Did LeBron's 2nd/3rd Options Outscore the Opposition?

[Roundball_Rock]

It is viewed as axiomatic that "his" 2nd/3rd options crushed the opposition. However, I noticed we never see the information posted for the other half of the equation. We just hear some big names tossed out and are supposed to assume they crushed their counterparts in scoring.

During his finals runs, it is effectively a net wash. In the Finals/ECF, "his" 2nd/3rd options outscored the comp by 0.2 PPG. They had a +2 PPG edge in the ECF but a -1.6 PPG deficit in the Finals.

The hype misses a lot. Wade, Bosh, Irving, and Love were highly inconsistent (whether due to injuries or declining) during their time with LeBron. Wade/Bosh put up 45 PPG in their first finals but were down to 29 PPG by 2014. People remember the former but not the latter.

Four times LeBron's 2nd/3rd options outscored their counterparts by double digits; four times the opposition outscored them by double digits. That is wide variance in 40% of these series.

It also ignores injuries that rendered his teammates ineffective or out altogether like Hughes in the 07' ECF/finals, Bosh for half the 12' playoffs (most of the ECF), Love for nearly all the 15' playoffs (played 4 first round games), Irving for 7/10 of the Finals/ECF games in 15', Love in the 16' Finals (9 PPG), etc. That accounts for almost half of LeBron's finals runs. :oldlol:

Before I post the raw data, in case you are wondering--since everything goes back to the other guy--"his" 2nd/3rd options outscored the opposition in the Finals and ECF in their finals runs (albeit not by much).

Raw Scoring Numbers

2007 ECF: Gooden/Illgauskas 22, Billups/Prince 24
Net: -2
2007 Finals: Gooden/Illgauskas 21, Parker/Ginobili 43
Net: -22
2011 ECF: Wade/Bosh 42, Deng/Boozer 31
Net: +11
2011 Finals: Wade/Bosh 45, Terry/Marion 32
Net: +13
2012 ECF: Wade/Bosh/Chalmers 34, Rondo/KG 40 (Bosh 12 PPG in 3 games)
Net: -6
2012 Finals: Wade/Bosh 37, Westbrook/Harden 39
Net: -2
2013 ECF: Wade/Bosh 26, West/Hibbert 39
Net: -13
2013 Finals: Wade/Bosh 32, Parker/Ginobili 28
Net: +4
2014 ECF: Wade/Bosh 36, West/Stephenson 30
Net: +6
2014 Finals: Wade/Bosh 29, Kawhi/Duncan 33
Net: -4
2015 ECF: Smith/Irving/Mozgov 29, Horford/Millsap 25 (Irving 13 PPG)
Net: +4
2015 Finals: Smith/Irving/Mozgov 27, Klay/Green 29
Net: -2
2016 ECF: Irving/Love 39, Lowry/Carroll 27
Net: +12
2016 Finals: Irving/Love/Smith 37, Klay/Green 36 (Love 8.5 PPG in 6 games)
Net: +1
2017 ECF: Irving/Love 49, Horford/Crowder 27
Net: +22
2017 Finals: Irving/Love 45, Curry/Klay 43
Net: +2
2018 ECF: Love/Smith 19, Horford/Brown 34 (Love 12.5 PPG in 6 games)
Net: -15
2018 Finals: Love/Smith 29, Curry/Klay 44
Net: -15
2020 WCF: Davis/Pope 42, Murray/Grant 41
Net: +1
2020 Finals: Davis/Pope 38, Bam/Herro/Robinson 29 (Bam 15 PPG in 4 games)
Net: +9

Total: +4 (+0.2 PPG per series)
Finals Total: -16 (-1.6 PPG per series)

[RRR3]

The fact that LeBron beat a 73 win team with Kyrie Irving and JR Smith (Love was injured and ineffective) is ridiculous.

[nineiron]

The fact that LeBron beat a 73 win team with Kyrie Irving and JR Smith (Love was injured and ineffective) is ridiculous.

Milwaukee Bucks are a good example of why the regular season record means nothing.

keep suckin on those bran nuts!

[Roundball_Rock]

The fact that LeBron beat a 73 win team with Kyrie Irving and JR Smith (Love was injured and ineffective) is ridiculous.

Yup, but from the narrative you would think Love was beasting. :lol


Milwaukee Bucks are a good example of why the regular season record means nothing.

You are comparing the Bucks to the Warriors who were getting GOAT team talk? :oldlol: The Warriors had MVP Curry, prime Klay, prime Green and Iggy had just won FMVP the prior year. They should have won 5 in a row if they didn't choke in 16' and get riddled with injuries in 19'.

[nineiron]

Yup, but from the narrative you would think Love was beasting. :lol



You are comparing the Bucks to the Warriors who were getting GOAT team talk? :oldlol: The Warriors had MVP Curry, prime Klay, prime Green and Iggy had just won FMVP the prior year. They should have won 5 in a row if they didn't choke in 16' and get riddled with injuries in 19'.

they were only a GOAT team talk by retard bran stans like you. Curry/Klay/Draymond/Barnes ain't no GOAT team. not even close.

[Roundball_Rock]

they were only a GOAT team talk by retard bran stans like you. Curry/Klay/Draymond/Barnes ain't no GOAT team. not even close.

Damn, the entire media is full of LeBron stans--the same people who worship MJ all the time? :oldlol:

Who is your GOAT team? Let me guess: the 1996 Bulls?

[dankok8]

Curry was hurt in the 2016 Finals. He wasn't just outplayed by Lebron but by Kyrie as well. When your 2nd option outplays the other team's 1st option you're almost certainly going to win the series. The truth is that the Warriors in those entire playoffs played nothing like a 73-win team. I don't even think the Draymond suspension of injuries to Bogut and Iggy late in the Finals had a big impact. The Warriors just didn't play well all postseason and it could have been fatigue as well from pushing to set a wins record. In terms of talent and form, I don't think the Warriors were better than the Cavs that year. In 2015, I think the Cavs would have probably won as well if Kyrie and Love were healthy.

[nineiron]

Damn, the entire media is full of LeBron stans--the same people who worship MJ all the time? :oldlol:

Who is your GOAT team? Let me guess: the 1996 Bulls?

MJ Bulls
Bird Celtics
Magic Lakers

Curry/Klay/Draymond/Barnes ain't no GOAT team.

[Roundball_Rock]

All of this is after the fact. No one expected the Cavs to beat the Warriors.

Curry went 28/6/6 in the WCF, including 36/5/8 in Game 7. Klay had the greatest game of his career in the WCF. Did Curry magically get hurt between Game 7 and Game 1? Obviously not. He had a bad series in the Finals. Being banged up can explain some of it--but he did fine in the WCF so there is more to it.

Curry, Klay, Iggy all underperformed in the finals. Green is the only key Warrior who didn't.

If we want to go down that route, though, you can do that with most finals loser. Unless there is a wide difference in team strength, that's why they lose: they don't play to par. Most finals losers would win if their players played to their norm.


MJ Bulls
Bird Celtics
Magic Lakers

Wait. A one man team=the GOAT team? :lol

[nineiron]

Wait. A one man team=the GOAT team? :lol

when MJ is the 'one man', yes.

[RRR3]

All of this is after the fact. No one expected the Cavs to beat the Warriors.

Curry went 28/6/6 in the WCF, including 36/5/8 in Game 7. Klay had the greatest game of his career in the WCF. Did Curry magically get hurt between Game 7 and Game 1? Obviously not. He had a bad series in the Finals. Being banged up can explain some of it--but he did fine in the WCF so there is more to it.

Curry, Klay, Iggy all underperformed in the finals. Green is the only key Warrior who didn't.

If we want to go down that route, though, you can do that with most finals loser. Unless there is a wide difference in team strength, that's why they lose: they don't play to par. Most finals losers would win if their players played to their norm.



Wait. A one man team=the GOAT team? :lol
Curry was so hurt he played like himself in the WCF but suddenly remembered he was hurt in the finals :lol

He must have forgotten he was hurt when he was doing 360 dunks before the game tho

[Roundball_Rock]

Curry was so hurt he played like himself in the WCF but suddenly remembered he was hurt in the finals :lol

He must have forgotten he was hurt when he was doing 360 dunks before the game tho

:lol

It is a BS talking point because they want to diminish 16' because MJ has no comparable chip on his ledger and MJ has to be the best in every metric. MJ's most impressive finals wins probably were the Jazz wins, where Malone choked in 97', Hornacek choked in both, Stockton put up numbers slightly better than 11' Kidd in 98', etc.


when MJ is the 'one man', yes.

The sad thing is you aren't even joking. :facepalm

[MadDog]

A few problems with your analysis. You left out shooting percentages and are only basing "help" with scoring. But if you only wanted to go that route, do it correctly. :confusedshrug: I also keep seeing the 16 Warriors mentioned, and that beating them was somehow unfathomable. Or in LeBron's case, that it was a "better" ring than any won by a GOAT candidate. That can't be true though when LeBron's second option outplayed everyone on the Warriors.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2016/06/15/andrew-bogut-injury-warriors-nba-finals/85924936/

Furthermore, it ignores the Draymond suspension plus Iguodala and Bogut's injuries. The same Bogut who led the playoffs in Defensive Real Plus Minus. Without him? Everything opened up for Cleveland. So if we're going to be REAL about it, these claims from LeBron fans are weak AND void.

[nineiron]

:lol

It is a BS talking point because they want to diminish 16' because MJ has no comparable chip on his ledger and MJ has to be the best in every metric. MJ's most impressive finals wins probably were the Jazz wins, where Malone choked in 97', Hornacek choked in both, Stockton put up numbers slightly better than 11' Kidd in 98', etc.



you want to talk about choking?? go look up what Harrison Barnes did to allow LeFraud to comeback from a 3-1 deficit.

[guy]

All of this is after the fact. No one expected the Cavs to beat the Warriors.

Curry went 28/6/6 in the WCF, including 36/5/8 in Game 7. Klay had the greatest game of his career in the WCF. Did Curry magically get hurt between Game 7 and Game 1? Obviously not. He had a bad series in the Finals. Being banged up can explain some of it--but he did fine in the WCF so there is more to it.

Curry, Klay, Iggy all underperformed in the finals. Green is the only key Warrior who didn't.

If we want to go down that route, though, you can do that with most finals loser. Unless there is a wide difference in team strength, that's why they lose: they don't play to par. Most finals losers would win if their players played to their norm.



Wait. A one man team=the GOAT team? :lol

The Cavs were the favorites going into the regular season. They then underperformed / didn't take the season seriously during the regular season like Lebron's teams have usually done since he left Cleveland the 1st time. That team's dysfunction with each other and with the coach who they replaced didn't help obviously. Talent for talent, they were just as good as GS, and actually more talented, because you know, they had Lebron. There's no way they were 16 games worse then the Warriors :oldlol:(who probably overachieved anyway especially since they were clearly gunning for the record.) Even with all that, they were +180 going into the Finals, which basically means they had about a 1/3 chance of winning that series. That is hardly the gargantuan feat its made out to be.

