# 1996 Bulls vs 1985 Lakers? Who wins and Why



## B-Scott (Jan 17, 2006)

Classic Matchup

Let's break down the matchups

C Kareem vs Luc Longley
PF Rodman vs Worthy
SF Magic vs Pippen
G Scott vs Harper
G Cooper vs MJ

I know ppl will say Magic was the point guard ,and Rambis was the PF. This was the 85 Lakers best lineup. They would run a 3 guard rotation with Magic ,Scott ,and Cooper in at the same time with Worthy and Kareem up front. The Lakers would have a major advantage in the Low post with Kareem and Worthy. 1985 Kareem averaged 22 points a game ,and still was a dominant player in the league. If you recall ,Worthy gave Rodman the most problems out of all the players Rodman went up against. Even Rodman admitted that. 1988 Worthy had 36 points 17 rebounds 10 assist on Rodman and the Pistons in Game 7. Michael cooper takes the ball handling responsibility from Magic ,and allow's Magic to post up a little bit more. He would also draw the assignment of guarding MJ. 

The 1991 Bulls beat the Lakers ,but keep in mind ,that is past prime Magic and Worthy. Magic was on his last legs ,and Worthy looked like he had a 23 inch vertical playing with the sprained ankle. Also keep in mind ,there was no Kareem that year ,or Michael cooper. ( Big difference) Kareem alone would have made a huge difference in Game 3 when LA had control ,and Game 5.

I think the series would come down to Kareem would be to much for the Bulls to deal with ,just like he was to much for the 85 Celtics. He was MVP of the 1985 Finals.

Lakers 4-2


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

magic did come in 2nd in mvp in '91, after winning 3 of the prior 4. and he was only 31. worthy on the other hand wasn't the same athlete he was.


----------



## Jordan23Forever (May 14, 2005)

I like how B-Scott believes that if Worthy had played the entire '91 Finals (he only missed one game, mind you, and averaged 41 mpg in the 4 games he played -- yeah, he was really hurt :raised_ey) the outcome would have went from a 4-1 Bulls victory to a Lakers victory. Okay. So the Lakers, whose lone win happened on a MIRACLE shot from Perkins at the buzzer, and who got thoroughly outplayed the entire series (even in the LA victory) would have won the series if Worthy played one extra game and was "healthy" (never mind the fact that players who are really hurt don't play 41 mpg).

Worthy averaged 21.6/4.4/4.4/46.1% FG in 14 playoff games prior to the '91 Finals. Against Chicago, he averaged 19.3/3.0/2.0/47.9% FG. His offense is a wash basically -- slightly fewer points on better efficiency. The drop in his other numbers, while substantial in an absolute sense, don't really help explain Chicago's dominance (-1.4 rpg and -2.4 apg isn't gonna swing that series for LA, sorry).


I also find the "Magic and Worthy were past their primes" claim interesting. Jordan was still dominating the league and winning MVP's at age 35 and Pippen was still a top 6-8 NBA player at age 29-30, but Magic and Worthy were somehow "past their primes" at ages 31 and 29, respectively. Please. Your entire line of reasoning is tendentious. Anyone who watched that series knows that there wasn't a *damn thing* LA could do to stop the Chicago onslaught. Chicago was just too good on both ends of the court. Jordan was possessed, and had one of the greatest Finals series of all time (31.2 pts/6.6 reb/11.4 ast/2.9 stl/1.6 blk/56% FG) and Pippen averaged ~21/9/7 along with stellar defense. But yeah, Worthy's extra rebound and two assists would've swung that series in LA's favor. :laugh:


As for the topic question, I feel it could go either way. I'd say it's a toss-up, with the series going 7 games either way. No, Chicago never faced anything like LA's high-octane, balanced attack (with a good big man like Kareem to anchor the game in the halfcourt), but neither did LA ever face anything like Chicago's individual and team defense and their superb coaching and triangle offense (which no team since, including Jackson's Lakers from '00-'03, has ever run anywhere near as brilliantly). Chicago was also masterful at controlling the pace of games, and they had the athletes to play at any pace. That team was greater than the sum of their parts, which is why despite LA's edge on paper, I say it'd be a toss-up. But please cut the baloney about the '91 Lakers. They were simply shellacked.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

i applaud the use of "tendentious" appropriately in a sentence. :bananallama:

Also, great post in general, Jordan23Forever.

I also see it as a toss-up...the best offensive machine in history versus what I think was the greatest defensive team in history. If anything breaks the tie, it's that I think Chicago's offense would be difficult for LA to stop. But they always have the chance to out-gun anyone, even a defense as good as that Chicago team's.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

[quote="Jordan23Forever]No, Chicago never faced anything like LA's high-octane, balanced attack (with a good big man like Kareem to anchor the game in the halfcourt), but neither did LA ever face anything like Chicago's individual and team defense and their superb coaching and triangle offense[/quote]

Nah, Lakers in 88 and 89 definitely faced comparable team and individual defense against the Pistons, and in the Finals no less. That team was arguably more/equally tough-nosed as the 96 Bulls, with a young and spry Rodman, Laimbeer, Dumars, and the toughest and 2nd best PG of all time in Isiah. No on the Pistons were as good individually as Pippen defensively, but they were simply lock down defensive team. And the Lakers also faced easily comparable offenses in the 80's, including the 76er's after Malone came aboard and of course the Celtics. Coaching is a matter of opinion, but I'll give you that one over K.C. Jones.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

And nice to see you posting here J23F.


----------



## Derek (Nov 18, 2006)

The Lakers from 1985 were a much better version of today's Phoenix Suns. The Lakers relied on the running game and pull up jumpshots. They shot almost 55% from the field while scoring 118 PPG. Like the Suns, the Lakers were not a strong defensive team, giving up 111 PPG. 

The Bulls from 1996 were a decent fast break team, but were an all-around team. They could shoot the lights out, averaging 105 PPG. Their defense was much better than the Lakers, giving up only 93 PPG. The Bulls had one main weakness, balanced scoring. After Jordan, only two Bulls averaged double figures(Pippen at 19.4 and Kukoc at 13.1). Defense was their strong spot. With Rodman averaging 15 RPG, and Jordan and Pippen each averaging 6, they were a threat under the boards despite having a 7'2" center who only averaged 5 RPG.

The Bulls would easily win, and it would be their defense that would shut down the Lakers. The Bulls could stop any defense, and the Lakers would be no exception.


----------



## Jordan23Forever (May 14, 2005)

EHL said:


> Nah, Lakers in 88 and 89 definitely faced comparable team and individual defense against the Pistons, and in the Finals no less.


And how did that work out for you?  Eking out a 7-game series victory in '88 and getting broomed in '89. Quick, where's B-Scott with the Laker injury damage control!?  (yes, I know LA had injuries in '89 and so likely wouldn't have been swept, but if Isiah hadn't been hobbled in '88 Detroit likely would have won -- a point neglected by most Laker fans)



> That team was arguably more/equally tough-nosed as the 96 Bulls, with a young and spry Rodman, Laimbeer, Dumars, and the toughest and 2nd best PG of all time in Isiah. No on the Pistons were as good individually as Pippen defensively, but they were simply lock down defensive team. And the Lakers also faced easily comparable offenses in the 80's, including the 76er's after Malone came aboard and of course the Celtics. Coaching is a matter of opinion, but I'll give you that one over K.C. Jones.


I forgot about the Bad Boys, actually. In '89 they were comparable to, or better than, Chicago defensively (going by their allowed ppg and FG% relative to the league average during the years in question), but in '88 they weren't. The Pistons held opponents to -4.1 ppg and -1.3% FG in 1988, whereas Chicago held opponents to -6.6 ppg and -1.4% shooting in '96. Regardless, however, I don't feel that Detroit's team defense was as good as Chicago's; much of their defense was predicated on intimidation and thuggery (which Riley later perfected in NY and Miami). Their rotations and anticipation weren't nearly as good as Chicago's imo, though the effect (lower ppg and FG%) might have been the same.

I think the size of Chicago's perimeter defenders (Jordan, Harper, Pippen) also would have created more problems defensively for LA than Isiah/Dumars/Johnson.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Jordan23Forever said:


> And how did that work out for you?  Eking out a 7-game series victory in '88 and getting broomed in '89. Quick, where's B-Scott with the Laker injury damage control!?  (yes, I know LA had injuries in '89 and so likely wouldn't have been swept, but if Isiah hadn't been hobbled in '88 Detroit likely would have won -- a point neglected by most Laker fans)


A title is a title, though, and the Lakers still beat them (with an 88 version of Kareem instead of the 85 version in question, the one that was Finals MVP against McHale and Parish in the Finals). Plus, as far as IT's injury is concered, he still posted huge numbers in Game 7 and otherwise, so I'm not really buying the injury excuse. 

And I also never perscribed to the "Worthy was injured" theory in the 91 Finals. Lakers lose that series no matter how well Worthy could have played healthy, even if he was 5 years younger. 



> I forgot about the Bad Boys, actually. In '89 they were comparable to, or better than, Chicago defensively (going by their allowed ppg and FG% relative to the league average during the years in question), but in '88 they weren't. The Pistons held opponents to -4.1 ppg and -1.3% FG in 1988, whereas Chicago held opponents to -6.6 ppg and -1.4% shooting in '96. Regardless, however, I don't feel that Detroit's team defense was as good as Chicago's; much of their defense was predicated on intimidation and thuggery (which Riley later perfected in NY and Miami). Their rotations and anticipation weren't nearly as good as Chicago's imo, though the effect (lower ppg and FG%) might have been the same.


Hard to compare FGP against and ppg across eras, though this is a bit more applicable since it's only a 7-8 year gap. That said, great defensive teams aren't necessarily always first in the league. And since we're talking about the 96 Bulls, with a slower Jordan and Rodman compared to a prime IT, Dumars, Rodman, and Laimbeer, I'm going to have to say at worst it was a draw, and that either way, Lakers saw plenty of great defense and wouldn't be overwhelmed by the Bulls anymore than they were by the Pistons. 



> I think the size of Chicago's perimeter defenders (Jordan, Harper, Pippen) also would have created more problems defensively for LA than Isiah/Dumars/Johnson.


Certainly that's plausible, but I'm pretty sure that the far superior depth of the 1985 Lakers will pretty easily outweigh any perimeter defensive advantage the Bulls will have. For one, Jordan is slower, but more importantly, who does he take? Magic? OK, that's fine, he did more than well enough against a younger and quicker MJ in the 91 Finals with not nearly the supporting cast he had in 85. Let's just say for argument's sake Pippen takes Magic; who takes Worthy, Jordan? That's a thrasing to be sure. Certainly Rodman won't want any part of Worthy, he was obliterated by Big Game in the 88 Finals in route to a Finals MVP, and that was the much younger version of Rodman who was much more capable then of covering the wing every now and then than in 96. 

And Harper...I mean really now, who's he going to take? 85 Cooper? And Cooper'll be on Jordan and/or Pippen btw, so they won't be getting any easy buckets. The supremely athletic and young Scott will be giving Pippen, Jordan, or anyone else on that Bulls team trouble if they're already worrying about containing Magic and doubling down on Kareem, not to mention hoping Cooper or McGee don't kill them from the outside when they switch their defensive attention. And then who's going to cover McAdoo? 

Come on, not only have the 85 Lakers seen comparable (IMO, better and tougher) defenses in the Bad Boys, who they beat in the Finals, but they've seen better offenses in the 76'ers and Celtics.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Derek said:


> The Bulls would easily win, and it would be their defense that would shut down the Lakers. The Bulls could stop any defense, and the Lakers would be no exception.


Sure, if you never watched them.


----------



## GTA Addict (Jun 27, 2005)

The '96 Bulls offensive efficiency ranks #1 all-time while also being ranked #1 in defense that year, the only team in history to rank #1 in both offense and defense in the same season. Still a close matchup but I'm taking the Bulls since they'd have homecourt (MJ's Bulls never lost a series when they had homecourt advantage).


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

^ However that was calculated, I'm pretty sure no one in their right mind would take the 96 Bulls' offense over the 85 Lakers or even the 85 Celtics. Or the 83 76ers.


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

GTA Addict said:


> The '96 Bulls offensive efficiency ranks #1 all-time while also being ranked #1 in defense that year, the only team in history to rank #1 in both offense and defense in the same season.


How is it calculated? I know it normalizes possessions, but does it statistically attempt to account for differences across separate seasons that may be caused by varying quality of defenses, new rules, etc.?


----------



## Diophantos (Nov 4, 2004)

Hoopla said:


> How is it calculated? I know it normalizes possessions, but does it statistically attempt to account for differences across separate seasons that may be caused by varying quality of defenses, new rules, etc.?


I believe it's simply points per 100 posessions, with no other normailizing factors. The Bulls made more efficient use of their posessions than the Lakers, though the Lakers obviously brought more posessions to the game.

If you want to compare them against their respective leagues, the Bulls' offensive efficiency was 7.6% higher than the league average, while the Lakers' was 5.8% higher than the league average.


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

Diophantos said:


> If you want to compare them against their respective leagues, the Bulls' offensive efficiency was 7.6% higher than the league average, while the Lakers' was 5.8% higher than the league average.


That was the type of figure I was curious about. Thanks.


----------



## sammysamosa (Mar 10, 2003)

awesome thread, keep it going...seeing as how i wasn't really into basketball and the 90's except for being a bandwagon bulls fan...and i was born in 85 so i didnt see much of the lakers...as of right now i think the bulls guys are winning me over on the debate...not just statistics wise but the lakers guy's will mention how the beat better offense's and beat better defense's but how can u say that when the bull's had close to the best of both sides...it'd be completely different. and then the stats are what is putting it over for me..keep debating though...very interesting stuff


----------



## B-Scott (Jan 17, 2006)

1991 James Worthy was no where close to 85 Worthy athletically. He might have averaged 19 points in that series ,but he was very limited. Magic came in 2nd in the MVP voting in 1991 ,but he was still much quicker in 1985. Thats 6 years earlier. Kareem and Cooper make a big difference. The 96 Bulls beat Seattle 4-2. The 85 Lakers are much more explosive then that seattle team. The supersonics were not as good in half-court sets because they did not have the dominant center like the Lakers had in Kareem.

