1998 Los Angeles Lakers vs. 1998 Chicago Bulls in a best of 7 series

[Lebron23]

The Jazz swept the Lakers in the western conference finals, but styles makes fight.

The Lakers and Bull series ended at 1-1 in the regular season. Bulls beat the Lakers in their first match up 104 to 83 while Lakers beat the Bulls 112 to 83 in their final match up.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199712170CHI.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199802010LAL.html


http://www.movieposterskey.com/postersimages/michael-jordan-kobe-bryant-1998-action.jpg

[Jlamb47]

The Jazz swept the Lakers in the western conference finals, but styles makes fight.

The Lakers and Bull series ended at 1-1 in the regular season. Bulls beat the Lakers in their first match up 104 to 83 while Lakers beat the Bulls 112 to 83 in their final match up.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199712170CHI.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199802010LAL.html


http://www.movieposterskey.com/postersimages/michael-jordan-kobe-bryant-1998-action.jpg

Young Kobe getting his buckets in low minutes.

[ballinhun8]

No one is bearing MJ in the Finals.


NO. ONE.

[The_Pharcyde]

Bulls, that lakers team wasn't mature enough yet to knock off the Bulls, supremely talented but the maturation phase was still in the process

[Element]

I don't think Chicago would've been able to deal with Shaq over a 7 game series. Not in 1998. Plus, LA had a bevy of offensive firepower.

It'd certainly be close but I give the Lakers the edge. Maybe lack of experience could hurt them, though. who knows

[fpliii]

No one is bearing MJ in the Finals.


NO. ONE.
:facepalm

[Solidape]

Bulls, that lakers team wasn't mature enough yet to knock off the Bulls, supremely talented but the maturation phase was still in the process


Bulls had Phil Jackson, Lakers had Del Harris.......seems like an easy enough answer.

And this is coming from a Laker fan, maybe if they didn't trade Eddie jones and Cedric Ceballos and Nick Van Exel, they would have been better.

[Da_Realist]

This would have been a good series. The Lakers had all the advantages needed to knock the Bulls off (youth, athleticism, dominant center, wings good enough to keep MJ and Pippen busy and honest, etc) except the maturity and discipline to beat Chicago over a seven game series.

The two biggest advantages Chicago had over everyone was heart and head. You had to kill them to beat them and you had to outsmart them. The more Chicago played against you the more they zeroed in on your weaknesses. It would have happened against the Lakers who, though talented, were not mature enough to be disciplined for more than a few quarters at a time or focused enough to magnify any physical advantages they would have had. They would have more than likely gotten in each others way. And that's not to mention their fragility emotionally. They were ready to blow and I think Chicago would have pushed enough buttons to make it happen.

[L.Kizzle]

I don't think Chicago would've been able to deal with Shaq over a 7 game series. Not in 1998. Plus, LA had a bevy of offensive firepower.

It'd certainly be close but I give the Lakers the edge. Maybe lack of experience could hurt them, though. who knows
I think so, Kobe wasn't Kobe yet and who cares about Eddie Jones and Van Exel come playoff time.

For this reason alone, the 97 Rockets would have beaten the Bulls. Who was gonna contain Hakeem? And you got Drexler and Barkley to top it off. I'd take them plus Kevin Willis over Jones, Van Exel and Kobe.

[Myth]

If the question is: Would the Lakers have beat the Bulls? This is a stupid question.

If the question is: Could the Lakers have won a game or 2? Sure, they may have stole 1 or 2.

[jayfan]

I don't think Chicago would've been able to deal with Shaq over a 7 game series. Not in 1998. Plus, LA had a bevy of offensive firepower.

It'd certainly be close but I give the Lakers the edge. Maybe lack of experience could hurt them, though. who knows

The Bulls had plenty of stiffs to throw fouls at Shaq. Not an issue.




.

