2nd Threepeat Bulls played at 70-win Pace when healthy...

[dankok8]

This is a 90's Bulls appreciation thread not a Jordan thread. Appreciating Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc, Harper, Kerr, Longley and all the others.

The 1996 Bulls are known as a 72-win team but actually the 2nd threepeat Bulls played at over a 70-win pace when healthy over the whole 3-year stretch. Rodman missed a lot of games in 1996 and 1997 and Pippen in 1998. When they were all on the court, the Bulls dominated like no other team in history. Especially in 1996 and 1997 when they were close to invincible.

With Jordan/Pippen/Rodman all playing:

1996 --> 52-7 = 72-win pace
1997 --> 48-7 = 72-win pace
1998 --> 34-8 = 66-win pace

Combined Healthy Record: 134-22 = 70-win pace

This team was the epitome of next man up and they were still really really good when guys were out.

Jordan never missed any games in this span but we have games where either Pippen or Rodman are out.

With Pippen out:

1996 ---> 5-0 = 82-win pace
1998 ---> 26-12 = 56-win pace

Combined Record without Pippen: 31-12 = 59-win pace

With Rodman out:

1996 ---> 15-3 = 68-win pace
1997 ---> 21-6 = 64-win pace
1998 ---> 2-0 = 82-win pace

Combined Record without Rodman: 38-9 = 66-win pace

There were two games in 1996 that both Pippen and Rodman missed and the Bulls went 2-0.

In the playoffs, Jordan/Pippen/Rodman played every game from 1996-1998 and the Bulls were 45-13. They played only one Game 7, three Game 6's and won the remaining eight series in four or five games. It's also notable that Pippen wasn't fully healthy in the 1998 playoffs which is where they went 15-6 and looked a bit vulnerable.

[SouBeachTalents]

This essentially goes back to the discussion we had in the other thread. Don’t you think the fact this team comprised of stars who were all in their 30’s, Pippen being the youngest at 31-33, completely dominating the league to this extent proves how weak that era was? Do you really think if you put that team in any other era since the 80’s, they win 68 games a year and 3 straight titles, while facing just one Game 7 along the way?

I’m honestly not even trying to knock them, they’re still a great team, but to be THAT dominant? I think a significant factor to that was them facing weak competition.

[ImKobe]

This essentially goes back to the discussion we had in the other thread. Don’t you think the fact this team comprised of stars who were all in their 30’s, Pippen being the youngest at 31-33, completely dominating the league to this extent proves how weak that era was? Do you really think if you put that team in any other era since the 80’s, they win 68 games a year and 3 straight titles, while facing just one Game 7 along the way?

I’m honestly not even trying to knock them, they’re still a great team, but to be THAT dominant? I think a significant factor to that was them facing weak competition.

Maybe it's because Jordan didn't miss a single game and was still the best player in the league and had a great supporting cast around him? It's like saying the 2015-2019 and now the 2021 Warriors are playing in a weak era because they've been so dominant.. No, they've just had a great teams with a core of players who have played together for a long period of time in the same system and have better team chemistry and ball movement than any other team in the league.

In '98, you had the Jazz, Spurs & Lakers all contending for a championship. It's not like the Bulls were the only good team in the league. The '98 Lakers had FOUR All-Stars with a prime Shaq and couldn't make the Finals. Shaq missed 22 games in '98 and they still won 61 and were 15 - 7 (56-win pace) without him. They had a better roster than the Bulls/Jazz but didn't have the chemistry nor the right coaching to get past the experienced Jazz team that destroyed them in B2B Playoffs. Many posters here consider the Jazz a weak and not a stacked team but they went 12 - 2 in 3 total series against Lakers & Spurs in '97 & '98 and also beat a team with Hakeem, Barkley & Drexler in 6 games in the '97 WCF.

[FireDavidKahn]

So you're saying they underachieved?

[SouBeachTalents]

Maybe it's because Jordan didn't miss a single game and was still the best player in the league and had a great supporting cast around him? It's like saying the 2015-2019 and now the 2021 Warriors are playing in a weak era because they've been so dominant.. No, they've just had a great teams with a core of players who have played together for a long period of time in the same system and have better team chemistry and ball movement than any other team in the league.

In '98, you had the Jazz, Spurs & Lakers all contending for a championship. It's not like the Bulls were the only good team in the league. The '98 Lakers had FOUR All-Stars with a prime Shaq and couldn't make the Finals. Shaq missed 22 games in '98 and they still won 61 and were 15 - 7 (56-win pace) without him. They had a better roster than the Bulls/Jazz but didn't have the chemistry nor the right coaching to get past the experienced Jazz team that destroyed them in B2B Playoffs. Many posters here consider the Jazz a weak and not a stacked team but they went 12 - 2 in 3 total series against Lakers & Spurs in '97 & '98 and also beat a team with Hakeem, Barkley & Drexler in 6 games in the '97 WCF.
The Warriors are a bad example. Not only were they more talented, their entire core was in their primes and in their 20’s. And it honestly makes my point for me, outside of 2017, even they, who I consider to have the superior roster, never had start to finish dominance throughout a season like the Bulls did. When they won 67 then 73 games in the regular season, they lost several games in the playoffs, then after 2017 they failed to win 60 games in either of Durant’s final 2 seasons.

I’ve seen you get on Pippen’s scoring/efficiency during that time period, the Jazz’s 2nd option was averaging under 11 ppg in the ‘98 Finals, less than Pippen & Kukoc.

[Sulico]

Yet Pippen was a bum!

AND 90's was stacked era with lots of strong teams and able superstars.

Which means Jordan was god.

Did I get it right?

[ImKobe]

The Warriors are a bad example. Not only were they more talented, their entire core was in their primes and in their 20’s. And it honestly makes my point for me, outside of 2017, even they, who I consider to have the superior roster, never had start to finish dominance throughout a season like the Bulls did. When they won 67 then 73 games in the regular season, they lost several games in the playoffs, then after 2017 they failed to win 60 games in either of Durant’s final 2 seasons.

I’ve seen you get on Pippen’s scoring/efficiency during that time period, the Jazz’s 2nd option was averaging under 11 ppg in the ‘98 Finals, less than Pippen & Kukoc.

2015 they didn't face elimination/Game 7 and that was the first year under Kerr. Steph got injured in the 2016 Playoffs on top of Bogut and Iggy with the Dray suspension later on. The KD Warriors had one of the ATG dominant runs but I'm not really counting that one to make an argument here.

Bulls had the GOAT at the peak of his powers and a good supporting cast and an elite defense, I think they consistently beat down on teams because of their continuity and the system, which is how the Warriors can still potentially have another run of 60-70 win seasons and multiple Finals/titles over the next 3 years with an older Steph and an injured/past-prime Klay & Dray + new pieces.

