Do you guys finally understand about 3-peat chemistry

[3ball]

Stupidest thing I have ever heard.

That's because you're ignorant as **** and know nothing about the game - I have to teach you everything

[COLOR="darkred"]The list below shows every Bulls player that played more than 10 mpg in 1993 (excluding MJ)[/COLOR]


[COLOR="White"].....................[/COLOR]PPG.......MPG

[COLOR="blue"]Pippen............18.6...... 38.6
Grant.............13.2....... 35.6
Armstrong.......12.3.......30.4[/COLOR]
Cartwright........5.6....... 19.9
S Williams........5.9........19.3
Paxson............ 4.2........17.5
R McCray......... 3.5........15.9
S King............. 5.4....... 13.9
W Perdue......... 4.7........13.9
T Tucker.......... 5.2........13.2
D Walker......... 2.6........13.1


The 1993 supporting cast only had 3 guys (Pippen/Grant/Armstrong) that played more than 20 mpg and averaged more than 6 ppg - the #4 thru #12 guys all played LESS than 20 mpg and averaged less than 6 ppg..

The Bulls relied on a mix of interchangeable stiffs who barely played and barely scored for the #4 thru #12 spots.. There isn't a single team in the league where the #4 thru #12 players are anywhere near this bad.

[COLOR="Navy"]So what - you thought I just make this shit up like Lazeruss does?... Nah dawg... My shit is based on FACTS - get used to it and I won't have to chew you out for stupidity.[/COLOR]

[LAZERUSS]

REALITY:

Jordan had, BY FAR, the greatest supporting casts in the very watered down 90's. That decade was so bad that Hakeem won a title with scrubs, by outplaying Ewing and his scrubs in a seven game series.

We know that without Jordan, the Bulls were a 55+ win team, that were one play away from the beating a Knicks team that was a mere four points away from winning the title...all accomplished with Pete Myers averaging 6 ppg in that series.

Now, let's remove Hakeem, Shaq, Drexler, Ewing, Payton, Robinson, K Malone, and every other team's best player in each season of the decade of the 90's. and how many rings do those Bulls teams win? Probably at least six.

[Cocaine80s]

1-9

[Duffy Pratt]

I was just using the parameters you set up.

You said a team with 3peat chemistry would easily win 55 games. The 2003 Lakers had 3peat chemistry, and they lost no-one. Their players were in their primes. This means the 3peat chemistry didn't get them the 55 wins you say it would. Or are you saying that if Shaq had left that team after the 3peat, they would have gotten to 55?

Of course they were not good enough to get to 55 wins that year, and the 3peat chemistry had nothing to do with it. Conversely, the 94 Bulls were good enough to get to 55 wins, and they weren't riding simply on 3peat chemistry.

If Golden State wins this year, and next, and then Curry leaves, will they get to 55 in the following year? No-one knows. And it's likely will not find out.

[Segatti]

1-9

[RepMe]

If the Spurs had won the championship in 2013, 2014 and 2015, they could win 55 this year quite easily without Kawhi (or Duncan), even though many guys are past their prime... Imagine if everyone WAS in their prime.

Ditto on the Warriors - if they won the championship in this year and next year to achieve a 3-peat, they would win 55 easily in 2018 if Curry retired.

But ultimately, the regular season is exhibition season compared to the playoffs - so the Warriors/Spurs would still lose in the playoffs, probably the 2nd Round, just like the Bulls did.

The Bulls were an ordinary 2nd Round team without Jordan, and a 3-peat dynasty with him - those are the facts.. If we wanted to verify Jordan's 3-peat to 2nd Round impact, we'd ask him to comeback and 3-peat again, while winning MVP's the whole way.... Done and Done.

Can you guys now see that I was right?

Why are you so desperate?

[3ball]

Why are you so desperate?

I'm stating obvious realities - why are you so desperate to deny the obvious?.. What are you scared of?

The Warriors and Spurs exceptional chemistry might allow them to win 55 this year without their top player, let alone after 3 straight championship with everyone in their prime.

Regarding the 90's Bulls - they required MJ to lead the league in scoring every year and be the best scorer the league's ever seen for their 6 rings.. He had the biggest gaps between him and his #2 option in the modern era.

Therefore when MJ retired, the Bulls didn't win 55 because they had talented scorers - their success HAD to be based on chemistry by sheer process of elimination (since it wasn't talent).

