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

[Rust_Cohle]

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.

Kyrie in 2016 and Anthony Davis in 2020

[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.

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….

I don't have to look at basketball reference like you just did LOLs, true basketball reference take right here, all them pretty stats.
You keep embarrassing yourself even worst each take.

So since you believe 90s ball is best there is, best there was and best there ever will be.
A chucker like Ron Harper averaged 20. What does that say about the era? LOL

So those teams you mentioned, go rank the top 5 players between them and the Bulls head to head.
I bet you won't cause you'll look stupid.

Keep it coming with these delusional 90s take. It makes my day.

By the way, when are you going to let us know when MJ won anything without stack being in his favor, we're still waiting.
You build for it?

[jerok]

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.

Rookie Tim Duncan bro!
Still a great take bro, these two teams that owned Lebron Era were the exact same teams in the 90s, 00's and 10's to you Bro.
Why even mention LeBron in a KD thread. Rent Free?

[Iwasawitness]

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.

Kyrie in 2016 and Anthony Davis in 2020

Wrong on both.

[jerok]

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.

As usual, downgrading Jordan's teammates to prop him up.
Classic 90s delusion take.

Rodman in 96 allowed the bulls the play Shaq 1v1. That's why MJ OK'd to get him cause he knew Shaq and Penny spanked him the year before.
Rodman 97-98 was prime defender on Karl Malone. They still win without him guarding Malone?

I like these analogies of Bulls teams were not good. Only MJ was good and carried them.
Now do the same analogies on the Bulls teams they played in the playoffs.
You'll find those teams aren't that good LOL. It goes both ways bro, not just what you want people to believe.

LeBron faced stiffer competition than MJ in his finals run. Theres no question about that.
Why even mention Lebron in a KD thread? That's the real question.

The delusion is so strong with 90s myth.
Imagine adding KD to any of those teams, and a bunch of you still have bulls Winning. It sad really.

In 98 for example.
Jeff HOrnacek average how many points, as Jazz 2nd leading scorer in the Finals and they took the Bulls to 6 games.
Adding prime KD won't make a difference? Please.

[Iwasawitness]

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.

As usual, downgrading Jordan's teammates to prop him up.
Classic 90s delusion take.

Rodman in 96 allowed the bulls the play Shaq 1v1. That's why MJ OK'd to get him cause he knew Shaq and Penny spanked him the year before.
Rodman 97-98 was prime defender on Karl Malone. They still win without him guarding Malone?

I like these analogies of Bulls teams were not good. Only MJ was good and carried them.
Now do the same analogies on the Bulls teams they played in the playoffs.
You'll find those teams aren't that good LOL. It goes both ways bro, not just what you want people to believe.

LeBron faced stiffer competition than MJ in his finals run. Theres no question about that.
Why even mention Lebron in a KD thread? That's the real question.

The delusion is so strong with 90s myth.
Imagine adding KD to any of those teams, and a bunch of you still have bulls Winning. It sad really.

In 98 for example.
Jeff HOrnacek average how many points, as Jazz 2nd leading scorer in the Finals and they took the Bulls to 6 games.
Adding prime KD won't make a difference? Please.

Rodman also got FMVP votes in the 96 finals. Very hilarious when people try to downplay just how great he was for the Bulls.

[NZB2323]

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.

I didn’t say Kukoc was a scrub. I said Kukoc won 6th man in 1996, not 1998. I also said that Kukoc was in the HOF based on international accomplishments, and not NBA accomplishments, as he never made an all-star or all-NBA team. That’s all true, and saying Kukoc is a HOF NBA player is disingenuous.

I never said Harper was a scrub. I said he was past his prime. If he was still a capable 20 ppg scorer in 98 and just sacrificed for Jordan and Pippen, then why couldn’t he score more when Pippen only played in 44 games during the regular season? Harper only averaged 9.3 ppg. In 99 when the Bulls didn’t have Jordan or Pippen, Harper averaged 11.2 ppg. In game 6 of the finals when Pippen had the back injury Harper scored 8 points. If he was a capable 20 ppg scorer why couldn’t he do it in that game? The fact is when Harper scored 20 ppg in 1995, it was with a 48.3 TS% and a PER of 12.2.

