Peak Kevin Durant added to Michael Jordan's NBA Finals opponents.

[michaelm]

The MJ stans are ridiculous..

But the non fans who are resorting to hypothetical teams to beat him are not ?.

[michaelm]

MJ is legitimately a mythological figure around here. If adding one of the best players of all time in KD to his opponents doesn’t make a difference, then MJ’s opponents were weak as hell.

Make your choice lol

In regard to a hypothetical ?. Why is a choice needed in regard to something which doesn’t exist ?.

[iggymcfrack]

None of what you just said explained why they weren’t role players, which they absolutely were. They got in during a time when the competition was weak. Fact of the matter is that they weren’t on that level. Again, the Lakers were pretty much just like the 09 and 10 Cavaliers teams. Very reliant on their lone superstar and not enough else to compensate. And even if what you were saying is true, they still aren’t the same as those dynasty lakers teams.

You seem to be misunderstanding in general what I mean about these two teams with your last line of “a, the Jazz beat a good team”. Yeah, no ****. I never said they weren’t good teams. That was never the argument I was making. What I have been saying from the start (and I made it very clear multiple times, I don’t know why I need to keep repeating it) is that the person I quoted originally said the Jazz beat the same teams that dominated the LeBron era (btw that isn’t even true either). No, they didn’t.

The '97 and '98 Lakers were NOTHING like the '09 and '10 Cavs. Shaq missed 52 games those 2 seasons. The Lakers went 32-20 without him. When LeBron missed games from 2008-2010, the Cavs went 1-13. That's a 62% winning percentage for the Lakers without Shaq and a 7% winning percentage for the Cavs without LeBron. If you want to compare Shaq's supporting cast in '97 and '98 to a LeBron supporting cast, your best comparison would be the Heat from 2011-2013.

No it wouldnt. The 98 Lakers won with a superstar player and depth while the Heat were top heavy with 3 star players. Eddie Jones was very good but i dont think he was ever at the level of Bosh and Wade. That Lakers team was very deep.

Right, it was a totally different style of supporting cast. The Lakers did it with depth while the Heat did it with top end talent. I’m just saying that in terms of quality, those years would probably be the closest match LeBron had to Shaq’s supporting cast in ‘97 and ‘98.

[scrabbarista]

I am simming this when I have free time. Started like a week ago and I'm on Game 3 of 1996. Waiting until I finish to share the results.

Sims are sketchy, because a ton depends on what ratings/rosters you use, but when I post I'll pretend my sim is definitive.

EDIT: Finished Monday, June 2nd, but probably won't have time/energy to write it up until Wednesday; and if not, then Friday.

Fun exercise with surprising results.

[ScrantonBulls]

The MJ stans are ridiculous..

But the non fans who are resorting to hypothetical teams to beat him are not ?.

Lol no, not even close. That's not how it works. So somebody offers up a hypothetical with a clear answer. The people who disagree with the clear answer are a bit deluded and massive homers. Nearly HALF of the voters voted for an absurdly deluded answer Basically somebody baited MJ homers into making an absurd claim (that MJ wins all 6 titles I'd the other team got Kevin Durant). But the person who offered up the hypothetical is ridiculous, not those voting for the ridiculous claim?

You always make the claim that there are just as many people on the other side making ridiculous claims. Look at all the votes for winning "all" 6. Yeah, it really isn't close. Bookmark this thread for reference.

[michaelm]

The MJ stans are ridiculous..

But the non fans who are resorting to hypothetical teams to beat him are not ?.

Lol no, not even close. That's not how it works. So somebody offers up a hypothetical with a clear answer. The people who disagree with the clear answer are a bit deluded and massive homers. Nearly HALF of the voters voted for an absurdly deluded answer Basically somebody baited MJ homers into making an absurd claim (that MJ wins all 6 titles I'd the other team got Kevin Durant). But the person who offered up the hypothetical is ridiculous, not those voting for the ridiculous claim?

You always make the claim that there are just as many people on the other side making ridiculous claims. Look at all the votes for winning "all" 6. Yeah, it really isn't close. Bookmark this thread for reference.

It is a fundamentally ridiculous question/debate in the first place, there isn’t and can’t be any evidence for any answer that is made. Perhaps the Jordan fans who bit were unwise to do so, but the OP fairly clearly wasn’t a Jordan fan, and as someone said in the brief part of the thread I did read imagine a player being so good that partisans of another player have to come up with fantasy teams which might have a chance of beating his teams.

