# Current Lakers vs. 1995-96 Bulls



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

***Note-I'm posting the same message here that i posted on the NBA main forum becasue it is directly related to the Lakers****

For those of you who typically frequent the "greatest team ever" threads, you may or may not remember that I have maintained all along that the current Lakers do not deserve mention among the all-time great teams until they significantly improve their supporting cast. With GP and Malone now in the fold, I think it's now time to begin the comparisons. So I'll comapare them to the 1995-96 Bulls, the team that holds the alltime winning record and is generally agreed upon to be the greatest team of all time.

Just a side note- DaBullz, one of the Bulls mods, in an unrelated thread on the Bulls forum, likened the Bulls addition of Rodman and Harper to Jordan and Pippen to adding Rip Hamilton and Ben Wallace to Kobe and Shaq, and to me that seems pretty accurate. Are Rip and Ben>GP and Malone? I'll let you decide.

*PG -Payton vs. Harper* 
In alot of ways, these guys are similar- both are oversized at their position and are superb defenders, both joined winning teams at a point in their careers when they were/are only a season or two removed from all-star level play. In their respective primes, Harp was never the all-around player that GP was. However, keep in mind that Harper still averaged 20 ppg in 93-94- he was still very capable of being a big-time scorer by 95-96, but he sacrificed his scoring for the team in a big way and became a defensive specialist. He caused matchup nightmares for opposing pgs because of his size (6'6, 215) and defensive ability. I compared him to Rip Hamilton, but Harp was much stronger that Rip, and was a better overall player in his prime. Payton is a little smaller, but an amazing defender, still oversized at 6'4, and a much better natural pg than Harp. It is questionable as to how much the Lakers will need GP's "natural pg skills", as there is really no need for a true pg in the triangle, but a great player is a great player.

*SG- Jordan vs. Kobe* 
This is one comparison that I don't really need to go into detail with, as it has been done to death already. Kobe is a great, great player, but I think that even the most die-hard Kobe enthusiast should realize that Jordan in 95-96 was better than Kobe now. This was the Jordan that was playing on fresh legs from his two year absence, but had still spent the previous offseason working out with a monomaniacal zeal to get back to his dominance. Not much debate here, IMO- feel free to disagree.

*SF-Pippen vs. Fox/Walton* 
Well, Walton is good at passing and Fox has great hair, so let's see, uhhh......................PIPPEN BY A LANDSLIDE!!!!!:laugh:  

*C- Shaq vs. Longley* 
Again, pretty much a no-brainer. Longley always did a pretty good job on Shaq- alot of people forget just how big he was (7'2, 294). Even still, doing a "pretty good job" on Shaq, when he's motivated and in shape, is limiting him to 30 and 10- there's just no stopping him, no matter how you look at it. The Bulls of old used to use the hack-a-shaq technique with the "three-headed monster" of Longley, Bill Wennington, and the late Brian Williams, but Shaq has improved his FT shooting to the point where that approach will not be effective as it once was.

*PF-Malone vs. Rodman* 
I saved this matchup for last because I think it is the most interesting. Earlier i mentioned the Rodman-Ben Wallace comparison, and that seems pretty accurate- both 6'9, both very strong and athletic, both much better defenders and rebounders than scorers. Ben was a better shot-blocker, but Rodman was a better rebounder (16 rpg compared to the 14.3 that Ben averaged last season). Malone, though he is not as good a scorer as his 20 ppg suggests (the fact that he played in the Utah system last season very much inflated his ppg, IMO), is still a much better scorer and passer. At this point in his career, however, he is only a shadow of the rebounder Rodman was. Malone averaged 7.3 rpg last season. It'll be interesting to see how well he fits alongside a guy like Shaq.

*Bench* 
The Lakers bench will be significatly improved, but the Bulls had 6th man of the year Toni Kukoc (13.1 ppg), as well as Steve Kerr, Jud Buechler and Bill Wennington, who were all decent. Not much comparison here, IMO. 

