Bulls First 3 Peat vs Bulls Second 3 Peat [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

Lodi Dodi

02-13-2009, 12:48 AM

Man, now that's a pretty tough question right there. I personally I would pick the first 3 Peat.

I'll start with the bench first because I think with Kukoc alone, the late '90s bench was much better than the first 3 peat.

Then with the starting lineup I think that Cartwright and Longley are both below average centers so i guess neither team has the advantage here.

I also, think at the PG position the late '90s have a better mix with the Harper and Kerr combination. The late '90s have a slight edge at defense with Harper but Kerr and Paxson could both flame threes. Also, Harper was much tougher then BJ.

At the PF position, Rodman was better at rebounding than Grant and their defense were both really good. But I think that having MJ and Pippen at their athletic primes who were both very good at rebounding for the positions they played compensates for it.

At the SF position with Pippen I think that his shooting game was a little more polished for the second three-peat but the younger Pippen played better defense, was more athletic and very good at grabbing boards. Passing wise, I think it's a tie. Overall, I think that Pippen was slightly better during the first three-peat.

Now at the SG position.....In the early '90s there was almost nothing that MJ couldn't do. He could shoot jumpers really well, drive into the lane and finish better than any guard that I've ever seen. He played better defense and was still very good at passing. He also had more stamina to be able to play more minutes.

Even though the late '90s win in most categories, I think that the younger Pippen and the magnitude of MJ's prime beats the late '90s. In the games, it wouldn't take very long for the team to devise the offensive gameplan. With MJ and Pippen getting most of the points, there wouldn't need to be that much ball distribution unless there's a wide open Paxson or easy dunks. For the late '90s, I think that the older Jordan would have a much tougher time scoring with a younger Jordan hounding him (and Pippen could help if younger MJ got into foul trouble). I also think that the older Pippen would have a harder time scoring. With this, I don't think Kukoc would be enough.

After looking at it as a whole, I could be wrong and the real X factor is the older, wiser Phil Jackson.

Da_Realist

02-13-2009, 02:45 AM

I believe the 1st 3Peat (F3P) Bulls were better than the 2nd 3Peat
(S3P) Bulls.

First, the F3P Bulls were younger. The S3P Bulls couldn't keep up with
those young guys. F3P Michael was better, more efficient and could
raise his game even higher if he wanted to (he could have broken 70 in
game 1 of the 92 Finals, for example). S3P MJ couldn't have done that.

F3P Pippen and S3P Pippen basically cancel each other out. However
Grant was more versatile than Dennis Rodman. Dennis Rodman was a great
rebounder but he was 35-37 years old when he played for the Bulls. He
was a much better player in Detroit than he was in Chicago.

Rodman averaged 5.2 pts, 2.8 asts, 15.3 rebs, 0.6 stls, 0.3 blks, 2.0
tov on 45 fg% in F3P.
Grant averaged 13.4 pts, 2.5 asts, 9.3 rebs, 1.2 stls, 1.3 blks, 1.3
tov on 54 fg% in S3P.
Grant averaged more points, more steals, more blocks, less turnovers
and he shot a LOT better from the field.
This doesn't take into account the havoc Grant created on the floor
defensively (full court and half court) and it also doesn't measure
the distractions, suspensions and drama Rodman brought to the table
every year he was in Chicago. Rodman missed an average of 15 games per
season during the S3P, Grant only missed an average of 3 games during the F3P.

S3P Ron Harper was a real advantage defensively over F3P John Paxson
but John's advantage was his sharpshooting and clutchness. Ron gets
the edge here, but John's defensive deficiency would be cancelled out
because of the extra versatility of a young MJ and Pippen (full court
defense, half court defense, more spring and more stamina) that S3P MJ
and Pip could not provide. In other words, the S3P Bulls needed Ron
Harper's 6-6 frame and defensive ability because MJ was too old to
chase down younger guys defensively and still have super-human
efficiency. With that said, S3P MJ still wasn't as efficient as the
F3P version.

The bench may be the only real advantage the S3P Bulls might have had
over the F3P version. However, the starters for the F3P team was just
plain better and more versatile than the starters for the S3P team.
They were younger, could play full-court defense or half-court
defense. MJ was holding down guards from Isiah Thomas to Clyde Drexler
while still shooting over 50% from the field. Horace was putting up
numbers without getting suspended every 5th game. John Paxson was a
dependable shooter in the clutch to take pressure off of double and
triple teams on MJ -- and when he lost a step, BJ Armstrong stepped
in.

Toni Kucoc was a spark for S3P offensively, but he was a huge
liability on defense. Soft as tissue paper. And fragile emotionally
too. If he didn't start, he'd sulk. The rest of the bench was full of
old stiffs like John Salley, James Edwards and Robert Parish. The
young Bulls had guys like BJ Armstrong, Cliff Levingston, Craig Hodges
and Scott Williams that would provide a real spark. Especially in the
91 and 92 playoffs.

The S3P Bulls had to pace themselves because of age. MJ, Scottie,
Harper and Rodman were all advanced in age and couldn't put out max
effort 48 min/game. They had trouble with young, athletic teams like
the Sonics and Lakers. They were smart enough to pick and choose when
to go all out and still win championships. The S3P Bulls was a great
team but they wouldn't have been able to pick and choose against the
F3P Bulls. MJ had the same heart and hunger but he had young legs and
stamina that amazed even other NBA stars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6og_pOVi2w).

As great as MJ was, he was known to get a little tired if he had to
carry too much of the load for too long in the S3P. He was good enough
to withstand it and lead his team because no one was good enough to
outlast him even at 90%. But we're talking about F3P MJ. That guy
never got tired. He was a machine.

It would be close but ultimately I choose F3P Bulls.

OldSchoolBBall

02-13-2009, 02:50 AM

Awesome breakdown, Da Realist. I agree wholeheartedly.

1987_Lakers

02-13-2009, 02:06 PM

...

Glove_20

02-13-2009, 02:19 PM

Really close...

1. 96 Bulls
2. 92 Bulls
3. 97 Bulls
4. 91 Bulls
5. 93 Bulls
6. 98 Bulls

Could go either way...But the 96 Bulls were the best

Stacey King

02-13-2009, 02:23 PM

Really close...

1. 96 Bulls
2. 92 Bulls
3. 97 Bulls
4. 91 Bulls
5. 93 Bulls
6. 98 Bulls

Could go either way...But the 96 Bulls were the best

I almost completely agree with that order, although i think i put the '98 Bulls just slightly ahead of the '93 Bulls.

lilojmayo

02-13-2009, 02:32 PM

1987_Lakers

02-13-2009, 02:49 PM

Really close...

1. 96 Bulls
2. 92 Bulls
3. 97 Bulls
4. 91 Bulls
5. 93 Bulls
6. 98 Bulls

Could go either way...But the 96 Bulls were the best

Perfect list.

guy

02-13-2009, 02:54 PM

BIZARRO

02-13-2009, 03:29 PM

Perfect list.

:no: To say the '97 Bulls would beat the '91 Bulls is a HUUUUGGEE stretch IMO. We'll never know, but I would take the '91 team all the way.

It must be remembered just how hungry the '91 team was. They were killers, and in addition '91 MJ would just hound and maul '97 MJ.

Once again, we'll never know, but I would have no problem with people putting the '91 team first overall. But definitely ahead of '97 IMO.

OldSchoolBBall

02-13-2009, 03:39 PM

You're completely wrong. How the hell did MJ only learn how to win in the 2nd three-peat? That first three-peat had nothing to do with MJ trusting his teammates more? I hope you are not implying that Jordan's mindset in the first three-peat is about the same as Kobe's mindset when he played with Shaq.

Yeah, seriously. The Bulls had 62 wins, 67 wins, and 57 wins in a tougher league than '96-'98, and the only reason they didn't win 60+ in '93 was because of the Dream Team the previous Summer.

Younggrease

02-13-2009, 03:41 PM

It's just like with Kobe now. Kobe who isnt athletic anymore, .

Kobe right now is more athletic then OJ Mayo is...

lilojmayo

02-13-2009, 03:42 PM

Kobe right now is more athletic then OJ Mayo is...

OJ Mayo 41 inch vertical 11.04 sec in lane agility end discussion.

Da_Realist

02-13-2009, 04:40 PM

Awesome breakdown, Da Realist. I agree wholeheartedly.

Thanks, OldSchool.

I thought about this some more this morning and realized I missed something...

F3P Pippen and S3P Pippen basically cancel each other out.

I think the quoted statement is both true and unfair. It's true in that, from a pure productivity point of view, the two versions cancel each other out. It's unfair because I didn't mention that Scottie was a different player in the S3P than he was in the F3P.

Pippen in the F3P was younger, more versatile, quicker and had more hops, but he was insecure, a little soft and wasn't comfortable with being in Jordan's shadow. Pippen and Grant formed a bond because they were both the "anti-Jordan". Regular guys that felt unappreciated within the glare of all-things-Michael. Pippen sometimes would sulk when he didn't get the attention he deserved.

(I thought about this last night as I was watching the 92 series against the Cavs. In game 4, with the Bulls up 2-1, Scottie scored 13 points in the first half and NOTHING in the second. He just looked uninterested. The Bulls eventually lost the game, but I wondered what happened to Scottie and found this article from SI archives (http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1003856/2/index.htm) that sort of underlines what I just wrote above...

Still, not all of the Bulls' struggles over the last month can be explained away. Jackson was surprised that Chicago lost its confidence and poise at times, a malady that has hurt the Trail Blazers in the past. And it is no small matter when an All-Star like Pippen is still somewhat baffled by his role in the half-court offense months after it should have become clear. After his desultory second-half performance (three shots, zero points) in Game 4 of the Cleveland series, Pippen said, "I just didn't get the opportunities. I guess there were other guys out on the court that were more important." To which a perplexed Jackson replied, "I don't know why Scottie took so few shots. He's got to look for shots. They don't necessarily come to him."

In the F3P, Scottie was still defining himself. He could be thrown off his game by physicality as late as 92 (vs Knicks).

As Scottie became a better player, he received more attention and started to understand the negative effects of being in the media's glare. He started to understand why Jordan acted and was treated so differently. And he started to bond more with him. Now, Horace Grant starts to see this and wonders why "his friend" is bonding so well with "him". Grant and Pippen start to become more distant because he thinks Pippen is becoming a "star" and began to act like it. Grant wanted things to be "fair" and "equal", but Pippen understood that as a fairytale.

So 93 was a tense year. I read somewhere that MJ said he felt like he and Grant couldn't play on the same team anymore after that year. Jordan soon retired and left Pippen to be the man and deal with all the media scrutiny by himself. During the time he was gone, Pippen finally understood MJ more than ever.

By 96, Pippen was a different player. Having experienced some difficult career challenges, Pippen became a tougher player. He felt confident enough in his abilities to take control of the team from time to time, direct the triangle to perfection and assign defensive rotations. He no longer needed to be patted on the back. And due to his experience as both a "sidekick" and "the man", he could relate to both MJ and the rest of the team. Pippen became the glue that held everything together. Everyone appreciated him from MJ to Phil Jackson to the 12th man.

Gone was the player that could be rattled with physical play. Pippen regularly put his body on the line for the good of the team. Hurting his back on a series winning layup against the Bullets, being a rock in the 97 playoffs, bodying up Mark Jackson in the 98 ECF and playing hurt in Game 6 vs Utah in the 98 Finals. I don't think F3P Pippen does that.

So, in terms of production, both versions are similar but everything else -- maturity, strength, intelligence, confidence -- favors the S3P Pippen.

You could say MJ was a smarter, more mature, even more intelligent player in the S3P as well, but MJ's production in the F3P trumps all. He wasn't so much smarter or more mature or intelligent that it trumps what he could do on the court during the F3P.

I feel better now because I felt like I short-changed Pippen a little bit. I still think the F3P Bulls outlast the S3P Bulls. I wouldn't bet against the S3P Bulls somehow finding a way...but I wouldn't put my money on them. I'm just glad they didn't have to play each other because no one else in the league could beat them and I enjoyed every minute of it. :D

97 bulls

02-13-2009, 06:57 PM

Stacey King

02-13-2009, 08:13 PM

Yeah, seriously. The Bulls had 62 wins, 67 wins, and 57 wins in a tougher league than '96-'98, and the only reason they didn't win 60+ in '93 was because of the Dream Team the previous Summer.

Not to be a b*tch, but they only won 61 games in '91. And if you're comparing win totals from the first three peat to the second, it's not even close. I'll agree that the league was tougher for the first three peat, but 61, 67, and 57 is not close to 72, 69, and 62.

