1991 Finals: Magic's Lakers with Kareem and Scott/Worthy playing the ENTIRE series

[mehyaM24]

where do they place, IYO? according to RAPM, we do know magic's efficiency became absurd that year and his impact (via RAPM) was rated #2 behind david robinson, who was a defensive monster that year obviously. below is an interesting chart that shows magic's offensive numbers verse pippen AND jordan along with other bulls teammates.


player poss TS% PTS AST TOV FGA FTA F drawn
Jordan 253 73,2 20,3 16,1 4,5 9,4 10,1 6,4
Pippen 102 64,9 20,5 11,2 4,7 12,1 8,4 7,5
no one 031 26,5 15,3 12,3 3,1 27,6 3,1 0
Horace 010 0,00 0,00 19,0 28,5 38,0 0,0 0
others 017 68,5 67,1 16,8 5,6 39,1 22,0 22,4
(literally unstoppable)

^^^ so knowing his INDIVIDUAL success in those finals, with ample help, e.g. kareem NOT retiring (and being a year or two younger) along with scott and/or worthy playing the full series, how many games do the lakers take care of the bulls in? i've often said that if everything went well, la would in-turn take care of chicago in no more than 5 games - but that is my personal opinion, and i am a little biased with my magic fandom.

[3ball]

where do they place, IYO? according to RAPM, we do know magic's efficiency became absurd that year and his impact (via RAPM) was rated #2 behind david robinson, who was a defensive monster that year obviously. below is an interesting chart that shows magic's offensive numbers verse pippen AND jordan along with other bulls teammates.


(literally unstoppable)

^^^ so knowing his INDIVIDUAL success in those finals, with ample help, e.g. kareem NOT retiring (and being a year or two younger) along with scott and/or worthy playing the full series, how many games do the lakers take care of the bulls in? i've often said that if everything went well, la would in-turn take care of chicago in no more than 5 games - but that is my personal opinion, and i am a little biased with my magic fandom.
With a younger Kareem, the Lakers would still be the most stacked team ever - nothing would have changed... GOAT PG and Center on the same team, with every other spot filled to the brim.. Bulls would be alternating championships with them just like the Celtics did.

But hey, in 1991 we saw what happened when both Magic and Jordan had no big man inside - when they went mono-a-mono, Jordan won easily... Just look at the stats - Jordan even averaged 11.4 assists.

[Showtime80']

"Speed Kills" that's what I remember thinking watching that series. The Lakers by 1991 had become more of a half court team taking advantage of guys like Sam Perkins, Vlade, Worthy and Magic in the post. James Worthy's mileage was starting to show by that time and Magic didn't really have an ideal back up (I think Larry Drew and rookie Tony Smith were coming off the bench) Even with Scott and Worthy 100% that series was not going more than 6 games. The loss of Michael Cooper was actually worse for them than not having Kareem. Byron Scott was no match for MJ.

What made the Showtime 1980's teams special was the SPEED that they had all around not just on offense but on DEFENSE. People seem to think that they just ran off of made baskets all the time ala the 80's Nuggets. The early 80's versions were some of the best trapping teams the league has seen, that enabled them to reel off those classic runs where would outscore teams (even the best ones) 40 to 15-20 in just minutes! Young Magic, Cooper, Worthy, Nixon, Wilkes, McGee, Scott, Green etc... Those guys could fly to the angles and cover so much ground it was unbelievable to watch. They could match the 1991 Bulls trapping with Horace, Jordan and Pip.

Adding to the fact as 3ball said in the mid 1980's they were strong at every position. You had Hall of Famers in Magic and Worthy in their peaks to counter Jordan and Pippen but you still had Kareem who could still cause havoc on the half court. The supporting cast was also deeper. AC Green was basically a wash against Horace Grant. But then it starts getting more in favor of the Lakers when you mention the rest of the supporting cast of Byron Scott (prime) Michael Cooper (prime), Kurt Rambis (prime) and Mychael Thompson, Tony Campbell are better than BJ Armstrong (prime), Cliff Livingston, Bill Cartwright, Will Perdue and John Paxson. Guys like Scott Williams and Stacy King can hang out with Billy Thompson and Wes Mathews in the Forum Club.

Those Lakers win in 5 or 6 games. The early 90's Bulls strength was to run, the 80's Lakers were the greatest fast break team of all time. You wan to slow it down a little, the Lakers can counter with three solid all time post players in Magic, Kareem and Worthy to one great one for the Bulls in Michael Jordan.

The Lakers and Celtics of the 80's were the last of the true SUPER TEAMS, before the salary cap when you could have borderline all star players as 4th, 5th or even bench players coming off the bench. That was gone in the early 90's and it's why you saw Hakeem winning two titles in the middle of the decade with a less talented team than he had in 86'. Bulls just had the best player in the 90's and in THAT decade that was enough to dominate.

[AnaheimLakers24]

Doesnt matter. Jordans bulls won

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

"Speed Kills" that's what I remember thinking watching that series. The Lakers by 1991 had become more of a half court team taking advantage of guys like Sam Perkins, Vlade, Worthy and Magic in the post. James Worthy's mileage was starting to show by that time and Magic didn't really have an ideal back up (I think Larry Drew and rookie Tony Smith were coming off the bench) Even with Scott and Worthy 100% that series was not going more than 6 games. The loss of Michael Cooper was actually worse for them than not having Kareem. Byron Scott was no match for MJ.

What made the Showtime 1980's teams special was the SPEED that they had all around not just on offense but on DEFENSE. People seem to think that they just ran off of made baskets all the time ala the 80's Nuggets. The early 80's versions were some of the best trapping teams the league has seen, that enabled them to reel off those classic runs where would outscore teams (even the best ones) 40 to 15-20 in just minutes! Young Magic, Cooper, Worthy, Nixon, Wilkes, McGee, Scott, Green etc... Those guys could fly to the angles and cover so much ground it was unbelievable to watch. They could match the 1991 Bulls trapping with Horace, Jordan and Pip.

Adding to the fact as 3ball said in the mid 1980's they were strong at every position. You had Hall of Famers in Magic and Worthy in their peaks to counter Jordan and Pippen but you still had Kareem who could still cause havoc on the half court. The supporting cast was also deeper. AC Green was basically a wash against Horace Grant. But then it starts getting more in favor of the Lakers when you mention the rest of the supporting cast of Byron Scott (prime) Michael Cooper (prime), Kurt Rambis (prime) and Mychael Thompson, Tony Campbell are better than BJ Armstrong (prime), Cliff Livingston, Bill Cartwright, Will Perdue and John Paxson. Guys like Scott Williams and Stacy King can hang out with Billy Thompson and Wes Mathews in the Forum Club.

Those Lakers win in 5 or 6 games. The early 90's Bulls strength was to run, the 80's Lakers were the greatest fast break team of all time. You wan to slow it down a little, the Lakers can counter with three solid all time post players in Magic, Kareem and Worthy to one great one for the Bulls in Michael Jordan.

The Lakers and Celtics of the 80's were the last of the true SUPER TEAMS, before the salary cap when you could have borderline all star players as 4th, 5th or even bench players coming off the bench. That was gone in the early 90's and it's why you saw Hakeem winning two titles in the middle of the decade with a less talented team than he had in 86'. Bulls just had the best player in the 90's and in THAT decade that was enough to dominate.

Showtime has two Top 5 players on the GOAT list in Kareem and Magic, plus Worthy is listed somewhere in the 50 range. This isn't golf, where Jordan can be like Tiger and beat the competition by himself, so I agree with you. Do the Bulls beat some of the super teams of the 80s in an alternate reality? Sure. Consistently though? I highly doubt it - and I could never see the Bulls beating the Lakers at full strength, but then again, I've done extensive research on both teams so I don't expect many to agree, especially on ISH.