[choppermagic]

The Bulls never faced a dominant center in their Final runs and Shaq would have been a handful. However, as others have said, the lakers were not ready yet. The Bulls maturity would have grinded out a series win against the Lakers i think overall.

Now, put the 99-00 Lakers against that same Bulls and it would have been a knock-out war, with the lakers on top.

[L.Kizzle]

The Bulls never faced a dominant center in their Final runs and Shaq would have been a handful. However, as others have said, the lakers were not ready yet. The Bulls maturity would have grinded out a series win against the Lakers i think overall.

Now, put the 99-00 Lakers against that same Bulls and it would have been a knock-out war, with the lakers on top.
They faced a dominant center in the conference finals in Ewing.

[JT123]

No one is bearing MJ in the Finals.


NO. ONE.
Great argument. You sure convinced me. :applause: :facepalm
The second regular season meeting, in which the Lakers blew out the Bulls, is much more indicative of how a series would have gone. The Bulls only won the first meeting that year because Shaq didn't play. The Bulls never had any answers for Shaq in those days, and the Lakers had him surrounded with young talent and elite 3 point shooters. Lakers would likely have won that series in 6 games.

[Da_Realist]

For this reason alone, the 97 Rockets would have beaten the Bulls. Who was gonna contain Hakeem? And you got Drexler and Barkley to top it off. I'd take them plus Kevin Willis over Jones, Van Exel and Kobe.

The 98 Bulls or 97 Bulls? The Rockets had no shot against the 97 Bulls. I don't think they'd beat the 98 Bulls either but definitely not the 97 Bulls.

[JT123]

They faced a dominant center in the conference finals in Ewing.
I swear Ewing becomes more overrated with each passing year. Comparing his impact to that of prime Shaq? Really? :oldlol:

[TheMan]

Great argument. You sure convinced me. :applause: :facepalm
The second regular season meeting, in which the Lakers blew out the Bulls, is much more indicative of how a series would have gone. The Bulls only won the first meeting that year because Shaq didn't play. The Bulls never had any answers for Shaq in those days, and the Lakers had him surrounded with young talent and elite 3 point shooters. Lakers would likely have won that series in 6 games.
:facepalm
You're actually basing this off regular season games:no: :oldlol:

So when the Rose Bulls would regularly merk LeBeron's Heat in the regular season, why didn't that translate to in the playoffs:confusedshrug:

You can't judge a playoffs match ups to regular season games, they are two totally different beasts, if I need to explain this then all I can say is, welcome to NBA basketball n00b :oldlol: The whole game planning, atmosphere and intensity is on whole other level.

The Bulls would beat those Lakers 5, now the 00-03 Lakers, that would've been a fun series to watch but the 98 Bulls weren't their best version either. 96 Bulls beat any version of the Shaq/Kobe Lakers.

[TheMan]

I swear Ewing becomes more overrated with each passing year. Comparing his impact to that of prime Shaq? Really? :oldlol:
The Bulls smashed Shaq in 96:confusedshrug:

[JT123]

:facepalm
You're actually basing this off regular season games:no: :oldlol:

So when the Rose Bulls would regularly merk LeBeron's Heat in the regular season, why didn't that translate to in the playoffs:confusedshrug:

You can't judge a playoffs match up to regular season games, they are two totally different beasts, if I need to explain this then all I can say is, welcome to NBA basketball n00b :oldlol:
The only year in which Rose's Bulls "merked" Lebron's Heat in the regular season was during Miami's first year together. And even so I would hardly call winning 3 games by a combined 5 points merking someone. :lol Totally different scenario.
When the Bulls played the Shaq led Lakers they would struggle to even keep the games competitive. In Jordan's last 2 seasons in Chicago he lost 2 of 3 games against Shaq's team, with both loses being blow outs. His one win against Shaq's Lakers was kind of fluky as the Lakers blew a 20 point 4th quarter lead and lost in overtime. Those Laker teams just had too many match up advantages against the Bulls. :confusedshrug:

[Da_Realist]

Great argument. You sure convinced me. :applause: :facepalm
The second regular season meeting, in which the Lakers blew out the Bulls, is much more indicative of how a series would have gone. The Bulls only won the first meeting that year because Shaq didn't play. The Bulls never had any answers for Shaq in those days, and the Lakers had him surrounded with young talent and elite 3 point shooters. Lakers would likely have won that series in 6 games.