If Kukoc was a HOF NBA player and Harper was a 20 ppg scorer then why did the 99 Bulls go 13-37?

If Rodman was so great in 98 why didn’t he make an all-star, all-NBA, or all-defensive team? Why did he wash out of the league afterwards?

Pippen missed 44 games in 98 and was injured in game 6.

Jordan won because Jordan was the best. He had the highest GmSc of every series he ever played in, with the exception of the 96 Finals where Kemp was 0.5 higher.

But in 98 Jordan was 10.8 higher than Reggie Miller and 2.8 higher than Malone.

In 97 Jordan was 6.6 higher than Malone.

In 96 Jordan was 2.9 higher than Shaq.

In 95 Jordan was 1.2 higher than Shaq.

In 93 Jordan was 6.2 higher than Barkley and 3.7 higher than Ewing.

In 92 Jordan was 7.4 higher than Drexler and 4.8 higher than Ewing.

In 91 Jordan was 9.4 higher than Magic, 14.9 higher than IT, 3.0 higher than Barkley, and 17.2 higher than Ewing.

In 90 Jordan was 13.5 higher than Barkley and 8.6 higher than IT.

In 89 Jordan was 13.8 higher than Ewing and 6.1 higher than IT.

In 88 Jordan was 3.6 higher than IT.

In 87 Jordan was 0.2 higher than Bird.

In 86 Jordan was 5.5 higher than Bird.

In 85 Jordan was 1.4 higher than Moncrief.

Based off of this, we can conclude that when Jordan lost, it’s because the opposing star had a better team, especially since Jordan was usually a better defensive player than the opposing star. You can argue that Kemp was better than Jordan in the 96 Finals and Jordan only won because he had the better team. I’m not sure what other series you have an argument for.

[Rust_Cohle]

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

Kyrie in 2016 and Anthony Davis in 2020

Wrong on both.

Wow, so I used ChatGpt to answer that and it said kyrie got 3 votes and AD 1. And now…I will forever have trust issues

[Iwasawitness]

Kyrie in 2016 and Anthony Davis in 2020

Wrong on both.

Wow, so I used ChatGpt to answer that and it said kyrie got 3 votes and AD 1. And now…I will forever have trust issues

Yeah I wouldn't use chatGPT. They've actually given me incorrect info before regarding the NBA, which I've used on this site and gotten called out for. If you Google both years, you'll see that LeBron was the unanimous FMVP both times. In fact when he's announced as the winner in 2016, they even outright state it.

It's funny because people want to live in this world where LeBron received significantly more help from his supporting cast while Jordan received little bit that simply wasn't the case. Both guys received a good amount of help from their teammates, both won on stacked teams. We don't have to lie to ourselves and pretend Jordan did all the heavy lifting. We didn't and if we're being honest, neither did LeBron.

[Rust_Cohle]

Wrong on both.

Wow, so I used ChatGpt to answer that and it said kyrie got 3 votes and AD 1. And now…I will forever have trust issues

Yeah I wouldn't use chatGPT. They've actually given me incorrect info before regarding the NBA, which I've used on this site and gotten called out for. If you Google both years, you'll see that LeBron was the unanimous FMVP both times. In fact when he's announced as the winner in 2016, they even outright state it.

It's funny because people want to live in this world where LeBron received significantly more help from his supporting cast while Jordan received little bit that simply wasn't the case. Both guys received a good amount of help from their teammates, both won on stacked teams. We don't have to lie to ourselves and pretend Jordan did all the heavy lifting. We didn't and if we're being honest, neither did LeBron.

I asked it why it effed up:

“Actually, I made a mistake — Kyrie Irving did not receive any Finals MVP votes in the 2016 NBA Finals. LeBron James was unanimously voted Finals MVP, receiving all 11 votes .

