86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

[ojandpizza]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

What players say hold no water from my opinion, maybe to you they do, that's fine we can disagree.. Walton also said his Blazers team was the best "team" to ever win a title. Do you think that means their teamwork would trump Boston's? Since apparently whatever a former player says is the gospel.

Corzing and Oakley couldn't shoot, and I'm not claiming Longley and Wennington were great shooters..

You acted like playing Wennington was a liability, and it wasn't, not at all. He could always hold his own for spot minutes, good player or not. He could hit open shots, grab rebounds, defend shots.. Seriously comparable to how Birdman was for Miami.

Longley, it's not about him hitting shots.. He was a good passer, which is why I said earlier he would somewhat compare to the roles Divac had with SAC and Sabonis had with Portland. They played him in the high post area because he could make plays.. You fail to realize that basketball is a team concept and that players rely on other players to make them better.

Obviously if Chicago had Hakeem they would use him?? And you said I was all over the place lol.. If Boston had Shaq or Wilt, Parish would be benched and Walton to 3rd string, so what's your point there?

They did have an inside post player to attack with. They were Jordan and Pippen. They played them in the post, and ran them, Harper, Rodman, Kukoc off of screens and cuts. Lots of movement and passing.

Why are my statements baseless whenever you have no idea how the Bulls even played, used their rotations, or played their matchups??? You are just throwing out numbers that are separated by a 10 year time span, against different opponents, under different league rules, and using "Magic said this", "Bill said this" and a shear stat sheet to try and make random assumptions of your own?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jjsmity]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

What players say hold no water from my opinion, maybe to you they do, that's fine we can disagree.. Walton also said his Blazers team was the best "team" to ever win a title. Do you think that means their teamwork would trump Boston's? Since apparently whatever a former player says is the gospel.

Corzing and Oakley couldn't shoot, and I'm not claiming Longley and Wennington were great shooters..

You acted like playing Wennington was a liability, and it wasn't, not at all. He could always hold his own for spot minutes, good player or not. He could hit open shots, grab rebounds, defend shots.. Seriously comparable to how Birdman was for Miami.

Longley, it's not about him hitting shots.. He was a good passer, which is why I said earlier he would somewhat compare to the roles Divac had with SAC and Sabonis had with Portland. They played him in the high post area because he could make plays.. You fail to realize that basketball is a team concept and that players rely on other players to make them better.

Obviously if Chicago had Hakeem they would use him?? And you said I was all over the place lol.. If Boston had Shaq or Wilt, Parish would be benched and Walton to 3rd string, so what's your point there?

They did have an inside post player to attack with. They were Jordan and Pippen. They played them in the post, and ran them, Harper, Rodman, Kukoc off of screens and cuts. Lots of movement and passing.

Why are my statements baseless whenever you have no idea how the Bulls even played, used their rotations, or played their matchups??? You are just throwing out numbers that are separated by a 10 year time span, against different opponents, under different league rules, and using "Magic said this", "Bill said this" and a shear stat sheet to try and make random assumptions of your own?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

when did walton say that was his best team? in mid 90's he said the 86 c's were best team ever, when asked if they could beat the 96 bulls he said yes they were best team ever.


corzine-oakley at least as good as 96 bulls centers mid range


yeah because if this dosent remind you of wennigton what does


Chris Anderson "Birdman"

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=birdman%20miami%20heat&qs=n&form=QBVR&pq=birdman%20miami%20heat&sc=8-18&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&mid=71B0110903874C80BFF771B0110903874C80BFF7

also dont look at his stats and compare to wennigton, or it may seem like you just have a man-crush on wennigton to compare the two.


wennigton who never won any defense award or even ratings stats on a defensive minded bulls team. This is serious the last time i post on him/longley.



this is why i think it is no good to talk on longley/wennigton. You think of them much higher than they are, comparing know longley to divac, a all star who averaged over 4 assist a game a few years. Longley 1.5 for his career


"You fail to realize that basketball is a team concept and that players rely on other players to make them better"

if you find this true, i would think you must think c's win easy than? read op


Hakeem
proving my point, longley/weenigtons role was based on what they could do, not what they could not.

[jjsmity]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

somewere you claimed bulls did not double inside on ewing,alonzo,shaq etc

as I said please provide evidence, please show just one game with these players the bulls never doubled. I went and started on ewing game 3 96 playoffs found online here

Bulls vs. Knicks 1996 game 3 (2/...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3uPrD4Zayc

first 4 times ewing gets ball gets 2 doubles, one time he got it and scored to fast for double to come, but look weak side pipen was coming over. Also look how far they back off that constant shooter pipeen lol. pipen man 3 feet off him shoots...brick wait open again shoots...brick... post up mid range hes constant ...brick.


here is pacers with smits

Bulls vs. Pacers 02.18.1996 (1/...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fPZpNjTvBQ

shaq
Bulls vs. Magic 1996 game 1 (2/...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-0y9WTEoEs

look how far shaq backs off longley, dosent he know what a great shooter he is lol. Longley wide open 15 footer.....wait dosent even look at basket. But watch his great defense, cant even stop anderson coming to hoop. hardaway to hoop left handed longley there for d...dunked on etc etc

wait your right, shaq did not draw a double, he drew 4 players on post up.



games avalibel online free from 96 playoffs, not just these games, these were random selected. boy do they bring back memories and i think refute all your claims as well.

[RedSceptile]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

This is why I stopped even attempting to reply to your topic. Hand pick a few games and any point can be proven. Yeah ok you win.

[ojandpizza]

86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

somewere you claimed bulls did not double inside on ewing,alonzo,shaq etc

as I said please provide evidence, please show just one game with these players the bulls never doubled. I went and started on ewing game 3 96 playoffs found online here

Bulls vs. Knicks 1996 game 3 (2/...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3uPrD4Zayc

first 4 times ewing gets ball gets 2 doubles, one time he got it and scored to fast for double to come, but look weak side pipen was coming over. Also look how far they back off that constant shooter pipeen lol. pipen man 3 feet off him shoots...brick wait open again shoots...brick... post up mid range hes constant ...brick.


here is pacers with smits

Bulls vs. Pacers 02.18.1996 (1/...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fPZpNjTvBQ

shaq
Bulls vs. Magic 1996 game 1 (2/...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-0y9WTEoEs

look how far shaq backs off longley, dosent he know what a great shooter he is lol. Longley wide open 15 footer.....wait dosent even look at basket. But watch his great defense, cant even stop anderson coming to hoop. hardaway to hoop left handed longley there for d...dunked on etc etc

wait your right, shaq did not draw a double, he drew 4 players on post up.



games avalibel online free from 96 playoffs, not just these games, these were random selected. boy do they bring back memories and i think refute all your claims as well.