This will be a hell of a season to watch. I do think that this Laker team has a chance to approach 70 wins- it's all about how well Phil handles all these egos (which is what he's best at anyways).


----------



## Sean (Jun 7, 2002)

This aint even a fair question Louie! Damn you!  

Since we haven't seen this new "team" play yet, I can't say. On paper, it's about even with MJ and Pip vs Shaq and Payton (I give Rodman and Malone a tie). 

Ask this question next year.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

On paper it's even, but the Bulls had a special type of chemistry that can't be bought. Pippen and Jordan were the perfect duo, Rodman blended in perfectly, Harper was good, Kukoc was 6th man, and all the roleplayers like Kerr knew their role. 

Lakers starting line up are stacked, but you can't convince me that their bench is going to have any 6th man of the year candidates.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

It should be a fun team to watch next year. I can't believe that Los Angeles got Payton & Malone for chump change. Should be interesting to see if those four can live on the same court. I don't know if there are enough shots for all of them.

Believe it or not I am looking forward to see this team play. The only road block should be San Antonio and that is if they get Kidd and a healthy Mourning. This team could be the best ever, just depends on how they gel.


----------



## mike9195 (Jul 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> On paper it's even, but the Bulls had a special type of chemistry that can't be bought. Pippen and Jordan were the perfect duo, Rodman blended in perfectly, Harper was good, Kukoc was 6th man, and all the roleplayers like Kerr knew their role.
> 
> Lakers starting line up are stacked, but you can't convince me that their bench is going to have any 6th man of the year candidates.


I agree. In my opinion Pippen, Jordan and Rodman are three of the top five best defensive players EVER. Rodman did the best job I've seen against Shaq in the '96 East finals. 

That was a truly special team built around a *perfect* core of the top three guys. I don't see any other team beating the '96 Bulls and their record speaks for itself.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Fox and Walton? George will play twice as many minutes as the two combined. One is a rookie (Phil hates that) the other is injured until the all-star break.

You are off on Harper as well. the Bulls brought him to be a big scorer alongside Pippen and he was a gigantic dissapointment and struggled with the triange orginally. He even lost his starting job before Jordan came back. It was a suprise to many that he started going into 95-96 and spoke about the Bulls lack of depth at guard, come on the bench's were certainly comparable. Kukoc was the only guy that would of been in most teams rotations. Kerr, Buechler and Wenningto were waived by other teams when the Bulls picked them up and pretty medicore players. 

Even in Harps prime with the Clipps (remember "free Ron Harper" :laugh: ) he wasn't the player Gary is now.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Fox and Walton? George will play twice as many minutes as the two combined. One is a rookie (Phil hates that) the other is injured until the all-star break.


Dude, I was just kidding about them.:laugh: 



> You are off on Harper as well. the Bulls brought him to be a big scorer alongside Pippen and he was a gigantic dissapointment and struggled with the triange orginally. He even lost his starting job before Jordan came back. It was a suprise to many that he started going into 95-96 and spoke about the Bulls lack of depth at guard,


I remember Harp initially being a huge dissapointment- you're right that he did not fit into the triangle. He rededicated himself for the 1995-96 season, but with Jordan now in the fold there was now no reason for him to be a scorer,so he made himself into a defensive specialist. My point was just that in 1995-96, he was probably _capable_ of still scoring in the range of 20 ppg.

Spoke about the Bulls lack of depth at guard? Harper was an _excellent_ role player for them- he would have started even if they had had a much better bench. I think you are underrating Harp as a player. He was everything the Bulls needed him to be- a big, defensive minded guard who could score if needed.



> come on the bench's were certainly comparable. Kukoc was the only guy that would of been in most teams rotations. Kerr, Buechler and Wenningto were waived by other teams when the Bulls picked them up and pretty medicore players.


