Do you consider Jordans Bulls a Super Team?

[Wingy]

Why do you keep bringing up the Heat. I don't give a **** what the Heat did.

Here's wiipedia's opening paragraph on Superteams:

A superteam in the National Basketball Association (NBA) is an arbitrary term to describe a team that uses player acquisitions (via trades or free agency) in a short period of time to create a higher than average concentration of top-level players. While there is no official definition, it is generally viewed as a team with three or more Hall of Fame, All-NBA, or perennial All-Star players that join together to pursue an NBA championship.[1][2][3]

What in the hell else would you call what the Celtics did?

I’ve explained the Heat a lot.

The term was born in the basketball fan’s regular dialogue when they formed and teams and players started trying to replicate what they did after.

No one said “super team” on any kind of regular basis before them.

Why is that? There were surely great teams before?

It was the way their team formed, and the stage of their careers that were the most important parts giving rise to this term in popular culture. Thus it becomes the very definition of the term.

Referencing a Wikipedia page that, from all I can tell wasn’t created until 2019 kinda proves my point that applying it to past teams is revisionist history.

Wiki’s been around since January 2001…and only in the last 6 years has someone finally decided it needed to be defined and dragged in all these teams from the past.

If “super team” has always been around back to the Bulls, or Celtics hey days…why wouldn’t this have been a topic much sooner?

[Iwasawitness]

Why do you keep bringing up the Heat. I don't give a **** what the Heat did.

Here's wiipedia's opening paragraph on Superteams:

A superteam in the National Basketball Association (NBA) is an arbitrary term to describe a team that uses player acquisitions (via trades or free agency) in a short period of time to create a higher than average concentration of top-level players. While there is no official definition, it is generally viewed as a team with three or more Hall of Fame, All-NBA, or perennial All-Star players that join together to pursue an NBA championship.[1][2][3]

What in the hell else would you call what the Celtics did?

I’ve explained the Heat a lot.

The term was born in the basketball fan’s regular dialogue when they formed and teams and players started trying to replicate what they did after.

No one said “super team” on any kind of regular basis before them.

Why is that? There were surely great teams before?

It was the way their team formed, and the stage of their careers that were the most important parts giving rise to this term in popular culture. Thus it becomes the very definition of the term.

Referencing a Wikipedia page that, from all I can tell wasn’t created until 2019 kinda proves my point that applying it to past teams is revisionist history.

Wiki’s been around since January 2001…and only in the last 6 years has someone finally decided it needed to be defined and dragged in all these teams from the past.

If “super team” has always been around back to the Bulls, or Celtics hey days…why wouldn’t this have been a topic much sooner?

So because super teams weren't a thing before 2011, they never existed?

[Wingy]

So because super teams weren't a thing before 2011, they never existed?

I just can’t anymore. FFS. God help us all.

[Iwasawitness]

So because super teams weren't a thing before 2011, they never existed?

I just can’t anymore. FFS. God help us all.

Just using your logic against you.

[ScrantonBulls]

So because super teams weren't a thing before 2011, they never existed?

I just can’t anymore. FFS. God help us all.

That's what all your posts are saying.

[QMemphis]

No because only Scottie could lead a team to a winning season as the guy. The rest of the guys were elite role players. Luckily looks like the NBA may be trending more to that style of ball (with help from the CBA).

Heatles, 17 Warriors, 80’s Lakers and 80’s Celtics probably are the only legit super teams in the modern era that had 3 guys that could all lead a team of role players to the playoffs.

[michaelm]

Why do you keep bringing up the Heat. I don't give a **** what the Heat did.

Here's wiipedia's opening paragraph on Superteams:



What in the hell else would you call what the Celtics did?

I’ve explained the Heat a lot.

The term was born in the basketball fan’s regular dialogue when they formed and teams and players started trying to replicate what they did after.

No one said “super team” on any kind of regular basis before them.

Why is that? There were surely great teams before?

It was the way their team formed, and the stage of their careers that were the most important parts giving rise to this term in popular culture. Thus it becomes the very definition of the term.