[nineiron]

The Cavs were the favorites going into the regular season. They then underperformed / didn't take the season seriously during the regular season like Lebron's teams have usually done since he left Cleveland the 1st time. That team's dysfunction with each other and with the coach who they replaced didn't help obviously. Talent for talent, they were just as good as GS, and actually more talented, because you know, they had Lebron. There's no way they were 16 games worse then the Warriors :oldlol:(who probably overachieved anyway especially since they were clearly gunning for the record.) Even with all that, they were +180 going into the Finals, which basically means they had about a 1/3 chance of winning that series. That is hardly the gargantuan feat its made out to be.

don't try to use logic with bron stans, it's futile.

it's funny how the bronsexuals like to call that GS team the "GOAT team" when all they had was Curry, Klay, Draymond and Harrison Barnes. does that sound like a 'GOAT team' to you?

and indirectly, they are discrediting lebron because you start to realize, why aren't LeTard's teams ever considered a "GOAT team"?

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Davis outscored LeBron by 4PPG in the nuggets series, matched his scoring in the rockets series. That's when you know you're on a super team.

[MadDog]

Davis outscored LeBron by 4PPG in the nuggets series, matched his scoring in the rockets series. That's when you know you're on a super team.

Dude, he outscored LeBron the ENTIRE playoffs :oldlol: This is why comparing LeBron to Jordan directly is a farce. You give Jordan that kind of scoring-defense, and he would have no incentive to retire.

[Hey Yo]

A few problems with your analysis. You left out shooting percentages and are only basing "help" with scoring. But if you only wanted to go that route, do it correctly. :confusedshrug: I also keep seeing the 16 Warriors mentioned, and that beating them was somehow unfathomable. Or in LeBron's case, that it was a "better" ring than any won by a GOAT candidate. That can't be true though when LeBron's second option outplayed everyone on the Warriors.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2016/06/15/andrew-bogut-injury-warriors-nba-finals/85924936/

Furthermore, it ignores the Draymond suspension plus Iguodala and Bogut's injuries. The same Bogut who led the playoffs in Defensive Real Plus Minus. Without him? Everything opened up for Cleveland. So if we're going to be REAL about it, these claims from LeBron fans are weak AND void.
If Bogut was such a huge asset defensively, then why did he only avg. 18min per game in the 7gm WCF against OKC?

Iggy played 38mins in game 7. I'm sure he was in excruciating pain the entire time. :rolleyes:

Draymond put up 32-15-7 in game 7. If you can't win "at home" with your 3rd / 4th option (who's known for his defense before his offense) is giving you that kind of production, then that's on the team. No excuses whatsoever.

[MadDog]

If Bogut was such a huge asset defensively, then why did he only avg. 18min per game in the 7gm WCF against OKC?

Iggy played 38mins in game 7. I'm sure he was in excruciating pain the entire time. :rolleyes:

Draymond put up 32-15-7 in game 7. If you can't win "at home" with your 3rd / 4th option (who's known for his defense before his offense) is giving you that kind of production, then that's on the team. No excuses whatsoever.

Yeah one game means he couldn't play defense. Great argument :oldlol: There is no "what if" here. Bogut's impact rated BEST that entire playoff run. The numbers are there for everyone to see.

[Hey Yo]

Yeah one game means he couldn't play defense. Great argument :oldlol: There is no "what if" here. Bogut's impact rated BEST that entire playoff run. The numbers are there for everyone to see.
His entire playoff run he avg. 17mins a game. There's a reason why it was only 17mins per, but please keep telling us about that HUGE POWERFUL IMPACT he was.

Tell us morre about Iggy's excruciating "back stiffness" that held him to only 38mins played in game 7

Not surprised you had nothing to refute about Draymond. You're better off taking the L, Chico.

[8Ball]

73 wins > 72 wins by the way.

Golden State Warriors in 2016 were a better team than the 72 bulls during regular season.

An all time great feat.

[Roundball_Rock]

Davis outscored LeBron by 4PPG in the nuggets series, matched his scoring in the rockets series. That's when you know you're on a super team.

Davis 31
Pope 11

Murray 25
Grant 16

Of course the Lakers were good. They are the champs.


eah one game means he couldn't play defense. Great argument There is no "what if" here. Bogut's impact rated BEST that entire playoff run. The numbers are there for everyone to see.

We are hearing talk about extenuating circumstances for the Warriors but nothing about Love, which is revealing. If Love was the "superstar" MJ stans/Kobe stans present him as, wouldn't him putting up 8.5 PPG for the entire series and missing a full game be a lot bigger deal than Bogut or "role player" Green missing a game?

The dog that didn't bark tells the tale here: they know what 16' Love was.


. You left out shooting percentages and are only basing "help" with scoring.

The goal posts shift. :oldlol: That would require a more extensive analysis--you also have to factor in volume. Pippen on 26% usage isn't the same as Dumars on 18% or Stockton taking 8 FGA a game, is it? TS % also is influenced by position--only a fool would compare a SF to a 7'4" but that is what we see here.

I did some of that work in the past--it doesn't bail MJ stans out.

[Roundball_Rock]

Which was a bigger impact on the series?

*Love being injured an ineffective for 6 games.
*Love missing 1 game.

*Green missing 1 game.
*Bogut missing 2 games.

If Love is a "superstar" why is his ineffectiveness and injury never mentioned by the people who bring up Green? That sure implies Green>Love, doesn't it? (Green would be the 4th option by the next season.)

[Manny98]

The fact that LeBron beat a 73 win team with Kyrie Irving and JR Smith (Love was injured and ineffective) is ridiculous.

GOAT finals performance

LeBron averaged 36/11/9/3/3 over the last 3 games on Godlike efficiency :bowdown:

[guy]

Which was a bigger impact on the series?

*Love being injured an ineffective for 6 games.
*Love missing 1 game.

*Green missing 1 game.
*Bogut missing 2 games.

If Love is a "superstar" why is his ineffectiveness and injury never mentioned by the people who bring up Green? That sure implies Green>Love, doesn't it? (Green would be the 4th option by the next season.)

Love was hurt for 1.5 games due to a concussion. It wasn't some lingering injury. He played less after that due to matchup issues. If you're going to take the actual performance at hand as opposed Love's talent and standing as an all-star level player (and obviously him and Lebron took years to really click on the court, which isn't surprising for a Lebron team but shouldn't discount Love's talent) to assess Lebron's "help", that's fair but then you're being a bit contradictory when you don't do the same thing for Lebron's opposition i.e. Steph Curry - who was either hurt or choked, whichever it was he wasn't anywhere close to par and what he was for the entire regular season.

[Roundball_Rock]

Love was hurt for 1.5 games due to a concussion. It wasn't some lingering injury. He played less after that due to matchup issues. If you're going to take the actual performance at hand as opposed Love's talent and standing as an all-star level player (and obviously him and Lebron took years to really click on the court, which isn't surprising for a Lebron team but shouldn't discount Love's talent) to assess Lebron's "help", that's fair but then you're being a bit contradictory when you don't do the same thing for Lebron's opposition i.e. Steph Curry - who was either hurt or choked, whichever it was he wasn't anywhere close to par and what he was for the entire regular season.

You are putting them in the same bucket? Love was a shell of himself. The concussion must have had some impact. He was 17/10/2 on 39% before it and 7/6/2 on 35% after it. He played one game against the Warriors before the concussion. He was 17/13/2 on 41% in that game. People recover from concussions differently. Maybe he sat at home, got stage fright and sucked when he came back. Either way, it is obvious the concussion was the turning point in his performance that playoffs.

Curry was 23/5/4. Not his normal level but still useful. What is the argument for a turning point for Curry? Curry got hurt in the first round. Here is what he did after returning.

Vs. Portland (2 games): 35/7/10 50%
Vs. OKC (7 games): 28/6/6 44%
Vs. GS (7 games): 23/5/4 40%

Are you telling me the injury didn't bother him at all against Portland, against OKC but out the blue flared up a month later against the Cavs? :lol

[guy]

You are putting them in the same bucket? Love was a shell of himself. The concussion must have had some impact. He was 17/10/2 on 39% before it and 7/6/2 on 35% after it. He played one game against the Warriors before the concussion. He was 17/13/2 on 41% in that game. People recover from concussions differently. Maybe he sat at home, got stage fright and sucked when he came back. Either way, it is obvious the concussion was the turning point in his performance that playoffs.

Curry was 23/5/4. Not his normal level but still useful. What is the argument for a turning point for Curry? Curry got hurt in the first round. Here is what he did after returning.

Vs. Portland (2 games): 35/7/10 50%
Vs. OKC (7 games): 28/6/6 44%
Vs. GS (7 games): 23/5/4 40%

Are you telling me the injury didn't bother him at all against Portland, against OKC but out the blue flared up a month later against the Cavs? :lol

So the concussion impacted him for 2 weeks?? They probably don't bring him back if it was that serious especially because they won game 3 without him and then he didn't start game 4. Whether that had some impact psychologically doesn't equate to him being "injured".

For Curry, its definitely possible it flared up. He's had leg injuries his whole career and they aren't always just sparked by a specific play/game. Its also possible he was hurt the whole time and he was able to deal with it and then it got worse by the time the finals rolled around. Its also not like performing well while injured means you can't then perform badly due to an injury. And I'm pretty sure that when he came back they were saying they wouldn't have been brought him back at that time if it were the regular season.

And whatever, maybe he wasn't injured, maybe he just choked. Either way, like I said, if you're just assessing players in the series based on the performance at hand, not the overall talent of the players, which is what you're doing with Love here, then the same should apply to everyone, including the opponents. And I'm not saying thats not a fair way to look at it - its just you're not being consistent. Now if you're really stuck on this whole thing about Love being injured for the whole series, then I guess there's nothing to discuss.

[Roundball_Rock]

I don't really care much either way. The point for the purposes of the OP remains the same: Love wasn't Love in the 16' Finals. He is presented as such by certain people, though. :oldlol:

Curry underperformed (like he did the previous year--which is why Iggy beat him for FMVP). He wasn't a shell of himself like Love was. If you want to talk underperformance, 92' Drexler, 92' Porter, 93' Johnson, 97' Malone, 97' Stockton, 98' Malone, 98' Stockton, 97' Hornacek, 98' Hornacek. Then you have injuries to Scott (4 PPG in the series) and Worthy (missed a game) in 91'. 96' was the only time the comp showed up--does that negate those other 5 rings like you all are trying to do by invoking Curry? :lol

[MadDog]

We are hearing talk about extenuating circumstances for the Warriors but nothing about Love, which is revealing. If Love was the "superstar" MJ stans/Kobe stans present him as, wouldn't him putting up 8.5 PPG for the entire series and missing a full game be a lot bigger deal than Bogut or "role player" Green missing a game?

The dog that didn't bark tells the tale here: they know what 16' Love was.

Putting up a bad series didn't erase Love's multiple All-NBA and AllStar teams. Both prior to joining LeBron and after. You're literally comparing an "impactful" role player to a franchise caliber star. Get real.

