# '87 Lakers vs the '96 Bulls



## Duece Duece (Mar 28, 2003)

*C- Jabbar vs Longley
PF- Green vs Rodman
SF- Worthy vs Pippen
SG- Scott vs Jordan
PG- Johnson vs Kerr*




Who wins in a 7 game series.


----------



## HeinzGuderian (Jun 29, 2004)

Lakers in 6


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

Bulls in 6


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

Lakers in 7.


----------



## roastedtoaster (Mar 16, 2004)

lakers in 6


----------



## double3peat (Aug 18, 2003)

C- Jabbar vs Longley- Major edge LA
PF- Green vs Rodman- Dont remember Green in 87 so ill give Bulls a slight edge here.
SF- Worthy vs Pippen- Edge LA
SG- Scott vs Jordan- Major Edge Bulls
PG- Johnson vs Kerr-Major Edge LA

LA in 6.
I think the xfactors in this series for LA would be Jabbar and Magic. I think saying that Jabbar would spank Longley is an udnerstatement. They just no one to cover him at center. As for Magic, he can man up against any Bull on that roster including Jordan. His versatility at playing any and all positions would wreak havoc on the Bulls.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Who has homecourt? Either way, Bulls in 7


----------



## mysterio (May 20, 2003)

Having Kareem on the team is misleading as he was getting up there in years. I think the Bulls would win in 6. Pippen, MJ, and Rodman give the Bulls a defensive edge, while they got a more potent batch of scorers in Pippen, MJ and Kucoc (who OP surprisingly forgot to mention), not to mention Kerrs deadly 3 point threat.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

In 87 Kareem was still very effective. Ok, he was better during hte early Laker days and his years with the Bucks, but he could still dominate at times and play excellent defense. Whatever the case, he would still take Luc Longley to school. Anyway, they are very closely matched. Jordan would have ripped Byron Scott up, but Michael Cooper coming off the bench is a good defender. Of course he won't stop Jordan though. The Lakers have too many weapons on offense. All their starters are good scorers and can all do a decent job on defense at least. Pippen is better than Worthy. And the Bulls have no answer for Magic. But the Lakers have no answer for Jordan. Its a tough call.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>double3peat</b>!
> 
> PF- Green vs Rodman- Dont remember Green in 87 so ill give Bulls a slight edge here.


That's very generous of you, to give the "slight" edge to one of the greatest rebounders and defenders of all-time.

Big edge to the Bulls.



> SF- Worthy vs Pippen- Edge LA


Pippen is a top-fifty player and quite likely a top-25 player of all-time. James Worthy isn't even close to that.

This is a significant edge to the Bulls.

I think the team match-up is even and it could go either way as to who edges the other. If you played 10 7-game series between the two teams, I think each team wins 5.

The Lakers were perhaps the greatest offensive team ever, and the Bulls were perhaps the gretaest defensive team ever.

Abdul-Jabbar gives the Lakers a great weapon, but hardly a weapon so destructive that the Bulls simply couldn't deal with it. This Bulls team played a more dominant center in Shaquille O'Neal, in 1996, than Abdul-Jabbar was in 1987. Abdul-Jabbar was into his decline stage by 1987. The Bulls knew how to handle very good centers.

Pippen was a great defender of Magic Johnson, Pippen slowed the Lakers' machine down by pressuring Johnson. Rodman would likely have covered James Worthy, with Pippen on Magic. Jordan would have kept Scott under wraps while doing whatever he wanted on offense.

The Bulls had the defenders to guard the Lakers. The Lakers had Michael Cooper, an excellent defender, but one guy would have no chance of containing Jordan and Pippen.

Still, the '87 Lakers ran the break so well, no defense is going to to completely shut it down. That's why I think it's even. The Showtime Lakers and the '90s Bulls were two of the greatest cores ever.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Tough call, but I give the Lakers the series because they had great chemistry and were actually a very good defensive team in the 87 postseason. Assuming you give homecourt to the Bulls, I'd say Lakers in 6.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>double3peat</b>!
> SF- Worthy vs Pippen- Edge LA


I disagree. I would give the edge to Pippen. Pippen is a much better all-around player. Here are there stats from those respective years:

PPG- Worthy 19.4 Pippen 19.4
RPG- Worthy 5.7 Pippen 6.4
APG- Worthy 2.8 Pippen 5.9

Pippen is also one of the best defensive players of all time. The same can't be said about Worthy.

Edge- Pippen


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> Tough call, but I give the Lakers the series because they had great chemistry and were actually a very good defensive team in the 87 postseason. Assuming you give homecourt to the Bulls, I'd say Lakers in 6.


Tough call, yet the Lakers win with ease despite giving up home court?


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

http://www.whatifsports.com/nba/boxscore.asp?gameid=3172873&ad=1
http://www.whatifsports.com/nba/boxscore.asp?gameid=3172874&ad=1
http://www.whatifsports.com/nba/boxscore.asp?gameid=3172875&ad=1
http://www.whatifsports.com/nba/boxscore.asp?gameid=3172876&ad=1
http://www.whatifsports.com/nba/boxscore.asp?gameid=3172877&ad=1

Bulls have homecourt but Lakers win the series 4-1.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> That's very generous of you, to give the "slight" edge to one of the greatest rebounders and defenders of all-time.
> ...


How is Worthy not close to Pippen? 



> Abdul-Jabbar gives the Lakers a great weapon, but hardly a weapon so destructive that the Bulls simply couldn't deal with it. This Bulls team played a more dominant center in Shaquille O'Neal, in 1996, than Abdul-Jabbar was in 1987. Abdul-Jabbar was into his decline stage by 1987. The Bulls knew how to handle very good centers.


True, but the 96 Magic weren't nearly the *team* the 87 Lakers were, and still couldn't play defense when it mattered.



> Pippen was a great defender of Magic Johnson, Pippen slowed the Lakers' machine down by pressuring Johnson.


In 91. Magic was much faster and just generally quicker in 87.



> Rodman would likely have covered James Worthy, with Pippen on Magic. Jordan would have kept Scott under wraps while doing whatever he wanted on offense.


An 87 Worthy is quicker than a 96 Rodman, especially on the break. 96 Rodman was a much better on the ball defender than he was a transition defender. I see Rodman struggling with Worthy, though he'd gobble up the boards per usual.



> The Bulls had the defenders to guard the Lakers. The Lakers had Michael Cooper, an excellent defender, but one guy would have no chance of containing Jordan and Pippen.


Cooper would definitely have a very good chance of containing Pippen. Jordan, no.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Tough call, yet the Lakers win with ease despite giving up home court?


With ease? Definitely not. Reason I say Lakers in 6 is because I don't see them winning a Game 7 on the road.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

Whoops n/m.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Lakers. Those Bulls faced inferior competition.


----------



## Jordan4life_2004 (Jul 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> That's very generous of you, to give the "slight" edge to one of the greatest rebounders and defenders of all-time.
> ...



Excellent post. The only thing I question is the Pip/Worthy Match-up. I think Pip is better. But it's closer than what you said.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> Lakers. Those Bulls faced inferior competition.


I disagree. I argued about this with my friend the other day. The game changes every decade. Players in the 90's are far more athletic and the defenses are far better than they were in the 80's. This in my opinion is why teams didn't score as much. The talent was still there, players just were more athletic resulting in better defense.


----------



## Jordan4life_2004 (Jul 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> Lakers. Those Bulls faced inferior competition.



Here are the records of the 3 teams the Lakers faced in the west playoffs. 35-47, 42-40, 39-43. Even that Boston team wasn't as good as previous Boston teams. If not for that miracle steal by Bird, They don't even get past Detroit.

The Bulls faced a tough Knicks team in round 2 and a loaded Magic team that won 60 games in the cf's. The Sonics were by no means a legendary team. But they did win 64 games led by a prime Kemp/Payton.

But even with that. Competition doesn't matter. The question is who would win head2head. You could argue the Pistons of 04 faced inferior teams compared to the 04 Lakers. And we know what happened in the finals.


----------



## Duece Duece (Mar 28, 2003)

Worthy would *WHORE* the '96 Rodman. He schooled a young and quicker Rodman back in '88 to win Finals MVP. He Killed him in the '89 Finals , but as we know the Lakers lost that year.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> How is Worthy not close to Pippen?


They were similar scorers, Pippen was a slightly better rebounder, a far superior passer and in a different realm defensively.

How does Worthy make up all that ground?



> True, but the 96 Magic weren't nearly the *team* the 87 Lakers were, and still couldn't play defense when it mattered.


Perhaps not, all I'm saying is that if Shaquille O'Neal didn't "rampage through" the Bulls, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar surely wasn't going to. Even if you delegate Pippen to Magic, Rodman to Worthy and Harper to Scott, which is how I'd lay out defensive responsibilities, that leaves Jordan as a rover to double down on Abdul-Jabbar to help Longley, just as the Bulls did with O'Neal.



> In 91. Magic was much faster and just generally quicker in 87.


I would dispute the "much"-ness, but he was quicker and faster than in '91, sure. I think Pippen was a better and more savvy defender in '96, however. And even in '96, long before injuries and age took their toll, Pippen was still quicker and faster than Magic.



> An 87 Worthy is quicker than a 96 Rodman, especially on the break. 96 Rodman was a much better on the ball defender than he was a transition defender. I see Rodman struggling with Worthy, though he'd gobble up the boards per usual.


Rodman was very quick down the court. Worthy may have been faster, but its not like he would have killed Rodman in transition. Rodman played with incredible energy and was usually one of the first ones down the court. I think you overestimate how much of an advantage Worthy would have in transition. And in the half-court, which much of the game would still have taken place in, Rodman would have had no problem guarding Worthy. He was of similar build and quickness.



> Cooper would definitely have a very good chance of containing Pippen. Jordan, no.


Cooper would have given Pippen some trouble, I agree. But that means Jordan would have faced no defense.



> With ease? Definitely not. Reason I say Lakers in 6 is because I don't see them winning a Game 7 on the road.


Six games is pretty easy for such a close competition.

And if you don't see them being able to win Game 7 on the road, doesn't that speak more to the Bulls being likely to win the series, in 7, than to the Lakers simply winning it more quickly to avoid a Game 7?

I don't understand the logic of "Team X can't win it in 7, so I think they'd win it in 6."


----------



## HeinzGuderian (Jun 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>CiMa</b>!
> 
> 
> I disagree. I argued about this with my friend the other day. The game changes every decade. Players in the 90's are far more athletic and the defenses are far better than they were in the 80's. This in my opinion is why teams didn't score as much. The talent was still there, players just were more athletic resulting in better defense.


I dont think the level of athleticism chances so significantly from one decade to the next, to the point where it completely changes the game.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

Does anyone know what's the benifit running the triangle offense FULL TIME until the game get close in last 5 minutes of the game?

Let me know first, kids!


----------



## Cool Brees (Aug 22, 2004)

Two things:

Ron Harper was the starter at PG for the 1996 Bulls

The 1992 Bulls were better than the 1996 Bulls


----------



## M0J0 (Apr 2, 2003)

> *Pippen was a great defender of Magic Johnson, Pippen slowed the Lakers' machine down by pressuring Johnson. Rodman would likely have covered James Worthy*, with Pippen on Magic. Jordan would have kept Scott under wraps while doing whatever he wanted on offense.



