homecourtloss wrote:why do you keep switchin between point diff and games. rox were better with or without cf
It seems strange to say basically outside of a conference finals, they were about the same when that conference finals had a player in Hakeem be the best player on the court while playing essentially a +8 SRS juggernaut and his play primarily leading to a defeating win against a great team. Also note that Hakeem only played 68 games that year—Bulls with 82 games and 39 minutes of Jordan were marginally better than a Rockets team with only 68 games of Hakeem.
Here’s what the ‘85—‘87 Lakers did in the playoffs:
1986 Lakers vs. Spurs: +31.4 NRtg, 122.7 ORtg 1986 Lakers vs. Mavs: +5.1 NRtg, 119.7 ORtg 1986 Lakers vs. Rockets: -3.6 NRtg, 107.4 ORtg
1987 Lakers vs. Nuggets: +25.2 NRtg, 125.1 ORtg 1987 Lakers vs. Warriors: +10.5 NRtg, 121.7 ORtg 1987 Lakers vs. Sonics: +11.4 NRtg, 117.2 ORtg 1987 Lakers vs. Celtics: +4.3 NRtg, 118.4 ORtg
NOBODY could stop that Lakers offense—the 1985 Celtics slowed them a little, but the Rockets did something pretty extraordinary in 1986 that really doesn’t get celebrated enough. 1990 Jordan was of course amazing, and played great in the playoffs (though the 1990 Pistons aren’t in the same tier as this Lakers team—1990 pistons had some of the best health ever and were still a tier below that Lakers’ juggernaut), but 82 games, 39 mpg of a player basically at his peak producing that SRS (and then playinand seems to be swept away while what 1986 Hakeem did doesn’t seem to get the fanfare it should.
its also wrong? the numbers were posted. the rox were better than the bulls besides the cf
I literally posted the two teams’ playoff SRS outside of those conference finals, and the Bulls’ was higher. I don’t know what you’re talking about. The argument here just absolutely rests on what happened in the respective conference finals. It’d be good if you’d stop just making short declarations saying things that people have already provided evidence refuting, as if to force them to do so again.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
It seems strange to say basically outside of a conference finals, they were about the same when that conference finals had a player in Hakeem be the best player on the court while playing essentially a +8 SRS juggernaut and his play primarily leading to a defeating win against a great team. Also note that Hakeem only played 68 games that year—Bulls with 82 games and 39 minutes of Jordan were marginally better than a Rockets team with only 68 games of Hakeem.
Here’s what the ‘85—‘87 Lakers did in the playoffs:
1986 Lakers vs. Spurs: +31.4 NRtg, 122.7 ORtg 1986 Lakers vs. Mavs: +5.1 NRtg, 119.7 ORtg 1986 Lakers vs. Rockets: -3.6 NRtg, 107.4 ORtg
1987 Lakers vs. Nuggets: +25.2 NRtg, 125.1 ORtg 1987 Lakers vs. Warriors: +10.5 NRtg, 121.7 ORtg 1987 Lakers vs. Sonics: +11.4 NRtg, 117.2 ORtg 1987 Lakers vs. Celtics: +4.3 NRtg, 118.4 ORtg
NOBODY could stop that Lakers offense—the 1985 Celtics slowed them a little, but the Rockets did something pretty extraordinary in 1986 that really doesn’t get celebrated enough. 1990 Jordan was of course amazing, and played great in the playoffs (though the 1990 Pistons aren’t in the same tier as this Lakers team—1990 pistons had some of the best health ever and were still a tier below that Lakers’ juggernaut), but 82 games, 39 mpg of a player basically at his peak producing that SRS (and then playinand seems to be swept away while what 1986 Hakeem did doesn’t seem to get the fanfare it should.
its also wrong? the numbers were posted. the rox were better than the bulls besides the cf
I literally posted the two teams’ playoff SRS outside of those conference finals, and the Bulls’ was higher. I don’t know what you’re talking about. The argument here just absolutely rests on what happened in the respective conference finals. It’d be good if you’d stop just making short declarations saying things that people have already provided evidence refuting, as if to force them to do so again.
?? the op had the rox as better vs the celts than the bulls were vs the bad boys
kds numbers also got them better than the bulls in first 2 rounds
ShaqAttac wrote:its also wrong? the numbers were posted. the rox were better than the bulls besides the cf
I literally posted the two teams’ playoff SRS outside of those conference finals, and the Bulls’ was higher. I don’t know what you’re talking about. The argument here just absolutely rests on what happened in the respective conference finals. It’d be good if you’d stop just making short declarations saying things that people have already provided evidence refuting, as if to force them to do so again.
?? the op had the rox as better vs the celts than the bulls were vs the bad boys
kds numbers also got them better than the bulls in first 2 rounds
how are they not better?
Read my post again and figure it out. I was very clear in the information I provided, and I don’t have much interest in repeating stuff for you over and over while you act like you’ve not read what I wrote.
Please also note that “rox as better vs the celts than the bulls were vs the bad boys” is itself a statement that is really about the conference finals, since the Bulls played the Pistons in the conference finals (and that’s where the supporting cast put in a dispositively awful shooting performance).