Ok, so I can't tell if you're trying to be sarcastic or if you are just literally missing the entire point behind my posts. You keep taking a single portion of my posts, take them completely out of context, thus change the direction of the entire argument into bogus assumptions that I never meant to begin with. And the only reason I'm questioning is because I think anyone else here reading them understand the angle of my posts, so I can't tell if you're intentionally changing my point of view from one extreme to the other just to back your side of the argument, or if you are literally interpreting what I'm saying the way that you repeat it..
Anyways...

1.) whatever link you posted about Birdman wouldn't load on my phone so I have no idea what it is.. But just to clarify anyways, I never once said, or even insinuated, that Birdman and Wennington are identical players. Obviously Wennington isn't going to come flying over in help side and swat a shot into the stands, he isn't going to cut back door and throw down a monster dunk off the alley-oop, he isn't going to coming flying for an offensive tip slam jumping over the other teams rebounders.. What I was implying, and I think I made that pretty damn clear which is why I questioned your motive to start my post, is that he has a very similar ROLE as to what Birdman does. Which is come in for spot minutes, bring energy, keep the floor spaced, get rebounds, defend the paint with size.. I have never called him a great player, a good player, I haven't even called him an average player. But he was able to maximize his role and provided a need for the Bulls without them having a lack of size on the bench.. In every clip you posted you can see him keeping the floor spread, and in the Indy clip you see him netting the open mid range shot. He did exactly what I told you his role was. Which is why this is never about matchups only, the Bulls were always able to maximize every ounce of talent they had and every players role was filled to it's fullest.. How else do you expect a team that starts Longely and has role players of Kerr, Jud, Wennington to win 72 games.. Nobody calls the Bulls one of the all time great teams because of how they look on paper, it's because of how good those guys meshed TOGETHER.

2.) you are acting like I called Longley the 2nd coming of Dirk who takes and makes every open shot he has.. I said he can knock down the open jumper, which he does in the clips you posted, and I said he kept the defense spread out with his passing.. Notice in the Orlando clip the commentator mentions, after Longely hit his shot, something along the lines of "that shot has been open for him all night, he now has 6 of their 15 points".. And the defensive play on Nick Anderson you mentioned, that was actually really good help defense, I'm not sure why you brought that up.. He gets in position and beats Nick to the spot and stays straight up to contest.. That's textbook defense. The foul shouldn't have been called. And so Penny dunked on him, does that mean that because Jordan dunked on Mutumbo that he's a bad defender? He's one of the best shot blockers ever.. Again your logic takes things from what they are to some completely opposite far extreme. Parish and Walton have been dunked on plenty of times themselves, it's part of basketball.

Also, I said his role in that they could run their offense with him as a part of it and use his passing made him comparable to Divac and Sabonis in that regard.. I never said hey go check their stats and they will be identical, I never said he was as good as either of those two, or even half as good.. Why would anyone expect Longely, a 5th option player in their lineup who only played about 25 minutes per game to have comparable assists numbers to a player like Divac who played 33 minutes per game, got more touches, and had a bigger role within their offense???

Again you are taking something I said, flipping it out of context and to the far extreme.. This would be like me jokingly telling my best friend "I'm gonna kill you man", and you're the guy who overheard it and ran to the police station to report a murder lol.

3.) you keep making so many of your judgements based off of looking at their stat sheet and awards.. Like basically labeling Longley worthless because he doesn't have big numbers, Harper not being a good defender because he didn't win any awards, Wennington being a complete liability because his numbers don't reflect what a decent player should average, in your eyes. Etc.

You realize I could do the same thing right? I could say Walton only averaged 1.7 assists in the playoffs that year, he must be a horrible passer.. Walton only took 5 shots per game, and averaged a measly 6 rebounds, there is no way he's the best back up center ever.. Dennis Johnson only averaged 5.9 assists per game, no way was he a great playmaker. Luc Longley has a better block% and Defensive rating than both McHale and Parish, he must be a much better defender than they are.. Obviously I don't believe any of that to be true, but I'm just making a point that your random stat assumptions are so far out of context that they hold little ground.. I could easily sit here all day long and find any negative misleading stat and do the exact thing you are.

Maybe I should just YouTube every clip of Parish getting dunked on so I can post those and tell you he's a horrible defender?

4.) since you went to the trouble of digging up videos I decided to watch them..

Knicks - Ewing never gets doubled in the clip, in fact he doesn't even touch the ball in the clip you posted.. But just for the sake of arguing, let's just that every year the Bulls faced the Knicks in the playoffs that they sent a double team every single time Ewing touched the ball.. That didn't happen as they rarely doubled, and usually the only thing that would even resemble a double team is Harper, or Jordan dashing in from the off side to try and force a turnover, not a double team out of necessity... But like I said, for the sake of argument, let's say they doubled Ewing every single time he got the ball.. You do realize how vastly different that would be from doubling Parish right??? For once Ewing is a bigger stronger player, he's more physical and better at scoring in close to the basket.. Parish, as even you admitted, was more a jumpshot type of big man.. Not that he wasn't a great scorer, but how many times do you see guys go a double a bigman who's shooting a jumper?

Not to mention Parish was the 3rd option on that team behind Bird and McHale, while Ewing on the other hand was the star player, franchise player, go to scorer, leading scorer.. Parish was a good offensive player, I'm not saying he wasn't, but that team wasn't directly built around him constantly having to score 25 points, he wasn't the focal point out there taking 20 shots per game that the other teams defense had to be gameplanned towards stopping. Also the players around them, why would Chicago double Parish knowing that Ainge and Bird are deadeye shooters, and knowing that McHale is money from mid range?? While doubling Ewing every play would be leaving open Starks, Mason, Oakley, none of who were very good shooters.

The scenario you are trying to create would be like Indiana deciding to double-team Chris Bosh, even though he isn't dominant on the block, thus leaving open LeBron, Wade, or Allen.. That's basically what Chicago would be doing if you believed they would actually double Parish. Makes zero sense no?

Indiana - there is like twice when Chicago sends someone to try and strip Smits, it's after he's put the ball on the floor and they are trying to force turnovers.. There is no hard double teaming from a threat of him looking to score? Also this is from a game without Longley their starter, and play doesn't show until after halftime, leaving us with out indication of if adjustments were made or not. Also is that from a regular season game?

Orlando - the play you are taking about "drew 4 players on post up" Longley had went for the steal and left Shaq alone, the Bulls sent all 4 guys at him immediately. Other than that they only sent in a help defender if Shaq had moved Longely too deep.. The only immediate double team in that clip came when Rodman was guarding Shaq, Pippen immediately doubled down to force a pass back out to Penny.. But then again we are talking about Shaq here...

