Jordan's help. Wow.

1. Scottie Pippen
The 2nd best perimeter player of the 90's. Arguably the best perimeter defender of all time.

2. Dennis Rodman
The best rebounder of all time and one of the mos versatile defenders of all time. He put up seasons of 14.9 rpg, 16.1 rpg, and 15.0 rpg in his seasons with the Bulls.

3. Horace Grant
Played with the Bulls for 7 seasons until 93-94. The epitome of a perfect role player. Was a consistent player with a deady midrange jumper and outstanding defense. Peaked in his final Chicago season with outstanding averages of 15.1 ppg, 11.0 rpg, 3.4 apg, 1.1 spg, 1.2 bpg on 52%.

4. Toni Kukoc
Came in right after Horace left. Played with the Bulls from 93-94 up through Jordan's retirement. A lefty, solid playmaker, and smooth handles. What else would you expect out of another of Jordan's superstar teammates? Came over already established and in his prime at the age of 25. In his 2nd season with the Bulls he put up a cool 15.7 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.6 apg, 1.3 spg on 50%.

5. Charles Oakley
He played with Jordan before he learned how to collect and utilize talent amazingly (while berating it needlessly). They had a stint together in the 87-88 season where the Oak Tree dropped a more than respectable 12.4 ppg, 13.0 rpg, and 3.0 dimes. All while being a tree.

6. BJ Armstrong
A steadfast point guard that was reliable. Beyond reliable in reality - a great running mate. Stuck it out on the Bulls from 89-95. Learned the game (while being a great bench player) his first three years with good numbers. Peaked at the right time as a starter in the 93-94 season with a solid and efficient scoring line of 14.8 ppg, 3.9 apg on 48%, 44%, 86%

7. Ron Harper
Was a stat stuffer. Came to the Bulls to become a winner and increase their already league leading talent pool. What'd he drop the year before he joined the Bulls? An inspired 20.1 ppg, 6.1 rpg, 4.6 apg, 1.9 spg performance with some high level defense.

And a bunch of white guys that spread the floor as knock down shooters.

Has there ever been such a loaded roster as the ones Jordan enjoyed? I used to think Kobe or Bron had help but remembering history has shown that even the collusion titles of Bran pale in comparison to the talent dump the Bulls were. It's no surprise that they were still title contenders without him. Did he come back because his legacy would of been hurt by them winning a chip without him, or because he truly wanted the challenge of playing with an unfairly stacked team to win chips against significantly inferior opposition?

1986 Celtics or 1980s Lakers says Hi...

Too lazy to break down every player but some poster will do that for me

[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]

Modern era.

Nobody cares about that stuff - that was a different league, incomparable.

1960's: Racism. Black guys playing against a bunch of janitors.
1970's: The beginning of the the real NBA. A lot of random nonsense. A few transcendent players.
1980's: The first decade of real NBA basketball. The first construct of true teams, franchises and global impact.
1990's - current: Learned from the 80's and rode the aesthetically pleasing game of Jordan and created the modern era. Everything translates.

Idk about most stacked team of all time, but without a doubt Jordan's team was stacked as hell and without that stacked team he wouldn't be GOAT.

1-9

Bulls only losing 2 less games after losing him

Multiple things prove his team was stacked af.

How did you leave out Steve Kerr one of the greatest set shooters of all time arguably the greatest. A shooter every combo guard in history would love to play with.

Don't forget the most important help: the GOAT coach.

This n!gga named Charles Oakley like he was some kind of great player. F*ck outta here.

[QUOTE=sundizz]Modern era.

Nobody cares about that stuff - that was a different league, incomparable.

1960's: Racism. Black guys playing against a bunch of janitors.
1970's: The beginning of the the real NBA. A lot of random nonsense. A few transcendent players.
1980's: The first decade of real NBA basketball. The first construct of true teams, franchises and global impact.
1990's - current: Learned from the 80's and rode the aesthetically pleasing game of Jordan and created the modern era. Everything translates.[/QUOTE]

Your 90s "summary" reads like a kindergartner :oldlol:

You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

The 72-10 Bulls only had two players that made the All-Star Game.

I realize that Kerr is a very famous name. Former analyst, just won an NBA championship as a coach. But can you imagine going back in time to the 90s and saying that the Bulls are stacked because they have Steve Kerr. He's one name in particular, that young teenagers who hate Jordan think he was a hall of fame, All Star player.

Then you have players like Horace Grant. Who would know anything about Horace Grant if he wasn't a name associated with those Bulls team. BJ Armstrong. Are you kidding me?

The Bulls were top heavy, but they did have many role players that knew their role.

1-9


thats all that needs to be said

Them getting Harper was the equivalent of the current Spurs or Cavs getting a Kevin Martin like player at his peak with Thabo Sefolosha like defense.

Absolutely ridiculous.

BJ Armstrong? If he kadnt played with MJ, kids like you wouldnt even know he played in the league.

[QUOTE=Bankaii]

Multiple things prove his team was stacked af.

[/QUOTE]
Actually, MJ needing to score more than anyone in history to win all his rings proves his team wasn't stacked at all.

