1996 Bulls 72-10 VS THE 2000/2001 Repeat Lakers 15-1

[TheMadHatter]

They are having an interesting discussion over on LG about this:

http://forums.lakersground.net/viewtopic.php?t=70482

IMHO I think the series could go either way.

Both teams had excellent role players (Pippen, Kerr, Rodman, Horry, Fox, Fisher), played great defense, and were juggernauts offensively. I think Shaq would have been the x-factor. He was so dominant at that point in time, I just don't know of anyone on the Bull's roster that could have stopped him.

What do you guys think?

[manufor3]

umm the 1996 bulls in 5 games

[TheMadHatter]

5 games? No way does the series go 5 games.

[Lakers_55]

There was a simulated playoff done a few years ago among all the great teams in history. It's probably archived somewhere online...It had an unfair finish. Anyway, it came down to a top four. 1986/7 Lakers vs. Someone, Lakers won. Then it had the 1985/6 Celtics vs. the 1995/6 Bulls. It had the Celtics winning in 7 games. I say, no way! Whoever designed this simply wanted another Laker/Celtic final. Lakers of 1986/7 "won" it all. Sorry, but the 1995/6 Bulls team owns all.

[angelbelow]

bulls in 5. pretty obvious.

[Kobe™]

Bulls in 6, Maybe 7 depending how MJ plays

[timvp]

Bulls in a cakewalk. The Lakers team looked dominant but their road to the championship was easy. That Spurs team was horrible and its second leading scorer was injured. The Sixers were even worse and made it to the Finals only because the East was amazingly weak.

Kobe would try to turn it into MJ vs Kobe ... and get embarrassed. Bulls sweep or in 5.

[angelbelow]

maybe i'll elaborate, the bulls had one of the best defenses ever, their full court press was spectacular. they had 5 centers to make shaq work, while the lakers have no one that can shut down pippen or jordan. kobe at this point was amazing but lets face it, hes not the player he is now. if prince can do a good job on him then 2 of the best perimeter defenders ever shouldnt have a problem esp if they rotate.

bulls also have a better bench, tony kukoc. odom is kukocs clone, except i believe kukoc is a better 3 point shooter. just imagine odom as a consistent 3 pt shooter. thats the player kukoc was and he was coming off the bench behind jordan and pippen. they also had sharp shooter steve kerr and jud buchler, they had defensive ace and super athlete randy brown to back up harper at pg.

shaq was a complete monster, but rodman did a decent job on him in the past. fisher was also a very smart player by then, but lets not forget ron harper. harper was a former allstar who was very capable still, but stuck to his role, his talent alone exceeds the derek fisher we know, even today. in fact wasnt harper the starting PG for that laker team?

in conclusion, the bulls had some of the best defense ever employed by a basketball team and remained offensive juggernauts.

im not gonna say the lakers in 00/01 weree overrated because they were the best team, but they played the sixers in the finals for god sake.

[baseline bum]

Bulls in a cakewalk. The Lakers team looked dominant but their road to the championship was easy. That Spurs team was horrible and its second leading scorer was injured. The Sixers were even worse and made it to the Finals only because the East was amazingly weak.

Kobe would try to turn it into MJ vs Kobe ... and get embarrassed. Bulls sweep or in 5.

So I take it you don't consider the one man Sixers on par with the 64-18 SuperSonics? :lol

[The Franchise]

Do we even have to ask???? The Bulls would rape them.

[TheMadHatter]

Timvp stupid comments about Kobe trying to turn it into a duel with MJ. It just shows that you're no better than a hater when you say ridiculous shit like that. Sure Kobe went at MJ, but that was during the regular season and in the All-Star games.....he never pulled that shit during the championship runs. He knew his role and the value of team basketball, otherwise the Lakers wouldn't have won 3 in a row. They would not have won 3 in a row if Kobe tried to duel everyone on the court.

Anyways I still contend that Shaq in his absolute prime would have been too much for even the Bulls to handle. They played some of the best defense of any team in the full court and half court sets, but they struggled against teams with dominant centers. Jordan has been quoted as saying the Hakeem Rockets were the toughest matchup he ever faced. A prime Shaq would have dominated Rodman, Longley, and Bill Wennington. They simply didn't have the size and strength to slow him down in the post.

The question that remains is how much of an x-factor Shaq would have been. Would it be enough to offset Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman? I just don't know.

[Tully365]

They are having an interesting discussion over on LG about this:

http://forums.lakersground.net/viewtopic.php?t=70482

IMHO I think the series could go either way.

Both teams had excellent role players (Pippen, Kerr, Rodman, Horry, Fox, Fisher), played great defense, and were juggernauts offensively. I think Shaq would have been the x-factor. He was so dominant at that point in time, I just don't know of anyone on the Bull's roster that could have stopped him.

What do you guys think?

