My case for the 1999 Chicago Bulls

[dougthonus]

Kush77 wrote:

I disagree Doug. The Bulls would have won the title in 1999.

You need to read the first post because Scottie Pippen was fine in 1999. He made the all-defensive first team and played all 50 games with a career high in minutes. Everyone says Scottie Pippen fell off in 1999, but I've provided evidence that he hadn't, which no one wants to seem to acknowledge. Same with Dennis Rodman.

His PER was down 4 points from 98 to 99. That's the equivalent of the difference between an average player and an allstar player. You can provide whatever evidence you want, but advanced basketball statistics showed that he had a very significant decline. As well do all Houston fans, who were thinking "what the hell happened to scottie pippen" all year, and he played so great that Houston immediately dumped him to get out of his contract.

I'm aware of the whole Michael Jordan cigar cutter thing. But had the Bulls known they were playing in 1999, maybe Jordan isn't cutting cigars at a party, or wherever he was. Maybe he's somewhere else, doing something else. We don't know.

Maybe not, but it was still the off-season when it happened, there was still a chance he could have come back. Many people felt the cigar cutter incident is what actually ended the hope of him coming back, because without it there was still the chance.

As for the payroll thing. Through all of our discussions we've had, we agree that MJ could of came back. And even though it was a PR stunt with JR offering Phil the 1-year deal, what if Phil said "ok". at that point JR probably would have paid to bring everyone back. So I don't think that would be an issue.

A bunch of guys got new long term monster deals. I find it hard to believe the Bulls would have done that knowing they would have rebuilt in 2000 if not 99. They would have had no cap space then. Granted, I see what you're getting at, but there's a reason that they decided not to go for it.

I just find it comical that a team that won 3 straight championships, had the league's best record for three straight years, and a team that when they lost, barely lost, would just fall off a cliff the next season.

I don't think they would have fallen off a cliff. That's not even remotely close to what I said. I put their odds at 25% and under. That's still the highest or second highest odds in the NBA in preseason most likely.

And everyone speaks so glowingly about the 1999 Spurs? What the hell did they do the next three years? Got spanked by La. so if the Spurs were sooooo much better than the Bulls, then how come it took them 4 more year to win a title?

5 of the top 6 players on the 99 team were over 30. They just didn't have staying power because of that.

The Bulls beat the Spurs in 1999. Sure Duncan and Robinson would be trouble inside. But the Bulls have played team with good big men before. Nothing new. Shaq, Ewing, Mourning, etc..

And Toni Kukoc would provide a big mismatch for either Duncan or Robinson. Who guards Toni on the perimeter when he's playing the 4? Duncan or Robinson? Neither would be able to.

Dude, if Kukoc was matched up on Duncan or Robinson can you imagine how bad they would have beaten the ever loving crap out of him on offense? Not to mention the physical pounding would have torn him apart.

I'm not saying the Bulls would have had no chance. I think they'd have a very good chance, but I definitely wouldn't have taken them over the field.

I don't think you've really answered any of my points except the Spurs. Your arguments about Pippen aren't backed up by stats, nor are they backed up by Houston's actions (Trading him) or by what every NBA observer saw that season when complaining about him.

You just ignored the fact that Dennis was a completely nutjob the final season, and there's no way he would have been kept in check for a full other year.

You want to pretend Jordan just wouldn't have been hurt.

That's all fine, maybe Jordan wouldn't have been hurt, maybe Scottie's decline would have been less if he stayed in Chicago, maybe Dennis could have somewhat held it together, and maybe the Bulls would have still bought a cast.

If all those maybe's came through, then they were still a worse team in 99 than they were in 98, and they would have had to match up against a team with two great big men, which was their greatest weakness defensively.

 

[dougthonus]

Fred wrote:

dougthonus wrote:

Granted, you can obviously make the case that the Bulls would have overcome these things, and I'm certainly not defending Krause, who's whole management of the team during the Jordan era was borderline ludicrous, but I would have put their odds at least than 25% of a 7th title if they came back.