.
[SIZE="3"][I]Here's a different way to statistically explain why Curry is more efficient than his peers and fosters the best teamwork, but bear with me a sec...[/I][/SIZE]


[I][COLOR="Navy"][B]Here's a list of all the play-types listed on NBA.com, with the percentile rank that 1.00 PPP equates to in each category[/B] (the lower the percentile rank, the more efficient the play - as you can see, 1.00 PPP translates to the 60.4 percentile for "off-screen", and the 77.3 percentile for "isolations", so "off-screen" is more efficient):[/COLOR][/I]


[B]1) [url=http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/cut/?dir=1&PT=player&OD=offensive&sort=Points]Cut[/url][/B]: 18.8 percentile

[b]2) [url=http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/roll-man/?dir=1&PT=player&OD=offensive&sort=Points]Roll man on screen-rolls[/url][/b]: 49.3 percentile

[B]3) [url=http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/off-screen/?dir=1&PT=player&OD=offensive&sort=Points]Off-screen[/url][/B]: 60.4 percentile

[B]4) [url=http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/spot-up/?dir=1&PT=player&OD=offensive&sort=Points]Spot-ups[/url][/B]: 65.3 percentile

[B]5) [url=http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/hand-off/?dir=1&PT=player&OD=offensive&sort=Points]Hand-offs[/url][/B]: 72.4 percentile

[B]6) [url=http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/isolation/?dir=1&PT=player&OD=offensive&sort=Points]Isolations[/url][/B]: 77.3 percentile

[B]7) [url=http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/post-up/?dir=1&PT=player&OD=offensive]Post-ups[/url][/B]: 81.7 percentile

[b]8) [url=http://stats.nba.com/playtype/#!/ball-handler/?dir=1&PT=player&OD=offensive&sort=Points]Ballhandler on screen-rolls[/url][/B]: 91.7 percentile



HERE'S HOW THIS RELATES TO CURRY'S SUPERIORITY

The least efficient play shown above (ballhandler on screen rolls) constitutes 20-25% of the offense for top wings like Lebron, with another 20-25% coming from similarly low efficient isolations.. Essentially, the top wing players in the league use low efficiency ball-dominance over 50% of the time.

Point guards ALSO use the least efficient options - they're the ballhandler on screen rolls for 40% to 60% of their offense.

But the exception is Steph Curry.. He's the ballhandler on screen-rolls for [I][COLOR="Navy"]only 24.2%[/COLOR][/I] of his offense and only isolates 10% of the time.. He simply employs the higher efficiency OFF-BALL options more often than his peers.. This is contributes to his superior efficiency.

His off-ball offense not only makes him more efficeint, but this gives teammates more opportunity/time with the ball to be comfortable and play their game..

Unlike Lebron, teammates aren't starved of the ball and don't have to subjugate their game to the whim of the #1 option.. Ultimately, Curry is better because his off-ball play makes him more efficient, while giving his team more capacity to reach a higher level of teamwork and superior play.
.

.
[COLOR="White"]..............................[/COLOR][B]Playoff PPG[/B]


[COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR] [U]96' Bulls[/U][COLOR="White"]...............[/COLOR] [U]86' Celtics[/U][COLOR="White"]...............[/COLOR][U]87' Lakers[/U]

Jordan[COLOR="White"]....[/COLOR] 30.7[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] Bird[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] 25.8[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] Worthy[COLOR="White"]......[/COLOR] 23.6
Pippen[COLOR="White"]....[/COLOR] 16.9[COLOR="white"]........[/COLOR] McHale[COLOR="White"]....[/COLOR] 24.9[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] Magic[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] 21.8
Kukoc[COLOR="White"].....[/COLOR] 10.8[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] DJ[COLOR="White"]..........[/COLOR] 16.2[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] Kareem[COLOR="White"].....[/COLOR] 19.2
Longley[COLOR="White"]....[/COLOR] 8.4[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] Ainge[COLOR="White"]......[/COLOR] 15.6[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] B Scott[COLOR="White"]......[/COLOR] 14.8
Harper[COLOR="White"].....[/COLOR] 8.8[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] Parish[COLOR="White"].....[/COLOR] 15.0[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] M Cooper[COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR] 13.0
Rodman[COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR] 7.5[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] Walton[COLOR="White"]......[/COLOR] 7.9[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] AC Green[COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR] 11.5
S Kerr[COLOR="White"]......[/COLOR] 6.8[COLOR="White"].......[/COLOR] Sichting[COLOR="White"].....[/COLOR] 3.2[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] Thompson[COLOR="White"]....[/COLOR] 8.8


[I]There's no comparison - the 1996 Bulls were a top-heavy team where MJ scored nearly TWICE as much as his 2nd option and 30% of his team's points..

Btw, if I added columns for 1991-1993, or 1997 and 1998 (when Scottie and Rodman were straight AIDS), it looks absolutely ridiculous...

MJ had the least help ever, of anyone he's compared to - just compare ANY of his rosters in the above fashion to any of his peers' championship teams.. There's a reason he had to score more than anyone, while still doing everything else - it's because he had the LEAST help, not the most.[/I]

[QUOTE=Bankaii]Idk about most stacked team of all time, but without a doubt Jordan's team was stacked as hell and without that stacked team he wouldn't be GOAT.