Playoffs are a much different animal than the regular season. Reg season is for the young guys trying to prove themselves. The Bulls were pacing themselves for the "real" season. The Lakers clearly cared more about those reg season matchups than the Bulls did. The 98 Jazz beat the Bulls both times in the reg season and then got smashed by 54 points in the Finals.

Playoffs favor intelligence and strategy more than emotion. Tough to beat a team on emotion four out of seven games. Especially a two time defending champion let by Michael Jordan. Precision, focus, discipline is more important than youth, athleticism and energy. The Jazz proved that by sweeping the Lakers in 98.

[TheMan]

The only year in which Rose's Bulls "merked" Lebron's Heat in the regular season was during Miami's first year together. And even so I would hardly call winning 3 games by a combined 5 points merking someone. :lol Totally different scenario.
When the Bulls played the Shaq led Lakers they would struggle to even keep the games competitive. In Jordan's last 2 seasons in Chicago he lost 2 of 3 games against Shaq's team, with both loses being blow outs. His one win against Shaq's Lakers was kind of fluky as the Lakers blew a 20 point 4th quarter lead and lost in overtime. Those Laker teams just had too many match up advantages against the Bulls. :confusedshrug:
Did you check Miami/Bulls regular season record since 2011? They are essentially tied. The Bulls have managed to beat the Heat without Rose and some starters at times:confusedshrug:

My point is and everyone here at ISH basically agrees, it's tough judging how a series will go by RS games, they do not resemble playoffs game in the least. Whole different game planning, minutes management, player match ups etc...

You're basing the outcome of how a Finals series would go by a game the Bulls lost to the Lakers in February through a West Coast swing :oldlol:

[TheMan]

Playoffs are a much different animal than the regular season. Reg season is for the young guys trying to prove themselves. The Bulls were pacing themselves for the "real" season. The Lakers clearly cared more about those reg season matchups than the Bulls did. The 98 Jazz beat the Bulls both times in the reg season and then got smashed by 54 points in the Finals.

Playoffs favor intelligence and strategy more than emotion. Tough to beat a team on emotion four out of seven games. Especially a two time defending champion let by Michael Jordan. Precision, focus, discipline is more important than youth, athleticism and energy. The Jazz proved that by sweeping the Lakers in 98.
Yeah, apparently having Ostertag was that much of a difference that the Jazz smashed the Lakers but the Bulls wouldn't be able to :oldlol:

[Jay-B]

I actually remember that year before the conference finals started, hoping to see a Bulls/Lakers finals. Too bad the Jazz swept LA, it would of been very entertaining but I think it would of been Bulls 4-2....Lakers were way too young.

[SamuraiSWISH]

The Bulls never faced a dominant center in their Final runs
Yea, I know.

Besides:

Shaq - '96
Ewing - '91, '92, '93, '96
Mourning - '95, '97
Mutombo - '97

[JT123]

Yea, I know.

Besides:

Shaq - '96
Ewing - '91, '92, '93, '96
Mourning - '95, '97
Mutombo - '97
:facepalm Mourning and Mutombo were defensive players. Calling them dominant is laughable.

[guy]

The Jazz swept the Lakers in the western conference finals, but styles makes fight.



The Jazz destroyed them. What exactly was the advantage they had over the Lakers that the Bulls wouldn't have had?

Bulls would've easily beaten them.

[Legends66NBA7]

Mourning and Mutombo were defensive players.

Mourning wasn't just a defensive player. He was a 20/10 player for 6-7 seasons.