It has been my observation that it is usually not those who can win an argument based on reality who feel the need to resort to hypotheticals. You have admitted this is a troll thread by the way.

[bledredwine]

Next up - What if Michael Jordan formed superteams in free agency? How many rings would he have?

What if he teamed up with David Robinson?

... wait I forgot, we only have the coping hypothetical threads.

we don't have to have those what ifs because the bulls front office did all the work of forming super teams for him.

Really? Name one finals where a teammate averaged anywhere near 27 ppg?

How about 22?

1 out of 6 is all I'm asking.

You guys don't know what a super team is.

[ScrantonBulls]

But the non fans who are resorting to hypothetical teams to beat him are not ?.

Lol no, not even close. That's not how it works. So somebody offers up a hypothetical with a clear answer. The people who disagree with the clear answer are a bit deluded and massive homers. Nearly HALF of the voters voted for an absurdly deluded answer Basically somebody baited MJ homers into making an absurd claim (that MJ wins all 6 titles I'd the other team got Kevin Durant). But the person who offered up the hypothetical is ridiculous, not those voting for the ridiculous claim?

You always make the claim that there are just as many people on the other side making ridiculous claims. Look at all the votes for winning "all" 6. Yeah, it really isn't close. Bookmark this thread for reference.

It is a fundamentally ridiculous question/debate in the first place, there isn’t and can’t be any evidence for any answer that is made. Perhaps the Jordan fans who bit were unwise to do so, but the OP fairly clearly wasn’t a Jordan fan, and as someone said in the brief part of the thread I did read imagine a player being so good that partisans of another player have to come up with fantasy teams which might have a chance of beating his teams.

It has been my observation that it is usually not those who can win an argument based on reality who feel the need to resort to hypotheticals. You have admitted this is a troll thread by the way.

Imagine posting on a basketball forum and complaining about hypotheticals and claiming it's impossible to answer a hypothetical. Damn near every discussion on basketball forums are hypothetical in some way. Why don't we see you claiming the same thing in the GOAT thread or any other comparison threads?

[ScrantonBulls]

Next up - What if Michael Jordan formed superteams in free agency? How many rings would he have?

What if he teamed up with David Robinson?

... wait I forgot, we only have the coping hypothetical threads.

we don't have to have those what ifs because the bulls front office did all the work of forming super teams for him.

Really? Name one finals where a teammate averaged anywhere near 27 ppg?

How about 22?

1 out of 6 is all I'm asking.

You guys don't know what a super team is.

Looking solely at ppg to determine the strength of a team? That's big brain analysis right there.

[michaelm]

Lol no, not even close. That's not how it works. So somebody offers up a hypothetical with a clear answer. The people who disagree with the clear answer are a bit deluded and massive homers. Nearly HALF of the voters voted for an absurdly deluded answer Basically somebody baited MJ homers into making an absurd claim (that MJ wins all 6 titles I'd the other team got Kevin Durant). But the person who offered up the hypothetical is ridiculous, not those voting for the ridiculous claim?

You always make the claim that there are just as many people on the other side making ridiculous claims. Look at all the votes for winning "all" 6. Yeah, it really isn't close. Bookmark this thread for reference.

It is a fundamentally ridiculous question/debate in the first place, there isn’t and can’t be any evidence for any answer that is made. Perhaps the Jordan fans who bit were unwise to do so, but the OP fairly clearly wasn’t a Jordan fan, and as someone said in the brief part of the thread I did read imagine a player being so good that partisans of another player have to come up with fantasy teams which might have a chance of beating his teams.

It has been my observation that it is usually not those who can win an argument based on reality who feel the need to resort to hypotheticals. You have admitted this is a troll thread by the way.

Imagine posting on a basketball forum and complaining about hypotheticals and claiming it's impossible to answer a hypothetical. Damn near every discussion on basketball forums are hypothetical in some way. Why don't we see you claiming the same thing in the GOAT thread or any other comparison threads?

Imagine thinking any conclusions about the world can be drawn from arguments concerning the entirely hypothetical. Resorting to such hypotheticals is hardly a sign the OP can win any argument based on what has actually occurred in this reality, and similarly you given you agree with him, although we already knew that.