For argument's sake, let's say you are right, and it was a 25% chance. Well, how do you not take that chance? We could go our entire lifetimes and never see the Bulls have a 1 in 4 chance at winning a title. There are organizations that have never had a 1/4 chance at winning a title (New Orleans, The Clippers, Toronto, come to mind.) Why do you not do everything in your power to give that team another try? Two reasons:

a. Krause knew he would never get acknowledged as an all-time great GM because he took over a team with the All-Time Greatest player already on it. In order to be considered as a legendary GM, he would have to win without Michael, which explains why he was in such a hurry to rush Jackson out the door and with him MJ. Of course, in doing so, he exposed himself to the world over the course of the next 6 years as the complete clown he truly was.

b. It was a lot cheaper for JR. To keep Jordan, Pippen, and Jackson happy....we're talking about a major outlay of financial resources. This organization has never been happy doing that.

I must have missed the part where I said the Bulls should have broken up the dynasty and not brought anyone back in 99.

Can you please quote that for me, I don't seem to see it in the thread.

As a side note, if the Bulls CBA hadn't changed in 1999, I think the Bulls would have had a chance at signing Duncan and starting a new Dynasty with the cap room they had from not going for it. The new rules which prevented them from outbidding the previous home team screwed them. If it weren't for that, the Bulls would have had an excellent chance to go to battle for a decade with Brand, Duncan, McGrady, and Artest as their core.

I still wanted to bring everyone back, but if they CBA hadn't changed and they could have outbid the Spurs on Duncan, then I would have been quite happy with them breaking up the dynasty to get him.

 

[dougthonus]

Kush77 wrote:

DT saying the Bulls would have a 25% chance of winning the title in 1999 is just ridiculous.

If the Bulls came back, in tact, they would be the odds on favorite to win the NBA title in 1999.

I would have loved to go the Vegas and get the Bulls at 4-1 to win the title in 1999. Talk about a great value bet.

Really, it's ridiculous?

What odds do you put on them that year if they bring everyone back?

 

[Fred]

dougthonus wrote:

Fred wrote:

dougthonus wrote:

Didn't read the whole thread, but I very much doubt the Bulls could win if they played in 99.

#1: Scottie Pippen played no where near his 98 level in 99. Maybe this was because of his new team and his new role, but it could also simply be because he was getting older and wasn't as good.

Nowhere near his 98 level? He missed half the season in 98. He actually played in more games in the strike shortened 99 season for Houston than he did for the Bulls in 98. His shooting percentages were similar. He just took less shot because the Rockets had Barkley and Olajuwon. Kukoc was still in his prime, and he could have helped Scottie keep his minutes down.

Who gives a crap if he missed half of the meaningless regular season. I'm not suggesting that the Bulls would have missed the playoffs. Pippen had a 16.8 PER in 99, that's only a shade above average.

His PER went down every season after that as well, so it's not like this was an anomaly. He had a 20.4 in 98 FWIW.

When your are the 2nd offensive option playing next to the greatest offensive player in history (Michael), and you leave that situation to become the 2nd (or arguably 3rd) offensive option in Houston, in a much deeper and tougher conference, your PER is going to go down. It's just a fact. He still made 1st team All-Defense, and just because Pippen's PER was down in the Western Conference on a team with more scoring options doesn't mean the Bulls don't win the title.

It's like the argument everyone throws out about Rose in November. "HIS PER WAS DOWN." Well, when you have Hinrich and Salmons shooting 20% from the 3-point line, and there is no room to drive, your PER is going to be down.

 

[Fred]

dougthonus wrote:

Fred wrote:

dougthonus wrote:

Granted, you can obviously make the case that the Bulls would have overcome these things, and I'm certainly not defending Krause, who's whole management of the team during the Jordan era was borderline ludicrous, but I would have put their odds at least than 25% of a 7th title if they came back.

For argument's sake, let's say you are right, and it was a 25% chance. Well, how do you not take that chance? We could go our entire lifetimes and never see the Bulls have a 1 in 4 chance at winning a title. There are organizations that have never had a 1/4 chance at winning a title (New Orleans, The Clippers, Toronto, come to mind.) Why do you not do everything in your power to give that team another try? Two reasons:

a. Krause knew he would never get acknowledged as an all-time great GM because he took over a team with the All-Time Greatest player already on it. In order to be considered as a legendary GM, he would have to win without Michael, which explains why he was in such a hurry to rush Jackson out the door and with him MJ. Of course, in doing so, he exposed himself to the world over the course of the next 6 years as the complete clown he truly was.

b. It was a lot cheaper for JR. To keep Jordan, Pippen, and Jackson happy....we're talking about a major outlay of financial resources. This organization has never been happy doing that.

