RGM GOAT Debate Thread (Part 2)

[Djoker]

For your first point, it wasn't just Pippen the bulls had, they were a very deep team, say what you want but the bulls were a 55 wins team with a way below average replacement at the SG position in 1994 and they almost won against the knicks who almost won the title in the same year... Also in 1993, as you say, the knicks were up 2-0 vs Chicago but the bulls won game 3 by 20 points even though Jordan was 3-18 in that game.... The margin of error was big

For your second point, the SRS and winning average is very misleading for 2 reasons

First, the bulls played against the first seed in the first round multiple times (both time vs celtics) because the bulls were the 8th seed with a losing record (image to make the playoffs at 30-52), so it raises the average big time and the other reason that's the SRS and record were inflated for all teams especially in the late 1990s because the NBA had so many awesome teams, like another NBA had like 6-7 teams with 60 or more losses so that's a big reason why we saw so many teams with great records since they had so many easy wins during the regular season....If you think teams tank too much now, it even worse in the 1990s, you just have to look at the standing from 1996 to 1998, it was brutal,so many awful team.

So of course the opponents will have a better record with that, which also raises the average of records and SRS....It was a good try by you but context matter

The east were overrated in the 1990s and it was weak.True that the 2010s east were weak too but they did not face a team like the lakers in the Kareem and Magic era at their best in the 1990s in the finals since Magic was gone after 1991....No the 1991 lakers were not the same powerhouse they were in the 1980s

His post also broke it down by round and Jordan faced clearly better opponents in the Conference Finals. This is important because apart from the FInals, this is the round in which teams face their best opposition.

Jordan CF Opponents

1989 ECF Pistons = 63 wins +6.24 SRS
1990 ECF Pistons = 59 wins +5.41 SRS
1991 ECF Pistons = 50 wins +3.08 SRS
1992 ECF Cavaliers = 57 wins +5.34 SRS
1993 ECF Knicks = 60 wins +5.87 SRS
1996 ECF Magic = 60 wins +5.40 SRS
1997 ECF Heat = 61 wins +5.56 SRS
1998 ECF Pacers = 58 wins +6.25 SRS

Average Opponent Faced (8): 58.5 wins +5.39 SRS
Average Opponent Beat (6): 57.8 wins +5.25 SRS

Lebron CF Opponents

2007 ECF Pistons = 53 wins +3.69 SRS
2009 ECF Magic = 59 wins +6.48 SRS
2011 ECF Bulls = 62 wins +6.53 SRS
2012 ECF Celtics = 48 wins +2.26 SRS
2013 ECF Pacers = 50 wins +3.34 SRS
2014 ECF Pacers = 56 wins +3.63 SRS
2015 ECF Hawks = 60 wins +4.75 SRS
2016 ECF Raptors = 56 wins +4.08 SRS
2017 ECF Celtics = 53 wins +2.25 SRS
2018 ECF Celtics = 55 wins +3.23 SRS
2020 WCF Nuggets = 52 wins +2.35 SRS
2023 WCF Nuggets = 53 wins +3.04 SRS

Average Opponents Faced (12): 54.8 wins +3.80 SRS
Average Opponent Beat (10): 54.5 wins +3.61 SRS

By the way, the gap in the Finals isn't big. Lebron's best opponents were better but his worst opponents were worse.

Jordan Finals Opponents

1991 FIN Lakers = 58 wins +6.73 SRS
1992 FIN Blazers = 57 wins +6.94 SRS
1993 FIN Suns = 62 wins +6.27 SRS
1996 FIN Sonics = 64 wins +7.40 SRS
1997 FIN Jazz = 64 wins +7.97 SRS
1998 FIN Jazz = 62 wins +5.73 SRS

Average Opponent Faced (6): 61.2 wins +6.84 SRS
Average Opponent Beat (6): 61.2 wins +6.84 SRS

Lebron Finals Opponents

2007 FIN Spurs = 58 wins +8.35 SRS
2011 FIN Mavs = 57 wins +4.41 SRS
2012 FIN Thunder = 58 wins +6.44 SRS
2013 FIN Spurs = 58 wins +6.67 SRS
2014 FIN Spurs = 62 wins +8.00 SRS
2015 FIN Warriors = 67 wins +10.01 SRS
2016 FIN Warriors = 73 wins +10.38 SRS
2017 FIN Warriors = 67 wins +11.35 SRS
2018 FIN Warriors = 58 wins +5.79 SRS
2020 FIN Heat = 49 wins +2.59 SRS

Average Opponent Faced (10): 60.7 wins +7.40 SRS
Average Opponent Beat (4): 59.5 wins +6.52 SRS

[ScrantonBulls]

For your first point, it wasn't just Pippen the bulls had, they were a very deep team, say what you want but the bulls were a 55 wins team with a way below average replacement at the SG position in 1994 and they almost won against the knicks who almost won the title in the same year... Also in 1993, as you say, the knicks were up 2-0 vs Chicago but the bulls won game 3 by 20 points even though Jordan was 3-18 in that game.... The margin of error was big

For your second point, the SRS and winning average is very misleading for 2 reasons

First, the bulls played against the first seed in the first round multiple times (both time vs celtics) because the bulls were the 8th seed with a losing record (image to make the playoffs at 30-52), so it raises the average big time and the other reason that's the SRS and record were inflated for all teams especially in the late 1990s because the NBA had so many awesome teams, like another NBA had like 6-7 teams with 60 or more losses so that's a big reason why we saw so many teams with great records since they had so many easy wins during the regular season....If you think teams tank too much now, it even worse in the 1990s, you just have to look at the standing from 1996 to 1998, it was brutal,so many awful team.

