]CAN[/B] keep up with a juggernaut offense and squeak by for the win.[/COLOR]

In those Finals, both teams remarkably averaged exactly 106.7 ppg and 113.0 ORtg (see those bballref stats here), so every ounce of MJ's 41/9/6 on 51% was needed.. It was baaarely enough to keep up with the Suns, despite also getting 21/9/8 from Pippen (his best-ever Finals), 14 ppg from Armstrong, and Grant's standard 11 ppg.. Certainly, if MJ had shot 39% instead of 51%, the Bulls would've probably been swept.

Otoh, compare that with Lebron's 2015 Finals - he shot 3% but still won two games - surely, he would've won the series easily if he shot 51% - he wouldn't have even needed to squeak by like MJ did.. Lebron has no excuse for the poor shooting because he was never doubled like MJ was, and he enjoyed the most secluded isolations in the history of the game.. But the statistical reality is that Lebron isn't capable of good efficiency at high volume because he's bad at the additional midrange and isolations required of high volume shooting - you can't get 33 fga on all 3-and-D.

Btw, the 2015 Finals ended any questions about whether the Heat could've won in 2014 if Lebron had shot more - we know that he simply can't maintain his efficiency at very high volumes.. 39% wouldn't have beat the Spurs either.

Of course, there's no danger in letting Lebron shoot 39%, so Lebron's inability to have good efficiency at high volume allowed the Warriors to permit his secluded 1-on-1 clearouts all series long without bothering to take the ball out of his hands.

Lebron's lack of midrange ability didn't just prevent him from good efficiency at high volumes and subsequent double-teams, but it prevents him from being as good in the 80's, when midrange was the primary option remaining in the absence of the 3-pointers necessary to make screen-roll/drive-and-kick mathematically worthwhile.

[QUOTE=3ball]great example - teams didn't shoot 3-pointers back then, so the weakside was never spaced, as your GIF shows.

4 defenders are on the strongside, with 1 more in the paint - so all 5 defenders are on the strongside and/or in the paint - no flood needed... standard procedure of course - see point #2 in the OP.[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://happyandhumble.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/james-spader-pretty-in-pink.gif[/IMG]

[QUOTE=3ball]great example - teams didn't shoot 3-pointers back then, so the weakside was never spaced, as your GIF shows.

4 defenders are on the strongside, with 1 more in the paint - so all 5 defenders are on the strongside and/or in the paint - no flood needed... standard procedure of course - see point #2 in the OP.[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EBd7287jDtM/URAIQnWo2NI/AAAAAAAAJPE/beSszRgeI2c/s1600/zombieland.gif[/IMG]

every single post, you make ISH less worth reading.

damn it man. we know MJ is the GOAT. please stop it!

btw, the Bulls were stacked during the 2nd 3peat.

no team can defeat the holy trinity.

[QUOTE=3ball]great example - teams didn't shoot 3-pointers back then, so the weakside was never spaced, as your GIF shows.

4 defenders are on the strongside, with 1 more in the paint - so all 5 defenders are on the strongside and/or in the paint - no flood needed... standard procedure of course - see point #2 in the OP.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]https://i.gyazo.com/79656cec168dfbb90a55f150df76e6b9.png[/IMG]

40ppg average easily nowadays

[QUOTE=20Four][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/oULKMfx.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]

Wasn't even a foul. Today it would be a technical and a fine.

1-9
TLDR
Coming from the guy who discredits scottie, rodman, grant, and other very good role players such as kukoc, kerr, paxon, armstrong, longley, harper nothing here matters

Yeah 3 ball calm with this stuff lol. Even without Jordan, they almost beat the Knicks in 1994 ECF.

[QUOTE=NBAplayoffs2001]Yeah 3 ball calm with this stuff lol. Even without Jordan, they almost beat the Knicks in 1994 ECF.[/QUOTE]
Just imagine if they replaced Mj with someone decent. Team was already a contender without MJ, thats a fact

[QUOTE=nzahir]Just imagine if they replaced Mj with someone decent. Team was already a contender without MJ, thats a fact[/QUOTE]

Bulls ruined our chances of making the NBA finals in 1993 too :(. Could have made the 1997 finals too if we beat them in the playoffs :(. 4 lost NBA finals appearance in the 1990s :cry:. Born in NYC but destroying the dreams of its fan, oh Jordan.

