Was there ANY point during any of the Bulls' 6 Finals series where..

[coolhandsteve]

You thought/said to yourself, "IDK if they can pull this one off"? Or where the media said that?

[russwest0]

Nope. As my great grandpa observed during game 6 in their 1997 final series vs the Jazz: "He who has Michael Jordan wins the ball game."

[Fudge]

Goat.

[eurobum]

1991 Lakers were favorites to win. Was too young to remember, though.

1998 Jazz were also favorites. After they won game 1 there were some serious doubters. I believed, doe.

:bowdown: YAHWEH

[Roundball_Rock]

During the finals? No. The Lakers were considered favorites going into the Finals in 91' (odd since the Lakers were in the Finals via upsetting the favored Blazers and Chicago had the better record and steamrolled through the East, including a sweep of the Pistons in the ECF) and Utah in 98'. In the Finals, though, they were never seriously at risk like they were in the 92' ECSF, 93' ECF and 98' ECF.

[kshutts1]

During the finals? No. The Lakers were considered favorites going into the Finals in 91' (odd since the Lakers were in the Finals via upsetting the favored Blazers and Chicago had the better record and steamrolled through the East, including a sweep of the Pistons in the ECF) and Utah in 98'. In the Finals, though, they were never seriously at risk like they were in the 92' ECSF, 93' ECF and 98' ECF.

This. In the Finals, no. But over the course of those respective seasons, hell yes.

[Soundwave]

'98 Jazz. I wasn't sure if they could pull that one out. It looked fairly dire by game 6.

Lakers were finished after game 3, probably really even after that game 2 monster run punctuated by the famous right to left hand layup.

[kshutts1]

'98 Jazz. I wasn't sure if they could pull that one out. It looked fairly dire by game 6.

Lakers were finished after game 3, probably really even after that game 2 monster run punctuated by the famous right to left hand layup.
? The Bulls were up 3-2 going into game 6... they had two more chances to win the title.

[Soundwave]

? The Bulls were up 3-2 going into game 6... they had two more chances to win the title.

Both games in Utah, with Utah up in game 6 late and Scottie Pippen barely able to play.

[scandisk_]

The finals no, but the road to the finals were pretty scary esp Indy in 98 :mad:

[I<3NBA]

perhaps the first championship. at that point, MJ had a lot of doubters.

but after the 3peat, no one doubted the Bulls with MJ in the finals.

[Stringer Bell]

I had doubts during the 1991 postseason, because it was the first one. Going into the Detroit series and especially after game 1 of the Finals against the Lakers. And then late in game 3 when it looked like L.A. would go up 2-1.

1993 vs. Knicks when they were down 2-0 without HCA.

I actually didn't see the game 7 against Indiana 1998 when it happened, but I'm sure I would have doubts during the game that they would win. They were even behind by 3 midway in the 4th quarter.

In the finals against Utah, it looked like they had it after game 3, winning 96-54. But in game 6? Pippen's back was greatly diminishing his play, Rodman really didn't play all that well throughout the postseason, Jordan looking exhausted and ice cold in the 2nd half (he missed 13 of 17 shots before the final 40 seconds)...there was definitely doubts there. Utah had HCA, it's always tough to win a game 7 on the road.

Chicago got some breaks during that game too. That obviously blown shot clock call on Howard Eisley which took away 3 pts from Utah, the shot that Ron Harper got credit for where it looked like he was a fraction too late on the shot clock. Utah was up 2 with a minute left and had the ball, Stockton got open and took a 3 and it was just a little short. If he makes that shot, it's hard to see them coming back from 5 within a minute.

[ballinhun8]

98 road was hard.


Indy series was as tough as they come. Ref letting Reggie to push off Mike, that was a touch pill to swallow.


And when you lose Game 1 in the Finals, its always tough. Sure we tied it up and destroyed them in Game 3 but not being able to close at home was concerning at the time. They had momentum for the next two games. And like some posters have said, Scottie wasn't fully healthy, Rodman was struggling, and we were losing late in the game and Stockton made a HUGE shot with less than a minute to go in Game 6.

[Roundball_Rock]

perhaps the first championship. at that point, MJ had a lot of doubters.

but after the 3peat, no one doubted the Bulls with MJ in the finals.

A lot of people in fact did. In 98' the Jazz were favorites. It was a very logical position to take. They had dismantled the Lakers in a 4-0 sweep in the WCF. Keep in mind this was when the Lakers had four all-stars (Kobe was voted in but he was already a productive player by this point). Unfortunately for them, only Shaq showed up for the WCF. Meanwhile, the Bulls had barely escaped a 7 game ECF against the Pacers. Given that the 97' Finals was so competitive and the Bulls had declined while the Jazz remained stable it was expected by most that the Jazz would win. The reason they didn't was largely because the Jazz's #1 offense was held in check, including the legendary Game 3 where Utah was held to 54 points. No one could have predicted that type of defensive dominance entering the series.

In 91' the Bulls were unproven, which created some doubts, but they had their best postseason run that year (15-2). Only 96' comes close (15-3 after the Bulls started to slack off in the Finals after going up 3-0). People always mention the 92' team as the best team of the first three-peat--and arguably the best Bulls team ever. Yes, they did go 67-15 but in the playoffs they lost 3 games in the ECSF and 2 games each in the ECF and Finals--and were headed to a Game 7 in the Finals before a legendary fourth quarter comeback with Pippen and four reserve players (they were down 17 with 13 minutes to go and 15 heading into the final quarter). If that didn't happen--and how often does a bench plus one starter erase that kind of 4th quarter lead in a playoff game--there was going to be a Game 7.

[ProfessorMurder]

Dem 93 Knicks.

[j3lademaster]

'98 finals when Pippen had back issues. I think seeing the job Rodman did on Malone with Pippen sitting a lot or unable to perform 100% solidified Rodman's (well deserved) reputation as an all-time elite man defender.

