WrigleyField 22

He started 37 games and actually played well. Bulls really got pretty lucky with him.

is it trolling when people tell erik to calm down in the game threads? Nope. We're just awash in a sea of erik's here. You guys should be thanking us for showing you the light before you're too far down the rabbit hole. I personally don't care. I find it easy enough to ignore the comments. Obviously a lot of people don't. I don't need to be saved, but thanks. Comic Strip I did a quick skim back (and I'll emphasize quick because I buzzed and lazy), and while there was much complaining about refs, the only person to claim it was a deciding factor was SSR (obviously in a joking matter) If you think particular posters are silly for claiming the refs were deciding the game, thats one thing, but it seems that conclusion has been jumped to just because fans complain about calls.

That is the biggest factor, yes.

Anyways, while still on edge as I have been all series, Bulls still have a great shot in this series. Need to come away Tuesday tying it up though.

is it trolling when people tell erik to calm down in the game threads? Nope. We're just awash in a sea of erik's here. You guys should be thanking us for showing you the light before you're too far down the rabbit hole. I personally don't care. I find it easy enough to ignore the comments. Obviously a lot of people don't. I don't need to be saved, but thanks.

Guys, I want the Bulls to win, but trolling is more fun. Is that both of your arguments?

Forget any foul calls resulting in free throws and such. The Heat were fouling on rebounds all game without calls. That would be a big advantage for the Bulls otherwise. I'm not saying its the deciding factor in this game, but its still pretty awful.

Is it just me or have the Heat been going over the back or pushing off all game on the boards?

that person should be kicked in the throat. riley recruited two all stars to play there and then sat back and watched them win a bunch of games. what a genius. Its a silly award anyways. Are we awarding it for one great offseason? Building a team is a long process that involves years of planning in advance. If we were going to give it for just moves within a calendar year, it arguably could have been Walsh to get it. I mean for Gar to get it kind of means you are rewarding him for taking Rose 3 years ago, not to mention the salary planning he did for 2010 the past two years. Same for Riley. In my mind you're awarding him for bringing in Thibs, bringing over Omer, forming the bench mob, and of course stealing Scals from Boston James and Bosh > Those moves, save for Thibs Yea, you can try and discredit Riley by saying he lucked into it and it was the players who planned, but he put it together, luck or not. You can say the Bulls had better improvement in their results, but thats ignoring the huge leap Rose took. I mean its close, I don't know who I'd vote for if I had the opportunity. I may even vote for Walsh, as I said. Just seems odd to have a one season award for an executive, I don't know.

that person should be kicked in the throat. riley recruited two all stars to play there and then sat back and watched them win a bunch of games. what a genius. Its a silly award anyways. Are we awarding it for one great offseason? Building a team is a long process that involves years of planning in advance. If we were going to give it for just moves within a calendar year, it arguably could have been Walsh to get it. I mean for Gar to get it kind of means you are rewarding him for taking Rose 3 years ago, not to mention the salary planning he did for 2010 the past two years. Same for Riley.

Not to COMPLETELY jack this thread, but Arthur Andersen was bought off by Enron. I really doubt E&Y is being bought off by the NBA. Also, it's illegal for E&Y to both audit the NBA and consult for them now (thanks to the aforementioned AA). Then again, the NBA doesn't have to release their financial statements to the public... /grabs tinfoil hat /starts making sense of hccf posts Well thats not my understansing that any individual or AA was given direct payments, but rather ignored things because of their other business they were bringing and didn't want to lose (and then they shredded documents showing). So more like round about "buying off" by pressure to bring in business. But whether AA was bought off or not, its just not likely enough to be a believable scenario that NBA is buying off E&Y considering all thats changed since then, as you say. Sure it could happen, but from everything we know, including team representatives being present at the drawing, it doesn't pass any "smell test".

Arthur Andersen wasn't really bought off per se, they just brought in tons and tons of business outside the auditing. I suppose E&Y could be doing a lot of consulting biz for the NBA but the laws are so different these days that its just not even remotely a scenario thats worth believing.

Deng was not the problem on offense.

Who's involvement in Enron completely changed the accounting world. Oh and the motivation for Arthur Andersen taking part in that fraud was the huge amounts of money they were making from Enron. Is Ernst and Young getting a sweet deal from NBA?

Well you knew James and Wade would come out better. Yet we were still in it near the end. James was just a man tonight though and closed. Our pitiful offense wasn't just on us, Miami improved their D a lot. And the return of Haslem helped them a lot so thats something to think about going forward. Right now Gibson and Asik are playing better than Noah and Boozer. Need to get those guys going. Also Korver finding his hot sauce would be nice. Its still a 7 game series in my mind, although it will be fun to see all the casual observers who switch their decision again just like after game one.

