If the 18 Warriors are a superteam, how about 93 Suns & 96 Supersonics?

[Kiddlovesnets]

The 17 Warriors are a superteam indeed, but how about the 18 Warriors that only won 58 games? They were beaten once by the Spurs without Kawhi and the Pelicans team that was built to be weak against the Warriors. Lets not even mention the Rockets team that took them to 7 games, only lost because of losing Chris Paul in the last 2 games. Are they considered a superteam just because they swept Lebron in the finals?

If we just judge by the performance in the regular season, and the playoffs in western conferences, I could easily add 2 more superteams in league history: the 93 Suns which won 62 games and the 96 Supersonics which won 64 games. Why no one ever mentioned them as superteams? 'cause they lost, they were beaten by the GOAT known as MJ. If we replace MJ by Lebron, these two would surely be remembered as superteams that 'even MJ cant beat'. Its ludicrous, either way you look at it.

:lol

[72-10]

I'm sick of hearing about the Warriors

it'd be nice if people would accept the fact that the '96 Bulls were a better team than any of those manufactured cake Warriors teams

first of all, the Warriors sucked at transition defense and additionally, gave up many points on defense
since the '96 Bulls were the best (*or maybe second-best after the '87 Lakers) transition offense of all-time, they would run all day on the Warriors poor transition defense - they'd probably even run up the score this would be such a walkover when the Bulls ran

on the other hand, the '96 Bulls were also the best transition defense of all-time and best perimeter defense of all-time, so the Warriors wouldn't run well on the Bulls in transition

everyone was dazzled by the Warriors dazzling display of perimeter ball movement in half-court sets and dazzling shooting displays out of this offense - so what? it wouldn't work against the Bulls - the '96 Bulls are too tall and too long (they're the longest team in NBA history) for the Warriors to shoot over unlike the comp they played against. the '96 Bulls had too much chemistry on defense so they were TOO GOOD AT ROTATING on the court to find an open Warriors shot easily. Harper is the 4th best defender on the team and his armspan is 6'11". Jordan (6'10" armspan) guards Curry, Pippen (7'4" armspan) guards Durant, Rodman (7'0" armspan) guards Thompson or switches off with Harper (6'11" armspan). The Warriors don't have players with armspans like those, so they'd have trouble even getting their shots off. btw it looks like they could double team Curry a lot of the time with a defense like this.

additionally, the '96 Bulls played against the tallest starting lineup in NBA history - the '96 Orlando Magic - swept them 4-0 in the East Finals (not to mention then went up 3-0 on a 64-18 Sonics superteam - that's the best record of a team that didn't win the league championship)

additionally, the Warriors, unlike the '96 Bulls, were grossly over budget with their players' salary payroll

additionally, the Warriors set illegal screens on offense that enabled their perimeter offense, centered around pristine shooters like Curry and Thompson, to work as well as it did

additionally, Kevin Durant cheated the whole time he played for Golden State by extending his forearm on offense to garner extra points for his team

additionally, the Bulls didn't even try an efficient offensive scheme unlike the Warriors (who were trying more in earnest to win every game). The Triangle offense, predicated around Michael Jordan's jump shooting skills, as great as they were, doesn't suggest that the team will win the games. He shot fadeaways for three straight years and the team still won debacles all the time. Which shows just how efficient of a shooter Michael Jordan was. The Bulls team went relatively unchanged for those three years btw, so it's not like the Warriors achieved some historical rarified air that the Bulls never did.

the Bulls would clown the Warriors

[SATAN]

I'm sick of hearing about the Warriors

it'd be nice if people would accept the fact that the '96 Bulls were a better team than any of those manufactured cake Warriors teams

first of all, the Warriors sucked at transition defense and additionally, gave up many points on defense
since the '96 Bulls were the best (*or maybe second-best after the '87 Lakers) transition offense of all-time, they would run all day on the Warriors poor transition defense - they'd probably even run up the score this would be such a walkover when the Bulls ran

on the other hand, the '96 Bulls were also the best transition defense of all-time and best perimeter defense of all-time, so the Warriors wouldn't run well on the Bulls in transition

everyone was dazzled by the Warriors dazzling display of perimeter ball movement in half-court sets and dazzling shooting displays out of this offense - so what? it wouldn't work against the Bulls - the '96 Bulls are too tall and too long (they're the longest team in NBA history) for the Warriors to shoot over unlike the comp they played against. the '96 Bulls had too much chemistry on defense so they were TOO GOOD AT ROTATING on the court to find an open Warriors shot easily. Harper is the 4th best defender on the team and his armspan is 6'11". Jordan (6'10" armspan) guards Curry, Pippen (7'4" armspan) guards Durant, Rodman (7'0" armspan) guards Thompson or switches off with Harper (6'11" armspan). The Warriors don't have players with armspans like those, so they'd have trouble even getting their shots off. btw it looks like they could double team Curry a lot of the time with a defense like this.

additionally, the '96 Bulls played against the tallest starting lineup in NBA history - the '96 Orlando Magic - swept them 4-0 in the East Finals (not to mention then went up 3-0 on a 64-18 Sonics superteam - that's the best record of a team that didn't win the league championship)

additionally, the Warriors, unlike the '96 Bulls, were grossly over budget with their players' salary payroll

additionally, the Warriors set illegal screens on offense that enabled their perimeter offense, centered around pristine shooters like Curry and Thompson, to work as well as it did

additionally, Kevin Durant cheated the whole time he played for Golden State by extending his forearm on offense to garner extra points for his team

additionally, the Bulls didn't even try an efficient offensive scheme unlike the Warriors (who were trying more in earnest to win every game). The Triangle offense, predicated around Michael Jordan's jump shooting skills, as great as they were, doesn't suggest that the team will win the games. He shot fadeaways for three straight years and the team still won debacles all the time. Which shows just how efficient of a shooter Michael Jordan was. The Bulls team went relatively unchanged for those three years btw, so it's not like the Warriors achieved some historical rarified air that the Bulls never did.

the Bulls would clown the Warriors

Meltdown

[72-10]

the '96 Seattle SuperSonics is one of the strongest starting lineups of all-time - all five starters might make the Hall. Even if you didn't witness the team you can see from the point production of the starting five that it's one of the best - each of the starting five got at least 12 points per game. At this point in his career, the typically-solid, reliable and versatile Perkins was extending his offensive game to step out and hit some threes. Additionally, they had Mr. Sonic himself, Nate McMillan, injured much of the year, in reserve.

They ran roughshod over the West that year, and it's the second-best record (after the 2016 Warriors) of all-time for a team that didn't win the league championship.

[Kiddlovesnets]

the '96 Seattle SuperSonics is one of the strongest starting lineups of all-time - all five starters might make the Hall. Even if you didn't witness the team you can see from the point production of the starting five that it's one of the best - each of the starting five got at least 12 points per game. At this point in his career, the typically-solid, reliable and versatile Perkins was extending his offensive game to step out and hit some threes. Additionally, they had Mr. Sonic himself, Nate McMillan, injured much of the year, in reserve.