I don't have much of a point here, except to say that the record compiled over the second three peat is incredible, and will probably never be beaten. To me, that counts for a lot.

OldSchoolBBall

02-13-2009, 08:17 PM

i believe that the second 3peat bulls are better. if you guys really look at it, jordan didnt do much different quality wise as far as the 1st and 2nd teams. you guys are fascinated with the acrobatic moves that jordan made. and thats really the only difference. i believe thw 2nd bulls were better in all aspects other than id probably give a slight edge to 1st 3peat jordan. but does 91-93 jordan trump a slightly inferior version of himself, a far superior pippen, and a far superior (and its not even close) bench? i dont think so.

Jordan was significantly better during the first three-peat (age 28-30) than the second (age 33-35). Second three-peat Jordan was about 85-90% of first three-peat Jordan from an overall impact standpoint. The main differences were offensive efficiency, playmaking, defensive effort/ability due to extra athleticism/stamina, and the ability to raise his game higher on command more readily than during the second three-peat.

OldSchoolBBall

02-13-2009, 08:19 PM

Not to be a b*tch, but they only won 61 games in '91. And if you're comparing win totals from the first three peat to the second, it's not even close. I'll agree that the league was tougher for the first three peat, but 61, 67, and 57 is not close to 72, 69, and 62.

I don't have much of a point here, except to say that the record compiled over the second three peat is incredible, and will probably never be beaten. To me, that counts for a lot.

The point was that, minus the Dream Team experience, they likely have records of 61 wins (corrected), 67 wins, and, say, 62 wins during the first three-peat. In a stronger league. I'm not using regular season records to determine which team was better, it was in response to the implication that Jordan somehow "learned how to win" only during the second three-peat that someone else posted.

AirJordan23

02-13-2009, 08:45 PM

I think the 2nd Bulls 3pt had a better team.

It's just like with Kobe now. Kobe who isnt athletic anymore, is now winning more than ever b4 ( barring the Shaq years) beccause he has learned how to win. Learned to trust his teammates ( unless their is a big game 10-29 cough cough).

MJ in his 2nd peat learned how to be a winner 72-10 69-13 62-20 ( scottie injured for most of the year). MJ started trusting his teammates more also. Dennis Rodman was such a beast on the boards.

Are you saying MJ wasn't a winner before the 2nd 3-peat? What's your definition of a winner? The dude won 3 rings in a league that was slightly better than the one from 96-98. The competition in the late 90s was a bit watered down. However, the league being weaker shouldn't be taken into account when comparing the 2 3-peat teams. The 2nd 3-peat dominated the league, whether it was weaker or not isn't the point.

This is a great topic and its something thats hypothetical so you can't really have an argument. Here's my breakdown. MJ was slightly a better player in the early 90s. He was more explosive, could flatout take over, dominate games and had the speed and the quickness. Not saying late 90s MJ couldn't but not as efficiently or dramatically, IMO. MJ also had his greatest season IMO during the 1st 3-peat. And that season would be '91 where he redefined the word domination. Mid-late 90s MJ was still great and the best player in the league but he had lost a step compared to the early 90s. But, as he aged various parts of his game improved like his shooting, IQ etc.

The 2nd 3-peat Scottie was probably better than the 1st one considering he was a better teammate and knew his role to perfection. Remember the incident in the '94 playoffs against the NYK where Pippen got furious because PJax wanted Kukoc to take the last shot. I don't think Pippen was matured enough in the 1st 3-peat. He was a better athlete though and probably a better defender. His shooting also improved in the mid-90s.

Grant and Rodman would be a key match up here. Rodman was an amazing rebounder and an incredible post-defender who wasn't really known for his offense. However, Grant was also known for his rebounding and defense. Grant was a better offensive player than Dennis. I think they both cancel each other out.

Ron Harper wins the PG battle, IMO. He was a much better defender than Paxson who was really known for hitting the big shot (see Game 6, 93 NBA finals). Ron Harper also has a legit advantage in size. Harper could score when you needed him to. If this was a prime Harper before the knee injury............

The 2nd 3-peat Bulls has a better bench with Toni Kukoc being the main reason. He won 6th man of the year in 96 to really show that. He was a great offensive player who could spread the floor. Decent shooter who could hit the 3 ball well. Very versatile and a great passer. They also had Steve Kerr, one of the greatest 3 point shooters of all-time. Since its hypothetical, I can't decide but taking into account matchups, I think the 2nd 3-peat team wins by just taking into account the match-ups, though.

About what team being better year-by-year, I can't really decide. I'll say the '98 Bulls were the worst of them all, most of it having to do with the core getting up there in age. The '96 Bulls probably take the cake.

1987_Lakers

02-13-2009, 08:59 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't MJ say the '93 Bulls were the best team out of the six championship teams?

Da_Realist

02-13-2009, 09:02 PM

Since its hypothetical, I can't decide but taking into account matchups, I think the 2nd 3-peat team wins by just taking into account the match-ups, though.

I'm not singling you out here, but this is where most comparisons go wrong. You can't go by matchups when comparing teams because it doesn't take into account what each team will take away from the other or how a team/player could raise his game above his average. Just cause a player averages 30 ppg during the regular season doesn't mean he'll do it in every fantasy situation. Matchups are a good basis, but doesn't tell the whole story.

I remember in 91, most people picked the Lakers to beat the Bulls because of "matchups". But those same "matchups" didn't account for Jordan averaging 31.2 pts, 6.6 rebs and 11.4 asts on an ungodly 61 fg%. In fact, going just by matchups, Chicago should have lost to LA in 91, New York in 92, Portland in 92, Phoenix in 92 and maybe even New York in 93. Not to mention the Cavs in both 88 and 89.

To get back to the topic...Young, athletic, smart teams gave the Bulls the most problems during their 2nd threepeat. The F3P Bulls fit that description perfectly. S3P Jordan would have a harder time maintaining his usual dominance throughout this mythical series than F3P Jordan would. And F3P Jordan had a better ability to raise his game (11 apg in 91 Finals and 41 ppg in 93 Finals, for example) than S3P Jordan could.

And I think you underrate what Horace Grant gave to the team those 3 years. He was more productive, more efficient and less of a headache than Rodman was. That "matchup" is not a wash. Grant wins that hands down. Jordan was so dominant in the F3P that people forget the Bulls had a pretty good team built around him.

AirJordan23

02-13-2009, 09:29 PM

I'm not singling you out here, but this is where most comparisons go wrong. You can't go by matchups when comparing teams because it doesn't take into account what each team will take away from the other or how a team/player could raise his game above his average. Just cause a player averages 30 ppg during the regular season doesn't mean he'll do it in every fantasy situation. Matchups are a good basis, but doesn't tell the whole story.

I remember in 91, most people picked the Lakers to beat the Bulls because of "matchups". But those same "matchups" didn't account for Jordan averaging 31.2 pts, 6.6 rebs and 11.4 asts on an ungodly 61 fg%. In fact, going just by matchups, Chicago should have lost to LA in 91, New York in 92, Portland in 92, Phoenix in 92 and maybe even New York in 93. Not to mention the Cavs in both 88 and 89.

To get back to the topic...Young, athletic, smart teams gave the Bulls the most problems during their 2nd threepeat. The F3P Bulls fit that description perfectly. S3P Jordan would have a harder time maintaining his usual dominance throughout this mythical series than F3P Jordan would. And F3P Jordan had a better ability to raise his game (11 apg in 91 Finals and 41 ppg in 93 Finals, for example) than S3P Jordan could.

And I think you underrate what Horace Grant gave to the team those 3 years. He was more productive, more efficient and less of a headache than Rodman was. That "matchup" is not a wash. Grant wins that hands down. Jordan was so dominant in the F3P that people forget the Bulls had a pretty good team build around him.

Yes, you're right. I never said that the first 3-peat would've lost, but I was just taking into account the match ups. There's no doubt in my mind that the 1st 3-peat Bulls couldn't win. It would depend on a lot of factors though. Like you said, the 1st 3-peat Bulls had a younger, more athletic, more explosive MJ and Pippen. Those 2 could play a significant amount of minutes without showing signs of fatigue.

I'm sorry for not remembering what Grant could do. I started watching basketball in '94/95 when Grant played for the Magic. I've only watched a few tapes of the 1st 3-peat Bulls. So, I might be wrong about the Grant/Rodman comparison. You're right about production. On the 1st 3-peat Bulls, Grant was the 3rd option on offense and he showed us he could be a 2nd option on a winning team in 93-94 when he averaged 15/10 if I'm not mistaken. Actually, thinking about it, you're right. I just looked at the stats. Grant has a major edge on the offensive end (in scoring and FG%) and Rodman was more turnover prone than Horace. But, I don't think Grant had the defensive impact that Rodman did. Rodman's the type of player who would instantly solve your interior defense/rebounding problems. Not that Grant wouldn't but not as well as Rodman. Rodman was more of a headcase though and MJ and Pip had to keep him in control. I believe Grant as a two-way/all-around player is >> Rodman as a two way player.

Da_Realist

02-13-2009, 09:35 PM

Yes, you're right. I never said that the first 3-peat would've lost, but I was just taking into account the match ups. There's no doubt in my mind that the 1st 3-peat Bulls couldn't win. It would depend on a lot of factors though. Like you said, the 1st 3-peat Bulls had a younger, more athletic, more explosive MJ and Pippen. Those 2 could play a significant amount of minutes without showing signs of fatigue.

I'm sorry for not remembering what Grant could do. I started watching basketball in '94/95 when Grant played for the Magic. I've only watched a few tapes of the 1st 3-peat Bulls. So, I might be wrong about the Grant/Rodman comparison. You're right about production. On the 1st 3-peat Bulls, Grant was the 3rd option on offense and he showed us he could be a 2nd option on a winning team in 93-94 when he averaged 15/10 if I'm not mistaken. Actually, thinking about it, you're right. I just looked at the stats. Grant has a major edge on the offensive end (in scoring and FG%) and Rodman was more turnover prone than Horace. But, I don't think Grant had the defensive impact that Rodman did. Rodman's the type of player who would instantly solve your interior defense/rebounding problems. Not that Grant wouldn't but not as well as Rodman. Rodman was more of a headcase though and MJ and Pip had to keep him in control. I believe Grant as a two-way/all-around player is >> Rodman as a two way player.

No problem. Like I said, I wasn't singling you out. I just thought that was a perfect opportunity to say something that I've wanted to say for a while but I could never work it into a post.

Da_Realist

02-13-2009, 09:44 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't MJ say the '93 Bulls were the best team out of the six championship teams?

He may have. 93 was surely my favorite of the Bulls teams to watch. Overcoming a 2-0 deficit to beat a hungry Knicks team and then beating what I consider the most talented opponent the Bulls ever faced (Phoenix) makes me partial to that team. I wouldn't bet against them being the best Bulls team of all, considering how Pippen grew from the Dream Team experience and was no longer as fragile as he was before.

Over the long haul (regular season + playoffs), 92 would be my pick but if it only came down to a 7 game series 93 may very well be the best.

It's really tough picking between 92, 93 and 97. I think 91 and 96 are a half-step behind with 98 bringing up the rear. It's no coincidence that the 3 teams I favor are all defending champs with more experience and better chemistry than the first-timers (91 and 96). 98 is last because of age.

97 bulls

02-13-2009, 10:40 PM

Da_Realist

02-13-2009, 11:00 PM

Indian guy

02-13-2009, 11:08 PM

i honestly dont remember any team giving the 96-98 bulls problems. the closest they came to being beat was against the pacers in 98. and they were as old as the bulls. and the league wasnt watered down during the second 3peat. the teams the 97 bulls beat for example, were just as good if not better than the early 90s teams.

The '97 Jazz and '98 Pacers gave Bulls the most trouble during the 2nd 3peat. I'll actually agree with you, 1st 3peat Bulls were involved in more 'tough' series'. The '92 run in particular was brutal. Knicks took 'em to 7 games in the ECS. The ECF against the Cavaliers was a grueling 6 game series. Blazers took 'em to 6 as well. In '93 it was Knicks and Suns, both took 'em to 6. In comparison to the 2nd 3peat, where the only time the Bulls looked in any real trouble of losing a series was '97 Jazz and '98 Pacers. None of the other series' were tied after 4 games, compared to 4 such series' in the 1st 3peat. But I'll also say the 1st 3peat team faced tougher competition. IMO Portland, Phx and both Knicks teams were better than any team the Bulls faced during the 2nd 3peat.

