Statistically, who matches up with "Playoff Jordan"?

[Alhazred]

I'm a joke because I don't like MJ. You're mad that you have to watch Kobe win championships now

You're a joke because you don't know sh-t about NBA history.

And Kobe can win as many rings as he likes, so long as it's in LA.

Bump this thread next year too dawg

I'm not the one who brought this thread back.

[Roundball_Rock]

Come on dude, dont give love to indaman just because it fits your MJ bashing, Im starting to believe you really have something against him.

I've said what imdaman has said numerous times and the facts suggest we are correct. 5 different NBA finals opponents and 6 different ECF opponents in 6 seasons. Where was this great foil to the Bulls? It was a revolving door. There were great teams for individual seasons, like the 93' Suns and 96' Sonics but since when are one hit wonders considered "great" teams? Every other decade, barring the decade of parity that was the 70's, had multiple great teams. The 90's had one. Where was this great competition? Yes, there was competition. There always is. No one wins a championship in any sport without competition. The question is the level of that competition. As I mentioned, even Jordan fans themselves said the toughest competition the 90's Bulls had was the 90's Knicks (this gem came in a hypothetical thread where MJ fans feverishly tried to argue Pippen could never win a ring without Jordan and to do this they hyped the 90's Knicks as a juggernaut that would stop Pippen/Richmond/K. Johnson/Smits/Grant/Kukoc/Armstrong ). What does that tell you?

As to MJ, yes I do have something against him, namely his fans.

[guy]

The Celtics won 32 games in 78'. Anyway, the point is a perimeter player did elevate "scrubs" in Barry and so did centers like Kareem, Wilt, and Russell. Moreover, the "weak league" excuse is demonstrably false since peak/prime Kobe and peak/prime Wade could not get anywhere close to the results Lebron did with "scrubs."

I think Lebron deserves all the props he gets for doing what he has done. Leading that type of talent to the Finals and to 66 wins is remarkable, regardless of his competition. However, do you honestly think he does that in any other conference in the past 30 years? He doesn't do that in the 80s or 90s East or the 80s,90s, or 00s West. I think he might've led the 09 Cavs to that many wins in some seasons of the 00s West, but I doubt in any other situation.

Regarding competition for Jordan, he has a point. The Suns and Sonics were one hit wonders. They were not great teams in the sense of the 80's Celtics that the Lakers faced. The Jazz were legit competition, except that Malone and Stockton forgot to show up in the NBA finals. The 90's were the only decade other than the 70's to not have multiple great teams, and the 70's had 9 different champions so there was parity. The 90's had one great team winning every year with a different opponent in the finals every year until 98'. Even in the ECF the Bulls faced 6 different teams in their title years. Where was this great foil to the Bulls? It was a revolving door of pretenders.)

This is a dumb argument. In no way does that mean they had weak competition. Here's an example: If you put the 60s Celtics, 67 Sixers, early 70s Knicks, 71 Bucks, 72 Lakers, 80s Lakers, 80s Celtics, 83 Sixers, late 80s Pistons, 90s Bulls, 94-95 Rockets, early 00s Lakers, the 00s Spurs, 04-05 Pistons, 08 Celtics, and 09 Lakers all in the same league over a decade, you're very likely going to see different teams every year making the Finals and Conference Finals. Would you say that would be weak competition though? I'm obviously not saying the 90s was that strong, cause clearly no era was ever that strong, but the same logic applies.

You can also counter your argument by saying that because of how competitive the league was, it was harder for teams to stay on top for a long time, which is why there were different teams in the Finals/CF every year, and that other eras that had the opposite trend were weak because those top teams that were going that deep every year only had a few other teams to really worry about. I'm not saying thats true, but someone easily counter your argument with that.

You're also ignoring the fact that with more teams and greater free agency facilitating player movement, you're obviously going to see greater variances in who makes the playoffs/CF/Finals/Champions every year. Its simple math.

You could be right, although I disagree with you, but the point is thats very faulty logic you're using. You can't just look at who's at the top every year and conclude the era is weak or strong. It doesn't work like that at all.

[Roundball_Rock]

Fortunately we have a direct comparison for Lebron in that very conference at the very same time: Wade. Wade with a similarly weak team went 43-39 in the best season of his career. How can this be if it is so easy for an elite player to lead "scrubs" to 60+ wins in the weak 09' East? We also saw peak Kobe with similar teams a few years ago, albeit in the West but the results were not anywhere near Lebron's. There was not a 20+ win difference in competition level between conferences. Moreover, the East is now a solid conference and Lebron kept chugging before the Jamison trade.