[Roundball_Rock]

Regarding 98', since it is being mentioned a lot, keep in mind Pippen got hurt late in the series. They had taken a 3-1 series lead before Pippen started having issues (Pippen had a legendary defensive series until his back problems). So any vulnerability based on Pippen's health was only after they already had a 3-1 lead (which meant the Bulls were 7-3 in the Finals against Utah at that point). What were the odds the Jazz would win 3 straight to take the series? I was not really worried after Game 4.

[Soundwave]

They were losing very late in game 6, game 7 would've been in Utah, not sure if Pippen could even play.

And then you-know-what happens.

Was super relieved after that, I think my neighbours heard me yelling like crazy when MJ hit the shot over Russell to ice it.

I couldn't believe it.

[mehyaM24]

do people think the bulls beat the lakers with (older) kareem and healthy scott/worthy? just curious.

[Soundwave]

do people think the bulls beat the lakers with (older) kareem and healthy scott/worthy? just curious.

The additions of Perkins + Divac honestly made up for the player that Kareem was late in his career.

Lakers were a good team. Bulls just wrecked them.

Jordan wasn't 100% in the 91 Finals either.

Worthy played well in the first three games on the series ... Chicago was still up 2-1 and really IMO all the momentum was going their way by then.

[Nikola_]

1993 Ecf

[Crystallas]

92 and 93

[andgar923]

The Bulls were def underdogs according to the media in some series. Some of the Knicks series, the Pacers, the Finals vs Lakers and Jazz, Orlando series, the Hornets (when Mj came back I believe).

As a fan i was weary of some teams that's for sure. There's been times during series in which I lost all hope.

But GOAT gonna GOAT.

[tontoz]

You thought/said to yourself, "IDK if they can pull this one off"? Or where the media said that?


They were down big (maybe 15) in the 4th against the Blazers in Game 6. Game 7 was in Portland. Jackson pulled Jordan out and looked like he was conceding the game.

Then the Bulls bench went on a run getting it down to maybe 5. Then Jordan came back in and finished off the comeback.

[mehyaM24]

The additions of Perkins + Divac honestly made up for the player that Kareem was late in his career.

for 87 and 88 kareem? i dont think so. the lakers chemistry with cap was just TOO good. perkins was a big disappointment in LA imo, and divac, for the most part, always under-achieved with the lakeshow(NVE/Jones/Peeler/Campbell/Magic etc)

i believe the 88 and 89 lakers with healthy magic thrash chicago in 5-6 games. the bulls never played an offense like the lakers.

[mehyaM24]

They were down big (maybe 15) in the 4th against the Blazers in Game 6. Game 7 was in Portland. Jackson pulled Jordan out and looked like he was conceding the game.

Then the Bulls bench went on a run getting it down to maybe 5. Then Jordan came back in and finished off the comeback.

game 7 was NOT in portland. idiot.

[Soundwave]

for 87 and 88 kareem? i dont think so. the lakers chemistry with cap was just TOO good. perkins was a big disappointment with LA imo, and divac, for the most part, always under-achieved with the lakeshow(NVE/Jones/Peeler/Campbell/Magic etc)

i believe the 88 and 89 lakers with healthy magic thrash chicago in 5-6 games. the bulls never played an offense like the lakers.

If the Pistons gave the Lakers problems, the Bulls who eventually became better than the Pistons would too.

Defence > offence in a 7 game playoff series, we've seen that over and over again.

Divac averaged 18.2 ppg/8 rpg and Perkins averaged 16.6 and 7 rpg in the 1991 Finals, by that time they more than replaced Kareem's production.

Perkins was great for LA in 91, not sure what you're talking about.

[mehyaM24]

If the Pistons gave the Lakers problems, the Bulls who eventually became better than the Lakers would too.

Defence > offence in a 7 game playoff series, we've seen that over and over again.

Divac averaged 18.2 ppg/8 rpg and Perkins averaged 16.6 and 7 rpg in the 1991 Finals, by that time they more than replaced Kareem's production.

Perkins was great for LA in 91, not sure what you're talking about.

its more than just stats. perkins also shot 40% in the finals, missing key looks from magic. vlade's defense was very poor and basically let BOTH jordan and pippen waltz in the lane AT WILL (also remember hearing a radio broadcast from stu lantz and chick hearn, via youtube, where they criticied vlade's defense saying he wasn't playing any).

unlike most people here, ive watched the series. neither of them could replace the chemistry and intangibles kareem provided.

4/5 of the games in the 91 finals were close. a healthy scott/worthy(missed each a game) and 88 - 89 kareem would be great.

[SamuraiSWISH]

You thought/said to yourself, "IDK if they can pull this one off"?

- 1993 ECF, down 0 - 2 to the Knicks who were near undefeated @ home.

- 1997 NBA Finals game 5, Flu Game. Bleak road ahead.

- 1998 ECF, Bulls were looking old, and out of gas.

- 1998 NBA Finals, game 6 w/ Pippen all but done.

But, GOAT gonna stay GOATING

[Roundball_Rock]

They were losing very late in game 6, game 7 would've been in Utah, not sure if Pippen could even play.

And then you-know-what happens.

Was super relieved after that, I think my neighbours heard me yelling like crazy when MJ hit the shot over Russell to ice it.

I couldn't believe it.

All true but even then it was a close game. It wasn't as if they were down significantly in Game 6. What made it tough is Utah would have to win 3 straight. Even by Game 6, they would have had to hold onto a small lead and then win again in Game 7. That is always unlikely, although it was possible given the circumstances. I can see how some might have been worried, though, given those circumstances. I just felt the odds were in the Bulls favor due to needing only 1 win.


do people think the bulls beat the lakers with (older) kareem and healthy scott/worthy? just curious.

