57 win Bulls - MJ = 55 win Bulls .... 61 win Cavs - LeBron = 19 win Cavs

[Milbuck]

The difference between a championship and being within one game of the conference finals (and being robbed, at that) is not even remotely close to the difference between going from #1 in your conference to literally dead last.

The Spurs just two years ago from went from one of the most dominant championship runs to losing in the first round, with pretty much the exact same main rotation.

In 2014:
Duncan
Kawhi
Parker
Diaw
Ginobili
Green
Splitter
Belinelli
Mills

In 2015:
Kawhi
Duncan
Parker
Green
Diaw
Ginobili
Belinelli
Splitter
Joseph
Baynes
Mills


So let's see here....the Bulls without MJ had a lesser playoff drop off than the Spurs did running the exact same group of players

[3ball]

So let's see here....the Bulls without MJ had a lesser playoff drop off than the Spurs did running the exact same group of players

The Spurs have always been one-off champs that lost the next season - that's the definition of one-off champs: they aren't as dominant and lose the next season.

Otoh, Jordan's presence didn't just make the Bulls one-off champs like the Spurs were - his presence turned them into undefeatable, 6-peat champs.. From 1991 to 1998, the Bulls never lost a playoff series when Jordan was present for a full season, but they fell to a 2nd Round team without him.

Furthermore, not only were the 2014 Spurs one-off champs, but their veteran big 3 were on the severe decline heading into 2015.. Otoh, the 94' bulls were 3-peat champs and everyone was in their prime.

Finally, the Spurs occasionally had early round exits, but they were a legit championship-level team with legit championship talent, so they would always recover by making or winning the Finals in subsequent years.. Otoh, the Bulls without Jordan didn't have championship-level talent and weren't going to recover from the 2nd Round loss to make the Finals in future years - they were PERMANENTLY a 2nd Round team or worse without Jordan, after being a 3-peat dynasty with him.

[Milbuck]

The Spurs have always been one-off champs that lost the next season - that's the definition of one-off champs: they aren't as dominant and lose the next season.

Otoh, Jordan's presence didn't just make the Bulls one-off champs like the Spurs were - his presence turned them into undefeatable, 6-peat champs.. From 1991 to 1998, the Bulls never lost a playoff series when Jordan was present for a full season, but they fell to a 2nd Round team without him.

Furthermore, not only were the 2014 Spurs one-off champs, but their veteran big 3 were on the severe decline heading into 2015.. Otoh, the 94' bulls were 3-peat champs and everyone was in their prime.

Finally, the Spurs occasionally had early round exits, but they were a legit championship-level team with legit championship talent, so they would always recover by making or winning the Finals in subsequent years.. Otoh, the Bulls without Jordan weren't going to recover from the 2nd Round loss and make the Finals in future years - they were PERMANENTLY a 2nd Round team or worse without Jordan, after being a 3-peat dynasty with him.

aka

Lebron less Cavs = 42 game RS dropoff, 1st seed to last in conference
Jordan less Bulls = 2 game RS dropoff, champions to within one game of the conference finals

[NBAGOAT]

You're the one who brought up the '94 ECSF, and you're the one one talking about if, but, would've, could've, and should've. The Bulls lost, end of story.

And yes, going from a 3-peat dynasty to a second round playoff team is a significant drop. I never said it was definitively worse than the Cavs' drop-off from '10 to '11, just that it could be argued. The '94 Bulls have become one of the most overrated teams of all time.

no it cant be. why not view it this way. the bulls went from the best team in the league to like a top 5 team. the cavs went from like a top 5 team to 30th. even if the bulls won 75 games and swept the knicks/suns(which they didn't), the Cavs would still have a bigger dropoff because going from contender to 2nd worst record in league is huge. ofc there's other context but tht's for another discussion. Millbuck's spurs example is a great example of which round you finish not being everything

[LostCause]

How about the 4-straight Finals Heat (2011 - 2014) going straight to the lottery without LeBron

This is before we get into the fact that the Heat retooled with stars like Whiteside, Dragic, Deng, while the Bulls replaced MJ with a D-league player.

These guys they retooled with didn't even play most of the season together, some not even for the Heat
2014
Bosh - 44 games
Dragic - 26 games
Wade- 62 games
Whiteside - 48 games (Started 32, literally WAS a D-League player)

When they did, they reached the 2nd round of the playoffs (Last season)

Honestly don't see why you were unbanned. Just more of the same willfully ignorant nonsense

[DaHeezy]

lol

Pure, unadulterated crap. The Bulls dropped 2 rounds (and thats putting it nicely for you, again, a bad call from the finals), compared to 42 games... you're reaching. Another salty Miami fan.

Jordaneers can never see that logic. In no sport in any league would a Championship team lose its best player and still be a playoff contender be worse than a team that had a 40+ lose swing.

[DaHeezy]

It's hilarious that guys like 3ball and GrapeApe can't accept a flaw in their idols armor. What's clear to the rest of the sane world will never be accepted by delusional fans

[3ball]

Jordan-less Bulls = 2 game RS dropoff, champions to within one game of the conference finals

It seems that you aren't aware of history, so I'll inform you - the Bulls were half-assing the 1993 regular season to ensure they had enough to 3-peat in the playoffs.. This was evident in the playoffs, when the 57-win Bulls defeated two teams with better records and HCA (60+ win Knicks and Suns).