[Smoke117]

"Speed Kills" that's what I remember thinking watching that series. The Lakers by 1991 had become more of a half court team taking advantage of guys like Sam Perkins, Vlade, Worthy and Magic in the post. James Worthy's mileage was starting to show by that time and Magic didn't really have an ideal back up (I think Larry Drew and rookie Tony Smith were coming off the bench) Even with Scott and Worthy 100% that series was not going more than 6 games. The loss of Michael Cooper was actually worse for them than not having Kareem. Byron Scott was no match for MJ.

What made the Showtime 1980's teams special was the SPEED that they had all around not just on offense but on DEFENSE. People seem to think that they just ran off of made baskets all the time ala the 80's Nuggets. The early 80's versions were some of the best trapping teams the league has seen, that enabled them to reel off those classic runs where would outscore teams (even the best ones) 40 to 15-20 in just minutes! Young Magic, Cooper, Worthy, Nixon, Wilkes, McGee, Scott, Green etc... Those guys could fly to the angles and cover so much ground it was unbelievable to watch. They could match the 1991 Bulls trapping with Horace, Jordan and Pip.

Adding to the fact as 3ball said in the mid 1980's they were strong at every position. You had Hall of Famers in Magic and Worthy in their peaks to counter Jordan and Pippen but you still had Kareem who could still cause havoc on the half court. The supporting cast was also deeper. AC Green was basically a wash against Horace Grant. But then it starts getting more in favor of the Lakers when you mention the rest of the supporting cast of Byron Scott (prime) Michael Cooper (prime), Kurt Rambis (prime) and Mychael Thompson, Tony Campbell are better than BJ Armstrong (prime), Cliff Livingston, Bill Cartwright, Will Perdue and John Paxson. Guys like Scott Williams and Stacy King can hang out with Billy Thompson and Wes Mathews in the Forum Club.

Those Lakers win in 5 or 6 games. The early 90's Bulls strength was to run, the 80's Lakers were the greatest fast break team of all time. You wan to slow it down a little, the Lakers can counter with three solid all time post players in Magic, Kareem and Worthy to one great one for the Bulls in Michael Jordan.

The Lakers and Celtics of the 80's were the last of the true SUPER TEAMS, before the salary cap when you could have borderline all star players as 4th, 5th or even bench players coming off the bench. That was gone in the early 90's and it's why you saw Hakeem winning two titles in the middle of the decade with a less talented team than he had in 86'. Bulls just had the best player in the 90's and in THAT decade that was enough to dominate.

The Bulls were never a running team. The triangle offense is built on precision not opportunity. You might be on to something if the Bulls played like the late 80s/early 90s Blazers...but they didn't. They were 19th in pace in 91. Jordan and Pippen were both great transition players so people seem to think they ran a lot more than they really did. The 90s Bulls foundation was always built on defense first and foremost, anyway.

[andgar923]

Didn't the Bulls have a winning record vs the Showtime Lakers?

[SamuraiSWISH]

When we're resorting to hypotheticals to give imaginary Finals losses to all-time dominant teams, and the GOAT? You know you live rent free. The elusive bar that OP's guy will never reach. Reality setting in. 2 for 5 in the Finals? LOL ... let's give players hypothetical L's to level the playing field. Pathetic.

[Showtime80']

To me the 1996 Bulls present a more interesting matchup. They were deeper, more methodical and savvier than the early 90's versions. The league had gotten a little weaker at that point but the combination of Rodman, Pippen, Harper and Jordan was just to much Defensive IQ for the league to handle at that time, add Tony Kukoc, Steve Kerr and Luc Longley for some offensive punch and it was a perfect mix. Again they were not as deep or as young as the 80's teams but in that period in the NBA they didn't need to be, the 80's guys were getting older (Ewing, Barkley, Olajuwon, Drexler) and a lot of the early 90's kids never really materialized into true contenders (Mourning, Larry Johnson, Mutombo, Hill, Kidd, Coleman, Big Dog Robinson, Mashburn, Webber etc..) That left Shaq/Penny and Payton/Kemp as the only "new school" contenders at that point and even then they weren't better than older Malone/Stockton. Can't deny 72 and 69 wins in back to back years though.

The early 90's Bulls were more athletic and younger with the best version of Michael that was ever seen playing in a tougher league but their style would've proven costly against the 80's Lakers.

[Hey Yo]

One thing that puzzles me after looking at the series stats.

Byron Scott played and started in 4 of the 5 games while avg. exactly 35mpg. Yet he only took 18FGA over those 4gms which means he barely took 4FGA per game. Seems kind of odd for a sharp shooter like himself.

Anyone remember if there was a reason for that? If he had a lingering injury then I wouldn't think he would avg. 35mpg

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1991_finals.html

[mehyaM24]

One thing that puzzles me after looking at the series stats.

Byron Scott played and started in 4 of the 5 games while avg. exactly 35mpg. Yet he only took 18FGA over those 4gms which means he barely took 4FGA per game. Seems kind of odd for a sharp shooter like himself.

Anyone remember if there was a reason for that? If he had a lingering injury then I wouldn't think he would avg. 35mpg

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1991_finals.html
well, i dont know how extensive his injury was, but in another thread, i posted an article detailing his ineffectiveness.

EDIT: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-06-11/sports/1991162018_1_james-worthy-byron-scott-lakers

^^ his ankle sprain was actually from earlier in the playoffs - it hobbled him throughout, and then he re-injured it sometime in the finals, which is the reason he sat out completely in game 5.

i forget worthy's injury, but he was FAR from healthy himself.

[Showtime80']

For me there are two chapters to Byron Scott's career, the one before the hamstring tear just before the 1989 Finals and the one after. From the start of the 87-88 season up to the 1989 WFC's Byron was on his way to becoming one of the best 6 to 8 SG's in the game (specially with Magic at the point). They guy had everything even though he was on the smaller side (6'3). Athletic, very good defender, great finisher on the break, underrated passer, solid mid range game, became a very good three point shooter and to me his most important attribute, the guy was a tough SOB!!! He had self confidence coming out of his ears and didn't care if you were DJ, Ainge, Isiah or Dumars, he stared them in the face and smiled and could hang with them blow for blow.

The Byron Scott after the hamstring injury REGRESSED in almost every aspect of his game. The confidence was half of what it was and his game suffered because of it and by 1991 he was sometimes basically the fifth option in the half court when Perkins and Divac were in the game as well. Gone was the explosiveness, dynamic game and take charge attitude that he had from 87' through 89'. Soon after he became just a solid journeyman on winning teams which was a little sad in way.

A healthy 1988 version of Byron would've been A LOT tougher opponent than the 91'version I'll tell you that much!

[mehyaM24]

showtime - fully agreed with your super team analogy and also the differences in bulls teams. you should post more often here, bro.

[Hey Yo]

Thanks for the info. guys.....

[bizil]

For me there are two chapters to Byron Scott's career, the one before the hamstring tear just before the 1989 Finals and the one after. From the start of the 87-88 season up to the 1989 WFC's Byron was on his way to becoming one of the best 6 to 8 SG's in the game (specially with Magic at the point). They guy had everything even though he was on the smaller side (6'3). Athletic, very good defender, great finisher on the break, underrated passer, solid mid range game, became a very good three point shooter and to me his most important attribute, the guy was a tough SOB!!! He had self confidence coming out of his ears and didn't care if you were DJ, Ainge, Isiah or Dumars, he stared them in the face and smiled and could hang with them blow for blow.

The Byron Scott after the hamstring injury REGRESSED in almost every aspect of his game. The confidence was half of what it was and his game suffered because of it and by 1991 he was sometimes basically the fifth option in the half court when Perkins and Divac were in the game as well. Gone was the explosiveness, dynamic game and take charge attitude that he had from 87' through 89'. Soon after he became just a solid journeyman on winning teams which was a little sad in way.

A healthy 1988 version of Byron would've been A LOT tougher opponent than the 91'version I'll tell you that much!