The way you originally made it sound was that Longley was so bad defensively that there would be constantly double teaming, allowing Boston's passing to pick Chicago apart, you made it sound like Philly trying to guard Shaq in the finals.

Really glad you posted the clips though so I can elaborate on things I had already told you that are in these clips..
First the spacing caused by Longely, Wenningtong playing away from the basket..
a.) they can hit that shot, which both of them did in the clips.
b.) it takes the big men away from the basket to allow Jordan/Pippen to post
c.) they utilize their passing in their ball movement.
d.) something not mentioned but in the clips, Chicago would run a hand off to it's wing players. This left their defender trailing behind them similar to a ball screen.. This puts the big man that's in help in limbo. Does he step up to stop the shot but risk the chance of a blow by, or does he stay put to protect the basket but leaving an open shot.. Another point as to how Chicago utilized every player on the court.
e.) in the 80's and 90's there was no staggering 2 or 3 extra defenders behind your defense to leave constant help, like how Dallas and SA defends LeBron.. So even when Longley, or Wennington, or Rodman, whoever was standing outside the lane there man was forced to stay out with them, otherwise an illegal defense is called.. I believe there was one called in every clip you showed.. Another way Chicago could maximize the 5 guys they had on the court regardless of their skill level.. They always used it to Jordan and Pippen's advantage.

Pippen Knocks down quite a few open jumpers in those clips, though he also misses a couple as well. Still shows you can't leave him open, he's plenty capable of taking and making those shots, a shot that rolls off the rim isn't what I would call a "brick"... Also, unlike Nique, Pippen doesn't just chunk up a shot every time he's left open.. Which is more of what made the "sag off" method so effective against Nique.. Yes he could get blistering hot and drop 40, but he could also be ice cold still take 25 shots and shoot them into a loss.. Inconsistency at it's finest.

As for Walton I've heard him on multiple occasions talk about how his Portland team was the ultimate example of a "true team" with all the guys sacrificing for the greater good, blah, blah, etc.. He's also called the Celtics squad the greatest team ever assembled. And according to you he said Parish was the greatest mid range shooter ever right??? You don't see any sort of bias going on there lol.. Wouldn't surprise me if he would say Bird is the greatest shooter ever, McHale the greatest PF ever, etc..

But let me ask this, if he was asked if his team could beat the 96 Bulls what did you honestly expect him to say??? What would Jordan or Pippen say if they were asked the reverse? Of course they would pick their own damn team man.

Point is, former players say crap all the time, and what's true for one player might not hold true for the next.. Magic said DJ was his toughest defender, wwharton said he also said the same about Bogues, Jordan said his was Dumars, it's going to be different for most players.. No 2 guys are exactly the same.. Payton said Sockton was the toughest player for him to guard, does that make him better than Jordan just because he said that? I believe it was Karl Malone that said he would rather start a team with Pippen than Jordan, does that mean Pippen is better than MJ? Charles Barkely just this past year in the playoffs said Andrew Toney was the best player he ever played with. Does that make him better than Dr. J, Moses Malone, Kevin Johnson, Tom Chambers, Hakeem??? Surely you see where this is going..

I could right now search google and find 20 former players/coaches who say Jordan is the best player ever, 10 more who said Pippen is the most complete ever, 10 more who said they are the best perimeter defensive duo ever, 10 more who said Rodman is the best rebounder ever.. Would that even change your stance at all, would it even matter.. No it wouldn't, just like none of us give a damn what Bill Walton thinks about a team he once played on, or which player from that team Magic wants to brag about today and then change his mind about tomorrow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jjsmity]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

This is why I stopped even attempting to reply to your topic. Hand pick a few games and any point can be proven. Yeah ok you win.

as I said they were random, the whole series are avalibel online, pick any game you will find what i posted to be true, though pippen does eventually start making some shots 38% for playoffs, I know I grew up watching those guys.


But me thinks you might not reply because you make claims that have no support. Please respond to your original post that claimed

just wondering who would torch bird? he would guard longley/rodman.
who would torch parish? he would guard longley/rodman.


also there is not much help d for post players but to double, so how does bulls defend parosh/walton/mchale/bird in post? and if they do c's great shooting/passing team.

Ok, so I can't tell if you're trying to be sarcastic or if you are just literally missing the entire point behind my posts. You keep taking a single portion of my posts, take them completely out of context, thus change the direction of the entire argument into bogus assumptions that I never meant to begin with. And the only reason I'm questioning is because I think anyone else here reading them understand the angle of my posts, so I can't tell if you're intentionally changing my point of view from one extreme to the other just to back your side of the argument, or if you are literally interpreting what I'm saying the way that you repeat it..
Anyways...

1.) whatever link you posted about Birdman wouldn't load on my phone so I have no idea what it is.. But just to clarify anyways, I never once said, or even insinuated, that Birdman and Wennington are identical players. Obviously Wennington isn't going to come flying over in help side and swat a shot into the stands, he isn't going to cut back door and throw down a monster dunk off the alley-oop, he isn't going to coming flying for an offensive tip slam jumping over the other teams rebounders.. What I was implying, and I think I made that pretty damn clear which is why I questioned your motive to start my post, is that he has a very similar ROLE as to what Birdman does. Which is come in for spot minutes, bring energy, keep the floor spaced, get rebounds, defend the paint with size.. I have never called him a great player, a good player, I haven't even called him an average player. But he was able to maximize his role and provided a need for the Bulls without them having a lack of size on the bench.. In every clip you posted you can see him keeping the floor spread, and in the Indy clip you see him netting the open mid range shot. He did exactly what I told you his role was. Which is why this is never about matchups only, the Bulls were always able to maximize every ounce of talent they had and every players role was filled to it's fullest.. How else do you expect a team that starts Longely and has role players of Kerr, Jud, Wennington to win 72 games.. Nobody calls the Bulls one of the all time great teams because of how they look on paper, it's because of how good those guys meshed TOGETHER.

2.) you are acting like I called Longley the 2nd coming of Dirk who takes and makes every open shot he has.. I said he can knock down the open jumper, which he does in the clips you posted, and I said he kept the defense spread out with his passing.. Notice in the Orlando clip the commentator mentions, after Longely hit his shot, something along the lines of "that shot has been open for him all night, he now has 6 of their 15 points".. And the defensive play on Nick Anderson you mentioned, that was actually really good help defense, I'm not sure why you brought that up.. He gets in position and beats Nick to the spot and stays straight up to contest.. That's textbook defense. The foul shouldn't have been called. And so Penny dunked on him, does that mean that because Jordan dunked on Mutumbo that he's a bad defender? He's one of the best shot blockers ever.. Again your logic takes things from what they are to some completely opposite far extreme. Parish and Walton have been dunked on plenty of times themselves, it's part of basketball.