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
- are clearly outperforming the Bulls in the first round - are outperforming the Bulls in their respective elimination rounds if taking regular season SRS at face value - are outperforming the Bulls through two rounds if incorporating real playoff results and not taking regular season SRS at face value
… but because this is Michael Jordan, that all gets brushed off as one random single series advantage.
The only reason you can try to make it a conversation is that the Bulls blew out a 4 SRS 76ers team in the conference semifinals… immediately following those 76ers looking nothing like a 4 SRS team against the Cavaliers. The Bulls are the ones with an argument tied to one round here.
- are clearly outperforming the Bulls in the first round - are outperforming the Bulls in their respective elimination rounds if taking regular season SRS at face value - are outperforming the Bulls through two rounds if incorporating real playoff results and not taking regular season SRS at face value
… but because this is Michael Jordan, that all gets brushed off as one random single series advantage.
The only reason you can try to make it a conversation is that the Bulls blew out a 4 SRS 76ers team in the conference semifinals… immediately following those 76ers looking nothing like a 4 SRS team against the Cavaliers. The Bulls are the ones with an argument tied to one round here.
Again, without the conference finals, the Bulls playoff SRS was higher. You can try to slice and dice things as much as you want, but that’s the overall reality.
Also, the idea that “those 76ers look[ed] nothing like a 4 SRS team against the Cavaliers” is just obviously silly and said by someone who obviously did not watch basketball back then. The Cavaliers missed Brad Daugherty (probably their best player) for half the season, and Larry Nance (probably their third best player) also missed a bunch of time. They went 24-17 with a 2.21 SRS in games Daugherty played once he came back. And it took them a bit of time to get back into the swing of things once Daugherty came back, but they finished the year 17-6 with over a 5 SRS in that timespan. Meanwhile, they’d been a 57-win 7.95 SRS team the year before when they were largely healthy. The 1990 Cavaliers were healthy when they faced the 1990 76ers. The idea that the 76ers beating that team in a tough series shows the 76ers “look[ed] nothing like a 4 SRS team” is something someone would only say if they were woefully under-informed and just trying to throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks. It’s nonsense. It was actually a very impressive series win from the 76ers.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
- are clearly outperforming the Bulls in the first round - are outperforming the Bulls in their respective elimination rounds if taking regular season SRS at face value - are outperforming the Bulls through two rounds if incorporating real playoff results and not taking regular season SRS at face value
… but because this is Michael Jordan, that all gets brushed off as one random single series advantage.
The only reason you can try to make it a conversation is that the Bulls blew out a 4 SRS 76ers team in the conference semifinals… immediately following those 76ers looking nothing like a 4 SRS team against the Cavaliers. The Bulls are the ones with an argument tied to one round here.
Again, without the conference finals, the Bulls playoff SRS was higher. You can try to slice and dice things as much as you want, but that’s the overall reality.
And then if you take out the conference semi-finals it swings right back around to the Rockets.
Also, the idea that “those 76ers look[ed] nothing like a 4 SRS team against the Cavaliers” is just obviously silly and said by someone who obviously did not watch basketball back then. The Cavaliers missed Brad Daugherty (probably their best player) for half the season, and Larry Nance (probably their third best player) also missed a bunch of time. They went 24-17 with a 2.21 SRS in games Daugherty played once he came back. And it took them a bit of time to get back into the swing of things once Daugherty came back, but they finished the year 17-6 with over a 5 SRS in that timespan. Meanwhile, they’d been a 57-win 7.95 SRS team the year before when they were largely healthy. The 1990 Cavaliers were healthy when they faced the 1990 76ers. The idea that the 76ers beating that team in a tough series shows the 76ers “look[ed] nothing like a 4 SRS team” is something someone would only say if they were woefully under-informed and just trying to throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks. It’s nonsense. It was actually a very impressive series win from the 76ers.
Incredible how quickly Jordan deifiers start projecting.
No, this is you demonstrably trying to throw nonsense at the wall trying to see what sticks. No one watching basketball back then took the Cavaliers that seriously (perhaps outside of Cleveland), and claiming otherwise is doing nothing for your credibility. They were a 7.95 SRS team in the same sense that the 2018 Raptors were a 7.3 one. Same way the 1994/95 Sonics were an 8+ one. But because that status occasionally helps Jordan’s mythos, we have people like you pretend they were some serious presence. I was and am aware they were injured, yes. The problem is we can take that 5-SRS value and the 76ers still underperformed. Just as they did against the Bulls, and just as they would against the Bulls the following year (although nowhere near as badly). Just as they did against the Knicks the prior year. Barkley was a lone-star in Philadelphia for five series once Erving left, and his team underperformed their base level expectations four times (but hey, props for wiping the floor with the 1991 Bucks).
This is evidently what it takes to deify Jordan. Pretend all opponents were better than they were. Pretend a one-off 8-SRS team which had been a +3.5 team with their core the prior year, which never performed like that in the postseason, and which lost their second best guard, was actually still so impressive that a -2.5 result was appropriate for a 4 SRS team. Throw out the best results of players who might possibly threaten Jordan’s myth while keeping all the empty series results that serve to maintain it. Take SRS at face value when convenient, and apply whatever possible “context” (real or fake, does not really matter!) when that face value indicator is inconvenient. And then for good measure project that actual nonsense onto everyone else.