I don't think you can call Pippen a role player. He was one of the best defenders in the NBA, and his offensive skills were top notch. When Jordan retired (the first time) Pippen lead the Bulls to 55 wins, and that was before Rodman. Many considered him the second best player in the league that year, after Hakeem Olajuwon.

[Tully365]

According to the rules set by many Lakers and Suns fans, the 2000-01 title must have an asterisk, since the best player on the winner the year before was hurt and that team couldn't defend its title at full strength.

[angelbelow]

Timvp stupid comments about Kobe trying to turn it into a duel with MJ. It just shows that you're no better than a hater when you say ridiculous shit like that. Sure Kobe went at MJ, but that was during the regular season and in the All-Star games.....he never pulled that shit during the championship runs. He knew his role and the value of team basketball, otherwise the Lakers wouldn't have won 3 in a row. They would not have won 3 in a row if Kobe tried to duel everyone on the court.

Anyways I still contend that Shaq in his absolute prime would have been too much for even the Bulls to handle. They played some of the best defense of any team in the full court and half court sets, but they struggled against teams with dominant centers. Jordan has been quoted as saying the Hakeem Rockets were the toughest matchup he ever faced. A prime Shaq would have dominated Rodman, Longley, and Bill Wennington. They simply didn't have the size and strength to slow him down in the post.

The question that remains is how much of an x-factor Shaq would have been. Would it be enough to offset Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman? I just don't know.

what the hell, who do you think will stop jordan? shaq is a great but hes got weaknesses, shaq would have dominated the bulls centers statistically but he'll have to work for his points. shaq alone isnt going to beat the greatest team ever.

Harper>>fisher
Jordan>>kobe
Pippen>>>fox
rodman>grant
longley<<<shaq
bulls bench>lakers bench

fisher cant handle harper, harpers 6'6, kobe at this age wouldnt handle jordan, fox and pippen... lol, rodman would own grant (unless youve never seen him play or grew up watching the 90s). so yea shaq would dominate, but hes not going to beat the bulls himself. lakers bench also have no answer for kukoc, its like having lamar odom coming off the bench next year for the lakers.

[xtremesteven33]

two phil jackson coaches?

[Warlord23]

Both teams had plenty of offensive weapons, with Shaq being the biggest one on either team. But the Bulls were more versatile, had the better D, and had the better role players.

It's all about matchups. Shaq was a complete monster, but Rodman, as people have pointed out, had done some good work on him in the past. In any case, Shaq's FT shooting would prove to be a thorn in the Lakers' side.

Harper/MJ/Pippen was the best starting 1/2/3 rotation in recent memory. Fisher/Kobe/Fox would be outmatched. The Bulls backcourt was bigger, stronger, more experienced. While the Bulls had Pippen to throw at Kobe, the Lakers had nobody to contain either Jordan or Pippen.

2008 Kobe (arguably in his prime) couldn't guard Pierce, and has trouble with stronger guards who can post him up and hit the mid-range shot. Jordan was the best non-big-man post player in history, and 2001 Kobe was just not strong enough to handle Jordan on the block. On the other end, Pippen would harrass Kobe just like Prince did in 2004 or how Pippen handled Magic in 1991.

The Bulls were great at pressure defense, mixing in hard double-teams and weak-side steals with more conventional man-to-man. They would make the Lakers work for every possession. The role-player scenario is the deal clincher. The 2001 Lakers went 15-1 because Fisher, Fox, Shaw and Horry were overachieving. They would find it 10x difficult against the Bulls, with the likes of Rodman, Harper, Kukoc, Kerr, Longley.

Noone knows for certain, and noone will. But my money is on the Bulls in 6.

[SRJ]

One team got very hot at playoff time, to their credit, for 16 games; the other team played basically at that very level for 100 games. Game, set, match, 96 Bulls.

[baseline bum]

Bulls in 6. A better question is who would win between that 01 Lakers team and the Bulls opponent, the 96 Sonics.

[Showtime24 LAKERS]

Derek Fisher 48.4% FG 515% 3PT 13.4ppg 4pg 3apg

Fisher was the ex-factor, how would he handle shooting over big guards I believe is make or break for this series, since Fisher was one of 4 guys averaging 7ppg or over and the next best player was Horace Grant (32% FG, 6ppg). The Bulls had 7 guys who put up 7ppg or more, you could shut a few down and others would cover the scoring.

Rodman always guarded Shaq well. Pippen and Jordan don't have a chance in hell of stopping Kobe.

The Bulls could never contain superstar guards since they had no true perimeter one-on-one defender so their strategy was to disrupt the passing lanes (Jordan and Pippen), put a hand on shooters (usually Harper), and stop post scoring (Rodman). Penny Hardaway averaged about 32ppg against the Bulls but Shaq and the rest of the team always got shut down.

It entirely depends on if Kobe can replace Fisher's production. Kobe was already playing at an incredible level (29.7ppg) I'd say the Lakers win or lose would almost entirely depend on Kobe's production--could he make up Fisher's loss of production? He might have to average 35-40ppg in that series.

