# 1992 Bulls vs. 1996 Bulls



## KenFromNewYork (May 5, 2006)

I know it's an endless debate, and with the search feature down until the end of the playoffs, I'm not sure if it's been discussed in the past or not. Regardless, here's the question:

Better team:

1991/1992 Chicago Bulls (67-15 Record)

or

1995/1996 Chicago Bulls (72-10 Record)

I'm curious to hear some opinions on this one.

Also, just for fun, here's the old stadium entrance video for the Bulls:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NusI0IR7Jg


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

I'd have to go with the 95/96 team, like a fine wine Jordon just got better with age. Plus it's my favourite team out of both three-peats.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

For arguement's sake here's stats / rosters from both years:

*1991 - 1992*

```
Name                   G   MP   FG  FGA  3P  3PA   FT  FTA  ORB  DRB  TRB  AST STL BLK  TO  PF  PTS
+--------------------+---+----+----+----+---+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+---+---+---+---+----+
 Michael Jordan        80 38.8 11.8 22.7 0.3  1.3  6.1  7.4  1.1  5.3  6.4  6.1 2.3 0.9 2.5 2.5 30.1
 Scottie Pippen        82 38.6  8.4 16.6 0.2  1.0  4.0  5.3  2.3  5.4  7.7  7.0 1.9 1.1 3.1 3.0 21.0
 Horace Grant          81 35.3  5.6  9.8 0.0  0.0  2.9  3.9  4.2  5.7 10.0  2.7 1.2 1.6 1.2 2.4 14.2
 B.J. Armstrong        82 22.9  4.1  8.5 0.4  1.1  1.3  1.6  0.2  1.5  1.8  3.2 0.6 0.1 1.1 1.1  9.9
 Bill Cartwright       64 23.0  3.3  7.0 0.0  0.0  1.5  2.5  1.5  3.6  5.1  1.4 0.3 0.2 1.2 2.0  8.0
 John Paxson           79 24.6  3.3  6.2 0.2  0.6  0.4  0.5  0.3  0.9  1.2  3.1 0.6 0.1 0.6 1.8  7.0
 Stacey King           79 16.1  2.7  5.4 0.0  0.1  1.5  2.0  1.1  1.5  2.6  1.0 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.6  7.0
 Will Perdue           77 13.1  2.0  3.6 0.0  0.0  0.6  1.2  1.4  2.6  4.1  1.0 0.2 0.6 0.9 1.7  4.5
 Craig Hodges          56  9.9  1.7  4.3 0.6  1.7  0.3  0.3  0.1  0.3  0.4  1.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.6  4.3
 Cliff Levingston      79 12.9  1.6  3.2 0.0  0.1  0.8  1.2  1.4  1.5  2.9  0.8 0.3 0.6 0.5 1.7  3.9
 Scott Williams        63 11.0  1.3  2.7 0.0  0.0  0.8  1.2  1.4  2.5  3.9  0.8 0.2 0.6 0.6 1.9  3.4
 Bob Hansen            66 11.7  1.1  2.6 0.1  0.4  0.1  0.3  0.2  0.9  1.1  1.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 1.9  2.5
 Mark Randall          15  4.5  0.7  1.5 0.0  0.1  0.4  0.5  0.3  0.3  0.6  0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5  1.7
 Dennis Hopson          2  5.0  0.5  1.0 0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0  1.0
 Rory Sparrow           4  4.5  0.3  2.0 0.3  0.5  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.3  0.3  1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5  0.8
 Chuck Nevitt           4  2.3  0.3  0.8 0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.3  0.3  0.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5  0.5
+--------------------+---+----+----+----+---+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+---+---+---+---+----+
```

*1995-1996 *

```
Name                   G   MP   FG  FGA  3P  3PA   FT  FTA  ORB  DRB  TRB  AST STL BLK  TO  PF  PTS
+--------------------+---+----+----+----+---+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+---+---+---+---+----+
 Michael Jordan        82 37.7 11.2 22.6 1.4  3.2  6.7  8.0  1.8  4.8  6.6  4.3 2.2 0.5 2.4 2.4 30.4
 Scottie Pippen        77 36.7  7.3 15.8 1.9  5.2  2.9  4.2  2.0  4.5  6.4  5.9 1.7 0.7 2.7 2.6 19.4
 Toni Kukoc            81 26.0  4.8  9.7 1.1  2.7  2.5  3.3  1.4  2.6  4.0  3.5 0.8 0.3 1.4 1.9 13.1
 Luc Longley           62 26.5  3.9  8.1 0.0  0.0  1.3  1.7  1.7  3.5  5.1  1.9 0.4 1.4 1.8 3.6  9.1
 Steve Kerr            82 23.4  3.0  5.9 1.5  2.9  1.0  1.0  0.3  1.0  1.3  2.3 0.8 0.0 0.5 1.3  8.4
 Ron Harper            80 23.6  2.9  6.3 0.4  1.3  1.2  1.7  0.9  1.7  2.7  2.6 1.3 0.4 0.9 1.7  7.4
 Dennis Rodman         64 32.6  2.3  4.8 0.0  0.4  0.9  1.7  5.6  9.3 14.9  2.5 0.6 0.4 2.2 3.1  5.5
 Bill Wennington       71 15.0  2.4  4.8 0.0  0.0  0.5  0.6  0.8  1.6  2.5  0.6 0.3 0.2 0.5 2.4  5.3
 Jack Haley             1  7.0  2.0  6.0 0.0  0.0  1.0  2.0  1.0  1.0  2.0  0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0  5.0
 Jud Buechler          74 10.0  1.5  3.3 0.5  1.2  0.2  0.3  0.6  0.9  1.5  0.8 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.9  3.8
 Dickey Simpkins       60 11.4  1.3  2.7 0.0  0.0  1.0  1.6  1.1  1.5  2.6  0.6 0.2 0.1 0.9 1.3  3.6
 James Edwards         28  9.8  1.5  3.9 0.0  0.0  0.6  0.9  0.5  0.9  1.4  0.4 0.0 0.3 0.8 2.2  3.5
 Jason Caffey          57  9.6  1.2  2.8 0.0  0.0  0.7  1.2  0.9  1.1  1.9  0.4 0.2 0.1 0.8 1.6  3.2
 Randy Brown           68  9.9  1.1  2.8 0.0  0.2  0.4  0.7  0.3  0.7  1.0  1.1 0.8 0.2 0.5 1.3  2.7
 John Salley           17 11.2  0.7  2.1 0.0  0.0  0.7  1.2  1.2  1.4  2.5  0.9 0.5 0.9 0.9 2.2  2.1
+--------------------+---+----+----+----+---+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+---+---+---+---+----+
```


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

96 in a heartbeat. I have never seen a team that was so driven in my life. Dennis rodman with 15 rebounds a game -- yikes. Scotty Pippen was the second best player in the league that year. Toni could have averaged 25 on a lesser team. They went 72 and 10 and could have easily won two more that they dropped, due to apathy, at the very end of the season.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> 96 in a heartbeat. I have never seen a team that was so driven in my life. Dennis rodman with 15 rebounds a game -- yikes. Scotty Pippen was the second best player in the league that year. Toni could have averaged 25 on a lesser team. They went 72 and 10 and could have easily one two more that they dropped, due to apathy, at the very end of the season.


To add to this, the Bulls had 4 guys who could have been 1st team all-nba defense: rodman, jordan, pippen, and harper. Both jodran and rodman won DPOY awards.

The 96 team was far better talent, though a bit longer in the tooth (those same 4).

Not to mention rodman is the jibbiest player in the history of the nba.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

My heart says 1992 -- I think they were an order of magnitude better offensively, and a little more versatile defensively (what with Johnny Bach unleashing the Dobermans and all) -- but my head says 1996, even if the league wasn't quite as good. 

They scored well over a thousand points more than their opponents! They were the best offensive and best defensive team in the league. They just dominated in so many statistical categories, it's hard to argue against them -- even with a 30+ point loss to the Knicks and a horrible loss to the Raptors.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

That team really was the perfect match for Harper at the point he was at in his career. He hounded players, taking them out of their rhythm, but only was called on for twenty mintes a game. He could have scored a lot more too, if it was required of him.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Kind of ancient history now, but I feel fortunate to have called both of these "my team."

Hard to argue with 72-10 and I'll give them the nod. This said, the '91-'92 team was more fun to watch. When they put the full court press on, it simply wasn't fair. Jordan, Pippen and Grant were just so "agile, mobile and hostile."


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

transplant said:


> Kind of ancient history now, but I feel fortunate to have called both of these "my team."
> 
> Hard to argue with 72-10 and I'll give them the nod. This said, the '91-'92 team was more fun to watch. When they put the full court press on, it simply wasn't fair. Jordan, Pippen and Grant were just so "agile, mobile and hostile."


BJ Armstrong, too.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

transplant said:


> When they put the full court press on, it simply wasn't fair. Jordan, Pippen and Grant were just so "agile, mobile and hostile."