[QUOTE=NBAplayoffs2001]Bulls ruined our chances of making the NBA finals in 1993 too :(. [B]Could have made the 1997 finals too if we beat them in the playoffs[/B] :(. 4 lost NBA finals appearance in the 1990s :cry:. Born in NYC but destroying the dreams of its fan, oh Jordan.[/QUOTE]

Knicks lost to the Heat in '97

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents]Knicks lost to the Heat in '97[/QUOTE]

Oh oops. Forgot about that. Then let's just say one more Finals appearance lol, 1993.

#1 is obviously false. 2.9ing....you don't have to stay anywhere near your man. If he comes within arms reach, the 3 seconds reset, and if you step out of the paint, 3 seconds reset. You can spend 95% of a possession in the paint everytime. That's why 3 point shooting is at such a premium, because without 3 competant 3 shooters on the floor, teams can cram the paint.

Op posts gifs of packed paints from other eras, but those guys are in the paint guarding another player, not the ball handler. Half those Jordan .gifs have guys in the paint who aren't even looking at MJ.

OP likes to post LeBron .gifs with open paint....but that's because every team that LeBron has played for for 4 years now has had tons of shooters......for a reason. LeBron benefits from spacing more than any other player in the league (a few others I can think of, John Wall and Dwight Howard). His team's was constructed for that specific purpose. Kinda like Kobe's most recent championship squads were designed to let him focus on O (ariza or artest guarding the best wings) and have tons of rebounding to clean up his misses. MJ's teams were designed around him as well....that's basketball. The triangle can create spacing without as many shooters.


If you actually watch teams that DON'T have enough shooters, you'll see how crowded the paint can get.

[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]#1 is obviously false. 2.9ing....you don't have to stay anywhere near your man. If he comes within arms reach, the 3 seconds reset, and if you step out of the paint, 3 seconds reset. You can spend 95% of a possession in the paint everytime. That's why 3 point shooting is at such a premium, because without 3 competant 3 shooters on the floor, teams can cram the paint.

Op posts gifs of packed paints from other eras, but those guys are in the paint guarding another player, not the ball handler. Half those Jordan .gifs have guys in the paint who aren't even looking at MJ.

OP likes to post LeBron .gifs with open paint....but that's because every team that LeBron has played for for 4 years now has had tons of shooters......for a reason. LeBron benefits from spacing more than any other player in the league (a few others I can think of, John Wall and Dwight Howard). His team's was constructed for that specific purpose. Kinda like Kobe's most recent championship squads were designed to let him focus on O (ariza or artest guarding the best wings) and have tons of rebounding to clean up his misses. MJ's teams were designed around him as well....that's basketball. The triangle can create spacing without as many shooters.


If you actually watch teams that DON'T have enough shooters, you'll see how crowded the paint can get.[/QUOTE]
Too logical, doesn't fit his agenda... or ISH's, for that matter.

[QUOTE=kshutts1]Too logical, doesn't fit his agenda... or ISH's, for that matter.[/QUOTE]
:confusedshrug: hopefully some lurker gets something out of it

now try to bust this "myth":

Rodman: 2 DPOY 7x reb champion, 7x all defense first team, first ballot HOF
Pippen: top 35 all time player, 7x AS, 7 all nba selections, 8 all defense first team and 2 all defense second team selections

goat coach in Phil.

lets go

LeBRAN fans in this thread:

[IMG]http://media.giphy.com/media/eb4WGfjWeIsgM/giphy.gif[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Dr.J4ever]

Don't know how old you are, but I'm in my late 40s. I've seen Magic live vs. my 76ers of the 80s many times. I've listened to the discussions of 76er players and coaches on how to defend Magic during real time and not decades later.

Believe me, Magic was an elite offensive player due to other reason like superior passing, but he was never ever elite at post scoring like King or Mchale. Nor was he great in isos like Erving. Nor was he great in mid range like Gerving or MJ.

He just wasn't . Period.

[/QUOTE]
First of all, Magic was elite on the post - you couldn't be more wrong on this one.. Magic was one of the best and most effective post players of all time.. He had an elite repertoire - a hook towards the middle or a spin towards the baseline - either way he's got you... Throw in goat passing and that's an elite post game... The "goat passing" isn't just lip service - Magic wasn't a 6 apg player in the playoffs like MJ, Lebron or Bird.. He was the all-time leader with 12.4 apg in the playoffs.. He could achieve that assist average from [I]any[/I] position.. The guy would post up as a 6'9" big man, and run pnr's from the post with his frontcourt players - what PG in history has ever done that.. It was unstoppable.. Magic often ran the Lakers offense from the post.