Do you mean 1987-1989 KAJ or KAJ when he was old but still elite? If you mean post-elite KAJ I think the Bulls would still win. The Lakers were not great that year. The Blazers had the league's best record and were expected to make the Finals. They did so in the previous year and then started the following year 19-1. A lot of championship teams back then, and this is still true although to a lesser degree today (since teams can make progress more quickly via free agency versus having to do so gradually via the draft and small trades), had come close before finally winning. Portland and Chicago were two teams that fit that bill in 1991.


They were down big (maybe 15) in the 4th against the Blazers in Game 6. Game 7 was in Portland. Jackson pulled Jordan out and looked like he was conceding the game.

Yeah it was 15--but Game 7 would have been in Chicago. Jackson was not conceding, though. He was doing what he usually did: pull one of Jordan or Pippen and leave the other in with the bench unit while the other rested. He kept MJ on the bench longer than usual because the unit was playing so well and he didn't want to interrupt it but it wasn't because he thought they were done.


The Bulls were def underdogs according to the media in some series. Some of the Knicks series, the Pacers, the Finals vs Lakers and Jazz, Orlando series, the Hornets (when Mj came back I believe).


:coleman:

The Bulls were the favorites in every Knicks series except 94', in which the Knicks were small favorites (in 93' the Knicks had HCA but they had won only 3 more games--60 versus 57--and lacked the championship pedigree the Bulls had and the Bulls were coming off sweeping the East's third best team, the 54 win Cavs, in the ECSF.), the Pacers series, the 96' Orlando series and the 95' Charlotte series. Even in 95' a lot of people thought the Bulls would beat the Magic. After all, the Bulls had closed the season 21-6 and were 13-4 with MJ. They were comparable to the Magic in terms of record for the final third of the season. Plus there was the "GOAT gonna GOAT" factor. The Bulls in the previous year with Horace Grant were one phantom foul call away from the ECF and, as most observers felt, the Finals. So you lose Grant but add the GOAT (MJ had 32/7/5 on 48% in the 95' playoffs--better numbers than in any of the subsequent 3 playoff runs) it was logical to assume the team would perform better in the playoffs. A lot of people made that assumption.

Their problem was they got demolished on the boards since they lacked a PF to rebound. If they played the Pacers in the ECSF they likely would have won. Orlando just matched up well with Chicago and had the personnel in Shaq and ironically Grant himself to badly expose the Bulls' lack of a rebounder or interior defender. This is why the Bulls were desperate enough to gamble on the then-toxic Rodman the following year.

[kamil]

1998. I still have newspaper clippings from that series where the media was saying the Bulls were the underdogs.

MJ had other plans.

[L.A. Jazz]

1998
Both games in Utah, with Utah up in game 6 late and Scottie Pippen barely able to play.
during game 6 the Bulls looked like they were done. Rodman tried everything against Malone but Antoine Carr looked like a Malone twin and the bulls had no second Rodman. a great game with a terrible end for the Jazz.

[mehyaM24]

Do you mean 1987-1989 KAJ or KAJ when he was old but still elite? If you mean post-elite KAJ I think the Bulls would still win. The Lakers were not great that year. The Blazers had the league's best record and were expected to make the Finals. They did so in the previous year and then started the following year 19-1. A lot of championship teams back then, and this is still true although to a lesser degree today (since teams can make progress more quickly via free agency versus having to do so gradually via the draft and small trades), had come close before finally winning. Portland and Chicago were two teams that fit that bill in 1991.

yup. old, but still elite kareem, via 87-89.

i think the bulls STILL beat the lakers without kareem and healthy scott/worthy in 7 games.

with kareem those years? not a chance. cap is the GOAT bigman.

[Soundwave]

The teams that scared me during the Bulls run were

The '93 Knicks

The '93 Suns (mega hype as the team of destiny and all that BS)

The '95 Magic.

The '96 Magic.

The '98 Pacers.

The '98 Jazz.

'92 Blazers was kinda iffy. Everyone and their grandma was trying to push that narrative that Clyde was basically as good as Jordan and was going to show it in the Finals. That pretty much went out the window before half time of game 1 :oldlol:

Winning in that threepeat year is always f*cking hard, there's a reason why so many teams fail at it.

[mehyaM24]

The Bulls were the favorites in every Knicks series except 94'

^someone that watched 90s ball. with their CORE still intact, from 91-on, they were favored in every series they played in. '98 was shaky for the bulls because pippen played on a bad back, but going into the playoffs, they were very much favored.

[SamuraiSWISH]

The teams that scared me during the Bulls run were

The '93 Knicks

The '93 Suns (mega hype as the team of destiny and all that BS)

The '95 Magic.

The '96 Magic.

The '98 Pacers.

The '98 Jazz.
Co-sign.

I was more frightened by the '98 Jazz because of how they unexpectedly gave us a fight in 1997. If MJ doesn't take over in Utah w/ the Flu / Food Poisoning we lose that game. I was nervous.

We decimated the '98 Jazz prior to game 5 taking things easy, and before Pippen's injury. Things only got real for me in that series during game 6 when Pippen was nonexistent.


'92 Blazers was kinda iffy. Everyone and their grandma was trying to push that narrative that Clyde was basically as good as Jordan and was going to show it in the Finals. That pretty much went out the window before half time of game 1 :oldlol:
35 in 15 minutes on him? Out shooting the 3 ball that Clyde spoke, and considered himself better at? Missing half the second quarter putting up 6x 3's in a half in a total blow out? Yea. MJ squashed that lunacy within the first half.


Winning in that threepeat year is always f*cking hard, there's a reason why so many teams fail at it.
Yup. It requires things beyond the physical (LeBron) or skill (Kobe) to accomplish.

[Soundwave]

Knicks had a lot of hype in '93. When they went up 2-0 in the series, everyone wrote Chicago off.

To be honest I thought that was it too, I remember coming back from the grocery store with my parents and watching tail end of the '93 ECF thinking "well ... that's it, guess there won't be a threepeat".

People started to hype a Knicks-Suns Finals.