I must have missed the part where I said the Bulls should have broken up the dynasty and not brought anyone back in 99.

Can you please quote that for me, I don't seem to see it in the thread.

As a side note, if the Bulls CBA hadn't changed in 1999, I think the Bulls would have had a chance at signing Duncan and starting a new Dynasty with the cap room they had from not going for it. The new rules which prevented them from outbidding the previous home team screwed them. If it weren't for that, the Bulls would have had an excellent chance to go to battle for a decade with Brand, Duncan, McGrady, and Artest as their core.

I still wanted to bring everyone back, but if they CBA hadn't changed and they could have outbid the Spurs on Duncan, then I would have been quite happy with them breaking up the dynasty to get him.

McGrady and Hill switched teams. The Bulls had the exact same shot as those guys. They had a moron leading the effort to sign free agents, with the personality of a pile of cat dung. That's why no one came to Chicago...plus the momories of the way Krause treated Pippen, Jordan, and Jackson.

 

[Fred]

Fred wrote:

dougthonus wrote:

Fred wrote:

dougthonus wrote:

Granted, you can obviously make the case that the Bulls would have overcome these things, and I'm certainly not defending Krause, who's whole management of the team during the Jordan era was borderline ludicrous, but I would have put their odds at least than 25% of a 7th title if they came back.

For argument's sake, let's say you are right, and it was a 25% chance. Well, how do you not take that chance? We could go our entire lifetimes and never see the Bulls have a 1 in 4 chance at winning a title. There are organizations that have never had a 1/4 chance at winning a title (New Orleans, The Clippers, Toronto, come to mind.) Why do you not do everything in your power to give that team another try? Two reasons:

a. Krause knew he would never get acknowledged as an all-time great GM because he took over a team with the All-Time Greatest player already on it. In order to be considered as a legendary GM, he would have to win without Michael, which explains why he was in such a hurry to rush Jackson out the door and with him MJ. Of course, in doing so, he exposed himself to the world over the course of the next 6 years as the complete clown he truly was.

b. It was a lot cheaper for JR. To keep Jordan, Pippen, and Jackson happy....we're talking about a major outlay of financial resources. This organization has never been happy doing that.

I must have missed the part where I said the Bulls should have broken up the dynasty and not brought anyone back in 99.

Can you please quote that for me, I don't seem to see it in the thread.

As a side note, if the Bulls CBA hadn't changed in 1999, I think the Bulls would have had a chance at signing Duncan and starting a new Dynasty with the cap room they had from not going for it. The new rules which prevented them from outbidding the previous home team screwed them. If it weren't for that, the Bulls would have had an excellent chance to go to battle for a decade with Brand, Duncan, McGrady, and Artest as their core.

I still wanted to bring everyone back, but if they CBA hadn't changed and they could have outbid the Spurs on Duncan, then I would have been quite happy with them breaking up the dynasty to get him.

McGrady and Hill switched teams. The Bulls had the exact same shot as any other franchise. Duncan would have never left to play for the pathetic leadership team they had in Chicago, especially considering he just won a title in San Antonio. The Bulls had a moron leading the effort to sign free agents, with the personality of a pile of cat dung. That's why no one came to Chicago...plus the momories of the way Krause treated Pippen, Jordan, and Jackson.

 

[Fred]

houheffna wrote:

The fact is...Jackson wanted to go and Jordan was tired mentally.?

Before the 6th Title run, before he forced to sign a 1 year contract...Krause told Jackson, "I don't care if it's 82-and-0 this year, you're f*&cking gone."

That's why he was tired mentally. That's why he wanted to go. What aren't you getting here? It was because of Krause.

 

[houheffna]

I posted what Jordan said about his retirement. I posted Sam Smith's article about Jordan's second retirement. The only words Jordan said was that it was mentally draining. He didn't say who drained him mentally. And who cares what Krause said? Actually thinking that Krause should be fired for saying it is absolutely ludicrous....

When Jordan says that he quit basketball because of Krause I will believe it...otherwise...I don't believe it. I don't think Jordan would let Krause force him out of the game. I believe his teammates were the ones who bothered him at the end.

And who forced Jackson to sign a 1 year deal?