They ran roughshod over the West that year, and it's the second-best record (after the 2016 Warriors) of all-time for a team that didn't win the league championship.

Yeah, and most people dont remember them at all because they lost to the Bulls. If they were to replace the Warriors in 2018, they'd end up sweeping Lebron in the finals. Then we would be witnessing endless posts of what a superteam Seattle Supersonics were, and how MJ could not have won against them.
:lol

[dankok8]

the '96 Seattle SuperSonics is one of the strongest starting lineups of all-time - all five starters might make the Hall. Even if you didn't witness the team you can see from the point production of the starting five that it's one of the best - each of the starting five got at least 12 points per game. At this point in his career, the typically-solid, reliable and versatile Perkins was extending his offensive game to step out and hit some threes. Additionally, they had Mr. Sonic himself, Nate McMillan, injured much of the year, in reserve.

They ran roughshod over the West that year, and it's the second-best record (after the 2016 Warriors) of all-time for a team that didn't win the league championship.

The 1972 Bucks and 1973 Celtics had better records. 1997 Jazz also won 64 games too.

But I get your point...

[72-10]

Yeah, and most people dont remember them at all because they lost to the Bulls. If they were to replace the Warriors in 2018, they'd end up sweeping Lebron in the finals. Then we would be witnessing endless posts of what a superteam Seattle Supersonics were, and how MJ could not have won against them.
:lol

On second thought, I wouldn't call the Sonics a superteam since they weren't over payroll probably at all (unlike the Warriors teams, which were grossly over payroll). Also, the Sonics drafted their team and built team chemistry instead of colluding two of the league's top five players at the time.

[Axe]

Too bad the '93 & '96 western champs didn't even make b2b finals trips tho

[Kiddlovesnets]

Too bad the '93 & '96 western champs didn't even make b2b finals trips tho

Because they were defeated by MJ, and they lost their confidence and did not develop the champions mindset in the following year. Had Lebron beat the Warriors in 2015, they would be nowhere near as good in 2016, likely missing out the Finals. Then in 2017 they would not have landed Durant, a lot of things would've been different.

[72-10]

Too bad the '93 & '96 western champs didn't even make b2b finals trips tho

that's due to the Jazz, numbskull

[Axe]

that's due to the Jazz, numbskull
You do realize he didn't mention that team in the op?

[tpols]

They were only a superteam against Lebron. The Rockets and Spurs could hang with them.

[72-10]

Actually, it really is the '96 Sonics since they didn't cheat for the entirety of the season.

[light]

The 17 Warriors are a superteam indeed, but how about the 18 Warriors that only won 58 games? They were beaten once by the Spurs without Kawhi and the Pelicans team that was built to be weak against the Warriors. Lets not even mention the Rockets team that took them to 7 games, only lost because of losing Chris Paul in the last 2 games. Are they considered a superteam just because they swept Lebron in the finals?

If we just judge by the performance in the regular season, and the playoffs in western conferences, I could easily add 2 more superteams in league history: the 93 Suns which won 62 games and the 96 Supersonics which won 64 games. Why no one ever mentioned them as superteams? 'cause they lost, they were beaten by the GOAT known as MJ. If we replace MJ by Lebron, these two would surely be remembered as superteams that 'even MJ cant beat'. Its ludicrous, either way you look at it.

:lol

Superteams have nothing to do with regular season records. A superteam is more likely to take the regular season less seriously as they are usually playoff focused.

The reason no one mentions the 93 Suns or the 96 Sonics as superteams is because they only had 1 hall of famer on each team - Barkley and Payton.

[kawhileonard2]

Dallas beat a Superteam with a German leading them.

[Kiddlovesnets]

The reason no one mentions the 93 Suns or the 96 Sonics as superteams is because they only had 1 hall of famer on each team - Barkley and Payton.

Had the Suns or Supersonics won against the Bulls, they would've more hall of famers on their team. MJ's opponents lacked achievements and HOF recognition because they couldnt win titles over him. If we replace MJ by Lebron, the Suns and Supersonics would definitely be winning NBA titles, which would significantly increase the chance of Kemp and KJ going into Hall of Fame.

[And1AllDay]

WARRIORS finals = 5 years in a row
SONICS finals = 1 thats it

next

:oldlol:

[And1AllDay]

Dallas beat a Superteam with a German leading them.

my back to back champs 2011 kobe lakers :(

swept me :(

[kawhileonard2]

WARRIORS finals = 5 years in a row
SONICS finals = 1 thats it

next

:oldlol:

The 90's were tougher.

[SouBeachTalents]

WARRIORS finals = 5 years in a row
SONICS finals = 1 thats it

next

:oldlol:
The Warriors pre Durant were more successful in two years than the Suns & Sonics were COMBINED over the course of the entire 90's :lol

[iamgine]

If '93 Suns or '96 Supersonics added Hakeem Olajuwon, then they'd be a superteam like Warriors.

[Phoenix]

the '96 Seattle SuperSonics is one of the strongest starting lineups of all-time - all five starters might make the Hall. Even if you didn't witness the team you can see from the point production of the starting five that it's one of the best - each of the starting five got at least 12 points per game. At this point in his career, the typically-solid, reliable and versatile Perkins was extending his offensive game to step out and hit some threes. Additionally, they had Mr. Sonic himself, Nate McMillan, injured much of the year, in reserve.

They ran roughshod over the West that year, and it's the second-best record (after the 2016 Warriors) of all-time for a team that didn't win the league championship.

The 96 Sonics starters were Payton, Hawkins,Detlef, Kemp and Ervin Johnson ( Perkins started 20 games). I can comfortably say that Payton is likely to be the only HOFer in that group.

Also, just off the top of my head the 09 Cavs won 66 games and got bounced. The Spurs in 2016 won 67 games ( people forget that because the Warriors won 73) and didn't win. 64 wins by Seattle is not the 2nd most for a team that didn't win a title in that season.

[Shooter]

The 1 Finals appearance Suns or Sonics? :roll:

OR

The 5 straight Finals Warriors?

OP is losing it :lol

[guy]

This doesn’t apply to the 2018 Warriors who were both an extremely talented group of players AND a great team, but some of this talk about some of the great competition from the past decade is really overstated all based on talent. The KD/Westbrook/Harden Thunder, KD/Westbrook Thunder, Westbrook/PG/Melo Thunder, Harden/CP3 Rockets, Harden/Westbrook Rockets and now potentially this KD/Harden/Kyrie Nets all look extremely great on paper and 20 years from now people will look at stats/HOF/all-nba/all-star to argue that these were such greater teams then other teams that weren’t as star-laden despite the fact that in real-time a common talking point about all these teams is how their style of play / lack of ball movement / ISO my turn-your turn basketball is so incredibly flawed and turns them into less then the sum of their parts. If it weren’t for the 3 point shot, and maybe even anyway, I would easily take teams like the 93 Suns and 96 Sonics due to their chemistry over a majority if not all the teams I mentioned.

