Reply With Quote
I AM COMPARING the 01 lakers.
Shaq would drop 40/20. THE WHOLE SERIES.
The league expanded a lot in the late 80s/mid 90s. Wolves, Magic, Heat, and Hornets all added in a two year span 88-89 and then the Canadian teams were added in 95.
That is a lot of watering down to assimilate in a short span of time. Could be some correlation between the spreading of talent and suddenly a lack of parity as teams always repeated as champs from the Lakers in 87-88 through the Bulls in 96-98... not sure how strong but just saying it could be significant...
There is exactly one more team in the NBA now than there was during the 2nd threepeat Bulls. A lot easier to assimilate 12 more guys into the league (a 3 percent increase) than 24 (7 percent increase), not to mention the 48 more 6-7 years earlier (a whopping 17 percent increase).
And this last decade has seen the explosion of talent from outside the US, with lots of great players and even some superstars coming from South America, Europe, and Asia. I'd say that deepening of the worldwide talent pool is more than enough to offset the addition of 12 roster spots leagewide.
I AM COMPARING the 01 lakers.
Shaq would drop 40/20. THE WHOLE SERIES.
bulls .....
Like I said very compe ive. Shaq can't be stopped but they could definitely be physical with him and contain him. We're not talking about the Dallas Mavericks. The 90's Bulls were the greatest defensive teams of all time.
The 95 Lakers beat the 95 Sonics
This Lakers team would smash the out of that overrated as Sonics team. Bulls moped up a bunch les in an extremely weak expansion era.
Which means the league is more watered down now. Do you guys not comprehend basic ing English?
That's great. We're talking about the 96 Sonics. Seriously, do you dip Laker fans now know how to ing read?
I don't think you understand what it means.
Just because there is ONE SINGLE team that exist today that didn't in '96 does not mean it wasn't watered down.
I'm talking about talent.
Are you ing re ed? Oh, you're a Dallas fan!
The 95 Sonics had basically the same core as 96. You literally have to be the dumbest person on the planet if you think those Sonics are beating a Lakers core that just went to 3 straight finals.
I guess ratios are considered advanced concepts in those fine DFW public school systems.
Retarted Dallas Fans actually thinking im going to thier fat infested hick city to play when i can play for a hot ass city like miami.
Great Laker defense?
It would all come down to coaching matchups.
Bulls Jackson:
Lakers' Jackson:
Advantage Bulls.
Last edited by Booharv; 05-18-2010 at 05:34 AM.
MJ's refs were better than Kobe's refs. Bulls in 6.
I'm just gonna say this:
today lakers would take them in 6-7:
zone d -rules matter alot, do you see rodman thriving in that system?thoght so
comparable whistles -self explanatory
kobe manning up and not playing like a primadonna - i don't think mj would dominate him that bad +5-7ppg at most difference, plus consider that artest will foul his way into slowing mj down atleast a game.
gasol taking a very VERY very serious all over rodman, odom is superior to kukoc - just watch tape if you consider otherwise, bynum would just need to stay in the middle and it'll be ok = frontline will just murder the bulls.
odom can't guard pippen, pippen can't guard odom (look at last night's game ffs vs mother ing amare, it's clear pippen's to small and thin for lamar)
at pg chicago had mainly a shooters so fish would not get as raped as people think.
Once you start to look at how the teams play it's quite obvious that la has a slight advantage, so i say in 6-7 tough games la takes it cause of frontline.
Furthermore, let's analyze the bulls and worthy alltime opponents/matchups:
boston 86 would murder the bulls
lakers 87 would absolutely all over them, they match up really nice with bulls
with the fofofo sixers series is really close.
the bad boys beat them more than once
2001 la goes 7 but bulls lose. Who on the bulls stop shaq? Cause mj would not have a huge fg against young kobe
i'd even put this one the line: the 2004 pitons would give them (people forget 2004 pitsons bench)
People need to stop considering the bulls as the best team ever because they never faced contenders with huge frontlines. Every time they played contenders with excellent both ways front lines they had a very tough time.
When you look at 1991 lakers, portland, and suns you see on glaring similarity and that is no both ways dominant frontline.
When you look at seattle and jazz you see the same thing.
People don't look against what teams you win, they look at an era with quality c's on other teams and say "they were the best ever. jordan , etc etc", but when you consider how teams are composed and how they play, and what contenders are there you really observe that in the period you didn't have the 80s contenders with classical monster frontlines it all makes much more sense on : how did the bulls defend so well, how did they 2xthreepeat, and most of all against what teams. And those team simply were not that great especially their frontlines.
Furthermore you observe that the bulls needed the "jordan rules" to beat the remains of the great 80s teams at the beginning of the 90s decade.
So please stop the jordan=bulls thing, as we can see the bulls are a great defensive team against great teams without dominant bothways frontlines. When playing great teams with dominant bothways frontlines they are not the greatest => they are not the greatest ever.
Are you people re ed? It takes a little over a decade and people forget what Jordan was actually like when he played.
Furthermore, if this is a jordan thread, imagine that lebron gets a ft everytime he finished with contact=every time. How many will he shoot?
It's clear that he is the most hit finishers in the history of the league along wilt and shaq, as in almost every time you finish you do it with contact. So.. how many ft should he get.
Bottom line: jordan maybe is goat (magic says hi) but he is goat by a sensibly thin lead if you consider league rules/jordan rules/other contenders/how the game was played/zone d.
Imagine playing a small frontline team (the bulls) against mj and you are the big lakers (with 2 good not great defenders in kobe and artest). You clearly pack the paint and mark him tight .. you see jordan penetrating at will for 7 games against a huge frontline? no way. So no more huge fg => no more huge ppg.
The game has changed alot in 15 years..
the same way people forget against what teams he played and the matchups (see above post) and how the rules have changed(see other post above).
Todays Lakers - Bulls in 5
01 Lakers - Bulls in 7, but very close..
Ya, I love Pau's game, he's amazing and has been the Lakers best player in the playoffs, but Rodman would mentally feast on him..it wouldn't even be fair, it's such an ideal matchup for Worm..
I met Rodman at a club in TO last year, and he really is exactly as portrayed..he was drunk as , probably high too, and completely spaced out in his own world, sitting there alone..
probably waiting for his next cameo on 'Blind Date'
Yes it does.
You have a glass of orange juice. You add water to it. It's now watered down.
Take that same glass of watered down orange juice. Now add ONE SINGLE DROP of water to it. It's now officially MORE WATERED DOWN than it was before.
just ONE SINGLE TEAM now that wasn't there in 96 automatically means the league is MORE WATERED DOWN.
if you were talking talent, you should have said the league is more talented today. but you said the league now is less "watered down" which is 100% false. i have ing scientifically proven it to you.
Learn what the you're talking about and then get back to me, kid.
I guess ratios are considered advanced concepts in those fine DFW public school systems.
Dallas Fan "29:1 and 30:1 are not the same thing"
Laker Fan "yes they are"
so advanced!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