So of course the opponents will have a better record with that, which also raises the average of records and SRS....It was a good try by you but context matter

The east were overrated in the 1990s and it was weak.True that the 2010s east were weak too but they did not face a team like the lakers in the Kareem and Magic era at their best in the 1990s in the finals since Magic was gone after 1991....No the 1991 lakers were not the same powerhouse they were in the 1980s

His post also broke it down by round and Jordan faced clearly better opponents in the Conference Finals. This is important because apart from the FInals, this is the round in which teams face their best opposition.

Jordan CF Opponents

1989 ECF Pistons = 63 wins +6.24 SRS
1990 ECF Pistons = 59 wins +5.41 SRS
1991 ECF Pistons = 50 wins +3.08 SRS
1992 ECF Cavaliers = 57 wins +5.34 SRS
1993 ECF Knicks = 60 wins +5.87 SRS
1996 ECF Magic = 60 wins +5.40 SRS
1997 ECF Heat = 61 wins +5.56 SRS
1998 ECF Pacers = 58 wins +6.25 SRS

Average Opponent Faced (8): 58.5 wins +5.39 SRS
Average Opponent Beat (6): 57.8 wins +5.25 SRS

Lebron CF Opponents

2007 ECF Pistons = 53 wins +3.69 SRS
2009 ECF Magic = 59 wins +6.48 SRS
2011 ECF Bulls = 62 wins +6.53 SRS
2012 ECF Celtics = 48 wins +2.26 SRS
2013 ECF Pacers = 50 wins +3.34 SRS
2014 ECF Pacers = 56 wins +3.63 SRS
2015 ECF Hawks = 60 wins +4.75 SRS
2016 ECF Raptors = 56 wins +4.08 SRS
2017 ECF Celtics = 53 wins +2.25 SRS
2018 ECF Celtics = 55 wins +3.23 SRS
2020 WCF Nuggets = 52 wins +2.35 SRS
2023 WCF Nuggets = 53 wins +3.04 SRS

Average Opponents Faced (12): 54.8 wins +3.80 SRS
Average Opponent Beat (10): 54.5 wins +3.61 SRS

By the way, the gap in the Finals isn't big. Lebron's best opponents were better but his worst opponents were worse.

Jordan Finals Opponents

1991 FIN Lakers = 58 wins +6.73 SRS
1992 FIN Blazers = 57 wins +6.94 SRS
1993 FIN Suns = 62 wins +6.27 SRS
1996 FIN Sonics = 64 wins +7.40 SRS
1997 FIN Jazz = 64 wins +7.97 SRS
1998 FIN Jazz = 62 wins +5.73 SRS

Average Opponent Faced (6): 61.2 wins +6.84 SRS
Average Opponent Beat (6): 61.2 wins +6.84 SRS

Lebron Finals Opponents

2007 FIN Spurs = 58 wins +8.35 SRS
2011 FIN Mavs = 57 wins +4.41 SRS
2012 FIN Thunder = 58 wins +6.44 SRS
2013 FIN Spurs = 58 wins +6.67 SRS
2014 FIN Spurs = 62 wins +8.00 SRS
2015 FIN Warriors = 67 wins +10.01 SRS
2016 FIN Warriors = 73 wins +10.38 SRS
2017 FIN Warriors = 67 wins +11.35 SRS
2018 FIN Warriors = 58 wins +5.79 SRS
2020 FIN Heat = 49 wins +2.59 SRS

Average Opponent Faced (10): 60.7 wins +7.40 SRS
Average Opponent Beat (4): 59.5 wins +6.52 SRS

Imagine thinking you can just blindly look at SRS and compare teams across eras. The league was full of expansion teams in the 90s, and it was even more diluted with expansion teams and aging stars during the late 90s. Let's look at the 98 Pavers, which had one of the higher SRS. The top 3 scorers were:

32 year old Reggie Miller, averaging 19.5 ppg
31 year old Rik Smits, averaging 16.7 ppg and 6.9 reb
34 year old Chris Mullen averaging 11.3 ppg
They also had 32 year old mark Jackson averaging 8.3 ppg and 8.7 ast.

That old ass team had an SRS near the 2012 Thunder and 2013 Spurs, and better than the 2018 Warriors That team and others the Bulls faced are clearly jokes compared to the thunder, spurs and warriors teams. Blindly looking at SRS during one of the weakest and diluted eras and comparing it to the modern era where you have loads of dominant international players is laughable. Let's use some context and logic here djoker.

[michaelm]

For your first point, it wasn't just Pippen the bulls had, they were a very deep team, say what you want but the bulls were a 55 wins team with a way below average replacement at the SG position in 1994 and they almost won against the knicks who almost won the title in the same year... Also in 1993, as you say, the knicks were up 2-0 vs Chicago but the bulls won game 3 by 20 points even though Jordan was 3-18 in that game.... The margin of error was big

For your second point, the SRS and winning average is very misleading for 2 reasons

First, the bulls played against the first seed in the first round multiple times (both time vs celtics) because the bulls were the 8th seed with a losing record (image to make the playoffs at 30-52), so it raises the average big time and the other reason that's the SRS and record were inflated for all teams especially in the late 1990s because the NBA had so many awesome teams, like another NBA had like 6-7 teams with 60 or more losses so that's a big reason why we saw so many teams with great records since they had so many easy wins during the regular season....If you think teams tank too much now, it even worse in the 1990s, you just have to look at the standing from 1996 to 1998, it was brutal,so many awful team.

