The 1986 Rockets might be underrated

[ShaqAttac]

probably less help in the regular season. probably more help in the postseason

so he had less help in the playoffs n led a better playoff team?

why cant he be better?

Because attributing small sample team results to a single player is ridiculous.

how am i attributin it to a single player? mj had more help right?

it not like mj impact looks amazin over them large samples either

[70sFan]

Meh, Hakeem=peak MJ in 86 makes more sense to me than bird = strong MVP dropping 21 points and 4 assists(and don't forget that steph curry-like gravity ). At least Hakeem's support actually gets worse when his team fails to mimick their initial success...

Yeah, because these are the only options available...

i dont understand the prob. did mj have less help in 90?

I'd say he had slightly less help overall.

[OhayoKD]

Yeah, because these are the only options available...

i dont understand the prob. did mj have less help in 90?

I'd say he had slightly less help overall.

Overall, probably. Very doubtful to me he had less help by the playoffs though. Now does that mean the better playoff results from the Rockets were because of Hakeem? Not necessarily, but it's not implausible. If nothing else, he probably(?) have had a higher one-series high in the magic given his production skyrocketing.

He would have needed to be excellent defensively though. I am very curious how he looks in our tracking vs Bird and the Celtics.

The "problem" is that Hakeem's teams were not reaching the finals the next few years so it's harder to have confidence in 86 as it is with 90. Then again, we know the Rockets were worse, and Hakeem was pretty awesome in the next two playoffs with upsets and near-upsets to go along so maybe assuming 86 was a fluke while 90 was legit is winning-bias.

[lessthanjake]

i dont understand the prob. did mj have less help in 90?

I'd say he had slightly less help overall.

Overall, probably. Very doubtful to me he had less help by the playoffs though. Now does that mean the better playoff results from the Rockets were because of Hakeem? Not necessarily, but it's not implausible. If nothing else, he probably(?) have had a higher one-series high in the magic given his production skyrocketing.

He would have needed to be excellent defensively though. I am very curious how he looks in our tracking vs Bird and the Celtics.

The "problem" is that Hakeem's teams were not reaching the finals the next few years so it's harder to have confidence in 86 as it is with 90. Then again, we know the Rockets were worse, and Hakeem was pretty awesome in the next two playoffs with upsets and near-upsets to go along so maybe assuming 86 was a fluke while 90 was legit is winning-bias.

In that 1990 series against the Pistons, the “help” was absolutely horrible offensively, culminating in just a complete collapse from everyone but MJ in game 7. Like, seriously, the rest of the Bulls had a -5.1% rTS% for the series even relative to the Pistons’ defense, and their TS% in game 7 was 31.5% (even despite Jordan getting 9 assists—out of only 15 made shots by the rest of the team).

This seems quite important when the logic here would basically seem to amount to “MJ in 1990 had as much help as Hakeem in 1986, and the Rockets beat a great team (the 1986 Lakers) while the Bulls lost to a great team (1990 Pistons), so Hakeem was better.” The logic is really just about one series—after all, the 1990 Bulls did better in the regular season than the 1986 Rockets, and weren’t any less impressive in earlier playoff rounds and the Rockets lost a not-particularly-close finals, so the analogy is really 100% about the conference finals. Which means that that chain of logic falls apart completely when you realize that Jordan’s help in that Pistons series was absolutely awful offensively (and the Bulls still almost won the series), so the “had as much help” thing doesn’t really hold, at least for the small set of games that the entire point rests on.

[OhayoKD]

I'd say he had slightly less help overall.

Overall, probably. Very doubtful to me he had less help by the playoffs though. Now does that mean the better playoff results from the Rockets were because of Hakeem? Not necessarily, but it's not implausible. If nothing else, he probably(?) have had a higher one-series high in the magic given his production skyrocketing.

He would have needed to be excellent defensively though. I am very curious how he looks in our tracking vs Bird and the Celtics.