[MrFonzworth]

I'm sick of hearing about the Warriors

it'd be nice if people would accept the fact that the '96 Bulls were a better team than any of those manufactured cake Warriors teams

first of all, the Warriors sucked at transition defense and additionally, gave up many points on defense
since the '96 Bulls were the best (*or maybe second-best after the '87 Lakers) transition offense of all-time, they would run all day on the Warriors poor transition defense - they'd probably even run up the score this would be such a walkover when the Bulls ran

on the other hand, the '96 Bulls were also the best transition defense of all-time and best perimeter defense of all-time, so the Warriors wouldn't run well on the Bulls in transition

everyone was dazzled by the Warriors dazzling display of perimeter ball movement in half-court sets and dazzling shooting displays out of this offense - so what? it wouldn't work against the Bulls - the '96 Bulls are too tall and too long (they're the longest team in NBA history) for the Warriors to shoot over unlike the comp they played against. the '96 Bulls had too much chemistry on defense so they were TOO GOOD AT ROTATING on the court to find an open Warriors shot easily. Harper is the 4th best defender on the team and his armspan is 6'11". Jordan (6'10" armspan) guards Curry, Pippen (7'4" armspan) guards Durant, Rodman (7'0" armspan) guards Thompson or switches off with Harper (6'11" armspan). The Warriors don't have players with armspans like those, so they'd have trouble even getting their shots off. btw it looks like they could double team Curry a lot of the time with a defense like this.

additionally, the '96 Bulls played against the tallest starting lineup in NBA history - the '96 Orlando Magic - swept them 4-0 in the East Finals (not to mention then went up 3-0 on a 64-18 Sonics superteam - that's the best record of a team that didn't win the league championship)

additionally, the Warriors, unlike the '96 Bulls, were grossly over budget with their players' salary payroll

additionally, the Warriors set illegal screens on offense that enabled their perimeter offense, centered around pristine shooters like Curry and Thompson, to work as well as it did

additionally, Kevin Durant cheated the whole time he played for Golden State by extending his forearm on offense to garner extra points for his team

additionally, the Bulls didn't even try an efficient offensive scheme unlike the Warriors (who were trying more in earnest to win every game). The Triangle offense, predicated around Michael Jordan's jump shooting skills, as great as they were, doesn't suggest that the team will win the games. He shot fadeaways for three straight years and the team still won debacles all the time. Which shows just how efficient of a shooter Michael Jordan was. The Bulls team went relatively unchanged for those three years btw, so it's not like the Warriors achieved some historical rarified air that the Bulls never did.

the Bulls would clown the Warriors

Every post you make is stupid.

[3ball]

The Warriors pre Durant were more successful in two years than the Suns & Sonics were COMBINED over the course of the entire 90's :lol

From 2013-2017, the Heat/Spurs and Cavs/Warriors were the only teams with 3 perennial all-stars (big 3's), and therefore had free passes to the Finals

Otoh, the talent was more evenly-spread in the 90's, so 2-star teams were the best teams - the lower requirement (2 stars) meant that many teams were Finals-caliber..

So the west was a bloodbath of parity, where the conference-winner would be the team that caught a lucky break or was healthier... accordingly, Jordan always faced a Western foe that was incredibly experienced and having their banner year - a battle-tested, organic team (aka the toughest kind of team to beat... similar to the mavs/spurs/warriors that lebron has a lottery record against)

Carry on

[3ball]

Superteams have nothing to do with regular season records. A superteam is more likely to take the regular season less seriously as they are usually playoff focused.

The reason no one mentions the 93 Suns or the 96 Sonics as superteams is because they only had 1 hall of famer on each team - Barkley and Payton.
kemp didn't win enough to get the accolades or attention that pippen got, but kemp was better than pippen...

Kemp dominated Rodman in the 96' Finals and got FMVP votes, while pippen averaged 15 on 34% and was outplayed by Schrempf.. that's why krause wanted to trade pippen for kemp in 97'

Similarly, KJ > Klay....... But KJ simply never got the exposure/attention that klay gets, or captured the media's heart like the "splash bros"

Klay is kind of like Pippen because he benefitted from playing alongside curry and his status is enhanced by winning with Curry

[3ball]

.
[B] Seriously fellas, what does this say about Pippen (5:15 to 5:49)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q44jbwyRFWM&t=05m14s
/B]


interviewer... "in addition to jordan, pippen was also on the team"

dumas.... SILENCE


lol.. no one respected pippen.. (Dumas clearly thinks he's just as good, and was)

[3ball]

.
Seriously fellas, what does this say about Pippen (5:15 to 5:49)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q44jbwyRFWM&t=05m14s



interviewer... "in addition to jordan, pippen was also on the team"

dumas.... SILENCE


lol.. no one respected pippen.. (Dumas clearly thinks he's just as good, and was)

Dumas actually gives a dismissive motion with his hand when the interviewer asked about pippen

[TheCorporation]

The 1 Finals appearance Suns or Sonics? :roll:

OR

The 5 straight Finals Warriors?

OP is losing it :lol

:roll::roll:

[TheCorporation]

Dumas actually gives a dismissive motion with his hand when the interviewer asked about pippen

Dumas? :lol

What a tool you are

Have you watched ANY ball? Ever?

[3ball]

WARRIORS finals = 5 years in a row
SONICS finals = 1 thats it

next

:oldlol:

Top heavy leagues see the same teams make the Finals

Parity (evenly-spread talent) sees many different teams and legit competitors... aka optimal competitive environment

Obviously, it's harder to be one of many Finals contenders than 1 of 2 Finals contenders (that get a free pass to the Finals by virtue of having the only "Big 3's" in the league, aka top heavy)

[Kiddlovesnets]

WARRIORS finals = 5 years in a row
SONICS finals = 1 thats it

next

:oldlol:the Warriors made 5 finals largely thanks to Lebron losing to them in 2015. A title winning team becomes vastly different and much stronger afterwards. If you replace Lebron by MJ, he would have beaten the Warriors in 2015. A lot will change since then, the Warriors would not have gained the championship mentality and confidence. Without these they will lose to OKC Thunder in 2016, and would not have landed Durant either. Without Durant, no more trip to the finals of course.

To summarize, replace Lebron by MJ, the latter would have defeated the Warriors the first time they met in 2015, thereby destroying their potential for a dynasty, altering their fate for the next few years.

[72-10]

The 96 Sonics starters were Payton, Hawkins,Detlef, Kemp and Ervin Johnson ( Perkins started 20 games). I can comfortably say that Payton is likely to be the only HOFer in that group.