 

[dougthonus]

Fred wrote:

When your are the 2nd offensive option playing next to the greatest offensive player in history (Michael), and you leave that situation to become the 2nd (or arguably 3rd) offensive option in Houston, in a much deeper and tougher conference, your PER is going to go down. It's just a fact. He still made 1st team All-Defense, and just because Pippen's PER was down in the Western Conference on a team with more scoring options doesn't mean the Bulls don't win the title.

It's like the argument everyone throws out about Rose in November. "HIS PER WAS DOWN." Well, when you have Hinrich and Salmons shooting 20% from the 3-point line, and there is no room to drive, your PER is going to be down.

You seem to be arguing opposite points.

Hinrich and Salmons sucked, so Rose's PER was lower, but Hakeem and Barkley didn't suck, if anything, Pippen should have been just as efficient with two great players next to him.
".

Not at all. Rose is the best player in the first example. Pippen isn't the best player in either example. Pippen was a secondary offensive option on both teams. A better comparison would be Deng to Pippen....if the Bulls lost Rose, would you expect Deng's PER to go up or down? It would go down, because he would be the focus of the defense and there be forced to take more difficult, less efficient shots. Pippen went from playing with the greatest player to lesser offensive players.

 

[dougthonus]

Fred wrote:

McGrady and Hill switched teams. The Bulls had the exact same shot as those guys. They had a moron leading the effort to sign free agents, with the personality of a pile of cat dung. That's why no one came to Chicago...plus the momories of the way Krause treated Pippen, Jordan, and Jackson.

IF the Bulls could have offered Duncan 25 million a season like if the CBA had not changed, then small town San Antonio wouldn't have kept him for half that price.

The Bulls had the same chance as other teams because of the new CBA, under the old CBA their chances would have been much better.

 

[Fred]

dougthonus wrote:

Fred wrote:

McGrady and Hill switched teams. The Bulls had the exact same shot as those guys. They had a moron leading the effort to sign free agents, with the personality of a pile of cat dung. That's why no one came to Chicago...plus the momories of the way Krause treated Pippen, Jordan, and Jackson.

IF the Bulls could have offered Duncan 25 million a season like if the CBA had not changed, then small town San Antonio wouldn't have kept him for half that price.

The Bulls had the same chance as other teams because of the new CBA, under the old CBA their chances would have been much better.

According to Phil Jackson in his book "The Last Season", Jerry Krause told him prior to the 1998 NBA Draft that Michael Olowokandi will "be as good, if not better than Duncan";

http://www.slamonline.com/online/nba/slamonline-top-50/2009/10/top-50-pau-gasol-no-14/
Before Michael Olowokandi was drafted, (Krause) he ran around the front office telling anyone who would listen how big of a superstar Olowokandi would become. He attempted to trade Scottie Pippen for the draft rights to Keith Van Horn, only to have MJ nix the trade. After Phil, MJ, and Scottie left, he attempted to build his new dynasty around rookie giants Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler.

There could have been no salary cap...With Krause running the front office, a sign and trade for Olowokandi was about as likely as the Bulls signing Duncan as a free agent.

 

[Fred]

houheffna wrote:

I posted what Jordan said about his retirement. I posted Sam Smith's article about Jordan's second retirement. The only words Jordan said was that it was mentally draining. He didn't say who drained him mentally. And who cares what Krause said? Actually thinking that Krause should be fired for saying it is absolutely ludicrous....

When Jordan says that he quit basketball because of Krause I will believe it...otherwise...I don't believe it. I don't think Jordan would let Krause force him out of the game. I believe his teammates were the ones who bothered him at the end.

And who forced Jackson to sign a 1 year deal?

Jerry Krause did.

 

[Frank Breakfast Styleham]

Kush is right.

 

[Kush77]

dougthonus wrote:

Kush77 wrote:

DT saying the Bulls would have a 25% chance of winning the title in 1999 is just ridiculous.

If the Bulls came back, in tact, they would be the odds on favorite to win the NBA title in 1999.

I would have loved to go the Vegas and get the Bulls at 4-1 to win the title in 1999. Talk about a great value bet.

Really, it's ridiculous?

What odds do you put on them that year if they bring everyone back?

Yeah, it is ridiculous. you obviously don't do much gambling.

Had the Bulls come back in 1999 they would have been at least 2-1, if not 1-1 to win the NBA title. Maybe 1-2.