So of course the opponents will have a better record with that, which also raises the average of records and SRS....It was a good try by you but context matter

The east were overrated in the 1990s and it was weak.True that the 2010s east were weak too but they did not face a team like the lakers in the Kareem and Magic era at their best in the 1990s in the finals since Magic was gone after 1991....No the 1991 lakers were not the same powerhouse they were in the 1980s

His post also broke it down by round and Jordan faced clearly better opponents in the Conference Finals. This is important because apart from the FInals, this is the round in which teams face their best opposition.

Jordan CF Opponents

1989 ECF Pistons = 63 wins +6.24 SRS
1990 ECF Pistons = 59 wins +5.41 SRS
1991 ECF Pistons = 50 wins +3.08 SRS
1992 ECF Cavaliers = 57 wins +5.34 SRS
1993 ECF Knicks = 60 wins +5.87 SRS
1996 ECF Magic = 60 wins +5.40 SRS
1997 ECF Heat = 61 wins +5.56 SRS
1998 ECF Pacers = 58 wins +6.25 SRS

Average Opponent Faced (8): 58.5 wins +5.39 SRS
Average Opponent Beat (6): 57.8 wins +5.25 SRS

Lebron CF Opponents

2007 ECF Pistons = 53 wins +3.69 SRS
2009 ECF Magic = 59 wins +6.48 SRS
2011 ECF Bulls = 62 wins +6.53 SRS
2012 ECF Celtics = 48 wins +2.26 SRS
2013 ECF Pacers = 50 wins +3.34 SRS
2014 ECF Pacers = 56 wins +3.63 SRS
2015 ECF Hawks = 60 wins +4.75 SRS
2016 ECF Raptors = 56 wins +4.08 SRS
2017 ECF Celtics = 53 wins +2.25 SRS
2018 ECF Celtics = 55 wins +3.23 SRS
2020 WCF Nuggets = 52 wins +2.35 SRS
2023 WCF Nuggets = 53 wins +3.04 SRS

Average Opponents Faced (12): 54.8 wins +3.80 SRS
Average Opponent Beat (10): 54.5 wins +3.61 SRS

By the way, the gap in the Finals isn't big. Lebron's best opponents were better but his worst opponents were worse.

Jordan Finals Opponents

1991 FIN Lakers = 58 wins +6.73 SRS
1992 FIN Blazers = 57 wins +6.94 SRS
1993 FIN Suns = 62 wins +6.27 SRS
1996 FIN Sonics = 64 wins +7.40 SRS
1997 FIN Jazz = 64 wins +7.97 SRS
1998 FIN Jazz = 62 wins +5.73 SRS

Average Opponent Faced (6): 61.2 wins +6.84 SRS
Average Opponent Beat (6): 61.2 wins +6.84 SRS

Lebron Finals Opponents

2007 FIN Spurs = 58 wins +8.35 SRS
2011 FIN Mavs = 57 wins +4.41 SRS
2012 FIN Thunder = 58 wins +6.44 SRS
2013 FIN Spurs = 58 wins +6.67 SRS
2014 FIN Spurs = 62 wins +8.00 SRS
2015 FIN Warriors = 67 wins +10.01 SRS
2016 FIN Warriors = 73 wins +10.38 SRS
2017 FIN Warriors = 67 wins +11.35 SRS
2018 FIN Warriors = 58 wins +5.79 SRS
2020 FIN Heat = 49 wins +2.59 SRS

Average Opponent Faced (10): 60.7 wins +7.40 SRS
Average Opponent Beat (4): 59.5 wins +6.52 SRS

Imagine thinking you can just blindly look at SRS and compare teams across eras. The league was full of expansion teams in the 90s, and it was even more diluted with expansion teams and aging stars during the late 90s. Let's look at the 98 Pavers, which had one of the higher SRS. The top 3 scorers were:

32 year old Reggie Miller, averaging 19.5 ppg
31 year old Rik Smits, averaging 16.7 ppg and 6.9 reb
34 year old Chris Mullen averaging 11.3 ppg
They also had 32 year old mark Jackson averaging 8.3 ppg and 8.7 ast.

That old ass team had an SRS near the 2012 Thunder and 2013 Spurs, and better than the 2018 Warriors That team and others the Bulls faced are clearly jokes compared to the thunder, spurs and warriors teams. Blindly looking at SRS during one of the weakest and diluted eras and comparing it to the modern era where you have loads of dominant international players is laughable. Let's use some context and logic here djoker.

Imagine extrapolating what Pippen did next to Jordan to him being the same player next to LeBron.

[MavsDirk41]

Imagine getting on here and talking like the 98 Pacers was some sort of trash team, only someone born this century would do that. I mean that Pacers team had nothing on the Bubble Miami Heat of course.

[ScrantonBulls]

His post also broke it down by round and Jordan faced clearly better opponents in the Conference Finals. This is important because apart from the FInals, this is the round in which teams face their best opposition.