Kareem was MVP of the 85 Finals


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

the 85 lakers did have the single greatest defensive matchup against jordan in league history, in cooper. and they had a guy the bulls had no answer for in kareem. they'd have an extremely difficult defensive matchup in worthy, and obviously magic is a problem matchup-wise as well. mcadoo off the bench. 

and remember, as good as the lakers were offensively in the regular season, they were a team that saw the finals as the real prize, and geared for that. the 85 lakers actually scored *126* ppg in the playoffs. their ts% was higher than in the reg season (def was about the same). they outscored teams by 10 ppg in the playoffs. they turned it over less playing a faster pace. 

bulls offensive numbers were down across the board in the playoffs (defensive numbers were better) - they still were +10 ppg in the playoffs (down from +12 ppg in reg season). their ts% was pretty identical to their opponents (they just controlled possessions). jordan was pretty human in the finals against the tough defense of the sonics. 

what the bulls accomplished in the regular season was remarkable, and they were awesome in the playoffs as well. i think the lakers were better overall and the tougher matchup. 

i don't think la can afford to go to the 3 guard offense too much though, because the bulls would pound them on the glass. scott was still very athletic in '85 and would give jordan a tougher time than he did in '91 (which isn't saying much), but he wouldn't play as much as usual.


----------



## Derek (Nov 18, 2006)

B-Scott said:


> The supersonics were not as good in half-court sets because they did not have the dominant center like the Lakers had in Kareem.



Part of the problem was Ervin Johnson got hurt around game 3(?) and Frank Brickowski ended up starting games 5 and 6. I can't recall if he started game 4, but regardless, Brickowski got a ton of playing time in the final half of the series. If Johnson stayed healthy, it may have been a completely different series.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

well, they went down 3-0 with johnson, who barely played the first 2 games anyway. brick started games 4-6.


----------



## Jordan23Forever (May 14, 2005)

B-Scott said:


> The 96 Bulls beat Seattle 4-2. The 85 Lakers are much more explosive then that seattle team. The supersonics were not as good in half-court sets because they did not have the dominant center like the Lakers had in Kareem.


And the Lakers didn't have defense anywhere NEAR that of Seattle, so...




> the 85 lakers did have the single greatest defensive matchup against jordan in league history, in cooper.


Jordan actually averaged 34.8 ppg on 49.8% shooting against Cooper from 1988-1990 (6 meetings). Those are the only years there is data from. I know that '88-'90 Jordan isn't '96 Jordan (and '88-'90 Coop isn't '85 Coop), but there are guys who held Jordan to worse averages than that, though they usually had a ton of help (e.g., Dumars/Rodman). So I wouldn't call Cooper the best matchup on Jordan in history, really.



> jordan was pretty human in the finals against the tough defense of the sonics.


That actually had less to do with the defense and more to do with him missing 2-4 open shots per game that he normally makes (e.g., open baseline 12 footers, open tip-ins and layups etc.). He was just off that entire series for whatever reason. Believe me, I have the entire series on DVD. Yes, Seattle played great defense, but he was also just off on top of that which made his percentages far worse than usual. He wouldn't have shot 51% or anything, but he wouldn't have shot 43% or whatever he ended up shooting, either (probably around 46-47% if I had to guess). There are also other factors at play, including key players like Pippen, Kerr, and Kukoc going ice cold that series (check their numbers, like 25-30% shooting combined) and allowing Seattle to focus almost exclusively on Jordan with constant doubles and traps, a luxury you're not going to have against Chicago every time out. So I wouldn't read into it too much. Regardless, Seattle's team defense was certainly worlds better than LA's; I don't think that Cooper alone (without the constant doubles and traps and illegal defenses that Seattle employed) can equal Seattle's defensive pressure on Jordan.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

i wish one of the laker fans would explain how 185 pound cooper would do against 235 pound jordan in the post? every time this debate comes up its how the bulls defense is gonna stop the high powered offense of the lakers. well, whose gonna stop pippen whose gonna stop kukoc (remember, he was a very good post player) and who on the lakers is gonna keep rodman of the boards? i think it would be 4-2 bulls.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

and by the way as i have stated before i firmly believe the 97 bulls are better than the 96 version simply because they had a solid lowpost prensence in brian williams. now he is by no means better than kareem but he would definately give him something to do do low. that to me was the most complete team ever in the nba. 97 BULLS GREATEST TEAM EVER.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Jordan23Forever said:


> Jordan actually averaged 34.8 ppg on 49.8% shooting against Cooper from 1988-1990 (6 meetings). Those are the only years there is data from. I know that '88-'90 Jordan isn't '96 Jordan (and '88-'90 Coop isn't '85 Coop), but there are guys who held Jordan to worse averages than that, though they usually had a ton of help (e.g., Dumars/Rodman). So I wouldn't call Cooper the best matchup on Jordan in history, really.


cooper made his last all-defense team in '88, and only played 16 minutes against jordan that year, missing the 2nd game. in '89, he played more, but wasn't the same player. still, jordan was 18-43 in fg's that year against la. in '90, coops last year, jordan had 15 to's in 2 games.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

da bully said:


> i wish one of the laker fans would explain how 185 pound cooper would do against 235 pound jordan in the post? every time this debate comes up its how the bulls defense is gonna stop the high powered offense of the lakers. well, whose gonna stop pippen whose gonna stop kukoc (remember, he was a very good post player) and who on the lakers is gonna keep rodman of the boards? i think it would be 4-2 bulls.


cooper effectively guarded bird in the post. he was very strong. he'd be fine in the post.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

kflo said:


> cooper effectively guarded bird in the post. he was very strong. he'd be fine in the post.


well either way my moneys on jordan over cooper in the post. t believe jordan was a better post player than bird at that stage in his career.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

and by the way what about the other bulls, i think pippn would do a better job on worthy than worthy would on pippen and whose gonna defend kukoc.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

da bully said:


> and by the way as i have stated before i firmly believe the 97 bulls are better than the 96 version simply because they had a solid lowpost prensence in brian williams. now he is by no means better than kareem but he would definately give him something to do do low. that to me was the most complete team ever in the nba. 97 BULLS GREATEST TEAM EVER.


and since i havent gotten a rebutal from anyone, i assume that we are all in agreement that the 97 bulls are the best team ever.


----------



## Jordan23Forever (May 14, 2005)

kflo said:


> cooper made his last all-defense team in '88, and only played 16 minutes against jordan that year, missing the 2nd game. in '89, he played more, but wasn't the same player. still, jordan was 18-43 in fg's that year against la. in '90, coops last year, jordan had 15 to's in 2 games.


Eh, it doesn't prove much anyway. I didn't check each box score to look for Cooper's minutes, which is why I didn't see that he missed the second game in '88. Yes, Jordan was 18-43 (~42%) from the field (with Cooper averaging 31 mpg) and averaged 31.5 ppg against Cooper in '89, but you ngelect to mention that he also averaged 7.5 rebounds (games of 7 and 8 rebs) and 12 assists (games of 8 and 16 assists; the 16 assist game came when he shot 7-20 for 21 points) against him that season. That means that Cooper's defense didn't include boxing his man out, nor, apparently, did it include keeping Jordan out of the lane and drawing defenders for assists (or, the alternative scenario, that he needed a lot of help with Jordan which left other guys open). As for the 15 TO's, well, I feel that you're shifting the goalposts a bit. You neglect to mention Jordan's 34.5 ppg on 54% shooting average that season against Cooper (while previously concentrating on his 18-43 shooting in '89), but then look at TO's. Cooper only played 23 minutes compared to Jordan's 40 minutes in the 8 turnover game, so I highly doubt that Coop forced or helped force all 8 of those TO's in 23 minutes' time.

I'd also like to know why Cooper "wasn't the same player" in '89, one year removed from defensive first-team honors and still playing in 80 of 82 games (with a dip in mpg from ~29 to 24.3 mpg). I'm asking honestly -- was he injured or something? It seems odd that an injured player would play 80 games; the dip in minutes was more likely to make room for Scott, who had developed into a high scoring third option (19.3 ppg that season). Sorry, but if you make first-team defense one year and then are healthy the next season, I can't buy some huge drop-off argument. It's not like he was 35-36 years old, he was 32.


Was he in good shape in '87 when he won DPOY? Because I have both Bulls/Lakers games from '87 on DVD (Jordan scores 36 and 37 iirc; they're marked like that on my DVD cases by the person I purchased them from, I'm not crazy enough to remember game-by-game stats ). If I have a chance I'll pop them in and report back on how he shot. My point is not that Cooper would not do an excellent job on Jordan (because he would, more so than 99% of other players), or that he's not an excellent defender, only that I don't personally feel that he's the "all time best matchup" for Jordan. And even if he is, the numbers say that that doesn't matter much.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

B-Scott said:


> Classic Matchup
> 
> Let's break down the matchups
> 
> ...


As far as i'm concerned, there's no way a team post-1989 could beat the team like the 1985 Lakers. Not one.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

PauloCatarino said:


> As far as i'm concerned, there's no way a team post-1989 could beat the team like the 1985 Lakers. Not one.


sup paulo i knew you were gonna put your 2 cents in, but can you expand on your statment.?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

da bully said:


> sup paulo i knew you were gonna put your 2 cents in, but can you expand on your statment.?


Sure, no problem.

First: Kareem was unstoppable on offense. In 1985, he was still good fo 22ppg on almost .600FG%. And he was still blocking 2 shots a game. Kareem is the key: noone could stop him on offense: nor Hakeem, nor Malone, nor anyone.
So, the post scoring is assured. Subbing, there's McAdoo, who would score 10ppg in less than 20mpg.

Then, you have Magic Johnson, the greatest PG to ever play. In 1985, he was still in his athletic prime, putting up 18-12-6.

Surround Magic and Kareem with lightening-quick Worthy and Scott and you have a devastating fastbreak or transition-offense sqaud. Off course, worthy was also a nightmare on the half-court.

And the Lakers still had their defensive-stopper in Cooper, who could defend at least 2 positions.

A prime Magic, combined with a still-dangerous Kareem, and surrounded with Worthy, Scott and McAdoo?


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

truthfully i always thought the 87 version of the back to back lakers was the best the lakers hasd to offer.
i think worthy was a better player in 87 their bench was better. i mean 85 had bigger names but those guys were washed up look at their stats. and that in an up tempo offense and era. but yet and still you have to play 2 sides of the ball hoe do you stop the bulls attack?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

da bully said:


> truthfully i always thought the 87 version of the back to back lakers was the best the lakers hasd to offer.
> i think worthy was a better player in 87 their bench was better. i mean 85 had bigger names but those guys were washed up look at their stats. and that in an up tempo offense and era. but yet and still you have to play 2 sides of the ball hoe do you stop the bulls attack?


In 1987 Kareem was no longer a difference maker.

How do the Lakers "stop the bulls attack"? 

Try putting Cooper on either Jordan or Pippen.
And having a 7-2' center in the middle who WOULD block shots and alter trajectories.

But the bigger question (IMHO) would be: how would the bulls stop Kareem?


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

in 87 he was still averaging i think 17 points a game (kareem) but he was not a great defender, i think that a if the bulls attacked the basket he would be in foul trouble


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

kflo said:


> cooper made his last all-defense team in '88, and only played 16 minutes against jordan that year, missing the 2nd game. in '89, he played more, but wasn't the same player. still, jordan was 18-43 in fg's that year against la. in '90, coops last year, jordan had 15 to's in 2 games.


I am absolutely shocked J23F botched his stats. Shocked.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

The 96 Bulls would win easily. Statistically better on BOTH ends. They would have trouble with Kareem, and the Lakers could get their share of points -- but in a seven game series Chicago would just be too balanced for them -- Jordan would be the main difference. I would take Chicago in about 5-6 games.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Nikos said:


> The 96 Bulls would win easily. Statistically better on BOTH ends. They would have trouble with Kareem, and the Lakers could get their share of points -- but in a seven game series Chicago would just be too balanced for them -- Jordan would be the main difference. I would take Chicago in about 5-6 games.


statistically better, but as i mentioned, one got even better in the playoffs (they were less concerned with the regular season), and one got worse (no more efficient scoring offensively than their opponents). and lets not forget that '96 was an expansion year, with an expansion team in their division. the '85 lakers were a better offensive team. deeper offensively, more balanced, more talented. the bulls may have been statistically better in the reg season offensively, but they weren't better offensively. no chance (imo). 

the "balanced" bulls had 3 players in double figures in the playoffs (1 over 17 ppg, 2 over 11 ppg). kukoc and pippen's scoring dropped, and they shot under 40%.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

da bully said:


> well either way my moneys on jordan over cooper in the post. t believe jordan was a better post player than bird at that stage in his career.


he wasn't stronger than bird, or a tougher matchup for a guard in the post.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Jordan23Forever said:


> Eh, it doesn't prove much anyway. I didn't check each box score to look for Cooper's minutes, which is why I didn't see that he missed the second game in '88. Yes, Jordan was 18-43 (~42%) from the field (with Cooper averaging 31 mpg) and averaged 31.5 ppg against Cooper in '89, but you ngelect to mention that he also averaged 7.5 rebounds (games of 7 and 8 rebs) and 12 assists (games of 8 and 16 assists; the 16 assist game came when he shot 7-20 for 21 points) against him that season. That means that Cooper's defense didn't include boxing his man out, nor, apparently, did it include keeping Jordan out of the lane and drawing defenders for assists (or, the alternative scenario, that he needed a lot of help with Jordan which left other guys open). As for the 15 TO's, well, I feel that you're shifting the goalposts a bit. You neglect to mention Jordan's 34.5 ppg on 54% shooting average that season against Cooper (while previously concentrating on his 18-43 shooting in '89), but then look at TO's. Cooper only played 23 minutes compared to Jordan's 40 minutes in the 8 turnover game, so I highly doubt that Coop forced or helped force all 8 of those TO's in 23 minutes' time.
> 
> I'd also like to know why Cooper "wasn't the same player" in '89, one year removed from defensive first-team honors and still playing in 80 of 82 games (with a dip in mpg from ~29 to 24.3 mpg). I'm asking honestly -- was he injured or something? It seems odd that an injured player would play 80 games; the dip in minutes was more likely to make room for Scott, who had developed into a high scoring third option (19.3 ppg that season). Sorry, but if you make first-team defense one year and then are healthy the next season, I can't buy some huge drop-off argument. It's not like he was 35-36 years old, he was 32.
> 
> ...



cooper got hurt in '88 (played 61 games). his minutes were down in '89, but so were scott's - hence, his minutes didn't drop to make more room for byron. and doesn't the fact that he retired after the next year give you some indication that something happened along the way (he also played 80 games in '90)?

and i think you are crazy enough to remember game-by-game stats . 

and my point on cooper isn't that he'd shut down jordan (that's impossible), but that he would be able to make things more difficult, as it's my opinion that he was best equipped to guard jordan of anyone ever (maybe moncrief as well).


