NBA - Rochambeau Playoffs

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, KingintheNorth4 said:

ICE TRAE. 

Shit, they won? HOW?!?!?!?

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I've always heard the writers of the time say that the Pistons were never the same team after their last championship. 

I mean, they're writers and they're telling a story.  That, of course, is true in a way -- but it's true precisely BECAUSE the Bulls swept them and they walked off the court like children.

[Proudfeet]

10 minutes ago, Arakasi said:

Robinson was old and young/prime Kawhi is miles better than any supporting cast on the earlier Spurs.

I don't know about Robinson and the earlier supporting cast on the Spurs, but Kawhi during their title run was a couple of years before his prime. He was already impressive defensively, but his offense consisted solely of catch and shoot threes or drive and dunk. Its simple and effective to be sure, but that definitely was not prime Kawhi.

[Arakasi]

Sure his offensive game hasn’t matured yet but he was still good and was probably the best defensive player on the planet then. Like sure younger Manu and Parker were good but neither had the skills Kawhi could pull.

[Arakasi]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

I mean, they're writers and they're telling a story.  That, of course, is true in a way -- but it's true precisely BECAUSE the Bulls swept them and they walked off the court like children.

They had also come off a couple pretty tough playoff runs and that likely added a lot of miles to them. I think the two years off certainly helped the Bulls get their legs back.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

I mean, they're writers and they're telling a story.  That, of course, is true in a way -- but it's true precisely BECAUSE the Bulls swept them and they walked off the court like children.

And to be fair the writers didn't like the Pistons. But I don't think that completely changes the notion that they had pretty much spent up the best of what they had. 

This is a sidetrack though. I still maintain that the teams Jordan beat in the Finals Lebron would have beaten too, and the teams he beat probably would have won over them as well. The 90's was not exactly the best era of basketball even if it produced the sports biggest star. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Arakasi said:

They had also come off a couple pretty tough playoff runs and that likely added a lot of miles to them. I think the two years off certainly helped the Bulls get their legs back.

What two years off?  You mean Jordan's?  There's pros and cons to that in terms of taking a break v rustiness, sure, but that really has nothing to do with the early 90s Pistons and subsequently the Bulls' first threepeat.

[DMC]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

The 90's was not exactly the best era of basketball even if it produced the sports biggest star. 

Yeah, gotcha.  I know a lot of people buy into this but it's very obviously propaganda.

[Arakasi]

Not really I recall an article from ESPN where they rated all the finals teams ever using some statistical analysis. Fact is the nineties teams that Jordan beat just weren’t very good. I don’t think Jordan beats the Kobe/Shaq lakers and we saw how a younger him did against prime Boston and Detroit.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah, gotcha.  I know a lot of people buy into this but it's very obviously propaganda.

Again, go rewatch a game from that time. It's pretty terrible by comparison unless you enjoy a game where neither team can break 80 sometimes. 

Also, at age 23, LeBron took a horrible team to the Finals. Jordan got swept in the first round. Funny how we forget things like this. 

[DMC]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Again, go rewatch a game from that time.

First, I have.  Second, I watched them to begin with.

Look, all that's gonna be said has already been said.  I think it's patently absurd you are ignoring the history of how the Pistons and Lakers were to act like Jordan just came along at the right time.  Because it is, empirically, ignorant of history.  I also think discounting the teams Jordan faced subsequently is bullshit.  You disagree.  Ok.

9 minutes ago, Arakasi said:

Not really I recall an article from ESPN where they rated all the finals teams ever using some statistical analysis.

Heh, a statistical analysis measuring teams' quality across eras?  Please link me to that, love to their methodology to try to operationalize that.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

First, I have.  Second, I watched them to begin with.

You're not that much older than me. I watched a lot of 90's hoops at it sucked compared to today's game. 

Quote

Look, all that's gonna be said has already been said.  I think it's patently absurd you are ignoring the history of how the Pistons and Lakers were to act like Jordan just came along at the right time.  Because it is, empirically, ignorant of history.  I also think discounting the teams Jordan faced subsequently is bullshit.  You disagree.  Ok.

No, it's not, because you cannot say that Jordan overcame either team when they had their best punch. With the Lakers it's clear and obvious. You can debate the Pistons if you want, but I believe when he beat them they were an exhausted shell of themselves and never were the same.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You're not that much older than me.

I'm aware.  I'm also not the one saying "just go watch the games in the 90s" as if that's some type of argument.

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

With the Lakers it's clear and obvious.

This is acting like since old Kareem wasn't there the 91 Lakers were somehow that much worse...while in the same breath acting like the Spurs with old David Robinson were worse than they were with old Tim Duncan...and old Manu.  Cognitive dissonance at its best.

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

but I believe when he beat them they were an exhausted shell of themselves and never were the same.

Yeah this is a fiction you're telling yourself.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm aware.  I'm also not the one saying "just go watch the games in the 90s" as if that's some type of argument.

Just saying, I watched a lot of old games at the high of the pandemic and the 90's were cringe.

