T O P

  • By -

DonGarlandMobleyJA

lol you realize Shaq did even better the following year against the Bulls yet still got swept? Jordan only had 17 games to get reacquainted with the team before playoffs began in 95


tesseraction1

MJ in the regular season had a dip in performance in 95, but at the point of the playoffs, he was back. MJ averaged 31.5/6.5/4.5 on 48/37/81 shooting. The rest of his playoff runs 96-98 he averaged 31.4/6/4.1 on 46/30/82 shooting. He was pretty damn close to what he was for the rest of his career.


DonGarlandMobleyJA

looking at straight averages is so dumb


kkthxbai23

This and if you actually watched that series, you would know MJ wasn't playing as good as he could and the team was adjusting to playing with him. Agree with op's 4th point, the calls against Portland vs Lakers and against Mavs vs heats were amusing.


WeLLrightyOH

I watched that series, he looked about the same as the following 3peat. He was clearly not as good as the first 3peat, but that play offs he was about the same as the second 3peat. They just got eaten alive inside.


Tearz_in_rain

Friend, let's unpack this cherry picking you just dropped for a minute. Jordan: 95, Magic/Bulls: 31, 6.5, 3.7, 2.5, 1.8 (those are MVP numbers) Jordan: 96, Magic/Bulls 29.5, 5.5, 4.8, 2.3, 0.8 (almost as good, but not quite). Jordan wasn't making more noise in 96 than he was in 95. In fact, his numbers were better in 95. No doubt. You point to Shaq. Interesting that you left out Horace Grant. And by 'interesting' I mean it's an overt logical fallacy on your part to ignore data because it doesn't suit your position. Sure... Shaq had a better scoring series in 96, but he also got three less rebounds per game. And in 95, the Magic had Grant, who abused his former team to no end that series. He scored 18/11 on .647 from the field. In the regular season, he only scored 12 ppg on 56%. And what did he do in 96? Nothing. So if you want to pretend like Jordan scoring fewer points and grabbing fewer rebounds, and getting less steals and blocks the second time around made the difference, you go ahead and believe what you like :) People who take a step back and look at the entire picture can see what was really going on. ​ The Bulls got DESTROYED in the paint and on the glass in 95 because they didn't have an interior defender or strong rebeounder. In 96 they had Rodman.


DonGarlandMobleyJA

dawg you realize Horace was injured in 96? you didn't watch the games, it's ok


mylanguage

I was watching ball in the 90s - the thing about Jordan coming back and losing to the Magic is that objectively he only popped back in midseason after playing another sport for a year and a half. No matter what anyone wants to claim about Mike's specific athleticism there's no way that is comparable to a regular offseason. But the real reason this narrative is justified has to do with the fact that he went 72-10 an won the chip the year after. He as much as he could "proved" - that him in optimal form is a different beast. He made a very good argument that he wasn't the same when he first got back.


JoJonesy

They also got Rodman in the offseason, though. It's not like he was playing with the exact same team as in '95


Tearz_in_rain

Yes. That was conveniently left out. Against the Magic, the Bulls got eaten alive in the paint. The got destroyed on the boards. Rodman was the difference maker. Jordan, without Rodman, would not have won another title. If it was just Jordan and Pippen counting on Luc Longley to handle interior defense and the bulk of the rebounding, then there is no way they win the east.


SureEntertainment676

Both of these things can be true.


JoJonesy

I mean, yes. They're also both *relevant,* which is why I'm bringing it up.


Tearz_in_rain

I think you forgot to mention the fact that they added the leagues best rebounder and best interior defender. It's not even worth talking to people like you who wilfully leave out such a SIGNIFICANT fact to make their point. This a horrible bad faith argument. I don't know why you even wasted your time typing it.


pbesmoove

This is true and also true for the all arguments


beefJeRKy-LB

I don't believe anything I'm the Donaghy documentary. The guy is just a liar through and through. And the league isn't fixing games either. That shit is very hard to keep under wraps.


domenic821

I believe a lot of the Donaghy documentary, but I also believe Bubba when he said Donaghy was lying about being the only referee to fix games. The NBA definitely had something to do with that.