If the series was to be played by today's rules (handcheck fouls), Pippen's defense would be less effective. 

Also, Worthy absolutely dismantled Rodman in '88.


----------



## radronOmega (Aug 1, 2004)

*re*

I disagree. I argued about this with my friend the other day. The game changes every decade. Players in the 90's are far more athletic and the defenses are far better than they were in the 80's. This in my opinion is why teams didn't score as much. The talent was still there, players just were more athletic resulting in better defense.


-------

With that idiotic statement I could say

Kidd 
Kobe(don't give me no damn bull about T-mac in here)
KG
TD
Shaq

would anihilate

Stockton
Jordan
pippen
Malone
Hakeem


----------



## Debt Collector (Mar 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Cool Brees</b>!
> Two things:
> 
> Ron Harper was the starter at PG for the 1996 Bulls
> ...


agree with that for sure. 96 was a really watered down year, thats why you had 3 60 win teams and 1 59 win team. it was an expansion year and there were alot of crap teams for the bulls to destory while some of the great previous teams (houston, portland, indiana) were winding down and the future great teams (lakers, jazz, heat) hadnt got started yet, thats why it makes me mad when people say that the 96 bulls were without a doubt the best team in history, when they werent even the best version of their team


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: re*



> Originally posted by <b>radronOmega</b>!
> 
> With that idiotic statement I could say
> 
> ...


Oops, you missed McGrady. You'll need to fix your mistake.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

*Re: re*



> Originally posted by <b>radronOmega</b>!
> I disagree. I argued about this with my friend the other day. The game changes every decade. Players in the 90's are far more athletic and the defenses are far better than they were in the 80's. This in my opinion is why teams didn't score as much. The talent was still there, players just were more athletic resulting in better defense.
> 
> 
> ...


Annihilate? Doubt it. Pippen and Malone wouldn't stand a chance against KG and TD. The other matchups would be very interesting to watch though.


----------



## Jordan4life_2004 (Jul 24, 2004)

*Re: re*



> Originally posted by <b>radronOmega</b>!
> I disagree. I argued about this with my friend the other day. The game changes every decade. Players in the 90's are far more athletic and the defenses are far better than they were in the 80's. This in my opinion is why teams didn't score as much. The talent was still there, players just were more athletic resulting in better defense.
> 
> 
> ...



Well, You are 14. So I guess a stupid post like this shouldn't be a shock.


My bad man. I misread your post. I know what you meant now. Sorry


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

*Re: Re: re*



> Originally posted by <b>CiMa</b>!
> Pippen and Malone wouldn't stand a chance against KG and TD.


:laugh:


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Sorry to say but the 87 Lakers would win. Everyone of their players were in their primes during that time except for Kareem.

Mychal Thompson, Michael Cooper, Kurt Rambis off the bench, along with a prime Magic, running Showtime. Say good night pal.

The Jordan Bulls were great, but man people overrate them sometimes in the annals of basketball lore. 

I don't even need to go through individual matchups. Just pop in a tape and watch those tapes from the 80's. I have quite a few myself. Those Laker teams were straight fiyah. They would have served the Bulls. 

Lakers in 5.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Six games is pretty easy for such a close competition.
> 
> And if you don't see them being able to win Game 7 on the road, doesn't that speak more to the Bulls being likely to win the series, in 7, than to the Lakers simply winning it more quickly to avoid a Game 7?
> ...


And I don't understand the logic of "These teams are evenly matched, so the series is certain to go 7 games." Assuming two teams have an equal chance of winning each game of the series, a calculation I've done before is that the series only reaches Game 7 five-sixteenths of the time. Now, homecourt advantage changes things a little bit, but it's still very common for a series between two evenly matched teams to end in six or fewer games. It could even be a sweep, if one of the teams manages to pull out a victory on the last possession of four very close games.

History seems to show that homecourt advantage is much more important in a Game 7 than in the other games of a series, so I don't see why you have a problem with EHL's post.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> The Jordan Bulls were great, but man people overrate them sometimes in the annals of basketball lore.


Careful. Now Jordan4life is likely to tell you that you have no credibility. :laugh:


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jordan4life_2004</b>!
> 
> Here are the records of the 3 teams the Lakers faced in the west playoffs. 35-47,


Since when have first round teams been good teams or teams with great regular season records? Basically never, until just recently that is. Do you even know who the Bulls faced in the first round of the 96 playoffs? For Christ sake.  



> 42-40,


That 42-40 team was the 87 Golden State Warriors, a very solid team that beat a Malone-Stockton Jazz squad in the first round. 



> 39-43.


That 39-43 team was the Sonics, who made a very inspired playoff run defensively, a team that for whatever reason was finally allowed to run that postseason, sparking a previously dull and slow offense. Since you were 4 years old in 1987, I’ll assume you never really even watched the 87 postseason. The Sonics were a completely different and rejuvenated team. To this day I’m still confused why they had such a great playoff run that year. That Sonics team also beat a Dream-Perkins Rockets squad in 87, if I remember correctly. 

So in the end, the 1987 West competition was hardly much worse than what the 96 Bulls faced in their first three rounds of competition. And certainly, 1987 Celtics >>> 1996 Sonics. 



> Even that Boston team wasn't as good as previous Boston teams.


That Boston team was better than any team the Bulls faced in the 1990’s. But yes, it wasn’t as good as previous Boston teams, partly due to injuries. 



> If not for that miracle steal by Bird, They don't even get past Detroit.


And that Detroit team was arguably better than any team the Bulls faced during the 1990’s. Remember, Bad Boys Lite beat a prime Bulls squad with Jordan, Pippen, and Phil Jackson in 1990. 



> The Bulls faced a tough Knicks team in round 2


About as tough as the 2004 Rockets. 



> and a loaded Magic team that won 60 games in the cf's. The Sonics were by no means a legendary team. But they did win 64 games led by a prime Kemp/Payton.


Again, why bring up regular season victories? Talk about how they actually performed in the postseason in 96, not the freaking regular season. Anyway, about the only thing that was legendary about the Magic and Sonics in the 1990’s was how they were perennial underachievers. Remember when the Sonics were beat in the first round of the 1994 playoffs by Denver after having a spectacular 63-19 regular season? Remember the other first round escapes the Sonics barely survived? *Underachievers*, despite great regular season records. 



> But even with that. Competition doesn't matter. The question is who would win head2head. You could argue the Pistons of 04 faced inferior teams compared to the 04 Lakers. And we know what happened in the finals.


And if that's the case, the 87 Celtics was better than any team the Bulls faced in the 90's, as were the 87 Pistons (though that's a bit more arguable, it’s mostly true).



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> They were similar scorers, Pippen was a slightly better rebounder, a far superior passer and in a different realm defensively.
> ...


Worthy was a similar scorer? Minstrel, that’s absurd. Worthy was a tremendous scorer that never got the touches Pippen did in his career while managing higher PPG and FG percentages, especially in the postseason. And he was called Big Game James for a reason, something Pippen most certainly was not.

Pippen was a better rebounder, not a terribly large difference. And yes, Pippen was a better passer, no argument there. Still, Worthy was a very good passer for his position and was still able to record respectable assist totals with very very few chances to create for other teammates, and certainly a lot less than Pippen, who was featured as a passer/shooter to create horizontal spacing in the triangle offense. 

Clearly, Pippen’s biggest advantage was his defense, where he was far superior to Worthy. But everything else is quite close, especially when you take into account how many times Worthy came up big in the postseason. Worthy was also a Finals MVP, something Pippen never was. 



> Perhaps not, all I'm saying is that if Shaquille O'Neal didn't "rampage through" the Bulls, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar surely wasn't going to. Even if you delegate Pippen to Magic, Rodman to Worthy and Harper to Scott, which is how I'd lay out defensive responsibilities, that leaves Jordan as a rover to double down on Abdul-Jabbar to help Longley, just as the Bulls did with O'Neal.


True.



> I would dispute the "much"-ness, but he was quicker and faster than in '91, sure. I think Pippen was a better and more savvy defender in '96, however. And even in '96, long before injuries and age took their toll, Pippen was still quicker and faster than Magic.


96 Pippen was quicker than 87 Magic, but not faster. 



> Rodman was very quick down the court. Worthy may have been faster, but its not like he would have killed Rodman in transition. Rodman played with incredible energy and was usually one of the first ones down the court. I think you overestimate how much of an advantage Worthy would have in transition.


Um, do you remember the 1988 Finals? An 88 Rodman was dismantled by an 88 Worthy. What makes you think a slower Rodman in 1996 (granted, a more savvy Rodman) would slow down an 87 Worthy? 



> And in the half-court, which much of the game would still have taken place in, Rodman would have had no problem guarding Worthy. He was of similar build and quickness.


True. As always, it’s hard to predict how much the 87 Lakers would kill the 96 Bulls in the open court versus how much the 96 Bulls would kill the 87 Lakers in the half court in this theoretical matchup. 



> Cooper would have given Pippen some trouble, I agree. But that means Jordan would have faced no defense.


Not sure what you’re talking about here? 



> Six games is pretty easy for such a close competition.


Well, I wouldn’t expect it to be 4 Lakers blowouts and two close losses. I’d expect every game to be very close. Just because there isn’t a Game 7 doesn’t mean it wasn’t close. Of course, I wouldn’t hold it against anyone if they said the series would go 7, it’s certainly a very reasonable thing to say IMO.



> And if you don't see them being able to win Game 7 on the road, doesn't that speak more to the Bulls being likely to win the series, in 7, than to the Lakers simply winning it more quickly to avoid a Game 7?


I took the Jordan factor into account. I could see Jordan doing everything in his power not to lose a 7th game at home. That was my only logic there.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

One correction for you EHL. The 1990 Bulls team (that made it to the ECF Game 7) was coached by Doug Collins, not Phil Jackson. The following season, Phil Jackson was brought in.


----------



## Jordan4life_2004 (Jul 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> Since when have first round teams been good teams or teams with great regular season records? Basically never, until just recently that is. Do you even know who the Bulls faced in the first round of the 96 playoffs? For Christ sake.




A team 12 games below .500 shouldn't even be in the playoffs. And the Bulls faced a 42-40 Miami Heat team led by Alonzo Mourning/Tim Hardaway and were coached by Pat Riley. 






That 42-40 team was the 87 Golden State Warriors, a very solid team that beat a Malone-Stockton Jazz squad in the first round.[/QUOTE]


The Warriors were an at best AVERAGE team that didn't play a shred of defense. The 1987 version of Stockton/Malone was nowhere near as potent at the 90's versions. 





That 39-43 team was the Sonics, who made a very inspired playoff run defensively, a team that for whatever reason was finally allowed to run that postseason, sparking a previously dull and slow offense. Since you were 4 years old in 1987, I’ll assume you never really even watched the 87 postseason. The Sonics were a completely different and rejuvenated team. To this day I’m still confused why they had such a great playoff run that year. That Sonics team also beat a Dream-Perkins Rockets squad in 87, if I remember correctly.[/QUOTE


Sorry. beating a 39 win team in the conference finals is WEAK COMPETITION. 