I was too young to watch the first 3 peat. And perhaps I'm underrating defensive impact, but I think you could argue it being the other way considering the latter Bulls had Toni Kukoc as their #3 option on offense and the #2 option for a huge portion of the final championship season. They wouldn't have been as dominant, for sure, but thats still a championship worthy team. You're greatly underestimating the defensive presence he provided. Jordan was a great defender, but Pippen could guard most anyone on the floor effectively other than centers (and a few really beefy PFs). He shut down Magic in the 1991 Finals for the most part just about singlehandedly. And there's no way any other SF leads that 1994 team to a near Finals appearance if not for that awful phantom foul call. No I'm not underestimating his defense, just the need for it. First I'm gonna make the assumption you replace him with replacement level SF. When would a team be more likely to weather the loss of Pippen's d. Verse the likes of Magic, James Worthy, Byron Scott, Drexler, Terry Porter, Kevin Johnson, Dan Majerle or Gary Payton, Hersey Hawkins, John Stockton, Jeff Hornacek, and Byron Russell Also the team playing the crappier wingmen have Toni Kukoc whereas the other team has Craig Hodges(?). Oh and at the PG spot the latter team has the more defensively versatile Ron Harper compared to the less versatile BJ Armstrong and John Paxson. Really more a reflection of the team dynamic and who we faced in the finals. Not knocking Pippen, just arguing Jordan was more likely to win without him in 96-98 than 91-93.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue against transparency or anything, but in my experience in following conspiracy theories, when more evidence is shown they continue to hold onto their old "evidence" and then just start to create new crazy theories that still don't make sense. If someone can explain to me why every team in the league and a big 4 accounting firm (who's ability to stay "big" hedges on their ability to accurately verify information) have motivation to cover this up, I'll shut up.

This thread is proof that this lay-off betweeen games was too long.

Dwight Howard is close, depending on how you view defense, what metric you pick I don't think Howard is remotely close to James. I think he's second, but if there was an NBA-wide draft, I'm certain James would be on the top of all 30 draft boards. Metrics are nice and all, and I'm no Luddite, but this isn't baseball. Not remotely close? It's very, very close. Its not that close. Plus the NBA is a very perimeter oriented league with the rules, so Howard, rightly or wrongly loses ground there.

So if Jordan doesn't have Pippen and wins 3 titles and never is on a 70+ win team, is he still the undisputable GOAT?

I was too young to watch the first 3 peat. And perhaps I'm underrating defensive impact, but I think you could argue it being the other way considering the latter Bulls had Toni Kukoc as their #3 option on offense and the #2 option for a huge portion of the final championship season. They wouldn't have been as dominant, for sure, but thats still a championship worthy team.

of course it would have been jordan's team. he was the better player and would have been the guy to take most of the shots at the end of close games. I'm not sure if Derwood is trying to distinguish between actuallity and perception, but there is a line to be drawn. In actuality any team would be Jordans, but media and fan perception will always question it. Also Jordan and Ewing were a lot further in talent than Lebron and Wade. I haven't paid enough attention to the Heat, but Lebron and Wade are close enough in talent that if Wade were to have a clear leadership role on the team, you could make the arguement about who's team it was. Not sure what the lockerroom dynamic is on that team though.

The first ping pong will come out as a 6 or something. People not understanding how it works will go insane saying that the "sixth" team should have the first pick. Then once you get past the people who just can't wrap their minds around how the lottery works (and there will be other things like "ZOMG why did they ignore that one series of numbers") Then once you have that, you'll have the pseudo-scientist crazies who watch the balls or the timing of the release as some insane proof the NBA was able to control the ping pong balls. Being more transparent acutally just gives the crazies more opportunity to come up with new idiotic theories. At least now all they can say is that its behind closed doors and then theorize why who got what pick.

I'd say that Lebron/Wade is roughly analagous to Jeter/A-rod. Most still consider the Yankess Jeter's team even though A-Rod is the far superior player. Not an exact analogy, but the closest I can think of that exists.

I know Lebron could have used some more help in Cleveland, but the team was literally built around his skills, strengths and weaknesses. So while individually its a poor cast, it was one that was greater than the sum of its parts, IMO. Not saying it was necessariily good enough for Lebron to win a championship in the past, but it wasn't as far as some probably like to believe. And if you were to just keep Lebron in Cleveland and all the other same FA signings, you could be looking at a Bron led Cavs in the ECF that wouldn't have to beat the Lakers if they made it to the championship. He will probably win a championship or few with Miami, but I think he could have done it in Cleveland too. And from a greatness standpoint it does kind of tarnish his legacy as a possible all time great. I'm not knocking his decision. He gets to ditch the cold and play with his friends, but from a basketball legacy standpoint its not a slam dunk, even if they win championships. But he is undoubtedly the best player in the game today. I do think he needs to expand his game if he wants to remain the best player at age 30-32, but he isn't 30-32 right now, so he's still the best player. If he never does expand his game to remain a high level as he ages, that will also tarnish his legacy amongst the all time greats.