That game Love missed by the way, Cleveland blew the Warriors out by 30. :oldlol:



The goal posts shift. :oldlol: That would require a more extensive analysis--you also have to factor in volume. Pippen on 26% usage isn't the same as Dumars on 18% or Stockton taking 8 FGA a game, is it? TS % also is influenced by position--only a fool would compare a SF to a 7'4" but that is what we see here.

I did some of that work in the past--it doesn't bail MJ stans out.

What "shifting" goal posts? :confusedshrug: Unless you think 24 points on 50% shooting is equal to 24 on 33% explain the fallacy here.

[Roundball_Rock]

Putting up a bad series didn't erase Love's multiple All-NBA and AllStar teams. Both prior to joining LeBron and after.

That is false. He has not been an all-star since LeBron. He was all-NBA twice--in Minnesota. Never in Cleveland.


You're literally comparing an "impactful" role player to a franchise caliber star.

:facepalm

That's the point. Love being ineffective was a lot bigger deal than Bogut getting hurt or Green missing one game. So stop the excuses about Green and Bogut. The Cavs' had a much bigger hole.


Unless you think 24 points on 50% shooting is equal to 24 on 33% explain the fallacy here.

Is 20 points on 45% inferior to 10 points on 50%? Lower volume=higher efficiency. We have been over this. The higher the volume, the tougher the shots that player has to take to get there. If you are Stockton waiting to be wide open and taking 8 shots a game that isn't the same degree of difficulty as a star like Westbrook taking tougher, contested 17 shots.

If you want to do that exercise, you are free to do so on your other account.

[Shooter]

Curry was hurt in the 2016 Finals. He wasn't just outplayed by Lebron but by Kyrie as well. When your 2nd option outplays the other team's 1st option you're almost certainly going to win the series. The truth is that the Warriors in those entire playoffs played nothing like a 73-win team. I don't even think the Draymond suspension of injuries to Bogut and Iggy late in the Finals had a big impact. The Warriors just didn't play well all postseason and it could have been fatigue as well from pushing to set a wins record. In terms of talent and form, I don't think the Warriors were better than the Cavs that year. In 2015, I think the Cavs would have probably won as well if Kyrie and Love were healthy.

Curry was not injured, thanks for saying this I need to bump that injured thread anytime someone is uneducated. Welcome to SH, I hope you will learn a lot here please stick around.
https://i.postimg.cc/B6MDmmkP/Curry-not-injured.png

[MadDog]

That is false. He has not been an all-star since LeBron. He was all-NBA twice--in Minnesota. Never in Cleveland.

He was an allstar in 2017 and 2018. Might want to brush up on your "facts" there.


That's the point. Love being ineffective was a lot bigger deal than Bogut getting hurt or Green missing one game. So stop the excuses about Green and Bogut. The Cavs' had a much bigger hole.

Your point was that an ALLSTAR Love played through an injury just like Curry? Alright :confusedshrug: Again how does that makeup for Bogut's knee injury, and him missing half the series?


Is 20 points on 45% inferior to 10 points on 50%? Lower volume=higher efficiency. We have been over this. The higher the volume, the tougher the shots that player has to take to get there. If you are Stockton waiting to be wide open and taking 8 shots a game that isn't the same degree of difficulty as a star like Westbrook taking tougher, contested 17 shots.

The example I used was pretty clear, so don't know why you're being hyperbolic. In your OP, there were a handful of players who scored in the same range. Without percentages though what does it really imply? Are you suggesting that efficiency doesn't matter?


If you want to do that exercise, you are free to do so on your other account.

What "other" account? :oldlol:

[guy]

I don't really care much either way. The point for the purposes of the OP remains the same: Love wasn't Love in the 16' Finals. He is presented as such by certain people, though. :oldlol:
Curry underperformed (like he did the previous year--which is why Iggy beat him for FMVP). He wasn't a shell of himself like Love was.

And Curry is not presented the same way? Curry was not a shell of himself? The only worse drop off I can remember for a player of his caliber was Lebron in 2011. The guy went from 30/7/5 on 67 TS% and people arguing he had the greatest season ever by leading his team to a record wins amount and becoming the first ever unanimous MVP to 23/5/4 on 58 TS% i.e. the equivalent of a Joe Johnson basically. And its not like they just did this incredible job defensively on him or Lebron guarded him like the Bulls or Jordan/Pippen did in many the underperformances you mentioned – Lebron’s 2nd Cavs teams just ran roughshod over the coaching and barely cared to establish good habits defensively.

And Curry was a lot better in 2016 then 2015. Hard to believe that, but he was. And he was robbed in 2015 of the FMVP.

My point is if you’re going to throw out reputations/resumes and overall talent level of the players you’re analyzing, which you usually love to do when it suits you, and instead just analyze their performance, injuries or not, then you can’t just do it for Lebron’s teammates, you have to do it for the opposition as well. And we can go through the reasons, but regardless of them, no one in their right mind would say the Warriors were playing like the historic team that went 73-9.



If you want to talk underperformance, 92' Drexler, 92' Porter, 93' Johnson, 97' Malone, 97' Stockton, 98' Malone, 98' Stockton, 97' Hornacek, 98' Hornacek. Then you have injuries to Scott (4 PPG in the series) and Worthy (missed a game) in 91'. 96' was the only time the comp showed up--does that negate those other 5 rings like you all are trying to do by invoking Curry? :lol

You call yourself a Bulls fan and say some pathetic shit like this? :oldlol:You can easily do the same for Lebron’s opponents, even in some of the series where Lebron's team still lost.

And the Bulls were basically on their way up to being up 3-1 when Worthy and Scott went out with 2 games left in Chicago if needed to close it out. They were winning that series. Of course, for some reason you want to discredit all of the Bulls accomplishments, so I guess you can reach and say the Lakers were going to make some miraculous comeback.:oldlol:

[Roundball_Rock]

Curry was not injured, thanks for saying this I need to bump that injured thread anytime someone is uneducated. Welcome to SH, I hope you will learn a lot here please stick around.
https://i.postimg.cc/B6MDmmkP/Curry-not-injured.png

:roll:

We still haven't gotten an answer as to why he dominated Portland, OKC but suddenly was "injured" against the Cavs.


He was an allstar in 2017 and 2018. Might want to brush up on your "facts" there.

LeBron was in Cleveland in 2017 and 2018. Looks like you need to learn your "facts." :lol


Your point was that an ALLSTAR Love played through an injury just like Curry? Alright Again how does that makeup for Bogut's knee injury, and him missing half the series?

You said it yourself: Love was an all-star caliber player (although not an actual all-star in 16' FWIW). Bogut was a role player. Love being ineffective hurt his team a lot more than Bogut--unless the argument is Love=Bogut in importance to his teams.


In your OP, there were a handful of players who scored in the same range. Without percentages though what does it really imply? Are you suggesting that efficiency doesn't matter?

Percentages are useless without volume. At any rate, I doubt that would change anything. You know that dog won't hunt, MadDog, hence why you aren't doing that exercise yourself.


first ever unanimous MVP to 23/5/4 on 58 TS% i.e. the equivalent of a Joe Johnson basically.

And Curry was a lot better in 2016 then 2015. Hard to believe that, but he was. And he was robbed in 2015 of the FMVP.

You beat me to it. Maybe Curry just wasn't that great period in his first two finals?


which you usually love to do when it suits you, and instead just analyze their performance, injuries or not, then you can’t just do it for Lebron’s teammates, you have to do it for the opposition as well.

I did. Didn't you read the OP? :oldlol: Whenever there were injuries I adjusted for it. Green, Klay did not get hurt so it isn't relevant. I may have forgotten to count Iggy instead of Green for one game, though.

15', 16' Curry was not part of the OP. He was there for 17' and 18' as KD's sidekick.


You can easily do the same for Lebron’s opponents

I said that earlier: you can do this with a lot of losing teams, that usually is why teams lose (if equal or close to equal): their players underperform.


And the Bulls were basically on their way up to being up 3-1 when Worthy and Scott went out with 2 games left in Chicago if needed to close it out

Scott put up 4.5 PPG in the series...that is half of what Kevin Love did from the Lakers' 3rd option for some perspective.

[MadDog]

LeBron was in Cleveland in 2017 and 2018. Looks like you need to learn your "facts." :lol

You said this though.


He has not been an all-star since LeBron.

Since LeBron, Love was an allstar in both 2017 and 2018. Just like I said :confusedshrug:


You said it yourself: Love was an all-star caliber player (although not an actual all-star in 16' FWIW). Bogut was a role player. Love being ineffective hurt his team a lot more than Bogut--unless the argument is Love=Bogut in importance to his teams.

Love literally missed 1 game, and in that game, Cleveland blew the Warriors out by 30. :oldlol: That is beside the point though. You're incorrectly comparing Love to Bogut when the comparison should be star to star. Curry played hurt and was a star. Same with Love, a star. Bogut, a role player, missed Games 5 through 7 because of his knee. The big elephant in the room is Draymond being suspended for Game 5, so your conclusion is backwards. With the injuries to Bogut/Iguodala and the suspension of Draymond, the Warriors needed ALL the help they could get.


Percentages are useless without volume. At any rate, I doubt that would change anything. You know that dog won't hunt, MadDog, hence why you aren't doing that exercise yourself.

So why not add the volume then :confusedshrug: Shooting percentages give us needed context, especially in a scorer vs scorer debate. I wont do that "hunt" because I am not the one who is using scoring as a core argument. You are, and your conclusion is still incomplete.

[guy]

You beat me to it. Maybe Curry just wasn't that great period in his first two finals?

No he wasn’t. For whatever reason. Even with “underperforming” though he clearly was their best player in the 2015 Finals.



I did. Didn't you read the OP? :oldlol: Whenever there were injuries I adjusted for it. Green, Klay did not get hurt so it isn't relevant. I may have forgotten to count Iggy instead of Green for one game, though.


I don’t really care for the OP. I was just making the comparison of Love and Steph in 2016 finals. I’ve acknowledged that Curry may but also may have not been hurt in the finals. Even though you’re pretty focused on emphasizing that Love was injured, I think you can at least acknowledge that outside of those 1.5 games, there’s not really much evidence that he was actually hurt. Its speculation. Same thing with Steph.

So with that being said, you don’t see the hypocrisy of touting Steph and the Warrior’s resume beforehand to elevate Lebron’s championship over them and ignore the actual performance, but then ignore Love’s resume/reputation/talent level and bring up his actual poor performance to elevate Lebron’s championship? Not to mention Steph was much more important to his team then Love was to his.

And if you want to bring up “psychological” stuff for Love, well choking is “psychological”. And if you want to say that Lebron just had the whole Warriors “shook” and swung the momentum so he was a big reason for the underperformance, then that’s totally fair and valid in my opinion. But you don’t want to take that route and try to compare it to Jordan. :oldlol:



I said that earlier: you can do this with a lot of losing teams, that usually is why teams lose (if equal or close to equal): their players underperform.


And like I said, winning teams too. But they won so no one talks about them.