[DonDadda59]

Is this a serious question? :lol

The Bulls wax them even worse than Utah did and the Jazz brought out the brooms on them. That Lakers team was fun to watch, but nowhere near that level. And are people acting like there's really a difference between '96 Shaq who the Bulls shit on and '98 Shaq who the Jazz shit on that would make the difference in a Bulls-Lakers series? :biggums:

[DonDadda59]

Bulls would toy with them.. they were just on another level vs their competition.

It was a weak (expansion) era in general and the league finally picked up sometime in the early 2000's (thanks to players and teams maturing).

:oldlol:

Early 2000s was the worst era for basketball since the 70s. Back to back finals appearances for the Nets? :roll:


2001 Lakers, any version of the LeBron's Heat, and the 2014 Spurs would demolish the 98 Bulls.

'01 Lakers were a fluke team, they were ranked 21st in defense and were dysfunctional during the regular season because of Bean and Shaq's diva antics. They just got hot at the right time. And you really think a team that lost to the Mavericks is beating the Bulls? '14 Spurs were taken to 7 by an 8 seed. :yaohappy:

[Asukal]

Bulls would toy with them.. they were just on another level vs their competition.

It was a weak (expansion) era in general and the league finally picked up sometime in the early 2000's (thanks to players and teams maturing).

2001 Lakers, any version of the LeBron's Heat, and the 2014 Spurs would demolish the 98 Bulls.

:biggums:

You wish. :oldlol:

I swear kids are getting more and more stupid with the passing of time. :facepalm :oldlol:

[SamuraiSWISH]

:facepalm Mourning and Mutombo were defensive players. Calling them dominant is laughable.
Mourning could play some offense. But wait just defenders ... aren't you the same breed of LeStan that props up Roy Hibbert for his defensive impact down low? Mourning, and Mutombo take a steaming dump on him in those regards. Still MJ went through Ewing, and Shaq. It doesn't get better than that ...

[dreamwarrior]

The Bulls were a better team no question, but the Lakers overachieved so much that season. They had a 45-50 win team, not a 61 win team. It's no longer the Jazz swept them.

[SamuraiSWISH]

The Bulls were a better team no question, but the Lakers overachieved so much that season. They had a 45-50 win team, not a 61 win team. It's no longer the Jazz swept them.
But Shaq also missed a ton of games, was lazy, and still at that point an unmotivated leader. That Laker team was totally a 60 caliber win team given the amount of talent, and size on that team. Shaq by that point was the best player in the league with a 35 year old Jordan winding down.

[JT123]

Is this a serious question? :lol

The Bulls wax them even worse than Utah did and the Jazz brought out the brooms on them. That Lakers team was fun to watch, but nowhere near that level. And are people acting like there's really a difference between '96 Shaq who the Bulls shit on and '98 Shaq who the Jazz shit on that would make the difference in a Bulls-Lakers series? :biggums:
:facepalm Shaq dominated both of those teams, especially the Jazz in 98. But much like Lebron in this year's Finals, he was basically playing 1 on 5. :no:

[SamuraiSWISH]

But much like Lebron in this year's Finals, he was basically playing 1 on 5.
Karma for the Heat having to go 4 on 5 in 2011.

[dreamwarrior]

But Shaq also missed a ton of games, was lazy, and still at that point an unmotivated leader. That Laker team was totally a 60 caliber win team given the amount of talent, and size on that team. Shaq by that point was the best player in the league with a 35 year old Jordan winding down.
Shaq was the only guy who shot over 20ppg. Elden Campbell was their #2 and Kobe was only putting up 15ppg. This was the IDGAF team.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQUyi4ldnmo

[3ball]

No one is beating Jordan in the Finals.. No one.


:facepalm
Why is this comment facepalm worthy???

A facepalm reaction (as if the comment is completely ludicrous) makes it seems as if someone DID beat him in the Finals or that Jordan WASN'T thoroughly dominant anytime he needed to be in the Finals....