Jordan fans quibble too much on details with respect to Lebron and lose the larger point. It isn't about 66 wins or making the NBA finals in 07'. The point is he got far greater results than others in similar situations and would do so in any era. Would he win 66 games in 1967 or 1997? Who cares? He would win a lot more than some others put in that position. Would he reach the NBA finals in 87' or 77'? Probably not but would he be losing in the first round? No. Would he go deeper than some others? Yes.

You can also counter your argument by saying that because of how competitive the league was, it was harder for teams to stay on top for a long time, which is why there were different teams in the Finals/CF every year

Except for the fact that one team stayed on the top for the decade. The 90's weren't the 70's with 9 different champions.

You were one of the people saying the 90's Knicks were the Bulls' chief competition. Compare that to the top competition the other dynasties had.

You're also ignoring the fact that with more teams and greater free agency facilitating player movement, you're obviously going to see greater variances in who makes the playoffs/CF/Finals/Champions every year. Its simple math.

That sounds good in theory but too bad the 2000's happened and the Lakers made the finals 6 times and the Spurs 4 while Detroit made 5 straight conference finals. The 00's were typical: two great teams, a few other very good teams. There were teams with staying power and several one or two hit wonder types like the Nets and Blazers. Really the only decade that fits your description is the 70's, a decade derided by some.

What is clear the Bulls' had no foil like the 80's Lakers/Celtics had with each other or the 60's Celtics had with Wilt's teams and to a lesser extent the West/Baylor Lakers. Even the 00's had the Lakers and Spurs contending at the same time. Using the standard definition of a "great team" the 90's had only one. You can explain that away, although the 2000's throw a wrench in most explanations, but that is a separate question. Look at who was being mentioned as tough competition. The 96' Sonics. Where were the Payton/Kemp Sonics in the rest of the 90's? If they were that strong surely they would have done more, no? How about the 93' Suns? They never even got to the WCF again. 96' Magic? That is a legit example--too bad Shaq left and Orlando collapsed. Had he stayed that could have been legit competition.

[GiveItToBurrito]

Lebron will come the closest, he might even be able to top him at some point.

[Johnni Gade]

Kobe will pass Jordan easily in all these categories.

how ignorant is this

[BlueandGold]

Yes, I read the post, I thought given the OP the point of this thread was for everyone to try and make the dumbest post possible.

uh whats' wrong with the OP.. just because someone doesn't have kobe #1 in some arbitrary stat list it doesn't mean that their trying to slander your idol's name.

I don't see how lebron.. who's obviously much taller, stronger and has a much larger frame doesn't have as many blocks per game in the playoffs than jordan.. especially considering he's already had a couple of "breakout" games in the playoffs. If Lebron were to develop a top-tier post game and take advantage of his body and height more he could easily average 1.5-2 blocks a game, especially during a short interval period like in the playoffs.

[guy]

Fortunately we have a direct comparison for Lebron in that very conference at the very same time: Wade. Wade with a similarly weak team went 43-39 in the best season of his career. How can this be if it is so easy for an elite player to lead "scrubs" to 60+ wins in the weak 09' East? We also saw peak Kobe with similar teams a few years ago, albeit in the West but the results were not anywhere near Lebron's. There was not a 20+ win difference in competition level between conferences. Moreover, the East is now a solid conference and Lebron kept chugging before the Jamison trade.

Lebron's supporting cast last year and this year was nowhere near as bad Wade's last year and this year or Kobe's in 06 or 07. And Lebron last year was arguably better then Kobe and Wade ever were, and I would definitely say thats the case this year. So IMO, its still surprising to me that Lebron has done this much with these teams, but its not surprising to me that Wade and Kobe, lesser players, did that bad with worse teams and couldn't elevate their teams the way Lebron generally does. I agree that the East has been getting better, but it still hasn't been nearly as good as it was in the 80s and 90s.

Jordan fans quibble too much on details with respect to Lebron and lose the larger point. It isn't about 66 wins or making the NBA finals in 07'. The point is he got far greater results than others in similar situations and would do so in any era. Would he win 66 games in 1967 or 1997? Who cares? He would win a lot more than some others put in that position. Would he reach the NBA finals in 87' or 77'? Probably not but would he be losing in the first round? No. Would he go deeper than some others? Yes.

LOL at you of all people saying Jordan fans quibble on details. The point is they are NOT similar situations. The East in 2007-2009 was not a similer situation to the East in 1987-1989. Put 07 Lebron in Jordan's place in 87, and they probably lose in the first round. Better yet, put the 07 Cavs in the 87, and they probably lose in the first round, or in the second round at the very least.

Put 09 Lebron in Jordan's place in 89, or put the 09 Cavs in the 89 Bulls place, and with the benefit of the doubt, I'll say they maybe win about 55 games, but lose in the ECF to the Pistons. So then what are you going to say? That Lebron got far greater results then Jordan because of a measly 8 games?