07 Finals: Duncan/Ginobili

11 Finals: Dirk (not when you compare to the regular season, but arguably when you compare to the first 3 rounds. BTW, there’s a reason we don’t elevate this run and Dirk himself to a significantly higher level then we already do. If he actually beat a non-greatest choking ever Lebron, we’d probably put him right outside the top 10. But Dirk arguably wasn’t even better then Wade in this series)

15 Finals: Steph/Klay

And Lebron gets a huge pass for two of those finals.



Scott put up 4.5 PPG in the series...that is half of what Kevin Love did from the Lakers' 3rd option for some perspective.

Scott wasn’t injured until that game 4. He was shooting bad I’m sure largely due to the Bulls all-time great perimeter defense. See below, no mention of injury. In fact it was Jordan that got hurt before game 4. :oldlol:

You’re very stuck on these labels and some type of hierarchy. He wasn’t that much more important then Sam Perkins or Vlade Divac even if you want to technically call him the “3rd option”. This is why just focusing on specific teammates and not a supporting cast as a whole can be incredibly misleading.

“Offensively, Scott has lost his shooting touch, a major reason why the Los Angeles Lakers have lost the last two games to the Chicago Bulls.

When Game 4 of the four-of-seven series begins Sunday at the Forum (7 P.M., Channel 4), Scott and the Lakers will face their most serious test of the season. If the Lakers lose, they will be one defeat from elimination. Scott, the Lakers' 6-foot-4-inch shooting guard, knows that the time to end his shooting slump is now.

"Game 3 for me was about as low as you can get," said Scott, who shot 0-for-8 and was held scoreless in the the Bulls' 104-96 overtime victory. "It's a combination of me not getting enough shots, and not making the ones I do get. I'm not going to lose my confidence. We're still down just 2-1. As long as we win Sunday, we're still in good shape." An Unexpected Edge”

Scott and the Lakers may gain an unexpected advantage in Game 4, thanks to the sprained right toe suffered by Jordan in overtime of Game 3. Jordan did not practice today, but he is expected to play Sunday. However, Jordan will be in pain.”

[3ball]

The fact that LeBron beat a 73 win team with Kyrie Irving and JR Smith (Love was injured and ineffective) is ridiculous.

If KJ outplayed MJ in the 93' Finals, would anyone say Barkley had a goat accomplishment by winning that series??.. or if Rik Smits outplayed Shaq in 00', would Miller be credited with a goat accomplishment?

so lebron should be KNOCKED for needing 7 games despite kyrie destroying curry.. and he only needed 7 games because he averaged 24 and 6 TO's thru 4 games (1-3 deficit)

[RRR3]

If KJ outplayed MJ in the 93' Finals, would anyone say Barkley had a goat accomplishment by winning that series??.. or if Rik Smits outplayed Shaq in 00', would Miller be credited with a goat accomplishment?

so lebron should be KNOCKED for needing 7 games despite kyrie destroying curry.. and he only needed 7 games because he averaged 24 and 6 TO's thru 4 games (1-3 deficit)
Seething. LeBron> Baldan

[3ball]

Seething. LeBron> Baldan

Fraud is infuriating

You see the facts I concisely laid out above.. lebron gets WAY too much credit for 2016

[Roundball_Rock]

No he wasn’t. For whatever reason. Even with “underperforming” though he clearly was their best player in the 2015 Finals.

Probably, but as we know it is a "valuable player" award and Iggy's defense changed the tide of the series.


So with that being said, you don’t see the hypocrisy of touting Steph and the Warrior’s resume beforehand to elevate Lebron’s championship over them and ignore the actual performance, but then ignore Love’s resume/reputation/talent level and bring up his actual poor performance to elevate Lebron’s championship?

I am invoking Love's talent level: having an ineffective (post-concussion, whatever the cause, that was the turning point moment) Love was a lot bigger deal than Bogut going down or Green being suspended one game. Green was arguably their best player across the other 6 games. Love was useful only in Game 1.


And like I said, winning teams too. But they won so no one talks about them.

Legit point. There are small sample sizes so you are going to see variance in play, compounded by various levels of health of players on teams that are playing around 100 games.

What I had in mind is something like the 97' finals. If Malone plays to his RS level the Jazz win, and that isn't even getting to Hornacek and Stockton. But he/they didn't and no one makes excuses for Malone like they do for 16' Curry.


You’re very stuck on these labels and some type of hierarchy. He wasn’t that much more important then Sam Perkins or Vlade Divac even if you want to technically call him the “3rd option”.

Me? The entire basketball world. :lol

Scott was their leading scorer a few years prior and usually was 2nd behind Worthy after KAJ aged. As to Scott vs. Perkins and Divac, Scott had 20% usage and those other guys combined for 17%. They were 7th and 8th in usage among players who played real minutes.

Got it--it was Worthy who was banged up going in and aggravated it in the series.


If KJ outplayed MJ in the 93' Finals, would anyone say Barkley had a goat accomplishment by winning that series??.. or if Rik Smits outplayed Shaq in 00', would Miller be credited with a goat accomplishment?

guy, you to talk to your buddies about this. :lol Here is another conflict:

*One the one hand: Irving was awesome, outplayed MVP Curry! Given how awesome Irving was, that negates LeBron's achievement.
*On the other hand: Curry was wounded! Curry didn't play well--they weren't a real 73 win team! Therefore, LeBron's achievement is negated.

If the latter is true, then we shouldn't care much about the former.

Amusingly both conflicting narratives work to the same goal: negating what LeBron and the Cavs did because there is nothing similar on MJ and the Bulls' ledger.

Why so defensive? MJ has to be the best at everything. He just doesn't have anything like the 16' finals on his record. Part of it is because he was on the Warriors of his era--he can't beat his own team. :oldlol: Part of it is when his teams were big underdogs they lost to the Celtics, Pistons (I know, I know: no help.).

[3ball]

Why so defensive? MJ has to be the best at everything. He just doesn't have anything like the 16' finals on his record.


.

Lebron's 16' Finals was nothing because he had the better help by being initially favored before underperforming the regular season..

Either Curry was hurt or Kyrie had the goat 2nd option performance

Again, lebron should be KNOCKED for needing 7 games despite kyrie destroying curry.. and he only needed 7 games because he averaged 24 and 6 TO's thru 4 games (1-3 deficit)

And MJ won as the underdog and overcame a much bigger talent deficit in 89' vs cavs

[Roundball_Rock]

:lol at comparing winning a 1st round series against perennial underachievers (3 playoff series won total in the Price/Daughtery/Nance era) to winning a NBA finals against a 73-9 team.

[Gus Hemmingway]

Lebron's 16' Finals was nothing because he had the better help by being initially favored before underperforming the regular season..

Either Curry was hurt or Kyrie had the goat 2nd option performance

Again, lebron should be KNOCKED for needing 7 games despite kyrie destroying curry.. and he only needed 7 games because he averaged 24 and 6 TO's thru 4 games (1-3 deficit)

And MJ won as the underdog and overcame a much bigger talent deficit in 89' vs cavs

LeBron didn’t have any all star teammates in 2016, so you’re lying

[Roundball_Rock]

LeBron didn’t have any all star teammates in 2016, so you’re lying

They don't want to admit Love in the middle of his prime was not an all-star in 16' nor was he in 15' (he was in 17' and 18'). Irving has an injury excuse but we can't only count injuries as excuses for his lack of accolades and then compare him straight up to other players who can play full seasons. Irving, if he was the top 5 player MJ fans talk him up as in 16', should have still made all-NBA. Legit superstars can do that if they miss games--look at 98' Pippen as an example--because they do enough in 50 games to be better than 82 games of lesser players.

[3ball]

They don't want to admit Love in the middle of his prime was not an all-star in 16' nor was he in 15' (he was in 17' and 18'). Irving has an injury excuse but we can't only count injuries as excuses for his lack of accolades and then compare him straight up to other players who can play full seasons. Irving, if he was the top 5 player MJ fans talk him up as in 16', should have still made all-NBA. Legit superstars can do that if they miss games--look at 98' Pippen as an example--because they do enough in 50 games to be better than 82 games of lesser players.

Klay averaged 20+ alongside Durant, while lebron destroyed Love

There's a statistical explanation for this:

Durant achieved elite stats while holding the ball for 4.6 minutes, while Lebron needed 9.6:

https://stats.nba.com/players/touches/?Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Playoffs&sort=TIME_OF_POSS&dir=1


So Klay has 5 more minutes to hold the ball alongside the off-ball Durant, while Love is frozen out by Lebron's skill restriction to ball-dominance

Facts gonna facts.. but carry on the fraud tho

[Roundball_Rock]

Love is hardly the first player to put up monster numbers on trash teams only to shrink on better teams. It isn't like he was useless on the Cavs. He was an all-star twice in four years, although not an all-NBA level player. That is fine for a 3rd option, even in this stacked era. He just didn't show up in the 16' finals and played more like a 6th option.

[3ball]

Love is hardly the first player to put up monster numbers on trash teams only to shrink on better teams. It isn't like he was useless on the Cavs. He was an all-star twice in four years, although not an all-NBA level player. That is fine for a 3rd option, even in this stacked era. He just didn't show up in the 16' finals and played more like a 6th option.

Why does Klay average 22 alongside Durant, but Love gets destroyed by Lebron?

Anyone?

Could it be that Durant gets elite stats while holding the ball for 4.6 minutes per game, while Lebron needs 9.6 minutes, thus giving teammates 5 less minutes of hold-time?

https://stats.nba.com/players/touches/?Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Playoffs&sort=TIME_OF_POSS&dir=1


Could that be it?..... lol..... This **** is intuitive... carry on the fraud tho...

[Roundball_Rock]

Klay is a better player than Love. Klay is a GOAT shooter so he has that going for him no matter what.

You bring 22 PPG up as if that was something new. He averaged 22.1 in 16' and 22.3 in 17'. Curry declined from 30 PPG to 25 PPG and Green from 14 PPG to 10 PPG. Klay offset KD joining by eating into the market share vacated by Curry and Green declining from career peak levels.

What is bizarre about Love is when Irving left, Love actually scored less. Basically everybody else has their scoring skyrocket with Irving removed from the equation. Not Love. Then LeBron left and Love scored even less, despite the market share of LeBron/Irving being vacated with zero replacement for either.

LeBron missed 8 games in a row in 15'. The Cavs had by far the worst offense in the NBA then, averaging 90.6 PPG (the worst team was 95 and second worst 99, for some perspective). Love and Irving were not "unleashed."

[guy]

It was a stupid choice. Voters making the award more complicated then it needs to be. There’s no way anybody would go into that series choosing Iggy over Curry if they could only have one while the other had to sit out.



Green was arguably their best player across the other 6 games. Love was useful only in Game 1.



Not sure what this has to do with Steph’s underperformance.

Draymond arguably was, but its not like he was playing at Steph’s regular season level.

Cavs may have won that series regardless of Draymond getting suspended or not. But I don’t see in what world Love’s injury was a bigger deal – they ended up winning the game he missed anyway.
Either way, I don’t really hold it against Cleveland for winning with Draymond out, because like you said Love missed a game as well. Basically both of 2nd or 3rd best players missed 1 game each. Plus like I said, they may have won that game anyway and talent for talent, they were probably better.