The "problem" is that Hakeem's teams were not reaching the finals the next few years so it's harder to have confidence in 86 as it is with 90. Then again, we know the Rockets were worse, and Hakeem was pretty awesome in the next two playoffs with upsets and near-upsets to go along so maybe assuming 86 was a fluke while 90 was legit is winning-bias.

In that 1990 series against the Pistons, the “help” was absolutely horrible offensively, culminating in just a complete collapse from everyone but MJ in game 7. Like, seriously, the rest of the Bulls had a -5.1% rTS% for the series even relative to the Pistons’ defense, and their TS% in game 7 was 31.5% (even despite Jordan getting 9 assists—out of only 15 made shots by the rest of the team).

They might have been "horrible" offensively, but they also held the Pistons offense 5 points under(you may recall "MJ+scraps" was below average defensively to start the season and average in 1989). There's also the matter of Jordan not having to deal with double after double because Pippen was the primary ball-handler, Jordan not having to direct his team on either end, and Jordan not being the gold-standard of creation(effeciency matters too!)

While you are welcome to pretend Jordan put up the best performance ever because of his slashline, the reality is he has signifcant limitations his help was covering for, even when they were faltering offensively.

This seems quite important when the logic here would basically seem to amount to “MJ in 1990 had as much help as Hakeem in 1986, and the Rockets beat a great team (the 1986 Lakers) while the Bulls lost to a great team (1990 Pistons), so Hakeem was better.”

Well, no. As outlined the Rockets were excellent through 3 series and put up a much better fight than everyone else against a team you have among the very best. Indeed even the finals performance(by far their worst mark) with opponent adjustment grades out higher than any of the bulls performances vs the Pistons.

The logic is not about "one series", the Rockets were very good all playoffs. That was kind of the point of this post.

so the “had as much help” thing doesn’t really hold, at least for the small set of games that the entire point rests on.

If you want to pretend "help" is only determined by offensive box? Sure. That's not how I or alot of other posters here tend to operate

[MrVorp]

so he had less help in the playoffs n led a better playoff team?

why cant he be better?

Because attributing small sample team results to a single player is ridiculous.

how am i attributin it to a single player? mj had more help right?

it not like mj impact looks amazin over them large samples either

Everyone on the bulls except Jordan, Pippen, and Grant played like replacement players in the 90' playoffs, with Jordan by far performing the best. So not sure how exactly he had more help.

[OhayoKD]

Because attributing small sample team results to a single player is ridiculous.

how am i attributin it to a single player? mj had more help right?

it not like mj impact looks amazin over them large samples either

Everyone on the bulls except Jordan, Pippen, and Grant played like replacement players in the 90' playoffs, with Jordan by far performing the best. So not sure how exactly he had more help.

Hakeem's best teammate literally missed half of the following season and it had little to no effect...

Bulls were a good(defensively slanted) cast as of the playoffs built around Jordan's volume-scoring. They were not their best version yet, but we do not need to pretend Jordan didn't have support just because he lost.

As is, them having "similar" help would work fine for Shaq's point because the Rockets were probably a better playoff team. That may be variance, but it also may not.

[MrVorp]

how am i attributin it to a single player? mj had more help right?

it not like mj impact looks amazin over them large samples either

Everyone on the bulls except Jordan, Pippen, and Grant played like replacement players in the 90' playoffs, with Jordan by far performing the best. So not sure how exactly he had more help.

Hakeem's best teammate literally missed half of the following season and it had little to no effect...

Bulls were a good(defensively slanted) cast as of the playoffs built around Jordan's volume-scoring. They were not their best version yet, but we do not need to pretend Jordan didn't have support just because he lost.

As is, them having "similar" help would work fine for Shaq's point because the Rockets were probably a better playoff team. That may be variance, but it also may not.

Didn’t say he didn’t have support, Pippen and Grant were good. In the 90 playoffs specifically, the rest of the support was really bad.