As you have also pretty much admitted in your previous reply to me this is also an obvious troll thread, given there is no possible answer which is not open to criticism if the stupid hypothetical is applied to the real world the question being pretty much along the lines of “when did you stop beating your wife ?.” Pretty much any answer is not invalid either, given the premise is ridiculous in the first place.

[bledredwine]

we don't have to have those what ifs because the bulls front office did all the work of forming super teams for him.

Really? Name one finals where a teammate averaged anywhere near 27 ppg?

How about 22?

1 out of 6 is all I'm asking.

You guys don't know what a super team is.

Looking solely at ppg to determine the strength of a team? That's big brain analysis right there.

Yep, much bigger brained than your reply, but nice attempt to downplay it with the typical excuse.

What do the top 10 players of all time have in common of all categories?
How about the history of Finals MVPs?

When a player has to carry the offensive load, that player is not on a super team.

Just because your favorite player stacked teams and formed superteams, doesn't mean you have to project the same thing
onto Jordan. Sorry, but 91-93 especially wasn't remotely close to a super team or a typical championship squad in strength when you remove
the first options respectively,

and yet they three-seated.

[scrabbarista]

I am simming this when I have free time. Started like a week ago and I'm on Game 3 of 1996. Waiting until I finish to share the results.

Sims are sketchy, because a ton depends on what ratings/rosters you use, but when I post I'll pretend my sim is definitive.

EDIT: Finished Monday, June 2nd, but probably won't have time/energy to write it up until Wednesday; and if not, then Friday.

Fun exercise with surprising results.

I was going to do write-ups for every series (I took notes), but I don't have that level of energy for something no one seems particularly interested in. But I said I'd post the results, so here they are.

I used 2014 Durant.

NOTE: These were not my rosters - though I tweaked them very slightly - so the results do not align at all with my own opinion. In fact, when I predicted one title for Chicago, I specifically said '97 and '98 were the only two years I thought the Bulls wouldn't have a chance.

Conclusion: The people who said 1, 2, or 3 may be the most sensible.

1991 - Lakers win 4-3

MJ - 37.3 ppg
KD - 22.4 ppg

G7 103 - 90 -- Magic 21/13/7 -- Jordan 35/3/1

1992 - Blazers win 4-3

MJ - 35.6 ppg
KD - 22.7 ppg

G7 109 - 84 -- KD 24/6/5 -- MJ 27/4/2

1993 - Suns win 4-3

MJ - 36.4 ppg
KD - 26.2 ppg

G7 - 103 - 99 -- KD 34/7/5 -- MJ 37/3/3

1996 - Sonics win 4-3

MJ - 30.6 ppg
KD - 27.0 ppg

G7 90 - 86 -- KD 40/4/4 -- MJ 21/4/6

1997 - Bulls win 4-2

MJ - 35.5 ppg
KD - 18.7 ppg

G6 95 - 92 -- Malone 27/12/1 -- Jordan 31/3/6

1998 - Bulls win 4-3

MJ - 31.1 ppg
KD - 27.6 ppg

G7 81 - 78 -- KD 40/8/2 -- MJ 31/6/2

Final result: Bulls go 2-4, with three Game 7's being decided by a total of eleven points.

[jerok]

The 98 Bulls were not a super team. Jordan was the only all-star. Pippen played in 44 games and had a back injury in game 6 of the finals, the only game in NBA finals history where 1 player(Jordan) outscored all of his teammates. In the last 2 minutes Jordan scored, stole the ball, and scored again. No other Chicago Bulls touched the ball. No other Chicago Bulls averaged 17 or more ppg during the playoffs. Dennis Rodman didn’t make an all-defensive team and washed out of the league afterwards. Luc Longley was the starting center and only played in 58 games and missed 3 playoff games due to injuries that would lead to his retirement in 2001. It’s the oldest team to ever win a championship.

1998 was a carry job. Jordan’s VORP in the regular season and playoffs is almost equal to Pippen’s VORP + Rodman’s VORP + Kukoc’s VORP.

Comparing 2017 Curry to 1998 Pippen is just silly.

Regular season
Curry: 25, 7, and 5, 62.4 TS%, 24.6 PER, 79 games played
Pippen: 19, 6, and 5, 53.3 TS%, 20.4 PER, 44 games played

Playoffs
Curry: 28, 7, and 6, 65.9 TS%, 27.1 PER
Pippen: 17, 7, and 5, 50 TS%, 19.5 PER

Now do that same thing you just did, on any other teams in 98 that Bulls played in the playoffs.
Just pippen vs the other teams 2nd best player. LOLs.