The confusion might stem from regular season or All-Star MVP voting, but for the 2016 Finals — despite Kyrie’s huge performances — the media panel awarded LeBron every vote.”

And this is from ChatGPT Plus…maybe my job actually is safe for a little longer

[bledredwine]

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.

Kyrie in 2016 and Anthony Davis in 2020

Heck, I thought Davis was better than And Kyrie put up near 30 ppg. To have that from your second option is unheard of.

[MavsDirk41]

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….

I don't have to look at basketball reference like you just did LOLs, true basketball reference take right here, all them pretty stats.
You keep embarrassing yourself even worst each take.

So since you believe 90s ball is best there is, best there was and best there ever will be.
A chucker like Ron Harper averaged 20. What does that say about the era? LOL

So those teams you mentioned, go rank the top 5 players between them and the Bulls head to head.
I bet you won't cause you'll look stupid.

Keep it coming with these delusional 90s take. It makes my day.

By the way, when are you going to let us know when MJ won anything without stack being in his favor, we're still waiting.
You build for it?

Ill be 50 in August so yea pal, i watched those finals and finals before them lol. Yea, i did enjoy 90s nba. Care to explain why the modern nba is better basketball because i dont see it.

Jordan
Pippen
Grant
Cartwright
Paxson

Magic
Worthy
Divac
Perkins
Scott

Bulls the same

Drexler
Porter
Kersey
Buck Williams
Cliff Robinson
Deepest team in the league

Barkley
KJ
Thunder Dan
Chambers
Dumas

Bulls the same but replace Paxson with BJ probably

Jordan
Pippen
Rodman
Kukoc
Harper or Longley

Payton
Kemp
Detef
Hawkins
Perkins

Bulls the same

Makone
Stockton
Hornacek
Russell
Ostertag

Bulls the same

Utah the same but maybe Anderson or Keefe over Osterag

Utah won 64 and 62 games those year. Malone won mvp in 97 and was runner up in 98

So your reply to me was you talking smack, not really making sense, not rebutting what i said, and a You build for it which i have no clue what you are saying lol.

[MavsDirk41]

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.

Ron Harper certainly had a role with the Bulls but it was mainly his defensive impact on the team more than anything else. He wasnt a good 3 point shooter, wasnt a great passer, and he was at best their 4 or maybe 5th offensive option. He filled a role. Rodman was more impactful to them winning but he was basically washed their last run and didnt even start in the finals. They got everything out of him that they could those 3 years.

[Iwasawitness]

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

Kyrie in 2016 and Anthony Davis in 2020

Heck, I thought Davis was better than And Kyrie put up near 30 ppg. To have that from your second option is unheard of.

Well for starters, Jordan probably doesn't win a single finals series if he has that as his second option. Second and more importantly though, Irving, for as good as he was in the scoring department, was pretty awful at everything else. To try to cope with the cavs getting eliminated early, I decided to watch the 2016 Finals again for the first time in a while to go back down memory lane, and I found myself surprised at how bad Irving was in this series. He would consistently disrupt offensive sets with his play style, and looked completely lost whenever LeBron wasn't out there (because, you know, he can't run an offense).

But defensively is where he was really bad. Multiple warriors players would hunt him for mismatches and he barely made any attempts at respectable defense. Shaun Livingston of all people ate him up in game 1, and it never really got any better. For the amount of points Irving put up on average, he wasn't really playing winning basketball for most of this series. Hell, I would argue that game 5 was his only legitimately good game in this entire series.

But I'm a fair man, and it's worth pointing out that LeBron was almost just as bad at first. In game 2, he was easily the worst player on the cavs in that game. But after game 4, a flip just switched and the guy went on a rampage in the next three games. It's still one of the greatest stretches of overall dominance I've ever seen.

With all of that said... yes, AD was definitely better than Irving. At this point with what I saw, I don't even think an argument can be made for Irving.