Didn't Michael Jordan come through virtually 100% of the times his team needed it in the Finals?

Is this not true?.... So why would that comment be facepalm-worthy (ridiculous)?
.

[3ball]

Another thing - why is there any notion at all that a dominant big man would give the Bulls problems?

The Bulls defeated NUMEROUS all-time great centers - Shaq/Penny... Ewing's Knicks who showed they were championship-level by snap-making the Finals both times Jordan retired in 94' and 99'.... and Riley's 61-win Alonzo Mourning/Tim Hardaway team that was rated 2nd in the league defensively.

This idea that the Bulls would have trouble with bigs is amazingly illogical and has ZERO basis - if it DOES have any basis, please explain what that basis is.

As if Ostertag (that swept the Lakers) has any advantage over Luc Longley... he's at a disadvantage actually - he only gets to play with Stockton/Malone instead of MJ/Scottie.
.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Why is this comment facepalm worthy???

A facepalm reaction (as if the comment is completely ludicrous) makes it seems as if someone DID beat him in the Finals or that Jordan WASN'T thoroughly dominant anytime he needed to be in the Finals....

Didn't Michael Jordan come through virtually 100% of the times his team needed it in the Finals?

Is this not true?.... So why would that comment be facepalm-worthy (ridiculous)?
.
Yea, I didn't quite understand that reaction either. Sometimes fpliii can be really logical, other times it seems like praise for the one player who deserves it ... where myth is the reality, upsets him then he makes an illogical emotional reaction. Probably the bitterness of being a Laker fan, knowing the greatest ever played elsewhere. Spoiled brats Laker fan are.

[ballinhun8]

Why is this comment facepalm worthy???

A facepalm reaction (as if the comment is completely ludicrous) makes it seems as if someone DID beat him in the Finals or that Jordan WASN'T thoroughly dominant anytime he needed to be in the Finals....

Didn't Michael Jordan come through virtually 100% of the times his team needed it in the Finals?

Is this not true?.... So why would that comment be facepalm-worthy (ridiculous)?
.


Future repped.

[guy]

Anyone that thinks the 98 Lakers would've won must've not been watching the NBA at the time. Lakers were clearly a very talented team, but were extremely hot-headed and immature. No one watching at the time would've picked them over the Bulls. Barely anyone was even picking them over the Jazz.

[fpliii]

Didn't Michael Jordan come through virtually 100% of the times his team needed it in the Finals?
Not saying he wouldn't. As a matter of fact, I'd expect him to in any series. I think they beat the 98 Lakers season handily, but it's silly to act as if there are no circumstances under which MJ's team loses a Finals.
Yea, I didn't quite understand that reaction either. Sometimes fpliii can be really logical, other times it seems like praise for the one player who deserves it ... where myth is the reality, upsets him then he makes an illogical emotional reaction. Probably the bitterness of being a Laker fan, knowing the greatest ever played elsewhere. Spoiled brats Laker fan are.
:oldlol: No way brah, not bitter. MJ is probably the best ever, and if he isn't, it's a Celtic, not a Laker. But disagreeing with the bolded doesn't make me illogical or a hater. Just means I'm of a different opinion.

I give Jordan his due plenty, and the only time I speak against him is when things go overboard. As I've said before, I missed his peak seasons, but from watching those seasons after the fact, and from watching him from 92-93 on, I can obviously tell he was a beast.

[guy]

Another thing - why is there any notion at all that a dominant big man would give the Bulls problems?

The Bulls defeated NUMEROUS all-time great centers - Shaq/Penny... Ewing's Knicks who showed they were championship-level by snap-making the Finals both times Jordan retired in 94' and 99'.... and Riley's 61-win Alonzo Mourning/Tim Hardaway team that was rated 2nd in the league defensively.

This idea that the Bulls would have trouble with bigs is amazingly illogical and has ZERO basis - if it DOES have any basis, please explain what that basis is.