With that being said, I do think it was incredibly cheap and low for Lebron to basically lobby for Draymond to get a flagrant, knowing he was going to suspended. That game was over. Move on to the next. If he didn’t do that, the league probably doesn’t get more involved. Just like in these past finals, when AD seemed to knock Crowder in the neck purposefully in game 5, the league didn’t do anything about it – even though they could’ve at least given him a flagrant which wouldn’t have gotten him suspended. They wouldn’t even do that.



If Malone plays to his RS level the Jazz win, and that isn't even getting to Hornacek and Stockton. But he/they didn't and no one makes excuses for Malone like they do for 16' Curry.


That’s a pretty simple conclusion to make. I don’t think the Jazz win even if that happens. Its not like everything else just remains the same. Maybe Jordan elevates his game even more like he usually does or one of his teammates do (outside of Jordan/Pippen everyone else was abysmal offensively).

No one also extra points to the Bulls beating the Jazz like they do for the Cavs beating the Warriors. People literally say the '16 ring should count as multiple rings. :oldlol:



Me? The entire basketball world. :lol



You’ve made countless threads about “3rd options”. You’re definitely hung up on these type of labels more then most. The problem is you make it seem like its 3 on 3 and those points or whatever are not made up somewhere else.

Does anyone even know that Jimmy Butler was the 4th leading scorer on the Heat in the ECF this year?



Scott was their leading scorer a few years prior and usually was 2nd behind Worthy after KAJ aged. As to Scott vs. Perkins and Divac, Scott had 20% usage and those other guys combined for 17%. They were 7th and 8th in usage among players who played real minutes.


Who the **** cares what was happening in years prior? :oldlol:The three of them combined for 39 ppg during the regular season. In the first 3 games, so prior to Scott’s injury, they combined for 43 ppg. So because the Lakers weren’t as overly reliant on 2-3 guys offensively like teams like the Bulls were, when they’re 4th and 5th best scorers step up in the 3rd guy’s underperformance, its irrelevant. It’s a stupid argument that is blind to context.

Put it simply, just because the “3rd option” isn’t always the 3rd best performer, does not mean you get zero from your “3rd spot” its just not coming from the same guy always.

And I’m not trying to say that other guys totally made up for his struggles. Obviously not. Efficiency and dynamics can be negatively affected by his bad performance. I’m just saying its not as cut and dry as you’re making it out to be.



guy, you to talk to your buddies about this.


He’s not my buddy. I don’t bother engaging or cosigning with trolls like you do.



Why so defensive? MJ has to be the best at everything. He just doesn't have anything like the 16' finals on his record. Part of it is because he was on the Warriors of his era--he can't beat his own team. Part of it is when his teams were big underdogs they lost to the Celtics, Pistons (I know, I know: no help.).

:oldlol: @ Invoking “no help” as a dig at Jordan when you’re defending Lebron who is basically synonymous with that excuse.

Right, Jordan was the driving force behind the Warriors of his era. And Lebron had opportunities to do that too he just didn’t have the personality and maybe just wasn’t good enough to be that. That level of domination reflects greatness much more then these sentimental underdog stories that Lebron is synonymous with. :oldlol:

[Roundball_Rock]

It was a stupid choice. Voters making the award more complicated then it needs to be. There’s no way anybody would go into that series choosing Iggy over Curry if they could only have one while the other had to sit out.

The real FMVP was the guy putting up 36/13/9. The name is misleading. They should call it what it is: the FMVPonthewinningteam.


Not sure what this has to do with Steph’s underperformance.

The comment was made regarding comparing the impact of Green's suspension and Love's concussion (they both were 3rd options then). Green was fine for 6 of 7 games; Love for only 1 of 7 games. Love's issues were a much bigger factor in the series than the suspension.


Basically both of 2nd or 3rd best players missed 1 game each.

Love wasn't anything close to that level in the series, though. JR Smith was the de facto 3rd option.


I do think it was incredibly cheap and low for Lebron to basically lobby for Draymond to get a flagrant, knowing he was going to suspended.

You think any team wouldn't do the same if they have a chance to take out an all-NBA player? Green knew the rules and set himself up for it.


That’s a pretty simple conclusion to make. I don’t think the Jazz win even if that happens. Its not like everything else just remains the same. Maybe Jordan elevates his game even more like he usually does or one of his teammates do (outside of Jordan/Pippen everyone else was abysmal offensively).

True--that could have happened too but you can say that about any series. If Curry played to par maybe there is a "butterfly effect" and they lose anyway.


No one also extra points to the Bulls beating the Jazz like they do for the Cavs beating the Warriors. People literally say the '16 ring should count as multiple rings.

They aren't the same. The Bulls were the better team and held serve. That said, I agree there is no such thing as multiple rings, no matter what, in the context of counting rings, which is where we hear what you reference and people try to say LeBron has "5" as a result. All chips aren't equal, though. I am an Eagles fan. Beating Brady and the Patriots meant more than beating Bortles and the Jags. We would have had the parade either way but there was extra pride in beating the best.


You’ve made countless threads about “3rd options”.

To counter the BS put out about 2nd/3rd options from MJ fans. Everybody talks in those terms here. Each player gets categorized as 1st, 2nd, 3rd option, role player, of scrub. That is just the way it is.

[Roundball_Rock]

Put it simply, just because the “3rd option” isn’t always the 3rd best performer, does not mean you get zero from your “3rd spot” its just not coming from the same guy always.

You can say that about a lot of series, like the Heat ECF you referenced. These are small sample sizes so there will be "noise" in given series. What they did over the full season or at least the full playoffs tells you more.

JR Smith was the 3rd option in the NBA finals on a title team. No one brings that up. The talk is always Irving/Love. When Love retires, he will be remembered as being the 3rd guy on a title team.


Invoking “no help” as a dig at Jordan

It is a dig at his fans. No matter what his teammates do, the refrain is "no help" so the excuse rings hollow. Per the narrative, he won 6 chips with no help so why was 1987 any different than 1997? Scrubs on all teams. That of course is ridiculous and not true, but that is what we hear.


Right, Jordan was the driving force behind the Warriors of his era. And Lebron had opportunities to do that too he just didn’t have the personality and maybe just wasn’t good enough to be that.

MJ deserves a ton of credit but it also requires other things to fall into place. There was always another comparable team in the 2011-2020 period. First it was the Spurs then when they declined the Warriors emerged to become that team. When the Warriors were briefly toppled, KD joined (eliminating OKC as a contender--they were in the tier right below the SA/GS/LeBron team tier) them.

The Bulls had no rival team. The Celtics, Pistons, Lakers all ran out of gas, being relevant only for the Bulls' first title run. When the Spurs, Shaq-Kobe Lakers emerged, the Bulls were gone.

The Bulls were before the true player movement era. It will be harder to maintain a dynasty going forward because a team could surpass you with a signing or the dynasty could be cut short due to a departure (like the Warriors likely were with KD leaving). That is one thing that makes the Patriots' success more impressive. As everything shifts around them, they are the one constant no matter who goes where.

The Bulls also were during expansion that diluted rosters. Just look at finals teams in the 90's and compare them to 80's rosters. Same for the 00's. So being a team with 2 superstars and later 3 HOF was a bigger advantage relative to the comp than the same thing in the 2010's. There is this crusade to diminish Pippen but, other than Penny for 2 years, no other team had a player of that caliber as their second best player. Same with Rodman. Who had a player that good as their third best player? Are we saying Hornacek, Schrempf, Dennis Scott, Mark Jackson=Rodman? :lol

MJ fans try to make the same the case with LeBron's teams but that doesn't hold up. Westbrook, Griffin, Curry were clearly better sidekicks than Irving and Klay, Aldridge were comparable during that time frame. Wade in 11', sure, but Wade was outplayed by Westbrook, Rondo, Hibbert, half the Spurs in various finals and ECF's. Arguably Deng too in the 11' ECF. Pippen had one terrible series (for him) in the 92' ECSF and we never hear the end of it. That was the exception. The Westbrook, Rondo, Hibbert, Deng, 14' finals stuff happened more often than not in the finals/ECF. Wade was better for the full season than all these guys, except maybe Westbrook in 12', but that didn't help them in those series. Westbrook arguably was the best sidekick from 2012-2014, definitely better than Wade the final two years of the LeBron run.

As to depth--as you not more than 3 players--55 wins speaks for itself. No other team did anything close to that in MJ's era.

Before you say this is all diminishing what MJ did, he deserves full credit. He showed up and delivered the goods. There is no 11' finals on his record. But we can't act like 6 rings were going to happen in every era and that there weren't a ton of favorable circumstances.

[guy]

The real FMVP was the guy putting up 36/13/9. The name is misleading. They should call it what it is: the FMVPonthewinningteam.


Disagree. People already reward his finals appearances when losing by making it such a significant point on his resume. We don’t need to reward losing more. :oldlol:



The comment was made regarding comparing the impact of Green's suspension and Love's concussion (they both were 3rd options then). Green was fine for 6 of 7 games; Love for only 1 of 7 games. Love's issues were a much bigger factor in the series than the suspension.
Love wasn't anything close to that level in the series, though. JR Smith was the de facto 3rd option.


Well we disagree on Love’s issues and how much it lingered .

And like I said, its hypocritical to point out that Love wasn’t close to his level and ignore that Steph wasn't either regardless of the reason.



You think any team wouldn't do the same if they have a chance to take out an all-NBA player? Green knew the rules and set himself up for it.


No I don’t. The Miami Heat didn’t make such a big deal out of it with AD. And yes, I know that AD wouldn’t have gotten suspended just for getting the flagrant cause he didn’t accumulate it but I’m sure they could’ve made much more noise about it and give an argument that he should’ve suspended regardless. They didn’t do that. Maybe a coach or GM did behind the scenes but a player didn’t. Cheap and uncompetitive as f***



True--that could have happened too but you can say that about any series. If Curry played to par maybe there is a "butterfly effect" and they lose anyway.

True, and I meant to mention that. You’re right, the same thing could’ve happened in 2016.



They aren't the same. The Bulls were the better team and held serve. That said, I agree there is no such thing as multiple rings

I’ve already mentioned why the Cavs weren’t considered just as good as the Warriors or better when they should’ve been, like they were going into the season. Sure, on its face beating a 73 win team looks amazing, but when you look at the details that I think we’ve already discussed I don’t see it as something that should be held in some significantly higher regard.



To counter the BS put out about 2nd/3rd options from MJ fans. Everybody talks in those terms here. Each player gets categorized as 1st, 2nd, 3rd option, role player, of scrub. That is just the way it is.

Do they? Bunch of nerds I guess.

This type of strict labeling don’t leave room to credit deeper teams that aren’t as overly reliant on 2-3 guys like I mentioned.



You can say that about a lot of series, like the Heat ECF you referenced. These are small sample sizes so there will be "noise" in given series. What they did over the full season or at least the full playoffs tells you more.