[lessthanjake]

Overall, probably. Very doubtful to me he had less help by the playoffs though. Now does that mean the better playoff results from the Rockets were because of Hakeem? Not necessarily, but it's not implausible. If nothing else, he probably(?) have had a higher one-series high in the magic given his production skyrocketing.

He would have needed to be excellent defensively though. I am very curious how he looks in our tracking vs Bird and the Celtics.

The "problem" is that Hakeem's teams were not reaching the finals the next few years so it's harder to have confidence in 86 as it is with 90. Then again, we know the Rockets were worse, and Hakeem was pretty awesome in the next two playoffs with upsets and near-upsets to go along so maybe assuming 86 was a fluke while 90 was legit is winning-bias.

In that 1990 series against the Pistons, the “help” was absolutely horrible offensively, culminating in just a complete collapse from everyone but MJ in game 7. Like, seriously, the rest of the Bulls had a -5.1% rTS% for the series even relative to the Pistons’ defense, and their TS% in game 7 was 31.5% (even despite Jordan getting 9 assists—out of only 15 made shots by the rest of the team).

They might have been "horrible" offensively, but they also held the Pistons offense 5 points under(you may recall "MJ+scraps" was below average defensively to start the season and average in 1989). There's also the matter of Jordan not having to deal with double after double because Pippen was the primary ball-handler, Jordan not having to direct his team on either end, and Jordan not being the gold-standard of creation(effeciency matters too!)

While you are welcome to pretend Jordan put up the best performance ever because of his slashline, the reality is he has signifcant limitations his help was covering for, even when they were faltering offensively.

Yes, they were solid defensively, and that’s why I said they were “horrible offensively.” The overall picture was still bad. The bottom line is that teams don’t win series’s when the supporting cast shoots that badly.

Indeed, I just searched through every series in almost 20 years of the NBA surrounding that year and couldn’t find a single example in which a team won a series while its supporting cast shot that badly. And I searched through some other series I could think of off the top of my head that might apply, and the only one that sort of worked was the 2021 Bucks beating the Nets, with a supporting cast running a 49.4% TS%—which is higher than the 1990 Bulls’ supporting cast’s TS% against the Pistons (46.3%) but was actually as bad in league-relative terms (-7.5% rTS% vs. -7.8% rTS%, and worse by opponent-relative terms). Of course, that series is kind of the exception that proves the rule, since the Bucks were losing the series and only won due to multiple injuries to stars on the other team, which completely hobbled the other team’s offense. Even in that infamous 2004 ECF between the Pistons and Pacers, where the Pistons won while averaging only 75 points a game, the supporting cast (regardless of whether we count Billups or Ben Wallace as the star) still shot slightly better in league-relative terms than the 1990 Bulls did!

So yeah, when the supporting cast shot so badly that it’d be a pretty unique historical event for them to win anyways, I’d say it’s fair to say that the help was bad and that trying to draw some analogy based on an assertion that someone else’s help was similar or worse is just silly.

This seems quite important when the logic here would basically seem to amount to “MJ in 1990 had as much help as Hakeem in 1986, and the Rockets beat a great team (the 1986 Lakers) while the Bulls lost to a great team (1990 Pistons), so Hakeem was better.”

Well, no. As outlined the Rockets were excellent through 3 series and put up a much better fight than everyone else against a team you have among the very best. Indeed even the finals performance(by far their worst mark) with opponent adjustment grades out higher than any of the bulls performances vs the Pistons.

The logic is not about "one series", the Rockets were very good all playoffs. That was kind of the point of this post.

The logic about them doing better than the Bulls absolutely *is* about one series, since the Bulls were excellent in their earlier series’s too, and there’s essentially no argument that can be made here about the Rockets losing a series in 6 games with a -6.4 net rating, even if the opponent is really good—that’s fine, but it’s not something you can make an affirmative argument about as them having done better than the Bulls. And the Bulls did better in the regular season. The only way to argue that the 1986 Rockets did better than the 1990 Bulls is to rely exclusively on the conference finals. And the rest of MJ’s team had an absolute offensive collapse in the conference finals, culminating in a complete capitulation from everyone but MJ in Game 7. Trying to take this and make some tortured analogy that Hakeem must’ve been better in 1986 than Jordan was in 1990 is just silly.