Bulls were an ATG defensive team, I'm not surprised they managed to keep Stockton from scoring in that series with the perimeter defenders they had, that was the first time in Stockton's career that he had health issues and missed games and they were still able to go through the Lakers & Spurs with relative ease because of their experience & superior basketball IQ. Malone was still at his best and that team could go 10 deep so I'm not surprised they were good with a low 2nd scoring option with how they were able to slow the game down and just have Malone dominate everyone inside. Karl Malone in '98 WCSF put up 30/10/5 on Shaq and completely annihilated the Lakers in 4 games. His 2nd option averaged 12 ppg in the series but it didn't matter. That team went 10 deep in the series and Stockton played 26 mpg. Experience beats talent in the Playoffs.

Pippen was a mediocre 2nd option by the end of their run, but they had MJ and Kukoc was a reliable scoring option too. Many of these games in these 6-game series were won by inches.

[theman93]

This essentially goes back to the discussion we had in the other thread. Don’t you think the fact this team comprised of stars who were all in their 30’s, Pippen being the youngest at 31-33, completely dominating the league to this extent proves how weak that era was? Do you really think if you put that team in any other era since the 80’s, they win 68 games a year and 3 straight titles, while facing just one Game 7 along the way?

I’m honestly not even trying to knock them, they’re still a great team, but to be THAT dominant? I think a significant factor to that was them facing weak competition.

The early 2012-14 Spurs stars were also age 30+ and made a WCF-Finals-Finals run and they weren't even on the same stratosphere as the 1996-98 Bulls. Were the early 2010's weak?

If those Spurs were able to make that type of run why is it so hard to fathom the all time great Bulls had an even better run?

[ImKobe]

The early 2012-14 Spurs stars were also age 30+ and made a WCF-Finals-Finals run and they weren't even on the same stratosphere as the 1996-98 Bulls. Were the early 2010's weak?

That's another excellent example. The Jazz were the Spurs of the 90s with a deep roster and an aging core but they consistently won and were in contention every year. Look at the Spurs run from 2012-14; High RS win rate + WCF/Finals every year with an aging roster and a mid-late 30s Duncan as their best player. Coaching + experience + continuity goes a long way.

[SouBeachTalents]

The early 2012-14 Spurs stars were also age 30+ and made a WCF-Finals-Finals run and they weren't even on the same stratosphere as the 1996-98 Bulls. Were the early 2010's weak?
Again, another weak example. The Spurs didn’t even make the Finals in 2012, didn’t win the title in 2013, and while they were impressive for most of the playoffs, they still needed 7 games to get past the 8 seed in the first round in 2014.

[theman93]

Again, another weak example. The Spurs didn’t even make the Finals in 2012, didn’t win the title in 2013, and while they were impressive for most of the playoffs, they still needed 7 games to get past the 8 seed in the first round in 2014.

No it's not.

Are the 2012-14 Spurs even close to the 96-98 Bulls? The answer is no. So it's no wonder the Bulls dominated in a fashion the Spurs were not able to with both teams' stars being in their 30's.

[ImKobe]

Again, another weak example. The Spurs didn’t even make the Finals in 2012, didn’t win the title in 2013, and while they were impressive for most of the playoffs, still needed 7 games to get past the 8 seed in the first round.

They won 50 games in a 66-game season and made the WCF or Finals 3 years in a row and were the 1-2 seed every year with Duncan as their best player. They needed 7 games to beat the Mavs (who won some close games, that VC game-winner is an all-timer) but stomped Portland (+13.4) OKC (+10.5) and the Heatles(+14).

[SouBeachTalents]

No it's not.

Are the 2012-14 Spurs even close to the 96-98 Bulls? The answer is no. So it's no wonder the Bulls dominated in a fashion the Spurs were not able to with both teams' stars being in their 30's.
You’re a little to hung up on the age part, that’s just an aspect of my point. I agree the Bulls are better than the Spurs, but I don’t think they waltz to the title as easily playing teams like the 2012 Thunder and Big 3 Heat.

[theman93]

You’re a little to hung up on the age part, that’s just an aspect of my point. I agree the Bulls are better than the Spurs, but I don’t think they waltz to the title as easily playing teams like the 2012 Thunder and Big 3 Heat.

Maybe they don't waltz, but those Bulls are light years better than those Spurs, 2012 Thunder, and Big 3 Heat.

[TheCorporation]

Again, another weak example. The Spurs didn’t even make the Finals in 2012, didn’t win the title in 2013, and while they were impressive for most of the playoffs, they still needed 7 games to get past the 8 seed in the first round in 2014.

SouthBeach dropping more knowledge on heads. Love to see it :applause:

[SouBeachTalents]

Maybe they don't waltz, but those Bulls are light years better than those Spurs, 2012 Thunder, and Big 3 Heat.
Better, sure. Even if you wanted to say clearly better, ok. But light years better? That is hyperbolic. Those teams would be capable of knocking off the ‘97 & esp ‘98 versions of those Bulls. If you disagree with that, you’re really overrating them imo

[theman93]

What I'm saying is this...

If it's universally agreed the early 10's Spurs are not near the same level as the late 90's Bulls, but the 2012-14 Spurs made a WCF-Finals-Finals run, then it would not be the least shocking if the 90's Bulls 3-peated in the early 2010's.

Being that those Spurs gave the Heat all sorts of trouble, what do you think those Bulls would have done to them?

The Bulls 3-peating in 96-98 wasn't because a lack of talent in the 90's, it was because they were that good. Drop them in the early 2010's and they do the exact same thing.

[theman93]

Better, sure. Even if you wanted to say clearly better, ok. But light years better? That is hyperbolic. Those teams would be capable of knocking off the ‘97 & esp ‘98 versions of those Bulls. If you disagree with that, you’re really overrating them imo

However you want to define it or describe it, nobody has those Spurs or Heat teams on the Bulls level. They would beat them like they beat everyone else during their run. But we're only going to question if the late 90's was weak and not the early 10's?

[3ba11]

.

* Pippen averaged 17/7/5 on 41% for the entire 96-98' Playoffs, so he was horrible and carried by Jordan - it's statistical fact

* Rodman wasn't the starter in the 98' Playoffs and averaged 3/8 for the entire 97' Playoffs


So Jordan carried his team more than anyone ever did.

Furthermore, the Bulls had #1 offenses despite the horrific scoring help of Rodman/Pippen, so this proves that their offensive prowess was due to BRAND OF BALL, which was only possible because MJ could achieve his goat scoring requirement without dominating the ball - so it was all about MJ

[SouBeachTalents]

.

* Pippen averaged 17/7/5 on 41% for the entire 96-98' Playoffs, so he was horrible and carried by Jordan - it's statistical fact

* Rodman wasn't the starter in the 98' Playoffs and averaged 3/8 for the entire 97' Playoffs


So Jordan carried his team more than anyone ever did.