1-9

Bulls only losing 2 less games after losing him

Multiple things prove his team was stacked af.[/QUOTE]

The 1-9 Pippen-less record only proves that Michael Jordan needed more help to win, but what about the extent of help needed? A substantially impactful difference-maker or a modicum of additive help to get over the hump?

Scottie Pippen was only a bench-player in his first season and thus was mostly impactless in the grander scheme of the games; in fact, in 35 of the Bulls' wins in his rookie season (1987-88), Pippen played less than 25 minutes, while he played in 25-plus minutes in 11 of their losses. He obviously was a positive-impact player overall; but for such a supposedly legendary sidekick, it looks like they didn't need him to be fully serviceable to win enough games to shape the Bulls' playoff-seeding fortunes for the better.

Moreover, in the playoffs, he was mostly a non-factor in 3 of the 4 wins; he notched less than 10 points in 3 of those 4 wins. Better playoffs-seeding

[QUOTE=Naero]The 1-9 Pippen-less record only proves that Michael Jordan needed more help to win, but what about the extent of help needed? A substantially impactful difference-maker or a modicum of additive help to get over the hump?

Scottie Pippen was only a bench-player in his first season and thus was mostly impactless in the grander scheme of the games; in fact, in 35 of the Bulls' wins in his rookie season (1987-88), Pippen played less than 25 minutes, while he played in 25-plus minutes in 11 of their losses. He obviously was a positive-impact player overall; but for such a supposedly legendary sidekick, it looks like they didn't need him to be fully serviceable to win enough games to shape the Bulls' playoff-seeding fortunes for the better.

Moreover, in the playoffs, he was mostly a non-factor in 3 of the 4 wins; he notched less than 10 points in 3 of those 4 wins. Better playoffs-seeding

[QUOTE=Bankaii]
Jordan's impact is so overrated, his scoring is so impressive because he played in a GOAT system yet still had the freedom to shoot at will. Of course he scored a lot he shot a lot.[b] Once he left and the ball was shared within the system the team still functioned just fine on offense.[/b][/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1993.html[/url]

93 Bulls(With Jordan): 15th in points per game, 2nd in offensive rating


[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1994.html[/url]

94 Bulls(Without Jordan): 22nd in points per game, 14th in offensive rating




bankaii knows so little about ball its fuccing insane...this cat should just get banned

[QUOTE=3ball].
[COLOR="White"]..............................[/COLOR][B]Playoff PPG[/B]


[COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR] [U]96' Bulls[/U][COLOR="White"]...............[/COLOR] [U]86' Celtics[/U][COLOR="White"]...............[/COLOR][U]87' Lakers[/U]

Jordan[COLOR="White"]....[/COLOR] 30.7[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] Bird[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] 25.8[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] Worthy[COLOR="White"]......[/COLOR] 23.6
Pippen[COLOR="White"]....[/COLOR] 16.9[COLOR="white"]........[/COLOR] McHale[COLOR="White"]....[/COLOR] 24.9[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] Magic[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] 21.8
Kukoc[COLOR="White"].....[/COLOR] 10.8[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] DJ[COLOR="White"]..........[/COLOR] 16.2[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] Kareem[COLOR="White"].....[/COLOR] 19.2
Longley[COLOR="White"]....[/COLOR] 8.4[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] Ainge[COLOR="White"]......[/COLOR] 15.6[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] B Scott[COLOR="White"]......[/COLOR] 14.8
Harper[COLOR="White"].....[/COLOR] 8.8[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] Parish[COLOR="White"].....[/COLOR] 15.0[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] M Cooper[COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR] 13.0
Rodman[COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR] 7.5[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] Walton[COLOR="White"]......[/COLOR] 7.9[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] AC Green[COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR] 11.5
S Kerr[COLOR="White"]......[/COLOR] 6.8[COLOR="White"].......[/COLOR] Sichting[COLOR="White"].....[/COLOR] 3.2[COLOR="White"]........[/COLOR] Thompson[COLOR="White"]....[/COLOR] 8.8


[I]There's no comparison - the 1996 Bulls were a top-heavy team where MJ scored nearly TWICE as much as his 2nd option and 30% of his team's points..

Btw, if I added columns for 1991-1993, or 1997 and 1998 (when Scottie and Rodman were straight AIDS), it looks absolutely ridiculous...

MJ had the least help ever, of anyone he's compared to - just compare ANY of his rosters in the above fashion to any of his peers' championship teams.. There's a reason he had to score more than anyone, while still doing everything else - it's because he had the LEAST help, not the most.[/I][/QUOTE]


You know, f[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]ckface I took 10 seconds to search because I knew you had to be be bullshitting at least a little:

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1996.html[/url]
Organize the Per Game category by PTS. For someone that jerks off to 5000x YouTube videos and stats, at least get it right, bitch.

The '87 Lakers and '86 Celtics are better than the '96 Bulls regardless, but I still hate seeing your cancer all over this forum. Nobody would miss you if you got banned you piece of shit.

[QUOTE=Bankaii]
You try so hard to project yourself as intelligent. It's a basketball forum, not a Harvard application, no one cares.
[/QUOTE]

I don't fuss too much over my self-image or impression management here, but I do care about evolving these discussions more intellectually in general. In this agenda-driven era of ISH, many are complacent with the '1-9,' 2-6,' and so on superficialities more so than taking discussions in-depth.