This is in terms of odds. Betting. a lot of this has to do with the public. And the public's money would go towards Jordan's Bulls. But typically the 3-time defending NBa champion would be the favorite the next season. Not 25% which would be 4-1 odds. Again, I'd love to go to the casino where you're setting the lines.

Plus, no one made any huge additions in 1999. I don't recall. The Kings had their breakout year with Webber, but I think that was the only real surprise.

 

[Kush77]

dougthonus wrote:

His PER was down 4 points from 98 to 99. That's the equivalent of the difference between an average player and an allstar player. You can provide whatever evidence you want, but advanced basketball statistics showed that he had a very significant decline. As well do all Houston fans, who were thinking "what the hell happened to scottie pippen" all year, and he played so great that Houston immediately dumped him to get out of his contract.

I don't care what his PER was.

He made the ALL-DEFEFENSIVE first team.
He averaged more rebounds and assists in 1999 that he did for the Bulls in 1998.
He played a CAREER-HIGH in minutes.
His scoring went down 4.6 points because he took 4 LESS shots per game.
His shooting percentage went down because he was in a offense that didn't suit his skills. Plain and simple.
He went from an offense that revolved around a guard and a forward(himself), the triangle offense. The he went to an offense where his job was to dump the ball in the post to Barkley and Olajuwon, wait for the double team, and knock down the open shot. That has never been Scottie Pippen's game. Scottie Pippen was never a huge scorer, but people wasnt to take his 14ppg aveage as a sign that he fell off. It's a myth.

When I fall, I hope I can fall off like Pippen in 1999.

Maybe not, but it was still the off-season when it happened, there was still a chance he could have come back. Many people felt the cigar cutter incident is what actually ended the hope of him coming back, because without it there was still the chance

Well he showed up to his retirement presser with a bandage on. so maybe it happened over the holidays? So even if the Bullswere coming back, maybe it still does happen, if it was a x-mas party, whatever. but it's not like he'd be out for the season.

After slice from cigar cutter , Jordan goes back under knife - M.D.'s and MJ
Chicago Sun-Times - Wednesday, January 27, 1999
Author: Elliott Harris
Even in retirement, Michael Jordan drew a double team.
The retired Bulls star had surgery on his right index finger Tuesday, with Charles Carroll and John Hefferon operating.
The surgery took about one hour at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and repaired a laceration of the flexor tendon. Jordan said he suffered the injury on a cigar cutter.
"While Michael Jordan will have restricted use of his hand for six weeks, he is expected to have a good recovery and regain full use of his hand," former Bulls physician Hefferon said.
Six weeks? Right about the time the Bulls are eliminated from playoff contention.

So he showed up at the presser (Jan 14) with the bandage. So it probably happened recently. Late Dec, early Jan. Maybe the day before? I don't know the exact date.
But lets say it happened on New Year's Eve. He would of had the surgery right away, since there was a season to get ready for, and 6 weeks of rehab would have him back in mid Feb.
He would of had 2 full months to get fully healthy, just in time for the playoffs.
Jordan's dream scenario. An abbreviated season and playoffs.

So even with the cigar cutter incident, I think Jordan would have been okay.

A bunch of guys got new long term monster deals. I find it hard to believe the Bulls would have done that knowing they would have rebuilt in 2000 if not 99. They would have had no cap space then. Granted, I see what you're getting at, but there's a reason that they decided not to go for it.

The only guy that got a monster deal was Pippen. Longley, Kerr and Buechler got new deals from PHX, SA and Det, but I wouldn't consider them monster.

But what would JR have done if Phil did accept his empty gesture? And then Jordan said okay, I'll come back? Wouldn't JR have signed Longley, Pippen etc. and had the Bulls won the title in 1999 it's not like you couldn't trade these guys. Far worse players, who have made more money, have been traded before. Other guys would of had 1 years deals, Jordan, Rodman. Buechler probably walks, NO!

I don't think they would have fallen off a cliff. That's not even remotely close to what I said. I put their odds at 25% and under. That's still the highest or second highest odds in the NBA in preseason most likely.

I think the Bulls' odds to win the title in 1999 are far higher than 25%.

5 of the top 6 players on the 99 team were over 30. They just didn't have staying power because of that.

Oh, but the Bulls are the old team falling off? Interesting.