Furthermore, the Bulls had #1 offenses despite the horrific scoring help of Rodman/Pippen, so this proves that their offensive prowess was due to BRAND OF BALL, which was only possible because MJ could achieve his goat scoring requirement without dominating the ball - so it was all about MJ
See, 3ball confirming those Bulls teams sucked, insinuating a 33-35 year old Jordan carried a mediocre team to 68 wins a season and 3 straight titles.

[3ba11]

See, 3ball confirming those Bulls teams sucked, insinuating a 33-35 year old Jordan carried a mediocre team to 68 wins a season and 3 straight titles.


He did

No one else in history had #1 offenses with shit offensive players like Rodman and a sidekick like Pippen

No one in history won multiple chips with sidekicks wetting the bed - heck, no one won more than 2 Finals without their teammate getting FMVP or average 25 for at least 1 of the Finals

[Phoenix]

.

* Pippen averaged 17/7/5 on 41% for the entire 96-98' Playoffs, so he was horrible and carried by Jordan - it's statistical fact

* Rodman wasn't the starter in the 98' Playoffs and averaged 3/8 for the entire 97' Playoffs


So Jordan carried his team more than anyone ever did.

Furthermore, the Bulls had #1 offenses despite the horrific scoring help of Rodman/Pippen, so this proves that their offensive prowess was due to BRAND OF BALL, which was only possible because MJ could achieve his goat scoring requirement without dominating the ball - so it was all about MJ

The point where an otherwise cordial discussion turns to complete dogshit. Well fellas, you were able to get in 18 posts on this one before it goes to hell starting now.

[3ba11]

The point where an otherwise cordial discussion turns to complete dogshit. Well fellas, you were able to get in 18 posts on this one before it goes to hell starting now.


I posted all facts about Rodman/Pippen's ineptness in those playoffs - it's public information that gets ignored, so I point it out (that his teammates infact played like dogshit)

and the Bulls having #1 offenses despite weak offensive help (4 on 5 with Rodman and a weak scorer at sidekick)

ALL FACTS.. Jordan completely carried those bulls and the stats confirm it

[Phoenix]

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cc/3f/b6/cc3fb61df5200eca518fe22adf03e073.gif

[dankok8]

The problem with the whole "They were too dominant therefore the era is weak..." argument is that it kind of falls apart when you realize that a lot of all-time great teams just curbstomped their opponents. Just off the top of my head 1964 Celtics, 1967 Sixers, 1971 Bucks, 1986 Celtics, 1985 Lakers, 1987 Lakers, first threepeat Bulls, 2001 Lakers, 2017 Warriors... They all crushed their opponents in the playoffs. Did they also play in weak eras?

[1987_Lakers]

However you want to define it or describe it, nobody has those Spurs or Heat teams on the Bulls level. They would beat them like they beat everyone else during their run. But we're only going to question if the late 90's was weak and not the early 10's?

I'm not so sure about that, Those Spurs teams were like the '97 Jazz on steroids & you can't just flat out say the Bulls would beat Miami like they beat everyone else, they won like 27 straight games in 2013 and started running on fumes in the postseason because of Wade's injury, with a healthy Wade it wouldn't shock me at all if Miami won. Those two teams alone were much better than any team Chicago played during the mid-late 90's. Of course, Chicago would probably be the favorites, but I can see it being close to a 50-50 series if they played those two teams.

[SouBeachTalents]

The problem with the whole "They were too dominant therefore the era is weak..." argument is that it kind of falls apart when you realize that a lot of all-time great teams just curbstomped their opponents. Just off the top of my head 1964 Celtics, 1967 Sixers, 1971 Bucks, 1986 Celtics, 1985 Lakers, 1987 Lakers, first threepeat Bulls, 2001 Lakers, 2017 Warriors... They all crushed their opponents in the playoffs. Did they also play in weak eras?
See how you had to specify specific seasons. Even other dominant teams, teams with more talent than those Bulls teams, never won 68 games a year while facing a single elimination game in 3 years while 3peating. Doesn’t that strike you as odd this Bulls team composed of players almost all past their prime playing days, dominated more than every other talented team of the modern era?

[1987_Lakers]

The problem with the whole "They were too dominant therefore the era is weak..." argument is that it kind of falls apart when you realize that a lot of all-time great teams just curbstomped their opponents. Just off the top of my head 1964 Celtics, 1967 Sixers, 1971 Bucks, 1986 Celtics, 1985 Lakers, 1987 Lakers, first threepeat Bulls, 2001 Lakers, 2017 Warriors... They all crushed their opponents in the playoffs. Did they also play in weak eras?

But the thing is there was actually some discussion by players and media how watered down the NBA had become by the mid 90's, NBA went from around 23 teams in 1988 to 29 teams in 1995, that is a huge jump in teams in such a short amount of time, of course teams are not gonna be as dominant as prior years because talent is so spread apart.

[3ba11]

But the thing is there was actually some discussion by players and media how watered down the NBA had become by the mid 90's, NBA went from around 23 teams in 1988 to 29 teams in 1995, that is a huge jump in teams in such a short amount of time, of course teams are not gonna be as dominant as prior years because talent is so spread apart.


all the players from the expansion draft were existing NBA players - each team made several players available for the draft

So today's 30 teams is more "watered down" than the 29-team league, based on your criteria

[TheCorporation]

In a weak, watered down era Pippen only needed a Derozan or Klay Thompson type to win but it was overkill with MJ on the team. Pippen's Bulls didn't need MJ to win, it was overkill for Pippen to have MJ when Klay Thompson easily would have sufficed.

Pippen, Klay, Grant vs ... Drexler & Terry Porter?

[1987_Lakers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p57WjbKSoJ0

[3ba11]

all the players from the expansion draft were existing NBA players - each team made several players available for the draft

So today's 30 teams is more "watered down" than the 29-team league, based on your criteria


Bump

[TheCorporation]

In a weak, watered down era Pippen only needed a Derozan or Klay Thompson type to win but it was overkill with MJ on the team. Pippen's Bulls didn't need MJ to win, it was overkill for Pippen to have MJ when Klay Thompson easily would have sufficed.

Pippen, Klay, Grant vs ... Drexler & Terry Porter?

[dankok8]

See how you had to specify specific seasons. Even other dominant teams, teams with more talent than those Bulls teams, never won 68 games a year while facing a single elimination game in 3 years while 3peating. Doesn’t that strike you as odd this Bulls team composed of players almost all past their prime playing days, dominated more than every other talented team of the modern era?

Maybe they are just the greatest teams of all time... That could be the other explanation. Maybe Jordan/Pippen/Rodman at their peaks would have won 75 games and swept every series. We don't know...

The first threepeat Bulls won less in the regular season but similarly crushed opponents in the playoffs. Played one game 7 in 1992 that they won by 39 points. Their only remotely scary moment was down 0-2 to the Knicks in 1993 but all the other series they played were more or less smooth sailing. Why not call the early 90's a weak era too while you're at it?