So in the end, the 1987 West competition was hardly much worse than what the 96 Bulls faced in their first three rounds of competition. And certainly, 1987 Celtics >>> 1996 Sonics.[/QUOTE]


Not really. The Knicks with Ewing in his prime was certainly better than anything the Lakers faced up until the finals in 87. And I agree that the 87 celtics were better than the 96 Supersonics. But the 87 Celtics were not as good as they were in 86. And their defense was shady at best.






That Boston team was better than any team the Bulls faced in the 1990’s. But yes, it wasn’t as good as previous Boston teams, partly due to injuries.[/QUOTE]


Maybe. But not by much. 



And that Detroit team was arguably better than any team the Bulls faced during the 1990’s. Remember, Bad Boys Lite beat a prime Bulls squad with Jordan, Pippen, and Phil Jackson in 1990.[/QUOTE]


The 1987 Pistons were not better than the 91 Pistons, 92 Blazers, 93 Knicks, 93 Suns, 96 Magic, Or either one of the Jazz teams that made the finals. The Pistons beat the Bulls in 1990? I realize that. It was a grueling seven game series in which Pippen/Grant hadn't reached their full potential. 



About as tough as the 2004 Rockets.[/QUOTE]

The 1996 Knicks were better than the 2004 Rockets.






Again, why bring up regular season victories? Talk about how they actually performed in the postseason in 96, not the freaking regular season. Anyway, about the only thing that was legendary about the Magic and Sonics in the 1990’s was how they were perennial underachievers. Remember when the Sonics were beat in the first round of the 1994 playoffs by Denver after having a spectacular 63-19 regular season? Remember the other first round escapes the Sonics barely survived? *Underachievers*, despite great regular season records.[/QUOTE]



The Magic were rolling right along in the playoffs until they ran into the Bulls. Their point totals in the 1st 3 games were 83, 88, and 67. A team that featured the most complete and potent starting 5 in the league.

1994 has nothing to do with 1996. The Sonics were a good team led by 2 of the top players at their position at the time. And they played far better defense then most of the teams the Lakers beat in their championship years. 



And if that's the case, the 87 Celtics was better than any team the Bulls faced in the 90's, as were the 87 Pistons (though that's a bit more arguable, it’s mostly true).[/QUOTE]


Already responded to this


----------



## Duece Duece (Mar 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> One correction for you EHL. The 1990 Bulls team (that made it to the ECF Game 7) was coached by Doug Collins, not Phil Jackson. The following season, Phil Jackson was brought in.




Phil came in '89-'90 season.


http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=CHI&lg=n&yr=1989


----------



## Jordan4life_2004 (Jul 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Careful. Now Jordan4life is likely to tell you that you have no credibility. :laugh:


lol. Not so fast buddy. Don't act like I go around saying anybody that doesn't agree with me doesn't have credibility. You were the clown that said Mj was an overrated player. Therefore YOU have no credibility.


----------



## Duece Duece (Mar 28, 2003)

Showtime is just way too deep for the '96 Bulls. Lakers would win in five or six games.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jordan4life_2004</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's already well known among thinking basketball fans that regular season record doesn't always result in similar postseason performances on the court. Are you really, truly saying that it does?



> And the Bulls faced a 42-40 Miami Heat team led by Alonzo Mourning/Tim Hardaway and were coached by Pat Riley.


And they weren't a very good team. 



> That The Warriors were an at best AVERAGE team that didn't play a shred of defense. The 1987 version of Stockton/Malone was nowhere near as potent at the 90's versions.


And? They were hardly as crappy as their regular season records would indicate. Of course, since you never actually watched any of these teams, it would be hard for you to know anything about them.



> Sorry. beating a 39 win team in the CONFERENCE FINALS IS WEAK COMPETITION.


It's already well known that regular season does not = postseason. If you still can't understand this, I suggest going to www.merriamwebster.com. 



> Not really. The Knicks with Ewing in his prime was certainly better than anything the Lakers faced up until the finals in 87.


No, they really weren't that great of a team. They were better than the teams the Lakers faced in 87 Western Conference playoffs, but not by much.



> And I agree that the 87 celtics were better than the 96 Supersonics. But the 87 Celtics were not as good as they were in 86. And their defense was shady at best.


Yes, I'm sure your keen 3 year old mind at the time was thinking "Hey, the 86 Celtics' defense wasn't as good as the 87 Celtic defense". 



> The 1987 Pistons were not better than the 91 Pistons,


You mean 90 Pistons. 

Anyway, that's debatable. 



> 92 Blazers, 93 Knicks, 93 Suns, 96 Magic,


Jesus Christ.



> Or either one of the Jazz teams that made the finals.


Debatable, but I wouldn't say you'd have to be crazy to think that. It's a reasonable opinion. 

What isn't reasonable, however, is that you're talking about 80's basketball when you weren't old enough to watch it. 



> The Pistons beat the Bulls in 1990? I realize that. It was a grueling seven game series in which Pippen/Grant hadn't reached their full potential.


And? Thomas wasn't nearly as quick a defender as he was in 87, nor was Laimbeer quite the same. The *Pistons* weren't really in their primes, and were injured too. 



> The 1996 Knicks were better than the 2004 Rockets.


Yeah, I'll give you that one. 



> The Magic were rolling right along in the playoffs until they ran into the Bulls. Their point totals in the 1st 3 games were 83, 88, and 67. A team that featured the most complete and potent starting 5 in the league.


You actually don't even make a point here. We already know the Bulls were much better than the 96 Magic. Why anyone believed the hype in 96, I'll never know. No, they did NOT have the most complete starting 5. 



> 1994 has nothing to do with 1996.


Yes, it does. It shows that the Sonics core continually underachieved. Not only that, but a similar pattern to 94 was repeated years after, and after 1996 too. They were underachievers, despite wonderful regular season records. But wait, I thought the regular season meant everything when determining postseason play, isn't that right? :laugh:



> The Sonics were a good team led by 2 of the top players at their position at the time. And they played far better defense then most of the teams the Lakers beat in their championship years.


........except the Bad Boy Pistons. I still don't know why you're arguing the 96 Sonics were special, because they just weren't. So far you've ignored the fact that they lost big in 94 and struggled continually in first rounds and in the playoffs in general even after brilliant postseasons. But I wouldn't expect anything less from you, after all, regular season record equates to postseason performance in your eyes.


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> Since you were 4 years old in 1987, I’ll assume you never really even watched the 87 postseason.


Good point. Im a little bit older than he is, and I honestly can't say that I could evaluate basketball at that age. My dad has an extensive collection of basketball tapes, but even so, you can only see and learn so much from tapes. Kind of hard evaluating teams when you have a limited number of tapes. I couldnt tell you how good the 87 Suns/Sonics/Jazz were because I was too young and I dont have access to the NBA library. So unless you have a great memory as a 4 year old or have an ungodly amount of tapes from the 87 season, youre basically going by stats and what youve heard, not what youve seen and as we all know, stats dont tell the entire story. 

Thats why this question is so hard to answer for some of the younger posters on this site. Im pretty sure we all witnessed the 96 Bulls, but we all can't give a fair evaluation on the 87 Lakers because some of us are too young to remember. All that we've basically seen of them is from those NBA highlight reel videos and a couple of games on ESPN Classic/NBA TV. I have very vague memories of that team, but I can't give an entire analysis on them simply because I didnt get to watch the entire season as I had with other Laker teams. There are a few people in this thread though that were old enough to witness them and give a decent and fair analysis.


----------



## Jordan4life_2004 (Jul 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> It's already well known among thinking basketball fans that regular season record doesn't always result in similar postseason performances on the court. Are you really, truly saying that it does?



So even though the teams the Lakers beat in 87 were .500 or worse, they're legit? And the teams the Bulls beat who were wayyyyyyyy over .500 were just weak?


And they weren't a very good team.[/QUOTE]


Never said they were a good team. You asked did I know who they played in the first round. And they were better then that horrible no defense playin denver team the Lakers played in round 1. 



And? They were hardly as crappy as their regular season records would indicate. Of course, since you never actually watched any of these teams, it would be hard for you to know anything about them.[/QUOTE]


Once again. So even though they were below .500 they're not considered weak? Yet you say most of the teams the Bulls beat who were well over .500 are?


It's already well known that regular season does not = postseason. If you still can't understand this, I suggest going to www.merriamwebster.com.[/QUOTE]

I do undertstand that. But 3 sub .500 teams is weak competition anyway you slice it. I would love to see what you would say had the Bulls beaten 3 sub .500 teams in the playoffs. 



No, they really weren't that great of a team. They were better than the teams the Lakers faced in 87 Western Conference playoffs, but not by much.[/QUOTE]


I never said they were great. I said they were better than any west team La faced in 87. And you agree. 



Yes, I'm sure your keen 3 year old mind at the time was thinking "Hey, the 86 Celtics' defense wasn't as good as the 87 Celtic defense".[/QUOTE]


Alright. The Lame "you weren't old enough to watch it live so you have no clue what you're talking about card is gettin tired. It's popular opinion by many that the 86 Celtics title team was their best team of that decade. If you look at the numbers they were. And by the way. Here's a link that shows how shady the 87 Celtics were on defense.
http://www.nba.com/history/playoffs/19861987.html




You mean 90 Pistons.[/QUOTE]

Didn't you say 87? 

Anyway, that's debatable.[/QUOTE]


What teams are you talking about? 



Jesus Christ.[/QUOTE]


Huh?



Debatable, but I wouldn't say you'd have to be crazy to think that. It's a reasonable opinion.[/QUOTE]

That's fair


What isn't reasonable, however, is that you're talking about 80's basketball when you weren't old enough to watch it.[/QUOTE]

Once again. Was I old enough to watch it live? No. But I wasn't around for world war 1 and 2. But I know about it. My father was a HUGE nba fan at that time. He taped a countless amount of games that i've watched. I have friends who lend me old games every now and then. You've got espn classic. You've also got nba.com tv. They spend every off-season showing old games from the past. So yes. I know 80's basketball. 


And? Thomas wasn't nearly as quick a defender as he was in 87, nor was Laimbeer quite the same. The *Pistons* weren't really in their primes, and were injured too.[/QUOTE]

I don't really see the difference between a 87 Laimberr and a 91 Laimbeer. And even if Thomas wasn't as quick. I still believe the 91 Pistons were better. 



Yeah, I'll give you that one.[/QUOTE]

ok 



You actually don't even make a point here. We already know the Bulls were much better than the 96 Magic. Why anyone believed the hype in 96, I'll never know. No, they did NOT have the most complete starting 5.[/QUOTE]

Actually, going into that season the Magic NOT the Bulls were favored to win the east. Remember. The Magic had knocked the Bulls out the previous year. And nobody knew at the time how Mj would come back or how Rodman would fit in. The 96 Magic were believed to be the one team that could beat the Bulls because of the inside dominance of Shaq, the all around game of Penny, and the fact they had so many deadly outside/3pt shooters. Name a better starting 5 that year than the Magic. 