[OhayoKD]

So yeah, when the supporting cast shot so badly that it’d be a pretty unique historical event for them to win anyways, I’d say it’s fair to say that the help was bad and that trying to draw some analogy based on an assertion that someone else’s help was similar or worse is just silly.

I have no idea what "analogy" you're talking about here. The team was centered around the leagues highest-volume scorer with effecient scoring being their primary weakness as a cast. The best teammate for the player being compared here missed half of the next season without them dropping a beat. What is "silly" is you cherrypicking aspects of the game while acting like 1986>1990 bulls is a matter of "cherrypicking" when they were comparable in the rs, and better throughout the playoffs.

This seems quite important when the logic here would basically seem to amount to “MJ in 1990 had as much help as Hakeem in 1986, and the Rockets beat a great team (the 1986 Lakers) while the Bulls lost to a great team (1990 Pistons), so Hakeem was better.”

Well, no. As outlined the Rockets were excellent through 3 series and put up a much better fight than everyone else against a team you have among the very best. Indeed even the finals performance(by far their worst mark) with opponent adjustment grades out higher than any of the bulls performances vs the Pistons.

The logic is not about "one series", the Rockets were very good all playoffs. That was kind of the point of this post.

The logic about them doing better than the Bulls absolutely *is* about one series, since the Bulls were excellent in their earlier series’s too, and there’s essentially no argument that can be made

What?

They were similar in the RS, performed better in the first two rounds, performed better vs the Magic and performed better vs the Celtics. You don't get to adjust for opponent strength when it's convenient. Either you do it or you don't.

Rockets do not need "cherrypicking" for a case against the 90 Bulls much like 86 Hakeem does need one for a case vs Jordan. And while I would still probably favor 90 MJ(this is somewhat of a "vibes" preference tbf), the better team performance is certainly a fair point to bring up by cieling and shaq.

[lessthanjake]

So yeah, when the supporting cast shot so badly that it’d be a pretty unique historical event for them to win anyways, I’d say it’s fair to say that the help was bad and that trying to draw some analogy based on an assertion that someone else’s help was similar or worse is just silly.

I have no idea what "analogy" you're talking about here. The team was centered around the leagues highest-volume scorer with effecient scoring being their primary weakness as a cast. The best teammate for the player being compared here missed half of the next season without them dropping a beat. What is "silly" is you cherrypicking aspects of the game while acting like 1986>1990 bulls is a matter of "cherrypicking" when they were comparable in the rs, and better throughout the playoffs.

The analogy is between the “help” on the 1986 Rockets and 1990 Bulls. I thought that was pretty obvious, since that’s what you and others are clearly trying to draw an analogy between.

Anyways, the Bulls were better in the regular season. They won more games and had a better SRS. And the only argument that the 1986 Rockets were “better” in the playoffs is grounded in the respective conference finals, in which the Bulls lost in 7 games while the “help” in question shot so badly that it’s virtually impossible to find any instances in the history of basketball where a team’s supporting cast shot so bad and still won a series. You can say that’s “cherrypicking aspects of the game” but when teams basically just never win when their supporting cast does that badly in that aspect of the game, then it is clearly zeroing in on a pretty dispositive failing of the supporting cast that precludes the supporting cast from being considered anything but bad. Which makes it absurd to base an argument on an assertion that the “help” Jordan had in that series was as good or better than someone else’s help. They weren’t. Rather, they were so bad that the history of the game teaches us that the chances of winning with that kind of offensive performance from the supporting cast is virtually zero.

Well, no. As outlined the Rockets were excellent through 3 series and put up a much better fight than everyone else against a team you have among the very best. Indeed even the finals performance(by far their worst mark) with opponent adjustment grades out higher than any of the bulls performances vs the Pistons.