Except for the fact that one team stayed on the top for the decade. The 90's weren't the 70's with 9 different champions.

And then you can counter that by saying its a testament to the Bulls' greatness that they were able to stay on top while other great teams around them were not able to sustain their position. You can go around the argument whatever way you look at it. Look at my example putting all the great teams in one decade. With that example, you're very likely going to see 9 different champions like the 70s, but you would be an idiot to call that competition "weak".

You were one of the people saying the 90's Knicks were the Bulls' chief competition. Compare that to the top competition the other dynasties had.

I think the Knicks were a great team. I don't think they were as good as the 80s Lakers, Celtics, or Pistons, but they were great enough competition regardless that the Bulls' and Jordan's accomplishments shouldn't be diminished like people like you do. And that doesn't just go for the Knicks, but for many of the teams the Bulls played.

That sounds good in theory but too bad the 2000's happened and the Lakers made the finals 6 times and the Spurs 4 while Detroit made 5 straight conference finals. The 00's were typical: two great teams, a few other very good teams. There were teams with staying power and several one or two hit wonder types like the Nets and Blazers. Really the only decade that fits your description is the 70's, a decade derided by some.

Okay, I'm not saying its always going to happen like that. But simple math clearly shows that its more likely. Obviously teams that have the right foundation, as in great star players to build around such as a Shaq/Kobe/Duncan, great coaches such as PJ/Popovich, and great management to build around that foundation, are going to be more successful then others. Just because it didn't happen, doesn't mean it wasn't more likely at the time.

What is clear the Bulls' had no foil like the 80's Lakers/Celtics had with each other or the 60's Celtics had with Wilt's teams and to a lesser extent the West/Baylor Lakers.

You can't compare the 90s to the 60s and then criticize the Bulls for not having a "foil" that they played every year. The league was 2-3 times smaller. If you cut 60-75% of the teams from the 90s away, there's a good chance the Bulls play the same teams every year. The Bulls might've played the Knicks in the ECF every year and the Jazz in the Finals every year. If the Bulls played the Knicks 7 times in the conference Finals of the 90s, and the Jazz 7 times in the Finals, and beat them with most of the series going 6-7 games, does that make their competition better since now they had a "foil", even though most of those other great teams don't exist now?

And as far as the 80s go, most people will agree that the West was kinda weak in comparison to the East. If the Lakers had the same quality competition that the Celtics had to deal with in the East, there's a great chance they win less championships and make less NBA finals, and as a result, maybe the Lakers/Celtics play each other once as opposed to three times, eliminating that "foil". So by your logic, that makes the competition worse, even though the thing that changed was that the West had better teams and got stronger. Doesn't make much sense right?

Even the 00's had the Lakers and Spurs contending at the same time. Using the standard definition of a "great team" the 90's had only one.

Okay, and if the Bulls were playing in the 00s and won every single championship away from the Lakers and Spurs, then that would've meant they would've been just as dominant as they were in the 90s, and since they were only team that dominated, this era would've been weaker. It would've been considered weak even though neither the Lakers or Spurs got worse, and the only thing that changed was the addition of an all-time great team.

This goes back to the dumb argument that indicates if the Bulls had lost a few times, it would've somehow validated their competition. Lets say the Bulls lose to the Knicks 93, who then go on to win a championship. Then lets say John Starks three-pointer in game 6 of the 94 Finals goes in, and they win it all again to beat the Rockets, the next year's champions. The Bulls then beat the Knicks in 96, and then lets say that huge fight doesn't happen in the 97 ECSF between the Knicks and Heat resulting in so many suspensions, and the Knicks end up winning that series, and then go on to play the Bulls in the ECF only to lose. Under this scenario, the Bulls are 4-2 in 90s playoff series (one loss without Jordan) against the Knicks, a two-time champion and a consensus "great team" as a result. In your opinion, would this have made the Bulls greater as a result of having a what's considered greater competition? Even though the Bulls would actually have one less title and the competition did not TRULY get better, its just that one playoff loss and a John Starks three-pointer creates that illusion?

You can explain that away, although the 2000's throw a wrench in most explanations, but that is a separate question. Look at who was being mentioned as tough competition. The 96' Sonics. Where were the Payton/Kemp Sonics in the rest of the 90's? If they were that strong surely they would have done more, no? How about the 93' Suns? They never even got to the WCF again. 96' Magic? That is a legit example--too bad Shaq left and Orlando collapsed. Had he stayed that could have been legit competition.