Call the 60's weak too. How else could the Celtics win 11 titles in 13 years? It had to be the weak opposition, not enough black guys, Russell had stacked supporting casts etc...

The 80's Western conference was so weak so the 80's Lakers are overrated. When they made the finals in 85 Bird was injured in 87 McHale was injured in 88 Isiah was injured. In 80 and 82 they faced Dr J who never had a teammate nearly as good as Magic. Weak overrated dynasty those 80's Lakers.

The 71 Bucks beat the Lakers without West and Baylor then a 41-win Bullets team. Weak overrated team those Bucks.

The 17 Warriors beat the Spurs without Kawhi and then in the finals a 51-win Cavs team that was horrible on defense. A real team like the 2018 Rockets pushed them 7 games the following year and the Warriors would have lost if CP3 was healthy. KD Warriors GOAT team yea right.

Etc.


But the thing is there was actually some discussion by players and media how watered down the NBA had become by the mid 90's, NBA went from around 23 teams in 1988 to 29 teams in 1995, that is a huge jump in teams in such a short amount of time, of course teams are not gonna be as dominant as prior years because talent is so spread apart.


Today's league has 30 teams. Clearly if the late 90's had diluted talent with 29 teams so does the modern NBA.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

This essentially goes back to the discussion we had in the other thread. Don’t you think the fact this team comprised of stars who were all in their 30’s, Pippen being the youngest at 31-33, completely dominating the league to this extent proves how weak that era was? Do you really think if you put that team in any other era since the 80’s, they win 68 games a year and 3 straight titles, while facing just one Game 7 along the way?

I’m honestly not even trying to knock them, they’re still a great team, but to be THAT dominant? I think a significant factor to that was them facing weak competition.

They would 3peat easily in the 2000s. Who is going to beat them? The kings? Hahahha

Pippen was the main guy in the way of the 3peat shaq kobe Lakers.

Not losing to dork Duncan either but he can take his hakeem ring in 2003 if Jordan temporarily retired.

Put 90s bulls in the 2000s and they would win 2000, 2001, 2002 and then Jordan retirement and then they win another 3 in 2004, 2005, 2006.

You have to assume kobe doesn't exist for this to happen though or they would be playing shaq kobe in the finals every year with a different coach.

[ImKobe]

In a weak, watered down era Pippen only needed a Derozan or Klay Thompson type to win but it was overkill with MJ on the team. Pippen's Bulls didn't need MJ to win, it was overkill for Pippen to have MJ when Klay Thompson easily would have sufficed.

Pippen, Klay, Grant vs ... Drexler & Terry Porter?

Pippen had two all-star teammates and lost in the 2nd round to Ewing lmao.. inb4 "lol Grant and BJ", they were barely .500 the next year without Horace and with Ron Harper on the team (who averaged 20/6/5/2 the year before)... poor branstans :( .

[RogueBorg]

Again, another weak example. The Spurs didn’t even make the Finals in 2012, didn’t win the title in 2013,

Not a weak example. The Spurs win in 2013 if not for Ray Allen's miracle shot. The fact the Spurs lost like that is not a knock on the Spurs, it was the greatness of THAT shot that knocked them out.

[97 bulls]

Pippen had two all-star teammates and lost in the 2nd round to Ewing lmao.. inb4 "lol Grant and BJ", they were barely .500 the next year without Horace and with Ron Harper on the team (who averaged 20/6/5/2 the year before)... poor branstans :( .

Oh stop. You Jordan stans are all alike. You're so blinded by your agenda, that you can't see youre making the oppositions point. How great can Jordan be if you felt the Bulls should've won without him? Based on your argument, Jordan is a manufactured player in that his teammates didn't need him to win, they just allowed him to play the way he did.

Jordan was on the 95 team as well. And he was the one that were the bed vs Orlando in game 6. Harper, while good, had a problem picking up the offense. The problem was the Bulls needed some defensive bigs, toughness, and rebounding.

[TheCorporation]

Oh stop. You Jordan stans are all alike. You're so blinded by your agenda, that you can't see youre making the oppositions point. How great can Jordan be if you felt the Bulls should've won without him? Based on your argument, Jordan is a manufactured player in that his teammates didn't need him to win, they just allowed him to play the way he did.

Jordan was on the 95 team as well. And he was the one that were the bed vs Orlando in game 6. Harper, while good, had a problem picking up the offense. The problem was the Bulls needed some defensive bigs, toughness, and rebounding.

Bingo, we have a winner.

[97 bulls]

Maybe they are just the greatest teams of all time... That could be the other explanation. Maybe Jordan/Pippen/Rodman at their peaks would have won 75 games and swept every series. We don't know...

The first threepeat Bulls won less in the regular season but similarly crushed opponents in the playoffs. Played one game 7 in 1992 that they won by 39 points. Their only remotely scary moment was down 0-2 to the Knicks in 1993 but all the other series they played were more or less smooth sailing. Why not call the early 90's a weak era too while you're at it?

Call the 60's weak too. How else could the Celtics win 11 titles in 13 years? It had to be the weak opposition, not enough black guys, Russell had stacked supporting casts etc...

The 80's Western conference was so weak so the 80's Lakers are overrated. When they made the finals in 85 Bird was injured in 87 McHale was injured in 88 Isiah was injured. In 80 and 82 they faced Dr J who never had a teammate nearly as good as Magic. Weak overrated dynasty those 80's Lakers.

The 71 Bucks beat the Lakers without West and Baylor then a 41-win Bullets team. Weak overrated team those Bucks.

The 17 Warriors beat the Spurs without Kawhi and then in the finals a 51-win Cavs team that was horrible on defense. A real team like the 2018 Rockets pushed them 7 games the following year and the Warriors would have lost if CP3 was healthy. KD Warriors GOAT team yea right.

Etc.



Today's league has 30 teams. Clearly if the late 90's had diluted talent with 29 teams so does the modern NBA.

Slow clap. The typical arguments against the Bulls only seem to apply to the Bulls. Other teams get full credit for beating injured teams. It seems to me the only way for the Bulls to be considered credible is they had to best God, Jesus, and the Angels.

[theman93]

I'm not so sure about that, Those Spurs teams were like the '97 Jazz on steroids & you can't just flat out say they would beat Miami like they beat everyone else, they won like 27 straight games in 2013 and started running on fumes in the postseason because of Wade's injury, with a healthy Wade it wouldn't shock me at all if Miami won. Those two teams alone were much better than any team Chicago played during the mid-late 90's. Of course, Chicago would probably be the favorites, but I can see it being close to a 50-50 series if they played those two teams.