Quote

This is acting like since old Kareem wasn't there the 91 Lakers were somehow that much worse...while in the same breath acting like the Spurs with old David Robinson were worse than they were with old Tim Duncan...and old Manu.  Cognitive dissonance at its best.

Not really. The Spurs weren't relying on him at that point. Danny Green was probably a bigger factor, at least in the playoffs. But again my point stands, Jordan did not beat the best version of the Lakers. Not even close. I think peak showtime is at worst a coin flip against Jordan's best team, which ever year you think that is.

And none of this disproves my point that Jordan got his championships largely during a down era for the NBA. A lot of teams from the last decade probably beat every team he faced in the Finals. 

Quote

Yeah this is a fiction you're telling yourself.

The Pistons after losing to the Bulls got bounced in round one the following year and missed the next three playoffs. Safe to say they were at the end of their rope when Jordan finished them off.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And none of this disproves my point that Jordan got his championships largely during a down era for the NBA.

A "down era" as compared to what?  Ok, you think the NBA has been an upward climb since the 90s.  That's obviously absurd thinking, but what are you trying to say?  That the 80s had so much better competition because..why exactly?  The Lakers and Celtics were the top two teams which made it good for business?  GTFO.  Your entire argument essentially hinges on Larry Bird's faulty back.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

33 minutes ago, DMC said:

A "down era" as compared to what?  Ok, you think the NBA has been an upward climb since the 90s.  That's obviously absurd thinking, but what are you trying to say?  That the 80s had so much better competition because..why exactly?  The Lakers and Celtics were the top two teams which made it good for business?  GTFO.  Your entire argument essentially hinges on Larry Bird's faulty back.

The quality of talent in the 2000s and beyond is a lot better than the 90s. Idk how you can even argue otherwise. Just for example, everyone's top 25 looks different, but I think only four guys from the 90's make that list and only one is ahead of guys from the modern era. LeBron, Duncan, Curry, Kobe and KD leapfrog everyone from that period unless you want to make an argument for Dream. Kawhi too, but he's always hurt. They're all better than Barkley who was Jordan's stiffest competition when he was on his championship run. 

Not sure where to put Shaq on that list because he did play a lot of peak ball in the 90's, but all his winning came afterwards.

Edited April 26, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Well, at least the Wolves didn't go out with a whimper. Denver is a hard team to read going forward. Looks like they'll be getting the Suns. 

Every team in the West are Heat fans right now.

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The quality of talent in the 2000s and beyond is a lot better than the 90s. Idk how you can even argue otherwise. Just for example, everyone's top 25 looks different, but I think only four guys from the 90's make that list and only one is ahead of guys from the modern era. LeBron, Duncan, Curry, Kobe and KD leapfrog everyone from that period unless you want to make an argument for Dream. Kawhi too, but he's always hurt. They're all better than Barkley who was Jordan's stiffest competition when he was on his championship run.

Well, you're taking a single decade and comparing it to the twenty years after, so that's inherently fallacious.  Duncan and Kobe are distinctly different eras than Curry, who was eight-to-nine when they were drafted - and even LeBron and KD, if we're just going by decade.  But, k, let's look at those in their prime in their nineties.  Here's a ranking of the 75 at 75 from this past summer.  Not saying I agree entirely, but roughly gives us an idea.

You got Shaq at 11, Hakeem at 13, Barkley at 22, Malone at 23, Stockton at 24, Robinson at 25, Thomas at 27, Wilkins at 36, Ewing at 40, Payton at 42, Miller at 51.  Seems to stack up pretty well to any other decade if that's how we're measuring it.  Idk how you can even argue otherwise.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, you're taking a single decade and comparing it to the twenty years after, so that's inherently fallacious.  Duncan and Kobe are distinctly different eras than Curry, who was eight-to-nine when they were drafted - and even LeBron and KD, if we're just going by decade.  But, k, let's look at those in their prime in their nineties.  Here's a ranking of the 75 at 75 from this past summer.  Not saying I agree entirely, but roughly gives us an idea.

You got Shaq at 11, Hakeem at 13, Barkley at 22, Malone at 23, Stockton at 24, Robinson at 25, Thomas at 27, Wilkins at 36, Ewing at 40, Payton at 42, Miller at 51.  Seems to stack up pretty well to any other decade if that's how we're measuring it.  Idk how you can even argue otherwise.

I guess for me the 75 at 75 list is kind of meaningless. It's like the AFI Top 100. Half the movies on that list probably don't belong anymore, but once they're on the list it's hard to take them off especially when the people voting on it are older. 

Is Miller a better player than Klay, who was notably mad he was left off the list? Their stats are pretty similar, except Klay is the better defender, didn't get the same usage rate and played a key role on four championships. Miller made one Finals as the team's best player and they were quickly ended as a contender.

Edited April 26, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I guess for me the 75 at 75 list is kind of meaningless.

You're the one who wanted to make it about top players ever.  That list may be wrong - we all have our preferences - but it's not THAT wrong.