There is no way that the Lakers bench is even comparable to the Bulls' bench. The Lakers have no one that is anywhere the player that Kukoc is, who would have started on most teams in the league and could've given any team 18 ppg or so in starters minutes (I know this because he did so in 98-99 and 99-00, when he finally became a starter). Don't knock Steve Kerr either- he is statistically the greatest three-point shooter of all time (he holds the alltime record for 3-point %). I'd take him over Derek Fischer in a heartbeat. Buehcler was good outside shooter and a big guard who went on to be fairly successful with the Detroit Pistons, and Wennington was a pretty good backup C.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> This aint even a fair question Louie! Damn you!
> 
> Since we haven't seen this new "team" play yet, I can't say. On paper, it's about even with MJ and Pip vs Shaq and Payton (I give Rodman and Malone a tie).
> 
> Ask this question next year.


Lol, point taken. 
I just brought up this comparison because I think that this Laker team has a chance to join the greatest teams of all time.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Lol, point taken.
> I just brought up this comparison because I think that this Laker team has a chance to join the greatest teams of all time.


I don't know how we'll finish but I think the Lakers will be a little better offensively and the Bulls will be a little better defensively. I don't think any team can match the quartet of Shaq, Kobe, Malone, and Payton. However, few teams can match the quartet of Harper, MJ, Pippen, and Rodman on D. It should be fun.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

GP, Kobe, and Shaq defensively does sound really good.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> GP, Kobe, and Shaq defensively does sound really good.


True, true but I've got to give the Bulls something right?  I do like the potential of GP and Kobe in the backcourt. GP isn't much quicker than Fisher at this point but hopefully his defensive smarts will make him more successful against guys like Marbury and Nash. I hope Kobe plays on a healthy knee this year because he was hobbling around alot last year. If Shaq is in shape then I don't see anyone scoring more than 90 points against us. It will be hard enough getting by Kobe and the Glove but imagine seeing Shaq's big *** waiting for you in the lane!  This should be a very good team.


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

On paper the Laker team is better but the thing about the 72-10 Bulls and basically the whole second threepeat Bulls... who won an AMAZING 203 regular season games and only suffered 43 losses...was their team chemistry. Honestly on paper that Bull's team didn't look 72-10...seriously on paper the 95/96 Orlando Magic team should have beat the Bulls...but the way they played on the court they were. It was like each member of the team understood their role and each of them played it out to perfection. I have never seen such a "perfect" executing team and I have have watched the 80s Lakers. Just think about this the second threepeat Bulls won 203 games with Rodman missing 47 games and in their 3rd year they still manage to win 62 games with Pippen only playing 44. In the 72-10 season Rodman missed 18 games and Longley missed 20...those two well not as big as MJ or Pip played pivotal roles in the team. Will the 2003/04 Lakers be as good? I won't put them on the 95/96 Bull's level yet. On paper for sure but that is very different than on the court. Hell on paper San Antonio did not look like a championship team at all...yet they steamrolled in the regular seasons and have rings now. All I can say is that this will be a very exciting season for Laker fans and honestly who cares which team is better...I think most Laker fans just want to be champs again! :grinning:


----------



## Kyle (Jul 1, 2003)

Luc Longly vs Shaq

hahahaha

The Lakers have Shaq and that's all that matters.


----------



## Joluis (Apr 25, 2003)

Let Me Sum This Up.....W/O Phil Coming to the Lakers, Kobe Is Traded by now & I Doubt It they have any Rings. Portland & Sac Has Rings, BUt Not Lakers.

So we can't make this comparison...SO Stop it!!!


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Joluis</b>!
> Let Me Sum This Up.....W/O Phil Coming to the Lakers, Kobe Is Traded by now & I Doubt It they have any Rings. Portland & Sac Has Rings, BUt Not Lakers.
> 
> So we can't make this comparison...SO Stop it!!!


What?


----------



## MacDanny 6 (Jun 7, 2002)

You can't start comparing the Lakers to teams of the past when they haven't even played a game with their current roster. What if these superstars don't get along and just collapse? Let's see how they do first, then compare.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

The guy upstairs of me was a 16 years old when I knew him at fanhome, now the kid is at his prime at the age of 18 now.