Jordan CF Opponents

1989 ECF Pistons = 63 wins +6.24 SRS
1990 ECF Pistons = 59 wins +5.41 SRS
1991 ECF Pistons = 50 wins +3.08 SRS
1992 ECF Cavaliers = 57 wins +5.34 SRS
1993 ECF Knicks = 60 wins +5.87 SRS
1996 ECF Magic = 60 wins +5.40 SRS
1997 ECF Heat = 61 wins +5.56 SRS
1998 ECF Pacers = 58 wins +6.25 SRS

Average Opponent Faced (8): 58.5 wins +5.39 SRS
Average Opponent Beat (6): 57.8 wins +5.25 SRS

Lebron CF Opponents

2007 ECF Pistons = 53 wins +3.69 SRS
2009 ECF Magic = 59 wins +6.48 SRS
2011 ECF Bulls = 62 wins +6.53 SRS
2012 ECF Celtics = 48 wins +2.26 SRS
2013 ECF Pacers = 50 wins +3.34 SRS
2014 ECF Pacers = 56 wins +3.63 SRS
2015 ECF Hawks = 60 wins +4.75 SRS
2016 ECF Raptors = 56 wins +4.08 SRS
2017 ECF Celtics = 53 wins +2.25 SRS
2018 ECF Celtics = 55 wins +3.23 SRS
2020 WCF Nuggets = 52 wins +2.35 SRS
2023 WCF Nuggets = 53 wins +3.04 SRS

Average Opponents Faced (12): 54.8 wins +3.80 SRS
Average Opponent Beat (10): 54.5 wins +3.61 SRS

By the way, the gap in the Finals isn't big. Lebron's best opponents were better but his worst opponents were worse.

Jordan Finals Opponents

1991 FIN Lakers = 58 wins +6.73 SRS
1992 FIN Blazers = 57 wins +6.94 SRS
1993 FIN Suns = 62 wins +6.27 SRS
1996 FIN Sonics = 64 wins +7.40 SRS
1997 FIN Jazz = 64 wins +7.97 SRS
1998 FIN Jazz = 62 wins +5.73 SRS

Average Opponent Faced (6): 61.2 wins +6.84 SRS
Average Opponent Beat (6): 61.2 wins +6.84 SRS

Lebron Finals Opponents

2007 FIN Spurs = 58 wins +8.35 SRS
2011 FIN Mavs = 57 wins +4.41 SRS
2012 FIN Thunder = 58 wins +6.44 SRS
2013 FIN Spurs = 58 wins +6.67 SRS
2014 FIN Spurs = 62 wins +8.00 SRS
2015 FIN Warriors = 67 wins +10.01 SRS
2016 FIN Warriors = 73 wins +10.38 SRS
2017 FIN Warriors = 67 wins +11.35 SRS
2018 FIN Warriors = 58 wins +5.79 SRS
2020 FIN Heat = 49 wins +2.59 SRS

Average Opponent Faced (10): 60.7 wins +7.40 SRS
Average Opponent Beat (4): 59.5 wins +6.52 SRS

Imagine thinking you can just blindly look at SRS and compare teams across eras. The league was full of expansion teams in the 90s, and it was even more diluted with expansion teams and aging stars during the late 90s. Let's look at the 98 Pavers, which had one of the higher SRS. The top 3 scorers were:

32 year old Reggie Miller, averaging 19.5 ppg
31 year old Rik Smits, averaging 16.7 ppg and 6.9 reb
34 year old Chris Mullen averaging 11.3 ppg
They also had 32 year old mark Jackson averaging 8.3 ppg and 8.7 ast.

That old ass team had an SRS near the 2012 Thunder and 2013 Spurs, and better than the 2018 Warriors That team and others the Bulls faced are clearly jokes compared to the thunder, spurs and warriors teams. Blindly looking at SRS during one of the weakest and diluted eras and comparing it to the modern era where you have loads of dominant international players is laughable. Let's use some context and logic here djoker.

Imagine extrapolating what Pippen did next to Jordan to him being the same player next to LeBron.

Imagine deifying MJ by giving him credit for Pippen becoming an all-time great. Couldn't be me, son.

[michaelm]

Imagine thinking you can just blindly look at SRS and compare teams across eras. The league was full of expansion teams in the 90s, and it was even more diluted with expansion teams and aging stars during the late 90s. Let's look at the 98 Pavers, which had one of the higher SRS. The top 3 scorers were:

32 year old Reggie Miller, averaging 19.5 ppg
31 year old Rik Smits, averaging 16.7 ppg and 6.9 reb
34 year old Chris Mullen averaging 11.3 ppg
They also had 32 year old mark Jackson averaging 8.3 ppg and 8.7 ast.

That old ass team had an SRS near the 2012 Thunder and 2013 Spurs, and better than the 2018 Warriors That team and others the Bulls faced are clearly jokes compared to the thunder, spurs and warriors teams. Blindly looking at SRS during one of the weakest and diluted eras and comparing it to the modern era where you have loads of dominant international players is laughable. Let's use some context and logic here djoker.

Imagine extrapolating what Pippen did next to Jordan to him being the same player next to LeBron.

Imagine deifying MJ by giving him credit for Pippen becoming an all-time great. Couldn't be me, son.

You are also thinking of someone else my boy. The player Piipen became as with any highly elite player was mainly down to his innate talent and hard work. Whether he would have had enough of a role to become the player he did on a team playing heliocentric LeBronball, and whether LeBron would have stayed long enough for him to reach his peak and would have refrained from trading him and/or the pick which resulted in him being at the Bulls are the questions.

So LeBron is better than Jordan because his teams weren’t as good ?. On the contrary in the team sport of basketball Jordan’s teams being better is one of the larger reasons why Jordan was better.

[Djoker]

Imagine thinking you can just blindly look at SRS and compare teams across eras. The league was full of expansion teams in the 90s, and it was even more diluted with expansion teams and aging stars during the late 90s. Let's look at the 98 Pavers, which had one of the higher SRS. The top 3 scorers were:

32 year old Reggie Miller, averaging 19.5 ppg
31 year old Rik Smits, averaging 16.7 ppg and 6.9 reb
34 year old Chris Mullen averaging 11.3 ppg
They also had 32 year old mark Jackson averaging 8.3 ppg and 8.7 ast.