97 bulls

02-13-2009, 11:27 PM

Denver, Toronto, LA Lakers, Seattle all gave the Bulls headaches because of their youth.
lol ok youre talking about the few teams that beat the bulls. i dont think that a few losses constitutes problems. from 96-98 they were 8-2 vs tor, they were 3-3 vs lakers so i guess ill give you that one. they were 5-1 vs den and even though sea wasnt a young team they dominated them in the finals. so let this argument go.

1987_Lakers

02-13-2009, 11:36 PM

lol ok youre talking about the few teams that beat the bulls. i dont think that a few losses constitutes problems. from 96-98 they were 8-2 vs tor, they were 3-3 vs lakers so i guess ill give you that one. they were 5-1 vs den and even though sea wasnt a young team they dominated them in the finals. so let this argument go.

Da_Realist has a point. I wouldn't say The Bulls dominated the Sonics in the Finals. The Sonics won both game 4 & 5 by 10+ points and the Bulls only won game 2 by four points. Not to mention BOTH MJ and Pippen had their worst Finals performances of their career.

MJ shot 41.5% while Pippen shot 34.3%.

Bulls were 1-1 vs the Sonics in '96.
Bulls were 2-0 vs the Sonics in '97. (one of those games went to OT)
Bulls weree 1-1 vs the Sonics in '98.

Sonics definitely gave the Bulls some trouble.

97 bulls

02-13-2009, 11:40 PM

The '97 Jazz and '98 Pacers gave Bulls the most trouble during the 2nd 3peat. I'll actually agree with you, 1st 3peat Bulls were involved in more 'tough' series'. The '92 run in particular was brutal. Knicks took 'em to 7 games in the ECS. The ECF against the Cavaliers was a grueling 6 game series. Blazers took 'em to 6 as well. In '93 it was Knicks and Suns, both took 'em to 6. In comparison to the 2nd 3peat, where the only time the Bulls looked in any real trouble of losing a series was '97 Jazz and '98 Pacers. None of the other series' were tied after 4 games, compared to 4 such series' in the 1st 3peat. But I'll also say the 1st 3peat team faced tougher competition. IMO Portland, Phx and both Knicks teams were better than any team the Bulls faced during the 2nd 3peat.
i never really believed the bulls were in trouble in the 97 finals. and i believe the 96sonics were just as good as the 92 blazers and the 97 heat with zo, hardaway, brown, mashburn, marjle, ike austin and kurt thomas, were. better than the knicks. not to mention they didnt have to play a pretty good knicks team in 97. and that the jazz were the defensive equals of the suns.

97 bulls

02-13-2009, 11:42 PM

Da_Realist has a point. I wouldn't say The Bulls dominated the Sonics in the Finals. The Sonics won both game 4 & 5 by 10+ points and the Bulls only won game 2 by four points. Not to mention BOTH MJ and Pippen had their worst Finals performances of their career.

MJ shot 41.5% while Pippen shot 34.3%.

Bulls were 1-1 vs the Sonics in '96.
Bulls were 2-0 vs the Sonics in '97. (one of those games went to OT)
Bulls weree 1-1 vs the Sonics in '98.

Sonics definitely gave the Bulls some trouble.
lol the bulls were never in danger of loosing to sonics. be serious.

Da_Realist

02-13-2009, 11:43 PM

lol ok youre talking about the few teams that beat the bulls. i dont think that a few losses constitutes problems. from 96-98 they were 8-2 vs tor, they were 3-3 vs lakers so i guess ill give you that one. they were 5-1 vs den and even though sea wasnt a young team they dominated them in the finals. so let this argument go.

But why did the Bulls lose to Denver in the first place? Youth and athleticism. Toronto gave Chicago problems and MJ struggled against them. Why? Same thing. These teams didn't have the talent to consistently beat the Bulls. LAL and Seattle did, which is why the Bulls had a harder time with these teams.

The F3P Bulls were young, athletic and was a lot better than either of these teams I mentioned. That's why I say they would have given the 96-98 Bulls some real problems.

97 bulls

02-13-2009, 11:45 PM

Da_Realist has a point. I wouldn't say The Bulls dominated the Sonics in the Finals. The Sonics won both game 4 & 5 by 10+ points and the Bulls only won game 2 by four points. Not to mention BOTH MJ and Pippen had their worst Finals performances of their career.

MJ shot 41.5% while Pippen shot 34.3%.

Bulls were 1-1 vs the Sonics in '96.
Bulls were 2-0 vs the Sonics in '97. (one of those games went to OT)
Bulls weree 1-1 vs the Sonics in '98.

Sonics definitely gave the Bulls some trouble.
on a side note the sonics were a great team and the 96 finals was more of a defensive struggle as opposed to an offenive exibition.

97 bulls

02-13-2009, 11:53 PM

But why did the Bulls lose to Denver in the first place? Youth and athleticism. Toronto gave Chicago problems and MJ struggled against them. Why? Same thing. These teams didn't have the talent to consistently beat the Bulls. LAL and Seattle did, which is why the Bulls had a harder time with these teams.

The F3P Bulls were young, athletic and was a lot better than either of these teams I mentioned. That's why I say they would have given the 96-98 Bulls some real problems.
but neither tor or denver consistantly beat the bulls. they won 80% of their games against those 2 teams. thats great in any sport. im pretty sure that the 91-93 bulls lost to young teams too.

1987_Lakers

02-14-2009, 12:02 AM

lol the bulls were never in danger of loosing to sonics. be serious.

I was pointing out that they didn't dominate them. Keep up.

97 bulls

02-14-2009, 12:05 AM

I was pointing out that they didn't dominate them. Keep up.
wow, its amazing how the bulls are held to such a standard. they win the finals 4-2 and loose a few games during the season but still win 72 and people still complain.

1987_Lakers

02-14-2009, 12:07 AM

wow, its amazing how the bulls are held to such a standard. they win the finals 4-2 and loose a few games during the season but still win 72 and people still complain.

You said that the Bulls "dominated" the Sonics in the Finals, I was only correcting you. Don't get so defensive.

97 bulls

02-14-2009, 12:16 AM

I was pointing out that they didn't dominate them. Keep up.
i just checked, and the bulls beat the sonics by 17, 22, and 12 in 3 of the 4 games they won. they dominated the sonics. you need to stick to your "80s is best" rant.

1987_Lakers

02-14-2009, 12:23 AM

i just checked, and the bulls beat the sonics by 17, 22, and 12 in 3 of the 4 games they won. they dominated the sonics. you need to stick to your "80s is best" rant.

And you are just going to ignore the other 3 games? Ok.

1996 NBA Finals:
Bulls: 93 PPG
Sonics: 89.2 PPG

Bulls in 6 games won by an average of 3.8 PPG and the Sonics did get two victories by the way. I'm sorry but that doesn't qualify as "Dominated"

97 bulls

02-14-2009, 12:44 AM

And you are just going to ignore the other 3 games? Ok.

1996 NBA Finals:
Bulls: 93 PPG
Sonics: 89.2 PPG

Bulls in 6 games won by an average of 3.8 PPG and the Sonics did get two victories by the way. I'm sorry but that doesn't qualify as "Dominated"
lol then you are probably the only person that feels that seattle wasnt dominated by chicago. and you dont factor wins like that. you cant factor in the 2 wins by seattle as wins for chicago. which is what your trying to do. now if the bulls won those four games by an average of 3 pts and seattle still won their 2 by 10 id agree. but thats not the case.

1987_Lakers

02-14-2009, 12:50 AM

lol then you are probably the only person that feels that seattle wasnt dominated by chicago. and you dont factor wins like that. you cant factor in the 2 wins by seattle as wins for chicago. which is what your trying to do. now if the bulls won those four games by an average of 3 pts and seattle still won their 2 by 10 id agree. but thats not the case.

Oh, I see. You're trying to ignore Seattle's two victories and focus on the Bulls four wins. ok.

97 bulls

02-14-2009, 12:57 AM

Oh, I see. You're trying to ignore Seattle's two victories and focusing on the Bulls four wins. ok.
no im not. but you cant combine them mathematically. to be honest, that chicago seattle series was terrible. only 1 game was close and in the 2 seattle wins, it seemed like the bulls were really disinterested sometimes.

1987_Lakers

02-14-2009, 01:11 AM

no im not. but you cant combine them mathematically. to be honest, that chicago seattle series was terrible. only 1 game was close and in the 2 seattle wins, it seemed like the bulls were really disinterested sometimes.

Doesn't matter. Sonics won game four by 21 and game five by 11. Bulls won 3 games by blowouts. Sonics both victories were blowouts. And one game was pretty close in which the Bulls won. Put all these games together and it's not a "dominating" performance by the Bulls. So I don't understand why you say the Bulls dominated. I guess it's how one defines "dominance."

97 bulls

02-14-2009, 01:26 AM

Doesn't matter. Sonics won game four by 21 and game five by 11. Bulls won 3 games by blowouts. Sonics both victories were blowouts. And one game was pretty close in which the Bulls won. Put all these games together and it's not a "dominating" performance by the Bulls. So I don't understand why you say the Bulls dominated. I guess it's how one defines "dominance."
i guess i look at it like this. the bulls doubled them in wins and i feel that after they won the first 3 games, they let up. some say it was because they wanted to win their championship in chicago. some say that seattle was never really competition for the bulls and chicago knew this. i agree with the later.

AirJordan23

02-14-2009, 09:32 AM

Oh, I see. You're trying to ignore Seattle's two victories and focus on the Bulls four wins. ok.
Bulls did dominate in the games they won, however the series as a whole wasn't total domination. That had a lot to do with how MJ played, he was terrible from his standards in that series. His jumper wasn't falling and he was missing lay ups etc. I do give credit to Gary Payton for playing his heart out but MJ not having a good series had more to do with him not finding his touch than Payton's defense. Scottie, on the other hand, wasn't all that great either. He shot 35% from the field, but as he didn't find his shooting touch, his playmaking ability was there. Bulls never really performed the way they did against the Magic in the '96 ECF where they did DOMINATE. Won 4-0 and the series was never really a contest.

1987_Lakers

02-14-2009, 02:56 PM

Bulls did dominate in the games they won, however the series as a whole wasn't total domination. That had a lot to do with how MJ played, he was terrible from his standards in that series. His jumper wasn't falling and he was missing lay ups etc. I do give credit to Gary Payton for playing his heart out but MJ not having a good series had more to do with him not finding his touch than Payton's defense. Scottie, on the other hand, wasn't all that great either. He shot 35% from the field, but as he didn't find his shooting touch, his playmaking ability was there. Bulls never really performed the way they did against the Magic in the '96 ECF where they did DOMINATE. Won 4-0 and the series was never really a contest.

Thank You. That's all I was trying to point out.

Da_Realist

01-22-2011, 09:14 PM

Scottie Pippen thinks 96 Bulls better than 92 Bulls (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9SZyCkkqR0)

97 bulls

01-22-2011, 10:40 PM

Scottie Pippen thinks 96 Bulls better than 92 Bulls (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9SZyCkkqR0)
My sentiments exactly. Pippen was better, so was the bench, I think rodman was an upgrade from grant due to the toughness he brought. And kukoc was essentially a 20 ppg scorer off the bench. And I honestly feel jordan was better too. Maybe not the athlete he was earlier. But the skills and especially the team play was alot higher, as well as the fact that he was still arguably the best athlete in the game.

NugzHeat3

07-05-2012, 03:53 PM

Bumping this thread. Really nice read.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't MJ say the '93 Bulls were the best team out of the six championship teams?
You're right though this quote is from after they beat Seattle in 1996 so it doesn't include the next two championship teams.

Michael Jordan allowed that, of the teams he has played on, the third championship team was the best. But he said that "this team is the most amazing because I never played with Dennis (Rodman), I never played with (Luc) Longley and some of the others for a full year. For us to blend this sucessfully was truly amazing."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-06-17/sports/9606170160_1_bulls-boston-celtics-teams-fame-coach-jack-ramsay

More on Jordan's perspective. This is also from 1996 but before they won the championship.

No comparison: While many comparisons are being drawn between the old Lakers and the Bulls, Michael Jordan was asked to compare this year's version of the Bulls with the three championship sqauds. "It's a different-type team than the championship teams," he said. "The championship teams were very confident when they stepped out on the court. With this team, there's confidence there, but there's still some uncertainty.
"When we won championships, it was with three teams that had been together for so long. Everyone knew certain roles that they could fulfill. But this team has always had to patch up holes, creating some uncertainty. That's the main difference." http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-04-17/sports/9604170251_1_bulls-center-luc-longley-lakers-nba-finals

Another really nice read on the matter.

The Best Of The Bulls
December 13, 1995|By Sam Smith, Tribune Pro Basketball Writer.

.....

After all, the Bulls--at least the Bulls of 1991-93--are known championship teams, which is what this Bulls team is trying to become.

