Did MJ really go against tougher competition?

[wallsfamily]

COmparing to LeBron...? Not sure... probably harder. Comparing to Kobe, Shaq, Duncan... no way. Do we have a stat on 50win teams beaten by each?

beaten or faced

[Pablo Novi]

I've seen this a lot in this thread, and it's really not true. The expansions didn't really increase the number of 50 win teams at all. Maybe it helped produce more wins for some of the top tier teams, but to be honest I couldn't find any evidence of that. Here is a break down of each expansion draft during the MJ era and the number of 50 win teams in the season before and after the draft:

1988 Expansion Draft:
1987-1988 Season: 8
1988-1989 season: 7

1 less 50 win team after the draft

1989 Expansion Draft:
1988-1989 season: 7
1989-1990 season: 9

2 more 50 win teams after the draft

1995 Expansion Draft:
1994-1995 Season: 8
1995-1996 Season: 7

1 less 50 win team after the draft

There was no significant change in 50 win teams surrounding the expansion drafts. They're all around the same. In addition, It's essentially the same teams (give or take one or two) from season to season. Expansion drafts do not weaken the league as much as people are making it out. It can account for more wins for some teams, but it doesn't make that much of a difference to the top tier teams over all. The teams that were on top before, remain on top after. If it were really that much easier, one would expect to see more 50 win teams.

For reference, let's look at the number of 50 win teams from 2010 to 2016:

2009-2010: 12
2010-2011: 9
2011-2012: 2 (woah)
2012-2013: 7
2013-2014: 9
2014-2015: 10
2015-2016: 6

Outside of the 2011-2012 season, the 2009-2010 season, and possibly the 2015-2016 season, there isn't really much difference in terms of the number of 50 win teams compared to the MJ era. The number of top tier teams has pretty much remained the same.

*The information was all obtained off of basketball-reference.com. A google search will take you there quickly.

I posted this (as part of a larger post) a few pages ago in this thread; but I'm repeating it because it's like the actual RECORDS of the expansion teams has just NOT figured in hardly any posts since I posted it. The expansion teams had ATROCIOUS records; and MOST of the time they were in the Eastern Conf.; so this helped the best East Conf teams more than it did the best West Conf teams.

Also somebody (or a couple) tried to claim that, vis-à-vis the watering-down of the League, there's so many teenagers in the League now that this more than offsets the expansion teams influence. But expanding by 4 teams (at the start of the Bulls first three-peat, mean the League got diluted all-of-a-sudden by 17+%. 17% of the today's NBA is not composed of teenagers; and most of the teenagers aren't getting starters minutes. When the next expansion happened "coincidentally at the very start of the 2nd three-peat!", in those 8 years that represented a 25+% increase in players or a 25+% dilution of the talent-pool.

Nowadays we've had an expansion of 1 team in 20 years combined with an influx of tons of int'l players. Therefore, the NBA has never been more un-diluted or never been STRONGER (to use one word) in terms of the strength of the talent-pool.

Really, all you need to know is how ATROCIOUS those expansion teams' records were - ALL the other teams had to have benefitted from so many easy games each season; and particularly the one's with the most top-end talent had to have benefitted from that the most.

Another way to think about it is this: Suppose that the League during the next two seasons added 17+% more teams (i.e. 5 new teams; and then a few years later added enough new teams to mean the total expansion equaled 25+%, or 8 expansion teams in 8 years. HOW MANY OF US WOULD CLAIM THAT THERE WAS NO DILUTION OF TALENT??? OR IT WAS NOT WORTH MENTIONING?

Wouldn't ALL of expect ALL the non-expansion teams to benefit a lot; and that the teams with the best top-end talent would benefit the most from 5 and then 8 NEW teams? Wouldn't then ALL the top teams (whichever ones they were) look historically very good to great - with those unusually very-good to great records. So whichever team (and its star player) would look like they had beaten historically very-good to great teams (just like it LOOKED during the Bulls' two repeats)?
-----

"You can not IGNORE what adding 6 teams in only 8 years does to the general level of talent (and how much better it makes the top teams look) when they went from only 23 teams up to 29.