Yes, it does. It shows that the Sonics core continually underachieved. Not only that, but a similar pattern to 94 was repeated years after, and after 1996 too. They were underachievers, despite wonderful regular season records. But wait, I thought the regular season meant everything when determining postseason play, isn't that right? :laugh:[/QUOTE]

But the only year were talking about is 1996. 1994, 95, 97, 98 has nothing to do with 1996. Remember, this entire thread is who would win between the 87 Lakers and 96 Bulls. Therefore the only team that matters is the 96 Sonics. What happened to the Sonics in 94 was a fluke occurence. No 8th seed has ever beaten a 1 seed. Unless you count 99 which really wasn't a battle between a true 1 and a true 8. 



........except the Bad Boy Pistons. I still don't know why you're arguing the 96 Sonics were special, because they just weren't. So far you've ignored the fact that they lost big in 94 and struggled continually in first rounds and in the playoffs in general even after brilliant postseasons. But I wouldn't expect anything less from you, after all, regular season record equates to postseason performance in your eyes. Asdf asd f [/QUOTE]


Are you putting words into my mouth? I never said they were special. Hell, I never even said they were great. I said they were a very good team that particular season. Once again. 1994 has nothing to do with 1996. The Sonics were the best team in the west during the reg season that year. and backed it up in the playoffs.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jordan4life_2004</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> So even though the teams the Lakers beat in 87 were .500 or worse, they're legit? And the teams the Bulls beat who were wayyyyyyyy over .500 were just weak?


Nope, didn't say that. I simply asked you to evaluate a team's actual performance *on the court* during a postseason, and not assume their regular season record reflects exactly how they performed in that postseason. 



> Never said they were a good team. You asked did I know who they played in the first round. And they were better then that horrible no defense playin denver team the Lakers played in round 1.


Yes, you have a somewhat legit point here. 



> Once again. So even though they were below .500 they're not considered weak? Yet you say most of the teams the Bulls beat who were well over .500 are?


And once again, simply evaluate a team's postseason performance based on their actual postseason performance. Not regular season records. 



> I do undertstand that. But 3 sub .500 teams is weak competition anyway you slice it. I would love to see what you would say had the Bulls beaten 3 sub .500 teams in the playoffs.


I wouldn't say jack if those teams played well in the postseason. And like someone else mentioned, 96 was an expansion year that fielded many very very weak teams in general. 

And it wasn't three sub .500 teams in 87, it was two. 



> I never said they were great. I said they were better than any west team La faced in 87. And you agree.


I didn't say you said "great", I said they weren't "that great". And yes, I agree. 



> Alright. The Lame "you weren't old enough to watch it live so you have no clue what you're talking about has to stop. It's popular opinion by many that the 86 Celtics title team was their best team of that decade. If you look at the numbers they were. And by the way. Here's a link that shows how shady the 87 Celtics were on defense.
> http://www.nba.com/history/playoffs/19861987.html


Why not? Do you see me talking about how great George Mikan was? I wouldn't have a freaking clue, except to cite his stats and other people's opinions of him. 

And that link proves absolutely nothing.



> Didn't you say 87?


We were comparing the 87 Pistons to the 90 Pistons. 



> What teams are you talking about?


See above. 



> Huh?


What's there to "Huh?" about, you just compared the 93 Suns to the 87 Pistons. 



> Once again. Was I old enough to watch it live? No. But I wasn't around for world war 1 and 2.


Poor comparison. We're not talking about the performances of WWI/II vets, are we? We are, however, talking about the performances of NBA players throughout the last 20+ years.



> But I know about it. My father was a HUGE nba fan at that time. He taped a countless amount of games that i've watched. I have friends who lend me old games every now and then. You've got espn classic. You've also got nba.com tv. They spend every off-season showing old games from the past. So yes. I know 80's basketball.


Fair enough. Still, it's hard to watch entire NBA seasons all over again years after the fact. You'd need to spend countless hours and many many months absorbing enough 80's basketball. There's also something to be said about living during the era, and watching 80's basketball live. 



> I don't really see the difference between a 87 Laimberr and a 91 Laimbeer.


I did. Slower, poorer defender, poorer rebounder. Just not quite as good. Though, Rodman helped out in that area. 



> And even if Thomas wasn't as quick. I still believe the 91 Pistons were better.


Thomas was their engine, he needed to be in peak physical condition or it was good night. Thomas was critical. 



> Actually, going into that season the Magic NOT the Bulls were favored to win the east. Remember. The Magic had knocked the Bulls out the previous year. And nobody knew at the time how Mj would come back or how Rodman would fit in.


Yes, exactly, all speculation. And since Jordan/Pippen/Jackson had won 3 titles and Rodman was good no matter how dumb he was, I certainly didn't hand over the Finals appearance to the Magic in 96. And I was definitely right about that one. 



> The 96 Magic were believed to be the one team that could beat the Bulls because of the inside dominance of Shaq, the all around game of Penny, and the fact they had so many deadly outside/3pt shooters. Name a better starting 5 that year than the Magic.


Uh, the 96 Bulls. 

But seriously, I'm not denying the Magic were a talented team, because they had that in spades. They just weren't a particularly good enough defensive team, nor did they have any real finishers (as in primetime players) at the time. And I'd take the 96 Sonics over the 96 Magic, actually.



> But the only year were talking about is 1996. 1994, 95, 97, 98 has nothing to do with 1996. Rememer, this entire thread is who would win between the 87 Lakers and 96 Bulls. Therefore the only team that matters is the 96 Sonics.


I was talking about the Bulls' competition during the 90's in an attempt to prove they didn't really face any great teams besides the Jazz. That includes 96. But point taken.


----------



## Jordan4life_2004 (Jul 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> Nope, didn't say that. I simply asked you to evaluate a team's actual performance *on the court* during a postseason, and not assume their regular season record reflects exactly how they performed in that postseason.


I see what you're saying. But we may as well agree to disagree on this one. No matter how well those teams might have played during certain stretches in the playoffs. the Bottomline is that two sub .500 teams and another .500 teams is not strong competition. Add to the fact that none of those 3 teams even sniff the playoffs if they're in the east. Which was the more dominant conference at that time. it's just like in todays league. Most of the teams that made the playoffs in the east wouldn't sniff em in the west.


Yes, you have a somewhat legit point here.[/QUOTE]

ok



And once again, simply evaluate a team's postseason performance based on their actual postseason performance. Not regular season records.[/QUOTE]

Already responded 



I wouldn't say jack if those teams played well in the postseason. And like someone else mentioned, 96 was an expansion year that fielded many very very weak teams in general.[/QUOTE]


Well what's a weak team now? Accoring to you a sub .500 team that makes the playoffs isn't considered weak as long as they put up a decent showing in the playoffs. 

And it wasn't three sub .500 teams in 87, it was two.[/QUOTE]


Forgive me





I didn't say you said "great", I said they weren't "that great". And yes, I agree.[/QUOTE]

ok





Why not? Do you see me talking about how great George Mikan was? I wouldn't have a freaking clue, except to cite his stats and other people's opinions of him.[/QUOTE]

Didn't you say the 87 Lakers were the best team of all-time? Going by your logic you can't say that because you never saw any of those Bill Russell teams, 67 Sixers, 72 Lakers ect,ect. Unless you're MUCH older then what i'm thinking. 

And that link proves absolutely nothing.[/QUOTE]


It proves that they gave up some pretty insane point totals.



We were comparing the 87 Pistons to the 90 Pistons.[/QUOTE]


Ok. And the 90's Pistons are better. What was the point? 



See above. 



What's there to "Huh?" about, you just compared the 93 Suns to the 87 Pistons.[/QUOTE]

And i'll do it again. I don't think it's outta this world to say the 93 Suns were better than the 87 Pistons. After all that team featured a prime Charles Barkley. A prime Kevin Johnson. one of the top rookies that season in Richard Dumas, A young Dan Majerle, Cedric Ceballos, Danny Ainge. That was a pretty good team. Hell. If not for that Paxson 3 they might have beaten the Bulls. 



Poor comparison. We're not talking about the performances of WWI/II vets, are we? We are, however, talking about the performances of NBA players throughout the last 20+ years.[/QUOTE]

Maybe the comparison wasn't good. But I know you understand what i'm sayin.



Fair enough. Still, it's hard to watch entire NBA seasons all over again years after the fact. You'd need to spend countless hours and many many months absorbing enough 80's basketball. There's also something to be said about living during the era, and watching 80's basketball live.[/QUOTE]

Well like I said. I obviously didn't watch it live. But I feel i've got pretty good knowledge of 80's hoops.



I did. Slower, poorer defender, poorer rebounder. Just not quite as good. Though, Rodman helped out in that area.[/QUOTE]

Will agree to disagree 



Thomas was their engine, he needed to be in peak physical condition or it was good night. Thomas was critical.[/QUOTE]

They won the title in 1990. Isiah didn't slip that much defensively in one season. 



Yes, exactly, all speculation. And since Jordan/Pippen/Jackson had won 3 titles and Rodman was good no matter how dumb he was, I certainly didn't hand over the Finals appearance to the Magic in 96. And I was definitely right about that one.[/QUOTE]

I said most people picked the Magic.





Uh, the 96 Bulls. [/QUOTE]

The Bulls were of course the best team. But the Magic starters all scored in double figures while the Bulls only had 2 guys in double figures. 



But seriously, I'm not denying the Magic were a talented team, because they had that in spades. They just weren't a particularly good enough defensive team, nor did they have any real finishers (as in primetime players) at the time. And I'd take the 96 Sonics over the 96 Magic, actually.[/QUOTE]

You realize that Sonics team started Ervin Johnson at center, right? They were solid defensively. Primetime players? Shaq/Penny weren't prime time players? That combo had them in the finals the previous year.


I was talking about the Bulls' competition during the 90's in an attempt to prove they didn't really face any great teams besides the Jazz. That includes 96. But point taken. [/QUOTE]

You can't really call any team that didn't win a championship great. But there's a reason that none of those teams won titles even though some of them featured a prime Drexler/Barkley/Ewing/Malone/Stockton. That's because Mj and the Bulls kept beating them.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jordan4life_2004</b>!
> 
> 
> I see what you're saying. But we may as well agree to disagree on this one. No matter how well those teams might have played during certain stretches in the playoffs. the Bottomline is that two sub .500 teams and another .500 teams is not strong competition. Add to the fact that none of those 3 teams even sniff the playoffs if they're in the east. Which was the more dominant conference at that time. it's just like in todays league. Most of the teams that made the playoffs in the east wouldn't sniff em in the west.


That's fair, sure. 



> Well what's a weak team now? Accoring to you a sub .500 team that makes the playoffs isn't considered weak as long as they put up a decent showing in the playoffs.


Weak is weak, it's hard to quantify with just a regular season record. Not much else to say there.



> Didn't you say the 87 Lakers were the best team of all-time? Going by your logic you can't say that because you never saw any of those Bill Russell teams, 67 Sixers, 72 Lakers ect,ect. Unless you're MUCH older then what i'm thinking.


Then forgive me if I didn't clarify, I should have said greatest team the last quarter century. 



