Originally Posted by LeBird
Ironically, it is your nonsense that keeps getting repeated. Better teams often get worse records and sometimes good teams have great records. It's not a mathematical formula. You may need a lot of things to go for you and lots to not go against you (luck, even). Why did Bulls without Jordan only go a couple games worse and then in another year go almost 20 games better?
It's well documented that Pippen and Grant kinda coasted through the 93 season. That's why they went from 67 wins in 92 to 57 in 93. That effort returned in 94. and thus the 55 wins. Along with Kukoc joining the team, and them getting new blood in Kerr for Paxson and Longley for Cartwright. When it's all factored in, their record is legit. And expansion didnt inflate their record. Especially when they lost to one of those teams. They just had a great team with onviously a lot of depth
If the bolded has to be asked then I should seriously stop engaging you because your Pippen fanboyism was ludicrous enough.
You set this precedent. You're the one that continues to preach the dogma that all other generations of basketball is inferior to the golden 80s. I feel the talent level of the NBA is so high that its too hard to make that kind of assumption. And that goes for any era. They all haven their strengths and weaknesses. Its a classic cases of the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Now I've answered your question. Now answer mine. How do you explain the Bulls winning 55 games pre expansion in 94. And how many games would they have won in 94 if intead if Pete Myers, they had Jordan, and Rodman over Grant?