That old ass team had an SRS near the 2012 Thunder and 2013 Spurs, and better than the 2018 Warriors That team and others the Bulls faced are clearly jokes compared to the thunder, spurs and warriors teams. Blindly looking at SRS during one of the weakest and diluted eras and comparing it to the modern era where you have loads of dominant international players is laughable. Let's use some context and logic here djoker.

Why is expansion relevant? The leagues back then had 27 then 29 teams. The league today has 30 teams. There's also plenty of bottom feeders for the top dogs to dominate. The expansion argument can only hurt the Bulls (and modern teams) relative to earlier eras like the 80's. In those early eras with fewer teams, it was much tougher to have a high SRS but the 90's vs. today is the same.

There were plenty of international players in the 90's too. The thing is a lot of them like Hakeem, Ewing and Mutombo went to US colleges and so weren't treated as international players but they definitely weren't American. Today's overwhelming number of international players can also easily be interpreted as the US losing supremacy in basketball rather than the rest of the word getting better.

[ScrantonBulls]

Imagine thinking you can just blindly look at SRS and compare teams across eras. The league was full of expansion teams in the 90s, and it was even more diluted with expansion teams and aging stars during the late 90s. Let's look at the 98 Pavers, which had one of the higher SRS. The top 3 scorers were:

32 year old Reggie Miller, averaging 19.5 ppg
31 year old Rik Smits, averaging 16.7 ppg and 6.9 reb
34 year old Chris Mullen averaging 11.3 ppg
They also had 32 year old mark Jackson averaging 8.3 ppg and 8.7 ast.

That old ass team had an SRS near the 2012 Thunder and 2013 Spurs, and better than the 2018 Warriors That team and others the Bulls faced are clearly jokes compared to the thunder, spurs and warriors teams. Blindly looking at SRS during one of the weakest and diluted eras and comparing it to the modern era where you have loads of dominant international players is laughable. Let's use some context and logic here djoker.

Why is expansion relevant? The leagues back then had 27 then 29 teams. The league today has 30 teams. There's also plenty of bottom feeders for the top dogs to dominate. The expansion argument can only hurt the Bulls (and modern teams) relative to earlier eras like the 80's. In those early eras with fewer teams, it was much tougher to have a high SRS but the 90's vs. today is the same.

There were plenty of international players in the 90's too. The thing is a lot of them like Hakeem, Ewing and Mutombo went to US colleges and so weren't treated as international players but they definitely weren't American. Today's overwhelming number of international players can also easily be interpreted as the US losing supremacy in basketball rather than the rest of the word getting better.

1. Lol at considering Ewing an international players. He moved to the US during middle school.
2. Lol at acting like there was an international presence in the 90s that us even close to what it is now. That's some big time Jordan mythologist mental gymnastics. I don't even need to explain further because any basketball fan knows that's so completely off base. Same with you acting like the expansion era wasn't very diluted due to the new teams and lack of international presence.

[Djoker]

Imagine thinking you can just blindly look at SRS and compare teams across eras. The league was full of expansion teams in the 90s, and it was even more diluted with expansion teams and aging stars during the late 90s. Let's look at the 98 Pavers, which had one of the higher SRS. The top 3 scorers were:

32 year old Reggie Miller, averaging 19.5 ppg
31 year old Rik Smits, averaging 16.7 ppg and 6.9 reb
34 year old Chris Mullen averaging 11.3 ppg
They also had 32 year old mark Jackson averaging 8.3 ppg and 8.7 ast.

That old ass team had an SRS near the 2012 Thunder and 2013 Spurs, and better than the 2018 Warriors That team and others the Bulls faced are clearly jokes compared to the thunder, spurs and warriors teams. Blindly looking at SRS during one of the weakest and diluted eras and comparing it to the modern era where you have loads of dominant international players is laughable. Let's use some context and logic here djoker.

Why is expansion relevant? The leagues back then had 27 then 29 teams. The league today has 30 teams. There's also plenty of bottom feeders for the top dogs to dominate. The expansion argument can only hurt the Bulls (and modern teams) relative to earlier eras like the 80's. In those early eras with fewer teams, it was much tougher to have a high SRS but the 90's vs. today is the same.

There were plenty of international players in the 90's too. The thing is a lot of them like Hakeem, Ewing and Mutombo went to US colleges and so weren't treated as international players but they definitely weren't American. Today's overwhelming number of international players can also easily be interpreted as the US losing supremacy in basketball rather than the rest of the word getting better.

1. Lol at considering Ewing an international players. He moved to the US during middle school.
2. Lol at acting like there was an international presence in the 90s that us even close to what it is now. That's some big time Jordan mythologist mental gymnastics. I don't even need to explain further because any basketball fan knows that's so completely off base. Same with you acting like the expansion era wasn't very diluted due to the new teams and lack of international presence.

1. Using that logic, Embiid is also not an international player. Silly... If you're not born in the US/Canada, your talent comes from abroad.

2. There is more international presence now but a) The extent of it is overblown. Like I said, multiple stars in the 90's were international players but weren't treated as such on a technicality that they went to US colleges. b) The rise in the number of international players could simply mean that there is a decline in American talent. The root cause of the rise of international presence in the NBA is debatable.