How were the Spurs like the 97 Jazz on steroids? The 97 Jazz won more games than any of those Spurs teams, won by a greater point differential than any of those Spurs teams, had a higher Net rating than any of those Spurs teams, and had a higher SRS than any of those Spurs teams except in 2014 which was basically equal (97 Jazz: 7.97 | 14 Spurs: 8.0).

If anything it's the 97 Jazz who were like the Spurs but on steroids.

As for Miami, absolutely nobody regards them like they do those Bulls teams. Chicago would shut them down. They had Pippen and Rodman both running on fumes in 1998 and still won anyways. Miami had Wade running on fumes and got blown out the likes nobody had been blown out in NBA history.

[ImKobe]

Oh stop. You Jordan stans are all alike. You're so blinded by your agenda, that you can't see youre making the oppositions point. How great can Jordan be if you felt the Bulls should've won without him? Based on your argument, Jordan is a manufactured player in that his teammates didn't need him to win, they just allowed him to play the way he did.

Jordan was on the 95 team as well. And he was the one that were the bed vs Orlando in game 6. Harper, while good, had a problem picking up the offense. The problem was the Bulls needed some defensive bigs, toughness, and rebounding.

Look at who I'm quoting before you reply to me bro... "Pippen needed a Derozan type player to win. Bulls didn't need MJ" lol. MJ was rusty that year & they lost because of that. They didn't have the size but were a few bad plays from winning the series regardless of the mismatches and MJ not being in basketball shape. With all the advantages the Magic had, they were just +0.9 in the series.

[TheCorporation]

Look at who I'm quoting before you reply to me bro... "Pippen needed a Derozan type player to win. Bulls didn't need MJ" lol. MJ was rusty that year & they lost because of that. They didn't have the size but were a few bad plays from winning the series regardless of the mismatches and MJ not being in basketball shape. With all the advantages the Magic had, they were just +0.9 in the series.

Are you saying the 1994 Bulls dont win with Klay Thompson in place of Pete Myers?

[ImKobe]

Are you saying the 1994 Bulls dont win with Klay Thompson in place of Pete Myers?

No.. They might get by the Knicks but the Rockets still demolish them. Klay is not a 1st option guy, so the Bulls would still need a #1 to win a championship. Klay is a nice 18-20 ppg sidekick who relies on teammates getting him the ball in his spots, he's not going to run the offense or handle the ball & create his own shot in ISO.

[expansionera]

“The league is so filtered and watered down we could beat anybody with our eyes closed.” -Dennis Rodman, Jordan won because everybody else got old and the league expanded. Simple as that.

[theman93]

Are you saying the 1994 Bulls dont win with Klay Thompson in place of Pete Myers?

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/483/348/bdd.jpg

[ImKobe]

“The league is so filtered and watered down we could beat anybody with our eyes closed.” -Dennis Rodman, Jordan won because everybody else got old and the league expanded. Simple as that.

Yet the 1998 Lakers with prime Shaq + 3 All-Stars got SWEPT by an old Jazz team that also beat the Rockets with Hakeem, Barkley & Drexler and Duncan/Robinson Spurs :kobe: The league was so watered down that there were FOUR 60+ win teams and no team below .500 in the POs and a Rockets superteam with four 15+ ppg scorers was the 8th seed and had the Jazz down 1 - 2 in a BO5 in the first round. :kobe:

Bran stans are getting dumber & dumber on this forum.

[theman93]

“The league is so filtered and watered down we could beat anybody with our eyes closed.” -Dennis Rodman, Jordan won because everybody else got old and the league expanded. Simple as that.

If Rodman's word is gospel then that means Lebron wasn't even as good as Pippen :lol :lol


“If LeBron was playing during the '90s, I'd still say Scottie Pippen was the second-best player behind Michael,”
https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bulls/dennis-rodman-if-lebron-played-90s-scottie-pippen-would-be-no-2-player-ever

[1987_Lakers]

Today's league has 30 teams. Clearly if the late 90's had diluted talent with 29 teams so does the modern NBA.

The international talent coming into the NBA now is a league above than was it was in the 90's. Not to mention there were some pretty underwhelming drafts in the early 90's which meant very few young elite talent during that era.

Example, take a look at the All-NBA Team in '97... Malone, Hakeem, MJ, Hardaway & Hill. 3 of those guys were already in their mid 30's, Hardaway was no way elite, Hill was the only young up and coming guy on the list whos career got ruined due to injuries. It seems like most of the top players in the mid 90's were all in their 30's. Shaq was really the only young bonified superstar in that era. The talent pool in the 10's was vastly superior compared to the mid 90's.

[Soundwave]

This essentially goes back to the discussion we had in the other thread. Don’t you think the fact this team comprised of stars who were all in their 30’s, Pippen being the youngest at 31-33, completely dominating the league to this extent proves how weak that era was? Do you really think if you put that team in any other era since the 80’s, they win 68 games a year and 3 straight titles, while facing just one Game 7 along the way?

I’m honestly not even trying to knock them, they’re still a great team, but to be THAT dominant? I think a significant factor to that was them facing weak competition.

They'd win 70+ games in this weak ass era today with that same team.

No post bigs to worry about and wing players getting every call from being breathed on? Would be easy pickings.

Golden State w/o Klay and a declined Draymond is running the league's show right now, that Bulls team with Jordan-Pippen-Rodman is considerably better than that.

Other thing is in the modern era a team that good would also benefit from championship chaser vets willing to sign for peanuts as well so they'd be deeper.

[RogueBorg]

Jordan won because everybody else got old and the league expanded. Simple as that.

You're an idiot

1990-'91 Lakers
Magic Johnson 30 years old
James Worthy 30
Byron Scott 30
A.C. Green 27
Sam Perkins 29
Elden Campbell 22
Vlade Divac 23

1990-'91 Pistons
Isiah Thomas 30 years old
Joe Dumars 28
Dennis Rodman 30
Mark Aguirre 31
Bill Laimbeer 34
John Salley 27


You should delete your account.

[1987_Lakers]

How were the Spurs like the 97 Jazz on steroids? The 97 Jazz won more games than any of those Spurs teams, won by a greater point differential than any of those Spurs teams, had a higher Net rating than any of those Spurs teams, and had a higher SRS than any of those Spurs teams except in 2014 which was basically equal (97 Jazz: 7.97 | 14 Spurs: 8.0).

If anything it's the 97 Jazz who were like the Spurs but on steroids.

Your cute little stats mean nothing without context, it's well known that as the Spurs aged coach Pop load managed during the regular season, Duncan missed 8 games in 2014, Parker & Ginobili missed around 15, Kawhi missed around 18 games. Despite this they still won 62 games. Utah had all of their 3 best players play all 82 games and only won 2 more games than San Antonio.

In the 2014 playoffs the Spurs outscored their opponents by over 9 ppg.

The Jazz in '97 postseason outscored their opponents by a little over 3 ppg.