Also, just off the top of my head the 09 Cavs won 66 games and got bounced. The Spurs in 2016 won 67 games ( people forget that because the Warriors won 73) and didn't win. 64 wins by Seattle is not the 2nd most for a team that didn't win a title in that season.

you are incorrect and blatantly lied

if you call the Warriors basketball, then you don't know how to play it

[Shooter]

the Warriors made 5 finals largely thanks to Lebron losing to them in 2015. A title winning team becomes vastly different and much stronger afterwards. If you replace Lebron by MJ, he would have beaten the Warriors in 2015. A lot will change since then, the Warriors would not have gained the championship mentality and confidence. Without these they will lose to OKC Thunder in 2016, and would not have landed Durant either. Without Durant, no more trip to the finals of course.

To summarize, replace Lebron by MJ, the latter would have defeated the Warriors the first time they met in 2015, thereby destroying their potential for a dynasty, altering their fate for the next few years.

No Pip, no chip

MJ literally

LITERALLY

cant win without Pippen

[3ball]

No Pip, no chip

MJ literally

LITERALLY

cant win without Pippen

He only played with pippen so your statement is dumb

But pippen's stats < Wade, AD, Kyrie, Bosh, Love, Ingram, Mo Williams, Jamison, and Hughes

[Axe]

the Warriors made 5 finals largely thanks to Lebron losing to them in 2015.
What? Bran didn't play in the western conference playoffs until this year so that doesn't make any sense.

[SATAN]

I never heard a single person back in the day call the Suns or Sonics super teams.

[3ball]

They were only a superteam against Lebron. The Rockets and Spurs could hang with them.

True

No one felt sorry for Harden when he lost in 7 - they said he choked for losing in 7, while lebron got a pass when he was destroyed with Kyrie the previous year

[And1AllDay]

He only played with pippen so your statement is dumb

But pippen's stats < Wade, AD, Kyrie, Bosh, Love, Ingram, Mo Williams, Jamison, and Hughes


mike iverson had fives years to do it

show me the years mike iverson got out of the 1st rd without pippen



post it thanx

[aj1987]

the '96 Seattle SuperSonics is one of the strongest starting lineups of all-time - all five starters might make the Hall. Even if you didn't witness the team you can see from the point production of the starting five that it's one of the best - each of the starting five got at least 12 points per game. At this point in his career, the typically-solid, reliable and versatile Perkins was extending his offensive game to step out and hit some threes. Additionally, they had Mr. Sonic himself, Nate McMillan, injured much of the year, in reserve.

They ran roughshod over the West that year, and it's the second-best record (after the 2016 Warriors) of all-time for a team that didn't win the league championship.
How high are you right now?

[72-10]

How high are you right now?

I'm buzzed as a kite ; shit's insane...

[dankok8]

This is something we see often with Lebron. Any team that beats him is overhyped to an insane degree.

[aj1987]

This is something we see often with Lebron. Any team that beats him is overhyped to an insane degree.

Literally no one calls the '07 Spurs, '11 Mavs, and '15 Warriors great or ATG teams, you ****ing idiot. Stop talking basketball. You're a clown. :oldlol:

[Kiddlovesnets]

I never heard a single person back in the day call the Suns or Sonics super teams.

They ain’t never called superteams because MJ defeated them, but if the 58 wins warriors team in 2018 were to be considered a super team, then I fail to see why these two better teams should not be labeled as superteams. MJ would have beaten the 18 Warriors team easily, even the Rockets took them to 7 games.

[SouBeachTalents]

They ain’t never called superteams because MJ defeated them, but if the 58 wins warriors team in 2018 were to be considered a super team, then I fail to see why these two better teams should not be labeled as superteams. MJ would have beaten the 18 Warriors team easily, even the Rockets took them to 7 games.
Do you guys think OP is trolling or is actually this stupid? I've thought for a long time now that he's just an idiot, but now I'm starting to think maybe he's trolling with all the stupid shit he says

[3ball]

Do you guys think OP is trolling or is actually this stupid? I've thought for a long time now that he's just an idiot, but now I'm starting to think maybe he's trolling with all the stupid shit he says

Who cares if you're facing a super-team if you yourself have a super-team that was initially favored like the 16' Cavs and 11-14' Heat

Jordan had 1 all-star teammate in 93' and 96', but faced teams with many all-stars

[Axe]

They ain’t never called superteams because MJ defeated them, but if the 58 wins warriors team in 2018 were to be considered a super team, then I fail to see why these two better teams should not be labeled as superteams. MJ would have beaten the 18 Warriors team easily, even the Rockets took them to 7 games.
Well it's quite obvious why a team that had two chips and made 3x straight finals trip in the three years prior is considered as such, unlike the ones you're trying to cite here.

[3ball]

It's quite obvious why a team that had two chips and made 3x straight finals trip in the three years prior is considered as such, unlike the ones you're trying to cite here.

Chips don't determine super-team

a super-team is a big 3 of offensive juggernauts.. period


Bird/McHale/Parish

Magic/Kareem/Worthy

Lebron/Wade/Bosh

Lebron/Kyrie/Love



See the pattern?

Payton/Kemp/Schrempf and Barkley/KJ/Majerle/Dumas/Chambers also qualify. <--- that destroys the bulls casts

[Axe]

Chips don't determine super-team

a super-team is a big 3 of offensive juggernauts.. period


Bird/McHale/Parish

Magic/Kareem/Worthy

Lebron/Wade/Bosh

Lebron/Kyrie/Love



See the pattern?
Then what about curry/klay/kd?

You cannot say they aren't stacked at all

[3ball]

Then what about curry/klay/kd?

You cannot say they aren't stacked at all

Yes that's a super-team

But in the he 90's, the talent was more spread out, so it wasn't quite as juggernautish, but Payton/Kemp/Schrempf and Barkley/KJ/Majerle/Dumas/Chambers also qualify. <--- that destroys the bulls casts

[Axe]

Yes that's a super-team
Then what about these? How are they considered superteams if they weren't even b2b conference champions (aside from being chipless)?


Payton/Kemp/Schrempf and Barkley/KJ/Majerle/Dumas/Chambers also qualify. <--- that destroys the bulls casts

[3ball]

Then what about these? How are they considered superteams if they weren't even b2b conference champions (aside from being chipless)?

Parity

The talent was more evenly-spread

So the west was a bloodbath with teams alternating having their banner year where everything goes right and they make the Finals

With more evenly-spread talent, the Finals standard was 2 stars, not 3 like the 80's or 10's.... With only 2 stars required, more teams were Finals-caliber

Obviously, it's easier to be 1 of 2 Finals-caliber teams with big 3's, than 1 of many Finals-caliber teams

[72-10]

taste of Nate's greatness

https://stathead.com/tiny/xo5oX

[Phoenix]

you are incorrect and blatantly lied

if you call the Warriors basketball, then you don't know how to play it

Blatantly lied about what? You said the Sonics winning 64 games is the 2nd most ( 73 Warriors) for a team that didn't win. The 2009 Cavs won 66 games and didn't win. The Spurs won 67 in 2016 and didn't win. Oh, and the Mavs won 67 in 2007 and lost in the first round. So what is incorrect and/or a lie? Literally, what the fukk are you talking about?