And the gap between 3-peat and 2nd Round turned out to be OFFENSE - the Bulls were 4th, 7th, and 4th in defense during the first 3-peat, and 6th in 1994... But their offense fell off a cliff - it went from #1 all time for a 3-year period (116, 115, 113) to 14th in the league... Yikes

Teams have a finite amount of energy to expend on both ends - shifts in performance and effort on one side normally take away from the other side - but not with MJ - he's the goat two-way player according to Popovich - his presence enables a two-way team.. Take this L

[3ball]

Conversely, the 94 Bulls were good enough to get to 55 wins, and [COLOR="Red"]they weren't riding simply on 3peat chemistry.[/COLOR]

They were clearly riding on chemistry because the Bulls required MJ to lead the league in scoring every year and be the best scorer the league's ever seen for their 6 rings.. He had the biggest gaps between him and his #2 option in the modern era.

Therefore when MJ retired, the Bulls didn't win 55 because they had talented scorers - their success HAD to be based on chemistry by sheer process of elimination (since it wasn't talent).

And the gap between 3-peat and 2nd Round turned out to be OFFENSE - the Bulls were 4th, 7th, and 4th in defense during the first 3-peat, and 6th in 1994... But their offense fell off a cliff - it went from #1 all time for a 3-year period (116, 115, 113) to 14th in the league... Yikes

Teams have a finite amount of energy to expend on both ends - shifts in performance and effort on one side normally take away from the other side - but not with MJ - he's the goat two-way player according to Popovich - his presence enables a two-way team.. Take this L

Of course the Lakers were not good enough to get to 55 wins that year, and the 3peat chemistry had nothing to do with it.

Sure it did - if they didn't have 3-peat chemistry, they wouldn't have even won the 50 games they won.

So yeah, 3-peat chemistry had a lot to do with it - for you to disregard chemistry and say it had NOTHING to do with it, shows how little you understand the game.

It's likely that you're one of those guys that doesn't believe in anything that isn't statistical - so for you, there's no such thing as momentum (higher levels of optimism, confidence, adrenaline), and certainly not chemistry, no way that exists...

You stat bots should stop watching basketball... You're wasting your time - you'll always be surprised by the results and outcomes because you don't really have a clue what's going on out there.

If Golden State wins this year, and next, and then Curry leaves, will they get to 55 in the following year? No-one knows. And it's likely will not find out.

If this Warriors team wins 3 in a row and everyone is still in their prime and healthy, it's a safe bet that they win 55 without Curry in 2018 (assuming they were good enough to win 55 WITH Curry, which it appears they are).

But again, the autistic logic is to say "well, we can't PROVE that, so let's never make such an assumption or projection".. But the smart way is to indeed make that projection, because it's logical and intuitive based on everything we know (although in your case, you obviously don't know).

[97 bulls]

Why even make these comparisons 3ball? It's inarguable (if that's even a word). The fact is no team has been in the exact same situations as another. Meaning playing against the exact same team with health that's exactly the same, under rules that are exactly the same, vs the competition that exactly the same etc. Under your scenario, it's impossible to gauge. And that's what you want. Because it can't be argued.

We've listed teams with VERY SIMILAR CIRCUNSTANCES. But not very similar results.

Truth be told, the 94 Bulls and 93 Bulls are very different. And your response was to say that the only players that matter are the top three after the best player (again, your assessment ). I've mentioned plenty of teams with a core group (top 3) won multiple championships together. Nothing is good for you.

[Duffy Pratt]

I am not a stat only guy and the only stat total I have mentioned here is win totals, because it strikes me as relevant in a conversation about whether teams that have won three championships in a row will win 55 games in the fourth year.

I don't discount the idea of chemistry, but your notion of 3peat chemistry being somehow different has only one example to back it up, so it's forced and I have strong doubts that it exists. The Laker team I talked about suffered because of bad chemistry between Shaq and Kobe. Their 3peat chemistry didn't lead to them winning 55 games. Rather, the strain between them hurt the team that year and in the years to follow. So, chemistry I buy. But your idea of 3peat chemistry exists only to serve the only point you ever want to make, and is otherwise useless.

[3ball]

[COLOR="Blue"]The CLIFFS to this response is the first response below - the two responses after that are overkill[/COLOR]

I don't discount the idea of chemistry, but your notion of 3peat chemistry being somehow different has only one example to back it up, so it's forced and I have strong doubts that it exists.

This is what I'm talking about - even in the face of obvious logic to the contrary (that chemistry improves over time), you don't believe in the idea of 3-peat chemistry because you only see 1 example of it..

That means you're basing your opinion on stats (empirical evidence) and not the obvious intuitive logic staring you in the face that chemistry improves over time - if chemistry exists, then 3-peat chemistry exists.