It's clear who the superior team was. Yes, the Spurs were the Jazz on steroids.

[1987_Lakers]

They'd win 70+ games in this weak ass era today with that same team.

No post bigs to worry about and wing players getting every call from being breathed on? Would be easy pickings.

Golden State w/o Klay and a declined Draymond is running the league's show right now, that Bulls team with Jordan-Pippen-Rodman is considerably better than that.

Other thing is in the modern era a team that good would also benefit from championship chaser vets willing to sign for peanuts as well so they'd be deeper.

Nah, no team with only one 3 point specialist (Kerr) is winning 70+ games in today's NBA.

[RogueBorg]

Nah, no team with only one 3 point specialist (Kerr) is winning 70+ games in today's NBA.

B.S. If you adjust the 1995-'96 Bulls PACE to 2020-'21 standards their PPG is exactly the same as champion Milwaukee and that's not being a 3-pt shooting team. And if you allow those Bulls, particularly Jordan, Pippen, and Kukoc to play in this current set of rules where you can't touch them, they're going over Milwaukee.

[theman93]

Your cute little stats mean nothing without context, it's well known that as the Spurs aged coach Pop load managed during the regular season, Duncan missed 8 games in 2014, Parker & Ginobili missed around 15, Kawhi missed around 18 games. Despite this they still won 62 games. Utah had all of their 3 best players play all 82 games and only won 2 more games than San Antonio.

In the 2014 playoffs the Spurs outscored their opponents by over 9 ppg.

The Jazz in '97 postseason outscored their opponents by a little over 3 ppg.

It's clear who the superior team was. Yes, the Spurs were the Jazz on steroids.

Cute context. Of the 20 games San Antonio lost that year Duncan was apart of 18 of them, Parker 17 of them, Ginobili 16 of them, and Leonard 12 of them. Resting them was largely a non-factor in the L column. The "won only 2 more games than San Antonio" sounds nice for your argument, but the 64 games Utah won were in much more dominating fashion than San Antonio's 62 games.

A deeper team allows for load management which in turn allows for your stars to be better rested for the playoffs - so it's no surprise San Antonio had a higher point differential come playoff time not just in 2014, but also in 2012 and 2013 - but you won't debate the 2012 or 2013 Spurs are better than the 1997 Jazz. Play the stars during the entirety of the regular season and they don't perform like they did come playoff time. ​

[theman93]

You're an idiot

1990-'91 Lakers
Magic Johnson 30 years old
James Worthy 30
Byron Scott 30
A.C. Green 27
Sam Perkins 29
Elden Campbell 22
Vlade Divac 23

1990-'91 Pistons
Isiah Thomas 30 years old
Joe Dumars 28
Dennis Rodman 30
Mark Aguirre 31
Bill Laimbeer 34
John Salley 27


You should delete your account.

LMAO :lol ethered

[ShawkFactory]

Yet the 1998 Lakers with prime Shaq + 3 All-Stars got SWEPT by an old Jazz team that also beat the Rockets with Hakeem, Barkley & Drexler and Duncan/Robinson Spurs :kobe: The league was so watered down that there were FOUR 60+ win teams and no team below .500 in the POs and a Rockets superteam with four 15+ ppg scorers was the 8th seed and had the Jazz down 1 - 2 in a BO5 in the first round. :kobe:

Bran stans are getting dumber & dumber on this forum.

Yes, that’s the definition of it. It was very top heavy. Winning 60 games or even 65 games wasn’t the feat that it’s been since.

[1987_Lakers]

B.S. If you adjust the 1995-'96 Bulls PACE to 2020-'21 standards their PPG is exactly the same as champion Milwaukee and that's not being a 3-pt shooting team. And if you allow those Bulls, particularly Jordan, Pippen, and Kukoc to play in this current set of rules where you can't touch them, they're going over Milwaukee.

You would be a fool to adjust how a team would perform today just by using "pace", the NBA is much different today, you could play a zone today on a team that can't shoot from deep, you could send more double teams etc something you couldn't do 30 years ago, teams today would exploit Chicago's lack of shooting. I'm sure Chicago has the defensive personnel to succeed in any era, but their offense would be deeply flawed today.

[1987_Lakers]

Cute context. Of the 20 games San Antonio lost that year Duncan was apart of 18 of them, Parker 17 of them, Ginobili 16 of them, and Leonard 12 of them. Resting them was largely a non-factor in the L column. The "won only 2 more games than San Antonio" sounds nice for your argument, but the 64 games Utah won were in much more dominating fashion than San Antonio's 62 games.

A deeper team allows for load management which in turn allows for your stars to be better rested for the playoffs - so it's no surprise San Antonio had a higher point differential come playoff time not just in 2014, but also in 2012 and 2013 - but you won't debate the 2012 or 2013 Spurs are better than the 1997 Jazz. Play the stars during the entirety of the regular season and they don't perform like they did come playoff time. ​

Nonethless, it's really not fair to judge those teams just based on regular season, I mean, the Spurs were 8-8 without Kawhi, with him they were 54-12, if the Spurs didn't load manage or didn't really deal with injuries like Utah did they could have easily reached the 65 win mark that year.

The postseason is a better way to judge how good a team is and the 2014 Spurs dominated like few teams have ever dominated, can't say the same for the Jazz.

[theman93]

The international talent coming into the NBA now is a league above than was it was in the 90's. Not to mention there were some pretty underwhelming drafts in the early 90's which meant very few young elite talent during that era.

Example, take a look at the All-NBA Team in '97... Malone, Hakeem, MJ, Hardaway & Hill. 3 of those guys were already in their mid 30's, Hardaway was no way elite, Hill was the only young up and coming guy on the list whos career got ruined due to injuries. It seems like most of the top players in the mid 90's were all in their 30's. Shaq was really the only young bonified superstar in that era. The talent pool in the 10's was vastly superior compared to the mid 90's.

Ok so 10's vs mid 90's talent pool...for comparisons sake lets use 2016 and compare all-star teams. What makes the 1996 all-stars inferior to the 2016 all-stars?

1996:
Penny Hardaway
Shaq O'neal
Grant Hill
Scottie Pippen
Michael Jordan
Terrell Brandon
Reggie Miller
Juwan Howard
Glen Rice
Vin Baker
Alonzo Mourning
Patrick Ewing
Shawn Kemp
Jason Kidd
Clyde Drexler
Charles Barkley
Hakeem Olajuwan
Gary Payton
Mitch Richmond
David Robinson
Sean Elliott
Karl Malone
John Stockton
Dikembe Mutombo

2016:
Steph Curry
Kobe Bryant
Kawhi Leonard
Kevin Durant
Russell Westbrook
James Harden
Klay Thompson
Chris Paul
Anthony Davis
LaMarcus Aldridge
Draymond Green
DeMarcus Cousins
Kyle Lowry
Paul George
Carmelo Anthony
Dwayne Wade
Lebron James
John Wall
Paul Millsap
Isaiah Thomas
DeMar DeRozan
Andre Drummond
Pau Gasol
Al Horford


If anything 1996 looks vastly superior to 2016. ESPECIALLY in the East lol.