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

kflo said:


> he wasn't stronger than bird, or a tougher matchup for a guard in the post.


i dont really remember bird being all that niffty in the post. i thought the post duties were handeled mostly by parrish and mchale.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

and you dont have to be the strongest to be the best in the post, olajuwan wasnt the strongest center but he was very skilled in the post.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

da bully said:


> and since i havent gotten a rebutal from anyone, i assume that we are all in agreement that the 97 bulls are the best team ever.


bison played 18 mpg in the playoffs, scoring 6 ppg. rodman only averaged 8.4 rpg, and played only 28 mpg. kukoc 8 ppg in the playoffs. and they fought tooth and nail with the jazz to win in 6 (outexecuting the jazz (surprise!) to close out games 5 & 6). and lets not forget with a chance at 72 wins, they lost 3 of their last 4!


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

da bully said:


> and you dont have to be the strongest to be the best in the post, olajuwan wasnt the strongest center but he was very skilled in the post.


you mentioned jordan's weight advantage on cooper and asked how he would do in the post - i assume you were implying jordan would be too strong for cooper. cooper's d on bird is an indication that jordan wouldn't have an easy time having his way with cooper in the post.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

da bully said:


> i dont really remember bird being all that niffty in the post. i thought the post duties were handeled mostly by parrish and mchale.


bird exploited matchups. if he had a smaller player on him, he was very good taking them down low. not with great post footwork, but establishing position and shooting over them or taking them to the lane. not much different than how jordan worked the post. he didn't do it as much, in part because he had mchale and parish down low and bird was more of a playmaker than jordan was by '96.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

The 96 Bulls held a prime Shaq perfectly in check with a Longley/Rodman combo to deny position and ball so I don't think Jabbar would be a problem. What made Jabbar's offensive onslaught possible? Well, mainly his knack for getting good position. 

That was one of Rodman's true specialties, denying position, using his strong base to push guys out. And Longley gives you a guy the same size with plenty of strength to throw at Jabbar when he goes off on Rodman.


Not even mentioning how these guys covered/helped each other. They displayed outstanding team defense that always seemed to come through down the stretch.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

kareem relied much less on position than shaq. shaq's game was getting at the basket. kareem's game was getting an easy shot over his opponent, and rodman wouldn't be able to even minimally contest kareem's shot. he couldn't push kareem out far enough to make it very difficult to score efficiently and in bundles. luc is the better option there because he at least presents a size barrier. of course, that's a mismatch as well.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

True, but all centers rely on positioning unless they can face you up. And I really think Rodman could bother Jabbar in spurts. I know Kareem would score over him easily at times, as Shaq used to, but I think Rodman could possibly make him uncomfortable, and make him work harder to get his shot off. 
I think he would put pressure on Jabbar's back, which would bother his balance, which might alter his shot.

Needless to say, Rodman would only be used on him once in a while, because Longley would be the better matchup.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

kflo said:


> you mentioned jordan's weight advantage on cooper and asked how he would do in the post - i assume you were implying jordan would be too strong for cooper. cooper's d on bird is an indication that jordan wouldn't have an easy time having his way with cooper in the post.


And the fact that Jordan was never _235 lbs_ is also something to note *da bully*. Not at any point during his Bulls career, that is. Maybe he got close to that as a Wizard. Coop also reached 190+ by 87 when he won DPOY, and Jordan in 96 was probably no more than 215lbs max. 

*bballlife*, Kareem would simply sky hook over Rodman with no problem, no matter how far Rodman would want to push him out. He'd have 6 inches on him in height and even more on wingspan/standing reach. Shaq at no point in his career had a game outside of 7 feet from the basket, which is why Rodman was so successful against him at denying him his comfort zone. You're right about Longley, but if Kareem is winning Finals MVPs on McHale/Parish, he's damn well going to do at least as well on Longley no matter what help defense Pippen and Jordan give him.


----------



## B-Scott (Jan 17, 2006)

Nikos said:


> The 96 Bulls would win easily. Statistically better on BOTH ends. They would have trouble with Kareem, and the Lakers could get their share of points -- but in a seven game series Chicago would just be too balanced for them -- Jordan would be the main difference. I would take Chicago in about 5-6 games.


Say what? They only beat Seattle and Utah 4-2 ,and you think they would beat the showtime Lakers that easy. The Bulls are not statistically better on the offensive end. Here are the Laker statistics in 1985 and 1986 seasons. Kareems last 2 dominant years in the NBA

1985

Kareem - 22 points a game

Magic - 18.3 Points 12 assist

Worthy -17.6 points a game

Scott - 16.0 Points a game

Cooper - 8.6 points a game

Mcgee - 8.3 points per game

They averaged 118.2 points per game that year.


1986 Lakers

Kareem -23.4 points per game

Worthy - 20.0 Points per game

Magic- 18.8 Points per game and 12 assist

Scott - 15.4 points per game

Cooper 9.2 points per game

Maurice Lucas - 10.2 Points per game

They averaged 117.3 points per game that season.


As for Pippen doing a better job on Worthy ,then Worthy guarding Pippen. James was a much better Low post player then Pippen. he would abuse Pippen in the post just like he did Rodman in the 1988 Finals. Pippen would get his 18 to 20 points ,but i see Worthy averaging close to 30 on Pippen in the Low post. Talent Wize ,the Lakers are far the superior team because they had 3 Legit superstars in the starting lineup ,and very good role players. As for Rodman guarding Kareem. This is a completely different matchup for Rodman then guarding Shaq. Kareem does not have to be 3 feet from the basket just to score. He can drain 12 to 14 foot skyhooks on you. Rodman only being 6-9 ,it would be easy for Kareem.

Kareem put up over 40 points ( TWICE) in the 1986 regular season with Akeem and Ralph Sampson trying to guard him. Ralph was 7-4 and Akeem was a heck of a athlete and defender.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

I am pretty sure Jordan was about 235 as a Wizard. When he came back from baseball he was around 215 and gained a little weight each year, ending up around 220 or so in 1998, if I recall correctly.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

I think circumstances such as how the game was being refereed (1985, 1996...2006??) and how well the coaches were able to adjust and counter-adjust would determine the outcome of the series. 

I can see Chicago disrupting LA's ballhandling (via Pippen and traps) in the backcourt and trying their best to shut down LA's fast break opportunities and force them to run a half court offense with as little time as possible on the clock. I can see Pippen playing multiple roles on defense (picking up Magic in the backcourt, and possibly spending a lot of time covering or doubling down in the post).

I can see Los Angeles murdering Chicago whenever they _could_ get their fast break going and also being very efficient in the post whenever they could gain entry/position. I can also see the Lakers being much more active on defense than they were reputed to be during the mid-80's.

Really, it would come down to who was able to force their gameplan on the other and _that_ would be influenced by how the game was being called.

Another factor to consider was how players in '96 were simply bigger. Jordan, Pippen and Rodman were all significantly buffer than they had been in the 80's/early 90's and Longley was massive. Depending on how the game was being called, this could work in their favor or perhaps against them.

Personally, I've always felt that the '96 (and '97) Bulls were big *over-achievers* during the regular season. Unfortunately, I wasn't really following basketball in 1985 (could barely pick one up), so I don't know how much the Lakers (65 wins iirc) may have been cruising during that season. *Does anyone here think that the '92 Bulls (a team which pretty much coughed up a legit chance at 70 wins) might be just as good or even a better matchup for the '85 Lakers?*

As PaoloCatarino pointed out, the Lakers were kind of loaded. Unfortunately, in today's game, the '85 Lakers and possibly even the '96 Bulls most likely wouldn't exist. It was mostly due to Pippen's slave contract for the Bulls that he and MJ were around together for so long to begin with.

Great argument. Too bad we can't actually simulate it!


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

B-Scott said:


> Say what? They only beat Seattle and Utah 4-2 ,and you think they would beat the showtime Lakers that easy. The Bulls are not statistically better on the offensive end. Here are the Laker statistics in 1985 and 1986 seasons. Kareems last 2 dominant years in the NBA
> 
> 1985
> 
> ...


just out of curiousity, how many sf did worthy compete against in the 80s with pippens speed and quickness and strength. and worthy would be in foul trouble trying to guard pippen on the perimeter.

worthy vs pippen is not a matchup that the lakers can exploit.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

bballlife said:


> I am pretty sure Jordan was about 235 as a Wizard. When he came back from baseball he was around 215 and gained a little weight each year, ending up around 220 or so in 1998, if I recall correctly.


regarding Jordan's weight:
1) From what I gather, he was 195 upon entry into the league (pre-draft or pre-1984-85 Bulls camp measurements I assume).
2) He was listed at 198 (might as well be 200) from sometime in the late 1980's until his retirement in 1993, but reportedly started lifting for strength and weight gain after one of his losses to the Pistons in the playoffs; maybe 1989 or 1990 (someone else probably remembers the exact year).
3) As of the 1991 Finals he was _probably_ in the 205-210 range, but by 1992 he was closer to 215 (I've heard anything from 212-214).
4) I don't know what he weighed during his comeback in 94-95, but he came into training camp a very lean (something like 4% body fat) 216 in 95-96 after working out all summer.
5) He continued to be listed at 216 for the rest of his career (including the wizards comeback), but as bballlife said, he _did_ look a little buffer by 97-98, so 220 doesn't seem improbable.
6) In 01-02, he was trying to play SF (with Rip at 2), and did come in weighing more than usual; I've heard anything from 225-235. (As an aside, Artest busted MJ's ribs in a summer pickup game which set MJ back a good 4-6 weeks in training, so he might have come in leaner otherwise as he was working off a retirement paunch)
7) For 02-03, he trimmed down - playing against larger, stronger SF's wasn't helping his knees and Stack was on board now - to 210 for preseason. It seems likely that he probably finished his career around 215 or so.

So, the poster who said MJ was 235 in the post...not even close. He was almost always in terrific shape (i.e. extremely low body fat%, similar to Karl Malone), but that typically meant maximizing the strength he would need to absorb contact and post up smaller guards with the quickness he needed to outmaneuver larger opponents. Playing with Pippen for so many years definitely helped MJ in finding this ideal ratio since Pip could take on many of the tougher/stronger opponents.

On with the actual debate! :clap:


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

i dont see how the 96 or 97 bulls are overachievers. you have one of the greatest coaches ever in pj one of the best allaround players in pip one of the greatest rebounders in rodman if not the greatest one of the best and statisticly the best 3pt shooters in kerr the best euro player in kukoc a very good low post player in brian williams. the lakers have 4 hof the bulls should also have 4 if rodman gets in WHICH HE SHOULD.oh, and you have jordan:worthy: how are they overachievers?


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

well, maybe jordan wasnt 235 but he definately had about 40 to 45 pounds on cooper, therefore i dont see how cooper could handle him in the post much less the perimeter.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

da bully: I should have been specific; REGULAR SEASON over achievers. Just the consumate pros, playing to win every night out. As opposed, say, to the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, who may have been just as dominant (relative to their competition from 00-02), but were quite manic in the regular season (largely taking on Shaq's personality IMO).

It's my way of saying that 72 wins, or great regular season off/def efficiciency, may be slightly _over rating_ them next to any team which under achieved (as some would say the 85 Lakers did).

Another reason why I support those 92 Bulls even though their record was 67 wins and the roster doesn't have as many impressive names.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

hey b scott, you do realize a young stockton and malone took your mighty lakers to 7 games in 88 right.? i really believe they let up on seattle once they were up 3-0. that series couldve been a sweep.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

da bully said:


> well, maybe jordan wasnt 235 but he definately had about 40 to 45 pounds on cooper, therefore i dont see how cooper could handle him in the post much less the perimeter.


If Cooper was 185, MJ in 96 might have had 30lbs on him...so it's close.

For what it's worth, I think the fact that players were so bulked up by the mid 90's _would_ be a significant factor in this hypothetical matchup: look at how skinny those Lakers were back in 85!

Also, just as with players like Kobe/LeBron/AI today, guarding Jordan was a team job, so Cooper alone wouldn't do as much to slow MJ down as the Sonics team did in 1996 (forgot the poster who originally said this, but it's a great point). Part of this series would hinge on how well the Lakers could gear up their defensive game plan.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

The Bulls didn't stop Shaq: he averaged close to 25-30 ppg on a ridiculous TS% and had a lot rebounds. The Bulls shut everyone else down other the Penny. Look at the game stats: Orlando got literally nothing (average of less then 5 points) from the other starters.

Rodman couldn't guard an old Kareem so Kareem would have good games as the Lakers have a lot more options.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

^ Yup. The Bulls won so easily because Horace Grant was injured. He already had an arm injury, and it was aggravated when Pippen (I think) slammed into him in Game 1. So he played about half a game in the entire series. Nick Anderson was also injured, if I remember correctly. That was a really good side, but they had little depth. The loss of starters was a huge setback.

In the regular season, the Bulls of the second threepeat were 13-11 against 50+ win teams with good centers. It's not a good thing when Luc Longley is your best option for guarding Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

JPSeraph said:


> da bully: I should have been specific; REGULAR SEASON over achievers. Just the consumate pros, playing to win every night out. As opposed, say, to the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, who may have been just as dominant (relative to their competition from 00-02), but were quite manic in the regular season (largely taking on Shaq's personality IMO).
> 
> It's my way of saying that 72 wins, or great regular season off/def efficiciency, may be slightly _over rating_ them next to any team which under achieved (as some would say the 85 Lakers did).
> 
> Another reason why I support those 92 Bulls even though their record was 67 wins and the roster doesn't have as many impressive names.


tell me jp what do you think about the 97 team i have stated that i believe this version is the greatest ever in basketball because they had 69 wins and did that with major injuries to key players. and didnt have brian williams the whole season. that team could have easily won 6 more games if they stayed relatively injury free. notice i said RELATIVELY not TOTALLY injury free.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

Hakeem said:


> ^ Yup. The Bulls won so easily because Horace Grant was injured. He already had an arm injury, and it was aggravated when Pippen (I think) slammed into him in Game 1. So he played about half a game in the entire series. Nick Anderson was also injured, if I remember correctly. That was a really good side, but they had little depth. The loss of starters was a huge setback.
> 
> The Bulls of the second threepeat were 13-11 against 50+ win teams with good centers. It's not a good thing when Luc Longley is your best option for guarding Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.


this is another reason why the bulls were so great yes longley wasnt a great center but he was good for 2 things one of which he was better than kareem 1. he played great position defense and 2.he was an excellent jumpshooter. the latter being better than kareem. so yes kareem would give him fits but longly would make him pay offensively if he were to cheat and try to help out other defenders.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

^ He was a poor defender, IMO. And for his ability to hit the mid-range jump shot, he produced very little.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

I said they held him in check, and they did, as in not allowing him to play the way he wanted. In that 4 game series, he had a decent game 1 (27 points 6 boards in a blowout) then one really good game (game 2) then an awful game 3 (17 points on 42%) and a decent game 4 (held to only 13 FGA)


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

JPSeraph said:


> regarding Jordan's weight:
> 1) From what I gather, he was 195 upon entry into the league (pre-draft or pre-1984-85 Bulls camp measurements I assume).
> 2) He was listed at 198 (might as well be 200) from sometime in the late 1980's until his retirement in 1993, but reportedly started lifting for strength and weight gain after one of his losses to the Pistons in the playoffs; maybe 1989 or 1990 (someone else probably remembers the exact year).
> 3) As of the 1991 Finals he was _probably_ in the 205-210 range, but by 1992 he was closer to 215 (I've heard anything from 212-214).
> ...