[Stringer Bell]

Even in 95' a lot of people thought the Bulls would beat the Magic. After all, the Bulls had closed the season 21-6 and were 13-4 with MJ. They were comparable to the Magic in terms of record for the final third of the season. Plus there was the "GOAT gonna GOAT" factor. The Bulls in the previous year with Horace Grant were one phantom foul call away from the ECF and, as most observers felt, the Finals. So you lose Grant but add the GOAT (MJ had 32/7/5 on 48% in the 95' playoffs--better numbers than in any of the subsequent 3 playoff runs) it was logical to assume the team would perform better in the playoffs. A lot of people made that assumption.

Their problem was they got demolished on the boards since they lacked a PF to rebound. If they played the Pacers in the ECSF they likely would have won. Orlando just matched up well with Chicago and had the personnel in Shaq and ironically Grant himself to badly expose the Bulls' lack of a rebounder or interior defender. This is why the Bulls were desperate enough to gamble on the then-toxic Rodman the following year.

I agree.

Much is made of Jordan being rusty from baseball, and not enough about their weakness at the 4 spot. Grant provided rebounding and interior defense. You didn't get that from Kukoc. You got offense from him.

Jordan shot poorly during the 17 games of the regular season, but he picked it up during the postseason. People often forget how athletic and explosive Jordan still was in the 95' playoffs.

He is said to have not been in "basketball shape" as he fatigued in games. That might have been true, but he also didn't have an extra 65 regular season games on his legs. He fatigued in other games in future postseasons. It happens, especially when you are in your mid 30s.

Jordan made some key turnovers late in games 1 and 6. It definitely cost them game 1. With a solid player at the 4 spot, perhaps the games wouldn't have been so close that they were in that position, or maybe Jordan could conserve a bit of energy.

[GODbe]

Team was way too stacked for that. Sure, maybe some of the media called them the "underdogs" but that's only so Jordan would be far more overrated when they won.

[mehyaM24]

1998
during game 6 the Bulls looked like they were done. Rodman tried everything against Malone but Antoine Carr looked like a Malone twin and the bulls had no second Rodman. a great game with a terrible end for the Jazz.

absolutely. i think the bulls would have taken care of utah pretty quick had pippen played healthy. for the first 4 games or so, pippen was actually the favorite for FMVP. his defense in that series was THAT good.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635114/What-about-Pippen-for-NBA-Finals-MVP.html?pg=all

[Soundwave]

I still can't believe the '98 Finals game 6.

Sooooooooooo damn delicious.

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/So-Good-James-Franco-In-Spider-Man-3.gif

I literally couldn't even write it any better. To finish that third threepeat like that, I couldn't ask for anything better.

My favorite thing about it is there's that famous shot of Jordan about to hit the game winning shot and if you look in the background, you will see like 98% of Utah fans in the background, but you'll see this ONE typical looking Chicago dude with his son on his shoulders who has this giant goofy smile on his face, as if he knows exactly what's coming.

So funny.

[mehyaM24]

some great perspective to the 98 finals:


But if Pippen's defensive performance in Game 3 didn't convince you that he's worthy of being named MVP of the Finals, then what he did on both ends of the court in the Bulls' 86-82 Game 4 victory should have clinched the vote.

Pippen impressed Jerry Sloan.

"He was sensational," said the Jazz's coach.

After scoring just 10 points in Sunday's record-setting shellacking, Pippen was even more efficient offensively than Jordan Wednesday at the United Center. He scored 28 points on 9-of-18 shooting overall and went five-for-eight from beyond the arc. Jordan needed 27 shots from the floor and 15 from the free-throw line to get his total.

Pippen, who is much healthier now than he was a year ago in the Finals, carried the Bulls' offensive yolk for much of the first half. In the first quarter, he scored six of the Bull's first eight points by swishing two 3-pointers. He also crashed the glass early on, grabbing three offensive rebounds in the first three minutes. At one point, Pippen had three offensive boards while the Jazz were still waiting for their first rebound to fall in their hands.

He ended the first quarter and opened the second with a personal 8-0 run by nailing a trey, hitting an inside shot and then drilling another 3-pointer to give Chicago a 26-19 lead. Bryon Russell interrupted his scoring exhibition with a three, but Pippen kissed a banker off the glass on the Bulls' next possession. That concluded his one-man shooting show.

At that point, with 9:32 left in the second quarter, Pippen had scored 16 points and grabbed four rebounds - and he threw in one steal for good measure.

"He did a terrific job getting in the open court, pulling up and taking the 3-point shots, and got in a great rhythm," Sloan said. "We had a difficult time trying to guard him."

And that was just half the court.

"Defensively, he puts tremendous pressure on you. . . . He caused us a lot of problems, I think everybody is aware of that. We're aware of it," Sloan said. "We have trouble with him every time we play. And I don't know what more you can say. You can put him on any player on the floor, and he's going to do a terrific job defensively."

That versatility amazes ESPN basketball expert Dr. Jack Ramsay, a longtime coach in the NBA. Ramsay ranks Pippen among the outstanding defenders in the history of the game. Right there with K.C. Jones, Mel Hutchins, Satch Sanders and so on.

"I can't conjure up anybody who does all the things that Pippen does as a defender. I mean, he can defend anybody," Ramsay said. "We've seen him defend point guards and take them out of their game, two guards and deny them a shot, small forwards, big forwards. The only player that I haven't seen him defend well is the opposing center. I think he'd have a hard time with Shaq."

But the Jazz obviously don't have Shaq. And, for that matter, they don't have a dominating player right now - not even Malone, in part because of the suffocating defensive pressure the gangly, athletic 6-foot-7 Pippen and his teammates have been applying.