The Sonics won 55 games and went to the WCF in 1993, and then after that had seasons of 63, 57, 64, 57, and 61 wins. They regularly owned the Rockets, who won 2 championships and had one of the greatest centers ever and clearly the greatest center of the decade. They did have that notorious collapse in 94, which isn't any worse then 81 Lakers losing to a below .500 Rockets. Some of their other playoff losses were to a great 93 Suns, the 96 Bulls that doesn't need any more explanation, the 97 Rockets led by three HOFers, and the very talented 98 Lakers led by a near-prime Shaq. Nothing to be ashamed of. They were very clearly a big part of the 90s.

The Suns were arguably just as good in 94 and 95, as they were in the 93 Finals. Unfortunately, they ended up facing a championship team led by a HOFer on a killing spree a little bit earlier this time, when they faced Hakeem's Rockets. Nothing to be ashamed of. They were actually a great team even before Barkley got there. Barkley left and that was the end of that.

The 96 Magic were clearly legit competition. They had a top 10 player ever, with another would be HOFer if it wasn't for injuries, who won 60 games and made the Finals the year before. Had he stayed and Penny never got injured, I think they would've definitely given the Bulls a tough time the next two years just on their talent alone, but there immaturity and lack of focus (especially Shaq at the time) would've probably resulted in them losing. But I'm sure some of you would've still disregarded them as legit competition.

Like I said, the point is you can come up with a ton of scenarios that says neither "staying power" or "revolving doors" indicate strong or weak.

[Fatal9]

Current Lebron would have had a legit chance to take down the Pistons in '90 imo. Jordan had an all-star Pippen who was beasting in playoffs, Grant who had developed nicely and a decent team around him. Pippen's health was a factor in game 7 but if Jordan even shows up for one road game in that series (specifically first two games where he shot 17/43, while Grant and Pippen played pretty well...Pippen averaged 17 ppg on 50% over the two games and Grant had 17/9 in game 2, and they held Pistons to just 86 pts), the series possibly could have been over in 6.

[guy]

Current Lebron would have had a legit chance to take down the Pistons in '90 imo. Jordan had an all-star Pippen who was beasting in playoffs, Grant who had developed nicely and a decent team around him. Pippen's health was a factor in game 7 but [B]if Jordan even shows up for one road game in that series (specifically first two games where he shot 17/43, while Grant and Pippen played pretty well...Pippen averaged 17 ppg on 50% over the two games and Grant had 17/9 in game 2, and they held Pistons to just 86 pts), the series possibly could have been over in 6.

LOL at the agenda. Lebron has shot relatively inefficient in entire playoff runs, not just a playoff series or a stretch of 2-3 games, so I wouldn't assume that he would've done any better against what was the best defense in the league at the time.

Sure he would've had a legit chance, the same way Jordan did. But I highly doubt they would've won.

[Indian guy]

if Jordan even shows up for one road game in that series

MJ had 2 fine road games in Game 1 & 7 of that series. Averaging 32.5/7.5/7. Problem was everybody else. Bulls averaged a pathetic 75.5 ppg in those 2 losses.

MJ also hurt himself early in Game 1. Never moved that well the rest of the series.

[NBASTATMAN]

Current Lebron would have had a legit chance to take down the Pistons in '90 imo. Jordan had an all-star Pippen who was beasting in playoffs, Grant who had developed nicely and a decent team around him. Pippen's health was a factor in game 7 but if Jordan even shows up for one road game in that series (specifically first two games where he shot 17/43, while Grant and Pippen played pretty well...Pippen averaged 17 ppg on 50% over the two games and Grant had 17/9 in game 2, and they held Pistons to just 86 pts), the series possibly could have been over in 6.

He is the only player that I would say that could have had as good or better of a chance than Mj... So yea it is possible.. Their defensive tactics would work less against Lebron in my opinion cuz of Lebron's passing.. Which I believe is better than Mj's... I know I am going to be killed for writing that but that is the truth...

[Heilige]

He is the only player that I would say that could have had as good or better of a chance than Mj... So yea it is possible.. Their defensive tactics would work less against Lebron in my opinion cuz of Lebron's passing.. Which I believe is better than Mj's... I know I am going to be killed for writing that but that is the truth...

You already made that post in this thread. Why did you post it again?

[juju151111]

]Current Lebron would have had a legit chance to take down the Pistons in '90 imo[/SIZE]. Jordan had an all-star Pippen who was beasting in playoffs, Grant who had developed nicely and a decent team around him. Pippen's health was a factor in game 7 but if Jordan even shows up for one road game in that series (specifically first two games where he shot 17/43, while Grant and Pippen played pretty well...Pippen averaged 17 ppg on 50% over the two games and Grant had 17/9 in game 2, and they held Pistons to just 86 pts), the series possibly could have been over in 6.

Faketal strikes again.