Great post! The 1991 Lakers squad WASN'T Showtime. To be frank, I was surprised they made the Finals. B Scott at his peak was clearly an All Star caliber SG. It's a shame he never made one, he's one of the greatest guards to never make an All Star team in my opinion. As u stated he had no weaknesses really in his game. He was the perfect compliment to Magic because he could defend the smaller PG's AND of course guard his SG position well.

To answer the OP, the Showtime Lakers beat the 91 Bulls. And I don't have to think twice about it. Too much offensive fire power and u got a peak Michael Cooper to throw at MJ. Nobody can stop MJ, but peak Coop is one of the greatest defensive guards of all time. To be frank, I think the Showtime Lakers are the best team of all time. I would favor them over ANYBODY!!

[Suguru101]

Showtime, I've thought for a while that the best version of the 80's Lakers was the 1982 team.

Nixon and Magic both averaged over 8 assists per game if I remember correctly, Magic was amazing, Wilkes and MacAdoo provided good scoring punch, Kareem was still very good, and they had speed and an unmatched offense.

Which do you think was the best Lakers team?

[97 bulls]

One thing that puzzles me after looking at the series stats.

Byron Scott played and started in 4 of the 5 games while avg. exactly 35mpg. Yet he only took 18FGA over those 4gms which means he barely took 4FGA per game. Seems kind of odd for a sharp shooter like himself.

Anyone remember if there was a reason for that? If he had a lingering injury then I wouldn't think he would avg. 35mpg

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1991_finals.html
There was nothing wrong with Scott until he injured his shoulder. He just never faced a defense like the Bulls.

[Showtime80']

Tks Mehya, will do!

To Smoke117, you're right they were not a traditional fast break team but they were definitely a FAST team that liked to push tempo the exploit Michael and Scottie's finishing as well as get quick 3's by Armstrong and Hodges (who I forgot to mention earlier).

To me the real question is who is the 3rd guy that's going to step up from the Bulls on offense. You know what you're getting from Michael/Scottie and Magic/Kareem/Worthy. Let's say Michael and Scottie average 35 and 22 respectively, where is the rest of the offense coming from? I think the 80's Lakers are one of the few teams that could say "Let Michael and Scottie get their 60 points, we'll stay at home on everyone else"

Another dilemma for the Bulls, who do you put Scottie on? A prime Worthy or prime Magic? Horace Grant has no chance of covering either so what would you guys do? I like to hear strategies on both sides

[97 bulls]

With a younger Kareem, the Lakers would still be the most stacked team ever - nothing would have changed... GOAT PG and Center on the same team, with every other spot filled to the brim.. Bulls would be alternating championships with them just like the Celtics did.

But hey, in 1991 we saw what happened when both Magic and Jordan had no big man inside - when they went mono-a-mono, Jordan won easily... Just look at the stats - Jordan even averaged 11.4 assists.
This is a flawed logic. You can't have it both ways here. If you choose one of the Lakers early teams, yeah you get a better Kareem, but you get a young and inexperienced Worthy and Scott, as well as an old Mcadoo and Wilkes (depending on the year in question).

[OldSchoolBBall]

The Lakers still lose, but maybe in 6. The Bulls were simply a team of destiny and weren't going to be stopped that year. Their combination of offense and defense was unmatched. Anyone who knows basketball and followed them knows that they weren't going to be denied that year.

[97 bulls]

Tks Mehya, will do!

To Smoke117, you're right they were not a traditional fast break team but they were definitely a FAST team that liked to push tempo the exploit Michael and Scottie's finishing as well as get quick 3's by Armstrong and Hodges (who I forgot to mention earlier).

To me the real question is who is the 3rd guy that's going to step up from the Bulls on offense. You know what you're getting from Michael/Scottie and Magic/Kareem/Worthy. Let's say Michael and Scottie average 35 and 22 respectively, where is the rest of the offense coming from? I think the 80's Lakers are one of the few teams that could say "Let Michael and Scottie get their 60 points, we'll stay at home on everyone else"

Another dilemma for the Bulls, who do you put Scottie on? A prime Worthy or prime Magic? Horace Grant has no chance of covering either so what would you guys do? I like to hear strategies on both sides
Horace Grant had a field day vs the Lakers in 91.

This always seems to be the case in these types of discussions. Its not a matter of one on one. Its one team vs another. Horace Grant does not have to outscore anyone. His job was to defend, Rebound, and help on that press.

For all this talk from pro 80s fans as to the 80s being better because it wasn't iso ball, whenever we make this comparison, it seems to boil down to who they feel.would play better one on one as opposed to team ball.

Again, Bill Cartwright, Longley, Rodman, Grant, etc never had to outscore their man or nunber three guy in order for Chicago to be successful.

This will always come.down to who does a better job at taking the opposing team out of their comfort.zone.

[Showtime80']

97' Bulls is right on the money! Can't have it both ways.

That's why I pick the 1987 team, to me you had the best starting five with absolute beast prime MVP Magic, prime Worthy, close to prime Scott, solid young forward in AC Green and an older still potent Kareem demanding double teams down low. Off the bench you get the DPOY in Michael Cooper, a starting caliber big man who can defend, score and rebound in Michael Thompson and a hard nosed tough as nails Kurt Rambis. Their best and most solid 8 man rotation of the decade and you still had a big athletic body in Billy Thompson to for a few fast break points and some defense. Wes Mathews and Adrian Branch are not seeing a lot of playing time.

To Suguro. You could definitely make a case for the 82' team just because of a younger Kareem and superior depth, nothing else. They were more explosive and when Cooper, Nixon, Magic and Wilkes were on the floor it was something to watch both on defense and offense.

To me the best Lakers that SHOULD'VE been was the 1984 squad. Had everyone remained healthy the Lakers could've had this lineup:

C- Kareem, McAdoo, Nater
PF- Kupchack, Rambis
SF- Wilkes, Worthy
SG- Scott, McGee
PG- Magic, Cooper

You had 7 all star caliber players in that lineup!

[The_Pharcyde]

Do the 1993 bulls beat Barkleys Suns with Prime Nash and amare??
I say they lose In 5 and it's not even close
So really MJ is 5-1 in the finals

[Micku]

I don't think the Lakers would've beat the Bulls even with one year or two younger Kareem.

I do think they may have extended the series to six games instead of five. Specifically in game 3, where MJ had to guard Vlade for short stretches. Vlade only went to the FT line 13 times and I think he only drew one foul in that game? Correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, I think Kareem would've drawn more fouls and cause more defensive changes to the Bulls.

Unless Kareem goes off and average like 24 ppg or something, I don't think they would've won. The Bulls had a easier time stopping the Lakers than the Lakers could with them. It's not like the Lakers sucked defensively that year, they were top 5, better than the Bulls in fact. The Bulls were better offensively than them, they were the best in the league. It wasn't just MJ either. John Paxson couldn't miss in that series. He averaged like 60+% or something and hit a lot of clutch shots. Grant had a field day too. The Lakers couldn't do anything to stop it.

But even with that said, it was still a closer series than the number indicate and despite it going five games.

And ppl don't mention this often, but Cliff Levingston and Stacy King protected the paint very well and their help defense was great. That saved a lot of easy buckets that the Lakers could've had. And of course Pippen and MJ defense.

The Bulls role players got hot at the right time meanwhile Scott laid an egg, as he usually does against the Bulls, and Worthy was still playing good even though he was hurt. Granted MJ was playing hurt too and still had crazy stats.

If Kareem was in his 84-86 form (or anything prior of course), then that would be good enough to beat the Bulls. But an 89 or 88 version of Kareem? I don't think so. I could be wrong and Kareem could've gone off. An 87 version of Kareem would be interesting, because he could still go off.


There was nothing wrong with Scott until he injured his shoulder. He just never faced a defense like the Bulls.

Nah, he faced better defenses than the Bulls before. They weren't even the best defensively that year. Scott just had a black cloud looming around him whenever he faced the Bulls. He misses his shots even when he's open. The commentators even said it in that series if I can recall.