Particularly in these specific years:
89, 90, 91, 92, 93 (4 teams added);
......... 96, 97, 98 (2 teams added).

JUST LOOK HOW TERRIBLY THE EXPANSION TEAMS DID IN THEIR 3-4 FIRST YEARS, EXACTLY THE PEAK MJ-BULLS YEARS!
Also, (not shown here, but logically obvious): as the expansion teams got better, the top "Great" teams got worse. Hmmm.

98 (29 Tms): Bulls 62-20 East: Tor 16-66; ......................... West: Van 19-63 ............. EXPAN: .................... 17.5- 64.5 (2)!!
97 (29 Tms): Bulls 69-13 East: Tor 30-52; ......................... West: Van 14-68 ............. EXPAN: .................... 22.0- 60.0 (2)!!
96 (27 Tms): Bulls 72-10 East: TOR 21-61; ........................ West: VAN 15-67 ............. EXPAN: .................... 18.0- 64.0 (2)!!
95 (27 Tms): Bulls 47-35 East: Cha 50-32, Mia 32-50, Orl 57-25;West: Min 21-61 ............. EXPAN: 40.00 - 42.00 (4)
94 (27 Tms): Bulls 55-27 East: Cha 41-41, Mia 36-46, Orl 50-32;West: Min 20-62 ............. EXPAN: 36.75 - 45.25 (4) 43.0-39.0 (2)
93 (27 Tms): Bulls 57-25 East: Cha 44-38, Mia 36-46, Orl 41-41;West: Min 19-63 ............. EXPAN: 34.00 - 47.00 (4) 38.5-43.5 (2)
92 (27 Tms): Bulls 67-15 East: Cha 31-51, Mia 38-44, Orl 21-61;West: Min 15-67 ............. EXPAN: 28.75 - 53.25 (4) 29.5-52.5 (2) !
91 (27 Tms): Bulls 61-21 East: Cha 26-56, Mia 24-58; ............ West: Min 29-53, Orl 31-51 EXPAN: 27.50 - 54.50 (4) 27.5-54.5 (2) !
90 (27 Tms): Bulls 55-27 East: ............. MIA 18-64,ORL 18-64; West: Min 22-60,Cha 19-63 EXPAN: 19.25 - 62.75 (4) 18.0-64.0 (2)!!
89 (25 Tms): Bulls 47-35 East: CHA 20-62; ......................... West: MIN 15-67 ............. EXPAN: .................... 17.5-64.5 (2)!!
88 (23 Tms): Bulls 50-32
"

Yet the team with the most wins vs the 96 Bulls was the expansion Toronto Raptors.

Such a fact doesn't change the general tendencies League-wide.
Just as today, when a team sucks, the opposing team has an easy game (and thus its top players don't have to play as hard and/or as long); so too back then -

Look, we're looking at expansion teams (during their first 3-4 years each) with an average w-l of almost exactly 20-62 -
that's PER EACH EXPANSION TEAM: 42 (mostly very easy) wins per year for the rest of the teams in the League.

Specifically addressing the years of the two Bulls' repeats:
Totaling the excess of LOSSES over wins of ALL the expansion teams each year,
we see the following for the number of WINS divided up by the non-expansion teams:
[but of course, the better the team, the more, by average, they benefit from the additional expansion team NET losses)