Remember, though, Jordan was doing the breakfast club thing in Washington. (lifting on game days) Jordan was definitely a bit bigger in Washington and I swear I heard the Wizards putting him at 235. Remember, Kobe Bryant is 220-225 right now, and was 230 a few years ago. Wizard Jordan easily looked heavier than that. (same height, similar build)


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

bballlife said:


> I said they held him in check, and they did, as in not allowing him to play the way he wanted. In that 4 game series, he had a decent game 1 (27 points 6 boards in a blowout) then one really good game (game 2) then an awful game 3 (17 points on 42%) and a decent game 4 (held to only 13 FGA)


27 ppg on 64% from the field.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> 27 ppg on 64% from the field.



Watch the 4 games, then read my post again.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

bballlife said:


> Watch the 4 games, then read my post again.


I guarentee you that Hakeem watched those games. Again Orlando had two starters hurt and they had a terrible bench. The only other starter calibre player they had who wasn't hurt was Dennis Scott who was basically just a spot up shooter. Despite having no support other then Hardaway, Shaq still had 27 points on a ridiculously high TS%. There is basically no evidence to suggest that the Bulls were great at defending the center spot. Ewing was also able to score at his average with a higher percentage to boot and then against Seattle Kemp had a field day


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

Hakeem said:


> ^ He was a poor defender, IMO. And for his ability to hit the mid-range jump shot, he produced very little.


well, when you consider his role on the team IMO he was solid. he made shaq and other centers pay when they doubled on the scorers as that was his job. and he played good position defense, remember they really didnt run plays for him, he mostly played on the perimeter and rodman handled the boards. and he played against the greatest colection of centers ever every night. he averaged roughly about 10 points and 5 boards he was nifty around the basket. i think if he played in the 80s he would have been a 15 ppg scorer because of the pace.

which brings me to the point of pace and scoring. if the bulls played in the 80s their scorers would average at least 3 to 5 point per extra in that era.
90s 80s
jordan 30 ppg 33ppg
pippen 20ppg 25ppg
kukoc 13ppg 17ppg
longley 10ppg 14ppg

thats better than the lakers top four scorers.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

Pioneer10 said:


> I guarentee you that Hakeem watched those games. Again Orlando had two starters hurt and they had a terrible bench. The only other starter calibre player they had who wasn't hurt was Dennis Scott who was basically just a spot up shooter. Despite having no support other then Hardaway, Shaq still had 27 points on a ridiculously high TS%. There is basically no evidence to suggest that the Bulls were great at defending the center spot. Ewing was also able to score at his average with a higher percentage to boot and then against Seattle Kemp had a field day