And then people wonder why that type of mythmaking no longer holds the same sway that it did in the 1990s and 2000s.
- are clearly outperforming the Bulls in the first round - are outperforming the Bulls in their respective elimination rounds if taking regular season SRS at face value - are outperforming the Bulls through two rounds if incorporating real playoff results and not taking regular season SRS at face value
… but because this is Michael Jordan, that all gets brushed off as one random single series advantage.
The only reason you can try to make it a conversation is that the Bulls blew out a 4 SRS 76ers team in the conference semifinals… immediately following those 76ers looking nothing like a 4 SRS team against the Cavaliers. The Bulls are the ones with an argument tied to one round here.
Again, without the conference finals, the Bulls playoff SRS was higher. You can try to slice and dice things as much as you want, but that’s the overall reality.
And then if you take out the conference semi-finals it swings right back around to the Rockets.
Actually, it doesn’t.
Incredible how quickly Jordan deifiers start projecting.
No, this is you demonstrably trying to throwing nonsense at the wall trying to see what sticks. No one watching basketball back then took the Cavaliers that seriously (perhaps outside of Cleveland), and claiming otherwise is doing nothing for your credibility. They were a 7.95 SRS team in the same sense that the 2018 Raptors were a 7.3 one. Same way the 1994/95 Sonics were an 8+ one. But because that status occasionally helps Jordan’s mythos, we have people like you pretend they were some serious presence. I was and am aware they were injured, yes. The problem is we can take that 5-SRS value and the 76ers still underperformed. Just as they did against the Bulls, and just as they would against the Bulls the following year (although nowhere near as badly). Just as they did against the Knicks the prior year. Barkley was a lone-star in Philadelphia for five series once Erving left, and his team underperformed their base level expectations four times (but hey, props for wiping the floor with the 1991 Bucks).
This is evidently what it takes to deify Jordan. Pretend all opponents were better than they were. Pretend that a one-off 8-SRS team that never performed like that in the postseason and lost their second best guard was actually still so impressive that a -2.5 result was appropriate for a 4 SRS team. Throw out the best results of players who might possibly threaten Jordan’s myth while keeping all the empty series results that serve to maintain it. Take SRS at face value when convenient, and apply whatever possible “context” (real or fake, does not really matter!) when that face value indicator is inconvenient. And then for good measure project that actual nonsense onto everyone else.
And then people wonder why that type of mythmaking no longer holds the same sway that it did in the 1990s and 2000s.
This is just absurd. The Cavaliers had the 4th best preseason betting odds to win the title that season (at +600—which, for reference, is equal to the Bucks’ and Suns’ odds for this coming season). They had the 4th best odds the year before that, and even had the 7th best odds the year after it. They were a really good team—maybe not a *very* top tier title contender, but a really good team. Saying that winning a really tough series against those Cavs while they were healthy proves that a team was “looking nothing like a 4 SRS team” (and therefore that the Bulls then beating that winning team easily isn’t particularly impressive) is just obviously an absurd argument. And that’s not even getting into the fact that you’re trying to severely downplay how good the 76ers were based on the point differential in a five-game series that they won, which is just dumb almost regardless of who the opponent is, since the sample size is so low (they were outscored due to one blowout). It’s just even more dumb when we realize the series in question was against a really good team that had the 4th best preseason title odds that year and were healthy and had ended the year playing really well. If this is the kind of argument you find yourself making, then I think you might want to take a step back and think about the extent to which you’re starting at your conclusion and just trying to find a way to get there (not to mention maybe consider whether you’d feel less of a need to be rude if you weren’t doing that, and also whether you should be confidently asserting what people who watched basketball thought in a time period that you did not watch basketball and other posters did).
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
lessthanjake wrote:Again, without the conference finals, the Bulls playoff SRS was higher. You can try to slice and dice things as much as you want, but that’s the overall reality.
And then if you take out the conference semi-finals it swings right back around to the Rockets.
Actually, it doesn’t.
Okay, poor phrasing acknowledged: if you take out the best series for the Bulls, which was the conference semi-finals, just as you did for the Rockets, then it swings right back around to the Rockets.
Incredible how quickly Jordan deifiers start projecting.
No, this is you demonstrably trying to throwing nonsense at the wall trying to see what sticks. No one watching basketball back then took the Cavaliers that seriously (perhaps outside of Cleveland), and claiming otherwise is doing nothing for your credibility. They were a 7.95 SRS team in the same sense that the 2018 Raptors were a 7.3 one. Same way the 1994/95 Sonics were an 8+ one. But because that status occasionally helps Jordan’s mythos, we have people like you pretend they were some serious presence. I was and am aware they were injured, yes. The problem is we can take that 5-SRS value and the 76ers still underperformed. Just as they did against the Bulls, and just as they would against the Bulls the following year (although nowhere near as badly). Just as they did against the Knicks the prior year. Barkley was a lone-star in Philadelphia for five series once Erving left, and his team underperformed their base level expectations four times (but hey, props for wiping the floor with the 1991 Bucks).