I made no reference in my post to the Warriors, I responded to your comment about the 96 sonics and your contention that all of the starters could end up in the Hall. Kemp probably likely isn't going to make it if he hasn't already. Who else other than Payton ends up in the hall? LOL at Hawkins ( good player but not HOF) and ERVIN JOHNSON? Literally every thing in your post that I replied to is bullshit.

[3ball]

Blatantly lied about what? You said the Sonics winning 64 games is the 2nd most ( 73 Warriors) for a team that didn't win. The 2009 Cavs won 66 games and didn't win. The Spurs won 67 in 2016 and didn't win. Oh, and the Mavs won 67 in 2007 and lost in the first round. So what is incorrect and/or a lie? Literally, what the fukk are you talking about?

I made no reference in my post to the Warriors, I responded to your comment about the 96 sonics and your contention that all of the starters could end up in the Hall. Kemp probably likely isn't going to make it if he hasn't already. Who else other than Payton ends up in the hall? LOL at Hawkins ( good player but not HOF) and ERVIN JOHNSON? Literally every thing in your post that I replied to is bullshit.

The super-team concept is neither here nor there

What matters is talent-deficits

And lebron only faced deficits in 07', 15', 18' and possibly 17'

Otoh, Jordan faced talent deficits in 91', 92', 93', and 96' (so a higher proportion of his Finals)

And lebron enjoyed talent advantages that Jordan didn't (11-16')

[Phoenix]

The super-team concept is neither here nor there

What matters is talent-deficits

And lebron only faced deficits in 07', 15', 18' and possibly 17'

Otoh, Jordan faced talent deficits in 91', 92', 93', and 96' (so a higher proportion of his Finals)

And lebron enjoyed talent advantages that Jordan didn't (11-16')

Your post is neither here nor there with respects to mine . The poster said the 96 Sonics starting lineup are all HOFers. No, they aren't and that's all I'm addressing. Not talking about MJ or Lebron. I understand its a challenge for you to make a post that doesn't have either one of them interwoven into whatever point you're making.

[MadDog]

In relation to talent? I wouldn't classify them as a superteam but they were stacked. Since LeBron fans love hypotheticals (if, but, imagine! :oldlol:), Jordan beating these teams is akin to LeBron winning against the 2014 Spurs and 15/16 Warriors. Technically LeBron won against the Warriors so good for him :confusedshrug:

[72-10]

Blatantly lied about what? You said the Sonics winning 64 games is the 2nd most ( 73 Warriors) for a team that didn't win. The 2009 Cavs won 66 games and didn't win. The Spurs won 67 in 2016 and didn't win. Oh, and the Mavs won 67 in 2007 and lost in the first round. So what is incorrect and/or a lie? Literally, what the fukk are you talking about?

I made no reference in my post to the Warriors, I responded to your comment about the 96 sonics and your contention that all of the starters could end up in the Hall. Kemp probably likely isn't going to make it if he hasn't already. Who else other than Payton ends up in the hall? LOL at Hawkins ( good player but not HOF) and ERVIN JOHNSON? Literally every thing in your post that I replied to is bullshit.

I meant among those that made the chip round - it's actually tied with the 96'97 Utah Jazz btw. the lineup was Kemp, GP, Hawkins, Schrempf, I guess you're right about Ervin Johnson, but Perkins is easily a balloted player. If you don't think those five players all have a legitimate shot at the Hall then I don't think you watched them play. Now, they didn't get on national TV nearly as much that year as the Bulls did (I think the Bulls were on 15 times), but several of these guys showed their stuff at earlier points in their career before national audiences esp. Hawkins and Schrempf. Perkins was one of the best shooting big men, hence the nickname Big Smooth. You can't deny that he popped out and lit it up from three.

[Phoenix]

I meant among those that made the chip round - it's actually tied with the 96'97 Utah Jazz btw. the lineup was Kemp, GP, Hawkins, Schrempf, I guess you're right about Ervin Johnson, but Perkins is easily a balloted player. If you don't think those five players all have a legitimate shot at the Hall then I don't think you watched them play. Now, they didn't get on national TV nearly as much that year as the Bulls did (I think the Bulls were on 15 times), but several of these guys showed their stuff at earlier points in their career before national audiences esp. Hawkins and Schrempf. Perkins was one of the best shooting big men, hence the nickname Big Smooth. You can't deny that he popped out and lit it up from three.

I watched all of them play. Perkins is a career 12/6/ who peaked at 16/8 numbers, no all-star appearances, no all-NBA, no MVP caliber seasons. He has, if you want to take basketball reference ( BR) as any indication, a 0.0% chance of making the hall. Maybe you have your own criteria for what gets players into the hall but it's not rooted in any kind of reality.

Detler was a 2 time 6th man of the year. 3 time all-star. All NBA third team once. He sits at 3.3% chance per BR. Hersey Hawkins made one all-nba team. 0.6%. Good players, not close to HOF consideration. And I say this knowing the basketball HOF isn't as stringent as baseball or football. But these guys you're arguing for have absolutely no case for it.

[TheCorporation]

2018 Warriors: 5 straight Finals in 5 years
1993 Suns: 1 Finals in 20 years
1996 Sonics: 1 Finals in 20 years

Next :lol

[Baller789]

2018 Warriors: 5 straight Finals in 5 years
1993 Suns: 1 Finals in 20 years
1996 Sonics: 1 Finals in 20 years

Next :lol

I didn't know the 2018 Warriors had a time machine.

[TheCorporation]

I didn't know the 2018 Warriors had a time machine.

2018 Warriors: 5 straight Finals in 5 years
1993 Suns: 1 Finals in 20 years
1996 Sonics: 1 Finals in 20 years

:lol

[Smoke117]

Neither of those teams are super teams. Suns had a hell of a time in the playoffs and the Sonics just barely skated by the Jazz in the WCF in 96. Trying to make some big deal about the Warriors winning only 58 games is clearly you just being a moronic fool as usual. The Warriors core missed a lot more games than 2017 and they obviously were coasting a lot more than the previous season anyway.

[72-10]

2018 Warriors: 5 straight Finals in 5 years
1993 Suns: 1 Finals in 20 years
1996 Sonics: 1 Finals in 20 years

:lol

whoa, are you a bot? I think I can say this with salt at this point.

[GrayGoat]

whoa, are you a bot? I think I can say this with salt at this point.

