Michael Jordan shooting splits over his last 15 NBA Finals games

[kobeunderbite]

[Bush4Ever.]

Jordan's first threepeat deserves a solid amount of respect, roughly on the level of Kobe's twopeat or thereabouts. Maybe equal to Duncan's combined 2005 and 2007 titles.

But the quality of play was just so low during the second threepeat that it's difficult to justify much respect. You have to go back to the mid/late70s NBA to find a period where the quality of play was as bad, and even that might be stretching it.

Taking into account quality of players, a four game winning streak during the regular season in 2024 is more impressive than winning three titles in a row in the back end of the 1990s.

Remember, according to boomers...the above performances shown in the tweet are *hyper dominant* performances. This was as good as it gets.

We've seen Joker shoot 59 percent (FG) and 65 percent (TS) in the most recent series and it's basically *expected* performance. The talent gap is so goofy it's not even funny.

[thedangerouskitchen]

at the "last 15"

Not the last 14 or 10, or the last 16 or 20... the last 15, which covers "only" the final 3 games of the 1996 Finals, conveniently because MJ's splits for the first 3 games were 46%/50%/81% (against a Defensive team that was vastly superior to anything in the league today).

at the desperation from Jordan Haters.

[Bush4Ever.]

MJ had a true shooting percentage of 55.9 percent across the entire span of NBA Finals.

The league average in 2024 was 58.0 percent.

lmao...the best of boomer ball was worse than the AVERAGE of modern ball.

lol lol lol

[thedangerouskitchen]

MJ had a true shooting percentage of 55.9 percent across the entire span of NBA Finals.

The league average in 2024 was 58.0 percent.

lmao...the best of boomer ball was worse than the AVERAGE of modern ball.

lol lol lol

Well since you insist on using fake stats, league-average Defensive Rating in 2024 is 116...

During Jordan's Finals years the league-average was 105-108. In other words it's much, MUCH tougher to Score when Defense is actually played, little buckaroo.

Next...

[Bush4Ever.]

Well since you insist on using fake stats, league-average Defensive Rating in 2024 is 116...

During Jordan's Finals years the league-average was 105-108. In other words it's much, MUCH tougher to Score
Next...

It's tougher to score when you simply can't shoot well, dummy.

I don't think "handchecking" caused old heads to be terrible FT shooters compared to today's players or run scared from shooting threes because they knew they'd shoot about 10-15 percent on the level of difficulty threes today's players shoot.

Lack of offensive skill does not equal "tough defense".

Unless you want to say the actual defense in 1975 (average rating = 97.7), dwarfed even the 1996 Bulls (101.8).

lol

https://www.basketball-reference.com/le ... _1975.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com/te ... /1996.html

lmao!

[thedangerouskitchen]

Well since you insist on using fake stats, league-average Defensive Rating in 2024 is 116...

During Jordan's Finals years the league-average was 105-108. In other words it's much, MUCH tougher to Score
Next...

It's tougher to score when you simply can't shoot well, dummy.

Right... and Jordan couldn't shoot well.



You got knocked silly into next week in the other thread bush-league, why would you want to face that same humiliation in this thread too?

[Bush4Ever.]

Right... and Jordan couldn't shoot well.

Uhh...yes?

That's right. Not *that* well.

His true shooting percentage in Chicago was 58.0 percent.

That's *exactly* the league average in 2024.

Being the top performer in the special needs classroom doesn't make you Valedictorian.

It just means you are the best of a low-performing group

Pretty simple.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Right... and Jordan couldn't shoot well.

Uhh...yes?

That's right. Not *that* well.

His true shooting percentage in Chicago was 58.0 percent.

That's *exactly* the league average in 2024.

Being the top performer in the special needs classroom doesn't make you Valedictorian.

It just means you are the best of a low-performing group

Pretty simple.

Again with the *fake stats* bushy??? When are you going to realize TS% is completely worthless... or are you dumb enough to believe that Jordan (based on TS%) was a better "shooter' than Larry Bird?

You're not really that dumb... are you?

[Bush4Ever.]

Again with the *fake stats* bushy??? When are you going to realize TS% is completely worthless... or are you dumb enough to believe that Jordan (based on TS%) was a better "shooter' than Larry Bird?

You're not really that dumb... are you?

You should get a refund from DePaul (that you definitely went to and didn't make up) for not forcing you into taking a few math and logic classes during your (very real) time there.

lmao

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Right... and Jordan couldn't shoot well.

Uhh...yes?

That's right. Not *that* well.

His true shooting percentage in Chicago was 58.0 percent.

That's *exactly* the league average in 2024.

Being the top performer in the special needs classroom doesn't make you Valedictorian.

It just means you are the best of a low-performing group

Pretty simple.

Again with the *fake stats* bushy??? When are you going to realize TS% is completely worthless... or are you dumb enough to believe that Jordan (based on TS%) was a better "shooter' than Larry Bird?