No doubt -- that team didn't look to run all of the time, but when they did run, they switched from defense to offense quicker than any team I've ever seen. They made the current Suns look like the Fratello-era Cavs.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> BJ Armstrong, too.


I meant no disrespect respect to BJ, or Paxson for that matter. BJ wasn't nearly as effective as the "big 3" on the press, but certainly had his moments dogging smaller PGs in the halfcourt.

God, that team was fun to watch!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

The 96 team was a better team quite clearly. There was something special about the first championship. But that 96 team was like the Beatles. No team in pro sports had those personalities. And the *** kicking they gave town to town was beyond hysterical. I dont know who in NBA history has had the best point differential, but that club had to be close. No team in NBA history was hungrier.


----------



## KenFromNewYork (May 5, 2006)

For me, it's as close to a wash as you're gonna find. I think the five game win differential between the 92 and 96 squads could probably be chalked up in large part to a combination of expansion and shift in quality to the Western Conference. I'd be interested in seeing the numbers in regards to margin of victory, and I'd be even more interested in seeing the numbers in regards to margin of victory over .500+ teams, as I think the bad teams in 1996 were much worse than the bad teams in 1992.

I've just got so much rosey nostalgia for that 1992 team that I don't know if I can make a fair assessment. Something about that Stadium crowd though, and the full court press, and that stifling playoff-intensity defense that they brought to the table almost every night convinces me that the 1996 team was just the smallest notch below the 1992 team.

Most people seem to think otherwise, but I also think 1992 Jordan was a better player than 1996 Jordan. Offensively and defensively. Just off the top of my head, he seemed to get more calls in 1996 and seemed to go to the line more, but in 1992, he was just unstoppable. I'll never forget that play against New York in the playoffs in Chicago where he slashed in the for the layup, stole the inbounds pass, got it picked off, and then ran the length of the floor for the clean block. Pippen was a much better player by 1996 though, so again, it's a wash.

Defensively, I loved Bill Cartwright, and his pointy, accident-prone elbows certainly cleared the paint up a little bit, and I'll take Horace Grant over Dennis Rodman any day of the week. The bench goes to 96 by a landslide though. Randy Brown could have guarded anyone in the league.

Logic says 1996, but my instinct still says 1992 was a better team.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

KenFromNewYork said:


> ...Better team:
> 
> 1991/1992 Chicago Bulls (67-15 Record)
> 
> ...



Why do you think I took that nickname !? 

IMO, Bulls96 is the best team in modern basketball era...and the first quarter of a third final game in Seattle was the best basketball entertainment ever... :clap:


----------



## UMfan83 (Jan 15, 2003)

Just ran a simulation on Whatifsports.com

Here are the lineups:
92 Bulls:
Jordan, SG
Paxson, PG
Pippen, SF
Grant, PF
Cartwright, C

96 Bulls:
Jordan, SG
Harper, PG
Pippen, SF
Rodman, PF
Longley, C

The sim won't let me pick neutral court so the 96 Bulls have a home court advantage (and I think they went 39-2 at home that year)

Game 1 (at United Center):
92 Bulls 99
96 Bulls 87
(92 leads 1-0)

Game 2 (at United Center):
92 Bulls 95
96 Bulls 106
(series tied 1-1)

Game 3 (at Chicago Stadium):
92 Bulls 98
96 Bulls 91
(92 leads 2-1)

Game 4 (at Chicago Stadium):
92 Bulls 108
96 Bulls 107
(92 leads 3-1)

Game 5 (at Chicago Stadium):
92 Bulls 98
96 Bulls 107
(92 leads 3-2)
(96 Bulls had 7 players in double figures, Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc, Wennington, Harper, Longley, Kerr)

Game 6 (at United Center):
92 Bulls 111
96 Bulls 103
(92 Bulls win 4-2)

So there you have it. Just as I suspected the 92 Bulls won.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Bulls96 said:


> Why do you think I took that nickname !?


Because you always pick the bulls to score 96 in the game threads.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

KenFromNewYork said:


> For me, it's as close to a wash as you're gonna find. I think the five game win differential between the 92 and 96 squads could probably be chalked up in large part to a combination of expansion and shift in quality to the Western Conference. I'd be interested in seeing the numbers in regards to margin of victory, and I'd be even more interested in seeing the numbers in regards to margin of victory over .500+ teams, as I think the bad teams in 1996 were much worse than the bad teams in 1992.
> 
> I've just got so much rosey nostalgia for that 1992 team that I don't know if I can make a fair assessment. Something about that Stadium crowd though, and the full court press, and that stifling playoff-intensity defense that they brought to the table almost every night convinces me that the 1996 team was just the smallest notch below the 1992 team.
> 
> ...



I couldn't agree more. I always loved those first three championship teams the most, but it's hard to argue against the cold precision of the 96 Bulls, picking apart lesser opponents left and right.

But since MJ is my favorite, I'd take the 92 squad because pre-retirement he was simply amazing. Post, he was the best in the game, smarter about picking his spots, completely at home with the team game, but the younger MJ was simply unstoppable. Plus, I can't help but think that Horace Grant was more valuable than an older Rodman.

If the 96 team takes it, it's because of Harper, Kukoc, and Brown, who simply have no equivalent from the 92 squad. Plus, Pippen was more competent, but the MJ-Pippen duo from 92 was probably still better for all the ground they could cover.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Because you always pick the bulls to score 96 in the game threads.



You are so clever in your analyses


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

JPSeraph said:


> ...I can't help but think that Horace Grant was more valuable than an older Rodman.
> 
> 
> > I am not sure about that.
> ...


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

Bulls96 said:


> I am not sure about that.
> 
> So called "an older Rodman" , was a single player in NBA history who could guard Shaq, and sometimes even with a lot of embarrassment to the last one.


That was more a gimicky move on Jackson's part. Shaq was mostly handled by Longley and Wennington.


----------



## bullstown4life (May 2, 2006)

The 1995/1996 team!

Jordan coming back for real, Scottie really coming back from 2 MVP candidate seasons, Rodman signed along, Kukoc getting the majority time from the bench, shooters all around our stars, Ron Harper in the mix as well.. 

Oh yeah, and we won 72 game that year!


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Jud Buechler's name hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread. Jud Buechler, folks . . . Jud Buechler.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

such sweet thunder said:


> Jud Buechler's name hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread. Jud Buechler, folks . . . Jud Buechler.


No, it's all about Bobby Hansen!


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

You guys beat me to it. This match-up is all about Bobby Hansen versus Jud Buechler. Now I watched all of those games and I remember Bobby hitting one important shot, whereas Jud hit at least 3 important shots. So at best Bobby Hansen was a poor-man's jud Buechler. 

Also there's the creepy appearance of Bobby Hansen looking like a groupie behind the ropes admiring Jordan as he left an arena on one of the post-Hansen videos. Just creepy.

92 was a gritty, gutty team that was easy to love :cowboy: 

96 was like using the best brain surgeon on the planet to disect a frog in high school biology class, just pretty to watch, an honor to watch the masters of their craft. :worship: 

I'd have to go with 96, that team was poetry in motion.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

Cyanobacteria said:


> You guys beat me to it. This match-up is all about Bobby Hansen versus Jud Buechler. Now I watched all of those games and I remember Bobby hitting one important shot, whereas Jud hit at least 3 important shots. So at best Bobby Hansen was a poor-man's jud Buechler.
> 
> Also there's the creepy appearance of Bobby Hansen looking like a groupie behind the ropes admiring Jordan as he left an arena on one of the post-Hansen videos. Just creepy.
> 
> ...


Great post, love the bit about Hansen and nice analogy for the 96 team, sums it up well! :cheers:


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

I've had arguments with Bulls fans on many topics. Just to name a few:

1. The large amount of fans who felt that Eddy Curry could not be incorporated into a winning concept in a way more advantageous than trading he and Davis for Sweetney, etc.
2. The idea that you have to choose between jib and talent instead of trying to have a healthy balance of both
3. The assertion that Jay Williams life was destined to become a "tragedy," when the reality is that he is an idiot who willfully violated the CBA in a manner that cost us a #2 pick, and yet still got a fat buyout and was handed a job on ESPN because of his status as one of the faces of Duke basketball
4. Tyson Chandler

But nothing, and I mean NOTHING, makes my blood boil more than Bulls fans who think that the 96 team being better than the 92 team is just a given. It drives me crazy. How five more wins in a league that declined dramatically between 92 and 96 makes the 96 team that much better just drives me through the roof. 