He has a point tho

[72-10]

I watched all of them play. Perkins is a career 12/6/ who peaked at 16/8 numbers, no all-star appearances, no all-NBA, no MVP caliber seasons. He has, if you want to take basketball reference ( BR) as any indication, a 0.0% chance of making the hall. Maybe you have your own criteria for what gets players into the hall but it's not rooted in any kind of reality.

Detler was a 2 time 6th man of the year. 3 time all-star. All NBA third team once. He sits at 3.3% chance per BR. Hersey Hawkins made one all-nba team. 0.6%. Good players, not close to HOF consideration. And I say this knowing the basketball HOF isn't as stringent as baseball or football. But these guys you're arguing for have absolutely no case for it.

r u stupid?

[3ball]

I watched all of them play. Perkins is a career 12/6/ who peaked at 16/8 numbers, no all-star appearances, no all-NBA, no MVP caliber seasons. He has, if you want to take basketball reference ( BR) as any indication, a 0.0% chance of making the hall. Maybe you have your own criteria for what gets players into the hall but it's not rooted in any kind of reality.

Detler was a 2 time 6th man of the year. 3 time all-star. All NBA third team once. He sits at 3.3% chance per BR. Hersey Hawkins made one all-nba team. 0.6%. Good players, not close to HOF consideration. And I say this knowing the basketball HOF isn't as stringent as baseball or football. But these guys you're arguing for have absolutely no case for it.

You aren't getting it

That's 4 guys with all-nba experience vs 2 for the Bulls

Heck, Perkins was better than Horace Grant and he was their 8th option or whatever

Ultimately, it's about talent-deficits... Lebron faced them less in his Finals (5 of 10 Finals, 50%) than Jordan (4 of 6 Finals.. 91/92/93/96).. and lebron basically never faced a deficit in the East

[TheCorporation]

whoa, are you a bot? I think I can say this with salt at this point.


The guy had a terrible response so I was forced to reiterate my iron clad stance.

[Phoenix]

r u stupid?

R U?

[Phoenix]

You aren't getting it

That's 4 guys with all-nba experience vs 2 for the Bulls

Heck, Perkins was better than Horace Grant and he was their 8th option or whatever

Ultimately, it's about talent-deficits... Lebron faced them less in his Finals (5 of 10 Finals, 50%) than Jordan (4 of 6 Finals.. 91/92/93/96).. and lebron basically never faced a deficit in the East

72-10 said the 96 Sonics starters are all likely HOFers. Is Ervin Johnson a HOFer? No? Ok, then the statement that they're all HOfers is dead in the water right off the bat. Theres nothing to get, he made a statement that is factually incorrect. Hawkins and Detlef made a few all star games, not HOFers. I'm not disputing they were good players, I'm addressing the point being made about those guys all being HOFers.

Ultimately its about you rambling on about bullshit as you normally do, 29k posts and going.

[goozeman]

Besides the 98 Jazz, who only had a chance to beat the Bulls because they were getting old, that 1993 Barkley's Suns team was the only other real threat to those Bulls dynasties. That 93 Bulls team was also the one with the best versions of Jordan and Pippen. The 93 Finals was a legit back and forth series that required Jordan to play at his absolute peak, and if Paxson doesn't hit that game winner in game 6 the Bulls are honestly in trouble going up against Barkley and that juggernaut offense in game 7 in Phoenix. Bulls had no answer for Barkley whatsoever, and other than game 1 where the Suns just came out awed and timid from being the big stage, the two teams were basically dead even.

On the other hand, the 96 Seattle was no real threat to the Bulls at all. Bulls jumped out 3-0 and most people think they threw the next two games so Jordan could win the title on Father's day, which is a theory I absolutely believe to have a little truth to it. Matter of fact, the 93 Sonics team that the Suns beat in the WCF was probably just as good as that 96 team. All those Sonics teams were solid regular season squads. 1993 Sonics led the league in SRS and were ranked higher offensive and defensive league average rankings than the 96 team. They were projected to win 60 games that year but underachieved. Didn't help that Sam Perkins got hurt. They won 64 games in 94 and got bounced in the first round by a 42-win Denver team. 57 wins in 95 and got bounced again in the first round by the 40-win Lakers with Cedric Ceballos as best player. Those teams weren't beating either the Suns or Rockets until Hakeem and Barkley got old.

In all likelihood if the Suns don't run into peak Hakeem and lose to the eventual champ three years in a row in three grueling very close series they make three straight trips to the Finals and Barkley probably wins at least one championship, maybe even two. So maybe you could say the Suns were a "super team" the way Sham is a super horse because he only lost to the very best all-time in Secretariat.

[Kiddlovesnets]

So according to bronstan's logic, the 18 Warriors are superteam 'cause Lebron couldnt beat them however hard he tried, while the 93 Suns and 96 Supersonics are not because MJ beat them. If we replace the 18 Warriors by the other two teams to play in their place, they'd end up sweeping Lebron's Cavs too, and instantly be labeled as superteams.
:pimp:

[dankok8]

Talking about HOFers is fools' gold because those HOF credentials are heavily dependent on winning a title. If the Sonics beat the Bulls in 1996 is it possible that Kemp, Detlef and possibly even a guy like Hawkins or Perkins make another couple of All-Star games and get into the HOF? Absolutely. Kemp was hurt by a lack of longevity but talent-wise he's a HOFer easily. KJ not already being a HOFer is kind of a travesty to be honest. I think both he and Chambers would have made it comfortably if the Suns beat the Bulls in 1993.

Anyways the 2018 Warriors are better than either of those teams IMO. They are offensive-minded like the 1993 Suns but a bit better.

[Phoenix]

Talking about HOFers is fools' gold because those HOF credentials are heavily dependent on winning a title. If the Sonics beat the Bulls in 1996 is it possible that Kemp, Detlef and possibly even a guy like Hawkins or Perkins make another couple of All-Star games and get into the HOF? Absolutely. Kemp was hurt by a lack of longevity but talent-wise he's a HOFer easily. KJ not already being a HOFer is kind of a travesty to be honest. I think both he and Chambers would have made it comfortably if the Suns beat the Bulls in 1993.

Anyways the 2018 Warriors are better than either of those teams IMO. They are offensive-minded like the 1993 Suns but a bit better.

Direct that to the guy who raised the point about HOFers to begin with (72-10) but I wouldn't say the 96 Sonics winning a title means guys like Detlef, Hawkins and Perkins necessarily get in. Who would you say is better between, say, Glen Rice and Hawkins? If Hawkins wins in 96 as the 4th best player and his career is otherwise what it is, does it make him better than Rice or more HOF worthy? I wouldn't say so. If Hawkins was gonna make more all-star teams than one, what was stopping him? He had a couple of 20ppg seasons and outside of that had a solid but unremarkable career. Far from HOF worthy, and that would be the case even if Seattle won in 96.