[EmpireFalls]

Why is expansion relevant? The leagues back then had 27 then 29 teams. The league today has 30 teams. There's also plenty of bottom feeders for the top dogs to dominate. The expansion argument can only hurt the Bulls (and modern teams) relative to earlier eras like the 80's. In those early eras with fewer teams, it was much tougher to have a high SRS but the 90's vs. today is the same.

There were plenty of international players in the 90's too. The thing is a lot of them like Hakeem, Ewing and Mutombo went to US colleges and so weren't treated as international players but they definitely weren't American. Today's overwhelming number of international players can also easily be interpreted as the US losing supremacy in basketball rather than the rest of the word getting better.

1. Lol at considering Ewing an international players. He moved to the US during middle school.
2. Lol at acting like there was an international presence in the 90s that us even close to what it is now. That's some big time Jordan mythologist mental gymnastics. I don't even need to explain further because any basketball fan knows that's so completely off base. Same with you acting like the expansion era wasn't very diluted due to the new teams and lack of international presence.

1. Using that logic, Embiid is also not an international player. Silly... If you're not born in the US/Canada, your talent comes from abroad.

2. There is more international presence now but a) The extent of it is overblown. Like I said, multiple stars in the 90's were international players but weren't treated as such on a technicality that they went to US colleges. b) The rise in the number of international players could simply mean that there is a decline in American talent. The root cause of the rise of international presence in the NBA is debatable.

Only debatable if you’re an idiot, I would say. you’d have to be incredibly obtuse, intentionally so, to act like there really is no difference in international talent.

No one could possibly have observed the Olympics in 92/96 and observed them in 20/24 and thought that the only difference was the USA weakening. Clearly the world has taken a giant leap forward.

[ScrantonBulls]

1. Lol at considering Ewing an international players. He moved to the US during middle school.
2. Lol at acting like there was an international presence in the 90s that us even close to what it is now. That's some big time Jordan mythologist mental gymnastics. I don't even need to explain further because any basketball fan knows that's so completely off base. Same with you acting like the expansion era wasn't very diluted due to the new teams and lack of international presence.

1. Using that logic, Embiid is also not an international player. Silly... If you're not born in the US/Canada, your talent comes from abroad.

2. There is more international presence now but a) The extent of it is overblown. Like I said, multiple stars in the 90's were international players but weren't treated as such on a technicality that they went to US colleges. b) The rise in the number of international players could simply mean that there is a decline in American talent. The root cause of the rise of international presence in the NBA is debatable.

Only debatable if you’re an idiot, I would say. you’d have to be incredibly obtuse, intentionally so, to act like there really is no difference in international talent.

No one could possibly have observed the Olympics in 92/96 and observed them in 20/24 and thought that the only difference was the USA weakening. Clearly the world has taken a giant leap forward.

It's so odd to me that people need to be intentionally obtuse and dishonest because they love one guy over another. Has he ACTUALLY convinced himself of the clearly wrong fact because he loves MJ/90s so much, or is he trying to trick people? Just imagine the USA vs World all-star game they're considering. Imagine that today vs in the 90s. It's so blatantly obvious the international talent is far stronger now.

[bledredwine]

1. Lol at considering Ewing an international players. He moved to the US during middle school.
2. Lol at acting like there was an international presence in the 90s that us even close to what it is now. That's some big time Jordan mythologist mental gymnastics. I don't even need to explain further because any basketball fan knows that's so completely off base. Same with you acting like the expansion era wasn't very diluted due to the new teams and lack of international presence.

1. Using that logic, Embiid is also not an international player. Silly... If you're not born in the US/Canada, your talent comes from abroad.

2. There is more international presence now but a) The extent of it is overblown. Like I said, multiple stars in the 90's were international players but weren't treated as such on a technicality that they went to US colleges. b) The rise in the number of international players could simply mean that there is a decline in American talent. The root cause of the rise of international presence in the NBA is debatable.

Only debatable if you’re an idiot, I would say. you’d have to be incredibly obtuse, intentionally so, to act like there really is no difference in international talent.

No one could possibly have observed the Olympics in 92/96 and observed them in 20/24 and thought that the only difference was the USA weakening. Clearly the world has taken a giant leap forward.

Chill on the high schooler insults. It's basketball.
Arvidas Sabonis, Hakeem, Ewing, Dikembe, Drazen were all international players. We also had strong role players like Schrempf Vlade Kukoc and so on, so check yourself.
It's certainly debatable, though I am on the side that international players are improving.

If anything, the US players now are weak as hell from playing in a 2-dimensional league that simply emphasizes face to basket play, perimeter passing and not much else and the international players are way the hell better than them... well, obviously since the best players are all international.

For those of you keeping it classy and reading, keep this in mind. The more someone resorts to insults, the more they've thrown in the flag and are frustrated with how this debate is going. You've already won. That's why I get to ignore Scranton's posts and don't read a single word 95% of the time, for example

[EmpireFalls]

1. Using that logic, Embiid is also not an international player. Silly... If you're not born in the US/Canada, your talent comes from abroad.

2. There is more international presence now but a) The extent of it is overblown. Like I said, multiple stars in the 90's were international players but weren't treated as such on a technicality that they went to US colleges. b) The rise in the number of international players could simply mean that there is a decline in American talent. The root cause of the rise of international presence in the NBA is debatable.

Only debatable if you’re an idiot, I would say. you’d have to be incredibly obtuse, intentionally so, to act like there really is no difference in international talent.

No one could possibly have observed the Olympics in 92/96 and observed them in 20/24 and thought that the only difference was the USA weakening. Clearly the world has taken a giant leap forward.