The logic is not about "one series", the Rockets were very good all playoffs. That was kind of the point of this post.

The logic about them doing better than the Bulls absolutely *is* about one series, since the Bulls were excellent in their earlier series’s too, and there’s essentially no argument that can be made

What?

They were similar in the RS, performed better in the first two rounds, performed better vs the Magic and performed better vs the Celtics. You don't get to adjust for opponent strength when it's convenient. Either you do it or you don't.

Rockets do not need "cherrypicking" for a case against the 90 Bulls much like 86 Hakeem does need one for a case vs Jordan. And while I would still probably favor 90 MJ(this is somewhat of a "vibes" preference tbf), the better team performance is certainly a fair point to bring up by cieling and shaq.

How did the Rockets perform better in the playoffs outside of the conference finals? The Rockets had a harder time with the Nuggets (losing 2 games against a 0.89 SRS team) than the Bulls had against either of their first two opponents, including a 4.23 SRS team that the Bulls easily beat in 5 games (despite Pippen missing a game by the way). And, if we exclude the conference finals from the equation, by my calculation, the Bulls’ playoff SRS was 10.10 and the Rockets’ playoff SRS was 7.28. So, no, they didn’t perform better than the Bulls in the playoffs, besides in the conference finals. And you saying they were “similar in the RS” is code for the Bulls having been a bit better in the regular season. So yeah, this argument you’re trying to make *is* really all about what happened for both teams in the conference finals. And that’s a series where the Bulls’ supporting cast scored so inefficiently that I’ve found it all but impossible to find examples in NBA history where a supporting cast shot that badly and the team won the series anyways. It’s just obviously a bad argument to draw some conclusion that is logically based on an assertion that Jordan’s “help” in that series was as good or better than someone else’s help.

[OhayoKD]

I have no idea what "analogy" you're talking about here. The team was centered around the leagues highest-volume scorer with effecient scoring being their primary weakness as a cast. The best teammate for the player being compared here missed half of the next season without them dropping a beat. What is "silly" is you cherrypicking aspects of the game while acting like 1986>1990 bulls is a matter of "cherrypicking" when they were comparable in the rs, and better throughout the playoffs.

The analogy is between the “help” on the 1986 Rockets and 1990 Bulls. I thought that was pretty obvious, since that’s what you and others are clearly trying to draw an analogy between.

[/quote][/quote]
Yep and you are cherrypicking an aspect of the game we would expect to look especially bad. Jordan is the highest volume scorer ever. That is his job. The Bulls were probably not better(i would say worse) during the rs in terms of support and they did a bit better there so fair enough(the triangle took some time).

We can see the Bulls then improved massively both iover the course of the rs and the playoffs with a not vast improvement in jordan's "production" ore "effeciency" in a context where you would expect some improvement in both(not having to deal with doubles is a big boon).

You brought up KD's nets as an isolated example, do you know what the comminality is? One, both bring most of the value from scoring.

Two, in the series in questions they were(for reasons i do not know in KD's case) largely torching the opposing team in 1 v1/single coverage.

The Bulls contended with the pistons not on their offense, but their defense. Jordan, know experiencing jumper's knee, was not as active on that end as he was in 88 and 89. When a defense that was below average becomes -5 and a guy who makes bank on scoring gets to delegate the decision-making and much od the extra coverage to a teammate, and we see the rolling up somewhere between +4 and +6 srs without massive spike in any of that player's individual ****...

Teling me "but in this component of basketball the bulls were not that good" does not move me. Keep repeating yourself. I am not moved.

What?

They were similar in the RS, performed better in the first two rounds, performed better vs the Magic and performed better vs the Celtics. You don't get to adjust for opponent strength when it's convenient. Either you do it or you don't.

Rockets do not need "cherrypicking" for a case against the 90 Bulls much like 86 Hakeem does need one for a case vs Jordan. And while I would still probably favor 90 MJ(this is somewhat of a "vibes" preference tbf), the better team performance is certainly a fair point to bring up by cieling and shaq.