Sam Perkins averaged 1 less ppg then Byron Scott in the regular season and 2.5 ppg more than him in the first 3 rounds. That tell you enough? :oldlol:



It is a dig at his fans. No matter what his teammates do, the refrain is "no help" so the excuse rings hollow. Per the narrative, he won 6 chips with no help so why was 1987 any different than 1997? Scrubs on all teams. That of course is ridiculous and not true, but that is what we hear.


Well I don’t make those arguments so take that shit somewhere else.





Me and you have went back and forth a million times over these arguments. And I think a lot of your points are stupid and flawed so I don’t really feel like doing it again. No matter how much you dance around it, your arguments basically conclude that the Bulls era and accomplishments would’ve been considered greater if they actually lost more, which is downright stupid.

Lebron didn’t go the same path but he didn’t have to. No one does. He had ample opportunity to win just as much. He won 4, all 4 that he should’ve won, plus there was that 1 more that he choked away, and while he deserves a pass for a number of other years, there’s enough other years where he had a reasonable enough shot where him winning 1 more isn’t unreasonable.

Even if you look at Vegas odds probabilities prior the regular season, prior to the playoffs, and then prior to the Finals, it says they should’ve won just about the same amount in each scenario. But we need the excuse making to keep going or else you wouldn't have 15 threads to make everyday. :oldlol:

[Roundball_Rock]

We don’t need to reward losing more

:lol I must admit I got a chuckle out of that!


No I don’t. The Miami Heat didn’t make such a big deal out of it with AD.

True--it was dumb, though. You do what you have to do to win and apologize in an interview 20 years later. :lol


Do they? Bunch of nerds I guess.

Yeah, and players are defined by that "role." There is a thread on the front page trying to define Duncan as a "sidekick." There are flaws with it, as you noted. Other flaws are players have different roles on their teams. McHale as a "sidekick" isn't the same as John Starks. McHale was far more talented and would be asked to carry a larger load.

There was a McHale thread where it was argued Miller>McHale because McHale was a "sidekick" and Miller "the man." Never mind that McHale carried a bigger load for his team than Miller or that if they played together Miller obviously be the "sidekick."


Sam Perkins averaged 1 less ppg then Byron Scott in the regular season and 2.5 ppg more than him in the first 3 rounds.

The usage gap was higher--3%. Perkins/Divac were 7th and 8th in that. They didn't have massive roles in the offense.

As you noted, teams are structured differently. There isn't always going to be a huge difference in scoring between "options." In 93' BJ actually outscored Grant in the playoffs but he never gets mentioned when that team comes up because credit usually is reserved, to varying degrees, to the 3 best players. Fair? Unfair? That's what happens.


No matter how much you dance around it, your arguments basically conclude that the Bulls era and accomplishments would’ve been considered greater if they actually lost more

It is naïve to think the Bulls would have went 6-0 and had two threepeats if they were in the 80's. Losing has nothing to do with it. They lost in 95' and the MJ narrative often pretends that year didn't even happen (how often do you hear Hakeem won only when MJ was retired?) let alone use it to somehow further embellish the Bulls'.


Lebron didn’t go the same path but he didn’t have to. No one does. He had ample opportunity to win just as much. He won 4, all 4 that he should’ve won, plus there was that 1 more that he choked away, and while he deserves a pass for a number of other years, there’s enough other years where he had a reasonable enough shot where him winning 1 more isn’t unreasonable.

15' they had no shot due to injuries. That easily could have been 5. 11' should have been an easy ring but he choked it away, that's on him.

We don't know how players would have reacted if the Heat won from 2011-2013 and looked unbeatable (which they didn't, outside of the 27 game win streak. they won in 12' but had trouble coming out the "weak East" and in 13' had a 7 game ECF and 7 games in the Finals--they never dominated like the 20' Lakers did). Maybe we saw KD move earlier to form a better "Big 3" like the Heatles did after Boston got their "Big 3."

One odd thing is how passive teams were to the Bulls' dominance. Who made a big move to try to overtake them? When the Bulls themselves lost they went out and not only remedied their weaknesses, they got a third HOFer who was the best possible player to erase those weaknesses.

The Rockets traded for Drexler but that was with MJ retired so the league was wide open at the top.

[guy]

True--it was dumb, though. You do what you have to do to win and apologize in an interview 20 years later. :lol


It’s not dumb. Just being competitive. Not much different then not fouling a team to put them on the line when they’re down 3 at the end of games. Theoretically that’s the smart move.



Yeah, and players are defined by that "role." There is a thread on the front page trying to define Duncan as a "sidekick." There are flaws with it, as you noted. Other flaws are players have different roles on their teams. McHale as a "sidekick" isn't the same as John Starks. McHale was far more talented and would be asked to carry a larger load.

There was a McHale thread where it was argued Miller>McHale because McHale was a "sidekick" and Miller "the man."

And you don’t think your perpetuating this line of thinking with your countless threads like this? :oldlol: If you don’t believe in it, then why?





The usage gap was higher--3%. Perkins/Divac were 7th and 8th in that. They didn't have massive roles in the offense.


Who cares. The point is they stepped up for him while he struggled.




It is naïve to think the Bulls would have went 6-0 and had two threepeats if they were in the 80's. Losing has nothing to do with it. They lost in 95' and the MJ narrative often pretends that year didn't even happen (how often do you hear Hakeem won only when MJ was retired?) let alone use it to somehow further embellish the Bulls'.

It’s also naive to think they would’ve went that way in the 90s except for the fact that it actually happened. :oldlol: You thinking it’s not is just down playing how incredible of an achievement it is. People like me and in the media obviously think very highly of it but it’s amazing to me how much certain people just gloss over it like it was nothing special. People literally think that achievements like winning with 3 different teams, which is a completely arbitrary achievement since no one is setting out to do that, or going to 9/10 finals and losing most of them is more impressive. Completely absurd :oldlol:

And I don’t think it’s crazy at all to think they could’ve won 5-6 in the 80s, especially if we’re doing the fair thing of replacing one of those great 80s teams with the Bulls. They would’ve had the best player with one of the best offenses in the the league and probably THE best defense in the league. Plus, I’ve mentioned before that some of those late 70s Finals teams are kinda weak so I could see some of the late 80s Bulls possibly win those years as well.

Now would I bet on any of this to happen? Of course not. But I wouldn’t bet on it happening in the 90s either if I didn’t already know it would.

Losing has a lot to do with it for the simple fact that if they actually lost to more teams it would lift the perception of the competition. You can deny it all you want, but you know it’s true. And the opposite would happen in Lebron’s era if he won more and was considered the favorite more often.




15' they had no shot due to injuries. That easily could have been 5. 11' should have been an easy ring but he choked it away, that's on him.



In my view, he should’ve definitely won in 11’, 12’, 13’, 16’, 20’. That’s 5.

He gets a pass for 07’, 15’, and 18’.

Then I think he had a reasonable enough chance in 09’, 10’, 14’, 17’. Shit, I’m not sure 14’ shouldn’t be in the definite category but I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt. I’m not saying he should’ve been the favorite but there’s a lot of revisionist history around those seasons after the fact. I don’t think it’s farfetched to say he should’ve gotten at least 1 of those. That would get the total to 6.

And to be fair, I’m not saying Jordan didn’t have seasons like that too. 90’ and 95’ are what come to mind. Difference is he just didn’t have as many.




One odd thing is how passive teams were to the Bulls' dominance. Who made a big move to try to overtake them? When the Bulls themselves lost they went out and not only remedied their weaknesses, they got a third HOFer who was the best possible player to erase those weaknesses.

The Rockets traded for Drexler but that was with MJ retired so the league was wide open at the top.

Phoenix with Barkley. Houston with Barkley. New York with Allan Houston. New York with LJ. But yes it didn’t happen as often.

Rodman was a unique circumstance. The league was different back then. Stars weren’t as disgruntled and complaining about “help”, teams weren’t fielding offers when their star player was an expirer and not committing, teams had more patience and weren’t trying to tank and rebuild thus making good players available, etc.

[Roundball_Rock]

And you don’t think your perpetuating this line of thinking with your countless threads like this? If you don’t believe in it, then why?

This is a response to always hearing how much scoring help LeBron always had. There are too many myths out there. This is how people think about it. If you want to talk teams as a whole, the Bulls' offense was top 10 without MJ. Great? No, but competent. How about those LeBron offenses without him? :lol


The point is they stepped up for him while he struggled.

Divac is getting a lot of play today. So Divac stepped up to provide 3rd option type production (guarded by a 6'6" guard for part of the series). Rodman arguably was the best player in the 96' finals (and if he wasn't better than MJ he has a strong case over everybody else). You know Rodman got several FMVP votes. That's a lot more significant "stepping up" than what Divac did. MJ fans don't credit Rodman for that. Why do you think that is? They can recognize Divac but not Rodman's FMVP-worthy play?


You thinking it’s not is just down playing how incredible of an achievement it is.

It would be impressive no matter what. The Patriots were the Bulls/Warriors for two decades. No one defines them by the Super Bowls and AFC championship games they lost. They won 6 times. That means they lost 70% of the time. They are still going down as the GOAT dynasty in their sport.


People literally think that achievements like winning with 3 different teams, which is a completely arbitrary achievement since no one is setting out to do that

It may sound weird if you only follow basketball but people accept that concept in other sports. Brady will get a lot of credit if he succeeds in Tampa (which he so far) like Montana did for making the AFC title game in Kansas City. In auto racing, a lot of the GOAT case in F1 for Michael Schumacher is he left the back-to-back champs for an average team and turned them into a winner (which none of his rivals did). In NASCAR Earnhardt is the only one of the GOAT candidates to win with multiple teams. In hockey, Gretzky making the finals in L.A. without the stacked team he had in Edmonton is a plus.

Why are people credited for this? Because they proved they could win in their original situation. Another chip in the same situation wouldn't tell us anything new. They were great, so were their teams. We know that. Their ability to win, or come close, elsewhere in another challenge is impressive. You can nuance it. LeBron winning with AD is hardly a profile in hardship :oldlol: but there is something to the concept, even if you think it shouldn't apply to LeBron.


or going to 9/10 finals and losing most of them is more impressive.

I was shocked when that ESPN experts survey had 28% saying 10 finals>6 rings. :wtf:


And I don’t think it’s crazy at all to think they could’ve won 5-6 in the 80s, especially if we’re doing the fair thing of replacing one of those great 80s teams with the Bulls

The thought exercise would be the same team going to the 80's but getting an extra HOFer and probably another good player who isn't HOF, because rosters were more stacked back then with less teams. So that team up against KAJ/Magic/Worthy and the other pieces they had (Wilkes, Nixon, Scott, etc.) or Bird/McHale/Parish/DJ and their other pieces (Ainge, Walton, Lewis etc.).

I don't think any team wins 5-6 if you have the Bulls in that era. There would be too many great teams, injuries happen, series are small sample sizes, etc. A good shot the Bulls remain the best team but winning 5-6 times against the Lakers, Sixers, Celtics, and Pistons?


Losing has a lot to do with it for the simple fact that if they actually lost to more teams it would lift the perception of the competition.

To some extent. It would depend on what those teams did after that and where they won. The Patriots lost to the Ravens and Giants a couple times. Nobody says the Ravens or Giants were a great team. What people remember is the Patriots vs. whatever team Manning was on in the AFC and then some strong NFC teams at various points.