Also, I said his role in that they could run their offense with him as a part of it and use his passing made him comparable to Divac and Sabonis in that regard.. I never said hey go check their stats and they will be identical, I never said he was as good as either of those two, or even half as good.. Why would anyone expect Longely, a 5th option player in their lineup who only played about 25 minutes per game to have comparable assists numbers to a player like Divac who played 33 minutes per game, got more touches, and had a bigger role within their offense???

Again you are taking something I said, flipping it out of context and to the far extreme.. This would be like me jokingly telling my best friend "I'm gonna kill you man", and you're the guy who overheard it and ran to the police station to report a murder lol.

3.) you keep making so many of your judgements based off of looking at their stat sheet and awards.. Like basically labeling Longley worthless because he doesn't have big numbers, Harper not being a good defender because he didn't win any awards, Wennington being a complete liability because his numbers don't reflect what a decent player should average, in your eyes. Etc.

You realize I could do the same thing right? I could say Walton only averaged 1.7 assists in the playoffs that year, he must be a horrible passer.. Walton only took 5 shots per game, and averaged a measly 6 rebounds, there is no way he's the best back up center ever.. Dennis Johnson only averaged 5.9 assists per game, no way was he a great playmaker. Luc Longley has a better block% and Defensive rating than both McHale and Parish, he must be a much better defender than they are.. Obviously I don't believe any of that to be true, but I'm just making a point that your random stat assumptions are so far out of context that they hold little ground.. I could easily sit here all day long and find any negative misleading stat and do the exact thing you are.

Maybe I should just YouTube every clip of Parish getting dunked on so I can post those and tell you he's a horrible defender?

4.) since you went to the trouble of digging up videos I decided to watch them..

Knicks - Ewing never gets doubled in the clip, in fact he doesn't even touch the ball in the clip you posted.. But just for the sake of arguing, let's just that every year the Bulls faced the Knicks in the playoffs that they sent a double team every single time Ewing touched the ball.. That didn't happen as they rarely doubled, and usually the only thing that would even resemble a double team is Harper, or Jordan dashing in from the off side to try and force a turnover, not a double team out of necessity... But like I said, for the sake of argument, let's say they doubled Ewing every single time he got the ball.. You do realize how vastly different that would be from doubling Parish right??? For once Ewing is a bigger stronger player, he's more physical and better at scoring in close to the basket.. Parish, as even you admitted, was more a jumpshot type of big man.. Not that he wasn't a great scorer, but how many times do you see guys go a double a bigman who's shooting a jumper?

Not to mention Parish was the 3rd option on that team behind Bird and McHale, while Ewing on the other hand was the star player, franchise player, go to scorer, leading scorer.. Parish was a good offensive player, I'm not saying he wasn't, but that team wasn't directly built around him constantly having to score 25 points, he wasn't the focal point out there taking 20 shots per game that the other teams defense had to be gameplanned towards stopping. Also the players around them, why would Chicago double Parish knowing that Ainge and Bird are deadeye shooters, and knowing that McHale is money from mid range?? While doubling Ewing every play would be leaving open Starks, Mason, Oakley, none of who were very good shooters.

The scenario you are trying to create would be like Indiana deciding to double-team Chris Bosh, even though he isn't dominant on the block, thus leaving open LeBron, Wade, or Allen.. That's basically what Chicago would be doing if you believed they would actually double Parish. Makes zero sense no?

Indiana - there is like twice when Chicago sends someone to try and strip Smits, it's after he's put the ball on the floor and they are trying to force turnovers.. There is no hard double teaming from a threat of him looking to score? Also this is from a game without Longley their starter, and play doesn't show until after halftime, leaving us with out indication of if adjustments were made or not. Also is that from a regular season game?

Orlando - the play you are taking about "drew 4 players on post up" Longley had went for the steal and left Shaq alone, the Bulls sent all 4 guys at him immediately. Other than that they only sent in a help defender if Shaq had moved Longely too deep.. The only immediate double team in that clip came when Rodman was guarding Shaq, Pippen immediately doubled down to force a pass back out to Penny.. But then again we are talking about Shaq here...

The way you originally made it sound was that Longley was so bad defensively that there would be constantly double teaming, allowing Boston's passing to pick Chicago apart, you made it sound like Philly trying to guard Shaq in the finals.

Really glad you posted the clips though so I can elaborate on things I had already told you that are in these clips..
First the spacing caused by Longely, Wenningtong playing away from the basket..
a.) they can hit that shot, which both of them did in the clips.
b.) it takes the big men away from the basket to allow Jordan/Pippen to post
c.) they utilize their passing in their ball movement.
d.) something not mentioned but in the clips, Chicago would run a hand off to it's wing players. This left their defender trailing behind them similar to a ball screen.. This puts the big man that's in help in limbo. Does he step up to stop the shot but risk the chance of a blow by, or does he stay put to protect the basket but leaving an open shot.. Another point as to how Chicago utilized every player on the court.
e.) in the 80's and 90's there was no staggering 2 or 3 extra defenders behind your defense to leave constant help, like how Dallas and SA defends LeBron.. So even when Longley, or Wennington, or Rodman, whoever was standing outside the lane there man was forced to stay out with them, otherwise an illegal defense is called.. I believe there was one called in every clip you showed.. Another way Chicago could maximize the 5 guys they had on the court regardless of their skill level.. They always used it to Jordan and Pippen's advantage.

Pippen Knocks down quite a few open jumpers in those clips, though he also misses a couple as well. Still shows you can't leave him open, he's plenty capable of taking and making those shots, a shot that rolls off the rim isn't what I would call a "brick"... Also, unlike Nique, Pippen doesn't just chunk up a shot every time he's left open.. Which is more of what made the "sag off" method so effective against Nique.. Yes he could get blistering hot and drop 40, but he could also be ice cold still take 25 shots and shoot them into a loss.. Inconsistency at it's finest.

As for Walton I've heard him on multiple occasions talk about how his Portland team was the ultimate example of a "true team" with all the guys sacrificing for the greater good, blah, blah, etc.. He's also called the Celtics squad the greatest team ever assembled. And according to you he said Parish was the greatest mid range shooter ever right??? You don't see any sort of bias going on there lol.. Wouldn't surprise me if he would say Bird is the greatest shooter ever, McHale the greatest PF ever, etc..

But let me ask this, if he was asked if his team could beat the 96 Bulls what did you honestly expect him to say??? What would Jordan or Pippen say if they were asked the reverse? Of course they would pick their own damn team man.