Kemp clearly had HOF talent but he fell way off once he left the Sonics. And then you ask yourself why did guys like Grant Hill and Tmac get in on their first year of eligibility and Kemp is still on the outside? If it's about HOF talent then that's a different argument than whether one actually makes it based on whatever arbitrary criteria. Kemp and Payton were the two inarguable HOF talents. Right now Payton is the only HOFer as in who is actually in ( and he was a role player on the one title team he played for, so his peak/prime play is why he got in). Detlef and Hawkins fell into the 'very good' category that you could put on alot of players. Same for Perkins, who incidentally started 20 games in 96. If the rest of his career wasn't HOF worthy I'm not a sure why Seattle winning in 96 with his contributions that season elevates him to that level. He would have been a good piece of the puzzle but we're really stretching here with the HOF talk.

KJ is def HOF 'talent' so I can only imagine lack of longevity is keeping him out( then again the aforementioned Tmac and Grant Hill were pretty much done as superstars by 28 so who knows how this goes). Mark Price is a HOF talent. So is Tim Hardaway. Don't know why either is in( maybe Hardaway is blackballed because of his anti-gay comments but he's been an advocate since). Why isn't Toni Kukoc in the hall, both for his NBA contributions as well as international career? I don't know how these things are decided.

[dankok8]

Direct that to the guy who raised the point about HOFers to begin with (72-10) but I wouldn't say the 96 Sonics winning a title means guys like Detlef, Hawkins and Perkins necessarily get in. Who would you say is better between, say, Glen Rice and Hawkins? If Hawkins wins in 96 as the 4th best player and his career is otherwise what it is, does it make him better than Rice or more HOF worthy? I wouldn't say so. If Hawkins was gonna make more all-star teams than one, what was stopping him? He had a couple of 20ppg seasons and outside of that had a solid but unremarkable career. Far from HOF worthy, and that would be the case even if Seattle won in 96.

Kemp clearly had HOF talent but he fell way off once he left the Sonics. And then you ask yourself why did guys like Grant Hill and Tmac get in on their first year of eligibility and Kemp is still on the outside? If it's about HOF talent then that's a different argument than whether one actually makes it based on whatever arbitrary criteria. Kemp and Payton were the two inarguable HOF talents. Right now Payton is the only HOFer as in who is actually in ( and he was a role player on the one title team he played for, so his peak/prime play is why he got in). Detlef and Hawkins fell into the 'very good' category that you could put on alot of players. Same for Perkins, who incidentally started 20 games in 96. If the rest of his career wasn't HOF worthy I'm not a sure why Seattle winning in 96 with his contributions that season elevates him to that level. He would have been a good piece of the puzzle but we're really stretching here with the HOF talk.

KJ is def HOF 'talent' so I can only imagine lack of longevity is keeping him out( then again the aforementioned Tmac and Grant Hill were pretty much done as superstars by 28 so who knows how this goes). Mark Price is a HOF talent. So is Tim Hardaway. Don't know why either is in( maybe Hardaway is blackballed because of his anti-gay comments but he's been an advocate since). Why isn't Toni Kukoc in the hall, both for his NBA contributions as well as international career? I don't know how these things are decided.

Good post. I don't think Hawkins or Perkins would be locks to get in but they would have a small chance. Kemp though would be a lock especially as the likely FMVP and Schrempf is likely IMO. Detlef would go on to put up a few more great all-around seasons and with a title under his belt he gets a few more ASG appearances and gets in.

My point is these excuses about losing... MJ beat a 1-HOFer Sonics team full of role players... If MJ lost to them he would have lost to a stacked 3-HOFer Sonics team. That's the problem with using HOFers in comparisons. I was making the same point in the Wilt-Russell thread when 3ball said Russell had an 8 HOF edge on Wilt which is a ridiculously wrong take. Inaccurate and faulty in reasoning...

Of course I have no problem admitting that this sword cuts both ways. Bosh made a bunch of ASG and became a shoe-in for HOF despite not playing anything special from 2012-2014 during the Heat's best years. He was probably not better than Schrempf in 1996 but achieved undisputed HOF status thanks to a couple of titles and the ridiculous "Big 3" narratives.

[Phoenix]

Good post. I don't think Hawkins or Perkins would be locks to get in but they would have a small chance. Kemp though would be a lock especially as the likely FMVP and Schrempf is likely IMO. Detlef would go on to put up a few more great all-around seasons and with a title under his belt he gets a few more ASG appearances and gets in.

My point is these excuses about losing... MJ beat a 1-HOFer Sonics team full of role players... If MJ lost to them he would have lost to a stacked 3-HOFer Sonics team. That's the problem with using HOFers in comparisons. I was making the same point in the Wilt-Russell thread when 3ball said Russell had an 8 HOF edge on Wilt which is a ridiculously wrong take. Inaccurate and faulty in reasoning...

Of course I have no problem admitting that this sword cuts both ways. Bosh made a bunch of ASG and became a shoe-in for HOF despite not playing anything special from 2012-2014 during the Heat's best years. He was probably not better than Schrempf in 1996 but achieved undisputed HOF status thanks to a couple of titles and the ridiculous "Big 3" narratives.

Kemp is a bubble candidate( think that's the right term). If the Sonics won in 96 with him playing as he did that would have likely tipped him firmly into HOF territory regardless of his post Seattle flameout. As it stands now he may get voted in during a weak candidate year, but he's been eligible for a while now. If he hasnt gotten in the last 15 years you have to ask what would make him get randomly picked one year. As an aside, Ben wallace should have gotten in by now as well.

Good point about Bosh and this is where the HOF reasoning gets tricky as you said. Without that Miami run he possibly toils in mediocrity for his career, puts up a 8 year window of 20-10 or whatever and nobody cares after the fact. That's partly why the basketball community in general needs to get better at determining who is actually good at basketball without leaning on championships. Its become a lazy argument to separate the cream but so much of how much you win or loss is circumstantial.

[RRR3]

MJ stans babbling like madmen about Sam friggin Perkins being a HOFer :roll: :roll: :roll:


Never go full OLD SKEWL.

[tpols]

For what it's worth for all three teams...

Pre-season odds at a title

1993 Suns +1000
1996 Supersonics +800
2018 Warriors -187

[tpols]

I'm noticing odds in the 90s were so much more even. You could have a 10th ranked team with +1500 odds to win a championship like what it was in 1994... the 10th ranked team for 2019 was at +10000 odds. Incredible lack of parity by comparison today to the 90s. Super teams and all the team hopping did this. It's basically a done deal whose going to win outside injuries.

[Smoke117]

I don't think Hawkins or Perkins would be locks to get in but they would have a small chance.

lol The Sonics could have three peated and Hawkins and Perkins would still have a 0.0% chance to get into the hof.

[dankok8]

Kemp is a bubble candidate( think that's the right term). If the Sonics won in 96 with him playing as he did that would have likely tipped him firmly into HOF territory regardless of his post Seattle flameout. As it stands now he may get voted in during a weak candidate year, but he's been eligible for a while now. If he hasnt gotten in the last 15 years you have to ask what would make him get randomly picked one year. As an aside, Ben wallace should have gotten in by now as well.