And again - the 94' Bulls aren't like the Spurs - the Spurs were a legit championship-level team with legit championship talent, so they could always recover from playoff losses by making or winning the Finals in subsequent years.

Otoh, the Bulls without Jordan didn't have championship talent and weren't going to recover from the 2nd Round loss to make the Finals in future years - they were PERMANENTLY a 2nd Round team or worse without Jordan, after being an undefeatable, 3-peat dynasty with him.
.

[LostCause]

For what it's worth, Delonte West and Varejao were pretty impactful players for that Cavs team by pretty much all the advanced metrics and especially on/off stats

Ignoring the fact that Chicago also ran a system that wasn't entirely dependant on one player dominating the possessions making it much easier to integrate talent is dumb. Kukoc, Kerr and Wennington fit perfectly for the Bulls, and Kukoc was a stud. The championship experience argument is real. However once they lost another impactful player (Grant) the following season Chicago was barely holding on to a .500 record before Jordan returned

Obviously, a 40-win dropoff in the RS is worse than a 2-win dropoff in the RS (Going from 3 straight championships to losing to an opponent you always beat in the 2nd round is a monumental difference that can't be understated, either), but the comparison doesn't matter as it's apples to oranges.

Fact is, Lebron leaving teams will naturally be more impactful because he controls more of the teams production, so when he's gone people have to do more because he was pretty much doing it all, whether he truly had to or not. This both helps and hurts, though. This is why Jordan has better success with high quality teammates whereas Lebron has better success with worse teammates.

[3ball]

It's hilarious that guys like 3ball and GrapeApe can't accept a flaw in their idols armor. What's clear to the rest of the sane world will never be accepted by delusional fans

The Bulls' 55 wins without Jordan isn't a flaw in his armor because it shows what he built - it shows the level of teamwork and chemistry that can be developed when a player doesn't team-hop.

And we know for a fact that the 94' Bulls won based on chemistry and not talent - every Bulls championship team required MJ to lead the league in scoring and be the greatest scorer ever.. So when the Bulls made the 2nd Round in 1994, it wasn't because they had a bunch of talented scorers - it was because of the 3-peat caliber of execution, strategy, and mental ability accumulated from 3-peating with MJ..

Indeed, the Bulls had to 3-peat with MJ first, before they could make the 2nd Round without him.

[AirBonner]

The Bulls' 55 wins without Jordan isn't a flaw in his armor because it shows what he built - it shows the level of teamwork and chemistry that can be developed when a player doesn't team-hop.

And we know for a fact that the 94' Bulls won based on chemistry and not talent - every Bulls championship team required MJ to lead the league in scoring and be the greatest scorer ever.. So when the Bulls made the 2nd Round in 1994, it wasn't because they had a bunch of talented scorers - it was because of the 3-peat caliber of execution, strategy, and mental ability accumulated from 3-peating with MJ..

Indeed, the Bulls had to 3-peat with MJ first, before they could make the 2nd Round without him.

They were going to be good with or without Jordan. Jordan didn't "make them" Jackson made them.

[3ball]

This is why Jordan has better success with high quality teammates whereas Lebron has better success [COLOR="Red"]with worse teammates[/COLOR].

At which part of Lebron's career did he have worse teammates than Jordan?

Young Jordan's 2nd options of Woolridge, Oakley and 2nd year Pippen (14/6/3) weren't top 4 players at their position in the conference (all-stars), whereas Lebron's 2nd options of Big Z and Mo Williams WERE all-stars, and therefore better relative to their competition than Jordan's cast.

Jordan's weaker cast is shown by the stats - his 33/8/8 yielded 47 wins for the 1989 Bulls, whereas Lebron's 28/8/7 yielded 66 wins in for the 2009 Cavs.. The 19 win gap can't be due ONLY to a weaker conference - it must be due to a weaker supporting cast as well.. Jordan's weaker cast also explains why he was required to DO MORE thru 31 years old, including 30% more PPG in the playoffs with equal assists.

[Milbuck]

Funny how we need paragraphs upon paragraphs upon paragraphs to make excuses for why the Bulls were still really damn good without Jordan, but there's only one thing we have to say to explain Lebron's impact:

With Lebron = 61 wins, 1st seed. Without Lebron = 19 wins, dead last

[AirBonner]

Funny how we need paragraphs upon paragraphs upon paragraphs to make excuses for why the Bulls were still really damn good without Jordan, but there's only one thing we have to say to explain Lebron's impact:

With Lebron = 61 wins, 1st seed. Without Lebron = 19 wins, dead last

Ordan and Ilt stans share this defect. It is to distract you from the original topic in the hopes that you will die by the time you finish reading it.

[3ball]

With Lebron = 61 wins, 1st seed. Without Lebron = 19 wins, dead last

The 2011 Cavs didn't just lose Lebron - they lost Mo Williams, Shaq, Varejao, Delonte and Zydrunas, who averaged 50 ppg, or half the teams points and most of their chemistry.

This massive loss of talent and chemistry explains their regular season drop-off.

But the regular season is garbage and meaningless anyway.. In the playoffs, Lebron's Cavs fell from 2nd Round to lottery, whereas the 93' Bulls fell from 3-peat dynasty to permanent, 2nd Round team (or worse - see the record in 1995 or 1998 without Jordan).. Are you seriously saying that falling from 3-peat dynasty to permanent 2nd Round team isn't a far bigger drop-off?