Referencing a Wikipedia page that, from all I can tell wasn’t created until 2019 kinda proves my point that applying it to past teams is revisionist history.

Wiki’s been around since January 2001…and only in the last 6 years has someone finally decided it needed to be defined and dragged in all these teams from the past.

If “super team” has always been around back to the Bulls, or Celtics hey days…why wouldn’t this have been a topic much sooner?

So because super teams weren't a thing before 2011, they never existed?

Yes if super teams didn’t exist before 2011 then they didn’t exist before 2011.

The term was coined to refer to the Heatles with reference back to the Celtics big 3 who beat LeBron and likely prompted him/gave him the idea to form the Heatles, and was used to refer to the then novel practice of several elite players in their primes self assembling a team, ie the Heatles. It is somewhat arguable imo that the Big 3 Celtics were quite the same phenomenon given the 3 players concerned were closer to the end of their careers than to their absolute primes, in the case of two of them anyway, and there were no proclamations of intent to be a dynasty which would win a significant multiple number of titles.

If you want to call all the great teams in NBA history superteams fine, but that is not what they were called in their time and most if not all of them did not self assemble. If you can find a reference to players on any team prior to 2011 including the Celtics Big 3 being called the “superfriends” please post it. If you wish to argue the 72 win Bulls were a superteam because they were the greatest team of all time and better than any LeBron team I certainly won’t argue with you, but this was not (only imo of course) through any lack of effort on LeBron’s part in regard to his teams being as super as he could contrive.

I have never had a problem with LeBron forming the Heatles btw, all 3 were FAs, just with his partisans applying double standards to other players.

[michaelm]

Why do you keep bringing up the Heat. I don't give a **** what the Heat did.

Here's wiipedia's opening paragraph on Superteams:

A superteam in the National Basketball Association (NBA) is an arbitrary term to describe a team that uses player acquisitions (via trades or free agency) in a short period of time to create a higher than average concentration of top-level players. While there is no official definition, it is generally viewed as a team with three or more Hall of Fame, All-NBA, or perennial All-Star players that join together to pursue an NBA championship.[1][2][3]

What in the hell else would you call what the Celtics did?

I’ve explained the Heat a lot.

The term was born in the basketball fan’s regular dialogue when they formed and teams and players started trying to replicate what they did after.

No one said “super team” on any kind of regular basis before them.

Why is that? There were surely great teams before?

It was the way their team formed, and the stage of their careers that were the most important parts giving rise to this term in popular culture. Thus it becomes the very definition of the term.

Referencing a Wikipedia page that, from all I can tell wasn’t created until 2019 kinda proves my point that applying it to past teams is revisionist history.

Wiki’s been around since January 2001…and only in the last 6 years has someone finally decided it needed to be defined and dragged in all these teams from the past.

If “super team” has always been around back to the Bulls, or Celtics hey days…why wouldn’t this have been a topic much sooner?

Just posted the same thing. Apparently you have made a logical argument but one which can be used against you, not that the poster concerned actually did so.

[michaelm]

Definitely.

Those teams were super teams and were dynasties between 1991-1993 and 1996-1998.

It amazes me that some Jordan fans act like that wasn't the case.

So Jordan’s best teams were better than LeBron’s best teams. Your point is ?.

Exactly. Who the hell cares? People are so hellbent on claiming MJ wasn't on a superteam, because they want to be able to use that term slanderously towards LeBron the hoops people will jump through to defend MJ's mythology. We're really trying to act like the 95-96 Bulls weren't completely stacked relative to the league? It's ok to admit that.

Say it with me now. SUPERTEAM

And you want to apply the term to the Jordan Bulls for your own ends, but that is entirely different of course.

I don’t have much skin in this game, I do consider MJ both the GOAT FWIW (not much imo) and better than LeBron, but my own fanboyism is more focused on Steph Curry and Tim Duncan, I just don’t greatly feel a need to argue they are better than Jordan or LeBron.