Not accounting Dennis (HOF, top 75) and Tony (HOF, 6th man of the year), and Harper (20 pt scorer before sacrificing to join bulls)
Cause if you had to compare Dennis, Tony, Harper, to the rest of the players on other teams best 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th palyers, you'll be scratching your head trying to make a case for yourself.

Kukoc was 6th man of the year in 1996, not 1998. He is in the HOF based on his international accomplishments. He never made an all-star team.

Rodman wasn’t in his prime and was 36.

Ron Harper was 34 years old and was 4 years from being a 20 point scorer.

Comparing the 1998 Bulls to the 2017 Warriors is silly. That’s like calling the 2022 Lakers a Superteam because they had LeBron, AD, Westbrook, Carmelo, Rondo, Dwight, DeAndre Jordan, Isiah Thomas, and Trevor Ariza.

You really think Jordan’s supporting cast was so much better than Reggie Miller’s? The Bulls won the series because Jordan had almost double the GmSc of Reggie Miller. Rik Smits, the Davis brothers, Mark Jackson, Jalen Rose, Chris Mullin, ect.

In 1998 there was an actual superteam of Drexler, Hakeem, and Barkley, who lost to the Jazz who lost to the Bulls.

So Kukoc being 6th man 2 years prior makes him a scrub in 98?
Ron Harper was averaging 20ish before joining the bulls, how can he average 20 with MJ and PiP and Toni on the same squad? You have to sacrifice. Does he become auto scrub that Jordan had to carry?
Rodman wasn't in his prime at 36, true, but I didn't see anyone guarding Malone as effective as him.

Down playing players just to elevate MJ is one of the many traits of 90s delusionals.

I can confidently say Bulls had better starters and supporting cast than any of the teams in 90's bull faced on their way to their championships.
Its the only way MJ wins, if the stacked is in his favor. This goes for College, NBA and Olympics. If you can prove it other wise please elaborate.

So age is against the argument if its players on the Bulls. Like Harper was 34, Rodman was 36.
But this argument is opposite when you talk about other teams? Superteam Rockets, how old were those guys again?
You gotta be more consistent bro.

[jerok]

The 98 Bulls were not a super team. Jordan was the only all-star. Pippen played in 44 games and had a back injury in game 6 of the finals, the only game in NBA finals history where 1 player(Jordan) outscored all of his teammates. In the last 2 minutes Jordan scored, stole the ball, and scored again. No other Chicago Bulls touched the ball. No other Chicago Bulls averaged 17 or more ppg during the playoffs. Dennis Rodman didn’t make an all-defensive team and washed out of the league afterwards. Luc Longley was the starting center and only played in 58 games and missed 3 playoff games due to injuries that would lead to his retirement in 2001. It’s the oldest team to ever win a championship.

1998 was a carry job. Jordan’s VORP in the regular season and playoffs is almost equal to Pippen’s VORP + Rodman’s VORP + Kukoc’s VORP.

Comparing 2017 Curry to 1998 Pippen is just silly.

Regular season
Curry: 25, 7, and 5, 62.4 TS%, 24.6 PER, 79 games played
Pippen: 19, 6, and 5, 53.3 TS%, 20.4 PER, 44 games played

Playoffs
Curry: 28, 7, and 6, 65.9 TS%, 27.1 PER
Pippen: 17, 7, and 5, 50 TS%, 19.5 PER

Now do that same thing you just did, on any other teams in 98 that Bulls played in the playoffs.
Just pippen vs the other teams 2nd best player. LOLs.

Not accounting Dennis (HOF, top 75) and Tony (HOF, 6th man of the year), and Harper (20 pt scorer before sacrificing to join bulls)
Cause if you had to compare Dennis, Tony, Harper, to the rest of the players on other teams best 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th palyers, you'll be scratching your head trying to make a case for yourself.

Wrong.

The Sonics win, the Jazz are similar or better, especially if you actually watched and knew Pippen was a shell of himself in the sixth championship all series, where Jordan had to score over 50% of the team’s points in the final game, Phoenix straight up had more fire power, though the Bulls had better defense, and LAL had plenty of talent as well.