This is evidently what it takes to deify Jordan. Pretend all opponents were better than they were. Pretend that a one-off 8-SRS team that never performed like that in the postseason and lost their second best guard was actually still so impressive that a -2.5 result was appropriate for a 4 SRS team. Throw out the best results of players who might possibly threaten Jordan’s myth while keeping all the empty series results that serve to maintain it. Take SRS at face value when convenient, and apply whatever possible “context” (real or fake, does not really matter!) when that face value indicator is inconvenient. And then for good measure project that actual nonsense onto everyone else.
And then people wonder why that type of mythmaking no longer holds the same sway that it did in the 1990s and 2000s.
This is just absurd. The Cavaliers had the 4th best preseason betting odds to win the title that season (at +600—which, for reference, is equal to the Bucks’ and Suns’ odds for this coming season). They had the 4th best odds the year before that, and even had the 7th best odds the year after it. They were a really good team—maybe not a *very* top tier title contender, but a really good team. Saying that winning a really tough series against those Cavs while they were healthy proves that a team was “looking nothing like a 4 SRS team” (and therefore that the Bulls then beating that winning team easily isn’t particularly impressive) is just obviously an absurd argument. And that’s not even getting into the fact that you’re trying to severely downplay how good the 76ers were based on the point differential in a five-game series that they won, which is just dumb almost regardless of who the opponent is, since the sample size is so low (they were outscored due to one blowout).
No, you are trying to severely overplay the 76ers and the Cavaliers because it makes the Bulls blowing them out look better, just as you did when you tried to gas up the Kawhi-less Spurs. All par for the course.
I do not know how someone could be so unaware of themselves that they think people will somehow fail to notice you taking all efforts to throw out an upset of a team that won three titles in four years while portraying a blowout of some middling conference presence (who themselves barely survived another middling conference presence) as a crowning achievement.
It’s just even more dumb when we realize the series in question was against a really good team that had the 4th best preseason title odds that year and were healthy and had ended the year playing really well.
You know what, true, 5-SRS is basically what the Pistons were, so the Bulls blew out a team that beat a near Pistons approximate, and the Pistons won the title, so actually, Jordan basically has seven titles if you do not think about it.
The Cavaliers had a this is the kind of argument you find yourself making, then I think you might want to take a step back and think about the extent to which you’re starting at your conclusion and just trying to find a way to get there (not to mention maybe consider whether you’d feel less of a need to be rude if you weren’t doing that, and also whether you should be confidently asserting what people who watched basketball thought in a time period that you did not watch basketball and other posters did).
AEnigma wrote:And then if you take out the conference semi-finals it swings right back around to the Rockets.
Actually, it doesn’t.
Okay, poor phrasing acknowledged: if you take out the best series for the Bulls just as you did for the Rockets, then it swings right back around to the Rockets.
And thats…because of the loss to the Pistons where the Bulls’ supporting cast horribly! That’s the point! It all rests on that. One can’t get to a conclusion that the Rockets did better than the Bulls without that series. It’s a necessary component of any argument to this effect, and inclusion of it as a key part of the argument about Jordan/Hakeem makes equating their “help” silly, because the Bulls’ supporting cast basically shot unwinnably badly!
No, you are trying to severely overplay the 76ers and the Cavaliers because it makes the Bulls blowing them out look better, just as you did when you tried to gas up the Kawhi-less Spurs. All par for the course.
I’m not “overplay[ing]” the 76ers. I’m saying you are wrong to say they were not really a 4 SRS team because of a tough series win against a healthy team that was 4th in preseason title odds. You’re the one making an affirmative claim here about the 76ers. All I ever did was call them a 4.23 SRS team. You tried to act like they weren’t really as good as their SRS, and your argument to that effect was obviously absurd.
I do not know how someone could be so unaware of themselves that they think people will somehow fail to notice you taking all efforts to throw out an upset of a team that won three titles in four years while portraying a blowout of some middling conference presence (who themselves barely survived another middling conference presence) as a crowning achievement.
Yeah, it’d probably be good if you could cut out the rudeness.
Anyways, you’re missing the point. I’m not “throw[ing] out” anything from a team perspective. I said that the Rockets probably had a better season overall. The issue is just that the reason they had a better season was the differing results against great teams in the conference finals. And that difference in results was pretty obviously not with equal help for Jordan and Hakeem. So I’m not throwing out the *team’s* achievements. I’m throwing out the conference finals for purposes of some analogy where you and others claim Jordan’s help was as good as Hakeem’s and Hakeem’s team did better and therefore Hakeem was individually better. It’s *that* logic that doesn’t make sense. The team itself did super well to beat the Lakers! And, indeed, you’ll find I made a long post early in this thread noting that. I’m objecting now to people using that to make some tortured analogy between Hakeem and Jordan.
You know what, true, 5-SRS is basically what the Pistons were, so the Bulls blew out a team that beat a near Pistons approximate, and the Pistons won the title, so actually, Jordan basically has seven titles if you do not think about it.
…
You are truly a master of comedic irony.
Again, maybe try to be more civil. These are not acceptable posts.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
- are clearly outperforming the Bulls in the first round - are outperforming the Bulls in their respective elimination rounds if taking regular season SRS at face value - are outperforming the Bulls through two rounds if incorporating real playoff results and not taking regular season SRS at face value
… but because this is Michael Jordan, that all gets brushed off as one random single series advantage.