*The 1992 Chicago Bulls are the best single year team that ever walked a basketball court in representation of this city.*

Reasons:

1. The 92 NBA was far superior to the 96 NBA

a. If you look at the 1-8 seeds in the East in 92, consider who was on those teams, and then look at the same for 96, you see just how much better the 92 East was as compared to 96.
b. The 96 Bulls got 6-7 wins against FIRST YEAR expansion teams. I feel that if you take even five decent teams that beat the 92 Bulls and replace them with the 96 Raptors and Grizzlies, the Bulls win 72 games without blinking an eye

2. Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen probably never had a year where they were both better athletes at the same time than 1992. Athletically they were leaps and bounds ahead of the 96 versions. And I love when people play the "they were smarter and better fundamentally in 96." Believe me, if there was a difference it was negligible. The 92 versions were the smartest players at their positions already, so if anything it was overkill... whereas the difference in athleticism was huge. They would RUN YOU OFF THE FLOOR in 1992. As good as the 1996 Bulls were, the "Michael and Scottie fourth quarter show was already long gone by then."

3. The Doberman defense was gone. This may have been the biggest difference. In 1992, whenever they wanted, they would press you up and down the floor for a whole quarter with the best athletes in the game. As good as Dennis Rodman was, the chances of running a full press with his 96 version would be tantamount to trying to run the Run and Shoot with Ron Dayne in the backfield. The Doberman defense could turn a 5 point lead into 15 against even the very good teams in the league and could take a 15 point Bulls deficit and kill it in 12 minutes. 

4. People always talk about how much better Dennis Rodman and Ron Harper were as compared to Horace Grant and John Paxson. They were more talented. However, Grant was much younger in 92 than Rodman was in 96... Rodman was a 10 defensively and rebounding, but Grant was at least a 9 in both, and gave you the full court defense dimension, offense and the ability to run the floor. I mean he did average 10 RPG that year, and if we've learned anything this season we've learned that Tyson Chandler's 9 RPG is about the best a human being not named Jesus Christ could be expected to do. 

But the biggest thing people miss is this. Grant and Paxson may have lacked Rodman and Harper's talent and star power, but the 92 team was constructed differently. Jordan and Pippen were SO good that the argument could be made that they were actually better with 10 role players who all concentrated on letting Scottie and MJ's game go to the forefront. Another star besides those two to me is too many chefs in the kitchen. When you have MJ and Scottie, or Kareem and Magic, or Bird and Mchale... I think you have enough talent and can then look to guys who bring more ability as role players than talents in their own right. 

I realize the 1996 team was very good, and you could certainly argue that they were better, but if they do beat the 1992 team out in your mind, it should be by an inch, not a mile. It's FAR FAR FAR from a given. The 1992 team was more athletic, constructed with better balance, and won 67 games against a FAR better NBA than the one that the 96 Bulls won 72 against.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

KenFromNewYork said:


> For me, it's as close to a wash as you're gonna find. I think the five game win differential between the 92 and 96 squads could probably be chalked up in large part to a combination of expansion and shift in quality to the Western Conference. I'd be interested in seeing the numbers in regards to margin of victory, and I'd be even more interested in seeing the numbers in regards to margin of victory over .500+ teams, as I think the bad teams in 1996 were much worse than the bad teams in 1992.
> 
> I've just got so much rosey nostalgia for that 1992 team that I don't know if I can make a fair assessment. Something about that Stadium crowd though, and the full court press, and that stifling playoff-intensity defense that they brought to the table almost every night convinces me that the 1996 team was just the smallest notch below the 1992 team.
> 
> ...


You had me nodding in full agreement until you called 96 Pippen better than 92 Pippen.

1996 Scottie Pippen
19.4 PPG 6.4 RPG 5.9 APG 1.73 SPG 0.74 BPG 46.3% FG 67.9% FT

1992 Scottie Pippen
21.0 PPG 7.7 RPG 7.0 APG 1.86 SPG 1.13 BPG 50.6% FG 76.0% FT

1992 Pippen was MARKEDLY better than 1996 Pippen. He was more athletic, but also better at all seven of the major stats. You can look at PPG and APG and say that he was a bigger part of the offense in 92, but what about he defensive stats? What about FG%? 4.3% better because he was dunking on people more. The free throws are almost 10% better. I never saw Scottie play better in my mind than he did in 1992, except maybe 1994. He certainly was not as good in 1996. You'd have a hard time arguing he was EVEN, let alone better. He shut Drexler down in 1992, had just been a year removed from taking Magic (MAGIC... not Penny Hardaway or Gary Payton... MAGIC) out of his game in 1991, and was not only doing everything in 1992 that he did in 1996, but delivering FACIALS on top of it, running the floor better, and being a better defender. 

If anything, Michael Jordan was closer in 1996 to his 1992 self than Pippen was.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I'm curious what Magic averaged in the NBA finals vs the Bulls.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

theanimal23 said:


> I'm curious what Magic averaged in the NBA finals vs the Bulls.


Magic's numbers were actually pretty good. But gone was the flow of the Lakers offense and gone was Magic's ability to directly draw fouls on MJ.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

theanimal23 said:


> I'm curious what Magic averaged in the NBA finals vs the Bulls.


IIRC, Pippen made Magic use too much time off the 24 second clock while advancing the ball up the court and working his way into the half court offense.

Magic was too big and strong for MJ, being probably 235-240 (not his listed 225) and an expert at quickly backing/spinning his way up the court against smaller players.

Pippenatorade, you're my hero. Thanks for defending the 92 Bulls. Glad I'm not the only one who thinks a prime Jordan, young Pip, lean Horace and the Doberman defense makes for one of the best teams ever.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Pip, your analyses are very good and logical, however I am sure there is a ton of arguments on other side too. 

In my humble opinion, Bulls96 was more entertaining and smarter. Bulls92 had more dynamic energy that naturally transferred thru the years (including PJ ) into what we saw in Bulls96 behavior: efficient/intelligent/entertaining “killing” machine. 

Both teams are great…and it is extremely subjective, what does particular individual prefer to watch: power or “brain” dominations.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Bulls96 said:


> Pip, your analyses are very good and logical, however I am sure there is a ton of arguments on other side too.
> 
> In my humble opinion, Bulls96 was more entertaining and smarter. Bulls92 had more dynamic energy that naturally transferred thru the years (including PJ ) into what we saw in Bulls96 behavior: efficient/intelligent/entertaining “killing” machine.
> 
> Both teams are great…and it is extremely subjective, what does particular individual prefer to watch: power or “brain” dominations.


No doubt, and I felt those arguments for the 96 team were being given by others, whereas nobody was stepping to the plate for the 92 team. Also, while both are subjective... I think "the 92 league was better" and "expansion" are less subjective than the arguments you often hear about the 96 team like "they're so much smarter" or "they are like chefs in the best kitchen ever" or... whatever lol. I'm not gonna sit here and act like the 92 team being better is just a homerun either, but I feel there are more compelling arguments for the 92 team, and it's definitely not a homerun in the other direction.

Look at the 92 Eastern Conference. The Cavs won 57 games. The Celtics probably had their last run in the sun. The Pistons still had pretty much everyone from their last title team except Vinny Johnson and they were the FIFTH seed. That loaded Knicks team was fourth. Reggie, Chuck Person, Smits, Dale Davis and Schrempf were the SEVEN seed. And then it was rounded out by two teams with promise... the Nets of Kenny Anderson and Derrick Coleman and the Heat with Rice and Smith.

By 1996 the Knicks were tied for fourth best in the East and they SUCKED compared to the 92 version. The Pacers were now the third best team in the east and I didn't see THAT much improvement between 92 and 96. The Pistons had extremely declined and the Hawks... IMO after the Bulls and Magic in the 96 east, their wasn't a team that would have been seeded fifth in the 92 East. 

There are arguments on both sides. This isn't one group of people yelling at another that Tyson Chandler is a full-time 82 game starting center. I was just giving a side that I felt other's were neglecting.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

JPSeraph said:


> IIRC, Pippen made Magic use too much time off the 24 second clock while advancing the ball up the court and working his way into the half court offense.
> 
> Magic was too big and strong for MJ, being probably 235-240 (not his listed 225) and an expert at quickly backing/spinning his way up the court against smaller players.
> 
> Pippenatorade, you're my hero. Thanks for defending the 92 Bulls. Glad I'm not the only one who thinks a prime Jordan, young Pip, lean Horace and the Doberman defense makes for one of the best teams ever.


Think about this (thanks for the props btw).. if you had to put one of our teams in an all-time tournament against the great teams of the 80s, the 1967 Philadelphia 76ers, the 2000 Lakers, the 1970 Knicks and the Celtics of the 60s, which team would you pick? The 96 Bulls? I think that people talk about how many hall of famers were on that team and how smart they were. Against a team like the 65 Celtics I don't know that they have the edge in either department... whereas the 92 team had a deadly system, and is going to have an athletic advantage against just about any of those teams. If we're putting a team in the all-time tournament, IMO, the 96 team isn't even second. First I'd go with 92, and second I'd go with *1991*. Thanks again bro.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

1992!!!