They didn't even need to beat the Bulls to boost their perception. If it was the Jazz or Suns or Knicks or Pacers winning in 94', 95' or 99', 00' then yeah those teams would be perceived differently. They didn't. It was the Rockets, Spurs, and Lakers emerging. They confirmed what they were: very good but not great teams. Their flaws were on display in those losses.

[Roundball_Rock]

In my view, he should’ve definitely won in 11’, 12’, 13’, 16’, 20’. That’s 5.

He gets a pass for 07’, 15’, and 18’.

Then I think he had a reasonable enough chance in 09’, 10’, 14’, 17’.

Agree on the 5. 07', 15', 18' were clearly weak teams (by finals team standards). 14' they got blown out. Wade, Bosh didn't do much. 17', how do they beat a team with KD, Curry, Klay, Green, and Iggy? I don't see it. 09' and 10' are forgotten but interesting cases. Ultimately, though, and this came up in a Giannis thread, look at the second options on title teams. Nearly all of them are HOF lock types. Every decade or so you get a Terry, Hamilton, Thorpe in there but those are exceptions to the rule. You probably will say they had elite team defenses but so did the 88' Bulls. That gets you only so far.


And to be fair, I’m not saying Jordan didn’t have seasons like that too. 90’ and 95’ are what come to mind. Difference is he just didn’t have as many.

True.


Phoenix with Barkley. Houston with Barkley. New York with Allan Houston. New York with LJ. But yes it didn’t happen as often.

Yeah, but look at those examples. Barkley was past his prime by the time he went to Houston. The Knicks got Houston and LJ when Ewing was 34 and having his last all-NBA caliber season. Too little too late for the Knicks. If they got players like that after losing in 93', they would have chips.

Phoenix with Barkley is a good one and that almost paid off. Unfortunately for them, Barkley started to decline after 93'.

Contrast it to the Bulls. They lose once with MJ and bring in Rodman. Even after 94', they spend big dollars on Ron Harper to give them a second scorer and an all-star caliber SG. That isn't what he turned out to be but they made the attempt. A team like the Knicks had a dominant defense but no scoring the entire Riley/JVG/Ewing era. They did nothing until it was late for Ewing.

Yeah, Rodman was a special case (his availability) but if it wasn't Rodman they would have gotten a PF to do the same things, just at a lesser level, like they had with Grant. They had a list of 5 players to go after. The point is they didn't just run it back, even though they could easily say MJ was "rusty", they had two top 5 players (one being the GOAT and the other at his peak), Kukoc (in theory) would improve in his 3rd year, they would have time to build chemistry with MJ, etc. They had ample reasons to think they could win with the same core but they wanted to maximize their chances and addressed their weakness at PF/rebounding. A different mentality than other teams had then.

[kawhileonard2]

Lebron had guys who won league and/or finals mvp in Wade and Shaq.

[guy]

This is a response to always hearing how much scoring help LeBron always had. There are too many myths out there. This is how people think about it. If you want to talk teams as a whole, the Bulls' offense was top 10 without MJ. Great? No, but competent. How about those LeBron offenses without him? :lol


Well that’s the tradeoff with Lebron’s teams that are much more catered to him offensively versus the 90s Bulls which ran the triangle, a more ball-movement oriented system that is much more analogous to the modern Warriors or recent Spurs and doesn’t need to heavily rely on one player. It doesn’t mean he had less offensive help. That’s his playing style and I’m not saying teams shouldn’t cater to him that way cause its still highly successful, just not as great as the systems the 90s Bulls/00s Lakers/10s Warriors/00s-10s Spurs played.

And don’t even bother bringing up the 2015 Heat. Had that discussion with you before and assuming you’re going to continuously ignore the 30 different starting lineups they had then I don’t care to bother.



They can recognize Divac but not Rodman's FMVP-worthy play?


When did I discredit Rodman? You want to end the subject go ahead. If you’re going to conflate my opionion with someone else, I don’t want to waste my time arguing with you about it.



It would be impressive no matter what. The Patriots were the Bulls/Warriors for two decades. No one defines them by the Super Bowls and AFC championship games they lost.


I don’t understand the comparison. Who said anything about losses?

My point was if you just think it should’ve been a given that they should’ve won that much in the 90s then you’re playing downplaying the actual achievement.



Why are people credited for this?


Oh I get why there’s some impressiveness to it, but better then what Jordan did? Or that significantly better then just winning 4 with the same team? There’s also something impressive about staying in one place and building something with that level of long-term success.



I was shocked when that ESPN experts survey had 28% saying 10 finals>6 rings. :wtf:


Didn’t even know they said that. That’s insane. :oldlol:



I don't think any team wins 5-6 if you have the Bulls in that era. There would be too many great teams, injuries happen, series are small sample sizes, etc. A good shot the Bulls remain the best team but winning 5-6 times against the Lakers, Sixers, Celtics, and Pistons?


I’m not even saying add an additional HOFer. I don’t even believe that dilution had that large of an impact as its made out to be – and a lot of the great moves the Celtics and Lakers made had little if anything at all to do with that .

The more fair comparison is if you remove one of those teams from the 80s i.e. switch them with the Bulls in the 90s. The argument is they had it easier because they didn’t have to face all those teams in 80s – well the Lakers, Celtics, Sixers, Pistons didn’t have to face themselves, so doesn’t make sense to not remove one of them. So with that said assuming we just take it back 10 years, like I’ve mentioned before, the late 70s/early 80s was nothing special and except for the 98 Bulls and maybe the 93 Bulls, all the other championship teams are considered GOAT teams. Add in the possibility that maybe Jordan doesn’t retire in the middle of it if he isn’t as successful beforehand. 5-6 isn’t that farfetched. Like I said, I wouldn’t bet on it, just like I wouldn’t have going into the 90s.



To some extent. It would depend on what those teams did after that and where they won. The Patriots lost to the Ravens and Giants a couple times. Nobody says the Ravens or Giants were a great team. What people remember is the Patriots vs. whatever team Manning was on in the AFC and then some strong NFC teams at various points.

Giants are a very weird case. They barely ever even made the playoffs outside of those.

Ravens aren’t considered a great team? Didn’t realize that.

I believe the Patriots are 2-3 against Peyton’s Colts / Broncos. Sorry, I don’t believe for a second that if the Patriots won those 3 other times and were 5-0 against them and as a result Peyton missed those 3 other super bowls and only had one SB appearances and no championships that you would still consider them great competition. They are basically the 90s Knicks then and Peyton had no help according to you.

[guy]

They didn't even need to beat the Bulls to boost their perception. If it was the Jazz or Suns or Knicks or Pacers winning in 94', 95' or 99', 00' then yeah those teams would be perceived differently.

You realize that has everything to do with timing right? Its pretty safe to say if the Bulls lost those years, they are losing to their ECF or Finals opponent and one of those teams i.e. Knicks/Suns/Jazz/Pacer/etc. are winning the championship in their place. Unless you think that if the Bulls didn’t exist or lost, then other teams would “emerge” in those years because they were purposefully not trying as hard and avoiding the Bulls because they were that afraid of Jordan.

So the point still stands: if the Bulls lost some of those series you would consider their competition and era better even though that doesn’t necessary actually require their competition to be better – instead this could be done with the Bulls not being as good. Same thing for the years in question you mentioned. It doesn’t actually require those teams to be better just for the Rockets, Spurs, and Lakers to have not emerged to another level in the first place. It’s a ridiculous argument. :oldlol:


Agree on the 5. 07', 15', 18' were clearly weak teams (by finals team standards).
14' they got blown out. Wade, Bosh didn't do much.

Series are dictated by runs and momentum so its not as simple as just taking the differential and saying they had to make up X amount. I think Lebron’s approach to this series should’ve been different. He should’ve been able to tell early on his teammates didn’t have it and should’ve tried to carry the scoring load more and have his teammates feed off that and come along. In fact had he taken the 2015 approach where he was that aggressive and not worried about his efficiency, I think that series is way different. Its no surprise that with less help the next year his team was way more competitive.

Maybe they shouldn’t be the favorities, but they had a reasonable enough chance.



17', how do they beat a team with KD, Curry, Klay, Green, and Iggy?


They didn’t have as much talent but its not like the differential was that wide – they themselves had 3 all-stars, including the best player of them all and another guy that was capable of matching or outplaying Steph. In this case, I definitely don’t think they should’ve been the favorites but to act like it was that lopsided? No it wasn’t.



I don't see it. 09' and 10' are forgotten but interesting cases.


The 88 Bulls had 3 dynastic teams still near the top of their game in their way, so I don’t think the comparison is valid.

People understate just how much of a favorite the Cavs were against those Magic and Celtics. In my view, the Magic series saw Lebron ball to the max so maybe he should’ve dialed it back a bit – even with that being the case two of those games they lost were basically right at the end.

The Celtics post the 09 KG injury were never the same as they were before that. And clearly Lebron choked or gave up in that 2010 series.

I’m not saying both these losses aren’t somewhat excusable, sure they are, but to act like they had no chance in those series the way people do is revisionist history. Its also possible they lose to the Lakers anyway.

My point is even if you give them an average of a 25% chance to win in these 4 seasons, that should equate to 1 title. And sure, you can argue that I’m applying 100% to the “definite” titles but I’m also doing that for Jordan’s.



Yeah, Rodman was a special case (his availability) but if it wasn't Rodman they would have gotten a PF to do the same things, just at a lesser level, like they had with Grant.

I don’t know if you’re trying to prove some point here. Obviously the league was vastly different in terms of player movement due to the rules and the mindsets of FOs and players/coaches . There were moves made (a team in 98 still usually looked vastly different than they did 5 years prior), but obviously the big moves weren’t as available. Getting a lesser PF then Rodman wasn’t amazing move that teams didn’t do routinely back then.

[tpols]

Here are the 2015 NBA pre-season odds.

Link. (https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2015_preseason_odds.html)

Cleveland were MASSIVE title favorites.

+275

Golden State?

+2800

:biggums:

It's absolutely laughable how much they underachieved with their talent. What it comes down to is they played iso ball and froze out Kevin Love. They didn't maximize their talent. While the Warriors made 2nd rounders like draymond green look like a world class player.

That's how it went down...

[Roundball_Rock]

When did I discredit Rodman?

You didn't. I said "they." I was curious what your thought is on that since you share many of their same views but I know you don't like commenting on others. :oldlol:


I don’t understand the comparison. Who said anything about losses?

My point was if you just think it should’ve been a given that they should’ve won that much in the 90s then you’re playing downplaying the actual achievement.

I am not. They still had to show up and play to par (or above par as they did at times, especially MJ). The Patriots lost as a better team at times. The Bulls didn't.


Oh I get why there’s some impressiveness to it, but better then what Jordan did? Or that significantly better then just winning 4 with the same team? There’s also something impressive about staying in one place and building something with that level of long-term success.


I can see people going both ways, depending on the circumstances. In Jordan's case we are talking two threepeats. It is hard to win the third time, as we have seen with so many 2x champs, because of the wear and tear of those deep runs.