Instead of denouncing those who are posting agenda-centric threads like the older days of this site, people retort by trying to counter-troll them. The only way to shake out of this dysfunctional culture is by fostering a counterculture wherein these oversimplified arguments are looked down upon, and thus it's a direction I'm more than willing to tackle with my own approaches to these discussions.

[QUOTE=Bankaii]
Lebron gets hate for not winning in Cleaveland with abysmal help from 2004-10, sane with Kobe pre-Pau, why does Jordan get shielded from it?[/QUOTE]

They mostly only ever receive flak when the stans try to overrate their impact and denigrate the impact of outranking legends just to prop up their own players.

If it wasn't for these warrantless comparisons of Kobe, LeBron, and—more recently—Curry to Michael Jordan, many more could be appreciative of the impacts they make on their teams; instead, stans overrate them, so of course criticism comes their way for failing where Jordan was more likely to succeed—not as an indictment to those players, but as a testament to Jordan's superior impact.

Really, we do not even need to contextualize the teams too much when comparing these players to Jordan; it can mostly be simplified by boiling it down to a cross-comparison of each player's [I]individual[/I] stats. Instead, LeBron and Kobe stans as well as Jordan-detractors always try to concoct these high-context arguments on how Jordan's teams bolstered up his legacy; is that because they're too daunted to compare Kobe's and LeBron's stats to Jordan?

[QUOTE=Bankaii]
Please explain how the Bulls, after losing "one man army" MJ were able to win only 2 less games and were arguably screwed out of the ECF.[/QUOTE]

I'll try to explain succinctly what many fail to contextualize about the first year of the Jordan-less Bulls.

The majority of the Bulls' roster underachieved in 1992-93. By coming off of the heels of a two-peat, which is when we've seen most teams suffer the "hangover effect"—the abating of the same motivation that propelled them to achieve those championships, as they grew complacent and did not feel the same chip on their shoulder.

Jordan—renowned as one of the most intense competitors in NBA history—was among the few who maintained the same motivation, and he had to impose his impact more than ever; in fact, it took a 41-PPG NBA Finals performance from him to narrowly win against the Phoenix Suns.

Then once Jordan unexpectedly retired, the chip on the team's shoulder was re-instilled, as everyone ruled them out from repeating and thus they were remotivated despite coming off of the heals of a three-peat. They channeled that motivation into improved defensive efforts, but it became obvious over time that their offense suffered irredeemably without Jordan around—resulting in their first playoffs-series loss to the New York Knicks in the Jordan era.

Moreover, teams can only thrive for so long without their leading superstar. It's not uncommon for there to be a honeymoon period where they lose their target on their back due to lowered expectations, and a combination of wrinkled game plans and an infusion of energy from previously underplayed players propels them to overachieve. Without that superstar to constantly force opponents to make adjustments, however, other teams will eventually devise a solid strategy to upend them; that was evident in the 1994-95 season, where the Bulls started to collapse and needed Jordan to spearhead a season-ending run for "decent" playoffs-seeding.

Also, when the vaunted 1994 Bulls are brought up, why is it never mentioned that the 1993-94 Bulls were retooled with new additions in Toni Kukoc and Steve Kerr? In Jordan's first full season with them—albeit, in addition to Rodman but also with the loss of Horace Grant—he led them a record-breaking amount of wins in the historic 1995-96 72-win season.

[QUOTE=Naero]I don't fuss too much over my self-image or impression management here, but I do care about evolving these discussions more intellectually in general. In this agenda-driven era of ISH, many are complacent with the '1-9,' 2-6,' and so on superficialities more so than taking discussions in-depth.

Instead of denouncing those who are posting agenda-centric threads like the older days of this site, people retort by trying to counter-troll them. The only way to shake out of this dysfunctional culture is by fostering a counterculture wherein these oversimplified arguments are looked down upon, and thus it's a direction I'm more than willing to tackle with my own approaches to these discussions.



They mostly only ever receive flak when the stans try to overrate their impact and denigrate the impact of outranking legends just to prop up their own players.

If it wasn't for these warrantless comparisons of Kobe, LeBron, and—more recently—Curry to Michael Jordan, many more could be appreciative of the impacts they make on their teams; instead, stans overrate them, so of course criticism comes their way for failing where Jordan was more likely to succeed—not as an indictment to those players, but as a testament to Jordan's superior impact.

Really, we do not even need to contextualize the teams too much when comparing these players to Jordan; it can mostly be simplified by boiling it down to a cross-comparison of each player's [I]individual[/I] stats. Instead, LeBron and Kobe stans as well as Jordan-detractors always try to concoct these high-context arguments on how Jordan's teams bolstered up his legacy; is that because they're too daunted to compare Kobe's and LeBron's stats to Jordan?



I'll try to explain succinctly what many fail to contextualize about the first year of the Jordan-less Bulls.

The majority of the Bulls' roster underachieved in 1992-93. By coming off of the heels of a two-peat, which is when we've seen most teams suffer the "hangover effect"—the abating of the same motivation that propelled them to achieve those championships, as they grew complacent and did not feel the same chip on their shoulder.

Jordan—renowned as one of the most intense competitors in NBA history—was among the few who maintained the same motivation, and he had to impose his impact more than ever; in fact, it took a 41-PPG NBA Finals performance from him to narrowly win against the Phoenix Suns.