but the fact is all those centers lost to luc longley and the bulls


----------



## CentralCaliGuy (Oct 3, 2006)

The Chicago Bulls hands dAouwn; for 5 simple reasons ~~~
~~~

(#1) Michael Jordan
(#2) Michaell Jordan
(#3) Michael Jordan
(#4) Michael Jordan
(#5) Michael Jordan

Before LA fans think Magic would be as good in the series, that's wrong because they played in the NBA Finals in a latter time; and the prime match up in the series that got a load of media attention was Michael/Magic - Reaults :

Chicago Bulls - 4
LA Lakers - 1

And although Magic didn't let down the hype the media gave the match up, Chicago's MJ, solidified the PATTEN RIGHTS to the MJ nick name in that series.

No but in all seriesness, not trash talking the Lakers, just alittle humor; I really do think if you could combined the era's and make this a series in the Finals, it would be the best 7 Game series ever, I beleive it would have the potential to go 7 games with every one of them being entertaining. 

And the Lakers biggest advantage would be the match up of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 1 of top 5 NBA Centers ever - Against Luc -who's he- Longley. I mean if Pat Riley did what was smart, which he does 10 times out of 10, that's why he has 5 Rings as a H. Coach, he would have Kareem be the go to go the entire series. Both the whole game, but ever play during the closing minutes. This was usually the case during the Show Time Lakers dynasty any way, but really, I know Pat would expose Longley's weakness as a player threw Jabbar.

With the Jabbar/Longley match up I just mentioned on second thought I say the Lakers could actually win, but I still give the nod to the Bulls.

Really it depends on exactly what this thread means. Who was a better dynasty? Or which team of which dynasty could actually win in an actual NBA Finals?

Well if it's the former, Which dynasty was better, I've always viewed the Bulls dynasty -(6 Rings), Lakers ST dynasty -(5) Rings as the #1, #2 best dynasties ever, and that's despite B. Russels Celtics having the biggest dynasty in quanity at 8 in a row. But that's the Chicago Bulls MJ dynasty at #1, then the Show Time Lakers dynasty being at #2.

Now if it's the latter; Or which team of which dynasty could actually win in an NBA Finals? I still give the nod to the Bulls. Because if you take these two years that the OP'er posted, the 1996 Bulls vs 1985 Lakers; the Bulls record was 72 wins, the Lakers was 65.

That would put Chicago having Home Court. And although Home Court doesn't mean every thing, the Bulls having the edge any way and 4/7 games being played at the United Center instead of Staples Center; this further I give the nod to the Bulls.

But good dynasty comparision, although I give it to Chicago. Besides, my Kings are rivals to the Lakers, and I have family in Chicago. Those are two other factors that would help the Bulls win, lol.:biggrin:


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

another point about the bulls centers, remember they had a center by comitee longly didnt play starter minutes. i looked it up he only played 27 minutes a night and the average stater plays roughly 36 to 40 minutes a night. so if he played more minutes his stats would be better.


----------



## CentralCaliGuy (Oct 3, 2006)

da bully said:


> another point about the bulls centers, remember they had a center by comitee longly didnt play starter minutes. i looked it up he only played 27 minutes a night and the average stater plays roughly 36 to 40 minutes a night. so if he played more minutes his stats would be better.


Ya good point. I just really think Chicago would take it.


----------



## B-Scott (Jan 17, 2006)

Da Bully -

The 1988 Utah Jazz  team that took the Lakers to Game 7. Keep in mind that particular Kareem was not on the level of 1985 Kareem. Im talking about the 85 Lakers. Kareem averaged 22 points a game that season ,and was MVP in the NBA Finals. In 1988 he was down to around 12 points a game. The 85 Lakers would have beaten that Utah team a lot easier with a more dominant Kareem to go along with Worthy ,Magic ,Scott , Cooper.

As for the Worthy vs Pippen matchup - Pippen wasn"t a great offensive half-court player. He was good in half-court sets ,not great. Pippen got a lot of his points off steals ,breakaway's and off the break. His half-court game isn"t going to dominate Worthy. Worthy was 6-9 225 and his strength was his Low post game as a Small forward ,plus he could face you up and knock down that 18 footer. Pippen was a great perimiter defender ,he was good defensively in the Low post ,not great. Glen Rice and Penny Hardaway used to back him down in the post and hit those 10 to 12 footers on him. Worthy is a better post up player then both of those guys.

You asked did Worthy face a SF as athletic as Pippen in the 80s. Worthy used to light up Domique wilkins who had a 45 inch vertical ,and he dominated Dennis Rodman in the 88 NBA Finals. 1988 Rodman is just good ,if not better defender then Pippen. The Pistons used to put him on Magic at times ,and have him pressure Magic up the court. They would also put him on MJ at times. Worthy took Rodman to school in the post. 

Lakers vs 96 Seattle comparisons - Kareem ,Worthy ,Magic ,Scott , Cooper is much more dangerous then Kemp , Payton , Hersey Hawkins , Detlef . Especially in half-court sets. Kareem is a much better half-court player then Kemp because he had a go to shot in the post. Gary Payton was a great player ,but he was never on Magic's level. Seattle does not have a 3rd option that's close to James Worthy.

Another thing - I consider the Bad Boy Pistons to be very similair to the Bulls. Defensive minded team. The 88 Lakers beat them with a way past Prime Kareem averaging like 12 points a game. The 85 Lakers would have beaten those Pistons more convincing.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> ^ Yup. The Bulls won so easily because Horace Grant was injured.


A great point nobody ever seems to bring up. As entertaining as the '96 Finals series was, I was very disappointed when Grant went down in Game 1 of the ECF. Based on the previous year's playoffs, _that_ was the series I was really anticipating. Payback just didn't feel the same with Horace out.

And da bully, I don't know how much differently I'd rank the '97 Bulls next to the '96 Bulls. I always had them pegged as "one year older, and potentially less hell bent on proving they were the best". But if they were healthy AND had B-Williams, then they might have an edge on the '96 Bulls.

As for the "best ever", I can't say that about ANY team. Come on, Wilt's '67 Sixers, or those '72 Lakers. The best of Russell's teams? What about Kareem's run with the Big O? Too many great teams that most of us unfortunately weren't around to see.

The greatest team post-1980? Hmm...well, I am not entirely sure that the '96 (or '97) Bulls are even the best of Michael's teams, let alone better than Bird's best or Magic's best (to say nothing of the '83 Sixers, Duncan's best, Shaq's best, Hakeem's best, etc). I think most of the teams just mentioned in the post-1980 era would be VERY competitive with each other. As much as I am a full supporter of MJ and Pip, I can't objectively say that they would for sure beat the best of the last 25 years.

It'd be great fun to see though!


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

da bully said:


> but the fact is all those centers lost to luc longley and the bulls


Oh ok 
Neither Shaq or Ewing had the players around them to equal the Lakers. Put it another way Rodman wasn't able to stop either Worthy or Kareem when he played against them in there prime. The 90's Bulls team were lucky to go against a watered down league from expansion


----------



## B-Scott (Jan 17, 2006)

I think the 91 Bulls are better then the 96 Bulls. Despite the record. You have MJ in his prime. Horace Grant was giving you 15 points and like 11 rebouds. I think the league was a little watered down in 1996.


----------



## Jordan23Forever (May 14, 2005)

B-Scott said:


> I think the 91 Bulls are better then the 96 Bulls. Despite the record. You have MJ in his prime. Horace Grant was giving you 15 points and like 11 rebouds.


Try 12.8 points and 8.4 rebounds, not 15/11. Grant's best season during the title years was '92, when he averaged 14.2/10.0; then he was at 13.2/9.5 in '93.

I agree with you that the '96 Bulls might not be the best iteration, though. I think the '92 team has a case.


----------



## B-Scott (Jan 17, 2006)

Yea your absolutey right i just checked basketballreference.com and Grant averaged 14 and 10 in 1992 ,and the Bulls went 67-15. I consider those 1st 3 title team to be there best teams , even though they did not win 70 games . The league was tougher. Looking back to that 1991 NBA Finals Lakers vs Bulls ,the Lakers had a 13 point lead in Game 3 in the 3rd quarter ,with a chance to go up 2-1. They also led by like 10 in the 4th quarter. If you add 1985 Kareem to that Mix ,a younger Magic and Worthy ,and Cooper they win that game going away. That was a game the Showtime Lakers would have blown the Bulls out the building. That particular Laker team was on verge of blowing the Bulls out ,but they just could not kick it to that extra gear like they could in 1985. Kareem makes a huge difference in half-court sets ,which enables you to be able to hold on to big leads in the 4th quarter. In Game 5 ,the Lakers had a 8 point in that game also in the 3rd quarter.

If you add Kareem a younger Magic ,Worthy ,Scott ,and Cooper to that 1991 team ,the Lakers beat the 91 Bulls in games 3 and 5 in that 1991 series.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> I guarentee you that Hakeem watched those games. Again Orlando had two starters hurt and they had a terrible bench. The only other starter calibre player they had who wasn't hurt was Dennis Scott who was basically just a spot up shooter. Despite having no support other then Hardaway, Shaq still had 27 points on a ridiculously high TS%. There is basically no evidence to suggest that the Bulls were great at defending the center spot. Ewing was also able to score at his average with a higher percentage to boot and then against Seattle Kemp had a field day



1. Orlando did have some injuries but Anderson played most of the series. 

2. They easily had the best starting 5 in the NBA during the regular season, with a weak bench, true.

3. Scott played like crap that series, he didnt get a lot of the high quality looks he was used to.

4. Shaq had good numbers in the series, a 4 game average, but look at what he did in game 2. 16/22 scoring 36 points and 16 boards. So if you subtract that game, he averaged 24/9, yet he averaged 43 minutes a game that series, because Orlando was dependent on him taking over, which never really happened because of how the Bulls played him. Don't you think with increased minutes, more touches, no shot blocking threat, and a greater need to score for his team, he would have been a little stronger than 24/9? 

5. The bulls were an excellent defensive team as we all know, but with no real interior shot blocking??????? meaning that their position and ball denial defense was pretty darn good. 


6. Ewing and Kemp could face up and drain jumpers, totally different. Not worth discussing.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> Oh ok
> Neither Shaq or Ewing had the players around them to equal the Lakers. Put it another way Rodman wasn't able to stop either Worthy or Kareem when he played against them in there prime. The 90's Bulls team were lucky to go against a watered down league from expansion






Lucky to go against a watered down league from expansion? Ya, almost. You do realize that both teams were made up of scrubs that nobody wanted? You mean to tell me that sending players like Eric Murdock, Benoit Benjamin, Blue Edwards, Zan Tabak, and Willie Anderson up to Canada really stretched the talent pool? 

Please


The league still had a lot of big time centers, young studs, and a few teams with a lot of depth.


----------



## B-Scott (Jan 17, 2006)

Imagine if those Knicks had Worthy and Magic ,instead of Derrick Harper and Mason. As good as Mason was ,he was not on Worthy's level. Derrick Harper was at his best when he played with Dallas in the 80s. That Dallas team was very underated with Harper ,Rolando Blackman , Sam Perkins , Detlef , Roy Tarpley , Mark Aguirre . The Lakers beat that Dallas team a couple of times in the playoffs. I think that Dallas team was better then the 96 Supersonics.


----------



## Jordan23Forever (May 14, 2005)

B-Scott said:


> Imagine if those Knicks had Worthy and Magic ,instead of Derrick Harper and Mason. As good as Mason was ,he was not on Worthy's level. Derrick Harper was at his best when he played with Dallas in the 80s. That Dallas team was very underated with Harper ,Rolando Blackman , Sam Perkins , Detlef , Roy Tarpley , Mark Aguirre . The Lakers beat that Dallas team a couple of times in the playoffs. I think that Dallas team was better then the 96 Supersonics.


Offensively, perhaps. But Seattle finished second in the league in defense in '96, with a rating of 101.8 points allowed per 100 possessions. By contrast, Dallas never finished higher than 8th, and was usually in the 12-16 range, with an average rating of 108.3 points per 100 possessions from 1987-1991.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Btw, Jordan was 217-218 lbs in 1996 according to...himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn05ZJo53WA

At the most he had 30lbs on Cooper.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

B-Scott said:


> I think the 91 Bulls are better then the 96 Bulls. Despite the record. You have MJ in his prime. Horace Grant was giving you 15 points and like 11 rebouds. I think the league was a little watered down in 1996.


ill tell you why i feel the 96-98 team was better, first, pippen i think he really came into his own when jordan left those two years and he showed he was a great player on his own. i cant tell you how many times people would tell me that the bulls were a lottery tgeam without jordan before he retired.second, i was never very impressed with the bulls bench in 91-93. kerr is a better three point shooter than craig hodgesor paxson. kukoc would be a starter on most teams brian williams is better far and away than scott williams and jason caffey was a better player than stacey king. throw in the defense of buchler and his threepoint shooting along with randy browns D on small quick guards and i hope you guys realize how great that team was. 

it really frustrates me when people say that jordan wasnt in his prime in 96-98 because he didnt dunk on people and instead used his mind and athletic ability to achieve the same result. this years world championship games should show that its better to be fundamentaly sound than a flat out athlete and 96-98 jordan was both.

and let go of the "watered down" theory.the population in the 90s was far greater than in the 80s, therefore, while its true there were more teams in the 90s its also true there were more athletes to choose from . throw in the in flux of european players and truthfully, it was harder to become an nba player in 90s than it was the 80s.

i also tell people that i talk to that say the 96-98 version of the bulls were overrated i try to create a team of players playing now that are close in style and performance to those bulls

jordan>bryant
pippen>artest
longley>nesterovic
rodman>wallace
harper=eddie jones
b. williams=eddie curry (truthfully i think williams was better he just never got a chance to show it)
kukoc=odom(simply because if you look at their stats and what they bring its about even with odom playing more minutes)
kerr>damon jones
caffey>maurice taylor
buchler>casey jacobson
brown=marcus banks

now tell me how good that team is and that team still is not better than the bulls


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

B-Scott said:


> Imagine if those Knicks had Worthy and Magic ,instead of Derrick Harper and Mason. As good as Mason was ,he was not on Worthy's level. Derrick Harper was at his best when he played with Dallas in the 80s. That Dallas team was very underated with Harper ,Rolando Blackman , Sam Perkins , Detlef , Roy Tarpley , Mark Aguirre . The Lakers beat that Dallas team a couple of times in the playoffs. I think that Dallas team was better then the 96 Supersonics.


dude, you overrate worthy so much its sad. worthy was good but remember, his D was so so, had a decent j could not driblbe could not shoot the three wasnt a great passer and could not rebound. i would even go so far as to say that shawn marion is wayyy better than worthy. james worthy was a product of the era he played in. there, i said it.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Althouigh it's a bundle of laughs to hear people said that Luc Longley or Dennis Rodman would make Kareem's job "difficult", i'm still waiting to see how they think McAdoo would be stopped...

Cause he was on the team, remember?


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

B-Scott said:


> Da Bully -
> 
> The 1988 Utah Jazz team that took the Lakers to Game 7. Keep in mind that particular Kareem was not on the level of 1985 Kareem. Im talking about the 85 Lakers. Kareem averaged 22 points a game that season ,and was MVP in the NBA Finals. In 1988 he was down to around 12 points a game. The 85 Lakers would have beaten that Utah team a lot easier with a more dominant Kareem to go along with Worthy ,Magic ,Scott , Cooper.
> 
> ...


and that piston team had the lakers on the ropes until their best player got injured.and as far as that 88 series i think that scott and worthy were better by natural progression alone. actually, i think the 87 lakers were the showtime lakers best team.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

da bully said:


> dude, you overrate worthy so much its sad. worthy was good but remember, his D was so so, had a decent j could not driblbe could not shoot the three wasnt a great passer and could not rebound. i would even go so far as to say that shawn marion is wayyy better than worthy. james worthy was a product of the era he played in. *there, i said it.*


And again, you are wrong.

You don't know who James Worthy was and that's pretty clear. Why keep pushing it?


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

That Lakers team was just too stacked. MJ would've fought valiantly, but Magic is right there with him, not to mention Kareem, Mcadoo, Scott...those 80s teams are just too deep.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

PauloCatarino said:


> Althouigh it's a bundle of laughs to hear people said that Luc Longley or Dennis Rodman would make Kareem's job "difficult", i'm still waiting to see how they think McAdoo would be stopped...
> 
> Cause he was on the team, remember?


mcadoo was an old fart by then.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

PauloCatarino said:


> And again, you are wrong.
> 
> You don't know who James Worthy was and that's pretty clear. Why keep pushing it?


what in my post did i say that was wong about james worthy? i thought that i was being nice by saying that he was a good player and that he had soso defense. cuz i really believe his defense left something to be desired.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

_Dre_ said:


> That Lakers team was just too stacked. MJ would've fought valiantly, but Magic is right there with him, not to mention Kareem, Mcadoo, Scott...those 80s teams are just too deep.


man you guys just dont get it the lakers were scorers in a scorers era. they only had one defensive minded player and he came off the bench. the bulls were great defenders in a defensive era but they had scorers on par with the mighty and so called deep lakers 
its been proven time and time again that when you take a great team that plays soso defense and can light it up vs a great team that has a great defense that can score the defensive minded team wins 9 time out of ten .i know youve all heard it A GREAT DEFENSE WILL BEAT A GREAT OFFENSE ANY DAY and that hold true in all sports be it basketball, pitching versus hitting in baseball, football boxing, defense wins out almost all the time.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

da bully said:


> man you guys just dont get it the lakers were scorers in a scorers era. they only had one defensive minded player and he came off the bench. the bulls were great defenders in a defensive era but they had scorers on par with the mighty and so called deep lakers