Anyway, we dont play the game on paper.

And there is one ball on teh court. Gary fit in because he can play defense, with a better offense game than Harper given that they wont get more than 10 shots a game.

Malone was never a great lowpost back to the basket baller, he likes face up and picks and rolls.

I dont see a case since now teams do allow Zone Defense, Gary and Malone will do some pick and rolls wide Shaq and Kobe will do theirs as well.


----------



## philipm27 (Sep 26, 2002)

Why would you compare a team of players who have not yet played together to the Bulls of 1995-96??

I personally don't think that the Bulls were the best team ever, but until this Lakers team plays together, I would have to say that there is no reason for a comparison...yet, anyway.


----------



## bullsger (Jan 14, 2003)

Yes...don't compare yet.
Shaq, Kobe, GP and Malone...sounds good.
Every other team wants to show their best against such a All-Star-Team.
I think it will be hard for the Lakers to play against teams that would try to give 110% against this Lakers.

It will be interesting to see how the Lakers do in 2003/04.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

Why is it too early to compare? The whole point of this thread is to predict how well the Lakers will do this season, and comparing them, man-for-man, to a great team should at least help give us some idea.

Also, I'd like to bring up another point about GP/Malone vs. Harper/Rodman. Payton is a bit better, all-around, than the 1995-96 Harp. Not as big as Harp and doesn't quite have the same defensive abilities (though in his prime, GP was a much better defender than Harp ever was), but GP is at least as good a scorer, a considerably better passer, and more of a team leader as well. However, in 1995-96, Rodman was twice the player Malone is now, overall. Malone has a nice J, but if he had been in any system other than Utah's last season (where he was constantly fed the ball exactly where he wanted it by one of the greatest pgs of all time), he wouldn't have had anywhere near the 20.1 ppg he had. However great Malone was in his prime with Utah, at this point in his career he is not much more than a smallish PF who is a poor rebounder for his position (7.8 rpg w/Utah) and below average in terms of athleticism. The things that Malone does best are scoring and passing, but now that he's out of the Utah system, his scoring and assisst numbers are going to drop *dramatically*, IMO. He'll still be a big upgrade over Walker and be a very nice complement to Shaq, but IMO the Malone signing has been ballyhooed much more than it should have been because of who Malone is and the kind of player he used to be.
L.A. would have been much better off with P.J. Brown, IMO, but he wouldn't have come as cheap as Malone. GP, not Malone was the real difference-maker for L.A. Payton is the third option that the Lakers have always needed, and he will make the Lakers better than they ever have been, IMO.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

I don't know if the Lakers will be better than the Bulls, but does anyone else think this is going to be Showtime part 2? Payton, Kobe, and Malone are all excellent at getting steals, all of the starters except Shaq can run...see the similarities? Let's hope it brings us 5 titles like Showtime.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

Hell Yeah! 

Showtime 2003, its on!


----------



## SKLB54 (Oct 13, 2002)

How about, instead of comparing to the 1995 team, how about we compare to the 1990 team. More intriguing.

<b>Bill Cartwright vs. Shaq</b>
Before you go all crazy "Shaq in a landslide", Cartwright could handle his own against Shaq, and it would actually be a good matchup, but still not good enough. Shaq wins, but if this matchup happened in a game, Shaq wouldn't be able to dominate.

<b>Horace Grant vs. Karl Malone</b>
Grant in his prime vs. Malone in his last years, Grant wins.

<b>Scottie Pippen vs. Luke Walton/Rick Fox</b>
Duh. Pippen wins.

<b>Michael Jordan vs. Kobe Bryant</b>
Jordan ofcourse

<b>John Paxson/BJ Armstrong vs. Gary Payton</b>
Close, but Payton wins.


Overall: Jordan and Pippen run the show while Cartwright and Grant keep Shaq and Malone from becoming a dominant factor.