[3ball]

Those Lakers win in 5 or 6 games. The early 90's Bulls strength was to run, the 80's Lakers were the greatest fast break team of all time.


not true at all - the Bulls calling card was their half-court offensive execution within the triangle (which helped them when the game was on the line, because teams generally can't fast-break when the game's on the line).... and also their half-court defensive execution.





Bulls just had the best player in the 90's and in THAT decade that was enough to dominate.


the only reason it was enough is because Jordan scored more than anyone ever has, and he could do it all within the stringent guidelines of the triangle offense...

the triangle is possibly the hardest, most complicated offense of all time... as good as Carmelo is, you see how short he falls of matching any of Jordan's stats within the triangle (or any offense)...

a lesser scorer (which is everybody) and someone whose defense wasn't as good would not have gone 6/6, or gotten anywhere NEAR 6/6... stats do mean SOMETHING - it's is wrong to assume someone else could achieve Jordan's numbers replacing him on those Bulls teams, when they couldn't match his numbers in their OWN careers.

[Hey Yo]

not true at all - the Bulls calling card was their half-court offensive execution within the triangle (which helped them when the game was on the line, because teams generally can't fast-break when the game's on the line).... and also their half-court defensive execution.



the only reason it was enough is because Jordan scored more than anyone ever has, and he could do it all within the stringent guidelines of the triangle offense...

the triangle is possibly the hardest, most complicated offense of all time... as good as Carmelo is, you see how short he falls of matching any of Jordan's stats within the triangle (or any offense)...

a lesser scorer (which is everybody) and someone whose defense wasn't as good would not have gone 6/6, or gotten anywhere NEAR 6/6... stats do mean SOMETHING - it's is wrong to assume someone else could achieve Jordan's numbers replacing him on those Bulls teams, when they couldn't match his numbers in their OWN careers.

:rolleyes:

:dumb

[LAZERUSS]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

At ANYONE comparing the injury-riddled and rapidly declining '91 Lakers with the truly GREAT Laker teams of the 80's ('80, '82, '85, '87, '88, and even '84.)

[The_Pharcyde]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

At ANYONE comparing the injury-riddled and rapidly declining '91 Lakers with the truly GREAT Laker teams of the 80's ('80, '82, '85, '87, '88, and even '84.)

Bulls woulda smacked any of those teams easy..
And you know it cheeb

[LAZERUSS]

Bulls woulda smacked any of those teams easy..
And you know it cheeb

Yeah, right.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[97 bulls]

Nah, he faced better defenses than the Bulls before. They weren't even the best defensively that year. Scott just had a black cloud looming around him whenever he faced the Bulls. He misses his shots even when he's open. The commentators even said it in that series if I can recall.
My point is that he, as well as his team, never faced a team commited to putting on the type of pressure that the Bulls were capable of doing. The Bulls took them out of their comfort zone. You only see that type of pressure in college. I still have yet seen a team that could press at this level for that long.

[mehyaM24]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

At ANYONE comparing the injury-riddled and rapidly declining '91 Lakers with the truly GREAT Laker teams of the 80's ('80, '82, '85, '87, '88, and even '84.)

yeah - its fairly obvious MOST versions of the laker teams WITH kareem (and healthy scott/worthy) take chicago down. i made this thread, because out-of-physical-prime magic jonson makes this comparison a bit closer IMO. the fact los angeles didn't have cooper, thompson and various other role players whom were ALL a part of the showtime niche, makes it all the more equal i suppose.

gotta say as well - magic is being underrated in here. take alook at the stats he averaged in my OP. this was against PEAK jordan and young, but an athletically peaked pippen. mind-boggling efficiency.

[LAZERUSS]

yeah - its fairly obvious every version of the lakers WITH kareem and healthy scott/worthy take the bulls down easily. i made this thread, because out-of-phyiscal-prime magic makes this comparison a bit closer IMO. the fact the didn't have cooper, thompson and various other role players whom were ALL part of the showtime niche, makes it all the more equal i suppose.

i gotta say - magic is getting underrated in here, though. just look at the stats he averaged in my OP. this was against PEAK jordan and young, but a athletically peaked pippen. mind-boggling efficiency.

I would never claim that they would win "easily." BUT, I think they would have had match-up advantages that Chicago could not equal.

People forget that Michael Cooper was one of the GOAT perimeter defenders (hell, he gave the much bigger Bird fits.) He was the Lakers "ace in the hole" in any playoff series.

[mehyaM24]

I would never claim that they would win "easily." BUT, I think they would have had match-up advantages that Chicago could not equal.

People forget that Michael Cooper was one of the GOAT perimeter defenders (hell, he gave the much bigger Bird fits.) He was the Lakers "ace in the hole" in any playoff series.
correct - i had to edit out "easily" because of obvious hyperbole. they still win EVERY time though IMO.

[Micku]

My point is that he, as well as his team, never faced a team commited to putting on the type of pressure that the Bulls were capable of doing. The Bulls took them out of their comfort zone. You only see that type of pressure in college. I still have yet seen a team that could press at this level for that long.

Yeah? My memory fails me to think of a specific team that did full court pressure team. I could've sworn I've seen something like that before in the Finals. I do remember the Lakers had to give the ball to Vlade to relief pressure off of Magic and Scott because the pressure was too much every once and a while. Pippen guarding Magic, constantly pressuring him and MJ denying the ball from whoever he is guarding was awesome to see. They switch it up too, which was awesome. But I also seen something like that before.

We need some dudes who seen 70s ball. I could've sworn I saw a couple of instances where players were straight up pressuring full court. Real handchecking stuff too. I don't know how long they did that.

[97 bulls]

Yeah? My memory fails me to think of a specific team that did full court pressure team. I could've sworn I've seen something like that before in the Finals. I do remember the Lakers had to give the ball to Vlade to relief pressure off of Magic and Scott because the pressure was too much every once and a while. Pippen guarding Magic, constantly pressuring him and MJ denying the ball from whoever he is guarding was awesome to see. They switch it up too, which was awesome. But I also seen something like that before.

We need some dudes who seen 70s ball. I could've sworn I saw a couple of instances where players were straight up pressuring full court. Real handchecking stuff too. I don't know how long they did that.
You see it only when teams are trying to force TOs in an attempt to get back in a game or at the end of games. Most teams if not all can't do it at that level consistently and get the same result because NBA caliber guards should be able to pick that apart. That's why you only see it in the College ranks.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I would never claim that they would win "easily." BUT, I think they would have had match-up advantages that Chicago could not equal.

People forget that Michael Cooper was one of the GOAT perimeter defenders (hell, he gave the much bigger Bird fits.) He was the Lakers "ace in the hole" in any playoff series.
Agreed. My God, Cooper and Thompson would've been murder. Not sure LA needed them under OP's criteria though.

[97 bulls]

I would never claim that they would win "easily." BUT, I think they would have had match-up advantages that Chicago could not equal.

People forget that Michael Cooper was one of the GOAT perimeter defenders (hell, he gave the much bigger Bird fits.) He was the Lakers "ace in the hole" in any playoff series.
Lol WHAT??!!?!??!?!?!

The Lakers couldn't outrebound the Bulls and they would have no answer for pressure defense. Hell the pressure the 97 Bulls could muster may have been even better than the early Bulls cuz they had four guys that could pressure the Ball in Pippen, Jordan, Harper, and Randy Brown.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Do the 1993 bulls beat Barkleys Suns with Prime Nash and amare??
I say they lose In 5 and it's not even close
So really MJ is 5-1 in the finals
No ...

If the '91 Lakers had JJ Barea, and 80 year old Jason Kidd ... Jordan would get locked up, and disappear. So really it's 4-2.

Oh, and if the '97, and '98 Jazz had Kwahi Leonard outplaying Mike, then really he's 2 for 6.

What do you know, that's basically LeBron's Finals win percentage.

:applause:

[Micku]

No ...

If the '91 Lakers had JJ Barea, and 80 year old Jason Kidd ... Jordan would get locked up, and disappear. So really it's 4-2.