[Showtime24 LAKERS]

Bulls in 6. A better question is who would win between that 01 Lakers team and the Bulls opponent, the 96 Sonics.

Would that even be a series, the lake show would smoke them. :lol

[spurms]

The Bulls could never contain superstar guards since they had no true perimeter one-on-one defender so their strategy was to disrupt the passing lanes (Jordan and Pippen), put a hand on shooters (usually Harper), and stop post scoring (Rodman). Penny Hardaway averaged about 32ppg against the Bulls but Shaq and the rest of the team always got shut down.




lol tell that to paul pierce moron, if pippen can contain magic he can contain kobe, if jordan can contain drexler he can contain kobe, your theories about bulls playing the passing lane is ridiculous, they played the best man to man defense, and team defense in the league, the bulls will win in 6 no worst, a sweep on a good day, go check up youtube of shaq trying to guard jordan, if i can remember i seen jordan dish out 2 facials on shaq, and scored 50+ on his ass, fact is shaq no matter how dominant he was, could not match jordan's offensive output, and kobe will not be able to contain anyone.

[TheMadHatter]

Shaq in 2001 was >> than Shaq in 1995.

I believe Jordan would have been easier to contain for the Lakers than Shaq for the Bulls. The Lakers could actually rotate several good perimeter defenders onto Jordan (Kobe, Fox, etc.), whereas the Bulls had NOBODY that could even come close to containing Shaq. He'd foul out their entire frontcourt.

Like I said Rodman, Bill Wennington, and Luc Longley are going to contain Shaq?

[spurms]

Shaq in 2001 was >> than Shaq in 1995.

I believe Jordan would have been easier to contain for the Lakers than Shaq for the Bulls. The Lakers could actually rotate several good perimeter defenders onto Jordan (Kobe, Fox, etc.), whereas the Bulls had NOBODY that could even come close to containing Shaq. He'd foul out their entire frontcourt.

Like I said Rodman, Bill Wennington, and Luc Longley are going to contain Shaq?

How bout telling that to the knicks, pistons, jazz who did just that, the jordan rules and all that dumbass, pistons tried triple teaming and got burned, you dont just throw out theories like that boy, there's something about double teaming and leaving men open and jordan thrives on just that, what with the superior supporting cast bulls had over the lakers, there's no such thing as trying to contain someone senselessly without getting burned, it's your homerism speaking just admit it, bulls in 5, jordan runs the offense and makes it flow, shaq just park his fatass under the post cherry picking. when it comes down to a matchup of jordan vs shaq, i take jordan every other day, you cant bluff ur way out of it.

[angelbelow]

Shaq in 2001 was >> than Shaq in 1995.

I believe Jordan would have been easier to contain for the Lakers than Shaq for the Bulls. The Lakers could actually rotate several good perimeter defenders onto Jordan (Kobe, Fox, etc.), whereas the Bulls had NOBODY that could even come close to containing Shaq. He'd foul out their entire frontcourt.

Like I said Rodman, Bill Wennington, and Luc Longley are going to contain Shaq?

just answer this, whose is going to contain pippen? kukoc? harper? also you cant shut down jordan, lets be realistic. the best perimeter defenders couldnt do it and that was their only job, do you really expect rick fox to?

[Ghazi]

lol at Lakers ground, 56-22 in favor of the Lakers.

[timvp]

:lol Laker Fan is delusional. I'm doubt the 2001 Lakers could beat the worst Bulls team ... much less the best.

[picnroll]

I don't think you can call Pippen a role player. He was one of the best defenders in the NBA, and his offensive skills were top notch. When Jordan retired (the first time) Pippen lead the Bulls to 55 wins, and that was before Rodman. Many considered him the second best player in the league that year, after Hakeem Olajuwon.
Yeah, if Pippen was a role player I guess that would make Kobe a role player too.

Comparing Shaq even "dominant Shaq" to Hakeem. :lol

Pippen and MJ don't have a chance in Hell of stopping Kobe. :rollin


Bulls in 5. They take one game off.

[mistwiya]

Rodman always guarded Shaq well. Pippen and Jordan don't have a chance in hell of stopping Kobe.


Before you make ridiculous comments like these, learn you're facts straight, Dennis Rodman, Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen were all on the 1st All Defensive Team in 1996 Not one Laker was on the 1st All Defensive Team in 2001. What makes you think all of a sudden, that the Bulls won't be able to stop Kobe Bryant. Theres a reason why the Bulls had a 72 win season.

The only good thing Shaq will do for you is score when he wants to, thats the only 'dominant' thing you have in him. Remember we have Michael Jordan who can score when he wants to as well.(Gary Payton, one of the greatest defenders ever couldn't stop Jordan) No way Shaq can outrebound Dennis Rodman. Rodman won the rebounding title 6 in the last 7 years including the 1996 Season. Hakeem was quoted as saying "Whenever I face Rodman and the Bulls I always say to myself Im going to have a hard time now, because Rodman is the best Rebounder I've ever seen." I'm not saying Kobe will be stopped completely but no way Michael Jordan will let him put up his great numbers at a consistent basis seeing that Michael Jordan is the most competitive player to ever play in the NBA.