As good? Better? Not even in the arena?

Let the debate begin.

"Well," says Pippen, trying to be diplomatic, "we were more youthful then, younger legs."

No Bulls team, not even the best one--the one that won a championship in 1992 after a 67-win season--has started off as successfully as this one, although that one was close at 15-3.

The Bulls are 16-2 going into Wednesday's game with Orlando, while the 1991 and 1993 championship teams both were 12-6 at this point.

But that doesn't mean much, because the last 15 or 20 games, assuming the team makes the Finals, are the ones that count the most.

Can this team reach the Finals? On talent, the possibility seems there with Michael Jordan, Dennis Rodman and Pippen all being past All-Stars and perhaps first-team All-NBA players this season. But there are weaknesses, notably the players' unfamiliarity with one another, the loss of defensive guru John Bach, the uncertainty of how Jordan will perform in the playoffs after his play last season and the lack of a definitive rotation.

Because optimism about this Bulls team is so high, perhaps it's best to compare it to the best, the 1992 championship team that ripped through the regular season, stumbled briefly against the Knicks in the second round of the playoffs but then rallied for that inspiring Game 6 victory to reach the Finals against Portland.

It was a team that exhibited the best of Jordan, both as dominant force and as unselfish a teammate as he ever was, thus allowing both Horace Grant and Scottie Pippen to average more points that season than in any other they played with Jordan.

That team also had Bill Cartwright in his last relatively healthy season, B.J. Armstrong pushing hard for the starting job, with John Paxson still solid and with big front-line backups in Will Perdue, Scott Williams, Cliff Levingston and Stacey King.

"Those teams were bigger physically inside," said coach Phil Jackson. "Williams, King and Perdue could all play center and power forward, and Horace could also play small forward. Opposing teams couldn't match the power we could throw at them. That team got more out of its defense and the power of Michael to make individual plays."

Jordan still can make those plays, but not on as regular a basis.
"In his early years, when we first won the championships," noted Bulls assistant Tex Winter, "Michael had more interest in making the spectacular plays, the sensational drives to the basket, getting himself in uncompromising positions and bailing himself out, like a high trapeze artist.

"Now he's a little different. He's learned to conserve a lot of energy and settle for the outside shot, which has allowed him to develop a tremendous outside shot. We're posting him more as opposed to him taking people on the drive. But he's still got that same competitive spirit and desire to win and willingness to take the big plays on his shoulder in crucial times."

But Jordan still has to show, especially after the 1995 playoffs, he has the ability to finish big games like he used to in 1992. Pippen, meanwhile, has surpassed that level. Pippen had his first breakthrough year in 1992, averaging 21 points, 7.7 rebounds and 7.0 assists. But he's so much more confident and comfortable now that he's even more frightening.

"There's at least a standoff at shooting guard and small forward between then and now," said Paxson.

One of the principal differences will be on display Wednesday when Rodman plays against Grant. Even with Rodman, the Bulls still will have to figure out how to double-team Shaquille O'Neal and guard everyone else come playoff time.

Rodman probably neutralizes Grant, rebounding more and scoring less, but Rodman at 34 isn't the great one-on-one defender anymore, and Grant was pivotal in the Bulls' switching defensive patterns.

And without Bach, the defense naturally suffers. It's not unlike when Buddy Ryan left the Bears: The defensive statistics were similar, but the fire and aggressiveness were never there again.

Although Cartwright averaged about eight points in 1992, his presence inside was indisputable.

And, having Jordan chase point guards around remains a poor option, and Ron Harper doesn't complement Jordan's ability to draw double teams the way Paxson and Armstrong--and Craig Hodges--did with their outside and long-distance shooting.

There's more firepower off the bench (Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr, Bill Wennington) but lots of inexperience, too (Dickey Simpkins and Jason Caffey).

No, this Bulls team wouldn't beat the 1992 version. But no one else did, either. This team just has to be good enough to beat everyone else now, which is not as much of a test in an expansion era than it was four years ago.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-12-13/sports/9512130192_1_bulls-scottie-pippen-playing

NumberSix

07-05-2012, 03:55 PM

1st 3peat Jordan was better. 2nd 3peat TEAM was better.

NugzHeat3

07-05-2012, 03:55 PM

These two articles are from a Chicago Tribune writer claiming the 1992 team was the best.

Best Bulls Team Ever? A Vote For The '92 Squad

June 30, 1996|By Melissa Isaacson.

Is it safe to come out yet? Safe to suggest what surely amounts to blasphemy in these parts? Two weeks would seem to be enough time and space between the greatest feat in the all-time history of the sports world and beyond, and a simple observation.

But then, only hate mail will tell.

Really, it's just a reminder that as the 1996 world champion Bulls are committed to the archives, it's worth another look back.

The images aren't quite grainy yet, although they do have a certain nostalgic quality, which is a little scary since we're still talking about this decade. Nevertheless, the "old" Bulls championship teams, already in danger of being forgotten, are not merely deserving of our attention but of a secure place in our memories as well.

Before John Paxson must spell his name for a restaurant reservation, let us never forget the greatest Bulls team ever, the one that won their second straight title in 1992.

The first championship had given those Bulls their arrogance, that veil of invincibility that every great team possesses. It also painted them for the first time as a target, and their veneer that season was every bit as tough as the '96 group, which intimidated many teams by their very presence.

Like the current team, the '92 Bulls seemingly secured each victory by halftime. There was a cohesion and fluidity we have not seen since.

In transition, there were no better, no more powerful closers in Bulls uniforms. And the originators of Johnny Bach's "Doberman Defense" were every bit as lethal as the quick-pick artists of today.

All of that, however, can be debated forever. The shame of it would be if, in the frenzy of enthusiasm over the current champs, the "old" ones were overlooked.

If in watching Michael Jordan today and appreciating the total team player he has become, we somehow forgot the bravado of that cocky 29-year-old, who took on every challenge as his own and always stood up to it.

Always remember the player who hit a record six first-half three-pointers in Game 1 of the NBA Finals, then shrugged as if to say even he did not know where it was coming from.

Remember a lean, strong and healthy Scottie Pippen, who could make his 26-year-old legs go wherever they wanted, when sprained ankles were his biggest concern and seemed a rather harmless one.

Remember Horace Grant as he was in his happiest days as a Bull, when accepting his role was carried out with a certain joy that showed in his all-out pursuits in the team's full-court press; when his few offensive opportunities, like a fast-break slam, were expressed in unbridled power.

Remember the stoicism of Bill Cartwright, the last Bull since Jordan to get away with staring down an official, who in that '92 season roamed the Stadium lanes like a jungle cat.

And Paxson, who threw his battered body around like no one since Jerry Sloan and who probably still owns the sweetest jumper going.

Those Bulls had a bench too easy to forget. But it was only for the scoring ability of B.J. Armstrong, the three-point punch of Craig Hodges, the grit of Scott Williams, the infectious enthusiasm of Cliff Levingston, the durability of Will Perdue and the hunger of Bobby Hansen, who ignited the title-clinching rally, that ensured a second straight championship.

It's too easy to forget the magic of a building leveled for a parking lot. Opponents hated the dank, tiny dressing room, complained about the cold showers and rodents, and feared what the place represented in those years.

The '96 Bulls tried halfheartedly to re-create the scoring-table line dance of '92, the spontaneous on-court party that erupted when the team was beckoned back to the floor long after they had left. But you can't go back. You can only remember.

And it would be a shame if we didn't.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-06-30/sports/9606300157_1_bulls-scottie-pippen-jungle-cat

Fans Affixing Best-ever Label To Wrong Bulls

January 14, 1996|By Melissa Isaacson.

Time always has a funny way of altering our perceptions. The good times were great, the not-so-good times awful. That brief walk to school was a 5-mile hike and our favorite sports teams become the greatest of all time.
But somehow that cycle has been reversed with the current Bulls.

Forget the championship teams of the past, even the 1991-92 team, a nucleus of athletes in the prime of splendid careers dominating a league that wanted nothing more each night than to put them in their place.

No, this team, right now, picking its way past the refuse of the present NBA with no clear challenge in sight except the standings, which shows only the Orlando Magic sticking close, has to be the greatest NBA team ever. Look at the record, after all. So what if they have yet to reach even the halfway point of the season?

Can they win 70 games? Forget 70; can they win 79? It's conceivable, you know.

The screwy part is that maybe they will. You look at the schedule and see too many Raptors and Grizzlies and Sixers and Bucks. Too many teams struggling to stay at .500 and happy to be there. But compare these Bulls to the '91-92 edition, indeed one of the greatest NBA teams and surely the greatest Bulls team of all time.

It is as much an insult to that team as it is inaccurate to even try.

"We had more balance and bigger bodies in the post," said Bulls coach Phil Jackson of his second championship team.

Much like this year's team, that team had a tendency, especially early in the season as it was finding its identity and was without Bill Cartwright and John Paxson because of injuries, to toy with opponents. But more often than not, victories were a foregone conclusion by halftime, 18-2 starts a common occurrence. Defense was more pressure-oriented and more intimidating, and as a result, led to many more easy baskets.

Paxson was a tireless and much underrated one-on-one defender, not as quick to make steals but every bit the defensive presence Ron Harper is, and an obviously better shooter.

Few big men were ever asked to do more defensively or covered the court more effectively than Horace Grant, and Cartwright was ever the immovable force in the lane if somehow the press was broken. By comparison, Dennis Rodman, though a tremendous defender in his prime and surely still capable, seems more willing to wander now, intent to secure rebounding position. And Luc Longley, who will never get the benefit of the doubt from officials the way Cartwright did, can't afford to knock anyone down, even if so inclined. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-01-14/sports/9601140124_1_bulls-coach-phil-jackson-randy-brown-defense

Jordan compares the 1993 team to the 1998 team and again mentions how the earlier team spent more time together making it more reliable.

Facing the Jazz again this season, the Bulls see similarities to their matchup against the Suns. They are shooting for a third straight championship, they are without home-court advantage and they are facing a talented opponent. There are contrasts, too.

"The '93 team was totally different. We had a team together seven or eight years," Jordan said.
"We went basically from bottom and got to the top. This team is built on three specialties (Jordan, Pippen and Rodman) and everyone else complements that. We haven't been together as long but yet we've had this much success," he said.

"This is different. The reliability is not quite the same, although it's good now. You can't compare it to the '93 team."
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1998/06/04/oth_230175.shtml

Da_Realist

07-07-2012, 04:00 AM

Great finds, NugzHeat :applause:

eliteballer

07-07-2012, 06:04 AM

I used to think the 92 team was the best, but the 2nd threepeat teams were deeper and seemed to execute better. Jordan was better in the 1st threepeat(thought not THAT much better than the 96 version) but Pippen was better in the 2nd threepeat.

JohnnySic

07-07-2012, 08:29 AM

The first 3 peat ahd to go through tougher competition; '91 Lakers, Bad Boy Pistons, '93 Suns, Knicks, etc. The league was watered down by the time of the 2nd 3-peat. But the team was more complete.

ThaRegul8r

07-07-2012, 08:35 AM

Nevaeh

07-07-2012, 11:05 AM

:no: To say the '97 Bulls would beat the '91 Bulls is a HUUUUGGEE stretch IMO. We'll never know, but I would take the '91 team all the way.

It must be remembered just how hungry the '91 team was. They were killers, and in addition '91 MJ would just hound and maul '97 MJ.

Once again, we'll never know, but I would have no problem with people putting the '91 team first overall. But definitely ahead of '97 IMO.

This is an interesting thread, but just like Real Life, it's gonna come down to the officiating. If the Refs just let these guys PLAY, then 91 Bulls got this easy. 91 MJ makes 97 MJ look like he's moving in slow motion. But if the Refs start giving the 97 Bulls "Veteran Calls" during the game, then I could see 97 Bulls winning a couple of games.

97 bulls

07-07-2012, 11:40 AM

Jordan himself said the first three-peat Bulls were better than the second three-peat Bulls. People saying otherwise are trying to revise history. I watched basketball as it was happening, and I know what was being said.
Scottie Pippen said the second threepeat was better. I honestly dont see what the first threepeat Bulls did that would imply that they were better than the second.