Laughable.
Sonics has 2 hall of Famer. 1 Top 75 Player.
Bulls had a hall of famer, best 3 point shooter percentage ever, and a guy that average 20 points before joining the bulls.
That's not including MJ, Pippen and Dennis, 3 Top 75 Player ever.
LOL

Jazz, 2 Hall of Famers.
Jordan had to guard Jeff Hornacek, Jeff Hornacek would have to guard either Pippen or Jordan on switches.
Man that competition is so good. Make a case for Jeff Hornacek.

Suns had more firepower? Sure they may run a bit deeper.
But Bulls had 3 of the Top 4 Players.
Say MJ and Barkley cancel each other out (MJ is better obviously)
You can confidently say You picking got KJ, Thunder, Ainge, over Pip, Grant, Armstrong? L O L


I watched ball growing up in the 90s, unlike you, probably know just from The Last Dance haha.

Pippen playing 10% of his former self, is still a lot better than Jeff effin Hornacek. Jazz 2nd Leading scorer.
Check them stats, cause we know you didn't watch shi.

Now go on make some more delusional 90s take. I'm up for a debate.

[jerok]

Kukoc was 6th man of the year in 1996, not 1998. He is in the HOF based on his international accomplishments. He never made an all-star team.

Rodman wasn’t in his prime and was 36.

Ron Harper was 34 years old and was 4 years from being a 20 point scorer.

Comparing the 1998 Bulls to the 2017 Warriors is silly. That’s like calling the 2022 Lakers a Superteam because they had LeBron, AD, Westbrook, Carmelo, Rondo, Dwight, DeAndre Jordan, Isiah Thomas, and Trevor Ariza.

You really think Jordan’s supporting cast was so much better than Reggie Miller’s? The Bulls won the series because Jordan had almost double the GmSc of Reggie Miller. Rik Smits, the Davis brothers, Mark Jackson, Jalen Rose, Chris Mullin, ect.

In 1998 there was an actual superteam of Drexler, Hakeem, and Barkley, who lost to the Jazz who lost to the Bulls.

Their finals opponents best players were 34 year old Karl Malone, 35 year old Stockton, and 35 year old Jeff Hornacek. That geriatric ass squad made the finals. That's how weak the NBA was at that time. Compared to the rest of the NBA the Bulls certainly were a superteam. Kukoc was massively important and a phenomenal #3 player for the Bulls.

That Jazz team was so weak that they swept a Lakers team with 26 year old Shaq that was two years away from starting their 3-peat and beat a Duncan/Robinson Spurs team in 5 that was one year away from starting their dynasty. The two teams that owned the "Lebron era" could only take a combined one game off of that "geriatric" Jazz squad.

Uh, you do know who the Lakers ended up getting during their 3 peat right? Some guy named Kobe.
Same with the spurs. Some dude named Timmy.

Great take bro.

[ball_takes23]

Their finals opponents best players were 34 year old Karl Malone, 35 year old Stockton, and 35 year old Jeff Hornacek. That geriatric ass squad made the finals. That's how weak the NBA was at that time. Compared to the rest of the NBA the Bulls certainly were a superteam. Kukoc was massively important and a phenomenal #3 player for the Bulls.

That Jazz team was so weak that they swept a Lakers team with 26 year old Shaq that was two years away from starting their 3-peat and beat a Duncan/Robinson Spurs team in 5 that was one year away from starting their dynasty. The two teams that owned the "Lebron era" could only take a combined one game off of that "geriatric" Jazz squad.

Uh, you do know who the Lakers ended up getting during their 3 peat right? Some guy named Kobe.
Same with the spurs. Some dude named Timmy.

Great take bro.

Tim Duncan was a first team all-NBA player in 1998, bro. playing next to a second team all-NBA teammate on a 56 win team, bro.

[dantas]

KD is an intriguing player.

He has impressive individual numbers and technical qualities. There are few holes in his game as a scorer, he can shoot from anywhere, with a high success rate. However, KD has been accused of being passive throughout his career.

But it seems to me that KD's passivity has actually been an attempt to preserve his numbers. At times, KD has become too passive and tried to force fewer shots, even though the team needed to be more aggressive and attack the basket, it seemed to be a quest to maintain his shooting percentage rather than win.

[Iwasawitness]

Next up - What if Michael Jordan formed superteams in free agency? How many rings would he have?

What if he teamed up with David Robinson?

... wait I forgot, we only have the coping hypothetical threads.

we don't have to have those what ifs because the bulls front office did all the work of forming super teams for him.