Again - chemistry improves over time, so if you concede that chemistry itself exists, then you should find it intuitive that 3-peat chemistry exists, and not give a shit that there's only 1 example of it... 3-peats are once-in-a-generation things - not even that really - they've only happened twice in 50 years.

So if you base all your opinions on stats and empirical evidence, you'll never be able to predict what will happen, and you'll always be surprised by outcomes - what a sad way to live life.

The Laker team I talked about suffered because of bad chemistry between Shaq and Kobe. Their 3peat chemistry didn't lead to them winning 55 games. Rather, the strain between them hurt the team that year and in the years to follow. [COLOR="Red"]So, chemistry I buy. But your idea of 3peat chemistry exists only to serve the only point you ever want to make, and is otherwise useless.[/COLOR]

See, your logic concludes that chemistry DOESN'T improve over time - you believe in chemistry, but not 3-peat chemistry, which defies the entire concept of chemistry - chemistry is based on players spending TIME playing with each other.. Obviously, the more time a team spends together winning rings, the greater chemistry they will have.

The Kobe/Shaq feud not withstanding, a team that won 3 championships in a row will have better chemistry than a team that won 1 championship, or 2 championships (assuming the same core players and coach).. It isn't rocket science.

And again - even without the knowledge that the core spent 3 straight regular seasons and championship playoff runs playing together, we know the 1994 Bulls achieved based on chemistry because every Bulls championship required MJ to lead the league in scoring and be the best scorer ever.. He had the biggest gaps between him and his #2 option in the modern era.

Therefore when MJ retired, the Bulls didn't win 55 because they had talented scorers - their success HAD to be based on chemistry by sheer process of elimination (since it wasn't talent)... Again, this is intuitive logic that makes all the sense in the world - so you shouldn't perceive it as mumbo jumbo that you have to disagree with because it came from 3ball.

I am not a stat only guy and the only stat total I have mentioned here is win totals, because [COLOR="Red"]it strikes me as relevant in a conversation about whether teams that have won three championships in a row will win 55 games in the fourth year. [/COLOR]

Actually, your Shaq/Kobe Laker example from 2002 proves the regular season records mean nothing - considering the Lakers 3-peated that year, they were obviously much better than their 50-win total suggested.. They were clearly a 60+ win team that feuded and screwed around with overconfidence in the regular season.

They knew they could turn it on when needed - and they did, barely - Kobe and Shaq put their differences aside sufficiently in the playoffs to beat the 58-win Spurs and squeak by the 61-win Kings - this gave them the league's 2nd three-peat in 40 years.

In the Bulls case, they didn't have those selfish issues in 1993 and were able to win a few more games (57).. But the complacency and mental fatigue was still there.. The Bulls had already won the chip twice, and knew they could turn it on when needed - so their 57 wins was also not indicative of their true capability.. Accordingly, they too defeated teams with better records in the playoffs (60-win Knicks and 62-win Suns).
.

[LAZERUSS]

[COLOR="Blue"]The CLIFFS to this response is the first response below - the two responses after that are overkill[/COLOR]


This is what I'm talking about - even in the face of obvious logic to the contrary (that chemistry improves over time), you don't believe in the idea of 3-peat chemistry because you only see 1 example of it..

That means you're basing your opinion on stats (empirical evidence) and not the obvious intuitive logic staring you in the face that chemistry improves over time - if chemistry exists, then 3-peat chemistry exists.

Again - chemistry improves over time, so if you concede that chemistry itself exists, then you should find it intuitive that 3-peat chemistry exists, and not give a shit that there's only 1 example of it... 3-peats are once-in-a-generation things - not even that really - they've only happened twice in 50 years.

So if you base all your opinions on stats and empirical evidence, you'll never be able to predict what will happen, and you'll always be surprised by outcomes - what a sad way to live life.



See, your logic concludes that chemistry DOESN'T improve over time - you believe in chemistry, but not 3-peat chemistry, which defies the entire concept of chemistry - chemistry is based on players spending TIME playing with each other.. Obviously, the more time a team spends together winning rings, the greater chemistry they will have.

The Kobe/Shaq feud not withstanding, a team that won 3 championships in a row will have better chemistry than a team that won 1 championship, or 2 championships (assuming the same core players and coach).. It isn't rocket science.

And again - even without the knowledge that the core spent 3 straight regular seasons and championship playoff runs playing together, we know the 1994 Bulls achieved based on chemistry because every Bulls championship required MJ to lead the league in scoring and be the best scorer ever.. He had the biggest gaps between him and his #2 option in the modern era.