97 bulls

07-07-2012, 11:45 AM

This is an interesting thread, but just like Real Life, it's gonna come down to the officiating. If the Refs just let these guys PLAY, then 91 Bulls got this easy. 91 MJ makes 97 MJ look like he's moving in slow motion. But if the Refs start giving the 97 Bulls "Veteran Calls" during the game, then I could see 97 Bulls winning a couple of games.
How do you figure? Jordan in an interview stated that he was 5% off from his prime in 97. But he was definately stronger than he was in his first threepeat. Combine that with the fact that Pippen was better, and the second threepeat team had a much better bench and defense, i dont see how the first threepeat Bulls beat the second

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

07-07-2012, 12:07 PM

This is an interesting thread, but just like Real Life, it's gonna come down to the officiating. If the Refs just let these guys PLAY, then 91 Bulls got this easy. 91 MJ makes 97 MJ look like he's moving in slow motion. But if the Refs start giving the 97 Bulls "Veteran Calls" during the game, then I could see 97 Bulls winning a couple of games.

Agreed. '91 Jordan was so freakishly quick both with and without the ball, all the while looking like he isn't even trying.

Speaking of making it look easy, do ya'll emember the one handed, double pump runners off one leg? :oldlol: He never really did those during the 2nd threepeat.

ducktape

07-07-2012, 12:11 PM

the second three peat cuz it had steve kerr

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gboldrlkU_o/TQ2nvTaVFBI/AAAAAAAAAB8/6jj48YB1ob8/s1600/stevekerr.jpg

NugzHeat3

07-07-2012, 03:51 PM

I think the 1991 team was really good and the most underrated of the bunch. I know there's no way to really quantify this but I don't think there was any team ever hungrier than that bunch even though it needs to be said you don't win three straight on two separate occasions without showing any hunger and just half assing it.

That team really took off post All-Star break because beating Detroit a game before the break lifted the monkey off their back and gave them a lot of confidence. Phil said that was really the turning point of the season for them since they hadn't won @ Detroit before. Pippen and Grant probably benefited the most. After the All-Star break, their record was 44-9 (playoffs included). I would also imagine they became more accustomed to the triangle since it takes awhile to learn such an intricate offense and properly get used to it.

For my money, that's the best Jordan ever played though I'm not as familiar with his 1990 self which quite a few people think was his peak. His game is as complete as really anyone you can imagine and far more dominant than any other perimeter player I've seen. His athleticism in regards to explosion, quickness and speed is there, he wasn't ball dominant at all this year, did a great job moving without the ball, scoring within the flow of the offense and had mastered the approach of knowing when to take over and step into that 6th gear when really needed to. Defensively, he was again excellent both in regards to man and team defense. Pippen and Grant had really matured too and made improvements all around. Together, all three made the Bulls full court press deadly and they got a good bit of offense as a result of forcing turnovers with their traps, jumping into passing lanes, pressuring ball handlers forcing them to questionable decisions and that could also result in teams having less time to get into their offensive set which would force them to scramble and get a tougher, lower % shot up. I remember they really used the press against Detroit and had a lot of success. They also made it tough for LA with their defense in the half-court with excellent rotations off double teams since they doubled LA quite a bit in the post where they had an edge due to size.

They also got contributions from the others with Paxson really relieving the pressure off the double and triple teams on Jordan like game 5 in the finals, Armstrong would pick up the slack with Paxson on the bench, Cartwright would serve as a big post presence and this is probably his best year in the first three peat.

They totally stomped through everyone in the playoffs and the two games they lost were on two GW threes by Hersey Hawkins and Sam Perkins. Larry Bird said they were the best team he had ever seen. They deserve more respect than they get. I've seen them ranked as the worst of the 6 and I can't agree with that.

Great finds, NugzHeat :applause:
Da Realist, which team do you believe to be better defensively? I know you explained it earlier in this thread but you didn't really go in detail although I think you prefer the first three peat team due to better athleticism allowing them to do more.

I think the first three peat team has an edge with Jordan being a better defender more stamina, more athleticism to cover ground quicker helping him rotate and recover and he also had the ability to cover PGs that were really bothering Paxson and BJ like Mark Price in the 1992 ECF or switching over KJ in the finals. Although, he did do a fine job on Strickland in 1997.

Grant is better than Rodman in regards to how vital he was to their pressure defense often double teaming, trapping well forcing a deflection or a steal and recovering on time. I would also say he was the much more consistent defender overall. I must say this though, since this thread is about these two going head to head, Rodman would utterly outclass Grant like he did in the first game of the 1996 ECF. Totally beating him on the boards, to the spots and making him a non factor.

Second three peat has an edge on the perimeter since Ron Harper is a major upgrade over Pax and BJ. He also gives them the option of shuffling match ups at no expense like they did in the 1996 and 1998 ECF. I also think second three peat is also better at guarding Cs due to Rodman's presence who would switch on to the Cs. I was very impressed by his job on Shaq denying him good position by forcing him away from the basket. Very strong legs and low center of gravity. He also bothered Zo quite a bit getting into his head mentally. I don't think they have this option in the first three peat. I do think Cartwright is more effective than either Longley or Wennington though.

I also think their pressure defense might've been as good despite not being as athletic and being older due to Harper and Randy Brown's presence. Harper's size was definitely a factor and Brown could make an impact off the bench as he was really good at pressuring the ball. This is just an example but it's recent since I watched the entire Orlando vs Chicago 1996 series recently and their press in the second half of game 2 is really impressive and effective and helps them disrupt Orlando's offense and get back into the game (reversed an 18 pt lead I think). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaslgUIErC0&feature=plcp

Another edge for the first three peat team is that they did have John Bach who was a great defensive assistant coach.

:confusedshrug:

97 bulls

07-07-2012, 06:52 PM

Ok so in youre opinion NugzHeat, pit the 91 Bulls vs the 97 Bulls. Who has the edge?

As far as im concerned, the 97 version is just better. There always gonna be a special place in my heart for the 91 Bulls. Similar to your first love. But thats due to that emotional attachment. They answered every question. How theyd do vs bigs, they could win ugly, with offense, defense, size, go small, run, offense in the halfcourt, full court press, they just had no weakness. They even had a scoring big in the post in Brian Williams.
They proved in 94 that they could still be competitive without Jordan when thy won 55 games before the expansion of 96 which people love to try to the second threepeat teams played in a weak era due to expansion, they proved in 98 that they could be a top team without Pippen.

But mainly its their bench. Kukoc, Kerr, Williams, and Caffey would be the equal to Bargnani, Korver, Nene, and Bass today as far as talent and status in the league.

I never liked the 1st threepeat Bulls bench. I hated stacy king. Perdue, S. Williams, and levingston were nothing more than journeymen bench players. They contributed obviously, but they proved throughout their career that they were never anything more than bench players. Kukoc and Williams were very good borderline all star typer players. And at worst starter caliber players. Comming off the bench.

Regardless of what you guys feel about the differences between the threepeat Jordans, the change wasnt that big enough to use that as an indicator.

The second threepeat team was much better.

Da_Realist

07-07-2012, 08:01 PM

Da Realist, which team do you believe to be better defensively? I know you explained it earlier in this thread but you didn't really go in detail although I think you prefer the first three peat team due to better athleticism allowing them to do more.

I think the first three peat team has an edge with Jordan being a better defender more stamina, more athleticism to cover ground quicker helping him rotate and recover and he also had the ability to cover PGs that were really bothering Paxson and BJ like Mark Price in the 1992 ECF or switching over KJ in the finals. Although, he did do a fine job on Strickland in 1997.

Grant is better than Rodman in regards to how vital he was to their pressure defense often double teaming, trapping well forcing a deflection or a steal and recovering on time. I would also say he was the much more consistent defender overall. I must say this though, since this thread is about these two going head to head, Rodman would utterly outclass Grant like he did in the first game of the 1996 ECF. Totally beating him on the boards, to the spots and making him a non factor.

Second three peat has an edge on the perimeter since Ron Harper is a major upgrade over Pax and BJ. He also gives them the option of shuffling match ups at no expense like they did in the 1996 and 1998 ECF. I also think second three peat is also better at guarding Cs due to Rodman's presence who would switch on to the Cs. I was very impressed by his job on Shaq denying him good position by forcing him away from the basket. Very strong legs and low center of gravity. He also bothered Zo quite a bit getting into his head mentally. I don't think they have this option in the first three peat. I do think Cartwright is more effective than either Longley or Wennington though.

I also think their pressure defense might've been as good despite not being as athletic and being older due to Harper and Randy Brown's presence. Harper's size was definitely a factor and Brown could make an impact off the bench as he was really good at pressuring the ball. This is just an example but it's recent since I watched the entire Orlando vs Chicago 1996 series recently and their press in the second half of game 2 is really impressive and effective and helps them disrupt Orlando's offense and get back into the game (reversed an 18 pt lead I think). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaslgUIErC0&feature=plcp

Another edge for the first three peat team is that they did have John Bach who was a great defensive assistant coach.

:confusedshrug:

I don't think I can definitively say which version was best defensively. They both have advantages in different areas that you just explained in beautiful detail. I'm not sure they lost much when Johnny Bach left...at least it didn't manifest itself on the court. Not to say he wasn't instrumental -- he helped create the defensive culture, but that culture was largely self-sustaining by the time he left.

I do think the early 90's team gets underrated. The numbers don't favor them vis-

aceman

07-07-2012, 08:02 PM

Bumping this thread. Really nice read.

You're right though this quote is from after they beat Seattle in 1996 so it doesn't include the next two championship teams.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-06-17/sports/9606170160_1_bulls-boston-celtics-teams-fame-coach-jack-ramsay

More on Jordan's perspective. This is also from 1996 but before they won the championship.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-04-17/sports/9604170251_1_bulls-center-luc-longley-lakers-nba-finals

Another really nice read on the matter.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-12-13/sports/9512130192_1_bulls-scottie-pippen-playing

yeah, didn't the 1996 bulls answer all these questions by winning 72 games & the championship??

Smoke117

07-07-2012, 08:10 PM

BJ Armstrong was a two way player? Wha? BJ Armstrong was a HORRIBLE DEFENSIVE PLAYER.

97 bulls

07-07-2012, 08:51 PM

I
BJ Armstrong was a two way player? Wha? BJ Armstrong was a HORRIBLE DEFENSIVE PLAYER.
I emphatically agree. Armstrong was at best an ok defender, and couldn't create his own shot. He also said paxson could take it to the hole. I like DaRealist but he really butchered that post by overrating the first threepeat Bulls bench.

fpliii

07-07-2012, 08:55 PM

interesting thread, I'll have to read through this

fwiw though I have the 92, 96, 97 squads in my top 10 teams all-time

97 bulls

07-07-2012, 09:02 PM

[QUOTE=Da_Realist]I don't think I can definitively say which version was best defensively. They both have advantages in different areas that you just explained in beautiful detail. I'm not sure they lost much when Johnny Bach left...at least it didn't manifest itself on the court. Not to say he wasn't instrumental -- he helped create the defensive culture, but that culture was largely self-sustaining by the time he left.

I do think the early 90's team gets underrated. The numbers don't favor them vis-

1987_Lakers

07-07-2012, 09:06 PM

97 bulls

07-07-2012, 09:18 PM

The first 3 peat Bulls bench was deeper, but the second 3 peat bench was more top heavy with Kukoc.

And lets not forget Kukoc always seemed to underperformed in the postseason. My rankings...

1. 96
2. 92
3. 97
4. 93/91
5. 91/93

6. 98
How are the first threepeat team deeper? Caffey, Kerr, Brown, and Wennington are on par with Levingston, King, Perdue, and Paxson. And that's not including Kukoc and Williams.

Halcon

07-07-2012, 09:31 PM

This would create a paradox because Michael Jordan can not lose in the Finals.

2nd Three peat had Dennis Rodman, but 1st three peat had an even bigger beast of MJ. Discounting MJ, Id go with the 2nd team.

magnax1

07-07-2012, 10:58 PM

Comparing the whole threepeat feels weird to me, but 96 was very clearly the best team to me for a couple reasons.
The first and most apparent being Dennis Rodman was a huge upgrade over Grant. I've heard some others argue otherwise, but I don't know how you make that case. First off all, Rodman was by far the best rebounder in the league and quite clearly the best rebounder ever, one of the 5 best defenders ever (though he wasn't quite that good at that point), and a fantastic passer. Rodman basically gave everyone else on the team the ability to make rebounding a secondary priority and look to make an impact on the game elsewhere, which strengthened the team as a whole
The second is that Pippen was at his peak in 96, and 97, which really did make a large difference. He was a smarter, and more fundamentally sound player while having what seemed to me like a better mentality.
Secondly, the depth on the 96 team was great. Toni Kukoc, who was basically an all star was coming off the bench, Steve Kerr was probably the best spotup shooter ever and Ron Harper was a fantastic do it all sort of guard, who also played very good defense and often times took on Jordan's matchup so that he could save some energy for offense.
Really the only spot that the 1st threepeat beats the 2nd is Jordan, and really Jordan is what made those first threepeat teams champions. They weren't extremely stacked by any stretch of the imagination, as it was really Jordan, Pippen a good (though not that good) PF in Grant, and some alright role players. Jordan had to average around 35 ppg in the first threepeat for the teams to make it out with a championship, and then play at an all time elite level for his position at every other aspect of the game. He was not even capable of doing that by 96, but they were still a clearly more dominant team.

