They are remembered as great teams because they won a title around the same time they lost others.

You gave the Pistons 4 hypothetical titles. The Bulls almost beat one of the two teams they had that actually won the title. The Bulls almost certainly improved after that and yet you don't think they would have a chance to beat the team they already took to 7 games?

_________________
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!

Rick invoking hypothetical in a sports argument will always be funny to me regardless of context

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

What do you actually know about the two hypothetical teams that lost? Other than they lost? and the two scenarios that I provided? And they lost in 7 gms.

Other than arguing for the sake of arguing lets see where we are at with this.

_________________

I know the two hypothetical teams didn't win, but you think they could have. However, the Bulls who took the Championship winning Pistons team and clearly improved from that team couldn't beat that Pistons team. Also, that Pistons team they couldn't beat was literally one season away from being completely outmatched.

Just remember, you gave the Pistons two more hypothetical titles.

_________________
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!

Ok so you really don't anything about the two hypotheticals. Good talk

_________________

Explain it, and then explain why the 89-90 Bulls wouldn't also get a hypothetical title? The Pistons went on to beat the Trailblazers the series after fairly easily.

_________________
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!

Brick doing some work around here

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

You are arguing a point in which you know little about. The reason that I mentioned that they could have won 4 (Against great competition) is because of specific things that happened in those series which effected the outcome. Its not just they "lost in 7" the Bulls team that lost in 7. was never on a par with the Pistons. You had Jordan and a bunch of unproven players attempting to win a title. Those Pistons teams played the Celtics and Laker teams to a standstill and should have won.

i don't want to argue the point. I would rather you argue the point since you are the person disagreeing. If you can't tell me anything other than what the eventual outcome happened to be then what is the point? I would rather you provide specific reasons pertaining to each series.

_________________

Let's take this a step further. The Pistons first title was a 4-0 win over the Lakers. The Pistons second title was a 4-1 win over the Trailblazers. The Bulls in 89-90 put up far more of a fight against the Pistons than either of these teams did.
The Bulls would then go on to beat the Lakers 4-1 and then the Trailblazers 4-2.

So, for the first two titles, they both beat the same teams, and the Bulls took the Pistons to a game 7 in the second year of their rivalry. This was as close as any team would get to beating the Pistons there. Now, we know that the Bulls would literally go on to dominate the 90s in terms of titles. I think it is fair to say that the Bulls likely improved from the 89-90 season given that.

So, the team that also beat the two teams the Pistons did, and almost beat the Pistons before thoroughly dismantling them exactly one year later had no chance to beat that team? What happened in the offseason in 1990? That's one of the most remarkable improvements in sports history.

_________________
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!

Imagine the Pistons playing under today's rules.

_________________

No I want you to explain why the Pistons team that lost to the Lakers and Celtic in previous years wasn't good enough to win? Bulls Pistons is done. I want you to explain why the teams that Lost (Hypothetically speaking) were worse than the Lakers and Celtics? I can easily make the case as why they should have beat Lakers and Celtics. You disagree obviously. Tell me why you disagree.

_________________

Ok, let's go with this. The Bulls were by far the only team who even challenged the Pistons in those two years. No other series was even close. You are now saying that the team that took the Pistons to 7 games was "never on par with the Pistons". Yet, you somehow are also arguing that the Bulls never faced teams as good as the Pistons did, when in fact the only team to even challenge them was "never on par" with them EVEN with taking them to 7 games. Then, in one offseason, the Bulls completely dominated the Pistons but that was because I don't know, 12 months turned them all into the elderly or something.

Specific reasoning: The Bulls took the Pistons to 7 games, just like the Pistons did in their two hypothetical titles. If you take a team to 7 games, you had a chance to beat that team even if you don't.

_________________
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!

So, the Memphis Grizzlies?

_________________

They'd be the Grizzlies with better shooters.

Edit: damn Bills, beat me to it.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

I don't know what you are talking about. The Pistons could have won 4 titles. The Bulls also could have beaten the Pistons in 89-90. You are the one that says the Bulls couldn't have beaten the Pistons.

_________________
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!

I'm glad we moved on from the silly notion that Uncle Jerry is a cheap owner.