The overwhelmingly major theme of your posts as I have said multiple times is to belittle LeBron’s team-mates and exalt his opponents, while belittling Jordan’s opponents and exalting his team mates, all the while accusing others of being biased, having fairly obviously not followed the Jordan Bulls contemporaneously.

[ReasonablySober]

Just because a term doesn't exist doesn't mean that thing didn't exist prior to the term. Language is fluid. Does it matter that the term "superteam" had already been used in the context of NFL teams and European Football squads?

As for Jordan vs LeBron...jesus who gives a ****.

[Iwasawitness]

I’ve explained the Heat a lot.

The term was born in the basketball fan’s regular dialogue when they formed and teams and players started trying to replicate what they did after.

No one said “super team” on any kind of regular basis before them.

Why is that? There were surely great teams before?

It was the way their team formed, and the stage of their careers that were the most important parts giving rise to this term in popular culture. Thus it becomes the very definition of the term.

Referencing a Wikipedia page that, from all I can tell wasn’t created until 2019 kinda proves my point that applying it to past teams is revisionist history.

Wiki’s been around since January 2001…and only in the last 6 years has someone finally decided it needed to be defined and dragged in all these teams from the past.

If “super team” has always been around back to the Bulls, or Celtics hey days…why wouldn’t this have been a topic much sooner?

So because super teams weren't a thing before 2011, they never existed?

Yes if super teams didn’t exist before 2011 then they didn’t exist before 2011.

The term was coined to refer to the Heatles with reference back to the Celtics big 3 who beat LeBron and likely prompted him/gave him the idea to form the Heatles, and was used to refer to the then novel practice of several elite players in their primes self assembling a team, ie the Heatles. It is somewhat arguable imo that the Big 3 Celtics were quite the same phenomenon given the 3 players concerned were closer to the end of their careers than to their absolute primes, in the case of two of them anyway, and there were no proclamations of intent to be a dynasty which would win a significant multiple number of titles.

If you want to call all the great teams in NBA history superteams fine, but that is not what they were called in their time and most if not all of them did not self assemble. If you can find a reference to players on any team prior to 2011 including the Celtics Big 3 being called the “superfriends” please post it. If you wish to argue the 72 win Bulls were a superteam because they were the greatest team of all time and better than any LeBron team I certainly won’t argue with you, but this was not (only imo of course) through any lack of effort on LeBron’s part in regard to his teams being as super as he could contrive.

I have never had a problem with LeBron forming the Heatles btw, all 3 were FAs, just with his partisans applying double standards to other players.

So according to you, gravity didn't exist until the actual term was first coined for it in the 1620s.

Do you understand how silly that sounds?

[TheGeneral99]

I don't consider the 1991-1993 Bulls a super team, but I consider the 1996-1998 Bulls a super team. The addition of Rodman, who was arguably the best defensive player and most versatile defender in the league, as well as the best rebounder in the league, was HUGE. In fact, Rodman may have been the Bulls most important player in the 1996 playoffs. He did a fantastic job on Shaq in the ECF and was arguably the Bulls most important player in the finals against the Sonics.

Sonics coach George Karl, who claimed he did not know who was crowned 1996 NBA Finals MVP, hinted that "The Worm" should've been recognized as the best player for his invaluable contributions.

"I don't know who got the MVP, but Dennis Rodman won two basketball games," Karl said. "They got the extra possessions and the extra opportunities."

He was the perfect low maintenance, low usage player to play alongside Jordan and Pippen that could do all the dirty work.

Rodman was another superstar level impact player (defensively) that got added to what was arguably already a top 3 team in the league.

[bledredwine]

So because super teams weren't a thing before 2011, they never existed?

I just can’t anymore. FFS. God help us all.

This is why I don’t reply and I highly recommend it for the time saved. This is especially true if there are unrelated/pointless tactics like arguing semantics, constantly making excuses, cherry-picking, hanging on to one error in a post be it grammatical or whatever (very childish), one-liners, rewriting history, reaching at straws, etc.