> It proves that they gave up some pretty insane point totals.


Every team in the league was giving up insane 100+ point totals. That's just 80's basketball. But point taken, their D was fairly suspect.



> Ok. And the 90's Pistons are better. What was the point?


To tell you the truth, I've completely forgotten. :laugh:



> And i'll do it again. I don't think it's outta this world to say the 93 Suns were better than the 87 Pistons. After all that team featured a prime Charles Barkley. A prime Kevin Johnson. one of the top rookies that season in Richard Dumas, A young Dan Majerle, Cedric Ceballos, Danny Ainge. That was a pretty good team. Hell. If not for that Paxson 3 they might have beaten the Bulls.


I view them as a one hit wonder that happened to have gotten lucky. Still, a rookie Rodman, up and coming Dumars, prime Laimbeer, prime Thomas, and great Pistons team defense was IMO a superior squad to most teams the last 20 years or so, and so definitely superior to the 93 Suns. 



> Maybe the comparison wasn't good. But I know you understand what i'm sayin.


Yeah.



> They won the title in 1990. Isiah didn't slip that much defensively in one season.


Don't you mean 4 seasons? We were comparing how good the 87 Pistons were to the 91 Pistons, yes? Anyway, Thomas suffered several injuries in the 91 postseason (foot and something else) that slowed him down. He was never the same after that season. 



> The Bulls were of course the best team. But the Magic starters all scored in double figures while the Bulls only had 2 guys in double figures.


Except that the Bulls had equally good (if not better) role players in the starting lineup and off the bench, and the far superior team defense and finisher (Jordan). 



> You realize that Sonics team started Ervin Johnson at center, right? They were solid defensively. Primetime players? Shaq/Penny weren't prime time players? That combo had them in the finals the previous year.


Where they were nearly knocked out by a Jordan-less Bulls team, and then proceeded to be swept in the Finals. 

And no, Shaq definitely can't finish games with any sort of "clutchness", and Penny didn't have that quality either. As we all know, their role players certainly didn't have it (Anderson, Scott, etc.). 



> You can't really call any team that didn't win a championship great. But there's a reason that none of those teams won titles even though some of them featured a prime Drexler/Barkley/Ewing/Malone/Stockton. That's because Mj and the Bulls kept beating them.


Malone/Stockon Jass of the late 90's, sure, I'll concede that they are a great team historically. But a prime Ewing Knicks squad? No, great defensive team, couldn't find a lick of offense or finishing when they needed it. Ewing wasn't THAT great of a player. Barkley was a head case as a leader that didn't play defense the way he should have in his prime. Drexler I'll give you.


----------



## Jordan4life_2004 (Jul 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> That's fair, sure.[/QUOTE[
> ...


I can somewhat agree with that.



Then forgive me if I didn't clarify, I should have said greatest team the last quarter century.[/QUOTE]

No problem 



Every team in the league was giving up insane 100+ point totals. That's just 80's basketball. But point taken, their D was fairly suspect.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't even trying to knock the Celtics or 80's basketball. I was just pointing out for that year they weren't as good defensively. I love 80's ball. I believe there was defense played. Offense was just much better overall then in the 90's or 2000's.



To tell you the truth, I've completely forgotten. :laugh:[/QUOTE]

Damn. So did I



I view them as a one hit wonder that happened to have gotten lucky. Still, a rookie Rodman, up and coming Dumars, prime Laimbeer, prime Thomas, and great Pistons team defense was IMO a superior squad to most teams the last 20 years or so, and so definitely superior to the 93 Suns.[/QUOTE]

That's a very fair opinion







Don't you mean 4 seasons? We were comparing how good the 87 Pistons were to the 91 Pistons, yes? Anyway, Thomas suffered several injuries in the 91 postseason (foot and something else) that slowed him down. He was never the same after that season.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough



Except that the Bulls had equally good (if not better) role players in the starting lineup and off the bench, and the far superior team defense and finisher (Jordan).[/QUOTE]

Oh no doubt. I agree with all that. I was just sayin that they had a more complete starting 5.



Where they were nearly knocked out by a Jordan-less Bulls team, and then proceeded to be swept in the Finals.[/QUOTE]


That is true. But you gotta remember they were very young then. Shaq was in his 3rd year, Penny was in his second. They were even supposed to get to the finals that quickly.

And no, Shaq definitely can't finish games with any sort of "clutchness", and Penny didn't have that quality either. As we all know, their role players certainly didn't have it (Anderson, Scott, etc.).[/QUOTE]

Well obviosuly Shaq ain't clutch. But he was still the dominant forece behind that team. And I disagree with you about Penny. He was a clutch player.



Malone/Stockon Jass of the late 90's, sure, I'll concede that they are a great team historically. But a prime Ewing Knicks squad? No, great defensive team, couldn't find a lick of offense or finishing when they needed it. Ewing wasn't THAT great of a player. Barkley was a head case as a leader that didn't play defense the way he should have in his prime. Drexler I'll give you. [/QUOTE]

I agree with most of that. I don't agree with Ewing not being that great a player. 


It's been nice debating with you though. I actually enjoyed it. You weren't your usual biased self :laugh: . Then again. I'm sure you think i'm biased sometimes. That's cool though. But time for me to get to bed. Have a good night.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jordan4life_2004</b>!
> 
> 
> I can somewhat agree with that.
> ...


Bah, I'm never biased! 

Anyway, good discussion. Wish we could somehow see the 87 Lakers and 96 Bulls play each other. I'd pay 3 months salary to see a healthy Finals matchup like that. Man, it'd give me chills.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

U know why I didnt really involve in this thread here? Because all I see you all casual fans disscuss the obivous only!

And no one comes up with the benifit of running the triangle offense yet here?

Sorry, it's like A Harvard professor watching kids discussing something the guy knew and couldnt mention in any meaningful discussions by his standard!


----------



## Sánchez AF (Aug 10, 2003)

Bulls in 7


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> And I don't understand the logic of "These teams are evenly matched, so the series is certain to go 7 games."


I didn't say "certain to." On the other hand, if the chances are truly 5/16ths, then it's not a likely eventuality.

How did you get that result?



> History seems to show that homecourt advantage is much more important in a Game 7 than in the other games of a series, so I don't see why you have a problem with EHL's post.


The reason I had an issue was based on the idea that two closely-matched team are likely (not certain) to go to 7 games. Then to say, "Well, we can't win Game 7, so let's just say we win it one game early," seems unreasonable.

If you have a compelling calculation as to why two evenly-matched teams are only likely to reach Game 7 5/16ths of the time, then I'd drop this point. (I still wouldn't find the logic "We can't win Game 7, so we'd win it one game earlier" reasonable, but I'd agree that a 6 game series is perfectly likely.)


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Duece Duece</b>!
> *C- Jabbar vs Longley
> PF- Green vs Rodman
> SF- Worthy vs Pippen
> ...



Johnson vs Kerr?

I don't think so, Bulls started the 6-6 Ron Harper, who was a very good defender.


Please correct your matchups.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> Worthy was a similar scorer? Minstrel, that’s absurd. Worthy was a tremendous scorer that never got the touches Pippen did in his career while managing higher PPG and FG percentages, especially in the postseason.


They averaged identical PPG numbers in the years in question. If Worthy scored more in other years, it's worth noting that the Lakers a played a more uptempo game in a more uptempo era. Worthy may have scored a similar or lesser percentage of the team's points compared to Pippen, but there were many more points to go around.

Field goal percentage is a completely invalid thing to compare between eras. The average field goal percentage was much higher in the '80s than in the late-'90s.



> And he was called Big Game James for a reason, something Pippen most certainly was not.


Sure, Pippen's name was not "James."  I don't really see a point here...Pippen was in no way considered a choker. He played big in all the playoffs after he became great, including the Finals. Jordan was also not called "Big Game." So?

I don't see any difference from a "clutch" perspective between the two.



> But everything else is quite close, especially when you take into account how many times Worthy came up big in the postseason. Worthy was also a Finals MVP, something Pippen never was.


This doesn't draw them closer...this isn't some category that needs to be accounted for. Both players were big in the post-season. Finals MVP is based on the circumstances and Worthy would have won no Finals MVP awards alongside Jordan, in my opinion. Jordan was simply considered too dominant. Therefore, Pippen's lack of Finals MVPs doesn't mean a whole lot.



> Um, do you remember the 1988 Finals? An 88 Rodman was dismantled by an 88 Worthy. What makes you think a slower Rodman in 1996 (granted, a more savvy Rodman) would slow down an 87 Worthy?


I think Rodman was a more stable, smarter player in 1996 than in 1988. In 1988, he was likely to take himself out of his game. By 1996, he was masterful at taking others out of their games. In 1988, Rodman was flighty and unreliable and Worthy took full advantage of that. But I don't think the same thing would happen in 1996.



> Not sure what you’re talking about here?


My original point was that while the Bulls had the defenders for the Lakers' big threats, the Lakers had only one excellent defender in Cooper, who couldn't possibly do much to stop Jordan *and* Pippen.

You said he'd give Pippen some trouble. Cooper was a great defender and I agree with you. But then that means that the single great defender is taken up by Pippen, leaving no one with any great defensive repute to check Jordan.

That means Jordan could pretty much score at will and effortlessly.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> One correction for you EHL. The 1990 Bulls team (that made it to the ECF Game 7) was coached by Doug Collins, not Phil Jackson. The following season, Phil Jackson was brought in.


Phil though was an assistant coach for the Bulls since the 87/88 season. He was promoted not brought in.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Field goal percentage is a completely invalid thing to compare between eras. The average field goal percentage was much higher in the '80s than in the late-'90s.


by any measure worthy was a far more efficient scorer than pippen. he was (easily, imo) a better weapon for putting the ball in the basket than pippen was.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> You said he'd give Pippen some trouble. Cooper was a great defender and I agree with you. But then that means that the single great defender is taken up by Pippen, leaving no one with any great defensive repute to check Jordan.
> 
> That means Jordan could pretty much score at will and effortlessly.


jordan would certainly be a huge problem for the lakers. and they'd be far more concerned with stopping him than pippen (hence coop would likely spend most of his time on jordan). the lakers were a strong defensive team (6th in fg% against) though. scott was much better in '87 than he was by '91. it would be a problem though, because bringing cooper in to guard jordan would take away scott, a key offensive contributor. but coop would likely cause at least some problems for jordan, at least in comparison to what he was used to.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Please learn how to use the quote button Jordan 4 Life. Your posts are extremely difficult to read. They look too jumbled.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> I didn't say "certain to." On the other hand, if the chances are truly 5/16ths, then it's not a likely eventuality.
> 
> How did you get that result?


Oh come on, I thought you worked with statistics? I think you could have checked it yourself. 

Let's say Team A and Team B have an equal chance of winning each game.