Really? Name one finals where a teammate averaged anywhere near 27 ppg?

How about 22?

1 out of 6 is all I'm asking.

You guys don't know what a super team is.

Name one finals teammate of LeBron who got FMVP votes in the years they won.

[MavsDirk41]

Now do that same thing you just did, on any other teams in 98 that Bulls played in the playoffs.
Just pippen vs the other teams 2nd best player. LOLs.

Not accounting Dennis (HOF, top 75) and Tony (HOF, 6th man of the year), and Harper (20 pt scorer before sacrificing to join bulls)
Cause if you had to compare Dennis, Tony, Harper, to the rest of the players on other teams best 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th palyers, you'll be scratching your head trying to make a case for yourself.

Kukoc was 6th man of the year in 1996, not 1998. He is in the HOF based on his international accomplishments. He never made an all-star team.

Rodman wasn’t in his prime and was 36.

Ron Harper was 34 years old and was 4 years from being a 20 point scorer.

Comparing the 1998 Bulls to the 2017 Warriors is silly. That’s like calling the 2022 Lakers a Superteam because they had LeBron, AD, Westbrook, Carmelo, Rondo, Dwight, DeAndre Jordan, Isiah Thomas, and Trevor Ariza.

You really think Jordan’s supporting cast was so much better than Reggie Miller’s? The Bulls won the series because Jordan had almost double the GmSc of Reggie Miller. Rik Smits, the Davis brothers, Mark Jackson, Jalen Rose, Chris Mullin, ect.

In 1998 there was an actual superteam of Drexler, Hakeem, and Barkley, who lost to the Jazz who lost to the Bulls.

So Kukoc being 6th man 2 years prior makes him a scrub in 98?
Ron Harper was averaging 20ish before joining the bulls, how can he average 20 with MJ and PiP and Toni on the same squad? You have to sacrifice. Does he become auto scrub that Jordan had to carry?
Rodman wasn't in his prime at 36, true, but I didn't see anyone guarding Malone as effective as him.

Down playing players just to elevate MJ is one of the many traits of 90s delusionals.

I can confidently say Bulls had better starters and supporting cast than any of the teams in 90's bull faced on their way to their championships.
Its the only way MJ wins, if the stacked is in his favor. This goes for College, NBA and Olympics. If you can prove it other wise please elaborate.

So age is against the argument if its players on the Bulls. Like Harper was 34, Rodman was 36.
But this argument is opposite when you talk about other teams? Superteam Rockets, how old were those guys again?
You gotta be more consistent bro.

Lol lets talk about Ron Harper…..

Prior to joining the Bulls Ron Harper played for the 27-55 Clippers averaging 20 points per game on
- 42% fg 30% from 3 and 71% from the line so 42/30/71 shooting splits
- Harper averaged 20 points per game on 17.8 field goal attempts per game
- Harper averaged over 3 turnovers per game
- Harpers TS was 49%

He was a chucker…..next time you go on Basketball Reference to look up a stat look up everything.

The 92 Trail Blazers were like the 11 Mavs. One superstar in Drexler and a veteran squad with size, depth, shooting….they were deeper. Phoenix Barkley and KJ plus depth, Seattle had Payton and Kemp plus depth, Utah with Malone and Stockton and depth. Quit acting like the Bulls had an advantage. Same story with you….

[lessthanjake]

Kukoc was 6th man of the year in 1996, not 1998. He is in the HOF based on his international accomplishments. He never made an all-star team.

Rodman wasn’t in his prime and was 36.

Ron Harper was 34 years old and was 4 years from being a 20 point scorer.

Comparing the 1998 Bulls to the 2017 Warriors is silly. That’s like calling the 2022 Lakers a Superteam because they had LeBron, AD, Westbrook, Carmelo, Rondo, Dwight, DeAndre Jordan, Isiah Thomas, and Trevor Ariza.

You really think Jordan’s supporting cast was so much better than Reggie Miller’s? The Bulls won the series because Jordan had almost double the GmSc of Reggie Miller. Rik Smits, the Davis brothers, Mark Jackson, Jalen Rose, Chris Mullin, ect.

In 1998 there was an actual superteam of Drexler, Hakeem, and Barkley, who lost to the Jazz who lost to the Bulls.