The only reason you can try to make it a conversation is that the Bulls blew out a 4 SRS 76ers team in the conference semifinals… immediately following those 76ers looking nothing like a 4 SRS team against the Cavaliers. The Bulls are the ones with an argument tied to one round here.
Pretty much, I think.
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.
lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
I think this thread could better suffice as renamed: Young Hakeem Olajuwon "might" be underrated.
Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.
Okay, poor phrasing acknowledged: if you take out the best series for the Bulls just as you did for the Rockets, then it swings right back around to the Rockets.
And thats…because of the loss to the Pistons where the Bulls’ supporting cast horribly!
… And held the Pistons to by far their worst offensive result of either of their two title seasons.
That’s the point! It all rests on that. One can’t get to a conclusion that the Rockets did better than the Bulls without that series.
??? Yes, it is in fact extremely easy to say the team that fared similarly well through two rounds (Bulls have a marginal edge by face value regular season SRS, Rockets have the edge by rolling PSRS), dominated their defending champion opponent, and comfortably performed the best against one of the all-time great teams, was better than the team that beat up on two non-contenders.
On the contrary, a moderately tight result against the Pistons is all that makes that Bulls season notable. Otherwise, you may as well be the 2009 Nuggets.
It’s a necessary component of any argument to this effect, and inclusion of it as a key part of the argument about Jordan/Hakeem makes equating their “help” silly, because the Bulls’ supporting cast basically shot unwinnably badly!
So maybe it would have helped if Jordan found better looks for his teammates. Maybe it would have helped if Jordan were legitimately an all-time defensive presence himself and had been able to better stop Dumars.
No, you are trying to severely overplay the 76ers and the Cavaliers because it makes the Bulls blowing them out look better, just as you did when you tried to gas up the Kawhi-less Spurs. All par for the course.
I’m not “overplay[ing]” the 76ers. I’m saying you are wrong to say they were not really a 4 SRS team because of a tough series win against a healthy team that was 4th in preseason title odds. You’re the one making an affirmative claim here about the 76ers. All I ever did was call them a 4.23 SRS team. You tried to act like they weren’t really as good as their SRS, and your argument to that effect was obviously absurd.
No, what is “obviously absurd” is you taking one-off regular season SRS spikes at face value while trying to ignore a -2.5 result against a (generously) 5-SRS opponent and a -8 result against a 3-SRS opponent (wait, sorry, I forgot, that one does not get to be taken at face value). When you transparently only believe measures when they help boost your personal fan hagiographies, people tend to notice.
I do not know how someone could be so unaware of themselves that they think people will somehow fail to notice you taking all efforts to throw out an upset of a team that won three titles in four years while portraying a blowout of some middling conference presence (who themselves barely survived another middling conference presence) as a crowning achievement.
Yeah, it’d probably be good if you could cut out the rudeness.
Again, master of irony.
Anyways, you’re missing the point. I’m not “throw[ing] out” anything from a team perspective. I said that the Rockets probably had a better season overall. The issue is just that the reason they had a better season was the differing results against great teams in the conference finals.
The Rockets and Bulls had near identical net ratings and win paces with their stars (Rockets were +3.3 at a 53-win pace with Hakeem). They entered the conference finals with generally similar results against their two opponents based on regular season results, and were ultimately eliminated in generally similar SRS circumstances. To the extent your sole point is apparently they were nearly identical but for the Rockets’ historic upset, fine, but that is about as meaningful as a Celtics fan saying the 2020 Lakers were probably better than the 2022 Celtics because one won the title and the other did not. It is a strange stipulation that only seems to be made begrudgingly in the sense it does not reflect as well as you would like on certain players.
And that difference in results was pretty obviously not with equal help for Jordan and Hakeem. So I’m not throwing out the *team’s* achievements. I’m throwing out the conference finals for purposes of some analogy where you and others claim Jordan’s help was as good as Hakeem’s and Hakeem’s team did better and therefore Hakeem was individually better. It’s *that* logic that doesn’t make sense.
“Pretty obviously” based on… oh, yeah, bad teammate scoring against an all-time defence. The one true measure of support! Cannot wait to get back into looking at “TS Add” disparities.
I am not invested in 1986 Hakeem versus 1990 Jordan. However, I do find it funny when people are so insecure about their idols that they need to start grasping at any excuse they can imagine.
You know what, true, 5-SRS is basically what the Pistons were, so the Bulls blew out a team that beat a near Pistons approximate, and the Pistons won the title, so actually, Jordan basically has seven titles if you do not think about it.
…
You are truly a master of comedic irony.
Again, maybe try to be more civil. These are not acceptable posts.
Maybe go back and read your own posts. I do not know whether it is mock incredulity or sincere obliviousness, but neither reflect well.
AEnigma wrote:Okay, poor phrasing acknowledged: if you take out the best series for the Bulls just as you did for the Rockets, then it swings right back around to the Rockets.
And thats…because of the loss to the Pistons where the Bulls’ supporting cast horribly!
… And held the Pistons to by far their worst offensive result of either of their two title seasons.