[jacobdrj]

Playoff series almost never go the way we plan, or expect.

the 72 win bulls obviously didn't sweep the playoffs. The FINALS went SIX GAMES against the SEATTLE SUPERSONICS.
You are telling me that the Lakers 2000/2001 wouldn't win a game?
And the X factor isn't Shaq, or Jordan, or anybody on the court. The X factor is that Phil Jackson knows Phil Jackson better than anyone, especially older Phil Jackson.
In 2001, he had tools. It is possible he would have had a way to use them.

[anakha]

The Lakers could actually rotate several good perimeter defenders onto Jordan (Kobe, Fox, etc)

Fox?

Rick Fox?

Are you actually trying to argue that Rick Fox could slow Jordan down? :lmao

John Starks on Jordan >>>>>>>>> Rick Fox on Jordan. And Jordan still got his against Starks.

And your etc. - who else are you referring to?

Ron Harper? The best non-Bryant option the Lakers could put on Jordan. But the 2000-2001 Harper would have had fits trying to slow down the 95-96 Jordan.
Brian Shaw? At 35 years old? Not a chance.
Isaiah Rider? Don't make me laugh.
Devean George? :lmao :lmao :lmao

Face the facts. If you want to actually have a chance at slowing Jordan down, you have to stick Bryant on him. The Bulls have the luxury of assigning Pippen on Bryant - an advantage the Lakers do not.

Just as an aside, though. In terms of overall talent and production, I think that the 91-92 Bulls were as good, if not better, than the 95-96 Bulls.

[anakha]

Playoff series almost never go the way we plan, or expect.


Given the the entire premise of this thread is to predict the expected result of a theoretical series, how else are people expected to respond?

[The Franchise]

Would that even be a series, the lake show would suck them off. :lol

:toast

[mistwiya]

John Starks on Jordan >>>>>>>>> Rick Fox on Jordan. And Jordan still got his against Starks.

Correction... Gary Payton on Jordan >>>> Rick Fox on Jordan
Joe Dumars on Jordan >>>>> Rick Fox on Jordan
Matt Bonner on Jordan >>>>> Rick Fox on Jordan

[possessed]

Jordan's Bulls never lost a series in six trips to the finals. I wouldn't bet against MJ.

[picnroll]

Kobe got his ass kicked by the '04 Pistons but MJ and Pippen couldn't stop him. :lol :rollin

[jacobdrj]

You can easily argue that the series would be a Bulls win. And I would agree with that on virtue of Rodman's smothering defense alone.
But to predict a 4 or 5 game series... it could happen, but that isn't giving enough credit to the Lakers, as they were certainly better than the 96 Sonics, or the 96 New York Knicks.

[TheMadHatter]

For me, the series still comes down to Shaq vs. MJ. Shaq was so dominant that he forced double teams nearly every single time he was in the post. This alone would have negated a lot of advantages the Bulls had on defense IMHO, as a team they historically struggled against teams with dominant centers (NYK, HOU, etc.).

I just don't buy into the idea that MJ would have been harder to stop than a prime Shaq. LAL had the defenders to at least attempt to slow Jordan down, the Bulls had nobody outside of Rodman who could even stand a chance at stopping a prime Shaq.

[anakha]

Matt Bonner on Jordan >>>>> Rick Fox on Jordan

Let's not get ahead of ourselves there. :lol

[mistwiya]

For me, the series still comes down to Shaq vs. MJ. Shaq was so dominant that he forced double teams nearly every single time he was in the post. This alone would have negated a lot of advantages the Bulls had on defense IMHO, as a team they historically struggled against teams with dominant centers (NYK, HOU, etc.).

I just don't buy into the idea that MJ would have been harder to stop than a prime Shaq. LAL had the defenders to at least attempt to slow Jordan down, the Bulls had nobody outside of Rodman who could even stand a chance at stopping a prime Shaq.

The series doesn't come down to Shaq vs MJ, we all know Shaq was going to get his 30 points, and we all know Jordan was going to get his 30 points... What are you trying to say here?

The series really comes down to which team was better defensively,

The 96 Bulls (Jordan, Rodman, Pippen on the 1st All Defensive Team) vs 01 Lakers (Shaq on the 2nd defensive Team)

[anakha]

I just don't buy into the idea that MJ would have been harder to stop than a prime Shaq. LAL had the defenders to at least attempt to slow Jordan down, the Bulls had nobody outside of Rodman who could even stand a chance at stopping a prime Shaq.

Defender.

If anybody but Bryant gets Jordan as the primary defensive assignment, no way is Jordan not scoring 30 a game in that series.