[lessthanjake]

As usual, downgrading Jordan's teammates to prop him up.
Classic 90s delusion take.

Rodman in 96 allowed the bulls the play Shaq 1v1. That's why MJ OK'd to get him cause he knew Shaq and Penny spanked him the year before.
Rodman 97-98 was prime defender on Karl Malone. They still win without him guarding Malone?

Rodman was a very deficient offensive player aside from rebounding, so that always needs to be taken into account when assessing his overall impact as a player.

In any event, there’s a lot of half-truths and misleading statements here. Rodman was not the primary defender on Shaq in 1996, nor did he guard Shaq 1v1 much. There are full games of that series online, so I invite you to go look for yourself. If Longley, Wennington, or Salley were in the game, then they guarded Shaq. That was about 75% of the time. Rodman only guarded Shaq when the Bulls went with small-ball lineups with Kukoc at PF. And when Rodman was on Shaq, the Bulls still doubled Shaq a lot. They didn’t double Shaq every time, nor did they do so with the other guys who guarded Shaq either. But they doubled Shaq a good bit when Rodman was on him. The result is that there really weren’t many possessions where Rodman defended Shaq 1v1. I just watched an entire game in that series, and found just 5 possessions where the Bulls had Rodman on Shaq 1v1 (Shaq made one shot, got fouled by Rodman twice, and missed two shots). And Rodman definitely was not the only one that they left to guard Shaq 1v1 sometimes. Rodman did not “allow[] the Bulls t[o] play Shaq 1v1.” They were willing to do it sometimes with any defender, and they did it sometimes with Rodman, who was only guarding Shaq a small percent of the time.

Meanwhile, you mention 1997 and 1998 against Malone. Rodman certainly guarded Malone more than he guarded Shaq—not surprising since Malone was a PF. But how did that go? Well, in the 1997 Finals, despite winning the series 4-2, the Bulls only outscored the Jazz in Rodman’s minutes in one game in the series. And Rodman had his minutes cut in the series (averaging only 27 MPG). Rodman’s minutes in that series went badly for the Bulls, and Phil Jackson did not trust him much in the series. So it’s hard to see how you think that’s a series to point to for Rodman being really impactful. Meanwhile, by the next year Rodman wasn’t even starting in the Finals (though this time they did at least do okay with Rodman on the court—though he had a negative on-off in the series). Phil Jackson objectively cut Rodman’s minutes in both series against the Jazz.

I like these analogies of Bulls teams were not good. Only MJ was good and carried them.
Now do the same analogies on the Bulls teams they played in the playoffs.
You'll find those teams aren't that good LOL. It goes both ways bro, not just what you want people to believe.

A team like the 1993 Suns was definitely far deeper than the first-three-peat Bulls. I think you have to have not watched 1990s basketball to think otherwise. The 1992 Blazers were also much deeper. They didn’t have a Pippen equivalent, but Terry Porter was at least as good as Grant, and the Blazers’ playoff rotation was filled with positive role players, including Ainge, Kersey, and Buck Williams, along with Clifford Robinson being at least neutral (I’m not high on Duckworth, who I think was the only negative player in their playoff rotation). Having a bunch of positive role players makes a massive difference. With those Jazz teams in 1997 and 1998, I think both teams are better in 1997 than they were in 1998, but Rodman was basically cooked by 1998 and Pippen got injured in the Finals, so it’s hard to say the Bulls were actually better at that point (one would need to take a particularly high view on Kukoc, which I think would be defensible, as I’m a big Kukoc fan).

LeBron faced stiffer competition than MJ in his finals run. Theres no question about that.
Why even mention Lebron in a KD thread? That's the real question.

You keep asking this question to people, but you’re just playing dumb. It is extremely obvious that this thread is about LeBron. On the off chance that you actually don’t understand why, I’ll spell it out for you. LeBron played two Finals in a row against the Warriors in 2015 and 2016, and then the Warriors added a peak Kevin Durant and dominated LeBron’s team in the next two Finals. The very obvious point of this thread is to ask whether Jordan’s Bulls still would’ve won Finals if their Finals opponents had also added a peak Kevin Durant or if they’d have been destroyed like LeBron’s teams were.