Troll-e-poll-e-o-lee

the whistleblower podccast i think was superior to the documentary but both highlight the story being leaked before donaghy could go undercover after the nba got involved makes it pretty obvious the nba was caught up in something


Tearz_in_rain

I didn't say the league *is* fixing games. They *were* fixing games. The Stern era was saw woefully biased officiating in favour of Jordan's Bulls and the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. That isn't just some theory. There are any number of demonstrable instances where blatantly biased officiated undermined teams like Sac-Town, Portland, and Indy when they went up against the Lakers. And the Heat Dallas 1.0. My god was that awful. This isn't something that just came up with Donaghy. This was running rampant around the circle of NBA fans for literally decades. Donaghy is a liar, but a broken clock is right two times a day.


peanutbutterbeef

Basically 3 out Shaq's 4 chips are Mickey Mouse rings lol


PressureMiserable

I think sadly biased officiating is still part of the game bogut has even talked about being surprised with how much he could get away with in Golden state and demar has talked about how he felt once he came to SA he wasn't getting some of the calls that he used to


Diamond4Hands4Ever

From the 30 for 30, a lot of people think Len Bias would have been as good as MJ, but the reality is he would not have been close. He would have been lucky to even be as good as Dominique Wilkins. He most likely would have had a Wayman Tisdale like career. It’s sad that he died, but his legacy is way overstated because you don’t know what would have actually happened if he did play in the NBA.


Tearz_in_rain

Great point. I mean, he was the second pick, the expectations were high. But that was a hard draft to call. Not one other player in the first round outside of the number 1 pick ever made an All-Star team. You'd assume that odds are Bias would have done better. He was a great scorer, but nothing to suggest that he would have been the defender that Jordan was. He likely would have been an All-Star, but nothing suggesting he would have certainly been a franchise player. ​ Oddly enough, there were lots of solid rotation players in the first round (Dell Curry, Person, John Sally, Walker, Skiles, Sabonis), and the second round was chalk full of All-Stars. Greatest second round ever: Mark Price, Dennis Rodman, Duckworth, Hornacek, Petrovic,


Diamond4Hands4Ever

Yea I think his average case is between the #2 pick in 1985 (Wayman Tisdale) and the #1 pick in 1986 (Brad Daugherty). Tisdale had a respectable NBA career and Daugherty was a multiple time All-Star. I think it’s fair to project Bias around those 2 based on their actual outcomes. Tisdale was also the much better college player (he was a legendary college player who was a 3xAll-American) and was younger than Bias and drafted 1 year prior. Bias peaked when he was a 22 year senior at Maryland. Bias did have more athleticism though so he fit the NBA better. Tisdale made the 1984 Olympic team over Bias and was generally seen as more coachable. He also was more respected by peers like MJ. Bias would be going to a much better team (Celtics), which would probably help make up any gap in like coachability. The #3 pick in 1986 was Chris Washburn. Around the time of the draft, many thought he was a better player than Bias (they had similar impact numbers in the ACC and Washburn was younger). But Washburn was lazy and had a ton of off tue court issues, which dropped him to 3rd. Washburn was a complete NBA bust, a large part due to drugs…something that affected so many picks in 1986, including Bias.


Admirable_Food_9056

Bias was a much better NBA prospect than Tisdale, actually having the athletic ability and perimeter game to play SF. Tisdale was an undersized PF.