This isn’t aimed specifically at iwasawitness btw but just for posters that may give that vibe in general. I don’t even read the post nor care when the notification pops up since it’s fairly predictable. Highly recommend- it’s a game changer.

[Iwasawitness]

So because super teams weren't a thing before 2011, they never existed?

I just can’t anymore. FFS. God help us all.

This is why I don’t reply and I highly recommend it for the time saved. This is especially true if there are unrelated/pointless tactics like arguing semantics, constantly making excuses, cherry-picking, hanging on to one error in a post be it grammatical or whatever (very childish), rewriting history, reaching at straws, etc.

This isn’t aimed specifically at iwasawitness btw but just for posters that may give that vibe in general. I don’t even read the post nor care when the notification pops up since it’s fairly predictable. Highly recommend- it’s a game changer.

So pretty much what you do all the time? Hell, rewriting history is what you're known for on this site.

[bledredwine]

I don't consider the 1991-1993 Bulls a super team, but I consider the 1996-1998 Bulls a super team. The addition of Rodman, who was arguably the best defensive player and most versatile defender in the league, as well as the best rebounder in the league, was HUGE. In fact, Rodman may have been the Bulls most important player in the 1996 playoffs. He did a fantastic job on Shaq in the ECF and was arguably the Bulls most important player in the finals against the Sonics.

Sonics coach George Karl, who claimed he did not know who was crowned 1996 NBA Finals MVP, hinted that "The Worm" should've been recognized as the best player for his invaluable contributions.

"I don't know who got the MVP, but Dennis Rodman won two basketball games," Karl said. "They got the extra possessions and the extra opportunities."

He was the perfect low maintenance, low usage player to play alongside Jordan and Pippen that could do all the dirty work.

Rodman was another superstar level impact player (defensively) that got added to what was arguably already a top 3 team in the league.

See, this is the first reasonable post I’ve seen with this opinion. Everything you wrote objectively makes sense, you backed it up with logic, and even though I disagree, I can respect that take.

91-93 was clearly not. By 98, everyone was far too old and hobbled by the finals to be considered one, especially with Pippen’s back. But if you consider the Bulls a superteam for these reasons, fair enough. But there were multiple teams built extremely well in the same vain when considering both ends, such as the Sonics, Jazz etc

And they made up for it in other areas. The Bulls had three of the best defenders while the Sonics had two, but they had a much better big and could get buckets. That Sonics squad was one of the best defensive teams of all time.

When one player has to clinch a championship by barely winning the game while having over 50% of the team’s points in that game, it’s probably not a superteam. I’d be curious if that’s ever happened before on any so called super team.

[TheGeneral99]

I don't consider the 1991-1993 Bulls a super team, but I consider the 1996-1998 Bulls a super team. The addition of Rodman, who was arguably the best defensive player and most versatile defender in the league, as well as the best rebounder in the league, was HUGE. In fact, Rodman may have been the Bulls most important player in the 1996 playoffs. He did a fantastic job on Shaq in the ECF and was arguably the Bulls most important player in the finals against the Sonics.

Sonics coach George Karl, who claimed he did not know who was crowned 1996 NBA Finals MVP, hinted that "The Worm" should've been recognized as the best player for his invaluable contributions.

"I don't know who got the MVP, but Dennis Rodman won two basketball games," Karl said. "They got the extra possessions and the extra opportunities."

He was the perfect low maintenance, low usage player to play alongside Jordan and Pippen that could do all the dirty work.

Rodman was another superstar level impact player (defensively) that got added to what was arguably already a top 3 team in the league.

See, this is the first reasonable post I’ve seen with this opinion. Everything you wrote objectively makes sense, you backed it up with logic, and even though I disagree, I can respect that take.

91-93 was clearly not. By 98, everyone was far too old and hobbled by the finals to be considered one, especially with Pippen’s back. But if you consider the Bulls a superteam for these reasons, fair enough. But there were multiple teams built extremely well in the same vain when considering both ends, such as the Sonics, Jazz etc

And they made up for it in other areas. The Bulls had three of the best defenders while the Sonics had two, but they had a much better big and could get buckets. That Sonics squad was one of the best defensive teams of all time.