The delusion is so strong with 90s myth.
Imagine adding KD to any of those teams, and a bunch of you still have bulls Winning. It sad really.

In 98 for example.
Jeff HOrnacek average how many points, as Jazz 2nd leading scorer in the Finals and they took the Bulls to 6 games.
Adding prime KD won't make a difference? Please.

As I’ve noted in this thread, the idea that the Bulls definitely would’ve lost these series if Durant was added is borne out of a real overestimation of the impact of star players. If we look at RAPM data, we can tell what peak Durant’s impact averaged on a per-100-possession basis. If we then account for the fact that Durant wouldn’t play 100 possessions in a game (because he wouldn’t play 48 MPG, and because pace was well below 100), we can get an estimate of what we’d expect Durant’s influence on the scoreline of these series would be. And then we can compare that to the Bulls average margin of victory in those series, to see whether the average impact we’d expect from peak Durant is above or below the amount by which the Bulls outplayed those opponents without Durant. I’ve done those calculations in this thread. The result is that there’s 3 Finals where peak Durant’s average impact would not be enough to overcome the Bulls’ average margin of victory. There’s another Finals where peak Durant’s average impact is essentially exactly the same as the Bulls’ average margin of victory in the series. And then there’s two Finals where peak Durant’s average impact is larger than the average margin of victory in the series. Based on that, I think the most reasonable estimate here is that the Bulls would still win 3 or 4 of these series. Of course, an individual player’s impact can fluctuate in small samples. Durant won’t always simply have his average impact. So there’s randomness in what would happen, and the result could be above or below that estimate of 3 or 4 wins. But I think 3 or 4 is the most reasonable estimate (and even that may be generous, since we’re assuming peak Durant’s impact would be the same as it was in reality, even though we’re plopping him on teams that aren’t built around him). Anyone saying otherwise is just overestimating individual stars’ impact, or just is emotionally invested in “but the Warriors added Durant” being an unimpeachable excuse.

Finally, as for scoring in 1998, you might want to look up the pace of that series, and the average offensive efficiency at the time, and also think about whether Sloan’s offensive system did or didn’t tend to spread scoring around a lot. Hornacek’s scoring has almost nothing to do how much impact Durant would’ve had.

[lessthanjake]

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.

Ron Harper certainly had a role with the Bulls but it was mainly his defensive impact on the team more than anything else. He wasnt a good 3 point shooter, wasnt a great passer, and he was at best their 4 or maybe 5th offensive option. He filled a role. Rodman was more impactful to them winning but he was basically washed their last run and didnt even start in the finals. They got everything out of him that they could those 3 years.

Yes, I don’t disagree with this. Harper’s impact was definitely mainly on defense. Which means that people pointing to him previously scoring 20 points per game are not latching onto something valid. Harper was not a significant scoring threat when he was on the Bulls. At the same time, though, his defense was genuinely good (and was probably better than it was earlier in his career, when he was exerting more effort on the offensive end). So he was a real positive role player, albeit not for the reasons that some people here are suggesting.

[og15]

I'm just going to add that I think the narrative on Pippen based on the discussion (and others) can be super interesting.

For example, in an era comparison discussion talking about how good players were (or were not) in the 90's, Pippen would be mentioned in a certain way, generally positioned as a guy who would dominate in the modern day in both ends.

Then in contrast, if we have a discussion about how good Jordan's teammates were or were not, some of the same people (not all) can almost flip the narrative on Pippen and he's not that good of a second option, etc, etc.

It's also interesting to look at the narrative of his basketball opinions, because Pippen has said some contrasting things. In one scenario, Pippen is an authority and who would know better than a former player who played at the time, but then at other times, well he's jealous of Jordan, salty about this or that thing, etc, and what he's saying is not relevant.

