Current Lakers vs 90's Bulls

[stretch]

I don't remember Rodman shutting down Shaq... but that was a long time ago so maybe I don't remember things that clearly. Still, "shutting down" is a pretty strong term. Rodman did a decent to sometimes very good job on Shaq considering the size difference, but saying he shut him down seems like quite an exaggeration. Still, what made Rodman so great was his relentlessness. He was pesky, he was physical, but he didn't let up, not for one play. But what also helped him against Shaq were a couple of things. In the mid to late 90s, Shaq was huge but not the 350+ pound monster he would later become. So as much as there was a size difference, it wasn't nearly the size mismatch it would have been later on. Secondly, Shaq still relied mostly on his sheer size, strength, and athleticism. Shaq got better with his touch around the rim later with the Lakers, but not as much when he was still in Orlando. That was to Rodman's advantage. Still, I don't recall Rodman shutting Shaq down. Slowing him down better than most? Sure. Maybe making a few really key stops. Ok. But shutting him down? I guess I'd have to see those games again to believe it.

Against Pau Gasol, Rodman in his prime would do a great job. But the difference here is that Gasol has size and skill. We can talk about the rules changes as well and that would benefit Gasol, just like we saw Grant Hill get in foul trouble with limited bodying up on Kobe last night. Rodman was the type of defender that put his entire body on you, chest to chest. He would get a lot more foul calls in today's league, if we're playing by the rules now. And, then there's the fact that Gasol has perimeter skills, dribbling, shooting midrange, left and right hook shots in addition to a huge length advantage. Rodman was 6'7, maybe 6'8, but that's pushing it and probably in his bulkier days about 220 lbs. He played mostly around 210 in Detroit and probably in San Antonio as well.

Even if it was proven or conceded that Rodman shut down Shaq, that doesn't necessarily mean he would shut down Gasol. Gasol's skill set would cause problems for a defender who was super aggressive, physical, and tried to use strength and leverage against a player. That works better against a player like Shaq, not as well against a player like Pau, even though Pau plays like a pussy a lot of the time.

I agree with the sentiment that the 90s NBA were relatively weaker than they were in the 80s and even in many of the years in the 2000s. But, those Bulls teams were still unbelievable. Despite having a wide gap in talent from the top two players versus the rest of the team, what made them so good was those less talented players were so good at knowing their roles and playing those roles well. Shooters shot well. Defenders defended well. The role players didn't try to do more than their own individual limitations allowed them to do. That's how a team with a player like Jordan became so great.

I think a 7 game series between those 90s Jordan teams and the current version of the Lakers would be a lot closer than some think, because of the disparity in talent of the front courts. Those Bulls teams did not have great front courts and they didn't face really good front courts in the playoffs. Faced some great individual front court players like Ewing and Shaq and Karl Malone and Barkley, but not really great front courts. The Lakers would pose some problems with size and skill up front. But Jordan would still give Kobe a new asshole, and those Bulls would ultimately prevail. Closer than some would say, probably a pretty well contested 6 game series.

well put jammy. especially on the point about Rodman on Shaq, as I don't quite recall him ever shutting Shaq down either, although I think he definitely could give Shaq some fits.

Those guys really played some great team ball, and everyone's strengths were utilized to their best, even down to Luc Longley who wasn't the best of centers, but his ability to shoot a midrange shot really came in handy for opening up the lane for Jordan and Pippen to penetrate and create.

[Nahtanoj]

The best Bulls team out of those 6 was 1991. Phil Jackson himself said this.

He also said the 2001 Lakers would give the 1991 Bulls a run for their money.

As for the 2009-present Laker team? Not in the class of 2001 or 1991 yet, but pretty close, and if played under current rules - I'd say they have a good chance.

The evolution of player size, strength, length, athleticism, three point shooting and defensive rule changes are big factors when comparing eras.

[21_Blessings]

Now I'm not one of those guys who thinks that they would just gutstomp anyone that faces them. I think the 01 Lakers would give them a tough 6, maybe 7 game series, playing them very tight. I hate it though when people say that MJ would score 40 and Kobe wouldn't do jack, because that's crap. Kobe would still do his fair share of damage.

Good point.

19 year old Kobe dropped 33 on MJ. Then added insult to injury by dropping 56 in like 2 quarters on MJ's ass when thought he could just come back again and dominate

The reason why the Bulls would win that series, and is the greatest team ever, is not due to their talent, but mainly because of their intangibles (their ability to execute so well in virtually every facet of basketball) and mental strength (thanks in large part to Jordan's will/desire to win). Teams would most definitely challenge them, but I think in the end, they would be able to pull out a win in pretty much any series matchup.

This is just rose-colored goggles talk. 86/87 Celtics/Lakers would completely destroy those Bull teams. Jordan never really faced a dynasty caliber team during the weak expansion era he played in. Even the early 80s Sixers would give that those Bulls a run for their money.

[stretch]

The best Bulls team out of those 6 was 1991. Phil Jackson himself said this.

He also said the 2001 Lakers would give the 1991 Bulls a run for their money.