Chill on the high schooler insults. It's basketball.
Arvidas Sabonis, Hakeem, Ewing, Dikembe, Drazen were all international players. We also had strong role players like Schrempf Vlade Kukoc and so on, so check yourself.
It's certainly debatable, though I am on the side that international players are improving.

If anything, the US players now are weak as hell from playing in a 2-dimensional league that simply emphasizes face to basket play, perimeter passing and not much else and the international players are way the hell better than them... well, obviously since the best players are all international.

For those of you keeping it classy and reading, keep this in mind. The more someone resorts to insults, the more they've thrown in the flag and are frustrated with how this debate is going. You've already won. That's why I get to ignore Scranton's posts and don't read a single word 95% of the time, for example

Because the difference in international player both in quality and depth is so drastic as to be impossible to argue against.

Have a look at this image.

The NBA went from <5% international players to over 25% international players. The Olympics were much, much, much more competitive in 2024 than 1992 or even 1996, it’s not even close. Moreover it’s not just volume but quality. Jokic SGA Giannis Luka are all first team All-NBA last season. Trust me when I say there was nowhere near that amount of quality international talent playing at that level, even if you count Ewing and Olajuwon.

Again, please look at the image above and really analyze it. Then ask yourself how you could possibly say that the amount of international talent in 1992/1996 is the same as today. Please.

That argument simply doesn’t exist if one is being honest.

[Djoker]

Only debatable if you’re an idiot, I would say. you’d have to be incredibly obtuse, intentionally so, to act like there really is no difference in international talent.

No one could possibly have observed the Olympics in 92/96 and observed them in 20/24 and thought that the only difference was the USA weakening. Clearly the world has taken a giant leap forward.

Chill on the high schooler insults. It's basketball.
Arvidas Sabonis, Hakeem, Ewing, Dikembe, Drazen were all international players. We also had strong role players like Schrempf Vlade Kukoc and so on, so check yourself.
It's certainly debatable, though I am on the side that international players are improving.

If anything, the US players now are weak as hell from playing in a 2-dimensional league that simply emphasizes face to basket play, perimeter passing and not much else and the international players are way the hell better than them... well, obviously since the best players are all international.

For those of you keeping it classy and reading, keep this in mind. The more someone resorts to insults, the more they've thrown in the flag and are frustrated with how this debate is going. You've already won. That's why I get to ignore Scranton's posts and don't read a single word 95% of the time, for example

Because the difference in international player both in quality and depth is so drastic as to be impossible to argue against.

Have a look at this image.

The NBA went from <5% international players to over 25% international players. The Olympics were much, much, much more competitive in 2024 than 1992 or even 1996, it’s not even close. Moreover it’s not just volume but quality. Jokic SGA Giannis Luka are all first team All-NBA last season. Trust me when I say there was nowhere near that amount of quality international talent playing at that level, even if you count Ewing and Olajuwon.

Again, please look at the image above and really analyze it. Then ask yourself how you could possibly say that the amount of international talent in 1992/1996 is the same as today. Please.

That argument simply doesn’t exist if one is being honest.

Dude I wasn't denying that there is more international talent in the NBA today. There obviously is. That's a fact.

I was simply saying that instead of the reason being that international players have improved, it could also be that US players have declined which makes international players look better in comparison. Or it could be that those international leagues (mainly European) got worse in terms of both status and pay which makes more players come over to the NBA. Which of those is true is hard to tell. Could be a bit of all of them too.

[The High Cyde]

That’s just wrong. The US didn’t get worse, the sport just became more accessible globally, leading to a deluge of talent in the league over time, and balancing out the NBA making it more international.

[bledredwine]

That’s just wrong. The US didn’t get worse, the sport just became more accessible globally, leading to a deluge of talent in the league over time, and balancing out the NBA making it more international.

I’ve got to agree to disagree here. Face to the basket allows more freedom and ease to make flashy looking moves, and this is likely fooling a lot of people into thinking players are good, but the US players look poor right now. There aren’t many if any ATGs.

Luka and Jokic are playing at that peak Lebron/Wade/Dwight/Kobe’ish level. There’s no american player right now who’s remotely close to those guys. At any given time, you had multiple Americans playing at that high top 5 level. Now, no one is that consistently dominant.

Duncan Shaq Kobe wipes the fooor with anyone now, and obviously the 90s american stars slaughter the 2025 american star talent.

[michaelm]

1. Using that logic, Embiid is also not an international player. Silly... If you're not born in the US/Canada, your talent comes from abroad.

2. There is more international presence now but a) The extent of it is overblown. Like I said, multiple stars in the 90's were international players but weren't treated as such on a technicality that they went to US colleges. b) The rise in the number of international players could simply mean that there is a decline in American talent. The root cause of the rise of international presence in the NBA is debatable.

Only debatable if you’re an idiot, I would say. you’d have to be incredibly obtuse, intentionally so, to act like there really is no difference in international talent.

No one could possibly have observed the Olympics in 92/96 and observed them in 20/24 and thought that the only difference was the USA weakening. Clearly the world has taken a giant leap forward.

It's so odd to me that people need to be intentionally obtuse and dishonest because they love one guy over another. Has he ACTUALLY convinced himself of the clearly wrong fact because he loves MJ/90s so much, or is he trying to trick people? Just imagine the USA vs World all-star game they're considering. Imagine that today vs in the 90s. It's so blatantly obvious the international talent is far stronger now.

Irony can be rather ironic.

If people are intentionally obtuse and dishonest because they love one guy over another you are foremost among them postulating all manner of nonsense in regard to why Jordan’s titles should be devalued, this current exchange yet another example.