[1987_Lakers]

Ok so 10's vs mid 90's talent pool...for comparisons sake lets use 2016 and compare all-star teams. What makes the 1996 all-stars inferior to the 2016 all-stars?

1996:
Penny Hardaway
Shaq O'neal
Grant Hill
Scottie Pippen
Michael Jordan
Terrell Brandon
Reggie Miller
Juwan Howard
Glen Rice
Vin Baker
Alonzo Mourning
Patrick Ewing
Shawn Kemp
Jason Kidd
Clyde Drexler
Charles Barkley
Hakeem Olajuwan
Gary Payton
Mitch Richmond
David Robinson
Sean Elliott
Karl Malone
John Stockton
Dikembe Mutombo

2016:
Steph Curry
Kobe Bryant
Kawhi Leonard
Kevin Durant
Russell Westbrook
James Harden
Klay Thompson
Chris Paul
Anthony Davis
LaMarcus Aldridge
Draymond Green
DeMarcus Cousins
Kyle Lowry
Paul George
Carmelo Anthony
Dwayne Wade
Lebron James
John Wall
Paul Millsap
Isaiah Thomas
DeMar DeRozan
Andre Drummond
Pau Gasol
Al Horford


If anything 1996 looks vastly superior to 2016. ESPECIALLY in the East lol.

Well, we all know Kobe got voted to the all-star game because it was his last season, not really fair to compare top level talent just based on who was on the all-star team that year.

Sub Kobe for say Lillard and I'm taking 2016 in a heartbeat.

[theman93]

Nonethless, it's really not fair to judge those teams just based on regular season, I mean, the Spurs were 8-8 without Kawhi, with him they were 54-12, if the Spurs didn't load manage or didn't really deal with injuries like Utah did they could have easily reached the 65 win mark that year.

The postseason is a better way to judge how good a team is and the 2014 Spurs dominated like few teams have ever dominated, can't say the same for the Jazz.

You literally just used Miami's 27 game regular season win streak as a primary reason why you can't say it would be a sure thing the Bulls would beat Miami.

[1987_Lakers]

You literally just used Miami's 27 game regular season win streak as a primary reason why you can't say it would be a sure thing the Bulls would beat Miami.

When did I say regular season doesn't matter? Miami didn't load manage like the Spurs, I said postseason is a better way to judge, unluckily for Miami they were not 100% during the postseason that year but still managed to win a championship which says alot, a healthy Miami team would be a dangerous matchup to the Bulls.

Hell, they would be a dangerous matchup for any team in history.

[Spurs m8]

Yet Pippen was a bum!

AND 90's was stacked era with lots of strong teams and able superstars.

Which means Jordan was god.

Did I get it right?

You sound like a b1tch

[000]

Nonethless, it's really not fair to judge those teams just based on regular season, I mean, the Spurs were 8-8 without Kawhi, with him they were 54-12, if the Spurs didn't load manage or didn't really deal with injuries like Utah did they could have easily reached the 65 win mark that year.

The postseason is a better way to judge how good a team is and the 2014 Spurs dominated like few teams have ever dominated, can't say the same for the Jazz.
Before Finals

2014 Spurs 8 ppg
1992 Blazers 7.6 ppg

[1987_Lakers]

Before Finals

2014 Spurs 8 ppg
1992 Blazers 7.6 ppg

Yea, and alot of they had to do with the Blazers beating a Lakers team without Magic by 15 ppg in the 1st round, after the 1st round they were not nearly as dominant, Spurs were dominating teams in the 2nd round and in the Finals.

[theman93]

Well, we all know Kobe got voted to the all-star game because it was his last season, not really fair to compare top level talent just based on who was on the all-star team that year.

Sub Kobe for say Lillard and I'm taking 2016 in a heartbeat.

Fair enough, sub out Kobe for Lillard. What makes 2016 vastly superior to 1996?

[000]

Yea, and alot of they had to do with the Blazers beating a Lakers team without Magic by 15 ppg in the 1st round, after the 1st round they were not nearly as dominant, Spurs were dominating teams in the 2nd round and in the Finals.
Spurs barely made it out of the first round, if you're gonna try the "context" stuff

[theman93]

When did I say regular season doesn't matter? Miami didn't load manage like the Spurs, I said postseason is a better way to judge, unluckily for Miami they were not 100% during the postseason that year but still managed to win a championship which says alot, a healthy Miami team would be a dangerous matchup to the Bulls.

Hell, they would be a dangerous matchup for any team in history.

I'm not saying you said that. You're saying postseason is a better way to judge, but you originally used Miami's 27 game regular season win streak as a projection of the type of team they would have been in the playoffs if they were healthy. I could do the same thing for the Jazz if they would have load managed and project the type of team they would have been in the playoffs if they were more rested.

[000]

This essentially goes back to the discussion we had in the other thread. Don’t you think the fact this team comprised of stars who were all in their 30’s, Pippen being the youngest at 31-33, completely dominating the league to this extent proves how weak that era was? Do you really think if you put that team in any other era since the 80’s, they win 68 games a year and 3 straight titles, while facing just one Game 7 along the way?

I’m honestly not even trying to knock them, they’re still a great team, but to be THAT dominant? I think a significant factor to that was them facing weak competition.
Hey, what did you think "GOAT" stood for, anyway?

Greatly Overrated And Terrible?
Goofy Odious Abysmal Turd?
Gross Obnoxious Atrocious Trash?

[dankok8]

The international talent coming into the NBA now is a league above than was it was in the 90's. Not to mention there were some pretty underwhelming drafts in the early 90's which meant very few young elite talent during that era.

Example, take a look at the All-NBA Team in '97... Malone, Hakeem, MJ, Hardaway & Hill. 3 of those guys were already in their mid 30's, Hardaway was no way elite, Hill was the only young up and coming guy on the list whos career got ruined due to injuries. It seems like most of the top players in the mid 90's were all in their 30's. Shaq was really the only young bonified superstar in that era. The talent pool in the 10's was vastly superior compared to the mid 90's.

The best international players were still coming into the NBA back then. The only difference is that most went to US colleges. Hakeem, Ewing, Mutombo, Smits, Divac, Kukoc, Radja were all pretty big factors in the late 90's and those are just a few guys that come to mind.

I'll give you the drafts. That's actually a legit argument and from 1988-1991 there were a handful of weak drafts. Not sure how big of an impact that had though when some drafts surrounding these years were insane like 1985, 1986, 1987, 1992...