When one player has to clinch a championship by barely winning the game while having over 50% of the team’s points in that game, it’s probably not a superteam. I’d be curious if that’s ever happened before on any so called super team.

Fair, and although the Sonics had two great players, the Bulls big 3 was too formidable.

Jordan - undisputed #1 player in the league
Pippen - top 10 player in the league (some may say arguably top 5)
Rodman - arguably top 15 in the league and top 3 defensively

Payton was a top 10 player and Kemp was a top 20 player, but not as good as Jordan or Pippen.

So the Bulls had 2 superstar level MVP players and another all-star whereas the Sonics had a superstar level player and an all-star.

[Fantastik_Goat]

I don't consider the 1991-1993 Bulls a super team, but I consider the 1996-1998 Bulls a super team. The addition of Rodman, who was arguably the best defensive player and most versatile defender in the league, as well as the best rebounder in the league, was HUGE. In fact, Rodman may have been the Bulls most important player in the 1996 playoffs. He did a fantastic job on Shaq in the ECF and was arguably the Bulls most important player in the finals against the Sonics.



He was the perfect low maintenance, low usage player to play alongside Jordan and Pippen that could do all the dirty work.

Rodman was another superstar level impact player (defensively) that got added to what was arguably already a top 3 team in the league.

See, this is the first reasonable post I’ve seen with this opinion. Everything you wrote objectively makes sense, you backed it up with logic, and even though I disagree, I can respect that take.

91-93 was clearly not. By 98, everyone was far too old and hobbled by the finals to be considered one, especially with Pippen’s back. But if you consider the Bulls a superteam for these reasons, fair enough. But there were multiple teams built extremely well in the same vain when considering both ends, such as the Sonics, Jazz etc

And they made up for it in other areas. The Bulls had three of the best defenders while the Sonics had two, but they had a much better big and could get buckets. That Sonics squad was one of the best defensive teams of all time.

When one player has to clinch a championship by barely winning the game while having over 50% of the team’s points in that game, it’s probably not a superteam. I’d be curious if that’s ever happened before on any so called super team.

Fair, and although the Sonics had two great players, the Bulls big 3 was too formidable.

Jordan - undisputed #1 player in the league
Pippen - top 10 player in the league (some may say arguably top 5)
Rodman - arguably top 15 in the league and top 3 defensively

Payton was a top 10 player and Kemp was a top 20 player, but not as good as Jordan or Pippen.

So the Bulls had 2 superstar level MVP players and another all-star whereas the Sonics had a superstar level player and an all-star.

Hersey Hawkins and Detlef Schrempf were both all stars.

[ShootersShoot]

No because only Scottie could lead a team to a winning season as the guy. The rest of the guys were elite role players. Luckily looks like the NBA may be trending more to that style of ball (with help from the CBA).

Heatles, 17 Warriors, 80’s Lakers and 80’s Celtics probably are the only legit super teams in the modern era that had 3 guys that could all lead a team of role players to the playoffs.

Surely 08 celts would count right? They had multiple #1 options of playoff teams and that didnt include rondo, who made the all star team playing with them.

[NZB2323]

I don't consider the 1991-1993 Bulls a super team, but I consider the 1996-1998 Bulls a super team. The addition of Rodman, who was arguably the best defensive player and most versatile defender in the league, as well as the best rebounder in the league, was HUGE. In fact, Rodman may have been the Bulls most important player in the 1996 playoffs. He did a fantastic job on Shaq in the ECF and was arguably the Bulls most important player in the finals against the Sonics.

Sonics coach George Karl, who claimed he did not know who was crowned 1996 NBA Finals MVP, hinted that "The Worm" should've been recognized as the best player for his invaluable contributions.

"I don't know who got the MVP, but Dennis Rodman won two basketball games," Karl said. "They got the extra possessions and the extra opportunities."

He was the perfect low maintenance, low usage player to play alongside Jordan and Pippen that could do all the dirty work.