97 bulls

07-07-2012, 11:50 PM

Comparing the whole threepeat feels weird to me, but 96 was very clearly the best team to me for a couple reasons.
The first and most apparent being Dennis Rodman was a huge upgrade over Grant. I've heard some others argue otherwise, but I don't know how you make that case. First off all, Rodman was by far the best rebounder in the league and quite clearly the best rebounder ever, one of the 5 best defenders ever (though he wasn't quite that good at that point), and a fantastic passer. Rodman basically gave everyone else on the team the ability to make rebounding a secondary priority and look to make an impact on the game elsewhere, which strengthened the team as a whole
The second is that Pippen was at his peak in 96, and 97, which really did make a large difference. He was a smarter, and more fundamentally sound player while having what seemed to me like a better mentality.
Secondly, the depth on the 96 team was great. Toni Kukoc, who was basically an all star was coming off the bench, Steve Kerr was probably the best spotup shooter ever and Ron Harper was a fantastic do it all sort of guard, who also played very good defense and often times took on Jordan's matchup so that he could save some energy for offense.
Really, the only spot that the 1st threepeat beats the 2nd is Jordan, and really Jordan is what made those first threepeat teams champions. They weren't extremely stacked by any stretch of the imagination, as it was really Jordan, Pippen a good (though not that good) PF in Grant, and some alright role players. Jordan had to average around 35 ppg in the first threepeat for the teams to make it out with a championship, and then play at an all time elite level for his position at every other aspect of the game. He was not even capable of doing that by 96, but they were still a clearly more dominant team.
This is why people pick the first threepeat.

I honestly would chose 2nd threepeat jordan over the first for this reason. In an interview posted in this thread with john Bach, he said Jordan was used in the post more, and he was more cerebral. He didn't feel the need to be flashy anymore. He knew how to conserve energy, and he was part of the team. And they all complimented each other so well.

Especially the energy/stamina aspect of Jordans game. Make no mistaake, Jordan ran out of gas during the 1st threepeat too. He was clearly tired in game 6 vs Portland. And he said he ran out of gas in 93 vs the Suns in game 5.

Id trade a little athhleticism for wits anyday

1987_Lakers

07-07-2012, 11:53 PM

This is why people pick the first threepeat.

I honestly would chose 2nd threepeat jordan over the first for this reason. In an interview posted in this thread with john Bach, he said Jordan was used in the post more, and he was more cerebral. He didn't feel the need to be flashy anymore. He knew how to conserve energy, and he was part of the team. And they all complimented each other so well.

Especially the energy/stamina aspect of Jordans game. Make no mistaake, Jordan ran out of gas during the 1st threepeat too. He was clearly tired in game 6 vs Portland. And he said he ran out of gas in 93 vs the Suns in game 5.

Id trade a little athhleticism for wits anyday
:biggums:

NugzHeat3

07-08-2012, 01:15 PM

97 bulls, to answer your question, I'm not sure who'd win. When I feel teams are usually close, I have a hard time predicting and all I can say is it can go either way.

Also, you were getting on Da Realist for making a biased post. Your handle is 97 bulls. Come on man. You don't see the irony in that?

Also, you said Pippen and Jordan were the only two way players on the first three peat team. Horace Grant was definitely a two way player. He couldn

I LUV KOBE

07-08-2012, 01:39 PM

97 bulls

07-08-2012, 01:54 PM

[QUOTE=NugzHeat3]97 bulls, to answer your question, I'm not sure who'd win. When I feel teams are usually close, I have a hard time predicting and all I can say is it can go either way.

Also, you were getting on Da Realist for making a biased post. Your handle is 97 bulls. Come on man. You don't see the irony in that?

Also, you said Pippen and Jordan were the only two way players on the first three peat team. Horace Grant was definitely a two way player. He couldn

97 bulls

07-08-2012, 02:00 PM

1st 3peat bulls of course.. You have prime MJ and after Mike left them, 3 Bulls players makes the all star BJ, Scottie and Grant..

While the 2nd 3peat turn Mike into wanna be Kobe.. Still great and the best in the league but still not like when he was in his prime.. This team is just full of veteran players who fit perfectly in the triangle offense but still not better than 1st 3peat who were young and athletic..
Lol what are you talking about? Rodman made all star games, kukoc was the best player in eurpoe and an olympian when he joined the Bulls. And was the best sixthman in the league. And they were just as athletic if not more than the first threepeat bulls. The only difference was they were older. But throughout history, veteran teams almost always win out over younger teams. Even more talented younger teams.

Da_Realist

07-08-2012, 02:11 PM

His bias also shows when he says the first threepeats bench was better by saying they contributed and hit big shots etc. Well shit so did the second threepeats bench.

You're a keyboard warrior so I try not to get into long discussions with you, but...

Where did I say FTP bench was better? I said they should get some credit and I pointed out the differences. In fact, earlier in the thread I said

The bench may be the only real advantage the S3P Bulls might have had over the F3P version.

:facepalm

97 bulls

07-08-2012, 02:29 PM

You're a keyboard warrior so I try not to get into long discussions with you, but...

Where did I say FTP bench was better? I said they should get some credit and I pointed out the differences. In fact, earlier in the thread I said

:facepalm
Nice job taking a snippet of my reply to youre post. I reread your post twice and still came away feeling that you feel the first threepeats bench was better. And thats your opinion. But they werent versitle two way players. And if they were, so was the second threepeats bench players.

I dont know what a keyboard warrior is. This is a forum made to state opinions. If you dont want people to reply or question yours then dont post them.

Da_Realist

07-08-2012, 02:32 PM

Duncan21formvp

07-08-2012, 02:35 PM

Jordan and Pippen were better during the 1st 3 peat, but the 2nd 3 peat actually had a good 6th man and better overall defense.

scandisk_

07-08-2012, 03:07 PM

97 bulls

07-08-2012, 03:26 PM

I think "two-way" confused some people. I didn't mean BJ was this great defensive player. Or that Scott Williams could average 30 points. They were who they were on both ends. BJ wasn't such a liability that he needed to be taken out of a close game and subbed for someone else. Scott Williams didn't need to be switched out with Stacy King because one was great offensively and the other was great defensively. Sometimes being average or serviceable on both ends is better than being a superstar on one end and a liability on the other. 97Bulls, I said sometimes. Overall, I would still give the edge to the STP bench. However, STP team needed that advantage more than FTP team.
Fair enough. I do think your overrating th liability thing though. All teams have that problem. Even more, i rarely ever remember phil jackson ever subbing defense for offense like that aside from the 98 finals. His finishers were normally, jordan pippen rodman kukoc and longley. Now you had situational lineups, but as i said, all teams have that.

The first threepeat Bulls i guess didnt really have to sub out player like that, but that was more because they had no choice. Scott Wialliams, Stacy King, Cliff Levingston, and will Perdue were for all intents and purposes the same type of player. 6'9-6'11 hustler/dirty work players. They didnt post up, or had great jumpers orand anything like that. They scored off dump offs and offensive rebounds. Paxson, Armstrong, and Tucker were the same player too. 6'2 lightsout jumpshooters. They werent gonna put the ball on the floor, or lock a guy down on defense or run the offense like a traditional PG. If armsrtong was your starter and was getting lit up by the PG were you gonna be able to go to pax?

Its why Jordan was depended on so much. They had no ther choice after Pippen.

Its why the second threepeat team was so much better. They could win with Jordan having off nights. And win in different ways. The players all brought their own special dynamic that made them har to play against

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

07-08-2012, 03:32 PM

'91-93 Jordan was the greatest player of all-time...which is why I would never bet against him.

Da_Realist

07-08-2012, 03:32 PM

@Da Realist

What do you think of the match-up between FTP MJ vs STP MJ? Who could give more problems to the other team? I'd really like to hear your thoughts on this. Thnx :rockon:

back on topic.

Personally I do think that the 2nd Three Peat team was better, prolly cause of STP Pip(better player IMO), Worm and the bench.

I still pretty much agree with what I said earlier...

I believe the 1st 3Peat (F3P) Bulls were better than the 2nd 3Peat
(S3P) Bulls.

First, the F3P Bulls were younger. The S3P Bulls couldn't keep up with
those young guys. F3P Michael was better, more efficient and could
raise his game even higher if he wanted to (he could have broken 70 in
game 1 of the 92 Finals, for example). S3P MJ couldn't have done that.

F3P Pippen and S3P Pippen basically cancel each other out. However
Grant was more versatile than Dennis Rodman. Dennis Rodman was a great
rebounder but he was 35-37 years old when he played for the Bulls. He
was a much better player in Detroit than he was in Chicago.

Rodman averaged 5.2 pts, 2.8 asts, 15.3 rebs, 0.6 stls, 0.3 blks, 2.0
tov on 45 fg% in F3P.
Grant averaged 13.4 pts, 2.5 asts, 9.3 rebs, 1.2 stls, 1.3 blks, 1.3
tov on 54 fg% in S3P.
Grant averaged more points, more steals, more blocks, less turnovers
and he shot a LOT better from the field.
This doesn't take into account the havoc Grant created on the floor
defensively (full court and half court) and it also doesn't measure
the distractions, suspensions and drama Rodman brought to the table
every year he was in Chicago. Rodman missed an average of 15 games per
season during the S3P, Grant only missed an average of 3 games during the F3P.

S3P Ron Harper was a real advantage defensively over F3P John Paxson
but John's advantage was his sharpshooting and clutchness. Ron gets
the edge here, but John's defensive deficiency would be cancelled out
because of the extra versatility of a young MJ and Pippen (full court
defense, half court defense, more spring and more stamina) that S3P MJ
and Pip could not provide. In other words, the S3P Bulls needed Ron
Harper's 6-6 frame and defensive ability because MJ was too old to
chase down younger guys defensively and still have super-human
efficiency. With that said, S3P MJ still wasn't as efficient as the
F3P version.

The bench may be the only real advantage the S3P Bulls might have had
over the F3P version. However, the starters for the F3P team was just
plain better and more versatile than the starters for the S3P team.
They were younger, could play full-court defense or half-court
defense. MJ was holding down guards from Isiah Thomas to Clyde Drexler
while still shooting over 50% from the field. Horace was putting up
numbers without getting suspended every 5th game. John Paxson was a
dependable shooter in the clutch to take pressure off of double and
triple teams on MJ -- and when he lost a step, BJ Armstrong stepped
in.

Toni Kucoc was a spark for S3P offensively, but he was a huge
liability on defense. Soft as tissue paper. And fragile emotionally
too. If he didn't start, he'd sulk. The rest of the bench was full of
old stiffs like John Salley, James Edwards and Robert Parish. The
young Bulls had guys like BJ Armstrong, Cliff Levingston, Craig Hodges
and Scott Williams that would provide a real spark. Especially in the
91 and 92 playoffs.

The S3P Bulls had to pace themselves because of age. MJ, Scottie,
Harper and Rodman were all advanced in age and couldn't put out max
effort 48 min/game. They had trouble with young, athletic teams like
the Sonics and Lakers. They were smart enough to pick and choose when
to go all out and still win championships. The S3P Bulls was a great
team but they wouldn't have been able to pick and choose against the
F3P Bulls. MJ had the same heart and hunger but he had young legs and
stamina that amazed even other NBA stars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6og_pOVi2w).

As great as MJ was, he was known to get a little tired if he had to
carry too much of the load for too long in the S3P. He was good enough
to withstand it and lead his team because no one was good enough to
outlast him even at 90%. But we're talking about F3P MJ. That guy
never got tired. He was a machine.

It would be close but ultimately I choose F3P Bulls.

With that said, I think 92 Bulls were the best of the bunch with the 97 team not far behind. S3P team seemed to be more focused and committed to what they did best (run triangle, defend, rebound). F3P was more versatile in what they could do and was more willing to experiment more. Sometimes they were committed to the triangle, sometimes they just beat you on plain athleticism or let MJ do his thing. That happened in the S3P, but not as often. Because of that the S3P team didn't have as many lapses as the F3P team. But, I'd still go with the F3P team if forced to choose.

97 bulls

07-08-2012, 03:57 PM

'91-93 Jordan was the greatest player of all-time...which is why I would never bet against him.
Oh come on bro. He wasnt that far off to make that kind of determination.