I'll take the MJ that had "something to prove" over all the other MJ's! That team was HUNGRY and would not be denied. Plus, the league was tougher and MJ (and the rest of the team for that matter) still didn't have the respect he so desired from the officials and others. I believe that 1st title was the hardest to get because so many people outside of Chicago preferred Magic & Bird. Jordan was accused of not making his teammates better and it was said that Jordan could not be considered the greatest of all-time because he hadn't won anything up until that point. MJ that year was more focused and hungry than any other year in his career. He would have run through a brick wall to get a title that year.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

I'd love to hear more on this. It seems like every Bulls fan I talk to in person has an opinion on this issue, so there have to be more here. I really want to know if there is something for the 96 team other than very vague claims like "they were so much smarter" or just chanting "72" wins in complete denial of what a crappy league the NBA had become by 1996. If someone can break the 96 team down the way I broke the 92 team down and make good arguments without using the phrase "I just think" 100 times... I want to hear it.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

The gauntlet is down! :boxing:


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

JPSeraph said:


> The gauntlet is down! :boxing:


No its not that. My brother is a big 1996 guy and he always just repeats arguments like saying one or two words is a well thought out argument. Saying "72 wins, period" is not a logical winning argument. Saying "Rodman over Grant all day dude" is not quality to me. So this is where the most intelligent, rabid Bulls fans hang out.... I just want to hear some arguments that are actually GOOD. There have been a few, but I want more.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> I'd love to hear more on this. It seems like every Bulls fan I talk to in person has an opinion on this issue, so there have to be more here. I really want to know if there is something for the 96 team other than very vague claims like "they were so much smarter" or just chanting "72" wins in complete denial of what a crappy league the NBA had become by 1996. If someone can break the 96 team down the way I broke the 92 team down and make good arguments without using the phrase "I just think" 100 times... I want to hear it.


The Bulls, starting with that '92 team, were the first to threepeat in decades. That '96 team had a lot to prove in many respects: to prove they could reclaim the title, to prove they could repeat or threpeat again, and the 72 win figure is still unmatched in NBA history. 

In fact, those 72 wins are 5 more wins than the 67 wins by the '92 team. A fact that can't be spun as "only 5 wins less" - something we've looked at an analyzed considerably earlier this season when it looked like Detroit had a chance to go after that record. 

They had to prove they weren't going the same route as the Pistons - who won repeat titles after losing in the finals the previous season, only to see their record drop off dramatically over a couple of seasons. That Pistons team should have had plenty left in the tank - Dumars was only 28, Thomas was only 29, Rodman was 29, etc.

I don't buy your argument that the league was that much weaker just 3 years later. The league lost Magic and Bird, but it still had a lot of talent. 

The 92 team was competing against a washed up Lakers franchise (Magic was in his 14th season, Kareem must have been 40+, etc.) . They competed against a celtics' team that had made its run as well. 

Those 72 wins were achieved in a deep league, consisting of 6 other teams who won 50+ games. Including 2 that won 60+ and another that won 59. In 1992, no other team won 60 games, the next best being 57. 

You think the league was stronger in 1992? The Trailblazers won 57 games with this roster: Drexler, Terry Porter, Cliff Robinson, Jerome Kersey, Buck Williams, and Kevin Duckworth. In '96, the Heat won 60 with Shaq, Penny, and Ho Grant as 4th option. The sonics won 64 behind Kemp, Payton, Schrempf, Hawkins, and Perkins all in their prime.

I had been a big fan of the NBA for over 20 years by 1992. That first threepeat team wasn't as talented or as balanced as the second one. I am convinced that the reason the Bulls let Ho go as a FA is because they ultimately were only as good as he was - no matter how good a game Pip and Jordan had, if Ho had a bad game, they lost. If he had a bad series in the playoffs (I'm thinking Phoenix and that magical Paxson 3 to win game 6), the bulls were dangerously close to getting bounced. 

The '96 team didn't have that problem.

I'll concede that Jordan and Pippen were younger in 1992 and put up better stats. But a team with Ho Grant as its #3 option and Rory Sparrow as its 6th man is nowhere near as good as the 1996 team that had a career ~20PPG scorer willing to be a defensive specialist and the best player in Europe and 6th man of the year winner in Kukoc off the bench - and Rodman to boot.


----------



## TheDarkPrince (May 13, 2006)

Dabulls said:


> The Bulls, starting with that '92 team, were the first to threepeat in decades. That '96 team had a lot to prove in many respects: to prove they could reclaim the title, to prove they could repeat or threat again, and the 72 win figure is still unmatched in NBA history.
> 
> In fact, those 72 wins are 5 more wins than the 67 wins by the '92 team. A fact that can't be spun as "only 5 wins less" - something we've looked at an analyzed considerably earlier this season when it looked like Detroit had a chance to go after that record.
> 
> ...


I think you are selling the 92 team Way short dude.Best way to break the teams down is by position.

Jordan 92 ppg 30.1 ast 6.1 stl 2.3 reb 6.4
Jordan 96 ppg 30.4 ast 4.3 stl 2.2 reb 6.6

Jordan in 92 was much more explosive then 96 but Mike was a better low post player in 96.However Jordan in 92 I think was a better defender while 96 Mike was much smarter.

advantage Tie

Pippen 92 ppg 21.0 ast 7.0 stl 1.9 reb 7.7 
Pippen 96 ppg 19.4 ast 5.9 stl 1.7 reb 6.4

Just like Mike I believe Pip was pretty much the same in 92 and 96 what he lost in speed and explosiveness he gain in knowledge.

advantage tie

Grant ppg 14.2 reb 10.0 blk 1.6 stl 1.2
Rodman ppg 5.5 reb 14.9 blk 0.4 stl 0.6

Rodman was a better rebounder then Grant and that's about it.Horace was faster a better scorer better finisher a better end to end defender.And not to mention Grant never flipped out from time to time like Dennis did.

advantage 92

Cartwright ppg 8.0 reb 5.1 blk 0.2 stl 0.3
Longley ppg 9.1 reb 5.1 blk 1.4 stl 0.8

Luc and Bill both were good jump shooters from about 15ft and decent rebounders.However the big difference is that Bill was a better defender then Luc.Bill even though older and slower was much more physical then Luc ever was.Not to menetion Luc was pron to bone headed plays and many times Wennington stepped in to finnish games over Luc because of that.

advantage 92

Paxson ppg 7.0 ast 3.1 stl 0.6
Harper ppg 7.4 ast 2.6 stl 1.3

Offense vs Defense in this match up.John was a much better shooter then Ron but Harp was a better defender and had better size.Harp nor John were really ball handlers Pippen did most of that.But I have to give it to Pax since no Bull besides Mike himself hit more big shots then Paxson.

advantage 92

Bench 92

Armstrong ppg 9.9
King ppg 7.0
Hodges ppg 4.3
Williams ppg 3.4
Levingston ppg 3.9

Bench 96 

Kukoc ppg 13.1
Wennington ppg 5.3
Kerr ppg 8.4
Buechler ppg 3.8
Simpkins ppg 3.6

The 96 team had better scorers and one of the toughest players to guard in the NBA Toni.But both teams had great role players which no othet team in the league seemed to want but they did great here.Kerr vs Hodges two of the best 3 point shooters in NBA history.Toni pure offense but not a strong defender at all vs BJ was was a solid shooter and scorer in his own right.Cliff's hustle and heart vs Bush hustle and heart.Both benchs were good but i'll have to give the nod to the 96 because of Toni.

advantage 96

IMO overall the 92 team was faster a better scoring and defending team not by much but still better then the 96 team.The 96 team however was cool and calm vet team that knew what to do no matter what came up.I do think that the 96 team had a better bench because of Toni.But the 92 team had a better front court i'd take Grant and Cartwright any day of the week over Rodman and Longley.IMO in a 7 game series the 92 team would win in 6 games.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> The Bulls, starting with that '92 team, were the first to threepeat in decades. That '96 team had a lot to prove in many respects: to prove they could reclaim the title, to prove they could repeat or threpeat again, and the 72 win figure is still unmatched in NBA history.
> 
> In fact, those 72 wins are 5 more wins than the 67 wins by the '92 team. A fact that can't be spun as "only 5 wins less" - something we've looked at an analyzed considerably earlier this season when it looked like Detroit had a chance to go after that record.


This completely ignores the arguments as to just how much better the league was in 1992 and expansion. There was no spinning. I gave two very good reasons why five wins could be minimalized very easily. Look, I realize that 96 was when it was officially "ok" for corporate america to latch onto the Bulls and treat them like the 27 Yankees, but that doesn't make them better. Not when you really examine things. I realize that by 1996 the middle class fans from the stadium had been replaced with a group of fans that were several notches below as fans except in terms of money and influence, but that doesn't change the facts upon greater examination. So there is no spinning. There are REASONS that the win difference is actually minimal if not even an advantage for the 1992 team. BUT, if you're influenced by the media you'd think it was a no-brainer. And the reasons I gave in this paragraph are what I believe to be why you would think that. 



> They had to prove they weren't going the same route as the Pistons - who won repeat titles after losing in the finals the previous season, only to see their record drop off dramatically over a couple of seasons. That Pistons team should have had plenty left in the tank - Dumars was only 28, Thomas was only 29, Rodman was 29, etc.
> 
> I don't buy your argument that the league was that much weaker just 3 years later. The league lost Magic and Bird, but it still had a lot of talent.
> 
> The 92 team was competing against a washed up Lakers franchise (Magic was in his 14th season, Kareem must have been 40+, etc.) . They competed against a celtics' team that had made its run as well.