> its been proven time and time again that when you take a great team that plays soso defense and can light it up vs a great team that has a great defense that can score the defensive minded team wins 9 time out of ten .i know youve all heard it A GREAT DEFENSE WILL BEAT A GREAT OFFENSE ANY DAY and that hold true in all sports be it basketball, pitching versus hitting in baseball, football boxing, defense wins out almost all the time.


Meh...

Just some thoughts:

In 1995, Kareem scored 22ppg on .599FG% on the regular season. In 19 games in the playoffs he was *reduced *to averaging 21.9ppg on 560FG%. Plus, he was Finals MVP. Oh, and he was All-Nba second team also in 1985. Who did the Bulls have to face on the Finals that ever aproached that kind of play? The guy couldn't be stopped on offense and still protected the lane adequately (All-defender the season before, 2bpg this year).

Alongside Cooper (All-defense 1st that year), they had two defenders on the squad.

James Worthy in the playoffs (again, that's 19 games!) 21.5ppg on .620FG% (regular season of 17.6ppg on .572FG%). With Kareem and Worthy, the Lakers had 2 great offensive weapons.

Next comes Magic, who averaged 15.2apg till the championship. AND provided 17.5ppg on the playoffs. 

Your discredit of the Lakers' defense (6th in the league, btw) doesn't knock the fact that they had a great defensive stopper in Cooper (who they didn't have in the late 80's, i might add) and an above-average defender in Kareem. And the scoring punch is tremendous.

Oh, btw, they did defeat the Celtics in the Finals, who had 3 players in the All-defense teams in the years surrounding that season in DJ, McHale and Bird.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

da bully said:


> what in my post did i say that was wong about james worthy? i thought that i was being nice by saying that he was a good player and that he had soso defense. *cuz i really believe his defense left something to be desired.*


Bashing Worthy's defense reminds me of those people who would consider KG over Dirk "because he is a better passer".

James Worthy's job on the Lakers was not to defend (although he did it adequally)


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

PauloCatarino said:


> Meh...
> 
> Just some thoughts:
> 
> ...


i bring up defense you bring up more offensive stats. and when did bird even sniff an all defensive team? the lakers had a great offense and a decent defense. the bulls had a great offense and a great great defense. and i think brian williams would give kareem a job to do defensively in the post.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

PauloCatarino said:


> Bashing Worthy's defense reminds me of those people who would consider KG over Dirk "because he is a better passer".
> 
> James Worthy's job on the Lakers was not to defend (although he did it adequally)


i dont believe you just stated that it was not his job to play defense.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

da bully said:


> i bring up defense you bring up more offensive stats. and when did bird even sniff an all defensive team?


Look it up. It's true.



> the lakers had a great offense and a decent defense. the bulls had a great offense and a great great defense. and i think *brian williams* would give kareem a job to do defensively in the post.


Yeah, for he was such a renowned offensive juggernault...


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

da bully said:


> i dont believe you just stated that it was not his job to play defense.


And it was not.

Although, again, he did it adequally.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

bballlife said:


> Lucky to go against a watered down league from expansion? Ya, almost. You do realize that both teams were made up of scrubs that nobody wanted? You mean to tell me that sending players like Eric Murdock, Benoit Benjamin, Blue Edwards, Zan Tabak, and Willie Anderson up to Canada really stretched the talent pool?
> 
> Please
> 
> ...


Umm why don't you look at the roster of the expansion teams by 96 came around:
i.e. Orlando with the best starting 5 in the league according to you in the league. Those players including Shaq and Penny would be on eother teams. A guy like Nick Anderson could have easiley ended up in a title contender as a lottery team
Other players in expansion team:
Glen Rice, Kendall Gill, Larry johnson, Kenny Anderson, Billy Owens, Mourning, Rex Chapman, Damon Stoudamire, Laetnner, Garnett, Gre Anthony, and Byron Scott

Look at all those scrubs


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

bballlife said:


> 1. Orlando did have some injuries but Anderson played most of the series.


Playing hurt does not equal the same production as when healthy. Pretty obvioius



> 2. They easily had the best starting 5 in the NBA during the regular season, with a weak bench, true.


So take away one starter completely and another playign at 50% equals a greatly weakened team



> 3. Scott played like crap that series, he didnt get a lot of the high quality looks he was used to.



Again lost teammates that took defensive attention and no bench to replace those starters



> 4. Shaq had good numbers in the series, a 4 game average, but look at what he did in game 2. 16/22 scoring 36 points and 16 boards. So if you subtract that game, he averaged 24/9, yet he averaged 43 minutes a game that series, because Orlando was dependent on him taking over, which never really happened because of how the Bulls played him. Don't you think with increased minutes, more touches, no shot blocking threat, and a greater need to score for his team, he would have been a little stronger than 24/9?


If I do the same thing and take away his one bad game his overall numbers would still look great. Shaq didn't go berserk but Chicago didn't do anything special in terms of guarding Shaq



> 5. The bulls were an excellent defensive team as we all know, but with no real interior shot blocking??????? meaning that their position and ball denial defense was pretty darn good.
> 
> 
> 6. Ewing and Kemp could face up and drain jumpers, totally different. Not worth discussing.


If jumpers were important then Shaq's FG% and TS% would have been bad: he scored very efficiently


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

PauloCatarino said:


> Look it up. It's true.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, for he was such a renowned offensive juggernault...


brian williams was basically a 17 and 9 guy when he got a chance to play. and i looked it up bird never mad a defensive team.


----------



## Diophantos (Nov 4, 2004)

da bully said:


> brian williams was basically a 17 and 9 guy when he got a chance to play. and i looked it up bird never mad a defensive team.


Not that I have a horse in this race either way, but Bird did make 3 all-defense 2nd teams.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> Umm why don't you look at the roster of the expansion teams by 96 came around:
> i.e. Orlando with the best starting 5 in the league according to you in the league. Those players including Shaq and Penny would be on eother teams. A guy like Nick Anderson could have easiley ended up in a title contender as a lottery team
> Other players in expansion team:
> Glen Rice, Kendall Gill, Larry johnson, Kenny Anderson, Billy Owens, Mourning, Rex Chapman, Damon Stoudamire, Laetnner, Garnett, Gre Anthony, and Byron Scott
> ...



I think it's pretty easy to see I was talking about the 95 expansion teams. 

I misread and assumed you were talking about the 95/96 Bulls.


----------



## B-Scott (Jan 17, 2006)

da bully said:


> dude, you overrate worthy so much its sad. worthy was good but remember, his D was so so, had a decent j could not driblbe could not shoot the three wasnt a great passer and could not rebound. i would even go so far as to say that shawn marion is wayyy better than worthy. james worthy was a product of the era he played in. there, i said it.


36 Points 17 rebounds  10 assist in Game 7 of the 1988 NBA FINALS with Dennis Rodman ,John salley and the entire Piston team trying to guard him. MVP of the 1988 Finals.

Question? What did Pippen do against Rodman when Dennis was young? Choke

Question? How many MVP's has Pippen won in the Finals? 0

Pippen has never taken over a big Game 6 or Game 7. There is a reason they called him Big Game James. Worthy stepped up in critical playoff games.

The Bulls started winning championships when Magic , Bird, Isiah got older. They couldn"t win anything when those guys were in there primes. The Lakers and Celtics front lines would just be to much for the Bulls to handle in a 7 game series.


Shawn Marion better then Worthy? Now i know you really lost it. Marion relies on Nash to get him in position for easy buckets. Marion can't create from the post ,or his own shot. James Worthy was a way better post up player ,and go to guy. You could get the ball to Worthy in a iso situation and let him just go to work. He didnt need Magic to always set him up just to score. Marion is a product of the Phoenix system and Steve Nash. As a Laker fan i dont fear him at all in the Low post.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

bballlife said:


> I think it's pretty easy to see I was talking about the 95 expansion teams.
> 
> I misread and assumed you were talking about the 95/96 Bulls.


None of the teams I listed were in existence when the 86 Lakers played


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> Playing hurt does not equal the same production as when healthy. Pretty obvioius



Nick Anderson’s last game of the series, game 3, he put up 14 points on 55% shooting, with 7 boards and 4 steals. Pretty Obvious. 




> Again lost teammates that took defensive attention and no bench to replace those starters



Or maybe it was the fact that the Bulls didn’t double Shaq that much?? Which created more difficult looks for Scott. 




> If I do the same thing and take away his one bad game his overall numbers would still look great. Shaq didn't go berserk but Chicago didn't do anything special in terms of guarding Shaq



I was simply trying to paint the picture for you with stats since its apparent you never saw the games or b. have no recollection of them. Rodman gave Shaq troubles, for sure. 


You can go over your stats all you want, they don’t tell you scrubs like Bill Wennington and John Sally guarded Shaq at times, they won’t tell you how many of those points Shaq was scoring in garbage time (2 Blowouts) and they certainly won’t tell you that Rodman forced Shaq to take shots at difficult angles.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> None of the teams I listed were in existence when the 86 Lakers played


What's your point? 


I misread your post and thought you were saying the 1995/1996 CHICAGO BULLS were overrated because the league was watered down from expansion, assuming you meant the Raptors/Grizzlies.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

bballlife said:


> Nick Anderson’s last game of the series, game 3, he put up 14 points on 55% shooting, with 7 boards and 4 steals. Pretty Obvious.


One good game out of 4 and he didn't play the next one. What that tell yuo.



> Or maybe it was the fact that the Bulls didn’t double Shaq that much?? Which created more difficult looks for Scott.


They did double Shaq: the Magic else other then Penny who could score on his own. Losing Grant was huge here since Horace was a good outside shooter who could punish the PF from rolling to Shaq's side



> I was simply trying to paint the picture for you with stats since its apparent you never saw the games or b. have no recollection of them. Rodman gave Shaq troubles, for sure.


So much trouble that he shot 65% from the field. My god if Rodman didn't give him trouble he might have shot 80%.
Shaq by the way against Rodman AND David Robinson the year before scored 36 in one game and 28 in the other



> You can go over your stats all you want, they don’t tell you scrubs like Bill Wennington and John Sally guarded Shaq at times, they won’t tell you how many of those points Shaq was scoring in garbage time (2 Blowouts) and they certainly won’t tell you that Rodman forced Shaq to take shots at difficult angles.


This amazing defense caused Shaq to pretty much get his season averages? The Magic lost because the Bulls were a better overall team and the Magic got nothing out of anybody other then Penny and Shaq. The point was whether somehow Rodman who couldn't guard Kareem when he was younger and more athletic actually did a great job on centers. The Bulls didn't as shown by Shaq and other centers they went against. Add players like Magic, Worthy, Scott, etc and no way the Bulls could get away with concentrating there D on just one player


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

bballlife said:


> What's your point?
> 
> 
> I misread your post and thought you were saying the 1995/1996 CHICAGO BULLS were overrated because the league was watered down from expansion, assuming you meant the Raptors/Grizzlies.


There were *SIX *more teams added btw 86 and 96: teams just weren't as deep or concentrated in talent on the whole after expansion hit.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> One good game out of 4 and he didn't play the next one. What that tell yuo.


That he struggled in the series? That he got hurt in game 3? 





> They did double Shaq: the Magic else other then Penny who could score on his own. Losing Grant was huge here since Horace was a good outside shooter who could punish the PF from rolling to Shaq's side


Everybody has doubled Shaq since he got in the league, but I specifically remember the talk in that series about the Bulls not doubling him as much as other teams, and allowing more 1 on 1. 




> This amazing defense caused Shaq to pretty much get his season averages? The Magic lost because the Bulls were a better overall team and the Magic got nothing out of anybody other then Penny and Shaq. The point was whether somehow Rodman who couldn't guard Kareem when he was younger and more athletic actually did a great job on centers. The Bulls didn't as shown by Shaq and other centers they went against. Add players like Magic, Worthy, Scott, etc and no way the Bulls could get away with concentrating there D on just one player




Wrong. As stated before, Shaq’s minutes and touches were up, the need to carry his team was UP, yet his overall production was not. You look extremely foolish arguing against a known fact because his series totals tell you he was right on track, especially when 2 of those games were blowouts, one of them a super blowout. 

My original statement was more of a theory, stating that since Longley/Rodman, mainly Rodman, did a solid job on O’Neal, they might be able to do a similar job on Jabbar.

As for your reasons the Bulls beat the Magic, I never got into that.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> There were *SIX *more teams added btw 86 and 96: teams just weren't as deep or concentrated in talent on the whole after expansion hit.



I know all of this, why are you babbling on?




BTW Rodman was stronger as a Bull vs his Pistons/Spurs days.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

bballlife said:


> That he struggled in the series? That he got hurt in game 3?


That he wasn't a 100% might explain in when he played in 3 games the best he did was an average game 3? 



> Everybody has doubled Shaq since he got in the league, but I specifically remember the talk in that series about the Bulls not doubling him as much as other teams, and allowing more 1 on 1.


I thought you watched the series so this was from personal observation instead it's about the talk: did they double him what 10% less, 50% less. Either way he scored his points efficiently in every game but 1.







> Wrong. As stated before, Shaq’s minutes and touches were up, the need to carry his team was UP, yet his overall production was not. You look extremely foolish arguing against a known fact because his series totals tell you he was right on track, especially when 2 of those games were blowouts, one of them a super blowout.
> 
> My original statement was more of a theory, stating that since Longley/Rodman, mainly Rodman, did a solid job on O’Neal, they might be able to do a similar job on Jabbar.
> 
> As for your reasons the Bulls beat the Magic, I never got into that.


A known fact is that the Bulls were clearly a better team particularly with Grant not playing well and Anderson not a 100%. Is it surprising that a team that you said depended on there starting 5 only would be devastated by having to play Jon Koncak at a forward spot. Hard to produce more when there's no one to pass you the ball and you sag down low (i.e. in that series from what I recall they double plenty of times but what the Bulls definitely was sag the whole defense to make it difficult as a team to get Shaq a lot of touches/he was fine once he got the ball: they were able to do this because like I siad Grant was hurt). In short the Bulls were able to have blowouts because of Orlando's other deficiencies i.e Scott having to guard Pippen and little to do with there supposed outstanding D against Shaq

Rodman and Longley didn't do by themselves anything noteworthy against Shaq and against other centers. The Bulls were a much better defensive team against strong perimeter players. In fact Shaq did fine against them the next year when he was with LAL and like I said the year before Rodman couldn't control Shaq either. The final point stands the Bulls were outmatched in the post but were able to compensate in other areas: with the 86 Lakers they not only would have to go against Kareem but strong perimeter and bench play something they didn't see in the 90's


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

bballlife said:


> I know all of this, why are you babbling on?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You asked why I included teams and I answered you: The league was diluted because of the addition of 6 teams since 86 not just the two before the 96 season. Apparently math/logic=babbling


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> Althouigh it's a bundle of laughs to hear people said that Luc Longley or Dennis Rodman would make Kareem's job "difficult"


It's no more humorous than hearing people on the other end talk about how anyone on that Lakers team could guard Michael Jordan. 

Jordan and Kareem would be unguardable. That much is a given. I think the Bulls would be better equipped to guard Kareem though, only because their defensive discipline was much greater since they placed such a high priority on it. Their rotations were great and their overall team defense was just outstanding. Even if you don't have one guy who matches up well, you can still contain a great scorer through great team defense, and the Bulls had that undoubtedly. 

The real interesting matchup would be Pippen and Magic. Of course Magic is a better overall player, but in the series, Pippen could be used as a "cut the head off the snake" type player. I think he'd really bother Magic with his full court pressure. 

But there is no right answer. You take the two top teams in today's game and we couldn't figure out who win in game 7 (hypothetically) and yet they are fresh in our minds, playing under all the same conditions. So you take two of the great teams of all-time from different eras and it's just impossible. Fun to talk about though.


----------



## B-Scott (Jan 17, 2006)

Pippen bothers 32 year old Magic with his pressure ,but it would not be as easy with a 25 year old Magic who was quicker ,and had much more energy. The 1991 Bulls were able to put Pippen on Magic because James Worthy was injured. If Worthy is healthy , Pippen has to guard Worthy. Now who guards Magic? Ron harper. Magic used to destroy Ron Harper when he was in his prime with the Cavaliers ,and especially the clippers. These are crucial questions?

1. You put Pippen on Magic? Now who guards Worthy . Toni Kukok

2. You put Pippen on Worthy? Who guards Magic now. Ron Harper.

Lakers have the edge both ways. Remember im talking about 1985 Magic and Worthy when they were 24 and 25 years old. Not when they were 32 years old in 1991 with a lot of mileage from the 1980s.

Kareem would average 35 a game on 6-9 225 pound Rodman.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> It's no more humorous than hearing people on the other end talk about how anyone on that Lakers team could guard Michael Jordan.
> 
> Jordan and Kareem would be unguardable. That much is a given. I think the Bulls would be better equipped to guard Kareem though, only because their defensive discipline was much greater since they placed such a high priority on it. Their rotations were great and their overall team defense was just outstanding. Even if you don't have one guy who matches up well, you can still contain a great scorer through great team defense, and the Bulls had that undoubtedly.