As for his midrange - here's where we should be able to agree.. Magic was a 2-point shooter, like everyone else back then - you should know that [I][U]almost all[/U][/I] 20 ppg scorers in the 80's had elite midrange efficiency.. This is just a stone-cold fact, borne out by the the eye test an understanding that the vast majority of points were scored in the midrange area in previous eras - a ton of guys were just really, really good at scoring in that area - think of it this way - how many guys in today's game are elite at 3-point shooters - like, a super-ton... That's how it was in previous eras with the midrange... Okay - I've tried to explain my eye test to you, now I will CLEARLY prove Magic's elite midrange efficiency using stats:

Magic was a 2-point shooter - his 2-point field goal percentage was 54.1% on 12.1 two-point attempts per game - since Magic didn't shoot 3-pointers, the 54.1% WAS his midrange efficiency, once we essentially "remove" his at-rim percentage from this number.. So let's make the most conservative assumptions possible to see what THE WORST possible midrange percentage that Magic could've had... Let's assume that 40% of Magic's shots were at the rim (that's a Lebron-league-leading level and way too high for Magic, but we're trying to find the absolute floor of what Magic's midrange efficiency could've been)... With 40% of Magic's 2-pointers are at the rim, that means the remaining 60% are from midrange.. If we assume a 70% fg on his at-rim shots (again, this is elite and too high for Magic), his efficiency on the remaining 60% of his midrange was 43.3%:

0.40 (70%) + 0.60 (43.3%) = 54.1%


So 43.3% is the WORST career midrange percentage for Magic - and we know that the 40% proportion of at-rim shots and 70% efficiency on those shots were both WAY too high, which means Magic's midrange efficiency was considerably higher than 43.3%... Again, it was elite, just like most decent to great scorers back then.

Regarding isolations, you got me there, except on the post - Magic was elite when isolated on the post.

[QUOTE=NBAplayoffs2001]

Even without Jordan, they almost beat the Knicks in 1994 ECF 2nd Round.

[/QUOTE]
And WITH Jordan, they were a 3 peat dynasty... How is that comparable to an ordinary 2nd Round team - that's an utterly massive drop-off..

Of course, since basketball players are just numbers-producing robots, you so probably think the Bulls could've won 55 games and made the 2nd Round in ANY season without MJ, not just 1994, right?

Obviously not, which means the journey was an accumulative one - the acquisition of 3-peat caliber execution, strategy, and teamwork enabled the Bulls to make the 2nd Round without MJ in 1994.. MJ had to lead the Bulls to a 3-peat first, before they could make the 2nd Round without him - those are the historical facts.

Every championship Bulls team required MJ to lead the league in scoring and be the greatest scorer the game's ever seen.. So when the Bulls made the 2nd Round in 1994, it wasn't because they had a bunch of talented scorers, it was because of the 3-peat caliber of execution, strategy, and mental ability accumulated from 3-peating with MJ.


[QUOTE=NBAplayoffs2001]

Yeah 3 ball calm with this stuff lol.

[/QUOTE]
Chill bud... There's a reason Shaq said Pippen sucked - the guy could only make the 2nd Round with a 3-peat caliber supporting cast.. :facepalm

And the Bulls would've gone down 3-0 and gotten swept if Kukoc doesn't save the entire series and Pippen's ass with the miracle walk-off GW in Game 3, while Pippen refused to enter the game in an epic choke.


[QUOTE=nzahir]

Just imagine if they replaced Mj with someone decent. Team was already a contender without MJ, thats a fact

[/QUOTE]
What good is it to say "[I]kobe would've won a 4th ring in 1994[/I]", when he couldn't average the 36/7/8 on 53% that the Bulls needed from MJ to 3-peat in the first place (those were MJ's Finals averages)?.. Kobe's typical 25/5/5 on 45% in the Finals 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 [I][U]MJ's[/U][/I] 3-peat Bulls.

Btw, if people think kobe or mitch richmond (:facepalm ) would win in 1994, then MJ would've 9-peated FOR SURE, and he's not only the goat, but he'll always be the goat (which is probably true for our lifetimes anyway, and probably ever too tbh.. it's pretty impossible to have the career he had).