After reading this I am convinced that you have the 1992 Bulls confused with the 1991 Bulls. There are many innaccuracies here.

1. When you say the league lost Magic and Bird by 1996, you are insinuating that the league HAD Magic in 1992, when he retired in the summer of 2001. 

2. Kareem was long gone by 1992, having retired after the 1989 or 1990 season I believe. 

3. Magic was actually gone by 1992 as I said, but when MJ beat him, Magic was in his 12th season, not 14th. Magic never played a 14th season in the NBA.

4. *The Boston Celtics were far from done. They were the 2 seed. They won 51 games and finished first in the Atlantic Division. Parrish played 79 games, McHale 52, and Bird 45. Bird and McHale had injuries but still played superbly when they played. So you can sit there and say "yeah, but they aren't the 1986 Celtics," but the reality is that the 1986 Celtics would KILL the 1996 Bulls, so they didn't need to be the 1986 Celtics. EVEN in their 1992 state, I'll take Bird, McHale and Parrish over O'neal, Hardaway and Nick Anderson any day of the weak. I'll take them over Payton and Kemp any day of the weak. AS A MATTER OF FACT, the second best players on Orlando and Seattle, Hardaway and Kemp, both turned out to be JOKES, jokes who probably got way too much hype in 1996. So right off the bat, the 1992 Celtics would have been the second best team in the NBA in 1996.* And they didn't finish with the second best record in the East that year, that was actually the Cavaliers.



> Those 72 wins were achieved in a deep league, consisting of 6 other teams who won 50+ games. Including 2 that won 60+ and another that won 59. In 1992, no other team won 60 games, the next best being 57.


Ok, it's all relative. That league was anything but deep. In fact this even aids my argument. The better teams in that league were not as good as 1992, and not only that, but the better teams in 1996 played bad teams that were a MUCH bigger dropoff than those in 1992. How many wins did teams in 1996 get off of the *first year expansion Raptors and Grizzlies?* 

[/quote]You think the league was stronger in 1992? The Trailblazers won 57 games with this roster: Drexler, Terry Porter, Cliff Robinson, Jerome Kersey, Buck Williams, and Kevin Duckworth. In '96, the Heat won 60 with Shaq, Penny, and Ho Grant as 4th option. The sonics won 64 behind Kemp, Payton, Schrempf, Hawkins, and Perkins all in their prime.[/quote]

Ok a few things are funny here. 

1. That Blazers team was nice. Do they have a second headline act to go with Drexler? No, but Drexler was every bit as good in 1992 as Payton was in 1996. Both are 50 greatest players. That team had tremendous depth though. If you say Buck Williams is the second best player on that team, he is a big dropoff from Drexler, but the Blazers were very close from 2-6. Also, what point are you trying to make with Seattle. Who the F is Shawn Kemp? He was a high flyer who turned out to be tremendously overrated. When all was said and done you don't leave Kemp's career thinking that he'd just hand Buck Williams his bleep head to head. *The biggest thing you are missing is this. HOW are you going to rip a team that beat the Lakers in 1990 to go to the Finals before giving Detroit a pretty good run?? You think that the 96 Magic or 96 Sonics would beat the 1990 Lakers??*



> I had been a big fan of the NBA for over 20 years by 1992. That first threepeat team wasn't as talented or as balanced as the second one. I am convinced that the reason the Bulls let Ho go as a FA is because they ultimately were only as good as he was - no matter how good a game Pip and Jordan had, if Ho had a bad game, they lost. If he had a bad series in the playoffs (I'm thinking Phoenix and that magical Paxson 3 to win game 6), the bulls were dangerously close to getting bounced.
> 
> The '96 team didn't have that problem.


The poster previous to me disspelled the notion that Rodman was so much better than Grant. Like he said, Rodman was a better rebounder and that's pretty much it. Grant was much younger. That Bulls team was younger, more athletic and able to run you off the floor.. absolutely more talented.



> I'll concede that Jordan and Pippen were younger in 1992 and put up better stats. But a team with Ho Grant


Is a pretty good *** team as its 3rd option. See the 2001 Lakers. 



> and Rory Sparrow as its 6th man


Rory Sparrow played 4 games in the 1991-92 season, playing a total of 18 minutes. Who was the 1996 team's sixth man? Jack Haley? The sixth man was actually this guy named BJ Armstrong. Oh, and Jordan, Pippen and Grant all played almost forty minutes a night. A bench was not as important. 



> is nowhere near as good as the 1996 team that had a career ~20PPG scorer willing to be a defensive specialist and the best player in Europe and 6th man of the year winner in Kukoc off the bench - and Rodman to boot.


Dennis Rodman was 35 years old. I've spoken on what I think of Paxson v. Harper. And I've always been a big detractor of Toni Kukoc. There was a reason that MJ was still chewing him to pieces on national TV in 1998. I'll never forget when he's right up in Toni's face like "we're trying to play defense, and you're doing this!! (looks around like an idiot)." They actually caught that on the NBC telecast. 

Now like I said, the 1992 team had Horace and Scottie both playing about 40 minutes a night. Can you picture Toni going up against 1992 Horace or Scottie? Both would be up in his grill forcing him into bad shots and turnovers and working him on the other end. If 1996 played 1992, they'd probably be better served leaving Toni on the bench.

Also, let's talk 1991. You think the 1996 Bulls are better than a team that beat Ewing, Barkley, Isiah and the champion Pistons and Magic's Lakers all in succession, while only losing TWO games against those four teams? I'll take the 1991 Bulls over the 1996 Bulls all day.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Pip

You can get back to me when you get your facts straight.

Magic retired at the age of 31 after the 1991 season. He made a comeback for 32 games in 1996 at the age of 36. Larry Bird was playing in excrutiating pain due to his chronic back problems, which is why he played just 60 and 45 games his last two seasons. By the time playoffs came around, he was toast - 17 PPG in 1991 and 11 PPG in 1992.

Shawn Kemp was overrated? 24 PPG and 14 RPG at age 26. An all-star. Payton was an all-star from 1994-1998 and then again from 2000-2003. 9 times.

I happen to be a proponent that the league is way weaker NOW than it was in 1992 or 1996, but you aren't making a case at all that the league was weaker 3 seasons after 1992 (in 1996).


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

Pippenatorade said:


> No its not that. My brother is a big 1996 guy and he always just repeats arguments like saying one or two words is a well thought out argument. Saying "72 wins, period" is not a logical winning argument. Saying "Rodman over Grant all day dude" is not quality to me. So this is where the most intelligent, rabid Bulls fans hang out.... I just want to hear some arguments that are actually GOOD. There have been a few, but I want more.


Hey, I like the boxing metaphor.

Anyway, I'll give it a shot even though I'm more of a fan than the 1992 team.

The 1996 team made up for their lack of youth by being a more cerebral team. By contrast, the 1992 team was still vulnerable: to pressure from the media, to bullyboy tactics on the court, to relying too much on Michael Jordan to save them. Remember how the '92 team was on pace to win 70 and then let distractions get in the way? Or how a brutal, but ultimately inferior Knicks team battled them all the way to 7 games? Remember the feeling back then was that the rest of the Bulls could still be intimidated or taken out of the game, including Pippen?

By contrast, the 1996 team handled the pressure and hype with ease, and even let a couple of games go at the end as they began to focus on the playoffs. Pippen was now a man, and wouldn't back down or let himself be taken out of games. The level of cool professionalism and the basketball IQ on this team was among the greatest ever seen. Although Jordan may not have had quite the energy to dominate the entire court for a full 40+ minutes a night, he was much more relaxed in the team game, having proven everything on an individual level in his first nine seasons.

Although Longley may not have been quite the defensive presence that Cartwright was, he had great size, a soft touch, and excellent passing instincts. Rodman, though prone to occasional outbursts, technicals, etc could sometimes dominate a game himself, and always crashed the boards and played strong (if somewhat unortodox) defense. 

Kukoc was a member of the '96 squad which the '92 squad had no answer for. Extremely versatile and a great complementary player, Kukoc only made it easier to have both Jordan and Pippen on the bench for stretches (something which _very_ rarely happened with those younger Bulls) and at times could be as much of an X-factor as Rodman. That's something the 92 squad really didn't have. If it wasn't Jordan or Pippen, then who could take over a game? Rodman or Kukoc, through vastly different means, could take over for small stretches and help bury an otherwise competitive opponent.

Harper allowed for more versatility on defense. How many other teams could field a lineup with four 6'6" to 6'8" players who played top D and who (with the exception of Rodman) could be used interchangeably? Randy Brown was a nice lockdown defender to have off the bench for those smaller quicker point guards.