As if Ostertag (that swept the Lakers) has any advantage over Luc Longley... he's at a disadvantage actually - he only gets to play with Stockton/Malone instead of MJ/Scottie.
.

Not only this. The teams that had these dominant centers the Bulls didn't face, also lost to teams that didn't have dominant centers and they were obviously lesser teams then the dynasty Bulls. Hakeem's Rockets lost to the Sonics and Jazz multiple times. Robinson's Spurs lost to the Blazers, Warriors, Suns, and Jazz. Shaq's Magic who actually did lose to the Bulls, lost to the Pacers one year as well, and then Shaq's Lakers got destroyed twice by the Jazz. And although they weren't part of the same era, they are sometimes brought up, Duncan's Spurs lost to the Mavs, Suns, Grizzlies, Thunder, and Heat. So yes, the argument is absurd. These weren't anywhere close to unbeatable teams to begin with, but now its the Bulls that were lucky to have not faced them? :oldlol: What a joke.

[Dragonyeuw]

I don't think Chicago would've been able to deal with Shaq over a 7 game series.



The Utah Jazz were able to overcome Shaq that year enroute to a sweep, with the two Gregs (Ostertag and Foster) in the middle. But somehow the Bulls wouldn't be able with Longley and Wennington, plus Rodman as a defensive tormentor/pest? And MJ/Pip on the wings neutralizing Kobe and Eddie Jones. In the playoffs?

Ok.

[ballinhun8]

Not saying he wouldn't. As a matter of fact, I'd expect him to in any series. I think they beat the 98 Lakers season handily, but it's silly to act as if there are no circumstances under which MJ's team loses a Finals.
:oldlol: No way brah, not bitter. MJ is probably the best ever, and if he isn't, it's a Celtic, not a Laker. But disagreeing with the bolded doesn't make me illogical or a hater. Just means I'm of a different opinion.

I give Jordan his due plenty, and the only time I speak against him is when things go overboard. As I've said before, I missed his peak seasons, but from watching those seasons after the fact, and from watching him from 92-93 on, I can obviously tell he was a beast.


I meant MJ not losing to any of the 90s era teams. I just don't see IG happening. He, Phil, and Scottie knew to adjust.

I'd say the 95 Rockets playoff team would give us the most fits. I know they finished 4th or 5th but being a defending champ and getting Clyde mid season gave that team the edge heading into the postseason.

[SamuraiSWISH]

I'd say the 95 Rockets playoff team would give us the most fits. I know they finished 4th or 5th but being a defending champ and getting Clyde mid season gave that team the edge heading into the postseason.
Yea, just like the '95 Magic w/ Shaq and Penny. But honestly, if Jordan was there the whole season ... we stand a better chance. We'd still be contenders. That's why I laugh when people think it's absurd if Jordan didn't play baseball that 2x more rings weren't legit left on the table.

[fpliii]

I meant MJ not losing to any of the 90s era teams. I just don't see IG happening. He, Phil, and Scottie knew to adjust.

I'd say the 95 Rockets playoff team would give us the most fits. I know they finished 4th or 5th but being a defending champ and getting Clyde mid season gave that team the edge heading into the postseason.
That's fair then. :cheers:

[aj1987]

The Bulls smashed Shaq in 96:confusedshrug:
That Magic team sucked ass against the Bulls. Outside of Shaq and Penny of course. Even Penny played well in 1-2 games that series. That Bulls team is one of the GOAT teams.

[3ball]

I speak against him is when things go overboard.


The guy took 2 years off in his prime and still went 6 for 6... It's pretty much impossible to go overboard with MJ.

[3ball]

it's silly to act as if there are no circumstances under which MJ's team loses a Finals.


why is it silly??

what evidence do you have that MJ can lose in a Finals?

How can you disprove the quote below, let alone facepalm it?




No one is beating MJ in the Finals.


NO. ONE.