Therefore when MJ retired, the Bulls didn't win 55 because they had talented scorers - their success HAD to be based on chemistry by sheer process of elimination (since it wasn't talent)... Again, this is intuitive logic that makes all the sense in the world - so you shouldn't perceive it as mumbo jumbo that you have to disagree with because it came from 3ball.



Actually, your Shaq/Kobe Laker example from 2002 proves the regular season records mean nothing - considering the Lakers 3-peated that year, they were obviously much better than their 50-win total suggested.. They were clearly a 60+ win team that feuded and screwed around with overconfidence in the regular season.

They knew they could turn it on when needed - and they did, barely - Kobe and Shaq put their differences aside sufficiently in the playoffs to beat the 58-win Spurs and squeak by the 61-win Kings - this gave them the league's 2nd three-peat in 40 years.

In the Bulls case, they didn't have those selfish issues in 1993 and were able to win a few more games (57).. But the complacency and mental fatigue was still there.. The Bulls had already won the chip twice, and knew they could turn it on when needed - so their 57 wins was also not indicative of their true capability.. Accordingly, they too defeated teams with better records in the playoffs (60-win Knicks and 62-win Suns).
.

Are you still bringing this NONSENSE to this RIDICULOUS topic?

Geez, you and I both KNOW that Lebron will be in the HOF, and is already a Top-10 player of all-time.

Move on to something else for once.

[3ball]

Are you still bringing this NONSENSE to this RIDICULOUS topic?

Geez, you and I both KNOW that Lebron will be in the HOF, and is already a Top-10 player of all-time.

Move on to something else for once.

Don't try to jump in and muddy the waters.. Duffy Pratt and I were having a good discussion and coming around to some good conclusions about the game.

He's a grown up and can read the post for himself, without haters jumping in and... well, hating... and proving how rent free I am.. You're just annoyed because I countered all your points in your own thread titled "Pop".

And our discussion doesn't mention Lebron and has nothing to do with him.

[97 bulls]

Don't try to jump in and muddy the waters.. Duffy Pratt and I were having a good discussion and coming around to some good conclusions about the game.

He's a grown up and can read the post for himself, without haters jumping in and... well, hating... and proving how rent free I am.. You're just annoyed because I countered all your points in your own thread titled "Pop".

And our discussion doesn't mention Lebron and has nothing to do with him.

I'd like to know what your definition of team chemistry is 3ball.

[3ball]

I'd like to know what your definition of team chemistry is 3ball.

[COLOR="Navy"]DEFINITION OF CHEMISTRY: When the core players that get material minutes and have material production WIN together for an extended period, thus developing a know-how and ability to execute that can only come with time playing together.
[/COLOR]
[COLOR="darkred"]For example, look at the 1993 Bulls' supporting cast below - it shows every Bulls player that played more than 10 mpg (excluding MJ):[/COLOR]


[COLOR="White"].....................[/COLOR]PPG.......MPG

[COLOR="blue"]Pippen............18.6...... 38.6
Grant.............13.2....... 35.6
Armstrong.......12.3.......30.4[/COLOR]
Cartwright........5.6....... 19.9
S Williams........5.9........19.3
Paxson............ 4.2........17.5
R McCray......... 3.5........15.9
S King............. 5.4....... 13.9
W Perdue......... 4.7........13.9
T Tucker.......... 5.2........13.2
D Walker......... 2.6........13.1


The 1993 supporting cast only had 3 guys (Pippen/Grant/Armstrong) that played more than 20 mpg and averaged more than 6 ppg - these were the only guys affecting chemistry.. Everyone else was an interchangeable stiff that played LESS than 20 mpg and scored LESS than 6 ppg.

Marginal bench players who barely play or score (such as spot-up shooters Paxson/Tucker, or bangers King/Williams) are interchangeable - they can be substituted for each other seamlessly and interchangeably without affecting chemistry - if they affected chemistry, there would be no reason for an untalented bench player like them to get any playing time.. Part of their basic role is to facilitate chemistry and not rock the boat.

Accordingly, the only members of the 1993 supporting cast that affected chemistry and were NOT interchangeable stiffs were Pippen/Armstrong/Grant - these were the only guys that played more than 20 MPG and averaged more than 6 ppg..

The other 8 guys on the list above were interchangeable stiffs - this why the Bulls retained their chemistry in 1994 despite turnover of 5-6 players.. All the turnover was among the marginal, interchangeable bench players - the only guys that affected chemistry (Pippen, Grant, Armstrong) were still there.

Does that help 97 Bulls?
.