How did the Rockets perform better in the playoffs outside of the conference finals? The Rockets had a harder time with the Nuggets (losing 2 games against a 0.89 SRS team)

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?

[homecourtloss]

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.

[lessthanjake]

Yep and you are cherrypicking an aspect of the game we would expect to look especially bad. Jordan is the highest volume scorer ever. That is his job. The Bulls were probably not better(i would say worse) during the rs in terms of support and they did a bit better there so fair enough(the triangle took some time).

We can see the Bulls then improved massively both iover the course of the rs and the playoffs with a not vast improvement in jordan's "production" ore "effeciency" in a context where you would expect some improvement in both(not having to deal with doubles is a big boon).

There’s no getting around the fact that you’re making an argument based around asserting that Jordan’s help wasn’t bad in a series where his supporting cast shot so badly that there’s vanishingly few instances in the history of the NBA where a team has won a series with a supporting cast shooting that badly. It’s just a bad argument.

You brought up KD's nets as an isolated example, do you know what the comminality is? One, both bring most of the value from scoring.

Two, in the series in questions they were(for reasons i do not know in KD's case) largely torching the opposing team in 1 v1/single coverage.

No, you misunderstood what I was saying. The supporting cast on KD’s Nets shot better than the supporting cast on the 1990 Bulls (in both absolute and relative terms), and the Nets also didn’t beat the Bucks anyways. The comparison I was making with that series was to the Bucks, whose supporting cast arguably shot worse than the 1990 Bulls supporting cast did (they were better in absolute terms, slightly worse in league-relative terms). But, of course, a huge reason they managed to win the series anyways was because the other team got completely hobbled in the series (a piece of luck the 1990 Bulls did not have). It’s the exception that proves the rule. It’s virtually impossible to win when your supporting cast shoots as badly as the 1990 Bulls did.

Teling me "but in this component of basketball the bulls were not that good" does not move me. Keep repeating yourself. I am not moved.

Putting the ball in the hoop is the most fundamental component of basketball, and when teams essentially never win in the playoffs when their supporting cast are so bad at that component of the game then it’s a *very* good sign that you should absolutely be moved that the supporting cast shooting that badly means they were not good. A supporting cast shooting that badly is obviously a massive deal that makes it virtually impossible to win!

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?

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. There’s no need to “pick a lane” because your argument boils down to the conference finals no matter what. Leaving aside the conference finals, the Bulls had a better playoff SRS than the Rockets did. Leaving aside the conference finals, the Bulls also had a more impressive series win than the Rockets did (easily beating a 4.23 SRS team, while the Rockets only beat a 0.89 SRS team in 6 games and then also easily beat a -3.19 SRS team). Leaving aside the conference finals, the Rockets had a little bit of a struggle against a mediocre team, while the Bulls did not. And the Bulls did a bit better in the regular season.

So there’s really no argument that the Rockets did “better” than the Bulls that year, except to look at the conference finals. And it is definitely true that the Rockets did better in the conference finals than the Bulls. Both faced great opposition in the conference finals, and the Bulls lost while the Rockets won. Given that, I don’t have any issue with someone saying the 1986 Rockets had a better overall season than the 1990 Bulls. But then there’s this further extension of that, which is to try to stay that if the 1986 Rockets had a better season than the 1990 Bulls and Jordan’s help was as good or better than Hakeem’s help, then that means 1986 Hakeem was better than 1990 Jordan. But *that* argument is just obviously silly, because, as explained above, the only reason the Rockets had a better season than the Bulls was what happened in the respective conference finals (otherwise, the Bulls were actually a bit better—more regular season wins, higher regular season SRS, higher playoff SRS aside from those series’, more impressive playoff series win aside from those series’, etc.). But Jordan’s help was absolutely not as good in the conference finals as Hakeem’s was, so the chain of logic just doesn’t work. The reality is that the 1986 Rockets had a better season than the 1990 Bulls because, while the Bulls were otherwise better, the Rockets’ supporting cast was substantially better in the highly-important conference finals than the Bulls’ supporting cast was and that resulted in the Bulls losing their series while the Rockets won theirs. Which means that there’s obviously no valid inference that can be drawn from this about 1990 Jordan vs. 1986 Hakeem specifically.