Then once Jordan unexpectedly retired, the chip on the team's shoulder was re-instilled, as everyone ruled them out from repeating and thus they were remotivated despite coming off of the heals of a three-peat. They channeled that motivation into improved defensive efforts, but it became obvious over time that their offense suffered irredeemably without Jordan around—resulting in their first playoffs-series loss to the New York Knicks in the Jordan era.

[B]Moreover, teams can only thrive for so long without their leading superstar. It's not uncommon for there to be a honeymoon period where they lose their target on their back due to lowered expectations, and a combination of wrinkled game plans and an infusion of energy from previously underplayed players propels them to overachieve. Without that superstar to constantly force opponents to make adjustments, however, other teams will eventually devise a solid strategy to upend them; that was evident in the 1994-95 season, where the Bulls started to collapse and needed Jordan to spearhead a season-ending run for "decent" playoffs-seeding.[/B]

Also, when the vaunted 1994 Bulls are brought up, why is it never mentioned that the 1993-94 Bulls were retooled with new additions in Toni Kukoc and Steve Kerr? In Jordan's first full season with them—albeit, in addition to Rodman but also with the loss of Horace Grant—he led them a record-breaking amount of wins in the historic 1995-96 72-win season.[/QUOTE]
The bold is not a fair assessment. The Bulls has no front line to speak off in 95. Guys like Grant, King, and Williams left. And we're replaced by Larry Krystkwiak, and Dickie Simpkins. You can't remove quality players and not competently replace them and still expect lofty results.

Even before Jordan returned the Bulls on pace to win 44 games roughly. Is it far fetched to think that if Grant and co. had remained, the Bulls win 50 to 53 games????

pippen was 16 ppg player.. people have him hyped like he was jimmy buttler level of play.

but of all them players i like horace grant and denis rodman and pippen

the rest of them were trash - good shooters but there are plenty of good shooters in the league.

jordan had plenty of help, but so did bird and so did magic - it's what made those teams so great.

i get that you're trying to bash mj though. it's pretty pointless with all of the rape he dished out during the eighties with that shit bulls team.

[QUOTE=Naero]The 1-9 Pippen-less record only proves that Michael Jordan needed more help to win, but what about the extent of help needed? A substantially impactful difference-maker or a modicum of additive help to get over the hump?

Scottie Pippen was only a bench-player in his first season and thus was mostly impactless in the grander scheme of the games; in fact, in 35 of the Bulls' wins in his rookie season (1987-88), Pippen played less than 25 minutes, while he played in 25-plus minutes in 11 of their losses. He obviously was a positive-impact player overall; but for such a supposedly legendary sidekick, it looks like they didn't need him to be fully serviceable to win enough games to shape the Bulls' playoff-seeding fortunes for the better.

Moreover, in the playoffs, he was mostly a non-factor in 3 of the 4 wins; he notched less than 10 points in 3 of those 4 wins. Better playoffs-seeding

[QUOTE=warriorfan][url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1993.html[/url]

93 Bulls(With Jordan): 15th in points per game, 2nd in offensive rating


[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1994.html[/url]

94 Bulls(Without Jordan): 22nd in points per game, 14th in offensive rating




bankaii knows so little about ball its fuccing insane...this cat should just get banned[/QUOTE]
Your reading comprehension is disgusting low.

Please point out where I said the Bulls offense was equal to/better after Jordan left

Of course the offense was better with Jordan, he's the GOAT scorer. But the fact that the Bulls still won 2 less games and almost made the ECF just a year after his departure proves they were stifled without him and still have a solid offensive system.

In 2010 the Cavs had s ORTG of 111.2 (6th) and after Lebron left in 2011 it went down to 102.2 (29th). You would be willing to give Lebron the same regards as Jordan due to the even more drastic reduction in offensive production would you?

You follow me around and try so hard to get at me, hop off my nuts loser. Go hop onto one of your other alts so I can hand you a L on there too.

[QUOTE=sundizz]1. Scottie Pippen
The 2nd best perimeter player of the 90's. Arguably the best perimeter defender of all time.

2. Dennis Rodman
The best rebounder of all time and one of the mos versatile defenders of all time. He put up seasons of 14.9 rpg, 16.1 rpg, and 15.0 rpg in his seasons with the Bulls.

3. Horace Grant
Played with the Bulls for 7 seasons until 93-94. The epitome of a perfect role player. Was a consistent player with a deady midrange jumper and outstanding defense. Peaked in his final Chicago season with outstanding averages of 15.1 ppg, 11.0 rpg, 3.4 apg, 1.1 spg, 1.2 bpg on 52%.

4. Toni Kukoc
Came in right after Horace left. Played with the Bulls from 93-94 up through Jordan's retirement. A lefty, solid playmaker, and smooth handles. What else would you expect out of another of Jordan's superstar teammates? Came over already established and in his prime at the age of 25. In his 2nd season with the Bulls he put up a cool 15.7 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 4.6 apg, 1.3 spg on 50%.

5. Charles Oakley
He played with Jordan before he learned how to collect and utilize talent amazingly (while berating it needlessly). They had a stint together in the 87-88 season where the Oak Tree dropped a more than respectable 12.4 ppg, 13.0 rpg, and 3.0 dimes. All while being a tree.