Good point about Bosh and this is where the HOF reasoning gets tricky as you said. Without that Miami run he possibly toils in mediocrity for his career, puts up a 8 year window of 20-10 or whatever and nobody cares after the fact. That's partly why the basketball community in general needs to get better at determining who is actually good at basketball without leaning on championships. Its become a lazy argument to separate the cream but so much of how much you win or loss is circumstantial.

I think Bosh would still be a borderline HOFer because he would put up much better numbers without joining the Heat but now he's a lock. Possibly even 1st ballot. To be honest I'm all for championships elevating guys' resumes a lot but only those actually leading their teams to titles. Not like third bananas... For example I consider Isiah Thomas better at basketball than Chris Paul but I'm not sure I consider Chris Bosh better than Elton Brand. I don't think Bosh's rings should have a big impact on how he's perceived because a lot of guys could have done what he did.

[Phoenix]

I think Bosh would still be a borderline HOFer because he would put up much better numbers without joining the Heat but now he's a lock. Possibly even 1st ballot. To be honest I'm all for championships elevating guys' resumes a lot but only those actually leading their teams to titles. Not like third bananas... For example I consider Isiah Thomas better at basketball than Chris Paul but I'm not sure I consider Chris Bosh better than Elton Brand. I don't think Bosh's rings should have a big impact on how he's perceived because a lot of guys could have done what he did.

So the question then becomes should Bosh's seasons outside of 2010-2014 warrant a HOF career, especially since you say his rings shouldn't carry 'that' much weight as a third banana. Or is the combo of his Toronto seasons and what he did in Miami that makes him first ballot in your eyes?

[aj1987]

Talking about HOFers is fools' gold because those HOF credentials are heavily dependent on winning a title. If the Sonics beat the Bulls in 1996 is it possible that Kemp, Detlef and possibly even a guy like Hawkins or Perkins make another couple of All-Star games and get into the HOF? Absolutely. Kemp was hurt by a lack of longevity but talent-wise he's a HOFer easily. KJ not already being a HOFer is kind of a travesty to be honest. I think both he and Chambers would have made it comfortably if the Suns beat the Bulls in 1993.

Anyways the 2018 Warriors are better than either of those teams IMO. They are offensive-minded like the 1993 Suns but a bit better.

How are you this stupid?

Hawkins by '96 - 29 years old and 1 All-Star game

Perkins by '96 - 34 years old and ZERO other accolades

Detlef by '96 - 33 years old and 3x All-Star

Even if the Sonics win the title, there's ZERO percent chance of any of them making the HOF. The only player who remotely had a chance was Detlef and that would've only MAYBE (still doubtful) happened IF he won an FMVP.

Sit down, clown.

[3ball]

How are you this stupid?

Hawkins by '96 - 29 years old and 1 All-Star game

Perkins by '96 - 34 years old and ZERO other accolades

Detlef by '96 - 33 years old and 3x All-Star

Even if the Sonics win the title, there's ZERO percent chance of any of them making the HOF. The only player who remotely had a chance was Detlef and that would've only MAYBE (still doubtful) happened IF he won an FMVP.

Sit down, clown.

Who cares

It's all about talent-deficits, and Jordan faced more than lebron

Lebron only faced talent deficits in 07', 15', and 18'... and maybe 17'

Otoh, Jordan faced talent deficits in most ECF and Finals.. and Jordan had a lottery cast when he overcame the #1 SRS and "big 4" in the 89' 1st Round .. he also beat the 92' Knicks, who destroyed pippen and had the bulls outmatched at every other spot too..

Ultimately, lebron never beat a top 5 SRS team without good scoring and efficiency from a sidekick - so he never had a carry-job against a good team, whereas MJ had carry-jobs against good teams all the time

[aj1987]

Who cares

It's all about talent-deficits, and Jordan faced more than lebron

Lebron only faced talent deficits in 07', 15', and 18'... Maybe 17' but it's debateable

Jordan faced talent deficits in most ECF and Finals.. and Jordan had a lottery cast when he overcame the #1 SRS and "big 4" in the 89' 1st Round .. he also beat the 92' Knicks, who destroyed pippen and had the bulls outmatched at every other spot too..

Ultimately, lebron never beat a top 5 SRS team without good scoring and efficiency from a sidekick - so he never had a carry-job against a good team, whereas MJ had carry-jobs against good teams all the time

Ordan was dogshit first round fodder or lottery bound without Pippen.

A glorified Jerry Stackhouse. Heck, replace Ordan with Stackhouse, he probably does better than 1-9.

:cheers:

[3ball]

Ordan was dogshit first round fodder or lottery bound without Pippen.

A glorified Jerry Stackhouse. Heck, replace Ordan with Stackhouse, he probably does better than 1-9.

:cheers:


Lebron needed 2 pippens (2 stars) or someone to lead the league in playoff scoring... That's a lot more than pippen

Lebron teamed up with Wade/Bosh and went 2/4 including the goat choke and goat loss... That's goat? Really? The best we've ever seen?

gtfo

[RRR3]

How are you this stupid?

Hawkins by '96 - 29 years old and 1 All-Star game

Perkins by '96 - 34 years old and ZERO other accolades

Detlef by '96 - 33 years old and 3x All-Star

Even if the Sonics win the title, there's ZERO percent chance of any of them making the HOF. The only player who remotely had a chance was Detlef and that would've only MAYBE (still doubtful) happened IF he won an FMVP.

Sit down, clown.
MJ stans make no sense. Sam friggin Perkins is a HOFer, but Pippen is trash? Huh?

[3ball]

MJ stans make no sense. Sam friggin Perkins is a HOFer, but Pippen is trash? Huh?


Pippen averaged 15 on 34% in the 96' Finals

That's the worst any 2nd option ever played in a Finals, let alone a WINNING finals

Only MJ beat good teams (top 5 SRS) with poor scoring and efficiency from a sidekick, so only MJ had carry-jobs against good teams

Happy holidays y'all!

[dankok8]

So the question then becomes should Bosh's seasons outside of 2010-2014 warrant a HOF career, especially since you say his rings shouldn't carry 'that' much weight as a third banana. Or is the combo of his Toronto seasons and what he did in Miami that makes him first ballot in your eyes?

Well if he played his whole career in Toronto he'd probably still make 7-8 all-star games because he would put up better numbers as the #1 guy. And that alone is good enough for HOF even in this era.

But yea rings should only carry weight if you win as the #1 guy because that's a relatively rare accomplishment. Even 2nd banana guys on championship teams... there's maybe even two hundred guys in NBA history who could have done it as a 2nd guy. That's not rare and shouldn't figure into HOF discussion much. 3rd banana rings shouldn't matter at all.