Remember, the Bulls had the same roster back in 1989 as they had in 1994.. But they couldn't have won 55 games in 1989.. So obviously, the journey towards having 55-win capability was an accumulative one... The accumulation of once-in-a-generation 3-peat chemistry, execution, and strategy enabled the Bulls to win 55 games in 1994.

The accumulative dynamic is also evident by evaluating the sheer talent on the team in 1994 - like all of MJ's teams, the team had very little talent in 1994, other than Pippen.. Kukoc was a Harrison Barnes-level player with worse defense.. The team's lack of talented scorers is why the Bulls needed MJ to lead the league in scoring for all of their 6 championships.. So again, the 55 wins wasn't due to having a bunch of talented scorers, it was due to the very rare, 3-peat caliber of team chemistry, execution and strategy that was accumulated by 3-peating with MJ.

Of course, none of this means 2 bird shits when the competition increases in the playoffs - in the playoffs, you need more than just teamwork to win... You need PLAYERS that can produce, which is what MJ provided... That's why when the 1994 playoffs measured the Bulls TRUE ability without MJ, they were only an ordinary 2nd round exit team, which is a goat drop-off from not 1, not 2, but a three-peat with MJ.. Fortunately, MJ came back and validated his 2nd Round to 3-peat impact by returning the Bulls to 3-peat glory, beginning in his first full season back.. How many guys take 2 years off and return as the best with 3-peat and 3 FMVP's.... Only the goat has those kind of stories.
.

Every team that Lebron joined improved dramatically, and in some cases, were franchise all-time bests, and every team he left immediately plunged into losing seasons.

[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]


[B]OP likes to post LeBron .gifs with open paint....but that's because every team that LeBron has played for for 4 years now has had tons of shooters.....
[/B]

[/QUOTE]
It's not just Lebron's team that has shooters to create wide open paints - every team has it - teams average 22 three-point attempts per game.. Today's game is BASED on multiple 3-point shooters camped behind the line to provide spacing and weakside spacing on every possession of every game.. A cursory glance at 1 minute of 1 game shows this, let alone watching multiple games..


[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]


[B][SIZE="2"]triangle can create spacing without as many shooters.[/SIZE][/B]
[/B]

[/QUOTE]
^^^ Falsehood - the triangle wasn't capable of having today's spacing - 3-pointers are further out and create more spacing - it's physics.. The Bulls only attempted 5 threes per game in 1991, compared to 22 per game for today's teams, and 27+ for Lebron's teams - it's lunacy to say the Bulls had today's spacing, or could've had today's spacing.

Not surprisingly, the Bulls got their offense the same way all teams do when a lack of 3-point shooting turns sceen-roll/drive-and-kick into a mathematically unworthy option - they resort to post, off-ball and mid-range options.. Otoh, today's vastly superior 3-point shooting enables every team to base their offense on high efficiency drive-and-kick, which is a massive boon for wing players like Lebron.
.

[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]


#1 is obviously false. 2.9ing....you don't have to stay anywhere near your man. If he comes within arms reach, the 3 seconds reset, and if you step out of the paint, 3 seconds reset. You can spend 95% of a possession in the paint everytime. That's why 3 point shooting is at such a premium, because [B][SIZE="3"]without 3 competant 3 shooters on the floor, today's teams could still cram the paint.[/SIZE][/B]


[/quote]
If teams didn't shoot 3-pointers in today's game, offensive players would occupy the paint much more often... However, for today's defenders to remain in the paint, they must stay within 3 feet (armslength) of an offensive player and follow them around within the 16 x 19 foot paint.

The "[i]armslength[/i]" defense imposed on paint defenders by today's rules is a stark contrast to previous eras, where defenders could stand anywhere in the paint "[I]with no time restriction[/I]" if their man was already in the paint or within 3 feet of either side:

[INDENT][I][COLOR="Blue"]2b[/COLOR]. When a defensive player is guarding an offensive player who is adjacent (posted-up) to the 3-second lane, the defensive player may be within the "inside lane" area [COLOR="Blue"]with no time limitations[/COLOR]. An offensive player shall be ruled as "postedup" when he is within 3' of the free throw lane line. A hash mark on the baseline denotes the 3' area.[/I][/INDENT]

Otoh, today's "armslength" restriction and "2.9 seconds" time limit in the paint eliminates the majority of time a defender can be in the paint - and this language is unique to today's rules - there was no such language in the rules governing paint defense of previous eras.. :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=3ball].
[B]Myth #6: Lebron is better at making bad teams good than MJ[/B]


We have clear proof that MJ's 1989 Bulls were more of a 1-man team than Lebron's 2009 and 2010 Cavs:

We've already established that Lebron's supporting cast added enough help on top of his 28/8/7/49 to win 66 games in 2009, while MJ's supporting cast only added enough help to his 33/8/8/54 to win 47 games in 1989.