"Scottie has done a lot in terms of relieving some of the pressure off of me," said Jordan. "Defensively, he's the key component for us. He's a recovery. And we give him the authority to do whatever he wants on the defensive end . . . He can disrupt anybody's offense, really. And tonight was a great example of that."

pippen taking the bull by the horns :bowdown:

[Stringer Bell]

its more than just stats. perkins also shot 40% in the finals, missing key looks from magic. vlade's defense was very poor and basically let BOTH jordan and pippen waltz in the lane AT WILL (also remember hearing a radio broadcast from stu lantz and chick hearn, via youtube, where they criticied vlade's defense saying he wasn't playing any).

unlike most people here, ive watched the series. neither of them could replace the chemistry and intangibles kareem provided.

4/5 of the games in the 91 finals were close. a healthy scott/worthy(missed each a game) and 88 - 89 kareem would be great.

It would have been interesting. Kareem took a big drop from the 86/87 season to 87/88, and then 88/89. He did still made some big plays in 88', particularly making those two FTs in game 6 after the controversial foul on Laimbeer. That showed the confidence they had in Kareem to go to him in that situation despite him having an awful shooting game.

I still think we missed out on a potential classic finals in 89' due to injuries. While on one end, it seemed like it may have been that "this is the Pistons' year" feel to it, the Lakers were on fire on their 3-peat quest and went 11-0 in the WC playoffs.

Apparently, going into the finals, Riley held practices that was basically a short mini-camp, and they were so intense and grueling that their bodies couldn't take it and led to key injuries. Obviously they weren't gonna win it without Magic, and yet games 2 and 3 still went down to the wire.

Just to add, 3 out of the 5 games in 91' were close. Games 1, 3 (OT), and 5. Games 2 and 4 turned into routs in the 3rd quarter.

[Soundwave]

http://www.kicksonfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/air-jordan-14-xiv-original-og-final-last-shot-black-black-varsity-red-10.jpg

You can see the Chicago guy clutching his son to the left of MJ, I think they're literally the only Bulls fans in the shot, but he's got this giant hopeful look on his face and all the other fans look like they're about to get shot. :oldlol:

I love the Utah fans that know what's coming too. So good.

[JohnnySic]

Many thought the Suns would win in '93.

Also, some had Portland in '92. That lasted all of one half. :oldlol:

[Soundwave]

Many thought the Suns would win in '93.

Also, some had Portland in '92. That lasted all of one half. :oldlol:

It was soooooo funny the day after that game, all the people who had been licking Drexler's balls for months trying to say they were just kidding. :oldlol:

[mehyaM24]

It would have been interesting. Kareem took a big drop from the 86/87 season to 87/88, and then 88/89. He did still made some big plays in 88', particularly making those two FTs in game 6 after the controversial foul on Laimbeer. That showed the confidence they had in Kareem to go to him in that situation despite him having an awful shooting game.

I still think we missed out on a potential classic finals in 89' due to injuries. While on one end, it seemed like it may have been that "this is the Pistons' year" feel to it, the Lakers were on fire on their 3-peat quest and went 11-0 in the WC playoffs.

Apparently, going into the finals, Riley held practices that was basically a short mini-camp, and they were so intense and grueling that their bodies couldn't take it and led to key injuries. Obviously they weren't gonna win it without Magic, and yet games 2 and 3 still went down to the wire.

Just to add, 3 out of the 5 games in 91' were close. Games 1, 3 (OT), and 5. Games 2 and 4 turned into routs in the 3rd quarter.

the lakers were at their very best in 89.

we as fans got robbed though. you're right about that.

anyway. here are some highlights to pippen's masteful game 4. easily the best player in this game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3FNYoY2kaE

dude was a shoe-in for FMVP if not for his damn back. shame.

[Roundball_Rock]

yup. old, but still elite kareem, via 87-89.

i think the bulls STILL beat the lakers without kareem and healthy scott/worthy in 7 games.

with kareem those years? not a chance. kareem is the GOAT bigman.

I assume you meant KAJ from 1982-1986, when he was past his prime but still an elite player (he was all-NBA first team over Hakeem, Moses and Ewing in 86' while being top 5 in MVP voting--all at ages 38/39 :bowdown: ). Yeah, if you add KAJ circa 1982-1986 to Magic, who was runner-up MVP that year (remember, the Lakers collapsed to 43-39 and losing in the first round without Magic there to make the players better--look at their shooting percentages with and without Magic) it probably goes 7 games. I would bet on the Lakers' experience relative to the young Bulls in 91' if you add 82'-86' KAJ and a healthy Worthy/Scott.


The '93 Knicks

The '93 Suns (mega hype as the team of destiny and all that BS)

The '95 Magic.

The '96 Magic.

The '98 Pacers.

The '98 Jazz.


The Magic were the one team I feared during the 72-10 season. The Bulls would have won anyway, but Grant going down made the ECF a cakewalk. The Magic had so much talent with Shaq, Penny, Grant and even Anderson, Scott they had a puncher's chance in any series.


^someone that watched 90s ball. with their CORE still intact, from 91-on, they were favored in every series they played in. '98 was shaky for the bulls because pippen played on a bad back, but going into the playoffs, they were very much favored.

The only series they were clear underdogs were:

91' Finals
98' Finals

That is it. Even in 91' it was more because of the mystique of Magic and the inexperience of the Bulls. In retrospect it was absurd because the Bulls were the better team all year and showed that in the series.

The series in which they were slight favorites/slight underdogs were:

93' ECF
94' ECSF
95' ECSF

They were favorites going into the 93' ECF, nominal underdogs in the 94' ECSF. The 95' ECSF was split. As noted, they had closed the year 21-6 (a 62 win pace--Orlando won 60 that year). People want to re-write history but a lot of people at the time thought the Bulls would win. They finished the year strong (13-4 with MJ), added the GOAT to a 5th-6th place team and the Bulls the previous year were contenders. So, among major changes, you lose Grant and add the GOAT. It was perfectly logical to assume that the Bulls with MJ, without Grant would have more playoff success than the Bulls with Grant, without MJ did. Many people make that assumption. It didn't happen, for reasons noted earlier, but the idea that the Bulls were expected to get trounced by Orlando is convenient revisionism.