[mistwiya]

Defender.

If anybody but Bryant gets Jordan as the primary defensive assignment, no way is Jordan not scoring 30 a game in that series.

2 powerful thumbs up

[TheMadHatter]

The series doesn't come down to Shaq vs MJ, we all know Shaq was going to get his 30 points, and we all know Jordan was going to get his 30 points... What are you trying to say here?

The series really comes down to which team was better defensively,

The 96 Bulls (Jordan, Rodman, Pippen on the 1st All Defensive Team) vs 01 Lakers (Shaq on the 2nd defensive Team)

Yes it does come down to Shaq vs. MJ. Pippen and Kobe cancel each other out. The rest of the Laker role players were not that much worse collectively than the Bulls, in fact during the 15-1 playoff run they were playing at a ridiculously high level.

The fact that you think a battle between two Phil Jackson coached teams would come down to defense is laughable. It's all about exploiting mismatches on offense, and quite frankly with Shaq in the paint the Lakers have the biggest mismatch.

[mistwiya]

Yes it does come down to Shaq vs. MJ. Pippen and Kobe cancel each other out. The rest of the Laker role players were not that much worse collectively than the Bulls, in fact during the 15-1 playoff run they were playing at a ridiculously high level.

The fact that you think a battle between two Phil Jackson coached teams would come down to defense is laughable. It's all about exploiting mismatches on offense, and quite frankly with Shaq in the paint the Lakers have the biggest mismatch.

Listen to what I said.. We know Shaq is going to get his 30 points and Michael Jordan was going to get his 30 points.... Basically they cancel each other out, what other powerful dominant category can Shaq dominate besides Scoring....

[TheMadHatter]

Listen to what I said.. We know Shaq is going to get his 30 points and Michael Jordan was going to get his 30 points.... Basically they cancel each other out, what other powerful dominant category can Shaq dominate besides Scoring....

No they don't cancel each other out. Shaq HAS to be double teamed, Jordan does not. Shaq is going to score 30, and he's going to get his 30 shooting a ridiculously high FG% (high 50's to low 60's) while putting several Bull's players into foul trouble. Jordan isn't going to shoot anywhere near that for the series and will have to take far more shots to get his 30.

So no, they don't cancel each other out. You people have no recollection of how much a prime Shaq could actually impact the game.

[mistwiya]

No they don't cancel each other out. Shaq HAS to be double teamed, Jordan does not. Shaq is going to score 30, and he's going to get his 30 shooting a ridiculously high FG% (high 50's to low 60's) while putting several Bull's players into foul trouble. Jordan isn't going to shoot anywhere near that for the series and will have to take far more shots to get his 30.

So no, they don't cancel each other out. You people have no recollection of how much a prime Shaq could actually impact the game.

Are you kidding me? You think all Jordan will do is shoot jumpshots? From 91-98 in the seasons that Jordan played, he led the NBA in freethrow attempts every year including 96 which he had a whoppin 1850. Jordan will just drive to the lane, shaq will foul him, Shaq will get benched, and bam you have a happy Bulls team.

One more thing, if Jordan doesn't get double teamed you just guaranteed yourself a 40+ ppg in the Finals by Jordan....

[stretch]

Are you kidding me? You think all Jordan will do is shoot jumpshots? From 91-98 in the seasons that Jordan played, he led the NBA in freethrow attempts every year including 96 which he had a whoppin 1850. Jordan will just drive to the lane, shaq will foul him, Shaq will get benched, and bam you have a happy Bulls team.

One more thing, if Jordan doesn't get double teamed you just guaranteed yourself a 40+ ppg in the Finals by Jordan....

That is a huge problem that the Lakers would have. You got two guys that would be getting Shaq into all kinds of foul trouble. You got Jordan slashing through the lanes, and then Rodman flopping. Facing that team would be Shaq's worst nightmare, because he would probably get ejected every game for acting a fool over the fouls he would be picking up.

[anakha]

The rest of the Laker role players were not that much worse collectively than the Bulls, in fact during the 15-1 playoff run they were playing at a ridiculously high level.

1995-1996 Bulls Playoff Stats (outside of Jordan & Pippen):
896 total points = 49.77 ppg
532 total rebounds = 29.56 rpg
227 total assists = 12.61 apg
Shot 332/741 = .448 FG%
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1996.html


2000-2001 Lakers Playoff Stats (outside of O'Neal and Bryant):
696 total points = 43.5 ppg
408 total rebounds = 25.5 rpg
217 total assists = 13.56 apg
Shot 253/607 = .417 FG%
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/2001.html

I'd actually argue that the Lakers were more reliant on O'Neal and Bryant than the Bulls were on Jordan and Pippen.

Those Bulls stats are skewed by the fact that Kukoc had a horrible playoffs run that season. And they still put up better stats than the Lakers' 'ridiculously high' bench did.