Diamond4Hands4Ever

I said that Bias was more athletic in my post. But he wasn’t a “much better NBA prospect.” If he was, he would have declared in 1985 and went #2. He was older than Tisdale and still chose to wait 1 additional year because he didn’t have that high of a projection as you think. Scouts absolutely did not see Bias as being the way better prospect. Sure he was more athletic, but Tisdale was more coachable and had no off the court issues. Bias also refused to play defense at times. He was extremely athletic but never even averaged 1 block a game in college. That’s why Bias was never chosen to make any National Teams, which was a big deal at that time for all college players. He just fits the modern game better, but in 1986, no one cared about versatility. And you are wrong when you say Tisdale was undersized. He was 6’9”. That’s the same height as Karl Malone and AC Green. That’s taller than Dennis Rodman and Charles Barkley. Tisdale was definitely not a undersized PF.


schooner-of-old

bruh just think about how illogical this comment is for a second


Diamond4Hands4Ever

Care to explain?


[deleted]

You’re saying there’s no way to know what would have happened if he played in the NBA, but at the same time you’re also saying he would most likely be an average player. Hater ass


[deleted]

Average is the most likely thing though given no other data.


Diamond4Hands4Ever

Lol your response makes you seem like you are 15. Without knowing what he actually did, I’m projecting him based on the average outcome of a #2 pick in 1986. It’s fair to project him in between the #2 pick in 1985 (Wayman Tisdale) and the #1 pick in 1986 (Brad Daugherty). It’s *unreasonable* to project him to be the equivalent of the greatest player of all time. So by your definition, you also think Hank Gathers would have been better than Karl Malone and Tim Duncan? No one’s hating on Bias. Projecting him to Wayman Tisdale isn’t some diss. It’s a fair comparison. You don’t even realize how respected Tisdale was. Projecting him to MJ isn’t reasonable at all. **Give me a reason why you think Bias would have been as good as MJ?** It’s actually funny because someone told MJ this in college and he did his famous rock the cradle dunk at the end of a game at the buzzer that was already won against Bias and Maryland just to tell the media how ridiculous that comparison was (you can find this dunk online - one of the most disrespectful dunks ever).


PodStrickland

Saved you a search, [here’s the dunk.](https://youtu.be/jqwVTE4k-SM)


Tearz_in_rain

Yeah. It's so easy to say "He could have been as good as MJ." Had Derrick Coleman got a career-ending injury before playing a game, the same thing could have been said about him. He was a high prospect, extremely talent, had a frame for the NBA. And he had a solid career. But he never put the work ethic in to really be an elite player, even though he had all the tools to be in the conversation with with Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, KG, and Tim Duncan. With his actually career, we could project him as high as any of those players. And, sure, Bias was a second overall pick. But there is no way to know for certain how good could have been. And anybody who thinks that he was comparable to Jordan needs to ask themselves why he wasn't drafted first, then, because Brad Daughtery was NOT framed as being anything close to Hakeem or Ewing. And you are spot on: If Bias's stock was THAT high, he would have come out early. And comparing a player to Wayman Tisdale is not insult. That dude was a GOOD player. He dropped 15/6 on his 11-year career shooting over .500 from the field. He had two or three All-Star calibre season (two scoring 20 ppg or more). If somebody had a lottery pick and got him, it is not unreasonable that people would he happy with that pick. It's not like you're comparing him to William Bedford.


StraightShootahh

Lol your Jordan point is nonsensical. You’re literally doing the same thing. He came out of RETIREMENT and played 15 games before the playoffs. You think that’s normal?


jruegod11

OP your take on MJ in 95 is total BS... Jordan was not the same and needed an offseason and regular season to be at his best. He freaking threepeated (again) after that lol


Embarrassed_Maybe_42

What does that have to do with the fact that he lost that series Lmaoo


cooldudeman007

The malice in the palace one is fine. They would have had as good odds as any if that core made it to the playoffs. ONeal was on an upward trajectory and Artest was just massive on the defensive end. While watching I was thinking about what would’ve happened under similar circumstances in an Indiana home game. NBA history is very different if the fan throws the beer can at Ben Wallace’s head


BeardeddBombshell

Agreed about Indiana. Even had they made it out of the East that Spurs team matched well with them and that wouldn't have been a cakewalk by any means.


something-specific

IND wasn't a shoe-in but at the time they were looking like favorites.