6. BJ Armstrong
A steadfast point guard that was reliable. Beyond reliable in reality - a great running mate. Stuck it out on the Bulls from 89-95. Learned the game (while being a great bench player) his first three years with good numbers. Peaked at the right time as a starter in the 93-94 season with a solid and efficient scoring line of 14.8 ppg, 3.9 apg on 48%, 44%, 86%

7. Ron Harper
Was a stat stuffer. Came to the Bulls to become a winner and increase their already league leading talent pool. What'd he drop the year before he joined the Bulls? An inspired 20.1 ppg, 6.1 rpg, 4.6 apg, 1.9 spg performance with some high level defense.

And a bunch of white guys that spread the floor as knock down shooters.

Has there ever been such a loaded roster as the ones Jordan enjoyed? I used to think Kobe or Bron had help but remembering history has shown that even the collusion titles of Bran pale in comparison to the talent dump the Bulls were. It's no surprise that they were still title contenders without him. Did he come back because his legacy would of been hurt by them winning a chip without him, or because he truly wanted the challenge of playing with an unfairly stacked team to win chips against significantly inferior opposition?[/QUOTE]

Bulls had 4th best record in the NBA when Jordan retired the first time....the 4th, 2nd best team in the EAST behind the Knicks.

[QUOTE=Naero]Instead, LeBron and Kobe stans as well as Jordan-detractors always try to concoct these high-context arguments on how Jordan's teams bolstered up his legacy;[B] is that because they're too daunted to compare Kobe's and LeBron's stats to Jordan[/B]?



I'll try to explain succinctly what many fail to contextualize about the first year of the Jordan-less Bulls.

The majority of the Bulls' roster underachieved in 1992-93. By coming off of the heels of a two-peat, which is when we've seen most teams suffer the "hangover effect"

.
[B]Pippen's defense is overrated - Pip couldn't handle quick wings with good handle like Hill or Kobe:[/B]


[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-10-2015/NZrhCv.gif[/IMG]



[B]Here's Kobe shaking his head after breaking Pippen BADLY in 99' - Pippen is joke to him:[/B]


[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-10-2015/DtKoPr.gif[/IMG]..



[B]But just a few months earlier, 35-year old Jordan had no problem stuffing Kobe's crossover in 98' ASG:[/B]


[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-10-2015/EStPHq.gif[/IMG]



[B]Here's another one - Pippen can't handle Grant off-the-dribble - he can't stay in front: [/B]


[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-09-2015/5FXjSn.gif[/IMG]



[B]But MJ can - he stays in front of Grant every step of the way and forces wild shot:[/B]


[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-10-2015/n1LWjI.gif[/IMG]


The reason MJ was so much better defending quick ballhandlers like Hill, Kobe or Westbrook is because he was a 2-guard, and was the frequently the primary, all-game defender on quick point guards.

For example, MJ was matched up against Gary Payton from the TIP-OFF in [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meL62CUehuw&t=0m48s]Game 3[/url] and [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFiqeJcgXfg]Game 5[/url] of the NBA Finals and was the main defender throughout the game..

MJ was also the main defender and matched up from the tip-off against [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9MfhFFE7fc&t=0m28s]Isiah Thomas[/url] and [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3JqY3CECW8]Rod Strickland[/url].. And we all know he was matched up from tip-off against Magic, when he guarded Magic for [url=http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11713075&postcount=45]14 of 20 quarters[/url] (70%) in the 1991 Finals.

MJ's far greater experience playing quick ballhandling guards and his superior athleticism made him a better perimeter defender than Pippen..

Btw, Pippen's inferior defense isn't only shown by the eye test - the stats prove it too - virtually every decent wing in the league went off for HUGE games on Pippen - 35, 40, and 50 point games - whereas MJ rarely gave up a big game to anyone.
.

[QUOTE=Bankaii]You try so hard to project yourself as intelligent. It's a basketball forum, not a Harvard application, no one cares.
Lebron gets hate for not winning in Cleaveland with[B] abysmal help from 2004-10[/B], sane with Kobe pre-Pau, why does Jordan get shielded from it?[/QUOTE]

:roll:

[QUOTE]Please explain how the Bulls, after losing "one man army" MJ were able to win only 2 less games and were arguably screwed out of the ECF.[/QUOTE]

The Bulls had won 2 straight Finals and had made 2 straight ECF trips in '89 and '90. They coasted a bit more in the Regular Season and won 57 Games. Plus in '94 they added Kukoc and Kerr.

Also, if Kukoc misses the Game-Winner in Game 3 then the Bulls more then likely get swept or finished off in 5. If that misses they may not have even been in position to "get screwed".

[QUOTE]Jordan's impact is so overrated, his scoring is so impressive because he played in a GOAT system yet still had the freedom to shoot at will. Of course he scored a lot he shot a lot. Once he left and the ball was shared within the system the team still functioned just fine on offense.[/QUOTE]

So why did he put up 35/7/7 on 52% shooting in the 80s Playoffs before Phil and the "GOAT system"?