1998: 94 wins spread over 27 teams (3.5 extra wins PER non-expansion team) i.e. Bulls would go from 62.0 - 20.0 to 58.5 - 23.5
1997: 76 wins spread over 27 teams (2.8 extra wins PER non-expansion team) i.e. Bulls would go from 69.0 - 13.0 to 66.2 - 15.8
1996: 92 wins spread over 27 teams (3.4 extra wins PER non-expansion team) i.e. Bulls would go from 72.0 - 09.0 to 68.6 - 12.4
1993: 52 wins spread over 23 teams (2.3 extra wins PER non-expansion team) i.e. Bulls would go from 57.0 - 25.0 to 54.7 - 27.3
1992: 97 wins spread over 23 teams (4.2 extra wins PER non-expansion team) i.e. Bulls would go from 67.0 - 15.0 to 62.8 - 19.2
1991:108 wins spread over 23 teams (4.7 extra wins PER non-expansion team) i.e. Bulls would go from 61.0 - 21.0 to 56.3 - 25.7

So instead of the Bulls' GREAT w-l records of:
1998 62-20
1997 69-13
1996 72-10
1993 57-25
1992 67-15
1991 61-21
AVERAGE BULLS' RECORD FOR THE SIX YEARS: 64.7 - 17.3 (an EXCELLENT record for the best team each year) (79% wins)

We have the Bull's with (historically speaking) not all that impressive w-l records of:
1998: 58.5 - 23.5
1997: 66.2 - 15.8
1996: 68.6 - 12.4
1993: 54.7 - 27.3
1992: 62.8 - 19.2
1991: 56.3 - 25.7
AVERAGE BULLS' RECORD FOR THE SIX YEARS: 61.2 - 20.8 (an AVERAGE record for the best team each year) (74.6% wins)

PLUS, remember that all the other TOP teams' win-totals would also be reduced accordingly by an average of 3.5 wins a year.

This would then shift them from appearing as All-Time top teams that the Bulls beat; to AVERAGE top teams that the Bulls beat.

All in all, TAKING THE ATROCIOUS RECORDS OF THE SIX EXPANSION TEAMS (in their first 3-4 years each);
a) The record of the Bulls for those six years is not nearly as impressive as it appears AND
b) The records of the Bulls' top opponents for those six years is not nearly as impressive as people have thought.

CONTRAST THAT with the fact that the NBA has expanded by only ONE team in the last 21 seasons (AND has had an influx of international players while the US talent pool has continued to grow) and the winning records of the Championship teams in the recent past look EVEN MORE impressive.

Particularly the GSW 73-9 record from last season (as compared with the ADJUSTED 68.6 - 12.4 Bulls' record from 1996)

N.B. Conversely, IF during the last 8 years, the NBA had expanded by a similar percent to what it did right BEFORE/DURING the Bulls' two three-peats; we'd see a SIGNIFICANT improvement of the records of THE Top Team each year AND of the other top teams - making THE Top Team look decidedly better than they already look. GSW's 73-9 might be 76.5 - 5.5 or better !

[Pg81]

Picture current Kawhi with Kobes footwork and better vert . He would destroy any era guys ..just let it go . This is classic iconoclasm when someone reached other worldy heights we always try to knock them down a peg after we have built them up

Or maybe it is an attempt to show people that MJ was not the infallable god Jordan Jockers and the media try to make him to be.
You know it is actually the same how people here try to knock Wilt down a peg with silly per 36 stats, so why should Jordan not suffer the same treatment?

[Black Jack]

Picture current Kawhi with Kobes footwork and better vert . He would destroy any era guys ..just let it go . This is classic iconoclasm when someone reached other worldy heights we always try to knock them down a peg after we have built them up

his first step is quicker than kawhi's also

His everything is better than Kawhi's. Jordan was an incredibly great athlete with his feet on the floor. Fluid, huge hands, super strong, super smart. Watch the tape! It's not like we're talking about rumors about Wilt or something. Just watch the footage.

[Hadley]

The competition in the 80s and 90s was way worse then its now. But all the old players in the medida obviously always try to tell people that "back then" everything was tougher and better...

[Next Coming]

LeBron has faced tougher competition no doubt. Spurs in 2007, 2013, and 2014, and Warriors in 2015 and 2016 were probably better than any team Jordan faced in the finals.