> 
> ...


:clap2: Somebody finally posted an analytical response!

I pretty much agree, but I guess if we all just agreed, this would be a rather boring topic. Somebody has to stir the pot, right?


----------



## CentralCaliGuy (Oct 3, 2006)

Seems like alot of pointless arguing is going back in forth on this thread. I say pointless, despite the fans keeping it respectful; because their seems to be a #1 two sided debate going on that only one of the sides has any credability to it at all.

Some are suggesting the 1996 Chicago Bulls played in a more hard of an era and against competition level than the 1985 Los Angeles Lakers did; sorry da bully, you were right on the Luc Longley's minutes and touches reducing his quality in stats; but wrong on this one my friend.

Remember even Charles Barkley said "The Bulls had an amazing season, but if the League and staus of the NBA hadn't been so waterd down, they would have finished tied with the third best regular season record at best, instead of holding the record at 72-10".

There were both 2 new expansion teams that were horrable. And David Stern choose to cater to the Toroto Raptors who were in the Eastern Conference, because he wanted the new Canadian teams to be a success in the NBA family. Many other factors, half I remember, the other half I don't. The only other season in recent years; where all stats, records and results were more waterd down than that year, was none other than the shortened season do to the lock out.

As far as the competition goes, on terms of who faced more of a higher level of competition, it was definately the Show Time Lakers of 1985. Because Larry Bird who is known mostly for his offensive arsenal, and over all repetoir - ie passing attack - was a great defender, who indeed received "NBA Defensive Team Selection Honores". He earned 3 to be exact. Point with that one factor is, even though Magic's Lakers only squared off against Bird's Celtics twice each year in the regular season of play, consider the following..... During all those combined tittle runs of the 80's between the Lakers/Celtics, not only was the LA Lakers the Celtics biggest hump to over come, but visa versa, the Celtics were the biggest hump for the LA Lakers to over come. During that era that became the most illustrious rivalry in sports history. And added to that Bird and Magic (who feared each others games, but neither ever backed down, and respected one another) became the player rivalry that hasn't been out done to this day in the NBA. The Chicago Bulls, only faced the same opponant in the NBA Finals twice one time. And that was the Utah Jazz. And although there two differant era's, beleive me, Bird's Celtics were both more dominant than Malone's Jazz and a more consistant tougher opstical for the Lakers than was Utah for Chicago. I mean Boston forced the Lakers into acknowledging them as a rival that stuck a bonified rivalry on the table to them. The Jazz and Bulls were a rivalry, but the Bulls and their fans had the last laugh and Utah couldn't even jest to the Chicago Bulls to acknowledge it as a bonified rivalry.

Also the 1985 Lakers had work cut out for them to even earn their way to the NBA Finals. First by playing in the Western Conference, which for atleast two decades now has been known as being tougher. So both in the regular season, they had a rougher time assuring Home Court, and then in the playoffs the first and second round had to be looked at as serious competition. The Chicago Bulls played in the Weakest Eastern Conference ever. With Miami, and Detroit winning a tittle a piece in recent year, it's been looked at as alittle more balanced but even now, the West is way better. But between '91-'98 the East got 6 tittles do to the Bulls. And that was out standing, I even like Chicago, not going to take any thing away from them, but it was alot easier to finish each year with a spectacular record, with the vast majority of games being in the Eastern Conference. Then solidifying Home Court threw out the playoffs, in the East it was simple. Sweep Orlando with a banged up Nick Anderson, and a Shaq that's game isn't to full power do to knowing it was his last year in Orlando. Now the N.Y.C. Knicks gave the Bulls a big challenge. They indeed won one game in that 1996 playoff match up, but at a 4-1 record prevailing Chicago to the NBA Finals, each of the Bulls 4 victories was a blood bath. Including John Starks sending 1 of the games into OT with a Game Buzzer beating 3 - Pointer. Although in Over Time MJ did was stars do, and took over. Is what I'm saying is the Bulls biggest challenge always came via the NBA Finals facing Western Conference opponants. And every one of them, all 6 took it to a sixth game.

I've collected many history magazines on the past 20-25 years on the NBA. Although the authors and writters of these books give the Chicago Bulls of the early-mid 90's, and Los Angeles Lakers AKA Show Time of the 80's equall props; they break it all down as I just did. They say the Bulls were fortunate to be darn good in an un-competitive time, and suggest that the Show Time Lakers just simply cut opponants up with dominance while smiling at them; and further more they say the only other team to just toy with tough opposition in tough era's and dominate and toy with them was the Boston Celtics, when Bill Russell led the League to adding the BLOCKED SHOTS as a stat, and pioneered the NBA in the direction of thinking of adding DPotYA. And we all know what they did, and that's win 8 consecutive tittles..... Below are three things writters said in these magazines; as I'm reading and copying it right now.....

(#1) "Had George Karl put Gary Payton on Michael Jordan the first two Games of that series and stuck with that the whole series, instead of just the last four games, Seattle very possibly could have pulled off the biggest upset in NBA history. May sound far fetched, but the talk of the early 1997 season was last years Seattle SuperSonics could have been the toughest team to not win a tittle. And as dominate as those Bulls were once the Glove defended Michael, for the first time that seaon the Windy City became victoms of Back-Back losses. It could have been differant had they went back to the United Center 3-2, instead of 2-3. They did the best job exposing the Bulls weakness that season. "

(#2) "The Chicago Bulls had one of the Best Dynasties ever in the 90's. But between the League not being very competitive; and most teams not knowing how to expose the weaknesses they had, it was tough to beat them. Also many had no answer on how to defend the Trinagle offense at that point. You look today and as many teams that utilize that offense there has actually been defenses that match against it."

(#3) "You never could see the Show Time Lakers match up against the Bulls of the 90's. But with the players the Lakers had and the combined terms of their balanced size and asserted aggesive nature, to the likness of Magic -(6'9" PG) then Kareem and James Worthy. It's my beleif every player on the Bulls team would have been intimidated of those Laker teams, except Michael Jordan. And I mean physically intimidated. But like I said not MJ though he just had to much rebuke torward his opponants on the court both on terms of the game and personality. But although the Box Score would be interesting, the blood bath part would favor the LA Lakers."

I like the Bulls and I still do think the 1996 Bulls team could beat the 1985 Lakers. But that said; it's impossable to really know the competition level, didn't favor the Bulls in their dynasty. And I'm telling you da bully, Kareem would light up, and man handle Luc Longley. I think it would go all 7 games with each game being interesting IMO. But still the sentament part of me likes to think the 1996 Windy City Bulls would take it.:biggrin:


----------



## Aussie Baller (Oct 6, 2005)

I'm not sure if anyone has posted this because i can't be bothered reading the whole thread, but i thought i would draw your attention to this site. It was posted here ages ago, I forget who posted it but it's a fun site.

Edit: I forgot to tell you what the site is, it's a site that simulates games based on that years player statistics.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

pippen can't guard magic unless la goes 3 guard. leaving worthy for anyone other than pippen or rodman is a disaster for the bulls. 

the '91 lakers were already a slow it down team (25th out of 27th in pace factor). the '85 lakers were far different. 

and i wouldn't be so quick to discount cooper on jordan (particularly a 2nd 3peat jordan). he was as equipped to guard him as anyone. ever. big difference from longley / rodman on kareem. the bulls were obviously much better overall defensively, but on an individual matchup basis, jordan would have to work harder than kareem. kareem's struggle would be on the quick doubles when he puts it on the floor to work his positionl. but he was a good passer.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> I thought you watched the series so this was from personal observation instead it's about the talk: did they double him what 10% less, 50% less. Either way he scored his points efficiently in every game but 1.




I did but I don't specifically remember HOW often they doubled him. I do recall Rodman playing him straight up a lot and also recall Matt Guokas talking about it. 





> A known fact is that the Bulls were clearly a better team particularly with Grant not playing well and Anderson not a 100%. Is it surprising that a team that you said depended on there starting 5 only would be devastated by having to play Jon Koncak at a forward spot. Hard to produce more when there's no one to pass you the ball and you sag down low (i.e. in that series from what I recall they double plenty of times but what the Bulls definitely was sag the whole defense to make it difficult as a team to get Shaq a lot of touches/he was fine once he got the ball: they were able to do this because like I siad Grant was hurt). In short the Bulls were able to have blowouts because of Orlando's other deficiencies i.e Scott having to guard Pippen and little to do with there supposed outstanding D against Shaq
> 
> Rodman and Longley didn't do by themselves anything noteworthy against Shaq and against other centers. The Bulls were a much better defensive team against strong perimeter players. In fact Shaq did fine against them the next year when he was with LAL and like I said the year before Rodman couldn't control Shaq either. The final point stands the Bulls were outmatched in the post but were able to compensate in other areas: with the 86 Lakers they not only would have to go against Kareem but strong perimeter and bench play something they didn't see in the 90's



The team still had two dynamite weapons in Shaq and Penny. Why was that team so good in the first place? You make it sound like they had scrubs off the street on the bench. Regardless, even with Horace Grant, they probably still would have been killed. 

Otherwise, you are just babbling and flat out wrong. The 1995/96 Orlando Magic greatly needed Shaq to impose his will on the Bulls frontline and he couldn't because Rodman was on him a lot, and had success. 


Keep an eye on NBATV/ESPN classic.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

B-Scott said:


> Pippen bothers 32 year old Magic with his pressure ,but it would not be as easy with a 25 year old Magic who was quicker ,and had much more energy. The 1991 Bulls were able to put Pippen on Magic because James Worthy was injured. If Worthy is healthy , Pippen has to guard Worthy. Now who guards Magic? Ron harper. Magic used to destroy Ron Harper when he was in his prime with the Cavaliers ,and especially the clippers. These are crucial questions?
> 
> 1. You put Pippen on Magic? Now who guards Worthy . Toni Kukok
> 
> ...



Longley would take Kareem
Rodman would take Worthy
Pippen would take Rambis
Jordan and Harper would take turns on Magic
Whoever wasnt guarding Magic would take Scott


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

bballlife said:


> I did but I don't specifically remember HOW often they doubled him. I do recall Rodman playing him straight up a lot and also recall Matt Guokas talking about it.


So they did double him? Shocking if Rodman and Longley just could do it man to man. Particularly since they also played a sagged in D with whoever was supposed to guard the PF. The Magic had a hard time getting into there offense and the ball into Shaq (i.e. that why he didn't get many shot attempts despite shooting well). 




> The team still had two dynamite weapons in Shaq and Penny. Why was that team so good in the first place? You make it sound like they had scrubs off the street on the bench. Regardless, even with Horace Grant, they probably still would have been killed.
> 
> Otherwise, you are just babbling and flat out wrong. The 1995/96 Orlando Magic greatly needed Shaq to impose his will on the Bulls frontline and he couldn't because Rodman was on him a lot, and had success.
> 
> ...


You're making points that having nothing to do with what actually occurred. You stated as well that there bench sucked and they won because of there starting 5.

Here's you're exact quote:


> They easily had the best starting 5 in the NBA during the regular season, with a weak bench, true.


 Now you're trying to backtrack to say they were something better then scrubs?

Shaq couldn't impose his will on the series not because of great man to man D on Shaq or that Shaq couldn't score when he got the ball. The problem that whole series was the Magic couldn't get there offense going to the point where they could feed Shaq the ball consistently. (No Grant = nobody needs to stay out on the PF. Plus Grant was the third best player on a thin team and was a great rebounder/defender in his prime. The Bulls would have still likely have beaten but to say having a healthy Grant wouldn't have made a significant difference is a crock). If you would have actually watched the series you would see that Shaq once he got the ball was fine but Shaq isn't responsible for starting the offense and also playing perimeter D. Shaq's team before Phil Jackson had a history of losing even when Shaq played well so this is nothing new

Back on topic: You also completely ignore the fact that Rodman also couldn't contain Shaq the year before or after (More sample size = babble). Plus Rodman couldn't guard Kareem either when he played against the Lakers earlier in his career. Rodman actually couldnt contain Worthy either. The player he did the best on was actually probably Magic


----------



## B-Scott (Jan 17, 2006)

1985 Lakers in Action . Check out James Worthy at the 5:05 minute mark of the footage.This is a completely different Worthy from the one the Bulls faced in 1991 when he was much older. Worthy was still averaging 19 points a game in 1991 ,but he was no where close to as athletic as he was in 1985 when he was 25 years old. 


http://youtube.com/watch?v=TwlhcnoljnM


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> So they did double him? Shocking if Rodman and Longley just could do it man to man. Particularly since they also played a sagged in D with whoever was supposed to guard the PF. The Magic had a hard time getting into there offense and the ball into Shaq (i.e. that why he didn't get many shot attempts despite shooting well).



You seem to really have trouble with reading comprehension, don’t you? 

I stated that Shaq has been doubled since he entered the league, but the Bulls in that series did less of it, which is true because when they placed Rodman on him, he often forced him into tough spots/difficult angles. 





> You're making points that having nothing to do with what actually occurred. You stated as well that there bench sucked and they won because of there starting 5.


What are you doing? You are taking things I said and twisting them, and drawing your own conclusions. I stated that they had a weak bench, you are the one stating that the bench was basically total garbage. 




> Shaq couldn't impose his will on the series not because of great man to man D on Shaq or that Shaq couldn't score when he got the ball. The problem that whole series was the Magic couldn't get there offense going to the point where they could feed Shaq the ball consistently. (No Grant = nobody needs to stay out on the PF. Plus Grant was the third best player on a thin team and was a great rebounder/defender in his prime. The Bulls would have still likely have beaten but to say having a healthy Grant wouldn't have made a significant difference is a crock). If you would have actually watched the series you would see that Shaq once he got the ball was fine but Shaq isn't responsible for starting the offense and also playing perimeter D. Shaq's team before Phil Jackson had a history of losing even when Shaq played well so this is nothing new



This is straight garbage. I’m not going to even waste my time debating it. All you are doing is looking at box scores, and making assumptions. Anybody who watched that series knows you are wrong, Period.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

bballlife said:


> You seem to really have trouble with reading comprehension, don’t you?
> 
> I stated that Shaq has been doubled since he entered the league, but the Bulls in that series did less of it, which is true because when they placed Rodman on him, he often forced him into tough spots/difficult angles.


Reaing comprehension, I wrote a whole paragraph telling you from my recollection of the series that it wasn't being forced into difficult spots that negated Shaq who still had shot the ball well! it was the fact that the Bulls had a field day on offense and on defense the Magic weren't able to force feed the ball into Shaq because the Bulls didn't have to worry about anybody outside of Shaq and Penny.

Kareem and the Lakers wouldn't have this problem



> What are you doing? You are taking things I said and twisting them, and drawing your own conclusions. I stated that they had a weak bench, you are the one stating that the bench was basically total garbage.


:lol: sorry I didn't know there was a much of difference btw weak and garbage: Then again the Magic giving minutes to guys like Anthony Bowie, Jon Koncak, Wolf who are both weak and garbage in terms of basketball ability of totally negates you're "point".




> This is straight garbage. I’m not going to even waste my time debating it. All you are doing is looking at box scores, and making assumptions. Anybody who watched that series knows you are wrong, Period.


Oh ok. Try again next time


----------



## B-Scott (Jan 17, 2006)

Bballlife -

You can't compare Shaq and Kareem. They have 2 totally different styles. Kareem does not have to be 3 feet from the basket just to score. Rodman is only 6-9 225 pounds. Kareem at 7-2 would easily just knock down skyhooks left and right over him. Rodman gave Shaq problems because Shaq needs to get close to the basket just to score. Rodman forced offensive fouls on Shaq. 

The same way Akeem torched Rodman in the 1994 WCF is exactly what would happen to Rodman against 1985 Kareem.

Kareem in 1985 lit up Robert Parish who was 7-1 ,he also lit up Ralph Sampson 7-4 and Akeem in the 1986 regular season.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

kflo said:


> pippen can't guard magic unless la goes 3 guard. leaving worthy for anyone other than pippen or rodman is a disaster for the bulls.
> 
> the '91 lakers were already a slow it down team (25th out of 27th in pace factor). the '85 lakers were far different.
> 
> and i wouldn't be so quick to discount cooper on jordan (particularly a 2nd 3peat jordan). he was as equipped to guard him as anyone. ever. big difference from longley / rodman on kareem. the bulls were obviously much better overall defensively, but on an individual matchup basis, jordan would have to work harder than kareem. kareem's struggle would be on the quick doubles when he puts it on the floor to work his positionl. but he was a good passer.


Pretty much what i was going to say in response to Patches' post.

Even being the biggest (some would say "greatest"  ) Jordan hater on this site, i'm not gonna babble on about how Michael Cooper would shut MJ down to 20ppg. That wouldn't happen. What i think WOULD happen was Jordan have to work harder for his 30pts.

That's what i don't see in the Center position. Kareem had good range, and an unstoppable shot. The only way to deny him would be to push him away from the paint. But that (i) is quicker said than done (ii) would leave the paint open for a slashing Magic or worthy and (iii) Magic always found Kareem in places to score. Now, i'm not saying that Kareem would score 30ppg on the Bulls, but he would definately be a factor.