In regard to the other thread of course another title as a significant contributor would further enhance LeBron’s stature, but would rather blow out of the water your frequent contentions that Jordan’s titles don’t really count because he had too much help, particularly having Pippen on his team, and you guys might need to re-evaluate Kareem’s late career titles as well, which have been dismissed by many of your ilk because he wasn’t the “lead” player.

[EmpireFalls]

Chill on the high schooler insults. It's basketball.
Arvidas Sabonis, Hakeem, Ewing, Dikembe, Drazen were all international players. We also had strong role players like Schrempf Vlade Kukoc and so on, so check yourself.
It's certainly debatable, though I am on the side that international players are improving.

If anything, the US players now are weak as hell from playing in a 2-dimensional league that simply emphasizes face to basket play, perimeter passing and not much else and the international players are way the hell better than them... well, obviously since the best players are all international.

For those of you keeping it classy and reading, keep this in mind. The more someone resorts to insults, the more they've thrown in the flag and are frustrated with how this debate is going. You've already won. That's why I get to ignore Scranton's posts and don't read a single word 95% of the time, for example

Because the difference in international player both in quality and depth is so drastic as to be impossible to argue against.

Have a look at this image.

The NBA went from <5% international players to over 25% international players. The Olympics were much, much, much more competitive in 2024 than 1992 or even 1996, it’s not even close. Moreover it’s not just volume but quality. Jokic SGA Giannis Luka are all first team All-NBA last season. Trust me when I say there was nowhere near that amount of quality international talent playing at that level, even if you count Ewing and Olajuwon.

Again, please look at the image above and really analyze it. Then ask yourself how you could possibly say that the amount of international talent in 1992/1996 is the same as today. Please.

That argument simply doesn’t exist if one is being honest.

Dude I wasn't denying that there is more international talent in the NBA today. There obviously is. That's a fact.

I was simply saying that instead of the reason being that international players have improved, it could also be that US players have declined which makes international players look better in comparison. Or it could be that those international leagues (mainly European) got worse in terms of both status and pay which makes more players come over to the NBA. Which of those is true is hard to tell. Could be a bit of all of them too.

I genuinely don’t know how to respond to this sort of argumentation tactic.

Yes, I put a pot of water on the stove and turned the knob on, and it magically started boiling.

Could it be that the stove provided the heat? It is hard to tell. It could be that there is some external heating source above the water. It could also possibly be that the rest of my house got so cold that the water started boiling magically. I guess we’ll never know.

[ScrantonBulls]

Because the difference in international player both in quality and depth is so drastic as to be impossible to argue against.

Have a look at this image.

The NBA went from <5% international players to over 25% international players. The Olympics were much, much, much more competitive in 2024 than 1992 or even 1996, it’s not even close. Moreover it’s not just volume but quality. Jokic SGA Giannis Luka are all first team All-NBA last season. Trust me when I say there was nowhere near that amount of quality international talent playing at that level, even if you count Ewing and Olajuwon.

Again, please look at the image above and really analyze it. Then ask yourself how you could possibly say that the amount of international talent in 1992/1996 is the same as today. Please.

That argument simply doesn’t exist if one is being honest.

Dude I wasn't denying that there is more international talent in the NBA today. There obviously is. That's a fact.

I was simply saying that instead of the reason being that international players have improved, it could also be that US players have declined which makes international players look better in comparison. Or it could be that those international leagues (mainly European) got worse in terms of both status and pay which makes more players come over to the NBA. Which of those is true is hard to tell. Could be a bit of all of them too.

I genuinely don’t know how to respond to this sort of argumentation tactic.

Yes, I put a pot of water on the stove and turned the knob on, and it magically started boiling.

Could it be that the stove provided the heat? It is hard to tell. It could be that there is some external heating source above the water. It could also possibly be that the rest of my house got so cold that the water started boiling magically. I guess we’ll never know.

Lmao, it's absurd really. I've never seen something like that. The intellectual dishonesty in some of these debate tactics is off the charts. We really have to play these games because people are this insecure about LeBron being a potential GOAT?

[Djoker]

Because the difference in international player both in quality and depth is so drastic as to be impossible to argue against.

Have a look at this image.

The NBA went from <5% international players to over 25% international players. The Olympics were much, much, much more competitive in 2024 than 1992 or even 1996, it’s not even close. Moreover it’s not just volume but quality. Jokic SGA Giannis Luka are all first team All-NBA last season. Trust me when I say there was nowhere near that amount of quality international talent playing at that level, even if you count Ewing and Olajuwon.

Again, please look at the image above and really analyze it. Then ask yourself how you could possibly say that the amount of international talent in 1992/1996 is the same as today. Please.

That argument simply doesn’t exist if one is being honest.

Dude I wasn't denying that there is more international talent in the NBA today. There obviously is. That's a fact.

I was simply saying that instead of the reason being that international players have improved, it could also be that US players have declined which makes international players look better in comparison. Or it could be that those international leagues (mainly European) got worse in terms of both status and pay which makes more players come over to the NBA. Which of those is true is hard to tell. Could be a bit of all of them too.

I genuinely don’t know how to respond to this sort of argumentation tactic.

Yes, I put a pot of water on the stove and turned the knob on, and it magically started boiling.

Could it be that the stove provided the heat? It is hard to tell. It could be that there is some external heating source above the water. It could also possibly be that the rest of my house got so cold that the water started boiling magically. I guess we’ll never know.

If you think what I said is anything like your "water boiling in a pot" example, then I don't know what to tell you.