Jordan wouldn't have lost to the 2011 Mavericks though!

Credit where it's due... Dirk was unstoppable in the 2011 Finals... a performance for the ages. Can't fault Lebron for loosing to that.

He was outplayed by Jason Terry. That's inexcusable.

[Pablo Novi]

MJ's title teams were extremely strong, so much more than every team in the NBA. They were stacked, probably more than any other teams featuring a non-MJ "GOAT" candidate.

The question is still subjective: were the teams in MJ's era so bad or were the Bulls just that damned good? It's hard to quantify this using just win totals and the like of opposing teams.

They were not bad per se. If not for the Bulls the 90s would have been one of the most evenly matched era in NBA history. 94 Bulls showed that they were at least an ECF/title contender with just Pippen and Grant.

The 90s Bulls were imho about as good as any other all time great team like Magic/Kareem Lakers, Bird's Celtics, etc.
Sawp those 90s Bulls with Magic/Kareem Lakers or Bird Celtics and the result would be more or less the same.

ALL HAIL, EQUALITY ! (Of Leagues, Decades & Positions)

If I APPEAR to be sticking up for the old-timer fans; well, I guess it's because I am.
But NOT because that was when I first started watching (and because of that, I MIGHT be favoring those 1960s players over subsequent ones. In fact, my GOAT Top 50 list has basically the same players as most people's do - and my GOAT rankings BY POSITION are not much different from the general consensus either.

So, then WHAT IS different in my analysis? In one word:
EQUALITY

1. Equality of LEAGUES (I include and value NBL history; I include and value ABA history)
For the first two years of the dual-Leagues: NBL-BAA, the NBL was CLEARLY superior; during the last 6 years of the dual Leagues: NBA-ABA, the ABA's top-end talent was about equal to the NBA's - as seen but after-merger All-NBA Teams. I give value to (but reduced) to the earlier NBL and the first 2-3 years of the ABA).

2. Equality of DECADES (I treat ALL decades (expect prior to 1960) as equal in terms of the quality of the top 5 or so players.
I give value to (but reduced) to the 1950s (which I rate at approximately 50% the level of the 60s and onward; I rate the 1940s at approximately 25% the level of the 60's and onward.) Because the further you go back from 1959 towards 1939, the less were the number of games played per season - I also reduce, by the equivalent %, the value of those years.

3. Equality of POSITIONS (I treat each position as approximately equal to the other 4 - so in each descending set of five GOAT spots, I have one guy from each position; i.e., in MY GOAT Top 5 I have: KAJ, Magic, MJ, LeBron and TD; in my second first, one from each position, etc).

X. Adjusting for ever-increasing DEPTH (I increase the number of GOAT ~50 players allotted to each decade to reflect the very gradual improvement in the DEPTH of play. So, for example: I've got: 5 players from the 50s+40s; 6 players from the 60s; 7 from the 70s; etc.)

This "system" of analysis has some IMPORTANT benefits:
a) LEVEL PLAYING FIELD: It treats the top players (and teams) from each decade as essentially equal;
b) IT C-O-U-L-D result in a tremendous decrease in flame-warring based on any number of more-subjective criteria being used.
----
PABLO'S KEY CRITERIA FOR MEASURING THE GREATEST OF A NBA-ABA-NBL TOP PLAYER:
UNIT OF MEASUREMENT: ALL-LEAGUE SELECTIONS (1st & 2nd Teams only; with 1st-Team selections valued more highly)
In other words, the more All-League 1st or 2nd Team selections you got/get, the greater the player you were/are.

We all know that there are dozens of different ways to measure greatness (regular stats, advanced stats, combinations of stats, etc). For ME, the key "stat" is the opinion of the All-League selectors - they were THERE, THEN; their jobs were to cover the players and I TRUST THEIR selections more than any "more objective" stat or combination of stats.