As for the 2009-present Laker team? Not in the class of 2001 or 1991 yet, but pretty close, and if played under current rules - I'd say they have a good chance.

The evolution of player size, strength, length, athleticism, three point shooting and defensive rule changes are big factors when comparing eras.

talentwise, sure 1991 was arguably more talented than any of the other teams. but talent isnt everything. they also say that the Bulls in Jordan's rookie year was the most talented team Jordan ever played with, but they didn't do all that well. the teamwork, the fire, and perfect blend of different but complimentary talents of the 96 squads is what made them so great and superior to the 91 team.

This is just rose-colored goggles talk. 86/87 Celtics/Lakers would completely destroy those Bull teams. Jordan never really faced a dynasty caliber team during the weak expansion era he played in. Even the early 80s Sixers would give that those Bulls a run for their money.

lol butthurt

[Bob Lanier]

Rodman played Shaq well in large part because of the height difference, which allowed him to undercut Shaq's center of gravity and prevent him from levering his way deeper in. It's the same thing that's occasionally let players like Ben Wallace, Corliss Williamson and Malik Rose have success against him, although Rodman was a better defender than any of them. His enormous bag of psychological tricks also played a role against a younger Shaq, and Shaq's always been a person with low self-confidence. Still, while he could disrupt Shaq better than just about anyone he never consistently "shut him down."

Gasol would be equally difficult to "shut down" purely technically, with his extremely varied skill-set, but he's always been a player who's, hm, mentally fragile? The Worm would get inside his head and stay there, and those jumpers it looks like he can get off at any time would start turning into bricks.

[JamStone]

Just curious, Bob. Do you remember Rodman "shutting down" Shaq?

To me, doing well against Shaq is not the same thing as shutting him down.

He may have, but I simply don't remember him doing so.

[stretch]

Gasol would be equally difficult to "shut down" purely technically, with his extremely varied skill-set, but he's always been a player who's, hm, mentally fragile? The Worm would get inside his head and stay there, and those jumpers it looks like he can get off at any time would start turning into bricks.

exactly. Gasol is an extremely skilled player, much more skilled than some people realize. but eventually he would get worn down mentally by Rodman.

Crybaby Bynum would get completely owned though. he would be crying to the refs like a got every 2 seconds instead of every 3 seconds like he already does. Rodman would abuse him.

[21_Blessings]

Rodman wouldn't even be guarding Bynum re .

[Bob Lanier]

Also, stretch is entirely right about the weak defense played in the 80s. As the Spurs have shown this decade, great defense and tough physicality are not the same thing, though they can be complementary. The 80s through 92 were a time of mediocre defense, and even the best teams failed to be as good as those to come in the 90s and 00s. The best defensive squads of the 80s were the 82 Nets and (ironically enough) the 81 Suns; the '86 Celtics played decent defense, but were barely as good as this year's Charlotte Bobcats, much less the better teams of this decade.

However, the '90s Bulls, while they made up for their small size with excellent help defense to some degree, were not great either. Their best defensive team was that of 1996, and that was far from the best defensive team of the 1990s, being worse than a number of Knicks teams, several Spurs teams (including the excellent '99 Spurs, which were probably the third-best defensive team of all time), and the '98 Cavaliers. Yes, they were better defensively (and much more likable) than the '86 Celtics, but not by very much at all.

The best defensive teams since the early '70s, for comparison, were the post-Rasheed Wallace trade Pistons in 2004 and the Spurs of the same year, but every single one of the best defensive teams of the 2000s from the 99-00 Lakers to the 07-08 Celtics was better than the '90s Bulls by a wide margin. And, given that even recent bandwagon Lakers fans should remember the '00 Lakers, which were quite good defensively, it's peculiar how little they understand.

I'd take the '86 Celtics over any Bulls team of the '90s in 5 or 6, personally. While the Bulls are better offensively, any one of their front lines is too weak to handle Bird, McHale, Parish, and Walton simultaneously.

[Bob Lanier]

Just curious, Bob. Do you remember Rodman "shutting down" Shaq?

To me, doing well against Shaq is not the same thing as shutting him down.

He may have, but I simply don't remember him doing so.

I seem to remember a couple of games, one in O'Neal's rookie year against the Pistons, maybe one or two with the Bulls, where he helped hold Shaq to a very low shooting percentage, and numerous others where he frustrated O'Neal on key possessions, but as I said I don't think he's ever consistently "shut down" Shaq.

Ah, this helps, though it doesn't include playoff games.

[Bob Lanier]

I guess it's helpful that the two only played 4 playoff games.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...605190CHI.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...605210CHI.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...605250ORL.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...605270ORL.html

The third is the one I believe I remember, and the only one where Shaq didn't play extremely well.

[JamStone]

Too bad we can't actually get per possession results instead of just game stats. Seems to me that Rodman wouldn't have been the main defender on Shaq in most of those games. Rodman would most likely used for short stretches or a possession or two to give Shaq a different look and those stats don't really give a true picture of how well Rodman defended Shaq in those games. And yeah, it would be more telling if we could see those per possession match-ups in playoff games.

But, thanks for the link.

[stretch]

i like slugging down 21 s at the same time.