That’s the point! It all rests on that. One can’t get to a conclusion that the Rockets did better than the Bulls without that series.
??? Yes, it is in fact extremely easy to say the team that fared similarly well through two rounds (Bulls have a marginal edge by face value regular season SRS, Rockets have the edge by rolling PSRS), dominated their defending champion opponent, and comfortably performed the best against one of the all-time great teams, was better than the team that beat up on two non-contenders.
On the contrary, a moderately tight result against the Pistons is all that makes that Bulls season notable. Otherwise, you may as well be the 2009 Nuggets.
It’s a necessary component of any argument to this effect, and inclusion of it as a key part of the argument about Jordan/Hakeem makes equating their “help” silly, because the Bulls’ supporting cast basically shot unwinnably badly!
So maybe it would have helped if Jordan found better looks for his teammates. Maybe it would have helped if Jordan were legitimately an all-time defensive presence himself and had been able to better stop Dumars.
No, you are trying to severely overplay the 76ers and the Cavaliers because it makes the Bulls blowing them out look better, just as you did when you tried to gas up the Kawhi-less Spurs. All par for the course.
I’m not “overplay[ing]” the 76ers. I’m saying you are wrong to say they were not really a 4 SRS team because of a tough series win against a healthy team that was 4th in preseason title odds. You’re the one making an affirmative claim here about the 76ers. All I ever did was call them a 4.23 SRS team. You tried to act like they weren’t really as good as their SRS, and your argument to that effect was obviously absurd.
No, what is “obviously absurd” is you taking one-off regular season SRS spikes at face value while trying to ignore a -2.5 result against a (generously) 5-SRS opponent and a -8 result against a 3-SRS opponent (wait, sorry, I forgot, that one does not get to be taken at face value). When you transparently only believe measures when they help boost your personal fan hagiographies, people tend to notice.
I do not know how someone could be so unaware of themselves that they think people will somehow fail to notice you taking all efforts to throw out an upset of a team that won three titles in four years while portraying a blowout of some middling conference presence (who themselves barely survived another middling conference presence) as a crowning achievement.
Yeah, it’d probably be good if you could cut out the rudeness.
Again, master of irony.
Anyways, you’re missing the point. I’m not “throw[ing] out” anything from a team perspective. I said that the Rockets probably had a better season overall. The issue is just that the reason they had a better season was the differing results against great teams in the conference finals.
The Rockets and Bulls had near identical net ratings and win paces with their stars (Rockets were +3.3 at a 53-win pace with Hakeem). They entered the conference finals with generally similar results against their two opponents based on regular season results, and were ultimately eliminated in generally similar SRS circumstances. To the extent your sole point is apparently they were nearly identical but for the Rockets’ historic upset, fine, but that is about as meaningful as a Celtics fan saying the 2020 Lakers were probably better than the 2022 Celtics because one won the title and the other did not. It is a strange stipulation that only seems to be made begrudgingly in the sense it does not reflect as well as you would like on certain players.
And that difference in results was pretty obviously not with equal help for Jordan and Hakeem. So I’m not throwing out the *team’s* achievements. I’m throwing out the conference finals for purposes of some analogy where you and others claim Jordan’s help was as good as Hakeem’s and Hakeem’s team did better and therefore Hakeem was individually better. It’s *that* logic that doesn’t make sense.
“Pretty obviously” based on… oh, yeah, bad teammate scoring against an all-time defence. The one true measure of support! Cannot wait to get back into looking at “TS Add” disparities.
I am not invested in 1986 Hakeem versus 1990 Jordan. However, I do find it funny when people are so insecure about their idols that they need to start grasping at any excuse they can imagine.
You know what, true, 5-SRS is basically what the Pistons were, so the Bulls blew out a team that beat a near Pistons approximate, and the Pistons won the title, so actually, Jordan basically has seven titles if you do not think about it.
…
You are truly a master of comedic irony.
Again, maybe try to be more civil. These are not acceptable posts.
Maybe go back and read your own posts. I do not know whether it is mock incredulity or sincere obliviousness, but neither reflect well.
Okay, I’ve made my point and it’s a fairly obvious one that I think most people would understand and agree with. You once again have proven yourself unable to engage in discussion relating in any way to Hakeem Olajuwon without engaging in personal attacks, so I’m done discussing with you. People can read and make up their own minds.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
Is it me being unable to talk about Hakeem, or is it those who are so attached to their idea of Jordan that they refuse any consideration that *gasp* maybe Hakeem was a legitimately close peer.
You do not get to petulantly fight with anyone who challenges the premise of Jordan as some hard-done-by martyr on the 1990 Bulls and then clutch your pearls when it is met with a tone in kind.
Suppose it depends where folks feel they're ranked? Fringe contender seems fine enough if a bit generous for such a short-lived squad that failed to replicate in the surrounding seasons despite similar rotations.
Reid/McCray/Sampson/Olajuwon for all of '85-'87, Lloyd for '85/'86 and Petersen for '86/'87.
Finals and conference finals are not being disputed here so let's just zero in on the first two rounds.