Oh, and if the '97, and '98 Jazz had Kwahi Leonard outplaying Mike, then really he's 2 for 6.

What do you know, that's basically LeBron's Finals win percentage.

:applause:

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/032011/1299867456_the-situation-is-shocked.gif

[97 bulls]

Can any pro Laker fan muster a gameplan? Again for all this talk against Iso ball, this is all you guy seem to want to fall back on.

Counter this......how do the Lakers overcome the full court pressure and trapping defense the Bulls showed throughout their run as well against the Lakers?

[mehyaM24]

The Lakers still lose, but maybe in 6. The Bulls were simply a team of destiny and weren't going to be stopped that year. Their combination of offense and defense was unmatched. Anyone who knows basketball and followed them knows that they weren't going to be denied that year.

nobody agrees that the lakers "still lose". keep in mind, we're talking about kareem and healthy scott/worthy - also not sure why people are bringing red-herrings into this thread, as showtime was compromised just a year or two prior with ALL players playing together. 1991 is just me keeping things in perspective, and not too far off track.

[OldSchoolBBall]

nobody agrees that the lakers "still lose". keep in mind, we're talking about kareem and healthy scott/worthy - also not sure why people are bringing red-herrings into this thread, as showtime was compromised just a year or two prior with ALL players playing together. 1991 is just me keeping things in perspective, and not too far off track.

I actually didnt see the part about KAJ playing in the OP/title. I thought it was just about a non-injured Worthy and Scott, which my post is a response to. That would actually be a somewhat legitimate question. But now you're digging corpses out of the grave and putting them back on teams just to have a chance against Mike? :oldlol:

If it's like, '84-'86 KAj they have a chance. Any version of KAJ after 1986 and they still lose imo.

[mehyaM24]

I actually didnt see the part about KAJ playing in the OP/title. I thought it was just about a non-injured Worthy and Scott, which my post is a response to. That would actually be a somewhat legitimate question. But now you're digging corpses out of the grave and putting them back on teams just to have a chance against Mike? :oldlol:

If it's like, '84-'86 KAj they have a chance. Any version of KAJ after 1986 and they still lose imo.

true - but comparing the 91 bulls to the lakers is akin to magic vs scottie/jordan (1 top 10 player VS. 2 top 10 players ATT). magic AND kareem makes this championship series and debate, more competitive.

[LAZERUSS]

Those that argue that MJ's '91 series win over Magic's Lakers means something significant...

I could argue that MJ wasn't even good enough to get any of his previous Bulls teams to the Finals...where a much more prime Laker team would have crushed them.

[SamuraiSWISH]

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/032011/1299867456_the-situation-is-shocked.gif
You like that dosage of ether?

[Micku]

You like that dosage of ether?

It was sexy.


I actually didnt see the part about KAJ playing in the OP/title. I thought it was just about a non-injured Worthy and Scott, which my post is a response to. That would actually be a somewhat legitimate question. But now you're digging corpses out of the grave and putting them back on teams just to have a chance against Mike? :oldlol:

If it's like, '84-'86 KAj they have a chance. Any version of KAJ after 1986 and they still lose imo.

I pretty much agree. I do think 87 Kareem would've been interesting tho since 87 Kareem could still turn back the clock every once in a while. It could help the Lakers win an extra game. 87 Kareem is more of a wild card tho since he could draw fouls and stuff. If he goes off, then y'know, the Bulls would have some problems. But as you said, I think the Bulls would still win.

[3ball]

:rolleyes:

:dumb
it's much dumber to assume Carmelo or anyone else would average the same PPG as Jordan did in the triangle.

Jordan's the only guy in history capable of scoring that much in the triangle OR ANY OFFENSE...

in b4 someone says that a player who averaged far less in his own career than Jordan, COULD actually duplicate Jordan's scoring in the triangle... :rolleyes:

[97 bulls]

Those that argue that MJ's '91 series win over Magic's Lakers means something significant...

I could argue that MJ wasn't even good enough to get any of his previous Bulls teams to the Finals...where a much more prime Laker team would have crushed them.
That's not an argument. Thats true. But why is that a knock on Jordan? His team wasn't good enough. And the Bulls were playing in the East.

[LAZERUSS]

That's not an argument. Thats true. But why is that a knock on Jordan? His team wasn't good enough. And the Bulls were playing in the East.

It's the same argument that Magic could use. When his team's were at their peak, MJ couldn't even get past the first round.

[SamuraiSWISH]

It's the same argument that Magic could use. When his team's were at their peak, MJ couldn't even get past the first round.
Did Jordan have the tools around him to do so?

[3ball]

It's the same argument that Magic could use. When his team's were at their peak, MJ couldn't even get past the first round.
ah yes, it all evens out... except Jordan's 6 rings being greater than Magic's 5.

and for one of those championships, we got to see Jordan play Magic head-to-head, with neither guy having the unfair advantage of benefiting from a big man in the middle.

under this mono-a-mono scenario, Jordan obliterated Magic...

and on this biggest and most important of stages, Jordan even kept up with the GOAT passer at passing... only Magic and the big stage could force Jordan to resort to the recesses of his game like that, and we got to see just how good a passer he was (11.4 apg).
.

[LAZERUSS]

ah yes, it all evens out... except Jordan's 6 rings being greater than Magic's 5.

and for one of those championships, we got to see Jordan play Magic head-to-head, with neither guy having the unfair advantage of benefiting from a big man in the middle.

under this mono-a-mono scenario, Jordan obliterated Magic... and on this biggest, most important stage, Jordan even kept up with the GOAT passer at passing.

Again...Magic's supporting cast in '91 was injury-riddled and declining. This was nowhere near the peak Laker teams of the 80's. Furthermore, this was not a PEAK Magic, either (albeit, he was still great.)

Jordan's surrounding teammates were good enough to go 55-27 in '94 without him (and losing a close game seven to the 56-26 Knicks...who would go on to lose a close game seven to the 58-24 Rockets in the Finals...in a series in which they outplayed Houston.). Magic's were good enough to go 43-39 without him (and then 39-43 after that.)

[3ball]

Again...Magic's supporting cast in '91 was injury-riddled and declining. This was nowhere near the peak Laker teams of the 80's. Furthermore, this was not a PEAK Magic, either (albeit, he was still great.)
James Worthy was 3rd team All-NBA that year and played 4 of the 5 games in the Finals, leading the Lakers in Finals scoring with 19 ppg on 48%...

Talk of him being injured is completely overblown and a nice excuse for Magic.

Meanwhile, Magic was runner up for MVP in 1991, so that's prime enough for me to give Jordan credit for destroying both Magic's team and Magic himself (in the individual statistical matchup).

[mehyaM24]

James Worthy was 3rd team All-NBA that year and played 4 of the 5 games in the Finals, leading the Lakers in Finals scoring with 19 ppg on 48%...

Talk of him being injured is completely overblown and a nice excuse for Magic.

Meanwhile, Magic was runner up for MVP in 1991, so that's prime enough for me to give Jordan credit for destroying both Magic's team and Magic himself (in the individual statistical matchup).
james worthy also played with a sprained ankle (sprained it back in the western conference finals). he, like scott, re-agrivated it in the finals.

i would also like to NOTE, scott had a *shoulder injury and not a ankle sprain (he did severely sprain his ankle against phoenix, however).

[LAZERUSS]

James Worthy was 3rd team All-NBA that year and played 4 of the 5 games in the Finals, leading the Lakers in Finals scoring with 19 ppg on 48%...

Talk of him being injured is completely overblown and a nice excuse for Magic.

Meanwhile, Magic was runner up for MVP in 1991, so that's prime enough for me to give Jordan credit for destroying both Magic's team and Magic himself (in the individual statistical matchup).

The series was tied 1-1, and Chicago won game three in OT. In the early second half of game four, BOTH Worthy and Byron Scott left with injuries...in a loss. And neither played in the clinching game five.