1990 Bulls win in a landslide


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SKLB54</b>!
> How about, instead of comparing to the 1995 team, how about we compare to the 1990 team. More intriguing.
> 
> <b>Bill Cartwright vs. Shaq</b>
> ...


Interesting. Every matchup that the Lakers win is "close or just barely" but the Bulls seems to win their matchups in a landslide. If you're going to say that the Cartwright-Shaq matchup is close then at least do the same for the Kobe-MJ matchup. IMO Kobe is a hell of a lot closer to MJ than Cartwright is to Shaq. I doubt the Bulls win in a landslide either. I'm guessing the Bulls win in 6 games but don't expect a sweep or anything.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SKLB54</b>!
> How about, instead of comparing to the 1995 team, how about we compare to the 1990 team. More intriguing.
> 
> <b>Bill Cartwright vs. Shaq</b>
> ...


This post is ridiculously bias. 

First of all, Shaq would dominate any center the bulls have had because he dominated then(92) and still does today.
Grant in his prime verse Malone of today. Malone by a landslide.
Horace in his best days was a 13 and 7 guy, Malone was 20-8-5 last year, who are you kidding?
Pippen edges Laker SF's no doubt.
Kobe vs MJ isn't as over whelming as you might think. Bryant did a great job matching up with Jordan when he was 18 and 19. Kobe could hold his own against Michael.
And GP vs BJ and Paxson, you crazy if you think the advantage goes to the bulls. Crazy!


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

Not only all that, but if you look at one on one matchups in cases like LA vs. Kings, the kings win at the PG, SF, C, and Bench position but all LA needed was Oneal and Kobe to outweight that.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SKLB54</b>!
> How about, instead of comparing to the 1995 team, how about we compare to the 1990 team. More intriguing.
> 
> <b>Bill Cartwright vs. Shaq</b>
> ...


Are you serious?

Cartwright was actually known for his offense. He had sharp elbows but he couldn't block a shot to save his life and his rebounding was just average, Shaq rocked Mutumbo so how is Medical Bill gonna stop him?

Grant was actually a defensive player, but his best year with the Bulls was after MJ left. Malone is a lot stronger than Grant was back then. Horace hadn't filled out yet.

Kobe could more than hold his own against Jordan, Kobe lives for these types of challenges, he is stronger than Jordan was back then and he is a better passer and rebounder. Kobe wins.

As for the PG position, Payton dominates the matchup hands down. Paxson was the original Steve Kerr, Payton would have no problem shutting him down and torching him on the other end of the court. Armstrong was just an underacheiver when he was with the Bulls. 

Lakers in 5.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> originally posted by *Pinball*
> Interesting. Every matchup that the Lakers win is "close or just barely" but the Bulls seems to win their matchups in a landslide. If you're going to say that the Cartwright-Shaq matchup is close then at least do the same for the Kobe-MJ matchup. IMO Kobe is a hell of a lot closer to MJ than Cartwright is to Shaq. I doubt the Bulls win in a landslide either. I'm guessing the Bulls win in 6 games but don't expect a sweep or anything.


Nice post- I agree with everything you said.:yes: 



> originally posted by *IV*
> Grant in his prime verse Malone of today. Malone by a landslide.
> Horace in his best days was a 13 and 7 guy, Malone was 20-8-5 last year, who are you kidding?


You're kidding, right? Malone now over Horace in his prime 
_by a landslide_ ?!? I respect you as poster, IV, but you are *seriously* overrating your players if you think that is true. Horace at his best was not a 13 and 7 guy as you say- more like a 15 and 11 guy who also happened to be the best defensive 4 in the league. He was also taller, longer, and more athletic than Malone. Plus, as I said earlier:
Malone has a nice J, but if he had been in any system other than Utah's last season (where he was constantly fed the ball exactly where he wanted it by one of the greatest pgs of all time), he wouldn't have had anywhere near the 20.1 ppg he had. However great Malone was in his prime with Utah, at this point in his career he is not much more than a smallish PF who is a poor rebounder for his position (7.8 rpg w/Utah) and below average in terms of athleticism. The things that Malone does best are scoring and passing, but now that he's out of the Utah system, his scoring and assisst numbers are going to drop dramatically, IMO. He'll still be a big upgrade over Walker and be a very nice complement to Shaq, but IMO the Malone signing has been ballyhooed much more than it should have been because of who Malone is and the kind of player he used to be.