[Spuradicator]

No they don't cancel each other out. Shaq HAS to be double teamed, Jordan does not. Shaq is going to score 30, and he's going to get his 30 shooting a ridiculously high FG% (high 50's to low 60's) while putting several Bull's players into foul trouble. Jordan isn't going to shoot anywhere near that for the series and will have to take far more shots to get his 30.

So no, they don't cancel each other out. You people have no recollection of how much a prime Shaq could actually impact the game.

No, people just have a recollection of how good that Bulls team was, how good Jordan was.

The role players don't even compare. Bulls would win this easy in 5. I'll give the lakers 1 win against them.

[lefty]

umm the 1996 bulls in 5 games

Bulls in 4

[TheMadHatter]

You can easily argue that the series would be a Bulls win. And I would agree with that on virtue of Rodman's smothering defense alone.
But to predict a 4 or 5 game series... it could happen, but that isn't giving enough credit to the Lakers, as they were certainly better than the 96 Sonics, or the 96 New York Knicks.

To all the idiots predicting 4-5 game series, the Bulls got taken to 6 games by the Sonics and Knicks that year. If your saying the '96 Sonics and '96 Knicks were better than the '01 Lakers you don't know shit.

[The Franchise]

For me, the series still comes down to Shaq vs. MJ. Shaq was so dominant that he forced double teams nearly every single time he was in the post. This alone would have negated a lot of advantages the Bulls had on defense IMHO, as a team they historically struggled against teams with dominant centers (NYK, HOU, etc.).

I just don't buy into the idea that MJ would have been harder to stop than a prime Shaq. LAL had the defenders to at least attempt to slow Jordan down, the Bulls had nobody outside of Rodman who could even stand a chance at stopping a prime Shaq.

The 95 Orlando Magic team would beat the 01 Lakers, And your trying to compare them to one of the greatest teams ever?

[The Franchise]

To all the idiots predicting 4-5 game series, the Bulls got taken to 6 games by the Sonics and Knicks that year. If your saying the '96 Sonics and '96 Knicks were better than the '01 Lakers you don't know shit.

Are you slightly retarded?

[mistwiya]

To all the idiots predicting 4-5 game series, the Bulls got taken to 6 games by the Sonics and Knicks that year. If your saying the '96 Sonics and '96 Knicks were better than the '01 Lakers you don't know shit.

The Celtics got pushed to 7 games by the Hawks and beat the Lakers in 6, what point are you trying to convey here? I think you're the one that doesn't know shit....

[stretch]

The Celtics got pushed to 7 games by the Hawks and beat the Lakers in 6, what point are you trying to convey here? I think you're the one that doesn't know shit....

:tu

[TheMadHatter]

The 95 Orlando Magic team would beat the 01 Lakers, And your trying to compare them to one of the greatest teams ever?

Thanks for playing Rocket fan.

Not sure what the Celtics have to do with this conversation, we're talking about two all-time great teams. The '08 Celtics are not worthy of being in this discussion.

[stretch]

Not sure what the Celtics have to do with this conversation, we're talking about two all-time great teams. The '08 Celtics are not worthy of being in this discussion.

you are retarded

[TheMadHatter]

you are retarded

Nice avatar.

[jacobdrj]

Jordan's Bulls never lost a series in six trips to the finals.
That is the equivalent of saying:
It was in the last place I looked.
Unless I am an idiot, I would certainly hope so...

Jordan did loose many playoff series, and so have the Shaq lead Lakers.

[TheMadHatter]

BC5sW1Xnj3g

Looked at the boxscores from when both teams played in the 1996-1998 seasons and both teams seemed to have traded blows with one another delivering big time defeats. Lakers win by 45, Bulls by 20, etc.

So no, it doesn't appear the Bulls dominated the Shaq and Kobe Lakers at all.......and that was when they were at their weakest before Jackson came aboard.

[The Franchise]

BC5sW1Xnj3g

Looked at the boxscores from when both teams played in the 1996-1998 seasons and both teams seemed to have traded blows with one another delivering big time defeats. Lakers win by 45, Bulls by 20, etc.

So no, it doesn't appear the Bulls dominated the Shaq and Kobe Lakers at all.......and that was when they were at their weakest before Jackson came aboard.

The Atlanta Hawkls defeated the Bulls three ti\mes that season as well. Whats your point?

[stretch]

Nice avatar.

thanks

[mistwiya]

BC5sW1Xnj3g

Looked at the boxscores from when both teams played in the 1996-1998 seasons and both teams seemed to have traded blows with one another delivering big time defeats. Lakers win by 45, Bulls by 20, etc.



Sat, Dec 16, 1995 Chicago Bulls defeat Los Angeles Lakers 108-88

Fri, Feb 2, 1996 Chicago Bulls Defeat Los Angeles Lakers 99-84

Tue, Dec 17, 1996 Chicago Bulls Defeat Los Angeles Lakers OT 123-129

Wed, Feb 5, 1997 Los Angeles Lakers defeat Chicago Bulls 106-90

Wed, Dec 17, 1997 Chicago Bulls Defeat Los Angeles Lakers 104-83

Sun, Feb 1, 1998 Los Angeles Lakers Defeat Chicago Bulls 87-112

[baseline bum]

Defender.