Both were essentially done after that, and without Magic they were just shells.

[LAZERUSS]

And one more time...


Jordan's surrounding teammates were good enough to go 55-27 in '94 without him (and losing a close game seven to the 56-26 Knicks...who would go on to lose a close game seven to the 58-24 Rockets in the Finals...in a series in which they outplayed Houston.). Magic's were good enough to go 43-39 without him (and then 39-43 after that.)

[3ball]

The main reason the Bulls played solidly in the 1994 regular season, is because they were 3-peat champions and had been through more wars and pressure moments than anyone.

To ignore this, is to strip Jordan of all credit for being the biggest reason they won those rings.

But it's a moot point, because the Lakers actually had much better supporting talent than the Bulls - after the Pippen/Worthy matchup, it's ALL LAKERS (1992 stats without Magic):

Sam Perkins (16.5 ppg, 8.3 rebs), AC Green (13.6 ppg, 9.3 rebs) Vlade Divac (11.3 ppg, 7.0 rebs), Sedale Threatt (15.1 ppg, 7.2 apg), and Bryon Scott (15 ppg)

which thoroughly destroys the supporting cast for the Bulls (1994 stats):

Grant (15 ppg, 11 rebs), Kukocs (10.9 ppg), BJ Armstrong (14.8 ppg), and the next guy after that is bench player steve kerr (8.6 ppg).


NO COMPARISON - LAKERS SUPPORTING CAST IS EASILY BETTER.
.

[Soundwave]

Jordan was actually injured in the '91 Finals too. He played that series with an injured shooting wrist and a foot injury too suffered in game 3 I believe (I think he actually had to cut a hole in his shoes or something).

The Pistons beat the Lakers and the Bulls waxed the Pistons, so I think the people who feel like the the Lakers even if healthy would just walk all over the Bulls would be in for a rude awakening.

If the Pistons could more than hang with both the Celtics and Lakers, so could the Bulls, their development just happened a little later because it took a few years for Pippen and Grant to evolve into very good players (just as it took the Pistons some time to develop as well).

Great defence beats great offence virtually every time, but the Bulls would be able to score just fine too.

[SamuraiSWISH]

under this mono-a-mono scenario, Jordan obliterated Magic...

:pimp:

[Micku]

Jordan was actually injured in the '91 Finals too. He played that series with an injured shooting wrist and a foot injury too suffered in game 3 I believe (I think he actually had to cut a hole in his shoes or something).


People tend to write that off because MJ had a great series I think. If it was bothering him, he didn't show it much. He was beasting.

[ArbitraryWater]

No ...

If the '91 Lakers had JJ Barea, and 80 year old Jason Kidd ... Jordan would get locked up, and disappear. So really it's 4-2.

Oh, and if the '97, and '98 Jazz had Kwahi Leonard outplaying Mike, then really he's 2 for 6.

What do you know, that's basically LeBron's Finals win percentage.

:applause:

Favking sexy :bowdown:

[97 bulls]

People tend to write that off because MJ had a great series I think. If it was bothering him, he didn't show it much. He was beasting.
It's funny how this logic only applies to the Bulls. Scottie Pippen played injured all throughout the NBA Playoffs during the last three championships and no one considers that. Dennis Rodman played hurt in 98 and I believe 97 thats never acknowledged. Guys like Bird, Mchale, Worthy, Magic put up what is essentially their normal stats and yet ive read posts from you excusing them due to their injuries.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Favking sexy :bowdown:
MJ, and LeBron > Magic

[3ball]

MJ, and LeBron > Magic
doesn't that logic about barea and 80-yr old kidd and kawhi apply to magic too though

[Micku]

It's funny how this logic only applies to the Bulls. Scottie Pippen played injured all throughout the NBA Playoffs during the last three championships and no one considers that. Dennis Rodman played hurt in 98 and I believe 97 thats never acknowledged. Guys like Bird, Mchale, Worthy, Magic put up what is essentially their normal stats and yet ive read posts from you excusing them due to their injuries.

It doesn't count unless they lose. Stop catching on to my methods. Shh....edit your post. Your post did not happen.


---

All seriousness, if they hurt and it affects their play, then it sucks. There are players who could fight through the pain and play great, sometimes the injures take a toll on them. It happens. Like Bird with his back sucked cuz it took a toll on him over time. He had to retire. Mchale foot injury sucked cuz he couldn't move as quick as he did, and wasn't as good defensively. He wasn't as good scoring the ball either, but he was still good enough. Grant Hill injuries obviously took a toll and D-Wade in the Pistons series in 05. D.Howard with his injuries, and he's never been the same player since. Although it's probably cuz of the coaching too. Anyhow, it depends on the year. We have to dissect what changed and how they were dealing with their injuries. Some players have higher pain tolerance, some don't. Some injuries would affect more with them than others depending on the position, what they do, and how old they are.

I'm a victim of ignoring some injuries if they play is consistent to what they usual do, especially after years after it happened. Like with Kobe injured his finger a couple of times, and he still played up to his standards shooting wise. At least I think, I would have to double check on it. Sometimes it's not that simple. Depends on what else they do on the floor.

In this case tho, I don't see the 91 Lakers beating the 91 Bulls. Healthy or not. Although maybe they would win one more game if Scott showed up, lol.

[SamuraiSWISH]

doesn't that logic about barea and 80-yr old kidd and kawhi apply to magic too though
That is due to LeBron's fragile mental state, and lack of heart. Magic is a coward in his own right.

As basketball players ... skills, versatility, defenders boiled down to their individual essence, James is better than Magic.

The latter is a better team quarterback though, and can more readily blend his talents into a system with other great players.

A guy the caliber of Sleepy Floyd never dropped 51 on LeBron in a playoff game.

[3ball]

That is due to LeBron's fragile mental state, and lack of heart. Magic is a coward in his own right.

As basketball players ... skills, versatility, defenders boiled down to their individual essence, James is better than Magic.

The latter is a better team quarterback though, and can more readily blend his talents into a system with other great players.

A guy the caliber of Sleepy Floyd never dropped 51 on LeBron in a playoff game.
So are you saying Magic would get locked up by barea, 80-year old kidd, and kawhi, or not?

[ArbitraryWater]

MJ, and LeBron > Magic

THANK YOU... people can't seem to accept LeBron > Magic :cheers:

[3ball]

That is due to LeBron's fragile mental state, and lack of heart. Magic is a coward in his own right.


Lebron's lack of skill got himself locked up against Barea and 80-year old Kidd.

Otoh, Magic averaged 19 ppg, 8.0 assists, 12.4 assists with mostly Jordan on him, and also Scottie for two brief stretches.





As basketball players ... skills, versatility, defenders boiled down to their individual essence, James is better than Magic.


Take the defense out of it: Magic would never get crushed by David West on the block in the opening game of the ECF, forcing his own coach to change the entire defensive gameplan for the rest of the series.... Magic guards PF's way better than Lebron, which can't be fully offset by the 4 years of Lebron's career that he guarded (past tense) PG's better than Magic.

Regarding offense - Magic is the quicker thinker on the court by a mile, and also the less predictable, more instinctive playmaker... Lebron's ability is more tied to his athleticism, which hurts him against smart teams - he is left with nothing to resort to, whereas Magic has endless skill and smarts.





A guy the caliber of Sleepy Floyd never dropped 51 on LeBron in a playoff game.


The NBA has highlights of that game on their youtube channel... none of those were on Magic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXjN61VKQi8

There are tons of guys dropping 30-40 on lebron in the playoffs - paul pierce (multiple 30 and 40 pt games), paul george (37 in 2014 ECF), Arenas (44 pts in 2006 RD 1), Westbrook (43 pts in 2012 Finals), and more.