I think the Bulls dropped off significantly over the next two years, so I would *only* rate the 1996 squad against the Bulls' first three championship teams; they had just enough left in the tank to make the most of their incredible court awareness and single-minded focus as a team.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Pip
> 
> You can get back to me when you get your facts straight.
> 
> Magic retired at the age of 31 after the 1991 season. He made a comeback for 32 games in 1996 at the age of 36.


Ok how do you get 14th season out of that? Magic started in 1979-80. How did the 1992 Chicago Bulls play against Magic in his 14th season? I don't get how that adds up. Wouldn't 1992-93 have been his 14th season? Wasn't he retired by opening day 1991-92?



> Larry Bird was playing in excrutiating pain due to his chronic back problems, which is why he played just 60 and 45 games his last two seasons. By the time playoffs came around, he was toast - 17 PPG in 1991 and 11 PPG in 1992.


Ok add it up any way you want. Bird in pain + McHale in less pain + Parrish > O'neal + Penny friggin Hardaway + Nick Anderson.



> Shawn Kemp was overrated? 24 PPG and 14 RPG at age 26. An all-star. Payton was an all-star from 1994-1998 and then again from 2000-2003. 9 times.


And that's all good and dandy. Maybe in 1996 people thought that Shawn Kemp was going to become Kevin McHale. Guess what? Kevin McHale WAS Kevin McHale. That team had three hall of famers AND Reggie Lewis who was at least as good as anyone else on Seattle besides Payton and Kemp. I'm not saying Kemp and Hardaway weren't good, but they never became the hall of famers that people thought they would eventually become. They're no McHale and Parrish that's for sure. 



> I happen to be a proponent that the league is way weaker NOW than it was in 1992 or 1996, but you aren't making a case at all that the league was weaker 3 seasons after 1992 (in 1996).


I actually made a great case. You've chosen to disagree with it and ignore it, but I talked about the 8 seeds in the East in 1992. You ignored that. I made plenty of points in my last post that you completely sidestepped.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Ok add it up any way you want. Bird in pain + McHale in less pain + Parrish > O'neal + Penny friggin Hardaway + Nick Anderson.


When you say stuff like that, you lose a lot of credibility in the argument. Hey, that heat team won 60 games, that's "only" 37 more wins than Pax had his first season as GM. We were better than I ever thought!

Here's the rub - Ho Grant was 4th option on the 2nd best team in the East in '96 and the third option on the '92 bulls. That's because the '92 team just wasn't all that deep. 



> And that's all good and dandy. Maybe in 1996 people thought that Shawn Kemp was going to become Kevin McHale. Guess what? Kevin McHale WAS Kevin McHale. That team had three hall of famers AND Reggie Lewis who was at least as good as anyone else on Seattle besides Payton and Kemp. I'm not saying Kemp and Hardaway weren't good, but they never became the hall of famers that people thought they would eventually become. They're no McHale and Parrish that's for sure.


Nobody thought Kemp would be the next McHale. The reason Kemp won't be in the hall of fame is because he abused cocaine and ruined his career. He was a 6-time all-star. But hey, McHale was a 7 time all-star.



> I actually made a great case. You've chosen to disagree with it and ignore it, but I talked about the 8 seeds in the East in 1992. You ignored that. I made plenty of points in my last post that you completely sidestepped.


You made the case that the east was a lot stronger than the west. Ding ding ding! You got that part of it right.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Pippenatorade said:


> Ok add it up any way you want. Bird in pain + McHale in less pain + Parrish > O'neal + Penny friggin Hardaway + Nick Anderson.


I don't think so. Penny was awesome his first few years. Definitely on a Hall of Fame-caliber trajectory. The fact that he got hurt and disgruntled and never lived up to that projection over the long haul can't be retroactively applied to his first few years. And Shaq was a freak of nature who had a dominant season in 1996. They were a pretty fearsome pair (throw in Horace, who was still near his prime, instead of Nick Anderson) and IMO would have beaten the crippled/rapidly aging version of the Celts in 1992.

That aside, I think very strong cases can be (and have been in this thread) made for either team. As most have said, it would likely come down to whether the 1996 team's mental superiority could negate the 1992 team's outstanding athleticism and versatility. I honestly don't know.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I don't think so. Penny was awesome his first few years. Definitely on a Hall of Fame-caliber trajectory. The fact that he got hurt and disgruntled and never lived up to that projection over the long haul can't be retroactively applied to his first few years. And Shaq was a freak of nature who had a dominant season in 1996. They were a pretty fearsome pair (throw in Horace, who was still near his prime, instead of Nick Anderson) and IMO would have beaten the crippled/rapidly aging version of the Celts in 1992.
> 
> That aside, I think very strong cases can be (and have been in this thread) made for either team. As most have said, it would likely come down to whether the 1996 team's mental superiority could negate the 1992 team's outstanding athleticism and versatility. I honestly don't know.


Penny was good, but come on? First, don't forget that that third best player is part of the equation too, and there is the burden of the fourth best player living up to Reggie Lewis. Parrish was probably the best on that team, so I'll give Shaq the big edge over him... however, are you honestly saying that Penny in 1996 was better than Bird and McHale? If you think McHale was second best are you then saying that Horace Grant was better than Bird, even a Bird that only played 45 games? Was Nick Anderson better than Reggie Lewis? I doubt it. Look people can talk about how good they thought Penny Hardaway was and how old Bird was, but if Bird and McHale could simply play, I think it's highly questionable to be calling Penny Hardaway better than either of them. 

*But all you need to look at to see how good that Eastern Conference was was to look at the Pistons, who were tied for the fourth best record in the East that year. FOURTH.* That team had everyone that the Championship teams had except for Vinnie Johnson... not exactly a small piece. Thomas, Dumars, Rodman, Laimbeer, Agguire, Salley and Woolridge... all there, all played at least 72 games. *That team won 48 games*. FORTY EIGHT, when it was a YOUNG TEAM (in fact, DaBullz commented on how young they were), that had two titles under its belt. And they were either the fourth or fifth seed that year. You tell me that the Magic or Sonics of 1996 even would beat THAT team? Cause I doubt it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Penny was good, but come on? First, don't forget that that third best player is part of the equation too, and there is the burden of the fourth best player living up to Reggie Lewis. Parrish was probably the best on that team, so I'll give Shaq the big edge over him... however, are you honestly saying that Penny in 1996 was better than Bird and McHale? If you think McHale was second best are you then saying that Horace Grant was better than Bird, even a Bird that only played 45 games? Was Nick Anderson better than Reggie Lewis? I doubt it. Look people can talk about how good they thought Penny Hardaway was and how old Bird was, but if Bird and McHale could simply play, I think it's highly questionable to be calling Penny Hardaway better than either of them.
> 
> *But all you need to look at to see how good that Eastern Conference was was to look at the Pistons, who were tied for the fourth best record in the East that year. FOURTH.* That team had everyone that the Championship teams had except for Vinnie Johnson... not exactly a small piece. Thomas, Dumars, Rodman, Laimbeer, Agguire, Salley and Woolridge... all there, all played at least 72 games. *That team won 48 games*. FORTY EIGHT, when it was a YOUNG TEAM (in fact, DaBullz commented on how young they were), that had two titles under its belt. And they were either the fourth or fifth seed that year. You tell me that the Magic or Sonics of 1996 even would beat THAT team? Cause I doubt it.


That Pistons team wasn't young. It just wasn't super old. Dumars and Thomas were 28 and 29. Rodman was 32. Laimbeer was 31.

Geez, if you want to base everything on stats...

The 1989 Bulls won 47 games. Jordan scored 32 with 8 boards, 8 assists. Pippen (14.4/6/4), Cartwright 12.4/7, Grant 12.0/8.6, and Hodges 10 PPG/3 APG were his supporting cast. Deep. Still had the dobermans. Where's the 67 wins?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> When you say stuff like that, you lose a lot of credibility in the argument. Hey, that heat team won 60 games, that's "only" 37 more wins than Pax had his first season as GM. We were better than I ever thought!
> 
> Here's the rub - Ho Grant was 4th option on the 2nd best team in the East in '96 and the third option on the '92 bulls. That's because the '92 team just wasn't all that deep.


Now this is just getting ridiculous. The Bulls were better at the top in 1992 than Orlando EVER hoped to be in 1992. 

Jordan > O'neal
Pippen >>> Hardaway
Grant > Anderson
Paxson < Grant

And that 1992 team had two top 50 players who were at the absolute peak of their careers. So I've lost no credibility. IMO, you lose all credility when you ignore GREAT points (and you've done plenty of that while I've responded to your posts in their entirety) and simply act as if those points don't exist. 



> Nobody thought Kemp would be the next McHale. The reason Kemp won't be in the hall of fame is because he abused cocaine and ruined his career. He was a 6-time all-star. But hey, McHale was a 7 time all-star.


I'm convinced you may not know the NBA as well as you say. Kevin McHale was the second best player on a three time title winner when title teams were LOADED. McHale is easily up there with Karl Malone as one of the best two fours of all time. Not only did he shoot *55.4%* over his career as a 50 greatest player, but he made 3 NBA Defensive First teams and 3 NBA Defensive Second teams. 