Rodman was another superstar level impact player (defensively) that got added to what was arguably already a top 3 team in the league.

See, this is the first reasonable post I’ve seen with this opinion. Everything you wrote objectively makes sense, you backed it up with logic, and even though I disagree, I can respect that take.

91-93 was clearly not. By 98, everyone was far too old and hobbled by the finals to be considered one, especially with Pippen’s back. But if you consider the Bulls a superteam for these reasons, fair enough. But there were multiple teams built extremely well in the same vain when considering both ends, such as the Sonics, Jazz etc

And they made up for it in other areas. The Bulls had three of the best defenders while the Sonics had two, but they had a much better big and could get buckets. That Sonics squad was one of the best defensive teams of all time.

When one player has to clinch a championship by barely winning the game while having over 50% of the team’s points in that game, it’s probably not a superteam. I’d be curious if that’s ever happened before on any so called super team.

It’s the only game in finals history where one player scored over 50% of his teams points. Even when Elgin Baylor scored 61 his team had 126.

[NZB2323]

I don't consider the 1991-1993 Bulls a super team, but I consider the 1996-1998 Bulls a super team. The addition of Rodman, who was arguably the best defensive player and most versatile defender in the league, as well as the best rebounder in the league, was HUGE. In fact, Rodman may have been the Bulls most important player in the 1996 playoffs. He did a fantastic job on Shaq in the ECF and was arguably the Bulls most important player in the finals against the Sonics.



He was the perfect low maintenance, low usage player to play alongside Jordan and Pippen that could do all the dirty work.

Rodman was another superstar level impact player (defensively) that got added to what was arguably already a top 3 team in the league.

See, this is the first reasonable post I’ve seen with this opinion. Everything you wrote objectively makes sense, you backed it up with logic, and even though I disagree, I can respect that take.

91-93 was clearly not. By 98, everyone was far too old and hobbled by the finals to be considered one, especially with Pippen’s back. But if you consider the Bulls a superteam for these reasons, fair enough. But there were multiple teams built extremely well in the same vain when considering both ends, such as the Sonics, Jazz etc

And they made up for it in other areas. The Bulls had three of the best defenders while the Sonics had two, but they had a much better big and could get buckets. That Sonics squad was one of the best defensive teams of all time.

When one player has to clinch a championship by barely winning the game while having over 50% of the team’s points in that game, it’s probably not a superteam. I’d be curious if that’s ever happened before on any so called super team.

Fair, and although the Sonics had two great players, the Bulls big 3 was too formidable.

Jordan - undisputed #1 player in the league
Pippen - top 10 player in the league (some may say arguably top 5)
Rodman - arguably top 15 in the league and top 3 defensively

Payton was a top 10 player and Kemp was a top 20 player, but not as good as Jordan or Pippen.

So the Bulls had 2 superstar level MVP players and another all-star whereas the Sonics had a superstar level player and an all-star.

I think you’re downplaying how good Kemp was. He had the highest GmSc of any player in the 96 Finals, and is the only player to have a higher GmSc than Jordan in a playoff series.

For the 96 playoffs he was 7th in PER, 4th in WS, 7th WS/48, 15th in BPM, and 6th in VORP. We don’t have play-by-play data for 1996.

Additionally Schrempf made 3 all-star teams and Hawkins made an all-star team.

In the 96 Finals Pippen averaged 16 ppg on 42.9 TS%. If we remove Jordan and Payton from the teams, I don’t think it’s a given that the Bulls win. I think it’s far more likely that the SuperSonics win and Kemp wins Finals MVP.

If we’re looking for contemporary comparisons, I would say Kemp was like Amare. He wasn’t the best player at his position, he wasn’t the best defender, and he had a short prime but in his prime he was an efficient scorer who was difficult to stop in the playoffs. I would say Pippen was like PG13. Both finished 3rd in MVP voting one season and had some playoff success as the #1 option, but weren’t A level stars. Pippen was a better defender, passer, and rebounder. PG13 was a better 3 point shooter and volume scorer.