You can bring up David Robinson, but it's not like he was on the rise in 1999. He was in the same draft with Pippen. So they were around the same age. Robinson was still good, very good, but so was Pippen.

Dude, if Kukoc was matched up on Duncan or Robinson can you imagine how bad they would have beaten the ever loving crap out of him on offense? Not to mention the physical pounding would have torn him apart.

Yeah, the Bulls would have to play help defense, which they do better than anyone else in the NBA. And i'm not saying Kukoc would be matched up with Duncan for 48 minutes. the Bulls still had Longley for another big body. And the Bulls would have been able to play a LOT of help defense because MArio Elle, Avery Johnson and Sean Elliot aren't putting fear into anyone's heart with their outside shooting.

So you can cite The Admiral and Duncan (who was great that year and I thought should have been MVP over Malone) but the mismatch at the other positions on the floor huge.

I don't think you've really answered any of my points except the Spurs. Your arguments about Pippen aren't backed up by stats, nor are they backed up by Houston's actions (Trading him) or by what every NBA observer saw that season when complaining about him.

They are backed up by stats that I posted in this thread several times, but no one acknowledges. They are posted above and I'll post them again.

He made the ALL-DEFEFENSIVE first team.
He averaged more rebounds and assists in 1999 that he did for the Bulls in 1998.
He played a CAREER-HIGH in minutes.
His scoring went down 4.6 points because he took 4 LESS shots per game.
His shooting percentage went down because he was in a offense that didn't suit his skills. Plain and simple.
He went from an offense that revolved around a guard and a forward(himself), the triangle offense. The he went to an offense where his job was to dump the ball in the post to Barkley and Olajuwon, wait for the double team, and knock down the open shot. That has never been Scottie Pippen's game. Scottie Pippen was never a huge scorer, but people wasnt to take his 14ppg aveage as a sign that he fell off. It's a myth.

In addition, his FG% went down .15% but his 3 point shooting actually went up. and his steals went up from 1998.

You just ignored the fact that Dennis was a completely nutjob the final season, and there's no way he would have been kept in check for a full other year.

You want to pretend Jordan just wouldn't have been hurt.

When is Dennis Rodman NOT a nujob?????? Going by your logic, the Bulls shouldn't have brought him back for 1998 because 1, he kicked a cameraman. 2, he got hurt in a game vs. Dallas where he had partied the entire night before at the oscars. 3, that injury he suffered in that Mavs game hampered him the entire 1997 playoffs where he wasn't very good. Especially in the Atlanta series.

So you probably assumed Dennis would have fallen off in 1998. But he actually had a better year in 1998 than he did in 1997. He played a lot of center that year when Longley was hurt.
It was an absolute joke that he didn't make an all-defensive team that season. He was great. and he would have been fine in 1999. Did he screw up in LA, yeah. But I don't think he does that playing for Phil and MJ.
MJ called his ass out early in the 97/98 season, and Dennis got his stuff together and played great.

So if you can assume Rodman was going to be a nutjob in 99, I can assume Jordan wouldn't have cut his finger had he been preparing for another NBA season.

That's all fine, maybe Jordan wouldn't have been hurt, maybe Scottie's decline would have been less if he stayed in Chicago, maybe Dennis could have somewhat held it together, and maybe the Bulls would have still bought a cast.

If all those maybe's came through, then they were still a worse team in 99 than they were in 98, and they would have had to match up against a team with two great big men, which was their greatest weakness defensively.

The Bulls' greatest weakness defensively was small, quick scoring point guards. Rod Strickland, Damon Stoudemire, Gary Payton etc.. those were the guys that gave the Bulls problems during the second three-peat. They could defend guys inside because 1, they had Rodman, who can play a little defense. And 2, they had great help D from two of the greatest defensive players of all-time.
And they still would have won the series in 6 games because they were better. And the Mario Elle and Sean Elliot would have to guard Jordan and Pippen respectively. The Bulls had the better 6th man and Ron Harper was better than Avery Johnson.

 

[Shakes]

Kush77 wrote:

Had the Bulls come back in 1999 they would have been at least 2-1, if not 1-1 to win the NBA title. Maybe 1-2.

This is in terms of odds. Betting. a lot of this has to do with the public. And the public's money would go towards Jordan's Bulls. But typically the 3-time defending NBa champion would be the favorite the next season. Not 25% which would be 4-1 odds. Again, I'd love to go to the casino where you're setting the lines.