If anybody but Bryant gets Jordan as the primary defensive assignment, no way is Jordan not scoring 30 a game in that series.

If Bryant gets Jordan, then Micheal prob drops 40 a game. Kobe is the most overrated defender I've ever seen. He always guards the weakest offensive player on the other team, i.e., Doug Christie, Bruce Bowen, Rajon Rondo, and so on. I don't know how this guy keeps getting first team defense honors; what a joke.

[TheMadHatter]

If Bryant gets Jordan, then Micheal prob drops 40 a game. Kobe is the most overrated defender I've ever seen. He always guards the weakest offensive player on the other team, i.e., Doug Christie, Bruce Bowen, Rajon Rondo, and so on. I don't know how this guy keeps getting first team defense honors; what a joke.

Why didn't he drop 40 ppg on Kobe during the 96-98 seasons then?

[Tacker]

Why didn't he drop 40 ppg on Kobe during the 96-98 seasons then?

Why didn't the Lakers Beat Boston in 08??
Why didn't Jordan's buzzer beater go in in the 1998 Game 5 Finals?
Why didn't Lakers beat the Houson Rockets in '86 WCF
How come I'm not in the NBA
How Kobe Bryant scored 81 Points against the Raptors but in their next meeting only scored 20?

The Pondering Repose of If..................

[TheMadHatter]

Why didn't the Lakers Beat Boston in 08??
Why didn't Jordan's buzzer beater go in in the 1998 Game 5 Finals?
Why didn't Lakers beat the Houson Rockets in '86 WCF
How come I'm not in the NBA
How Kobe Bryant scored 81 Points against the Raptors but in their next meeting only scored 20?

The Pondering Repose of If..................

My point is if the Bulls DIDN'T dominate a YOUNG Laker squad back in the 1997-1998 seasons then why would you expect them to dominate a MUCH better 2001 squad?

Note I've never said the Bulls wouldn't win. But I wouldn't expect the series to go 4-5 games either.

[Tacker]

My point is if the Bulls DIDN'T dominate a YOUNG Laker squad back in the 1997-1998 seasons then why would you expect them to dominate a MUCH better 2001 squad?

Note I've never said the Bulls wouldn't win. But I wouldn't expect the series to go 4-5 games either.

Take a look at post 62 that will explain..

[TheMadHatter]

From 1996 onwards the Bulls won 3-2. Not exactly domination in my book, and this was against a FAR inferior Laker team with a VERY young Kobe and Shaq not in his prime.

[mistwiya]

From 1996 onwards the Bulls won 3-2. Not exactly domination in my book, and this was against a FAR inferior Laker team with a VERY young Kobe and Shaq not in his prime.

4-2 that 1995 game was in the 1996 Season...

[angelbelow]

My point is if the Bulls DIDN'T dominate a YOUNG Laker squad back in the 1997-1998 seasons then why would you expect them to dominate a MUCH better 2001 squad?

Note I've never said the Bulls wouldn't win. But I wouldn't expect the series to go 4-5 games either.

the team in 97-98 was a much different team actually, pippen was injured, along with other less important role players. also they team is older, and its simply not the same team that won 72 games. and lets face it, it was regular season.

the argument you use about shaq needing double teams is completely valid, shaq was just that damn good. but that doesnt mean jordan didnt comand double teams either. it goes both ways, no one on that laker team could bother jordan, (not even kobe.) it really goes both ways. if you watch jordan play he relentlessly attacks the rim, the lakers outside have no chance. kobe was always skinner and not as polish defensively.

[spurms]

From 1996 onwards the Bulls won 3-2. Not exactly domination in my book, and this was against a FAR inferior Laker team with a VERY young Kobe and Shaq not in his prime.

really i thought u were comparing the 1996 bulls, and now ur talking 1996 onwards? stick to the argument, happens that the bulls in 1998 is old, and not nearly as competitive as they were in 1996, so they dropped a couple of meaningless games to the lakers, but where were they when in mattered most? Who won the finals that year? Lakers are not even in the discussion, which makes everything you try to prove meaningless. Not interested in hypothetical theories, just analyze the strength of both teams and their players, and it's clear the 96 bulls are vastly superior to the 01 lakers, and ur argument that the lakers went 15-1 in the 01 finals is silly, bulls dropped one game as well on route to the finals, and the talent level of teams in 96 is considerably stronger than 01, clearly. *Note that houston didnt do shit in that finals, with their dominating center, who made shaq cried once, so stop throwing in hakeem in the discussion, who is easily more dominating than shaq and he doesnt have to face watered down centers.