Straight off the top by San's method(rolling srs) the Rockets score higher through two rounds even giving some weighting to the Bulls better regular-season
Spoiler:
Sansterre wrote:Round 1: Indiana Pacers (-0.2), won 3-0, by +12.3 points per game (+12.1 SRS eq) Round 2: New York Knicks (+1.3), won 4-1, by +11.4 points per game (+12.7 SRS eq) Round 3: Chicago Bulls (+5.5), won 4-3, by +3.0 points per game (+8.5 SRS eq)
Round 1: San Antonio Spurs (-2.1), won 3-0 by +31.7 points per game (+29.6 SRS eq) Round 2: Dallas Mavericks (+1.5), won 4-2 by +5.0 points per game (+6.5 SRS eq) Round 3: Houston Rockets (+6.0), lost 1-4 by -3.6 points per game (+2.4 SRS eq)
The conference finals boost the Rockets OSRS to +7.4, but they are ahead of the Bulls before that, even with the Bulls better regular-season factored in. Do playoffs-only and the gap expands. But to find the degree we'll have to do some math ourselves...
First let's do what I think Jake did:
1990 Bulls not-rolling SRS 1st 2 rounds
1st round: Outscore a -1.1 srs Bucks team by 9.5 points, +8.4 x 4 = +33.6 2nd round: Outscore a +4.2 srs 76ers team by 7.5 points, +11.7 x 5 = +58.5
58.5+34 = 92.5, 92.5/9 ~ +10.3
86 Rockets not-rolling SRS 1st 2 rounds 1st round: Outscore a -3.2 SRS Kings team by 14.3 points, 11.1 x 3 = +33.3 2nd round: Outscore a +.9 Nuggets team by 8.8, +9.7 x 6 = +58.2
33.3+58.2 = 91.5, 91.5/9 ~ +10.2
FWIW, "average the series" would see the Rockets come out ahead but average the game is fine(and arguably preferable) so we can just work with that.
With no sort of playoff adjustment the Bulls carry a slim edge they will lose in the conference finals thanks to their m.o.v in 5 games vs... the 1990 Sixers.
These 1990 Sixers
Spoiler:
Now if we just take this at face-value(Sixers are outscored by 2.5 by the -0.51 srs Cavs) The 1990 Bulls parity if you exclude the 86 Conference finals TM is completely gone. With a rough eyeball beating the -3 sixers sinks the Bulls somewhere between +5 and +6. BUT CONTEXT.
The Cavs were missing a key-piece!(actually 2 but only 1 of them showed up in the playoffs) With that key piece they were +3(net-rating) that season. Beating our new .5 Sixers puts Chicago somewhere between +6 and +7...still completely killing their parity if you exclude the 86 conference finals TM.
Now I'm hearing the Cavs were actually +5 srs because they had a hot run at the end. Uh...fine. This would put the 76ers at +2.5 which would put the Bulls at {v]+9.2[/b] which is still worse but close. Except, we forgot about a little teensy detail. The 1990 Nuggets. These 1990 Nuggets:
Spoiler:
Turns out those Nuggs weren't fully healthy themselves. Outscoring the +.61 Blazers(+0.9 with 56 rs games of Drexler) by 3-points a game puts them at +3.6. And outscoring a +3.6 team by +8.8 gets you well clear of 1990 Chicago even without the 1986 Conference Finals TM. And that is before...
Spoiler:
homecourtloss wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:Okay. Pick a lane. Do you want to go by point differential or games. Because by games the Rockets took a goatish team to 6 after crushing a title-level team in 5. By playoff SRSl the Rockets were better through the first two rounds. I posted the numbers in the OP for the rockets.
The bulls outscored that +4 srs team by 38 points. They outscored a negative 1 srs team by 28 points. That does not get you to the differentials the Rockets posted even if we ignore that the +4 srs team they outscored was actually outscored by a -1 srs team themselves(i recall injury context for the cavs but I haven't checked).
How is it "cherrypicking one series" to say the Rockets were better?
Additionally, that Lakers team was actually a lot better than its SRS shows— in games in which Magic played, that would be a title favorite in most years but 1986 had the 86 Celtics. Winning four in a row vs. that team while being the best defensive player on the court that limited two GOAT level offensive players even though KAJ was older…it’s just incredibly impressive.
Winning 6 out of 11 games vs. essentially an +8 SRS team and a +9 SRS GoAT team…It’s more impressive than taking the 1990 Detroit team that’s not as good as either the 86 Lakers or 86 Celtics to 7 games and having a good series vs. a good Sixers team.
Beating that Lakers team in five games, winning Four in a Row, and handling the peak Lakers Dynasty better than any team ever did is super impressive.
homecourtloss wrote:
ShaqAttac wrote:
lessthanjake wrote:It seems strange to say basically outside of a conference finals, they were about the same when that conference finals had a player in Hakeem be the best player on the court while playing essentially a +8 SRS juggernaut and his play primarily leading to a defeating win against a great team. Also note that Hakeem only played 68 games that year—Bulls with 82 games and 39 minutes of Jordan were marginally better than a Rockets team with only 68 games of Hakeem.
