Rank these past NBA Teams

[tdarko]

Ok, let's move on from Pax and Kerr--when in Rome I guess.

Calling Harper a joke on offense is a bit much IMO. I definitely agree that he took too many 3pt attempts that he just flat couldn't make while in Chicago but you have to realize what was going on in Chi that made it LOOK like he was much worse than he was. His numbers may look bad while in Chi but that is surface stuff--the year before he got to Chi he avg'ed 20 ppg just as he had avg'ed 18-22 every year before that. He was also taking 1300 shots compared to his 400 in Chi, of course he is going to only avg. 6 points a game or whatever in Chi. His role isn't to score, that is what MJ, Pippen and Kukoc are there for. His FG% didn't drop either, he was a mid four hundreds guy most every year. His production numbers went down b/c of his role not b/c he "was a joke on offense."

Harper went from 17.8 to 6.4 FGA in his first year in Chi.
MJ avg'ed 23.9
Pippen avg'ed 16.7
Kukoc avg'ed 11.9

There's 52 shots right there, only about 20-25 more to go around and we have only covered 3 players. Only so many shots to go around on a team.

[leehrat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

99-00 Portland Trailblazers- Lost a heartbreaking game 7 to eventual champ Lakers


[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

This continues to be my worst loss as a fan. The Giants losing the WS in 2002 is up there but doesn't hurt as badly somehow.

I'm not sure I'll get over it even if the Blazers win a title in my lifetime. It's probably not perfectly rational, but I really think the Blazers could have started a dynasty there and instead LA did that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes game 7 was tragic, and I'm not a fan. I remember when Pippen motioned for everyone to settle down early in the 4th quarter when they had the big lead, and it seemed like that might have tightened everyone up. Just a monumental collapse.

[MicroBob]

Nothing to add to the debate. But I liked tdarko's stuff on Harper.
Saw every one of his college home games when I was a kid.
We were pretty much Harper-maniacs and seeing some of his NBA-caliber dunks in the little, old MAC were good times.
He signed an autograph for me "Ron 'Doc' Harper" his soph yr.

[tuq]

I'm not used to seeing Clark get owned like this. I'm certainly not used to seeing him get owned when discussing his own team. But if someone was gonna do it, tdarko would be a top candidate.

(Although I like Clark's argument w/r/t the difference in the strength of the league between the two runs.)

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not a "who was the better 3-pt shooter" contest.

[/ QUOTE ]

true but i think kerr filled a greater need than paxson

[ClarkNasty]

Harper was damaged goods when he came to Chicago, and not the 20ppg guy he was before.

Remember, in that first year, he was averaging his awesome 6.9ppg even BEFORE Jordan came back.

You want to rank Kerr higher than Paxon because he did one thing well. One. Paxson was superior in every aspect of the game except playing HORSE.


Yet, you like Harper based on the fact that he "could have" scored much more, which really isn't true at that stage of his career (he only averaged 11pg after everyone got shopped out of town and his mpg went up). He played better defense, which I grant, but his offensive game wasn't very good anymore due to his knees being shot. His outside shot was supsect (which hurt the offense tremendously - which you know otherwise you wouldn't like Kerr so much), he had trouble creating at all.

I'd rank them like this:

Paxson > Harper >> Kerr > Hodges

Paxson is the only one who wasn't a liability at one end or the other.

[ClarkNasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not a "who was the better 3-pt shooter" contest.

[/ QUOTE ]

true but i think kerr filled a greater need than paxson

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, Hodges filled that need quite well. He didn't have Kerr's mid 40%'s, but he *was* above 40% all the time.

The offense ran better with someone who could both dribble and pass, as well as shoot. Kerr could only do one of the 3. And, again, he was utterly useless on the defensive end.

[ClarkNasty]

BTW, it's not like Paxson was a world beater. Him vs. Harper is certainly closer than Cartwright vs Longley or Grant vs Rodman, and their roles were the least important of the group as well.

[tdarko]

Just doing a little reading on Wiki about 1995-96:

[ QUOTE ]
With a lineup of Harper, Jordan, Pippen, Rodman and Longley, and perhaps the league's best bench in Kerr, Kukoc, Wennington, Buechler, and guard Randy Brown the Bulls posted one of the best single-season improvements in league history and the best single-season record, moving from 47-35 to 72-10,[1] which remains the best record in NBA history. Jordan won his eighth scoring title, and Rodman his fifth straight rebounding title, while Kerr finished second in the league in three-point shooting percentage. Jordan garnered the elusive triple crown with the regular season MVP, All-star Game MVP, and Finals MVP. Krause was named Executive of the Year, Jackson Coach of the Year, and Kukoc was the Sixth Man of the Year. Both Pippen and Jordan made the All-NBA First Team, and Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman made the All-Defensive First Team, making the Bulls the only team in history with three players on the All-Defensive First Team.

In addition, the 1995-96 squad holds several other records, including the best road record in a standard 41-road-game season (33-8), the all-time best start by a team (41-3), the longest home winning streak (44 games, 7 from previous season), the best start at home (37-0). The Bulls also posted the second-best home record in history (39-2), behind only the 1985-86 Celtics 40-1 home mark, and the 2nd best point differential in history, trailing the 1972 Lakers by 3 points over the course of an entire season. However, the significantly lower scoring by the Bulls and their opponents makes the Bulls' margin of victory more impressive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care how soft you think the league was that year, they completely dominated and would have dominated in any era.

The reason that starting 5 is better than the previous 5 is that the beauty of the Triangle is that it is a two-man system. If you have the two best players on the court (and combined MJ and Pippen were) your offense is basically those two guys, the rest of the team fills in as whatever specific role is necessary.

The second 3-peat had much better role guys. Sure Kerr may not have been as good all-around as Paxson but who cares, it wasn't needed. For one, defensively there were 3 all-defensive first team players on the floor AND Ron Harper who was sound defensively as well. He didn't need to go to the hoop either, this is all arbitrary. They needed a sharpshooter from 3pt line and they got one of the best ever.

Their bench was sick good too. Kukoc was nasty off the bench and he was a threat that no other team had off the bench and no other Bull team had either.

I don't think Grant >>>> Rodman either. They are comparable. Rodman is one dimensional in his skill set obviously but clearly the guy wins right? Everywhere he went he won. Sure, Grant won another title with LA but he let's be serious there. Again, they didn't need Rodman to score so who cares. Kukoc added a lot to that second run of things.

[ClarkNasty]

It's cute how you keep shifting your argument. First Kerr, then Harper, then to the 2nd 3peat vs. the first.

Horace at his peak, which he was during the Bulls years was way better than Rodman during his 3 Bulls years. He was an excellent offensive player, an excellent rebounder (double-double guy), and as I mentioned before, Rodman's defense was really pretty poor by the 3rd year. All he did was rebound, and even his rebounding numbers were a little inflated due to his fighting off teammates for uncontested ones since he wanted the stats. He was a winner? What does that mean, he happened to land on 3 great teams. Horace v Rodman really isn't very close at all IMO. Rodman at his peak, sure. Not the Bulls Rodman though, who had gone from little to zero interest in offense, got T'd up every other game, and whose defense went from good to mediocre to wretched in a 3-year span.

I agree that Kukoc was a nice addition to the 2nd run. I also think that Jordan first run > Jordan 2nd run, and the same with Pippen.

I could grant that the 72 win team was the best of the 6, that's not the debate. It's important to realize that the last title team was by far the worst of the 6. They really were going downhill very fast.