25% is actually 3-1, not 4-1. And I'd have thought 3-1 is pretty fair, if I could get people to bet on them at your 1-2 odds I'd make a fortune.

I think the Bulls of 99 would have been less favoured than the Lakers this year (they won fewer games the previous year and were older). And the Lakers were 12-5 to start the year (source: http://www.bettingpress.com/categor...-Lakers-fancied-to-retain-title-200910250005/ ), which is pretty close to 3-1. Certainly a lot closer than 1-2!

 

[houheffna]

The argument is mute because Jordan simply couldn't do it...those are his words...no other mitigating factors were present, at least that is what he said. He was mentally drained...people can act like he is talking about Krause...he knew Krause was there when he came back. I believe the load he had to carry over the course of the season in 98 was too much for him...plain and simple. At 36 years old he couldn't go through the grind anymore...it wasn't the regular season but the post season that did him in. I just believe that to be true.

 

[Kush77]

Shakes wrote:

Kush77 wrote:

Had the Bulls come back in 1999 they would have been at least 2-1, if not 1-1 to win the NBA title. Maybe 1-2.

This is in terms of odds. Betting. a lot of this has to do with the public. And the public's money would go towards Jordan's Bulls. But typically the 3-time defending NBa champion would be the favorite the next season. Not 25% which would be 4-1 odds. Again, I'd love to go to the casino where you're setting the lines.

25% is actually 3-1, not 4-1. And I'd have thought 3-1 is pretty fair, if I could get people to bet on them at your 1-2 odds I'd make a fortune.

I think the Bulls of 99 would have been less favoured than the Lakers this year (they won fewer games the previous year and were older). And the Lakers were 12-5 to start the year (source: http://www.bettingpress.com/categor...-Lakers-fancied-to-retain-title-200910250005/ ), which is pretty close to 3-1. Certainly a lot closer than 1-2!

I'm not math wizard, so I can definitly be wrong. But would 25% be a 1 in 4 chance? Thus the Bulls would have 4-1 odds. If you bet 100 bucks on the Bulls at 4-1 you'd get 400 bucks? Am I off?

The Bulls probably would have still been better than La because it's about where the money will go.

The Bulls, and Jordan were popular, therefore they get the money. Regardless if they were truly the favorite.

The Bulls would not have opened at lesser odds than LA. If the Bulls came out at 4-1, less than LA, all the big time betters (and regular betters in general) would have dumped TONS of money on the Bulls. Then Vegas would have lowered the odds. to 2-1, 1-1.

"if I could get people to bet on them at your 1-2 odds I'd make a fortune."

Not if they ended up winning the title, which I think they would.

 

[Kush77]

Shakes wrote:

Kush77 wrote:

Had the Bulls come back in 1999 they would have been at least 2-1, if not 1-1 to win the NBA title. Maybe 1-2.

This is in terms of odds. Betting. a lot of this has to do with the public. And the public's money would go towards Jordan's Bulls. But typically the 3-time defending NBa champion would be the favorite the next season. Not 25% which would be 4-1 odds. Again, I'd love to go to the casino where you're setting the lines.

25% is actually 3-1, not 4-1. And I'd have thought 3-1 is pretty fair, if I could get people to bet on them at your 1-2 odds I'd make a fortune.

I think the Bulls of 99 would have been less favoured than the Lakers this year (they won fewer games the previous year and were older). And the Lakers were 12-5 to start the year (source: http://www.bettingpress.com/categor...-Lakers-fancied-to-retain-title-200910250005/ ), which is pretty close to 3-1. Certainly a lot closer than 1-2!

Man Shakes, you had me confused with the link.

I was like "what does the 09/10 Lakers have to do with the 99 lines"

But you were comparing a defending NBa Champ to another. I see.

But the difference there is what I posted in the other reply, Jordan's Bulls were far more popular than these Lakers. and betting lines, after the initial lines are set by Vegas, go by how much is bet on them.

I was thinking the link you send me was going to show that the 1999 Lakers were the favorite.

Which I could believe because they got Glen Rice to go with Kobe and Shaq that year. then when they got Rodman I thought they would win it. But Kurt Ramibis couldn't get the ship right.

 

[Kush77]

Frank Breakfast-Styleham wrote:

Kush is right.

I can always count on Frank for a confidence boost. :lol: