Do you think the 1990's Bulls win more then 3 rings if they played in the 1980s

[coastalmarker99]

I for one personally don't think so





As The Bulls in the 1980s would have been going up against Bird's stacked Celtics squads and Doctor J's 76ers just to get out of the east then they would have been facing a stacked Showtime Lakers team with Kareem in the finals almost every single year.







It's also important to note that three of those teams had a big man that could have feasted against the Bulls main weakness in Moses Kareem and Mchale.

[AussieSteve]

The 90s is the only decade that the Bulls win all those rings.

The only team they faced that approaches the 80s juggernauts was the Suns in 93. And even then, they came into the finals hampered by injuries.

Every year the Bulls had 2 of the best 3 players on the court and 3 of the best 5.

[coastalmarker99]

The 90s is the only decade that the Bulls win all those rings.

The only team they faced that approaches the 80s juggernauts was the Suns in 93. And even then, they came into the finals hampered by injuries.

Every year the Bulls had 2 of the best 3 players on the court and 3 of the best 5.


Indeed the Bulls did have the best players compared to the teams that they were facing.

[kawhileonard2]

1981 vs 1991 - yes.
1982 vs 1992 - yes
1983 vs 1993 - toughest one
1984 vs 1994 - Jordan stays yes
1985 vs 1995 - Say no
1986 vs 1996 - '86 Celtics vs '96 Bulls - I'd say yes
1987 vs 1997 - '87 Lakers vs '97 Bulls - could go either way
1988 vs 1998 - '88 Lakers vs '98 Bulls - could go either way

[Axe]

Without the implementation of the flagrant foul, i think not.

[coastalmarker99]

1981 vs 1991 - yes.
1982 vs 1992 - yes
1983 vs 1993 - toughest one
1984 vs 1994 - Jordan stays yes
1985 vs 1995 - Say no
1986 vs 1996 - '86 Celtics vs '96 Bulls - I'd say yes
1987 vs 1997 - '87 Lakers vs '97 Bulls - could go either way
1988 vs 1998 - '88 Lakers vs '98 Bulls - could go either way



1981 Yes


1982 Maybe


1983 No


1984 No



1985 No


1986 No


1987 Yes


1988 No

[HoopsNY]

I for one personally don't think so





As The Bulls in the 1980s would have been going up against Bird's stacked Celtics squads and Doctor J's 76ers just to get out of the east then they would have been facing a stacked Showtime Lakers team with Kareem in the finals almost every single year.







It's also important to note that three of those teams had a big man that could have feasted against the Bulls main weakness in Moses Kareem and Mchale.

This isn't an apples to apples comparison. If the 1990s Bulls are transplanted, then the expansion doesn't exist for all but 1 year. Having said that, who are the additional pieces that Chicago gets to add that ultimately stack their roster more than it already was?

Do they maneuver their team and picks and add a big scorer, or do they draft a key role player? Do they make key free agent acquisitions? Ultimately we'll never know, but we can make some safe assumptions that they would have added at least one key player to their roster.

No one really knows. But the argument can't be made that they play the entire 80s with the same roster, especially when between 1996-98 the league had 29 teams, as opposed to 23 between 1980-88. That completely changes the argument.

This is why I continuously say that the expansion argument is an awful one. It pre-supposes that the concentration of talent with players like Shaq, Rice, KG, Marbury, Stoudamire, LJ, Zo, Seikaly, Abdur-Rahim, Reeves, Scott, Penny, and all the role players on those expansion teams, would only be added to every team except Chicago.

How does that make any sense?

[Bronbron23]

I for one personally don't think so





As The Bulls in the 1980s would have been going up against Bird's stacked Celtics squads and Doctor J's 76ers just to get out of the east then they would have been facing a stacked Showtime Lakers team with Kareem in the finals almost every single year.







It's also important to note that three of those teams had a big man that could have feasted against the Bulls main weakness in Moses Kareem and Mchale.

Probably not but the 80s were ridiculously good. Plus alot of teams don't win if you put them in different scenarios. If brons miami heat teams run was 8n the early 2000s do they still win 2? Probably not. They maybe get 1.

[sdot_thadon]

This isn't an apples to apples comparison. If the 1990s Bulls are transplanted, then the expansion doesn't exist for all but 1 year. Having said that, who are the additional pieces that Chicago gets to add that ultimately stack their roster more than it already was?

Do they maneuver their team and picks and add a big scorer, or do they draft a key role player? Do they make key free agent acquisitions? Ultimately we'll never know, but we can make some safe assumptions that they would have added at least one key player to their roster.

No one really knows. But the argument can't be made that they play the entire 80s with the same roster, especially when between 1996-98 the league had 29 teams, as opposed to 23 between 1980-88. That completely changes the argument.

This is why I continuously say that the expansion argument is an awful one. It pre-supposes that the concentration of talent with players like Shaq, Rice, KG, Marbury, Stoudamire, LJ, Zo, Seikaly, Abdur-Rahim, Reeves, Scott, Penny, and all the role players on those expansion teams, would only be added to every team except Chicago.

How does that make any sense?

Think you're over complicating this scenario, I think he just meant taking the rosters as is into the 80s era not all the roster implications. 90 Bulls in 80, 91 in 81 etc.

No team Involved wins the same amount of rings if they are dropped Into that era, Bulls included. Might not even sniff 6 finals in the 80s to be honest.

[mehyaM24]

Think you're over complicating this scenario, I think he just meant taking the rosters as is into the 80s era not all the roster implications. 90 Bulls in 80, 91 in 81 etc.

No team Involved wins the same amount of rings if they are dropped Into that era, Bulls included. Might not even sniff 6 finals in the 80s to be honest.

i have to agree. if you're just transplanting them into the 80s then what is the issue? that other stuff is inconsequential. chicago likely don't win against the 83 sixers, 84 celtics, 85 lakers, 86 celtics, and 87 lakers. that leaves a few years open. i doubt they would beat the showtime lakers more than 3 times.

[97 bulls]

I think they'd win 4 maybe 5. 81, 82, 86, 87 for sure. 88 maybe.

Saying that, i just dont get this expansion argument. Theres no information that supports the notion that expansion had that big of an effect on the talent distribution.

Case and point. If expansion had that big of an effect, why didnt the Lakers and Celtics stay competitive at least well into the mid 90s? Even without Magic and Bird.

The Celtics couldn't even get to the ECF WITH Bird. Much less compete against the Bulls. That's why Jordan never beat Bird.

The Lakers were no better. They were basically 1st round fodder as well.

And again, the tie that binds is the Pistons. The Bulls beat them like they stole something in 91. And the Pistons beat both the Celtics and the Lakers. Make it make sense

[r0drig0lac]

well, they are the best team in all these years, so probably yes

[Lebron23]

well, they are the best team in all these years, so probably yes

Plenty of talented team in the 1980's. I think winning 3 chamoionshiops is more realistic.

[HoopsNY]

Think you're over complicating this scenario, I think he just meant taking the rosters as is into the 80s era not all the roster implications. 90 Bulls in 80, 91 in 81 etc.

No team Involved wins the same amount of rings if they are dropped Into that era, Bulls included. Might not even sniff 6 finals in the 80s to be honest.


i have to agree. if you're just transplanting them into the 80s then what is the issue? that other stuff is inconsequential. chicago likely don't win against the 83 sixers, 84 celtics, 85 lakers, 86 celtics, and 87 lakers. that leaves a few years open. i doubt they would beat the showtime lakers more than 3 times.


Not over complicating things at all. It would be like saying, "if you drop Stephen Curry in the league in 1972, would he hit as many threes?" Well the line didn't exist back then, so you can't provide a hypothetical but at the same time, not adjust for context. And why is one hypothetical qualification allowed but another isn't?

The only reason Chicago doesn't win against those teams in some years is because those teams would have an obvious advantage of stacking the deck. It's well known that the 90s talent per team was diluted, and that was due to expansion. But that also includes Chicago.

Now if you remove expansion, then Chicago probably has 1-2 more quality players on their roster, which makes them more dangerous in a 7 game series, especially with HCA. I'm not saying they ultimately sign or end up with a player like Shaq, Zo, or Abdur-Rahim, but what if they did?

[mehyaM24]

Not over complicating things at all. It would be like saying, "if you drop Stephen Curry in the league in 1972, would he hit as many threes?" Well the line didn't exist back then, so you can't provide a hypothetical but at the same time, not adjust for context. And why is one hypothetical qualification allowed but another isn't?

The only reason Chicago doesn't win against those teams in some years is because those teams would have an obvious advantage of stacking the deck. It's well known that the 90s talent per team was diluted, and that was due to expansion. But that also includes Chicago.

Now if you remove expansion, then Chicago probably has 1-2 more quality players on their roster, which makes them more dangerous in a 7 game series, especially with HCA. I'm not saying they ultimately sign or end up with a player like Shaq, Zo, or Abdur-Rahim, but what if they did?

chicago benefited more than anyone in the 90s - so not sure "expansion" works against them. post 91 they were preseason favorite just about EVERY year (with jordan) and with good reason. in 96 for example chicago was the only team who fielded 3 all-leaguers. nobody else had that combination, hence winning 72 games. in fact, they would have won more the following year (went 69-13 overall), but rodman missed half the season. we all agree the 90s were weak in comparison. but again, the bulls benefited most.

[HoopsNY]

chicago benefited more than anyone in the 90s - so not sure "expansion" works against them. post 91 they were preseason favorite just about EVERY year (with jordan) and with good reason. in 96 for example chicago was the only team who fielded 3 all-leaguers. nobody else had that combination, hence winning 72 games. in fact, they would have won more the following year (went 69-13 overall), but rodman missed half the season. we all agree the 90s were weak in comparison. but again, the bulls benefited most.

And still lost BJ Armstrong in the expansion draft. The fact remains, if there is no expansion, then Chicago has a stronger, not weaker team, in the 90s.

[97 bulls]

And still lost BJ Armstrong in the expansion draft. The fact remains, if there is no expansion, then Chicago has a stronger, not weaker team, in the 90s.

Theres a lot of moving parts under thia scenario.

Like I said it doesnt matter. The Bulls didn't have to leave Armstrong unprotected. They couldve left their worst 4 players (or whatever the number was.

Besides. The Bulls had a better record vs non expansion teams than the expansion teams. Remember, they lost to the Raptors in 96.

The league expanded in 88 and 89 as well. Why didnt the Showtime Lakers get close to 70 wins? Or the Pistons. Why didnt "talent dilution" buy the Celtics a little more time on top? Or at least be competitive.

How about the 94 Bulls? They won 55 games pre expansion. How many games do they win I'd you add MJ, a more experienced Toni Kukoc, and an upgrade from Grant to Rodman? I'd say they'd be good for about 70 wins and that's just what they got.

[mehyaM24]

And still lost BJ Armstrong in the expansion draft. The fact remains, if there is no expansion, then Chicago has a stronger, not weaker team, in the 90s.

the expansion stuff is overstated bud. like i said, jordan's bulls always had more talent and that's backed by vegas - who always chose chicago as preseason favorite. in 96 they had 3 ALL-LEAGUE players. more than anyone else that year. for comparisons sake that's equal to the 86 celtics, 87 lakers and 88 lakers. but you think the bulls need MORE help?

[L.Kizzle]

They don't win 6 in the 1980s.

The East in the 80s was deep. Celtics (81, 84, 86) Sixers (83) and Pistons (89) all won championships and went to multiple Finals in the 80s.
And don't forget the Bucks. They made three conference finals between 83-86.

[MrFonzworth]

They maybe win 2. Bird owned Jordan.

[HoopsNY]

the expansion stuff is overstated bud. like i said, jordan's bulls always had more talent and that's backed by vegas - who always chose chicago as preseason favorite. in 96 they had 3 ALL-LEAGUE players. more than anyone else that year. for comparisons sake that's equal to the 86 celtics, 87 lakers and 88 lakers. but you think the bulls need MORE help?

You don't get what I'm saying, lol.

I'm not talking about the 90s here. I'm saying if there was no expansion, then Chicago likely has an even more stacked roster than they already had during the 90s, but in the 80s.

The question was about putting the 90s Bulls against 80s finals teams.

[sdot_thadon]

Not over complicating things at all. It would be like saying, "if you drop Stephen Curry in the league in 1972, would he hit as many threes?" Well the line didn't exist back then, so you can't provide a hypothetical but at the same time, not adjust for context. And why is one hypothetical qualification allowed but another isn't?

The only reason Chicago doesn't win against those teams in some years is because those teams would have an obvious advantage of stacking the deck. It's well known that the 90s talent per team was diluted, and that was due to expansion. But that also includes Chicago.

Now if you remove expansion, then Chicago probably has 1-2 more quality players on their roster, which makes them more dangerous in a 7 game series, especially with HCA. I'm not saying they ultimately sign or end up with a player like Shaq, Zo, or Abdur-Rahim, but what if they did?

Definitely over complicating things, is it because all that is necessary to reach your desired conclusion? Or are we just trying to be more in depth than the op asked us to be? Expansion doesn't really have anything to do with what the yearly roster the the Bulls actually had during their dynasty would do in a different era, that's too convoluted to not have a ton of data behind it. And also you open the big ass can of worms of : where do we stop? If we all of a sudden must give an alltime great team an even better roster to account for expansion , do we also take away from the Bulls because of medicine and training advancements namely supplements that came on in the 90s? Do we take away from them because flagrant fouls wouldn't exist and every contender would be free to "Jordan rules" Mj in any playoff series? Do we assume Mj gets traded before the dynasty ever gets off the ground like the clippers deal that was on the table in the late 80s? Or do we for the sake of accuracy de-age the entire roster to high-school and middle school kids and go from there? How far do things need to be spun to get a desired outcome?

[mehyaM24]

You don't get what I'm saying, lol.

I'm not talking about the 90s here. I'm saying if there was no expansion, then Chicago likely has an even more stacked roster than they already had during the 90s, but in the 80s.

The question was about putting the 90s Bulls against 80s finals teams.

you brought up expansion though, which was rampant in the 90s. what you're saying isn't guaranteed because chicago ALREADY benefited from a stacked team - unlike most from that era. also where do the "80s bulls" get all that income? isn't there a salary cap?

[dankok8]

They win 2-3 in the 80's but of the modern teams only the Warriors could win 2-3 as well. All others teams would win fewer. The 80's were stacked.

[HoopsNY]

Definitely over complicating things, is it because all that is necessary to reach your desired conclusion? Or are we just trying to be more in depth than the op asked us to be? Expansion doesn't really have anything to do with what the yearly roster the the Bulls actually had during their dynasty would do in a different era, that's too convoluted to not have a ton of data behind it. And also you open the big ass can of worms of : where do we stop? If we all of a sudden must give an alltime great team an even better roster to account for expansion , do we also take away from the Bulls because of medicine and training advancements namely supplements that came on in the 90s? Do we take away from them because flagrant fouls wouldn't exist and every contender would be free to "Jordan rules" Mj in any playoff series? Do we assume Mj gets traded before the dynasty ever gets off the ground like the clippers deal that was on the table in the late 80s? Or do we for the sake of accuracy de-age the entire roster to high-school and middle school kids and go from there? How far do things need to be spun to get a desired outcome?

I do agree that this convolutes the process, but a method of arriving at a conclusion should be based on a sound context. The entire reason the OP made this post was because the 80s featured some of the most stacked rosters of all-time. Yet somehow, immediately after expansion, the talent on each team becomes more dispersed.

Is that a coincidence or not?

As for training and medical enhancement products, then you're right to an extent, and that could be factored in. But how far away were the 1991 or 1992 Bulls from the 1987 Lakers or the 1989 Pistons?

Furthermore, a lot of this is predicated on the idea that the players get injured and have a medical remedy to resolve that. The OP pre-supposes no injuries. So I don't think this theory affects the outcome on a consistent basis as much as expansion, which literally affects the makeup of the team.

But I get what you're saying and I do see where you're coming from. It's very difficult to put precision on this argument given the myriad of other factors.

[HoopsNY]

you brought up expansion though, which was rampant in the 90s. what you're saying isn't guaranteed because chicago ALREADY benefited from a stacked team - unlike most from that era. also where do the "80s bulls" get all that income? isn't there a salary cap?

Answer this bro, if there is no expansion, is it likely that Chicago has an additional 1-2 solid players, be they stars, role players, or a quality bench player?

Are we forgetting that the Bulls' core was already on the team before expansion even happened? Jordan, Paxson, Pippen, and Grant were already there, and the Bulls acquired Cartwright by trading Oakley, who was at least a quality player himself capable of 15/15 on any given night.

If there is no expansion, I believe Chicago becomes even more stacked. The premise is entirely reasonable, and the discussion's context is completely changed more so than any other dynamic that changed in the game immediately thereafter, such as sdot's injury/medical advancement theory.

[Micku]

Who knows. I think they'll win a few tho.

It isn't even going by just talent, cuz I don't think they'll be the most talented. It's the style of play, assuming if they still have Phil Jax as a coach. The spacing that they would have and the pace they played it would potentially screw up some teams offense. If they win consistently, then instead of the Pistons revolutionizing the game played, it would be the Bulls.

But ignoring all of that right? They could win 80-82. But 83-88 would be the toughest years. It's definitely possible to win in those years tho. So, definitely at least 2 rings. 3 or more is doable, but I can't see 6. Depending on which team goes where on those years. The Bulls are one of the best teams of all time in a era where you got a collection of some of the other best teams of all time. So, they definitely got a chance. The 80s was stacked.

[3ball]

No

They win in 89' and 90'

And then maybe 1 other year

90's Pippen wouldn't be a star in the 80's, but he'd still be enough to win in 89' and 90'

[L.Kizzle]

No

They win in 89' and 90'

And then maybe 1 other year

90's Pippen wouldn't be a star in the 80's, but he'd still be enough to win in 89' and 90'
Is Rodman with the Pistons or Bulls in 89?

[mehyaM24]

Answer this bro, if there is no expansion, is it likely that Chicago has an additional 1-2 solid players, be they stars, role players, or a quality bench player?

Are we forgetting that the Bulls' core was already on the team before expansion even happened? Jordan, Paxson, Pippen, and Grant were already there, and the Bulls acquired Cartwright by trading Oakley, who was at least a quality player himself capable of 15/15 on any given night.

If there is no expansion, I believe Chicago becomes even more stacked. The premise is entirely reasonable, and the discussion's context is completely changed more so than any other dynamic that changed in the game immediately thereafter, such as sdot's injury/medical advancement theory.

think i made this clear in my posts. and feel like i am repeating myself lol. dont think your scenario is "likely" unless we do a few things. 1. ignore 90s chicago already having an 80s-like advantage. and 2. disregard the cap by giving them an additional "1-2 solid players". especially stars.

we can agree to disagree there. as constructed, though, how many titles do the 90s bulls win in the 80s?

[Axe]

Man i like the team so much but more or less, it's going to get pointed out that they've won their rings with the help of the implementation of the flagrant foul too and nobody can deny that.

[97 bulls]

I like the team so much but more or less, it's going to get pointed out that they've won rings with the help of the implementation of the flagrant foul too and nobody can deny that.

I dont see how that hurts the Bulls case. Are we really saying that it's not fair that the only way to beat the Bulls was to try to injure them?

[Axe]

I dont see how that hurts the Bulls case. Are we really saying that it's not fair that the only way to beat the Bulls was to try to injure them?
Well, we have posters in this board who are trying to say that part of michael jordan's success in his career was complaining to the refs about the rough play of the bad boy pistons, especially with their jordan rules. So that thought came into mind.

[sdot_thadon]

I dont see how that hurts the Bulls case. Are we really saying that it's not fair that the only way to beat the Bulls was to try to injure them?

Not at all, but by the same token we call a great defensive era the same one where great defense is achieved by mauling guys in the paint.

[3ball]

2-star teams couldn't win from 80-88' - super-teams were required

And pippen's production was considered trash in the 80's, so he wouldn't even be a star...

So Jordan might sneak 1 lucky one between 80-88', and then win both in 89' and 90' (pippen producing more than before obv) once expansion started to spread the talent around evenly

[97 bulls]

2-star teams couldn't win from 80-88' - super-teams were required

And pippen's production was considered trash in the 80's, so he wouldn't even be a star...

So Jordan might sneak 1 lucky one between 80-88', and then win both in 89' and 90' (pippen producing more than before obv) once expansion started to spread the talent around evenly

The Milwaukee Bucks the team with the 3rd best record in the 80s only had 1 star.

[TAZORAC]

As time goes on people forget stuff.

The only reason the BULLS got by the MAGIC for 2 years was because Grant, and Scott were hurt.

[HoopsNY]

think i made this clear in my posts. and feel like i am repeating myself lol. dont think your scenario is "likely" unless we do a few things. 1. ignore 90s chicago already having an 80s-like advantage. and 2. disregard the cap by giving them an additional "1-2 solid players". especially stars.

we can agree to disagree there. as constructed, though, how many titles do the 90s bulls win in the 80s?

The cap adjusts itself by market dynamics. How did they do it in the 80s? And the 90s Bulls having better teams doesn't mean that their 80s squad couldn't have been better than the 90s squad had expansion not happened.

As for just a raw sample without any context being considered, then it's safe to say the 90s Bulls win at least 3 titles. I think they win in '81, '88, and '89 at the very least. I also think '82 is a possibility.

[HoopsNY]

As time goes on people forget stuff.

The only reason the BULLS got by the MAGIC for 2 years was because Grant, and Scott were hurt.

I don't recall Scott being injured. Grant got hurt in game 1, but Chicago was already up by 20 with the 3rd quarter almost being over. Nick Anderson and Brian Shaw both got hurt. But Anderson got hurt in game 3 when the Magic put up the fewest points for a playoff game in league history. The series was already over by then.

The reality is, even if they had a healthy team, they would have lost. It probably wouldn't have been a sweep, though.

[mehyaM24]

The cap adjusts itself by market dynamics. How did they do it in the 80s? And the 90s Bulls having better teams doesn't mean that their 80s squad couldn't have been better than the 90s squad had expansion not happened.

chicago was already over the cap in 97 and in large part because of jordan's contract. adding "2 more" stars would be unrealistic. the nba would have to bend rules and gift chicago an advantage they basically already had.


As for just a raw sample without any context being considered, then it's safe to say the 90s Bulls win at least 3 titles. I think they win in '81, '88, and '89 at the very least. I also think '82 is a possibility.

3 titles is fair for an 80s-like club. more or less those are the SAME years i'd pick them to win. the 96 bulls had 3 leaguers which is equal to a number of 80s "powerhouses" then. that squad, the 97 iteration (went 69-13 with rodman missing half the year) and the 92 version were probably the best chicago teams.

[sdot_thadon]

The cap adjusts itself by market dynamics. How did they do it in the 80s? And the 90s Bulls having better teams doesn't mean that their 80s squad couldn't have been better than the 90s squad had expansion not happened.

As for just a raw sample without any context being considered, then it's safe to say the 90s Bulls win at least 3 titles. I think they win in '81, '88, and '89 at the very least. I also think '82 is a possibility.

How would they win in 89 with the team they had in 99??

[Ainosterhaspie]

How would they win in 89 with the team they had in 99??

You probably port 88 Bulls into 1980 and move forward from there skipping 94, but keeping 95. You get as many of the best Jordan years as possible to fill out entire decade.

[97 bulls]

I don't recall Scott being injured. Grant got hurt in game 1, but Chicago was already up by 20 with the 3rd quarter almost being over. Nick Anderson and Brian Shaw both got hurt. But Anderson got hurt in game 3 when the Magic put up the fewest points for a playoff game in league history. The series was already over by then.

The reality is, even if they had a healthy team, they would have lost. It probably wouldn't have been a sweep, though.

If the Magic are 100% healthy, then the Bulls have to. be 100% healthy too. Kukoc, Pippen, and I believe Harper all played hurt during the 96 Playoffs. That's why I think too much of todays arguments is dependent on playoffs statistics.

[HoopsNY]

If the Magic are 100% healthy, then the Bulls have to. be 100% healthy too. Kukoc, Pippen, and I believe Harper all played hurt during the 96 Playoffs. That's why I think too much of todays arguments is dependent on playoffs statistics.

That's a good point. I forgot about their injuries.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

3 maybe 4 titles. Depends on the year, but I think their defense would do a good job of slowing down faster paced teams.

[HoopsNY]

chicago was already over the cap in 97 and in large part because of jordan's contract. adding "2 more" stars would be unrealistic. the nba would have to bend rules and gift chicago an advantage they basically already had.

This pre-supposes the salaries from years like 1997 and 1998 would be the standard salaries for the team in the 1980s. Jordan made over $30 million those years. Here are Jordan's salaries from the 80s:

1985: $550,000
1986: $630,000
1987: $845,000
1988: $2,000,000

You would have to adjust for salaries. How did Boston manage a super-team with 5 HOF'ers? How did the Lakers do it? The Sixers? Why wouldn't Chicago do the same or be somewhat similar?

[mehyaM24]

This pre-supposes the salaries from years like 1997 and 1998 would be the standard salaries for the team in the 1980s. Jordan made over $30 million those years. Here are Jordan's salaries from the 80s:

1985: $550,000
1986: $630,000
1987: $845,000
1988: $2,000,000

You would have to adjust for salaries. How did Boston manage a super-team with 5 HOF'ers? How did the Lakers do it? The Sixers? Why wouldn't Chicago do the same or be somewhat similar?

well they're a 90s team. signing more players, reducing salaries and cap kind of defeats the purpose of this hypothetical. if you have a couple of names in mind (new acquisitions for 80s chicago) then maybe someone will debate you on the years they win.

[HoopsNY]

well they're a 90s team. signing more players, reducing salaries and cap kind of defeats the purpose of this hypothetical. if you have a couple of names in mind (new acquisitions for 80s chicago) then maybe someone will debate you on the years they win.

Which is why I argued the expansion point. Sure, on the surface you keep the team as is, but expansion had a significant impact on talent per team. If we're going to use 1997-98 salaries, then we are ignoring not only the 80s salaries, but the early 90s, too.

It all adjusts is what I'm saying. But I think we agree in principle here.

The 90s Bulls as is win 3-4 titles in the 80s. But adjust for expansion and that likely becomes more. This doesn't mean that they would necessarily go flawless in the finals. Those '83 Sixers and '86 Celtics were legendary. So it would really depend on who they're adding.

[3ball]

.
Why debate amongst ourselves when we can see what Magic and Isiah thought:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6og_pOVi2w&t=0m16s



"We had more weapons.... Get me in foul trouble, and get Michael in foul trouble, and take us both out, and you'd see what would happen - we would dominate them."



So MJ/Pippen wasn't enough to win in the super-team 80's

They only win in 89' and 90' when they were already nearly winning with sophomore Pippen (16 PER) and the #19 defense

[97 bulls]

.
Why debate amongst ourselves when we can see what Magic and Isiah thought:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6og_pOVi2w&t=0m16s



"We had more weapons.... Get me in foul trouble, and get Michael in foul trouble, and take us both out, and you'd see what would happen - we would dominate them."



So MJ/Pippen wasn't enough to win in the super-team 80's

They only win in 89' and 90' when they were already nearly winning with sophomore Pippen (16 PER) and the #19 defense

Lol. Except we saw that play out in real life. The Lakers lost Magic after 91, and still had core pieces from their back to back team and ended up barely making the playoffs. And the Lakers replaced Magic with a solid PG in Sedale Threat.

The Bulls lost Jordan in 94, and they had the 5th best record in the NBA. And they replaced MJ with utter trash in Pete Myers.

And before you start your nonsense. The Bulls had 3pt chemistry and the Lakers had repeat chemistry.

[97 bulls]

I have a question. What super team did the 80s teams beat when they won their championships? The 80s had 3 "super teams". The 87 Lakers, the 86 Celtics, and the 83 Sixers. None of these teams played each other.

A Celtics fan will tell you the 87 Celtics lost due to injuries.

The 86 Celtics beat a Houston team that will never be considered all time great.

And nobody thinks the 83 Lakers were considered an alltime great. And I believed they had key players missing.

They beat versions of each other.

The Bulls beat the Lakers and Pistons.

[JBSptfn]

The 86 Rockets will never be considered an all-time great, but they could beat any of the Bulls teams. Sampson and Olajuwon would be a matchup nightmare for them (in the early-90's, the Bulls had trouble beating just Olajuwon).

[HoopsNY]

The 86 Rockets will never be considered an all-time great, but they could beat any of the Bulls teams. Sampson and Olajuwon would be a matchup nightmare for them (in the early-90's, the Bulls had trouble beating just Olajuwon).

Good point. :roll:

[97 bulls]

The 86 Rockets will never be considered an all-time great, but they could beat any of the Bulls teams. Sampson and Olajuwon would be a matchup nightmare for them (in the early-90's, the Bulls had trouble beating just Olajuwon).

Sampson was soft. He wasnt the prototype Big. He wanted to be a guard. He was before his time.

Either way. The Rockets weren't even good enough to make it to the Finals when the Bulls won. They barely beat the Knicks in 7 games. And the 86 Celtics needed 6 hard fought games to beat the Rockets.

[JBSptfn]

Sampson was soft. He wasnt the prototype Big. He wanted to be a guard. He was before his time.

Either way. The Rockets weren't even good enough to make it to the Finals when the Bulls won. They barely beat the Knicks in 7 games. And the 86 Celtics needed 6 hard fought games to beat the Rockets.

Sampson may have been a guard in a big man's body, but the Rockets were able to beat a Laker team 4 games to one (that was better than any of Chicago's title teams) with Sampson scoring 24 points (and 16 boards) in Game 2 and scoring 29 points in Game 5.

And, the Rockets were good enough in 93 to make the Finals. They just lost a tough OT game to Seattle in Game 7 of the West Semifinals. If they get by them, they had a solid chance against the Suns (they won the last two times they played). They also went 2-0 against Chicago that year.

[97 bulls]

Sampson may have been a guard in a big man's body, but the Rockets were able to beat a Laker team 4 games to one (that was better than any of Chicago's title teams) with Sampson scoring 24 points (and 16 boards) in Game 2 and scoring 29 points in Game 5.

And, the Rockets were good enough in 93 to make the Finals. They just lost a tough OT game to Seattle in Game 7 of the West Semifinals. If they get by them, they had a solid chance against the Suns (they won the last two times they played). They also went 2-0 against Chicago that year.

Lol. You actually feel the 86 Lakers were better than any Bulls team? I'd make the argument that the 91 Lakers were better than the 86 Lakers. Jabaar was old by 86. That's why he no longer was the 1st option. The Lakers knew they were no longer good enough to get out the Western Conference. And even then the Western Conference was terrible all through the 80s. The 91 Lakers got more than enough from their big man spot with Vlade Divac and Sam Perkins. And they definitely got more rebounding, defense,
and toughness from the Perkins/Divac duo. Worthy and Scott and Green were in their primes as well. Magic was Magic. Cooper was gone. But hes not gonna make that big of a difference. The 91 Lakers were literally better than the 86 Lakers at every position. Other than 6th man.

Alot of teams are "good enough". That doesnt mean they're gonna win. If the Rockets weren't even good enough to make it to the Conference Finals, then I'm not gonna put them in the level of teams that were. Barring injury.

[eliteballer]

The 90's Bulls got a little lucky too.


1991, Worthy injures his ankle against Portland in the playoffs, comes in hobbled into the Finals. With their second best player Worthy slowed, on top of losing him in top health the Laker were further incumbered because the Bulls were able to slide Pippen onto Magic, who was making short work of Jordan when guarded by him but had more trouble with Pippen(though make no mistake, Magic consistently got by Pippen but was swarmed by the Bulls team D). A healthy Worthy prevents this because Pippen has to stay on him. Byron Scott also got injured later in the series. Although the series went 5 games, it was very competitive and might have been a different series if Worthy was healthy. Also keep in mind, this wasn’t Prime Magic. He’d been in the league since he was 20 and had played as many playoff games at this point as Jordan would in his entire career. He was still great, but his knees were shot compared to what he was athletically a few years earlier. Give the Lakers a Peak Magic, healthy Worthy and Scott and who knows?

1992. I don’t really have anything to say about this year, the Bulls were one of the best teams ever and still got really tough series from the Blazers and Knicks. Actually, I do have something to say which you will see below.

1993, the Suns lose Cedric Ceballos in the Western playoffs, a key rotation player and offensive contributor. Again, another very competitive series where having Ceballos might have been enough to tip the balance. Ceballos dropped 27 points in the Suns regular season win at Chicago, and was generally pretty effective player against them. I think this series is a 7 game toss up with a healthy Ceballos.

1996. The Magic beat the Bulls in 1995, regardless of Jordan being “rusty”(Keep in mind Jordan still put up better numbers in those playoffs than he did in 96/96/98), a key reason being that the Bulls didn’t have the services of a Horace Grant or Rodman to crash the boards and play defense downlow. Flash forward to 1996, and Horace Grant comes into the series with a bad elbow, and is forced to sit almost the entire series. He was the Magic’s 3rd best player, and for all the talk of revenge the Magic played them well in the regular season. The Bulls most likely still win, but a healthy Grant makes it a 6 or 7 game series.

1997: The Bulls may have avoided 2 of their biggest challenges this season in the Rockets/Knicks. The Rockets and Bulls exchanged blowout wins in the regular season, the Rockets also had I believe the best or second best winning percentage in the league when all 3 of their stars were healthy. There was a lot of talk then about how they may have been a tougher matchup for the Bulls than the Jazz. In all fairness the Jazz beat the Rockets fair and square, but the Rockets may have been a tougher matchup for the Bulls. There’s been some who thought(some of the players on the team who’s names have been lost to time) that the 97 Knicks were the best of the 90’s Knicks teams and that would have been their best shot against the Bulls. They were up 3-1 against the Heat and the huge brawl in the middle of the series resulted in key suspensions which led to them losing the series. They most likely would have given the Bulls a much better playoff series.

1998: See below. The Bulls gutted out a great championship but were obviously a step below the previous teams. Teams they faced in earlier Finals like the Lakers, Blazers, Suns, and Sonics(not to mention the 92/93 Knicks) may have all beaten this years Bulls in a series matchup.

Short 3 point line: The short 3 point line really boosted the 96 and 97 Bulls by turning both Jordan and Pippen into pretty solid 3 point sharpshooters. It’s not just about hitting more of them at a better clip, but about it helping to open up your whole game. Undoubtedly, it made guarding Jordan tougher because now teams had to really respect his 3 point shot, opening up all possibilities for his game like easier driving lanes. Jordan made as many 3’s in those short years I believe as he did in the rest of his career, this really helped prolong his effectiveness as he aged. I don’t think the 96 and 97 Bulls teams are as dominant with the real 3 point line, period.

Now think about this. The two series the Bulls played that went 7 games were in 92 against the Knicks and 98 against the Pacers. Reggie and Ewing were both great players, but a step(In Reggie’s case a significant step) below tier 1 greats. I'm not even talking about guys like Duncan or Magic, but below guys like Barkley, D-Rob, or in Reggie's case even a Ray Allen or Paul Pierce.

What happens if you swap Ewing with Shaq or Olajuwon? Reggie with Kobe or Curry? Good chance the Bulls lose those series. Or let’s take it a step further, give both those teams better second options along the lines of most legit contenders. Jalen Rose, Mark Jackson, Starks, McDaniel? Good players, not great players. The Bulls faced great teams and players in their 90’s runs, but the two teams who took them to 7 games could have easily beaten them if given a star player of top 5-10(yearly) caliber.

[97 bulls]

The 90's Bulls got a little lucky too.


1991, Worthy injures his ankle against Portland in the playoffs, comes in hobbled into the Finals. With their second best player Worthy slowed, on top of losing him in top health the Laker were further incumbered because the Bulls were able to slide Pippen onto Magic, who was making short work of Jordan when guarded by him but had more trouble with Pippen(though make no mistake, Magic consistently got by Pippen but was swarmed by the Bulls team D). A healthy Worthy prevents this because Pippen has to stay on him. Byron Scott also got injured later in the series. Although the series went 5 games, it was very competitive and might have been a different series if Worthy was healthy. Also keep in mind, this wasn’t Prime Magic. He’d been in the league since he was 20 and had played as many playoff games at this point as Jordan would in his entire career. He was still great, but his knees were shot compared to what he was athletically a few years earlier. Give the Lakers a Peak Magic, healthy Worthy and Scott and who knows?

1992. I don’t really have anything to say about this year, the Bulls were one of the best teams ever and still got really tough series from the Blazers and Knicks. Actually, I do have something to say which you will see below.

1993, the Suns lose Cedric Ceballos in the Western playoffs, a key rotation player and offensive contributor. Again, another very competitive series where having Ceballos might have been enough to tip the balance. Ceballos dropped 27 points in the Suns regular season win at Chicago, and was generally pretty effective player against them. I think this series is a 7 game toss up with a healthy Ceballos.

1996. The Magic beat the Bulls in 1995, regardless of Jordan being “rusty”(Keep in mind Jordan still put up better numbers in those playoffs than he did in 96/96/98), a key reason being that the Bulls didn’t have the services of a Horace Grant or Rodman to crash the boards and play defense downlow. Flash forward to 1996, and Horace Grant comes into the series with a bad elbow, and is forced to sit almost the entire series. He was the Magic’s 3rd best player, and for all the talk of revenge the Magic played them well in the regular season. The Bulls most likely still win, but a healthy Grant makes it a 6 or 7 game series.

1997: The Bulls may have avoided 2 of their biggest challenges this season in the Rockets/Knicks. The Rockets and Bulls exchanged blowout wins in the regular season, the Rockets also had I believe the best or second best winning percentage in the league when all 3 of their stars were healthy. There was a lot of talk then about how they may have been a tougher matchup for the Bulls than the Jazz. In all fairness the Jazz beat the Rockets fair and square, but the Rockets may have been a tougher matchup for the Bulls. There’s been some who thought(some of the players on the team who’s names have been lost to time) that the 97 Knicks were the best of the 90’s Knicks teams and that would have been their best shot against the Bulls. They were up 3-1 against the Heat and the huge brawl in the middle of the series resulted in key suspensions which led to them losing the series. They most likely would have given the Bulls a much better playoff series.

1998: See below. The Bulls gutted out a great championship but were obviously a step below the previous teams. Teams they faced in earlier Finals like the Lakers, Blazers, Suns, and Sonics(not to mention the 92/93 Knicks) may have all beaten this years Bulls in a series matchup.

Short 3 point line: The short 3 point line really boosted the 96 and 97 Bulls by turning both Jordan and Pippen into pretty solid 3 point sharpshooters. It’s not just about hitting more of them at a better clip, but about it helping to open up your whole game. Undoubtedly, it made guarding Jordan tougher because now teams had to really respect his 3 point shot, opening up all possibilities for his game like easier driving lanes. Jordan made as many 3’s in those short years I believe as he did in the rest of his career, this really helped prolong his effectiveness as he aged. I don’t think the 96 and 97 Bulls teams are as dominant with the real 3 point line, period.

Now think about this. The two series the Bulls played that went 7 games were in 92 against the Knicks and 98 against the Pacers. Reggie and Ewing were both great players, but a step(In Reggie’s case a significant step) below tier 1 greats. I'm not even talking about guys like Duncan or Magic, but below guys like Barkley, D-Rob, or in Reggie's case even a Ray Allen or Paul Pierce.

What happens if you swap Ewing with Shaq or Olajuwon? Reggie with Kobe or Curry? Good chance the Bulls lose those series. Or let’s take it a step further, give both those teams better second options along the lines of most legit contenders. Jalen Rose, Mark Jackson, Starks, McDaniel? Good players, not great players. The Bulls faced great teams and players in their 90’s runs, but the two teams who took them to 7 games could have easily beaten them if given a star player of top 5-10(yearly) caliber.

You could apply this logic to literally every team that's ever won a Championship.

This kind of logic solidifies my argument that the Bulls are the greatest team ever. The standard they are held to is so far above every other team.

[eliteballer]

You could apply this logic to literally every team that's ever won a Championship.

This kind of logic solidifies my argument that the Bulls are the greatest team ever. The standard they are held to is so far above every other team.


Yes, you can..but it's often overlooked with the Bulls.

[sdot_thadon]

You could apply this logic to literally every team that's ever won a Championship.

This kind of logic solidifies my argument that the Bulls are the greatest team ever. The standard they are held to is so far above every other team.

I think the main thing to take out of this is we apply this type of standard and scrutiny to every other team, especially modern teams. Very rarely does it get applied to MJ's teams.

[97 bulls]

I think the main thing to take out of this is we apply this type of standard and scrutiny to every other team, especially modern teams. Very rarely does it get applied to MJ's teams.



Eliteballer quote
Yes, you can..but it's often overlooked with the Bulls.
I can’t tell you how amazingly intellectually dishonest these posts are guys. Are you actually telling us or feel that the arguments submitted by eliteballer have never been presented until now? Or sparingly? You’ve never heard the arguments that the Pistons were old? That Worthy was playing on a sprained ankle? That Kareem and Cooper weren’t on the 91 team? This is truly incredible. In fact, MJs Bulls have received the MOST scrutiny. I defy you to show us a thread in this forum with regards to the 90s Bulls where their competitors aren’t diminished due to expansion, injuries, or key players missing.

[97 bulls]

You can go through this thread and see the same scrutiny that you guys claim is never applied to the Bulls.

[sdot_thadon]

I can’t tell you how amazingly intellectually dishonest these posts are guys. Are you actually telling us or feel that the arguments submitted by eliteballer have never been presented until now? Or sparingly? You’ve never heard the arguments that the Pistons were old? That Worthy was playing on a sprained ankle? That Kareem and Cooper weren’t on the 91 team? This is truly incredible. In fact, MJs Bulls have received the MOST scrutiny. I defy you to show us a thread in this forum with regards to the 90s Bulls where their competitors aren’t diminished due to expansion, injuries, or key players missing.
That's a firm negative buddy. This is a relatively new phenomena in regards to Mj and the view of his career. Maybe some of the older fans, my generation and up who either grew up on or were adults during MJ's career didn't see the shift occur. We were too busy fighting the Kobe war, which was mostly pointless. I'm a fan of Kobe, I'm a fan of Lebron, and I assume I was one the absolute biggest Mj stans on the planet as a teen. Some of these criticisms didn't even exist before Kobe and later Lebron were perceived as a threat to what was once THE most bulletproof legacy ever in sports. Kobe had it pretty tough from Mj fans but Lebron had people out here creating the most absurd standards and previously irrelevant criticisms I had ever heard. Fast forward nearly 20 years later and older fans don't even realize the trolling thrown their way is just the reactions of the crazy scrutiny we placed on LeBron, it's just younger fans viewing your hero through the same lens you've been viewing theirs. Rants of a longtime fan aside, no before this era Mj absolutely did not have to face the same judgement, and he contemplated retirement and followed through on it for less.


You can go through this thread and see the same scrutiny that you guys claim is never applied to the Bulls.
Right this thread, but in the historic sense of the subject? Hell no, try again.

[97 bulls]

That's a firm negative buddy. This is a relatively new phenomena in regards to Mj and the view of his career. Maybe some of the older fans, my generation and up who either grew up on or were adults during MJ's career didn't see the shift occur. We were too busy fighting the Kobe war, which was mostly pointless. I'm a fan of Kobe, I'm a fan of Lebron, and I assume I was one the absolute biggest Mj stans on the planet as a teen. Some of these criticisms didn't even exist before Kobe and later Lebron were perceived as a threat to what was once THE most bulletproof legacy ever in sports. Kobe had it pretty tough from Mj fans but Lebron had people out here creating the most absurd standards and previously irrelevant criticisms I had ever heard. Fast forward nearly 20 years later and older fans don't even realize the trolling thrown their way is just the reactions of the crazy scrutiny we placed on LeBron, it's just younger fans viewing your hero through the same lens you've been viewing theirs. Rants of a longtime fan aside, no before this era Mj absolutely did not have to face the same judgement, and he contemplated retirement and followed through on it for less.


Right this thread, but in the historic sense of the subject? Hell no, try again.

Which criticisms didnt exist? The only one I can think of is then"1-9" criticism. And even that is an unfair criticism because those Bulls werent aa good as the teams that beat them.

[Ainosterhaspie]

That's a firm negative buddy. This is a relatively new phenomena in regards to Mj and the view of his career. Maybe some of the older fans, my generation and up who either grew up on or were adults during MJ's career didn't see the shift occur. We were too busy fighting the Kobe war, which was mostly pointless. I'm a fan of Kobe, I'm a fan of Lebron, and I assume I was one the absolute biggest Mj stans on the planet as a teen. Some of these criticisms didn't even exist before Kobe and later Lebron were perceived as a threat to what was once THE most bulletproof legacy ever in sports. Kobe had it pretty tough from Mj fans but Lebron had people out here creating the most absurd standards and previously irrelevant criticisms I had ever heard. Fast forward nearly 20 years later and older fans don't even realize the trolling thrown their way is just the reactions of the crazy scrutiny we placed on LeBron, it's just younger fans viewing your hero through the same lens you've been viewing theirs. Rants of a longtime fan aside, no before this era Mj absolutely did not have to face the same judgement, and he contemplated retirement and followed through on it for less.


Right this thread, but in the historic sense of the subject? Hell no, try again.
+1

MJ was scrutinized somewhat as a ball hog who couldn't win with his style in the Magic/Bird Heyday, but when the Pistons dethroned those teams a new hero was needed to slay the villain Pistons and the varying levels of criticism faded and disappeared as MJ steadily rose to the point where he could take them down. At that point he was largely shielded from criticism and lionized well before he became the near unanimous GOAT.

For years he was the flawless GOAT in the eyes of many and any mild weaknesses or flaws were ignored.. Then when a threat to that legacy arose, brand new criticisms were created and directed at challengers to protect his legacy. These became increasingly specious, even bizarre. His career hadn't been scrutinized as a whole, but with dubious attacks being leveled at his challengers he began to face a far more thorough and public examination of his record than had really been conducted uobtobthat point.

[mehyaM24]

ya before i started posting here, i never "looked under the hood" with regards to mj. i accepted he was GOAT and more or less flawless. with the rise of lebron however, another perimeter heir, he's forced our hand and now we challenge those preconceived notions. to back that up, now lebron has mainstream media claiming he is GOAT - espn & fox have plenty of talking heads arguing his case.

[Axe]

In reality tho, there's no perfect player at all. Like the others, they're just human beings. However, they're very talented and have done many great things alongside their shortcomings.

I think the goat debate is better if dissected per era, because they have their own sets of accolades and records after all. That's regardless if they achieved them because of teammates help, competition, collusion, rule changes or what more since to many, the results could be the only thing that would matter in the end. Jordan, like stephen curry, does best when surrounded by good, all-star help. Scoring is his forte but without them and a useful system, he'd seem an ordinary player that has untapped potential in scoring and defense.

Meanwhile, lebron is all-around and has had multiple teams with bunch of scrubs in them but he was able to elevate and lift them to great heights (finals). Plus often, the disparities between him and some of his best teammates are great, in many instances that allowed him to pad up his stats. However that didn't easily mean they'd win more in the end, did they? Although his stellar longevity would mean that he'd done more things while having more shortcomings at the same time than jordan once his career will come to a finish.

But basketball is a team sport and if the main goal is to win a lot, they all have to work together. Guys like wilt and lebron have proven that being so great individually didn't result to multiple rings, about five in less than ten finals or something like that; just take a look at their respective finals records if that isn't convincing enough. Tho it is better than nothing at all. As for jordan and kobe, they may be decorated players but like i said, they aren't capable of leading anyone without the right pieces.

[sdot_thadon]

Which criticisms didnt exist? The only one I can think of is then"1-9" criticism. And even that is an unfair criticism because those Bulls werent aa good as the teams that beat them.

I mean 1-9 is only a by product of the finals record trolling done to Lebron before he won enough of them to make it sound silly. The funniest part about the whole 1-9 thing is it's not even a serious point being made, it's just aping the other criticism.

But in all seriousness "statpadding" wasn't a thing for Mj, despite it being well known that he targeted specific scoring numbers and scoring titles, the whole triple double streak he had when he was younger, etc. Nobody ever seems to bring up how he'd go back into games that were already out of hand to get his averages before he was done for the night.

I never saw a guy who played a facilitator role be called a ball dominator before Lebron, it was usually reserved for guys who shot jacked all game....

It was never a negative for Kareem and Magic to be teammates, yet once Kobe began to approach Mj in rings......

Longevity was the thing that supposedly regulated Larry Bird to the next tier down, yet somehow for Lebron to have an even greater longevity gap over Mj is a bad thing now.

And we can go on and on and on man, I mean this guy as an 18 year old kid was criticized for a nickname and a tattoo for crying out loud.:confusedshrug:

Just imagine had Lebron retired and came back twice already at this stage of his career, what would we see posted here?

[97 bulls]

I mean 1-9 is only a by product of the finals record trolling done to Lebron before he won enough of them to make it sound silly. The funniest part about the whole 1-9 thing is it's not even a serious point being made, it's just aping the other criticism.
I think the "1-9" argument started out as a troll argument. But it seems to have evolved into what some believe is legit. I see the premise though. Jordan stans constantly say that MJ won those championships by himself. And that's when he gets overrated.


But in all seriousness "statpadding" wasn't a thing for Mj, despite it being well known that he targeted specific scoring numbers and scoring titles, the whole triple double streak he had when he was younger, etc. Nobody ever seems to bring up how he'd go back into games that were already out of hand to get his averages before he was done for the night.

All those 80s guys were stat paddlers. All of them. Jordan was considered a loser in the 80s. He was looked at as a ball hog that didnt play team ball.



I never saw a guy who played a facilitator role be called a ball dominator before Lebron, it was usually reserved for guys who shot jacked all game....
The problem is that James isnt your prototypical facilitator. Players cater to him. The job of the PG is to cater to the team. James standing at the top of the key driving and kicking isnt a true facilitator.



It was never a negative for Kareem and Magic to be teammates, yet once Kobe began to approach Mj in rings......
Kobe fans overrated him. I could make the argument that Kobes career isnt that far off from Pippens. It's obviously better. But Kobe had more opportunities.



Longevity was the thing that supposedly regulated Larry Bird to the next tier down, yet somehow for Lebron to have an even greater longevity gap over Mj is a bad thing now.
Kareem had more longevity than Russell. And a lot of players. But hes never been considered the GOAT. It went from Russell to Magic.


And we can go on and on and on man, I mean this guy as an 18 year old kid was criticized for a nickname and a tattoo for crying out loud.:confusedshrug:
That's true. James has faced a lot of scrutiny. Some warranted. Some not. But so has Michael Jordan and the Bulls.


Just imagine had Lebron retired and came back twice already at this stage of his career, what would we see posted here?
We will never know.

[97 bulls]

Think about this @Sdot

You wanna talk about scrutiny? How many teams get penalized for NOT losing to their competitors????? Think about that. The Bulls opposition apparently sucked because they didnt win. Not because they had subpar records? Or a lack of talent.

Nobody questions the Shaq/Kobe Lakers competition. Go back and look at those Nets teams that the Lakers played for example.

[Smoke117]

No, they wouldn’t.

[sdot_thadon]

I think the "1-9" argument started out as a troll argument. But it seems to have evolved into what some believe is legit. I see the premise though. Jordan stans constantly say that MJ won those championships by himself. And that's when he gets overrated.
It's most definitely still a troll reply, if you pay attention It's 99% of the time directed at one poster here....



All those 80s guys were stat paddlers. All of them. Jordan was considered a loser in the 80s. He was looked at as a ball hog that didnt play team ball.

Yeah that's the reality before he started winning, once he began to win the same behaviors were suddenly seen differently and that's where we are today. Like I said I was a hard core Stan as a teen so when he went back in because he only had 20 I wanted to see him get his 30 too.:lol



The problem is that James isnt your prototypical facilitator. Players cater to him. The job of the PG is to cater to the team. James standing at the top of the key driving and kicking isnt a true facilitator.
So tell me what's the difference between Magic dribbling with his back to the basket 20 ft out for half the shot clock before hitting a guy for a bucket, or A guy like Nash doing something similar, or a Lebron drive and kick? They all result in a made bucket manipulated into success by the passer. Just a matter of preference, I for one thought what Lebron did was pretty cool because he was literally controlling entire sequences based on what move he made and the reactions that spun out of it. He couldn't shoot 3s well enough himself but had a gift to manifest the easiest possible looks for his teammates.



Kobe fans overrated him. I could make the argument that Kobes career isnt that far off from Pippens. It's obviously better. But Kobe had more opportunities.

Nonononono, let's not do that. :no: Pippen isn't near Kobe's orbit overall, maybe the 3peat Kobe with Shaq, but not overall.



Kareem had more longevity than Russell. And a lot of players. But hes never been considered the GOAT. It went from Russell to Magic.
I actually don't ever really remember much Russell for GOAT talk as a kid. It was Wilt, then Kareem being the guy it should be but no one really liked enough. Russell rose in goat rankings after ring counting became a thing. Oddly enough his legacy got a huge boost despite having not played in over 30 plus years....



That's true. James has faced a lot of scrutiny. Some warranted. Some not. But so has Michael Jordan and the Bulls.
No one is saying Mj wasn't scrutinized, he wasn't nearly to this level however.



We will never know.
Oh but we do, spoiler alert he'd be called mentally weak and a quitter, etc.


Think about this @Sdot

You wanna talk about scrutiny? How many teams get penalized for NOT losing to their competitors????? Think about that. The Bulls opposition apparently sucked because they didnt win. Not because they had subpar records? Or a lack of talent.

Nobody questions the Shaq/Kobe Lakers competition. Go back and look at those Nets teams that the Lakers played for example.
Well the thing is not that the Bulls comp sukced in the truest sense of the word. But in relation to some other champs they weren't as pushed and tested. I for one never felt like the Bulls were in jeopardy of losing a series in those days. The Lakers weak finals comp is a known thing, however it's mostly thrown out because the western conference had literally 3 or 4 other championship level contenders before those finals. In the Bulls case we like to say they faced a tougher east than Lebron, but they damn sure didn't face one on the level of the west Kobe and Shaq went through.

[97 bulls]

It's most definitely still a troll reply, if you pay attention It's 99% of the time directed at one poster here....

Lol. True


Yeah that's the reality before he started winning, once he began to win the same behaviors were suddenly seen differently and that's where we are today. Like I said I was a hard core Stan as a teen so when he went back in because he only had 20 I wanted to see him get his 30 too.:lol


Good point.


So tell me what's the difference between Magic dribbling with his back to the basket 20 ft out for half the shot clock before hitting a guy for a bucket, or A guy like Nash doing something similar, or a Lebron drive and kick? They all result in a made bucket manipulated into success by the passer. Just a matter of preference, I for one thought what Lebron did was pretty cool because he was literally controlling entire sequences based on what move he made and the reactions that spun out of it. He couldn't shoot 3s well enough himself but had a gift to manifest the easiest possible looks for his teammates.

The Showtime Lakers ran the fastbreak offense piloted by Magic. If they didnt get a shot during the break, they go into Cap. Nash was never a drive and kick player.


Nonononono, let's not do that. :no: Pippen isn't near Kobe's orbit overall, maybe the 3peat Kobe with Shaq, but not overall.
Again. We will never know. Bryant was looking like a failure before Gasol came. Pip never got a fair chance to do what Kobe did. The one MVP Kobe won was won because he outplayed Chris Paul in one game. Otherwise, he doesnt have an MVP. Pippen should've won a DPOY and may have won an MVP had MJ never came back.


I actually don't ever really remember much Russell for GOAT talk as a kid. It was Wilt, then Kareem being the guy it should be but no one really liked enough. Russell rose in goat rankings after ring counting became a thing. Oddly enough his legacy got a huge boost despite having not played in over 30 plus years....
Wilt was seen as a loser back then. Team ball was much more emphasized.


No one is saying Mj wasn't scrutinized, he wasn't nearly to this level however.
Lol. I proved that he was bro. And he was scrutinized ALOT. Hell he was blamed for his father's death.



Well the thing is not that the Bulls comp sukced in the truest sense of the word. But in relation to some other champs they weren't as pushed and tested. I for one never felt like the Bulls were in jeopardy of losing a series in those days. The Lakers weak finals comp is a known thing, however it's mostly thrown out because the western conference had literally 3 or 4 other championship level contenders before those finals. In the Bulls case we like to say they faced a tougher east than Lebron, but they damn sure didn't face one on the level of the west Kobe and Shaq went through.
The West was utter trash in the 80s bro. They never had 3 or 4 legit Championship contenders. It was the Lakers and that's it. The East routinely had 3 maybe 4 legit contenders.

The Bulls were just that good Sdot. It wasnt that their comp was mediocre. What other team could lose their best player and still be a top 5 team like the Bulls did? Mind you without replacing him. Look at the Warriors this year.

Theres a reason the Bulls are still the Benchmark that all other teams are judged past and present. They're the GOAT!!!!

[sdot_thadon]

The Showtime Lakers ran the fastbreak offense piloted by Magic. If they didnt get a shot during the break, they go into Cap. Nash was never a drive and kick player.

That's a fair assessment, but I wasn't suggesting they were drive and kick, just that they controlled the ball for a huge chunk of the time for their respective teams. I'm not as bothered by the means as much as the results.


Again. We will never know. Bryant was looking like a failure before Gasol came. Pip never got a fair chance to do what Kobe did. The one MVP Kobe won was won because he outplayed Chris Paul in one game. Otherwise, he doesnt have an MVP. Pippen should've won a DPOY and may have won an MVP had MJ never came back.
Touche, I don't view Kobe that way though.


Wilt was seen as a loser back then. Team ball was much more emphasized.
This is a half truth, he was in fact not considered a winner.....BUT it was a consensus that he was the better player between he and Russell and was seen as a monolithic figure in the history of the game.


Lol. I proved that he was bro. And he was scrutinized ALOT. Hell he was blamed for his father's death.
I'm not arguing he wasn't scrutinized, I mean the only person who had it as bad as he did then was probably Michael Jackson lol. But those were different times, the internet era would have ate those softball pitches he was letting out to the media alive. I honestly don't feel like he would be the same guy in this era because he was bothered by a less intrusive spotlight.


The West was utter trash in the 80s bro. They never had 3 or 4 legit Championship contenders. It was the Lakers and that's it. The East routinely had 3 maybe 4 legit contenders.true about the 80s west, but I'm referring to the 2000s west.


The Bulls were just that good Sdot. It wasnt that their comp was mediocre. What other team could lose their best player and still be a top 5 team like the Bulls did? Mind you without replacing him. Look at the Warriors this year.

Theres a reason the Bulls are still the Benchmark that all other teams are judged past and present. They're the GOAT!!!!No doubt, they were great, but their comp was not great, that much is Cut and dried. A ton of the back and forth here is basically boiled down to that. Our era of fans complain that guys have too much help now and we overlook the matter of Mj having the only(wink wink stockton) perennial all nba and all defensive sidekick of his era.

[Axe]

Yeah, the 90s bulls were great and it's impressive they remain the only 70-win team in the league with a ring until now.

However, the team as a whole including the involved executives should get credit for their success, not just mj alone. Even if they are ringless without him.

[97 bulls]

Yeah, the 90s bulls were great and it's impressive they remain the only 70-win team in the league with a ring until now.

However, the team as a whole including the involved executives should get credit for their success, not just mj alone. Even if they are ringless without him.

I 100% agree!!!!

[Axe]

I 100% agree!!!!
:cheers:

[Micku]

I can’t tell you how amazingly intellectually dishonest these posts are guys. Are you actually telling us or feel that the arguments submitted by eliteballer have never been presented until now? Or sparingly? You’ve never heard the arguments that the Pistons were old? That Worthy was playing on a sprained ankle? That Kareem and Cooper weren’t on the 91 team? This is truly incredible. In fact, MJs Bulls have received the MOST scrutiny. I defy you to show us a thread in this forum with regards to the 90s Bulls where their competitors aren’t diminished due to expansion, injuries, or key players missing.

Haha! I remember the Pistons being old argument. That's like the weakest argument. They weren't that much older than the Bulls at their core. By 93 and especially 96, the Bulls were either just as old or older than the Pistons. You don't hear, "Bulls are old" in 96 cuz they were so good. And Worthy was playing a sprained ankle, but I think MJ injured his ankle too or his toe or something in those playoffs. The commentators talked about it. And if you read the old newspaper, they were saying how the finals depend on well Worthy and MJ could overcome their injuries. But we don't talk about it cuz MJ won and put up great stats. Some of these minor details do get lost within time. You'll see it happening too when talking about those Heat teams with LBJ/Wade/Bosh.

With that said, those Pistons weren't as good. IT was coming off an injury too. And besides, it was just a matter of time. They went seven games the year before. And the reason why they beat the Bulls in the first place all of those years cuz they dared others to shoot besides MJ. They couldn't make it. And by time 91, the Bulls got better.

Worthy was still Worthy, but if he wasn't suffering from injury, who knows. But I doubt they'll beat the Bulls. And ppl don't talk about Pippen injuries in 96 and 98 like that. Even I forget about them. But it be like that. Especially if the team wins.



No doubt, they were great, but their comp was not great, that much is Cut and dried. A ton of the back and forth here is basically boiled down to that. Our era of fans complain that guys have too much help now and we overlook the matter of Mj having the only(wink wink stockton) perennial all nba and all defensive sidekick of his era.

It depends on what you are comparing it to and your definition of great. Like was any team better in 90s other than the Bulls was better than the 85 Lakers/85Celts? I don't think so.

But were some of them as good as the Kings 02? Yup, in my eyes. And they are definitely teams that had the talent to be better than what they were. Those late 90s Lakers had crazy talent. The Magic team. Sonics. Portland. Suns. Those early Cavs teams had talent too. Other than the Lakers, you don't think those teams were as good as the western teams in the 00s?

With that said, it's hard and you shouldn't compare across eras like that. However, some of those guys did play in the early 00s. The Jazz swept the Lakers in the late 90s and did a gentleman sweep. They thought the Lakers was going to the finals. But we know that those Lakers weren't the same as the threepeat Lakers, tho the 90s Lakers had more talent.

If it's talent with the top teams then I feel the 80s and the 10s got that covered. Those teams were stacked. But did Bulls did stop a bunch of teams from being greats. And some of the talented teams like the Lakers with four all-stars and the 97 Rockets with big names and big 3 didn't get a chance to face the Bulls in the playoffs. But the Bulls faced the team that beat them. You could argue that matchup tho, and I could understand that.

Sometimes I feel like it's beating the names rather than the team tho. If the Lakers got to the finals with Shaq/Kobe/Nick Van Exel/Eddie Jones and the Bulls sweep them would be better than the Jazz with Malone/Stockton? Or the Rockets with Hakeem/Barkley/Drexler? But again, matchups are key too.

[97 bulls]

That's a fair assessment, but I wasn't suggesting they were drive and kick, just that they controlled the ball for a huge chunk of the time for their respective teams. I'm not as bothered by the means as much as the results.


Touche, I don't view Kobe that way though.


This is a half truth, he was in fact not considered a winner.....BUT it was a consensus that he was the better player between he and Russell and was seen as a monolithic figure in the history of the game.


I'm not arguing he wasn't scrutinized, I mean the only person who had it as bad as he did then was probably Michael Jackson lol. But those were different times, the internet era would have ate those softball pitches he was letting out to the media alive. I honestly don't feel like he would be the same guy in this era because he was bothered by a less intrusive spotlight.

true about the 80s west, but I'm referring to the 2000s west.

No doubt, they were great, but their comp was not great, that much is Cut and dried. A ton of the back and forth here is basically boiled down to that. Our era of fans complain that guys have too much help now and we overlook the matter of Mj having the only(wink wink stockton) perennial all nba and all defensive sidekick of his era.

I think we agree with everything but the bold. Again, how are you quantifying great? Surely not their records. Maybe hall of famers, but that subjective as well because the teams the Bulls played have players that SHOULD be in the Hall of Fame. Like Kevin Johnson of the 93 Suns. His off the court issues probably hurt his chances. As well as Tim Hardaway of the 97 Heat. But again bad decisions off the court have hurt his chances. Shawn Kemp was on his way to the Hall before bad decisions and injuries hurt his chances as well.
And the Suns, Sonics, and Heat had alot of depth.

One more thing. In all honesty, Kareem Abdul Jabbar was not playing at a hall of fame level from 87 on. James Worthy wasnt a hall of fame caliber player during his first Championship. At any given time. The Lakers only had two Hall of Fame caliber players on their Championships runs. If were gonna give Worthy full credit as a hall of fame player. Then we must do the same for the 91 Lakers who had Vlade Divac who is in the Hall of Fame. So they had 3 Hall of Famers on the 91 Lakers as well. And the 91 Pistons had 3 Hall of Famers in Thomas, Dumars, and Rodman. And this two teams combined could only muster 1 win against the Bulls who only had 2 Hall of Famers. Ans even that win was on a last second shot.

There is no argument presented that I cant refute. The Bulls were legit. And again, that's why they're the benchmark by which all other teams have been measured. Past and present. Bw it the Miami Heat, the San Antonio Spurs, the 80s Lakers, the 80s. Celtics, the Warriors the 83 Sixers, the 72 Lakers, the 60s Celtics. All these teams are measured against the Bulls. Why? Because they're the GOAT!!!!!

[HoopsNY]

Haha! I remember the Pistons being old argument. That's like the weakest argument. They weren't that much older than the Bulls at their core. By 93 and especially 96, the Bulls were either just as old or older than the Pistons. You don't hear, "Bulls are old" in 96 cuz they were so good. And Worthy was playing a sprained ankle, but I think MJ injured his ankle too or his toe or something in those playoffs. The commentators talked about it. And if you read the old newspaper, they were saying how the finals depend on well Worthy and MJ could overcome their injuries. But we don't talk about it cuz MJ won and put up great stats. Some of these minor details do get lost within time. You'll see it happening too when talking about those Heat teams with LBJ/Wade/Bosh.

With that said, those Pistons weren't as good. IT was coming off an injury too. And besides, it was just a matter of time. They went seven games the year before. And the reason why they beat the Bulls in the first place all of those years cuz they dared others to shoot besides MJ. They couldn't make it. And by time 91, the Bulls got better.

Worthy was still Worthy, but if he wasn't suffering from injury, who knows. But I doubt they'll beat the Bulls. And ppl don't talk about Pippen injuries in 96 and 98 like that. Even I forget about them. But it be like that. Especially if the team wins.



It depends on what you are comparing it to and your definition of great. Like was any team better in 90s other than the Bulls was better than the 85 Lakers/85Celts? I don't think so.

But were some of them as good as the Kings 02? Yup, in my eyes. And they are definitely teams that had the talent to be better than what they were. Those late 90s Lakers had crazy talent. The Magic team. Sonics. Portland. Suns. Those early Cavs teams had talent too. Other than the Lakers, you don't think those teams were as good as the western teams in the 00s?

With that said, it's hard and you shouldn't compare across eras like that. However, some of those guys did play in the early 00s. The Jazz swept the Lakers in the late 90s and did a gentleman sweep. They thought the Lakers was going to the finals. But we know that those Lakers weren't the same as the threepeat Lakers, tho the 90s Lakers had more talent.

If it's talent with the top teams then I feel the 80s and the 10s got that covered. Those teams were stacked. But did Bulls did stop a bunch of teams from being greats. And some of the talented teams like the Lakers with four all-stars and the 97 Rockets with big names and big 3 didn't get a chance to face the Bulls in the playoffs. But the Bulls faced the team that beat them. You could argue that matchup tho, and I could understand that.

Sometimes I feel like it's beating the names rather than the team tho. If the Lakers got to the finals with Shaq/Kobe/Nick Van Exel/Eddie Jones and the Bulls sweep them would be better than the Jazz with Malone/Stockton? Or the Rockets with Hakeem/Barkley/Drexler? But again, matchups are key too.

Bingo. Jordan's injuries are never discussed largely because he played through them.


The Chicago Bulls’ Michael Jordan didn’t practice Saturday because of a bruised big toe on his right foot, but team physician John Hefferon said he expects Jordan to play today in Game 4.

Jordan suffered the injury when he landed awkwardly after making a 14-foot jumper with 3.4 seconds left in regulation that sent Friday night’s game into overtime tied, 92-92.

“When he landed, rather than landing on the ball of his foot, he landed more on the tip of his toe like a ballet dancer would,” Hefferon said.

Laker guard Magic Johnson expects Jordan to play.

“I never underestimate Michael,” Johnson said. “I don’t care if he had a broken toe, as long as he can get on the court he’s going to give them a lift.”

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-06-09-sp-1053-story.html

[Micku]

No doubt, they were great, but their comp was not great, that much is Cut and dried. A ton of the back and forth here is basically boiled down to that. Our era of fans complain that guys have too much help now and we overlook the matter of Mj having the only(wink wink stockton) perennial all nba and all defensive sidekick of his era.

Going back to this. MJ did have help. Probably the best help of the 90s in hindsight. Especially on the defensive side on that second peat. Only the 83 76ers and the Bulls 96 had 3 players on the first all defensive team. Dr. J wasn't a bad defender either and Ron Harper was a solid defender himself. The 96 were loaded defensively with the exception of the center position, but they just had big bodies. They had the had the best coaching staff and the great role players.

But they weren't the most talented team of the 90s imo. Portland was more talented than the early 90s Bulls. Magic with Shaq/Penny was more talented. The late 90s was probably the most talented team of the 90s imo. They never maximize their talent.

We see this constantly tho. OKC when they had KD/Westbrook/Harden/Ibaka didn't maximize their talent. Philly had Jimmy Butler/Embiid/Simmons/Tobias Harris/Redick, and they didn't maximize their talent. The Celts currently can't maximize theirs. That 2013 team with Kobe/Howard/Gasol/Artest/Nash. Lob city Clippers. That young Memphis team with Rudy Gay/OJ Mayo/Marc Gasol/Mike Conley/Zach Randolph. Still till this day, I can't understand why they weren't better.

Anyway, it be like that. The Bulls max theirs and that's due to the coaching.

And the Lakers with Shaq/young Kobe/Nick Van Exel/Eddie Jones/Rick Fox/Robert Horry/Elden Campbell/young Fisher. That was talent. That was pretty much their core championship run and then some. Sure young Kobe wasn't as good, but you still Eddie Jones and the rest of the crew. They should not have lost to the Spurs or the Jazz the way they did. It's not that they were young really. Shaq, Horry, Fox, Nick Van Exel were all experience. Been in the league for a several years with playoff experience, and Shaq and Horry been to the finals. They didn't have a the coach to steer them in the right direction and too many egos. They were still a championship contender, but they got beat badly by the Jazz twice and the Spurs. Point is, they were the most talented. Most talented in the West by far and I still say that till this day the most talented team in the 90s period. And they lost to teams with less help. So, it ain't always about talent.

[guy]

The implication here is that the Jordan era Bulls wouldn't be as successful in the 80s as the 90s. The commonly overlooked thing here though is that if we are going to put them back 10 years prior, it should start with the 85 Bulls in 1975 not just with the 90 Bulls in 1980. And the fact is the mid-70s to early 80s was nothing special. In fact when people talk about how the 80s were the golden era in terms of competition, its not like it lasted the entire decade, more like 6-7 years.

So with that said, in my view they are definitely winning at least 3, and they still have a decent chance of winning 6. In 1978, you had 44 and 47 win teams making the finals, so it’s not crazy to assume the 1988 50 win Bulls teams in a tougher era with Jordan playing as dominant as he was couldn’t have started winning titles at that point. The same teams made the finals in 1989 so same thing there. Then what people seem to forget is the early 80s 76ers pre-Moses were nothing special. They were beating the Celtics or losing to them in 7 and they were very competitive against the Lakers, who ended up losing Kareem in the 1980 Finals. The 90-92 Bulls are basically a better version of that team with Jordan literally playing at his apex and Pippen probably being better than anyone on the 76ers other than Dr. J. So from 1978-1982 alone I would say they win 3-5 titles.

Then you have the 83 Sixers vs the 93 Bulls, 86 Celtics vs 96 Bulls, and 87 Lakers vs 97 Bulls. All-time great matchups and maybe the Bulls don’t win them all but they are at least winning 1 of those, and they could still end up winning all of them - the 80s Celtics, 80s Lakers, and Moses 76ers all either lost or almost lost to much worse teams then those Bulls i.e. the 81 Rockets, 83 Bucks, 84 Nets, 84 Knicks, 88 Hawks, 88 Jazz, 88 Mavs . I don’t think the 98 Bulls would win though, but even that team at the top of their game couldn't be written off. And by the way, this scenario assumes Jordan still retires when he does.

[97 bulls]

Going back to this. MJ did have help. Probably the best help of the 90s in hindsight. Especially on the defensive side on that second peat. Only the 83 76ers and the Bulls 96 had 3 players on the first all defensive team. Dr. J wasn't a bad defender either and Ron Harper was a solid defender himself. The 96 were loaded defensively with the exception of the center position, but they just had big bodies. They had the had the best coaching staff and the great role players.

But they weren't the most talented team of the 90s imo. Portland was more talented than the early 90s Bulls. Magic with Shaq/Penny was more talented. The late 90s was probably the most talented team of the 90s imo. They never maximize their talent.

We see this constantly tho. OKC when they had KD/Westbrook/Harden/Ibaka didn't maximize their talent. Philly had Jimmy Butler/Embiid/Simmons/Tobias Harris/Redick, and they didn't maximize their talent. The Celts currently can't maximize theirs. That 2013 team with Kobe/Howard/Gasol/Artest/Nash. Lob city Clippers. That young Memphis team with Rudy Gay/OJ Mayo/Marc Gasol/Mike Conley/Zach Randolph. Still till this day, I can't understand why they weren't better.

Anyway, it be like that. The Bulls max theirs and that's due to the coaching.

And the Lakers with Shaq/young Kobe/Nick Van Exel/Eddie Jones/Rick Fox/Robert Horry/Elden Campbell/young Fisher. That was talent. That was pretty much their core championship run and then some. Sure young Kobe wasn't as good, but you still Eddie Jones and the rest of the crew. They should not have lost to the Spurs or the Jazz the way they did. It's not that they were young really. Shaq, Horry, Fox, Nick Van Exel were all experience. Been in the league for a several years with playoff experience, and Shaq and Horry been to the finals. They didn't have a the coach to steer them in the right direction and too many egos. They were still a championship contender, but they got beat badly by the Jazz twice and the Spurs. Point is, they were the most talented. Most talented in the West by far and I still say that till this day the most talented team in the 90s period. And they lost to teams with less help. So, it ain't always about talent.

Funny thing is. This is why I feel the 97 Bulls was the best version the Bulls best single season team. And theres nothing wrong with the talent in 97. The 8th seed Wizeds won 44 games. They had prime Chris Webber, Juwan Howard, And Rod Strickland. Along With Calbert Cheaney who was solid. And they could only win 44 games. The Lakers had 4 All-Stars and couldn't even get to the Western Conference Finals lol. And the Bulls still won 69 games. And they beat a 64 win Jazz team. The NBA was LOADED IN 97.

And think about the Bulls. They won 69 games that year. What if Rodman hadn't kicked that camera man? What if they had Brian Williams the whole season? You dont think that team win 73-75 games? Many feel they tanked the last few games due to seeding. Them losing to the Knicks meant that the Knick and Heat wouldve played each other as opposed to them having to play them both. And the Knicks were no slouch either.

[guy]

You could apply this logic to literally every team that's ever won a Championship.

This kind of logic solidifies my argument that the Bulls are the greatest team ever. The standard they are held to is so far above every other team.

There's only a handful of championships I can think of where what is largely considered two elite level teams (elite being an opinion) played each other at relatively the top of their games with no major injuries and post-1980, thats the 84, 85 and the 17 Finals. Every other championship you can come up with the excuse that one team wasn't all that great (again, an opinion), they were too old, they were too young, and/or there were injuries/suspensions, etc. Its really a stupid argument that seems to only apply to the Bulls, even though you can probably apply it and as a result basically write-off ~90% of the NBA championships in history.

[Hey Yo]

Funny thing is. This is why I feel the 97 Bulls was the best version the Bulls best single season team. And theres nothing wrong with the talent in 97. The 8th seed Wizeds won 44 games. They had prime Chris Webber, Juwan Howard, And Rod Strickland. Along With Calbert Cheaney who was solid. And they could only win 44 games. The Lakers had 4 All-Stars and couldn't even get to the Western Conference Finals lol. And the Bulls still won 69 games. And they beat a 64 win Jazz team. The NBA was LOADED IN 97.

And think about the Bulls. They won 69 games that year. What if Rodman hadn't kicked that camera man? What if they had Brian Williams the whole season? You dont think that team win 73-75 games? Many feel they tanked the last few games due to seeding. Them losing to the Knicks meant that the Knick and Heat wouldve played each other as opposed to them having to play them both. And the Knicks were no slouch either.
You're thinking of the 1998 All-Star game. Yes LA had 4 players but we both know Kobe got in by name recognition and popularity. Same as NVE.... Neither put up All-star numbers before the break. Hell, Kobe only started 1gm that year for LA.

[Ainosterhaspie]

On the topic of comparing the competition...

I think it hurts the Bulls that no team stepped up as a perennial challenger. Its not just about MJ beating them all so his comp looked weak. In the 6 years he went to the finals he faced five different teams. LeBron by comparison has faced the Spurs 3 times and the Warriors 4. There were some teams that set themselves apart from the rest of the league and Jordan didn't have that when he was winning. 91 is the closest.

Lakers in early 00s may have had unremarkable finals opponents, but it was them or the Spurs in the finals every year from 99 to 05. Those two clearly set themselves apart from the rest of the league.

[guy]

On the topic of comparing the competition...

I think it hurts the Bulls that no team stepped up as a perennial challenger. Its not just about MJ beating them all so his comp looked weak. In the 6 years he went to the finals he faced five different teams. LeBron by comparison has faced the Spurs 3 times and the Warriors 4. There were some teams that set themselves apart from the rest of the league and Jordan didn't have that when he was winning. 91 is the closest.

Lakers in early 00s may have had unremarkable finals opponents, but it was them or the Spurs in the finals every year from 99 to 05. Those two clearly set themselves apart from the rest of the league.

Means absolutely nothing one way or the other. If 4 of the 5 teams the Bulls faced were all significantly worse teams then that 5th team, let’s say the Jazz, would’ve “stepped up” and went to 3-4 more Finals. But clearly the Bulls didn’t face better competition in that scenario.

Alternatively, if teams like the Clippers and Rockets were as good as the Warriors, then the Warriors and Cavs don’t face each other 4 times. By your logic, that means the competition was worse when it’s clearly not.

[97 bulls]

There's only a handful of championships I can think of where what is largely considered two elite level teams (elite being an opinion) played each other at relatively the top of their games with no major injuries and post-1980, thats the 84, 85 and the 17 Finals. Every other championship you can come up with the excuse that one team wasn't all that great (again, an opinion), they were too old, they were too young, and/or there were injuries/suspensions, etc. Its really a stupid argument that seems to only apply to the Bulls, even though you can probably apply it and as a result basically write-off ~90% of the NBA championships in history.

If I remember correctly, wasnt 85 the year Bird hurt himself in a bar fight?

I believe Worthy was hurt in 84.

I'd have to go back and look at 17

[97 bulls]

Means absolutely nothing one way or the other. If 4 of the 5 teams the Bulls faced were all significantly worse teams then that 5th team, let’s say the Jazz, would’ve “stepped up” and went to 3-4 more Finals. But clearly the Bulls didn’t face better competition in that scenario.

Alternatively, if teams like the Clippers and Rockets were as good as the Warriors, then the Warriors and Cavs don’t face each other 4 times. By your logic, that means the competition was worse when it’s clearly not.

BINGO!!!!!

It's the insane argument that it wouldve been better for the Bulls to lose a Championship. I'll never understand that logic.

[Micku]

On the topic of comparing the competition...

I think it hurts the Bulls that no team stepped up as a perennial challenger. Its not just about MJ beating them all so his comp looked weak. In the 6 years he went to the finals he faced five different teams. LeBron by comparison has faced the Spurs 3 times and the Warriors 4. There were some teams that set themselves apart from the rest of the league and Jordan didn't have that when he was winning. 91 is the closest.

Lakers in early 00s may have had unremarkable finals opponents, but it was them or the Spurs in the finals every year from 99 to 05. Those two clearly set themselves apart from the rest of the league.

As guy said, it means nothing. It doesn't matter if they didn't face the same team. At least to me. Unless you are arguing the Spurs from 01-03 were better than any team that the Bulls faced in the 90s or whatever.

Like for example, when the Lakers did their championship run in the early 00s, they faced different teams in the WCF every year. Yes, the Lakers beat the Spurs from 01-02. But Kings were the best they faced during those years and almost beat them. Portland was also a team that almost beat them too. Yes they beat the Spurs. They were a very a good team. Not taking anything against them. But other than the Lakers, were they best team that consistently every year from 00-02? No. Not to me at least. Granted you could argue injuries too.

There are definitely teams, that you even see today, have peaks. And it doesn't mean that they were any less good.

Kings 02 was probably one of the best teams to not win it all, right? That was their peak year. They were never as good before or since then.

Portland 00 was probably their year and a very good team. But they weren't as good since.

09 Magic got to the finals. They beat the Cavs. Were they better in 10 tho?

Rockets in 18 was their best version of the 10s. They were never as good.

If anything in the West, especially in the 90s, it showed that they were super competitive. And the difference being with between the 90s and 00s is that in the 90s both West and East had championship contender teams every year. In the early 00s, it was run by the West.

And why is it better for the Bulls to beat the Jazz, Sonics, or Suns multiple times in row like they did with the Knicks than to beat the best team in that specific year?

The only thing I can think of is that 90s weren't the 80s. And you would be right. In order to win in the 80s, you need that multiple HOFs. It was stacked. Similar to mid and late 10s. You can say none of the teams the Bulls faced was better than the 86 Celts, 87 Lakers, or 83 Sixers. But even then you can nitpick. Like the best of the 76ers in the 80s never faced the best the Lakers. Best of the Lakers never faced the best of the Celts. Best of the Pistons never faced the best of the either or. They faced versions of them, and not to say they weren't great. But in most ppl eyes, they weren't the best versions of themselves.

Like the best version of the Kings (02) never faced the best version of the Lakers (01). Was 04 Pistons better than the 05 Pistons? Was Pacers 13 better than Pacers 14? Spurs 14 better than Spurs 13? Was GSW 17 better than GSW 18? Etc, etc.

Point is, it doesn't matter if the Bulls didn't face same team every year in the finals except for the Jazz. They would likely beat any team. You could argue matchups tho with the Rockets. But they faced the best team that year. And they face the second best team in the East, that arguably could've won a chip too. It's not necessary that the era sucked per say. I don't think it sucked any less than the early 00s. But it's that the Bulls dominated. They were that well coached, had the best player, and had great role players. They weren't even the most talented team in the league imo. Not to say they weren't talented at all, they definitely were for sure and one of the most stacked 96 and 97 to me. One of the most talented teams in the league, but not the most. As I said before, that's when the coaching takes into play.

Like if you don't get comment of being the most talented vs well coached/stacked or whatever, then look at the Suns and the Spurs in 05 or the Lakers 97-99 vs Spurs and Jazz. The Suns and Lakers were more talented. The Spurs and Jazz were better coached.

[Micku]

Funny thing is. This is why I feel the 97 Bulls was the best version the Bulls best single season team. And theres nothing wrong with the talent in 97. The 8th seed Wizeds won 44 games. They had prime Chris Webber, Juwan Howard, And Rod Strickland. Along With Calbert Cheaney who was solid. And they could only win 44 games. The Lakers had 4 All-Stars and couldn't even get to the Western Conference Finals lol. And the Bulls still won 69 games. And they beat a 64 win Jazz team. The NBA was LOADED IN 97.