Shawn Kemp had a much less illustrious career. Unlike you claimed earlier, he never averaged 24 and 14. His career high in PPG is 20.5, and his career high in RPG is 11.4. He averaged 19.6 and 11.4 in 1996. Ok, nice, but nobody was ever talking about Kemp as a 50 greatest player when you consider that those are just about the best numbers he ever put up. 

*But here is the best part. Say you consider Kemp better than McHale. Who would you consider Seattle's second and third best players?? The third and fourth leading scorers were Hersey Hawkins and Detlef Schrempf. Are you saying that:

Payton + Kemp + HAWKINS + SCHREMPF > Parrish + McHale + Bird + Lewis???

I really hope you aren't saying that.*



> You made the case that the east was a lot stronger than the west. Ding ding ding! You got that part of it right.


Considering you play the stark majority of your games against the west, that is a pretty relevant fact. Say you were to prove that the West's top 4 was loaded in 1996, whereas in 1992 you can show that only two Western teams were very good. Ok, that's a whole FOUR games against better competition. Congrats. 

When the Pistons win only 48 games and tie for the fourth best record in the East, while being constructed of nearly the identical YOUNG parts that won two NBA titles... you know how strong the league is. Counter THAT assertion.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Hey. Cleveland was 4th seed in the East this season with 50 wins. That's with LeBron, Z, Hughes, et al.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> That Pistons team wasn't young. It just wasn't super old. Dumars and Thomas were 28 and 29. Rodman was 32. Laimbeer was 31.
> 
> Geez, if you want to base everything on stats...
> 
> The 1989 Bulls won 47 games. Jordan scored 32 with 8 boards, 8 assists. Pippen (14.4/6/4), Cartwright 12.4/7, Grant 12.0/8.6, and Hodges 10 PPG/3 APG were his supporting cast. Deep. Still had the dobermans. Where's the 67 wins?


I'm basing everything on stats??

Ok, in 1996 Jordan was 33, Rodman was 35. 

And take your assertion. They weren't super old. Yes, you are right. They were a former juggernaut who was constructed in a near identical fashion. There were THREE hall of famers on that team (I believe Rodman will make it), none of whom were older than 32, none of whom played LESS THAN 75 games. And they won 48 games and were only the fourth best team in their conference. 

*That team would have taken Orlando or Seattle in a 7-game series.*


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Hey. Cleveland was 4th seed in the East this season with 50 wins. That's with LeBron, Z, Hughes, et al.


I don't know what point this makes


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Now this is just getting ridiculous. The Bulls were better at the top in 1992 than Orlando EVER hoped to be in 1992.
> 
> Jordan > O'neal
> Pippen >>> Hardaway
> ...


Larry Bird with a sore back was not that good a player. You act like he was still a rookie and in good health. He was ordinary at best at the end. Same is true for McHale. McHale was 34, scored just 13.9 points/game with less than 6 points per game and missed 26 games. Even Eddy Curry had better numbers than that at 17/6. 

Lewis? Remind me of why he was so great. I saw him play and he was a top 25% of the league player. His 20/5/2 numbers don't compare to a whole lot of today's players, even though players back then had considerably better numbers overall. I mean, Pippen was better than Lewis almost every season he played, right down to the end of his career.

With 100% certainty:

Kemp 19.6/11.4, Payton 19.3/7.4Ast, Schrempf 17.1/5.2/4.4, Hawkins 15.6/3.6 were better at that point in their careers than Lewis 20/5/2, Bird 20/10/7 (45 games), Parrish 14.1/9/1blk, and McHale 13.9/6/1blk.

In fact, it's rather funny that you seem to want to argue that Bird/Parish/McHale must have been really good at old age but the 96 bulls weren't at a younger age - Bird was 35, Parrish 38, and McHale 34.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> I don't know what point this makes


*But all you need to look at to see how good that Eastern Conference was was to look at the Pistons, who were tied for the fourth best record in the East that year. FOURTH.

*I don't know what point this makes. The cavs this season were 4th seed with even more wins.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> *But all you need to look at to see how good that Eastern Conference was was to look at the Pistons, who were tied for the fourth best record in the East that year. FOURTH.
> 
> *I don't know what point this makes. The cavs this season were 4th seed with even more wins.


You're looking at number of wins without looking at it as a relative term. Wins are only relevant in terms of the league that you get them against. In the 1992 league, 48 wins was a lot harder to get than the wins Cleveland got this year. I don't know why I'm even having to tell you this. You are making my point for me. YES, the 1992 league was SO STRONG, that a former two-time champion whose team was not THAT old, and still fully constructed, only won 48 games and only was the four seed. Just like being the four seed in 1986 was probably harder.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Larry Bird with a sore back was not that good a player. You act like he was still a rookie and in good health. He was ordinary at best at the end. Same is true for McHale. McHale was 34, scored just 13.9 points/game with less than 6 points per game and missed 26 games. Even Eddy Curry had better numbers than that at 17/6.
> 
> Lewis? Remind me of why he was so great. I saw him play and he was a top 25% of the league player. His 20/5/2 numbers don't compare to a whole lot of today's players, even though players back then had considerably better numbers overall. I mean, Pippen was better than Lewis almost every season he played, right down to the end of his career.
> 
> ...


First, who ever said Lewis was better than Pippen? One thing Lewis was was a pretty good FOURTH option. I'd take Reggie Lewis over Nick Anderson, the third option on that Magic team. 

We just disagree on Boston's value, but I'd really like to see you say with a straight face that either of those teams were better than the 1992 PISTONS, because then I can know you are just full of bleep and move on.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> First, who ever said Lewis was better than Pippen? One thing Lewis was was a pretty good FOURTH option. I'd take Reggie Lewis over Nick Anderson, the third option on that Magic team.
> 
> We just disagree on Boston's value, but I'd really like to see you say with a straight face that either of those teams were better than the 1992 PISTONS, because then I can know you are just full of bleep and move on.


Lewis was boston's first option.

The 1992 Pistons got bounced in the 1st round (Knicks). The heat lost in the EC finals to the bulls. 

Your definition of "better" didn't result in results, now did it?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Lewis was boston's first option.
> 
> The 1992 Pistons got bounced in the 1st round (Knicks). The heat lost in the EC finals to the bulls.
> 
> Your definition of "better" didn't result in results, now did it?


Yeah because that Knicks team was just that good. You see it as "the Pistons were not that good, they lost to the Knicks." I see it as, "the Pistons were a two time champion who was still not old and fully constructed, and the Knicks showed just how good they were by beating them." The Knicks, who were only the 1st seed by the following season, had made tremendous progress by the end of the 1992 season, beating Detroit and taking Chicago seven games. Did that prove Detroit and Chicago were not as good as thought? NO! Because the Knicks had the best record in the conference the following season. 

Hey, the Boston Celtics only won 67 games in 1986. Were the 1996 Bulls better than them too? If you say yes then I'll know I can just shake my head and move on.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Yeah because that Knicks team was just that good. You see it as "the Pistons were not that good, they lost to the Knicks." I see it as, "the Pistons were a two time champion who was still not old and fully constructed, and the Knicks showed just how good they were by beating them." The Knicks, who were only the 1st seed by the following season, had made tremendous progress by the end of the 1992 season, beating Detroit and taking Chicago seven games. Did that prove Detroit and Chicago were not as good as thought? NO! Because the Knicks had the best record in the conference the following season.
> 
> Hey, the Boston Celtics only won 67 games in 1986. Were the 1996 Bulls better than them too? If you say yes then I'll know I can just shake my head and move on.


The 1993 pistons were 40-42 - clearly a team that was championship caliber - not. An indication of a team on a rapid decline (the 1st round and out is further evidence). Yet you hold them up as if they were championship caliber. That's a logic flaw.

When it comes to the 86 Celtics, they are mentioned among the very best teams in NBA history (for one season). You can't play the 86 Celtics against the 96 Bulls in real life to see who'd win. In simulations, your results are only as good as the simulation - and it is extremely difficult to capture the qualities of defense in a simulation.

Now you're putting a decade between the 86 teams and the 96 teams. The quality of play had considerable more chance of being a bit weaker because in '86 the effects of the ABA merger were still being felt - the 76ers still had Dr. J, Moses Malone, and Bobby Jones - all ex-ABA stars. By 92, those guys were all gone. During that decade, the 86 celtics were the last to win a title and from 1989 on, they didn't make the EC finals and were 1st round and out two times, 2nd round and out two times. 

By 1992, the Pistons were hardly the strong team you make them out to be. In fact, it is their decline along with the Lakers and Celtics that made the 1992 league weaker than you pretend it was. They were 3 of the "better" teams in the league.

By 1996, those declining teams were either out of the picture (Pistons, Celtics) or rebuilt (Lakers won 53 behind Ceballos, Van Exel, two fine centers in Campbell and Divac, Eddie Jones (among others). In their place were young shaq/penny and that deep young Sonics team. 