Btw, let's talk spacing and rule changes - Magic would benefit from today's spacing and new rules more than anyone, because as the league stated, the defensive 3 seconds rule was meant to make "passing and cutting easier" and "open up the game".

then there's the hand-checking ban that was meant to make penetration easier... finally, we already know that all aspects of offense, especially passing, are easier WITH spacing than without - what do you think Magic would do in today's cream-puff league that has spacing and no physicality?... Thoroughly dominate and have a longer prime because he didn't rely as much on athleticism.

[StephHamann]

No ...

If the '91 Lakers had JJ Barea, and 80 year old Jason Kidd ... Jordan would get locked up, and disappear. So really it's 4-2.

Oh, and if the '97, and '98 Jazz had Kwahi Leonard outplaying Mike, then really he's 2 for 6.

What do you know, that's basically LeBron's Finals win percentage.

:applause:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o9WrqU3gk9M/Uf0cLfXc8_I/AAAAAAAAOFg/S6pHR0X5uOo/s1600/adrian-beltre.gif

[SHAQisGOAT]

A guy the caliber of Sleepy Floyd never dropped 51 on LeBron in a playoff game.

Again, pushing the same bullshit? :rolleyes: :facepalm

Magic didn't guard Sleepy... Scott and Cooper (mostly) did.

Let's also not underrate Sleepy here, dude could ball/score, was quick, agile and swift as hell, had some great handles with a great crossover, very good finisher and equipped with a jumper.
You just don't drop 51 on two great defenders (one all-time great), on an all-time great team in a Playoff game... by chance.

LeBron wouldn't be able to guard Floyd quite as well as someone like Michael Cooper (also considering body types, athleticism and style of play), ijs.
Coop got very angry at himself after it though, took it to heart - as it normally happened, dude was pretty mental - and locked Floyd down in the next game.

[LAZERUSS]

It doesn't count unless they lose. Stop catching on to my methods. Shh....edit your post. Your post did not happen.


---

All seriousness, if they hurt and it affects their play, then it sucks. There are players who could fight through the pain and play great, sometimes the injures take a toll on them. It happens. Like Bird with his back sucked cuz it took a toll on him over time. He had to retire. Mchale foot injury sucked cuz he couldn't move as quick as he did, and wasn't as good defensively. He wasn't as good scoring the ball either, but he was still good enough. Grant Hill injuries obviously took a toll and D-Wade in the Pistons series in 05. D.Howard with his injuries, and he's never been the same player since. Although it's probably cuz of the coaching too. Anyhow, it depends on the year. We have to dissect what changed and how they were dealing with their injuries. Some players have higher pain tolerance, some don't. Some injuries would affect more with them than others depending on the position, what they do, and how old they are.

I'm a victim of ignoring some injuries if they play is consistent to what they usual do, especially after years after it happened. Like with Kobe injured his finger a couple of times, and he still played up to his standards shooting wise. At least I think, I would have to double check on it. Sometimes it's not that simple. Depends on what else they do on the floor.

In this case tho, I don't see the 91 Lakers beating the 91 Bulls. Healthy or not. Although maybe they would win one more game if Scott showed up, lol.

I agree 100%. Even a healthy '91 Laker team would not have beaten a considerably better Chicago TEAM that year.

But it brings me back to an earlier point...

Where were MJ and his Bulls in the mid-to-late 80's, when Magic and his Lakers were at THEIR peaks?

MJ struggled mightily against the '87 Celtics (in a three game sweeping loss), while Magic just crushed them (in a dominant series win.) How about THAT Magic and THOSE Lakers against the '91 Bulls?

[OldSchoolBBall]

I agree 100%. Even a healthy '91 Laker team would not have beaten a considerably better Chicago TEAM that year.

But it brings me back to an earlier point...

Where were MJ and his Bulls in the mid-to-late 80's, when Magic and his Lakers were at THEIR peaks?

MJ struggled mightily against the '87 Celtics (in a three game sweeping loss), while Magic just crushed them (in a dominant series win.) How about THAT Magic and THOSE Lakers against the '91 Bulls?

I don't know if I'd say that 36/7/6/2/2/53% TS is "struggling mightily". :rolleyes: Also funny to compare the sort of "help" Jordan had with Magic's 1987 all-star squad. :oldlol:

[Showtime80']

Some great points brought by both sides.

Got a hypothetical question for you guys specially 97 Bulls: How many titles do the 90's Bulls get playing from 1980 through 1988?

[OldSchoolBBall]

Some great points brought by both sides.

Got a hypothetical question for you guys specially 97 Bulls: How many titles do the 90's Bulls get playing from 1980 through 1988?

Do they get to stack extra talent like Boston/Philly/LA/Detroit did due to the more lax salary/draft rules back then? If you give the '90's Bulls a 14-18 ppg center (which would make them roughly equal (yet still inferior) to LA/Boston talent-wise, they still win 6 titles in the 80's imo.

[LAZERUSS]

I don't know if I'd say that 36/7/6/2/2/53% TS is "struggling mightily". :rolleyes: Also funny to compare the sort of "help" Jordan had with Magic's 1987 all-star squad. :oldlol:

Well, MJ shot .417 from the field, .400 from the arc, and .896 from the line.

Magic's 26-8-14 came on a .541 FG%, .500 3pt%, and 960 FT%.

Magic CLEARLY could have scored more BTW. The fact that he was scoring 26 while handing out 14 apg speaks volumes. Oh, and he was the leading scorer in that series, as well.

No more "comparing" than using an injury-riddled and declining Laker roster in '91 (which would crumble completely the next very next year without Magic)... with a healthy Bulls TEAM that was capable of winning 55 games without MJ a few years later.

[Nevaeh]

true - but comparing the 91 bulls to the lakers is akin to magic vs scottie/jordan (1 top 10 player VS. 2 top 10 players ATT). magic AND kareem makes this championship series and debate, more competitive.


The 80s Lakers lost in the Finals back to back in 83 and 84, with a still healthy Kareem. They also lost again with Kareem in 89. That's 3 Finals losses right there, going up against teams that didn't have a player on Jordan's level when it comes to overall efficiency on the biggest stage.

the 91 Bulls will just slow the game down and methodically pick the Lakers apart defensively, just like they did every team during their Finals runs. Add in the coaching of P-Jax, who has always one-upped any Pat Rley coached team, and it's pretty much a wrap in favor of the Bulls.

http://www.landofbasketball.com/championships/year_by_year.htm

[LAZERUSS]

The 80s Lakers lost in the Finals back to back in 83 and 84, with a still healthy Kareem. They also lost again with Kareem in 89. That's 3 Finals losses right there, going up against teams that didn't have a player on Jordan's level when it comes to overall efficiency on the biggest stage.

the 91 Bulls will just slow the game down and methodically pick the Lakers apart defensively, just like they did every team during their Finals runs. Add in the coaching of P-Jax, who has always one-upped any Pat Rley coached team, and it's pretty much a wrap in favor of the Bulls.

http://www.landofbasketball.com/championships/year_by_year.htm

:roll: :roll: :roll:

The '83 Lakers were without WORTHY (and McAdoo was injured as well.) Furthermore, that Sixers team would have contained MJ just as easily as the Bad Boys did from '88 thru '90, and Moses would have been putting up 35-25 games against the clowns that Bulls had manning the center spot.

The '84 Lakers were one errant pass, and one missed FT from SWEEPING the Celtics. And Kareem in '89? You have to be kidding. He was a complete load of baggage by that year (and in fact in '88 as well, when they STILL beat the Bad Boys.)

The '82, '85, or '87 Lakers would have been too much for ANY of the 90's Bulls teams.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Well, MJ shot .417 from the field, .400 from the arc, and .896 from the line.

Magic's 26-8-14 came on a .541 FG%, .500 3pt%, and 960 FT%.

Magic CLEARLY could have scored more BTW. The fact that he was scoring 26 while handing out 14 apg speaks volumes. Oh, and he was the leading scorer in that series, as well.

You didn't say that Magic had the better series, though, which I agree with - you said that Jordan "struggled mightily", which is laughable.