[ShaqAttac]

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.

crazy it never gets hype.

mj gets so much for gettin swept that same year

[ShaqAttac]

Teling me "but in this component of basketball the bulls were not that good" does not move me. Keep repeating yourself. I am not moved.

Putting the ball in the hoop is the most fundamental component of basketball, and when teams essentially never win in the playoffs when their supporting cast are so bad at that component of the game then it’s a *very* good sign that you should absolutely be moved that the supporting cast shooting that badly means they were not good. A supporting cast shooting that badly is obviously a massive deal that makes it virtually impossible to win!

this is alot of words to say not much. if they were competin and winning games vs det on d how u gonna use ppg to say the help sucked

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?

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. There’s no need to “pick a lane” because your argument boils down to the conference finals no matter what. Leaving aside the conference finals, the Bulls had a better playoff SRS than the Rockets did. Leaving aside the conference finals, the Bulls also had a more impressive series win than the Rockets did (easily beating a 4.23 SRS team, while the Rockets only beat a 0.89 SRS team in 6 games and then also easily beat a -3.19 SRS team). Leaving aside the conference finals, the Rockets had a little bit of a struggle against a mediocre team, while the Bulls did not. And the Bulls did a bit better in the regular season.
Jordan vs. 1986 Hakeem specifically.[/quote]
why do you keep switchin between point diff and games. rox were better with or without cf

[homecourtloss]

Putting the ball in the hoop is the most fundamental component of basketball, and when teams essentially never win in the playoffs when their supporting cast are so bad at that component of the game then it’s a *very* good sign that you should absolutely be moved that the supporting cast shooting that badly means they were not good. A supporting cast shooting that badly is obviously a massive deal that makes it virtually impossible to win!

this is alot of words to say not much. if they were competin and winning games vs det on d how u gonna use ppg to say the help sucked

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?

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. There’s no need to “pick a lane” because your argument boils down to the conference finals no matter what. Leaving aside the conference finals, the Bulls had a better playoff SRS than the Rockets did. Leaving aside the conference finals, the Bulls also had a more impressive series win than the Rockets did (easily beating a 4.23 SRS team, while the Rockets only beat a 0.89 SRS team in 6 games and then also easily beat a -3.19 SRS team). Leaving aside the conference finals, the Rockets had a little bit of a struggle against a mediocre team, while the Bulls did not. And the Bulls did a bit better in the regular season.
Jordan vs. 1986 Hakeem specifically.

why do you keep switchin between point diff and games. rox were better with or without cf[/quote]

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:

1985 Lakers vs.Suns: +18.7 NRtg, 124.6 ORtg
1985 Lakers vs. Blazers: +10.2 NRtg, 117.9 ORtg
1985 Lakers vs. Nuggets: 10.8 NRtg, 117.4 ORtg
1985 Lakers vs. Celtics: +2.5 NRtg, 112.3 ORtg

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.

[lessthanjake]

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:

1985 Lakers vs.Suns: +18.7 NRtg, 124.6 ORtg
1985 Lakers vs. Blazers: +10.2 NRtg, 117.9 ORtg
1985 Lakers vs. Nuggets: 10.8 NRtg, 117.4 ORtg
1985 Lakers vs. Celtics: +2.5 NRtg, 112.3 ORtg

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.

The following is getting so tangential as to maybe be off topic, but I’d hard disagree on the 1990 Pistons not being “in the same tier” as the 1986 Lakers. Those Pistons get way underrated. They won two titles in a row while dropping only 7 playoff games the entire time (5 of which were to the Bulls).