*After Game 1*
1-0: 1/2
0-1: 1/2

(the first number is the number of games won so far by Team A, the second number is the number of games won so far by Team B)

*After Game 2*
2-0: 1/2 (1/2) = 1/4
1-1: 1/2 (1/2 + 1/2) = 1/2
0-2: 1/2 (1/2) = 1/4

*After Game 3*
3-0: 1/2 (1/4) = 1/8
2-1: 1/2 (1/4 + 1/2) = 3/8
1-2: 1/2 (1/2 + 1/4) = 3/8
0-3: 1/2 (1/4) = 1/8

*After Game 4*
4-0: 1/2 (1/8) = 1/16
3-1: 1/2 (1/8 + 3/8) = 1/4
2-2: 1/2 (3/8 + 3/8) = 3/8
1-3: 1/2 (3/8 + 1/8) = 1/4
0-4: 1/2 (1/8) = 1/16

*After Game 5*
4-0: 1/16
4-1: 1/2 (1/4) = 1/8
3-2: 1/2 (1/4 + 3/8) = 5/16
2-3: 1/2 (3/8 + 1/4) = 5/16
1-4: 1/2 (1/4) = 1/8
0-4: 1/16

*After Game 6*
4-0: 1/16
4-1: 1/8
4-2: 1/2 (5/16) = 5/32
3-3: 1/2 (5/16 + 5/16) = 5/16
2-4: 1/2 (5/16) = 5/32
1-4: 1/8
0-4: 1/16

The series goes to Game 7 if it's tied 3-3 after Game 6. So there you go. And I hate you for making me write all that down. 



> The reason I had an issue was based on the idea that two closely-matched team are likely (not certain) to go to 7 games. Then to say, "Well, we can't win Game 7, so let's just say we win it one game early," seems unreasonable.
> 
> If you have a compelling calculation as to why two evenly-matched teams are only likely to reach Game 7 5/16ths of the time, then I'd drop this point. (I still wouldn't find the logic "We can't win Game 7, so we'd win it one game earlier" reasonable, but I'd agree that a 6 game series is perfectly likely.)


I hope what I wrote down makes sense. And I don't understand why it's the case that homecourt advantage seems to be more important in Game 7 than in other games of a series, but it seems to be. I remember there was a time during the 80s and 90s when a road team didn't win a Game 7 for ten years. Though, I'd agree with you that if the Bulls and Lakers are equally matched, except that the Bulls are certain to win Game 7 if it gets there, then the Bulls will probably win the series.


----------



## snowmt (Jan 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> *After Game 1*
> ...


Like your patience to derive the binomial formula  

Better compute the conditional probability too. :laugh:


----------



## Debt Collector (Mar 13, 2003)

id say the 96 bulls are right there with the 83 76ers for the 3rd best team of all time. to me the 86 C's and 87 lakers were the most juggernautish teams in history. bulls dont have enough scoring options to run with either of those teams. but in the game of basketball, anybody can beat anybody


----------



## kaniffmn (Jul 29, 2003)

bulls in 6. how can you argue with a team that won 72 games??? there is no doubt in my mind, that the 96 bulls were the best team ever. they wouldn't need the depth to beat either the lakers or celtics. they have arguably the greatest player of all-time, the greatest coach of all-time, the greatest rebounder of all-time, and the intangibles would be on their side. kerr wouldn't start, it'd be ron harper by the way, and he would be much more of a threat in guarding magic then kerr. kareem was on the downfall of his career, and nobody would stop jordan. he'd average like 45-50 pts. a game in that series.


----------



## jokeaward (May 22, 2003)

In the 80's West it was the Lakers and everyone else. They had tough competition in the Finals, but other than Hakeem/Sampson, Sotkton/Malone, and the Blazers, they're competition was inconsistent or bad.

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teampage.htm?tm=SEA&lg=N
http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teampage.htm?tm=GSW&lg=N
http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teampage.htm?tm=PHO&lg=N

The Bulls always had to go through tough Easts, knocking out a HOFer seemingly every round. Sure these teams can't only be looked at their records, but they have guys like Tom Chambers, Walter Davis, and Sleepy Floyd. They're good, but I don't know if they're Ewing, Shaq, or Reggie.

Their Finals opponents were also very tough.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kaniffmn</b>!
> and nobody would stop jordan. he'd average like 45-50 pts. a game in that series.


of course noone would stop jordan. but la did have one of the greatest perimeter man defenders in league history on their team. and they were good defensively as a team. seems rather unlikely that jordan's going to be more unstoppable against them than against other teams.


----------



## TruCrimson (Apr 21, 2003)

bulls in 6


----------



## radronOmega (Aug 1, 2004)

*re*

bulls in 6

-------

Your intelligent now arn't you mod??? Lakers in 6 if they don't have homecourt. Which they won't. Worthy would be the difference maker because he is that third option for the lakers, the third pillar. Sure Kerr can be good but it's Jordan and Pippen, you cna't call Ron harper a third leg, and rodman can't even shoot lol. The Laker team was too stacked, wayyyyy too stacked. They would beat down on the bulls. Even the formula thingy said it. Lakers. Kereem could go off on any given night, Magic would own harper, cooper could slow down Jordan, Worthy would OWN 96 rodman if he could OWN 88 rodman. Brian scott would be deadly off the bench, and Green would be decent. The Lakers would run the bulls out of the house, all of you just magically fall in love with Jordan and say his team is the best team in history because Jordan is Jordan. I bet no one remembers when jordan has his off nights, just his good nights.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Bulls in 3


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> by any measure worthy was a far more efficient scorer than pippen.


Yes, but efficiency ratings are affected by pace of team and era. Worthy on the '87 Lakers, in the '87 NBA, was more efficient than Pippen on the '96 Bulls, in the '96 NBA, without question. But that doesn't get at who was neutrally the better scorer. I assume if this series were played, it would be played in the same era.

Team differences would still be there, which still doesn't get at the true value of a player. Was Worthy's efficiency aided by the fact that he played in an offensive machine, with maybe the best play-maker of all-time, and thus got a lot of easy baskets? I'd imagine it's a big factor.

Not to say Worthy was not a talented scorer and perhaps even better than Pippen. From observation of both players, however, in their respective primes, I don't think there was a significant difference.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> 
> 
> The series goes to Game 7 if it's tied 3-3 after Game 6. So there you go. And I hate you for making me write all that down.


Sorry, it was early in the morning and before work and I was too lazy to do it all out. It was faster to see what you did and agree or disagree with the logic.

And you're right. A seven-game series is the most likely occurance, but not as likely as *all* the other occurances combined.



> I hope what I wrote down makes sense. And I don't understand why it's the case that homecourt advantage seems to be more important in Game 7 than in other games of a series, but it seems to be. I remember there was a time during the 80s and 90s when a road team didn't win a Game 7 for ten years. Though, I'd agree with you that if the Bulls and Lakers are equally matched, except that the Bulls are certain to win Game 7 if it gets there, then the Bulls will probably win the series.


What you wrote down seems perfectly valid. I wasn't originally asserting that it was sure to go seven games...I was just arguing the logic that seemed to go, "I can't win it in 7, so I'll win it in 6."

Getting to Game 7 is either going to happen or not, independant of whether you can win it. You aren't going to win in 6 "because you can't win it in 7." You may win it in 6 for any number of reasons (being better by enough to win 4 games in 6, luck, key injuries, etc), but not *because* you feel Game 7 is unwinnable.

That was my point. I hope that made sense. Though I retract my point about winning it in 6 being equivalent to "winning with ease." Two evenly-matched teams *could* go just 6 games. It's just half as likely as two evenly-matched teams going 7.


----------



## radronOmega (Aug 1, 2004)

*re*

Bulls in 3



---------


Such a detailed opinon with soo many facts to back it up. I am in awe of your genius.

w/e 

go off in your jordan fantasy land....


----------



## sweet_constipation (Jul 3, 2004)

Bulls in 7.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

*Re: re*



> Originally posted by <b>radronOmega</b>!
> Such a detailed opinon with soo many facts to back it up. I am in awe of your genius.
> 
> w/e
> ...


Theres a "quote" button on the bottom corner of my post, if you press that, it will take you to a reply page with my quote in quote box so it stands out as a quote and not part of your reply. 

I said Bulls in 3 because its fairly obvious that Michael Jordan would average atleast 55 points in the series and Bulls would win each game by atleast 40 points, by the 4th game, the Lakers would decide that its not worth playing and they would choose to start their summer vacation early. Enough details for you?


----------



## ljt (May 24, 2003)

bulls in 6!


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

*Re: Re: re*



> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Theres a "quote" button on the bottom corner of my post, if you press that, it will take you to a reply page with my quote in quote box so it stands out as a quote and not part of your reply.
> ...


The kid is only 14, dont teach too much tech. stuff to him yet, he is not ready to learn all of them.


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: re*



> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 
> 
> The kid is only 14, dont teach too much tech. stuff to him yet, he is not ready to learn all of them.


John, teach me some of your knowledge. I am dying to be like you


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: re*



> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 
> 
> The kid is only 14, dont teach too much tech. stuff to him yet, he is not ready to learn all of them.


John, you rock.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: re*



> Originally posted by <b>theo4002</b>!
> 
> 
> John, teach me some of your knowledge. I am dying to be like you


Thanks, I know I am the superior here.

Dont feel ashame for being inferior to me, because most of you are!


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: re*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> John, you rock.


As long as you know you are the second option when I am on the team.

You can be Pippen, I am the Jordan.

You are fast, but just doesnt have the explosiveness to get it done!


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re*



> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 
> 
> Thanks, I know I am the superior here.
> ...


Can you teach me to get to 1/10 of your coolness even though that is miles away from my sad self

F!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re*



> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 
> As long as you know you are the second option when I am on the team.


I'm afraid not, buddy. I am Pippen, you are Penny.

I am the quickness, you are the gimp.

But once you were good! But your handsome went down because your knee.

You are good, John, but at NBA player level. I am on superstar level and these kids know it. I should be on the Olympic team, Larry Brown needs me.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> They averaged identical PPG numbers in the years in question. If Worthy scored more in other years, it's worth noting that the Lakers a played a more uptempo game in a more uptempo era. Worthy may have scored a similar or lesser percentage of the team's points compared to Pippen, but there were many more points to go around. Field goal percentage is a completely invalid thing to compare between eras. The average field goal percentage was much higher in the '80s than in the late-'90s.


Both Pippen and Worthy averaged 19.4 ppg in the years we’re talking about (87 and 96), that’s true. It’s also true that Worthy benefited from having the greatest playmaker of all time in Magic and played in an era where defenses (and coaching IMO) weren’t as good as they were in 96. On the flip side, Pippen had Jordan drawing more defensive attention by himself than any single Showtime Laker, and Pippen was also the unquestioned 2nd scoring option while Worthy was no better than 3rd. Worthy also shot 53.9% from the floor in 86-87 while Pippen shot 46.3% from the floor in 95-96, and he took 14.7 shots to get his 19.4 points while Pippen took 15.8 shots to get his 19.4 points. I know, comparing FG%’s across different eras is always pointless without context, that much is obvious. But I’m not sure the 9 years separating those two dynasties makes up for a 7.6% in FG% and Worthy’s better shot totals, both of which indicate he was a much more efficient scorer. But sure, I could see the different eras making that much of a difference (no, I don’t believe Pippen or Worthy were in a more advantageous situation than the other to score). 