Point is, former players say crap all the time, and what's true for one player might not hold true for the next.. Magic said DJ was his toughest defender, wwharton said he also said the same about Bogues, Jordan said his was Dumars, it's going to be different for most players.. No 2 guys are exactly the same.. Payton said Sockton was the toughest player for him to guard, does that make him better than Jordan just because he said that? I believe it was Karl Malone that said he would rather start a team with Pippen than Jordan, does that mean Pippen is better than MJ? Charles Barkely just this past year in the playoffs said Andrew Toney was the best player he ever played with. Does that make him better than Dr. J, Moses Malone, Kevin Johnson, Tom Chambers, Hakeem??? Surely you see where this is going..

I could right now search google and find 20 former players/coaches who say Jordan is the best player ever, 10 more who said Pippen is the most complete ever, 10 more who said they are the best perimeter defensive duo ever, 10 more who said Rodman is the best rebounder ever.. Would that even change your stance at all, would it even matter.. No it wouldn't, just like none of us give a damn what Bill Walton thinks about a team he once played on, or which player from that team Magic wants to brag about today and then change his mind about tomorrow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thanks for responses. I think we have found it out were we were missing and indeed we were. Thanks for posting on the thread.




yes there was some sarcastic stuff in there, I was later thinking what he he does not get it, so I shall try not to again. I must be misunderstanding you some how if what you say is true, I take words literal all the time, so if you make a claim I respond to it literally. In fact I have found over and over you misunderstood me [could be my fault] because you will reply making my point many times.



1] birdman /weenigton

no I understood, it was just to show that just because they have the same role, does not make them the same player, hopefully you understood that.

you could say the same role about greg kite for the c's in 86 a similar young energy hustle and bad player, but did his role, who can you not say that about in nba? If wennigton did something special in 96 compared to other players that have his role [every team has that player] than you might have something but he dident. Admittedly he had better mid range than kite who had nothing from 5 feet out.


you said
" Which is why this is never about matchups only, the Bulls were always able to maximize every ounce of talent they had and every players role was filled to it's fullest.. How else do you expect a team that starts Longely and has role players of Kerr, Jud, Wennington to win 72 games."


I would say the same thing about 86 c's and most any championship team. But to answer how they won 72 in 96 is called expansion loss of talent and over all wateredown league.

"We could not have won 70 games playing against 1980's teams."
-Dennis Rodman, starting power forward for the 1995-96 Chicago Bulls


2] maybe I have misunderstood you about longley/wennigton thinking you say them better than they are, in fact to me it seems implied many times. But the fact he is left open from 15 over and over should say something of his shooting, admitted he was decent passer.


divac/longley

ok I think you have hit on it here is were we have missed each other. You keep mentioning a role players play, a roles that are on just about any team, than claiming they are good because there role. May I suggest it is how well they play there role? and how good they are and at what that determines there role? Just because they play a role and part does not make them good, the fact there are so many specialty/role players on 90's teams [there were on 80's also] points to how deluded the league is, in 80's you had to be good at multiple things, the 86's had 6 legit scorers and 2 outside shooters that could go for 20 if given open shots. The bulls had 3 legit scorers and 1/2 shooters from outside. Everyplayer who has ever played had a role, greg kite my example, he was a specialty hustle/rebound/defend/foul/size guy. He was teribel and barley played but that is a needed role, does not make him good that is why i dont mention him. Walton same postion, could hustle/rebound/defend/foul/size guy and do more and better that is why he plays and i point to him.


this should hit it
just because a player has jordans role to be a high scoring athletic slashing/post up etc SG does not make him jordan, it also does not make his team as good as 96 bulls. I think that is were we have missed because i fond it hard to think you pointing out there roles somehow makes them good.
But I am glad you have found it because it makes you post make allot more sense.


Overall great response on number 2.


3] no, I am going off watching the players, there stats, than opinions, could you find any other thread or player or coach or anyone who makes the claims about wennigton/longley as you do? please provide, i say they were not good because they were not good, very simple, you make them into big time threas none else ever knew about.

stats
I disagree, stats are best way to tell a player, I never said pippen was no good because his playoff stats are bad [they were] I took the whole year and carrere into account, as should you. For example walton, look at his carerer awards season and post season, watching them,what people say etc his stats in playoffs were .581 6.4 rebounds and 7.9 points in 18 min. Can you give a better backup? this guy averaged 5 assists a game from the center position in 33 min can you say that ever of longley? DJ was not what I would call a normal playmaker, he was not great at dribbel dish, he was a great passer, but since they used bird as playmaker [like pipeen] his role was not same because bird was better. def rating we both know can be misleading.

I think stats/awards are best way, when on tv they introduce someone a past great player, or hall of fame or comparing in debates greatest ever, do they start with what you say, say they are great but won no awards or good stats, or do they imideltley list there awards championships and stats? that is a way to keep bias/opinions out. Do you believe the nba hall of fame and everyone has got it way wrong?


4] sorry meant to post start of game, watch video 1 start of game, first 4 time he gets ball 2 are doubles, I sent number 2 because i just watched till i saw doubles, how long it would take. Having watched 96 bulls growing up i knew it would not take long, why not only harper/john could hit outside.


your original claim, bulls dont double on shaq,ewing etc that is what i responded to. lets go with your claim, they never double parish, that leaves the c's with constant high scoring option against longley/wennigton. The bulls have trouble on offence ,they need defense giving that up would hurt them much.


parish/ewing

parish slight taller but not as big, faster but not as good overall you are right, however ewing was not as efficient at 33, he only shot .464 that year, for a center not great. Also did shot allot compared to parish reason is 80's vs 90's

"When I played, it was mostly one superstar per team,"
Ewing said. On playing in 90's vs jordan

http://news.yahoo.com/balanced-nba-f...5339--spt.html

you said

"Parish was a good offensive player, I'm not saying he wasn't, but that team wasn't directly built around him constantly having to score 25 points, he wasn't the focal point out there taking 20 shots per game that the other teams defense had to be gameplanned towards stopping. Also the players around them, why would Chicago double Parish knowing that Ainge and Bird are deadeye shooters, and knowing that McHale is money from mid range?? While doubling Ewing every play would be leaving open Starks, Mason, Oakley, none of who were very good shooters.....part 2 The scenario you are trying to create would be like Indiana deciding to double-team Chris Bosh, even though he isn't dominant on the block, thus leaving open LeBron, Wade, or Allen.. That's basically what Chicago would be doing if you believed they would actually double Parish. Makes zero sense no? "


I agree, if they double c's they would be more punished part of my op point. The 80's were all about mismatches, no question they would go to parish if he had mismatch as they always did, as i pointed out entire playoffs in certain years he was leading scorer. I would say your viewing the 80's boston team through 90s glasses. Ny had to go to ewing because they lacked offence, bulls had to go to jordan/pipen kukoc because they had no other option. 86 c's could attack from many different players. multiple stars on same team.