But, if people just look at a player's overall career - they may be unduly influenced by his Peak or Prime; or, conversely, by negative aspects of his career. Some players (like MJ) had far greater IMAGES than did other players (like KAJ).

Placing my highest emphasis on overall careers (after all we are comparing careers of players in the final analysis) - I look at how many great years each player had (again by All-League 1st & 2nd Team selections). The more great years, the greater the career. Giving more value (points) to 1st-Team selections than to 2nd-Team selections; I add up each player's points.

I then list the players ranked BY POSITION (by each's total points).
I then take the #1 player by each position and include them in my GOAT Top 5; the #2 for each position = my GOAT #6-10.

I BELIEVE that up to that point, this is THE BEST way to build up an initial GOAT Top 50~.

I SUGGEST that what people do THEN; is they compare BY POSITION each player to the player ranked ONLY 1 spot above or below him. Here's where each fan/analist would get to ADJUST for different factors THEY consider important.

IF the player had some outstanding positives or negatives (better than average or worse than average: TEAM-mate; skill; Play-Off performances, etc, - the fan/analyst would move a player up or down one spot maximum PER position.

Then most of us would have reasonably similar GOAT lists; but still varying (within limits) based on each evaluator's priorities.

The result would be better GOAT lists; better GOAT discussions and TONS LESS subjectivity and flame-warring. IMO

N.B. AND, as the players from the past (and their fans) depart - they are neither over-valued nor under-valued later on.

[Pablo Novi]

The competition in the 80s and 90s was way worse then its now. But all the old players in the medida obviously always try to tell people that "back then" everything was tougher and better...

I'd bet that the opinions of fans (and even many NBA players) is TREMENDOUSLY influenced by when they were most enthralled by the League (or, in the case of players - when THEY played). In other words,
fans and players of the 1960s - rank players from then TOO HIGH (and most players from before and after then TOO LOW)
Fans and players of the 1970s - rank players from then TOO HIGH (...)
Fans and players of the 1980s - rank players from then TOO HIGH (...)
etc.

Not only is this pretty-darned SUBJECTIVE; it pretty much GUARANTEES that we'll never have anything close to a consensus; WHILE also guaranteeing that the flame-warring will be endless.

One particular example that is especially dear to my heart.
The Big "O" was one of my first super-loved players. I still have him ranked GOAT #2 PG (and thus in MY GOAT Top 10).
BUT, the way he has addressed GOAT-type questions REALLY disappoints me: he seems to claim that the players from HIS era were the best ever. This embarrasses me FOR him. Many other players (and not just basketball players) do the same about THEIR era.

It may be only "natural" but it is not the most objective way to analize players (or teams) while, again, automatically contributing to increasing the heat of the discussion.

I've been saying for decades to young(er) fans:
You might want to imagine yourself a decade or two into the future; do you really want to THINK you are SURE NOW; when, almost inevitably your opinion will be quite different many years from now.

Youth has tremendous advantages; but foresight doesn't seem to be one of them.
Of course, the same can be said for "nostalgia for 'my' past era".

[richboy]

Jordan is pretty overrated when you think about it.

He would've lost against Duncan's Spurs or Shaq and Kobe lakers.

Not saying he isn't great but I just think it's funny that people think he's the goat, like it's an actual fact with no point in debating, which leads me believe that it was his marketability and popularity that led him to GOAT status

Of course he swept the Shaq and Penny Magic


This thread is pretty stupid. Lebron has only faced 1 NBA first team or second team player in the Eastern conference playoffs since leaving Cleveland. He lost badly in the other two matchups vs first team all NBA Eastern conference players in KG and Dwight Howard. He is pretty much gifted a trip to the finals every year since he killed the competition of the conference by going to the most talented team in the conference. He has 1 series that is competitive and he is the champ.