You are equating guys' legacies with how good they were as players. Guys like Grant Hill, Penny Hardaway, Tim Hardaway, Kevin Johnson, Shawn Kemp... These are all otherwise 1st ballot HOFers that ended up having short careers but in their eras they were fantastic players. Kind of how kids 20 years from now will be calling Derrick Rose, Gilbert Arenas, and Brandon Roy nothing special. They were pretty special. These guys new and old just didn't have long careers and aren't HOFers (yet) so they don't get much love.

[HoopsNY]

I've made a thread about why I think the late 90s was weak. I still stand by it. Having said that, the Bulls' win pace during the second three peat was still amazing. A lot of it was just Chicago's IQ was insane. Anyone that watched them saw how they were a menace defensively and were limited in offensive mistakes.

Just look at their TO rankings from '96-'98, which gives you a bit of insight to how potent they were offensively:

1996: 26th
1997: 28th
1998: 24th

I do admit my claims about death and injury in that thread I made was offset by Pippen missing 38 games in 1998, where Chicago was still on a 57 win pace.

But if guys didn't die (Lewis, Drazen), and other key players didn't become injured (Ewing, Penny, Zo, Shaq, LJ, KJ etc), then you do have to wonder if Chicago still maintains such a high level of dominance against the rest of the league, in addition to weaker draft classes.

[Axe]

So which narrative is ideal, closer to reality or rationally true then? :confusedshrug:

(a) 90s bulls are a superteam but they don't three-peat in other eras

Or

(b) 90s are not a superteam but they can three-peat in other eras

Y'all freaks make me sick. 🤮

[Indian guy]

First 3peat team was better. Better trio in MJ/Pip/Grant over an older MJ/Pip/Rodman. Much better perimeter shooting in Paxson/BJ/Hodges than merely Kerr during the 2nd 3peat. Both teams had good size up front. I do like 2nd 3peat's bench (Kukoc/Kerr/Caffey/Wennington) over 1st 3peat (King/BJ), but depth isn't of much importance come playoffs when the starters are all logging heavy minutes.

Sure, they were amazing, but 96-98 Bulls' success is still very much a product of the era. I've watched and re-watched those playoff runs numerous times. Believe me, you are not going to come off very impressed by the level of play. Pippen was playing with a bum ankle the entirety of the '96 playoffs and his offense sucked (17 ppg on 47% TS), yet Bulls still cruised through most of that run. Even though nobody else besides MJ was doing much of anything offensively. Something like that would never happen in most other eras. And every time I watch the '97 and '98 Finals, I'm left wondering how Utah was making the Finals. Their best players are all in their mid-30's and they just look so damn limited.

[Axe]

Those jazz team were the only ones they faced b2b in the finals. It's also kinda funny how they didn't make it again rt during the lockout season after 1998, despite being heavily favored when the bulls dynasty broke up.

[dankok8]

Another thing on this thread is people are arguing that the 2nd threepeat Bulls would have trouble threepeating in the early 2010's because they might not beat the 2013 Heat or the 2014 Spurs. I think they would probably beat both of those teams but that's not the standard we should hold them to anyways. Championship teams never beat other championship teams by definition because only one team can win a championship in a given year. The question should be if they could win titles in place of those other title teams and beat their competition.

So the fair question isn't if the 1998 Bulls can beat the 2014 Spurs but if the 1998 Bulls can beat the 2014 Heat... Likewise in all the hypothetical "Bulls in the 80's" scenarios a fair question isn't if the Bulls would win if you add them to that era but if they would win replacing the best team in that era. So would the 1996 Bulls win the title in place of the 1986 Celtics... Or would the 1987 Bulls win a title in place of the 1987 Lakers... Those are fair standards.

[DevBooker'sMask]

Bulls undefeated finals competitors but they didnt win against much so its a toss up. Undefeated but didnt beat anybody

[HoopsNY]

Those jazz team were the only ones they faced b2b in the finals. It's also kinda funny how they didn't make it again rt during the lockout season after 1998, despite being heavily favored when the bulls dynasty broke up.

They faced a stacked Portland team and that Utah team was still 37-13 (61 win pace) during the regular season. In addition, Stockton had an elbow injury against Sacramento that he ended up having surgery on. It significantly impacted his ability to shoot the ball. Prior to the injury in the playoffs, he shot 7-11 from the field. Afterwards, he shot 35-94 (37%).

Injuries are a part of the game, but don't let anyone fool you in thinking that Utah's lack of athleticism made them an inferior opponent. Even in 2000, that team as old as they were, in a stacked conference, won 55 games and made the second round. They again faced Portland that had added Smith, Pippen, and Schrempf to an already stacked roster.

[HoopsNY]

The international talent coming into the NBA now is a league above than was it was in the 90's. Not to mention there were some pretty underwhelming drafts in the early 90's which meant very few young elite talent during that era.

You're not wrong about the drafts in the early 90s being somewhat underwhelming. But I've addressed the argument about international talent before.

If more international talent hits the league, then that means Chicago gets a shot at that talent, too. Manu Ginobili was the 57th pick in the second round of the '99 draft. Kukoc was also taken in the second round. So why does Chicago not end up with more international talent?

Having more international talent doesn't mean Chicago having less overall talent. And having more international talent also doesn't mean as much for a team like Chicago because they were potent on both ends of the floor. That is to say, most international players, particularly European players, were not stellar defensively. So they're not stopping Chicago's offense anyway.


Example, take a look at the All-NBA Team in '97... Malone, Hakeem, MJ, Hardaway & Hill. 3 of those guys were already in their mid 30's, Hardaway was no way elite, Hill was the only young up and coming guy on the list whos career got ruined due to injuries. It seems like most of the top players in the mid 90's were all in their 30's. Shaq was really the only young bonified superstar in that era. The talent pool in the 10's was vastly superior compared to the mid 90's.

It depends on how you look at it. For one, Penny was injured that season, so that freed up a spot as he only played 59 games. But Penny was 25 putting up 21/5/6 in a slow ass era. Not to mention, GP was putting up 22/5/7/2 and probably deserved All-NBA 1st Team status over T. Hardaway, and he was 28. A lot of ppl forget but that was Iverson's rookie year and he was a PG, too. He put up 24/4/8/2 that year, and he was 21.

[HoopsNY]

Another thing that skews the ages of these guys is the fact that players are coming into the league at a much younger rate now than they were back then.

Just look at the aforementioned list of All-NBA players and look at when they entered the league:

MJ - 21
Hakeem - 22
Malone - 22
Hardaway - 23
Hill - 22

Compare to that to many of the guys today or even in the early 2010s. Guys like LeBron, KD, Giannis etc came into the league at what, 18-19 years old? There's a context to everything that has to be considered in that the league for decades was heavily reliant on players coming out of college at 22 years of age, and we only start to see a major shift in that during the mid-90s with the drafting of guys like Kobe, KG, and T-Mac.