Miami Heat star LeBron James... thinks that the league would see an increase in the quality of its play if it contracted from its current 30 teams, reports ESPN.

“Hopefully the league can figure out one way where it can go back to the ’80s where you had three or four All-Stars, three or four superstars on the same team,” James said in an interview with the network. “The league was great. It wasn’t as watered down as it is [now].”

http://newsone.com/entertainment/spo...ds-downsizing/

part 2

I could not agree more,does that not show how difficult it would be to stop c's, as you say a double would cause problems, yet if they dont than you have the best frontcourt ever allowed single coverage, something you will never see in any 86 game, because you single coverage against boston frontcourt, you get burned.



longely defense

not great, not good. average,but against a hall of famer. Also i think and likely my fault, i meant the mismach is big, taking everything into account,offence,defense,rebounding etc.


86 bulls had similar big men players somehow c's manged to sweep them both times a guy thats left open from 15 is not what i would consider a great exsample of pulling big men away. Could they hit the shot yes, how often? look to stats. Parish better shooter than all bulls big men. Pipeen not doing much slashing with mchale backed off him, bird best help defender in nba coming over to help dj on jordan drives/post.

As far as i am aware same illegal defense calls, bird got caught allot.


pippen

yes can make the shot, also can miss wont kill you though.


walton

i think many would admit there team was not best ever, most teams and players. But those guys on the great teams add 87 lakers etc would I agree when they are in same category go with there team. Just to let you know walton said kareem was best player ever, he said better than bird,magic and jordan.



quotes

I agree but none says longley is best ever is the point. Who even a bull would say hes the greatness mid range center ever? its funny to even image, they did say so about parish. I dont use quotes to end a discussion, but to add to it, players who played with and against have a unique perspective people watching do not and should be part in the discussion. Plus as you have noticed, I am only one backing up quotes so far, noone else has, they just "heard" them. As far as malone, that is not totally unjustified, future thread. he was not saying pip was better than jordan, I think your missing his point.


quotes to support bulls

no, because those things are generally agreed upon. They are taken into account in matchup already. I dont need quotes to say rodman was great rebounder, the stats show it. If someone says dj is alright at defense, got lucky on winning awards, than quotes can help back it up.





question
because this is what i think brought us here, in your opinion bulls would not double parish correct? what about mchale in post/walton and bird?

[ojandpizza]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

But the thing is I never said Wennginton was as good as Birdman or Longley as good as Divac, you just took it that way.. I said they had similar roles and they fulfilled them.. You acted like because they were below average players that they would go out there and be useless, my point was that isn't the case. Phil had them in a position to utilize what they were good at, that's why people boost up this 96 team, every player was maximized..

I don't think the NBA was "watered down" but it definitely didn't have the all around talent compared to 86, I won't argue that at all. But still on paper the Bulls were not the best team, top to bottom, in the league.. Yet they were able to win 72 games because of the way they meshed and made everyone better. Phil's system with those guys was borderline genius, he and Pop have done amazing jobs getting large roles out of not so great players.. Not saying Boston didn't do that, I'm just saying that playing Longely or Wennington isn't really a liability against the Bulls, they made it work.

As much as the "watered down" gets throw around about the 96 team the Celtics definitely peaked at just the right time in 86. The Pistons weren't the "bad boys yet", the 76ers had aged and faded, the Hawks were a one star pony, and the Lakers didn't make it to the finals. Overall I think both squads had a fairly "easy" trip to the finals.. Not to say either of them played bad teams by any means, but neither team had to play a team in the playoffs that year that even came close to contesting them or comparing to them.

My point about the quotes is, regardless of if Michael Jordan said the Bulls would win or Walton said the Celtics would win, or DJ was called the best defender ever, or Jordan was called the best scorer ever, none of it really matters. It's all just some homers opinion compared to another's.

As far as double teaming, I'm not sure if they would double Larry or not, he's really the only question mark I have.. Likely not, because I think Pippen would do a great job on him, though Larry would still get his points.. I don't think Rodman would need a double on McHale, and I think it's unlikely Parish gets a double.. I could see Jordan/Harper occasionally swooping in to try and get a steal when their backs are turned, or if McHale is posting and DJ throws it in I could see Harper/Jordan quickly double down just to get him to pass back out to DJ since he isn't a big scoring threat.. But overall I don't think there would be doubling, not many teams that Boston played had arguably the three best defenders ever at their positions on the same team... As for Walton, why would anybody double someone that only took 5 shots per game? Especially since he's such a good passer. Idk they will never play each other so nobody can know for certain, but I don't see it happening, like you said the Celtics ball movement was very good I can't imagine them rushing to double everyone only to get picked apart for easy looks..

Stats are definitely not always the best answer, especially when taken out of context, and used in a 10 years difference of time span like this.

Example: the average points scored by teams in 86 was 110, compared to 96 where it was 99. The average FG attempts per game was 89 compared to 80, the average pace was 102 compared to 91. The average offensive and defensive ratings were both 107 for both 86 and 96..

From that you can gather that with the faster pace, and more shots per game that a statistical output is going to be higher for any top quality team in 86 compared to 96, due to taking more shots, having more chances at rebounds, and having more chances at assists.. So where Jordan averaged 30/6/4, Pippen averaged 19/6/6, and Kukoc 13/4/4 those averages could realistically have been more like 32/7/4, 21/8/8, 15/5/4, likewise Rodman's rebounding might jump from 15 to 17.. On the reverse Bird might drop to 23/7/6, McHale to 19/7, Parish to 14/8 moving to the slower pace in 96. That doesn't even factor in that teams also shot more free throws in that time period as well, which particularly benefits Jordan.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jjsmity]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

But the thing is I never said Wennginton was as good as Birdman or Longley as good as Divac, you just took it that way.. I said they had similar roles and they fulfilled them.. You acted like because they were below average players that they would go out there and be useless, my point was that isn't the case. Phil had them in a position to utilize what they were good at, that's why people boost up this 96 team, every player was maximized..

I don't think the NBA was "watered down" but it definitely didn't have the all around talent compared to 86, I won't argue that at all. But still on paper the Bulls were not the best team, top to bottom, in the league.. Yet they were able to win 72 games because of the way they meshed and made everyone better. Phil's system with those guys was borderline genius, he and Pop have done amazing jobs getting large roles out of not so great players.. Not saying Boston didn't do that, I'm just saying that playing Longely or Wennington isn't really a liability against the Bulls, they made it work.