A guy like Schumacher gets credit mainly because of the risk involved. It would be like MJ after 92' leaving for a .500 team. It also helps him that it highlighted a strength of his: the ability to lead, inspire a team and develop cars. He had fast cars because he put in the development work, was good at it and because he inspired talent to join him and for everyone from the owner to the janitor sweeping the floors to work hard.

LeBron gets the second benefit because his floor raising/playmaking skill. So when he joins a 33 win or 35 win team and they win the chip, that plays into it. Obviously that is misleading. That team with AD was not a 35 win team and the Cavs wouldn't have been with Love either, but you can see why it plays into that preconception.


The more fair comparison is if you remove one of those teams from the 80s i.e. switch them with the Bulls in the 90s. The argument is they had it easier because they didn’t have to face all those teams in 80s – well the Lakers, Celtics, Sixers, Pistons didn’t have to face themselves, so doesn’t make sense to not remove one of them

The Lakers won 5 so that is possible. The Sixers, Pistons didn't but they weren't contenders for the entire decade. The Celtics were but were showing cracks in the late 80's. If we assume the 1990 Bulls time travel to 1980, that means an 8 year window for chips.

The MJ retiring is a good point. He may not retire and they might win in "1984" in this scenario.


Giants are a very weird case. They barely ever even made the playoffs outside of those.

Yeah, which makes those Patriots' losses even worse but when you have that type of dominance no one cares they lost to a wild card team and then to a backup QB in 17'.


I believe the Patriots are 2-3 against Peyton’s Colts / Broncos. Sorry, I don’t believe for a second that if the Patriots won those 3 other times and were 5-0 against them and as a result Peyton missed those 3 other super bowls and only had one SB appearances and no championships that you would still consider them great competition. They are basically the 90s Knicks then and Peyton had no help according to you.

The difference is the Knicks, Pacers, Jazz had cracks at it with MJ gone. If you look at what happened when Brady went down, the Steelers won (I forgot them earlier--they would be the clear 3rd team behind Patriots/Manning).

The Knicks struggled to beat MJ's team even without MJ. :lol


Its pretty safe to say if the Bulls lost those years, they are losing to their ECF or Finals opponent and one of those teams i.e. Knicks/Suns/Jazz/Pacer/etc. are winning the championship in their place

Yeah, but you can say that about any year in any sport. Often it is said "if MJ didn't exist" but you can apply that in any era. If the Warriors didn't exist the Rockets would have chips in 15', 18'.

[Roundball_Rock]

Unless you think that if the Bulls didn’t exist or lost, then other teams would “emerge” in those years because they were purposefully not trying as hard and avoiding the Bulls because they were that afraid of Jordan.

Not quite. Remember, if the Bulls don't exist that doesn't just affect the finals and ECF. That affects the first two rounds too. Under the usual construct when this is discussed, people simply "promote" teams to the next round. Using that the Cavs go to the finals in 92'--but how do we know that? If the Bulls don't exist the Knicks are in the ECF and have a legit shot. Same thing in the other direction the next year. No Bulls means the Cavs are in the ECF. Assuming the brackets stay the same, not going to look that up. In 93' they would--Cavs would become the #2 seed.


So the point still stands: if the Bulls lost some of those series you would consider their competition and era better even though that doesn’t necessary actually require their competition to be better –

The other problem is these teams didn't always lose to the Bulls. The Knicks got past the second round only once when MJ played. What happened all those other years? What about the Jazz in the West all those other years?

These teams just weren't consistently elite, other than the Jazz. If Brady didn't exist Manning has a boat load of more rings because they were right behind them year after year. That wasn't the case with the East.

Anyway, we had a dynasty in another sport not long after the Bulls. When that team lost, the response wasn't that the Giants or Eagles were "great teams." The response was the Giants got hot at the right time and the Eagles had the stars align for 19 games and haven't been close to that since. :(


They didn’t have as much talent but its not like the differential was that wide – they themselves had 3 all-stars, including the best player of them all and another guy that was capable of matching or outplaying Steph.

The difference is once you get past the top 3. Green, Iggy>anyone on the Cavs.


People understate just how much of a favorite the Cavs were against those Magic and Celtics. In my view, the Magic series saw Lebron ball to the max so maybe he should’ve dialed it back a bit

I think people like us remember how big favorites they were, the Kobe and LeBron commercials, etc. Younger people don't. The historical verdict has been the Magic were just a bad match up and the Cavs' record was well above their talent and that got exposed in the playoffs. Wrong? Maybe but that is why LeBron basically gets a pass for it.

The Celtics thing is just forgotten. People talk about 09' a lot but not 10' for some reason. The Celtics had 3 HOF plus Rondo so that may be why, even though they were a 50 win team (speaking of that: it probably hurts MJ that teams like the Knicks had 1 HOFer).


The Celtics post the 09 KG injury were never the same as they were before that.

True, but they were coming from a high level. They almost won the chip in 10' and in 12' had the Heatles on the ropes up 3-2 in the ECF. Even in Game 7, the Celtics were up by 10 or so in the fourth quarter.


I don’t know if you’re trying to prove some point here.

That Krause played to win, not finish 2nd or make the ECF.

[guy]

The Lakers won 5 so that is possible. The Sixers, Pistons didn't but they weren't contenders for the entire decade. The Celtics were but were showing cracks in the late 80's. If we assume the 1990 Bulls time travel to 1980, that means an 8 year window for chips.

The MJ retiring is a good point. He may not retire and they might win in "1984" in this scenario.

More like an 11 year window possibly. The fair thing to do would be to time travel the whole Jordan era Bulls back 10 years so those 80s Bulls would be in the 70s. The 88 Bulls had a better record then both of the 78 Finalists and the 89 Bulls beat teams in the playoffs with equal or better records then the 79 Finalists. Could be wrong, just speculating.





Yeah, which makes those Patriots' losses even worse but when you have that type of dominance no one cares they lost to a wild card team and then to a backup QB in 17'.

What happened with the Giants would absolutely never happen in the NBA especially with the playoff format which is part of the reason comparing the two sports is pretty flawed even though we are doing it anyway.




The difference is the Knicks, Pacers, Jazz had cracks at it with MJ gone. If you look at what happened when Brady went down, the Steelers won (I forgot them earlier--they would be the clear 3rd team behind Patriots/Manning).

The Knicks struggled to beat MJ's team even without MJ. :lol

I still fail to see how under the scenario where Brady beats Manning every time how Manning’s teams aren’t 90s Knicks to Brady’s 90 Bulls. There’s nothing you’ve said here proving that there’s a difference. So in this scenario you are lifting up Brady’s competition for the simple fact that they beat them.

The Knicks are literally one shot away from winning a championship. Meaning the Bulls are one shot away from having better competition in your eyes. :lol That’s ****ing stupid FOH. Shit if 2 shots in NBA history go different, the 90s Knicks are as successful as Lebron’s Heat :lol




Yeah, but you can say that about any year in any sport. Often it is said "if MJ didn't exist" but you can apply that in any era. If the Warriors didn't exist the Rockets would have chips in 15', 18'.

Not quite. Remember, if the Bulls don't exist that doesn't just affect the finals and ECF. That affects the first two rounds too. Under the usual construct when this is discussed, people simply "promote" teams to the next round. Using that the Cavs go to the finals in 92'--but how do we know that? If the Bulls don't exist the Knicks are in the ECF and have a legit shot. Same thing in the other direction the next year.

Sure add the Cavs in there. Are you just being intentionally dumb here? Use logic. You don’t see that these teams not winning when Jordan left has everything to do with timing?

If Jordan left in 92 instead of 93 the Rockets aren’t “emerging” and beating the Sonics who they lost to and then beating the Suns. The 93 champs would be the Suns or Knicks or some other team the Bulls beat.

If Jordan left in 97 instead of 98 the Jazz aren’t just losing to the Spurs or Lakers. They are still winning those series. The 98 champs would be the Jazz or Pacers, teams the Bulls beat.

This throws your whole “they had cracks at it while Jordan was gone” argument that implies they still wouldn’t have won even if Jordan wasn’t around out the window. :lol

[guy]

The other problem is these teams didn't always lose to the Bulls. The Knicks got past the second round only once when MJ played. What happened all those other years? What about the Jazz in the West all those other years?
These teams just weren't consistently elite, other than the Jazz. If Brady didn't exist Manning has a boat load of more rings because they were right behind them year after year. That wasn't the case with the East.

Yes, because other teams emerged and got in the way.

Ah, I forgot about the ridiculous “staying power” argument. :oldlol: If Brady didn’t exist, but then you added 5 more teams just as good as Manning’s, then tell me how many does Manning win? Good chance its zero, does that make Brady's competition weak?

Conversely, if Jordan doesn’t exist, and then on top of that you remove the Rockets/Suns/Sonics/Pacers/Magic/Heat from the league or they are just significantly worse, then what does that do for the Knicks and Jazz? They’re playing in the finals every year and based on that according to your logic both teams would be deemed “dominant” even though they aren’t any better. This is a huge flaw in your logic. You can dance around it all you want, but there’s no way to counter that.



The difference is once you get past the top 3. Green, Iggy>anyone on the Cavs.
I think people like us remember how big favorites they were, the Kobe and LeBron commercials, etc. Younger people don't. The historical verdict has been the Magic were just a bad match up and the Cavs' record was well above their talent and that got exposed in the playoffs. Wrong? Maybe but that is why LeBron basically gets a pass for it.
The Celtics thing is just forgotten. People talk about 09' a lot but not 10' for some reason. The Celtics had 3 HOF plus Rondo so that may be why, even though they were a 50 win team (speaking of that: it probably hurts MJ that teams like the Knicks had 1 HOFer).
True, but they were coming from a high level. They almost won the chip in 10' and in 12' had the Heatles on the ropes up 3-2 in the ECF. Even in Game 7, the Celtics were up by 10 or so in the fourth quarter.


Well yes, there’s arguments why he’d still lose. That’s why I said 25%. :confusedshrug:



That Krause played to win, not finish 2nd or make the ECF.

Well that’s debatable considering how often he wanted to break up a dynasty. :oldlol:

He made one great move after they started winning championships – trade for Rodman – a move he didn’t even want to make at first and one that he was only convinced he could make because he had leadership on his team that no other team had.

Teams made moves every year like I said. The “sexy” ones just weren’t there as often.

[Honor Boost]

Here are the 2015 NBA pre-season odds.

Link. (https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2015_preseason_odds.html)

Cleveland were MASSIVE title favorites.

+275

Golden State?

+2800

:biggums:

It's absolutely laughable how much they underachieved with their talent. What it comes down to is they played iso ball and froze out Kevin Love. They didn't maximize their talent. While the Warriors made 2nd rounders like draymond green look like a world class player.

That's how it went down...

I mean I don't want to sound like a dick but preseason odds? You do realize they play a full 82-game season and then 3 playoff rounds before they face in the Finals? Why would you use preseason odds? It is the most incomplete information you can use to weight a team's value for the 2015 nba season. It makes no sense when there is additional information but you ignore it.