That's ridiculous. Hamilton was a premier jump shooter and scorer. The Wizards Jordan shot around 40% from the field one of those seasons. Of course it isn't a perfect comparison, but that's the basic type of offensive player he was during the second run.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."

I guess that was his type, but he was so much better its not a great comparison.

I would suggest he was like young Ray Allen

I think you're underestimating how good Rip was when he was healthy and in his prime. Even now when he's old and broken down, he's great at creating his own shot.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

Ray Allen was miles better than Rip Hamilton, was a much better athlete. Allen is also a better all around player than Reggie Miller. Hamilton is a watered down Reggie Miller.

I was saying Jordan in the later years was more like Allen than Hamilton

Ahh, my bad.

Yeah, and I'm not going to tell you that Hamilton has had the career Allen has because obviously he hasn't. But Hamilton at his best was a go-to guy on some real good teams. The young Allen scored a lot for the shitty Bucks. Anyway, whatever comparison you want to use, if you just isolate Jordan's play in the three years of the second threepeat, we aren't talking about him as an all-time great. His greatest moments came before that.

Looking back people remember all the things that Jordan did as if all the aspects of his game over the years were all working at once. That really isn't true. But as Powerhouse points out, the closest he ever was to that all-around offensive guy, who could still soar and also had a very respectable jump shot, was probably around 1992.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

I had to laugh last week when B&B were trying to "remind" us how difficult it was for those Bulls teams in the playoffs. Something to the effect of "they didn't dominate" and it was a struggle - they didn't coast.

That's misremembering their misremembering. We think back that it wasn't because they were so dominant that one loss and people would freak out, like it was going to be trouble.

Those teams were 90-26 in their playoff runs with only 2 of 24 series going the distance. A .775 win percentage in the playoffs with only 1 series every 3 years going the distance was pretty dominant.

_________________
You know me like that.

Id say of the 12 Conference titles and finals series, I probably was worried and thought they would lose twice. The knicks series and probably one other.

Yep. Only the 92' series with the Knicks and 98' series with the Pacers went to seven. They also regularly obliterated teams in the first round. The 91' Bulls only lost two games the entire post season.

The Pacers had me worried for some stupid reason.

_________________

Did you really think they "would" lose or that they "could" lose? Big difference.

There was never a series that I thought they "would" lose. The Knicks one was the only one I was truly worried.

The Pacers I did not think they could lose at home and was shocked when they went down 20 at home in Game 7.

_________________
You know me like that.

Once they overcame the deficit and beat the Knicks in '93, there was never another playoff series I ever felt like they could lose.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.

I was just trying to leave an opening. At MOST it was 2.

But yeah, I never thought they would lose to the Pacers. So the Knicks and the Lakers. (At 12, after they lost game one, including a Jordan miss with seconds left )

Chicago has been blessed with some truly great sports teams in a relatively short time period. 85' Bears, maybe the best ever, six time champion Bulls, an amazing title run from the White Sox and the Hawks run from a few years ago. Most cities would kill to have this.

don't forget the 2015 Cubs

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

Must have missed the discussions of the 05 Sox being one of the great teams of all time

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

I think it was in the Ozzie Guillen is a Great Manager thread as evidenced by the grand total of the 1 move he made in the ALCS in the entire series.

_________________
You know me like that.

05 was a historic post season run

The September slide keeps them from being one of the best teams of all time period.

No team has been more dominant in the playoffs.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

The Sox and 1 other team have gone 11-1 in the playoffs. You miss a lot, bigfan.

I contend it took bigger stones for Ozzie to let his starters go 9 innings for all 4 wins in a row than go to fresh arms in the bullpen and play matchups. Buehrle likely would have gone out for the 10th inning of game 2 if it had gotten to that point. Game 4 of that series was the only game that was not real close.


RPB, it was more of an August slide than anything. August was the only month that team was under .500 for, and Cleveland was red hot until the last week of the season. All they had to do was win 1 game that last series of the year at home to get the Wild Car, against what was pretty much the Sox AAA team, and they got swept.

_________________

That raises a larger question of how much of being a great team is based on how they do in the playoffs. Is an decent team that rolls in the playoffs better than a great regular season team that has some longer series? Are the 2005 Sox who lost 1 game in the playoffs better than the 72 win Bulls that lost 3?

That's tough to say in different sports. They were both pretty dominant in their own right. The Sox were in first place from Opening Day until the time they won the World Series, as were the Bulls.

I think what really cements a team's dominance is if they win in the playoffs or not. The Patriots were undefeated until the Super Bowl. I don't think many people are going to say they were one of the dominant teams of all time, while on paper it looks like they probably were.

_________________

I think of teams as movies or epics or stories.

With the 2005 Sox it includes a Great start, a near collapse, and a dominant post season.

I guess the 98 Yankees were the most dominant from opening day to the World Series

Didn't the Reds go undefeated in 1976? (I know they didn't have the wild card back then...)

_________________

Day after the Superbowl win Johnny B had Tim Wrightman on,his roommate was Mike Tomzack.
Now Wrightman was the only Bears reciever not to have a catch in the game. So when his roommate comes into the game he begs him to throw him a pass,Tomzack agrees. They get into the huddle. Covert Grabs Tomzack by the facemask and goes,"Keep it in bounds,on the ground. Understand Rookie?" Tomzack replies "Yes Mr Covert."

They also let out of the bag that the Morning of the Monday Night Miami game they lost the reason McMahon was out was he wandered into the hotel around 5 in the morning claiming he was hit by a car and could not play and that was the reason he was out so late.

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"

What did Jim McMahon have anything to do with the defense giving up 38 points?

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way