[COLOR="Navy"]If you think that all 19 of the Cavs' higher win total was due to worse competition (and not better supporting cast)[/COLOR], then consider how much better that makes MJ's playoff stats look, since they came against far better competition... Lebron's 35/9/7/51/1.6 stl playoff averages in 2009 are invalidated compared to MJ's nearly identical 35/7/7/51/2.5 stl playoff averages in 1989, due to facing vastly inferior competition..

[B]Of course, the other alternative is that Lebron's supporting cast was better[/B], in addition to the aforementioned weaker comp.. This of course, must be true.. Lebron's supporting cast included an all-star and a slew of veterans, a stark contrast from MJ's young cast.. MJ's 1989 Bulls and the "Jordan Rules" that [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIY_4vIxGEE&t=22m52s]MJ faced[/url] were simply more of a 1-man team.. Therefore, the gap in RS records was due to a combination of BOTH competition level and supporting cast - the superior competition Jordan faced and 1 man show he that was is underscored by the Bulls being a 6-seed, and severe underdog in every series, compared to the Cavs being the #1 seed and favorite to make the Finals.[/QUOTE]

The other alternative is that statlines don't tell the entire story....ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT STATS FROM NO DEFENSE 1989. LeBron's team included some decent defenders and and a one time all-star who only made it off of open shots LeBron spoon fed him.

in 1989 the average ppg for a team was 107
in 2009 it was 100

Teams took more than 10% more field goal attempts in 1989

Young Pippen >Mo Williams

[QUOTE=3ball]It's not just Lebron's team that has shooters to create wide open paints - every team has it - teams average 22 three-point attempts per game.. Today's game is BASED on multiple 3-point shooters camped behind the line to provide spacing and weakside spacing on every possession of every game.. A cursory glance at 1 minute of 1 game shows this, let alone watching multiple games..



^^^ Falsehood - the triangle wasn't capable of having today's spacing - 3-pointers are further out and create more spacing - it's physics.. The Bulls only attempted 5 threes per game in 1991, compared to 22 per game for today's teams, and 27+ for Lebron's teams - it's lunacy to say the Bulls had today's spacing, or could've had today's spacing.

Not surprisingly, the Bulls got their offense the same way all teams do when a lack of 3-point shooting turns sceen-roll/drive-and-kick into a mathematically unworthy option - they resort to post, off-ball and mid-range options.. Otoh, today's vastly superior 3-point shooting enables every team to base their offense on high efficiency drive-and-kick, which is a massive boon for wing players like Lebron.
.[/QUOTE]

Spacing isn't just keeping defenders spread out. You played ball, you know this.
The triangle made sure that guys were moving and passing efficiently, so that even off the ball their defender had to pay attention to them even if they weren't a three point shooter.


Teams today shoot more 3's because they have to. Defense evolved to the point that it's necessary for players off the ball to be an immediate threat to shoot, or their man is free to roam as long as they stay out of the paint. This means that those little mid-post iso's Jordan loved could be stifled by flexible double teams. It means that weakside help (that's ACTUALLY help, not just guys boxing each other out in the paint) can come earlier. It means PnR defense is more flexible and it's easier to down the ball handler to the baseline.

Thib's defensive revolution happened man. He figured out how to exploit the ability to run near zone defense. The 3 second rule does NOTHING. Most games it's never even called. it takes a guy .2 seconds to go from the middle of the paint to having 1 foot out of the paint, and then the 3 seconds resets.....or if ANYONE goes through the paint within his arms-reach it resets.

I can tell you haven't watched teams without enough shooters play against this style of defense. It gets real ugly.

This is the reason that star players take less shots on average in today's game. To be a star scorer, you also have to be a great passer, otherwise defenses will be able to key up on you too easily. Nick Young probably could have had a 25ppg season in the 80's