_________________

So you don't know anything other than 1 team won and one team lost. You can't explain anything about the hypothetical regarding the Pistons because you don't know anything about it. Its obvious that you don't know anything about the hypothetical since you keep ducking the question. Have a good one.

_________________

Its a dead horse. People have argued it for 30 some odd years. No new info on that.

_________________

You literally aren't even making a counterargument now. You seem to simply be saying that you know about the Pistons.

Let me make it clear. If two teams meet, and it takes a full 7 games to decide the series, meaning that each team won 3 times up until that point, both teams have proven they could have won the series.

But hey, every team the Bulls played happened to suddenly be old and bad and therefore the Bulls couldn't beat them when they weren't old and bad is a great argument too. Have a good one.

_________________
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!

Yeah it seems like the answers in the poll have clarified the board’s opinion on Jerry’s cheapness.

_________________

Is Jerry Reinsdorf Cheap?
Yes 68% 68% [ 17 ] x
No 32% 32% [ 8 ]
Total votes : 25

Public majority is always correct when it comes to subjective opinions my friend. Take the L.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I accept the majority of you people are wrong.

_________________

Help me help you Peeps. I won't give up on you.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

You don't really know anything about the Pistons. You originally disagreed with the hypothetical "they could have won 4 titles" without ever refuting the reason why you disagree with it. I'm much more interested in you telling me why they couldn't have won 4 titles as opposed to whether they could have beat the Bulls or not.

Now I would rather you explain how the teams that the Bulls beat in the 90's were better than the teams Lakers Boston Philly if you like. Bulls Pistons is a waste of time.

90's Bulls could have beat the Pistons is a boring argument. They didn't and weren't expected to either. They played them tough.

The Bulls didn't have to beat great teams to win the championship. The Pistons did. Unless you can tell me any of those teams were great or how they couldn't have conceivably won 4 titles then we are wasting time.

_________________

If you hypothesize they could have won 4 titles, and someone disagrees, your opponent is correct because they didn't.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Not if he can't provide a reason for it. I never said that they won 4 titles. I said that they "easily" could have won 4 titles. I have yet to hear one reason as to why they couldn't have won. Saying "oh yeah they didn't" doesn't actually address the hypothesis so you are wrong.

_________________

Where did I say they couldn't have won 4 titles?

Bulls Pistons is the easiest one because they matched up. The Bulls and Lakers matched up but I know the excuse will be that the 58-24 Lakers from that year were washed up or something even though they had the third best record in the league and beat the same Portland Trailblazers team that made the Finals the year prior and the year after that. The same Portland Trailblazers team the Bulls beat the next year.

It's all just a shell game. The NBA suddenly became far less competitive the moment the Bulls became the best team in the league. The Lakers and Pistons don't count even though they were still top teams, and then no team came after them besides the Bulls that was anywhere near as good as they were. We had 4 teams that were better than every team in the 90s by such a margin that you won't even consider the fact that the Bulls could have beaten even one of them. It really is amazing just how quickly the league went to absolute garbage. Here we have the Bulls literally facing two of those teams with many of the same players and then NBA is great because the Lakers and Pistons are winning titles but the literal moment the Bulls surpass them the NBA turns into a pile of garbage where a 6x champion can't even be considered equal to any team that won a title in the 80s. In a 12 month period, based on your use of the Pistons, the NBA went from the golden age where 4 teams were unquestionably better than the Jordan Bulls, to a league in which the most dominant team of the decade wouldn't even be considered in the top 4 teams of the 1980s. That is truly a remarkable set of circumstances.

The Bulls beat the same two teams in the NBA Finals the first two years as the Pistons did, and the team that gave the Pistons their only real scare in the playoffs was the Bulls. What makes the 89-90 Trailblazers a great team but the 91-92 Trailblazers not a great team?

_________________
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!

Spurs could have easily won 7 titles. Hypothetical Tim Duncan would be the greatest player to ever live, and nobody could argue.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

are we talking about the pistons that the bulls swept out of the playoffs? Those pistons? or some other pistons?

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

The Bulls would have won 8 straight if Jordan didn't ret... oh, wait...

_________________