Horace wins out over today's Malone _easily_, IMO.



> Kobe vs MJ isn't as over whelming as you might think. Bryant did a great job matching up with Jordan when he was 18 and 19. Kobe could hold his own against Michael.


We've been over this ground a million times so I'm not gonna make along explanation, but Jordan in 1990 was better than Kobe now.



> And GP vs BJ and Paxson, you crazy if you think the advantage goes to the bulls. Crazy!


Actually, he said that the advantage goes to Payton, but it's close. I don't think it's all that close- Payton now is better than ??Pax in 1990 in every aspect of the game except shooting, was Pax was great at. He was clutch as hell too, but even still, advantage: Payton.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Cartwright was actually known for his offense. He had sharp elbows but he couldn't block a shot to save his life and his rebounding was just average, Shaq rocked Mutumbo so how is Medical Bill gonna stop him?


Agreed. Bill Cartwright when he was an allstar playing for the Knicks might have at least put up a decent fight, but the 1990 version of Cartwright would have no hope other than fouling, really. The Bulls never really learned how to play Shaq until they brought in the three-headed monster of 7'2, 292 lb. Longley along with Wennington and Williams (rest in peace ). Those guys could at least keep Shaq from having a field day, but Shaq still gets the advantage by a *wiiiide* margin.



> Grant was actually a defensive player, but his best year with the Bulls was after MJ left. Malone is a lot stronger than Grant was back then. Horace hadn't filled out yet.


True, but Grant was still better than Malone now, IMO. See above post for explanation. When Malone gets to the Lakers, people will see that he's really not that good of a PF, IMO. He'll still be able to score pretty well because Shaq draws so much attention. But his scoring and assisst #'s will drop, and he is a below-average rebounder for a 4 anyway.



> Kobe could more than hold his own against Jordan, Kobe lives for these types of challenges, he is stronger than Jordan was back then and he is a better passer and rebounder. Kobe wins.


:uhoh: 
:no: 


> As for the PG position, Payton dominates the matchup hands down. Paxson was the original Steve Kerr, Payton would have no problem shutting him down and torching him on the other end of the court. Armstrong was just an underacheiver when he was with the Bulls.


Actually, he was an allstar with the Bulls (but not until 93-94). But that's beyond the point. Payton wins this matchup handily, but to infer that he would dominate Pax as if he were Steve Kerr is simply not true. Pax was much bigger (6'4-6'5) and more athletic than Kerr, and he was an excellent outside shooter as well. Pax would put up a fight, for sure- he was no Steve Kerr.



> Lakers in 5.


:no:


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> On paper the Laker team is better but the thing about the 72-10 Bulls and basically the whole second threepeat Bulls... who won an AMAZING 203 regular season games and only suffered 43 losses...was their team chemistry. Honestly on paper that Bull's team didn't look 72-10...seriously on paper the 95/96 Orlando Magic team should have beat the Bulls...but the way they played on the court they were. It was like each member of the team understood their role and each of them played it out to perfection. I have never seen such a "perfect" executing team and I have have watched the 80s Lakers. Just think about this the second threepeat Bulls won 203 games with Rodman missing 47 games and in their 3rd year they still manage to win 62 games with Pippen only playing 44. In the 72-10 season Rodman missed 18 games and Longley missed 20...those two well not as big as MJ or Pip played pivotal roles in the team. Will the 2003/04 Lakers be as good? I won't put them on the 95/96 Bull's level yet. On paper for sure but that is very different than on the court. Hell on paper San Antonio did not look like a championship team at all...yet they steamrolled in the regular seasons and have rings now. All I can say is that this will be a very exciting season for Laker fans and honestly who cares which team is better...I think most Laker fans just want to be champs again!