And think about the Bulls. They won 69 games that year. What if Rodman hadn't kicked that camera man? What if they had Brian Williams the whole season? You dont think that team win 73-75 games? Many feel they tanked the last few games due to seeding. Them losing to the Knicks meant that the Knick and Heat wouldve played each other as opposed to them having to play them both. And the Knicks were no slouch either.

Yuup. Those 97 Bulls team probably was the best. As you mention, if Rodman didn't miss nearly half the season, they could've won more games haha than the 96 Bulls season.

But the Lakers of 98 had the 4 all-stars, but they were still crazy talented in 97. Those late 90s Lakers were my favorite team of all time, and it's still shocking that they lost the way they did. I was so upset. But we all saw the potential, especially with young Kobe. He had haters then too tho, lol! Like he should've gone to college and such. Plays too selfish. But family thought the Rockets were gonn'a go to the finals to face the Bulls. But 98, I thought they could go to the finals that year.

And those Knicks and Heat team were no joke.

[sdot_thadon]

I think we agree with everything but the bold. Again, how are you quantifying great? Surely not their records. Maybe hall of famers, but that subjective as well because the teams the Bulls played have players that SHOULD be in the Hall of Fame. Like Kevin Johnson of the 93 Suns. His off the court issues probably hurt his chances. As well as Tim Hardaway of the 97 Heat. But again bad decisions off the court have hurt his chances. Shawn Kemp was on his way to the Hall before bad decisions and injuries hurt his chances as well.
And the Suns, Sonics, and Heat had alot of depth.


It depends on what you are comparing it to and your definition of great. Like was any team better in 90s other than the Bulls was better than the 85 Lakers/85Celts? I don't think so.

But were some of them as good as the Kings 02? Yup, in my eyes. And they are definitely teams that had the talent to be better than what they were. Those late 90s Lakers had crazy talent. The Magic team. Sonics. Portland. Suns. Those early Cavs teams had talent too. Other than the Lakers, you don't think those teams were as good as the western teams in the 00s
Man, I missed alot good banter here. I'll try to catch up .I don't really have a specific criteria for a great team besides the particular look or vibe coming off the squad when you watch them. It's gonna come off like some eye test bs, but imo there's a certain way a championship level team looks and feels on the floor. I'm not sure the 90s Bulls faced even one great team by popular opinion.

Think about this we (Rockets), were the only other 90s team to chip. We even went back to back, yet fans and analysts have always been super reluctant to recognize us as a great team. So if the only other actual champion of the era, isn't generally seen as a great team then what does that say about the rest? Disclaimer: I should really include detroit here and say that's one great team they did face.

Now my actual opinion on the 90s west is there was a bit of parity of very good but not quite great teams and they all kept each other from getting too much separation and maybe even hindered one another with the really tough road to meet Chicago in the finals each year. I as a Bulls fan never once felt a title was in jeopardy watching from 91 on. The 2000s west had the Lakers and the Spurs trading finals and as much of a Kobe/Shaq fan I was I must recognize that the 2002 Kings were pretty much robbed of a title and I consider that squad to be a great team in its own right. The blazers were maybe just a very good team themselves.

[97 bulls]

Man, I missed alot good banter here. I'll try to catch up .I don't really have a specific criteria for a great team besides the particular look or vibe coming off the squad when you watch them. It's gonna come off like some eye test bs, but imo there's a certain way a championship level team looks and feels on the floor. I'm not sure the 90s Bulls faced even one great team by popular opinion.

Think about this we (Rockets), were the only other 90s team to chip. We even went back to back, yet fans and analysts have always been super reluctant to recognize us as a great team. So if the only other actual champion of the era, isn't generally seen as a great team then what does that say about the rest? Disclaimer: I should really include detroit here and say that's one great team they did face.

Now my actual opinion on the 90s west is there was a bit of parity of very good but not quite great teams and they all kept each other from getting too much separation and maybe even hindered one another with the really tough road to meet Chicago in the finals each year. I as a Bulls fan never once felt a title was in jeopardy watching from 91 on. The 2000s west had the Lakers and the Spurs trading finals and as much of a Kobe/Shaq fan I was I must recognize that the 2002 Kings were pretty much robbed of a title and I consider that squad to be a great team in its own right. The blazers were maybe just a very good team themselves.

The Rockets came out of nowhere to win their 2 Championships. They were one good or decent John Starks game away from not winning in 94. Thet were a 5th seed in 95.
Their rosters were solid to good. Not great.

[Smoke117]

The Rockets came out of nowhere to win their 2 Championships. They were one good or decent John Starks game away from not winning in 94. Thet were a 5th seed in 95.
Their rosters were solid to good. Not great.

Starks needs to stop getting the blame when their star player Ewing was complete and utter trash in that series.

[guy]

If I remember correctly, wasnt 85 the year Bird hurt himself in a bar fight?

I believe Worthy was hurt in 84.

I'd have to go back and look at 17

I thought Worthy was 83. Not sure, but you could be right.

[guy]

BINGO!!!!!

It's the insane argument that it wouldve been better for the Bulls to lose a Championship. I'll never understand that logic.

Its one of the worst arguments constantly brought up here and its pretty easy to point to the flaw in that logic.

[sdot_thadon]

The Rockets came out of nowhere to win their 2 Championships. They were one good or decent John Starks game away from not winning in 94. Thet were a 5th seed in 95.
Their rosters were solid to good. Not great.

But we didn't, come out of nowhere. We were in the pack of good teams out west and could beat anybody but f'n Seattle, eff Seattle btw lol. The mistake most make it they think Dream just up and became good once Mj retired, the truth is his best seasons were while Mj was in the league still....

The 5th seed in 95 was a championship hangover to the max, I think they proved that by running through everybody and they mama come playoffs time. But again if the only other champion of that time period isn't seen as great it doesn't particularly bode well for those who couldn't even manage 1.

[sdot_thadon]

Its one of the worst arguments constantly brought up here and its pretty easy to point to the flaw in that logic.

Is that what the argument is though? I don't think they needed to lose per say but they were NEVER pushed to the brink. I believe that's the point being made there, maybe I'm wrong?

[Ainosterhaspie]

No one is arguing the Bulls needed to lose to improve their legacy. The argument is that no other tram of the era was particularly noteworthy, and that's not because they all lost to the Bulls. They just weren't ever anything more than moderate quality teams compared to championship quality teams.

The discussion above about the Rockets reinforces that point. They won back to back titles and people still are ambivalent about their quality as a team. Had nothing to do with Jordan holding them down or denying them chips. The West had several very good, but not great teams in the 90s, and Jordan's Bulls beating every one they faced isn't the reason to rate them lower than great.

[mehyaM24]

But we didn't, come out of nowhere. We were in the pack of good teams out west and could beat anybody but f'n Seattle, eff Seattle btw lol. The mistake most make it they think Dream just up and became good once Mj retired, the truth is his best seasons were while Mj was in the league still....

The 5th seed in 95 was a championship hangover to the max, I think they proved that by running through everybody and they mama come playoffs time. But again if the only other champion of that time period isn't seen as great it doesn't particularly bode well for those who couldn't even manage 1.

correct. hakeem probably had his best year in 93. his peak stretched from that 93 season through 95. and posters claiming houston were "opportunists" dont make sense. they swept orlando who beat mj's bulls in the playoffs :oldlol:

[guy]

Is that what the argument is though? I don't think they needed to lose per say but they were NEVER pushed to the brink. I believe that's the point being made there, maybe I'm wrong?

The Bulls were pushed to the brink a couple of times, just not in the Finals - for whatever reason though, that's usually not even brought up as a counterpoint.

That wasn't even the argument I was referring to, but regarding that, the same logic applies. Winning is better then losing. Not getting pushed to the brink is better then getting pushed to the brink. The point is one or the other doesn't tell you if their competition was relatively strong or weak. It could be that, or it could just be that the Bulls were that good. The point is there's no way to really tell so using the results as an argument is kind of stupid.

The argument I was referring to was that the Bulls competition was weak because they didn't have as consistent of a rival. Which is stupid. Again, one way or the other doesn't prove if it was strong or weak, for the reasons and examples I stated in my previous post.

[guy]

No one is arguing the Bulls needed to lose to improve their legacy. The argument is that no other tram of the era was particularly noteworthy, and that's not because they all lost to the Bulls. They just weren't ever anything more than moderate quality teams compared to championship quality teams.

The discussion above about the Rockets reinforces that point. They won back to back titles and people still are ambivalent about their quality as a team. Had nothing to do with Jordan holding them down or denying them chips. The West had several very good, but not great teams in the 90s, and Jordan's Bulls beating every one they faced isn't the reason to rate them lower than great.

Its not cause they lost to just the Bulls, but also cause they lost to each other. If the ten greatest teams ever were in the same era, there's a good chance none of them would've stood out and separated themselves from everyone else. By your logic, thats a weak era and weak competition. That makes no sense. Again, one way or the other doesn't tell you anything.

If the Jazz and Sonics were significantly worse teams then they were, the Rockets are probably making 5 Finals in a row along with winning the 2 they won. All of a sudden that makes it a strong era and strong competition even though what really happened is two teams were weaker then they were? Thats the hole in the logic.

[Axe]

correct. hakeem probably had his best year in 93. his peak stretched from that 93 season through 95. and posters claiming houston were "opportunists" dont make sense. they swept orlando who beat mj's bulls in the playoffs :oldlol:
The same orlando team with shaq as their driving force, who already went to the finals during his third year. Meanwhile, kobe couldn't until they became teammates. :roll:

[mehyaM24]

The same orlando team with shaq as their driving force, who already went to the finals during his third year. Meanwhile, kobe couldn't until they became teammates. :roll:

i'm not following. kobe was drafted the same year shaq went to the lakers.

[Axe]

i'm not following. kobe was drafted the same year shaq went to the lakers.
Well yes but without him, most likely he wouldn't. He's got three finals mvp then too.

[mehyaM24]

Well yes but without him, most likely he wouldn't. He's got three finals mvp then too.

shaq was the alpha and clear-cut best player on the lakers. agreed.

[Micku]

Man, I missed alot good banter here. I'll try to catch up .I don't really have a specific criteria for a great team besides the particular look or vibe coming off the squad when you watch them. It's gonna come off like some eye test bs, but imo there's a certain way a championship level team looks and feels on the floor. I'm not sure the 90s Bulls faced even one great team by popular opinion.

Think about this we (Rockets), were the only other 90s team to chip. We even went back to back, yet fans and analysts have always been super reluctant to recognize us as a great team. So if the only other actual champion of the era, isn't generally seen as a great team then what does that say about the rest? Disclaimer: I should really include detroit here and say that's one great team they did face.

Now my actual opinion on the 90s west is there was a bit of parity of very good but not quite great teams and they all kept each other from getting too much separation and maybe even hindered one another with the really tough road to meet Chicago in the finals each year. I as a Bulls fan never once felt a title was in jeopardy watching from 91 on. The 2000s west had the Lakers and the Spurs trading finals and as much of a Kobe/Shaq fan I was I must recognize that the 2002 Kings were pretty much robbed of a title and I consider that squad to be a great team in its own right. The blazers were maybe just a very good team themselves.

Interesting. I won't argue too much about the eye test thing, but it's usually considered that the 93 Suns were one of the best teams to not win a title. Of course baring the 80s teams that didn't win like 84 Lakers, 85 Celts or whatever. And the 16 Warriors.

And you would consider that Spurs of 03 to be a great team? Over the 93 Suns and the 96 Sonics, huh? That Spurs team, or the Spurs from 01-03 I don't really consider to be better than most teams the Bulls faced in the finals, but it's pretty subjective tho. Not to say the Spurs 03 wouldn't have beat them, but I do doubt it. The Spurs of 05 and 07 were their best teams of the 00s imo. But even then, I feel like the Sonics and the Jazz would give them a run for their money. At the same time, it was a different time and the eras played differently. So, we'll never know. The best we could do is compare how they did to their respective era. So, if you think that Spurs are better, can't really argue that.

It's me saying I think the Heat 05 was better than the Heat 06. Like despite the Heat 06 winning, the Heat 05 fit together better and had better chemistry. It was just Wade got injured in the ECF. This is mostly due to eye test too and that they did better in the RS, but Shaq in 06 missed games. But that's also subjective.