35 in 15 minutes on him? Out shooting the 3 ball that Clyde spoke, and considered himself better at? Missing half the second quarter putting up 6x 3's in a half in a total blow out? Yea. MJ squashed that lunacy within the first half.

MJ did but Drexler was playing on a bum knee so it isn't as if Drexler could respond. MJ, though, performed at a level that Drexler could not at any point in his career reach.


The '93 Suns (mega hype as the team of destiny and all that BS)

They barely got out the WCF (7 games to a Sonics team with a young Payton and Kemp), though.


Knicks had a lot of hype in '93. When they went up 2-0 in the series, everyone wrote Chicago off.

That is true--but what team that takes a 2-0 lead does not then become the expected winner? Going into the series the Bulls were favored.

Hype is a key word. The Knicks were the #1 seed in the East (60 wins) but let's remember that same crew won 57 in 94' and 55 in 95'. At no point were they ever viewed as dominant or heavy favorites. Even the following year against the MJ-less Bulls they were only slight favorites and they had 7 games series against Indiana in both 94' and 95' and against Chicago in 94' (as well as a 7 game Finals in 94'). They weren't as good as the hype they got because of where they played.


Much is made of Jordan being rusty from baseball, and not enough about their weakness at the 4 spot. Grant provided rebounding and interior defense. You didn't get that from Kukoc. You got offense from him.

Jordan shot poorly during the 17 games of the regular season, but he picked it up during the postseason. People often forget how athletic and explosive Jordan still was in the 95' playoffs.

Great points. They actually toyed with putting Larry Krystowiak (however you spell his name) as the starting PF in desperation. By the end of the Orlando series Pippen was moved to PF because Grant was going off, not just by rebounding and playing defense but by scoring. Phil Jackson believed Grant was a choker under pressure and defended him lightly; Grant was averaging around 20 ppg :oldlol: as a result until Pippen was switched onto him.



He is said to have not been in "basketball shape" as he fatigued in games. That might have been true, but he also didn't have an extra 65 regular season games on his legs. He fatigued in other games in future postseasons. It happens, especially when you are in your mid 30s.

Great points. Pippen also was getting fatigued at the end of those same games. They simply had to do too much--they were the team's top rebounders :lol among their other responsibilities. The "rust" argument was always odd. MJ played as much in 95' as he did in 86' and we know what MJ did in the playoffs in 86'. In 95' he put up 32/7/5 on 48%--numbers superior to what he did in each of the next 3 postseasons.


Jordan made some key turnovers late in games 1 and 6.

True--and to be fair the entire team had a meltdown in the final 3 minutes of Game 6 (they had an 8 point lead). I remember MJ making some key mistakes but Pippen missed a close tip in and Longley a key lay up.

[JohnnySic]

It was soooooo funny the day after that game, all the people who had been licking Drexler's balls for months trying to say they were just kidding. :oldlol:
Yep. :oldlol: The "shrug" game. And Drexler was never the same after that series.

[Soundwave]

Orlando honestly didn't know how good they were. That's what scared me about them.

Their coach was a moron too.

The 96 Magic would wreck the NBA today.

[Soundwave]

Yep. :oldlol: The "shrug" game. And Drexler was never the same after that series.

The sh*t Jordan did in the Finals was ridiculous. It doesn't even seem real, it's like a movie script that someone wrote, things aren't supposed to work out that perfectly in real life.

Every ... single ... time in the 90s where I thought "well OK, maybe MJ isn't going to bring it this year" he'd exceed my expectations.

After 95 I thought it would be nice if they could win one more title for old time's sake, lol.

[mehyaM24]

speaking of the 91 finals, check out the defensive clamps, scottie put on magic:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/media/bulls/pippen_magic_1991.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf1KPq0yi40

oh and also dropped 20pts/10ast :bowdown:

[JohnnySic]

The sh*t Jordan did in the Finals was ridiculous. It doesn't even seem real, it's like a movie script that someone wrote, things aren't supposed to work out that perfectly in real life.


The 1993 playoffs and Finals were rediculous. Remember the "if I could be like Mike" commercials? They were literally releasing one after every game, with Jordan's highlights from that very game. It was more like a running sitcom rather than a sports event.

I guess it was easy to find highlights given that MJ averaged something like 41 ppg in those finals.

[juju151111]

Mj took a dump on drexler that whole series.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Bulls were legit underdogs:

'91 Finals
'93 ECF
'93 Finals
'98 Finals

Bulls were doubted:

'92 ECSF
'92 Finals
'98 ECF

[Soundwave]

The 1993 playoffs and Finals were rediculous. Remember the "if I could be like Mike" commercials? They were literally releasing one after every game, with Jordan's highlights from that very game. It was more like a running sitcom rather than a sports event.

I guess it was easy to find highlights given thatMJ averaged something like 41 ppg in those finals.

I have to kinda admit I kinda wanted the Suns to win that series, just because I had a friend who was super annoying about the threepeat stuff.

Of course there was no way of knowing that Jordan would retire after that season. That was stunning.

[Stringer Bell]

some great perspective to the 98 finals:



pippen taking the bull by the horns :bowdown:

Loved Pip's defense throughout that postseason (and just in genera).

Pippen's performance of game 1 against Indiana like the best example of stats not truly showing a player's value.

His stat-line was awful. Watch the game and you see how much of an impact he made with his defense.

Also gotta give him much props for having the guts to take charges on the fast break from Karl Friggin Malone.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Bulls could've beat Orlando in 1995, without Horace even if MJ had been there building rapport with the squad the entire season. He raised his game significantly from 27 ppg on 41% to like 32 ppg on 48% in the post season. Was the last season he had true explosion too. Multiple dunks on Orlando's bigs. He just had a bit of rust, and wind issues sustaining pretty spectacular performances v.s. Orlando for the entire game. Series was still close regardless. MJ gift wrapped a layup for Longely in game 6 he blew that could've extended the series to 7 games.