[TheMadHatter]

really i thought u were comparing the 1996 bulls, and now ur talking 1996 onwards? stick to the argument, happens that the bulls in 1998 is old, and not nearly as competitive as they were in 1996, so they dropped a couple of meaningless games to the lakers, but where were they when in mattered most? Who won the finals that year? Lakers are not even in the discussion, which makes everything you try to prove meaningless. Not interested in hypothetical theories, just analyze the strength of both teams and their players, and it's clear the 96 bulls are vastly superior to the 01 lakers, and ur argument that the lakers went 15-1 in the 01 finals is silly, bulls dropped one game as well on route to the finals, and the talent level of teams in 96 is considerably stronger than 01, clearly. *Note that houston didnt do shit in that finals, with their dominating center, who made shaq cried once, so stop throwing in hakeem in the discussion, who is easily more dominating than shaq and he doesnt have to face watered down centers.

I'm going off of the only relevant data that we have when comparing these two teams. In '95 Kobe was still in fucking highschool, how relevant are those games both teams played then? We can really go off of 1996 onwards, and even that is a stretch considering Kobe was 18 years old and Shaq wasn't near his prime. My point is the Lakers didn't get dominated by a much better Bulls team then, they just didn't get dominated like you say they would.

In '01 they were a FAR better team than they were in '96-98, so it's not unreasonable to think they would have given the '96 Bulls a run for their money if they played. I'm just responding to the idiots that think the Bulls would sweep.

A perimeter player like Jordan is easier to contain than prime Shaq. I'm dead serious, Shaq was just unguardable and had to be doubled at all times in the post. At least with Jordan you could bank on him having 1-2 off shooting nights during a series. There was no stopping Shaq when he got the ball deep in the post.

[TheMadHatter]

And the Bulls lost 3 playoff games during their '96 run and that was with the 1st round being best of 5, not best of 7.

[spurms]

I'm going off of the only relevant data that we have when comparing these two teams. In '95 Kobe was still in fucking highschool, how relevant are those games both teams played then? We can really go off of 1996 onwards, and even that is a stretch considering Kobe was 18 years old and Shaq wasn't near his prime. My point is the Lakers didn't get dominated by a much better Bulls team then, they just didn't get dominated like you say they would.

In '01 they were a FAR better team than they were in '96-98, so it's not unreasonable to think they would have given the '96 Bulls a run for their money if they played. I'm just responding to the idiots that think the Bulls would sweep.

A perimeter player like Jordan is easier to contain than prime Shaq. I'm dead serious, Shaq was just unguardable and had to be doubled at all times in the post. At least with Jordan you could bank on him having 1-2 off shooting nights during a series. There was no stopping Shaq when he got the ball deep in the post.

moronic, shaq and kobe got raped by malone and stockton, 4-0 in the 98 finals, what makes you think insignificant regular season lost to the lakers are a valid part of your argument, because if the bulls had faced the lakers in the playoffs, going by ur stupid hypothesis, the bulls would have handily swept the lakers as well. no stopping shaq? who the hell did shaq have to play against in the 01 playoffs? Thats right, nobody.

[mistwiya]

I'm going off of the only relevant data that we have when comparing these two teams. In '95 Kobe was still in fucking highschool, how relevant are those games both teams played then? We can really go off of 1996 onwards, and even that is a stretch considering Kobe was 18 years old and Shaq wasn't near his prime. My point is the Lakers didn't get dominated by a much better Bulls team then, they just didn't get dominated like you say they would.

In '01 they were a FAR better team than they were in '96-98, so it's not unreasonable to think they would have given the '96 Bulls a run for their money if they played. I'm just responding to the idiots that think the Bulls would sweep.

A perimeter player like Jordan is easier to contain than prime Shaq. I'm dead serious, Shaq was just unguardable and had to be doubled at all times in the post. At least with Jordan you could bank on him having 1-2 off shooting nights during a series. There was no stopping Shaq when he got the ball deep in the post.

Dude, this argument is on the 96 Bulls dont bring the old 97-98 Bulls in this k?

I never said Bulls will sweep, I honestly think The Bulls will win in 7 and maybe 6..

[spurms]

Dude, this argument is on the 96 Bulls dont bring the old 97-98 Bulls in this k?

I never said Bulls will sweep, I honestly think The Bulls will win in 7 and maybe 6..

u are not being honest if you think it would go anywhere past 6 games, the 98 utah jazz will handily put away the 01 lakers, lets not put the 96 bulls in discussion, a fairer assessment would be the 98 bulls will have an easier time with the 01 lakers, than the 98 jazz.

[TheMadHatter]

Dude, this argument is on the 96 Bulls dont bring the old 97-98 Bulls in this k?

I never said Bulls will sweep, I honestly think The Bulls will win in 7 and maybe 6..

Agreed, I have Bulls in 7 and winning due to obvious HCA.

[John_C]

Is there a question about this topic?

[NBA Junkie]

Only a Laker homer would believe this shit.