Leave it to BBall Doctor to make a great post and have it be overlooked. 
Nice post, man!


----------



## Laker Freak (Jul 1, 2003)

Actually Kobe's stats are not that far behind Jordan's in '96 and Kobe isn't even the first option in the offense.



MPG	FG%	3P%	FT%	OFF	DEF	RPG	APG	SPG	BPG	TO	PF	PPG
Jordan	37.7	.495	.427	.834	1.80	4.80	6.60	4.3	2.20	.51	2.40	2.40	30.4
Bryant	41.5	.451	.383	.843	1.30	5.60	6.90	5.9	2.21	.82	3.51	2.70	30.0


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Laker Freak</b>!
> Actually Kobe's stats are not that far behind Jordan's in '96 and Kobe isn't even the first option in the offense.
> 
> 
> ...


Very true. The only difference is that MJ shoots a much higher FG%. However, in this case I've got to give the edge to the vet. I think Kobe has to destroy MJ in every category before I give him the edge.


----------



## nalz (May 12, 2003)

If Shaq is healthy, he will be the major difference if these teams play each other...

Shaq needs to be double-teamed but the other 3 or even 4 guys are just too good to be given a one second time room...
Just like in every past 3 Lakers championship wins Shaq has been the difference, this will be the same and the supporting casts are just much better. I love KB and MJ more than I love Shaq but speaking of fact, as good as anyone says each one of them over another, their performances will likely just cancel out each others'. But Shaq daddy man...ain't no Longley, Cartwright, Rodman, or HGrant can stop him, sure Rodman can mess with head but thats about it...

There is no landslide wins of a Bull over a Laker. Fox when healthy is a world class defender himself...besides if u wanna call that match up a landslide win for Pippen then be a bit logical that GP is a future hall of famer himself, what is Ron to him?

Shaq's vast superiority over any Bulls dynasty big guys is the difference, and now Shaq has not only Kobe as Robin but Payton and Malone as well....


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Shaq needs to be double-teamed but the other 3 or even 4 guys are just too good to be given a one second time room...
> Just like in every past 3 Lakers championship wins Shaq has been the difference, this will be the same and the supporting casts are just much better. I love KB and MJ more than I love Shaq but speaking of fact, as good as anyone says each one of them over another, their performances will likely just cancel out each others'. But Shaq daddy man...ain't no Longley, Cartwright, Rodman, or HGrant can stop him, sure Rodman can mess with head but thats about it...


If you're gonna make the argument that Shaq would be the difference for the Lakers, you have to acknowledge by the same token that MJ would be the difference-maker for the Bulls. Of course Longley, Carwright, and co. couldn't "stop" Shaq- nobody can do that, and nobody expects them to. I do think, however, that Longley and the other bigs could keep Shaq from having a total field day. If you keep Shaq from getting a lot of uncontested dunks, the Lakers are very beatable- that has always been the case, it's just that no Laker opponent in the past 4 years has a had a wing player that is better than Kobe. The Bulls had MJ.



> There is no landslide wins of a Bull over a Laker. Fox when healthy is a world class defender himself...besides if u wanna call that match up a landslide win for Pippen then be a bit logical that GP is a future hall of famer himself, what is Ron to him?


No. Sorry, but Rick Fox _at his very best_ still loses to Pippen in a landslide. Fox is a pretty decent defensive player, but far from a "world class defender", and offensively he is a role player at best. Pippen is arguably the greatest wing defender of all time, and one of the 50 greatest players ever to play the game. Please do not mention Fox in the same sentence as Pippen.

As far as Harp vs. GP, I agree that Payton wins that matchup, but not by any near as wide a margin as that by which Pippen beats Fox. Harp in 95-96 was only 1 year removed from a 20.1 ppg scoring average, and was an allstar-caliber player in his day. With the Bulls, he was still an excellent defender who could score if needed.