97 bulls

07-08-2012, 04:12 PM

I still pretty much agree with what I said earlier...

With that said, I think 92 Bulls were the best of the bunch with the 97 team not far behind. S3P team seemed to be more focused and committed to what they did best (run triangle, defend, rebound). F3P was more versatile in what they could do and was more willing to experiment more. Sometimes they were committed to the triangle, sometimes they just beat you on plain athleticism or let MJ do his thing. That happened in the S3P, but not as often. Because of that the S3P team didn't have as many lapses as the F3P team. But, I'd still go with the F3P team if forced to choose.
This sounds more like a preference than a determination on which team was better. You make it seem as if a team running their offense to perfection is a bad thing.

An for the life of me i cant figure out why you would say the first threepeat team was more versitle. As i stated earlier. All their players did the exact same thing outside of Jordan and Pippen. Thats not versitle. And their offense? More a product of inimprovisation. Jordan still had a tendancy to try to take matters into his own hand. He was more of a team player during the second threepeat.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

07-08-2012, 04:31 PM

Oh come on bro. He wasnt that far off to make that kind of determination.

I think you really underestimate peak Jordan, man. Swap '91-93 with 96-98 MJ and you still think Chicago beats Riley's Knicks? :confusedshrug:

Here are my top 5 Bulls teams:

'92
'96
'93
'97
'91

97 bulls

07-08-2012, 05:52 PM

I think you really underestimate peak Jordan, man. Swap '91-93 with 96-98 MJ and you still think Chicago beats Riley's Knicks? :confusedshrug:

Here are my top 5 Bulls teams:

'92
'96
'93
'97
'91
Absolutely. I mean, the knicks barely beat the Bulls without Jordan in 94.

Jordan FG% was higher during the first threepeat cuz he attacked the basket more. Seond threepeat Jordan took more jumpers and fadeaways in an effort to minimize tthe pounding and stamina loss. Not because he couldnt attack the basket anymore. Someone posted the Knicks scouting report on Jordan. The one thing that stood out to me was that in it, it said to make him a jumshooter. He only shot 41% on jumpers. This was prime Jordan (using your words). Second threepeat Jordan was primarily a jumpshooter. And shot a much better percentage on his jumpshots. Did you read that interview with John bach? To summarize, he said Jordan was more used in the post and a jumpshooter and did this to save energy. And that he wasnt really big on trying to dunk on everyone anymore. Not because he couldnt, but cuz it was no longer needed

As far as his defense, being able to use Ron Harper to defend the other players best perimeter players is a luxery. Jordan was still a great defender. They still were able to full court press a team and shut them down just look at what they did to Orlando in 96 and Indiana in 98. Jordan wasnt on the bench when the Bulls pressed. Jordan dominated a damn good and crafty and quick PG in Rod Strickland in 97.

The stamina thing is over blown. Like I stated earlier, in game 5 of the 93 finals, the Bulls coughed up a fourth quarer lead. The announcers said Jordan stated he got tired and couldnt finish. This was supposed to be prime (according to you) Jordan. Yes he got tired too. In game 6 of the 92 finals, Jackson sat jordan down cuz Jordan was gassed. Jordan was vehemently against joining the Dreamteam cuz he wanted to be able to rest from a tireing season. Yes Jordan got tired in his 20s too. Did he have as much stamina during the second threepeat? Perhaps not but it didnt matter cuz they had soo many guys that could take pressure and roles that those exploits werent needed. You had Harper, Brown, hell even Jud Buechler was an excellent man defender and athlete. Along with Jordan and Pippen.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

07-08-2012, 06:34 PM

Absolutely. I mean, the knicks barely beat the Bulls without Jordan in 94.

True, but the '92 and '93 Knicks were better teams. You raise valid points though (very good post btw). I just don't agree that '96-98 Jordan had the same impact '91-93 did. As you said, Mike in his 20's was a very good slasher and finisher. His playstyle put more pressure on defenses, whether it was fouling them out or finding shooters on the kick outs (FTP was also a better playmaker).

That bit on Jordan shooting 41% on his jumpers is a little disingenuous. I'm pretty sure that playbook was including his 3PT fieldgoals. I personally would love to see Mike's percentage from midrange during the first 3-peat. Way too many people underrate his shooting ability...you would think he was Lebron or something. :oldlol:

I'm a big fan of the '96-98 Bulls and I think the '96 and '97 teams would beat versions '91 and '93 on their best night. The biggest difference to me is Dennis Rodman and Pip. Worm didn't just pull down boards but also defended the oppositions best bigman. Guy was incredibly versatile. I loved his energy and electricity for STP. I think it was Jordan that said they wouldn't have won the second wave of titles without Rodman, or with Horace Grant. As for Pippen, dude was in his prime and helped Jordan by playing point forward orchestrating the Bulls offense.

Those two made STP dangerous. They're the main reason teams '91 and possibly '93 get eliminated in a 7 game series.

97 bulls

07-08-2012, 07:04 PM

True, but the '92 and '93 Knicks were better teams. You raise valid points though (very good post btw). I just don't agree that '96-98 Jordan had the same impact '91-93 did. As you said, Mike in his 20's was a very good slasher and finisher. His playstyle put more pressure on defenses, whether it was fouling them out or finding shooters on the kick outs (FTP was also a better playmaker).

That bit on Jordan shooting 41% on his jumpers is a little disingenuous. I'm pretty sure that playbook was including his 3PT fieldgoals. I personally would love to see Mike's percentage from midrange during the first 3-peat. Way too many people underrate his shooting ability...you would think he was Lebron or something. :oldlol:

I'm a big fan of the '96-98 Bulls and I think the '96 and '97 teams would beat versions '91 and '93 on their best night. The biggest difference to me is Dennis Rodman and Pip. Worm didn't just pull down boards but also defended the oppositions best bigman. Guy was incredibly versatile. I loved his energy and electricity for STP. I think it was Jordan that said they wouldn't have won the second wave of titles without Rodman, or with Horace Grant. As for Pippen, dude was in his prime and helped Jordan by playing point forward orchestrating the Bulls offense.

Those two made STP dangerous. They're the main reason teams '91 and possibly '93 get eliminated in a 7 game series.
So what makes the 92 team the best? Surely not because they played the 92 Knicks?

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

07-08-2012, 07:16 PM

So what makes the 92 team the best? Surely not because they played the 92 Knicks?

Short answer? Best combination of Jordan/Pippen. Better than any of the other title teams. It also didn't hurt to have Grant play the best season of his career (sans '94).

NumberSix

07-08-2012, 07:34 PM

The Knicks got jobbed in '92 against the Bulls

97 bulls

07-08-2012, 08:42 PM

Short answer? Best combination of Jordan/Pippen. Better than any of the other title teams. It also didn't hurt to have Grant play the best season of his career (sans '94).
I dont think there was much difference between Pippen in 92 or any other year between 92 and 97. I take that back. I do think Pippen became a different player from 94 on cuz he got to be the leader. He demanded respect and proved his worth. His status changed.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

07-08-2012, 08:53 PM

I dont think there was much difference between Pippen in 92 or any other year between 92 and 97. I take that back. I do think Pippen became a different player from 94 on cuz he got to be the leader. He demanded respect and proved his worth. His status changed.

I think you misunderstood me, 97. I'm not saying Pippen was better in '92 than he was from '94-98. To me, circa '92 was very close to his peak ('94-97) while Jordan was playing at a GOAT level. That's the difference.

From 1995-97, the Bulls had peak Pippen, but an out of prime Jordan (this is where we don't agree).

NugzHeat3

07-08-2012, 08:55 PM

One thing you guys aren't mentioning is that Pippen was always banged up come playoff time during the second three peat. It didn't effect him on defense but it did hurt and limit his offensive game a good bit.

StarJordan

07-08-2012, 09:18 PM

Hmm...

Johnny Pax > Steve Kerr
Horace Grant > Dennis
Ton Kukoc > Cliff Levingston
92 Jordan > 96 Jordan

On balance Gotta go with 92 Bulls as the winner in 7

StarJordan

07-08-2012, 09:19 PM

Oh....Chicago Stadium beats United Center

97 bulls

07-08-2012, 09:27 PM

I think you misunderstood me, 97. I'm not saying Pippen was better in '92 than he was from '94-98. To me, circa '92 was very close to his peak ('94-97) while Jordan was playing at a GOAT level. That's the difference.

From 1995-97, the Bulls had peak Pippen, but an out of prime Jordan (this is where we don't agree).
Which goes back to what Ive been saying for the longest. The only reason a person could ever choose the first threepeat Bulls over the second is the their feelings of Jordan. And theres nothing youve stated that would give an indication that Jordan was better besides a preference. And thats in spite of so many contrary povs. Most notably Jordan himself.
And thats kinda sad that you feel you know Jordan better than jordan himself.

97 bulls

07-08-2012, 09:33 PM

Hmm...

Johnny Pax > Steve Kerr
Horace Grant > Dennis
Ton Kukoc > Cliff Levingston
92 Jordan > 96 Jordan

On balance Gotta go with 92 Bulls as the winner in 7
Lol Horace Grant is better than Dennis Rodman the Hall of Famer? The greatest rebounder and defender ever? Shows how much you know.

Go look up who had the highest 3pt% career wise.

I have a feeling you know not much about the Bulls past Jordan was a great dunker.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

07-08-2012, 09:44 PM

Which goes back to what Ive been saying for the longest. The only reason a person could ever choose the first threepeat Bulls over the second is the their feelings of Jordan. And theres nothing youve stated that would give an indication that Jordan was better besides a preference. And thats in spite of so many contrary povs. Most notably Jordan himself.
And thats kinda sad that you feel you know Jordan better than jordan himself.

Aside from being in his physical prime and having a CLEAR statistical advantage? What else is there to say? I dont have a horse in this race. In fact, I like all said teams the same.

You're already taking shots at me, so lets just agree to disagree.

Duncan21formvp

07-08-2012, 09:48 PM

Lol Horace Grant is better than Dennis Rodman the Hall of Famer? The greatest rebounder and defender ever? Shows how much you know.

Go look up who had the highest 3pt% career wise.

I have a feeling you know not much about the Bulls past Jordan was a great dunker.

Rodman was 35-37 years old on the Bulls. Also Grant often times in 1992 and 1993 was 2nd on the team in win shares and ahead of Pippen.

97 bulls

07-08-2012, 09:53 PM

Rodman was 35-37 years old on the Bulls. Also Grant often times in 1992 and 1993 was 2nd on the team in win shares and ahead of Pippen.
Who cares how old Rodman was? If the man produced then he produced. Whenever the age excuse arises i always reply with this. Was Nolan Ryna 100 mile an hour fastball any easier to hit cuz he was 40?

Duncan21formvp

07-08-2012, 09:59 PM

Who cares how old Rodman was? If the man produced then he produced. Whenever the age excuse arises i always reply with this. Was Nolan Ryna 100 mile an hour fastball any easier to hit cuz he was 40?
Yeah but Grant produced more than Rodman.

97 bulls

07-08-2012, 10:02 PM

Aside from being in his physical prime and having a CLEAR statistical advantage? What else is there to say? I dont have a horse in this race. In fact, I like all said teams the same.

You're already taking shots at me, so lets just agree to disagree.
Im not taking shots at you bro. But you do have a horse in this Jordan race once you put your money on first threepeat jordan. Im the one saying neither was better than the other. But Id take a vet over athleticism anyday. Your the one acting as if jordan was a shell that needed to be carried or something.

Honestly, would you really try to argue with Jordan himself if he were to tell you he was only slightly quicker in his 20s when compared to his 30s?

97 bulls

07-08-2012, 10:03 PM

Yeah but Grant produced more than Rodman.
Then why isnt Grant in the hall of fame?

Duncan21formvp

07-08-2012, 10:06 PM

Then why isnt Grant in the hall of fame?
Rodman isn't in the hall of fame based on Chicago, he is based on Detroit. He was a 2x DPOY with Detroit and 2x allstar. He was nothing in Chicago.

97 bulls

07-08-2012, 10:11 PM

Rodman isn't in the hall of fame based on Chicago, he is based on Detroit. He was a 2x DPOY with Detroit and 2x allstar. He was nothing in Chicago.
Three championships and three reounding titles? The 72 wins? The all defense team? Dont be a fool

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

07-08-2012, 10:53 PM

Im not taking shots at you bro. But you do have a horse in this Jordan race once you put your money on first threepeat jordan. Im the one saying neither was better than the other. But Id take a vet over athleticism anyday. Your the one acting as if jordan was a shell that needed to be carried or something.

Honestly, would you really try to argue with Jordan himself if he were to tell you he was only slightly quicker in his 20s when compared to his 30s?