By your reasoning, the '96 Suns winning only 41 games would be an amazing indication of how strong the league was. They had Barkley and KJ and a studly Michael Finley, among others.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> The 1993 pistons were 40-42 - clearly a team that was championship caliber - not. An indication of a team on a rapid decline (the 1st round and out is further evidence). Yet you hold them up as if they were championship caliber. That's a logic flaw.


I don't know where you are going with this. Rodman was far less effective in 1993. A function of decline? Well, logically, that wouldn't work out well for you, since he was all world in 1996. Salley was also gone. The 1992 Pistons were still a VERY good team. The 1992 Pistons still had pretty much the entire championship arsenal. Minus Vinnie Johnson = still very good. Minus Johnson, and Salley, and with Rodman having a bad season? Not so good. But we're not explaining this major decline here, they won 8 less games. 



> When it comes to the 86 Celtics, they are mentioned among the very best teams in NBA history (for one season). You can't play the 86 Celtics against the 96 Bulls in real life to see who'd win. In simulations, your results are only as good as the simulation - and it is extremely difficult to capture the qualities of defense in a simulation.


I can say this. The 1986 Celtics had five hall of famers. FIVE. Against the 96 Bulls that's enough. Against the 92 team? Well that may have been offset by the 92 Bulls tremendous advantage in terms of athleticism.



> Now you're putting a decade between the 86 teams and the 96 teams. The quality of play had considerable more chance of being a bit weaker because in '86 the effects of the ABA merger were still being felt - the 76ers still had Dr. J, Moses Malone, and Bobby Jones - all ex-ABA stars. By 92, those guys were all gone. During that decade, the 86 celtics were the last to win a title and from 1989 on, they didn't make the EC finals and were 1st round and out two times, 2nd round and out two times.


So what are you saying? The league in 86 was actually better, then got worse, then got better than it was in 1992 by 1996? 



> By 1992, the Pistons were hardly the strong team you make them out to be. In fact, it is their decline along with the Lakers and Celtics that made the 1992 league weaker than you pretend it was. They were 3 of the "better" teams in the league.


Dude, the Lakers were dismantled by 1992. When are you gonna get that. You want me to take you seriously, and yet you've constantly talked about LA as if they still had Magic in 1992, and you think the Orlando Magic are the "Heat." Thomas + Dumars + Rodman > Any three players on the Magic or Sonics. Period. If you seriously argue that, then I know that all you are is someone who got caught up in the hype in 1996. Three hall of famers, none of which were older than 32, none of whom played less than 75 games. WHAT... don't you get?



> By 1996, those declining teams were either out of the picture (Pistons, Celtics) or rebuilt (Lakers won 53 behind Ceballos, Van Exel, two fine centers in Campbell and Divac, Eddie Jones (among others). In their place were young shaq/penny and that deep young Sonics team.


Ok, and, by 1996 the Blazers were a shell of their former selves (a two time NBA Finals team), the Cavaliers went from 57 wins to a joke, the Knicks went from a team that was on the verge of some pretty good things, to a shell of their former selves. The Lakers were not rebuilt and were not a threat to anyone in 1996. And there was expansion. Btw genius, the Seattle Sonics HAD PAYTON AND KEMP IN 1992!! They won 47 games. 



> By your reasoning, the '96 Suns winning only 41 games would be an amazing indication of how strong the league was. They had Barkley and KJ and a studly Michael Finley, among others.


The chemistry of that team was gone. Finley was young, Majerle was gone, and the Suns, who had very little at center in 93, had nothing in 96. I think I have given many more and more convincing examples. But the best part about your replies is that they'll ignore the best 80% of points I make and try to latch on to the periphery.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Pippenatorade said:


> however, are you honestly saying that Penny in 1996 was better than Bird and McHale? If you think McHale was second best are you then saying that Horace Grant was better than Bird, even a Bird that only played 45 games? Was Nick Anderson better than Reggie Lewis? I doubt it. Look people can talk about how good they thought Penny Hardaway was and how old Bird was, but if Bird and McHale could simply play, I think it's highly questionable to be calling Penny Hardaway better than either of them.


Yes, I think the 1996 edition of Penny Hardaway was better than the 1992 editions of those Celtics. In terms of career achievement, of course not, but we're doing case studies of certain years, not careers. I know it's funny to think about it now, but after Penny's first 3 years in the league, people thought he was going to be some sort of hybrid between what Kobe is now and what Lebron is now. He was really good that year. Not as good as Bird or McHale in their _primes_ but better than they were when they were running on fumes, IMO (especially if Bird's injury issues are taken into account). And Shaq is the most dominant player in that hypothetical matchup by far. Parrish was still solid and Reggie Lewis was good, but Horace was pretty good at that point himself - not as a scorer so much as a rebounder and active defender. Anderson and Scott were both average players who made the most of the situation.

anyway, this is kind of a tangent. I'm a big fan of the Bird-era Celtics, but by 1992 they were on the way out big time. Still good enough to have a decent record and make playoffs, but not a threat.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Yes, I think the 1996 edition of Penny Hardaway was better than the 1992 editions of those Celtics. In terms of career achievement, of course not, but we're doing case studies of certain years, not careers. I know it's funny to think about it now, but after Penny's first 3 years in the league, people thought he was going to be some sort of hybrid between what Kobe is now and what Lebron is now. He was really good that year. Not as good as Bird or McHale in their _primes_ but better than they were when they were running on fumes, IMO (especially if Bird's injury issues are taken into account). And Shaq is the most dominant player in that hypothetical matchup by far. Parrish was still solid and Reggie Lewis was good, but Horace was pretty good at that point himself - not as a scorer so much as a rebounder and active defender. Anderson and Scott were both average players who made the most of the situation.
> 
> anyway, this is kind of a tangent. I'm a big fan of the Bird-era Celtics, but by 1992 they were on the way out big time. Still good enough to have a decent record and make playoffs, but not a threat.


Ok, but remember they had the THIRD best record in the conference that year. The third best in 1996 I believe was the Hawks. The Celtics were easily better than the Hawks. Then the 4 and 5 in 1992 was New York and Detroit. I haven't looked at 1996 yet, but I guarantee that the 4 and 5 seed in 1996 weren't close to that good. Remember, I'm arguing that Detroit, the FOUR seed, could probably give 96 Seattle and Orlando a pretty good run. We can do a full analysis top to bottom. In fact, I think that's needed. It's just gonna take some time.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

*1992 Eastern Conference v. 1996 Eastern Conference* 

1. Chicago Bulls (Jordan, Pippen, Grant) v. Chicago Bulls (Jordan, Pippen, Rodman)
2. Cleveland Cavaliers (Price, Nance, Daugherty) v. Orlando Magic (O'neal, Hardaway, Anderson, Grant)
3. Boston Celtics (Parrish, McHale, Bird, Lewis) v. Indiana Pacers (Miller, Smits, Jackson, A. Davis, D. Davis)
4. New York Knicks (Ewing, Starks, McDaniel, Oakley, Jackson, Mason) v. Cleveland Cavaliers (Brandon, Mills, Ferry)

Ding! Ding! Ding! This is where the argument for the 1996 NBA is SHATTERED!! LMFAO!! The fourth seed in the East was led by Terrell Brandon, Chris Mills and Danny Ferry!! Ha ha ha! Man, I didn't think it would be this easy. When I actually looked at that I was shocked. Take all the shots you want at the 5th seed Pistons of 1992. You think they were on decline, fine... their third option wasn't Danny friggin Ferry. 

5. Detroit Pistons (Thomas, Dumars, Rodman, Laimbeer) v. New York Knicks (Ewing, Starks, D. Harper, Mason) 

Again, say anything you want about the Pistons, these Knicks were a HUGE step down. Oakley and Smith missed most of the season. JR Reid started 16 games for them, Hubert Davis started 14. The 92 Pistons would KILL the 96 Knicks.

6. New Jersey Nets (Petrovic, Coleman, Anderson) v. Atlanta Hawks (S. Smith, Blaylock, Long)

Yes, your six seed in the east that year was led by Steve Smith, Mookie Blaylock and Grant Long. NOW I can see why the 96 Chicago Bulls win total of 72 in 1996 should have no less weight than 67 wins in 1992. 

7. Indiana Pacers (Miller, Person, Schrempf, Smits, D. Davis) v. Detroit Pistons (Hill, Thorpe, Houston)

Now THAT Pistons team really was done.

8. Miami Heat (Rice, Smith, Seikaly) v. Miami Heat (Mourning, Thomas, Chapman)

Read that and tell me the 96 East top to bottom was even close.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Pippenatorade said:


> *1992 Eastern Conference v. 1996 Eastern Conference*
> 
> 1. Chicago Bulls (Jordan, Pippen, Grant) v. Chicago Bulls (Jordan, Pippen, Rodman)
> 2. Cleveland Cavaliers (Price, Nance, Daugherty) v. Orlando Magic (O'neal, Hardaway, Anderson, Grant)
> ...


Nothing?


----------