You're not really that dumb... are you?

Suggesting TS% isn't an EXTREMELY valuable tool, and much better than raw shooting % is confirmation that you are a complete moron.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Jordan ("not that well" of a shooter per bush-league) = .568% TS%
Bird (regarded as one of the greatest "shooters" ever) = .564 TS%



Tell us again why you continue to use a TS% as gospel when I just proved it's a completely worthless *fake* stat?

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Jordan ("not that well" of a shooter per bush-league) = .568% TS%
Bird (regarded as one of the greatest "shooters" ever) = .564 TS%



Tell us again why you continue to use a TS% as gospel when I just proved it's a completely worthless *fake* stat?

It sure as hell is a better indicator than shooting percentage. In that case, Shaq is a much better shooter than either of them!

It's a tool dude. A very useful tool that puts things into context. You are just a pea brain who obviously had major trouble getting through math class in high school. None of this stuff is complicated. You're just not very bright.

[Da Stars.]

Why not do Scottie Pippen as well. You know that player responsible for all of Jordans success.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Uhh...yes?

That's right. Not *that* well.

His true shooting percentage in Chicago was 58.0 percent.

That's *exactly* the league average in 2024.

Being the top performer in the special needs classroom doesn't make you Valedictorian.

It just means you are the best of a low-performing group

Pretty simple.

Again with the *fake stats* bushy??? When are you going to realize TS% is completely worthless... or are you dumb enough to believe that Jordan (based on TS%) was a better "shooter' than Larry Bird?

You're not really that dumb... are you?

Suggesting TS% isn't an EXTREMELY valuable tool, and much better than raw shooting % is confirmation that you are a complete moron.

Translation: Grizz is stupid enough to believe TS% is credible when it suggests that guys like Jordan, Pierce, Magic, LeBron James (!!!! ) AND 150 other players throughout history are/were better "shooters" than Larry Bird.

You really need to sit this one out too, meatball.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Again with the *fake stats* bushy??? When are you going to realize TS% is completely worthless... or are you dumb enough to believe that Jordan (based on TS%) was a better "shooter' than Larry Bird?

You're not really that dumb... are you?

Suggesting TS% isn't an EXTREMELY valuable tool, and much better than raw shooting % is confirmation that you are a complete moron.

Translation: Grizz is stupid enough to believe TS% is credible when it suggests that guys like Jordan, Pierce, Magic, LeBron James (!!!! ) AND 150 other players throughout history are/were better "shooters" than Larry Bird.

You really need to sit this one out too, meatball.

It says no such thing you freaking idiot. In the same way that regular shooting percentage says no such thing. If that were the case, there is a helluva lot more than 150 players throughout history that are better "shooters" than Bird. Probably more like 600-700 ya retard.

[Bush4Ever.]

It should be obviously I wasn't referencing shooting-shooting at a distance. TS is a measure of efficiency.

But that's the thing...TS will generally *help* someone who gets disproportionate value from close-in shots compared to distance twos or even (often, and certainly back then ) threes.

If we are talking about comparing Jordan to modern guys on pure shooting-shooting ability, it would be a horror show. Literally the only reason Jordan can even (barely) meet the average of modern players is because he got a lot of premium twos at the rim, combined with a small advantage from the line.

In terms of combining it all together in terms of efficiency, Jordan was literally average to modern standards, because he couldn't shoot threes, and shot a lot of inefficient long twos like a dolt, even if he was better at them then most.

It's almost indescribable how far behind modern guys he was at shooting threes.

0.6 makes a game at a 33 percent clip (based on the number of attempts, almost exclusively premium threes).

His comparable peers will 5x his makes and add a few more percentage points of efficiency to boot

lol lol lol

[thedangerouskitchen]

Jordan ("not that well" of a shooter per bush-league) = .568% TS%
Bird (regarded as one of the greatest "shooters" ever) = .564 TS%



Tell us again why you continue to use a TS% as gospel when I just proved it's a completely worthless *fake* stat?

It sure as hell is a better indicator than shooting percentage.

NOT when it suggests LeBron James is a better "shooter" than Larry Bird, moron.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Bush-league: Michael Jordan couldn't shoot very well, according to TS%

TDK: Jordan's TS% is better than the TS% of one of the greatest "shooters" in NBA history

Bush-league: Blah Blah Blah... take more classes in school... not only is Jordan a better "shooter" than Bird, but so is LeBron, according to TS%... and look, my friend meatball grizz agrees with me so that must mean something.

TDK:

[Bush4Ever.]

NOT when it suggests LeBron James is a better "shooter" than Larry Bird, moron.

He is on threes in the playoffs.

The guy you claim is a bricklayer literally had a higher three point percentage than Bird (your instinctive standard for great shooting-shooting) in the playoffs.