We talking about the competition. Lebron is winning on average around 55 games a year since the decision. Jordan won a average of 66 games his last 6 full years in Chicago. Jordan faced tough Knick, Piston, Pacers, Magic.

Players Jordan beat just in Eastern Conference playoffs

Charles Barkely
Isiah Thomas
Shaq
Penny Hardaway
Patrick Ewing
Alonzo Mourning
Chris Webber
Dominique Wilkins
Larry Johnson
Mutombo

Just remember the only one of these great players that has a series win vs Jordan is Isiah Thomas. Only other player to beat Jordan in the East in one of his full seasons in Chicago is Larry Bird. It has been argued if Thomas and Bird did't exist Jordan would have went to the finals every year of his Chicago career. You can make that case because no other team beat Jordan in a playoff series. Every team that beat MJ was a championship level team.

He is 3-0 vs Charles Barkley in the playoffs. He was undefeated against Patrick Ewing in the playoffs. He lost a series to Shaq but only his short comeback season when he wasn't conditioned. The next year they swept Shaq and Penny. Years later people are saying he would have lost to Shaq and Kobe. That Magic team was suppose to be the future dynasty and they couldn't get a game on the Bulls. Jordan ran thru Hall of Famers. How many Hall of Famers has Lebron faced in the playoffs. Dwight Howard lost. Kevin Garnett lost. Jeff Teague is your matchup in the ECF now and that gets you a Jordan comparison.

I guess now the narrative it is more tough in the finals for Lebron. Not sure what this is based on except opinion. The Golden State Warriors is the only historic team Lebron has faced. The other teams were good but it isn't like we should look at them as unable to be beaten. The Spurs only beat OKC when OKC had injuries. I don't know if the Spurs could beat the Payton and Kemp Sonics. I don't know if the young OKC Thunder could beat those Sonics or the KG and Barkley Suns. In the finals it is all speculation. One thing I do know is MJ undefeated in the finals.

The reality is we have people trying to tie Lebron and MJ. Just like they did with Kobe. Always looking for ways to bring down MJ because they can't elevate Kobe or Lebron. Now it is well MJ would have lost to the Spurs or would have lost to the Mavs. Like Jordan didn't face greatness during his era. Dirk who lost to Wade a few years earlier could now beat a team with Wade and Lebron doesn't send some kind of red flags. That a Spurs team that lost 4 straight to OKC is a free throw away from 3-0 vs Lebron.

Lebron is a great player. IMO he will no question make my top 5 all-time. Most likely I will only have MJ and Jabbar in front of him when it is done. This lets try to tear down MJ is laughable.

[richboy]

The competition in the 80s and 90s was way worse then its now. But all the old players in the medida obviously always try to tell people that "back then" everything was tougher and better...

Yes the East is so great now

[The4thHorseman]

LeBron has faced tougher competition no doubt. Spurs in 2007, 2013, and 2014, and Warriors in 2015 and 2016 were probably better than any team Jordan faced in the finals.

Jordan wouldn't have lost to the 2011 Mavericks though!

Credit where it's due... Dirk was unstoppable in the 2011 Finals... a performance for the ages. Can't fault Lebron for loosing to that.

He was outplayed by Jason Terry. That's inexcusable.

Wade should have played better defense on him.

[magicman1978]

Credit where it's due... Dirk was unstoppable in the 2011 Finals... a performance for the ages. Can't fault Lebron for loosing to that.

He was outplayed by Jason Terry. That's inexcusable.

Wade should have played better defense on him.

LeBron should have as well. I recall him Terry being his primary assignment pretty often. Terry was blowing by him at will. Pretty surprising considering how well LeBron guarded Rose.

[The4thHorseman]

He was outplayed by Jason Terry. That's inexcusable.

Wade should have played better defense on him.

LeBron should have as well. I recall him Terry being his primary assignment pretty often. Terry was blowing by him at will. Pretty surprising considering how well LeBron guarded Rose.

