Originally Posted by LeBird
Oh really, so if I said "the 72 win Bulls would win less games because they weren't good enough" that'd cut it for you? Hah.
That makes no sense. They showed they were capable by winning 72 games
Irrelevant; we are talking about a regular season record.
No one is claiming it was cheated or not legit. My point was that I find it unlikely to repeat it if they were a team competing in this season. And as I said, I don't think they'd have repeated it if all the same conditions could be simulated again and again, in their own era.
Who said what he says is always gospel? Everyone and their uncle knew that expansion had weakened the league.
No, Laker and Celtic fans feel the NBA was watered down in the 90s in an effort to diminish the Bulls dominance.
Get over it and stop making yourself look silly by arguing the opposite.
Haha, ridiculous. You're comparing short-lived, and not-as-talented teams, to more competitive eras. You just keep stooping.
And how can you prove this? Again, why is your conjecture better than anyone elses?
You don't smack it in the face, no more than the question of whether the Cavs of 09 would equal their run in the 90s. And, of course, I know it is all conjecture. Which is why I find your direct comparisons of records in other seasons absolutely silly. Which is why I stick to a generic reason and give a tentative prediction. On the other hand, you are trying to prove that they'd win even more games. How utterly silly.
Your lack of comprehension is incredible. This conversation began based solely on your assumption that the Bulls only won that many games because of playing in a watered down era. Thats were you're wrong. You can dismiss this as conjecture all you want. But if you follow sports, you'd have to know that talent translates to wins. If theyre capable of winning 55 games pre expansion without key player's is it unreasonable to draw the conclusion that drastic upgrades in talent is gonna improve their win total?