.
[COLOR="White"]..........................................[/COLOR][SIZE="4"][COLOR="Red"]Hand-checking[/COLOR][/SIZE]



[B]Here's real hand-checking - it's harder to get off jumpers and drive against this kind of defense:[/B]


[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-13-2015/p8lMrn.gif[/IMG]

[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/12-03-2015/Iz_v-D.gif[/IMG]

[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/12-03-2015/ePuSyn.gif[/IMG]

[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-01-2015/V2-pAN.gif[/IMG]

[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/12-03-2015/7NXaIu.gif[/IMG]



[COLOR="black"][B]The defense Curry faces is like flag football by comparison - no touch, hands-off, league-mandated space between players on perimeter:[/B][/COLOR]


[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/12-03-2015/TgIP3N.gif[/IMG]



[B]Also, hand-checking was MOST prevalent and effective [i][COLOR="Navy"]during the act of driving[/COLOR][/I], like the gifs below (these are fouls in today's game):[/B]


[IMG]https://media.giphy.com/media/TJPk9OncuzZoQ/giphy.gif[/IMG]

[IMG]https://media.giphy.com/media/t99KQtLZZeVS8/giphy.gif[/IMG]

[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/8-02-2015/p6jsvL.gif[/IMG]



[B]Compare to Steph Curry driving the lane against Lebron, UNTOUCHED AND UNFETTERED - [COLOR="Red"]I almost feel sorry for Lebron[/COLOR] - he can't lay a finger on Curry - he's helpless:
[/B]

[IMG]https://media.giphy.com/media/jTvD0KKh8KCgo/giphy.gif[/IMG]


[B]NO COMPARISON[/B]
.

.
[COLOR="White"]............................................[/COLOR][COLOR="Red"][SIZE="4"]Defensive 3 Seconds[/SIZE][/COLOR]


Zone defense is not allowed inside today's paint - inside the 16 x 19 foot paint, defenders must stay within "[I]armslength[/I]" (about 3 feet) of an offensive player, or vacate the paint - essentially, defenders can't stay in the lane with no one else around (within armslength).. "[I]Armslength[/I]" is the opposite of a zone and the strictest defense possible other than making defenders stand shoulder-to-shoulder, yet this is the policy governing the most important part of the floor - the paint:

[INDENT][I]"A defensive player is not allowed inside the key area for more than three seconds unless he is guarding the player with the ball or is actively guarding any opponent. To be considered actively guarding, a defender must be within an [B]arms length[/B] of an opponent. If an offensive player moves through the key, the defender must be within an [B]arms length[/B], and also [B][COLOR="DarkRed"]move along with the offensive player[/COLOR][/B]. He can not just stand there and put his arms out to get a new three second count."[/I][/INDENT]


[COLOR="Navy"]In the gif below, notice how Duncan's defender (Pau) is reaching out and touching Duncan[/COLOR] - Pau is making sure he remains within "[I]armslength[/I]", as stipulated by the defensive 3 second rule.. He isn't allowed to wait under the rim, since that's 8 feet away from Duncan, and out of "[I]armslength[/I]".. Since Pau must hug Duncan instead of waiting under the rim, Kawhi gets a wide open, uncontested dunk:


[img]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/12-01-2015/-GwNKZ.gif[/img]



Here's another example - Maurice Speights must follow Tristan Thompson to the block to stay within "[I]armslength[/I]", which prevents him from contesting Lebron at the rim - you can see how wide the paint is on this angle (16 feet wide).


[IMG]https://media.giphy.com/media/qoijGMUGGV4dO/giphy.gif[/IMG]



But in previous eras, defenders were allowed to stand under the rim while their man was on the block because defenders could paint-camp "with no time limitation" when their man was within 3 feet of the paint:

[INDENT][I][B]2b.[/B] 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 with [B][COLOR="Red"][SIZE="2"]no time limitations.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B] 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]


With defenders camping under the rim, Kawhi would NOT have gotten a wide open dunk in previous eras:


[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/12-01-2015/Rc9D-4.gif[/IMG]

[IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/12-01-2015/mPufIB.gif[/IMG]


Btw, look how much defenders are sagging off their man - yet many ignoramuses think defenders in previous eras had to "follow" their man to the 3-point line - it's pure made-up lies from ignoramuses... Plain and simple... That myth is busted [url=http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=390392]here[/url], where the rules of the game are explained.
.

Hey 3Ball, how far in the playoffs did the Bulls go in the 94-95 season without Jordan?

With such a shitty team and minus Jordan, they should presumably have had a losing record and missed the playoffs with that talentless roster correct?

Can anybody fact check this for me :confusedshrug:

Oran's teammates made up for his deficiencies on defense and shooting the ball

.
[COLOR="White"]...................................................[/COLOR][size="4"][COLOR="Red"]Spacing[/COLOR][/size]


In the picture below, weakside floor-spreaders (spacing) have drawn defenders away from the strongside.. If Noah doesn't leave #20 Mosgov and flood to the strongside, the strongside will only have 2 defenders on it.


[IMG]http://i61.tinypic.com/2z7mnvm.png[/IMG]



Otoh, previous eras didn't have weakside floor-spreaders (spacing) drawing defenders away from the strongside, so the strongside was [I]already flooded[/I] with all 5 defenders - there are already multiple defenders standing where today's defender would flood to:


[IMG]https://media.giphy.com/media/xT0BKishrkuHZV0IDK/giphy.gif[/IMG]


Ultimately, spacing causes today's defenders to make extra rotations.. But without that spacing (previous eras), defenders are already in closer proximity and the rotations aren't necessary.
3-point shooting spaces-out defenders.. Accordingly, the level of spacing in a given era affects the way defense is played - defenders either make extra rotations due to 3-point shooting/spaced-out defenders (today's era), or defenders have less rotations due to no spacing/bunched-up defenders (previous eras).