Not at all, I just don't think he was as good. There's a reason his '91-93 peak is regarded tops all-time. It took some of the VERY best individual performances from Jordan for the Bulls to advance and win titles.

31.2ppg, 6.6 rebs, 11.4 assists, 2.8 steals, 1.4 blocks, 56.64% FG, 50% 3FG
35.8ppg, 4.8 rebs, 6.5 assists, 1.7 steals, 0.33 blocks, 52.60% FG, 43% 3FG
41.0ppg, 8.5 rebs, 6.3 assists, 1.7 steals, 0.67 blocks, 50.08% FG, 40% 3FG

---------
His numbers vs the Lakers, Blazers and Suns. Are you really suggesting second threepeat Jordan could carry the load '91-93 did?

As for 'arguing' with Jordan himself? The guy thought Kwame Brown and Adam Morrison were franchise players. I don't take what players say as gospel.

97 bulls

07-09-2012, 12:12 AM

Not at all, I just don't think he was as good. There's a reason his '91-93 peak is regarded tops all-time. It took some of the VERY best individual performances from Jordan for the Bulls to advance and win titles.

31.2ppg, 6.6 rebs, 11.4 assists, 2.8 steals, 1.4 blocks, 56.64% FG, 50% 3FG
35.8ppg, 4.8 rebs, 6.5 assists, 1.7 steals, 0.33 blocks, 52.60% FG, 43% 3FG
41.0ppg, 8.5 rebs, 6.3 assists, 1.7 steals, 0.67 blocks, 50.08% FG, 40% 3FG

---------
His numbers vs the Lakers, Blazers and Suns. Are you really suggesting second threepeat Jordan could carry the load '91-93 did?

As for 'arguing' with Jordan himself? The guy thought Kwame Brown and Adam Morrison were franchise players. I don't take what players say as gospel.
How much of his performance can be directly attributed to the teams he played ability to play defense an style?

Take for instance the washington bullets he went up against in 97. He avg 37/6/6 on 63% shooting. They like the lakers and especially the suns were extremely suspect defensively. None of those teams were on the level defensively of the Sonics, Jazz (who also made it a point to eliminante any kind of easy transistion buckets, and kept the games in the half court), the Heat, Pacers and Hawks etc.

How many teams did the Bulls play during the first threepeat that really dedicated themselves to defense the way teams did during the second threepeat? Off the top? Only one. And that would be the knicks. And not the 91 knicks the bulls beat in the first round. Im talking about the 92 and even more the 93 knicks. Heres Jordan percentages vs the knicks in 93. 10/27, 12/32, 3/18, 18/30, 11/24, and 8/24 for 40%. Why did he shoot so bad? In my opinion it was because the knicks slowed the game down, and were commited to playing defense. Another point of emphasis in that knicks scouting report was to minimze easy transition buckets.

Honestly, the knicks were the only team that Id would consider to be a great defensive team that the bulls played in the early 90s. The Pistons were a great defensive team too, but they still tried to get out and run. Which allowed for the Bulls to runs too. He shot 47% vs the knicks in 92.

Like i said, there wasnt really much difference between the threepeat Jordans the facts bear it out

eliteballer

07-09-2012, 12:15 AM

96 Jordan was 90% of what first 3 peat Jordan was.

I think the 2nd threepeat teams executed better, while the 1st threepeat teams were more athletic.

97 bulls

07-09-2012, 12:51 AM

96 Jordan was 90% of what first 3 peat Jordan was.

I think the 2nd threepeat teams executed better, while the 1st threepeat teams were more athletic.
Really? Do you say this cuz of Jordans age? I jus dont see how anyone else was more athletic.

Harper>Armstrong
Pippen=Pippen
Rodman>Grant. Phil Jackson said Rodman was the most athletic player he ever coached
Longley>Cartwright
Kerr=Paxson
Kukoc>Levingston
B. Williams>S. Williams
Caffey>King
Wennington=Perdue
Buechler>Hanson
Brown>Tucker

I just dont see how or why people say the FTP Bulls were more athletic than the STP Bulls

eliteballer

07-09-2012, 12:54 AM

96 Jordan was 32 at the beginning of the season with 8 years of NBA ball on his legs, checkout these dunks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu-9-c2sUoY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1mcuyoOWB8&t=6m18s

He wasn't as athletic as before but he was stronger, better footwork, and a stronger fadeaway.

eliteballer

07-09-2012, 12:55 AM

Or checkout this play:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-tmEWkYINw&t=2m57s

97 bulls

07-09-2012, 01:07 AM

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

07-09-2012, 01:28 AM

How much of his performance can be directly attributed to the teams he played ability to play defense an style?

What about his performances being directly attributed....to being a better player? Yes, the Lakers and Suns defenses weren't the best - did they not make up for it offensively though? Those two teams ALONE were better than any team Jordan's second threepeat Bulls faced on offense.

It's a simple question, 97. And dude, please don't give me series' with a 3-game sample size...against an 8th seed. We're talking about stacked Lakers, Blazers and Suns teams. Powerhouses. I'll ask you again: replace '91-93 with '96-98 MJ, everything stays the same, would STP be as consistently dominant?

He shot 47% vs the knicks in 92.

How is that bad though? Their defensive rating was the exact same as the '92 Blazers, and Jordan shot 52% in that series.

The '96 Knicks, who were less talented than the '93 and '92 versions, held their opponents to about the same number of points per possession as the '92 Blazers and '92 Knicks (this isn't to say they were as good; still very effective though), and Jordan shot 44% against them.

:confusedshrug:

Mike didn't just save his good shooting series' vs bad defenses, 97. Far from actually.

97 bulls

07-09-2012, 03:10 AM

What about his performances being directly attributed....to being a better player? Yes, the Lakers and Suns defenses weren't the best - did they not make up for it offensively though? Those two teams ALONE were better than any team Jordan's second threepeat Bulls faced on offense.

It's a simple question, 97. And dude, please don't give me series' with a 3-game sample size...against an 8th seed. We're talking about stacked Lakers, Blazers and Suns teams. Powerhouses. I'll ask you again: replace '91-93 with '96-98 MJ, everything stays the same, would STP be as consistently dominant?

How is that bad though? Their defensive rating was the exact same as the '92 Blazers, and Jordan shot 52% in that series.

The '96 Knicks, who were less talented than the '93 and '92 versions, held their opponents to about the same number of points per possession as the '92 Blazers and '92 Knicks (this isn't to say they were as good; still very effective though), and Jordan shot 44% against them.

:confusedshrug:

Mike didn't just save his good shooting series' vs bad defenses, 97. Far from actually.
I used washington as an example of how he faired vs a team that wasnt much on defense. Which is my point. Jordan FTP stats were gaudy. But why? Off cousr he was great. But why did he play so bad offensive vs the knicks? The only team that would be considered to be on par defensively to the Heat in 97, the the Sonics, the Jazz, and Pacers. And thats your point isnt it? If he was still great or as great he wouldnt have shot such a bad %. Even though granted i believe he shot 47% against Utah in 97. My rebutal is that whne he played against aa team similar to a mid 90s team in the knicks he shot just as bad if not worse.

And I fail to see how the suns or lakers being better than the bullets helps your argument. Were referring to these teams defensively that it. Not them as a whole.

And to answer your qustion, yes I absolutely feel mid 90s Jordan would been able to replace early 90s Jordan and that team not miss a beat. The proof is that they beat the knicks in 92 in spite of Jordan shooting 40%. And they barely lost to the knicks in seven games without Jordan. When he did play against sub par defenses he was right on par with early 90s Jordan. And I know you feel the knicks of 94 were as good as 92 or 93, but I disagree. The Knicks were much deeper in 94.

Like i stated earlier, jordan wasnt that much different. And the stats show it

OldSchoolBBall

07-09-2012, 12:01 PM

He shot 47% vs the knicks in 92.

No, he shot 48% (47.7% rounds to 48%, not down to 47%). And even that was really due to one poor shooting game. Here's how he shot in each game:

12-23 (52%)
12-24 (50%)
12-24 (50%)
12-26 (46%)
11-23 (48%)
9-25 (36%)
15-29 (52%)

97 bulls

07-09-2012, 02:11 PM

No, he shot 48% (47.7% rounds to 48%, not down to 47%). And even that was really due to one poor shooting game. Here's how he shot in each game:

12-23 (52%)
12-24 (50%)
12-24 (50%)
12-26 (46%)
11-23 (48%)
9-25 (36%)
15-29 (52%)
Lol ok. Remember this post. Cuz im gonna use it against you soon.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

07-09-2012, 02:40 PM

I used washington as an example of how he faired vs a team that wasnt much on defense.

And I fail to see how the suns or lakers being better than the bullets helps your argument. Were referring to these teams defensively that it. Not them as a whole.

That series only went 3 games and the Bullets were a freaking 8th seed, man.

Second threepeat Jordan preserved himself by shooting jumpshots. Why you ask? The answer to that is the very same reason he wouldn't be able to carry FTP's offense without losing some effectiveness.

Again, STP shot 44% against a less talented '96 Knick team. They allowed the same points per possession as the '92 Blazers and '92 Knicks - and FTP tore those defenses up. Why do you think that is?

Which is my point. Jordan FTP stats were gaudy. But why? Off cousr he was great. But why did he play so bad offensive vs the knicks?

Of all the teams Chicago faced in the playoffs, '92 New York and Portland were among the best defenses Jordan took on - and he murked them. Unless you think shooting 48% is inept? I'm not really sure why you're ignoring that MJ played with a f*cked up wrist for the majority of that '93 series (extended through the month of May: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-05-14/sports/9305140130_1_bulls-fans-john-hefferon-bench).

We'll never agree, so this is my last post on the topic.

Was FTP that much better than STP? No. As a matter of fact, STP was more skilled. The difference is, FTP was consistently effective and stronger against the elite defenses.

97 bulls

07-09-2012, 04:18 PM

That series only went 3 games and the Bullets were a freaking 8th seed, man.
For same reason you just can seem to grasp that im not comparing the Bullets and lakers,blazer/suns as a team overall. IM COMPARING THEIR DEFENSIVE ABILITY ONLY

Second threepeat Jordan preserved himself by shooting jumpshots. Why you ask? The answer to that is the very same reason he wouldn't be able to carry FTP's offense without losing some effectiveness.
Let me guess, stamina right? And you keep posting this even though Ive given you three documented instances in which fatigue from Jordan cost the Bulls a game during the FTP. Game 5 of 93, games 6 of 92, and Jordans reluctance to join the Dreamteam due to his wanting to be able to recuperate.

Again, STP shot 44% against a less talented '96 Knick team. They allowed the same points per possession as the '92 Blazers and '92 Knicks - and FTP tore those defenses up. Why do you think that is?
Because as Ive stated earlier, the mid 90s teams just didnt run. Especially the Knicks. They exclusively and intentionly slowed the games down and preached halfcourt defense. Even more than the knicks in 92. And whats with this infatuation witht the 92 knicks? They won 50 games and were a 4th seed.

Of all the teams Chicago faced in the playoffs, '92 New York and Portland were among the best defenses Jordan took on - and he murked them. Unless you think shooting 48% is inept? I'm not really sure why you're ignoring that MJ played with a f*cked up wrist for the majority of that '93 series (extended through the month of May: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-05-14/sports/9305140130_1_bulls-fans-john-hefferon-bench).
Then perhaps youd like to explain why the hand only effected him against the knicks. Cuz he abused Phoenix. Not to mention its also well documented that he played with torn ligaments in his shooting hand the whole season of 98 and kept the Bulls at thetop of the East while Pippen was hurt. But you havnt cut him any slack.

We'll never agree, so this is my last post on the topic.

Was FTP that much better than STP? No. As a matter of fact, STP was more skilled. The difference is, FTP was consistently effective and stronger against the elite defenses.
The last paragraph of you post is all ive been saying. This began when you said the 92 Bulls were the best team in your opinion. When I asked why, you said because FTP Jordan was better. I disagreed but added that even if he was better, the difference isnt that big to overcome the sheer dominance the rest of the STP Bulls would have over the FTP Bulls.

And, as you stated, he was probably more skilled and had a slightly better jumpshot during the second threepeat. Add that with the fact he was stronger and Id say that more than makes up for any lost athleticism. Sure his stats werent as gaudy but how much of that can be directly attributed to the teams he played ability to play defense, the style of the league (no fast break), and him not having to be superhuman due the Bulls personnel.

And dont get me wrong. Sometimes Jordan just played bad. I dont have a reasonreal for everything. And surethe he lostdidnt some athleticismof due to age. But not enough to tilt a FTP/STP matchup to the FTP side