Othe notes:
Pippen contained Magic in the 1991 Finals. contained because Magic only got his regular season stats. But that would be a Magic Johnson 6 years older than the 1985 version...

And Worthy? didn't Rodman say that he was the player he had more trouble defendig in his career?


----------



## B-Scott (Jan 17, 2006)

Gary Payton at 6-4 gave MJ problems in 1996. Cooper was 6-6 with longer arms ,much more athletic then Payton.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

B-Scott said:


> Bballlife -
> 
> You can't compare Shaq and Kareem. They have 2 totally different styles. Kareem does not have to be 3 feet from the basket just to score. Rodman is only 6-9 225 pounds. Kareem at 7-2 would easily just knock down skyhooks left and right over him. Rodman gave Shaq problems because Shaq needs to get close to the basket just to score. Rodman forced offensive fouls on Shaq.
> 
> ...



It was more of theory, and it was based on several factors. 1 of those factors being that in the 90's the defense was better and more physical, imo. The other being that Rodman was bigger/stronger himself in 1996. So if he could keep Kareem outside, closer to the long/quick Bulls perimeter players, there would be a decent chance of bothering him.

I only stated that because people were making it sound like Kareem would absolutely kill the Bulls.


As for the 85 lakers/96 bulls matchup, the Bulls would have to attack them inside as much as possible, with a lot of posting up from Jordan/Kukoc/Longley because they would otherwise have trouble controlling the pace of the game. That Bulls team had guys like Pippen often pulling 3's in transition, and we all know that without good shot selection, those long bricks would just turn into a lot of fastbreak points for the Lakers.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> Reaing comprehension, I wrote a whole paragraph telling you from my recollection of the series that it wasn't being forced into difficult spots that negated Shaq who still had shot the ball well! it was the fact that the Bulls had a field day on offense and on defense the Magic weren't able to force feed the ball into Shaq because the Bulls didn't have to worry about anybody outside of Shaq and Penny.



Your recollection is wrong. And it's absolutely hilarious how oblivious you are to the truth. But you're in fantasy land, so I will let you be.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

B-Scott said:


> 36 Points 17 rebounds 10 assist in Game 7 of the 1988 NBA FINALS with Dennis Rodman ,John salley and the entire Piston team trying to guard him. MVP of the 1988 Finals.
> 
> Question? What did Pippen do against Rodman when Dennis was young? Choke
> 
> ...


when are you guys gonna get it, james worthy was not old in 91 i believe he was 29. 31 is still in a players prime, in fact a player should be better because theyve learned things as their career progresses and get league respect. and then you guys are so hypocrytical, 29 and 31 year old worthy and magic are over the hill but 38 year old kareem was still as dominant as he was in the seventies. well i got news for you lakers fans, kareem wasnt the same player he was in the seventies, he was a good center but remember the 80s was a higher scoring faster pace era if he played in the 90s he would probably be a 15 and 5 center. not because hes not good but because the pace was slower. 

scottie pippen and james worthys scoring stats are basically identical except pippen scored his 20 in a slower pace league. in game 6 of the 92 finals it was scottie and a bunch of scrubs that erased a 16 point lead against the trailblazers in the 3rd quater not jordans heroics. it was scotties d on magic that helped the bulls defeat the lakers. jordan was not the only reason they won those championships.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

bballlife said:


> Your recollection is wrong. And it's absolutely hilarious how oblivious you are to the truth. But you're in fantasy land, so I will let you be.


Oh ok I've gone from babbling at first to the fantasy land of non garbage Orlando bench. Try remembering what you wrote in previous posts next time


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

CentralCaliGuy said:


> Seems like alot of pointless arguing is going back in forth on this thread. I say pointless, despite the fans keeping it respectful; because their seems to be a #1 two sided debate going on that only one of the sides has any credability to it at all.
> 
> Some are suggesting the 1996 Chicago Bulls played in a more hard of an era and against competition level than the 1985 Los Angeles Lakers did; sorry da bully, you were right on the Luc Longley's minutes and touches reducing his quality in stats; but wrong on this one my friend.
> 
> ...


the bulls jumped on the sonics 3-0 and then let up on seattle for 2 games.

and if you want to talk about size and aggressive nature. i believe the bulls were overall bigger physically than the lakers they didnt have a starter under 6'6 or 220 lbs for that matter. and then you throw in rodman, i dont see how the bulls would be scared of the lakers.

and teams could not expose their weakness because they didint have one. and i dont see how the league was watered down when the talent pool the nba was picking from was greater than that of the 80s when you factor in european players.


----------



## B-Scott (Jan 17, 2006)

Da Bully - Mychal Thompson works for 570 AM out here in LA ,and all the time he talks about how James Worthy was injured in that 1991 NBA Finals. He sprained his ankle in the WCF against Portland. Even in the Game 1 when we beat you guy's he was limping up and down the court. He was scoring basically off 1 leg. Even when he was healthy in 1992 ,he was not nearly as explosive as he was 7 years earler. Worthy was 31 in 1991.Remember he came in to the league in 1982. He wasnt a player that kept his athletic ability until his 30's. He was done at 33. Byron Scott was also a lot more athletic in 1985 before his Hamstring problems. 1991 Scott was not nearly as athletic as he was back then. 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TwlhcnoljnM

Showtime Lakers in action. Speed it up to the 5:05 mark and check out Worthy DUNK on Domique Wilkins. He wasnt dunking on ppl like that in 1991. Chick Hearn used to call the 1991 Lakers SLOWTIME . It was a completely different style from the team in the 80s. Instead of SHOWTIME and running and gunning ,they were older ,and had to slow down the games ,and get it inside to Sam Perkins . That's how they beat Portland with that Slowdown style.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

B-Scott said:


> Da Bully - Mychal Thompson works for 570 AM out here in LA ,and all the time he talks about how James Worthy was injured in that 1991 NBA Finals. He sprained his ankle in the WCF against Portland. Even in the Game 1 when we beat you guy's he was limping up and down the court. He was scoring basically off 1 leg. Even when he was healthy in 1992 ,he was not nearly as explosive as he was 7 years earler. Worthy was 31 in 1991.Remember he came in to the league in 1982. He wasnt a player that kept his athletic ability until his 30's. He was done at 33. Byron Scott was also a lot more athletic in 1985 before his Hamstring problems. 1991 Scott was not nearly as athletic as he was back then.
> 
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=TwlhcnoljnM
> 
> Showtime Lakers in action. Speed it up to the 5:05 mark and check out Worthy. He wasnt dunking on ppl like that in 1991. Chick Hearn used to call the 1991 Lakers SLOWTIME . It was a completely different style from the team in the 80s. Instead of SHOWTIME and running and gunning ,they were older ,and had to slow down the games ,and get it inside to Sam Perkins . That's how they beat Portland with that Slowdown style.


like i stated earlier, this summers world championship games should show us all that being the most athletic does not mean that you are the best. thats why i feel the 87 lakers are a better team than the 85 version. normally veterans be it a little slower are overall better because of knowledge. i dont know how old you are or if you work but you cant honestly tell me thet your a not a better worker with experience than you are when you first started. thats why as players mature they get more money because they should be getting better.

and worthy was not washed up in 91. i think he retired because just like marion with nash i believe worthy benafitted greatly from magic and the era in which he played. 
you dont think that with the ability to drive to the basket a jumpshot and threepoint range and the ability to dunk on people(since you like dunking so much) that pippen would not be able to average 25 points a game in the 80s era. and if not, what would hold him back, cuz it certainly woulnt be defense cuz defense wasnt a strong suit of the 80s.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

oh and by the way, i live in la and listen to 570 regularly and i think that thompson is the biggest homer so i really cant respect what he says about the lakers and the bulls.


----------



## B-Scott (Jan 17, 2006)

I never meant he was washed up ,i just meant he was not as quick ,or explosive as he was in 1985 , 1987 ,1988. He was still very good ,but the Lakers would have to be at there peak against the Bulls. Like T-mac said ,its about the mileage ,not the age. They had a lot of mileage on those legs from the 80s ,and always going deep in the playoffs. They went to the Finals with Worthy in 1983 ,1984 ,1985 ,1987 ,1988 ,1989 before they faced the Bulls in 1991. Thats only counting the years with Worthy. Even with Magic and Scott injured in the 1989 NBA Finals ,Worthy was awesome in that series (WITHOUT MAGIC) He had 40 points in Game 3 , against Rodman ,Salley ,Mahorn.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

Why do so many people use weird analogies to prove their argument? The '91 Bulls vs Lakers Finals; Shaq's Magic in '96; Kareem lighting up somebody's momma...none of these prove who would win. The matchup doesn't hinge on one defensive assignment or a couple of players being somewhat more athletic. 

Nobody has even mentioned the rules of officiating (come on, the NBA controls the game!) or coaching adjustments. Pat Riley vs Phil Jackson was always an entertaining series to watch; even when Riley's teams were decidedly inferior.

I think if the argument doesn't rest with the above, it may rest with the Lakers of '85 being too deep, or with the Bulls of '96 being too buff (surprised more people aren't mentioning this). Two decidedly different eras coming together produces strange results IMO.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

JPSeraph said:


> Why do so many people use weird analogies to prove their argument? The '91 Bulls vs Lakers Finals; Shaq's Magic in '96; Kareem lighting up somebody's momma...none of these prove who would win. The matchup doesn't hinge on one defensive assignment or a couple of players being somewhat more athletic.
> 
> Nobody has even mentioned the rules of officiating (come on, the NBA controls the game!) or coaching adjustments. Pat Riley vs Phil Jackson was always an entertaining series to watch; even when Riley's teams were decidedly inferior.
> 
> I think if the argument doesn't rest with the above, it may rest with the Lakers of '85 being too deep, or with the Bulls of '96 being too buff (surprised more people aren't mentioning this). Two decidedly different eras coming together produces strange results IMO.



Good post. I agree. I myself never really tackled the question, I was just throwing a few things out there, that's it. 

I did immediately think of how the game would be officiated, though.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

regardless of age, worthy was not the same player in '91. his fg% took a precipitous drop that season (with magic), as did his reb rate. and by watching him, his explosiveness wasn't there anymore. he was crafty as a scorer, so he could still get the job done, but don't anyone kid themselves into thinking he was the same force he was come playoff time in '85. as for experience, '84 was a big learning year for worthy and scott. and as for getting better as you get older, you don't rely upon your athleticism. take away someone's knees who plays basketball, and you should be able to understand that it's going to have an impact. 

we can speculate on pippen's scoring prowess in the 80s but the fact is he wasn't a bulk scorer, nor was he particularly efficient relative to his own era. there's little reason to think he would somehow become an efficient bulk scorer in the prior era.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

and how much more knowledge do you think kareem got from '85 to '87, and do you think it offset his diminished skills? and magic was already in his 6th year in '85, and they had already played in the finals in every year except for 1 from '80 to '85. they had plenty experience. with slightly different personnel.


----------



## Jordan23Forever (May 14, 2005)

B-Scott said:


> Gary Payton at 6-4 gave MJ problems in 1996. Cooper was 6-6 with longer arms ,much more athletic then Payton.


There were a lot of reasons for Jordan's poor shooting in the '96 Finals that had nothing to do with Payton's defense (though it was excellent). I won't elaborate, because it's not germane to this discussion. All anyone has to do is watch the games and see whether Payton really harrassed Jordan into poor shooting. Funny how everyone forgets that Jordan put 45 on 68% shooting on Payton's head their first meeting the following season.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

and 10-28 with 8 to's the next meeting.


----------



## Jordan23Forever (May 14, 2005)

kflo said:


> and 10-28 with 8 to's the next meeting.


You skipped a game.  45 points on 19-28 FG on Feb. 2nd. Payton guarded him about 30-40% of the time that game, and only about 15-20% of the time in the 10-28 game you cited (which I have on tape; Payton actually guards Jordan on the game-winning possession and Jordan drives past him and draws the foul, nailing the FT's to ice it; he also had 18 boards that game).


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

kflo said:


> regardless of age, worthy was not the same player in '91. his fg% took a precipitous drop that season (with magic), as did his reb rate. and by watching him, his explosiveness wasn't there anymore. he was crafty as a scorer, so he could still get the job done, but don't anyone kid themselves into thinking he was the same force he was come playoff time in '85. as for experience, '84 was a big learning year for worthy and scott. and as for getting better as you get older, you don't rely upon your athleticism. take away someone's knees who plays basketball, and you should be able to understand that it's going to have an impact.
> 
> we can speculate on pippen's scoring prowess in the 80s but the fact is he wasn't a bulk scorer, nor was he particularly efficient relative to his own era. there's little reason to think he would somehow become an efficient bulk scorer in the prior era.


im not saying that his athletic ability didnt take a dip in 6 years sure it did. i just dont think it was that much to where a bulls team in 91 who beat the lakers 4-1 and could have been a sweepand they are much improved in 96-98. because to me 91 wasnt anywhere as good as the 96-98 team.

the 96-98 team could have easily won 70 a year had it not been for significant injuries to key players. in 97 they won 69 games wiyh injuries todman in think he missed 20 games longleyi think he missed 15 brian williams only played in 9 games and i believe kukoc missed 15 games.in spite of that they won 69 games

in 98 they had ownership to compete with remember they wanted to breakup the team. lost pippen for about 25 games and still won 62 games.

and dont tell me the league was waterd down because it wasnt , you guys have no real basis for saying that other than expansion and the bulls lost one of those 10 games to an expansion team. so that doesnt fly. the lakers went to 9 (i believe) championships in the 80s competing against a weaker western conference. perhaps if they played in the stronger east they wouldve been ousted and not even made it to some of those championships. and they lost to teams they should not have lost to so i really don t see a difference in competition. 

you guys may feel that the lakers played better teams in the finals but do you guys think the bulls faced stiffer opponents to get there?


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

and kflo, i agree with you that pippen wasnt the type of scorer that would get you 10 to 15 points in a bunch, but i still believe that with his ability to finish, run the floor, and shoot and the faster pace he would get more points than he did in the 90s.


----------



## B-Scott (Jan 17, 2006)

Worthy's much better athletic ability in 1985 makes a big difference on his Low post moves. The quick spin moves he would do in the 80s , his ability to finish around the basket. That can be the difference between winning a close game ,and losing one like the Lakers did in Game 3 of the 91 NBA Finals when they had full control beginning of that 4th quarter. Its not just the addition of a younger Worthy ,its 1985 Kareem and Cooper also. ( Big difference) from 1991.

Personally i fear the 91 and 92 Bulls more because MJ was at his peak ,Horace Grant was not just a rebounder ,or defender ,he could give you 12 to 15 points also. That Mid-range 15 foot jumper. i also think the combination of BJ Armstrong and Paxon was better then the combo of Harper and Kerr. Armstrong averaged 15 points in 1994 ( Without MJ)

Keep in mind the 94 Bulls were 55-27 in 1994 led by Pippen ,Horace Grant , BJ Armstrong . Had it not been for that horrible call on Hubert Davis in the 1994 2nd round against the Knicks ,the Bulls would have advanced to the Eastern Conference Finals ( Without MJ). Horace Grant and BJ were very underated on that squad. Could the 1996 Bulls accompolish that without MJ?


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

B-Scott said:


> Worthy's much better athletic ability in 1985 makes a big difference on his Low post moves. The quick spin moves he would do in the 80s , his ability to finish around the basket. That can be the difference between winning a close game ,and losing one like the Lakers did in Game 3 of the 91 NBA Finals when they had full control beginning of that 4th quarter. Its not just the addition of a younger Worthy ,its 1985 Kareem and Cooper also. ( Big difference) from 1991.
> 
> Personally i fear the 91 and 92 Bulls more because MJ was at his peak ,Horace Grant was not just a rebounder ,or defender ,he could give you 12 to 15 points also. That Mid-range 15 foot jumper. i also think the combination of BJ Armstrong and Paxon was better then the combo of Harper and Kerr. Armstrong averaged 15 points in 1994 ( Without MJ)
> 
> Keep in mind the 94 Bulls were 55-27 in 1994 led by Pippen ,Horace Grant , BJ Armstrong . Had it not been for that horrible call on Hubert Davis in the 1994 2nd round against the Knicks ,the Bulls would have advanced to the Eastern Conference Finals ( Without MJ). Horace Grant and BJ were very underated on that squad. Could the 1996 Bulls accompolish that without MJ?


personally, in think what made the 96-98 bulls so great was that they were a deep team especially the 97 year. i do feel that the bulls are a high 40 to mid 50 team without jordan. and i think that fair because i dont think jordan alone is worth 50 wins.but heres the lineup without jordan.


pg harper 7 ppg
sg pippen 22ppg
c willians 17 ppg 
sf kukoc 17 ppg
pf rodman 5pts 15 rbds

bench 
kerr 10 ppg
caffey 10 ppg (remember he was a very solid starter when rodman was suspended avg like 13ppg and 7rbds)
longley 7 ppg (which was about what he averaged on the bench for the bulls)

so to answer your question yes i still think they would be good but not great even without jordan.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

ok b scott, i answered your question now can you answer mine. 


1. how many points a game do you think pippen would average if he were to play in the 80s?

2. do you agree the 97 bulls are better than the 96 bulls because they had brian williams?
(remember williams was a 16 to 17 point scorer as a starting center for the clippers and pistons the two teams he played for before and after he was with the bulls. and, he averaged 7-9 boards while playing against the best collection of centers in the 90s.

3. why dont you say kareem was past his prime when he definately was when compared to the 70s.


----------