Terry was Wade's primary assignment. Wade actually staying with his assignment is a different story.

James did do a good job on Rose at times, but how often he guarded Rose throughout the game was exaggerated.

[Rust_Cohle]

The competition in the 80s and 90s was way worse then its now. But all the old players in the medida obviously always try to tell people that "back then" everything was tougher and better...

The East is one of the worst in NBA history in terms of depth, and the West is the weakest it has been in the past 20 years.

We have some amazing individual talent but in terms of true quality teams the league is very watered down in that regard.

[Pablo Novi]

The competition in the 80s and 90s was way worse then its now. But all the old players in the medida obviously always try to tell people that "back then" everything was tougher and better...

The East is one of the worst in NBA history in terms of depth, and the West is the weakest it has been in the past 20 years.

We have some amazing individual talent but in terms of true quality teams the league is very watered down in that regard.

Sorry, but I couldn't DISAGREE with this more.

DILUTION THRU EXPANSION: The League has only added ONE team in the last 21 years. In no other 20-year time-period has it ever added so few teams - and, it IS truly not even close!

SOURCE OF PLAYERS: There's been a huge influx in international players.
WITHIN THE US, the NBA's influence has never been higher.

NON-PLAYER ASPECTS: Coaching improves - so I don't think it's a stretch to say that it's the best (or at worst, close to the best) it's ever been.
Conditioning is the same as coaching - constantly improving.
With these SPREAD offenses both defensive and offensive players probably (?) have never had as far to run per game.
With the ever-increasing complexity of offenses AND defenses; I'd GUESS that the average basketball IQ of the players is the highest it's ever been too.

REASON FOR YOUR OBJECTION?: Could it be that in YOUR case, YOUR favorite team and/or YOUR favorite players are not dominating?

[RGM_SU]

CONTRAST THAT with the fact that the NBA has expanded by only ONE team in the last 21 seasons (AND has had an influx of international players while the US talent pool has continued to grow) and the winning records of the Championship teams in the recent past look EVEN MORE impressive.

Particularly the GSW 73-9 record from last season (as compared with the ADJUSTED 68.6 - 12.4 Bulls' record from 1996)

N.B. Conversely, IF during the last 8 years, the NBA had expanded by a similar percent to what it did right BEFORE/DURING the Bulls' two three-peats; we'd see a SIGNIFICANT improvement of the records of THE Top Team each year AND of the other top teams - making THE Top Team look decidedly better than they already look. GSW's 73-9 might be 76.5 - 5.5 or better !

So are you adjusting for the tanking teams' records as well? You complain about the atrocious records of the expansion teams. So let's take a look at those expansion teams in their first season:

1988-89: Miami Heat 15-67, Charlotte Hornets 20-62
1989-90: Orlando Magic 18-64, Minnesota Timberwolves 22-60
1995-96: Vancouver Grizzlies 15-67, Toronto Raptors 21-61
2004-05: Charlotte Bobcats 18-64

Meanwhile in the last three seasons the 76ers went 10-72, 18-64 and 19-63. The Lakers the last two season went 21-61, 17-65 (and are now sitting at 21-53 having lost 16 of their last 18 games. If you aren't adjusting the current records for these teams as well you are merely cherry-picking.

Let's use your method and treat the Lakers and 76ers from last year as expansion teams:

110 wins among 28 teams = 3.9 wins per non expansion team

Warriors go from 73-9 to 69.1-12.9

See?

[Pablo Novi]

CONTRAST THAT with the fact that the NBA has expanded by only ONE team in the last 21 seasons (AND has had an influx of international players while the US talent pool has continued to grow) and the winning records of the Championship teams in the recent past look EVEN MORE impressive.