> Shaq's vast superiority over any Bulls dynasty big guys is the difference, and now Shaq has not only Kobe as Robin but Payton and Malone as well....


Again, if you want to make that argument, you have to make it for the Bulls too- it goes both ways:
"Jordan had not only Pippen as Robin but Harper, Rodman, and Kukoc as well....."
That's more like it.


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

Kobe vs. a 96' MJ....edge goes to MJ because mentally he was still in the prime of his game. At that age MJ was still athletic but he really beat you by using his smarts. His game plan was so methodically controlled it was crazy. MJ in 96' to 98' was perhaps the smartest he had ever been. Honestly the best I have ever seen MJ as far as executing within the triangle system. He is head over heels above of Kobe in that department as well as smarts but Kobe is still young. Speedwise and everything else they were pretty much near the same level...but MJ was almost unstoppable in the post at that time...he changed his game to the point that he could easily be called the most dominating post guard in the history of the NBA. No defender could stop MJ's patented fadeaway. I don't think Kobe could either. On defence Kobe would actually be guarded by Pippen as Pip by then was often assigned to defend the opposing team's best wing player. Pippen would hold his own. This topic is definitely great debate.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bball_Doctor</b>!
> Kobe vs. a 96' MJ....edge goes to MJ because mentally he was still in the prime of his game. At that age MJ was still athletic but he really beat you by using his smarts. His game plan was so methodically controlled it was crazy. MJ in 96' to 98' was perhaps the smartest he had ever been. Honestly the best I have ever seen MJ as far as executing within the triangle system. He is head over heels above of Kobe in that department as well as smarts but Kobe is still young.


That is the biggest reason why I gave MJ the edge even though their stats very nearly identical. Kobe has a high basketball IQ but his stubborness leads him to make alot of stupid decisions. I think by the second comeback MJ had already immersed himself into the triangle and no longer resisted it like he did when he was younger. I think that made him a better player and much more efficient than Kobe. After 4 years in the system Kobe still hasn't bought into it and that is why so you see his FG% hovering around the mid 40s and his TOs in the 3-3.5 range. He tries to go one on five way too much. If he'd actually try and work with the system maybe he'd shoot the ball better and turn it over less often. Until he does that the edge goes to MJ.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

Nice posts, Pinball and BBall Dr. 
Kobe at 23 is definitely more mature and more of a winner than Jordan at 23, but not the 95-96 Jordan.


----------



## nalz (May 12, 2003)

I agree mostly but what you said Louie, but I might get a lil bit too long in getting to my point...

Well my post was directed SKLB54 maybe should say so...
I mean Cartwright can held his own against Shaq? but again Luc was the center on the 95-96 Bulls if Im correct, and will Shaq have problems dominating Bulls centers of that era? you know the answer...

And then the Grant-Malone match-up one is better on defense the other on offense. I don't know...you want to call this a tie? But definitely Grant isn't better than Malone

Yeah Scottie is better than Fox...in all areas. 

Kobe-MJ. MJ is more composed, he ran the offense better than Kobe, a great defensive player better than Kobe. MJ wins. Not by a landslide right? I mean Kobe still can score 25+ points.

Payton-Harper Payton wins...

I just thought as good as Bulls' players are better than the Lakers', Shaq will create more problems on his match-up over any Bull on any Laker...

I can't really predict who gonna win the game both are great teams...just wait until somebody invented a time machine...I would love to see Magic's Lakers on their prime against the Bulls

Anyway maybe you should go check-out this article by Brian Jalas. It's about which team is the best in NBA history. The article is pretty old never mention the current Lakes dynasty(the website was last updated on 2001). He kinda against the Bulls of 95-96 being said as the best team in history and he's pretty objective in his opinion...and if you read 
"1. A Donut Team" and "5. An incomplete team" on the article. thats more-less what I meant that this Lakers team will pose a major threat on the Bulls.
here it is : 
http://pw1.netcom.com/~bjalas/basketball/bulls/duhbullsold.htm


----------