[Nevaeh]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

The '83 Lakers were without WORTHY (and McAdoo was injured as well.) Furthermore, that Sixers team would have contained MJ just as easily as the Bad Boys did from '88 thru '90, and Moses would have been putting up 35-25 games against the clowns that Bulls had manning the center spot.

The '84 Lakers were one errant pass, and one missed FT from SWEEPING the Celtics. And Kareem in '89? You have to be kidding. He was a complete load of baggage by that year (and in fact in '88 as well, when they STILL beat the Bad Boys.)

The '82, '85, or '87 Lakers would have been too much for ANY of the 90's Bulls teams.

You love playing the "If" and "just one point, 3 point, 4 point away from" game an awful lot here on ISH, don't you? If we're to assume the Lakers are completely healthy, then it only makes sense for the 91 Bulls to be completely healthy as well. And like I said, the Bulls won't play into the Lakers hands by trying to be a rip and run team.

And lets not forget about Pax also, who's gonna make Magic pay any time he even thinks about doubling on MJ.

[LAZERUSS]

You love playing the "If" and "just one point, 3 point, 4 point away from" game an awful lot here on ISH, don't you? If we're to assume the Lakers are completely healthy, then it only makes sense for the 91 Bulls to be completely healthy as well. And like I said, the Bulls won't play into the Lakers hands by trying to be a rip and run team.

And lets not forget about Pax also, who's gonna make Magic pay any time he even thinks about doubling on MJ.

Look, you, Oldschool, and myself all KNOW that a mythical series between a 90's Bulls team and an 80's Lakers team would be very close, and likely would be in a best of 101 series.

But, those that are using the '91 Finals as an argument that Chicago was the better team are completely ignoring the fact that the '91 Lakers were nowhere near the "Showtime" Lakers.

[97 bulls]

Look, you, Oldschool, and myself all KNOW that a mythical series between a 90's Bulls team and an 80's Lakers team would be very close, and likely would be in a best of 101 series.

But, those that are using the '91 Finals as an argument that Chicago was the better team are completely ignoring the fact that the '91 Lakers were nowhere near the "Showtime" Lakers.
And the 96 or 97 Bulls were better than the 91 Lakers. This still comes down to question you refuse to answer. How are the Lakers gonna overcome the Bulls trapping/full court pressure defense?

Pat Riley had a saying. If you can't rebound, you can't run. Dennis Rodman alone would out rebound the Lakers whole frontline.

You can't make a decision based on stats.

[LAZERUSS]

And the 96 or 97 Bulls were better than the 91 Lakers. This still comes down to question you refuse to answer. How are the Lakers gonna overcome the Bulls trapping/full court pressure defense?

Pat Riley had a saying. If you can't rebound, you can't run. Dennis Rodman alone would out rebound the Lakers whole frontline.

You can't make a decision based on stats.

No question...the '96, '97, and virtually all of the Bulls title teams of the 90's were better than the '91 Lakers (even if LA had been healthy.)

But, the Showtime Lakers of the 80's were much better than the '91 Lakers, as well.

[Showtime80']

Let the 91'Bulls trap! Every Laker player with the exception of an older Kareem was a very good ball handler not to mention they were a great passing team overall. Plus when you trap you run the risk of opening up angles for easier opportunities not to mention you're SPEEDING up the game! PJax would not speed it up against those Lakers team, he may trap to get the Lakers out of their confort zone after a few made baskets.

That's another thing, depth is another question. The 91' Bulls were younger but you have to preserve the energy of their 3 most athletic defenders Jordan, Pippen and Grant because they are KEY on the offensive side of the ball. The Lakers on the other hand can sacrifice Scott, Green and Cooper totally on the defensive end because that still leaves Magic, Worthy and Kareem to concentrate more on the offense.

The Lakers will stay at home on everybody because they can afford to let Jordan and Pippen go for 60, where is the other offense coming from. You're not beating the 87' Lakers scoring under 100 points

[bizil]

Again, pushing the same bullshit? :rolleyes: :facepalm

Magic didn't guard Sleepy... Scott and Cooper (mostly) did.

Let's also not underrate Sleepy here, dude could ball/score, was quick, agile and swift as hell, had some great handles with a great crossover, very good finisher and equipped with a jumper.
You just don't drop 51 on two great defenders (one all-time great), on an all-time great team in a Playoff game... by chance.

LeBron wouldn't be able to guard Floyd quite as well as someone like Michael Cooper (also considering body types, athleticism and style of play), ijs.
Coop got very angry at himself after it though, took it to heart - as it normally happened, dude was pretty mental - and locked Floyd down in the next game.


I agree! Sleepy Floyd has become UNDERRATED as hell throughout the years! Plus people need to realize USUALLY Magic didn't guard the PG's. They always put B Scott and Coop on the PG. And for shooting guards, they defended PG's better than most. Especially Coop.

I also agree that Coop would be more effective guarding 6'3 and under guards than Bron. Not saying Bron doesn't do a good job on those guys. But Coop was 6'6 WHILE being only 170-180 pounds. So he was like a cheetah out there defensively.

And that was the beauty of the Lakers team. U could play Magic as a legit PG (not a point forward) with a true SG and a true SF. U had SG's like Coop and B Scott to guard the PG's. If needed u had Worthy to guard the SG's.

And once they got AC Green at PF, u could let AC guard the SF's. So in essence, Magic would check PG-PF depending on the matchup. Becasue u had very good-great versatile defenders ALL AROUND him to cover up his weaknesses.

[bizil]

Let the 91'Bulls trap! Every Laker player with the exception of an older Kareem was a very good ball handler not to mention they were a great passing team overall. Plus when you trap you run the risk of opening up angles for easier opportunities not to mention you're SPEEDING up the game! PJax would not speed it up against those Lakers team, he may trap to get the Lakers out of their confort zone after a few made baskets.

That's another thing, depth is another question. The 91' Bulls were younger but you have to preserve the energy of their 3 most athletic defenders Jordan, Pippen and Grant because they are KEY on the offensive side of the ball. The Lakers on the other hand can sacrifice Scott, Green and Cooper totally on the defensive end because that still leaves Magic, Worthy and Kareem to concentrate more on the offense.

The Lakers will stay at home on everybody because they can afford to let Jordan and Pippen go for 60, where is the other offense coming from. You're not beating the 87' Lakers scoring under 100 points

Well said! I would favor the 87 Lakers over the 91 Bulls. But the TRUE TEST would be the second three peat Bulls with Rodman, Kukoc, and Harper. That team is better equipped to go up against the 87 Lakers.

[97 bulls]

Let the 91'Bulls trap! Every Laker player with the exception of an older Kareem was a very good ball handler not to mention they were a great passing team overall. Plus when you trap you run the risk of opening up angles for easier opportunities not to mention you're SPEEDING up the game! PJax would not speed it up against those Lakers team, he may trap to get the Lakers out of their confort zone after a few made baskets.
Dude. The Bulls trapped the Lakers in 91. It got so bad that they had Vlade Divac taking the ball up court. And no James Worthy was not a good ball handler. The dude couldn't dribble with his head up. The next best option would be Cooper, but that would mean Scott has to sit and thus you loose offense.


That's another thing, depth is another question. The 91' Bulls were younger but you have to preserve the energy of their 3 most athletic defenders Jordan, Pippen and Grant because they are KEY on the offensive side of the ball. The Lakers on the other hand can sacrifice Scott, Green and Cooper totally on the defensive end because that still leaves Magic, Worthy and Kareem to concentrate more on the offense.
Again. You're trying to argue against something the Bulls actually did.And with great success.


The Lakers will stay at home on everybody because they can afford to let Jordan and Pippen go for 60, where is the other offense coming from. You're not beating the 87' Lakers scoring under 100 points
If the Lakers tried staying at home, theyd get picked apart by that Triangle Offense. The way I see it, post Jordan on skinny Cooper or too short Scott. I dont see how either would be able to defend Jordan in the post with his combination of size, speed, quickness, jumping ability and most of all skill.