Ultimately, improvements in spacing over the years have been offset by extra rotations on defense, which is why league-wide offensive rating (the stat measuring how hard it is to score) has been stable for 30 years.. ORtg has ranged between 105 and 108 since 1980, excluding a brief downswing from 1999-2004.

The minor shifts within that 105-108 range are due to style of play differences between the eras that affect inputs to the ORtg calculation, such as offensive rebounding rate and FT rate.. Specifically, the higher proportion of 2-pointers taken in previous eras resulted in higher offensive rebounding rate, which inflated ORtg.. That's how the stat is calculated - [url=http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html]notice how[/url] as 3-pointers increase over the years, offensive rebounding rate declines, which reduced ORtg.. Nonetheless, the rule changes in 2005 (hand-check ban and defensive 3 seconds) began to inflate ORtg again, and it reached all-time highs from 2008-2011.

But again, regardless of these minor shifts, ORtg has remained within the 105-108 range for 30 years - stable ORtg over the years proves the difficulty of scoring hasn't changed, and the changes in offensive strategy (spacing) and defensive strategy (extra rotations) are offsetting - you either have extra rotations required by spacing and defensive 3 seconds (today's game), or the rotations aren't necessary because there is no spacing or defensive 3 seconds (previous eras)

Ultimately, spacing causes today's defenders to make extra rotations.. But without that spacing (previous eras), defenders are already in closer proximity and the rotations aren't necessary.

Spacing and defensive movement offset each other, which is why league-wide offensive rating (the stat measuring how hard it is to score) has been stable for 30 years.. ORtg has ranged between 105 and 108 since 1980, excluding a brief downswing from 1998-2004.. The minor shifts within that 105-108 range are due to style of play differences between the eras that affect inputs to the ORtg calculation, such as offensive rebounding rate and FT rate.

30 years of stable ORtg proves the difficulty of scoring hasn't changed, and the changes in offensive strategy (spacing) and defensive strategy (extra rotations) are offsetting - [I]you either have extra rotations required by spacing and defensive 3 seconds (today's game), or the rotations aren't necessary because there is no spacing or defensive 3 seconds (previous eras)[/I].
.

The Bulls were only two games better with Oran

[QUOTE=sd3035]

Oran's teammates made up for his deficiencies on defense and shooting the ball

[/QUOTE]
[B]Here's Magic Johnson responding to Bob Costas on national television during halftime of a 1993 Finals game - the question was whether Magic's Lakers could've beaten Jordan's Bulls:[/B]

[INDENT][I][COLOR="DarkRed"]"We had more weapons.... Get me in foul trouble, and get Michael in foul trouble, and take us both out, and you'd see what would happen - we would dominate them."[/COLOR][/I]

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6og_pOVi2w&t=0m16s[/url][/INDENT]



[B]Then Costas asked Isiah about Magic's assertion that the Bulls were beatable due to weaker supporting cast:[/B]

[INDENT][I][COLOR="Navy"]"When you're talking about this Bulls team, you're only talking about Michael Jordan.... You can't really say that our team would've beaten him or the Lakeers would've beat him, because no one has figured out how to stop this guy.. Sure, if you take Michael away, and you take Magic away, and you take me away, yeah, then our teams are better, but the fact is, he's still there (he hasn't been taken away)."[/COLOR][/I][/INDENT]



[B]Later in the interview, Costas [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6og_pOVi2w&t=5m00s]asked[/url] Magic if he thought MJ was the best ever[/B]:

[INDENT][COLOR="DarkRed"]"[I]I think so. I think he's not only the best basketball player, but probably the greatest athlete that has played any sport.. We can only dream of doing the things he can do, that being me and Isiah.[/I]"[/COLOR][/INDENT]



^^^ This was all during the 1993 Finals.. MJ was considered the best ever before he even won 3 championships - [U]that's how dominant he was[/U].. Young kids have a hard time accepting this 20 years after the fact.. But the dominance of today's player doesn't compare, and this is reflected in the stats (for those who never saw him play).

[QUOTE=sd3035]

The Bulls were only a run-of-the-mill 2nd Round team without Jordan, after being a 3-peat dynasty with him - that's the goat drop-off

[/QUOTE]
fixed

the 94 Bulls team has become the most overrated team in history.

50+ win overachieving teams happen EVERY year. it doesnt mean they're title contenders and 99% of the time they get exposed in the playoffs. hell, look at last years Hawks. they won over 60. why isnt anyone riding their nuts.

[QUOTE=f0und]the 94 Bulls team has become the most overrated team in history.

50+ win overachieving teams happen EVERY year. it doesnt mean they're title contenders and 99% of the time they get exposed in the playoffs. hell, look at last years Hawks. they won over 60. why isnt anyone riding their nuts.[/QUOTE]
The thing is though...the Hawks were swept by the Eastern power last year.

The Bulls had a very real chance of winning.