Anyways, Hakeem played very well, but so did Jordan against the Pistons. What teams do you think win if you flip whose supporting cast shoots so badly? The point isn’t to say Hakeem didn’t play well—it’s to say that using the team results to compare the two players doesn’t make sense when it is based on an assumption (that the Bulls supporting cast was as good or better) that was not true when the team results in question occurred.

this is alot of words to say not much. if they were competin and winning games vs det on d how u gonna use ppg to say the help sucked

Because, in the history of the NBA teams basically don’t win playoff series when their supporting cast shoots that badly, which means that it’s clearly a pretty determinative factor. I’d urge you to go watch Game 7 of that series and get back to me.

why do you keep switchin between point diff and games. rox were better with or without cf

I don’t understand this. Both SRS and games won matter when assessing how well a team did. Obviously I’d mention both.

[ShaqAttac]

this is alot of words to say not much. if they were competin and winning games vs det on d how u gonna use ppg to say the help sucked


I’m not sure what you’re saying here. There’s no need to “pick a lane” because your argument boils down to the conference finals no matter what. Leaving aside the conference finals, the Bulls had a better playoff SRS than the Rockets did. Leaving aside the conference finals, the Bulls also had a more impressive series win than the Rockets did (easily beating a 4.23 SRS team, while the Rockets only beat a 0.89 SRS team in 6 games and then also easily beat a -3.19 SRS team). Leaving aside the conference finals, the Rockets had a little bit of a struggle against a mediocre team, while the Bulls did not. And the Bulls did a bit better in the regular season.
Jordan vs. 1986 Hakeem specifically.

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:

1985 Lakers vs.Suns: +18.7 NRtg, 124.6 ORtg
1985 Lakers vs. Blazers: +10.2 NRtg, 117.9 ORtg
1985 Lakers vs. Nuggets: 10.8 NRtg, 117.4 ORtg
1985 Lakers vs. Celtics: +2.5 NRtg, 112.3 ORtg

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

[ShaqAttac]

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:

1985 Lakers vs.Suns: +18.7 NRtg, 124.6 ORtg
1985 Lakers vs. Blazers: +10.2 NRtg, 117.9 ORtg
1985 Lakers vs. Nuggets: 10.8 NRtg, 117.4 ORtg
1985 Lakers vs. Celtics: +2.5 NRtg, 112.3 ORtg

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.

The following is getting so tangential as to maybe be off topic, but I’d hard disagree on the 1990 Pistons not being “in the same tier” as the 1986 Lakers. Those Pistons get way underrated. They won two titles in a row while dropping only 7 playoff games the entire time (5 of which were to the Bulls).

Anyways, Hakeem played very well, but so did Jordan against the Pistons. What teams do you think win if you flip whose supporting cast shoots so badly? The point isn’t to say Hakeem didn’t play well—it’s to say that using the team results to compare the two players doesn’t make sense when it is based on an assumption (that the Bulls supporting cast was as good or better) that was not true when the team results in question occurred.

this is alot of words to say not much. if they were competin and winning games vs det on d how u gonna use ppg to say the help sucked

Because, in the history of the NBA teams basically don’t win playoff series when their supporting cast shoots that badly, which means that it’s clearly a pretty determinative factor. I’d urge you to go watch Game 7 of that series and get back to me.

why do you keep switchin between point diff and games. rox were better with or without cf

I don’t understand this. Both SRS and games won matter when assessing how well a team did. Obviously I’d mention both.

Didnt the lakers not have magic when the det played them in the finals?

and i dont know why u keep only looking at scoring. mj a scorer and his good at everything else. why are we only looking at game 7. why are we only pretending. you keep cherrypicking something thats been replied to and then you say its a bad arg when ppl look at everything?

do teams usually lose when they d is that good? do teams usually lose when a great scorer isnt doubled much?

youre the one making a bad arg tbh

srs say rox were better in 1st 2 rounds. and games say rox took a great team to 6. and rox werent good without hakeem.