So Kukoc being 6th man 2 years prior makes him a scrub in 98?
Ron Harper was averaging 20ish before joining the bulls, how can he average 20 with MJ and PiP and Toni on the same squad? You have to sacrifice. Does he become auto scrub that Jordan had to carry?
Rodman wasn't in his prime at 36, true, but I didn't see anyone guarding Malone as effective as him.

Down playing players just to elevate MJ is one of the many traits of 90s delusionals.

I can confidently say Bulls had better starters and supporting cast than any of the teams in 90's bull faced on their way to their championships.
Its the only way MJ wins, if the stacked is in his favor. This goes for College, NBA and Olympics. If you can prove it other wise please elaborate.

So age is against the argument if its players on the Bulls. Like Harper was 34, Rodman was 36.
But this argument is opposite when you talk about other teams? Superteam Rockets, how old were those guys again?
You gotta be more consistent bro.

Lol lets talk about Ron Harper…..

Prior to joining the Bulls Ron Harper played for the 27-55 Clippers averaging 20 points per game on
- 42% fg 30% from 3 and 71% from the line so 42/30/71 shooting splits
- Harper averaged 20 points per game on 17.8 field goal attempts per game
- Harper averaged over 3 turnovers per game
- Harpers TS was 49%

He was a chucker…..next time you go on Basketball Reference to look up a stat look up everything.

The 92 Trail Blazers were like the 11 Mavs. One superstar in Drexler and a veteran squad with size, depth, shooting….they were deeper. Phoenix Barkley and KJ plus depth, Seattle had Payton and Kemp plus depth, Utah with Malone and Stockton and depth. Quit acting like the Bulls had an advantage. Same story with you….

Here’s my view on this:

There’s a real distinction between different Bulls teams in terms of the supporting cast.

The 1996-1998 Bulls were definitely a deep team. On top of Pippen and Rodman, Kukoc and to a lesser extent Harper were both top-tier role players. They were akin in impact to other top-tier role players like Aaron Gordon, Robert Horry, Shane Battier, Lamar Odom, etc. Having those two guys is the primary reason that the second-three-peat Bulls were even more dominant than the first-three-peat Bulls despite Jordan not actually being quite as good as he’d been in the first three peat. Aside from that, Kerr was also a pretty solid role player, and probably better than Armstrong was in the first three-peat years.

That said, Rodman was not actually all that great by this point in his career. Rodman was very old by the time he was on the Bulls and well past his prime. He certainly was still a great rebounder, but his Bulls years get way overrated. He was closer to a neutral player than anything else, particularly in 1997 and 1998, where he struggled in the playoffs (being pretty bad in the 1997 playoffs, getting benched in the 1998 playoffs, and basically being done in the NBA after that). The depth in the rest of the supporting cast made them really strong regardless. In 1998 though, when you combine Rodman’s decline with Pippen’s health issues in 1998 and the aging of the roster in general, you end up with the Bulls still being pretty deep but also very old. That was a flawed team (and had tons of organizational strife on top of it), while the 1996 and 1997 teams were fantastic. Of course, those 1996 and 1997 teams also won 72 games and 69 games.

The 1991-1993 Bulls were not a deep team. Pippen was great, and Horace Grant was really good, but the rest of the team was mostly negative players, with one or two arguably neutral players (at least one of Paxson or Armstrog was pretty neutral in each year IMO). And even Pippen and Grant weren’t totally consistent in how good they were. They both had real down years in 1993. They were near their peak levels in 1992, and somewhere in between in 1991. The baseline to compare this team to is the 2011 Heat supporting cast—a team with one superstar teammate, another star teammate that has a tertiary role, and a bunch of negative or neutral players. The 1993 Bulls were worse than that, because Scottie and Horace just weren’t that good that year. The 1992 Bulls were better than that, because Scottie and Horace were great that year (and specifically I think 1992 Horace was better than 2011 Bosh). Meanwhile, the 1991 Bulls supporting cast was about even with the 2011 Heat. Of course, Jordan won the title all these years, while LeBron needed the Heat to add really strong role players like Shane Battier in order to win. Meanwhile, in 1992, when the Bulls 2nd and 3rd best players were at its strongest out of those years, Jordan led the Bulls to a 67-win, 10 SRS season—despite the rest of the supporting cast being weak—which was better than LeBron managed even after upgrades to the supporting cast. This is where the most obvious difference with LeBron comes. Jordan won a three-peat with a team that was only about as good as LeBron totally collapsed with and needed more help from in order to win.