Deez wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 1:17 pm
Jordan shot over 4 threes during the 93 finals and shot 40%. Crazy how his numbers get better when he takes a consistent amount of shots. But but but
He shot 32 percent on > 4 attempts a game against the Knicks in 1996.
He shot 32 percent on > 3 attempts a game in the 1996 Finals.
He shot 29 percent on three 3s a game against Detroit in the 1990 ECFs.
He shot 12 percent on > 3 attempts a game in both the first and second round in 1997.
Let me guess, we don't throw these into the bucket because of....reasons, right?
Deez wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 1:17 pm
Jordan shot over 4 threes during the 93 finals and shot 40%. Crazy how his numbers get better when he takes a consistent amount of shots. But but but
In the 97 playoffs, in 19 games he took 3.5 a game and shot 19% from 3.
And once again when he took 2-3 shots a game and amassed some volume shooting, his numbers were up.
In the 1991 playoff run, Jordan shot 39% from 3-point range.
In the 1992 playoff run, Jordan shot 37% from 3-point range.
In the 1993 playoff run, Jordan shot 39% from 3-point range.
In the 1993 Finals, Jordan shot 40% from 3-point range on 4.2 attempts per game.
Deez wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 1:17 pm
Jordan shot over 4 threes during the 93 finals and shot 40%. Crazy how his numbers get better when he takes a consistent amount of shots. But but but
He shot 32 percent on > 4 attempts a game against the Knicks in 1996.
He shot 32 percent on > 3 attempts a game in the 1996 Finals.
He shot 29 percent on three 3s a game against Detroit in the 1990 ECFs.
He shot 12 percent on > 3 attempts a game in both the first and second round in 1997.
Let me guess, we don't throw these into the bucket because of....reasons, right?
Deez wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 1:17 pm
Jordan shot over 4 threes during the 93 finals and shot 40%. Crazy how his numbers get better when he takes a consistent amount of shots. But but but
Not only did Jordan's % increase when he took more long-range shots (pretty obvious since, the more you practice at something the better you get at it), but his long-range % in the Playoffs was well above-average during the first 3-Peat, including his record-breaking performace in the 92 Finals.
This is what it comes down to... the LeFraudSlurpers/Modern Era fans are completely desperate, humiliated and embarrassed because of this:
They canNot come to grips with the FACT that the current players, coaches AND the league itself has exposed today's NBA as weak and soft, and so they try to tear down MJ / 90's to help them cope.
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
Deez wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 1:17 pm
Jordan shot over 4 threes during the 93 finals and shot 40%. Crazy how his numbers get better when he takes a consistent amount of shots. But but but
In the 97 playoffs, in 19 games he took 3.5 a game and shot 19% from 3.
And once again when he took 2-3 shots a game and amassed some volume shooting, his numbers were up.
In the 1991 playoff run, Jordan shot 39% from 3-point range.
In the 1992 playoff run, Jordan shot 37% from 3-point range.
In the 1993 playoff run, Jordan shot 39% from 3-point range.
In the 1993 Finals, Jordan shot 40% from 3-point range on 4.2 attempts per game.
Dude, you are literally contradicting yourself here. In 1991 playoffs he took 1.5 a game. By your logic, he should have stunk. In 92, he took 2 a game. Conversely, he took 3.5 a game in the playoffs in 97, so he should have been lighting it up, but no - he made 19%. It's called variability in results.
It's the same volume/game you previously referenced.
He shot 33 percent a game in both the regular season/playoffs on a sample size of almost 1,500 threes at the regular distance. Saying (in effect) "he shot more threes when he was hot and stopped shooting when was cold" is a moot point when he was cold 80 percent of the time he played the game.
Seriously, if you believe Jordan was the GOAT, that's fine. It's a defensible position.
But when you claim he was a flamethrower from deep, you forfeit every ounce of credibility you have on his career.
In the 97 playoffs, in 19 games he took 3.5 a game and shot 19% from 3.
And once again when he took 2-3 shots a game and amassed some volume shooting, his numbers were up.
In the 1991 playoff run, Jordan shot 39% from 3-point range.
In the 1992 playoff run, Jordan shot 37% from 3-point range.
In the 1993 playoff run, Jordan shot 39% from 3-point range.
In the 1993 Finals, Jordan shot 40% from 3-point range on 4.2 attempts per game.
Dude, you are literally contradicting yourself here. In 1991 playoffs he took 1.5 a game. By your logic, he should have stunk. In 92, he took 2 a game. Conversely, he took 3.5 a game in the playoffs in 97, so he should have been lighting it up, but no - he made 19%. It's called variability in results.
Grizz, whenever he increased his volume he had typically increased his percentage.
And once again when he took 2-3 shots a game and amassed some volume shooting, his numbers were up.
In the 1991 playoff run, Jordan shot 39% from 3-point range.
In the 1992 playoff run, Jordan shot 37% from 3-point range.
In the 1993 playoff run, Jordan shot 39% from 3-point range.
In the 1993 Finals, Jordan shot 40% from 3-point range on 4.2 attempts per game.
Dude, you are literally contradicting yourself here. In 1991 playoffs he took 1.5 a game. By your logic, he should have stunk. In 92, he took 2 a game. Conversely, he took 3.5 a game in the playoffs in 97, so he should have been lighting it up, but no - he made 19%. It's called variability in results.
Grizz, whenever he increased his volume he had typically increased his percentage.
NO! Deez, we just went through examples of the exact opposite. He made a great percentage in 91 and 92 playoffs when he took very few, and then completely shit the bed in the 97 playoffs when he took a lot. It's just variability. And correlation will never equate to causation. You keep confusing the two.
Dude, you are literally contradicting yourself here. In 1991 playoffs he took 1.5 a game. By your logic, he should have stunk. In 92, he took 2 a game. Conversely, he took 3.5 a game in the playoffs in 97, so he should have been lighting it up, but no - he made 19%. It's called variability in results.
Grizz, whenever he increased his volume he had typically increased his percentage.
NO! Deez, we just went through examples of the exact opposite. He made a great percentage in 91 and 92 playoffs when he took very few, and then completely shit the bed in the 97 playoffs when he took a lot. It's just variability. And correlation will never equate to causation. You keep confusing the two.
Grizz, Yes he fucking did! Didn’t not just state his numbers during seasons he shot the ball more from three? Holy fuck, I’m done here. Guys are clowns
Grizz, whenever he increased his volume he had typically increased his percentage.
NO! Deez, we just went through examples of the exact opposite. He made a great percentage in 91 and 92 playoffs when he took very few, and then completely shit the bed in the 97 playoffs when he took a lot. It's just variability. And correlation will never equate to causation. You keep confusing the two.
Grizz, Yes he fucking did! Didn’t not just state his numbers during seasons he shot the ball more from three? Holy fuck, I’m done here. Guys are clowns
You're done alright. When confronted with facts that don't support your position (even ones you brought forward which makes it funnier), you get frustrated, stomp your feet and have a tantrum. You're just wrong dude. Like TDK, you are married to the 90s Bulls and MJ, and you have no ability to be objective. If he's not the GOAT, he's damn close as there are only a few guys that have a legitimate argument (MJ, Russell, KAJ and maybe LeBron) and only idiots like Zombies deny that, but for chrissakes, don't let your emotions rule your brain.
lettherebehouse wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 1:55 pm
Deez teabagging his huge sack off the BWGC’s collective forehead.
Just how many different people are you trolling with this one? Five people for sure at a minimum. My guess is higher though, including some who haven't even posted in the thread! Bang for your buck!