[Stringer Bell]

It was soooooo funny the day after that game, all the people who had been licking Drexler's balls for months trying to say they were just kidding. :oldlol:

:oldlol: at the idea of Drexler being Jordan's equal.

[Soundwave]

Bulls could've beat Orlando in 1995, without Horace even if MJ had been there building rapport with the squad the entire season. He raised his game significantly from 27 ppg on 41% to like 32 ppg on 48% in the post season. Was the last season he had true explosion too. Multiple dunks on Orlando's bigs. He just had a bit of rust, and wind issues sustaining pretty spectacular performances v.s. Orlando for the entire game. Series was still close regardless. MJ gift wrapped a layup for Longely in game 6 he blew that could've extended the series to 7 games.

If he had come back around the time of the All-Star break of pre-trade deadline and the Bulls had the option of adding an extra rebounding big ... yeah they probably beat Orlando that year.

Jordan's timing was just a little off, so was his conditioning. Sometimes he would explode for a monster dunk ala pre retirement MJ (dunked on Shaq pretty good) but other times you could see he wasn't getting his usual lift. Especially late in games.

The Magic were pretty damn good though.

[Stringer Bell]

I assume you meant KAJ from 1982-1986, when he was past his prime but still an elite player (he was all-NBA first team over Hakeem, Moses and Ewing in 86' while being top 5 in MVP voting--all at ages 38/39 :bowdown: ). Yeah, if you add KAJ circa 1982-1986 to Magic, who was runner-up MVP that year (remember, the Lakers collapsed to 43-39 and losing in the first round without Magic there to make the players better--look at their shooting percentages with and without Magic) it probably goes 7 games. I would bet on the Lakers' experience relative to the young Bulls in 91' if you add 82'-86' KAJ and a healthy Worthy/Scott.



Maybe I'm just being too stats-based as I didn't follow the 85/86 season when it happened (I have seen many of the playoff games but not regular season), but how did Kareem make first-team All-NBA center that season? Did they just get so used to Kareem making it that they voted for him again?

Kareem put up 23.4 pts, 6.1 rebs, 3.5 asst, 1.6 blk per game, on 56.4% FG, while playing alongside the best PG in the game in Magic, who finished 3rd in MVP voting. 6 rebounds a game for a starting center.

Hakeem averaged 23.5 pts, 11.5 rebs, 2 asst, 2 stl, 3.4 blk on 52.6% FG.



Hype is a key word. The Knicks were the #1 seed in the East (60 wins) but let's remember that same crew won 57 in 94' and 55 in 95'. At no point were they ever viewed as dominant or heavy favorites. Even the following year against the MJ-less Bulls they were only slight favorites and they had 7 games series against Indiana in both 94' and 95' and against Chicago in 94' (as well as a 7 game Finals in 94'). They weren't as good as the hype they got because of where they played.


Yes, I agree with the Knicks getting overhyped because of the big city, New York-factor. Even now, when people look back on the 90s Knicks, we often hear the "they would have won titles but had the bad luck of being around the same with with Michael Jordan & the Bulls".

The only Knicks team that the Bulls eliminated that were championship-quality was 93', and MAYBE, 92'. It's far from a guarantee that they beat Phoenix in the finals. I wouldn't pick either team with any confidence.

1989: Knicks aren't getting past the Pistons. I doubt the Cavs (the year of Jordan over Ehlo) would have gotten past Detroit either.

1991: Knicks were a .500 team, 8th seed.

1992: MAYBE the Knicks could have gotten past the Cavs and then beaten Portland in the Finals. I wouldn't have bet on it. The Knicks would have been underdog.

1996: Not a championship-caliber team.



Great points. They actually toyed with putting Larry Krystowiak (however you spell his name) as the starting PF in desperation. By the end of the Orlando series Pippen was moved to PF because Grant was going off, not just by rebounding and playing defense but by scoring. Phil Jackson believed Grant was a choker under pressure and defended him lightly; Grant was averaging around 20 ppg :oldlol: as a result until Pippen was switched onto him.


That reminds me, Krystowiak's career went downhill after a serious knee injury because of that POS Bill Laimbeer. I've never seen the play, but Krystowiak claims that Laimbeer pushed him which led to him falling and tearing his knee. An article in Sports Illustrated (I think the one with Laimbeer on the cover with that whiny 'what do I do?' face), says that he actually just panicked because he figured Laimbeer would do something dirty, and then he fell and tore his knee.

Anyway, in one book I read (I think Second Coming by Sam Smith), Larry was giving guys advice during a practice scrimmage. Jordan screams at him "What do you know? You have no legs and never play, who are you to give advice!!!"".

I was rewatching some games during the 95' playoffs, Horace Grant had that mid-range jump shot down. He killed Chicago in a couple of games with it and kept Orlando in a couple of the games against Houston with it too.



Great points. Pippen also was getting fatigued at the end of those same games. They simply had to do too much--they were the team's top rebounders :lol among their other responsibilities. The "rust" argument was always odd. MJ played as much in 95' as he did in 86' and we know what MJ did in the playoffs in 86'. In 95' he put up 32/7/5 on 48%--numbers superior to what he did in each of the next 3 postseasons.


There is a noticable difference in his explosiveness and leaping ability from when he first came back, to just 2 months later. It's interesting, in his first game back against Indiana, and then 3rd game against Orlando, it almost looked like he was struggling to get high enough to dunk. Two months later it was quite a change. During one instance against Orlando in the playoffs, I think the 3rd game, Jordan had the ball and was getting pressured by the defense, I think he was doubled. He went back to nearly half-court, split the defense, and drove and soared high for a dunk.

I think Jordan made the conscious decision in the summer of 95' to strengthen up some more and be more post-oriented. He already had the post-game and fadewaway in his arsenal for years, but he tweaked and refined it a bit as I'm sure he knew he'd have to rely on it more.