Just find it interesting how based on the conclusion he kind of goes up and down on the narrative about him and/or his opinions.

[uberhikari]

Scottie Pippen is 6'8". I don't believe for a second that he couldn't guard KD one-on-one.

There's no way Scottie could guard KD 1-on-1 for an entire series without any help except hard doubles. Handchecking would help, but he's still giving up 3 inches and ~25 pounds.

All the best 1-on-1 scorers of the same era had a massive advantage because of illegal defense rules.

I've seen Chris Paul shut down KD in the playoffs, just by getting deep into his body and keeping him from being able to lift the ball to shoot. You're telling me Scottie Pippen is too small? Give me a break.

It's not that Scottie is too small (Tony Allen gave KD hell in their 2014 matchup), it's that the strict limitations on defense given the rules of the era would make it damn near impossible.

KD would be unguardable for the same reason Jordan and Hakeem were unguardable 1-on-1. Any slight advantage an offensive player gained got magnified b/c the help couldn't get there fast enough. In modern defenses, as opposed to the 90s, the help is preventative rather than reactive.

To give another example, look at OKC's defense against Jokic. It was basically a quasi-zone. In the 90s, it would've been illegal, but imagine that defense being used on Hakeem, especially with Hakeem's passing limitations. Now, Hakeem was a much better athlete and was way smarter in terms of his positioning, but that defense would've made his life significantly more difficult.

[ScrantonBulls]

I'm just going to add that I think the narrative on Pippen based on the discussion (and others) can be super interesting.

For example, in an era comparison discussion talking about how good players were (or were not) in the 90's, Pippen would be mentioned in a certain way, generally positions a guy who would dominate in the modern day in both ends.

Then in contrast, if we have a discussion about how good Jordan's teammates were or were not, some of the same people (not all) can almost flip the narrative on Pippen and he's not that good of a second option, etc, etc.

It's also interesting to look at the narrative of his basketball opinions, because Pippen has said some contrasting things. In one scenario, Pippen is an authority and who would no better than a former player who played at the time, but then at other times, well he's jealous of Jordan, salty about this or that thing, etc, and what he's saying is not relevant.

Just find it interesting how based on the conclusion he kind of goes up and down on the narrative about him and/or his opinions.

I've posted this meme a number of times regarding Pippen and Rodman. It mirrors basically exactly what you are saying. A select number of 90s/MJ superfans always have to change how they rate Pippen and Rodman depending on the discussion at hand.

[NZB2323]

I'm just going to add that I think the narrative on Pippen based on the discussion (and others) can be super interesting.

For example, in an era comparison discussion talking about how good players were (or were not) in the 90's, Pippen would be mentioned in a certain way, generally positions a guy who would dominate in the modern day in both ends.

Then in contrast, if we have a discussion about how good Jordan's teammates were or were not, some of the same people (not all) can almost flip the narrative on Pippen and he's not that good of a second option, etc, etc.

It's also interesting to look at the narrative of his basketball opinions, because Pippen has said some contrasting things. In one scenario, Pippen is an authority and who would no better than a former player who played at the time, but then at other times, well he's jealous of Jordan, salty about this or that thing, etc, and what he's saying is not relevant.

Just find it interesting how based on the conclusion he kind of goes up and down on the narrative about him and/or his opinions.

Not sure if you’re talking about me or not, but saying that Pippen only played in 44 games in 98 and had a back injury in game 6 doesn’t contradict other things that I’ve said that have been positive about Pippen in other threads.

I don’t know if I’ve seen anyone say that Pippen would dominate in this era, but he was the original point forward, and was athletic, could pass, rebound, defend, and score, but at the same time wasn’t the best 3-point shooter, wasn’t the best shot creator, and wasn’t the more efficient scorer and wasn’t a true #1 scorer.

I think Paul George is the closest modern day comparison. Pippen is a better defender, rebounder, and passer. Paul George is a better 3 point shooter, better at clumping scoring, and is a more efficient scorer.