As much as the "watered down" gets throw around about the 96 team the Celtics definitely peaked at just the right time in 86. The Pistons weren't the "bad boys yet", the 76ers had aged and faded, the Hawks were a one star pony, and the Lakers didn't make it to the finals. Overall I think both squads had a fairly "easy" trip to the finals.. Not to say either of them played bad teams by any means, but neither team had to play a team in the playoffs that year that even came close to contesting them or comparing to them.

My point about the quotes is, regardless of if Michael Jordan said the Bulls would win or Walton said the Celtics would win, or DJ was called the best defender ever, or Jordan was called the best scorer ever, none of it really matters. It's all just some homers opinion compared to another's.

As far as double teaming, I'm not sure if they would double Larry or not, he's really the only question mark I have.. Likely not, because I think Pippen would do a great job on him, though Larry would still get his points.. I don't think Rodman would need a double on McHale, and I think it's unlikely Parish gets a double.. I could see Jordan/Harper occasionally swooping in to try and get a steal when their backs are turned, or if McHale is posting and DJ throws it in I could see Harper/Jordan quickly double down just to get him to pass back out to DJ since he isn't a big scoring threat.. But overall I don't think there would be doubling, not many teams that Boston played had arguably the three best defenders ever at their positions on the same team... As for Walton, why would anybody double someone that only took 5 shots per game? Especially since he's such a good passer. Idk they will never play each other so nobody can know for certain, but I don't see it happening, like you said the Celtics ball movement was very good I can't imagine them rushing to double everyone only to get picked apart for easy looks..

Stats are definitely not always the best answer, especially when taken out of context, and used in a 10 years difference of time span like this.

Example: the average points scored by teams in 86 was 110, compared to 96 where it was 99. The average FG attempts per game was 89 compared to 80, the average pace was 102 compared to 91. The average offensive and defensive ratings were both 107 for both 86 and 96..

From that you can gather that with the faster pace, and more shots per game that a statistical output is going to be higher for any top quality team in 86 compared to 96, due to taking more shots, having more chances at rebounds, and having more chances at assists.. So where Jordan averaged 30/6/4, Pippen averaged 19/6/6, and Kukoc 13/4/4 those averages could realistically have been more like 32/7/4, 21/8/8, 15/5/4, likewise Rodman's rebounding might jump from 15 to 17.. On the reverse Bird might drop to 23/7/6, McHale to 19/7, Parish to 14/8 moving to the slower pace in 96. That doesn't even factor in that teams also shot more free throws in that time period as well, which particularly benefits Jordan.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thanks for your posts and insight on subject. I do think after this we should really try to reel in our disillusion to what imedetley applies to bulls vs boston directly, not that i dont enjoy all our talks, I am sure we will have some in future, I will be posting a few controversial posts.




wenigton

and i dont disagree with you. Know that we understand each other. I think jackson just like red in boston, were great at putting the right pieces together. he was not coach in 86 but had great influence still. A example he brought over scithing, he fit a need perfectly, provided another outside shooter for the doubles and passing team to utilize, thats why he shot career high 57%, he dident get better but was in right role.



72 win bulls not best?

I dont disagree with what you have said much, but I do woner [never even thought of it] who would you say had more talent or was a better team than bulls in 96? or mid 90's.



quotes

I do disagree, while yes they wont all agree, players who played give a unique perspective for sure, and should be listened to. How many players would say jordan best ever? most 85-90% is that not what most agree on? how many players would say charles barkely was best ever? how many suns players would say that? none. Plus we watch the game, they play it. Alot happens on the court that maybe isent seen or recognized on tv or from viewing.



double
yeah i guess i always assumed doubles, because that is what every team did against the best frontcourt ever. You are correct in saying bulls had 2 great players to use in defense pippen on bird and rodman so as to take there chances. But if the doubles do not come than its hard for me to not see than that boston has 3 go to post players for high % points, to me even if bulls do a great job single coverage [none could in 86] that i think would still just hold them to say 50% shooting [mchale/parish/bird] the bulls offence has to match that against the best defensive team in 86, with really only 3 offensive options with great defenders on them. I say walton needs double if wennigton is on him or longley, maybe not to take away his pass, but left alone single he is reliable low post scorer, shot career high .562% in 86 and his per 36 was 14.1 ppg. Maybe with longley no double, maybe with none no double ,but to me that adds another low post scoring option with single coverage, but he was also always involved passing with bird on picks/screens backdoor cuts etc. Know that i think he would not be a guy to double for bulls, but would be involved in plays and creating.


stats

that is something we will always disagree on i think.




pace


interesting and good point, however

I agree with you, however i think the change is not that great from when jordan second year in 86 to 96. Of course when I compare to lower teams like 50's 60's you must take that into account lower fg% and more rebounds, that is why i cant outright say bird best rebounding sf, because elgin baylor averaged 13.5 a career, bird 10 ,yet back than many more rebounds.


But lets compare the 96 bulls and 86 c's.

shots a game
bulls 84.0
Celtics 89.2

that is a .94% so only change of less than 6% shots. Plus you add in what i see as recruitment of specialty players and less all around skilled offensive players and shooters, you get lower field goal % and even more rebounds i would assume in 96, look at league leaders higher in 96 and look at rodmans rebounds per minute, highest in mid 90's.. I would say 86 scored more in part, because they had better scorers and shooters and passer overall and should not be blamed.


pace

bulls 91.1 (20th of 29 in nba
boston Pace: 101.2 (16th of 23)

so bulls played a slower pace in league than boston but a difference of 91 so a 9% difference. At some point i may just have to go calculate all this out, give bulls a 9% bonus maybe. but than also they would need the stamina as well, could longley keep up?


i see the pace as hurting the later guys, watch today's nba, close attention to big men. There is no way they could handle the up and down pace, stamina had to be so good back than.




Fg% would be same, i give bulls 8% added to match 80's between the 6% shot difference and 9% pace. So boston stays same. In your stats you both added to chi and took from boston, you have to do one or other to match, make the difference by adding to one as i did, or taking from other.

jordan wow 32.8 from 30.4
kukoc 14.1 from 13.1
pippen 20.9 from 19.4

really I think I should have done just the 6% shot a game difference for scoring, that would make it less for example.,

pippen 20.5 etc


I am not doing rebounds since I think there was more in 96 slight, maybe 2% add to boston.


I may eventually take time to do all stats compared, likely not, take allot of time and figuring out..