True--and to be fair the entire team had a meltdown in the final 3 minutes of Game 6 (they had an 8 point lead). I remember MJ making some key mistakes but Pippen missed a close tip in and Longley a key lay up.

Yeah, that Longley one was pretty bad. One of the books, I think "Second Coming" which I mentioned above, said that Jordan would always tell Longley to dunk on those close shots instead of laying it in. Then here you see why.

[Soundwave]

The Knicks had the best record in the East in '93 and were basically supposed to be the second coming of the Bad Boy Pistons. Plus they were coached by Riley who most people considered to be the GOAT coach.

That and they almost did beat the Bulls in '92.

The refs also IMO let them get away with a lot of questionable defence ... lets just put it that way. You wouldn't be able to do some of that stuff against a superstar player today.

When they went up 2-0 in '93, everyone thought the Bulls were done for.

Jordan was also playing with an injured shooting wrist throughout the 93 playoffs.

[Roundball_Rock]

Pippen's performance of game 1 against Indiana like the best example of stats not truly showing a player's value.

His stat-line was awful. Watch the game and you see how much of an impact he made with his defense.


Yeah his defense during the 98' playoffs reached a level of dominance that has probably never been matched by a perimeter defender. :bowdown:


Bulls were legit underdogs:

'91 Finals
'93 ECF
'93 Finals
'98 Finals

Bulls were doubted:

'92 ECSF
'92 Finals
'98 ECF

Look at the team records in those series.

1991 Finals: CHI 61-15, LAL 58-24
1992 ECSF: CHI 67-15, NYK 51-31
1992 Finals: CHI 67-15, POR 57-25
1993 ECF: NYK 60-22, CHI 57-25
1993 Finals: PHX 62-20, CHI 57-25
1998 ECF: CHI 62-20, IND 58-24
1998 Finals: CHI 62-20, UTA 62-20

The Bulls had the better record in nearly every series. When they didn't, they were close. They were only 3 off of NY in 93' and 5 off of PHX--and this was as the defending two-time champs. They were never big underdogs.

The only series where the 1991-1993/1996-1998 Bulls did not go in with the better record were the 93' ECF and 93' Finals. That is it. Two series in six years.


Maybe I'm just being too stats-based as I didn't follow the 85/86 season when it happened (I have seen many of the playoff games but not regular season), but how did Kareem make first-team All-NBA center that season? Did they just get so used to Kareem making it that they voted for him again?


It wasn't because they were used to voting for him. KAJ was on the second team the previous year behind Moses and was behind Moses in other years in the 80's. He was just that good. KAJ's numbers were not indicative of how good he was because he was on a stacked team. Yeah, he put up 23.4 ppg on "Showtime" but it would have been more on most teams.


Even now, when people look back on the 90s Knicks, we often hear the "they would have won titles but had the bad luck of being around the same with with Michael Jordan & the Bulls".

The only Knicks team that the Bulls eliminated that were championship-quality was 93', and MAYBE, 92'. It's far from a guarantee that they beat Phoenix in the finals. I wouldn't pick either team with any confidence.

Exactly. They were contenders in 94', 95', 97', 99' and 00' and lost to a team other than the Bulls. The 1992-1995 team was different than the 1997-2000 team, though, but the fact is the 90's Knicks were the 90's Pacers: perennial contenders who could never win. The difference is one played in New York and the other in Indianapolis. In every era there will be several perennial contenders who ultimately never win (i.e. the Kings or Suns for the 2000's). In the 90's it was the Knicks, Pacers, Jazz and Sonics.


1989: Knicks aren't getting past the Pistons. I doubt the Cavs (the year of Jordan over Ehlo) would have gotten past Detroit either.

1991: Knicks were a .500 team, 8th seed.

1992: MAYBE the Knicks could have gotten past the Cavs and then beaten Portland in the Finals. I wouldn't have bet on it. The Knicks would have been underdog.

1996: Not a championship-caliber team.

I agree. They were not a championship caliber team in 89', 91', 96' or, for that matter, 90' and 98'. People always point to 92' but I highly doubt they would have won that year. They were a 51 win team in 92' and would have had to beat a 57 win Cavs team in the ECF and then the 57 win Blazers. They also had no relevant playoff experience at the time. It is hard to win a title without significant playoff experience.


That reminds me, Krystowiak's career went downhill after a serious knee injury because of that POS Bill Laimbeer. I've never seen the play, but Krystowiak claims that Laimbeer pushed him which led to him falling and tearing his knee. An article in Sports Illustrated (I think the one with Laimbeer on the cover with that whiny 'what do I do?' face), says that he actually just panicked because he figured Laimbeer would do something dirty, and then he fell and tore his knee.


Yeah the 80's Pistons were a disgrace. It is disgusting they get lionized these days.


Larry was giving guys advice during a practice scrimmage. Jordan screams at him "What do you know? You have no legs and never play, who are you to give advice!!!"".

Now that is real leadership. :bowdown:



I was rewatching some games during the 95' playoffs, Horace Grant had that mid-range jump shot down. He killed Chicago in a couple of games with it and kept Orlando in a couple of the games against Houston with it too.


Yeah he was great in the playoffs that year. Against Chicago was on a mission. :oldlol: His teammates carried him off in celebration when Orlando won.


The Knicks had the best record in the East in '93

By 3 games. That is like saying the Suns in 07' were better than the 07' Spurs because the Suns won 3-4 more games. Look at the Heat in the 11' and 14' ECF's. They had the inferior record, but due to their championship pedigree and their top players, they were favored over the Bulls and Pacers.

[Soundwave]

By virtue of having the best player in the game you are automatically going to be the favorite in a lot of match ups, that's usually the first thing most people look at.

The "Bulls are slipping" narrative was a fairly popular one though for both of their threepeat years.