Here’s what the ‘85—‘87 Lakers did in the playoffs:
1986 Lakers vs. Spurs: +31.4 NRtg, 122.7 ORtg 1986 Lakers vs. Mavs: +5.1 NRtg, 119.7 ORtg 1986 Lakers vs. Rockets: -3.6 NRtg, 107.4 ORtg
1987 Lakers vs. Nuggets: +25.2 NRtg, 125.1 ORtg 1987 Lakers vs. Warriors: +10.5 NRtg, 121.7 ORtg 1987 Lakers vs. Sonics: +11.4 NRtg, 117.2 ORtg 1987 Lakers vs. Celtics: +4.3 NRtg, 118.4 ORtg
The Rockets, in the playoffs were flat out better. Tossing out a team's best series to get parity is kind of like saying Mahomes are average if you regress his stats to the average amd it still doesn't get them equal if we factor in playoff performances.
The Bulls only have any sort of case if you heavily weigh the the regular season, and even then...
Also note that Hakeem only played 68 games that year—Bulls with 82 games and 39 minutes of Jordan were marginally better than a Rockets team with only 68 games of Hakeem.
Well it's interesting you point that out because...
The Rockets and Bulls had near identical net ratings and win paces with their stars (Rockets were +3.3 at a 53-win pace with Hakeem).
For the curious those Rockets were -0.8 by net without Hakeem over 10 games(5-5) and that was before they lost a key-piece due to drug-use. Those 10 games are basically the entirety of the case the Bulls have as a better team. Well that and...
eminence wrote:Suppose it depends where folks feel they're ranked? Fringe contender seems fine enough if a bit generous for such a short-lived squad that failed to replicate in the surrounding seasons despite similar rotations.
Reid/McCray/Sampson/Olajuwon for all of '85-'87, Lloyd for '85/'86 and Petersen for '86/'87.
"Similar rotations"
[spoiler]
Those ’80s Rockets teams were poorly constructed, bottoming out in 1983, then never really filling the roster with valuable role players. Sampson and Hakeem were supposed to be the future, but injuries derailed Ralph. Meanwhile, because of their immediate success, the Rockets added the following legends through the draft: Steve Harris (1985), Buck Johnson (1986, a rotation player by his third season), Doug Lee (1987) and Derrick Chievous (1988).6 Compounding matters, two rotation players were given a multi-year ban in the middle of the ’87 season for recreational drug use. It wasn’t until they stepped off the treadmill of mediocrity in 1992 that they snagged a worthwhile rookie in the lottery named Robert Horry.
I don't know man. When literally four of the top eight players are lost to injury or cocaine, "similar rotations" seems a little "2+2=Albuquerque" to me
Curious though. Since you're a fan of record and not differential...
If -> beating a 62-win team in 5 games and -> taking a 67-win team to 6 games is and -> Going 11-3 in your conference(13-7 overall) is
"a fringe contender if you're generous"
What is -> Losing to a 59-win team in 7 games and -> Going 10-6 in your conference
AEnigma wrote:Is it me being unable to talk about Hakeem, or is it those who are so attached to their idea of Jordan that they refuse any consideration that *gasp* maybe Hakeem was a legitimately close peer.
You do not get to petulantly fight with anyone who challenges the premise of Jordan as some hard-done-by martyr on the 1990 Bulls and then clutch your pearls when it is met with a tone in kind.
Please stop. Your behavior across many threads is just pretty consistently out of control. I get that I said your assertion about the 1990 76ers not being that good because they barely beat the Cavs was “something someone would only say if they were woefully under-informed and just trying to throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks.” Maybe not the most polite thing for me to say (though I do think you had made a point without doing your homework on it). But your barrage of rudeness started before that and continued over and over again after it, even after I’ve repeatedly asked you to stop. It is not merely “a tone in kind,” and just is not within the bounds of acceptable human behavior, and I don’t know why you think it is.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
AEnigma wrote:Is it me being unable to talk about Hakeem, or is it those who are so attached to their idea of Jordan that they refuse any consideration that *gasp* maybe Hakeem was a legitimately close peer.
You do not get to petulantly fight with anyone who challenges the premise of Jordan as some hard-done-by martyr on the 1990 Bulls and then clutch your pearls when it is met with a tone in kind.
Please stop. Your behavior across many threads is just pretty consistently out of control.
I am drowning in the irony. Do you have any move other than projection?
I get that I said your assertion about the 1990 76ers not being that good because they barely beat the Cavs was “something someone would only say if they were woefully under-informed and just trying to throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks.” Maybe not the most polite thing for me to say (though I do think you had made a point without doing your homework on it).
I had done my homework, enough to know exactly what you were trying to do — because I have been seeing it for decades now whenever it comes to a certain figure who has utterly transcended people’s ability to look at the sport neutrally.
But your barrage of rudeness started before that and continued over and over again after it, even after I’ve repeatedly asked you to stop. It is not merely “a tone in kind,” and just is not within the bounds of acceptable human behavior, and I don’t know why you think it is.
You are all over this thread (and others) fighting with people and flatly asserting no one knows what they are doing. I actively try to ignore you at this point, but you flood so many of the threads that I read that at some point it becomes impossible. And that will probably continue happening so long as you show zero sign of being able to conduct the slightest bit of self-reflection and instead continue projecting your own foibles and singular fan driven interpretations onto everyone else.