[ojandpizza]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

Why would anyone ever call Charles Barkley the best player ever though? That's just you taking something I said and flipping it to the extreme again. Because one player called Parish the best midrange shooter ever it's automatically the truth??? And because Magic called DJ his toughest defender ever, when Magic was the farthest thing from a tradition PG, played 90% with his back to the basket/defender, it's no surprise the biggest and best defensive PG of that era was his toughest matchup. Hell, majority of the time the other teams PGs weren't even who defended Magic. My point is, no two players are going to have the same perspective. And players are biased towards their team and their era.

Comparing the Bulls pace vs the Celtics pace is hardly accurate, because the Bulls would be higher if moved to 86, and Celtics lower if moved to 96. How much higher or how much lower we don't know, because we don't know how either team would adjust.. Which is my whole point of why looking at a stat sheet separated by 10 years is somewhat inaccurate. Same reason why giving you a hypothetical Pippen stat line would be impossible.

when I posted stats I wasn't trying to say the Bulls would go up and the Celtics go down, I was saying either/or.

There is only a 2% difference in field goal percentage, you are acting like poor shooting was going to cause a huge jump in rebounding.

1986: 7268FGA - 3542FG = 3726 misses
1996: 6575FGA - 3038FG = 3537 misses
3726/82 = 45.4 misses per game
3537/82 = 43.1 misses per game

So about 2 extra misses per game in 86, since rebounds work both ways approximately 4 more chances at a rebound per game for teams in 96. So no, adding a 2% advantage to Boston's rebounding would not be accurate.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jjsmity]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

Why would anyone ever call Charles Barkley the best player ever though? That's just you taking something I said and flipping it to the extreme again. Because one player called Parish the best midrange shooter ever it's automatically the truth??? And because Magic called DJ his toughest defender ever, when Magic was the farthest thing from a tradition PG, played 90% with his back to the basket/defender, it's no surprise the biggest and best defensive PG of that era was his toughest matchup. Hell, majority of the time the other teams PGs weren't even who defended Magic. My point is, no two players are going to have the same perspective. And players are biased towards their team and their era.

Comparing the Bulls pace vs the Celtics pace is hardly accurate, because the Bulls would be higher if moved to 86, and Celtics lower if moved to 96. How much higher or how much lower we don't know, because we don't know how either team would adjust.. Which is my whole point of why looking at a stat sheet separated by 10 years is somewhat inaccurate. Same reason why giving you a hypothetical Pippen stat line would be impossible.

when I posted stats I wasn't trying to say the Bulls would go up and the Celtics go down, I was saying either/or.

There is only a 2% difference in field goal percentage, you are acting like poor shooting was going to cause a huge jump in rebounding.

1986: 7268FGA - 3542FG = 3726 misses
1996: 6575FGA - 3038FG = 3537 misses
3726/82 = 45.4 misses per game
3537/82 = 43.1 misses per game

So about 2 extra misses per game in 86, since rebounds work both ways approximately 4 more chances at a rebound per game for teams in 96. So no, adding a 2% advantage to Boston's rebounding would not be accurate.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you missed my point, my point being no matter how bias, players tell truth and have perspective we dont ,i never meant if a player says so and so its automatically true. I have been through my using of quotes and resoning before dont care to again. Not player would make a claim, well 99% unless there was some truth to it or it could be argued, as it can saying dj best ever like gervin [who you said was skinny so would think dj best, yet magic big so he would say dj best..hmmmmm] that is why they dont here anyone saying agreat player like charles barkely, is best ever even his teamates. It is also why you here opponents like gervin,magic say dj was best ever. Walton calling parish best because you can make that case, none on bulls says longley best because its simply not there.


you said
"Comparing the Bulls pace vs the Celtics pace is hardly accurate, because the Bulls would be higher if moved to 86, and Celtics lower if moved to 96. How much higher or how much lower we don't know, because we don't know how either team would adjust."


not sure if you saw i gave no hypothetical I gave the stats difference in % from 96 bulls to 86 boston. I compared the stats of pace,shots etc and found the difference and used bulls stat increased if they played in 86.


rebounds

good job using stats, see we can figure differences, they are not great as you claim, plus we would have to consider shooting % of teams, not league averages. For example boston led league in fg% so less rebounds, bulls look to be 7th so more rebounds, but just slight difference.

[jjsmity]

Re: 86 CELTICS VS THE 96 BULLS AND WHY THE 86 C'S ARE THE BEST TEAM EVER

I updated op with boston player bios.



Superstar comparison

when we compare 86 c's to 96 bulls many would say in this comparison jordan vs bird. Than think of jordans 6 championship and 5 mvp's vs birds 3 and 3. But we are comparing just the single years of both 86 vs 96. So lets do that.

Both players were considered maybe the best clutch player ever, both dominated the league in respected years.


Jordan- MVP,Finals MVP,champion, best team in league.

Fg% .495 22.6 attempts a game
3pt% .427 [career high because shorter 3pt line 9 of 15 seasons below 30% regular line]
Reb 6.6
Ast 4.3
Stl 2.2
Blk .5
PPG 30.4

Playoff numbers

FG% .459
3pt% .403
Reb 4.9
Ast 4.1
Stl 1.8
Blk .3
PPG 30.7


Finals numbers 6 games

FG% .415
3pt% .316
Reb 5.3
Ast 4.2
Stl 1.7
Blk .2
PPG 27.3


Bird- MVP,finals mvp, champion, best team in league.

Fg% .496 19.6 attempts a game
3pt% .423 [ higher than any jordan regular 3 pt line numbers jordan career 32%]
Reb 9.8
Ast 6.8
Stl 2
Blk .6
PPG 25.8


playoffs

FG% .517
3pt% .411
Reb 9.3
Ast 8.2
Stl 2.1
Blk .6
PPG 25.9


finals 6 games

FG% .482
3pt% .368
Reb 9.7
Ast 9.5
Stl 2.7
Blk .3
PPG 24


Bird beats jordan at every stat in playoffs and finals but scoring, in a hypothetical matchup with 86 c's vs 96 bulls that has to come into play. Bird had the better of the two playoff and finals with his numbers most going up from season to playoffs, while jordans all dropped, jordan struggled in finals bird almost a triple double average. Even regular season numbers when bird was unhealthy for the 85 year, his stats can still match jordan's.


Larry bird in 86


Looking at regular season stats, bird numbers were down from surrounding years like 84-85 and 86-87 87-88, because he had back injuries in 85, he considered sitting out that year. Look at his stas from 85 they are down, but starting around 86 when healthy was back at his prime.


52 games in the 86 year
27 ppg .52% fg .45% 3pt 10.2 rpg 7.1 apg 2 spg.

Post all star numbers
27.7 ppg .537% fg .458% 3pt 10.2 rpg 7.4 apg 37.2 min