Particularly the GSW 73-9 record from last season (as compared with the ADJUSTED 68.6 - 12.4 Bulls' record from 1996)

N.B. Conversely, IF during the last 8 years, the NBA had expanded by a similar percent to what it did right BEFORE/DURING the Bulls' two three-peats; we'd see a SIGNIFICANT improvement of the records of THE Top Team each year AND of the other top teams - making THE Top Team look decidedly better than they already look. GSW's 73-9 might be 76.5 - 5.5 or better !

So are you adjusting for the tanking teams' records as well? You complain about the atrocious records of the expansion teams. So let's take a look at those expansion teams in their first season:

1988-89: Miami Heat 15-67, Charlotte Hornets 20-62
1989-90: Orlando Magic 18-64, Minnesota Timberwolves 22-60
1995-96: Vancouver Grizzlies 15-67, Toronto Raptors 21-61
2004-05: Charlotte Bobcats 18-64

Meanwhile in the last three seasons the 76ers went 10-72, 18-64 and 19-63. The Lakers the last two season went 21-61, 17-65 (and are now sitting at 21-53 having lost 16 of their last 18 games. If you aren't adjusting the current records for these teams as well you are merely cherry-picking.

I'd guess, though I admit to not researching it; that the records of the bottom teams over all non-expansion years are not much better than since the "tanking" era began (whenever that might have been).

In any event, my point is that adding Expansion Teams is an automatic guarantee of atrocious records. That says nothing whatsoever about already-existing (at that time) bad teams. So you're adding to the already existing number of bad teams additional TERRIBLE teams - DILUTING the overall talent pool. (That the already bad teams tend to improve their records a bit - doesn't argue against what I'm saying; btw - almost all of the bad teams stayed bad during the first 3-4 years of expansion teams existence OR were replaced by equally bad teams.)

Bad teams (whether due to tanking or due to just plain stinking and/or both, neither or all of the above - lol) do NOT dilute the overall talent pool - making it inevitable that the top teams will have better records than the norm; but EXPANSION, by definition, does.

[RGM_SU]

Oh, and another thing, are you going to add a win or two for the 1996 Bulls' "adjusted record" to balance out the loss of BJ Armstrong? He was taken #1 overall by the Raptors in the expansion draft, was the Bulls starting point guard for the previous three seasons. Averaged 14 PPG on 46.8%/42.7%3P for 8.1 WS in 1994-95.

[Pablo Novi]

Picture current Kawhi with Kobes footwork and better vert . He would destroy any era guys ..just let it go . This is classic iconoclasm when someone reached other worldy heights we always try to knock them down a peg after we have built them up

Or maybe it is an attempt to show people that MJ was not the infallable god Jordan Jockers and the media try to make him to be.
You know it is actually the same how people here try to knock Wilt down a peg with silly per 36 stats, so why should Jordan not suffer the same treatment?

Perhaps it's the way sports are promoted (just in the US or more globally?) OR youthful-enthusiasm OR both; but, imo, with the clear exception of KAJ, ALL NBA greats have been "deified" during and immediately after their careers. (KAJ was such a lousy interview that he was not hyped (either by the media or by himself).

It has continuously put me in a very weird position.
I love great player after great player (I also love great teams and great plays). BUT, it grinds my gears that they are "deified"; so I find myself kind of wishing somebody might come along and equal or out-due them so the "deifiers" might get a bit humbled.

But my TEMPORARY wishes, if successful at all; just get knocked down almost immediately because there's always new stars to over-hype.

In particular, I ABSOUTELY LOVED MJ. But when Magic first came out and said that it was OK for MJ to retire (the first time) because he had already accomplished enough to be the undisputed GOAT" - it just pissed me off no end (and boy did/do I love Magic).

As the "Jordan is and always will be GOD/GOAT religion" has spread - I find myself, against my very love for his level of quality of play; "voting" for him to be knocked down off his far-too-high perch. Between loving him and hating the "worship" of him - my revulsion for the "worship" is ever-gaining more strength over my love for what he did.

Sucks.

[Pablo Novi]

dupe post. Sorry.