This may be my bias kicking in, because I watched Worthy with much joy as a kid, and even when he was an old fart past his prime he was still able to put the ball in the hole very efficiently and with great ease using his amazing touch around the basket. Pippen certainly never had Worthy’s touch around the basket, and he couldn’t score in the open court nearly as well as Worthy. I’d say Pippen was maybe a more effective slasher in 96, and even then he wasn’t anything all that special. Maybe Pippen was a better jump shooter too? I could see that argument being made. But heck, even when Worthy was clearly declining and Magic retired he put up respectable scoring averages. 



> Sure, Pippen's name was not "James."  I don't really see a point here...Pippen was in no way considered a choker. He played big in all the playoffs after he became great, including the Finals.


No, Pippen wasn’t a choker, he just didn’t raise his game (in my argument here, his scoring) to a higher level than what Worthy was able to do. Worthy took his game (mostly his scoring) to another level in the postseason, averaging for his career 21.1 PPG on 54.4% shooting versus his regular season career averages of 17.6 PPG on 52.1% shooting. Pippen’s FG% in the postseason was 44.4% and 17.5 PPG versus his career regular season average of 47.3% and 16.1 PPG. These statistical examples, of course, don’t prove by themselves how Worthy was able to raise his game in the playoffs, but it’s just one unbiased example. 



> Jordan was also not called "Big Game." So?


Come on Minstrel, don’t purposely misinterpret what I said. You know as well as I do that Jordan may not have had a name like Big Game, but he was certainly known for his incredible clutchness and ability to raise his game in the playoffs. 



> I don't see any difference from a "clutch" perspective between the two.


I see a distinct difference between both player’s career postseason performances, with the advantage going to Worthy. 



> This doesn't draw them closer...this isn't some category that needs to be accounted for. Both players were big in the post-season. Finals MVP is based on the circumstances and Worthy would have won no Finals MVP awards alongside Jordan, in my opinion. Jordan was simply considered too dominant. Therefore, Pippen's lack of Finals MVPs doesn't mean a whole lot.


No, it’s just one example of what a great player Worthy was in the postseason. True, he may not have won a Finals MVP alongside Jordan, but he indeed did win one for good reason. 



> I think Rodman was a more stable, smarter player in 1996 than in 1988. In 1988, he was likely to take himself out of his game. By 1996, he was masterful at taking others out of their games. In 1988, Rodman was flighty and unreliable and Worthy took full advantage of that. But I don't think the same thing would happen in 1996.


I partially disagree here. Worthy didn’t do anything to take Rodman “out of his game” other than beat him down the floor and score at will with his touch around the basket. Rodman didn’t take himself out in the 88 Finals. And anyway, Rodman’s quickness and speed were better in 88 than they were in 96, and I think that factor by itself is more important than how much savvier Rodman was in 96. But we’ll agree to disagree here, I suppose.



> My original point was that while the Bulls had the defenders for the Lakers' big threats, the Lakers had only one excellent defender in Cooper, who couldn't possibly do much to stop Jordan *and* Pippen.


Ah, I see. 



> You said he'd give Pippen some trouble. Cooper was a great defender and I agree with you. But then that means that the single great defender is taken up by Pippen, leaving no one with any great defensive repute to check Jordan.


Yeah, I’d put Cooper on Jordan during key stretches to stop him from scoring 40 points a game.


----------



## 33 (Nov 18, 2002)

Pippen was better than Worthy in thier respective primes. Pippen was indeed just as effective, if not more effective, in the open court. Why do I say that? I say that b/c Pippen could finish the break as well as start the break.....which is something Worthy rarely did. The difference in the fg% stems from Pippen being able to stick the 3 pointer. Worthy was a great post player and that's how he got most of his points. Pippen would benefit from the penatration of the defense by Jordan who would then kick it out to Pippen for the 3 pointer. Worthy could never, ever, ever be the defender that Pippen was. Worhty was able to elevate his game, scoring wise, in the playoffs b/c he had Magic throwing him the ball while he was in scoring position.......on the other hand, Pippen was the PG for the Bulls so he had to be the person to find people in scoring position. Worthy didn't have the all-around game that Pippen had. That's the reason I would take Pippen any day over Worthy.

Pippen is not a choker at all. His playoffs performances were on an as needed basis. I say that meaning, with MJ on his team all Pippen had to do was find MJ and keep the offense in constant motion. IF you watch the Bulls run the triangle and watch the Lakers run it, you will see how the Lakers do a lot of standing around while the Bulls would keep moving. When the bulls needed a big play, Pippen was there jsut as much as Jordan. Of course, when it came down to the last shot.......you knew who was going to get it.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> I know, comparing FG%’s across different eras is always pointless without context, that much is obvious. But I’m not sure the 9 years separating those two dynasties makes up for a 7.6% in FG% and Worthy’s better shot totals, both of which indicate he was a much more efficient scorer. But sure, I could see the different eras making that much of a difference (no, I don’t believe Pippen or Worthy were in a more advantageous situation than the other to score).


I can also see that difference being a legitimate difference in era. As far as I can remember, Worthy's field goal was excellent, though not spectacular, for his time and Pippen's field goal percentage was also excellent, though not spectacular, for his time. That leads me to believe that the difference between the field goal percentages is an era effect.



> This may be my bias kicking in, because I watched Worthy with much joy as a kid, and even when he was an old fart past his prime he was still able to put the ball in the hole very efficiently and with great ease using his amazing touch around the basket. Pippen certainly never had Worthy’s touch around the basket, and he couldn’t score in the open court nearly as well as Worthy. I’d say Pippen was maybe a more effective slasher in 96, and even then he wasn’t anything all that special. Maybe Pippen was a better jump shooter too? I could see that argument being made. But heck, even when Worthy was clearly declining and Magic retired he put up respectable scoring averages.


I think Pippen was a quite effective slasher, even in 1996. No, he didn't have anything like Worthy's touch around the rim, but he was also an effective post-player. He was a superior jump-shooter and I'd argue your contention that Worthy was better in the open court. Pippen was a great finisher on the break (and decision-maker, but passing isn't part of this discussion).



> No, Pippen wasn’t a choker, he just didn’t raise his game (in my argument here, his scoring) to a higher level than what Worthy was able to do. Worthy took his game (mostly his scoring) to another level in the postseason, averaging for his career 21.1 PPG on 54.4% shooting versus his regular season career averages of 17.6 PPG on 52.1% shooting. Pippen’s FG% in the postseason was 44.4% and 17.5 PPG versus his career regular season average of 47.3% and 16.1 PPG. These statistical examples, of course, don’t prove by themselves how Worthy was able to raise his game in the playoffs, but it’s just one unbiased example.


But by that reasoning, Jordan also didn't "take his game to another level as much as Worthy did." 

Jordan scored 33 ppg on 48.6% shooting in the post-season, as compared with 30 ppg on 49.8% shooting in the regular season, while Worthy scored 21.1 ppg on 54.4% shooting in the playoffs versus his regular season averages of 17.6 ppg on 52.1% shooting.

Like Pippen, Jordan's scoring went up a bit and his field goal percentage went down a tick. Worthy, however, raised his scoring average by more than either and *raised* his field goal percentage in the playoffs.

What can we infer from this? Very little, in my estimation, unless we want to say that Worthy was more "big game" than Jordan, too. The playoffs are one, somewhat random sample of games against generally better defenses but with more minutes played. Playoff numbers should be near regular season numbers with biases towards a bit more points per game and a bit less field goal percentage.

All three manifested the higher points per game, and I'd call Worthy's higher field goal percentage an interesting sample feature, but nothing particularly significant in determining objective player quality.



> Come on Minstrel, don’t purposely misinterpret what I said. You know as well as I do that Jordan may not have had a name like Big Game, but he was certainly known for his incredible clutchness and ability to raise his game in the playoffs.


I had addressed your point seriously, this was just a throw-away point based on how you phrased your argument. Sorry if it seemed to you that I was misrepresenting you in some way. 



> I partially disagree here. Worthy didn’t do anything to take Rodman “out of his game” other than beat him down the floor and score at will with his touch around the basket. Rodman didn’t take himself out in the 88 Finals. And anyway, Rodman’s quickness and speed were better in 88 than they were in 96, and I think that factor by itself is more important than how much savvier Rodman was in 96. But we’ll agree to disagree here, I suppose.


I agree Worthy did nothing to take Rodman out of his game. My opinion was simply that Rodman was unreliable then and prone to disappearing at times. He was a more focused player, on the court, in 1996.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>33</b>!
> The difference in the fg% stems from Pippen being able to stick the 3 pointer. Worthy was a great post player and that's how he got most of his points. Pippen would benefit from the penatration of the defense by Jordan who would then kick it out to Pippen for the 3 pointer.


which is why ppfga is a much better measure. of course, worthy ranked much higher in that than pippen as well, and jumped that up significantly in the playoffs (pippen's went down by a decent amount).

pippen was the better overall player, but as scorers, give me worthy any day.


----------



## radronOmega (Aug 1, 2004)

*re*

Theres a "quote" button on the bottom corner of my post, if you press that, it will take you to a reply page with my quote in quote box so it stands out as a quote and not part of your reply. 

I said Bulls in 3 because its fairly obvious that Michael Jordan would average atleast 55 points in the series and Bulls would win each game by atleast 40 points, by the 4th game, the Lakers would decide that its not worth playing and they would choose to start their summer vacation early. Enough details for you?


-----------


I know the friggen quote button *edited: No personal attacks*, I go on several message boards and i'm more intelligent then you.

As for whoever said that he's only 14, quite you vince carter fan from hong Kong. That shows me how much you know from those 2 fact already plus the fact you have someone from south park on your avatar!! Ha.



-------------


87 Lakers would win the Bulls in 6. Don't deny it. Worthy was a third option because tehre was kareem and magic Pippen would be a third option on that team LOL. If 88 worthy can beat down on rodman, imagine what he wil do to 96 rodman. If 91 magic can still average 19 points and 10 assist against 91 pippen then imagine what 87 magic would do against him LOL. Jordan you say??? It's called involking the Jordan rules against him, there you go end of story. This is pointless argueing after this point because all of you remember everything Jordan did positive and nothing he did negative because the media flashed his greatness wayyyy too much for one's health. The same people who showed everything that was negative about Kobe. Pathetic... have your opinions but those Jordan years will NEVER come back. And for that Hong Kong dude, Vince Carter is washed up and you must obviously be gay to watch South Park since the whole cast is gay  

87 lakers>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>96 bulls

heck

any celtic team from the 80's>>>>>>>>>>>>90's bulls


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> I can also see that difference being a legitimate difference in era. As far as I can remember, Worthy's field goal was excellent, though not spectacular, for his time and Pippen's field goal percentage was also excellent, though not spectacular, for his time. That leads me to believe that the difference between the field goal percentages is an era effect.


c'mon, minstrel, you can do better than that. pippen ranked 71st in fg% in '96, worthy 13th. the surrounding seasons, pippen ranked 49th in '95, 50th in '97. worthy 4th in '86, 15th in '87. in the playoffs, worthy's 87 campaign saw him jump from 54% to 59% (24 ppg), pippen fall to 39% (17 ppg).




> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> What can we infer from this? Very little, in my estimation, unless we want to say that Worthy was more "big game" than Jordan, too. The playoffs are one, somewhat random sample of games against generally better defenses but with more minutes played. Playoff numbers should be near regular season numbers with biases towards a bit more points per game and a bit less field goal percentage.
> 
> All three manifested the higher points per game, and I'd call Worthy's higher field goal percentage an interesting sample feature, but nothing particularly significant in determining objective player quality.


is it possible that in worthy's case, we can at least entertain the notion that the playoffs were a better indication of his play at maximum effort and concentration? that when it was more important, he played the game at a slightly higher level? 

we know jordan was 110% all the time. the lakers were known more for coasting during the regular season, and getting themselves prepared for the postseason. worthy played 143 postseason games. not an insignificant amount.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> c'mon, minstrel, you can do better than that. pippen ranked 71st in fg% in '96, worthy 13th.


Was there a cluster of similar field goal percentages that Pippen was in? He could have been, say, 1% or less away from being top-20, conceivably.

If not, then I agree that Worthy shot better, for his era. Just not nearly as much difference as the raw numbers suggest. I've already entertained the possibility that Worthy was a better scorer than a '96 Pippen. I just don't think the difference was that large.



> is it possible that in worthy's case, we can at least entertain the notion that the playoffs were a better indication of his play at maximum effort and concentration? that when it was more important, he played the game at a slightly higher level?


No, I don't think so. Especially when it comes down to equivocations, like "These people coasted and these people were '110%' at all times." The Bulls notoriously coasted in the regular seasons of their last three championship seasons. Jordan, himself, said that he paces himself because a season is a marathon, not a sprint. Pippen has said similar things.

There's no evidence for the concept of "clutch" or "big game" players, people who elevate their games under certain circumstances. Whenever a proper statistical study is undertaken, the conclusion comes back that no discernable evidence could be found for players who "raise thier games."

Big games players are basically players who don't fall off. The idea of players who magically get better is just a romantic notion that fans like to play with because it makes for more dramatic, character-laden heros.

I disbelieve the idea that Worthy "raised his concentration" in the playoffs, like he wasn't paying much attention in all those packed house regular season games and then suddenly clicked into the game when it became the post-season.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> No, I don't think so. Especially when it comes down to equivocations, like "These people coasted and these people were '110%' at all times." The Bulls notoriously coasted in the regular seasons of their last three championship seasons. Jordan, himself, said that he paces himself because a season is a marathon, not a sprint. Pippen has said similar things.
> 
> ...


worthy's scoring went up SIGNIFICANTLY in the playoffs. the lakers obviously utilized him differently in the playoffs than in the regular season. fga / minute - up. scoring - up. fg% - up. now, whether along with the fact that he was utilized differently he increased his concentration or effort matters less than the fact that the results were significantly better, so much so that he's at the top of the charts historically as far as regular season / playoff differences. was it just a fluke observation among all players (in that, given a large enough sample size, you will have outliers), or was it something different? and does it matter? worthy performed at a higher level when it was most important - fluke or not, over 143 games he performed at that level. we can discount it and say his regular season performance is the better indicator and completely ignore what he did in the playoffs, or we can say the playoffs do show us at least SOMETHING.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Was there a cluster of similar field goal percentages that Pippen was in? He could have been, say, 1% or less away from being top-20, conceivably.
> ...


pippen was at 46.3% in '96. 47.3% moves him up from 71st to 55th. his ppfga wasn't top 100.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> worthy's scoring went up SIGNIFICANTLY in the playoffs. the lakers obviously utilized him differently in the playoffs than in the regular season.


Maybe so. Which still doesn't have a great bearing on his objective player value, in my opinion. Perhaps defenses played the Lakers differently and swarmed Abdul-Jabbar more, leaving Worthy more open for easier shots.

I agree, though. The results are what they are. We can come up with a variety of explanations for why those results happened. I'm just not sure any of them point to Worthy being better than his overall numbers.


----------



## Debt Collector (Mar 13, 2003)

even if worthy< pippen, green < rodman, jabbar/rambis/scott/cooper/thompson is better than kukoc/kerr/wennington/longley/harper


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Answer is simple. Magic would be the difference. '87 Lakers over '96 Bulls. Remember! MJ's Bulls didn't succeed until Magic, Bird and Isaiah were gone.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RedHot&Rolling</b>!
> Answer is simple. Magic would be the difference. '87 Lakers over '96 Bulls. Remember! *MJ's Bulls didn't succeed until Magic, Bird and Isaiah were gone. *


True, but i don´t think Magic would be the key...
A prime Pippen could, eventually, make it hard for Magic to start the free-wheeling offense...

I say the difference-maker is Kareem: there´s no way the Bulls frontline would be able to stop him... 
No way to stop the lob pass to the high post... and Kareem´s hook was money...


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> I can also see that difference being a legitimate difference in era. As far as I can remember, Worthy's field goal was excellent, though not spectacular, for his time and Pippen's field goal percentage was also excellent, though not spectacular, for his time. That leads me to believe that the difference between the field goal percentages is an era effect.


Probably, yes. Though, kflo sited some interesting FG stats.



> But by that reasoning, Jordan also didn't "take his game to another level as much as Worthy did."


Notice I said that those stats by themselves were just one example, and not to be taken as an end all, be all evaluation. That said, Jordan played at an amazing level more consistently than anyone in history, so I'm not sure if you can compare an oddity like him in this situation. 



> All three manifested the higher points per game, and I'd call Worthy's higher field goal percentage an interesting sample feature, but nothing particularly significant in determining objective player quality.


Ray Allen exhibits the same higher statistical output in his short postseason career. And I've always said that Allen was underrated for his postseason performances. But as I said before, these stats are merely one unbiased example. 



> I had addressed your point seriously, this was just a throw-away point based on how you phrased your argument. Sorry if it seemed to you that I was misrepresenting you in some way.


No problem. 



> I agree Worthy did nothing to take Rodman out of his game. My opinion was simply that Rodman was unreliable then and prone to disappearing at times. He was a more focused player, on the court, in 1996.


Sure, I'll agree with that.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> True, but i don´t think Magic would be the key...
> ...


i really don't think pippen would spend too much time on magic, because it would cause too much of a mismatch with worthy.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> i really don't think pippen would spend too much time on magic, because it would cause too much of a mismatch with worthy.


Well, that´s the thing... going team-to-team, the starting line-ups of:
Harper - Magic;
Jordan - Scott;
Pippen - Worthy;
Rodman - Green;
Longley - Kareem
mismatches would happen.

Id Pippen is on Worthy, who´s on Magic? Jordan? Then Scott would have a field day... Rodman on 87 Magic? No way...

The 96 Bulls have 3 outstanding defensive players... The Lakers have 4 outstanding offensive players... It´s bound to come up short...


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, that´s the thing... going team-to-team, the starting line-ups of:
> ...


i think harper's a capable defender for magic. when kerr comes in, he guards scott, and jordan guards magic. but, yeah, la's a tough matchup.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> i think harper's a capable defender for magic. when kerr comes in, he guards scott, and jordan guards magic. but, yeah, la's a tough matchup.


I beg to differ, kflo... The 96 Harper couldn´t guard the 87 Magic... Magic in 87 was much quicker and faster than the 91 Magic...

If he was appointed that defensive assignement, the Lakers would run all over the Bulls...

In a 7 game series, Harper could guard Magic in the 1st game... and get lit up... Then the Bulls would put Jordan or Pippen on him (Rodman couldn´t guard an 87 Magic either)...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> Id Pippen is on Worthy, who´s on Magic? Jordan? Then Scott would have a field day... Rodman on 87 Magic? No way...


If Pippen had to take Worthy, put Jordan on Magic and Harper on Scott.



> The 96 Bulls have 3 outstanding defensive players... The Lakers have 4 outstanding offensive players... It´s bound to come up short...


If Byron Scott is an "outstanding offensive player," then the 1996 Ron Harper more than qualifies as an "outstanding defensive player." He was a stellar defensive player and part of that attack defense that destroyed so many teams.

Ron Harper is underrated as a defensive force after his knee injury ended his high-flying offensive days.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> If Pippen had to take Worthy, put Jordan on Magic and Harper on Scott.
> ...


I don´t share your enthusiasm about the 32 year yold Harper´s defensive prowess, Minstrel... 
Scott was 25, shooying almost .500FG% from the field and .436% from 3point land... i sincereky don´t believe Harper could check him...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> I don´t share your enthusiasm about the 32 year yold Harper´s defensive prowess, Minstrel...
> Scott was 25, shooying almost .500FG% from the field and .436% from 3point land... i sincereky don´t believe Harper could check him...


You may be influenced by how Harper was with the Lakers. In 1996, Harper was a tremendous defender. He often pulled the tougher defensive assignment of the opposing guards so that Jordan wouldn't have to expend so much energy.

Jackson wouldn't have done that if Harper were not such a good defensive player.

Jordan, Pippen, Harper and Rodman together were why the team may have been the best defensive team every. Three all-time great defenders and one very good one in Harper.

Further Scott was no dynamic slasher who simply would have burned past Harper. He was a shooter, so I don't see why he would have given Harper, even at 32, a problem.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> You may be influenced by how Harper was with the Lakers. In 1996, Harper was a tremendous defender. He often pulled the tougher defensive assignment of the opposing guards so that Jordan wouldn't have to expend so much energy.
> ...


First: I hate you Minstrel.

Second: I believe you are over estimating Harper´s defensive abillityes...
If i stand correct, you would put him on Magic, right? I consider that to be border-line suicide... Harper could stand his ground against Isiah (The One Legged One) and others, but against Magic? 87 Magic? Surely not!!!
Scott would shoot all-over him....

Harper, the savy old veteran who was trusted to bring the ball up court and set up a few screens in the Bulls years can´t be counted as a major player, here...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> First: I hate you Minstrel.


How come?



> Second: I believe you are over estimating Harper´s defensive abillityes...
> If i stand correct, you would put him on Magic, right? I consider that to be border-line suicide... Harper could stand his ground against Isiah (The One Legged One) and others, but against Magic? 87 Magic? Surely not!!!


Err, no. While I am disinclined to believe you that Harper would be ridiculously overmatched by Magic, I was just now proposing Jordan on Magic and Harper on Scott.



> Scott would shoot all-over him....


Why? Harper was a very good defender. What makes you think Scott would just shoot over him at will?



> Harper, the savy old veteran who was trusted to bring the ball up court and set up a few screens in the Bulls years can´t be counted as a major player, here...


Are you joking? That was his role *four years later* with the Lakers. You clearly didn't watch him in 1996 with the Bulls. He was one of their key defenders. Offensively, he didn't have a huge role...shoot a couple jumpers, score a few lay-ups on great ball movement...but his defense was tremendously important to the team.

He wasn't considered some "savvy old veteran" at 32. He was just off his prime and still a great defenders. He was Phil Jackson's "savvy old veteran" four years later when he imported him to LA.

Regardless of what you think, Harper is a very key figure in this series. He was a tremendous defender and gave the Bulls four good to great defenders.


----------

